Full text of "A dictionary of Christ and the Gospels"

Dictionary of Christ
and the Gospels

EDITED BY

JAMES HASTINGS, D.D.

WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF

JOHN A. SELBIE, D.D.

AND (in the beading OF THE PROOFS) OF

JOHN C. LAMBERT, D.D.

^f^ ^^1- '

VOLUME II
LABOUE-ZION

WITH

APPENDIX AND INDEXES

^'^

New YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK

1908

'^y

PREFACE

In issuing the second volume of the Dictionaey of Christ and the Gospels, the
Editor desires, first of all, to thank his colleagues and contributors for the interest
that they have taken in the work. He desires, further, to express his gratitude for
the reception which the first volume has met with. All concerned in it are ready to
confess that the task of producing a Dictionary which could be spoken of as really
worthy of its subject has been beyond them. And they have felt this only the more
as the work has proceeded. But reviewers have generously recognized the fact that
no trouble has been spared to make the Dictionary as worthy as possible ; and the
public everywhere, but especially preachers of the Gospel, have responded. It is
hoped that the second volume will be found to be not inferior to the first.

The Appendix belongs to the original idea. It was felt from the beginning
that the articles which it contains should be placed in a group, apart from the
general alphabetical order.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

I. General

Alex. = Alexandrian.

Apoc. = Apocalypse, Apocalyi)tic.

Apocr. = Apocrypha, Apocryphal.

Aq. =Aquila.

Arab. = Arabic.

Aram. = Aramaic.

Assyr. — Assyrian.

Bab. = Babylonian.

c.= circa, about.

Can. = Canaanite.

of. = compare.

ct. = contrast.

D = Deuteronomist.

E = Eloliist.

edd. = editions or editors.

Egyp. = Egyptian.

Eng.= English.

Eth. = Ethiopic.

f . = and following verse or page : as Ac 10**^*.

tt". =and following verses or pages : as Mt 11^^-.

Gr. = Greek.

H = Law of Holiness.

Heb. = Hebrew.

Hel. = HeUenistie.

Hex. = Hexateuch.

Isr. = Israelite.

J = Jahwist.

J" = Jehovah.

Jems. = Jerusalem.

Jos. =Josephus,

LXX = Septuagint.

MSS = Manuscripts.

MT = Massoretic Text.

n. =note.

NT = New Testament.

Onk. =Onkelos.

0T = Old Testament.

P = Priestly Narrative.

Pal. = Palestine, Palestinian.

Pent. = Pentateuch.

Pers.= Persian.

Phil. = Philistine.

Phoen. =Phanician.

Pr. Bk. = Prayer Book.

R = Redactor.

Rom. = Roman.

Sam. = Samaritan.

Sem. = Semitic.

Sej^t. = Septuagint.

Sin. = Sinaitic.

Symm. =Symmachus.

Syr. = Syriac.

Talm.= Talmud.

Targ. = Targaim.

Theod. =Theodotion.

TR = Textus Receptus.

tr. = translate or translation.

VSS = Versions.

Vulg. = Vulgate.

WH = Westcott and Hort's text.

II. Books of the Bible

Old Testament.

Gn = Genesis.
Ex = Exodus.
Lv = Leviticus.
Nu = Numbers.
Dt = Deuteronomy.
Jos = Joshua.
Jg = Judges.
Ru = Rutli.

1 S, 2S = 1 and 2 Samuel.

. 1 K, 2K = 1 and2 Kings.

I Ch, 2 Ch = 1 and 2

Chronicles.
Ezr = Ezra.
Neh = Nehemiah.
Est = Esther.
Job.

Ps = Psalms.
I'r = Proverbs.
Ec = Ecclesiastes.

Ca = Canticles.
Is = Isaiah.
Jer= Jeremiah.
La = Lamentations.
Ezk = Ezekiel.
Dn = Daniel.
Hos = Hosea.
Jl = Joel.
Am = Amos.
Ob^Obadiah.
Jon = Jonah.
Mic = Micah.
Nah = Nahum.
Hab= Habakkuk.
Zeph = Zephaniah.
Hag = Haggai.
Zee = Zechariah.
Mal = Malaclii.

Apocrypha.
1 Es, 2 Es = l and 2 To = Tobit.
Esdras. Jth = Judith.

Ad. Est = Additions to Sus = Susanna.

Esther.
Wis = Wisdom.
Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi-

asticus.
Bar = Baruch.
Three = Song of the

Three Children.

Bel = Bel and the

Dragon.
Pr. Man = Prayer of

Manasses.
1 Mac, 2 Mac=l and 2

Maccabees.

Mt = Matthew.

Mk = Mark.

Lk = Luke.

Jii = Jolin.

Ac = Acts.

Ro = Romans.

1 Co, 2 Co = 1 and 2

Corinthians.
Gal = Galatians.
Eph = Epliesians.
Ph = Philippians.
Col = Colossians.

Netv Testament
1 Th,

2 Th = 1 and 2

Thessalonians.
I Ti, 2 Ti = 1 and 2

Timothy.
Tit = Titus. _
Philem = Philemon.
He = Hebrews.
Ja = James.

1 P, 2P = 1 and 2 Peter.
1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 Jn = l, 2,

and 3 John.
Jude.
Rev = Revelation.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

III. English Versions

AVyc.=Wyclif's Bible (NT c. 1380, OT c. 1382,

Purvey's Revision c. 1388).
Tind.=Tindale's NT 1526 and 1534, Pent. 1530.
Gov. = Coverdale's Bible 1535.
Matt, or Rog.= Matthew's (i.e. prob. Rogers')

Bible 1537.
Cran. or Great = Cranmer's 'Great' Bible 1539.
Tav. = Taverner's Bible 1539.
Gen. = Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560.

Bish.= Bishops' Bible 1568.

Tom.=Tomson's NT 1576.

Rheni,=Rhemish NT 1582.

Don. = Douay OT 1609.

AV = Authorized Version 1611.

A Vni = Authorized Version margin.

RV = Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885.

RVm = Revised Version margin.

EV = Autli. and Rev. Versions.

IV. For the Literature

^^7= Ancient Hebrew Tradition.

AJSL — Americsm Journal of Sem. Lang, and

Literature.
^J'rA = American Journal of Theology.
^r=Altes Testament.
£L = Bainpton Lecture.
^3f= British Museum.
BBP ^Biblical Researches in Palestine.
CIG = Corpus Inscriptionum Gr?ecaruni.
C/Z' = Corpus Inscriptioniim Latinarum.
C/>S'= Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.
(707"= Cuneiform Liscrijitions and the OT.
Z>i?— Dictionary of the Bible.
DCA = Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.
£'5i = EncyclopaHlia Biblica.
J5^iBr = Encyclop;vdia Britannica.
£"0 2'= Expositor's Greek Testament.
EHH=^ax\y History of the Hebrews.
ERE = Encyclop;Tedia of Religion and Ethics.
ExpT= Expository Times.
G^4P=Geographie des alten Palastina.
G(?^=G6ttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen.
(TGV=Nachrichten der konigl. Gesellschaft der

Wissenschaften zu Gottingen.
(?c7F=Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes.
G'F/= Geschichte des Volkes Israel.
HBA ~ HandAvorterbuch des biblischen Alter-

tums.
irCil/= Higher Criticism and the Monuments.
i)r^=Historia Ecclesiastica.
/^(?/fi = Historical Geog. of Holy Land.
HI= History of Israel.
HJP — History of the Jewish People.
iTPilf = Histoiy, Prophecy, and the INIonuments.
HPN= Hebrew Proper Names.
HWB = Handworterbuch.
/6'C= International Critical Commentary.
/-/G = Israelitische und Jiidische Geschiclite.
t/-B-Z/= Journal of Biblical Literature.
J"/)rA= Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie.
J^£' = Jewish Encyclopedia.
J"(>i2 = Jewish Quarterly Review.
</^^ A? = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
JSL = Journal of Sacred Literature.
JTAS'^ = Journal of Theological Studies
KAT=T)ie Keilinschriften und das Alte Test.
iiTGf =Keilinschriften u. Geschichtsforschung.
AVfi= Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.
iS = The Land and the Book.
Z Ci?^ = Literarisches Central blatt.

XOr=Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test.
LT =lAiQ and Times of Jesus the Messiah

[Edersheini].
il/AZ'PF=Mittlieilungen u. Nachrichten d.

deutschen Pal. - Vereins.
NHWB = Neuhebraisches Worterbuch.
AAZ=Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift.
NTZG = Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte.
OA=Otium Norvicense.
OP = Origin of the Psalter.
OTJC =The Old Test, in the Jewish Church.
PP = Polychrome Bible.
PEF- Palestine Exploration Fund.
PEFSt = Quarterly Statement of the same.
PSBA = Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archjeology.
PPJ5' = Real-Encyklopadie fiir protest. Theologie

und Kirche.
(?PP = Queen's Printers' Bible.
A'P = Revue Biblique.
RE = Realencyklopiidie.
REJ= Revue des Etuiles Juives.
PP= Records of the Past.
P»S'= Religion of the Semites.
R WB = Realworterbuch.
.S'PS= Sacred Books of the East.
,S'56>r= Sacred Books of Old Test.
.S'A'or 7',S'^=:Theol. Studien und Kritiken.
<S'P = Sinai and Palestine.

,S'IFP=: Memoirs of the Survey of W. Palestine.
ThL or ThLZ=T\\Qo\. Literaturzeitung.
rAr=Theol. Tijdschrift.
T'S'= Texts and Studies.

TSBA = Transactions of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology.
TU =TextQ und Untersuchungen.
fF^ 7= Western Asiatic Inscriptions.
W^A''J/= Wiener Zeitschrift fiir Kunde des

Morgenlandes.
ZA = Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie.
ZAW or Z^T IF = Zeitschrift fiir die Alttest.

Wissenschaft.
.2^7) J/G^ = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-

landischen Gesellschaft.
Z7)PF= Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-

Vereins.
Z7ir.S'P- Zeitschrift fiir Keilschriftforschung.
ZKW or ZKWL = Zeitschrift fur kirchliche

Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben.
ZiVriF=Zeit.sclmft fiir die Neutest. Wissen-
schaft.
Zr/«7v'= Zeitschrift f. Theologie u. Kirche.

A small superior number designates the particular edition of the work referred to : as KAT\ LOT^.

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. II

Rev. Robert M. Adamson, M.A., Ardrossan.

Rev. Walter Frederick Adeney, D.D., Pro-
fessor of Theology and Principal of the
Lancashire College, Manchester.

Rev. Gross Alexander, S.T.D., late Professor of
New Testament Greek and Exegesis in Vander-
bilt University, Nashville.

Rev. WiLLOUGHBY C. Allen, M.A., Chaiilain,
Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew,
Exeter College, Oxford.

Rev. Frederick Lincoln Anderson, M.A.,
D.D., Professor of New Testament Interpre-
tation, Newton Theological Institution, Mass.

Rev. Benjamin Wisner Bacon, D.D., LL.D.,
Lit.D., Professor of New Testament Criticism
and Exegesis in Yale University, New Haven.

Rev. P. MoRDAUNT Barnard, B.D., late Rector
of Headley, Epsom.

Rev. J. Vernon Bartlet, M.A., D.D., Professor
of Church History in Mansfield College,
Oxford.

Late Rev. Francis R. Beattie, Ph.D., D.D.,
LL.D., Professor of Apologetics and Syste-
matic Theology in the Presbyterian Theological
Seminary of Kentucky.

Very Rev. John Henry Bernard, D.D., D.C.L.,
Dean of St. Patrick's and Archbishop King's
Professor of Divinity in the University of
Dublin.

Rev. Harry Bisseker, M.A., The Leysian Mission,
London.

Rev. Andrew Bogle, M.A., Leith.

Rev. Albert Bonus, M.A., Alphington, Exeter.

Rev. George H. Box, M.A., late Hebrew Master,
Merchant Taylors' School, London, Rector of
Linton, Ross.

Rev. E. P. Boys-Smith, M.A., Vicar of Hordle,
Brockenhuist.

Rev. J. B. Bristow, B.D., Rector of Clondalkin,
Co. Dublin.

Rev. MORISON Bryce, Baldernock, Milngavie.

Rev. A. E. Burn, D.D., Rector of Handsworth,
Birmingham, and Prebendary of Lichfield.

Rev. Adam G. Campbell, M.A., Afton, New
Cumnock.

Rev. R. J. Campbell, M.A., City Temple,
London.

Rev. William M. Christie, Aleppo.

Clark, B.D., Glassary, Loch-
Principal of

Rev. DUGALD
gilphead.

Rev. John S. Clemens, B.A., B.D.
Ranmoor College, Sheffield.

Rev. Camden M. Cobern, Pli.D., D.D., Pro-
fessor of the English Bible and the Philosophy
of Religion in Allegheny College, Meadville,
Pa.

Rev. Arthur W. Cooke, M.A., Newcastle-on-
Tyne.

Rev. James Cooper, D.D., Professor of Ecclesi-
astical History in the University of Glasgow.

Rev. Henry Cowan, D.D., Professor of Church
History in the University of Aberdeen.

Rev. Hugh H. Currie, B.D., Keig, Aberdeen-
shire.

Rev. Edgar Daplyn, Child's Hill, London.

Right Rev. Charles Frederick D'Arcy, D.D.,
Bishop of Clogher.

Rev. Edward Charles Dargan, D.D., LL.D.,

formerly Professor of Homiletics and Ecclesi-
ology in the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, Louisville, Ky.

Rev. Percy Dearmer, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary's
the Virgin, Primrose Hill, London.

Rev. Francis Brigham Denio, D.D., Professor of
Old Testament Languages and Literature in
Bangor Theological Seminary, Maine.

Rev. James Denney, D.D., Professor of New
Testament Language, Literature, and Theology
in the United Free Church College, Glasgow.

Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D., Principal and Pro-
fessor of Exegetical Theology in the NeAV
College, Edinburgh.

Rev. James Donald, D.D., Keithhall, Inverurie.

Rev. Henry E. Dosker, D.D., LL.D., Professor
of Ecclesiastical History in the Presbyterian
Theological Seminary of Kentucky.

Rev. F. Homes Dudden, D.D., FelloAv of Lincoln
College, Oxford.

Rev. Alexander A. Duncan, B.D., Auchterless,
Aberdeenshire.

Rev. Hugh Duncan, B.D., Garturk, Coatbridge.

Rev. W. H. Dundas, B.D., Rector of Magheragall,

Lisburn.
Rev. William Henry Dyson, Edgerton, Hudders-

field.

Xll

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. II

Rev. George Boardmax Eager, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Biblical Introduction and Pastoral
Theology in the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, Louisville, Ky.

Right Rev. Rowland Ellis, D.D., Bishop of
Aberdeen and Orkney.

Rev. Cyril W. Emmet, M.A., Vicar of West
Hendred, Berks.

Rev. W. EwiNG, M.A., Edinburgh.

Rev. R. A. Falconer, D.Litt., D.D., President
of the University of Toronto, Canada

Rev. J. H. Farmer, B.A., LL.D., Dean in The-
ology and Professor of New Testament and
Patristic Greek in M'Master University,
Toronto.

Rev. C. L. Feltoe, D.D., Rector of Duxford,
Cambridge.

Rev. Adam Fyfe Fixdlay, M.A., Arbroath.

Rev. J. Dick Fleming, B.D., Professor of Syste-
matic Theology and Ethics in Manitoba
College, Winnipeg.

Rev. Frank Hugh Foster, Ph.D., D.D., Pro-
fessor of History in Olivet College, Michigan.

Rev. William Barrett Frankland, M.A.,
late Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, and
Assistant-Chaplain at Gigg^eswick School.

Rev. Robert Sleightholme Franks, M.A.,
B.Litt., Birmingham.

Rev. Norman Eraser, B.D., Edinburgh.

Rev. Henry William Fulford, M.A., Fellow of
Clare College, Cambridge.

Rev. Alfred Ernest Garvie, D.D., Principal
of New College and Professor of Ethics,
Theism, and Comparative Religion in New
and Hackney Colleges, London.

Rev. Owen H. Gates, Ph.D., Librarian and In-
structor in Hebrew in Andover Theological
Seminary, Mass.

Rev. LuciEN Gautier, D.D., Ph.D., Honorary
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and
History, Geneva.

Rev. Alfred S. Geden, M.A., Professor of
Biblical Literature and Exegesis in Richmond
College, Surrey.

Rev. Richard Glaister, B.D., Kirkcudbright.

Rev. Calvin Goodspeed, D.D., LL.D,, Professor
of Systematic Theology in Baylor University,
Waco, Texas.

Rev. George Pearce Gould, M.A., Principal of
Regent's Park College, London.

Rev. Thomas Gregory, M.A., Kilmalcolm.

Rev. Canon Charles T. P. Grierson, B.D.,
Rector of Seapatrick, Banbridge, Co. Down.

Rev. G. H. GwiLLlAM, B.D., Rector of Remen-
ham, Henley-on-Thames.

Rev. James O. Hannay, M.A., Rector of Augh-
aval, Westport, Co. Mayo.

Rev. J. M. Harden, B.D., Headmaster, Kilkenny
College.

Rev. Charles Harris, D.D., Vicar of Claverley,
Wolverhampton, late Lecturer in Theology in
St. David's College, Lampeter.

Rev. D. A. Hayes, Ph.D., S.T.D., LL.D., Pro-
fessor of New Testament Exegesis in Garrett
Biblical Institute, Evanston, 111.

Rev. W. J. Henderson, B.A., Principal of the
Baptist College, Bristol.

Rev. R. Travers Herford, B.A., Stand, White-
field, Manchester.

Rev. John Herkless, D.D., Professor of Church
History in the University of St. Andrews.

Rev. W. W. HOLDSWORTH, M.A., Professor of
New Testament -Language and Literature in
Handsworth College, Birmingham.

Rev. A. Mitchell Hunter, M.A., Cardross,
Dumbartonshire.

Rev. H. L. Jackson, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary's,
Huntingdon.

Rev. Arthur Jenkinson, Innellan, Greenock.

A. J. Jenkin.son, M.A., Fellow of Brasenose
College, Oxford.

Rev. M. P. Johnstone, B.D., Fraserburgh.

Rev. E. Griffith- Jones, B.A., Principal and
Professor of Theology in the Yorkshire United
College, Bradford.

Friedrich Wilhelm Ferdinand Kattenbusch,
D.D., Ph.D., Ord. Professor of Dogmatics in
the University of Halle.

Rev. John Kelman, D.D., Edinburgh.

Rev. W. S. Kerr, B.D., Vicar of Bally waiter, Co.
Down.

Rev. David M. W. Laird, M.A., Edinburgh.

Rev. J. C. Lambert, D.D., Fenwick, Kilmarnock.

Rev. Harrington C. Lees, M.A., St. John's
Vicarage, Kenilworth.

Rev. Robert Leggat, Berwick-on-Tweed.

Rev. John Robert Legge, M.A., Buckhurst Hill,
Essex.

Rev. Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., Principal and
Professor of Church History in the United
Free Church College, Glasgow.

Rev. William F. Lofthouse, M.A., Professor of
Old Testament Languages and Literature
in the Theological College, Handsworth,
Birmingham.

Rev. Charles Scott Mac alpine, B.D., Man-
chester,

Rev. A. B. Macaulay, M.A., Dundee.

Rev. C. A. M 'Donald, B.D., Arrochar, Dum-
bartonshire.

Rev. John Edgar M'Fadyen, M.A. (Glas.), B.A.
(Oxon.), Professor of Old Testament Litera-
ture and Exegesis in Knox College, Toronto.

Rev. George M'Hardy, D.D., Kirkcaldy.

Rev. George M. Mackie, D.D., Chaplain to
the Church of Scotland at Beyrout, Syria.

Rev. Duncan A. Mackinnon, M.A., Marykirk,
Kincardineshire.

Rev. Robert Mackintosh, D.D., Professor of
Christian Ethics, Apologetics, and Sociology
in the Lancashire Independent College, Man-
chester.

Right Rev. ARTHUR J. MACLEAN, D.D., Bishop
of Moray.

Rev. A. H. M'Neile, B.D., Fellow and Dear
of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.

Rev. James Edmond M'Ouat, B.D., Logiealmond,
Perthshire.

Rev. Robert Macpherson, D.D., Elgin.

Rev. Joseph T. L. Maggs, D.D., Leeds.

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. II

xni

Rev. David Samuel Margoliouth, M.A.,

D.Litt., Laudian Professor of Arabic in the

University of Oxford.
Rev. John Turner Marshall, D.D., Principal

of the Baptist College, Manchester.
Rev. Newton Herbert Marshall, M.A., Ph.D.,

Hampstead, London.

Rev. A. Stuart Martin, B.D., Scone, Perth.

Rev. G. CURRIE Martin, B.D., Professor of New
Testament Theology and Patristics in the
United College, Bradford.

E. W. Gurney Masterman, M.D., F.R.C.S.,
F.R.G.S., D.P.H., Jerusalem, Syria.

Rev. Shailer Mathews, D.D., Professor of His-
torical and Comparative Theology and Dean
of the Divinity School in the Unversity of
Chicago.

Rev. Andrew Miller, M.A., Glasgow.

Rev. W, J. S. Miller, B.D., Hoiindwood, Reston.

Rev. George Milligan, D.D., Caputh, Murthly.

Rev. Joseph Mitchell, B.D., Mauchline.

Rev. James Moffatt, D.D., Broughty Ferry.

Rev. W. S. Montgomery, B.D., Abbeyleix,
Queen's County.

Rev. R. W. Moss, D.D., Professor of Systematic
Theology in the Didsbury College, Manchester.

Rev. Warren Joseph Moulton, M.A., B.D.,
Ph.D., Associate Professor of New Testament
Language and Literature in Bangor Theo-
logical Seminary.

Rev. T. Allen Moxon, MA., Vicar of Alfreton,
Derbyshire.

Rev. John Muir, B.D., Kirkcowan, Wigtownshire.

Rev. George Murray, B.D., Sauchie, Alloa.

Rev. James Ross Murray, M.A., Manchester.

Rev. James Mursell, M.A., Adelaide, South
Australia.

Eberhard Nestle, Ph.D., D.D., Professor at
Maulbronn.

Rev. M. R. Newbolt, B.A., Vicar of Iffley,
Oxford.

Rev. Albert Henry Newman, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History in Baylor Uni-
versity, W^aco, Texas.

Rev. Thomas Nicol, D.D., Professor of Biblical
Criticism in the University of Aberdeen.

Rev. W. O. E. Oesterley, B.D., Organizing
Secretary of the Parochial Missions to the
Jews.

Rev. James Orr, D.D., Professor of Systematic
Theology and Apologetics in the United Free
Church College, Glasgow.

Rev. James Patrick, B.D., B.Sc, Burntisland.

Rev. William Patrick, D.D., Principal of
Manitoba College, W^innipeg.

Arthur S. Peake, D.D., Professor of Biblical
Exegesis and Dean of the Faculty of Theology,
Victoria University, Manchester.

Rev. John Robert van Pelt, Ph.D., Methodist
Episcopal Church, Lewisburg, Pa.

Rev. Samuel Plantz, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D., Presi-
dent of Lawrence University, Ajipleton, Wis.

Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., late Master of
University College, Durham.

Rev. Edward B. Pollard, D.D., Professor in
Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa.

Rev. William Louis Poteat, M.A., LL.D.,
President of Wake Forest College, N.C.

Rev. Cyril Henry Prichard, M.A., Rector of

Wiston, Steyning, Sussex.

Rev. Leighton Pullan, M.A., Fellow and Lec-
turer of St. John Baptist College, Oxford.

Rev. Frederick J. Rae, M.A., Aberdeen.

Rev. F. S. Ran ken, M.A., Rector of South
Walsham, Norwich.

Rev. W. H. Rankine, B.D., Glasgow.

Rev. John Reid, M.A., Inverness.

Frank Richards, M.A., Kingswood School, Bath.

Rev. Charles Wesley Rishell, Ph.D., Professor
of Historical Theology and Assistant Dean in
Boston University, Mass.

Rev. John Edward Roberts, B.D., Manchester.

Rev. Frank Edward Robinson, B.A., Professor
of Hebrew and Church History in the Baptist
College, Bristol.

Rev. George Livingstone Robinson, Ph.D.,
D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature
and Exegesis in the M'Cormick Theological
Seminary, Chicago.

Rev. Arthur E. Ross, B.D., Rector of Portrush,
Co. Antrim.

Rev. Alfred Norman Rowland, M.A., London.

Rev. John Richard Sampey, D.D., LL.D., Pro-
fessor of Interpretation of the Old Testament
in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Louisville, Ky.

Rev. William Sanda y, D. D. , LL. D. , Litt. D. , Lady
Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of
Christ Church, Oxford, Chaplain in Ordinary
to H.M. the King.

Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, M.A., Professor
of the Language, Literature, and Theology of
the New Testament at Westminster College,
Cambridge.

Rev. Ernest F. Scott, B.A., Prestwick.

Rev. Hugh M 'Donald Scott, D.D. Professor of
Ecclesiastical History in the Theological Semi-
nary, Chicago.

Rev. Robert Scott, D.D., Professor in Wilson
College, Bombay.

Rev. Edward Sell, D.D., M.R.A.S., Fellow of
the University of Madras and Hon. Canon of
St. George's Cathedral, Madras.

Rev. Henry Clay Sheldon, D.D., Professor of
Systematic Theology in Boston University.

Rev. Edward Shillito, M.A., London.

Rev. S. J. Ramsay Sibbald, B.D., Crathie,
Ballater.

Rev. J. G. Simpson, M.A., Principal of the Clergy

School, Leeds.
Rev. W. J. Sparrow Simpson, M.A., Chaplain,

St. Mary's Hospital, Ilford.

Rev. John W. Slater, B.D., Scone, Perth.
Rev. David Smith, M.A., Blairgowrie.

Rev. Harold Smith, M.A., Rector of Grimley,

Worcester.

Rev. J. Cromarty Smith, B.D., Coatdyke, Coat-
bridge.

XIV

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. II

W. Taylor Smith, B.A., Sevenoaks, Kent.

Late Rev. J. Soutar, M.A., Tiberias, Palestine.

Alexander Souter, M.A., D.Litt., Yates Pro-
fessor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis
in Mansfield College, Oxford.

Rev. James Stalker, D.D., Professor of Church
History and Christian Ethics in the United
Free Church College, Aberdeen.

Rev. Wilbur Fletcher Steele, M,A., S.T.D.,
Professor in the Department of Biblical Science
of Denver University, Colorado.

Rev. Robert Stevenson, B.D., Gargunnock.

Rev. G. Wauchope Stewart, B.D., Fyvie, Aber-
deenshire.

Rev. Robert Laird Stewart, D.D., Professor of
Biblical Archaeology in the Theological Sem-
inary of Lincoln University, Pa.

Rev. Darwell Stone, M.A., Pusey Librarian,
Oxford.

Rev. G. Gordon Stott, D.D., Musselburgh.

Very Rev. Thomas B. Strong, D.D., Dean of

Christ Church, Oxford.

Rev. A. POLLOK Sym, B.D., Lilliesleaf.

Rev. John G. Tasker, D.D., Professor of Biblical
Literature and Exegesis in Handsworth Col-
lege, Birmingham.

Rev. R. Bruce Taylor, M.A., London.

Rev. W. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D., Principal of
Wyclitfe Hall, Oxford.

Rev. Charles H. Thomson, M.A., Constantinople.

Rev. William D. Thomson, M.A., Edinburgh.

Rev. Edward Harper Titchmarsh, M.A.,
Sheflfield.

Rev. Geerhardus Vos, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of
Biblical Theology in the Theological Seminary,
Princeton, N.J.

Rev. Canon G. H. S. Walpole, D.D., Rector of
Lambeth.

Rev. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, D.D.,
LL.D., Charles Hodge Professor of Didactic
and Polemic Theology in the Theological
Seminary of the Presbyterian Church at
Princeton, N.J.

Rev. George C. Watt, B.D., Edinkillie.

Rev. Thomas H. Weir, B.D., M.R.A.S., Lecturer
in Hebrew and Aiabic in the University of
Glasgow.

Johannes Weiss, D.D., Professor of Theology in
the University of Marburg.

Rev. E. W^heeler, M.A., Canning Town, London.

Rev. B. Whitefoord, D.D., Prebendary of Salis-
bury Cathedral and Principal of the Theo-
logical College, Salisbury.

Rev. Owen C. Whitehouse, D.D., Senior Tutor
in Cheshunt College, Cambridge.

Rev. A. R. Whitham, M.A., Principal of the
Culham Training College, Abingdon.

Rev. J. R. Willis, B.D., Rector of Preban and

Moyne, Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow.

Rev. Charles Travers Wood, M.A., Fellow
and Lecturer in Hebrew in Queens' College,
Cambridge.

Rev. H. J. Wotherspoon, M.A., Edinburgh.

Rev. Arthur Wright, D.D., Fellow, Tutor, and
Vice-President of Queens' College, Cambridge.

Rev T. H. Wright, Edinburgh.

Rev D. G Young, B.D., Moneydie, Perth.

Rev. J Young, B.D., Paisley.

Rev. Andrew C. Zenos, D.D., Professor of
Ecclesiastical History in the M'Cormick Theo-
logical Seminary, Chicago.

DICTIONARY OF CHRIST
AND THE GOSPELS

LABOUR.— The verb KOTridv in NT Greek signi-
fies not only the weariness produced by constant
toil (see Jn 4* KeKowiaKus), which is the idea attach-
ing to the word in classical writings (cf. Liddell and
Scott's Lex. s.v.) ; it also has reference to the toil
itself (cf. Mt 6-8 1128, Lk 5^ 12^7, Jn 4^), and some-
times to its result in the field of operations (6 ovx
vfxeh KeK0TridKare = T6u kottov in Jn 4*8)_ This ex-
tension in the use of the word is not confined,
however, to the NT, and it is probable that it is
l)orrowed from the LXX. We find it employed,
for instance, in Joshua (24^^). Nor is it unlikely
that Jesus had in His mind this passage and was
even conscious of a parallel between Himself and
the warlike leader of Israel's armies, who brought
the nation into a land on the development of
which they spent no wearisome toil (e(j> t)v ovk
€KoindcraT€, k.t.X.). The perfection of Christ's
liuman nature is emphasized by the use of this
word in the Johannine narrative of the woman of
Samaria (Jn 4^), and it is worthy of note that the
record of this incident is peculiar to that writing
(see Westcott's Gospel of St. John, ad loc).

Closely allied to this word is epyd^eadai and its
cognates, ^pydrrji which occurs frequently in the
Gospels, and ipyaaia almost peculiar to the Lukan
writings. The last mentioned word not only im-
plies the business or trade by which men gain their
livelihood (Ac 19'-^), but includes in its meaning
the resultant gain or profit accruing (see Ac 16^^- ^^),
and sometimes the trouble or toil involved in the
pursuit of an object (Lk 12^8) Ajj ethical content
is imported into the word by St. Paul (Eph i''-"),
just as is done in St. Luke's Gospel Avhere a Latin-
ism (56s epyaaiav) is employed to emphasize the
warning of Jesus with respect to the conciliation
of an adversary. ' In medical language it was used
for the making of some mixture, the mixture itself
— the work of digestion and that of the lungs,' etc.
(Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke, p.
24.3). At the same time it must not be forgotten
that this word is found in the LXX (cf. e.g. Wis
13'"), where St. Luke may have become familiar
with its uses. A similar spiritual significance fre-
quently attaches to the words Kowidv, kottov, and
^pydrris in the Gospel narratives (cf. Jn 4^8^ Mt 9^''^"
= Lk 102, Mt 10i» = Lk 10^ 132^).

Considerations like these show us clearly in
what spirit Jesus claimed the active support of
His followers. Theirs was to be no half-hearted

VOL. II. — I

allegiance. They were expected to work in His
cause ceaselessly and in sjiite of weariness, for the
field of operations was large and the toilers few
(oi ipydrai oXiyoi, 6 6ept<Tfi6s ttoXvs, Mt Q'^^^Lk 10^).
The conditions as to remuneration which obtained
in the case of the ordinary field-labourer held good
in the case of those who preached the Gospel (d^ios
yap 6 ipydrris ttjs Tpocpfis avTov, Mt 10'", cf. Lk 10').
His disciples were reminded that they were the
successors of a long line of toilers who sowed the
seed, of which they were about to reap the fruit
{dWoi K€KOwi.dKacnv, /cai u/xets eh rhv Kdtrov avTwv daeXrj-
XvOare, Jn 4=*8).

This is a thought which has a large place in the Pauline
conception of Christian work, and the Christology of St. Paul
enhances the dignity of, as it supplies the motive power which
guides and strengthens, the toiler (cf. ToXf^k ixo-riocinv it Kupici,
Ro 1612 ; see also 1 Co 15io, Gal 4ii, Ph 216, Col 129, 1 Th 512).
With this conception of laborious effort as the norm of Chris-
tian life we may compare what is told of Rabbi Judah in the
Midrash on Genesis, who sat labouring ' in the law ' before the
Babylonish synagogue in Zipper (Bereshith Rabba, § 33). We
are reminded of the exhortation respecting those ' who labour
(oi xoTiiSvTii) in the word and in teaching' (1 Ti 5i7). It may
not be out of place to call attention here to those incidental
statements which picture for us the Apostle of the Gentiles and
his companions working day by day to supply their physical
necessities (1 Co 4i'-i x.o^,^yiv', cf. 9S, 1 Th 29, 2 Th 38).

Not only does the life of Jesus exhibit the great
example of self-sacrificing labour for the sake of
the souls of men ; it furnishes, moreover, the prin-
ciple that human life in all its phases is, at its
best, a life of service. In its earliest stages obedi-
ence to parental authority (Kal ^v viroTaffao/xevos
avTois, Lk 2^') leads the way to willing ol)edience
to a primal and fundamental law which conditions
man's living to the full his present life (see Gn 3'"
ev idpdjTi ToO irpoffilnrov crov (pdyr; tov dprov ffov, k.t.X.).

The question of His Galilsean neighbours who
were familiar with the circumstances of Jesus'
early life, ' Is not this the worker in wood ? '
(6 TiKTwv, Mk 6^), shows clearly how fully He
adopted this principle as regulating the prepara-
tory discipline of His young manhood. Nor must
we forget that it was amongst that class which is
dependent for its livelihood upon its capacity for
physical labour and endurance that Jesus gained
His most thoughtful, Avhole-hearted adherents (cf.
Mk 116-20 = Mt4"-22, Lk 5r'^-), while many of His
most beautiful and effective similes are taken from
the surroundings of the busy life (cf. Jn 4^^-, Lk
102f-, Mt g''"- 201-15 etc.). On the other hand. He
reserved His profoundest commiseration for those

LABOUR

LAMENTATION

upon whom superfluous Mealth had imposed a
selfish idleness (see Mt 1923ff- = Mk lO^^ff-, Lk IQ^^^-),
and i)erliaps the most caustic remark in connexion
with the life led by the unjust steward was that
in which he confessed his inability for honest
I^hysical work (aKdirreiv ovk iVxi'w, Lk 16^).

The remarkable apocryphal addition to Lk G'* found in Codex
Bezoe (D), while primarily having' reference to the Sabbath
controversy, may not be without its bearing on this question.
This passajfe relates that Jesus ' seeing a certain man working
on the Sabbath day said to him, " (), man, if thou indeed
knowest what thou art doing, thou art blessed ; but if thou
knowest not, thou art cursed, and art a transgressor of the
law." ' Westcott believes that this saying ' rests on some real
incident' (see his Introduction to the Studt/ of the Gospels,
App. 0) ; and, indeed, the spirit underlying these words is not
out of harmony with the general tenor of Christ's known atti-
tude towards the active life of busy service. Whether any man's
labour is a blessing or not to himself depends, of course, on
wliether he knows what he does and recognizes its bearing
upon his whole life and character (cf . ii uhx; in the passage just
quoted, where there is evidently a reference to the relation
between the work done and the doer of that work [see Cremer's
Biblico-Theol. Lexicon of NT Greek, p. 229]).

A charge, which has been brought again and
again against the Christian religion, is that it is
too exclusive in its other - worldliness to be of
jjractical value in the midst of life's stern realities.
Enough has been already said to show that such
an accusation misinterprets completely the moving
spirit of Christianity. At the same time, we must
not forget that at a very early period of the
Church's history there was a grave danger of pro-
fessing Christians degenerating into idle dreamers
and useless busybodies (irepiepyoi, I Ti 5^^, cf. 2 Th
3'^). Against this abuse St. Paul felt compelled
rei3eatedly to contend (cf. Eph 4-*, 1 Th 4"), while
he set the e.xample in his own life of tinflagging
industry (see Ac 18^ etc.). There can be no doubt
that in his restatement of the law of social econ-
omics (' if any will not work, neither let him eat,'
2 Th 3^°) St. Paul was profoundly influenced by
the life as well as by the teaching of Jesus.

No thoughtful student of modern problems can
fail to note how completely the future of the
Christian Church is bound up with her attitude
towards the labour question. Year by year that
question assumes graver projiortions as the danger
of a complete breach between employer and em-
ployed becomes more formid<able. Nor can there
be any serious doubt in the mind of a loyal subject
of 'the Kingdom of the Incarnation,' that in the
true interests of Christian development and pro-
gress a real active harmony of aims and aspirations
between capital and labour must be estaltlished.
Representatives of both must be taught that the
only solution of problems which seem to baffle
them lies in the recognition of the truth that at
bottom all human life is true and sacred according
as it may be measured in terms of service. Jesus,
who employed labourers in fields of activity selected
by Himself (cf. Mt 10^), points out distinctly the
complete identification of employer and employed
as being the root idea underlying all vital jirogress
(8s dv d^Xrj iv iifxiv elvai irpQiTos ^crrat vij.u>v dovXos, Mt
2027, cf. Mk lO^:*). Nor is the Incarnation above
the sphere of this universal law. The Son of INIan
Himself {wairep) came not to be served but to serve
{8i.aKoi>rjcTaL), yielding up even His life for the sake
of His fellow-men (Xvrpov avrl iroWCiv, Mk 10*" =
Mt2028; cf. Lk2228'-).

' The labourer is Avorthy of his hire ' (Lk 10^) is
a basal principle both broad and deep. It does
not mean either that the employer's liability to his
servant is discharged when he has paid him his
stipulated wage, or that the latter's duty to his
master ends with the outward fulfilment of a set
task. Personal relationship involving mutual re-
.sponsibility forms an essential part in the Chris-
;tian solution of this economic problem. For the
labourer is no longer in the position of a bond-

servant but of a friend, and is to be recognized as
such (ovKiri. Xe7a) y/xas 8ov\ovi . . . vfids 8e ei'p-qKO.
(pLXovs, Jn 15^^).

Literature. — See three remarkable addresses on social service
by Westcott in his Christian Aspects of Life, especially that on
'The Christian Law,' in which he quotes from Bishop 'Tucker of
Uganda the salutation ordinarily addressed in that countrj- to a
man engaged in manual labour, 'Many thanks; well done.'
Consult also Westcott, Social Aspects of Christianity ; \V. H.
M. H. Aitken, Temptation and Toil, p. 209 ; E. Griffith-Jones,
Economics of Jesus (1905) ; and The Citizen of To-morroiv (ed.
S. E. Keeble), esp. ch. vi. with the bibliography on p. 123.

J. R. Willis.
LAKE OF GENNESARET.-See Sea of Galilee.

LAMB.— See Animals (vol. i. p.. 64'^), Names
AND Titles of Christ, and Sheep.

LAME. — This word, perhaps originally meaning
bruised, signifies a crippled or disabled condition
caused by injury to or defect of a limb or limbs ;
specifically w^alking Avith difficulty, inefficient from
injury or defect, unsound or impaired in strength.
It is applied metaphorically to all kinds of in-
efficiency, such as inadequate excuses, or verses
which ott'end against the laws of versification.
The term embraces all varieties of defect in walk-
ing arising from various causes, and includes halt-
ing and maimed (see artt. ), which are separate and
distinct species of lameness.

The Greek word is ^wAo?, from obsolete ya.a or ^^aXaw {to
loosen, slacken), which is tr. ' lame ' in Mt lis fS^O- 31 211^, Lk 1'^-
1413 ; but in other passages for no apparent reason the same
word is translated 'halt.' In Jn 53 ^u>.uv is rendered 'halt'
without any indication that a special species of lameness is
intended, where the description is quite general as in the above
passages. In Mk 943-45 it is used synonymously, with xvKko;,
where a,v«.Tr,po; might have been expected in both cases, seeing
that the injury referred to is the definite cutting off of the hand
or foot, xuxxii! is, however, most commonly associated with
the hand, while x'"'^''^ more specifically has to do with lameness
in the foot or feet. In Mt 18^ we have x'"^"" ''• xvXkoyi — trans-
posed in the authorities followed by RV, making the corre-
spondence between x^'P ^"d xvXXov, and toW and x^^Xot.

Healing of the lame was a characteristic work
of Christ. Among the multitudes that gathered
round Him seeking restoration for various ailments
were probably sufferers from many dift'erent kinds
of lameness (as Mt 15^'^, Lk 7"-). Jn 5^ gives a
comprehensive list of such sick persons, including
the feeble, the blind, the lame, and the withered
(ttXtJ^os tcDj' affdevovvrwv, TV(p\Qi>, xcoXwj/, ^ijpwv). Prob-
ably these miscellaneous cases would include those
suffering from clironic rheumatism and from in-
firmities having a nervous origin, many of which
resulted in a withering of the limbs and of the
bodily frame. It is significant that Jesus is
never said to have restored the avdir-qpoi, the
badly mutilated — deprived of their linibs (see
Maimed). T. H. Wright.

LAMECH. — Father of Noah, mentioned in our
Lord's genealogy, Lk 3^^.

LAMENTATION [dpvvos, dpyveiv).— An expression
of sorrow accompanied by wailing and other demon-
strations of grief. It is associated in Jn 16'-" with
weeping, and also in Lk 23-^, in the case of the
women accompanying the Saviour to the Cruci-
fixion. It is applied equally to sorroAv for the
dead and to gi'ief for approaching disaster (Mt 2^**,
Jn 1620, Lk 2327), and it is referred to by the Lord
as one of the common games of children.

When a death occurred, it was intimated at onqe
by a loud wail which is described (Mk 5^^) as accom-
panied by a 'tumult,' and this lamentation was
renewed at the grave of the deceased. Oriental
demonstrations of grief are very vivid. Mourners
hang over the lifeless form and beg for a response
from its lips. When a young person dies un-
married, part of the ceremony of mourning is a
form of marriage (see art. MOURNING). Lamenta-

LAMP

LANGUAGE OF CHRIST

tion for the dead was also acconiiianied by beating
the breast and tearing the hair, as well as by rend-
ing the garments (see Rending of Garments)
and fasting. W. H. Rankin E.

LAMP. — There are two words in the tiospels
translated ' lamp,' Xvxvos and Xafiirds. The former
(RV 'lamp,' AV 'candle') is used Mt 5'^, Mk 4-',
Lk 8'*' of the usual means of lighting a house. In
Mt 6-" the eye, as the source of light, the organ
by which light is appreciated, is called the lamp
(RV ; A V ' light ') of the body. In Jn 5=*^ the same
word is applied to John the Baptist, who is not the
eternal light (<pu)s, Jn P), but the burning and shin-
ing lamp kindled by it and bearing witness to it.

The word Xa/xirds occurs in Jn 18'*, where it is
rendered 'torch.' It is also used in the parable of
the Ten Virgins, Mt 25, where it would be better
translated 'torch.' In Eastern countries the torch,
like the lamp, is fed with oil, which is carried in
small vessels constructed for the purpose (dyyeioi',
Mt 25'*). See Candle, Light, Torch.

Literature.— Trench, Synoni/ms, xlvi. ; Hastings' DB, artt.
' Lamp * and ' Lantern ' ; Edersheini, Life and Times, ii. 455 ff. ;
H. J. \an Lennep, Bible Lands and Customs, p. 132 ; W. M.
Thomson, Land and Book, iii. 472.

C. H. Prichard.
LANE.— See Street.

LANGUAGE OF CHRIST.— Recent historical
and critical research has narrowed the ground
which it is necessary to cover in the discussion
of the question as to the language spoken by
Christ. It has ruled Hebrew out of court. The
practically unanimous verdict of recent scholars
is that, considerably before the time of Christ,
though when is uncertain, Hebrew had ceased to
be spoken in Palestine, and its place as the ver-
nacular had been taken by Aramaic, the language
represented in OT by Ezr 4^-i« 7'-■-^ Jer 10", and
Dn 2^-7-*, and mistakenly named 'Chaldee.'

The transition from Hebrew to Aramaic in-
volved no great linguistic revolution, as it Avas
simply a transition from one Semitic language to
another, and that a closely cognate one. It was,
however, only very gradually effected, and was
chiefly due to the preclominance to which Aramaic
attained in Western Asia during the Persian period,
coming, as it did, to be, with dialectical differences,
the lingua communis from the Euijhrates to the
Mediterranean. While, hoAvever, Aramaic thus
gradually superseded Hebrew as the living tongue
of Palestine, and by the time of Alexander the
Great had probably reached a position of ascend-
ency, if it had not gained entire possession of the
field, yet Hebrew remained, though with some loss
of its ancient jnirity, the language of sacred litera-
ture, the language in which Prophet and Psalmist
wrote, and as the language of the books ultimately
embraced in the OT Canon, continued to be read,
with an accompanying translation into Aramaic,
in the synagogues, and to be diligently studied by
the professional interpreters of the Scriptures. It
is, therefore, quite possible that Christ possessed
a knowledge of Hebrew, and had thus access to
the Scriptures in the original.

With Alexander the Great, however, there came
a fresh disturbance of the linguistic situation.
Thenceforward (Jreek entered into competition
with Aramaic. And though, as a non-Semitic
language, the adoption of Greek could not come so
readily to the Jews as Aramaic, yet the circum-
stances were such as to tend in no small degree to
counterbalance the disadvantage under which
Greek thus lay. ?"or not only was it the official
language alike of the Lagid, Seleucid, and, after
the Maccabaean interregnum, of the Iduma^an-
Roman rulers to whom the Jews were successively

subject; but its cause was furthered by the
Hellenizing policy which these rulers generally
followed, and by the existence, more or less, ail
through of a party among the Jews themselves
favourable to that policy. The result on the
linguistic situation of the political conditions thus
obtaining cannot be certainly determined from the
historical data bearing directly thereon. It is,
however, clear that whatever headway Greek may
have made before the Maccabajan revolt,— wiiidi
was a revolt against the Hellenizing policy referred
' to, as pushed to extremes by Antiochus Eiiiphanes,
—it suffered a decided set-back, and was practi-
cally expelled the country during the Maccaba?an
regime. And though it had again made consider-
able progress by the time of Christ, and especially
through the influence of Herod the Great, who
particularly affected Greek culture, there is nothing
to show that the political conditions were such as
to secure for it the ascendency claimed by some
scholars, and notably by Dr. Roberts in his book,
Greek the Language of Christ and His Apostles.

At the time of Christ, then, Palestine was bi-
lingual, Greek as well as Aramaic being, to some
extent at least, spoken. The question, therefore,
to be answered is. Which of these languages did
Christ sjjeak, or, if He knew and spoke both, which
of them did He mainly, if not exclusively, employ
as the vehicle of His teaching? Consideration
need be given to the question only in its latter
form. For, as undoubtedly spoken by some of
the Palestinian Jews, as the language of perha]is
the great majority of His countrymen scattered
throughout the Roman world, as the predominant
language of the representatives of the Gentile
world in Palestine and of that Gentile world itself,
which, though wide, was not yet wider than He
conceived the scope of His mission to be, and es,
besides, the language of the Septuagint Version
of the OT, which had no doubt acquired consider-
able popularity, it may reasonably be assumed
that Christ would acquire some knowledge of
Greek, and be able, in some measure at least, to
speak it. Was it, then, Aramaic or Greek that
Christ habitually employed in His public ministry 'i
The question resolves itself into that of the rela-
tive prevalence of the two languages in the
country at the time, so far as that can be deter-
mined by such evidence, direct and indirect, as is
available. And this evidence, though somcMhat
meagre, is decisive for Aramaic. That furnished
by the reported words of Christ Himself does not
go very far, but yet goes some length towards that
conclusion. All that it certainly establishes is
that Christ knew Aramaic, and, apart fiom His
employment of Aramaic terms and proper names,
on which jierhaps little stress is to be laid, as these
terms and proper names may have formed part of
the ordinary vocabulary of Greek-speaking JeAvs,
expressed Himself in Aramaic on three difl'erent
occasions. The three expressions are: (1) raXet^d
Kov/Ji, the Gr. transliteration of the Aram. Nn;7!2 or
□■p an^ha Mk 5'^'^ ; (2) icptpadd, euphonic for the Aram.
nrisnx Mk 1^ ; and (3) r]\el rjXei Xa/ud ffapax6a."ti
(Mt 27'*^), or according to Mk 15^^ i\wl, e\wi, Xc/xd
cajSaxOavei, the Aram, 'jripj^f' nc^ 'rt^.>f \-i^^ or ''^n ''tn.
How these three Aramaic expressions alone came
to be preserved is matter of conjecture. An
obvious explanation is that they alone were
preserved because they were exceptional, Greek
being the language for the most part used by
Christ. That, however, is not the only possible
explanation. More probable is it that they alone
were preserved because associated with moments
of exceptional emotion on Christ's part, and there-
fore felt to be exceptionally precious. The cry
upon the cross was peculiarly a cry rle prcfuvdis.
In the case of the deaf and dumb man, Christ, for

LANGUAGE OF CHRIST

some reason or other, was unwontedly moved, for
it is said that ' he looked up to heaven and sighed. '
And, though it is not stated, the spectacle of
Jairus' child-daughter lying cold yet beautiful in
death, was calculated to touch profoundly the
heart of the great Child-Lover.

The two main sources of direct evidence con-
clusively proving the predominance of Aramaic as
the popular language, are the Book of Acts and the
Works of Jonephiis.

1. In Ac l^** it is said with reference to the
suicide of Judas in the lield which he had pur-
chased 'with the reward of iniquity,' 'And it was
known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem ; inso-
much as that lield is called in their own tongue
(rri SiaX^KTifi avrCv) Akeldama.' Now Akeldama is
the Aram. Nt'i %n, and points not only to the fact
that Aramaic had superseded Hebrew as the ver-
nacular, but that at the time of Christ it was the
popular language, even of the inhabitants of Je-
rusalem. Equally conclusive on the latter point
are two other passages in the Acts. In describing
his conversion to Agrippa, St. Paul said, 'And
Avhen we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a
voice speaking unto me, and saying, in the Hebrew
tongue^ {rij 'E^pat8i SiaXiKTiii), Ac 26". By ' He-
brew ' St. Paul undoubtedly meant Aramaic. The
terms 'Ej3pai:5i and 'Ej3pal'a-Tl, as is generally ad-
mitted, are used both in the NT and by Josephus
when not Hebrew but Aramaic is meant. Thus in
Jn 19'^ it is said that ' Pilate sat down in the
judgment-seat in a place that is called the Pave-
ment, but in the Hebrew Gabbatha ' ( "E/Spalo-Ti 5e
TajS^ada); and Va^^add is not Hebrew, but Ara-
maic. That the ascended Christ should have
spoken to Saul in Aramaic is unintelligible except
on the supposition that that had been the language
Avhicli He had spoken when on earth, and that it
was the prevailing language of Palestine.

Quite as signiiicant is the circumstance men-
tioned in Ac 22^ that Paul addressed the infuriated
Jerusalemites in Aramaic, and that when they
ascertained from his opening words that he Avas to
speak to them in that language, ' they kept the
more silence' (fxaWov irapiaxov rja-vx'-a.v), the refer-
ence being to the fact that Paul had not attemjited
to speak until by a gesture indicative of his desire
to be heard he had stilled the uproar, and, as it is
said, ' there was made a great silence.' It does not
necessarily follow, as has been maintained, that
the people expected Paul to address them in Greek,
and that the fact that they were prepared to give
him a hearing w'hen they expected him to speak in
that language, proves that they were familiar with
it. The simple fact that, as his gesture indicated,
Paul was going to address them was in itself
sufficient to secure their quiet attention. And in
any case, even though they had expected to be
addressed in Greek, the deeper silence into which
they settled when they found that they were to be
addressed in Aramaic, proves that they were more
familiar with the latter language than the former,
and that the latter was the language generally
spoken by them.

2. The evidence of Josephiis is as direct and con-
clusive as that furnished by the Acts of the pre-
dominance of Aramaic. In BJ v. vi. 3, Josephus
records how during the siege of Jerusalem the
Jewish watchmen warned their compatriots of the
discharge of the Roman missiles by crying out m?
their native tongue {rrj iraTpi^p yXwao-rj), 6 16$ ^pxerai.
In the same work, vi. ii. 1, he tells how in his
capacity of intermediary during the same siege he
communicated the proposals of Titus to the be-
sieged in their native tongue (ttJ iraTpLip yXuia-ffri).
In the preface to BJ he records how that work
was at first written in Aramaic and afterwards
translated into Greek.

The passage runs : ' I have proposed to myself, for the sake of
such as Uve under the government of the Romans, to translate
these books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed
in the language of our own country, and sent to the Upper Bar-
barians,' i.e. to the Aramaic-speaking peoples, whom he describes
in the following paragraph as ' the Parthians, Babylonians, the
remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond Euphrates,
with the Adiabeni.'

That a Palestinian Jew such as Josephus, who
was of a distinguished priestly family, who re-
ceived a careful rabbinic education and studied in
the various schools of the Pharisees, Sadducees,
and Essenes, should not only characterize Aramaic
as ' the language of our own country,' but should
write his lirst book in that language, is in itself
conclusive proof that Aramaic had not then been
materially driven from its j^sition as the vernacu-
lar of Palestine. Suggestive also in this connexion,
and giving added weight to the case for Aramaic,
is Josephus' OAvn confession of the difficulty he ex-
perienced in acquiring such mastery of Greek as
that which he ultimately attained. In the preface
to his Antiquities he tells how he found the writ-
ing of that work a hard and wearisome task, ' it
being,' as he says, ' a large subject, and a difficult
thing to translate our history into a foreign and
to us unaccustomed language ' (e/s a\\o5air7]v tumv
Kal ^evriv SiaXiKTov cvv-qdnav), and how he was able
to continue and accomj^lish the task only by the
encouragement and help of a friend, Epaphroditus.
To the same difficulty he refers in the closing
paragraijhs of the Antiquities :

' I am so bold as to say, now that I have completed the task
set before me, that no other person, either Jew or Greek, with
whatever good intentions, would have been able to set forth
this history to the Greeks as accurately as I have done ; for I
am acknowledged by my countrymen to excel them far in our
national learning. I also did mj- best to obtain a knowledge of
Greek by practising mjself in the grammar, though native habit
prevented me from attaining accuracy in its use.'

Josephus' difficulty with Greek is very signi-
ficant. For if that difficulty obtained Avith him,
what of his countrymen generally? Stress has
been laid, as, e.g., by Dr. Roberts, upon the attain-
ments in Greek of such men as Peter and James
and John, as shown in the speeches or writings
attributed to them, and it has been argued there-
from that a knoAvledge of Greek must have been
common among the rank and file. But even
though Peter and James and John were the
authors of the speeches and writings referred to,
and did speak or write such Greek as is found
therein, which is open to question, they cannot
fairly be regarded as representative of the people
generally in this respect. The very fact of their
not only being of the number of the Twelve, but
forming the inner group of that favoured circle,
dilierentiates them from the crowd. ' Unlearned
and ignorant men,' the Council at Jerusalem dubbed
them (Ac 4^^) ; but the contemptuous epithets were
but the expression of a twofold prejudice, the
prejudice of antagonism and the prejudice of the
Schools. In virtue of their discipleshii^, Peter and
James and John have to be placed in a difi'erent
category from the mass of the people of their social
rank, who, as compared with them, must have
been ' unlearned and ignorant ' in the broader
sense of the terms.

3. The case for Aramaic as the prevailing lan-
guage of Palestine in the time of Christ, and the
language, therefore, which Christ must necessarily
have employed generally in His teaching, is thus
incontestably established by the direct evidence of
the Acts and of Josephus, And though less direct
and certain, there is other evidence to the same
effect to which reference may be made, and speci-
ally that furnished by the "^Targums and what is
known as The Aramaic Gospel.

(a) The Targums are Aramaic translations or
paraphrases of the OT books, and cover the whole

LANGUAGE OF CHRIST

LAST SUPPER

of those books with the exception of Daniel, Ezra,
and Nehemiah. The two princiijal Targunis are
(1) that on the Pentateuch, known as the Targum
of Onkelos, which is characterized by its almost
slavish literalism ; and (2) that of Jonathan ben-
Uzziel on the Prophets, i.e. the Historical books
and the Prophets properly so called, which is
largely paraplirastic. The dates of these Targums
are uncertain, and by scholars they have been
made to range from the end of the 1st to that of
the 4th cent. A.D. The important ^joint, however,
is that they undoubtedly embody material from a
much earlier time, and were the outcome of the
practice, originating in the gradual disuse of
Hebrew as the vernacular, of translating the
synagogue readings of the OT into Aramaic for
the benefit of the people generally. Written Tar-
gums Avere at first forbidden. The translation was
required to be oral, the translator (jcj-inp) giving
his translation after each verse of the' Pentateuch
and every three verses of the Prophets. Whether
the rule which forbade written Targums had fallen
into desuetude by the time of Christ cannot be de-
finitely determined. Probably it had. But even
though it had not, and there were no written
Targums till a later date, yet the existence of
written Targums at that later date ^joints con-
clusively to the prevalence of the practice of the
oral translation of the synagogue lessons into
Aramaic, and therefore to the prevalence of that
language as the vernacular.

As against this, the supporters of Greek hold
that the Septuagint version was in such general
use that it may be described as the 'People's Bible.'
The special arguments in favour of this theory are :

(1) that copies of the Septuagint could be had at a
much smaller cost than Hebrew or Aramaic MSS,
that indeed the price of the latter was prohibitive
so far as the people generally were concerned ; and

(2) that the OT quotations in the NT point to a
very general familiarity with the Septuagint, in-
asmuch as tlie majority of them are verbatim or
practically verbatim, or show unmistakable traces
of the Septuagint, and particularly as in some
cases tlie Septuagint is followed when it differs
from the Hebrew. The jurice argument scarcely
deserves notice, and very little weight is to be
attached to the quotation argument. For while it
must be admitted that those Avho were responsible
for tlie quotations were familiar with the Septua-
gint, it by no means follows that such familiarity
obtained with the people generally. And while it
was to be expected that the writers of the NT
books would not only be familiar with the Septua-
gint, but in quoting from the OT would take ad-
vantage of a translation ready to hand, it is yet a
.significant fact that that translation was not always
taken advantage of, not a few of the quotations
showing an entire independence of the Septuagint.

(b) The question of an Aramaic Gospel {Ur-
Evrinr/cliicin), while important chiefly in connexion
with the Synoptic problem, bears closely upon that
of the language spoken by Christ. If Christ spoke
Aramaic, sucli a Gospel was to be expected, and at
the same time its existence would furnish weighty
proof at once of the prevalence oi Aramaic and of
the use of that language by our Lord. And the
labours of recent critical scholars, if they have
riot conclusively established the existence of an
Aramaic Ur-EvangcUmn, have at least made it
much less open to question. Of special interest in
this connexion is the series of articles in the Ex-
positor (Ser. IV.), by Professor Marshall, on 'The
Aramaic Gospel.' The theory which Professor
Marshall in tliese articles works out with great
nbihty and skill is that the variant Greek words
m parallel passages of the Synoptic Gospels can be
traced to one original Aramaic word ; and the

result of the application of his theory is that the
Aramaic Gospel contained, speaking generally, the
ministry of Christ in Galilee. That Professor
Marshall's theory will ever find anything like
general acceptance is perhaps unlikely. But
whether or not it may be possible by his or any
other method to recover with certainty and to any
extent the precise Aramaic words used by our
Lord, there can be no doubt that Aramaic had the
supreme honour of being the language in which He
gave expression to His imperishable thoughts.

Literature. — Pfannkuche, Language of Palestine, Clark's
Cabinet Library, vol. ii. ; Roberts, Greek the Language of
Chri.it and His Apostles, 1S88 ; VV. H. Simcox, Languaqe of
the NT, 1889 ; T. K. Abbott, Esmys chieihj on the Oriqindl
Texts of OT and NT, 1891, p. 129 ; A. Meyer, Jesu Mutter-
sprache, 1896; Dalman, The Words of Jesus, Eng. tr. 1902;
Schultze, Grain, dcr Aram. Muttersprache Jesu, 1899 ; Marshall'
Expositor, Ser. iv. ii. 69 fl., iii. 1 ff., 109ff., 205 ff., 275 ff., 375 ff.!
452ff., iv. 208 ff., 373 ff., 4.35 ff., vi. 8UF., viii. 170 ff. ; Exp. Times,
IV. 260 ; Schurer, U./J' i. i., ii. ii. James YoUNG.

LANTERN (4)av6s) occurs in Jn 18^ Avliere the
band of soldiers accompanying Judas is described
as provided Avith lanterns and torches (see Lamp).

LAST DAY.— See Day of Judgment.

LAST SUPPER — Althou'Ui the relation of the
Last Supper to the Jewish Passover is treated
with more or less fulness elsewhere (see DATES,
vol. i. p. 413 fi'., and Lord's Supper (I.)), it appears
advisable to handle the whole subject in a special
article.

The Paschal controversy, which agitated the first
ages of Cliristianity (see Calendar), has only a
general connexion with the inquiry on wliicli we
are entering. We note * tliat the trend of opinion
at first was towards the view that Christ was cruci-
fied on the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan,
and therefore on the day on which the Paschal
lamb was killed ; from Avhicli it follows that the
Last Supper (whatever was its nature) preceded tlie
Jewish Passover by several liours. In the 3rd cent,
the view that our Lord kept the Passover with the
Jews on the 14th, and was crucified on the 15th,
began to come into favour. When we approach
the sacred records, we find that tlie first three
Evangelists so express themselves, that, in the
opinion of some, they represent our Lord as eating
the Paschal Supper with His disciples on the night
of His betrayal. It is certain that St. John (18-^)
represents some of the Jews as not li.aving eaten
the Passover several hours later. On these prem-
ises, there appears to l)e a discrepancy between
the accounts in the sacred narratives. When an
honest attempt is made to arrive at a conclusion, a
great authority on the history of Christ's ministry
is compelled to confess his inability to solve the
enigma, t By some it has been thought that Christ
anticipated the day of the Paschal Supper, in order
to eat it with His disciples ; + by others, that the
heads of the Jewish peoi)le deferred their Passover
in order to have time to apprehend and condemn
Jesus.§ The object of this article is to show that
the first three Gospels preclude the notion that the

* See art. ' Chronoloary ' (Turner) in Hastinjjs' DB i. 411 f.

t See Sanday, art. ' Jesus Christ ' in DB ii. 034b.

{ This seems to be the view which Dr. Sanday, on the whole,
favours ; see art. quoted in preceding- note. For the view that
tlie Last Supper was an antici|iated Passover meal, resembling'
the ordinary Passover in form and order, and held before the
statutory date, see artt. ' Jesus Cliristus ' (Zockler) in PRE^,
ix. p. .32 ; ' Eucharist' (.J. Arniitage Robinson) in EBi, col. 1419.
A g:ood summary of arcjunients and opinions is given by Ellicott
in Leetures on the Life of o-nr Lord, pp. 322, 323, nn.

§ The Passover might be deferred for a month for those who
were legally debarred from observing it on the proper day
(Nu 99-1'-'), bnt there is no provision in the Law for postponing
it for one day : this explanation of the action of the rulers is
improbable in itself, and contrary to their expressed intention
(Mt 26-5) ; further notice of it is suiierfluous.

LAST SUPPEK

Last Supper was a Passover, and therefore, as St.
John certainly seems to represent the Passover as
still to come while the Supper was proceeding,*
that there is no discreimncy in the accounts. +

1. In examining the evidence att'orded by the four
accounts, we lind, with satisfaction, that they have
been handed down to us intact, and that no attempt
was made to harmonize the records, as by the omis-
sion of the words to wdax"- from Lk 22'^, which seem
at variance with the statements in St. John. There
is one critical pro1)lem in St. Luke — the retention,
or omission, of the mention of a second cup, and
the order of the Bread and the Cup in the Institu-
tion •,X hut the solution of this problem will not
affect the chief thesis in our jiosition. Herein is
another proof, if proof be needed, of the honesty
and faithfulness of the ancient scribes, who, in the
midst of one of the greatest controversies of the
early Church, resisted the temptation to accom-
modate the records to particular views of the event.

2. The five following indications of time may be
collected from the several accounts :

(1) When Jesus had finished His great eschato-
logical discourse, and the rulers were forming a
plan for His apprehension and condemnation, it
wanted two days to the commencement of the
Paschal Feast — fiera Svo yj/m^pas to irdaxa ylvsTai
(Mt 26-, Mk 141, Li^ 22i). 'After two days' must
be interpreted according to the reckoning w"hich
makes ' after three days ' equivalent to ' on the
third day.' This Jewish usage is well known, and
is found, e.g., in Mt 201^ parallel with Mk 10=*^ and
Lk 18^''', where ttj Tpirr] i]fj.^pa in the First and Third
corresponds to /xera Tpels -rj/mepas in the Second Evan-
gelist. § Now the Passover was slain late in the
afternoon of the 14tli Nisan, and some hours earlier
leaven was put out of the houses, in jjreparation for
the 'days of unleavened bread,' which, strictly
speaking, began with the eating of the lamb in
the early hours of loth Nisan. !| The terminus ad
quern of the 'two days' must be the last hours of
14th Nisan. The terminus a quo may be any hour
after 12tli Nisan had been succeeded by the 13th.

(2) In arranging for the ai)prehension of Jesus,
the rulers decided that it shoukl not be attempted
on the Feast Day (Mt 26\ Mk 14=). If they carried
out their intention, it follows that the night of the
apprehension and trial was before the slaying of
the Passover ; and that the Last Supper, whatever
it was, did not coincide with the Paschal Feast.

* Jn 1329. Edersheim {Life and Times, ii. 566 ff.) explains the
(faysiv TO Txa-x,"- of Jn 1S28 as referring to sacrifices of the Paschal
season. The opinion of such a writer demands respectful con-
sideration, and a similar explanation is adopted by man.v. From
2 Ch 35 we learn that other sacrifices were offered at the Paschal
season besides the lambs ; see vv."- **. is.

t The position maintained in this article is identical with the
explanation pfiven by the late G. Wildon Peiritz in The Gospels
from the Rabbinical point of view, 1873. By birth a Jew, of
German nationality, a Cambridge graduate, " and an Anglican
priest, of wide reading and profound learning, Peiritz had, to
an exceptional extent, the ability to form a correct opinion on
the problem before us.

: The Received Text of Lk 2219- -^o is read in ' codd. Gtsbc. et
verss. fere omn.' (Nov. Test., Lloyd-Sanday, Append, p. V21)—i.e.
It has the very highest diplomatic attestation, including the old
uncials. It can be rejected only on a priori grounds. The case
Illustrates the difference between two schools of criticism -those
who follow the testimony of ancient MSS, and those who are
intluenced by subjective considerations. Dr. .Sanday (I.e. 636'')
says : We cannot doubt that both these t\-pes of text existed
early ni the 2nd cent. Either may be original. And this is just
one of those cases where internal evidence is strongh" in favour
ot the text which we call Western. The temptation to expand
n-as much stronger than to contract ; and the double mention
of the Cup raises real difficulties of the kind which suggest in-
terpolation See also a full discussion of the Lukan account of
the Institution by Mr. Blakiston, in JThSf, July 1903, p. 548 f.
Dr Lambert (,;> Jan. 1903) well sums un the arguments and
authorities for adhering to the Received Text
>rl '^^i'lT '^^ "•^- liarmonizing the text of Mk. with that of
^nd Lk. we may compare Mt 2763, where the text is certain.

. ''oLnwolson in Oflf^ letzte Passamahl Christi tind der Tan
seines Todes, quoted by Mr. Box and Dr. Lambert; see note *,
p. 8b below. Cf. Turner, I.e.

The hurried proceedings of the night suggest an
attempt to secure a condemnation within a limited
time. This is intelligible if the Feast had not
begun ; otiierwise it is hard to see whj- men who
were, in that case, willing to try a prisoner on the
first da J' should have scrupled about extending the
proceedings to any necessary length.

(3) The third indication of time presents some
difficulty. On a day called ' the first day of
Azama' preparations were made for the Feast,
according to Mt. (26^") and Mk. (14i-), at the sug-
gestion of the Twelve ; according to all three (Mt
26'8- 1", Mk 1413-16, Lk 22'-"), with the consent and at
the command of the Master. Strictly speaking, the
TrpoiTT] tQv dl'v/j.wv would indicate the 15th Nisan,
for the period during which leaven was prohibited
commenced with the Paschal meal, following the
slaying of the Paschal lamb in the closing hours of
14th Nisan. So late a date for the vpwTr] is pre-
cluded by the circumstances of the narrative ; but
it is incredible that Mt. could make an erroneous
statement in a matter connected with the greatest
solemnity of the whole of the Jewish sacred year.
The reasonable conclusion is, that, in a popular
way of speaking, a day before the legal day had
acquired the name of ' First day of Azuma,' and
not unfitly, if on that day early arrangements
were commenced for the complete exclusion of
leaven from the houses.* Mk., bearing in mind,
as often, the needs of non-Jewish readers, adds,
ore to Trdo-xa ?9vov. The point of time need not be
pressed too strictly ; the gloss is no more than an
explanation that the season of Azuma was the time
of the offering of the Passover. The expression
in Lk. is more difficult. In 22^ we read, fiXOef 5e
7] Tjixipa. tQiv d^vficov, ^v f j] ^5et dvecrdai Tb :rdcrxa. But
there was more than one day of Azuma. In v.i he
had Avritten ^771^6!' Se ij eoprr) r. df. It looks as if
ilfi^pa below was equivalent to eopTri above — not
24 hours, but a period ; J or else there is .some little
inexactitude in a mere reference to an observance
which it was unnecessary for the purpose of the
narrative to describe precisely.

(4) The fourth note of time is given by the oi/'tas
yevo/j.€P7is of Mt 2620 and Mk 14". § These verses
immediately follow the statement that the disciples
'made ready the Passover.' The natural inter-
pretation is to take them as indicative of the
evening of the day when the Upper Room was en-
gaged. We have therefore another date, from
which we may argue backwards to the limitations
of the irpwTTj T. df. It ended with sunset on the
night of the Betrayal. It began with the preced-
ing sunset. At any time during those 24 hours

* Wieseler, quoting from the Talmudical tract Pesachim, that
the search for leaven in houses must be made in the night pre-
ceding 14th Nisan, in order that it might be put away by mid-
day, and nothing leavened eaten afterwards, argues that the
day before the Passover was made ready ^\■as reckoned as be-
longing to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. See Chronological
Synopsis of tlie Four Gospels, tr. A'enables, pp. 334, 335, and art.
Passover in Hastings' DB (W. J. Moulton), vol. iii. p. 090.
Peiritz (op. cit. pp. 28, 29, 33, 34) describes the arrangements
made by Jews on the day befire the legal Preparation day, and
adds : ' There is a very intelligible reason why that Thursday
should, in a subordinate sense, — loosely, we may allow, — be
called the first day of tinleavened bread.'

t £► is omitted by some authorities ; but the attestation is in-
sufficient, nor would the omission affect the translation — ' when
it behoved,' or ' in which ' ; see Winer's Grammar, iii. § xxxi. 9, a.

X Slany examples occur of the use of r,u.-px for a period of long
duration ; but it is then regarded in contrast to conditions which
may be described as ' night,' — e.g. Ro 1312 ; or as the time when
certain conditions are realized, — e.<y. 2 Co C-, to which latter
sense belongs the oft-recurring expression 'day o' the Lord,'
or ' my day ' (Jn S^S) ; but there seems no exact parallel to the
use we have supposed of iuspa. as equivalent to i5«.='p«j. Yet,
if we limit the term to the ' first day,' the remainder of the sen-
tence is inexact, the lamb being slain before the legal ' first day '
began. It seems impossible to treat the sentence as rigidly and
historically accurate, in the terms in which the text has come
to us.

§ Of the ' two evenings," it is better to take this as the second,
rather than the first, which would be our 'late afternoon.'

LAST SUPPER

it is permissible to place the commeiiceiiient by
the disciples of preparations for a Passover which
■svould be kept in circumstances they never antici-
l^ated. According to our present argument, the
Master had passed into Paradise before the Passover
was eaten. That Avould not prevent the disciples
complying with the requirements of the Law,
except in so far as some might have contracted
ceremonial defilement during the events of Good
Friday. But this would not apjily to all ; and
here may be found the explanation of the prepara-
tions. The Master permitted the disciples to make
ready for what was legally requisite ; but He made
this the occasion of suitable provision for the new
Passover which He designed to provide, but of
which they, as yet, knew nothing.

Parallel with the 6\pLa of the first two Evangelists
is an interesting expression in Lk 22^* ore iyivero -17
ibpa.. While in itself absolutely vague, in connexion
with the preceding words, ' they made ready the
Passover,' it would naturally indicate the com-
mencement of 15th Nisan, when the lamb was
eaten ; but in view of considerations already stated,
we must reject such interpretation, and read the
term in connexion with what follows, and is peculiar
to Lk., 'with desire I have desired to eat this
Passover with you before I suffer.' The ibpa was
the Master's time for one of the great acts of His
incarnate life, not a particular division of a par-
ticular day in the Jewish calendar. So it is irsed
in v.^^ below — avT-q vfiCov icmv i] dipa, 'your time,'
'opportunitj'.' *

(5) The a])])el[vition paraskeue affords yet another
mark of time. There were parns/ceuai before
various days. In connexion with our present in-
quiry we note the Preparation of the Sabbath
(Mk 15^2^ Lk 23=^), and the Preparation of the
Passover (Jn 19^'*). On this latter paraskeuc our
Lord stood before Pilate, and was condemned
(Jn. I.e.). Therefore the Passover had not yet been
eaten ; much less could the diiy before have been
the Day of the Passover. But the day of the
condemnation and crucifixion Avas also the pro-
sabbaton (Lk 235^- ^\ cf. Mk 15^2)_ jn that year the
two paraskcual coincided, and the first day of
unleavened bread was also the Sabbath ; hence
St. John calls that Sabbath 'an high day' (19^^).
The paraskeue was our Friday,! Nisan 14, and
the day of tlie crucifixion.

3. (i. ) St. John was one of the two disciples
who were specially charged with the Paschal pre-
parations. It is recognized that the evidence
allbrded by his narrative is absolutely plain and
consistent. It has been .said that he silently cor-
rects the others.J From our point of vieAv, as we
hold that they preclude the notion that the Last
Supper was a Passover, St. John adds the emphatic
testimony of an eye-witness to our conclusion.
The Supper was before the feast of the Passover
(13^); it was supposed that it might be necessary
to buy what there was need of against the feast
(13"^); several hours later some oif the rulers had
not yet eaten the Passover (18-") ;§ the following

* Cf. the same use of ii/ja by Christ at Cana (Jn 2'*), and a
similar sense in 1 Jn 21**.

t Paraskeue is rendered in the Pesli. by 'aricbhta, vvhicli is
from a root meaning to set (of the sun). It became the name of
Friday in the use of the Syrians, ' because on that day the sun
set and darkness reigned ' (see Payne-Smith, Thes. Si/r. col. 29S4).
Herein is preserved a tradition of tlie da.y of tlie Crucifixion,
accepted witli sucli confidence that from it tlie sixth day de-
rived its name, as the first day has been known from earliest
times as the Lord's day, because it was the day of the Resurrec-
tion. Cf. Mr. Turner's remarks, I.e. p. 411 f.

I So Mr. Turner in art. quoted above.

§ The Passover, which was slain ' between the evenings ' of
Nisan 14, was usually eaten in the earl.y hours of the night
following, for time must be allowed for taking the lamb to the
house and roasting it. This would be the commencement of
Nisan 15 (see Ex 12^). But Ex 12io, Nu 912, and Dt 16-* suggest
the possibility of extending the time of eating, provided all was

day, when Jesus was crucified, was the preparation
of the Passover (19"). Language could hardly be
more distinct ; and some evidence, which seems
to support a different view, can be explained.
Taking St. John's words in their natural sense, and
reading them without prejudice, no one would
gather from them that the Supper described by
him was the Passover. It seems reasonable to
demand that the less distinct and somewhat in-
exact language of the other three should be inter-
preted in the light of the last account.

(ii.) It has been claimed by some that the account
of the meal in the three Evangelists agrees with
the ritual of a Passover ; by others, that no trace
of a Passover can be found in it. To us, we
confess, it seems that the details of a Paschal
celebration have been discovered after the impor-
tation of ideas which are not on the surface of the
narrative. The initial statement that Jesus sat
down with the Twelve (dv^/cetro, Mt 26-" ; aveirecev,
Lk 22") is against the usual interpretation of the
directions given in Ex 12i' : it is supposed that a
change of posture had been admitted in later times.
The two cujjs of wine are regarded as two of the
four or live which were handtd round at the feast ;
but in view of the serious ditterence of opinion
amongst critics as to the genuineness of the reading
in Lk., which gives the notice of a second cup, it
seems unfair to press this identification. The dish
in which the sop Avas dipped is identified with the
dish of haroseth, a kind of sauce,* which was an
adjunct of the Paschal meal ; but this is an
assumption, rather than a deduction from evidence.
The hymn sung on leaving the upper chamber is
identified with the Hall el (Pss. 115-118) sung at
the conclu.sion of the Passover ritual ; but v/jLvelu
(Mt 26^», Mk 14-8) fiyes ^ot necessarily denote the
use of a particular composition, and in Eph 5^",
Col 3^8, vfipoL are distinguished from xpaXixol.

(iii.) Those who fail to discover traces of a Pass-
over meal in the accounts of the Last Supper, who
point to the absence of allusion to a lamb, and gener-
ally to the Aveakness of the evidence adduced, may
reasonably claim an argument e silent io for Avhat
that is worth. It may be added that the supposi-
tion of the disciples, that the preparations for the
feast Avere not complete (Jn 13-^), seems strange
indeed if they Avere already keeping tlie feast.
Preparation for the Passover Avas so imj^ortant in
the eyes of the Jcavs, that the day preceding had
derived its appellation of paraskeue from their
scrupulous care ; see Mt 27^-.

4. We can now tabulate the order of the sacred
days in accordance Avith the conclusions at Avhich
Ave have arrived. It Avill be convenient to use the
modern names for the days. In the early morning
of Sunday our Lord rose. This tradition is uni-
versally accepted, and further discussion Avould be
superfluous. The Saturday Avas the ' first day of un-
leavened bread ' (for the eating of unleavened bread
began legally Avith the Paschal meal),t and Avas
Nisan 15. Friday, Nisan 14, Avas the oflicial Pre-
paration Day. BetAveen it and the commencement
of Nisan 15 the lamb Avas slain and eaten. Thurs-
day evening Avas the beginning of the jiaraskeiie,
and some hours before that the exclusion of leaven
commenced, from Avhich custom, as Ave have sug-
gested, the day had acquired the popular appella-
tion of 'first day of Azuma.' This Avas the 13th

consumed before morning light. But it was already morning
(Mt 271- 2) when the Jews objected to enter the Judgment Hall
(Jn 1028) lest they should be debarred from eating the Passover.
Therefore they could not have contemplated eating of a lamb
slain the afternoon before. They must have anticipated a Pass-
over in the hours to follow. Every scrap of evidence tends to
confirm the view for which we contend.

* Its nature is described in Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud, col. 831.

t Ex 1218 I but in later practice, for greater strictness, leaven
was excluded earlier. See note *, p. C' above.

LAST SUPPER

of Nisan, and began with sunset on Wednesday
evening. During the 24 hours which followed
Wednesday afternoon, the disciples began to make
ready for the Passover. On Thursday evening
(Mt 26-0, Mk W^) Jesus sat down with them for
the Last Supper ; and this, according to St. John
(13'), was before, the Passover.

5. But oiir Lord called that Thursday evening
meal a 'passover' — tovto to Trdcrxa, Lk 22'^. As
we have shown tliat the meal preceded the legal
Passover by some 24 hours, there are but two
explanations of the words recorded by St. Luke—
(i. ) an anticipatory celebration was held, or (ii. )
Trdaxa. is used in a mystical sense.

(i.) An anticipation of the Passover might have
been either {a) from a desire to keep with the
disciples a rite which, on the legal and customary
day, would be precluded by the crucilixion ; or {b)
with the intention of reverting to a more exact
date, and correcting an error in time which had
crept into the Jewish calculations.* The im-
possibility of procuring the sacrifice of a lamb
except on the day commonly observed, would have
been fatal to any such plan. (1) Our Lord was
not a householder, but a guest. It would be usual,
perhaps, in such a case, to share in the lamb
offered by the householder. This would require
the assent of the householder to an abnormal, and
apparently illegal, arrangement. Or if (2) we
suppose that the thirteen were to constitute <a
family, and have their lamb to themselves, there
would still be, as tliei'e would be in the former case
also, the insuperable difficulty of getting the lamb
killed by the priests before the legal day. (3) It
has been supposed that there was a dift'erence of
opinion between Jewish schools as to the date of
the Passover ; but this argument, if it has, which
is doubtful, any foundation, is of nj value in the
present inquiry. One party only Avas paramount
at a time : there is no proof that there was a
choice of dates far the celebration, f If, however,
by an ' anticipatory Passover ' is meant an imi-
tative meal, v.ith herbs and unleavened bread and
Avine, but without a lamb,:t this is not forbidden
by the second explanation of our Lord's words ;
yet we doubt whether such an imitation of the
reality Avould have been contemplated. It seems
.so utterly alien to Jewish sentiment,§ as to be
inconceivable for the deliberate act of One who
held the Law in honour. Moreover, the act could
hardly have been kept secret, even if the 'good-
man of the house' had respectfully submitted to
what would have greatly shocked his religious
sentiments. Some rumour must have reached the
ears of those who were willing to bear witness

* The Rev. Matthew Power, S.J., in his learned and elaborate
essay, Anglo- Jewish Calendar for every daij in the GospeU, says,
P"^. >-'Ora, keeping to the lunar-legal computation, partook
of His last supper on Thursday evening-, Nisan 14. . . . The
Jews, in obedience to the popular reckoning, had their Paschal
Supper on Friday evening. ... The Synoptists adopt, like our
Lord, the strict lunar-legal mode of reckoning; tlie Fourth
(jcosiiel elects to follow the popular style." Even if the rule of
hadhu was already in force, as Father Matthew supposes, there
remains the difficulty, which writers shirk, of anv one obtaining
the sacrifice of the lamb before the hour appointed by the
priests. Stapfer is one of the few who recognize the difficulty ;
but h3 overcomes it by rejecting the Johannine account and
^^"i'P^i'^^tne others. See Palestine in the time of Christ,
p. o_,Jr. Of. JJiJ \x, 553.

t Mt 23-' and parallels compared with Jn 131- 2 do not suggest
any diffsrence of practice as to the date of observing the
anniversary. a " -^

cLSfcfi'^'i' (C/iron. Qeogr. Einleit.), referring to Pesachim x.,
»=fl4!i I TP'"' ^° ^^''"^ ''^^^^ "^ Mazzoth meal, of which the
essential element was unleavened cakes (mnz^othl with or with-
out a Iamb, eaten everywhere, and by all -for all were required
*°.' "nl?avened bread, though only the ceremonially clean

nhJpripH"' f^** *° P''"'^^^ °* ^^^ Iamb-such meals being still
observed in the present age.

f«l ' "^^f^^ ^u'- '^^""''^ consider it a shocking piece of profanation
to enact an>'thing resembhng the great Paschal meal the evening
before its time.' Peintz (himself a Jew), op. cit. p. 30

against Jesus. On such evidence a most damaging
charge could have been founded ; yet not a Avord
of such charge is found in the records of the trial.*

(ii.) Seeing then that a literal interpretation of
TTttcrxa in our Lord's Avords to the Twelve is pre-
cluded by the conditions of the occasion, Ave adopt
the alternative, and understand 'passover' to be
here used in a mystical sense. t In such sense
undoubtedly He spoke Avhen He called the bread
His body, and the Avine His blood. Whatever
opinion may be held of the nature of the presence
in the Eucharist, the bread and the Avine Avere
then before His sacrifice, as they are noAv after
His resurrection. His body and His blood in a
mystical and spiritual sense. His promise to drink
Avine Avith them in the Kingdom of God (Mt 26-'-*,
Mk 14-5, Lj^ 22'**) Avas conveyed in the same terms
of mystery ; for in the kingdom of redemption
there is no place for the JeAvish Passover, — that lir.s
Avaxed old and vanished, — and still less can a literal
fulfilment be conceived as having hereafter a place
in the kingdom of glory. Yet in that kingdom
there Avill be a feast, the mystical and spiritual
supper of the Lamb, Avliere the host Avill be the
real Passover, of Avhich the annual victims Avere
the figures ; He Avho is therefore called by St. Paul,
' Christ our passover.' J

6. It has been thought that the Last Supper,
Avhile not an imitation, Avas celebrated Avith some
outAvard features Avhicli connected it Avith the
annual Passover, although the chief characteristic,
the lamb, Avas absent. § It may have been so.
Perhajis there Avas unleavened bread, and the dish
of bitter herbs ; but the narratiA'es contain not a
Avord to favour such a supposition. They seem to
describe an ordinary Eastern meal, Ii Avith the one
dish in the centre, into Avhich all the guests put
their hands. The usual custom of giving the com-
Ijlimentary sop Avas observed, and Avine Avas passed
round. We believe that the Last Supper Avas in
form only an ordinary repast, but that it Avas
attended by the exceptional circumstances of the
Avashing of the feet by the host, the mystic acts
Avith bread and Avine, and the strange, prophetic,
and spiritual utterances of a long discourse. As
Ave attempt to portray the scene, the outlines

* The Rev. G. H. Box has contended with much abilitj' in an
article in JThSt, April 1902, that not the Passover, but the
weekly Kiddush, which preceded the meal on the eve of the
Sabbath, is tlie antecedent of the Eucharist. In this case our
Lord must have celebrated it 24 hours earlier ; but Jlr. Box
supposes that He often celebrated Kiddush ; there was Kiddush
of Passover and of Pentecost, and other occasions, besides the
weekly Sanctification. In the January number of JThSt the
Rev. Dr. Lambert, replying to Mr. Box's argument, that the
evidence of the first three Evangelists is self-contradictory,
follows Chwolson by supposing an error in the text. AVe make
no supposition, but offer an explanation of the traditional
evidence.

Dr. J. Armitage Robinson expresses himself in harmony with
our view : ' The Eucharist had, in its earliest form, an element in
common with the ordinary Jewish meal, which was sanctified by
thanksgivings uttered oxer the bread and over the cup. . . . Our
conception of the original institution must not be dominated by
the consideration of the elaborate ceremonial of the Passover cele-
bration. Such a consideration belongs rather to the subsequent
development of the Eucharist as a Christian rite ' (art. ' Eucharist '
in Enojr.. Bihl. coll. 1410, 1420).

t Our Lord was pleased to veil the meaning of His words in
many wajs. Besides prophecies of Ilis death, which were mis-
understood (Mk 9''2), and parables, which were not explained to
all (Mt ISIJ), and figures, as sleep for death (Jn ll^'). He spoke
in mystery of His body as a temple (Jn 219), of birth by water
and the Spirit (35), of eating His flesh and drinking His blood
(fy>"). So, we believe, He called the Supper 'this Passover,' not
in the literal, but in a mystical sense.

J This title of the Saviour, although of such frequent occur-
rence in ecclesiastical and theological language, occurs in the NT
only at 1 Co 5V, the writer being St. Paul, who was intimately
associated with the only Evangelist who records (Lk 2215) that
our Lord spoke of His Last Supper as Taimi to tkitx*.

§ See note I on preced. column.

II See the account, from personal experience, of an Eastern
sunper, given by Peiritz, o^i. cit. pp. 13-1.5 and note, and the
similar account by Thomson in The Land and the Book, pp.
126-128.

LATCHET

LAUGHTER

are simple, homely, ordinary ; but the whole is
pervaded by an air of mystery. It was not the
Passover of Moses, but it was the initiation of the
Passover of Christ.* But see Passover (II.).

7. When we pass from the sacred narratives to
Patristic tradition, we encounter controversy about
the date of Easter which lasted for several genera-
tions, but produced no decision as to the nature
of the Last Supper. The early separation of the
Church from the Synagogue, although inevitable,
was a loss to the former. Gentile converts found
themselves the inheritors of rites and Scriptures
derived from Jewish believers whose language
and ideas they understood but imperfectly ; hence
the opinion obtained some credence, that Christ
celebrated an anticipatory Passover ; for they over-
looked the insuperable hindrances to such an act
which the Jewish customs would present. But
one tradition has an important bearing on our
inquiry. The Primitive Church had no scruple
about the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist.
Such has been the immemorial custom of the un-
changing East ; while in the West (as few would
now deny), the use of unleavened wafers was
brought in during the Middle Ages. If our Lord
instituted the Sacrament at a Paschal Supper, He
used, of necessity, unleavened bread. The desire
to imitate His acts would, surely, if He had con-
secrated in unleavened, have found expression in
an opinion that oi'dinary bread was inadmissible.
There is no ancient tradition, of universal accept-
ance, that the sacramental bread must be un-
leavened. The use of ordinary bread is an un-
conscious admission that the Last Supper was not
a Passover. t

8. The discussion of this question is not merely
academical. The practice of some Christians has
been aflected by the views entertained of the nature
of the Last Supper. On the supposition that it was
a Passover, it has been contended that the use
of unleavened bread is obligatory in the Eucharist.
Tlie teetotaller extends the exclusion of leaven to
the chalice, and demands the use of unfermented
wine. Many love to tliink that they can find the
words sung after the Supper in the Psalms of the
Paschal Ilallcl. But the conclusions at which we
have arrived lend no authority to the exclusion of
leaven from the Lord's Table, and are inconsistent
Avitb many expressions in well-known Communion
Hymns, and in books of Sacramental devotion. t
There may be practical reasons for the use of
Avafcrs in preference to cubes of ordinarj' bread.
As to what is called ' unfermented wine,' a pre-
vious question arises, whether mere grape juice is
true wine. But whatever may be deemed most
suital)le for the sacramental elements in pi'esent-
day use, our contention is that the Holy Mysteries
were iirst administered at an ordinary meal, and
with ordinary bread and wine for their outward
and visible form.

Literature. — See under Dates and Lord's Supper.

G. H. GWILLIAM.
LATCHET (lixds, Lk 3i«, Mk V, Jn 1;^).— The
leathern strap attached to the .sandal, which, pass-

* Compare the remarks of Isaac Williams in The Holy Week,
pt. iv. § ii. It is interesting to note that two writers so widel.v
separated by antecedents and education, and to some extent by
sympathies, as were he and Peiritz, arrive from different points
at the same conclusion. In one case it is the opinion of a mind
steeped in Patristic lore, in the other of a ver}- learned Rab-
binical scholar.

t See full account of the Eucharistic bread in art. ' Elements '
in Diet, of Christ. Anti.q.{fim.\i\\ and Cheetham), i. p. 601 f.; cf.
Bingham's Antiquities, bk. xv. ch. ii. § 5. Some heretics of
early days, the Aquarians, Encratites, and Hydroparastatne,
who were teetotallers, consecrated in water ; see Bingham, ih.
§7.

X The Anglican Liturgy in the Proper Preface for Easter
recognizes Christ as ' the very Paschal Lamb,' but throughout
the Service there is not an expression or allusion which implies
a iiarticular view of the nature of the Last Supper.

ing several times across the foot, was secured
round the ankle, thus fixing the sandal securely.
See artt. Sandal and Shoe. The most menial
service which can be exacted from an Oriental is
to remove o carry his master's shoes. Hence,
too, the greatest honour a host can show to his
guest is to stoop down and remove his shoes.
John the Baptist counted himself unworthy to per-
form this service for Christ. J. SOUTAR.

LATIN.— See Title on Cross.

LAUGHTER.

The two words found in NT for ' laughter' correspond almost
exactly in significance with tlie two commonly occurring in OT.
y.oi,T(x.yi\6.u (Mt 924 || Mk 5-10 and Lk 853) = irph, which always
means scornful, derisive laughter (e.g. Pr 175, Is 3722, Ps 2^).
On the other hand, 5-tXiw (Lk 6"^)=pn'lfr, which is the more
general term, and while sometimes implying derision (as in
Job 301, Pr 126), ia niore usually found in the sense of merry
laughter, as opposed to the gloom of sadness («.f/. Pr 29", Ec B'*
22 lui9, Pr 1413). But, while in OT these words and others
denoting mirth and gleefulness are often found, their parallels
are very rare in NT. Beyond the two passages already men-
tioned, there is onl.y one (Ja 4^) in which laugliter is referred to,
— and this is obviouslj' a reminiscence of Christ's savings as
reported in Lk 62i- 25, — and one other in which jesting {ii-rpx-
TiXia.) * is forbidden to the Christian by St. Paul (Eph S-i). The
word which does occur in NT, and which is characteristic of it,
is x'^-P'^ (^3 times), xa-ipcu (6 times) ; but this is almost alwajs a
restrained and chastened joy rather than one which breaks out
into laughter — describing the condition of the mind rather
than the expression of the emotions. A stronger word, imply-
ing more emotional demonstration, is kyixXKio.ai ; see esp. Lk
1021, where it seems to be imjilied that Jesus manifested His
joy by outward signs ; the word in l^i- 44 (j-JS (,rx.tp-ri.u) is
stronger still, and can hardly be used except where almost
extravagant demonstrations of pleasure are intended.

It has been too readily inferred from the com-
parative absence in NT of allusions to mirth, that
Jesus was characterized by a certain sobriety of
demeanour whicii precludes us from thinking of
Him as ever laughing or even smiling, and that '
Christianity from the first discouraged anything
in the form of laughter-provoking mirth. Thus
the statements — ' V* e are never told that (Jesus)
laughed, while Ave are once told that He Mejit'
(Earrar, Life of Christ, p. 242); 'we never read
that Jesus laughed, and but once that He rejoiced
in spirit' (Jer. Taylor), and similar statements are
based on nothing more than a dim and untrust-
worthj' tradition, t and convey an impression
wliich is far from being warranted by the general
tenor of the Gospel narrative. The common use of
the title ' Man of Sorrows,' dictated no doubt hy
the deepest motives, and the conventional portraits
of Christ, showing Him alwa.ys pensive and often
sorrowful, have been responsible for fostering the
thought of a Christ who was constantly grave, if
not sad. A writer like Renan goes to the opposite
extreme ; but there is at least as much .support for
his representation of a teacher whose ' sweet gaiety
constantly found expression in lively reflexions
and kindly pleasantries.' J ^Yhat evidence there
is, indeed, is on the whole against the traditional
view. Jesus dcHnitely dissociated Himself from
the austerer school of His time (Lk 5^3^-, Mt 9",
Mk 2'") ; He made it a habit to enter convivial
assemblies, and was a guest at feasts where
laughter, jest, and song were a part of the order of
the day;§ He Avatched, if He did not join in, the
merry games of children (Lk 7^-), and loved their
company. He chose, as an analogy for the joy of
God over a redeemed .soul, the exuberant merry-

* See Trench, Synonyms, s. r. ; and cf. ' the pleasantries of
fools' (xiy-piTi! iJMom), Sir 2013.

t The alleged Ep. of P. Lentulus, Procons. of Jud^a, to the
Roman .Senate.

Vie de Jesus, 1879, p. 196.

§ Edersheim, describing marriage-feasts, says, ' Not a few
instances of riotous merriment and even dubious jokes on the
part of the greatest Rabbis are mentioned ' (Life and Times of
Jesus tlie Messiah, i. p. 355).

LAUGHTER

making (Lk 15-*- -') of a father to whom his son
was restored,* and in bidding His disciples rejoice
in their very tribulations, uses a word which
suggests vehement demonstrations of joy (Lk 6-^).
There is nothing in the Gospels to encourage the
supposition that He frowned upon innocent mirth
or checked its exhibition in His followers. On
the contrary, on one occasion at least, He declined
to interfere with a spontaneous outburst of ex-
hilaration on their part (Lk 19^"). He bade them,
even when they fasted, not be of a sad counten-
ance (Mt 6^^), and His chief concern was not so
much to regulate the manner of their joy as to
purify its motive (Lk 10"*').

Against the a priori view that Jesus never
laughed, a view which is based upon a misdirected
reverence and a one-sided conception of His nature,
has to be set the consideration that such a view
tends to dehunianize the ' Son of Man. ' The faculty
for laughter, as recent psychologists have shown,
is eminently human, and its absence is a defect. t
There may be saintly men to whom anything like
boisterous hilarity is impossible, but he whose face
is never lit with a smile, and whose voice never
has the infectious ring of joy, is lacking in full-
orbed humanity (cf. Carlyle, Sartor, ad init.). If
Jesus showed the natural emotions of sorrow,
there is every reason to suppose that He showed
those of joy.

There is as little support for the view that the
NT encourages a religion in which laughter finds
no legitimate place. The first disciples of Jesus,
like those of St. Francis, who became known
as joculatores Domini, appear to have shown a
vivacity and cheerfulness in complete contrast to
the rigid and frigid demeanour engendered by
Pharisaism ; and this attitude was encouraged by
their Master, who did not expect ' the sons of the
bride-chamber ' to mourn so long as the ' bride-
groom' was with them (Mt 9l^ cf. IS^- ").

But there is more to be said. Nearly all the
world's greatest teachers have employed laughter,
in one or other of its subtler forms, as a means of
gaining a hearing for the truth they had to deliver.
Was Jesus an exception to this rule? Is there
any real reason for refusing to apjjly to His case
the saying, Ridentem diccre verum quid vetat ?
Can it be said that He never used the Socratic
method of proving the reasonableness of His
teaching by showing the incongruous and even
ridiculous position in which those who rejected it
involved themselves? It has been very generally
assumed that such a method was beneath the
dignity, or foreign to the nature of the Son of
God. Thus it is said, ' He brought peace wher-
ever He came, but He never awakened mirth . . .
The inquiry whether Jesus had the sense of
humour is not simply trivial and irreverent ; it
betrays a fundamental misconception of that holy
life of redeeming love.' J The question, however,
cannot be so easily disposed of. In the Gospels
there are sayings of Jesus which a rational
exegesis finds it almost impossible to explain apart
from the assumption that they show a vein of
humour. Indeed, the writer jiist quoted admits
that Jesus ' deigned to make use of the quaint and
often humorous maxims so dear to the common
folk.' It is allowed by Avriters of the most
ortliodox school that irony and satire were used
by Jesus upon occasion ; if He saw fit to employ
these sterner weapons, the gentler one of humour
would not be beneath Him. When Jesus says to
the Jews, ' ^lany good works have I showed you

* w(fpce.hi<r6a.i in Lk. is specially used of convivial mirth (ste

1219 1523).

t See James Sully, Essay on Laxighter.

X See art. ' Our Lord's Use of Common Proverbs,' Expositor,
Dec. 1902.

from my Father ; for which of these works do ye
stone me ? ' the touch of irony is unmistakable
(Jn 10^-),* as it is also in the expression 'ever-
lasting tents' (Lk 16"). When He says to His
disciples, ' Sleep on now ' (Mk 14''i), it is in a tone
of gentle raillery ; t and His conversation with the
Syrophcenician woman is in the same tone (T'-^''^')-
His answer to the lawyer, ' This do and thou
slialt live,' seems to be most naturally inter-
preted as ironical (Lk 10^^). The reply to His
critics, ' I came not to call the righteous, but
sinners' (Mk 2^''), is in the same vein, as is the
passage, ' Full well (/caXtos) do ye reject the com-
mandment of God ' (7^). In Mt 6", literalists have
sought in vain to prove that it was a practice
among Pharisaic almsgivers to ' sound a trumpet ' ;
obviously the jiassage is satirical. The element of
satire runs through the scathing denunciations of
the Pharisees and scribes (23, etc.). But the
crucial instance is the parable of the Unjust
Steward (Lk 16^"^). Commentators have exhausted
their ingenuity in devising all possible and im-
possible explanations of Christ's commendation of
the steward, through failing to see that the whole
passage is sarcastic, pouring laughter upon the
futile trust that men put in the power of
mammon ; v.^ in particular is ' a sudden turn of
the sublimest and most crushing irony.' J

But if it was in keeping with the mission of
Jesus that He should use irony, still more natural
was it that humour (wli. see) should enter into
His speech. Humour is in its nature both human
and humane. The greatest humorists have been
the best lovers of men and the most endowed with
sympathy (c.f^. 'gentle' Shakspeare and Charles
Lamb). The foremost religious teachers have
almost invariably been possessed of humour, and
have proved the truth of Milton's dictum (Preface
to Animadvcrsio7%s upon the, Remonstrant) that
' the vein of laughing hath ofttimes a strong
and sinewy force in teaching and confuting.' It
is probable that the reluctance, which has existed
from early times, to admit any tone of raillery or
playfulness in Christ's teaching, has been respons-
ible for the loss of the original force of some of His
sayings. Jesus has suflered from His reporters.
Yet enough passages remain to show that this
element was often present. The pictures of a
man endeavouring to serve two masters at once
(Mt 6-'*), of another who feeds swine with pearls
(7^), of a camel trying to get through a needle's
eye (19-^), of a light being put under a bushel
(5^^), of him who sees a splinter in his Ijrother's
eye, but fails to notice the beam in his own
(7^), of Beelzebub at variance with Beelzebub
(12-^^-)> of men who liave eyes but do not see (Mk
8^*), of one blind man guiding another (Mt VS^^), of
a father who should give his son a stone instead of
a loaf (7^) — these are all instances of that per-
ception of the incongruous which is the soul of
huniour.§ We know that Jesus sometimes used
words with a play upon their meaning (Lk S^*', INIt
4^^ Lk O""). The ready way in which He answers
a question by propounding another which at first
seems irrelevant (:\It 20- 21-^), His unexpected
manner of turning the tables upon a critic (Lk
■jssff.)^ His use of illustrations which would cause,
by their homely aptness, an involuntary smile
(I\Ik 2=\ Lk 11"), His epigrammatic Avay of putting
a trutli so as to give a sudden satisfaction (]Mk
22"), and His use of daring hyperbole (Lk 19^»),|1

* Westcott, in loc.

t Cf. F. W. Robertson, Serm. (2nd ser.) xx. 'The Irreparable
Past.*

t See Expositor. Dec. 1895 ; Good Words, Oct. 1SC7.

§ Cf. the Logion of Grenfell and Hunt : ' Thou hearest with
one ear (but the other thou bast closed).'

II Cf. the obscure sa^^n<r, reported by Papias and quoted by
IrensBus (adv. Ear. v. 33. 3), of the vine with ten thousand

are indications that Jesus thought it not beneath
Him to laugh with those that laugh.

On this whole subject nothing can be more just
than the words of A. B. Bruce (Parabolic Teaching
of Christ, p. 149) :

' With pathos often goes humour, and so it is in the parables.
. . . The spirit of Jesus was too earnest to indulge in idle
mirth ; but just because He was so earnest and so sympathetic,
He expressed Himself at times in a manner which provokes a
smile ; laughter and tears, as it were, mingling in His eyes as
He spake. It were a fai^e propriety which took for granted
that an expositor was ne'':essarily off the track, because in his
interpretation of these parables an element of holj- playfulness
appears blended with the deep seriousness which per\ades
them throughout.'

LiTERATURK. — Martensen, Chr. Ethics, i. 186 ff. ; D. Smith in
Exp. Times, xii. [1901] 546 ; Expositor, ii. viii. [1884] 92 ff. ; Well-
don, Fire Upon the Altar, 105 ; G. H. Morrison, Sun-rise, p. 43.

J. Ko,ss Murray.
LAW. — The question of Christ's relation to the
Jewisli law is one of fund.amental importance for
the origin of Christianity, but at the .same time
one of peculiar difficulty. The difficulty arises, to
some extent, from the fact that His own teaching
marks a period of transition, when the old was
already antiquated, while the neAV was still un-
born. A further difficulty is created by the rela-
tion in which the actual conduct of Jesus stood to
the principles which He laid down. Moreover, the
question arises whether His attitude remained the
same through the whole course of His ministry, or
whether He came to realize that His fundamental
principles carried Him further than He had at
first anticipated. Lastly, when we remember how
bitter was the strife which this very question
aroused in the primitive Church, the misgiving is
certainly not unreasonable, that this may have
been reflected back into the life of the Founder,
and sayings placed in His mouth endorsing one of
the later partisan views. Our present subject is
that of the Ceremonial Law.

It must be clearly recognized that the distinction between
moral and cereinonial law is not one sanctioned in the Law
itself. All its parts alike were the command of God. The dis-
tinction has maintained its vitality in virtue of a praiseworthy
ethical interest. The antinomianism of St. Paul seemed to
endanger morality, and those who could not rise to his point
of view, that it was precisely in this way that morality was
secured, turned Christianity into a new legalism, and explained
his doctrine that tlie Law was abolished to mean that Christians
were no longer compelled to practise .Jewish ceremonies. This
was, of course, to reduce much that he said to the umneaning.
It is precisely the moral law that St. Paul had chiefly in mind.
The Decalogue is described as ' the ministration of death written
and engraven on stones ' (2 Co 3" RV) ; and, to illustrate the sin-
producing effects of the Law, St. Paul quotes one of the Ten
Commandments (Ro 7"). His doctrine was unquestionably
that the Law as a whole was done away for all who were in
Clirist, inasmuch as they had crucified the flesh, which was the
home of sin, and thus had lost everything to which the Law
could appeal as provocation to sin, while they had escaped into
the freedom of the Spirit, and could therefore no longer be under
the constraint of the Law. But even St. P.aul was forced to
recognize that his magnificent idealism was not milk for babes,
hence moral exhortation found a large place in his Epistles,
side by side with the loftiest assertions of a Christian's freedom
from sin, flesh, and the Li w. But St. Paul is quite explicit that
this freedom is to be strenuously maintained in the sphere of
Jewish ceremonies, especially circumcision, and sacred days and
seasons. On the other hand, a party in the Early Church in-
sisted passionately on the permanent validity of the Law, and
especially of circumcision, as essential to salvation. It lies be-
yond our limits to trace the history of this controversy, but a
reference to it is necessary for the reason already indicated.

Jesus was Himself born into a Jewish home,
and the rites prescribed by the Jewish law were
scru]nilously fulfilled in His case. His parents
did not belong to the ranks of the Pharisees, hence
His early training was healthier than that of St.
Paul ; but He, like His great Apostle, was born
under the Law (Gal 4'^), and initiated by circum-
cision into the Covenant on the eighth day (Lk 2-').
His mother presented Him as her firstborn male
child to the Lord in the Temple, and offered the

stems. In its exuberant playfulness of fancy it exceeds any-
thing in the Gospels ; it is probably based on an actual saying
of Christ (see Westcott, Introd. p. 433).

sacrifice of purificati9n prescribed in the Law (Lk
2--"-'*), and thus ' accomplished all things that were
according to the law of the Lord' (Lk 2^"). Joseph
and Mary went up each year to the feast of the
Passover at Jerusalem (Lk 2^^). So far as we can
see, Jesus Himself was a strict observer of the
Law. Whatever His attitude towards it during
His ministry, we may assume without question
that, till He was conscious of His Messianic voca-
tion, His obedience to the Law was scrupulously
and heartily rendered. It lay in the nature of the
case, however, that the old bottles of Judaism
should be unfit to receive the new wine of the
Kingdom with which He knew Himself to be in-
trusted. The question whether this was clear to
Him from the first, or whether it became clear
only in the cour.se of His controversy with the
scribes, cannot be answered with certainty, in view
of the doubt which hangs over the chronology of
the ministry. And His conduct here was regu-
lated by much the same need for reserve as He
practised in reference to His self-revelation as
Messiah. A premature declaration would have
created an extremely difficult situation. All He
could do was to utter His principles and leave the
practical inferences to be drawn, when the time
was ripe, by those who shared His spirit.

On one great branch of this question, however,
Jesus expressed Himself clearly and without com-
promise. The morbid anxiety of the scribes to
make a hedge about the Law so that all possible
approaches to its violation might be blocked, added
to the hair-splitting casuistry in which moralists
of their type delighted, and the lawyer's instinct
for precise and exhaustive definition, had led to
the elaboration of the precepts in the Law into a
vast system of tradition. Moreover, the heavier
the burden grew, the greater grew the temptation
to find a literal fulfilment which should be an
escape from the spirit. All this apparatus of
piety demanded leisure to master and perform,
such leisure as no man with his daily bread to earn
could command ; hence arose a morality unfitted
for the normal human life. Against all this tra-
dition Jesus entered an emphatic protest. His
attitude towards it was wholly difterent from that
which He assumed towards the written Law. The
scribes made void by their tradition the word of
God, and every plant which His heavenly Father
had not planted He said should be rooted u\).
Nevertheless, in vindicating the Law against the
tradition, He enunciated principles which pointed
forward to the abolition of both. The points on
which He came into conflict with Jewish cere-
monialism were Fasting, the law of Uncleanness,
the Temple service, and the cancelling of primary
human duties by feigned respect for duties to God.

1. If the order of incidents in the Gospel of St.
Mark could be accepted as chronological, the first
collision of Jesus with the representatives of the
tradition was occasioned by His eating with pub-
licans and sinners at the house of Levi (Mk 2'^"';).
Although stress cannot be laid on the order in
which the incidents are narrated, this furnishes
us with an excellent illustration of the way in
which the fundamental ideas of Jesus brought
Him into conflict with the religious prejudices of
His time. His doctrine of the Fatherhood of God
and of the incomparable value of the human soul
were fundamental convictions. To this was added
the consciousness of His own mission to restore
the lost children to their Father. Hence He
met the criticism of His conduct in associating
with the degraded by the explanation that He was
a physician, and where was the physician's place
but in the midst of the sick ? There is indeed a
terrible irony in the words, for there were none
whose moral and religious health was, to the eyes

of Jesus, in a more desperate condition than that of
His critics. But scandalized as they might be by
conduct so unprofessional on the part of a teacher,
there was an obvious conclusiveness in the reply of
Jesus which could have been evaded only by the
assertion that the salvation of such people was not
desirable. The two types of holiness emerge in
clear contradiction — the type which seeks to avoid
all contact with the contaminating in order that
personal purity may not be compromised, and the
type that is entirely forgetful of self in its zeal
for the regeneration of others. It is in connexion
with a similar accusation that St. Luke relates the
parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Drachma, and
the Lost Son (Lk 15). Similarly Christ's lodging
with Zacchseus the publican gave rise to criticism ;
and here again Jesus explained His action by His
mission : ' The Son of 5lan came to seek and to
save that which was lost' (Lk 19^").

2. The second point in which the new type dis-
played a contrast with the old was in the matter
of Fasting. Wonder was excited that, while the
Pharisees and the disciples of the Baptist fasted,
the disciples of Jesus neglected this religious exer-
cise. The Pharisees fasted twice in the week, on
Monday and Thursday. What fasts were observed
by the disciples of John we do not know. But the
distinction Avas not one simply between disciples,
it went back to the leaders. The Baptist was an
ascetic, clothed in camel's hair and a leathern
girdle, with locusts and wild honey for his food ;
his congenial home was the desert, his message
one of judgment to come, the axe already lying at
the root of the tree. He came neither eating nor
drinking, and this unsociable disposition called
forth the charge that he had a devil. Jesus, on
the other hand, was no ascetic ; so little of an
ascetic, in fact, that His enemies taxed Him with
over-indulgence : ' The Son of Man came eating
and drinking, and they say, Behold a gluttonous
man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and
sinners' (Mt IP"). Jesus defends His disciples
against the criticism implied in the question, ' Why
do John's disciples and the disciples of the Phari-
sees fast, but thy disciples fast not?' (Mk 2^^) by
the answer, ' Can the sons of the bride-chamber
fast while the bridegroom is with them ? as long
as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot
fast.' The principle underlying this is that the
external practice must be a spontaneous expression
of the inward feeling. Fasting is out of place in
their present circumstances, they have the bride-
groom with them, therefore all is joy and festivity.
It would be a piece of unreality to introduce into
their present religious life an element so incongru-
ous. But He proceeds : ' The days will come,
when the bridegroom shall be taken away from
them, and then will they fast in that day.' The
reference is to His own death ; and possibly the
foreboding expressed should lead us to assign this
incident to His later ministry, after the declaration
of Messiahship had been made and the prediction
of death had been uttered. On the other hand,
the veiled allusion makes it possible that those
who heard it would not catch His meaning, and
we can, in that case, assign it to a late date only
if we are clear that Jesus Himself became con-
scious at a comparatively late period in His mini-
stry of the deatli that awaited Him. The incident
itself rather makes the impression that it belongs
to the earlier period of Christ's activity. This
was one of the respects in which failure to conform
to conventional piety would early attract attention.

Wellhausen reyards the incident as unauthentic. He points
to the curious fact that the question is one between the dis-
ciples of the Baptist and of Jesus, and draws the inference
that it is a justification for the deviation of the later practice of
Christ's followers from that of Jesus Himself, who in practice
conformed strictly to the Judaism of His time. He confirms

this by pointing out that as a matter of fact the bridegroom is
not taken away from wedding festivities, and here therefore
the choice of expression has been determined by the actual fact
of Christ's removal by death. However plausible this sug-
gestion may be, the sayings bear rather the stamp of Jes\is
than of the early Apostolic Church. The criticism of the dis-
ciples rather than of Jesus has its parallel in the incident of the
plucking of the ears of corn on the Sabbath and the disciples
eating with unwashed hands, and the temper of the Master was
much freer than that of the timidly legalistic disciples.

In the Sermon on tlie Mount fasting is recognized
as a fitting religious exercise ; but, as in the case of
prayer and almsgiving, it is essential, for its true
religious quality to be preserved, that it should be
practised without ostentation. The religious self-
advertisement which characterized the Pharisees
eviscerated these exercises of all their value. They
were to be a secret between a man and his God.
In the most rigorous fa.sts washing and anointing
were forbidden (Taanith, i. 6), while they were
allowed in the less severe (ib. i. 4f. ). Jesus bids
His followers anoint the head and wash the face
when they fast, that no one may be able to detect
that they are fasting (Mt 6"^"'*). See Fasting.

Immediately following the defence of the dis-
ciples for not fasting, we have in all the Synoptics
(Mt 9i«-, Mk 22"-, Lk 5^^-) the sayings about the
undre.ssed cloth and the new wine in the old wine-
skins. The parables are difficult ; the lesson
taught is clearly the incompatibility of the new
with the old, and the disaster that will inevitably
follow any attempt to combine them. But it is
by no means clear with what ' old ' and ' new '
should be identified, nor again can we assume that
both parables express the same truth. It is pos-
sible, though improbable, that Jesus may intend
by ' the old ' the ancient piety of the Old Testa-
ment, and by ' the new ' the new-fangled regula-
tions of the scribes, His sense being that the old
Divinely-given mode of life is being ruined by the
tradition of men. But it is more likely that the
usual view is right, according to Avliich ' the old '
is Judaism and ' the new ' is the gospel. Even
so, however, various interpretations are possible.
Usually it has been thought that in both sayings
Jesus is defending the attitude of His disciples :
you cannot expect the new spirit of the gospel to
be cast in the old moulds of Judaism ; the new
spirit must create new forms for itself. Weiss,
however, considers that both i)arables constitute
a defence of the attitude of John's disciples, they
cannot be expected to combine the spirit of the
Gospel with their legalist and ascetic habit of
life {Bibl. Thcol. of NT, i. 112). It is possible,
however, that Beyschlag is correct in thinking
that the parable of the undressed cloth on the
old garment is a justification of John's disciples in
fasting, while the parable of the new wine in the
old bottles is a justification of the disciples of Jesus
for refusing to follow their example {NT Theol.
i. 114). The two sayings are connected by ' and,'
it is true, but this conjtinction has in the Synop-
tics a wider range of meaning than in English.
Wellhausen finds the sayings difficult. He is not
disposed to question their authenticity, though, as
already mentioned, he strikes out the sayings
immediately preceding.

3. Another point in which Jesus came into con-
flict with the tradition was that of Ablutions
(Mk 7^"^- Ij). To secure that nothing ceremonially
unclean should be eaten, the Jews were verj'
scrupulous in washing the hands before meals.
The laws of cleanness and uncleanness touch life
so much more closely than any others, that the
casuistry of the scribes naturally finds in this
matter a large field of exercise. The largest of
the six books of the Mishna is given uji to this
topic. The purification of vessels alone occupies
thirty chapters of this book. The Pentateuch
itself exhibits more than the usual tendency to

casuistry in this matter, but the tradition left
the Law out of sight in tlie elaborateness of its
regulations. In the time of Jesus tradition had
become very strict with reference to the washing
of the hands. The practice originated with the
Pharisees, but was adopted by almost all the
Jews. Even when the hands were ceremonially
clean it was necessary to wash them, no doubt
to guard against the possibility of unconscious
d«Hlenient. If they were known to be unclean,
they had to be washed twice before a meal ; they
were also washed after food ; and some Pharisees
washed even between the courses. The hands were
held with the fingers up, so that the uncleanness
might be washed down from them ; and for the
ceremony to be effectual it was necessary that
the water should run down to the wrist (though
we should probably not translate Trvyfiri, Mk 7*,
' to the wrist ' ; see Swete, ad loc. ). In Jn 2^ we
read of the six stone water-pots for the water of
purification at the marriage in Cana ; and the same
Gospel tells us how the Jews purified themselves
for the Passover (IP'^), or took precautions against
defilement which would disqualify them from eating
it (18-8).

It was therefore natural that the neglect of some
of the disciples should evoke criticism ; and this
criticism was uttered by officials from Jerusalem
who had come down to watch the new movement
(Mk 7'). No mention is made here of any viola-
tion of tlie tradition on the part of Jesus Himself ;
thougli in Lk IP"^ we are told that the Pharisee,
at whose house Jesus was eating, was surprised
that He neglected this ceremony. Jesus defended
His disciples by a complete repudiation of the
tradition. He pointed out that its effect Avas to
nullify tlie Law rather than to establish it ; and
He illustrated this from the practice of dedicating
to God that which ought to have been used by
a man for the support of his parents. To this
point it will be necessary to return. But in con-
nexion with the question of hand-washing Jesus
enunciated a principle of far-reaching importance
which not only set aside the tradition, but even
abrogated a large section of the Law. He asserted
that not that which is without a man can, by
going into liim, defile him, but the things which
proceed out of the man. The heart is the essential
thing, food cannot come into contact with that ;
but it is in it that evil thoughts, words, or actions
have their rise, and it is these that make a man
unclean. Not what a man eats, but what he is,
determines the question of his purity. Thus Jesus
lifted the whole conception of cleanness and un-
cleanness out of the ceremonial into the ethical
domain. But it is plain that this carried with it
revolutionary conclusions, not only as to the tradi-
tion, but as to the Law ; for much of the Law was
occupied precisely witli the uncleanness created
by external things, and it is not improbable that
St. Mark has definitely drawn tliis inference in
liis Gospel.

It is possible that the usual view taken of the passage, ac-
cording to which the words ' making all meats clean ' (Mk 719)
are the concluding words of Jesus, should be accepted. This
involves, however, a grammatical irregularity, and we ought
perhaps to adopt the view taken by Origen, Gregory Thauma-
turgus, and Chrysostom, ably defended by Field (Notes on the
Translation of the NT, pp. 31, 32) and adopted by RV, Weizsiicker,
Swete, Gould, Salmond, that they are the "comment of the
Evangelist, and that we should translate ' this he said, making
all meats clean.' On the other hand, the notes of Menzies and
Wellhausen on the passage may be consulted.

The evasion of the Law by the Tradition here asserted by
Jesus has been affirmed by some Jewish scholars not to have
existed. (The reader may consult an appendix on 'Legal
Evasions of the Law," by Dr. Schechter in Montefiore's Hibbert
Lectures, pp. 557-563; an article by Montefiore on 'Jewish
Scholarship and Christian Silence ' in the Hibbert Journal for
Jan. 1903 ; the rejoinder to this by Menzies in July 1903, with
a further rejoinder by Montefiore' in Oct. 1903.) "it is urged
that the reference in the Jewish treatise Nedarim does not

confirm the statement in St. Mark about Corban. Dr. Menziea
accepts this ; but when that is said, the matter is \>y no means
ended. To the present writer it seems that the evidence of
St. Mark is quite good evidence for the contemporary Judaism.
If the assertion about Corban is untrue, of course it cannot be
ascribed to Jesus, who could not have quoted, as a conclusive
proof that the Jews cancelled the Law by their tradition, an
example which His hearers would know to have no existence.
Accordingly, if the statement is mistaken, it would have to be
put down to the account of the Evangelist, though how he
should have hit upon it unless such a custom was actually in
vogue would be difficult to understand. In forming our judg-
ment on a question of this kind certain leading principles must
be kept in mind. The contemporary Judaism is most imper-
fectly known to us, and the documents which we have to use
as our sources of information are, in manj- instances, centuries
later than the rise of Christianity. Further, the stereotyping
of Judaism must not be blindlj- accepted as if it guaraViteed
that doctrines or practices for which we have only late literary
attestation were already developed in the time of Christ. We
must remember that Judaism did not live in an intellectual
vacuum, but in an atmosphere saturated with Christian germs.
Especiallj', we cannot forget that controversy went on between
Jews and Christians ; and under its pressure it is by no means
unreasonable to believe that Judaism may have undergone a
considerable modification, above all, in the elimination of matter
which proved susceptible to criticism. In the light of these
principles the present writer has no hesitation in regarding the
statement in St. Mark as good evidence tor the existence of the
practice of Corban in the time of Christ.

i. The next question touches Christ's relation
to tlie Temple. His personal attitude towards it
was that of a loyal Jew. Not only did He as a
boy of twelve years recognize it as His Father's
liouse (Lk 2^^), but, after He had entered on His
ministry, He cleansed it hy driving out the money-
changers, and overturning the stalls of the traders
(iMt 2p2ff- II). According to the Fourth Gospel, His
visits to Jerusalem were largely connected with the
feasts. In His Sermon on the Mount He assumes
that His disciples will otter sacrifice, and only
requires that, before he otrers, a man shall be recon-
ciled to his brother (Mto"^'-)- In His great indict-
ment of the scribes and Pharisees He rebukes them
for their ruling that an oath by the temple or by
the altar counts for nothing, while an oath by the
gold of the temple, or a gift at the altar, is binding.
The temple is greater than its gold, and makes it
holy ; and similarly it is by the altar that the gift
is sanctified. To swear by the altar is to swear
not only by it, but by the ott"ering placed upon it ;
while to swear by the temple is to swear not only
by it and all that it contains, but by Him who
dwells therein (Mi 23i«f- 1|). But all this loyal re-
cognition of the place filled by the temple and the
honour due to it Avas combined Avith an iuAvard
detachment from it, Avhich Avas a presage of the
ultimate deliverance of Christianity from its con-
nexion Avith it. This comes out very clearly in the
story of the stater in the fish's mouth (Mt H"^^-).
The very doubt Avhicli Avas implied in the question
Avhether Jesus paid the lialf - shekel Avhich Avas
levied as a temple -tax is most significant as to
the drift toAvards freedom, Avhich Avas already de-
tected in His teaching. Tliat He had not repudi-
ated tlie toll, Peter is aAvare ; but the reason for
His obedience comes out plainly in the conversa-
tion He has Avith Peter on the subject. Taxes are
taken by monarchs not from their sons, but from
strangers. Therefore, since Jesus knoAvs that He
and His disciples are not aliens to God, but His
children, the inference is that no payment of the
tax can be legitimately expected from the chil-
dren of the Kingdom. Jesus, hoA\'ever, bids Peter
pay the tax for both, to avoid giving offence. In
other Avords, Jesus regarded Himself and members
of His Kingdom as released from every obligation
to pay the half - shekel for the service of the
temple, even if, in tender concession to the
feelings of others, they did not aA^ail themselves
of their liberty. The temple-due in question Avas
not definitely commanded in the LaAV, though it
Avas a not unnatural deduction from Ex 30^^,
Avhich Avas itself a development of the rule of

Neheniiali that there slioiild be an annual pay-
ment of a tliird of a shekel for the temple service
(Neh W--^^). The temple itself, Christ predicted,
would be destroyed. However we may explain
the saying, ' Destroy this temple, and I will build
it up in three days' (Jn '2'''), He certainly foretold
in His eschatological discourse (]Mt 24-) the over-
throw of the literal temple, and therewith naturally
the cessation of the Jewish cultus.

It is not improbable that the saying, ' Destroy this temple,'
should be similarly interpreted. The autlienticity of the utter-
ance is guaranteed by the use made of it in the trial of Jesus
(Jlk 145»), and the similar accusation at the trial of Stephen
(Ac (ji-*), as well as the taunt addressed to Jesus on the cross
(Mk 15-^). It is true that the author of the Fourth Gospel
interprets the saying as a reference to the body of Christ,
fulfilled in the death and the resurrection. But this inter-
pretation did not at the time occur either to the Jews or to
the disciples. The retort of the former showed that they under-
stood the reference to be to the literal temple, while the Evan-
gelist ex]5ressly says that the interpretation he adopts occurred
to the disciples only after the resurrection. It is, in fact, very
difficult to believe that the saying referred to the death and
resurrection of Jesus. In its connexion with the desecration
and cleansing of the actual temple the allusion could naturall}-
be nothing less than to its destruction, unless Jesus made His
meaning clear by pointing to His body. But in that case the
misunderstanding on the part of the Jews and the disciples
would have been impossible, even if we leave aside the objection
that so unveiled an allusion to His death and resurrection at
this early period is most unlikely. Moreover, the contrast
with the temple made with hands (Mk 14'**) does not at all
suit the human body. A difficulty, liowever, is raised by the
Johannine version of the saying. We niaj-, perhaps, assume
tliat the latter is to be preferred to the version of the witnesses
at the trial, in that it refers the work of destruction not to Jesus
Himself, but to the Jews. Their present course of desecration,
if they persist in it, will lead to the destruction of the temple.
But it is not easy to believe that Jesus can have said that He
would rebuild the temple that had been destroyed. Here the
version of the witnesses is intrinsically the more credible, that
He would build another temjile in its place. And the contrast
between the temple made with hands and the temple made
without hands bears also the stamp of authenticity ; the new is
not simply to be a reproduction of the old, it is to be not a
material, but a spiritual, structure. We nia.y therefore conclude
with some confidence that Jesus definitely anticipated the de-
struction of the centre of Jewish worship and the substitution
of a spiritual temple in its place.

In the conversation with the woman of Samaria
(Jn 4), Jesus is represented as dealing sjiecifically
with the question of the legitimate sanctuary as
against the Samaritan temple (vv. -""-■*). He gives
His verdict in favour of the temple at Jerusalem,
but He asserts that the hour has already come
for both sanctuaries to lose whatever exclusive
legitimacy they may possess. The true worship
of God transcends all local limitations ; for God is
spirit, and as such cannot be localized ; and the
worship He desires is a worship in spirit and in
truth. There is no reason whatever for supposing
that here the Evangelist is putting his own doc-
trine into the mouth of Jesus. The pregnant
aphoristic form and penetrating insight of the
saying stamp it as authentic. Moreover, it is
quite in the line of the other teachings of Jesus
Mith reference to the temple. He recognizes that
the temple is His Father's house, and yet looks
forward to its destruction ; and similarly here He
asserts the legitimacy of the Jewish as against
the Samaritan tem]ile, and yet looks forward to
the s])eedy termination of worship in it.

5. It is certainly a very striking fact, in view of
the immense importance attached in Judaism to
the rite, tiiat Jesus nowhere raises the question
of the permanence of Circumciaion. Had He pro-
nounced upon it, the bitter controversy excited by
the question in the primitive Ciiurch could hardly
have arisen. But, naturally, occasion for discussing
it did not so readily arise, and it was part of the
method of Jesus to leave questions of practice to
be settled by His disciples under the guidance of
the Spirit and in the light of principles with
which He had imbued them. There can be no
reasonable doubt that St. Paul drew the true
Christian inference. Tlie great principle, that

the external was unimportant in comparison with
the inward, expressed in the abolition by Jesus ol
the Levitical laws as to unclean food, and in His
doctrine that for worship in the material temple
there was to be substituted worshii) in spirit and
in truth, carried with it the conclusion that as a
purely external rite circumcision could have no
place in the religion of the spirit. Moreover, it
was the sign of the (;)ld Covenant ; but Jesus knew
that His blood consecrated a New Covenant. This
implied the abolition of the Old Covenant, and
naturallj' the abolition of circumcision, which was
its sign. Indeed, the Old Testament itself was on
the way to this, not simplj' in Jeremiah's predic-
tion (3P"^*) of the New Covenant, but in the pro-
phetic demand for a circumcision of the heart
( Jer 4* 92« ; cf. Ezk 44^ Lv 26^^). Here, as else-
where, the attitude of Jesus linked itself closely
to that previously taken hj the prophets. Nor
must we forget that Jesus contemplated that His
religion would become universal. This in itself
suggested the abolition of a rite which possessed
no spiritual value, and was at tiie same time an
almost insuperable barrier to the wide acceptance
among the cultured of a religion that required it
for full membership. See, further, art. CIRCUM-
CISION.

6. We have left till the last the much-debated
passage Mt 5^""^**, since it is helpful in our inter-
pretation of it to have before us the application
of the pi-incijile in detail. The opening words of
the passage, ' Think not that I am come to destroy
the law or the i)ro2)hets,' show clearly that Jesus
was conscious that His teaching might not un-
justifiably seem to carry this implication with it.
There was an element which suggested a revolu-
tionary attitude, but it was a mistaken inference
that He meant to destroy the Law or the Prophets ;
it was His intention to fulill them. It is imi>ortant
to observe here and elsewhere the way in whicli
Jesus combines the Prophets with the Law. Un-
like the current theology of His time. His teaching
brought the Prophets into equal prominencte with
the Law ; and it is of the OT system as a whole
tiiat He is thinking, and not simply of the legal
enactments which constituted for tiie Rabbis almost
the whole of religion. Yet it would be a mistake
to infer that tlie Levitical requii'ements are here
left out of sight. It is true that both the Rabbis
and Je.sus recognized degrees of importance among
the laws, though their emphasis was very difl'er-
ently ])laced. Yet the Levitical laws were equally
with others regarded by Jesus as laws of God, .so
that, in a comprehensive statement of tiie relation
of His teaching to the religion of the OT, He could
not leave them out of account. Now, Ave have
already seen that the teaching of Jesus came into
conflict not simply with the Tradition of the Elders,
but with the Levitical laws of purity ; that He ex-
plicitly abolished the laws of clean and unclean
food, and looked forward to the cessation of the
temple worship. Accordingly, we must give such
a sense to His words as will harmonize the ex-
planation of His intention not to destroy the Law
with the fact tljat He did abolish some of its
precepts, and contemplate the impossibility,
through the destruction of the temple, of a
large part of its injunctions. The unifjnng con-
ception is contained in the word 'fulfil' (ir\7]p&&aL).
Jesus does not mean that He came to render a
perfect obedience to the Law and the Propliets
in His own life. The fulfilment forms an anti-
tiiesis to the destruction. The destruction was
such as would be accomplished by His teaching,
not by His action, and similarly the fulfilment is
something effected by His teaching. Besides, it
is very difficult to believe that with the freedom
of His principles, Jesus should have attached any

imijortance to the perfect carrying out in action
of the Law and the Prophets. Wliat is meant is
that, to use a familiar ilhistration, the gospel
fulfils the Law as the flower fullils the bud. Jesus
sees in the Law a Divinely ordained system, but
He is conscious that it is stamped with immaturity
and defect. His function is to bring out its in-
trinsic significance by disengaging and carrying
to perfection the principles entangled in it. Thus
He does not abrogate the Law, but He transcends
it, and, in doing so, antiquates it. In Beyschlag's
words, it is ' confirmed and transformed in one
breath.' What this means is admirably explained
by Stevens in the following words: 'Jesus fulfils
the OT system by rounding out into entire com-
pleteness what is incom})lete in that system. In
this process of fulfilment all that is imperfect,
provisional, temporary, or, for any reason, needless
to the perfect religion, falls away of its own
accord, and all that is essential and permanent
is conserved and embodied in Christianity' [The
Theolorjij of the New Testament, y. 19).

The two following verses (Mt 5'^- '") create much
difficultj'. They seem to assert a permanence of
the Law and its minutest details, and to affirm
the insignificant place assigned in the Kingdom
to any who should set aside one of the minor
commandments. In view of the attitude adopted
by Jesus towards the laAv of uncleanness, the
Sabbath, and divorce, it is not surjirising that
doubts have been expressed as to the genuineness
of the saying. It is out of the question to argue
with Wendt that ' the law ' is not a written law
but an ideal law, for the reference to the jot and
tittle implies a written law, and there is nothing
to indicate that ' the law ' is used hei'e in two
different senses. Beyschlag argues for the genu-
ineness of the saying, which is also attested by
Lk IG''' ' It is easier for heaven and earth to pass
away, than for one tittle of the law to fail.' If it
is genuine, the best explanation is that given by
Beyschlag, that we must explain here of spiritual
fulfilments. No commandment, even the most
trirting, is a mere empty husk ; each has a Divine
thouglit which must come to its rights before the
husk of the letter is allowed to perish {NT Thcol. i.
110 f. ). It is, however, very difficult to believe that
this interijretation is correct, inasmuch as it would
be hard to understand what Divine idea Jesus could
think was latent in innumerable trifling details of
tlie Law. The immediate impression made by the
Avords is surely that the Law, to its minutest
details, was to be regarded as permanent. When
we remember how bitter was the controversy
created by the question of the Law in the Early
Church, it is not easy to avoid the (conclusion
that here we have an expression from a Jewish-
Christian point of view, according to which Jesus
is made explicitly to disavow the movement led
by St. Paul, not indeed that St. Paul is regarded
as outside the Kingdom, but as one of the least in
it. It would, however, be perhaps too far-fetched
to connect the words ' least in the kingdom of
heaven ' with St. Paul's designation of himself as
the 'least of the apostles.'

Literature.— The subject is discussed in the New Testament
Theologies, the treatises on the Teaching of Jesus, and in the
Lives of Christ and the commentaries. A very able monograph
by R. Mackintosh, Christ and the Jewish Law, is devoted to
the subject. Other works that may be mentioned are : Schiirer,
Die Predict Jesn in ihrem Verhdltniss zum altcn Testament
und zum Judenthum (1882) ; Bousset, Jesu PreMqt in ihrem.
Gegensatz zum Judenthum (1892) ; Jacob, Jesu, Stellung zum
mosaischen Gesetz (1893) ; also the section ' Christus und das
mosaische Gesetz ' in RitSchl's Die Entgtehung der altkathoK-
schen Kirche 2 (1857) ; cf. also Hastings' DB lii. 73-76, and Extra
Vol. p. 22 fl.

See also artt. Free Will and Necessity.

Edgar Daplyn.
LIE, LYING.— See Deceit.

LIFE (fcoTj). — The term applied by Jesus, alike
in the Synoptic and the Johannine records of His
teaching, to the supreme blessing mediated by
Him to men. Certain elements in the conception
are common to the two records, but their difl'erences
are so marked that it will be necessary to consider
them separately.

1. The idea of Life in the Synoptic teaching is
substantially that of the OT, unfolded in all its
potential wealtli of meaning. Hebrew thought,
averse to metaphysical speculation, conceived of
life as the sum of energies which make up man's
actual existence. The soul separated from the
body did not cease to be, but it forfeited its
portion in the true life. It either dei^arted to the
shadoAvy world of Sheol, or, according to the later
view of Ecclesiastes, was reabsorbed (?) into the
Divine Being, — 'returned to God who gave it'
(Ec 12"). Thus the highest good was simply
'length of days,' — the continuance of the bodily
existence right on to its natural term. Two
factors, however, were latent in the OT conception
from the beginning, and became more and more
prominent in the course of the after-development.
(1) Tlie radical element in life is activity. Mere
pliysical being is distinguished from that essential
' life ' which consists in the unrestricted play of all
tlie energies, especially of the higher and more
characteristic. In the loftier passages of the
Psalms, more particularly, the idea of 'life' has
almost always a pregnant sense. It is associated
Avith joy, peace, prosperity, wisdom, righteousness ;
man ' lives ' according as he has free scope for the
activities which are distinctive of liis sjiiritual
nature. God Himself is emphatically the ' living
One,' as contrasted with men in their limitation
and helplessness. (2) Since God alone possesses
life in the hij^hest sense, fellowship with Him is
the one condition on which men can obtain it.
'By every word of God doth man live' (Dt 8^).
' With thee is the fountain of life ' (Ps 36"). In
the higher regions of OT thought, life and com-
munion Avith God are interchangeable ideas. The
belief in immortality is never expressly stated,
but, as Jesus Himself indicates, it was implicit in
this conception of a God Avho Avas not the God of
the dead but of the living. See art. Living.

Jesus accepted the idea of life as it had come
to Him through the OT. To Him also life is
primarily the physical existence (cf. Mt 6^5 ' Take
no thought for your life, Avhat ye shall eat and
drink,' etc.), and He adA-ances on this conception
along ethical and religious lines, in the same
manner as the Psalmists and Prophets. (1) He
distinguishes betAveen the essential 'life' and the
outAvard subsidiary things Avith Avhicli it is so
easily confused. 'The life is more than meat'

* The various terms used, and the many English equivalents,
will be found fully treated in Hastings' DB, artt. 'Free,'
' Freedom,' etc.

(Lk 12-^). ' A man's life consisteth not in the
abundance of the things Avhich lie possesseth ' (v.^^).
' Wliat shall it prolit a man if he gain the Avhole
Avorld and lose his life?' (Mk 8»6). (2) Thus He
arrives at the idea of something central and in-
alienable Avhich constitutes the reality of life.
This He discovers in the moral activity. The body
Avith its manifold faculties is only the organ by
Avhich man accomplishes his true task of obedi-
ence to God. Meat, raiment, and all the rest are
necessary, ' but seek tirst the kingdom of God and
his righteousness.' (3) In this Avay He is led to
the conception of a higher, spiritual life, gained
through the sacrifice of the loAver. ' If a man hate
not his OAvn life, he cannot be my disciple ' (Lk 14-").
' He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that
loseth his life for my sake shall tinil it' (Mt

1Q39 1625).

Here, hoAvever, Ave become aAvare of the difficulty
Avhich meets us under ditierent forms throughout
our Lord's teaching. In His account of the supreme
blessing for Avhicli loAver things must be sacriliced.
He seems to pass abruptly from ethical to eschato-
logical ideas. ' Life ' is a rcAvard laid up for the
righteous in the world to come. It is regarded
sometimes as a ncAV state of being (Mt 25'^'*), some-
times as a sort of prize that can be bestoAved in the
same manner as houses and goods and lands (Mk
1Q30) fpjjg precise meaning to be attached to ' the
Avorld to come ' in Avhich this ' life ' Avill be im-
parted, depends on our interpretation of the
general conception of the Kingdom of God. Our
Lord Avould appear to AvaA'er betAveen the idea of a
Avorld beyond death and that of a Messianic age
or aeon, apocalyptically revealed on earth. In
either case, hoAvever, He thinks of ' life ' as of
something still in the future, the peculiar blessing
of the realized Kingdom of God.

This future possession is defined more particularly in several
passages as 'eternal life,' and the epithet might appear at
first sight to imply a distinction. AVe find, however, on closer
examination that the term ' life ' itself usually involves the
emphatic meaning. ' This do and thou shalt live ' (Lk 102S) is
our Lord's reply to the inquiry concerning 'eternal life.' So
when He says, ' It is better to enter into life halt or maimed '
(Mt 188, Mk 9^3)j or ' Narrow is the way that leadeth unto life '
(Mt 7H), it is evidently the future blessing that is in His mind.
■There is good ground for the conjecture that Jesus Himself
never used the expression ' eternal life.'

Since the ethical and eschatological ideas are
denoted by the same Avord, Ave are justified in
assuming that in the mind of Jesus they Avere
bound up with one another. The 'life' Avhich is
projected into the future and described figuratively
as a gift bestoAved from Avithout, is in the last
resort the life of moral activity. This becomes
more apparent Avhen Ave take account of certain
further elements in our Lord's teaching.

(a) The condition on Avhich the future rcAvard is
given is faithful performance of the moral task in
the present. Those shall ' live' aa'Iio keep the com-
mandments. The narroAv Avay that leads to life is
the AA'ay of obedience and sacrifice. By A'oluntary
loss of earthly things in the cause of Christ, the
disciples Avill gain ' life ' (Mk 10^*'). The apocalyptic
imagery does not conceal from us the essential
thought of Jesus, that the promised ' life ' is
nothing but the outcome and fulfilment of a
moral obedience begun on earth.

[h) Life is not onlj' a future fultilment, but has a
real beginning in the present. Thus in the saying,
'FoUoAV me, and let the dead bury their dead'
(Mt 8-2 = Lk 980), je^ug implies that the disciples
even noAv enter into possession of a ncAv and higher
life. They are the 'liA'ing' as opposed to the
children of this AA'orld, Avho are si^iritually dead.
The same thought appears in the parable of the
Prodigal Son : ' he Avas dead and is alive again '
(Lk 15^-). Life in its full reality is the blessing of
the AA-orld to come, but it Avill be different in

degree, not in kind, from the present life of true
disciplesliip.

{c) One element is common to the two types of
' life,' and marks their ultimate identity. The
future consummation, described by Jesus in viviil
pictorial language, is in its substance a closer
fellowship with God. In the Kingdom which He
anticipated, the jJure in heart were to see God
(Mt 5"*) ; those who hungered and thirsted after
righteousness were to be satisfied with God's
presence (v."). This perfect communion with God
is the supreme reward laid up for the believer.
It constitutes the inner meaning and content of
the future Life. In like manner the present life of
moral obedience is in its essence a life of fellowship
with God. The aim of Jesus is to bring His dis-
ciples even now into such a harmony with the
Divine Avill that they may be children of their
Father who is in heaven, resembling Him and
holding real communion with Him. The eschato-
logical idea of life thus resolves itself at its centre
into the purely ethical and religious. The King-
dom is already come when God's will is done on
earth as it is in heaven.

Jesus is Himself the Mediator of the new life.
He imparts to His disciples His own consciousness
of God's presence and Fatherhood. He inspires in
them a faith and obedience which without Him
would have been for ever impossible. Through
knowledge of Him and participation in His spirit,
they enter into that fellowshii) with God which is
eternal life. See Mediator.

2. In the Fourth Gospel the idea of Life is much
more prominent than in the Synoptics. The Evan-
gelist expressly states (20^^) that he has ' written
these things that believing ye may have life,' and
this statement of his main intention is fully borne
out by the detailed study of the Gospel. The
teaching of Jesus, as he records it, centres wholly
on the subject of Life.

This in itself need not be regarded as a breach with the
authentic tradition. We have seen that in the Synoptics also
the idea of Life lies at the heart of our Lord's teaching, since
life is the peculiar blessing of the Kingdom of God. St. John,
after his manner, detaches the essential thought from the
eschatologieal framework. The future 'kingdom' becomes
simply 'life.'

The idea of Life as a present possession (already
implicit in the Synoptic teaching) becomes in the
Fourth Gospel central and determinative. ' He
that believeth on the Son hath (even now) ever-
lasting life' (3^^). ' He that heareth my word . . .
is passed out of death into life ' (5-*). The whole
purpose of the work of Christ, as conceived by the
Evangelist, was to communicate to His disciples,
here and now, the eternal life. To those who have
received His gift the death of the body is only a
physical incident, a ' fill ling .asleep' (IP^). The
true death is the state of sin and privation, out of
which they have been delivered, once and for all,
in the act of surrender to Christ.

Isolated passages in the Gospel might seem to conflict with
this, the characteristic and prevailing view. In the 6th chapter
more especially, the conception of Life as a spiritual possession
in the present appears side by side with repeated allusions to a
resurrection 'at the last day' (639.44.54). These allusions are
partly to be explained as reminiscences of an earlier type of
doctrine, not completely in harmony with the writer's own ;
such 'concessions' to a traditional belief meet us continually in
this Gospel. At the same time, they serve to emphasize a real,
though secondary, aspect of John's own teaching. He antici-
pates in the future world a full manifestation of the Life which
under earthly conditions is necessarily hidden. For the believer,
as for Christ Himself, the escape from this world and its limita-
tions marks the entrance into a larger activity and 'glory' (cf.
142. 3).

The Evangelist nowhere attempts to define his
conception of Life. The great saying, ' This is life
eternal,' etc. (17^), cannot l>e construed as a defini-
tion. It only declares that the knowledge of God
through Jesus Christ carries with it the assurance

of life (cf. 'His commandment is life everla.sting'
[12''"]). The nature of the life is indicated only in
vague and half-figurative terms. It is indestruc-
tible (6"« ll-«), satisfies all spiritual thirst and
hunger (G*5 4"), is the source of light (I'* S^-). But,
wliile little is said by way of express definition,
the general import of the Johannine conception is
sufficiently clear. The Life which Christ com-
municates is the absolute. Divine Life. ' As the
Father has life in himself, so he hath given the
Son to have life in himself (5-''-, cf. I'*). It is
assumed that in God and in the Logos, wlio is one
with Him, a life resides which is difierent in kind
from that of men, and is the real, the ' eternal " Life.

The conception arises from tlie blending in the
Fourth Gospel of Hebrew and early Christian with
Greek-philosophical influences. Hebrew thought
did not concern itself with questions regarding the
ultimate nature of God. He was the ' living ' God,
who could be known only through His activity in
the creation and moral government of the world.
The Greek thinkers, on the other hand, tried to
get behind His activity to His essential Being.
He was the absolute and self-existent, over against
the world of phenomena. His Life, so far as Life
could be predicated of Him, was an energy of pure
thought, abstracted from every form of sensible
manifestation (cf. Arist. Metctph. xii. 7). The
Fourth Evangelist, carrying out more fully the
suggestion of Philo, combines the Hebrew and
Greek ideas. He thinks of God as the ' only true '
(17*), the absolute Being who is eternally separate
from the world which He has created. Nevertiie-
less He is a living and personal God. Tiie Life
which He possesses is analogous to the life in man,
but of a higher order, spiritual instead of earthly.

It follows from this attempt to combine Hebrew
with Greek ideas, that the ethical moment falls
largely out of sight. The difierence between the
human and the Divine Life is one of essence. Till
man has undergone a radical change, not in heart
merely but in the very constitution of his being,
there can be no thought of his particijiating in the
life of God, St. John thus involves himself in a
conception which may be described as semi-
physical. The Divine life is regarded as a sort of
higher substance inherent in the nature of God.
How can man, who is ' born of flesh ' (3^), become
partaker in this substance, and so expei'ience a
new birth as a child of God ? This is the religious
problem as it presents itself to St. John.

The solution is att'orded by the doctrine of the
Incarnate Word. Jesus Christ, as the eternal
Logos, possessed 'life in himself,' and yet assumed
humanity and entered into our lower world. He
therefore became the vehicle through which the
life of God is imparted to men, or at least to those
elect natures who are predisposed to receive it.
He not only possesses, but is Himself the Life. To
impart His gift He must also imi:)art Himself, since
life is inalienable from the living Person. This
idea, which lies at the very centre of St. John's
thinking, determines his theory of the communica-
tion of Life through Christ.

The subjective condition, apart from which the
gift cannot be besto^ved, is belief in Jesus as the
Son of God. This belief is primarily an act of
intellectual assent to the claim of Christ ; but such
an act implies a religious experience which has led
up to it and gives it value. It runs back in the
last resort to the ' drawing by the Father ' {iS*^), the
work of God's Spirit in the heart. Through the
act of belief a man is brought into .such a relation
to Christ that His power as Life-giver becomes
operative.

Three means are indicated by which Christ im-
parts the gift to those who have believed. (1) It is
conveyed through His word, regarded not simply

LIFE

LIGHT

as the medium of His message, but in the Hebrew
sense as active and creative. The Avords spoken
by Jesus are of the same nature as the quickening
■vvord of God. They are ' spirit and life,' carrying
with them some portion of His own being. He
can say indifferentlj', ' My word shall abide in you '
and ' I shall abide in you ' (15"). It is this impart-
ing of Himself through His words that renders
them 'words of eternal life.' (2) The gift is con-
veyed likewise in the Sacraments, more esjjecially
in the Lord's Supper. The Eucharistic reference
in the 6tli chapter appears to the present writer
unmistakable, and, Avhile the Supper is interpreted
in a spiritual sense, its real validity is also empha-
sized. Ignatius, writing in the same age, describes
the Eucharist as the <pdpfxaKov ddavaaias (Ephcs.
20), and St. John accepts this current belief, and
harmonizes it with his own doctrine of Life :
' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of INIan and
drink his blood, ye have no life in you' (6^^).
Since Jesus in His own Person is the Life, it can
be given only through an actual incorporation of
His 'flesh and blood,' and this is ofiered in the
mystery of the Eucharist. The idea of Life as a
semi-physical essence here comes to its sharpest
expression. (3) In this same chapter, however, we
have the indication of another and still more
mysterious means by which the Life is imparted.
The Eucharist, while it possesses in itself a real
validity, is typical of an abiding union of the be-
liever with Ohrist. He is like the vine (15^*'''-), out
of which the several branches draw their nourish-
ment. He is united with His discijjles in a relation
so profound and intimate that they feel themselves
to be one with Him. They abide in Him and He
in them, and the life which He possesses becomes
their life, springing up within them like a jier-
ennial well (4"). This doctrine of a mystical union
with Christ in which He imparts His Divine life to
the believer, contains the central and character-
istic thought of the Fourth Gospel.

Thus far we have considered the Johannine idea
of Life as it is determined by the Logos theory.
It becomes apparent, however, the more we study
the Gospel, that the writer is working throughout
with two conceptions, essentially different from
each other and never completely reconciled. The
incarnate Logos is at the same time the historical
Jesus, who revealed God and drew all men to Him-
self by the moral grandeur of His personality and
life. Doctrines which are presented theologically
on the lines of the Logos hypothesis are also
capable of a purely religious interpretation. They
require to be so interpreted if we are not to miss
their underlying and vital import.

Life regarded from this other side bears a mean-
ing substantially the same as in the Sjmoptic
Gospels. Jesus was the Living One, inasmuch as
He realized in His own Person the love and good-
ness and holiness Avhich constitute the inmost
nature of God. The life He sought to communi-
cate was nothing else than His own Spirit, as it
was revealed in the scene of the feet-washing (Jn
13), and in the subsequent discourse with His dis-
ciples. Even in the Eucharistic chapter in which
the theological view of Life is expressed most
forciblj', we can discern this other view in the
background. To partake of Christ's flesh and
blood is to become wholly conformed to Him,
absorbing into oneself the very spirit by which He
lived, ^ye cannot read the chapter attentively
without feeling that St. John is always passing
from the metaphysical conception to this moral
and religious one. Both are present in his mind,
and he endeavours to fuse them, though such a
fusion is in the nature of things impossible.

The cardinal doctrine of union with Christ
assumes a new- meaning in the light of this other I

aspect of St. John's thought. What is elsewhere
described as a mystical indwelling becomes a moral
fellowship. ' Henceforth I call you not servants,
but friends ; for the servant knoweth not what
his lord doeth ; but I have called you friends '
{W^ The disciples are to enter into a perfect
harmony of mind and will with their Master. His
spirit is not to act on them from the outside,
through set commandments, but inwardly and
spontaneousl3^ The relation of discipleship thus
passes into one of ' friendship,' — a friendship so
close that they lose all sense of separateness be-
tween themselves and Christ. He ' abides in
them,' and replaces their will with His own.

To the Synoptic teaching St. John adds one
element of priceless value. He perceives that the
new Life proclaimed by Jesus was bound up indis-
solubly with His living Person. ' In him was
life ' ( Jn I''), and it is not enough to render some
vague obedience to His teaching. There must be
a real and jJersonal communion with Christ, so that
He may imi^art His very self to His disciple. In
his presentation of this truth, John avails himself
of metaphysical modes of thinking which are not
wholly adequate to the Christian message. The
conception of Christ as Logos obscures the true
signihcance of His Person and of the higher life
imparted through Him. But the essential thought
of the Gospel is independent of the form, borrowed
from an alien philosophy, in which it is expressed.
Jesus Christ is not only the Life-giver, but is Him-
self the Life. He imparts His gift to those who
know Him by an inward fellowship, and become
one with Him in heart and M-ill. See also LiviXG.

Literature. —H. Holtzmann, NT Theol. i. 293 ff. (1897);
Schrenck, Die johan. Anschauumj vom ' Lehen' (1898) ; Titius,
Die XT Lehre von der Seligkeit (esp. the Johannine section,
1900) ; Grill, Untersuchungen iiber die Entstehunri des vierten
Evang. 206-327 (1902) ; G. Dalnian, Words of Jesiis, 156 ; G. B.
Stevens, Johannine Theology, 241, 312 ; ' P. Brooks, More
Abundant Life ; B. F. Westcott, Historic Faith, 142 ; F. J. A.
Hort, The Way, the Trtith, the Life (1893); E. Hatch, iMe-
morials, 181 ; J. G. Hoare, Life in St. John's Gospel, (1901).

E. F. Scott.

LIGHT. — Apart from the ordinary use of this
word to denote outward light (as in Lk 11*", Mt
172 24-* etc.), there are three applications of the
metaishor of light in the Synoptic Gospels which
demand attention.

1. The first occurs in the figurative and some-
what enigmatic saying preserved in Mt 6-^- 2* = Lk
1134.35^ where the eye is called the lamp of tlie
body, the symbolism pointing to sinceriti/ of soul
as the decisive feature of life. Each Evangelist
gives the saying a different setting. In Mt.'s
version of the Sermon on the Mount it occurs in
a context laying stress upon the supreme need of
the heavenly mind in religion ; and as the main
rival to God in man's affections is the world, in the
shape of material wealth, the pursuit of the single
mind is naturally correlated with the avoidance of
covetousness. This shade of meaning is reflected
from vv.!**--! and ^- ^ (see Mammon) upon the in-
tervening logion. The soul is to human life what
the eye is to the body (so Pliilo, de Opif. Mundi,
17, ' reason [vovs] is to the soul what the eye is to
the body'); it is a lamp, by means of which the
way and work of life are illuminated. As the
functions of the physical life depend largely upon
the soundness of the organs of vision, by means of
which men move safely and freely in the outside
world, so the mental and moral health of man is
bound up with the condition of his inner life. Tlie
inward disposition (cf. Jn 11^") is the key to all
(cf. Buskin's Queen of the Air, § 93 ; Eaglets Nest,
§§ 106-110). The employment of 'light' in this
connexion is thus one illustration of the inwardness
of the teaching of Jesus. He brought men from
the circumference to the centre, laid supreme stress

LIGHT

on motive, and sought to emphasize — as in this
saying — the vital importance of tlie inner spirit
for conduct. The symbolism turns on the ethical
meaning implied in ' single ' (dirXoOs) and ' evil '
(TTovripos), the former suggesting 'liberality,' the
latter ' niggardliness ' in the moral sphere. Hence
' light ' means that condition of life which is void
of covetousness and the grasping spirit. Such a
spirit confuses life by diverting it from the supreme
inward and heavenly aim which is its true pursuit.
The hoarding temper, which absorbs men in out-
ward possessions, is pronounced by Jesus to be
a Haw in the moral vision, a speck that blurs ' the
light that is in thee,' i.e. the inner light of con-
science, the heart, or the soul. When the latter is
darkened by the intrusion of a divided attection,
especially in the form of some appetite such as
covetousness or worldliness, then ' how great is the
darkness ' ! For religion, as Christ taught it, is
not admitting God into life. It is putting Him
first in life. Faith is not thinking Him good, but
hailing Him as best. And nothing can be more
ominous than when the soul, which is man's
delicate faculty for seeing and choosing God, is
diverted to double - mindedness or to an attempt
to reconcile the competing interests of God and
of the world. The outcome is compromise and its
inevitable product, hypocrisy — that sin which a
Frenchman once called the tirstfruits of English
society — rijjening under the very breath of con-
ventional religion. — The log ion may be, as Brandt
suggests, a Jewish aphorism based on Pr 20^'',
which Jesus here quotes and applies.

The introduction of the saying in Lk ips-ss jg
due to the key-word Mx^os. Here, as often, Lk.
groups sayings together less from their internal
correspondence than from some verbal common
element. He sharpens the point of the saying by
introducing v.^. As eyes may become injured by
the blinding glare and dust which make ophthalmia
a prevalent complaint in the East, so, it is im-
plied, the inner disposition lies exj^osed to risk and
disease, against which it is a man's duty to guard.
For if the heart rules the life, the life, on the other
hand, can stain and spoil the heart. Yet the
stress of the saying falls on attention to the in-
ward life as determining the course and value of
the outer. ' "Take care of the little things of life,
and the great things will take care of themselves,"
is the maxim of the trader, which is sometimes,
and with a certain degree of truth, applied to the
service of God. But much more true is it in
religion, that we should take care of the great
things, and the trifles of life will take care of
themselves. " If thine eye be single, thy Avhole
body Mill be full of light." Christianity is not
acquired, as an art, by long practice ; it does not
carve and polish human nature with a graving
tool ; it makes the whole man ; first pouring out his
soul before God, and then casting him in a mould '
(Jowett's Paul, ii. 117). — The point of v.^ is not
easy to grasp. It seems a somewhat tautological
expansion of v.^^"' (so Blass). D, Syr <="•' etc. , omit
it, while Syr sin has a different form of it ; yet, as
Wellhausen observes, it does not read like an in-
terpolation, and probably we must be content to
suspect, with Westcott and Hort, e.g., and J. Weiss
(in Meyer*, pp. 476-477), some primitive corruption
of the text.

2. The connexion of v.^^ with the saying is not
immediate. Lk IP^ is simply an equivalent of
Mk 5"'^^, which is incorporated here under the
rubric of ' light,' and Luke has already more ap-
propriately used it in 8^" ( = Mk 4^^) in the second
phase of the light-symbolism in the Gospels, viz.
that of influence. The disciples are cautioned
against the tendency, whether due to modesty or
to cowardice, to refrain from letting their faith tell

VOL. II. — 3

upon the world. In Lk IP^ it is impossible to
trace any very obvious connexion between this
and what precedes, any more than between it and
M'hat follows, unless the idea of the editor is that
Solomon's wisdom and Jonah's preaching were
frank and open to the world (hence v.^^), while no
sign (v.-**) is needed if the inner heart be pure and
true (vv.3^-26)_ -pi^g context in Mt 5 is much more
congenial. Jesus is warning His disciples that
while their relation to the outside world is often
full of annoyance and suffering, yet this bitter
experience (v.^"*-) must not drive them into a
parochial and secluded attitude of negative protest.
'You are the light of the world,' He urges. You
owe it a duty. Your faith lays you under an
obligation to let your life tell upon your environ-
ment (cf. EBi, 4377, 4384-4385), instead of weakly
relapsing into some esoteric or Essene-like seclu-
sion. The allusion to good works is peculiar to
Matthew. It emphasizes that frankness of spirit
and necessity of good conduct which the saying
upon light advocates as the sole reasonable position
for Chi'istian discijjles to assume. The vocation
of a Christian is to be visible. And visibility
means influence. The reference is not to Apostles
but to Christians in general, nor is preaching in
view. What Jesus inculcates is an attitude of
consistent goodness, void of monasticism and osten-
tation alike, as corresponding to the nature of His
Kingdom, whose property and destiny it is to be-
come manifest to the world (cf. Mozley's Parochial
and Occasional Sermons, p. 212 f . ).

This latter idea, without the moral counsel, is
reproduced by Mk 4^1 ( = Lk 8^") as a sequel to the
interpretation of the parable of the Seeds, as if to
suggest that such knowledge as had just been im-
l^arted to the disciples was not to be kept to them-
selves but to be diftused like light (cf. Menzies,
Earliest Gospel, pp. 112-114), the placing of the
lamp in its proper position perhajas corresponding
(so Jiilicher) to the fruitful and useful qualities
of the good seed in the good soil (v.^"). Others,
like Wi-ede {das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 68 f.), prefer
to read the saying in the light of the Apostolic
age, as if it meant that after the Kesurrection all
reserve upon the Christian mysteries was to be
thrown aside (v.^^). This, however, cannot be the
original sense of the saying, and there is no reason
why one should give up the interpretation which
makes the lamp here equivalent to the teaching of
Jesus or the knowledge of the gospel (see Expos.
Nov. 1900, on 'The Peril and the Comfort of
Exposure'). The point is less general than in Mt
5i4-i6_ B^{, the essential bearing of the saying is
the same, viz. that as the function of light is to
radiate, so Christian privileges imply the duty
of propaganda. Similarly, Mt 10-' = Lk 123 (^.f
Jiilicher's Gleichnisreclen, ii. 86 f.). In the fourth
of the New Oxyrhynchus Logia, we have the
words : ' for there is nothing hidden which shall
not be made manifest, nor buried which shall not
be raised.'

3. If Christians, however, are to arise and shine,
it must be because their light has come. Conse-
quently revelation is also embraced under the light-
symbolism of the Gospels, in Mt 4i6, Lk l"^ [Is 9-]
2^2, where the reference, based on OT quotations,
is to the redeeming life of Christ. This semi-
mystical application, which associates light with
the Divine efliuence, runs far back into human
history. ' Heaven means both the world of light
above us and the woi'ld of hope within us, and tlie
earliest name of the Divine beings is simply "the
bright ones. " Such names are more than metaphors.
But if they were simply metaphors, they would
show how closely the world without is adapted to
express and render deflnite the yearnings and the
fears of the world within' (J. Wedgwood, The

LIGHT

Moral Ideal, pp. 6, 7). It is needless to illustrate
from ancient thought how light Avas almost in-
variably, if variously, allied to the conception of
heaven and the Divine nature, the latter being
conceived as radiant and glorious. The gradual
evolution of the religious idea slowly purified the
.symbolism, especially in the deeper reaches of faith
within the later Judaism (notably in the Book of
Enoch). The semi-physical element, though not
entirely excluded even from the NT idea of glory
and spiritual phenomena, came to be subordinated
to the moral and mystical. The jjurity, the noise-
less energy, the streaming rays of light, all sug-
gested religious qualities to the mind, until the
light of God came to be an expression for the
healing influence and vitalizing jjower exercised
by Him over human life. The light of Christ,
the ^Messiah, was thus His ministry (see Bruce's
Galilean Gospel, p. 13 f.). His person formed the
creative power in the life of tlie human soul.
Through work and word alike, His being operated
with quickening effect upon the responsive hearts
of His own peojile.

This application of the metaphor of light to the
Divine revelation in Jesus is developed especially
in the Fourth Gospel, where ' light ' is reserved
almost exclusively for this purpose. John the
Baptist is indeed described once as 'the burning
and shining lamj),' in whose light (cf. I''- ^) the Jews
were ' willing to rejoice for a season ' (5^^ cf. Sir
48^), with all a shallow nature's delight in transient
impressions (see Martensen's Individual Ethics,
p. 385). And Christians are incidentally called
'sons of light' (12^6, cf. Lk W). But, if John the
Baptist is the lamp, Jesus is the Light ; if Chris-
tians become sons of light, it is by believing on the
Light. It is not Christians but Christ, the in-
carnate Logos, who is the Light of the ivorld (1'* 8'-
9^ 12'*''). Already in the ancient mind the supreme
God had been frequently defined as the God of
light, and the later Judaism had exjiressed its pro-
founder consciousness of this truth in the colloca-
tion of life and light {e.g. Ps 369, Ya\ 58^) and in
the employment of ' light ' as a summary exj^ression
not only for cosmic vitality, but for the bliss of
mankind, chiefly, though not solely, in the future
(cf. Volz, Jiidische Eschatologie, 328 f.). In the
Fourth Gospel, however, this idea is developed
with singular precision and breadth. The Logos-
Christ is defined in the Prologue not only as Logos
but as Life and Light, the former category being
confined to Christ's being as a Divine factor in the
creation and in the essence of God (P"*), as well as
to His incarnation (1""^^), after which it is dropped.
The intervening paragraph (1^"'^), dealing Avitli the
Logos-Christ as a historical phenomenon, is sub-
sumed under the category of Light and Life, which
afterwards dominates the entire Gospel, except
(curiously enough) the closing speeches (14-17),
where the symbolism of Light is entirely absent.
'In him was life, and the life was the light of men.'
This profound sentence really gives the keynote to
the Gospel, in which Christ as the Light represents
the essential Truth of God as revealed to human
knowledge. The Messiah (e.g. En 48^) and the Logos
(as in Pliilo) had already been hailed as Liglit.
But here the metaphor of light denotes much more
than the self-revelation of God in the person of
Jesus (Weiss) ; it describes tlie transcendent life
streaming out on men, the absolute nature of God
as truth, as the supreme reality for man to believe
in, and l)y his belief to share. In sharp antithesis
to this Light is the Darkness, by wliich the writer
symbolizes all tliat is contrary to God in human
life, whether unbelief or disobedience, all that
resists the true Life whicli it is the function of the
Light to produce in humanity, all the ignorance
and wilful rejection of Christ which issue in

practical consequences of confusion and rebellion.
Historically, this opposition emerged during Christ's
lifetime in the Jews' rejection of His mission. But,
as the jjresent tense (pabei seems to imjjly, the
truth is general ; the same enmity pervades every
age — a conception to which there is a remark-
able parallel in the Logos-teaching of Heraclitus
(cf. Pfleiderer's Urchrist.- ii. 339). This antithesis
means more, hoAvever, than a metajjhysical dualism
running through the world. The hostility of men
to the Light is described as their own choice
and fault (3^"- -"), and this conception naturally
permeates the entire Gospel. The determinism
is apparent rather than real. Whether positive
or negative, the attitude of men to God in Christ
is run back to their own Avills, although the writer
makes no attempt to correlate this strictly Avith
DiA'ine pi'escience. Nor, again, is the conception
purely intellectual, though the terminology Avould
seem occasionally to .suggest this vieAV. Light and
darkness represent moral good and evil as these
are presented in the spiritual order introduced by
Christ. To love the light (Si""-!) is not a theoretical
attitude, but a practical, equivalent to doing the
truth. The light has to be folloAved (S^-, cf. 1235f-) ;
Christ's revelation is an appeal to the reason and
conscience of mankind as the controlling principle
of conduct ; ' the light of life ' is the light Avhich
brings life, and life is more than mere intellectual-
ism (17^). To Avalk in or by the light is to have
one's character and conduct determined by the
influence of Christ, the latter being as indis-
pensable to vitality in the moral and religious
sphere as light is to physical groM'th (cf. 2 S 23'*,
Ps 49'" 5612 etc. ). See, further, art. Truth.

These and other applications of this metajjhor
throughout the Fourth Gosj^el are all suggested
in the somewhat abstract language of the Prologue.
Three further points may be selected as typical of
this mode of thought.

[a) The function of Christ as the Light is de-
scribed as bearing not only upon the creation of
the Universe, but on the spiritual and moral life
of men (vv.^- •*). In this sphere it encounters an
obstacle in the error and evil of man's nature, but
encounters it successfully. This is proleptically
described in v.^ (cf. 1 Jn 2*), Avhere ov KariXaSev pro-
bably means ' failed to overpoAver, or extinguish '
(cf. 12^^, Sir 15^) ; despite the opposition of man's
ignorance and corruption, the true Light makes its
Avay. The climax of this triumph in history is
then described. It Avas heralded by the prophetic
mission of John the Baptist, the allusion to Avhom
is, like 5^^, carefully jjhrased in order to bring out
the transient and subordinate character of his
ministry (cf. Lightfoot's Colossians, \}. 401) ; Avhere-
upon the historic functions of the real Light are
resumed in v.^^-. ' The true light, Avhich lightens
CA^ery man, Avas coming into the Avorld'; i.e. had
arrived, even Avhen the Baptist Avas preaching (cf.
v."^). Later on, this is frankly stated by Jesus
Himself at the feast of Tabernacles, Avhen brilliant
illuminations Avere held CA-erj^ night — a symbolism
which may have suggested tlie cry, ' I am the light
of the Avorld ' (S^^. ^^ jg gQi). The description in
P is probably an echo of Test. Levi 13'* ('the light
of the Lord Avas given to lighten every man ').

(b) While the Light is the Christian revelation,
it is implied that already (3-^), not merely in
Judaism but throughout humanity (cf. IP- 12-"-),
tliere Avere individuals Avhose honesty and sincerity
had prepared them to receive the truth of God
^11. 12^ mentally and morally. When the light
fell on those Avho sat in darkness, some Avere con-
tent to sit still. But others rose to Avelcome the
fuller knoAvledge of God in the perfect revelation
of Christ's person, men like Nathanael and the
Greeks. For it is characteristic of the Fourth

LIGHTNIIsTG

LIP

Gospel that good people, rather than sinners (as
in the Synoptic narratives), flock to Christ. The
Logos, as Hausrath puts it, draws God's children
to the light as a magnet attracts metals, while mere
stones are left unmoved by its presence. And God's
children are those who resjjond to Christ by the exer-
cise of their moral instincts and religious attections.
Unlike Philo, the author refuses to trace back this
lack of susceptibility towards God to any source in
the material constitution of mankind (cf. 8**) ; but
the semi-Gnostic idea of a special class remains.

(c) Upon the other hand, Christ, the Light, came
to His own people ; and there are rejjeated allusions
to the brief opportunity of the Jews (9* IP-^" 12'«-38)^
in sayings which warn the nation against trifling
with its privilege, — a privilege soon to be taken
from its unworthy keeping. Here the author
is reflecting the period in which he writes, when
the Jews' day of grace had passed, with tragic
consequences to themselves. ' Light, accept the
blessed light, if you will have it when Heaven
vouchsafes. You refuse? Very well : the "light"
is more and more withdrawn, . . . and further-
more, by due sequence, infallible as the foundations
of the universe and Nature's oldest law, the light
returns on you, this time, with lightning^ (Carlyle's
Lattcr-Day PamjMets, iii. ad Jin.).

Literature. — In addition to the references already given, see
Norris, the Cambridge Platonist, Reason and Religion, p. 222 f.;
Berkeley, Siris, § 210 ; and, for the use of the idea in morals
and religion, Fiske, Myths and Myth-Making, p. 104 f., and
D. G. Brinton, Religion of PrimHive Peoxiles, p. 73 f. Tlie use
of the symbol in the Gospels is analyzed by Titius, die Johan.
Anschaming d. SeligJeeit (1900), p. liof. ; Holtzmann, Xeutest.
Theologie, ii. 304 f., 399 f. ; and especially Grill, Untcrsuchungen
liber die Entstehung des vierten Evang. (1902), pp. 1-31, 217-
225, 259-271, 308 f. See also Dalman, Worte Jesu, i. (Eng. tr.)
iv. § 3 ; and Drummond, Philo Judmus, i. 217 f. For the moral
uses of the word see Phillips Brooks, Candle of the Lord, 305,
Ligld of the World, 1 ; R. \V. Church, Village Sermons, i. 296,
iii. 46 ; B. F. Westcott, Revelation of the Father, 45 ; F. Temple,
Rvgby Sermons, 3rd series, 149 ; G. Macdonald, Unspoken Ser-
mons, iii. 163 ; G. A. Smith, Forgiveness of Sins, 89 ; R. Rainy,
Sojourning with God, 64. J. MOFFATT.

LIGHTNING (darpairri).— There are 3 references
to lightning in the Gospels, one of these being
duplicated (in Mt. and Lk. ).

1. Lk 10^* ' I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from
heaven.' The word 'beheld' (edeujpovv), being in
the imjjf., indicates a continuous contemplation.
Taken in conjunction with the aorist participle
' fallen ' (so R V, not ' fall ' as in AV, the Gr. being
TTfcTovTa), this cannot mean that in a pre-existent
state Jesus beheld the fall of Satan taking place,
i.e. Avhen the devil was cast out of heaven, as de-
scribed in Paradise Lost. The meaning of the ex-
pression should be arrived at through the context,
where we read of the Seventy returning to Jesus
with joy, and exclaiming, 'Lord, even tlie demons
are subject unto us in thy name' (v.^'''), in reference
to their successful exorcism. This meaning seems
to be that the news brought to Jesus by His dis-
ciples did not take Him by surprise, because at
the very time when they were carrying on their
successful work He was looking at the prince of
the demons lying fallen (so Holtzmann, Plummer,
etc.), — a highly flgurative expression which need
not point to an actual vision. Jesus had the intui-
tive assurance that His arch-enemy was defeated
already. Therefore the disciples were able to cast
out the demons. The situation may be illu.strated
by the parable of the strong man bound by a
stronger so that his house can be robbed (Mk 3-^),
Satan being the strong man, Christ the stronger, the
demons the vessels that are taken from the house,
which may be either the world or the possessecl
victims. There is no indication when Satan fell (as
perhaps at the Temptation of Jesus). He is contem-
plated as fallen. Still the aorist points to a definite
action, and the comparison with lightning empha-

sizes this point. Possibly our Lord was alluding
to Is 14^-. A similar idea appears in Rev 12'-*.
Wellhausen regards the verse in Lk. as apocry-
phal ; but Jesus frequently used apocalyptic im-
agery. In the Koran (Sura 72) the demons are
cast out of heaven at the coming of Mohammed,
the angels bombarding them with stars.

2. Mt 24-^ ' For as the lightning cometh forth
from the east, and is seen even unto the west ; so
shall be the coming of the Son of Man ' (cf. Lk 17-'*).
The idea seems to be that of widespread and un-
mistakable evidence. The coming of the Son of
JNIan will be seen everywhere, and that very mani-
festly (so Plummer, Wellhausen, etc.). A second
thought, the suddenness of the flash (Plunnner), is
not so apparent, if it is even present at all, in
this application of the idea of lightning to the
Parousia. For the apparent contradiction between
this thought and that in Lk 17"'' see Observation.

3. The one other Gospel reference to lightning is
in the description of the angel of the Resurrection
pit 28^), whose appearance is 'as lightning,' the
idea being dazzling brightness.

W. F. Adeney.
LILY. — The lily {]^^^, nj^ir, Kpivov) is mentioned
by various OT writers (1 K 7''-', 2 Ch 4-', Ca iP etc.,
Hos 14^). In the NT there is but one reference
(Mt 6-8 and || Lk 122"). Yyoui the expression ' lilies
of the field,' we gather that they wei'e wild flowers,
while the comparison of them with the regal robes
of Solomon (Mt 6-^) implies that they were not
white, but coloured (cf. Ca 5^^). The plant that
best accords with these conditions is the scarlet
anemone (A. coronaria), with which, in the spring
of the year, the Galilcean hillsides are clothetl.
(See Tristram, Fauna and Flora of Palestine.
p. 208 ; Nat. Hist, of Bible, p. 462). the nature of
the reference might, however, favour the suppo-
sition that our Lord used the term 'lilies' in a
very general way, and that it should be taken as
comprising a variety of flowers, such as anemones,
poppies, and tuli^js. Hugh Duncan.

LINEN (^vcraos, aivddii'). — Cloth of various kinds
prepared from the fibre of flax was largely used in
Egypt and Palestine for under-garments. It was
preferred to cotton or wool, as being cleaner and
cooler in the hot climate. It formed an imjjortant
element in priestly dress, and in the Temple hang-
ings. Worn together with purp'le it constituted
the characteristic clothing of the wealthy (Est 8*^,
Lk 16^''), and probably of royalty (Gn 41'*-). Linen
was used in Egypt to prepare the bodies of both
men and animals for burial, and in Palestine it
was the common wrapping of the dead. Wool
was avoided, the belief being that it tended to
breed worms. To this day linen is used for these
purposes in Palestine by all who can aflbrd it.
Coarser cloth was made in the country, but the
finer sorts were imported, the products of Egypt
being held in high esteem. As an article of mer-
chandise, linen ranked with gold, silver, precious
stones, silk, etc. (Rev 18'-).

(TivSibv (Mk 14^1-^2) probably corresponds to the
Rabbinic sadin or sedina, a linen cloth, or loose
linen wrapper ; although possibly it may also
mean a night-dress (Edersheim, Life and J'imes of
Jesus, 1900, ii. 545). In this garment tiie body of
Jesus was wrapi)ed when taken from the cross
(Mt 27^^). It may have been torn into strips to
form the oOovia in which, with the spices, the body
was bound (Jn 19^° 20'''^')' Probably, however,
these were the bandages fastening the aivduv.

W. EWING.

LIP. — This word, in the plural, is found in the
Gospels only in Mt 15^ !' Mk 7®, where it stands for
xeiXea-iv in a free quotation from the LXX. It is
rendered by AV, ' This people honoureth me trifh

LITTLE ONES

LITTLE O^^ES

their lijjs, but their heart is far from me' (cf. Is
29^^). St. Matthew, who quotes oftenest from the
LXX, does so here (v.**-), even though it departs
considerably from the Hebrew. But he modilies
its pliraseology so as to improve it, and to bring
out the prophet's thought more clearly than would
be done by a literal translation of the Hebrew.
(See Toy, NT Quotations from the OT). The ex-
pression ' lionoureth me Avith their lips ' is ex-
plained by some as an allusion to the Jewish custom
of putting the tassel of the tallith to the lips during
worship, as a sign that the Law was accepted, not
as of duty only, but as the enthusiastic preference
of the heart (cf. Job 31-', where putting the hand
to the lips is an act of astral worship ; and the
Oriental salutations in which putting the hand to
the lips is sujjposed to have been originally a sign
and assurance of sincerity ; see Jeiv'ish Encyc. art.
' Lip '). Otliers explain this clause, in relation to
the entire passage, as intended to put in sharp con-
trast a worship of God, or a form of religion, that
is taught of men (cf. ' teaching teachings which
are precepts of men,' v.^), and a worship that is
really according to the teachings of God's word,
i.e. which springs from a devout and trusting
heart (cf. ' But their heart is far from me, v.**,
with the suggestion of emptiness in v." ' In vain
do they worship me,' etc.).

It would seem from the OT that the lips liad come to be
regarded as a sort of originating centre of life and morals. We
read of 'lying lips' (Ps 31iS), of ' the lip of truth' (Pr 1219), of
' unclean lips' (Is 65), and of ' the poison of asps' as ' under the
lips' (quoted in Ro 3i'') ; and in the NT also, of 'the fruit of
the lips' (He 1315), and of 'lips that speak no guile' (1 P 31"),
etc.

But whatever be the implied allusion or exact
meaning of the words here, this much is certain,
that our Lord in speaking to His own contem-
jjoraries said, ' This prophecy of Isaiah was con-
cerning i/ou ' — language that would seem to require
us to interpret the passage so as to make it include
and describe the unbelieving Jews of His day, and,
probably, all people of all times who were, or are,
or will yet be, guilty of offering to God a worship
in which they do not draw near to Him in heart.

Geo. B. Eager.

LITTLE ONES.— The phrase ' one of these little
ones ' occui's in the records of our Lord's discourses
in the Synoptic Gospels six times (Mt lO'*^ 18*'- ^o- ",
Mk 9^-, Lk 17"), although, to satisfy these refer-
ences, it need not have been employed by our Lord
on more than two or three different occasions. It
seems to have been used with marked solemnity
and to be charged with high emotion. To under-
stand its implications, we shall need to inquire
whom our Lord designates as 'little ones,' whence
the designation was derived, and what its sig-
nificance is.

1. It seems to be quite generally assumed that
at least in some of the instances of its occurrence
the phrase designates, quite simply, actual children.
Thus, multitudes of Christians appear to be accus-
tomed to read Mt IS^" as a declaration that the
' angels of children ' (whatever these ' angels ' may
be) hold a particularly exalted place in heaven.
The connexion of this whole passage with the
opening verses of the chapter, where a ' little child '
is presented as a type of the children of the King-
dom, seems to many to require this interjjretation,
and the parallel passages, Mk 9^''- "-, Lk 9^ 17" to
add their support to it. A careful scrutiny of the
passages in which the phrase occurs, however, will
show that its reference is never to actual children,
but in every case to our Lord's disciples.

The earliest recorded employment of the phrase
is reported in Mt lO^'*-'*^ Qur Lord is here bring-
ing to a close His instructions to His Apostles as
He sent them forth on their first, their trial, evan-
gelistic tour. His words are words of highest en-

couragement. ' He that receiveth you,' He says,
' receiveth me ; and he that receiveth me, re-
ceiveth him that sent me.' Our Lord makes
common cause with His messengers : that is the
general declaration. Then comes the enforcement
by illustration. It was a matter of common under-
standing that ' he that receiveth a projdiet in the
name of a prophet' — that is, not in the name
of another jirophet, but on this sole ground, that
he is a jjiophet, or, as we should say in our
English idiom, as a prophet — ' shall receive a
prophet's reward ; and he that receiveth a right-
eous man in the name of a righteous man' — that
is, again, merely because he is a righteous man —
' shall receive a righteous man's reward.' Tlie
broad principle, then, is that the receiver shall be
put, in the matter of reward, on the level of the
received ; by his reception of the prophet or right-
eous man, he takes his place bj' his side and be-
comes sharer in his reward. Now comes the
ajiplication, marked as such (and not the continua-
tion of the examples) by a change of construction.
' And whosoever ' — perhaps we might paraphrase
' Likewise whosoever ' — ' shall give to drink unto
one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in
the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he
shall in no wise lose his reward.' The jjarallelism
of the clauses here with those in the preceding
sentences compels us to read ' one of these little
ones' as a synonym of 'a disciple.' The sense
is, as the receiver of the prophet shall share the
prophet's reward, and the receiver of the righteous
man the righteous man's reward, so the receiver of
the disciple shall share the disciple's reward. The
general purport of the declaration, moreover, de-
mands this sense. Its object was to hearten and
encourage the Apostles on their mission. For that,
they needed assurance, not that goodness to chil-
dren would be marked and rewarded, but that
they, the Apostles, were under Divine care. The
very variations from the phraseology of the earlier
sentences which are introduced into the application
have their part to play in emphasizing this needed
lesson. These variations are five in ruimber. In
the first place, instead of the simple ' he that '
receiveth, we have here the emphasized universal
' whosoever ' ; there is no danger of failure here.
Next, instead of the simjjle, comprehensive ' re-
ceiveth,' the least conceivable benefit is here
specified — ' shall give to drink a cup of cold water
only ' : the slightest goodness to the disciples shall
be noted and rewarded. Next, instead of the
simple statement that the benefiter shall share
the reward of the benefited, we have a solemn
asseveration that in no case will a due reward be
missed : the nature of the reward is left in large
vagueness, and it is hinted only that it shall be
ai^propriate, treated as of obligation, and surely
given. Lastly, instead of the cold ' disciple,' we
have the tender 'one of these little ones.' The
disciples our Lord has in mind are His own dis-
ciples : His own disciples He cherishes with a
devoted love ; and this love is pledged to their
protection. The effect of these variations from
the formally exact parallel is to raise the saying
to its emotional climax. The lesson conveyed is
that Christ's disciples are under the watchful care
of His jealous love.

The case is similar with that in the paragraph
Mt 18'"''*. It is important that the relation of this
paragraph to the preceding one (IS'"*), and the
nature of the transition made at v.^ be correctly
apprehended. The Apostles had been disputing
about their relative claims to greatness in the
Kingdom of heaven ; and the Lord teaches them
a much needed lesson in humility by the example
of a little child. Setting a little child in their
midst, He exhorts them to see in it a type of the

LITTLE ONES

LITTLE 0:^ES

children of the Kingdoiu, and to seek to become
hke it if they would be greatest in that Kingdom
(cf. art. Children, vol. i. p. 304). With v.^ how-
ever, this incident closes, and the lesson from it is
concluded. The discussion that follows in the
succeeding verses is no longer an inculcation of
humility. It is an exhilarating pledge of the
whole Divine power to the sustaining, protection,
and glorification of Christ's disciples. The con-
nexion between the two paragraphs seems to turn
on the idea that, though men enter the Kingdom like
helpless infants, they are not therefore abandoned
to the adverse forces of the world : the power of
God is outstretched for their salvation. ' Such
little children' (v.^) God takes under His own pro-
tection, rewarding those who do them benefits, and
visiting with the severest punishment those who
evil-entreat them ; their angels ever behold the
Father's face in heaven ; if they go astray every-
thing is left that they may be recovered ; the
Father's will is pledged that no one of them shall
perish. The force of tliese great assurances is in-
definitely enhanced by the individual note that is
thrown into them. Throughout, the stress is laid
upon the individual, as distinguished from the class,
as the object of the Divine love (w.^- ^- '"• ^^- ^^) :
not a single one of tliem shall be witliout the
Father's care, no single one of them shall perish.
The passage is in effect just the Synoptic parallel of
the seventeenth chapter of John, or the Evangelic
parallel of the eightli chapter of Romans. Christ's
' little ones ' in it are, in short, just ' those that
believe on him,' of whom 'it is not the will of the
Father that one should perish,' whose 'angels in
heaven do always behold the face of the Father
which is in heaven.'

The declaration of Mk 9"*- is parallel Avith that
of Mt 18^, and is immediately preceded by a verse
the thought of which is parallel with that of Mt
10"*^. This passage gives us thus afresh in a single
context the two primary statements we have met
with in Matthew. The variations of the phrase-
ology in v.'*^ from what we have seen in Mt 10^"
supply commentaries on the meaning of the phrases
in the latter. ' Little ones ' in the one becomes
' you,' that is, Christ's disciples, in the other : ' in
the name of a disciple ' in the one, ' in the name
that ye are Christ's' in the other. Thus the in-
terpretation suggested of the passage in Matthew
is confirmed by the very language of the jDassage in
Mark. But this language in v.^^ settles the mean-
ing also of the phrases in the succeeding verse.
The 'you,' i.e. the disciples, of v.'*^ is replaced in
v.*- by ' these little ones that believe,' which must,
therefore, mean the same thing. This indeed would
be independently true, since these ' little ones ' are
specifically defined here not as ' little ones ' simply,
but as tliose 'little ones' 'that have faith.' It is
quite clear, therefore, that ' these little ones ' in this
passage means not children, but believers.

The only other passage in which the phrase
occurs, Lk 17^, is parallel in its assertion with Mt
18^ and Mk 9"*-, and repeats in effect tlieir language.
There is no allusion to children in the entire con-
text, in which our Lord simply warns His ' dis-
ciples ' against sins against their brethren. In
this and tlie parallel passage in Mk., in other
words, we have merely renewed manifestations of
the Saviour's concern for those He calls ' these
little ones.' He pronounces the sin of causing
tliose for whom His love was thus pledged to
stumble, almost too great to be expressed in
words.

Onevery occasion of its occurrence, therefore, the
phrase 'these little ones' evinces itself independ-
ently a designation, not of children, but of the
disciples of Christ. In these circumstances, we
cannot permit doubt to be thrown on its mean-

ing in the palmary passage, Mt IS'''-, by the cir-
cumstance that certain passages in Mark (9^""'")
and Luke (9*"^'*) which are parallel to Mt 18'-^
might easily be so read as to make literal children
the subject of their declarations (Mk 9'^% Lk 9^**)
parallel to Mt 18\ The account in Matthew is
the fuller, and permits the connexion of the clauses
to be more exactly estimated. It seems as if it
were merely the compression of Mark's and Luke's
reports which tempts to the identification of the
' little child ' of the earlier verses with the ' one of
such little children' (Mk.), or 'this little child'
(Lk.) of the closing verse : and the pressing of this
language literally is not free from difiiculties of
its own. In any event, we cannot permit any
difficulties that we may feel in explaining INIk 9^^,
Lk 9** to affect the determination of the meaning
of a phrase which does not occur in them, when
we meet it in other passages where its sense seems
clearly indicated.

We may take it as established, then, that the
phrase ' these little ones ' on the Master's lips
means not 'children,' but distinctly and always
'my disciples.' The question still remains open,
however, whether our Lord means by it all His
disciples, or only a specially designated class of
them. The latter has been quite commonly sup-
posed, and interpreters have busied themselves
defining the characteristic qualities of the par-
ticularly designated class. Halin, for exam[)le,
argues strenuously that the disciples at large cannot
be meant ; but that the designation presupposes
gradations among the disciples (cf. Lk T'-^), and
the essence of the exhortation in Lk 17' at least
is that the greater must not despise the lesser.
Godet similarly supposes that the ' little ones ' are
' beginners in the faith,' ' those yet weak in the
faith.' Surely, however, such distinctions are
foreign to the contexts in which these phrases
occur, and even inconsistent with them. In Mt
lO-*", for example, the broad identification of ' one
of these little ones ' with ' a disciple ' excludes
from thought all divisions within the body of
disciples ; and the definition of ' these ' as the
disciples to whom our Lord was speaking, as
He spoke of them as '■these little ones,' looks in
the same direction. In Mk 9'*-, again, the phrase
' these little ones ' takes up broadly the ' you ' of
the preceding verse, and therefore designates just
the disciples at large. 'These little ones' are,
moreover, defined here as ' these that believe,' that
is to say, as 'believers,' in their essential char-
acteristics as such. Much the same may be said
of Lk 17-, in the context of which there is a dis-
tinction between brother and brother but no dis-
crimination between greater and lesser, while the
whole drift of Mt IS"-''* is to exalt the ' little ones '
and to identify them with that body of chosen
ones to whose salvation the will of the Father is
pledged. It may be taken as exegetically certain,
then, that by 'these little ones' our Lord does
not intend to single out a certain section of His
disciples, — whether the weakest in faith or tlie
more advanced in that humility of spirit which
is the fruit of a great faith, — but means the
whole body of His disciples. This is therefore just
one of the somewhat numerous general designa-
tions which He gives to His disciples by which to
express His conception of their character and
estate, and the nature of His feelings towards
them.

2. Whence this particular designation of His
disciples was derived by our Lord remains indeed
somewhat obscure. It used to be quite generally
supposed that in it He had simply adopted and
applied to His own disciples an ordinary designa-
tion for their pupils current in the Rabbinical
schools. This idea seems traceable to J. J. Wet-

LITTLE ONES

stein, -vvlio illustrates the phrase on its first occur-
rence (Mt 10^-) by the following quotation from
the Bcreshith Babba (xlii. 4) :

' Where there are no little ones, there are no disciples ; where
there are no disciples, there are no sages ; where there are no
sages, there are no elders ; where there are no elders, there are
no prophets; where there is no prophet, there is no God.'

Following this suggestion, commentators like
Bolten, Kuinoel, Bloomheld, Fritzsche have
accordingly explained the phrase as simply a
Hebraism for 'disciples.'

It was early pointed out, however {e.g. by INIejxr,
ed. 2, p. 215 note; Bruno Bauer, ii. 241), that the
currency in the Rabbinical schools of such an
employment of 'little ones' as a designation for
' disciples ' is neither shown by the citation from
the Bercshlth Babba nor supported by any other
evidence. Accordingly this notion has quite gener-
ally died out (cf. Meyer- Weiss, ed. 8, 1890).
Its place has been largely taken by the very
natural supposition that our Lord has done for
Himself what the Rabbis had been supposed to
have done for Him, — applied affectionately to
His disciples a designation appropriate literally
only to children. The difticulty of this .sup-
position, otherwise most satisfactory, is that the
particular designation in question — 'little ones'
— is not a Biblical designation of children, and
not one which would readily suggest itself as
a term of affection. Neither the Hebrew (i^p) nor
the Greek {/MKpos) lent itself readily to adoption
as a terra of tenderness ; and accordingly neither
in the Hebrew nor in the Greek Bible does the
term 'little ones' (cjapn, oi fxiKpoi) ever occur as a
periphrasis for children. Where we read of ' little
ones ' in the English Bible in the sense of children,
this is an imposition of an English idea upon a
totally divergent Hebrew conception (70 Gn 34-'-'
43** 46-' etc. ). It is quite true that in Ral )l)inical
Hebrew D'jcp has become a standing term for chil-
dren ; but not as a term of affectionate feeling so
much as with the simple implication of immaturity.
The katan and kctnnna were to the Rabbis merely
the 'boy' and 'girl' as undevelojied and unripe,
in opposition to the mature man and woman. And
although this term was occasionally transferred by
tliem metaphorically to their pupils, it was not, if
we can trust the lexicographers, in a very pleasant
sense. The 'little one' among the di.sciples was
just an 'abortion' — one who disregarded his
teaciierand set his immaturity against his master's
ripe learning ; or one who, while yet fit only to
be a learner, wished to set himself up prematurely
as a teacher (cf. Levy or Jastrow, sab voce pp,
quoting the tract Sota 22a ; but consult Sota 24A,
where we are told that Samuel was surnamed inpn
' the Little,'— cf. ' James the Little ' in the NT,
and ' Kleigenes the Little' in Xenophon, — because
he made himself little, that is, bore himself humbly ;
here a good sense seems to be attached to the
metaphorical use of the word). It was assuredly
not from this circle of ideas that our Lord derived
His use of the phrase, even if Ave may suppose that
this Rabbinical use of it was already developed in
His day.

Only two OT passages suggest themselves as
offering natural points of departure for the framing
of such a phrase as our Lord employs. The one
of these is Is 60- and the other Zee 13'. In the
former, the terms employed, from which our Lord's
]>lirase may have been derived, are jbpn in the first
clause and Tj,'sn in tlie second. In the latter tlie
Hebrew term employed is □'")i'sn, translated in the
LXX ol /jLiKpoi. Both passages are Messianic, though
only Zee 13'^ is adduced in the NT and given exi)licit
application to Christ (Mt 26^i, Mk U'^). In neither
is there any allusion to children ; but in botli the
reference of the diminutive term is to the smallness

of the beginnings out of which the Lord in the days
of the coming blessing shall recreate His Church. If
we may believe that the Master had these passages
in mind when He called His disciples ' these little
ones,' then the application of the term to them
obviously meant to point them out as those ' little
ones ' who, Zechariah had promised, should be
refined as silver and tried as gold, only that they
might for ever become the Lord's people ; who,
Isaiah had promised, should be the unassuming
nucleus out of which by gracious expansion should
be developed the newly created city of God
which should be to Him an everlasting possession.
The consonance of this implication of the term
with all the allusions of the contexts in which it
occurs, and with all the declarations concerning His
'little ones' which our Lord makes, lies on the
face of things. And on its assumption all the
peculiarities of the form and use of the phrase at
once find an adeqtiate explanation.

3. If, now, we ask why and with what meaning
our Lord designated His disciples ' these little
ones,' a twofold answer seems indicated. It is on
the one side His chief ^lessianic designation of His
followers : it is on the other side the chief of His
hypocoristic designations of them. Other desig-
nations of each order exist. When Jesus speaks
of His followers as 'children of the kingdom,' for
example, He is applying to them a Messianic
designation ; or, to confine ourselves to the circle
of ideas most closely related to the passages of the
Old Testament supposed to be in His mind in the
instance holding our attention, when He calls them
His 'sheep' (Mt 26=*^) or more pointedly His 'little
Hock' (Lk 12^-), these are Messianic designations
which He is applying to them. Similarly His
langtiage with reference to them was full of hypo-
coristics. They were not merely His ' children '
(Mk 10-^ Jn 215), ij^^t His 'little children' (Jn
1333). They were not merely His ' flock ' (Mt 26^1,
Jn 10i«), but His 'little flock' (Lk \2^-). They
were not merely His 'sheep' (Mt 10'"'), but His
' little sheep' (Jn 10'- ^^) ; not merely His 'lambs '
(Lk 10^), but His 'little lambs' (Jn 21'^). In
the designation ' little ones ' both these lines of
expression reiich their heig'it. In calling His dis-
ciples the 'little ones' of Is 60--, Zee 13', He
points to them as the true seed of the Kingdoni,
the branch of God's planting, the work of His
hands in which He shall be glorified (cf. Schwartz-
koptt", The Prupheries of Jesus Christ, i)p. 199-202).
In calling them ' little ones ' (ol fxiKpoi) He applies to
them the hypocoristic by way of eminence, — so pure
a hypocoristic that the very substantive is lacking,
and nothing persists but the bare endearing diminu-
tive. There is combined, therefore, in this desig-
nation the expression of our Lord's deep-reaching
tenderness for His disciples and the declaration of
His protecting care over them as ' the renmant of
Jacol).' The ordinary suggestions of the meaning
of the phrase as applied to the disciples may doubt-
less be neglected as artificial. Reuss, for example,
thinks they were called ' little ones ' because they
were drawn from the most humble, the least dis-
tingtiished section of society ; de Wette, because
they were despised and meanly esteemed for
Christ's sake ; Dr Riddle, in recognition of their
weakness in themselves in the midst of the per-
secution of the world. These are all secondary
ideas. Primarily our Lord's disciples were called
by Him ' little ones ' because this was the natural
utterance of the tenderness of Jesus' love for
them, and the strongest mode of expressing the
glorious destiny that was in store for them. The
passages in which the epithet occurs are full of
the note of pledged protection, and they run up
into that marvellous declaration that no man
and no thing can snatch them out of the Father's

LIVING

hand. We shall not go far wrong, then, if we
say simply that our Saviour calls His disciples
' these little ones ' because He thinks of them as
the peculiar objects of His protecting care, and
sees in them already of the travail of His soul
that He may be satished. The greatness of His
love for them, the greatness of their signihcance
as the seed of the Kingdom,— these are the two
ideas that combine in this designation.

Benjamin B. Warfield.
LIVING. — 1. Bios = ' livelihood,' ' means of liv-
ing.' It is often used in this sense in class. Gr.,
e.g. TOP ^lov KTciadai, TvouladaL, etc. ; Plato, Gorg.
4S6 D, (men) oh ecrri. Kal /3ios Kai 56|a (cat ctXXa woWa
dyadd ; Phocylides, Frag. lU, ed. Bergk, dii-rjadai
(SiOTTiv, dpeTr]v 5' Srav •p /3ios r/'S?; (like Hor. EjJ. I. i.
53, ' quterenda pecunia primum est, virtus post
nummos '). It is rendered ' living ' in four passages
in the Gospels. (1) Mk 12-" (il Lk 21"') ^^aXev o\ov
Tov ^lou avTTis, Vulg. totion victum suum=' a\l that
she had to live upon until more should be earned '
(Swete). Jesus knew that this was the case, and
that she might have retained one of the Xetrrd when
she cast in both (Nestle, Expos. Times, xiii. 562,
who adds that 2 Co S^- looks like the moral drawn
from this passage; cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Covi-
mcntar, 256). Compare the praise of the virtuous
woman, Pr 3P^ (LXX crwdyfL 5e avry) tov jBioi'). (2)
Lk S'*^ iarpois npoaava'Kwcraaa oXov tov j3iov, Vulg.
omnem substantiam suam: the irpbs implying
that besides what she had sutlered, she had ex-
pended all her means of subsistence (cf. Plummer,
234 ; Holtzmann, 157 ; Hastings' DB iii. 322^')^
Ca 8" LXX, idv Sw dvrjp irdvTa tov (Biov avTov ev Trj
dydirr], e^ovdevibaei e^ovSeviiiaovcnv avTov, forms a sug-
gestive parallel. (3) Lk 15^- duXXev avrols tov jBiov,
Vulg. divisit illis substantiam : 6 /Stos being equi-
valent to 7] ovaia ('his estate'). Such a division of
property in the father's lifetime was perhaps not
uncommon. What i)recise rights the father re-
tained after the division is not clear. The words
■wdvTo. TO. £/jLa ad iaTiv (v.^^) are not spoken in a legal
sense, but are an expression of fatherly affection
(cf. Plummer, 372 ; Simcox, Expositor, 1889, ii.
124, 127). TO ewi^dWov /xepos was a technical form-
ula, as appears from the papyri (Deissmann, Bible
Studies, 230). The share of the younger son would
be a third (Dt 21", cf. Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden,
338). (4) Lk 15^'* 6 KaTa<paydbv <xov tov ^iov. Plummer
thinks there may be bitterness in the (xov, when
avTou might have been more fairly used. But the
(TOV TOV j3iov nijiy have been due to correct feeling ;
the elder son not regarding the share which he
himself had received as being absolutely his own
as long as his father lived (cf. Jiilicher, GleieJinis-
reden, 337). /3tos is used in the same sense : 1 Jn
3" 8s 5' dv ^xv '''o" ^''"' ■'""^ k6(t/j.ov, where it is
rendered 'this world's good' (AV), 'goods' (KV),
and includes ' all the endowments which make
up our earthly riches, wealth, station, intellect '
(Westcott, Mi loc). For the distinction between
fwT? and (Slos, in NT and in the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers (fw?? the princijile of life, vita
qua vivimvs ; /3tos the process, the circumstances,
the accidents of life, in its social rel.ations, vita
quam vivimu.s; cf. Lk 8'*), see the vahiable note
of Lightfoot, Ignat. ad Rom. vii. 3 (Apostolie
Fathers, second part, ii. 1, 225-226) ; and cf. Haupt
on I Jn 2'®, and Trench, Synon. xxvii.

2. Zwv. — (1) as applied, to God: by St. Peter,
Mt 16^® 6 vlbs TOV deov tov ^wvtos ; by the high
priest, Mt 26®^ i^opKi^w <xe /card t.ov 6. r. f. ; by
Christ Himself, Jn 6^^ 6 ^wv iraTrip.

The title 'the Uving God' occurs in OT in the following
passages : □"]: D'nV' Dt 523 (26), i s 1726-36, Jer IQiO 2336 ; c^rihij^
'n 2 K 19-1-18 (II Is S"-!- 1") ; 'n Vn Jos 3io, Hos 21 (IW), Ps 423 (2)
843 (2) ; x'n xn'^N Dn 621 (20). 27 (26). It is found besides (in
LXX) Dt i'^, To 131, Est 6'3, Dn 4l» .523 127, Bel 5, 3 ilac (i2i. A

study of the OT passages shows that God is called ' the living
God,' not only as contrasted with the dead idols of the heathen,
but also as the God of active Providence, as Israel's Protector
and Helper, as He who is Life, and the never-failing Source of
spiritual life to men. It is perhaps the title of God that conies
nearest in significance to Jahweh, and it seems to have been
used at times of great emotion as a substitute for it, particularly'
when the name Jahweh had disappeared from popular use (cf.
Dalman, Words of Jesus, 195). Sanday (BL, 1893, p. 153, cf. 124)
justly calls attention to the richness and depth of this prophetic
title as compared with modern terminology : ' the Absolute, the
Infinite, the Unconditioned, the First Cause, the Moral Gover-
nor," and so on (cf. Flint, Sermons and Addresses, 170).*

' The living God ' occurs often in NT, and the
writer of Hebrews uses it with special force and
emphasis (see A. B. Davidson, note on He 3^-). On
the lips of St. Peter (Mt 16'*^) it amounts to a con-
fession that the living God is now revealed in
Christ, who thus becomes the Source of eternal
life to His followers (Jn 6«8 ; cf. Hastings' DB iv.
574"^). The high priest's use of the title adds a
certain dignity to his adjuration ; and Jesus
answered on being thus solemnly appealed to.
'The living Father' (Jn e''") is a remarkable ex-
pression, combining as it does all that was signi-
hed by 'the living God' in the OT with Christ's
revelation of God as the Father who sent His Son
(or, of God as the Source of life on the side of
love). The meaning of this verse may be briefly
stated as follows : our Lord's words, ' I live by
{did, RV 'because of) the Father' are to be re-
ferred to the personal life of human weakness and
suffering now in progress. In living this life Jesus
is dei)endent upon the support and sustenance which
He is receiving at every moment from the Father
who sent Him. A like dependence exists in our case
upon Jesus Himself. Being Himself strengthened.
He becomes the source of strength to us. It is the
very fact of His coming and living this life of
human weakness and suffering on earth that puts
it within our power to take Him for our si)iritual
supi>ort and sustenance. When we take home the
truth of His self-humbling love for oui' sake, and
assimilate it to ourselves as the bread we eat, we
receive into our souls the true life that cannot die
(cf. Beyschlag, NT Theol. i. 272 ; and for a similar
profound saying as to the relation between the
Father and the Son and believers, see Jn lO^-'- ^').

(2) As applied to the Bisrn Lord: Lk 24^ tl
^TjTelTe TOV ^Q>vTa /xeTo, twv veKpwv ; the angels ques-
tion conveyed a reproof to the women who were
come to the place where the dead was laid, bring-
ing the spices which they had prepared : it was
like asking them, 'Where is your faith?' They
had heard the announcement Christ made to the
circle of His followers before leaving Galilee, that
He would rise again the third day (vv.**- '). At
the same time, the question was spoken sympa-
thetically, and conveyed to them the first intima-
tion of the astonishing truth, ovk ^cftlv cD5e, dWd
Tjyepd-r]. Here 6 fwj' simply implies that Jesus lives,
and is not now to be sought in the place where the
dead are, i.e. continues no longer under the power
of death (cf. v.-^ dyyeXwv . . . ot \eyovcnv avTov iyv).
But as spoken at the empty sepulchre, it un-
doubtedly has something of the exaltation of
meaning with Avhich it was afterwards used by
our Lord in His glorified state (Rev V^ iy<h eifii . . .
6 i'wv ' the Living one,' RV). There is compre-
hended in it the completeness of that triumph over
death which was afterwards so richly unfolded to
the mind of the Church by the Holy Spirit, as, for
example, when St. Paul used the exultant lan-
guage of Ro 6"- ^", or spoke of Christ as a irvevfia

I'OJOWOLOVV (1 Co 15*'').

(3) As applied to Water and Bread in the Fourth

* 'O Thou Infinite, Amen,' was the form of prayer Tennyson
used in times of trouble and sorrow (Meinnir hi/ his Snn, i. 324).
The language of the founder of the Gifford Lectureship may also
be recalled.

LIVING

738

Gospel: Jn 41"- n v5wp j'Cv ; t"" irora/j.oi vdaros
^QiuTos ; 6®' iyd) el/xi 6 dpros 6 ^Qv. — a. Jn 4^"- ■'^.
' Living water ' is spring water, as contrasted with
that collected in a well or cistern. It is the □".n d]Q
of the OT (Gn 26" [see Driver's note], Lv U^- «•
s^-ss, Ca 415, Jer 21^ IT^^, Zee 14^ : also LXX Gn 21",
Nu 5^'^). The woman of Samaria was familiar with
the expression, and her question was quite natural
and appropriate, ' Art thou greater than our father
Jacob ? ' ' Here is an ordinary man offering to
supply better water, spring water, in the place
where the patriarch Jacob had been obliged to
content himself with building a cistern and drink-
ing cistern water' (Wendt, St. John's Gospel,
124). The water in Jacob s Well (wh. see) is be-
lieved to be due to ' percolation and rainfall ' (cf.
Hastings' Z>5 ii. 536, Encyc. Bibl. iv. 4829, Smith's
DB' ii. 1503). Jer 21^ especially illustrates the
difference between the spring or fountain, gushing
forth with its unstinted and unfailing supply, 'over-
flowing, ever-flowing,' and the cistern, so liable
to be destroyed by cracking [Land and Book,
287), which at the best cannot afford a refreshing
draught like that of the bubbling spring, and which
cannot permanently retain the water collected in
it. Christ does not call Himself ' the Living
water,' as He calls Himself ' the Living bread.'
What He means by ' the living water ' is the word
of salvation which He i^reaches (cf. vv.'*^- ■*-). This
word, He says (v.^''), enters into the inner personal
life, and becomes there a gushing spring, a peren-
nial foimtain (7r7;7Tj vSaros), 'springing up into
eternal life,' i.e. persisting to flow upwards till
we reach our end of full communion Avith God.
C. Wesley's ' Spring Thou up within my heart.
Rise to all eternity,' is quite in harmony with
Israel's water-drawing song, in which the spring
is addressed as a living being (Nu 21", cf. Encyc.
Bibl. i. 515, iv. 4778).

b. Jn 7^*. — ' Pouring out water before the Lord '
was a primitive ritual practice, of which the origin
is uncertain. It was ' in all probability a survival
from a time when water (in the desert) was con-
sidered an article of value ' ( Kautzsch in Hastings'
DB, Ext. Vol. 620'^). It is mentioned as a prayer-
ottering, 18 7"; as a thank - offering, 2 S 23'".
There are no traces of it beyond the time of David
(a refei'ence to it in 1 K 18^ is not probable) ; but
the practice of pouring out water as a drink-otter-
ing continued to be observed, or was revived, in
connexion with the Feast of Tabernacles. Every
morning during the seven days of the feast water
was drawn from the spring of Siloam in a golden
pitcher, and was poured into a basin at the top of
the altar [Encyc. Bibl. iv. 4213). The libation of
water was probably a prayer-ottering for abundant
rain for the new seed-time [ih. iv. 4880, cf. iii.
3354). Rain was an emblem of Messianic blessings
(2 S 23^ Ps 726, cf. Hos 6^) ; and we may well be-
lieve that the symbolical act of pouring out water
gave occasion to our Lord's looking forward to the
abundant showers with Avhich He Avas soon to
Avater the earth. — Further, this joyous festival
brought to our Lord's mind the Rock at Horeb
(Ex 17", Nu 20", cf. 1 Co lO-*), and perhaps more
especially those OT sayings in Avhich it had been
predicted that living Avater should floAV out from
Jerusalem, or from the House of the Lord (Ezk
471- 1;, Zee 148, Jl 318, cf. Ps 87^). What Avas the
precise connecting link of thought betAveen these
predictions and the phrase iK rrjs KoiXias avrov, it is
diflieult to say. But may it not be the case that,
in o\iY Lord's vieAv, Avhat had been spoken concern-
ing Jerusalem and the Temple Avas noAV to be ap-
plied to the inner personal life of the belieA'er,
enriched by the entrance of His Avord, and renewed
by His Holy Spirit ? This sanctified personal life
Avas Avhat noAV ansAvered to the sanctuary from

Avhich it had been foretold that living Avaters
should floAv out. Our Lord's application of the
term KoiXia to it Avas in keeping Avith the use of pja
in certain passages of the OT, Avhere it denotes
the Avhole of man's emotional nature and sympa-
thetic affections (Pr 20-7- =*», Hab 31", cf. Sir lO'^
51-1 . (,f_ also the expression ' his boAvels yearned,'
Gn 43^'*, 1 K 3-"). The Avords /ca^ws elirev i] ypa^ij,
K.T.X., are thus a terse and eloquent paraphrase of
the scope of the passages above referred to. It
need hardly be said that the clause Kadws eiTrev tj
ypafpT) cannot possibly be connected Avith the pre-
ceding 6 TTLCFTevwv ft's ifxi [ ' there are not ditterent
Avays of believing,' Principal Campbell, The Four
Gospels, in loc. ). This saying of our Lord supple-
ments and extends that of 4'*. The Avord of sal-
vation Avhich becomes a gushing spring Avhen
received into the inner personal life of the be-
liever, and rises up there unto eternal life, Jesus
noAV announces, is to become a rushing stream, and
is to floAv out from the believer in rivers of blessing
to others [irorafjiovs (KaXeaev, ovx eva woraixov, aXka
acfyarovs, Chrys. in loc). The limitations to its
ditt'usion that at present exist Avill be removed
Avhen Christ shall have entered into His glory. His
sending His Holy Spirit upon the company of be-
lievers Avill enable them to proclaim His Avord Avith
full poAver, and Avill make their holy lives a means
of spiritual replenishment to all mankind. The
saying Avas fulhlled after Pentecost, Avhen ' rivers
of living Avater ' floAved out from the Lord's Avit-
nesses ' unto the uttermost part of the earth,' ' be-
ginning at Jerusalem ' * (cf. Dykes, Expositor, 1890
(i.) p. 127 tt".). When the A\'ater from Siloam Avas
brought to the Temple, priests and people sang the
Avords, ' Therefore Avith joy shall ye draw Avater out
of the Avells of salvation ' (Is 12^). But in the verses
foUoAving (vv.^'"), it Avas implied that the Avater
so draAvn Avas not to be Israel's exclusive posses-
sion, but that the salvation Avhich it symbolized
Avas to be communicated to other nations (v.^ ' let
this be knoAvn in all the earth,' RV). With the
leading thought of Jn 7^* may be compared Avhat
St. Paul says about Christians first receiving and
then giving forth ' the light of the knoAvledge of
the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ'
(2 Co 4«).

c. Jn 6^^ — Tavo things — the manna and the
bread of the miracle Avhich He had just Avrought —
Avere present to our Lord's mind Avhen He preached
at Capernaum, and also to the minds of His
hearers. They had said, after His feeding the five
thousand, 'This is of a truth the Prophet that
cometh into the Avorld ' (v.'^). But the earthly and
material good Avhich they expected to folloAV not
being immediately forthcoming, and the first favour-
able impression produced by the miracle having
Avorn off, they began to criticise and find fault.
' After all, His multiplying the loaves is not any-
thing so very Avonderful. Can He "rain doAvn
manna upon us to eat, and give us of the corn of
heaven" (Ps 78--'), that Ave may see and believe
Him (v.30)? The manna,' said they, 'supplied
the Avants of all the hosts of Israel for forty years,
but He has furnished us Avith no more than one
meal.' This led Jesus to set forth the difference
betAveen the manna and ' the true bread from
heaven' (v.^-). Inasmuch as the manna Avas sent
doAvn from above, and Avas continually rencAved, it
Avas a type of the true bread. But that bread it
Avas not, being simply a provision Avhich Avas made
for a special purpose, and Avhich lasted only until
that purpose had been fulfilled (cf. Jos 5^^) ; nor

* The Patristic expositors applied the saying mainly to the
effusion of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (Hare, Mission
of the Comforter, Note H, where a passage is quoted from a
sermon preached by Luther in 1531, in which he states the
right sense with his usual vigour).

LIVING

had their fathers' having eaten it eventually de-
livered them from the jjower of death (v.'*''). Jessus
also showed that His hearers had failed to jier-
ceive the true purpose of the miracle He had
wrought. The bread of the miracle was intended
for ' a sign ' (v.^^), w-hicli they had not had faith to
discern (v.^'^), that He could supply them with the
true bread of the soul. Inasmuch as the multiply-
ing of the loaves was due to His love, and involved
the repeated action of that love in the gift of a
satisfying meal to each of them severally (cf. Swete,
St. Mark, 127^), it was ' a sign ' that should have
led them to believe that He covild give them the
true bread. But they had sought Him at Caper-
naum, not hungering for this bread, but hanker-
ing after more earthly good, like that which they
had already received. Accordingly, Jesus spoke
of the bread of the miracle as ' the meat which
perisheth,' and contrasted it with ' the meat which
endureth unto eternal life' (v. 2^). These distinc-
tions of the bread of the miracle as well as the
manna from the true bread of the soul are im-
portant and vital, and they assist us to lay hold
of our Lord's meaning when He said, ' I am tlie
living bread.' This expression has no parallel in
the OT, but it is in close affinity with the ' living
water ' in ch. 4. As ' living water ' is water that
never ceases to gush forth, so ' living bread ' is
bread that Jesus never ceases to multiply for the
supply of our spiritual wants, — bread, tlierefore,
by which our spiritual sustenance is perpetually
renewed (cf. Dods, Expositor's Bible, in loc). It is
bread in ever-multiplying, unmeasured store, that
can never be exhausted by the famishing. As
Jesus speaks of 'giving' this bread (v. 2^), it must
mean, in the first instance, the same thing as the
better water which He also spoke of ' giving,'
namely, His woixl. This view is in agreement witli
the teaching of vv.*'^- ^^, and is also supported by
our Lord's use of Dt 8^ (Mt A\ Lk 4-»). But He
not only speaks of ' giving ' bread. He also says,
' I am the living bread.' The key to His meaning-
is found in the Prologue. Jesus not only utters
the word of God, but is ' from eternity the very
Word of God, by which God manifests Himself.
He is not one who leads to the way, but Himself
the Way ; not one who preaches truth, but Him-
self the Truth' (P 148 . Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1905,
p. 6). So here Jesiis not only gives the bread, but
is Himself 'the living bread,' — 'the actual source
of nutrition.' He 'speaks of Himself not as re-
sembling, but as being the veritable vine, the
veritable bread, the veritable light of the world ;
implying that He is the absolute truth of all these
things ; the supreme reality M'hich they partially
nianifest in their several spheres' (Illingworth,
Divine Immanence'^, 135, cf. 137). Jesus adds,
' which came down from heaven. ' As in the phy-
sical realm, so, too, in the spiritual, the food that
siistains us comes down from heaven, and to pro-
cure it is beyond the reach of our own powers (Is
55'"- ^^). As the heaven-given bread which feeds
our bodies ultimately assumes the humble form of
the baked loaf, which, inasmuch as it nourishes
life, retains the life of the living wheat, and can
impart it, so Jesus, in order to feed our souls, must
humble Himself and ' be foimd in fashion as a
man,' be born, and that in a low condition (v.^-),
undergo tue miseries of this life, and at the end of
His earthly course even ' give his flesh for the life
of the world.' The power of this truth of His self-
humbling love for our sake enters into our inner
personal life, and we are enabled to assimilate it
to ourselves as the food we eat, by means of His
word. His word is the ' bread which strengtheneth
man's heart' (Ps 104^''), because it is the embodi-
ment of Him who, having humbled Himself to
death, now for ever lives. Through it the repeated

action of His love still ministers the gift to each
hungering soul. The Bread of heaven, in heaven
itself, will be the word which Jesus speaks to His
people. — It is the same truth respecting Christ as
our Living Food and Strength that is ' represented,
sealed, and applied ' to us in the Lord's Suppei-.

(4) As applied to the Patriarchs : Mk 12-' (|| Mt
22'*-, Lk 20-*^) oiiK €(JTLV dibs veKpGiv, dWa ^ibvTwv. —
In expounding this cardinal saying, we have first
to inquire what doctrine our Lord is here vindicat-
ing. Religious minds among the Jews had already
arrived at the clearly defined hope of a future life
(Driver, Sermons on OT, 92), which life they con-
ceived of as comprehending ' the deliverance of an
existent personality from Sheol, and its re-endow-
ment with life in all its jjowers and activities '
(Hastings' DB iv. '232^). Sadduceeism, Mhich
represented the old Jewish standpoint, rejected
these doctrines. The Sadducees were hostile to
our Lord's whole teaching resjjecting ' the king-
dom of God,' which carried the consummation of
the Kingdom into a future life, and accordingly
imijlied that there would be a resurrection of the
dead. It was with reference to the resurrection
that they chose their line of attack on His teaching.
In His discussion with them, it was our Lord's
object not only to maintain that there is a life
after death, but also to reveal what deliverance
from death really implied. Had He made use of
Ex 3 simply to prove the continued existence of
men after death, He would not have met the
objections of His ojjponents. It was their attack
on the resurrection that He successfully repelled
(cf. Wendt, Teaching of Jestis, i. 222). The
Sadducees, although not actually rejecting the
other books of the OT, considered them as being
very inferior in value to the five books of INIoses
(cf. Encyc. Bibl. iv. 4240). It was from the latter,
accordingly, that they drew their objection to the
resurrection. Founding on the law of the Levirate
marriage (see Levirate Law), they thought to
13ut our Lord in an embarrassing position by pro-
pounding the case of seven brethren, who, after
having married the same wife in succession, had
all died childless, and then asking, ' In the resur-
rection, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she
be of the seven ? ' The story of Glaphyra (Jos.
Ant. XVII. xiii. 4; cf. Addison, Spectator, No.
110) was probably much canvassed about that
time (Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, 245) ; and in
it the marriage-relation was conceived of as still
standing in the world beyond death. Our Lord
took the opportunity attbrded Him by the dis-
putation which had arisen to set free the doctrine
of the resurrection from such grossly materialistic
notions as these, and to show that the resurrection
life is not a continuation of the present life of the
body, or of human relations as they now exist
(v. 28). As to the main point at issue. He met
the Sadducees on their own ground. He directed
their attention to a passage which they had over-
looked in one of their revered books, and prefacing
the quotation with the words, 'As touching the
dead that they rise,' — thus showing that it was
the resurrection He was vindicating, — He asked
them, ' Have you considered the bearing of this
passage upon the doctrine in question V ' As to
our Lord's use of this passage of the OT, all that
need be said here is that the revelation given to
Moses at Horeb, and made by him the ground of
his appeal to the Hebrew tribes, — the revelation,
namely, of Jahweh as the God of their fathers, —
lies at the very root of Israel's religion (cf. W. R.
Smith, Proph.^ 32, OTJC- 303; Kautzsch in
Hastings' DB, Ext. Vol. 624, 625''). Our Lord's argu-
ment, based on the passage quoted, may be stated
as follows :— The words of Ex S"- ^'^- 1^- 1« .spoke of
the relation of the patriarchs to God as a still

LOAF

LOANS

existing relation, and set forth a fellowsliip witli
God in which they, being dead, yet lived. But
their fellowship Avith God contained in itself the
promise and the pledge of a more complete life and
more perfect fellowship which should hereafter be
granted them by God. It followed, by an inner
principle of necessity, from their being united to
Him who is ' the God of the living,' that He would
not leave any part of their being for ever under
the destructive power of death, but would in the
end awaken them to a heavenly life with Himself
(Wendt, I.e. i. 223; cf. Bengel, note on Mt 22=*^;
Salmond, Chr. Doctr. of Immortality^, 366 ; Swete,
St. Mark, 266). Or, to state the argument in a
more comjmct form : — God is Life. The patriarchs
are in God, therefore they partake of life. But
life cannot die, therefore they must continue living
for ever. But a purely incorporeal existence does
not give the full conception of life in man's case.
Each patriarch is soul plus body. Therefore the
body, as well as the soul, is secured in an ever-
lasting life. Compare the remarkable treatise on
the Resurrection by the apologist Athenagoras
('". A.D. 177), especially chs. 14-17 (Donaldson, A
Critical History of Chr. Lit. and Doctr. iii. 116,
136tf. ). The ground of the resurrection-hoi)e
which our Lord found in this passage was beyond
question contained in it, seeing that He found it
there and set it forth. He could see all that God
meant when He called Himself ' the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob.' He could discern the full witness borne
by this title to the certainty of the hope which He
defended. ' He who spoke in the OT was God,
and from the first that which He spoke about was
the consummation which filled His thought ' (A. B.
Davidson, Expositor, 1900 (i.), 15 ; cf. OT Prophecy,
14). Further, in the Resurrection of Christ Him-
self we have the conclusive proof that communion
with God involves the restitution of the whole
of our jiersonal being. What the proper view of
the resurrection body is we find later on from St.
Paul, whose doctrine of a cnSyaa ■jrvevfxariKoi' as con-
trasted with a crQ/xa \pvxi-Kt>v (1 Co 15**), and of a
(TuJyua Trjs 56^r;s aiiTov as contrasted with a cruj/ua ttjs
TaweLvuiaews tjplQv (Ph 3"'), was no doubt evolved
from our Lord's saying.

(5) As cqjpliccl to the manner or course of life :
Lk 15'^ fiSi' do-wTcoy, ' with riotous living ' (cf. Jos.
Ant. XII. iv. 8, aadjToos ^Tl*')- Contrast ' holy living.'
From this phrase is derived the title 6 daoiros vl6s,
flius procUgus, by which this parable is generally
known (Ti'ench, Par.^ 393 ; Jiilicher, Gleichnisr.
337, 341).* See also art. Life.

Literature. — In addition to the reflf. in this art., see Dale, The
Living Christ and the Four Gospels ; Forsyth, The Holy Father
and the Living Christ ; van Dyke, The Reality of Religion, p.
121 ; Liddon, Passiontide Sermons, p. 244.

James Donald.
LOAF i&pTos). — The Eastern loaf is not at all
like the bread in use among ourselves. The Pass-
over loaf — a large round thin cake — probably pre-
serves the shape of the loaf in use among the Jews
of our Lord's time. The same shajje of loaf is
found to-day among the Bedawin and fella hi n as
well as in many villages and towns. The loaves
are of considerable size, — 18 in. or more in diameter,
— and are of an extreme tenuity and of a peculiar
but not unpleasant toughness. They are baked
usually on a convex girdle, very often on the im-
plement which is used for roasting cofiee — hence
the name ' girdle bread.' They may also be baked
on heated stones or on the outside of a jar within
which a fire has been kindled. Such without
doubt would be the kind of bread baked by the

* Chrys. (de Poenitentia, Horn. i. 4) calls the younger son
i (jco-MTo;, but the sermon siV •rov ao-arov vlov referred to bj' Jiilicher
is omitted as spurious, ed. Montfaugon (Paris, 1839).

children of Israel in their desert wanderings. And
at the present time one may see this loaf in almost
every part of Palestine. Even where other kinds
of bread are used, this is still highly relished. If
there is a guest in a native house, the loaves are
often folded up in quarter size and laid beside his
plate, and more than one European traveller has
mistaken them, when so placed, for table na^jkins !

In all probability the loaves in Mk 6** 8**, etc.,
were of this kind, inasmuch as such bread is almost
always carried on a journey, and by workmen, be-
cause of its keeping properties. The loaf is never
cut ; it is broken or torn asunder. Small scoops
are made of the portions, with which the meat,
rice, or leben (curdled milk) is scooped up — spoon
and contents being eaten together. A man will
eat three or four of these loaves at a meal (Lk 11').

Another loaf in common use at the jiresent day
is smaller in circumference and considerably
thicker, and very much resembles in appearance
the ' scones,' baked on a girdle, so common in
some parts of Scotland. Bread of this kind is
found only in towns Avhere there are public ovens.
See also art. Bread. J, Sout.\e.

LOANS. — There are frequent references to money,
and many illustrations suggested by financial obli-
gations, in the teaching of Jesus. These have been
gathered together as indications of ' the economic
background of the Evangelical history ' ( Haus-
rath, NT Times, i. p. 188 f., quoted also in full by
Bruce in Parabolic Teaching, p. 243 f.). We learn
from Tacitus that the year 17 was marked l)y
great discontent in Judaea and througliout Syria,
on account of the burdensome taxation, and that
the year 33 was one of financial crisis tliroughout
the Empire. There is thus full justification for
the numerous Gospel intimations of hardsliii> and
debt, and impoverishment generally. See Debt.

But the relation of debtor and creditor is so
obviously adaptable to moral obligations, that
under any .social condition the use of this figure
is to be expected. The very terms for financial
obligations are freely used to expre.ss the obliga-
tions of moral life. Thus the same Gr. verb
(6<pei\w) is variously rendered in the RV ' owed,'
' owest,' ' that was due ' (Mt IS'-*- so- S'l, Lk 7^^ 16-^- '^
of financial obligation) ; 'debtor' (Mt 23i«- i* [AV
'guilty']), 'duty' (Lk 17^"), 'ought' (Jn 13" 19"),
' indebted ' (Lk 11^ ; all of moral obligation) ; anil
the noun (o^etXeV???) is translated ' owed ' (Mt 18--'
of money debt), ' debtors ' (Mt 6^- of moral debts),
' ofienders ' (Lk 13^ [AV ' sinners '] of guilt before
God). Financial obligations attbrd also a ready
measure of moral indebtedness ; our sins against
one another are as debts of £50 or £5 (Lk 7'*^), but
our sin against God runs into ' millions sterling '
(Mt 18--*).

The very naturalness of these illustrative uses
of money values and financial relations makes it
obviously wrong to press them into the support of
economic theories, e.g. the justification of com-
mercial loans from ' Thou oughtest therefore to
have put my money to the bankers, and then at
my coming I should have received back mine own
with interest ' (Mt 25-" = Lk 19-^). In parables any
relations may hold which the story demands. In
Christian economics only moral relations are to be
tolerated. Because then, in the Gospel narratives,
debtors and creditors, borrowers and lenders figure
largely, we are not able to say that the teaching
of Jesus either sxipports or condemns modern com-
mercial arrangements. The true basis of Cliristian
economics must be found in the ethical teaching
of the Gospels as a whole.

Apart from incidental references in parables,
there is one saying of Jesus which calls for fuller
notice. ' If ye lend [bavdi;^, lend njion interest ;

LOCUST

contrast Kixpvi^h of a friendly loan, Lk IP only)
to them of wlioni ye hope to receive, wliat
thank have ye ? even sinners lend to sinners, to
receive again as much. But love your enemies,
and do them good, and lend, never despairing ;
and your reward sliall be great, and ye shall be
sons of the Most High : for lie is kind toward the
unthankful and evil ' (Lk 6^^^*-, cf. Mt 5^-). The
ditHculty, in part one of textual reading, but
mainly of interpretation, finds adequate repre-
sentation in ' hoping for nothing again ' (AV),
'never despairing' (RV), 'despairing of no man'
(KVm). Tins uncertainty cannot, however, affect
the meaning, which is determined by tlie preceding
verses, and though the rendering of the AV must
be rejected on critical grounds, it may well stand
as an adequate gloss. On the authority of this
saying the unlawfulness for Christians of receiving
interest on loans has been based ; and, rightly
understood and applied, the inference is just. The
commandment is one of benevolence. Christian
charity is not to be by way of loans <at interest.
It is the duty of giving Jesus teaches, as if He
said, ' Let your lending be giving ' — a rule of
charity which experience justifies, and which, from
the would-be borrower's side, receives support in
St. Paul's saying, ' Owe no man anything, save
to love one another ' (Ro 13**).

W. H. Dyson.

LOCUST. — 1. Zoological description. — Locusts
lielong to the natural order Orthoptera. The
members of this order are insects which undergo
only a partial metamorphosis ; the larva is scarcely
distinguishable from the adult, unless by its smaller
form and by the atrophy of its wings, which develop
only gradually in proportion to its growth. Ex-
cepting this difference, it has the same form and
tlie same habits as the adult. In its perfect state,
the first pair of wings, though remaining supple,
have a certain consistency. They cover tlie hind
\\ ings, which are membranous and transparent, and
folded under the ui)per wings in the form of a fan.
The month is of shape suitable for mastication,
and the jaws act like a pair of scissors. Formerly
the Orthoptera were divided into rnnners and
Icnpers, but this division has been abandoned.
Locusts were classed among the leapers. Accord-
ing to the present nomenclature, we must class
them among the Orthoptera genuina. Among
these appear among others (a.) the family of Locus-
todece, to Avhich the Eurojiean grasshoppers (the sub-
family of the Locustidce) belong ; and also (b) the
family of Acridiodece, which includes in its various
sub-families the principal locusts of Palestine. It
is of the highest importance to avoid the confusion
Avhich may arise from this misleading terminology,
according to which the ' locusts ' of the Bible do
not belong to the scientific family Locustodcce.

We are, then, to treat of the family Acridiodece.
Their antennas are relatively short, scarcely exceed-
ing tiie length of the head, whereas the antennae
of the Locustodcce are very long, as long as their
bodies. Their hind legs, adapted for leaping, have
very strong thighs furnished with indentations,
which are easily seen if slightly magnified. The
head is vertical. The first jjair of wings are more
leathery than the second, but both present the
same reticulatetl ap]>earance. The rapid brushing
of the thighs of the hind legs, furnished with in-
dentations, against the nervures of the front wings
produces, when the insect is at rest, a stridulation,
the tone and height of which vary according to the
species. The Acridiodece are generally diurnal,
and their food is essentially herbaceous. In the
females the abdomen ends in a pair of short pin-
cers, whereas in the Lo<-ustodcce. this appendage is
greatly prolonged like the blade of a sabre. Tliese
pincers serve to bury in the earth, one by one, the

eggs, which are dis]iosed in cylindrical masses and
held together by a frothy secretion.

The insect moults six times, but the principal
stages of its development are only t\\o— larva and
imago (perfect state). The intermediate state
(pupa) which we ihid in other orders of insects is
imperceptible in the Orthoptera. In their state of
larvas locusts, having no wings, or more correctly,
merely the rudiments of Avings, hop on the ground ;
even at this stage they are extremely destructive.
Later, with the succeeding moultings, the wings
develop, but remain enclosed in a membranous
case ; the insects now advance walking. At last, at
their sixth moulting, which takes place from six to
seven weeks after their coming out of the egg,
locusts attain to their perfect state, and, unfolding
their wings, fly through the air, producing what
travellers describe as 'a hissing or a

noise.

buzzing

In Palestine as manj^ as forty different species of
Acridiodece have been noted. The most important
of these belong to the sub-families of the Tryx-
cdidcn, the CEdipodidcc, and the Acridiidce properly
so called. The commonest species, those which
are rightly associated with the locusts mentioned
in the Bible, are the Pachytylus migrcdorius (for-
merly called (Edipoda migratoria) and the Schisto-
cerca peregrina (formerly called Acridium pcrc-
grinum). The colour of tliese insects is generally
brown bordering on green, but with a bluish tint
round the mouth, and with black spots on the
body and green spots on the wings. The males
are coloured differently from the females. In re-
gard to their dimensions, locusts are as much as
three or even four inches long when they are full
grown.

Locusts are migratory insects, as the qualifying
words, migratoria, 2)crcgrina, applied to them de-
note. They are produced chiefly in desert regions
on the lofty plateaux of the East, and, carried by
their wings and driven on by the east wind, they
invade western Palestine in compact bodies.

2. Bibliccd names. — The OT mentions locusts
under at least nine different names. These are
(1) na-iN 'arheh, Ex 10^- 12-14. w l^ ^s-', Dt 28^8, Jg
65 7'-; 1 K 8^^ 2 Ch 6-«, Job 39"'«, Ps 78^" 105^"' 109-^
Pr 30"-'?, Jer 46-^ Jl 1^ 2"^ Nah 3'5- ". (2) 3:n
hagcib, Lv IP^, Nu 13^3, 2 Ch 7l^ Ec 12^, Is 40-^.
(3) DyVo sol'clni, Lv W^-. (4) Si-in hargol, Lv 11--.
(5) ph^ yelek, Ps 1053-', Jer 51"- ^^ Jl 1^ 2-5, Nah
3i5f-. (6) S'cn hclsU, 1 K 8^^ 2 Ch 6-8, Ps 78« Is 33-*,
Jl 1-* 2-5. (7) Cij gcxzclm, Jl 1"* 2^5, Am 49. (8) 33,
313, '313 gc'b, gob, gobai, Is 33'*, Am V, Nah 3^'?. (9)
•j^S^ zelciml, bt 2S^2_

It would naturally be a matter of the greatest
interest to know if these various names correspond
with as many different si^ecies. But before reply-
ing to this question, (a) we should have to be cer-
tain that the ancients, the E.asterns, the Hebrews
in particular, were capable of making a distinction
similar to that of genus and species used by modern
scholars ; (b) we should have to be equally certain
that Biblical writers employed the terms in their
language in a strict and rigorous fashion (a thing
wliich even modern writers do not always do) ; and
[c) Ave should require sufficient dat.a to enable us
to assign such and such a Hebrew name to such
and such a i)articular species. Noav these three
conditions cannot be fulfilled, and in such a case
it may well seem chimerical to demand a system-
atic classification, in accordance with present zoo-
logical jirinciples, of the various locusts mentioned
in the Bible. We must remember that Oriental
languages, such as Hebrew and Arabic, possess a
considerable choice of synonyms to denote one and
the same animal. We note that the LXX pro-
ceeds on no regular system. It translates the
Hebrew by using the terms aKpis, ^poCxos, Kixfnr-q,

LOCUST

cLTTeXajBos (drTe\e/3os), epvcrijSr) [epiaij^T]), aTTaK-qs,
6(pLo/xa.xv^, etc., in a purely arbitrary and, it would
appear, conjectural manner, without taking the
least cai'e always to translate the same Hebrew
by the same Greek word. The same is true of the
version of Jerome and of translations into modern
languages. The EV has had no better success
with its varying use of 'locust,' 'grasshopper/
'canker-worm,' ' palmer- worm,' 'caterpillar,' and
even 'beetle' (for hdgdb, manifestly a false trans-
lati<m).

We must also avoid the error of thinking that
the various terms employed, for examjile, by Joel
and Nahum refer to locusts at various stages in
their develojiment. The fact that the order of the
four terms gdzdm, \irhch, yelek, hdsll in Jl !■* is
followed in 2-° by the order ^arbch, ydck, hdsll,
gdzdni, in itself disproves this theory. Besides, it
would be ditiicult to perceive in the development
of the Ortliopterous insect four stages easily dis-
tinguishable by every observer, since, as we have
seen, the insect changes vei'y little from moulting
to moulting.* "We must add to the passages of
the canonical OT cited above Jtli 2-", Wis 16^, Sir
43''. The term used in these three texts is aKpLs ;
the Hebrew Sirach has 'arbch.

The names that the Hebrew language gives to
locusts prove that these insects were peculiarly
feared {a) on account of their great numbers, and
(6) on account of their voracity and their power of
destruction. In fact, \trbch probably goes back to
a root meaning to be numerous, to multiply. On
the other hand, gdzdm, hdsll, yelck, and sol'dm, all
have the sense of destruction (literally to clip, to
cut, to devour, to swallow). t The sense of gcb (gob,
gobai) and of hdgdb is a problem. Hargol appears
to signify one ivho gallops, and ztldzal is a more
harmless term, referring to the humming of the
locust's wings, or rather to the stridulation it
makes when it is at rest (a word akin to this is
used to denote cymbals).

3. Locusts in the OT. — In the books of the OT
the locust is sometimes used figuratively to denote
smallness (Nu 13^3, Is 40-2), lightness (Ec 12^, but
the passage is obscure and in dispute), and great
numbers (Jg 6^ 7'-, Jer 46-^). But, as a rule, when
locusts are mentioned, it is usually as an instru-
ment of destruction or as food.

The former of these last two usages is much the
more frequent in the OT. Particularly forcible,
vivid, and jjicturesque descriptions of the destruc-
tive power of the locust are given in the passages
quoted above from Exodus, Joel, Amos, and
Nahum. The fear-inspiring character of these in-
sect invaders, as they advance in regular companies
(Pr 302''), jg jjj jjQ ^yg^y exaggerated. Locusts are a
veritable plague. We find graphic descriptions in
the writings of travellers or residents in the Holy
Land, such as Wilson, Tristram, Thomson, Van-
Lennep, as well as of other writers in various coun-
tries. Their accounts have, among others, been
collected by Driver {loc. cit. inf.). Van-Lennep
even says of locusts (p. 314) that ' their voracity is
such that in the neighbourhood of Broosa, in the
year 1856, an infant having been left asleep in its
cradle under some shady trees, was found not long
after partly devoured by the locusts.' See also the
singularly graphic passage in which Thomson relates

* Perhaps one might instance, to prove that the Hebrews had
noticed the successive stages of development in the locust, the
fact that in Jer 5127 yelek is qualified by ICD sdmdr (EV
' rough ') : this might be understood to apply to the state of
the insect before it has the use of its wings (?).

t It is striliing to note, in view of these names of serious and even
terrible import, tliat similar insects in Europe (the Locustidce)
are tricked out with such innocent names as 'grasshopper'
(German, Heuschrecke, from He^i, 'hay,' and the old word
scricchan, 'to leap"; in French savterelle); note also the
German Hevpferd and the Italian cavaletta, due to the resem-
blance of the grasshopper's head to a horse's.

his personal experiences (LB ii. p. 296 f.). On a
sculptured stone found at Babylon is an exact
representation (reproduced in Van-Lennep, I.e.) of
two locusts devouring a bush. The present writer
has seen on both sides of the Dead Sea, and also in
the neighbourhood of Jericho and Gadara, locusts
at the various stages of development devastating
the country and making all verdure disapj)ear in an
instant. He has also been a witness of the ettbrts
of the fell alii n, under the direction of the officials
of the Turkish Government, to check the advance of
the insects by lighting along their track tires fed
with petroleum. Another device is' to compel the
Bedawin, proportionally to the number of members
of each family, to bring in a fixed weight of the
eggs or larva- of locusts. The wind, which brings
the swarms of locusts, also drives them hither and
thither (cf. Ps 109-^), and sometimes carries them
into the sea (Ex 10^^ Jl 2-0). One who has read,
for example, Jl 1-2, or has seen with his own eyes
the ravages of the locusts, is not surprised to find
in Rev ^'^^ this insect playing an apocalyptical
part and accomplishing a mission of destruction.

4. Locusts in the Gosjjcls. — But in the Gospels —
with which this Dictionary is principally con-
cerned — locusts are never mentioned as devastating
insects. In Mt 3^ and in the parallel passage ilk
P they appear only as an article of food. It is in
this character, then, that we have chiefly to study
them here. The word used is uKpis ; it is said that
John the Baptist fed on ' locusts and wild honey '
(see art. Honey). An ancient tradition of the
Christian Church held that the locusts eaten by
the Baptist were not insects, but the pods or
husks of a tree, the carob or locust tree (Ccrafonia
sUiqua, Arab, kharrub). Curiously enough, this
old interpretation has been resuscitated in our own
times by Cheyne (Encyc. Bibl. ii. cols. 2136, 2499),
who sees in the locusts of John the Baptist ' carob-
beans,' but for reasons which do not seem to us
convincing. In fact, locusts are a well-known food
in Eastern countries. Herodotus mentions this
(iv. 172) ; Thomson says (LB ii. p. 301) : ' Locusts
are not eaten in Syria by any but the Bedawin on
the extreme frontier. By the natives, locusts are
always spoken of as a very inferior article of food,
and regarded by most with disgust — to be eaten
only by the very poorest people. John the Baptist,
however, was of that class ... he also dwelt in
" the wilderness" or desert, Avhere such food was
and is still used.' There are, according to travel-
lers, several ways of preparing locusts for food.
' The Bedouins eat locusts,' says Burckhardt
(p. 239), ' which are collected in great quantities in
the beginning of April. After having been roasted
a little upon the iron plate on which bread is
baked, they are dried in the sun, and then put into
large sacks, Avith the mixture of a little salt.
They are never served up as a dish, but everyone
takes a handful of them when hungry. The
peasants of Syria do not eat locusts. . . . There
are a few poor fellahs in the Haouran, however,
who sometimes, pressed by hunger, make a meal of
them ; but they break off the head and take out
the entrails before they dry them in the sun. The
Bedouins swallow them entire.' * The wings and
legs are lopped oft" the body,' says Wilson (p. 330),
'and fried with salt and pepper.' 'They are
roasted and eaten as butter upon loaves of bread,'
says Van-Lennep (p. 319), 'resembling shrimps in
taste, or they are boiled in water with a little salt,
dried in the sun, and, being deprived of their
wings and legs, are packed in bags for use. They
are beaten to a powder, which is mixed with flour
and water, made into little cakes, and used as a
substitute for bread when flour is scarce. Dried
locusts are generally exposed for sale in the
markets of Medina, Bagdad, and even Damascus.

LOGIA

Palgrave goes so far as to say (p. 346), ' Locusts
are here an article of food, nay, a dainty, and a
good swarm of them is begged of Heaven in Arabia
no less fervently than it would be deprecated in
India or in Syria. . . . When boiled or fried they
are said to be delicious, and boiled and fried accord-
ingly they are to an incredible extent.' It would
appear likewise, to judge from Thomson (^.c), that
occasionally dried, boiled, or fried locusts are eaten
with honey. Even horses (Blunt, ii. p. 79) and
camels (Daumas, p. 258) are fed on locusts.

The Law of Israel, which strictly forbade the
eating of creeping things, insects, etc., made an
exception in the case of locusts, which are men-
tioned under four different names, two of which
(soVdm and hargol) are found only in this one
passage (Lv 11^-). The Law characterizes them
in this sentence : ' Yet these may ye eat of all
winged creeping things that go upon all four,
which have legs above their feet, to leap withal
upon the earth.'

Literature. — Bochart, Hierozoicon, i. pp. 34-36, ii. pp. 441-
496 ; Burekhardt, Travels in Syria, 1822, p. 238 f., Notes on the
Bedouins, 1830, p. 269 ; William Rae Wilson, Travels in Egypt
and the Holy Land 2, 1824, pp. 329-331 ; Berggrfen, Guide
fran^ais-arabe, 1844, p. 702 f.; General E. Daumas, Le Grand
Desert, 1856, pp. 257-265; Robinson, BRP->, 1867, ii. pp. 205,
340 ; Wood, Bible Animals, 1869, pp. 596-604 ; Van-Lennep,
Bible Lands, 1875, pp. 313-319 ; Franz Delitzsch, Hoheslied und
Koheleth, 1875, Excursus by Wetzstein, pp. 445-455 ; Lady Anne
Blunt, A Pilijriniage to Nejd^, 1881, i. p. 94, ii. pp. 57 f., 79;
Palgrave, Central and Eastern Arabia, 1883, pp. 345-347 ;
Tristram, Natural History of the Bible, 1885, pp. 306-318 ;
Thomson, The Land and the Book, ii. [1883] pp. 295-302, iii.
[1886] p. 130 f.; Morris, Bible Natural History, 1896, pp. 211 f.,
269 f.; Driver, Joel and ^jnos(Cambr. Bible for Schools), 1897,
Excursus on Locusts, pp. 82-91 ; Tiimpel, Die Geradjliigler
Mitteleuropas, 1901 ; P. H. Fabre, Souvenirs entomologiques, vi.
pp. 196-212, 248-297. LUCIEN GAUTIER.

LOGIA.—

1. Ancient use of the term.

2. Modern use of the term ; (a) of Jesus' Sayings ; (6) of

compilations.

3. Tradition on transmission of the Saj'ings.

4. Criticism of the tradition ; (a) Internal evidence of the

tradition ; (6) Internal evidence of the Gospels.

5. Conjectural reconstructions of the source.

6. Conclusions.

Literature.

1. Ancient use of the terin.—T\\e Gr. \oyia. is the plural of
>^<iyio\i 'a brief utterance,' 'apothegm,' 'saynig' (so Schol. ad
Aristoph. Ran. 969. 973). According to Liddell-Scott {Lex.)
and Meyer (on Ro 32), xiiymv is the neuter of koyio; = ' learned,'
'rational,' and hence means 'a wise saying.' Slore correctly,
according to Grimm-Thayer and others, it is a diminutive of
hoyn; 'word,' like fitiiXiov from fii^Ko; 'book,' plur. tk jii^kia.
' the (sacred) books,' Eng. ' Bible.' In secular writers (Hero-
dotus, Thucyd., Aristoph., et al.) it is applied to the Divine
oracles (because brief utterances), as those of the Sibyl of
Dodona, of Delphi, etc. The same connotation of sacred utter-
ances attaches to the use of the word as applied to the Hebrew
Scriptures, as by Philo and Josephus. Thus the contents of the
OT, as Divine utterances, are called t« Xsj-w to'C 8sou. In par-
ticular the Ten Words (Eng. ' Ten Commandments ') are called
by Philo TOO ?£»« XoXia (ed. Mangey ii. p. ISOff). By NT writers
the term is applied to the Scrijitures generally, as ' oracles ' of
God, or to individual inspired utterances of prophets, pre-
Christian or Christian (Ac 7-:8, Ro 32, He 512, 1 P 411). in
Ecclesiastical writers of the sub-Apostolic age tx Xoyia. tov 610Z
is used of the admonitions of God in Scriirture (Clem. Rom. ad
Cor. liii. 1, in parallel with «/ hpai ypocfxi), and t« Xoyia, roij
xopiou, or simply to. Kiyix, of the precepts of Jesus, not including
embod3'ing narrative. So especially Polycarp ad Phil. vii. 1,
denouncing heretics, who ' pervert the precepts of the Lord (t«
kcyix Tnu xupiou) to their own lusts, denying that there is either
(bodily) resurrection or (day of) judgment ' (cf. Hegesippus ap.
Eus. HE II. xxiii. 9) ; and Papias (ap. Euseb. HE iii. 39), who
interpreted ' the oracles of the Lord ' (Xoyia. xupiocxa.) in accord-
ance with the tradition of elders who had been followers of the
Apostles. In Papias the Xoyia, are made equivalent to ' the
commandments {ivroXxi) delivered by the Lord to the faith,' and
stand in contrast with 'alien commandments' {a-XXorpiaci svtoX*/)
of heretical teachers, and the ' loquacity sought by the multi-
tude ' («!>x iiir^ip 61 roXXo'i tuTs to, nro>J.ec Xiyavriv 'ixaipov). The true
interpretation of these logia is matter of tradition transmitted
through (1) the Apostles, (2) the Elders ' the disciples of these '
{lege ol rouruv — SC. ruiv rou xvptov /i^ccOy^tmv — ^K^Y.rai [see AriSTION-
Aristo], Iran. Hcer, v. v. 1 : ol TpKrjSCTipoi [«<] tmv aroirriXaiv
fj-oiti'/iTxi , Origen ap. Eus. : ol S/«5ij%o< rSv ocmxr-roXa^), Compare
Polycarp {I.e.), ' Wherefore leaving the vain talk {fjM.Txiiny,Tx) of
the multitude and the false teachings {■^'luiohiixa-xxXiais), let us

turn to the word handed down by tradition from the beginning '

{tov el a.py_y,; vifx.tv rra,pothol)ivTX Koyov).

At a much later time the term rk Xoyix is applied to NT Scrip-
ture generally in the same sense as to the OT (Ignatius, ad Smyrn.
iii. [longer form in the interpolated matter]). See in general
Grimm-Thayer, Lexicon, s.v. Xcyion, and Lightfoot, Contemp.
Rev. for Aug. 1875, p. 399 ff. On Papias' use see Hall, Papias.
1899. p. 242.

2. The modern use of the term ' logia ' is partly
(a) conformed to the Patristic application to the
precepts of Jesus conceived as ' brief and pithy
apothegms' (Justin M. Apol. xiv.) of sacred
authority ; partly (b) designates a compilation, or
compilations, antecedent to or parallel with the
canonical Gospels, supposed to have been entitled
or called to. \6yia ; cf. the use of 'Bible' (Lat.
Biblia = Ta /StjSXta), to mean ' the (sacred) books' of
the Canon.

(a) Of the former (correct) use it is enough to
•say that science has no better designation for the
apothegms of Jesus in the form wherein tradition
has transmitted them, whether in the Synoptic
Gospels or as uncanonical agrcqiha. The connota-
tion of sacredness in the designation logion, if we
have regard to the later period of transmission, is
not inappropriate. The cherished utterances of
Jesus soon obtained such currency independently
of our Gospels (Ac 20^^, Clem. Rom. ad Cor. xiii. I,
xlvii. 7, Polyc. ad Phil. vii. 2) as rightly to deserve
it. The term is appropriate therefore to the sacred
apothegms of Jesus as preserved in the Synoptic
Gospels or independently. As against the simple
\6yoi., it is probably a later form involving tacit
comparison with the (sacred) precepts of the OT.
It is less common than X6701, and certainly much
less applicable to the discour.ses of the Fourth
Gospel, where, even if traditional logia are em-
bodied, dialogue, the favourite form for philosophic
and religious exposition, predominates, and the
traditionary interest is subordinated to that of
expounding the Evangelist's Christology.

{h) The use of ' Logia ' or 'the Logia ' to designate
a certain type of Gospel-composition is open to
serious objection. The discovery by Grenfell and
Hunt of papyri of the 2nd or 3rd century, in which
Sayings attributed to Jesus are agglutinated with
no more of narrative framework than the bare
Avords, ' Jesus saith ' {\4yei 'It/o-oi^s), proves that such
comjjilations actually circulated, fulfilling a func-
tion similar to the Pirke A both, or ' Sayings of the
Fathers' in the contemporary and earlier Syna-
gogue. But the later discovered .superscription of
the Oxyrhynchus collection itself (published 1904)
condemns the editors' hasty application of the title
A67ta 'It/ctoO to the fragment of 1897, by using the
.simple \6yoi [ol toIol oi \6yoL, k.t.X).* There is, in fact,
absolutely no evidence that any book ever received
the title \6yia, though there is a certain signifi-
cance in the use of the word by Papias and Poly-
carp interchangeably with X67ot to designate the
precepts of Jesus, whether in literary embodiment
or otherwise. For Papias the.se precepts are ' com-
mandments delivered by the Lord to the faith '
{ivToXai rfi iriffTei dedo/uepai), and hence comparable
with ' the oracles of God committed to Israel ' (eVio--
Te6dr](Tav TO. \6yia tov deou, Ro 3") ; but he refers to
just the same precepts as \6yoi, when in a con-
nected clause he declares that Peter had no design
oiTnaking a, syntagma oi the 'sayings' (oi'x ibcnrep
(n'lvra^cp tCov KvptaKwi' woLovp.evo's \6ywv). Indeed, in
all the earlier evidence we possess of the formation
of such syntagmata, the expression used is always
X670(, and never \dyia. Thus, besides the references
already given to Acts, Clem. Rom. ad Cor., and
Polycarp ad Phil., the Pastoral Epistles have
two references to 'wholesome words' (vyiaiPovTes

* This of course is ungrammatical. The editors propose to
delete the first ol. Professor Swete prefers to read oVtoi for ol
To'ioi (see ExpT xv. [1904] p. 490).

LOGIA

\6yoi.) which are more closely defined as ' sayings
of the faith ' {\6yoi rrjs via-Tews, cf. Papias, ivroXal
T7J iriarei deSo/xevai.) ' of the excellent teaching,' and
even exjilicitly as ' the sayings of our Lord Jesus
Christ' (oi \6yoi ttjs Triareus kclI ttjs KaKijs dioaaKaXias,
oi vyiaivovre-i \6yoL ol toD KvpLov tj/jlCliv Itjctov Xpttrroii,
Kal 7] Kar' evcrefteiav didacrKaXia, k.t.X., 1 Ti 4^ 6"*).

^lore important for its bearing on the question
of the name to be applied to the Mattha\an
syntarpna are the structural phenomena of the
canonical Mt., to be discussed later. At present
■we note only that, apart from the Markan nar-
rative outline, the main framework of this Gospel
consists of five great agglutinated discourses, each
marked oft' by the resumption of the narrative in
a stereotyped formula, ' And it came to pass Avhen
Jesus had finished these Avords.' In this formula
the expression \6yoi is varied only by the expres-
sions 'parables' and 'directions to the Twelve,'
Avhere the context requires (IP 13^^), while the final
group concludes : ' And it came to pass Avhen Jesus
had finished all these words ' (iravTas ro^s \6yovs
TovTovs, ]Mt 26'), in sjjite of tlie fact that the nar-
rative continues : ' he said to his disciples.'

In view of this earlier evidence it is manifestly
im warrantable to infer from the use by Papias of
the term Xoyia alongside of Xoyoi, that ' he refers
to three documents, (1) St. Mark's version of St.
Peter's teaching, (2) an anonymous collection of
Sayinqs of the Lord, (3) the Logia of St. INIatthew '
(K. Liike, Hibbert Jovrn. iii. 2 [Jan. 1905], p. 337).
Papias is defining his authority for ' the com-
mandments given by the Lord to the faith.' If he
refers to these now, with 1 Ti 4^ 6^ as ' sayings,'
of which Peter might have made a syntagma hnt
did not, and now, Avitli Polj^carp ad Phil, vii., as
' oracles,' of Avhich Matthew did make a syntagma.,
the dift'erence is only that in the latter embodi-
ment they seemed to him comparable with the
' oracles of God ' given to Israel (Ac 7^*, Ro 3-, He
5'-, 1 P 4").

The relatively late date of Papias (145-160 A.D.)
makes it certain that for him, if not already for
Pohxarp, TO. \6yia meant the precepts of Jesus as
embodied in narrative Gospels, pre-eminently in
canonical Matthew. In later authorities, who
take over the tradition, the term is gradually
extended to cover the embodying narrative as
well, until with Irenanis and Tertullian the Divine
utterance is coextensive with the canonical Gospel
('ait Spiritus Sanctus per Matthasum,' applied by
Iren«us to utterances of the Evangelist). Whether
at a stage anterior to its adoption by Papias the
tradition regarding the Xoyia had a narrower ap-
plication, must be settled by a consideration of the
expression in its context.

3. Tradition on tirinsmission of the Sayings. —
The fragments from the preface (wpooi/xiof) of
Papias' work in five books, entitled Exposition{s ?)
of the Oracles of the Lord, as given by Eusebius
(HE III. xxxix. 2. 16), are closely related to one
another, and to the passage already referred to in
the Epistle of Polycarp, Papias' earlier contem-
porary and friend. As regards the ' command-
ments ' which Papias sought to hear and to
expound as ' oracles,' the fragment states as a
tradition (probably from the same authority, ' John
tlie Elder,' who gave that regarding Mark) that
' INIatthew made a compend {(rweTd^aro, v. I. aweypd-
^J/aro) of the logia in the Hebrew (Aramaic ?)
tongue, and every man translated them as he was
able.' For Papias, and a fortiori for the later
authorities who repeat the tradition in partly
independent forms, it was a testimony to our
canonical Matthew. This to them represented the
syntagma of which the tradition spoke, though it
was admitted not to be identical with it. That
was in ' Hebrew,' this in Greek. Possibly a differ-

ence of contents as regards the narrative frame-
work was sA.iO recognized, since Papias has no
scruple in contradicting ^It 27''"'" (cf. Liglitfoot-
Harmer, Apost. Fathers, Frgt. xviii.), and .Jerome
recognizes the independence of what he regarded
as the ipsum Hebraicum, and which was in his day
' called by most the authentic Gospel of ^latthew,'
by translating it anew into both Greek and Latin.
Surviving fragments, however, prove this work,
the so-called Gospel anording to the Hcbreivs, to
liave been anotlier and mucii later product. In
Papias' time the Hebrew syntagma had disap-
peared from use (r]p/j.riv€va€v), if ever known in his
region ; his idea of its relation to canonical ]\It.
was probably as vague as his successors'. He
valued the tradition because it gave him Apostolic
authoritj- for the Gospel on which he relies in all
known instances for his logia of the Lord (Ergt.
xi. ibid, is not related, as Lightfoot supposed, to
Lk 10'^, but to Mt 12--"-^; see Heads against Cains,
Frgt. v., and cf. Apollinaris, Frgt. ii. in Chron.
Pasch.). It also gave him a convenient explana-
tion for their variation of form in the Greek
Gospels current in his own day (Mt., Lk. ) ; both
went back to a common Apostolic original, but
were more or less perfectly translated.

4. Criticism of the tradition. — Modern critics
attribute great value to the tradition reported by
Papias, partly because of its inapplicability to
canonical ]\It., Avhich shows it to be in his hands
an heirloom, not a manufacture ; partly because it
is independently attested ; partly because it seems
to be connected internally with the tradition con-
cerning Mark explicitly ascribed to ' the Elder '
(John of Jerusalem [d. A.D. 117]), and in that
relation becomes both intelligible and historically
probable in view of known conditions in the Pales-
tinian Church.

Its inapplicability to canonical Mt. appears in
that our Mt. is not a translation, whether from
Hebrew or Aramaic ; not (strictly) a syntagma of
the Oracles ; and, as concerns derivation from
immediate ' followers of the Lord,' less authentic
in its 'order' than Mk., since practically its
entire historical outline is borrowed from our
Second Gospel with arbitrary alteration (in chs.
1-14) of the order (see the Introductions to NT).
The tradition is also attested, however, by Pan-
tffinus (ajj. Eus. HE v. x. 3), Irenfeus, Origen,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theo-
phylact, Jerome, Augustine, and Euthymius Ziga-
benus. Not all of these can have derived all
their data from Papias, so that the tradition
cannot be his invention, although he clearly
adapts it to his own use (cf. u)s ^<pr)v in the !Mk.
fragment, referring probably to an inference of
his own from 1 P 5'^ [Eus. HE II. xv. 2, III. xxxix.
16]. Finally, the internal evidence of the tradition
itself indicates a close relation to the testimonj' of
'the Elder' as to Mk., and agrees with knoAvn
conditions in the Palestinian Church.

{a) Holsten has pointed out (Drei urspr. Evang.,
ad in it.) that the original motive of the 3Iark
fragment is apologetic and harmonistic. It ac-
counts for the incompleteness and lack of system
in Mk. by contrast with some other writing which
could be regarded as a complete a-vvra^Ls tQv KvpiaKZv
\6yojv. No such compendium did Mark make, but
only a transcript of certain discourses of Peter,
accurate and complete so far as secondary testi-
mony could go, but suffering from the inevitable
limitations of one Avho had been a follower, not of
the Lord (like ^Matthew), but, 'as I (Papias) said,
of Peter, afterward.' The result was a mingled
account of narratives about Christ, noAv a saying,
now something done (t) XexOft'Ta, i) irpax^ivra),
incomplete (^vLa, oaa iij.vrip.6vev a ev) and Avithout
system [ov p-ivToi rd^ei.), because Peter's preaching,

LOGIA

Mark's only source of knowledge, had brought out
the material in such irregular order as the occasion
demanded (Trpos ttjv xpf'a").

Our lirst concern must be with the motive of
this conception of Mk., reserving the question of
its historicity. Clearly, while unwilling to reject
the narrative Gospel, it contends for the superi-
ority of some other, whose characteristics may easily
be inferred from what is denied to its rival. This
authority of superior standing in the region whence
Papias obtained his traditions (Palestine) emanated
from one who had been a follower of the Lord Him-
self, not (like Mark) of an Apostle. It was more
complete, and atibrded a systematic, not neccssarili/
chronological, arrangement of the Lord's words
((Tiji'Ta^Li' Tbjv Tov Kvpiov XSjiov, ffwera^eu to, X67ia, ov
fj.evToi TCL^ei) serviceable to those in search of the
'commandments given by the. Lord to the faith.'
For, as soon as the general point of view is con-
sitlered, the real significance of the complaint
against Mk., so puzzling to modern critics, and
perhaps not clear to Papias himself, becomes in-
telligible. The deficient rd^is of Mk. is explained
by the contrasting statements regarding Peter and
Matthew respectively, the former of whom did
not aim at a crvi'Ta^i.i' tQv KvpiaKuiv \6yixjv [v. I.
Xoyiwv], whereas the latter actually made such a
compend (awerd^aTo \v.l. avueypaxf^aro] rd \6yia).
The two fragments are parts of a single tradition,
and the general point of view is that of a church
to which the Gospel was primarily a new Torah,
wherein the object of system (rd^ts) is complete-
ness in presenting ' the commandments given to
the faith.' The historian - evangelist's idea of
' order' as chronological sequence in the biography
(Kade^rjs Lk P) is not that in consideration. In
short, the tradition of Papias reflects the attitude
of the Palestinian Church towards the rival claims
of its own autochthonous Matthcean tradition,
and the Petrine or Roman. It aims to adjust the
two with recognition of the merits of the latter,
while holding to the superiority of the former,
just as the appendix to the Fourth Gospel (Jn 21)
adjusts the secondary Petrine to its own primary
authority, the Johannine (Asiatic).

Looked at thus, from the point of view sug-
gested by its own internal relations, the tradition
of Papias becomes not only intelligible but prob-
able. It dehnes (no doubt correctly) the primary
authority for the \6yia KvpiaKa which Paj^ias pro-
posed to expound in the light of the traditional
authorities. If the Gospel of Lk. does not come
into Papias' consideration, and Mk. is treated as
quite subordinate, it is because the object in view
is the evTo\ai delivered by the Lord, and tradition
and Church usage were at one in pointing to Mat-
thew as the fountain-head for such purposes.

Nor does the tradition stand alone in its dis-
tinction of syntagmata of the Logia of the Lord
from Gospels of the Markan type. Ac P refers
to its author's 'former treatise' as relating what
' Jesus began 1 )oth to do and to teach ' ( irouTv re
/cat 8i8daKeiv), thereby properly classing Lk. with
Mk. and similar Gospels made up of ' both works
and teachings ' (^ Xex^evra t) npaxdevTa). More-
over, the imjjlied distinction from sifntagmata of
the Sayings is precisely what we should expect in
a church whose institutions and traditions were
almost invariably based on the practice of the
Synagogue. The teaching of the Synagogue was
divided into (1) Halacha, i.e. 'the Way,' authori-
tative applications of the Mosaic law, precepts of
life, and {2) Haggada, i.e. ' tales,' unauthoritative
preaching, based mainly on OT narrative. Just
so in the primitive Palestinian Church we soon
find two types of Gospel composition — (1) the cate-
chetic, for the converted, generally connected with
the name of Matthew. Then (2) the evangelistic.

for the unconverted, similarly associated with the
name of Peter. To the latter type would belong
tlie ' testimony of the cross ' (to ixapriJpLov rod
aravpov) rejected by tlie opponents of Polycarp
(I.e.) ; to the former not only the 'Sayings of the
faith ' or ' of the Lord Jesus' (1 Ti 4" 6^) conqjiled
by Matthew and others, but examples of Christian
catechesis, such as the little manuals of ethics or
' teachings of baptisms ' which survive to us under
such titles as ' the Two Ways,' or the ' Teaching '
(AiSaxv, AidacTKaXia) of the Apostles. These were
primarily of Jewish origin, and were intended for
the instruction of neopliytes and catechumens.
Such writings, on the other hand, as the Preaching
of Peter, of the apologetic or evangelistic type, are
clearly addressed to the unconverted, and if we go
back to the examples furnished in Acts of this
evangelistic preaching, still attributed to ' Peter,'
we may identify the already stereotyped outline
of Syno[»tic story in Ac 10'"^"^\ the so-called ' lesser
Gospel of Mark.' Long ago the resemlilance of
this Synoptic outline to the haggadic type was
observed by Jewish scholars such as Wunsche and
Hirsch. Both types accordingly were current in
the Palestinian Church. NYe might, in fact, pre-
suppose it from the nature of the situation. But
both would not there be equally esteemed. The
indigenous protluct, adapted to the requirements
of a church more given to the perpetuation than to
the propagation of the gospel, a church wl.ere
Jesus was pre-eminently the ' Prophet like unto
Moses,' giver of ' the perfect law of liberty,' would
be the authoritative -syntagma of the Lord's Say-
ings, halachir in the fundamental sense of the
term. The Greek version of the Preaching of
Peter, imported probably from Rome, would be
received ; but it would stand upon the lower foot-
ing of hctggadic narrative. The lateness of the
combination is attested not only by the reluctance
manifest in the tradition, but by the fact that
when Mk. was added to the Mattha^an syntagma,
the editor had so little else to add.

The correspondence of Papias' tradition of the
Matthsean .syntagma with known Palestinian con-
ditions is strongly conlirmatory lioth of the tradi-
tion itself and of that interpretation of it which
emphasizes the distinction between catechetic works
and Gospels of the evangelistic type. It is char-
acteristic of the Gospels which continued to circu-
late in Palestine independently of the canonical
four so late as the time of Jerome and Epiphanius,
that, while they conflate material drawn from the
Greek Gospels with their own, they continue to
represent their tradition in all cases as delivered
by the Apostle Matthew (Preuschen, Antilegomcna,
Figs. 2. 3. 12 of Er. Hcbr. and 6 of Ev. Naz.).

(b) The internal evidence of our Synoptic Gos-
pels is the decisive factor in the question of the
historicity and meaning of the tradition. Here Me
liave only to subtract the material coincident with
Mk. from Mt. and Lk. respectively, to see that
what is left is in Lk. to a great extent, in Mt.
almost exclusively, a mass of discourse-material,
much of it reproduced in common by the two.
So convincing is this general result of an applica-
tion of the representations of early tradition to
the actual structure of our Synoptic Gospels, that
since the time of Schleiermacher the .so-called
' two-document ' theory of the Synoptic Gos})els,
which rests upon it, has won wider and wider
assent, and is to-day in its general outline an
almost universally accejited canon of criticisni (see
art. Gospels). Synoptic tradition consists in the
main of the Markan story, tilled out and expanded
by masses of discourse-material which are other-
wise almost devoid of historical setting.

But there is a great and significant difference in
result when the subtraction is made from Mt. and

LOGIA

when it is made from Luke. Subtract Mk. from
Mt. and the narrative material which remains is
exceedingly meagre in amount, somewhat apocry-
phal in character, and unconnected with any other
source. It includes the Genealogy and Birth-
stories (chs. 1. 2), Peter's walking on the sea
(14"8-3i), the stater in the fish's mouth (IT^^-^'), and
a few traits in the story of the Passion and Resur-
rection — the suicide of Judas (27^''"), Pilate's wife's
dream, and his washing of his hands (vv.*^'-^), the
earthquake (vv.^^"^^), watch at the tomb (vv.''-"'"^
28^^"^^), and appearance to the women and to the
Eleven in Galilee (289-i»- ^^■-^). A few other ap-
parent Matthjean additions to the narrative of
Mk. are illusive. The story of the centurion's son
(g5-io. 13^ jg ^;,]jg Qjjg great exception in character and
attestation, being shared not only by Lk. (7'"'^"), but
even by Jn. (4^^"^^). The real surplus of Mt. over
Mk. consists pre-eminently in great aggregations
of cfecoztrse-material, grouped in the live princi-
pal masses already referred to. These groups of
agglutinated Ao7ot consist of (1) the Sermon on the
Mount (chs. 5-7), showing the new Way of Right-
eousness ; (2) the Mission of tlie Disciples (ch. 10),
showing the duty of Witness - bearing ; (3) the
Parables (cli. 13), treated as fulfilling the Scripture
Is G""'- against a generation which had rejected
both the Baptist and Christ ; (4) Rules of conduct
towards brethren in 'the church' (ch. 18); (5)
Warnings of the Judgment (ch. 25) attached to
the eschatological chapter (24) parallel to Mk 13.
Each of the five groups is marked off by the
formula nal eylvero ore iriXecrev 6 'Ir^croOs, k.t.X.,
wliei'e the narrative is resumed ; but groups (3)
and (5) are enlarged by prefixing the two denunci-
atory sections (chs. 11-12 and 23), which are unac-
companied by the formula, and expand the total
number of discourses to seven (cf. the seven par-
ables of ch. 13, seven woes of ch. 23, seven petitions
of the Lord's Prayer expanded from five of Lk. ).
Thus our First Gospel, minus the Markan bio-
graphic outline and the few late narrative accre-
tions, really consists of a systematic compendium
of the teachings of the Lord, once framed in the
favourite pentad structure of Torah, Psalm-book,
and the Christian Aidaxv, but later expanded to a
sevenfold form.

The same process applied to Lk. yields a very
difierent but equally enlightening result. The
subtraction of Mk. leaves a much more consider-
able narrative element, including, besides the
Centurion's Son, a whole series of incidents else-
wiiere unknown, of kindred animus. Such are the
Penitent Harlot and Penitent Thief, Zacchajus, the
Ministering Women, the Samaritan Leper, the
Crooked Woman, the Widow of Nain. But more
important than the new incidents is a series of
paral)les and teachings in the same vein, of which
the Prodigal Son, Good Samaritan^ Rich Man and
Lazarus, Pharisee and Publican, are examples.
The so-called Infancy chapters of Luke show the
same favour towards the lowly, and partake other-
Avise to so high a degree of the linguistic and
stylistic peculiarities of this material, that we must
either suppose Luke to have had at command a
' special source ' equally abundant in narrative-
and discourse-material, and characterized by the
humanitarian interest so manifest here, or else
ascribe to him an extremely one-sided selection
from a much more copious stream of tradition
than would seem probable from Matthew and
Mark. Thus the great outstanding difference in
structure between the non-Markan element in Mt.
and in Lk. is that in the former it is almost ex-
clusively the '\6yoi, arranged in groups as such ;
whereas in Lk. the Ionian material does not stand
apart from narrative, but is connected witli and
framed into a narrative independent of Mk. and

found in no other Gospel. Moreover, the combina-
tion of discourse with narrative in Lk. is not, as
sometimes stated, a mere adaptation by the Evan-
gelist of logian material to narrative settings of
his own composition. There are examples (14^''') of
such fictitious settings, but who would dream of
so describing the incident of the Repentant Harlot
(Lk 7^6-8'*), which forms the setting of the parable
of the Two Debtors ? No explanation will here
suffice but an admission that narrative and dis-
course have come down together from the earliest
and most authentic sources. The same conclusion
must be reached when the relation of this ' pre-
canonical Luke ' to Mk. and to the added sections
of Mt. (11 f. and 23) is studied (see art. Wisdom).
Priority will be found to belong in both cases to
the Lukan source.

Luke's distribution of his discourse - material
under various heads of narrative description, and
his disposition of the non-Markan material at vari-
ous points of a shorter and longer journey (Lk
gi2_ga 95i_i8i4)^ indicate in what sense we should
take his proposal to Avrite ' in order ' (/ca^e|^s, P).
He aims, like the historian that he is, at clirono-
logical sequence ; but certainly not without some
better authority than his own conjecture. For
while his discourse-material is sometimes without
true connexion, it has a basis of order which indi-
cates that, in the region whence this Gospel is
derived, narrative and teaching had been combined
at a much earlier time and with better resources
than in our Matthew.

Critics who have attempted to reconstruct the
Lor/ia from Mt. and Lk. have unfortunately
neglected this fundamental distinction, reconstruct-
ing their ultimate source, without regard for the
ditterence in type (with Mt 28-" cf. Lk l-», Ac
1^), from the mere coincidence of Mt. and Lk.
in a certain part of the discourse-material. This
ultimate source, however, cannot be reached from
the side of Lk. Avithout first taking account of the
so-called ' special source ' from which some ele-
ments seem to have passed into Mt. {e.g. 3''^' 41"^^
Q19-34 g5-io 111-27)^ and can even be shown with great
probability to have afiected canonical Mk. (With
Mk P- 5'-, cf. Lk 72^--'- 33f- ; with Mk l'^, Lk 4--'- ;
with Mk 21--2, Lk 1^^'- ; with Mk 322-30, Lk IV'-- ;
Avith Mk 71-23, Lk iP^-s*. Comparison with Mt.
will in all these cases prove dejiendence by Mk.
upon the source more fully recoverable from Mt.
and Lk. ). But the elements most naturally to be
sought in a purely logian common source, such as
the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables, dis-
play a very difierent degree of resemblance in Mt.
and Lk. respectively. Instead of the exact verbal
identity of long sentences in the sections outside
the Mattha;an pentad, there is within it for the
most part an extreme divergence from the Lukan
parallels. In general it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to prove from this material any direct
acquaintance Avith the Logia on the part of our
Third Evangelist.

5. Conjectural reconstructions of the source. —
Lost Avorks have nevertheless been so frequently
reconstructed in modern times by process of ex-
traction from later documents into Avhich they had
been independently incorporated, as to offer a
standing challenge in this supreme instance of
the Matthsean Logia. If Krawutzky (to cite a
single example) could reconstruct the Teaching of
the Ttmlve from the Apostolic Constitutions and
Apostolic Epitome, in advance of its discovery by
Bryennios, Avhy should not our First and Third
Gospels yield up out of their common discourse-
material the substance of the lost Logia ? There
have been thus far but tAvo notable attempts to
meet this challenge. Wendt's Lchre Jesu (1886)
presents in the first (untranslated) volume the

LOGIA

LOGOS

author's attempted reconstruction from Mt. and
Lk. of the (Greek) Logia of Matthew. Unfortu-
nately no account is taken of the third factor,
Luke's 'special source,' which certainly afforded
much discourse-material not likely to have been
connected with the Mattluvan Logia, and may even
have contained all tliatLuke shares with Matthew.
Equally unfortunate Avas the failure to distinguish
the difference in point of view between a ' syn-
tagma of the Lord's commandments ' in which
' order ' must be topical, and a 5i.r)yriaLs Kade^rjs
such as Luke's, where the \6yoi are \6yoi t^s x'^P'-'''^^
(Lk 4"-) illustrative of the message of the Divine
wisdom. The problem must not be treated as if a
mere question of arithmetic : Elements common
to Mt. and Lk., minus Mk. =the Login. As a
pioneer in tlie field, Wendt deserves credit for his
work, but a process so simple could not be expected
to solve so complicated a problem. Wendt him-
self could find no place for a non-Markan dirjyrjcns
such as the Centurion's Son, Lk 7--^'' = Mt 85-i» =
Jn 4^8-5^, which could not naturally be connected
with the Mattha^an Logia, but falls into place at
once when account is taken of its relation to the
Lukan context. Wendt's results were not un-
justly pronounced ' a he.ap of interesting ruins,
without beginning, without conclusion, without
connexion' (Resch).

A much more elaborate and detailed analysis is
that of Alfreil Resch, Die Logia Jcsu nach dem
griechischcn unci hehrdischen Text iciederhergestcllt,
Leipzig, 1898 (Hebrew text separately v?^:. nn^in nsp
; nverr K'E'.' '7?-n, ra \byLa 'Irjaov). Here the attempt
is made to restore the original Apostolic source
not only in tiie Gi'eek form assumed to be utilized
in common by Mt. and Lk., but to retranslate into
the Hebrew {sic) assumed to have been employed by
the Ai)ostle as the classical religious language in
preference to the colloquial Aramaic spoken by
Jesus Himself. Resell brings to his task an im-
mense amount of learning and patience, especially
in the accumulation of all possible (and manj' im-
possible) ti'aces of extra-canonical logia. Unfortu-
nately the process is again vitiated, not only by
an extremely indiscriminate use of unsifted ma-
terial, but by highly uncritical assumptions. Of
these one of the most fatal is that the order of Lk.
must be nearest that of the Logia because, in Resch's
judgment, nearest the historical ; while another,
wherein may be traced the inlluence of B. Weiss,
attributes to the Login the features of a narrative-
Gospel. As will be apparent from our criticism of
the tradition, and criticism of canonical Mt., all
the evidence we possess should commend precisely
tlie reverse principle. The Apostolic syntagma of
Matthew was not a narrative, and cannot have had
a historian's order, and the structure of Mt. and
Lk. respectively shows that in the one case the
halachic, in the other the haggadic, principle Avas
predominant from the first. On the other hand,
Resch's gathering of the material was indispens-
able. His renewed consideration of the careful
and scrupulous work of B. Weiss (Matthdusevan-
gelium, 1876 ; Markvsevangclium, 1872) looking
toward an Apostolic (?) source utilized in common
by these Gospels, did better justice to another
factor not to be neglected, namely, use of the
LogiaC.) in Mk. ; and his tracing of the tradition
of Matthtvan authorship to a direct claim embodied
in at least one of the early Palestinian Gospels
(Ev. Naz. Erg. 6 {Preusch.'\ ak rbv Mardcuov), are
contributions of permanent service. The experi-
ence of both Wendt and Resch, however, should
warn against indiscriminate combination of Mt.
and Lk. , without regard for the structural evidence
of the Gospels as we have them, or even for the
avowed purpose of the Third Evangelist him-
self.

VOL. II. — 4

Besides Wendt and Resch, mention should be
made of the disposition of material in the Greek
Synoptieon of A. Wright, who devotes Division 2
of his presentation to material supposedly derived
from the Logia of Matthew. The arbitrariness of
the dealing with the Lukan material is amply
demonstrated by the two supplementary divisions
which follow. The work is unfortunately affected
by inadmissible presuppositions regarding oral
tradition.

6. Conclusions. — These may be briefly sum-
marized in the following outline : —

(1) The term logia was applied to the Sayings
of Jesus early in the 2nd century by those who
held them as Divine utterances, but not as dis-
placing the earlier \6yoi.

(2) The same individuals report a tradition of
Palestinian derivation which contrasts the Markan
type of Gospel with another, of Mattha;an origin,
consisting of syntagmata of the Sayings.

(3) Our present representative of the Mattha^an
tradition, disembarrassed of its Markan frame-
work, displays this type-form, combining tne
teaching of Jesus in five agglutinations of Chris-
tian precepts corresponding to the five books of the
Torah.

(4) Our Third Evangelist presents the discourse-
material which he holds in common with Mt. from
the historical point of view, and seems to have
received it in a collection wherein narrative and
discourse were intermingled from the first, tlie
agglutination being effected with an eye to illus-
trate Jesus' mission of grace rather than to form a
new Torah (see art. Wisdom).

(5) If the actual work of the Apostle Matthew
(Matthias?) be not too remote for recoverj^, it
should be sought primarily in, or rather under, the
accumulated aggregations of logian material in the
five discourse groups of our First Gospel, with
secondaiy comparison of the added groups (chs. 3 f .
11 f. 23) which have special affinity by language
and content with Lk., together with the rest of
the Lukan material. It is not probable that the
Mattha'an syntagma can have been lost in any
other way than through superiniposition of new
material. To extricate it from the mass of super-
imposed accretion is a task which still challenges
the utmost skill of the critic.

Literature. — Besides the works of Wendt, Resch, and B.
Weiss, above referred to, the reader should consult the excellent
discussions of Hawkins, Uorce Siinoptwai, and in Expos. Times
xii. (1900-1901) pp. 72 ff. and 471 ff., also *. xiii. (1902) p. 20,
on ' Some Internal Evidence for the use of the Logia in our
First and Third Gospels,' and ' Use of Materials in Mt 8-9 ' ; also
four articles b.y C. A. Briggs, ib. vols. viii. ix. (1S97-1898) on
' The Wisdom of Jesus the Messiah.' Many excellent observa-
tions are made by A. Wright in his Synopsis-, 1903. A valuable
discussion of the history of the logia embodied in the Sermon
on the Mount will be found in the Extra Vol. of Hastings' DB,
s.v. 'Sermon on the Mount' (C. VV. Votaw). For an analysis of
this conglomerate, and discussion of the process of transmission
of this and related principal discourses of Jesus, see the present
writer's The Sermon on the Mount — its Literary Structure and
Didactic Purpose, Macmillan, 1902. On the logian material
of Lk. see art. Wisdom. B. W. BaCON.

LOGOS. — The conception of Christ as the Logos,
or eternal Word, is peculiar to the Fourth Gosj^el.
In the Epp. to Colossians and Hebrews (writings
which are likewise touched with the Alexandrian
influence) the Logos theory of Christ's Person is in
some points implied (cf. Col U^"^^ He I-"'*). In
Revelation (19^*) the 'Word of God' is announced
as the new and mysterious name which Christ
bears when He comes forth to execute judgment.
But only in the Fourth Gospel is the conception
deliberately adopted and worked out in its full
significance.

The idea of a Logos, an immanent Divine reason
in the world, is one that meets us under various
modifications in many ancient systems of thought.

LOGOS

Indian, Egyptian, Persian. In view of the reli-
gious syncretism whicli prevailed in the 1st and
2nd centuries, it is barely possible that these
extraneous theologies may have indirectly influ-
enced the Evangelist ; but there can be no doubt
in regard to the main source from Avhich his
Logos doctrine was derived. It had come to him
through Philo after its final elaboration in Greek
philosophy.

In the 6th cent. B.C. Heraclitus first broke away from the purely
physical conceptions of early Greek speculation, by discover-
ing a Xoyo;, a principle of reason, at work in the cosmic process.
From the obscure fragments of this philosopher that have come
down to us we gather that he was chiefly Interested in account-
ing for the sesthetic order of the visible universe. In the
arrangement of natural phenomena, in the adaptation of means
to ends, he discerned the working of a power analogous to the
reasoning power in man. His speculation was still entangled
with the physical hypotheses of earlier times, and on this
account dropped out of sight, and had little influence on the
greater systems of Greek thought. Plato and Aristotle were
engaged in the de\elopment of the theory of ideas, with its
absolute separation of the material world from the world of
higher reality. Their work was of profound significance for the
after history of Logos speculation, but belongs itself to a
different philosophical movement. It was in the reaction from
Platonic dualism that the Logos idea again asserted itself, and
was worked out through all its implications in Stoicism.

The Stoics, animated chiefly by a practical interest, sought to
connect the world of true being, as conceived by Plato, witli the
actual world of man's existence. They abandoned the theorj" of
supersensible archetypes and fell back on the simpler hjTJOthesis
of Heraclitus, that the universe is pervaded in all its parts by
an eternal Reason. Man in his individual life may raise himself
above all that limits him, and realize his identity with this
Logos, which resides in his own soul, and is also the governing
principle of the world. The Stoic philosophy not only furnished
the general conception of the Logos to later thinkers, but also
emphasized the distinction which became of prime importance
in the later development. The faculty of reason as it exists in
man reveals itself in speech, which is denoted by the same
Greek word, Koym. To the universal Xoyoj Stoicism ascribed the
two attributes that mark the reasoning power in man. On the
one hand it is Xoyo; ivSiaiiTos, — reason in its inner movement
and potentiality, — and on the other hand /oVo? T/ioipopixoi, —
reason projected and made concrete in the endless variety of
the visible world.

1. Philo api^ropriates the main Stoic conception,
but combines it with other elements borrowed
eclectically from previous systems of thought.
The Logos idea is loosened from its connexion
with Stoic materialism and harmonized with a
thoroughgoing Platonism, which regards the visible
things as only the types and shadows of realities
laid up in the higher world. It becomes identical
in great measure with Plato's idea of the Good,
except that it is further regarded as creatively
active. Philo's grand innovation, however, is to
press the Logos theory into the service of a theology
derived from the OT. The same problem which
Stoicism had tried to solve had in a different
manner become urgent in Jewish thought. Here
also all progress, alike in the moral and intellectual
life, was like to be arrested by an overstrained
dualism. The effort to conceive of God as abso-
lutely transcendent had resulted in separating
Him entirely from the world, of which He had yet
to be regarded as the Creator and Governor.
Already in the later books of the OT, much more
in Rabbinical speculation, we can trace the idea of
an intermediary between God and the world.
' Wisdom ' is described in Job and Proverbs, with
something more than a poetical personification, as
God's agent and co-worker Peculiar significance
w^as attiiched by the later expositors to the various
OT allusions to the ' word ' of God. By His
' word ' He had created heaven and earth and
revealed Himself to the prophets. The actual
hypostatizing of the Word in the doctrine of the
Memra was subsequent to the time of Philo, but it
was the outcome of a mode of thinking already
prevalent in Jewish theology. God who was Him-
self the High and Holy One, of purer eyes than to
behold iniquity, mediated His action through the
Divine Word. It was natural for Philo, with his
Hellenic and philosophical culture, to advance a

step further and identify the Word of the OT with
the Stoic Xoyos.

The Logos of Philo requires to be understood in
the light of this double descent from Greek and
OT thought. The Stoic conception, as we have
seen, took account of the two meanings of \dyos
as reason and uttered speech, but the distinction
was of little practical importance. What the
Greek thinkers sought to affirm was the ration-
ality of the world. The Logos under all its aspects
was simply the principle of reason, informing the
endless variety of things, and so maintaining the
Avorld-order. To Philo, on the other hand, the
idea of reason is combined with that of the out-
going of Divine power. While describing his Logos
in terms directly borrowed from Plato and the
Stoics, he regards it as in the last resort dynamic,
like the creative word in Genesis. This ditl'er-
ence between Philo and the Greek thinkers is con-
nected with another and still more vital one. To
the Stoics the eternal Reason was itself an ultimate
principle, and the necessity was not felt of explain-
ing it as the reason of God. The doctrine of the
Logos may, indeed, be regarded as an attempt,
more or less conscious, to escape from the belief in
a Divine Creator. Philo could not content himself
with this notion of an absolute Logos. He started
from the Hebrew belief in a supreme, self-existing
God, to whom the immanent reason of the world
must be related and subordinated. To this clash-
ing of the primary Greek conception with the
demands of Hebrew monotheism, we may largely
attribute one of the most perplexing peculiarities
of the Philonic doctrine. The Logos appears,
sometimes as only an aspect of the activity of God,
at other times as a ' second God,' an independent
and, it might seem, a personal being. There can
be little doubt that Philo, who never ceased to be
an orthodox Jew, had no intention of maintaining
the existence of two Divine agents ; and the pas-
sages in which he appears to detach and personify
the Logos must be explained mainly in a figurative
sense. The Word which is described as speaking,
acting, creating of itself, is the word of God,
vividly realized by an imaginative thinker. But
this separate existence assigned to the Logos may
also be set down in some measure to the composite
origin of the idea. The Stoical doctrine of an
independent Reason could not be wholly reconciled
with the Jewish belief in one supreme God.

2. The Fourth Gospel sets out from a conception
of the Logos which to all appearance is closely
similar to that of Philo. In the Prologue the
main features of the Philonic doctrine are repro-
duced one by one ; — the eternal existence of the
Word, its Divine character (^v Beds), its relation
to God as towards Him, and yet distinct {irpbs tov
0e6v), its creative activity, its function in the
illumination and deliverance of men. The Evan-
gelist assumes that the idea of the Logos is already
a familiar one in Christian theology. It is intro-
duced abruptly, as requiring no explanation, and
its different aspects are lightly indicated, by way
of reminding the reader of truths sufficiently
known to him. We can thus infer that the con-
ception of Philo had already naturalized itself in
Christian thought, but there is reason to believe
that the author of the Gospel was acquainted more
or less directly with the Philonic writings and
consciously derived from them.*

To what extent does the Logos idea of Philo
change its character as it assimilates itself to the
theology of the Gospel ? Before an answer can be
offered to this question, it is necessary to consider
a preliminary difficulty with which Johannine
criticism has been largely occupied since the ap-

* Cf. the list of parallel passages collected by Grill (pp. 111-
138).

LOGOS

pearance of Harnack's famous pamphlet.* Is the
Prologue to be regarded as an integral portion of
the Gospel, or is it, as Harnaek contends, a mere
])reface written to conciliate the interest of a
philosophical public? The idea of Christ as the
Divine Logos is nowhere resumed in the body of
the Gospel. Although the term Logos is con-
stantly used, it always bears its ordinary sense of
spoken discourse, while the categories of Light,
Life, Love are substituted for the Logos of the
Prologue. The work, as we have it, is no meta-
physical treatise, such as we might expect from
the opening verses, if they truly set forth its pro-
gramme, but a historical document, the narrative
of the earthly life of Christ. In spite, however,
of Harnack's powerful argument, the almost
unanimous voice of Johannine criticism has de-
clared against him. The statement of his view
has led to a closer examination of the Prologue
in its connexion with the Gospel, resulting in
multiplied proof that the ideas presented at the
outset are woven in with the whole tissue of the
work. The Prologue supplies the background,
the atmosphere, which are necessary to a right
contemplation of the history. Nevertheless, while
Harnack's main argument cannot be accepted, it
serves to remind us of one fact which cannot be
emphasized too much. St. John is not concerned
merely with the Word, but with the Word made
Hesh. After the first few verses, in which he treats
of the pre-existent Logos, he passes to the his-
torical Person of Jesus, who is more than the
abstract Word. In Him it had become visible,
and acted on men through a human Personality.

St. John therefore accepts the Philonic con-
ception in order to assimilate it to his account of
a historical Person, through whom the Word de-
clared itself under the conditions of human life.
It is evident that the conception could not be so
adapted without submitting to profound modifica-
tions. (1) The Logos, Avhich was to clothe itself in
flesh and act on men with the force of a personality,
must in its deepest ground be a personal Being.
We have seen that Philo, partly in imaginative
fashion, partly because of the composite origin of
his thought, attributes a semi-independence to the
Logos. This prepared the way for a complete
personification ; but Philo himself thinks only of a
Divine principle, the creative reason of God. St.
John, however, makes it an essential moment in
his conception that the Logos has a ground of
independent being within God {irpbs rbv debv, stand-
ing over against Him as a distinct Being). His
view even of the pre-existent Logos is coloured by
his knowledge of the ultimate Incarnation. (2)
The creative activity of the Logos, which in Philo
is central and all-determining, falls into the back-
ground. Only in P ( ' All things were made by
him ') do we have any clear trace of this aspect of
Logos doctrine, and the sequence of thought would
still be complete if the brief allusion were omitted.
It is thrown out, apparently, by way of acknow-
ledgment of the recognized theory. Some refer-
ence to the cosmic significance of the Logos was
necessary if any link with previous speculation
was to be preserved. The Gospel, in point of fact,
knows nothing of the absolute transcendence of
God, which Philo's whole theory is designed to
mitigate. It assumes that ' the world ' is the
direct object of God's love and providence (3^").
It maintains that God acts immediately on the
human soul and so makes possible the redeeming
work of the Logos (G'" 17«). (3) In the Gospel,
much more emphatically than in Philo, the term
X670S denotes Word as well as Reason. The Greek
philosophical meaning is, indeed, discarded, or

* liber das Verhaltniss des Prologs des vierten Evgl. zimi
ganzen Werk (1892).

retained only as a faintly colouring element. The
Word is regarded throughout as the expression of
God's will and jjower, the self-revelation of His
inward nature. It does not represent the Divine
reason but the Divine energy. Its sovereign at-
tribute is Life, the life which it derives from God
and transmits to men. Under the form of Alex-
andrian speculation St. John preserves the essen-
tial Hebrew conception of the living, quickening
Word.

Thus, in accepting the Philonic idea, St. John
does not commit himself to the precise interi)reta-
tion that Philo placed on it ; on the contrary,
whether consciously or not, he departs from the
characteristic lines of Philo's thinking. The difier-
ences, however, do not alter the main fact that he
rested his account of the Christian revelation on
a hypothesis which was metaphysical rather than
religious. The Jesus who had appeared in history
was identified with the Logos of jjliilosophy, and
this identification involved an entirely new reading
of His Person and life. St. John does not, indeed,
press to its full extent his theory that the Logos
became manifest in Christ. Behind his speculation
there is always the remembrance of the actual
life, which had arrested him as it had done the
first disciples, and been to him the true revelation
of God. His worship is directed in the last resort
not to the Logos whom he discovers in Jesus, but
to Jesus Himself. Nevertheless the acceptance of
the Logos idea imposes on him a mode of thought
which is often alien to his deeper religious instinct.
On the one hand, he conceives of Jesus as reveal-
ing God to men and lifting thein to a higher life
by His ethical personality. On the other hand,
he is compelled to interpret the work of Jesus in
terms of metaphysic. God was manifest in Him
because He was Himself the Logos, and the life
He imparted was the Divine life, ditt'erent in
essence from that of man. The Gospel wavers
throughout between these two parallel interpreta-
tions of the life of Christ, — that suggested by the
history and that required by the Logos hypothesis.
Superficially the two conceptions are drawn to-
gether, but they are disparate by their very nature
and will not admit of a true reconciliation.

St. John does not concern himself with the
questions that arose in later theology regarding
the nature of the union between the Logos and
the human Jesus. He assumes the union as a
fact incapable of further definition. ' The Word
became fiesh,' appeared in Jesus as a human per-
sonality. How and when this Incarnation was
efiected, to what extent the Divine nature in
Christ could be distinguished from the human, —
these are questions which he does not try to
answer, and which he probably never asked him-
self. His silence is mainly to be explained by the
practical intention with which he wrote his Gospel.
It was not his purpose to discuss the Divinity of
Christ as a theological idea, but to impress it on
his readers as a fact, by the knowledge of which
' they might have life ' {20=*i). At the same time,
the problems which came to light in the course of
later controversy are all legitimately suggested by
the simple thesis ' the Word became flesh.' From
St. John's silence in regard to them we are com-
pelled to infer that he did not reason out his
doctrine with any fulness or clearness. He had
set himself to combine ideas which in themselves
were radically incomitatible, and succeeded in doing
so only by a certain confusion of thought.

3. The Evangelist, then, sets out from the fact
that the historical Jesus was also the Divine
Logos. In the body of the Gospel this hypothesis
is never directly alluded to, but it is assumed
throughout and modifies profoundly the whole
picture of the earthly life of Jesus. (1) Peculiar

LOGOS

LONELINESS

stress is laid on His miracles as the ' signs ' by
which He 'manifested forth his glory." The
motive of compassion, to which the miracles are
for the most part ascribed by the Synoptic writers,
falls into the background. They are regarded as
sheer exhibitions of power, intended by Jesus to
inspire belief in His Divine claims. The marvel-
lous element is uniformly heightened, in such a
manner as to i^reclude all natural explanations.

(2) Apart from direct works of miracle, certain
attributes are assigned to Jesus which witness to
His possession of the Logos nature. He partakes
even on earth of the Divine omniscience ( 1"** 2-^ 4^^
IP'*). He appears where He will, with something
of a Divine omnipresence (6^'' 8'''* 9^). There is a
majesty al)out His Person which quells and over-
awes (7^" 12"''^ 18^). An impression is borne home
on us in every episode of the history that, while
He dwelt with men. He was a heavenly being,
who could exercise at will the prerogatives of God.

(3) The aloofness of Jesus, as of one who belonged
to a different world, is everywhere brought into
strong relief. In the Synoptic narratives, what
separates Him from other men is His matchless
wisdom and moral purity. St. John ascribes to Him
a radical difference of nature. He does not parti-
cipate in human weaknesses and distresses (even
His sorrow over Lazarus is that of a Divine being
who stands ajmrt and contemplates the tragedy of
our mortal lot). In His intercourse with the dis-
ciples He is conscious all the time that He has
come from God and returns to God (13^-^). (4) A
still more striking emphasis is laid on the absolute
freedom, the self-determination of Jesus. While
submitting for a time to earthly limitations. He
vindicates His higher nature by acting in every-
thing on His own sovereign will, without com-
pulsion from without (2^ G'- " 7" 11^). From the
beginning He has fixed His 'hour,' and Himself
ordains all the conditions that will lead up to it.
His enemies are impotent until the hour willed
liy Himself has come (7^" 8-"), and meanwhile He
goes about His work in perfect security (IP). In
this well-marked strain of Johannine thought we
have little difficult}^ in discerning the influence of
the Logos idea, penetrating the actual reminiscence
of the life of Christ. (5) The Logos character of
Jesus, which is thus illustrated on various sides
by His actions, comes to clear expression in His
spoken words. These are concerned almost wholly
witli the assertion, under many different types
and forms, of the Divine significance of the Speaker
Himself. Hence the peculiar value which is ascribed
to them (6**^- ^ 15^). They convey more clearly and
emphatically than actions could do the inner secret
of our Lord's personality. Being Himself the
Logos, one in essence with God, He had power to
impart the higher life (see Word).

In all these directions, therefore, St. John gives
effect to the idea of the Prologue that the nature
of Christ was a Logos nature. His acceptance of
this doctrine involves him in a new reading of the
Gospel history — a reading which in some respects
is artificial and inadequate. The life of Jesus
becomes that of a heavenly being, and all traces
of moral struggle (as in the Temptation and the
Agony) disappear from it. The attributes of faith
in God and infinite sympathy with men are re-
placed by metaphysical attributes, which are sup-
posed to belong more essentially to the Divine
nature. Jesus is the revelation pf God because
He is the eternal Logos, who manifests in an
earthly life the absolute being and self-dependence
of God. This, however, is to divest the revelation
of its real worth and meaning. What we desire
to know and what was actually revealed to us in
the life of Jesus, is the moral character of God,
and of this the Logos doctrine can render no

account. In so far as the Fourth Evangelist has
subordinated his conception of Christ to a philo-
sophical sjieculation, we cannot but feel that he
defeats his own purpose. He desires so to assert
the majesty of Christ that men may be drawn to
believe in Him as the Son of God, and enter into
life-giving fellowship with Him. But in the endea-
vour to exalt the Lord's Per.son by means of the
Logos hypothesis, he obscures those very elements
in the Divine life which constitute its true glory.

4. It is necessary at the same time to recognize
that much was gained for Christian theology by
the adoption of this hj^pothesis. (1) A middle
term was discovered between Christianity and the
forms of Hellenic thought, and a wider develop-
ment was thus rendered possible. The new religion
could now interpret itself to the Grseco-Koinan
world, and assimilate whatever was congenial to
its spirit in the intellectual life of the time. With
the help of the categories which it henceforth
borrowed from Greek philosophy, it was enabled
in many ways to convey its message more clearly
and adequately. (2) The claim of Christianity to
be the absolute religion was definitely formulated
in the Logos doctrine. Jesus was identified not
merely with the Jewish Messiah, but with the
eternal Word who had been with God from the
beginning. His revelation was not one out of
many, but the suprenie and final revelation. This
idea is prominent throughout the Prologue, in
which the ' true Light ' is contrasted with the
manifestations of God through John the Baptist
and Moses. These, although burning and shining-
lights, were only 'for a season' (o^-'). (3) By
identifying Him with the Logos, St. John declared,
in a manner that could not be mistaken, the
uniqueness of Jesus, and assigned Him His central
place as the object of Christian faith. The Logos
category was in itself insufficient, and tended to
confuse Christianity with metaphysical issues
which were alien to its real import. But it pro-
vided a form within which the innermost truth of
the religion could maintain itself for ages follow-
ing. Jesus Christ in His own Person is the revela-
tion of God, and believing on Him we have life
through His name.

5. The vital and permanent message of the
Fourth Gospel is little ati'ected by any estimate
we may form of the value of the Logos hypothesis.
It is evident that, while the Evangelist ostensibly
sets out from a philosoijhical theory, he derives in
reality from a religious experience. From the im-
pression created in him bj- the earthly life of Jesus,
still more from the knowledge he had received of
Him in inward fellowship, he has arrived at the
conviction that this is the Christ, the Son of God.
He avails himself of the doctrine of the Logos, the
highest that the thought of his time afforded him,
in order to exjiress this conviction, and in some
measure explain it. But the speculative idea
belongs to the form, not to the essence of St.
John's teaching. It represents the attempt to
interpret, in terms of an inadequate philosophy, a
truth which has been grasped by faith. See also
art. Divinity of Christ, vol. i. p. 478^

LiTBRATi'RE, — Aall, Geschichte der Logosidee (2 vols., 1896,
1899); Heinze, Die Lehre pom Logos in der griech. Philosophie
(1872) ; Drunimond, Philo Jiidoius ; J. R6ville, Le Quatrieinc
Svangile (1901), and La doctrine du Logon dans le U^nie Evang.
et dans les oeuvres de Philon (1881); Grill, Unlermchungen
liber die Entstehung des vierten Evang. (1902) ; Bousset, Die
Relig. des Jiidenthums (pp. 405-431) ; Simon, Der Logos (1902) ;
Meyer, Der Prolog des Johannesevang. (1902); Baldensperger,
Der Prolog des oierten Erang. (1898) ; Harnack, Uber das
Verhdltniss, etc. (1892); Kaftan, Das ]'erhdltniss des evangel-
isehen Glaiibens zur Logoslehre (1896) ; art ' Logos ' in Hastings'

DB. E. F. Scott.

LONELINESS. — To speak of the isolation of
Christ would give a wrong impression as far as

LONELINESS

LONG-SUFFERING

the everyday circumstances of His life are con-
cerned. He was most often eitlier in crowds, teach-
ing and healing, or else seeking loneliness without
success ; He was lonely in the same sense as that
in which Nazareth and Syria were lonely — placed
close to the world's highways, yet living a life
of their own (cf. G. A. Smith, HGHL, p. 432;
Edersheim, Life and Times of Messiah, i. 147).
We may notice four aspects of what may be called
the loneliness of Christ.

1. Solitude for the purposes of prayer, medita-
tion, and rest. The outstanding instances are —
the Temptation in the Wilderness (Mt 4\ Mk l^^,
Lk 4-), the retirement after the excitement con-
sequent on the feeding of the live thousand (Mt
14~, Mk B'*^; cf. Jn &^), and the retirement for
prayer, soon interrupted (Mk 1^^; cf. also Lk 6'-,
and 9^* where Mk 8-^ has ' in the Avay he asked his
disciples'). It should be noted that at times of
peculiar spiritual intensity Jesus withdrew from
the other disciples, but kept by Him Peter and the
sons of Zebedee, as at the Transhguration (Mt 17^
Mk 9'-, Lk 9-*^), at the raising of Jairus' daughter
(Mk 5»^), and at Gethsemane (Mt 26=*^— ' watch
with me,'— Iklk 14^5, Lk 22^^).

2. Retirement from possible persecution, or from
ttnwlshed for notoriety : e.g. after the death
of John the Baptist (Mt 14'^ ; in Mk 6'" this re-
tirement immediatel}' follows the return of the
Twelve) ; from the opposition of the I'harisees
(Mt W\ Mk 8-^ Lk 918; also Mt lo^i, Mk 7"^).
Similarly, He was extremely anxious that His
miracles should not become known (Lk 5"'^, Mt 8'*,
Mk 8-" Q'^ ; the chief exception, where there were
special reasons, is in ]Mk 5'"). The opposite reason
for solitude and concealment is given in Jn 6^'^
( ' perceiving that they were about to come and
take him by force, to make him king'). On the
other hand, it must be remembered that (a) Jesus
was constantly accompanied, at least in Galilee
and at the end" in Jerusalem, by twelve friends and
disciples specially appointed (]Mt 10^, Mk 3^^ Lk 10^
imply a larger circle from which to draw^ ; to these
we must add a number of women (Lk 8^ ; cf. Mt
2755, Mk IS'i'^, Lk 23^"). In connexion with the visits
to Jerusalem recounted in the Fourth Gospel, the
disciples are hardly mentioned ; Jn 7^", coupled
with the absence of reference to the disciples in
chs. 7 to 10, seems to make it certain that Jesus
was alone ; we find the disciples with Him again
in Jn IP^. {b) In the earlier part of His ministry
Jesus was constantly inconvenienced by the throng-
ing of the vast crowds drawn to His side (cf. Mt
423 818 935^ Mk 137, Lk 4*2 121 ; see Swete, .S*^. Mark,
p. Ixxx) ; in the last visit to Jerusalem He sought
retirement at night by leaving the city either for
Bethany or the Mount of Olives (Mt 21i^ Mk IP^,
Lk 2P''). (c) His conduct was social enough — as
distinct from that of John and of the Essenes — to
give rise to the slanders about ' a gluttonous man
and a winebibber' (Mt 11'^, Lk 7^*); He went to
the marriage at Cana (Jn 2^) ; He was found at the
feast in Simon's house (Mt 26*', Mk 14*, also Lk
7*8) ; with Matthew (Mtg^o, Lk 52«), and Zaccha>.us
(Lk 19®) ; and contrasted Himself with John as one
who ' comes eating and drinking ' (Mt IV^, Lk 7^'*).

3. The inevitable residt of His oivn attitude.
The question in Mt 12*^ seems to be that of one
who wilfully cuts himself off from human ties ;
as He faced death more nearly, isolation could not
but grow on Him (Mt W^, Mk g^o, Lk 9^2- «, cf.
also Mk 10^-) ; as early as the feeding of the five
thousand, ' many of his disciples went back, and
walked no more with him ' (Jn 6''''). The disciples
remained with Him till the end, when the arrest
proved too much for their loyalty, although we
find John, with the women, at the foot of the cross
(Jn 192s- 26, Mt 27«^ Mk 15*").

i. The uniqueness of Christ's Person. This is
emphasized chietl}' in the Fourth Gospel ; though
that it was soon felt is shown in Lk 5* ('De])art
from me ; for I am a sinful man, O Lord ' ; com-
pare the timidity of the disciples in Jn 21'^) ; and
easily gathered from the manner in which the
discijjles misunderstood Him and His purposes for
themselves (Mt 20^1, Mk 10*^ cf. Lk 9»*-55, and
Mk 9-'-, Lk 9-»« 222*). ^yiien Christ speaks of His
own nearness to the Father, distance from man-
kind must naturally follow ; see Jn 5^^^- 8^''- -'^- '^
10''" 20^^. On the other hand, this special relation
of Christ to the Father is one which is, through
Christ; to be shared by His disciples (see Jn 10*,
ch. 17 passim, and 20^^). The extreme of loneli-
ness, as it is heard in the cry upon the cross (Mt
27*«, Mk 153*, cf. Lk 23*«, Jn ig*"), lasted, it would
seem, but for a moment. See Dereliction.

Literature. — In addition to the Commentaries and Lives of
Christ, see F. W. Robertson, Sermons, 1st Series, p. 220 ; J.
Caird, Aspects of Life, p. Ill ; H. P. Liddon, Passiontide
Sermons, p. 138; J. Martineau, Endeavours after the Christian
Life, p. 159 ; E. B. Pusey, Sermons from Advent to Whitsuntide,
P- ISS. \V. F. LOFTHOUSE.

LONG-SUFFERING (ixaKpoevfj-ia), like another
fruit of the Spirit, love (ayaTrr}), has almost entirely
non-pagan connexions. The Gr. word occurs 14
times in the NT, while its cognate verb is found 10
times, and the adverb only once (Ac 26^). Only
the verb occurs in the Gospels: Mt 18'-«- '-^^ (EV
'have patience'), Lk 18^ (AV 'bear long,' R'V 'is
long-sutiering'). It is both a Divine attribute and
a Cliristian virtue. The word ' long-tempered ' as
opposed to ' short-tempered ' is not in ordinary
English use, but it expresses with fair accuracy
the central thought in fj.aKpodviJ.ia. The Latin
equivalent is longanimitas (Vulg. ), and Jeremy
Taylor amongst others tried to transplant the word
into English soil under the form of 'longanimity,
but without success.

OT use. — Long-suffering is one of God's noblest attributes,
and is made the subject of a special revelation in Ex 346. The
Heb. phrase 'erek 'aph (']>< "iilii) is found frequently in the books
that follow, and Joel (2i-'), Jonah (42), and Nahum (13) specially
dwell upon this element in God's character.

NT use. — It is significant that the word fx.xxpotiu/u,ia is rare in
pre-Christian Greek. In the NT it occurs several times in con-
text with iTo/x-ovy, (patience, endurance), from which it must be
carefully distinguished (2 Co 64-6, Col in, 2 Ti 3i«, Ja 51011).
Trench (^Synonyms) says iMcxpoOuiJ.401. is used of persons, and
uToiMvr, of things. As regards NT usage alone, this is near the
truth (but see Ja 57, and cf. in OT Is 5715 [LXX] and in Apocr.
1 Mac 84). Perhaps we may more truly say that patience keeps
a man from breaking down in despair, while long- suffering
keeps him from breaking out in word or action because of some
unsatisfied desire. This latter distinction is probably the key to
several passages where f^xxf/otiuuKx. has been said to approximate
to the meaning of u^oi^-ovr,. In He 6i2- is, for instance, Abraham
not only waited patiently for the promise ; he did not in heart
or word break out into nmrmurs against God's delay, and this
right attitude won him his reward. So in Ja S'' the husband-
man without patience would break down with despair, but if
his long-suffering gave out he would probably break out into
pulling up his tardy plants. Long-suffering, then, is a passive
virtue^ and waits God's time. It is the exact opposite of hasty
action or hurried speech. Nevertheless, it is not carelessness.
If God is long-suffering, He waits to give further opportunity
for repentance, and this may not be presumed upon without
risk (Ro 24 922, 1 p 3-^0, 2 P 39).

1. Christ's long-suffering character. — The word
itself is not often used of, or by, Christ Himself,
but the virtue which it expresses is frequently ex-
emplified in the Gospels. It was His long tolera-
tion of manifest injustice that puzzled John the
Baptist (Mt IP), and there is long-sutiering too in
His quiet reception of John's complaint (v.*). In
long-suft'ering He refused to call down fire from
heaven on inhospitable Samaritans (Lk 9^*). It was
long-sutt"ering too that made Him yield to arrest
without resistance (Mt 2Q^"- ^'\ Ja 5"'- ''), and refrain
from returning scorn for scorn or threat for threat
at His trial (Mt 27^-). And after His ascension we
see Him exhibiting the same long-suft'ering spirit
towards those who persecuted the disciples as they

LOOK (CHRIST'S)

had persecuted the Master (1 Ti P", Ac 9*; of.
2 P 3'5).

In His teaching He bids His people be partakers
of His own long-sufi'ering character. The tares are
not rooted up, but grow together with the wheat
until the harvest (Mt 13^"). In the parable of tlie
Unmerciful Servant the prayer of that unworthy
man was for long-suffering (Mt 18-^), but a full
pardon was given Instead, until his subsequent con-
duct caused the withdrawal of the boon (v.-^). In
the paral)le of the Unjust Judge the word /j-aKpodv/xel
(Lk IS") occurs in connexion with a difficult piece
of interjiretation, for the full discussion of which
we have scarcely space here. Christ possibly had
in mind a verse in Sir 35"^ [Gr. 32--]. If eV avrols
refers to the elect, we maj' say that jxaKpodvixel liere
means the vindication of the cause rather than the
punishment of the foe. But if we may refer the
rt'orils to the enemies of the elect, the phrase will
be parallel in thought to Ro 2^.

2. Long-suffering a Christian duty. — In Mt 18-^- -^
we noted the obligation resting on those who enjoy
Christ's long-suffering to exhibit it to others. This
habit we find enforced in the Epistles (1 Co 13^,
2 Co 6«, Gal 5", 1 Th 5", 2 Ti 31"). It is not a
natural characteristic : it has to be acquired (Col
3^^). In Eph 4- it is explained as forbearance, or
cessation of hostilities [avoxv)- This implies that
there may be wrong on both sides. But there is a
power from without (Col 1", Gal 5^'-), the Spirit of
God, wlio will enable Christ's people to reproduce
His long-suffering in face, for instance, of ojiposi-
tion to the truth they teach (2 Ti 4=). In Ja o'-^"
the word occurs four times. Tlie Christian who is
persecuted is to be as long-suffering towards his
foe as the farmer who waits till the unproductive
field bears a crop after fertilizing showers. There
is, perliaps, in addition, a thought of man's atti-
tude towards God in times of trial. Christ's long-
suffering man refuses both to rail at his enemies
and to question the dealings of his God.

Literature. — Trench, Synonyms ; Cremer, Lex. s.v. ; art.
' Long-suffering ' in Hastings' DB ; Paget, Studies in the Chris-
tian Character, 177 ; Morrison, Unlighted Lustre, 188.

H. C. Lees.

LOOK (CHRIST'S).— The Gospels give no direct
information as to tlie look of our Lord, if the
word ' look ' be regarded as a synonym for His out-
ward appearance. The first natural request of a
child — 'You are going to tell me about Jesus,
then tell me what He was like ' — puts a question tlie
Evangelists do not even begin to answer ; and in a
tale generally so frank and childlike this fact is
not without significance. No description of Jesus'
' face ' is ever given in the Gospels, except when, in
the story of the Transfiguration, it is said that the
fashion of His face was altered (eyevero to eldos tov
TTpocnhwov aiiTov 'irepov, Lk 9^^*). Even then, it is
stated to have become like the sun (Mt 17-) ; and,
as it happens, the figure is of something which,
though it lights the world, is not in itself directly
to be gazed upon (cf. Rev U^). While it may be
possible, therefore, to deduce from the Epistles a
message figuratively termed 'the Gospel of the
Face' (see Bushnell, Sermons on Living Subjects,
73 ff.), the Evangelists afford no opportunity of
making this study of Christ ' after the flesh.' See
art. Christ in Art.

It is further to be observed, in the same con-
nexion, that even the more vivid words for looking,
as a synonym for 'seeing,' 'beholding,' are never
used of Christ so as to draw attention to the
manner of His look. Such a word, e.g., as aTevl^tj},
' to gaze fixedly ' (employed to describe a congrega-
tion gazing at Jesus, Lk 4-" ; the maid staring at
St. Peter, 22^^ ; St. Paul flasliing an indignant look
at Elymas the sorcerer, Ac 1.3''), is never associated
with our Lord. Even 5i.ap,\iwo}, a milder though

still pictorial word, is not connected with Him. It
is as tliough every mental image of Christ's out-
ward appeai'ance wei'e designedly excluded. We
must be content, therefore, to study Christ's look
in the more objective sense in which it expresses
simply the act of vision. Here we may roughly
divide the references into four classes.

1. The look of Christ is sometimes disclosed as an
upward look, expressing dependence on the Father.
This uplifted glance is recorded on four occasions —
during the miracle of the feeding of the 5000, while
giving thanks and blessing the loaves (Mt \^'^) ; in
tlie healing of a man deaf and dumb, when Christ
looked up to heaven and sighed (Mk 7^"* [in both
passages a,vaj3\e\l/as eis tov oupav6i']) ; in the raising
of Lazarus (.Jn ll'*^ -Tjpeu tovs 6(pda\/xoi'S avui) ; and
during the great Higli-Priestly prayer (Jn 17^
€Trdpas roi)s ocpdoKfxov'i avTov eis tov ovpavbv). In all these
instances the action and gesture must have im-
printed themselves very deeply on the memory of
the disciples. Tliey were an outward sign of a
lifelong inward attitude. They evidenced the
direction of the appeal which Christ made in His
human nature to God. Of Him tlie words are pre-
eminently true, ' Mine eyes are ever toward the
Lord '(Pk 2515).

2. The look of Christ is often disclosed as an
outward look of calm clear-eyed discernment on
the world around Him. ' He beheld (edewpei) Jiow
the people cast money into the treasuiy' (Mk 12-'i)
— appreciating not only the matter of their gift,
but the manner of it. He ' entered into the temple,
and looked round about upon all things' (Mk IV^
irepL^Xexpafxevos Travra) ; and it appeared on the fol-
lowing day how piercing and comprehensive His
glance had been (v.^^"'-). ' He looked up ' (di'a/3Xei/'as)
and saw Zacchajus in his post in the tree (Lk 19^).
When the scribes brought Him a crafty question,
'He perceived {KaTavorjcras) their craftiness' (Lk
20-^) — 'saw at a glance,' the word might be ren-
dered. If there were space to otter a complete list
of those things which Jesus is said in the Gospels
to have beheld or seen, the imjn-ession would at
least be strong that those calm eyes missed nothing.
Retaining God continually in the field of vision,
Jesus' sight was not thereby dimmed, but only
purged and purified for all other exercise. On one
occasion His disciples were permitted to share a
deeper gaze into the world behind the veil — ' And
He said unto them, I beheld (ideiJbpovv) Satan as
lightning fall from heaven ' (Lk 10^^).

3. A special look of Christ is recorded as directed
to a man or an audience during the utterance of some
statement or address. The simplest record of this
is when it is said that He ' looked round ' before
speaking (Mk 3^^ 10-'' -n-epi^Xe^pd/xevos) ; or that 'he
beheld (e,u/3Xe'i/'as) them and said ' (]\It 19-^) ; or when
more fully St. Luke states in reporting the Sermon
on the jNIount, ' And he lifted up his eyes {e-rrdpas
TOVS 6(f>6a\iJLovs) on his disciples, and said' (Lk 6-").
This is the look of the sower scrutinizing the field.
It is a look adding personality to the word spoken.
It is a silent ' Verily, verily, I say unto you. ' More
individual instances of this look are when .Jesus
' beheld ' (i/iip\e\pas) Peter, and said, ' Thou art
Simon . . . thou shalt be called Cephas ' ( Jn I'*-) —
a look sealing the new name upon Peter's heart ;
or when He 'beheld' (i/x^\^fas) the chief juiests
and scribes, ' and said. What is this then that is
written ? ' (Lk 2(V) — a grave look of reproach, ' to
add solemnity to His reference to their own Scrip-
tures.' Christ and His words can never be separ-
ated. He is Himself the Word made flesh — the
greatest utterance in the greatest Person ; and the
language of the Apostles is ' Avhat we have seen and
heard declare we unto you' (1 Jn P).

4. A few passages form a group by themselves,
wherein strong feeling is expressed or implied as

accompanying some look of Ciirist. The most
notable instance of this is when ' the Loi\l turned
and looked upon {eve iSXexpev) Peter' {Lk 22''i), 'No
word, no gesture of reproach ' ; but

' Oh to render plain,
By help of having loved a little and mourned,
That look of so\ran love and sovran pain '

(Mrs. Browning, Sonnets).

Akin to this is the look directed by Jesus upon the
young ruler, ' And Jesus beholding (f^/3\ei/'as) him
loved him ' (Mk 10-') ; or the look of the King upon
Jerusalem, on ' what should have been the City's
bridal day,' 'He beheld {idibv) the city, and wejjt
over it' (Lk 19^'). As a last instance, though
expressing a very different emotion, we may
adduce Mk 3^ ' He looked round about on tliem
(■irepL^\e\pdixevos avrovs) with anger, being grieved for
the hardness of their liearts.' Of Christ, too, might
the words have been written, He

' loved well because he hated,
Hated wickedness that hinders loving ' (Browning).

R. Stevenson.
LORD. — This title is used as the translation of
three different words in the Gr. Gospels: (1) 6
5eaTr6T7]s. This word occurs only once in the
Gospels, in the prayer of Simeon, 'Lord, now lettest
thou thy servant de^^art in peace, according to
thy word' (Lk 2-^). It is the proper correlative
of SoOXos. In thus addressing God, Simeon thinks
of himself as His slave. (2) oi jj-eyiaraves. This
word also occurs but once in the Gospels, in Mk
6"-' 'Herod . . . made a supper to his lords.' It
describes the chief men or nobles of a city or
kingdom. (3) Kvpios, 6 Kvpios. Except in the above
instances, this is the word which stands for ' Lord '
and ' lord ' in tlie Gospels. It occurs Avith great
frequency. With or without the article, it is
found at least 244 times. The frequency of its use
is concealed from readers of the English versions.
It is sometimes translated ' master ' ( ' Yet the dogs
eat of the crumbs mIucIi fall from their master's
table,' Mt 15'-"), or 'sir' ('I go, sir, and went not,'
Mt 2P**), or 'owner' ('the owners therefore said,
Why loose ye the colt ? ' Lk 19^»). Fundamentally
the title describes one who has power or authority
(6 exojv /cO/jos) over persons or things. Strictly speak-
ing, it implies ownership, but it is also used as a
title of reverence or courtesy. In the Gospels it
is applied in a wide variety of relationship.

1. It is frequently used as a name for God. — (1)
In most cases as a name for God, it is used without
the article. It occurs in all 59 times (17 in Mt.,
8 in Mk., 30 in Lk., and 4 in Jn.). It is found in
quotations from the OT, as ' Thou shalt not tempt
(the) Lord thy God ' (Mt 4'') ; and in phrases of OT
origin, as 'the angel of (the) Lord' (Mt l-o |I Lk
1") ; ' the law of (the) Lord ' (Lk 2"^) ; ' the power
of (the) Lord' (Lk 5'^). It is noteworthy that
the only instances in the Gospels where the title
is used in direct address to God, are found in the
prayers of Jesus : ' I thank thee. Father, Lord of
heaven and earth' (Mt ll-'^ |1 Lk 10-'). In both
cases the title is found in exactly the same phrase.
(2) The use of the name with the article is in-
frequent, occurring in all 11 times (twice in Mt.,
once in Mk. , and 8 times in Lk. ) : e.g. ' Perform
unto tiie Lord thine oaths' (Mt 5^3); 'Tell how
great things the Lord hath done for thee ' (Mk 5'^) ;
'Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest' (Lk
10"). In the application of this name to God, with
and without the article, the Gospels follow the
usage of the LXX.

2. It is also used with great frequency as a
general title of roitrtesij, or as a name for a master
or oii-ner. (1) Without the article, it is employed
in direct address, as the salutation of a son to a
father, 'I go, sir' (Mt 2P») ; of servants to their
master, ' Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy

held ? ' (Mt 132") ; ' Lord, let it alone this year also '
(Lk 13«); of the Greeks to Philip, 'Sir, we would
see Jesus' (Jn 12-'); of the Pharisees and priests
to Pilate, ' Sir, we remember that this deceiver
said' (Mt 27"^). This use of the title, as a general
term of courtesy in direct address, is not found in
Mk., but it occurs 9 times in Mt., 8 times in Lk.,
and twice in John. As the name for a master, with-
out the article it is found only in Mt 6'-"* ' No man
can serve two masters, ' and in Lk 16'^, the parallel
passage. (2) With the article, it is a frequent
name for a master or owner, as ' the lord of the
vineyard' (Mt 20^), 'the lord of that servant' (Lk
12^"), ' the servant knoweth not what his lord
doeth ' (Jn lo'^). In Lk 16« it is the ' lord ' of the
unjust steward who commended his dishonest
method of providing for himself.

3. It is most frequently of all employed as a title of
eourtesy in direct address to, or as a name for Jesus.

(1) Without the article, it is used («) by His
disciples, as ' Lord, if it be thou, bid me come
unto tiiee on the water' (Mt H-**). This title in
direct address to Jesus by disciples is never found
in Mark. It is most frequent in Jn., as is to be
expected, since he records most of the private
intercourse between Jesus and His disciples. (6)
By others than disciples, as ' Lord, if thou wilt,
thou canst make me clean' (Mt 8-). In ]Mk. it is
employed only once in this relation, by the Syro-
phoinician woman, 'Yes, Lord' (Mk 7'-**). In most
cases, the title as used by others than disciples is
found in narratives of miracle, (c) By Jesus Him-
self, as 'Not everyone that saith unto me. Lord,
Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven '
(Mt7-'). (d) It is also found in the words of the
angel to the shepherds, ' Unto you is born this
day ... a Saviour, who is Christ (the) Lord ' (Lk
2^'). This i^hrase (xptcTos KipLos) is found in Ps-Sol
17^'^. Briggs (Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 34, 35,
notes) says it is probably to be interpreted on the
basis of 'nx Ps 110' ('The Lord said unto my
Lord''), but adds that Schiirer, Ewald, Wellhausen,
and W. R. Smith regard the jihrase in Ps-Sol as
a mistranslation of m.T htd ('Anointed of (the)
Lord,' — a phrase which is found in Lk 2^" ' (the)
Lord's Christ '). Dalman, on the other hand
{Words of Jesus, T. & T. Clark, p. 303 f.), thinks it
incredible that a translator should have made sucii
a mistake. We agree with him in regarding Kvpio%
(Lord) as a word added by the Evangelist to
interjjret the Jewish title Messiaii (xpicTos) to his
Gentile readers. (The same necessity of interpreta-
tion accounts for the phrase 'Christ, a king' (Lk
23-), in the acciisation made before Pilate. The
claim that Jecus was ' the Christ ' had no political
significance to the Gentile governor. It had to be
interpreted to him as ' king ' before he could re-
ceive the charge as an accusation). In Ac 2^" the
phrase ' God hath made that same Jesus . . . both
Lord and Christ' {Kvpiov Kal xp'0"''6'')> is to be ex-
plained in tlie same way. 'Lord' is an addition
by the Evangelist, to interjiret 'Christ' to Gentile
Christians. We may add that the same necessity
of interpreting ' Christ ' to Gentiles accounts for
the curious phrase in the address of Peter to Cor-
nelius, which has been found so difhcult — 'Jesus
Christ (he is Lord of all, iravTwu Kvptos),' Ac 10^''.
The clause in brackets is added to interpret the
confessional title ' Christ.' It may be due to Lk.,
but it is more likely that it was added at the time
by Peter. He was speaking to a Gentile, Avho,
though he was ' a devout man and one that feared
God,' may not have understood the confessional
significance of the term 'Christ.' Without the
addition of the interpretation, Cornelius might
have regarded it as part of the name of Jesus.
The title ' Christ ' did become a proper name, but
that use of the term did not arise till a later date.

If the interpretation was given by Peter when
speaking to Cornelius, it provides an interesting
illustration of the way in which the first preachers
of Christianity adapted themselves to the new con-
ditions in which they found themselves, when they
began to preach to Gentiles. The Saviour of the
world must not have a local or national con-
fessional title, (cf. the words of Paul and Silas to
the Philippian jailer as they are given in KAB,
and accepted by Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf,
and other critical editors, ' Believe on the Lord
Jesus {i.e. believe on Jesus as Lord), and thou
shalt be saved,' Ac 16'". Also, ' No man can say
that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost' (1 Co
12^), and ' every tongue should confess that Jesus
Ciirist is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,'
Pii 2^'). To the Jewish Christian, Jesus was the
'Messiah,' to the Hellenistic Christian Jew He
was ' the Christ,' and to the Gentile Christian He
was ' the Lord.' The Hellenistic and Gentile terms
are combined in our familiar name ' the Lord Jesus
Christ.' The interpretation of ' Christ ' as ' Lord '
enables us to understand that the es.sential idea of
the hrst term is that of Sovereignty or Lordship.
The Saviour is the Lord, the Possessor and Ruler of
the Kingdom of God.

This title readily acquired its highest significance
as one of Divine honour among the Gentile Chris-
tians, especially in the East. ' Oriental religions
are fond of expressing the relationship between the
divinity and the devotee, as that of the " Lord " or
" Lady " to a slave ' (Deissmann). The higher sig-
nificance of the title was most likely assisted also by
the fact that among Hellenistic Jewish Christians
Ki'pios was in use as a Divine title applied to God.

(2) With the article, the title is applied to Jesus
{a) l)y Himself, directly, as ' Ye call me Master and
Lord ' (more literally, ' the Teacher and the Lord ')
( Jn 13'^), and indirectly, as ' (The) LORD said
unto my Lord (rw Knpiw /j.ov), Sit thou on my right
hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool ' (Mt
22^^). (6) The historical aiiplication of the title,
with the article, to Jesus is specially significant.
Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort omit the title
in this form, in the only place where it is found
in Mt. (28«). It occurs twice in Mk. (IG'^--"), i.e.
in that part of the Gospel which is regarded by
critical editors as not belonging to the original
MSS. Therefore it is only in the Gospels of Lk.
and Jn. that the title in this form is applied his-
t(jrical]y to Jesus. This is a strong argument for
the earlier composition of Mt. and Mk., for the
title became so common in the Apostolic Church
tiiat its absence from these Gospels can be explained
only by their early date. The title occurs 18 times
in Lk. and 12 times in John. Twelve of the in-
stances in Lk. are found in passages which are
peculiar to that Gospel, as ' the Lord appointed
other seventy ' (Lk 10^). The other instances may
be regarded as editorial additions (7^^ IP^ 12^^ 17^-"®
24^). Three of the instances in Jn., which are
found in the early jiart of the Gospel, are plainly
editorial additions (4^ 6^ 11"). The remaining in-
stances are found in the last two chapters of the
Gospel, and in passages which are peculiar to it.
They deal with the risen life of Jesus, and were
written at a time when the higiier conceptions of
His personality gave a deeper significance to the
title, and when its confessional meaning was uni-
versally known. The adoring cry of Thomas, ' My
Lord and my God ' (6 Kvpids fiov Kai 6 0e6s fiov) Jn 20^^
is an illustration of how among Jewish Christians
the title of respect addressed to a teacher became
one of Divine honour. Yet, as Dalman says, ' it
must ... be remembered that the Aramaic-
speaking Jews did not, save exceptionally, desig-
nate God as " Lord," so that in the Hebraic section
of the Jewish Christians the expression "our Lord"

was used in reference to Jesus only, and would be
quite freh from ambiguity' (p. 329).

i. In comparing parallel passages in which the
title occurs, it is to be noticed that other titles are
sometimes employed as equivalent terms in address-
ing Jesus. —

i. Mt 8-5 (xCpii) ' Lord, save us : we perish.'

Mk 438 (hihxa-xa.?^^) 'Teacher, carest thou not that we perish?'
Lk 82^ (i-rirrTccTx) ' Master (teacher), we perish.'

ii. Mt l7-» {y.upii) ' Lord, it is good for us to be here.'
Mk 95 fPafJ^s/) ' Rabbi, it is good for us to be here.'
Lk 933 (j^TdT-TaTa) ' Master (teacher), it is good for us to be
here.'

iii. Mt 2622 (xvpii) ' Is it I, Lord?'
Mt 2625 CP^^/^sO ' Is it I, Rabbi?'
Jn 1325 {xvpn) 'Lord, who is it ?'

The variety in the title used in addressing Jesus is
not confined to the jmrallel passages. It is to be
seen throughout each of the Gosj^els. Arranging
the titles in the order of preference, Mt. uses Kvptos,
diOaffKaXos, and 'VajS^el ; Mk. 5i8daKa\os, 'FajSjSel,
Pa/i/iow'et, and Kvpios ; Lk. Kvpios, diddaKaXos, and ^iri-
aTarrjs; Jn. Ki'^pios, 'Pa/3/3e:, 'Pa/S/ioui/fi, and diddaKoKos.
Sometimes the variety of the title is .seen even in
the same passage. It cannot be without intention or
meaning that in (iii.) Mt. represents the eleven dis-
ciples as asking, ' Is it I, Lord ? ' while Judas, the
traitor, says, ' Is it I, Piabbi ? ' (Mt 26-- 25). Possibly
Judas indicated his position of detachment or opposi-
tion by using ' Rabbi ' instead of the title emjiloyed
by the rest of the disciples. It is only by Judas
tiiat Jesus is addressed as 'Rabbi' in Mt. (2625-49).
There must also be some ditt'erence of feeling in the
use of difl'erent titles in Lk 5'' ' Master (teacher,
eTnoTdra), we have toiled all night' ; and Lk 5^, where
Peter, after the miraculous draught of fishes, falls
at the feet of Jesus with the cry, ' Depart from me ;
for I am a sinful man, O Lord ' (KvpLe). But it is
possible that the variation of title in the parallel
passages may have taken place in the process of oral
transmission, or in translation from the Aramaic.

5. The variation of title in addiessing Jesus sug-
gests that in the original language of the Gospels
at least two titles were employed. Of these
'Pa/3/3e£ was one, cf. ' ye call me Master (teacher)
and Lord,' Jn 13^^, and the frequent use of ' Rabbi '
in the Gospels. Evidently 'teacher' {8i8daKa\os) is
a translation of 'Rabbi' in some of its forms (m,
'31, p-\). In 7 places Lk. uses €iri(jTdTr}s as a synonym
for 8i8d<TKa\oi (55 ^^ibis.i-i 933.49 1713)^ j^nd, without
doubt, some form of m lies behind this also. As to
the title Kvpio% (Lord), which is used so frequently
in addressing Jesus, it is most probably a transla-
tion of '"!C or X3"!C. It was a common name for a
master, and was used as a title of courtesy. It
was used by a servant to a master, by a debtor to
a creditor, and by a layman to a learned man. It
is possible, however, since many of the jieople of
Palestine Avere bilingual, that Kvpto^ was used by
itself Avhen one who knew Greek spoke to Jesus.

6. We thus suggest a twofold origin of the title
as applied to Jesus. First, as the translation of
the Aramaic titles in use among the discijiles ; and
second, as the substitute for xp"'"''<5s w'ith confes-
sional meaning among Gentiles. These distinctions
of origin and meaning were soon lost in the gradual
but rapid adojition of the title as one expressive of
Divine honour. It is possible that this use of the title
first became common among Eastern Christians.

7. In regard to the application of KvpLos to God, it
may be said that this was entirely due to the
influence of Hellenistic Judaism. It is very un-
likely that it was in use among Aramaic-speaking
Jews at the time of our Lord. In reading the
Scriptures in the synagogue in Hebrew, the name
'31X (Lord) was read wherever the sacred name mn<
was found in the text. When it became necessary
to translate the Scriptures into Aramaic in public
reading, ':nx still took the place of the sacred name.

LORD'S DAY

LORD'S PRAYER

In quoting from the Scrij^tures 'jin was not eni-
l^loyed for the name of God, but awn (' the Name ')
in Hebrew, and t<cp in Aramaic. In phrases of OT
origin like 'the angel of (the) Lord,' the name of
God was entirely omitted or merely hinted at.

Literature. — Daliiian, The Words of Jesus, 324 ; Bruce,
Apologetics, 398 ; Naville, The Christ, 144 ; Sonierville, St.
Paul's Conception of Christ, 29.5 ; Spurgeon, The Messiah, 649 :
Expository Times, vol. xii. [1901] p. 42,5 ff., vol. xiii. p. 236 ff., vol.
XV. p. 296 ff. ; Deissmann, ibid. vol. xviii. p. 195 ff. ; Lexicons of
Cremer and Grimm-Thayer, s.w. «ii/;i««. JOHN REID.

LORD'S DAY.— See Calendar (the Christian).

LORD'S PRAYER (I.)— 1. Place in NT.— Mt 6«-",
Lk IV'*. The former passage has been more in-
fluential in the later history of the Lord's Prayer,
but the latter seems to give it in a more historical
setting. In the Sermon on the Mount, the Prayer
is, to all appearance, a later insertion ; Lk. leads
into the neighbourhood of Bethany (lO^®-*-) or Geth-
seniane ; see J. A. Robinson, ' On the Locality in
which the Lord's Prayer was given,' in F. H.
Chase, ' The Lord's Prayer in Early Church '
(TS iii. [1891] pp. 123-125). Not far from the
traditional site of Gethsemane, on the slope of
the Mount of Olives, stands to-day the Church of
the Paternoster, showing in the quadrangle the
Lord's Prayer engraved in thirty-two languages.

The Lord's Prayer has been frequently published in Polyglot
editions; the oldest at Rome, l.'iDl, in"20 languages; then by
IL Megiser, Frankfort, 1593, in 40 [2nd ed., 1C03, in 50 ; 3rd ed.,
Linz, 1616, in 52] ; by Andr. Miiller, 1660, in 100 ; Chamberlayne,
1715, in 150 languages. J. Adelung (Mithridates, 1804-1817)
made the Lord's Prayer the basis of a scientific classification of
languages. Further Polyglot editions by Bodoni (Parma), J. J.
Marcel (Paris), Auer (Vienna), Dalton (St. Petersburg, 1870, in
108 languages of Russia), S. Apostolides (London, no date, in 100
languages, published for the benefit of the poor Cretan refugees
now in Greece) ; The Lord's Prayer in Three Hundred Lan-
(juaijcs . . . with a Preface by Heinrich Rost, 1891 ; in 300
dialects of Africa, 1900. But most of these compilations lack
scholarly supervision. A pleasant task would be for a united
band of scholars to trace the historic development of those
languages for which this is possible, on the basis of the Lord's
Prayer, and to show the character of the rest on the same basis.
The Lord's Prayer has also been frequently turned into metre
and rhyme. Whether there exists a collection of this kind in
English, is unknown to the present writer ; in German, cf. Das
Gebet de.s Herrn: Eine Sammlung tnetrischer Uinschreibungen
des Vaterunsers, Reutlingen, 1821 ; E. W. Scripture, ' A Record
of the Melody of the Lord's Prayer,' in Die neueren Sprachen,
ed. by W. Vietor, x. 9.

For early English translations of the Lord's Prayer, see Albert
S. Cook, ' Study of the Lord's Prayer in English ' {Amer. Journ.
Philol. vol. xii. pp. 59-66), and Biblical Qiiotations of Old
English Prose Writers (London, 1898, pp. xxv, liii, lix, Ixiv,
147 ff.). Cook refers to Wanley's Catalogus, where sejjarate
versions of the Lord's Prayer are either given or their existence
noted, pp. 51, 160, 169, 197, 202, 221, 224, 239(?), 240, 248. Cook
gives the first from MS. Bodl. Jun. 121. Three poetical para-
phrases of the Lord's Prayer of uncertain date are given by
Greiss in his Bibliothek der Angclsuchsischen Poesie, ii. 285-290
(new ed. ii. 227-238), the last two published by Wanley, Cata-
logus, pp. 48 and 147 f., and by Ettmiiller, Scopus and ^Boceras,
pp. 230-237 ; the first by Thorpe, Codex Exoniensis, p. 468 f.
On p. 147, Cook gives the Lord's Prayer from ^Ifric's Homilies,
and an isolated quotation in Cnut's Latvs (Schmid, Gesetze der
Angelsachsen, p. 270). We may quote : ' urne daeghwamlican
hlaf,' 'ure gyltas,' 'on costnunge'; 'fram yfele,' 'hlaf userne
oferwistlic,' ' instondenlice,' ' scylda ' (Cook, pp. liii, lix). For the
expression 'costnunge,' it is interesting to note that the corre-
sponding German word 'Bekorung^' was declared by Luther
better than the received ' Versuchung.'

In the new and enlarged edition of The Lord's Prayer in Five
Hundred Languages, comprising the Leading Languages and
their Principal Dialects throughout the World, with the Places
where Spoken; with a Preface by Reinhold Rost (London,
Gilbert & Rivington, 1905), the Lord's Prayer is given in English
in sixteen forms, namely : CJharles ii. Prayer-Book, 1662 ; Edward
VI. Prayer-Book, 1549 ; as sent from Rome by Pope Adrian, an
Englishman, about 1160 ; from two MSS of the 13th cent. ;
from Wyclif, about 1380 ; Tindale, 1534 ; Cranmer, 1575 ; Rheims
Version, 1582 ; AV, 1611 ; RV, 1881 ; The Twentieth Century
NT ; further, in Anglo-Saxon.

A disciple — it is not .said whether one of the
Twelve — asked Jesus, as He was praying in a
certain place, when He ceased, ' Lord, teach us to
pray, as John also taught his disciples.' That the
disciples of John were wont to make prayers or
supplications, besides their fasting, is told by St.

Luke only {5^). On a form of prayer ascribed to
John, see 'Lord's Prayer' (by present writer) in
EBi 2817, n. 6, and the Catalogue of the Syriac
MSS preserved in the Library of the University
of Cambridge (p. 529). There it begins : ' Bright
Morning, Jesus Christ, Who was sent by God the
Father.' Where fi.xed forms of prayer are in use,
as was the case, it seems, with the Jews in the
time of Christ, it is but natural that petitions on
particular subjects should be added to them ; such
additions are mentioned as made, for example, by
R. Eliezer and by R. Johanan (see Lightfoot, Ilor.
Hcb. on Mt 6, and art. ' Schemone Esre' in Ham-
burger, RE ii. [1883] 1098).

2. Sources. — The sources whence our Mt. and
Lk. took the Lord's Prayer are quite unknown.
The Gospel of Mk., which, according to the
common view, was used by our Mt. and Lk.,
does not give it. On Mk IP^f-, where Mk.
speaks about prayer, see A. Wright, Synopsis'^,
1903, p. 115, and Wellhausen, who thinks that
Mk. may have known the Lord's Prayer as a
prayer of the Church, but did not dare to refer
it in its Avording to Jesus ; the expression (6 iraTrjp
vfiQv) 6 Iv Tois ovpavois, occurring there, is not
found elsewhere in Mk. If the first Gospel was
originally written in (Hebrew or) Aramaic, its
author may have had the Lord's Prayer before him,
written or oral, in (Hebrew or) Aramaic, and given
it in one of these dialects ; then the translator may
have formed the Greek under the influence of Lk.
(cf. the hapaxlccfomcnon iiriovcnos). This is the view
especially of Th. Zahn. The opposite view, that
eTTLovcrios was lir.st coined by Mt. or one of his fellow-
workers, is maintained, for instance, by A. Wright,
The Gospel acr. to Luke, 1900, p. 102.

3. Text of the Lord's Prayer. — As there are two
traditions about the place of origin of the Lord's
Prayer, so even its wording is given in tAvo different
forms. In the Received Text, it is true, they differ
very little ; in the AV, for instance, the variations
are but four :

Matthew. Luke.

(1) in earth as it is in heaven. as in heaven, so in earth.

(2) this day. day by day.

(3) debts, as we forgive our sins, for we also forgive every

debtors. one that is indebted to us.

(4) For thine . . . Amen. omits.

In the Greek TR they difter even less, the first
of the above variations has nothing to correspond
in Greek. (In Mt. the AV preserved the order of
the Pr. Bk. version, which differs both from Mt.
and Lk. in the fifth petition, ' trespasses ' against
' debts ' and ' sins ').

There can be no doubt that in the TR the form
of Lk. has been assimilated to that of Mt. The
modern critical editions agiee almost to the letter ;
see the editions of Scrivener, Weymouth, Nestle.
Weiss retained in Mt. the form eXd^rco instead of
iXdaro}, and the article rrjs before 7^5. The critical
apparatus of Tischendorf and WH [the 2nd ed. of
1896 is enriched by some additional notes] may be
supplemented by the following notes :

(1) The Didache (82) has the singular ral oupavu ; the Apost.
Const, in both places, 318 and 724 (here reproducing the Didache),
the plural.

(2) On the form ' veni ad regnum tuum ' in the oldest
Latin MS (Cod. Bobbiensis), see F. C. Burkitt (Cambr. Univ.
Reporter, 5th March 1900).

(3) Syr*^"'' and the Syr. Acts of Thomas have the plural
for ' thy win ' as the first hand of Cod. N in Mt 721 (ri eaiif^a-rx).

(4) On the article for ' on earth,' see EBi 2818 ; on the new
punctuation of the third petition, see below.

(5) With -rr.v itpeikr,, of the Didache cf. Mt 1832, and the
difference of the singular and plural in German and Dutch :
Schuld and Schulden. Two MSS of the Apost. Const, give
!Ta^«!TTii/^«TiK = ' trespasses,' xxHa; for iis, and omit the verb.^
Syriac forms combine ' debts ' and ' sins ' ; see, besides EBi
2818, Burkitt in his ed. of the Erangelion da-Mepharreshe, Mrs.
Gibson's ed. of the Didascalia, and Mrs. Lewis' MS of the Acts
of Thomas.

LORD'S PRAYER

(6) In some Oriental translations 'deliver' is rendered by
different roots in Mt. and Lk., and then both are combined in
liturgical use of the Lord's Prayer.

(") Of the Doxology the Didache omits ' the kingdom and ' ; in
the Apost. Count. (7'^) one MS, on the contrary, omits 'and the
power and the glory' ; and the same two clauses are omitted liy
another MS at 3i8, which with its ally ends ' of the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever.' In this con-
nexion it is worth while to remark, that Funk, in his new edition
of the Didascalia and A^Mst. Const., puts at 31*^ and 7^^ the
final quotation marks after Toyr.pov, impl.ying by this that he
does not regard the Doxology as part of the quotation from
the NT. Compare with this the above statement about the
MSS of the Constitutions, and Brightman's Liturgies Eastern
and Western, p. 353 f.

In Lk. the modern editions differ even less tlian
in Mt. — only in a single letter, Wei.ss retaining
here also the spelling eXOerw. AYith this unity
contrast the judgment of Dean Burgon (The Bc-
vision Revised, pp. 34-36 ; The Traditional Text,
p. 84) :

'"The five Old Uncials" (nABCD) falsify the Lord's Prayer
as given by St. Luke in no less than forty-five words. But so
little do they agree among themselves, that they throw them-
selves into six different combinations in their departures from
the Traditional Text ; and yet they are never able to agree
among themselves as to one single various reading : while only
once are more than two of them observed to stand together,
and their grand point of union is no less than an omission of the
article. Such is their eccentric tendency, that in respect of
thirty-two out of the whole forty-five words they bear in turn
solitary evidence.'

Any one who is unAvilling to believe that the
TR of Lk. is due to assimilation with JVIt. may
compare the critical apparatus of tlie Latin Testa-
ment of Wordsworth-White, or of the pre-Lutheran
German Bible as edited by Kurrelmeyer. There
he can watch the same process for the German and
the Latin texts. E\-en the Vulgate of Sixtus v.
(1590) has the addition in Lk., Fiat voluntas tiia
sicut in rcelo et in terra ; but not the re.st.

The chief question about the Lord's Prayer in
Lk. is, What about the petition iXdirw to dyiov
irvevpLa aov €<p' ijfjids Kal KadapLadrw rj/J-ds, which is
witnessed for ]Marcion and found since in one MS
(604, or Scrivener's b, Gregory's 700, von Soden's
e 133, pub. by Hoskier, 1890). Perhaps a trace
of it is found in D, which has dyLaa-67]TU} ovo/xd aov
€(p' iifids, i\6eT(i) ffov i] ^aaiXela, etc. Another read-
ing of Marcion is ' thy bread ' for ' our ' ; whether
he read the second clause of the fifth petition we
do not know, the sixth (and last with him) had the
form Kai /J.r) a0es ijfids eiaevexOv""-^ ^'^ ireipaafiov. The
same or similar forms are found independently
from Marcion doAvn to the present day. Harnack
(Sitzungsbcr. Acad. Berl. 21st Jan. 1904) was in-
clined to see in the petition, ' Thy holy spirit come
(upon us) and cleanse us,' the original for Lk.,
comparing IP^ with IMt 7^^

4. Arrangement of the Lord's Prayer.— Augus-
tine tells us [Enchir. 116): 'Lucas in oratione
dominica petitiones non septem sed quinque com-
plexus est ' ; thus it became the custom in the
We.st to count seven petitions ; but Origen, Chryso-
stom, and the Reformed Churches count six, con-
necting 'but deliver us from evil' closely with
what precedes. WH print in Mt. the Lord's
Prayer in 2 x 3 stichi, in Lk. without strophical
arrangement, seeing in 'as in heaven, so on earth'
the common burden for the first triplet of single
clauses ; see § 421. This has been adopted now
for the Pr. Bk. version by Parliamentary Papers,
1903, No. 53, removing the comma from behind
' on earth ' to behind ' done. ' For the AY, the
editions of the Parallel NT give a comma after
' done ' as well as after ' on earth ' ; but Scrivener's
Paracjraph Bible (1873), the Tiro Version Edition
(1900), and the Interlinear Bible (1906) omit the
first comma. Whether the ^Y agrees with ^YH
is not quite clear from its comma (in this case we
should have expected a colon). This arrangement
was already put forward by the Opus imperfectum in

J/<. (Migne, Ivi. 712): ' Comniuniter autem accipi
debet quod ait, Sicut in crelo et in terra,' i.e. — •

' Sanctiticetur nomen tuuni, sicut in ccelo et in
terra.

Adveniat regnum tuum, sicut in cojlo et in terra.

Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in ccelo et in terra.'

On the fact that in media-val explanations the
beginning was construed ' Pater noster qui es. In
ccelis sanctihcetur nomen tuuni,' see below.

5. Contents. — («) TJie exordium. — The short
irdrep in Lk., the fuller Trdrep t]ij.Q)v in Mt., would
both correspond to an Aram, n^n, which is con-
nected with 6 irar-qp in Ro 8^°, Gal 4**, Mk 14^".
Cf. J. H. Moulton's Prolegomena, pp. 10, 233, and
art. Abba in vol. i. That ndrep tj/jluji' may also
correspond to .n3N and does not neces.sarily pre-
suppose the form Avith sufhx (':'?x in Heb., jjun in
Aram., njun in Galiktan), is shown by Dalman,
Worte Jesu, 157, though for the beginning of a
prayer the more solemn form appears to him more
probable. Among Jews it is customary to add
D^a^'S^ in Hebrew (N;,'?;f'3'n in Aramaic) to ax where it
is used of God, but the isolated nzn is not unusual.
In the NT 6 ev toIs ovpavoh is almost exclusively
used in Matthew. On the question whether from
Ro 8^^, Gal 4'' an acquaintance of St. Paul and his
churches with the Lord's Prayer maj' be concluded,
see Gerh. Bindemann, Das Gebet urn tdgliche Vcr-
gebung der Siindcn in der Hcilsvcrkundigung Jcsu
und in den Briefen der Apostcl, Giitersloh, 1902.

(b) On the impei'atives ajLaadriTO}, yevTjdrjTw, see
Origen, de Oral. 24. 5 ; Blass, Grammar, § 20. 1 ;
Moulton, Proleg. p. 172, who quotes from Gilder-
sleeve on Justin Martyr, p. 137 : ' As in the Lord's
Prayer, so in the ancient Greek Liturgies the aor.
imper. is almost exclusively used. It is the true
tense for ' ' instant " prayer. ' INIoulton adds : ' To
God we are bidden, by our Lord's precept and
example, to present the claim of faith in the
simplest, directest, most urgent form with which
language supplies us.'

(c) With the first petition cf. SE* 3, and the
beginning of the Kaddish nji 7\'cv v■^^y!}^^ V-nj^i: ; after-
wards eight more such verbs are placed together
about 'the name of holine.ss (Blessed be it).' A
benediction without mentioning niin ( = nin") is no
benediction at all {Ber. 406).

(d) Likewise a benediction with no re:^.? is no
benediction at all [ib. ; cf. SE 11, in opposition to

12, 14, 17, Kaddish).

(c) ■yevqdT)T(j} is tr. n^j;;. by Shemtob, Delitzsch,
Salkinson - Ginsburg, Resch ; -r}\ by Alexander
(McCaul- Hoga), Margoliouth, by the old Syriac
versions except the Syro-Pale.stinian ; from SE cf.

13, ^2ii~! 'b'V ; in the Kaddish : ' May your prayers
be accepted, and may ?/o»;- petition be done.' To
i'ls-i of Biblical Hebrew would correspond ]V2^ in
post-Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic.

(f) For liriovtrios the remark of Origen, de
Oral. 27, still holds good, that the word is found
nowhere else in the AAhole range of Greek literature.
Jerome compares it with the LXX Trepiovaios ; but
this stands almost everywhere for nV:p (aj). Aquila,
Gn 14-1 fQj. t:i,3i^ Ps 1614 for -i^;). 'On vepiovaLos,
see Jerome's remark (Anecd. Mareds. iii. 1, p. 92) :
' Yerbo iripiomios, i.e. substantialis, exceptis Sanctis
scripturis nullus foris disertorum usus est.' The
Gospel acrording to the Hebrews had for ex., as
Jerome states, ■muhdr {=-\nri). His most explicit
statement has been published by JNIorin, Anecd.
Mareds. iii. 2, p. 262 : ' In Hebraico evangelio
secundum Matthajum ita habet : Panem nostrum
crastinum da nobis hodie.' This lends a strong
support to the view that ewiovcno? is formed from
7] eiTLodffa, 'the coming day,' even if this mcihar

* SE, used hereafter as abbreviation for Shemone Esre, the
daily Prayer of the Synagogue ; see the edition in Dalman, Worte
Jesii, p. 299 ff. ; and cf. on it, e.(j., Hirsch in JE x. 270-282.

LORD'S PRAYER

were nothing but a retianslation of the Greek.
But anotlier view is that it is the original word
used by Jesus and preserved by the Jewish-
Christian communities. This is the view of Zahn,
Gesch. Kan. ii. 193, 103, Einl. ii. 312; Ambrose:
' Latinus hunc panem quotldianum dixit, quem
Grseci dicunt advenientem, quia Graeci dicunt tt]v
iiriovaav rjixepav advcnicntcm diem'; Athanasius :
Tov i. &pT. TovTecTTL Tov fxiWovTa ; Cyril Alex. : ol fxkv
elvai (pacTL tov T]|ovTa re /cat dodrjaofievov Kara tov alQva
TOV /xeXXovTa ; the Sahidic Version, on which see
Lagarde, 3Iift. ii. 374.

But the Oriental versions took another view :
gyj.cur xrcx [cnS, i.e. 'our continual bread,' in Luke
yyj.cursin j^jjj J^cts of T/wvias ' thc coutiuual bread '
(xrcN NcnS) ; the same tradition seems to be fol-
lowed by the cotidianus of the Latin, the sinteinan
of the Gothic, especially by n'cn i:cn'? of Shemtob
ben KSliafrut, with which cf. Nu 4^^ Tsnn cnh ' the
continual bread.' [The Armenian version of 2 Mac
1^ used for the shewbread the same expression as
in the Lord's Prayer, wherefore Holmes- Parsons
remarked : ' ires codices Scrgii dpTovs ewLovaiovsj'
which remark led Deissmann [Neue Bibclstudicn,
p. 41) and Hilgenfeld (in his Ztschr., 1899, p. 157)
to the belief that iinoiKnos was actually found in
some Greek MSS. This was corrected by the present
writer in ZNTW i. 250, EBi 2820, n. 1 ; but it is
repeated by Wellhausen in his Com. on Mt. and
not recalled in that on Lk. ]. The Vulgate (Jerome ?)
has snpersubstanticdis in Mt. and cotidictnus in Lk.
How the Peshitta (Rabula?) came to translate ' the
bread of our need,' pp:iDT ndhS, is not quite clear,
while the translation ' our bread of richness ' in the
Syro- Palestinian version rests on confusion with
■jrepLovaLOS.

The following is a conspectus of the diflerent
renderings that have been tried :

(1) Shemtob : n'Cn IJCnS. (2) J. B. Jona, Rome 1668 : ijcn'?
cvpn '75;, a literal rendering of the supcrsuhstantialis of the
Vulgate, as uherstantUch in three editions of the pre-Lutheran
German Bible. (3) Delitzsch, Salkinson, Resch : »g~ cn^, after
Pr 308. (4) Taylor : Tan Dn^ or N"i"nn Nan"?. (5) Schultze :
lahmadi ^orkdna ( = Pesh.). (6) Ronsch : 1Jn^;p nn?, like the
Syro - Palestinian version. (7> Arn. Meyer : riE? (sufficient).
(S) Chase : "our (or the) bread of the day.' The Variorum Bible
quotes the readings : ' our bread in sufficiency,' ' the bread
proper for our sustenance,' ' the bread for the coming day,'
'needful bread,' or 'bread for the life to come.' Others tr.
'bread of second quality,' 'the bread that we shall need'
(Twentieth Cent. ST) ; see on the word, HxpT ii. [1891] 184,
242, 254, iii. [1891-92] 24, 31, 77.

The meaning of the word is certainly not far
from the €(f>rip.epos Tpotpri of Ja 2'^. The change of
(rrjfjiepov into Kad' rj/xepav (and of 56s into didov) has
been explained by the daily use of the prayer ;
but the Didache, which already enjoins the use of
it three times a day, does use 56s and arjinepov.

(g) In the fifth petition 6(t)ei\i^/j.aTa is rather = irniain
(Shemtob, Delitzsch, Margoliouth), not irncrx
(Salkinson, Resch). On the variant 6<pei\rjv and
the dogmatic changes of eiaeveyKTis, see above. In
the Latin Church it became customary in the
time of Jerome and Hilary to say 'in tentationem
quani ferre (or, sufterre) non possumus.'

(/() The last ambiguity is irovripov, mnlo, whiclialso
in Heb. , Aram, and Syr. may be masculine or neuter.
The tr. of Shemtob, vi '?3D 'from all evil,' finds its
parallel in Ethiopic (see Brightman's Liturgies,
p. 234), ' Deliver us and rescue us fi'om all evil,'
while the Nestorian Liturgy equally combines the
two verbs by which tlie Pesh. (not Sin''"'') renders
pvaai in Mt. and Lk., 'Save and deliver us,' but
continues, ' from the Evil and his host. ' The neuter
is found (in a ditterent connexion, 10') already in
the Didache : fivrjcrdrjTi, Kvpie, ttjs eKKXrjaias crov,
pvcracrOat avTrjv a.Trb iravrbs irovripov. Nevertheless, it
seems to the present writer, on the whole, more
probable that it shovild be taken as masculine.

For the Greek NT see the exhaustive investigation
of Chase, and cf. Ac 10^* where dia^oXov (Cod. E
aaTava) is rendered (by Shemtob) Nc-xn ' the Evil
One.' The most decided view that the word is mas-
culine is in the Clem. Horn., where Peter uses the
passage as one of his proofs for the fact that his
Master frequently sjaoke to them of the existence of
an Evil One (19" iv fi TrapiSwKev i]p.iv evxv ^X^Mf
elprj/jLevov " pvcrai 7j/j.ds dirb tov irovripov, along with
Mk P^ Mt 12^6, Lk 10i«, Mt 13^« S^\ as proof for
the statement : iroWaKis dlSa tov bibdcKoKov /j.ol
(LTTOVTa elvai tov irovripov = TLvd KaKias iiyep-ova). Zahn
and Wellhausen take it as neuter, as in 5''''.

((') That the Doxology formed no original part of
the Lord's Prayer needs no longer to be proved,
in spite of Dean Burgon. The very discovery of
the oldest witness outside of the NT, the Didache,
where it occurs, corroborates the view that it
originated in liturgical use. Its peculiar form
there does not agree with anj' of the forms known
to occur in the authorities for the text of Matthew
(see The NT in the Apostolic Fathers, by a Com-
mittee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology,
1905, p. 28 f. ). The statement of WH on the Doxo-
logy in the Apost. Const, must be su^jplemented as
above from the new edition of Funk. See also
art. Doxology in vol. i. p. 492.

6. The Lord's Prayer as a whole. — True prayer,
says Wellhausen, is a creation of the Jews, and so
the Lord's Prayer follows Jewish examples, though
it is not a mere composition ' ex formulis Hebrse-
orum.' On the latter exaggeration, put forward
by Grotius, Wetstein, and others, and strongly
maintained by modern Jewish Avriters, see The
Lord's Prayer no Adctptation of existing Jewish
Petitions, by the Rev. M. Margoliouth (London,
Bagster, 1876). The Kaddish, which is justly
quoted for comparison, does not begin with ' Abba,'
but it, too, has as first petition, ' Hallowed be tliy
name,' with the addition, however, 'in the Avorld
to come.' The national, eschatological, or Messi-
anic element which goes through the Kaddish and
the SE from beginning to end is remarkably
thrown into the background in the Lord's Prayer.
A petition like 'Give us this day our daily bread'
A\'ould be impossible in the Kaddish, though a
similar petition is not wanting in SE.

It is, however, wrong to deny completely the
eschatological character of the Lord's Prayer ; see
esp. the Com. of Th. Zahn, who insists on the force
of the aorists d-yLaadriTU}, e\da.Tw, yevrjOriTU). Even
the first petition looks forward to the time when
the name of God, which in this world is so much
blasphemed, especially among the heathen, through
the sins of Israel (Ro 2-''), shall be glorified, when
He brings about the inward purification and out-
ward restoration of His people, separating the
godless out of their midst. Zahn declares it
erroneous to believe that the Lord's Prayer had a
specifically Christian character. A Jew knowing
nothing of Christ, and having no wish to have any-
thing to do with Him, was able and is still able
to-day to pray it. The saying of Mt 5^^ that He
' came to fulfil,' is true also of the Lord's Prayer.

That the first three petitions touch God and the
rest refer to man is too clear a point to be missed.*
The second half may perhaps be arranged under
the heads of present (daily hread), jxist (debts of
the Y)a>it), future (temptation and deliverance) ; but
a reference to the last trial (Mt 24-^), the hour of
temptation (Rev 3^") and deliverance from it, does
not seem to be implied in the words.

' Thy kingdom come ' is again the second petition
in the Kaddish.

Instead of the third petition, which Wellhausen
calls hard to understand, we have in the Kaddish ,

* It is, however, wrong to accentuate the word ' thy ' ; only
codex D has in Lk. the emphatic order of words, trou ■>, iSa.a-tXi.a..

LOED'S PEAYER

LOED'S PRAYER

' Your petition be done. ' Whether it was under
the inliueuce of the fact that it is missing in the
true text of Luke or not, at all events it is remark-
able that Luther, in his Catechism, gave to the
third petition no contents of its own, but treated
it as a mere combination of the first and second
('AVenn Gott alien bosen Rat und Willen bricht
und hintlert, so uns den Namen Gottes iiicht
heiligen und sein Reich nicht kommen lassen
wollen,' etc.).

Dogmatics and Ethics seem to be combined in
every one of these three petitions : That we do not
dishonour the name of the Heavenly Father (1) by
mistrust, (2) by disobedience ; that His Kingdom
may come (1) with its blessings, (2) with its tasks
and duties ; that we (1) gladly accept all that is
God's will concerning us, and (2) willingljr do what
He demands of us. To take the fourth petition as
merely spiritual, like Marcion and afterwards
Luther in his monkish days, is certainly wrong.

The sixth petition reminds us much more of the
temptation of Jesus Himself at the beginning and
end of His work, in the wilderness and in Geth-
semane. The Jewish morning prayer contains the
petition ;vdj 't'? . . . ijx'nn "7^ ' Bring us not . . .
into temptation ' ; but the age of this part is un-
known. Jesus speaks, however, throughout in
the second person, advdsing His disciples, not in-
cluding Himself ; on the other hand. He could not
have taught them such a prayer if He had not
Himself lived in that atmosphere which the prayer
breathes. When He bids them pray after this
manner (oiirws). He gives them an example from
which they might learn with few words to say to
God what the pious soul has to say to Him, and
He did not prescribe the use which was made very
early of this prayer, so that it became, to use
Luther's expression, the greatest martyr.

7 Later history of the Lord's Prayer.— Only
a few hints can be given here. It is very sad to
observe how early a mechanical use of the Lord's
Prayer set in. The same Diclache which turned the
warning of Mt 6'® into the precept, ' Your fastings
shall not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on
Monday and Thursday, but you fast on Wednesday
and Friday,' goes on to write : ' Nor do ye pray
as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in
His Gospel, Our Father, etc. Thrice in the day
do ye pray so.'

This was enforced by the Apost. Const, (iii.
18) : irpoKaraffKevd^ovTes eavrovs d^iovs rrjs viodeaias
ToD Trarphs, lest Mai 1^ and Is 52'' find application
to the Christians. Tertullian styled the Lord's
Fruyer breviai-iuin totius evangel ii, and pronounced
the judgment : ' Oratio hiec quantum substringitur
verbis, tantum difFunditur sensibus.' Cyprian
called it ccelestis doctrinrc compendium ; Origen
wrote on it the treatise de Orntione (vol. ii. in tlie
Berlin edition). On its use in the Liturgy, Bright-
man (p. 58) says : ' It occurs in all liturgies except
Apost. Const, as the conclusion of the central
action and summing up of the great prayer (533-
534), and the transition to the communion, with a
proem and a conclusion (Embolismos) • it is also
otherwise used.' For instance, in the liturgy of
the Nestorians it is three times repeated.

Of mediaeval explanations, the Glossa ordinaria
draws a rather artificial parallel between the seven
petitions of the Lord's Prayer and the seven gifts
of the Holy Ghost (Is IP-) and the seven Beati-
tudes. The Com. of St. Thomas Aquinas has been
translated from the Latin by Edw. Male (1893).
Of special interest is the bloc]i:-book of Henricus ex
Pomerio (Henri van den Boegaarde, 1382-1441),
Explanatio Jiguralis super Pater noster.

See on it Alvin in Bulletin de I'Aeademie R. de Belr/rqiie, 2 Ser.
vol. xvii. 674-91 ; Jllomiments iconnnr. et t/fporjr. de la Sihlio-
thique R. de Belgique ; and P. Weizsacker in Christliches

KuHstMatt, 42 (1900), Nos. 4, 5. It is characterized by joining in
calls witli the first petition,* and a thoroughjjoing tripartition
('in cu;lu «;ej< sanctorum atiectiones ; in punjatorio tres anim-
aruni afflictiones ; in sceeulo tren viroruni defectiones ; tres
panes in via necessaries (naturse, gratiae, gloria;) ; triplex debi-
tuni (comniissionis, omissionis, reniissionis) ; triplex tentatio ;
daninandorum triplex malum ; sah andoruni triplex bonum.
The illustrations remind one of the task which has yet to be
executed, of writing a monograph on the artistic illustrations to
the Lord's Prayer.

LrrERATURE. — The literature on the Lord's Prayer is immense.
Strangely enough, an art. ' Lord's Day ' is found in Smith, but
not one on 'Lord's Prayer.' L'nder 'Paternoster,' Murray
mentions that the first example of this term in English is one
from about lUUO. Uf yueen Mary the saying is quoted that she
'got the crown by Our Father and held it by Pater noster.'
The Latin designation was so frequently' used, esp. in connexion
with the rosary, that it was taken over into the language of
architects, engineers, and anglers (see Murray). In German
both its components in the form ' Patter ' and ' Nuster ' became
expressions for collar-chains. As a measure of time, of. a
' Paternoster cricket. '

Out of the literature on the Lord's Prayer, Th. Zahn in his
Com. on Matth. (1903) selects : Tertull. dc Orat. cc. 1-10 ;
Cypr. de Oratione Dominica (Vienna ed. i. 267) ; Origen, cri/ii
vjX'',^ (Berlin ed. ii. 346) ; Gregory of Xj ssa. Or. 2-5, de Oratione
(0pp. ed. Paris, 1638, i. 723-761); Kamphausen, Das Gebet des
Uerrn, 1866 ; Chase (see above) ; E. v. d. Goltz, Das Gebet in
der dltesten Christenheit, 1905, pp. 35-53 ; EBi 2816 tf. We may
add Plunimer in Hastings' DB iii., and the following list of
writers which is arranged chronologically as far as possible :
1626, Alex. Huish ; 1798, N. B. Cadogan ; 1814, Isaac Mann ;
1826, Samuel Saunders ; 1832, J. Knight ; 1835, W. Howells ;
1846, Henry Alford ; 1849, H. Gaunter; 1852, Dan. Moore;
1854, Thomas Hugo ; 1855, Charles Parsons Reichel ; 1858,
Hope Robertson ; 1861, Navison Lorain, Rob. Hemley, W. H.
Karlslake, F. D. Maurice ; 1863, Geo. Wagner ; 1864, W." Denton ;
1865, Jos. T. Parker; 1866, Octavius VVinslow ; 1869, Claude
Bosanquet ; 1870, Ad. Saphir ; 1872, J. W. Lance, Edw. J. Rob-
inson ; 1876, C. J. Vaughan (Dean of Llandaff) ; 1883, Newman
Hall ; 1884, Charles Stanford ; 1885, Marcus Dods, W. S. Carter ;
1886, A. M. \V. Christopher, Wash. Gladden ; 1889, Gilb. Karney ;
1890, H. N. Grimlev, A. Hastmgs Ross ; 1892, Rob. Eyton ; 1893,
Alb. Stolz ; 1894, Arth. C. A. Hall, F. W. Farrar ; 1895, G. Milli-
gan ; 1898, Dean E. M. Goulburn, Eliz. Wordsworth ; 1900, J. E.
Roberts ; 1902, John Wakeford ; 1903, J. D. Jones.— Without
date (alphabetically) : F. C. Blvth, J. J. Busfield, Rich. Glover,
Thom. Griffith, Aug. W. Hare, J. Knight, B. Lambert, J. W.
Lance, Rob. Leighton, Thom. Manton, Marcus Rainsford, Rigaut,
Dean Stubbs, Caleb Webb, Will. R. Williams.

In ExpT,, besides the passages already quoted, may be com-
pared : vi. [1894-95] 50, 140, 146, 190, xiii. [1902] 378, 431, xvi.
[1905] 5, 10.

See also O. Dibelius, Das Vaterunser : Utnrisse zu einer Gesch.
des Gebets in der alten und mitileren Kirehe, Giessen, 1903
(chiefly pp. 59-72 — ' Die AufFassung des Vaterunsers bei griech-
ischen Schriftstellern ' ; cf. Ed. v. d. Goltz in Theol. Litztg. 1904,
No. 2) ; C. F. Georg Heinrici, Beitrdge zur Gesch. und Erklitr-
ung des XT, iii. (Leipzig, 1905, pp. 65-68 [Heinrici is inclined to
agree with Harnack as to the petition, 'Thy holy spirit come
upon us,' collects parallels from the OT, questions direct relation
to SE, and republishes (p. 109 ff.) the explanation of the Lord's
Prayer ascribed to Petrus of Laodicea (published bv Mai, Bibl.
Patrum, vi. 543, Jligne, Patr. Gr. 86 2, p. 3321)]; together with
Fed. Morelli, Interpretis reg., Notm ad orationem dominicam.
Petrus explains : iTiovaiov v; tov o-wiirTMvTtx. to a-iofjM y^/jL'^v, TOVTi(rrt

TOV i^r,/^ipOV, StTi TOV iTOVrX, TOV jU.iXK0VTa.. •ZO'VY^poZ PctrUS UUdcr-

Stands of the hixiSoXo;' ho-t i^o^y,v hi ovToi xtx.XiiTa.1 hiec rv/V in£p-

On the Lord's Prayer on a papyrus of the 6th cent., as amulet,
brought to Europe by Willken, but destroyed by fire in Ham-
burg, see Egyp. Explor. Rep. 1902, p. 42, 1903, p. 12 ; jEg.
Crkunden aus Berlin, iii. No. 954 ; on the clay tablet, from
Megara, containing the Lord's Prayer, see ZA'TW ii. 228, 357.

Eb. Nestle.
LORD'S PRAYER (II.).-This name for the
prayer which Jesus taught His disciples (Mt 6^"^^,
Lk 11-'*), though used so genei'ally by Christians,
does not occur in the NT, and objection to it lias
sometimes been offered. It might suggest that the
prayer was one which Jesus Himself employed,
while not only is there no evidence of His having
done so, but the petition for forgiveness is a suffi-
cient assurance that He cannot have made it His
own. ' When ye pray,' He said to His disciples,
' pray thus ' ; but His own manner of praying
would be different — how different we may judge
from the recollections preserved in the Fourth
Gospel of one of His prayers (Jn 17). And so it
has sometimes been suggested that we should
speak not of ' The Lord's Prayer,' but of ' The

* O. Dibelius, Das Vateruiiser (1903, p. 165 ff.), knows, for this
construction, onlv Theodoricus of Paderborn, Com. in Or.
Dom. M. 147, 333 f.

LORD'S PRAYER

Disciples' Prayer,' or that we should content our-
selves with designating it by its first two words,
calling it the ' Our Father,' just as German Pro-
testants call it the ' Vaterunser ' and Roman
Catholics the ' Paternoster.' But apart from the
consecration of long and hallowed use, the name
is appropriate as giving expression to the fact that
the prayer comes to us from the very lips of our
Lord. In this sense it is the Lord's Prayer. When
we use it, we are approaching God with no words
of our own, but in the very words which our
Master has taught us.

1. Occasion. — Of the two accounts, in Mt. and
Lk. respectively, of the occasion when Christ gave
the prayer, it is generally agreed that if we must
choose between them, Lk.'s is to be preferred as
the more historical. It may be that the author of
the First Gospel, after recording the Lord's in-
junctions with regard to the spirit and manner of
prayer (Mt B^"*), thought this a suitable oppor-
tunity to set down the prayer-form wliich was
really given at a different time. And yet there
seems no positive reason Avhy we should set aside
Mt.'s statement as to the connexion at least in
whicii the prayer was spoken. If Jesus gave a
form of jirayer at all, and meant it to be used as
He gave it, it seems likely that He would repeat
it, more especially when dealing with different
sets of hearers. And if it was natural that He
should impart it when one of His disciples, not
necessarily one of the Twelve, asked to be taught
to pray, it was also natural that, when He had
just been warning His disciples against hypocrisy
in prayer and the vain repetitions of the Gentiles,
He should instruct them to pray after the brief,
simple, and filial manner of this model of approach
to God.

2. Structure. — This is exceedingly simple. Apart
from the Doxology, which occurs only in Mt., and
even there forms no part of the original, but is a
later insertion due to liturgical usage, we have only
an invocation and a series of six petitions. Since
Augustine, the number of the petitions has com-
monly been reckoned at seven, the last clause in Mt. 's
version being regarded as two separate requests.
But the view that now commends itself to most
scholars is that the two members of the sentence
are to be taken as one and the same petition nega-
tively and positively expressed. This view is con-
firmed by tlie fact that in the critical text of Lk.
(see RV) the petition runs simply, ' Bring us not
into temptation,' and it is furtlier borne out by the
RV rendering (almost certainly correct) of Mt.'s
Tov TTovTjpov by ' tlie evil one ' instead of ' evil.' Tlie
petition is that Ave may not be brought into temp-
tation, but may be delivered from the Tempter ;
and these are two aspects of the selfsame request.

Looking now at the six petitions, we observe at
once tliat the first three have a Godward, the
second three a manward reference. Because of
this the prayer has often been compared to the
Decalogue with its summation of human duty first
to (Jod and then to man (cf. Mt 22-'», Mk 123i).
But beneath this resemblance there lies a great
difference between the Ten Words and the Lord's
Prayer, the familiar difference between law and
grace, between the Old Testament and the New.
For while in the one case our debt to God and to
man is laid upon us from above as a commandment
that must be obej-ed, in the other we look up to
God, crying like Augustine, ' Da quod jubes, et
jube quod vis' (Conf. x. 60).

When we examine the prayer more closely, a
be.autiful continuity and symmetry of thought
becomes apparent. In the invocation God is ad-
dressed by His new name of ' Father ' ; and it is
with a petition for the hallowing of this name that
the prayer proper begins. If we take the three peti-

tions of the first group, God appears to be ad-
dressed : (1) as the Father whose name must be
hallowed, (2) as the King whose Kingdom is to
come, (3) as the Lord of iieaven and earth whose
will must be fulhlled. And when we pass to the
three petitions of the second grouji, the same three-
fold view of God may be ti'aced, coming, too, in
the same order, so that the successive clauses of
this groiip correspond respectively to those of the
first. For the prayer for bread naturally sug-
gests the request of the child to the Father, the
prayer for forgiveness the petition of the subject
to the King, and the prayer for deliverance from
the Tempter the cry of one who feels in the pre-
sence of the world's evil his utter dependence upon
the strong and holy will of his IMaster and Lord.

3. Contents. — Without entering here into the
questions raised by the twofold text (see preceding-
art. ), we shall for convenience follow Mt.'s version
as the one which has passed into general use in the
Christian Church.

[a) The Invocation : ' Our Fathei Avhich art in
heaven.' These words mark a new epoch not only
in the history of pi'ayer, but in the historj' of
revelation. In the OT, God is occasionally spoken
of as the Father of the Jewish people (Dt 32'', Is
63'^ etc.), but individuals do not venture to address
Him by this name (Ps 103^^ is only a comparison).
And though in some of the extra-canonical Avritings
there ajipears a dawning consciousness of a per-
sonal relation to God as a F'ather (Wis 2^^, Sir 2^- ■*
etc.), it was Jesiis Christ who hrst tiirned tlie dim
hope of pious hearts into the assured certainty of
faith. ' Father ' is the distinctive Christian name
of God, the name which Christ taught us, and
which, apart from Him, we have no proper right
to use (cf. Jn P'-, Gal 4^). The Fatherhood here
appealed to is not the general Fatherhood of
Creatorsliip, but the special Fatherhood of grace.
It is for those who are the children of God by
Christian faith that this ]>rayer is meant, those
who turn to Him with filial hearts, prepared to
say : ' HalloAved be thy name. Thy kingdom
come. Thy will be done.'

But God is called not ' Father ' only, but ' Our
Father,' and thus the invocation acknoAvledges the
brotherhood of man as Avell as the Fatherhood of
God. There is a human brotherhood Avliich rests
on the Divine Creatorship (cf. Mai 2^'*). But just
as there is a special sonship, the sonship of be-
lievers, so there is a distinctive brotherhood, tiie
brotherhood of saints ; and it is this brotherhood
that finds immediate expression in the invocation
of the Lord's Prayer.

Our Father is ' in heaven.' The phrase speaks
to us of His greatness and holiness, of the rever-
ence we owe Him, of His power to bless. But it
also reminds us that if Ave are the children of the
heavenly Father, His home is the true home of
our souls, and that, as always, so especially Avhen
Ave boAv before His throne Avitii our requests, A\e
must set our mind on the things that are aboAe.

{b) First Petition : ' HalloAved be thy name.'
In the OT the 'name' of God is a constant expres-
sion for His revealed character (cf. Ps 9"* 20^ Pr
18^°). Without doubt it is in this sense that the
Avord is used hy Jesus. But His immediate refer-
ence here must be to that character of Fatherhood
under Avhich He had just presented God to His
disciples. It is our Father in heaven Avhose name
is to be halloAved. To halloAv that name is to set
great store by it, to exalt it and reA^ere it and
glory in it. To pray that it may be halloAved is
to i^ray that God as revealed to us by Christ may
be accepted and honoured by ourselves and otliers
— that Ave may turn to Him as our Father Avith
loA'ing, trustful hearts, and give Him the honour
that is due.

LORD'S PRAYER

(c) Second Petition : ' Thy kingdom come.' The
Kingdom of God was the hope of Israel before
Christ's advent, and when He came it formed the
constant and central theme of His teaching. When
we examine the Synojitic Gospels to learn wliat
His teaching upon the subject was, we lind Him
speaking of the Kingdom of God in two ways.
(1) It was a present reality set up on earth (Mt
1228, Mk ps, Lk 172'), gathering round His own
person (Mt 13« 16"-8 25'^i- ^ etc.), the coming of
which meant its entrance (which is really His own
entrance, Mt Sio^- ll-«-3» etc.) into the individual
heart (Lk W^- 21, Mt W ||, Jn 3^), its steady growth
(Mk 4-'*-32), and its gradual spread like leaven
through society (Mt 1333= Lk i320f.)_ (O) But
again it was a hope of the future, a Kingdom not
realized as yet, but one day to be revealed in power
by the Parousia of the Son of Man Himself (]\It
134H. 49f. 2213 2530), And so, when we pray for the
coming of God's Kingdom, we are praying that
Christ the King may enter into our hearts, that
He may take full possession of them, that the
gospel of the Kingdom may spread throughout the
world, and that its principles may work in human
society with sul>duing power. But we are praying
also for the Iiour of the final consummation when
the Lord Himself shall appear in His glory, when
the kingdom of this world shall become the King-
dom of our Lord and of His Christ, when out of
that Kingdom there shall be cast all things that
offend, and God shall be all in all.

(d) Third Petition : ' Tliy will be done.' This
may be described as the dominant note of the
Lord's Prayer. The petitions that precede lead
up to tliis, and those that follow must be brought
into liarmony with it. We frequently use these
words as if they were nothing more than a prayer
of submission and resignation in the day of sorrow,
an echo of the Saviour's cry in the Garden of Geth-
semane (Mt 26^9 ||). And no doubt this is part of
their meaning, and one of tlie uses to which they
may be applied. They are a cry to God to enable
us to bear what He sees fit to send, and to make
us meek and patient under His chastening hand.
But while this is implied in the petition, it is
not its first intention. The added words, ' as in
heaven, so on earth,' should keep us right here,
since from heaven all sorrow and sighing have fled
away. This is the prayer of active rather tlian of
passive obedience, an obedience like that of God's
angels who excel in strength and do His command-
ments. Before we think of Jesus in the garden of
shadows, we should think of Him as He sat by the
well of Sychar and said to His disciples, • My meat
is to do the will of him that sent me, and to
accomplish his work' (Jn 4=*^). When we pray
this prayer we are asking that we and all men,
being delivered from the spirit of wilfulness, may
attain to a joyful alacrity like that of angels iii
doing the will of God.

(c) Fourth Petitio7i.—' Give us this day our daily
{iTriovaLoi>) bread.' We pass now from the God ward
to the manward aspects of the prayer. The first
petition of this second group shows that it is right
and proper to pray for material as well as for
spiritual blessings. The prayer is not to be spirit-
ualized, with most of the Fathers, into a request
for the Bread of Life ; it is literal bread, bread for
bodily sustenance, that Jesus means us to ask for.

The one expository difficulty of this petition lies in the word
i^loun!>;, which has been called ' the most untranslatable word in
the NT.' It appears here (in both Mt. and Lk.) for the first
time in Gr. literature, and within the NT occurs nowhere else.
Of the three principal renderings—' daily ' (EV text), ' for the
commg day' (RVm), and 'needful' (Amer. RVm, alternat.)—
there is least to be said for the first, familiar as it is. It repro-
duces the Old Lat. quotidianum, but finds no support in etymo-
logy, and may be regarded perhaps as nothing more than a guess
suggested by what the sense of the passage appeared to require
For the coming day ' is more likely from the etymological point

of view (iai(iij<rii>; fr. --5 itriauirx, [sc. ^iu.ipci] = ' the coming day,' fr.
iTiMv, pres. part, of st£<^( Uif^', ' to go or come ']), but seems out
of keeping with Christ's teaching elsewhere in the Sermon on
the Mount (Mt 63-1). If this rendering is accepted. Chase's view
('Lord's Prayer in Early Church,' ^Tcxt^ and Studies, Cam-
bridge [1891], in loe.) is plausible, that the word was a liturgical
insertion intended to adapt the jirayer for use at e\'ening ser-
vice. In the morning the petition would run, according to its
original form, ' Give us this day our bread,' while in the evening
there would be substituted, ' Give us our bread for the coming
day.' Cf. Lk.'s 'day by day,' which obviates any inappropriate-
ness in asking at night for the bread of the day.

Perhaps, however, there is most to be said for the view that
ttioua-iog is a word speciallj' coined, after the analogy of the LXX
TipioCa-io; (Ex 195, Dt 76 142 2618, for Heb. n^jp, EV 'peculiar.'
It is evidently derived from T£^iO!;o-/« = wealth, abundance [Ttpi
and oiia-ia.]). iTioucnos in contrast to ':ripimtnoi would thus denote
what is needful or sufficient as distinguished from what is abun-
dant or superfluous. If this is the proper rendering of the
word, the petition would correspond almost exactlj- with the
prayer of Agur, ' Feed me with the food that is needful for me '
(PrSOSRV).*

(/) Fifth Petition. — 'Forgive us our debts
(6(peL\rifjLaTa), as we forgive our debtors.' Lk. has
' sins ' (aixaprias), while in the explanatory addition
given by Alt. (vv."- '^) 'trespasses' {irapaTrrdifiaTa)
is used — the word which in the Bk. of Com. Prayer
is substituted for ' debts ' in the Lord's Prayer
itself. ' Debts ' is jjarticularly suggestive. In the
first place, it reminds us of the personal account-
ability to God into which we are brought by every
act of sin. We may look at sin in many aspects —
as the transgression of an ideal law, as a wrong
done to our neighbour, as a harm inflicted upon
ourselves. But most solemn of all is the thought
that sin makes us debtors before God, debtors who
have wasted our Lord's money and are called to
render account. But further, ' debts ' reminds us of
a class of sins we are most apt to forget— our sins
of omission. It is when we ask ourselves, ' How
much owest thou unto thy Lord ? ' that the full
extent of our shortcoming begins to appear. Per-
haps we have striven hard against wrongdoing, but
what of the things we have left undone ? In
Christ's great vision of the Judgment, ' Inasmuch
as ye did it not ' is the preface to the sentence of
condemnation (Mt 25*^).

By teaching us to ofter this petition our Lord
teaches that God is ready to forgive all our debts.
But a condition is laid down. Those who pray for
forgiveness must be ready to forgive. On this
Jesus placed great emphasis, so great that He does
for the fifth petition what He does for no otlier,
adding at the end of the jirayer (w.^^-^*^) a sen-
tence of explanation and enforcement, in which He
makes it perfectly clear that if we will not forgive
those who have trespassed against us, neither will
our Father in heaven forgive our trespasses, t

(g) Sixth Petition. — ' Bring us not into tempta-
tion, but deliver us from the evil one.' This peti-
tion follows naturally after the fifth, for the recol-
lection of past falls makes us conscious of weakness
and fearful of future possibilities. But is it not an
impracticable petition ? How can we hope to
escape from being tempted ? The world and the
flesli and tlie devil are ever with us, and still ' in
the midst of the garden ' ; just where all life's daily
cross-paths meet, the tree of temptation grows and
the Tempter himself lies waiting. And is it not
also a mistaken petition ? Is not temptation a
means of grace, an opportunity of ' winning our
souls ' ? Does not St. James write, ' My bretliren,
count it all joy when ye fall into divers tempta-
tions ' ? ( Ja P). Yes, but there is another side to

* In support of this interpretation see A. N. Jannaris in
Contemp. Rev., Oct. 1894 ; ExpT vi. [1894] p. 51. Cf. also the
preceding article.

t If the view is taken that vv.i'*- 15 have been imported here
by the E\angelist from another connexion such as 1835 (so Meyer-
Weiss and Bruce ; cf. Holtzmann in Hand-Corn.), the words
testify at all events to the fact that Jesus was accustomed to
lay stress on the relation between human and Divine forgive-
ness ; see Mk ll-'s. 26^ Lk 637, and esp. the parable of the Un-
merciful Servant, Mt 1823-35.

LORD'S PRAYER

LORD'S SUPPER

tlie question. Temptation is a means of grace, but
it may prove to be an occasion of stumbling and
even of utter destruction. Blessed is tlie man tliat
enduretii it (Ja l^-) ; but wliat of him who is drawn
away by his own lusts and enticed, and so falls into
the snare of the devil? By putting this petition
into our lips Jesus reminds us that the hour of
temptation is always a dangerous hour. He hangs
out a red lamp of warning on the dark and crooked
road along which we have to pass, and summons us
to ' watch and pray ' (cf. Mt l>(3" = Mk 14'^«).

And yet temptations must come, we cannot hope
to escape meeting them, and this petition, like
every other in the Lord's Prayer, is subject to the
rule of the guiding petition of all, 'Thy will be
done.' But 'Deliver us from the evil one' is a
prayer that Satan may not gain the victory over
our souls. That ' the evil one ' is the right render-
ing of rod TTov-qpov is now commonly accepted by
scholars on grounds of exegesis. It is in keeping,
too, with our Lord's teaching about the presence
and influence in the world of a hostile and male-
volent will, an ' enemy ' of God's Kingdom and its
King (cf. Mt 1323- 39). From him we may well
pray to be delivered. Jesus Himself prayed for
Simon that in the hour of Satan's sifting his faith
might not fail (Lk 223if-). And we know that faith
need never fail. God will not suffer us to be
tempted above that we are able (1 Co lO^^), and
this petition is an appeal to Him for strength in
the evil day to endure and to overcome.

4. Uses. — (1) This is a breviary of Christian
prayer, in which all Christian petitions are sum-
marily comprehended. As the commandments of
the moral law are all gathered up in the two tables
of duty to God and to man, so the petitions of the
gospel are all represented in the two divisions of
this little prayer. Apart from requests of a per-
sonal and particular kind, everything that the uni-
versal Christian heart need ask for is explicitly
stated or implicitly enfolded here, whether things
on earth or things in heaven, things human or
Divine, things of the body or the spirit, things of
the life that now is or of that which is to come.

(2) It is a model or directory of prayer. Accord-
ing to Mt.'s account, Jesus, when He gave it, had
just been warning His disciples against the for-
malisms of hypocrites and the vain repetitions
which the Gentiles use (vv.^'*), and it was in con-
trast with these that He said, ' After this maimer
pray ye.' Looking at the manner of the prayer we
are struck by its direct sincerity, its brevity, its
simplicity, its calmness and quietness of spirit, its
entire submission to the will of God. It teaches us
that we are not heard for our much speaking, that
long and elaborate prayers are unnecessary, that a
simple request like that of a child to a father is
enough. It teaches also the right relation and
proportion in prayer between what belongs to God
and what concerns ourselves. The earthly has its
claims, but the heavenly comes before it ; and all
requests must be made in subordination to the
Divine will.

(3) It is a form of prayer. The prayers which
John the Baptist taught his disciples (Lk ll^)
must have been forms ; and when a disciple of
Jesus, reminding Him of John's custom, said,
' Lord teach us to pray,' it was doubtless a prayer-
form for which he asked. And Jesus justified the
request by replying, ' When ye pray, say, Our
Father,' etc. Not that He wished His disciples to
restrict themselves to this form or to repeat it in-
cessantly. It is significant that, apart from these
two passages in Mt. and Lk., we do not hear of the
Lord's Prayer in the NT again. The recorded
prayers of the Apostolic Church bear no resem-
blance to it. When God sent forth the Spirit of
His Son into men's hearts, they prayed with freedom

'f*Cop)jrig),t, 190S, by

as the Spirit gave them utterance. And yet from
the first this nmst have been, and must ever con-
tinue to be, a specially consecrated form of prayer,
which no one can sincerely use without being con-
scious that, in presenting his petitions in the very
words that Christ has given, he is asking accord-
ing to the will of God (cf. 1 Jn Oi*).

(4) It is a prayer especially for social use. There
are prayers which can be offered only in secret,
and Jesus had already spoken of these. ' lliou,
when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,' He said
(v.is). But this was a prayer for the whole Chris-
tian society : ' After this manner pray ?/e,' 'When
ye pray, say.' The invocation is addressed to ' o?«?-
Father,' the requests are on behalf of others as well
as ourselves : ' give «s,' ' forgive ?<s,' ' bring ?/,s not,'
'deliver ?(».' And so this prayer, which is an
appeal to the Fatherhood of God, is also a constant
reminder of our human and especially of our Chris-
tian brotherhood. It teaches us to join our desires
with those of the universal Church as we pray for
the coming of the Kingdom. It teaches us when
we ask for bread, or forgiveness, or guidance and
deliverance, to bear the needs of others along with
our own .on our hearts before God, and to remem-
ber that the unspeakable privilege of intercession
is of the very essence of Christian prayer.

Literature. — See preceding- .article.

J. C. Lambert.
**LORD'S SUPPER.— (L)

Introductory.

1. Tlie Sacramental in Hebrew worship.

2. Tlie Method and Teaching of Jesus.

3. Passover Eve.

{(i) The Synoptic Gospels.
(h) The Fourth Gospel,
(c) The Apostle Paul.

4. The Institution.

(a) The common underlying Tradition.
(S) Differences in detail.

(i.) M.ark-Matt.; (ii.) Luke 2215-20; (hi.) paul ;
(iv.) The Fourth Gospel.
Results.

5. The Apostolic Church.

{a) The Jewish-Christian Community.

(b) The Pauline Churches.

6. The sub-Apostolic Church.

(a) Clement of Rome.

(b) Pliny's Letter to Trajan.

(d) Ignatius.

(e) Justin Martyr.

7. The Lord's Supper and the Piigan Mysteries.

Literature.

Introductory. — The Lord's Supper has been for
centuries, and is to-day, a theological storm-centre ;
though the blasts have shifted, recent critical
scholarship having occasioned a new incidence of
forces. Former controversies raged round the
meaning of the institution. At present the dis-
cussion is even more vital, for it is a matter not
of interpretation only, but of the trustworthiness
of the sources. The Gospels as they now stand
are said to owe so much to the thought and
practice of the growing Church, that it is neces-
sary to read between the lines in order to detect
the simple form of the Eucharist on the day of its
first celebration, when ' it signified rather the abro-
gation of the old worship and the near approach of
the Kingdom than the institution of a new wor-
ship.' it is denied that Jesus, with His views as
to the speedy consummation of His Kingdom,
could have instituted the Supper as a perpetual
memorial of His death ; and the connexion between
the Last Supper and the Passover in the Gospels
is regarded as a later overlying deposit, which can
be easily detached from the primitive stratum.
To take an example, Jesus is supposed to have
uttered the words of the Supper recorded in the
Gospels on the impulse of the moment. Feeling
Himself already victor over death and the world,
He wishes to inspire His disciples with His own

Charles Scn'b/ipr'f! Son.t

LORD'S SUPPER

conviction, and by an act of vivid imagination con-
ceives Himself as already dispensing tlie blessings
of the completed Kingdom, their simple farewell
meal having been transformed into the great Mes-
sianic banquet of the future, which commonly
served as a figure for the joys of Messiah's sove-
reignty. Professor Gardner is even more drastic
in his treatment of the Gospel tradition, eliminat-
ing all evidence except that of St. Paul, who, he
thinks, was the real originator of the rite, having
' turned a pagan ceremony to Christian use ' in a
moment of ecstasy under the influence of what he
had seen of the Greek mysteries in Corinth. But
the great majority of impartial scholars who have
discussed the question do not adopt such a highly
critical attitude towards the narratives of the
institution of the Supper, or reverse so completely
the ordinarily accepted views as to its origin and
purpose. No sufficient treatment of the Lord's
Supper can pass in silence these problems which
have been raised with great learning and acute-
ness, but they must be discussed in relation to the
method of Jesus the Messiah, who brings Israel to
its fulfilment.

1. The Sacramental in Hebrew worship. — The
term ' sacrament ' denotes an outward and visible
sign of an invisible spiritual reality. By means of
symbol, which is metaphor transformed into action
or concreteness, truth is conveyed to the partici-
pants in a sacrament much more readily than by
the bare word. Language conveys truth, but
symbol does what language cannot compass. The
worship of the OT was full of the symbolic, for it
is almost certain that the cultus was in its essence
no arbitrary prescription of meaningless forms.
The sacrificial system was held to be a means of
grace, of Divine appointment, whereby the wor-
shipper could approach Jehovah. It must have
been educative, so that the obedient and leal-
hearted Israelite became in the actual observance
more receptive of moral and spiritual truth. In
that sense the sacrificial system of Israel was truly
sacramental. But whether the average Hebrew
recognized the sacramental character is doubtful,
for the great prophets constantly warn the people
that the mere ritual performance of sacrifice is in-
efficacious. Some, especially the earlier prophets,
often seem to disparage offerings entirely, as though
the only worship with which Jehovah is well pleased
is the spiritual service of moral character and a
contrite heart. And yet the prophets ' employ
symbolic action again and again in the service of
an ideal spirituality, so that in itself symbol has
been a widespread and perfectly legitimate means
of grace. The transcendental element in worship,
however brightly or faintly the contemporary life
of Israel may have been illumined by the spiritual
truth of the prophets, had all but vanished from
the official Judaism of our Lord's day. There was
no open vision. No prophet or seer was abroad in
the dull day of rationalism. Heroic faith had been
displaced by a shrewd but commonplace conduct.
The Law had come in alongside Temple service, and
ritual was observed as an ordinance. The average
Jew, having become a deist, could not feel sky,
earth, and sea palpitate with the Divine Spirit,
and so was impervious to sacramental conceptions
(W. P. Paterson, art, 'Sacrifice' in Hastings' DB
iv. 341 ; Bousset, Bel. des Judenthums, pp. 182-
184). It was to the 'poor of the land' who cher-
ished the prophetic ideal that the parabolic, the
sacramental, the symbolical in the teacliing of
Jesus would appeal.

2. The Method and Teaching of Jesus.— The
Gospel narratives represent the Supper as a solemn
final act in the life of the Messiah. But the
Messiah of their delineation is a Person of startling
originality. He penetrates through the crust of

unimaginative moralism to the living prophetic
stream which in His day found its way to the sur-
face only in tiny rivulets. On His own authority
He claims, while purifying and enlarging the hopes
of prophecy, to fulfil all that was truest in the reli-
gion of Israel, having accepted in His Temptation
the Divine ideal of a Kingdom unalloyed by any
earthly aspirations. He discovers and applies to
Himself the title 'Son of Man,' and in virtue of
His position inaugurates changes in religion which
constitute a breach with the past, for His doctrine
concerning worship, foreshadowed by the prophets,
antiquates bloody .sacrifices and opaque ritual.
To say that Jesus could not have instituted the
sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper,
because He looked for a speedy realization of the
Kingdom, is to deny that He had the complete
vision of the destiny of the Servant of the Lord
Avhose function is assumed by the Son of Man,
wliereas it seems certain that He foretold a spiri-
tual inheritance among the Gentiles in return for
His faithful service even unto death (Is 421**- 62i"'ft-
r)2iff-, Mk 1", Lk 4"5-2i, Mt 12i8, Mk 10*5). Another
unique prophetic ideal was the consummation of
the Kingdom in the Day of the Lord. In respect
to this also we must assume that Jesus was a
creator of spiritual truth, for the consistency of
the Synoptic portraiture of Jesus, and the purity
of His own views as to His mission, demand that
our interpretation of His outlook into the future of
the Kingdom should not be limited by the current
ideas of Jewisli apocalypses, or by the literal
symbolism of OT prophecy.

We infer from the Gospels, (1) that before the
close of His ministry in Galilee Jesus had looked
forward to His deatli as the goal of His service
(Mk 8^1) ; (2) that this death was to result in the
redemption of the new Israel to which the pre-
rogatives of the old would be transferred (Mk lO"*^
121-12) . (^o) ti^at He expected an earthly future for
His Kingdom outlasting the earthly Jerusalem,
and involving its establishment among, the Gentiles
(Mk 42«-"2 121-12 1310. uft-.^ Lk 13-'-35 212o--'4). No

less evident, however, was the inability of the dis-
ciples to understand that tlie road of service even
unto death was the road to the crowning glory of
the Kingdom. For Him thus steadily to set His
face towards Jerusalem, was, they thought, a sheer
and fatal fascination (Mk lO'^^-s*, Lk IS^iff-)-

Nor is the institution of the sacrament of the
Supper inconsistent with the method of Jesus.
The day for symbolism was not past, provided the
symbolism was adequate ; and this Supreme Teacher
surpasses all others in the use of parable and
symbol. Every meal with His disciples becomes
sacramental through its prayer of thanksgiving, a
symbol of the spiritual truth that in Him God was
giving to the world the food that was real indeed
(•jn (351-58), Nor would such a procedure be alto-
gether strange to men wlio would remember that
in the OT the common meal was the svmbol of a
completed covenant (Gen 263^ 31^^^ Ex 24", 2 S S^o ;
see Konig, ' Symbols, Symbolical Actions ' in Hast-
ings' DB, Ext. Vol., ITl**). In order to understand
tlie significance of this institution, it must be borne
in mind that the disciples had committed all their
fortunes to Jesus. Their faith had been for them
a heroic venture, and the death of the Messiah
meant little less than His desertion of them. That
night, death like a dark shadow hovering over
them was forcing their loved one within its portal.
They could not see that a glorious light was shin-
ing on His back, that He was in reality an angel of
blessing. They needed a pledge of love significant
of the future and yet full of tender memories.
This the Lord's Supper becomes to them. That it
was a mark of supreme wisdom thus to perpetuate
the significance of His death for the completion of

LORD'S SUPPER

His Kingdom in concrete symbolism, is evident
from their misinterpretation of their Lord's pro-
mise as to the future of His Kingdom on earth
and His own return ; but we are led to expect
only such words and symbolic action as would
illuminate the spiritual idea of the Kingdom ;
not precepts and ritual ordinance for its external
organization.

3. Passover Eve. — Jesus came into Jerusalem
on the morning of the first day of the week, and
for several days escaped the plots of His enemies.
But Judas entered into a conspiracy with the chief
priests apparently two days before 'the Passover
and the feast of unleavened bread' (Mk I4110").
Ignorant of this accomplished treachery, the other
disciples, observing that Jesus has as yet made no
arrangement for the celebration of the feast, say
unto Him ' on the first day of unleavened bread,
when they sacrificed the Passover, Where wilt thou
that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat
the Passover ? ' (14i^). Now we are embarked upon
a sea of difficulties. The Gospels separate very
distinctly — the Synoptics on the one side, the
Fourth on the other. Did Jesus eat the regular
Passover with His disciples, or did He not? At
first sight the Synoptic Gospels seem to say that
He did. But, according to John, Jesus died on the
afternoon when the Passover lamb was slain (Jn

131.29 1828).

(«) The Synoptic Gospels. — (a) Evidence that the
last meal was eaten at the conclusion of the regular
Passover meal is offered by Mk l^i^- », Mt 2(ji"-i9,
Lk 227- 8"- 15- 16^ the last verses laying especial
stress upon the desire of Jesus to eat this Passover
with His disciples. Many features of the meal
also suggest the Passover, — the family group with
Jesus presiding, the prayers of thanksgiving, the
cups (Lk 221"- 20), the breaking of the bread, the
solemn demeanour, the exposition, the conclusion
with a hymn.

(/3) But the Synoptics contain hints that the
Supper was not a regular Passover meal. It is
stated in Mk 14i- •', that two days before the feast
the priests resolved to capture Jesus, and to execute
Him before any sympathizers among the populace
could interfere ; and, since nothing is said to the
contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the pur-
pose was carried out. It would appear that, accord-
ing to contemporary Jewish practice, Passover, the
14th Nisan, was spoken of as the beginning of the
feast Mazzoth, though originally Unleavened Bread
began on 15th Nisan (Wellhausen, Evangelium
Marci, 115 ; Schurer, ThLZ, 1st April 1893, col.
182 ; as against Chwolson in Das letzte Passamahl).
But only work necessary for preparing food was
jiermitted from sunset on the 14th to sunset on
the 2 1st, and it would have been illegal or contrary
to custom to arrest Jesus that night with swords
and staves, to hold a meeting of the Sanhedrin, to
release a prisoner, to purchase grave-clothes, and
to take the dead body down from the cross, if
He ate the regular Passover meal on Thursday
evening Nisan 14. Further, there is no mention in
the Synoptic narrative of their eating the lamb
{Jewish Encyr,. x, art. ' Passover '). Jesus died on
a Friday, so that we may probably assume from Mk
141- 2 that Passover (Nisan 14) fell on the Sabbath,
which began on Friday at sunset. Nevertheless
the preponderating impression of the Synoptic
Gospels is certainly in favour of this meal having
been related in some way to the Passover feast.
It is distinctly so stated, and it is difficult to
suppose that there were not good grounds in the
primary sources for such united testimony.

(6) The Fourth Gospel. — From Jn 18-^ we must
infer that Jesus died on the afternoon before Pass-
over — 'between the two evenings' (Dt 16^). This
inference is so strongly reinforced by Jn 13^ 29^ that

VOL. II. — 5

Dr. Hort, with whom Dr. Sanday and Mr. C. H.
Turner agree, believes that the Fourth Evangelist
is silently correcting a false impression left by the
Synoptists {Expos, iv. v. [1892] p. 182 ; Hastings'
DB i. 411^ On the other side see Edersheim, Life
and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Bk. v. ch. x. ).
St. John neither here nor elsewhere refers directly
to the institution of the Supper, but in Q^s-so j^jg
conception of the truth that underlies the Sacra-
ment is set forth in the conversation of Jesus. He
states that the miracle of the feeding of the 5000
took place at Passover time (6*, so true reading),
probably seeing in it a figure of the Christian
Passover. Notwithstanding, therefore, his fixing
of the day of our Lord's death before the regular
Passover, there is good ground for holding that he
implicitly relates the Last Supper to the Passover
(Westcoit, St. John, pp. 96, 113; Holtzmann,
iVr Theul. ii. 503 ; Wendt, St. John's Gospel, 137-
139). See, furtlier, artt. Dates, vol. i. p. 413 ff.,
LAST Supper, Passovku (II.).

(c) The Apostle P«?(/.— Though 1 Co 5'- » is often
interpreted so as to make St. Paul agree with the
Fourth Evangelist, that Jesus died when the lambs
for the feast were slain, it is very doubtful whether
this idea was in his mind. He is comparing the
Christian life with the old Passover upon which
the Feast of Unleavened Bread followed (Ex 121"
13"). So now, since the Christian Passover has
begun through the sacrifice of Christ, all impurity
must be removed from their lives. Perhaps 1 Co
IQi- ^- 6- 15- 16 have the imagery of the Passover ; ' the
cup of blessing' (v.i^) was one of the most sacred
elements of the Paschal meal (Edersheim, op. cit.
ii. 510 f. ; but for opposite view, see Holtzmann,
op. cit. ii. 184 f.).

The figure of 1 Co 57. 8 may refer to an actual celebration of
the Christian Passover in the Corinthian Church, for we know
that in the middle of the 2nd cent. Easter was the most im-
portant annual festival of the Catholic Church, and there is no
evidence of its having been introduced after the Apostolic age.
The great Quartodeciuian controversy (c. 165 a.d.) was not con-
cerned with doctrinal differences, but with the date on which
the universal Christian feast was to be held — whether the Jewish
date, Nisan 14, or the Sunday of Easter week. No inference
can be drawn from it as to the "connexion between the Eucharist
and the Passover, inasmuch as the Christian Passover was not
a memorial of the Passovor only, but of redemption in which
Christ's death and resurrection both were the essential factors.
The Supper would be at most one element in the celebration, and
possibly had little direct Paschal significance. The Church of
the last half of the '2nd cent, assumed that there was agreement
among the four Evangelists with regard to the time of Christ's
death, and apparently accepted the Synoptic chronology, Origen
and Eusebius making definite attempts to bring Jn. into con-
formity with the other Gospels. Zahn, however, holds that the
Quartodecimans interpreted the latter in accordance with the
former lOench. NT Kan. i. 1. 191). For a fuller discussion, with
older literature, see Zahn, op. cit. i. 1. 180-192; J. Drummond,
Character and Anthorsihip of Fourth Gospel, i^A-^Vi ; Stanton,
The GonpeU an Uiatorical ' Documentn, 173-19T; Preuschen in
PRE^ xiv. 725-734 takes a dift'erent view.

The easiest explanation of this conflicting evi-
dence is that Jesus did not eat the regular Passover
feast with His disciples, but that He did eat a meal
by anticipation on Nisan 13, the night before the
regular Jewish celebration, which was in some
sort a keeping of the Passover by this little group
(but see Robinson, art. ' Eucharist ' in Encyc. Bibl.
i. § 3). The words of Jesus in Lk 22i5i« become
intelligible when we remember what the Passover
meant, and also His method in promulgating His
Kingdom. Passover was the greatest national feast,
gathering into itself whatever was most sacred in
the religious life of Israel. It was the memorial
of national redemption. Through its families —
each a part of the larger whole — Israel entered
annually into renewed covenant relationship with
Jehovah, who had graciously preserved and ran-
somed the people. It was a sacrificial feast allied
with the shelamim or peace-offerings. The siirinkled
blood denoted atoning efficacy (v. Orelli, 'Passah,'

LORD'S SUPPER

in PBE^ xiv. ; art. 'Passover' in Hastings' DB iii.
and in Jewish Encyc). jS'ow Israel is on the point
of being transforaied. A new redemption is to be
completed. Jerusalem and the Temple, with its
bloody sacrifices and ritual worship, are soon to
disappear. But while the Messiah is abrogating
the letter of the old, He fulfills its spirit. He is
supplying new wine-skins for the new wine. Just
as He has provided the new Israel with a new
conception of worship (Mt Q^-^^, Jn 42i--'-i), a new
standard of righteousness (Mt 5^''-^^), and a reinter-

Mk
Mt
Lk
1 Co

1 Co

ICo

Mk
Mt
Lk
1 Co

Mt
Lk
1 Co

Mk
Mt
Lk
ICo

pretation of the Sabbath (Mk 223-36 31-^), so now He
transfigures, while yet He preserves the identity
of, the central institution of Israel's national life.
By ' a masterpiece of practical skill as a te'acher '
Jesus enshrines, in this symbolic action, for the
spiritual representatives of the new Israel, the
memory of its ransom through the death of Me.s-
siah, whereby a new covenant relationship with
Jehovah is possible.
4. The Institution.— Mk 1422-26^ Mt 2626-30, Lk

2215-20, 1 Co 1123-20.

took bread and when He had blessed
took bread and blessed

took bread and when He had driven thanks
took bread and when He had given thanks

And as they were eating' He

And as thev were eating Jesus

And " He

In the night in which He was betrayed the Lord Jesus

He brake it and gave to them and said, Take ye this is my body

And brake it and He gave to the disciples and said, Take eat this is my body

He brake it and gave to them saying this is my body which is given for you

He brake it and said this is ray body which is for you

This do in remembrance of me.
This do in remembrance of me.

And He took a cup and when He had given thanks He gave to them and they all drank of it. And He said unto them

And He took a cup and
And the cup

And the cup

This is (covenant)

For this is (covenant)

This cup is the new covenant in
This cup is the new covenant in

which is shed for many

which is shed for many unto remission of sins

which is shed for vou

gave thanks and gave to them saying drink ye all of it

in like manner after supper saying
in Hke manner after supper

my blood of the covenant
my blood of the covenant
vay blood
my blood

Yeril)' I say unto you I will no
But I say unto yon I will not

Lk (v. IS) For I say unto you I will not
Mk Until that day when I drink it new

more
henceforth

This do as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me

drink of the fruit of the vine
drink of this fruit of the vine

from henceforth

drink of the fruit of the vine

in the Kingdom of God

Mt Until that day when I drink it new with jou in vay Father's Kingdom
Lk Until the Kingdom of God shall come

1 Co adds : For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye proclaim the Lord's death till He come.

We read in Matthew and Mark that, during a
meal, Jesus took bread and brake it. Possibly it
was one of the unleavened cakes used at the Feast,
though the foregoing discussion renders unneces-
sary any attempt to fix this action into the order
of the regular Passover. The procedure was pecu-
liarly solemn, with an added gravity, because for
the first time, a few moments before, Jesus had
announced that one of the little group was a traitor
(Lk 2221-23, which puts this after the narrative of
the Supper, is probably a displacement). Ruin
without, treachery within, the disintegration of
the brotherhood may well have seemed to have
already begun, and collapse was staring them in
the face. Nothing but the serene assurance of
Jesus could brace them against such disaster.
Like a father presiding at a family meal, He
rallies them, in full view of His own death, by
such a thanksiriving as they had often heard from
Him before (Mt 14i9 153^ Jn GH). There is no
suggestion here of exaltation or ecstasy. His
demeanour is that of confidence, subdued by
sorrow for His betrayal and the hatred of His
enemies. The presumption from the order of Mk
14's-2i an(j Jn 1321-30 is against the traitor having
remained throughout the Supper.

(a) The common underlying Tradition. — The
action of Jesus in solemnly breaking bread and
handing it to His disciples must mean that His
body is likewise to be broken, destroyed by men ;
but, when assimilated by His disciples. He in His
complete Person will become their spiritual food.
It is parabolic, or rather, it may be illustrated
by the allegories of the Fourth Gospel, as e.g.
Jn 151, where Jesus claims to be ' most really and
yet not materially the true vine' (Westcott).
Quite apart from the question of its historical
value, the discourse of Jesus in Jn Q^^-^^ may be
used to illuminate this procedure, because the
same truth is expressed in Jn. in words as in the
Lord's Supper by words and symbol.

The second part of the Supper is another sol-
emnly acted allegory. ()ld is passing over into
new. At Sinai sprinkled blood had ratified a
covenant (Ex 24-*-*). Jeremiah, all but submerged
in the flood which was carrying on its surface the
fragments of the old system, sees like a rainbow
of hope the new covenant which, with its promise of
forgiveness of sins, was to be established on a perfect
knowledge of God ; and later came the profound
truth that this new covenant between God and
man could be inaugurated only by the death of
the Servant of the Lord, whose sufferings would
bring salvation to the whole world (Is 42'' 4'.)*
5213. 14. 15 5311. 12 . see Kautzsch, ' Religion of Israel,'
in Hastings' DB, Extra Vol. 708).

The new covenant is about to be ratified by
Messiah's blood. The many are to be ransomed
(Mk 10*5), these representatives of the true Israel
being but the first to appropriate the benefits of
the new covenant. Parabolic or symbolic this
meal was, but both parts do not convey the same
truth. The first action is a vehicle for the truth
that Jesus Himself will continue to be for His
disciples their heavenly food unto eternal life ; the
second that, in virtue of Messiah's death, salvation
from sin is possible through the covenant grace of
God. To attribute the conception of the second
half of the institution, as it is recorded in I\Ik., to
the influence of Pauline thought, is to do injustice
to the fact that its roots are deeply imbedded in
OT prophecy, although, like many other ideas, its
flower first appears in the teaching of Jesus.

His closing words have a future outlook. Death
will end in victory, and when the Day of the
Lord shall usher in the Kingdom, He will again
hold fellowship with His disciples at the eternal
Messianic banquet. That Day began to come with
power as the Spirit-filled Church received the Gen-
tiles for her inheritance, and the eagles gathered
upon the carcase of official Judaism.

{h) Differences in detail. — The records, as pre-

LORD'S SUPPER

served in the TR, divide into two types — Mark-
Matthew and Luke-Paul. In the shorter recension
of Luke, to be referred to later, there is an inde-
pendent narrative. We begin with the Markan
tradition, reproduced mainly in Matthew, as the
earliest source.

(i.) Mark-Matthew.— The words 'take (eat)' may
perhaps be intended to emphasize the representa-
tive action of the disciples. As those who are to
sit on twelve thrones, they are not eating a com-
mon meal but accepting this blessing for Israel.
Some justification of this view may be found in the
fact that in Luke and Paul the addition ' which is
(given or shed) on your behalf ' is qualified by the
words ' do this in remembrance of me,' whereas in
Mk,-Mt., which omit this injunction altogether, the
words run ' which is shed for many,' as though the
meal had a wider reach than an ordinary supper.
The omission from Mk.-Mt. of the command to
repeat the meal as a memorial is the most remark-
able difference between the two sources for the
Supper. Mt. differs from Mk. in minor points, the
most important being the addition of the words
' unto remission of sins,' which may have been a
current or ritual interpretation, but in any case
merely render explicit the idea of the new covenant
(Jer313i).

(ii.) Luke 2215-20.— The difficulties of the text are
such that so far no final decision has been reached
with regard to them, some scholars indeed think-
ing that the textual problem is involved in the
Synoptic problem. The evidence is as follows:
(1) The TH is supported by KABCL. (2) Old Latin
b e (k defective) have the order 16. 19*. (/cat Xa/Swv
&prov . . . TO ffS/fid luLov) 17. 18, and omit 19''. 20.
Old Syriac (Syr*'" and Syr "="■") agree in the main
with old Latt., though with intei-polations. Their
order is 16. 19. 17. 18. 21. 'And he took bread
and gave thanks for it and brake it and gave and
said : This is my body which is for you (Syr ^'" +
'is given') : do this in remembrance of me. And
(-gyj-siu 'after they had supped') he took a cup
and gave thanks over it and said : Take this and
share it among yourselves (Syr "'" -|- ' this is my
blood of the new covenant'). I say to you that
from this time on I shall not drink of this growth
of the vine (Syr*'" 'fruit') until the kingdom of
God comes.' The Pesh. omits 17. 18 ; Egyp. omits
16-18; Marcion omits 16. 18. 19b, and after 19*
comes the cup, but there is only one. (3) D a ff-
i 1 omit 19^ and 20. Hort, with whom Nestle
agrees, is strongly of opinion that w.^^^^o were not
part of the original text of Luke. Weiss, Schtirer,
Zahn, and others also believe in a shorter text, but
Zahn looks to the oldest versions rather than to
D a, etc., for the proper order. Their testimony
is uniform for the order of Mk.-Mt. -Paul (for 1 Co
lO^s even with the Dklache can hardly, in the face
of 1 Co ll^i, be cited for primitive practice) and for
only one cup. However, Mark and Paul seem to
have influenced the oldest Syriac directly, in its
additions ' this is my blood,' etc., and the command
for repetition. If the longer text be accepted, as
it is by many scholars, the mention of the two
cups may be due to the recapitulatory propensity
of Luke (Thayer), or the first cup may signify the
close of the Old Covenant in the last Passover
(16-18), while the second cup belongs to the New
Covenant (19*. 20). In favour of the latter view
it may be observed that ' a cup ' occurs in v.^'', but
in v.^*) 'the cup,' as though well known in the
Church (Holtzmann). There is, however, other
evidence in this chapter of unsuitable order if not
disarrangement, as e.(j. w.^'^-i--^, where a change
of position would fit the narrative better : and if Jn
131-30 i^^ay be taken as a guide, it would seem that
Lk 22-'*--' should come before the institution of the
Supper. Hence Hort's excision of vv.^^^. 20 jg as

yet the simplest solution of the difficulty. In that
case Luke did not intend to give the detailed ac-
count of the institution of the Supper, but rather
its meaning. Whatever the original order may
have been, there can be no doubt that he desires to
lay stress on the Paschal character of the meal.
The old dispensation is closing. For the last time
Jesus hands His disciples the Passover cup : in the
coming Kingdom He will provide for them a
heavenly vintage (cf. Jn IS^). (See Hort, 'Notes
on Select Readings,' p. 63 f. ; Nestle, Textiial Crit.
of Gr. Test. p. 276 f. ; Zahn, Einl. in d. NT, ii.
357 ff. ; Sanday, Hastings' DB ii. 636 ; Plummer,
St. Lnke, 496.)

(iii.) Paid. — 1 Co 1123-26 jg evidently drawn upon
by the author of the longer account of the Supper
in Luke. The Apostle gives unimpeachable author-
ity for his view of the Supper, claiming that he had
a revelation from the Lord, though it is highly
probable that he derived it indirectly through the
Apostles (d7r6 seems to involve a remote source ;
see Schmiedel, Hand-Corn. ii. 162). Of the varia-
tions from Mk.-Mt. the most important are the
repetition of ' Do this in remembrance of me,' and
the change of 'This is my blood of the covenant'
into ' This cup is the new covenant in my blood ' :
while the connnon Synoptic prophecy of Jesus that
He will drink the new fruit of the vine in the
Kingdom with His disciples, gives way to a Pauline
interpretation of the forward aspect of the Supper
— ' ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.'

In 1 Cor. the subject is introduced incidentally.
There is no formal description of the first Supper,
with full historical detail. The narrative is in-
tended to correct abuses among light-hearted
Greeks, who seem to have degraded the Supper to
the level of their former heathen club-banquets
(o-fo-o-trta, epavoi). They had few such sacred asso-
ciations as the Jews, whose annual Passover was
a valuable discipline in reverence for Jehovah their
Redeemer. These Corinthians had poor ideas of
the awful cost of their redemption, when they
failed to recognize the meaning of this memorial
of Christ's redeeming death, and by their selfish
party-spirit profaned the Lord's Supper, instituted
as it was at such a time as the night on which pre-
parations for His betrayal were being matured
(TrapeSiSero). The rite as described here is essen-
tially the same as in the Gospels ; but in the Gospels
we have the historical account of its creation ; while
1 Cor. describes an ideal celebration for the Chris-
tian brotherhood.

According to 1 Co 1123-26^ the ruling idea of the
Supper is the symbolical display of redemption
through the death of our Lord, and the same con-
ception, under the figure of the Christian Passover,
is involved in 1 Co. 5". Another truth also under-
lying 1123-26^ but especially taught in 10'6-22, is that
all those who partake of the spiritual food and
drink in this Sacrament are brought into fellow-
ship with Christ Himself, and are thus united into
one body (vv.^- *• i"- 1").

(iv.) The Fourth Gospel. — Though the institution
of the Supper is not found in Jn., the final dis-
courses of Jesus (13-17) are coloured with the
thought of it and of the love-feast, like brilliant
clouds irradiated by the sun which they hide. It
is in a measure true to say that, while the Synop-
tists are concerned with the Supper, St. John
lingers upon the memory of the love-feast, for the
conversations have the one great theme fittingly
introduced by the deed of humility on the part of
Him who having loved His own, loved them unto
the end. He had exhibited the new law of love of
which His death would be the crowning expression,
and He becomes at once their example and their
Sanctifier (.see esp. ch. 17). The Evangelist, as we
have seen, seems to correct the Synoptists as to the

LORD'S SUPPER

day of Christ's death, but he relates the discourse
of ch. 6 to the Passover, and in the theme he agrees
substantially with them, for the words ' this is my
body . . . this is my blood,' with their symbolic
accompaniments, find an excellent niterpretation in
Jn 6^'-^*, which can hardly be dissociated from the
later institution of the Supper (see Westcott, St.
John, 113; Holtzmann, NT Theol. ii. 501-503;
Loisy, Qnatrieme Evangile, 702-722, 760, 811).

Besults. — (a) The Lord's Supper was instituted
by Jesus as a perpetual memorial of His death. It
is true that the words ' Do this in remembrance of
me ' do not occur in the oldest tradition, and may,
perhaps, in their present form be traceable to St.
Paul ; but it is incredible that he should have
originated this sacrament, and that it should have
been adopted from him by the Jewish Christians.
The ordinance was in existence among the Jeru-
salem Churches before his conversion, and the sym-
bolism and narrative which he received must have
been invested with a peculiar sacredness, for, as
preserved in the written Petrine source (Mark) at
least twenty years later, while different and dis-
tinctly more original, they are essentially the
same. It is difficult to see how the early Chris-
tians would have turned every meal into a com-
memoration of their Lord's death without His
command, for even after the death they failed for
a while to understand its full significance. After
Pentecost they might have found their meals to be
symbols of His perpetual presence to nourish them,
but that they should have combined with this the
necessity of His death, which remained a solemn
mystery, would be inexplicable except under the
example and instruction of their Lord.

{b) The Evangelical records relate the Supper to
the Passover either directly or indirectly, but no
such transformation of the original feast as we find
in the Supper would have been made by the primi-
tive Church, which remained thoroughly Jewish,
except under the guidance of Jesus.

(c) Like all other teaching of Jesus, this does not
prescribe new ritual dependent for its validity upon
a set of fixed terms. Possibly freedom was allowed
even with regard to the order of the action (see
shoi'ter text of Luke, 1 Co lO^*' and Didache): cer-
tainly the spirit was not to be enslaved by an
inerrant repetition of sacred words. Complete
verbal accord is not to be found in the records, nor
even in St. Paul is there a fixed liturgical formula
such as might be repeated by a presiding officer ;
but the import of the Supper was preserved and
conveyed mainly by a generally uniform Christian
practice.

(d) The Lord's Supper was a ' visible word ' con-
veying the truth of the awful mystery of Redemp-
tion. Until He came, however long or short might
be the interval. His followers, Jew and Gentile,
would in this acted parable read their Master's
mind in regard to His death, the culmination of
His service of love on their behalf. ' The Passion
of Christ was itself a sacrament or mystery of an
eternal truth : it was the supreme sacrament of
human history : the outward and visible sign of a
great supra-temporal fact' (W. H. Inge, Contentin
Veritatis, p. 298 ; see also art. Fellowship, § ii.).

5. The Apostolic Church. — (a) The Jeioish
Christian Community. — 'To break (or ' the break-
ing of ') bread ' {kXElv — i] /cXdcrts tov Aprov) is almost
a formula in the NT (Mk 8^ ||, Mt 2&<^, Lk 2435, Ac
242.46 207", 1 Co 10'« ir-^*). The term does not
seem to have been employed for the ordinary
meals of the Jews or their sects in any formal
way (see Jer 16'- », La 4*). Undoubtedly sacri-
ficial feasts shared in by fellow-worshippers were-
common not only in heathen circles but among
the Jews ; they were consecrated by thanksgiv-
ings and other religious ritual (Schiirer, ThLZ,

1891, 82), and it would have been quite natural
for the Christians thus to a.ssociate themselves
together ; but a widespread religious custom is
not sufficient to account for the usage, and its
nomenclature among the early disciples. Why
was it distinguished from the ' fellowship' (Koivwvla)
and -singled out by a different terminology ? Partly
because of the memory of their Lord's constant
table-fellowship, to which His thanksgivings, with
their intense reality, had given religious signifi-
cance, but much more because of the Last Supper
carrying His command. That Supper made every
common meal more sacred. Enshrining the love
of their Master in the symbolism of its closing
scene, it gave new meaning to the communion of
brethren at their common board. It became the
source of a renewed joy, and the daily inspiration
of a richer hope. So the term ' breaking of bread '
covers more than the observance of the Eucharist.
It designates the meals of which this ordinance
formed an integral part, the action of breaking
bread, which was the largest factor of their meal,
being used to denote the whole feast. We may
assume that the disciples followed their Lord's
example, celebrating a love-feast, which would be
enriched with memories of their Master and teach-
ing from His nearest disciples, and closing with
the more solemn thanksgiving for the broken
body and the cup of blessing which Jesus had con-
secrated.

(ft) The Pauline Churches. — There are signs in
the letters of St. Paul that there was a widespread
doctrine and practice to which his own churches
would conform (Ko 6i'), so that his influence over
any churches but those of his foundation must not
be exaggerated, especiallj' in matters so vital as
the sacred observances on which the personal
disciples of Jesus would be regarded as primary
authorities (cf. 1 Co l^^). Kevertheless the Churcli
underwent a profound change when it passed from
Jerusalem and the village churches of Judsea to
the large cities of Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece.
All ranks now contributed their share to the
brotherhood. Thus of necessity the disciples could
no longer meet daily, and their regular gatherings
were held on the first day of the week (Ac 20", 1 Co
16'-, Rev 110). Probably the conduct of the service
at Troas (Ac 20"-ii) was that of tiie average Gentile
congregation, but little can be gathered from it
except that there was a weekly meeting of the
church on Sunday night, followed by a common
meal, at which, in this case, St. Paul presided,
and protracted the discourse till daybreak. 'Ihe
Lord's Sujiper may have been observed at some
time during the common meal.

Thanksgiving was such an outstanding feature
of the meal that already in 1 Co lOi*" there is men-
tion of ' the cup of blessing which we bless ' (some
think it is so called in distinction from the cups at
heathen banquets), and afterwards the meal is
called ' the Eucharist ' (Ignat. Philad. 4, Smyr. 6 ;
Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 64-66, Trypho, 116, 117).
This Supper, originated and presided over by the
Lord (to KvpiaKov delirvov), did not owe its validity
to any official president or to any Apostolic blessing.
It was a celebration of the brotherhood as a whole ;
indeed, the sacrilege of the Corinthians consisted
partly in destroying the bond of love which united
into one body the brethren who ate one bread
(1 Co IQifif- lisoff )_ Only brethren seem to have been
admitted to the Supper, though unbelievers and
strangers attended other gatherings of a hortatory
or didactic nature (14^3). It is noteworthy that
the direct references to the Lord's Supper in the
epistolary writings of the NT are confined to 1 Cor.,
so that we may possibly attach a larger import-
ance to the function of the Lord's Supper in the
Christian life than the Apostle Paul (see 1 Co

LORD'S SUPPER

1'^-''), though he did undoubtedly regard it as a
powerful means of grace (1 Co 10'"--').

(c) The Agape and the Lord's Siipijer.— While
the word 'Agape' occurs only once in the NT
(Jude '% for the reading of 2 P 21^ is almost cer-
tainly dTrdrats), there can be no doubt that the
common meals of the primit've Christians, and the
table-fellowship which the Corinthians abused,
answer to the later Agape. A new name was
given to what was really a new thing, for there
is nothing elsewhere like the spirit of love which
called into existence and pervaded the common
intercourse of the brotherhood. The occasion for
the origin of the name may be found in Jn 13-16,
though the technical term probably did not come
into use till long after the brethren had been en-
joying the reality.

What did ' the Lord's Supper ' (rb KvpiaKov Seiwvov,
1 Co 112") precisely mean? Was it the concluding
part of the Agape, later called the Eucharist, or
did it include both the Agape and the Eucharist ?
Or was the Lord's Supper a distinct Eucharistic
meal separate from the Agape? The decision
turns partly on the interpretation of 1 Co 11-°.
Jiilicher is of the opinion that ' the Lord's Supper'
was quite unlike all other congregational gather-
ings, and holds that St. Paul found fault with the
Corinthians because by their greed they turned a
meal, which was meant to serve the brotherly
unity of the Church, into a means of satisfying
their appetites (see Stewart, Expos. July 18U8,
and also Drews, PRE^ v. 562 f.). But there are
two decisive objections to this view, (a) The
Apostle says that the ordinance was instituted
'after supper ' (/xera t6 SetTTi/^o-at, 1125). (^) Bread
and wine would not occasion the gluttony which
he rebukes. It is much more dii^cult to decide
between the other views. Those who hold that
the Agape culminated in the Eucharist, and that
the whole was called ' the Lord's Supper,' explain
that the selfish conduct of the Corinthian cliques
rendered impossible any table-fellowship like that
of the first Lord's Supper, when the feast of love
culminated in the Eucharist (Keating, Agnpe and
Eucharist, Appendix B; Robertson in Hastings'
DB i. 490t'). Perhaps this agrees with the term
' breaking of bread,' and the practice as outlined
in Acts, but the words of St. Paul seem to separate
this part of the feast from the rest. It is a ' Lord's
meal ' because of the institution by the Lord which
he proceeds to relate. ' It is impossible for you to
eat a real Lord's Supper when you have acted so
disgracefully in the Agape.' Further, the institu-
tion ' after supper,' and the subsequent history of
the ordinance, seem to be most easily explained on
this view (Weizsacker, Apost. Ac/e, Eng. tr. vol.
ii. 283 ff. ; Zahn, ' Agapen,' in PRE^ i. 230 f.). The
abuses which led eventually to a separation of the
Agape from the Eucharist were abundant in Cor-
inth, though the process of dissociation proved to
be slow, and varied in different localities.

6. The sub-Apostolic Church.— (a) Clement of
Borne. — To counteract the disturbances resulting
from the Corinthian rivalries, Clement urges the
necessity of order and reverence in the service,
which will be effected by every one abiding in
his own part (14). The bishops must offer ' tlie
gifts blamelessly and holily ' (44), i.e. 'the prayers
and thanksgivings, the alms, the Eucharistic ele-
ments, the contributions to the Agape, and so
forth' (Lightfoot). His stately prayers and in-
sistence upon orderliness may point to a develop-
ing liturgical service, but the epistle sheds no real
light upon the place or meaning of the Eucharist in
the worship of the Church.

(h) Plintfs Letter to Trajan (A.D. ii^).— This
letter is of ' importance, but raises vexed questions.
How far the practice described extended beyond

the Church of Bithynia, and the trustworthiness
and interpretation of evidence which he drew from
apostate Christians, are doubtful. He says : ' Essent
soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque
Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, seque
Sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed
ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent,
ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abne-
garent : quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi
fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum,
promiscuum tamen et innoxium ' {Ep. 96. 7).

Just what is involved in the word mcramentiwi has divided
scholars. U^htfoot (Ign. i. 50 flf.) and Kamsay {Ch. in Horn.
Empire^, 219 f.) believe that the Eucharist and the Agape were
separated at this time, and that the social meal, which was held
in the evening, had been repressed in accordance with the
Roman Imperial policy against associations (Keating, 54 ft'.).
Weizsiicker is not very clear (op. cit. ii. 249, 285), but Zahn
PRE^ i. 236, .art. 'Agapen' ) and J. A. Robinson (Encyc. Bibl.,
' Eucharist,' § 17) are unwilling to draw such a conclusion.
Possibly the abolition of the Agape was local and temporary
(Mayor, Clem, of Alexandria Strom, vii. 376 ff.). In any case,
undue emphasis' should not be placed upon the Imperial policy
as a uniform influence, for there were other contributory local
forces at work, introducing changes Into worship ; and when
Ignatius wrote, the Eucharist and the Agape were still united
' in some parts of Asia Minor, and probably at Antioch ' (Light-
foot).

(c) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.— The
uncertainty of the date and local origin of the
didache renders its witness doubtful. Quite differ-
ent in tone from Paul, and not influenced directly,
it would appear, by John, it may be taken as a
tyi3e of widespread Jewish Christian life within
the limits of Palestine, and possibly Egypt, about
the end of the 1st century. The Supper, called
' the Eucharist,' and associated with ' the breaking
of bread,' is mentioned in chapters 9, 10, and 14.
The Eucharist is not yet separated from the
Agape, if, indeed, they are not identical, for the
latter is not mentioned, though some take ch. 9 to
contain the closing prayers of the Agape, and ch.
10 those of the Eucharist (Zahn, Weizsacker,
Weiss, Loofs). It is held on the Lord's Day, and
is preceded by confession, for only pure hearts
make praise and thanksgiving possible. The
order, as in the shorter form of Luke, is cup and
bread ; but nothing is said as to the method of
celebration, except that, while a set form of
prayers is given for ordinary use, prophets are
allowed freedom. There is no sign of a priest,
and the celebration is the common act of the
whole Church. Only the baptized are to partake
of the Eucharist, which is that holy thing that
cannot be given to the dogs, though not because
the Eucharistic elements are regarded as convey-
ing some mysterious power, or are, in any sense,
sacrificial ; for there is not much advance on
Ro 121.*

The Didache is mystical, like the Fourth Gospel.
Life and knowledge come through the appropria-
tion of Jesus Christ as Messiah, but no reference is
made to redemption through His blood. A unique
fifTure— that of the grains of wheat being brought
together to form one loaf— is applied to the sanctifi-
cation of the Church in a unity. Thanks are given
for knowledge of God, for faith and immortality
brought through Jesus the Servant, and for daily
food, but especially for the spiritual food through
Jesus. After the stress of the present evil age,
which may soon close with the advent of the Lord,
will come the peace of perfect mystical union in
the Church of the completed Kingdom (Bartlet,
' Didache,' Hastings' DB, Extra Vol. 439 ff. ; Drews
in Neutest. Apokryphen, 182-188).

(d) Ignatitis.— The Lord's Supper assumes large

* ' eivapiiTTia in Christian usage has two concrete senses
besides the abstract sense : (1) a thanksgiving m words, and
(2) a thanksgiving in offerings ; and in early tmies it .appears to
denote always the offering or thing offered itself, not the cere-
mony or service, or the institution ' (llort, JTliSt, vol. m. 595).

LORD'S SUPPER

importance. By a transference uf the name for
the prayer of thanks.;iviiig to the whole meal it is
called 'the Eucharist" {Eph. 18, Phil. 4, Sin>ir.
6, 8). It is still associated with the Agape (Stai/r.
8. 1, 2), and the term ' breaking of bread" seems
to include both (Eph. 20). His utterances often
stand out untoned in the atmosphere of contro-
versy with the Docetists, against whom lie is never
wearied of insisting upon the reality of the human
nature of Jesus Christ which is essential to salva-
tion. Only in the one Church is this full truth
preserved, and the Eucharist is the symbol of unity,
for there the gifts of salvation which are the full
fellowship of life with Christ find fleshly expression.
So, to be valid, it must be celebrated by the bishop,
who, as opposed to all heretics, performs the sacra-
ment as an act of the Church as a whole. For
Ignatius the spiritual supersensible world is in-
tensely real, but it becomes illusory without an
eartlily or material form, and only through the
appropriation of the flesh and blood of Christ do
believers enter into mystical union with God.
This is most fully realized in the breaking of
bread, an action efficacious as an antidote to
spiritual death — ' a medicine for immortality '
((pap/xaKov adavaaia^, Eph. 20). Some hold that
Ignatius regards the elements of the Supper as
purely symbolic, for in Phil. 5. 1, the gospel is
called 'the flesh of Jesus'; in Trail. 8. 1, faith
is 'the fle.sh of the Lord,' and love is 'the blood
of Jesus Christ ' ; and in Pom. 7, Eph. 5, ' the
bread of God ' is an image of the blessings of salva-
tion without any reference to the Lord's Supper
(v. d. Goltz, Ignatius von Antiorhieu, pp. 72, 73 ;
Lightfoot, Ign. ad Pom. 7 ; Loots, PRE^ i. 40).
Harnack's most recent view is that in Ignatius,
sixty years after St. Paul, the whilom clear theology
has become fouled by the Mysteries and their lore
{Expansion of Christianity^ i. 289). Apparently
Ignatius does not think of magical powers as being
inherent in material elements, but, influenced by
Johannine mysticism, holds that the material
forms must be interpreted by a spirit of faith,
love, and thanksgiving in order to convey spiritual
gifts. Yet he is ambiguous, and his realistic
language, partly due to a mind more imaginative
than penetrating, opens the door for the cruder
conceptions which follow. Perhaps w'e may go
further, and see in his use of the term ' medicine
for immortality ' the first evidence of the later
view of Greek theology, which laid the chief stress
of redemption rather on the annihilation of physi-
cal corruption by the infusion of the Divine Nature
of the Son of God, than on spiritual regeneration
through the eternal Divine Person (Lightfoot,
Ign. ii. 45, 171, 258; Inge, Christian Mysticism,
257, and Appendix C ; Swete in JThSt, iii. 168 ;
Sanday, The Fourth Gospel, 241-245).

(e) Justin Martyr. — The ecclesiastical term for
the Supper is henceforth 'the Eucharist.' Justin
makes no mention of the Agape. The Eucharist
ceases to be a meal of the congregation and be-
comes a regular part of the Sunday service, and
seems to require the presence of a bishop or some
other official for its valid celebration {Apol. i. 65-
67). Under the growing tendency towards ritual
it began to gather to itself some of the Jewish,
or perhaps heathen, sacrificial ideas centring in
a special priesthood. Indeed Justin sees in the
mysteries of Mithras a demonic imitation of Chris-
tian symbolism {Apol. i. 54, 62, 6.3-67 ; Dial. c.
Trypho, 70, 78). The ideas of Ignatius are in Justin
losing their purity. He continues to speak of the
Sujiper as a spiritual life-giving food, but holds
that a material change passes upon the elements
of the sacrament, so that they nourisli our bodies
and make them incorruptible, the Logos becoming
united by the Eucharistic prayer with the bread,

as He took flesh and blood when He became in-
carnate in Jesus (Apol. i. 66 ; Loofs, PPE^ i. 40,
41, 45, 46; S^vete, JThSt, iii. 160 f.). Harnack
put forward a theory that bread and water were
the usual elements in the Eucharist at the time
of Justin, but it has received little approval, for
the most that can be said is that the practice
existed among .some small sects in Africa (7'C/'vii.
2, 117-144, outlined by Stewart, JTxpos. July 1898,
4;] ff.).

A variety of causes led to the discontinuance of
the celebration of the Agape along with the Lord's
Supper, (a) The increase of abuses as they are
found already in 1 Cor. and Jude. (6) The growth
of the Church in large cities, where it became im-
possible for the Christians to meet together in
house-celebrations, (c) The increa-sing power of the
bishop and clergy, who found in house-gatherings a
menace to the unity of the Church, together with
the development of the dogma that the presence
of a bishop was necessary to make a Supper valid.
(d) Charges of child-murder and cannibalism
{dv^areia deiirva, oi5nro5etoi/s /j.i^eis). (e) The en-
forcement of the Imperial law against associations
(see Drews, PPE^v. ' Eucharistie '). The change,
already widespread in the time of Justin Martyr,
whereby the Supper is definitely called ' the
Eucharist' and becomes the central part of public
service, was of vast consequence, and gradually
spread over the whole Church, transforming the
conception of worship. In TertuUian's circle the
Eucharist is celebrated in the early morning and
the Agape is held in the evening (Apnl. 39, de
Corona, 3). But authorities differ as to the com-
pleteness of the separation at Alexandria in Clem-
ent's day. Bigg, e.g., saying that 'the Eucharist
was not distinguished in time, ritual, or motive
from the primitive Supper of the Lord' (Christian
Platonists, 102, 103), while Mayor is doubtful
(Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 382), and Zahn is .strongly
of the contrary opinion (PPE^ ' Agapen,' 234).

7. The Lord's Supper and the pagan Mysteries.
— Dr. Percy Gardner may be taken as a repre-
sentative of a few scholars who trace the influence
of the pagan Mysteries on St. Paul.

' The great ditference between tlie teaehinij of the Pj-noptie
Jesus on the one hand, and the teaehinij of Paul, of the
Fourth Evangelist, and of the author of Hebrews on the otlier,
Is. just that the latter is permeated, as the former is not, by tlie
ideas of spiritual communion, of salvation, of justification, and
mediation — ideas which had found an utterance, however im-
perfect, in the teaching of the t/ii'.i.si. . . . Christians are, like
the Pagan Mystie, called upon to be ocrioi and dyioi. The language
of the Pauline and .Johannine writings shows the translation of
Christianity on to a new level by the reception and baptism into
Christ of a set of ideas which at the time, coming from a Divine
source, were making their way into the various religions of the
human race ' (Exp/nr. Evangel, p. 3-tO tf.). H. J. lloltzmann also
holds that in separating the sacrament as a specifically religious
act unrelated to the kernel of his gospel, Paul opened the gates
to 'mystery ' conceptions {NT Theol. ii. ISt), 1S7).

But the sacrament of the Supper was in exist-
ence before St. Paul, and its import well estab-
lished in the Jewish section of the Church before
the gospel went to the Gentiles, who for many
decades were not sufficiently influential to stamp
the sacrament with ' mystery ' conceptions even
if they had so desired. All this type of thought
was alien to the Jewish mind, the only section
of the nation that was in .sjTnpathy with these
ideas being the Essenes, who derived their sacra-
mental meals — in some sort ' mystery ' associa-
tions — from foreign sources, and they cannot be
regarded as a factor in the shaping of the Chris-
tian rite (Bousset, Pel. des Judenthums, ■iol-AVi).
It is quite gratuitous to say that the ideas of
spiritual communion, salvation, justification, and
mediation are especially Pauline or Johannine.
They had, in fact, a long history in Hebrew thought,
and while they are frequent in 'mystery' ritual,
their import is different. The pagan Mysteries,

LORD'S SUPPER

even in their purest expression, were tainted with
the religious conceptions of old nature-worships.
Fellowship through sacraments with the Divine
was thought to bring an infusion of the subtle
material essence of the god, who thus held present
communion with the initiated, and vouchsafed
immortality to him. This was the result not so
much of a moral act of faith as of an impression
produced upon the character by the vision of the
Divine drama. Contemi^lation and ecstasy crown
the course of the initiated. A rigorous ethical
discipline was also required by way of preparation
for the vision of the Divine, but inasmuch as the
purpose was to free the soul from its prison-house
in the flesh, the purification was chiefly of a cere-
monial character. The soul cleansed of earthly
impurities would asoend after death into final union
with the Supreme (see Dill, Boman Society from
Nero to 3Iarcus Aui-elius, Bk. iv. chs. v. vi. ). Of
sin in the Christian sense there is little trace in
pagan thought. Such sin as the worshipper was
freed from in the heathen Mysteries was inherent
in him by reason of human frailty, or was an
outward taint of the body (Anrich, Das antike
Mi/sterienivesen, 38). When in the 2nd cent, these
subtle shades began to colour Christian thought,
it was a sign that the full summer was pass-
ing.

St. Paul is ruled by the Hebrew idea of sin as it
became heightened by the life and death of Jesus.
God is for him the supremely moral Person, and
sin is treason against His Sovei'eignty. On His
Son, the Kedeemer from sin, he lavishes all his
loyalty and worship. Indeed, Christ becomes his
intimate personal friend and Lord. For him it is
Christ to live, which is only another waj^ of saying
that Christ is his spiritual food as it is symbolized
in the Supper (1 Co lO-"- "). He does not, it is
true, lay inordinate emphasis on the celebration
of Baptism or the Supper (1 Co li*-^'), but he finds
ni the common meal of love the most perfect
earthly expression of the fellowship of the saints
with the Head of the body. The living Christ
draws the believers, who have abandoned their
former pagan fellowship, into a new communion
with Himself. He is the most real of all per-
sons, dwelling in the hearts of a loving company
as their thought is focussed upon Him by the
symbols of His redemption, and pledged by this
memorial of His death to return (see Dobschlitz,
Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters, 72, 73 ; Eamsay,
Expos., Dec. 11)00, Jan. 1901). Even the use by
St. Paul of such words as ' mystery ' and ' to
initiate' (reXetoCv), 1 Co 2«- ", 2 Co V^'^, Ph S'-^,
hardly justifies the assumption of conscious influ-
ence (Heinrici, Coin. [1887] zu 2 Kor. 121 ; Anrich,
112). Nor is there any more reason for discerning
' mystery-doctrine ' in John, for the conception of
God and of true worship which rules this Gospel
is unsurpassed (4--'--'*), while in Q^'^ words which
might be thought to have a materialistic sense are
expressly said to be spirit and life. In the final
discourses of Jesus the conditions for receiving the
Spirit of Christ are ethical. Those abide in Christ
who show their love to Him by obeying His com-
mand to love one another. In the First Epistle
the final vision of God is promised for the world to
come, but only those can know God now who love,
and who have had their sins taken away through
the Lamb of God who is the propitiation for the
sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2^, cf. Jn 1-9). ' Faith '
in Paul, 'love' and 'knowledge,' almost convertible
terms in John, are the subjective conditions for
communion with God, who dwells in the individual
heart attuned to the loving fellowship of the
brotherhood.

It may be partially true to say that without the
sacraments Christianity would not have conquered

Europe, and yet such a judgment should be quali-
fied by the fact that non-sacramental Judaism was
the most effective proselytizer of all the religions
of the old world. Widespread as the ' mystery '
cults were, the Jews became a church within the
Roman Empire, exceeding other foreign worships
in numbers, the attention it attracted, and the
privileges it extorted from a hostile jjower. Philo,
the only ' mystery ' philosopher of the Jews, was an
isolated phenomenon (Bousset, op. cit. 78, 79).

Unquestionably, the heathen Mysteries satisfied
many deep religious longings. The contemplation
of impressive ceremonial and a Divine drama con-
cealed from all but the initiated, the litany, the
rhythmic nuisic, appealed to the feeling of the wor-
shipper, and swept him into an attitude of mind in
which he enjoyed Divine comnuuiion and received
a pledge of his immortality. By means of a com-
mon meal he entered into mystical imion with the
god, and began the process of deification through
the infusion of the imperishable Divine nature.
Degraded though these Mysteries often were by
magic and superstition, they were felt by their
purest votaries to be the guarantee of salvation
here in fellowship with God and of a blessed future
life (Anrich, pp. 39, 46, 47 ; Dill, 609-614). And
yet Judaism was the most powerful factor in that
religious world, because it satisfied more perfectly
than any 'mystery' cult the more insistent ethical
and spiritual needs of human nature. But Chris-
tianity brought to the world a richer boon than
either Judaism or the heathen Mysteries. It
offered all that was best both in the Mysteries
and in Judaism. By its sacraments it disclosed
its ' open secret' to Jew and Gentile ; and in these
sacraments the believer, as one of a brotherhood
of saints, was brought into perfect communion with
the eternal God who had redeemed him.

The most sacred symbol of this redemption, 'the
core of religious worship,' was the Lord's Supper,
and it remained truly symbolic until, after the first
decade of the 2nd cent., the stream of Christian life,
making its way through pagan soil that was satur-
ated with ideas drained off from mystery practice
and thought, began to grow discoloured. How far
in the succeeding years there was direct imitation
between Christianity and the niysterj' religions, or
how far resemblances were due to ideas that had
by a long process of religious development becou;e
almost essential to the thought of the early cen-
turies, is a problem that still awaits solution. But
it was the Gnostic sects that were first invaded and
overcome by distinctly heathen influences. The
Christian Church, with its immense reserve of
spiritual power, performed a masterly and slow
retreat from the more exalted positions of the
Apostolic age (Harnack, Expansion of Christian-
ity, i. 285-299 ; Hatch, Hibhert Lectures, 283-309 ;
Maj'or, Clement of Alexandria, ch. iii. ; Inge,
Christian Mysticism, Lect. ii. and Appendix B ;
and esp. Dill and Anrich, ut supra).

Literature. — Schultzen, Das Abend mahl im XT, '[S^Tt \ J.
II. Ihaver, ' Itecent Discussions respecting the Lord's Sujiper '
ill JBL xviii. [lSit9] 110-131 ; Cremer and Loofs, ' Abendiiiahl,'
i. and ii., in PliE^ i. ; Drews, ' Eucharistie,' ib. v.; Zahn.
'.\^a|ion,' ib. i. ; Plummer, 'The Lord's Supper,' in Hastiiif;s'
Z*^ iii. ; J. A. Itobinson, ' Eucharist' in Encyc. Bibl. ii. The
views of Harnacli, Jiilicher, and Spitta are clearly outlined
bv G. Wauchope Stewart In ExpoH. 5tli ser. viii. [|89S] 48-61,
Sii-1()2, and by Grafe in Ztschr. f. Theol. v. Kii-che, 18ii.i, pt. '2.
See also Percy Gardner, Origin of the Lord's Supper, 1S93 ; J. F.
Keating-, The Agape and the Eucharist, 1901 ; J. C. Lambert,
The Sacraments inihe XT, 1903 [excellent] ; G. H. Box, Jeu-ish
Antecedents of the Eucliarist, and reply by J. C. Lambert in
JThSt, vols. iii. iv. ; II. B. Swete, 'Eucharistie Belief in the
Second and Third Centuries,' ib. vol. iii. ; W. B. Frankland,
The Early Eucharist, 1902 [useful for textual material] ; Bishnj.
A . .J. Maclean, art. ' Agape ' in Hastings' forthcoming Enci/c. of
Religion and Ethics. R. A. FalcONKR.

LORD'S SUPPER (II.).— The NT passages I ear-

LORD'S SUPPER

ing on this subject may conveniently be divided
into the following groups : —

1. Preparation for Institution.— (1) Feeding of
Five thousand (Mk 6«- *' = Ui 14i«- 2", Lk 9i«- ", Jn
gii. 12) jfj connexion with this miracle it is im-
portant to observe that («) it is recorded in all four
Gospels ; [b) the record contains the following sig-
nificant phrases, which it is well to compare with
the phraseology in the accounts of the institution :
\apd}v (Mk., Mt., Lk. ; ^Xa^ev, Jn.), evXdyrjaev (Mk.,
Mt., Lk. ; evxapiurricras, Jn. ; cf, Jn Q"^ euxo.pio'Trjcrai'-
Tos Tov Kvpiov), KareKXacrev (Mk., Lk. ; /cXdcras, Mt. ;
Jn. omits), i5i5ov (Mk., Lk. ; ^duKev, Mt. ; di4duKev,
Jn. ) ; ((■) the event carried on and emphasized the
idea of a sacred meal, which, as a means of com-
munion with God, had been profoundly impressed
on the minds of the Jew s by the sacrificial system.

(2) Feeding of Four thousand (Mk S^-s^ Mt lo^- =*^).
In connexion with this must be observed : (a) the
same type of phrases as in the P'eeding of the Five
thousand: Xaliwv (Mk. ; IXajSev, Mt. ), evxo.piffTr](xa^
(Mk. , Mt. ), ^KXaaev ( Mk. , Mt. ), idiSov (^Yk. , Mt. ), evXo-
yrjffai (Mk. only) ; (b) the same idea of a sacred meal
as in the Feeding of the Five thousand. With the
Feeding of the Five thousand and the Four thousand
should be comj)ared the meals after the Resurrec-
tion in Lk 2-42"- ^1- ^^ and Jn 2V^, where, though
neither appears to have been the Eucharist, the
idea of a sacred meal is maintained, and the phrase-
ology should be noticed (Xa^ihv tov dprov evXdyijaev
/cat KXdaas eiredidov avrois and iv rrj /cXdcret tov dpTOV
in Lk 24'"'" ^^, and Xafi^dvei tov dprov /cai didoicnv avrois,
Kai TO 6\j/a.pL0v ofjiolus in Jn 21^^).

(3) Discourse in the Fourth Gospel in connexion
ivith Feeding of Five thousand. This miracle, like
others, is called ffri/uLe7ov in the Fourth Gospel (Jn
gi4. 26j^ ^ g_ j^ ijf^g g^ place in the group of ' signs ' which
are so called because ' they make men feel the
mysteries which underlie the visible order' (West-
cott). The peculiar significance of this ' sign ' in
particular was drawn out by our Lord in the dis-
course at Capernaum which followed it. That it
was an acted parable of Divine truth He asserted
to the multitude which sought Him at Capernaum,
in the words : ' Ye seek me, not because ye saw
signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were
filled. Wofk not for the meat which perisheth, but
for the meat which abideth unto eternal life, which
the Son of Man shall give unto you : for him the
Father, even God, hath sealed ' (Jn 6-«- '^). Thus
it supplied the starting-point for the conversation
with the multitude, in which our Lord identified
' tlie bread out of heaven that is genuine,' which
' the Father giveth,' with Himself as ' the bread of
God which Cometh down out of heaven, and giveth
life unto the world,' ' the bread of life,' ' the bread
which Cometh down out of iieaven, that a man may
eat thereof, and not die,' ' the living bread which
came down out of heaven ' ; and further declared,
' the bread which I will give is my fiesh, for the
life of the world ' (vv.=*-"*i). As the conversation
proceeded, our Lord spoke, in still clearer terms, of
the reception of His fiesh and blood as the means
whereby there was to be participation in Himself,
and as requisite to the possession of life : ' Except
ye eat the fiesh of the Son of Man, and drink his
blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eter-
nal life ' ; ' My flesh is true food, and my blood is
true drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
my blood, abideth in me, and I in him ' ; ' He that
eateth me, he also shall live because of me. This
is the bread which came down out of heaven ' ; ' He
that eateth this bread shall live for ever' (w.^-^^*).
Recognizing tlie ditticulty caused to His hearers
by this teaching, our Lord laid stress on the deep
spiritual significance of what He had said : ' Tiie
Spirit is the life-giver ; the flesh profiteth nothing :

the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit,
and are life' (vv.**!-^^). By this conversation, the
idea of a sacred meal is carried further than it had
been in the miracle itself. An act of eating the
flesh and drinking the blood of Christ is anticipated
as the way in which His disciples will participate
in the life which is in Him.

To dissociate this teaching from the Eucharist is
to take away the key to its meaning which is sup-
plied by the comparison of the phraseology used
in it with that employed by our Lord at the In-
stitution. This fact may be illustrated by the
view of Arthur Wright (Synopsis of the Gosjicls in
Greek ^ p. 140, NT Problems, pp. 134-146) that
the Eucharist had been observed by our Lord from
the first as ' a covenant of service ' or ' union,'
since the language of Jn 6 would not have been
intelligible unless the Eucharist had been already
in common use. Wright's view must be rejected
as (a) lacking positive support ; (b) not really
aftording a parallel to the existence of a rite of
baptism (3^- 4'- ^) before the institution of Chris-
tian Baptism (Mt 28^") ; (c) being contrary to the
tenor of Jn 6, which implies that, to the disciples
as well as to the multitude, the teaching had the
element of difficulty which shows that the Euchar-
ist was not yet instituted ; and (d) as contrary to
the parallels by which the discourse about Baptism
in Jn 3 is prior to the institution in Mt 28^^, and
the teaching about forgiveness in Mk 2*"^^ ( = Mt
92-8, Lk 52o-''^) is prior to Jn 2021-23 ; but its plausi-
bility at first sight is a significant indication of the
truth that the discourse in Jn 6 was destined to
find its explanation in the Institution of the
Eucharist. Thus the teaching may be taken as
anticipatory of the Eucharist. As such it suggests
(a) a real spiritual participation on the part of the
communicant in the human nature of Christ by the
power of the Holy Ghost, and a consequent union
with His Divine Person ; (^3) connexion with His
death, indicated in the words ' the bread which I
will give is my flesh, for the life of the world,' and
with His resurrection, indicated by the references
to ' the bread of life ' and ' the living bread. '
Consequently the communicant feeds on the living
risen body and blood of the Lord which have
passed through death.

The interpretations of the discourse which need be mentioned
are the following : (1) that there is no connexion with the Holy
Communion, but the feeding on Christ referred to is simply
acceptance of His teaching or faith in His work, a view which
obviously fails to allow for the distinctive character of the
phraseology ; (2) that the primary and special reference is to
the Holy Communion, the interpretation which best satisfies all
the conditions ; (3) that the teaching, while not excluding the
Holy Communion, is rather to the general verity of spiritual
communion with our Lord than specifically to the Holy Com-
munion, a view which, though it may be expressed so as to
come very near the interpretation here accepted, does not
account for the peculiar phrases used in the discourse and their
remarkable likeness to, and explanation by, the words used in
the Institution of the Eucharist. The objection that, if the
primary reference were to the Eucharist, Jn 634-58 would re-
quire that mere reception of Communion, even by one who
should receive unworthily, would confer the gift of life, is not
weighty, since any reasonable treatment of the passage regards
it as referring to those who communicate with such dispositions
as may preserve them from receiving unworthily.

2. Accounts of the Institution.— (1) 1 Co 11 23-25.
The earliest history of the Institution which we
possess is that here given by St. Paul. It records
our Lord's words with reference to the bread :
' This is my body, which is for you : this do as my
memorial ' ; and with reference to the cup : ' This
cup is the new covenant in my blood : this do, as
oft as ye drink it, as my memorial.' The inter-
pretation of these words is concerned with two
subjects : —

(a) The meaning of 'This is my body.' The
word ' this ' is the subject of the sentence.
Viewed in connexion with the introductory words
' took bread,' ' He brake it and said,' it cannot

LORD'S SUPPER

reasonably be understood to denote bread in
general or anything else except the actual pieces
of bread which our Lord gave as He spoke. The
word ' is ' is the logical copula between the subject
'this' and the predicate 'my body.' In the
Aramaic sentence which our Lord spoke, the pre-
dication was probably expressed simply by the
juxtaposition of the subject and the predicate
without any copula. Either the Greek copula, as
used in the record which we possess, or the
juxtaposition in the Aramaic sentence which it
probably represents, denotes that the subject
(' this,' i.e. the bread which our Lord gave to His
disciples) and the predicate ('my body ') are viewed
as identical. The interpretation of the sentence
then depends on the sense in which the word
' body ' is to be understood. It must be remem-
bered that (a) the idea of communion with God
by means of a sacred meal was familiar, as in
many religious rites outside Judaism, so also in
the literature and the religion which were well
known to the disciples, as shown in the Levitical
peace-offerings with the threefold division into the
portion for God, the jjortion for the priest, and the
portion for the worshipper (Lv 3 1"^^-'^) ; the bread
and wine brought forth by Melchizedek, the ' priest
of God Most High ' (Gn 14i8) ; the eating of the
lamb in the Passover (Ex 12) ; the meal of Moses
and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders in the presence of God (Ex 24^"") ; the pro-
phecy by Isaiah of the feast to be made by the
Lord of hosts (Is 25^) ; and the invitations to a
meal evidently of profound spiritual significance
given by the personified ' Wisdom ' of the Sapien-
tial books (Pr 9l-^ Sir 24i9-2i). (/3) This idea had
been emphasized in our Lord's ministry in the
P'eeding of the Five thousand and the subsequent
discourse, and the disciples had been taught that
in eating His flesh and drinking His blood they
would have participation in Divine life (Jn 6^^"^').
(7) There is nothing to indicate that the word
' body ' is used in any unreal or metaphorical sense,
and the added words, ' which is for you,' alluding
to the sacrificial efficacy of our Lord's body, appear
to identify that which is spoken of with His actual
body. (5) The close connexion of the words ' The
Spirit is the life-giver ; the flesh profiteth nothing '
(6"^) with the teaching about eating the flesh of
the Son of Man and drinking His blood, suggests
that in the rite which our Lord was instituting
there would be the operation of the Holy Ghost
and a work of spiritual efficacy, (e) However
accomplished at the Institution, as in the parallel
instances of anticipation in the walking of our
Lord on the water and His Transfiguration during
the days of His humiliation, the gift contemplated
in the rite instituted must be viewed in the light
of the spiritual nature and powers of the risen
body of Christ, (f) The assertion of this spiritual
aspect of the body denoted is confirmed when the
language in which St. Paul describes Christians as
' the body of Christ ' (1 Co 12-^) is compared ; but
this comparison woixld be pushed beyond its proper
force if it were held to imply that the meaning in
the two imssages is the same, since in St. Paul's
teaching the gift in Baptism, which makes men
'the body of Christ' (12^3)^ jg ^ot identified with
the gift in the Holy Communion. The exegesis of
this part of our Lord's words at the Institution,
then, as recorded by St. Paul, indicates that the
gift in the Eucharist is the spiritual food of the
risen and ascended body of our Lord. The same
method of exegesis involves a similar interpreta-
tion of the words ' in my blood,' though, in view
of the spiritual nature of the risen body, it is
impossible to luake a sharp severance between the
body and the blood.

That this line of exegesis, which is that which

is naturally deduced from the study of the Holy
Scripture by itself, is right is strongly confirmed
by the traditional interpretation in the Church
from St. Ignatius onwards.

Other interpretations are (1) that the words ' this
is my body ' mean, ' This conveys the efficacy of
my body but is not my body ' ; (2) that they mean,
' This represents my body but is not my body. '
Both of these interpretations are vitally distin-
guished from that which has here been adojjted,
namely, ' This not only represents my body and
conveys its efficacy, but also is my body.' To
adopt either of them involves putting aside the
cumulative argument which has already been
briefly detailed ; the main argument by which
they have been sujjported is the supposed merely
metaphorical character of certain phrases, alleged
to be parallel, in which our Lord described Himself
as 'the bread of life' (Jn 6^^. «. 48)^ . ^jig \\yyng
bread ' {&>^), ' the light of the world' (S^- D^), ' the
door of the sheep' (lO''-^), 'the good shepherd'
(10"-"), 'the way' (W), 'the true vine' (W-'->).
In regard to these phrases it must be observed that
(I) neither the phrases themselves nor the circum-
stances in which they were used were really parallel
to the words and circumstances at the Institution ;
and (2) the phrases in question are as a matter of
fact very far from being simply metaphorical. In
each of them an actual fact about Christ is set
forth. Christ in spiritual reality feeds Chris-
tians, and gives them light, and admits them
into the Church, and tends them, and afibrds
them access to the P'ather, and unites them in
Himself. Similarly, in spiritual reality the bread
which He gives in the Holy Communion is His
body.

(b) The meaning of ' This cup is the new cove-
nant ' ; ' this do, as oft as ye drink it, as my
memorial.' The interpretation of these sentences
turns on three words: (i.) 'covenant,' (ii.) 'do,'
(iii. ) ' memorial.'

(i.) The sentence ' This cup is the new covenant in
my blood,' while recalling the phraseology and pro-
mise of Jer 3pi'^, inevitably suggests a comparison
with Ex 24'"'!. The making of a covenant between
the Lord and Israel is there described. A sacrifice
was offered by the slaughter of oxen and the S2)rink-
ling of part of the blood of the victims on the
altar. After the reading of the book of the cove-
nant in the audience of the people by Moses, and
their promise to be obedient to all that the Lord
had thus spoken, the rest of the blood was
sprinkled by Moses on the peojjle with the words,
' Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord
hath made with you concerning all these words.'
The sacrifice was consummated, and the covenant
completed, by the sacred meal wherein ' the nobles
of the children of Israel ' ' beheld God, and did eat
and drink.' The analogy between this series of
actions and the Eucharist which the words ' This
is the new covenant in my blood ' suggest, is
worked out with some detail in He 9'^'-**. The
death of Christ and His entrance into heaven with
His own blood are there represented as the high-
]3riestly actions of which the slaughter of the
beasts and the sprinkling of their blood in the
Mosaic sacrifices, alike in the covenant of Ex 24^"'i
and in the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement in
Ex 30^", Lv 16, were an anticipation. The words
' This is the new covenant in my blood ' thus bring
the Phicharist into close connexion with the high-
priestly work wherein Christ ottered Himself a
sacrifice in His death on the cross, and His entrance
into heaven at the Ascension. They denote that
the gift by Christ of His body and blood, and the
recejition of these by Christians, are the means of
a covenant relation in the sacrificial action ; and
that Christians by participating in this rite are in

LORD'S SUPPER

contact with the death of Christ and His high-
priestly acts in heaven.

(ii. ) The command ' this do ' conveys the injunc-
tion for the perpetuation of the rite instituted by
our Lord in the Church. It has been much dis-
cussed whether the word ' do ' {iroieiTe) suggests
sacriticial associations. The truth appears to be
that in itself ttol^o} is simply negative as to this
point. Apart from other indications of sacrifice, it
would not suggest any such thing, since in the very
large number of instances in which it is used in
LXX and NT it is in a merely general sense. In a
sacriticial context, however, like the Heb. n\^'i!, it
acquires the idea of ' sacrifice ' or ' offer,' as, e.g.
in Ex 29='9, Lv 9^ Ps 6Q^^, where rT-^'D (LXX ;roie'w) 'is
rightly translated ' otier ' in AV and RV. In NT
cf. Lk 2-^. In this possibility of a special use, side
by side with the ordinary use, iroieco is not greatly
dissimilar from the Shakspearian use of ' do,' by
which ' do ' constantly has its ordinary general
sense, but in a sacrificial context in Jul. Cces. II.
ii. 5 acquires the sense ' offer ' ( ' Bid the priests do
present sacrifice,' i.e. ' offer sacrifice immediately').
Consequently, the word ' do,' as used by our Lord
at the Institution, is in itself Avholly negative,
and does not suggest or deny the idea of sacri-
fice. In relation to the context, however, it will
be held to be appropriate or inapprojiriate to the
idea of sacrihce according as the suggestion of
sacrifice is recognized or ignored in the general
surroundings of the Last Supper and in the words
' covenant ' and ' memorial.'

(iii.) The primary thought suggested in the word
' memorial ' (d.vdfj.i'Tjcns) is that of a memorial before
God, though without excluding the idea of a
memento to man. It occurs five times in the LXX,
namely in Lv 24^ Nu lO^", Ps 37^ ( = Heb. 38') 69i
( = Heb. 70^), Wis le**. In Wis 16« it denotes a
reminder to man ; in the other four passages it
denotes a memorial before God. The only place in
NT where it occurs besides 1 Co ip^-^s^ a,nd the
same phrase in Lk 22^'*, is He 10', where it refers
to the remembrance of sins in the Jewish sacri-
fices. When all the circumstances are taken into
account, the thought most naturally suggested is
that of a memorial of Christ presented by Chris-
tians before the Father, which is at the same time
a memento to themselves. If so, the idea differs
little from that way of regarding the Eucharist in
much Greek theology, whereby it is viewed as the
act in which the Church remembers Christ and in
remembering Him makes the memorial of Him
before the Fathei-. In the sentences ' This cup is
the new covenant in my blood : this do, as oft as
ye drink it, as my memorial,' then, our Lord
associated with the command for the observance of
the rite which He instituted, indications that by
means of it Christians would have access to His
high-priestly work on the cross and in heaven, and
would possess a memorial before God and a
memento to themselves.

(2) Mk 14-2"-^. As here recorded, our Lord's
words at the Institution were : ' Take ye : this is
my body ' ; ' this is my blood of the covenant, which
is poured out for many. Verily I say unto you, I
will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until
that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of
God.' The words in connexion with the species of
bread are the same as those in 1 Co IP^, already
discussed, and do not need further comment, except
to notice that Mark does not add ' which is for
you : this do as my memorial.' In connexion with
the cup Mark differs from 1 Cor. in that ( I ) he has
_' this is my blood of the covenant ' instead of ' this
is the new covenant in my blood ' ; (2) he omits
' this do, as oft as ye drink it, as my memorial ' ;
(3) he adds ' which is poured out for many ' ; (4) he
adds ' Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink

of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I
drink it new in the kingdom of God.' As to these
differences, it may be noticed : (a) The blood in
Clark's phrase is described as being Christ's and
as being ' of the covenant,' i.e. it is Christ's
because it is the blood which He personally took
in the Incarnation, and it is ' of the covenant '
because by means of it the covenant between God
and man which Christ makes is ratified and sealed.
(I'onsequently the meaning of the expression is not
substantially different from that used by St. Paul
in 1 Co 11-^ ; (^) the consideration of the omission
of ' which is for you : this do as my memorial,'
' this do, as oft as ye drink it, as my memorial,'
does not belong to this section of the article ; (7)
the words 'for many,' i.e. 'on behalf of many'
{inrep Tro\\u>u), indicate the sacrificial and expiatory
power of Christ's blood. Similarly the words
' which is poured out ' (t6 iKxwvbfxivov) are con-
nected with the sacrifice of His blood. In the
LXX iKxi<d is often used both of the shedding of
blood in slaughter and of the jjouring out ot the
blood of slain victims at the altar. Instances of
the latter use are Ex 2912, Lv 4P' i«- ^s- so. 34 §15 99 . ^,f j k
( = 1 S) 7^. The close connexion with the word
' covenant ' in Mk 14'-^, and the general sacrificial
surroundings, give strong probability that the
meaning here is 'poured out' rather than 'shed,'
and that the sense is ' this is my blood,' ' which is
sacrificially poured out,' as in the Jewish sacrifices
the blood of the slain victim was poured out as the
culmination of the sacrifice ; (5) like much else in
the Gospels, the words ' when I drink it new in
the kingdom of God ' apjjear to have a twofold
reference. They refer in part to Christian Euchar-
ists ; the ' kingdom of God ' is the Christian
Church ; the drinking ' new ' is in the ' new cove-
nant ' of 1 Co 1 1-^ ; thus is denoted the fellowship
between Christ and His people in the Eucharistic
feast. In a further sense they refer to the
'marriage supper of the Lamb' (Rev 19^); the
' kingdom of God ' is the consummated Kingdom
of glory ; the drinking ' new ' is in tliat state in
which ' all things ' are made ' new ' (Rev 2P), new-
ness being a characteristic feature of the future as
well as of the present Christian life. See art.
Covenant.

(3) Mt 26-''- 29. As here recorded, our Lord's
words were : ' Take, eat, this is my body ' ; ' Drink
ye all of it ; for this is my blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many unto remission of
sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink hence-
forth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when
I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.'
There is little here different from Mark's account
which calls for comment : (a) ' unto remission of
sins ' is added to ' poured out,' specifying dis-
tinctly the object of the sacrificial offering of our
Lord's blood ; (/3) the words ' with you ' are added
in the description of the future ' new ' drinking of
' this fruit of the vine ' ; (7) the phrase ' my
Father's kingdom ' is used instead of ' the kingdom
of God,' both phrases alike being descriptive of
both the Christian Church and the future perfected
Kingdom.

(4) Lk 22"--''. The account here given is as
follows : ' When the hour was come, he sat down,
and the apostles with him. And he said unto
them. With desire I have desired to eat this
passover with you before I suffer : for I say unto
you, I will not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the
kingdom of God. And he received a cup, and
when he had given thanks, he said, Take this,
and divide it among yourselves ; for I say unto
you, I will not drink from henceforth of the
fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall
come. And he took bread, and when he had
given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them.

LORD'S SUPPER

saying, This is my body which is given for you ;
tliis do for my memorial. And the cup in like
manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new
covenant in my blood, even that which is poured
out for you.' From the point of view of exegesis,
this account of the Institution does not need
further comment than what has already been said
in connexion with the accounts in 1 Cor., Mk., Mt.
From other points of \iew it would be necessary to
discuss (1) the cup which our Lord ' received ' (5efd-
fxevos) before He ' took bread ' (\apwv &prov) ; and
(2) the shorter reading of the text according to
wliich some authorities omit from ' which is given
for you ' to ' which is poured out for you.'

3. Pauline teaching.— (1) 1 Co lO'^-^i. ' The cup
of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion
of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break,
is it not a communion of the body of Christ?
seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one
body : for we all partake of the one bread. Be-
hold Israel after the flesh : have not they which
eat the sacrifices communion with the altar ? What
say I then ? that a thing sacrihced to idols is any-
thing, or that an idol is anything ? But I say, that
the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice
to demons, and not to God ; and I would not that
ye should iiave communion with demons. Ye cannot
drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons ;
ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of
the table of demons.' The following points here
call for comment : (a) St. Paul describes the ' bread'
and the ' cup ' as being the means by which Chris-
tians participate in the ' body of Christ ' and the
' blood of Christ ' ; (j3) there is nothing to suggest
that the phrases ' body of Chi'ist ' and ' blood of
Christ' are used in any other sense than that in
which they would ordinarily be understood ; (7)
the phrases ' which we break,' ' of blessing which
we bless,' seem to connect the efficacy of the ele-
ments as means of conveying the body and blood
of Christ with the consecration of them, not
simply with their reception ; (5) this participation
by Christians in ' the one bread ' is a means of
their unity, so that they are ' one bread, one body ' ;
(e) this description of the ' bread ' and the ' cup ' as
the ' body of Christ ' and the ' blood of Christ '
must be compared with St. Paul's description else-
where of Christians being made by means of bap-
tism the body of Christ (see 1 Co 12i2- is- ^, Eph 53«) ;
Cc) the communion of Christians is analogous to
the Jewish sacrifices and to the sacrifices of the
Gentiles. As the object of the Jewish sacrifices
was to hold communion with God, and as the
oliject of the Gentile sacrifices was to hold com-
munion with the false gods who are more properly
regarded as demons, so also the Christian feast
aims at communion with Christ.

(2) 1 Co ir-6-29_ i^s often as ye eat this bread,
and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death
till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat the
bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the
Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let
him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For
he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh
judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.'
(a) Christian communion is here declared to be a
proclamation of the death of the Lord, a setting
forth of it so that it may not be forgotten between
the time of His visible departure from the earth
and the time of His return. So far as the indica-
tions of a sacrificial aspect which have already
been noticed are held to be of weight, this pro-
clamation may be regarded in a double manner as
a memory among Christians and as a memorial
before God. (/3) Tiie reception of communion
unworthily is said to be an oflence of so great
gravity as to make the ofiender 'guilty of the

body and the blood of the Lord,' so that his com-
munion is an act of judgment upon himself in lug
failure to discern or appreciate or estimate the
significance of the Lord's body.

(3) 1 Co 121*. i -yYg ^vere all made to drink of one
Spirit.' This probably refers to the gift of the
Holy Ghost in Baptism, though the use of the word
'drink ' has led some to refer it to such a gift in
Communion.

i. He 13**'^^. — The starting-point in this passage
is the assertion in v.* of the unchangeableness of
Christ : ' Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and
to-day, yea and for ever.' From this is derived the
thought of v.", that since Christ, the centre of
Christian life, is unchangeable. Christian belief
must have stability and consistency. Hence ' divers
and strange teachings,' such as those in Judaistic
forms of Christianity, and the externalities to
which Judaizing teachers would have led Chris-
tians, are to be avoided ; and the power that
stablishes the heart is to be sought in Divine
grace. This contrast leads on to v.i", the point of
which is to emphasize the sharp line which divides
Christianity from Judaism ; since Christians ' have
an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which
serve the tabernacle.' Vv."- 1" pass on to the like-
ness between the Jewish sacrifices and the sacri-
fice of Christ, in that in the former bodies were
' burned without the camp,' and in the latter
Christ ' suflered without the gate.' V.'^ notes the
conclusion from the sacrifice of Christ that it is
right for Christians to abandon what is distinct-
ively Jewish. V." takes up the frequently-implied
thought of this Epistle, that the old covenant is
earthly, and that the new covenant, both now on
earth and in its future perfection, is iieavenly.
The Christian gets beyond the old earthly cove-
nant. He reaches the new heavenly covenant in
the city of the living God, Avhicli on earth he does
not realize as an abiding possession, though even
now he has the life of Christ which makes his
citizenship, and through which he is eventually to
reach perfect holiness and fruition of God. Vv.i®- 1"
point out that through Christ Christians can oft'er
up to God a ' sacrifice of praise,' and that with
this are to be as.sociated the ' sacrifices ' of doing
good and communicating, with which 'God is well
pleased.' These two verses, then, describe the
worship and life of Christians as being a sacrificial
ottering to God. The Epistle as a whole regards
the heavenly centre of this earthly worship and
life as being the high-priestly work of our Lord in
heaven. If the 'altar' mentioned in v.i" is the
altar of the Eucharist, this implies that the earthly
centre of the sacrificial worship and life of Chris-
tians is in the Eucharist. This would be in
harmony with the traditional Christian view of the
Eucharist as the means whereby Christians enter
into and partake of the heavenly ottering of Christ.
The interpretations of the word ' altar ' which need
be mentioned are that it denotes (1) Christ Himself,
(2) the cross of Christ, (3) the altar of the Christian
Church. Any one of these three interpretations
would give a good meaning to the verse. It might
be truly said that the Jews have no participation
in Christ, or in His cross, or in the Christian altar.
But the use of the word ' eat ' makes it difficult
to suppose that a reference to the Eucharist was
not at any rate included by the writer. Thus
there is the idea of the priesthood of Christ as an
abiding priesthood, and the sacrifice of Christ as
an abiding and continually pleaded sacrifice in
heaven, and of the Eucharist as the means of enter-
ing into and pleading that heavenly sacrifice on
earth, and as the earthly centre of the sacrificial
worship and life of Christians.

5. Rev 5". — 'A lamb standing as slain.' The
ottering of our Lord's living ('standing') created

human nature ('lamb'), which had passed through
death (' as slain '), is here represented as the centre of
the heavenly worship. This passage, therefore, has
an indirect relation to the Eucharist as the corre-
sponding earthly centre (see above on He IS^''*^).

6. Summary. — The results of the exegesis of the
NT passages relating to the Eucharist may be
summed up as follows : (1) In the reception of Holy
Communion there is a gift of Christ's body and
blood to sustain and increase His life in those who
receive it. (2) The consecrated elements are the
spiritual body and blood of the risen and ascended
Christ. (3) Those who receive the communion grow
thereby in that living union with Christ which their
baptism conferred. (4) The feast of communion is
also a sacrificial presentation of Christ. (5) It is
important to observe that the tradition found in the
teaching of the writers of the Church corroborates
what is thus seen to be taught in the NT.

Literature.— Frankland, The Earhi Eucharist; Gore, The
Body of Christ ; .Strong, The Doctrine of the Real Presence ;
Stone, The Holy Communion ; Thomas, A Sacrament of our
Redemption ; Adamson, The Christian Doctrine of the Lord's
Shipper ; Lambert, The Sacraments in the NT ; Franzelin,
Tract, de SS. Eucharistice Sacramento et Sacrifieio, pp. 12-74,
356-363 ; Lobstein, La doctrine deja sainte c^ne ; Schiiltzen,
Das Abendmahl itn NT ; Batiffol, Etudes d'histoire et de theo-
logie positive, 7i6me sdrie ; Abbott, Essai/s chiefly on the Ori-
ginal Texts of the OT and NT, pp. 110-128, also A Reply to
Mr. Supple's and Other Criticisms ; Alford on Mt 26^6, 1 Co
101857, and He IS" ; Comely on 1 Co 1015 22 and 1123-32;
EUicott on 1 Co IQiB-iS and 1123-32 ; Evans on 1 Co IQie-is and
1124-31 ; Plummer on Lk 2219. 20 (ICC), and in Hastingrs' DB
iii. 148-150: Sanday, ib. ii. 636-638 { = Outlines of the Life of
Christ, pp. 157-169); Swete on Mk 1422-24; vVestcott on'jn 6
and He 13 W ; Wordsworth on Mt 2626-23 and Jn 651-56.

Darwell Stone.

LOST. — The word ' lost ' has come to be invested
with a sinister theological significance. A moral
sense hopelessly degraded, a sullen abandonment
to evil, a persistent closing of the heart, and a
future determined beyond the possibility of altera-
tion — are some of the ideas which it compels in the
mind. As it fell from Christ's lips, however, tlie
word did not, as a rule, convey any such harsh
suggestions. It was rather a word of infinite
pathos and of Divine pity. Used in its Middle
voice, the verb dir6\\v/j.i denotes irretrievable ruin,
as in the great text, Jn 3^^ (cf. also 17^^ ' None of
them is lost, but the son of perdition ' ; see JUDAS
IsCARlOT) ; but as a participle used passively, the
form in which we find it in Lk 19^", and in the
group of i^arables in Lk 15, which bear especially
on this subject, it signifies simply a condition of
l^eril, grave, yet with the glad prosjiect of recovery.

What moral condition of humanity is meant by
the word ' lost ' appears from the character of those
to whom Jesus directed His message. Broadly
speaking, the society of His day was split up into
two classes. There were those who, with the
advantage of wealth, or, if wealth were denied
them, with praiseworthy self-denial, contrived to
satisfy the demands of the Law ; and, on a plat-
form infinitely loAver, stood those wlio had neither
the will nor the means to bear so heavy and so
doleful a burden. These latter comprised the
sinners, the lapsed, and those recreant Jews who
so far forgot themselves as to take service under
the conquering Power. They had no share in
Israel's hopes ; they had ceased to cherish the
ideals of the race. It was precisely to this class,
called by the Phai'isees in a bitter hour 'an
accursed multitude which knoweth not the law '
(Jn 7'*^), that Christ mainly appealed. He ate
and drank with them : He made the conditions of
entrance to His Kingdom such as were possible for
them all. With a profound sense of what they
had missed in life, He summed up their imper-
fections under this term, 'the lost.' Reviving a
beautiful ( )T figure. He compared them with sheep
that had gone asti'ay. If the reality of the case

demanded sterner language. His supreme pity
covered that fact from His eyes. They were
simply ' lost ' ; and the word, sorrowful as it was,
yet with a ring of hope in it, expressed, while at
the same time it concealed, the heinousness of their
sin. It was a moral condition full of danger, be-
cause they acquiesced in it, and were in some
measure content to abide under the shadow of the
contempt of their fellow-men. It was a condition
full of hope, because it was due partly to circum-
stances that were invincibly against them, and
partly to a merely thoughtless divergence from the
true way of liuman life.

But the delicate shades of meaning which Christ
imparted to the word may best be appreciated
from its use in the trilogy of parables in Lk 15.
From them we learn that, however sinister may
be the suggestions which the word carries to our
minds, it did not, as employed by Christ, indicate
any supreme or singular degree of vice. To be
lost was to wander, aimlessly and thoughtlessly,
or in wantonness and self-will. It Avas to live in
vain, as a coin that lies hidden among the dust ; to
turn aside from life's true way, and therefore miss
life s true end. There is a suggestion in the term
of the lost ideals that one used to hold, and of the
forlornness of the mind from which those ideals
have fled. There is a hint of the entanglement of
the wandering soul in influences that hold it back
from safety. There is the generous implication
that sin is always in a greater or less degree the
result of ignorance, of a thoughtless and wild pur-
suit after unknown pleasures into unknown paths,
until the true path is lost to view, and the unhappy
wanderer does not know where it lies. The term
leaves also upon the mind the impression that to
be lost one does not need to wander far. A man
need step but a little way aside to find himself
among circumstances that stand up about him and
shut out the light, and then, equally with liim
whose ' feet stumble on the dark mountains,' lie is
lost. But the singular and appropriate beauty of
the idea lies in the prospect of recovery which it
implies. Whatever is lost may be found, if in its
ignorance it cannot find itself. It may be found
by him who has lost it, and whose heart, tortured
by anxiety and thrilled with exquisite devotion,
will carry him in his search over difficult and
perilous roads.

Literature. — Cremer, Bib.-Theol. Lex. s.v. xtoWu/m ; Bruce,
Parah. Teach, of Christ, 261, 293, Gal. Gospel, ch. vii. ; H. E.
Manning, Teaching of Christ, 105 ; A. Maclaren, Beatitudes,
243 ; Stopford A. Brooke, Unity of God and Man, 34 ; C. H.
Spurgeon, Parables of our Lord, Nos. 57, 58, 59 ; F. W. Robert-
jon, Sermons, ii. 190 ; G. S. Barrett, Intermediate State, 187.

A. G. Campbell.

LOT. — The suddenness of the Divine Parousia
and the unpreparedness and want of expectation
on the part of the world, find illustration from ' the
days of Lot' (Lk 17-^), when the people of Sodom
continued their social and commercial activity
until ' the d.iy that Lot went out ' (v."^).

Lot's wife — to whom in Jewish tradition the
name nny Edith is given — is recorded in Gn 19 to
have been turned into a pillar of salt as a result of
her looking back upon Sodom while escaping to
the mountain. Her fate, as one failing to escape
imminent and foretold destruction, is referred to
in Lk 17^", though without specific mention of the
form in which destruction overtook her.

Our Lord's Avord ' Remember' neither confirms nor
rejects the tradition. It is with the spiritual fact
and its lesson, not with the memorial, that He is
concerned. The folly of unreadiness, of the long-
ing for things left behind, of the desire to retain a
transient little in the face of impending judgment
and at the cost of a greater and eternal loss, is the
lesson He would teach in connexion with His
Parousia, from the remembrance of Lot's wife.

Literature. — Hastings' DB, Smith's DB, Encyc. BibL,
Kltto's Eticyc., Jewish Encyc. s.v. ; G. A. Smith, HGHL
p. 505 ; Jos. A7it. i. xi. 4 ; Jon. Edwards, Works [ed. 1840], ii.
64 ; Oomm., esp. Driver on Genesis ; and the following ex-
pository sermons, J. A. Alexander, Gospel of Jesus Christ,
88 ; H. E. Manning, Teaching of Christ, 38 ; F. Temple, Rugby
Sermons, ii. 312 ; S. Cox, Expositions, iv. 280 ; B. Herford,
Courage and Cheer, 79,; G. Matheson, Representative Men of
the Bible, ii. 22 ; A. Whyte, Bible Characters, i. 129.

J. T. L. Maggs.

LOTS (Casting of) (\a7X(i»'w, KKrjpov ^aWeiv). —
Among the Jews the lot was in frequent use (see
Hastings' DB, art. ' Lots '). It was the recog-
nized method by which the order of service and
most of the individual duties of the priesthood
were determined. The order of the 24 ' courses '
or priestly families was arranged by lot. The
'course' to which Zacharias (Lk l^-^) belonged was
that of Abijah, which stood eighth on the list
( 1 Ch 24i'i^). Each family or ' course ' was on
duty for a week, from one Sabbath to another,
twice a year (2 K 11"). The priests from whom
the officiating ministers for the service of the day
{ecprj/xepia) were to be chosen, ha-, to present them-
selves 'washed' (Ex 40'^"'^) before the officer who
had special charge of the lots. The lots were cast
in the ' Hall of Hewn Polished Stones ' in the
Temple. The distribution of duties for a day
among the pr'ests required that the lot should be
cast four times. The priest who had to offer
incense was chosen by the third lot. This duty
was regarded as one of special honour, and the lot
by which it was assigned was cast after prayer and
confession. The decision was accepted as indicat-
ing the man whom God had chosen to offer the
prayers of the people. The third of April or the
Krst week of October is by some reckoned as the
time when Zacharias was appointed to offer incense
(Lk P). It may have been at the morning or the
evening service.

At the Crucifixion the soldiers cast lots for the
clothes of Jesus. As they were divided into ' four
parts, to every soldier a part ' ( Jn 19-^), it was evi-
dently a quaternion of soldiers that was on duty.
The Synoptists simply record the parting of the
garments by lot (Mt 27^^ Mk 15^^, Lk 23^*). In
Jn. special reference is made to His 'coat.' It is
impossible to say whether the ' coat ' was added to
one of the four parts, or if a separate lot was cast
for it. The precision and detail of the narrative in
Jn. have been regarded as proofs that the Fourth
Evangelist was an eye-witness of the things which
he records. In the casting of the lot for the ' coat '
he saw the fulfilment of one of the predicted woes
of the Messiah (Ps 22^^). The quotation is in the
exact words of the LXX. Critical editions of the
NT omit the quotation in Matthew.

Tliere is no indication as to the particular method
by which the lot was cast in tlie two incidents in
wliich it is employed in the Gospels.

It may be noted under this heading that the
idea of the lot as giving expression to the Divine
will runs through all the words which relate to
inheritance {K\T]pov6/xew, -ofila, -oi'6/xos). With this
fundamental significance all such words become
part of the language of grace. The right of in-
heritance in the Kingdom of God, or to eternal life,
does not spring from legal enactment or personal
merit, but from the will of God.

Literature. — Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah, i. 133-187, ii. 592 f. ; Jos. Ant. vii. xiv. 7 ; Godet on
Luke, vol. i. 71 ; Muirhead, Times of Christ, p. 79 ; Godet on
John, vol. iii. 266. See also art. Chance.

John Reid.
LOVE. — In the Avord 'love' is concentrated, we
may say, tlie essence of tlie Cliristian religion.
It IS love that is tlie outstanding feature in the
revelation Christ has given us of the nature of
God, love that is tlie controlling power in the life
of the Son who claimed that he that had seen Him

had seen the Father (Jn 14"). On the two com-
mandments to love God and to love our neighbour,
Christ declares that all the Law and the Prophets
hang (Mt 22'*''). In the commandment to love one
another as He has loved them. He sums up the
new law which He lays upon His disciples, de-
claring that by their fulfilment of it the faithful-
ness of their discipleship shall be known (Jn 13^').
We propose to exhibit from different points of view
the place which love holds in the doctrine of Christ.

1. The love of God for man. — It is certainly
true, as has been pointed out, that Christ does not,
in the Synoptic Gospels, speak directly of the love
{dyawT]) of God. But if He does not thus expressly
predicate love of God, it is because He has already
endowed Him, as subject, with this love in tlie
highest degree. The doctrine of the Fatherhood
of God, which is the foundation of the whole gospel
of Christ, contains witliin it the fullest recognition
of tlie love of God. If the Apostolic writers of the
NT expand with greater fulness the doctrine of
the Divine love, they are only making explicit the
truth involved in the assurance of the Fatherhood
of God set forth on every page of the Synojjtic
Gospels. The God whose love is the constant
theme of St. Paul's preaching is the Father-God
of Jesus Clirist (so H. Holtzmann interprets the
Pauline formula 6 debs Kal Trarrjp tov Kvpiou ■rjfj.Qiv
'Irjcrov XpiffTov, Ncutest. Theol. i. 171). In the one
word ' Abba,' which Christian lips have learned to
repeat after the Master, there lies to St. Paul the
assurance of the Divine love which can banish tlie
old feeling of bondage and inspire the spirit of
adoption (Ro 8^^). The Johannine doctrine that
God is love ( 1 Jn 4^) is but the statement in abstract
terms of the truth to which Christ has given con-
crete exjiression in the doctrine of the Fatlierhood
of God. For it is the love of God that Christ will
express by this name which is so constantly on His
lips. He speaks of God not only as His own
Father ('My Father'), or as the Father of those
who are members of the Kingdom of God ('your
Father'), but as 'the Father' absolutely (Mt IP",
Mk 13^^ Lk W% The title suggests more than
the relation in which God stands to mankind as
their Creator. In Mt 5^*-^^ Christ urges His hearers
to become God's sons by showing a love like to
that of their Father in heaven, ' for he maketh his
sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth
rain on the just and on the unjust.' Did Father-
hood mean merely Creatorship, there could be no
question of becoming the sons of God. All men
are God's creatures. The fact that Christ speaks
of our becoming God's sons, proves that He is
using the terms ' Father' and 'sons' in an ethical
sense. By Fatherhood He indicates the love whicli
God cherishes for men, by sonship the love by
which they may prove themselves like in character
to this Father whose nature is love. This love
suggested by the name ' Father ' is the very essence
of the Divine nature. It is not merely one among
the various attributes of God. It is the supreme
and dominating element in the Divine character.
It is in it that the Divine perfection lies ; and when
Christ urges us to be perfect as our Father in
heaven is perfect (Mt 5**^), it is evident from tlie
context that it is of the love of God that He is
thinking, a fact recognized by Lk., who substitutes
' merciful ' for the ' perfect ' of Mt.'s version (Lk 6^").

This love of the Father in heaven is the founda-
tion upon which the gospel of Christ rests. It is
all-embracing. God is the F'ather not only of
those who are members of the Kingdom of God,
i.e. of those who by the love which animates them
prove themselves to be His sons (Mt b*^), but of all
men. The evil as well as the good, the unjust as
well as the just, are the objects of His love [ib.]-,
and if the facts to which Christ refers, in this

LOVE

connexion, in proof of the universality of the
Father's love, do not go beyond such natural bless-
ings as the sunshine and the rain, that is ex-
plained on the ground that these blessings require
for their appreciation no special receptivity on the
part of those who enjoy them (Beyschlag, Ncutcst.
Theol. i. 81). The Father cares for all. Each
individual is precious in His sight. ' It is not the
will of your Father which is in heaven, that one
of these little ones should j)erisir (^It 18^^). The
very hairs of our head are all numbered (10^").
There is joy in heaven over one sinner that
repenteth (Lk 15'- ^*'). In the fact of God's Father-
iiood there lies the assurance that He will cer-
tainly give good tilings to them that ask (Mt 7^^
18'-'), and that He will welcome the penitent
sinner who turns to Him (Lk 15^^"^-). It is the
Father's good pleasure, Christ assures us, to give
us tlie Kingdom (12^-), that greatest of all blessings,
to obtain which a man might Avell be willing to
sacrilice everything else (Mt IS^"*"^^) ; and with it
He gives us all such material blessings as He sees
to be necessary for us (Lk 12^^ Mt 6^^). When we
thus gather together the various utterances of
Christ with regard to the God whom He reveals
to us as Father, when we think of the assurance
that name breathes of bountiful providence, of
watchful care, of forgiving love, when we remem-
ber, above all, how Christ points to the Father's
unfailing goodness towards the undeserving as an
instance of the Divine perfection, we must confess
that though the Synoptic Gospels contain no direct
mention of the love of God, the Being whose char-
acter the Saviour seeks to reveal to us by that
name ' Father ' is one whose very natvire is love.

In the Fourth Gospel it is the same representa-
tion of tlie nature of God that meets us. Here,
too, ' Father ' is the favourite designation. It has
been questioned, indeed, whether the title 'Father'
has the same significance in the Fourth Gospel as
in the Synoptics. H. Holtzmann {Neutcst. Theol.
ii. 433 f . ) maintains that in the constantly recur-
ring designation of God as ' the Father ' there is
always either an express or a tacit reference to the
Son. [For a full discussion of the use of the word
' Father ' in St. Jolm, see Westcott, The Epistles
of St. John, pp. 29-34]. But there are occasions
on which we feel that the title is used in a manner
which suggests a reflexion on the love of God quite
in tlie manner of the Synoptics, as when Christ says
to the disciples that whatever they shall ask the
Father in His name He will give (15^^ 16"^), or when
He tells them that He does not say that He will
pray the Father for them, for the Father Himself
loveth them (IG-"^-)- And in any case the question
of the signihcance attaching to the title ' Father '
in the Fourth Gospel is of minor interest in our
present inquiry, since that Gospel contains many
express declarations of the love of God, the ab-
sence of which makes the question of the signi-
ficance of that title in the Synoptics matter of
importance. These express references to the love
of God in the Fourth Gospel occur specially in
connexion with that aspect of the Divine love
which we proceed to consider under the following
head.

2. The love of God for man as manifested in
Christ.— The highest proof of the Father's love is
given in the mission and Person of the Son. This
aspect of the Divine love, which is emphasized in
the Fourth Gospel, is not unknown in the Synoptics,
though it is rather implied than expressed. If the
love of the Father is manifested in the bestowal of
the Messianic Kingdom (Lk 12^-), that Kingdom
which has been prepared for His children from the
foundation of the world (Mt 25^^), and which is now
about to come with power (INIk 9^), then the send-
ing of the Son (Mt 10^» 2137) to inaugurate the

Kingdom must in itself be an evidence of the love
of God. All things are delivered unto the Son of
the Father, and He alone can reveal the Father to
man (Mt 11-', Lk 10-'-). And this revelation is not
conflned to His preaching. It embraces the whole
of His ]\Iessianic work. That work was from be-
ginning to end animated by the spirit of love. He
jjointed to His works of healing as proof that the
Messianic era had arrived (Mt IP 12-*). He de-
scribed His daily work on one occasion as ' casting
out devils and doing cures ' (Lk 13^-). He called to
all who laboured and were heavy laden to come to
Him and He would give them rest (Mt 11-*). As
He had assured men of the forgiving love of God,
so He declared that He came not to call the
righteous but sinners (iNIk 2^'), and on occasion
announced the forgiveness of their sins to those
who approached Him (Mk 2^, Lk 7^''')- His whole
ministry was one continual mission of love, culmin-
ating in the willing sacrihce of His own life as a
ransom for many (Mk 10''^). If we look for the
revelation which the Son gives of the Fatlier, not
only to His preaching but to His Person and work,
then we must admit that that revelation is one
which conhrms at every ])oint the assurance of
God's boundless love for man conveyed by the
gracious title by which Christ designates Him.

But this aspect of the matter is not emphasized
in the Synoptics as it is in the Fourth Gospel.
Here the mission of the only-begotten Son for the
salvation of man is expressly cited as a proof of
the vastness of the love of God (S^'^'-); and what-
ever question there may be as to the metaphysical
relation suggested by that word 'only-begotten,'
there can be none as to the deiith of the love in-
volved in the sacrilice of the Son so designated.
We may note not only the depth but the wideness
of the love here proclaimed. God gives His Son fur
the salvation of the world. This wider outlook in
connexion with the work of Christ is characteristic
of the Fourth Gospel (O. Holtzmann, Johannes-
cvangcUum, 49 f., 80 ff.). Christ is the Saviour of
the world (4^-), the Lamb of God which taketii
away the sin of the world (P**). He speaks to tlie
world (8-^^), gives His flesh for the life of the world
(6^1), is the light of the world (9^ 12^") jnto tiiis
world burdened with sin (1-^) and animated by a
spirit of hostility to Himself (12»i 17^^), God in His
infinite love has sent His Son for its deliverance
(3"). Throughout the whole Gospel there is far
more prominence given than in the Synoptics to
the fact that Christ has been sent by the Father
(537 716 gi6. 28 g^g ) jjg repeatedly refers to Himself
as Him whom the Father hath sent (S^* 6-" lO^" 17^).
He is not come of Himself (7-*), but is come in the
name of His Father (S''^) from whom He lias come
forth (8^2 1627 178) Not q^\j does tiie Son, as in
the Synoptics, claim to reveal the Father as none
other, He asserts that He is in the Father and the
Father in Him (lO^* 14i»-o Vr^-'"^). He and the
Father are one (lO^o 17"). The words that He
speaks have been given Him by His Father (7""
12«f. 1410. 24 i78)_ The works that He does are the
works of His Father who dwelleth in Him (14'").
He that hath seen Him hath seen the P'ather (14^)
As it is love that has inspired the Father in tiie
mission of His Son, so it is love that is the animat-
ing principle in the life of the Son who is one with
the Father — love to the Father on the one hand
(14^1), and love to His own in the world on tlie
other (I31 15"). As the Father has loved Him, so
He has loved His disciples (15"). He sets His love
before them as an example, and bids them love one
another as He has loved them (13^^ 15';). The
highest proof of His love is given in His death
(l6'5 15'=*). The Son lays down His life willingly
in obedience to the commandment of tiie Father
(lO^'f). For this the Father has given the Son (3'«

l5aiKe, if not to be restricted to the giving to the
death, may be taken, in view of S^-*, cf. 12=*^, to
include this reference) ; and the result will be the
consunniiation of the gracious puriiose which ani-
mated the Father in the giving of the Son. The
cross will become the centre of attraction. Through
it Christ will draw all men unto Him (123- gjs ipa^
cf. 10^^^-), and gain the victory over the prince of
this world ( 12=*^. Thus will the love which impelled
the Father to the sacrifice of the Son gain the end
it seeks to attain, man's deliverance from the
destruction which threatens him, and participation
in the blessing of everlasting life (3^^*- 6*").

Such is the aspect under which the love of God is
presented in the Fourth Gospel. It is in the Person
of Christ that we have the full and complete revela-
tion of that love. He is God's love incarnate.
The Prologue gives the keynote to the whole
Gospel. Christ" is the Word become tlesh, the
perfect revelation in human personality of the
Divine natiire. He is the only-begotten Son (or
only-begotten God, if Ave adopt the reading 6e6s
instead of ui6s), who has declared the F'ather to us
{V^). With God in the beginning (v.-). He was
made flesh, and dwelt among us (v."). The glory
that we behold in Him is a full revelation of the
Divine glory, for His relation to the Father is that
of an only son who receives the whole of his father's
inheritance (ib.). And that glory is the glory of
one who reflected in His own person the Divine
love, who was full of (jracc and truth (ib.), and of
whose fulness we have received, in ever increasing
measure, participating in the grace which flowed
from Him.

3. The mutual love of God and Christ.— The
words 'Father' and 'Son' as applied by Christ to
God and man in their relations to one another
have, as we have seen, an ethical significance. It
is by His love that God proves Himself the F'ather.
It is by exhibiting a love like to that which God
displays that man becomes the son of God (Mt 5'^^).
The terms do not lose their ethical content when
used to describe the relation in which God and
Christ stand to one another. The God whom
Christ revealed to men as ' the Father ' He had
known first of all as His own Father. Such He
had felt Him to be from His childhood (Lk 2^9).
So He addressed Him in prayer (Mt 11-^^-, Mk U^s,
Lk 23-*8) ; so He spoke of Him to others (Mt lO^-'-
lp7 igia- 35, Lk 22-«). He knew Himself to be in a
special sense the object of the Divine love. He
had been anointed of the Spirit for the performance
of the work for which He was sent (Mk P", Lk
41'*"^^), and endowed with a power whereby He
might triumph over every hostile influence (Lk 10^^
1 1-"). In a remarkable utterance (Lk 10", Mt 11-^)
Christ describes the intimate relationship in which
the Father and He stand to one another, ' All
things are delivered to me of my F'ather ; and no
man knoweth who the Son is but the Father ;
and who the Father is but the Son, and he to
whom the Son will reveal him.' The mutual know-
ledge which Father and Son have of one another
is based upon that mutual love indicated by the
terms Father and Son. Christ claims to be able
to reveal God in His character of Father (ris eanv
6 iraTTJp) as no one else, for none can have such
knowledge of the Father's love as the Son, who
knows Himself to be in the supreme degree the
object of that love(Mk 1^"), and can say of Himself
that all tilings are delivered unto Him of His
F'ather, i.e. all things necessary for the fulfilment
of the Father's gracious purpose. And the Father
can reveal Himself thus to the Son because of the
love with which that Son responds to His love,
and the meekness and submission with which He
surrenders Himself to the F'ather's will (Mt 11-",
Mk 1438). It is evident that in this striking word

of Christ's regarding the mutual knowledge of
the F'ather and the Son, the words ' F'ather ' and
' Son ' are not mere names to denote the i)ersons
concerned, but are used to suggest that mutual
love upon which the knowledge is based. And
indeed all through the Synoptic Gospels there
is always a suggestion of this relationshii) of
mutual love in the manner in which God and
Christ are spoken of as Father and Son. Whether,
when Christ is spoken of in the Synoptics as the
Son of God, there is more than this ethical relation-
ship implied, is a question upon which there is
ditterence of opinion. But it is admitted, even
by those who attach a deeper significance to tiie
designation, that, in the first instance at any rate,
it has an ethical content, and that, when Christ is
called the Son of God, whatever more may he
implied, so much in any case is suggested, that on
the one hand He is the supreme object of the
F'ather's love, and that on the other He exhibits
in His Person in its perfection that loving obedience
whereby man may become the son of God.

In the F'oiirth Gospel the references to the love
of the Father and the Son to one another are more
frequent and mure express. Christ is the only-
begotten Son (3^'^), loved by the F'ather before the
foundation of the world (IT^'*), and now returned
to the bosom of the Father (1^'*). He and the
F'ather know one another intimately (10^^). The
F'ather loves Him, and has given all things into His
hand (33''). As in the Synoptic account of the
announcement at the Baptism, Christ is calletl the
beloved Son in whom God is well pleased (]\Ik 1"),
so in Jn. the love of the Father is occasionally
represented as being based upon the Son's obedi-
ence to the F'ather's commandment (15'") and will-
ing sacrifice of Himself (10"). The F'ather never
leaves Him alone (163-), for He does always those
tilings that please Him (8-''). Because He keeps
His Father's commandments He abides in His love
(15'"). No higher estimate can be given of the
Saviour's love for His disciples than to say that He
has loved them as His Father has loved Him (15''),
nor of the love of God for believers than to com-
pare it to that of the Father for the Son (17-3).
Sometimes the love of God for believers is repre-
sented as based upon that of the Father for the
Son (1421- ••^3 16-7).

And as the Father loves the Son, so the Son
loves the Father. He alone has seen and known
the Father (3"- ^' G-*" 1-^ S"^ W^). He does nothing
of Himself, but only what He seeth the Father do
(5^®). He speaks only as His Father hath taught
Him (8-^ 125"). fiig ji^eat is to do the will of Him
that sent Him (43^). It is love to the F'ather (143')
no less than love to His brethren (13' 15'3) that is
the motive that animates Him in the fulfilment of
His vocation. In virtue of the love which unites
them one to the other, each may be said to be in
the other, the Son in the Father and the Father
in the Son (1038 1410.20 1721. 23)_ They have no
separate interests. Whatever belongs to the one
belongs to the other (17^"). The Father and the
Son are one (lO^" 17").

i. The love of man for God. — There is com-
paratively little under this heading to be found in
the Gospels. It is true that Christ has Himself
given as the first commandment of all, that which
enjoins the love of God Avith the Avhole heart and
soul and mind and strength (Mk 12-***''-), and in the
same spirit in the F'ourth Gospel He finds the final
explanation of the unbelief of the Jews in their
lack of this love of God (5^-). But so far as the
former of these passages is concerned, it is evident
that Christ's answer to the scribe is purposely
couched in language borrowed from the Old Testa-
ment ; and it is a noteworthy fact that at other
times, when He has no occasion to conform to OT

modes of ex2)ression, Christ does not give pro-
minence to tlie duty of love towards God.

Ritschl has drawn attention to the fact of how small a part
the love of man towards God plays throughout the NT as a
whole. ' Love is reserved as the characteristic of God and
God's Son in the foundation and guidance of the congregation,
while of its members faith or trust in God and His Son is
demanded' (liechtf. u. Vers. ii. 100 f.). B. Weiss thinks that
Christ keeps the commandment of love to God in the back-
ground, because where the love of God does not awaken such
love in return it would be of no avail to demand it {Bib. Theol.
of NT, § 256). Wendt, while recognizing that the idea of love
correspond"! well, on the whole, to the filial relationship,
believes that it is too general, and does not give sufficient
prominence to the relation of subordination and complete
dependence in which man stands to God. To express the feel-
ing of whole-hearted devotion to God suggested by the idea of
love, while at the same time giving full recognition to His
infinite love and power, Christ selected the term ' trust' (t/Vt;?)
as the one most suitable to describe the disposition man should
display {Lehre Jesu, ii. 227).

Whatever the reason, we must recognize the
fact that neither in the Synoptics nor in the Fourth
Gospel, with tlie exception of the passages referred
to, do we find Christ dwelling on the love which
man should cherish towards God. But though He
speaks of man's trust in God rather than of his
love towards Him, we nmst not overlook the fact
that this trust which Christ seeks to insjnre is but
love under a slightly different form. It is the
response of the human heart to the infinite love of
God, — love on the part of man awakened by the
love of God, yet humbling itself in the presence
of One who. though the Father, is yet Lord of
heaven and earth. Without love there can be no
such trust as Christ seeks to inspire. The prayer
in whicli this trust finds expression must be the
out[)ouring of a he.art full of love to God and of
zeal for the establishment of His Kingdom. The
righteousness which becomes the members of the
Kingdom must be righteousness not of outward
conduct alone, but of a heart whicli takes delight
in the performance of the Divine will. The be-
liever is to seek first the Kingdom and the right-
eousness of God (Mt 6^^), to have his heart fixed
on the heavenly treasure (6-^), to be filled with
whole-hearted devotion to the service of God (6-'*),
and to renounce, no matter at what cost, whatever
may hinder him in the attainment of the great
end set before him (Mk 9^»-«, cf. Mt 13«ff-). Though
there may be little explicit reference in the teach-
ing of Christ to the love for God which man is
required to cherish, we feel that in the case of the
believer no less than in that of Christ Himself, it
is the source from which springs all the strength
for the performance of duty and the endurance of
suffering, and that, just as Christ accounted for
the unbelief of the Jews by the utter lack in them
of this love of God (Jn 5^^), so, if we trace back to
its beginnings the faith which the gospel inspires,
it will be found to issue from the love to the
Father who has revealed Himself in Christ.

5. The love of man for Christ. — Of love for
Christ there is almost no mention in the Synoptics.
In one utterance, indeed, Christ requires His fol-
lowers to love Him more than their closest earthly
relatives (Mt 10^^). But the purpose of that saying,
as is proved by the parallel passage, Lk 14^^, is
not so much to insist on a personal afiection for
Himself as the condition of discipleship, as to em-
phasize the supreme worth of the good represented
by His own Person, compared with which the joys
of family life are to be esteemed as nothing. The
nearest approach to any reference to love of Him-
self as a motive for conduct is to be found in
those passages in which He puts His own Person
in the foreground, requiring of His disciples a
readiness to sacrifice themselves for His sake (Mk
g35 1029)^ and attaching high importance to the
most trivial acts done in His name (Mk Q^''-'*^).
On these occasions He identifies Himself with

His cau.se. When He requires devotion to Him-
self, it is only another way of requiring devotion
to the truth revealed in His Person. Thus He
speaks of sufferings borne for His sake and the
gospel's (8^^ lO-'*, cf. Lk 18"^), and of being ashamed
of Him and of His words (Mk S^, Lk 9-«). In tliis
sjiirit He welcomed the love displayed by the
woman who anointed His feet in the Pharisee's
house, as a proof of the sincerity of the repentance
which filled her heart, and of the vastness of the
blessings she was conscious of having received
(Lk 7^^).

In the Fourth Gospel, where the personal rela-
tion to Christ is so strongly emphasized, there is
more direct reference to love as the disposition the
believer may be expected to display towards Christ.
Jesus tells the Jews that if God were their Father
they would love Him, for He proceeded forth and
is come from God (8'^). Of the discijiles He says,
on the other hand, that the Father lovetli them be-
cause they have loved Him, and have believed that
He came from God (16-^). Something is, indeed,
still lacking in their love. He tells them in His
farewell address that if they loved Him they
would rejoice because He said that He went unto
the Father (14"^). But though their love be not
perfect. He can confidently reckon upon it. He
would only remind them, as He does more than
once in the course of that address, that a true
love for Him will manifest itself in the keeping
of His commandments (I42i-23£.j_ gQ j^ j^^d been
with His own love for the Father (14^^). So let it
be with the disciples. Let them prove the sin-
cerity of their love to Him by the loyalty of their
obedience. Such a relationsliiii to Himself, love
manifesting itself in faithful fulfilment of His
commandments, is the condition upon which the
giving of the Paraclete is promised (14^-'*''^'). Where
it exists, Christ promises the enjoyment of the
closest communion with the Father and Himself
(14-^- "^). It is quite in keeping with the emphasis
that has been laid ujion love throughout the
Gospel as the relation which must exist between
the disciple and Christ, that in the final scene
with Peter in the Epilogue He should tlirice
address to him the question, ' Lovest thou me ? '
(2P^'"), as if to suggest that such love is the in-
dispensable qualification on the part of one who
would be a true shepherd of Christ's flock.

In view of these quotations, it is difficult to understand
Ritschl's statement (Rechtf. u. Vers. iii. 560), that, apart from
Jn 2115- 16^ there is no reference in the NT to love towards
Christ. Certainly it is the case that, for the most part, faith is
the usual formula to indicate the relation of the believer to
Him. But it is quite in accordance with the general character
of this Gospel, with its conception of a mystical union between
the believer and Christ (15itf), to use wanner colours to paint
the devotion of the believer, and to describe that complete
self-surrender to Christ, which is the true relation to Him, as
the work of love.

6. The love of man to man. — Alongside of the
first great commandment to love the Lord our
God, Christ places a second, ' Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself (Mk 123i). The high im-
portance He assigned to this duty is evident from
the place He gives it alongside of the command-
ment to love God. ' There is none other com-
mandment greater than these' {ib.). Both are
ethical in their nature. The ceremonial observ-
ances in which Christ's contemporaries thought to
find the fulfilment of this first commandment are
never to be allowed to stand in the way of the
performance of the oflices of love towards our
fellow-men. These latter, because they are ethical,
are the weightier matters of the Law which are
on no account to be omitted (Mt 2.3-^). To refuse
to support one's parents, on the jjlea that one
desires to make an offering of the money that
might be used for this purpose, is to make a
travesty of religion (Mk 7"''^). The ethical stands

above the ceremonial. God desires mercy, not
sacrifice (Mt 12^). The first commandment may be
to love the Lord our God, but when it is a question
of showing love towards our brother man or per-
forming some act of worship towards God, there
can be no doubt wliicli is to come fii'st, ' Leave
there thy gift before the altar, and first go thy
way ; be reconciled to thy brother, and then come
andoflter thy gift ' (S-^^- ).

In the enunciation of this second great com-
mandment, Christ specifies the love which men
are required to show for one another as the love
of one's neighbour. Doubtless the word was sug-
gested by the precept from Leviticus which He
quoted, just as the form of the first commandment
is based, as we have seen, upon the language of
Deuteronomy. When we inquire as to the wide-
ness of the circle denoted by tlie term ' neighbour,'
we seem to find an answer in the pai'able of the
Good Samaritan, which was told, according to
Lk., in response to the question that had been put,
'Wiio is my neighbour?' (Lk W^-^). But in its
present form that parable gives no satisfactory
answer to the question. After telling the story of
what befell the traveller, how he was maltreated
by the thieves and passed by in his miserable
plight by tlie priest and the Levite, and how at
last the Samaritan took compassion on him, Christ
asks, ' Which pow of those three, thinkest thou, was
neighbour unto him tliat fell among the thieves?'
The answer is, the Samaritan ; and the conclusion
of the parable seems to be that it was the traveller's
duty to love the Samaritan, i.e. that the term
' neighbour ' is wider than the lawyer who had jnit
the question seemed to imagine, and must be held
to embrace any Avho by their conduct prove them-
selves worthy of the name, whether they be Jews
or not (so Wendt, Lchre Jesii, ii. 268). This is
certainly the logical conclusion from the parable as
it at present stands, but it is questionable whether
this can have been the lesson Christ desired to en-
force by it. It starts with the object of proving
who is one's neighbour in the sense of diligendus
(v.'-^'*), and ends by proving who is the traveller's
neighbour in the sense of diligcns, v.-"" (Jiilicher,
Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, ii. 596). The nearest
approach that it reaches to a definition of the
term ' neighbour ' in the sense required is contained
in the ' Go and do thou likewise ' with which it
concludes. The usual method of interpreting the
parable is to find the answer to the question
in tlie pi'actical lesson enforced by that exhorta-
tion, and to conclude that our neighbour is anyone
who requires our help. But in view of the
immediately preceding statement that the neigh-
bour of the traveller was the Samaritan who had
compassion on him, it seems utterly incongruous
to conclude that the design of the parable is to
teach tliat one's neighbour is not one's benefactor,
but anyone that one can benefit, i.e. in this case
that the traveller was the neighbour of the
Samaritan. So we can only conclude that Lk. is
responsible for the introduction of the parable in
connexion with this question of the lawyer's, and
that whatever the original purpose for which it
was related, it was certainly not designed to give
an answer to the question, ' Who is my neigh-
bour ? ' in the sense of ' Who is the person I am
required to love ? '

But tlie precise scope of the term ' neighbour ' in
the mouth of Christ is of the less importance, as
it is only on the occasion of His interview with
the scribe (_Mk \2^9-^\ Mt 22^5-«) that He thus
defines the limits within which one is to show love
towards one's fellow-men, and there, as we have
seen. He is evidently formulating His answer in
the language of tlie OT commandment. In opposi-
tion to the narrow sense in which the term
VOL. II. — 6

'neighbour' was interpreted by His contem-
poraries, who could add to the injunction to love
their neighbour a corollary to the efiect that they
Avere to hate their enemy (Mt 5^^), Christ enjoined
a love which was to embrace botli friend and
enemy (v.'*'*^-). The Golden Rule which Christ has
given men to guide them in their ofiices of love
takes us far beyond the circle of neighbours in
the narrow Jewish sense. The command runs,
' All tilings whatsoever ye would that men (not
your neighbours) should do unto you, do ye even
so to them ' (7^'^). We are to show love to all.
'Whosoever shall smite thee,' 'if any man will
sue thee,' ' whosoever shall compel thee,' 'he that
asketh thee,' ' he that would borrow of thee,' — these
are the phrases with which Christ introduces those
to whom He commands His disciples to show
love (S^^"*"). Sometimes He describes them as
'brothers' (b-'^--* V'^ igis. 2if. 35)^ ^ot, in the sense
of those who are bound to us by natural ties, in
which sense brotherly love is practised by the
Gentiles as well (5"*'), nor in the sense of fellow-
citizens of the Kingdom of God (so B. Weiss ;
Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, note on 1 Jn 2^),
in which sense the word would reproduce in a
new form the limitation that attached to the
Jewish interpretation of the term 'neighbour,' but
in the same wide sense as He applies the term
' Father ' to God. He is the Father not only of
the members of the Kingdom, but of all mankind
(5^^), and by using the term ' brother ' to denote
the objects of our love, Christ will suggest that
it is to be a love as wide and all-embracing as
that of the Father in heaven, who bestows His
bounties on good and evil, — a love not only of
those Avho are members of the Kingdom of God, but
of all who have the right to look up and claim God
as their Father in heaven (Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii.
270 f.). The command to forgive our brother his
trespasses (18*') is interpreted in the widest .sense
in e^"*'-, when, in place of forgiving our brother,
Christ speaks of forgiving me7i their trespasses.

From various occasional utterances of Christ we
can form a general idea of the nature of the love
which He expects men to display in their relations
to one another. Its unselfishness on the one side,
and its interest in the welfare of others on the
other, are features which continually appear in
the exhortations in which He seeks to inculcate it.
In illustration of the unselfish spirit which He
commends, He urges His hearers to invite to their
banquets not their friends and kinsmen who may
invite them in return, but the poor, the maimed,
the lame and the blind, who cannot recompense
them (Lk M'"-"-). In the same spirit He bids
men lend, hoping for nothing (6*', according to
the translation of /xrjdev dTreXirl^ovTes best suited to
the context). Another aspect of the unselfish-
ness which is characteristic of the spirit of love
Christ Avould instil, is the suppression of those
vindictive feelings which are prone to rise when
we experience ill-treatment from others. We are
required to forgive those who have wronged us, not
•seven times, but seventy times seven (Mt 18-if-) ;
to be so far from resenting injury we receive from
another that we turn the other cheek to the
sniiter, allow him who would take away our coat
to have our cloak also, and go two miles with him
who would compel us to go one (5^^"*-) ; to love
our enemies, and to pray for them that persecute
us (5**). Again, this unselfishness will exhibit
itself in the absence of all self-assertion or desire
to attain pre-eminence among our fellows. Such
self-exaltation is characteristic of the scribes and
Pharisees (Mk 1238f-, Mt 23^«-), and of the Gentiles
(Mk 10^2, Lk 2225). But the follower of Christ,
who came not to be ministered unto but to
minister, and who was among His disciples as he

that serveth, will be ready to stoop to the lowliest
service (Mk 10^^-45^ lj^^ 22-6«-), ami will seek for
self-exaltation only through self-abasement (Lk
14").

But while love is thus regardless of self, it will
ever seek to advance the good of others. It will
give readily to su23ply their demands (Mt 5^^, Lk
6^"). Nay, it will be quick to anticipate them.
It will teach us to put ourselves in their place and
realize what they stand in need of. ' AH things
Avhatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
do ye even so to them ' (Mt 7^-, Lk G^i). We shall
not hesitate to share with them our earthly goods.
' It is more blessed to give than to receive ' is a
saying of Christ's preserved by St. Paul (Ac 20^)
which is not recorded in the Gospels. In the
picture Avhich Christ has painted of the Judgment,
He claims as offices of love jierformed towards
Himself acts of kindness done to our unfortunate
fellow-creatures (Mt 2S^''^^). That is the wise use
of our riches whereby we make to ourselves friends
of those whom we benefit (Lk 16"). But we shall
care not only for our brother's worldly interests,
but also for his spiritual welfare. We are solemnly
warned to give heed lest we cause him to stumble
(Mk 9-*-, Lk 17"- ). It is not the will of our Father
which is in heaven that one of these little ones,
i.e. the humblest member of the Kingdom of God,
should perish (Mt 18^^). And while we are careful
to avoid the censorious spirit which takes delight
in uncharitable judgment of the faults of others
(7^^- ), we shall still feel it our duty to rebuke our
brother when he trespasses, and to endeavour to
reclaim him from his sin (IS^^'-)-

One other point worthy of notice in connexion
with the duty of brotherly love which Christ
inculcates, is the light in which this duty is pre-
sented in view of the love which we exijerience at
the hands of God. At the root of all that Christ
says regarding the love which we should display
to one another lies the great truth of the Father-
hood of God. That word of St. John's, ' We love
because he first loved us' (1 Jn 4^"), expresses the
position which Christ takes up. To forgive another
his trespasses and to recompense an injury with
kindness, to love one's enemies and to pray for
them that persecute one, appears the height of
magnanimity from the standpoint of the natural
man. But Christ puts the matter in a new light.
He reminds us of the love with which God treats
man, undeserving as he is, and of the readiness with
which He forgives us our offences. In the parable
of the Unforgiving Servant. (Mt 18-=*-=^) He exhibits
in its true light the conduct of the man who, freely
forgiven at the hands of God, yet refuses to for-
give his brother who has offended him. And as
our indignation burns at the behaviour of the
unforgiving servant in the parable, Ave realize that
so far from the forgiveness of those Avho have
offended us being the magnanimous conduct Ave
had imagined, it is a simple duty, the non-fulfil-
ment of Avhich calls for severest condemnation.

In the Foui'th Gospel the duty of love to our
brother is laid doAvn Avith the utmost distinctness,
though the references are comparatively fcAv. As
in the Synoptics Christ had summed up the LaAV
and the Prophets in the Golden Kule to do unto
others Avhatsoever Ave Avould that they should do
to us, so here He concentrates His ethical teaching
to His disciples in the neAV commandment to love
one another as He has loved them (13^-* IS^^). It
Avas a neAV commandment in the neAV emphasis
Avith Avhich it Avas enjoined, in the ncAv place
assigned to it as the one principle in Avhich the
LaAV and the Prophets find fulfilment (Mt 7^- 5^'^-,
cf. Ro 13^, Gal 5^^), in the ncAv sanction it received
through the appeal to Christ's oAvn example. He
declares that the keeping of this commandment is

the sure test Avhereby His disciples may be recog-
nized by others (13^^). It is by their fulfilment of
it alone that they may enjoy such close comnmnion
Avith Him as He enjoys with His Father (IS^"-*-).
He has given them an example in His oAvn Person
of the love they are to practise. At the last meal
Avith His disciples, at Avhich this ncAv command-
ment Avas given. He had Himself washed their
feet, to enforce the injunction to loAvly service
Avhich He laid upon them (13^'*''-). But this act of
condescension on the part of the Master Avas
typical of the self-denying love Avhich He had dis-
played throughout His whole intercourse Avith
them, that love Avhich reached its culminating
point in the Avilling sacrifice of His life. It is to
this that He points Avhen He urges them to love
one another as He has loved them. ' Greater love
hath no man than this, that a man lay doAvn his
lifefor his friends' (1513).

It has been urged that the brotherly love Avhich
is thus commended in the Fourth Gospel falls short
of that enjoined in the Synoptics, in resjiect that it
is limited to the circle of the Christian brother-
hood. While Christ in the Synoptics commands
us to loA'e our neighbour, and insists tiiat the love
Avhicli He enjoins must embrace not only our
friends but our enemies, Ave read in the Fourth
Gospel of a love /or one another (IS^'*-^^ 15^^-^").
The reciprocal pronoun points to a limitation of
the love to the Christian brotherhood. The Chris-
tians are knoAvn not by their love for others, but
by their mutual love amongst themselves (H.
Holtzmann, Hanclcom. on Jn 13^3, Neutest. Theol.
ii. 388 f. ; O. Holtzmann, Johannesevang. 76, 266).
And as the love Avhicli the belieA^er is exhorted to
practise is limited to the Christian brotherhood, so
also, it is maintained, is that of Christ Himself,
Avhich is held up as an example. The Fourth
Gospel and St. Paul both cite the death of Chi'ist
as the highest proof that can be given of His love ;
but St. Paul finds in it a proof of His loA'e for His
enemies (Ro S""^-), Avhereas the Evangelist adduces
it as a proof of His ♦love for His friends (IS^*).
Such loA^e of friends, it is maintained, is the
highest love the Gospel recognizes. Of love for
one's enemies it knoAvs nothing (O. Holtzmann,
ib. 87, 276 ; H. Holtzmann, Hanclcom. on Jn \5^'^,
Neutest. Theol. ii. 477).

We must admit that there is so much truth in
the contention that, as a matter of fact, the love
referred to in \Z^*^- IS^^- " is a love of Christian
brethren for one another. It A\'ould be quite un-
Avarrantable to find the novelty of the command-
ment 133'' in the Avideness of its scope, to Avliich
there is no reference at all in the context. But it
is equally unAvarrantable to explain that novelty
as consisting in the narroAvness of the circle Avithin
Avhich Christ, in the context, insisted on its fulfil-
ment, as if this commandment to practise brotherly
love Avere an advance upon the old injunction to
loA'e one's neighbour. (So Grotius: 'Novum autem
dicit, quia non agit de dilectione communi om-
nium, sed de speciali Christianorum inter se, qua
tales sunt'; cf. Kolbing, SK, 1845, pp. 685-694).
It is a mistake to take the commandment in
any exclusive sense, as if there Avere any con-
trast implied to the Avider commandment of the
Synoptics. Christ speaks of the love of Chris-
tian brethren for one another, either because He
had had occasion immediately before to give His
disciples a lesson on the manner in Avhich they
should be ready to render loving service to one
another (13^"'''), or because it AA'as natural to look
for the display of this spirit of love He Avould
inculcate first of all Avithin the smaller circle of
those Avho stood in close relation to Him and to
one another. It is not a question of confining
their love to their Christian bi'ethren, but of dis;

LOWLINESS

LUKE

playing it towards those with whom they come
into closest contact.

In the same way as Christ ui'ges them to show
their love to those who stand nearest to tliem, He
represents His own love as issuing in the sacrifice
He made for them. His friends. He does not
mean that it was because of the love they had
shown Him as friends that He responded with this
culminating proof of love in return. On the con-
trary, He calls them friends because they are the
objects of His love (lo^'"'^-). His sacrihce has not
been evoked by the friendship they have displayed.
It is rather their friendship that is the response
to the love He has cherished for them, of which
that sacrifice was the culminating proof.

While we recognize, then, that in this farewell
conversation with His disciples, the love which
Clirist urges them to display is in the first instance
a love of one toward another, we cannot admit that
there is any intention on the part either of the Evan-
gelist or of Christ Himself to limit the practice of
it to the Christian brotherhood. The circumstances
in which the address was spoken sufficiently ex-
plain the form in which the commandment is
given, and the manner in which Christ's example
is appealed to. The Teacher who had inculcated
a love which was to embrace friend and enemy
alike might well feel constrained to give His own
disciples the commandment to love one another.
And He who had given His life as a ransom for
many might well remind those who stood nearest
to Him that they were among the many for whom
the sacrifice was made, and appeal to them to love
one another as He had loved them.

Literature. — Sartorius, The Doctrine of Divine Love ;
Weiult, Die Lehre Jesu, ii. ; NT Theol. of B. Weiss, Beyschlag,
rf. Holtzmann, Stevens ; Ritschl, Rechtfertiguim und Vcrsuh-
ming ; Rothe, Theol. Ethik ; Seeley, Ecee Homo, chs. xiii. xiv. ;
F. W. Robertson, Serm. iv. 222 ; Law, Serious Call, ch. xx. ;
Butler, Senn. xi.-xiv. ; C. A. Briggs, Ethical Teaching of Jesus,

9". iii- G. Wauchope Stewart.

LOWLINESS. — The modest attitude of mind
and demeanour which characterized our Lord as a
man. It is in contrast with, though not in contra-
diction to, the greatness both of His station and
of His claims. He describes Himself (Mt IP^) as
'lowly in heart,' and the word employed (raireLvds)
is accurately translated by the Eng. ' lowly ' and
the Lat. hitmilis as denoting that which is near
the earth, low as opposed to lofty, bowed down as
opposed to erect. Though sometimes used in a
bad sense, as indicating meanness of spirit, this is
not at all its necessary or common signihcation.
In the moral sense it is opposed to proud, haughty,
.self-assertive. The adjective occurs elsewhere in
the NT (Lk P^, 2 Co lOS Ja 1" 4«, 1 P 5^) ; and the
noun Ta.-n-eLvo(f)poavvTfj and the verb ra7rfti'6co are even
of more frequent occurrence. Both noun and verb
are used by St. Paul (Ph 2^-'*) in describing the
Kevioaii of Christ, where a twofold lowliness is
declared of Him : (l)in becoming man, {2) as a. man.
In the prophecy of Zechariah (Q**) the Messianic
King is foretold as being ' lowly and riding upon
an ass ' ; but in the passages wliere the prophecy
is quoted (Mt 2^, Jn 12^^), the action is given in
l>otli cases. The adjective is altogether omitted
by St. John, and is rendered 'meek' {-n-pavs) by
St. Matthew. See also artt. Meekness and
Humility. E. C. Dargan.

LUKE. — The only reliable sources for the life of
Luke are his Acts of the Apostles, and, in a very
slight degree, his Gospel, and the Epistles of St.
Paul. The biography found in many MSS of the
Gospel in Latin, and printed, for example, in
Wordsworth and White's Noincm Testatnentimi
Domini Nostri Ic.su Cliristi Latine, Pars i. (Oxonii,
1889-1898), pp. 269-272, can hardly be considered

reliable, by whomsoever composed. Some of its
statements will be quoted below.

1. Natnc. — The name AovkcLs appears to be unex-
ampled elsewhere. The motlern accentuation is
no doubt correct, and this at once proclaims it as a
contraction or shorter form of some other name.
It belongs in fact to the class of pet names
(Lall)iainen, Koscnamen in German), as a glance at
the long list of such in Jannaris' Historical Gr.
Gram. (London, 1897), § 287, will show. The NT
itself is not witliout examples of such names ; SiXaj
(wiXeas) for '^CKovavos, 'A^TrXtas (Ko 16*) for 'A^tTrXiaros,
'OXv/jLirds (lio 16'^) for '0\v/j.iri6dcjpos, Arj/nds (Col 4''*)
for A7i/j.T}TpLos, 'Eira(ppds (Col 4^'-) for 'EiracppodiTo^,
'AttoXXws for 'AttoWuivios, Ztji'Ss (Tit 3^^) for Zrjvddojpos,
'AvTiirds (Kev 2'*) for 'AcrtTrar/jos, '^recpai'ds (1 Co 16^®)
for ^T€^avr](p6pos. The shorter names are less,
technical and more friendly than the others. There!
can be little doubt that AovKds is short for AovKavSs,
and indeed this latter form is very frequent in thei
oldest forms of the Latin Bible, in the title of the
Gospel. There appears to be no example of the
nominative in MSS, but the accusative CATA
LUCANUM is regular (see C. H. Turner in JThSt,\
vi. (1904-1905), pp. 256-258). Monsignor Mercati,
of the Vatican Library, has found an instance even
of the nominative, on the sarcophagus of Concord-
ius at Aries, MATTEUS MARCUS LUCANVS lOANNES
[ib. p. 435).* The name Lucanus suggests ' Lu-'
canian,' a native of the district of Southern Italy ;
it also suggests the Latin poet, a member of the
gens Anncea, nephew of Seneca the philosopher.'
But neither of these suggestions seems to lead usj
further in the attempt to trace the ancestry or*
family of the Third Evangelist.

2. Origin. — The Latin biogi'aphy above referred,
to calls Luke a Syrian of Antioch. This is almost
certainly due to a mistaken interpretation of Ac 13\
where a different person, with a different name,
Lucius, is mentioned. If that be not the explana-
tion, the selection of Antioch may be due to a
guess, which sought to connect him with an im-
portant city. Some have thought that ' Antioch-
ensis ' is right, but that ' Syrus ' is wrong, and
would claim him for Pisidian Antioch, a place of ,
much less importance. In the absence of other ^
evidence, this second theory would be possible, as
Pisidian Antioch is much nearer the historicalj
scene on Avhich he first appears and figures promi-
nently in the missionary journeys of St. Paul.
The Book of Acts itself, however, seems to yield
up the secret. If we concentrate our attention on'
that part of the narrative wiiich tells of St. Paul'sj
visit to Philippi, we observe certain peculiarities |
about it which distinguish it from the other parts. ^
In the first place, we observe that in \h^ ' &\
certain man of Macedonia' (ns implies that thej
author could name him if he chose) is mentioned
as appearing to St. Paul in a dream at Troas, andl
inviting him to cross over into Macedonia. In the!
following verse, the first 'We 'passage begins: —
'we sought immediately.' The Macedonians did;
not differ from other Greeks in their appearance)
or dress, and why should the author conceal the,
name of the Macedonian, if not from modesty ?
The present writer can feel no doubt that Luke
and Paul met in Troas, and conversed together,
expectant of a sign of the Spirit's will ; that, as
the re.sult of their impressive talk, St. Paul saw a
vision of his companion of the previous day, who'
appeared to be addressing him in the words of
V. 9 ; and, in accordance with the belief of the
time, considered — who shall say wrongly? — that
the Spirit had spoken through this dream. V.^^'
of ch. 16 is even more important in this connexion
for the information it supplies : — ' Philippi, which

* The present writer has recently seen it on the mould of this
sarcophagus at the Museum of St. Germain near Paris.

LUKE

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

is a city of Macedonia, tlie first of its district, a
Eiiinan colony.' Tlie characterization of Thilippi
might ahnost be styled gratuitous. Since the
battle of B.C. 42 this place was well known to
all persons of any education. Further, one might
judge from this passage that it was the only
Kouian colony mentioned in Acts. This is far from
being the case. Corinth, Lystra, Ptolemais, and
Pisidian Antioch, to mention no others, were also
Roman colonies ; yet the author affixes the title to
Philippi only. Again, we know that Philippi was
not regarded by all as the chief town of its district.
The author is clearly taking a side as against those
who regarded Thessalonica or Amphipolis as the
chief town of that district. The rivalry between
cities was a characteristically Greek quality, which
finds a parallel in the more modern rivalry between
Dole and Basan9on. An instance in Asia Minor
was that between Smyrna, Ephesus, and Perga-
mum. We shall not be wrong in regarding the
author as a native of Philippi. His fondness for
the sea and all matters nautical, as well as his
choice of a profession almost entirely confined to
Greeks, already proclaim him a Greek. There are
other indications that point to Philippi as his
native place. V.i^ of ch. 16, ' where we thovgJU
there was a place of prayer,' is quite natural, if
the author, being a Gentile, had only a rough idea
where the Jewish place of prayer in his native
town was. Again, when Paul and Silas go to
Thessalonica (Ac. IT^), Luke is left behind in
Philippi, and reappears in that neighbourhood
afterwards (20*-5).

3. Notes on his Life. — Of Luke's early life little
can be said, and that little is inference derived
from his two books. If he were the son of a Greek
freedman of a Koman master, this would account
both for his name and his history. From the
character of the language of his writings it is
evident that he had a good education, both rhe-
torical and medical. It is impossible to say where
he was educated, as higher education was wide-
spread in the Greek world. About his disposition
something can be said. From the frequent refer-
ences to the poor in his Gospel and his loving
attachment to Paul, as well as his self-effacement,
it seems not too fanciful to picture him as a man
of modest, tender, sympathetic, and constant
nature. His circumstances appear to have been
good ; otherwise he could hardly have followed
Paul as he did, ministering to his ailing body.
The present writer has little doubt that the reason
why Titus, though a valued coadjutor of St. Paul,
is not mentioned in Acts, is that he was Luke's
brother, especially as the only natural way to take
the words tov d5€\(p6v in 2 Co 12i^ is as ' his brother,'
i.e. the brother of the man previously mentioned,
that is, of Titus. Luke as a teacher was not so
prominent as Titus, and hence is not named there.
The true meaning of the passage would have been
understood long ago, had it not been for the
obscuration produced by the ecclesiastical sense of
the term ' brother.'

The only part of Luke's life of which we know
much is the part he spent travelling in St. Paul's
company. They met first at Troas, and journeyed
together from there by Samothrace and Neapolis
to Philippi (Ac 16'o-i2). In Philippi Luke remained
after Paul had gone, and they appear to have been
separated for a little over five years (according to
Ramsay's chronology). After meeting again, al-
most certainly at Philippi (Ac 20''-'5), they appear
to have remained together till the death of St.
Paul. Certainly they were together on St. Paul's
last journey along the coast of Asia Minor and
Syria, up to Jerusalem (Ac 21i^), and on the
eventful voyage to Puteoli and Rome (ch. 27). In
Rome he appears with St. Paul (Col 4^*, Philem ^*).

**Copyright, 1908, by

It is probable that he devoted himself mainly to
medical and literary work, and not so much to
evangelization. The Latin biography states that
he never married, and that he died at the age of
74 in Bojotia (some MSS., Bithynia). Another
tradition has it that he died at Constantinople,
and his sarcophagus, said to have been brought
from there, is now pointed out in the Church of
Santa Giustina. at Padua.

LiTERATrRE. — The above art. is larprely indebted to Sir
W.M. Ha.ms.a.y's. St. Pnu/ the TrareUe)' and tlie Bom an Citizen^,
the most sympathetic study of Lulce in existence. See also his
H'e/.v Christ Born at Bethlehem? A i^tudy in the Credibility oj
St. Luke^\ cf. It. J. Knowling's Introduction to the Acts of the
Apostles in The Exponitor' a Gr. Te^t., vol. ii. (Lond. 1900);
Hobart. The Medical Language of St. Luke (Lond. 1882) ;
Harnack, Lukas der Arzt ( Leipzig, 1900).

A. SODTER.

**LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO.—

i. The Synoptic Problem.

1. Solutions ofl'ered in the past.

2. Priority of St. Mark.

8. The doctrine of a proto-Mark, of a deutero-Mark,
and of a trito-Mark.
ii. Analysis of St. Luke's Gospel according to the sources
used.

1. First Source— St. Mark.

2. Second Source — St. Matthew's Logia.
8. Third Source — a Pauline Collection.

4. Fourth Source — Anonj-mous Fragments.

5. Fifth Source — a Private Collection (from the Holy

Family ? ).

6. Editorial Notes.

iii. Points of contact with St. John,
iv. St. Luke's characteristics.
V. Date of writing.

Literature.

i. The Synoftic Problkm. — To a student of the
Synoptic Problem St. Luke's Gospel is the most
interesting of the three. Indeed, we may confidently
affirm that, but for St. Luke, the Synoptic Problem
would never have existed. For the connexions
between St. Matthew and St. Mark are compara-
tively simple and are easily explained. It is only
when we read St. Luke that the perplexing ques-
tions which constitute the Problem arise. We liave
first to explain the fact of his omissions (a) of
Markan matter, (J>) of Matthfean ; next, his addi-
tions («) of narrative, (6) of discourse ; thirdly, his
variations from the other Gospels in arrangement
(a) of Markan matter, (fc) of Matthsean ; then we
must examine his editorial work, which consists
(fl) of prefaces to introduce a section, (/*) of conclu-
sions to wind it up, (c) of explanatory notes, (d) of
corrections, alike in fact, in style, and in grammar ;
lastly, we must consider cases where he agrees with
St. Matthew against St. Mark, and cases where he
alone of the Synoptists has some contact with St.
John. Anyone who attempts to .solve the Problem
by neglecting one or more of these factors, may
fascinate the reader by the simplicity of his pro-
posals, but he does so at the expense of success.
He has not really grappled with the Problem, and
therefore has not solved it. If, on the other hand,
the reader thinks the proposals which are here
offered too intricate ; if he accuses the writer of
vacillation, because two or more solutions are fre-
quently offered of the same difficulty, let him
reflect that in mathematics — the most exact of
science.s — a similar fact may be observed. For
every quadratic equation has two solutions, and
when the Radcliffe (!)bserver published his calcula-
tion of the distance of the sun from the earth, the
answer came out as a double quadratic with four
variation.s. Similar complications should be ex-
pected in an intricate literary problem like this.
Let the beginner cultivate patience and suspense
of judgment. He will have made good progress, if
he learns to suspect the man who is too simple or
too confident.

1. Solutions offered in the past. — Augustine,
bishop of Hippo, at the close of the 4th cent., was

Charles Scribner's Sonx

LUKE. GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 85

the first writer who made a serious attempt to
solve the Synoptic Problem. He was guided partly
by tradition, but chiefly by a careful examination
of the internal evidence which the Gospels offer.
In that age it was perhaps inevitable that he
should assume, what modern critics are almost
united in denying, that the Apostle Matthew was
the author of the First Gospel in its present form.
From this fundamental error it inevitably followed
that he assumed the priority of St. Matthew, and
spoke of St. Mark as the ' abbreviator and humble
follower of St. Matthew.' St. Luke he held to
have copied from the other two. Augustine's in-
fluence in the Western Church was so transcendent,
that his opinion on these intricate questions was
accepted without examination until quite modern
times. Strange to say, the founders of the famous
Tubingen school in theology, though they reversed
most of the traditional beliefs, adhered to this.
They upheld the priority of St. Matthew, not for
any litei'ary reason, but for a dogmatic one. The
miraculous element is somewhat less prominent in
St. Matthew than it is in St. Mark ; therefore,
they argued, he must be the earlier writer.

2. Priority of St. Mark. — The notion of the
priority of St. Matthew has, however, been so c^jn-
pletely beaten off the held, that we need not spend
lime in refuting it. Suffice it to say that even so
conservative a writer as Dr. Salmon, the late
Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, admitted that
St. Mark's is the archaic Gospel. And no wonder,
for it is simple where the otliers are complex ; it is
meagre where they are rich ; it is a chronicle while
they are histories ; it contains Latin and Aramaic
words which they have translated or removed.
For example, in Mk IS'^^ we find the Latin word
KevTvpiicv, but in the parallel passages St. Matthew
writes e/<-aT6i'Tapxos and St. hxike fKarovrapxri^- Both
Evangelists felt that they must not disfigure their
pages with St. Mark's ' barbarism,' and the different
forms which they used indicate independent action.
Who, on the other hand, could suppose that St.
Mark found eKarovrapxas in St. Matthew, and de-
liberately altered it into KevTvpMy, or that St. Luke
found eKaT6vTapxos, and deliberately altered it into
eKarovTdpxv^ ? i'or these and other reasons it is
maintained in all orthodox schools of criticism that
St. Matthew and St. Luke made use of St. Mark.
Indeed, St. Mark's Gospel furnishes the historical
framework for the others. Equally certain is it
that St. Matthew and St. Luke were unacquainted
with each other's writings. Whatever agreement
exists between them in non-Markan sections comes
from their use of a common source. Augustine
therefore is wrong in every particular.

3. The doctrine of a proto-Mark, of a deutero-
Mark, and of a trito-Mark. — It has, however, long
been debated whether St. Mark's Go.spel in its
complete form lay before St. Matthew and St.
Luke. Many critics have held that St. Luke, at
any rate, had only an Urmarkus — a term which
has been used in Germany to signify a document
shorter than our St. Mark, earlier in date, and
free from those ' picturesque ' additions which
strike the reader of St, Mark's Gospel. Of late
years there has been a growing tendency, both in
Germany and in England, to repudiate the doctrine
of an Urmarkus. Dr. Swete, without arguing the
question at length, expresses the opinion that we
can dispense with it. The Dean of Westminster
is more positive in setting it aside. Nor is this
surprising. Those who reject the oral hypothesis
are beginning to feel that they cannot multiply
documents at pleasure. Litera scripta manet. If
St. Mark's Gospel circulated in the Apostolic age
in three widely different editions, it is impossible
to believe that the first and second editions
perished without being noticed by such scholars

as Origen and Jerome. Nor is it conceivable, as
some maintain, that St. Mark entrusted his first
edition to St. Luke, who incorporated it into his
Gospel, but allowed no one else to make use of it.
No wonder that with men who have an historical
sense such hypotheses are unpalatable. But the
oral hypothesis readily admits of, nay requires,
these gradual growths in St. Mark. Under it
there is no difficulty whatever in believing that
St. Luke's (oral) St. Mark was much shorter than
St. Matthew's, and that St. Matthew's had not
received the final touches. In fact, the oral hypo-
thesis solves the Synoptic Problem. The docu-
mentary hypothesis fails to do so. Both are
equally hypothetical. And those who declare the
oral hypothesis to be incredible have never, as yet,
fairly tackled the arguments on which it rests, or
sufficiently taken into account the habits of the
East and of that age. This, however, is not the
place to plead for the oral hypothesis, nor has the
present writer any wish to do more than demand
for it a dispassionate consideration. In the ex-
amination which follows h^ will not assume its
truth. ■••

ii. "Analysis of St. Luke's Gospel accord-
ing TO THE SOURCES USED. — 1. Flrst Source — St.
Mark. — St. Mark's Gospel (oral or written) was
not merely used by St. Luke, it forms the back-
bone of his Gospel. It is hardly too much to
say that without St. Mark there would have been
neither a St. Luke nor a St. Matthew. But, as we
have already intimated, there is strong reason for
concluding that St. Luke used a much shorter
work, not merely than our St. Mark, but than the
St. Mark which lay before the redactor of St.
Matthew. In short, he used an Urmarkus or an
(oral) proto-Mark. By adopting this view we
account at once {a) for his omissions, (5) for his
variations from St. Mark's order. He omitted
nothing which his St. Mark contained : he ad-
hered to St. Mark's order in every section which
he took directly from St. Mark. The marvellous
simplification of the Synoptic Problem which this
view offers can be appreciated only by those who
have seriously endeavoured to exj^lain to them-
selves and justify to others St. Luke's omissions
and his order.

But St. Luke's omissions are so important that
we must consider them at some length. In the
Synopsis St. Mark's Gospel is divided into 22;)
sections, of which St. Luke omits 54. A group of
sections is omitted between Mk 3^2 a^d 4i. A
much larger group — amounting to more than two
out of St. Mark's 16 chapters — is omitted between
Mk ()" and 8-^. The remaining omissions consist
of single sections scattered over the rest of St.
Mark's Gospel. Only from Mk 2 and 5 are no
sections omitted. It is manifestly the duty of the
critic to account for these omissions, and attempts
have been made by harmonists to do so. Thus
they have suggested (1) that St. Luke omitted
what his readers would not value : being a Gentile
himself, and writing for Gentiles, he naturally
omitted sections which dealt with questions of
Jewish interest ; (2) that he objected to repetition,
and left out what he regarded as dittographies ;
e.g. having given the feeding of 5000, he thought it
unnecessary to narrate the feeding of 4000 ; having
described the anointing of our Lord's feet, he
deemed it superfluous to record the anointing of
His head. These reasons, however, are quite in-
adequate. St. Luke is particularly fond of allud-
ing to Jewish customs, and Gentile Christians have
always taken a deep interest in them. Further-
moi'e, the great majority of his omissions cannot be
accounted for under either of the above heads.
Thus he omits 25 out of St. Mark's 8(5 proper
names. He does so in defiance of his instincts as an

86 LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

historian (Wright, JVT Problems 56-90). Again, he
omits tlie healing of the Syrophoenician's daughter
(Mk 7-'*-^'') — the only case in which our Lord is
recorded to have healed a Gentile. He omits
the only journey which our Lord is said to have
taken through Gentile lands (7-^i-8i"). He omits
our Lord's teaching about the inferiority of he
moral precepts of the Old Testament to those of
the New (Mt 52^- si- ■■«• •«■ «) . All these topics were of
overwhelming interest to Gentile readers, and we
find it impossible to believe that St. Luke deliber-
ately rejected them. The only satisfactory hypo-
thesis is that he was not acquainted with them, as
he would not be if he used a shorter recension of
St. Mark and of tlie Login.

(«) Now, if St. Luke used an earlier recension of
St. Mark, whether oral or written, it is reasonable
to suspect that in several places he has preserved
for us the primitive Petrine wording. He will
occasionally be neai'er to St. Peter's teacliing than
is either St. Matthew or St. Mark. For, if the
trito-Mark has made many additions to the primi-
tive records, so also has he sometimes altered the
tradition. In the index to the S'ynoi^sis nine
passages are pointed out in which St. Luke's
account is held to be the oldest, but there are
probably many more. At any rate it is of the
greatest advantage to the critic to feel that he is
not always bound to vindicate the priority of St.
Mark in details, however highly he may value it
on the whole. And although subjective reasoning
must always be received with caution, it ought not
to be altogether discarded.

(b) Although St. Luke omits, as we have seen,
54 out of St. Mark's 223 sections, he does not
always omit them entirely, but has preserved short
fragments or ' scraps ' of 24 out of the 54. These
'.scraps' are always misplaced in his Gospel. In
fact, the departure from St. Mark's order is our
chief means of detecting them. (They may be
seen in the Synopsis, Table I. a.) No one is likely
now to maintain that these ' scraps ' were copied
directly from a written St. Mark. It is surely
incredible that they should have been torn from
their context and misplaced. But if these ' scraps '
came to St. Luke orally, is it conceivable that he
was so careless as never to have discovered that he
had a full account of them in writing before him ?
To the present writer's mind the very existence in
St, Luke's Gospel of these 'scraps' is conclusive
proof tliat he used an abbreviated St. Mark.
When, therefore, these 'scraps' reached him, he
was not aware that they were Markan. For, if
we mistake not, there w^ere in the Apostolic age
two kinds of oral tradition, both of which contri-
buted much to the composition of St. Luke's
Gospel. First there was a vast body of uncodified
fact, rudis indigestaque moles. Striking sayings
were remembered apart from their surroundings,
striking deeds were recorded without mention of
place or person. These passed from mouth to
mouth informally. Secondly, there was the regular
course of catechetical teaching preserved by those
catechists to whose ill-requited toil St. Paul bears
testimony in Gal &. From these men St. Luke
derived the sections of the proto-Mark in their
invariable order: from the former source he de-
rived the 'scraps' of the deutero-Mark together
with much other matter.

(c) St. Matthew's redactor frequently introduces
non-Mai-kan material into a Markan section, mix-
ing the two together to the reader's confusion. St.
Luke avoids doing this, as a rule, rightly feeling
that his sources ought to be treated with respect.
But, of course, all the ' sci'aps ' are amalgamated
with and lost in other matter.

{d) There are cases in which St. Luke corrects
the proto-Mark or forsakes it in favour of other

sources. Not only does he polish St. Mark's style
in a multitude of instances, but in his third chapter
he gives (with some additions) the account of the
Baptist whicli lie found in tlie second Source, pre-
ferring it to the much shorter account which is
found in St. Mark. The same thing is done in
Mk 3^2-26. He differs from the proto-Mark in hold-
ing that only one of the malefactors who Avere
hanged reviled our Lord, the other turned to Him
for help (Lk 23'59) . In the account of the Eucharist
(according to the true text) he puts the adminis-
tration of the Cup before that of the Bread (Lk
2217-19)^ following in all probability a local litur-
gical usage of which several traces remain. These
changes must have been made deliberately. And
in all cases in which St. Luke or St. John corrects
St. Mark, it is reasonable to believe that they had
good warrant for doing so.

(e) It used to be argued that the testimony of
four men is true, and those passages which are
found in more than one Gospel were held to be
doubly or trebly attested. Criticism has consider-
ably altered our view of this matter. No doubt
the ' Triple tradition ' deserves special respect.
When three Gospels agree verbatim (as they seldom
do for more than a few words at a time), they are
reproducing a source which must be as old as. and
may be considerably older than, any of them.
Tradition assigns St. Mark's Gospel to St. Peter's
teaching, and we are entitled to claim that at least
the proto-Mark may in large measure be regarded
as his work. In this there is scope for apologetics.
But it is evident that, if three Evangelists are
reproducing the same Source, they may be repro-
ducing its defects as well as its excellences. Their
agreement proves the antiquity, but not the infalli-
bility, of the original. Now Papias expressly as-
serts that St, Mark's Gospel is defective in order.
And when we examine it critically we find that it
is arranged topographically. It takes us first to
the Jordan valley for our Lord's Baptism, then to
Galilee for His ministry ; after that comes a jour-
ney to Jerusalem, followed by the Passion. Finally,
the lost verses must have contained a journey into
Galilee, for such a journey is expressly enjoined
on the di.sciples. All three Synoptics adopt this
arrangement, except that the final journey into
Galilee is omitted by St, Luke, belonging, as it
does, to the deutero-Mark. Can we accept St.
Mark's arrangement, supported, as it is, by St.
Matthew and St, Luke ? Is the testimony of three
men true ? No one until quite modern times has
ever thought so. The traditional account is that
it is partly true. The Galilaean ministry was
broken by visits to Jeru.salem, which St. John
alone records. In ignoring them the Synoptists
were wrong. But the ministiy in Jerusalem which
the Synoptists give is assumed to have been un-
broken by visits to Galilee, and must therefore
merely be adjusted with Jn r2-20. This is im-
probable, St. Mark assigns 360 verses to the
ministry in Galilee, which is commonly supposed
to have lasted three years, 251 to the ministry in
Jerusalem, which lasted about a week. Events in
real histoiy seldom move so rapidly. Our conten-
tion is that St. Mark is, as Papias says, and as his
contemporaries probably well knew, defective in
arrangement. Not only ought the ministry in the
North to be broken by several visits to Jerusalem,
but St. Mark's account of the ministry in Jeru-
salem ought to be broken by several visits to
Galilee. Both ministries must be split up and
dovetailed together, if we would attain to the true
sequence of events. St. John corrects St. Mark
by putting the Cleansing of the Temple into the
first year's ministry (Jn 213-2-') instead of the last.
Tlie traditional view that there were two cleans-
ings is discredited in every other case, and is parti-

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 87

ciilarly incredible liere. But if St. Mark has
misplaced it, lie has misplaced also some other
sections which adhere to it. And although we
cannot witli any confidence decide at which par-
ticular visit to Jerusalem each of the recorded
events happened, it is an enormous gain to the
historian to be at liberty to distribute them.

2. Second Source — St. Matthew "s Logia. — When
Papias wrote that ' St. Matthew compiled the
Lngia (or Utterances of our Lord) in the Hebrew
dialect, and each man interpreted them as he was
able,' he cannot, as the traditionalists suppose, be
alluding to our First Gospel, which was written
(at Alexandria?) in Greek. Critical opinion is fast
coming round to the view that St. Matthew com-
piled, not a formal Gospel, but a collection of our
Lord's Utterances, which was incorporated into
our First Gospel, and formed so distinctive a feature
of it, that the whole book was with some justice
called ' the Gospel according to St. Matthew.'
And if this collection was originally oral, as many
who deny an oral Mark are ready to admit, there
is nothing strange in our contention that St. Luke
used it, when it was much shorter : in fact, he used
a proto-Matthew. In that way we explain his
omissions, which are more glaring even than his
omissions from St. Mark.

The question of order, which was complex in
the case of tlie first Source, is simple here. For
St. Luke's order is entirely different from St.
Matthew's. Except on the rare occasions when
St. Mark furnishes a clue, as he does in the
account of the Baptist and of the Temptation, St.
Luke arranges the Logia in one way, St. Matthew
in another. Which, then, of these arrangements
is to be preferred ? Which Evangelist reproduced
St. Matthew's order ? Not the redactor of the
Gospel according to St. Matthew, for he has
ma.s.sed most of the Logia into five huge Dis-
courses, which are impressive for Church reading,
but can hardly correspond to any actual Sermons.
Many critics, however, incline to believe that St.
Luke has preserved the original order, because he
has so scrupulously followed the order of the proto-
Mark. Even if he has done so, we must not
assume that he is any nearer the truth, for we
have no right to suppose that St. Matthew, any
more than St. Mark, had regard to anything else
in arrangement than convenience in Church teach-
ing. It seems to us, however, that there is con-
siderable evidence to show that originally the Logia
were piled one upon another in confused disorder,
as they are in the Oxyrhynchus fragment, with no
other prefaces than 'Jesus said' or 'John said.'
'I'heir arrangement into speeches was the work of
later hands {Synopsis, xxv). If so, this was done
by the art of conllation, which consists in picking
out all the Utterances which dealt with one subject
and arranging them into an artificial speech on
that subject. Such speeches, of which the Sermon
on the Mount is a typical example, do not corre-
spond to any Sermon that was ever preached,
but are compiled for the simplification of teaching,
and for the preservation of important Utterances
which were in danger of being lost. St. Matthew
prefers long conflations. One of these covers three
chajiters (Mt 5-7), another two (24. 25), and three
more one each (10. lo. 2;]). St. Luke's conflations
are shorter, never filling one chapter. They are
therefore more numerous (we reckon nineteen of
them) and more compact; for, whereas it is difficidt
to say what is the subject of the Sermon on the
Mount or of the Charge to the Twelve, there is no
such difficulty with St. Luke. In St. Matthew's
Eschatological Discourses (24. 25) the prophecies
respecting the destruction of Jerusalem and those
respecting the Second Coming of the Son of Man
are inextricably blended together, as though the

redactor regarded the two events as synchronous,
whereas St. Luke separates them (Lk lyiu-w 21''-*).
and it may well be that our Lord habitually did so.

The hypothesis of conflations may come as a
shock to those who have been brought up in the
belief that the Sermon on the Mount is a single
discourse. We credit the Evangelists with some
audacity. Their literary morality must not be
judged by the standard of this century They
were composing Gospels and not formal histories.
They were providing for the need of an age which
lived in daily expectation of the return c)f their
Lord. The work was done wisely and well, for it
has stood the test of time ; but we must under-
stand its limitations if we really care to attain to
the truth.

That the art of conflation was a real thing,
actually practised by the Evangelists, can be fully
proved only by a detailed examination into all the
conflations ; and for that we have no space now ;
but it may help to remove prejudice if we compare
St. Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7) with
St. Luke's Sermon on the Plain (Lk O'-'^-*'-'). Both
begin with Beatitudes, and both end with the same
Warning. We conclude, therefore, that the source
contained the nucleus of a sermon. But the proto-
Matth?eus had only three short and one long
Beatitude, for St. Luke gives no more. In St.
Matthew five others have been added by the
deutero-Matthseus. St. Luke's Beatitudes, short
and long, are all expressed in the second person,
owing to an editorial change made by him for the
purpose of securing literary uniformity. In St.
Luke, Woes follow the Blessings. St. Matthew
contains Woes, but not here. Either, therefore,
St. Luke borrowed these Woes from another source
unknown to us, or they are mere editorial work to
enhance the Blessings. Their close uniformity to
the Blessings favours the latter view. The word-
ing of the Warning, with which the Sermons end,
has been slightly altered in St. Luke to suit the
comprehension of readers who did not live in Pales-
tine, and would not know the action of winter
torrents on a wady. Between the Beatitudes and
the Warning the Source must have contained some
Utterances setting forth the Law of Love. Besides
these, St. Matthew has collected much material, St.
Luke comparatively little ; for St. Matthew's Ser-
mon contains 107 verses, St. Luke's only 30. Yet
we cannot regard St. Luke's Sermon as an abbre-
viation of St. Matthew's. True, he reproduces 20
out of St. Matthew's 107 verses ; but he repro-
duces 32 more of them in other parts of his Gospel,
spreading them over no fewer than seven chapters.
Again, he gives in his Sermon four passages (Lk
624-i;6. 27. 34. 35. 37. 38) which are not found in St. Mat-
thew at all, and therefore do not come from the
Logia. He adds two (O'*^- ■*") which are given by St.
Matthew in a different context. We are justified,
therefore, in regarding the Sermons as in large part
independent conflations. St. Luke's subject, as
usual, is precise, being simply the statement of the
Law of Love ; but the most that we can say for St.
Matthew is that he seems here to be setting forth
the duty of Christian laymen, while in the charge
to the Twelve he gives our Lord's teaching about
the duty of the clergy.

It is a further proof of the fact of conflation
that in some cases, where the subject-matter is so
clearly marked that two Evangelists have collected
the utterances respecting it, which may have been
widely separated in the Source, into one conflation,
they have nevertheless arranged the sections in
different order. Thus in the Temptation, St.
Matthew gives the second and third Temptations
in one order, St. Luke in another. In the passage
about the Ninevites, and Solomon and the Queen
of the South (Mt 12»*-«, Lk ll^^-ss), two such

88 LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

differences of arrangement occur. In the Woes on
the Pharisees, St. Luke's order (Lk IF'-s^) differs
repeatedly from St. Matthew's (Mt 23i^ff), and the
deutero-Matthieus supplies fresh Woes. It is, of
course, possible tliat St. Luke was dissatisfied with
St. Matthew's order, and thought to improve upon
it ; it is more probable that he was not acquainted
with it.

In cases where the subject is less clearly marked,
the Evangelists collect the utterances into inde-
pendent conflations. But there is one very instruc-
tive example. Both Evangelists have gathered
together our Lord's teaching on the subject of
prayer. St. Matthew has put it into the Sermon
on the Mount (Mt 6^-13), St. Luke into an inde-
pendent conflation (Lk lli-i^). St. Luke, however,
has very properly included in his conflation the
utterance, ' Ask, and it shall be given to you,' etc.
St. Matthew has put this also into the Sermon on
the Mount, but in a different department (Mt 7'"i^).
Why is tliis ? The words ' pray ' or ' prayer ' do
not occur in it, and the redactor of St. Matthew,
acting, as we are all liable to do, mechanically, did
not perceive that this Logion dealt with prayer.
St. Luke was more observant.

That the origiual Logia had no prefaces beyond
'Jesus said,' etc., is shown by four remarkable
cases in which St. Matthew (3'' 122^- ^ 16i) applies to
the Scribes and Pharisees, i.e. to the ruling class,
denunciations which in St. Luke (3'' 111^29. le-j
are addressed to the lower orders. Plainly the
Evangelists were left to gather from the contents
of the Logion the persons to whom it was ad-
dressed. St. Luke's pronounced dislike of the
rabble made him incline to them, while St.
Matthew's indictment of the upper class led him
into the opposite direction. It may well be that
biith Evangelists were mistaken. At any rate the
limitations under wliich they worked must be
acknowledged by all seekers after truth.

The contents of the second Source may be seen
in the Synopsis, 187-239. St. Luke's parable of
the Pounds is identified with St. Matthew's parable
of the Talents, and St. Luke's parable of the Great
Dinner with St. Matthew's of the Marriage Feast.

3. Third Source — a Pauline Collection. — If the
first Source contained a good deal of triple tradition,
and the second Source a good deal of double tradi-
tion, the remaining sources consist almost entirely
of single tradition. Again, St. Mark contains a
small quantity of single tradition, added (we be-
lieve) by the trito-Mark. St. Matthew gives a
considerable amount ; but St. Luke surpasses them
both in respect of quantity and interest. And
first we must recognize in his Gospel a collection
of nineteen discourses, parables, and stories which
stand by themselves, and may be called Pauline
from their character (Synopsis, 241-250). We do
not mean that St. Paul had much, if anything, to
do witii their wording ; but some one in sympathy
with Pauline teaching must have edited them.
(Jur Lord spoke the words, but credit must be given
to the collector who preserved them from oblivion.
And if in St. John's Gospel it is more and more
recognized that the mind of the Evangelist cast
the utterances of our Lord into the peculiar form
which they there hold, the same process of redac-
tion may be observed in St. Luke, who comes
nearest of the Synoptists to the methods of St.
John. The story of the Prodigal Son is the crown
of this division, but the stories of the Good Samari-
tan, of the Pharisee and the Publican, of the
woman who washed our Lord's feet with her tears,
ai-e scarcely of inferior interest, while the parable
of the Unjust Steward, when properly interpreted,
is full of interest, and that of the Rich Man and
Lazarus of difficulty. The more we consider this
collection, the more entranced we are with it. It

is the very cream of the Gospel, and yet (strange
to say) ii is peculiar to St. Luke.

In all cases, but especially in those of the single
tradition, the question arises. How near do our
records come to the actual words of Christ ? The
traditionalists, although they are forced to admit
that in the triple and the double tradition some
doubt may exist through the divergences in three,
or two. Gospels, quietly assume that in the single
tradition we have a verbatim report. To this
assumption the critic is unable to assent. If the
triple tradition was first taught by St. Peter, and
confirmed by the general consent of the Churches ;
if the double tradition was taught by St. Matthew
and diffused extensively, the single tradition was
later in formation, lays no claim to Apostolic
origination, and must have been known to tew, or
else by its intrinsic interest it would often have
found its way into more Gospels than one. It is
possible that St. Philip the Evangelist was the
worker to whom we are indebted for the third
Source ; but it is mere guesswork to say so ; there
are no solid grounds for argument. We do not
therefore claim for the single tradition the same
authority that we claim for the others. The work
of an editor is often conspicuous in it, and always
to be suspected. And yet it would be mere scepti-
cism to throw much doubt on these utterances,
many of which vindicate their claim to have been
given by Him who spake as never man spake.
When a witness recollected only one or two sayings
of our Lord, his memory would be specially trust-
worthy. The apologist has no cause to fear, but
he must recognize the human element which plays
its part in all Scripture. In this division the
human element, if we are not mistaken, may be
most clearly seen in the narrative of the washing
of our Lord's feet by the woman who had been a
sinner (Lk 73tJ-50). Our view of this most perplex-
ing section is that its groundwork belongs to the
deutero-Mark, being identical with the Markan
account of the anointing of our Lord's head. It
has been misplaced by St. Luke, but he misplaces
all the deutero-Markan sections which he gives.
St. Luke agrees with St. John in saying that the
feet, not the head, were anointed. In this, accord-
ing to our contention, St. Luke and St. John are
simply following St. Mark's original narrative.
In the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St.
Mark the feet have been changed into the head,
because the Psalmist wrote, ' Thou anointest my
head with oil' (Ps 23^). The early Christians were
always searching for fulfilments of Scripture, and
in some cases the primitive records have been
changed to secure a more complete fulfilment.
Such changes appeared legitimate to the literary
morality of that age, and we have no right to
object {Synopsis, 269).

i. Fourth Source — Anonymous Fragments. —
To this Source we assign 80 fragments of St. Luke,
of which nine are found also in St. Matthew, but,
of course, in a different context. If the sections in
the third Division lack Apostolic authority, still
more probable is it that these do so. Nay, to some
of us it may appear their chief glory, as it is of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, that their authors are
unknown. Hundreds of Christians in Palestine
had seen our Lord in the days of His flesh, and
every one of them would treasure up some personal
reminiscence. The great majority of these have
inevitably been lost, but a few were so widely
known and so much valued that they forced their
way into local Church tradition and so passed into
one — seldom into two — Gospels. All this is quite
certain to the historian. But, of course, difficulties
about chronology arise. Probably most of these
fragments are widely misplaced. Thus St. Luke
(51-11) by a conflation blends the Draught of

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 89

fishes with the deutero-Markan account of St.
Peter's Call. St. John places it (in what we be-
lieve to be its true position) after the Eesurrection
(Jn 211-'*). Now, as St. Luke leaves no room
either in his Gospel or in the Acts for a visit to
Galilee after the Resurrection, it is at last being
confessed that he was not aware of such a visit,
and therefore it was quite natural for him to infer
that the Draught of fishes belonged to St. Peter's
Call, and indeed explains his readiness to rise and
follow Christ without question. But, if this had
been the true connexion of events, it is incredible
that St. Mark, if he gives St. Peter's account of
the call, did not mention it (Synojjsis, 13).

If in the deutero-Mark and in the Logia St.
Luke was content to find a literary connexion for
many of our Lord's Utterances, it is no wonder if
he did so in the fourth Source. He certainly en-
deavoured to write, as he says, ' in (chronological)
order,' but in many cases he had not the detailed
information which was necessary for doing so. St.
Luke's Gospel is probably the least chronological
of the three (as we shall show hereafter more fully),
but in all the Gospels criticism teaches us to value
the picture more than the frame ; to treasure the
Utterance, but esteem at a much lower value the
setting which the Evangelist has given it.

5. Fifth Source — a Private Collection (from the
Holy Family?). — St. Luke's first two chapters,
together with the Genealogy, the Sermon at
Nazareth, and the Raising of the widow's son at
Nain, form our fifth and last Division. Marcion re-
jected the first two chapters and many other sections
from his canon. Wellhausen omits them from his
edition of St. Luke. The Bishop of Ely infers
from Ac l'-^ that they were no part of the first
edition of the Gospel. The present writer has long
taught that they are among the latest additions to
the Gospel, and that they never were part of the
oral teaching : beyond that we can hardly go. The
idea that St. Luke issued two editions of his Gospel
has gained few converts, and Dr. Blass, its chief
advocate, assigns these chapters to both supposed
editions. That they proceed from St. Luke is
shown by the literary connexion which Sir John
Hawkins has traced.

This Division bears testimony to the fact, which
Irensus records, that there was difference of opinion
in the early Church on the question of the Virgin
Birth. St. Paul is silent on that subject, showing,
perhaps, that it had not been raised in his day.
St. John alludes to it in his own peculiar way
(1^^). Both Genealogies seem to have issued from
Ebionite circles, in which our Lord's descent from
Joseph was affirmed. They have been altered
with some rather clumsy editorial changes, to
make them square with orthodox belief. I5ut the
trito-Mark has altered the wording of a passage
(6-5) with a view to support the Virgin Birth
{Synopsis, xli), while St. Matthew's first chapter
and St. Luke's second strenuously assert it.
There can be no doubt that, when once the
question was raised, it was answered in widely
different Churches in no hesitating way. East
and West, at Rome and in the provinces, belief in
the Virgin Birth became a test of orthodoxy.

In St. Matthew, Joseph is the hero, and all action
is taken by him. Mary is kept in the background,
in accordance with Eastern feeling. But in St.
Luke, Elisabeth and Mary are brought forward.
Honour is claimed for women, as it is throughout
the Third Gospel.

It is obvious that the story told in these chapters,
unless it be regarded as a free invention, must have
been derived, directly or indirectly, from the Virgin
Mary herself. The style is strangely Semitic, in
striking contrast to the four verses of preface.
Not only was the original narrative told in Ara-

maic, but the translator has closely imitated the
language and manner of the LXX, feeling that he
could thus best convey the meaning. Few parts of
the Gospel have been more popular than this. The
Sermon at Nazareth (41^29-) jg conflate, nmch of a
(misplaced) deutero-Markan section having been
worked into it. But it shows additional informa-
tion; and long ago the observation was made, that
St. Luke's knowledge of events at Nazareth is
unique. If he had intercourse with some member
of the Holy Family, the mystery is explained.

6. Editorial Notes. — The editorial element in all
the Gospels is very great, for ancient authors took
immense pains to reduce the crude chronicles
which they used into literary form. In Hero-
dotus, Thucydides, Livy, and Tacitus the charm of
style is all their own, and it must have been gained
by unsparing labour. Nor did inspired authors
deem it unnecessary to take pains. Nay, the
Divine treasure which they held in earthen vessels
demanded and received all the skill which they
possessed. Both St. Luke and the redactor of St.
Matthew are artists of a high order.

Editorial changes, however, though they often
improve upon the original, do so at some sacrifice.
The substitution of a more elegant word alters the
precise meaning of the original. The critic's en-
deavour must always be to recover the primitive
wording. And in the triple tradition he can gener-
ally feel sure of his ground; in the double tradi-
tion there is more room for subjective preferences;
while in the single tradition he has little else to
guide him. Just where the records are most
likely to be obscured, the means of verifying them
disappear. We cannot attain to greater certainty
than God has given.

St. Luke's editorial contributions are manifold
and important. He had sources of information
which are closed to us. Even his own opinion is
of high value. But, nevertheless, he worked under
limitations, and an exact scrutiny throws some
doubt upon many of his assertions.

Let us first consider the general arrangement of
his Gospel, which, as we have said, depends almost
entirely on St. Mark. The first thing which
strikes us is the extraordinary fact, that whereas
St. Mark describes our Lord's last journey to
Jerusalem in 52 verses, which St. Matthew ex-
pands to 64, St. Luke devotes to it no fewer than
408 : more than one-third part of his whole Gospel.
How are we to understand this amazing dispro-
portion ? First, let us look at the ' Travel Narra-
tive ' in itself. It contains a very few and slight
Markan ' scraf)s ' : so few, that we are entitled to
call the whole of it non-Markan. There is a good
deal of matter which has been taken from the
second Source ; this, of course, is arranged by St.
Matthew in an entirely different way. But much
of the material is peculiar to St. Luke. For ex-
ample, sixteen out of the nineteen sections of the
third Source are embedded here.

Harmonists say that St. Luke is giving us a
Persean ministry, in which our Lord repeated
much of what He had taught in Galilee. But who
were these Pen^ans, that the wealth of the third
Source should have been reserved for them ? St.
Luke gives us no help in answering that necessary
question. Not a single town or village is named
until we reach the Markan Jericho. If there was
a door open to our Lord at all in Persea, it would
seem to have been among those Galilsean pilgrims
who passed through Persea on their way to keep
the Feast. But there are other difficulties. We
are distinctly taught that our Lord gradually
withdrew from public teaching, first speaking only
in parables, and finally confining Plimself to the
training of the Twelve. But here within a fort-
night of His death (though harmonists try to

90 LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

lengthen the journey, and, indeed, change it into
several journeys, with visits to Jerusalem and
retirements into Galilee of which St. Luke says
nothing) some of the simplest and plainest of His
teaching is set forth. Again, why does St.
Matthew put so many of these sayings into the
Sermon on the Mount or the Charge to the
Twelve ? The theory of repetition is entirely
unsatisfactory (NT Problems, 30-39).

We have little doubt that a different explana-
tion must be found. If St. Luke's sole guide to
chronology was St. Mark, what was he to do with
non-Mai'kan matter ? The difficulty confronted
him continually. New materials reached him,
while he taught at Philippi, by every ship which
arrived. Seldom did the new fragments contain
any clue to their date or occasion. If they were
not worked into his oral teaching they would soon
be forgotten. Some niche must be found for them.
And he began, it would seem, by placing them
into this last journey. Slowly they accumulated
until they reached their present proportions. The
famous ' Travel Narrative ' is therefore really a
collection of undated material. The extraordinary
vagueness which characterizes this Division favours
that view. It is discourse matter, but quite inde-
terminate. Some of the most striking parables
have no further preface than 'He said,' and there
are no indications of locality except that He was
still on the journey. St. Luke's idea was that our
Lord brought forth the best of His treasures as
the time of His departure drew nigh : it is a noble
conception, but not in agreement with what we
learn from the other Gospels. The matter (we
believe) is scarcely arranged at all, and always
wrongly.

If this be so, it is no wonder that we attach low
historical value to those editorial prefaces with
which St. Luke introduces so many sections in this
'Travel Narrative,' and, indeed, outside it also.
Such prefaces appear usually to be inferences from
the contents of the passage or transferences from
other occasions. Thus the parable of the Marriage
Feast according to St. Matthew (22'^-^*) was spoken
in the courts of the Temple. But the parable
of the Great Dinner, which we identify with it,
was, according to St. Luke (1415-24) ^ part of a long
discourse at a Pharisee's dinner table : the
machinery of the dinner table is made much of
by St. Luke in binding the conflation together.
St. Luke stands alone in telling us that our Lord
on three occasions (T^** IP^ 14i) accepted hospitality
from Pharisees. There is reason to think that the
last two of these occasions are due to transference
or assimilation.

St. Luke, like the other Synoptists, seems to
have thought that our Lord's ministry lasted one
year only — ' the acceptable year of the Lord '
(NT Problems, 182-194). He appears to have
placed our Lord's Birth after Herod's death,
though St. Matthew distinctly places it before
that event. For a discussion of this difficult
question the present writer may be allowed to
refer the reader to his edition of St. Luke's Gospel.
Suffice it here to record the conviction that, though
St. Luke has done much for us in connecting our
Lord's life upon, earth with secular history, his
Gospel is very far from being arranged with the
chronological accuracy at which he aimed. He
was working in a place and amid surroundings
which precluded historical research, and, when he
visited Palestine, it was too late to recast the
whole work of his life.

Philosophy was sedulously cultivated among the
Gentiles for whom St. Luke wrote. All the more
earnest thinkers, who were attracted by Christi-
anity, had been brought up as neo-Platonists or
Stoics. They would, of course, bring their philo-

sophy with them into their new religion. Christi-
anity became to a considerable extent leavened by
Hellenistic thought. This is what our Lord fore-
told in the parable of the Leaven, rightly inter-
preted. Now Plato taught the indestructibility of
the soul. But in Mt 10-s God is declared to be
' able to destroy both soul and body in hell,' which
is the usual Biblical doctrine. St. Luke (12^) has
altered this into ' him who has power to cast into
hell.' It would .seem that he, or his informant,
did this to avoid giving offence to the Platonists.
In the Markan account of the Agony in Geth-
semane (Mk 1432-42) there is mitch to perplex a Stoic,
who believed that a good man is never perturbed.
All trace of agony is absent from St. Luke's ac-
count (cf. RVm at 22-'3<-) ; perhaps because the
proto-Mark did not contain it ; more probably
because St. Luke has deliberately struck it out.

St. Luke has long been accused of Ebionism,
because the rich are severely handled in his pages,
and because he expressly commands us to part with
all our property (12^2-34) ; whereas St. Matthew
(according to the Greek) bids us only think more
highly of the heavenly than of the earthly treasure
(6i'-'-2i). St. Luke was certainly not an Ebionite,
or he would not have defended the Virgin Birth or
praised Joseph of Arimathsea. In speaking words
of severity against the rich he is probably faith-
fully reproducing our Lord's words, which were
wont to be incisive. The strongest of all these
sayings against the wealthy is preserved in the
proto-Mark (Mk lO^^), and it is followed by a
declaration in which our Lord Himself cautions us
against interpreting His utterances with prosaic
literality. Nor have Christians generally supposed
that He intended us to pluck out our right eye or
cut off our right hand and foot.

The most striking example of editorial addition
in St. Luke is that in which he attributes the
three hours' darkness to a solar eclipse (23'*^).
In saying so he cannot be right for many reasons
(Comp. of the Gospels, 119).

iii. Points of contact with St. John. — If
St. John's teaching was esoteric, intended for ad-
vanced disciples only, we shall better understand
the rarity of the occasions on which allusions to it
are found in the sub-Apostolic age. But that it
existed orally for many years before it was com-
mitted to writing, is indicated not only by its own
characteristics, but by several cases in which it is
simpler to assume that one of the Synoptists
learned a fact from St. John than that St. John
learned it from him. Many passages are pointed
out in the index to the Synopsis in which the trito-
Mark is held to have drawn from St. John's oral
teaching. There is one case where St. Matthew
does so. And we have now to consider cases where
St. Luke appears to have followed their example.
We have already .seen that St. Luke agrees with
St. John that our Lord's feet were anointed and
not His head. But in that matter we held that
St. Luke is reproducing the original deutero-
Markan statement which has been corrupted in St.
Matthew and in the trito-Mark. The trito-Mark
tells us that the day of the Crucifixion was Friday
(Mk IS'*"-). This statement St. Luke repeats
(23^*), but in a different context and in different
language. The simplest explanation of these
peculiarities and of the absence of the words from
St. Matthew is that both Evangelists, directly or
indirectly, derived their information from St. John.
Finally, St. Luke and St. John tell us that the
sepulchre in which our Lord's body lay was a new
one, ' where no one had yet lain ' (Lk 23^^).

iv. St. Luke's characteristics. — St. Luke the
Gentile was cosmopolitan in his sentiments. St.
Luke the beloved physician had .sympathy for the
sorrows of mankind. The words of pity which he

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

LUNATIC

records were di'awn from the all-compassionate
heart of the Saviour, but to St. Luke is due the
credit of preserving them from oblivion. To his
literary skill we are probably right in attributing
some of the beauty of their form. St. Luke the
disciple of St. Paul tells of the publican, who durst
not so much as lift up his eyes to heaven, but
kept smiting his breast and saying, ' God be
merciful to me the sinner" (18i''). He tells of the
traveller by the wayside, stripped, wounded, and
half-dead, and how the good Samaritan had pity
upon him (lO'^"-'^''). He tells of the Prodigal,
wandering in thoughtless levity from home, spend-
ing his substance in riot and revelry, and then
eating the husks which were thrown to the swine ;
and how the father had compassion upon him and
welcomed him home (15i'-32). He tells of the
poor woman who had been a sinner in the city,
coming behind and washing the Saviour's feet with
her tears (T-''^-^") ; of the robber's appeal on the
cross, ' Lord, remember me when thou comest in
thy kingdom' (23'''-*"'). These and other passages
which set forth the freeness and fulness of pardon-
ing love have been preserved to us only in the
writings of St. Luke, who had more pity for the
weak and for the suffering, for widows and for the
poor, than any other NT writer.

St. Luke was no idealist. He had a literal,
matter-of-fact mind, which blurted out facts
without glossing them. We have seen how he
records without reservation the command to part
with our possessions, as St. Barnabas and others in
their first love did (Ac 4'ii>- "'). Being a physician,
he nevertheless had the strongest belief in the
truth of demoniacal possession, understanding
literally what was originally given as a burst of
insanity (Mk 5^ with parallels). He stands alone
in affirming that our Lord, after His resurrection,
ate a piece of broiled fish before His disciples
(•i-t-*!-*-^). To this he refers, probably in Ac I*, cer-
tainly in Ac 10*1. Many persons in modern times
have felt some difficulty in reconciling this with
the general Scripture account of the nature of our
Lord's resurrection body. It may be one side of
the truth which is apt in these days to be ignored ;
in a coarser age it was the only side that was
accepted. Ignatius supports it in the saying which
he preserves : ' I am not an incorporeal demon '
(Smijr. iii. 1).

V. Date of Writing. — St. Luke's Gospel is
not, like St. Mark's, a bare record of our Lord's
deeds and words, but, to a considerable extent,
a theological exposition of their meaning. St.
Luke, like his master St. Paul, has reflected on
them, and is anxious to impress on the reader his
own ideas about them. Such action demands time.
In spite of 1 Ti 5i*, we cannot admit that St. Luke
wrote before St. Paul's death.

Again, if we observe the treatment in his pages
of the destruction of Jerusalem, contrasting his
precise language (21-^*) with the vague predictions
in St. Mark (IS*-*), we can hardly doubt that
he wrote after the event, and edited the word-
ing accordingly. The end of the world was not
with him, as it was with the redactor of St.
Matthew, synchronous with the burning of the
Temple. He carefully puts our Lord's teaching
about the last days into a separate conflation,
which he prefaces with a remarkable saying which
warns us against a literal interpretation : ' The
kingdom of God is witliin you ' (17-i).

But there are no 2nd cent, ideas in the Gospel,
nor anything to throw doubt upon the unanimous
and early tradition of St. Luke's authorship. Nor
would so obscure a member of the Church have
been selected as author if there had not been good
ground for the belief. Probably his name stood
on the original title-page.

We are, therefore, probably right in assigning
the date to about 80 a.d.

Literature.— Pluinnier's Commentary (T. &T. Clark) is good
on the linoruistic side. The ConunentaiifS of Meyer (German)
and of Godet (French) have been pnblished in English by T. &
T. Clark, but the later German editions of Meyer, edited by
H. and J. Weiss, are preferable. In the £j'positor's Greek Testa-
ment the Synoptic Gospels are treated from the side of the
higher criticism by A. K. Bruce, but unfortunately the TR is
used. Wellhausen has translated the Gospel into German with
a few critical notes. For comparative study Wright's St. Luke
and his Syiiopsin may be used. In /force Syiiopticce Sir .J. C.
Hawkins has collected statistics of great value. Hobart's
Medical Langtiuge of St. Luke needs some weeding out, but
has never been refuted. A. Kesch, in Pus Kindlieitn-Eran-
(lelium, as in his other writings, collects an immense fjuantity
of illustrative matter, but the critical standi)oint which he
adopts is not generally acceptable, liamsay ( !(«.< Chri.ft horn
at Bethlehem ?) successfully defends St. Luke as an historian of
high rank, but insists too much on his accuracy in editorial
details. Blass, in his edition of St. Luke's Gospel and of the
Acts, follows Lightfoot in suggesting that St Luke published
two editions of his works — one for Theophilus and another for
use by the Church. In this way he accounts for the Western
readings, which, however, are found in other books of the NT.

A. Wkight.
LUNATIC—

Introduction.
1. Difficulty of classifying NT casea.

1. From the medical side.

2. From the Biblical side.

ii. Leading cases reported in Gospels.

1. Capernaum lunatic.

2. Case at foot of Mt. of Transfiguration.
8. Gerasene victim.

4. Other cases,
iii. Question as to possession by evil spirits. Prevalent mis-
conceptions. Truer conception,
iv. Our Lord's method of restoration. Kinship with modern
medical treatment.

Literature.

The word ' lunatic ' in the AV of NT is the tr. of
(ye\-r)vi6,^€ardai (from (reXrivri, 'the nioon') which occurs
in Mt 4-^ 17*5, and nowhere else in the NT or in
classical or Biblical Greek. Literally its meaning
is 'to be moonstruck.' The Vulgate translates it
lunaticus, and in Mt IT^^ lunaticns est, where
Tindale gives ' is f ran tick,' and other versions
practically follow the Vulgate. Sir John Cheke
(1550) has the exi^ression ' is moond ' as the equiva-
lent of ' lunatic,' putting into plain English the
ancient thought expressed by the word. The
influence of the moon on persons was believed to
be injurious, and to be able to cause them to
become moonstruck (Ps 121"), an idea which has
been widely prevalent and still persists. The fact
that certain forms of insanity are periodical, no
doubt gave rise in part to the idea. Dr. Menzies
Alexander says : ' The popular idea that there is
some connexion between the moon and epilepsy is
partly due to the confusion of epilepsy with epi-
leptic insanity. The bright moonlight of the
Orient has a curious stimulating effect on such
creatures as crows and dogs, making them restless
and noisy. It has an exciting effect also on those
afflicted with epileptic insanity. In both cases
darkness acts as a sedative.'

The EV of the two passages in Mt. above cited prefers
' epileptic ' and ' is epileptic ' as tr. for o-eArjuo^eo-floi, but without
substantial warrant. The ground for the ju-eference according
to Encyc. Bibl. is that a Greek medical writer of the 7th cent,
gives €7nAT)7rTiKd? as the correct scientific term for the disorder
referred to, and that Sai/uon^diiiei/os and a^Kr\vi.aC,6\i.ivo<i were the
popular terms for the same disease.

But the word ' lunatic ' covers more than the
cases in which Mt. uses <reXr]vid^ea6ai. The men-
tally deranged also are described by the Evan-
gelists as daifj.ovii;6fjL€voi, and no kind of doubt is
possible that the latter term included many sufferers
who are now called lunatic, as Avell as simple epi-
leptics and epileptic idiots. The uncontrollable
explosions of nervous energy which characterize
these cases were not unnaturally attributed solely
to demonic agency. The explanation is so simple
and direct and apparently so adequate, that none
other was sought for. But the term ' lunatic '

LUNATIC

must be restricted in its use to those who were
mentally deranged, and ought not to be applied to
those who were simply epileptic, or sutl'ering from
mental feebleness or imbecility.

The attempt to trace a differentiation between mental diseases
on the part of the Evanjfelists cannot be pronounced successful,
being based upon far too slender ground in a simple NT passage,
lit 42-*, where hai/MviX^of^itot and inXY,via,'C,ofjt.ivoi are placed side by
side. (1) We ha\e no grounds for expecting such precision in
writers like the Evangelists. (2) The same writer uses (ilt 17io)
the word a-ikvivia.t,Krli«.i of a case which is not simple epilepsy (see
below). (3) He does not use the word for the Gerasene de-
moniacs of Mt 82**, where we have undoubted cases of lunacy.
(4) Luke the physician knows nothing of the distinction so far
as his own usage is concerned. (5) It is not to be thought that
Mt. alone of the Evangelists traced a distinction between the
epileptic and the possessed, or that he would not attribute an
attack of simple epilepsy to the domination by evil spirits.

The Evangelists class all the cases together, and use both
words to cover the same trouble of mental derangement, while
the latter word Sai^wjoasio/ is also employed with a wider
signification. The fact that the description given in the Gospels
enables us to classify the instances under the broad types of
mental disease is evidence of the faithful unsophisticated narra-
tion of what the Evangelists had seen or heard, not of their
having any scientific understanding of the phenomena in ques-
tion.

i. Difficulty of classifying NT cases.—
The Gospels record and describe three clear cases
which may be included under the general head of
lunacy. Others are probably indicated with no
kind of description ; or only the very vaguest
is given. But the task of determining to which
particular class of lunacy the cases described are
to be assigned is not without difficulty, and perhaps
cannot at present be accomplished without some
degree of uncertainty. The difficulty is twofold.

1. The current classifications, in vogue amongst
alienists, of the various insanities are very numer-
ous, and by common consent far from being final.
Certain of these systems, some adopted by Inter-
national Congresses and others determined by
representative associations, and generally in use
among the leading mental physicians of Great
Britain, are valuable chiefly as giving facilities,
the one for international conference, the other for
national comjmrison and correspondence. Clouston
in his Clinical Lectures provides a good working
classification. Following the example of many
illustrious predecessors, he divides mental diseases :
(1) according to the mental symptoms manifested,
and (2) according to the causes of the disorder and
to the relationships of the disease to the great
physical periods of life and to the activities other
than mental. But the researches of the present
day, and especially in respect of the causes of
mental dergingement, with their suggestions of
toxic and bacteriological origin, are profoundly
modifying the genei'alizations which only a few
years ago were accepted as satisfactory. Brilliant
and enthusiastic investigators in Italy, France,
Germany, America, and in our own country are
'settling much and unsettling more' (Clouston),
and while this condition of science is full of prom-
ise for the ultimate goal of all such research in
tlie alleviation and recovery of the malady and the
removal of its causes, the prevalent uncertainty
does not lessen the difficulty of classifying the NT
cases. The difficulty arises largely from the facts
that (rt) the symptoms from one class are combined
in ever - varying proportions with symptoms of
other classes, rendering the task of deciding which
is the predominant symptom according to which
the maladj' must be classified well-nigh impossible ;
and (b) a similar combination is discovered among
the causes producing the disorder. Accordingly
some have scofi'ed at the attempt to classify mental
diseases with all the divisions and technology of a
botanical or zoological system. And perhaps it is
more important to mark carefully all the symptoms
in each case and study the predisposing and actual
causes so far as they can be ascertained.

2. The difficulty from the Biblical side lies in
the following facts, (a) The descriptions of the
cases mentioned in the Gospels are non-scientific.
They do not profess to give a complete methodized
account of the ailments with which the power of
Jesus dealt. The Evangelists give no sign that
they themselves understood what they describe.

(b) They deal only with symptoms. Causes of the
disorder were not sought for, the prevalent theory
of demonic possession being to them adequate to
account for the trouble, and this possession the
only possible cause. Our Lord Himself speaks and
acts as though upon the whole He shared the con-
ceptions of the time. Possibly because in this
realm, as in others. He in His incarnate condition
shared the limitations of the race, or because He
could not take upon Himself the task of correcting
and remoulding the deep-lying misconceptions of
that generation with respect to these matters,
without withdrawing His strength from far more
vital concerns on which in the short time at His
disposal He must concentrate all His attention.

(c) The Evangelists' descriptions probably do not
give all the symptoms which a modern alienist
would have noted, but only those which for one
reason or another were pressed particularly upon
their observation.

ii. Leading cases of lunacy reported in
NT. — 1. The case in the synagogue at Capernaum
(Mk pi-28, Lk 431-37). The symptoms indicated by
the Evangelists are —

(1) The predominance of unclean habits and in-
stincts. Mk. speaks of the man as being under
the influence of an unclean spirit ; Lk. of the
spirit of an unclean demon. This might possibly
mean no more tiian that the victims of this
malady habitually haunted unclean places, as
tombs, and desert regions believed to be the habi-
tation of demons. But the greater probability is
that it points to 'moral alienation,' which Esquirol
{Maladies Mentales) declared was the proper char-
acteristic of mental derangement. ' The subtle
influence of epilej^sy, or rather of that condition of
the nervous system Avhich gives rise alike to epi-
leptic seizures and certain mental symptoms, is
most strikingly manifested in the change which
takes place in the moral character ' (Bucknill and
Tuke).

(2) Convulsive seizures. This feature is not
made prominent in the case before us, but is indi-
cated by the words of Mk 1^, ' And the unclean
spirit tearing (RVm 'convulsing,' airapd^av) him
and crying with a loud voice.'

(3) Uncontrolled impulse, leading the victim in
defiance of all that was fitting and customary to
burst into the assembly at tlie liour of worship.

(4) The patient's belief in and identification of
himself with an alleged evil spirit. He speaks of
himself and the evil power as one — 'What have
we to do with thee ? ' This may be explained as
an example of a well-known delusion classed as
demonomania, but the question must not be fore-
closed (see below). At least, however, an element
of delusion may be traced in the feeling of entire
and inevitable subjection to the monstrous control.

(5) The acknowledgment of Messiah. This has
been claimed as the classical criterion of demonic
possession, all cases where it is not found being
regarded as not due to this cause even altliougli
the Scripture so attributes them (Menzies Alex-
ander). But argument from silence is always
perilous, and especially so in dealing with the
Gospel narratives. And other cases might yet be
genuinely demonic where the confession is appar-
ently or really absent. And, on the other hand,
the acknowledgment might reasonably be regarded
as the last vestige of rationality in the otherwise
deranged nature.

LUNATIC

Attempting to classify the above, it may be
ranged symptomaticallj' under Clouston's head —
' States of Defective Inhibition, or Impulsive In-
sanity,' the chief characteristic of which is un-
controllable impulse, and ■which inclutles general
impulsiveness, ejnleptiform inqjulse (indicated by
the convulsions), animal, sexual and organic im-
pulse (pointed to by the term ' unclean ' applied to
tliis and other instances). Clinically considered
(according to the causes) it most nearly approaches
epileptic insanity. This ' means insanity with
epilepsy, whether the convulsive affection has pre-
ceded the insanity and has seemed to be the cause,
or whether it has appeared during the course of
the mental disease only as a symptom or complica-
tion ' (Bucknill and Tnke). The presence of epi-
leptic insanity is not always indicated by epileptic
tits but by the character of the mental disturbance,
tlie paroxysmal gust of passion, the blind fury.
And therefore Defective Inhibition is difficult to
distinguish from Mania. Out of 385 epileptic
women observed by Esquirol (Maladies Mcntalcs,
vol. i.), only 60 were free from mental derange-
ment, and nearly all were unstable, peculiar, easily
enraged.

2. The case at the foot of the Mt. of Transfigura-
tion (Mt 17"-=", Mk 9'7-2«, Lk 9=*"-«).— Two 'sides
are plainly marked in this disorder: (1) The
physical. Uncontrollable paroxysms accompanied
by foaming at the mouth and gnashing of teeth,
succeeded by utter prosti'ation. The afHiction had
been from infancy, pointing to some congenital
disease involving the other physical features —
deafness and dumbness. (2) The mental. At
least idiocy, but more probably lunacy, a feature
of which was the suicidal mania manifested. The
indication is that during the time while he was
free from convulsions and their effects the patient
was not mentally disturbed. The suicidal impulse
was apparently spasmodic and periodical, but no
very solid ground is given to theorize upon.

The ei)iiepsy is more pronounced than in the
previous case, and the .suicidal tendency is added.
But possibly, if the previous instance liad been
fully described, it might more nearly approximate
to the one under consideration. The classification
must be under the same general head — Defective
Inhibition or Epileptic Insanity (rather than Epi-
leptic Idiocy — as Alexander).

3. The Geraseue^ victim (Mt S^s-^-i, Mk 5i-2», Lk
g26-:i9j — 'Pljg physical symptoms, the convulsions,
that characterize 1 and 2, are here absent, and
the features of mental derangement become all-
prominent. The victim is possessed by an un-
governed violence, having the command of a
morbid muscular energy. This uncontrollable
power was one that increased, for the description
implies that in the earlier stages they had been
able to control him in some measure by binding,
but that the binding had increased the violence
of the power so that he could no longer be bound
(Mk 5^-'*). 'The tenses used {SeSecrdai, duaTraa-dai,
(TvvT€TpL(p0ai) denote the relation of these past acts
to the pre.sent inability' (Gould, Intcrnat. Crit.
Com. on 'St. Mark'). The malignant jjower con-
trolling the life drove him into the tombs and
mountains, causing him to utter frenzied cries and
leading to impulses of self-mutilation, apparently
also to homicidal tendencies (Mt 8^*). Loss of
personality is the dominant feature of the case,
evidenced by the absence of the sense of all htness,
causing him to destroy his clothing and rush about
in nakedness, and by his positive feeling of being
possessed by a legion of devils which tore his life
asunder. At times he thoroughly identifies him-
self with tlie power that controlled his life ('we
are many '), and is terrified by the fear lest he and
they should be driven from their hiding-place. A

conspicuous feature also was the homage paid by
the evil power, or by the man in spite of the evil
power, to the authority of Jesus (Mk 5", Lk 8'-^).

The case belongs to those described by Clouston
as ' states of mental exaltation or mania,' which
includes the varieties simple, acute, delusional,
chronic, ei)lienieral, homicidal ; and the indications
all point to acute mania with delusions. The fixed
idea of plural possession would lead to the medical
classification 'Demonomania,'a variety of 'religious
mania.'

i. Other cases. — (1) The daughter of the Syro-
pluenician woman, Mt lo-^--^, JNIk T'^--^. (2) The
dumb demoniac, Mt 9-'--3^ Lk 11'^- ^^. (3) The blind
and dumb demoniac, Mt 12--"-^. These cases are
not described except in most obscure terms. In (2)
and (3) the interest of the narrator was fixed ujjon
other elements of the occasion. And they would
all be doubtfully classified as cases of lunacy. (4)
Mary of Magdala (Mk 16", Lk 8-), with whom are
classed other women healed of evil spirits and in-
firmities. Mary Magdalene is said to have been
delivered from seven demons. The expression may
be due {a) to the Evangelist's sense of the violence
of the derangement to which she had been subject,
or (6) to the current idea of manifold posse.ssion
among the disciples, to which Jesus gave no
sanction, or (e) to mania and delusion of manifold
]iossession. But nothing can be determined beyond
the fact that Jesus had delivered her from griev'ous
bodily or mental distress, or a combination of
tlie.se.

The Evangelists give full prominence to the
physical side of these distressing afflictions, not
because they understand the symjitoms they de-
scribe, but because they testify simply and artlessly
to what they had themselves witnessed, or what
had become part of the common tradition from the
testimony of eye-witnesses. But the i^hysical is
not the only side. Even in bodily disorders it is
being more fully recognized that there is the
mental or psychical factor in the problem as it
faces the physician (see art. CURES). And the NT
plainly sets forth this psychical element in the cases
now before us. They ascribe the trouble directly
to an intangible sjjiritual influence which possesses
the being of the sufi'erer, takes the use of the
bodily organs, and controls the Avill. And thus
emerges —

iii. The question as to possession by evil
SPIRITS. — How far does the NT in attributing
these disorders to demonic possession give a true
account of the phenomenon ? The question is
not to be determined by invoking authority, either
that of the NT or of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The authority of the Gospels is of a totally differ-
ent order, and moves in a higher sphere than that
of writers who were ' supernaturally ' lifted above
( he current concei)tions of their generation. We
have no warrant for believing the Evangelists to
have been granted knowledge of mental disease in
advance of the scientific attainments of their own
day. Nor can incjniry be silenced by the appeal
to the fact that our Lord Himself habituallj' spoke
and acted as if He recognized the presence of evil
spirits in mental disease. The Christian apologist
t.akes unnecessarily perilous ground when he de-
clares that for our Lord to have been limited in
knowledge invalidates His authority as Prophet
and Saviour. In His condition as incarnate our
Lord did share the liniitations that belong to our
human lot, and advanced in knowledge of human
afi'airs and scientific problems by normal human
processes.

But it is equally important that the matter should
not be <logmatized ofl' the roll of discussion by those
who claim to speak in the name of science and
declare that the NT explanation is ' impossible '

LUNATIC

on the ground that sjnritual agencies do not exist.
Tlie question, if left open, must be open on both
sides ; and there are certain considerations whicli
must be borne in mind while we examine the pos-
sibility of spiritual agencies being concerned, as
concomitants of tiie phj'sical disease or nervous
instability, in cases of mental derangement, whether
in NT times or in the present day.

( 1 ) We must guard ourselves from the conception
of these evil spiritual agencies as semi-sensuous
beings, possessed of bodily form, appetites and
passions. The conception has vitiated human
thought from early Semitic times, in the NT age,
through the jNIiddle Ages down to the present, when
it is even yet strangely j^ersistent. The popular
thought of Satan is grotesquely dominated by that
idea, and much of the prevalent disbelief in the
existence of a spiritual adversary can be traced to
that gross misconception.

(2) Kindred to this is the thought of a multi-
plicity of demons being concerned in the possession
of a human life. This idea has been responsible
for much false conception in the case of the Gera-
sene sutierer. And it cannot be too strongly
emijhasized that nowhere does our Lord give the
least sanction to any such notion. He never
speaks of more than one evil or unclean spirit (see
Alexander, Demonic Possession, ch. vii. ).

(3) In place of misconceptions, a right conception
needs to be grasped of the malignant powers that can
make a prey of an otherwise disordered human life.
So far from the idea of semi-sensuous beings repre-
senting the truth, it would be far truer to think of
possession as akin to the condition seen in intense
anger, or extreme fear. ' Anything is a possession
that dispossesses the man of himself, from whatever
world it comes' (Bushnell). We are yet far from
being able to define the nature of mind or spirit.
We believe in mind on the ground of its manifest
action in the directing of our human activities,
because of the things it creates and destroys. But
what mind is, passes our power to conceive and
define. And the same is true of spirit. But Ave can
make no progress in understanding the Universe
and our human life within it, except on the as-
sumption of a Supreme and Holy Intelligence and
Will behind all physical and mental phenomena.
We believe in a living Personal God, and the faith
illumines all life and being. Moreover, we are
ourselves personalities constantly acting upon, and
being acted upon by, other personalities. A moral
world is inconceivable on any other terms. And
is it unreasonable if we decline to admit the impos-
sibility of other superhuman personalities, some of
them centres of benignant and others of malignant
moral energy, being present and active in and upon
our life here ? Who can reasonably deny that such
evil agencies may conceivably take advantage of
an unstable nervous system or a disordered physical
constitution, and possess and control the whole
being ?

(4) It must also be made clear that the physical
disease may be the effect of a potent psychical dis-
order. The whole mischief may come from the
.side of the mental or psychical. A long-continued
yielding of the mind or spirit to evil agencies may
result in physical deterioration, just as truly as
physical deterioration may give the opportunity
for an evil spiritual possession. ' Prolonged mental
enfeeblement is followed by brain atrophy, and pro-
longed mental disturbances by structural brain
changes ' (Clouston). A consideration of our Lord's
method in dealing Avith this disaster in humanity
Avill increase our unwillingness to bar out the
' demonic ' element in lunacy. See also artt. Ac-
commodation, vol. i. 20 f., and DEMON, ib. 441 fi".

iv. Our Lord's restoration of the 'lunatic'
— The Synoptic Gospels all ascribe to Jesus a unique

command over these afflicted persons and over the
alien power that possessed them. He Avas able to
restore the lost .self-control and also to deal Avith
the disease Avhich Avas commonly the physical basis
of the mental derangement. The latter jwrtion of
the process is akin to our Lord's healing of bodily
diseases (see Cures) ; but the action of Jesus is
upon the body tlu-ough the mind, and upon the
mental or psychical directly. Mental physicians
Avlio treat lunacy from the physical side yet fully
recognize the existence of the" psychical, and the
possibility and actuality of alleviation being
brought by action upon that side of the ailment.
' The action of " mind on mind " in healthy brains
is direct, intense, and most subtle. The same is
the case Avhen the brain is disordered, and hence
in psychiatry mental therapeutics are a most im-
portant means of treatment' (Clouston). Such
facts are truly illuminative of the action of Jesus,
and Ave may not unreasonably attribute His restor-
ing poAver to a master-influence Avhich, while it
transcends all that is knoAvn of the human, yet
is not on a totally different plane. In Jesus the
poAver of mind Avas at its fullest and finest by
reason of : ( 1 ) His intense and penetrating sympathy
Avith mankind ; (2) His vigorous Avill to bring help
and deliverance to all human sufferers ; (3) His
continual and perfect alliance and moral union
Avith the Divine PoAver in Avhich He lived and
moved and had His being. The Divine Will can
and does manifest itself in cA^ery human unselfish-
ness and symjiathy and generous helpful impulse,
and through a human personality healing forces
of God Himself are at Avork amidst all human
distress and oppression. And in our Lord that
Divine healing might find full scope and un-
hindered freedom of activity, so that the Name
of Jesus Avas a healing, restoring, life-giving Name,
even empoAvering feeble disciples to cast out devils
(see art. Miracles, c).

The method of Jesus clearly suggests the exer-
cise of a Holy Divinely-informed Will and Person-
ality upon other Avills and personalities. The
features Avhich most impressed those avIio Avit-
nessed His action Avere the rebuke, the command,
the authority Avhich claimed and obtained unhesi-
tating homage and obedience (Mk 1-'"^', Lk 9''""'*^),
inevitably reminding them of ' the majesty of God.'
Especially does His dealing Avith the Gerasene
lunatic indicate His secret. He goes direct to
the lost self-control, seeks to recover the sub-
merged personality, and to remove that self-
identification Avitli the evil poAver. He endeavours
to aAvaken the man to the true sense of his oAvn
individuality and to set it free from an alien
domination. ' What is thy name ? ' He asks. By
the efficient co-operation of the man He avouIcI
break up that terril)le sympathy and alliance
Avhicli caused the victim to say, ' We are many.'
(The suggestion of Schmiedel that in asking this
question Jesus Avas, like a modern alienist, seeking
to discover the delusions of the patient, amounts
to an anachronism). And the unique Personality
of Jesus had the poAver to evoke, and giA^e once
again its commanding controlling place to, this
essential energy of the man.

Modern treatment of the insane bears a most
suggestive likeness to the method of Jesus. By
cheerful surroundings, by healthful labour, by
the encouragement of all existing faculty in the
patient, by amusement and music and religious
exercises, and not least by human sympathy, the
endeavour is made to conserve every vestige of
self-possession, to keep alive and to develop all
available capacity. The constant efibrt is to
penetrate through all physical and psychical dis-
abilities to the real .and eft'ective personality. It
may fairly be said that medical skill and investi-

LUST

LYSANIAS

gation into causes and remedies of this distress-
ing malady are yet in their preliminary stages, and
the progress of the years may be followed with
the utmost hopefulness because in all such investi-
gation the Divine Spirit energizes.

Literature. — Griesinger, Mental Pathology and Thera-
peutics {tr.), 1S67; D. Hack Tuke, Dictionary of Psychological
Medicine, 2 vols. 1892 ; Bucknill-Tuke, Manual of Psychologi-
cal Medicine, 1874; Maudsley, Physiology and Pathology of
Mind, 2 vols. 1879; Clouston, Clinical Lectures an Mental
Disease^, 1904; Macpherson, Mental Affections, 1899 ; Traite de
Pathologic Mentale, by various writers, ed. Ballet, Paris, 1903 ;
Kraepelin, Clinical Psychiatry (tr.), 1904. On Biblical aspects of
the question, consult artt. on ' Medicine,' ' Satan,' ' Demonology, '
' Exorcism,' etc., in Hastings' £>B ; also kindred artt. in Encyc.
Bibl. ; R. Bennett, Diseases of the Bible, 1887; Menzies Alex-
ander, Demonic Possession, 1902 [brings together most valuable
data for the discussion of the whole question]. See also Litera-
ture at end of artt. Miracle.s and Curbs, and chapter on
' Demoniacs ' in The Finger of God, by the present writer.

T. H. Wright.
LUST.— The noun 'lust' {iTTLdv/jLla) occurs only
twice in EV of Gospels (Mk 4«, Jn 8«), and the
verb 'to lust' {iirievixiw) only once (Mt 5"^). Both
noun and verb, however, are of common occurrence
in the rest of the NT. In modern usage, ' lust ' is
confined to sexual desire ; but, when the AV was
made, the word had a much greater elasticity of
meaning, corresiionding in this respect to (iridv//.la
and iiridvfiiu}. In NT, as in classical Gr., these
words properly denote strong desire whether good
or bad, then evil desire in particular, and finally
sexual desire specifically. Even in the Gospels we
find illustrations of these varying connotations of
both the Gr. and the Eng. terms. When our Lord
says of His desire to eat of His last Passover
eirievfilg. eireevfitjcra (Lk 22^5), He simply expresses a
deep longing. When He speaks of the seed of the
word being choked by the lusts (iiridvfilai) of other
things (Mk 41"), these lusts are desires not neces-
sarily evil, though the taint of evil is beginning
to enter, because, while in themselves they may be
harmless, these desires are allowed to hinder the
operation of the word. When He says to the
Jewish leaders, ' Ye are of your father the devil,
and the lusts (iircdvfilai) of your father it is your
will to do,' both ' lust ' and iinev/j.ia have passed into
a distinctly bad meaning. And in Mt 5"* the Gr. and
the Eng. word are alike equivalent to lascivious
desire. See also art. Desire, vol. i. p. 453.

Very little is said explicitly about lust in the
Gospels, because little is needed. _Lust_ is not
to be dallied with or compromised with ; it is to
be totally and continually shunned and avoided.
Inward lust is as heinous as outward adultery to
the eye of God, which vieAvs alike the inside and
the outside of man (Mt 5^8).* The lustful eye will
make the whole body full of darkness (Mt 6-*).
The single eye and mind are free from lustful
fancies and thoughts (Lk 11=^). The honest and
good heart brings forth only good fruit (Lk 8^^).
Either the heart must be pure, and its fruit pure ;
or else impure, and its fruit impure (Mt 12^).
Adulteries, covetings, lasciviousness, — ^these dehle
a man (Mk 7"^). And lust, in its very nature, is
unholy. Hence Christ's Holy Sjiirit is oppo.site to,
and inconsistent with, the lustful demon which
makes its foul abode in the neglected heart of the
careless or heedless or wanton. There is no limit
to the iniquity and abandonment to which such
evil possession or corruption may drag the blinded,
be.sotted soul intent upon brutish delights never
realized. Herod's course was impeded only a little
by the rebuke of a John Baptist (Mk 6^^). No
man can serve two masters (Lk 16^^) ; and he that
committeth sin is the bondservant of sin (Jn S^"*).

W. B. Frankland and J. C. Lambert.
LYSANIAS.— This name is given by St. Luke
(3^) among those who ruled in the various parts of
Syria and Palestine at the time when John the

* See discussion of this passage in art. Adultery.

Baptist entered upon his public work. The name
does not again occur in the NT. A Lysanias is
mentioned by Dio Cassius (xlix. 32) as having been
made king of Iturisa by Mark Antony and after-
wards put to death by him. This same Lysanias
is also spoken of by Josephus {A^it. xv. iv. 1), who
adds that Antony was moved to the step of put-
ting Lysanias to death by Cleopatra, on the ground
that he had conspired against her wdth the Par-
thians. The same Lysanias and his connexion
with the Parthians are alluded to also elsewhere
by Josephus {BJ I. xiii. 1 ; A^it. XIV. xiii. 3).
The data agree in making him the son of Ptolemy,
and locating his reign between B.C. 40 and 36. A
Lysanias is mentioned again by Josephus in Ant.
XVIII. vi. 10 and xx. vii. L In both of these
passages the territory over w'hich he ruled is
designated a tetrarchy (cf. BJ il. xi. 5, xii. 8 ;
Ant. XIX. V. 1).

The question raised by these data is. Does
Josephus know two men of the name or one ? If
he knoW'S two, the Lysanias of St. Luke is evi-
dently the second, and no further difficulty exists.
If, however, he has the same man in mind through-
out, the question next emerging is as to whether
St. Luke knew and alluded to another and younger
Lysanias, or erroneously identified the only ruler
of that name with the times of the public appear-
ance of John the Baptist and Jesus. In favour of
the latter view, it is alleged that Josephus never
gives any intimation of a difference between the
two men of the name, and in fact does not at
first reading seem to know two. His readers were
bound, it is argued, to suppose that the Lysanias
who was executed in B.C. 36 is meant wherever the
name is used. St. Luke was acquainted with the
writings of Josephus, but did not use them with
accuracy, and an error is quite probable. He
makes an error in defining the limits of the realm
of Philip, Ituraea. It is not held that an error
can be demonstrated in his statement regarding
Lysanias, but the probability is said to be for
such an error, and the grounds for believing in a
second Lysanias are regarded as unsatisfying.
This view was propounded by Strauss, and has
been supported by Keim, Krenkel, and Schmiedel.
Per contra, that there were two men of the
name is argued from various considerations. (1)
Though Josephus does not explicitly say that he
is speaking of two distinct persons, his descriptions
imply such a distinction. Lysanias the son of
Ptolemy was not a tetrarch, but bore the title of
king (so he is also called by Dio Cassius). (2) The
limits of the territories over which the Lysaniases
of Josephus ruled are different. The elder Lysanias
inherited from his father a kingdom including
Chalkis on the Lebanon. This was not, however,
included in the realm of the tetrarch Lysanias. (3)
Abila was associated with the name of the tetrarch,
but not with that of the son of Ptolemy. (4)
During the reign of Tiberius, or at least 50 years
after the death of the first Lysanias, a certain
Nymphseus built a road and erected a temple, and
left an account of these acts in an extant inscrip-
tion {GIG 4521). In this inscription he calls him-
self ' a freedman of Lysanias.' It is impossible
that he should have been the freedman of the son
of Ptolemy. He must be regarded as living under
the tetrarch. (5) Another inscription at Heliopolis,
whose ZacwwfiE have been filled out by Renan, renders
it exceedingly probable that there were more than
one ruler bearing the name in question. (6) A
coin discovered by Pococke at Nebhi-Abel (Abila)
bears the superscription Kvaaviov Terpapx. Kal dpx'f-
p^ws. But as Dio calls the first Lysanias a king,
it is at least doubtful that the lower title of
tetrarch should appear on his own coin. In that
case the coin must have been struck by the

MAATH

MADNESS

second Lysanias. (7) Finally, an inscription (CIG
4523) informs iis that Lysanias the son of Ptolemy
left children behind him. It is probable that the
names Lysanias and Zenodorus -were dynastic
names, and that the second Lysanias was given
the name of him who was put to death in 36.
This is the view supported by S. Davidson,
Wieseler, Renan, Schiirer, Plummer, and others.

An earlier effort to establish the historical accu-
racy of St. Luke's statement regarding Lysanias was
made by Paulus (Com. i. 1) through the suggestion
that the word TerpapxovvTos should be erased from
St. Luke's text, or that it should be connected
with <J>tXi7r7roi', making Philip the ' tetrarch of
Iturtea, Trachonitis, and the Abilene of Lys

i.e. of that province of which Lysanias had been
tetrarch in his day. But this has always been
considered an arbitrary way of dealing with the
text, resorted to solely for the purpose of saving
the historical precision of the Evangelist, and has
not found much favour in any quarter.

Literature. — Strauss, Lebe^i Jesu, 1835, pp. 310-313 ; S.
Davidson, Iiitr. to NT, i. pp. 214-221 ; Wieseler, Chron. Synop.
d. vier Evang. 1843, pp. 174-183, Beitr. z. Wilrdignng der
Evang. 1869, pp. 194-204; Herzog - Plitt, PRE^, 1877, art.
' Abilene ' ; Renan, Mem. de I'A cad. d'Inscr. 26. 6, 1870, pp.
49-84 ; Keim, Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, i. 618, ii. 384 ; Krenkel,
Jos. u. Lucas, 1894, pp. 95-98 ; Schiirer, GJV 3, looi, i. pp.
716-720 [HJP I. ii. 335] ; Plummer, Com. on St. Duke, 1900, p.

I 84 ; Schmiedel, Ency. Bibl. art. 'Lysanias.'

A. C. Zenos.

MAATH.— An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 2,-%

MACH^RUS.— A fortress on the east of the
Dead Sea, in which, according to Josephus (Ant.
XVIII. v. 2), John the Bajitist was imprisoned and
put to death by Herod Antipas (Mt 14""^-, Mk
6"-29, Lk 3^9). It had been originally fortified by
Alexander Jannseus (Jos. BJ Vll. vi. 2), and after-
wards destroyed by Gabinius (ih. i. viii. 5 ; Ant.
XIV. V. 4). It was restored by Herod the Great,
who used it as a residence (BJ \ll. vi. 1, 2.). On
his death it passed into the hands of Antipas, as
it lay in the Pera?an portion of his tetrarchy. At
the time of the Jewish revolt it was occupied by
a lioman garrison, which was constrained to
abandon it in A.D. 66 (ib. II. xviii. 6). After the
fall of Jerusalem it was recaptured, and finally
destroyed by the Roman general Lucilius Bassus
(ib. VII. vi. 4). The ruins, called Mkawr, on a
projecting height near the Dead Sea on its
eastern side, are supposed to mark the site of the
fortress.

Literature.— Hasting-s' DB, art. 'Machaerus,' and the Lit.
there cited ; to wh. add PRE^ ix. 326 f.

James Patrick.

MADNESS. — It is somewhat remarkable that the
OT ideas about madness sliould diti'er so much from
those of the Gospels. In the OT madness is due to
the influence of a spirit from God (1 S 16" 18^"), in
the Gospels to a demon ; in the OT it is conceived
of as being closely connected with the ' spirit of
lirophecy ' (which likewise came from God) ; this is
clear from such passages as 1 S lO*'- ^"''^ 19-^- ^■i, Hos
9^ 2 K 9", Jer 29-6 ; there is no sign of this in the
Gospels.* It was, no doubt, owing to the belief
that madness was a sign of the indAvelling of a
spirit from God that a madman Avas looked upon
(in the OT) as, in .some sense, sacred ;t in the
Gospels the reverse of this seems to be the case, if
one regards the demoniac described in Lk 8-®"^** as a
madman [see Demon].

There are very few references to madness in the
Gospels ; in Lk 6" the word avoia is u.sed (the RVm
renders it 'foolishness'), its meaning is certainly
nearer to ' foolishness ' than to the modern notion
of madness ; perhaps its meaning is best expressed
by the German ausser sick, lit. 'outside of oneself,'
resulting in a temporary loss of mental balance ;
in 2 Ti 3^* the same word is translated ' folly,' which,
taken with the Avoids ' corrujrted in mind ' in the
preceding verse, brings out the sen.se more fully.
Another expression, used in Mt 4-^ 17''', is aeKj]-

* See, however, Ac 16i6ff .

t This is still the case in the East.

vLa^eadai 'to be lunatic,' or 'moonstruck,'* but
from the context in the second passage there can
be no doubt that this Avas epilepsy. Neither of
these expressions ansAvers to modern ideas of mad-
ness. There is, hoAvever, one other Avord (/j-aiveadai,
Jn 10-") Avhich seems to correspond Avith Avhat Avould
be understood by madness noAvadays, viz. to be
bereft of reason ; in the passage in question it is
certainly used in this sense ; at the same time it
must be remembered tliat /xaiveadai. is connected
Avith fxavTei'eadai, Avhich implies possession by some
suj^ernatural being, t The same Avord, as Avell as
fjLavia, is used in Ac 26^''' -^, Avhere dXrjdeLa and crwcppo-
(Tvvri are placed in opposition to it, Avhich confirms
the meaning implied in Jn 10-".J [See, further.
Demon, Lunatic].

On tAvo occasions in the Gospels Ave find madness
or insanity definitely attributed to our Lord Him-
self. Once by His OAvn friends, among Avhom,
apparently, His mother and brethren Avere included
(Mk 3-1, cf. v.31). We read that ' they Avent out to
lay hold on him : for they said, He is beside him-
self (e^eaT-q). Commentators are for the most part
agreed that in this passage e^earr] denotes insanity,
or at least a mental excitement bordering upon it
(cf. a similar use of the Avord by St. Paul, 2 Co 5'^).
The other occasion is that already referred to,
Avhen, according to St. John, certain of ' the Jcavs '
said of Jesus, ' He hath a devil, and is mad '
(datfiovLov ?x" "■i^' fxaiverai, Jn 10^"). In this case
the madness is cA^dently ascribed to Satanic
possession, and is not regarded merely as a de-
rangement due to overAvork and excitement. It
is Avorth noting, hoAvever, that fiaivo/jiai is applied
to St. Paul in a less offensive Avay (ixaivrj, Ac 26^'*)
by Festus. AV renders, 'Thou art beside thyself,'
Avhich RV consistently changes into, ' Thou art
mad,' to correspond Avith ' I am not mad (oii
fiaivofxai), most excellent Festus,' in the next
verse. The charge of madness brought against
Jesus is characteristic and significant, and has
many parallels in the history of Christ's followers
in the early (cf. Ac 2^3 as Avell as 262^- ^s, 2 Co 5'=*)
and in the later Church. It is an illustration of
the inability of the natural man to receive the

* Macalister (in Hastings' DB iii. 328*) quotes \ icary, wlio
says of the brain that ' it mouetli and followeth the mouing- of
the Moone : for in the waxing of the Moone, the Brayne fol-
loweth upwardes : and in the wane of the Moone the Brayne
discendeth downwardes, and vanishes in substance of vertue
. . .'; according to the Jewish conception, which connects
epilepsy with demoniacal possession (Mt 1718), the light of the
moon drove demons awav. [See Demon).

t See Trench, Synoniims of the NT'^'i, pp. 21, 22, cf. Ac 1616-18.

J A somewhat similar meaning belongs to Ta.pa.(^povuM in 2 Co
112-i and Tapx^povia. in 2 P 21^.

MAGDALA

MAGI

things of the Spirit of God (2 Co 2" ; cf. Jn 15'«
17i«).

W. O. E. Oesterley and J. C. Lambert.

MAGDALA.— The word

Magdala '

-,39,

occurs once

only in the TR of the NT (Mt'lo^^). In B and K
the reading Is 'Magadan.' This reading is fol-
lowed by Tisch., Alford, WH, and is adopted in
the RV. In the parallel narrative in St. Mark's
Gospel (8^") the place to Avhich Christ came is
designated as ' the parts oi Dalmanuiha ' (wh. see).
These names evidently refer to the same district,
but not necessarily to the same place. They seem
to have been in sucli proximity, however, that
the adjacent district might be named from either.
^Yith respect to their location, various sites on the
south and south-east border of the Lake of Galilee
have been suggested, but none of them can be
regarded as satisfactory. There is no site in this
locality whose name bears any resemblance to
Magadan ; and the only place which suggests a
resemblance to Dalmanutha is a village known as
ed-Delhcmiijch, near the mouth of the Jarmuk
river. Apart from the name there is nothing else
in or about the place to justify its identitication
with the town to which St. Mark refers in the
passage above cited. Caspari and Edersheim would
place Magadan within the limits of the Decapolis,
but do not assign it to any definite location. The
suggestion of Ewald that its site is identical with
Megiddo, on the southern border of the Esdraelon
plain, does not harmonize with the facts of the
narrative, and apparently rests upon a very slender
foundation.

In the light of all the information attainable
at the present time, the probabilities strongly
favour the view, which has long been held by
eminent writers and explorers, that the district in
which these places were located Avas on the western
shore of the Lake of Galilee, and that Magadan
represents the village now known as el-Mejdcl,
the traditional site of the town of Mary Magdalene.
While the words in their present form are not
identical, they may be regarded as variations of
the same name. Stanley's suggestion is worthy of
note in this connexion : ' It may be observed that,
as Herodotus (ii. 159) turns Megiddo into Mag-
dalum, so some ]\ISS in Mt 15^" turn Magdala
into Magadan' [SP 451, note 1). It has been sug-
gested also by another writer, as a jjossible ex-
planation of the substitution of one name for the
other, ' that owing to the familiar recurrence of
the word ^Magdalene, the less known name was
absorbed in the better, and Magdala usurped the
name and possibly also the position of Magadan '
(art. 'Magdala' in Smith's DB ii. p. 1734). On
the supposition that ^lagadan was on or adjacent
to the site of el-MeJdel, the probable location of
Dalmanutha is at or near 'Ain el-Barideh, where
the ruins of an ancient village have been traced
and described by Porter, Tristram, and other
explorers. This site is about a mile south of
el-Mejdel. An incidental testimony in support of
this identification is given by Rabbi Schwarz, who
asserts that the cave of Teliman or Talmanutha
was m the cliffs which overlooked the sea behind
the site of el-Mejdcl. In the same connexion he
identifies Migdal {Mejdel) with Magdala (p. 189).
To this may be added the testimony of the Rabbins,
that Magdala was adjacent to the city of Tiberias
(Otho, Lex Rabb. 353). In the travels of Willibald
(A.D. 722), ' Magdalum ' is located between Tiberias
and Capernaum ; and in the time of Quaresmius
(17th cent.), Mejdel is mentioned as identical with
the Magdala of Scripture (ii. 866).

The generally accepted view that the descriptive
surname of Mary — ' Magdalene ' — used several
times in the NT, and by all the Evangelists, was
VOL. II. — 7

derived from her home or birthplace, is confirmed
by the testimony of Edersheim, who asserts that
several Rabbis are spoken of in the Talmud as
' Magdalene ' or residents of Magdala. From the
same source he gathers the statements that Mag-
dala, which was a Sabbath-day's journey from
Tiberias, was celebrated for its dye-works and its
manufactories of fine Avoollen textures, of which
eighty are mentioned. It was also noted for its
wealth, its moral corruption, and for its traffic in
turtle-doves and pigeons for purifications. The
suggestion made by Lightfoot, that the name meant
' curler of hair,' is rejected by Edersheim, who
regards it as founded upon a misapprehension
(Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i.
p. 571).

Magdala is favourably situated at the S.E.
corner of the jjlain of Gennesaret. It is three miles
north of Tiberias, and almost the same distance
south of Khan Minyeh. Before it lies the north-
ward expanse of the Plain and the Lake ; beliind
it rises a dark background of beetling clifl's, broken
in one section by the deeply- cleft gorge of the Wady
Hamam (Valley of Doves). Its precii)itous sides
are honeycombed with caves, which for centuries
have been the refuge of robbers and outlaws.
Mt. ^lattin, the traditional mountain of tlie Beati-
tudes, is a conspicuous landmark on the plateau at
the upper end of the wady. Through this natural
passage-way the caravan route from the Mediter-
ranean coast follows the line of the old Roman
road to Khan Minyeh, and thence northward over
the hills of Naphtali. A perennial stream, which
waters the southern portion of the Plain, finds its
way to the Lake a snort distance north of the out-
skirts of the town.

Mejdel, which has little in itself to commend
or distinguish it, is the only place of permanent
habitation in the once densely populated ' land of
Gennesaret.' It consists of twenty or more low,
fiat-roofed, grass-covered hovels, built of a con-
glomeration of dried mud, shells, and pebbles.
Its degenerate inhabitants are the only resident
farmers of the Plain, and go out from the town to
cultivate a few patches of cleared ground in favour-
able locations. Near the centre of the village a
palm-tree rises conspicuously above the objects
around it, and a few thickly set thorn-trees on
the outskirts afford a grateful shade to the loungers
of the place in the heat of the day. A watch-
tower on the north border of the town is a present
suggestion of tlie derivation of the name Mejdel or
its Greek form Migdol. It is possible also that
Migdal-el (Jos 19^*) stands for the same place. The
tower gives evidence of a date of construction com-
paratively modern, but it is doubtless' the successor
of an older outlook or watch-tower, which com-
manded the gateway to the southern section of
the Gennesaret plain. The remains of substruc-
tions of a substantial character, hidden beneath
the earth and its dense covering of undergrowth,
afford satisfactory evidence of the antiquity of the
site.

Literature. — Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah, vol. i. pp. 571-572 ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp.
337-338 ; Tristram, Holi/ Land, p. 253 ; Tliomson, Land and
Book, 'Central Pal.' p. 394; Smith's DB vol. ii. p. 1734 ; Robinson,
BRP ii. 397 ; Ewing, art. ' Magadan,' in Hastings' DB ; also art.
' Dalmanutha ' ; Baedeker, Pal. and Si/ria, p. 255.

Robert L. Stewart.
MAGDALENE.— See preceding art., and Mary,
No. 2.

MAGI {/j.dyoi, AV and RV < wise men').— The

only reference to Magi in the Gospels occurs in
jNIt 2, where we have the well-known story of the
visit of the Oriental Magi to the infant Jesus.
The following article will deal with (1) certain diffi-
culties in the narrative, (2) the historical value of

the narrative, (3) the legendary additions to the
narrative.

1. The difficnltlcs are occasioned cliiefly by the
vague and indehnite character of the record. The
first question that suggests itself is, What class of
people had the Evangelist in his mind when he
used the term fxa-^oi. 1 Now, according to Herodotus
(i. 101), the Magi were a Median tribe which in
the time of Gaumata, the pseudo-Smei'dis, made a
determined attempt to substitute Median for Per-
sian rule {ih. iii. 61 tt'.; Ctesias, Pers. 41 (10) ff.;
Justin, i. 9, 10 ; Agathias, ii. 26). Through the
failure of this revolt the Magi lost all political
imjjortance, but they were influential as the
j^riestly caste (Herod, i. 132 ; Amm. Marc, xxiii.
6 ; cf. the Levites among the Hebrews, SBE iv.
pp. Ixii, Ixiii), and as religious instructors of the
Persian kings (Cic. de Divin. i. 41 ; Philo, de
Special. Leg. 18 ; Pliny, HN xxx. 1). The intro-
duction of this Magian priesthood is ascribed to
Cyrus (Xen. Cyr. viii. 1. 23) ; and classical writers
conversant with Persian ati'airs use the word magus
as synonymous with ' priest ' (Apul. Ajjol. i. 25, 26 ;
cf. Strabo, pp. 732, 733 ; Philo, Quod oinn. prob.
lib. 11; DioChrysost. Or. 36, p. 449, 49, p. 538;
Diog. Laert. prooem. 6 ; Porphyr. de Abstinent, iv.
16 ; and the lexicons of Hesych. and Suidas).
Darius Hystaspis made Mazdaism the religion of
the Emjnre (Behistun inscr., and Sayce, Ancient
Empires of the East), and from his time, at any
rate, — for how long before, if at all, is disputed, —
the Magi are identified with the Zoroastrian wor-
ship, and are represented as the disciples of Zoro-
aster (Plato, Alcib. i. 122 ; Plutarch, de Is. et Os.
46, 47 ; Pliny, HN xxx. 1 ; Apul. Ajwl. 26 ; Diog.
Laert. prooem. 2 ; Amm. Marc, xxiii. 6 ; Agathias,
ii. 24 ; Aug. de Civ. Dei, xxi. 14). In the Avesta,
however, the priests are called, not magi, but
uthravans ; though even in the sacred texts the
Avord ' magi ' is found in a few instances. Finally,
it may be noted that these Median magi are
credited with skill in pliilosoi)hy (Strabo, pp. 23,
24 ; Nicol. Damasc./r. 66 ; Diog. Laert. /jrocewi. 1),
natural science (Philo, Quod omn. prob. lib. 11 ;
Dio Chrysost. Or. 49, p. 538), and medicine (Pliny,
UN xxx. I, cf. xxiv. 17). They are also described
as interpreters of dreams (Herod, i. 107, 120, vii.
19), astrologers (t6. vii. 37; Pliny, HN xxxvii. 9;
Amm. Marc, xxiii. 6), soothsayers and diviners
(Cic. de Divin. i. 41 ; Strabo, p. 762 ; Pliny, HN
xxx. 2 I Diog. Laert. promm. 7 ; Aelian, Var. Hist.
ii. 17 ; Amm. Marc, xxiii. 6).

In a technical sense, then, magi denoted the
members of the sacerdotal class in the Persian
Empire. But in the LXX Daniel the word is used
to render the Heb. \(shshdphim, AV ' astrologers,'
of Babj-lonia (Dn P» 22- i"- ^ 4^ 5^- "• ^K Some
would explain the title Rab-mag in Jer 39^- ^^ as=
' chief magian,' but without probability). More-
over, classical writers sometimes confuse the words
magi and Chaldcei (Ctes. Pers. 46 (15) ; Justin, xii.
13). The latter term, liowever, is properly used in
Daniel (1* 2"-- ■*• ^- 1*' 4" 5'- ^') and by classical authori-
ties (Herod, i. 181, 183 ; Diod. Sic. ii. 29-31) to
represent a class, or the class, of Babylonian priests
or learned men (Driver, Daniel, pp. 12-16), re-
nowned for their skill in astronomy, astrology,
and sorcery (Cic. de Divin. i. 41, de Fato, 8, 9;
Diod. Sic. ii. 29-31 ; Strabo, p. 762 ; Curtius, v. 1 ;
Apul. Flor. 15 ; Porph. Vit. Pyth. 6 ; Diog. Laert.
proogm. 6 ; cf. Lenormant, La m.agie chcz les Chal-
deens ; R. C. Thompson, Reports of the Magi-
cians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon ;
W. L. King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery ;
Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Beligions-
geschichte ; Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria).

Lastly, the words nuigi and Chaldcei came to be

applied not only to the members of a sacerdotal
caste, but in a secondary sense to all those who
cultivated magic arts (Soph. (Ed. Tyr. 387 ; Tac.
Ann. ii. 27, xii. 22, 59; Juv. Sat. x. 94, with
Mayor's note ; Dio Chrysost. Or. 36, p. 449). In
Rabbinical writers this bad sense is liredominant
(Edersheira, Life and Times, i. p. 210), and the
same may be said of the jjassages in the NT
(otiier than Mt 2) in which magi are referred to
(Ac 89- 1' Simon Magus, 13"- » Elymas). In the
LXX the Egyptian conjuring is described as /layiKi]
rix^T] (Wis 17^). And Jerome says : ' Consuetudo
et sermo communis magos i^ro maleficis accepit '
(Hieron. Com. in Dan. 2, cf. Isid. Ety. viii. 9).

In what sense, then, did the author of Mt 2
understand the term ? The majority of the Fathers
affix the worst interpretation, and lay stress on
the idea that magic was overthrown by the advent
of Christ (Ign. Ephes. 19 ; Justin M. Dial. 78 ;
Tertull. de Idol. 9 ; Origen, c. Cels. i. 60 ; Max.
Taur. Ham. 21 ; Hilar, de Trin. iv. 38, Com. in
Matt. 1 ; Aug. Serm. 200, § 3 ; Theophylact, in
loc. ) ; and this was the common opinion even in
the Middle Ages (Abelard, in Epiph. serm. 4 ;
Aquinas, Summa, III. xxxvi. 3). But the con-
sensus of later commentators rejects this view.
There is no hint or suggestion of reprobation in
the Gospel narrative. On the other hand, there
is no indication that the Evangelist is alluding to
any particular class of magi. He appears, on the
contrary, to use the term in the general sense of
sages from the East, who busied themselves with
astronomy (vv.^ ''• ^- ^o) and perhaps with the inter-
pretation of dreams (v. '2). There is certainly no
attempt in the narrative to contrast Christianity
with Zoroastrian or Babylonian worship.

Closely connected Avith the above is the further
question of the region whence the Magi are
supposed to have come. Mt. calls them simply
jad7ot dTTo dvaroXwi', i.e. ' Oriental magi.' The
expression is quite indefinite (cf. Mt 8" 24-^,
Lk 13-®, Rev 21'^). Various attempts have been
made, however, to identify the particular part
of the East whence the Magi may have come
(Patritius, de Evang. iii. p. 315 ti". ; Spanheim,
Dub. Evang. ii. p. 291 ff".). The oldest opinion in-
clines to Arabia (Justin M. Died. 77, 78 ; Tertull.
Jud. 9 ; Epiphan. Exj). Fid. 8, and most Roman
commentators, e.g. Corn, a Lapide, in loc), partly
on account of references such as Ps 72^'^, Is 60^,
jaartly on account of the character of the gifts,
partly by reason of the close intercourse that sub-
sisted between Arabia and Palestine (Edersheim,
i. p. 203). On the other hand, Arabia is to the
south rather than the east of Juda?a vcf. Mt 12-'-
^acriXiaa-a vdrov), and in the NT it is usually speci-
fied by its geographical name. Other places sug-
gested are Persia (Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 15 ;
Chrysost. in Mt. Horn. 6. § 1, 2, 3, 4 ; 7. § 5 ;
Op. Imp. in Mt. 2 ap. Chrysost. vi. ; Diodorus Tars.
a p. Phot. cod. 223 ; Theophylact, in loc; Juvencus,
Evang. Hist. i. 276), Chalda'a (Max. Taur. Horn.
21 ; Origen, c Cels. i. 58), Parthia (Wetstein, in
loc ; Hyde, Rcl. Vet. Pers. c. 31), and Egyjit
(Moller, Neue Ansichten). But the language of
the Evangelist is ' too indefinite, and perhaps in-
tentionally too indefinite, to justify any decision '
(Trench, Star of the Wise Men, p. 4), and it is
unsafe to draw any inference from the nature of
tiie presents (Weiss, Life of Christ, i. p. 266). One
thing alone seems clear — the Magi were heathen
and not Jews (see references in Meyer, Com. in loc. ).
The form of their question ( Mt 2-) would be suffi-
cient to establish this, apart from the ecclesiastical
tradition which represents their homage as the
first-fruits of the Gentile world (Aquinas, Summa,
III. xxxvi. 8).

The cause of the coming of the Magi is roughly

MAGI

hidicated in the words, ' we have seen his star in
the rising' (ei^ ri] dvaroXy). It seems clear that
they Y\-ere induced to make the journey by
some sidereal appeai-ance ; but Avhat exactly this
appearance was is not conclusively determhied
(.;ee art. STAR). From this phenomenon, however,
\\'liatever it may hava been, the Magi inferred tlie
birth of a Messiah-king of the Jews. Vv e cannot
say precisely by what means they arrived at tlii.i
inference. It is unlikely, for chronological and
other reasons, that their expectations had been ex-
cited by the Zoroastrian prediction of the coming
of Soshyos (IJBE iv. p. xxxvii) ; nor is it probable
that an independent tradition of Balaam's pro-
phecy (Nu 24'^) had been preserved by their an-
cestors and handed down to them (Origen, c. Czls.
i. 60, Horn, in Num. 13. 7 ; Op. Imp. in Mt. 2 ap.
Chrysost. vi. ) ; nor is there any historical evidence
that there was at this time among the nations any
widespread expectation of tlie advent of a Messiah
in Palestine (Tac. Hist. v. 13 and Suet. Vcsjh 4
are derived from Jos. BJ VI. v. 4, and refer to the
Flavian dynasty). On the other hand, the Jews
themselves were undoubtedly exjiecting the Messiah
(Charles, Eschatolorjif, p. 304 ; Toy, Judaism and
ChristianiUj, p. 330), and a Rabbinical tradition,
which may be previous to Christ's birtli, declared
that a star in the East was to appear two years
before the Messiah's advent (Edersheim, i. pp. 211,
212 ; Strauss, Life of Jesus, Eng. tr. p. 174 and
references ; cf. the name Bar-Cochba). Hence the
source whence the Magi derived their inference
that a king of the Jews was born may well have
been the Jews of the Diaspora, whose tenets would
doubtless be known to the wise men of the lands
in which they sojourned.

The time of the visit of the Magi is quite un-
certain. By ancient writers it was usually sujj-
posed that they arrived at Bethlehem on the 13th
day inclusive after the birth of Christ, i.e. Jan. 6
(Aug. Serm. 203. 1). Most commentators, how-
ever, place their coming after Christ's presenta-
tion in the Temple ; and some, as an inference from
Mt 2^^, delay it till Jesus had reached or nearly
reached His second year (see Patritius, iii. 32311".;
Spanheim, ii. p. 29911".; Trench, p. 10911".; Kamsay,
Was Christ born at Bethlehem? pp. 215-220).
Here also the evidence is insufficient to warrant
a definite conclusion.

2. The historical value of the narrative has been
frequently impugned, the principal objections being
as follows. Tlie account of the Magi is found in
the First Gospel only, and is not corroborated by
either Lk. or Josephus or any pagan historian.
(The references in Macrobius, Sat. ii. 4. 11, and
Chalcidius, Tim. 7. 126, cannot be regarded as in-
dependent evidence). Moreover, it is not easy to
see how Mt.'s narrative can be harmonized with
that of Luke. Many of the details, again, are
suspicious ; the conduct of Herod, as here repre-
sented, seems inexplicable (ileyer. In loc. ). Finally,
the story in general is vague, and on a priori
grounds may even be held to be improbable. These
objections are not without force. Doubtless too
inuch stress has been laid on the absence of con-
lirinatory evidence, and the argument from the
silence of Josepluis can scarcely be sustained
(Edersheim, i. pp. 214, 215; Trench, p. 10211'.).
The difficulties in connexion with Herod's attitude
liave also been overestimated (Weiss, i. p. 269).
Yet the divergence between Mt. and Lk. , thougli
certainly not incapable of explanation (EUicott,
Huls. Lert. p. 70), is sufficiently serious ; and the
positive evidence for the truth 'of the narrative is
slender. It may be urged, however, that there is no
reason for denying the existence in the narrative
of at least a STibstratum of historical fact, though
possibly the facts have been treated with a cer-

tain amount of freedom. Such a view, at any
rate, appears to account for the story better
than any rationalistic explanation hitherto put
forward.

Of these attempted explanations the most important maj'
briefly be summarized, (a) Tlie older school of critics souyii't
lor the basis of tiie history maiul3- in tlie prophecies of the ()T.
Thus Surauss laid great stress on Ku 24i7, while lieim empha-
siood Is 00. From these and other prophetical passages (<-'.(/.
Is 92 i-3 498- 7, Ps 68'-M- ai T-^lO), sup)jlemented possibly by Jewish
or pagan tradition, the Evangelist is supposed to have built
up his story. But it is incredible that the history could liave
been constructed from such material, or that such a luhihneiit
could have been deliberately devised for prophecies which at
the time were understood to ha\e so different a significance
(iidersheim, i. p. 209). Moreover, it should be noted that 'the
Evangelist who at other times searches zealously for the fuUil-
ment of OT predictions, nowhere refers in this narrative to one
of these proplretical passages, from which it is said to ha\e
arisen ' (Weiss, i. p. 207). (6) A difierent, and verj- fanciful ex-
planation has been offered by W. Soltau, Usener, and others
(Soltau, Birth of Jesus Christ ; Usener in Encyc. Bibl. art.
' Nativity,' cf. his lieUgionsgeschichtUche Untersuchungen, i.
' Das Weihnachtsfest '). According to this, Mt.'s account is the
outcome partly of the operation of heathen superstitious ideas,
partly of the transformation of a story recorded by Dio Cassius
and Pliny. Thus, for the incident of the star, Soltau appeals to
the widespread belief that such portents were manifested in
connexion with the birth and death of kings and heroes (for
instances see Wetstein, in loc; Winer, Biblisches liealwOrter-
buch, vol. ii. p. 013) ; and, for the Massacre of the Innocents,
Usener refers to the story of Marathus concerning the birth of
Augustus (Suet. Aug. 94). The visit of the Magi is represented
as a Christian transformation of the story related bj' Dio and
Pliny about the visit of Tiridates and his Magians to Nero (see
the passages quoted by Soltau, o}). fit. pp. 73, 74). In the year
A. p. 00 the Parthian king Tiridates, the Magus, bringing other
Magi with him, journeyed to Rome, worshipped Nero as the
sun-god Mithra, and afterwards travelled home by another way
through the cities of Asia. Now to the Christians of the East
Nero was Antichrist : hence it is argued that just as, in the
early legends, the miraculous events of Christ's life were trans-
ferred to Antichrist, so the story of being worshipped bj' Magi
may have been transferred from the Antichrist Nero to the
Christ. The whole narration of the Magi, then, Soltau dis
misses as an insertion ' of Hellenistic origin ' (o]t. cit. p. 49).
But he does not explain how this insertion received so char-
acteristic a Jewish form, or why such alien elements should
have ' crystallized themselves in just the most markedly
Jewish part of the New Testament, while they are passed
over in silence elsewhere' {Interpreter, Jan. 1900, pp. 19.5-
207). On the whole it is easier to suppose that the events
recorded actually took place, than to belie\e the far-fetched
explanations of them offered by Soltau and Usener. (c) Other
critics, again, resort to a mythological solution, and regard
the adoration of the Magi and the attendant events as ' not
history, but pious transformations of current mythic stories.'
Reville believes that it was suggested by the Milhraic legend,
though he admits that the supposition is incapable of proof
{Etudes publi('es en hommage d la faculty de theologie de
Montaubaii, I'.Wl, p. 339 ff.). Pfleiderer and Cheyne maintain
that the star, the worship of the wise men, and the persecution
of the Holy Child have many prototypes in tales concerning
heroes of old, and belong to a pre-Christian international myth
of the Redeemer (Pfleiderer, Early Christian Conception of
Christ ; Cheyne, Bible Problems) ; on which it may be re-
marked that although striking parallels can undoubtedly be
produced, yet resemblances do not necessarily presuppose an
imitation, (d) Another suggestion is that the narrative ex-
hibits the characteristic features of Jewish Midrash or Hag-
gada, and is governed bj^ an apologetic purpose. The writer's
object is to show that the prophecj' of Dt 1815 vvas fulfilled in
Jesus, and he endeavours to do this by drawing a parallel
between the early career of Moses and that of the Christian
Messiah (see the Midrash Rabbd to Exodus in the section which
deals with the birth of Moses, and cf. Jos. Ant. u. ix. 2). Jesus
is throughout represented as the antitype of Moses. This is
the underlying motive of the narrative, to which may be added
another influential idea, viz. the desire to suggest the homage
of the Gentile world (ft. H. Box in Interpreter, loc. cit.). The
simplicit.y of the Gospel story, however, seems to be at variance
with this hj'pothesis.

Allusion may here be made to the theory that
the history of the Magi Avas added to the Gospel
as late as the year A.D. 119. The evidence for
this is a Syriac document, ascribed to Eusebius
of Cfesarea, which Avas published Avith an Eng.
translation by W. Wright in the Journal nf Sacred
Literature, vols, ix., x., 1866, from a 6th cent.
British Museum codex. Add. 17, 142. The title is,
' Concerning the star ; shoAving hoAV and through
Avhat the Magi recognized the star, and that Joseph
did not take Mary as his Avife.' This tractate
relates that the prophecy of Balaam about the star
Avas recorded in a letter Avritten by Balak to the

king of Assyria, and jjreserved in the Assyrian
archives. At last, in the reign of king Pir Siiauour,
the star appeared, and the Magi were sent with great
pomp to do lioniage to the Messiah. The colophon
at the end states : ' And in the year 430 ( = A. D. 1 19),
in the reign of Hadrianus Ciesar . . . this concern
arose in (the minds of) men acquainted witii the
Holy Books ; and through the pains of the great
men in various places this history w.as sought for
and found and written in the tongue of those who
took this care.' As to the meaning of this state-
ment, liowever, critics are not agreed (see F. C.
Conybeare, Guardian, April 29, 1903 ; and, on the
other side. Church Quarterly Review, July 1904, p.
389). The more probable explanation seems to be
that ' the Holy Books ' refers, not to the OT but to
the narrative in Mt 2, already, therefore, incorpor-
ated in the Gospel in A.D. 119; and that the
' history ' is not Alt 2, but the legend about the
preservation of Balak's letter and the coming of
the Magi in the reign of Pir Shabour.

To conclude this part of the subject, it may be
jjointed out that the story of the Magi must stand
or fall with the other Matthtean narratives of the
Infancy. All were probably drawn from some
written source, Jewish-Christian in character, and
perhaps originally Aramaic in language. The value
of this source cannot here be determined (see artt.
Birth of Christ, Matthew). It is sufficient to
point out that if a Palestinian or semi-Palestinian
origin of the narratives can be sustained, the
hypothesis of direct pagan influence in their forma-
tion must be rejected.

3. Of the legendary accretions to the story of the
Magi, the following deserve notice. From the 6tii
cent., if not before (Tert. Marc. iii. 13, Jud. 9 are
not decisive), the opinion prevailed that the Magi
were kings. This belief is first unambiguously
stated in a sermon ascribed to Cpesarius of Aries
(Aug. O})}^. v. Append. Scrm. 139. 3) ; and it pre-
vailed universally during the Middle Ages (cf.
Paschasius, Exp. in Mt. ii. 2). Hence the festival
of Epiphany received the name Fesfum Triuni
Regum. The idea woiild, of course, find support in
such passages as Ps GS^^- 3i 7210, Is 49'- -» 60^- ^^^ i« ;
but there is no suggestion of it in the Evangelic
narrative. (For discussions see Patritius, iii. p.
32011".; Spanheim, ii. p. 273 ff. ; Barradius, Coin.
ix. c. 8).

The number of the Magi is not specified in the
Gospel. Eastern ti'adition fixed it at twelve (0/^.
Imp. in Mt. 2 ap. Chrysost. vi. ; cf. the curious MS
fragment quoted in Classical studies in honour of
Henry Drislcr, p. 31 — 'Twelve kings set out from
Persia to go to Jerusalem,' etc.), or thirteen (Bar
Bahlul in Hyde, Rel. Vet. Pers. c. 31). But in the
West the number of the Magi was reckoned at
three (Max. Taur. Ham. 17, 20; Leo M. Serrn. 31.
§ 1, 2 ; 34. § 2), jjrobably on account of their three-
fold gift (Abelard, Serm. 4 : ' Quot vero isti magi
fuerint, ex numero trinsB oblationis tres eos fui.sse
multi suspicantur '), though allegorical reasons
were also found (Patritius, iii. 31811'.).

The familiar names of the Magi — Melchior,
Gaspar, and Balthasar — first occur in Bede, where
also is given a remarkable description of their
persons, derived most probably from some early
work of art. ' Pi'imus fuisse dicitur Melchior,
senex et canus, barba prolixa et capillis . . . aurum
obtulit regi Domino. Secundus nomine Gaspar,
iuvenis imberbis, rubicundus . . . thure, quasi
Deo oblatione digna, Deum honorabat. Tertius
fuscus, integre barbatus, Balthasar nomine . . . per
myrrham filium hominis moriturum professus est '
{Collect. V. 541. For the association of the gifts
with the several Magi, contrast the familiar verse,
' Gaspar fert myrrham, thus Melchior, Balthasar
aurum'). Other names are found, e.g. Appellius,

Amerius, Damascus : Magalath, Pangalath, Sara-
cen : Ator, Sator, Peratoras, etc. (Patritius, iii. p.
326 ; Spanheim, ii. pp. 288, 289 ; Hebenstreit, ae
Magorum fiomine, patria et statu dissert., Jense,
1709). Hyde quotes thirteen names, among which
the three familiar to Western tradition do not
occur (Rel. Vet. Pers. c. 31).

Symbolical meanings were early attached to the
gifts. Thus Irena?us says : ' Matthseus autem
Magos ab Oriente venientes ait . . . per ea quai
obtulerunt munera ostendisse quis erat qui adora-
batur : myrrham quidem quod ipse erat qui jiro
morttali huniano genere moreretur et sepeliretur :
auiam vero quoniam rex, cuius regni finis non est :
thus vero, quoniam Deus, qui et notus in Juda?a
factus est, et manifestus eis qui non qua^rebant
eum ' (Hcer. iii. 9. 2, cf. Max. Taur. Horn. 21 ; Leo,
Serm. 34. 3 ; Origen, c. Cels. i. 60 ; Ambros. in Lk.
ii. 44 ; [Aug.] Serm. 139. 2 ; Hilar. Com. in Mt. 1 ;
and Christian poets, Juvencus, Ev. Hist. i. 285 ;
Prudent. Cath. xii. 6911".; Sedulius, Carm. Pasch.
ii. 96 ; [Claudian] Carm. Append. 21). Mediaeval
tradition invented histories for these gifts. The
gold consisted of thirty pennies, which had once
been paid by Abraham for the cave of Machpelah,
and which were afterwards given to Judas. Some
of the myrrh is said to have been administered to
Jesus on the cross (Quarterly Revietv, vol. Ixxviii.
p. 433 If.).

Miraculous elements were increasingly intro-
duced into the narrative, and the whole history
was gradually amplified. Thus the star is alleged
to have shone with surpassing brilliance (Ignat.
Ephes. 19 ; Leo, Serm. 81. 1 ; Protevang. Jacob. 21 ;
and pass, quoted in Barradius, Coin. ix. 9), having
the sun, moon, and other stars as ' chorus ' to it
(Ignat. loc. cit.). According to Eastern tradition,
there was in the star an appearance of the Virgin
and Child (Lightfoot, Ap. Path. ii. 81), or of a
young child bearing a cross ( Op. Imp. in Matt. 2 ap.
Chrysost. vi. ). The star was alleged to be an
angel (Suicer, Thcs. s.v. da-r-qp) ; and according to
Greg, of Tours it was still, in his time, to be seen
in a Avell at Bethlehem (Mirac. i. 1). Similarly a
mass of details were invenied about the Magi
themselves, their journey, and their later life and
death. Here it need only be noticed that they are
reported to have been baptized b}- St. Thomas.
(A full account of the Magi-legends will be found
in Crom bach's moniimental monograph, Primitice
gentium sive historia et encomium SS. Trium
Magorum. See also the epitome in the Quarterly
Review, vol. Ixxviii. p. 433 fl"., of the mediaeval
stories collected by John of Hildesheim ; and the
Boll. A A. SS. Jan. d. i. vi. and xi. ).

The bodies of the Magi are said to have been
discovered in the East in the 4th cent, (according
to one tradition, by St. Helena herself), and to have
been brought to Constantinople and deposited in
the Church of St. Sofia. When Eustorgius became
bishop of Milan, they were transferred to that
city, Avhence, in the year 1162, they were again
removed by Frederic Barbarossa to Cologne [Boll.
A A. SS. Jan. d. vi. ). The festival of Epiphany
(the celebration of which in the West is mentioned
first by Amm. Marc. xxi. 2) commemorated origin-
ally Christ's manifestation to the Magi, together
with His baptism. His miracle at Cana (Max.
Taur. Horn. 29 ; Isid. de Off. Eccl. i. 27 ; Abelard,
Serm. 4), and the miracle oif feeding the 5000 ([Aug.]
Append. Serm. 36. 1). But soon the manifesta-
tion to the Magi became in the West, if not ex-
clusively, yet principally, dwelt upon (see, e.g.,
Leo's Epiphany Sermons) ; and the common Western
synonym for Epiphany was Festum Trium Regum
(Bingham, Aiit. xx. 4; DCA i. ]). 617 If. ; Bdl.
AA. SS. Jan. d. vi.). In the Middle Ages tl'e
Magi were considered the patron saints of tra\ -

MAGISTRATE

MAGNIFICAT

101

ellers, and inns were called after them. Their
names were also used as charms to cure epilepsy
and snake-bite (Spanheim, ii. pj). 289, 290). 8ee
also art. Star.

Literature. — Besides the books referred to above, see Hast-
ings' DB, art. 'Magi'; PRE'^, vol. \iii. art. 'Magier'; Encijc.
Bibl. art. ' Nativity ' ; Krais, RE, vol. ii. art. ' Magier ' ; Moroni's
Dizionarlo, vol. xli. art. 'Magi'; Hamburger's RE, art. ' Zau-
berei'; Smith's DB, artt. 'Magi,' 'Star'; Suicer, Thesaurns,
artt. XifSam,, fx-ccyo; ; Winer, Biblisc/ies Realwbrterbuch, vol. ii.
artt. 'Magier,' 'Stern der W'eisen'; Hone, Everyday Book,
Jan. 6 ; and the various Comm. on Matthew. An English
monoofraph by F. W. Upham, The Wise Men, is of little value.
The discussions of Spanheim and Patritius should be consulted,
while Crombach's elaborate study is a treasury of curious
information. Y. HOMES DUDDEN.

MAGISTRATE.— This English word occurs only
twice in the Gospels (AV), viz. in Lk 12'^ and ^^,
where the RV gives the same translation. By our
use of the word we usually mean one entrusted
with the duty and power of putting laws into
force, but the Greek Hpx^v (of which ' magistrate '
is the translation in the passages before us) has a
wider meaning, and may denote ruler, captain,
chief, king. In the Go.spels, Hpxi^v (as well as the
similar word i]yefjLU}v) occurs frequently, and Avill
be referred to in the articles Rule and Ruler.

In the first of the instances to be noticed here
our Lord prepares His disciples for the persecutions
that await them. One form of i)ersecution will be
arrest and accusation before magistrates. In such
an event, liowever, Christ's followers are not to
concern themselves unduly .about their defence,
for the Holy Ghost shall teach them in the same
hour what they ought to say. Their presence
before the magistrates and their utterance in
such a situation will constitute a twofold testi-
mony — a testimony against the unbelief and in-
justice of their accusers, and perhaps also of the
magistrates (Mk 13'^) — and a testimony to the
truth of the gospel and to their own fidelity (Lk
2V^). The Lord's prediction and promise were
alike fulfilled. Persecutions did ensue, and no-
thing is more remarkable than the dignity and
wisdom of the words spoken by disciples thus
accused before magistrates, the Holy Ghost being
a mouth and wisdom unto them (Lk 21'^ ; cf. Ac
4^^ctal.).

This policy of submissively trusting to the Holy
Ghost for defence is not to be taken as justifying
Tolstoi's theory of non-resistance. But our Lord's
counsel indicates that He looked upon existent
magistracies as a part of the providential order,
not to be overturned in any revolutionary way by
His first disciples. Similarly, Christ taught that,
the political circumstances being what they were,
tribute should be paid to C;iesar, the supreme
magistrate (Mt 22-^). The capital instance of
submission to the magistrate is Christ's own de-
meanour before Pilate (styled riyefubi' in Mt 27",
Lk 3'). The subject of the relation between Christ
and the magistrate runs into questions of Church
and State, the sjnritual and the civil power, indi-
vidual conscience and public law.

In the second instance (Lk 12'^*) Christ seems to
warn against a litigious spirit, and to commend
that ' sweet reasonableness ' which is one of the
gifts of His own Spirit, and which may obviate
t 'le necessity of going before a magistrate. This
does not condemn as un-Christian all reference to
a magistrate, but Christ hints that to agree with
an adversary quickly may prove to be the highest
prudence as well as the most Christian-like con-
duct. The advice is sometimes spiritualized to
mean that the sinner ought to settle accounts with
God quickly. R. M. Adam.SON.

MAGNIFICAT.— Our primary interest in the
hymn Magnificat (Lk l^s-ss) is centred in the ques-

tion of (1) its authorship, upon which must largely
depend the scope of (2) its interpretation. Then
(3) the history of its liturgical use may be briefly
.summarized.

1. Authorsliip. — Opinions are divided as to the
source from wliich St. Luke derived the materials
of his hrst chapter. Volter suggests that it is based
on an Ajwrirli/pse of Zarharias, a Jewish document
which has been edited by a Christian, who found
the Magnificat attributed to Elisabeth, and trans-
ferred it to ^lary. Weizsacker thinks that St. Luke
simply inserted an early Christian hymn. A more
satisfactory view is that of Sanday (Hastings' DB
ii. 639, 644), who suggests that St. Luke was sup-
plied with a special (written) source, through one
of the women mentioned in Lk 8^ 24^", possibly
Joanna, who, being the wife of Herod's stewarcl,
may also have supplied information about the
court of Herod. We know from Jn 19-^ (cf. Ac
l^'*) that the Virgin Mary was brought into contact
with this group. Ramsay ( Was Christ born at
Bethlehem? p. 88) calls attention to 'a womanly
sjjirit in the whole narrative, which seems incon-
sistent with the transmission from man to man,
and which, moreover, is an indication of Lukes
character ; he had a marked sympathy with Avomen.'
On the supposition that St. Luke used an Aramaic
tradition or document, it is possible to account for
all the characteristics of style by which Harnack
(see below) seeks to prove tliat he was the author
both of the Magnificat and of the Bcneclictus.

Having described the visit of the Virgin Mary
to Elisabeth, and Elisabeth's salutation, the TR
has Kal elirev [Maptdyu] with the variant reading
'E\f(Td/3eT. Then follows the hymn, the text of
which has been excellently preserved, the only
other doubtful reading being fieydXa, for which we
should probably read /j.€ya\e7a.

Mapid/j. is the reading of all Greek MSS, of the
great majority of Latin MSS, and of innumerable
Patristic testimonies, back to the 2nd cent., when
Tertullian wrote (deAnima, 26): ' Exsultat Elisabet,
Johannes intus impulerat, glorificat dominum
Maria, Christus intus instinxerat.'

'EXi(Tci/3er is the reading of three Old Latin MSS.
a (Vercellensis, siec. iv.), b (Veronensis, soic. v.),
rhe (Rhedigeranus-Vratislaviensis, sccc.fiere vii. ), in
Burkitt's phrase 'a typical European group,' to
which may be added the testimony of Niceta of
Remesiana, de Psalmodice Bono, c. 9 : ' Nee Elisa-
beth, diu sterilis, edito de repromissione hlio, Deum
de ijisa anima magniticare cessat ; c. 11: Cum
Elisabeth Dominum anima nostra magniiicat.'

So also Origen, or his translator Jerome, in the
5th Homily on Lk. 5 (Lommatzsch, t. v. p. 108 f.):
' Inuenitur beata Maria, sicut in aliquantis exem-
plaribus reperimus, prophetare ; non enim ignor-
amus, quod secundum alios codices et heec uerba
Elisabet uaticinetur Sjnritu itaque sancto tunc
repleta est Maria,' etc. Harnack thinks that
Jerome, if he had been responsible for this refer-
ence, woitld have mentioned whether the reading
was in Latin or Greek MSS. But as Jerome was
writing in Latin, and the evidence of Niceta shows
that the reading Elisabeth was more persistent and
widespread in the very district from which Jerome
came, — having been born in Pannonia, not a great
distance from Remesiana, — it must be considered
still possible that he interpolated the reference.

Lastly we come to Irenreus, iv. 7. 1 {Cod. Clarom.
et Voss'.) : ' sed et Elisabet ait : Magnificat anima
mea dominum,' etc. Cod. A r unci. 'Maria.' In
iii. 10. 1 : ' Propter quod exultans Maria clamabat
pro ecclesia prophetans : Magnificat anima jrfea
dominum,' etc. Here the context proves that
Irenseus intended to write 'Maria.'* Thus it

* In iii. 14. 3, Irenseus refers to Lk 1*2-45 as exclamatio
Elisabet.

102

MAGNIFICAT

ISIAGXIFICAT

seems probable that it ■was the translator of
Irenteus, or a copyist, who introduced the reading
Elisabet from his Old Latin Bible, and we may
safely carry it back to the 3rd century.*

How then are we to account for the reading?
Bardenhewer thinks that, Mapict/i having dropped
out, 'EAtffd/SeT- was supplied b^ a copyist. But most
critics (Burkitt, Harnack, Wordsworth) agree that
the original text must have been Kal elwev without
either name. Burkitt puts it concisely : '"Mary"
was read by TertuUian as well as by all Greek and
Syriac texts. This is fatal to " Elisabeth" ; yet, if
"Mary" were genuine, the actual occurrence of
"Elisabeth" in the European branch of the Old
Latin would be inexplicable. But if the original
text of the Gospel had Kal elirev Me7aXwet, k.t.X.,
without either name, all the evidence falls into
line.'

On the question, which is the right gloss, critics
are divided. Harnack and Burkitt argue for
'Elisabeth,' Wordsworth and Sjjitta for ' Mary.' (1 )
Harnack does not think that the exclamation of
yy 42-45 covers all that is implied in v.^^^ Kal iir\-r]crd-q
TTvevfJLaToi dyiov r/ 'EXt(7d/3er. In v.^^ similar words
are used about Zacharias, and are followed by the
Bcncdlctus. Nothing is said about Mary being
hlled with the prophetic spirit. It does not seem
necessary, on the other hand, to resort to the
extreme remedy of Spitta, who refuses to consider
that the Bcneclictus supplies a parallel case, be-
cause he thinks that it has been interpolated at
this point. The ' gloA^ing words ' of Elisabeth's
address need some reply. ' Could St. Mary, who
answered so freely and so bravely, yet so humbly,
to the angel, have been silent at such a moment
when addressed by one whom she knew so well ? '
(Wordsworth). Though undoubtedly she is kept,
or more probably keeps herself, in the background
of this history, and is not spoken of as ' filled with
the Holy Ghost,' there is no question of deepest
communing with God {Gottinnigkclt, Spitta), and
this suffices to explain the outpouring in devotion
and faith of a mind stored with OT phrases.

In the OT ' when any question is addressed to
a jierson or persons whom the reader knows to be
present, the formula of rejjly is frequently and
perhaps generally without pro2:)er name and with-
out pronoun'; cf. Lk 2*'. Later in his Gospel Lk.
generally uses 6 5^ dwev ; but the first chapters have
'a special OT colouring' (Wordsworth), in view of
which Harnack's argument, that ' if in v.'*" the
subject was to be changed, Lk. would have written
dwev Sk Mapidfi,' falls to the ground. Further, the
words fiaKapLovai /xe irdcraL al yeveai of v.'*'* seem to be
a reply to Elisabeth's fjuxKapla ij inaTevcraaa. On the
other hand, it is only fair to jioint out that Prof.
Burkitt seeks to jirove that St. Luke was ' re-
markably fond of inserting Kal eXirev or dwev oe
between the sjieeches of his characters Avithout
a change of speaker.'! (2) Another argument has
been based on the words ^fxeivev 5^ MapLa/j. avv avrri,
which are said to make it probable that Elisabeth
has been the speaker, otherwise Lk. would \\&ye
written ^fxetvev 5e M. (Tvv ttj 'E. or ^/xeive de crvv ttj 'E.
' The Peshitta as well as the Sinai Palimjisest
renders, "Now Mary remained u-ith Elisabeth."
But the Greek has retained "the tell-tale avry"'
(Burkitt).

In the OT the personality of the singer is, as a
rule, sunk in the song, and the name is mentioned
at the end as if to pick up the thread (cf. Balaam,
Nu 24-5 . Moses, Dt 32-'-' 34^ etc.). It is true that
Hannah's name is not mentioned in 1 S 2'^, but it
has been mentioned at the beginning. The name

* Prof. Btirkitt still adheres to his view, that ' Irenmus
resrarded Elizabeth as a type of the ancient Jewish Ecclesia
prophesying by a Divine Spirit about the Christ.'

t JThSt vii. p. 223.

marks 'the Avhole section vv.^''"^'' as what we may
call a " Mary section," ' the Syriac reading being
an attempt to clear up ambiguity (Wordsworth).

On the whole, then, so far as external evidence
goes, the balance of probability is in favour of the
reading or gloss 'Mary.' But the more difficult
question of internal evidence remains for dis-
cussion. Does the Magnijiccd seem more suitable
on the lips of Elisabeth ?

Harnack thinks that it was modelled on the lines
of Hannah's song, that it exjiresses the feeling
of a mother from whom has been removed what
Jewish women felt as ' the reproach of childless-
ness.' Burkitt suggests that 'the A670S d7r6 ^lyris
irpoeXdibv more corresponds to the fitness of things
than a burst of i^remature song. '

Ajiart from the question raised by Wellhausen
whether Hannah's song has been interpolated in
1 S 2, Spitta thinks that it is the song of a warrior
rather than a woman, and looks elsewhere for
jjarallels to the Magnificat. Any way, either
Mary or Elisaljeth would regard it as the song of
Hannah, which is the main point before us. We
cannot do better than quote the text at this point,
with Harnack's parallels, to introduce his argu-
ment that St. Luke is thereby jiroved to be the
actual author of the hymn which he puts into the
mouth of Elisabeth.

VV.-16- 47 MsyaXivs; -h •vJ/i^j;-<5 fJLOu (1) 1 S 21 'EtrripiuOy: y, xxpbia fji.s'j
Tov xupiovj zat '/lya-WiOcirlv to £v zvptaj^ u^a/O'/j x^px; /xou Iv

TviV^UlK jJLOV it) TU Osm Taj 6iU fJLOU.

trooTr^pi fJLOv'
V,4S 07-; l^ifBXs'^iv so-i TY^v TOiTii' (2) 1 S l^ 6otv t^ijiXirTuv Inrt-
vutrtv Tvii hoOXVis ci'jrou' ihovyotp pXi'^r,? tiri t-/,v Tccrriivuitri'j ty,?

MTO ToZ yuv pCtX.X<xpiOut7IV pLi hovXvg (TOV \ Gn SQl*^ pLXZOCptOi-

Tatrcct Oct yt^ioci' ej'^, OTi uocxxpi^ovtrtv jxs Toctrat

£&i yuvxixi;.
V.49 oTi iiroi'/ia'sv pLot pLZyxha, h (3) Dt lO^l 'otrTi^ iToir.tnv Iv trot
hvvaros, xcci eiyiov to hvoua. to. pc£ya.?^x. I*s 111^ atytov x.a.t

OCVTOUf <^ofiipOV TO OVOUOi OtVTOU.

\.^^ xtxd TO £X£05 otvTov iU yivio.^ (4) Ps IO3I" TO hi eXso? toZ aupiov

KXi yiVSXi TOt? (pOl^OVpCiVOti OCTO TOV XlCtJvty! XXi iw? Toy

xvTOv, xlitJvoi £Ti ToW i^oj3ovp(,ivov;

XUTOV.

V.-'^l iToirtinv x-poLTo; Iv ^potX'Ovt (5) Ps 8911 o-l/ tTWrsmkig-Oi? u?
xvToCy histrxopmrrev vr7ipY,^u.vov; TfiXvfXM.Tiocv v^ipY,^ccvov, xv,) £v

hixvoto. xxph.x; ociiT^v' Tcit i3p(x,x.tovi ty^^ hwac^usu; ffov

hlitrxoprTKTx: TOV? ix^P^'-'^ ^'^^^
V.'''2 xx^uXlw hi/vaco-TOi? acTO Bpovtov (6) Job 1219 h:jvxtrTx; h's yy,5

XXI i'^UITiv TXTUMOv;^ XXTi(rTpi']/iy^ 511 ^-qj, ^oiOVVTX

TXTitVOV; its iJ'-^Os.

Y'.5:t TeiviJvTot? \viTXY,tnv ocyxdujv (7) 1 S 2*^ xupto? TTajxi^zt xxt
XXI rrXovTouvTX? i^x-ritj-TitXiv •rXouTi^si^ TXTetvot xxi ccvv^et.

xSioC;, Ps 107" -^iiXY^ ^Eituiirxy hi-

rrXY.inw xyx^Mv. Job 1219 I:.

XTOITTiXXttiy Upil? xix,^xXiMjT6V; .

V.S'l ecvTiXKfilTO 'IrpxY.X Txiiis (8) Is 41* (rh 5-, 'lirpxr,X, Txt;
ocvTov, pcwitrdTiytzi Ixiovi A^oy, ou xvTSXxfiipcy^v. Ps 98*^

epcyytrd'/] TOV IXiOvs xutov to*

^laxM^S.

V.65 — xa8a; iXxXyiinv Tpi; tou; (9) Mic 7^0 iatrit . . . 'iXtov tu

TXTipx; y.UMv — Tu W^pxccu. 'A^pocxu,, xolOoti ULLOira.? TOt?

XXI Tu 0-^ippcMTf atjTou iU TOV rTxTpxatv y,fjL.m ; 2 S 22^1 xxt

Xiojvx. TOtuv 'iXiO? . . . Tu AxvBt^ xxt

TOl irTipfJLXTl XVTOZ lUi XiOO\Oi .

In regard to these parallels Sj^itta argues with
some force tliJit there are nearer parallels in the
Psalms ; e.g. Ps 33'^' * ev rQ Kvpiu eTraLved-^a-eraL ij ipvxv
fJLOV . . . fjLeyaXvvare tov Kvpiov avv e/xoi ; 34^ 17 8^ ^vxv
fiov dyaWidaerai iwl rip Kvpicp, repKpdrjaerai eVt t(S
awTTipicp avTov ; 34r'' = 3d^~ = 69^ dyaWidaaivro Kal €v<p-
pavdeiTjaav iiri croi Trdzres ol ^'T^TOvvres ere Kvpie, Kal
elwdTwaav 5td wavro^, 'MeyaXvvd-qTw 6 Kvpios, oi dya-
TTcDi'Tes TO (TiOTTjpLdv ffov.* Tlils Is tTue ; but at the
same time w.e cannot doubt tliat a Jewish woman
would turn to Hannah's song as, so to speak, a
model, even though the phrases of the psalms
which she used often in devotion would come more
readily to her lips while working out lier idea.

Harnack picks out certain words as having no
place in his parallels, and suggests that they are
not found in the LXX, and being characteristic of
Lk.'s style, jjrove that he was really the author
of the hymn. Spitta, however, proves that the
phrases in question are not only found in the LXX,
* He quotes Ps gi-if. 12-»-« 308 as parallels to y.53.

MAGNIFICAT

MAID

1U3

but are not so characteristic of Lk.'s style ; e.g.
(1) l5ov yap is found not only in Lk l'^"' 2'" 6-=* 17-\
Ac 9'\ but also in 2 Co 7^^ ;* (2) dTrd rod vvv, said to
be found in Lk 51" 125-^ 22i8- «^ Ac 18" only, is also
found 2 Co 5^^.i These instances alone will suffice
to prove how unsafe the foundations are upon
which Harnack's argument is based.

There is one other possible source for some of
the phrases which has not been mentioned, i.e. the
18 Benedictions of the Synagogue (quoted by
Warren, Liturgy of Ante-Nicenc Church, p. 243).

V.-19 Ben. 2 : 'Thou art nii^'hty, O Lord, world without end.'
V.51 Ben. 12 : ' Let the proud speedily be uprooted, broken,
crushed, and humbled speedily in our days. Blessed
art Thou, O Lord, who breakest down the enemy and
humblest the proud.'
vv.5-1- 55 Ben. 1 : ' Blessed art Thou who rememberest the pious
deeds of our fathers, and sendest the Redeemer to
their children's children. Blessed art Thou, O Lord,
the shield of Abraham.'

On the whole, then, in spite of Harnack's argu-
ments, there is still room to believe that St. Luke
translated, or perhaps to some extent worked up into
a Greek hymn, the materials sujiplied to him in an
Aramaic tradition or document. There was no
unnatural seeking after effect. In reply to Elisa-
beth's address no conventional answer would seem
in place. On the other hand, Prof. Burkitt regards
the whole of Elisabeth's words as the acknowledg-
ment of Mary's salutation, and finds ' a striking
parallel in Lk 2-^"^^, i.e. the conversation of Mary
and Simeon. In both cases Mary's interlocutor is
said to have a holy Spirit, in both cases the whole
of the words recorded is assigned to the inter-
locutor, and the words themselves consist partly of
pious meditation, partly of words addressed ex-
clusively to Mary' (jfhSt vii. p. 225). This is
a question perhaps of sentiment. But few devout
believers in the Incarnation would hesitate to
express their profound gratitude for the words of
simple faith and hope, grounded, as Spitta has
certainly shown, as much on the Psalms as on
Hannah's song, a spontaneous offering of praise
from a lowly spirit continually in communion with
the Divine, and therefore never lacking words of
praise. We may regard these words as spoken in
substance by the Virgin Alary, and yet maintain
the truth of the phrase of Ignatius about ' the
Word proceeding from silence.' The silence re-
mains unbroken. No personal dread of the po.ssible
reproach not of childlessne.ss but of shame, no per-
sonal exultation in this transcendent blessedness
among women, find expression.

2. Interpretation. — The scope of interpretation
varies in accordance with the view held concerning
the authorship. Harnack's description is correct
so far as it goes : ' The artistic arrangement of
the pronouns, which governs the hymn, expresses
exactly the j^rogress of thought, advancing from
the subjectiv^e to the objective in order to return
again to the subjective, though in a higher form.'
But he fails to express the situation so clearly
described by Liddon (p. 13) from the internal
evidence.

' Like the songs of Zacharias and Simeon, it is something
more than a psalm, and something less than a complete Chris-
tian iiynm. A Christian poet, living after the Resurrection of
Christ, would surely ha\e said more ; a Hebrew psalmist would
have said less than Mary. In this Hymn of hei-s we observe a
consciousness of nearness to the fulfilment of the great pro-
mises, to which there is no parallel even in the latest of the
psalms ; and yet even Mary does not speak of the Promised
One, as an Evangelist or an Apostle would have spoken of Him,
by His Human Name, and with distinct reference to the
mysteries of His Life and Death and Resurrection. Her Hymn
was a native product of one particular moment of transition in
sacred religious history, and of no other ; when the twilight of
the ancient dispensation was melting, but had not yet melted,
into the full daylight of the new.'

* Ps 50V. 8 53B, Is 327 3817 4422 62H 6615.

t Gn 4630, 2 Ch 169, To 1013 119, is 486, Dn 10' 7.

In Strophe L (vv.^'^''") she otters praise to God as
His due, with all powers of the soul, that is, of
imagination and impulse ; and of the spirit, with
the faculties of reason and memory and will.

In Strophe II. (vv.-***- ■*'•) she dwells on the distinc-
tion vouchsafed to her in becoming the Mother of
the Incarnate Son. She is to live in the memory
of mankind not because she deserves it, but be-
cause He whose Name is holy so wills.

In Strophe III. (w.^^- ^^), turning away from self,
she rises, as in moments of spiritual enlightenment
any one may rise, to larger views of God's purposes
in the shaping of human history. His presence
and power are vindicated in the humbling of the
proudest dynasties and the triumph of the meek.
This thought is characteristic of a group of psalms
(9. 10. 22. 25. 35. 40. 69. 109 ; cf. 4 Ezr (2 Es) 11^^
Ps-Sol 5^^'-) which must often have been in the
minds of the little group — Joseph, Mary, Zacharias,
Elisabeth, Simeon, Anna — who were looking for
the redemption of Israel.

In Stro])he IV. (vv.''^- •'^) she comes back to the
thought of the Messianic time now beginning : the
assurances given to the fathers should be fulhlled.
The source of the Incarnation is found in God's
attributes of loving- kindness and truth.

3. Liturgical use. — In the Ea.stern Church the
Magnificat is sung as a morning canticle. This
also was its use in the West at one time. In the
directions at the end of the Rule of Aurelian, bp.
of Aries, c. 540, it is mentioned as used in the
Office of Lauds ' with antiplion or Avith alleluia,
following OT psalms and canticles, and followed
by Gloria in cxcelsis.' *

In the treatise of Niceta, cle Psalmodim Bono,
to which we have already alluded, the primary
reference is to Vigils, to the use, therefore, of the
Magnificat in the evening. The list of canticles
mentioned corresponds to that in use in the Church
of Constantinople at that time. When the later-
hour offices were developed in the West, it was, in
accordance with such usage, attached to Vespers,
with varying antiphon. Thus it passed into the
first Prayer-Book of Edward VI., and has since been
used in Evensong after the first Lesson.

In Julian's Z>tc^. of Hijmnology there are refer-
ences to several metrical versions which found
favour from the 16tli century. But these are of no
importance.

LiTRRATURB. — O. Bardenhswer, Biblische Studien, vi. (1901)
p. 187 ; F. C. Burkitt in A. E. Burn's Niceta of Bemesiana,
1905, and JThSt vii. 220 ; A. Harnack, Sitzungsherichte der k.
prettss. Akad. der Wlssenschaften, 1900, xxvii. p. 537 ; F. Jacobs,
Bevuc d'hist. et de litt. religieuses, ii. p. 424 ; H. P. Liddon, The
Magnificat, 1889 ; W. Sanday, art. ' Jesus Christ ' in Hastings'
DB ; F. Spitta, ' Das Magnifikat ein Psalm der Maria und nicht
der Elisabeth,' Theol. Abhandlungen, 1902; Volter, ThT xxx.
(1896) p. 224 ; Bp. Wordsworth in A. E. Burn's Niceta of
Remesiana ; T. D. Bernard, Songs of the Holy Nativitv, 1895, pp.

56, 65. A. E. Burn.

MAHALALEEL.— An ancestor of Jesus, Lk S^'.

MAID. — The English words ' maid,' ' maiden '
represent three Greek words : Kopdaiov (Mt 9-^'-
AV 'maid,' RV 'damsel') ; ri wais (Lk 8^1 AV and
RV 'maiden'; v.^^ AV 'maid,' RV 'maiden');
and wai5iaK-n (Mt 26««, Jn IS^'' AV 'damsel,' RV
' maid ' ; Mk 14««- «^ Lk 22'56 AV and RV ' maid ' ;
Lk 12'*5 AV ' maidens,' RV ' maidservants '). Tlie
first two clearly signify 'young girl,' answering
to the Aramaic talltha (cf. JNIk 5'^' and Lk S'"'-* : for
a discussion of the Aramaic form see art. Talitha
CUMI). Talltha. seems to have been frequently
employed in the sense of 'young woman.' In
the Targums it is used of Dinah, Miriam, and
Esther. It and its Greek equivalents have almost
that meaning as applied to the daughter of Jairus.
Kopdaiov seems to have lost its diminutive force in
* Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 393.

104

MALUKD

.MAJESTY

later Greek and to have been no longer employed
a8 a familiar term, but to have been virtually
e(|uivalent to Kltpj}. -n-aiSiixKTj, the feminine of
TraiSlaKos, originally a diminutive of irals, meant in
the first instance ' girl ' and then ' domestic female
servant 'or 'slave.' It has the latter meaning in
the Gosjjels. In some passages in the LXX (Ex
20^'*, Lv 25'*^ etc.) it represents 'iimCih (cf. art.
Haxdmaid). It seems to have been iised especially
of a doorkeeper (Gospels, Ac 12^^, Lysias cited by
Wetstein). That it often referred to a slave, not a
hired servant, is evident from the passages quoted
by Wetstein from the grammarians, and seems to
be implied in the contrast between iraidia-K-ns and
iXevdepas in Gal 4-^.

Literature. — Wetstein on Mt 2089 ; Lev\-, Chalddisches
Worterlnick, i. 3036 ; Svvete on Jlk 146".

W. Taylor Smith.
MAIMED. — This term signifies disabled by
wounding or mutilation ; deprived of the use of
a necessary constitutive part of the body ; muti-
lated ; rendered unable to defend oneself or to
discliarge necessary functions. In Mt 15^" and Mk
9^^ KvX\6s is the word employed and is tr. ' maimed '
in both AV and RV. It is kindred witli ko2\os,
' hollow,' and signifies originally ' crooked," ' bent,'
and so crippled and halt. kvWt] xetp is the hand
with its fingers bent so as to make a hollow palm.
e/xjSaXe KvWrj {sr. x«P') = 'put it into the hollow of
the hand.' In Lk 14'"- -^ the Mord used is avair-qpos,
i.e. TTTjpoj =' deprived of some member of the body'
(Lat. mane us), preceded l»y dva intensive. The
composite word indicates an extreme form of
bodily mutilation, and Jesus is never said to have
restored one so suffering. Tlie word is not em-
ployed in connexion witli our Lord's miracles, but
only in His invitation to tiie blessings of the King-
dom, to which all outcast sufferers were with
Divine compassion called. T. H. Wright.

MAJESTY.— 1. The term.— In the NT the word
' majesty ' is associated with Christ in three
different connexions. (1) In RV of Lk 9*^ we
read that the peojJe ' were all astonished at the
majesty {/jLeyaXeidrris, AV ' mighty power ') of
God.' The immediate occasion of tlieir astonish-
ment Avas the healing of the lunatic boy, but v.-*^'',
and esp. the iwoieL which critical editors substitute
for iwoi7)(X€v of TR, seems to show that the miracles
of Ciirist generally are to be thought of as pro-
ducing this impression that the Divine fieyaXeidr-ns
was manifesting itself through Him.

(2) In 2 P P"^ the writer, who claims to have
been present with Jesus on the Mount of Trans-
figuration, says of tliat experience, ' M^e were eye-
witnesses of his majesty' (AV and RV ; Gr.
/xeyaXeior-qs). The word /neyaXeioTTis is found in
only one other passage of the NT, viz. Ac 19"-",
where it is used to describe the ' magnificence '
(AV and RV) of the great goddess Diana. It is
thus an interesting coincidence that the two
instances of its use in connexion with Christ
belong to the episode of the Transfiguration and
the incident of tiie healing of the lunatic boy which
followed immediately after. On the ' holy mount '
the favoured three received a revelation of Christ's
inherent fieyaXeioTijs (the word iirbirTai, ' eye-
witnesses,' is a technical term denoting those who
had been admitted to tlie highest grade of
initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries). And
when He came down from the mountain, the
IxiyaXeioTTj's of God shone forth through His works
in the eyes of all the multitude.

A comparison of the uses of uiyxkuoTr.; in Lk O*, Ac 1927,
and 2 P lie raises a doubt wViether 'majesty' is tlie most
adequate rendering of the word in the first and third passages,
and whether 'magnificence' (as in Ac 192V EV) or 'splendour'
would not more correctly rejjroduce the original idea. This is
suggested by the ordinary use of the adj. fxsyccxiio; in class.

Greek, and even bv the two instances of its employment in the
Nr (Lk l^y, Ac 211). The evidence of the LXX also points in
t'lie same direction ; for while fj-iyahHory,; is used in Jer339 to tr.
n"i>!C? (-^^ 'honour,' RV 'glory') — a word which is usually
rendered by titja — the terms ordinarily taken to express the
idea of greatness or majesty are iJL-yaXurjvr, and /j-iyxXoTp-.Tnoc
{c.<i. i S 72a, Ps 145 [LXX 144] a. 5. t>. 12).

Vvith this idea of Christ's miracles, or of His miraculous
being, as an effulgence of the Divine splendour or magnificence,
compare the statement of Jn 2ii that bj- the miracle of Cana
Jesus ' manifested his glory ' {i^avipciKn r>,t ocica xirou). Cf. also
the Itottki tv;; ixuvou ix.-ya.Xiic,iy,Ta; of 2 P 116 with what is said
in v.i" of the 'glory' (Seia) which Jesus received upon the
mount from God the Father.

(3) In He T' 8' we see Jesus seated ' on the right
hand of the Majesty- on high.' The word for
' Majesty' in these two cases is fxeyaXuavvr), a term
that does not occur again in the NT except in the
doxology at the end of Jude (v.-°). The idea of
Christ as seated at God's right hand, which is so
frequent in the NT (Mt 2&^^\\, Ac 2^^ T^^f-, Ro 8^^,
Eph 1-", Col 3^ etc.), was no doubt taken in the
first case from Ps IW (cf. He P witii v.'^). It
seems always to be used with reference not to His
])re-existent dignity, but to the exaltation that
followed His incarnation and suffering. Moreover,
in the two passages in Hebrews there is no direct
ascription of the Divine majesty to Jesus. The
idea is that of His exercise of a supremely exalted
office as the Great High Priest who is the Mediator
between God and men.

2. The quality of majesty in Christ.— Apart
from its infrequent use of the word, the NT
affords abundant material for a consideration of
the majesty of Christ, whether in His estate of
humiliation or of exaltation.

(1) With regard to His life on earth, {a) it is
evident that there was nothing of the majestic in
His outward circumstances. From His birth in a
stable to His death on a cross, it was a life of ' no
reputation,' His form being that of a servant and
not of a king (cf. Ph 2^). And on the one occasion
when He assumed a kind of royal state, and
sufiered the multitudes in the streets and tiie
children in the Temple to hail Him with Hosannas
(Mt 2P- '5f-), His majesty, after all, as the Evan-
gelists subsequently perceived, was but the
majesty of meekness, for Zion's King came to her
gates, as the prophet had said, ' lowly, and riding
upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass '
(Mt 21iff-, Jn 12'^ff-; cf. Zee 99).

{b) Was there no majesty, then, in His personal
appearancel The Gospels are completely silent
on this point, and in the lack of any trustworthy
tradition the Fathers seem to have fallen back
chiefly on the prophetic pictures of the Messiah,
with the result that a wide diversity of view came
to exist, according as one passage or another was
taken as the norm. The earlier tendency, inspired
without doubt by prevailing ascetic ideals, Avas to
fasten upon the words of Deutero-Isaiah with
reference to the Suffering Servant (SS-*- ^), and to
represent Jesus as utterly devoid of all beauty and
dignity of face or form. ' Base of aspect ' [aiaxpos
TTjv 6\j/iv) is the verdict of Clement of Alexandria
[Po'd. iii. 1 ), who was preceded in his estimate by
Justin Martyr, and followed by Tertullian. There
came a reaction by and by, represented in tlie
East by Origen and in the West by Jerome, when
men bethought themselves of such a prophetic
Psalm as the 45th, with its vision of One ' fairer
than the children of men' (v.'-; and girded with
glory and majesty (v.'*). Jerome in particular
maintained this high view of the majesty of
Christ's outward aspect. There was ' something
starry ' (siclereum qtiiddam), he affirmed, in the
Saviour's face and eyes {Ep. ad Principiam) ; 'the
brightness and majesty of His Divinity . . . shed
their rays over His iiuman countenance' {in Mnft.
i. 8). This was the view that ultimatelj' prevailed

MAJESTY

MALCHUS

105

in the Church, and finds expression in the so-called
'Letter of Lentulus' (see vol. i. p. 315). It gave
rise to a type of presentment that has dominated
Christian art ever since ; but it is right to re-
member that this conventional conception of a
Christ who was tall in stature, beautiful in
countenance, dignified and even majestic in figure
and bearing, rests upon no real basis of authentic
tradition, as it is supported by no single word of
the NT ; and that Augustine has stated the simple
truth when he says, ' Qua fuerit ille facie penitus
ignoramus ' (de Trin. viii. 5).

[c) But there is a moral majesty, a majesty of
purity and truth and goodness, that is indepen-
dent of all outward seeming ; and the Gosjiels
give abundant illustration of Christ's endowment
with this majesty of soul. Milton tells us how,
face to face with tiie cherub :

' abash'd the devil stood,
And felt how awful goodness is ' {Par. Lost, iv. 846).

And no one can read the Gospel narratives with-
out perceiving how good men and l)ad alike were
smitten at times with a sense of subduing awe as
they stood in the presence of Jesus Christ. This
was the experience of the Baptist Avlien he ex-
claimed, ' I have need to be baj)tized of thee, and
comest thou to me?' (Mt 3^^). It was the feeling
of Simon Peter when he cried, ' Depart from me ;
for I am a sinful man, O Lord' (Lk 5^). This
majesty of Christ's character forces itself upon us
at every point, rising higher and higher until it
reaches a culmination in the awful scenes of the
judgment-hall and the cross. Was it not this
majesty of a pure soul that arrestetl and troubled
Pilate himself in the midst of his keen concern for
his own selfish interests and his lofty Roman con-
tempt for a mere Jew ? And was it not this same
majesty of holiness that smote upon the lieart of
the very centurion who carried out the sentence of
crucifixion, so that he exclaimed, ' Certainly this
was a righteous man' (Lk 23-''')? Sometimes we
see Christ's moral majesty flasliing out so over-
whelmingly tliat it works with a kind of physical
eftect, as when the profane traffickers in the
Temple cringe and flee before Him ; or when, in
the Garden, as He steps out of the shadows, say-
ing, ' I am lie,' His enemies go backward, and fall
to the grountl (Jn 18"-).

{d) But besides the unconscious majesty of good-
ness, we see in Jesus Christ throughout His public
ministry a ronsrious majesty of the most positive
kind. This man, so meek and lowly in lieart, does
not hesitate to make the most astounding claims.
He claims a personal authority that sweeps aside
in a moment all the traditional learning of the
nation's religious teachers (Mt 7-^- ^^). Never,
surely, in the world's history has there been
another series of utterances so clothed in the
majesty uf s^jiritual poMer as the Sermon on the
Mount. And this poor Carpenter of Nazareth
further assumes without the least hesitation the
name antl dignity of the promised Messiah of
Israel ; He affirms, in a sense altogether unique,
that He is the Son of (4od, unto whom all things
have been delivered of the Father (Mt IP', Lk
10-^; cf. Jn 14-17); He invites every burdened
and weary soul to come unto Him for rest (Mt
11-^). And what could be more majestic than the
language in which Christ assumes the office of the
universal Judge of men, and describes the events
and issues of that solemn day when the Son of
Man shall come in His glory, and all the nations
shall be gathered before Hini ? (Mt 2S^^^-).

(2) It is unnecessary to dwell in any detail upon
the majesty of the exalted Christ. From St.
Peter's first sermon on the Day of Pentecost (Ac
233ff.) (1q^^,jj ^q ^,jg ^^^^ utterance of the Apostolic
Church, the Christ of the NT is the Christ en-

throned in glory, dignity, and power. His fol-
lowers do not tliink of Him ' according to the
flesh ' (2 Co 5"*) — as the Prophet of Galilee or
the Man of Sorrows. The Christ of whom they
do habitually think is risen, a.scended, glorified,
.and set down on the right hand of the Majesty on
high (cf. Ro 8•■^ 1 Co IS^^"-, Gal 2^", Ph 2"«^-, 1 Th
4iaff.^ He r-*''- and passim). Apart from the evi-
dence of their own writings, no better proof of this
can be found than the fact that for more than a
century after the death of Jesus the Church
ajjpears never to have concerned itself in any way
as to His earthly appearance, or to have had any
desire for ])ictorial representations of His human
face and form. And is it not highly significant
that, on the one solitary occasion on which a NT
writer has set himself to describe the Lord's per-
sonal apjiearance, the attemj^t is based upon no
recollections or traditions regarding Jesus of Naza-
reth, but tipon a splendid conception of the
majesty of the exalted Christ— His eyes as a flame
of fire. His voice as the sound of many water's, in
His right hand seven stars, and His countenance
as the sun shineth in his strength (Rev P^"'-) ?

Literature. — The Lexx. and Comm. ; Farrar, Christ in Art,
bk. ii. ; P. Dearmer's art. ' Christ in Art ' in vol. i. ; Dora Green-
well, Patience of Hope, pt. i. ; Seeley, Ecce Homo, ch. iv. ;
Denney, Stud, in Theol. 169. J. C. LAMBERT.

MALCHUS (MaXxos)- — The name of the man
whom Peter wounded in the right ear at the arrest
of Jesus (Jn IS'").

Malchus was a common Semitic name, thougrh not certainly
met with among the .Jews proper. By both Delitzsch and Sal-
kinson it is vocalized DI37P, which is no more than a trans-
literation. Josephus (see Niese's index) mentions five persons
who bore it under the form of MccXx"' or M«X(%ix, whence an
original 71'*?^ has been inferred (Dalman, Gram. Aram. 104).
But the true Greek form seems to have been tAakixa-? {Periplus
maris Eri/thnvi, cf. Miill. Geogr. Gr. Min. i. 272); and 13'7D,
pronounced 0'?S, appears in three inscriptions {CIS ii. 158,
174, 218) that may be dated with some confidence between
B.C. 40 and a.d. 40.' In these inscriptions the name is Nabatsean ;
but the root iSd is common to all the Semitic languages, and
appears to belong to the unhistorical period prior to the separa-
tion of the various peoples. In Assyrian it is a designation of a
subordinate ruler (Schrader, COT i. 23), a prince rather than a
king. While there are instances of its use in relation to a god
(cf. Boehmer in Expos. Times, xvi. [1905] 473 ff.), there is no
need to see in it anything more than an allusion, serious or
playful, to superiority in rank or in pretence.

The bearer of the name in the Gospel narrative
held a position of trust in the household of the
high priest, probably Caiaphas (Jn IB^^). It has
been assumed that the other Evangelists sup-
pressed the name (Mt 26^\ Mk 14"', Lk 225") with
a view to i)rotect Peter from revenge or an action
at law on the part of the Jews. It is at least as
likely that they were ignorant of the name, or of
opinion that no purpose was to be served by its
mention. There is no evidence that Malchus ^yas
exceptionally active in the arrest, or anything
more than an onlooker. Peter's forward rush,
when his indignation could be restrained no longer,
towards the group of which Jesus was becoming
the centre (Jn lS-»), suggests rather that Malchus
was on the skirt of the group, and not immediately
engaged in binding Jesus. He happened to be in
Peter's way in his attempt to rescue his Master,
and may Vvell have been personally unknown to
the majority of the disciples. If John Avas the
unnamed disciple who was ' known unto the high
priest' (v. 15), possibly because he supplied the
family of Annas with fish (according to an old
tradition ; cf. David Smith, Days of His Flesh,
465), he would be acquainted with both Malchus
and his kinsman (v.-«) ; and the mention of the
name in the Fourth Gospel may be taken as one of
the undesigned indications of Johannine author-
ship. The healing of the ear of Malchus is re-

106

MALEFACTOK

MAMMON

corded by Lk. alone, but is an essential part of
the story (cf. Expos. Times, x. [1898-99] 139, 188),
and exactly such an incident as would be likely
to attract the notice of a physician, and so to calm
the soldiers as to make the subsequent remon-
strance preserved by eacli of the Synojitics pos-
sible. The natural order of events was first the
healing of the wound, followed, while Malclius'
friends were crowding around him, by the rebuke
of Peter, and then, as soon as the jieople were
ready to listen, by the taunting protest in regard
to the manner of the arrest. Thereupon Jesus
consented to be seized, and in perfect self-posses-
sion passed on to His trial and death.

R. W. Moss.

MALEFACTOR.— Tavo Gr. words, whose shades
of meaning are indistinguishable, are thvis trans-
lated in NT : (1) KaKo-n-oios or KaKOf ttoilcu (lit. ' evil-
doer'), Jn 18^0, 1 P 21--" 415; (-2) i^aKovpyos (lit.
' evil-worker '), Lk 2S^- 33. 39^ 2 Ti 2». A V renders
KaKOTTOids ' malefactor ' in Jn 18^'^, ' evil-doer ' else-
where ; but RV gives ' evil - doer ' throughout.
Again AV renders KaKovpyos ' malefactor ' in Lk
2332.33.39^ 'evil-doer' in 2 Ti 2», while RV makes
it always 'malefactor.' This illustrates the NT
Revisers' uniformity in the translation of words.

In Lk 23^- the best attested text is erepoi KaKovpyoi
dvo, not erepoi 8vo KaKovpyoi (TR). Hence it is main-
tained by Alford and others that we ought to read
' two other malefactors ' (without a comma after
'other') instead of ' two others, malefactoi-s' (AV
and RV). There is really no difficulty a1)out
adopting this rendei'ing, which does not imply that
St. Luke assents to the judgment that Jesus was a
malefactor, but merely states the fact that He was
led to execution as such.

D. A. MACKINNON.

MAMMON, or more accurately ' Mamon,' is the
transliteration of the Gr. equivalent for a late
Aram, or Syro-Chald. term ilenoting ' wealth ' or
'riches' or 'treasure,' whose etymology is still a
matter of dispute (cf. the articles s.v. in Hastings'
DB and Encyc. Bib.). In the Gospels it means
worldliness in the form of wealth, and occurs twice
— (rt) in Mt 6-'' = Lk 16''* Cye cannot serve God and
mammon'); and (b) in Lk IG**- ^^, where it is de-
fined, or rather described, as ^mrightcous, the latter
epithet being applied to it not only in the Targums,
but as early as En 63'** ( ' our souls are satisfied
with the mammon of unrighteousness, yet for all
that we descend into the flame of Slieol's pain ').

The genuineness of the logion [a] there is no
need to question, although its jjresent position is
probably due to editorial arrangement. Of the two
settings, Miittliew's seems preferable. Mammon
here represents a sort of personified worldliness, a
Plutus of the age, and Christ exposes the impossi-
bility of combining devotion to this end with de-
votion to the true God. The spiritual life. He
explains in &'^---^, must have the two notes of in-
wardness and unity. Compromise here is out of
the question. The object of a man's confidence
determines iiltimately his character ; and single-
mindedness is the supreme condition of health and
eft'ectiveness in religion. Jesus ' warns them that it
is impossible to be at once high-minded and just
and wise, and to comply with the accustomed forms
of human society, seek power, wealth, or empire,
either from the idolatry of habit, or as the direct
instruments of sensual gratification ' (Shelley).
Objection is sometimes taken to this covmsel as
inapplicable to a group of good disciples. But Jesus
had rich people among His adherents, and besides
it is not the rich alone who are tempted to make a
god of their money. Poor people are just as prone
in some ways to attach an exaggerated importance
to wealth, to overestimate its power, and thus to
let it exercise a control over their desires. No

written comment on the verse, however, can equal
the impression made bj' Mr. G. F. Watts' picture
of ' Mammon,' with its coarse, gross limbs cruslung
human life ; to which one pendant is the same
painter's picture entitled, ' For he had great pos-
sessions. '

The Lukan setting is as apt in its own way,
placing the same logion amid a cluster of character-
istic (see Theophilus) sayings and parables on the
dangers and abuse of money (cf. v.^^^). Lk 16^^
forms one of several rather heterogeneous fringes
to the parable of the Unjust Ste\vard (16'"** or 16''"),
arranged with almost as little connexion as the
logia in 16'"'-. So far as it stands, however, it has
the same meaning as in Mt 6--'. The main difficulty
is to correlate it with what immediately precedes,
and this opens up the unjjersonitied use of manmion
in the second class of passages [b). The jjoint of
16''^, which is certainly a genuine parable of Jesus,
is to inculcate the wisdom of making provision in
the jiresent life for the life which is to come. The
temper commended by Jesus is that of a man who
has wit enough to see that his future prospects
depend on his present exertions, and who infer-
entially has no illusions whatever about himself.
He is open-eyed to the present situation. He does
not flatter himself into a rosy view of his case, or
look to some happy chance to bear him through.
A prudent regard to self-interest is the saving
feature of his character and conduct. So much is
clear. The trouble is to adjust vv.^"''* to this
standpoint. If, with critics like J. Weiss, Wernle,
and Jiilicher, all five verses are regarded as edi-
torial glosses, the solution becomes fairly simjjle,
the original parable having nothing to do with the
use of money at all, as Christ meant it. But v.**
may well be the original sequel to v.** (so Well-
hausen recently), in which case ' the mammon of
unrighteousness ' there and in v.^^ is explained by
'what belongs to another' in v.^-. Wealth, Jesus
teaches, does not really belong to a Christian. It
is something alien to him. Yet, as the steward
used wealth that was not his own for his own ends,
so the Christian can and must employ his wealtli
in order to promote his eternal interests. iNIoney
given in alms makes friends for him in heaven, just
as it lays up a treasure for him there (11^^ 12-" etc.).
Instead of serving God and mammon alike, lie is to
use mammon wisely in the interests of his relation
to God and the heavenly Kingdom, the wisdom
consisting in the practice of charity (cf. v.'''^-). If
not, the 2^rospect held out is ominous. 'Ciod," as
Kingsley once said, ' will yet take account of the
selfishness of wealth ; and His quarrel has yet to
be fought out.' This is true to the spirit of the
Lukan sayings, except that they threaten an
eschatological ruin rather than one wrought out
on this side of the grave.

In any case vv.'""'^ (v.^^ coming from 19") form
a conglomerate appendix, added to prevent mis-
conceptions, ' another instance of editorial solici-
tiide on the part of an Evangelist ever careful to
guard the character and teaching of Jesus against
misunderstanding' (Bruce). V.'', especially, indi-
cates the right use of money (as in the parable of
the Talents) : L^se it faithfully. I.e. for the good of
the needy, instead of hoarding it up selfishly.
Honesty in money matters (v.'") is vital to the
Christian. And honesty, in this particular appli-
cation, is viewed under the light of liberality (v."),
in accordance with the tenor of Luke's social sym-
jiathies throughout his Gospel. Thus the use of
mammon brings out two elements in the teaching
of Jesus upon money — («) the need of administer-
ing it wisely, and [b) the essentially inferior and
even irrelevant position of money in the religious
life. The latter is In'ought out by the ei)ithet un-
ricjhtcous (almost equal to ' secular ' here) ; money is

less by far than a Christian's other interests (v.^"),
alien (v.^-), and unreal (v.^^), even when it is not
allowed to be a positive rival to God (v.^''). By its
nature it belongs to the present {i.e. this evil)
generation, not to the real order of things which
forms the sphere of the children of light, i.e. Chris-
tians. Yet even so it is a test ; it furnishes oppor-
tunities for the exercise of certain virtues (cf.
JNIorley's Voltaire, p. 107). Christians are trusted
^^•ith money, as the steward was. But what in his
case was fraud, in their case is both honest and
shrewd. Forethought is the quality commended
by our Lord, as opposed to a selfish and sliortsighted
policy. Faithfulness in dealing with money means
giving it away. And the two, faithfulness and
forethought, are ditierent sides of the same habit —
pretty much as in the proverb, ' What I gave, I
have' (cf. Pr II-''). The steward dispensed his
goods ; no doubt, for selfish ends. Still he dis-
pensed them, and so proved his wisdom at least.

On this interpretation ' the mammon of unright-
eousness ' does not mean money or worldly advan-
tages wrongfully gained, as though the point of the
parable were that wealth, dishonestly come by,
should be disbursed in charity (so Strauss, and
O. Holtzmann in Stade's Geschichte Israels, ii. 584-
585). The steward is not commended because he
atoned by beneficence for ill-gotten gains, as if he
represented a sinner \\\\o insured forgiveness and
welcome in heaven by means of charity to his
fellows on earth, finding it impossible to restore, as
Zaccha?us did, his fraudulent profits (so even Bruce,
Parabolic Teaching of Jesus, pp. 373-374). ' The
mammon of unrighteousness ' means money as
essentially secular and unchristian (cf. Weinel's
Wlrkungen des Geistes, 1899, p. 15), pertaining to
the order of the Evil One. Jesus does not deal
here with any question of reparation. The object
of the parable is to point out how one may best use
this tainted possession in view of the future, and
the teaching is on the lines of the later Jewish
Rabbis, who attached high religious significance to
alms (cf. Lk 12i5-2i 18- etc.), though it must be
borne in mind that some allowance has to be made
for St. Luke's ' ascetic ' bias in estimating some of
Christ's sayings on wealth in the Third Gospel,
where logia, perhaps originally genuine, have been
sharpened {e.g. in 6"'*'-) into exaggerated emphasis.
In calling mammon 'unrighteous,' Jesus means
that great wealth is seldom gained or employed
without injustice. The stain of abuse is upon it.
The mark of the evil world is stamped on it. At
best, then, it is a means, not an end, for the Chris-
tian, and a means which demands care and con-
science for its wise employment, lest life degenerate
into the mercenary and narrowing spirit which
devotes itself to wluit Bacon called ' a Sabbathless
pursuit of fortune,' a culpable love of acquisition
and material goods, and an insidious appetite for
self-gratification which deadens the higher faculties
of the soul and stunts the instinct of self-sacrifice.

Literature. — See the commentators on Matthew and Luke,
the various Lives of Jesus, a)id the current works upon the
Parables, in all of which the mammon passages are handled ;
also Zahn's Ehileitung, i. 11-12. On the parable of the Unjust
Steward, cf. the critical discussions of Feine {Eine vorkanon.
Ueberlieferung d. Lukas, p. SOf.), J. Weiss (in Meyer's Luke^,
528-535), Schmiedel {Encyc. Bibl. 1863-1864), and "incidentallv
Rodenbusch (^ZNTW, 1903, 243 f.). For Christ's attitude to
wealth, consult H. Holtzmann, NexUest. Theulotjie, i. p. 448 f. ;
Titius, Jestf Lehre vom Reiche Gottes, 72-79 ; Pfieiderer, Urehris-
te nthumS, i. p. 649f . ; Keim, Jesus ofNazara, i v. p. 80 f . (extreme) ;
and Peabody, Jesus Christ aiid the Social Question, p. 244 f.
Further discussions on the significance of the parable may be
found in Expos. 4th ser. vii. 21 f.; Expos. Times, 1903-1905,
passim; Latham's Pastor Pastorum, p. 386 f.; Expos. 1903,
273-283 (Oesterley) ; and Christliche Welt (xvii. 218-227) ; besides
F. W. Robertson's Sermons, iv. (No. 22); J. Martineau, En-
deavours after the Chr. Life, p. 76 ; R. F. Ilorton, Command-
ments of Jesus, p. 249. On manunon-worship, see Carl^le,
French Revolution (iii. bk. 3, ch. vii.) and Past and Present
(bk. 4, ch. iv.) ; Ruskin, Mornings in Florence, § 50 ; also

Morley, Gladstone, iii. p. 548, for modern war as the most re-
markable ' incenti\e to mammon-worship ' ; Coleridge in his
Friend (Essay xvi. written during 1818) said that Lk 16* would
form a suitable motto for a collection of Machiavelli's most
weighty aphorisnis, by some vigorous mind, in order to illus-
trate thereby the ' present triumph of lawless violence ' as due
to the imprudent neglect of such worldly-wise maxims. — In
Academy (1888), pp. 416-417, C. Bezold criticises unfavourably
Mr. Pinches' derivation of the term from an Assyr. mimmu or
?rtej/umt = ' anything,' 'everything,' 'property,' etc.

J. MOFFATT.

MAN.* — 1. Christ's relation to men. — (1) The first
aspect of Jesus in His relation to men, is the re-
lation of a Master to His disciples, and of a Brother,
who is also Leader and Teacher, to His brethren.
This relationship is unmistakable. ' Ye did not
choose me, but I chose you ' (Jn 15^''). The discijjle
is not above his master, nor the servant above his
lord ' (Mt lO'--*). They were not to accejit the title
' Rabbi ' ; they were brethren ; they h<ad but one
teacher, even Christ (Mt 238-io). The relationship
was no external one. The disciples were not simply
the servants of Jesus ; they were His friends (Jn
\b^^- ^^), and knew His thoughts and purposes. To
them He was about to show the very height and
greatness of His love by laying down His life.
The best way for them to show that they were His
friends was by keeping His commandments (Jn
15"). They were also under His Father's care ;
they were the Father's flock, and no one should
snatch them out of His hand (Lk l-2"-8- 3-, Jn lO^^).
They were called to a vocation in some respects
similar to His own : they were to be ' fishers of
men ' (JVIt 4'") ; they, too, would know persecution
and trial and death ; but these, in their essence,
were but temporal things, and could not really
injure or destroy (Mt lO^^-^s-^s, Lk 10^9). As con-
trasted with others who were ' wise and prudent,'
the disciples were but ' babes ' ; but it was to them
that God had made the revelation of Himself in
Jesus Christ (Mt 11-^--'^). The disciples responded
to this attachment. When they found the teach-
ing of Jesus difficult and obscure, and were almost
tempted, like m.any others, to go no more with Him,
He asks them plainly, ' Will ye also go away ? '
and the answer rises within them with all the
strength of passionate loyalty and conviction :
' Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words
of eternal life' (Jn 6*"'"^'*). It is significant also
that one of the strongest utterances of devotion is
recorded of Thomas. Other references to this
disciple show him as a practical man, who lives
on the earth and not in the clouds, and who with-
holds his faith and support until plain proof be
shown (Jn 20-'*- -^). But when Jesus expressed His
determination to go up to Bethany and wake His
friend Lazarus out of his sleep, it was Thomas who
first saw his Master's danger, and that death was
near at hand, and who exclaimed with vehemence,
' Let us go up also with him, that ^\e may die with
him' (Jn 11'''). Peter is called blessed when, at
Ca^sarea Philippi, he answers Christ's question and
confesses, 'Thou art the Christ of God' (Lk 9'-") ;
and John is the disciple whom Jesus loved ( Jn 19-''),
the man who at the Last Supper sat next to His
Master and leaned upon His breast (Jn 21-'^), and
the one to whom Mary the mother of Jesus was
entrusted by Jesus as He hung on the cross (Jn
19'-®- -^). When His disciples are weary, Jesus bids
them go with Him to a desert place and rest a while
(Mk 6^') ; and after their last meal together. He
kneels down and washes their feet, thus teaching

* HtdpuTo; and ccviip are used by Jesus with the ordinary classic
distinctions. Generally a.y9/>uTi>i = a, human being, male or
female (e.g. Mt 4-* 5i«) ; a.vr,p, a man as distinguished from a
woman (Mt 7--'- -'«, Lk 14^4). In keeping with this distinction,
and by a Hebrew idiom (cf. the use of B^'n), He employs
kvOpuiTo; in the sense of the Gr. ti;, Lat. quidam, to denote
' someone,' ' a certain one ' (Mt 21'-28 22" etc.). As the converse of
this, it may be noted that not infrequently (esp. in Jn.) where
Tts occurs in the teaching of Jesus, EV renders it 'a man.'

them the duty of service ( Jn 13^"^). The discourses
recorded in Jn 14-16 are doubtless in some measure
ideal ; but they are true to the main lines of Chris-
tian tradition. The relationship between Jesus
and His disciples was very intimate and sacred, and
the disciples were lilled with sorrow at the pros-
pect of that relationship being snapped.

(2) But Jesus was also a Jew and a citizen. His
mission was, first and foremost, to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel (Mt 15-"*) ; and it was only when
they repeatedly rejected Him and His doctrine
that He turned and went elsewhere. Jesus found
that His own people were spiritually dead. They
had now no prophets, and scarcely any teacher who
might quicken their interest in things beyond the
present hour and day. They had made the Temple
(which was to Jesus His Father's house) a den of
robbers (Mt 21'^), and they had forgotten that
mercy was better than sacrifice (Mt 9''') ; and Jesus,
in the strength of His moral indignation, upset
the tables of the money-changers, and drove those
who sat there out of the Temple. His people
honoured the i)rophets, but in their lifetime they
stoned them ; and now the greatest of the prophets
had come, and they knew itnot(Mt23-»-2^ Lk ll-^- s^).
He had come to His own, and they that were His
own received Him not (Jn P'). There was woe to
come upon Chorazin and Bethsaida. Had Tyre and
Sidon seen the things which they had seen, they
would have repented long ago in sackcloth and
ashes (Mt 11-^). Jesus looked ujion Jerusalem and
its people with a citizen's and a jiatriot's love, and
was moved even to tears (Mt 23^'', Lk 19^^). Let
them weep for their city, themselves and their fate,
and not for Him ! (Lk 23-«-='i). How often would He
have gathered her children together as a hen
gathereth her brood under her wings !

(3) It seems certain that the Jews, as a body, could
never have accepted Jesus as their Messiah. It
was the Pharisee who, with all his faults, had
remained true in some measure to his national
tradition ; and it was in him that the teaching of
Jesus found its strongest opponent. It was, above
all, the universalisia of Jesus that the Pharisee
could not bear. He despised the Greek and Roman,
and especially his kin and neighbour the Samaritan,
as 'Gentile' folk — outsiders. If the God of the
Jews should show Himself favourable unto such,
it would have to be by some special act of grace.
But Jesus followed out the prophetic ideal. He
submitted to be baptized by John, and He expressed
in no stinted waj' His feeling about the Baptist
and his work. In His first i^ublic utterance Jesus
reminded His hearers of the nature of Israel's God.
He was the God of men, no matter what their
race and no matter what their moral character. It
was this God who despatched Elijah to Zarephatli
on an errand of mercy, when there were many
widows in Israel. Elisha also was sent to heal
Naaman the Syrian, although there were many
lepers nearer home (Lk 4-^"-'). It was by utter-
ances such as these that Jesus gained at the outset
the opposition of the national party. Men felt —
and felt rightly — that if Jesus triumphed Judaism
was undone. The Pharisees were also deeply
troubled by Jesus' manner of life. He received
' sinners,' and ate with them ; He dined with tax-
gatherers, and spoke kindly and compassionately
to a woman of ill fame (Lk 52'-3« l9l-'^ Jn 8'-'').
The official class — the Sadducees and priests — also
felt that new wine like this would burst the old
skins, and that a new society might arise, in which
they themselves might be anywhere save at the
top. And from the moment Jesus set foot in Jer-
usalem, the priests and Sadducees, as the ruling
official party, set themselves to work, not to con-
fute Him, but to compass His death (Mt 2P3 2&- ■*,
Lk 19"- -"s 20. 22).

It follows from this that Jesus was a lover
of man, irrespective of his race or condition. He
l)egan His ministry with teaching and healing. He
was often moved to compassion by the nmltitudes
which followed Him ; they were as sheep without
a shepherd ; they heard Him gladly, and even
tarried with Him a whole day, and that in a desert
place (Mk l'*^ 6^""^''). On one occasion they woukl
have made Him their king ( Jn 6'"^''). And to Jesus,
though He refuses their proii'ered sovereignty, tliey
were as ' fields white unto the harvest ' ( Jn 4^'').
Many of the most striking sayings of Jesus, how-
ever, occur in utterances addressed to individuals.
It was while sitting and talking with a Samaritan
— a Samaritan tvoman — that He said : ' God is
Spirit ' ( Jn 4-'') ; it was in the house of Zacchiieus
that men first heard that ' the Son of man came to
seek and to save that which was lost' (Lk 19'");
while it was in answer to ' a certain lawyer ' that
Jesus related the parable of the Good Samaritan
(Lk lO^^'-^^). Men were amazed at and charmed by
Jesus' power of speech ; they ' wondered at the
words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth '
(Lk4-^). Police officers on one occasion were dis-
armed by it. ' He taught,' says the Evangelist, ' as
one having authority, and not as the scribes' (Jn
7^°-^^ Mt 7-«- ^).

What was it that led Jesus to teach and to asso-
ciate Himself, not simply with Jews, but with men
as men? What was it that carried Him willingly
and of set pui'pose into all classes of society, and
especially among the outcast and unfavoured folk ?
What led Him to seek, not the righteous, but
sinners, and not the whole, but the sick ? To
answer this question we must jiass to —

2. Christ's teaching on man. — AVith Jesus the
doctrines of God and man are closely akin. They
pass into each other, and are deeply interfused ; so
much so, that at times we seem but to have been
looking at dilierent sides of the same fundamental
truth. Central, basal, a pole around which every-
thing else centres and revolves, is His conception
of God. To know Him is to share His life, and to
seek His Kingdom and His righteousness is alike
the highest duty and the highest joy of man (Jn
17^ Mt 6^3). He is Spirit (Jn 4-^). Without Him
nature would cease to be ; its beauty, its order, and
the creatures which have within it their home,
derive all their life and sustenance and joy from
Him. The hairs of a man's head are all numbered ;
not even a sparrow falls to the ground without His
notice. The common flowers and grass owe their
life to Him (Mt 6-=-3^ lO-^- ^o).

What, then, does Jesus, with this high doctrine
of God, say abont man? He tells us that man is
distinct from the natural world and natural crea-
tures ; he is God's child ; God is his Father ; he is
God's son (Mt 5^'-^"^^ G"^"^'*). Such words may not
define man's present condition ; they look at him
in the light of the ideal ; they describe his duty,
his highest destiny and ambition. The loftiest
hope and purpose that any man may cherish is
to become a son of his Father who is in heaven,
and to become perfect as his heavenly Father is
perfect (Mt S'*''"'**). It is noteworthy that Jesus
never mentions the fall of man, nor is there any
very conclusive passage in which He speaks of
man as a sinner. But He implies that man is such
in that He makes ' Repent ' the keynote of His
opening ministry (Mt 4''). There is but one who
is good, even God (Lk IS'**-'") ; yet men, who are
evil, can render good gifts to their children (Mt 7").
It is jwssible for a man's eye to be evil, and for
his whole body to be filled with darkness rather
than with light (Mt 6'-^). Men cannot serve two
masters, mammon and God (Mt 6^^). A rich man
can with difficulty enter into the Kingdom of God
(Mt 19-^). Ultimately, too, men are sifted out and

their destiny is determined by their attitude to
Himself and His bretliren ; some will sit down
witli Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the King-
dom of God ; others will be cast into the outer
darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnash-
ing of teeth (Mt 25^'-^«).

But, .generally, it is the ideal which is present
with Jesus ; He prefers to look at the possibilities ;
He does not see capacity for evil ; He tries rather
to discover the latent powers and potencies of good.
An incident s\xch as that recorded in Jn 8^"^^ is
striking proof of this. Jesus there sees not simply
the sinner, but the possibility of good in the
sinner. His final word to her, therefore, is not
one of condemnation : ' Neither do I condemn
thee; go thy way ; from henceforth sin no more.'
Man, therefore, is crowned with high dignity and
solemn grandeur because he is akin to the Divine.
If Jesus had not believed in the capacity for good
even in the most unlikely and unexpected people,
what we read recorded of Him and His work would
never have happened. Of set purpose He turned
from folk who were reimtable, respectable, and,
in the conventional sense, righteous and holy. He
came not to the whole, but to the sick ; not to call
the righteous, Imt sinners to repentance (Lk 5^'- *-).
He turned to those Avithout repute, to the so-called
' sinners,' in the faith that goodness lived within
their hearts ; and history tells us that He was not
disappointed. He sought for the common man,
unsophisticated, unconventional ; and we read that
He was often surprised and astonished at what
the common man revealed to Him (Mt 8^"^^) ; Jesus
may thus be said to have been the lirst to discover
the true significance of common men and common
things. They were significant because tliey led
up to and imjilied more than themselves ; at the
base and heart of each there was God.

But to Jesus man was not one object or thing
among other objects or things in tlie natural world.
He was not simply a part of Nature. ' How much
then is a man of more value than a sheep ! '
(Mt 12'-). If the recovery of one sheep brought
joy to the shepherd in charge of the flock, a man,
by his choice and pursuit of the good, could bring
joy to the heart of God (Lk 15^ '^). He was qJF
value, as a lost coin is of value, for which a woman
sweeps the house and searches diligently until she
finds it (Lk 15*"^'^) ; or as a son is of value, who,
even if lie has left home for a far country and
there wasted his substance in riotous living, is
still dear to his father's heart (Lk 15''"^").

To Jesus, man, as a spiritual being, made in the
image of God, who is Spirit, took precedence of
all material things. The death of the body was
merely a temporal event ; but to think and believe
and act as if the material Avorld Avas all, was the
death of the soul (Lk 12i3-2i). It was to deny God
by forgetting Him, and at bottom meant the
surrender of one's life as a jKrson and the en-
deavour to become a thing. Such was the act of
a fool. To Jesus the spiritual side was all ; or, in
relation to other things it was the central, con-
trolling principle, the fons et origo of all besides.
The life is ' more than the meat, and the body
than the raiment' (Mt 6-^). 'A man's life con-
sisteth not in the abundance of the things Avhich
he possesseth' (Lk 12'^). 'What shall it'profit a
man if he gain the whole world, and forfeit his
life?' (Mt 16-«).

From a strictly moral standpoint the same truth
held good of man ; he alone of all natural crea-
tures was capable of good and ill ; things could
not defile ; they were unmoral, and knew neither
good nor bad ; defilement could come only from
spirit, from man, and it proceeded from the
thoughts and purposes of his heart (Mt 15^''- "• i^-ao^
If the inner life Avas watched, and its waters and

streams kejit pure, all Avas well ; from without
there Avas no danger, because things had no poAver.
It Avas similar in regard to the nature of the true
good. It Avas an iuAvard possession ; moth and
rust consumed material things, but they could
not touch spiritual treasure, which made up the
Avealth of the soul ; this Avas treasure in heaven,
and assuch Avould abide (Mt 6""). It Avas the good
incorporated, as it Avere, into the very life and
s^jirit of man. Such also Avas the Kingdom of
heaven. Men could not see it ; it did not come
by observation ; it Avas Avithin (Lk 17-"- -^).

There is a revelation of God in Nature ; there
is a revelation of God in man ; above all, in the
moral consciousness of man. People often asked
Jesus for a sign or miracle to show them that His
teaching Avas true. But Jesus gave no sign.
The teaching itself was its OAvn sign and Avitness
(Lk 11-3"^-); its presence Avas also an argument;
it ' doth both shine and give us sight to see.'
The rich man in the torments of hell-fire might
ask that a messenger be sent to his brethren —
that some one should rise from the dead to Avarn
them from his fate ; — surely at a miracle they
Avould repent? But the appeal of Jesus ever
addressed itself to the moral consciousness of
man. ' They have Moses and the prophets ; let
them hear them. ... If they hear not Moses and
the prophets, neither Avill they be persuaded though
one rise from the dead ' (Lk 16''-*'^'). In this aspect
John also, in the Prologue to his Gospel, defines
for us the nature of man. There Avas a light Avhich
lighted every man as he came into the Avorld. The
source of this light Avas God. Its sujireme mani-
festation Avas in Jesus; in Him Avas life, and the
life Avas the light of men (Jn P"**).

Man, then, as spiritual, takes precedence of
everything else that is. He is not a means or a
thing ; he is an end in himself. In the time of
Jesus, hoAvever, as has also happened in other
periods of history, the customs and institutions
Avhich man had made had become his master, Avere
obscuring his vision and keeping him from his
true good. One of these institutions Avas that of
the Sabbath. A man might not heal another
man on the Sabbath ; yet if a sheep had fallen into
a Avell he might get it out, or if his ox or his ass
Avere thii'sty he might lead them to the pool. Jesus
enforces the true order ; the Sabbath Avas made
for man ; it Avas a means for his good ; it Avas a
custom, an institution, a thing, and, as compared
Avith spirit, occupied a strictly subordinate place.
It Avas similar Avith every custom and institution
man had made (Mt 12'--', Mk 2^3-25).

In saying this, Jesus stood emphatically for
progress ; He practically said also that there was
something in the life of man Avhicli neither insti-
tutions nor the social order nor civic legislation
could ever fully express ; man bore the infinite
Avithin him ; deep and ineradicable, Avithin his
life, there was the life of God. Man Avas there-
fore immortal. If Ave admit the premises, no
other conclusion is possible. The fact, said Jesus
in effect, that Ave can stand in relation to God,
that Ave can speak Avith Him and commune Avitli
Him, is itself the promise and pledge of im-
mortality. Because He lives, Ave live also (Jn 14'®).
God ' is not the God of the dead, but of the living,
for all live unto him' (Lk 20-«). And thus the
chief end of man Avas to knoAV God and Jesus
Christ Avhom He had sent (Jn 17^) ; his true voca-
tion Avas to seek the kingdom of God and His
righteousness (Mt 6"*^). Because he Avas made in
God's image, and Avas able, in some measure, to
represent Him and reveal Him, man Avas endoAved
Avith a peculiar dignity. But here again Jesus
spoke in the language of the ideal. Immortality
Avas a possibility for man ; it Avas in some sense

110

MANAEN

MANAE^^

an acliievement ; it was also something that could
be lost. But it was something of which every
man was cap.able.

In conclusion, the strongest argument for the
dignity and worth of man is to be found in Jesus
Himself. He called Himself the Son of Man ;
whatever touched man and his well-being was
His concern. His teaching and His life were such
that men find it imi^ossible to regard Him from
the ordinary human standpoint. They have con-
ceived of Him as Divine ; they say that His entry
into human life to share the common pain antl
toil and death was a purely voluntary act. Such
is not only a view held by theologians, but one
which is entertained to-day by men of science.
Sir Uliver Lodge speaks of Jesus as being willing
to share the life of a peasant, and as being the
best race-asset that men possess (Hibbcrt Journal,
Oct. 1904). From whatever standpoint, however,
He is viewed, the presence of Jesus in humanity
can only add incalculably to its worth and dignity.
In set doctrine Jesus taught very little as to the
nature of man. To really see what He thought
about man and the value He set on him, we must
look at Jesus' life. He came to do the will of
His Father and to accomplish His Avork ( Jn 6^^ 9"") ;
He came to give life, and to give it abundantly
(Jn 10'") ; He came not to be ministered unto, but
to minister, and to give His life a ransom for
many (Mt 20-^). That He loved men is a common-
place. He, beyond all other teachers and leatlers
whom we know, ' stood stoutly for the human,'
and made the cause of man — the true well-being
of man — take precedence of every other thing and
cause. It was not that men were better in His
tlum in any other age ; it was that He ever saw
men in the light of the ideal, and ever found at
the root of man's life the life of God. To say this
is to say also that among all the benefactors of
humanity, Jesus of Nazareth is, par excellence,
the Friend of Man. He thought that the common
weal — man and man's true cause and good — was
worth living for with absolute devotion ; should
things so require, it Avas also worth dying for.
And, as Jesus Himself has said, greater love hath
no man than this (Jn 15'^).

Psychologically, man, in the thought of Jesus,
is made up of two parts, soul and body, or spirit
and flesh. But He speaks, as a moral teacher,
of man in his broad general aspect, and is not
concerned with minute psychological distinctions
(cf. Mt 1028- 29 162S 26«, Mk 83«, Lk 16").

Literature. — Grimm-Thayer, Lex. s.vv. avrip, avSpturos ; Hast-
ings' DB, art. 'Man'; A. B. Bruce, The Kinijdotn of God, and
other works ; John Caird, Introduction to the Philosophy of
Religion ; A. M. Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ ; Laid-
law, Bibl. Doct. of Man ; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus ; N. T.
Theol. of Weiss, Beyschlag, etc. ; H. E. Manning, Sermons
(1844), p. 47 ; H. Bushnell, The Neiv Life (1800), p. 16 ; J.
Martineau, Hours of Thought (1879), ii. p. 286 ; F. Paget,
Faculties and Difficulties- (1889), p. 132 ; W. Gladden, Burninij
Questions (1890), p. 67 ; J. B. Lighttoot, Cambridge Sermons
(1800), p. 229 ; R. W. Dale, Christian Doctrine (1894), p. 170 ;
H. van Dyke, Manhood, Faith and Courage (190G), p. 1.

E. Wheeler.

MANAEN (^lavar^v, Ac 13i = Menahem, orijp,
' comforter,' 2 K 15'^ etc.). — Two facts only are re-
corded in Scripture concerning Manaen. In his
old age he was a Christian minister ; in youth he
was foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, i.e.
Antipas (Ac 13^). But this must be read side by
side with a statement of Josephus, who tells us
(Ant. XV. X. 5) that, some few years before, another
Manaen (or Manaem) had come into touch Avith
another Herod, — the Great. The double parallel
appears too striking to be mere coincidence. It
seems more reasonable to assume a connexion be-
tAveen the tAvo stories, and from them Ave may
inferentially derive much light.

1. The connexion bctiveen the Manaen of Josephus

and Herod the Great. — When Herod Avas yet a
schoolboy, he Avas one day greeted in the street by
this Manaen, Avho patted him on the back, and
saluted him as future king of the JeAvs. As Anti-
pater, Herod's father, Avas only a military governor,
tlie prediction seemed absurd. But Manaen Avas
an Essene, one of the stahvart Puritans of that
day, Avho had a reputation not only for austerity
but for predictive jwAvers {Jos. BJ ii. viii. 12) ;
and the Avords induced the lad to make further
inquiry. Manaen persisted, adding that the coming
dignity Avould not be accomjianied by righteous
living, and that God's punishment Avould visit his
later life. About fifteen years later (B.C. 37), Avhen
the first part of the prophecy Avas fulfilled, Herotl
sent for the old Essene, and ever after honoured
him and his sect. If, as Lightfoot conjectures, he
Avas the same Manaen Avho, being vice-president
of the Sanhedrin under Hillel, led aAvay eighty
others to the service of Herod, and inaugurated a
system of laxer living, then the connexion did not
issue in the moral j^rofit of the older man, and he
may have been alluded to (as Plumptre thinks) by
our Lord under the figure of the shaken reed (Mt
IF), and as a soft-clad dweller in royal households.
Perhaps, too, this defection Avas the origin of the
sect of the Herodians (Mk 3", etc.).

2. Connexion between the later Manaen and
Herod Antipas. — The facts related above seem to
constitute an intelligible foundation for the circum-
stances of Manaen's life noted in Ac 13^. Antipas
Avas a son of Herod the Great, and if the old king-
had an elder Manaen living in his household,
nothing Avould be more natural than that a young
Herod and a young jNIanaen (perhaps a grandson,
since Manaen the elder Avas a man of standing
Avhen Herod the Great Avas a boy) should be
brought up together. What this implied it is
difficult to determine, since 'foster-brother' {<jvv-
Tpo(pos) has both a narroAver and a Avider meaning.
It may only indicate that the children Avere much
together. Manaen may Avell have shared both the
home-life and the subsequent education, under a
private tutor at Rome, Avhich Antipas and Arche-
laus enjoyed (Ant. XVII. i. 3). On the other hand,
Archelaus is not mentioned here, so perhaps the
narroAver sense of (xvvrpo<pos may be pressed, that
jNIanaen's mother Avas also nurse to Antipas. In
either case it is suggestive to contemplate the
murderer of John the Baptist and paramour of
Herodias, side by side Avith the man of ascetic
Essene stock, subsequently a teacher in the Church
of Christ.

3. Manaen''s religious development and influence.
— One Avonders how the companion of Herod
became the servant of Christ. His name ( ' con-
soler') may indicate that his parents AA-ere of that
spiritually Avatchful circle Avho Avaited for the con-
solation of Israel (Lk 2-^). According to the
Talmud (Jerus. Ber. ii. 4), Menahem Avas to be one
of the titles of the Messiali, and indeed it became
so (see 1 Jn 2> irapaK\-qTos, used in Job 16- [Aq.
Tlieod.] as tr. of dhjc). The name Avas sometimes
given to children at this period, Avith Messianic
thoughts and hopes. Manaen is like a ferry-
chain Avliose ends are visible and Avhose centre
is submerged. We knoAV of his childhood and
old age : his mature manhood Ave can only con-
jecture. But Ave knoAv at least that he passed
through the Gospel period of John the Baptist's
preaching and Jesus Christ's ministry. He may
have been amongst the number of those avIio
listened on the Jordan's banks, and brought
tidings to Antipas. At any rate, in Herod's house-
hold he must have heard the stirring Avords of
the rugged prophet of the old Essene type, and if
Herod ' heard gladly,' hoAV much more Manaen !
The tAvin-texts, ' ReiJent ye ' and ' Behold the

MANASSEH

MANIFESTATION-

Lamb,' may well have become the head-lights of
his course, and the forerunner's words have led to
Christ one more fruitful servant. There is much
to indicate that the lonely ministry in the castle of
Macluiei-us was not barren of results. Besides
Manaen, we know of spiritual interests kindled in
Joanna, wife of Herod's major-domo (Lk 8^), in the
king's courtiers (jSacrtXi/cos, Jn 4*), perhaps in Hero-
dion (Ro 16''), whose name indicates court con-
nexions ; we know, further, that there were servants
to whom Herod talked on religious topics (Mt 14"-)-
And among these Manaen may well have been one
of those unseen influences for good which alone can
account for some of the better imi)ulses of Herod's
inconsistent life. What passed between the foster-
brothers after John's murder? Was Manaen a
silent or a protesting spectator when Jesus was
mocked ? Did the death of Christ complete a work
of grace already begun at the death of John ? Did
the Resurrection of Christ (no rumour this time,
Mt 14", but a well attested fact) seal for ever the
allegiance of a halting disciple ? Did he renuiin in
the train of his foster-brother till the latter left for
Rome in A.D. 39? If so, he may have gone to
Antioch at that date, and been one of the founders
of the Church in that city, which comes into view
about A.D. 41 (Ac 11'''). He would then rank
amongst that honoured company whose consistent
practice of the faith they professed iirst avou them
the name 'Christian,' Christ's man, — honoured since
with world-Mdde acceptance wherever the gospel
message has spread. At Antioch, in any case, we
find him four years later occupying a position of
authority (Ac 13'). If he was a prophet, we have
an interesting link with the old Essene foreteller
af Herod the Great's reign. But perhaps the copii-
lative particles, strictly pressed, rank him as
t;>acher and not as prophet. He must by this time
liave become somewhat advanced in years. If St.
Luke also came from Antioch (Euseb. HE 3. 4), it
may have been from Manaen that he learned
certain details concerning Herod and John which
are peculiar to his Gospel. We last catch sight of
Manaen in that hallowed gathering when he and
his fellows in the ministry willingly surrendered
their two ablest men, Barnabas and Saul, for tiie
evangelization of the world. He who was called
by his parents 'the comforter' cheerfully yielded
to the higher voice of the heavenly ' Comforter '
(Ac 13-), and tarried by the stuli', while others
went forth to the fight.

Literature.— Lightfoot, Pitman's ed. iii. 211 ; Jos. Ant. xv.
X. 5, BJ II. viii. ; Plumptre, Bib. Educ. ii. 29. S2 ; art. in Smitli's,
Hastings', and Fairliairn's DB (by Hackott, Cowan, and Dickson
respectively), and in Encyc. BibL (by Cliejne).

H C T T^KS
MANASSEH.— The well-known king of Judah,
mentioned as a link in our Lord's genealogy,
Mt li».

MANGER.— The AV and RV tr. of (pdrvyj in Lk
07. 1-2. 16 Jn L]^ 1315^ tjjg oi^iy other place where

(j)6.Tvq occurs in NT, AV and RV both render it
' stall,' though RVm gives ' manger.' The precise
meaning of (pdrvt] is somewhat uncertain, opinions
ditlering as to whether it denotes a stall or a
manger within a stall.

Tristram (Land of Israel, p. 73) supposes that Mary and
Joseph, who could not find room in the xot.Txku/.t.x, were obliged
to go to some poor house hard by, where there was ' an upper
platform ' for people and ' a lower platform ' for cattle, and
that ' in the lower portion allotted to the cattle the Infant when
born was naturally laid at once in the long earthen trough
which serves for a manger, and into which the fodder is pushed
from the floor.' If the xot.TxXu/j.x was like a modern Eastern
khan, and if the tpxTv/i belonged to it (see below), Mary and
Joseph went to one of the stalls for cattle and beasts of burden
within the outside wall, and there the babe was born. Meyer
(on Lk 2") favours the view that fxrvy, means a feeding-trough
placed in a stable. In any case, ixrvy,, as its derivation implies,
designates a feeding-place for animals.

Opinions further ditter as to whether the (pdrvrj
in question was a eavc or grotto in the limestone
rock of the neighbourhood used as a stable, or an
enclosure fenced in.

The former view, which has the weight of persistent tradition,
is due to Justin Martyr, who tells us that Christ was born ' in
a certain cave near the village,' which cave, he says, had been
pointed out by Isaiah as ' a sign.' For this latter circumstance
he founds upon Is 3318 LXX, ' He shall dwell in the lofty cave
of the strong rock ' (Trypho, 70 and 78). A similar statement is
made by Origen, who affirms that in his day there was shown
at Bethlehem ' the cave where Jesus was born, and the manger
in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling bands ' (c. Cels.
i. 51).

There is, of course, nothing improbable in tiiis
traditional view that the place where Mary sought
shelter was a cave, for throughout Palestine such
caves or grottoes were and are commonly used as
stables. The other view, that the (pdrv-ri was an
enclosure, is favoured by many. According to
Schleusner, it was the open courtyard attached to
the inn and enclosed by a rough fence, into which
the cattle would be shut at night, and where
poorer travellers might lodge, when from want of
room in the inn, or want of means to pay for room,
they could find no other place. This view is sup-
ported by the Vulg. (prccscpium) and the Peshitta.
It is, moreover, significant that the earliest Chris-
tian artists represent the Nativity as in an open
courtyard.

Stanley, who opposes the view that the (fa.Tv/i was a cave,
does so "partly on the ground of Mt 2ii and partly on the
ground of the" superstitious tendency to associate sacred events
with caves. He says {SP p. 440) : ' As soon as the religion of
Palestine fell into the hands of Europeans, it is hardly too much
to say that it became " a religion of caves." ' He further notes
that when the Convent of the Nativity was dismantled during
the invasion of Ibrahim Pasha, it was found that the traditional
cave had been, in pre-Christian times, a place of sepulture, and
was therefore not at all likely ever to have been used by Jews
as a manger.

It has been commonly but too readily assumed
that the precise meaning of (pdrvr) in St. Luke's
account must be determined by our interpretation
of KardXi'txa. This appears to be a groundless
assumption. It is not said by St. Luke that the
<pdTV7] was connected with the inn. In 2^- 1- the
definite article is not used ; for, though it appears
in the TR and a few MSS of minor importance, in
which it was probably inserted to designate the
well-known cpdrvq, preponderating evidence is alto-
gether against it. It occurs, as the best ]\ISS
show, in V.18, but there it clearly refers to the
(pdTVT] spoken of in vv.^- '-. It is at least possible
that the (pdrvrj did not belong to the KardXvixa at
all, and it is worth noting as subordinate evidence
for this that the Protevangcl of James and the
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy do not connect 'the
cave ' of which they both speak with the inn.

Our conclusion, "then, seems clear that, whether
the (pdTv-q was a cave or an enclosure, it Avas cer-
tainly a place where cattle were housed or fed.
It cannot be maintained that there is anything
improbable or unreasonable in the continuous
Christian tradition which goes back to the first
decade of the second century. Nor is the jnous
sentiment groundless which has pictured the birth
of the world's Redeemer in circumstances so
humble, and has lingered in loving and grateful
meditation over His manger cradle. See also artt.
Bethlehem and Cave.

Literature.— Schleusner, Lex. s.v. <p«.Tm ; Meyer- Weiss on
Lk 27 ; Keim, Jesus of Nazara (Eng. tr. ii. 80) ; Edersheim,
Life and Times of Jesus, i. 185 ; Stanley, SP, and Tristram,
Laml of Israel, as quoted ; Hepworth Dixon, Holy Land, i.

ch. 13. J. Cromarty Smith.

MANIFESTATION.— 1. The historic manifcsta-
tion.—^\e shall not attempt in this article to say
anything about such manifestations of Christ as
those alluded to in Jn P, where He is spoken of
as the Light which lighteth every man coming into

112

MANIFESTATION

the world. (Jiir first point must obviously be that
manifestation in the flesh of which St. Paul speaks in
his letter to Timothy (1 Ti 3^''). We are so accus-
tomed to its outward form that to some extent we
have lost its significance. Not in the court as a
king's son, not in the Temple as the member of a
priestly family, not in the wilderness as the son of
some aged solitary who had given up the world,
but in the familiar commonplace surroundings of
a i^easant family, as the Son of Mary, the wife of
a village carpenter. This was the presentation
of God to the world. Any of the other forms
would have been more in accord Avith human ex-
pectations. But we are learning more and more
every day that God loves the natural, not the out-
of-the-way, as a means for manifestation. And
this manifestation, Hrst in the manger at Bethle-
hem, then in the home at Nazareth, was the out-
ward setting of the Divine Life, both simple and
natural. There were no miracles, no strange
exhibitions of unseen powers, no external signs
that led the men of Nazareth to mark out that
home as being specially remarkable. Mary and
Joseph, who alone knew the seci'et, read the
wonder of it in the spotless life which from infancy
to manhood unfolded new beauties every day.
Nothing like it had they ever seen or heard.

2. Manifestation by signs. — But this manifesta-
tion of God in human character, though the only
one seen during thirty out of thirty-three years,
was not the only one. His mother evidently ex-
pected something further. When He left His
home to begin His ministry, she felt sure that this
reserve and silence would be broken. It might
come at any place, and at any time. And it was
in accord with the humility and kindness of her
character that she should believe it might come at
a small village feast to meet a temporary social
need. It is plain from our Lord's reply (Jn 2^)
that she was looking for some manifestation, for
He told her that the hour for such had not come.
It is equally plain that she read in His words
only a correction of her eagerness and supposition
that she best knew the occasion. She had no
doubt that He would help, and gave directions
accordingly. And in that secret miracle, appar-
ently unperceived at the time, and discovered only
when there was an opportunity to ask the servants,
He manifested forth His glory.

This is typical of the many manifestations that
followed during the three years. They were not
wonders wrought to force men's belief, but signs
of Divine character. They were bits of teaching
by illustration, object-lessons as we should call
them. He never would work a miracle for the
sake of astonishing men, though He was often
asked to do so (Mt 1238^- 161^-). They were all
signs of God's sympathy with the needs of men,
and the desire He had to relieve them. (See
Wace, Some Central Points of Our Lord's Ministry,
p. 133).

3. Manifestation of the Transfguration. — For
some eighteen months there had been wonderful
manifestations of Divine character and power, but
no personal manifestation. Like any one else,
Christ was seen tired, hungry, asleep, and in pain
through the infirmities and sicknesses of others
that He carried. He did not strive nor cry, neither
was His voice heard in the streets (]\It 12'^). All
was singularly quiet and unassuming, and men
might well wonder what there was at the back
of this astonishing teaching and these wonderful
works. But once the disclosure was made (Mt
17'f- II Mk 92f-, Lk 92«-). See art. TRANSFIGURA-
TION.

i. Manifestations after the Resurrection. — It is
very difficult to realize the character of these
revelations of the Risen Lord. In one He is like a

gardener (Jn 2U'^), in another, a traveller walking
to a coimtry village (Lk 24''), in another, a stranger
standing on the beach of the Lake (Jn 21^). Mk.
speaks of the appearance to the two disciijles on the
road to Emmaus as being in ' another form ' (Mk
16'-). They were manifestations marked by sudden
appearances and disappearances. His home was
elsewhere, but He came and went according
to the disciples' needs. The body was real-
could be touched as well as seen. Indeed, He was
anxious that they should not suppose Him to be
mere spirit, and actually ate a piece of broiled fish
before them in order to show them the reality of
His bodily existence (Lk 24-*-). But these mani-
festations are characterized by two fe,atures : (1)
they were made only to His friends ; (2) they were
not apparently surrounded with glory and majesty.

With regard to (1), we may believe that only
His friends could have perceived them. They
might have seen something, as St. Paul's com-
panions did on the road to Damascus (Ac 9^), but
not the face of Christ. Faith and love were neces-
sary to interpret the manifestations. (2) They
were not apparently surrounded with glory and
majesty. They disturbed and frightened, not
because they were expressions of His eternal
majesty, as that of the Transfiguration was, but
because they were unexpected and sudden. This,
we think, is singular, and certainly one of the
marks of the truthfulness of the narrative. We
expect it to be so ditierent, as is shown by the
shining figures that represent the Risen Lord in
picture and stained -glass Avindow. But just as the
graciousness of a king leads him to adopt the
dress of his guest so as to make him more com-
pletely at home, so our King, when He comes to
those poor labouring folk whom He had chosen
for His Apostles, comes as one of them.

5. Manifestations to disciples since the Ascension.
— There is a striking promise in the words our
Lord spoke after the Last Supj^er, in which He
declares that He will manifest Himself to the man
that loves Him. That this does not refer to the
manifestations of the Resurrection, which were so
soon to follow, is clear from His reply to Jude's
very natural question as to how He would manifest
Himself to the disciples and yet not to the world
(Jn 14-"). It is interesting to note that St. John
does not use the ordinary Greek word {<pavep6w) for
manifestation, but takes another word (ifi(j>avi^u)),
which is employed in this sense in only one other
passage (Mt 27®^), where the dead bodies of the
saints are said to have appeared to many in the
holy city. That passage would seem to indicate
a bodily appearance ; but our Lord's ex2)lanation
contradicts such an interpretation. When asked
how He could appear to the men who loved Him
and yet not to the world. He replies that in the
first place the man who loves Him will keep His
word, i.e. will give his mind to Him, and observe
His teaching, and then in his fixed contemplation
and obedience will realize not only His own pres-
ence, but the presence of the Father. Such mani-
festations as these, then, are secret, personal reali-
zations of Christ's pi-esence, according more nearly
with the revelations of a friend's character that
we have in his letters, or in his pictures if he is
an artist, in his music if he is a musician. Not,
however, that we are to think of them as entirely
subjective. The words ' We will come unto him '
teach an actual spiritual movement on our Lord's
jjart towards those who love Him, which they will
feel and enjoy.

To St. Paul, who did enjoy some actual appear-
ances of Christ, the spiritual revelations Avere every-
thing ; and in one difficult passage he declares that
though he had known Christ after the flesh, i.e. in
bodily form, henceforth he knew Him no longer in

MANLINESS

113

that way (2 Co 5^^), evidently finding more in the
indwelling manifestation of Christ than he had
known in the joy of Christ's visible form.

6. Manifestation of the Second Advent. — In 2 Th
2^, where AV giv^es ' with the brightness of his
coming,' IIV renders 'by the manifestation of his
coming,' the Gr. word being i-n-Kpaveia. Similarly
RV substitutes ' shall be manifested ' for AV
' shall appear' in Col 3*, 1 P 5^ 1 Jn 2^ 3-, the Gr.
word in each case being (pavepou. See artt. Par-
ousiA, Second Coming.

G. H. S. Walpole.

MANLINESS.— To the Christian, Jesus is the
perfect m<an, and therefore in His character is to
be found the perfect type of manliness. At the
same time, when we speak of the manliness of
Jesus, there is an element of challenge in the
phrase, and we make an assertion that is felt to
require justification. This is due partly to the
fact that the conventional idea of manliness seems
too poor a standard to apjily to Jesus, and partly
to the fact that the courage of Jesus is not often
emphasized. Gentleness, meekness, and forgive-
ness are the qualities by which His character was
pre-eminently distinguished, and it is too often
assumed that these preclude the possession of
courage. A somewhat complex problem is thus
raised by the discussion of manliness in relation to
Jesus, Avhich involves two questions : ( 1 ) What is
the conventional or worldly conception of manli-
ness ? (2) How far do the character and teaching of
Jesus agree with this, and how far do they modify
it?

1. The conventional or toorldly conception of
manliness cannot be described in a word, for a
number of qualities go to make up what the world
accepts as a manly man. (1) There must be a
basis of adequate physiccd strength. Men have
always admired the athlete, and they reject the
claim to manliness of those who are puny and feeble
in body. The vigour and energy of a strong, well-
disciplined body form the substratum of the world's
idea of manliness. A proof of this is to be found
in the many efforts made by Christian people to
remove the prejudice that there is an opposition
between Christian faith and bodily strength. The
comljination of Christian faith with athletic vigour
has seemed and does seem to many extremely
desirable (cf. ' muscular Christianity '). (2) There
must be a sufficient degree of intelligence. As,
however, the standard of intelligence demanded
for manliness is not very high, this element is not
greatly emphasized. (3) There must be the morcd
equalities of courage, temperance or self-control,
perseverance, and love of personal honour. Of these
courage is fundamental, and it may be defined as
the assertion of self against opjiosing influences.
It is recognized by the world in many forms, from
the animal quality of bold disregard of physical
danger up to steadfast adherence to conscientious
conviction. At the same time, however courageous
a man may be, the world holds him to come short
of true manliness if he is not able to control his
impulses, whether of mind or body, to persevere
patiently in any course of action he has adopted,
and to be scrupulous in guarding his personal
honour with life itself if necessary.

There are three points which may be noticed in connexion
with this analysis of the conventional idea of nianhness. (a) All
the virtues involved are compatible with pride, and indeed are
conceived as ministering to and supporting pride. This is
obvious in regard to courage and love of honour. Self-control,
again, is desirable largely because its opposite brings ridicule ;
and perseverance, because to give in is intolerable to the proud
man. (6) This idea of manliness corresponds very closely to the
ideal of the perfect man of the Greek and Roman moralists.
The starting-point of pagan ethics is the analysis of the term
'happiness' (EiSai^on'a), regarded not as a subjective state
of feeling, but as an objective form of being. Happiness is
held to be found in the harmonj' of character and experience.
VOL. 11. — 8

Hence the qualities which give a man rule over his circum-
stances are to be desired as good. By Plato and Aristotle an
optimistic view of the world's capacity to satisfy the require-
ments of a good man is assumed. With the Stoics, and still
more with the Cynics, pessimism about the world leads to
strong emphasis being laid on the power of the individual to be
sufficient to himself. With the Epicureans the optimistic
assumption that the world will not fail to give the gratification
necessary to happiness, leads to the emphasis being laid on the
regulation rather than the suppression of desire. The ethics of
Greek and Roman writers may be generically described as the
science of the relation of man to his environment. The varia-
tions in theory are determined by the view taken of the
responsiveness of the environment to man's needs. Thus, from
the practical point of view, all the various theories aim at self-
development. Self is the beginning, centre, and aim of pagan
ethical thought. Harmonies with Christian teaching are largely
accidental. The essence and root are different. The virtues
of the pagan are ' inflated and arrogant ' (Augustine), even
where thev inculcate the same conduct as the Christian virtues
(cf. Luthardt, Hist, of Christian Ethics, i. 25). (c) This idea of
manliness corresponds very closely to the ideal of manhood to
be found in the Ethics of Evolution. Phrases such as the
'survival of the fittest' and the 'struggle for existence,' which
suggest that men are engaged in a constant war from which
only the conquerors emerge, indicate at once an ideal of manli-
ness of which self-assertion is the fundamental quality.

2. How far do the character and teaching of Jesus
agree toith the ivorldly conception of manliness, and
hoio far do they modify it ? — Was Jesus a manly
man according to the world's idea? To this the
answer must be that His manliness can be vindi-
cated in relation to all the qualities which go to
make a manly man, but that allowance must be
made for the very difi'erent ideal in relation to
which these qualities were exercised. About
physical strength and intellectual ability it is not
necessary to say anything. There is a degree of
human excellence which makes even the latter in-
considerable, and we have passed that degree when
we discuss the character of Jesus. Courage, how-
ever, is on quite a difi'erent plane, and the courage
of Jesus can be triumphantly vindicated. The
cleansing of the Temple (Mt 21i" Js^ Mk Ips-is, Jn
2^^"^^), the attitude of Jesus towards the thi-ong
who would have made Him king (Jn 6'^'-), His
denunciations of the Pharisees (Mt 23), His woes
against the cities of Galilee (Mt ll-"--''). His acts
of healing upon the Sabbath, His rebuke to the
people of Nazareth (Lk 4^6-30)^ jjjg statement about
the Temple (Jn 2^^""), His refusal of a sign to the
scribes (Mt 123«-« W-\ xMk 8"- 1^, Lk IP^f-), His last
journey and entrance into Jerusalem (Lk 9®'), His
demeanour before the high priest and before Pilate
(Mt 265'f-, Mk 14«3f-, Lk 22'58«-)— all show courage of
the very first quality. He is undismayed before
an unparalleled combination of adverse forces.
And the overwhelming forces opposed to Him give
an added lustre to His courage in dealing faith-
fully with those who took or were ready to take
His part. His disciples are fearlessly rebuked
when they are in the wrong (Lk G^^-ss, Mt 16=^ Mk
8^3, Mt ISiff-, Mk 9^3^ Lk 9*«24-«-, Mt \%^\ Mk IQi^-is,
Lk IS'-'"^"). He never modifies His demands in
order thei'eby to secure influential supporters (Jn
3iff-, Mt 19i«-, Mk IQi'f-, Lk 18i«-, Mt S^a-^;, Lk 9"-«-).
Moreover, the inevitable result of His faithful-
ness was clear to Him from an early point in His
public career. So there was not lacking in His
courage that element which arises from the vision
of the cruel and shameful death aAvaiting Him.
The self-control of Jesus, again, is very apparent
in His life. We see it in the fact that He remained
subject to His parents (Lk 2^^), and was 30 years
of age before He began His ministry. It is dis-
played in a dift'erent relation in the temptation in
the wilderness (Mt 4i-", Lk 4i-^3), when neither the
pangs of hunger nor the splendid prospect of world-
wide dominion could overcome His resolution. And
once more, before the high priest, before Pilate,
and in the brutal hands of the soldiers. He never
spoke one bitter or unworthy Avord, even though
Peter denied Him and the other disciples had for-

114

manlinj:ss

MANNA

saken Him. Of His perseverance it is only neces-
sary to say that He -vvas ' obedient even unto death,
yea, the death of the cross' (Ph 2*).

It is in regard to love of personal honour that
the transcendent difference between the world's
idea of manliness and the manliness of Jesus be-
comes apparent, just as also very varying views
are to be found even among worldly men as to
what honour really is. However, an integral
element in honour in the worldly sense is the good
opinion of a man held by his fellows. To be an
inconsiderable person was regarded by Aristotle as
incompatible with happiness. High-mindedness is
one of the virtues which go to make the perfect
man, and ' by a high-minded man we seem to mean
one who claims much and deserves much ' {Nic. Eth.
iv. 3, § 3 ; cf. Mt23^2) -^yqu the proud indifference
of the Cynic to the oinnion of his neighbours by its
vehemence betrayed its hollowness. It is the last
refuge of pride to despise all who do not ackno'w-
ledge the superiority on which it is based. In the
life and teaching of Jesus the centre of morality is
changed from self to God. Right conduct consists
in obedience to the law of God. The essential
nature of the Law is to love God and ones neigh-
bour ( Mt 2237-«, Mk 123"- 31, Lk 10-/). The approval
of God is thus the supreme practical consideration
for the Christian, while his relations to others are
to be governed by love and a desire for their good.
There is no exception to this rule. It is to guide
the conduct of Christians towards those Avho have
injured them. Now the right and duty of aveng-
ing an affront or an injury have always seemed to
men bound up with the love of honour, and the
division of others into friends and enemies has
seemed inevitable. But Jesus teaches that His
followers are to forgive injuries, and to love their
enemies (Mt S^"*- 18-i- -, Lk G-'*- 17=*- "). Moreover,
they are not to meet violence with violence. And
of these precepts He has given a perfect illustra-
tion (Lk 42^-30, Mt 26S--5«, Mk 1465, jyjt 21^, Jn 8^9

It is in regard to this duty of forgiveness that
the world has found the greatest difficiilty in assimi-
lating the views of Jesus, and has been inclined
to treat them as counsels of perfection which cannot
be put in practice. Three degrees of opinion on
this question may be distinguished : (1) that of
those who altogether ignore the teaching of Je.sus
as impracticable ; (2) that of those who find in His
teaching the condemnation of all resistance to
evil, whether private or public, and so condemn
alike war between States and private quarrels,
whether settled by physical force or by an appeal
to courts of law, the decisions of which ultimately
rest on force ; (3) that of those who find in the
teaching of Jesus primarily the inculcation of a
spirit of love the manifestation of which is deter-
mined in every case by the circumstances, and
which accordingly condemns neither war nor an
appeal to force, nor an ajjpeal to courts of law,
apart from the occasion which gives rise to them.

With the first of these opinions we are not con-
cerned. The second has always been held by many
Christians. It is based especially on Mt 5^*"'*^ 26^-,
Lk 6-^ 17^. In the early Church it led to a strong
feeling against the propriety of Christians serving
as soldiers (cf. TertuUian, de Idol. ch. 19 — ' the Lord
in disarming Peter unbelted every soldier'). In
later times the Society of Friends have been the
most prominent adherents of similar ideas. And
Tolstoi, among modern "wi'iters of distinction, holds
such views in their most extreme form. It has to
be remembered, however, («) that the illustrative
sayings of Jesus cannot wisely be generalized into
universal precepts. To do this is to ignore the
clearly marked feature of His teaching, in which
He aimed ' at the greatest clearness in the briefest

compass.' [b) If Jesus said, ' To him that smiteth
thee on one cheek otter also the other' (cf. Mt 26^^,
Jn 18^'), He also told His disciples to sell their
garments and ' buy a sword ' (Lk 22^6, cf. Mt lO^^- ^%
(c) Jesus laid down a method of dealing with one
who has trespassed against another A\hich cannot
be brought within the boundary of strict non-
resistance, though, indeed, the motive of this deal-
ing is undoubtedly to be a desire for the good of
the offender (Mt IS's-i^). The third opinion is that
which has generally prevailed among Christians.
According to it, the ruling principle of a Christian's
conduct is love towards all. This involves at once
and without question or limit the forgiveness of
all injuries and the crucifying of the spirit of
emulation and self-esteem which so often leads to
strife. But the manifestation of heart-forgiveness
is to be regulated by a wise concejjtion of the
injurer's welfare and the welfare of others. These
princijjles, in their mutual interaction, condemn
all personal vindictiveness and malice, such an
appeal to violence as duelling, that litigious spirit
which aims at getting the better of another in a
law-court, and all wars of aggression, as well as
those which spring from national or personal pride.
They do not condemn, however, the establishment
of just government by force of arms, nor an appeal
to justice and a desire for its vindication by force,
nor the use of arms in the jjrotection of the weak.*
There is thus open to the Christian a sphere for
the exercise of aggressive courage consecrated to
the furtherance of noble ends. To right wrong
and to protect the weak are the natural aims of
Christian manliness. At the same time it remains
true that the Christian is called upon to exercise
the courage of endurance much more frequently
than that of aggression. And the endurance of
the martyr shows a quality of manliness which
transcends all others, inasmuch as his courage is
made sublime by self-sacrifice.

Literature. — Sidgwick, Bist. of Ethics ; Paulsen, A System
of Ethics ; Knight, The Christian Ethic ; Martensen, Christian
Ethics ; Luthardt, Uist. of Christian Ethics ; Benjamin Kidd,
Social Evolution ; Ecce Hoino, chs. 20, 21, 22 ; Wendt, Teach-
ing of Jesus ; Speer, The Principles of Jesus ; Tolstoi, The
Christianity of Christ ; Hughes, The Manliness of Christ ;
Phillips Brooks, The Candle of the Lord, p. 253.

Andrew N. Bogle.
MANNA. — The miracle of the loaves and fishes,
by which Jesus fed five thousand men, stirred the
multitudes to fanaticism (Jn 6^"^*). Their first im-
pulse was to make Jesus king by force. On the
morrow they followed Him across the sea to Caper-
naum, hoping that He would feed them again in
some supernatural way, and suggesting the giving
of bread from heaven as a suitable sign in con-
firmation of His high claims. Would not the pro-
phet of Nazareth imitate the great lawgiver, who
gave their fathers bread from heaven ? Jesus
turns their thoughts away from Moses to God : ' It
was not Moses that gave you the bread out of
heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread
out of heaven.' As God gave the fathers literal
bread from heaven, so now He is giving to their
children spiritual food that nourishes the soul
eternally. ' I am the bread of life ; he that cometh
to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on
me shall never thirst.' 'Your fathers did eat the
manna in the Avilderness, and they died.' God has
a far better gift than the manna that was gathered
day by day in the wilderness. ' I am the living
bread that cometh do\\Ti out of heaven : if any
man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever ; yea,
and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the
life of the world ' (v.^i).

* Tolstoi, with remorseless logic, declares that a Christian
should not interfere with force to prevent murder— a precept
which ignores the moral nature of the murderer no less than
the claim of the person attacked for protection.

MANSION

MANUSCKIPTS

115

In Kev 2"" the spiritual blessing promised by the
glorified Christ to the victor in life's battle is
called 'hidden manna.' John R. Sampey.

MANSION (fj-ovi), Jn 14--2»)._1. 'Mansion,' like
fj-ov-q, is properly an abstract noun, meaning ' a
staying,' 'an abiding.' In English literature it is
first found in Hampole's Psalter, 5. 8 (c. 1340 A.D.),
' bai entire in til Godis house of heuen and takis
baire joy and }mire mansyon in ]?aire perfeccioun.'
So in the B text of Piers Plowman, Langland says
of Pride (B xiv. 26) : ' Arst in the maister than in
the man some mansioun he hath ' (he dwelleth in
the master rather than in the man). The C text
(c. 1393) keeps the word while it extends the limits
of Pride's abode (xvii. 59) : ' Other in the maister,
other in the man, some mancion he shewith.'
But Hampole and Lydgate (1420) also use ' mansion '
of a dwelling-place. A charter of Henry VI. (1444)
uses it of a hostel, and Fabyan (1512) of the chief
residence of a lord, whence it gains its modern
meaning of ' an imposing abode,' which is seen even
in Shakspeare (2 Henry IV. ill. ii. 351). Bacon,
however, still uses the word in its abstract sense in
the Advancement of Learning (1605), and both
Shakspeare and Milton use it of ' an abiding-place '
without the suggestion of a building (Timon of
Athens, v. i. 218 ; Paradise Lost, i. 268, viii. 296).
From the Vulgate mansiones it is used by Wyclif
for ' halting-places ' in Ex 17\ but in translations
from the Greek (as AYhiston's Josephus, 1737) this
meaning represents crradixos, not fj-ov-q, and so has no
bearing upon the sense of Jn 14-. The Vulgate
also uses mansiones in Jn 14'-, and is responsible
for Hampole's use of the English form of the word
in the sense of 'dwelling-places.' That sense was
confirmed in the language, partly by Chaucer
(Kniqht's Tale, 1116), but mainly by the influence
of findale's Ver.sion of the NT (1526), 'In my
fathers housse are many mansions,' and (2 Co 5')
'Our erthy mancioun wherein we now dwell,' copied
by Milton in II Penscroso, 92.

2. But while the English ' mansion ' and the
identical French word maison have retained from
their common original only the developed meaning
of 'dwelling-place,' the Greek fiovr) is nowhere in
extant literature found with this meaning, save
only in Jn 14". Westcott (with Liddell and Scott)
explains its use in this verse by the supposed
occurrence of the word in Pausanias (x. 3F) in the
sense of 'a halting-place for the night.' But the
ordinary reading in that passage seems impossible
Greek, and is certainly corrupt (see J. G. Frazer's
note) : TeT/xrjraL 8k 5ta tQv fiovQiv ij 656s is not an in-
telligible expression for the traditional meaning,
' there are halting-places at intervals upon the
road.' One MS reads ix-qvCov, from which W. M.
Ramsay conjectures 5td Tibv Myjprjvuiv, ' the road
has been carried through the country of the M.
(beside Minos' tomb).'

Apart, then, from Jn 14^, fiovri remains a purely
abstract noun, me&ning (I) abiding, (2) continuance,
(3) rest. The ease with which it passes from the
first to the last of these meanings can be seen
from Plato, Crcct. 437 B, where fJ-vrjfiT] is defined as
a /xovrj, and not a (popd ; Ar. Phys. v. 6. 8 (wo-re
KLvria-ei fxovri ivavria) ; Polybius, iv. 41. 4, 5, where it
is twice coupled Avith ffracTL's • and most of all in
Plutarch, whose writings (A.D. 80-120) are contem-
porary with St. John's Gospel.

Like the classical authors, Plutarch still uses ^or.i in the literal
sense of 'a stay' or 'a continuance' : ii/Ti /Mvyiv it tu ^iu Toi;
a-yxtoi; o'uTi l^xyaiyiiv toi; hocxoI; (1042 D), ocXXa. xau toutoiS fj,iiyy,v
oiovTeti HxQviTiOvo-otv ehoti xccxavoti i^xyatyy.v, 1063 D. But in 1024 F,
though /xovr, answers to to ,u.-.vov, Plutarch opposes it, like Aristotle,
to zr^Yiffii : gV-Ti yct,p Yi ^£v vov,(rii tov vootjvro; xivvjini mp] to jlc^vov, y)
5s ho^ex. fMovvj TOV octo'B«,vofj.ivov Tip) TO xivoC^ivov. So in 927 A the
material elements as conceived hy Enipedocles are reduced to
order by the introduction of the principle of love (i^iXotv.tos
%yyivof/,ivr,$'), 7yec . . , ret /zlv xiyYitrioi? t« h\ pLOVYii ocvotyxoti? £vhi9ivTat

. . . acpuov40tv xcci xoivtuviciv Qt.Tipya.a-/,Toci tov rr«^TO^, where ixcr,

has the complete meaning of retit as opposed to motion. And in
747 C he uses the plural of 'rests' in dancing; itTot.'Clia. js x.\
iLOMXi TipccTu, TUv Xiyy,aictiy sltrtv.

In Jn 14^, however, the immediate mention of ' a
place ' seems to demand a concrete meaning for
ixoval, though it has no parallel elsewhere. If so,
the senses of 'abode' in vv.^ and ^*, concrete and
abstract respectively, will be derived from the idea
of rest that has become attached to the word, as
well as from the original idea of remaining. The
difference is seen at once when the ixovr)v iroteladai
of Jn 14^'* is compared with the same phrase in
Thuc. i. 131 : Pausanias the victor of Plataa, in-
triguing with the Persians in Asia Minor, was
'prolonging his stay to no good purpose' {ovk eir'
dyadij} T7]v fjLovrjv woiov/j.evos), fj.ovr]v, as the Scholiast
remarks, being practically equivalent to dpyiav,
'idleness.' In Jn 14-* the phrase combines, like
/xovai in V.-, the meanings of 'abiding' and 'rest'
with that of the ' home ' in which the rest is found.
All the same suggestions are found in 1 INIac 7^*,
the only passage in the LXX where fiovr) occurs :
fivrjcrdrjTi. tQiv dv(T(p7}fJLiuiv avrCov, Kal fjirj Sys aiVois
fj.ovriv ('and suffer them not to live any longer,'
RV).

3. The /xovrj of the Christian in the spiritual
world (v. 2) and the /xovrj of God in the Christian
(v.-*) are evidently intended to be correlative :
'Abide in me, and I in you' (Jn 15'*). Their con-
summation realizes the ideal of Jn 17'-''^*; mean-
while they are the NT fulfilment of the two OT
ideals of rest : ' Rest in the Lord and wait patiently
for him' (Ps 37''), and 'Arise, O Lord, into thy
resting-place ; thou, and the ark of thy strength '
(132*). Jn 14^, that is, refers not only to the per-
petual ' rest ' or ' home ' in the life hereafter, but,
like v.^, to the 'abiding' fellowship with the
Divine in this life (Mt 2820, ^^y 2i3). See artt.
Abiding, and P'ather's House.

Literature. — For the English word see Oxfurd Eng. Diet.,
where its history is fully illustrated ; Aldis Wright's Bible Word-
Book, 387, 388 ; Hastings' DB iii. 238. The Greek word is very
insufficiently treated both in Stephanus and in Liddell and
Scott ; for Plutarch's uses see Wyttenbach's Index, where, how-
ever, some references are misprinted. Reference may further
be made to Expos. Times, viii. [1897] 496, x. [1899] 303; Ex-
positor, II. ii. [1881] 281, iii. [1882] 397, iv. vi. [1892] 209 ; A.
Maclaren, The Holy of Holies (1890), p. 12 ; R. W. Dale, Christ
and the Future Life (1895), pp. 33-84 ; J. Parker, City Temple
Pulpit, i. (1899), p. 259. FRANK RICHARDS.

MANUSCRIPTS.— The aim of the present article
is to give a select list of the more ancient or in-
teresting MSS of the Gospels, with a description
of the most important or interesting of these. The
simplest course will be to divide them into the lan-
guages in which they are written, premising that
the Gospels were originally written in Greek, and
that the versions in other languages are transla-
tions, generally direct, from the Greek. The
symbols employed to indicate these manuscripts,
whether letters or numbers, were invented for the
sake of brevity, when they are referred to in an
apparatus of variant readings. The standard col-
lection of variants contained in Gospel manuscrijits
is that of C. Tischendorf (Novum Testamentum
Gra;ce : Editio Octava Critica Maior, vol. i. , Lipsise,
1869), and the standard lists of MSS are those con-
tained in the Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes
(2 vols., Leipzig, 1900, 1902) of C. R. Gregory, an
American scholar domiciled in Germany. The new
numbers which von Soden [Die Schriften des Neuen
Testaments, Band i., Berlin, 1902) has given to the
Greek MSS are added for the sake of completeness,
but it is very doubtful whether they will gain wide
currency. Capital letters are used to indicate MSS
with uncial writing, which is never later than the
10th cent. ; numbers, for those in minuscule writing
(9th to 15th centuries and later).

116

MA^^USCRIPTS

MANUSCRIPTS

I. Greek MSS : — (a) Uncials : —

a { — 8 2, von Soden), Codex Sinaiticus (of the 4th
or 5th cent.), now in the Imperial Library, St.
Petersburg, with the exception of a small jjortion,
which is in the University Library, Leipzig, con-
tains OT (with considerable losses), NT (complete),
followed by Ep. Barnab. and the Shepherd. The
MS, found by Tischendorf in the Convent of St.
Catharine, Mt. Sinai, in 1844, consists of 3464 (NT
1475) leaves of fine parchment, measuring 48x37 "8
cm., with four columns to the page and 48 lines to
the column. The ink is noAV brownish ; the letters
are not very large, and are painfully regular, with-
out breathings or accents, the use of which is
only sporadic till the 9th century. The hands of
seven revisers, dating from the 4th (5th) to the
12th centuries, can be observed in the MS. This
MS shares with B the honour of being considered
the purest MS of the Gospels. Tischendorf has
been charged more than once with having stolen
this MS, but the charges are successfully refuted
by Gregory.

A ( = 5 4, von S.), Codex Alexandrinus, in London,
British Museum, Reg. I.D. v.-viii. (the NT is in
showcases). This MS is of the 5th cent., and con-
sists of 773 leaves (NT 143 leaves) of parchment,
measuring 32 x 26 "3 cm., with 2 columns to the
page and 49-51 lines to the column. It contains,
with some losses, the whole Greek Bible. It was
probably written in Egypt, and came in 1098 into
the possession of the patriarch of Alexandria, from
Avhich place it gets its name. Cyril Lucar, patriarch
of Constantinople, and former patriarch of Alexan-
dria, sent it as a gift to Charles I. of England in
1628. About a century afterwards it was pre-
sented to the nation. A few lines at the beginning
of each book are written in red. The following-
portions of the Gospels are lost : ]\It 1^-25", Jn
g5o_g62_ j^; jg quite clear that Jn 7^^-8^^ never
formed a part of the manuscrijjt. A complete fac-
simile was published in 1878-1880.

B ( = 5 1, von S.), Codex Vaticanus, Vat. Lib. MS
Gr. 1209 (in showcases). The MS is of the 4tli cent. ,
and consists of 759 (NT 142) leaves of parchment,
measuring 27 cm. squai'e, with 3 columns to the
page and 42 lines to the column. The parchment
is very soft and fine. The uncial letters are small,
simple, and written without breaks between the
individual words ; the first hand wrote no breath-
ings or accents, and punctuation is very rare.
The iVIS is of uncertain origin, and, when com-
plete, contained the whole of the Greek Bible with
perhaps the exception of the Books of Maccabees
and the Prayer of Manasses. No gaps occur in
the Gospels. It has been twice revised, once by a
corrector contemporary with the original scribe
(called B-), and again by another of the 10th or
11th cent., who Avorked over the letters and often
added accents and breathings. WH consider it
our very best MS, and regard the combination
BN as practically infallible. A splendid facsimile
of the NT part was published by Hoepli of Milan
in 1904 (see the notice of it by Nestle in the Theol.
Literaturblatt for 6th Jan. 1905), superseding the
inferior photograph issued by Cozza-Luzi at Rome
in 1889.

C ( = 53, von S. ), Codex Ephrsemi rescriptus, Paris
Bibl. Nat., gr. 9, a palimpsest of the 5th century.
Contains, in present form, 209 leaves, written in
single columns. The NT portion consists of 145
leaves, and contains parts of every book except
2 John and 2 Thessalonians. Edited by Tisch.
(Leipzig, 1843 and 1845).

D'"'- =*'^*- ( = 5 5, von S.), Codex Bezse, in Cam-
bridge University Library, Nn. 2, 41 (in a showcase
in Cockerell's Building). This MS is of the 6th
cent, (according to Burkitt, of the 4th), and is
bilingual (Greek and Latin). It is on parchment,

26 cm. in height and 21*5 in breadth, and con-
tains now' 415 (406 + 9 added later) leaves, with
one column to the page. When the book is open,
the left side is Greek, the right side Latin. Ori-
ginally it contained probably Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk.
(the regular Western order of the Gospels), Apoc. ,
1, 2, 3 Jn., Acts (Dom Chapman in Expositor,
1905, ii. p. 46 ff.). Now the Gospels and Acts are
almost complete, the Ajiocalypse and 1st and 2nd
Jn. have disappeared, and of 3 Jn. there remain
only a few verses in Latin. Many hands have
been engaged in correcting the MS. It was pro-
bably written in Italy, or South France, where it
was when Beza acquired it and gave it to the
University of Cambridge in 1581. The MS is the
only rei^resentative of the Western text in Greek,
a form of text which was widespread already in
the 2nd century. It contains, therefore, many
original elements, which have been worked over at
a very early date. In sjjite of this revision, it
often agrees with the neutral MSS, KB. Scrivener
published an accurate and handy edition of the
jNIS at Cambridge (1864), which retains its use side
by side with the gorgeous facsimile published by
the Cambridge University Press in 1899.

N ( = e 19, von S.), Codex Purpureus Petropoli-
tanus, incomplete and mutilated, the parts being
distributed between St. Petersburg, Rome, Patmos,
London, and Vienna. It is an uncial, probably
of the 6th cent., measuring 32 by 26*5 cm. ; has
2 columns to the page, 16 lines to the column, and
227 leaves. The leaves are stained with purple,
and the writing is silver, the Divine names being
in gold. The MS is very like 2 both in text and
external character. The only complete edition is
that of H. S. Croninin TS, vol. v. No. 4 (Cambridge,
1899). He considers N and S to be copies of the
same lost original. The text is of a mixed char-
acter, representing a sort of transition stage be-
tween the purity of the older uncials and the
corruption of the majority of cursives. While it
sometimes sui)ports the former, it also at times
provides the earliest known authority for readings
which are subsequently almost universal. For par-
ticulars see Cronin's valuable introduction.

I ( = e 18, von S.), Codex Purpureus Rossanensis,
in the charge of the Archbp. of Rossano, S. Italy.
An uncial of the 6th cent. , probably later than its
brother MS N, it is, like it, purple with silver ^Yr[t-
ing. It measures 30 '7 by 26 cm., has 2 columns
to the page, 20 lines to the column, and comprises
188 leaves. It contains Matthew and Mark (the
latter without 16"-«'»<^). Edited by von Gebhardt
(Die Evangclien des Matthdus und dcs Marcus aus
dem cod. purp. Rossan., Leipzig, 1883). See under
N. The credit of the discovery of this MS belongs
to von Gebhardt and Harnack (1879), It contains
eight pictures of Gospel scenes, the oldest known.

vl* ( = 5 6, von S.), Athos, Laura 172 (/3 52), an
uncial of the 8th or 9th cent., measuring 20 '8 by
15 cm., has 31 lines to the page, and comprises
262 leaves. It contains the greater part of the
NT, but lacks Mt., and Mk. down to 9^ The
ending of Mk. is like that in L and T^. After 16«
^(po^ovvTo yap, it jjroceeds as follows : Travra 8i ra
irap-qyyeKixiva rolcr Trepl tov Il^Tpov avvToixwa' i^rjy-
yeiXav : Mera 5^ ravra, Kal avrbcr /lytroOs i(pdvq airb
dvaToXyjcr Kal fJ.ixp'- Svcrewcr ^^awicrreCKev 5t' avTujv rb
'upbv Kai d(p0apTov K7}pvyfxa ttjct aluvlov awrripiacr dp.r)v :
'4aTLV Kal ravra (pepdfieva /Mera rb e(poj3ovvTo yap : —
'Avacrras 5^, /c.t.X., up to v.-", and at the end Ei'a77^-
"Kiov Kara MdpKov. It is only in this Gospel that the
text is of interest. The character of its readings
is set forth in Lake's edition (Studia Bihlica et
Ecclcsiastica, vol. v. (Oxford, 1903) pp. 94-122)
[pp. 89-186 can be obtained separately].

T^ ( = e 02, von S.), Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. ii.
No. 208. We mention this papyrus uncial frag-

MANUSCEIPTS

MANUSCRIPTS

117

ment of the 3rd cent. (Jn 123-31.33-41 oQn-i'?- 1«-25),
because it is probably the oldest fragment of Gospel
MS in existence.

(b) Minuscules : —

1 ( = 5 50, von S. ), Basel University Library, A.N.
iv. 2 (formerly B vi. 27), of the 12th (others say
10th) century. This MS was used for Erasmus' Gr.
Test., the first published edition. It gives a good
text, which is often in agreement with 118 ( = e 346,
von S. ), 131 ( = 5 467, von S. ), and 209 ( = 5 457, von S. ).
Lake has edited the four, taking 1 as the basis, and
showing the variants in the others ('Codex 1 of the
Gospels and its Allies ' in TS, vol. vii. No. 3, Cam-
bridge, 1902). He has also discussed with thorough-
ness the relations between them. The reader will
hnd his Introduction a valuable lesson in textual
criticism. It is sufficient liere to quote his con-
clusion with regard to the text in Mark, which
escaped a good deal of the assimilating process
which affected the texts of Matthew and Luke :
'(1) fam'^ in St. Mark seems to form part of a
larger family of which the most certain members
are fam i^ 22, 28, 565, 700 ; (2) this larger family
seems to represent a local text or local texts wliich
were current in a comparatively limited region in
the East ; (3) the only definite localities which
there is any reason to suggest are Jerusalem and
Sinai, and even for these the evidence is insufficient
to justify confident assertion' (p. liv). The most
noticeable features in the other Gospels are an
element akin to KB and a Western element (cf.
p. Iv).

13 (=e 368, von S.), Paris, Bibl. Nat., gr. 50, of
the 13th century. This MS is one of the group
13-69-124-346-543-788-826-828-983-e 1053 (von S.)-
e 1054 (von S. ), conveniently named by Lake/fMw^^^
The ga-oup is also called the Ferrar group, because
the relation between 13, 69, 124, and 346 was dis-
covered by Ferrar of Dublin {A Collation of Four
Important Manuscripts of the Gospels, by W. H.
Ferrar and T. K. Abbott, Dublin, 1877). The
studies of Rendel Harris (Oh, the Origin of the
Ferrar Group, Cambridge, 1893 ; Further Researches
into the History of the Ferrar Group, London,
1900), Lake (JThSt, vol. i. [1899-1900] pp. 117-120),
and von Soden have shed further light upon this
gi'oup. The archetype appears to have been in
Calabria or Sicily in the Middle Ages. Its most
remarkable characteristics are the transposition of
Jn 7'''*-8" to Lk 2p8, and Lk 24^3f. ^q Mt 26^9 (on
the first transposition see von Soden, Die Schriften
des Neuen Testaments, i. (Berlin, 1902) p. 486 ff.).
The importance of the group lies in the great sup-
port which it gives to the Western text.

II. Syeiac MSS :—

[a) of the Old Syriac translation (Evangelion da-
Mepha.rreshe, ' Gospel of the Separated Ones') : —

1. London, British Museum, Additional MSS,
No. 14,451 (No. 119 in Wright's catalogue), and
Berlin, Royal Library, Orient. Quart. No. 528.
This MS, Codex Nitriensis Curetonianus (Bur-
kitt's C), consists of 82i leaves in the British
Museum and 3 leaves in Berlin ; and came from
the great Library of the Convent of St. Mary
Deipara in tiie Nitrian Valley, west of Cairo.
Tlie greater portion of the MS reached England in
1842. In its original state it contained Mt., Mk.,
Jn., Lk. (in this unusual order). The portions
still extant are Mt P-S^- 1032-23-5, Mk \&'--\ Jn

Jl-42 35-81" 1410-12. 15-19. 21-24. 26-29 J^]^ CHi_'^\6 n-iZ_\Q\2

17^-24'". The early part of the 5th cent, is the
latest possible date for it. Each page has two
columns, each with lines varying from 22 to 26.
Each leaf measures 30 by 24 cm. Tlie first edition
of this MS is that of Cureton (London, 1858) sup-
plemented by Rodiger (Berlin, 1872), but the
definitive edition is that of F. C. Burkitt, wlio lias
edited this MS and the following together, the

only representatives of the Old Syriac version,
with an English translation, copious Introduction
and Notes (Eimngelion da-Mepharreshe, etc. , 2 vols. ,
Cambridge, 1904). From this work the details
here are taken. A photograph of a page of C is in
vol. ii. opposite p. 7, also p. 38 two pages ; also in
Kenyon's Our Bible and the Ancient MSS, facing
p. 155.

2. Sinai, Monastery of St. Catharine ; Syr. 30,
Codex Falimpsestus Sinaiticus (Burkitt's S). The
MS was discovered by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gib-
son, of Cambridge, in 1892, and has been since
studied repeatedly by Mrs. Lewis and otlier
scholars. The MS consists of 182 leaves of vellum
(one leaf was stolen in 1902, but afterwards re-
stored ; see Exp. Times, xiii. 405 ; xvii. 396). The
upper writing is of the 8th cent., and consists of
Lives of Saints. In its original form the MS had
166 leaves, containing the four Gospels in the usual
order. Its date is early 5tli, perhaps 4th century.
Each page contains 2 columns, with from 29 to 21
lines each, and measures 21 "9 by 15'8 cm. The
Gospels are nearly complete. Of the two MSS
this must be regarded as the better representative
of the original translation. Complete photographs
of it are in Cambridge University Library ; West-
minster College, Cambridge ; Rylands' Library,
Manchester : photos of separate pages in Burkitt,
vol. ii. pp. 28, 257, and elsewhere.

The Evangelion da-Mepharreshe was so called to distinguish
it from Tatian's Diatcsaaron or Harmony, in which form the
Gospels were regularly read in the Syrian Church at first. This
Church had its centre at Edessa near the Euphrates, and its
language must not be identified with the Aramaic our Lord
spoke. The value of the Old Syriac Version consists in the fact
that it reproduces the Greek text current in Antioch at the end
of the 2nd cent., with a certain amount of contamination from
the use of the Diatessaron, which is in origin Italian. It is of
the first authority for the constitution of the text of the Greek
Gospels. For all problems connected with it the reader is re-
ferred to Burkitt's second volume.

{b) of the Peshitta ('simple') translation: —

2. Earl of Criiwford's MS 1, now Rylands'
Library, Manchester, of the 6th cent. (Gwilliam,
No. ll").

13. London, British Museum, Addit. MSS 14,470,
of the 5th or 6th cent. (Gwilliam, No. 17).

15. London, British Museum, Addit. MSS 14,453,
of the 5th or 6th cent. (Gwilliam, No. 14).

22. London, British Museum, Addit. MSS 12,140,
of the 6th cent. (Gwilliam, 31).

There are many other codices, complete or incomplete, of
equal antiquity, in other libraries. See Gwilliam's list of 42 MSS
in the Tetraeuangelium Sanctum by Pusey and Gwilliam
(Oxonii, 1901), which is the best edition of the Peshitta, and is
provided with a literal Latin translation. As to the date of the
Peshitta itself, Burkitt's view that it was prepared by Rabbula,
bp. of Edessa from 411 to 435 A.D., has gained wide acceptance.
He regards it as 'a revision of the Eoangelion da-Mepharreshe,
undertaken mainly with the object of conforming the trans-
lation more closely to the Greek text as read at Antioch early
in the 5th century ' {Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, vol. ii. p. 5).

year 1030 (Codex A, Lewis-Gibson).

6. Sinai, Monastery of St. Catharine, of the year
1104 (Codex B, LeAvis-Gibson).

7. Sinai, Monastery of St. Catharine, of the year
1118 (Codex C, Lewis-Gibson).

Edited by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson in the
Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels
(London, 1899). This version is perhaps more
closely related to the Old Syriac than to the
Peshitta, and may be a revision of the former.

(d) of the Philoxenian-Harklean translation : —
1. Belonging to the Syrian Protestant College in

Beirut, but lent to the Union Theological Semin-
ary of New York. Of the 9th cent., and somewhat
defective.
22. Florence, Laur. i. 40 ( Assem. 3). Of date 757.

25. Rome, Vat. Syr. 266. Of the 7th century.

26. Rome, Vat. Syr. 267. Of the 8th century.

118

MANUSCRIPTS

MANUSCKIPTS

This, the youngest of the Syrian versions, is a revision by
Thomas of Harkel (Heraclea) in the first half of the 7th cent,
of an earlier version made at the instance of Philoxenus,
Monophysite bp. of Hierapolis (Mabojf) in the early 6th century.
The earlier translation was perhaps made from the Peshitta by
reference to the ' corrected ' form of the Greek text, and Thomas
found in Egypt older Greek MSS, which had escaped the en-
thusiasm of the destroyers, who fa\oured the ' corrected ' text,
and inserted some readings from them, adding others in the
margin.

III. Egyptian (Coptic) MSS:—
(a) of the Bohairic translation : —

Complete manuscripts are all of late date, nofie being earlier
apparently than the 12th century. On all questions connected
with this translation and its MSS, see The Coptic Version of the
Sew Testament in the Northern Dialect [ed. G. Horner], 4 vols.
(Oxford, 1898-1905).

1. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington, 17,*
Horner's A, jn-inted entire by him as the basis of
his edition. This MS was written in 1174, and
contains the Gospels complete, both in Bohairic
and Arabic. It is on paper, contains 457 (+5)
leaves, and 2 columns to the page, with 20 lines
each. It measures 34 5 by 26 cm. The MS has a
number of omissions : see the valuable tables of
omissions in the chief Bohairic MSS in Horner's
edition, vol. i. p. cxxvi ff.

21. Paris, Bibl. Nat., copt. 16, Horner's C. The
MS was written in 1196, and contains the Gospels
almost complete, both in Bohairic and Arabic. It
is on paper, contains 369 ( + 2) leaves, and 2 columns
to the page, with 26 lines each. It measures 28 "5
hj 21 cm. The text is perfect, with the exception
of a small lacuna, Jn 16''"^*.

33. Pai'is, Institut Catholique, Horner's H.
This MS was written in 1250, and contains the
Gospels complete, both in Bohairic and Arabic.
It is on paper, contains 235 ( + 2) leaves, and 2
columns to the page, with 33 lines each. It
measures 25 by 17 '5 cm., and contains some
beautiful pictures.

{b) of the Sahidic translation : —

Of this there exists only a considerable quantity
of short fragments (Gregory gives 91). Some are
as old as the 5th century. One is still older (No. 48
Rome, Propag. 65).

Gregory gives fragments of 5 Gospel MSS only,
one (No. 2), in the possession of Flinders Petrie, of
the 4th century. Of (b) and (c) there is as yet
neither a comprehensive edition nor a complete
study. Further fragments of both are certain to
be discovered.

The Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Persian, and
Arabic translations may be here passed over.

IV. Latin MSS :—

(«) of the pre-Vidgate (otherwise called 'Old
Latin,' or ' Itala') translation(s) : —

a: Vercelli, Cathedral. This MS is of the 4th
cent., measures 25-5 by 16 cm., has 2 columns to
the page, and 24 lines to the column. The order
of the Gospels is Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk., the regular
Old Latin order. Much is wanting in Mt 20-27 ;
Jn. is slightly defective ; in Lk. much of chs. 1. 11
and 12 has disappeared ; in Mk. chs. 1. 4. 5. 15. 16
have sutt'ered greatly ; a second but ancient hand
has supplied ^Ik 16''-". The text is good, and was,
according to tradition, copied by the famous bishop
Eusebius of Vercelli, martyred in 371. The book
has suffered greatly from neglect and bad treat-
ment. Editions by G. A. Irico (Sacrosanctus
Evangeliorum Codex S. Eusebii Magni, INIilan,
1748), J. Bianchini (Evangcliarium Qtiadruplcx,
Rome, 1749 ; very accurately reprinted in Migne's
Patrologia Latina, vol. xii.), and J. Belsheim
{Codex Vercellensis, Christiania, 1894).

b : Verona, Cathedral Library (Biblioteca Capito-
lare). The MS is of the early part of the 5th cent.
(or of the end of the 4th), and is written in silver.
* Gregory wrongly ' Huntingdon 11.'

The following parts are wanting : Mt 1'"^^ 15^"^"-*
23i'*-27, Jn 7-"-8i^ Lk 19-8-2P^ Mk 13«-i'' 13-^-16'^''.
Edited by Bianchini (see under a) and by J.
Belsheim (Codex Veronensis Quattuor Euangelia,
Prag, 1904). It was probably a MS like this which
was the chief basis of Jerome's revision known as
the Vulgate. It is perhaps the best representative
of the European Latin versions of the 4th century.
There is a photograph of one page in Monumenta
Palmographica Sacra (Turin, 1899).

c : Paris, Bibl. Nat. 254 (Colb. 4051 ), of the 12th
century. Edited by P. Sabatier [Bibliorum Sacro-
runi Latinxe Versiones Antiqiue, vol. iii., Paris,
1751 ; there is also an edition with 'Reims' on the
title-page), and by J. Belsheim [Codex Colbertinus
Farisiensis, Christiania, 1888). The work of P.
Sabatier is still unsuperseded as the most complete
repertory of the readings of the Old Latin Bible.

d : This symbol indicates the Latin side of Codex
Bezfe (D).

e: Palatinus ; all that is left is in Vienna (Kais.
Lat. 1185) except one leaf, which is in the Library
of Trinity College, Dublin (N. 4, 18). The MS
is of the 5th cent., and is, with k (see below), rep-
resentative of a form of text used in the Roman
province of Africa (corresponding to modern Tunis).
It is very defective, containing about half of Mt.,
nearly the whole of Jn. and Lk. , and about half of
Mark. A copy of the MS made before its present
mutilation exists in the Vallicellian Library, Rome,
as U. 66. The Vienna part was edited by Tischen-
dorf (Erangelium Falafinum, Leipzig, 1847), the
Dublin leaf by T. K. Abbott {Par Paliinpscstonim
Dublinensium, etc., London, 1880) ; reports on the
copy in the Vallicellian Library were published by
H. Linke {Sitzungsberichte der Konigl. bayer.
Akad. der Wissenschaften [Phil - Philolog. und
Hist. Classe], Munich, 1893, Heft 2, pp. 281-287).
See also Belsheim [Evangclium Palatiniim, Chris-
tiania, 1896), and Old-Latin Biblical Texts, vol. ii.
(Oxford, 1886), pp. Ixvii-lxxxv, by W. Sanday.

f : Brixianus ; in the Cajjitular Library of Brescia.
It is of the 6th cent., and is written in silver. It
lacks the last quarter or so of Mark. It was edited
by Bianchini (see under a), and is also printed under
the Vulgate in Wordsworth and ^Yhite's edition
(Oxford, 1889-1898), as in the oi^inion of these
editors and Hort the type of text which Jerome
used as the basis of his revision. The other view
with regard to it, namely, that of Burkitt, is that
it is an Old Latin text deeply contaminated with
the Vulgate {see JThSt, i. "[1899] pp. 129-134).
With Burkitt's view the present writer agrees.
If it be correct (see under q), the result is the dis-
appearance of Hort's ' Italian ' class altogether.

ff^: St. Petersburg, Imperial Library, formerly
Corbeiensis 21 (10th cent.) : Matthew.

ff-: Paris. Bibl. Nat. 17225, formerly Corbeiensis
195. It is of the 5th cent. (C. H. Turner in JThSt,
vol. vi. [1904-1905] p. 257), not the 7th (Tischen-
dorf, Gregory, and the Paris authorities). The
following parts of the four Gospels are wanting :
Mt P-1P6, Lk 9«-102"-'i ll«-126-7, Jn ni^-lS"
20^^-21*. Published reports of this MS are incom-
plete and inexact. An exact edition is expected
from Rev. E. S. Buchanan, who has made a very
careful study of the MS, and has already published
a translation of its text of some Gospels {e.g. The
Latin Gosjjels in the Second Century, Part I.
' S. John,' Sevenoaks [1904]), and prolegomena
{JThSt vii. 99 ff.).

g^: Paris, Bibl. Nat. 11553, formerly Sanger-
manensis 15, of the 8th cent., edited by the Bishop
of Salisbury (Dr. John Wordsworth) in Old- Latin
Biblical Texts, No. I. (Oxford, 1883).

k: Turin, Nat. G. vii. 15 (formerly of the Irish
monastery of Bobbio). This, perhaps the most
precious of all Old Latin MSS, is of the 4th

MARK

119

(Burkitt) or 5th cent., and represents the text
habitually used by St. Cyprian in the early 3rd
century. The MS measures 18-7 by 16'7 cm., and
consists now of 96 leaves. It contains Mk H^'^^-
14-10 8i»-16«, Mt li-3i» 42-1417 15-»-3«. The only re-
liable edition is that of Wordsworth, Sanday, and
White (Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. II., Oxford,
1886), which is enriched by discussions of the
greatest value for the study of all Biblical texts.
Side by side with this edition should be consulted
the article of Turner and Burkitt, ' A Re-Collation
of Codex k of the Old-Latin Gospels ' {JThSt, vol.
V. [1903-1904] pp. 88-107).

m : Rome, Sessorianus Iviii. This MS, of the
8th or 9th cent., contains the so-called Speculum,
falsely attributed to St. Augustine, a series of
extracts from nearly all the books of the NT. The
compilation appears to be of Spanish origin, as the
text closely resembles that used by the Spanish
heretic Priscillian. Edited by F. Weihrich in the
Corpus Scriptoriim Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum,
vol. xii. (Vienna, 1887).

q: Munich, Lat. 6224, formerly of Frelsing. It
is of the 6tli cent., and contains the Gospels, except
Mt 3'5-425 5i5_g4 628_78^ jn 10"-12^9, Lk 23--^-3« 24"-^3,
Mk V-'^ 155-36. This, like f, belongs to Hort's
' Italian ' class, and stands or falls with f (see
above). Edited by H. J. White as Old-Latin
Biblical Texts, No. III. (Oxford, 1888).

[b) of the Vulgate revision (made by St. Jerome
in 383), the two best MSS out of thousands which
exist are : —

am : in the Laurentian Library, at Florence,
formerly in the monastery of Monte Amiata, No. 1 .
This MS was written about the year 700 in the
North of England, probably by an Italian scribe,
and was taken by Ceolfrid, the abbot of Jarrow,
to the Continent as a present to the Pope in the
year 716. It measures 50 by 34 by 20 cm. (with-
out the cover), and comprises 1029 leaves, with
2 columns to the leaf, and 43 or 44 lines to the
column. It contains the whole Bible. The NT
was published by Tischendorf (Leipzig, 1850, and
again 1854), but not with perfect exactness. (See
Nouum Testamcutuiii Domini Nostri lesu Christi
Latine, rec. Wordsworth and White, Pars Prior,
Oxonii, 1889-1898, p. xi ; and Stadia Biblica ct
Ecclesiastica, vol. ii., Oxford, 1890, pp. 273-324).
Wordsworth and White's A.

fuld: in the library of Fulda, Prussia. The
MS was written about the year 540 at the wish of
Victor, bishop of Capua. The Gospels are written
in the form of a harmony. Edited by E. Ranke
(Codex Fuldcnsis, Marburg and Leipzig, 1868),
with specimens of the handwriting. (See Nov.
Test. etc. Latine, rec. Wordsworth and White,
Pars Prior, p. xii). Wordsworth and White's F.

V. Gothic MSS :—

1. Upsala University, the 'Codex Argenteus.'
The MS is of the 6th cent., and now consists of
187 leaves, which are stained with purple and bear
silver writing. The contents are fragments of Mt.,
Jn., Lk. , jVIark. (The translation was made by
Ulfilas (Wullila) in the 4th cent., and all surviving
fragments are collected in Gabelentz and Loebe's
Ulfilas (Altenburg and Leipzig, 1836-1843).

LiTERATi'RE. — Most of the important literature has already
been indicated in the course of the article. Reference should
also be made to The XT hi the Original Greek : The Text
revised by VV'estcott and Hort, vol. ii. Introduction and Appen-
dix (London, 1881 and 1S96) ; Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual
Criticisnt (if the ^VT (London, 1901); Nestle, Introduction to the
Textual Criticism of the Greek NT (London, 1901); Hammond,
Outlines of Textual Criticism, applied to the A'T (Oxford, 1902).

Alex. Souter.

MARK. — 1. Name and identity.— One, two, and

even three Marks have been discovered in the NT.

But the identity of the ' John Mark ' of Acts with

the ' Mark ' of St. Paul's Epistles is clearly proved

by Col 4'", where he is called the cousin of Barna-
bas, and his identity with the ' Mark ' of 1 Peter is
clearly proved by Ac 12^'-. These two passages
show that in all the nine places where the name
occurs (Ac 121---5 135-i» IS^""'-, Col 41", 2 Ti 4",
l^hilem ^\ 1 P 5^^) the same person is referred to.
The curious notion has widely prevailed that the
' young man ' of Mk li^^- ^^ was the Evangelist
himself, but there is no evidence whatever in its
support. Indeed, the words of Papias, ' he neither
heard the Lord, nor accompanied Him,' would
seem to exclude this and other similar suggestions.
In accordance with a well-known custom (cf. ' Jesus
Justus,' Col 4^1), Mark had both a Hebrew and a
Latin name, and the Roman pi^cenomen Marcus is
of frequent occurrence. From Ac \2^^^- we gather
that Mark occupied a position of some prominence
socially in the Church at Jerusalem. His mother's
house was evidently a well-known rendezvous for
believers. When St. Peter is released from prison,
he turns naturally to this place, and on his arrival
finds a company of Christians at worship. Several
slight indications in the description suggest the
house of a person of means (the porch, the slave-
girl, the large upper room). The only other infor-
mation we possess as to Mark's family history is
his connexion with Barnabas, who seems to have
been a man of standing in the Christian com-
munity.

2. Relations with Paul and Barnabas. — When
Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from Jeru-
salem, whither they had gone with the otl'ering for
the poor, they took Mark with them as assistant,
perhaps owing to his kinship with Barnabas (Ac
12-^). A little later, he again accompanies them
on their first missionary journey as their ' atten-
dant' (13''). This word (vwripeTris) emphasizes his
secondary position and function. Probably his
work was of the nature of business management.
He had to look after such matters as lodging,
routes, conveyance, and the like. At Perga, Mark
withdrew from the mission, for what reason is not
stated. That Paul deeply resented his conduct is
shown by the refusal to employ his services on
a later occasion. It has been assumed that he
shirked the dangers of the enterprise, or that he
tired of the work. But Ramsay (C'A. in Rom. Emp.
p. 61 f.) has taken a more favourable view of his
conduct. He holds that there Avas a change of
plan at this point, that the journey into the in-
terior was not in the original arrangement, and
that Mark might consider this a good ground for
refusing to go on. He had not the same necessity
laid upon him as those who had been solemnly
designated by the Spirit for this service. He was
an ' extra hand,' taken on for casual labour. Bar-
nabas, at any rate, judged Mark's conduct more
leniently than Paul, and later on Paul himself
modified his attitude. At the outset of the second
missionary journey, however, his objection to
Mark's co-operation was so strong that it led to
a separation between himself and Barnabas (Ac
153firt.) The latter took Mark with him on a
mission to Cyprus, and we hear no more of him in
the Book of Acts. When Mark next appears (Col.
and Philem.), it is as the 'fellow-labourer' of Paul,
who had by this time become completely reconciletl
to him, and had found him a comfort {irapriyopia, Col
4^1) in his imprisonment. Paul speaks in Col 4''* of
a projected visit of Mark to the Colossian Church,
and urges his friends there to receive him kindly,
' if he comes ' to them. If is probable, therefore,
that Mark's previous desertion had created an un-
favourable impression over a Avide area. Harnack
thinks the visit was paid, and that, when St. Paul
wrote to Timothy to bi-ing Mark with him (2 Ti
4"), Timothy was to pick him up at Colossaj on his
way from Ephesus. Paul had evidently missed

120

MARK

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

the attentions which JSlark had been able to
give.

3. Relations with Peter.— St. Peter refers to
Mark in his First Epistle (1 P 5^^) as 'my son.'
This may imply only a peculiarly close intimacy,
but more probably it means that Mark had been
converted through Peter's influence. Peter was
evidently a frequent visitor at Mark's home
(Ac 12), and the friendship had begun there which
afterwards became so deep and fruitful. St. Peter's
reference in his letter shows also that at this date
Mark was with him at ' Babylon,' which most
writers now consider to mean Rome. From the
familiar words of Papias (see Mark [Gospel acc.
to], ii. 1) we learn that Mark had become the
' interpreter ' of Peter, and that Mark ' accom-
panied ' or ' attended ' him. Swete thinks he acted
as Peter's dragoman, and translated the Apostle's
words for his audiences. Peter, it is supposed,
would not be fluent in Greek. It is not easy to tit
in this ministry to Peter in Home with the ministry
to Paul. Swete thinks it occurreil after Paul's
death ; but it is at least doubtful whether Peter
survived Paul. Harnack and Lightfoot may be
quoted to the contrary. It is by no means im-
possible, of course, that Mark may have ' attended '
Peter in Rome, and transferred his services to
Paul. It would be much simpler, however, to
sujjpose that the ministry was exercised much
earlier, and in the real, not the spiritual, Babylon.
In any case, INIark's association with Peter was a
fruitful one, as it resulted in the composition of
the Second Gospel. In this matter Mark seems to
have been little more than an amanuensis. Accord-
ing to Papias, the Gospel is really Peter's, and
Mark ^^•as simply his ' interpreter ' on this as on
other occasions.

4. Character and position in the Apostolic
history. — Mark was thus associated with three
notable men in turn, and always in the same sub-
ordinate capacity. Jlilicher calls him ' Apostel-
schiiler.' Swete thinks this humble position de-
cidedly implied in the terms used of him in Acts
and the Epistles. The awwapaXalBdvTes of Ac 12-^
suggests an assistant 'of inferior rank.' The
inrrjp^Trjs of 13^ indicates personal and not spiritual
service. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 71)
holds that INIark's subordinate character is dis-
})layed by the ' haphazard reference ' to him in
Ac 13^. The same conclusion may be drawn from
St. Paul's language in 2 Ti 4^^ (' he is useful to nie
€ts SiaKoviav '). His services to the Apostle in prison
probably concerned his comfort and convenience.
If, again, Mark was Peter's dragoman, he exer-
cised very much the same ' ministry ' for Paul
also. We gather, then, from these references, that
Mark was a person with a large capacity for being
useful in practical matters, but without any
special spiritual gifts, and probably without any
very great force of character. This opinion may
be regarded as receiving conflrmation from his con-
duct at Perga, on the most charitable view of
that incident. He does not appear to have been
fitted for heroic enterprise, or for a separate re-
sponsibility, or for spiritual functions. It is only
fair to say, however, that a more favouraljle
opinion has been expressed by writers like West-
cott (Introd. to St luly of Gospels) and Jiilicber (in
PRE 3). Jiilicher points out that St. Paul ultimately
came round to the lenient judgment of Barnabas,
that ]Mark never lost his missionary zeal, and also
that he remained unatt'ected by the prevalent
party spirit, serving both St. Paul and St. Peter
with equal loyalty.

5. Traditions. — Tradition has been busy Avith
Mark's name. The most widely spread is that
which assigns to him a mission in Egjqjt, and the
evangelization of Alexandria. This mission is re-

garded as occupying the gap between the history
in Acts and the later ministry to the Apostles.
It was also widely believed that he died at Alex-
andria, receiving (according to some versions) the
crown of martyrdom. These traditions cannot be
traced back further than a hundred years after
the supposed events. One curious fact is preserved
in some of the Western traditions. Mark is said
to have been /coXo/ioSd/cTuXos, which means either
mutilated or stunted in one or more of his fingers.
Explanations of this deformity have been ottered
which possess no probability. But the reminiscence
itself may quite possibly preserve a genuine fact ;
and it is not impossible that this defect may have
had some influence in determining the possibilities
of Mark's career.

Literature. — The best accounts of Mark are given by Swete
(Gospel acc. to St. Mark, 1898) and Lindsay (' St. Mark ' in
T. & T. Clark's Handbook series) in their introductions. The
following may also be consulted : Harnack, art. ' Mark ' in EBr
(esp. for its good account of the traditions concerning the
Evangelist); Jiilicher, art. 'Marcus' in PRE3; Morison and
Salniond in introd. to their Comni. on this Gospel.

Frederick J. Rae.
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO.—

i. The problems to be discussed,
ii. The Second Gospel in the Early Church.

1. Statements as to its composition.

2. Early quotations, references, and use.

iii. Character of the Gospel as shown by internal evidence,
and by comparison with the other Synoptics :

1. The presentation of Christ's Person and work.

2. Autoyitic characteristics.

3. Description of the inner feelings of our Lord and the

Apostles.

4. Comparison with the other Sj'noptics :

(n) As to Scope.

(6) Diffuseness and redundancies of Mark.

Luke.

(d) Correction of Mark's phraseologj" — Diminutives.

(e) Colloquialisms.
(/) Latinisms.

(g) Aramaisms.

(fl) Granuiiar and awkward or difficult phrases.
(0 Corrections for precision.
(J) Doubtful cases.
(k) Conclusion from the evidence on this head.

5. Mark's other characteristics of diction.

6. Matter peculiar to Mark.

iv. Authorship, Date, and Place of Writing.
v. Aramaic or Greek original,
vi. The last twelve verses,
vii. Is our Second Gospel the original Mark ?
Literature.

i. The problems to be discussed.— No book
of the NT has experienced such a change in public
estimation as the Second Gospel. F'ormerly re-
garded as comparatively unimportant and receiv-
ing little attention from commentators, who in
ettect re-echoed Augustine's ojiinion that it was
but an abbreviation of the First Gospel, it has of
late years been more carefully studied, and has
received a juster appreciation. It has now been
recognized as a book of supreme imjiortance, as
giving us the narrative of the life of Christ in a
most jn'imitive form, and as being not improbably
the foundation, if not directly at least indirectly, of
all the Gospels. It will be necessary, then, in this
article flrst to investig.ate the statements about its
composition in the earlier Fathers and their use of
it, and then to examine the Gospel itself, to see
what picture it gives of our Lord's Person and
work, and what relation it bears to the other Syn-
optic Gospels. We shall then l)e able to come to a
conclusion about questions of date, authorship,
and place of writing, of the original language, and
of the integrity of the Gospel. Finally, we will
consider the question of an ' Ur-Marcus,' that is,
if the Gospel in our hands is the original work off
St. Mark.

It will be convenient here to state the results
arrived at in this article with regard to some
points. The present writer thinks it most prob-
able that the Second Gospel as we have it, or at

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 121

any rate with the very slightest diti'erences, was
in the liands of all the other Evangelists when
they wrote ; and that the latter freely used the
material before them, altering it, or adding to it,
or omitting parts of it, as they thought right when
following other guides. The theory put forward
by Alford {Prolegomena to his Greek Testament,
i. 2) and other holders of the ' oral hypothesis,'
that the later writers would not have so treated a
book which they regarded as inspired or even as
authoritative, does not greatly commend itself, as
it a])pears to interpret the feeling of the Christians
of the 1st cent, by those of a later age. — The very
style of Mk. , with its roughness and inelegances, is
of great value, and still more is its description
of the Saviour in words which were often in
after times misunderstood, of the utmost import-
ance as showing a very early record. For these
and other reasons a date at least before the Fall of
Jerusalem seems to be probable. Further, it is
considered likely that the Gospel was written in
Greek, and primarily for Roman readers, the last
twelve verses being an appendix, not composed as
an ending to the Gospel, but having once had an
independent existence, and being added later to
the Gospel to supply a lost leaf.

ii. The Second Gospel in the Early Church.
— 1. Statements as to its composition. — ^We will
first consider those passages of early writers which
may be thought to throw light on the composition
of Alk. , before discussing those which only quote
or refer to it ; later (§ vii. ) we Avill consider whether
the Gospel known to these writers is the same as
our Mark.

The hrst passage which may refer to Mk. is St.
Luke"s prologue. This shows that some who were
not from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers
of the word had already written narratives of the
Gospel history, and by implication avers (Lk P)
that these narratives were incomplete in not be-
ginning ' from the first ' (^vwdev) ; also we perhaps
gather that they were not in St. Luke's judgment
in good chronological order (KaOe^rjs, cf. d^■pt/3cDs just
before). Internal evidence leads us to think that
not improbably St. Luke knew Mk. (see below,
§ iii. ), and, if so, we may have here the first criticism
on the Second Gospel ; it has some striking re-
semblances to Papias' account, for which we are
indebted to Eusebius ( HE iii. 39). Eusebius says :

'Avoiyxxieus vuv irpi>/r6ri(ro/t/,iv toi; frpoiXTiDeiirai; ecirov [sc. tou
Uat^jec] i^atvect? rrocpochotriv, vi Tepi '^l.a.pxov tov to ivo^yyiktov yiypoc-
(foTo; IxribitTcii hia. tovtoliv. ' Kai touto o Tpia-^vTipoi 'iKiyi' 'Sic pzo;
f^-v tpu.Y,vev7Y,s T\-Tpou ysvouivo;, orrat lu.vv,u,o\iv(rlv, oczpiSuJ; typcc'^iv^

oil UiyTOl Tfii^Ei, T« l/TO TOU "KpllTTo'C Yj Ki'^bivTO.V, rTjOa;^0£VTa. OLfTE yo-^

'%y.{iV(Ti ray K^upiOv, o'vTl TtxpYXO^^ouSvitrsv ocvtu^ uffTipov §£, w? e^i^v,
W-.Tpu, o; -rpo; rx.; XP^"^' ifoniTo to.; )>i')x<rxa.\ix;, aXX' oCx '""'''iP
truvrx^tv T'jiv xuptxx'^v ^oiou^svo? Xoyiafv [o.l. Koyidv]^ utr'Ti ou'h\v
'/iUxpTi ^Ixp^co;, oi/TO); ivtx ypu'^x? u= ocrTifx.vYt^6vivo-iv. ivoi yxp
iTOiY.frxTO rrpovotxi^ tov tjcYhiv atv yixouits rrxpx'ktmtv y, •^svtrxtT-Oxt ti

iv X'jT6iS.^ TxuTX ^-v OVV 'ttrTfipY^TXl TUi TlxTtX TEPi TOV McifiZOV.

Lightfoot's translation (Apust. Fathers, ooiupend. ed. p. 529) is
here appended, and some points wliere Schmiedel (Encyc. Bibl.
s.v. 'Gospels') differs from him are noted: 'For our present
purpose we will merely add to his [Papias'] words which have
been quoted above, a tradition which has been set forth through
these sources concerning Mark who wrote the Gospel : "And
the Elder said this also : Mark, having become the interpreter
of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remem-
bered [Schmiedel : ' mentioned ']', without, however, recording
in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither
did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him ; but afterwards,
as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the
needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected
account of the Lord's oracles [i\l. 'words']. So then Mark
made no mistake [Schm. ' committed no fault ' ; but see Light-
foot's Essai/s (in Sup. Rel. pp. 8, 163], while he thus wrote
down some things as he remembered them [Schm. ' repeated
them exactly from memory '}, for he made it his one care not to
omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false state-
ment therein." Such, then, is the account given by Papias con-
cerning Mark.'

Here Papias vindicates Mark from inaccuracy,
and from errors of omission, as far as his know-
ledge went, but finds fault with his chronological

order, which was due to his being dependent only
on Peter's oral teaching. If this is a correct inter-
pretation of Pai)ias, wluch account of the Gospel
story did he prefer ? Lightfoot [Essays on Super-
natural Religion, pp. 165, 205 f.) thinks John,
Salmon {Introd. Lect. vii.) thinks Luke; while
Schmiedel, in a not very convincing argument,
thinks that Papias did not recognize Jn. and Lk.
as being of equal authorit_y with Mt. and Mk.
(Encyc. Bibl. ii. 1813 ; see, further, § vii. below).
Schmiedel takes no account of Lightfoot's essay
' On the Silence of Eusebius ' [Sup. Rel. ii. ).
However this may be, Papias describes the Second
Gosjjel as being limited to Peter's reminiscences,
the writer being the ' interpreter ' of that Apostle.
This plira.se may mean (Zahn, Einleit. ii. 209, 218)
that Mark, being Peter's scholar, made Peter's
teaching widely known through his written Gos-
pel, or (Swete, St. Mark, p. xxiv) that he Avas the
secretary or dragoman who translated Peter's
words into a foreign tongue during the Apostle's
lifetime. Papias does not call the work of Mark
a 'gospel,' and the word evayy^Xcov is not un-
doubtedly found in the sense of the record of good
tidings before Justin (Apol. i. 66, see below),
though some tind this sense in Ignatius, Philad.
5, 8, and in the Didarhe 8, 11, 15. In these places,
however, it is probably not the written word that
is referred to. [For a complete discussion of the
Papias fragment see Lightfoot, Ess. on Sup. Rel.
v., vi., and Sanday, Gosj). in Second Cent. v. 2].

Justin Martyr (Dial. 106) says that Christ
changed Simon's name to Peter, and that this is
written 'in his memoirs' [ev roh a.Trofj.vrj/ji.ovev/j.acrLi'
avTov), and also tlifit He changed the name of the
sons of Zebedee to ' Boanerges, which is Sons of
Thunder.' But these last words actually occur only
in Mk 3^', where we read of both names, Peter and
Boanerges, together, and in no other Gcspel. We
may jirobably dismiss the idea that avrov refers
to Christ, as if Justin meant ' Christ's memoirs,'
and conclude that Justin is speaking of a Petrine
Gospel. Harnack (Bruchstiicke d. Ev. . . . d.
Pctrus, p. 37) proposes to find this in the apocry-
phal Akhmini Fragment which goes by St. Peter's
name, and Sanday {Inspiration - [Bampton Lec-
tures], p. 310) agrees that Justin used pseudo-Peter.
But as there is no other reason to suppose that
this apocryphal Gospel ever contained the passage
in question, — the fragment lately discovered be-
ginning in the middle of the story of the Passion,
— and as Justin elsewhere 2>robably refers to our
Second Gospel (see below), it is more rea.sonable to
suppose with Swete (G^o.<fyoc^ o/»S'^. Pe^er, j). xxxiii),
Salmond (Hastings, DB iii. 256), and Stanton
(JT/iSt ii. 6, and Gosjjels as Hist. Doc. p. 93 11.)
that he refers to it here. If so, we have another
authority for regarding St. Peter as a chief source
of Mark. In considering the question whether
Justin refers to Mk. or to the apocryjihal Gospel,
we must note that while some points of contact
are found between pseudo-Peter and Justin, there
are also some considerable differences (see esp.
Stanton, lac. cit.), and that if one borrowed from
the other, it is as likely that pseudo-Peter is the
borrower as Justin. — The Evangelic narratives are
in Justin commonly called 'memoirs' — e.g. Apol.
i. 66, ' the memoirs composed by them [the
Apostles] which are called Gospels.' From Died.
103 it appears that he included in the term some
not composed by the Apostles themselves but by
their followers. He speaks of ' the memoirs drawn
up by the Apostles and by those who followed
them,' and in this context recalls the (Lukan ?)
a<'Count of the Agonj- and the drops of Wood.

Tatian, Justin's pupil, aftbrds evidence that Mk.
was received in his time (c. 170 A.D. ) as one of the
four Gospel narratives i^re-eminently above, and

122 MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

on a difterent platform from, all others. His Dla-
tessaron is now known to be a harmony of our
four Gospels, and probably it was not the first
of its kind.

Irenajus is the first explicitly to expound the
doctrine of the necessity of a fourfold Gospel (^dwKev
■rjfuv rerpdfiopcpov rd evayyeXtov, iii. 11. 8). As the
world has four quarters, and as the Church is
.spread over the whole world, and as the pillar and
ground of the Church is the Gosjjel and the Spirit
of life, so it is right that there should be four
Gospels. Irenseus finds other equally fanciful
reasons for a fourfold Gospel, and identities our
Evangelists with the fourfold appearance of the
cherubim, St. Mark being the eagle (see § iii. 1
below). This reasoning, however erroneous, shows
that our four Gospels iiad a position entirely by
themselves in Irenseus' estimation ; and Dr. Taj^lor
conjectures that he borrowed tiie idea from Hernias
{JVit)iess of Hennas, §1). In an earlier passage
(iii. 1. 1) Irenaeus says that Mark was Peter's
disciple and interpreter (epixrivevr-qs, as Paj)ias), and
that he handed on to us in writing the things
preaclied by Peter, after the departure of Peter
and Paul. In iii. 10. 6 (where the Greek is want-
ing), Irenseus calls Mark ' interpres et sectator
Petri.'

Tertullian {adi\ Marc. iv. 5, Migne, P. L. ii. 396)
gives similar witness ('. . . licet et Marcus quod
edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus').

The Muratorian fragment (c. A.D. 170? or perhaps
a little later) begins in the middle of a sentence
thus : ' . . . quibus tarnen interfuit, et ita posuit.
Tertium Evangelii librum .secundum Lucan . . .
Quarti evangeliorum Johannes ex discipulis. . . .'
Thus the writer had been speaking of two Gospels,
which were neither Luke nor John. It is gener-
ally recognized that the opening words of the
fragment refer to Mk. rather than to Mt., and
that the latter had come first, as in Iremeus ; but
there is some ditierente of opinion as to their
meaning. Swete, Liglitfoot, and Chase interpret
them to mean that Mark was present at soitie,
discourses of Peter ; he reported Peter's teaching
as far as he had the opportunity. The first word
' quibus ' may be the second half of ' aliquibus '
some; Chase (Hastings' DB iii. 24) takes 'quibus
tamen ' as the equivalent of an original ots 5e — for
the fragment is a Latin translation from Greek.
Zahn (Einleit. ii. 200 f.) thinks that the author of
the fragment had quoted Papias as .saying that
Mark was not a hearer of our Lord, and then
qualified Papias' assertion by saying that Mark
had been present at some of our Lord's discourses.
Compare this with the idea of some later writers
{e.g. Epiphanius, Hcbv. xx. 4, Ii. 6) that Mark was
one of the Seventy (Seventy-two) Disciples; and
with the modern opinion that the young man of
Mk 14''' was the Evangelist. But, as Swete shows
(St. Mark, p. xxxiii), this is against the words that
follow about Luke : ' Neither did he [Luke] him-
self see the Lord in the flesh.'

Clement of Alexandria [Hypotijp., ap. Euseb.
HE vi. 14) says that while Peter was preaching
the gospel at Rome, many of those present begged
Mark to write down what Avas said. Peter neither
forbade nor urged it. There is a story similar to
this told in the Muratorian fragment about John.
In HE ii. 15, Eusebius says, on the authority of
Clement and Papias, that Peter confirmed the
writing ; but the passage afterwards quoted by
Eusebius from Papias does not bear out this detail.
Origen (quoted by Euseb. HE vi. 25) says that
Mark composed the Gospel at Peter's instruction
(ws IIer/309 iKpTjyriaaTo), being acknowledged as his
son (1 P 5'=*).

It is unnecessary to quote later writers, who
could scarcely have other means of information

than we have ; but we may notice that Eusebius
(HE ii. 16) makes Mark go to Egypt and found the
Church at Alexandria after he had written his
Gospel, and says (ib. 24) that Annianus succeeded
him as bishop there in the eighth year of Nero, a
statement which Jerome improves upon by saying
that St. Mark died then (de Vir. Illustr. §8). It is
also desirable to quote Augustine, as his opinion
has had such weight in the Church. He says (de
Consensu Evangelistaruni, i. 3, allter i, 6) that
of the four Evangelists, ' Matthew wrote first,
then Mark, and that Mark was, as it were,
Matthew's follower and abbre viator (' Marcus eum
subsecutus tanquam pedissequus et breviator ejus
videtur "). Seldom has one short sentence had
such an unfortunate eH:ect in distorting a judg-
ment on a literary work ; and largely in conse-
quence of it Mk. has been generally neglected.
The Second Gospel seems hardly to have engaged
the attention of commentators ; and the writer
known as Victor of Antioch (quoted by Swete, St.
Mark, p. xxxiv) in the 5th cent, (or later), says
that he had not been able to find a single author
who had expounded it.

2. Early quotations, references, and use. — The
use of Mk. by the Apostolic Fathers is not certain,
though in some cases quite probable. The quota-
tion in Clement of Rome (Cor. 23) and pseudo-
Clement (Ancient Homily, 11), which in the latter
is introduced by \iy€L yap /cat 6 ■n-po<p7jTLKb^ \6yos, is
more likely to be from some lost Christian writing
than to be a fusion of Mk 4-''"'- and other NT pass-
ages ; but Polycarp, Phd. 5, dtaKovos irdvTwv, seems to
come from Mk 9^^. In other cases it is probable
that one of our Gospels is referred to, but we
cannot be sure that it is Mk. in particular that is
before the writer. As an example we may take
Polycarp, Phil. 7, which quotes Mt 26"" and Mk
14^ exactly, and both in Polycarp and in the
Gospels the context is about not going into tempta-
tion. Pseudo-Clement (§ 2), after quoting Is 54^
LXX, continues : ' Another Scripture saith, I came
not to call the righteous, but sinners,' exactly as
Mt 9'^, Mk 2''', where ' to repentance ' is not in the
best manuscripts, but comes from !! Lk 5*^. But
]Mt. and not Mk. might have been before Polycarp
and pseudo-Clement, though in the latter case the
omission of the yap of Mt. makes Mk. more likely.
And so with Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and
others. The Didache apparently refers to Mt. and
Lk., and the name itself seems to be derived from
Ac 2^- ; but though a probable reference (x. 5) to
1 Jn 4'® makes the writer's knowledge of Jn.
likely, there is no trace of his knowing Mark.
For the possible references to the last twelve verses
in Barnabas, etc., see below, § vi. The use of Mk.
by Hernias is very probable. He apparently refers
to Mk 3-» 10-'' where they diff"er from Mt. and Lk.,
in Mand. ii. 2 (ourws odv ^voxos ^a-y a/xaprias toO
KaraXaXovvTos), and Sim. ix. 20. 3 (rois tolovtois
dvcTKoXov eariv eis ttjc ^acriXeiav rov Qeov eiaeXdeTv).
Indirectly the Shepherd of Hernias supplies a great
argument for the antiquity of the Gospels, because
it shows the uniqueness of our Lord's parables as
there narrated. Hernias essays the same method
of teaching, but his attempt is utterly feeble. If
the Gospels were 2nd cent, productions, and the
words of our Lord had been handed on only by
oral tradition, the parables could never have been
kept so pure. They would in the course of time,
before the narratives reached us in their present
form, have assimilated features such as we find in
Hernias. [For further references in the Shepherd
see Zahn, Hi)-t d. Hernias, p. 456 ft'. ; Stanton,
Gosp. as Hist. Doc. p. 45].

To Justin's probable reference to the Boanerges
passage (see above) must be added Dial. 88, where
he speaks of Jesus as ' supposed to be the car-

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 123

penter' (reKTouos po/j.iii'ofj.^i'ov ; but Otto's text lias
vojui. 'liii(Tri<p ToJ T€KT. viov inrdpxeiv). Only Mark
(6^) calls Jesus a carpenter (see g iii. 4 {J) below).
Justin also probably quotes from the last twelve
verses (below, gvi. ).

The use of JNIk. by heretics is presumed from
references to it in Heracleon, the Valentinians,
pseudo- Peter, and the Clementine Homilies (the
hrst two as reijorted by Clement of Alexandria
and Irenaius), for which reference may be made to
Swete's St. Mark, p. xxxi ; and Sanday's Gospels
in the Second Century, ch. vi. p. 177 tt".

The Gospel is found in all the old Versions —
Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac (of the former only
1Q17-20 jg extant), Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic ; and
in all catalogues and Greek manuscripts of the
Gospels.

Putting together the statements, references, and
quotations, and deferring the question of an editor
later than the original writer of the Gospel (see
§vii.), we may conclude, [a] that there is valid
evidence that Mk. was in circulation before the
middle of the 2nd cent. ; (6) that ecclesiastical
tradition almost uniformly connects the Second
Evangelist with St. Peter — the Ajiostolic Constitu-
tions (ii. 57, Lagarde, p. 85, c. A.D. 375) being the
only writing which undoubtedly connects him
with St. Paul (oL cTvvepyoi Ilai'Aoi' . . . AovKois Kal
MdpKos, cf. Philem.-^, Col. 4^') ; (c) that there was
a difference of tradition as to whether he wrote
while St. Peter was alive or after his death (see
§ iv. below). Further, (d) the Alexandrian Fathers
Clement and Origen do not mention Mark's preach-
ing at Alexandria — a strange silence ; and (e) there
is no hint till Hippolytus that there was more than
one Mark ; apparently the other writers identified
the cousin of Barnabas and the disciple of Peter.

iii. The Character of the Gospel as shown

BY ITSELF AND BY COMPARISON WITH THE OTHER
Gospels. — If we had no information from ecclesi-
astical writers, we could have made no conjecture
as to the authorship of the Second Gospel, as we
can in the case of Lk. (by comparing it with Acts)
and Jn. (by comparing it with the Synoptics).
But from internal evidence we should gather that
the author was either an eye-witness of the events
described or at least that he had hrst-hand infor-
mation. Further, a close examination of the
Gospel makes it exceedingly probable that the
writer's informant was St. Peter. So that, while
we should never from the NT itself have arrived
at the name Mark, yet the internal evidence fully
corroljorates the external, that the author was the
' interpreter of Peter.' The impression left from a
study of iVIk. is that we have here in effect, though
not in form, and not without some additions due
to the Evangelist himself, that Apostle's Gospel.
It begins the narrative at the jjoint when Peter
could give his own recollections — at the preaching
of the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. This,
not the Birth-narratives, as in the case of Mt. and
Lk., nor yet the account of our Lord's pre-existence,
as in the case of Jn., was to Mark ' the beginning
of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God' {V),
whether these words are part of the record or are
the title prefixed by an early scribe.

1. Presentation of Christ's Person and work.—
Beginning with the j)reaching of John and our
Lord's entering on His ministry, St. Mark de-
scribes at length the Galihean ministry and the
slow unfolding of Jesus' claims. Our Lord, for
example, does not at once proclaim His Messiah-
ship, nor does He allow evil spirits to proclaim it in-
opportunely (1-5 31-, cf. I^-* etc.). Even after Peter's
confession at Cajsarea Philippi, when the Galilsean
ministry was nearly ended, the disciples wei^e
charged to tell no man (8^"). At first Jesus begins
by calling Himself tlie Son of Man (2^"). Then

the crowds begin to see in Him a prophet ; His
own people antl the learned scribes from Jerusalem
think Him mail. We might even think, at Hrst
sight, especially if we have the Mattha^an account
(IG"') of Peter's confession chiefly in mind and not
the Markan, that the disciples then and then only
found out that Jesus was Messiah. But this deduc-
tion would be precarious. The account in Jn.,
which makes the Baptist begin by calling Jesus
the Lamb of God and the Son of God, and makes
Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael at once recognize
Him as Messiah (Jn 123.34.41.45.49)^ ^gars all the
marks of probability. A Juda>an ministry, as to
which the Synojitists are almost silent, must have
been carried on simultaneously with the Galiktan
preaching. We should expect Jesus, as a religious
Jew, to visit Jerusalem frequently ; and indeed, if
the last Passover were His first visit during the
ministry, we could not explain the sudden enmity
of the Jerusalem Jews, or the fact of there being
Judfean disciples — Judas Iscariot (probably from
Kerioth in Judaea), Joseph of Arimathaea, the
owners of the colt at Bethphage and of the room
where the Last Supper was celebrated (these evi-
dently knew Jesus), the household at Bethany,
and Simon 'the leper.' Also non iNIarkan portions
of Mt. and Lk. imply visits to Jerusalem or a
wider ministry than that in Galilee (Mt 23*'', Lk
4« BCK, 1321- *'f-); and in Acts the Apostles at
once make their headquarters at Jerusalem, which
would have been unlikely if they had only just
arrived there for the first time. On that occasion
they were perfectly familiar with places and people.
But if this be so, we should expect two methods of
proclaiming the Person of Christ to have been
adopted for these two quite distinct iieople, of such
different characteristics, and separated by hostile
Samaria. In Jerusalem, where religious contro-
versy was rife, the question of Jesus' Personality
and office could not be postponed ; this is shown
by the way in which the Pharisees questioned the
Baptist. But in Galilee this was not the case,
and the revelation consequently was much more
gradual. The Apostles, doubtless, had heard the
questions asked in Judaea, and did know the claim
of Jesus to be the Christ, though perhaps they did
not fully realize all that it meant until the inci-
dent at Cajsarea Philippi. Thenceforward Jesus
speaks to them of His future glory (8^^, cf. 9') and
of His Passion (8*^ 9'^- *^ etc.). After the Galiltean
ministry (which ends at 9^°) Mark gives some short
account (ch. 10) of journeys in Judaea and Perpea,
and it is only on the final ajiproach to Jerusalem
that all reserve passes away. In common with all
the Evangelists, Mark gives a detailed account of
the last days at Jerusalem.

In describing our Lord's Person, Mark emphatic-
ally brings out His Diviniti/. Jesus claims super-
human authority — e.g. 2-* (lord of the Sabbath),
8*** and 14"- (coming in glory, the latter in answer
to Caiaphas' question, 'Art thou the Christ?'),
12^"^- (the beloved Son and Heir) ; and especially
authority to forgive sins, 2°- '" (the paralytic). He
is a supernatural Person: f 9' ('my beloved
Son '), 1-^ (' the Holy One of God '), 3" ('the Son of
God '), 57 (' Son of the Most High God '), 15*« ('-the
Son of God ' or ' a son of God '). He knows the
thoughts of man, 2^ 8^' 12i-''', and what is to hapi^en
in the future, 2-o (fasting), 8»'- and 9*' etc. (the
Passion), 8*** (the Second Advent), lU*** (the suffer-
ings of the Apostles), 13^ (destruction of the
Temple), 13"* (the universal gospel), 14-^ (scattering
of the sheep). His death has an atoning efficacy,
10"** (\vTpov dvTi iroWuiv), 14-''* ('my blood of the
covenant w liicli is shed for many ').

But still more striking is the emphasis laid on
the true human if tj of our Lord. The reality of
His human body is referred to much as in the other

124 MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDI^sG TO

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

Evangelists — e.g. He is wearied and sleeps (4^* ;
sleep is perhaps implied also in P^) ; He eats (14^)
and drinks (15^') ; His ' touch' is frequently spoken
of (l-*i etc.) (see Gestures) ; the burial of His body
is dwelt on in lo'*^"^-. But Mark pre-eminently
describes the human soul and spirit of our Lord.
Note especially His human compassion (I'*') and
love (10-^), and the more painful emotions (l'*^ 3^ &^
10" 1433f- 15^^), for which see below, § iii. 3. Note
also the reference to our Lord's human soul and
spirit in 2^ 14^, and to His human will in 14^*'.
Mark also refers to the sinless limitations of Jesus'
human nature. Questions are asked apparently
for information (5'^" 8^ 9'^) — for in these cases an
' economical ' questioning seems scarcely worthy.
The Evangelist also records the one perfectly
certain instance of Jesus' ignorance qua man, 13^'
(the Day of Judgment — so JNIt. ). It is because so
much stress is laid in INIk. on our Lord's true human
nature that St. Augustine assigns to the Second
Evangelist the symbol of the man. Other Fathers
vary much in assigning the four symbols, but it is
remarkable that each one of the four is assigned to
St. Mark in some one or other of the Fathers,
Irena?us making him the eagle, Victorinus the lion,
Augustine the man, pseudo-Athanasius the calf
(see Swete, St. Mark, p. xxxviii).

2. Autoptic character. — In many passages Mk.
shows, equally with Jn. and much more than Mt.
and Lk., clear signs of tirst-hand knowledge. In
these places Mk. often gives a lifelike touch,
though Mt. and Lk. in their parallels have lost
it. Such are the stooping down of the Baptist
to loose the shoe-latchet (F), the heavens in the
act of opening ((Txi-iotJ.&ovs [present], 1"*), the 'in-
coherent and excited remarks of the crowd ' at
the healing of the Capernaum demoniac (1-^ best
text, see RV ; they are softened down by later
scribes of Mk. and by Lk. ), the ' house of Simon
and Andrew' (1-^, where || Mt. and Lk. omit
Andrew ; in the East it is common for several
brothers, even when married, to live in one house,
but it required first-hand knowledge to know that
Andrew and Peter lived together), Simon starting
in pursuit of Jesus (P^), the breaking up of the
mud roof to let the paralytic down through it,
with otlier details (2'', where Mt. tells none of
the small points, and Lk., writing for a Roman
nobleman, as has been conjectured, translates
these, to him, unintelligible details into the
language of Western Europe, and says that the
man was let down through the tiles ; see Ramsay,
Was Christ horn at Bethlehem? p. 63), the single
pillow, t6 TrpocrKe<pdXaiov, probably a wooden head-
rest, in the boat in the storm (4^**, Mk. only),
Jesus turning round in the crowd to see who
touched Him (so Mt., not Lk.), and His glance
at the woman (o^'^"^-, Mk. only). His not allowing
the crowd who were with Him to come near
Jairus' house, a very probable and lifelike detail
(5^^, Mk. only ; Lk. makes Jesus dismiss the crowd
on His entering). The scene at Jairus' house is
especially vivid in Mk., and is instructive as
showing who the Evangelist's authority was. It
must have been one of the inner circle of Apostles,
i.e. Peter, James, or John (Andrew Avas not here
present). As James died early, and another Gospel
was written by (or, at least, depends on) John,
we are led to think of Peter as the source. Fur-
ther instances of lifelike touches are : the five
thousand arranged 'like garden beds' irpaa-Lai
TrpaaiaL (Mk. only) on the green grass (6^"), the
details in the account of the Transfiguration (9-^-,
where Mt. and Lk. also are vivid), but especially
of the healing which followed, where the story is
told from the point of view of the three Apostles,
not of those who remained behind (9" eXdovres
. . . fWov 6x><op, Mk. only), and where Mk. only

has the delicate touch (9^^) that the man brought
the cataleptic boy to Jesus and applied to the dis-
ciples only when he found that Jesus was absent,
and other autoptic details ; Mt. and Lk. greatly
abbreviate this narrative. So Mark alone relates
that in the dispute about precedence and in the
blessing of the little ones Jesus took the cliildren
into His arms {iva-yKoXLadixevoz, 9'* 10'^), and in the
latter case that He blessed them fervently (kott/u-
X67et)- Notice also how Mk. alone tells us of the
searching glance of love cast by Jesus on the rich
young man and the clouding over of the young
man's brow (10-'*-)> and of the colt tied at the
door without in the open street (11^; probably
Peter was one of the two disciples sent), of Jesus
refusing to permit vessels to be carried through
the Temple (11^"), of the command to bring a
denarius, the Roman coin, into the Temple (where
only Jewish coins were current) at the question
of paying tribute (12^^). For the Agony in the
Garden, see below, 3 ; but here again we note
that the source must have been Peter, James, or
John. The account of Peter's denials is indecisive,
as he must liave been the ultimate autliority for
all the narratives ; but the eiri/SaXoiv of Mk 14^-
(see below, 4 (h)) argues the priority of our Evan-
gelist. Exceptional knowledge is evidenced by
the mention of the names of Levi's father ( Alphteus,
2"), of the father of the blind man at Jericho
(Timseus, 10^'^), and of the sons of Simon of Cyrene
(Alexander and Rufus, IS^^). These and other
instances lead us to see in the Second Gospel a
graphic account of one who had first-hand know-
ledge at his command, and, to a large extent,
confirm Papias' description of Mark as Peter's
interiireter. Mk. consists almost entirely of things
of wliich Peter had personal knowledge. As
Eusebius noticed long ago [Demonstr. Evangel.
iii. 5, Cologne ed. p. 120 f . ), it is silent on matters
which refiect credit on Peter. It alone records
seveial Petrine touches. We have, in fact, here
in all particulars the Petrine tradition in a far
more exact form than in the other Synoptics.

3. Description of the inner feelings of our Lord
and of the Apostles. — This is found in ^Ik. to an
extent which argues an early narrative based on
intimate personal knowledge of Jesus and of the
Twelve. In Mt. and Lk. the painful emotions
of our Lord are not mentioned, except in the case
of the Agony, and even that disappears in the
Westcott-Hort text of Lk. (22'*^^-) ; a fact probably
to be accounted for by a feeling of reverence due
to a slightly later age. In Mk. we find a more
childlike boldness in describing Jesus' feelings.
See the following instances, which are found in
Mk. only : l''^ ifj.^pifj.Tjad/xei'os (denoting sternness :
not necessarily anger, but deep feeling) ; 3^
righteous anger and grief ; 6^ Avondering at the
people's unbelief (here Mt. retains 5td tt^u d-n-ia-Tiav
avrQv, but omits edavfxaaev ; on the other hand,
Mt 81", Lk 7" liave the wonder of Jesus' human
mind at tlie centurion's faith — an incident which
was not part of the Petrine tradition and is not
in Mk.) ; 10", indignation when the disciples kept
back the little children; and especially H^^'-, the
Agony in the Garden, Avhere Mk. alone speaks of
the surprise {iKdafM^eladai) added to the distraction
from grief {ddrjfiovelp) of Jesus' human soul. Mt.
changes the former to Xvirela-dai. while retaining
the latter, and Lk. omits the whole passage. If,
as seems probable, the passage Lk 22-'''^- is not an
original part of the Third Gospel, it is perhaps
a fragment older than Lk. and reflects the same
stage of thought as Mark. It is referred to in
Justin, Dial. 103.— It is not unlikely that the
difference between Mk 10^^ (the rich young man)
and Mtl9i«f- in tlie best text (BDK, Origen, etc. ;
see Westcott - Hort, Azotes) is due to the same

MAKK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 125

feeling. Possibly Avlien the First Evangelist wrote,
the Markan phrase, ' Why callest thou me good ?
none is good save one, even God,' may have been
misunderstood to imply a merely human Christ.
Or perhaps the Westcott-Hort text of Mt. is not
original, but is due to an early .scribe or editor
who disliked the Markan form of the incident.
Anotlier example is the vTuina of Mk 15^= (so >(BDL ;
Westcott-Hort with AC, etc., read <TQn,a). This
was a word used of the carcase of a dead animal
or of a human being, with a touch of contempt.
Mt. and Lk. have therefore altered -n-Tui/jLa to aQfjia,
as also have some scribes in Mk., from feelings
of reverence.

The same thing is true of another matter almost
peculiar to Mk., the account of the inner feelings
of the Apostles. See 4^^, showing the Apostles'
resentment against the Lord ('Carest thou not?'),
and similarly 4'*^ showing their awe or holy fear
at the revelation of Jesus' power and Divinity (cf.,
however, St. Peter at the miraculous draught of
fishes in Lk 5**) ; so 10^-, showing their amazement
and fear, apparently arising from our Lord's
manner as He went before them ; and 14^ eVe-
(ipL/xQi'To, here (unlike l''^) of anger.

A similar result follows from tlie passages where
Mk. tells us that Jesus ' could not ' do a thing. The
inability is, doubtless, relative and conditional.
Jesus ' could not ' do that which was inconsistent
with His plan of salvation. Yet here the other
Synoptists, feeling that the phrases might be mis-
understood as taking from the Master's glory, have
altered or omitted them. See l'*^ T^'*, and the
specially significant 6^^-, where ovk eduvaro eKelTrocrjaai.
ovdepiiav Svvafji.iv el jxri, k.t.X., Kal €dav/j.aaev 5ta rrjv
awiaTLav aL'TcDj' = Mt IS''** ovk eiroiTjaev ^Kel dwdfieis
TToXXas 5id TTjv dwiaTiav avrQv, the tivo possible causes
of ofl'ence being removed in Mt.

4. Comparison with the other Synoptics. — The
indications given in the last two subsections will
lead us to believe that the Second Gospel, either
in the form in which we have it now, or at least
in a form very like that which we have, is chrono-
logically the first of the Synoptics, and that it lay
before the writers of the First and Third Gospels.
This impression is greatly strengthened by the
considerations which follow. We still postpone
the question whether the Markan Gospel known
to INLatthew and Luke is the same as our Mark.

(n) Scope of Mark. — Except about thirty verses,
all the narrative that we find in Mk. we find also
(and in the same order) in either Mt. or Lk., or in
both. This might tell both Avays. If Mark were
only an abbreviator, borrowing from Mt. and Lk.,
Avithout much independent information, it would
stand to reason that he would have little to tell
us that was not found in them. But, then, his
Gospel would not be the fresh and vivid, first-hand
and autoptic, composition that it is. Therefore
we are led to the conclusion that Matthew and
Luke borrowed from Mark, and that one or other
of them took almost everything that was found in
his Gospel.

That Luke borrowed from Mark is seen from
another fact. In the Third Gospel there is a long
section which is not in the Second (Lk 9^'-18").
For this, Luke is dependent on some other source.
But, having followed the Markan order somewhat
closely up to the point where the section begins,
he goes back, when the section ends, to within a
few verses of the place in Mk. where he dropped
it. _ Thus, Lk 9=» = Mk 9^^^- ; Lk 18"^ = Mk 10'^
This looks as if Mk. (or something very like it)
was lying open before the Third Evangelist as he
wrote.

(6) Dijfuseness and redundancy of Mk. as com-
pared ivith parallel passages of Mt. and Luke. —
The idea that Mark is an abbreviator of Matthew

is at once shown to be wrong when we compare
parallels. When we do so, we shall find, in almost
every case, that Mk. is much fuller than either
Mt. or Lk. taken singly. The greater bulk of
the two latter is due to their relating many inci-
dents and speeches which are not in Mark. The
style of Mk. is somewhat diffuse, and it was neces-
sary for the other Synoptists, if they were to make
room for the new matter which they desired to
introduce, to prune it considerably. This they
did. Instances are : P- (Mt. omits ' when the sun
did set,' Lk. omits 'at even') ; P^ Trpwt 'ivwxo- \lav
(=Lk. yevofj.evr]s Tjtxepas) ; 2^'^'- 4^'''-, where the shorter
form in Mt. and Lk. really omits nothing from
the sense ; 5--f- ^s (Mt., abbreviating, puts together
the arrival of Jairus who said that the child was
dying, and of the messenger who said that she
was dead) ; 5'-^ (Mt. omits all the Markan details
about the woman with the issue of blood, Lk.
omits some of them) ; 6^''''^- (the parenthetical ex-
planation about the Baptist's death interrupts the
course of the narrative in Mt. and Mk. , Ijut is
greatly abbreviated in the former ; in Lk. the
story is put in its proper place, but abbreviated
to one or two sentences ; note Mk.'s redundant
evdvs fxera a-n-ovdTJs, 6-^) ; 8^ (the feeding of the four
thousand, shortened in Mt., left out in Lk. );
8''* (the omission to take bread, abbreviated in
Mt., whence we should have gathered, if we had
not had Mk., that they discovered the omission only
after landing, instead of when in the boat, as Mk.,
which is much more likely) ; 9^^*- (the stranger
exorcist, omitted in Mt., shortened in Lk. ); 13'^
dir' dpxv^ KTiaeuis 7)v ^ktijsv 6 debs ( = Mt. dir dp.
Koa/xov, Lk. diti'erent). Many other examples might
be given, e.g. V^ Sis-^v (cf. Lk.) 12i^- " 14«8 15^ IG'*.
See also Hawkins, Horce SynojJticce, pp. 100 tt"., 110.

A similar instance of redundancy is the use of
pleonastic forms in Mk., e.g. ck iraiSibdev 9-'
(A omits ^K, D has in Traidos), dwb /j.aKpb0ev 5® 8*
11'* 14^* 15^". These are very seldom found in Mt.
and Luke.

(c) Correction of Markan details in Mt. or
Luke. — In two or three instances we find a small
slip of the pen corrected, as when Mark (P'') cites
as from Isaiah a passage which is really partly
from Mai 3' and partly from Is 40^, perhaps through
using a book of quotations in which these passages
followed each other, with ' Isaiah ' at the top of
the page ; here the other Synoptists omit the
Malachi passage (though they give it elsewhere,
Mt 11"= Lk 7''), thus silently correcting Mark.
So Mk 2-^ has iirl 'A^iddap apxi-epeuss, which can
only mean 'during the high priesthood of Abiatliar'
(AC, etc., insert rod, which might give the mean-
ing 'in the time of A., who was afterwards high
priest'; D, syr**'", and some Old Latin MSS omit
the whole phrase ; these are scribes' corrections).
The II Mt. Lk. have the Markan sentence almost
exactly, with the exception of these three words
which they omit, no doubt because it is not correct
to say that the events happened when Abiatliar
was actually high priest. In the account of the
women at the tomb (Mk 16'-) there is some con-
fusion of time {Xiav wpwl . . . dvareiKavros rod
riXiov), probably due to compression, difterent
events being put together, unless, indeed, we
accept W^ right's suggestion (Synopsis of the Gos-
pels -, in loc. ) that /xt^ttw has dropped out before
dvareiXavTos. In || Mt 28' there is a similar obscur-
ity : ' late on the Sabbath day, as it began to
dawn toward the first day of the week, came
Mary Magdalene.' But this is corrected in
II Lk 24'. The women came on the first day of
the Aveek opOpov ^adeojs (so Jn 20' irpwi, aKorias ^tl
ovcrr)s).

Cases of explanations, or corrections of matter,
as opposed to corrections of phraseology, may be

126 MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

seen in Mk 12^, Avliere tlie killing of the heir
precedes the casting out of the vineyard, the order
being inverted in Mt. and Lk. to make the
paralile lit the heavenly counterpart; in Mk IS'''
(' abomination of desolation') where Ij Mt 24'^ adds
'spoken of by Daniel the prophet,' and [| Lk 21-"
explains by altering to ' Jerusalem compassed
with armies'; and Mk 15^^ where the words
'Son of God' (so Mt. ) are explained by Lk. as
' a righteous man.' In this last case the Markan
phrase is probably original, though the centurion
would have borrowed it from the Jews without
understanding it ; Luke gives what the centurion
meant in his own mind.

In several cases additions in Mt. or Lk. imply
the priority of Mk., the added words probably
coming from a non - Markan source, as in the
confession of St. Peter, where the account in Mk.
(8-*) could hardly have been derived from Mt. by
abbreviation ; and in the warning (Mk 13'^) to
pray that the flight be not in the winter (xeifj.ui'oi),
where Mt. (24-") adds /j.r]5i aappdru, changing the
case. Or, in some instances, the added words are a
gloss ; e.g. Mk 8^^ (taking up the cross — Lk. adds
'daily'), 10* (to sit on Jesus' right hand or left
hand is for those for whom it has been prepared
— Mt. adds ' by my Father '), 12' (the owner of the
vineyard goes away — Lk. adds xp^''°^'^ 'iKavovs,
showing special knowledge of viticultui'e, as it
would be several years before the grapes were
allowed to ripen).

In some cases, by a turn of phrase, Mk.'s accu-
racy in minute points is lost in Mt. and Luke.
Tlius in ]Mk 4^" our Lord was already in the boat
(4') ; the other Synoptists, by an oversight, make
Him embark here. In the Charge to the Twelve
Mk 6* has ' take nothing . . . save a staff only ' ;
II Mt. and Lk. show an early exaggeration of the
command (see Swete, St. Mark, in loc). In
Mk 10' Jesus comes ' into the borders of Judaea
and beyond {kuI iripav) Jordan'; Mt. (19') omits
/cat, as do some lesser MSS. in Mk. (A, etc., have
Slo. rov iripav) ; but doubtless Mk. is right here,
— Jesus went both into Judfea and into Pera^a.
The passage is not in Luke. On the general
question of the alterations and omissions of
INIarkan matter in Mt. and Lk. see Hawkins,
Hoi: Sijnvpt. p. 96 tl'. He suggests that several
Markan passages might be misunderstood as de-
rogatory to Jesus or to the Apostles, or might
otherwise cause offence ; and therefore were
altered by Mt. or by Lk. or by both.

(d) Correction of Markan j^hraseology in Mt. or
Luke. — The Second Gospel is distinguished by a
rough and unpolished style, reflecting the Greek
commonly spoken by the Jews in the 1st century.
In the parallels of the other Synoptics there are
numerous instances of toning down and pruning
Mark's unliterary forms of speech.

As an example, take Mk.'s frequent use of
diminutives, often altered in Mt., almost always
in Luke. Such are dvydrpiov 5-^ 7"^ (not elsewhere
in 'NT) = dvydT7]p Mt. Lk. (no Lukan parallel to 7'^) ;
vaidiov, Kopdffiov (the latter a late colloquial word
condemned by the Atticists) S^'^^- = Kopdaiov Mt. his
= ira'is Lk. ; TrixiSm 10" (so ^1.) = pp^cprj Lk. ; t'x^t'Sia
8^ — Mt. has it once, but soon corrects to ixdvas (not
in Lk.); irXoidpiov 3^ (so Jn.), not in Mt. and Lk.
(all the best MSS in Mk A^ have wXola as in Mt.
and Lk., not irXoidpia as TR) ; toTdpiov KBD 14^' (also
in Jn.)^^^^ Mt. =o5s Lk. ; TraiSicrKT] 14'^''- •''* (so Mt.
Lk. once, but Mt. soon changes it to &\\t], Lk. to
^repos) ; Kvvdpia ']-'''■ (so Mt., no Lukan parallel) ;
yfiX'-"' 7"* (so Mt. , no Lukan parallel ; i/'tx^w in Ll^
162' is not in the best MSS).

(e) Other colloquialisms are frequent in Mark.
These are often corrected in Mt., oftener still in
Luke. [Those here marked with an asterisk are

expressly condemned by the Atticists]. Such are
Kpd^^aros* or KpdjSaTTos* 2-'- "• " (Mt. and Lk. K\Lvr],
Lk. also kXipIBlov) and 6'* (Mt. omits, Lk. has no
parallel, Jn. also has the word) ; crvfx^ovXiov i8i8ovv
[vv.ll. iwoirjaav, eTToiovv] 3**, cr. TroLrjcravres 15', neither
elsewhere in NT (Mt. has a. \a/j.l3dveii> five times,
Lk. different) ; op/vij'w * 5'', avoided by Mt. and Lk.
(Mt 26"^ has e^opKii'uj) ; eo-xarws ^x^'* 5-^) corrected
by Mt. and Lk. (Josephus has ef ecrxdrois elvai, Ant.
IX. viii. 6) ; acpvpis* [best reading] 8*-^" (so Mt.),
colloquial for airvpis (see Deissmann, Bibl. Stud.
p. 158, Eng. tr.); /SX^Trere d7r6 8'* 12^^ probably
colloquial or coined by Mark, corrected or avoided
in Mt. and Lk. ; fjLov6<pea\fj.os* 9*^ (so Mt., Lk. has
no parallel); rpii/xaXia pa(p[5os 10^^= Mt. rpij/xa p.=
Lk. rpyj/xa peXuv-qs best text {rpv/ix,. is a late rare
word, doubtless colloquial; pa<^is* is colloquial);
KoWv^LaTTjs * 11'^ (so Mt. and Jn. ; Lk. omits;
Jn 2'''^' has KepfiancrTrji in addition) ; ^K€<pa\Lwffav
12^, av. \€y. in Greek, altered in Mt. and Lk.
(see § iii. 5 and § vii. below) ; dypeva-cocnv 12'^
( = Mt. irayi8ev(Tui<TLV, both aw. Xey. in NT; Lk.
has eiriXd^wvTai) ; KaTdXvfxa 14'^ (so Lk., but Mt.
omits), a colloquialism, though the verb KaraXvo} is
classical in the sense of ' halting to rest ' ; eh /ca^'
(sara) els 14'" (altered in Mt., no parallel in Lk.,
a colloquialism, ds being made an indeclinable
numeral, or else Kara an adverb, see Deissmann,
Bihl. Stud. p. 138) ; av<T<xr}ixov* H'" (=Mt. cTTj/xeiov) ;
pdiriafia* H''^ (so Jn., but altered in Mt. ami Lk.) ;
evaxrifJ^'^v* 15^^ in the sense ' rich ' or ' of honourable
estate' (altered in I\It. and Lk.). It is noteworthy,
however, that Luke is more particular when cor-
recting Mark than when composing his later
treatise, for we find KpajBarTos in Ac 5'^ 9^', bpKi^u
in Ac 191=* (cf. I Th 5-' ivopKi^w best text), and
evcTxvi^'^'v in the above sense in Ac 13-'" 17^^.

(/) Mark's so-called Latinising must probably be
reckoned a