A dictionary of the Bible; dealing with its language, literature, and contents, including the Biblical theology

L7GS 4|990 LOZL E

|
a

oS

ak:

᾿ 7 a δ ἢ : [ὩΣ
ὙΠΕΡ τ Tce tl a Oe ᾿ oe a
a - 7

fo
oo

oe

a
Soe

oe ἢ

a
sore

os ἘΣ = γε ὦ τ ΕΣ
ΠῚ ee erate Lat Ce a ts ΠΡ ΣΟΥ tes ΤΗΣ ee aes ae
a ae ᾿ eee ᾿ ; ae PP pata ΕΣ ΚΣ ae os
Cea ave : ΠΣ τ Ὁ:

a
ἜΣ

A

Dictionary of the Bible

ery

=

A

Dictionary of the Bible

DBALING WITH ITS
LANGUAGE, LITERATURE, AND CONTENTS

ΣΟ. THE pPIBLICAL THEOLOVE Y

EDITED BY

JAMES HASTINGS, M.A., D.D.

WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF

JOHN A. SELBIE, M.A.

AND, CHIEFLY IN THE REVISION OF THE PROOFS, OF

ΑΒ VANIDSON, D.D., LED, S. R. DRIVER, D.D., Lrrt.D.

PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, OXFORD

ἘΠῚ τὺ Swe, DD Lae):

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE

|

8 6
VOLUME IIT 3 ἥ / nee
KIR—PLEIADES )6

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCHRISGNER’S SONS
EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK

1901

πότους ὉΠ tet

ca ‘\
oe
Lf tO
το
| Ρ
| C O y,
Ὁ
ν ' $

CopykiIGHT, 1900, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
Rights of Translation and of Reproduction

The
are reserved

PREFACE

Tus DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, as stated in the Preface to Volumes I. and IT. already
published, is intended as a contribution towards furnishing the Church for the great
work of teaching. It is a Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, together with
the Old Testament Apocrypha, according to the Authorized and Revised Versions, with
constant reference to the original tongues. Every effort has been used to make the
information it contains as full, reliable, and accessible as possible.

1. As to fulness. In a Dictionary of the Bible we expect an explanation of
all the words occurring in the Bible which do not explain themselves. The present
Dictionary meets that expectation more nearly than any work hitherto published.
Articles will be found on all the Persons and Places that are mentioned in the
Bible, on its Archeology and Antiquities, its Ethnology, Geology, and Natural
History, its Theology and Ethics, and on such words occurring in the Authorized or
Revised Version as are now unintelligible or liable to misapprehension. Much
attention has been given to the language, literature, religion, and customs of the
nations around Israel. The Versions have been fully treated. Articles have been
contributed on the Apocalyptic and other uncanonical writings of the Jews, as well
as on such theological or ethical ideas as are believed to be contained in the Bible,
though their modern names are not found there.

2. As to reliability. The writers have been chosen out of respect to their
scholarship and nothing else. The articles have all been written immediately and
solely for this Dictionary, and, except the shortest, they are all signed. Even the
shortest, however, have been contributed by writers of recognized ability and
authority. In addition to the work upon it of authors and editors, every: sheet
has passed through the hands of the three eminent scholars whose names are found
on the title-page.

3. As to accessibility. The subjects are arranged in alphabetical order, and
under the most familiar titles. All the modern devices of cross-reference and
black-lettering have been freely resorted to, so that in the very few instances in
which allied subjects have been grouped under one heading (such as MEDICINE in
this volume) the particular subject wanted will be found at once. Proper Names
are arranged according to the spelling of the Revised Version, but wherever it

seemed advisable the spelling of the Authorized Version is also given, with a cross-
vii

viii PREFACE

reference. The Abbreviations, considering the size and scope of the work, will
be seen to be few and easily mastered. A list of them, together with a simple
scheme for the uniform transliteration of Hebrew and Arabic words, will be found
on the following pages.

It is with devout thankfulness that the Editor sees this third volume of an
arduous though congenial work issued within reasonable limits of time. The fourth
volume is in progress, and may be looked for next year. He has pleasure in again
expressing his thanks to many friends and fellow-workers, including the authors
of the various articles. But especially he desires to thank the members of the
editorial staff, the publishers, the printers, and (without mentioning others whose
names have already appeared in the Preface to Vols. I. and 11.) Mr. ἃ. PF. Hit of the
Department of Coins and Medals in the British Museum for assistance and advice in
the preparation of the illustrations to the article on the Money of the Bible.

* |" Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, have the sole right of publication of this
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE in the United States and Canada.

SCHEME OF TRANSLITERATION

ΓᾺ

ΠΕ,

ino

1X

cd ee fe Beata © ey A

SB eR

ὉΣ ry
ΤΊ

List .of

Alex. = Alexandrian,
Apoc. = Apocalypse.
Apoer. = Apocrypha.
Aq. =Aquila.

Arab. = Arabic.
Aram. = Aramaic.
Assyr. = Assyrian.
Bab. = Babylonian.
ὁ. =circa, about.
Can. = Canaanite.

ef. = compare.

ct. =contrast.

D = Deuteronomist.
E= Elohist.

edd. =editions or editors.

Eeyp. =Egyptian.
Eng. = English.
Eth. = Ethiopic.

f.=and following

ABBREVIATIONS

eres

1, GENERAL

verse or page; as Ac 10°

ff. =and following verses or pages; as Mt 11

Gr. =Greek.
}i=Law of Holiness.
Heb. = Hebrew.

Hel. = Hellenistic.
Hex. = Hexateuch.
Tsr. = Israelite.

J =Jahwist.

J” =Jehovah.

Jerus. =Jerusalem.
Jos. = Josephus.

2ST.

LXX =Septuagint.
MSS = Manuscripts.
MT = Massoretic ‘Text.
ἢ, =note.
NT=New Testament.
Onk. = Onkelos.
OT=Old Testament.
P=Priestly Narrative.
Pal. = Palestine, Palestinian.
Pent. = Pentateuch.
Pers. = Persian.
Phil. = Philistine.
Phoen. = Pheenician.
Pr. Bk. =Prayer Book.
ἢ = Redactor.
Rom. = Roman.
Sam. =Samaritan.
Sem. = Semitic.
Sept. =Septuagint.
Sin. =Sinaitic.
Symm. =Syinachus.
Syr. =Syriac.
Talm. = Talnud.
Targ. = Targum.
Theod. ='Theodotion.
TR=Textus Receptus.
tr. =translate or translation.
VSS = Versions.
Vulg. = Vulgate.
WH = Westcott and Hort’s text.

Il. Booxs oF THE BIBLE

Old Testament.

Gn = Genesis.

Ca=Canticles.

Ad. Est = Additions to Sus=Susanni.

Ts= Isaiah.
Jer =Jeremiah.
La= Lamentations.

Ex = Exodus.
Lv = Leviticus.
Nu= Numbers.

Dt= Deuteronomy.

Jos=Joshua.

Jg=ZJudges.

aes Ht.

18,2S=1 and 2 Samuel.

1 K, Ὁ K=1 and 2 Kings.

eon Sh ρα e
Chronicles.

| Dyan yaw es

Neh = Nehemiah.

Est= Esther.

Pa e Psalms.
Pr= Proverbs.
Ec= Ecclesiastes.

Ezk = Ezekiel.

Dn = Daniel.

Hos = Hosea.
Jl=Joel.

Am = Amos.

Ob = Obadiah.
Jon=Jonah.
Mic= Micah.

Nah = Nahum.
Hab = Habakkuk.
Zeph = Zephaniah.
Hag = Haggai.
Zec = Zechariah.
Mal = Malachi.

Apocrypha.

1. fs; 2. Ea=1 apd 2
Esdras.

To=Tobit.
Jth=Judith.

|

x

Esther. Bel = Bel and _ the
Wis= Wisdom. Dragon.
Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi- Pr. Man = Prayer of
asticus. Manasses.
Bar= Baruch. 1 Mac, 2 Mac=1 and 2
Three = Song of the Maccabees.

Three Children.
New Testament.

Mt= Matthew. 1 Th, 2th οι

Mk= Mark. Thessalonians.
Lk=Luke. i Ti, ὁ Tes eee
Jn=Jobn. Timothy.

Ac= Acts. Tit= Titus.

Philem = Philemon.

He= Hebrews.

Ja=James.

IP, 2Ps band Peter

iJn, 2 πὸ Jaa] Ὁ
and 3 John.

Jude.

Rev = Revelation.

Ro= Romans.

1 Co; 2 Co ai cana 2
Corinthians.

Gal =Galatians.

Eph = Ephesians.

Ph = Philippians.

Col = Colossians.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xX)

III. Enewisa

Wye. =Wyclif’s Bible (NT ὁ, 1380, OT c. 1382,
Purvey’s Revision c. 1388).

Tind. = Tindale’s NT 1526 and 1534, Pent. 1530.

Cov. =Coverdale’s Bible 1535.

Matt. or Rog.=Matthew’s (i.e. prob. Rogers’)
Bible 1537.

Cran. or Great=Cranmer’s ‘Great’ Bible 1539.

Tav. =Taverner’s Bible 1539.

Gen. =Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560.

VERSIONS

Bish. = Bishops’ Bible 1568.

Tom. =Tomson’s NT 1576.

Rhem. = Rhemish NT 1582.

Dou. = Douay OT 1609.

AV=Authorized Version 1611.

AVm= Authorized Version margin.

RV =Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885.
RVm = Revised Version margin.

EV =Auth. and Rev. Versions.

IV. For rue LirERATURE

AHT= Ancient Hebrew Tradition.
AT=Altes Testament.
BL=Bampton Lecture.
BM=British Museum.
BRP =Biblical Researches in Palestine.
CIG=Corpus Inscriptionum Greecarum.
CIL =Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
CIS =Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.
COT =Cuneiform Inscriptions and the OT.
DB= Dictionary of the Bible.
EHH=Farly History of the Hebrews.
G_AP=Geographie des alten Palistina.
GGA =Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen.
GGN=Nachrichten der konigl. Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Gottingen.
GJV=Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes.
GVI=Geschichte des Volkes Israel.
HCM= Higher Criticism and the Monuments.
HE=Historia Ecclesiastica.
HGHL = Historical Geog. of Holy Land.
HI=History of Israel.
HJP=History of the Jewish People.
HPM=History, Prophecy, and the Monuments.
HPN = Hebrew Proper Names.
TJG@=Israelitische und Jiidische Geschichte.
JPBL=Journal of Biblical Literature.
JDTh=Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie.
JQR=Jewish Quarterly Review.
J&AS=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Socicty.
JRL=Jewish Religious Life after the Exile.
J7TS=Journal of Theological Studies.
KAT=Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Test.
KIB =Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.
LCBt=Literarisches Centralblatt.
LOT=Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test.

NHWB=Neuhebriisches Worterbuch.

NTZG =Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte.

ON=Otium Norvicense.

OP =Origin of the Psalter.

OTJC=The Old Test. in the Jewish Church.

PB=Polychrome Bible.

PEF= Palestine Exploration Fund.

PEFSt= Quarterly Statement of the same.

PSBA =Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archeology.

PRE = Real-Encyclopiidie fiir protest. 'Theologie
und Kirche.

QPB=Queen’s Printers’ Bible.

REJ= Revue des Etudes Juives.

RP = Records of the Past.

RS=Religion of the Semites.

SBOT=Sacred Books of Old Test.

Sk =Studien und Kritiken.

SP =Sinai and Palestine.

SWP=Memoirs of the Survey of W. Palestine.

TAL or TALZ=Theol. Literaturzeitung.

ThT =Theol. Tijdschrift.

TSBA=Transactions of Soe. of Bibl. Archeology.

TU =Texte und Untersuchungen.

WAJ=Western Asiatic Inscriptions.

WZKM=Wiener Zeitschrift fiir Kunde des
Morgenlandes.

ZA =Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie.

ZAW or ZATW=Zeitschrift fiir die Alttest.
Wissenschaft.

ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen
liindischen Gesellschaft.

ZDPV=Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palistina-
Vereins.

ZKSF=Zeitschrift fiir Keilschriftforschung.

ZKW =Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschait.

Morgen-

A small superior number designates the particular edition of the work referred to, as KAT*, LO7".

PLATES AND MAP IN VOLUME III

(PLATES) COINS CURRENT IN PALESTINE ὁ. B.C. 500-A.D. 135
(Mar) St. PAuL’s TRAVELS . ῃ Ἢ .

between pages 424 and 425
facing page θη τ

Seer
oe
os

—

i. :
eo

ate
ΠῚ
7

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. III

IsRAKL ABRAHAMS, M.A., Editor of the Jewish
Quarterly Review, and Senior Tutor of the
Jews’ College, London.

Rev. WALTER F. ADENEY, M.A., Professor of
New Testament Exegesis in New College,
London.

Ven. A. S. AGLEN, M.A., D.D., Archdeacon of
St. Andrews.

tev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Chaplain-
Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew,
Exeter College, Oxford.

Rey. JoHN 5. BANKS, Professor of Systematic
Theology in the Headingley College, Leeds.

Zev. W. EMERY BARNES, M.A., D.D., Fellow of
Peterhouse, Cambridge.

JAMES VERNON BARTLET, M.A., Professor of
Church History, Mansfield College, Oxford.

Rev. L. W. BATTEN, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of
Hebrew, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School,
Philadelphia.

Rev. LLEWELLYN J. M. Bess, M.A., Principal of
St. David’s College, Lampeter ; formerly Fellow
and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford.

Rev. WILLIS JuDSON BEECHER, D.D., Professor
of Hebrew Language and Literature in Auburn
Theological Seminary, New York.

P. V. M. BENECKE, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of
Magdalen College, Oxford.

Rey. WILLIAM HENRY BENNETT, M.A., Professor
of Old Testament Exegesis in Hackney and
New Colleges, London; sometime Fellow of
St. John’s College, Cambridge.

Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Fellow of
Trinity College, and Archbishop King’s
Lecturer in Divinity in the University of
Dublin.

FREDERICK J. Buiss, B.A., Ph.D., Director of the
Palestine Exploration Fund in Jerusalem.
Rev. W. ApAMS Brown, M.A., Professor of Sys-
tematic Theology in Union Theological Semi-

nary, New York.

F. CRAWFoRD BurkITT, M.A., Trinity College,
Cambridge.

Rev. WILLIAM CARSLAW, M.A., M.D., of the
Lebanon Schools, Beyrout, Syria.

Rev. ARTHUR THOMAS CHAPMAN, M.A., Fellow,
Tutor, and Hebrew Lecturer, Emmanuel
College, Cambridge.

Rev. Ropert HENRY CHARLES, D.D., Professor of
Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin.

Rev. FREDERIC HENRY CHASE, M.A., D.D.,
Christ’s College, Principal of the Clerg
Training School, Cambridge.

CLAUDE REIGNIER CONDER, R.E., LL.D.,
M.R.A.S.
FRED. C. CONYBEARE, M.A., formerly Fellow of
University College, Oxford.
Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., formerly Fellow of
Magdalen College, Oxford.
Rev. Henry Cowan, M.A., D.D., Professor of
Church History in the University of Aberdeen.

W. E. Crum, M.A., of the Egypt Exploration
Fund.

Rey. Epwarp Lewis Curtis, Ph.D., D.D.,
Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature
in the Divinity School of Yale University,
New Haven.

Rev. T. Witton Davies, B.A., Ph.D., M.R.A.S.,
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Lit-
erature in the Baptist College, Bangor, and
Lecturer in Semitic Languages in University
College, Bangor.

Rev. W. T. Davison, M.A., D.D., Professor of
Systematic Theology in the Handsworth
Theological College, Birmingham.

Col.

Rev. JAMES DENNEY, M.A., D.D., Professor of
Systematic Theology in the Free Church
College, Glasgow.

Rev. W. P. Dicxson, D.D., LL.D., Emeritus
Professor of Divinity in the University of
Glasgow.

E. von Dosscutirz, Lic. Theol., Professor of
Theology, Jena, Germany.

Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., Litt.D.,
Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor
of Hebrew in the University of Oxford.

Rev. DAvip Eaton, M.A., D.D., Glasgow.

Rev. WILLIAM Ewinc, M.A., Glasgow, for-
merly of Tiberias, Palestine.

Rev. W. FAIRWEATHER, M.A., Kirkcaldy.

Rev. GEORGE FERRIES, M.A., D.D., Cluny, Aber-
deenshire.

Rev. GEORGE G. FINDLAY, B.A., Professor of
Biblical Literature, Headingley College, Leeds.

xiii

xiv

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. III

Rey. JoHN Grips, M.A., D.D., Professor of New
Testament Exegesis in Westminster College,
Cambridge.

G. BUCHANAN GRAY, M.A., Professor of Hebrew
in Mansfield College, Oxford.

Rev. ALEXANDER GRIEVE, M.A., Ph.D., Forfar.

FRANCIS LLEWELLYN GRIFFITH, M.A., F.S.A.,
of the British Museum ; Superintendent of the
Archeological Survey of the Egypt Explora-
tion F und.

Rev. Henry MELVILL GWATKIN, M.A., D.D.,
Fellow of Emmanuel College, and Dixie Pro-
fessor of Ecclesiastical History in the University
of Cambridge.

Rev. G. Harrorp-Batrrerssy, M.A., Balliol
College, Oxford; Vicar of Mossley Hill,
Liverpool.

Rev. ARTHUR CAYLEY HEADLAM, M.A., B.D.,
Rector of Welwyn, Herts; formerly Fellow
of All Souls College, Oxford.

δ HuLu, MA., Τῆς RRS. ἘΝ;
late Director of the Geological Survey of
Treland, and Professor of Geology in the Royal
College of Science, Dublin.

MontTAGUE RuopEes JAMES, M.A., Litt. D.,
Fellow and Dean of King’s College, and

Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cam-

bridge.

C. H. W. JOHNS,

Cambridge.

Rev. ARCHIBALD R. 5. KENNEDY, M.A., D.D.,
Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages
in the University of Edinburgh.

Rev. H. A. A. KENNEDY, M.A., D.Sc., Callander.

Rev. Tuomas B. KILpaTRick, M.A., D.D., Pro-
fessor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics
in Manitoba College, Winnipeg, Canada.

Epuarp Konic, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis in the University of
Bonn.

Rev. JOHN LAIDLAW, M.A., D.D., Professor of

Systematic Theology in the New College,

Edinburgh.

WALTER Lock, M.A., D.D., Warden of
Keble College, and Dean Ireland’s Professor
of New Testament Exegesis in the University
of Oxford.

ALEXANDER MACALISTER, LL.D., M.D., F.RB.S.,
I.S.A., Fellow of St. John’s College, and
Professor of Anatomy in the University of
Cambridge.

Rev. J. A. M‘Ciymont, M.A., D.D., Aberdeen.
Rev. GEORGE M. MaAckir, M.A., Chaplain to the

Church of Scotland at Beyrout, Syria.

Rev. HuGH. MACMILLAN, M;A., D:D.,. LL.D.,
Greenock.

tev. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A., Edinburgh.

Rev. Ὁ. 5. Marcouioutu, M.A., Fellow of New
College, and Laudian Professor of Arabic in
the University of Oxford.

tev. JOHN TURNER MARSHALL, M.A.,
of the Baptist College, Manchester.

Rev. M.A., Queens’ College,

Rev.

Principal

Rev. GEORGE CURRIE MARTIN, M.A., B.D., Rei-
gate, Surrey.

JOHN MASSIE, M.A., Yates Professor of New
Testament Exegesis in Mansfield College,

Oxford; formerly Scholar of St. John’s Col-
lege, Cambridge.

JOSEPH BICKERSTETH Mayor, M.A., Litt.D.,
Emeritus Professor of King’s College, London,
oe Hon. Fellow of St. John’s College, Cam-

ridge.

SELAH. MERRIEL,’ D.D:; LL.D: ΤῊ ΟΠ δ
at Jerusalem.

Rev. JAMES MILLAR, M.A., B.D., New Cumnock.

Rev. GEORGE MILLIGAN, M.A., B.D., Caputh,
Perthshire.

Rey.

tev. R. Wappy Moss, Professor of Classics in the
Didsbury College, Manchester.

tev. WARREN JOSEPH MOULTON, M.A., B.D.,

Ph.D., Instructor in the Biblical and Semitic

Department of Yale University, New Haven.

Rev. WILLIAM Muir, M.A., B.D., B.L., Blair-

gowrie.

W. Max MULLER, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of
Old Testament Literature in the Reformed

Episcopal Church Seminary, Philadelphia.

tev. J. O. F. Murray, M.A., Fellow of Emmanuel
College, Cambridge.

JOHN L. Myrzs, M.A., F.S.A., F.R.G:.S., Student
of Christ Church, Oxford.

EBERHARD NESTLE, Ph.D.,
Maulbronn.

Rev. THomAs Nicon, M.A., D.D., Professor of
Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the Uni-
versity of Aberdeen.

D.D., Professor at

W. Nowack, Ph.D., Professor of ‘Theology in the
University of Strassburg.

JAMES Orr, M.A., D.D., Professor of Church
History in the United Presbyterian Hall,
Edinburgh.

Rey.

Rev. WILLIAM P. PATERSON, M.A.,
fessor of Systematic Theology
versity of Aberdeen.

Rev. JAMES Patrick, M.A., B.D., B.Se., Examiner

for Deerees in Divinity in the University of

St. Andrews.

Joun Patrick, M.A., D.D., Professor of

Biblical Criticism and Biblical ‘Antiquities in

the University of Edinburgh.

Ὅν Pio-
in the Uni-

tev.

ARTHUR S. PEAKE, M.A., Professor in the Primi-
tive Methodist College, Manchester, and
Lecturer in Lancashire Independent College ;
sometime Fellow of Merton and Lecturer in
Manstield College, Oxford.

WILLIAM FLINDERS PETRIE, M.A., D.C.L., Pro-
fessor of Egyptology in University College,
London.

THEOPHILUS GOLDRIDGE PrincHES, M.R.A.S., of
the Egyptian and Assyrian Department in the
British Museum.

Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.,
University College, Durham.

Master of

Rev. FRANK CHAMBERLIN Porrer, M.A., Ph.D.,
D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology in the
Divinity School of Yale University, New
Haven.

Rev. HArvEY Porter, B.A., Ph.D., Professor in
the American College, Beyrout, Syria.

Rev. GEorGE Post, M.D., F.L.S., Professor in
the American College, Beyrout, Syri ia.

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. III

xv

IRA Maurice Pricer, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor
of Semitic Languages and Literatures in the
University of Chicago.

Rev. Cyrin HENRY PRICHARD, M.A., late Classical
Scholar of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and
Lecturer at St. Olave’s, Southwark.

Rev. πόποι T. Purves, D.D., LL.D., recently
Professor of New Testament Literature and
Exegesis in Princeton Theological Seminary,
New Jersey.

WILLIAM M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL.D., Litt.D.,
Professor of Humanity in the University of
Aberdeen, Honorary Fellow of Exeter and
Lincoln Colleges, Oxford.

Rev. HENRY A. ReppATH, M.A., Rector of St.
Dunstan’s in the East, London.

Rey. ARCHIBALD RoBerTsON, M.A., D.D., Prin-
cipal of King’s College, London, late Fellow of
Trinity College, Oxford.

Rey. STEWART DINGWALL FORDYCE SALMOND,
M.A., D.D., F.E.LS., Principal and Professor
of Systematic Theology in the Free Church
College, Aberdeen.

Rev. ARCHIBALD Hrenry SAYCE, M.A., LL.D.,
Fellow of Queen’s College, and Professor of
Assyriology in the University of Oxford.

Rev. JOHN A. SELBIE, M.A., Maryculter, Kin-
cardineshire.

Zev. VINCENT Henry SrantTon, M.A., D.D.,
Fellow of Trinity College, and Ely Professor
of Divinity in the University of Cam-
bridge.

Joun EF. Srenninc, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer
in Hebrew and Theology, Wadham College,
Oxford.

B. StTevENSON, M.A., B.D., Professor of
Hebrew and Old Testament Introduction in
the Theological College, Bala.

Rev. ALEXANDER STEWART, M.A., D.D., Prin-
cipal of St. Mary’s College, and Professor of
Systematic Theology in the University of St.
Andrews.

Ws

tev. AARON EMMANUEL SUFFRIN, M.A., Curate
of Sparsholt with Kingstone Lisle, Berks.

Rev. HENRY BarRcLAY SweETe, M.A., D.D.,
Litt.D., Regius Professor of Divinity, Cam-
bridge.

Rev. JOHN ‘TAYLOR,
Winchcombe.
HENRY Sr. JOHN THACKERAY, M.A., Examiner
in the Board of Education, formerly Divinity

Lecturer in Selwyn College, Cambridge.

Rev. G. W. THATCHER, M.A., B.D., Hebrew Tutor
and Lecturer on Old Testament History and
Literature in Mansfield College, Oxford.

Rev. JOSEPH HENRY THAYER, M.A., D.D., Litt.D.,
Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticisin
and Interpretation in the Divinity School of
Harvard University.

CUTHBERT HAMILTON TURNER, M.A., Fellow of
Magdalen College, Oxford.

DEAS itt, * Vicar of

Lieut.-General Sir CHARLES WARREN. G.C.M.G.,
K.C.B., F.R.S., Royal Engineers.
Rev. ADAM C. ΕΘΗ, M.A., B.D., Helensburgh.

The late Rev. HENRY ALCOCK WHITE, M.A., Tutor
in the University of Durham, and formerly
Fellow of New College, Oxford.

2evy, Newport J. D.Wuire, M.A., B.D., Librarian
of Archbishop Marsh’s Library, and Assistant
Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew in the
University of Dublin.

Rey. OWEN C. Wurrenouse, M.A., Principal and
Professor of Biblical Exegesis and Theology,
Cheshunt College, Herts.

Major-General Sir CHARLES WILLIAM WILSON,
R.E., K.C.B., K.C.M.G., D.C.L., LL.D.,
Ds

| Rev. Francis Henry Woops, M.A., B.D., Vicar

of Chalfont St. Peter, and late Fellow and

Theological Lecturer of St. John’s College.

Oxford.

' Rev. JoHN WoRTABET, M.A.,

VED. “Beyrout,

| Syria.

Ee
co

hoe eke
ele :
aa ἐν ἜΣ

ΤΣ ἂν"
ae

aa usd

DICTIONARY OF THE

BIBLE

KIR (7*7).—The name of a country and nation. | stirs up Koa’ and Shoa against the mountain’)

It occurs in the following passages :—(1) Am 97
Ikir is the Jand from which God brought the
Arameans (Syrians), as He led the Israelites from
Keypt, etc. It must, after this analogy, be a

country remote from the principal seat (ὦ.
Damascus) of the Aramieans in Amos’ time. The
LXX reads ‘depth,’ ‘pit’ (βόθρος, ze. yp). (Ὁ)

2 Καὶ 16° After the capture of Damascus, the Ara-
mwvans were carried captive to Καὶ by the king
(Tiglath-pileser 111.) of Assyria. This would in-
dicate that Kir was under Assyrian dominion, and,
again, at a considerable distance from the region
of Damascus near the borders of the Assyrian
empire. But the name of the country was wanting
in the LXX originally (B), and inserted later (A,
etc. Κυρηνήνδε) trom the Hebrew text (after Sym-
machus). Therefore this passage is suspicious ; see
Field, Heaap. pp. xxii, 682. (3) Am 15 threatens
indeed : the people of Aram shall go into captivity
unto Κὶν (LAX ‘the one called as ally,’ ἐπίκλητος,
sop). But this passage also seems to be inter-
polated from Ain 9%. If IXir was the original home
of the Arameans (Am 97), the Assyrians would
never have deported them back to their old country,
where they would have found remainders of the
original stock of their nation, and would have,
by union with them, become strong again and
dangerous to the king of Nineveh. The Assyrians,
as well as other nations, deported their captives
always to countries where they were strangers,
separated by language and race from the inhabit-
ants of the new country, and therefore forced to
rely upon the government which had settled them
there. Consequently, the name A/r in this passage
is strange, and to be used only with caution. (4)
Ts 22° an attack on Jerusalem is described, evi-
dently that of the Assyrian army under Senna-
cherib (cf. 2 Καὶ 18) : ‘And Elam bare the quiver with
chariots of men* and horsemen, and Kir (LXX
συναγωγή, cf. ΠῚΡ 3) uncovered (a7z) the shield’ (i.e.
prepared it for fighting). Consequently, Kir was
among the allies or subjects of the Assyrians, and
was a warlike nation. (5) Also Is 22° seems to
belong here: sa7dy 0} ap aMp2, RV ‘a breaking
down (others, surrounding) of the walls (sing. !) and
a crying to the mountains,’ LXX ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως
μεγάλου πλανῶνται ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη, Vulg. ‘scrutans murwum
et magnificus super montem.’ The passage was
rendered by Cheyne (following Delitzsch, Paradies,
236), ‘Kir undermineth, and Shoa is at the mount.’
Klostermann, Bredenkamp, Cornill, Winckler
(Alitest. Untersuch. 177, who conjectures, ‘who
* “Of men’ may be a gloss, see Duhm.
VOL, 111.---ὰ

have, however, given up the paronomasia and
corrected Wir to Noa (x4p), a nation mentioned
together with Shoa in Ezk 23; the HKutié or
Au of the Assyrian inscriptions, a warlike
nomadic tribe S.E. of Assyria, chiefly on the
banks of the modern rivers Dijélé (the Gyndes of
the classics) and Adhem adjoining the Sufi, te.
the biblical Shoa’. This agrees with Is 22", where
Kir is a neighbour of Elam. It results that we
have to try the same emendation also in this
passage (Is 22°), and indeed the LXX reads there
consonants which come nearer to jp than to Wp,
likewise in Am 9 (where wp=original 37). See,
further, art. KOA, footnote.

It is very probable, then, that in all passages the
same pastoral people Koa’ 317, were originally
meant. The corruption of one may have caused
that of the other places. (lor the Assyrian and
3abylonian texts see Delitzsch, Paradies, 233;
Schrader, A477 425). The country Gutiwm, Guti,
which is mentioned as early as B.C. 3000 in in-
scriptions, seems to be the same as Auti, Αι κέ,
Au, which is only the later spelling.* The in-
habitants seem to have been always Semites, so that
their relationship to the Arameans, who appear in
cuneiform inscriptions first in Southern Babylonia,
is very plausible. Otherwise, the cuneiform inscrip-
tions have been searched in vain for a nation Kir.
The ancient versions (Aq., Vulg., partly LXX,
Targum) were guessing when they introduced the
Libyan Cyrene, whichis absurd.+ By those to whom
the emendation of Air to koa seems too bold, the
conjecture may be hazarded that some day the name
Kir will be discovered in the same region E. of the
Lower and Middle Tigris, where various nomadic
tribes roamed with the rapacious Shoa and Koa’,
But the emendation seems more plausible.

W. MAx MULLER.

KIR (OF MOAB) (ΞΡ, τὸ τεῖχος τῆς Μωαβί(ε)ίτιδος,
murus Aoab).—One of the chief towns of the land
of Moab, coupled with Ar of Moab, Is 15'. Since
in the Moabite tongue “ir=Heb. ‘ir or ‘dr, it is
conceivable that ir of Moab and Ar of Moab are
identical. The almost universally accepted identi-
fication of Kir of Moab with the modern Aerak

* Perhaps occurring also in Egyptian texts as Gut, see W. M.
Miller, Asien, Ὁ. 281.

t More modern guesses: the Κῦρος or Κύρρος, river of Armenia,
the modern Kur (Michaelis). But this name has k not k, and is
too far north. Bochart proposes Kevpyy, (Ptol.) in Eastern
Media, but this place is obscure and too far east. Furrer
suggests the region near Antioch called Κύρρος, Κυρρεστική, but
this name was given only in later times in imitation of a
Macedonian city (see Mannert).

\
4

=

2 KIRAMA

KIRIATH

rests upon the Targum on Isaiah, where Kir is
rendered by Kerakka (so also apparently Ar of
Moab). This may have been a native name which
has survived, or it may be a rendering of that
name which has supplanted it. The modern name
of Kerak can be traced back as belonging to the
place in early times. Under the form Χαρακμῶβα
it appears in the acts of the Council of Jerusalem
A.D. 536, and in the geographers Ptolemy and
Stephanus of Byzantium. he Crusaders discerned
the strategic importance of the place as command-
ing the trade route from Egypt and Arabia into
Syria. Under king Fulco of Jerusalem, A.pD. 1131,
a castle was built there, of which extensive re-
mains may yet be seen. Saladin in A.D. 1183
unsuccesstully besieged if ; it fell into his hands
in A.D. L188. The contributions which the
Chroniclers of the Crusades make to the local-
izing of the site are full and interesting ; it was
then the chief city of Arabia Secunda, or Petra-
censis; it is specified as in the Belké, and dis-
tinguished from Moab or Rabbat, and from Mons
Regalis or Montreal. The Crusaders further
identified it with Petra, or gave that name to
it; an error which the Greek Church has per-
petuated, for the Greek bishop of Petra has his
seat at Kerak. It is frequently referred to in
writers of the Christian period as Charak-Jloba
(also Mobu-Charaxc), corrupted to Charakomea,
Charagmucha, Karach, and Kare. On the ques-
tion of the identity of Kir of Moab with Kir-
hareseth or Kir-heres sce art. on these names.

The Wady el-Kerak runs S.E from the head of
the bay of the Dead Sea, which lies east of the
peninsula el-Lisan, uniting with the W ady ‘Ain
Franji about 10 miles up. Kerak is situated on
a lofty spur between these two ravines, and is
about four thousand feet above the level of the
Dead Sea. The sides of the hill descend steeply
some thousand feet to the bottom of the valleys,
but the height on the other side is much greater,
so that the town is commanded by hills on every
side. (This may explain 2 Καὶ 35e4) Such a
oe was for ancient warfare almost impreg-
nable. The great weakness must have been want
of water, and “ther sare remains of enormous rock-

hewn cisterns. The city was surrounded by a
wall of great thickness, which had but two
entrances—one on the N.W., the other on the

S., each being approached by a long tunnel cut
through the solid rock. There are remains of five
great towers; but further investigation seems
needed to decide what is ancient Moabite work,
and what is due to mediwval engineers.

A map of the town is given in de Sauley, La
Mer Morte, 8, 20.

LITERATURE.—Reland, Pal. 463, 553, 705; Bohaeddin,
Salad. ch. 25 Ὁ Georgius Cyprius, ed. Gelzer, 53, 198 ;
mere, //ist. Sultans ‘Mamlouks, li, 236; Schultens, Jideax Geo-
grapnica, 8. ‘Caracha’ ; Robinson, BRP? ii, 167%. ; Stanley;
Sinai and Palestine, p. 467; Seetzen, Reisen, i. 412 ἢν, 11. BSS 3
jurckhardt, Travels, 379-890 ; Irby, ch. vii.; de § Saulcy, La
Mer Morte, i. eet ἐ Schwarz, 275 Tristram, Land of Moab,

Vita
Quatre-

68 ff. ; Due de Luynes, Voyage, i. 99 ff., ii. 106 ff. ; and for
modern aspect Baedeker, Palestine, p. 191 ἢ,
C. H. W. Jouns

KIRAMA (A Kipaua, B Κειράμα, AV Giveihal:
1 Es 5*°.—The people of Kirama and Gabbe re-
turned from Babylon under Zerub., 621 strong.
In Ezr 956 Ramah and Geba (At, A ‘Paud, B
"Apau); ef. Neh 750 (Αραμά). The form in 1 Es is
due to the definite article 7 being read as x.

KIR-HARESETH (ne anvp, τοῖς κατοικοῦσι Δέσεθ
μελετήσεις, Vule. murus cocti lateris, Is 167; in
2 K 3” pausal form nyigyp, AV Kir-haraseth,
LXX τοὺς λίθους τοῦ τοίχου καθῃρημένους, Vule.
murs fictilis) or KIR-HERES (i 7n-1p, κειράδες
αὐχμοῦ, mury- fictilis, Jer 48°-°6; in Is 162

) an interchange of ¢ and s is unusual ;

pausal form ὅπ, AV Kir-haresh, LXX τεῖχος
ἐνεκαίνισας, Vule. ad anurum cocti lateris).—These
two names are to be taken as slight variants
of one and the same proper name denoting a place
in the country of Moab, evidently regarded as a
place of the first rank, of great strength and
importance. The natural conclus:on that Kir of
Moab is meant is a conjecture, but has received
general assent.

The LXX and Vulgate regard these names,
however, as phrases, the meaning of which is
sought by an attempted Hebrew etymology.
That they were so regarded when the vowel
points were added to the text need not be
assumed, though some traditional etymology may
have influenced the pointing. Certainly, the ety-
mologies suggested connecting them with fir, Sa
wall,’ and some Hebrew word denoting ‘ clay,’ or
its manufactured products such as ‘ bricks’ or
‘pottery,’ do not lead to any convincing result.
That ir also denoted a ‘fortress or walled city’
in Hebrew seems assumed to meet the case 3
a ‘city of potsherds’ or a ‘brick fortress,’ even
with the explanation ‘because the chief seat of
Moabite pottery, is too obviously lame. Such a
meaning would go against the identification with
modern Aerak. The top of a steep hill is unlikely
to bea ‘seat of pottery,’ and the accounts of the
remains there poimt to the ancient walls being of
stone, not brick.

There does not seem any call to seek a Hebrew
etymology. If it was a Moabite name, and the
variations in spelling and vocalization sugeest its
being foreign to the Hebrew scribes,* then we
must turn to the native tongue for an etymology.
There we find that fir is the Moabite for ‘town,’
walled or fortified. The second element of these
names is not, however » preserved in the scanty
remains of the Moabite toneue (οἷ, however, the
place name J///27'in line 14 of Mesha’s Inscription).
Palmer (The Desert of the Exodus, p. 472.) says
that ὙΦ means ‘mound?’ in the language of the
modern inhabitants. ‘The obvious difliculty is that
we should
expect rather Jares than hares as representing
modern /arit. The modern language of Moab
would need detailed examination before a decisive
rule could be laid down.t Of a somewhat similar
Assyrian word for ‘mount’ (often a wooded hill),
both forms, Ararsu and hursu, exist side by side.

If the commonly received identification of the
place with Κἀν of Moab and that with modern
Kerak be correct, we might regard ‘mountain
fortress’ as a suitable name; but that does not
establish the etymology in the absence of direct
evidence from native sources. All that 15 said of
Kir-heres, ete., seems to suit Kerak well enough,
and the ‘Targum on Isaiah renders WKir-hareseth
by Kerak tukpehon, which perhaps points to a

‘cliff’? fortress of some kind. See, further, art.
Kak oF MOAB. C. H. W. JOUNS.

KIRIATH (n77).-—A town noticed with Gibeah as
belonging to Benjamin, Jos 18*. Both the text and
the site are uncertain, but the Jatter may possibly
be found at Kwriet οἱ. Enad, ‘town of grapes,’ west
of Jerusalem, which is often called simply Aurich
by the inhabitants, See SWPP vol. iii. sheet xvii.
This village, on the road from Jatia to Jerusalem,
is also now called Abu Ghésh, from a celebrated
chief so named. It is remarkable for its tine Nor-
man church, built in the 12th cent. A.D..

Tt is held, however, by most OT scholars that in
Jos 188 Kiriath is a mistake for Kiriath-jearim,

* © Harosheth of the Gentiles’ (Jg 42-18. 16) isa similar name,
and both it and Hareseth may go back to Canaanite sources.

+ There is a Kasr harasa still, 35 minutes’ walk above Dera’a
(ZDPY, 1895, p. 69 ff.).

ae ee ee.

KIRIATHAIM

KIRIATH-SANNAH 3

ony: having been dropped through confusion with
the following ony. Not only does nap bear the ap-
yearance of a construct, but the same conclusion
Is supported by the LXX, B xat rites καὶ δ 8:
αωθιαρείμ. (Where Gibeath and Kiriath-jearim are
mnixed up), A mdds “Iapiu, Lue. mitts “lapetu (cf.
Dillm. ad. doc., and Bennett in SBOT).
C. R. CONDER.

KIRIATHAIM (o:077).—1. A town in a ‘plain’
(a1) inhabited by the Emim at the time of Chedor-
laomer’s campaign (Gn 145), mentioned with Heshbon
and Elealeh as built by Reuben (Nu 32%), also
mentioned with Kedemoth and Mephaath, farther
south, and with Beth-peor, Baal-meon, and
Beth-jeshimoth (Jos 13!8- 19-2), It appears as a
Moabite town in Jer 48”, Ezk 25°, and on the
stone of Mesha (line 10) is called Avryathen. It
may be distinct from Kerioth (which see), Accord-
ing to the Onomasticon (5. Καριαθαείμ, Καριάθα),
it lay 10 Roman miles west of Medeba. The
site is uncertain, although many identify Kiria-
thaim with the ruin called AKaréydt, lying 8S.W. of
Makaur (Macheerus) and 8. of Jebel ‘Attdris. Τὸ
is probably to be sought towards the south of the
Moab plateau, but may have been near Heshbon.
Burckhardt’s identification with ef-Zeim, 14 miles
W. of Medeba, is now generally abandoned.

Literature. — Porter, Handbook, 300; Tristram, Land of
Moab, 275, 305; G. A. Smith, HGHL 567f.; Buhl, GAP 276f.;
Dillmann on Gn 14 and Nu 3287,

2. A city in Naphtali, given to the Gershonite
Levites, 1 Ch 6% [Heb.®). Τὴ the parallel passage,
Jos 21°", it is called Kartan (which see).

C. R. CONDER.

KIRIATH-ARBA (y208 nap, in Neh 11” y2rx7 ’p).
—A name which occurs repeatedly in the OT,
always except in Neh 11° with the explanation
that it is another name for Hebron, Gn 23? 3527
(both P), Jos 14? 15 (both JE) 15>4 207 214 (all P),
Je 10 For the situation and history see art.
Hebron. Kiriath-arba is probably = Tetrapolis,*
‘four-towns’ (cf. y2¥ awa ‘seven wells’), the name
possibly implying that the city had four quarters
occupied by four confederate clans. If the name
Hebron means ‘confederacy,’ it may have had a
similar origin. In the MT of Jos 15% 211! 14%
Nirtath-arbais taken as= ‘city of Arba,’ the latter
supposed founder of it being called ‘the father of
the ‘Anak,’ or ‘the greatest man among the ‘Ana-
kim.’ As Moore points out, however, the LXX
has preserved the original reading in the first two

of these passages, πόλις ᾿Αρβὸκ μητρύπολις (1.6. ON Not |

28) Ἑνάκ, and in 14% Sitio ota is another mis-
correction. It may be noted further that these
last two words gave rise to a curious piece of
tabbinical exegesis, ‘haadam

Kiriath-arba (Hebron), ‘the city of four saints,’

namely, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Adam.

J. A. SELBIF.

KIRIATH-ARIM, Ezr 2%.—See KiIntaArH-JEARIM.
KIRIATH-BAAL (532 np ‘city of Baal’).-—See

KIRIATH-JEARIM.

KIRIATH-HUZOTH (nisz np ‘city of streets’ (?),
LXX rides ἐπαύλεων, Which perhaps implies a read-
ing msn instead of msn).—One of the places to
which Balak first went with Balaam, Nu 22".
It seems to have been near Ir of Moab (v.°*), and
may have been a suburb of that city. Tristram
(Land of Moab, 305) is inclined to identify it with
Kiriathaim, others (e.g. Knobel, Keil) think it is
the same as Kerioth. C. It. CONDER.

* So eg. Moore and Hommel, the latter of whom identifies
Kiriath-arba with the Rubjiti of the ΤῸ el-Amarna letters
(A HT 234 f.), but see Konig sart. on the Habiri in Mxpos. Times,
March 1900. Sayce and Petrie make Rubati= Rabbah of Jos 1560,

hageaddl’? being |
supposed to imply that Adam was buried at

|
|
|

KIRIATH-JEARIM (O37 nop ‘city of thickets’).
—One of the chief towns of the Gibeonites, Jos 9!7,
on the border of Judah and Benjamin (assigned to
the former tribe in Jos 15% & 184, Je 18, to the
latter in Jos 18% if Kiriath (which see] = Kiriath-
jearim). The position is more particularly described
inJe 1813, where the Mahaneh-dan (camp of Dan’),
which was near Zorah and Eshtaol (Je 13-°), is said
to have been ‘ behind? (2.6. west of) Kiriath-jearun.
Kiriath-jearim appears also to have been near
Beth-shemesh (1S 674), which was near Zorah. [Ὁ
may have been the city beyond the border of Ben-
jamin where Saul first met Samuel (1S 9°", ef.
1095. When the ark was sent back by the Philis-
tines, it remained at Kiriath-jearim till the time
of David (18 7/4, 2 5. 65. where the city is called
Baale Judah [but ‘y3 is an error for 5y2]). In
Jos 15° it bears the name Kiriath-baal, ‘city of

daal,’ and it is the same place that is called in Jos
15” τ and 1 Ch 13° Baalah. Its inhabitants seem
to have been related to the Hebronites, 1 Ch 2°".
After the Captivity it is mentioned as re-peopled
(Neh 7; Ezr 2”, where Kiriath-arim [oz ΠΡ] is
a clerical error for Kiriath-jearim [oy: ‘p]; 1 Es
5, where it appears as Kariathiarius). It is prob-
ably Kiriath-jearim that is referred to in Ps 132%,
where ‘the field of the wood’ is mentioned as the
place where the ark was found. The prophet Uriah
ben-Shemaiah, who was put to death by Jehoiakim,
was a native of Kiriath-jearim (Jer 26"). In the
4th cent. A.D. (Onomasticon, 5. ‘Cariathiarim’), it
was shown 9 Roman miles from Jerusalem, on the
way to Diospolis (Lydda), but this would not be
near Beth-shemesh or Zorah. In the upper part of
the valley of Sorek an ancient ruined site called
‘Hrave exists, on the south side of a very rugged
ravine. It is evidently a town, with a remarkable
rock terrace, and wells in the valley to the east.
This site (suggested by Henderson) is suitable,
being within sieht of the mouth of the ravine,
beyond which les Beth-shemesh in the more open
part of the valley, east of Zorah and Eshtaol, which
appears to answer to the ‘camp of Dan?’ (Mahaneh-
dan). The ruin is on the ridge on which Chesalon
(which see) stands, and therefore in the required
position ou the border which appears to have run
north from iriath-jearim to Chesalon (Jos 15" 1%),
or to have left Chesalon in Benjamin, north of the
border which followed the valley of Sorek. The
whole ridge is covered with copse to the present
time. Possibly, Iiriath-jearim is noticed in the
Tel el-Amarna letters (No. 106 Berlin) as δέ Beli
or Beth Baal, a city revolting against Jerusalem
(others suppose Jerus, itself to be so called in this
passage); and it is remarkable that it was one of
the few cities that submitted, without fighting, to
the Hebrews.

tobinson’s identification of Kiriath-jearim with
Kurict el-Enab or Abu Ghos.. does not meet the
requirements of Jg 1813 and 1S 6.

LITERATURE.—The whole question of the site is fully discussed
in SWP vol. ili. sheet xvii. ; see also Henderson, Palestine
(index); G. A.-Smith, AGH ss 225f.< Moore, Judges, 393-2,-*
Dillmann on Jos 917; Buhl, GA? (Index); Robinson, BRP? ii.
11f. (Smith, Moore, Dillmann, Buhl, all speak with more or
less suspicion of the correctness of Robinson’s identification with
Kuriet el! nab, Dut decline to commit themselves to the
‘Erine site, which Buhl pronounces to be still more improb-
able, and Smith remarks that it would place Kiriath-jearim
very far away from the other members of the Gibeonite leagne.
Neither of these writers, however, gives due weight to the
position near Chesalon). C. R. CONDER.

KIRIATH-SANNAH (πρὶ np, πόλις γραμμάτων)
occurs once (Jos 163) P) as another and presumably
an older name for Debir (wh. see). A third name
was Kiriath-sepher (which see for site); and this,
not Kiriath-sannah, was the reading of the LXX
here.

To those who retain the Massor. reading the

4 KIRIATH-SEPHER

KISHON

meaning is obscure. Gesenius (7hes.) takes Sannah
for a contraction of Sansannah, and translates
‘palm-city’; but, besides that the contraction 15
unlikely, one hardly expects a palm city in ‘ the hill-
country.’ Sayce (1C.M 54), following a suggestion
mentioned by Ewald (Gesch. i. 347 n.), translates
‘city of instruction,’ and uses the naine to support
his very precarious theory that Debir was ὁ library
and archive town of the Canaanites. He further
suggests that the name may be present as Bit ‘Sani
in a fragmentary letter from Ebed-tob the vassal
king of Jerusalem, in the Tel el-Amarna collection.
A. C. WELCH.

KIRIATH-SEPHER (72D πῦρ, πόλις γραμμάτων ;
Καριασσώφαρ x” γ΄, Bin Jg 1") 15 twice mentioned
in the parallel passages (Jos 156, Jg 1110, J)
as the older name of a town which the victors
called Debir. It is frequently identified with the
present ed-Dhaheriveh, a village which les ‘4 or
5 hours S.W. of Hebron,’ on a high road down
Wady Khulil, and which is on the frontier of the
hill-country towards the Negeb (see, however,
DEBIR).

Many commentators from the earliest times,
accepting the word as Heb., have translated with
various shades of sense ‘book town’ (cf. LXX
above, Vulg. ciritas litterarum, Varg. ‘rs “?).
Sayce (CM 54) has based on this a theory about
the condition of literary culture among the early
Canaanites. The three town names yield him
proof of the presence of an oracle, which gave
rise to a library, and so attracted students to a
university. It is utterly unwarranted to build so
much on the uncertain etymology of a non-Heb.
word. Smith (//ist. Geogr. 279 n.) suggests that the
sense may be ‘toll-town,’ and he compares for the
translation 2.Ch 2!7, and for the toll the town’s
position on a road into Syria. But the sense given
to 15D is somewhat artificial. It is much more
likely that traces of the same foreign root are to
be found in Sephar of S. Arabia (Gn_ 10%) and
Sepharvaim (2 K 174). See the whole subject very
fully and fairly discussed by Moore, Judes, 90 1.

A. Ὁ, WELCH.

KISEUS (Keiaios)—The form in Ad. Est 11° of
Kish (Est 2°), the name of the great-grandfather of
Mordecai. See Kisi, No. 4

KISH (2*p).—1. The father of Saul the first king
of Isracl (1 ὁ 9! 102! 1494, Ac 1371). He was the son
of Abiel of the tribe of Benjamin. In 1 Ch 8*
9 Ner and not Abiel is said to have been the
father of Kish,* but there seems to have been some
confusion in the text, due perhaps to the very
elliptical character of the record or to the frequent
recurrence of the same family names. The home
of Kish and of his family was at Gibeah (rendered
‘the hill of God? and ‘the hill’? both in AV and
RV of 18 10° and 10"). He dees not seem to have
been in any way prominent, but to have been living
the simple life of a small farmer, when his son was
called to be king. 2. The uncle of the foregoing,
the son of Jeiel or Jehiel (1 Ch 8° 9%), 3. The
eponym of a family of Merarite Levites (1 Ch 23°) *
248 2 Ch 29%), 4 A Benjamite ancestor of Mor-
deeai, queen Esther’s cousin (Es2°). See ESTHER.

W. Muir.

KISHI (s*7).—A Merarite Levite, ancestor of
Ethan, 1 Ch 6# [Heb.]. In the parallel passage
1 Ch 157 the MT has 3p, Kushaiah. In all
probability the latter is the correct form of the
name. It is supported by Luc. Κουσεί in the first
of the above passages. Kittel (in SLOT) prefers
amy, or rather sep, pointing out that the LXX
(B) in 1 Ch 6 has Kewai= ep, and in 1517 Kewaios
are p (2). J. A. SELBIE.

* Kittel (in Haupt’s SBOT) and Kautzsch read the first
clause of these verses, ‘And Ner begat Abner.’ See ABIEL.

KISHION (j*2'7).—A town allotted to Issachar
(Jos 19%), given to the Levites (21°, where AV
has Kishon). The parallel passage, 1 Ch 6”
(Heb.*7], reads Kedesh, which is taken (perhaps
wrongly) by Dillmann and others to be a textual
error for Kishion. The latter name has not been
recovered, while there is a large ruined mound
4164. Zell Kedes near Taanach in Issachar. See
SWP vol. ii. sheet vill. C. R. CONDER.

KISHON (perp πὲ; Boo χειμάῤῥους Kewur, other
forms Κισών, Kicodv).-—This is the ancient name of
the stream which drains almost the whole of the
great plain of Esdraelon and the surrounding
uplands. All the waters from ‘Tabor and the
Nazareth hills, which reach the plain eastward of
a line drawn from /ksdd to Nain, together with
those from the N. slopes of Little Hermon, are
carried into Wady esh-Sherrar, and thence to the
Jordan. The district between Little Hermon and
Gilboa, reaching as far west as el-Fileh, also
inclines eastward, the waters flowing down Nahr
Jalid past Beisdn into the λῶν. The torrents
from Little Hermon between Shunem and Nain,
and all from the Galilean hills west of J/sa/,
make their way through the soft soil of the plain,
to join the deep hidden flow of Kishon. The main
supplies, however, come from the southern side.
The longest branches of the river stretch up the
lofty steeps of Gilboa away to the east of Jeni.
They are dry torrent-beds, save only in the rainy
season, When they carry down foaming floods to
swell the central stream. The most distant peren-
nial source is ‘Ain Jenin, which rises in the glen
behind the town. It is carried by a conduit to a
well-built fountain in the centre of the place, and
thence is distributed for irrigation among the
gardens and orchards. By these much of the water
is absorbed; and in summer the bed of the river a
mile away is as dry as the surrounding plain.
Copious springs in the neighbourhood of Laanis
and AKhdn Len, and many smaller sources along
the southern border of the plain, send contribu-
tions to the volume of Kishon. About 3 miles
east of Haifa it is joined by the streams from the
ereat fountains of Sd@adiych, which rise under the
northern base of Mount Carmel, on the edge of
the plain of Acre.

The Kishon (‘crooked or tortuous’ [1] pursues
a tortuous course, in a north-westerly direction,
keeping well into the centre of the plain. It
sweeps round by Je/d el-Nessis, breaks through a
narrow pass on the north of Carmel into the plain
ot Acre, and enters the sea a little to the north of
Haifa. El-Mukatta, ‘the watercourse,’ is the
Arab name for this stream. The old name Avishou
seems to have quite disappeared; but of its
identity there is no reasonable doubt: — Lt whe
‘waters of Megiddo’ (10 619), by which clearly the

Kishon and its branches in the neighbourhood of
that city is meant, became a popular name, the
Arabs nay have exchanged Megiddo, which was
meaningless to them, for Mukattd, 50. closely
resembling it in sound, the meaning of which they
knew (G. A. Smith, HGHL' 387), and which,
besides, was every way appropriate ; for el-
Mukatta is par excellence ‘the watercourse’ of
the district. * In the yielding soil of the plain it
has hollowed out a great trench, often not less
than 15 or 20 feet in depth, along the bottom of
which the waters may creep almost unseen to the
sea.

In the higher reaches the waters swiftly dis-
appear with the advancing summer. The surface
ot the plain grows hard in the heat, and cracks in
all directions, save only in the vicinity of springs,

* Moore (Judges, 158 n.) rejects decidedly the attempt to find
the name Megiddo in Mukatta’.

KISHON

KISS 5

where, owing to the depth of adhesive mud, travel-
ling is always dangerous. After entering the plain
of Acre it is seldom dry, and from the fountains of
Sdadiyeh it tlows in a constant sluggish stream,
between deep banks, surrounded by thick jungle
and marsh-land. ‘This part has been reputed a
haunt of crocodiles. In recent years Macgregor
stands alone in claiming to have seen one of these
reptiles while descending to the shore in his canoe
(Liob Roy on the Jordan, pp. 398-404). A. short
distance from the sea the river is spanned by a
wooden bridge; but save in times of flood it is
easily forded along the sandbank thrown up by
the waves at its mouth. From the bank south-
ward, fringing the coast, stands a grove of beautiful
date palms. Northward are er eat tracts of barren
sandhills. The main ford is where the road crosses
from Haifa to Nazareth. Here a succession of
bridges has been built, whose workmanship guaran-
teed their speedy demolition by winter spates.
The means of crossing now are not different from
what they were in the days of Sisera. The fords
higher up are mostly safe in summer for those who
know the loc ‘ality of springs. In winter they are
often quite impassable ; to attempt them at that
season Without a qualified g guide 15 to court disaster.
The conditions change w ith great rapidity, inten-
sifying the treacherous character of the river. A
few hours of such rain as at times falls on the
encircling mountains are suflicient to change the
dry bed into the channel of a rushing stream, and
the baked earth along the banks into a quagmire.
If G. A. Smith's translation {ΠΟ 395) of Jg
551. ‘torrent of spates,’ be correct, it is entirely
appropriate.

The tides of conflict often rolled along the banks
of the Kishon in this great battlefield of the
ancient worid. but its name is seldom mentioned
in history. The first probable reference to it is in
Jos 19" ‘the brook that is before Jokneam’ (RV) ;
Jokneam of Carmel being identified with Tedd
Keimin, the allusion seems clear (but see Dillm.
ad loc.). Wishon next appears in the account of
Israel’s victory over Sisera and his hosts (Jg 47, ef.
Ps 88°), and is enshrined in the song celebrating that
glorious event, as an ally of the triumphant army
( 5! 1), where a most realistic picture is given
of the enemy’s rout. The storm beat hard in the
faces of the foe; the moistened soil, firm enough
for the passage οἵ footinen, yielded to the tread of

cavalry ; the terrified plunging of the horses as
they sank in the deep mire threw their ranks into
confusion, leaving them exposed to the onrush of
the eager and avile highlandmen. The pitiless
rain sent down swift cataracts from the hills, and
soon Kishon in dark and sullen flood rolled onward
to the sea, Any ford would then be difficult. The
foreign horsemen knew none of them, and in vain
efforts to esc: ape they simply plunged into the
river to die. The ground in the neighbourhood of
Megiddo, where this battle appears to have been
fought, is extremely treacherous, as the present
writer had occasion to prove, even as late as the
month of May (1892).

Kishon again figures in the narrative of Elijah’s |

encounter with the false prophets (1 K 18%), The
scene of this famous contest is, with tolerable
certainty, located at el- Mahrakah, ‘the place of
burnt sacrifice,’ a rocky plateau at the eastern end
of the Carmel range. ‘Thence the doomed men
were led down for slaughter in the Kishon. A
path, steep but practicable, leads to the river just
at the base of 71 οἰ ed-Nussis, ‘hill of the minister,’
or ‘presbyter.’ The bed of the Kishon after the
prolonged drought was, of course, dry; but the

* On the very obscure expression 0°37) ‘ny (AY, BV ‘that

ee river’; LXX χειμάῤῥους ἀρχαίων) see, further, Moore, ad
0c.

down-rush from the coming storm would soon
efface all evidence of the prophet’s ghastly work.
Close by this hill the grim tragedy was probably
enacted. _Kishon is not mentioned again in the
sacred records, and the name does not occur in
Josephus. Eusebiusand Jerome mistakenly describe
it as rising on Mount ‘Tabor; Benjamin of ‘Tudela
(A.D. 1173) speaks of perp bas as dese ending from
Mount Carmel. He evidently applies op 203
(Jg 5%!) to the Belus, Nahr Nadaman, near Acre.

LITERATURE.—PHF Mem. ii. 36, 96, ete.; Conder, Tent-Work
in Palestine, 69,97; Thomson, Land and Book, ii. 208-218,
230-234, ete.; G. A. Smith, HGID! 382, 394; Robinson, BRP
iii. 228, 232, Later Res. 114, etc.; Macgregor, Itoh Loy on the
Jordan, 394, 398-404; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, 336, 339,
355; Maundrell, Karly Vravels in Palestine (Bohn), 430.

NV. WING.

KISS (verb, pv3, φιλέω and καταφιλέω ; subst.
πρ᾿ 2, Pidnua)—A mark of affection or favour,
given upon the lips, cheek, brow, beard, hand,
clothing, even the ground trodden upon, ete.,
according as it bore less or more of the idea of
respect or fear. As a common form of salutation,
it had a place in the social life of ancient times,
and still has in the East, which it no longer
possesses in modern European countries, being
limited by our latter-day reserve to the more
tender relationships of life. The OT atlords no
phenomena regarding the kiss distinctive from the
usages of ancient peoples other than Hebrew: in
NT we find one peculiar form (see below, 8. The
various circumstances and occasions in which the
kiss, in some form or other, finds place may be
enumerated as follows :—

1, The kiss as a token of domestic affection.
The mother caressing her infant, fondling it with
hands or lips, is so natural that probably we need
not go further for the origin of kissing: we have,
however, no instance of this mentioned in the
Bible (but cf. 1 kK 355. The extension of the kiss
to other family relationships (in law ἀπ blood
alike) is but natural: we may distinguish three
cases. (@) Parents kiss their sons and daughters,
Gn 3158: ὅ5. 4810 (grandchildren), Ru 13, (ὁ) Brothers
and sisters kiss each other, Gn 334, Ca 8! ; in Gn
29" Jacob kisses Rachel as her cousin; the male
cousin having the same right as the brother (as
among the “Bedawin, Wetzstein, ZUIIG xxii.
93, 108). (ὁ) Children kiss their parents, Gn 2776
50! (Joseph kisses his dead father, on which see
Schwally, Leben nach d. Lode, p. 8, and ef. the
solemn kiss at the end of the orthodox rite of
burial [Neale, Holy East. Ch. iit. 104"]), Ru 14

2. Connected with (@) we have (remembering
that the relation of father to child was not without
a stern element: in older times he had the power
of life and death; see Benzinger, Heh. Archdol.
148) the kiss as a mark of co nteanemat, mise Lae
(Absalom kisses the people) 19° (David kisses
3arzillai); the king or prince as father of his
people.

3. From (4) we may derive the kiss of friendship.
From among brothers the privilege of kissing is

carried naa Telations outside of the family strictly
taken, Gn 29% (Laban and Jacob), To 7° (Raguel
and Tobias—cousins once removed); then among
friends as such, 1S 20" (Jonathan and David).
Meetings and partings were naturally the special
occasions for the kiss ;—-a fortiori for the ἢ family
kiss as under 1—1 K 10:0, To 1013, Lk 7%, Ac 2057;
a still more fittine occasion was the reconciliation
of frends, Gordo), 25-14, Lr 5". Here,. too,
belongs the false kiss, Pr 27%, Sir 29°, Lk 2257-38;
also the kiss in a metaphorical sense, Ps 8010,
Ἐς 5. ΆΑΎ πι}:

4 Again, from (6) we have the kiss as a
respect growing into reverence, 1S 101, Pr
738. 45b ;

mark of
4: ΤῊς
see also Gn 41? (but οἵ. Dillmann, Genesis,
ad loc.) ; οἷ. the kissing of the royal hand, or the

6 KITE

KITTIM

pope’s sandal; slaves kissing the sleeve or skirt of
their master, as still in the East; the conquered

|

|

AV Chittim, so also RV in 1 Mac 1! 85). ---ΑΟ
people described in Gn 10* as descended from

kissing the conqueror’s feet, or the ground he treads | Javan, and therefore belonging to the Greek or

upon (‘licking the dust,’ Ps 72°, Is 49%, Mic 7").
Idols were kissed by their worshippers, 1 Καὶ 19",
Hos 13%, to which may be compared the kissing of
the Black Stone in the Ka’ba at Mecca ; towards
the heavenly bodies as deities a kiss was thrown
with the hand (Job 31*7).*

5. In NT and the subsequent usage of the Church
we find the kiss as a token of Christian brother-
hood: a holy kiss (φίλημα ἅγιον), Ro 16, 1 Co 16°,
2 Co 13%, 1 Th δ; a kiss of love {φίλημα aydrns),
1 P54. In time this became a regular part of the
Church service as the ‘ kiss of peace’ (ἀσπασμὸς
εἰρήνης, osculum pacis, Const. Apost. . 57. 12,
vill. 5. 5; Tertull. de Orat. 14), At first it was
given promiscuously; later the men kissed the
men, the women the women.

6. Finally must be mentioned the kiss as a token
of love between the sexes, naturally seldom men-
tioned even in OT (Ca 1", and in a bad sense
Pr 7), and, as might be expected, ποῦ αὖ all in NT.

A, GRIEVE.

KITE.—There are two passages in AV (Ly 11%,
Dt 145) + where ‘kite’ occurs as the tr. of As ayyoh.
In another passage (Job 287) AV gives ‘vulture’
for ayydh. In all RV gives ‘falcon.’ In the first
two passages RV tr. ayy d@ah and 33 dayyth,
‘kite’ In both AV tr. ‘vulture.’ In [5 34° RV
tr. dayycth, kites, AV ‘vultures. Daih, dayyah,
and ᾽χαν, τοίου to birds of prey of the falcon tribe.
It is evident from the passages in Ly and Dt that
the words are generic, and it is a waste of time to
endeavour to fasten specific meanings on them.

There are three kites in Bible lands: (1) J/iZius
ietinus, Sav., the Red Hite, which may be the
μην. tis called in Arab. sa. It is common
in winter, and in rainy weather the flocks of red
kites sit motionless in rows on rocks and trees.
(2) AL. migrans, Bodd., the Black Nit:, perhaps the
diah oy dayydh. Vt is very common in Egypt,
where it perpetually hovers over the towns and
feeds upon garbage. It comes to Palestine and
Syria in March, and soon spreads over the country.
(3) 11. Rayptius, Ginel., the Egyptian Nite. Ttis
distinguished from the former by its yellow bill
and more deeply forked tail. [t is found in Pales-
tine chiefly in the Jordan Valley and adjacent
ravines. Ars Εἰ PORES

KITRON (j027).—A Canaanite town in the terri-
tory of Zebulun, Jeg 1; See KATTATH.

KITTIM (ccm, 7.¢. prop. ‘Kitians’ [note ΡῈ in
Ts 23" Kt., Jer 90], people of na [CVS 1. i. 11), more
usually τὸ Avition ἴὰ, i. 10, 11, 14, 19, 88 ete.];

* “Kiss the son’ Ps 212(AV, RV text), is an extremely doubt-
ful passage. The MT 12 3p¥3 is prob. corrupt, and nothing is
gained by simply substituting Heb. j2 for Aram. 73. Aq.,
Symim., Jerome (although in his Comm. on Ps he gives adorate
jiliwm) take 72=‘pure,’ ‘choice’ (cf. RVm), and tr., respec-
tively, χαταφιλήσοςε ἐκλ

, προσκυνήσατε καϑαρώ:ξ, adorate pure.
The LAX δράξασθε παιδείας (cf. Tare. ΝΞΦῚΝ 192), Vulg. appre-
hendite disctplinam, and RVm), ‘lay hold of instruction,’ may
imply a text ἼΣΗ ΠΡ. Lagarde emends (1921) 9242 ἸΡ9Σ ‘put
on his bonds’ (οὗ v.8), and this has been adopted by Kamphausen
and Cheyne (Origin of Psalter, 851). Butin his latest view of the
passage (Book of Psalins, 2nd ed., and Jewish Keligious Life
after the Exile, 1898, p. 112) Cheyne substitutes 3092 (‘ kiss’ =
‘do homage’) for 122 (‘rejoice’) in v.11, and drops 32, which,
he says, is really a fragment of the word rendered ‘with
trembling’ (7792): thus—

Serve J” with fear,

And do homage with trembling,

Lest he be angry, and your course end in ruin.

+ The text of Dt 1413 is corrupt. For 4877 read ΠΝ ΠΩ, and

delete 7:70 (so Oxf. Heb, Lex., Siegfried-Stade, Dillm., Driver,
Steuernagel, following Sam. and LXX),

Graco-Latin races of the West, occupying terri-
tories stretching along the coasts of the Mediter-
ranean Sea. Elishah,'farshish, and Rodanim (‘Pédcoe
in LXX, better than Dodanim of MT), named in
that passage alongside of Kittim, are now gener-
ally identified respectively with Sicily and Southern
Italy, Spain, and Rhodes. As these are all islands
or coastlands in the West, it is natural to look
to the same region for the localizing of the Kittim.
That they were islanders is explicitly asserted by
the phrase current among the prophets, ‘the
isles of Kittim’ (Jer 2, Ezk 275). But though
distinctly Westerns in respect of geographical
situation, they are represented as having been
from the earliest times intimately associated
with the civilized and commercial peoples of the
extreme eastern limits of the Mediterranean coast.
Thus Ezekiel (27) mentions ‘the isles of K.’ as
supplying Tyre with boxwood, or more probably
sherbin wood, a species of cedar,.out of which the
benches or decks of their costly and luxurious
ships were constructed. And further, we find that
the prophet in this passage places ‘the isles of Ix.’
between Bashan and Elishah, therefore west of
the former and east of the latter, ¢.¢. between
-alestine on the east and Sicily or Italy on the
west. In Is 23! }? Tarshish or Spain is said to hear
from the land of K. of the fall of Tyre, which im-
plies that the land of K. lay somewhere between
‘Tyre and Tarshish. The country of the k., there-
fore, must have been an island situated somewhere
in the eastern part of the Mediterranean, to the
east at least of Sicily, and not very far removed from
the coasts of Tyre. Josephus (Avzf. I. vi. 1) points
to the name of the city Kition or Citium in
Cyprus as a memorial of the residence of the Kk.
in that island. This writer also, most probably
drawing his information from tradition current
among the Jews of his day, states that the ancient
name of Cyprus was Cethima, and that it received
its name trom Cethimus, the third son of Javan,
who had settled there, and whose descendants held
possession under the name of Kittim. Epiphanius,
bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, whose life covers
most of the 4th cent., makes use (/lrer, xxx. 25) of
the name K., in a wider sense, to include not only
the inhabitants of Cyprus, but also those of Rhodes,
and even of the coastlands of Macedonia. This,
indeed, is quite in keeping with the later Jewish
usage of this word. ‘The ships of K.’ in Dn 11
are evidently those of the Romans, and ‘the land
of K.’? in 1 Mae 1} 88 is evidently that of the Mace-
donians. In this late period the name was applied
generally to the lands and peoples of the West.
The reference to the Romans in Dn 11° is quite
distinetly to the expedition of Caius Popilius
Laenas. This Roman general was sent in A.D. 168
against Antiochus Epiphanes, who had entered
Egypt and attacked that country, quickly reduc-
ing him to submission and causing him hastily to
withdraw to Syria. The story of the campaign is
told by Polybius (xxix. 11) in language singularly
like that employed in Daniel. See also Livy, Η σέ.
xliv. 19, xlv. 11. This wider application of the
name k. is quite in accordance with the usage of
Josephus (Ant. 1. vi. 1), who says that it is from
the possession of the island of Cethima or Cyprus
by Cethimus that ‘all islands and the greatest
art of the seacoasts are named Cethim by the
Hehoewet At the same time, just as here also in
Josephus, it appears to be the unanimous opinion
of antiquity that the original location of the Ix.
was in the island of Cyprus.

In very early times the Phoenicians had sailed
up and down in the Mediterranean, and, while

KITTIM

KNEE, KNEEL 1

trafficking in their wares far and near, they estab-
lished colonies in several of the islands, and at
points along the coast convenient as depots for
their foreign carrying trade. From its natural
situation Cyprus must have early attracted their
attention, and must soon have become their prin-
cipal station in the conducting and extending of
their trade with the West. Herodotus (Hist. vii.
90) distinctly states that most of the Cypriote
cities had originally been Phoenician colonies.
The Phoenician origin of Kition, a city in the
south-east of the island, now Larnaka, 1s plainly
witnessed to by Cicero (de Finibus, iv. 20), and
naturally enough the Phoenician settlers in other
parts of the island would carry with them the
name of their oldest and principal foundation.
These Phoenician settlements in Cyprus date from
avery early age—it may be even before the days
of Moses (Diodor. v. 55. 77; Herodot. 1. 105;
Pausan. i. 14. 6). After a time it would seem
that these Phoenicians in Cyprus were joined by
certain Canaanitish refugees, who had been driven
out by the Philistines, and thet they brought with
them their moon goddess Atergatis (Derceto),
whose temple was built at Old Paphos, while that
of the Phenician Baal was at Kition (see ASH-
TORETH). The existence of such Phoenician colonies
in Cyprus is witnessed to also by the occasional
references in history to the Kittim as subject to,
or at least as claimed as subjects of, Tyre. It
would seem that even as early as the days of king
Solomon the K. were subject to the Tyrians, and
compelled by Hiram to pay tribute (Jos, Ant. VIM.
v. 3, 6. Apion. 1. 18). Josephus also tells how
Eluleeus, king of Tyre, sailed against the revolted
K., and reduced them again to submission (47.
IX. xiv. 2). In the annals of Sargon the Cypriote
kings are referred to as put under tribute in B.C,
709 (Schrader, COT? ii. 96).

It is not, however, to these Phoenician colonists
that the name is given in Gn 104. The Phoenician
Kk. may rather be set alongside of the Caph-
torim (Gu 10%), who are represented as Cushites,
and of the sons of Ham, and as inhabiting some
island or coastland near to Cyprus, in all proba-
bility Crete. The Japhethite K., as sons of
Javan, belonged to the Greek family of nations—
whether to the ancient pre-Hellenic Carian popula-
tion of the island, or to some Hellenic tribe which
had in early times settled there, can scarcely now
be determined. Interesting inscriptions have been
discovered near Larnaka, the ancient Kition,
which, although figured in Phoenician letters, are
yet composed in a Greek dialect. This seems to
indicate that the people from whom these inscrip-
tions have come down to us were a Greek people,
ethnographically belonging to the family of Javan,
retaining their language and modes of thought,
but largely influenced by the presence of a
Phoenician immigration, That they adopted the

Phoenician letters and mode of writing is just {πὸ
sort of result we should have expected, seeing |

that the Phoenician colonists were enterprising
merchants, who would naturally lead in matters of
commerce and correspondence with those around.
The last recorded words of Balaam are a pro-
phecy of the destruction of Asshur and Eber by
some conquering power coming in ships from ‘the
coast of Κι (Nu 244). It is quite evident that
here the term op 72 is used, not to describe the
island of Cyprus, or any other exactly defined
territory, but as indicating quite generally some
great Western people which had made themselves
aname, and become a terror among the nations.

| 401).

No doubt Asshur and Eber stand for the great |

powers of the East collectively, and the prophecy
is a foretelline of the utter overthrow of the sove-
reignty of the Eastern monarchies by the advanc-

ing power of the great empires of the West. The
beginning of the fulfilment was seen in the cam-
paigns of Alexander the Great, but it was much
more truly and permanently realized in the de-
velopment and growth of the empire of the Romans.
The phrase ‘coast of Kittim,’ therefore, does not
mean Macedonia, nor Rome, but simply the
Western power which, for the time being, 1s to the
front, or gives promise of prominence and perman-
ence in the immediate future. See Cyprus.

LITERATURE. —Besides works mentioned in the text, see Kurtz,
History of the Old Covenant, vol, iii, Edin. 1859, p. 400 ff.; Orelli,
The OV Prophecy of the Consummation of God's Kingdom, Edin.
1885, pp. 143-147; Bevan, Short Conunentary on Daniel, Camb.
1892, p. 190f. ; Ewald, Wistory of Israel, London, 1580), Vol. ¥.
yp. 245, 297, See also ‘Chittim’ by Kautzsch in Riehim, Hand-
worterbuch, Ὁ. 234; and by Kneucker in Schenkel, Bibellexicon,
1515 f.; and the literature under Cyprus.

J. MACPHERSON.

KNEAD, KNEADING -TROUGH.—See Breap,

γ01.-. ἢ. 317%

KNEE, KNEEL (573 [Assyr. (irku], in Dn 6°
Aram. 3773, once Dn 55 Aram. 7327y; ‘kneel’ is
expressed by vb. 113 in Qal,* 2 Ch 6%, Ps 95° [all],
ef. Aram. ptep. 322 in Dn 6! and Hiph. 37221 used
in Gn 24! of causing camels to kneel. The LXX
and NT terms are γόνυ, ‘knee,’ and γονυπετεῖν,
‘kneel’).—The knees appear repeatedly in Serip-
ture as a seat of strength, and hence as weakened
through terror, Job 44 (‘thou hast confirmed the
feeble knees’; cf. Is 35%, He 12"); Ezk 711 (‘all
knees shall be weak as water’; ef. 217 [Heb.™]) ;
Dn 5° (the appearing of the handwriting upon the
wall so terrified Belshazzar that ‘lis knees smote
one against another’; οἵ, Nah 21). A’ psalmist
com lains that his knees are weak through fast-
ing, Ps 109%. Amongst the plagues denounced
upon disobedience to the Deuteronomic law is this,
‘The Lorp shall smite thee in the knees... with
a sore boil,’ ete., where the reference appears to be
to some form of elephantiasis (see Driver, ad /oe.).

Kneeling down to drink (from their hands) was
the attitude adopted by a portion of Gideon's
warriors on the occasion of the famous test, Je
7-6 (where see Moore’s note). One of the stages
in the measurement of the depth of the river which
Ezekiel saw issuing from the temple was that ‘the
waters were to the knees’ (Ezk 47+). Delilah made
Samson sleep ΠΊΞΊΞΟΣ Jg 16; the Shunammite's
son sat upon his mother’s knees till he died,
2K 4%; children were dandled upon the knees,
Is 66".

Gn 4813 (E), ‘And Joseph brought them out
from between his knees’ (1273 oO" OA ADyY X31), 15
not perfectly clear, but the meaning probably is
that Joseph took his sons away from Jacob's knees,
before himself bowing down to receive the bless-
ing (v.! connects directly with ν.}3 in E’s narra-
tive, the intervening vv.!* 11. being from J).

In Gn 36° (KE) Rachel gives Bilhah to Jacob ‘that
she may bear upon my knees’ (1273792 92m)) ; in
502. (also E) the children of Machir the son of
Manasseh were born upon Joseph's knees (ΠΣ
apy ciqa$y); Job (3”) asks, ‘Why did the knees
receive me?’ (772 °sDIp wwe). In the first two
passages at least + there appears to be an allusion
to the custom of placing newly-born infants on the
father’s (or grandfather's) lap as a token of Ins
recognition or adoption of them (cf. Hom. Od. xix.
Rachel thus undertakes to acknowledve
Bilhah’s children as her own, and Joseph recog-
nizes Machir’s children as his descendants (see

* The other conjugations have the sense of ‘bless’ (P77),
‘less oneself’ CViph. and Hithp.), ‘be blessed’ (Pual). The
pass. ptep. Gal 3392 also occurs 71 times with the meaning of
‘blessed.’

+ In Job 312 Dillmann finds nothing more than a placing of

the newly-born child on the knee of the midwife or the father,
without any symbolical meaning (but see Duhm, ad loc.).

8 KNIFE

KNOWLEDGE

Dillm. on all these three-passages ; also art. BIRTH
in vol. i. p. 300°; Ploss, Das Weib?, ii. 177th ;
Stade, 7A 7'W vi. (1886), 143 ff.).

Kneeling as an attitude in worship is repeatedly
mentioned in Scripture, 1 K 8°4+=2 Ch 68 (Solomon
at dedication of the temple); 1 Καὶ 1918 (‘the knees
which have not bowed to Baal’; ef. Ro 114); Ezr
9 (Ezra in confessing the iniquity of the foreign
marriages) ; Is 45**(* to me every knee shall bow’ ;
ef. Ro 144, Ph 2”, on which last see Lichtfoot’s
note); Dn 6" (when Daniel prayed three times a
day); Ac7™ (the dying St. Stephen) ; 99 (St. Peter
betore the raising of Dorcas); 20% (St. Paul pray-
ing with the elders of Ephesus); 21° (a similar
scene at Tyre); Eph 34 (St. Paul’s prayer for the
‘Kphesians.’). A variation from this attitude is
found in 1 Καὶ 18*, where Elijah in praying for rain
‘put his face between his knees’ (772 772 125. O41).
The same mental feeling underlies the adoption of
kneeling in addressing an entreaty to a fellow-
creature, or in doing homage to a superior, 2 kK 113
(Ahaziah’s oflicer in entreating Elijah to spare his
life); Mt 17 (the father of the epileptic boy came
kneeling to Jesus [γονυπετῶν atriv}); Mk 1 (the
leper); 1017 (the rich young ruler); Mt 27°" (the
soldiers mocked Jesus by kneeling down before
Him [γονυπετήσαντες ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ, ef. Mk 1519
τιθέντες γύνατα προσεκύνουν αὐτῷ). In Lk 58 Simon
Peter falls down upon his knees (προσέπεσεν τοῖς
γύνασιν) as he cries, * Depart from ime: for Lama
sinful man, O Lord.’

For the doubtful * Bow the knee
ABRECH,

᾿ of Gn 41% see
J. A. SELBIE.

KNIFE (295, n>:x>).—Knives were originally of
flint or sharp stone (Ex 4” 43, Jos 58 os natn),

Vint knives have been found in a cave at
Antelias, near Beirfit, amonest bones and char-
coal; and also in a caleareous deposit on the old
road along the sea-coast near the Nahr el-Kelb.
It is said that flint knives are still used by the
Bedawin of the Syrian desert.
ally used in Syria are sheath-knives, and are stuck
in the girdle. They are from 8 to 10 in. lone,
including the handle. They are used for every
purpose for which a knife is required, and are
formidable weapons. W. CARSLAW.

KNOCK.—See Howse, vol. ii. p. 435.

KNOP (a variant of knob and of knap [in knap-
weed}, Old English «naep) is used by our translators
to render 1. 7A22 haphtor, the spherical ornament
on the stem and arms of the golden lampstand in
the tabernacle (Ex 25%5 and parll. pass. 3717-22),
The Greek translators have σφαιρωτήρ, the Vulgate
spherula, Luther Knauf (a kindred word). The
‘“knops” are easily recognizable in the familiar re-
presentation of the later ‘candlestick’ on the arch
of Titus. For their relation to the rest of the
ornamentation see TABERNACLE (see, dealing with
the golden candlestick). A similar knop is seen
on the stem of the chalice which appears on the
obverse of certain Jewish coins (see MONEY).

The same word, kaphtor, occurs in two other
passdges of the OT, viz. Am 9! (AV ‘smite the
lintel of the door,’ marg, ‘chapiter’ [so RV] or
‘knop’), and Zeph 24*(A V ‘the upper lintel,’ marg.
‘knops or chapiters’; the last is the rendering of
RV). In the former passage the reference is clearly
to the capitals or chapiters of the pillars in the
schismatic temple of J’ at Bethel, in the latter to
those of the columns in the ruined city of Nineveh.
The feature common to these capitals and the
knops of the lampstand was doubtless the circular
or rather spherical form (ef. the spherical capitals
of the two pillars Jachin and Boaz, 1 Καὶ 7#; see
art. CHAPITER).

|
|

The knives gener- |

| lost Eden.

2. In our EV ‘knops’ is also the translation
of an entirely different word oyps, péka'im, of
which the precise signification is still uncertain.
It is used to describe the ornamentation on the
cedar lining of the temple walls: ‘And there was
cedar in the house within, carved with knops
(marg. “ gourds’) and open flowers’ (1 Καὶ 618 RV).
This must refer to some egg-shaped (cf. Targum,
im loc.) ornament, carved in low relief, perhaps, as
the margin proposes, the fruit of the citrudlus
colocynthus, Which appears to bear in Hebrew the
cognate name pakhkwah—the ‘wild gourd’ of 2 Καὶ
45} Two rows of the same ornamentation were
introduced ‘under the brim’ of the great ‘molten
sea’ which stood in the temple court (1 Καὶ 724). In
this case, however, the knops were not the product
of the artist’s chisel, but were cast with the sea
(ἰδ.). See SEA (BRAZEN). A. RLS. KENNEDY.

KNOWLEDGE.—The word ‘knowledge’ is here
considered, not generally, but only in the ethico-
religious sense, or so far as there is an approxima-
tion in Scripture to a technical (theological) use of
it. At the very beginning of the OT the probation
of man is connected with the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil (Gn 917. The view of ‘knowledge’
underlying this mythical narrative seems to be that
which is brought out in Wellhausen’s interpreta-
tion (Proleqgomena®, p. 3164.). To know good and
evil does not mean in Hebrew to have the moral con-
sciousness developed ; it means to be intelligent,
‘to know what's what.’ The desire to know is the
desire to be like God—to possess His secrets, to
wield His power, and so to be independent of Him.
But the eratification of this desire, so the moral
would originally run, always defeats itself. The
impulse to know, the impulse which creates science
and civilization, is indulged at a great cost. We
build Babylon, and become conscious that we have
That this appreciation of ‘ knowledge,’
which pervades the sceptical passages in Eeclesi-
astes, underlies the third chapter of Genesis, is not
to be denied; but neither can we deny that the
myth is so treated by the writer as to make it
yield an explanation of the transition in human
history from innocence to guilt. The eating of
the forbidden fruit was an act in which man lost
the knowledge of God and acquired the knowledge
of sin.

i. The OT everywhere assumes that there 15
such a thing as the knowledge of God, but it is
never speculative, and it is never achieved by
man, God is known because He makes Himself
known, and He makes Himself known in His
character. Hence the knowledge of God is in the
OT = true religion; and as it is of God's grace that
He appears from the beginning speaking, com-
manding, active, so as to be known for what He
is, so the reception of this knowledge of God is
ethically conditioned. The secret (70, lit. frrendly
conversation) of the Lorp is with them that fear
Him (Ps 25); the spirit of knowledge and of the
fear of the LorpD are one (Is 115). On the other
hand, an irreligious man is described as one who
does not know God; and that though he is the
priest ministering at the altar (1S 2). The
moral corruption of the last days of Israel is
described by Hosea when he writes, ‘There is no
truth, nor loving-kindness, nor knowledge of God
in the land’ (Hos 4!). The ethical content and
value of this knowledge are seen also in ch. 6° 51
desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge
of God more than burnt-offerings.” It is in this
sense of an experimental acquaintance with God’s
character, and a life determined by it, that a

*It has been pointed out (Low, Aram. Pjlanzennamen, p.
278) that NYP in the Mishna denotes a ball of yarn (see this
word and 733) in Levy, Neuheb. Worterb. s.vv.).

KNOWLEDGE

a

KNOWLEDGE 9

universal knowledge of God is made the chief
blessing of the Messianic age. ‘The earth shall
be full of the knowledge of the Lorp’ (Is 115);
‘They shall all know ime, from the least to the
greatest’ (Jer 31%). And this again is not because
men have achieved it by speculative efforts of their
own: ‘All thy children shall be taught of the
Lorp’ (Is 54). Side by side with this practical
knowledge of God the OT makes room for any
degree of speculative agnosticism. God is great
beyond all our thoughts: His ways are unsearch-
able (Job 5°). He is a God who hides Himself
(Is 45"), and gives no account of His matters.
But such agnosticism is not a rival of religion, of
the knowledge of God: it is a part of it. The
knowledge of God includes a recognition of His
immensity, and part of man’s worship must always
be silence (Ps 65!). This is especially brought out
in the Book of Job. The conception of true
religion as the knowledge of God is probably the
true antecedent and parent of some ΝΣ expressions
for which affinities have been sought in the
phenomena of Gnosticism. John (6%) quotes Is
543 (see above); and the key to the emphasis
which he lays on ‘ knowing’ God, or the truth, or
Jesus Christ, is more likely to be found in such
passages as are referred to above, than in modes of
thought alien to Christianity.

ii. In the NT it will be convenient to take the
different sections apart. (@) In the Gospels Christ
appears first in the character of a teacher, moved
with compassion for a people left without the
knowledge of God, excluded from His kingdom
because the key of knowledge—i.e. knowledge
itself, the key which should open the door of the
kingdom—has been taken away by its guardians
(Lk 11). He represents it as the chief privilege
of His disciples that to them it is given to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19...
—mysteries which kings and prophets had longed
to see, but could not. He represents it as His
own unique distinction that He alone has, and can
communicate, the knowledge of God as the Father,
in which true religion henceforth consists (Mt
11°7), But here, as in the OT, it is no abstract
conception that Jesus wishes to impart; to know
God as Father is in reality to know that we are the
children of God, and in knowing it to become His
children. The new knowledge has to give a new
character to our life, and if there is no trace of
such a new character it is vain for us to say that
we know the Father: we are in darkness in spite
of all God has done to make Himself known. ‘The
ethical conditions of this knowledge are plainly
stated in Mt 58, Jn ΤΙ - and in Jn 17° it is identified
with eternal life, the perfect blessing that the Son
of God has come to impart. The proper relation to
God is always conceived by St. John to be involved
in the true knowledge of God; to know Him that
is true and to be in Him that is true are all one.
It is exactly this sense that the knowledge of God
has in Hos 4. 6, or in Jer 31: there is no schism
between the intellectual and the practical for the
apostle or the prophet ; the two are united in the
integrity of the heart, which in Scripture is the
organ of knowledge. When we read in Jn 8° ‘ Ye
shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you
free,’ the freedom spoken of is probably not so
definite in its application as in many places in St.
Paul. The idea rather is that to be right with
God puts one right, sets one free, in all other
relations.

(6) In St. Paul's writings knowledge appears in
many aspects. (a) In contrast with the wisdom of
this world the gospel as a whole is conceived as a
wisdom of God, which God has revealed in His Son
and interpreted by His Spirit. There is, indeed,
or there might have been, a natural knowledge of

\

God (Ro 1°, Ac 1427), but a knowledge of God in
any sense bringing salvation is possible only
through the reception of God’s Spirit (1 Co 2).
Such knowledge every Christian possesses ; Christ
is made to him wisdom (1 Co 1), and he is chosen
in sanctification of the Spirit and beliet of the
truth (Ὁ ΤῊ 919). But St. Paul speaks of knowledge
in another sense. There are degrees of insight
into the one great truth of God; there are truths
which are not imparted to babes, but only spoken
‘among the perfect’ (1 Co 2°); there iS ἃ χάρισμα, ἃ
special spiritual gift, called ‘ the word of know-
ledge’ (1 Co 128), in which the Corinthians were
rich ; and though a χάρισμα was given to one for
the good of all, we see that knowledge might be
the possession of a few, or of a circle, not of the
whole Church. ΤῸ judge from 1 Co 2% one of the
subjects with which this higher knowledge was
concerned was eschatoloey—‘ all that God has pre-
pared for them that love him.’ But it had also
more directly practical applications. An enlight-
ened conscience in regard to the use of things in-
different was one mode of it. ‘As touching things
offered to idols, we know that we all have know-
ledge’ (1 Co 8}. Christian intelligence generally
was sufliciently developed to know that an idol 15
nothing in the world. But in some it was not
sutliciently developed to know that this mere
perception of a principle is no adequate guide to
Christian conduct. It is not by principle merely,
but by consideration of persons, circumstances, and
consequences, that a Christian must act ; in other
words, not by knowledge but by love. Knowledge
in this abstract sense is not without moral peril ;
τὸ inflates the individual, whereas love builds up
the body of Christ. All through the First Ep. to
the Corinthians, knowledge as a gift distinguishing
one Christian from another is subordinated in this
way to love (chs. 8. 12, 13. 14).

(8) When we pass to the Epp. of the Captivity,
knowledge has quite another position and emphasis.
The gospel is ccufronted with a φιλοσοφία, which is
at the same time a ‘vain deceit,’ something deter-
mined by human tradition and agreeing with ὁ the
elements of the world,’ Jewish or pagan (Col 2°) ;
and in opposition to this philosophy, or as it would
now be called theosophy, the Christian revelation is
defined and expanded as the true wisdom of God. As
a formal indication of the extent to which the gospel
is here put under the point of view of ‘ knowledge.’
Holtzmann (NV Theologic, ii. 237) quotes the fol-
lowing list of words from the Ep. to the Ephesians :
ἀκούειν, ἀλήθεια, ἀληθεύειν, ἀποκάλυψις, ἀποκαλύπτειν,
ἀποκρύπτειν, ἄφρων, γινώσκειν, γνῶσις, διδασκαλία,
διδάσκειν, εἰδέναι, ἐπιγινώσκειν, ἐπίγνωσις, μανθάνειν,
μυστήριον, νοεῖν, νοῦς, πλάνη, σκοτίζεσθαι, σκύτος, σοφία,
σοφύς. σύνεσις, συνιέναι, φανεροῦσθαι, φῶς, φωτίζειν. This
knowledge centres in Christ. He is the mystery
of God, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge hidden away (Col 2. All the
questions which man has to ask in the sphere of
religion—questions as to the origination of the
world, its natural unity, the place in it of the
human race; questions as to the relation of
humanity to God, its sin, reconciliation, and glory
—must find their answer in Him. The doctrine of
Christ in these Epistles is expanded into a Christian
interpretation of the world, and this is the object
of Christian knowledge. It is not to he the
property of a class. St. Paul warns every man and
teaches every man in every wisdom, that he may
present every man perfect in Christ (Col 155). As
in the earlier Epistles, there is a certain eschato-
logical reference in the knowledge or wisdom which
is so emphasized here: Christ is conceived among
the Gentiles as ‘the hope of glory’ (Col 1%), and St.
Paul prays that the Ephesians may have the eyes
of their hearts enlightened to know what is ‘ the

10 KNOWLEDGE

KOHATH

hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory |

of his inheritance in the saints’ (Eph 118), Such
inward illumination indeed is the aim of the
letters ; they can be summed up (Weiss, V7 Theol.
p. 428) in the prayer ‘that the God of our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto
Nib ἃ spirit of wisdom and revelation in the
cnowledge of him’ (Eph 117). In this last passage
knowledge is ἐπίγνωσις, a word which as opposed

to γνῶσις denotes full or further knowledge, and |

which, though frequent in St. Paul, is used besides
only in He and 2P. According to Cremer, it is
always used of a knowledge which has the strongest

influence on the religious life; it is combined with |

such expressions as τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀληθείας, τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ
θεοῦ, τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ θελήματος τοῦ θεοῦ,
τοῦ Kup, ἡμῶν I. X. It does not therefore suggest

an abstractly intellectual view of Christianity—a _

theology, so to speak, as distinct from a religion ;
just as in the OT and in St. John, knowledge
includes the spiritual and moral relation to its
object, which answers to the nature of that object.
Truth as truth is in Jesus is not only to be believed
and known but done by the Christian (1 Jn 19).
What St. Paul calls ἡ ἐπίγνωσις τοῦ θεοῦ is not only
a deeper comprehension of the Christian revelation
in itself, but a deeper insight into its practical
significance and obligations.

(y) In the Pastoral Epistles Christianity is con-
ceived as a teaching or doctrine (διδασκαλία) more
definitely than in any other part of the N'T.
Christians are those who have repented and come
to the knowledge of the truth (1 ΤῚ 2? 45, To
oppose the gospel is to resist the truth (2 Ti 35).
But though the truth can be stated by itself, it is
always of moral import. It is the truth ‘ which is
according to godliness’ (Tit 11), a διδασκαλία καλή
and ὑγιαίνουσα. When men abandon it or reject it,
it is from some moral unsoundness; they turn
from the truth, and with itching ears heap up
teachers ‘according to their own lusts.’ The
‘knowledge falsely so called’ (1 Ti 62°), whether
the ἀντιθέσεις justifies a reference to Marcion or
not, is conceived as a morbid phenomenon opposed
to the morally wholesome teaching of Christianity,
and whoever is misled hy it ‘errs concerning the
faith ’—his religious life misses the mark. ᾿

(¢) In the other books ef the NT knowledge is not |

a characteristic conception. [ἢ 9} it has a certain
prominence (125 2°" ¥!5)) in a sense more akin to
that which it bears in the Pastorals than. else-
where ; the ἐπίγνωσις or full knowledge of God, or
of Jesus our Lord, is saving knowledge. We grow
in it as we grow in the vrace of our Lord Jesus
Christ ; the two processes of growth are one. It
is morally eflicacious for our deliverance from the
pollutions of the world. In the Ep. to the Hebrews
γνῶσις does not occur at all, and ἐπίγνωσις only in 10%
(ef. Tit 1}, 1 Ti 24 45. But the whole Epistle may
be regarded as a specimen of a particular kind
of Christian γνῶσις. It recognizes the distinction
between a less and more perfect apprehension of
Christianity (5! 6!), and the writer exhibits his
own ‘knowledge’ in that interpretation of the OT
which makes its institutions and characters typical
of Christ. This typological γνῶσις is quite different
from the ἐπίγνωσις of the mystery of God, even
Christ, which we find in the Pastoral Epistles ;
yet as a mode of representing the organic unity of
the NT and the OL it may also contribute to a
Christian philosophy. And some such thing—not
in the sense of a speculation @ priori, without
ethical inspiration, but in the sense of an expres-

‘sion and interpretation of Christian faith, which

shall be pervaded throughout by the spiritual virtue
of that faith—seems to be set before us by the NT
writers as the ideal of ‘ knowledge.’

J. DENNEY.

KOA (xp; Ὕχουε B, Aovd A, Kove ῷ ; Targ. *x3np;
Syr. SQO; Aq. Kxopudaiov; Vulg. principes). —In
Ezk 23% ‘the children of Babylon and all th: Chal-
dieans, Pekod, and Shoa’ (38), and Avo’, all the chil-
dren of Asshur with them,’—most probably the con-
tracted form of Aut, Kuti, the name of a people
(also called Gutium, Guti), often mentioned in the
Assyrian Inscriptions, whose home was to the N.
oof Babylon, in the mountainous district between

ὐπὸ upper Adhem and the Dijalé (see the map in
| Del. Paradies; KAT? ad loc.).* The following are
the grounds for this conclusion. The inscriptions
speak often of a country Su-édin, Su-tiwm, or
Suti; and as Ezk names together Pehkod (also
Jer 5074) and Sho’, so Sargon (Khors. inser. 1. 19:
ATB ii. 55; cf. 11. 82, 123, 135 f.) mentions together
| among his conquests Puhudu and Suti: elsewhere,
moreover, in the inscriptions, the shorter form Sv
is found for Su-edin, Su-tium: on these grounds,
therefore, it is probable that the Show of Ezk are
the Sufi of the inscriptions (S.E. of Kutu, in the
direction of Elam). Further, as Ezk. couples to-
gether Shoa and Koa’, so the inscriptions often
couple together Su-édin or Suti with Δ μέν Ὁ a
presumption thus arises that as Sho’ corresponds
to Suti or Sutu, so ΔΜ οαἱ corresponds to Kuti, the
only link in the complete proof that is missing
being the fact that (according to Del.) the shorter
form Aw (corresponding to Sw) is not known to
occur in the inscriptions. Nevertheless, the identi-
fication is a very probable one; and if, as Hil-
precht’s discoveries appear to have shown,t the
Chebar was ‘a large navigable canal near Nippur,’
izekiel would not, speaking comparatively, have
been far distant from any of the three peoples
named in this verse. Both Sutu and Mutu are, as
Winckler (Adéttest. Unterss. 1892, 178) remarks, the
standing foes of Assyria: the words in ΕΚ. ‘all
the children of Asshur,’ are not, however, neces-
sarily in apposition with these two names.$

Ges. (Thes.) defends the appellative sense prin-
cipes ; but his etymology, though ingenious, must
be owned to be far-fetched and improbable. See,
further, Schrader, AAT’? ad loc.; and especially
Delitzsch, Paradics, pp. 234-6; and ef. art. KIR in
the present volume. S. R. DRIVER.

KOHATH (n7)) is known to us only from P and
the Chronicler. According to these writers, he was
the second of the three sons of Levi (Ex 61, Nu
οἰ, 1 Ch: 6) 16 Ὁ 59). He had four*sons, Amram:
Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel (Ex 6%, Nu 3”, 1 Ch
θ52:18 231"), and lived to the age of 133 years (Ex 68),
In 1 Ch Amminadab is said to be the son of
Kohath, but this is probably a clerical error for
Izhar (cf. 6°). His sister was Jochebed, the aunt
and wife of Amram, and the mother of Moses
(Ex 6%, Nu 9059). For the rebellion of his grandson
~Korah (Nu 16) see KoRAH. Nothing further is
related of K. personally, but we have fuller par-
ticulars of the fortunes of his descendants. Their
history falls into three periods—(1) the wilderness
wanderings and the settlement in Canaan, (2) the
monarchy, (3) the period after the Exile.

1. At the time of the census taken by Moses
in the wilderness of Sinai the Kohathites were

+22

* Or ace. to Winckler (Unterss. zux altor. Gesch. 131), like the
Suti, a nomadic tribe of the Mesopotamian plains. :

{+ Cf. K/B i. p. 5, where the ‘widespread Kuti’ and the ‘Suti’
| are named in successive lines among the tribes subjugated by
| Rammén-nirari I. (c. 1325 B.c.). So Sargon, le. (AJB ii. 55),
mentions Gutiwm, three lines before Pukudw and Suti.

t Bab. Exped. of the Univ. of Pennsylv. ix. (1898), p. 283 cf.
PEFSt, Jan. 1898, p. 55.

§ Winckler (with Bredenkamp and Klostermann) would read
snp for 1p (with jw as pr. name) in Is 225. This is favoured
“also by W. Max Miller (in art. Kir above); but the two names

are difficult to harmonize with ΡΠ, except by giving this verb
| arbitrary meanings like ‘surround’ or ‘stir up.’

KOHELETH

KORAH, DATHAN, ABIRAM τι

divided into four families, the Amramites, the
Izharites, the Hebronites, and the Uzzielites
(Nu 37). The whole number of males from a
month old was 8600 (338), and between 30 and 50
years of age 2750 (42%), Pheir position in the
camp was on the side of the tabernacle southward
(3°), and their chief at this time was Ktizaphan
the son of Uzziel (3°).
by P during the wilderness wanderings was the
varrying of the sanctuary and its furniture, after it
had* been prepared for travel by Aaron and_ his
sons (3°! 4449 7051). In this respect the Kohathites,
the family of Aaron, had a more honourable office
than that given to the descendants of Gershon the
elder brother, and they consequently precede the
Gershonites in Nu 4, Jos 21, 1 Ch 6. 15,2 Ch 2015, In
consequence of the greater holiness of their burden
they carried it upon their shoulders (Nu 7%), in con-
trast to the Gershonites and Merarites, to whom
waggons and oxen were given (77 >). The Koha-
thites are also mentioned at the time of the census
taken by Moses and Eleazar in the plains of Moab
by the Jordan, when the whole number of Levites
was 23,000 (26%).

At the allotment of Levitical cities by Joshua
and Eleazar after the settlement in Pal., thirteen
cities out of the territories of Judah, Simeon, and
Benjamin were assigned to the Kohathite descend-
ants of Aaron (Jos 21" 13:19 [P]=1 Ch 6°); and
ten others out of the territories of Ephraim, Dan,
and Western Manasseh to the rest of the Kohathites
(Jos 215 2-26 [P]= 1 Ch 681 67-79),

2. In the reign of David, as narrated by the
Chronicler, we have several references to the
Kohathites. The Kohathite family of Heman,
together with the Gershonite family of Asaph and
the Merarite family of Ethan or Jeduthun, were,
acc. to this writer, specially set apart to administer
the temple music (cf. 1 Ch 6°47 164 # 9517 and see
HEMAN). Inaccordance with this, at the bringing
up of the ark into Jerus., of the large number of
Kohathites who are said to have been present
( Ch 155: 92"), Heman and certain others took
part in the music (1517. 1). Descendants of the
four Kohathite families are mentioned as ‘heads
of the fathers’ houses’ when David divided the
Levites into courses (1 Ch 23!*"), and in 1 Ch 26! 29:51
the particular offices held by descendants of the
first three families are given in detail. Kohathites
are spoken of as taking part in the temple ser-
vices in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 20"), and as
co-operating with the other Levites in cleansing
the temple under Hezekiah (395-11).

3. In the period after the Exile we find very few
traces of the Kohathite family. The Berechiah,
son of Asa, son of Elkanah, mentioned in 1 Ch 9°,
was probably a Kohathite. So also were the
‘children of Shallum’? who accompanied Zerub-
babel (Ezr 28; cf. 1 Ch 9%, Neh 12%, in last
Meshullam).

The Kohathites (na77; in Nu 107, 1 Ch 9D}
onaia) are mentioned Nu 378 41° 34.57 1031 26°7,
Jos 21+, 1 Ch 6% 54 932, 2 Ch 9019 901. Also called
‘the sons of Kohath,’ Ex 6%, Nu 31-9 4245) 7,
1 Ch 62 38: 22 61. 66.70 155 93 or ‘the children of
Kohath,’ Jos 915: 995),.395. For their history see
above. VW. XELEN.

KOHELETH.—See EccLestastes.

KOLAIAH (7p). — 1. The father of a false
prophet named Ahab, Jer 905: [ὖὐ΄. 565); υἱὸν
Kov\od only in Q™s]. 2. The name of a Benjamite
family which settled in Jernsalem after the Cap-
tivity, Neh 117; B Kodia, A Kwred.

KONA (Κωνά, Jth 44).—So B calls an unknown
town of Palestine. But δὶ reads Κωλά (as A in

begins with this letter.
The office assigned to them |

Jth 154, for Xwdd); A has Kwvas.

read kouas, whence AV ‘the villages.’
By Op PORTER.

KOPH (>).—The nineteenth letter of the Hebrew

alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalin

to designate the 19th part, each verse of which

It is transliterated in

Some MSS

this Dictionary by /.
KORAH, DATHAN, ABIRAM (n77, j07, ΟΞ). -

Most readers of the Ene. Bible are familiar with
the story of Korah’s rebellion, and of the terrible
fate that overtook him and his followers. When
we turn, however, to the record of these events
(Nu 16), it is by no means easy to reduce it to a
consistent or continuous narrative. ‘The thread ot
the story is strangely broken, and we encounter
remarkable repetitions (vv.2*> 15). Here, as in
many other cases, we are helped by the labours ot
those crities who have analyzed the contents or
the Hexateuch.

There is reason to believe that three strata are
present in the composition of Nu 16 and 17, This
conclusion, which had been previously reached by
various critics, was first placed ona thoroughly satis-
factory basis by Kuenen (7/7 (1878), p. 189 ft.)
whose analysis has been substantially accepted by
critics of such different schools as Baudissin, Cornill,
Dillmann, Driver, Robertson Smith, and Well-
hausen. Of the three narratives, the first two were
originally quite independent of one another, while
the third works over the material from the stand-
point of a later age than that of the second writer.

I. We have a narrative from the well-known source JF,
which has suffered very slight mutilation at the hands of the
final redactor. It tells how Dathan and Abiram, descendants otf
Reuben, the oldest of Jacob’s sons, rose against Moses, because
they were jealous of the authority he claimed, and were dis-
appointed with the results of his leadership. On being informed
of their murmurings, Moses cited them to appear before him ;
but they refused to obey the summons, and repeated to his
messengers their complaints (Nu 16!-l4), Moses, in anger (v.15),
went to their tents in company with the elders of Israel, and
solemnly warned the people to withdraw from the neighbour-
hood of Dathan and Abiram, who, with all their households,
were then swallowed up by the earth (vv.2844), ‘This 5. ἃ
rebellion of laymen against the civil authority claimed by
Moses’ (Driver).

Il. The author of the priestly narrative (P) relates quite a
different story. Korah, at the head of 250 princes of the con-
gregation, instigates a rebellion against Moses and Aaron, in
the interests of the people at large against the tribe of Levi.
“All the congregation are holy,’ says Kk. (v.*), and as much en-
titled as the Levites to discharge religious functions. Moses
invites them to put the matter to the proof by coming on the
following day with their censers to offer incense. They accept
the challenge (vy.18: 19), and, in the act of offering, they are con-
sumed by fire from the Lord (y.#°), Their fate provokes the
people, who murmur that Moses and Aaron had killed the people
of the Lord (v.41). A plague breaks out in consequence, which
is only stayed by the atoning offering of Aaron(v.48), The story
of ch. 17 is the sequel, and comes from the same source, P. The
blossoming of Aaron’s rod is meant to establish, not his rights
in opposition to those of other Levites, but to establish the
prerogative of the tribe of Levi as represented by Aaron, in
opposition to the other tribes as represented by their respective
princes. Here, again, we have a rebellion of laymen, but
directed this time against the ecclesiastical authority claimed
by the tribe of Levi.

Il. Another writer of the priestly school, whom we may
designate, with Cornill, Ps, worked up the narrative at a later
period. In_ his version of the story, K., at the head of 250
Levites, opposes, in the interest of the tribe of Levi, the monopoly
of the priesthood claimed by Aaron (vv.U). The test proposed
by Moses is the same as in the second narrative (vv.16.17, which
are a repetition of vv.8-7), and P’s account of the fate of the
rebels is adopted (v.85) without change. From the hand of the
latest writer come also vy.#6-49, which relate how the censers ot
the 250 were made into acovering for the altar, to be amemorial
οὐ the fate of the rebels.

It is evident that the two priestly narratives have quite
different aims. In P there is no opposition between Levites and
priests, but between non-Levites and Levites, whereas in P*
there is a sharp distinction between the tribe of Levi and the
family of Aaron, (Note especially v.40, where the moral of P's
narrative is thus given, ‘that no stranger which is not of the
seed of Aaron come near to burn incense before the Lord, that he
be not as K. and as his company’). On the other hand, it is not
quite certain whether, according to the original narrative of I,

even K. himself was a Levite, for the words in y.! ‘the son of

12 KORAH, DATHAN, ABIRAM

KUSHAIAH

Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi,’ may well come from
the hand of the redactor. But in any case it is clear enough
that all his 250 followers were not Levites ; a conclusion which is
confirmed, if confirmation were necessary, by Nu 27%, where the
daughters of Zelophehad plead that their father had no part in
the rebellion of Korah. As Zelophehad belonged to the tribe
of Manasseh, this plea need not have been offered if all K.’s
followers had been Levites.

The differences between JE and P, and the original independ-
ence of their narratives, are equally apparent. JE knows only
Pathan and Abiram, P knows only Korah ; and, accordingly,
the author of Dt 116, who is acquainted with the Jahwistic
but not with the Priestly document, mentions only Dathan and
Abiram.

The analysis of the two chapters may be given as follows
(practically after Driver) :—

JE 161b-2a. 12-15. 25-26. 27b-34,
Ῥ 101. 2b-7a. 18-24. 27a. 990. 35. 41-50. ch. 17,
Px 167b-11. 16-17. 36-40,

The composite character of the narrative is borne out by the
separation, after 161, of the two parties, Dathan and Abiram on
the one hand, Korah and his company on the other. They act
separately (cf. vv.3-4 with vv.12-15) ; they are addressed separately
(cf. vv.5-7 with vy.25. 26); they are punished separately and differ-
ently (cf. v.31 with v.39),

Traces of the welding process by which the narrative has
assumed the comparative smoothness of its present form may
be detected in v.7> (‘ve sons of Levi’), and in v.82 (‘and all the
men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods’).

It cannot be over-emphasized that a// the in-
dications in the narrative point to the above
result, and that literary differences combine with
differences of agents and of motives to establish
three distinct elements in the composition.
course ii itself a difference of motive is no eround
for supposing that the narrative in which it appears
is of Composite authorship; that inference follows
solely from the manner in which the difference is
introduced , In itself an alliance between an
ecclesiastical and a civil party is perfectly intelli-
gible ; but the literary analysis shows Nu 16 to be
composite ; and when the component parts have
been separated into two groups, it is found that
the actors in one group represent ecclesiastical
interests, while they represent civil interests in
theother. Sucha coincidence cannot be accidental ;
the differences of person and motive (though they
might have been combined in such a manner as to
arouse no suspicion Whatever that the narrative
was composite) so cofncide with literary differences
as to corroborate the conclusion to which these
point’ (Driver, LO7°, App. 5234. [ef. ὁ p. 051).

We have thus disentangled three distinet narra-
tives, of which the last two are memorials of the
struggles that took place, and of the various stages
that were passed through before the prerogatives
of Levi were admitted by the other tribes, and
those of the house of Aaron by the other Levitical
families. At whatever date we place these last

‘OR

results, we may be certain that they were not
reached without fierce opposition.

One or two remarks have still to be made on the
text of Nu 16. In v.! πρὶ, for which the LXX
offers ἐλάλησεν, and which AV and RV both render
‘took men’ (supplying the last word), can searcely be
the correct reading. There is probably a copyist’s
error also in πρε-}3 x1 Sand On the son of Peleth.’
There is no mention of On in the subsequent narra-
tive, nor does his name occur anywhere else in the
OT. For Peleth we should doubtless read, as in
Ex 64 ete., Pallu, and perhaps, as Graf suggests, ν Ὁ
should run thus : [28772 s>s-j2 aby ὯΞ ΟΎΞΕῚ [5].
In vv."4 and “7 Wellhausen and Driver agree in
holding that the original reading was probably
‘tabernacle of 5."

LITERATURE.—Driver, LOT? 59 ff., App. 523f. [6, 63 ff.]; Graf,
Gesch. B. ἃ. AT, 89ff.; Baudissin, Ges. ἃ. AT Priest, Bors*
Wellh. Comp. 106, 339; Reuss, A 7, iii, 34, 454; W. R. Smith,
OTJC2 402; Kuenen, Th’ xii. (1878), p. 139 ff., Hex. 95, 334;
Oort and Hooykaas, Bible for Young People, iv. 242; Cornill,
Hinleit.2 594. ; Kittel, Mist. of Hebrews, i. 219.

2. Korah, a son of Esau (Cin 305). 3, A ‘duke’ of
Edom (Gn 3016). ἃ, A son of Hebron (1 Ch χω

J. A. SELBIE.

KORAHITES (m7), or SONS OF KORAH (12
mp); AV has in Nu 26° Korathites, and in Ex 6%,
1 Ch 12° 26', 2 Ch 20” Korhites. — The inference
from Nu 16", that the whole family of Korah
perished along with their head, is checked by 3
note in 26! to the effect that the ‘sons of Korah
died not.’ This explanation was called for in view
of the fact that a well-known guild connected with
the second temple traced their descent to Korah.
At one time the ‘sons of K.’ appear to have con-
stituted one of the two great temple choirs, the
Asaphites composing the other (see ASAPH). We
have two groups of Pss (42-49and 84. 85. 87. 88) whose
superseription 771? 555 shows that they were taken
from what was once the hymn-book of the Korahite
choir. The musical service of the temple had been
remodelled by the time of the Chronicler, when
three guilds (Heman, Asaph, Ethan) had replaced
the original two (Asaph, Korah). The Korahites
have now become a guild of dvor-keepers (1 Ch 99
26! 19 ete.), although a reminiscence of their former
functions as singers is found in 2 Ch 20 (W. R.
Smith, O7 JC? 205 n.). J. A. SELBIE.

KORE. 1. (ΚΡ) The eponym of a Korahite guild
of door-keepers, 1 Ch 919. 2. (Ἀπ) Son of TImnah,
a Levite in the time of Hezekiah, 2 Ch 3144

KUSHAIAH.—See ΚΙΞΗΙ,

LABAN 12

L

L.—1. This symbol was proposed by de Lagarde
(Genesis greece, 1868, p. 12) to denote the illumin-
ated Purple Manuscript of the Greek Genesis at
Vienna, one of the chief specimens of Christian
book-illumination. ‘The manuscript is designated
VI by Holmes, and the text has been edited by
him trom a copy of Alter, 1795, in a publication
preparatory to the great Oxford Septuagint (title :
Honorabili, et admodum recerendo, Shute Bar-
rington, LL.D. Episcopo Dunelmensi, Epistola,
complera GENESIN, ex codice purpureo-argenteo
Cesareo - Vindubonensi expressam ; et Testament
Veteris Greci, versionis septuaginta -viralis, cum
variis lectionibus denuo edendi, Specimen. Dedit
Robertus Holmes, 5.Γ..Ρ. Oxonii, MDCCXCV fol.).
It is a parallel to the famous Codex Cottonianus
Geneseos in the British Museum, and has not been
used by Swete for his edition of the Greek OT
(vol. i. 2nd ed. 1895),* because at that time it was
not yet published in full facsimile. This has been
done since in the splendid work, Die Wiener
Genesis herausgegeben von Wilhelm Ritter von
Hartei und Franz Wickhoff. Beilage zum xv.
und xvi. Bande des Jahrbuches der Kunsthistori-
schen Sammluneen des Allerhéchsten Kaiser-
hauses. Mit 52 Lichtdrucktalfeln, ete. Wien (Prag,
Leipzig), F. Tempsky, 1895 fol. (the Greek text in
transcription, pp. 102-125). An exhaustive mono-
eraph on the pictures of the MS_ has recently
been published by a pupil of Prof. V. Schultze of
Greifswald, Willy Liidtke, Untersuchungen cu der
Miniaturen der Wiener Genesis (Inaugural Dis-
sertation, Greifswald, 1897, 50 pp.). Liidtke con-
siders the volume as the first known manuscript of
the Bible in which pictures are connected with the
text, the first illustrated book of Bible story, and
is inclined to assign it to the latter half of the 5th
cent. KE. M. Thompson (Handbook of Greek and
Latin Palwography, 1893, p. 154) makes it prob-
ably of the latter half of the 6th cent. ; Kenyon,
of the 5th or 6th cent. The text is sometimes
abbreviated, and several passages are very difficult
to read; the MS is theretore less important for the
textual criticism of the Greek OT; butit is a monu-
ment of the first rank in the history of Christian
art. Attached to the codex are two leaves from
the purple MS of the New Testament, called N.

2. Τὰ the eriticism of the NT the symbol L is
used to desienate the Codea Regius, a manuscript
of the Greek Gospels preserved in the National
Library of Paris, now numbered 62. It was known
already to Stephen, who called it ἡ, as is stated in
the volume by a later hand, ‘Roberto Stephano 7.’
Serivener (Introduction to the NT, 4th ed. (1894)
p. 188) overlooked this 7, and misunderstood, there-
fore, this entry when he wrote, ‘it was even
then in the Royal Library, although ‘ Roberto
Stephano” is marked in the volume.’ Griesbach
rated the MS very high; Tischendorf published it
in full in his Monewmenta sacra inedita, 1840. it
is ascribed to the Sth cent., and was for a long
time unique, as giving two alternative endings to
the Gospel of Mark, namely—besides and before
the received one, which is introduced by the head-
ing ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τύ" ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ,
a shorter ending, printed by Westcott-Hort after
the one just mentioned. This wretched supple-
ment, as Scrivener styles it, is separated in this
MS from the words of the text (ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ) by
an ornamented line, and introduced by the head-

* Its readings will find a place in the Apparatus of the larger
edition, which is now being prepared by Brooke and M*‘Lean,

ing φέρεταί mov καὶ ταῦτα.

Recently it has been
found in several Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic
documents, the nearest ally to L being 8. manu-
script on Mount Sinai (A), ascribed to the 7th
cent. The latter has the subscription εὐαγγέλιον
κατὰ Μάρκον immediately after ἐφοβοῦντο yap ; then
follows the shorter supplement (whether intro-
duced by the same formula as in L is not certain,
the MS being defective at that place) with slight
variations (um. καί before ἄχρι, adds ἀμήν after
σωτηρία) ; after this comes ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ete,
On the questions connected with the end of δῖ.
Mark see the monograph ef Dean Burgon (1871) ;
P. Martin, Introduction ἃ ta critique texctuelle du
NT, Partie pratique, tome i. (1884) ; Westcott-
Hort, N7', App. 28-51, with the additional notes to
pp. 88 and 51 on p. 142 of the reprint of 1896 ; JK.
Harris, ‘On the alternative ending of St. Mark's
Gospel,’ Journ. of Biblical Literature (1894), pp. 96—
103; H. B. Swete, Zhe Gospel according to St.
Mark: (1898), p. xevith.; Th. Zahn, Kinleitung in
das Neue Testament (1899), ii. pp. 227-235, 287-
24). The shorter ending had its origin probably
in Egypt; there also L seems to have been written.
On the third leaf of the MS is a note by a later
hand, which might show where the MS was before
it came to Europe, if it could be read and inter-
preted with certainty (a Georgios 700 Διἀάσκόβιτη
left some MSS εἰς τοῦ ᾿[ωάννου τοῦ ILavAouv τὸ ὀσπίτιον).
facsimiles are to be found in Tischendorf, plate
i. n. 7, plate iil. n. 7 ; Scrivener, plate ix. ἢ. 21; "Ὁ.
Martin, Description technique des manuscrits grecs
relatifs au NT conservées dans les bibliotheques de
Paris (1884), plate 1. Es. NESTLE.

LAADAH (77;5).—A Judahite, the ‘father’ of
Mareshah, 1 Ch 41 (B Μαδάθ, A Λαδά).

LABAN (j
grandson of Nahor, Abrahaim’s brother (
—in 29° «son’=erandson), and brother of Rebekah
(24%; 25%), uncle of Jacob on his mother’s side
(278; 28%), and (after his marriage with Leah) his
father-in-law as well. When Abraham and Lot
migrated from Haran (on the Belikh, a tributary
of the Euphrates, in Mesopotamia) into Canaan
(Gn 1245), Nahor remained behind in Haran ; here
his family grew up around him (227°"4+; the names,
except in the cases of Bethuel and Rebekah, are,
however, those of ¢ribes); and Flaran (ef.. 294),
though the identification is not made expressly,
is, there can be no doubt, the ‘ city of Nahor’ (24°),
to which Abraham’s servant took his way, when
sent by his master to find a wife for Isaac from
the land of his nativity. Laban’s home (Gn_24"")
was in ‘Aram (AV Syria) of the two rivers’ (the
Euphrates, in its upper course, and the Hahbor) ;
and 90. like his father Bethuel (25*’ 28°), he is called
specifically the ὁ Aramiean’ (AV Syrian), 25°? 8150.
(ef. of Jacob, Dt 26°). It is in connexion with the
negotiations for Rebekah’s hand that we first read
οἵ Laban. He is evidently the moving spirit in
his father’s house. He comes forward to receive
Abrahain’s servant, listens to what he has to say,
and takes the lead in the subsequent negotiations
(2429-33. 50. 53». 55), Tt is no doubt true that in the
East (cf. Gn 341-2, Ca 8°) a girl’s brothers have
a prominent voice in the disposal of their
sister's hand; but, independently of this, Laban
seems clearly to throw his father Bethuel into
the background. It has been observed that Laban

25, AaSdv).—4. Son of Bethuel (Gn 28°),
J D220. 22 φ 45:

already displays the grasping disposition which was

14 LABAN

a

LACCUNUS

inanifested more fully afterwards in his dealings with
Jacob: he is attracted by the ring and. bracelets
which Abraham's servant had given his sister (24°"),
What we read about Laban subsequently relates
exclusively to his dealings with Jacob (29!-3)°),
These have been described so fully in the art.
JACOB (vol. ii, pp. 528-9, 533) that an outline will
be sufficient here. Laban must now be pictured as
quite an old man. Jacob, sent by his mother to
her brother, arrives at Haran, and quickly finds
his uncie’s house (9919). He remains with him a
month (29); at the end of which time Laban, no
doubt discovering that his services as a shepherd
are likely to prove valuable to him, asks him on
what terms he will remain with him. He replies
that he will serve him 7 years for his younger
daughter Rachel. At the end of the 7 years Laban,
by a ruse, passes off upon him his elder daughter
Leah; and only permits him to have Rachel as
well, on condition that he serves him for 7 years
more (292), At the end of the second 7 years
Jacob is anxious to return home; but Laban,
reluctant to part with a profitable servant, invites
him, with a show of disinterestedness, to name the
terms on which he will continue in his service
(308), Jacob thereupon proposes an arrangement
by which, ostensibly, he will gain little or nothing,
and with which, therefore, Laban immediately closes,
but which, it soon appears, his son-in-law knows
how to turn to his own advantage (808). Laban,
envious of Jacob's increasing prosperity, now shows
ill-will towards him ; his sons (mentioned also in
30°?) complain that Jacob has taken away all their
father’s possessions ; accordingly Jacob, after con-
sulting with his wives (who both agree that their
father has shown them no real affection, 31+ 16}.
takes flight, accompanied by his family and their
belongings (81!) His father-in-law, considering
that he has some kind of claim on the services and
belongings of his son-in law, and vexed besides at
the loss of the teraphim (which Rachel had stolen),
starts in pursuit. On the way, apparently on the
night before he came up with Jacob, ‘as if an evil
conscience preyed secretly upon him’ (Ewald, /is¢.
i. 356), he is warned in a dream not to proceed
against Jacob too violently (31%). Overtaking
the fugitives on the borders of Gilead, Laban
remoustrates with Jacob on his unerateful treat-
ment of him, and especially for having carried
away his daughters secretly, which was both an
affront to them (31"»), and an injury to his own
feelings (9155). Jacob, in reply, declares that he
was afraid, if he told Laban, that he would retain
his daughters by force ; and then, after the incident
with the teraphim (in which Laban is outwitted by
his own daughter), he goes on to remind him of
the long years which he has spent unerudginely in
his service, and of the repeated attempts that
Laban had made (317) to deprive him of his lawful
earnings (31%). Laban, conscious of the truth
in Jacob’s reproaches, makes no attempt to reply :
he contents himself with protesting that everything
which Jacob has is really his; and then seeks to
close the dispute by representing himself as con-
cerned for his daughters’ welfare. Accordingly he
proposes ἃ covenant, the terms of which are—(1) that
Jacob will in no way ill-treat his daughters; (2) that
neither he nor Jacob will pass the houndary, marked
by a heap of stones then thrown up, with hostile
intent towards the other (see, further, on the objeet
of this ‘covenant,’ above, ii. p. 529). The covenant
having been solemnly ratified by both parties, Laban
returns home, and is not mentioned again (31**5),
The character of Laban is not an amiable one.

* And hath also quite devoured our money,’ ¢@.e, the price

paid for us by our husband, the gains accruing to Laban from
Jacob’s 14 years’ service, some part of which he would, if |
generous, have naturally allowed his daughters.

His sister and daughters all show duplicity and
acquisitiveness ; and Laban displays an exageera-
tion of the same qualities. His leading motive
is evidently self-interest ; and he is not particular
in the choice of means for securing his ends. The
ruse by which he passes off Leah upon his nephew
instead of Rachel, is an unpardonable piece of
deceit. In his subsequent dealings with his son-in-
law, he does not treat him equitably. It is ad-
mitted by him, expressly in J (3077), and by impli-
cation in EK,—for the statements in 3158: ef. v.6,
pass unchallenged,—that Jacob is a good servant ;
but Laban seeks to make out of him more than
fair profits. In 30° he betrays his grasping
disposition by closing with an arrangement which,
if carried out fairly, could not but have proved an
inequitable one for Jacob, and in which, therefore,
Laban had no right to be surprised if he found him-
self circumvented. In the narrative of E (31-2)—
which (vv.*!) differs from that of J in not represent-
ing Jacob as taking any unfair advantage of his
father-in-law (cf. i. p. 533, ne¢e)—Laban is charged
with defrauding Jacob, and arbitrarily changing the
wages that had been agreed upon, to suit his own
ends (vv.7 ἢ. And his daughters own (3115 15) that
he isa hard and unnatural parent.

2. A place mentioned in the obscure verse, Dt 11
(see Comm, ; or above, art. DI-ZAHAB). Nothing
can be said about it, except that if the verse
describes a locality in the ‘steppes of Moab,’ Laban
will be the name of a place in that neighbourhood,
otherwise unknown; while if, as others suppose,
the verse, at least in its original context, described
places passed by the Israelites in their previous
wanderings, it may be identical with the LiIsnan
(which see) of Nu 33°? (which, to Judge from v.17, was
near a fazéroth, as was the case also with the
Laban mentioned in Dt 11). S. R. DRIVER.

LABANA (AaSava), 1 Es 5°=Lepanan, Ezr 915,

LABOUR.—As a subst. ‘labour’ is now almost
contined to what is called the abstract use—the act
or state of labouring. Formerly it expressed also
the fruit of labour, as Ex 99:0. “when thou hast
gathered in thy labours (722) out of the field’;
Hab 3! * The labour (syy2) of the olive shall fail’
(Davidson, ‘the produce of the olive’). Hence the
word is trequently in the plural, as Jn 458 ‘other
men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours’
(els Tov κόπον αὐτῶν, RV ‘into their labour’). Knox,
Hist, 92, has the word in the sense of ‘effort,’
‘Great labours were made to make them have a
good opinion of the Masse.’

The verb is used with a trans. force in 2 Mac 2°!
‘But to use brevity, and avoid much labouring
of the work (τὸ ἐξεργαστικὸν τῆς πραγματί(ε)ίας mapac-
τεῖσθαι, RV ‘to avoid a laboured fulness in the
treatment’), is to be granted to him that will make
an abridgement.’ So in bee. of Pref. to AV 1611,
‘Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be
by devising any thing our selves, or revising that
which hath bene Jaboured by others, deserveth
certainly much respect and esteeme, but yet
findeth but cold intertaininent in the world.’ Cf.
Hall, Works, ii. 100, ‘these are the men whose cure
wee must labour’; Pref. to Rhem. NT’, 1852, ‘ The
poore ploughman, could then in labouring the
ground, sing the hymnes and psalmes either in
knowen or unknowen languages, as they heard
them in the holy Church, though they could
neither reade nor know the sense, meaning, and
mysteries of the same.’ J. HASTINGS,

LACCUNUS (Λακκοῦνος, AV Lacunus), 1 Es 9°,
—The name in Ezr 10° is CHELAL, to which the
Vulg. form Calcus in 1 Es approaches.

ΠΡ J: THACKERAY:

LACE

LACHISII 15

LACE.—-Lace is from Lat. daquecus, a snare,
through the Old French lags, das, and it is used in
the sense of snare in Chaucer, Spenser, and others.
Thus Chaucer, Legend of Good Women, 600—

‘But love had broght this man in swiche a rage,

And him so narwe bounden in his las,

Al for the love of Cleopataras,

That al the world he sette at no value.’
Then it is used for any cord or band, as Fuller,
Holy Warre, 123, ‘Pitie it was that Rahabs red
Ince was not tied at his window.’ This 15. the
meaning of the word in AV, where it occurs

only as tr. of 59 pathil,* Ex 28:8 (* And they shall

bind the breastplate by the rings thereof unto the
rings of the ephod with a lace of blue’) 2851 39°"! ;
and of κλῶσμα in Sir 6% ‘her bands are purple lace’
(κλῶσμα ὑακίνθινον, AVm ‘aribband of blue silk? ;
RV ‘a ribband of blue’; Fritzsche, ‘ purple-blue
threads’; Bissell, ‘hyacinthine threads’). - Cf.
Shaks. Winter's Tale, 111. 11. 174—
“O, cut my lace, lest my heart, cracking it,
Break too.’ J. HASTINGS.

LACEDEMONIANS. — The word Λακεδαιμόνιοι
occurs only once in LXX, and its Eng. equivalent
only once in RY, viz. 2Mae δ. Jason, the head
of the Hellenizing party in Jerus., who had bought
the high priesthood from his brother Onias ΠΙ.

1815... Ts 361).

‘quests (2 K 1955: 96 |) Ts 3790. τ. 2 Ch 324).

during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, was |

himself outbidden and expelled from the office by
Menelaus his brother (Jos. Anf. XII v. 1 and
XV. ill. 1), or, according to 2 Mac 4%, the brother
of Simon, a former governor of the temple. Ona
false report of the death of Antiochus, Jason made
an unsuccessful assault upon Jerus.; but, after
causing great loss of life among his fellow-citizens,
he was driven an outcast to the land of the Am-
monites, from there to the court of Aretas an
Arabian prince, then into Egypt, and lastly to the
L., in whose country he died a dishonoured exile.
The reason of his ultimate recourse to the latter
people was the alleged kinship between the Jews
and the Greeks, resting on the supposed connexion
between Peleg and the Pelasgians, a prehistoric
people mentioned as living in different parts of
Greece and coasts of the Aeean Sea.
ever, or Phaleg, whose name implies * division’
(Jos. Ant. I. vi. 4), the ancestor of Abraham and
the son of Heber,—te eponymous ancestor of the
Hebrew race,—was (Jos. ih.) the ereat-grandson of
Noah, and belonged to the Semitic family. The
Pelasvians, on the other hand, were part of the
Indo-European stock, and afterwards mingled with
the Hellenes in Greece, and with the Carians,
Lydians, and Phrygians in Asia Minor.

Liter aturg.—Rawlinson’s Herodotus, vols. i. and iii., Appen-
dixes and Notes. C. H. PRICHARD.

LACHISH (e25, LXX Aayeis, twice with the art.
mi Aavets: Jos: 10%, in Jos 15% B Maris, BY

Peleg, how- |

Aaxjs; Vulg. Lachis).—An important fortified 1.
distance, as Joshua took Eglon on the day that he

town in Judah. Its king, Japhia, formed a league
with four ether Canaanite kings, viz. those of
Jerus., Eelon, Hebron, and Jarmuth, to smite the
(ribeonites, as they had made peace with Israel
(Jos 10, JE mainly). Joshua overcame the
united forces, and the kines fled to a cave in
Makkedah, where they were pursued by tise

Joshua, according to D*, occupied parts of two days
(νν."1. 3). When it was taken, all the inhabitants
were put to the sword.

The place is next mentioned in the list of
cities built by Rehoboam for defence, by which it
may be understood that he re-fortified the town
(2Ch 11%). Amaziah tled to 10. from a conspiracy
in Jerus., but he was pursued and slain there
(2K 14) 2 Ch 257). The prophet Micah inveighs
against Leas ‘the beginning of sin to the daughter
of Zion, for the transeressions of Israel were tound
in thee’ (Mie 18), an enigmatical utterance, the
conjectures regarding the meaning of which will be
found in Nowack’s Comm. ad loc. When Sen-
nacherib made his raid on the kingdom of Judah,
he took all the fortified cities, including L. (2 Κἃ
The scene of the siege is depicted in
an Assyr. sculpture, now in the British Museum. ‘To
this place Hezekiah sent messengers with immense
vifts and promises of subinission, to induce the
Assyr. king, who was there encamped, to abandon
the campaign (2 kK 1811). In reply, Sennacherib
despatched a great host against Jerus. (2 kK 18!)
Is 362). But his forces were miraculously destroyed,
and he returned to Assyria, abandoning his con-
The
account in 2 Ch 32? mentions the envoys sent to
Hezekiah, but not the expedition against Jerus., as
it says of Sennacherib, * but he (himself laid siege)
to L., and all his power with him.’ When ὁ. 120
years later, Nebuch. king of Babylon, destroyed
the kinedom of Judah and carried the people into
vaptivity, L. was one of the cities taken (Jer 34°),
On the return of the Jews, L. was one of the
places re-occupied, but it is noticeable that while
sach of the other places is spoken of as being
oceupied ‘with the villages thereof,’ “ Lachish
and the fields thereof’ are referred to as if the
occupation was but feeble (Neh 1199). It is not
mentioned in the NT, nor in the Apocrypha.

Scholars are now generally agreed that L. is to
be identified with Tell el-Elesy, a mound in the
rolling country between the maritime plain and
the Judean hills, 16 miles E. of Gaza, a little to
the north. This identification was first proposed
by Conder, who sees in the radicals of the inodern
name ἃ reminiscence of the ancient, thoueh the
change in the second radical from 5 to 4 is unusual,
The position of Tell el-llesy corresponds fairly with

| Jerome’s description of L. in the Onoirsticon, He

says: ‘Lachis in tribu Juda... et nune est villa
in septimo milliario ab Eleutheropoli euntibus
Daromam.’ Eleutheropolis is the modern Lert
Jibrin, 10 miles from Tell el-Eesy, which nearly
coincides. Daroma may be the Shephelah, or low
country, in which Tell el-Hesy is situated. Another
equally important mound, ‘Tell en-Nejileh, is found

34 miles to the south of Tell el-Elesy, about the

Israelites, who rolled stones against the mouth |

of the cave. Later, the kings were taken out,
humiliated, and hanged on five trees. At sunset,
by command of Joshua, their bodies were taken
down and placed in the cave, at whose mouth
stones were again rolled. The siege of L. by

* Elsewhere pdthil is rendered in AV ‘bound’ Νὰ 1915;
‘ribband’ Nu 1538 (RV ‘ cord’); ‘thread’ Jg 169 (RV ‘ string’) ;
‘line’ Ezk 408; ‘bracelets’ Gn 3818 (RV ‘cord’) 382° (RV
*cords’); ‘wires’ Ex 393,

same distance from Beit Jibrin. Both have springs
at their base. These two mounds seem to represent
L. and Eelon, which were within easy marching

left L. (Jos 10%). As Eelon disappears from history
varlier than L., and as the remains on the top οἱ
Tellen-Nejileh are earlier than those on the top of
Tell el-Hesy, Petrie regards the former as Eglon
and the later as Lachish. However, until syste-
matic excavations are conducted at Tell en-Nejileh,
the matter should not be held to be finally settled.

The site of Tell el-[lesy is admirably suited for
a town, as the original dwellings stood on a blutf
facing east, some 60 feet above the Wady el-Eesy,
and were further protected by ridges to the west
During the course of centuries the remains accumu
lated, until the last occupation stood some 120 feet
above the stream-bed. In 1890, Petrie, excavating
for the Pal. Explor. Fund, studied the ¢e//, during
a short season, in cuttings around its sides, arriving

16 LACHISH

LADDER

at conclusions which the present writer’s more ex-
tended work, covering four seasons, modified, but
did not materially alter. One-third of the mound
being chosen, it was cut down, layer by layer, each
layer representing a distinct occupation, until the
virgin soil was reached. We have thus the plans of
eight cities, the second built on the ruins of the first,
the third on the ruins of the second, and so on.
This series of superimposed constructions is due to
the material. Each city was built of mud-brick,
which requiresnothing but mud-brick for its founda-
tion ‘The cities were approximately dated by the
objects found in situ. ‘The first three or four towns
occupied an area about + mile square, while the
later towns confined themselves to a space about
100 yards square, ‘and may thus be regarded as a
series of forts, as almost all are flanked by thick
walls.
peculiar styles of pottery, which have been named
Amorite. It also contained a group of unique
bronze implements. It is fortified by a strong wall
and tower, and may be dated at about B.c. 1700.
City 11. is dated by scarabs at about B.c. 1500.
City IIL. was buried under a thick bed of ashes.
Outside one of its chambers was discovered a cunei-
form tablet, which from its style and contents is
shown to belong to the period of the Tei el-Amarna
tablets, which were letters sent to Amenhotep HL.
and Iv. of Egypt, about B.c. 1450, by their allies
and dependants in Syria, Palestine, and farther
east. It mentions the name of Zimridi, who, as
we learn ina tablet from Jerus., was governor of
L., murdered in that city by servants of the Egyp.
king. The hopes suggested by the discovery of
this tablet are far-reaching. The date πὲς 1450
for this city is confirmed by scarabs found here.
In City LV. (B.c. 1400-1000) "απ. pottery prevails.
Here iron objects first appeared, but these were
found in all the superimposed cities. In City V.
(about B.C. 1000) and City VE. (about 800) Jewish
ware is prevalent. City VI. has a great accumula-
tion, from which we inter a long occupation. The
red and black figured Greek pottery is Common in
Cities VIL. and VILL, sugeesting B.c. 500-400 as
the limits of these oceupations. The absence of
coins and of Roman and Seleucidan remains shows
that the site was deserted after B.C. 400.

The remains at Tell el-Elesy thus correspond
admirably to the history of Lachish. One of the
earlier cities undoubtedly fell a prey to Joshua, a
later one was fortified by Wehoboam, and we may
point with considerable confidence to the thick
walls of City VI. as the fortifications taken by
Sennacherib, whose sculptures commemorating
the event bear a striking resemblance to Tell
el-Hesy.

We have, however, in considering the identifica-
tion, to count with the phrase of Jerome, ‘nune
est villa.’ While the ¢e/7 shows no late remains,
the adjacent fields are strewn with Roman pottery,
and 3 miles away is the slight ruin of Umm-Lakis
[but see Clermont-Ganneau, Bibl. Les. in Pal. i.
(1896) p. 438], containing Roman remains, which was
formerly identified with L. and which Petrie trans-
lates, ‘her [ἡ ; see Mound of Many Cities, p. 141]
mother was Lachish.’ He suggests that soon after
the return of the Jews from exile they removed
the settlement to Umm-Lakis. The name is pro-
nounced Laggis by the Arabs, who pronounce a p
like hard gy. A change from 2 to p is not common.
But either in the fields near ‘Tell el-Hesy, or at
Umm-Lakis, we have late ruins which may easily
represent the town still inhabited in the time of
Jerome.

LITERATURE.—Tell el- Hesy (Lachish), by W. M. Flinders Petrie;
A Mound of Many Cities, or Tell el-Hesy Excavated, by F. J.
Bliss ; both published for the Committee of the PEF by Alexander
P. Watt, London. EJ. Briss:

The earliest town was distinguished by |

LACK is both a subst. (= want) and a verb (=be
deficient in, want). Thus as subst., Ex 1618 ‘he
that gathered little had no lack’; Job 4 ‘The
old lion perisheth for lack of prey’; Ph 2” «to
supply your lack of service toward me’ (τὸ ὑμῶν
ὑστέρημα ; RV ‘that which was lacking in your
service’); 1 Th 415 ‘that ye may have lack (χρείαν,
RV ‘need’) of nothing.’ Cf. Elyot, Governow,
i. 263, ‘To the one and the other is required the
vertue morall called fortitude, whiche as moche
as it is a vertue is a Mediocritie or meane betwene
two extremities, the one in surplusage, the other in
lacke*; T. Lever, Sermons, p. 83, ‘Some doo raveyn
and spoyll that which is not their owne, and be
ever in lacke and neede.’ Lever uses the subst.
in the plu. also, Sermons, p. 74, ‘These be verye
small thinges towardes the amendment of so many
lackes, in so great a multitude.’

As a verb ‘lack’ is both trans. and intrans.
Thus Ja 15. ΠῚ any of you lack wisdom, let him ask
of God.’ Cf. Ro 2” Tind., ‘An informer of them
which lacke diserecion’ ; Pr. Bk. 1549 (Communion),
‘And if there be any of you, whose conscience is
troubled and grieved in any thing, lacking comfort
or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other
discreet and learned priest, taught in the law of
God, and confess and open his sin and grief secretly,
that he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice,
and comfort, that lis conscience may be relieved.’
The intrans. use, though Abbott (Shaks. Gram.
§ 293) gives it in his list of ‘trans. verbs rarely
used intransitively,’ is often found in AV. Thus
Ps 34! ‘The young lions do lack, and sutler
hunger’; 1 Co 12% ‘having given more abundant
honour to that part which lacked.’ Cf. Pr. Bk.
1552 (Com.), ‘there lacketh nothing but the
guests to sit down’; and Hall, Works, ii. 51,
‘Either will or ability lacked in them.’

Earle (Psalter of 1539, p. 267) points out that, in place of
‘lack’ of previous versions, AV oiten has ‘want.’ He quotes
Ps 231 ‘therefore can I lack nothing’ in 1539, ‘I shall not
want’ in 1611; Jg 1810, Lk 154. And he explains that the word
lack’ had in the meantime suffered depreciation from the use
of it as ἃ common interpellation by stall-keepers to passers-by :
What d’ye lack, what d’ye lack? To Earle’s examples add Ja 14
Tind, ‘lacking nothing,’ AV ‘wanting nothing’; and for the
subst., ‘for lacke of knowlage’ in the Camb. MS of Ridley’s
Brete Declaration, reprinted by Moule (p. 95), changed in the
Oxford and ‘ modernized’ MS into ‘ want.’

J. HASTINGS.

LAD.—In OT the only word tr? ‘lad? is yi πα αν
(33 times), and in NT παιδάριον (once, Jn 0"). Like
near in Heb., ‘lad’ has always been used collo-
quially in Eng. for ‘servant.’ Once RV changes
‘lad’ into ‘ servant,’ 2 Καὶ 4" ‘And he said to a lad
(ayia, RV ‘his servant’), Carry him to his mother.’
Tindale uses the word of Joshua, Ex 33" ‘ And
when Moses turned agayne in to the hoste, the ladd
Josua his servaunte the sonne of Nun departed
not out of the tabernacle’ (AV ‘his servant [RV
‘minister ᾽ Joshua the son of Nun, a young man’).
Once the Rhem. version translates mais by ‘lad,’
Mt 1718 ‘the ladde was cured from that houre’ (AV
and all previous versions ‘child,’ RV ‘ boy’).

; J. HASTINGS,

LADAN (j773).—1. A name occurring in the
genealogy of Joshua, 1Ch 7% (Aadédv). 2. A
Gershonite family name, 1 Ch 237° (B ’Eédy,
A Aeaddv) 2674" (B Xaddv, Aadays, A λΛεδάν Ms,
Λααδάν). In 6 it appears as LIBNI (wh. see).

LADDER (Ὁ, κλίμαξ).----Ἴ, Jacob in his dream at
Bethel saw a ‘ladder’ set up on the earth and
reaching to heaven (Gn 28"). The Heb. word
occurs only here, and though LXX renders it by
κλίμαξ it has been doubted whether ‘ladder’ con-
veys its exact meaning.* The heights near Bethel

* Henderson (Expos. Times, Jan. 1893, p. 151 f.) contends
that Jacob’s ‘ladder’ was really a temple-tower similar to the
Babylonian E-Sagila

LADDER OF TYRE

»

ΤΛΉΑΙΒΟΙ 17

are said to present the appearance of steps from
certain points of view, and it has been conjectured
that in Jacob’s dream the piled-up rocks around
him were transformed into a vast stairway on which
angels went and came (Dillm. and others note that
the angels are conceived as wingless. See ANGEL,
vol. i. p. 94"). The visionary ‘ladder’? was a symbol
to Jacob of the communication with God which
was open to him, and Christ alluded to it in
claiming that this communication between heaven
and earth would be perfected in Himself (Jn 1”).
See Bush, Notes on Genesis; Dods, Genesis, in loc.
2. In 1 Mae 5* Jadders are mentioned among the
preparations for the siege of Dathema. The use
of sealing ladders for attacking fortified walls was
general in ancient warfare. Such ladders are repre-
sented on Egyptian and Assyrian monuments, as
well as on Jater classical remains. See Wilkinson,
Ancient Equyptians, i. 2438; Erman, A neient Kgypt,
533; Layard, Nineveh, ii. 872; Riistow u. Kochly,
Geschichte des Griechischen Kriegsiwesens, 205, 320 ;
Rich, Rom. and Gr. Antiquities, s.r. ‘Scale.’
JAMES PATRICK.

LADDER OF TYRE (ἀπὸ τῆς κλίμακος "ρου ;
Vulg. a terminis Tyri; Sy. ‘from the borders
of Tyre,’ 1 Mac 11; Talm. st som; “ κλίματος
in Alex. 64, 93 ist vielleicht vorwitzige * Aende-
rung des unverstandenen Ausdrucks,’ Grimm,
Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, loc. cit.).—This was
evidently ἃ prominent landmark ; it is given as the
northern limit of the territory to the captaincy of
which Antiochus VI. promoted Simon Maccabieus
(1 Mac 11; Jos. Ant. xin. v. 4). In describing
the situation of Acre, Josephus mentions it again,
as ἃ mountain lying about 100 stadia to the
north (BJ i. x. 2). The mountains stand round
the plain of Acre almost in the form of a seml-
cirele, terminating S.W. and N.W. in the bold
promontories of Carmel and 7 5 en- Nakirah,
which drop precipitously on the shore. Between
the base of Carmel and the beach there is a strip
of land, leaving room for a highway, which affords
free communication between the plain of Acre and
that of Sharon. The clitis of Rds en-Naukarah, on
the contrary, plunge straight into the waves, and
the journey northward is made with difliculty over
the heieht. This has led many to identify ds
en-Nakurah with the ‘Ladder’ to be scaled before
the land of the Tyrians could be approached. Brt
when this obstacle is surmounted, a not less for-
midable barrier is interposed between the traveller
and Tyre by Rds el-Abyad, ‘the white promon-
tory,’ Pliny’s Promontorium album, at a few miles’
distance, on the northern edge of a pleasant vale.
The clitts of this headland ‘of white indurated
marl interlaced with seams of dark-coloured flint,’
fall from a great height, sheer into the sea. Along
the face of the precipice a pathway has been cut,
to be traversed not without danger; the crags
rising steeply from the edge on one hand, and
on the other a perpendicular descent, the waves
booming among the rocks and caves 200 ft. below.
The ascent to this path is cut after the manner
of a staircase. This, perhaps, has led some to
identify the Ladder of Tyre with Las el-Abyad.
But the same was true of Rds en-Nakirah betore
certain recent alterations (PEF Mem. i. 192).
Asher hazards the conjecture that Benjamin of
Tudela intended this place by ws n2n (vol. 11. p. 75).

A study of the locality together with the state-
ment of Josephus (BJ 11. x. 2) has convinced the
present writer that the name Ladder of Tyre was
not applied to either of these promontories alone.
Speaking in succession of the mountains of Galilee
and Carmel, Josephus says that which the natives
call the Ladder of the Tyrians ‘is the highest of
all.’ Rds en-Nakirah, which is only 223 tt. high,

* Suggested perhaps by ὁρίων which follows.
VOL. I1I.—2

does not answer the description ; neither does Leds
el-Abyad, which, in addition, is not visible from
Acre. It could apply only to the lofty ridge N.
of the plain, measuring some 8 miles across, and
rising to a height of over 1000 ft., which, as it
sinks seaward, throws off three distinct headlands,
terminating abruptly on the shore: Jtdés el-Mu-
sheirifeh, Rdsen-Nakarah, and Las el-Abyad. ‘The
two former, being close together, are often spoken
of as one under the name of the second, These
western spurs, barring the approach to the Phoenti-
cian plain, doubtless suggested the name, Δ Ladder
of the Tyrians,’ applied to the whole mountain,
LITERATURE.—Robinson, Later Researches, 66, 89; Stanley,
Sinai and Pal. 264, 266, 269; Thomson, Land and Book, ii.
246, 263, 2653; Neubauer, Géog. du Talin, 39, PEF Mem. i.
143, 192; Maundrell, Karly Travels in Palestine (Bohn) ;
Baedeker, Pal. and Syr.? 271. W. EWING.

LADE.—The mod. form ‘load’ oceurs in AV
1011 twice, Is 46! ‘your carriages were heavie
loaden,’ and Ps 68 ‘Blessed be the Lord, who
daily loadeth us with benefits.’ Elsewhere the
form is ‘lade,’ which is now used only of ships. ἽΝ
Fuller, Holy and Profane State, p. 809, says, ‘The
ship may have Castor and Pollux for the badge,
yet notwithstanding have δ. Paul for the lading.’

J. HASTINGS,

LADY.—This word occurs six times in AV,
translating three different words. (1) 23 g¢bhereth,
which means ‘ inistress’ and is so translated every-
where else (viz. Gn 16%* 9, 9 K 5%, Ps 1935, Pr 30°’,
Is 24), is translated ‘lady’ in Is 47°: 7, a tr™ which
has come down from Wyclif. RV retains ‘lady,’
but Amer. RV prefers ‘ mistress.’

(2) my sdrah, the name οἵ Abraham’s wife,
signifies ‘ princess,’ which is its tr. in 1 Κα 115 and
La l!} in AV and RV. But in Jg 5”, Est 18 AV
gives ‘lady,’ which RV changes to ‘princess’ in
the second passage ; the same change should have
been made in the first also. In Is 499 both have
‘queen,’ with AVm ‘ princess.’

(3) In NT κυρία, which occurs only 2 Dns ὃ, 18
translated ‘lady,’ a tr". which again comes from
Wyclif. In this case the tr is much disputed,
some taking the word as a proper name. See art.
JOHN, EPIStLEs OF, vol. ii. p. 740f.

As in the sense of master ‘lord’ has nearly passed out of use,
except in its application to Christ, so ἡ lady’ in the sense of
mistress is rapidly passing away, except in reference to the
Virgin Mary.* The Douay version of La 11 was originally ‘ How
doth the citie ful of people sit solitarie : how is the ladie of the
Gentils become as a widow?’ But the modern editions have
‘mistress’ for ‘ladie” Cf. Gn 164 Wye. ‘And Agar seigh that
sche hadde conseyved, and sche dispiside hir ladi’ ; and Is 477
Coy. ‘and thou thoughtest thus, I shalbe lady for ever.’

J. HASTINGS.

LAEL (5x5, BA Δαήλ, Luc. Δαουήλ ; O.1. [Lyons
MS] Dael ;—apparently an error extending through
all known copies of the LXX, and earlier than the
O.L.).—A Gershonite Levite, Nu 3”. The name
means ‘belonging to God,’ and is interesting as being
almost the only example in OT of such a formation
(preposition + divine name). The idea expressed
by it ‘appears to rest on a reflection which must

“have been foreign to the highest antiquity’ (N6I-

deke, WZKM, 1892, p. 314, quoted in Gray, /Meb.
Proper Names, p. 207: cf. also Wellhausen, Jest”,
p.7). The nearest Semitic parallel to it adduced
by Néldeke is the Palmyrene ete? ‘belonging to
the sun.’ J. A. SELBIE.

LAHAD (a>). Judahite family name, 1 Ch 4
(B Λαάθ, A Add).

LAHAI-ROI.—See BEER-LAHAI-ROL.

* In the ‘ glosses’ as they were called, te. marginal notes, tc
the fragment of NT printed by Tindale in 1525, there occurs at
Mt 12° ‘it followeth not that Joseph knew our lady afterward.’
In the notes to the NT of 1588, ‘ Mary’ is substituted for ‘our
lady.’ ᾿

18 LAHMAM

LAMB

LAHMAM (o>05, perh. textual error for 0295, which
is adopted by RVm Lahmas, following LXX Mayés
and Lue. Aauuds).—A town of Judah, noticed with
others near the foot of the hills, Jos 15%. There is
a ruin called e/-Lahm, near Beit Jibrin, which is a
possible site (cf. Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, 129;
SWP vol. iii. sheet xx.). C. R. CONDER.

LAHMI. — The name given in our copies of
Chronicles to a certain Philistine giant. The
statement is: ‘And smote Elhanan .. . Lahimi
the brother of Goliath the Gittite’ (1 Ch 905).
But the parallel statement is : ‘ And smote Elhanan
... the Bethlehemite Goliath the Gittite’ (2.8
211%), Any one who will compare these, as written
in Hebrew characters, will tind reason to think
that one is a copy of the other, and that one
copyist or the other misread his copy. Probably
the reading in Samuel is correct, and the word
Lahmi (3 τ ΠᾺ} is properly a part of the word
Bethlehemite (2050 m2), the giant in question being
a relative and namesake of the Goliath whom
David slew (but see art. DAVID, vol. i. p. 562, and
ef. Driver, Jexrt of Sam. p. 272).

W. J. BEECHER.

LAISH (¢:>).—1. The original name of the town
of Dan (wh. see), Je 187-15. ὅτι 9. The variation
Leshem (wh. see) occurs in Jos 1947%is, 2, The
father of Palti or Paltiel, to whom Michal, David's
wife, was given by Saul, 1 S 254, 28 3),

LAISHAH (7:5), Is 102°.—The name of a place
connected with Gallim, and mentioned here along
with other localities in Benjamin and Judah. If
Gallim be Beit Jala near Bethlehem, Laishah
would also be in that neighbourhood.

LAKE.—The inland waters which may be classed
under the term /akes are of two kinds—open and
closed. Open lakes, in which the water is fresh,
have an outlet in the form of a river or stream by
which the unevaporated waters escape ; while, in
the case of closed lakes having no outlet, the
water they receive from streams or springs is
evaporated as fast as it enters, and as a general
result the water of such lakes is salt or brackish.
Of both of these varieties we have examples in the
cases of the three principal lakes of Palestine ;
those of Huleh (Merom), Galilee (Tiberias), and
the Dead Sea. In the case of the first two, the
waters of the Jordan descending from their sources
in the Lebanon, augmented by inany other streams
flowing in from the east and west, enter from the
north and pass out from the south ; finally enter-
ing at the northern end of the Dead Sea, they pass
off into the air by evaporation, there being no
outlet from this great reservoir (see MEROM,
WATERS OF ; GALILEE, L. oF ; DEAD SEA). These
lakes being each described under their own names,
only a few points by which they are connected with
each other need be noticed here.

(1) The physical origin of the Jordanic lakes.—As
the great line of fault and dislocation of the strata
known as ‘ the Jordan-Arabah fault? is now recog-
nized as the primary cause of the valley, or line of
depression, of that name, it may be inferred that
the existence of the lakes is due to unequal sub-
sidence in the primeval floor of this line of valley ;
the lake basins representing portions where the
depression of the original bed was greater than
the intervening portions now occupied by the
river Jordan.* In addition to this cause, which
may be cailed mechanical, it is not improbable

* It should be recollected, however, that these supposed local
depressions occurred not from a nearly horizontal floor, but
from one inclined from north to south; in other words, from
the sources of the Lebanon to the original floor of the Dead Sea
—a slope of over 2000 feet in a distance of about 150 miles.

that volcanic action during the Miocene and
Pliocene periods may have played an important
part in the formation of these great hollows.
The evidences of volcanic action all along the
eastern side, and, to a limited extent, along the
western side, of the Jordan valley are shown in
the vast sheets of lava of the Jaulin, Gilead, and
Moab; and it seems a fair inference that the
withdrawal of such enormous quantities of matter
from the underground magma, and its extraya-
sation at the surface, may have resulted in pro-
ducing subsidences in the bed of the Jordan
valley similar to those known to exist in other
volcanic regions, such as Auvergne in Central
France and the countries bordering the Mediter-
ranean.

(2) Relative levels.—The surface of the Lake of
Haleh is 7 feet below that of the Mediterranean,
and its depth slight; that of the Sea of Galilee
682 feet below the same level; and that of the
Dead Sea 1292 feet: thus the fall between the
L. of Htleh and that of Galilee is 675 feet in a
distance of 10 miles, being about 67 feet per
mile, that between the L. of Galilee and the
Dead Sea 610 feet in a distance of 65 miles, being
at the rate of nearly 9°4 feet per mile ; the Jordan
is therefore, at least in its upper section, a rapid
stream. The above distances are measured in a
direct line.

Besides these three most important lakes, we
may mention—

(4) L. Phiala (Birket er-Ram), lying at the
southern foot of Hermon, a lake, circular in
form and about half a mile in diameter, which
occupies the crater of an extinct volcano; one of
the great group of Trachonitis. *

(Ὁ) Birket el-Jish.—Another small lake of vol-
canic origin, occupying the crater of a truncated
cone called Jebel Jish, not far from Safed, on the
western side of the Jordan valley.

(ὁ) The Damascus Lakes.—These shallow sheets
of water, which in summer are converted into
swamps, are fed by the Abana (Nahr Barada)
and Pharpar (Nahr Taura) ‘rivers of Damascus’
(2 Καὶ 513). These streams, issuing from the ravines
in the Lebanon, by whose springs they are fed,
pour their life-giving waters over a tract of the
Syrian Desert in which the city of Damascus is
situated ; and, assisted by an ancient system of
canals and conduits, spread fertility over an area
of several hundred square miles, converting it into
a garden remarkable both for the richness and
the variety of the vegetation, which has been a
theme of admiration for all travellers. The Abana
traverses the city itself, and its waters are dis-
tributed by seven canals and conduits (see DAMAS-
cus). Looking at the beneficent effects of the
waters of these rivers on the soil of Syria, Naaman
seems to have been fully justified from his point
of view in exclaiming, ‘Are not Abana and
Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the
waters of Israel?’ E. HULL.

LAKKUM (2:75, B Δωδάμ, A ἄκρου, Lue. Λακούμ).
—A town of Naphtali, Jos 19°. It is mentioned
in the Onomasticon as Λακούμ, but the site has not
been recovered.

LAMA.—See Eul, EL1, LAMA SABACHTHANI.

LAMB is used to render various Hebrew terms,
of which the most frequent are the followine :
1. 33 kebes, LXX ἀμνός, with its feminines hibsah
and kabsah, ἀμνάς, EV ‘ewe lamb,’ whence by
metathesis the less common forms a3¥3 keseb and
azv2 hisbah. Kebes is said to oceur 87 times in

* Described by S. Merrill (Hast of the Jordan, 14 (1881))
Tristram (Land of Israel, 589, 2nd ed.).

LAMB

LAMECH τὸ

Ex, Lv, and Nu (all in passages belonging to P) in
connexion with the ritual of the various sacrifices.
It most nearly corresponds to our ‘lamb,’ being
very frequently employed with the qualification
‘of the first year’ {π| ΨΞ lit. ‘son of a year’). In
a number of passages the Revisers have sought to
bring out more clearly the distinction between
the masc. and the fem. forms by rendering kehbes
more uniformly ‘he-lamb’ (as opp. to kibsah
στα πα τὰ Ὁ -ebe;), see Nip ye 9h,
ae 14:5. 21

2. πὶ sch, which strictly denotes ‘a head of small
cattle’ (jx), tc. a sheep or a goat, and therefore
lacks the precision of /eées (cf. Ex 12° * Your [Pass-

| (Jer ave,

over] lamb (7) shall be without blemish, a male of |

the first year, ye shall take it from the sheep (O22)
or from the goats’). In a few passages our EV
have ‘sheep’ where, as in Ex 12° just quoted, the
context points to ‘lamb’ as the more appropriate
rendering, so e.g. Lv 2277.

3. 539 kar, perhaps a he-lamb at a stage inter-
mediate between the kebes and the ’ayil (Sx) or
ram. A@rim are mentioned as delicacies Dt 324,
Am θ΄, as coveted spoil 1S 15°, and as tribute
Is 161, 2 Kk 3+ (Mesha’s to the king of Israel; ef.
RVm and Coma. in loc.).

In three passages of the Greek translation the
obscure word ayyp késitah is wrongly translated
‘lambs’ (see art. KESITAI).

We have seen how frequently lambs are men-
tioned in connexion with the sacrifices of the
Priests’ Code. Of these may be singled out the
daily morning and evening sacrifice—the v23 tamid
of later Judaism ; οἵ, Dn 8"! and Mishna pass¢m—
at each of which ‘a male of the first year, without
spot,’ was offered (Ex 29°54, Nu 28°"); the Sabbath
tamid, when the number of lambs was doubled
(Nu 28"); the sacrifices at the great festivals such
as Pentecost, when nine lambs in all were offered,
and Booths, when the daily number rose to four-
teen (Nu 291%) but seven only on the eighth day,
νὴ, To a ditferent category belong the mother’s
ofttering of a lamb after childbirth (Lv 12°), and the
leper’s of ‘two he-lambs and one ewe-lamb of the
first year’ (Lv 142°). For the special case of the
Passover lamb, see art. PASSOVER.

The flesh of the lamb was naturally esteemed a
delicacy among the Hebrews as elsewhere (Dt 324,
Am 64; also 28 12%, Nathan’s parable of the ewe-
lamb). It was forbidden, however, to kill a lamb
till it was a week old (Ex 22", Lv 2227), and even
then the dam and her offspring must not be killed
on the same day (Lv 22°).

It was inevitable that so familiar and character-
istic a creature as the lamb should supply Hebrew
writers with a variety of figures. Thus the gaim-
bolling of lambs in the spring-time suggests itself
to the author of the Book of Wisdom as a suitable
figure for the exuberant and praiseful joy of the
Hebrews on the occasion of the exodus from Egypt
(Wis 19°; cf. a similar figure in Mal 4? [Heb. 3”°}).
In Hebrew, as in other literatures, the lamb
is the symbol of innocence and gentleness, as
opposed to cunning and ferocity. ‘ What fellow-
ship,’ asks ben-Sira, ‘hath the wolf with the
lamb ?? (Sir 13!7; cf. Horace, Epod. iv. 1); yet one
of the most striking features of the Messianic age
is the cessation of this hereditary antipathy, when
‘the wolf shall dwell with the lamb’ (Is 116; ef.
65”). The lambs are the special object of the
Messiah's eare (Is 404 ode fél@im, ἄρνας). In the
spirit of this prophecy we find that ‘ feed my lambs’
(τὰ ἀρνία wov) was part of the Master’s threefold
charge to Peter (Jn 9115).

The Jamb as the synonym of guileless innocence
and gentleness, further, is appropriated by Jere-
miah, who, all unsuspicious of the wiles of his
enemies, describes himself as ‘a gentle lamb’

a figure repeated in the familiar
portrait of the suffering Servant of J”, who is also
portrayed ‘as a lamb that is led to the sliughter’
(Is 537 RV).* The influence of the latter passage
in shaping the Messianic Hope of Judaism cannot
be over-estimated. Thus it is generally admitted
that it, above all, was in the Baptist’s mind when
he pointed to our Lord with the words, ‘ Behold
the Lamb of God +} (ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) which taketh
away the sin of the world’ (Jn 1°; cf. Ac 8%).
It is not impossible, however, that there may also
be included a reference to the lamb of the daily
sacrifice and even to the lamb of the approaching
Passover (see Westcott, in /oc.), since the writer of
the Fourth Gospel beyond a doubt declares the
Saviour upon the cross to be the true Paschal
Lamb (see esp. Jn 198; ef, for St. Paul 1 Co δ᾽
This expiatory aspect of our Saviour’s death is also
emphasized by St. Peter in his application to Christ
of the technical attributes of the sacrificial victim,
‘a lamb without blemish and without spot’ (1 P
1”; ef. Ritschl, Die christl. Lehre ὃς d. Leechtfer-
tiqung*, 1882, ii. 176, 177).

There remains the oft-recurring (twenty-seven
times) symbol of the Book of Revelation, in which
our Lord is figured as the ‘Lamb’ (note ἀρνίον
throughout, not ἀμνός), first introduced in 5° ‘as
though it had been slain’ (ἀρνίον... ws ἐσφαγμένον).
This is not the least striking of the points of con-
taet—even though the terms used are not identical
—between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel
(see the latest commentary, Bousset, Die Offen-
barung Johannis, 1896, p. 206), and in so far
supports the opinion of those who seek the source
of the apocalyptic symbol in the Paschal Lamb
rather than in Is 53° (for the whole question see
the commentaries and works on NT theology).
The lamb in early Christian symbolism is beyond
the limits of a Dictionary of the Bible (see art.
LAMB in Smith's Dict. of Christian Antiquities).

A. R.S. KENNEDY.

LAME, LAMENESS.—See MEDICINE.

LAMECH (τοῦ, Λάμεχ). 1--Ἴ, A descendant of
Cain, Gn 4:88. (J). He is said to have inarried two
. i - c > -
wives, Adah and Zillah (ν.}9 the first mention of
polygamy in the Bible), the former of whom became
the mother of Jabal and Jubal, the latter of Tubal-
cain (ν. 91), Legend ascribed to Lamech the fol-
lowing somewhat enigmatical utterance, which
has been preserved by J in poetical form :—
‘ Adah and Zillah, hear my voice ;
Ye wivesof Lamech, hearken unto my speech ;
For I slay (have slain?) a man for wounding me,
And a young man for bruising me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Truly Lamech shall be avenged seventy and sevenfold.’

The above is frequently called ‘the sword-lay,’
being supposed to be a glorification by Lamech of
the weapons forged by his son 'Tubal-cain, by the
aid of which he can defy his enemies and defend
himself, instead of having to look, like Cain. tol
God for protection. This is the generally accepted!
interpretation of modern scholars (those who are
curious to make acquaintance with Jewish and

* The terms are different, however, in the original: 233 in
Jer 1119, ny in Is 537,

+ Cf. also the pseudepigraphic work, The Testaments of the:
Twelve Patriarchs : ‘Honour Judah and Levi, for from them
shall arise for you the lamb of God (ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ {οὐ}, saving al.
nations by grace’ (Test. Josephi 19).

: Dillm. and Holzinger agree (against Budde) that the name
305 is unintelligible from Hebrew, but that Arabic may give
the meaning juvenis robustus. Ball (‘Genesis,’ in SBOT7),
following Hommel (PSBA, March 1893), considers Lamech ‘to
be an easy adaptation of Bab. Lamga, ‘‘the Servant” (of
Merodach), another title of Sin, synonymous with Ubara in the
name Ubara-tutu, ‘‘ vassal of Merodach,” the ’Qei«przs (or rather
’Qré pers) of Berosus, and father of Ξίσουθρος, the hero of the
Flood, who corresponds to the Hebrew Noah.’

20 LAMED

LAMENTATIONS

patristic fancies may refer to Smith’s DB, s.
‘Lamech’), and there can be little doubt that it is
mainly correct. Wellhausen (Composition εἰ. Hex.
305), it is true, thinks it is precarious to explain
the lay from its present context, with which it
may have a purely accidental connexion. ‘That. 15
to say, he sees no necessity for connecting Lamech’s
language with ‘Tubal-cain’s invention, but would
recognize in it only a piece of characteristic Oriental
bravado (the calling in of the wives is characteristic
too, parallels being found amongst the Arabs)
uttered by one clan (or chieftain) against another,
Holzinger substantially accepts Wellhausen’s ex-
planation.

2. A descendant of Seth and father of Noah,
Gn 5% 25-8 (P) 1 Ch 15. From the coincidence of
the names Lawech and Enoch in the Cainite
genealogy of J (Gan 4) and the Sethite genealogy
of P (ch. 5), as well as the very close resemblance
between a number of other names in the two lists,
it is generally held that we have betore us two
recensions of one and the same list, the object of
the one being to trace the descent of the human
race to an ancestor called Cain, the other to one
called Seth. Delitzsch, while opposing this, agrees
with Wellhausen, that, together with the genealogy
416-2 terminating in Lamech and his three sons,
there was in the Jahwistic document another
genealogy which started from Adam and termin-
ated in Noah and his three sons, and that this has
been displaced by the genealogy of P (ch. 5).
Wellh. finds the conclusion of J’s narrative in 5”,
its opening perhaps in 4°",

LivERATURE.—Buttmann, Wytholoqgus, i. 152 ff. ; Budde, Bib.
Urgeschichte, 102, 1301. ; Wellh. Comp. ὃ, 305; Kuenen, Heaxa-
teuch (Macmillan), 252; Reuss, A7’ 213 f.; Stade, ZAT7'W (1894),
283, 295 tf.; Comun. of Del., Dillm., and Holzinger, ad /oc.

; J. A. SELBIE.

LAMED (5).—The twelfth letter of the Hebrew
alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm
to designate the 1l2th part, each verse of which
begins with this letter. In this Dictionary it is
transliterated by /.

LAMENTATION.—See MoOuRNING.

LAMENTATIONS, Book or—consists of five
poems, whose subject is the sufferings of Judah
and Jerusalem during the siege and subsequent. to
the capture of the city by the Chaldeans (B.C.
586). The description of the woes of the people
is interspersed with confessions of sin, exhortations
to repentance, and supplications for a return of
the divine favour.

I, NAME AND PLACE IN THE CANON.—In Hebrew
Bibles the title of the book, taken from its opening
word, is ’HhkAah (sz>x=How ἢ. Another name,
which occurs in the Massoretic subscription and in
the Talmud and Rabbinical literature, is Ainoth
(mvp), to which correspond the Θρῆνοι of the Sept.
and the Vhreni, Lamentationes, Lamenta of
Jerome and the Fathers. In the Heb. Canon
(according to German MSS) the book is placed
among the A¢éthibhin or Hagiographa, and forms
one of the five Jegi//cth or Rolls (Canticles, Ruth,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther). These were
read in the Synagogue service on stated occasions
every year, Lamentations on the 9th of Ab, the
anniversary of the destruction of the temple. [ἢ
the Sept. as in the Ene. Bible, Lamentations im-
mediately follows Jeremiah. That this was not the
position in which the Sept. translators found it,
is held by some to be proved by the cireumstance,
noted by Néldeke, that the tr® of the two books is
not from the same hand, Jer being a compara-
tively free rendering of the original, while Lamenta-
tions is rigorously literal and marked by numerous
Hebraisms. When the latter book attained to its

present position in the Alex. Canon, it came to be
regarded more and more as an appendage to its
predecessor, until Jeremiah-Lamentations could be
reckoned a single book like Judges-Ruth. Tunis
result was reached all the more readily in some
quarters owing to a faney for reckoning the
canonical books of the OT as twenty-two, the
number of letters in the Heb. alphabet. (See
Ryle, Canon of the OT, 219 t., and Wildeboer,
Entstehung des AT Nanons, 76 f.).

Il. SrrRUcCTURE OF THE Book.—The first four
chapters are acrostic poems, of which the first,
the second, and the fourth contain each 22 verses
which open with the Heb. letters in succession,
Ch. 3 contains 66 verses, and each letter is re-
peated thrice, having three successive verses
assigned to it. Ch. 5 is not acrostic, but con-
tains 22 verses. In chs. 1 and 2 the verses consist
of three members, in 4 of only two, while in 3
each verse has but a single member. It is the
division of these members, however; which char-
acterizes the four poems we are discussing. The
Kineh or elegy is marked by a peculiar rhythin
which differentiates it from ordinary Hebrew
poetry. De Wette, Keil, Ewald, and others helped
to elucidate the nature and laws of the eleviac
measure, but to Budde belongs the merit of having
thoroughly investigated and explained the sub-
ject. His conclusions are set forth mainly in an
essay in the ΖΑΤῊ (1882, pp. 1-52); but the
Ene. reader will find all that is essential in an
interesting article contributed by the same author
to the New World (Mareh 1893), under the title
‘The Folk-Song of Isracl in the mouth of the
Prophets.’

The characteristic features of the elegiac measure
are that each verse-member (there may be one or
more members in a verse) is divided by a casi
into two unequal parts, of which the second is the
shorter (the proportion is generally 8:2), and that
this second part, instead of balancing and_ re-
inforcing the first, as is usual in the Heb. poetry,
is frequently an imperfect echo of it, or not
parallel in thought to it. (See Drivers LOT®
458). Budde has proved that this was the strain
affected by the ‘ mourning women’ in their
lamentations for the dead. In Jer 9, where
these are summoned to utter a dirge, the ‘limp-
ing verse, as Budde calls it, is introduced with
great effect (vv. 2!) alternately with the ordi-
nary evenly-moving verse. ‘There are numerous
other instances of its occurrence in the OT, of
which we may cite the magnificent passage Is 144-7!
(ode on the king of Babylon), Ezk 19, and Am 5° (cf.
Driver’s note on this last passage). ‘The prophets
seem to have adopted this measure whenever they
desired to make an unusually deep impression.
It is obvious that all the associations connected
with it rendered its employment in Lamentations
specially suitable. ‘The singer or singers em-
ployed this versification because it, afforded them
the surest way of putting their listeners into a
mood corresponding to their melancholy utter-
ances. High and low, learned and unlearned, old
and young, man and woman, all understood this
melody, all felt themselves transported by it to
the bier of their relatives or neighbours, and were
carried away by it to bewail their people, their
city, themselves’ (Budde). The plaintive melan-
choly cadence can be fully appreciated only in the
original Hebrew, but its effect can be approxi-
nately reproduced even in English. Take as an
example 1°-—

‘ Her adversaries are become the head,
Her enemies prosper ;
For the Lord hath afflicted her :
For the multitude of her transgressions :
Her young children are gone into captivity
Before the adversary.’

LAMENTATIONS

LAMENTATIONS 21

(It is greatly to be regretted that this peculiar
rhythin is not exhibited in the RV, although in
Kautzsch’s 47’ it is reproduced very etlectively in
German by Baethgen).

The text of Lamentations is in some instances
corrupt, and it is not easy to bring every verse
under Budde’s scheme. Still, not a little success
has been achieved by this critic and others in
restoring the original text of the Ainah. See,
further, art. Porrry.

From all this it is evident that in poems such
as those that make up Lamentations we have no
simple spontaneous outburst of grief, but the
result of conscious effort and of not ὦ little
technical skill. While ch. 5 is not in the Winah
measure (it is only accidentally that νν." % 14
conform to it), something of the same effect is
produced by the assonances (10, 2M, Gnu, ene,
inu, unw), Which recur 44 times (Reuss), and to
which there is no parallel in the OT except in
Ps 124.

Ill. ANALYSIS OF TIE CONTENTS.—Each of the
five poems is complete in itself, and forms a well-
rounded whole, independent alike of its pre-
decessor and its successor. This was admitted
even by Eichhorn, who ascribed all the five to
Jeremiah, but held that they were composed by
the prophet at different times and when in dit-
ferent moods. Attempts have indeed been made
to trace a progress either in the historical situation
(de Wette), or in the thoughts (Ewald), from one
chapter to another. The former failed completely
to accomplish his seli-imposed task, and the scheme
of the latter can be carried through only by dis-
covering in the Lamentations features that are
absent and ignoring others that are present.
Ewald certainly lays himself open to the sarcastic
remark of ‘Thenius, that upon such principles a
connexion could be established between the most
disparate elements in the world. Let any careful
student judge whether it is correct to say with
Ewald that chs. 1 and 2 contain the bitterest
and, as yet, hopeless complaints; that in ch. 3,
which is the turning-point, the poet reaches comfort
at least for himself; that in ch. 4 lamentation
indeed recurs, but now the people break in with
the language of prayer and hope; while in ch. 5
we have nothing but prayer, offered by the whole
community, whose tone is sad indeed, yet com-
posed and hopeful. No doubt Ewald exhibits
here an attractive model from which the author
or authors might have worked, but they have
not done so. Nay, so far from there being any
traceable connexion between the different poems,
it is no easy matter sometimes to discover con-
necting links between the verses of the same poein.
The truth is that the nature of the subject did not
readily admit of logical development, and it may
have been partly for this reason and as a mne-
monic device that the acrostic scheme was adopted
in the first four chapters (its absence in ch. 5 has
never been satisfactorily explained). In chs. 2
and 4 the verses have the firmest, in 1 and 5 the
loosest connexion. In the light of the foregoing
remarks it will be understood that the following
scheme of analysis, which is mainly Loéhr’s, 15
largely provisional.

Ch. | contains two divisions—(@) vv." spoken
by the poet (with the exception of 99) ; (Ὁ) νν.1}9-:2
spoken by the city (with the exception of 1).
The ever-recurring themes are the abandonment
of the city by her allies, the distress of her
inhabitants, the pride of the enemy. In v.® there
is already a confession that Jerusalem has been
Justly punished for her sins, and in % already ὃ
cry to God, which is repeated in '* In vv.}*"16,
where the city is supposed to speak, we have an
appeal to passers-by, to whom under a variety of

figures the misery of Zion is described In y.!!
the poet suddenly speaks again in his own person,
but in vv.!® 19 it is once more the city that appeals
to all peoples, and in νν. "9.35 addresses a prayer to
J” to execute vengeance on the foes who had
gloried in Jerusalem's misfortunes.

In ch. 2 the situation reminds us of Jer 141-38,
There are two main divisions—(@) νι. The
daughter of Zion has been crushed down by the
judement of J’, all her political glory has faded,
her temple has been destroyed, the city and its
inhabitants have sutfered alike. The agonies of
the siege, the despair of the citizens, the terrible
scenes due to famine, are realistically depicted ;
(ὁ) vv.824, The poet turns to the péople with
mingled warnings and consolation, ‘The sin of
Jerusalem, especially of her false prophets, and
the scorn that has overtaken the latter, are held
up to view ; the nation is invited to turn to J” in
supplication (vv. 19}, and it responds in the prayer
OEMs ts

Ch. 3 is the most important from a religious point
of view, and is also constructed with the most art.
It differs from the other chapters in being spoken in
the Ist person singular, although we should perhaps
understand the Τ᾽ not of an individual, but of
the people collectively, after the manner of Pss 31.
34. 35. 51, and many of the later psalms.* ‘The
chapter may be arranged under three divisions.
(a) Vv.28 touchingly describe the utter desolation
of the people, but at the mention of God in vy.) a
ray of hope darts into the soul of the speaker, who
after the parenthetical passage (vv.!"*!) passes on
to fulfil in (4) a didactic function (vv.*2°!). The
inexhaustible compassion of God is insisted upon,
the purposes of grace which He may have in His
visitation are suggested, all tending to enforce the
call to repentance. (ὁ) In vy.°??4 there is a return
to the tone of complaint, which soon passes, how-
ever, into joyful confidence (νν. 5:95) that God will
hear and deliver, while vy. breathe a prayer
for vengeance on the nation’s foes. (As to the
interpretation of vv.°°™ and the question of a
precative perfect, see Ewald’s /feb. Syntax, Ken-
nedy’s tr. p. 15; Driver's Heb. Tenses”, pp. 14, 25;
Davidson's Heh, Syntax, p. 63).

Ch. 4 closely resembles in structure ch. 3.
There are two main divisions, the first of which
falls into two subdivisions. (ὦ) Vv.bl¥, of which
vv. exactly balance vv.7". The js 32 of the
one is parallel to the o-vs3 of the other; in both
sections there is a description of the suilerings
occasioned by famine, and a tracing of these to
the anger of J” (v.”, which breaks the connexion,
probably owes its origin simply to the necessities
of the acrostic scheme). In (4) there are three
subdivisions—(1) vv.!*"6 treat of the sin and the
punishment of the priests and the prophets; (2)
νν. 17:30 of the sin and the punishment of the king
and his courtiers, who looked in vain to Egypt for
help; (3) νν.31. 33 address a word of threatening to
Edom and of comfort to Israel.

Ch. 5, like ch. 1, is wanting in consecutive
thought. It opens with a prayer that J” would
look upon the reproach ot His people, which
is described from a variety of points of view
(νν.3-18), Zion’s desolation suggests, by way of
contrast, J’’s abiding power, upon the ground
of which the poet repeats his appeal for help
(vv.202), The last verse being considered one
of ill omen, the Jews were accustomed in read-
ing to repeat after it the preceding verse. For a
similar reason the same usage was followed in

* So Calov, Hupfeld, Reuss, Cheyne, Smend (see esp. ZATW’,
1882, p. 621f.). On the other hand, Budde (Klagelieder, 99 1.)
contends for the individual sense of the ‘I,’ by which he
supposes the author of the poem to have intended an eye-
witness (most likely Jeremiah) of the destruction of Jerusalem

99
ot ol

LAMENTATIONS

LAMENTATIONS

connexion with the last verse of Isaiah, Malachi,
and Ecclesiastes.

1V. Auruorsutp.—Both in Jewish and in Chris-
tian circles a tradition has long prevailed that
the book was written by Jeremiah. We will
examine —

(a) The External Evidence. —While the Heb.
Bible is silent as to the authorship of Lamentations,
it is otherwise with the Sept., where the book opens
thus: καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὸ αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ
καὶ ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ ἐρημωθῆναι ἐκάθισεν ᾿Ιερεμίας κλαίων
καὶ ἐθρήνησεν τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον ἐπὶ ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ καὶ
εἶπεν (‘And it came to pass, after Israel was led
into captivity and Jerusalem laid waste, that
Jeremiah sat weeping, and lamented with this
lamentation over Jerusalem, and said’). It has
been urged that these words, which sound like
the rendering of a Heb. original, imply a notice
to the above effect in the Heb, MS from which the
Sept. translator worked. The Vulg. opens with
words which reproduce in Lat. the above Gr. sen-
tence, with the additional phrase ef amaro aniino
suspirans et cjulans, and these words in italics
imply, ace. to some, the existence of yet another
Heb. original. In ch. 5, moreover, Vule. has the
heading Oratio Jeremia propheta. The super-
scription of the book in Pesh. also supports the
same tradition.

There are, however, two circumstances
greatly weaken the force of the above evidence.
Firstly, the absence of any allusion to Jeremiah
in the ΜΠ would be utterly inexplicable if such a
notice as occurs in the Sept. had ever stood in
the Hebrew. As every student Knows, it was
far more the tendency of copyists to add than to
suppress. Secondly, the place of the book in the
Heb. Canon, not attached to Jer, but included
amone the Aéthibhin, is hard to reconcile with
its prophetic authorship. As Driver remarks,
at least three centuries separated the Sept. from
Jeremiah, and its notice quoted above may be
merely an inference founded on the general re-
semblance of tone which the Lamentations exhibit
to such passages as Jer 88-9, 14-15, and on the
reference assumed to be contained in 3! 38 to
incidents in the prophet’s life (Jer 207 3864), It
was doubtless a similar feeling that gave rise to
the extraordinary conflate reading τῷ Δαυὶδ “Tepe-
wiov, Which is the title in some MSS of Ps 187
(Cheyne),

to connect Lamentations with the prophecies of
Jeremiah, probably at the time when it was an

that |

According to Lohr and Gerlach, the καὶ
ἐγένετο. οἷοι. of the Sept. was written in order |

object to reduce the number of books in the Canon |

to twenty-two. It need scarcely be added that
the statements of the Fathers, the superscription in
the 'Tareum, and the citations from the Talmud,
have no independent value as evidence in regard
to the authorship.

There has been much discussion as to the
meaning of 2Ch 35% ‘And Jeremiah Jamented
for Josiah, and all the singing men and singing
women spake of Josiah in their lamentations unto
this day, and they made them an ordinance in
Israel, and behold they are written in the lamenta-
tions. ‘The question is whether the words we
have italicized refer to our book of Lamentations.
If so, we should have a tradition as early as the
days of the Chronicler (6. B.C. 250) in favour of
Jeremiah’s authorship of at least a portion of its
contents. Thenius answers the above question in
the negative, holding that the Ainéth referred
to were @ collection of lamentations for the dead
sung on the occasion of the burial of the kings
of Judah. In this collection Jeremiah’s lament
for Josiah may easily have had a place, but our
book never formed part of it. On the other
hand, a great many of the leading OT scholars

of the day understand the Chronicler to refer
to the canonical book of Lamentations. Lohr
offers three reasons for this conclusion: (1) it is
hard to believe that there were extant other
lamentations by Jeremiah outside the Canon ; (2)
the Chronicler might readily have referred such
passages as La 2° and 4% to Josiah; (3) an un-
critical writer like the Chronicler might easily
have committed a blunder into which Jos. (Ané.
x. i. δ) probably and Jerome certainly fell. The
words of the latter in commenting on Zee 121! are,
‘super quo (Josia) lamentationes scripsit Jeremias,
que leguntur in Ecclesia et scripsisse eum Para-
lipomenon testatur liber.’ The samme interpreta-
tion of the Chronicler’s language is supported by
Noldeke, Cornill, Wildeboer, W. R. Smith, and
Budde.* If it be correct, it gives us a testimony
in favour of Jeremiah’s connexion with Lamenta-
tions, dating from about the same period, and en-
titled to much the same consideration as the testi-
mony of the Sept. which we have just examined.
As the external evidence is manifestly insufh-
cient to decide the question, we are thrown back
upon—

(6) The Internal Evidence.—At the first glance
this may seem to be in favour of Jeremiah’s
authorship, which has been strongly maintained
by Keil and others. The verdict of modern criti-
cism, however, is given for the most part against
the traditional view. The undoubted aftinities of
all the five chapters with Jer (see a list of simi-
larities in Driver, 17.010 4627) are recognized by
critics of all schools, but are explained on the
eround that this prophet’s works were the favourite
study of the author or authors of Lamentations,
who were in such sympathy with his spirit that
the book might be entitled ‘Lamentations of the
sons of Jeremiah’? (Cheyne).

There are several passages which militate
against Jer.’s authorship. La 2° (‘Her prophets
find no vision from the Lorb’) might almost be
pronounced decisive. In this same verse, more-
over, pia is used in a special sense which meets us
for the first time in Ezk 12%. A number of other
instances are cited by Cornill (Zin/eit.* 247) where
the language shows such a dependence upon
Szekiel (who did not publish his prophecies betore
B.c. 570), that Jeremiah’s authorship seems out
of the question. La 417 does not sound like the
language of Jeremiah, who never shared the hopes
of those who looked for help to Egypt. La 4°
could hardly be spoken of Zedekiah by one who
judged him’ as Jeremiah did. Chs. 1 and 5 imply
an acquaintance with Deutero-Isaiah, while ch. 3
contains echoes of the later psalms and of Job
(which probably dates at the earliest from the
Exile). In his Job and Solomon, Cheyne adduces
the following parallels with the latter book —
La 37-9=Job 19°, La 33=Job 30”, La 3=Job 10",
La 32 8—Job 72 168, La 34 8=Job 30°. The
dependence of the elegies upon Job is more likely
than the converse supposition.

A circumstance that may have some bearing on
the question of authorship, is that the order of
the letters y and 5 is different in chs. 2-4 from
what it isin ch. 1. In the latter the normal order
is followed, in the other three chapters 5 precedes
y(a phenomenon which occurs also in the correct
text of Ps 34 as well as in Pr 31 [according to the
LXX], probably also in Ps 9f., and, according to
Bickell, in Nah 1; ef. Budde, Klagqelieder, 70t.).
Even if we suppose, with Thenius, Ewald, Nigels-
bach, and others, that at one time the order of
the Heb. alphabet was not definitely fixed, it is

* Budde points out, however, that the Chronicler does not
attribute all five poems to Jeremiah, but apparently only one of
them, the other four being assigned to the ‘singing men and
singing women’ (Klagelieder, p. 73).

LAMENTATIONS

LAMP 22

hardly likely that one and the same author would
have followed different. orders in two successive
poems. This would indicate, then, that at least
ch. 1 is from a different hand from chs. 2-4.

In regard to the linguistic aspect of the ques-
tion, it may be mentioned that Lohr (ZATIW,
1894, Heft 1; ef. Driver, LOT 463) subjects the
vocabulary of Jeremiah and of Lamentations to a
comparison, the result of which is that while the
words common to both are four times as numerous
as those found only in Lamentations, yet the latter
contains a great many words not found in Jere-
miah. These words, moreover, are without ex-
ception important, while the common use of words
like vy or 13, of course, proves nothing as to com-
munity of authorship (e.g. οὐ for 178, which occurs
in La 24-16 49 518 is unknown to Jer). Many of
the above considerations tell not only against
Jeremiah’s authorship but against—

V. Tue Uniry ΟΕ THE Book.—While there is
comparative agreement amongst modern critics
that Jeremiah is not the author, there has been
much diversity of opinion as to the number of
authors whose work is to be traced in the book.
W. R. Smith argued stronely that the book is
a unity (art. ‘Lamentations’ in Lneycl. Brit.*),
but the prevailing tendency at present 1s decidedly
adverse to this opinion. It is pretty generally
agreed that at least ch. 3 is by a different and
Jater hand than the rest of the book. 3udde
formerly (ZATIV, 1882) agreed with Stade, who
is content to go this length, and who assigns 1. 2.
4. 5 to a single author. Thenius holds 2 and 4
to be Jeremiah’s, while 1. 3. 5 are assigned each
to a separate author. A considerable number of
modern critics divide the book into three groups
in the following chronological order (2 and 4)
(L and 5) (3). This, which was the scheme of
Noldeke, lias gained the adherence of Lohr,
Cornill, Wildeboer, and now (/v/agelieder, 1898,
pp. 7418) substantially of Budde.* | Another
arrangement of the book is that of Cheyne
(Jerentiah in ‘Men of the Bible’ series), which also
recognizes three groups (1. 2. 4) (3) (5). On this
question criticism has not yet spoken the last
word.

VI. PLACE AND DATE oF ComposITIon.—U pon
these two points there are differences of opinion
even amongst those who support Jeremiah’s
authorship of the book. |The treshness of the
pictures has often been adduced as an argument
for an early date. It may be said, however, that
while there is something that appeals to the
imagination in the old picture ot the faithful
prophet sitting down to Jament the fate of the
city which had turned a deaf ear to his warn-
ings, it is a psychological improbability that a
man of Jeremiah’s spirit should have turned out
acrostic poems, and especially such a laboured
work of art as ch. 3 amidst blackened ruins where
the fire had hardly cooled, and in streets where
the blood had hardly dried. Hence, even if the
poems were his, we should have to think of a
relatively late date for their composition, when
the bitterness of the moment had given place to
calm reflection. (With this tallies 5°? ‘so long
time’). Thenius, who regarded 2 and 4 as genuine
productions of Jeremiah, dated the one at about
B.C. 581 (prior to the third deportation after the
murder οἱ Gedaliah), and the other at a later

eriod, during the prophet’s sojourn in Egypt.
ἴδμεν formerly fixed upon 550 as an approximate
date for the completion of the book. ‘This would

* Who assigns chs. 2 and 4 to an eye-witness (not Jeremiah) of
the calamities they describe, dates chs. 1 and 5 (from dierent
hands) about 53u (or later) and 550 respectively, while he fixes
the date of ch. 8 much later, in the pre-Maccabwean period in
the 38rd cent. B.C.

allow sufficient time to account for the references
to Ezekiel. In a later work (1893) Lohr is willing
to come down as late as 530, but objects to a
post-exilic date, because he holds that the Ainahk
measure, although found in Deutero-Isaiah, can-
not be traced in any post-exilic work (not occur-
ring in Hag, Zec, Mal, Jl, or Jon). Wildeboer
finds nothing in the contents of the book to compel
us to fix upon the close of the Exile as the ¢er-
minus ad quem for the publication of Lamenta-
tions. Some of the elegies might well have been
composed in Babylon by an exile who did not
share the sanguine expectations of Deutero-Isaiah,
or even in Juda by one who had returned with
Zerubbabel in 536. Wildeboer thinks, however,
that the latest possible date is 516, the year when
the rebuilding ot the temple was finished. But if
the possibility of Lamentations being post-exilic is
admitted, some plausibility must Le conceded to
Cheyne’s suggestion (Founders of OT Criticism,
356) that as the church of the second temple
composed its own psalms, it is far from impossible
that it preferred to indite fresh elegies for use on
the old fast-days. There were details enough in
the historical books to enable a poet possessed
of dramatic imagination to draw the pictures in
Lamentations. ‘lhe tone of the book, however, is
inconsistent with the contention of Fries (ZA TI,
1893), that chs. 4 and 5 belone to so late a period
as that of the Maccabees. This is conclusively
proved by Lohr (ZA T7IV, 1894), who exhibits the
complete contrast between the Maccabeean Psalms,
where the people protest that they sufier in spite
of their innocence, and the Bk. of Lamentations,
which confesses throughout that the nation’s
suffering is due to the nation’s sin.
Lirerature.—Driver, LOTS 456-465; Cornill, Eindeit.2 244-
248; W. R. Smith, OV /C2 181, 219, also art. ‘Lamentations’ in
Eneye. Brit.9; Wildeboer, Lit. d. AT’, 298-303; Noldeke, AT
Lit. 142ff.; artt. by Budde, Smend, Lohr, Fries in ZATW
(1882-1894); Ryle, Canon of OT, 69, 115, 121, 219; Wildeboer,
Entsteh. d. AT Kan. 9, 12, 17, 77, 131ff.; Buhl, Canon and
Text of OT, 20, 891, Of modern foreign commentaries may
be mentioned those of Thenius, Keil, Kwald, Gerlach, Reuss,
Nagelsbach, Lohr (1891 and 1893, the latter in Nowack’s Hand-
kom. z. AT’; both Lohr’s works are exceedingly valuable, and
there is an important review of the first by A. B. Davidson in
Crit. Review, Jan. 1892); Minocchi, Le Lament. di Geremia,
1897; Budde in Kurzer Idceomm., 1898. Amongst Eng. com-
mentaries are those of Payne Smith (in Speaker's Comin),
Plumptre (in Ellicott’s Comm. on OT), Cheyne (in Pulpit
Coimm.), cf. the same author’s Jeremiah in ‘ Men of the Bible’
series, and his Founders of OT Criticisin, 356 f.; Streane (Camb.
Bible for Schools), Adeney (in Earpositor’s Bible). See also
Greenup, Targuin on Lai., Comm. of Rabbi Tobia ben Elieser on
Lam., Short Comin. on Lamentations. ad ΒΞ

LAMP (725, 73, λύχνος, Naurds).—The first of these
words is ὑγ ‘torch’ in Nah 2? and Zee 126 (AV and
RV); and in Gn 15", Je 7, Job 41, Ezk 1 the
same ὑγ 15 adopted by RV in place of ‘lamp’ of AY.
The other Heb. word, as well as the Gr. λαμπάς, ἢ
may mean torch likewise, but is more properly
lamp, with oil and wick, as in the description of the
golden candlestick (Ex 25%-*7) of the tabernacle,
and those made by Solomon for the temple (2 Ch
4-1) which were kept burning all night (x 307-5,
Lv 24°),

The common lamps of Pal. were of terra-cotta,
as we have abundant evidence from the numerous
specimens found in all parts. Glass lamps of Eeyp.
or Phosn. make might have been known, and bronze
lamps are not infrequently found. Very little is
known of the lamps used in Egypt. Herod. (ii. 62)
describes them as flat saucers filled with a mixture
of salt and oil, on the top of which floated the
wick. The oldest form of lamp found in Pal. is not
unlike that described by Herodotus, It is like a
shallow saucer, the rim of which, on one side, is
pinched together, forming a narrow channel through
which the wick passed (see Vig. 1), ‘This style is

* See under art. LANTERN,

24 LAMP

LANDMARK

called Phoon., and is found in the tombs and ruins
of the oldest cities in Phamnicia and Palestine
(δὲ, 1893, p. 14; and Bliss, Mound of Many
Cities, p. 87). Phe more common forms are oblong,
but not open like the above. There is a saucer-
like depression in the upper surface, at the bottom

of which there is an orifice for the admission of |

the oil into the lamp, and another opening at the

Fig. 1.

extremity for the admission of the wick. At the
opposite end there is often a small handle (see
Mies. 2 and 3: Fig. 3 is bronze). Sometimes the
form is circular, an open saucer-shape, with a
smaller saucer inverted in the larger (see Fig. 4).
This form of lamp, especially No. 2,* with or with-
+ 4 > “ Υ
out the handle, is called Roman, and was doubtless

Fie. 2.

commonly used in the time of Christ, and is most
probably the kind referred to in the parable of
the Ten Virgins (Mt 95). They hold little oil, and
would soon need replenishing. ‘The peasants of
Syria and Pal. use these hunps still, although petro-
leum has in most places taken the place of olive oil
for ighting. An open glass or terra-cotta cup with

lug

Fia. 3.

a piece of rag for a wick is often seen in the poorer
peasants’ houses, and this they frequently keep
* See an interesting paper by Pere Lagrange in Rev. Biblique

(Oct. 1898) on two Pal. lamps to which his attention was called
by Clermont-Ganneau. These are figured in the Revue.

burning all night.
not like to sleep without some light in the house,

and a dim one furnished by such a lamp suits their

purpose. [ἢ illuminations at weddings and on
teast-days this open style of lamp is much em-
ployed. The wick used is a small one drawn

ic. 4.

through a piece of cork and lefé to float on the
surtace of the oil.

Lamps appear to have been kept burning before
the feraphan (images of ancestors); hence the
words ‘the lamp of the wicked is put out? (Job 18%
2117) may have originally meant that the wicked
shall have no male descendants to fulfil this duty
of placing a Ixmp before his Image (so Schwally,

Leben nach dem Vode, 40). H. PorRTER.

LAMPSACUS (1 Mac 15" R Vin). See SAMPSAMES.

of

LANCE.—See ΞΡΕΛΕ.

LANCETS (nz5 1 αὶ OIS*S).-— A mistaken corree-
tion in modern edd. of the original reading of the
AV of 1611, ‘lancers,’ i.e. ‘lances,’ properly spears
used for hurling. Both forms of the word are
old, ‘launcetis’ being the later Wyelifite form in
this passage. AV of 1611 adopted the ‘launsers ἢ
of the Bishops’ Bible (spelling it ‘lancers,’ how-
ever), and the chanve into *lancets’? was not made
before 1762. Cf. Serivener’s Introduction to the
AV, pp. xlvi, xlvii. See SPEAR.

W. E. BARNES.

LAND CROCODILE (Ly 1139 RV).—-See CHuameE-
LEON.

LAND LAWS.—See LAw (in OT) and SABBATICAL
YEAR.

a

LANDMARK (b-22),.- -An object, such as a stone,
a heap of stones, or a tree with a mark in its
bark, intended to fix the limit of a field, a
farm, or the property of an individual. In
Palestine these landmarks are scrupulously re-

-spected ; and in passing along a road er pathway

one may observe from time to time a stone placed
by the edge of the field from which a shallow
furrow has been ploughed, marking the limits of
cultivation of neighbouring proprietors.

In order to perpetuate the observance of the
rights indicated by landmarks in the Mosaic ritual,
a curse is pronounced against the surreptitious
removal of a landmark belonging to one’s neigh-
bour (Dt 194, for the meaning of which see Driver,
ad loc.) In Egypt the land had to |e re-measured
and allotted after exch inundation of the Nile, and
boundary-stones placed at the junction of two
properties. A collection of such objects is to be
seen in the Assyrian leoom, British Museum.

E. HULL.

The people of the country do

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

25

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. —1.
Names.—(a) The greater part of the Old Test. is
written in the language called by the Assyrians
‘the tongue of the west country’ (Winckler, Die Δ΄.
1. Sargons, p. 72, 1. 428, ete.),* by biblical writers
‘the lip of Canaan’ (Is 19!5), or ‘Jewish’ (2 KK 18%;
cf. Neh 13%), by the Rabbis ‘the Sacred Tongue’
(Sotah, vii. 2, ete.), or ‘the Text’ as opposed to * the
Targum? (Bab. Aegillah, 18a, ete.), or ‘the lan-
euage of the Law’ as opposed to ‘the language of
the doctors’ (Weiss, Studien zur Mischnahsprache,
p. 9). The Palestinian + Rabbis further apply to it
the term ‘ Hebrew’ (Jerus. Jegillah, Ὁ. 19, ete.),
and the absence of this name in the OT can be due
only to accident; it is the term regularly em-
ployed by Greek-speaking Jews (first occurring, it
would seem, in the Pref. to Sir; used also by
Josephus, Ant. 1. i. 2), and it can only be through
ignorance that Philo substitutes ‘Chaldee’ for it.
The name ‘Hebrew’ was adopted by early Chris-
tian writers (e.g. Ae 9119), and with the spread of
Christianity it migrated into Asiatic, African,
and European languages ; some of which have also
adopted from the Rabbis the name ‘Sacred Tongue.’

(ὁ) The portions of the OT which are not in
Hebrew are in the language called Aramaic in the
Bible (2 Καὶ 1535. ete.) and Talmud (Bab. Shabbath,
124, ete.), and not infrequently ‘Targum’ in the
latter (Bab. Megillah, l.c.), ‘Syriac’ in the LXX
and sometimes in the Talmud (Jerus. Sotah, vii. 2).
It would seem that the name ‘Chaldee’ does not
belong properly to this language, although the
Aramieans and Chaldees are sometimes juxtaposed
in old inscriptions (Sennacherib, ed. G. Smith, p.
36). It is probable that the use of the name for
‘Aramaic’ is due to the comparison of Dn 1? with
2+; and the identification of the two appears in the
notes of Jerome and Ibn Ezra on the latter pas-
sage, though the LXX translator of Dn 251 appears
expressly to avoid it. In Syriac works, probably
through similar reasoning, ‘ Chaldee’ is sometimes
said to mean ‘Old Syriac’ (Thes. Syr. s.v. * Wal-
daya’); but in very late times the ‘Chaldeans’
are identified with the ‘ Nestorians,’ probably on
the ground of their geographical position (Badger,
Nestorians, i. 181; ef. Rassam, ‘ Biblical Lands,’
in the Proceedings of the Victoria Institute). In
Aramaic are written (1) Dn 2+-7°8, (2) certain docu-
ments quoted in Ezr 47-6 and 715: 36. ostensibly in
their original language ; it is, however, noticeable
that the connecting narrative is also in Aramaic ;
(3) Jer 10", regarded by some as an interpolation,
while others endeavour to account for the transi-
tion on rhetorical grounds. There ave besides
several places in the O'T where the writers appear
to lapse into Aramaic, possibly through the tault
of their copyists. In Jos 15% the adjective ΠΡῚΠ,
in the name ‘New Hazor,’ is Aramaic; in 14° an
Aramaic word (7027) 15 substituted for the Hebrew
of the word ‘melted’ in the phrase ‘melted our
heart’ (cf. Dt 1**}. Sporadic cases of words which
are Aramaic both in derivation and grammatical
form occur in Is 3078, Ezk 2476 33%, Ps 116", pos-
sibly Job 811", Dn 1155, and elsewhere.

(c) The employment of other languages than
these in the OT does not exceed the quotation of
isolated words and phrases, or calling attention to
varieties of nomenclature. Besides the Aramaic
equivalent for Gilead cited in Gn 317, Egyptian is
quoted tb. 4145. (JE), Moabite Dt 24, Ammonite
vb. ν, Ὁ. Sidonian and Amorite ib. 3°, Tyrian 1 Kk
913, Persian (?) Est 3’, Babylonian (?) Dn 4°, per-

* Delitzsch (Handworterbuch, 8.0. ‘hilani’) suggests that
Hittite is meant here. It would seem, however, that the words
are easily explicable as Canaanitish (cf. Jer 2214), and Β.
Meissner (Noch einmal das Bit Hillani, 1898) thinks this does
not admit of a doubt.

t+ In the Babylonian Gemara ‘12 at any rate sometimes
means a foreign language, e.g. Shabbath, 115a.

haps Philistian [5 2°. Moreover, it may be observed
that, in speaking of dignitaries, biblical writers
are ordinarily (not invariably) careful to give them
their native titles: see Ex 15%, Jos 13°41, Ezk 23°,
Hos ΤΟΣ, Est-1?"4* ἘΠῚ Dir 3 ete.

2. Antiquity.— The Hebrew language may be
appropriately termed the Israclitish dialect οἱ
Canaanitish. Outside the OT the chief pre-Alex-
andrian monuments of the Israelitish dialect which
Wwe possess appear to be an inscribed weight in the
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, found at Nuablis,
and the Siloam inscription (Driver, Notes on
Samuel, p. xv), probably of the age of Hezekiah.
But of other Canaanitish dialects we possess far
earlier monuments. ‘The oldest of these are the
elosses of the Tel el-Amarna tablets (see Winckler’s
edition in the AJB, 1896). The writers of these
epistles sometimes accompany their Assyrian with
a Canaanitish equivalent, using, of course, the
cuneiform character for both (examples are ISL. 5
khalkaat, explained by abud«, ‘perished’ ; 189. 16
ana shame by shamina, ‘lheavenward’; 19]. 24
sise by suusu, ‘horse’; 189. 18 hakkadunu by
rushunu, ‘our head’). It may be noted as ἃ
peculiarity of the writers’ dialect that the sub-
stantive verb in it would appear to have drawn
some of its tenses from the stem in use in Phoon-
ician (and Arabic), and others from the stem in
use in Hebrew (and Aramaic). ‘If you say Luna,’
says one writer, ‘I will answer yahya’ (149. 36).
These tablets are assigned to the 15th cent. B.C.,
but the existence of the Canaanitish language
is certified for a yet earlier period by some of
the loan-words found in Evyptian monuments,
some of which go back to the 16th century or
earlier. The bulk, however, of these loan-words
occur in papyri of the I4th and 138th cents.
B.C. Maspero, who first brought this fascinating
subject into prominence (in his Lypistolographie
Egyptienne, 1873), thought that during those
centuries the employment of Semitic words was in
fashion among the upper classes in Egypt ; and it
this opinion be correct, it follows that the Canaan-
itish language must by then have reached a high
state of development. This opinion, however,
was not shared by J. H. Bondi, who, in his disser-
tation on these words (Leipzig, 1886), collected as
many as sixty-five of them; while a still greater
number was collected by W. Max Miiller (in his
Asien und Europa, 1893), who has since (in the
volume dedicated to Ebers, 1897) tracked out a few
in the celebrated Papyrus Hbers, which deals with
medical prescriptions. Whether their introduction
into Eeyptian was the work of the upper or the
lower classes, the variety of the spheres of thought
to which they belong is such as to allow of their
being compared with the words afterwards borrowed
by the Copts from the Greeks, ‘The unsatisfactory
nature of the Egyptian transcription renders them
somewhat less amenable to grammatical analysis
than the Tel el-Amarna glosses. Of the remain-
ing monuments of the Canaanitish language, the
inscription on a patera dedicated to Baal-Lebanon
in Phoenician (C/S i. No. δ) is probably the oldest,
while the Mesha stele (of the me of Jehoshaphat
ot Judah) approaches most nearly to the [sraelitish
idiom, being in Moabitic ; of the other Pheenician
inscriptions, that of Byblus (CZS, i. 1) approxi-
mates to Hebrew, but the most important is
doubtless the Eshmunazar inscription (CLS 1. 3),
about the time of Alexander the Great. From
Palestine the Canaanitish language was carried by
Pheenician colonists to Africa, the islands and
harbours of the Mediterranean, and Spain. Here
it was supplanted first by Greek, and then more
extensively by Latin; but would seem to have
survived as a spoken language down to the Sth
cent. B.C., and perhaps later.

26 LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

3. Origin.—The Canaanitish language belongs
to the Semitic family, and is closely allied to the
Arabic, te. the language made world-famous by
the conquests of Mohammed and his successors.
These are the only languages of the Semitic family
that have, in regular use, (1) a prefixed article,
leading to a variety of syntactical rules; (2) an
interrogative prefix of a single letter,* as well as
a syllabic prefix of the same import (Dt 32°); (3)
a series of passive conjugations, formed by a
change of vowel from the active ;+ (4) a reeular
conjugation Niphal; t—Canaanitish has, moreover,
considerable remnants of (5) a case system ; (6) an
infinitive system ; (7) a mood system identical with
those of classical Arabic. The theory represented
in the grammar of J. Olshausen (Brunswick, 1861),
according to which the relation of Hebrew to
Arabic is that of daughter to mother (in the sense
inwhich these metaphors may be used of languages),
is that which best suits the facts;$ and indeed
the proximate ancestors of Hebrew forms can in
the great majority of cases be
Arabie.
ancient a languave as Canaanitish from one of
which the earliest monuments in our possession
are so recent, disappears in the face of the over-
whelming evidence which comparative grammar
can produce. The earliest specimens of classical
Arabic that have come down to us are not, indeed,
sarlier than the 6th cent. A.D.; and though
numerous inscriptions in other dialects have been
discovered in both S. and N. Arabia, the dialect
of the Koran is scarcely represented in any stone
monuments earlier than the composition of that
hook. There is, however, no doubt that the Mo-
hammedans inherited a literary language, which
prevailed over the greater part of the Arabian
peninsula, with sheht differences of dialect. But
for the early history of that language we cannot
go to Mohammedan writers, but are left to what
we can infer.

The line of investigation to be followed is the
same as that appled by M. Pictet to the Indo-
furopean languages, and which employs the
assumption (called by M. Lenormant ‘the true
principle’) that, where kindred nations which have
separated call objects or institutions by the same
names, and there are no siens of those names
having been borrowed independently, they must
have possessed the names and the objects, ete.,
before they parted. A comparison therefore of the
Hebrew and Arabic names for a variety of things
shoula give us something like a correct idea of the

state of Arabian society when the Canaanites |

first migrated northward. The result would seem
to be the following :—

The nation from which the Canaanitish colonies
emanated must before that event have attained as
high a level of development as any Oriental State
uninfluenced by Europe has reached. Society was
already organized on the basis of the family, for
the languages have identical names for ὁ father-in-
law,’ ‘mother-in-law,’ ‘son-in-law,’ and ‘ daughter-
in-law,’ which necessarily imply it; but the family
was polygamic, since the relation of ‘fellow-wife’
is indicated by the same name with the proper
phonetic changes. The treble system of naming
in use in Arabia would seem to have existed also,
since the Canaanites retain all three words for

* The Aramaic of Daniel also has this.

¢ The biblical Aramaic as well as that of the papyri shows
some traces of these passives. The Hebrew of the OT shows
considerable relics of a passive of the first form, which the
grammatical tables cannot recognize. The punctuators identi-
fied it with Pu'al, the passive of ii. 12 Is143 and AY Ly 621
are striking cases. '

Ζ This conjugation is given in the Assyrian paradigms.

§ Vollers, in his review (ZA, 1807) of NOldeke, Zur Grammatik
des Kl. Arvabischen, thinks that work will tend to modify thia
view ; but see the author's reply in the same volume,

sasily found in|
The apparent absurdity of deriving so |

‘naming’ and ‘names,* but have apparently

ceased to distinguish between them accurately ;
and the castes of freemen and slaves were already
distinct. The life of the people was passed partly
in villages, partly in towns, with streets and
squares, and defended by walls. The same cereals
were cultivated in the fields, many of the same
pot-herbs in the gardens, mostly the same fruits
in the orchards and plantations, and the same
animals domesticated as afterwards in Canaan ;
and the chief agricultural processes had already
been invented and named. Various trades were
exercised in the towns: there were smiths and
sarpenters who understood the use of the saw, the
axe, and the adze; there were money-changers
with scales. and there were money-lenders.t The
last two trades imply some acquaintance with
arithmetic, and the Arabs before the Canaanitish
migration possessed special names for ‘thousands’
and ‘myriads.’ Money-lending implies the caleu-
lation of days, and this is based on astronomical
observation, the beginnings of which already ex-
isted, for some of the constellations § were already
named. Writing already existed,) and, it would
seem, an alphabet,*) and certain styles of clegant
composition were already practised.** Religion had
already taken shape: men could distinguish be-
tween the sacred and the profane, they had a
pilgrimage, and learned various ceremonies, in-
cluding, probably, genuflexions and prostrations.
The prophetic profession seems to have existed in
a variety of forms. Custom had already to some
extent become stereotyped in the form of law.

It is probable, therefore, that the Canaanites
issued from a country where a classical language
was spoken and written. Some tribes may have
‘arried that language with them into their new
home; but, in the case of those whom we know
best, 1 would appear to be a vulgar dialect of
Arabic which formed the basis of the language.
Many curious parallels can be found between the
language of the Bible and the dialects of Arabic
spoken in Egypt and Syria in the present day.t+
While in general simplifying the structure of the

* 332 in Arabic, ‘to address by an indirect name,’ 1.6. to call
aman by his son’s name, ‘father of so-and-so,’ instead of by his
own. In the Aghani the narrators often point out how the
Caliph kannani, * called me Abu so-and-so’ todo me honour, In
Syriac the word merely means to ‘name’; in Hebrew, Is 454
‘to call by a family name,’ Job 322! ‘to flatter’ It would seem
clear that the Arabic practice (extraordinary as it is) lies behind
both the Heb. and Syr. usage. The word lakab, in Arabic
‘title,’ serves to give a verb to the Hebrew OY; 3273 ἪΝ
minv’a ‘ whose names have been mentioned,’ Nu 117,

+ DIZIND is a case of popular etymology. The root ]? being
lost in Hebrew, the word was popularly derived from JIN ‘an
ear.’ The Carthaginians have a similar word, Rev. Ass. ν. 12.

} The Heb, 323, of which the construction is peculiar, seems
evidently connected with nas’ah, ‘deferred payment.’

§ See Hommel’s article in the ZDMG, 1892.

} The word 12D seems to be the Arab. zibr, which occurs in
the earliest Arabic known to us. See Mu'allakah of Labid.
The Assyr. satar is used in early Arabic also. The meaning ‘to
write’ is lost in Hebrew, but lies behind the sense of De.

“73 has the sense of Arab. haja, ‘to articulate,’ in several
passages : Pr 87, Is 593-18, :

** It seems difficult to separate the word yiz1) used with
Ν᾽ 232 Hos 97, ΝΞΠ Jer 2926 (cf. 2 Καὶ 911), from the Arab. εἰ),
‘rhymed prose,’ the traditional style of the Aahins. The Heb.
ΠΛ 27 was compared by Meier with the Arab. hija. yD and
mathal appear to be also independent.

tt Some examples are given by W. Wright in his Arabie
Graminar (2nd ed.) and his Comparative Grammar, The form
pmbya (Nu 205) is vulgar (kataltind for kataltumind). The
uses of ]22 can be illustrated by those of ya'nzin languages that
borrow from Arabic. The use of 12'8 as a final and explanatory

particle would seem to be a vulgarism. col is so used in
some Arab. dialects, and likewise in modern Armen. the relative
wor has taken the place of yethé ‘that.’ Perhaps the Heb.
ayy ‘to do,’ is the Arab. ghashiya vulgarly used ; cf. Lisan
al-arab, xix. 363, δ.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE. OLD TEST. 24

ancient language, they contain many relics of the
classical rules. ‘The classical language from which
both are derived must therefore have flourished
long before the 15th cent. B.C., for which time
the existence of the later language is certified.
The elaborate syntax and accidence which the
early poetry of the Arabs exhibits would seem to
have been codified more than two thousand years
before that poetry was composed. [Ὁ is in favour
of this result that the Arabs have no accurate
notion of the commencement of their literature,
or of the time when any of their classical metres
was invented. Yet those metres imply the whole
of the grammatical system, which can only have
been the product of organized study. ‘That all
trace of the schools and colleges of early Arabia
should have perished is noteworthy, but scarcely
extraordinary, if we consider what such isolated
monuments as the Mesha stele or the Iguvine
tablets imply as to the extent of literatures that
have wholly perished.

The evidence for the priority of Arabic grammar to the de-
velopment of the Canaanitish language is to be found partly
in what may be termed the residues which Canaanitish exhibits.
Of these, examples are to be found (1) in the spelling, (2) in the
grammatical forms, (3) in the syntax,

(1) As examples of orthographic residues, we may notice (a)
the employment of 8 to represent the sign of prolongation of
the vowel ὁ in a number of words in which the Arabic
has the consonantal δὶ preceded by a short ὦ (6.9. UN,
iN¥, TINT; see Bottcher, Lehrbuch, i. p. 245). In some
other words the letter δ is. still written without affecting
the pronunciation. If would seem clear that the tribes who
migrated from Arabia to Canaan had already found. diffi-
culty in pronouncing the consonantal Aleph, which indeed
many still regard as the hardest of the Arabic consonants.
They pronounced @ for a’, ἃ pronunciation which indeed the
Arabic gramimarians tolerate in poetry. But while this @ in
Arabic was either retained or reduced in the direction of δ, the
immigrants pronounced it as well as other Arabic @’s (with rare
exceptions) as 6. The writing ]Xs for zon therefore is a case in
which an old spelling is retained after it has become doubly
unsuitable to represent the correct pronunciation ; and in all
cases where this letter represents anything but the soft breath-
ing, it must be regarded as a remnant from an earlier language,
or due to false analogy. The perpetual interchange which we
notice in the OT between roots N’S and roots Π 2 shows that
the consonantal & could no longer be pronounced at the end
of a word. But from etymological orthography of this sort we
can infer with certainty the existence of a literature in which
the orthography agreed not only with etymology, but with the
actual pronunciation ; in other words, the existence of written
documents in Arabic earlier than the Canaanitish migration.

(b) Of no less interest as an etymological remnant is the em-
ployment of the letter 7 at the end of words to represent the
lengthening of a vowel, a peculiarity which the Phoenician
dialects apparently do not share with the Hebrew and Moabitic.
This mode of writing has two obvious sources. In Arabic the
pausal form of nouns ending in atun is ah, and in this form the
h is pronounced as a consonant (Heb. 7), as we learn from its
treatment in verse: thus martabah is made to rhyme with
intabah, in which the ἢ. is radical (Hariri, ed. 1, p. 64), etc. This
pausal form has in Hebrew ousted the other. That it is every-
where pronounced @ for @ is a phenomenon to be easily illus-
trated from Hebrew itself (in which the @A of the feminine
sutlix has a tendency to sink into @), and from many other
languages. But the Phavnicians did not adopt this pausal form,
retaining the ¢ in the absolute as well as in the construct state.
Hence one of the sources of this employment of the letter 4 was
wanting in their language.

The second source of this phenomenon is to be found in the
masculine suffix of the third person. Relics of the Arabic hu
are not infrequent, but ordinarily (as in modern Arabic locally)
that suffix is reduced to 6. When modern Arabic is written,
the A is retained (see e.g. Katwif al-lataif, Cairo, 1594, p. 51,
ete.), and the same is the case frequently in Hebrew and in
Moabitic. In all these cases, however, it is an etymological
remnant.

(ὁ) As a third case of etymological writing, we may note the
employment of the sign δ᾽ to represent s. This orthography
is characteristic of the older forms of Hebrew, Phewenician, and
Aramaic, falling gradually into disuse in all of them, Now we
know that the words which in Hebrew are written with &
almost invariably correspond to Arabic words with sh. Since a
great number of the words which in Arabic have the sibilant
that corresponds with 2 have that letter in Hebrew also, the
desire to avoid confusion may well have perpetuated the old
spelling in the cases where a sh had come to be pronounced sx.
We learn, moreover, from the well-known passage in Jy 126 that

in parts of Palestine only one of these sibilants could be pro-
nounced.

(2) Of the grammatical residues, which are numerous, we
need merely notice the variation in the second and third per-
sons plural of the imperfect between the forms awa and a. All
distinction in meaning between these forms is clearly lost ; at
most it can be said that some writers have a predilection for
one form rather than the other. Classical Arabic, however,
distinguishes them very decidedly : the dropping of the 2 with
its vowel is a sign of the subjunctive or jussive mood, and is
not an isolated phenomenon, but belongs to a system. What
renders the treatment of these forms by the Hebrews peculiarly
interesting is that the vulgar Arabic written by Jews, Chris-
tians, and even Mohammedans, exhibits the same phenomenon,
Such writers as Jephet Ibn Ali are well acquainted with both
forms : only the sense of their proper employment fails them.

(3) As a syntactical residue we may instance the treatment
of the numerals. Here the Arabic rule is very simple, and its
ground can easily be seen. One part of it is that the numbers
11-99 take after them the accusative singular. If the usage of
the Hebrew OT be tabulated, the only expression for it seems
to be that with words which from their nature are constantly
coupled with numerals the Arabic rule is fairly regularly
observed ; with others the plural is more common, but the
singular optional. Thus in Jy 828 ‘The land rested forty year,’
but v.80 ‘Gideon had seventy sons’; Jg 92 speaks of ‘seventy
man,’ but v.24 ‘the seventy sons of Jerubbaal,’ v.56 ‘his
seventy brothers.’ In Jos the rule is sometimes observed
with the word ‘man,’ but other variations occur which stam)
the language as patois-like and ungrammatical: the following
examples of the syntax of the word ‘twelve’ taken from Jos
3 and 4 show how unsettled was the usage in even so ordinary
a matter. 312 ox agy 37, 2 ow. Izy O03, 44 eT ORY
wy; 43-9 OUI Ty DAY, 48 ’x avy Ay. The rule seems
to be similarly observed when numerals precede the word
FON ‘a thousand,’ owing to ancient calculations, whereas the
old rule about the syntax of words following 578 seems to be
equally often observed and forgotten. From the practically
reeular observance of the Arabic syntax in the case of the
word ‘year,’ Which from its nature must be constantly coupled
with numerals, it seems reasonable to infer the antiquity of the
Arabic rules. The ordinary style of the OT exhibits therefore
in this case, as in the last, a survival from an older language.

At what time the Canaanitish language first
began to be written cannot be determined ; but it
seems certain that there can have been no break of
any length between the writing of Arabic and the
writing of Canaanitish; the etymological rem-
nants would otherwise be inexplicable. Thus
the writing of wimené in French for aime must
be inherited from a generation who both pro-
nounced and wrote adiment or amant ; had French
been first written by persons who pronounced the
word aim2, the né could never have been intro-
duced. We cannot know either whether the
Canaanitish orthography was gradually formed
or beeame fixed at a definite epoch. ‘The evolu-
tion of Ethiopie from Sabean, which offers some
striking analogies to that of Canaanitish from
Arabic, is in favour of the latter supposition.
Those who made Ethiopic a written language
abandoned some of the Saban letters and intro-
duced others. Thosewho gaveCanaanitish a litera-
ture omitted some six or seven of the letters of the
old Arabic alphabet, but added none. It is prob-
able, then, that the double pronunciation of the
six letters np2732, with which we are familiar in
Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic, was not yet
noticeable. ‘The lost letters are to some extent
the same as those which are no longer pronounced
in many of the countries where Arabic is spoken,
albeit they are still written. In Canaanitish ἐλ
coalesces with ὦ, dh with 1, kha with 1, dad and za
with s, ghain with y. This rule holds good ordi-
narily, but human speech is subject to fluctue-
tions, and irregular correspondence (as é.7. ban
Arab. khadhala, mys Arab. tdadhdhara) need not
always imply independent roots, where the signifi-
cations are clearly akin. In the case, moreover,
of the other letters the Canaanitish dialect shows
considerable deviation from the Arabic, sometimes
in ἃ manner that can be paralleled from dialects
the peculiarities of which are noted by Arabic
erammarians. Thus it wonld appear that there

was a tendency to shift from medie to tenues (e.9.
| on, Arab. 3123 an3, Arab. 7n3; An, Arab. 975 2%.

28 LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

Arab, a5y; ypu, Arab. pay; Ἴδ, Arab. v2), which
can be paralleled from what has happened in other
languages (e.g. modern Armenian as compared
with ancient). The Canaanitish language shows
further considerable confusion of the gutturals :
besides the tendency to pronounce ? for 2 (c.g. ΡΞ
for 7312, wpy for way, pns for πὸ}, we find n for y
(amp, Arab. yap), 1 for π (e.g. m2, Syr. m2, Arab.
mtd), 2 for A (naa for Arab. 125), ete. ‘There is also
considerable confusion of the sibilants (2 for 1 in
ΟῚ; o for s in pao, 1 for x in vst, etc.), and of the
liquids (e.g. 35. for 3p, ὅτ for ne7, mbo for noo);
inoreover, the letter nis frequently displaced
by the emphatic Ὁ, e.g. Sep for Sap, ete., and Ὁ by 3
(e.g. 2”) for aay for oy, 5. for jn).
Further phenomena which often meet us in
vulear dialects are the frequent assimilation of
the nasal » before another consonant (ef. [τὰ].
meso for mensem, mod. Armen. gigni tor gingni,
‘he falls’), and the misplacement of the aspirate.
Indeed, in Canaanitish as well as in the older
Aramaic and in some of the S. Arabian dialects,
an initial breathing seems reeularly to be aspir-
ated when it is a grammatical prelix, and some-
times when it is radical (so 729 for qzx) ; but, on
the other hand, the Hebrew sometimes substitutes
the soft breathing for the aspirate (ef. a> with
Arab. 327), especially in the middle of a word (so
Ἵ “ἃ witness’ for aay ‘one who knows’: ef. Jer
293 πρὸ yo; Ἢ through ww for 457). Where two
of these irregular changes occur in the same word,
it often becomes unrecognizable ; and the ocea-
sional transposition of radicals introduces vreat

my
cw),

difficulty τ just as some mod. Armenian dialects

have tepur tor phethur, so Hebrew has ms for msi, ΠῚ
for aS; ef. for Arab. por. The chief gram-
matical differences between Arabic and Hebrew are

meee

μὸν»

due (1) to the loss of the final vowels, which in the |

older language have syntactical value ; (2) to the
exaggeration of the accent, resulting in the
strengthening of some vowels and the loss. of
others ; (3) to the tendency to simplify, which
explains the loss of whole series of forms in many
of those languages that have grown out of the
decay of classical idioms. In the opinion of some,
the Janguage has by these changes gained in
vigour what it has lost in finesse —a. matter which
must be left to the individual taste. *

Of the families of words in use in Canaanitish,
it would seem that more than half can be identified
with roots known to the lexicographers of classical
Arabic; but the waywardness which characterizes
human speech has not failed to leave its mark on
the treatment of the old words in respect both of
their preservation and the evolution of their
significations. Thus Canaanitish and classical
Arabic have the same word for ‘peace,’ but dif-
ferent words for ‘war’; the same for ‘to eat,’ but
different for ‘to drink’; the same for ‘near,’ but
different for ‘far’; the same for ‘low,’ but. dif-
ferent for ‘high’; the same for ‘gold,’ but dif-
ferent for ‘silver’; the same for ‘to ride’ but
different for ‘to sit’ and ‘to stand’; the same for
‘ass,’ but different for ‘horse,’ though the same
for ‘horseman.’ In several of these tases, and
in numerous others, while the same words or
the same families are retained in both Jan-

* Of many of the elegances of Arabic grammar there are
faint traces in the OT. The Arab. rubba ‘many a,’ appears
once, Pr 208. Of the broken plural the only real example in
the OT appears to be 27 plural of 2); in other cases its
meaning is lost, even though its form be present, 6.0. babp
Nu 215. In Bottcher’s Lehrbuch the most is made of these
relics as well as of supposed remains of the dual of verbs and
pronouns. The syntax of the Book of Joshua seems to show
that there was a time when the old rules of the article were in
danger of being lost (314 721 819. 33), but this (like Is 368. 16)
may be due to corruption of the text. A remarkable relic is in
Jer 2218 minx 45, which resembles the ah added in Arabic,
wa Zaidah, ‘alas, Zaid!’ (Vernier, Gram. Arabe, ὃ 565).

guages, the meaning in one or other has been
so generalized or specialized as to render the
introduction of another necessary in order to
represent the original meaning. In some cases
it is likely that neither language retains the
original sense ; but in most it would seer that, in
spite of the late date of our Arabic documents,
the Arabic signification is prior ; and good service
has been done by those acquainted with both Jan-
guages since the days of the Talinudists in track-
ing out the development of these significations.

A few familiar cases are—(l) the Hebrew for
‘to say’ ὯΝ, in Arab. ‘to command’: that ‘to
command? is the original sense is shown by occa-
sional relics of that meaning in the OT (28 18)
and by the derivative s28n7 ‘to be proud,’ a sense
which can scarcely be connected with the Hebrew
‘to say,’ but derives very naturally from the
Arab. ‘to play the prince or commander,’ like
the words minva (Nu 16"), swans (i+. 16%). (2) πὶ, in
Heb. ‘to act insolently,’ in Arab. ‘to increase’ :
a relic of the older usage seems to be found in Dt
18s” *the prophet who shall add to speak in my
name words which [have not commanded him’ :
the Latin /oguetur altro would exactly illustrate
the transference of ideas. (3) The TLebrew Son
‘to profane, and ona ‘to bevin, seem both trace-
able to the Arab. Sn ‘to loosen, whence both
ideas flow by a course of reasoning exactly
similar to that illustrated in the evolution of the
Aramaic mz. In several cases what we have in
Canaanitish is apparently an expression current

in the mouths of the vulgar exalted into a
classical phrase: the Hebrew words for * hand-
maid” and ἢ family would appear to have a very
obvious etymology in Arabie (οὐ Auren, iv. 28:
[toate es of Saif, i. 28), which, however, would
exclude them at the first from the mouths of the
well-bred. A certain number of alterations in
meaning can be explained by popular misappli-
cations, e.g. the Canaanites use tor ‘blind’ the
word which in Arab, means ‘ one-eyed,’ for ‘deaf’
the word which in Arab. means ‘dumb.’

It is not in our power to gauge the whilom
wealth of the Hebrew Janguaee,* and far more of
the copious Arabic vocabulary may have been
retained by the Canaanites than is ordinarily
supposed. Most of the books of the OT offer
examples of hapax legomena that can be satis-
factorily explained from the Arabic, whether in
the form of antiquated phrases for which the
ordinary language employs other synenyins (e.g.
Dt 27° πϑοπ, Arab. ushut, * be silent,’ in every way
parallel to the herald’s ‘O yez’), or of dialectic
words (e.g. 233, Arab. μία, Je 8333), or of words
which there is no reason to suppose to have been
rare, but which for one reason or another the
biblical writers have not elsewhere occasion to
employ (6... πφ Ὅν, ‘sneezing,’ Job 4113).

Arabisms in this sense can be found not only in
the latest biblical writers,} but even in the frag-

*In the Concordance published at Warsaw, 1883, vvofs are
given in large type, vervs (counting each conjugation sepa-
rately) are marked with a circle, and nouns with ἃ star.
According to computations made for this article, the numbers
are respectively 2058, 2930, 3937.

t So Ec 91 13 ‘to try,’ Arab. bara; in Lisdn al-arabd, v. 153,
several curious passages of old authors are cited in which this
word occurs, The etymology is given by Ges. Thes., but
omitted in the Oaf. Heb. Lex. 270 can scarcely have
been thought out by the writer from the biblical τ" Ν 2, but
must represent an old word (Arab. ya’isa). A few striking
Arabisms may be collected here. Gn 3813 07D ‘a staircase,’
Arab, sullam; 4016 ‘9h ‘white bread,’ Arab. huwodri ; 4227

NAN ‘baggage,’ Arab. amttat, plur. of mata (it is curious
that Mohammed uses this word in Koran, xii. 25, where this
verse is represented ‘when they opened their baggage mata-
‘ahum’. The change of y to Π is caused by the fol’owing
n: in Egypt it is now customary to say nnmdy for nyny,
nna for nyanx [Tantavy, Grammaire, p. v.]); Ex δέ ΣΕ

τον
ων
τ

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST. Ὡς

ments of Ben-Sira, and in the New-Hebrew of the
Mishna.* As borrowing from the Arabs is highly
improbable, and in many cases shown by the pho-
netic changes to be impossible, the whole stock of
words common to Canaanitish and Arabic must
have constituted the linguistic capital of the
former language.

retain in use many synonyms which might other-
wise have disappeared ;+ but without a tar greater
mass of literature than has come down to us we
could ποῦ pronounce without hardihood on the
original bulk of the Canaanitish vocabulary, or
deny any genuine Arabic root a place in it.t

4. Secondary Sources.—Ot the roots and words
which the Hebrew vocabulary contains, a great
number cannot be identified in the Arabic dic-
tionary. Of these, however, some seem to have
been current in Arabia before the migration, for
we find them in the Ethiopic language, which we
know to have sprung from aS. Arabian dialect.§
A few more are stamped as Arabic by their
occurrence in S. Arabian inseriptions.|| But this
still leaves a great number unaccounted for. We
have therefore to recoenize in Canaanitish a non-
Arabic element, and must endeavour to account
for its origin.

According to the biblical account, the patriarchs
and their families having acquired Hebrew in
Canaan, sojourned in Egypt, but retained their

own language, which was brought back τὸ
Canaan. Although the seclusion of the Israel-

ites in Egypt, on which some of the narratives
insist, would account for their failing to adopt the
language of Egypt, their dependent position there
would lead us to expect that their Hebrew would
‘ye make idle, Arab. tufrighina; 26° mS app, Arab.
mukabilat; Ly 1993 nanz, Arab. kitabat; Nu 1915 py
‘a cover’ or ‘lid,’ Arab. simdd; 258 Aap ‘a tent,’ Arab.
kubbak ; Dt 67 dAnY ‘thou shalt teach them,’ Arab, sanna ‘ to
prescribe,’ whence ‘the sunnah’ ; 1897 my, Arab. sala; Jos
1012 pi" ‘remain,’ ‘abide,’ Arab. dum; Is 1015 i, Arab.
minshar ‘saw? 5 332° pys “to migrate,’ Arab. z@ana ; 324 i>,
Arab. ‘ij ‘barbarous’ ; 4126 pas ‘truthful,’ Arab. siddik ; Jer
128 μησν, Arab. dabuw'un ; Ezk 163 πρὸ ‘loud-tongued,’ Arab.
salitat.

* So apy Bikkuroth, vi. 115 m8 id. vil. 6.

+ So Job 1619 ‘my witness (7¥) is in the heavens, and my
testis τσ in the heights’; 185 3:27 parallel to tin; Pr 2225
FIND parallel to AND? ; 273 923 parallel with 732. The reten-
tion of 7205 (Phoon.) and O73 (Egyp.?) as names for ‘ gold’ is
perhars due to poetical necessity.

{Some parallels between the expressions of the Arabs and
the OT are put together by (ὡς, Jacob, Studien im Arabischen
Dichtern, iv. Afalle, 1597), and by E. Nestle, Marginalien, p.
p8ff. A longer list could be got from the commentaries of

_A. Schultens and F. Hitzig. Some curious cases are: ‘when
their foot slippeth’ (Dt 325° ete.), for * when misfortune befalls
them,’ in Arabic zalla ‘l-kadam (Koran, xvi. 96); commencing
letters with ‘and now’ (2 K 58 10%), in Arabic amma ba'du,
ie. after compliments’: ‘swallowing my spittle’ (Job 719)
used for ‘resting a moment’ as in Arabic; ‘hast thou listened
in the council ot God,’ ete. (Job 15>), bears a curious likeness
to the theory that the Jinns used to listen there and so learn
mysteries (Koran, xv. 18). The phrase 0°32 mon ‘to curry
favour’ is perhaps to be explained from the Arab. khal@ in
Koran, xii. 9, ‘the face of your father shall be clear (yakhlu)
for you.’ Much of the ‘eloquence’ of the Koran can be illus-
trated from that of the OT, eg. ‘ask the village’ for ‘the
people of the village’ in Horan, xii. 82, resembles Dt 923,

§$See the Hebrew dictionaries, s.vv. JAN, WN, ΟΝ, N12,
mam OS, th, 9, Sey tay 933, ΕἼΣ δὴ, 33, Nw, 1;
ἜΞΟΣ Tay, AY, 79D, Ws, Ws, WwP, PIN, par, yer, now, ποὺ»,
ὈΞΦ, yrn. Specially interesting identifications are those of
the Heb. on ‘men,’ AgAD> (2 K 1022), miyatia (Ps 587). With
the familiar Heb. 7°37 ‘he told,’ perhaps Eth. aghada should
be compared ; with 2D fa paranymph?’ amar awi=nuptiator ;
with 93:9 ‘to rebel’ ma’ let = defeetio,

| So, eg., the preposition Wayz, and 35m (with the same
meaning as in Eshmunazar’s epitaph) in the glossary to
Mordtmann’s article in Mittheilungen des K. Musewins zu
Berlin, 1893.

The parallelistic stvle, which |
is probably earlier than the migration, served to |

be affected by their long exile from Canaan, and
that their literature would show traces of Egyptian,
which other Canaanitish monuments would tail to
exhibit. This expectation is not fulfilled. If the
hieroglyphic vocabulary * be collated with the
Hebrew, the cases in which they show any cor-
respondence are extremely rare, and these cases
seem to belong to a period prior to the separation
between the Eeyptian and Semitic races: in any
case, the fact that they are mostly Semitic and
not specifically Hebrew words, shows that they
were not learned by the Israelites in Goshen. The
Coptic vocabulary is indeed far more illustrative
of Hebrew; but this is due mainly to the exten-
sive borrowing of Canaanitish by the Egyptians at
a period to which reference has been made ; and
in many cases the words are Semitic with purely
Canaanitish forms, and words which, while
isolated in Coptic, belong to extensive families
in Semitic. The few words in Hebrew which may
be justly regarded as Egyptian are such as may
easily have been brought by travellers} It is,
however, surprising that the historians of the
feyptian episode in Exodus are acquainted with
scarcely any of the Egyptian technicalities which
we should have expected them to introduce, 6.0.
the words for taskimasters, magicians,t pyramids,
and that one of the writers excerpted should sup-
pose that the Egyptians spoke Hebrew (Ex 9219).
One of the authors copied in Gn is better in-
formed on this point (42%), but even his employ-
ment of Egyptian words is inconsiderable. Very
different is the amount contributed to Canaanitish
by the language of Assyria. We learn from the
Tel el-Amarna tablets that in the 15th cent.
B.C., while Palestine was under Egyptian suze-
rainty, the official language of communication was
Assyrian, albeit the Canaanites had a language of
their own. The employment of Assyrian as an
official languayve points, however, to a yet earlier
period of Assyrian supremacy. The language
known as Assyrian is indeed Semitic, but greatly
mixed with foreign elements, and with the con-
sonantal system seriously deranged: it is there-
fore probable, where Canaanitish and Assyrian
have words in common which are unknown to the
other Semitic languages, that the former has
horrowed from the latter. These words have
been the subject of some classical monographs ; ἃ
and they are such as affect the whole character of
the syntax, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions,

* Pierret, Vocabulaire Hieroglyphique, Paris, 1876.

t One of the few philological observations of interest in the
Hageadah is the suggestion of R. Nehemiah (first occurring in
Pesikta, ed. Buber, p. 109) that ΣΝ is the Coptic anok : God,
he thought, addressed the Israelites (Ex 202) in Egyptian
because they had forgotten Hebrew, This view appears for
the dast time, perhaps, in Pevron’s Lex. Copt. Egyptian words
oceurring as such in the OT were collected in the last century
by Jablonski (Opuscula, vol. i., republished Levden, 1805) ;
Wiedemann’s Sanunlung seqyptischer Worter (1883) reduces
the list to meagre dimensions. A great collection of kindred
Egyptian and Semitic words was made by Schwartze in his
alltes sEyypten, 1842 (p. 1000 sqq.); whereas Uhlemann, de Vet.
Lgupt. lingua (1851), endeavoured to collect those which
might reasonably be supposed to have been borrowed by the
Hebrews. If we take no account of (@) proper names, (1)
words of pre-Semitic antiquity, (©) words borrowed by the
Egyptians, the number left is small; 1N%, Copt. taro; <mx
(Gn 41°), Hier. dyu, Copt. a@yi; 127 (a shrine), Hier. teber,
Copt. tabir, Abel, Hopt. Untersuchungen, 422; if the theories
expounded in that work be correct, it will be difficult to deny
Dap (Ex 218 etc.; ef. Copt. Aros) and 333 an Egyptian origin ;
and the last has been regarded as Egyptian by good authorities.
πνῷὸ of Gn 2012 seems to be rightly compared with Copt. shaar,
and Υ “ἃ species’ with Copt. mii (a native Egyptian word
according to Abel, dc. 98). De Rougé (Chrestom. i. 56) sug-
gests that ᾽ν ‘island’ is Egypt. aa, and (ἰώ. 40) identifies
snehem with oyld (Ly 1122),

t Wiedemann, while offering an Egyptian etymology for
oon, allows that it is probably Hebrew.

§ Frd. Delitzsch, Hebrew and Assyrian and Proleyomena,

30 LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

numerals, familiar adverbs, as well as_ political,
commercial, legal, and religious terms.* It is not
improbable that one of the most characteristic of
the Hebrew idioms is due to the influence of
Assyrian.} The study of the Assyrian monarchs’
annals and letters also reveals phrases which
form part of the rhetorical capital of the Hebrew
authors,~ which it is probable were originally
imitations of the Assyrian style. The Aramaic
language has also inherited some of the Assyrian
wit which the Canaanites did not adopt.s

There remain, however, a number of Canaanitish
words which cannot be identified from any of the
sources that have been enumerated. Several of
these were probably tribal words of the com-
munities that migrated northwards, and, though
ancient and Semitic, never formed part of the old
classical language; while others may have belonged
to the classical language, though they have become
obsolete in all its other descendants. It is likely,
moreover, that a considerable number of Canaan-
itish words were learned from the Canaanitish
aborigines. A race that may be named in this
connexion, the Hittites, has left monuments the
decipherment of which has occupied many scholars
Without as yet leading to any satisfactory result.
An eminent Assyriolegist has recently endeavoured
to identify the Hittites with the Armenians (Jensen,
Hittiter und Armenicr, W898); and since the Hittite
race at one time played an important part in Pales-
tine, we should expect, if Jensen’s conjecture were
correct, to find some considerable illustration of the
Canaanitish vocabulary in the Armenian language.
The mixed nature of that language (of which the
basis is Indo-germanic) renders its employment for
the explanation of Hebrew extremely hazardous ;
and many tempting identifications of words can be
shown to be due to pure accident. The local
names of Palestine, of which the Bk. of Joshua in
particular furnishes a great number, throw less
light than might be expected on the character of
the aboriginal Janguages employed there. The
greater number seem very certainly Semitic, albeit
they not infrequently, both in vocabulary {and

ἜΤΗ Frd. Delitzsch’s Handwirterbuch some 160 words and
roots can be illustrated from Hebrew, but not from Arabic.
Examples of the words referred to above are sha (Heb. ες
whence, perhaps, awn), Ati (2), ala (perhaps Sy), itti
(AN), a-a-ka (SDN), @-ta-a (SEY), esh-te Cney), ma-a-due (AND),
is-Si-7t (TN), Na-st-ku (423). Other examples of common words
in Which Canaanitish and Assyrian agree against the S. Semitic

group are: ἽΝ, OPIN, TWN, TZN, IN, Win, σὴς Awe Ee πὴ
Pp? (dart); 75°; np?; yn, xsd; ἽΝ, ΝΣ (hinder); 7

(kiss); 220 (fool); 25> (mourn); MAY, Nay (produce); ae
(body); We (guard); Fn (maintain). bon is said to be a
Sumerian word, borrowed first by the Assyrians, and from
them by the Canaanites.

tie. the waw conversive. Most of the Assyrian chronicles
exhibit only one tense, the Heb. imperfect. “It would seem
possible that the annalistic employment of this term in Hebrew
was at first an imitation of the Assyrian, which then developed
idiomatically.

t So ‘to open the ear’ (K. 95. 15in 5. A. Smith, ΚΤ Assur-
banipals) ; ‘to break in pieces like a potter’s vessel’ (Sargon,
passim); 29 28 for ‘cheerfulness,’ 0°32 av as an epithet of
the Deity, etc. Many cases are collected by Karppe in his
articles in the Journal Asiatique, ser. 9, vol. x.

§ The phrase "ΣῚΡ 92 occurs in the Tel el-Amarna tablets.
In Budge’s notes to ‘Rabban Hormizd’ some interestine illus-
trations of this are given. a

| jaN is Armenian, according to Lagarde (Ges. Abh. p. 8). A
word that may possibly be Armenian is j?¥ ‘a stele’ or ‘monu-
ment’ (2 K 2317, Jer 3121, Ezk 3915), Arm. siun ‘a pillar.’ his is
an old Armenian word=Greck κιών with the proper changes,
Lagarde first thought 72 (Hos 10° etc.) ‘a priest,’ borrowed from
the Arm. khurm, but afterwards reversed his judgment. abn
‘a mole’ is temptingly like Arm. khlourd ‘a mole,’ which might
seem a derivative of kilem ‘to pluck up,’ ‘root out’: but from
Lagarde’s A rm, Stud. it appears to have another derivation.

“- δ δ APAPN Jos 1944, perhaps Arab. <tika ‘battle,’ Koran,
iii. 11,etc. Perhaps the form [PRP has preserved the tanwin.

grammatical form,* exhibit traces of an older
language than that known to us as Canaanitish.
A considerable number of these names can be
traced to the 15th cent. B.C., and even earlier, in
Egyptian and Assyrian records. An un-Semitic
remnant there is, but its linguistic character is
difficult to fix.

5. Progress of the Language.-—The Tel el-
Amarna tablets represent the country as settled
in States, somewhat as we find it described in the
Bk. of Joshua. The States in which Canaanitish
was spoken must have acquired the language
either prior to their separation, or posterior to it if
that consisted in the hegemony of the community
whose native language it was.

Dialectic differences developed as the Canaanites
began to write, each dialect preserving something
which the others discarded,t but also evolving
peculiarities of its own. It would not, however,
appear that the Canaanites down to a late period
had any difficulty in understanding eacii other.
Jeremiah (27°) expects his message to be understood
by Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, ‘Tyrians, and
Sidonians ; and the tombstone of Eshmunazar con-
tains phrases which seem to imply some acquaint-
ance on that kine’s part with the Hebrew Scrip-
tures.t When David succeeded in welding together
an Israelitish empire, it would seem that he took
steps to make the language of Israels (rather than
that of Judah) official; and to the extent of the
elements of grammar such as were taught in the
schools the Israelitish Janguage was thereafter
unitorm. These elements would, however, appear
to have been exceedingly meagre. The scientific
spirit would seem to have failed the ancient Israel-
ites absolutely ; || and it is the same habit of mind
which seeks to codify the order of nature and to
find regularity in human speech. The Israelites
could indeed distinguish and despise a foreign
pronunciation,*! and set value on correct speech ; **
but it is improbable that their power οἱ judging
this matter went beyond questions of intonation
and accent : throughout the OT there is scarcely a
grammatical term to be found ; and though several
of the writers have a fondness for etymologizing, ++
the cases in which modern scholars regard their
efforts as successful are rare. The result of the
want of grammatical training is apparent in even
the most classical portions of the OL. Where the
writers have to do with quite ordinary words and
notions, their language is regular; but so soon as
this region is left, it becomes tentative, and it is
partly due to the variety of these experiments
that the Hebrew grammars reach a bulk that is
out of all proportion to the literature with which
they have to deal. Thus, where the prophets have
to address companies of women, we find no certainty
about the grammatical terminations ; Isaiah (32%!)
tries three different ways of forming the imperative
to be employed in such a case; Ezekiel (137-*)
tries three ways of forming the pronominal suflix.
The attempts made to form the infinitives of the
conjugation Niphad, and indeed of all the derived
conjugations, are very varied. Other curious

* e.g. [2229 Jos 1943, WT 2132,

+ So in a Citian inscription we find the pluperfect formed by
apposition of 13 kdna as in classical Arabic ; Heb. has neither
the old substantive verb nor the construction.

¢ Compare especially line 12 with Is 3781 53 ned τ
πον; elsewhere the adverb used with 7 is nzp. ANA (ἰδ)
in the sense of ‘beauty’ occurs Is 532. win non is a favourite
phrase with Koheleth, whe, however, is probably later than the
inscription. The commencement bears a curious likeness to
Hezekiah’s hymn, Is 3816,

ἃ Cf. Winckler’s Geschichte Israels.

|| Perhaps an exception should be made in favour of geography.

© Is 324 3319,

** Heb: (a πα 129:

tt Ezk 2029 is perhaps the most curious.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST. 31

specimens of uncertainty as to the right form
ane oO: pe sound iny.0s -o-o- Nt 2 3 ser
Ol22eLc.

The state in which the text of the OT has come
down to us renders it difficult to speak positively
on this matter; but perhaps the result of a com-
parison of the few duplicate texts which we possess
is such as to show that philological considerations
did not concern the editors and cupyists who were
also the authors of the historical texts. The
alterations introduced merely through the absence
of any idea of accuracy and without any religious
or political interest, such as are to be observed in
the parallel texts of Jos 15%! and Jg 1h, Is 2?
and Mie 4%, or Is 36-39 and 2 Καὶ 18-20, suggest
the impossibility of basing a grammatical system
on books so preserved; for it is clear that the
copyist’s licence extends so far as the substitution
not only of synonyms, at least for ordinary ideas,
but of what to the copyist seemed optional gram-
matical forms for one another, this latter licence
including not only orthography, but what seem to
us most serious syntactical variations, resulting in
what to the rigid grammarian might seem grave
errors, though the general sense is not affected.
It is unfortunate that the duplicate texts of Ps 14
and 53, Ps 18 and 28 22, and of the oracles
common to Nu, Is, and Jer, in which the language
is from the nature of the subject choice and
obscure, reveal an amount of licence on the
copyist’s part that is far greater than what appears
where the texts are easy. How much, therefore,
that is abnormal in our text is due to the original
authors and how much to the hands through which
it has passed, cannot without fresh discovery of
MSS be ascertained ; but it seems likely that if
there had been Hebrew grammarians as well as
writing-masters in any pre-Christian century, the
sphere of the optional in Hebrew grammar would
have been reduced to narrower limits. ‘There are
forms in the existing text of the OT which might
suggest vast surmises as to the extent to which a
Palestinian could have observed the rules of Arabic
grammar without being unintelligible. *

Owing to the fact that the language was never
fixed by organized study, the distinction of dialects
and periods is hazardous; and the very different:
opinions that excellent scholars have held about
the time and place to which portions of the OT
belong, show that there is little definite to be said
about these matters. We learn from Jg 12° that
an Ephraimite could not pronounce the letter τ
correctly ; but it by no means follows that his writ-
ing would show any signs of this inability. Some
scholars have attempted to distinguish two dialects
in the OT, others three (North Palestinian, South
Palestinian or Simeonic, and Jewish: so Bottcher,
Lehrb. τ. 15 11.), but it may be doubted whether there
is a single grammatical form which can with safety
be said to belong to one dialect rather than another.
If it be the case that revisers have introduced
uniformity where there were previously marked
differences, we cannot now vet behind their work.
It is, however, possible to note in several of the
OT narratives peculiar words or usages which may
have been characteristic of the tribes from which
those narratives emanated, though the extent of
the literature at our command does not justify us
in asserting this positively. Thus ao (Jeg 13°)
may be Danite for ‘razor’ (Arab. musa), ype (Jeg
11) Gileadite for ‘witness’ (Eth. sama@i; ef. Pr
2158) 333 Manassite for ‘to rule’ (Jg 9). Several
other curious phrases occur in the history of

TO. ΣΡ Jer 1519 (--mukallili-ni, Schultens); ΠῚ
Job 45 (= minhu) ; 152 4ENDTA. Apparently, the use of im and
tm to form the plural was optional, see Mic 3!2 quoted in Jer
2618, From Jer 253 and Ezk 14° it might seem that the pre-
formative of the 4th and 7th conjugation might be pronounced X&,

Gideon, and several in those of Ehud ( 315-39) and
Samson (0 13-16); perhaps some of those in the
last two narratives are not Israelitish at all, but
Moabitie and Philistian ; and indeed in Je 16% the
form pny seems clearly intended to be Philistian,
but is certainly not exclusively so. In the parts
of the 2nd Bk. of Kings which treat of the northern
kingdom, scholars have tried to detect much local
phraseology ; and the same has been tried with
the prophecies of Hosea, Amos, and others. ‘The
general uniformity of the language renders the
term ‘dialect’ inapplicable to these minute ἡ 7.0 5
of style, which for the most part may be char-
acteristic of individual writers rather than of
regions.

‘The chief characteristics of the Israelitish dialect
were probably fixed by the time of the consolida-
tion of the united kingdom under David ; and it
is not probable that from that time to the first
captivity it altered very seriously. The com-
paratively settled state of the country being
favourable to the growth of the arts and the
development of professions, a certain number of
words continued to accrue from foreign sources,
chiefly Assyria * and Eeypt, but to some extent
also Indiat and Greece,t while old words were
utilized to express new ideas, or old roots to form
fresh derivatives. In the case of the sacerdotal
profession we can apparently trace the formation
of a terminology on somewhat the same lines as
that by which the terminology of Mohammedan
tradition was afterwards formed. The inability of
the language to form compounds somewhat limits
the resources of the inventors of words; the same
form has to do duty for ‘to contaminate’ and ‘to
declare impure,’ the same for ‘to expiate’® and ‘ to
offer as an expiatory sacrifice.’ Lexicography is
slightly more represented in the OT than grammar,
albeit it is curious that in the one case where a
technical term is detined at leneth (Dt 155) that
term (5922') does not recur elsewhere. The wealth,
however, of the old Arabic language seems to have
been so great that the preservation rather than
the invention of words was desirable.s

6. Periods.—With regard to the periods of the
language of the OT it is generally agreed that
the Bks. of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,
Ecclesiastes, and Daniel display sutticient difference
from the style of most of the remaining books to
justify the application of some term like New
Hebrew to the language in which they are com-
posed. All these books have in common the

* e.g. Ezk 1683 773, Bab. nidit (Meissner, Babyl. Privatrecht,
p. 149); poy, Assyr. isku (ἐδ. 127); D°DI1 nikdsu, id,

+ For India see Comm. on 2 Καὶ 1022. Lagarde (Ges. Abh., first
Essay) suggests an Indian origin for jDX, 0353 (Ca 416), and
ὝΞΩ,

t One of the early Rabbis suggested that minz in Gn 495 was
the Greek word μάχαιρα (R. Eleazar quoted in Levy, NIWB,
iii. 116). The identuication is tempting, as the word is exceed-
ingly obscure; but it is not certainly right. One other pre-
exilic word W375 is certainly identical with the Greek παλλακις
(known to Homer); it is un-Semitic in form, and would seem to
belong to a monogamous community ; and can be derived with-
out much difficulty from Greek roots. The word arab (Ex 2018
ete.) seems to be a contraction of the Aram. 7°52, which in its
turn can scarcely be anything but the Greek Aeuwrad-; for it
has no Semitic affinities, and means ‘a meteoric light,’ which is
the very sense the word has in old Greck writers (¢.g. Aeschylus,
Chotph. 590, acurades πεδάοροι, mentioned among physical

terrors). How this word got into Hebrew and Aramaic seems a
mystery. 735 of 2 K 990 etc. seems to be the Greek φῦκος, and is

certainly identical with Lat. fuweus; but the meaning of the
Greek word does not quite agree. In post-exilic times the
immigration of Greek words is easily intelligible, but very few
can be detected with certainty. ΠΊΦΕ of 2 Ch 216 [Eng.16] has
a Greek appearance, but cannot be identified ; J EN of Ca 39 is
in the same case. The identification of πος with λέσχη has
found little favour.

§ See the collection in Freytag’s Hinleitung ins Studium der
Arab. Sprache.

52 LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

5
employment of Persian* or Aramaic + words for
ideas which the older Hebrew was quite equal to
expressing, as well as for ideas which perhaps
were not known to the older Hebrews; and
Ecclesiastes in particular is marked by the intro-
duction of several particles t which seem foreign to
the older language, and which seem to imply that
the writer had been schooled in some very different
vehicle of expression. These particles were in-
herited by the post-biblical literature, with some
others which are probably asold as Koheleth, though
not employed by him. Whether some of his turns
of expression were suggested by the necessity of
translating from the Greek cannot at present be
determined; this ingenious writer has every ap-
pearance of being a great innovator in language,
and indeed seems to say so (195). Esther shares
with Ecclesiastes some of the new particles, and
from the nature of its subject-matter exhibits the
Persian element very markedly. The Hebrew of
Dn, though marked by conscious imitation of ‘the
Bible’? (9°), which is not always, perhaps, felicitous
(1016 compared with Is 21*), lapses occasionally into
phrases that are characteristic of the very latest
style,§ and also has some Syriasms that are peculiar
to itself.!) The language of the four remaining
books is practically the same, although the Persian
element is Jess apparent in Ch, which, on the
other hand, exhibit grammatical formations which
seem Mishnice#) rather than biblical, and Syriac **
rather than Hebrew,

Were more of the historical parts of the Apoc-
rypha preserved in their original language, it is
probable that it would chiefly differ from this New
Hebrew in the introduction of Greek words, such
as are found in great numbers in the Mishna, but
the occurrence of which in the later Hebrew of the
OT as a characteristic of lateness seems doubtful.
If the Bk. of Ruth belongs to the early part of this
period, its author has kept it free from the most
characteristic phrases of the New Hebrew, while
employing several expressions which, though isol-
ated, appear to be antique.

It is certain tuat a considerable portion of the
rest of the OT was already known to the writers

of these works and constituted their classical
literature; and of this collection the largest

awvaount that can be assigned to a single period
with certainty consists of the Bks. of Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and Deuteronomy, the genuineness of the
greater portion of the first two being ordinarily
admitted, while there seem cogent reasons for
assigning the fifth book of the Pentateuch to about
the same epoch. This may therefore be called the
‘classical’ period of the language, though the
portions of Isaiah which belong to the close of the
Exile seem to surpass them in brilliancy. All
these books show signs of literary ambition :
‘Tsaiah’ claims, with justice, the possession of
a scholar’s tongue (504); Jeremiah is conscious of
the effects of his oratory (9339), and dictates for a
reading public (36°) ; many chapters of Ezk reveal
study and preparation ; the value which Dt claims
for its ‘words’ could scarcely be more strongly

* pane for 537 Est and Ec; ΠῚ for θυ Ezr and Est; ΠΝ
(perhaps Assyrian rather than Persi in) for 52D (2 K 5°) Neh,
Est, and Ch ; j3¢’/n or 72 Ξ for ΠΣ Ὁ Ezr and Est.

ΤΊ1 for ny: Neh, Est, and Ke; 03> for FON Ec, Est, Ch;
ΞΖ» for AwyD Ec. In Bab. Megillah, 94, attention is called to the
occurrence of D3n5 and TES

and 9 Σ Ὁ 1n* and jd a

(also in Est); π᾿ π ΠΩ,

ὃ M5 sy (108) only in Ch besides, ΠῚ (17) only in Est
besides, 473, nin’7D, 72).

1 PIDN (1145), p39 (1148), Ow (1121),

“ Any 2 Ch 3017 is the Mishnic nom. act.

** ΡΥ 2 Ch 1712 seems to be a Syriac diminutive.

expressed than in 6°1°, These writers inherited
some prophetic phraseology from earlier prophets
(Jer 23", where a verb ‘to 7é2m’ is coined, meaning
to use the characteristic phrase of the prophets),
and, indeed, some prophetic commonplace (so Jer
25°" seems to give the traditional proem to a pro-
phecy, the words recurring from Am 1? and J] 416).
but it is probable that in the main their ianguage
represents that of the ruling and official class at
Jerusalem in its last century of independence. It
is not unnatural that there should be a group of
words and phrases which are peculiar to Dt and
Jer, and another group peculiar to Jer and Ezk.
The greater portion ef the OT, however, does
not consist of works produced by single individuals,
embodying their ideas in their own language, but
of the work of schools or societies, who compiled,
abridged, and edited. The main streams .have
perhaps been separated by critics with success ;
but each of these main streams is made up of a
variety of smaller rills, so to speak, which cannot
be localized. Owing te the variety of the docu.
ments, written and oral, poetical and prose, which
are utilized in one place or other of the series which
extends from Gn to 2 Καὶ, we have a great variety of
idioms exemplified, of which only in rare cases we
can define either the time or the locality. The
only cases which deserve much attention are, of
course, those for which the ordinary language has
synonyms. In the Bk. of Leviticus a word (n2y) is
used eleven times for ‘neighbour’ which may be said
to occur nowhere else ; this must clearly be indica-
tive of dialect, but it is not known which. [ἢ
the ‘law of the slave’ (Ex 21'!*), a phrase (233)
for ‘by himself’ occurs three times which is not
known elsewhere. In the episode of Esau (Gn 27)
words occur for such common notions as ‘to touch’
(x12), ‘to plot’ (anand), a quiver’ (*5n), “ἃ deceiver’
(ynynd), ‘a superior’ (7123), which occur nowhere
else. All of these would seem to be dialectic ;
and the last, which is the masculine of a word that
oceurs frequently in the feminine, is certainly so.
The story of Joseph (Gn 37-50) has a whole
vocabulary of its own; as dialectic there may he
characterized the words for ‘just’ (13), ‘sack’
(nnndx), ‘restore to his place’ (132 9y awa), ‘load’
(jo). The word for ‘just,’ which oceurs five times
in this narrative, but for which in the same sense
we have to go to Syriac authors, must certainly
have met us elsewhere in the OT, if we possessed

other documents of the same place and the same

time as those to which the original story of Joseph
belonged. Although many of the expressions
which the documents employed by the compilers
contain must have been as unintelligible to them
as they are to us, the cases in which they en-
deavour to interpret or toemend them are rare. A
case of an emendation occurs in Jg 3-3, but both
alternatives «re obscure to us. In 1S 910 attention
is called to the ancient import of a word, and in
Gn 14" a hard word is glossed, but in neither case
is the ancient philology unequivocally confirmed by
modern. Where we have parallel narratives (as in
Gn 157: 3, Dt 171, and Nu 14") we can sometimes
trace the remains of ancient interpretations of
difficulties. The reason that these glosses are so
few is probably to be found in the fact that with
the Hebrews as with the Arabs a book is rather
the possession of an individual or a family (Dt 91:9)
than of the public; the skeleton writing almost
necessitates an authorized exponent. A second
reason is probably to be found in the tendency to
abridge, which has reduced the Israelitish literature
to so small a compass.

Whether it is possible to obtain any fixed lin-
guistic epochs in the classical and ante-classical
literature seems exceedingly doubtful. It is indeed
possible to tell Aramaisms by phonetic rules ; but

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST. 33

as Aramaisms meet us in very early literature,—e.g.
one of the characteristic words in the story of
Jephthah is an Aramaism, a word which occurs
also in Deborah’s song,*—no argument as to date
can be drawn from their occurrence, except when
they belong to the classes already noticed. From
the fact that the Canaanitish and Aramaic peoples
have the same modification of the old Arabic alpha-
bet, which they, indeed, subsequently developed
somewhat ditferently,-—from the tact that the oldest
Aramaic most resembles Canaanitish, and that one
of the oldest Canaanitish inscriptions which we
possess contains an Aramaic word, +} it would seem
that the two nations though speaking different
languages migrated simultaneously, and, until the
final extinction of Canaanitish, did not cease bor-
rowing from each other's vocabulary. We should
obtain more fixed points from the internal growth
of the lancuage, if the literature were sufficiently
large to enable us to name with precision the
Inventors of words; but this we are not able to
do. Most of the passages that might seem of use
for the history of particular words, turn out not to
be so. In Jer 23% the use of the word massa for
‘oracle’ is emphatically forbidden ; but we find it
employed nevertheless by authors far later than
Jeremiah (Mal 1. The words of Dt 248 seem to
imply the existence in some form of the technical
rules of Ly 13 and 14, but it is impossible to say
how many of the terms there employed existed in
the time of the Deuteronomist. A very little of
the sacerdotal terminology can be traced back to
those ancient times before the Canaanites separated
into nations,t but for the origin of most of it we
have no data.

The poetical books have been left out of the
above considerations, because choice and archaic
language is characteristic of the poetry of all
nations, and the widely divergent dates assigned
by the best scholars to various psalms show the
difficulty that is felt in distinguishing the really
archaic from affected archaism. The five poetical
books of the OT would seem to have emanated
from different schools, and the Psalms and Proverbs
probably also contain materials collected from very
different ages. That they emanated from schools
is shown by the predominance in each of a peculiar
vocabulary, which in the case of the Psalms would
seem to have been inherited by the authors of the
much later Psalms of Solomon. The obscurity and
rarity of the expressions is in other cases no clue
to the date of the Psalms, for some of the least
intelligible phrases are found in compositions which
are agreed to be exceedingly late.g The Proverbs
are remarkable as professing to embody the com-
positions of non-Israelites, but the chapters in
which these are collected may perhaps have been
translated, as indeed the text of Pr 25! implies that
the proverbs of Solomon were. The nature of the
collection prevents it from preserving much of the
popular language, as the proverbs of most nations
do, and as a collection of sayings current among
the Israelites, such as those to which the prophets
occasionally refer (cf. Jer 23% 31%, Ex 117), would
undoubtedly have done. But these exhibit the re-

*33n°. Moore in his v-luable commentary says such an
Aramaism is impossible in Gld Hebrew ; but is not this a ‘ Macht-
spruch’? Similarly, Dillmaim tries to explainaway δ᾽ in Gn 426,
ΔῚΡ of 281711, 3): of Jer 205, are also Aramaic. If the form
kattal be everywhere Aramaic, as it seems to be, it would be
difficult to point to any portion of the OT that would be
certainly free from Aramaism (see Hos 86,18 15. 19). Another
striking case of a word known only from the Aramaic is
sodnn in Hezekiah’s ode (Is 3816).

t nwo in the patera of Baal Lebanon.

irecg: by, bb3, aby (at any rate the verb). 505 would seem

ea ade been borrowed by the Egyptians, whence the Copt.
chlil.

ᾧ See 6.7. Pss 74. 80.
VOL, JIT.—-2

mains of a somewhat developed philosophical, or
perhaps we may say mystic vocabulary, and are
marked by the further recurrence of several phrases,
which, though not technical, seem to have been
employed only in the school of the writers.* The
Book of Job, which is ostensibly non-Israelitish
throughout, is probably, from a linguistic point of
view, the most remarkable in the OT, though to
what extent (if at all) it contains non-Israelitish
materials cannot with the present evidence be de-
termined. Choice and obsolete phrases seem to be
paraded here, as in the artificial poetry of the
Arabs ; but the commentary which may originally
have accompanied them has not been handed down.
Modern criticism is inclined to ascribe this book to
a series of writers; but if so, they must have had
access to the same sort of literature, for even a
portion of such doubtful authenticity as the Elihu
speeches differs from the rest, not so much in the
quality of the language as in the quantity of ob-
scure and striking expressions, many of which can
here be interpreted (like those in the rest of the
book) from the Arabic and Aramaic languages. It
is probable that the Canticles preserve more of the
popular style than any other portion of the OT
poetry. The matter is such that the employment
of a rustic dialect lends it a special charm ; but the
dialect cannot any more than the others be located.
The language of the Lamentations has some
peculiarities of its own, but also has much in
common with that of the Psalms. +

The separation of the sources and the fixing of
the dates of the pieces composing the OT has been
attempted with varying success by modern critics.
Neither the earliest nor the latest verse in the OT
‘an be named with certainty, but there is probably
none either earlier than 1100, or later than 100 B.C.
That the earhest fragments were in verse must not
be hastily assumed, since the Oriental peoples
employ verse not only to commemorate, but also to
glorify the past; and, owing to the considerations
that have already been urged, the verses which are
oceasionally quoted in the older historical books
in connexion with particular events must, until
further discoveries of literature, be located rather
by religious and political than by linguistic data.

The continuity of the Hebrew language would
seem to have been finally snapped with the taking
of Jerusalem by the Romans ; circumstances having
foreed the survivors of that catastrophe to adopt
some other idiom for the ordinary needs of lite,
though it has not ceased to carry on a sort of
existence to this day, partly as a learned language,
partly as a vehicle of communication for members
of the Jewish community throughout the world.
The commencement of its decay is no doubt to be
dated from the time when acquaintance with
another language was necessary for high offices
of State; and this would seem to have been the
case in Hezekiah’s time (Is 36"), and was prob-
ably the case earler. During the first exile and
after it, acquaintance with some other language
was requisite, not only for the official, but for
the ordinary householder ; and though Nehemiah
busied himself with the maintenance of the Jewish
language in its purity (137!"-), his own style gives
us no exalted notion of his standard in that matter.
The question, however, of the precise epoch at
which Hebrew ceased to be a living language is
fraught with considerable difficulty, owing to the
dearth of materials for settling it. Josephus, who
survived the Fall of Jerusalem, says (23.7, Preface,

* e.g. ΜῈ ‘to despise,’ m5’ for ‘a witness’ ybana.

+ Driver’s Introduction to the Literature of the OT contains
important observations on the usage of the different writers,

{ Thus the author of the historical manual Al-Makhri (cire.
1250) quotes the verses of the poet at Al-Radi (circ. 1000 on
Omar 11. (οὐ. 720).

34 LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.

§ 1), that being a Hebrew, he had written a history
of the war in his native language ; but when he
proceeds to state that the whole Kast, down to the
remotest of the Arabs, had access to that work,
such a description applies better to Aramaic than
to Hebrew. The passages in the writings of the
Rabbis which bear on this question are too late to
give trustworthy information. *

7. Biblical Arameic,—The earliest Aramaic doceu-
ments which we possess are the inscriptions first
mblished by E. Sachau in the Collections of the
serlin Museum for 1893, which certify the existence
of a written Aramaic language for the early part
of the 8th cent. B.C., or earlier, just as the inscrip-
tions on weights and indorsements on Assyrian
contracts, collected in the second volume of the
CIS, certify it for the latter half of the Sth cent.
and later. The opinion of M. Maspero, (/.c.) that
evidence for the existence of the Aramaic language
is to be found in far earlier Eeyptian documents, is
now accepted by Eeyptoleeists. As has already
been observed, the oldest Aramaic is without a
number of the characteristics that serve to dis-
tinguish the later language from Canaanitish ; but
it seems possible that this phenomenon is in part
due to the influence of the Canaanitish orthography,
since the Aramaic representation of the letters th
and dh does not seem derivable from the Canaanitish
and old Aramaic si and z, whereas it is easily deriv-
able from those letters themselves. In grammar

this language shows some striking aflinity with
the S. Arabian dialect Sabeean ; but in vocabulary

the earliest Aramaic seems to agree remarkably
with Canaanitish, and though several words which
are ordinary in Aramaic only figure in poetical
language in Heb., this is what is trequently found
in the case of kindred nations.

The area within which the Aramaic language
was employed seems even in Babylonian times to
have been very great; we have Aramaic inscrip-
tions and papyri found in Syria, Babylonia, Egypt,
and Arabia, which there are good grounds. tor
regarding as earlier than Cyrus. Its employment
even in the 8th cent. B.C. as a diplomatic language
(Is 361!) implies an Aramaic hegemony either in
politics or literature of some previous century ; for
it seems clear that the only languages ever em-
ployed in this way are such as have for one of
these reasons become important to members of
many nationalities. The Aramaic verse in Jer
(10!) is shown by the form of the word ‘earth,’
and the termination of the word ‘shall pet.ch,’ to
belong to the earliest form of Aramaic of which
we have cognizance ; but the fact that the ordinary
Aramaic for ‘earth’ oceurs in the second half of
the verse shows that no confidence can be placed in
the tradition, and it is highly probable that the old
Aramaic forms should be restored throughout.
The influence of Assyrian on the old Aramaic was
very considerable in matters affecting vocabulary—
such as to leave a permanent mark on the language ;
but on the grammar and syntax it would seem to
have had either less effect or a different effect from
that which it exercised on Canaanitish. The
accession of the Persians to world-empire seems to
have again largely aflected the Aramaic vocabu-
lary ; and the documents in Ezra which belong te
the Persian period bear witness to the influx of
Persian words, which, if these documents are
genuine, the language must almost at the com-
mencement of that period have undergone. The
idiom of these documents agrees remarkably with
that of the papyri edited in CJS (ii. Nos. 145 ff.),
which some scholars have suspected of Jewish
origin. The Aramaic parts of Daniel are char-

* Weiss in his Studien zur Mischnahsprache (in Hebrew),

collects scme passages which, though of interest, lead to no
defiaite conclusion.

acterized by a distinctly more modern idiom than
that of Ezra ; and, indeed, contain such decidedly
Hebrew constructions that it is evident that either
their author thought in that language, or they
represent a translation from it. Of the Aramaic
inscriptions which have been discovered, perhaps
those of Palmyra approach most closely to the
language of Daniel. The language has begun to
assimilate Greek words, but there is as yet no
regular system of transliteration. The language
is rigidly distinguished from the later Christian
Aramaic by the preservation of the old passive
forms, by the fact that the emphatic form still has
the force of the definite article, as well as by
certain peculiarities of grammar and orthography.
The later Jewish Aramaic, while in some of these
matters it has developed uniformly with the
Christian dialect of Edessa, in others has retained
the older forms, and in vocabulary difiers widely
from all Christian dialects, save that known as
Palestinian Syriac. Unlike the language of Canaan,
Aramaic held its ground during the integrity of
the Roman Empire in the East, developing a
variety of dialects and of scripts, and, though ousted
in the seventh and succeeding centuries by Arabic,
it has still representatives in the dialect of the
Christians of Mesopotamia, which the mission-
aries Stoddart, and, more recently, Macleane, have
endeavoured to provide with grammar and vocabu-
lary, and in some other less known dialecis.

LirEraTURE.—The history of the earliest grammatical studies
in Hebrew is sketched by W. Bacher, ‘die Anfange der Heb.
qrammatik,’ in ZVMG xlix. 1-62 and 334-392; for the few
notices of grammar to be found in the Talmuds see further
A. Berliner, Beitraye zur Heb. Grammatik im Tablnud wu.
Midrasch, Berl. 1879. Bacher’s papers carry the history of
Hebrew grammar and lexicography down to the end of the 10th
cent. ; while the invention of the vowel-points is connected
with the labours of the Massoretes, the first actual author of a
grammatical treatise was the Gaon Saadya (οὐ, 941), whose work,
however, exists only in quotations; to the 10th cent. belong
the Risalah of Jehudah Ibn Koraish, ed. Barges and Goldberg,
Paris, 1842, the Mahbercth or dictionary of Menahem Ibn Saruk
(ed. H. Filipowski, Lond. 1854; see also Siegmund Gross, Mena-
hem B. Saruk, Breslau, 1872), and the Teshubhah or ‘Response’
of Dunash B. Labrat (ed. R. Schroter, Breslau, 1866; cf. 5. G.
Stern, ‘ Liber Responsionum,’ Vienna, 1870); to the 11th cent.
the ‘ Book of Hebrew Roots’ of R. Jonah, called Abw ’l-Walid
Merwan (ed. by A. Neubauer, Oxford, 1875, cf. Neubauer,
‘Notice sur la lexicographie Hebraique,’ in Journ, Asiat. 1361),
and his grammar, called Harrikmah (ed. Goldberg, Frankf.
1866). See further for this early period Ewald τι. Dukes,
Beitrdge zur Geschichte der altesten Auslegung u.s.w. des A,
Testamentes, Stuttgart, 1844. We are brought nearer to mcdern
times by the works of Abraham Ibn Ezra, Mozne l’shon hak-
kodesh (ed. Heidenheim, Offenbach, 1791), Sefer Sahuth (ed.
Lippmann, Fiirth, 1827), and Safah Brurah (ed. Lippmann,
Furth, 1839); see also Bacher, Abraham Ibn Ezra als Grain-
matiker, Strassburg, 1881. To the same century belongs the
lexicon of Solomon Ibn Parhon, completed at Salerno, 1160
(ed. 5. G. Stern, Pressburg, 1844; cf. M. Weiner, Parchon als
Grammatiker τι. Lexicograph, Offen. 1870). Still more im-
portant were the grammatical and lexicographical works of
David Kimhi (1160-1235), whose Mich/ol has been often printed,
first at Constantinople, 1534; see also J. Tauber, Standpunkt wu.
Leistung des R. 1). Kimhi als Grammatiker, Breslau, 1867.
His dictionary, called Sefer hashshorashim, has also been
repeatedly printed, most recently by Biesenthal and Lebrecht,
Berlin, 1847. ,

The European study of Hebrew and Chaldee commences with
the grammars and dictionaries of Sebastian Munster and
Pagninus, 1525-1543; in the next century the Thesaurus
Grammaticus of J. Buxtorf, Basel, 1663, was of considerable
importance. In this century the works of W. Gesenius have,
notwithstanding many rivals, maintainéd their popularity ; his
Hebrew grammar, which first appeared at Halle, 1813 (followed
by the more elaborate Lehrgebdude, Leipzig, 1817), has re-
peatedly been re-edited and translated; the 26th edition,
revised by E. Kautzsch, appeared in 1896 at Leipzig, and was
translated by Collins and Cowley, Oxford, 1898. Of Gesenius’
rivals the most eminent was H. Ewald, the author of both a
larger anda smaller grammar; the Sth edition of the former,
called Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der heb. Sprache, appeared at
Gottingen, 1870, the Syntax of which was translated by
Kennedy, Edinburgh, 1879. Other important works on Hebrew
grammar are J. Olshausen’s Lehrbuch, Brunswick, 1861; Fr
Bottcher’s Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch, Leipzig, 1866 (in many
respects the fullest that has yet appeared) ; B. Stade’s Lehrbuch,
Leipz. 1879 (these three do not touch the syntax); F. E. Konig,
Hist.-kvit. Lehrgebéude, Leipzig, 1881-1897. Driver's Hebrew
Tenses (3rd ed., Oxford, 1890); Harper’s Elements of Hebrew

LANGUAGE OF THE APOCRYPHA

LANGUAGE OF THE APOCRYPHA 35

Syntax (London, 1890); and Wickes’ Treatises on Hebrew
Accentuation (Oxford, 1881-1887), are of great importance.
Lexicography is mainly represented by various editions of the
dictionaries of Gesenius Ulandworterbuch, Leipzig, 1810, 13th
ed. by Buhl, 1899; new edition by Brown, Briges, and Driver
in course of publication ; Thesaurus, 1835-1858, finished by
E. Rodiger); while these can be supplemented by the Con-
cordances, of which that by Mandelkern, Leipzig, 1896, is the
newest and fullest. The grammar of the Aramaic parts of the
OT has been treated most recently by K. Marti in Petermann’s
series, Leipzig, 1896, and H. Strack, Leipzig, 1896.
more important monographs on special questions have been
noticed above; but the various journals devoted to the study
of the OT, e.g. the American Hebraica and the German ZATW,
as well as those devoted to Jewish literature and to Oriental
study, contain more articles of importance than can be noticed

here—1899. D. S. MARGOLIOUTH.
LANGUAGE OF THE APOCRYPHA.—The Apoc-

rypha may with fair accuracy be described as a
collection of works emanating from Jewish com-
munities in the period between the close of the OT
Canon and the commencement of that of the NT.
Most of these books seem to have been composed
in Hebrew, a few in Aramaic, and the rest in
Greek ; but as they were preserved in the Chris-
tian community, the Hebrew and Aramaic originals
were at an early time lost or neglected, and their
place taken by Greek translations ; and in the case
of some, which never acquired lasting authority,
the Greek translation itself has been lost, and the
work preserved, if at all, in secondary versions.
This has occurred in the case of the Books of
Enoch and of Jubilees, which are known chicfly
through Ethiopic versions ; while the Fourth Book
of Ezra, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the
Assumption of Moses, are known in secondary
translations,—in the first case in a variety of lan-
guages, in the second in Syriac, and in the third
in Latin. Books 2 and following of Maccabees are
known to have been written in the language in
which we possess them (Greek); and the same is
probably the case with the Epistle of Jeremy ;
but the remaining books would seem to be all
translations, though it is not always easy to dis-
tinguish Hellenistic Greek from translated Hebrew.
The most ambitious in point of style is the Wisdom
of Solomon, which few even now regard as a
translation ; yet the proof that it is one is difficult
to elude; for 14! ‘for that which is made shall be
punished together with him that made it’ is
clearly a mistranslation of a sentence that is
quoted in the Midrash on Gn 48 (Πα δα, § 96) ox
ΞΡ 79. Py. 15: Aw pO pyrsw ‘just as the wor-
shipper is punished so is that which was wor-
shipped,’ the translator’s mistake being due to his
giving the verb 72y its Aramaic sense ‘to do or
make,’ whereas the author used it in its Hebrew
sense ‘to worship.’ It may be added that the
Greek of this verse (τὸ πραχθὲν σὺν τῷ δράσαντι
κολασθήσεται), Which really means ‘that which has
been done shall be punished together with him
that did it,’ shows siens of mistranslation that
could have been detected without the aid of the
original. It is, however, certain that the trans-
Jator’s object was rather to provide a masterpiece
of Greek rhetoric than to reproduce his original
faithfully ; and in the absence of materials it seems
impossible to fix with precision the limits of the
work translated, or the character of the original
language, which must in any case have shown
signs of Greek influence.

That the book called Eeclesiasticus or the Wisdom
or the Proverbs of Jesus Ben-Sira was originally
written in Hebrew we know from the statement of
the Greek translator in his preface; but the date
of the disappearance of the original is a matter of
obscurity. Jerome professes to have seen it. The
writings of the earlier Rabbis contain a certain
number of quotations from it, which are collected
by Cowley and Neubauer (4 portion of the Orig.
Hebrew of Ecclus., Oxford, 1896) ; this collection,

Some of the |

however, requires considerable reduction. The
reason for its disappearance is doubtless to be
found in the passage in the Gemara of B. San-
hedrin (f. 1006), in which it is asserted that a Jew
would risk his eternal salvation by reading it ; the
passages, however, which are cited there both for
and against this opinion, seem very inadequate for
either purpose. From these quotations we should
gather that the author used a laneuage similar to
that of the Mishnic authors, é.c. a highly developed
New Hebrew ; and this there seems no reason to
doubt, though it is likely that the quotations
are not scrupulously accurate. In an essay by
the present writer, published in 1890, reasons
were brought forward for thinking that many of
the differences between the Greek and the Syriac
versions, both of which were made from the
original, could be solved by the assumption that
the writer used New Hebrew words; and that the
writer used a nine-syllable metre, of which the
base was a foot called in Greek Bacrhic, consisting
of a short, a long, and a short: the middle syllable
being invariably long, whereas the others were
common. Ben-Sira, however, professes to be in
the main a compiler from the O'T (242°), which he
doubtless imitated constantly ; but in this he is
doing himself an injustice.

In 1896 a leaf was brought over from Cairo con-
taining a portion of Ecclus. in Hebrew, followed by
the discovery of other portions, published in the
work mentioned above, while yet other portions
await publication.* The present writer has shown
grounds (The Origin of the Orig. Heb. of Eeclus.,
Oxford, 1899) for thinking this Hebrew a retransla-
tion made in the llth or 12th cent. A.p., partly
from the Syriac and partly from a Persian version
of the Greek. +

The remaining poetical book in this series, the
Psalms of Solomon, would seem to have been ren-
dered into Greek by a specially skilful hand: had
we the original, it is probable that it would reveal
little difference in expression from many Psalms in
the Psalter ascribed to David.

Of the post-biblical historical writing of the
Jews occasional fragments are to be found in the
Talmud, e.g. B. Kiddushin, f. 667. The old forms
are still retained, though the writer introduces
Without scruple vulgarisins of his own age. It is
probable that the historical portions of the Apoc-
rypha were in a style similar to this, but of
course we cannot be sure. The Book of Judith is
known to have been written in Hebrew from 3°,
where the word ‘saw’ evidently is a mistransla-
tion of a Hebrew word signifying ‘plain’ (nex) ;
the statement of Jerome that Chaldee was the
original language of the book, must therefore be
regarded as inaccurate. Attempts that have been
made to find mistranslations from the Hebrew in
the other books, e.g. in Tobit by F. Rosenthal
(Vier Apoeryphische Bicher, 1885), and in 1 Mae by
the same scholar (das erste Makkabderbuch, 1867,
p. 6) seem to have produced no convincing result.
The title of the latter, which is handed down by
Origen, sarbeth sarbane ‘histori historiolarum’
seems certainly Aramaic, and indeed Syriac (hes.
Syr. col. 4323. 4), and it is unlikely that a Hebrew
book would have a title of this sort.

The prophetic and apocalyptic style is repre-
sented by works ascribed to Baruch, Ezra, and
others. The Book of Baruch consists very largely
of phrases taken from the OT, and hence the
elaborate reconstruction of the original by Kneucker
(Leipzig, 1879) probably gives a correct idea of the
author’s style. In the Apocalypse of Baruch some

*See now Wisdom of Ben Sira, by Schechter and Taylor,
Camb., 1899; and G. Margoliouth in J/QR, Oct. 1899.

t See Konig and Margoliouth in Hxpos. Times, August 1899
and foll. months ; also Smend in 7/2, Sept. 1899; Léviin REV,
Ap.-June 1899 ; and Bacher in J@A, Oct. 1899,

f

36 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

7

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

relics of the original Hebrew can, it has been
thought (Rt. H. Charles in his edition, pp. xliv—
lili) be discerned in errors of the translation ; and
the same is said to be the case with the Assumption
of Moses (R. H. Charles in his edition, pp. xxxix-
xlv). Too little of the original language can in
any case be recovered to enable us to speak with
certainty of its character.
D. 5. MARGOLIOUTH.
LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.—The
subject of this article 15 the species of Greek in
which our canonical NT Scriptures are written.
A person familiar with Attie Greek, who should
take in hand for the first time a Greek NT,

could not fail to be struck by its peculiar
idiom. Apart from traits which distinguish

one portion of the volume from another (see V.
p. 41 below), the language in general would seem
strange to him—by reason of the admixture of
popular, not to say plebeian, terms in its vocabul-
ary; by its occasional outlandish and hardly
intelligible phrases and constructions; by the
meagre use of the connectives and other particles
by which the earlier writers give balance, shading,
and point to their periods: by the comparative
avoidance or irregular use of the genitive absolute,
attraction, and other syntactical devices for secur-
ine compactness and gradation in the presentation
of thought; and throughout by a style which,
though often monotonous, is conspicuous for its
directness and simplicity ; a style which, while it
shows occasionally the digressions and broken or
anacoluthic sentences characteristic of colloquial
and uneducated utterance, is seldom encumbered
with parentheses or protracted and entangled
periods ; a style obviously the expression of men
too simple, self-forgetful, and earnest to pay much
heed to literary clegancies or the established rules
of the rhetorician.

Before considering in detail the characteristics of
this variety of Greek, thus distinctly marked in
vocabulary, construction, and style, we must notice
briefly its name, its origin, and its history.

(a) Neme.—Some of the names proposed for
this peculiar idiom are evidently too restricted in
their reference, as respects time or place or both
(as, ‘the ecclesiastical dialect,’ ‘the Alexandrian
dialect,’ ‘Palestinian Greek’). Others, ike ‘Jewish
Greek,’ ‘Jewish-Christian Greek,’ though intrin-
sically appropriate, have failed to gain currency.
But the appellation ‘Hellenistic Greek,’ first sug-
gested apparently by the younger Scaliger, is now
almost universally accepted. Protests on the
ground that this name not only fails to indicate
in what direction the language deviates from
ordinary Greek (and consequently is less descriptive
than ‘Hebraic’ or ‘Aramaie Greek’ would be),
but is also inherently tautological or meaningless,
because tantamount to ‘Greekish Greek,’ are
powerless to dislodge it. Its adoption has been
favoured, doubtless, by the use of Ἑλληνιστής
in Ac (6! 959 11° var. lec.) as the designation of
grecizing or Greek-speaking Jews. The applica-
tion of the term ‘dialect’ to the Gr. of a particular
locality and period is infelicitous, since that term
has already been appropriated by the idiom of the
several branches of the Greek race.

(6) Origin.—The literary supremacy of Athens
(ec. B.C. 500-B.C. 300) had caused her dialect, the
Attic, gradually to supplant the forms of the
language used by the other families of the Gr.
race; and the diffusion of Greek was much
furthered through the conquest and colonization
of the East by Alexander the Great and his suc-
cessors. In this process of diffusion, however, the
Attic dialect itself was modified by the speech and
usages of the nations among which it spread, till
at length there arose a cosmopolitan type of Greek

known as the ‘Common Dialect’ (ἡ κοινή, 86. διάλε-
κτος), ἃ prominent abode of which for two centuries
or more before the Christian era was the empire of
the Ptolemies and their capital Alexandria. Here
dwelt myriads of expatriated Jews, to whom in
time their native or ancestral tongue became so
unfamiliar that a Gr. translation of their sacred
books was prepared to meet their needs (approxi-
mately between B.C. 235 and B.C. 150 ; see SEPTU A-
GINT). ‘To this version much of the reverence felt
for the Heb. originals was soon transferred, and its
common use by all Jews resident outside of Pales-
tine did much to fix and perpetuate the type of
Greek it represents. That Greek, after undergoing
the modifications resulting inevitably from the use
of separated localities and intervening generations,
furnished the vehicle by which the revelation. of
God through Jesus Christ was given to the world.
Its origin discloses its fitness for its providential
oflice. It embodied the lofty conceptions of the
Heb. and Christian faith in a language which
brought them home to men’s business and bosoms.
It was an idiom capable of such use as not to
forfeit the respect of the cultivated (see, for
example, Ac 17 2674"); yet, in substance, it
was the Janguage of everyday life, and hence
fitted for the dissemination of the gospel by
preaching wherever Greek was spoken. [Ὁ differs
evidently from the language of writers like Philo
and Josephus, who, though of Heb. extraction,
addressed themselves to the educated classes and
aspired after idiomatic elegance of expression. — It
occupies apparently an intermediate position be-
tween the vulgarisms of the populace and the
studied style of the litterateurs of the period.
It atlords a striking illustration of the divine policy
in putting honour on what man calls ‘common.’
(ὦ History.—The true nature, however, of this
noteworthy idiom was for a time in certain quarters
unrecognized. This is surprising in view of the
deviations from the classic standard which stare one
in the face from every page of the NT. Moreover,
the educated man among the apostles frankly con-
fesses his lack of the graces of classic diction (1 Co
21-4 111 ὁ (Ὃ 11%); and competent judges of Greek
among the early Christians, such as Origen (ὁ. Cels.
vii. 59 f., Philocalia, iv., ed. Robinson, p. 41 f.) and
Chrysostom (//om. 3 on 1 Co 17), not only are for-
ward to acknowledge the literary inferiority of
the biblical language, but find evidence in that fact
both of the divine condescension to the lowly and
of the surpassing dignity of the contents of revela-
tion in that, though destitute of the charms of
polite literature, it could yet command the alle-
viance of the cultivated. Leading scholars of the
Reformation period also (Erasmus, Luther, Melan-
chthon, Beza) held in the main the same correct
opinion. But early in the 17th cent. this opinion
encountered emphatic dissent, which led to a dis-
cussion (known as the ‘ Purist Controversy ’) which
was protracted for more than a century, and con-
ducted at times with no little heat. The heat was
largely due to the circumstance that those who
denied the classic purity of NT Greek were thought
by their opponents to dishonour the divine author
of the book. But if these over-zealous champions
of the divine honour had had their way, they would
have disproved the claim of the volume to be the
production of Greek-speaking Jews of the Ist cent.,
and have nullified the philologicalevidence it affords
that, at that epoch, there entered a new and trans-
forming energy into the realm of human thought.
We see the foolishness of God to be wiser than

men. (A full bibliography of this instructive
controversy, With a critical estimate of the

arguments advanced on both sides, is given in
Schmiedel’s Winer, § 2). ;
The peculiarities of the NT language will be

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST. 37

most conveniently exhibited in connexion with the
several elements entering into its composition,
viz.—
I. The later or ‘Common’ spoken Greek,
II. The Hebrew or spoken Aramaic.
III. The Latin and other foreign tongues.
IV. The religious or distinctively Christian element.
_To the consideration of these will be subjoined—
V. Asummary view of the peculiarities of Individual Writers.
VI. Some of the linguistic Problems in the NT, with the aids
to their solution.
VII. A glance at the Bibliography of the subject.

The peculiarities noticed in the first four divisions may be
classified as (A) Lexical, and (B) Grammatical :—The former
comprising—a. New Words, and Ὁ. New Meanings; the latter,
ἐν oe of Form, and b. Peculiarities of Construction or

Ἐπ ῆς outset it should be noted that ποῦ a little uncertainty
still exists with regard to many points of detail; and the limits
of the present exposition will restrict for the most part the
examples and specifications given to a few representative par-
ticulars.

I. THE ‘ComMON’ OR SPOKEN GREEK.—(A) In
its Levical relations:—a. New words. A few of
the NT words commonly reckoned as belonging to
later Greek are the following :—

ἀβαρής, ἀγαλλιάομαι, ἀγνύημα, ἀδηλύτης, ἄθεσμος,
ἀθετέω, ἀκαιρέομαι, ἀκατάλυτος, ἀκατάπαυστος, ἀλεκτορο-
φωνία, ἀλληγορέω, ἀμετάθετος, ἀμετανύητος, ἀνάδειξις,
ἀναθεωρέω, ἀναντίρρητος, ἀναπολόγητος, ἀνάχυσις, ἀντι-
διατίθημι, ἀντοφθαλμέω, ἀνυπότακτος, ἀπαράβατος, ἀπελ-
πίζω, ἀπερισπάστως, ἀποθησαυρίζω, ἀποκαραδοκία, ἀπο-
κεφαλίζω, ἀπρόσιτος, ἀστοχέω, ἀτενίζω, βραβεῖον,
γογγύζω, γονυπετέω, δεισιδαιμονία, διαγνωρίζω, διαγρη-
γορέω, διαυγάζω, διαφημίζω, διερμηνεύω, διθάλασσος,
διοδεύω, δίψυχος, δουλαγωγέω, δυσερμήνευτος, ἐγγίζω,
ἐγκακέω, ἐγχρίω, ἐθνικός, ἐκδαπανάω, ἐκδικέω (ete. ),
ἔκθαμβος, ἐκπλήρωσις, ἐκτένεια, ἐξαρτίξω, ἐξισχύω,
ἐπιθανάτιος, ἐπισκηνόω, ἐπιχορηγέω, ἑτερύγλωσσος, εὐα-
ρεστέω, εὐδοκέω, εὐθυδρομέω, εὐκαιρέω, εὔκοπος, ἡμιώριον,
ἤρεμος, θηριομαχέω, θριαμβεύω, ἱματισμύς, ἰσότιμος,
καθημερινύς, καταβαρέω, καταγωνίζομαι, κατάκριμα,
κατάλυμα, καταντάω, καταπονέω, κατοπτρίζομαι, κενο-
δοξία, κερματιστής, κωμύπολις, μεθερμηνεύω, μεταμορφόω,
μετριοπαθέω, νεωτερικός, ὁδηγός, οἰκοδομή, ὀψώνιον,
παλινγενεσία, πάντοτε, παραχειμασία, TAPELTAKTOS, πᾶρεισ-
έρχομαι, παρεπίδημος, περιλάμπω, περιοχή. πορισμύς,
προελπίζω, προσεγγίζω, πρύσκαιρος, προσκληρύω, ὑᾳδι-
ούργημα, σημειόω, σκωληκύβρωτος, στρατολογέω, στρα-
τοπεδάρχης, συνκατάθεσις, συνβασιλεύω, συνμερίζω,
συνοδία, συνπνίγω, συνυποκρίνομαι, τελώνιον, τετράδιον,
τετράρχης, τρίστεγος, υἱοθεσία, ὑπερπλεονάζω, ὑπογραμ-
μός, ὑπολιμπάνω, ὑποτύπωσις, φίλαυτος, φιλήδονος,
χειρόγραφον. Several verbs in -dw (6... ἀνακαινώω,
δολιόω, Suvausw, χαριτόω), -ifw (e.g. αἰχμαλωτίζω,
ἀναθεματίζω, dveuifw), -εὐω (e.g. αἰχμαλωτεύω, γυ-
μνιτεύω, μαθητεύω, μεσιτεύω) are either of later
coinage or modifications of earlier endings.

These may serve as specimens of the difference
between the vocabulary of the NT and that of
the classic writers. But it must be remembered
that our imperfect knowledge makes it impossible
to say how many such words, apparently late, are
merely old words reappearing after a period of
disuse—a phenomenon often exemplified in our
own vernacular; or how far, again, they may
have been long current in colloquial speech, al-
though remaining foreign to the language of litera-
ture, as, for example, the swarm of everyday
deities catalogued by Augustine in his de Civitate
Dei, iv. 8, 11, 21, are alien to the Jupiter, Juno,
and the rest that make up the literary ‘properties’
of the poets.

But this list of specimen words brings to view
certain general characteristics of the NT vocabul-
ary; for example, its employment of terms which
in the earlier Greek are distinctly literary and
even poetic. To some such already given may
be added the following: ἀγέλη, ἀδάπανος, ἀδημονέω,
αἰσθητήριον, ἀλυσιτελής, ἀμάω, ἄμεμπτος, ἀμέριμνος,
ἀναθάλλω, ἀνακράζω, ἀνήμερος, ἀπαλλοτριόω, ἀπέραντος,

ἀπόδημος, ἀποφθέγγομαι, ἀποτομία (-μως), ἀποψύχω,
ἀσάλευτος, ἀσχήμων, ἄτακτος, ἀτιμάζω, αὐγάζω, αὐθάδης,
αὔξω, αὐτύχειρ, αὐχέω, ἄφαντος, ἀφρίζω, βαρέω,
βαστάζω, βρέχω, βρώσιμος, γενετή, δέσμιος, διαυγής,
διηνεκής, δύλιος, ἔκδηλος, ἐκμάσσω, ἐκτελέω, ἐμβατεύω, ἐμ-
παίζω, ἐμφανίζω, ἐνάλιος, ἐπαιτέω, ἐπακροάομαι. ἐπικέλλω,
ἐπισφαλής, ἐρείδω, ἐριθίζω, ἐσθής, εὐδία, εὐσχημοσύνη,
εὐφροσύνη, ἤπιος, ἠχέω (ἦχος), θανάσιμος, θεοστυγής,
θύελλα, θυμομαχέω, ikuds, ἱμείρομαι (ὁμ.), KAKIW, καύ-
χημα, κενύω, κλαυθμός, κλέος, κλύδων, κολλάω, Kpara.ys,
Kupsw, λάμπω, μαγεύω, μαστίζω, μητρολῴας, μύχθος,
μυελός, μωμάομαι, νυστάζω, ὀδύνη, οἰκτιρμός, ὅρασις,
οὐρανόθεν, πανοικεί, πανπληθεί, παραλογίζομαι (Cte. ),
παροτρύνω, mevixpds, πιάζω, πολυποίκιλος, προπετής,
ῥιπίζω, ῥυπαρός, σαπρός, σκορπίζω, συμπαθής, τηλαυγῶς,
τρόμος, τρύβλιον, τυρβάζω, ὑπερήφανος, φαντάζω, φέγγος,
φιμύω, χειμάζομαι, χειραγωγέω, χλιαρός, ὠδίνω.

Conspicuous in it also is the later Greek fond-
ness (agreeably to the popular striving after strong
expressions) for compounded and sesquipedalian
words. Of these the following may serve as addi-
tional representatives : ἀνεκδιήγητος, ἀνεκλάλητος,
ἀνεξερεύνητος, ἀνεπαίσχυντος, ἀνταποκρίνομαι. δυσβά-
στακτος, ἐμπεριπατέω, ἐξαγοράζω, ἐξακολουθέω, ἐξανα-
τέλλω, ἐξομολογέω, ἐπιγαμβρεύω, ζωογονέω, καταβραβεύω,
καταδυναστεύω, κατασοφίζομαι, κατισχύω, λιθοβολέω,
ματαιολογία, μετοικεσία, οἰκοδεσπτοτέω, ὀλιγύψυχος,
πατροπαράδοτος, προσαναβαίνω, προσαναπληρύω, προσ-
ανατίθημι, προσκαρτερέω, προσπορεύομαι, συναναμίγνυμι,
συνευωχέομαι, συνκαταψηφίζω, συναντιλαμβάνομαι, συνυ-
ποκρίνομαι, συνυπουργέω.

The biblical writers indulge this partiality still
further; as witness such words as the following:
ἀγενεαλόγητος, αἱματεκχυσία, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, ἀνεξί-
κακος, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, διενθυμέομαι, ἐκζητέω, ἐκμυκτη-
ρίζω, ἐκπειράζω, ἐξαστράπτω, ἐπαναπαύω, ἐπιδιατάσσομαι,
ἐπιδιορθύω, ἐπισκευάζω, ἐπισυντρέχω, ἱερουργέω, κατα-
κληροδοτέω, κατακληρονομέω, καταλιθάζω, κατεξουσιάζω,
κατεφίστημι, κατοικητήριον, μισθαποδοσία, ὀρθοτομέω,
ὁρκωμοσία, ὀχλοποιέω, παραπικραίνω, περιαστράπτω,
ποταμοφόρητος, προενάρχομαι, συναιχμάλωτος, ὑπερεκ-
περισσῶς, ὑπερεντυγχάνω, χρηστολογία, χρυσοδακτύλιος.
Moreover, ποῦ a few decomposite words are found
in it—as in general in the later Greek—which
have been formed by prefixing a preposition (as
ἐπί, διά, παρά, πρό, πρός, σύν. ὑπέρ) to a word already
in use. Conversely, simple verbs are sometimes
substituted for their compounds more usual in the
classic period; as, épwrdw for ἐπερωτάω (Mk 85),
κρύπτω for ἀποκρύπτω (Mt 1155), ἀθροίζω for συναθροΐζω
(Lk 9433), δειγματίζω for παραδειγματίζω (Mt 115), ὀχλέω
for ἐνοχλέω (Ac 5"), τρέφω for ἀνατρέφω (Lk 410).

Another characteristic of NT Greek (as of
modern Greek, and indeed of popular speech in
general) appears in the disproportionate number
of so-called diminutives its vocabulary contains :
ἀρνίον, γυναικάριον, ἐρίφιον, θυγάτριον, ἰχθύδιον, κλινάριον,
κλινίδιον, κοράσιον, κυνάριον, ὀνάριον, ὀψάριον, (παιδίον)
παιδάριον, πινακίδιον, πλοιάριον, ποίμνιον, προβάτιον,
σανδάλιον, στρουθίον, σχοινίον, φορτίον, ψιχίον, ψωμίον,
ὠτάριον, ὠτίον are among them ; and even βιβλαρίδιον,
a diminutive of a diminutive, occurs. Several of
these words have quite lost any diminutive foree—
if indeed they ever had it (cf. ¢.g. θηρίον, κρανίον,
ete.). For ὠτάριον (Mk 14%, Jn 1810), ὠτίον (Mt 26%),
Lk (22°) substitutes οὖς.

b. But not merely had later Greek, as it dis-
closes itself in the NT, enlarged its vocabulary by
the introduction of new words (or the revival of
those long disused), it had also modified more or
less the meaning of many retained from the classic

eriod. This is exemplified by the meanings sub-
joined to the following words: ἀκαταστασία * politi-
cal disorder,’ ἀνάκειμαι and ἀναπίπτω ‘recline at
table,’ ἀναλύω ‘depart (from life), ἀναστρέφομαι
‘conduct one’s self,’ ἀντίλημψις ‘help,’ ἀποτάσσομαι
‘bid farewell,’ ‘renounce,’ ἀφανίζω ‘render un-
sightly,’ γενήματα ‘fruits of the earth,’ δῶμα ‘ house-

38 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

top,’ évrevéts ‘petition,’ ἐντροπή ‘shame,’ ἐρεύγομαι | favoured by the gradual obscuration of the dis-

‘speak out,’ épwrdw ‘request,’ εὐσχήμων ‘honour-
able’ of rank, εὐχαριστέω ‘thank,’ Cworodw ‘cause
to live,’ ‘quicken,’ καταστολή ‘apparel,’ Evdov Sa
tree,’ τὰ περίεργα ‘imavic,’ περισπάομαι ‘be dis-
tracted’ (with cares, ete.), πτῶμα (without adjunct)
‘a corpse,’ ῥύμη “ἃ street,’ στέλλομαι ‘withdraw,’
στιγμή ‘moment,’ συνκρίνω ‘compare,’ ‘interpret,’
συνίστημι ‘establish,’ ‘prove,’ σχολή ‘school,’ σώματα
(without adjunct) ‘slaves,’ τρώγω i.7. ἐσθίω, φθάνω
‘come to,’ ‘arrive at,’ χορτάζω ‘feed’ (of persons),
ὑπάρχω nearly tq. εἰμί, χρηματίζω ‘be styled’ or
‘called’ And when the modification is not so
marked as in these cases, there is at times a
change in frequency of use which indicates a
change at least in connotation. This is illus-
trated in the use of βλέπω, θεωρέω, and ὁράω to
express seeing ; of ἔρχομαι, πορεύομαι, and ὑπάγω to
denote going ; of λαλέω and λέγω in reference to
speaking. ‘The caste or social status, so to speak,
of words varied in ancient as it does in modern
times with age and locality.

Many verbs, moreover, which in the earlier lan-
guage were commonly transitive, assumed a re-
flexive or neuter sense ; e.g. ἀπέχω (Lk 152”), ἀπορίπτω
(Ac 27), αὐξάνω, αὔξω (Mt 6%, Eph 221), ἐνισχύω (Ac
9"), ἐπιϑάλλω (Mk4""), κλίνω (1,1. 913), παραδίδωμι (perh.
Mk 459), στρέφω (Ac 74") and its compounds. On

the other hand, some neuter verbs came to be used |

transitively or causatively ; as, βλαστάνω (Ja 513),

βλασφημέω (Mt 27%), γονυπετέω (Mt 174), διψάω and |

πεινάω (Mt 5"), ἐμπορεύομαι (2 P 2*), εὐδοκέω (Mt 1915),
μαθητεύω (Mt 2819). An interesting extension of
this usage appears in ὃ yap ἀπέθανεν. ὃ δὲ ζῇ
(Ro 6),

(2) But this brings to our attention the Gram-
matical peculiarities which the language of the
NT exhibits in common with later Greek. Peeu-
iarities of this class, whether relating to form
or to construction, are much Jess numerous than
those which, agreeably to the general law of
growth in language, affect its vocabulary.

a. ‘The peculiarities of form are some of them
common to the different dialects of the earlier
Greek ; as, βούλει, (Yer, διδόασι, τιθέασι, ἐδαφιοῦσιν,
ἠδυνάμην, ἤμελλε, ἠβουλήθην, to the Attie; dat.
γήρει, gen. and dat. in -7s, -y, from nouns in -pa (as
μάχαιρα, πρῷρα, πλήμμυρα, σπεῖρα), the presents γίνομαι,
γινώσκω, also εἶτεν (εἶτα), after the Ionic; ἀφέωνται
(for ἀφεῖνται), ἤτω (for ἔστω), ἔρνιξ (ἔρνις), held to be
Doric ; ἐδυνάσθην, collat. form of ἠδυνήθην, ἐκάμμυσα
(καμμύω), ῥήσσω (ῥάσσω), Epic; ἀποκτέννω (-κτείνω),
-Kolic. Others may be traced to the popular pre-
ference for regularity of inflection : ¢.g. the change
of verbs in μὲ into verbs in w; the termination -cac
in the 2nd pers. sing., as δύνασαι, καυχᾶσαι ; the in-
flection οἶδα, -das, -dare, οἷοι; the aorists ἔδωσα,
ἔζησα, ἡμάρτησα, ka from ἄγω, ἧξα (7) from ἥκω,
and the like. There is also a propensity to omit
the augment of the pluperfect, and especially to
give the 2nd aor, the endings of the first, as
εἴδαμεν, -av, εἶπαν, ἔπεσα, -αν, ἦλθαν, ἐλθάτω, ete.;
and in the imperfect of ἔχω we find εἶχαν and
εἴχοσαν (SO ἐδίδοσαν, ἐδολιοῦσαν), due doubtless to
the love of assimilation in form. Sundry nouns
have varying genders, as ὁ and ἡ βάτος, ληνὶς, λιμός ;
6 and τὸ ἔλεος, ζῆλος, ἦχος (2), θεμέλιος -ALov, πλοῦτος,
σκότος ; ἡ νίκη and τὸ νῖκος; and even a twofold
declension, as δεσμός plur. -μοί and -μά, ἔλεος -ov
and -ous, σκότος -ov and -ous, also nouns ending in
-apxos, -dpxns (as ἑκατόνταρχος and ἑκατοντάρχης) ;
others show a preference at times for the uncon-
tracted forms, as ὀστέα, ὀστέων. The same tendency
to assimilate explains, probably, the fondness for
terminal v:—both in nouns, as ἄρσεναν, μῆναν, ἀσεβήν,
ἀσφαλήν, συγγενῆν, χεῖραν; and in verbs, as 3rd
pers. plur. of the perfect, γέγοναν, ἔγνωκαν, εἴρηκαν,
ἑώρακαν (ἑύρακαν), πέπτωκαν (πέπωκαν). Here it was

tinction between the perfect and the aorist (see
in b below), to which cause also may be due the
oceasional appearance of the ending -xes for -«as
in the 2nd pers. sing. of the perfect. The dual
number has disappeared, and the word δύο itself
tends to become indeclinable. Particles of rest
(ποῦ, ὅπου, etc.) have superseded those of motion
(rot, ὅποι, οἷς.) ; εἷς has encroached largely upon
the province of τις, and πύτερος (-ρον, except in
Jn 717) has disappeared.

Negligent or variant pronunciation appears in
irregularities of spelling ; such as the retention of
# in sundry forms and derivatives of λαμιβάνω (as
λήμψεσθαι, ἀνάλημψις, ete.); the neglect of assimi-
lation in compounds of ἐν and σύν ; the doubling
or non-doubling of v, p, and some other letters,
e.g. γένημα ; inconsistency respecting ν movable,
elision, and the final s in ἄχρις, μέχρις, οὕτως. The
interchange of sundry letters, as in μαστύς and
μασθύς, ζβέννυμι and σβέννυμι, σφυρίς and σπυρίς, οὐθείς
and οὐδείς, ποταπός and ποδαπύς ; and especially in
the case of the vowels εἰ, ε, ἢ, 4, as well as as, e, a
tendency to that obliteration of distinctions which
culminated in itacism and the pronunciation of
modern Greek.

Many of these irregularities, and others both of
form and pronunciation, have been adopted by the
editors of the text of the NT in conformity with
the usage of the oldest extant MSS; but how far,
in any given case, they are to be set down to the
account of the original authors or of later scribes,
is a question to be settled only after the other
nearly contemporary writings have been edited
with equal attention to such details, and in the
light of the accumulating testimony of inscrip-
tions, papyri, and other relies.

b. The Syntactical peculiarities which the NT
shares in common with later and spoken Greek,
though less numerous than the formal, are not
less noteworthy. They appear particularly in the
constructions of the verb. Besides those alluded
to in the opening paragraph of this article, may
be mentioned :—the general disuse of the optative
in dependent sentences; the weakening of con-
structions with wa (a particle which had nearly
supplanted ὅπως), which often have the force merely
of the classic infinitive; the interchange of ἐζν
and ἄν ; the use of ὄταν with the indicative (Rev 8}),
and in dependent clauses to denote indefinite fre-
quency ; an extended use of ὅτι, and also of the
final infin., the genitival infin., and the infin. with
ἐν and εἰς ; the scanty employment of interrogative
particles, and the use of εἰ in direct questions
(perhaps a Hebraism); the ordinary substitution
of the present participle for the future, and in
general a fondness for the present tense (especially
λέγει, ἔρχεται, ete.) agreeably to the love of vivid-
ness and directness ; a lax use of the aorist parti-
ciple, in fact a tendency to blur the distinction
between the aor. tense and the perfect; the use
of ἔφελον as a particle of wishing; the prefixing
of ἄφες to the hortatory subjunctive, and the pleo-
nastic use of the imperatives of ὁρᾶν, βλέπειν (as
ὁρᾶτε βλέπετε ἀπό, etc. Mk 8"); the tendency of μή
to encroach on the province of οὐ, especially with
infinitives and participles, and to prevent a hiatus ;
the use of the compound negative οὐ μή; employ-
ment of e(ué with the participle as a periphrasis
for the simple verb; and the freq. omission of the
copula eiué; carelessness in placing particles (e.g. dpa
Lk 11° 48, ye Lk 118, τοίνυν. He 1333, duws Gal 3%),

The popular striving after emphasis which ap-
pears in many of these usages shows itself, further,
in the use of the active voice with the reflexive
pronoun instead of the middle; of ἔδιος instead of
the simple possessive pronoun; of eis for the in-
definite τις, and, in general, a needless multiplica-

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST. 39

tion of pronouns; of devices for strengthening the
forms of comparison, ὁ... ἐλαχιστότερος, μειζότερος,
μᾶλλον περισσότερον, and the use of παρά and ὑπέρ
With comparatives instead of # (yet ἤ alone is at
times used with comparative force, e.g. Mt LS";
Lk 157, 1 Co 14"); of prepositions to reinforce the
simple cases. The use of the neut. sing. of an
adjective with the art. as a substitute for the
abstract noun, though not unusual in the classics, is
more common in Paul and Hebrews, and in the later
Gr. writers became a striking literary mannerism.

II. THe ARAMAIC AND HEBREW ELEMENT.—It
is usual to distribute the Hebraisms of the NT
into two classes: ‘perfect’ or pure Hebraisms,
which consist of such words, phrases, and con-
structions as have no precedent or analogue in
extant Gr., and hence are held to be directly
transferred to the NT from the mother tongue of
the Jews; and ‘imperfect’ Hebraisms, consisting
of Hebraistic expressions to be found, indeed, for
substance in Gr., but the use of which by the NT
writers is most naturally traced to the influence
of their native language. The limits of this latter
class, however, our scanty knowledge of the his-
tory of the later Gr. language makes it difficult
to fix; and for our present purpose it will be more
convenient to follow the classification adopted by
us hitherto. A just impression, moreover, of this
element of the NT language requires that our
presentation of facts should be liberal and in-
clusive, rather than rigorously restricted. For
example, the word σπέρμα with the meaning pro-
geny may be traced as far back as Atschylus and
Pindar ; but the more than thirty instances of its
use in this sense in the NT fairly entitle it to be
enrolled as a Hebraism.

(4) Lexical Hebraisms :—not all of which, be it
remembered, first make their appearance in the

a. New words.—Of these, some are (1) Semitic
words simply transliterated ; as, ἀββά, ἁλληλουιά,
᾿ ἀμήν, γαββαθά, γολγοθά, κορβάν, πάσχα, ῥαββεί etc.,
ῥακά, σαβαώθ, σατάν, σίκερα, ταλειθά, χερουβείν ; others
are (2) Grecized by some slight change, generally
of termination; as, βάτος, yéevva, ζιζάνιον, (and as
is commonly thought) κάμηλος, κιννάμωμον (to which
may prob. be added the names of several other
plants and spices, as well as of precious stones ;
as, κύμινον, λίβανος, συκάμινος, ὕσσωπος, σάπφειροϑΞ),
κύρος, μαμωνᾶς, μάννα, σάτον, σάββατον.

b. Far more numerous are the words and phrases,
Gr. in form, which under Heb. influence have
taken on a new meaning ; as, ἄγγελος (apxayyeros),
ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος (ἐκεῖνος, ὁ μέλλων), ἀνάθεμα (-τίζειν),
γλῶσσα “ἃ people,’ δέειν and λύειν ‘to forbid’ and
‘permit,’ ὁ διάβολος, δύξα ‘brightness’ (τοῦ φωτός,
Ac 9911, δύναμις τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (of the stars), ἐνώπιον
τοῦ θεοῦ ‘in the judgment of God,’ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι
‘vive praise,’ ἐξορκιστής ‘an exorcist,’ ἐπισκοπή of
the divine visitation, μακροθυμέω ‘be long-suffering,’
νύμφη ‘daughter-in-law,’ οἰκοδομεῖν in trop. sense (7),
ἵνομα ‘authority,’ ὀφθαλμὸς movnpss of envy, ὀφει-
λέτης (-.λήματα, in reference to sin), περιπατεῖν and
665s in a technical sense, of a course of life, (ποιεῖν
νύμον in classic Greek ‘to make a law’) ποιεῖν τὸν
νύμον ‘to do, keep, the law,’ πορεύεσθαι ‘to die,’
41:0 π. ὀπίσω τινός to ‘become one’s follower,’ πορ-
νεύειν (-νεία) of idolatry, πρόσωπον θαυμάζειν and
λαμβάνειν, also εἰς πρόσωπον βλέπειν, etc., of exter-
nals, σκάνδαλον (-λίζειν) in a fig. sense, σπέρμα * off-
spring,’ φωτίζω of spiritual enlightenment.

Not a few are due to national institutions,
usages, historic incidents, and the like; as, ἀκρο-
βυστία, ἀποδεκατύω, ἀποσυνάγωγος (ἀρχισυνάγωγος,
ete.), οἱ ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως, γραμματεύς, διαθήκη,
διασπορά, δωδεκάφυλον, ἐνκαίνια (-νίζω), ἐπιγαμβρεύω,
εὐνουχίζω, θυσιαστήριον, τὸ ἱλαστήριον, καθαρίζω and
κοινύω levitically, κληρονομέω in its technical use,

λατρεία the ritual service, λυτρύω in its theocratic
sense, μοσχοποιέω, νομοδιδάσκαλος, ὁλοκαύτωμα, πατρι-
άρχης, πεντηκοστή, πρεσβυτέριον, προσήλυτος, προφήτης,
πρωτοκαθεδρία, πρωτοτύκια, σκηνοπηγία, υἱὸς τοῦ ἀν-
θρώπου (τοῦ θεοῦ), φυλακτήριον. ‘There are indica-
tions, however, that some of these terms (¢.9.
καθαρίζω, πρεσβυτέριον, προφήτης) were known to
heathen usage in a religious reference (Deissmann,
Neue Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1897).

Others spring from the Oriental love of pictorial-
ness and circumstantiality ; as, ἀπερίτμητος τῇ Kap-
dia, ἐν καρδίᾳ λέγειν, ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν πεπλάτυνται, ἐν
γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν, ἐν ἡμέραις “Hpwoou, ἐνωτίζεσθαι,
ἔσκαψε καὶ ἐβάθυνε, ζητεῖν τὴν ψυχήν τινος. καρπὸς τῶν
χειλέων, ποτήριον in a fig. application, σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα,
σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, στηρίζειν τὸ πρόσωπον, στόμα μαχαίρης,
vids or τέκνον With the gen. especially of an abstract
(e.g. εἰρήνης, βροντῆς, φωτύς, ὀργῆς, ὑπακοῆῖς, etc.),
χεῖλος τῆς θαλάσσης.

But some of these phrases may with equal pro-
priety be ranked with—

(B) Grammatical Hebraisms. —The great dis-
similarity in structure between the Heb, and the
Gr. operated as a barrier to the free introduction
of the characteristic idioms of the former language
into the latter. The grammatical influence of
their native tongue shows itself in the NT writers
rather in their general style of expression; in
particular, a marked inaptness in the use οἱ
moods (even as compared with contemporary Gr.
authors), simplicity of construction, and ἃ co-
ordination of clauses which would have seemed
monotonous if not illogical to a Greek. Still,
usages are not wanting which distinctly recall the
Hebrew. Among them are the following :—An
extended use of prepositions ; for instance, ἐν (cf.
2): not only in construction with verbs, as εὐδοκεῖν,
ὀμνύειν, ete., but particularly with instrumental
force, as κράζειν ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (Rev 14%), ποιεῖν
κράτος ἐν βραχίονι (Lk 11), πολεμεῖν ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ
στόματος (Rev 910).-- εἰς (cf. b): in such phrases as
γίνεσθαι εἰς οὐδέν (Ac δ"), λαμβάνειν eis κληρονομίαν
(He 118), λογίζεσθαι εἰς περιτομήν (Ro 256); and in
general, its insertion before the second accusative
after verbs signifying ‘make,’ ‘hold,’ ete., as, εἰς
προφήτην αὐτὸν εἶχον (Mt 21*°).—ams (cf. 15): as,
φεύγειν ἀπό, ete. (Mt 3%, Jn 10°).—emi (ef: >): as,
ἐλπίζειν ἐπί, οὖς.---μετά (cf. BY): μεγαλύνειν, ποιεῖν,
ἔλεος μετά, ete. (Lk 1% ™).—Periphrastic expansions
of prepositions :—by the use οἵ ὀφθαλμύς (ef. 352)
Mt 21”, Lk 1942,-- πρόσωπον (οἷ. 3:2) Ac δ"), Mk 1’,
Ac 13% ;—ordua (ef. 22) Mt 44, Lk 1”, ΓΕ ox) 2 Co
131, Mt 1815... χείρ (cf. tz) Jn 10, Gal 3%, Ac 23
7%,—The employment of ἔμπροσθεν (Mt 11°6 18"),
ἐνώπιον (Ac 6°), κατενώπιον (Eph 14), κατέναντι (Ro 417),
ὀπίσω (Lk 1451), as prepositions. —The pleonastic use
of pronouns (see above, Τ. B. Ὁ, sub fin.), especially
αὐτός (e.g. Rev 271"), which is even added in a
relative sentence (Mt 3, Mk 7, Rev 75:9 etc.).—
The use of a limiting genitive to express quality
(Lk 18%, Ja 24 1*°).—The use of (a superfluous) καὶ
ἐγένετο (or ἐγένετο δέ) before a specification of time
or occurrence.—An imitation of the Heb. infinite
absolute by a cognate dative prefixed to the verb
(as ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα Lk 22”, χαρᾷ χαίρει Jn 3°"), or
(in quotations) by a prefixed participle (as βλέποντες
Brévere Mt 134, cf. the pictorial ἀναστάς or πορευθείς
before ἃ verb).—e (ef. Heb. ox) in sentences with
suppressed apodosis as a formula of swearing or to
express emphatic negation (He 4° °, Mk 8!*).—A lax
use of ἀποκρίνομαι (cf. 737) when no proper question
has preceded.—zpoorlOnue (cf. 51) with an infin. to
express repetition (¢.g. προσέθετο τρίτον πέμψαι Lk
21) 12), Α superfluous use of ὄνομα (Mt 151, Lk
ΟΣ. found in papyri as early as B.C. 260).—The

repetition of a numeral to give it distributive force
(e.g. δύο δύο Mk 6°; cf. συμπύσια συμπόσια, πρασιαὶ
πρασιαί Mk 0595, (and probably) ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ 2 Co

all

—

. κολωνία, κουστωδία, λεγεών,

40 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

ἴον τούς . . was equivalent to ovdeis.—Such phrases
as τὶ €uol καὶ σοί (Mk 1%, Jn 24), περὶ ἁμαρτίας, 50.
θυσία (Ro 85).

The majority of these Hebraistie forms and con-
structions appear in the LXX also, which as a tr.
—-in parts servile, and made by persons some of
whom evidently had but an imperfect acquaintance
with the Gr. language—is far more Hebraistic in
its cast than the NT. But it would be a mistake
to assume that this tr. in its peculiarities repre-
sents a type of Gr. established and in actual
currency at the time. Such an assumption would
reverse the historical process. While its language
reproduces fundamentally, no doubt, the popular
Gr. of the Ptolemaic period, its distinctive char-
acter is due rather to the translators’ exaggerated
deference to the Heb. sacred text, and their
mechanical reproduction of it. Yet beyond all
question the idioms of this Gr. reproduction of the
earlier Scriptures, made familiar as they were by
the religious use of the version for generations
among the Jews of the Dispersion, must have had
great influence in forming the type of Gr. current
among people of Jewish stock. Indeed, owing to
the cosmopolitan relations of that race during the
time intervening between the origin of the two
bodies of literature, it need not surprise us to
encounter idioms having a distinctly Hebraistie
flavour even in native Gr. circles. Consequently
our classifications here, as elsewhere, are more :
matter of convenience than of rigorous historical
accuracy. We must not forget the uncertainty
arising from our present defective knowledge.
We must not interpret the fact of prior occurrence
into clear proof either of primary origin on the
one hand, or direct derivation on the other. We
must not overlook the truth that coincidences of
popular expression are to be found in many widely
separated and unrelated tongues. But, notwith-
standing all uncertainties and abatements, the
general influence of the LXX upon NT Greek was
indubitably great. (See Schmiedel’s Winer, ὃ 4.
10. A good Lexicon and Grammar of the LXX
are pressing needs of the student of Biblical Greek,
and are now made possible by Swete’s edition of
the text, and Hatch and Redpath’s Concordance.
Help on one minor point may be found in C. W.
Votaw’s comprehensive lists’ of The Use of the
Infinitive in Biblical Greek, pp. 5,9. Chicago, 1896.
See Viteau as mentioned in the sibliography,
VII. below).

But not all the influence on the language of the
NT writers came from Hebrew and Aramaic or
from the LXX. Other languages foreign to the
Gr. had left their traces on that language by the
Ist cent. of our era, some of which can ‘with
tolerable assurance be pointed out.

If. OTHER ForEIGN ELEMENTS. — (A) The
supremacy of Rome, and its multifarious official
relations with the populations under its sway, in
which relations it naturally employed its vernacular
(see LATIN LANGUAGE), would prepare us to expect
to find not a few traces of Latin in the popular
language of the apostolic period.

a. The Lexical Latinisms in NT consist chiefly
of judicial and military terms, names of coins,
articles of apparel, utensils, etc.; as, ἀσσάριον,
δηνάριον, ἔχω wstimo, κεντυρίων, κῆνσος, κοδράντης,
λέντιον, λιβερτῖνος, λίτρα
μεμβράνα, μίλιον, μύδιος,
ξέστης, πραιτώριον, σικάριος, σιμικίνθιον, σουδάριον,
σπεκουλάτωρ, αἱ ταβέρναι, τίτλος, φελόνης, φύρον,
φραγέλλιον (-λόω), χάρτης 3, χῶρος.

More than two score Lat. names of persons and
places occur, as well as the technical terms ὁ
Σεβαστός (Augustus), and Καῖσαρ.

Latin phrases reappear in ἐργασίαν δοῦναι (operam
dare), τὸ ixaviv λαμβάνειν (satis accipere), τὸ ἱκανὸν

(Lat. libra 3), μάκελλον,

ποιεῖν (satis facere), συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν (οοῃ δ γα
capere). Notice also σὺ ὄψῃ (Mt 27: tu videris),
ὄψεσθε αὐτοί (Ac 181),

b. The influence of the Lat. language upon the
Grammar of NT Gr, ismuch more diflicult to trace
with confidence than in the case of the Heb., owing
to the closer structural affinity between the Lat.
language and the Greek. Traces of that intluence,
however, may be detected, it is thought, with more
or less distinctness in the following constructions :
—The preference for ὅτι and iva over the accusative
and infinitive (cf. the growing use of uf after
impero, rovo, ete., wquum est, nos est, ete.) ; the
encroachment of the subjunctive on the optative
after an historic tense; ‘the tendency to obscure
the distinction between the perfect and the aorist ;
the use of ἀπό before the genitive after φυλάσσειν
and other verbs of fearing (cf. cavere ab); the
exclusive use of the infinitive (even of the inf,
passive) after κελεύειν ; the use of the accusative
after προέρχεσθαι (cf. prieire aliquem), of the dative
after yauéw (cf. nubere alicui), of ἐκ after νικάω (cf.
victoriam ferre ex); the continuative ὅς equivalent
to καὶ οὗτος (cf. qui=et hic) in a co-ordinate clause ;
the anticipatory position of ἀπό and mpd in speci-
fications of time and place; the general omis-
sion of the interjection (ὦ) before the vocative,
the use of the preposition σύν as tantamount to
και. :

(B) But the current Gr. of our Lord’s day had
appropriated other foreign elements from the
languages spoken in the various provinces of the
empire. These, again, were chictly names of local
objects or usages. Among such are reckoned the
following :—atoy, βίβλος (βύβλος), σίναπι, σινδών (yet
cf. "Ivdds, Sind), recognized as Evyptian ; κράβαττος
(cf. Lat. grabutus), παρεμβολή, ῥύμη ἢ, as Mace-
donian ; ἀγγαρεύω (yet see “Esch. Ayam, 282), γάζα,
σανδάλιον (-dadov), as Persian; ἀρραβών as Phanician ;
ῥέδη (-da) as Gallic or Celtic ; βουνός as Cyrenaic and
Sicilian. Several of these words, however, had
long before become naturalized in Greek.

IV. But the element which most conspicuously
distinguishes the Gr. of the NT is the RELIGIOUS
ELEMENT. Here we come to the very centre and
soul of our subject. For the NT language is no
mere medley of miscellaneous linguistic sur-
vivals, no mechanical mingling of diverse. in-
gredients ; its vitality resides in the spirit that
quickens it. This discloses itself on every page.
It ushers a reader into a new realm of t 1ought,
and introduces him to a new type of life. Both
had their natural effect on the speech of the first
believers. Yet just because the essence of the
language consists in its new spirit, it escapes
anatomical dissection. It is as pervasive as the
atmosphere, but as intangible as a perfume.
Hence it is most inadequately exhibited by any
catalogue of specifications. The few particulars
that can here be set down will serve, at the best,
as mere suggestions of its character.

(A) The religious element in its Lexical aspects.
Many of the NT words denoting concrete objects
or external institutions and relations were in-
herited from Judaism, and have been illustrated
under IT. 4. aand Ὁ above. We will here, there-
fore, confine ourselves mainly to those of a more
internal or spiritual character.

a. The words wholly new are, from the nature
of the case, comparatively few, and any list of
them that may be attempted is subject to doubt
and revision by reason of present imperfect know-
ledge. Butamong the more distinctive the following
may perhaps be mentioned : ἀγαθοποιΐα, αἰσχροκερδῶς,
ἀκατάκριτος, ἀλίσγημα, ἀνακαινύω (-Kalvwots), ἀντιμισθία,

ἀντίχριστος, ἀπέκδυσις, ἀπελεγμύς, αὐτοκατάκριτος,
’ ,

ἀφιλάγαθος, ἀφιλάργυρος, βαττολογέω, δαιμονιώδης,

δικαιοκρισία, δίλογος, διώκτης, δοκιμή, ἐγκομβύόομαι,

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST. 41

ἐθελοθρησκία, εἰδωλολατρία etc., ἐπιούσιος, ἑτεροδιδα-
σκαλέω, εὐαγγελιστής, εὐμετάδοτος, εὐπροσωπέω, θεοδί-
δακτος, ἰσάγγελος, καλοδιδάσκαλος, καρδιογνώστης,
καταθεματίζω, κενοφωνία. Noyouaxew (-χία), ὀλιγύπιστος
(-πιστία), ὀρθοποδίω, ὀφθαλμοδουλία, πληροφορία, πολύ-
σπλαγχνος, προσωπολήμπτης (-λημπτέω, -λημψία),
πρωτοκαθοῶῦνα, συνζωοποιέω, συνκακοπαθέω, συνκα-
κουχέω, συνσταυρόω, σύνψυχος, φρεναπατάω (-πάτηΞ),
φυσιύω (-σίωσις), χρηστεύομαι, Pevddderpos, ψευδαπό-
στολος (and other compounds of ψευδο-).

Incomparably more noteworthy are—

b. The New Meanings with which the new faith
has freighted the old terms.

A few of these meanings are of a technical or
ritual character; as, ἀδελφός of fellow-Christians,
τὸ ἀντίτυπον (τύπος), ἀποστολή (-Aos, in the official
sense), ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, etc. of angels, βάπτισμα,
γλῶσσα of the ‘vift of tongues,’ διάκονος, ἐκκλησία
(cf. ἐκλεκτοί, κλητοί), ἐπίσκοπος, εὐαγγέλιον (-λιστήΞ),
ἱερεῖς of Christians, παράδεισος (2 Co 122), ὁ παρά-
κλητος, προφητεύω (-φήτης) Οἵ a Christian function
(ef. II. A. b. above), ὁ χριστός,

But the ageregate influence of Christianity is
shown in modifying, more or less, the mass of the
NT vocabulary. It has elevated, spiritualized,
transfigured words previously current. It has set
old terms in new relations. It has added lustre to
conceptions already radiant. It has made sub-
stantial, and clothed with divine majesty, ex-
pressions embodying the instinctive Judgments
and aspirations of men. Its transforming power,
being difused and a matter of degree, cannot (as
has been already said) be adequately exhibited in
isolated particulars. The attempt, furthermore,
to illustrate it would require space not here at
command. Only a few terms, therefore, will be
set down, the study of which, it is believed, will
more than verify the statements Just made: such
words as ἀγάπη, εἰρήνη, ζωή, πίστις, συνείδησις, σωτηρία,
χάρις are monuments of its power to raise language
to a new level. Words of secular reference like
κόσμος, Of national application like οἱ ἅγιοι, ὁ λαὸς
τοῦ θεοῦ (He 4"), Ἰσραήλ (Ro 95), of everyday life
like 683s, παγίς, πρόσκομμα, φορτίον, even the very
component parts of man’s being — σάρξ, ψυχή,
πνεῦμα, take on an ethical significance, of which
in this last case the later philosophic use furnishes
but a foregleam. <A servile word like ταπεινοφροσύνη
is ennobled; a term like oravpJs, suggestive of
infamy, is crowned with a halo of glory. The
emphasis given to other words has made them the
cardinal terms of doctrinal discussion through the
Christian centuries: witness δικαιύω and its cog-
nates, ἀπολύτρωσις, ἀπώλεια, ἐπιστρέφεσθαι, ἔργα,
θάνατος, μετάνοια, etc.

(8) Even the Grammatical influence of the new
religions thought bears witness to its fertilizing
power. Take as an instance πιστεύω with its half
a dozen different constructions in the NT (viz.
absol.; with the dat. ; with εἰς and the accus. ;
with ἐπί and the accus. or the dat. ; with ἐν and
the dat.; with an object accus.). ᾿Ελπίζειν, ὁμο-
λογεῖν, and other words experienced ἃ similar
enlargement of construction under Christian con-
ceptions (see A. Buttmann, Gram. of NT’ Greek,
§ 133, 4 sq., Eng. tr. p. 173ff); and the wealth
of suggestion made to reside in such phrases as
ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐν κυρίῳ, is full of instruction (cf. G. A.
Deissmann, Die neutest. Formel ‘in Christo Jesu’
untersucht, Marburg, 1892).

V. But the circumstance that the NT forms a
body of literature having its own distinct linguistic
peculiarities, must not make us overlook the fact
that it contains within itself considerable diversities
of Janguage as well as of style. The uniqueness
of the volume, and the practice of using it as the
one authoritative source and test of Christian
truth, tend to make us isolate it unhistorically

from the literature that immediately preceded and
followed it, and, on the other hand, to unify it
unwarrantably. It is a library comprising the
works of, perhaps, ten or more different authors.
The statement that ‘they all use the same lan-
guage’ requires at once the qualification ‘but they
do not all use it in the same way.’ The first three
Gospels, for instance, with all their indications of
a common basis, exhibit in their present form
indubitable marks of the individuality of their
several authors. The frequent use of rire (ἀπὸ τύτε
—some 90 times), ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (some 33
times), ἵνα (ὅπως) πληρωθῇ (τὸ ῥηθέν, ete., some 12
times), ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν (τοῖς) οὐρανοῖς or ὁ οὐράνιος (20) times),
προσέρχεσθαι (51 times), συνάγειν (24 times), ἀναχωρεῖν
(10 times), ete., mark distinctly the personality of
Matthew. The use of εὐθύς (some two score times),
of the pictorial participle, of diminutives and
Latinisms, and, notwithstanding his terseness, a
proneness to emphasize by the repetition of
equivalent phrases (6.0. διαπαντὸς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας,
δῦ; ἔσωθεν ἐκ τῆς καρδίας, 73); νῦν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ,
10°; σήμερον ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί, 1459), ete., are some
of the traits that characterize no less distinctly
the second Evangelist. .A comparison of the sec-
tions common to Luke with the other two shows
the distinctively literary cast of his phraseology.
The identity of topic but throws the difference in
language into greater relief. He distinguishes
himself from the other Synoptists by his fondness
for infinitives (ἐν τῷ with the inf. 37 times, τοῦ
with the inf. 25 times), for καὶ ἐγένετο or ἐγένετο δέ
(43 times), δὲ καί (29 times), καὶ αὐτός (28 times), σύν
(25 times), πορεύομαι (50 times), ὑποστρέφειν (22
times), ἐνώπιον (20 times), ἔμπροσθεν (10 times).
The strikingly Semitic complexion of his first
chapter, and the variations between his language
in the Gospel and in the Acts, are doubtless attrib-
utable in large measure to his sources. The terms
λόγος, σκοτία (σκύτος), φῶς, ζωή (αἰώνιος), ἀλήθεια,
δόξα, κρίσις, κόσμος, μαρτυρέω (-ρία), γινώσκω, πιστεύω,
the phrases ἀμὴν ἀμήν, ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν, γεννηθῆναι ἐκ
(τοῦ) θεοῦ (or πνεύματος), εἶναι ἐκ (τοῦ κόσμου, etc.),
ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα, ὁ vids, ὁ πατήρ, etc., are at once
recognized as characteristic of John; and not less
so are his short and simple sentences and their
asyndetic collocation, his co-ordinateness and
parallelism of construetion (note ἀπεκρίθη καὶ εἶπεν),
his verbal reiterations, his Hebraisms (χαρᾷ χαίρει
329, viol φωτύς 12°, ὁ vids τῆς ἀπωλείας 1712), his
emphatic demonstratives, his combined particles
(καίτοιγε, ὅμως μέντοι), his weakened ἵνα, and
especially his recurrent οὖν, which often marks
mere transition instead of logical sequence.

The distinctive vocabulary of the creative Paul
is too salient and well known to be dwelt upon :—
his abstracts : ἀγαθωσύνη, ἁγιωσύνη, ἁγνότης, ἁπλότης,
δικαιοκρισία, δικαίωσις, δοκιμή, ἐνέργεια, ἑνύτης, ἐξανά-
στασις, ἐπιπόθησις, εὐσχημοσύνη, ἱκανότης, ἱλαρύτης,
καινύτης, κενοδοξία, μεθοδία, μωρολογία, ὀφθαλμοδουλία,
πεποίθησις, πιθανολογία, πιύτης, προσαγωγή, TKANPITNS,
υἱοθεσία ;—his compounds : ἀκατακάλυπτος, ἀλάλητος,
ἀμεταμέλητος, ἀμετανόητος, ἀναπολύγητος, ἀνεκδιήγητος,
ἀνεξερεύνητος, ἀνεξιχνίαστος, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, ἀντανα-
πληρύω, ἀπαρασκεύαστος, ἀποκαραδοκία, ἀπορφανίζω,
ἀποτολμάω, ἐθελοθρησκία, ἐπαναμιμνήσκω, ἑτεροδιδασ-
καλέω, ἑτεροζυγέω, εὐπροσωπέω, θηριομαχέω, ἱἰσόψυχος,
ὀλιγόψυχος, καταβραβεύω, κατοπτρίζομαι, κενοδοξία.
κοσμοκράτωρ, μετασχηματίζω, ὀρθοποδέω, παρεισέρχομαι,
προενάρχομαι, προσαναπληρήω, συνυπουργέω, συνυπο-
κρίνομαι, ὑπερεντυγχάνω ;—his particles: ἀλλὰ μεν-
οὔνγε, ἄρα οὖν, ἐάν τε γάρ, ἐκτὸς εἰ μή, οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ
καί, τὲ γὰρ. . . ὁμοίως δὲ καί, ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ, ὡσπερεί,
ὡς ὅτι. Not less familiar are the characteristics
of his style:—his long and sometimes involved
sentences, his participial appendages and amplifi-
cations, the irrepressible crowding of lis thoughts,
his imperial disregard for niceties of construction

44° LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

----

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

in his determination to ‘wreak his meaning on
expression.’

Very different is the studied rhetorical period-
icity of the writer to the Hebrews. The nature
of lis theme, indeed, leads him to use many words
and constructions found in the LXX; but the
general air of lis vocabulary, no less than of his
style, is literary. Reminiscences of classic phrase-
ology meet us in his ws ἔπος εἰπεῖν and ἔμαθεν ad’ ὧν
éraves. His varied use of particles— δήπου, ἐάνπερ,
καθώσπερ, καίπερ, καίτοι, μετέπειτα, τε (τε yap), and
the affectedly indefinite ποὺ (2°, 44)—further attests
his culture. So do the periphrastic phrases ἀρχὴν
λαμβάνειν (1... ἄρχεσθαι), πεῖραν λαμβάνειν (yet cf.
ὑπόμνησιν A. 2 ΤΊ 1ὅ, λήθην Δ. 2 Ρ 1", ete.), and such
terms as αἰσθητήριον, ἀπαύγασμα, ἔγγυος, ἔλεγχος,
ἕξις, εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, πρόσφατος, τραχηλίζειν, χαρακτήρ.
Still, he betrays conspicuously the later Gr. fond-
ness for sonorous words (see ἢ. 87 above); as,
ayeveahoynros, αἱματεκχυσία, ἀκατάλυτος, ἀμετάθετος,
ἀνασταυρύω, ἀντικαθίστημι, ἀπαράώβατος, ἀφομοιοῦσθαι,
δυσερμήνευτος, ἐπεισαγωγή, εὐπερίστατο;, καταγωνί-
ζεσθαι, μετριοπαθεῖν, μισθαποδοσία, ὁρκωμοσία, συνεπι-
μαρτυρ-ῖν, ete., bear witness. One of the noteworthy

grammatical peculiarities of the Epistle is its use |

of the perfect tense as nearly tantamount to the
aorist (e.g. 118; note the co-ordination of the
two in the former passage), in accordance with
the laxity of the late and less cultivated writers
(cf. e.g. Rev 5’, $*.etc.).

In some respects the Ep. of James shares the
characteristics of that to the Hebrews. In style,
to be sure, it is very different : terse, abrupt, vivid,
incisive, at times picturesque, not to say poetic.
But its vocabulary exhibits a similar varicty and
amplitude; and in the skilful use of the Gr.
language its author is inferior to no NT writer.
Peculiar to him are the compounds ἀδιάκριτος,
ἀκατάστατος, ἀνέλεος, ἀπείραστος, ἀποκυέω, ἀφυστερίω,
δαιμονιώδης, θανατηφόρος. κακοπαθία, κατιόομαι, νομουθέ-
Ts, πολύσπλαγχνος, σητύβρωτος, χρυσοδακτύλιος, the
bookish terms ἀποσκίασμα, βρύω, ἔμφυτος, ἐνάλιος,
κατήφεια, ὄψιμος, παραλλαγή, ῥυπαρία, τροπή, TpoxXds,
τρυφάω, and the pictorial ἀνεμίζω, αὐχέω, δίψυχος,
εὐπρέπεια, ὀλολύζω, ῥιπίζω, σήπω, φλογίζω, φρίσσω,
χαλιναγωγέω.
that are peculiar to him; while the Ep. to the
Heb., nearly three times as long, exceeds that
number by scarcely one hundred ; and 1 P, nearly
identical in length with James, falls short by some
ten in the number of its peculiar terms. Some of
James’s words, e.g. πολύσπλαγχνος, χρυσοδακτύλιος,
are thought to be of his own coinage.

Jude, when its diminutive extent is considered,
is quite as characteristic as James in its termin-
ology. Such words and phrases as ἀποδι-ρίζω,
ἄπταιστος, ἐκπορνεύω, ἐπαγωνίζομαι, ἐπαφρίζω, μεμψί-
μοιρο;, παρεισδύω, σπιλάς, φθινοπωρινίς. πρὸ παντὸς
τοῦ αἰῶνος, θαυμάζοντες πρύσωπα, sufliciently mark
its individuality.

The vocabulary of the Petrine Epistles presents
the phenomenon that of the one hundred and
twenty-one words found in them and nowhere else
in the NT, only one (ἀπύθεσις) is common to both
Epistles, while each Epistle exhibits about the same
number of peculiar terms,—viz. the first some sixty-
three, the second fifty-seven, while in length their
relation is nearly seven to five.

The Apocalypse, the most distinctly Hebraistic
and Oriental specimen of literature in the NT,
owes its linguistic individuality not so much to its
vocabulary—although such words and phrases as
βασανισμός, δράκων (of the devil), éyxpiw, ἐνδώμησις,
ζηλεύω, ἡμίωρον, ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος, θειώδης͵ τὸ ἱππι-
κόν, κατάθεμα, κατήγωρ, κολλούριον, κρυσταλλίζω, ἡ
κυριακὴ ἡμέρα, μεσουράνημα, ὅπου. ἐκεῖ, πελεκίζω,
ποταμοφύρητος, τὸ σιρικύν. στρηνιάω, τιμιύτης, are
peculiar to it—as to its intrepid disregard of the

His Ep. contains some seventy words |

conventionalities of Gr. grammar, of which ὁ ἀμήν,
ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν Kal ὁ ἣν Kal ὁ ἐρχύμενος, ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος, dis
μυριάδες, ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, φωνὴ λέγων, ἡ οὐαί,
οὐαί followed by the accusative (8! 12!*), ἐδόθη μοι
κάλαμος. . . λέγων, etc., are specimens; and to
them may be added a propensity to lapse into the
use of the nominative, althouch this case is thus
left suspended in mid-air (οἵ, 12 218. 812. 74 gis
144 19"). Its deviations from the ordinary laws
of Greek construction are at times so bold ard
cxpricious as to start the query whether the work,
in parts at least, is not the mechanical reproduction
of an Aramaic original.

The undeniable individuality of the several NT
writers may put us on our guard against too confi-
dently over-pressing slight variations in’ phrase-
ology into proof of difierence in authorship or of
substantial difference of thought. Changes in a
writer's vocabulary, even in his style, may be due
to the topic treated, or the character and circum-
stances of the persons addressed; or may be
nothing more than those varying mannerisms
which temporarily bear sway with all writers
except the most practised. Jor example, it has
been noticed (see W. H. Simcox, 7h: Writers of
the New Testament, p. 37) that Paul to express ‘in
every thing’ uses ἐν παντί in the Epistles to the
Thess. and Cor. (twelve times), but in the Pastoral
Epistles ἐν πᾶσιν (six [five] times), while in that
to the Philippians (415 he unites the two: ἐν

παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν (οἵ; 2 Co 11. On the other
hand, the = similarities, even coincidences, in
language to be noted at times in different

NT writings (on comparing, for instance, the
Pauline Epistles and 1 P, or 1 P and Ja, or the
writings of Luke and the Ep. to the Heb.) present
a problem which this is not the place to discuss.
Sullice it here to say, that they sugvest the early
growth of a distinctive religious terminology which
largely became the common possession of the
brotherhood of believers ; and remind us also that
not all the reciprocal iniuence of the Christian
leaders upon one another was exerted through
their writings. Moreover, as well coincidences as
differences in vocabulary may admonish us atresh
that NT Greek is not an isolated language, but can
be correctly appreciated only by being studied in
its relation to the written and spoken Greek of the
apostolic period.

VI. Propiems.—It has been intimated more
than once already in the course of this article that
considerable ignorance still exists respecting sundry
details belonging to the NT language. This ignor-
ance should not be exaggerated. It is not such as
to throw uncertainty over the general tenor of
biblical teaching. Nevertheless, the student and
the Christian are alike concerned in its removal.
The frank recognition of it is an indispensable
preliminary to the patient study and research by
which alone it can be diminished. Over and above
matters clouded in uncertainty by reason of our
scanty historical knowledge—such as “ baptism
for the dead’ (1 Co 15”), ‘the eift of tongues’
(1 Co 14, ete.), the apostle’s ‘thorn in the flesh’
(2 Co 127), ete.—there are points both of lexico-
graphy and of grammar respecting which unanimity
has not yet been reached by leading expositors,
and which consequently appeal invitingly to the
enterprising student.

Among the former may be enumerated dprayuss
(Ph 2%; how far, if at all, is the distinction
between verbal nouns in -μα, -μος, and -σις obliter-
ated or obscured in NT Greek ἢ), τὴν ἀρχήν (Jn 8”),
ἐμβριμάομαι (Mk 143, Jn 1138 ete.), ἐξουσία (1 Co 11:0),
ἐπερώτημα (1 P 37), ἐπιβαλών (Mk 14%), ἐπιούσιος
(Mt 6", Lk 118), εὐπερίστατος (He 12!), κατοπτρίζομαι
(2 Co 338), κεφαλιόω (Mk 124), κοσμικός (He 9%), ὁδὸν
ποιεῖν (Or ὁδοποιεῖν, Mk 2%), παραρνυῶμεν (He 2’),

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.

LANTERN 43

προεχόμεθα (Ro 3°), σπιλάδες (Jude™), συναλίζομαι
(Ac 13 ete.), συνκρίνοντες (1 (ὁ 315), τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα
(Ja 117), τροχὸς γενέσεως (Ja 8). Further, what is
the distinction, or how far is it regarded by the
NT writers, between ἄλλος and ἕτερος ἐδη Οὐ διὸ,
βούλομαι and θέλω (e.g. Mt 135), εἰμί and ὑπάρχω tee.
Ph 2"), ete. ? How far do the uses of εἰς and ἐν tend
to approximate, and the difference in the classics
between the several cases after prepositions (erg.
πρός) grow indistinct? Does εἰς τό with the infin.
always express purpose? What is the difference
between εἴγε and εἴπερ Ὁ [5 διότι ever equivalent to
the simple for? Is ὅτι ever tantamount to the
interrogative why (Mk 9" 38), or does εἰ introduce
a direct question? Does Paul use the Ist pers.
plur. of himself alone ? etc. ete.

Turning to points more strictly grammatical,
we may mention—the use and force of the article :
how far (if at all) does it deviate from the classic
standard ?—with ads (e.g. Eph 271 38, Ac 2°51 ‘Ti
1/8) ; with viuos; with πνεῦμα (ἅγιον) ; in such pas-
sages. as: Ro o! 3%) 11.2". . Is the classic law
requiring an article bee an attributive participle
which follows a delinite antecedent rigorously
observed (cf. 1 P 3" **)? Is there any diiference
in meaning between ὁ ὄχλος πολύς and ὁ πολὺς ἔχλος
(ef. Jn 12% 13 and Mk 1959} What is the difference
between αὐπός and ἐκεῖνος in 2 Ti 2:6) Are αὐτοῦ,
ete., used retlexively? Is ὅστις ever a pron. of
simple reference (ἡ. ὅς, ef. Mt 227 18%) % What is
the force of the genitive in the phrases δικαιοσύνη
deod (cf. Ro 1"), - πίστις Τησοῖ Xpisrod (No 3”)?
Does ἀκούειν φωνῆς dilier in sense from φωνὴν ἀκούειν
(ef. Ac 9%7 227-9 264, and see Buttmann, NT
Grammar, 85.199. 17; 144, 16)?

The matters above specilied are called ‘ problems,’
because difference of opinion about them. still
exists in reputable commentaries ; although it may
be questioned whether several of them have not
been already disposed of in the judgment of
scholars. ‘To them may be added the stock exe-
getical problems, such as Mt 68, Lk 12% 187,
Ac 26°, Ja 4°, 2 P 1°’; together with more gencral
questions, such as, What effect, if any, had amanu-
enses on the style of the NT writings? What
indications, if any, of the locality of their origin
do the NT writings disclose? What influence, if
any, had the Heb. parallelism in obliterating for
the Jewish-Greek mind the delicate shades of
difference between Gr. synonyms? What in-
fluence, if any, had the use of Jewish manuals in
producing agreement in the form or the employ-
ment of OT passages? (Note the agreement in
combined quotations, deviating in the same par.
ticulars from the LXX, which occur in Ro 95:88
11000 OU ea alas eed a 12! with He ἴθ

The uncertainties 501] cleaving to the NT
language it is by no means over-sanguine to hope
may be gradually, and in the end greatly, reduced.
Not a little help towards this result is yet to be
drawn from the literary relics of the centuries
immediately preceding and following the Christian
era. ‘The more accurate editing and careful study
of these relics, which is already engaging the efforts
of scholars, is yielding results which both justify
and augment expectation. Particulars, individu-
ally slight, amount to a considerable gain in the
aggregate. Meantime, noteworthy accessions to
our know ledge of the language of the Alexand.
and Gr.-Roman period have, already come from the
inscriptions, and especially the papyri (some of
them going back to the days of the Ptolemies),
which the last few decades have unear thed, and
which it may reasonably be hoped are but the first-
fruits of a rich harvest of discovery. Resemblances
in phraseology are instructive even where the
intellectual and religious quality of the concep-
tions covered may be widely different (cf. e.g. υἱὸς

θεοῦ, κύριος, σωτήρ, as used of the Roman emperors,
and in the voc: tbulary of the Stoics). Moreover,
the unalterableness, and in many cases the definite
date of many of these sources, lift their testimony
above the suspicion of possible clerical modification
from which the text of even our best extant NT
MSS is not always quite free.

VIT. The Literature of our subject requires little space here.
Suffice it to refer the reader to Schmiedel’s 8th ed. of Winer’s
Grammatik, of which the first part (2indeit. und Kormentehre,
pp. 194) appeared in 1894, the second in 1897, and where almost
no Rover sation of moment is left unmentioned. A careful review
of Pt. i. by W. Schmid in the GGA, 1805, No. 1, pp. 26-47,
Hehe also to be consulted. The comparison of the NT
language with the later Gr. has been greatly facilitated by the
last-named scholar’s elaborate work, Ver Atticisimus in setnen
Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis auf den
zweiten Philostratus (vol. 1. 1887, vol. ii. 1889, vol. iii, 1893,
vol. iv. 1896, Index 1897), by the treatise of William Schmidt,
de Ilavii Josephi elocutione, etc., in Fleckeisen’s ‘ Jahrbucher
ἐὰν classische Philologie,’ 20ter Supplementband (1894, pp. 345-
550), by the Subsidia ad cognoscendum Greecorunr sermonem
vulyarem ὁ Pentateucht versione Alexandrina repetita of Ἡ.
Anz in ‘Dissertationes Philolog. Halenses,’ vol. xii. (1894)
pp. 261-587, and by G. A. Deissmann's Bibelstudien (Marburg,
1895), which contains, pp. 57-168, an instructive study of the
Gr. of the LXX in the light of the results furnished by papyri
and recently-discovered inscriptions ; ; supplemented in 1897 by
Neue Bibelstudien ; new ed. in Eng. tr. by Grieve, 1900.

Other noteworthy recent. works dealing directly with the
language of the NT are: Joseph Viteau, Etude sur le Gree du
Nouveau Testament: Le Verbe; Syntaxe des Propositions
(pp. 240, 8°, Paris, 1893), especially convenient owing to the
summary of NT peculiarities given at the close of every
chapter; particular attention is paid also to the usage of the
LXX, which is made still more prominent in his tude, etc. :
Sujet, Complément et Attribut (pp. 248, Paris, 1896); F. Blass,
Grammatik d. Neutest. Griechisch (pp. 329, 8°, Gottingen, 1896 ;
Eng. tr. by Thackeray, 1898), which has the exceptional merit
of recognizing the characteristics of the several writers, and
of frequently noting variant readings from the MSS., and
citing parallels from the Apostolic Fathers; E. W. Burton,
Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in NT Greek, 2nd ed. pp. 215,
1893; H. A, A. Kennedy, Sources of ΝΥ Greek, pp. 172, 1895 ;
Dalman, Worte Jesu, 1898.

Interesting light is thrown on sundry details also by Arnold
Meyer, Jesu Mutter rsprache, pp. 176, Leipzig, 1895; and Edward
Hicks, Traces of Gr. Philosophy and Rom. Law in the N T, pp.
187, Lond. 1896.

The multiplying of manuals of a popular character (Combe,
Huddilston, Moulton) indicates a growing interest in the
language, and emphasizes the demand for a new work by a
master hand which shall combine the excellencies of the
standard treatises of Winer and Buttmann, utilize the knowledge
of the subject which has accumulated during the last thirty
years or more, and furnish a student with a compact yet com-
plete handbook.—[{1897]. . H. THAYER.

LANTERN occurs only in Jn 18° ‘with lanterns
and torches and weapons,’ where it is the tr. of
φανός, a word which occurs only here in biblical
Greek, and is not common elsewhere. That
‘torch’ would be a more accurate rendering than
‘lantern’ seems clear from Xenophon’s ὑπὸ φανοῦ
πορεύεσθαι (Rep. Lac. v. 7). The word is formed
directly from φαίνω ‘to give light.” The Ene. ti
is from Wyclif, ‘with lanternis and brondis and
armys, who thus translates the Vulg. ‘cum laternis
et facibus et armis,’ and all the versions follow
with ‘lanterns’ (except Cov. who has ‘with cres-
hettes, with lanternes, and with weapens’). ‘ Lan-
tern’ was formerly used with more freedom than
now. Wye. translates Jn 5% ‘Sothli he was a
lanterne brennynge and schynynge’ (Tind. ‘He
was a burninge and a shyninge light’; Geneva,
‘candle’), and Ps 119! ‘Lanterne to my feet thi
woord ; and light to myn pathis’ (1388 ‘Thi word
is a lanterne’); so Cov. ‘Thy worde is a lanterne
unto my fete, and a light unto my pathes,’ and
this is the form in which the verse is quoted at
the time; as, Tind. Expositions (Parker Soce.),
» 149; Ridley, Brefe Declaration, 96, ‘by the
sari of thy worde’; Knox, Works, iii. 301,
‘The bryght lantarne to the fete of these that
by nature walke in darkenesse’; and Davenant,
Fast Sermon (Fuller's Life, p. 276).

Trench in his NT’ Synonyms, p. 157 ff., endeavours to dis-
tinguisb the five words φῶς, φέγγος, φωστήῤ, λύχνος, and λαμπάς;

44 LAODICEA

LAODICEA

but ne seems to have forgotten φανός. Φῶς and φέγγος mean
‘light,’ the former chiefly the light of the sun, the latter
chiefly that of the moon. Φωστήρ is ἃ luminary. Λύχνος, he
thinks, should always be translated ‘lamp,’ and λαμπάς ‘torch.’
These distinctions are valid, though it is not possible to ob-
serve them invariably. How far the RV has done so may be
seen from the following list :—

gas is everywhere ‘light’ in AV and RV, except Ja 117 AV
and RV ‘lights’ (‘the Father of lights,’ τῶν φώτων), Ac 1629 RV
(‘he called for lights,’ φῶτα); in Mk 1454 AV renders πρὸς τὸ
gus “αὖ the fire,’ and in the par. passage Lk 2256 ‘by the fire,’
RY both ‘in the light of the fire’; in Eph 59 edd. prefer ὁ καρπὸς
τοῦ φῶτος for TR τοῦ πνεύματος, whence RV ‘the fruit of the
light’ for AV ‘the fruit of the Spirit.’

φωστήρ is ‘light,’ Rev 2111, and in plu. ‘lights,’ Ph 215, in both
versions, with Vm ‘ luminaries.’

φΐγγος occurs’ only in Mt 2429, Mk 1324, Lk 1133, and both
versions have ‘light.’

λαμπάς is in AV translated ‘lamp’ in Mt 251.3. 4.7.8, and RV
retains with marg. ‘torch,’ also in Rev 45, which RV retains
without margin. In Rev 810 RV turns AV ‘lamp’ into ‘ torch,’
but retains AV ‘torch’ in Jn 188 and ‘light’ in Ac 905,

λύχνος has been translated ‘lamp’ in RV in all its occurrences,
but AV varies between ‘candle’ in Mt 515, Mk 421, Lk S16 1188. 36
158, Rev 18°83 225; and ‘light’ in Mt 622, Lk 114 1235, Jn 535,
2 P 119, Rev 213, J. HASTINGS.

LAODICEA (Λαοδικία, Tisch. and WH, as appears
in δὲ everywhere, and in B Col 91, Rev 1! 34;
Laodicia or Laudicia often in Latin Versions. B
has Λαοδίκεια in Col 42-155 so TR everywhere.
Λαοδίκεια is certainly the correct Greek form ; it is
the practically universal form in Greek literature,
Strabo, Steph. Byz., Philostratus, ete., also an

inscription dated [ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας A.D. 129.* The
good Latin form is Laodicoa, not Laodicia. The

varly Turkish form Ladhik+ (compare Ladik, still
used of the Pontic and Lycaonian cities] points
to Λαοδίκεια. The forms Λαυδίκεια and Λαδίκεια
occur later).—Laodicea, distinguished from other
cities of the same name as ἐπὶ τῴ Λύκῳ, or ad
Lycum, was founded probably by Antiochus IL.
Theos, B.c. 261-246, and named after his wife
Laodike. It was placed on a spur of the low hills
fringing the Lycos valley on the south, about 2
miles south from the river. It is close to the
station Gonjelli on the Ottoman Railway, and
the branch line to Denizli runs up the valley of the
little river Asopos, close to the western gates of
the city. It was distant only 6 miles from Hiera-
polis, and 11 from Colossie (Col 4! 1%). Behind the
hills to the south, only a few miles away from the
city, rises the great range of Mount Salbakos
(Baba Dagh), and to the south-east Mount Kadmos
(Khonas Dagh), both reaching to the height of
about 8000 ft. above the sea, while the city is
only about 800 or 900 ft. above the sea. Before
Laodicea was founded, the chief town or village of
this part of the valley was certainly situated at
Denizli, 6 miles south, close under Salbakos, where
the natural water-supply was extraordinarily
abundant ; and after Laodicea decayed, about the
end of the 11th cent., Denizli again took its place
as the chief city of the whole valley.t Laodicea
was dependent for its water on an aqueduct whose
Inaintenance required more skill and prudence
than could be applied’ in the 12th cent. It has
ever since been called Eski-Hissar, ‘the Old
Fortress,’ as distinguished from the modern city
Denizli, ‘ Full of Waters.’

The site of Laodicea is now utterly deserted.
The ruins are not conspicuous or imposing; the
site has been rifled to build and repair Denizli,
and in recent years much injury has thus been
done to the old city.

The city Laodicea was founded to be a garrison
and centre of Seleucid power in the country, and

* Sce quotations Cities and Bish. of Phr. i. pp. 82, 37, 38, 44,
47,54. The form Λαοδικίας occurs chiefly in the genitive case,
in which the accent of Λαοδικείας falls on the same s) llable as
that of Λαοδικ.ας.

t Op. cit. p. 26. Ladhik implies an original Λαοδίκεια, not
Λαοδικία.

ἘΌΝ; σεν θυ,

population was selected and planted there likely
to be loyal to the Seleucid kings. Hence there are
some traces of a Syrian element in the population. ἢ
Jews also formed part of the citizens; these may
have been brought there by the founder, or been
settled there by Antiochus the Great towards B.C.
200, when he sent 2000 Jewish families from
Babylonia to the cities of Phrygia and Lydia
(Josephus, Ané. XU. ill. 4).¢ In B.c. 62 Flaceus, the
governor of the province Asia, refused to let the
money which was regularly sent to Jerusalem by
the Jews go out of the country, because he feared
that the loss of specie might be dangerous. At
Laodicea, by the governor's orders, 20 pounds
weight of gold, which had been collected by the
Jews, was seized; and at Apameia 100 pounds
weight (Cicero, pro Flacco, 68). A letter of the
Laodicean magistrates is preserved hy Josephus
(dnt. XIV. x. 20), promising to obey the Roman
orders, and grant full religious freedom to the
Jews,

Laodicea was a small city until after the Roman
period had begun; then it rapidly became great
and rich. Destioyed by an earthquake in A.b. 60,
it disdained to seek help from the liberality of the
imperors, as many of the greatest cities of Asia
had done ; propriis opibus revaliat (Tacitus, Ann.
xiv. 27). Hence its boast, Rev 3! ‘Il am rich, and
have gotten riches, and have need of nothing.’ It
was renowned for the beautiful glossy black wool
of its sheep, and carried on a great trade in
garments manufactured from this wool. Owing
to its central position at the point where the great
trade-route from the East was joined by several
branch-roads, and its importance as chief city of
the Cibyratic cunventus, to which, at stated inter-
vals, the people of many cities and a large district
flocked, it became acentre of banking and financial
transactions; and Cicero intended to cash there
his bills of exchange (Hp. ad Fam. 1.5. 4). Hence
Rev 315. 1 counsel thee (not to take the gold of thy
bankers, but) to buy of me gold refined by fire,
and (not the glossy black garments made in the
city, but) white garments.’

Laodicea was not far east of the temple of
Men Κάτου, connected with which was a famous
school of medicine in the century immediately
before and after Christ. There was an article
called ‘Phrygian Powder,’ used to cure weakness
of the eyes; it is very probable that this was
made at Laodicea.t Hence ‘I counsel thee (not to
use thy ‘Phrygian Powder,’ but) to buy of me
eyesalve to anoint thine eyes that thou mayst
see’ (Rev 318).

Very little is known about the history of
Christianity in Laodicea. Timothy, Mark, and
above all Epaphras (Col 11), are likely to have been
first instrumental in spreading the new religion in
the Lycos valley; atter them came Philip the
Apostle, and (according to late tradition) John.
Archippus, Nymphas (Col 4:5), and Diotrephes
(38 Jn’), are named by untrustworthy tradition as
the first bishops of Laodicea. Sagaris, a bishop of
Laodicea, died a martyr about A.D. 100. Sisinnius,
a bishop, and Artemon a presbyter, under Dio-
cletian, are mentioned in the Acta δ. Artemonis
(Oct. 8), a late and poor production.§ Few Chris-
tian inscriptions are known. Laodicea was aie
sented by its bishop Nounechios at the Council of
Nica, A.D. 325; and a council was held in the
city about 344-363. It was the leading bishopric

ΟΡ ΕΣ piss.

t+ On the history of the Phrygian Jews (who seem to have
been far more numerous in Apameia and Central Phrygia than
in Laodicea) see op. c7t. pt. ii. ch. xv.

tSo the famous Polemon of Laodicea was called ‘the
Phrygian’ by his admirer Herodes Atticus, op. cit pp. 44, 52.

ἃ Other martyrs at Laodicea, op. c7t. pt. ii. pp. 494, 512,
Add Trophimus and Thallus, Acta Sanct., 11th March,

LAODICEANS

LARGE 4

ew

of Phrygia throughout the Christian period. The
subscription at the end of ] Ti, ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας,
has no authority, and is certainly false. The
Epistle called ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας (Col 40) is perhaps the
existing Epistle to the Ephesians (wh. see). The

-called Hpistola ad Laodicenses is a late and
worthless forgery. St. Paul himself had never
visited the Lycos valley (Col 921).

Laodicea is classified by NT writers under the

geographical name Asia. Zahn, however, and
Blass consider that St. Luke reckoned it, not

under Asia, but under marys οἷα (see LYDIA, against
this view).

LitEraterz.—Most of what has been learned about Laodicea
ἐφ cclested by Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, pt. i.
pp.. 1-82, 342f.; pt. ii. pp. 512ff., 542ff., 785f. Anderson in
Journal of Hellenic Studies (807), p. 404 ff., and Weber in
Jahrbich. des Arch. Instituts (1898), pt. i., supplement that
work. Among the older travellers Hamilton gives the best
account; but “smith, Pococke, Chandler, Arundell, Fellows,
Texier, are all worth reading. W. M. RAMSAY.

LACDICEANS (Λαοδικεῖς, Latin Laodicenses) is
the correct term for the people of Laodicea (Col
416),͵) Λαοδικεύς is the invariable form on coins.
Λαοδικηνός is used in the sense of ‘made in, or
belonging to, Laodicea’ ; and in Latin Laodicenus
also occ: sionally is used for a man of Laodicea.

W. M. RAMSAY.

LAPPIDOTH (rivsb ‘torches,’ ‘flames,’ cf. Ex
9018. B Λαφειδώθ, A Aadidw6).— Husband of Deborah,
Je 4, For the form of the name, with the fem.
plur. ending -dth, cf. Naboth, Meremoth, Meraioth,
Jeremoth, Mikloth; prob. an intensive plur. (IKKGnig,
Syntax εἰ. Heb. Spr. § 261), sail τ with a figura-
tive meaning (Bottcher, Lehrbuch, §719a). Jewish
commentators, 6.0. D. Kimchi, Levi ben-Gershom,
identify Lappidoth (‘flames’) with Barak (‘ light-

ning’); so Hilliger, Das Deborah-lied p. 11;
Wellh., Composition p. 223; Budde, Richt. 2. Sam.
Be 08. ‘Other Jewish interpretations explain that

ze. made wicks
‘a woman of flames,’ refer-
energetic character of her
These explanations are improbable.
G. A. COOKE,

“ Deborah was ‘a w oman of torches,’
for the s pa ai or,
ring to the fiery or
prophesying.

LAPWING.—See Hoopor.

LARGE.—Like Lat. Jargus, ‘large’ formerly
expressed abundance rather than bulk. Its mean-
ings in AV are all practically obsolete, and are
apt to be missed. 4. Spacious, of great ‘extent, as
Jeg 18! «When ye go, ye shall come unto a people

secure, and to a large land’ (om maya pism, RV
‘and the land is large’; lit. ‘spacious on botl
and the land 15 large it. ‘spacious on both

hands’); Neh 419 ‘The work is vreat and large,
and we are separated upon the wall, one far from
another’; Is 30% ‘In that day shall thy cattle
feed in large pastures’; Jer 9911] will build me
a wide house and large ious ata (2 Beaks nv by,
AVin ‘through-aired chambers’ ἮΝ “spacious
chambers’); Rev 211° ‘And _ the ‘city lieth fonr-
SMAre, and the length is as large as the breadth’
(RV ‘as great as the breadth’ ) Cf. Howell,
Letters, 1. i. 5, ‘I pray God bless us both, and
send us, after this large Distance, a joyful meet-
ing.’ 2. Unconfined, free, as 28 2920") Ps 18° Ee
brought me forth also into a large place’ (a07>,
ὑχ ‘a large place, "also in Ps 118°, Hos 410, but in
Ps 318 ‘a I: arge room,’ RV ‘a large place’ ; except
in Hos (where see Cheyne’ 5 note), it 15. an expres-
sion denoting great prosperity. De Witt trans-
lates Ps 18! “He brought me forth into room
unconfined,’ and points “out that. the opposite is
the ‘calamity,’ or ‘sore pressure’ of the previous
verse); 2 Es 1 ‘TI led you through the sea, and
in the beginning gave you a large and safe pas-
sage ’ (plateas vobis in invio munitas exhibui, RV
‘where there was no path I made for you high-

ways’). Cf. Mt 7% Rhem., ‘Enter ye by the
narrow gate, because brode is the gate, and large
is the way that leadeth to perdition.’ So Hall,
Works, 11. 2, ‘None but a sonne of Aaron might
offer incense to God in the temple; and not every
sonne of Aaron, and not any one at all seasons :
God is a God of order, and hates confusion no
lesse than irreligion: albeit he hath not so straitned
himselfe under the Gospell, as to tie his service
to persons, or places, yet his choice is now no
lesse curious because it is more large; he allowes
none but the authorised, he authoriseth none but
the worthy.’ Cf. also Shaks. As You Like It, τί.
vil. 48—
‘IT must have liberty
Withal, as large a charter as the wind,
To blow on whom I please’ ;

and Hamlet, Iv. iv. 36—

‘Sure, He, that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not

That capability and godlike reason

To fust in us unused.”

3. Liberal in giving, only Mt 28! ‘They gave

large money unto the soldiers’ (Tindale’s tr.,
Gar. ἀργύρια ἱκανά). This meaning was once very

conunon, Thus Shaks. 2 Henry VI. 1.1. 111—
‘the poor King Reignier, whose large style
Agrees not With the leanness of his purse’ ;
and Dryden, Brit. Red. i, 86—
‘Large of his treasures, of a soul so great
As fills and crowds his universal seat.’

In Gal 611 we have the nearest approximation to the modern
use, ‘Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with
mine own hand.’ The Gr. is rzaizos γράμμασιν, which RV
translates ‘with how large letters,’ introducing the modern
meaning of ‘large’ unmistakably. Field (Otiwm Norv. iii. 117),
who calls the RV the only possible rendering, says, ‘St. Paul
was avery indifferent penman, and when he did not employ an
amanuensis, was obliged to write in very large and, probably,
ill-shaped characters.’ He illustrates from Plutarch’s Cato:
‘In describing Cato’s method of educating his son, the historian
tells us that he wrote histories for him with his own hand and
in large characters’? (ἰδίᾳ χειρὶ καὶ μεγάλοις γράμμασιν). The
Eng. word recalls Milton's Sonnet ‘ New Forces of Conscience ’—

‘New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.’

The phrase ‘at large’ occurs Wis 19° ‘For they
went at large like horses’ (ἐνεμήθησαν, Vule. de-
paverunt [escam]; RV ‘they roamed at large’);
Sir 4712 ‘After him [David] rose up a wise son,
and for his sake he dwelt at large’ (κατέλυσεν ἐν
πλατυσμῷ : Bissell explains, ‘He was no more
full of care for this and that; he gave up all
to the management of his wise son.’ But Ball
[9], ‘Solomon enjoyed ease and freedom for
David's sake’); 2 Mac 2” ‘To stand upon every
point, and go over things at large, and to le
curious in particulars, belongeth to the first author
of the story? (wept πάντων ποιεῖσθαι λόγον, RV ‘to in-
dulge in long discussions,’ RVm ‘to provide a place
for discussions.’ Fritzsche prefers the reading of
codd. A and V περίπατον ποιεῖσθαι λύγων, ‘to make the
round of matters’). Cf. Rhem. NT, p. 204 (Argument
to John’s Gospel), ‘the intent of this evangelist
writing after the other three, was, to omit the
Actes of Christ in Galilee, because the other three
had written them at large; and to reporte his
Actes done in Lurie, which they had omitted.’

Largely, in the sense of freely, occurs in 1 Mae
1616 «when Simon and his sons had drunk largely’
(ἐμεθύσθη, RV ‘had drunk freely’; Ball and Bissell,

‘were drunk,’ which i 1s the only possible meaning).
Cf. North’s Plutarch, ‘Alexander,’ p. 687, ‘ Then
did Alexander offer great presents unto the god,
and gave money largely to the priests and ministers
of the temple.’

Largeness occurs only 1 Καὶ 4% ‘And God gave
Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding
much, and largeness of heart’ (25 205), where the
meaning 1s not, as now understood, a charitable
disposition, but breadth of intellectual interest,

46 LASCIVIOUSNESS

LASTHENES

the difference being due, however, to the differ-
ence between the Heb. and Eng. uses of ‘heart.’
Thus the marg. of the Geneva Bible (copied into
the Bishops’ Bible) explains the phrase, ‘able to
comprehend all things,’ where the tr. is ‘a large
heart.’ But it is probable that as first used by
Wyelif the Eng. phrase meant liberality in giving,
as the marg. note to the 1388 ed. has ‘largenesse
of herte, to xpende in greet worschip.’ Cf. Elyot,
Governour, i. 104, ‘Crassus, the riche king of
Lidia . . . saide on a tyme to Cyrus, when he
behelde his liberalitie, that suche largenesse as
he used shulde bringe hym in povertie, where,
if he lysted, he mought accumulate up treasure
incomparable.’ J. HASTINGS.

LASCIVIOUSNESS is the tr. in AV and RV of
ἀοέλγεια in Mk 7**, 2 Co 1931, Gal 51, Eph 49, 1 P 48,
Jude * The Gr. word is found also in Ro 1335,
where both versions have ‘wantonness,’ and three
times in 2 P, viz. 2? TR πολλὸὶὲ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν
αἰτῶν ταῖς ἀπωλείαις, AV ‘many shall follow their
pernicious ways,’ but edd. ἀσέλγείαις, whence RV
‘their lascivicus doings’ ; 27 ἐν ἀσελγείᾳ ἀναστροφή,
AV ‘filthy conversation,’ ΗΝ ‘lascivious life’;
and 215 ἀσελγείαις AV ‘through much wantonness,’
RV ‘by lasciviousness.’ In LXX ἀσέλγεια occurs
only twice, Wis 14° AV ‘shameless unclean-
ness,’ RV ‘wantonness’; and 3 Mac 9:5 ‘acts of
impiety.’

The etymology of ἀσέλγεια has had a curious
histery. The derivation from α priv. and Σέλγη, ἃ
Pisidian city, is still mentioned by lexicograplers,
though it is doubtful if it was’ for morality or
immorality that that city was famous: Thayer-
Grimm, ‘whose citizens excelled in strictness of
morals’; Trench, ‘whose inhabitants were in-
famous for their vices.’ The favourite derivation
ix, however, a and σέλγω, i.e. θέλγω to charm.
the use of the word in NT alone is suflicient to fix
its meaning and to show that ‘lasciviousness’ is
too restricted and definite to cover it all. The
meaning is absence of restraint, indecency ; and
although that is generally regarded as shown in
sensuality, there are passages, as Mk 72 and
1 P 45, where sensuality is not yet in sight. In
the latter passage, as Salmond points out, the
writer begins with a general term (f excesses’)
suflicient to inelude unbridled conduet of all kinds,
and then passes to particulars. Trench thinks
‘wantonness’ the best rendering, ‘standing as it
does in a remarkable ethical connexion with
ἀσέλγεια, and having the same duplicity of mean-
ing,’ te. indecency in general and sensuality in
particular. See Trench, V7 Synonyms, p. 540,
and Thayer, VV Gree: Lev, s.v. The leading idea
in the word is probably conduct that is shameless.
It is thus joined with πορνεία and ἀκαθαρσία in 2 Co
1251 and Gal 5", where πορνεία is a special form of
impurity ; ἀκαθαρσία uncleanness of any kind that
may, however, be unseen; ἀσέλγεια uncleanness
that shocks public decency. See Lightfoot on

Gal 5” and 1 Th 2° (the latter in Notes on Epp. of

St. Paul, p. 21). It is remarkable that in all the
places in, which ‘lasciviousness’ is found it has
been introduced by the AV translators. The
earlier word is nearly always ‘ wantonness’ (except
in Wye. and Rhem. following the Vulg. too closely
and giving ‘lechery’ or ‘impurity’ mostly). RV
has carried the mistake still further by changing
‘wantenness’ cf 2 P 918 into ‘lasciviousness,’
J. HASTINGS.

LASEA (Adsa:a) is never mentioned by any
ancient author except St. Luke; but in the
‘hundred-citied’ Crete it is not strange that an
unimportant town should be only once mentioned.
Lasaia was near Fair Havens (Ac 75}... ands as
St. Paul's ship ley for some considerable time in

But |

the Havens, it would be necessary to purchase
stores from the city, on which account it comes te
be mentioned by the historian. The ruins of the
city were examined in 1855 by the Rev. G. Brown.
They are about 5 miles east trom the Havens, and
1 mile east from Cape Leonda or Leona; and
according to Mr. Brown are still called Λάσαια by
the Cretan peasantry. This may probably be the
Lisia mentioned in the Peutinger Tables as 16
miles south from Gortyna. In an air line the
distance on the map scems hardly more than 12
miles ; but in mountainous Crete the road may be
16 miles. Mr. E. Falkener has published an old
Venetian description of the island of Crete, which
mentions in this neighbourhood a place Lapsea,
with a ruined temple (Mr. Brown mentions two
temples).

Lirerature.—Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Stu-Paut,
8rd ed. p. 390 ἢ. ; Falkener in Museum of Class. Antiq. (1852),
p. 287, W. M. RAMSAY.

LASHA (yv5, A Δάσα, E and Lue. Adca). — Men-
tioned only in Gn 10", as forming the boundary of
the Canaanites towards the east. Jerome and
Jerus. Targum identify with the famous hot
springs of Callirrhoé in the Wady Zerka Ma‘in to
the east of the Dead Sea; but this appears to be
too far to the north, and, as Dillmann remarks, we
rather expect a situation on the west side of the
Dead Sea or of the Ghor. Wellh. ΣΤῊ, xxi.
403 f.) would change yy> into my or og, i.e. Laish
(Dan) on the northern boundary of Canaan ; but
the boundary from north to south seems to have
been sufficiently given in the words ‘from Zidon
» + + to Gaza,’ and we expect a boundary now in a
new direction, namely, from west to east. One
might think of the promontory e/-Lisidn at the
south end of the Dead Sea, but if this were in-
tended, the art. would have been found, ro, as
in Jos 185, J. A. SELBIE,

LASSHARON.—Amongest the kings subdued by
Joshua, the MT (followed by AV, RV) includes
the king of Lassharon (AVm Sharon). In the
VUnomas, (8. *Saron’) the name Sharon is applied
to the region between Tabor and the Lake of
Tiberias, stated to be ‘still called Sarona.’ The
naine Sarone is at the present day applied to a
ruin on this plateau, which is a possible site for
Lassharon (SIVP vol. 1. sheet vi.). Sarona is
mentioned on the list of Thothmes ur. See
PALESTINE.

The text of Jos 1218 appears to be in some dis-
order. While MT has przb 95> pzx B22, 0 of the
ΤᾺΝ has βασιλέα ᾿Οφὲκ τῆς ᾿Αρώκ (A simply βασιλέα
᾿Αφέκ), where ᾿Αρώκ is doubtless a corruption of
Σαρών. The He . text before B would thus appear
to have been jing) pry 559 ‘king of Aphek in
Sharon,’ the Sharon being not the plain of that
name on the coast, but the district in Galilee
above mentioned (so Dillm. on Jos 12; ef. Wellh.
Sam. p. 55). C. R. ConDER.

LASTHENES (Λασθένης), an officer of high rank
under Demetrius 1. Nikator. He bears the honor-
ary titles of ‘kinsman’ (συγγενής 1 Mae 11%!) and
‘father’ (πατήρ ib. 1152) of the king, the former not
necessarily implying near relationship to Demetrius
(cf. 1 Mae 10%), and the latter pointing to his
superior age, and to the advice (ef. Gn 45% of
Joseph) and protection which he afforded to the
young prince (cf. Rawlinson and Zéckler). Himself
a Cretan, he raised a body of Cretan mercenaries,
and enabled Demetrius to land in Cilicia, and
wrest the throne of Syria from Alexander Balas
(Jos. Ant. XI. iv. 3, cf. 1 Mae 10°). From the
new kin» Lasthenes seems to have received some
official position, possibly that of governor of Cwle-

LATCHET

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD 47

Syria (cf. 1 Mac 10%). Hence when Demetrius
was endeavouring to make terms with Jonathan
the Maccabiean, he wrote to Lasthenes in favour
of the Jews, and forwarded a copy of his letter to
the Jewish prince (L Mae 11-87, sos. af. XELL iv.
9). [0 is probable that Lasthenes was the powerful
favourite, who, by encouraging the Inxury and
tyranny of Demetrius, eventually brought about
his overthrow by ‘Tryphon (Diod. xxwxiii, 4, and
Vales. ad loc.). H. A. WHILE.

LATCHET (7), {uds).—The word refers to the
leather thongs used for tying on sandals. (See
Dress, vol. i. p. 6274). In Gn 14° Abram tells
the kine of Sodom that he had taken an oath
that he would not accept at his hands ‘from
a thread to a shoe-latehet’ (0.5 ΡΠ ay) om), de.
nothing of his most worthless possessions, much
less anything of value. In Is ὅπ it is stated that
the army to be brought from afar against dis-
obedient Israel would be of such disciplined energy
that no loose girdles or broken latchets would be
seen init. John the Baptist indicates his relation-
ship of inferiority by saying that he is unworthy
to loose the latchet of the shoes of Christ (Mk 17,
Lk 816. Jn 153). Among Orientals everything con-
nected with the feet and shoes is defiled and
debasing, and the stooping to unfasten the dusty
latchet is the most insignificant item in such
service. G. M. MACKIE.

LATIN.—In Jn 19” (Lk 9338 inferior text) it is
stated that the inscription on the tablet placed upon
the cross by Pilate ‘was written in Hebrew, and in
Latin, and in Greek.’ There seems to be no clear
evidence that the affixing of such a tablet to the
cross was a legal requirement, or even the ordinary
usage. But a tablet or placard announcing a
criminal’s offence was often carried before him on
his way to execution, or hung αἱ οαὖ his neck, and
sometimes he was preceded by a herald proclaim-
ing his crime (ef. Sueton. Calig. 32, Domit. 10;
Dion Cass. Octav. 54. 3. 7; Euseb. HE 5, 1. 44;
Mishna, Seanhedr. 6. 1, 10. 6). Inscriptions and
proclamations in two or more languages were not
uncommon (see Jos. Ant. XIV. x. 2, 3, xii. 5). The
tablets set up in the temple at Jerus. forbidding
any foreigner on pain of death to enter the Holy
Place, were some in Latin, some in Greek ; Jos.
BJ v. v. 2, Vi. ii. 4 (one of the Jatter, unearthed
about twenty-five years ago by M. Clermont-
Gannean, is reproduced and deseribed in the Lecrne
Archcologique tor 1872, p. 3141: οἵ, PEF, Tiventy-
one Years’ Work, ». 167f.). Although Greek
formed a part of the training of every educated
Roman, and was the widest medium of comuiuni-
cation even in Palestine, yet Latin was especially
employed as the legal, official, and military liun-
guage, and Roman pride was disposed to be ten-
acious of it in intercourse with provincials (see
Nite Vins. 2. δὲ Ion Cass. δ7. 15.3). ‘Che
emperor Claudius, for example, who was fond of
Greek learning, and an adept in the use of the
language (Sueton. Claud. 42), deprived ἃ pro-
minent Greek of Roman citizenship for ignorance
of Latin (ἰδία. 16). Abundant reff. may be found
in Mayor’s note on Juvenal, xv. 110.

tespecting the influence of Latin upon the later
Greek, see LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
J. H. THAYER,

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD.*—Among those

* Abbreviations used in this article :—
OL=Old Latin Version (or Versions).
Spee τα Archiv fiir lateinische Lexikographie, ed. by E.
olfflin.

witnesses which are of primary importance for
determining the text of NI’, and, in a inodified
sense, that of OT also, the early Lat. VSS occupy
a foremost place. Hitherto, perhaps, their im-
portance has not been sulliciently recognized, But
the rapid developments in the science of textual
criticism which this century has seen are bringing
more clearly into view their unique value. ‘This
consists mainly in their high antiquity, on the one
hand, and their extraordinary faithfulness to the
text which they tr., on the other. The last-named
characteristic has never been disputed. As to the
other, there is, at least, a general agreement that,
at the latest, a Lat. tr. of the Bible already existed
in the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. But this means
much. The oldest Greek MSS which have, as yet,
come down to us, cannot be dated further back
than the 4th cent. The great majority of them
must be placed at a much later date. The early
Lat. VSS, therefore, as extant in MSS or biblical
quotations in the Fathers, supply us with evidence
prior to any contained in Gr. MSS. But this
comparison must be made with caution. Other-
wise it would only mislead. Our extant Gr, MSS,
of course, witness to a text far earlier than the
date of their own origin. The evidence of a
version is only second-hand. And, besides, it is
always more or less local, presenting us with im-
portant data for determining one particular type
of text, but restricted as to the value of its general
bearing. From another point of view, however,
this limitation has advantages. The history and
character of the version must, of necessity, shed
light upon the history of the Church in the definite
area over which its influence has spread. And this
is pre-eminently true of the Lat. VSS. They are
closely bound up with the origin and diffusion of
Western Christianity. Through the intluence of
the Lat. Fathers they have, to a great extent,
moulded its theological conceptions and its current
theological terms. Finally, to the history of the
Lat. language their contributions are invaluable ;
for they preserve the late Lat. renderings of
an extant Gr. original, using many varieties
of synonyms, many abnormal constructions, and
many strange formations, all of which reveal
the tendencies of the later language, and_ fix
with more or less certainty particular dialectical
variations.

1. Name.—The name Old Latin is used here to
denote the Lat. VS or VSS which existed previous
to, or independent of, the great revision made by
Jerome at the close of the 4th cent.* The desie-
nation is derived from the Lat. Fathers themselves,
who speak of ‘uetus editio,’ ‘antiqua interpre-
tatio,’ ‘uetus translatio,’ and the like. It seems
time now to abandon the misleading term ‘Itala,’
or even ‘uetus Itala,’ to denote the pre-Hierony-
mian type of text. For, as we shall see later, the
name ‘Itala’ is most ambiguous, and forms the
central point of one of the keenest controversies
which has ever arisen on this complicated subject.
The expression ‘Old Latin’ makes no assumption,
but simply states an admitted fact. Under this
heading there might fall ‘mixed’ Lat. texts, in
which OL and Vule. readings are found side by
side. As arule, however, such texts have a Vule.

Stud. Bibl. = Studia Biblica, by Members of Univ. of Oxford

sk YT hotbirtaehe Studien und Kritiken.

T. τι. U.=Texte und Untersuchungen (Gebhardt and Har-

Z ee Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie.

*See Wordsworth, OL Biblical Texts, i. p. xxx: ‘Old-Latin
texts . . . mean all early Latin versions of the Bible which are
not Hieronymian, of whatever date the MSS may be which
contain them, or in whatever country they were current.’ It

is surely refining too minutely when Sittl (Bursian-Muller’s

CSEL=Corpus Seriptorwm Ecelesiasticorum Latinorum, ; Jahresvericht, vol. Ixviii. p. 249) asserts that the term * pre-

pub. under auspices of Vienna Academy.
GG4=Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen.

Hieronymian’ ought to be applied only to the biblical quota-
i tions of the older Fathers.

48 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

base, and it is only when the OL element in them
is of marked importance that they will be noticed
below (see VULGATE).

2. We have spoken above of the OL ‘ Version or

Versions.’ This brings before us a much-debated
question. Was there originally only a single tr.

of the Scriptures into Lat., or were there several or
many distinct versions’ Before discussing the
point, let us guard against certain misconceptions.
No one has ever argued that one fype of OL text,
whether of OT or NT, presents itself in the Lat.
MSS or Fathers from the time of Tertullian on-
wards. The most casual comparison of our exist-
ing authorities disproves this at once. For while,
as we shall find, both MSS and Fathers may be,
with caution, classified by groups, even within
those provisionally separate classes, a considerable
amount of variation appears. Still ereater and
more distinet are the differences which seem to
justify us in shading off those groups from one
another.* That is to say, even those who main-
tain that one original VS lies at the basis of all
subsequent OL texts, are quite willing to admit the
existence of various recensions of that version, made
at different times and in different countries. In
addition to this, it would be admitted on all sides
that this assumed original tr. was by no means the
work of one hand: that separate books were done
into Lat. by separate translators, both in OT and
in NT, and that some, in all probability, were tré
at a later date than others. But those scholars
who adhere to the hypothesis of a single original
version hold that, admitting many minor differences
both in readings and renderings, there appears,
through the complexity of variations, one funda-
mental groundwork. While the various authorities
seem to move on different lines through several
verses, they return to an agreement sufliciently
striking to demand the assumption of a common
souree.} Equally important names can be adduced
in support of the opinion that there were, at least,
several distinct OL versions. And certainly, at
first sight, there seems much to justify the hypo-
thesis. The same passage often appears in very
different forms in the various MSS and Fathers.
To gain some impression of these variations, we
have only to turn to the formidable array of
parallels from MSS and Fathers given in such
works as H. Linke’s Studien zur Itala,§ or Ziegler’s
Div lat. Bibelibersetzungen vor Hieronymus. Wow
is the question to bedecided? Quite naturally, an
appeal has been made to the expressed opinions
of the Lat. Fathers themselves, more especially
Augustine and Jerome. And some passages in
their writings seem to have a real connexion with
the problem. Thus Aug. de Doctr. Christ. ii. 11:
‘Qui seripturas ex Hebrwa lingua in Greeam
uerterunt numerari possunt, Latini autem inter-
pretes nullo modo: ut enim cuique primis fidei
temporibus in manus uenit codex Grecus et ali-
quantulum facultatis sibi utriusque lingua habere
uidebatur, ausus est interpretari.’ Two chapters
further on, in the same treatise, he says: ‘ quoniam
et que sit ipsa sententia quam plures interpretes
pro sua quisque facultate atque iudicio conantur
eloqui, non apparet, nisi in ea lingua inspiciatur,
quam Interpretantur.’ || He also speaks of an ‘in-
finita uarietas Latinorum interpretum,’ { and uses

*It must be noticed that we are not here separating differ-
ences of reading from differences of rendering. See some im-
portant remarks by Sanday, OL Bibl. Texts, ii. p. xlii.

t See, e.g., Reusch, Tiihing. Qua rtal-Schrift, 1862, p. 244 ff. ;
Fritzsche in Herzog, RE? viii. p. 433 ff. ; Zimmer, SK, 1889, ii.
p. 331 ff. ; Haussleiter in Zahn’s Forschungen, iv. pp. 72, 73.

t See, e.g., Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulg. p. 107 ff. ; L. Ziegler, Die
lat. Bibeliibersetzungen, etc., Munich, 1879, p. 4ff. ; P. Corssen,
Jahrbiicher f. protest. Theol. 1881, p. 507 ff.

ὃ Breslau, 1889. It bears only upon the Apocalypse.

i De Doct. Christ. ii. 13.

|. 20.11,

many other similar expressions.* It is quite evi-
dent that Aug. believed in a large number of
separate OL versions. +

In the writings of Jerome the facts are pre-
sented somewhat differently. Thus, for example,
in his Pref. in lib. Paralip. : ‘cum pro uarietate
regionum diuersa ferantur exemplaria, et germana
illa antiquaque translatio corrupta sit, atque
uiolata, nostri arbitrii putas aut e pluribus iudicare
quid uerum sit aut nouum opus in ueteri opere
cudere.’ And again, Epist. ad Damasum : ‘si enim
Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, responde-
ant quibus: tot sunt pene quot co:dices.t Sin
autem ueritas est querenda de pluribus, cur non
ad Grecam originem reuertentes ea quie uel a
uitiosis interpretibus male edita uel a priesump-
toribus imperitis emendata peruersius uel a librariis
dormitantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata cor-
rigimus?’ See also his Pref. in lib. Job. It
seeins as if, in the passages quoted, Jerome is
thinking rather of separate and most corrupt re-
censions or copies (exemplaria) of the tr® than of
several distinct versions. For in the first he con-
trasts the ‘germana antiquaque translatio’ with
the ‘diuersa exemplaria’ of it which have arisen
through corruption and local variations. And he
could searcely speak of there being almost as many
separate tr’’ as there were MSS. On the other
hand, many passages can be quoted from his writ-
ings which give colour to the opposite hypothesis.
So, e.g., in his Pref. in Proverb. he talks of ‘im-
periti translatores’ ; in Hpist. 18. 21 of ‘interpre-
tum uarictatem.’§ In what way can the apparent
contusion of the evidence be harmonized? Perhaps
we are not justified in treating these statements of
the Fathers as autheritative on the subject. There
is much force in the words of Zahn: ‘It is a
thoroughly short-sighted attempt to seek in the
occasional utterances... of a Jerome or an Augus-
tine regarding the Latin Bible an answer to the
questions which bear on the date of its origin, the
original unity or multiplicity of translators. These
men would not have kept back from us a definite
tradition regarding the place, the time, the origin-
ator of the version or versions, if they had pos-
sessed such... . What they say has neither in
form nor meaning the slightest resemblance to an
historical tradition or an ancient report. It is
rather the scanty result of a more or less intelli-
gent view of the actual facts which they had before .
their eyes.” We cannot, at least, be blind to the
rhetorical exaggeration in the passages quoted.
And it seems quite reasonable to suppose that
Jerome and Aug. are simply putting forward their
own hypotheses to account for the state of things
which they find existing. Probably, they could
give no more definite answer to the question before
us than that which Jerome gave as to the use of
Theodotion’s tr. of Daniel by the Church in place
of the LXX: ‘et hoe cur acciderit nescio’ (Pref.
in Dan.). It is along other lines that the problem
must be approached.

It has been already observed that a comparison
of the extant OL texts, whether in MSS or Fathers,
reveals clearly enough a large number of more or
less important variations. ‘These are of different
kinds. Sometimes the variant consists in the use

* See the large collection of quotations bearing on this point,
from Aug., in Ziegler, op. cit. pp. 6-10. ᾿

+ Wiseman’s attempt (Hssays on Various Subjects, i. p. 24 ff.)
to show that ‘interpretari’ and its cognates can be used, and are
used, by Aug., of recensions as well as translations, is now dis-
credited even by defenders of the one-version theory, 6.7.
Fritzsche, op. cit. p. 435. J

t ‘Of no passage is this judgment more true than of this actual
sentence itself, which is hardly quoted in the same way in any
three MSS’ (H. J. White in Scrivener’s Introduction, vol. il.
p. 42. See also Wordsworth and White’s Vulgate, Fasc. i. p. 2).

§ See Ziegler, op. cit. p. 13. ;

|| Gesch. d. NT Kanons, bd. i. p. 33.

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE CLD 49

of asynonym: sometimes it presupposes a differ-
ent underlying Gr. text: sometimes it shows
another form of construction : sometimes it lies in
an addition or omission, while, at times, it is merely
an inversion of the order of words in a sentence, or
a difference of spelling. One or two examples will
make our meaning clear.

followed is found on almost every page of the OL
versions of OT. The same cause would also be at
work in NT. Add to this the carelessness of
scribes and the independent efforts at translating
the original, either deliberately introduced into the
text or gradually gliding into the text from the
margin, and we have causes which seem, at least,

MATTHEW 2!-4,

k (Cod. Bobiensis).

Et cum his natus esset
in bethlem πο in die-
bus herodis regis ecce
magil ab oriente uener-
unt hierosolima dicentes
ubi est qui natus est
rex πιο" uidimus enim
stellam ... Set autem
rex herodes turbatus est
et tota hierosolima cum
eo. Et conuocatis omni-
bus sacerdotibus et seri-
bit plebis quierit ab eis
ubi 5K nascitur.

a (Cod. Vercellensis).
Cum ergo natus esset
Jesus in bethlem ciuit-

ate iudwe in diebus
herodis regis ecce magi
ab oriente —uenerunt

hierosolyma dicentes ubi
est qui natus est rex
iudzeorum uidimus enim
stellam eius in orientem
et uenimus adorare eum.
Audiens autem herodes
rex turbatus est et omnis
hierosolyma cum = ipso.
Et [congregJauit omnes
principes sacerdotum et
scribas populi et interro-
gabit ab eis ubi Christus
nascitur.

EBXODUSISo2.~.

Cod. Wirceburgensis.

Et audiuit ihs uocem
populi clamantium dixit
ad “Moysen wox pugnie
in castris auditur. Et
dixit Moyses non est wox
de principum cum uirtute
sed nec uox de principum
fugee sed uocem prin-
cipatus uini ludentium
ego audio. | Cumque
adpropinquasset castree
uidet uitulum et choros
populi. Et iratus animo
Moyses proiecit de manib
suis duas tabulas et com-
minuit eas sub montem.
Et sumens uitulum quem
fecerant combussit igni

Cod. Lugdunensis.

Et cum audisset Tesus
clamorem populi claman-
tium, dixit ad Moysen :
non uox pugnie in castris
auditur. Et dixit Moy-
ses : non est de principi-
bus cum uirtute, sed nec
uox de principium fuge
sed uocem principatus
uini ego audio. Cum-
que adpropinquassent
eastree uident uitulum
et choros populi: et iratus
animo Moyses_proiecit
de manibus suis duas
tabulas et comminuit eas
sub montem. Et sumens
uitulum quem fecerant,

et comminuit eum minu-
tatim et seminauit eum
in aqua et potauit filios
istrahel.

combussit eum igni et
conteruit eum minutatim
et seminauit eum in
aqua, et potauit illud
filios Istrahel.

The above instances are taken entirely at random
to give a general idea of the agreements and
differences of the parallel texts. It must be said
that in many passages the differences would be
found to be far more considerable than in either of
those above. Yet, as the total result of numerous
comparisons of the various texts with each other,
one is bound to admit, at least, the increasing pro-
bability of the conclusion that at the basis of all
the types of text there is one original version which
has determined, in great measure, the character of
all the subsequent revisions.* For surely the
differences can be reasonably accounted for. In OT
we know that at this time the MSS of the LAX
were ina state of hopeless confusion—a confusion
which had been intensified by the misuse of Origen’s
critical signs. A proof of the mixture of Gr. texts

* There are some books in which two types of text seem far
more marked, e.g. the Synoptic Gospels and Apoc. ; while in
others, such as the Pauline Epp., there is a much closer
resemblance between ul types of text. This suggests one of
the most important methods to be followed in investigating
the OL Bible—that, namely, of treating each group of books
separately.

VOL. III.—4

b (Cod. Veronensis).
Cum ergo natus esset
Jesus in bethlehem ciuit-
atem iudere in diebus
herodis regis. . . oriente
uenerunt in hierosoly-
ma dicentes ubi est qui
natus est rex indeeorum
uidimus enim stellam
illius in’ orientem et
uenimus adorare eum.
Audiens autem rex He-
rodis turbatus est et
omnes hierosolyma cum
illo. Et congrega .
sacerdotum et scribas
populi et interrogauit ab
eis ubi Christus nas-
ceretur.

J (Cod. Brixianus).

Cum ergo natus esset
Jesus in bethleem inde
in diebus herodis regis
ecce magi ab oriente ue-
nerunt lierosolyma di-
centes, ubi est qui natus
ast rex iudieorum uldi-
mus enim stellam elus
in orientem et uenimus
adorare eum. Audiens
autem herodes rex tur-
batus est et omnis hiero-
solyma cum illo. Et con-
gregauit omnes principes
sacerdotum οὐ scribas
populi et requisiuit ab
eis ubi Christus nas-
ceretur.

sufficient to explain the numerous variations.* As

an instance of what was possible, the Psalter which
Jerome had corrected according to the LXX was so
corrupted by scribes in his own life-time that he
was compelled to emend it a second time.t But
after all, as Burkitt puts it : Ὁ ‘whether there were
one or two independent versions is a compara-
tively minor question in face of the undoubted
fact that the independent versions were few in
number.’

3. The problem which is of paramount importance
in this subject is, Can we trace the history of the
version (or versions)? For the sake of the subse-
quent discussion we will here subjoin a list of the
extant authorities for tle OL Bible.s

OLD TESTAMENT. HEX ATEUCH.—A, Cod. Lug-
dunensis [6th cent.]. At Lyons (MS 54). Gn 1616
171-18 192-29 9688-85 27-33 377-3872 ἀρ ϑϑ' ene: Ex 1-72
219-85: 9529_ 9618 O7S-ehd Toy: 1-18) 2516-and Nu, Dt, Jos,
Jeg 1~1151(2). Published as far as Dt 114, by U.
Robert, Pent. Versio Lat. Antiquissima, ete. Paris,
1581. Remaining part discovered by Delisle in
autumn of 1895. See ‘ Academy,’ Nov. 30th, 1895.
For the romantic history of the MS, see the ‘ Avant-
Propos’ of Robert’s work. 2. Fragments in Cod.
Ottobonianus, No. 66 [8th cent.]. In Vatican.
Frage. of Gn from chs. 37, 38, 41, 46, 48-50 ; of
Ex from chs. 10, 11, 16, 17, 23-27. Pub. by C.
Vercellone in Vari lectiones Vulg. ete. Tom. i.
pp. 183 ff. 807 Π|, Rome, 1860. 8, Cod. Wircebur-
gensis [6th cent. Ὁ. Univ. Libr. of Wiirzburg (MS
θα. Gre BOs 15 Nes A a ey Se ον a OG
3915-33 3313-27 3515. 361 θυ δ; Lv 423_58 5810. 61 Vien
16-17. 22-27 81-5. 6-13 117-9: 12-15. 22-25. 27-47 17}4-1871 1091. 908
901". 30. 915 Θοιντῶν 935-9 Dt 282-3 31-6, Pub. by E.
Ranke, Par Palimpsest. Wirceburgensium, Vienna,
1871. 4. Cod. Monacensis [5th or 6th cent.]. Hof-
Bibliothek at Munich (Lat. 6225). Ex 9-104
19:8. 1454 16!°-20° 315-337 3613-4082, Lv 31/45 1117-136
1417] 510 188-205 Nu 34-48 4°1_58 737-73 11:9. 7915 2η8..
DOO OO ΘΟ. ἘΣ EE oE tL Ors ΣΟ ΞΟ Dose Ol anes
Pub. by L. Ziegler, Bruchstiche emer vorhicron.
Ubersetz. d. Pent. Munich, 1883. 8. Fragg. of
Genesis (25:0. 988), from a Lat. VS of the Quast. of

* See Wellhausen in Bleek’s Finlvitung in ἃ. AT4, p. 595.

+ See P. Corssen, EH pist. ad Galatas, p. 3.

{ Old-Lat. and Itala, p. 5.

§ Books marked with an asterisk the writer has not had the
opportunity of seeing.

50 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

Philo. Puab. by F. C. Conybeare, Expositor, 4th
series, vol. iv. pp. 631f., ΠΡΟ 6. Gn 121134
15°? in Palimpsestus Vindobonensis, pub. by J.
Belsheim, 1885.

HISTORICAL BookKs.—1, Ruth. Cod. Complu-
tensis [9th cent.}. Univ. Libr. Madrid (MS 31).
Pub. by S. Berger, Tertes Lat. ined. de UAne.
Test. Paris, 1803. 2. Je 5 fr. Com. of Verecundus
in Vercellone. 3. Fraee. of Je, also 1, 2S and
1, 2 kK, being notes on margin of Cod. Gothicus
[10th cent.]. At Leon. Pub. from copy in Vatican
by C. Vercellone, Varia Lectiones, om. 11. The
hitherto unknown Marginalia of Cod. Goth. have
been transcribed by Linke from the Vat. copy,
though not yet published. See Archir, viii. 2,
ppe 911: φᾷ, τ 29 from, MS. No,. 2 at
Einsiedeln [15th cent.]. Pub. by 8. Berger, op. cit.
5. Some verses of Land 2S and 2 Καὶ from several
Corbey and 8. Germain MSS. Pub. by P. Sabatier,
Bihliorum latine Versiones, vol. i. Paris,
L751. “6.1 8:98 16 ΟἿΣ 995. ie 59. rom
two leaves at Magdeburg and Quedlinbure.
First two Frage. pub. by W. Schum, SA, 1876,
p. 121 ΑἹΙ four by Weissbrodt, Jaden lectt,
Brunshergensis, p. 11 1K δ'-67, Pub. by
A. Dining, Fin news Fragm. εἰ. Quedl. Itala-
Coder, 1888. 7. 28 1018.1117 1478 (7th or Sth
cent.]. Parchment leaves at Vienna. Pub. by
J. Haupt, *Veterisantehieron. vers lib. IT. Regu
Sragmenta .. . Vienna, 1877. 8 1S 14-2) 210 418
619 051.70}] 1O!_] lay. 2S 410525 108] P18 1319
144 17-18" [5th cent.]. | Palimpsest at Vienna,
Pub. by J. Belsheim, *Palinpsestus Vindobonensis,
1885. 9, («) Cod. Corbeiensis, No. 7 (now MS. lat.
11549). At Paris. Book of Esther.t Pub. by
Sabatier, op. cit. (6) Cod. Vallicellanus, B. vil.
Est 1-2. Pub. by Sabatier, by Tommasi, more
accurately by Bianchini.s (¢) Cod. Pechianus.
Frage. of Est 3-end. Sabatier. (/) Cod. Lat.
Monacens., 6239 [9th cent.) Est. Pub. by J. Bel-
sheim, Libros Tohiw, Indit, Ester... ex Cod.
Monac., Trondhjem, 1893. (0) MS of Lyons, No.
356. Beginning and conclusion of Est. Pub. by
S. Berger, Votiee, pp. 31-32. This ancient résumé
of Esther also found in Cod. Complutensis, Codd.
Casinensis, No. 35, Cod. Monarc. 6225, (κί,
Ambrosianus B. 26 inferior, of which second alone
has been pub. (Biblioth. Casin. 'T. i. 1873).

POETICAL BOOKS.—A, (a) Fragment of Fleury.
Job 4053. Pub. by Sabatier, Tom. i. p. 904. See
also Berger, Hist. de la Vulg. p. 80. (b) Frage. of
Job from margin of Cod. Gothieus at Leon [10th

cent.]. First few lines pub. by Berger, Notice, pp.
21-22. 2. (α) Cod. Veronensis. At Verona. Book

of Psalms. Pub. by Bianchini, Pse/lerimmn dupler
cum Canticis, in his Vindiviw Canon. Serint.
Rome, 1740. (4) Cod. Sangermanensis. Lat. MS
No. 11947. Bibliothtque nationale, Paris. Pub.
by Sabatier, op. cit. Tom. 9. (ὦ Frage. of OL
Psalter in Palimpsests at Carlsruhe. See F. Mone,
*Latein. Messen, γν. 40; also *De libris palimps. p.
48, Carlsruhe, 1855. (ὦ) Considerable extracts
from OL Psalter in Mozarabic Liturgy (Migne,
Patrol. Latina, T. 85). See Kaulen, Gesch. εἰ.
Vulg. p. 1991 Gams, Wirchengesch. Spaniens,
1. p. 806. Readings, fr. 4 Psaltt: Carnutense,
Corbeiense, Mediolanense, Coisliniunum in Sabatier,
See on OL Psalter generally, Lagarde, Probe
ecner neuen Ausgabe der lutein. Ubersetzung des AT,

t See Driver, Notes on Heb. Text of Samuel, pp. 1xxvii-
Ixxxii; Wellhausen in Bleek’s Finleitung in ad. AT'4, τὸ,
571 ff. Schepss, Zeits. 7. Kirchengesch. xv. pp. 566-8 refers to
two MSS with OL readings in 1 and 2S,

t It should be stated that, in the OL Bible, we have not an
exact tr», but only a résumé of Esther. See Berger, Notice, p. 31.

ἃ Vindici@ Canon. Script., Rome, 1740. ‘

| The continuous text of Job, publ. as OL by Sabatier, is not
OL at all, but a revision taken from a Vulg. MS and pub. by
Martianay in Hieronym. Opp. T. 1, whence Sabatier derived it.
See Ranke, Fragmenta . ᾿ς Antehierun., Fase. Dou

Fer

1885. See also H. Ehrensberger, Psa/terium Vetus
(Tauberbischofsheim, 1587). 3. (a) Cod. No. 954.
Palimps. Imperial Library, Vienna. Pr 91. 499 197-27,
Pub. by A. Vogel, Beitr. 2. Herstell. d. alt. lat.
Biblibersetzung, Vieuna, 1868. (4) Palimps. St.
Paul in Lavant-thale, Carinthia. Pr 15°25 16.
1113. Pub. by F. Mone, *De libr. palimps. (ὁ) Cod.
11 of St. Gall [Sth cent.]. Frage. of Pr, Ec, and
Pub. by $8. Berger, Notice, p. 2348 (dd)
Marginal readings from Pr in MS, Lat. 11553.
Bibhoth. Nat. Paris. See Berger, Hist. de la Vulgq.
Ὁ. θὅ, (ὁ) A few Frage. of Pr in Sabatier, Tom.
2.+ Frage. of Ee and Ca, dise. by Amelli. Still
unpub, See Ziegler, Latein. Bibelithers. ». 107, ἢ. 6.

PROPHETICAL BooKS.—1, Frage. of a Wein-
garten MS at Fulda, Darmstadt, and Stuttgart
[prob. 6th cent.J. Hos 4114 54 7 716 gi-6. 13-24 gl-17 Ὁ.
portions of vv.8 7 % 12 131 3 134-142) Am 52-68 891
95.109". Mie 15. 3ὺ ἀπ ον. Jl 11-.. O8-9 42-4. ΡΟΣ Jon }44=
48, tEzk 16°°-178 17189 24%-9514 9610_977 9717-19
YSI-17 foo. 6. 14 4372-445 4.19. 452 469-23 472-15 Ae. Dn
ze gP-100, Pub. in full, with Appendix, by E.
Ranke, Fragm. Vers. antehiron, Vienna,
1808. His previous work, Fragm. Hos. Am. et
Mich, Marburg, 1856, is included in that above
named, So also Vogel's Fraga. of Ezek. from St.
Poul in the Lavant-thal. Additional Frage. of
Prophets. Weingarten MS. Stuttgart. Am 7
810 Ezk 18917 0 }18-21 VTTAT 3376-30 246. δ. Dn 119 5:99.
Pub. by E. Ranke, λέχη. Stutgardiana, S88. 2.
Cod. Wirceburgensis. Palimps. [prob. 6th cent.].
Univ. Libr. of Wiirzbure (MS 64a). Hos [28
415. τ Jon 3! 411 Ts 29'-308 452-464, Jer 1212-13”
] 415-16, Frage. of 15, 16, 17. [8162s Qi )6-7. 9-10..11-11..10-18
211-23 353741 8839. 405.4 71:7. La 216-31 Ezk 244-21
26-274 ἃ. μὸ 85 3719-23 Bys-20 403. 4918 451. 409 aoe et.
Dn [Sus] 22! 128 3-5" (including Oratio Azerive)
85.010 [QR] LA | P20 2h 28-25, 26-29. 1-8. BE Bol οὐ Drae.),
Pub. by E. Ranke, Par Palimpsest. Wireehur-
gensium, Vienna, 1871.8 8, Frage. of Is and Jer
discovered in a Bobbio Lectionary at Turin by G.
Amelli, Still unpublished. See Ziegler, Die lat.
Bibelubers, p. Wd, αι. 2. ἃ, χα σον, of Jerem. from
Cod. Sangallensis, No. 912. Pub. by Tischendorf,
Mon. sacr. et prof. p. 231. More fully by F.C.
Burkitt as Appendix to Old Latin aud the Itala,
p. 811 Camb. 1896. δ. A few ‘Cantica’ from the
Prophets in Sabatier, Tom. 2.) Some ‘Cantica’
also published by Fleck, IW issenschaftliche Reise,
Bd. i. Abt. 3, p. 887fh See further, Hamann,
Canticum Moysi, Jena, 1574, and Bianchini, Vindi-
ciw, ete., who pub. 7 * Cantica’ fr. Verona MS of Ps.

APOCRYPHA.—1. Fourth [Second] Esdras. Com-
plete text ed. by Bensly and James, Cambridge
Tearts and Studies, τῇ. 2, 1895. For particulars
regarding MSS see the Introduction to the above,
and also The Missing Fragment of the Fourth Book
of Ezra, by R. L. Bensly, Camb. 1875. 2. Third
[First] Esdras. Two OL Texts. Ordinary Vulg.
and another contained in MS Lat. 111 of Biblioth.
Nat. at Paris (printed in Sabatier) ; in Mazarine
MS 29; Douai7; Vienna 1191; Madrid E. QR. 8.
Frage. of another text in Lagarde, Septuaginta-
Studien, 1892, Theil 2, fr. Lucea MS. 3.-Loebiz.
OL version found in MSS Biblioth. Nat. lat. 6, 93,
161, 11505, 11553; in Cod. Gothicus at Leon ;

t Berger points out that there are a vast number of variants
from the OL in Vulg. MSS of the Sapiential books, e.g. Paris
MS, 11553, crioted above ; Bible of Théodulfe ; MS No. 7 at Metz.

~ See a very important contribution by Cornill, Das Buch
des Propheten Ezechiel, Proleg. pp. 25-85. Cornill denotes the
Weingarten Frage. by 10, the Wurzburg Palimps. by ἃ (= Herbi-
polensis). Two new Fragg. of Weing., Ezk 337-0, Dn 1115-23,
pub. by P. Corssen, Zwei neue Fragmente, ete., Berlin, 1899.

§ This includes the Fragg. pub. by Munter, Fraym. Vers.
Antehieron. etc., Hafn. 1819.

| The Fragg. of the Prophets pub. from Lat. glosses in a
palimps. at Grotta Ferrata, by J. Cozza, Rome, 1867, are not
considered to be genuine OL even by Cozza himself. He
supposes that they are a version made partly from the OL,
but brought into strictest agreement with the Greek.

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD al
Cod. Complutensis at Madrid; Bible of Huesca | ing in Mi 8, 93 827 Mil geet 628 ak

Madrid); MS 6239 at
. 26 infer. of Ambrosian

{Museo Arqueologico of

Munich; MS7 at Metz; E
Libr. ; Cod. Regio-Vaticanus, No. 7. Of these,
MSS 93, 11505, 11553 of Bibl. Nat. and Cod.
Rewio-Vat. have been pub. by Sabatier. Munich
MS 6239, pub. by J. Belsheim, Libros Tobiw .. .
ete., Trondhjem, 1593. ἃ. Judith. MSS Biblioth.
Ne it. lat. 6, 93,°115U5, 11549, 11553 ; Cod. Gothicus
at Leon ; Cod. C omplut. ; Bible of Huesca ; Auctar.
ἜΣ infra 2 of Bodleian; Metz 7; Munich, 6239.
Of these, 93, 11505, 11549, 11553 of Bibl. Nat. have
been pub. by Sabatier. Mun. MS 6239, pub., as
above, by J. Belsheim. ὅ. Wisdom of Solomon
passed into Vulg. unrevised. See Lagarde,
Mittheilungen, i. 241-282, Gottingen, 1884. 6.
Sir also passed into Vulg. unrevised. See
Lagarde, op. cit. 283-378. Another version in
a Fragm., embracing 21%! 22'7, from MS at
Toulouse, pub. by C. Douais, Une ancienne Version
latine, ete., Paris, 1895. 7. Baruch. Also pre-
served in Vule. Another OL version in MSS Bibl.
Nat. lat. 11, 161, 11951 (pub. by Sabatier r); Arsenal
65 and 70 ; V allicellanus Bo 7 (pub. by Sabatier and
also Bianchini, Vindictees Cod. Casinensis 35;
Reims MS No. 1 (in Sab.).. δὲ. Ὁ and -2, Mac.
passed into Vulg. unrevised. Another text con-
ee 4s Mae 1-18, pub. by Sabat. from MS 115538
of Bib. Nat. Text of 2 Mac from MS E 26 infer.

of Ambrosian Lib., pub. by A. par MW. Tit.

Cie. Orat. fragm. ined, Stuttgart, 1824, i. p. 70 ff.
Both books complete in Cod. Complut. teats
fron OL version in Cod. 356 of Lyons. See for

one or two other Krage., Berger, Notice, p. 38.

Extracts from all OT books except Ru, Ob, and
Jon: and from all Apoer, books except 3 and 4 Es
in Liber de dininis Scripiuris siue Speculum,
erroneously ascribed to Augustine [Sth or 9th
cent]. Pub. from Cod. Sessorianus, No. 58 (now in
Biblioteca Vittorio Manuele at Rome), by A. Mai
(1) in Spieilegium Romanum, ix. 2, pp. 1-88 ; (2) in
Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, i. 2, pp. 1-117, Rome,
1852. Pub. from six MSS by F. Weihrich, vol. 12
of USEL, 1887. See especially Weihrich’s dis-
sertation, Die Bibel-Facerpte d: diuin. Script. ete.
Vienna, 18938. This authority quoted as a.
Lagarde in Sepluaginta-Studien, 1892, Theil 2, pp.
5-44, pub. some OL Frage. containing genealogies
fromthe whole Bible. These are partly froma MS in
Cathedral of Lucca=M (ὁ. A.b. 570); partly from a
3obbio MS at Turin, dependent on M=C. He
there states that those Frage. belong to the CH. OF
ΝΥ. AFRICA. Several Frage. published by Ver-
cellone in Dissertationi Accademiche, Rome, 1864;
also Gustafson, Mragi. Vet. Test., UHelsingfors,
1881.

New TESTAMENT.t

Gospets.—a. Cod. Vercellensis [4th cent. or perh.
later]. Cathedral of Vercelli. Four Gospp. Many
words and ee mutilated or missing. Want-
men MG 2442 δῦ, ΜΠῸ [22-04 dtr; alm. entirely
gy σῦν ria Lk 1-2; yn alm. entirely ;
lee ee sw Minh, ΟΥ̓ he Trico, δόλο)
Evangg. Cod. 8. Eusch. ete. Milan, 1748 ; by Bian-
chini, Kerangeliarium Quadr uplex, r, Rome, 1749
(reprinted in Micne, Patrol. Lat. xii.); also by
J. Belsheim, Cod. Vercellensis, Christiania, 1804.%
8... Fraginen nia. ‘Chomiensia. 15. ‘or: 64, Raetisches
Museum at Chur. Lk 124- 1316-34 Pub. by E.
Ranke, Fragin. Antiquiss. Evang. Luc. Curiensia,
Vienna, 1873; alsoin OL Bibl. Texts, ii. Oxf. 1888.
Recognized as having the same original asa. It is
part of the same MS as ἢ. b. Cod. Veronensis
[5 or 6]. Chapter Libr. Verona. Gospels. Want-

+ The NT MSS of the OL are, as a rule, designated by the
small letters of the alphabet. This originated with Lachmann
in his critical ed. of the NT.

t But see review by Gregory, Theology. Lit. Zeit. No. 21, 1894.

| (Lat.

19-21", Jn 744-82 (erased). Pub. in Bianchini’s
Evangeliarium, and Migne, op. cit. ¢. Cod Colber-
tinus [13]. Paris (Lat. 254). Gospels (rest of NT is
Vulg.) Pub. by Sabatier, T. iii. ; also by Belsheim,
Cod. Colbertinus, ete. Christiania, 1888. See
Ranke, Fragm. Curiens. pp. 9-10; Burkitt, Old
Latin and Itala, ἣν 35 ff d. Latin Version of
Cod. Bezz.+ [6]. Cambridge. See Rendel Harris,
Study of Cod. Bezae, Camb. 1891, and his uur
Lectures on Western Text of NT, London, 1894,
I. H. Chase, Syrive Element in Cod. Bi ee, Lond.
1893, and Syro-Latin Text of Gospels, Lond.
1895 ; F. Blass, Act Apostolorum, Prolegomena,
Gottingen, 1895;4 Acta ΡΟΝ, sec. Formam ..

Romana, Leipz. 1896, SA, 1894, pp. 86-120, and
Hermotheng, xi. p.™121 tf. Especially Sanday
in Guardian, May 18 and 25, 1892. 6. Cod Pala-
tinus [prob. 5]. Vienna. (Pal. 1185). Single leaf
at Trin, Coll. Dublin. ταῦ, of e ina copy in Valli-
cellian Libr. at Rome. Extant: Mt 12-13%
(138-3 in Dublin leaf), J44 (14-74 in copy at Rome),
“2 0 449 waco Jn 11.793: 25. ΤῊς S80. 8 1] ἰ. 24D δ᾽, NI k
7120. 48. 19. 09 1237-40 13°: 3. 24-27. 33-96 (This is usual
‘Western’ order of Gospp.). Pub. by Tischendorf,
Evangelium Palatinum, Leipz. 1847. Leat at
Dublin by Abbott in Par Palimpsest. Dublinens.
Lond. 1880, 14/2 by H. Linke, News Bruchstucke

des Ev. Pal., Sitz.-Berichte of Munich Acad., 1893,
fase. 2, pp. 981-287. Pub. anew by Belsheim,
Siang. Palat. ete. Christiania, 1896. f. Cod.
Brixianus [6]. Chapter Libr. Brescia. Wanting:
Mt 8-5, Mk 125-132 1459-62.70_16", Pub. by
dianchini, op. cit.; Migne, op. cit.; also by Words-
worth and White in their Vu/gate. ἢ). Cod. Cor-
beiensis [prob. 10. See Gregory, Prolegomen. iil.
pars. ult. p. 957]. At St. Petersburg (Ov. 3, Ὁ),
326). Beloneed to Lib. of Corbey, near Amiens.
Matthew. Closely related to Vulg. Pub. by Mar-
tianay, Vulq. Ant. Lut. οὐ Itala, ‘ete. oars, 1695:

by Bianchini(op. cit.); by Sabatier ; 3. and by Beishein,
Christiania, 1882. ff. Cod. Corb. ii. [6 or 7]. Paris.
(Lat. 17225). Gospels. Wanting: Mt 1-11", Jn
179-189 20°-218;. τς 9-107 11%_125, Some vv.
wanting in Mt lL, Mk 9,16. Pub. by Belsheim,
Christiania, 1887. Coll: itions pub. by Bianchini, op.
Cite Bie Cod. Sangermanensis. [9]. At Paris. (Lat.
14553). Formerly at S. Germain des Prés. OL
only in Mt. Other Gospp. have Vulg. text mixed
with OL readings. Collation of readings pub. by
Martianay in ed. of ἢ. and reprinted by Bianchini.
Pub. by Bp. Wordsworth, OL Bibl. Texts, i. Oxf.
1883. g5. Cod. Sangerm. ii. [10]. Paris. (Lat.
13169). Appar. mixed OL (2) and Vulg. text. Ber-
ger (Hist. de la Vulg. p. 48) considers it to belong
to the Irish recension. ἢ. Cod. Claromontanus
[6 or 7]. Vatican. (Lat. 7223). OL only in Mt,
Wanting: Mt 1-3" 148-18! Excerpts in Sabatier.
Pub. by Mai, Scriptor. Vet. Nova Collectio, iii.
Ρ. 257, Rome, 1828. By Belsheim, Christiania,
1892. i. Cod. Vindobonensis [6 or 7]. Vienna.
1235). Once at Naples. Lk 10°23", Mk
9.» 45. 701. 33-1435 158-4, Pub. by Alter in Neves
Repertorium, ete., vol. 111. pp. 115-170 (Mark),
Jena, 1791, and in Paulus’ Memorabilia, vii. pp.
58-95 (Luke), Leipz. 1795. Collation in Bianchini.
Also in full, by Belsheim, Cod. Vindobonensis,
Leipz. 1885. j. Cod. Saretianus [5]. Discovered
at Sarezzano. Now at monastery of Monte
Cassme., in: Fea Brae Gee eis Oe BBP
See G. Amelli, *Un Antirhissimo Codice bihlico
Latino purpureo, Monte Cassino, 1893. k. Cod.
Bobiensis [prob. 5]. Turin. (G. vii. 15). Mk
ὅτ}. 14-16. 19.1.68; Mt 11-.-3:10 43.14}1 1520-38, Pub. by

217

t See art. ΤΕΥ oF NT.

t See also import. review of Blass by Holtzmann, Theol. Lit
Zeit, 1896, No. 3, and other notices referred to there. Corssen
GGA, 1890, No. 6.

52 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

F. Fleck, Anecdota Sacra, Leipz. 1837, pp. 1-109 ;
by Tischendorf, Jahrb. der Literatur, Anzeige-Blatt,
various vols. Vienna, 1847-49; by Wordsworth
and αν, “Us Bile dente. Οὐ esos ls,
Cod. Rehdigeranus [7]. Breslau. Once belonged
to T. von Rehdiger. Wanting: Mt 1 Jn 1
ἀν οὐ σι, J ee ee de 1h 15. 755. ΠΡ
Mk pub. by Scheibel, Breslau, 1109. Collation of
readings inserted by Scheibel in ed. 3 of Gries-
bach’s NT. Pub. by H. F. Haase Evangelior. .. .
vetus Lat. interpretatio (in Index lect. univ. Vratis-
lav.), Breslau, 1865-6. m. Extracts from Liber de
div. Script. sive Speculum, of which the chief MS is
Cod. Sessorianus, No. 58 [8 or 9], at Rome. Errone-
ously ascribed to Aug. Quotations from all NT
books except Philem, He, and 3 Jn. See p. δ].
n. Fragmenta Sangallensia [5 or 6]. St. Gall.
(MS 1394). Mt 172-182 1950. 01} 9656-60. 69-74 9762_
ORs. acting Mk 718-31 R82_910 132-28 157-16", Jn 1928-42,
Frage. of Jn 19°7, Pub. by P. Battifol, Fragm.
Sangallensia, Rev. Archéol. Paris, 1885, vol. iv.
pp. 305-821. (Frage. last named above in separate
‘note,’ 1884). Also by H. J. White, OZ Bibl. Texts,
il. Oxf. 1886. Recognized now to belong to same
MS as 8ἃ.. o. St. Gall Frag. [7]. In same vol. as
nm. Mk 164° Same editors. p. St. Gall Frag.

[7 or 8]. (MS 1394, vol. 2). Seems to belong to a
mass for the dead. Jn 1114 Pub. by Forbes,

Arbuthnot Missal, Burntisland, 1864; by Haddan
and Stubbs, Cowneils, ete., vol. i. Append. G. p.
197, Oxf. 1869; by H. J. White, OL Bibl. Texts, ii.
q. Cod. Monacensis [7]. Royal Libr., Munich.
(Lat. 6224.) Gospels. Wanting: Mt 34% 555.
6+: 8. "8. Jn LOU_] 283 Dis. Lk 9378-39 D4iiesd. Mk
171 15°) Pub. by H. J. White, OL Bibl. Texts
iil. Oxf. 1585, xr. Cod. Usserianus [6 or 7]. Trin.
Coll. Dublin. (A. iv. 15). Wanting: Mt 11-
1510. 81_] G18. 9] 4-21 DR- 20. Jn ye), Mk 1458..:158. 29 «109.
Pub. by T. K. Abbott, Hvangel. versio Antechier.
Dublin, 1884. (A collation of a second Cod. Usser.
is given in which the parts of Mt extant are appar.
OL, while in the other Gospp. the text is alm.
Vulg). 5. Ambrosian Fragg. [0]. Ambrosian
Libr. Milan. (C. 73 inf.). Lk 1738 189-1947 2u46_
21%. Pub. by A. M. Ceriani, Jon. Sacer. i. pp. 1-8
Milan, 1861; alsoin ΟἿ᾽ Bibl. Texts, ii. t. Berne
Fragg. [5 or 6]. Berne. (MS611). Mk 12°25 922-27
3s) Pub. by H. Hagen, Zw7h. xxvii. pp. 470-
484; also in OL Bibl. Tarts, ii. νι. Fragmentum
Vindobonense [7]. Vienna. (Lat. 502). Jn 1927
204, Pub. by H. J. White, OL Bibl. Texts, iii.
Two leaves of a Gospel MS [6], bound up with
Ambrosius ‘De fide Catholica, in Benedictine
Libr. of S. Paul in Carinthia. See Von Gebhardt,
Theol. Lit. Zeit. 1894, No. 17. Perhaps there
should also be added the interlinear Lat. tr. of the
Cod. Sangallensis (Δ). See Rendel Harris, Cod.
Sangallensis, Lond. 1891.
Acrs.—d. As in Gospels.
Laudianus (I!) of Acts.+ g. Cod. Gigas Holmiensis
[13]. Stockholm. Ac and Apoc in OL version.
This portion pub. by Belsheim, Christiania, 1879.
g.. Milan Fragg. [10 or 11]. Ambrosian Libr.
Ac 68-77 δ. 8. Pub. by Ceriani, Jon. Sacr. ete.
Το i. fase. 2, pp. 197-128, ἢ. Palimpsest of Fleury
[6 or 7]. Paris, [Lat. 6400 6]. Ac 32-418 53. 73.
43 ῶἃ0 01:29 | 45-238 1734-189 938-24 ον ΞΟ Rev ])-21
87-91) 1116 1014. 1415_165, 1 P 411. διά 2 P 11-98 1 Jn
183°, Once at Fleury on the Loire. Frage. of
Ac 3, 4 in Sabat. (iii. p. 507). Further portions
pub. by Van Sittart, Journal of Philol. (ii. 240-
246, iv. 219-222), and by Omont (2 leaves of Apoc)
in Biblioth. de U Ecole des Chartes (vol. 44, pp. 445-
451). Pub. by Belsheim, Appendix Epp. Paulin.
ex Cod. Sangerm. Christiania, 1887. Most
accurately by S. Berger, Le Palimpseste de
Fleury, Paris, 1889. m. As in Gospels. 8. Cod.

t See art. Text or NT.

>

e. Lat. version of Cod.

Palimps. Bobiensis [5 or, more probably, 6].
Vienna. [Lat. 16). Ac 23% 948 95223 _y@2. 22
27? 284% 18 ad fin. Mutil. in parts. Partly pub.
by Tischdf. Wiener Jahrb. d. Literat. Bd. exx.,
Anz. Bl. pp. 36-42, 1847; by Belsheiin, Fragmenta
Vindob. Christiania, 1886; and by H. J. White,
OL Bibl. Texts, iv. Oxf. 1897. Fragm. of Ac in
Vule, MS. of Pernionan. {18 ΝΕ 321 at
Paris. Ac }—138 23'*31, Pub. by S. Berger, Un
ancien texte Latin des Actes, etc. Paris, 1895. Also
MS at Wernigerode. See Blass, SA, 1896, p. 436.
Contains import. readings. Harnack (7A. Lit.
Zeit. 1898, No. 6, sp. 172) vives sey. vv. of Ac from
Miscellanea Cassinese, 1897.

Carnotic Hrisries.—ft. Cod. Corbienensis [10]. St.
Petersburg. (Qv.i. 39). Ep. of St. James. Pub.
by Martianay along with ff, ; by Belsheim, Der Brief
des Jac, Christiania, 1883; and by Wordsworth,
Stud. Bibl. i. pp. 113-150, Oxf. 1885. Reprinted
in Commentary on St. James by J. B. Mayor.
See a dissertation on it in Stud. Bibl. i., by San-
day. (But cf. OL Bibl. Texts, ii. p. celv). h. See
under Acts. m. See under Acts. ἃ. Munich
Frag;: Clim 4895 [6 7. “do P aoe ar ae
2P 14,1 Jn 3°54. Frage. of St. Peter, pub. by
L. Ziegler, Bruchsticke einer vorhieron. Ubersetz.
des Petr. Briefs, Munich, 1877. Fragm. of St. John
also pub. by Ziegler, léala-fragmente, Marburg,
1876. 5. As in ‘Acts.’ Ja 13% 3-5 Bad fin,
l Ρ 711-15 .,4π|Ὸ.

Paviive Evistirs.—d. Lat. version of Cod. Claro-
montanus. See art. TEXTOF NT. ὁ. Lat. ver-
sion of Cod. Sangermanensis. f. Lat. version of
Cod. Augiensis.| g. Lat. version of Cod. Boerneri-
anus. See an elaborate discussion of the double
Latin renderings of Cod. Boern. by H. Rénsch,
Zwlh, 1882-1883. gue. Cod. Guelferbytanus [6].
Palimps. at Wolfenbiittel. (Weissenb. 0). Ro
1133. τἨὯοὖὐ LOM 1S: 1999 1B), ἢ ἀπ' Pi eae
Gothic Frage. by Knittel, Brunswick, 1762, and
also by Tischdf, Anecdota Sacr. etc. Leipz. 1855,
pp. 153-158. m. See under Acts. yr. Freisingen
Fragg. [5 or 6]. Munich. (Cim. 6486). Ro
1440168. } (ὁ. 11..85. 6-7 ae Gees ὁ oes se
911..51 710-.815 ed Rall beard pao {08} Ὅστιας ὅδ. Πδν ἼΘΙ
110. ὁ. 5-16 6"4, Ph A, l Ts 113. 15 518. 015. He ha
"5. ὃ 81 9057. 117 Pub. by Ziegler, Italafraqmente,
ete. Marbure, 1876. Two additional leaves con-
taining Gal 3°-4° 6°17, Eph 1+, pub. by E.
Wolfilin, Newe Bruchstiicke der Freis, tala in
S. B. of Munich Academy, Heft 2, pp. 253-280,
1893. r?. Fragm. from Munich. Clm. 6436 [7].
Ph αὐ P Dh 1" “Pub. οἰ wait "ir
Gottweig Fragg. [ὁ or 7]. Ro 16. 6: 619. Gal 45)
22_52, Pub. by Roénsch, ZwTh. xxiii. pp. 224-238.

A pocaLyrst.—g. See under Acts. m. See under
Acts. ἢ. See under Acts. On Apoc. in general,
see H. Linke, Studien zur Itala, Breslau, 1889.

FATHERS. +

Alcimus Avitus.—Archbp. of Vienne, 6.
517 (ἢ. Important witness for Gallican type of
text. See Berger, Hist. dela Vuly. p. 2.

Ambrose.—Bp. of Milan fr. 374 to 397. See
Ronsch, Zeit. f. histor. Theol. 1869, pp. 434-479 ;
1870, 91-145.

Ambrosiaster.—Name given to author of Comm.
on the thirteen epp. of Paul. Written towards end
of 4th cent. See Marold, Zw7h. 1883, p. 27 tf.

Arnobius.—African presbyter. Begin. of 4th cent.

450-

+ But on whole subj. of Gr.-Lat. MSS see Westcott and Hort,
NT, vol. ii. pp. 82, 83.

1 This list gives only those of the Lat. Fathers whose works
are of special value, as containing important extracts from OL
Version, or shedding some light upon its history. See, on the
general value of VSS and Fathers for the NT text, a suggestive
essay in Stud. Bibl, ii, p. 195 ff. by L. J. Bebb. References
made in this list to literature almost entirely concern the
biblical quotations of the writers.

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD 53

Auctor Exhortationis de paenitentia, Erroneously
ascribed to Cyprian. See Wunderer, Bruchstucke
einer African, Bibclibersetzung, Erlangen, 1889.

Auctor libri ‘De ateatoribus.—Warnack would
place this treatise at least as early as Cyp. See
T. uw. Us ν.1, 1888. Miodonski, 4 ronyimnes adversus
aleatores, Leipz. 1889, makes the author depen-
dent on Cyp. See also Haussleiter, 7h. Lit. Bd.
1889, 5, 6, and 25.

Auctor librt ‘De Pascha Computus,’—Africa,
A.D. 243

Auctor libri ‘De promissionibus.’—Erroneously
aser.ved lo Prosper of Aquitania, Written appar.
ὃ. 450, perhaps in Campania. Writer has close
connexion with Africa. See Corssen, Der Cyprian-
ische Text der Acta Apost. Berlin, 1892, p. 5.

Augustine.—Bp. of Hippo, 854-480. See Rénsch,
Zeits. f. histor. Theol. 1867, pp. 606-684; ΟὟ,
vol. Xxvili. sec. ili. pars 3, ed. by Zycha,* Preface,
p. v ff; see also his Bemerkungen zur Italafrage
in Hranos Vindobonensis, 1893, pp. 177-184; Des-
jacques in Ltudes Meligieuszs, 1878, p. 736 fh;
Weihrich in Serta Harteliana, Vienna, 1896; Pet-
schenig, Berl. Phil. Woch.-Schr. 1896, 24.

Garnabas.—Lat. version of pistle. Prob. before
end of cent. 5. See Gebhardt and Harnack, Patr.
Apost. Opp. Fasc. 1, pp. xvi, xxix.

Capreolus.--Bp. of Carthage, fl. 431. See I.
Ziegler, Ltala-fragmente der paulin. Brivfe, pp.
26-28.

Cassian.—Monk at Marseilles, ob.
CSEL vol. xvii. ed. by Petschenig,
Ixxviii ff; Vol moler,
p. 39211.

Clement.—Latin version of his First Ep. ad
Corinthios. See G. Morin, Aneedota Maredsolana,
ll. Maredsous, 1894.

Commodian.—Perhaps middle of 3rd cent.
Corssen, GGA, 1889, i. pp. 311, 312.

Cyprian.—Bp. of Carthage, ob. 258. See Sanday,
Ore bib: Pets, al. p. xin iis honsch,. Zeliseh. f.
histor. Theol, 1875, p- 85 if; ; Dombart, Zwlh, 1878,
p. 874; Lagarde, Symmicta, i. 74.

Didasealia Apostolorum. — OL Version. See
Hauler, Sitz.-Berichte of Vienna Academy, Phil.-
Hist. Classe, Bd. exxxiv. Abt. xi.

Fulgentius.—Bp. of Ruspe, ὁ, 468-533.
8. Berger, Le Palimpseste de Fleury, pp. 16-18.

Gildas.—Of Britain. Perhaps end of 6th cent.
See Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, ete., Appendix G.

Hernue Pustor.—Lat. version. Sce Hausslciter,

ce. 435. See
Preface, p.
Loman. Korschungen, 11.

See

See

De Versionibus Pastoris Ἐς Latinis, i., Erlangen,
1884.
Hilary. — Bp. of Poitiers, ob. 368. See A.

Zingerle, Die latein. Bibelcitate bei S. Hilar.
Poitiers, Innsbriick, 1887.

Lreneus.—Bp. of Lyons, fl. 180. Lat. tr. of his
πρὸς αἱρέσεις. Date doubtful (Tischdf., Gregory :
end of 2nd cent.; WH 4th cent.).+

Jerome. —_Presby ter, ob. 420. See art. VULGATE.

VO

Lactantius.—Atrican writer, c. 260-c. 340. See
ROMS. eet. Ge fantom ὙΠ σεν Astl, pe: Obl. tis
Brandt, les 27 p02:

Lucifer.—Byp. of Cagliari in Sardinia, ob. 371.

See Dombart, Tee “Wochenschr Age 1588, peckels
Maternus, Julius Firmicus, fl. perh. c. 25.
Nevatian,—Heretical bp. at Rome, fl. 252.
Optatus.—Bp. of Milevis in Numidia, 1a age
Philastrius.—Byp. of Brescia, 11. 380.
Primasius.—Bp. of Adrumetum, N. Africa.

Middle of 6th cent. See Haussleiter in Zahn’s

Forschungen, iv. pp. 1-224

. 368.

* Unfortunately, most unsatisfactory as regards biblical quota-
tions. Z. corrects Aug. according to an arbitrarily chosen text
of LXX. See E. Preuschen in ’heol. Lit. Zeit. 1897, 24

7 The Clarendon Press announces Novum Testamentum S.
Irenei, containing a full collation of its readings with those of
OL authorities, edited by Prof. Sanday. Will be published as
one of OL Bibl. Texts series.

Priscitlian.—Bp. of Avila in Spain, fl. end of 4th
cent. See Schepss, CSA, vol. xviii. Introduction,
and in Archiv, ii. 8 wu. 4, p. 307 ff

pacviea—O1 Marseilles, “ 450, See. ὡς. B:

Ullvich, De ia ag scripture sacr. verstonibus,
Neustadt a. Haardt, 1893.

Tertullian, — Of ( sardine, 6. 150-c, 240. See
Ronsch, Das Newe Testanent Tertullians, Leipz.

1871. See alse import. criticism of Roéusch by
JN. Ott, Mleckeisen’s Jahrbicher, 1874, p. 856 tf.
Tyconius.—African, fl. ¢. 890. See I’. C. Burkitt,
Rules af Tyconius, Camb. 1894; Haussleiter, Der
Urspr. des Donatismus, Th. Lit. Bl. 1884, 13.
Victor. Tunis. Middle of 6th cent.
Victorinus.-—Bp. of Pettau in Pannonia, fl. ¢.
300. See Haussleiter, Luthardt’s Zeitsch. f. hired.
Wissenschaft, vil. pp. 289-257.
Vigilius. Bae ot Thapsus (Africa), fl. ¢. 484.
We may add here Fritzsche, Liber Judicum,
Turici, 1867 (containing quotations in Fathers from

Jeg).

The above lists of MSS are believed ty be fairly
complete. For further particulars regarding NT
MSs, see H. J. White in Serivener’s Introduction’,
p. 45 fh; C. R. Gregory, Prolegg. to Tischdf.’s
LEE vol. iii, pars ult. p. 953 ff Numerous details
of ΡΝ, are to be found in S$. Berger's //isé.
dela Vulg., Paris, 1893. We have attempted to
make the OT list as full as possible, since hitherto
there has been no convenient survey of the materials
in hand.*

The earhest attempt to collect the fragments of
the OL version was made by KFlaminius Nobilius
(assisted by others), Vetus Test. sec. LX NX lutine
redditum, Rome, 1588. This consisted of quota-
tions from the Fathers, with the gaps filled up by
the editors. It was entirely superseded by the
great work of the Benedictine, P. Sabatier, whose
Bibliorum sacrorum latine versiones antique seu
uetus Italics appeared at Reims 1739-1749.+ Τῦ is
made up, partly of extracts from the Fathers, and

partly (to a less extent) of fragments of MSS,
chiefly at Paris. It is a monument of painstaking,

self-denying work. But it requires to be used with
caution, as the critical ideal of that time was
necessarily somewhat crude.

Strangely enough, it remains the only full col-
lection of quotations from and fragments of the OL
version of OT and NT, although a rich abundance
of material has come to light since Sabatier’s day.

A new work, however, on the lines of Sabatier,
is being prepared under the : auspices of the Munich
Academy. It is to deal with OT.S

We must return to the problem already stated.
Can we trace the history of the Latin Bible? It is
needful to deal very cautiously with our small
group of data, lest our conclusions should go
beyond the facts. Much of the discussion has
centred round the erigin of the Latin Version.
Was the Bible first trd. into Latin at Rome or in
N. Africa, for these were the two great centres of
Western pete uty? Or is there any other
alternative’ Various hypotheses have been put
forward with confidence. Some scholars, such as

Kaulen,|! Reinkens,#) and Gams,** decide for Rome
on the supposition that the Jower stratum = of
members in the Christian Church of the Metropolis

* This was written before the appearance of Nestle’s art. in
Herzog, iii. 24 ff.

+ Reprint at Paris, 1757.

t See E. Ranke, Frag. Vers... . Antehieron. 1868, pp. 7-14

§ See Linke, ‘ Ueber den Plan einer neuen Ausgabe der Itala,’
Archiv, viii. 2, pp. 811-812, For the various collections of
material in addition to Sabatier, see the lists of MSS above,
where the works which contain the several fragments are
enumerated.

|| Gesch. der Vulg. p. 109 ff.

4“ Hilarius von Poitiers, p. 336s.

** Kirchengesch. Spaniens, i. p. 86 sq.

54 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

would, from the earliest times, require a Lat. tr.
of the Scriptures. And yet we know that Greek
was the language of the Roman Liturey, even
within the 8rd cent.* Since the appearance of
Wiseman’s 7100 Letters on some parts of the con-
troversy concerning 1 Johny. 7 (reprinted in Essays
on Various Subjects, i, pp. 5-70), perhaps the
majority of critics have accepted Africa as the
birthplace of the Lat. Version. As we shall find,
there are several important faets in the history of
the OL which give countenance to this hypothesis.
The earliest form of the version to which we can
assign. a definite date, namely, that used by
Cyprian, plainly circulated in Africa. The Jan-
guage and style of the trn., taken generally, find
their closest parallels in African writers. Indeed
it is this latter point which has, in the minds of
muy, led to a definite decision in favour of Africa.
But there are certain cautions which deserve
attention. To begin with, 2, the oldest MS
authority for the specially ‘ African’ type of text,
is considered by the best palwographers to have
been written outside the bounds of Africa,+ and
the same is true of A, another leading witness.

But, further, too much stress must not be laid
on the ‘Afrieanism’ of OL Bible. It must be
borne in mind that the Lat. literature of the 2nd
and 38rd centuries which we possess is almost
exclusively African. And so we are in danger of
labelling with that name a type of diction which
may well have prevailed throughout the Latin-
sperking provinces of the Rom. Empire. A
delinite foundation is given to this last hypothesis
by the fact that there are numerous points of
contact between the OL Bible, the Campanian
Petronius, the Church Fathers (chietly Atrican),
the Jurists, Papinian, Ulpian, and Paulus, and the
Lat. Inscriptions of Africa.t And the dialect of
the Spanish and Gallican Lat. writers, so far as
We possess it, cannot be separated by any well-
marked boundaries from that of Africa.s In
short, the current investigation of Late-Latin is
more and more tending to reduce the so-called
* Africanisms,’ and to establish a wider basis for
their occurrence. |

Perhaps it is possible to obtain some light on the
origin of the Lat. Bible from a different direction.
What other texts are usually found in its company?
The answer is not far to seek. A vlance at the
apparatus criticus of any of the larger edd. of NT
shows us an almost constant grouping of the OL
MSs with D (Cod. Bezie), some other Gr.-Lat. MSS,
and the Syr. VSS. That is to say, the OL MSS
form an important branch of the authorities for
the so-called ‘ Western’ text of NT.G

Now Hort, whose authority is unrivalled on a
question of this kind, in speaking of the term
‘Western,’ says:** “It has become evident that
readings of this class were current in ancient times
in the East as well as the West, and probably to a
great extent originated there. On the whole, we
are disposed to suspect that the ‘* Western ” text
took its rise in North-Western Syria or Asia

* See a concise summary of evidence for the prevalence of
Greek at Rome in Sanday and Headlam’s Romans, pp. lii-liv.
A masterly and convincing discussion of this subject in Caspari,
Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols, Bd. iii.” See esp. pp.
2386-283, 303 ff.

t See Sanday, Academy, May 11, 1889, who quotes Maunde
Thompson in favour of Italy. Corssen, GGA, 1859, i. p. 313,
thinks it derives its origin from the ‘hohen Norden.’

tSee Kibler, Archiv, viii. 2, p. 202. Thielmann, 7b. viii.
2, p. 235 ff. (import. parallels with younger Seneca and Colum-
ella, both of Spanish origin). 5

§ See Sittl, Bursian-Miller’s Jahresbericht, Ixviii. p. 946, ΟἿ,
Note by Mommsen, Provinces of Rom. Emp. (Eng. tr.) ii. 348 ff.

|| See Sittl, Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der lat. Sprache,
p. 146 ff. OL Bibl. Texts, ii. Addenda, p. 139. Kroll, Rhein.
Mus. lii. 569-590.

4 See art. NT Text.

** Intraduction, p. 108.

Minor, and that it was soon carried to Rome, and
thence spread in different directions to N. Africa
and most of the countries of Europe.’ Already
E. Ranke (Par Palimpsestorum Wirceburgens. p.
432), in discussing the origin of the Wiirzburg
Palimpsest of OT, had concluded from the use of the
word ‘legati’ for ἡγεμόνες (Gn 36" et al.) that its
birthplace was to be sought in one of the Imperial
provinces which were governed by ‘legati.’* Now
Syria is virtually the only one of those which
could well satisfy the requirements of the case.
But this assumption has some valid reasons in its
favour. It is an undoubted fact that here and
there throughout OT the OL agrees in ἃ remark-
able way with the Luc. recension of the LXNX, a
recension intimately connected with Antioch in
Syria.t Of course this recension was much later
than the origin of the OL, but one of the marked
elements in Lucian’s text is also present here and
there in the OL. Kaulent also had pointed out
that the trs. of the OL seemed to have an accurate
knowledge of Heb. or Aramaic. This would most
easily be accounted for by assuming them to be
situated either in or near or in intimate connexion
with the Rom. province of Syria, which included
Palestine. But, further, there is the extraordinary
agreement, even in rare and isolated readings, of
the early Syr. VSS with the OL.§ Accordingly,
putting those various threads of evidence together,
we had been led to the hypothesis that in Syria,
and probably at Antioch, a most important. re-
ligious and theological centre, we must look for
the home of the original Lat. Version as well as of
the ‘Western’ text. Since coming to this con-
clusion, we find that the same theory is supported
by most powerful arguments in a brilliant review
ot Rendel Harris's Study of Cod. Bezew in the
Guardian of May 18 and 25, 1892, by Sanday.|
Let us give the briefest summary of his main
conclusions.

In order to explain the relations of the OL MSS
among themselves and to the Syriac VSS," he
believes that the starting-point must have been
not a single MS bilingual ** or other but a workshop
of MSS—that at the very threshold of the Lat.
VSS there must have been several MSS copied in
near proximity to each other, and atfected by allied,
but yet different, Gr. texts. He then asks in
what class the version was likely to arise, and
finds the answer in the ‘notari,’ public copyists
who had not only to do with copying but with
translating. ‘And where could this class of copy-
ists congregate most thickly but in the suite of
the governor of one of the most important pro-

*This fact is also noted in an article in the Guardian,
May, 25, 1892, by Prof. Sanday.

+ See Ceriani, Le recensioni det LX X ὁ la versione latina
detta Itala (Nota... letta al K. Istituto Lombardo . . . 18th
Feb. 1886), esp. pp. 4-5.

t Gesch. der Vuly. p. 140 ff. i

§ Surely this cannot be accounted for on the supposition of
Zahn (Gesch. des Canons, i. p. 422), that NT was a gift brought
by Tatian to bis fellow-countrymen from Rome. It is difficult
to imagine that the Christians of Syria so long the very centre
of diffusion for the Faith, had to depend ona chance occurrence
for their version of the Scriptures, although, at the same time,
the intimate connexion of Tatian with the earliest stages of the
Syrian Bible cannot be doubted. ; i

|| F. H. Chase comes to the same conclusion regarding the
birthplace of the ‘Western’ text from a totally different point
of view, namely, the attempt to prove that behind the ‘ Western’
text there existed certain Gr-Syr. bilingual MSS, in which the
Syr. exercised a powerful influence on the Greek. In summing
up, he also quotes the review above mentioned in support of his
conclusions. See Syriac Element in Cod. Beze, pp. 132-149 ;
Syro-Lat. Text of Gospels, pp. 138-142. The arguments he
brings forward do not depend on the validity of his general
theory.

4 Guardian, May 25, 1892, p. 787.

** This is the theory of Rendel Harris, Cod. Bez, p. 226 sq.
Resch believes that the archetype of Cod. Bez., Syr., and OL
was a redaction of the ecclesiastical Gospel-Canon made about
A.D. 140. See ‘Aussercanonische Parallel-Texte,’ 7. u. U. x. 1,
esp. pp. 35, 47.

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD a)

vinees?? Valuable evidence is adduced to show
that the OL was the work of some one possessing
a special acquaintance with the administrative
arrangements of Palestine.* Further, it is pointed
out that the author or authors of the ‘ Western’ text
had a knowledge of Heb. and Aramaic. And finally,
the numerous interpolations which appear in this
text, as derived either from oral tradition or from
some early fragmentary written source, could have
no more probable birthplace than the province of
Syria. As to the relations of the Syr. VS, Sanday

a4 . . . . 4 . al)
thinks that it ‘took its rise in the very midst of
the development of the Lat. Version.’ Of course
this is only theory; but a theory which seems
adequate to account for the phenomena in question
is the only basis on which successful investigation
can be reared.

We come, however, to actual facts when we
make inquiry as to the first certain traces of the
OL Version. How far back can it be traced? We
can spexk with absolute certainty of Cyprian.
His works (especially the Zestimonia) abound in
biblical quotations. What is of greater import-
ance, Cyp. usually [perhaps always] adheres to one
particular type of text. This provides us with a
fixed date and a standard. We can affirm that in
the year 250 A.D. a Lat. tr" of the Bible, whose
characteristics we are able to determine, circulated
at Carthage. But this is virtually identical with
the OL Version of the Gospp. preserved in Cod. 4,
with Cod. ἡ of Acts, a text used by Aug. in the
Acta cum Felice Manichwo and Contra Epist.
Manich., and that of the Comment. on the Apoca-
lypse by Primasius.+ It stands also in a close
relation with Cod. e, though a certain distance
separates them. Tt is found in the biblical
quotations of Lactantius, Firmicus Maternus, Op-
tatus, Commodian, Auctor libri de Pronussvone-
bus, and, to a certain extent, Lucifer.g These facts
may quite reasonably suggest that in Cyprian’s time
there was some. ofticial, ecclesiastical recognition
of a particular type of text. But is it possible to
go behind the days of Cyprian ? Certainly, in the
᾿ 5 λ la a : 1
earlier Father, Tertullian, whom Cyp. called
‘magister, there are some expressions bearing
on this point which have to be reckoned with.

Adv. Mare. v. 4 (Gal 424): Hee sunt enim duo testamenta,
siue, ‘due ostensiones,’ sicut inuenimus interpretatum. C.
Prax. ὃ: ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum, per simplicitatem
interpretationis, ‘sermonem’ dicere in primordio apud deum
fuisse cum magis ‘rationem’ competat antiquiorem haberi.
De Monog. 11: sciamus plane non sic esse in Greco authentico,
quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum, aut callidam
aut simplicem euersionem: ‘si autem dormierit uir ejus’
(1 Co 739), Adv. Marc. iv. 1: ‘alterius instrumenti uel quod
magis usui est dicere testamenti.’

These passages seem to show clearly that some
jefinite usage already existed; that there was
already some standard of tr to foliow. But there
15. more marked evidence than this. 15... Gal 3*°
is thus quoted by Tert.** (Adv. Mare, ν. 3): ‘Omnes
enim filii estis fidei.’ Here, plainly, ‘/fidei? must be
a variant of the Lat. ‘dei’ and not of Greek cod.
Tert. had a Lat. text before him, and evidently he

* Guardian, May 25, 1892, p. 787.

+ See Sanday in OL Bibl. Texts, ii. pp. xlii-exxviii ; Corssen,
Der Cyp. Text der Acta A post., Berlin, 1892. It is of interest to
note that the text nearest to A of Acts is the margin of the
Philox. Syr., which has a most intimate relation with the OL.
On the text of the Testimonia, which is a most important ques-
tion for the OL Version, see Sanday, op. cit. p. 42ff., and
Appendix IL. p. 1238. Also his essay in Stud. Bibl. iii. ‘The
Cheltenham List,’ ete. Dombart, ZwTh. 1879, p. 379 ff.

τ Cod. ὁ, which has certainly an ‘ African’ base, has suffered
from the intrusion of other elements. See Sanday, loc, cit. :

§ Mr. F. C. Burkitt, however, who has kindly read this article
in proof, holds that the biblical quotations in these writers are
solely from the Vestimonia. ;

|| See Watson’s remarks on Cyprian’s low estimate of the OL
Version, to which, nevertheless, he rigidly adhered, This
suggests that the text he used had some official sancticn.
Stud. Bibl. iv. pp. 194-195.

{ Hieron. de Vir. illustr. 53.

** See Zimmer, SK, 1889, ii. p. 339.

had not compared it with the Gr. original. Now
Tert.’s quotations from the Bible are numerous

| ) : 1s.
What can be said of their relation to the Bible of
Cyp.? The most rapid survey of Tert.’s quotations
puts us on our guard against hasty inferences.
Forhis method of quoting is most fickle.* — Often his
words are a mere paraphrase ; often a more or less
distinct reminiscence of the text : while constantly
the same passage is cited in the most varying
forms. The general impression which his biblicas
extracts leave is that of a tr® which he uses, but
does not regard as in any sense authoritative :
which, perhaps, has only been for a short time
known in Africa and is only gradually coming into
use. This would find an adequate explanation if
official sanction only ratified the version either a
little before or in the days of Cyp. And yet the
existence of such a tr® is almost necessary to
explain the richness and fulness of Tert.’s theo-
logical vocabulary. We have endeavoured to make
a somewhat full collation of Tert.’s quotations
with those in the Testimonia of Cyp.,t using mainly
that part of ‘Tert.’s works which has appeared in
the Vienna Corpus of the Latin Fathers (vol. xx.
pars 1), ed. A. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa, and
in addition Rénseh’s Das NV Tertullian’s. The
results are rather vague and confusing. Evidently,
in the Epp. Tert. and Cyp. use the same Lat. text.
Kor the Gospp. the case is different. There is,
indeed, a frequent agreement of Tert. with Cyp.
and 1, and, again, a frequent disagreement. In
the latter instance, Tert. coincides pretty often
with a, ὃ against Cyp., 4.4 In OT Tert. has some
important points of contact with Cyp.’s text of
Psalms. As regards the Pent. and the Prophetic
hooks, it is not easy to speak detinitely. — In the
former (in which the range of our collation has
been very narrow), the differences seem mostly to
consist in the use of synonyms. In the latter, the
quotations come fairly close to each other, except
in Dn, where Tert. uses the LAX, while Cyp.
usually follows Theodotion.§

Even before a thorough investigation of the
subject had been made, Hort, with his wonted
grasp and insight, had undertaken a classification
of the extant NT documents. The earliest group
he named African, consisting of texts which
agreed, on the whole, with the quotations of Tert.
and Cyp. Τὸ this he assigns Δ, ὁ, and ἡ of Ac and
Apoe. The second class he designates European,
to embrace a type of text which may be either a
revision of the ‘ African’ or a separate tr®, but
which circulated at all events in North Italy
and the West of Europe generally. Under this
heading he would probably place a, ay, ὃ, ὁ, fo, hs
i, n, r, and p of Gospels; g, 95, and 5 of Ac;
perhaps ff of Ja and g of Apoc. The third family
he names ‘Italian.’ The name is derived from
the famous passage of Aug. (de Doct. Christ. ii. 15),
in which he recommends a tr (interpretatio),
which he ealls Uta/a,’ and which is presumably the
text which he usually follows. Now this is found
often || to be a revision of the ‘ European’ text.

* An excellent example is his citation of 1 Co 1547, which
appears in three of his separate treatises in three distinc
forms. One of these is identical with Cyprian’s text.

+ Vol. iii. of CSEL, ed. Hartel. The Vienna Corpus furnishes
by far the most trustworthy texts for the Lat. Fathers, and
has been used for this article where available. But see on the
text of the Jestimonia in Hartel’s ed. the references under
n. 1 in preceding column.

+ Perhaps Tert. may have become acquainted with a ‘ Euro-
pean’ form of text at Rome,

ἃ For a full discussion of this last point, see F. C. Burkitt.
Old Latin and Itala, p. 18 sq. Corssen, Zwei neve Fragimente
d. Weing. Propheten-MS, Berlin, 1899, pp. 49-47, believes that
not only did Tert. use various texts, but texts which already
had mixed elements.

| Not always. The Bible of Aug. is a most variable quantity.
See Corssen, Der Cyp. Text, etc. p. 25; Zycha, CSEL, vol. xxviii.
sec. 3, pars 3, pp. V-Vil.

56 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

To this class he refers f and q of Gospels; q (2);
r,s, 7, of the Epp. This enumeration omits many
of the texts given in our list, some of which he
hesitates to classify, while others, such as the Lat.
texts of the bilingual MSS (Cod. Bezie, Claromont.
etc. etc.), he does not regard as strict evidence for
OL Bible.* Let us briefly examine this classifiea-
tion in the light of recent investigations. As we
have already seen, the earliest traces of the OL
Bible are found in Africa. Perhaps the τὰ came
there by way of Rome, whose connexion with
Africa and Carthage at this time was as intimate
as can be conceived.+ Perhaps it travelled west-
ward through Upper Egypt. Indeed, certain
phenomena bearing upon the underlying Gr. text
might seem to favour this hypothesis, notably a
remarkable aftinity here and there in OT with the
recension of Hesychius, and ia both OT and NT with
Cod. Alex. In any case we are quite justified in
giving the name ‘ African’ to the group of texts
mentioned above in connexion with Cyp., although
this makes no assumption as to their origin.s It
is at this point that we enter on more uncertain
ground, Are the ‘European’ texts a separate
family from the ‘ African’? We believe that
Sanday’s suggestion quoted above, that a ‘work-

shop’ of MSS existed at the origin of the OL, is the |

most adequate yet put forward to account for the
facts. For this is very much the impression made
on an unbiassed mind. There are, assuredly,
marked differences between the ‘African’? and
‘European’ texts, but they are not separated by
any hard-and-fast lines. There are points at which
they shade off into each other. Perhaps it may be
allowable to regard «|| (in Matthew, at least) as
a connecting link between the ‘African’ and
‘European’ families. A credible tradition associ-
ates it with Eusebius, Bp. of Vercelli, situated
between Milan and Turin, a part of Italy to which
Gr. influence had not, in any powerful deeree,
extended, and where a Lat. Bible would be early
required. Here, in Italy, it would be quite natural
that many of the roughness-s of the original tr®
should be toned down, and that is, indeed, the
character of ‘European’ in so far as. it may
be distinguished from ‘African’ Latin.§ The
vividness of the latter gives place to a certain
insipidity ; there is a less bold use of compound
expressions ; some words have a large extension
given to their meaning; there is a more normal
use of the commoner parts of speech, such as
prepositions and pronouns. Accordingly, the so-

called ‘African’ elements in @ may be merely the

more marked traces left of the original tr" ‘or of
one type of it. From a careful collation of the
readings of the Lat. tr® of Irenwus** with the

leading MS authorities,++ while Zren. Lat. stands |

constantly alone, there seems to be a more than
accidental connexion between his text and that of

*See, for Hort’s classification, Westcott and Hort’s NT, ii,
pp. 78-84.

i See Caspari, Quellen z. Gesch. d. Taujfsymbols, iii. p. 456 ff.

t Perhaps this athnity is better explained by later revision.

ὁ It ought here to be noticed that P. Thielmann assigns to
this class, and with good reason, the Lat. tr» of Wis and Sir.
See Archiv, viii. 2, p. 235 ff. : 4, p. 501 ff.

' Including a,. It is interesting to find that the quotations
of Novatian have a close resemblance to a. He was schismatie
Bishop at Rome, and a contemporary of Cyprian. See Burkitt,
Uld Lat. etc. p. 16.

{| See Thielmann, Archiv, ix. 2, p. 247 ff.

** Surely there is a great deal of evidence for the earlier date
of the Lat. trn of Iren. See Harnack, <A/tehristl. Literatur,
vol. i. p. 267, ii. p. 667. Lipsius, Dict. of Christian Biog. ii. p.
256. Massuet’s Dissertatio, ii. § 53, as reprinted by Stieren,
Iren. Opp. Tom. ii. pp. 230-233.

tt This was made possible by means of the full conspectus of
variants printed in Novum Testamentum S. Irenwi, ed. by
Sanday, and in course of publication by the Clarendon Press.
Through Mr. C. H. Turner’s great kindness, and the courtesy of
the Clarendon Press, the writer has seen the proofs for the four
Gospp.

a.* Perhaps dt (Lat. of Cod. Beze) is not far
removed from this stage in the history of the text,
and it is not improbable that Cod. Bese was
written in Lyons where [reneus was bishep. [1
should also be borne in mind that Trenweus, a
native of Asia Minor, was in closest connexion
with the East. And, as bearing upon this, the sug-
gestion of Prof. Armitage Robinson must be noted,
that already, in A.D. 177, a Lat. VS of the Bible
was known to the narrator of the story of the
martyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons.t These facts
seem to hint at a connexion between the earliest
branch of the ‘European’ family and the South of
Gaul.g A remarkable clue to the whole history of
the version, as well as this special point, would
be furnished if Blass’|| theory of a double recen-
sion of Luke’s writings were made good, The
rough draft first made by Luke is seen, he holds,
in the Cod. Beze especially and its allied docu.
ments. The second and more polished copy is the
received text. But Luke has always been closely
associated with Antioch. This would therefore
be another line of evidence pointing to the birth-
place of the version.

The most representative text of the ‘ European’
group is the Verona MS 4, which seems to have a
close affinity with all the other members of this
family.*) And yet here again we are reminded of
the danger of sharply distinguished groups. For
in some parts of 6 there are, possibly, signs of the
‘Italian’ revision already to be found,** while some
markedly ‘ African’ phenomena also reveal them-
selves.}+ An important subdivision of this eroup
is that embraced by rtt and p.sg They seem to
contain a specially Jrish or British form of text
which appears repeatedly in various Vulg. MSS.|| |}
They often agree with the quotations of Fastidius
and Gildas. And this goes far to suggest a British
recension of the OL.©" It is quite natural that this
British type of text should have intimate relations
with the *‘ European’ family, seeing that there was
an established line of communication between
Ireland especially and monasteries such as Bobbio
and St. Gall in the North of Italy and Switzer.
land. Perhaps there is a hint to be gained in this
direction bearing upon the whole history of the
version. It is possible that every region of
importance, ecclesiastically, may have had its own
recension.*** There are certainly traces of this in
Spain also, And an important contribution to its
history is made by the biblical quotations of
Priscillian, whose works have been lately dis-
covered by Dr. G. Schepss, and edited by him in

* There is a distinctly isolated element in Irenwus. Is this

| specially ‘Gallic’?

+ See Rendel Harris, Cod. Bezce, p. 160 ff.

t See Passion of S. Perpetua, pp. 97-100.

δ Perhaps there may have been even ἃ ᾿ Gallican’ recension of
the trn. The evidence for this is considerably augmented by
biblical quotations from recently discovered De Mystervis of
Hilary and Peregrinatio. See Bernard, Proc. of Royal Lrish
Acad, 3rd ser. vol. ii. No. 2, p. 155 ff.

| See references under Cod. Beze in list of MSS. But Blass
himself would assign the origin of the ‘ Western’ text to Rome.
See Acta Apost. sec. formam Romanam, 1896, p. 7.

“| Perhaps its most intimate connexion is with q and 7.

** See OL Texts, ii. Append. II. p. 136.

tt Ib. Addenda, p. 139.

{t In the European group, 7 is said to stand closest to ἢ. From
collations we have made, it has certainly a great resemblance to b.

$$ See OL Bibl. Texts, ii. pp. 206-212. Points of contact are
shown between p and d.

Π Many readings in the Book of Mulling recall Cod. 7. See
H. J. Lawlor, Book of Mulling, Edin. 1897, esp. pp 55-63, 134,
144, Most thorough discussion of affinities of Irish OL text.
Concludes that Irish VS was prob. not indigenous. The VS on
which it was founded, and from which its African, Italian, and
d elements are derived, may have come from the region wh.
gave birth toh. Another distinctively Jvish text in Book of
Armagh, which seems to have a definite relation to the Spanish
texts. See Berger, Hist. de la Vulg. pp. 34 ff. 32 ff.

“1 See especially the most important, Append. G in Haddan
and Stubbs’ Counezls, etc. vol. i. pp. 170-198.

*** See Wordsworth, Academy, Nov. 13, 1869.

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD 357

vol. xviill. of CSL. Those quotations, indeed,
bear a great resemblance to the ‘Late-African Ὁ
group, Which will be glanced at immediately, but
they present special points of affinity with typical
Spanish MSS, especially those of Leon.* Or the
other ‘European’ texts, g and g, of Ac agree
remarkably with that found in’ the numerous
quotations of Lucifer, Bp. of Cagliari} (in Sardinia).

‘of St. James} appears also to be of this family,
although there is probably an African colouring
in its text. It is of importance to notice that
‘European’ texts were those most commonly used
in Gaul. For this the chief witness is Hilary,
Bp. of Poitiers.

There is a less marked distinetion between the
‘European’ and ‘Italian’ groups than between the
former and the ‘African.’ For, admittedly, the
‘Italian’ is a revision of the ‘ European.’ We
have already referred to the derivation of the name
from Aug.’s celebrated dictum, de Doct, Chris. 11.
15: in ipsis autem interpretationibus /¢a/a ceteris
preferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum per-
spicuitate sententiw. A keen discussion has
centred round the expression ‘Itala.’ Bentley
went the length of proposing to read ‘illa .
que’ for ‘Itala . nam.’ This proposal has been
revived by Corssen,g who seeks to show that it fits
in with the context. But this is merely to cut the
knot. We cannot help believing that the true
solution is that suggested by an adinirable article
in the Theolog. Review for 1874 by Kenrick, who
proves beyond doubt that Northern Italy by the
end of the 8rd cent. was regularly known under
the name ‘ Italia.’|) But this was the very region
in which Aug. had first become acquainted with
the Scriptures. And the quotations of Ambrose,
his teacher and guide, agree with this ‘Italian’
type of text. Is it not, at least, probable that this
revision was made in N. Italy, and so naturally
became known to Augustine ἡ“

3urkitt has recently essayed to prove that Aug.
here means nothing else than the Vulg. of Jerome.**
His main argument is the Gospel quotations in the
De Consensu Evangelistarum and a passage in the
Contra Felicem. Wt cannot be doubted that the
text of the Gospp. in the former stands in closest
agreement with the Vulg. ; while the latter also
appears to be Jerome’s revision, though it stands
side by side with an ‘African’ text of Acts. Yet
it must be remembered that, in the Gospels, texts
like fand ff, are in close agreement with the Vulg.,
and there would always be the tendency to correct
Aug.’s text according to Vulg. readings. This
latter hypothesis would quite account for the
phenomena in Contra Felicem. But, even supposing
Aug. did (as he quite well may have done) use the
Vulg. in this treatise, how can this be used to prove
that he designates it by the name ‘Itala’ in the
celebrated passage quoted? Surely the data are
insufficient to justify so wide a generalization. ΤῊ

* See Berger, Hist. de la Vulg. pp. 8 ff. (esp. pp. 27-28).
The Frag. of Sir, lately published by Douais, belongs to the
Spanish family, and Berger’s Perpignan Frag. of Acts has
apparently a connexion with the Spanish text. It is of some
importance to find that the poet Juvencus, prob. a Spaniard by
birth, is nearest, in his biblical text, to a and h.

+ When Lucifer has an ‘African’ text, he is usually quoting
directly the works of Cyprian.

tIn this Ep. the remarkable resemblance between the
‘Speculum’ (7m) and Priscillian is very clear.

ἢ Jahrbiicher f. prot. Theol, 1881, pp. 510-512.

| See pp. 326-328. 41 See Ceriani, Rendiconti, etc. 1886, pp. 4,5.

** Old-Latin and Itala, pp. 55-65. The suggestion had been
previously made by Reuss in the 2 and 8 edd. of his History of the
NT, that the ‘Itala’ of Aug. might be Jerome’s first tr" of the
Bible from the LXX. See alsoC. A. Breyther, Diss. de vi, quam
antiq. Verss.... lat. in crisin evang. iv. habeant, Merseb. 1824.

tt Would not the fact, which Burkitt adduces, that the Vulg.
Gospels were published under the auspices of Pope Damasus,
have suggested, almost inevitably, the epithet ‘Romana’? But
80 weighty an authority as Berger is inclined to believe that
the solu‘ion of the question may be found in the direction

This ‘ Italian’ revision has reeard both to read-
ings and renderings. It isanattempt to soften the
harsher Lat. tr=*, while, at the same time, the-Lat.
text is corrected according to a non-Western and
late group of Gr. M5s.*

The leading representative is f. 7. 15. also usually
assivned to this family; but, as Mr. White} has
shown, ‘if it be Italian in its readings, it is
European in its renderings.’ Indeed gq shows a
mixture of various elements,} having close relations
tok, ὁ, fig, and a. The other most important
representative of this group is to be found in the
Freisingen Frage. of the Episties.s These exhibit
a remarkable resemblance to the quotations of
Aug. and Capreolus, Bp. of Carthage. Perhaps we
ought to mention here an interesting type of text
found chiefly in the Catholic Epp. It is the Late-
African of the epoch of the Vandal supremacy. |
ΤῸ is found in 2% of Cath. Epp. ; apparently in 1J 4
of the Freisingen Frage., and in Fulgentius, Bp. of
Ruspe. It was probably derived from the ‘Italian’
type, but greatly moditied by its transference to
Atrica. The important text of the ‘Speculum ἢ (91)
probably belongs to this group,** and, though not
entirely of the same type, we may assign to it the
Fleury Apocalypse (4). Berger would place the
text of Priscillian as the transition between the
‘Italian’ family and this ‘ Late-African’ group.

There still remains a large number of texts which
have not been classified. These are the Gr.-Lat.
MSS, in which the Gr. text must, of course, have
had a powerful influence upon the Latin. ++ There
is Cod. Colbertinus (¢), a MS of Languedoc, which
has ‘ African,’ ‘European,’ and Vulg. elements.
σι ἘΣ seems to be distinctly ‘European’ in St.
Matthew, although ‘ Italian’ and, at times, Vulg.
readings appear. ἢ has apparently a Vule. base
with numerous OL readings intermixed.ss The Lat.
interlinear version of Cod. Sangallensis (6) is shown
to contain, at least, a very important OL element,
which sometimes goes back to the earlier stages of
the ‘ European’ text.) || The latest OL text of Acts
discovered by Berger in a MS of Perpignan occupies
‘a central position in the midst of the various re-
censions.’*% It seems to have a Spanish colouring,
but yet to belong to the same general family as the
Gigas (0), s (Bobb. Frag.), the Frag. in the Rosas

indicated by Burkitt. See Bulletin Critique, Sept. 5, 1896. So
also Zahn in Theolog. Lit.-Bl. xvii. No. 31, and Corssen, Bericht
aiber die latein. Bibeliibersetzungen, p. 5.

* «The ‘ Western” MSS DG (in the Epp.) are usually found on
the side of those readings which the ‘‘Italian” MSS have
rejected.’ See Zimmer, SK, 1889, ii. Ὁ. 354.

+ OL Bibl. Teats, iii. Ὁ. xxi. ζ ‘Ein sehr buntes Ding’ (Corssen).

§ Perhaps this text had an official sanction, as is assumed with
reason for the version of Cyprian.

|| See Berger, Le Palimpseste de Fleury, pp. 15-18.

«1 This text seems almost identical with the ‘Speculum.’

** But see an import. article in Classical Review, iv. pp. 414-
417, by Sanday, in which he suggests that ‘the Speculum was
put together somewhere in the circle in which Priscillian moved,
and from a copy of the Bible which, if not exactly his, was yet
closely related to it’ (p. 416). This is certainly borne out by a
comparison of OT passages in Priscill. and the ‘Speculum.’

+t But is not Hort’s estimate of the value of the Lat. texts too
low ?(Introduction, p. 82). There isa very close agreement in the
Epp. between the Lat. of Cod. Clarom. and Cod. Barner, and the
quotations in Victorinus and Ambrosiaster. On the basis of this,
Zimmer has made out, at least, a strong case for three types of
text in the Epp. (1) ‘Princeps’=text found in Tert. and Cyp.
(2)‘Communis’ = text of Clarom.—Barn.—Victorin.—-Ambrostr,
being a revision of (1), with closer adherence to Gr. original. (3)
Bible of Aug., Freis., and Géttweig Fragg. A typical example
of the ‘Italian’ revision. See SK, 1889, ii. p. 381 f. Also, Der
Galater-Bricf im alt. latein. Text, Konigsberg, 1887.

tt Thus, ¢.g., in Mt 2, a minute collation of authorities shows
that a bq respectively are closer to g, than to each other or
any of the remaining Lat. authorities.

ἀξ (‘Vulg. in Mt and Mk, OL in Lk, mixed (but chiefly Vulg.)
in Jn’—Burkitt].

||| See Harris, Cod. Sangadl. p. 19.

“© See Berger, Un ancien texte Latin, pp. 11-18. He asks
whether in Acts there is any distinction between ‘ European’
and ‘Italian’ texts. We are inclined to think that the same
question might be relevant as regards the Pauline Epp.

58 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

Bible,* and Cod. ὁ (Laudianus) of ‘Acts,’ i.e. to the
‘ European’ group.

For NT authorities, Hort’s learning and judg-
ment have laid a sound basis of classification. In
the case of OT MSS such a grouping does not yet
exist. And any atten.pt at furnishing principles
of genealogical relationship seems beset on every
side with no ordinary difficulties. The reasons are
plain. Only in rare instances have we a variety of
documents covering the same ground. Even when
this is the case, their fragmentary nature renders
it unsafe or impossible to generalize. In OT the
quotations of the Fathers are, as a rule, specially
perplexing, because, by this time, the text of the
ΠᾺΝ had reached an almost hopeless state of con-
fusion. It is only whena thorough examination of
the principal cursives of the LXX has been imade
that order can be brought into the chaos. We do
not propose, therefore, to attempt a classification.
All we can do is to give the results of amore or less
minute comparison of the leading witnesses for
OP. Let us follow the order in the list of MSS
above.

HM vatewh,—We have here our best opportunity
for comparing various texts, as there are four
authorities which cover, toa great extent, the same
eround. These are Cod. Lugdunensis, Cod. Wirce-
pbure., Cod. Monacens., and the Frage. of Cod.
Ottobon, A comparison of the four texts reveals,
at first sight, some strange phenomena. In Gn
there is a close agreement between Cod. Ottob. and
Cod. ued. In Lv, Cod. Lugd. and Cod. Wirceb.
apparently belong to the same tr., while the
Munich MS seems to stand by itself. Cod. Ottob.,
which appears to have suffered grievously by cor-
ruption, has a possible resemblance to the two first-
named MSS. In Le there is a good deal of varia-
tion between the three chief texts (Ottob. not
extant). In Vw and Dé we find that Cod. Lugd.
and Cod. Monac. have, without question, the same
source, While the relation to them of Cod. Wirceb. is
difficult to determine. When we compare patristic
quotations with the texts, it is striking to dis-
cover that those of Lucifer have a remarkable re-
semblance both to Cod. Lugd. and to Cod. Wirceb.
What can be said of such complex results? We
believe the solution lies in taking into account the
underlying Gr. text. Accepting the classifications
made by Ceriani + and Lagarde in reference to the
Luciame, Hesychian, and Palestinian recensions of
the LX.X, we find phenomena such as the following.
In a section of Gn in which we have compared Cod.
Wirceb. with the chief Gr. authorities, the result
shows the most extraordinary mixture. On the
whole, Cod. Wireeb. comes closest to the § Cotton’
Genesis (1D), but the Bodleian E also finds a place.
There are distinct traces, in addition, of ‘ Lucianic’
readings, and the Pal. recension is not wanting.
A similar collocation in 4 confirms the mingling of
elements in the text. Here, Cod. Wirceb. shows
an intimate relation with AF and Hesychius, but
there is also a Lucianic strain throughout. Follow-
ing the same method with Cod. Lugd. in Lv, we
reach a like result. From the definite facts already
stated, and the total impression left by repeated
comparison of texts, we are led to believe that in
this group of writings the extant documents
probably go back to an original tr" of which they
are recensions. Only, the extraordinary variety of
LXX texts prevalent in the age when the MSS were
transcribed caused an unusual amount of correction
and mixture of readings in the various documents.$

* See Berger, Hist. dela Vulg. pp. 24, 25.

t See A. M. Ceriani, Le recens. dei LX X e la vers. lat. detta

Ttala (Rendiconti del R. Istituto Lombardo, Feb. 18, 1886), and
the numerous references to his other works given there.
..t See Lagarde, Ankiindigung einer neuen Ausg. der griech,
Ubersetz. des AT, Gotting. 1882, esp. pp. 25-30. Also his Libr.
Vet. Test. Canonic. Pars Prior, Gotting. 1883, pp. iii-xvi.

ὃ See Wellhausen, Bleek’s Linieit. in das AT'4, pp. 586-594.

This is quite sufficient to account for the manifold
differences. And it is to be observed that some
portions suffered from this process far more severely
than others. Probably, we might not be wrong in
placing the above-mentioned MSS parallel to the
later ‘European’ texts* of NT, if not to the
‘Italian.’ They have something in common both
with the quotations in Ambrose and those of the
‘Speculum’ (7). The Frage. of Gn pub. by Cony-
beare come closest to Cod. Lugd. and S. Ambrose.

Historical Books.—According to our list, these
consist of Ruth, Frage. of Samuel and Kings, and
Esther. Apparently, the text of Rv, which is
‘Spanish,’ agrees almost exactly with the quota-
tions of Ambrose, and so may be designated
‘Italian.’ + The Frage. of Samuel and Kings,
while having their origin in different countries,
are linked together in various ways. They all
seem to have an intimate connexion with the re-
eension of Lucian,? while they have the closest
resemblance to the quotations of Lucifer, Ambrose,
and Claudius of Turin. Accordingly, they may be
classed, perhaps, as early ‘Italian.’ $ In #s¢ much
confusion is found among the extant texts, perhaps
arising from the fact that only a ‘résumé,’ as
Berger ealls it, and not a complete version, existed
in the OL Bible. We have compared Sabatier’s
text, which is from a Corbey MS No. 7 (at Paris),
with that of the Munich MS pub. by Belsheim, the
Vallicellian text (in Sabatier), and the extracts
given by Berger from a Lyons MS. Probably,
this last is the best. It resembles ose
the Vallicellian text and that of Belsh. (which
appear to us to be almost identical), while the
Corb. text in Sabat., owing to mutilations and
corruptions,|| seems a long way inferior to all the
others. Here, again, we may perhaps go the length
of saying that one tr™ seems to lie at the foundation,
but it has undergone much revision and corruption
from a comparison with Gr. texts which had been
subject to an exceptional amount of mixture.
From an almost entire lack of quotations in the
‘athers it is impossible to attempt to localize the
text. There are frequent traces of the ‘ Lucianic’
recension.

Poetical Books,—The extant remains of Job are
so scanty that it is difficult to come to any con-
clusion regarding the text. Apparently, the Frag.
of Fleury, which is found both in the ‘Speculum’
and Priscillian, belongs to the earliest form of the
Lat. VS, following the same type of Gr. text as
Cyp. and Lucif., and therefore, perhaps, being
entitled to the designation ‘ African.’

According to Burkitt,{) a second type of OL is
found in the quotations of Ambrose, based on the
leading uncials of the LXX and in intimate con-
nexion with the Greek. The Frage. which Berger
has pub. from the margin of the Leon Cod. also
reveal a close attachment to the Greek (esp. Cod.
A), and coincide most frequently with the quota-
tions of Ambr. and Aug. Perhaps the two last
types of text ought to be called ‘Italian.’

Fora genuinely ‘ African’ text of Ps our most
trustworthy authority is MS L. of Cyprian’s Testi-
monia. The Verona and St. Germain Psalters
both exhibit a later type of text, although the
former has suffered less revision. It would be
rash to specify either text definitely as ‘ European’

* Rendel Harris points out some very curious resemblances in
spelling between Cod. d and Cod. Lugd., which go to suggest,
he thinks, that both were Rhoéne-valley MSS (Study of Cod.
Bez. pp. 29, 30).

t See Berger, Notice, pp. 12, 13.

tSee Lagarde, Septuaginta-Studien, 1892, i. pp. 71, 72;
Driver, Notes on Heb. Text of Samuel, pp. 1xxvii-]xxxii ; Bur-
kitt, Old-Latin and Itala, p. 9.

§ See Berger, op. cit. pp. 14, 15. ;

|| Still more defective appears to be the Cod. Pechianus which
Sab. gives for the latter part of the book. OL of Est is to be

pub. by Thielmann.
4 Old-Latin, etc. pp. 8, 32-34.

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD 59

or ‘Italian.’ A noteworthy feature is that the

Verona MS shows ἃ striking agreement with

Aug.’s text of Ps, while decidedly marked is the

aflinity between the St. Germ. Psalter and the

quotations of Cassiodorus the Calabrian, The

ee of the OL Psalter found in the Mozarabic
iturey belong to this latter type of text.*

Proverbs.—Uere we can distinguish two recen-
sions. The one is represented by Vogel's Frage.,
which agree with the quotations of Cyp. and
Vigilius of Thapsus, having also a close resem-
blance to the ‘Speculum.’ It may be designated
‘African. The other is seen in the Frage. of
the St. Gall MS, No. 11. These have their chief
parallels in) Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine.
They therefore belong to the ‘Italian’ family.

The Frage. of Evelesiastes and Cantic/:s named
in our list are of precisely the same character as
the second recension in Proverbs. We may here
note that for OT it seems even more difficult than
in the N'T to draw a line between ‘ European’ and
‘Italian’ texts. Often, indeed, there appears to be
none.

Prophetical Books.—In attempting to classify the
extant OL texts of the Prophets, we are met, as
in the Hexateuch, by the difficulty of conflicting
evidence. Fortunately, part of the ground has
heen cleared by Burkitt in his Rules of Tyconius.
Much of what follows depends on his important
investigations. The extant Frage. of the Prophets
plainly do not belong to the oldest stratum of the
OLtr®. It is needful, therefore, to begin as usual
with Cyprian; as we have seen, Tertullian’s quota-
tions are of doubtful value. Now, Burkitt has
clearly proved} that Tyconius the Donatist (¢. A.D.
400) used an OL version of the Prophets (in
Isaiah at least 1) almost identical with that of Cyp.,
the only difference being a slight revision of the
Latin. How does this writer stand towards our
two chief MS authorities, the Weingarten (16) and
Wiirzburg (Δ) Frage? At many points he is in
close agreement with both, but especially, perhaps
(e.g. in Ezk), with w. Now, a comparison of wand
h shows so many agreements in proportion to
differences that we cannot help believing that they
are copies of the same {τ} of the Prophets, whose
variation is accounted for by varying elements in
the Gr. texts by which they were revised.g In ἢ,
e.g. in the midst of a great mixture of types, the
Lue. strain is considerably more prominent than
in w.| Accordingly, we may perhaps call 2 an
‘Italian’ text; its coincidences with Ambrose, and
to a less extent with Augustine, are noteworthy.
w is possibly an earlier revision of the same tr®."*

_* There seems to be aclose resemblance in Ps between Pris-
cillian and the ‘Speculum.’ The Latin Psalter with Anglo-
Saxon paraphr. pub. by Thorpe, Oxf. 1835, is almost identical
with the so-called ‘Roman’ Psalter of Jerome, although
occasionally it diverges. The text of Cassiod. has also a most
intimate connexion with Roman Psalter.

t Rules of Tyconius, pp. lii-cvii.

Τὺ raust be noted that there is a considerable difference
between Tyconius’ text of Is and of Ezk. See important table on
p. evi of op. cit. Burkitt suggests that perhaps there was ‘a
partial revision of the African Bible anterior to Cyprian,’ the
result of which is seen in the text of Ezk in Tye. This point has
been already brought forward in connexion with the quotations
of Cyprian.

§ See also Cornill, Das Buch ἃ. Proph. Ezech. p. 31 ff. But
see Corssen’s most important discussion of the two MSS in Ziwei
neue Fragmente d. Weing. Propheten-MS, Berlin, 1899, in which
he shows that the variation is largely due to the insertion of
glosses in the texts.

|| May it be that the infusion of this element into OT texts
corresponds to the ‘Antiochene’ revision of NT? Since this
was written, we are interested to see that Sanday is inclined to
assign the above-named revision to Lucian (Oa. Debate, p. 29).

™ Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah, p. 370, shows that for
Jer h is non-African and prob. Italian. His searching in-
vestigation goes to confirm our hypothesis. ’

** Ranke shows that w has points of contact with Arnobius,
Lucifer, Ambrose, and Hesychius (a Dalmatian bishop). See
Fragmenta .. . Antehieron. fasc 2, pp. 122, 123. This would
suggest avery wide diffusion, An attempt to trace points of

It is interesting to note that Tye. has a text
essentially the same in the Prophets as another
Donatist, Habetdeus, whose quotations can be
assigned to the year A.D. 411. And to make the
coincidence still more important, it is found that
the St. Gall Frag. of Jeremiah has remarkable
points of connexion with the biblical text used
by a Donatist in the pseudo-Augustinian Contra
Fulgentium Donatistam. This goes some way to
establish a Donatist tradition of the OL version.*

A comparison of Tye. with the ‘Speculum’ re-
veals a far greater amount of difference than be-
tween the former and Cyprian. But there is 50
much important resemblance that the variation is
probably due to a gradual revision of the language
inm. This, as Burkitt points out, greatly enhances
the value of the ‘Speculum,’ though a late text, for
the criticism of the LXX.+

In some passages the ‘Spec.’ has a very close
connexion with ἡ, while in others it is entirel
different. In comparing the quotations of Tertull.
and Cyp., with reference to the Gr., for another
purpose, the writer was surprised to find that in
the Book of Daniel, while Cyp. sometimes used
Theodotion’s version and at others the LXX,
Tert. seemed invariably to follow the latter. The
whole subject has been thoroughly investigated by
Burkitt,{ who proves beyond question, that while
Theodotion was followed as early as the 3rd cent. by
Auctor de Pascha Computus, and thenceforward
throughout the Lat. Church (alsoin A and w of
Prophets), Tertull. adhered to the LXX, as also,
to some extent, did Cyp., whose text is mixed.$
This shows the varying histories of the several
books of Scripture, a fact which has been already
noticed in regard to N'T.

APOCRYPHA, Fourth [Second] Esdras.—The
texts of this book have been accurately studied,
with the result that the leading authorities fall
into two groups. Two MSS, Cod. Sangermanensis
(pub. by Sab.) at Paris (Bibl. nat. lat. 11504-5)
and Cod. Ambianensis (Amiens, Bibl. Communale
10) have a ‘French’ text; the other two, Cod.
Complut. (Madrid Univ. 31) and Cod. Mazarinzeus

(Paris), present a ‘Spanish’ type of text. The
other extant texts are related to these two
families. ||

Third (First) Esdvras.—Here, again, we possess
two types of text, both of which are represented
in Sab., and one of which isthe Vulg. Both texts
are evidently of great antiquity, presenting many
of the most typical characteristics of the ‘ African’
group. Probably, Vulg. is an emended form of the
other version.

Tobit.—As appears from our list, there are many
MSS extant of the OL version of Tobit. So far as
we can judge, they all go back to one tr", though
considerable differences exist. A rough comparison
leads us to believe that the leading texts are re-
lated somewhat as follows τ Sabatier’s text (derived
from MSS lat. 93 and 11505 at Paris) seems closest
to the quotations of Lucifer. Slightly different
from it are Paris MS lat. 11553 and Munich 6239,
which agree closely. Cod. Regio-Vat. No. 7 is
more independent of the other texts, and may be,
perhaps, a separate translation... It contains only
chs. i.-vi. The rest is Vulgate. The quotations
in Speculum seem to show a third recension,
agreement and differences between the two texts (wand) and
the Fathers has led, on the whole, only to confusing results.
Clearly, we have much yet to learn regarding the OL version (or
versions) of the Prophets.

* Of. Rendel Harris on the Montanist character of Cod. Bez
(Study of Cod. Bez. p. 148 ff.).

+ Rules of Tycon. p. \xiv.

t Old Latin and Itala, pp. 18-31.

§ This mixed text also found in Lactantius and Firmicus
Maternus.

|| See Fourth Book of Ezra, by Bensly and James, pp. xii-xxii.

{| See Fritzsche, Hdbuch zu. ἃ. Apokryphen, ii. pp. 5, 11.

60 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

Judith.—-As in To, the OL of Jth appears in a
variety of MSS. While one original lies, appar-
ently, behind all the texts, it appears to us that
Mun. MS 6239 has the oldest type of text. A some-
what longer and perhaps later form is found in the
text of Sabatier (Paris MSS Jat. 93, 11505). The
Paris MS 11558 seems to heave a mixed text, now
agreeing with Mun. MS, now with Sabat. MS
Jat. 11549 (at Paris), while somewhat mixed, agrees
perhaps more often with Mun. Ms.*

Wisdom of Solomon.—-As already pointed out,
this is proved to be an ‘ African’ text. It seems
to be fully as old as Cyp.t

Strach, —The Vule. text of this book is also
‘ African’ Latin. Curiously enough, however, chs.
44-50 are shown by Thielmann Σ to have been ty.
later than chs. 1-43, 51, and they belong to the
‘European’ type of text. The Prologue is also
‘European.’ The Frag. ed. by Douais is appar-
ently a ‘Spanish’ text, being a revision of the
primitive ‘ African’ version.

Baruch.—Two main types of text, so far as we
can judge from the published MSS, ere extant in
this book. The one is the Vule., which agrees with
the quotations of Cyp., Vigilius, and, as a rule,
Fulgentius. The other, which is not far removed,
is represented by Paris MS 11951, Rheims MS No. 1,
and Vallicell. B. 7 (all in Sab.). We cannot say
much as to patristic evidence, but at times, at
least, it is corroborated by the quotations of Hilary
and Augustine.s

Maccabees.—In 1 Mae two forms of text can be
traced. The one is the Vulg. The other, which
in many passages is identical with the Vulg. and
then disagrees to a great extent, is found in Paris
MS Jat. 11553, pub. by Sabat. It agrees uniformly
with the quotations of Lucifer, which are very
numerous in this book. Berger points out that
this latter rests on the same tradition as that of
Cod. Complut., while there are readings in the
Leon Palimpsest (Chapter Lib. No. 15) which seem
to he behind the St. Germain text in δ}. A
mixed text, according to Berger, is found in the
Lyons MS No. 356.

In 2 Mac we tind several versions more or less |
A mixed

distinct. The Vulg. stands by itself.
text is that of Lyons MS 356.4. The text of Cod.
Complut. is of a diflerent type from the Vule. We
have not been able to see the text from Ambrosian
MS Ἐπ 26 infer., pub. by A. Peyron.** Berger
(Hist. de la Vulg. p. 138) says of it: ‘The version
. preserved by our MS is not found elsewhere,
and is of extreme importance.’ ++
A few words ought to be said, before we conclude
this article, upon the Gr. text which underlies the
OL version. For, after all, its primary importance
consists in the evidence it furnishes for the original
Gr. text of both OT and NT. Obviously, the in-
quiry is very wide in its range. We can only

* Scholz in Comm. uber das Buch Judith (Wirzburg, 1896),
p. Xxilif., considers that Paris MS 11549 (Cod. Corb. in Sab.) is
a private trn, though closely related to the other. He would
also assign importance to Cod. Pechianus (in Sab.), which he
believes to be directly transl. from a Greek text with the help of
the OL. It stands closest to Paris MS 11553 and agrees with the
quotations of Lucifer. The quotations of Fulgentius most. re-
semble the text of Sabat. which is a ‘Gallic’ text. Perhaps the
Munich MS may be ‘African.’ See also Fritzsche, Hdbuch. ii.
p. 119, and Thielmann, Beitr. z. Teat-Krit. d. Vulgata, Speier,
1883. Thielm. is to pub. OL of Tob, Jud, Sap, and Sir.

t See Thielmann, Archiv, viii. 2, p. 235 ff.

{ Archiv, ix. 2, p. 247 ff. A most important and valuable
article. But see a noteworthy criticism by Geyer in Bursian’s
Jahresbericht, xcviii. p. 83.

§ See also Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch, Leipz. 1879,

| See Berger, Notice, pp. 33-38.

41 Its base is Vulgate.

** Asan Appendix to his MT' Ciceronis Orationum pro Scauro

. . fragm. tnedd., Stuttgart, 1824.

tt On OL of Apocr. see also Schiirer’s valuable art. ‘ Apokry-
phen’ in PRE3, and the introductions to Kautzsch’s ‘Die
Apokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen d. AT.’

give the barest outline; and even this, in the
present condition of the investigation, is incom-
plete and provisional. Two most important and
suggestive statements are made by Hort as to the
type of Gr. text circulating at the period with
which we are here concerned. ‘The text of Ὁ
presents a truer image of the form in which the
Gospels and Acts were most widely read in the
3rd and probably a great part of the 2nd cent.
than any other extant Gr. MS”) And again: ‘A,
both in the Gospels and elsewhere, may serve as a
fair example of the MSS thai, to judge by patristic
quotations, were commonest in the 4th cent.’ (Jn-
trod, pp. 149, 152). These words, in our view,
have a very significant bearing on the question
before us. For it has become sutliciently clear
that the period from the middle of the 2nd cent.
to the end of the 4th is the most important for the
OL version. Keeping them in mind, let us come
to the actual facts, in so far as we are able to
present them.

The NT must be our starting-point. What ean
be said as to the earliest group of texts, presum-
ably the ‘African’ family Ὁ Cod. 4, which, as we
have seen, agrees with Cyp., is the most important
witness. Fortunately, Sanday, in the work so
often quoted, has a valuable Appendix on ‘the Gr.
text implied by 4.’* Elaborate lists showing the
relation of / to the leading Gr. authorities plainly
declare that the main elements in its text are the
‘Western’ (as represented by D) and the ‘ Neutral’
(x Bin particular). The ‘Western’ strain slightiy
predominates. As regards the kindred Cod. e, a
collation we have attempted of several long see-
tions from the Gospp. reveals a close relation with
B and one almost as intimate with D, x, and A.
The one fact which strikes us in comparing the two
sets of results is that A has become an important
factor in Cod. e. When the ‘European’ group is
investigated, it is interesting to note the changipg
of places by the MSS. We have taken @ and ὁ
as typical texts, and the results for both are, on
the whole, congruous, except that * seems to have
a much more important place in ὦ than in @ In
both, B loses the prominent position which it
occupied in the ‘ African’ group. D has, of course,
a predominating influence, but it is closely fol-
lowed by A. Indeed it looks as if, in the Gospp.
at least, the influence of A were amone the chief
forces in differentiating the ‘European’ from the
‘ African’ group. And this seems to coincide
remarkably with Hort’s hypothesis of a Syrian
recension, perhaps made at Antioch, about the
beginning or a little before the beginning of the
4th cent., whose influence spread in all directions.
For, in the Gospp., ‘A has a fundamentally
Syrian text.’ In any case, the great increase
in the A element is plainly no accidental cir-
cumstance, but, as we shall tind in the OT, a fact
intimately bound up with a certain stage of the
OL version.

We have taken f as representative of the
‘Italian’ texts. The facts which a minute ex-
amination of long sections in Mt, Mk, and Lk
brings out are of the kind we might expect. There
is, apparently, a great mixture of elements in the
underlying Greek. One of the most noteworthy
of these is represented by Cod. L, itself a very
mixed text, containing early readings mingled

with ‘Alexandrian,’ ‘Western,’ and ‘Syrian’
elements. Cod.-C is also prominent, which again

is composed of most various forms of text. As

invariably, D is still an important factor, while A

also appears to have lost little ground. ἡ and B

have not regained the place they occupied in the

‘ African’ group. In Ae, as we have seen, we can

at least distinguish between the ‘ African’ and
* OL Bibl. Texts, ii. Append. i. pp. 95-122.

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD 61

‘European’ texts, represented most typically by
the Fleury Palimpsest (the text of Cyp.) and the
Gigas (the text of Lucif.) respectively. From
Corssen’s investigation® it is plain that the former
depends on a ‘ Western’ text even more uniform
than D. The latter, so far as a rough survey of its
readings can reveal, has a very mixed character.
Dis a prominent factor in it, perhaps the most pro-
minent. Of the other more important uncials, ὦ,
and at some distance A and C, seems the best re-
resented. One has the impression of a text be-
onging to a time of revision. And the phenomena
found here appear to justify Berger’s query as to
whether, in Ac, there is any distinction between
‘European’ and ‘Italian’ readings.t Space for-
bids any further examination of the NT books
except that we may point out that the chief of OL
versions of the Epistles§ (except Freis. Frage.)
seem to depend for their text mainly on D and G,
whether separate or combined, and often on the
group DGKL.|| The Freis. Fragg. have a far
greater mixture of elements, being apparently
revised from MSS such as C As L (while their basis
is DG). Inthe Apoc. the text of Primasius seems Ἵ
to approach closest to that of Andreas of Ciesarea,
and Cod. P; but there remains an important
element peculiar to himself.**

As regards the Gr. text underlying the OL of
the OT, our statements must be even more general
and provisional. For the Jeading uncial MSS of
the LXNX have never been grouped, and we cannot,
with any definiteness, state their mutual relations.
And the cursives, which in the LXX are of unique
importance, have received little investigation.
Hence there are few ascertained data on which to
base any reasonable hypothesis. Certainly, the
classification into families of texts, and the marking
off of stages in their history, would be a difficult
task. For this {τ must have undergone from
first to last the most varied treatment. The
original Gr. VS, the rival tr™s of Aquila, Theodo-
tion and Symmachus, the attempt of Origen to

urify the text, the subsequent recensions of
ὑπὸ ius, Lucian, and Hesychius, all have con-
spired to produce ἃ chaos in the MSS of the LXX.
This has a bewildering effect on the comparison of
the OL with the underlying Gr. No doubt we may
say that the earliest Lat. VS of the OT must have
been made from the pre-hexaplar Gr. text which
yas in common use.tt But we know little of its
history. It must also have been subjected to
various forms of corruption. We cannot identify
it with the genuine LAX. Weare also unable to
state definitely the relation borne to it by the
great extant uncials and those groups of cursives
which are assumed (with more or less reason) to be
particular recensions. Accordingly, the following
notes must be somewhat vague and hypothetical.

In the books which apparently preserve a
fundamentally ‘African’ text, such as Sirach,
we might expect to find a relatively pure Gr.
text at their base. Nor are we, on the whole,
disappointed. This OL text shows a close rela-
tion to Cod. 248, which is here, perhaps, the best
representation of the original Gr. text.tt But,

* Der Cup. Text d, Acta A post., Berlin, 1892. See esp. p. 18 ff.

+ The Fleury text has a very intimate connexion with it,
while it shares many readings also with the text of Aug. and
with that of the Vulgate.

{ Un ancien texte . . . des Actes, p. 18.

ἃ Codd. Claromont. and Berner. and the texts of Victorinus
and Ambrosiaster.

| In this group they are often joined by Jerome in his Com-
mentaries. See Corssen, Epist. ad Galatas, pp. 52, 53.

‘| This result is provisional, as our investigation only embraced
ec tatee chs. of Apoc. See Bousset, Veatkritische Studien,
PP See Haussleiter, Zahn’s Forschungen, iv. pp. 207-224.

tt Designated by the Fathers ‘uulgata editio’ and χοινή.

tt See Ryssel in Kautzsch’s ‘Apokryphen,’ pp. 244-249, and
Herkenne, De Vet. Lat. Eccles. Capp. i.-xliii., Leipz. 1899.

in the words of Lagarde,* ‘all the MSS of the
Gr. tr™ of the OT are either directly or indirectly
the result of an eclectic procedure.’ This is. the
key to the phenomena of the OL version of the
OT. + When we come to examine the large group
of OT texts which we have designated cither
‘Muropean’ or ‘Italian? (and the boundary be
tween them is, at least, a fluctuating one), the
result is most confusing. In the /fevateuch, as
already observed, there appears an almost in-
definite amount of mixture. It is, perhaps, useless
toask to which of the great uncials the leading
MSS are most nearly related. For other elements
intrude continually. Here and there, indeed, a
definite relationship reveals itself, as, e.g., in
Exodus where Cod. Wirceb., has a distinct connexion
with the group AF. But, as a rule, both in it, in
Cod. Lugd., and in Cod. Monae. there are constant
traces of Hesychian? and Lucianic readings, as
well as relations of an undefinable kind to the
leading uncials.

In the Historical books it can, at least, be
affirmed that the recension of Lucian is one of the
prominent elements lying at the basis of the text.§
This is specially noticeable in the Vienna Frage.
of Samuel and the Leon Frage. of Kings. Ceriani
had observed the agreement of ‘Lucianic’? MSS
with the text of Ambrose and the ‘Speculum.’
And thus he is led to believe that the ‘Italian’
revision of OT (which perhaps includes the ‘ Euro-
pean’) lad, partly at least, for its standard,
some MSS of the same type as those used by
Lucian in his recension. At the same time, A
and B cannot be ignored. Indeed, as Lagarde
has pointed out,!| Cod. A has a specially close
connexion with the OL text of OT which asserts
itself here and there.4/ When the Prophetic books
are examined, this becomes more evident. In
ezk, e.g., Cornill has shown that the text both of
h and w has close relations with A, although
these are sometimes obscured by Hexaplarie omis-
sions and insertions, or confused by later cor-
rections and corruptions.** The same holds of
other books, e.g. the OL of Job.++ It is a note-
worthy fact, and suggests a real connexion between
the OL of OT and NT at a certain stage, as we
have already seen the prominent place A occupies
in all but the oldest NT texts. Considerations
of space prevent us from lingering on this most
important but complicated department of our
subject. We cannot do better than close with a
quotation from Burkitt’s summary of conclusions

* Anmerkungen zur griech. Uebersetz. der Proverb. p. 3.

t Thus, e.g., Vogel’s Fragg. of Proverbs, which are plainly
‘African,’ agree 18 times with A rather than B, 17 times with
B rather than A; they have 18 readings only found in cursives,
while 110 are peculiar to themselves.

t Cornill connects Cod. A closely with the Hesychian recen-
sion (see Ezechiel, p. 67). Silberstein (7A W xiv. p. 25), after an
elaborate investigation, comes to the conclusion that the origin
of the form of text in A must be referred to the recension of
Origen. He agrees, on the whole, with Cornill as to B.

§ See Vercellone, Vari Lectiones, ii. p. 486. Driver, Notes
on Samuel, pp. 1xxvii-lxxxii. Ceriani, Recensioni dei LAN,
etc., p. 4. 1t is now generally admitted that MSS 19, 82, 93,
and 108 (in Holmes and Parson’s ed. of LXX), agreeing, as they
do, with the quotations of Theodoret and Chrysostom, represent
the recension of Lucian. See also Lagarde, Vet. Vest. Gruce,
Pars Prior, Gétt. 1883, Preface.

|| Septuaginta-Studien, i. pp. 71, 72.

¥ A question which still awaits investigation is the relation of
Ato Lucian. This would shed much light on the OL. It is of
interest to find that the prevailing type of text in quotations
from the LXX in the Gospels is that of A and Lucian. B is
scarcely observable. See Staerk, Zw/'h. 1893, i. p. 97 ff.

** Cornill would connect A with the recension of Hesychius
(Ezechiel, pp. 67, 71). Unquestionably, those cursives which
contain in all likelihood this latter text are an important
element for the criticism of the OL of the Prophets along with
the kindred Cod. Marchalianus (Q), which has copious marginal
notes from a Hexaplar copy. See Ceriani’s most important
dissertation, De Codice Marchaliano Commentatio, Rome, 1890.
He compares the various texts of the LXX from sections of the
Prophets, both mutually and in relation to the OL.

tt See Berger, Notice, p. 23.

62 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD

LATTER

as to the relation of the OL to the Gr. text in the
Prophets.* For, in all probability, similar pro-
cesses and results would appear in the other
groups of writings. ‘The OL brings us the best
independent proof we have that the Hexaplar
signs introduced by Origen can be relied on for
the reconstruction of the LXX.... Together
with the Hexaplar text,’ it ‘often agrees as to
omissions with the text of B. . Yet the same
authorities convict B here and there of interpola-
tions. κοὐ . When we turn from questions of in-
sertion and omission to questions of rendering of
the Heb. and the substitution of one Gr. word for
another, we find that the OL in the Prophets
sometimes supports ‘*Lucianic "ἢ readings.’ And
finally, ‘there are renderings found in the OL
representing Gr, readings which have disappeared
from every known Greek MS, but which, by com-
parison with the Hebrew, are shown to preserve
the genuine text of the LNXX from which the
readings of our present Greek MSS are corrup-
tions.
not always, supported by one or both Egyptian
versions, |

One subordinate department of our subject has
not been touched, as, to a ereat extent, lying out-
side the scope of the present article, and also as
requiring far more space than could be aiforded.
We refer to the Latinity of the OL versions. It
seems advisable, however, to give references to
some of the leadine authorities.

A large collection of material is to be found in |

Itala und Vulgata, by H. Ronsch, ed. 2, Marbure,
W875. This work deals with peculiarities of forma-
tion, inflexion, grammatical structure. and menn-
ing.
Ott (Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. f. Philologic, ete. 1874,
p. 77810, 88316). Ronsch also contributed a great
number of articles to various journals,

in ZieTh. 1868, IS81-S82: * Zur vuleiiren und bibli-
schen Latinitat,’ in Zeitsch. f. die osterreich. Gym-
nusion, IST9, No. 11. There are further studies on
this subject in his Semasiologische Beiticge, 87-89,
and Collectanca philologa, 1890, Of great import-
ance is the unfinished work of G. Koflinane,
Geschichte des Nirehenlateins, Breslau, 1879-81
(only 2 parts of vol. 1. have appeared). It devotes
special attention to the Christianizing of Late-
Latin, and the moulding of it to biblical use.
H. Schuchardt’s elaborate Vokalismus des Vulair-
Lateins, Leipz. 1866-67, contains much that is
sugvestive for the language of the version. More

directly bearing on our subject is K. Sittls Die |

lokulen Verschicdenheiten der lutein, Sprache, Evlan-
gen, 1882. It deals largely with ‘ African’ Latin,
with special reference to the Bible. The Handbuch
zur Vulgata, by FP. Kaulen, Mainz, 1870, also pro-
vides material for study. Valuable collections of
linguistic facts are to be found in some of the
edd. of the MSS. See, especially, that of the
Lyons Pentateuch, by Ὁ. Robert, pp. xli-lxxxv,
CXN1IW-eXxvili, which contain an examination of
the grammar and orthography of the text, as well
as giving tables of Hellenisms and new words ;
BE. Ranke’s Par Palimpsestorum Wirceburgensiun,
pp. ¢12-427, with copious grammatical notes ; and
Sanday’s dissertation on Cod. 7, OL Bibl. oT Cope seolne
§ 11. Perhaps we ought to mention also Rendel
Harris’s Study of Cod. Bez, ch. iv. ν. xii. xxvi.,
and Burkitt's Rules of Tyconius, pp. Ixviii-ev.
Sanday has an important appendix in Studia
Biblica, ii. p. 309 tf, and in vol. iv. of the same
series there is a valuable essay on the Style and
Lenguage of S. Cyprian, by Εἰ, W. Watson. See
also Ehrlich, Boitrage z. Lat. der Itala, 1895. By

* Rules of Tyconius, pp. exvi, exvii. See also Streane, Double
Text of Jeremiah, 369-572.

In these passages the OL is sometimes, but |

See a penetrating criticism of it by J. N. |

See especi- |
ally his ‘Sprachliche Parallelen’ and ‘Itala-Studien’ |

far the richest storehouse of matter bearing on
the Latinity of the OL is the Archiv fiir lutein.
Leavikographie, ed. by Wolttin (pub. at Leipzig).
The following articles are of special importance :
‘Die ersten Spuren des African, Lateins,’ by
WoOlfflin (Jahre. vi. Heft Ὁ. 1 ff); ‘Die Heimath
der Appendix Probi,’ Sittl (vi. 3, p. 557 ff.) ; ‘ Die
Sprache Priscillian’s,’ Schepss (iii. 3, p. 307 ff) ;
‘ Lucifer von Cagliari und sein Latein,’ Hartel (iii.
1, p. 1 ff); ‘Lexikographisches aus dem Bibellatein,’
Thielmann (i. 1, p. 68 ff); ‘Minucius Felix,’
Wolfilin (vii. 4, p. 467 ff); ‘Die latein. Sprache
auf. african. Inschriften,’ Kiibler (viii. 2, p. 161 ff.) ;
‘Spuren gallischen Lateins bei Marcellus Empiri-
cus, Geyer (vill. 4, p. 469); articles on ‘Wisdom
of Solomon’ and ‘Sirach,’ by Thielmann, already
referred to; ‘Die europaischen Bestandtheile des
latein. Sirach,’ Thielmann (ix. 2, p. 247 ti). Sce also
the ‘Jahresbericht ther Vulgiir-und Spiitlatein,’ by
K. Sittl in Bursian-Iwan Miller’s Juhreshoricht,
Ixvill. pp. 226-286, and that on ‘Die christlich
lateinische Litteratur von 1886-87 bis Ende 1894’
in the same series, by C. Weyman, 1:90." For
further references to the language of particular
authors see the list of Fathers. We have omitted
mention of the numerous works which deal with
the Latin language in general.

This article has dealt only with the early history
of the Latin translations of the Bible. Their
later developments from the time of Jerome on-
ward are treated under VULGATE.

For the general literature of the subject, see
the authorities referred to throughout the article,
Nestle’s art. in //erzog® (iii, 2416) which appeared
while this was in the press, and Corssen’s admirable
Bericht her die Τα οί. Bibelihersetzungen (Bur-
sian’s Juhresh, Bd. ci.), published only in time to
admit of a few footnotes being added from it during
final revision. H. A. A. KENNEDY.

LATTER.—The adj. ‘late’ is now regarded as
having two forms for the compar. and superl.,
later, latest, and latter, last, and a difference in
meaning is usually observed. But the distinction
is quite recent. In modern editions of AV the
only spelling is ‘latter,’ but the ed. of 1611 had
‘later’ in four places, Is 477, Jer 5™ 48% 49°, and
there is no difference in meaning. Shakespeare
has ‘later’? twice (ace. to Bartlett’s Concordance),
once in ref. to time, ‘And she goes down at twelve
—I take’t, ’tis later, Sir’ (JZacheth U1. i. 3), once
as equivalent to ‘latter’ as it was then used,
KY. John ππ|. 1. 238—

‘Therefore thy later vows against thy first
Is in thyself rebellion to thyself.’
He also uses ‘latest’ for ‘last,’ as Love’s Lahour’s
Lost, V. i. 797,—* At, the latest. minute of tlie
hour.’

In AV as in Shakespeare ‘latter’ is always
(except when distinctly cpposed to ‘former ’)
equivalent to ‘last.? Thus in AV, Job 19° ‘For
I know that my redcemer liveth, and that he

i shall stand at the latter day upon the earth’

(RV. Cat the last upon the earth); 2 P23!" thie
latter end is worse with them than the beginning’
(RV ‘the Jast state is become worse with them
than the first’): and in Shaks.. Henry V. Iv.. 1.
143, ‘All those legs and arms and heads, chopped
off in a battle, shall join together at the latter
day’; and 1 Henry VI. U. ν. 38-—
‘And in his bosom spend my latter gasp.’

The expressions ‘latter end’ and ‘last end’ are
thus equivalent, and both old-fashioned redun-
dancies.

For Latter Rain see RAIN. J. HASTINGS.

* For later lit. see ‘ Jahresb. tiber Vulgiir-und Spiitlatein’ by
P. Geyer, Bursian’s Jahresbericht, xcviii. pp. 33-117.

LATTICE

LAVER 63

LATTICE.—See under Window in art. HOUSE,
vol. ii. p. 435°.

LAUD (taken directly frem Lat. laudare, to
raise) as a synonym for ‘praise’ seems never to
ave been very frequently used, either as verb or
subst., though the latter was more common than
the former. Shaks. has each twice. In AV the
subst. does not oceur, and the verb was retained
only once, No 15! § Praise the Lerd, all ye Gentiles;
and laud him, all ye people. The Greek verbs
here are different (αἰνέω and ἐπαινέω), and no‘doubt
Tindale, from whem the tr. comes, introduced the
variation purposely ; but AV seems simply to have
accepted it from the immediately preceding versions,
for in Ps 117! of which this is a quotation, the Heb.
verbs are again different, and Coverdales tr. was
again ‘praise’ and ‘laud,’ but the Geneva version,
followed by the Bishops, changed ‘laud? into
‘praise,’ and AV has ‘O praise the Lord, all ye
nations: praise him, all ye people.’ RV obliter-
ates the distinction between the Greck verbs in
Ro 15" giving ‘praise’ twice, but restores it in
Ps 117}; and in Ps 1454 RV again introduces
‘laud’ for ‘praise’ to tr. the same Heb. verb.
But in Ps 1472 RV has taken over the AV tr.
‘Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem; praise thy God,
O Zicn,’ though the Heb. shows the same dis-
tinetion in its verbs. Driver (Parallel Psalter,
1898) is more consistent, rendering niv by ‘laud’
wherever in the Psalter it can be so rendered (65°
117! 145* 147!*), and keeping ‘ praise’ for 977.

Tindale uses the verb in Lk 1057 ‘the whele
multitude of the disciples began to rejoyce, and
to lawde God with a loude voyce’ ; and the subst.
in 1 P 1 ‘that youre fayth ... myght be founde
unto lawde, glory, and honoure at the apperinge
of Jesus Christ,’ and 24 ‘for the laude of them
that do well.’

It is doubtful if even the verb can be used now
without affectation ; but if it can, and the Revisers
seem to have thought so, it is a pity it was not
consistently used for ἐπαινέω (Lk 16°, Ro 15", 1 Co
11°17 2+) to distinguish it frem the more common
αἰνέω, to praise. J. HASTINGS.

LAUGHTER.—The laughter menticned in the
Bible is of three kinds, (1) loud laughter as opposed
to demonstrative weeping, (2) wondering or in-
eredulous, and (3) derisive.

(1) IXoheleth allows that there is a time to
laugh as well as a time to weep (Ee 3+), but he
reckons sorrow better than Jauchter (7%), and calls
laughter madness (25). Bildad offers Job the pro-
spect, if he be really upright, of a time when God
will fill his mouth with laughter (Job 87!) ; the
returning exiles enjoyed such a time (Ps 1965 ‘Our
mouth was then filled with loud lauehter’—De
Witt); and Jesus promises it definitely in the
Restitution to those who weep now (Lk 05). In
every instance it is the Oriental loud laughter,
which is rarely heard, and only upon occasion of the
utmost glad surprise. Christ’s woe is pronounced
on those who laugh now when no such surprise is
possible (Lk θ55).

(2) More frequent is the lanehter of wonder or
incredulity. So Abraham (Gn 17!) and Sarah
(18!) laughed when they heard the promise of a
son. And even when the promise could not be
doubted longer by themselves, they knew that all
that heard would laugh at them (21°), they were
so old.

RV retains in Gn 216 the AV translation ‘all that hear will laugh
with me.” But °)"770s? can mean only ‘ will laugh at me’; cf.
Job 522 397.18. 22, Ps 598. Still it is not derisive laughter that
Sarah fears; she does not fear the laughter at all; she only
knows that when people hear of it they will laugh, it is so aston-
ishing as to be still almost incredible. ‘Laugh with me’ is the
rendering of the ancient versions and of all the English versions

from Wyclif, except Tindale, ‘And Sara sayde, God hath made
me a laughinge stocke, for all that heare, will laugh at me.’
Coverdale has even, ‘God hath prepared a joyve for me, tor who
so ever heareth of it, wyll rejoyse with me,’ and is followed by
the Geneva translators and the Bishops. Kalisch defends the
AV tr., on the ground that ‘no other sense is adapted here but
the smile of surprise and admiration.’ But Dillmann, Del.,
Kautzsch (iiber mich), Segond (de moi), and most modern com
mentators translate ‘will laugh at me’—meaning, however, to
express surprise rather than derision.

(3) But the most frequent occurrence of laughter
is in derision. ‘The feeling ranges in expression
from the gentle mocking of Daniel (Bel 19) to the
judicial laughter of Him that sitteth in the heavens
(PED)

There are three Heb. verbs translated ‘laugh,’ PT¥ (except
Jg 1025 Ezk 2382, confined to Pent.), its later form pty, and
331). All three are occasionally rendered in AV ‘laugh to scorn,’
but esp. the last, which does not properly mean to laugh but to
scoff at or scorn. In 2 Es 22) elauduim irridere noli is tra
laugh not a lame man to scorn,’ and the expression ‘laugh
to scorn’ is found in the Gr. Apocr. as the tr. of καταγέλάω,
Jth 12/2, Sir 711 2017 (cf. also 1 Mac 107 41 am laughed to
scorn for thy sake,’ ἐγὼ δὲ ἐγενήνην εἰς καταγέλωτα); ἐκγελάω,
Wis 418. χαταμωπκάοιαι, Sir 137; and x ἕω, ὦ Mac 7703 οἱ,
also Sir 64 ‘Shall make him to be laughed to scorn of his enemies,’
qin crpuce ἐχθρὰν ποιήσει αὐτόν. Τὴ NT zereyercw is so trl where it
occurs (Mt 924|| Mk δ539}} Lk 855. at the raising of Jairus’
daughter), so that a distinction is maintained between the
simple γελάω (only in Lk 621-29) and its more emphatic com-
pound. The phrase is due to Tindale in these places, who thus
improved on Wyclif ‘thei scorneden hym.’ Tind. was followed
by all the versious.

2

The phrases ‘laugh on’ and ‘laugh upon’ are
now obsclete, though we retain the equivalent
‘smile upon.’ They occur once each, Job 20%
‘If T laughed on them, they believed it not’ (pre
cabs, RVm “1 smiled on them when they had no
confidence’; the AY tr. comes from the Geneva
Bible, which explains its meaning by the marge.
note, ‘That is, thei thoght it not to bea jest, or
thei thoght not that 1 wold condescend unto
them’), 1 Es 4 ‘if she laughed upon him, he
laughed also’ (ἐὰν προσγελάσῃ αὐτῷ, γελᾳ),

J. HASTINGS.

LAUNCH is now transitive only. In AY it
occurs intransitively and only so. RV has chaned
the word into ‘set sail’ (Ac 211), ‘put to sea’
(Ac 2724), or simply ‘put’ (Lk 54), and once has
retained it (Lk 8“). The transitive use must be
the older, as the verb is formed from ‘lance,’ and
means primarily to ‘hurl a lance,” and then to
send (a ship) into the water. Spenser uses it fre-
quently in the simple sense of ‘to pierce,’ almost
as we now use ‘lance,’ as / I. iv. 46, ‘For since
my brest was launcht with lovely dart.’ Shake-
speare has the word only once, and it is transitive,
Troil. and Cress. 11. 11. 82—

‘Why, she is a pearl,
Whose price hath launch’d above a thousand ships.’

The Greek is either (1) the compound form éravayx, which
occurs in MT only thrice, Mt 2118 in the sense of returning into
acity, and Lk 534 in the sense of ‘put out’ (RY) to sea Cin 58
AV has ‘thrust out,’ after Tindale) ; or (2) the simple eve yous,
which is found only in the writings of St. Luke (though the
active ἀνάγω ‘bring up’ occurs in Mt 41, Ro 107, He 15%), as
well as in Lk and Ac), but there it is of frequent occurrence.
AV varies in its tr. between ‘launch forth’ (Lk 82"), ‘launch’
(Ac 211 272-4), ‘loose’ (Ac 1313 1611 2721), ‘sail’ (Ac 182! 208. 18),
‘set forth’ (Ac 212), and ‘depart’ (Ac 272 2810.11), RV has

| usually ‘set sail’ (Ac 1318 1611 1821 2u8.18 211.2 2721 2811), but

also ‘launch forth’ (Lk S822), ‘embark’ (Ac 272), ‘put to sea’
(Ac 274-12), and simply ‘sail’ (Ac 3810), The idea expressed in
the prep. ἀνα is not ‘up’ to the ship, but up to the high sea
from the lower harbour or coast-line ; cf. χα ταβαΐνω ‘eo down’
to the coast from the higher land. J. FEASTINGS.

LAVER (3 or ¥2; LXX Aovri#p).—This is the
name given to the ten brazen basins made by
Hiram for Solomon’s Temple, LK 7° (=2 Ch
48. 14) * They were raised on high stands, and
furnished with wheels. Anything beyond this is
dificult to ascertain with certainty. ΚΘ] and

*In 1K 749 Mr should be emended to MVET (cf. v.45 I
2 Ch 411.16 and LXX λέβητας).

64 LAVER

LAW IN OLD TESTAMENT

others make out the bases or stands (ni3d2) to
have been square boxes with ornamented panels.
Nowack (εὖ. Arch. ii. pp. 44-46), following Stade
(ZATIV iii. 1801}, corrects the text, which at
present is unintelligible in parts, and, further,
utilizes for comparison the vessels now known to
have been used in Semitic antiquity from the evi-
dence of the Assyrian monuments. He thus
arrives at a more probable reconstruction, thoug)
he is perhaps over-bold in venturing on a con-
jectural sketch of a Javer as he understands it. In
the following description of the details Nowack is
followed in the main.

The base or stand was made up of a lower and an
upper division. The lower division was a square
framework, of which the sides were partly open.

If they had been massive plates of metal, each |

3 x 4 cubits, the whole would have been too heavy
to move. Moreover, the Assyrian examples show
a much lighter kind of stand than those used in
supporting the Greek amphora. The sides were
like an unglazed window-frame, with horizontal
borders or panels (n22) and vertical ledges or
crosspleces (2227). At the corners were under-
setters or shoulders, i.e. square pillars whose lower
extremities were extended to form fvef, in which
were fixed the axles, on which the wheels turned.
The wheels, each 15 cubits high, were thus com-
letely under the body of the base. Thus the
jelne part of the base being itself 3 cubits high,
its top edge was 4) cubits high. On the top of
this lower part was a pedestal (1 αὶ 739) consisting of
a round compass or ring (ν.35) something like the
capital of a column (v.*!). The outside measure-

ment of this ring was 14 cubits across, and (6

inside measurement 1 cubit, while it was raised
half a cubit above the base proper (v.%). As the
diameter of the latter was 4 cubits, the supports
(stays or hands) of the ring must have sloped in-
wards very considerably. 'Chese supports seem to
have sprung from a square framework (v.8!) resting
on the top of the lase. As a dome with a central
circular window is often built over four square
walls and supported by four ribs from the corners
sloping inwards, so this open metal frame had a
square base and a round opening or ring, into
which the basin or daver titted. The borders and
stays were ornamented with lions, oxen, and
cherubim, and with embossed wreaths.

It is remarkable that these ten lavers do not
reappear in the sketch of the new temple put forth
by Ezekiel, or in the temple of Zerubbabel, nor is
anything like them found in P’s representation of
the tabernacle. The last we hear of them is that
Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases and took the
laver off them (1 Καὶ 1017). From this the suevestion
has been supported that the connecting parts of
the framework were, as in some similar construc-
tious of which Semitic archwology has evidence,
hollow, or that they were wood inside plated over
with brass. As for the discarding of the molten
sea and ten movable lavers, which seems to indicate
some prejudice against them, it has been con-
jectured that they had some mythical associations
which had now become distasteful. The great
molten sea is connected with the deep (dian) and
the lavers with the clouds. It is observed that
Ezekiel, who describes no wheeled lavers orna-
mented with lions, oxen, and cherubim, yet has a
vision (ch. 1) of living creatures, uniting the char-
acteristics of lion, ox, man, and eavle, and of
wheels closely associated with them, the whole
imagery suggesting the personification of the
clouds borne on by the storm blast. The explana-
tion of the Chronicler (2 Ch 4°), that the lavers
were used for washing the sacrifices, has nothing to
support it in Kings, and it is hard to see how such
lofty basins could have been put to practical use.

No hint is given in the elaborate description of
any means for drawing off water. The symbolical
interpretation gives a fine suggvestiveness to these
vessels. The priest of J” draws near to Him as
Lord of the furthest abyss and of the rolling storm
clouds.

Although, as we have seen, the molten sea and
ten lavers have no parallel in the account of the
tabernacle, yet we find there a single laver. It is
mentioned only in passages which are secondary in
relation to P§ (Ex 30!7--1319 3516 388 3099 40", Ly $05;
and nothing is said as to its size or shape. It
consisted of two parts, the basin and its pedestal
(12). The word ‘base’ (3929) is not used. In Ex
38° it seems to be stated that it was made of the
mirrors of the serving women. Others, with some
violence to the Hebrew, render ‘(provided) with
nurrors for the serving women.’ Its purpose was
definite, viz. that the priests might wash their hands
and feet there before entering the tabernacle, by
the door of which the laver stood on the inner side
of the brazen altar. Soin He 1053 the imagery is
applied to the true worshipper, and in Tit 3° the
laver becomes a type of the baptismal font, by
which (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας) believers have
access into the Church of the firstborn. In Zerub-
babel’s and Herod’s temples there was, in accord-
ance with P's representation, a single laver.

LITERATURE —Keil, Nowack, and Benzinger on Bibl. Archzeo-
logy (only the first translated); Gesenius, 7’hes.; the com-
mentaries on Exodus and 1 Kings.

ἃ. HARFORD-BATTERSBY.

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT).—

i. History of the term ‘ Torah.’

li. Torah threefold—judicial, ceremonial, moral.

i. Rise and history of written Torah.
iv. Synonyms of ‘law’ :— ᾿ :

(1) Mishpat ; (2) hok, hukkah ; (3) mizwah ; (4) ‘édwoth
or ‘edoth ; (5) pikkidim.

The different codes of Hebrew law :— i

A, JE: (1) the Decalogue ; (2) Book of the Covenant-—
summary of its provisions —the * Little Book of the
Covenant’—age and character of the Book pf the
Covenant. ‘ is

B. Deuteronomy—summary of its provisions—changes
in the laws repeated from JE—the new provisions.
introduced. :

C. The Law of Holiness (H)—summary of its provisions
—compared with Book of the Covenant.

D. The Priests’ Code (P)—summary of its provisions—
P characterized and compared and contrasted with
earlier codes and with institutions of other Semitic
peoples—danger of abuse of ceremonial law—pwda-
gogic office of the Law,

Literature.

.

The Heb. word for ‘law’ is térah (77n), from
héorah (aya), to point out Gn 40:8, or to direct
Jg¢ 138, meaning properly, @ pointing out, or diree-
tion, and being used specially of authoritative
direction, given in Jehovah’s name--primarily, no
doubt, by priests, though it is by no means limited
to what is given by them—on points of moral,
religious, or ceremonial duty.

The root yardah signifies properly to throw or cast ; and hence
it is possible, as has been conjectured (Wellh. Hist. 394, cf.
Skizzen, iii. 167, ed. 2, 143; Nowack, Arch. ii. 97; Benzinger,
Arch. 408), that the primitive meaning of hérdh in this con-
nexion was to cast the sacred lot—or arrows used as lots—at
a sanctuary, for the purpose of ascertaining the will of the
deity on behalf of those who came to consult it (the word is
used of casting lots Jos 186, and of shooting arrows 18 20°6 al.).
Comp. the use made by the priest of the Ephod and Urim and
Thummim, 18 143-18 (LXX) 41 (esp. LXX) 42 etc. Torah, it
this view be correct, will have denoted originally the ‘direc-
tion’ obtained by means of the sacred lot: it remained a duty
of the Isr. priest to teach J’’s térah, though this particular
method of ascertaining it no doubt fell early into abeyance,
and the term acquired a more general sense. Comp. the pr.
names ‘Terebinth(s) of Moreh,’ or ‘the teacher’ (Gn 126, Dt
1180), and ‘Gibeath-Moreh,’ ‘ Hill of the teacher’ (Jg 71), most
probably the seats of ancient Canaanite oracles.

i. The word had a history ; and in order to under-
stand it preperly, the stages of its history must
be briefly noted. (1) One of the earliest passages
in which it occurs is Ex 1816: 9. (E), where th«

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT) 65

decisions given by Moses on disputes ‘between a
man and his neighbour’— evidently on secular
matters—are termed the ‘statutes’ and ‘directions’
of God. This passage sets before us Heb. law
in its beginnings. ‘It is to be remembered that
in early Semitic life government was largely ad-
ministered by means of ‘ 'Toroth,” authoritative
decisions, delivered by the chief or judge, who
gave his verdict upon the basis of custom or pre-
cedent. It was the reign of Themis, or of what
we might call Consuetudinary Justice.* A picture
of such an administration, actually conducted by
Moses on such lines, stands before us in the narra-
tive of Ex 1827? (Ryle, Canon of the OT, p. 32).
Decisions given in this way, especially on difficult
questions (cf. Ex 1850), would naturally form pre-
cedents for future use (ef. OT 6 3 304); and thus
an increasing body of civil and criminal law would
gradually grow up. (2) In the prophets the term
is used of teaching given in Jehovah’s name
sometimes by priests, but more frequently by
prophets—on questions of religious or moral duty.
Hosea (4°) attributes the crimes prevalent in Israel
(νν.1- 3) to the priests’ forgetfulness of the Torah
of their God (cf. 8! !*): this passage is important,
as showing that the priestly ‘torah’ included a
moral element (ef. Ex 23°, Lv 19), and was de-
pendent for its effectiveness upon the ‘knowledge’
of God. The word is used similarly, of moral and
spiritual teaching, in Am 24 In Is 1” the ‘ Torah
of our God’ is the exposition which follows (νν. 11:11)
respecting the true character of religious service ;
Is 5% the Térdh which Judah has rejected consists
of the precepts of civil righteousness and morality,
the disregard of which the prophet has been de-
nouncing (vv.%"3); Is 82° it denotes the half-
political half-religious advice just given by the
prophet (vv.!*%): it is used similarly in 30° (see
v. ; and cf. v.*°, where the prophets are called
by the corresponding participle, the ‘directors’
[teachers] of the people of Jerusalem). In Jer 61%
98 161 264 32° 44!" 3 the reference may be partly
(see 264) to the preaching of the prophets, partly
(notice the context, and the addition in 9% 264 441°
of ‘which 1 set before you’) to the teaching of
Deuteronomy. Other examples of the same gene-
ral sense of direction, though not specially given
by prophets, are Ps 78! (of a didactic Psalm),
Job 992: (‘ Receive now direction from his [God’s]
month’); in the mouth of a mother, Pr 18 67’;
of a teacher of practical wisdom, Pr 3! 4? 6° (ef.
RVm) 73 13"; of the model woman, 31° (‘ law,’
in all these passages, is a misleading rendering).
It is also used of the guidance, or direction, to be
given by J”, or His representative, in the future
ideal age: Is 2° (=Mic 4°), Jer 31°, Is 42+ (of the
preaching of J’’s ideal servant), 514. (8) Side by
side with this broader prophetical application of
the term, there was, however, a narrower one,
in which it was particularly associated with the
priests, and (like the cognate verb hdrdh) denoted
the oral direction given by them in Jehovah's
name, especially on matters of ceremonial obsery-
ance, such as the nature of the different kinds of
sacrifice, the cases in which they were respectively
to be offered, the criteria of leprosy, the conditions
upon which it depended whether a thing was
‘clean’ or ‘unclean,’ etc. ; the laity came to the
priests for instruction on all such points, and the
answer given to them was férdh, ‘direction.’ Hag
2", though a late passage, shows what ‘tdrah’
was very clearly: the prophet is told to inquire
of the priests whether in two particular cases an
object becomes ‘holy,’ or ‘unclean,’ in the words
‘Ask now direction of the priests’ [not as RV,
‘concerning the law’: there is no art. in the
Heb.], the answer to the inquiries being the ‘ diree-
* Cf. Maine’s Ancient Law, ch. i.
VOL. 111.--τῦ

tion’ or térdah (cf. Mal 2° ‘truthful direction was
in his mouth’; v.7 ‘they seek direction from his
mouth’; v.8 ‘ye have caused many to stumble
by your [false] direction’; v.? Sand have respect
of persons in direction’ [not ‘in the law’]). For
earlier instances, partly of the subst., partly of
the cognate verb, see Dt 17!" (of decisions given
by the supreme court of priests and lay-judges on
cases of civil or criminal law) ‘ace. to the direction
wherewith they direct thee, and acc. to the judg-
ment which they tell thee, thou shalt do,’ 248
‘take heed that thou do according to all that the
Levitical priests direct you’ (in the case of leprosy),
33!" “they teach Jacob thy judgments [Ex 21'],
and Israel thy direction, Mic 3" ‘her priests
direct for hire,’ Jer 98 (‘the handlers of the torah
[πύρα wen], ze. the priests, know me not’), 188
‘ direction will not perish from his mouth,’ z.e. the
priest and his functions will never come to an
end (said by those who disbelieved Jeremiah’s pre-
dictions of disaster), Zeph 35 (‘her priests have
profaned what is holy, they have done violence to
térah,’—atn 025), Ezk 755. (‘direction shall perish
from the priest, and counsel from the elder’: cf.
La 2° ‘without [priestly] direction’), 227° (‘her
priests have done violence to my torah, they have
profaned my holy things, they have made no
difference between the holy and the common’),
44 (cf. Ly 1457 ‘they shall direct my people
between the holy and the common, and make
them to know between the unclean and the clean’
(notice in these two passages the connexion of
torah with ceremonial distinctions), Hab 14 ‘ there-
fore térdh is numbed’ (ὦ. 6. is paralyzed, inetfec-
tual: the violence and disorder, νν." * 4, incap-
acitates even the priests in the discharge of their
duties). These passages show clearly the associa-
tion of térah with the priests (cf. also 2 Καὶ 17*7-*,
2Ch 15°) ; they show not less clearly that, although
it denoted a simply ora/ direction, this ‘direction ἡ
was regulated by certain fundamental principles,
which might be neglected or violated by unfaithful
priests. (4) In process of time, ¢érah came further to
denote a body of technical direction on a given sub-
ject: in this sense it occurs frequently in P, esp.
in the expression ‘this is the torah (‘law’) of the
burnt-offering, of the cereal offering, of leprosy,
of thes Nazirites: ete Ly Git Foe es ἀγα 100
13°9 14°: 32. 54. 57 15: 2616. Nu 52. 30 (ia 21 190:- 14 31°),
As, however, Wellh. has pointed out (fist. 59,
395; cf. Nowack, ii. 98), the more original sense
of térah even here will have been that of direc-
tions given to the laity, not (as in Lv 6-7) rules
regulating the priests’ own praxis at the altar.

In Dt (15 4844 171819 073. 8. 26 gs. 61 9051. 29 3010
519 1. 12. 24. 26 3246) the term, esp. in the expression
‘this law,’ is used somewhat ambiguously : some-
times it denotes more particularly the code of
laws embodied in Dt; sometimes it is used more
generally of the exposition of an Israelite’s duty
contained in the book, and consisting partly of
the actual laws, partly of the hortatory introduc-
tions and comments accompanying them, in other
words it denotes the Deuteronomic legislation
generally ; in the last-named sense it aiso occurs
repeatedly (often in such phrases as ‘the book of
the law,’ ‘the law of Moses,’ ‘the law that Moses
commanded,’ etc.) in the Deuteronomic sections of
πη Kinos (0s) chk g Soh δ ες τῶν ee τ ὧν
2 Kk 1051 149 17}: 34, 37 918 998. 11 9324. 25).

After the time of Ezra,* when P had been com-
bined with JED, and the Pentateuech had assumed
(virtually) its present form, the term is used, yet
more generally, of the Pent. as a whole, as 1 Ch
16*° (with reference to Ex 29°84 P), 2 Ch 31° etce.,
Ezr ὃ", Neh 8:85. In the Psalms it is used often

*The reference in Malachi (42) is to Deuteronomy: see
ΟΣ»: 425,

66 LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

of the legislative parts of the Pent. in general, as
Ps 1° 197 378! 40° (perhaps here with particular
reference to Dt), 9414 119! 38 ete.,

ii. From the preceding survey of passages, it
will be apparent that Hebrew torah had a three-
fold character: it was judicial, ceremonial, and
moral, The ceremonial torah is most prominent
in the OT; but the judicial and moral térah was
not less a reality, esp. in early times. Nor is it
doubted by eritics that this ford@h, under all its
aspects, originated with Moses. Wellhausen writes
(Hist. 396, 397 n., 438): ‘The priests derived their
Torah from Moses: they claimed only to preserve
and guard what Moses had Jeft (Dt 334%). 2...
From the historical tradition fof the Pent.] it is
certain that Moses was the founder of the Torah.’ *
Moses, however, did not create a finished code: he
was the founder of a principle, and of a tradition :
he was ‘the first to call into activity the actwal
sense for law and justice, and to begin (Ex 15” 18)
the series of oral decisions which were continued
after him by the priest... And Montetiore, after
emphasizing the fact that from the beeinning J”
was amoral God, a God of justice, continues
(Hibb. “Teck pp. 45, 641.) ‘Most original and
characteristic was the moral influence of Yahvech
in the domain of law. Yahveh, to the Israelite,
was emphatically the God of right. From the
earliest times onward, Yahveh’s sanctuary was
the depositary of law, and the priest was his
spokesman. The oracle of Yahveh, of which ‘the
priests were the interpreters, decided suits and
quarrels, and probably cave enidance and advice
in questions of social difheulty. The 7orah—or
teaching——of the priests, half-judicial half-peeda-
evosic, was a deep moral influence ; and there was

no element in the religion which was at once |
more genuinely Hebrew and more closely identified |

with the national God. ‘There is good reason to
believe that this priestly Torah is the one religious
institution which can be correctly attributed to
Moses. . 2. Though Moses was not the author
of the written law, he was unquestionably the
founder of that oral teaching, or Torah, which
preceded, and became the basis of, the codes of
the Pentateuch. That the priest, in = giving
judgement, was Js spokesman, is evident from
the term of Ex I8%® (the people come to Moses
to ‘inguire of God’ for the settlement of civil
disputes, and his decisions are ‘the statutes and
taroth of God’) 21% 22>" (comp. 1S 955). Questions
of ceremonial also fell naturally within the priests’
province ; and their answers on this subject were
regarded similarly as the judgements of God. It
resulted further, from the ethical character of J”,
that the téroth of Moses and his successors, even
on judicial and ceremonial matters, were always
permeated by a strong moral element. The de-
cisions framed by Moses and his successors accum-
ulated: they were from the first the expression
of the same, or similar, principles: the result was
thus a fixed tradition, having a definitely marked
character, which exerted naturally a regulative
influence upon the new decisions which, as time
went on, were found necessary for the purpose of
mecting new needs.

ii. ‘ 76rah’? was originally ora?,—handed down
orally from one pinanitaet dass to another, and
delivered orally by the priest to those who came to
seek it of him (οἵ. Mal 25-7; also Job 22”, Pr 31-8).
The question arises, When was it first committed
to writing? An examination of the Pent. shows
(1) that the laws contained in it are not homo-
geneous, but fall into groups, differing from one
another in style, in contents, and in scope; and

*Comp. W. R. Smith, OTS C2 303, 339.

" 7 ἡ Il, i, 233f., ix. 98 ἔ, (θέμειστες intrusted to the king by
eus).

(2) that the different groups cannot be regarded as
the product of a single generation, but must spring
from different periods of the history. ‘These and
other indications make it clear thatthe process of
writing down the oral 7érdh_was a gradual one.

were enlarged, or supplemented by others: till the
final result was the body of téréth embedded in our
present Pentateuch. These different collections
did not often remain in their primitive form: new
provisions were introduced into them; they were
revised and adjusted to suit the requirements of a
later age: in some cases, they were largely ex-
panded by parenetic or other additions. The
frequently loose arrangement of subjects in the
various groups is a sufficient proof that we no
longer possess them in their original fori, The
process of writing down began, no doubt, at an
early date; though we cannot say definitely how
early. The Book of the Covenant is an early
written collection of such ¢érofh: it is true, the
name is not actually given to it; but the analogy
of Ex 18! 39 shows that it would correctly describe
it. The ritual section of this collection (23!"!9)
appears in a different recension in Ex 341-76,
Other collections of térdéth are those forming the
original nucleus of the ‘Law of Holiness’ (see
below). The laws forming the basis of the Deut.
code were also doubtless, at least in the great
majority of cases, taken by the writer from a
written source (or sources). The existence of
written 7éroth is implied distinetly in Hos 8" RV
(where J” says that, however many ‘directions’ He
writes for Ephraim, His people treat them as some-
thing with which they have no concern): the con-
text, however, and 4° (see above) show that the
allusion here is not to ritual, but to ethical and

religious precepts, especially those relating to civil

righteousness, *

There is an interesting, but obscure, passage bearing on this
subject, in Jer 83 ‘ How say ye, We are wise, and J’’s direc-
tion is with us? Surely falsely hath it wrought, the false pen of
the scribes.’ The priests here claim that they possess the
legitimate tradition, and principles, of .1 5. torah: Jeremiah
replies that the scribes—which must denote here those who
comunitted this torah to writing—had dealt falsely, 1.6. (appar-
ently) had been untrue to the principles which it was their duty
to maintain, had in some way perverted or falsified the torah

| of which they were the exponents (cf. 28, though there is not

here any reference to writing). We do not know more pre-
cisely what Jeremiah alludes to: perhaps to heathen rites, for
which, in the syncretistic fashion of the day, the false pricsts
sought thus to gain the sanction of J’’s name.

Other priestly laws were written down by Ezekiel,
in his draft for the worship of the restored com-
munity, esp. in chs. 48-45 (cf. OTC? 374-377 ;
tyle, Canon, 73); but the great bulk—those, viz.,
embraced in what is now generally known as the
‘Priests’ Code’—were not, it seems, codified till
somewhat later, when, the temple having been
destroyed, and the worship interrupted, the priests,
that the traditions of their order mieht not be for-
gotten, reduced to writing and systematized what
had hitherto been familiar to them from the daily
exercise of their profession (cf. Wellh. /Zist. 59f.,
404; Ryle, Canon, 71-74; Montefiore, Hibb. Lect.
234f.).

iv. Synonyms of “ Law? +— 1. p22 mishpat,
‘judgment’ (sometimes rendered‘ ordinance ἢ),
properly a decision given in an individual case,
and then established as a precedent for other
similar cases. Jishpat oceurs in this sense in
JE, Ex 15% (‘there made he for it (Israel) a
statute and ordinance, and there he proved it,’—

* Wellh. ad loc. : ‘Offenbar Weisungen tiber die omnbs ny
(41), die also damals schon aufgezeichnet vorlagen’; cf. Hist
57 ; Cheyne or Nowack, ad loc.; Konig, Ogenb.-Begr. ii. 329; Ryle
Canon of OT, 33.

+ Cf. Briggs, Higher Crit. of the Hex.? (1897), p. 242 ff.

— τα

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT) 67

a noticeable passage, witnessing, like Ex 1816 τὸ
above, to Moses’ work as ἃ framer of laws for his
people *), 21} and 949 (of the enactments in the ‘ Book
of the Covenant’ prescribing penalties for particular
offences, introduced by if or when, and contained
chiefly in 21'-22!); in H (always combined with
nmipn “sts atutes ἢ Ly 181-530 1987 053 9518. 9615. 43. 46
(here ὉΠ); in Dt, usually with ‘statutes’ (ap,
not as in H nen), of the provisions of the Deut.
code (ο hs. 195 26), 4}. 5 . 8. 14. 45 δ. 91 0}- 20 711. 12 gu
1} γε δῦ: 3" --also-in- the Blessing: οἱ Moses,
33! (as pronounced by the priests: || ‘ direction’) ;
in P rarely, and in the specific sense of Ex 21! 245
only Nu 27" 35°, cf. 36%. + The primary sense
of the word is an enactment of the civil or criminal
law; but it is also (as in H) applied to enactments
of the moral or ceremonial law, which might be
viewed analogously as Divine ‘decisions.’ (The
word occurs also frequently in other books besides
the Pent.) ¢

In Gn 147 Kadesh is called ‘En-mishpat,’ ‘spring of judgment,’
—either, it seems, because it was the site of an ancient oracle,
at which decisions were given for the settlement of disputes, or
(Wellh. //ist. 343, 397n., 430, 439) from its having been the
scene of Moses’ legislative activity, during what appears to
have been Israel’s long stay there (Driver, Deut. p. 82 f.).

Mishpat also occurs sometimes in the enlarged
sense of right (‘Recht’), as a rule of action in
general; it thus becomes virtually equivalent to
religion, regarded as a system of practical duties ;
Jer δὲ ‘they (the poorer classes) know πον the w ay
of J”, nor ah mishpat of their God,’ Ts 491
‘he shall bring forth (publish) right a ἀξ οὐ εμνῷι to
the nations,’ vv.* + 514 (ἐν), 587; cf. 2 Καὶ 1726 27
(AV and RV, poorly, ‘manner ’).

2. pa, ren, hok, hukkah, ‘statute,’ from ppn to cut
in, inscribe, engrave (Ezk λα, Job 194, Is: 104-Rr
8 [AV and RV ‘decree’)), and therefore denoting
properly something engraren on stone, or other
durable surface, though applied in usage to any
kind of fixed ordinanee. It was a common practice
in antiquity to engrave laws upon slabs of stone or
metal (στῆλαι), and to set them up in some public
place—and the same custom is presupposed in the
use of these two words in Hebrew. Both terms
occur frequently in H, Dt, and P. The earliest
examples (JE) are Ex 12% 13! 157-26 1816.2 (EK);
cf. (in a different connexion) Gn 47:5, also Jos 24°,
Je 11, 1S 30% The combination ‘statutes
and judgments’ is common in H and Dt (see
above). For instances in P (often in the ex-
pression, ‘a statute [ΠΡ] frequently, ‘due ‘] for
ever’), see Ex 277! 28% 299. 28) Ly 317 618. +2 1629. 31. 34
ete. §

3. την mizgewdh, ‘commandment,’ a eeneral term,
implying something commande d (Viz by oh ). Most
frequent in Dt (43° times), as 424° 539. “1 Rare in
the other codes: in JE, Ex 15° 16" ze (prob. from
yt). 9412. in H, Ly 9951 968. 14. se 3d P ; Ly 42. 19. 22. 27
511 ΗΕ. Nu 1522 31. 39, 40 3868,

4, my ‘divoth or ‘édoth, ‘testimonies’: in the
Pent. only Dt 4" 617-2; a theological term, denot-
ing generally moral ‘and religious ordinances,
regarded as an attestation, or solemn declaration,
of the Divine will. In P the sing. testimony is
used frequently of the Decalogue, as a statement
Kar’ ἐξοχήν of God’s will for man, esp. in the ex-
pressions ‘ Ark, tables, or t tabernacle, of the testi-
τ πο UK ee OTe See Bae, Nua 15. and
elsewhere.

5. Drape pikkudim, ‘precepts’: only in the Psalms
8 103!8 111’, and 21 times in Ps 119).

Hebrew law falls into distinct Codes,

ἘΣ Wellh. ist. 343 ; and Dillm. ad loc.

t Cf. Ex 219.31, Dt 2117, Jer 327.8, Ezk 1098 2345,

t See further Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch (1892), 29-34.

§ Both these words are also used sometimes of daws of nature :
as Jer 8110, Job 2826, Ps 1486 (pn); Jer 524 3195 3325, Job 3338
(apn).

mY.

those

Viz. Ob J.B, Dt, (He and 32, sl the characteristics
of these must next be examined. *

A. In JE we have (1) the DECALOGUE (wh. sec),
Ex 20777, a concise but comprehensive summary of
the fundamental duties of the Israelite towards
God and man. We have (2) the ‘Book of the
Covenant’ (Ex 20°-23 5; in explanation of the
name see 247), the laws contained in which com-
prise two elements (24°), the ‘words’ (or commands)
and the ‘judgments’: the ‘judgments,’ expressed
all hypothetically, and relating to the civil and
criminal law, being comprised in 21'-22!% 227, and
the ‘words, consisting mostly of positive injunc-
tions of the moral or ceremonial law , and introduced
by thou shalt ov thou shalt not, being comprised in
pt Maid lt ee alee νᾶν ΤῊ the Jorm of the laws,
and the parenetic additions which the Ly sometimes
exhibit (as 2274) we are not here concerned: the
laws ifemneubeba are designed to regulate the life
of a community living under simple conditions of
society, and chietly engaged in agriculture. They
inay be grouped as follows t:—

i. Enactments relating to civil and eriiminal law:

1. The rights of Hebrew slaves (male and female), 211-1],

2. Law of murder and manslaughter vv.12-14, of violence
to a parent v.45, of man-stealing v.16, of cursing a
parent v.17,

3. Bodily injury caused by men vv. 18-27 (bodily injury in-
tlicted in a quarrel v.18; beating ἃ slave to death
v.20f 5 injury done ina quarrel to a pregnant woman
v.22, or other bystander vv.23-2>; striking out the eye
or tooth of a slave v.26f),

4. Bodily injury due to animals, or neglect of reasonable
precautions vv.2*86 (injury done by an ox toafree man
or woman vy.23-81, or to a slave v injury caused by
neglect in leaving an open pit v ; injury done by an
ox to one belonging to another person ν 358. : in the
first and last of “these cases, the penalty, where the
neglect is culpable, is materially increased),

δ. Thett 221- 4(thett of ox or sheep ν.] ; burglary vv.2-4).

6. Compensation for damage νι. (damage done by ‘stray-
ing cattle v.5; damage done by fire spreading to
another man’s field y. 6),

7. Compensation for loss or injury in various cases of
deposit or loan vv.7-19 (cases of deposit vv.7-9. 10-13 ;

case of injury toa Ἀὸ ποῦν ed animal y.14f),
8. Compensation for seduction v.16"
dis Moral, religious, and ceremonial enactments :
Ty Law re lating to altars 2024-25 (altars to be of earth or of
unhewn stone, and not to be approached by steps).
Sorcery and bestiality to be punished with death 2218f.,

. Sacrifice to ‘other gods’ to be punished with the ‘ban’
9920,

oo ἫΝ

4. Humanitarian laws 2221-27 (the gér, or resident for-
eigner, the widow and the orphan, not to be oppressed
2221-24; interest not be taken from the poor 222); a
garment taken in pledge to be returned before night-
fall 22261),

5. God not to be reviled, nor a ruler cursed 2228,

6. Firstfruits and firstborn males to be given to J” 2229f.
(cf. 1312, where it is added that the firstling of an
ass is to be either redeemed with a lamb or “Killed,
and the firstborn of aman is to be redeemed) ; and
flesh torn of beasts not to be eaten 2251,

7. Veracity and impartiality in giving ev idence ina court
of law 231-3,

8. An enemy’s beast to be preserved from harm 234f.,

9. Justice to be administered impartially 236-9 (bribes not
to be taken : the poor and the gér not to be oppressed).

10. The seventh year to be a tallow vear, and the seventh
day a day of rest 2310-12 (the motive in each case is a
philanthropic one).

11. God’s commands to be honoured, and ‘ other gods’
to be invoked 2338,

12. The three annual pilgrimages (of Unleavened Cakes
Harvest, and Weeks) to be observed 231417 (all males
to appear before J” at each).

13. Three closing regulations 2318.19 (sacrifice not to be
offered with leavened bread, nor its fat to remain un-

not

* The literary characteristics of the Codes do not fall within
the scope of the present article; but it may be remarked in
passing that each possesses distinctive literary features of its
own, and that even the form of the laws sometimes differs in
the different codes: thus, while in Ex 21-3 a law commonly
begins in the form w NX AD 7D) (2129. 22.26 ete.), in P the form
2 DIN or 3 W5I is frequent (Lv 12 21 42 etc.), and in H the
form WN WN ΣΝ (Ly 173. 8.10. 13 etc.),

+ Comp. Stade, Gesch. i. 636; Holzinger, Find. 243. Many of
these laws seem to fall into groups of ten, which L. B. Paton
has endeavoured recently to restore in their (supposed) original
completeness ; see J BL, 1893, p. 79 ff. (an abstract in LOTS yp. 40);
and cf. Briggs, hes p. 201 i.

68 LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

burnt until the following morning ; firstfruits to be
brought to ‘the house of J”’; a kid not to be boiled
in its mother’s milk).

The ceremonial provisions contained in 2910:19 are
repeated in 3F°%—a section sometimes called the
‘Little Book of the Covenant,’ and sometimes also
(from 3455) the ‘Words of the Covenant ’—with
changes of order, and slight verbal variations, and
with the addition in 34'*)7 of more specific injune-
tions against idolatry.*

The * Book of the Covenant’ is the oldest Code of
Hebrew law with which we are acquainted—older,
no doubt, than the narrative (E) in which it was
incorporated ; it embodies, to use Cornill’s expres-
sion, the ‘consuetudinary law of the early mon-
archy,’ and embraces (in accordance with the
sense of térdh and mishpdat, explained above) the
formulated decisions which had accumulated gradu-
ally up to that age. That the community for
whose use it was designed had made some progress
in civilization is evident from the many restrictions
imposed on the arbitrary action of the individual ;
on the other hand, that it was still in a relatively
archaic condition appears from such regulations as
2138! and 21°°°*5 (the dex talionis), or the conception
of God as the immediate source of judgment (21°
22°"; cf. 15 2"). The stage of society for which
the Code was designed, and the characteristics of
the Code itself, are well indicated by W. R. Smith
(OTJC® 34011). ‘The society contemplated in it
is of very simple structure. The basis of life is
agricultural. Cattle and agricultural produce are
the main elements of wealth; and the laws of
property deal almost exclusively with them. The
principles of criminal and civil justice are those
still current amone the Arabs of the desert, viz.
retalation and pecuniary compensation. Murder
is dealt with by the law of blood revenge ; but’
the distinction—which in Greece was. still not
recognized in the age of Homer—is drawn between
murder and manslaughter, and ‘the innocent
man-slayer may seek asylum at God's altar (21%,
comp. with v.4: ef. 1 K 278). With murder are
ranked man-stealing, offences against parents, and
witcheraft. Other injuries are occasions of self-
help, or of private suits to be adjusted at the
sanctuary (22° [εἴ. 910]. Personal injuries fall
under the lay_of retaliation, just as murder does.
Blow for blow 1s sti 10 law of the Arabs; and in
Canaan, no doubt as in the desert, the retaliation
was usually sought in the way of self-help. Except
in this form, there is no punishment, but only
compensation, Which in some cases is at the will of
the injured party (who has the alternative of direct
revenge), but in general is defined by law. De-
grading punishments are unknown, and loss of
liberty is inflicted only on the thief who cannot
pay a fine(22°), Definite rights are secured for the
slave. He recovers his freedom atter 7 years,
unless he prefers to remain a bondman, and seals
solemnly his determination at the door of the
sanctuary. His right of blood revenge against his
master is, however, limited (21°); though, in-
stead of the /ex talionis for minor injuries, he can
claim his liberty (21°55). Women do not enjoy full
social equality with men. Women slaves were
slaves for life, but were often, it may be inferred,
married to members or servants of the family
(217%), The daughter was her father’s property
(217), who received a price for surrendering her to
a husband ; and so a daughter’s dishonour is com-
pensated by law as a pecuniary loss to her father
(99 161.) Ὁ

* B418 — 2315a 5 3419.20η-- 1312.13; 3420h—9315d; 345] -- 9312. 3422
= 2316 5 3423= 2317 5 8425 -- 2318. 8.420 -- 2319 (in most cases, with
slight verbal differences). For attempts to recover from these
laws a ‘Decalogue of J,’ see (briefly) LOT 37 (6 39), more fully,
Briggs, l.c. p. 189 ff.

+ See, further, art. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS in vol. i.

To many of the laws there are interesting paral-
lels in the early codes of other nations (e.g. in
Solon’s Code at Athens): these are pointed out in
the commentary of Dillmann. Some of the pro-
visions seem to us harsh (212! 2918) but account
must be taken of the age for which they were
prescribed ; and a jhumane regard for_the unpro-
tected_and the helpless 1s unquestionably the domi-
nant spirit of the Code.

CAME now ΤῊ τὰς more distinctively moral and
religious aspects of the Code, we observe firstly the
regard paid to the claims of humanity and justice.
An emphatic voice is raised against those crying
vices of Oriental government, the maladministration
of justice and the oppression of the poor. The ger,
or foreigner living in Israel under the protection of
a family or a community, has no legal status, but
he is not to be oppressed. The Sabbath is enjoined
as a day of rest for men and cattle ; and the pro-
duce of every field or vineyard is to be left to the
poor one year in seven. Religious institutions are
in a simple, undeveloped stage. He who sacrifices
to any god but Jehovah falls under the ban. The
only ordinance of ceremonial sanctity is to_abstain
from the flesh of animals torn by wild beasts.
Alfars are to be of simple, almost rudimentary,
structure. The sacred dues are firstlings and
firstfruits ; and the former must be presented at
a sanctuary on the eighth day. This regulation
of itself presupposes a plurality of sanctuaries,
which also agrees with the terms of 20%. The
three pilgrimages, at which every male is to appear
before J’, mark three periods of the agricultural
year—the beginning and the close of harvest, and
the end of the vintage. The only points of sacri-
ficial ritual insisted on are abstinence from leaven
in connexion with the blood of the sacrifice, and
the rule that the fat must be burnt the same night.
The only sacrifices named are burnt-offerings and
peace- (or thank-) offerings (905).

B. The next code which has to be considered is
that of Deuteronomy. From a literary point of
view, Deuteronomy (disregarding the few short
passages belonging to P, and the two poems in
chs. 82. 33) consists of a code of laws accompanied
by hortatory introductions and comments. Here
we are concerned only with the laws as such. A
comparison of the laws embodied in Dt with those
of the ‘ Book of the Covenant’ at once shows that
they are designed for a community living under
more fully developed social conditions. Dt, speak-
ing generally, may be described as a revised and
enlarged edition of the Book of the Covenant,
adapted to the requirements of a later age. With
the exception of the compensations to be paid for
various injuries (Ex 218-22"), nearly all the pro-
visions of Ex 2072-23 are included in it; and
there are in addition many entirely new ones. A
complete tabular synopsis of the two codes will be
found above (vol. i. p. 600 f.) ; here, therefore, it will
be suflicient to give a brief outline of the Deut.
Code, and to make some general remarks on the
Denteronomic changes and additions.

Outline of laws in Deuteronomy :—

i. Religious Observances :

1. Law of single sanctuary 121-23 (burnt-offerings, sacri-
fices [i.e. peace-offerings], tithes, ‘heave-offerings’
[firstfruits, and other offerings from the produce of
the soil], vows, freewill offerings, and firstlings, all
to be offered at the central sanctuary : blood not to
be eaten).

2 Laws against the worship of ‘other gods’ 1229-1318,

3. Sanctity of the laity 141-21 (person not to be disfigured
in mourning 141f ; law of clean and unclean animals
143-20; flesh of animals dying of themselves not to
be eaten 1421).

4. Laws tending to ameliorate the condition of the poor
1422-1518 (disposition of the charitable tithe 142229 ;
relief secured to debtors every seventh year 15111;
law of slavery 1512-18),

5. Offerings and festivals (firstling males to be offered to

LAW (LN OLD TESTAMENT)

69

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

J’ 1519-23; regulations respecting the observance
of the three annual pilgrimages 161-17).
ἡ, The Ofice-bearers of the Theocracy :
1, Judges, 1618-20 (to be appointed in all cities ; and to be
strictly impartial in judgment).

[162i asherahs and ‘ pillars’ prohibited ; 171 sacri-
fices to be without blemish ; 172-7 an Israelite,
convicted of idolatry, to be stoned to death].

2. The supreme central tribunal 178-18,

3. The king 1714-20,

ἄς Priests 181-8,

δ. The Prophet 189-22 (v.19f against different forms of
magic and divination).

iii. Criminal Law?:

1. Manslaughter and murder 191-18 211-9 (cities of refuge
191-13 ; symbolical rite of expiation for an untraced
murder 211-9),

2. Law of the landmark 1914,

3. Law of witness 1915-21,

[Four laws designed to secure self-control and _for-
bearance in the conduct of war, ὁ. 20. 2110-14],

iv. Miscellaneous Laws, relating chiesly to Civil and Domestic
life.--2115-25: e.g. primogeniture 2115-17; treatment of un-
dutiful son 2118-21; lost cattle or other property to be restored
to its owner (based on Ex 2341) 221-4; law of ‘tassels’ 2212:
slander against a newly-married maiden 2218-21; adultery 22° ;
seduction 222329; prohibition of marriage with step-mother
2230 ; usury (interest) 2319. 20; vows 2321-23; divorce 241-4; man-
stealing 941 (based on Ex 2116); leprosy 248-9; pledges 246. 10-13 5
family of a criminal not to be punished with him 2416; ex-
cessive severity in punishment forbidden 2513; Levirate-
marriage 255-10 ; just weights and measures 2518-16,

Note also the moral and religious duties which form the sub-
ject of the imprecations in 2715 (all with parallels in JE, H,
or Dt; see Driver, Deut. p. 299).

This outline will suffice to give an idea of the
greater variety of subjects included in the Code of
Dt as compared with that of JE, as also of the
greater detail in which they are mostly treated.
The organization of society is more complex ; and
‘institutions at once more numerous and more
varied are needed to regulate it. The following
are the principal changes in the laws repeated
from JE. In Ex 217 a daughter sold by her tather
into slavery does not go free in the 7th year: in
Dt 15! 17 she does; since the law of Ex was
formulated, society has advanced ; a father’s power
over his daughter is less absolute than it once was,
and it is no longer usual for a Hebrew girl to be
bought to be the wife of her master or his son. In
Ex 9118 the asylum for manslaughter is J”’s altar :
in Dt 19 six cities are set apart for the purpose.
In Ex 22""t seduction is treated among cases of
injury to property ; in Dt (2255) it appears among
laws of moral purity. In Ex 22° firstlings are to
be offered on the 8th day from birth; in Dt 15°
they are to be presented annually—a change ren-
dered necessary by the substitution of & single
central place of sacrifice for the local altars. In
Ex 23! the sabbatical year is essentially one of
rest for the soil, in Dt 15'® the institution is so
applied as simply to form a check on the power of
the creditor.

In other cases, the principle of the older Jaw is
merely extended, or fresh definitions are added,
Thus Dt 13 and 1777 may be regarded as expan-
sions, with reference to particular cases, of the
brief law against idolatry contained in Ex 22°;
167, as compared with Ex 23417, adds fresh
regulations for the observance of the three annual
Pilgrimages ; 18! (against divination and magic)
extends the principle of Ex 22!8 (sorceress alone) to
other analogous cases ; 191-2! (the law of witness)
is a development, with special provisions, of the
general principle of Ex 23!; 22! extends the prin-
ciple of Ex 23+ to other cases of lost property as
2468-10-38 (pledges) does that of Ex 22-86; 22%
(seduction) particularizes with greater precision
than Ex 22! the cases which might arise. There
are aiso instances in which the older law is
repeated without further modification than that
of form, as 16% (Ex 236 8), 231% (Ex 2275), 247
(Ex 915).

Those provisions of Dt, which are without
parallel in JE, relate mostly to conditions which,

in the age when the laws of JE were drawn up,
were not yet regarded as demanding levislative
regulation: the greater variety of subjects in-
cluded in the Code is evidence both of the growth
of civilization in itself, and also of more systematic
and maturer reflection upon its needs. A funda-
mental principle of the Deut. legislation is opposi-
tion to the heathen practices ot the Canaanites :
this is particularly prominent in the parenetic
parts of the book, but it also determines several of
the laws. The law of the single sanctuary (ch. 12),
it cannot be doubted, is largely prompted by the
desire to free the worship of J” from the heathen
elements by which it had been contaminated at
the local shrines; the essential aim of the law of
the king (174°) is to guard this most important
office against the influence of foreigners or par-
ticipation in foreign policy ; the laws of 12*-13'%
1413-0 1622+ 22 172-7 1 gl 995 O3I"F. are also, some
obviously, others, it is probable, implicitly, directed
against heathen observances. Of ritual and cere-
monial Jaws there are but few in Dt, though more
than therearein JE. Sacrifices and other dues are
to be brought to the central sanctuary (ch. 12), but
little (v.27) or nothing is said of the ritual with
which they are to be presented. Only blood is not
to be eaten (12) 3 15%), in accordance with an old
practice in Israel (1 Κα 14% 9), though no provision
on the subject occurs in the legislation of JE.
The laws regarding firstlings, and the observance
of the three Pilgrimages (15! 161-117), are fuller
than the corresponding ones in JE. Regulations
of a ceremonial character without parallel in JE
are those relating to clean and unclean animals
(145-30), tithe (14%), the offering of sacrifices
without blemish (17), the dues of the priests
(181-8), the brief note on leprosy (24°), and the
liturgical forms to be used by the Israelite at
the central sanctuary, when he presents his first-
fruits (901-11), and after payment of the triennial
tithe (26%). It need only be added that it would
be a serious mistake to suppose that the laws of
Dt were the creation of the age in which the book
was composed. This may be the case with one or
two: but the majority are beyond question much
older, the aim of Dt being merely to present them
in a new literary setting, and to inculcate them
with fresh motives.

C. We come next to the Law of Holiness (i),
Ly 17-26. This consists substantially of an older
body of laws, which have been arranged by a later
editor in a parenetic setting, the whole thus
formed being afterwards incorporated in P, with
additions and modifications designed for the pur-
pose of harmonizing it more completely with the
system and spirit of P. For details see LEVITICUS,
or LOT'S p. 47tt.;* here our attention must be
confined as far as possible to the older body of
laws thus imbedded in this part of Lv.

Outline of the original nucleus of the Law of
Holiness :—

173a. 4 (partly). Domestic animals, when slain for food, to be
presented at a sanctuary.

179 (partly). All sacrifices to be offered to J”.

1710. 13f. (partly). Blood, whether of domestic or wild animals,
not to be eaten.

186-23, Laws of chastity (four pentads of laws: v.6-10 kinship
of the first degree ; vv.11-5 kinship of the second degree ; vv,16-19
relationships through marriage ; vv.20-3- purity outside the
family, and Molech-worship).

193-4. 9-20. 26-36, Religious and moral duties : vv.3-4 laws parallel
with the first Table of the Decalogue ; vv.1-12 Jaws parallel with
the 8th and 9th Commandments ; vv.15-18. 32-36 laws of conduct
towards one’s neighbour,—justice in judgment, freedom from
malice, respect of elders, justice in trade, etc. ; vv.2631 nothing
to be eaten with the blood, divination and other heathen
superstitions not to be practised.

[Vv.58 on peace-offerings, v.19 against dissimilar mixtures,
y.20 a special case of unchastity, are unrelated to their present

* For chs. 18-20, 21-22, also, the valuable discussions cf L. B
Paton, JBL, 1897, p. 31 ff.; 1598, p. 149 ff.

70 LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

context, and probably once stood elsewhere in H. V.9F. (glean-
ings to be left) is better placed in 2322; and vv.23-25 (fruit of
newly planted trees not to be eaten till the fifth year) is a
ceremonial regulation more akin to ch. 23, or 252-7, than to the
main topic of ch. 19].

20221, Penalties for Molech-worship, and necromancy (vy.2-6. 27),
and for different cases of unlawful marriage and unchastity
(similar to, and in many cases the same as, those prohibited in
Ci. 18).

Chs. 21-22 (with the exception of some redactional additions)
ceremonial regulations respecting priests and offerings (restric-
tions in domestic life obligatory upon the priests 211-15;
physical imperfections disqualifying from the priesthood 2116-24
conditions for partaking in ‘holy’ tood 221-165 animals offered
in sacrifice to be free from imperfections 2217-25; three special
regulations regarding sacrifices 2226-80),

2310-12. 15-17. 18-19 (partly) 30. (mostly) 2. 39 (middle part),
40. 41a. 42 (regulations for the observance of the Feasts of Un-
leavened Cakes, Weeks, and Booths). The rest of the chapter
consists of supplemental regulations relating partly to these
Feasts, partly to other sacred seasons, incorporated from the
point of view of Ὁ,

2415)-160. 17-21 (laws on blasphemy, and certain cases of injury
to man and beast).

δόντα, parts of vv.8-55, perhaps in particular vy.8-9a- 1a. 13-15.
17-22. 24-25. ὑδ θα, 43. 47. 58.55, Land to lie fallow in the sabbatical
year vv.2)-7; land not to be sold beyond the next Jubile ν 18:16.
and four regulations for the relief of the impoverished Israelite
v.25, y.89-38 (usury not to be exacted of him), vv,39. 400. 43,
vVv.47. 5: ¥

261f. (certain fundamental religious duties),

To the original Law of Holiness belong also, in all probability,
Ly 1127. 9-10. 1322.41 (animals permitted, and prohibited, for
food) ; οἵ, 2025,

The nucleus of Ex 3113-1Ma (on the Sabbath); and of Nu 1538
(the law of ‘ tassels’)

The original nucleus of H, when compared with
the Book of the Covenant, will be seen to deal
very much less fully with civil and criminal law,
and more fully with the moral and ceremonial law.
The only regulations relating to criminal law are
those in 241; those in ch. 25 might be classed as
belonging formally to civil law ; but they are re-
garded imore properly as expressions of religious or
humanitarian principle. In chs. 18-20 the funda-
mental moral principles underlying the Decalogue
and parts of the Book of the Covenant are applied
to a much larger number of individual cases than
is the case in the earlier legislation. Ceremonial
legislation has evidently advanced : the number of
regulations relating to priests and sacrifices is
noticeable. The only species of sacrifices men-
tioned are, however, the same as those mentioned
in Dt, viz. the burnt- and the peace-offering.
The characteristic feature of this group of laws
in its present form, viz. their subordination to the
principle of holiness — partly ceremonial, partly
moral—seems not to attach to the laws in their
original form, but to be an addition due to the
compiler (R»).

D. The legislation of the Priests’ Code, properly
so called (P), is confined almost entirely (see ex-
ceptions in Nu 27!!! 35, 36) to ceremonial observ-
ances, especially those relating to sacrifice and
purification. The following is an outline of the
subjects treated in it (directions for the construe-
tion of the tabernacle and its parts omitted) :—

Gn 17 Circumcision.

Ex 121-13 the Passover; vv.14-20 Feast of Unleavened Cakes ;

vy.48-49 qualifications for partaking in the Passover.
28 the dress of the priests.
291-37 ritual for the consecration of the priests.
2988-42 the daily burnt-offering.
30°2-38 composition of the anointing oil, and the incense.
3112-17 (expansion of H), 351-3 the Sabbath to be observed
under pain of death.

Lv 1 ritual of the burnt-offering.
meal- (or cereal-) offering.

“a »» _ peace- (or thank-) offering.

4-513 ritual of the sin-offering, and cases in which it is to
be offered.

514-67 (Heb. 514-26) cases in which a guilt-offering (OY'x) is
prescribed (the ritual of the guilt-offering follows in

"1-7

ie ” ”

68-30 (Heb. 61-23) 78-38 reculations, in the main ancillary to
those in 1-67 (Heb. 1-4), relating to the sacrifices there
prescribed :—

68-15 the dress of the priest who offers the burnt-offering ;
fire to be always burning on the altar of burnt-offering,

614-15 the priests’ portion of the meal-offering.

Ly 619-23 the high priest’s daily meal-offering.

62430 disposal of the flesh of the sin-offering.

78-10 the priests’ share of the burnt- and incal-offering.

74121 on the species of peace-offering, and the conditions
under which the flesh is to be eaten.

722-27 fat and blood not to be eaten.

728-34 the officiating priest’s share of the peace-offering.

1012f. 14f. the priest’s share of the meal- and peace-offering
(substantially a duplicate of 616 and 783t:),

1015-20 the flesh of the people’s sin-offering (413-21) to be
eaten by the priest.

11-16 Laws of Purification and Atonement :—

11 Clean and unclean animals.

111-25. 41-47 animals clean and unclean as food (Hs law on
the subject, with slight expansions).

114-49 on uncleanness caused by contact with the carcases
of certain animals.

12 purification after child-birth.,

13-14 Leprosy (in man, clothing, and houses; diagnosis of
symptoms, and ritual of purification).

15 Purification after certain natural secretions.

16 Ceremonial of the annual Day of Atonement.

17-26 Supplementary additions in various parts (as 192°) ;
redactional additions harmonizing chs. 21-22 with the
principles of P; in ch. 23 the parts not assigned above
to H (the Day of Atonement, vv.26-32; and regulations
for the observance of the other sacred seasons, fuller
than those of H, but not so minute as those of Nu
28-29); 241-4 the lamps in the tabernacle; 2459 the
shewbread; in ch, 25 additions, partly consisting of
more detailed regulations, esp. regarding the redemp-
tion of land, and partly extending the benefits of the
Jubile from lands to persons.

27 the commutation of vows and tithes.

Nu 51-4 Lepers, and other persons ceremonially unclean, to be

excluded from the camp.

558 a supplement to Ly 514-67 (Heb. 514-25), prescribing
that, in case the defrauded person is dead, and there
be no next-of-kin, the compensation is to be paid to
the priest offering the cuilt-offering.

5910 Dedicated things to belong to the priest receiving
them.

511-51 Jaw of ordeal for a woman suspected by her husband
of unfaithfulness.

61-21 the law of the Nazirite.

622-27 the formula of priestly benediction.

8154 instructions for fixing the lamps upon the golden
candlestick.

86 the consecration of the Levites, and (v.23) their
period of service.

99-14 (a law arising out of the incident, 91-8) the supple-
mentary or ‘ Little’ Passover (to be observed by those
accidentally debarred from keeping the regular Pass-
over).

151-16 the meal- and drink-offering to accompany every
burnt- and peace-offering.

1517-21 a cake of the first dough of each year to be offered
to J”.

1522-31 the sin-offering, to be offered by the community,
or an individual, tor sins of inadvertence (a parallel to
Ly 418-21. 27-31),

158-41 the law of ‘tassels’ (expanded from the shorter law
of H).

1817 the duties, and relative position, of the priests and
the Levites.

188-19 the revenues of the priests.

182.82 distribution of the tithe between priests and
Levites.

19 the rite of purification, by means of water mingled
with the ashes of a red heifer, after defilement with
a corpse.

271-11 the law of the inheritance of daughters, in families
in which there is no son.

28-29, A priestly calendar, prescribing the public sacri-
fices to be offered at each season. Cf. Ly 23.

30 the law of vows.

3121-30 the law of the distribution of spoil taken in war
(after purification, to be divided equally between the
soldiers engaged and the community,—the priests,
however, to have τὰς of the tormer, and the Levites
το of the latter).

3515 Forty-eight cities appointed for the residence of the
Levites.

359-34 Law of murder and manslaughter (cities of refuge,
with regulations for their use).

36 Heiresses possessing landed property to marry into
their own tribe (supplement to 271-11),

The highly systematized character of the legis-
lation of P will be apparent from this outline. It
centres in the ‘tabernacle,’ the prototype of the
later temple; its aim is to secure the holiness of
Israel, to maintain a community worthy, both
collectively and individually, of the consecrating:
presence of God in its midst (ef. Ex 2946, Nu 53
354), The priests, with the Levites as their mini-
sters, serve the sanctuary: they maintain there,
on behalf of the community, the suitable sacrifices

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT) 71

and rites of atonement and purification ; they are
also at hand to present the sacrifices, and perform
the purifications, obligatory from time to time
upon individuals. The sacrifices are numerous ;
and the details are minutely regulated, P exhibits
the idea of a holy people dedicated to God, and
realizes it on a large scale. The ‘congregation’
(ay) is not a nation, but a church. his idea is
substantially the same as that which underlies Kzk
40-48; but it is worked out in greater detail.
The principles most prominent in the Code are
those of atonement (723) and purification (178,
xo); the sacrifices most frequently prescribed are
the guilt-offering (απ Ὁ) and, expecially, the sin-
offering (meet), neither of which. is mentioned at
all in any of the other codes, though both occur
in Ezk* (see further SACRIFICE). The great aim
of the Code is, in fact, by means of these rites,
to remove the sins and detilements which are in-
consistent with the presence of J” in His sanctuary
in Israel’s midst.

The silence, or the contradiction, of the earlier
literature + makes it probable that the Priests’
Code, in the form in which we have it, or, in other
words, the completed Priests’ Code, is the work of
the age subsequent to Ezk. When, however, this
is said, it must not be understood to be implied
that all the institutions of P are the ereation oi
that age. On the contrary, there are allusions in
the earlier literature to many of them (though
sometimes with evident variations of detail) which
show that, at least in a more rudimentary form,
they were already in force.

Examples: Gn 821 (J) ‘savour of contentment’ (Lv 19, and
often in P); Jg¢ 1347 ‘unclean’ food ; Jg 139-7, Am 2110. Nazir-
ites; 1S 28 ‘fire-sacrifices’ (Lv 19, and frequently); 8% the
‘lamp of God’ (Ex 272°) ; 63" a guilt-offering (DYN); 216 the
shewbread; Am 44-5 tithes, thanksgiving offerings, and free-
will offerings ; δῦ (so Hos 24, Is 119) observance of the ‘new
moon’ (Nu 2811-15); Is 118 ἃ " convocation’ (Lv 232-4 etc.) ; 2K
1615 (but no evening burnt-offering, as in P; οἵ. Ryle, Canon,
p. 84f.). And in Dt, not only the parallels with H,t but also
tithes (though with regulations very different from those of P),
‘heave ’-offerings (128 etc.), vows, freewill offerings, ceremonial
uncleamness in persons (1215-22) as well as in things (148-2), and
produced by particular causes (2123 [Nu 3584] 2310. [Lv 1516)
244 [Nu 513] 2614 [Nu 1911-14; cf. Hos 94)), the ‘azéreth, or
“solemn assembly ’ (168; cf. Am 522, Is 118), a torah for leprosy
(245). Ezk also, esp. in chs. 43-45, alludes to a still larger
number of usages of the same kind, and, moreover, employs
a priestly phraseology which presents many affinities with that
of P (cf. LOT'S 145 ff.).

A priesthood in itself implies the existence of
a ceremonial, more or less developed, as the case
may he: the oldest traditions of the Hebrews
mention repeatedly an *‘ Ark’ and ‘Tent of Meet-
ing’ as existing in the Mosaic age; and there
are early allusions to Aaron, to a hereditary
priesthood descended from him, and to the duties
—consisting partly in giving decisions on points
of civil and criminal law, partly in the mainten-
ance of ritual observances—discharged by the tribe
of Levi (Ex 44 18”, Dt 10% 33”; ct. Jg 177%). The
simplest and earliest ceremonial regulations are
those contained in Ex 202-26 22931 2314-19 and the
parallel code of Ex 34175; but these are obviously
of a rudimentary character ; and it is only natural
to suppose that, as time went on, fresh definitions
and distinctions would be introduced, and more
precise rules would be prescribed for the method of
sacrifice, the ritual to be observed by the priests,
the dues which they were authorized to receive

*Ezk 4089 4213 4429 4620: the natn, also, 4319. 21.22.25 4427
4517. 19. 22. 23.25, Neither, it is to be observed, appears as ἃ new
institution in Ezk.

+ See LOT’ 129-132 (6 136-139). The most noticeable contra-
dictions with Dt relate to the position and revenues of the
priestly tribe, the disposal of tithes and_firstlings, and the
manumission of slaves (ib. 77f., ὁ 821. ; Driver, Deut. XXXVil.-
ix., 169-172, 185, 157). In 2 K 1216 observe that the guilt- and
sin-offerings consist in money payments (cf. ZS 402 f., 2423).

t See vol. i. p. 600f.

from the people, and other similar matters. After
the priesthood had acquired, through the founda-
tion of Solomon’s temple, a permanent centre, 16
is probable that the process of development and
systematization advanced more rapidly than be-
fore; the allusions in Dt imply the existence of
priestly usages beyond those which fall directly
within the scope of the book, and Ezekiel, being
a priest himself, refers to such usages more dis-
tinctly. Although, therefore, there are reasons
for concluding that the legislation of P did not
assume finally the shape in which we have it
until after the age of Ezk, it rests ultimately upon
an ancient traditional basis; it exhibits the final
development and systematization of elements and
principles, which in themselves are of great an-
tiquity ; and many of the institutions prominent
in it are recognized, in various stages of their
erowth, by the earlier pre-exilic literature, by Dt,
and by Ezk.*

The question is not one of great importance in the present
connexion ; but it should be added that it is doubtful whether
the legislation of P springs throughout from the same age ;
there are indications that it exhibits sometimes the usage of
different periods side by side. Cf. Dillm. Kx-Lv, 413 (2455: on
Lv 4), Nu-Dt-Jos, 84, 151. (on Nu 28 29), 635, 641 f., 643; Kuen.
Hex. $$ 6. 13-153 15. 28-30; Holzinger, Bind. 418-25, 453f. 5
also Ryle, Canon, 84-88.

In its general features—i.e. the general principles
of sacrifice, tithes, annual festivals, purification,
ete. —the ceremonial system of the Hebrews did
not differ essentially from the systems prevalent
among other Semitic nations, and indeed among
ancient peoples generally, as, for instance, the
Greeks.t It is not improbable that elements in
it were borrowed from the Canaanites. Some ΟἹ
the Heb. sacrificial terms (n31, Dow, 9°92, Am, 223)
are found in the Carthaginian inscription, relating
to sacrifices, preserved now at Marseilles; and
vows are also frequently mentioned in other Phoon,
inscriptions. There are analogies for the Sabbath
among the Babylonians ; and even CIRCUMCISION
(which see) was not a rite peculiar to the Hebrews.
The Levitical ritual, though its form is late, is
based ultimately ‘on very ancient tradition, going
back to a time when there was no substantial
difference, in point ef form, between Heb. sacri-
fices and those of the surrounding nations’ (ΠΝ
198, 2215). Of course, among the Hebrews, these
common Semitic institutions received, as_ time
went on, many modifications and special adapta-
tions. But the really distinctive character, which
they exhibited in Israel, consists in the new spirit
with which they are infused, and the higher prin-
ciples of Which they are made the exponent. The
aim of the Heb. Icgislation was ‘not so much to
create a new system as to give a new significance
to that which had already long existed among
Semitic races, and to lay the foundation of a higher
symbolism leading to a more spiritual worship’
(Ryle, Canon, p. 28; ef. Ottley, Bampt. ects 229).

he most conspicuous feature in the legislation
of P is perhaps the multiplication and gol ome
tion of ceremonial observances, which has been
already touched upon.

Another characteristic, which Wellh. has empha.

*W. R. Smith (OTC? 372f., 377, 382-4) points also to the
evidences of ancient ritual law in the hands of the priests;
cf. Stade, Gesch. ii. 66 (Who instances in particular Lv 1-7.
11-15. 17-26, Nu 5-6. 9. 15. 19, as being for the most part
‘Niederschritt vorexilisci.en Gebrauchs’); Cheyne, Jewish Mel.
Life after the Exile, 81. There are also many examples of
archaic ideas and usages embedded in P, not less than in the
other codes: see, e.g., Lv 11 (‘uncleanness’; cf. JS 428 1f.,
2447 ff.), 147-53 (ib. 402, 2422), 1621, 216 al. (the ‘bread of
God? ; ib. 207, 2224), Nu Silt (ib, 164 f., 2180f.), 1926:

t{ W. R. Smith, AS, Lect. vi. (on sacrifice), and elsewhere 3
Ryle, Canon, p. 211. Cf. the ‘Sacrificial Calendar from Cos,’
published by E. L. Hicks in the Journ. of Hellenic Studies,
ix. (1888) p. 323 ff. :

t CIS 1, i. 165; see the transl. in Hogarth’s Archwology and
Authority (1899), p. 77f.; and cf. WS 200, 219 η. (2217, 237 n.).

72 LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

os

LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)

sized, is the statutory character of religion in the
Priestly Code, as contrasted with its more spon-
taneous character in the earlier codes. In the
earlier codes religious observances arise largely
out of the circumstances and incidents of daily
life. Sacrifices are the spontaneous outcome of the
religious feeling of the worshipper ; the feasts are
occasions of religious observance fixed by the
annually recurring seasons of harvest and vintage ;
the Sabbath is an institution designed expressly for
humanitarian ends. In P this is all different! the
observances are systematized ; their original signi-
ficance is obliterated; they are to be regarded
sunply because J” has enjoined them; the Sabbath
is made not for man, but for God, and the slightest
infringement of its sanctity is to be visited with
death (Ex 31%, Nu 155). A system of ceremonial
observances of this kind manifestly lies in great
danger of being abused : except in persons of more
than ordinary spiritual vitality, it tends to stifle
and sterilize real spiritual life. Amone the later
Jews (as allusions in the NT and the Mishna show)
it led actually to these consequences, and a religion
of excessive formalism was the result. The
fundamental conception of the priestly legislation,
that of a people ever serving God in holiness and
purity, is, in the abstract, a great one; but the
means adopted for its realization, viz. a routine of
external observances, are not those which, in the
long-run, can succeed. The routine degenerates
inevitably into externality and formalism. There
is also another point to be observed. In the ideas
of holiness and purity, ritual and moral distinctions
were confused. Exactly the same penalty is im-
posed for infringements of ritual (Ex 8058. 88. Ly
17* * 4198) as for grave moral offences (Lv 1839).
Death is the penalty, alike for murder (Nu_ 955
and for Sabbath-breaking (Ex 31% 952). Puriftica-
tion from sin is prescribed after purely physical
detilement, as through contact with a corpse, and
even for a house which has been affected by leprosy
(Lv 14:5. 5, Nu 19! 18. 1% 20 the Heb. in these pas-
sages for cleanse, purify is properly to ‘free from
sin’]) A sin-offering is also sometimes enjoined
for merely ceremonial uncleanness (e.g. Lv δος,
Nu 65:1). Mr. Montefiore comments on the in-
ditterence to bloodshed, combined with zeal for
ritual purity, displayed by the singular—and, we
may be sure, ideal — narrative of the war with
Midian in Nu 31 (vv? 1 τ), The principle of
ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness, it may be
noticed, was the point on which our Lord broke
most decisively with the Mosaic law (ol p. 75%
The priestly legislation, however, though it
bulks largely in the Pentateuch, never, it must be
remembered, formed the so/e rule of life for the
Israclite. The codes of JE and Dt were not
abrogated by it; the warm moral and spiritual
teaching of Dt possessed exactly the same authority
as the ceremonial of P; and the teaching of Dt
was supported by the indirect, but by no means
indistinct, testimony of the Wanvloplaleiicn parts
of the Pentateuch.” The prophets, moreover, re-
mained the eloquent and moving exponents of
spiritual religion, and of the paramount claims of
the moral law above all ritual observances. ‘The
corrective for the ceremonialism of P was thus
close at hand, in writings acknowledged by the
Jews themselves as authoritative. The Jews were
never exclusively under the rule of the ceremonial
system of P. On its ceremonial side, the ‘law’
was undoubtedly liable to be misapplied, and to
lead to formalism ; but even its ceremonial institu-
* On the sense in which our Lord came to ‘fulfil’ the law
(Mt 517),—i.e. in so far as it was imperfect, to complete it,
especially by disengaging from its limited and temporary forms,
and placing in their just light, the ethical and religious truths

of which it was the expression,—see also Kirkpatrick, Divine
Library of the OT, 134 ff.

tions were the expression of profound religious
ideas, and furnished an outlet for varied and
genuine religious feelings; while, treated as a
whole, the ‘law,’ as the later Psalmists abund-
antly attest, provided an atmosphere in which a
religious spirit—for something, of course, in such
matters, depends upon the temper of the wor-
shipper—could breathe freely, and draw in spiritual
refreshment. The ceremonial legislation never
had a separate existence of its own; and the
Jewish ‘law,’ if it is to be judged properly, must
be judged as a whole, and not with exclusive
reference to one of its parts.

In the earlier codes the broader duties of
humanity, justice, and morality are chiefly and
sufficiently insisted on. They were adapted to
create a righteous and God-fearing nation. The
Israelite who obeyed loyally the precepts of Dt
could not deviate widely from the paths of truth
and right. As time advanced, a ceremonial system
was gradually developed, and this, though the
sarlier provisions just referred to were not abro-
gated, became ultimately the more formal and
distinctive expression of Israel’s faith. And this
system played an important function in the re-
higious education of mankind. ‘It enforced and
deepened the sense of sin. It declared the need
of restoration and forgiveness. It expressed in the
form of institutions the great principles which
regulate man’s converse with God. It emphasized
the significance of sacrifice under its different
aspects, as eucharistic, dedicatory, propitiatory.*
It taught more and more distinctly that an atoning
rite must precede the acceptance of the worshipper
by God. [Ὁ thus established the principles which
in the fulness of time were to receive their supreme
and final application in the sacrifice of Christ. In
all its stages, the Mosaic law held before the eyes
of Israel an ideal of duty to be observed, of laws
to be obeyed, of principles to be maintained ; it
taught them that human nature needed to be re-
strained ; it impressed upon them the necessity of
discipline. And in the post-exilic age, when the
disintegrating influences of Hellenism might have
operated disastrously upon the nation, the insti-
tutions of the law bound together the majority

_ of its members in a religious society, strong enouzh

to resist the forees which threatened to dissolve
it, Ὁ and able to guard efticiently the spiritual
treasures with which it had been intrusted. Through
the ordinances of the law, imperfect in themselves
though they might be, God thus trained and dis-
ciplined His people, till it should be ripe to cast off
the yoke of external ordinances, and be ruled by
principles operative from within (Jer 31") rather
than by commands imposed from without. And
this is the sense in which St. Paul speaks of the
law as a παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν (Gal 34). The
παιδαγωγός was the ‘tutor’ (RV), or superior slave,
intrusted with the moral education of a child;
and the law was similarly an agency for discip-
line, or moral training, holding the nation in a
moral constraint (ἐφρουρούμεθα, v.28) till it was fit
for the freedom of mature age, to be secured by
Christ. And the means by which the law acted in
this capacity was partly by quickening and discip-
lining man’s moral sense, partly by bringing to
light transgression, and so awakening the sense of
sin and the need of forgiveness, which in view of
man’s moral weakness it could not itself provide.

On the view taken of the ‘law’ in the NT see
the following article; and on the law in post-
biblical Judaism (the Mishna, ete.), see TORAH.

*It ought not in this connexion to be forgotten that only
unintentional sins were atoned for by the sin-offering, not sing
committed ‘with a high hand’ (Nu 1580f), de. in deliberate
defiance of God’s will.

+ Driver, Sermons on the OT, p. 131f.; οἵ. Sanday, BL
183 ff. ; Ottley, BL 228f.

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT) 73

LITERATURE.—Kuenen, Relig. of Isr. (1875) ii. 250-286 (on P),
Hibb. Lect. 1882, 82 ff. (priests and térah), 156-167 (the priestly
law), Hex. § 10. 4 (meaning of torah); Wellhausen, Hist.
passim, esp. chs. i.-iii. ix. (see Contents, pp. xi-xvi), x. (the
Oral andthe Written Torah), and pp. 435-440, Isr. τι. Jud. Gesch.
(1894) pp. 134 ff.; W. R. Smith, O7/C2 p. 298 ff. (Torah), 428-
430, and Lectures xi. (laws of JE) xii. (Deut. and P); Ryle,
Canon of the OT (1892), 22-33, 48 f., 57-60, 71-4, 75-91 ; Monte-
fiore, Hibb. Lect. 1892 (see Index, ‘ Torah’ and ‘ Law’) ; Smend,
Alttest. Rel.-Gesch. 1893 (see Index, ‘Thorah’ and ‘ Gesetz’) ;
Schultz, OT Theol. i. 188 ff. and ch. xviii. (sacred institutions
of Israel, acc. to P); Nowack, Arch. (1894) ii. passim (sacred
institutions described according to the different Codes, see Con-
tents); Briggs, Higher Crit. of the Hex.2 (1897); Bruce, Apolo-
getics (1893), pp. 2O8ff., 261 ff. ; Sanday, Bampt. Lect. 1893,
Lect. iv. (pp. 168-188); Ottley, Bampt. Lect. 1897, Lect. v.
(religious ideas and symbolism of P); Cheyne, Jewish Rel. Life
after the Exile, 1899, p. 72 ff. S. R. DRIVER.

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT).—

Use of term ‘ Law’ in NT.
1. Relation of Jesus to the Law.
(1) His recognition of its divine origin and authority.
(2) His critical attitude towards the Law.
II. Attitude of the Early Church to the Law, and especially the
practice and teaching of St. Paul.
A, Practice of the earliest Christian society.
B. Practice and doctrine of St. Paul.
(a) His practice during his Second Missionary
Journey.
(b) His practice during his Third Missionary Journey.
(c) St. Paul’s use of the term ‘law.’
(d) His teaching in his Four Great Epistles as regards
(1) the place of the Law in History; (2) the
mode in which it acts in the individual who
lives under it; (3) the relation of Law and
Gospel, and esp. the relation of Christ’s Death
to the Law ; (4) the relation of the Christian
to law.
(e) St. Paul’s action on his last visit to Jerusalem.
(1) Teaching of his later Epistles.
III. The Law in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
IV. The Law in the other NT Books.
Literature.

The word law (νόμος) is used in the NT of ‘any
law whatsoever’ (Grimm, Lex. s.v.), but when
‘the law’ is spoken of without qualification, it is
always the law of God which is meant. This
is not a classical meaning or use of the word,
and explains the fact that in the NT (with the
exception of a quotation from the LXX of Jer
31 (38) in He 8! 1016) it is always found in the
singular. ‘The law of God,’ or ‘the law of Moses,’
or ‘the law’ szmpliciter, is the style of Scripture ;
a classical writer would say ‘the laws’ of Athens
orof Solon. But ‘the law,’ and ‘law’ without the
article, are religious conceptions, and it is as such
that they are treated here. The word occurs some
196 times in the NT, but it is not found in Mk,
im 1,2; Co, Gol, Tit, 2 Ti, Philem; 1 and 2-P;Jude;
the Epp. of John, and Rev. To bring out its
significance in the NT it will be convenient to
examine (1) the relation of Jesus to the law;
(2) the attitude of the early Church to the law,
and especially the practice and teaching of St.
Paul; (3) the peculiar view of the law taken in the
Ep. to the Hebrews; and (4) the indications in
other NT books of legal or antinomian tendencies
in the first century of the Christian era. The
necessary preliminary to the understanding of all
these points is a knowledge of the contents of the
‘law’ of the OT, for which reference may be made
to the preceding article.

I. THE RELATION OF JESUS TO THE LAW.—
To begin with, the relation of Jesus to the law
was passive, like that of every Jew. He was
born under the law (Gal 44); the requirements of
the law in regard to circumcision and purification
were complied with in His case as in that of any
child of Jewish birth (Lk 9315), He was taken up
to the temple when He had completed His twelfth
year (Lk 2##), and became, like other Jewish
youths, sna 732 (or ms2 13) a son of the law. He
would be instructed in it, and its responsibilities
would be laid on Him, simply because it was the
law of the nation of which He was a member. He

must have accepted it as part of the national
inheritance to which He was born. The NT gives
us no means whatever of judging how the passive
unconscious relation to the law was changed into
the conscious and responsible one which we see
when our Lord entered on His public work. No
doubt He grew into that power of judgment and
liberty of action which characterize His ministry ;
but we cannot tell what effort and perplexity, or
whether any effort or perplexity, accompanied this
erowth. When we consider the shortness of His
ministry, it seems extremely improbable that we
should be able to trace within its narrow limits
any ‘evolution’ or progressive change in His
attitude to the law. That attitude was really
determined by His character, by the spirit of son-
ship, of free appreciation of God’s will, of un-
restrained love to man; and His character was
complete when He identified Himself with our
sinful race in His baptism, and received there the
attestation of the heavenly Father as His beloved
Son. No doubt, as one thing in His life led on to
another, and as opposition defined His attitude, it
became more and more clear what His relation to
‘the Jaw,’ both as a divine institution and as a
divine institution administered and corrupted by
man, must be; but in principle this was deter-
mined from the beginning. Hence it 15. not
necessary, under the idea that clear self-conscious-
ness is the last result of action, to attempt to
trace in detail the practical impulses under which
our Lord’s attitude to the law was gradually
detined, or to assume that He was learning His
own mind all the time (so practically Holtzmann,
NT Theolegie, i. 130-160); we may take the
Synoptics as they stand, and aim at a more
systematic view.

(1) Speaking positively, Jesus recognized the law
as a whole as a divine institution, and therefore
as invested with indefeasible divine authority.
He expressed His sense of this authority in the
strongest possible language ; and, with the idea of
the law as embodied in writing present to His mind,
declared that ‘till heaven and earth should pass,
one jot or one tittle should in no wise pass from the
law till all should be fulfilled’ (Mt 518, ef. Lk 161).
It has been asserted that Jesus, whose attitude (as
we shall see) to certain parts of the law was at
least critical, could not have used such language,
and that it belongs to the Judaism of the First
Gospel. But it is found also in the Third, which
is Gentile or Pauline rather than Jewish, and the
assertion is pedantic. Jesus certainly believed
that the law embodied a revelation of God ; it was,
in short, God’s law; and without considering in
what respects it might be subject to modification
or expansion, He could say broadly that just
because it was God’s law, not the dot of an ὃ or the
stroke of a ¢ could be abrogated by any power on
earth. And when confronted, as He is on both
the occasions when He uses this strong language,
with the deformed righteousness of the Pharisees
(Mt 5°, Lk 1614-1"), by which the law of God was
virtually annulled, we can easily believe that He
could and did express Himself thus vehemently.
This seems truer, psychologically, than to say with
Wellhausen (/sraclitische u. Judische Geschichte?,
p. 382) that He found room everywhere for His
soul, and was not straitened by what was little in
the law, so highly did He exalt the worth of that
which was great: the latter one should do, the
former not leave undone. It is a more placid and
controlled statement of Christ’s relation to the
| law in principle which is found in Mt 517, the text
|
|
|

or theme of the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Think
not that [came to destroy the law or the prophets :
I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.’ The law and
| the prophets is a compendious expression for the

74 LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

ancient religion as embodied in the OT. To no
part of this—neither to the statutory elements in
it nor to the elements of promise, neither to its
morality nor to its hopes—was Jesus in any sense
hostile. There must have been something in His
conduct or teaching te raise the question, some-
thing which created difficulty for men who
identified the law with the current interpretation
of it in the Rabbinical schools or in the religious
practice of the day ; but when it was fairly stated,
it created no difficulty for Jesus. In His con-
science there was no sense of antagonism or
antipathy to the old revelation either of God’s
will or of His purpose. On the contrary, He had
come to identify Himself with that revelation, and
to consummate it. The πληρῶσαι in Mt 5 applies
to the OT in both its parts. It is true that in the
rest of Mt 5 it is the Jaw alone which is taken
account of, and this has made it possible to doubt
whether πληρῶσαι means ‘ toshow the full meaning
of, or ‘to keep perfectly’; but the very absence
of the object in v.17, and the disjunctive ἤ (the law
or the prophets), show that Jesus was thinking of
the O'T as containing elements at once of require-
ment and of promise, and asserting that all it
meant in both kinds would be brought to its con-
summation in Him. Hence in principle there is
no antagonism between Jesus and the law, be-
tween the NT and the OT. For the conscience of
Jesus they needed no reconciliation, The New
Testament was in Him, and He was thoroughly
at home in the Old.

It agrees with this that Jesus refers freely to
the law as a religious authority, and as the way to
lire. ‘Tf thou wouldst enter into life, keep the
commandments’ (Mt 191, ‘What shall I do to
inherit eternal life? Jesus said to him, What is
written in the law?’ (Lk 1030). * They have Moses
and the prophets; let them hear them’ (Lk 16%"),
Tt agrees further with this, that in the most un-
sparing denunciation of Pharisaism and hypocrisy,
He safeguarded with scrupulous care the sanctity
of the law they ‘hedged’ and abused: ‘The
scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all
things therefore that they say to you do and
observe’ (Mt 23%). Like Mt δ᾽δ. this saying has
been impugned on the ground that Jesus could
not, in consistency with His real opinion, have
spoken thus. This is the criticism of persons who
have never spoken to a crowd, and who do not
know that the large consistency of leaving a sound
and homogeneous impression on the mind is in-
different to the abstract precisian consistency
which dictates such doubts. Why should not
Jesus say, ‘As interpreters of the law of God,
show them all due reverence; as keepers of the
law of God, beware of following their example’?
They were poor interpreters, no doubt, but the
function itself was a legitimate one, and all that
they did in the exercise of it was, primd facie,
entitled to respect. Evenif it were not so without
qualification (and in part, of course, it was not, as
Jesus immediately goes on to show), the qualifica-
tion could be left to take care of itself ; the main
interest of the moment was to expose the Pharisaic
practice by which the law was 50. wickedly
annulled. That making void (ἀκυροῦν) the law of
God (Mt 15° |) Mk 718) which Jesus laid to the
charge of the Pharisees was exactly the opposite
of the πληρῶσαι, which He used to define His own
relation to it. With them, in spite of all the
hedges which guarded it, it lost its rights; with
Him, in spite of all His freedom, it came to its
rights.

(2) Besides this positive attitude of Jesus to
the law as a whole, we have to take account in
His lite of what may be called a more critical
altitude. Without any sense of hostility to the |

law, He was conscious of its imperfection; this
is implied even in His having come to fulfil it.
Of this there are various indications.

(a) He speaks of the old revelation as a whole,
as of a thing which has had its day. ‘The law
and the prophets were until John: from that time
the kingdom of heaven is preached’; it isa new
era, in which they have no Jonger the same
significance (Lk 161°, Mt 11°), There is a para-
bolic hint of this also in Mk 2? and || Mt 91,
Lk",

(ὁ) He delights in summaries of the law, in
which it is at once comprehended and tran-
scended. ‘ Whatsoever ye would that men should
do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the
law and the prophets’ (Mt 7®, cf. Mt 22-#"), Such
summaries lift the soul above all that is statutory
and positive in the law; in other words, they
enable it to conceive of religion as the keeping of
law, and yet as without any element of legalism.

(c) He presents a positive new standard of life
from which legalism has disappeared. Sometimes
it is His own example (Jn 13!°), interpreted as in
Jn 13 into a new commandment of love like His
own. Sometimes it is the example of the heavenly
Father, whose love, impartial and inexhaustible,
is the pattern for His children (Mt 545). It is by
this standard of love that all the nations are un-
consciously judging themselves now, and will be
judged by Him at last (Mt 25%!%). Sometimes it is
represented as ‘the will of my Father who is in
heaven’ (Mt 7?! 12°"). All these modes of conceiy-
ing the standard of disciple life, though not
annulling ‘the law’ but fulfilling it, are neverthe-
less indifferent to it, either as a historic document
or as a national institution.

(d) Jesus distinguishes within the law between
its weightier matters—judement, mercy, and faith ;
and its more trivial ones—the tithing of mint, anise,
and cummin (Mt 23% || Lk 114). This is not
exactly the same as to say that He subordinated
the ritual to the moral, though no doubt He did.
Nothing could put this more forcibly than Mt 5".
Aman is to leave his gift before the altar, to be
reconciled to his brother. ‘There is no law except
love; no statute that can be pleaded against it,
no rite so solemn but must give way to it. The
tendency of legalism is to reduce all command-
ments to a level; they are all parts of a divine
law, and it is not for men to pick and choose be-
tween them; and the Jewish conscience, to which
the law was one law and God’s law, could not find
itself at home in the division of it into ritual and
moral. For it there was a moral obligation to
keep what we call the ritual law. But as this
distinction of Jesus mastered the mind, the sense
of moral proportion came back, and it was felt, by
some at least, that there were elements in the law
which were waxing old and ready to vanish away.

(6) Jesus expressly and formally criticised the
law as it was interpreted in the conscience and
practice of His countrymen. In Mt 5 we have
a series of illustrations. The sixth commandment
(v.27), the seventh (v.27"), thelaw of perjury (v.34),
the lex talionis (v.>"), the law as to the treatment
of neighbours and enemies (v.#""), are discussed in
succession. It is not always clear when it is the
letter of the OT itself, and when it is only the
current legal rendering of it, which is under
review; but in either case Jesus adopts a free
critical attitude towards it, and exalts it to a new
power. On one of the subjects touched in this
chapter, in connexion with the seventh command-
ment, namely, the law of marriage and divorce,
Jesus on another occasion tacitly withdrew a per-

(mission which He recognized as conceded by the

Mosaic law (ἐπέτρεψεν Μωυσῆς). in the interest
of the ideai of marriage. ‘ Because of your hard

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT) 75

ness of heart Moses allowed you to put away your
wives, but from the beginning it was not so’ (Mt
198 || Mk). The question was one on which Jewish
schools were divided, and Jesus Jegislates upon it
in independence, indeed, of Dt 247, but in harmony
with the law embodied in the creation narrative,
Gn 23 From the point of view of legalism it 15
impossible to say why the authority of Dt should
be relative and that of Gn absolute; and the
ositiveness with which Christ pronounces marriage
indissoluble, except by the sin which, ipso facto,
annuls it, shows that He has completely tran-
scended the legal standpoint. (See, further, art.
MARRIAGE). ‘The same holds of His criticism of
the Sabbath Jaw, the subject on which He came
most frequently into conflict with His country-
men: cf. Mt 121-12 (the disciples plucking the ears
of corn; the healing of the withered hand); Lk
137 (the woman with a spirit of infirmity), 141°
(the dropsical man}; Jn 5! 7 (the paralytic at
Bethesda); Jn 9 (the blind man restored to sight).
Cf. Lk 6 (D ; the incident ot the man working on
τ the Sabbath). Here it is impossible to say that Jesus
was hostile to the law of God, or to any ideal of the
~ Sabbath having its roots in the OT. But He was
τς irreconcilably hostile to the accumulation of tradi-
tional human precepts into which the prohibition of
labour, in the interest of man and beast, had been
expanded by the perverse ingenuity of the scribes
(ef. Schiirer, GJ)? ii, 470ff% [HP σ it. 9611}
_ He was hostile to the method of interpretation
— which defeated God's purpose in giving the law, and
changed a blessing into a burden. He was espe-
cially indignant that on a day which was made
for man He should be forbidden to do works of
humanity, by exercising His power to heal. As
— Son of Man, the head of the kingdom in which
᾿ς humanity was to come to its rights, He claimed
Ϊ to be Lord of the Sabbath, and to judge all
statutes concerning it according to their agreement
or disavreement with its humane intention. It is
in connexion with contlicts of this kind that we
first read of His enemies plotting His death (Mk
3°): He wounded their pride in their legal holiness
too deeply to be forgiven. It is one of the defects
of legalism that the less the grounds of the law
ean be discerned—in other words, the more positive
and arbitrary it is—the greater seems the merit
of punctually observing it. Hence the numberless
aig into which the fourt : commandment
iad been developed had a greater importance for
the legally-trained conscience than the weightier
matters of the law ; and the assumption of free-
dom toward them, as by Jesus, was regarded as
the most daring impiety. How far the teaching
and practice of Jesus were immediately grasped
by His followers we cannot tell; there are indica-
tions in the Gospel (Lk 13") that there were many
prepared to appreciate them. Butif in relation to
the Sabbath and to the law of marriage we can
say that Jesus criticised the legalistic practice of
His time by reference to the ideal enshrined in
the OT itself, we are on different ground when we
come to consider—

(7) The attitude of Jesus to what we should
eall the ritual law—that part of the law and
custom of the Jews which was purely positive, and
in which there was really no ethical content. As
| far, indeed, as this was represented by the cultus
| of the nation, He treated it with at least silent
respect. We do not know that He was ever
present at a sacrifice, but neither do we hear that
He ever denounced sacrifice. He certainly spoke
of the temple as His Father’s house, and as destined
to be a house of prayer for all nations ; and in a
flame of zeal He drove from it the traders who
made it a market-place and aden of robbers (Mt
2118). He paid the temple tribute, not, indeed,

because He was bound to do so,—on the contrary,
He, and His disciples also, as the king’s children,
were free from such imposts,—but to avoid offence
(Mt 1747). He did not shrink from touching
the leper (Mt $!4), Leing raised above the thought
of ceremonial pollution; but He told him to go
and show himself to the priest, and offer the
eift which Moses commanded, for a testimony to
them. There is a combination here of inward
liberty and indifference, with a formal outward
respect determined by circumstances, and neces-
sarily ceasing with them. Cf. also Lk 170 (In
this connexion it may be noted that the idea of
σκάνδαλον as a thine to be avoided in conduct is
part of the new moral ideal of Jesus, dependent on
the primacy He gives to love; we are bound to
consider others—as He did, for instance, in paying
the temple tax—with a consideration which we
ay not need ourselves ; and to deny this con-
sideration, and out of selfishness injure others
or lead them into sin, is denounced by Him in
the most passionate words, Mt 18°). But there is
one point in which, according to the evangelic
tradition, Jesus completely broke not only with
the practice of His time, but with the luw of Moses
itself—the distinction, namely, between clean and
unclean foods, and the observance of various ritual
purifications by washing, Mk τ τς, Mt 15'**. ‘The
discussion here starts from the violation by His
disciples of ‘the tradition of the elders.’ To this,
naturally, Jesus could allow no authority; but
He went further, and assailed it as a morally
malignant thing which practically annulled the
law of God. He appealed to Scripture (e.g. to the
fifth commandment, Mk 7%) againsé this tradi-
tion—to the law of God against the ordinance of
man—precisely as the Reformers appealed to the
Bible against the Church (Holtzmann, V7’ Theol.
i. 141). But in explaining to the people (‘Hear
me, all of you, and understand’) the principle on
which He acted, He went further still, and, as
the evangelist expressly asserts, ‘made all meats
clean’ (kadapifwv πάντα τὰ βρώματα, Mk 715). In Lk
1117 the same subject is treated more from the
point of view of indifference ; it is only when the
dish is filled with the proceeds of rapine that there
is anything offensive in insisting on its being out-
wardly (i.e. Levitically) clean; but in Lk 107 (the
mission of the Seventy) there may be a reference
to the more thorough view. The missionaries are
to eat and drink what they are offered, with no
needless scruples. This decisive breach with the
law was felt to be what it was both by the
opponents of Jesus and by Jesus Himself: ‘Then
mame the disciples and said unto him, Knowest
thou that the Pharisees were offended when they
heard this saying?’ ... ‘Let taem alone,’ He
answered ; ‘they are blind guides; and if the blind
euide the blind, both shall fall into a pit’ (Mt
15),

It is at this point, where this decisive breach wit}.
legalism is accomplished, that Jesus is compelled
to leave Palestine (Mt 15?! || Mk), to give up the
attempt to win the people, and devote Himself te
the training of the Twelve. It was only to a select
company that His mind could now be untolded ; a
great gulf had been fixed between Him and the
worshippers of the law, across which no under-
standing was possible. Nor do the Gospels give
us the means of knowing how far He was able to
carry thé education of the Twelve on this subject.
The ‘meats and drinks and divers washings’ were
part of a system; what of the remaining part of
it? What of all that element of the law which
was identified with the temple and its worship?
What of animal sacrifice? What even of the
covenant sign, circumcision? As for the temple,
He predicted its fall, and with it the collapse of

76 LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

the ritual worship. But was this element in the
law to have fulfilment through Him, or was it
only to be destroyed’ The one hint we have of an
answer to this is the fact that Jesus spoke of His
own death as the basis of a (new) covenant between
God and man—that covenant which Jeremiah fore-
told (31°), which has as its fundamental blessing
the forgiveness of sins. To connect the forgiveness
of sins with the shedding of blood is in the Bible
inevitably to conceive the shedding of blood as
sacrificial ; only sacrificial blood atones for sin.
In the great word spoken at the Supper, therefore,
Jesus hints at a fulfilment in His own person of
that whole side of the law which has to do with
approaching God in worship, Mt 26%. He gives
the impulse and the justification to that inter-
pretation of His life and death in relation to the
(Levitical) law which we afterwards find in the Ep.
to the Hebrews.

On the whole, then, it may be said that the
attitule of Jesus to the law was that of entire
loyalty to it as the revelation of God’s will, entire
comprehension of it in its principle and aim, entire
subordination of every expression of it to its prin-
ciple, entire superiority to all human interpreta-
tions of it, as designed perhaps for its greater
security, but actually making it of no effect; and
entire indifference, not indeed to the law as con-
stituting an order for approaching God in worship,
but to those elements in the law which, because
in themselves without ethical significance, operated
to corrupt conscience, and to divide men from one
another without moral ground.

If. THe ATTITUDE OF THE EARLY CHURCH TO
THE Law, AND ESPECIALLY THE PRACTICE AND
TEACHING OF Sv. PAUL.—A. At first the law
presented no problem to the Christian society.
All the members of that society were Jews, and
devout Jews. The Ananias who baptized St. Paul
is described as εὐλαβὴς κατὰ τὸν νόμον, and as having
testimony borne to him by all the Jews inhabiting
Damascus (Ac 9915), and this character was no
doubt typical. The early Christians, in company
with the apostles, assiduously frequented the
temple (Ac 2 3! 5! "°); the observance of the
law, so far as it was observed by common people,
would be a matter of instinct with them—a part of
their nationality, the relation of which to their
religion never presented itself to their minds. The
charges made against them by the priests have
never any reference to the law, and the proofs
adduced tor the Messiahship of Jesus, which seem
to have filled a considerable space in apostolic
preaching, were related not to the law, but to
prophecy. As far as the Bk. of Acts gives us
any indication, difficulty first emerged in connexion
with the preaching of St. Stephen. He was
charged with speaking ‘ blasphemous words against
Moses and against God’; with incessantly ‘speak-
ing words against this Holy Place and against
the law’; with saying that ‘Jesus of Nazareth
will destroy this place, and change the customs
which Moses delivered to us’ (Ac 6). From these
accusations we can only infer that the new wine
was beginning to burst the old bottles, and that
the enemies of Christianity, with senses sharpened
by hatred and fear, saw perhaps sooner than its
friends that it was essentially irreconcilable with
the established legalism of the Jewish Church. It
was divine and human; Judaism was national and
traditional ; it could not harmonize finally with the
traditional and national framework. But in the
Christian society itself, so natural was it for Jews
to live as Jews, even after they accepted Jesus as
the Christ, that the difticulty was not felt.

This ditheulty was first forced on the attention
of every one by the circumstances attendant on
the reception of Cornelius into the Church. While

etl

St. Peter, divinely led from Joppa to Cvesarea,
was yet preaching the gospel in Cornelius’ house,
the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the
word (Ac 10). The circumcised believers who
were there were amazed, but St. Peter saw the
significance of the event, and at once had them
received into the Church by baptism, and associ-
ated familiarly with them (Ac 11°). When his
conduct—which really meant that the ceremonial
law, as a Jewish national law, separating the Jews
as God’s people from all others, had ceased to have
religious significance—was called in question at
Jerusalem (Ac 11*%), he defended it apparently
with the full consciousness of what it meant. ‘If
God gave them the same gift as he gave us also
when we believed-in the Lord Jesus Christ, who
was I that I should obstruct God?’ (ef. Ac 157),
It is implied here that the gift of God—in other
words the Holy Ghost—is the essential of Chris-
tianity, and the only one; where it is found,
nothing else counts, and no questions are to be
raised ; circumcision is nothing and uncircumeision
is nothing. But if this is so, then (so far as it is a
term of communion and a condition of salvation)
does not the law as a whole, to which men were
bound by circumcision, cease to have any religious
significance? Is it not possible already to define
the Church as a society in which there is neither
Jew nor Greek ?*

This inference, which was involved in St. Peter’s
conduct, and in his defence of it, was not, however,
clearly drawn at once. The exceptional case of
Cornelius was regarded as exceptional ; one man
and his family could not make a Church, and this
isolated instance might perplex rather than en-
lighten the simple-minded. But with the ex-
tension of the Church to Antioch, and especially
with its extension beyond Antioch through the
mission conducted by Paul and Barnabas, the
subject was brought up with greater urgency. In
the account of the first mission of these apostles,
we have a hint of the peculiar Pauline attitude to
the law: ‘in this man (Jesus) every one who be-
lieves is justified from all things from which ye could
not be justified by the law of Moses,’ Ac 13. It
is not in this, however, but in the doctrine of a
crucified Messiah, and perhaps in personal jealousy,
that an explanation may be found of the opposi-
tion offered to the mission en route. Not Jewish
Christians attached to the law, but Jews who were
not Christians at all, resisted the preachers.

When Paul and Barnabas returned, they summed
up the result of their mission in the words: ‘God
has opened the door of faith to the Gentiles,’ Ac
14°, But this ‘conversion of the Gentiles,’ though
the news of it caused great joy in Phonicia and
Samaria (Ac 15°), awakened very different feelings
even in Christian circles at Jerusalem. Emissaries
from Jerusalem insisted on teaching (ἐδίδασκον, Ac
152) the brethren at Antioch—men who had be-
lieved in Jesus Christ and received the Holy Ghost
—that without circumcision they could not be
saved. It was a deliberate challenge not only to
the work of Paul and Barnabas, but, as they
believed, to the work of God; and as it involved
the unity of the Church, it was arranged that Paul
and Barnabas with some brethren from Antioch
should go to settle it with the apostles and_ elders
at Jerusalem. It was not a question on which the
apostles to the Gentiles could compromise ; and
everything depended, not indeed for the future
of Christianity, but for the present peace of the
Church, on the conciliatory spirit and insight of
the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem. Room wag
given for discussion (Ac 157), but the question was
settled by the argument of St. Peter—an argument

* We have assumed above that the Cornelius episode is
historical, and also in its right place.

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

-ν
ick

identical in principle with that of ch. 11: ‘God
who knows the heart bore witness to them (the
Gentiles) in that he gave them the Holy Spirit
just as he did to us; and he made no distinction
Heuweoen us and them, in that he purified their
hearts by faith.’ For the Gentiles, at all events,
a place in the Church and a part in salvation is in
no way dependent on circumcision, or on keeping
the law of Moses. This was the principle for
which St. Paul contended ; and it was in consist-
ency with it that he refused to have Titus cir-
cumcised on the occasion of this visit to the
Jewish Church (Gal 2+), and that he withstood
St. Peter to the face when, during a subsequent
visit to Antioch, he yielded to Jewish pressure,
and withdrew from fellowship with Gentile be-
lievers.

The recognition of this principle on both sides
does not discredit the decree of Ac 15“. The
decree is a measure of expediency, necessarily of a
temporary character, but one to which (in the in-
terests of peace and of the Church’s unity) St. Paul
could easily enough agree—once his principle had
been recognized. Where Judaism was tocused,
in Jerusalem for instance, the law would assert
itself as inevitably as nationality or patriotism ;
in purely Gentile Churches no question as to its
place in revelation or its religious significance
might ever be raised; in places where Jew and
Gentile were much in contact there would no
doubt be inconsistencies, misunderstandings, and
practicai compromises and accommodations of
various sorts. Of these the decree is a specimen.

Bb. 'The centre of interest in the NT is now in
the practice and the doctrine of St. Paul.-—(a) In
the course of his second mission he visited Europe,
and in a few verses of the Ist Ep. to the Corinthians,
written to a Church founded in the course of this
mission, he vives a clear and precise account of the
principles on which he acted. ‘Being free from
all, | made myself a slave to all, that I might gain
the more. And 1 became to the Jews as a Jew,
that I might gain Jews; to those under law, as
under Jaw, not being myself under Jaw, that 1
might gain those under law; to those without law
(1.6. the Gentiles as ‘outlaws’ from the Jewish

oint of view), as without law, not being without
se to God, but under law to Christ (ἔννομος be-
cause the Christian lives iz the Jaw, he is not
under it as one to whom it speaks from without
and froin above, and whom it oppresses), that I
might gain those without law’ (on the whole

assage 1 Co 9! see the masterly note of
ὉΠ δ της. Comm. ad loc.) It is in pursuance of
this policy that St. Paul at the outset of this
Journey cireumcises Timothy (Ac 16°), and delivers
to the Churches on his route the decree of the
Jerus. Council (Ac 10) ; it is still in pursuance οἵ
it that he preaches at Corinth a gospel to which
everything is indifferent but Jesus Christ crucified
(1 Co 215), and declares that circumcision is nothing
and uncircumcision nothing (1 Co 7! ).

In these verses in 1 Co it may be assumed that
St. Paul is interpreting the principle on which he
had acted when at Corinth, and on which he acted
everywhere. The man who is called (i.e. who
becomes a Christian) uncircumcised is not to cir-
cumcise himself; the man who is circumcised when
the call comes to him is not to undo or disguise the
fact : as far as the gospel and membership in the
Church are concerned, circumcision and wneireum-
cision are neither here nor there. It is of this
principle and practice that St. Paul says: so I
ordain in all the Churches (1 Co 717. The Jewish
opposition to St. Paul at Corinth seems also to
have fastened on this aspect of his work: it no
longer flowed from personal jealousy, as probably
in Galatia. The charge laid against him before

Gallio was that he persuaded men to worship God
mapa τὸν νόμον (Ac 185), by which is no doubt meant,
in violation of the Mosaic law. Judaism was a
religio licita, and as the teaching of St. Paul was
frankly indifferent to the national character in
virtue of which the law possessed this public
standing, his enemies thought to bring him within
the scope of the Roman law as violating it. Yet
with all this he was anxious to maintain com-
munion with the mother Church at Jerusalem, and
at the close of his journey formally paid his re-
spects to it once more (Ac 1833).

(4) To the third mission of St. Paul, which is
ordinarily dated as commencing 55 or 56 ['Turner,
52] A.D., belong the great controversial Epistles,
1 and 2 Co, Gal, and Ro, in which his doctrine of
the law (for he was obliged both by his spiritual
experience and by the challenges of his adversaries
to have a doctrine) is expounded in all its aspects.
Law in a sense is the subject of all, but especially
of the two last named. The very frequency with
which the word occurs is significant. It is found
32 times in Gal, 76 times in Ro, 8 times in 1 Co;
elsewhere in the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul only
6 times. In Gal the reference is mainly to what we
should eall law in its ritual aspect, for the claim
made on the Christians of Galatia by the Judaizers
was that they should submit to be circumcised ; in
Ro, on the other hand, it is the moral law which
is the subject of discussion. Yet this distinction
is not one which would be present, at least vividly,
to St. Paul’s mind. He thinks of the law as one,
and as the law of God; and his point is that
statutory obedience is not the way of salvation.
Much of the difficulty which his opponents had
in understanding St. Paul must have been due
to the apparently (and inevitably) equivocal atti-
tude which he assumed to the religion of Israel.
On the one hand, the gospel was a specitically new
thing. It was independent of the law. It did for
him what the law could not do (Ro 85). It had to
be defined by contrast with the law ; sometimes it
seemed as if it could be defined only by opposition
to the law, as in 2 Co 3 where they are confronted
as γράμμα and πνεῦμα, as ἀποκτέννειν and ζωοποιεῖν,
as κατάκρισις and δικαιοσύνη, AS τὸ καταργούμενον and
τὸ μένον. Even in Ro, which is written in a more
conciliatory mood, pains are taken to show that
in principle the two religions (the law and faith,
works and grace, wages and promise) are mutually
exclusive (Ro 4). On the other hand, the con-
nexion of the new religion with the old is as in-
dubitable. The δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ preached in the
gospel may be χωρὶς νόμου, yet it is witnessed to by
the law and the prophets (Ro 3%, ef. 12:17 105),
The last passage referred to is particularly striking,
for in it St. Paul applies to the gospel words
spoken by Moses about the law, and that for the
very purpose of pointing the superiority of the
gospel to the law. In other words, he read the
OT as a Christian book, and yet proved from it
the thesis that the OT religion was not Chris-
tianity. But though this inevitable formal diffi-
culty must often have led to misunderstanding in
controversy, it is no more than formal, and the
apostle’s position is intelligible enough. The OT,
if regarded as a code, is not Christian, is indeed
antichristian, as every religion based on statutes
and therefore legal in spirit must be; but as a
revelation it has the promise of Christianity in
it, and bears witness τὸ the gospel.

(6) Before examining St. Paul’s doctrine, or the
various suggestions of his Epistles, oa the law, it is
necessary to observe more closely his use of the
word. (a) He sometimes has it with, sometimes
without, the article. The question has been
raised whether the meaning is the same in the two
vases. If we ask questions which were not present

te geen a

78 LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

to the mind of the writers whom we are interpre-
ting, we are apt to get unreal and unreliable
answers ; and in answering this question there has
been little agreement among scholars. No doubt
when St. Paul says ‘the law,’ without any quali-
fication, he is thinking of the law of Moses. There
was nothing else in the world to describe by that
name. The one specimen exhausted the species.
Is anything else meant when he speaks of ‘law’
without so defining it? ‘The answer given by such
scholars as Lightfoot and Gifford is that in such
cases what St. Paul has in view may indeed be the
law of Moses, but it is that law not definitely cs
Mosaic, not as the historical institute with which
the Jews were familiar, but indefinitely, and
simply in its character as legal. In spite of the
objections of Grafe, this view seems thoroughly
sound. Even what is regarded as a decisive case
on the opposite side (Ro 5*° νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν) is
much more effective and relevant to the apostle’s
argument if we render ‘Law came in,’ instead of
‘The Law.’ St. Paul is writing of the great
spiritual forees which have dominated the history
of humanity, Sin, Law, and Grace, and it is in
their character as such, not in their historical
definiteness, that he is concerned with them, [1
is only when this is admitted, that what St. Paul
says of Jaw has any interest for others than Jews.
It was because he could conceive of the law of
Moses not as Mosaic, but simply as legal, that he
could find an analogue to it among the Gentiles,

and preach to them also a gospel (and the same)

vospel) Which meant emancipation from legalism,

The Gentiles, he says, in explaining how it is
ἃ μ « 3 a oD

possible for them to be judged by God, though

they have no law (in the sense in which Israel had) |

yet do by nature the things required by the law,
and so display ‘the work of the law written in
their hearts’ (Ro 246). They have the idea of a
task to be done, just as the Jews have; and there
is a ‘natural legality,’ to use an expression of
Chalmers, in men which disposes them to aim at
achieving righteousness in this way. The first
thought of man, Jew or Gentile, is that he will do
the things that are required of him,—in other
words, ke+p the law,—and on the ground of what
he thus achieves claim as of right the approbation
of God. ‘This is what St. Paul means by attaining
righteousness ἐξ ἔργων viuouv, by works of law. ‘The
Mosaic law is included, but it is included not as
Mosaic, but as legal, and it does not exhaust the
concept. The law may be the form that haunts
the mind of the ‘natural legalist’ the world over ;
and to all such alike, Jew or Gentile, St. Paul
declares that the way they are treading can never
lead to acceptance with God. It does not matter
what the special content is which is embodied in
the legal torm; it may be mainly what we call
ritual, as in the Ep. to the Galatians, or mainly
what we call ethical, as in the Ep. to the Romans ;
in no case whatever can statutory obedience con-
stitute a claim on God or command His approba-
tion. ‘By works of law shall no tlesh be justified
in his sight’ (Ro 3-’).

(8) There is another point to be cleared up in St.
Paul’s use of the word. There are passages in
which ‘the law’ is used with a genitive in a way
which suggests to a modern, perhaps especially to
an English reader, that the word is used with some
approach to the sense it now bears in physical
science. Thus ‘the law of sin which is in my
members’ is interpreted as the sinful mode in
which ‘my members’ normally or habitually act
(Ro 7%); similarly also ‘the law of the spirit of
the life in Christ Jesus’ (Ro 83. But the passage
most relied on to prove this sense is Ro 7?! εὑρίσκω
ἄρα Tov νόμον, Tw θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν, ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ
κακὸν παράκειται. ‘This is often interpreted to mean,

‘I find therefore this regularly recurrent pheno-
menon,—this “law ” in the sense of modern science,
—that when I would do good, evil is present with
me’ (so Winer, ed. Moulton, p. 697, who renders
τὸν νόμον normam ; and ef. Meyer or Sanday and
Headlam, ad /oe.). But the ‘law’ of modern science
belongs to an intellectual world which was not then
in being, and there can be little doubt that by εὑρίσκω
ἄρα Tov νύμον St. Paul means to say, ‘this is what I
find as far as the law is concerned,—I mean well,
but am perpetually baffled by the presence of evil.’
(So Vaughan). The words τὸν νύμον refer to the
law of Moses, under which St. Paul had his
experience of legal religion; but it is the experi-
ence also of every one who has tried legal religion
in any shape, Mosaic or another. So in the other
passages referred to above, ‘the law’ is to be
conceived as related to a legislator, and not as
in modern physics. ‘The law of God? (Ro 7**) is
the law which God enjoins; the law ‘of the
mind’ (v.**) is the law which the νοῦς or practical
reason of the man prescribes, or the law of God
as re-enacted in conscience ; the law of sin is the
mode of life (not in which sin is normally ex-
hibited, but) which Sin, personified as a rival to
God, enjoins upon man and compels him to follow ;
the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus is
the mode of life (not in which spirit acts auto-
matically, and on the analogy of a physical force,
but) which the Spirit authoritatively prescribes,
and, as being in its essence impulse as well as law,
enables man freely to realize.

There are, however, cases in which the genitive
with νύμος is of a different kind, and in which νύμος
itself seems to be used in a larger sense, almost =
‘yeligion,’ as something instituted by God. ‘Thus
in Ro 37 St. Paul says boasting 1s summarily
excluded, and asks διὰ ποίου νόμου ; through what
sort of law? In other words, What sort of char-
acter must we suppose Christianity as a divine
institution to possess, in order that this result
must follow? Is it to be characterized by works,
or by faith? The latter, says St. Paul: the geni-
tives in the verse being those of the characterizing

quality. In v.*! of the same chapter νόμον is
ambiguous. [Ὁ may refer to the OT religion as a

whole: and then the answer to the question, Do
we annul (the) Law through faith? would be given
in ch. 4, where St. Paul shows that the Justi-
fication of Christians has its prototype in that of
Abraham,—in other words, that the old order is
confirmed (icrdvouev), not subverted, by the new.
But νύμον may be generic, and the question may
mean, Do we then annul Law—all that has ever
been known as moral order, all that has ever been
supposed to safeguard morality whether of Mosaic
or other origin—by our faith, ὁ.6. by our new
Christian religion? In this case, the proof of the
assertion that we do not annul but establish Law
by Faith—that the Christian religion is the only
effective guarantee of morality—is given, not in
ch. 4, but in chs. 6-8, where Christianity is shown
to involve the possession of the Holy Spirit.

(ἢ) We may now proceed to notice more particu-
larly what St. Paul teaches about Law, bearing in
mind that it was throuch the Mosaic law that he
obtained the experience out of which he speaks,
but that he speaks for the benefit of men who may
have had a similar experience although they had
never heard of Moses; in other words, that even
where he is formally discussing the Law, it is Law
itself, in all that is characteristic of it as legal,
which he is really concerned with.

(1) As regards its place in_ history, it 15 8ῃ
entirely subordinate thing. The great spiritual
powers which have had dominance in the life of man
are Sin and Grace ; in comparison with them, Law
isa minor matter. Sin entered the world (εἰσῆλθεν,

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

es

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

Ro 5”), and so did Grace, but Law only παρεισῆλθεν =
entered as an accessory, or in a subordinate capacity
(Ro δ). To a Jew, the most important figure in
religion was Moses; St. Paul argues that the
importance of Moses in the spiritual history of
humanity is an entirely inferior thing when com-
pared to that of Adam or of Christ. This is the
purport also of the argument in Gal 3", where he
aims at showing that the Promise —i.c. the Chris-
tian religion as it was announced to Abraham,
and in a sense imparted to him—was not con-
ditioned by the Law, which came 400 years after-
wards, and that not by the immediate act of God,
but ‘ordained through angels, by the hand of a
mediator” It is not so clear whether St. Paul
regarded Law, or the reign of Law, either in its
more statutory form as in [srael, or in its vaguer
form as present to conscience amony the Gentiles,
as a positive preparation for the gospel. The
ficures of the prison-house and the madéayxy!s in
Gal 3% hardly amount to this. As Lightfoot
remarks, ‘the tempting explanation of παιδαγωγός
eis Χριστόν, ‘Sone to conduct us to the school of
Christ,” ought probably to be abandoned.’ Εἰς
Χριστόν really means ‘until Christ came.’ During
the pre-Christian stage of our life we were ‘shut
up and kept in ward under the law’; it was our
prison and our moral guardian, but St. Paul does
not regard it as leading us to Christ. The madéa-
γωγός was a slave who had to exercise a certain
moral restraint over the boy under his charge ; the
law, too, was servile, an inferior type of religion,
and all it could do by itself was to attempt a
similar restraint.

(2) On the mode in which Law acts in the indi-
vidual who lives under it, St. Paul has much to
say. (a) It brings the knowledge, especially the
full knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις) of sin, Ro 3:0 4%, and
esp. 77 1 had not known sin, but through the
law,’ ete. The description of spiritual experience in
Ro 7 is not to be mechanically interpreted ; it
belongs to what may be called ‘ideal biography.’ It
is neither the experience of the regenerate nor of
the unregenerate man, but the experience, if one
might say so, of the unregenerate man seen through
regenerate eyes, interpreted by a regenerate mind ;
it 15 individual experience, but universalized ; it is
not a deposition for a law court, but some kind of
essential eternal truth. It contains much of St.
Paul’s doctrine of the law—a doctrine resting on
experience of his own. The = starting-point is
purely ideal. “1 was alive without the law (χωρὶς
νόμου) once.” ‘This is not a date which can be fixed
in any one’s life. There is not really a golden age,
a happy time to which we ean look back, when we
had no conscience, and therefore no bad conscience.
It is, however, the assumed starting-point of the
spiritual life for St. Paul. [t lasts till its peace is
invaded by the Law. When the commandment
comes, sin wakes up to life, and the man dies,
The prohibition of the Law reveals to man_ his
antagonism to it. The Law comes to him, from
without, and it ἐν without: man and the law, the
very moment the law appears as such, are dis-
covered to be in some kind of antagonism to each
other ; conscience first exists as a bad conscience.

(8) The law not only brings the full conscious-
ness of sin, it also brings its doom. The law works
wrath, Ro 4°. There is a ‘curse of the law’ which
comes upon all who violate it. To know that one
has broken the law is to know that he is subject
to this curse. The doom of death stares him in
the face. St. Paul nowhere gives an analysis of
θάνατος, or κατάρα, or κατάκριμα, or any of the words
he uses in this connexion, and it is merely mis-
leading to introduce such distinctions as physical,
spiritual, and eternal death to interpret his mean-
ing. That death which is the doom or curse of

the law is one awful indivisible thing, which only
a despairing conscience can realize, and which 1
too overwhelming to be the subject of such dis-
tinctions. It includes in every case the feeling
that God, whose the Law is, is against those who
have broken it.

(y) The Law, according to St. Paul, stimulates
sin, and was given for that very purpose. ‘The
Law came in beside, that the trespass might abeund,’
Ro δ. The Law was added τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν,
Cal 3!7: where ὁ because of transvressions’ must be
interpreted on the analogy of Ro 5” ἵνα πλεονάσῃ
τὸ παράπτωμα. Cf. also Ro 719 ‘that sin through the
commandment,’ ie. through the law in one of the
injunctions or prohibitions composing it, ‘might
become exceeding sinful.’ This is one of the most
daring points in St. Paul’s doctrine, yet it rests on
the familiar psychological fact that prohibition
provokes resistance. When the law —any law
whatever—says ‘Do not,’ there is something in
man which is inclined to say 1 will.’ The
peculiarity is that St. Paul represents God as
availing Himself of this characteristic of human
nature in order (indirectly) to prepare man _ for
salvation. When he says that the purpose for
which Law came in was that the trespass might
abound, the purpose is conceived as God’s. [Ὁ is
as though God saw that the only way to get man
to accept //is righteousness was to make him
despair of lis own, and the way to make him
Gespair of his own was to subject him to a dis-
cipline under which the sin that was in him
would reveal its exceeding sinfulness, its irresistible
tyrannical strength, and annihilate all his hopes.
It is in this connexion of ideas that St. Paul says
the law is the strength of sin, 1 Co 15°, No doubt
it was at this point that his doetrine would seem
most impious to a pious Jew. The Law, his
adversary would naturally assume, was given to
be kept. It was given to guide man in the way
of life, to be a light to his teet and a lamp to his
path. It was a kind of insanity—so it would seem
to him—to represent it as given to stimulate sin,
to counteract its own nature, defeat its own pur-
pose, and lead to its own supersession by a new
religion. But, in reality, Law is used in two
different senses by the parties to this controversy.
The Jewish interlocutor whom we have supposed
is thinkine of the whole OT revelation, which is
not necessarily legal at all; St. Paul is thinking
of it specificaily as legal, as that system of statutes
and traditions to which it had been reduced in the
Pharisaic circles in which he had been brought up ;
and he is interpreting God’s purpose in giving the
law through his own experience—surely an ex-
perience in which the hand and purpose of God
could be traced—under those conditions. If ex-
perience proved anything, it proved that God
could mean nothing by the Jaw (as St. Paul had
known it) except to make a full revelation of sin.
It was not meant to bring salvation, it was meant
to bring despair.

(δ) But though the law acts in this paradoxical
way, and does so in pursuance of God's purpose,
God is not to blame for the sin which is multiplied,
nor is the character of the law itself in the least
degree compromised. The Jaw is spiritual and
holy. Both πνευματικός and ἅγιος are words which
indicate the connexion of the law with God. The
commandment, the prohibition or precept in which
the law expresses itself, 1s holy (=divine), just
(=answeringe to the relations which subsist be-
tween God and man, or between men themselves),
and good (=morally beneficent). The explanation
of the disastrous working of the law (disastrous,
though God’s grace makes it an indirect prepara-
tion for the gospel) is to be found in man himself,
and especially in his nature as flesh: ‘Il am

ee ee ee

80 LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

σάρκινος, a creature of flesh, sold under sin,’ Ro
het

The law, perhaps, ought to be able to do for us
something quite different from what it actually
does; but it cannot do that other thing; it is
weak ‘through the flesh,’ Ro 85, St. Paul nowhere
explains how the flesh has come to have this
peculiar, native, invincible antipathy to the law,
and this is not the place to inquire; it is enough
to notice that it is on his conception (which like
all his other conceptions is not an abstract but an
experimental one) of what the flesh is, that the
most characteristic part of his doctrine of the law
depends. It is because the tlesh is what it is that
the law stimulates sin, plunges man into despair,
and so prepares him for the gospel, i.e. for a divine
righteousness to which ‘works of law’ contribute
nothing, though witness is borne to it ‘by the law
and the prophets.’ The flesh and the law together
explain the universal need and the universal
craving for redemption.

(8) Itis necessary, however, to define the relation
of law and gospel more closely. It is true that the
law contributes nothing to the gospel: no statutory
obedience whatsoever enters into the δικαιοσύνη
θεοῦ preached by St. Paul to sinners whom the
law has brought to despair. But the law is not
ignored by the gospel. It is God’s law. [0 is
enforced by the most terrible sanctions: its sen-
tence of condemnation, its curse, its doom of death,
are awful realities, and cannot simply be passed
by. Norin St. Paul’s gospel are they passed by.
The very heart of that gospel is Christ's relation to
the law—His relation to the law, not merely as a
law which issues commandments, but as a law
which has pronounced sentence upon man. When
Christ is said to be made under law, to redeem
them that are under law. it is this which is in
view: St. Paul has a gospel to preach to men
under the condemnation of the law, because that
condemnation has been taken on Himself by Christ.
This is the idea which explains all the formule the
apostle uses in describing the redeeming work of
Christ, and which explains above all the fact that
the redeeming work of Christ is so constantly
identified with His death. Death is the doom of
sin, the sanction, the curse, the sentence of the
law ; and in dying for us Christ recognized without
abatement the utmost claims of the law as ex-
pressive of the holy will of God. It is in this
sense that He is said to have become a curse for
us, and to have been made sin for us by God ; it: is
in this sense also that God is said in Him to have
condemned sin in the flesh. All these passages (Gal
318 44 2 Co 57!, Ro 895) describe the same thine: the
absolute honour paid to the law by Christ in freely
submitting to that death in which the law’s con-
demnation of humanity is expressed.

We do not discredit this connexion of ideas by
saying that death is merely physical, and that the
conception of it as the doom of sin is fantastic or
mythological. Nothing that happens to man is
merely physical. All that happens to a spiritual
being has in the last resort a spiritual meaning ;
and when death is interpreted (not through its
physiological antecedents or conditions, but as it
must be by the philosopher, the moralist, and the
theologian) through the conscience, it will be hard
to find for it any other significance than that which
St. Paul accepts. It is the dreadful experience in
which conscience sees not the debt of nature, but
the wages of sin; and it is as such that Christ is
conceived as submitting to it.

The same holds of the more elaborate passage
Ro 37!-°6, Christ is there represented as set forth
‘as a propitiation, . . . in his blood, with a view
to demonstrate God’s righteousness, owing to the
passing by of foregone sins in the forbearance of

God.’ The idea is that God’s treatment of sin
hitherto—His suspense of judgment—cast a shadow
on His righteousness: it might be questioned
whether God was really concerned about the
difference between right and wrong. But at the
cross His righteousness has been cleared from this
shadow. How? Because there the doom of sin
has fallen upon His own Son. Nothing could
show more conclusively that God was inexorable,
irreconcilable to sin—that God’s law was an in-
violable law. There is nothing in the argument of
Weiss (Comm. on Ro 3”) that punishment and pro-
pitiation are alternatives between which God had
to choose, but which had nothing to do with each
other. God chose tomake propitiation for the sin
of the world, and He did it, according to St. Paul,—
not in this passage only, but in all the others cited
above,—in the following way: He sent His Son to
take the sin of the world upon Him in all those
consequences of it in which His condemnation and
the sanctity of His law are expressed, and especi-
ally, theretore, in death. Death in Christ’s case
has propitiatory significance,—in other words, it is
the basis of gospel,—because it is the bearing of
sin, the full recognition, in their full extent, of the
Law’s claims upon man. ΤῸ dissolve the relation
between the Death of Christ and the sentence of
the Law—to take the curse and condemnation
out of the Cross—is to annihilate the gospel as
St. Paul understood it. It is essential to a doctrine
of atonement that it should in this sense at least
‘establish the law.’

(4) But the question remains, What is the relation
of the Christian to the Law, or to law in general ?
Much of the paradox of St. Paul’s teaching gathers
round this point. In all religion, of course, from
the point οἵ view of ethics, there is something
paradoxical. It belongs to religion, as such, to
transcend the ethical point of view, yet to con-
serve and promote, indeed to be the only etlective
means of conserving and promoting, ethical in-
terests. Hence moralists are the most severe, if
at times the most inept, critics of religion, and St.
Paul’s idealism and his paradoxes together pro-
voked and still provoke inlinite comment. Yet his
position is quite clear. On the one hand, the
Christian has nothing more to do with law in any
way. ‘I through law died to law that 1 might live
to God.’ An exhaustive experiment of living under
law convinced him that there was neither life nor
righteousness to be found that way, and he was
done with jaw for ever. ‘I am crucified with
Christ ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ
who lives in me.’ The old end of life is not
renounced ; his aim is still righteousness; but
the old means are renounced. Righteousness is
not to be achieved out of his own resources,
and brought to God for His approval; it is to
be the work of Christ dwelling in him through
His Spirit. Law was weak through the flesh,
and could not do what was wanted; but the
Spirit is stronger than the flesh, and can secure
in spite of it what the law failed to secure ;
in us (Christians), as we walk not after the
flesh but after the spirit, ‘the just demand (τὸ
δικαίωμα) of the law’ is fulfilled, Ro 84. Sin has
not dominion over us, for we are not under law
(the working of which has been explained above
under 2 (y)), but under grace ; law only enslaves to
sin; but grace gives the quickening spirit and
liberates.

Hence in the Christian religion, as St. Paul
understood it, nothing statutory could have any
place. To give a legal authority to any formal
precept, ethical or ritual, is to shut the door of
hope, and open again the door of despair. It is
to contemn the Spirit, which is Christ’s gift, and
the cross, by which He won it, and to renounce the

Sn

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT) 8]

liberty with which He has made us free. St. Paul
was not an antinomian (for the just demand of the
law is to be fulfilled in all Christians), but he was
certainly an anomian. He recognizes no law in
the Church but the law of the spirit of the life in
Christ Jesus, and while that is both Jaw and im-
pulse it is essentially personal, and can never be
reduced to statutory form. He can speak οὗ
Christianity indeed (to which circumcision is no-
thing and uncireumcision is nothing) as ‘the
keeping of the commandments of God,’ 1 Co 7%;
but all legalism is eliminated when the law is
described as having its fulfilment in love, Ro 13!°,
Gal 54, and ‘the law of Christ’ is explained as
‘bearing each other’s burdens,’ Gal 6% Legalism,
in short, and Christianity (life in the Spirit) are to
St. Paul mutually exclusive ideas; and though in
a formally constituted society, ὁ.6. in sense a cor-
oration in the eye of the law, a legal creed and a
fal organization might become necessary, the
idea that the existence of Christianity depended
upon them could only have seemed to him a fatal
contradiction of all that Christianity meant.

(e) At the close of his third mission, St. Paul
came again to Jerusalem. He had with him the
collection from the Gentile Churches, and was most
eager to maintain brotherly relations between the
Gentile and the Jewish sections of Christendom,
though he had grave misgivings as to what might
happen. Cf. Ac 21", 2 Co 8 and 9, Ro 15**. The
opposition to his ‘lawless’ Christianity, which had
followed him in all his churches and been combated
in his four great Epistles, had been busy in Jeru-
salem also. The native Christians there were
devoted in their attachment to the law in its
national aspects (πάντες ζηλωταὶ τοῦ νόμου, Ac 910),
They had been sedulously instructed (κατηχή-
θησαν) that St. Paul was teaching the Jews who
lived abroad to apostatize from the law, neither
eircumcising their children nor keeping the tradi-
tional customs. This was undoubtedly the logic
of St. Paul’s gospel, though there is no evidence,
apart from this unscrupulous assertion, that St.
Paul ever sought to denationalize his countrymen ;
and it is a fair question whether St. James and his
elders did not ask him to do something which
would leave an essentially false impression when
they asked him to associate himself with certain
men in a vow, that all might know that none of
the things which they had been drilled to believe
about him were true, and that he himself also in
his conduct was an observer of the law (v.“).
Probably, in yielding to this request, St. Paul was
carrying to an extreme the conciliatory principles
of 1 Co 9%; but the tumult which ended in his
imprisonment and transference to Rome prevented
any further development of the controversy about
law between the apostle and the Jewish Christian

arty.
(f) The later Epistles hardly enable us to add
anything of importance. In Eph the law as a
national institute—the law of commandments con-
tained in ordinances, cf. Col 24—is regarded as a
dividing wall between Jew and Gentile; it has
been broken down and annulled by the death of
Christ, and with it the enmity which severed the
two great branches of the human family ; they are
now one newman. In Col what St. Paul has to
deal with is a movement which in its requirements
resembles the ritualistic legalism with which he
had been confronted in Galatia; the difference
is that in Galatia the legalism attached itself
directly to the law of Moses, in Colosse it seemed
to be connected with some philosophical or theo-
sophical system, possibly of Essene affinities, and
therefore more exacting in its demands than the
letter of Moses’ law. Cf. Col 216... St. Paul was
equally irreconcilable to it in both cases, and for
VOL. I11.—6

the same reason. Asdead with Christ, the Christian
was dead to that whole mode of being, that whole
conception of life, which allowed order to be pre-
scribed from without. It was worse, of course,
when the multiplied prohibitions, ‘Touch not,
taste not, handle not,’ had no divine sanction (as
the Mosaic law had) or even the pretence of it, but
were merely a tradition of men. The conscience
which has received the Spirit of Christ is shirking
its own responsibilities when it allows others to lay
down the law for it. To be perfectly free, and to
take the whole responsibility of freedom, is the
only way to wholesome morality and to Christian
sanctification. ‘Therefore let no one judge you in
eating or drinking, or in respect of a festival or
new moon or Sablath.’? All laws and customs as
such tend to extinguish the feeling of personal
responsibility, to blunt the keenness of individual
conscience: hence to bind them on the conscience,
in their character as legal and customary, is anti-
christian. In Ph 3!" there is a sudden fierce flash,
provoked we cannot tell how, of the ideas and tem-
per that belong to the great controversial Epistles.
In the Pastoral Epp., which represent a considerably
later date, we can see that questions connected with
law still engaged attention, though there is nothing
indicative either of the passion or the interest in
principle which characterize the earlier years of
the apostle. Titus (3°) is warned to decline μάχας
νομικάς, as though the whole subject were prac-
tically settled; and we catch the same half-con-
temptuous tone in 1 Ti 1’, where persons are
referred to, Judaizing no doubt, who wish to be νομο-
διδάσκαλοι though they have no idea of the functions
of law. It may be questioned whether the two
verses following come up to the insight of Ro 7,
but they have their own truth, and probably served
the writer’s purpose. When the battle was prac-
tically over, and the victory won, even St. Paul
may have expressed himself in this almost indifferent
commonplace; perhaps he despaired of gaining
access to the general mind for any profounder
statement of the truth. The legalism of the persons
who forbade to marry and commanded to abstain
from meats (1 Ti 4°) cannot have been Mosaic, but
must have been of some philosophical type, akin
to that found in Colossie.

III. THE LAW IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
—The Pauline affinities of the Ep. to the Hebrews
cannot be denied, but the conception of law in it is
very different. Law here is sometimes expressly
the law of Moses (7:8. 915 10°8), but it is reearded
not so much as a set of statutes to be punctually
obeyed, as a religious constitution under which the
nation had to worship. Cf. the use of the verb voyo-
θετεῖν in 71} 86. The fundamental idea of the book
is that there is one people of God through all ages,
though it has stood at different times in different
relations to Him. Its relation to God, its nearness
or distance, depends on the kind of priesthood it
has; and when the priesthood is changed there is
necessarily also a change of law: that is, the re-
ligious constitution is altered, 7. The old law—
the religious constitution under which the people
of God lived when mediation was that of the
Levitical priesthood—‘ made nothing perfect’ (715);
there was no absolute or final religion then, no
purgation of conscience, no sure immediate joyful
access to God. Christianity, on the other hand—
the religious constitution under which the people
of God live now, when mediation is that of the
Melchizedek priest, the Son of God—is the τελεί-
wots of what was promised of old. The new
covenant is legally constituted on the basis of
better promises (8°). It has, with the definite
outline of reality, the good things of which the
law had only a shadow (10!).

There is nothing in St. Paul which exactly

82 LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

LAW (IN NEW TESTAMENT)

corresponds to this: not even in Col 217, still less
in what he says of the promise in Gal 3 or of
the promises in 2 Co 1*°. In fact, we do not find
in St. Paul any conception of Leviticalism as pos-
sessing a religious significance, as dealing even in
a pathetically disappointing way with spiritual
necessities in man, which would find their adequate
satisfaction only in Christ. In the Ep. to the
Hebrews Christ is still regarded as making pro-
pitiation for sins (3211), but His death is not put, so
srominently as in St. Paul, in relation to the Law.
Vet in 10°%, where such emphasis is laid on Christ’s
obedience, it is to be noted (see v.!*) that the
obedience required of Christ is specilically that of
a Redeemer: 2.6. ex hypothesi, the obedience of
One who becomes one with the sinful not only in
nature but in experience and in Jot (one of the
leading thoughts of the Epistle, ef. 10:18). taking on
Himself their flesh and Llood, their temptations
and discipline, the whole burden, curse, and doom
of their sins, and so setting them free. Yet the
difference between the conception of Law here and
in St. Paulis seen in this, that while St. Paul ex-
presses the result of this redemptive death by δικαιοῦν,
in Hebrews it is expressed by ἁγιάζειν, In other
words, the result to St. Paul is that there is no con-
demnation, the claim of the Law against the indi-
vidual is annulled; to the writer to the Hebrews
the result is that worship is made possible ; the soul
is able now, as it was not before, to draw near to
God; true religion is put within its reach. This
distinction justifies us, after all, in saying that the
distinction between moral and ritual law belongs
to the NT. St. Paul does mainly think of law as
moral—God’s demand for righteousness ; Hebrews
thinks of it as ritual—the medium through which
or the constitution under which we worship. But
in both cases the law comes to an end with the
gospel. | Christ finishes it as a way of attaining
righteousness, Ro 104. Hebrews finishes it also as
a mode of worshipping God, 13!™,

IV. THE LAW IN THE OTHER NT Books.—
Among the remaining books of the NT, those which
exhibit most indications of the controversy which
had raged between Jewish and Gentile Christians
are the Apocalypse and the Ep. of James. In the
former (259) the Church in Thyatira is threatened
because it tolerates ‘the woman Jezebel who...
teaches and seduces my servants to commit forni-
cation, and to eat things offered to idols,’ ὁ.6. to
violate the compact of Ac 15°, οἵ, Rev 2%. There
may have been a spurious, antinomian influence
at work here, which appealed to St. Paul’s name,
but it is absurd (with Renan, Saint Paul, pp. 303,
367, L’Antechrist, p. 36311) to regard this as a
denunciation of St. Paul’s doctrine. Although,
too, the Apocalypse lays great stress on works, it
never regards them as having the character οἵ
statutory acts of obedience: in other words, they
are not legal. ‘They are the works of Jesus (256).
and are co-ordinated in 2" with love, faith, ministry,
and patience (Holtzmann, NZ’ Theol. i. 465). A
favourite expression for the Christian life (the

keeping of the commandments of God, 12!7 1415. οἷς

3°) 1s probably borrowed, like other things in the
Apoe., from St. Paul (1 Co 719). The conception of
a reward (2215 1118) no more proves legalism in the
author of this book than in Jesus Himself (Mt 5!2).
If there is a future which is determined according
to man’s works, and this is the teaching not of
Apoce. only but of the whole NT, it is neither legal
nor servile, but only sane to let it tell on the pre-
sent life. In the Gospel of St. John the numerous
references to the law, with the exception of 1%,
have no religious interest ; and there it 1s contrasted
with the gospel as a less perfect revelation, grace
and truth (2x) 733) being the essential attributes
of God.

The Ep. of James is more difficult. It has often
been treated as a document of legal Christianity,
the aim of which is to refute the Pauline doctrine
of justification by faith apart from works of law.
But it is remarkable that the critical passage
(24-6), in which faith and works are discussed in
their relation to each other, never once uses the
Pauline expression ἔργα νόμου. Tf the writer is
controverting St. Paul, it must be admitted that
he has not grasped the Pauline point of view, and
that Luther’s verdict on his work was justified.
His conception of faith is not the same as St. Paul’s,
and that is why he has to supplement it by works ;
and the works. by which it is supplemented, and in
which indeed it 1s exhibited, are not what St. Paul
meant by works of law. They are not acts of
obedience to any statutory embodiment of divine
will. As illustrated in ν. 1585 they are rather what
St. Paul would have called fruits of the Spirit.
They are, if we choose to say so, the fulfilment of
a law, but the writer takes care that we do not
conceive the law legally. It is a law which must
be actually obeyed, no doubt, but it is also the law
of liberty (1% 2"), which Christians freely and
spontaneously fulfil; it is condensed, as in the
teaching of Jesus, Mt 22", into the ‘royal law,’

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; and it

is perfect. The law, in short, is the same as the
word of God, and to St. James this is not external
and preceptive. There is a native affinity be-
tween man and the word; when he receives it, it
becomes an implanted word, a thing that strikes
root in his nature and has power to save his
soul (131. With this word God has begotten him ; -
it is in his heart, as Jesus promises, spirit and
life (Jn 6°); the law, that is, is impulse as well as
law to the Christian, and the keeping of it is
perfect freedom. Formally a contradiction of
Paulinisin, it is at bottom the same kind of ex-
perience which is here described. ΤῸ St. Paul
Christianity is a new religious relation to God,
which he defines by contrast to legalism; to St.
James it is rather a new ethical life, which he
describes in terms of law, but of law from which
legalism has been eliminated, See, further, JAMES
(EPISTLE OF).

The conception of St. James is that from which
the phenomena of nascent Catholicism can best be
understood, and this is a strong argument for
putting the book late. In the other Catholic
Epistles Law is not mentioned, but it is clear from
Jude, 2P and 1Jn, that there were tendencies to
antinomianism at work in many places. Such
tendencies seem inseparable from every revival of
religion, religion, as already remarked, transcending
even while it guarantees morality. ΤῸ counteract
them without reintroducing legalism and lapsing
from a Christian to a pre-Christian type of religion,
was not easy; and the use of νόμος by St. James,
the habit of conceiving the OT as a revelation of
God’s will for the ordering of life, and of regarding
Jesus as the Legislator by whom the revelation
was made perfect, led inevitably and not slowly to
the conception of Christianity itself as a new law.
This conception is common to Christian writers
from Barnabas onward. The new law might have
been, and at first was, akin to ‘ the law of liberty’
in St. James, ‘the law of faith,’ ‘ the law of Christ,’
‘the law of the spirit of the life in Christ Jesus’ in
St. Paul; but as the Church became a State, and
orthodoxy took the place of inspiration, the new
law was correspondingly degraded, and in the
early and the medieval Catholic Church the
very idea of spiritual liberty was lost. The
religious idealism of St. Paul was far above out
of its sight, and it was not till the Church was
born again in the 16th cent. that the gospel,
which brings a righteousness of God to which

1

LAWGIVER

LAWYER 83

—_—

works of law contribute nothing, fairly found
access into the human mind.

Lirerature.—The NT’ Theologies of Baur, Weiss, Bey schlag,
Holtzmann; Ewald, 171, vols. vi. vii. viii. of the Eng. tr.5
Schtrer, GJV3 ii. 464 ff. (HJP wu. ii. 90ff.]; Wellhausen,
Israclitische τι. Jiidische Geschichte?, pp. 342-356 ; Weizsicker,
Das apostolische Zeitalter, p. 624ff. and pussim (Eng. tr.
ii. 803 ff.]; M‘Giffert, Hist. of Christianity in the Apostolic Aqr,
see Index, s.vv. Law, Liberty; Hort, Judaistic Christianity,
passim; Ritschl, Rechtf. wu. Versdhnung, vol. ii., and nee
Entstehung der altk. Kirche (2nd ed.); Baur, Paulus, vol.
pp. 145-183, etc.; Bruce, The Kingdom of God, pp. 63-84, an
St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity ; Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu,
p- 207ff.; Schtirer, Die Predigt Jesu in ihrem Verhaltniss
zum AT; Holsten, Zum KHvgim. des Paulus τι. des Petrus;
Grafe, Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz; Zahn, Das Gesetz
Gottes nach der Lehre τι. Erfahrung des Ap. Paulus ; Ménégoz,
Le Péché et la Rédemption dapres S. Paul; A. Sabatier,
L’apétre Paul; Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, ‘and Das Ur-
christenthum ; Jowett, ‘Essays and Dissertations’ (vol. ii. of
his Comm. on St. Paul's Epp. to Thess. Gal. kom.) ; Gifford on
Romans (Appendix to Introduction); Mackintosh, Christ and
the Jewish Law; Clemen, Die Christliche Lehre von der Stinde,
pp. 20-68. J. DENNEY.

LAWGIVER occurs six times in AV of OT
(Gn 491, Nu gis. Dt 337), Ps 607 Elfed. 9]= 1088 [Heb. 9],
Is 3322) and once in NT (Ja 4%). Inthe OT it is
the tr" of paho, in NT of νομοθέτης. The root
ppm means ‘to cut in,’ ‘inscribe,’ ‘engrave,’ and
hence, from the practice of inseribing a decree
(pa, ay upon tablets [see LAW (IN OT) above,
p. 674], ‘to enact or command.’ Thus we find in
Je 59 Syqw ppin=‘ the commanders of Israel.’ The
Poel ptep. ppnp appears to have two distinct
senses : (4) that of ‘leader,’ ‘commander’ (‘law-
giver’ is too narrow a term, especially as in the
mind of the English reader it is associated so
closely with the Mosaic law). This is the meaning
of the word in Dt 33% (‘a commander's portion
was reserved’), where it is used of the leader of
the warlike tribe of Gad ; in Jg 5" (‘out of Machir
zame forth leaders’ [ὈΡΡΠ || oppin of v.*]); and in
Is 33%, where spphp ‘ our lawgiver’ (LAX ἄρχων) is
used 1 in parallelism with ποθ ‘ our judge’ and 33222

sour ine.” (G) “bhe other meaning which it
appears to be necessary to postulate is that of

‘ruler’s or commander’s staff, which it would
bear in Gn 49! (where pphp is ‘parallel with 32),
‘The [royal 3] sceptre sbaltl not depart from Judah
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet’; in
Nu 2138 (|| nayyo ‘statf’), where RV ‘with the
sceptre’ is pl: Linly more appropriate as a rendering
of pphoa than AV and RVm ‘by direction or order
of the lawgiver *(LXX ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτῶν, Vulg.
im datore le gis); and in Ps 607= 1088 ‘Judah i is my
sceptre,’ although LXX has βασιλεύς ‘king’ (simi-
larly Pesh. and Vulgate).

The most controverted of the above passages is
Gn 4915, For 97} p32 pana the LXX has καὶ ἡγού-
μενος ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν αὐτοῦ, Vulg. et αἰτία; de femore
67ιι5, Targ. Onk, "ΠῺ3 225. N20), all three taking
pend in a personal sense, and understanding 73>
v3 to be a promise of an unbroken succession of
descendants. But the parallelism between ppnn
and Ὁ demands that these two words have
similar senses (the LXX is consistent in this
respect, rendering δ: by ἄρχων); and as there
can be little doubt that ‘ (royal?) sceptre’ is the
meaning of v2¥, ‘ruler’s staff’? seems a very ap-
propriate sense for pp5p. Then again the expres-
sion 1932 722, which is parallel to Apa, may mean
‘from before him’ (ef. >iapa used of Jael in Jg 5”),
referring to ‘the actual position of the long ‘staff,
grasped in the right hand as the chief walks or
stands still’ (Ball in SLOT, ad loc.). The mention
of the ‘feet’ rather than the hands Ball explains
as due to the fact that it is not a short ornamental
sceptre that is in view but a long staff reaching to
the ground, and he compares the Egyp. hieroglyph
for ‘great man,’ ‘chief,’ ‘king’ (wra), which is a
figure holding the staff as described above. He

notes, further, that similar insignia of authority
are still carried by the Bedawin sheikhs and head-
men of villages, and considers that the idea of a
sitting figure, with the staff held between the feet,
as seen in some ancient sculptures, does not har-
monize so well with the context which sugvests
movement. Inany case the meaning of the couplet,
‘The sceptre shall not depart from Judah nor the
ruler’s staff from before him,’ appears to be that
Judah is to retain the hegemony among the tribes
of Israel (or probably the royalty [note Dav ab-
solutely]), 19 xa’ 3 47, on the meaning of which
last words see art. SHILOH, and ef., “above all,
Driver in Camb. Journ. of Philology, xiv. (1885),
and in Hapositor, July 1885, p. 101 See also
Dillm. and Spurrell, ad loc.

The only NT occurrence of ‘lawgiver’ is, as we
have said, in Ja 4%, where νομοθέτης is coupled
with κριτής, the two terms being used of God as at
once the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge. his is
the only instance in which νομοθέτης is used in the
NT, although the verb vouoferéw occurs in He 7!!
8° and the noun νομοθεσία in Ro 94, in all these
three passages the reference being directly or
unplicitly to the giving of the law to Israel.

On the work of Moses as the lawgiver of Israel
see LAW (IN OT), above, p. 66, and MOsEs.

J. A. SELBIE.

LAWYER (νομικός).---Τὰ the NT the name usually
civen to the scribes is γραμματεύς (man of letters) ;
but νομικός (‘lawyer’) and νομοδιδάσκαλος (‘doctor
of the law’) are also occasionally used. Of the
two latter terms, the second is found only in
Lk, 5", Ac 5%, and 1 Ti 1’ (where it. is used of
would-be teachers of the law in the Christian
Church); while the first occurs most frequently
in Lk (7 102 114: 46- 52 143), once in Mt (225), and
nowhere else in the NT except in Tit 3°. A com-
parison of Lk 5” with v.44 and Mk 2° Mt 9° shows
that the three terms were used synonymously,
and did not denote three distinct classes. The
scribes were originally simply men of letters,
students of Scripture, and the name at first given
to them contains in itself no reference to the law ;
in course of time, however, they devoted them-
selves mainly, though by no means exclusively,
to the study of the law; they became jurists
rather than theologians, and received names which
of themselves called attention to that fact. Some
would doubtless devote themselves more to one
branch of activity than to another; but a ‘lawyer’
might also be a ‘doctor’; and the case of Gamaliel
shows that a ‘doctor’ might also be a member
of the Sanhedrin (Ac 5*4).

Long before the time of our Saviour, the law,
written and oral, had become the absolute norm
of Jewish life. Every detail of life, civil as well
as religious, was regulated in the minutest manner
by the law. It was impossible for the ordinary
Jew to be fully acquainted with the innumerable
statutes referring, ¢.g., to Levitical purity or the
keeping of the Sabbath, and to apply them to
the fresh cases that emerged daily ; and yet his
standing before God depended upon his scrupulous
observance of these statutes. It was absolutely
necessary, therefore, that a special class of men
should devote themselves expressly to the study
= the law. These were the ‘scribes,’ ‘lawyers,’

‘doctors of the law.’

Ve Their first and main function was to study
and expound the law, Inehiding the innumerable
‘traditions of the fathers Ὁ they had so to explain
it as to show its application to the circumstances
of the present time; for every new case that
occurred they had to find out some pertinent
statute or precedent ; and, in the absence of such
a statute or precedent, they had to deduce some
rule from their knowledge of what was legal.

84 LAY

LAYING ON OF HANDS

They were thus men whose special calling it was
to know what was legal.

(6) Their special knowledge of the law naturally
qualified them for holding the oflice of judge;
and in all probability the members of the various
Sanhedrins throughout the country were chosen,
as fur as possible, from among their number.
From such passages as Mt 167) 20!8 21% 2741,
Mk 881 1127 1.419. 68 7161. Lk 922 901 9958 Ag 45, in
which they are named among the supreme Jewish
authorities, it is evident that some of them were
members of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Though
they had no official standing in the synagogues,
their knowledge of the Scriptures generally and of
the law in particular would lead to their being the
principal speakers in religious assemblies (Mk 153).

(ὦ) The teaching of the law was also one of their
essential functions. In the time of our Saviour
there were special academies (beth hammidrash)
in various parts of the Jewish world; in Jerusalem
certain halls and rooms of the outer court of the
temple were set apart for this purpose (cf. Lk 22).
The pupils sat in a semicircle round their teacher,
who also sat on a slightly raised bench. The
teaching was mostly oral and catechetical ; it
consisted mainly of a constant repetition of the
various ‘traditions of the fathers’ dealing with
all manner of real and imaginary cases; the pupils
were encouraged to put questions to their teachers ;
they also attended the discussions that leading
Rabbis held among themselves, and were probably
also allowed to be present at meetings of the
Sanhedrin.

Vor their judicial and teaching activity the
‘lawyers’ or ‘doctors’ were understood to receive
no payment. Some of them would therefore
inaintain themselves by following ἃ trade (cf.
Ac 18°), and doubtless many men of means would
adopt a profession which was almost universally
held in the very highest esteem. They were not,
however, always so unselfish as Jewish sources
represent them (cf. Mk 124=Lk 20%). They were
also exceedingly ambitious of honour (Mt 23°),
Mk 123-39, Lk 114-4 20%), More especially they
demanded, and received, such honour from their
pupils. According to the Talmud, one’s teacher
is to be more reverenced and honoured than one’s
father, if the latter is not also a man of learning ;
‘for his father has only brought him into this
world, while his teacher, who teaches him wisdom,
brings him to life in the future world’ (quoted
in Schiirer, HJP 1. i. 317). See, further, art.
SCRIBES,

LITERATURE.—The article ‘Schriftgelehrte’ in Herzog’s 182
by Strack, in Schenkel’s Bibel-Leavikon by Klopper, in Riehm’s
HWB? by Schirer ; cf. also the latter writer’s G/JV3 ii. 312 ff.
(HJP wu. i. 312 ff.]; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah, i. 93 ff. ; O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, 151 ff. ;
H. J. Holtzmann, Newtest. Theol. i. 36ff.; Wellhausen, 787. uw.
Jiid. Gesch.8 193 ff., and passin; Weber, Jiid. Theologie auf
Grund des Talmud, etc., 1897, p. 105 ff , and passim.

D. EATON.

LAY.—An abrupt use of the simple verb to lay
is found in Mt 84 ‘He saw his wife’s mother laid,
and sick of a fever.’ It is a literal tr. of the Gr.
βεβλημένην καὶ πυρέσσουσαν ; RV gives ‘lying sick,’
ignoring the καί. The full form occurs in Mk 7°
‘She found the devil gone out, and her daughter
laid upon the bed’ (βεβλημένην ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης (edd.

] | βλημένη ἢ ἢ 1.
τὸ παιδίον βεβλημένον ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην). Cf. Ac 13%
‘David . . . fell on sleep, and was laid unto his
fathers’ (προσετέθη πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτοῦ). Hall,
Works, ii. 52, says, ‘His servant is sick; he doth
not drive him out of doores, but layes him at
home.’

The simple verb to lay is used in Jon 3° in the
sense of ‘lay aside,’ ‘He arose from his throne
and he laid his robe from him.’ The expression
is irregular, and due to the word ‘from’ following.

To lay means to ‘impute’ in Job 2412 ‘God
layeth not folly to them’ (ayrx>, RV ‘imputeth
it not for folly’; cf. 1S 22% ‘Let not the king
impute anything unto his servant,’ Heb. o¥;->x)
So Jonson, Sejanus, 11. 1—

‘So prepare the poison
As you may lay the subtle operation
Upon some natural disease of his.’

Some phrases demand attention: 1. Lay along,
see ALONG. 2 Lay apart, Ja 1"! ‘Wherefore lay
apart all filthiness’ (ἀποθέμενοι, RV ‘putting away,’
a metaphor from the putting off of clothes —
Mayor). 3. Lay at, meaning ‘strike at,’ Job 4155
‘The sword of him that layeth at him cannot
hold.’ Cf. Holland, Suetonius’ Caligula, e. 25,
‘With her perilous fingers shee would not sticke
to lay at the face and eyes of other small Children
playing together with her. 4 Lay away, t.e. lay
aside, Ezk 2616 ‘Then all the princes of the sea
shall come down from their thrones, and lay away
their robes’; Ad. Est 14) ‘Esther . . . laid away
her glorious apparel.’ Cf. Spenser, #Q I. vill.

‘Such the sight
Of fowle Duessa, when her borrowed light
Is laid away, and counterfesaunce knowne.’

5. Lay down, meaning to stake or deposit, Job 17%
‘Lay down now (Ν) πον, RV ‘Give now a pledge’),
put me in a surety with thee.’ Cf. Is 14%, Cov.
‘Yet darre I laye, that thou shalt be brought downe
to the depe of hell.” 6. Lay hands on. ‘The verb
kparéw ‘to gain power over,’ ‘seize,’ is so tr? in
Mt 18% 2146, and mdgw ‘to seize,’ ‘capture,’ in
Jn 8%. For κρατέω RV prefers the more modern
‘Jay hold of,’ and for πιάξω ‘take.’ 7. Lay open, Pr
13° « A fool layeth open his folly’ (RV ‘spreadeth
out,’ as AVm). Cf. Fuller, Holy Warre, v. 2 (p.
231), ‘I will lay open my cause, and justice shall
be done without any by-respect.’ 8. Lay out,
2K 12% *And they gave the money, being told,
into the hands of them that did the work...
and they laid it out to the carpenters and builders,’
a compromise between the Gen. version ‘ payed it
out’ and the literal tr® ‘brought it forth,’ RV
‘paid it out.’ 9. Lay wait occurs often. The
more modern form ‘lie in wait’ is also found, as
well as ‘laying await’ and ‘laying of wait.’ See
Wait. J. HASTINGS.

LAYING ON OF HANDS (ἐπίθεσις χειρῶν, Vulg.
impositio manus or manuum), Ac 8'8, 1 Trae? ey
15, He 62.—The ceremony thus described is men-
tioned frequently both in OT and NT, where it
appears in connexion with religious acts of widely
ditferent character.

i. OLD TESTAMENT.—(@) It occurs as a symbol
of benediction in Gn 48!4% <Tsrael stretched out
his right hand and laid it (nvm, ἐπέβαλεν “ upon
Ephraim’s head... and Joseph said... Put (av,
ἐπίθες) thy right hand upon his (Manasseh’s) head.’
In giving the high priestly blessing to the con-
gregation ‘Aaron lifted up his hands toward the
people’ (Ly 9 xn, ἐξάρας) ; but the action, though
ritually distinct,} seems to have had in this case
the same significance as the imposition of hands
upon an individual (cf. Nu 67 ἐπιθήσουσιν τὸ
ὄνομά μου ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Ισραήλ, καὶ ἐγὼ Κύριος εὐλογήσω
αὐτούς). (b) The laying on of hands occupies an
important place in the sacrificial system of P
(Ex 9910. 15. Hes ‘Ly 1: 11 (LXX) 32. 8.13 44. 24. 29. 33 814-18
1621; οἵ, 2 Ch 9958). It is prescribed in the case of
(1) the bullock and the rams offered at the conse-
cration of Aaron and his sons ; (2) private offerings
of quadrupeds on all occasions ; ἢ (3) sin offerings

κἰπιβαλεν τὰς χεῖρας usually—in the NT always—implies
hostile action. :

t Cf. Dict Chr. Ant. i. p. 1511.

t See Dillmann on Ly 14 73,

LAYING ON OF HANDS

LAZARUS OF BETHANY 85

made on behalf of the whole congregation, in the
event of a common ἀγνόημα ; (4) the goat ‘let go
for Azazel.’ (c) Witnesses laid their hands on the
head of a person charged with a capital offence
(lay 244 Sus**), (d¢) The tribe of Leévi at their
dedication received imposition of hands from repre-
sentative members of the other tribes (Nu 89).
(e) Moses appointed Joshua to be his successor in
the same manner (Nu 27!8 *3, Dt 345). In all these
cases except (a), 720, LXX ἐπιτιθέναι, is used.

It is not easy to grasp the common idea which
underlies the various OT uses of this primitive
ceremony. In (α) and (6) the laying on of hands
seems to denote the imparting of a personal gift or
function ; see Dt, Z.c. ‘Joshua . . . was full of the
spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon
him.’* But in (4), (¢), (d) the prominent thought
is that of the devotion to God of the object on
which hands are laid, to which must perhaps be
added in the case of certain offerings the idea of a
transfer of responsibility or guilt to the victim
(Ly 167: cf., however, Schultz, OT Theology, Eng.
tr. i. p. 391 th, and W. R. Smith, RS? p. 422f.). On
the whole, it would appear that the fundamental
meaning of the symbol was identification by con-
tact, with the subsidiary idea of transference,
whether from man to man, or from man to God.
By laying his hands on a child or disciple, the patri-
arch or prophet signified that he desired to impart
to the younger life powers or gifts which had been
committed to himself; by laying his hand on an
offering, the offerer solemnly identified himself
with the victim which he dedicated to the service
of God; by laying their hands on the head of a
criminal, the witnesses of the crime delivered him
over to Judgement.

1. New ‘TESTAMENT. —(a) This symbol was
once employed by our Lord in an act of benedic-
tion (Mt 195: 4—Mk 10 16—Lk 18"): ‘then were
there brought unto him littlechildren that he should
lay his hands on them and pray... and he laid
his hands on them.’ As the desire originated with
the friends of the children, it must have had its
origin in the custom of the time (cf. Buxtorf, de
Synag. p. 138). The blessing of the ascending
Lord was given to the Eleven in the manner pre-
scribed to Aaron (Lk 24°” ἐπάρας τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ
εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς). (ὦ) Our Lord habitually laid His
hands on the sick as a sign of healing (Mt 98=
Mk 5%, Mk 65 7%? 8%- 5, Lk 44° 1315) ; we may prob-
ably add the passages where ἅπτεσθαι is used in
similar contexts with or without ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα
(Mt =k Τὸ Lk. 5, Mt-8 9% 20% Mk 7*, Lk
22°1).+ 'Phis practice was continued by the apostles
and their followers (‘Mk’ 1618, Ac 91-17; ef. Iren-
sus, ap. Eus. HE ν. 7, τοὺς κάμνοντας διὰ τῆς τῶν
χειρῶν ἐπιθέσεως ἰῶνται). (6) The Apostles used the
laying on of hands with prayer in the act of im-
parting the Holy Spirit to the baptized (Ac 817-19
19°), The Lord had breathed upon them when
He communicated the Spirit (Jn 2033), and this
ἐμφύσησις was peculiarly appropriate (Jn 37, cf.
Gn 2’); but as it symbolized a divine power and
a personal relation to the Spirit of God which
was incommunicable, no attempt was made to
repeat it; when the Apostles passed on to other
believers the gifts which they had received, they
were guided to the ordinary symbol of benediction.
It is to this use of the imposition of hands that
reference appears to be made in He 6° βαπτισμῶν
διδαχὴν ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν (cf. v.4 φωτισθέντας γευσα-

* A somewhat different account appears in Nu 2718, ‘take
thee Joshus .. . a man in whom is the spirit [lit. ‘there is
spirit,’ t.e, the necessary endowment for the office in view], and
lay thine hand upon him.’

t In several of these instances hands were laid upon the
part affected and not upon the head. The communication of
healing power by contact (Mk 53f) is probably the thing
signified,

μένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς, κ.τ.λ.). (A) The imposition of
hands was also used by the Apostolic Church on
certain occasions when members of the Church
were set apart to a particular office or work (Ac 68
13%, 1 Ti 44%, 2 Ti 1°), The occasions specified are
those of the appointment of the Seven, the sending
forth of Barnabas and Saul, and the subsequent
sending forth of Timothy to accompany St. Paul
(Hort, Heclesia, p. 215f.). Of the use of the rite
in the ordination of presbyters and deacons there
is no direct evidence, if we except 1 Ti 57° (on
which see below); fer in Ac 14” χειροτονεῖν doubt-
less refers to the election of presbyters in the
various churches, and not to the ceremony of their
admission to oflice. Nevertheless, as Dr. Hort
points out, ‘ Jewish usage in the case of Rabbis and
their disciples * renders it highly probable that (as
a matter of fact) laying on of hands was largely
practised in the Ecclesize of the apostolic age as a
rite introductory to ecclesiastical office.’ In the
post-apostolic Church the rite was practically uni-
versal; the exceptions which have been observed
admit of an intelligible explanation.t (6) The
context of 1 Ti 5% (χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει, μηδὲ
κοινώνει ἁμαρτίαις ἀλλοτρίαις) has led some eminent ex-
positors (Hammond, Ellicott, Hort) to see in that
verse a reference to the use of the imposition of
hands in the reconciliation of penitents. The
custom was undoubtedly early, if not primitive ;
cf. Eus. HE vii. 2; Const. Ap. il. 41; Cypr. de
laps. 16, ep. 15. On the other hand, the main
current of patristic interpretation is against this
explanation of St. Paul’s words, and it is not im-
possible to explain them in reference to ordina-
tion without doing violence to the context; see,
e.g. Theod. Mops. ad loc. : ‘non facile ad ordina-
tionem quemquam producas sine plurima_ pro-
batione si (inquit) te ut convenit probante
ille deliquerit, non est tuum crimen.’

For the post-apostolic history of the ceremony
see Morinus, de Ant. Heel. Rit. (passim) ; Suicer,
Thes. s.vv. χειροτονέω, χειροθεσία ; Dict. Chr. Ant.
art. ‘Imposition of Hands’; Mason, Lelation of
Confirmation to Baptism. H. B. SwETeE.

LAZARUS OF BETHANY.—The name Lazarus
is an abbreviation of the Heb. Eleazar=‘ God
hath helped.’ In the LXX we find both ᾿Ελεαξάρ
and ’EXedfapos; in Josephus commonly ’E\edfapos.
But Λάζαρος occurs BJ ν. xiii. 7

All that we know of L. is told us in the Fourth
Gospel. He was the brother of Martha and Mary,
who are mentioned by both St. John and St. Luke.
In Jn 11° the names are probably given in order of
age, ‘Martha, her sister, and Lazarus.’ In both
Gospels Martha seems to be the eldest, and the
mistress of the house; and the fact that Luke
does not mention L. points to his being younger,
and perhaps much younger, than his sisters. ΑἹ]
three were specially beloved by Christ (Jn 11°).
We know that He visited them more than once
(Lk 10-4, Jn 117), and it is probable that He
often did so when He was at or near Jerusalem.
They were probably well-off. The number of
condoling friends from the city, and the costly
ointment used by Mary, point to this. That they
had a funeral vault of their own may be true, but
is not stated. Luke does not give the name of the
village in which they lived, probably because it
was not stated in the source which he used; but
John tells us that it was Bethany, which is barely
two miles from Jerusalem. He calls L. ‘a certain

*See Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. et Talm. 8.0. ΠΣ; Hamburger,
Real-Encyclopddie, 8.0. ‘Ordinirung’: a Rabbi could make his
scholar a Rabbi by the use of a formula which was ordinarily
accompanied by imposition of hands.

+ On the occasional omission of the ceremony in the ancient
Church (Hatch, Organization, p. 133f.) see T. A. Lacey, L’impo
sitton des inains dans la consécration des évéques, Paris, 189€.

86 LAZARUS OF BETHANY

LAZARUS OF BETHANY

man, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary
and her sister Martha’ (11. There has never
been any doubt about its site, and the modern
name is derived from Lazarus — l-Azeryeh, or
Lazarieh.* Here Christ raised Lazarus from the
dead. Here Mary anointed His feet. Here He
began His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Here
He rested during several of the days before His
-assion. And from some spot near to Bethany
He ascended into heaven. L. was sitting at meat
with Him when Mary anointed His feet, and his
presence attracted many of ‘the common people of
the Jews’ to the village, that they might see, not
only Jesus, but the man whom He had raised from
the dead : and the hierarchy in their plots against
Christ ‘took counsel that they might put L. also
to death, because that by reason of him many of
the Jews went away and believed on Jesus’ (Jn
122-911), The multitude that had been present
when Jesus called L. out of the tomb were enthusi-
astic in bearing witness during the triumphal
procession, and attracted others from the city to
meet Him (Jn 12!% 38),

Here all that we know about L. ends. The
chief interest in the brief account of him lies in
the miracle of which he was the subject. The
raising of L. is commonly regarded as the climax
of Christ’s miraculous activity; and perhaps no
portion even of the Fourth Gospel has been more
vigorously assailed by hostile critics. Not only
the miracle as a whole, but a large number of the
details, have been made the objects of rigorous
and minute criticism. It would be hardly too
much to say that every objection, reasonable or
unreasonable, that ingenuity could devise has
been urged. And the reason for this is intelligibie.
The consequences of the truth of the narrative are
so considerable. Spinoza is said to have declared
that, if he could be convinced of the truth of the
raising of L., he would break up his system and
become a Christian (Bayle, Dict. s.v.). That is
not a logical statement, for the Christian faith
depends, not upon the raising of L., but upon the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet such a declara-
tion shows that, as at the time when it was
wrought, a miracle of this character is capable of
exercising a mighty influence upon the intellects
and hearts of men. It cannot fail te raise the
question, ‘What manner of man is this, that even
death and the grave obey Him ?’

The two most reasonable objections to the nar-
rative as a whole are (1) the silence of the Synopt-
ists, and (2) the amazing character of the miracle.
It will be best to take them in this order ; for
injustice may be done by taking the second to
augment the weight of the first. It may be
doubted whether any one evangelist was ever
induced to record any particular miracle by the
thought that it was of a specially surprising
character. They give us samples of add Christ’s
mighty works, especially those which had a
marked effect upon His disciples and other hearers.

(1) The difficulty respecting the silence of the
Synoptic Gospels as to the raising of L. has been
seriously exaggerated even by apologists. Thus
Trench says, ‘It must always remain a mystery
why this miracle, transcending as it does all
other miracles which the Lord wrought, so memor-
able in itself, drawing after it the consequences
which it did (Jn 1159), should have been passed
over by the three earlier evangelists’ (JZiracles*,
p. 894). The Synoptic Gospels have been more
minutely studied since these words were written
(1846), and the fact that in the main they give us

* Schwarz seems to be alone in disputing the site ; but many
modern travellers are incredulous about the vault at the
bottom of 26 steps, in the middle of the village, which is shown
as the tomb of Lazarus.

one and the same tradition, and that a very frag-
mentary one, is now much more fully realized,
It has been seen that this common fragmentary
record has preserved hardly any particulars about
the interval between the close of the ministry in
Galilee (which is its chief theme) and the last
Passover. St. Luke alone has done anything con-
siderable to fill this blank, and the silence of the
Synoptists should rather be called ‘the silence of
St. Luke.’ And here again a similar explanation
is applicable. ‘The great intercalation’ in the
third Gospel (9°!-18") is itself very fragmentary,
and seems to come from more than one source ;
and there is nothing very astonishing in the fact
that St. Luke had no source which mentioned the
raising of Lazarus. Indeed there is nothing un-
reasonable in the conjecture that, if he had used
a source which mentioned it, he would still have
omitted it; for he had already recorded two
instances of Christ performing this miracle. And
we misunderstand Jn 11° if we suppose that it
was the raising of L. which determined the
hierarchy to put Jesus to death. Some time
before this His enemies decided to kill Him, and
tried to do it, as St. John himself tells us (7! * 78 4
859 1081, and even in this very narrative 11*-18), The
raising of L. was the cause, neither of the enthusi-
asm of the people at the triumphal entry, nor of
the deadly hostility of the priests. It merely
augmented the one and quickened the activity of
the other. Both would have existed and have
been eflicacious, even if L. had not been raised.
None of the evangelists need the story of L. to
make the narrative intelligible. John, knowing
that the others had omitted it, tells us what he
himself had heard and seen. It was of special
interest to him, because of its effect in converting
some of ‘the Jews’; and he had recorded no other
instance of Christ’s raising the dead.

(2) Is it correct to say that the raising of L.
‘transcends all other miracles which the Lord
wrought’? It would be safer to affirm that it
scems to us to transcend them. But is this view
correct? In the main it is a modern view. ‘To
us raising the dead seems to be a miracle sui
generis ; and raising a man who has been dead
four days seems to be a stupendous instance of
a stupendous kind of miracle. But to the philo-
sophic believer in miracles all genuine miracles
are alike. When natural causes are inade-
quate and a supernatural cause is admitted,
all dearees of difficulty are excluded. One who
has Omnipotence to aid him cleanses lepers and
raises the dead as easily as he heals ordinary
diseases. If any miracle is credible, raising a
man who has been dead four days is credible.
It is illogical to say that the evidence would
warrant us in believing a miraculous cure, but
does not warrant us in believing in the raising
of a dead man.

The objection, that Jn 111-58 is inconsistent with
the fact that in accusing Jesus before the Sanhe-
drin and Pilate no mention is made of the miracle,
is not reasonable. It would have paralyzed the
Sanhedrin to admit that Jesus had worked such a
sien. The dismay of the priests at the miracles,
and their silence about it at the trial, are entirely
consistent.

Some of the criticisms of the details require
notice. Very different views are taken about the
‘four days’ (see Andrews, Life of our Lord, p. 405).
Probably L. died the day that Jesus heard of his
illness, and was buried almost immediately (2 Καὶ
94, Ac 5% 1°), This would be all the more neces-
sary if he died of some infectious disease. Then,
after two days (11°), Jesus set out for Bethany,
and was part of two days on the road. But
this is unimportant. It is urged that His wait-

LAZARUS OF BETHANY

LAZARUS OF BETHANY 87

ing two days and allowing L. to die, in order to
prove the sisters and reveal His own glory more
signally, was heartless. So far as we know, He
did not act thus. Had He started at once, He
would probably have arrived too late to see L.
alive. ‘But he could have healed him from a
distance.’ No doubt He could, if it had been
God’s will. But He ever worked in accordance
with the divine plan; and in this plan the raising
of L. was to do three things: (@) strengthen the
disciples’ faith; (0) convert many of the Jews ;
(6) cause the priests to hasten their movements,
so as to be ready when ‘his hour had come’
(115-53), Healing L. from a distance would
have been less eflicacious for the first of these, and
would have done little towards the other two.

The indignation and sorrow attributed to Him
(1133. 356) are said to be unworthy of the incarnate
Logos. Evidently St. John, the exponent of the
Logos doctrine, did not think so. ‘To those who
believe in the reality of Christ’s humanity there is
nothing strange in His being angered by the
hypocritical wailings of His enemies, and shedding
tears of sympathy with the sisters (11°*).

We are told that ἤδη ὄζει (11°) expresses, not
merely Martha’s expectation, but a fact. And are
we prepared to maintain that Christ restored a
putrid corpse to life? The reply to which is, that
we have no right to dogmatize, but that we have
full right to believe that God, who had determined
that L. should be raised, had preserved his body
from corruption.

When the stone was raised, Jesus lifted up His
eyes to heaven and said, ‘Father, I thank thee
that thou didst hear me’ (11). It is maintained
that such words on the lips of the God-Man are
unreal. Only those who think that the incarnation
involves the extinction of the human nature by
the divine can so think. Christ here intimates
whom they have to thank for the immense mercy
that is betore them. The Son can do nothing of
Himself; His power is from the Father (51%).
The words are parallel to ‘declare how great
things God hath done for thee’ (Lk 859).

Our intellectual difficultics would not be at an
end if we were to admit that no such miracle ever
took place. The hypothesis that the story is a
fiction is quite incredible. The narrative holds
together with the closest consistency (11'7?® and
W383 with 9-4) ; and the story as a whole not only
harmonizes with what follows, but explains it
εὐ by .caotior Chie aioe tors aie tw), Che
people who take part in it are intensely real, and
quite beyond the evangelist’s powers of invention.
In particular, the characters of the two sisters are
not only very true to life, but receive remarkable
confirmation from the entirely independent sketch
of them by St. Luke (10%). There, in utterly
different circumstances, the practical Martha and
contemplative Mary are as real as in St. John’s
narrative. The only reasonable explanation of
the harmony between the two pictures is that both
are taken from life (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays,
p. 38; Fairbairn, /cpositor, Ist series, ix. p. 189).

The narrative with its evidence of the miracle
is there, and must be explained. How did the
report of such an event arise? We have our
choice of various suggestions. (1) The old Ration-
alism offers us a remarkable coincidence. L. was
in a trance, from which he was recovering just as
Jesus reached the tomb. When the stone was
removed, Jesus perceived that he was not dead, and
cried, ‘Lazarus, come forth. (2) Renan sees
clearly that something really did take place at
Bethany which was looked upon as a resurrection ;
but he rejects the idea of mere coincidence. The
family of devoted disciples arranged that L. should
pretend to be dead, in order that Jesus might

overwhelm His foes by seeming to restore him to
life: and Jesus allowed Himself to take part in
this imposture. (3) Keim regards the whole as
undoubtedly a fiction, made up largely of Synoptic
materials, and composed partly as a great final
picture of Christ’s powers, partly as an exposition
of His saying that Jews who did not hsten to
Moses and the prophets would not be persuaded
though L. rose from the dead (Lk 1651). It is
a parable translated into fact. (4) Others take a
similar view, but differ as to the central germ.
These make the whole story an allegorical illus-
tration of Christ’s declaration, ‘I am the Resur-
rection and the Life,’ ete. (Jn 11*°), which is the one
substantial factor in the composition, (δ) Strauss
falls back on his usual expedient of treating the
narrative as a myth. There are many variations
in explaining details, but these five are typical of
the expedients employed by those who regard a
miracle as wholly incredible. Each person must
judge for himself whether any of these explana-
tions is more satisfactory than a belief in the
reality of the miracle. The first two are revolting
even to those who hold that Jesus was only the
best man who ever lived. and they entirely tail to
explain either 1116 or 17-38, The others ascribe
to the evangelist a creative power which would be
a miracle in the literature of that age. Tor, even
if he got some ideas from the other Gospels or
from popular imagination, the form of the nar-
rative, with its impressive reality and vividness,
its internal consistency and its harmony with the
rest of the Gospel and with St. Luke, is his own.
The Apoer. Gospels show us what kind of stories
early Christians could invent, when they tried to add
to what was known about Christ. ‘No narrative
of NT bears so completely the stamp of being the
very opposite of a later invention’ (Meyer, ad loc.).
‘The Johannine narrative is both unexplained
and inexplicable, unless its historical character be
accepted’ (B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, bk. vi. 8 6).
In particular, the silence of the narrative is as
impressive as its contents, and is in marked con-
trast to fiction. Nothing is told us of the emotions
or experiences of Lazarus. No word of his is
recorded. Not even his amazement, or joy, or
trouble at being restored to life is deseribed ;
and he makes no revelations about the other
world. Would a writer of romance have denied
himself this attractive theme? Would he have
been thus careful to avoid gratifying unhealthy
curiosity? See art. JESUS CHRIST, vol. ii. p. 625.

Various untenable identifications have been made in con-
nexion with the story of Lazarus. Mary has been identified
either with Mary Magdalene, or with the sinner in the house
of Simon the Pharisee, or with both. Almost certainly they
were three different persons. Simon the Pharisee has been
identified with Simon the leper, in whose house was the meal
at which Martha served, Mary anointed the Lord’s feet, while
L. was one of those who reclined with Him at table. This also
is highly improbable. All these identifications, however, have
been suggested by some patristic writers as well as by some
moderns. It was reserved for the imagination of a modern
scholar to identify L. himself not only with the young ruler
who had great posscssions (Mt 1916, Mk 1017, Lk 1818), but with
the young man with a linen cloth about him, who was near
being arrested with Christ (Mk 1451). We do not know that
L. was young; it is most improbable that he was a ruler; and
although the family seems to have been well-to-do, there is
no evidence that L. had yreat possessions. And were there so
few young men in Palestine that wherever we find one men-
tioned we must assume that he is the same as some other one?
To identify the ruler of Lk 1818 with the young man of Mk 14°!,
and both of these with L., is against all probability. The inter-
esting article on Lazarus in Smith’s DB is an excellent example
of spinning ropes of sand.

In various forms of early Christian art the resur-
rection of Lazarus was a favourite subject. It is
found, from the 3rd cent. onwards, very often
in paintings and sculptures, and sometimes in
mosaics. And there is evidence that it was also
woven or embroidered on clothing. In early ex.

88 LAZARUS AND DIVES

LEAH

amples Christ is a large figure and Lazarus a very
small one, and the latter is wrapped tightly in
grave cloths. Small images of Lazarus were some-
times fastened outside tombs. See the authorities
quoted in Trench, Jiracles, § 29 sub fin. ; Smith’s
Dict. of Chr. Ant. ii. p. 949; Kraus, 1. p. 286.

Legends about Lazarus are less common than
one might expect. The Jews are said to have
sent him and his sisters with other disciples to
sea in a leaky boat, which took them safely to
Marseilles, where he became a bishop. Writers
of medieval romances sometimes made him their
mouthpiece in publishing their ideas about the
unseen world (T. Wright, δέ. Patrick's Purgatory,
p. 1671f., London, 1844). No trust can be placed
in the tradition preserved by Epiphanius that
Lazarus was thirty when he was raised, and lived
thirty years afterwards ἢ]. ii. 2. 652). In short,
nothing historical can be added to the brief narra-
tive of St. John, which has never ceased to impress
the mind of Christendom.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that this narra-
tive contains important evidence respecting Christ's
human Consciousness. Supernatural knowledge
was within His reach (Jn 1144-4); but when He
could acquire the necessary information in the
usual way He did not make use of supernatural
means (1127-34), A. PLUMMER.

LAZARUS AND DIVES.—In this parable alone
is a name given to any of the persons introduced.
The name Lazarus may be a later addition, to
connect the parable with L. of Bethany, who did
‘go to them from the dead’ and still they did
not repent. More probably, the name suggests the
helplessness of the man, so far as his fellow-men
were concerned. Tertullian argues that the name
proves that the story is historical, and that the
scene in Hades confirms his view that the soul is
corporeal (de Animd, vii.). In this parable also
popular usage has given the other chief character
a name. In the West ‘Dives’ has become almost
a proper name; and this in spite of the fact that
tradition had given the name of Nineuis to the
rich man (Euthym. Zig. on Lk 16*°).

This parable is the counterpart of the parable
of the Unjust Steward. That teaches what good
results may be won by a wise use of present
advantages. This teaches how calamitous are the
results of failing to make a wise use of them. It
illustrates also the preceding saying, that what
is exalted among men may be an abomination in
the sight of God (Lk 1615. It is not ‘ Ebionitie.’
It neither states nor implies that it is wicked to
be rich. Dives is condemned, not for having been
wealthy, but for having found in wealth his highest
good, and for not having used it to win something
better. Out of this mammon he might have made
L. and others his ‘ friends,’ and through them have
secured ‘eterna! tabernacles.’ Both halves of the
parable are original, and each is needed to explain
the other. It is a grave error to suppose that the
scene in Hades is the only part of the parable that
is significant, or that its purpose is to teach us
the nature of the unseen world. The one thing
that it teaches is that our condition there depends
upon our conduct here, and that this may produce
a complete reversal of human judgments. The
details of the picture represent Jewish ideas about
Sheol, but they in no way confirm those ideas.
In order to enable us to realize the picture, dis-
embodied spirits are described as if they were
bodies. The finger, the tongue, the flame, ete.,
are figurative, for the actual finger and tongue
were in the grave,

In both halves of the parable L. (like his name-
sake in all the scenes at Bethany) is silent; and
his silence is instructive. It indicates that, just

as Dives is not punished for his wealth, so L. is
not rewarded for his poverty. He is rewarded for
his patient submission. In life he does not mur-
mur at God’s unequal distribution of goods, nor
rail at Dives for his neglect of him. In Sheol he
does not triumph over Dives, nor protest against
the idea of his being at his beck and call. He
leaves Abraham (a righteous rich man) to decide
everything ; and Abraham points out that as the
one had had uninterrupted luxury, and the other
uninterrupted misery, in life, so there can be no
interruption in the reversed conditions of either
in Sheol.

The hypothesis that Dives and his five brethren
represent six of the Herods (father, sons, and
grandsons being called brethren for simplification)
is incredible. Those who hold it consistently
maintain that the parable is wrongly attributed
to Christ, and is a later composition. Christ cer-
tainly would not have made a personal attack of
this kind on any one, although He did not hesitate
to censure Antipas publicly (Lk 13°).

The belief that Lazarus was a leper has produced such words
as lazzaro for leper and lazzaretto or lazar-house for leper-
hospital. During the Crusades an order of knights of St.
Lazarus was founded (1119, 1255), with the special duty of
protecting and tending lepers. It lasted till modern times, but
Is distinct from the much more modern order of Lazarists or
Lazarians. A. PLUMMER.

LEAD (mek ‘ophercth) is often named among the
spoils from Syria under Tahutmes HI.; and it was
common enough by B.C. 1200 to be used in Egypt
for the sinkers ot fishing-nets. This use was
familiar to Israelites, as the Song of Moses has
‘sank like lead in the mighty waters’ (Ex 15).
Lead in the literal sense is mentioned in Nu 31”
(P) along with brass, iron, and tin, and along with
the same metals is used figuratively of Israel in
Ezk 9918 (cf. v.2"); and it appears in Ezk 27” along
with silver, iron, and tin as an article of commerce
brought from Tarshish to Tyre. In Job 1935 the
sufferer exclaims, ‘O that with an iron pen and
lead [my words] were graven in the rock for ever !’
There may be a twofold reference here : (a) to the
use of a leaden tablet to be written on with an iron
pen, (4) to the cutting-out of an inscription on a
rock, but more probably there is but one figure
before the mind’s eye of the speaker,—that of
pouring molten lead into the letter-forms sunk in
the stone. (See Davidson and Dillmann, ad loc.).
See, further, under MINES, MINING.

W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE.

LEAH (x5, Acia).—The elder daughter of Laban,
and one of Jacob’s wives. The ruse by which she was
palmed off by her father upon Jacob, who imagined
that he was marrying Rachel, is described in
Gn 2971". As to her personal appearance, we are
told that her eyes were 21, which the LXX
render by ἀσθενεῖς, and EV by ‘tender,’ 7.e. weak or
dull. The context and the etymology of the word
both favour this meaning rather than that of
‘beautiful,’ which is attributed to the word by
Onk. and Sa‘adya, who imagine that the sense
intended is, that though Leah had fine eyes she
was otherwise not so handsome as Rachel. By
her marriage with Jacob, Leah became the mother
of six sons, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar,
Zebulun, and a daughter, Dinah, Gn 29%!-% 30} ~2 21,
See JAcos, vol. ii. p. 528. Along with her sister she
expressed sympathy with Jacob on account of his
treatment by Laban, and agreed to accompany
her husband in his flight from her father, 31+ 4%.
When the meeting between Jacob and Esau was
about to take place, Leah and her children were

laced in an intermediate position between the
Panini with their children in the front and
Rachel with her children in the rear, 391:2. 7, Leah
is mentioned in 49%! as having been buried in the

LEANNOTH

LEAVE 89

cave of Machpelah, having evidently diced prior to
Jacob’s going down to Egypt. In Ru 411 the
women who invoke a blessing on the union of
Boaz and Ruth, make honourable mention of Leah
and Rachel as having ‘ built’ the house of Israel.

It is clear that the most ancient division of
Israel distinguished Leah tribes and Rachel tribes.
Wellhausen (Proleg. 150; οἵ. W. Re Smith, Ainship,
195, 257; Stade, ZAT'IV i. 11211.) regards Levi as
a patronymic derived from Leah. See LEVI.

The meaning of the name Leah is somewhat un-
certain. Gray (eb. Prop. Nanws, 96) accepts the
meaning ‘wild cow’ (so W. R. Smith, Aiaship, p.
119[‘ bovine antelope’]; Frd. Delitzsch, Proleg. 80,
and [doubtfully] Néldeke, ZDJ/G, 1886, p. 167).
Others, as Haupt (@GN, 1883, p. 100}, compare the
Assyrian di’at in the sense of ‘ mistress.’ Upon the
ground that the narrative in Gn 29'7 describes the
one sister as ugly and the other as beautiful, Ball
(in SBOT, ad loc.) suggests a connexion between

axb (and perhaps nb) and the Arab. root uss ‘to
be ugly,’ Ir ‘to look ugly or malignantly.’ See
Lane, p. 2677. J. A. SELBIE.

LEANNOTH, Ps 88 (title). —See Mahalath under
art. PSALMS.

LEASING is the Anglo-Saxon Jedsung, ‘a lie,’
and comes from eds, ‘false,’ which Skeat believes
to be the same word as leds, loose, so that ‘ leasing’
is literally ‘looseness of statement.’ In the Acts
of James 1. of Scotland, 1424, ‘ It is ordanyt—that
all lesingis makaris and tellaris of thaim, the
quhilk may ingener discorde betuix the king and
his pepill,—salbe challangit be thaim that power
has, and tyne lyff and gudis to the king ’—Jamie-
son’s Scottish Dictionary, s.v. ‘Lesing-makare.’
And still older, in the Preface to king Alfred’s
Laws, the 44th article is, Onscina thai ἃ leasunga
= ‘Shun thou ever leasings.’. Wyclif uses the word
often. Thus, Jn 8% ‘Whanne he [the deuel]
spekith a lesinge, he spekith of his owne thingis ;
for he is a lyiere, and fadir of it.’ He also has
the forms ‘leasing-maker,’ Pr 21°, and ‘leasing-
monger,’ as Sir 207 ‘Betere is a theef than the
customablenesse of aman, aleesyngmongere’ (1382,
‘than the besynesse of a man liere’). With
Wyclif’s translation of Jn 85 οἵ. Knox, Historie,
p. 288, ‘ But who can correct the leasings of such
as in all things show them the sons of the Father
of all lies’; Elyot, Zhe Governour, it. 21%, ‘And
the devill is called a lyer, and the father of
leasinges. Wherfore all thinge, which in visage
or apparaunce pretendeth to be any other than
verily it is, may be named a leasinge ; the execution
whereof is fraude, whiche is in etfecte but untrouthe,
enemie to trouthe, and consequently enemye_ to
god’; and Twysden, Decem Script. col. 2650, ‘ For
before that the fende fader of lesynges was lowside,
was never this gabbyng contryvede.’

The word occurs three times in AV, Ps 47 ‘how
long will ye love vanity, and seck after leasing ?’
(Heb. 21) wpan, Wye. ‘sechen lesing,’ Cov. ‘seke
after lyes,’ Gen. ‘seking lyes,’ Douay ‘seeke lying,’

sish. ‘seeke after leasing,’ RV ‘seek after false-
hood’ {so also Driver, Parall. Psalter, with note
‘i.e. probably vain plans (2!) for the ruin of the
Psalmist, and false charges or calumnies against
him,’ to which he adds on p. 487, under Corrigenda,
‘Or better, perhaps, false and baseless imputations’
by impatient and distrustful companions, ‘ reflect-
ing discredit upon the Psalmist ’}) ; 5°‘ Thou shalt
destroy them that speak leasing’ (217 πῆ, Wye.
‘Thou schalt leese alle that speken leesyng,’ Coy.
‘Thou destroyest the lyers, Gen. ‘Thou shalt
destroy them that speake lyes,” Dou. ‘Thou wilt
destroy al that speake lie, Bish. ‘Thou shalt

fellow a Glozing Companion.’

destroy them that speake leasing,’ RV ‘Thon
shalt destroy them that speak lies’); 2 Es 1418
‘For the truth is fled far away, and leasing is
hard at hand’ (appropinquabit mendacium, RV
‘lor the truth shall withdraw itself further off,
and leasing be hard at hand’; the AV is again
the tr™ of the Bishops). In 15.599 Cov. has ‘leasing’
as tr® of py (AV and RV ‘ lies’).

The word, which is frequently used by Spenser in
his antiquated English, is found only twice in
Shaks. (Twelfth Night, τ. v. 105, and Coriolanus,
γ. ii. 22), and by the time of Thomas Fuller had
dropped out of use. In Ch. Hist. π|. 1. 33, Fuller
| says, ‘ Amongst the many simoniacal Prelates that
swarmed in the land, Herbert, Bishop of Thetford,
must not be forgotten ; nicknamed (or fitnamed
shall I say?) Losing, that is, the Flatterer; our old
{nelish word leasing for lying retains some afhnity
thereunto, and at this day we call an insinuating
J. HASTINGS.

LEATHER, LEATHERN (1\y ‘Gr, δέρμα, depudrwos).
—Elijah and John the Baptist wore a girdle of
leather (2 Καὶ 18 ty shy, Mt 34, Mk 1° ζώνη δερματίνη.
In the last passage AV needlessly introduces the
variety, ‘girdle of skin’). Although mentioned in
EV only in connexion with girdles, leather must
have been used for many purposes. The Heb. and
Gr. words properly mean skin ; and in such passages
as Ex 25° (‘rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins’ )
they clearly refer to tanned skins, and perhaps in Nu
31° (‘all that is made of skins’) they do the same.
Leather was used for thongs, latchets of sandals,
etc. Water-bottles and wine-bottles were often
made of leather, as at the present day in Syria and
Palestine. The Egyptians used it for many pur-
poses besides those mentioned, such as coverings
for shields, seats of chairs, ete. (Wilkinson, Ane.
Egyp. ii. 185-189) ; also for writing (7b. 183), rolls
being made of it like papyrus. See, further, SKIN,
TANNER. H. PoRTER.

LEAVE.—The verb to leave is often used in AV
in the sense of ‘desist,’ ‘leave off, as Gn 189
‘And the Lorp went his way, as soon as he had
left communing with Abraham’; Ru 118 ‘When
she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with
her, then she left speaking unto her’; Ac 21%
‘when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers,
they left beating of Paul.’ Cf. Τίμα. Axpos.
py. 106, ‘He that buildeth a costly house even to
the tiling, will not leave there, and lose so great
cost for so small a trifle more.’ So Latimer, Seri.
of the Plough, ‘Vi Uinight see any such inclination
in you, that you would leave to be merciless, and
begin to be charitable, I would then hope well of
you’; and Shaks. J Henry IV. Vv. v. 44—

‘Let us not leave till all our own be won.’

‘ Leave off’ is also found in AV, as Sir 9317 « All
bread is sweet to a whoremonger, he will not leave
off till he die’; 47% ‘But the Lord will never
leave off his mercy.’ And it is used both with the
ptep. in -ing, and with to and the infin., as Gn 17"
‘And he left off talking with him’; 1 K 157! ‘he
left off building of Ramah’; Gn 118 ‘they left. off
to build the city’; Hos 410 ‘they have left off to

ake heed to the Lorp.’ In Gn 17” Tindale’s
Pent. of 1530 has ‘left of talking,’ but the ed. of
1534 ‘left talking.’

In Ac 1818 and 2 Co 2B ἀποτάσσομαι is tr? ‘take
leave of.’ RV retains this tr. and introduces it in
Mk 6% for AV ‘send away’; but in Lk 9% RV
retains ‘ bid farewell’ of AV, and in 14% (the only
other occurrence of the Gr. verb in NT) changes
AV ‘forsake’ into ‘renounce.’ The verb ἀσπαζομαι
is once (Ac 21%) rendered ‘take leave of’ in AY,
; when RV prefers ‘ bid farewell.’

90 LEAVEN

LEBANON

With the expression in Ac 21° ‘Now when we
had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand? :
ef. Ac 2) Rhen. ‘Paul had purposed to saile
leaving Ephesus’; Nu 3413 Tind. ‘And then goo
downe at the Tordayne, and leve at the salte
sea’; and especially Guylforde, Pylgrymage, p. 14,
‘whiche yle we lefte on our lefte hande towardes
Grece.’ J. HASTINGS.

LEAVEN (rk, fun, fermentum).—The Hebrew
word sé0r (a8¥), which probably expresses the idea
of fermentation, is found only five times in the
OT (Ex 124-19 137, Ly 24, Dt 164); more commonly
we find a word from another root, denoting fo
be sour, and hence to be leavened (γτπ hameéz).
Bread, kneaded in a baking trough (my: Ex 88
12°), and leavened, probably by means of a lump
of fermented dough, must have been a common
article of food among the Israelites; but as time
was required to allow the leaven to work (Hos 74),
bread of another kind was used when food was
required at short notice. This took the form of
unleavened cakes (Gn 19%, Je 6!, 1S 28%), called
mazzoth (nis>), either as being sweet, unsoured
(fs2=‘to suck,’ se Ges.), or on account of their
dry, insipid character (Fleischer in Levy, NHIVB
il. 3915; Nowack, Heb. Arch. ii. 145). It was,
according to Ex 12% (JE), unleavened cakes of
this kind that the Israelites baked for themselves
on their hurried departure from Egypt, since they
had not time to leaven their dough.

In early times leavened bread, as a common
article of food, probably formed a part of a sacri-
ficial meal, and of the gifts offered to the Deity
by the worshipper (ef. 1S 103). In the Northern
kingdom Jeaven was an accompaniment of the
thank-offering, thoneh Amos seems to refer to the
custom in terms of disapproval (Ain 45). ‘Traces of
a similar usage are to be found even in P; for the
shewbread (Ly 24°? [P]) was probably leavened,
while leavened cakes, as bread of the first-fruits,
formed part of the sacred gifts presented at the
Feast ot Weeks (Lv 23", cf. 2 [H]), and also
accompanied the peace-offering, when offered as
a thanksgiving (Lv 7 [P]). In none of these
cases, however, was the leavened bread actually
placed upon the altar. On the other hand, to eat
anything leavened, or even to keep it in the house,
was strictly forbidden during the seven days of
mazzoth (kx 13*7 235 3418 JE], Dt 16248 Ex
124-0) Ly 23°5, Nu 28'7[P]), a festival which was
originally distinct from the Passover, though Dt
shows a tendency to combine the two (Dt 16°, and
ef. Driver, ad loc.). A historical explanation of
the prohibition is given in JE, where, as we saw,
the use of unleavened cakes is connected with the
events of the exodus (Ex 1254), and a connexion
between the exodus and mazzcth is suggested else-
where (Ex 1338. 9315 3418), Suniarly, in Dt 163
the unleavened cakes of this season are termed
‘the bread of afiliction,’ from their association
with the Egyptian bondage of the Israelites, and
their hurried departure. Probably, however, the
feast of mazzcth was originally the opening festival
of the harvest season (ef. Dt 16°, Ly 23%*:); in this
case the use of leavened cakes may be explained
from the use of new corn, hastily prepared for

food in the busy time at the beginning of harvest, -

and from the desire not to mix the first-fruits with
the last year’s dough (see Wellhausen, Prolegq.,
Eng. tr. pp. 85-87; Nowack, Heb. Arch. ii. 145 f.).

The more general prohibition of leaven in sacri-
fices was doubtless due to the association of the

processes of fermentation and putrefaction. Leaven
was regarded as a source of corruption ; and ac-
cordingly P excludes it from any meal-offering
(Ly 2" 67, and ef. Dillin. ad loe.), and lays down
the principle that nothing leavened, nor even

honey, which might produce fermentation (ef,
Pliny, 11, 15), was to be burnt as an offering to
J”. ‘Phe laws in JE (Ex 23!8 3425) also forbid the
use of leaven in a sacrifice, but in both passages
a special reference is made to the Passover, and
it is possible that the prohibition was originally
confined to this feast (cf. 2S p. 208 f.).

The association of leaven and corruption is not
confined to the OT. Plutarch explains on this
ground why the Flamen Dialis was not permitted
to eat bread prepared with leaven (Ques. Lom.
109); and fermentum is used in Persius for ‘cor-
ruption’ (δ έ. i. 24). In the NT there is, indeed,
the parable of the leaven, where its unseen influ-
ence and penetrating power is taken as a symbol
of the growth of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 13°,
Lk 13%); but elsewhere our Lord warns His
disciples against the ‘leaven’ of the Pharisees
and of Herod (Mt 16°, Mk 8%, Lk 12"); and St.
Paul, emphasizing its seeret and expansive work-
ing, quotes the proverb, ‘A little leaven leavens
the whole lump’ (Gal 5%, 1 Co 5%), to warn his
converts against the contagious example of eyil-
doers, and exhorts them to purge out the old leaven
of malice and wickedness (1 Co δῆ). Similarly, in
Rabbinical writers leaven is used as a symbol of
evil: thus R. Alexander prays against ‘the leaven
in the dough,’ ¢.e. the evil inclination in the heart,
which prevents man from doing the will of God
(Talm. Berachoth, Via; and et. Lightfoot, Hor.
Heb. on Mt 16°), H. A. WHITE.

LEBANA (s:35), Neh 7, or LEBANAH (7:35),
Ezr 2°.—The head of a family of returning exiles,
called in 1 Es 5” Labana.

LEBANON (in prose with art. ΚΞ τσ, except 2 Ch 28»
[Heb.7"]; in poetry 18 times with art., 20 times
without. LXX Λίβανος, generally with art. ; Vuleg.
Libanus).*—Derived from root [72>] ‘to be white,’
either from the snow which covers the summits
seven months in the year, or from the light colour
of the limestone in its upper ranges.

Lebanon is mentioned in the OT over 60 times,
but almost two-thirds of the references occur in
poctical passages. It is not mentioned in the NT,
While included in the land assigned to the Israel-
ites, Jos 13° (D2), these mountains were never con-
quered by them (1 3!*), the actual limit of con-
quest being ‘ Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon;
under Mount Hermon’ (Jos 1117. This valley of
Lebanon was known to the Greeks as Cale-Syria,
and is the modern Buka. Anti-Libanus proper
is mentioned but once in the OT as ‘Lebanon
towards the sunrising’ (Jos 13°). The Hivites are
said to be inhabitants of the Lebanon (1 3*), and
the Giblites dwelt at Gebal (the modern Jebail,
Greek Byblos, at the base of the mountains) (Jos
13°: °). During the reign of Solomon, the Lebanon
appears to have been subject to Hiram king of
Tyre, who contracted to bring cedar trees, firs,
and almug (algum) trees by sea to Joppa for the
temple (1 Kk 5°, 2Ch 2%). On the other hand,
Solomon appears to have erected buildings inthe
Lebanon (1 K 9, 2 Ch 8°). At the rebuilding of
the temple, after the restoration, cedar trees were
again brought from the Lebanon (Ezr 87). See,
further, art. CEDAR.

Mt. Lebanon runs N.N.E.-S.S.W. for 95 miles
from Nahr Kasmiyeh, lat. 33° 20’ (known as the
Litany, the classic Leontes, along its upper course),
to Nahr el-Kebir, the ancient Eleutherus. The
plain of the Busa’ separates it from the Anti-
Libanus, which, starting from the Barada, runs
for 65 miles roughly parallel to the Lebanon.

* The name appears in Assyr. as Labndnu, etc. (see Schrader,

COT? on 1 Καὶ 518), and in Egyp. perhaps as Ramannu (see W.
Max Miller, 48. τι. Hurop. 198f., 204).

LEBANON

LEBANON 91

Strabo (xvi.) represents the two ranges as parallel,
but is in error in stating their direction : Lebanon,
according to him, beginning at Tripolis, and Anti-
Libanus at Sidon, both running towards Damascus.
The foot-hills of Lebanon—the western range
rise abruptly from the seashore, except for the
narrow strip of plain at Sidon, and for the tri-
angular projections of the promontories of Bey-
rout and Tripoli. At its southern end the main
ridge is divided into two ranges, roughly parallel,
by the brook Zahardni, which, after flowing south-
wards, turns abruptly west and enters the sea
south of Sidon. ‘The eastern ridge is known as
Jebel Rihdn, and the western as Jebel Taura (alt.
4500 ft.). Both are more or less wooded. Near
the plateau on which stands Aefr Houni, these
two ridges merge into one, which is separ-
ated from the twin peaks Taumdt Niha (alt.
5625 ft. and 5550 ft.) by a notch 600 ft. deep. The
ridge now becomes higher and more pronounced,
rising to an altitude varying from 5500 to 7000 ft.
Its various parts are locally named from the larger
villages, as Jebel Niha, and Jebel Barik. North
of the latter the ridge falls to an altitude of 4700
ft., and is crossed by a transverse ridge, Jebel
Kuneisch (alt. 6960 ft.). A narrow watershed con-
nects this with Jebel Sannin, a triangular-shaped
mountain—one face being parallel to the sea, one
in the line of the main ridge, and the third or
northern one running roughly east and west. Its
highest point is on the eastern face. From a
distance the top appears to be level, but it is
exceedingly rough owing to numerous conical
depressions, in which snow may be found late into
the summer. For some distance beyond Sannin
the top of the main ridge is really a broad, rolling
plateau, called Jebel Muneitri, varying in altitude
from 5800 to 6U00 ft. North of the village “Ahwrah
the altitude increases rapidly, and the western
part of this broad mass is broken up by a series of
intricate ridges, suddenly breaking down into the
great amphitheatre of the Nahr Kadisha. This
is bounded on the east by the narrowed main
ridge, joining on to the huge mass which forms
the northern side of the amphitheatre. This is
named as a whole Dahr el-Nadib, and is sur-
mounted by two series of peaks, roughly parallel,
varying in height from 9800 to 10,225 ft. The
highest peak is called Jebel Mukhmal by Burton,
but no local trace of the name appears to have
been recovered by Jater travellers. ‘The western
face of this northern mass is a series of sheer
cliffs. To the north another great amphitheatre
opens ext, in which are found the head waters of
the northern branch of the Nahr el-Barid. Be-
yond this rises the Jebel el-Abiadh (alt. 7380 ft.),
after which the mountain breaks down to the
valley of the Nahr el-Kebir, and the low, rolling
hills joining the Lebanon to the mountains of the
Nuseiriyeh,

With very few exceptions all the Lebanon streams
rise on the western face. South of Beyrout the
main rivers have their sources in high valleys be-
tween ridges approximately parallel to the main
ridge. Their course is thus first southerly, then
westerly, to the sea. They are the Zahardni, the
Awwali (Bostrenus), and the Danwzir (the Tamuras
of Strabo, and the Damuras of Polybius). North
of Beyrout the head waters of the rivers are in
wide amphitheatres, separated from each other
by narrow watersheds, in places 5000 to Ο000 ft.
high ; and in their course to the sea they break
through the spurs of the great hill in narrow
gorges. The western face of the Lebanon is thus
extremely rugged and varied in contour. The
main streams are—Nahr Beyrout (the Magoras),
with its two branches, rising on the face of
Kuneiseh, and between Kuneiseh and Sannin

respectively, Nahr el-Kelb (Lycus flumen) drain-
ing Sannin ; Nahr Ibrahim (the Adonis) with its
main sources at Afka and ‘Akfrah ; Nahr e7-Jauz ;
Nahr Kadisha, draining the Cedar amphitheatre,
and entering the sea at Tripoli; Δί» el-Barid ;
and, finally, the boundary river, Nahr el-Kebir,
which sweeps around the northern end of the
mountain. ‘The eastern face of Lebanon presents
a very different aspect from the western, as it
slopes directly down to the plain of the Buka,
sometimes with no foot-hills, and unbroken by
any important valleys, except at the south end of
Kuneiseh and at Zalleh, where the Nahr Berdadni
comes out of a wild gorge. There are several large
fountains at the base of the main ridge, and the
Lake Yammineh, with its intermittent fountains,
lies in a depression between the main ridge and
the partly wooded foot-hills, north-west of Baalbek.
A few words as to geology. The Lebanon is com-
posed of three conformable series of strata, all of
which are sometimes exposed on the sides of the
deepest valleys. The lowest is regarded by some
authorities as lower cretaceous, by others as upper
jurassic. It consists of several thousand feet of
hard thick-layered limestone, containing few
fossils, among which are sponges, corals, brachio-
pods, and, most characteristic, Cidaris glandaria,
trom which the formation has been named the
Glandaria limestone. While forming the bottom
of the deepest valleys, by foldings it is in
places elevated to the height of from 4000 to
5000 ft. It weathers into grand castellated
rocks, whose bluish-grey sides are beautifully
fluted by the frosts and rains. The second series
of strata has been named from ἃ characteristic
fossil, Vrigonia syriaca, the Trigonia zone. It
consists of sandstone, soft limestone, and clay,
with here and there small quantities of poor
bituminous coal and bituminous limestone, with
pyrites and efflorescent salts. The sandstone is
trom fifty to several hundred feet thick, and by its
red colour serves readily to distinguish the other
series of rocks. Most of the Lebanon pines grow
on this sandstone. The limestone and clays of the
Trigonia zone may attain a thickness of from 500
to 1000 ft., and ave very rich in fossils. The
third series has been named the Hippurite lime-
stone, as some of its strata are almost entirely
composed of fragments of hippurites, which in
places are found well preserved. There are also
many nerineas. The hippurite limestone occurs
on the sides of Lebanon, where, with the other
formations, it is extensively faulted and foided,
and it forms the summits of all the highest moun-
tains, where it is in most cases nearly level.
Its greatest thickness must be nearly 5000 ft.
At low levels near the sea are found chalks,
with and without flint, which are the uppermost
of the cretaceous rocks, and which appear to have
been deposited after the mass of the mountains
was well above the sea, since they are in no case
found in the centre of the range. In several
localities the chalk has yielded numerous finely-
preserved fishes. Upon the chalk is found soft
miocene limestone, and a porous sandstone of a
quarternary date which is largely calcareous.
From the above deseription it will be seen that
the Lebanon presents some magnificent scenery.
It is no wonder that the salient features of this
border-land to their country seized upon the im-
agination of the Hebrew poets. The deep and
sudden gorges, the sweeping amphitheatres, the
variety of colouring in the soil, the towering
snow-covered peaks, the gushing fountains,—all
unite in producing pictures of almost bewildering
variety. Villages are scattered everywhere ; some
nestle at the mountain base, others cline to the
steep sides, while still others are perched on ridges

92 LEBANON

LEBBAEUS

over 4000 ft. above the sea. Many of the bald
promontories of rock are crowned by belfried
monasteries. The extent of cultivation is extra-
ordinary, and the system of terracing is earried
to a height of almost 6000 ft. Wh sat, the vine,
the olive, the mulberry, and the walnut all abound.
The water from the various fountains is carefully
stored up and led off in irrigation. A consider-
able quantity of silk is manufactured. The
Lebanon was once well wooded, but the charcoal
burners and the browsing goat are now powerful
destructive agents. The valley of the Nahr Ibra-
him, however, is still thickly wooded with oak and
pine, while the stream is shaded with plane trees.
Besides the historic grove of the cedars above
Besherreh, there are still small groves on the ridge
south of Kuneiseh, and a more extensive forest at
el-Hadeth, south of the Nahr Kadisha. Jackals
abound, but hywnas, wolves, and panthers are fast
disappearing.

Of ancient buildings there are very few traces,
the principal ones being the ruin at Deir el-Kulaa,
above the Beyrout river; Awdut el-Fukra, near
Sannin; and the temple of Venus at Afka, the
source of the Adonis. This was destroyed by
Constantine owing to the licentious rites practised
there. The site is striking: behind the temple
there rises, for 1200 ft., an almost perpendicular
cliff, richly coloured, at the base of which is
a large cave, from which in the spring-time a
volume of water gushes forth, immediately joining
the perennial stream, which plunges down in a
series of three cascades. The water is said to be
at times impreenated with mineral salts, giving
a red colour, typifying to the ancients the blood
of Adonis. At the mouth of Nahr el-Kelb are in-
scriptions in Assyrian, Egyptian, and Greek. At
the bottom of the wild kKadisha gorge there are
many early anchorite caves; in front of some of
them convents have been erected—notably Kan-
nubin, the traditional seat of the Maronite patri-
arch,

The feudal system lasted in the Lebanon far into
the present century. In consequence of the
massacres of 1860 the government*of the mountains
was reorganized, with a Christian governor under
the general protection of the Powers. The popula-
tion is about half a million, and includes the
following sects, which are given as nearly as pos-
sible in the order of their numbers, the most
numerous being first :—

Maronites.

Greek Orthodox.
Druzes.

Papal Greeks.
Mutawileh.
Mohammedansgs,
Protestants.

Syriac and Armenian.

In general the Druzes are to be found south of
the Beyrout river, while the stronghold of the
Maronites is to the north. (Vor details as to
the Maronites, see PEF St, 1892, Bliss). Owing
to recent efforts of missionaries, both Protestant
and Roman Catholic, the number of schools is
very large. The natural abilities of the Lebanese
are decidedly above those of the rest of the
peasantry in Syria and Palestine.

The Buka'.—The Lebanon is divided from the
Anti-Libanus by a broad valley known in its
southern part as the Buka' ed-“Aziz, and in its
northern part as Suhl-Ba‘albck. It is drained by
two rivers, the Litdny (Leontes), which rises in
the neighbourhood of Baalbek and flows south,
and by the ‘Asi (Orontes), which rises a short
distance farther north, and flows northward. The
watershed is almost imperceptible. The Buka'
proper is very fertile, and supports a large popula-

tion in the villages scattered over it, and especially
in the valleys along its sides. The northern end
is much less fertile. (For the splendid ruins of
Bialbck see rett. at end of this article). At its
southern end the plain suddenly contracts into
a narrow gorge, through which the Litany flows.
3oth the plain and Anti-Libanus are subject: to
the Governor of Damascus.

Anti-Libanus, Jth 17 only (Αντιλίβανος. In Dt 17
3° 1154 and Jos 14 9! the Heb. j:25 is rendered by
“AvriNBavos).—The southern limit of Anti-Libanus
may be conveniently placed at the Barada river
and Damascus, leaving the mountains to the south
to be considered us part of the system of Mount
Hermon. — It runsroughly parallel to the Lebanon
for 65 miles, terminating rather abruptly at the
plain of Hums. The main ridge is separated from
the plain of Cwle-Syria by a small plain and ridge
at the north end; by a rough mass of low ridges,
culled Jebel Kusha'a, in the central part ; and by
the plain of Zebedani with ridge in the southern
part. At the north the main ridge is narrow, but
broken by a series of prominent peaks ; the central
mass is broader, higher, and rougher ; while the
southern part is diversified by long wadis leading
off to the east, with a single wady (Lariri) leading
to the south. To the east of the main ridge there
is a descending series of plateaux, gradually
dropping to the level of the plain of Damascus,
and separated by five ridges which spread out
somewhat like a fan, and which, if produced,
would meet in the main mass of Hermon,

The highest plateau (alt. 5255 ft.), which is
called “Asal el-Ward, drains northward, past the
towns Yabrid and Nebk, and is watered by a num-
ber of fine fountains. The principal peaks of the
Anti-Libanus are: Halimat Kabu (8250), Halimat
Kdrah (8150), and Halimat Kurrais (8150) at the
northern end; Vdla‘at Misa (8755) in the central
mass ; Abu el-Hin (8135) and the Bliddn ridge
(S090) farther south. The only considerable
streams of Anti-Libanus are the Yuhfifuh, empty-
ing into the Litany ; Helbiéin, flowing eastward to
the Damascus plain; and the Barada (Abana of
Scripture), This important river has its main
upper source in the south end of the plain of
Zebedani, in a beautiful pool fed by many springs,
but drains the whole of that plain; the volume of
water is much more than doubled by the fountain
of "Ain Fijeh, which joins it less than half-way to
Damascus.

LITERATURE.—The geographical and geological descriptions
are condensed from unpublished notes made by Professor
West and Professor Day respectively, both of ‘the Syrian
Protestant College, Beyrout. The table of population is taken
from the Book ot Statistics of the Lebanon, published in Arabic,
1898. The reader may refer further to such works as Robinson,
BR P? ii. 435 ff., 493; G.A. Smith, UGH L 45 ff. ; Buhl, oe W egalallele
Burton and Drake, Uneaplored Syria; de Sauley, Journey
round the Dead Sea, etc., ii. 558 ff. (especially on the ruins
of Baalbek). ide Eisss

LEBAOTH (nix) perhaps ‘lionesses’).—A city in
S. Judah, Jos 15%. Site unknown. [0 is called in
Jos 19° Beth-lebaoth, and in 1 Ch 451 (perhaps by
textual error) Beth-biri (wh. see).

C. R. CoNnDER.

LEBBAEUS (Λεββαῖος) is the name given to one
of the Twelve in AV of Mt 10", but rejected by
RV as without suflicient authority. The reading
and the meaning of the name will be fully discussed
in art. THADD&US. See also WH2, Notes, pp. 11,
24,144, and Dalman, Worte Jesu, p.40. The greatest
obscurity prevails regarding him, but the view which
identifies him with the Thaddeus of Mk 3 and Mt
10° (RV), the Judas of James of Lk 6 and Ac 1, and
the Judas, not Iscariot, of Jn 145), may be accepted
without serious hesitation. There are no refer-
ences to him in NT except those in the lists of the
Twelve and the question recorded by St. John, who

LEBONAH

LEG 93

earefully distinguishes him from the traitor, and
nothing whatever is known of his ultimate career.
See, further, art. THADD.£US. W. MUIR.

LEBONAH (73:25, Ac8wvd).—A place near Shiloh
on the way to Shechem, Jg 211, It is the ruin
called Khan el-Lubban, about 3 miles W.N.W.
of Seiliéin (Shiloh). See SIVP vol. i. sheet xi. ;
Robinson, BRP? 271 f. ; Guérin, Semarie, i. 164 Ὁ;
Baedeker-Socin, Pal.®, 217. C. R. CONDER.

LECAH (725).—A name oceurringin the genealogy
of Judah (1 Ch 47) as the ‘son’ of Er. Most

probably it is the name of a place, although
it is impossible to identify it. See GENEALOGY,

INE
LEECH.—See HorSELEECH.

LEEKS.— The word vsn hdézir is usually tr.
‘erass’ (see GRASS) or ‘hay’ (see HAy), but in one
passage (Nu 11°) it is tr. ‘leeks.’ Its occurrence in
this passage with the other two alliaceous plants
onions and garlic, and the authority of the LXX
πράσα, Vulg. porri, ancient Syriac and Arab.,
have caused most interpreters to accept the AV
and RV ‘leeks.’ The plant is Ad/ium Porrum, L.
It is extensively cultivated in the East. [Ὁ has an
ill-defined: bulb, leaves about an inch broad, and
a stem about 2 ft. in height. The young stem,
enveloped in its leaves, is banked up, as in the case
of celery, and plucked up while tender, before the
flowering head is developed. It is eaten raw, or
made into a salad, or used as a flavouring for
cooked dishes. It has a more delicate flavour than
onions or garlic. It is known in Arab, by the
name kurrath. GiB OST.

LEES.—This is the tr? in AV and RV of Heb.
ow in Is 256s, Jer 484, Zeph 1%; in its only
remaining occurrence, Ps 75° [Eng.®] it is rendered
‘dregs.’ The word ‘lees’ is a plur., formed from
Fr. die (the sing. seems never to have been used in
Eng.), which is defined in Cotgrave’s Fr. Dict. as
‘the lees, dregs, grounds, thick substance that
settles in the bottome of liquor.’ The further
derivation from Low Lat. dia, accepted by Skeat, is
rejected by Brachet. In Is 25° the word is used
in an apparently good sense, ‘a feast of wines on
the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on
the lees well refined’; and that passage, being
most frequently quoted, has given ‘lees’ a some-
what less offensive meaning in mod. Eng. than
‘drees.’ But there is no difference between the
words, as may be seen from Shaks. Zrvil. and
Cress. IV. i. 62—

§ Drink up
The lees and dregs of a flat tamed piece.’

Macbeth, 11. 111. 100—

‘The wine of life is drawn, and the mere lees
Is left this vault to brag of.’

And in Is the sense of shémdérim is the same as
elsewhere, the faces or dregs of wine. But wine
that, after fermentation, is allowed to stand long
on its dregs, gathers strength or body, and when
filtered before drinking is superior to recently
fermented wine. ‘The figure in Jer and Zeph is of
one who has had little trial in life, has been too
long at ease, and grown indolent and indifferent.
See WINE. J. HASTINGS.

LEFTHANDED (in 1611 two words) is the tr® in
Jg 3" 2016 of port tex, which is literally ‘shut up
(or bound) as to the right hand,’ asin AVm. The
Heb. phrase, which occurs nowhere else, is used
first of Ehud and then of ‘700 chosen men’ of
Benjamin, who ‘could sling stones at an hair

breadth, and not miss.’ The adj. 72x is in New
Heb. ‘lame,’ and the AV translation is no doubt
right. It comes from the margin of the Geneva
Bible at 3%, the text being ‘lame of his right
hand,’ and from the text of the same at 2015. The
LXX gives ἀμφοτεροδέξιος, ‘double handed,’ and the
Vulg. ‘qui utraque manu pro dextera utebatur’
(in 9016 ‘ita sinistra ut dextra priliantes’),
whence Wye. ‘the which either hoond uside for
the right’ (in 9016 ‘so with the lift as with the
right fightynge’). Cov. has ‘a man that mighte
do nothinge with his righte hande.’ The Douay
follows the Vulg., ‘who used both handes for the

right.’ J. HASTINGS.
LEG.—41. [322 New Heb. from root yn3 ‘ bow’ or

‘bend’] The sing. is not found in OT, but the
dual fem. oy72 occurs repeatedly in the ritual of
P, Ex 129 2917, Ly 19. 18. 44 551 914 (chiefly in the
collocation ‘the inwards and the legs’); in Ly 11?!
of the long bending hinder legs of the saltatorial
Orthoptera (see Oxf. Heb. Lex. s.v., and the illus-
tration on p. 84 of Driver’s Joel and Amos). The
only other occurrence of the word is Am 3" (of
the shepherd rescuing two legs of a lamb out of
the mouth of a lion).

2. bin, lit. ‘foot.’ 1S 17° Goliath had greaves
of brass ‘upon his legs’ (ypiroy; LXX ἐπάνω τῶν
σκελῶν avron).

3. pw, denoting the upper part of the leg, in-
cluding, or sometimes synonymous with, the thigh
(qn). (a) Of animals. ‘This word is wrongly
translated ‘shoulder’ by AV (cf. LXX τὸν Spa-
χίονα) in Ex 90,35. τ Lv 782. 38. 34 R29. 26 gel 103. be
Nu 6” 183, 1S 9%, in all of which RV correctly
renders ‘thigh.’ The px was a choice piece, and
as such is mentioned in 1S 9% as having been
reserved by Samuel for Saul. One of the chief
points of difference, in the matter of the priestly
revenues, between the Deuteronomic and the
Priestly Code, is that in the latter the priest’s
share of a sacrifice is the breast and right thigh
(Lv 7°?4), whereas in the former it is the head,
maw, and shoulder (su, lit. ‘arm,’ Dt 18%). See
W. R. Smith, O7JC? 383 note 3, and Driver,
Deut. 215. ἰδ. Of men. In Dt 28% one of the
curses threatened on disobedient Israelites is that
they will be smitten ‘upon the knees and upon
the legs with an evil boil,’ where the reference
is probably (see Driver, ad loc.) to a species of
elephantiasis.—In Ca 5% the Shulammite compares
the legs of her beloved to pillars of marble.
Nebuchadnezzar’s image had his legs (Aram. °7)p¥')
of iron, Dn 9585. Τὴ Pr 267 the pointing of the text
is somewhat doubtful. The MT has π:95 opt v7
(AV ‘the legs of the lame are not equal’ [AVm
‘are lifted up’], RV ‘the legs of the lame hang
loose’). If we adopt RV tr", probably we ought
to point 73 (so Ewald, Siegfried-Stade, and [doubt-
fully] Oxf. Heb. Lex.). Delitzsch (Comm.), followed
by Kamphausen (in Kautzsch’s A 7’) and Wildeboer
(Comm.), points 357, which he takes to be a noun
=‘a hanging down.’ The tr®™ of the verse would
then be, ‘as the hanging down of the legs of the
lame,’ ete. In any case the general sense of the
passage is clear, namely that a ‘parable’ is as
useless in the mouth of a fool as are the legs of
a lame man.—In Ps 147! ‘legs’ are a symbol of
strength, ‘(The Lord) delighteth not in the
strength of the horse, he taketh no pleasure in
the legs of a man.’—For Jg 15° ‘He smote them
ποῦν pw,’ lit. ‘leg upon thigh,’ see art. HIP.

4, Sav in Is 472 is wrongly translated ‘leg’ in
AV. The correct rendering 1s ‘train.’ The proud
daughter of Babylon is called upon to assume the
guise of a slave, to take the millstones and grind
meal, to remove her veil, to strip off her train,
to uncover her leg (pw ‘thigh’), 2.6. to gird up

94 LEGION

LENDING

her garments that she may wade through the
rivers.

5. In NT oxéXos—only of the breaking of the
legs to hasten death, which was practised on the
two crucified robbers but not upon Jesus, Jn 19%,
This practice, known as σκελοκοπία (cf. the hap. leg.
σκελοκοπεῖν in Hv. Petr. 4) or erurifragium, is referred
toin Aur. Vict. Cas. 41 ; Plaut. Asin. I. iv. 68 ; Cie.
Rose. Am, 20; Seneca, Ir. iii. 22, ete. (see full list
in Kein, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. vi. 253 note 3).

J. A. SELBIE.

LEGION.—This word, familiar as it is to us,
was not a familiar word to the inhabitants of
Palestine in NT times, for the legions were
stationed in the frontier provinces, and nothing
happened to bring them into Judwa until the
outbreak of the Jewish war in A.D. 66 (see
AuGustus’ BAND). Λεγιών (so spelt in δὲ" B* Ὁ;

λεγεών usually in AC) occurs in NT only in Mt |

26°3, Mk 5% !5, Lk 8®°—and even so never in its
proper sense of ‘a legion of Roman soldiers’ ;
it never occurs in LXX (so Hateh-Redpath) ;
and it is rare (if it occurs at all) in Josephus
(τάγμα stands for ‘legion’ in BJ 11. 544, iil. 8
97, ed. Niese, ef passim).*
much evidence that the
form (3135 or p35, pl. πὰ"

’
Nor, again, is there
word in its Semitic
or 7313? or M3137) was

well known in Palestine early in the Christian | c| : :
| Khurbet es-Sijjdgh (σιαγών), 2m. S.S.E. of Sor‘ah ;

era. It is found (S. A. Cook, Glossary of Arai.
Jnscr.) in the Palmyrene Inscriptions (1st — 3rd
cents. of the Christian era), and at least once
in the OT Peshitta, Nu 24%

‘Legions shall go |

forth from the land of the Kittim® (similarly |

Targ. Jer. ib.).
is fairly common in Talmudie and = Midrashie
literature (from 3rd cent. of the Christian era
onwards), and some instances may be quoted in
illustration of λεγιών in NT.

(1) It connotes a great number. ‘It is easier
to feed one legion in Galilee than one sucking
child in the land of Israel’ (Genesis Rab. xx. 6
jin., ed. Wilna, 1878).

(2) Connoting special and severe punishment.
The waters of the Flood are compared to a ‘cruel
legion’ (Gen. Rah. iv. 6; ef. also v. 6).

(3) Connoting (under certain circumstances) un-
cleanness.
because skulls to be used as charms are always
carried with it (Talm. Bab., Aull. 123").

(4) Connoting attendance on a king. God
speaks of Israel at the passage of the Red Sea
as ‘My legions’ (Lxod. Rab. xxiii. 7).

King’s presence (Num. Rab. 1. 12). God when He
goes forth ‘for peace’ is attended by multitudes
(por>N) and legions (Num. Rab. xi. p. 89, col. a,
ed. Wilna).

These references illustrate both Mt 26°* (*‘ Twelve
legions of angels’); ef. (1) (4); and Mk 5° (‘legion;
for we are many’); ef. (1) (2). The idea of un-
cleanness is not prominent in the word.

A Roman legion in our Lord’s time was an
army complete in itself, consisting of both infantry
and cavalry, and amounting to upwards of 5000
men; cf. Marquardt, Rom. Startsverwaltung, ii.
p. 4301f% See also Schiirer, AJP 1. ii. 49-51;
Swete, δέ. Mark 5° note; Plummer, δέ. Luke 830
note; J. Levy, NHWB, s.v. 7015.

W. EMERY BARNES.

LEHABIM (Gn 108, 1 Ch 111 pan, AaSieiu, Λαβείν,
Vulg. Laabim) occurs as the name of a nation de-
scending from Mizraim, i.e. nearly related to the
Egyptians. Scholars always have noticed the
great similarity of the name to that of the Lubim,

; * Λεγιών (A.ysév) does not appear in the Index Voc. Gree.
in Havercamp’s ed. of 1726, nor is Josephus cited 8... in Liddell
and Scott (ed. viii.), or in Stephanus (ed. Hase-Dindorf), or in
Sophocles, Leaicon (ed. 1870).

A legion on the march is unclean |

The tribe |
of Levi is the legion which stands in God the |

On the other hand, the word |

—

Libyans. Some suppose Lehabim to be merely ἃ
corruption for original o235; others, a double
writing of this name, which they suppose to be
hidden in the o> Ludim connected with it;
others suppose Lehabim and Ludim (Lubim ?) to
have been different tribes of the same nation,
therefore, with similar names. Certainly, the
graphic similarity between ἢ and w is small, only
o2x5 might form a transition. An insertion of
h for phonetic reasons is anything but probable ;
the insertions of ἡ in other cases are not sufliciently
analogous. Therefore, the origin of the present
form remains obscure. On the other hand, it can
hardly be doubted that the Libyans are meant
(see LUBIM). Strange etymologies such as from
an, ‘flame,’ 1.6. those living in a flaming hot
country (!), or wild guesses such as the translation
of Walton’s Arabic version, ‘the inhabitants of
Behnesa’ (Middle Egypt, near Oxyrhynchus of
the Greek time), deserve no consideration.
[ W. MAx MULLER.

LEHI (τ ‘jawbone,’ ‘cheek’; LXX Aev(e)l,

Aexl, Σιαγών ; Luc. Acyeé; 7A. 2.0, Jos. Ant. V. vili.

| 8, 9 Muaydv).—A place in Judah, the scene of

Samson’s slaughter of the Philistines, J@ 15°”.
In 2 23" πιπὸ ‘to Lehi’? (LXX Luc. ἐπὶ σιαγόνα),
is to be read for 7:72 ‘to the troop(’).’ The site is
unknown. Schick (Z7ZUPV x. 152 f.) suggests
ooo

but see Smith, HG HL 222 n.,and Moore, Judges 348,
where other identifications are quoted. The name
‘jawbone’ must have been suggested by the forma-
tion of a prominent rock ; οἵ, "Ὄνου γνάθος, the name
of ἃ peninsula on the W. of Cape Malea, the S.E.
promontory of the Peloponnese (Strabo, p. 363, ed.
Casaub.). Perhaps Beer-lahai-roi (Gn 164) is to
be explained in the same way, °x7°7> ‘the jawbone

of the antelope,’ Arab. *wrwiye ‘mountain goat’

(Wellh. Preleg.® 339 and n.; Ball, ‘Genesis’ in
SBOT 66) ; cf. also the place-name in Arab., lahy
gamal ‘camel's jawbone.’

The Philistine marauders made Lehi their head-
quarters for attacks upon the Hebrews of the
district ; the name of the place was suggestive ;
and tradition attached to it the story of Samson’s
exploit with the ‘fresh jawbone’ (ἐδ) of an ass.
Popular etymology explained Ramath-lehi, Jg 15",
‘the height (from rim) of Lehi,’ as the place where
Samson threw away (rdmdh) the jawbone; a
hollow basin in the hill-side, shaped like a ‘mortar’
(maktésh v., cf. Zeph 14, Pr 2772), which held the
water of the ‘Partridge Spring’ (‘én hakhore’, ef.
1S 26”, Jer 171), became the spring which God
granted when Samson called (Aa@r@) for help in
his exhaustion (see EN-HAKKORE). Thus_ the
legend was founded upon the popular explana-
tion of these names; indeed the word πὴ v.16
might mean either ‘in Lehi’ or ‘with a jaw-
bone’ (Moore, Judges 347). It is noteworthy
that the exploit of Shammah, one of David’s
mighty men, also took place at Lehi, 2S 234
(see above), and bears considerable resemblance
to the story of Samson. Cf. also the story of
Shamgar, Jg 3°). G. A. COOKE.

LEMUEL (5y:25 or Syizb).—The name of a king
otherwise unknown, to whom his mother addressed
the words recorded in Pr 3173. Most moderns
understand Pr 30! (see RVm) to imply that Lemuel
was ‘king of Massa’ in Arabia; where lived the
descendants of Massa, the son of Ishmael men-
tioned in Gn 254, 1 Ch 1%. See Acur. The
name Lemuel may be compared with Jemuel in
Gn 4610, or Nemuel 1 Ch 4%; and in meaning
with Lael, a man consecrated ‘to God,’ in Nu 34
(see Gray, Heb. Prop. Names, 207).

W. T. DAVISON.
LENDING.—See DEBT.

SS

<>

--ὦ-

-....-ὕὦἡ.

LENTILS

LEPROSY 95

LENTILS (ovty ‘addshim, φακός, lens). —'The
authority of the LXX and Vulg., and the identity
of the Arab. ‘adas, make it certain that the grain
intended in the four passages where ‘dddshim occurs
(Gn 25%, 2S 1772 234, Ezk 4°) is the lentil, Hrvum
Lens, . Itisan annual, of the order Leguminosae,
with pinnate, tendril-bearing leaves, of 5-6 pairs of
oblong-linear leatlets, 1-4-flowered peduncles, white
corolla, and ovate-rhombic, 1—2-seeded pods half an
inch long. The seeds are lenticular, with a reddish
outer coat. They are cultivated everywhere in the
East. They are usually stewed with onions, rice,
and oil, or small bits of meat and fat, and seasoned
to the taste. This dish, which is known as majed-
derah, is universal among the poor. It is by no
means unpalatable, and is common enough on the
tables of the rich also. The colour of it is a
darkish-brown. It would seem that it was red in
Esau’s day (Gn 25%), The term red, however, is a
somewhat indefinite one in the East, and applies to
a number of shades of red and brown. It was
‘ pottage’ of lentils, similar to if not identical with
mujedderah, for which Esau sold his birthright (v.**).
Lenti! flour is still made into bread in Egypt by
the very poor, as in ancient times (Ezk 4°).

G. E. Post.

LEOPARD (733 niimér, πάρδαλις, pardus).—A well-
known animal, Felis pardus, 1... still called nimr
in Arab., ἃ name which, however, it shares with
the tiger. It is a fierce carnivorous creature, often
attaining a length of 4 ft. from the tip of the nose
to the insertion of the tail. It is a type of ferocity
(Is 11°). It is exceedingly agile, and swift in its
attacks (Hab 18). A four-winged leopard is used as
a type of the Macedonian, or, according to another
interpretation, of the Persian Empire (Dn 76). It is
specially noted for the patience with which it waits,
extended on the branch of a tree, or a rock near a
watering-place, expecting its prey, on which it
springs with a deadly precision. Hence ‘a leopard
shall watch over their cities’ (Jer 55), and ‘as a
leopard by the way will I observe them’ (Hos 13°).
The black spots on the yellow ground of its fur
(Jer 13%) make it one of the most beautiful of
animals. The skins sometimes sell in Syria and
Palestine for as much as 410. They are used as
rugs and saddle covers. Some dervishes wear a
leopard’s skin over their back. Leopards are still
found in Lebanon (cf. Ca 4%), though rare. One
was shot near Kefr Matta, within 15 miles of
Beirfit, in the winter of 1866-7, after it had killed
60 goats. A young one was taken at Bano, about
15 miles north of Tripoli, the same winter. One
was seen at Jisr el-Ixadi, about 10 miles from
Beirfit, a year or two before. They are not rare
along the Litany (Leontes), and in the Antilebanon,
and the ravines which open into the Jordan Valley.
Another species of leopard, Felis jubata, Schreb.,
the chetah, or hunting leopard, the fehd of the
Arabs, is found in Galilee and Gilead. It is
occasionally domesticated, and used by the Arabs
for hunting. Both Nimr and /ehd are names
commonly given to boys, as emblems or presages of
strength and valour.

The word némér, in its feminine form nimrah,
and its plural form nimrim, is several times used
in the names of places, as ‘ Nimrah’ and ‘ Beth-
nimrah (Nu 32%), now Nahr Nimrin, and the
‘waters of Nimrim’ (Is 15°, Jer 48%), and ‘the
mountains of the leopards’ (nimrim, Ca 45). The
leopard is also alluded to in Sir 28% and Rev 137.

G. E. Post.

LEPROSY (ny7y or nyny y33 zdra‘ath, nega zardath :
LXX and NT Xémpa).—A genus of diseases with
which, in a special degree, the element of unclean-
ness was associated. The removal of other maladies
is spoken of in NT as healing, but the removal of

leprosy is called cleansing (Mt 8? 108 115, Mk 1%, | 61).

Lk 477 72 1717). The only case in which the verb
ἰᾶσθαι is used in this connexion is in Lk 17 in the
sase of the Samaritan, whose relation to the cere-
monial law would perhaps not be recognized by a
Jew: in all other passages it is καθαρίζειν. Leprosy
also involved exclusion from the community as did
no other disease ; and the leper was looked upon,
not only as defiled himself, but as a source of
defilement to his neighbours.

There is an initial difficulty in the identification
of these diseases, as the Greek word λέπρα is used
by the early physicians as the name of a skin
disease, now called psoriasis, characterized by an
eruption of rough, scaly patches. Hippocrates,
Polybius, and Paulus A#vineta treat it in general as
a curable disease of not very serious import. ‘This
skin disease is neither contagious nor dangerous to
life, nor, in most cases, productive of much incon-
venience or suffering to the individual ; and, ex-
cept for the sense of disgust engendered by the
disfigurement which it causes in the rare case of
its affecting the face, it is not injurious to the
community. And yet the LXX translators and
St. Luke must have known of this use of the word
which they employ as the equivalent of zgdra‘ath.
On the other hand, the disease now called leprosy
must have been known in Bibl: times, and could
scarcely escape notice. Besides, other diseases of
the skin did not produce ceremonial uncleanness,
and this group of scaly eruptions which the Greeks
called lepra was not necessarily associated with
dirt or vice, and could scarcely be singled out from
allied diseases as divine visitations; also the
scaliness which, trom the first, is distinctive of
these, is not mentioned as a specific character.

The true leprosy has been known in India since
the days of Atreya, about B.C. 1400; and it is said
to be referred to in Japanese records about 500
years later. In the Egyptian papyrus Ebers,
written in the reign of Amen-hotep I., about B.C.
1550, there are over a score of prescriptions for an
apparently intractable disease called ukhedu, which
attacked the head, the limbs, the face, and the
body generally; which was attended with the
development of bean-like nodules (Hunhun), open
sores, or skin spots, which were liatle to ulcerate,
and had to be covered with plasters. The singular
form of this word was probably hed, and in
Coptic the derivative chot is used for a swelling,
and, with the status constructus of the verb er
pretixed (erchot), it is used for a sore or an ulcer.
There is little doubt that this disease was leprosy.
In the Coptic version of Leviticus another cognate
word is used, ceht, to denote leprosy.

The first classical reference to the disease is in
the Prorrhetica of Hippocrates (ii.), where, after
referring to depra, he mentions the Phwnician
disease as a far more serious malady. There is
also a reference to leprosy, although not by name,
in a fragment of Hesiod quoted by Eustathius in
his Comment. in Odyss. v. p. 1746. Galen men-
tions it under the name elephantiasis, and says
that it is common in Alexandria, on account of
the coarse food of the people. To this also
Lucretius (vi. 1114) refers—

‘Est elephas morbus qui propter flumina Nili

Gignitur AZgypto in media neque prweterea usquam,’
Some have supposed that the λειχὴν λευκός of
Aschylus (Choecphoroi, 231) is leprosy, but it is
more probably the scaly psoriasis, as is the same
word in umenides, 754. Themison is said by
Ceelius Aurelianus, iv. 1, to have described it about
B.c. 100, but his description is lost. The scanti-
ness of the references in classical literature before
the beginning of the Christian era support the
statement of Pliny (xxvi.), that it was brought into
Europe from Syria by the army of Pompey (B.c.
Others of the Greek and Latin physicians

96 LEPROSY

LEPROSY

of later date describe it under the name elephanti-
asis (Celsus 111. 25, and Soranus, according to Mar-
cellus, xix.). Paulus Algineta compares it to
vancer of the whole body. Aretieus also gives a
graphic description of its loathsome later stages.
For an account of the characteristics of the
advanced stages see Thomson, Land and Book,
130:

The first biblical reference is in the account of
the signs given by God to Moses whereby he was to

rove to Pharaoh his divine commission (Ex 4° J) ;
bat in Εν 79:19 (0), where his interview with Pharaoh
is reported, there is no mention of this sign being
shown. ‘The reason of this omission is not difficult
to understand. This incident may be the founda-
tion of Manetho’s story quoted by Josephus (ὁ. Ap.
i. 31), that Moses was a leper, and was expelled
from Heliopolis on this account. Manetho also
said that the Jews were driven out of Egypt be-
cause they were aillicted with this disease (cd.
i. 26).

The second historical mention of it is very
significant. In Nu 1219 the smiting of Miriam
with leprosy is recorded. Here we have a graphic
reference to the effects of the disease in Aaron’s

rayer for his sister, when he says, ‘ Let her not,
τὰν thee, be as one dead, of whom the flesh is
half consumed (eaten away) when he cometh out
of his mother’s womb’ (v.22).

In Ly 13 there are minute instructions given for
the recognition of these diseases in their early
stages. Here the name is used with nega’ pre-
fixed to indicate that it is regarded as a ‘stroke
from God’ (cf. Vulgate rendering of ‘smitten’ by
leprosum in Is 534). There are here apparently
seven varieties of the disease to be distinguished.
(1) τὸν séeth, LXX οὐλή, ἃ rising of the skin or
subcutaneous nodule. (2) ππβὸ sappahath, LXX
σημασία, ascab or cuticular crust. (3) m92 bahereth,
LXX τηλαύγημα, a bright or shining spot. These
are the earliest appearances, and even at this stage
the disease is said to exhilit the two distinctive
features of being really subcuticular, and of turn-
ing the hairs white. If these diagnostic marks
are present when the suspect is brought before
the priest, he is to be pronounced unclean at once ;
but 1f not, he is to be shut up for seven days, and
then again inspected. Should the disease have
undergone no change during this period, he is
again to be isolated for another week, and again
examined. (4) Another form, or perhaps a later
stage of the disease, is that in which ‘quick raw
flesh,’ that is, red granulation tissue, appears in
the tumid spot (v.!°); this was to be recognized as
a sure sign, and the person declared unclean. (δ)
One of the most singular provisions of the law is
that in v., referring to the cases in which the
white efflorescence becomes universal from head to
foot ; when this occurs, the person is pronounced
clean. It is probable that in this case the priest
was to consider it as a form of psoriasis, and not
as a genuine leprosy, which is rarely universal
until a late stage, and then is not white. If,
however, any sign of the coexistence of leprous
ulceration with the whiteness should appear, he is
to be declared unclean (v.“). ΤῸ provide for the
case in which this redness or sore is only a
temporary pustule, such as often occurs in almost
any skin disease, the patient is to come again to
the priest as soon as the sore is healed, when he is
again to be pronvanced clean (v.16),

In all these cases the diagnosis in the early
stages is between leprosy in which the infiltration
is derinal and the hairs lose their colour, and
eczema or psoriasis in which the swelling is chiefly
epidermal and the hairs do not change. If, during
the periods of quarantine, the spot appears to be
fading (an7 kahah, RV ‘dim,’ AV ‘somewhat dark,’

following LXX duavpd), and not spreading, he is to
be pronounced clean, and the disease is said to be
only nns5> mispahath, a scab, i.e. psoriasis, unless
on further inspection it appeared to be spreading.

(6) Another variety, described in v.!8, is that
which attacks the cicatrix of an ulcer or a boil,
pn shehin, in which there is a white rising, δ᾽ ἐλ
lébhinih, that is, a smooth shining spot, red in
patches; the description seems to indicate some
one of an obscure group of diseases of the skin,
called by various names, cicatricial keloid, scleri-
asis, etc. Between all these diseases and leprosy
there are many points of resemblance, but there is
no evidence that they are contagious. In doubt-
ful cases the priest is to require a week’s quaran-
tine in order to decide whether it is true leprosy
or only zdrebeth hashshthin (RV ‘the scar of the
boil,’ AV ‘a burning boil’), a temporary swelling
from the irritation of the scar, or else only the
cicatrix itself (v.44). A similar form of the disease
may attack the scar of a burn (v.%4), and is to be
treated in the same way.

(7) The form of disease affecting the hairy
scalp (v.*) is called pai nethek (LUXX θραῦσμα, AV
‘a dry seall’), and is to be diagnosed by the
presence of thin yellow hairs. Every suspicious
‘ase is to be inspected, and if there be no black
hair in the spot whereby its nature may be tested,
the person is to be subjected to a week’s quaran-
iine, after which, if the disease is not spreading,
all the hair is to be shaven except that on the
seall. If, after another wecek’s seclusion, the scall
still appears to be spreading, he is to be pronounced
unclean, whether there be yellow hair or not. In
the Tract Negaim, x. 5, it is directed that two
hairs should be left in shaving the part, outside
the margin of the scall, so as to test its spreading.
Yellow thin hair and yellow crusts are character-
istic of favus or crusted ringworm, which is a very
contagious disease, due to the presence of a fungus,
Achorion Schenleinii. The presence of black hair
in any diseased patch is usually suflicient evidence
that no parasitic fungus is present.

In v.*" rules are given for the diagnosis of
bcharoth lébhanoth, white shining spots on the
skin, —whether another variety of disease or not it
is difficult to say. If these are dim or dull in
colour, they are only ‘freckled spots’ (AV, ‘tet-
ters’ RV). This eruption, which is called pra bohak
(zuhar in Jerus. Targ., LXX ἀλφό9), is probably the
λέπρα of the older Greek physicians, the vitiligo of
Celsus, and does not render the sufferer unclean.
A common eczematous skin disease is called in
some places in Arabia by this name still; see
Forskal’s note to Niebuhr’s Arabia, 1774, 119.
According to Minch, a form of vitiligo is prevalent
among the Sarts of Turkestan and is called by
them pycz. Those afflicted with it are segregated
from the community along with the lepers, as it
is regarded as contagious. Baldness and forehead
baldness are distinguished from leprosy in νυν. Ὁ τα,
unless they are complicated by the other signs
of leprosy, 1n which case the man is to be pro-
nounced utterly unclean, as the plague is in the
head.

The Rabbinic comments on these regulations in
Negaim, Siphra, and Mechilta are very prolix, and
add nothing to our real knowledge of the disease.
R.. Chanina recognizes 16 kinds; R. Dosa, 32; and
Akiba, 72. In Jalkut on Job 98:5 man is said to
be made up half of water and half of blood ; if he
sin, this balance is disturbed,—either the water
becomes excessive and he is dropsical, or the blood
increases and he becomes leprous. Many of the
later commentators, medical and otherwise, are
not much better. See Mason Good, Study of
Medicine, iv.

For those pronounced unclean there was no

LEPROSY

LEPROSY τ

further seclusion; but they are to be excluded
from the community, to live outside the towns,
with rent clothes (in the case of men ; women were
not to rend their garments, Sof ii. 8), and the
hair of their head going loose. They are directed
to cover their upper lip, and to cry ‘unclean.’ This
exclusion is represented as put in practice when
the tabernacle was constructed (Nu δ᾽, P), and
Miriam was one of those temporarily shut out
in the early days of the law (Nu 12%, ΔΊ, eee
Deuteronomic code refers to these laws (Dt 24°).
The four lepers of 2 Καὶ 7° were thus outside Samaria
even during the siege. According to Negaim xil.
11, if lepers entered into a house, they rendered it
unclean (see also Aedim i. 4); or, if under a tree,
they detiled any one passing beneath its shade.
As they could not enter a walled town, they were
vexcluded from synagogue services there ; but in
Sunwalled towns there was often a place set apart
‘for them in the synagogue, into which they could
‘enter before the rest of the congregation ; but they
‘could not leave until every one else had departed.
Any transgression of these rules was punished by
40 stripes (see Otho, Lex. Rabbin. 324).

- The Jews regarded leprosy as a contagious
disease, and recent investigations have confirmed
| this opinion, although it is not communicated very
/ easily, and seems to have a Jong incubation period.
ΤῸ is produced by a specific schizomycetous fungus,
| Bacillus lepre, discovered by Hansen in 1871,
which is of very minute size. These organisms re-
tain their vitality for a long time. Kobner found
~them living in a piece of leprous tissue that had
Jain forgotten, wrapped in a piece of paper, for
ten years. It is a peculiarly human parasite, the
result of many experiments showing that it 15 not
communicable to animals by inoculation, The
bacillus has been found, though sparingly, in the
earth of a pathway frequented by lepers at the
~Almora Asylum. Cases like that of Damien show
that it is communicable to healthy persons. For
other instances see Abraham in Allbutt’s System
of Medicine, ii. 41. It is interesting to note that
~Calmet long ago supposed leprosy to be due to
organisms, which he describes as animalcule that
eat the skin from within (Comm. on Levit.).

It was probably a fairly common disease among
the Jews (Lk 457, although not many cases are
| mentioned; but there are more references to it
than to any other ailment. It has been supposed,
though without any reason, that the kiln-work in

τ αἰ

Egypt fostered it in the days before the Exodus.
Buxtorf, however, says it is not as common among
the Jews as among other peoples, and ascribes
this to their separateness, and to their abstinence
especially from swine’s flesh (see Tacitus, δέ.
-v. 4). Inthe NT there are records of only twelve
eases: the ten lepers in Lk 171, the leper m Mt 8"
whom our Lord touched (cf. Mk 1, Lk 5), and
Simon the leper (Mt 26°, Mk 14°); but these are
only specially selected eases, for He commanded
His disciples to cleanse the lepers (Mt 10°; see
also Mt 115 and Lk 7323.

The course of the disease is slow, especially in
the early stages; there are cases on record of
persons who lived as lepers for 40 years. Observa-
tions in Trinidad gave an average of nearly 9
years as the duration of the disease (Beavan Rake),
According to Danielssen, in Norway, and Carter,
in Bombay, the average duration of life in the
nodular form is about 9 years, and in the form
which affects the nerves and causes anesthesia
(the commonest form in the East) it is 183 years.
Cures are rare; the official report for Norway
gives 38 cures during the period 1881-85 (the total
number of lepers there in 1892 was 500), Simon
the leper may have been one of those cured by
Christ (for traditions see Ambrose, Comm. on Lk 6 ;

VOL. 111.-τ

Theophylact in Mt 26; Nicephorus, ΠΕ i. 27). In
the early stages there are often few symptoms and
little discomfort, and sometimes ‘the eruption
may vanish altogether, giving rise to illusory
hopes of cure’ (Abraham). It is therefore easy to
understand how a great general like Naaman
might retain his office although a leper (2 Καὶ 5’).
(See in this connexion Jos. Ant. UL xi. 4). King
Robert the Bruce, who according to Ker (1. 357)
died of this disease, was apparently suffering
from it when he held the Parliament at Cambus-
kenneth, and organized his last invasion of Eng-
land. According to a doubtful tradition the
emperor Constantine was a leper; see Zonaras,
Annales, xiii. ¢. 3.

The sudden infliction of leprosy
judgement is recorded not only in the case of
Miriam, but also in that of Gehazi (2 Κα 5°"), which
could not be due to infection, although it is calle¢
the leprosy of Naaman, as in all known instances
the incubation period is much longer. There is
also the example of Uzziah (2 K 15°, 2 Ch 26%).
Of him it is said that he lived ina mvson ma beth
hahophshith, LXX οἶκος ἀπφουσώθ (or ἁφφουσώθ, or
ἁφφουσιών), a several house’ or (RVm) ‘a lazar
house.’ According to Jos. Ant. IX. x. 4, this Judg-
ment was accompanied by an earthquake (see Zee
145). This author also states that, being a leper,
Uzziah was buried in his own garden ; but another
account is given in Ch. Herodotus says that the
Persians believed that a man was afflicted with lep-
rosy for having committed some offence against the
sun; that every stranger who had the disease was
driven out of the country; and that they even
destroyed white pigeons, thinking them to be
leprous (i. 138). For other references to leprosy as
a judgment see Hrachin 16; Baba Bathra 10. 4;
Midrash Rabba on Ly 14, ete. Chrysostom says,
however, that in his day lepers were not excluded
from the cities (Vidi Dominum, ete. iv.).

The heredity of leprosy was generally believed
in by the Jews; it is referred to in the curse on
Joab (28 3”), and in the punishment of Gehazi
(2 Καὶ ὅ3). The Leprosy Commission in India could
discover a history of heredity only in 5 per cent. ;
and of the 108 cases in the Tarn Taran Asylum
only 16 had a leprous parent or grandparent. No
treatment is referred to in the Bible ; the washing
of Naaman was a trial of faith, not a remedy (in
connexion with his speech about Abana and
Pharpar see Strabo, vii. 3. § 19, concerning the
river Alpheus). Jehoram, from his ejaculation in
2K δ, evidently thought leprosy beyond hunan
skill to cure.

The date of the spread of the malady to Western
Europe is unknown, but it was in Britain before
the first Crusade, as the leper house at Canterbury
was founded in 1096, the year of the starting of
the Crusade. Between that date and the building
of the last in 1472, one hundred and twelve such
asylums were set apart for lepers in England. In
early Christian times there were special rules for
lepers. The Council of Ancyra (314) excluded them
from the churches, and ordered them to remain out-
side with demoniacs and those guilty of unnatural
crimes, all of whom were called Aiemantes (χειμαζό-
μενοι) on this account (Martene, Col?. Anipliss, vil.
p. 1305). It is supposed that the smali skew window
often seen in old churches, and commanding ἃ view
of the altar, was for the purpose of allowing the
hiemantes to see the mass, hence these squints
are often called leper windows or hagqioscopes. The
Third Council of Orleans forbade lepers to wander
from one diocese to another ; and Gregory IL., in his
letter to Boniface in A.D. 715, directed the adminis-
tration of the Eucharist to them by themselves.
The bishops were also ordered to supply them wit)
food and raiment out of the Church tunds.

as a divine

98 LEPROSY

LEPROSY

There is no reference in the Bible to leprosy as a
type of sin; the nearest approach to this is in Ps
51°, where the reference is to the ceremonial
cleansing of the leper. Among the Fathers, also,
there are few who take note of a similitude so
familiar in modern homileties. Origen (/fom. vii.
in Nu) speaks of heretics outside the Church as
having leprosy of mind; and Chrysostom (Hom. iv.
in Ti 2) is one of the earliest writers who directly
compares the defilement of sin to leprosy. The
one part, indeed, of the Levitical law which is
most often noticed, is the cleanness of the man
who is all leprous, and this is used to illustrate the
most diverse lessons by Tertullian (de Pudicitia,
xx.), Theodoret (Quastiones in Lv 13), and Origen
(tn Levit. viii. 231). In one of the epistles doubt-
fully attributed to Jerome, he treats of the various
kinds of leprosy (Ap. xxxiv.). Leprosy was most
commonly regarded as a type of heresy rather
than of other sin (Rupertus Tuitiensis, p. 271;

Sede, in loco, ‘ Lepra doctrina falsa est’; see also
Rabanus Maurus, Adlegoria, s.v. ‘Lepra’).

When a leper became cured of his plague, he
did not resume his place in the community until
he had been ceremonially cleansed. The priest
went outside the city to look on him, and if he saw
that he was healed (1) le commanded that two
living clean birds be brought, with a rod of cedar
wood (probably juniper, the wood of Juniperus
orycedrus supposed to be incapable of decaying)
a cubit lone (Veg. 14. 6), scarlet (wool), and
hyssop (‘the humblest plant for a disease gener-

ated by pride, Widrash Rabba, Noheleth 10. 4).
One bird was to be killed, in an earthen vessel,
over running water—that is, water from a run-

ning stream is to be put into the earthen vessel to
keep the blood liquid, and as a type of purilica-
tion. The living bird and the cedar, to which the
hyssop was to be tied with the searlet woollen
band, are to be dipped in the blood, and the leper
is to be sprinkled therewith seven times. Some

have supposed that, as ‘the blood is the life,’ this |

signifies the imparting of a new life to one who
has, ceremonially, been dead. He is then declared
clean, and therefore permitted to come into the
city ; and the living bird is set free in the open
country—a symbol of the carrying away of the evil
(see Frazer, Golden Bough, ii. 151). (2) The leper
is then to wash his clothes, shave off all his hair,
and bathe; but must stay outside his house for 7
days; he then repeats the ablutions and shaving,
and (3) on the Sth day makes his πὰ] offering at
the temple. This consists (7) of a guilt-offering
of a he-lamb, which with a log (about 3 gills) of
olive oil was to be waved before the Lord, and the
lamb was to be killed. The priest was then to
take some of its blood, and to touch with it the
right ear, the right thumb, and the right great toe
of the cleansed man; the priest was then to pour
the consecrated oil into the palm of his left hand,
and, dipping his right forefinger in it, he was to
sprinkle some of it seven times before the Lord,
and then to touch with it the places upon which
the blood of the guilt-offering had been put, and the
rest of the oil was to he poured on the leper’s head.
This offering was a reparation to God for the loss
of service during the time of his seclusion—the
blood and oil typifying atonement and reconsecra-
tion. (4) A second he-lamb was to be offered as a
sin-offering, as an atonement for sin on his re-
admission into the congregation, and afterwards
(ὦ) a ewe-lamb was to be offered as a burnt-otfer-
ing, and ths of an ephah (about 75 quarts) of
flour as a meal-offering. During these ceremonies
the man stood in the Nieanor gate between the
Court of the women and the Court of Israel, into
which he was not free to enter until the purifica-
tion was accomplished. A poor man was allowed

_ probable.

to substitute two doves for the second pair of
lambs, one for the sin-offering and one for the
burnt-offering, and needed only to bring 75th of an
ephah of flour for the meal-offering (Ly 141-32),

In medieval times a man who was a leper was
formally excluded from the Church by a funeral
mass, in which earth was thrown on his feet as a
sign of symbolic burial, the priest saying ‘sis
mortuus mundo, vivens iterum Deo.’ ‘The leper
then laid aside his garments in the church and put
ona black habit. An aceount of the rituals ob-
served in connexion with lepers is given by
Martene (de Rit. Antiq. iii. 10). The ceremonies
for the readmission of those healed were similar
to the penitential and reconciliation ceremonies
for the other hiemantes.

Opinions are divided as to the nature of Job’s
disease. The Talmudists called it Aa/ok or scratch
ing leprosy (Baba Kammea 80b). From the deserip-
tion of the symptoms (2%) and of his isolation
(191), it has been supposed to be some form of
leprosy * (see MEDICINE). For older opinions on
the subject see Wedel, de Morbo Hiobi, Jena, 1687.

Leprosy in Garments.—In Ly 134" is a descrip-
tion of certain reddish or ereenish discolorations
in garments, woollen, linen, or leathern, which are
called zaraath manvereth (v.), a fretting leprosy,
‘ating a hole in a garment. It is probably the
effect of a fungus or mildew, said, but with slight
evidence, to be from the use of the wool of dead or
diseased sheep (Michaelis, Com. on Laws of Moses,
ili. 290), or from the skin of a diseased animal; but
this would not account for its attacking linen.
Whether it is due to a specific parasite (as Form-
stecher supposed, 15)". des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts,
1847, No. 82) or not is uncertain, but this is im-
If after a week’s seclusion the stain
spreads, the garment is pronounced unclean, and is
to be burnt. If it have not spread, the fabric is to
be washed and shut up for seven days more, when,
if it remain unchanged, it is to be burnt; but if it
fade after washing, the spot is to be torn out and
burnt, and the rest of the garment is to be washed
and pronounced clean. Where garments are worn
for a long time, as they often are in the East,
fungus growths are ποῦ unlikely to occur. It has
been supposed that the ‘garment spotted by. the
flesh? of Jude* refers to this; perhaps also there
is a reference in Job 1355 and 9015,

Leprosy in the House.— Certain discoloured
patches on the inner walls of a house are said to be
leprous (Ly 144). These are described as hollow
strakes, sh?hidriroth, that is, depressed spots,
coloured greenish or reddish. When discovered,
the occupant is to empty the house, lest, if pro-
nounced unclean, all in the house be defiled. The
priest is then called to inspect, and he shuts up the
house for a week. If it spread in this time, the
stones are to be taken out and cast into an unclean
place; the plaster is to be scraped off the walls,
and the house re-plastered. If no return take
place, the house is clean ; but if it reeur, the whole
house is to be destroyed. Before the cleansed
house is inhabited, a cleansing ceremony similar to
the first part of the cleansing ceremony of the
leper is to be performed. It is probable that this -
disease is the formation of a flocculent mass of
calcium nitrate, such as often takes place when
the gases set free from decaying animal matter
act on the lime of plaster, and is sometimes
called mural salt. This, with an accompaniment
of mould or other hyphonycetous fungus, produces
an appearance like that described (see Blechrodt,
Theoret. - Pract. Abhandl. wher die Ursachen der
Feuchtigheit in Gebduden, Weimar, 1839, 45).
Jerome spiritualizes this plague, ‘ Arbitror cum in

* So Davidson, Dillmann, and most modern commentators ;
ef. Dt 2827.

f all, Dillmann-Ryssel, 2. k
| ences to the literature of the subject will be found.

191 4s, of the name Laish (which see).
j Gentibus, ete.

LESHEM

LEVI 9.

parietibus domus lepra esse referatur, hereticam
perfidiam ποίαν (Δ. χχχῖν.).

LITERATURE.—The bibliography of leprosy is immense, but
most of the older treatises are of little value. The best are
Bartholinus, de Morbis Biblicis, Hafnizw, 1671; also the treatises
of Dorndort (Zurich, 1728), Withof (Duisburg, 1758), Eschenbach
(Rostock, 1774), Chamseru (Mém. de la societé d’émulation,
Paris, 1810, 111. 335), Jahn (Biblische Arehdologie, Wien, 1818,
ii. 355), Zensler (Greschichte des abendldndischen Aussatzes).

For the modern literature the most useful works are Abraham,

jin Allbutt’s System of Medicine, ii. 413 Report of the Leprosy

Commission to India, London, 18933; also Report of the Com-
mission to the Cape of Good Hope, 1894-95 ; Hillis, Leprosy in
British Guiana, 1881; Carter, Leprosy and lephantiasis,
1874; Rake, Reports of the Trinidad Asylum, 1889-1893 ;

| Danielssen and Boeck, Traité de la Spédalskhed, Paris, 1898 ;
1

Minch, Prokaza na Tuge Rossti, Kiev, 1889; Fox and Far-
quhar, Endemic Skin Diseases of India, London, 1876; Wolters

jin Centralblatt fiir Bakteriologie, xiii. 1893; Simpson, Ndin-
burgh Medical Journal, 1841-42, vols. lvi., lvii.; Thin, Leprosy,

London, 1893; J. R. Bennett, Diseases of the Bible, 1887. For
an account of the Knights of St. Lazarus, who had always a
leper for their Grand Master, see Helyot, Ordres Monast. 1721 ;
Mochsen, de ined. equ/t. dignit. ornat. p. 56.

On the Levitical prescriptions regarding leprosy, see, above
r-Lv, Ὁ. 553 ff., where further refer-

᾿ A. MACALISTER.
LESHEM (o2'5).—A form, occurring only in Jos
Ὶ Wellh. (de
47) emends ov9, which is admitted
by Dillm. to have been ‘perhaps’ the original
pronunciation.

LESSAU (A Λεσσαού, Vit Aeecao’).—A village
(κώμη) Where an encounter took place between the
Jews and Nicanor, 2 Mae 14!* The site: is un-
known, and the text is uncertain. Dessau of AV
may be due to the frequent interchange of A and

Ain uncial Greek, or (as Ewald conjectured) it may

be another form of ldusa (cf. 1 Mac 73).

LET.—There are two Anglo-Saxon verbs some-
what alike in spelling but directly opposite in

meaning, /a@tan to permit, and Jeffan to hinder.
In middle English έν. became Ueten, and lettan

᾿ (ὁ κατέχων, RV ‘one that restraineth’).
occurs also in Pr. Bk., Collect for 4th Sun. in

the race that is set before us.’

_ worldly business’; but
changed into ‘hindered.’
earlier versions which have been changed in AV

became /etfen, and they were still distinguishable.

~The double ¢ was kept by careful writers in the
} verb meaning ‘to hinder,
- fhindrance,’ as by Milton in Areopagitica (Hales ed.

2

p. 57, 1. 1}, ‘evill hath abounded in the Chureh by
this lett of licencing.” But when it was dropped
there was no way, except by the general sense of
the passage, of distinguishing two words whose

meanings were so different that a mistake was
equivalent to the insertion or omission of a not.

In AV the verb occurs six times with the sense

of ‘hinder,’ and is always spelt in the ed. of

1611 with one ¢, Ex δ' ‘Wherefore do ye, Moses

-and Aaron, let the people from their works?’
QyeA, RV ‘loose’);

Nu 2216mars. «Be not thou

’

letted from coming unto me’ (text, ‘Let nothing
hinder thee’);
| shail let it?’ (maxes, AVm ‘shall turn it back,’
~RVm ‘reverse it’);
spirit... which cannot be letted’? (akéAurov, RV

Is 43 -°T will work, and who
Wis 77? ‘an understanding

‘unnindered’) ; Ro 1 ‘oftentimes I purposed to
come unto you, (but was let hitherto)’ (ἐκωλύθην,

| RV ‘was hindered’): 2 Th 27 < only he who now

letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way’
The verb

Advent, ‘we are sore let and hindered in running
Inthe Pr. bk:..-of
1552, 1559, and 1604 (Communion), we read, ‘It is
an easy matter for a iman to say, 1 will not com-
municate, because [ am otherwise letted with
in 1662 “letted’ was

Examples from the

are Job 31 Coy. ‘Yet they of myne owne hous-

_holde saye: who shal let us, to have oure bely ful

of his flesh?’ 1 P 37 Tind. ‘that youre prayers be

or the subst. meaning |

not let... Cranmer is fond of the word, frequently
using it along with one or more synonyms, as
Works, i. 82, ‘she wrote letters to the Pope, calling
upon him in God’s behalf to stop and let the said
Inarriage’; ἢ. 85, ‘do not interrupt, let, or hinder
the said David.’

As a subst. ‘let’ is found in AV only in the
heading to Dt 15, ‘It must be no let of lending or
giving.’ It occurs occasionally in Pr. Bk. In
the Preface to the Scotch Liturgy of 1637 we read,
‘ After many lets and hindrances, the same cometh
now to be published, to the good, we trust, of all
Gods people, and the increase of true piety, and
sincere devotion amongst them.’ ‘In all our pro-
mises,’ says Tindale {θυ p. 57), ‘it is to be
added, If God will, and If there be no lawful let.’

J. HASTINGS,

LETHECH occurs in AVm and RVim of Hos 3?
instead of ‘an half homer’ which is read in the
text of both AV and RV. Both the original read-
ing of the passage and the capacity of the measure
(2), called lethech, are uncertain. For the MT
ons anp the LXX reads νέβελ οἴνου, ‘a skin of
wine,’ which may or may not imply that a different
Heb. text from the present lay before the Greek
translator (see Nowack, ad doc.). According to
Jewish tradition, the lethech=} homer=4 bushels.
See art. WEIGHTS AND MraAsures. It has been
computed that the whole amount of grain here
mentioned would have been equal in value to 15
shekels of silver, so that the price paid by Hosea in
money and kind together would be 80. shekels.
He thus re-acquired his wife for the cost of a slave
Gh. ise ΦΧ ιν J. A. SELBIE.

LETTER.—-See EPISTLE.
LETUSHIM (oe%eb, Λατουσιείμ) and LEUMMIM

(a2N9, Aowu(tjefu).—Sons of Dedan, Gn 959, The
MT gives the names of Dedan’s sons as Ashurim,
Letushim, and Leummim; but the LXX prefixes
to this list Raguel (‘Payouy\) and Nabdeel (Nader).
The three given by the MT are pointed as plurals,
and hence were regarded by some ancient inter-
preters as descriptive epithets (so Targ. Onk.) ;
and the third of the names, Lemma (‘nations ἢ
in Heb.), lends itself well to that explanation ;
some races which the ethnologist chose to classify
among Dedanites may have been known as
‘nations’ or ‘hordes,’ just as the Berbers are
called by the Arabs Δα α ἢ or ‘tribes,’ and their
laneuage Δα τ, For Letushiin the Rabbis (Rashi,
ad loc.) suggest an etymology from the Hebrew
verb vy; meaning ‘scattered’; they can indeed
point with justice to the interchange of > and 3
at the beginning of words, but this explanation
does not seem satisfactory. The apparent con-
nexion of this word with the verb v2) ‘to sharpen’
is rather in favour of the view (taken by Steiner
in Schenkel’s Bibel-Levicon) that the words repre-
sent names of trades; and such a classification
would bear a curious likeness to that of the S.
Arabian Parias, some of whom are called H/@ik,
‘weavers,’ etc. (Maltzan, Ieisen in Arabien, i.
190, 101. The greater number of authorities,
however, regard these words as proper names, and
Letushim las been compared with .we> of some
Nabatiean inscriptions (Ley, 2. 1 xiv. 403, 404),
while a name resembling Lemiimim has been found
in a Sabiean inseription (Orf, deb, Ler). If they
are personal names, the final o could be more
easily explained from Sabiean than from Nabatiean.

| Glaser (Shizze, il. 461) thinks the home of the

tribes thus designated is to be sought in the
Sinaitic peninsula, but he throws no new lght
on the name. D. 8. MARGOLIOUTH.

LEYI (Ὁ, LXX Aev(e)i(v)).—Son of Jacob and

or ee ἢ

100 LEVI LEVI
Leah. The meaning and derivation of the name are | of a sacrifice at a family meal. A portion of the
uncertain. (1) In Gn 9091 (J) Levi is interpreted as | flesh was set aside for a guest whom it was desired

joined, ve. husband to wife; the root davai is used
with this meaning in the reflexive conjugation
(Niphal), Is 56% ®, Ps 83%: in Arab. it=‘ turn, bend.’
In Nu 18*-4(P) there is a word-play; the tribe of
Levi is joined to, attendant on, Anvon. After the
establishment of the Levites as subordinate temple
ministers, this meaning was read into their name ;
it does not, of course, represent an etymology in
the strict sense. (2) Lagarde, Ovrientaulia ii. 20,
Mittheilungen i. 544%, explains Levites as those
who attached themselves to, accompanied, the Israel-
ites at the Exodus from Eeypt; like Moses, they
were Egyptians. The name might also mean
those who were attached to the ark. Thus Levi
is not a name like the names of the other patri-
archs, but an adjective; and it need not have borne
the same meaning in the time of Ezra as in the
time of Solomon or Moses. (3) Baudissin, Gesch.
AT’ Priesterthums 72 n2, finds in the name an
original abstract meaning, ἔδοτε ἡ following, escort,’
from which the adj. /ér¢ was formed, in the sense
of one who escorted the ark. The name was thus
first given to the tribe of priestly servants, and
from them to the ancestor of the tribe. Against
these views see Kautzsch, δ Κα, 1890, 771 f.. who
points out that the manner in which Levi is con-
nected with Simeon by a merely genealogical and

political relationship, sueh as exists in the case of |

the other sons of Jacob, makes it impossible to
see in Levi the special character which the above
views presuppose. The name of the tribe was not
derived from the name of any official function ;
the escort of the ark was not the prerogative of
the Levites only, for in the older narratives it is
the priests who have this charge. Similarly, Stade,
ZATLW i. 1881, 112-116, insists, with reason, that

no different origin can be allowed to Levi than is |

given to the other patriarchs. Against deriving
Jevi from lavah, he urges the form ot the noun with
é, and the fact that in early times Levi was a
purely secular tribe, Gn 4957, (4) Hommel, Aaf-
satze u. Abhaundlungen 304., Sud-Arab. Chrestom.
127, AHT 9181., connects levi with daviu (fem.
laviat)=priest, on the Minwan inseriptions from
el-Ola, N. of Medina; and Mordtmann, Beitrage
zc. mindischen Epigraphik, 1897, 48, and Sayce,
Karly Hist. of the Hebs. 1897, 80, agree with him.
The usage of the word in these inscriptions (‘a priest
of Wadd,’ ‘ his priestess’) is, however, very different
from the usage of Levi in the OT. Such an ex-
pression as ‘a Levite of J”? is never found ; and
the primary meaning of Levite is not ‘priest,’ but
‘a member of the tribe of Levi.’ (5) Wellhausen,
Proleqgomena® 146, proposes an etymology which
has been widely accepted, and may be considered
the most plausible yet put forward : Levi is simply
a gentilic form of his mother’s name, Leah =‘ wild
cow’ (Arab. dw@ay, la’at), So Stade, ZATIV i.
112-116, GV Ji. 146, 152f.; Gray, Hebr. Pr. Names
96, ete. No6ldeke on the whole accepts this, though
not without hesitation, ZDAMWG xi. 1886, 167.*
Robertson Smith, who maintains that ‘the most
ancient division of the Israelites is between Rachel
and Leah,’ both animal names, detects in this
family history the presence of the matriarchal
system of reckoning descent, and the custom of
calling tribes after the names of animals (totemism);
Kinship and Marriage 30, 195, 219 f.,257. (6) Two
other etymologies may be mentioned. Wellhausen,
Skizzen wu. Vorarbeiten iii. 114n. [the note is
omitted in the second edition (1897), p. 119], alludes
to the ancient Arabic custom of consuming the flesh

* Of the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Levi, almost
half have names with this gentilic ending, e.g. Merari, Mahli,
Mushi (from Mosheh, Moses), Libni, Shimei, Bukki, Uzzi, Kishi,
etc. (Nu 317-21 2658, 1 Ch 61-48).

to treat with special honour (cf. 1S 955), and called
the devisja (Agh. vii. 76. 6). The lavijja would be
the priests’ portion; hence possibly the origin of
the name Levi. In this connexion we can hardly
fail to remember the Miniean /avi'u =‘ priest.’
σα. H. Skipwith, in the JQ xi. 1899, 264, ingeni-
ously connects levi with leviathan, the root lavah
describing the coils of the serpent. This suggests
that Levi derived his name from a serpent-god, and
may explain why the Levite Moses selected the
brazen serpent, Nehushtan, as an emblem of the
God of Israel !

Early history of Levi.—An incident in the early
history of Levi is preserved in Gn 34. The young
Canaanite chief, Shechem, had conceived a passion
for Dinah, the sister of Simeon and Levi, and had
‘humbled’ her, to the indignation of the sons of
Jacob (vv.22 357), The two brothers undertook
to avenge the outrage themselves ; they assassin-
ated Shechem, and earried off Dinah out of his
house (vv.2: 26), That the action of Simeon and
Levi was treacherous and savage is implied in J,
the earlier of the two documents which are com-
bined in Gn 84. Shechem had accepted the terms
imposed upon him by the father and brethren of
the Nat (γν.11- 12-19), What the terms were is
not stated ; possibly the circumcision of the bride-
eroom before marriage (Wellhausen, Proleg.® 355 n.,
Composition 319: οἵ. Ex 44°85, and Robertson
Smith, RS 310), or the grant of a piece of territory
to Jacob near Shechem (Cornill, ZA ZIV, 1891, 12,
cf. Gn 37%), Whatever the agreement was,
Simeon and Levi violated it, and acted independ-
ently of their brethren, who took no part in the
deed of violence, and of their father, who bitterly
resented it. We may notice that Jacob’s reproof
is prompted by instinets of self-preservation, and
not by moral displeasure. The two brothers, how-
ever, take up a moral ground in their retort, evi-
dently with the sympathy of the narrator (3-4 1).*

The story may be understood to describe an
episode in the early struggles of Israel in Canaan
atter the Exodus. The attachment of Shechem,
son of Hamor, to Dinah, daughter of Jacob, will
then represent an alliance between a branch of the
Israelite family and the city of Shechem ; and the
action of Simeon and Levi may be interpreted
either as an attempt to seize by force this important
city for themselves, or as a blow struck to free the
Israelite element in the city from the danger of
being swallowed up by the Canaanite majority.
Whatever the motive may have been, the tradition
is clear that there was treachery and violence on
the Israelite side, and that in consequence Simeon
and Levi received a repulse from which they never
recovered. Simeon became merged in Judah, with
undefined possessions on the S. frontier (cf. Jos
101-9 with 1526-82 42), thoueh the tribe does not seem
to have been so completely shattered as Levi
(Je P37); while Levi also found shelter in Judah,
but for the most part became a homeless wanderer
in the territory of the other tribes.

This is the state of things implied in Gn 4957
‘JT will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in

*The above follows the earlier narrative, J. In the other
account, by some assigned to E (Wellh., Cornill, Holzinger), by
others to P (Dillmann, Driver P possibly based on E, Ball 5);
Hamor, on behalf of his son, negotiates a general marriage
alliance, vv.8 9; the circumcision of all males is stipulated and
accepted as the condition, vv. 141’. 20-24a, and all the sons_of
Jacob wreak their vengeance with wholesale slaughter vv. 25ac.
27-29 (cf. the later narratives of the conquest of Canaan). Per-
haps the vengeance was ascribed to all Israel because of the
later feeling about mixed marriages, cf. Nu 256-9 317-11 (P), Ezr
91210, If this narrative belongs to E, an editor of the school
of P (vy.15b. 22. 24) has worked over the whole after the com-
bination of J and E. See especially on this ch. Kuenen, ThT
xiv. 257=Gesammelte Abhandlungen vi.; Wellhausen, Com-
position 312-319; Cornill, ZATW, 1891, 1-15.

LEVI

LEVI 101

[5186]. The verses express, in the language of
vigorous denunciation, the popular verdict upon
the offending tribes. It must have taken shape
not long after the deed was done ; and as the inci-
dent of Gn 34 belongs most probably to the early
days of the conquest of Canaan, this will agree
very well with the date generally accepted for the
Blessing of Jacob, the period of the Judges, Samuel,
and David. Neither Simeon nor Levi is mentioned
in the Song of Deborah, Je 5.

Levi and the Priesthood.— The next important
evidence for the early history of Levi is furnished
by Je 17 and 18, a most ancient document. Here,
for the first time, the Levite isa priest. The follow-
ing facts are to be gleaned from these chapters.
(1) The Levite comes from Judah, the headquarters
of the tribe, Jg 177%. Both in these chs. and in

191-185. the Levites are connected with Judah ; two
jof them come from Bethlehem 177°.* We can
j detect traces of this connexion in the names ot
ssome Levitical families, such as Libni, Hebroni,
[ΚΟΥ Ὁ
Ι (2) But if the Levites had found a home in
Judah, their dispersion had already begun; the
. pressure of circumstances was driving them to seek
) a maintenance where they could find one, Jg 17° *.
(3) At this period any one might become.a priest.
) Micah could consecrate one of his sons to the priest-
) hood, 17°. But if a Levite could be found, he was
much preferred, as being specially qualified for the
ottice, Je 17138 18! The Levite ministered in
any private or local sanctuary where his services
were paid for, Jg 174 1? 18+, His special skill
day in consulting and interpreting the sacred oracle
(18%), and in conducting the ritual of the ephod,
teraphim, and graven or molten image (17° 1818.
20. 30

(4) Two points about the family of the Levite
(or Levites) in this story call for special notice,
In 177 it is said that ‘the young man’ was ‘ of the
family of Judah’; in 18* that the Levite Jonathan
was a grandson of Moses. The former of these
statements raises a difficulty : how could a Levite
be described as belonging to the family of Judah?
It has been suggested (Wellhausen, Moore) that
‘Levite’ here denotes the office, not the race ; the

point of importance in early times being not the
| pedigree but the art of the priest. If this could
be established, the difficulty is disposed of. But
it is hard to believe that at this early period,
which cannot be far removed from the date to
which Gn 34 and 497 belong, the Levites as a tribe
had disappeared, and that their name had been
given to a priestly caste which was open to the
member of any tribe who might care to enter it
(see Wellhausen, Pro/eg.® 146; Hommel, A HT 268).
No satisfactory explanation has been given of the
words ‘of the family of Judah’ as they stand.
They seem to be omitted by LXX B, and are treated
by Kuenen and Kautzsch (Heil. Schr.) as a gloss ;
but a scribe would hardly invent such a statement
about a Levite. Budde, Lichter 116, suggests
(after Studer) that the words have been altered
out of respect for Moses,t and that the original
reading was ‘of the family of Levi,’ or ‘of the
family of Moses.’ For want of any better explana-
tion, this correction may be provisionally accepted.
At the close of the story (1859) it is stated that

“~ Two narratives are interwoven in ch. 17. According to one
there is a young Levite (03:7) residing in Micah’s neighbourhood,
whom Micah treats as a son, consecrates and makes his priest
(vy.7-11b.12a), The other narrative tells how a Levite (ΝΠ)
from Bethlehem comes, in the course of his wanderings, to
Micah’s house, and is hired by him as his priest (νν. δ 1θα, 120. 18),

t Wellhausen, 752". wu. Jiid. Geschichte? 191n. Korah (Korah)
seems to have been originally a clan of Judah, 1 Ch 248,

{The same motive, to avoid connecting the priest of Dan
with Moses, instigated the Jewish correction of Moses into

Manasseh in 1839, Perhaps this is the reason why LXX B omits
the words here.

Miecah’s Levite, who had been kidnapped by the
Danites, became the founder of a line of priests
who ministered at the chief sanctuary of Dan
until the exile of the ten tribes in 722, or of the
N. tribes in 734 (2 IK 1539). Jonathan’s priesthood
was therefore hereditary,* and, what is more, his
descent is traced back through Gershom to Moses.
It is probable that we have here a clue to the
obscure problem, How did the Levi of Gm 34 and
49 become the Leviof the sanctuary? Most likely
the answer is, Through the influence and position
of Moses. Moses was the founder of Israel's
religion, the chief minister of the sanctuary ; and
Moses was a Levite. His own clan supported and
followed him (Ex 32°6% E). The sacred lore of
the priesthood, the traditions of public worship,
the usages of the oracle, were preserved in his
family and handed down to his descendants. ‘Thus
we find the Mosaic families of Gershom and of the
Mushites (probably from Mosheh, Moses) mentioned
in the genealogies of P, Nu 37-21-33 Q6°7 | 1 Ch 6117-19,
The priesthood, however, was not confined to the
family or tribe of Moses; but the prestige of his
name, the importance of his position in the history
of the national religion, induced those priests, who
did not necessarily belong to his race, to call them-
selves Levites, and to justify the title by some kind
of genealogical fiction, or by the common Semitic
practice of regarding membership of a guild or
order as equivalent to sonship.| In this way
there grew up a priestly tribe ot Levi which looked
upon Moses as the founder of their order and the
ancestor of their race.t The formation of such a
tribe was rendered all the easier because there had
existed an ancient tribe of Levi, which, although
it was broken up in the early davs of the occupa-
tion of Canaan, nevertheless produced one famous
son who became the ancestor of a new Levi with a
changed character. When the change began it is
impossible to say; it must have come about by
degrees. Those who maintain that the Levite of
the early period of the Judges (Jg 17. 18) could
belong to ‘the family of Judah’ and at the same
time claim to be a grandson of Mos 5 (1859), do not
appear to allow sufiicient time for the official sense
ot Levite and the artificial connexion with Moses
to have established themselves.

A different account of what may be called the
conversion of Levi from the barbarous tribe to the
priestly caste is given by van Hoonacker in his
work, La Sacerdoce Lévitique, 1899, 804-311. His
view may be mentioned as representative of those
which differ from the account given above. He
takes Gn 34 as referring to an incident of the
first immigration of the Hebrew clans into Canaan.
Gn 49 is also assigned to a pre-Mosaic date, chiefly
on the ground that it is unlikely that the tribe to
which Moses belonged would be spoken of in the
terms of vv.°7 so soon after his death, if the Bless-
ing of Jacob be assigned to the period of the
Judges. In the early days of the settlement in
Canaan after the Exodus, the tribe of Levi pos-
sessed not only the prestige of its connexion with
Moses, but the prerogatives of the priesthood
which it owed to him. Not much later, in the
period of the Judges, we find Levites popularly
regarded as priests: the interval not lone
enough for the change in the character of the

is

* Similar establishments of hereditary priests are mentioned
at Shiloh (Eli) and at Nob (Ahimelech), 1S 196. 591, The priest-
hood of Shiloh was traced back to the family of Moses (1S 227,
though this is a post-Dt. passage) through Phinehas, son of
Eleazar, son of Aaron (Nu 2513 P, 1S 230, Jos 2433 Ε). Well-
hausen regards Eleazar as= Eliezer, son of Moses (Ex 184), and
so makes the priesthood of Shiloh directly Mosaic, Proleg.3 144.

+ In the oldest documents the descent is traced back to Moses
rather than to Aaron. Moses, not Aaron, is the chief minister
of the sanctuary in Ex 337-11 E, The designation of Levites as
“sons of Aaron’ belongs to P.

t See Benzinger, Leb. Archdol. 416 ff.

102 LEVIATHAN

LEVITICUS

tribe to have taken place. Accordingly, van
Hoonacker believes that the ‘conversion’ of Leyi
oceurred during the sojourn of Israel in Egypt,
and supposes that Levi developed not only a
capacity for assimilating the culture and civiliza-
tion of Egypt.* but a special zeal for the national
religion. In this way the Levites naturally rallied
round Moses in his great religious enterprise, and
because of their superior culture became recognized
as the spiritual organ of the community. Against
the view of van Hoonacker it may be said that
the evidence is no more in favour of the conver-
sion of Levi having taken place in Eeypt than
in the period which followed the struggle for
Canaan ; while the historical and geographical
conditions implied in the Blessing of Jacob are
not those of the pre-Mosaic¢ but the post-Mosaie age.

It does not fall within the scope of this article
to deal with the later developments and organiza-
tion of the priestly tribe of Levi, whieh will be fully
treated of πὶ art. PRiksts AND Levirrs. Besides
Jg 17 and 18, 19 and 20, the only other places in pre-
exilic historical books where Levites are mentioned
are 15 6”, 28 154, 1 K Θ᾽ 19} and all of these ap-
pear to be secondary or Deuteronomic.+ One other
nportant passage, however, requires mention, to
complete the early account of Levi, Dt 83°44 The
Blessing of Moses ‘breathes the bright and happy
spirit of the earlier narratives of the Kings,’ and
may be dated shortly after the separation under
Jeroboam 1. By this time, then, we find that
Levi has become thoroughly established as the
priestly tribe, enjoying the priestly rights of
administering the divine oracle and = instruction
(torah), and offering incense and sacrifice ; though
it appears that the exclusive priesthood of the
Levites was not without its opponents even at
this period (Dt 38"). The Blessing describes the
character of the ideal Levite by an allusion to
past history when the fidelity and disinterestedness
of the tribe were conspicuously proved. Though
Levi is not) mentioncd in connexion with the
events of Massah and Meribah (Ex17'-7, Nu 201-18),
yet it is possible that another version of these
incidents was current in which the tribe was in
some way tested by Jehovah.t The other past
event alluded to is that in Ex 32°7*9) when the
Levites distinguished themselves by remarkable
disinterestcdness. The reference to this occasion
is, however, disputed ; for the verbs in Dt 33!*e
may be translated as presents and not as pasts,
and the statement may be merely a general one.
Nevertheless, the allusion to Ex 32 may be implied
at the same time.

The principal authorities have been cited above.
Besides these may be mentioned Graf, Geschichte
des Stammes Lert in Merx, Archiv. 1867, i. 68-
106, 208-236; Edu. Meyer, Geschichte des Alter-
thums, 1884, 1. 377 ff; Kr. v. Hummelauer, S.J.,
Das vormosaische Priesterthum in Israel, 1899,

G. A. COOKE.

LEVIATHAN (jamb Jiwyathan).—The description
of leviathan (Job 41) clearly points to the crocodile
(LXX δράκων). Again, the mention of leviathan
(LXX δράκοντες, Ps 744) is in the middle of an
allusion to the miracles connected with the Exodus
of the Israelites. Leviathan here is to be under-
stood as the crocodile, the emblem of ‘Pharaoh,
the king of Egypt, the great dragon (tannim) that
lieth in the midst of his rivers’ (Ezk 9209. “The
people inhabiting the wilderness’ (Ps, 2.6.) are the
wild beasts of the desert, to which Pharaoh’s host

* Van Hoonacker notices the Egyptian proper names among
Levitical families, Phinehas, Putiel (Ex 625), Moses; and the
unique expression about the ancestors of Eli’s family, 1S 227
‘when they were in Egypt, servants (LXX) to the house of
Pharaoh.’

t Nowack, Heb. Archdol. ii. 91n.

t Driver, Deuteronomy 400.

became a prey (comp. ‘people,’ ‘folk,’ Pr 8035. 36),
On the other hand, leviathan of the sea (Ps 104°,
ΤᾺΝ δράκων) cannot be the crocodile. It is probably
the whale. Whales are not rare in the Mediter-
ranean, which is doubtless the ‘sea great and wide’
(v.”). Parts of skeletons of two rorquals are pre-
served in the Museum of the Syrian Protestant
College at Beirfit. One was thrown on shore near
Tyre, and the other at Beirfit itself. In Job 38
‘leviathan’ of RV and AVm (AV ‘their mourn-
ing’) is taken by most modern conmimentators to
refer to the dragon, which in popular nythology
was believed to darken or eclipse the sun and
moon by ‘ throwing its folds round them or swallow-
ing them up. Enchanters were supposed to have
power to set this dragon in motion’ (Davidson,
Job, p. 20). The same mythological allusion
underlies Job 26" (see Dillmann’s note) and Is 27}
(see Cheyne, ad loc.). G. Ἐς Pos

LEVIRATE LAW.—See MARRIAGE.
LEVIS (A Aevis, B -eis), 1 Es 9%. — Wronely

taken as a proper name in this book ; in Ezr 10%
‘Shabbethai the Levite’ stands in place of ‘ Levis
and Sabbateus.’

LEVITES.—Sce LEVI and Priests AND LEVITES.

LEYITICUS (called by the Jews, from its open-
ing word, sqp1; other names found in the Mishna
are o305 mia (‘Law of Priests’), ‘2 122 (‘ Book of
Priests’), ΓΤ), azo (‘Book of Offerings’), ef.
Menach, iti. 4; Megilla, iii. 6; Siphra, ete. ; LXX
Λευ(ε)ιτικόν (ef. Philo, Λευιτικὴ βίβλος); Vule. Leriti-
cus).—Leviticus is the third part of the sixfold
work now generally known as the Hexateuch.
It belongs in its entirety to the Priestly school
of writers (P). For the explanation and proof of
this statement see art. HEXATEUCH.

As the whole book can be ascribed to a single
‘document,’ it might seem that the literary prob-
lem was a simpler one than in the case of Genesis
and Exodus. In fact, however, the questions that
demand solution are, though in large measure
different from, yet no less complex than, those of
the earlier books. The geologist who has settled
to what ‘formation’ the rocks of a district belong,
has yet to investigate the composition and relative
order of the perhaps dislocated and contorted strata
which are comprised under the same general titie,
In the art. on Exopus (8 IV.) we have already
seen how documents after being separated from
others may be again resolved into distinct com-
ponents. The extent to which this process is
‘arried out below may seem unwarranted, for,
though many of the points are fully treated in
well-known works like Kuenen’s //ea, and Driver's
LOT, it has not been usual to press the analysis
so far. It is, however, believed that the main
lines are firmly laid on grounds that have proved
generally convincing, even though details may be
regarded as unsettled.

LITERARY STRUCTURE.—The 27 chapters fall
readily apart into four divisions which are suc-
cessively discussed, 1.6. (1) the Law of Sacrifice,
1-7; (2) the Consecration of the Priesthood, 8-10 ;
(3) the Law of Clean and Unclean, with appendix
on the Day of Atonement, 11-16; (4) the Law of
Holiness, with appendix, 17-27. ;

(V.B.—For explanation of abbreviations and
signs see EXODUS).

§ 1. 1-7: The Law of Sacrifice.
A. Analytical Summary.

Pt denotes material consisting of priestly teaching or torah
codified before Ps, and subsequently incorporated.
Ps marks sections written after Ps.

LEVITICUS

LEVITICUS 105

+ in any column shows supplements of the same school and
period.

t Many similar titles or introductory clauses, added by the
compiler, are left to the student to notice.

a6 acid
187 A MANUAL FOR WORSHIPPERS, |
11-23 Rp Title.
12b-9 BURNT-OFFERING of the herd. |
10-13 : ᾿ Ἶ . of the flock. \
+ 14-17 | ; ‘ ἢ . of fowls. |
213 | MEAL-OFPERING of fine flour. |
4 413 . baked, ete. |
+ 14-17 ἢ it ᾿ . of firstfruits.
31.5 PEACE-OFFERING of the herd.
6-11 z . of the tlock : sheep.
12-16 . . ᾷ goats.
17 : ‘ A . eating fat or blood forbidden.
41-12 SIN-OFFERING for anointed priest.
13-21 : for whole congregation,
22.25 ᾿ for a ruler.
27-31 : : . for any person (a goat).
+ 32-35 | F A ‘ ‘ . ᾿ (a lamb).
51-6 SIN-OFFERING for any person (lamb or coat).
+ 7-10 : : ‘ (fowls for poor).
4+ 11-13 ἥ ‘ ; ‘ . (Meal for poorer).
4 14-16 GUILT-OFFERING for trespass in holy things.
17-19 ὃ ὺ Ν . for unknown sins.
+ 61-7 ‘ ἃ δ .for trespass against ἃ
neighbour,
63-738 A MANUAL FOR PRIESTS.
| 68-0 Rp Title.
60-13 Ritual of BuRNT-OFFERING.
14.18 MEAL-OFFERING. i
+ 19-23 ἢ . of the priest. |
624-25b Rp Title.
25b-29 Ritual of SIN-OFFERING.
630 6 Supplement to above.
et: Ritual of Guit-OFFERING.
78 Priest to have skin of the burnt-offering.
+9 Priest to have meal-offering.
710 Sons of Aaron to have all meal-offerings.
11-21 Ritual of PEACE-OFFERING.
22-27 Eating fat or blood forbidden.
- 28-34 Wave breast and heave thigh for priests.
τε. Anointing portion of priests. Ι
70. Colophon. |

B. Critical Notes.
With regard to this division there are two ques-
tions to answer. (1) Does it form part of the

great Priestly writing (P*) which contains Ex 25-
99% (2) If not, what is its relation to it? Is it,

like Ex 35-40, later, or is it in the main earlier’
Let the facts decide. The process of exhibiting
them will bring out other points requiring special
attention. in these chapters.

a. The directions in Ex 29 for Aaron’s conse-
eration ordered burnt-, sin-, and peace-oflerings.
Now the ritual there prescribed precisely accords
with the requirements of Ly 1-7, which are there-
fore already assumed in a passage which precedes.

b. After Ex 35-40 (or the shorter account of the
erection of the Tabernacle which it has replaced)
we expect to hear of the fulfilment of the other
command, in Ex 29, to consecrate Aaron. But
Lv 1-7 comes in before Lv 8, the account of the
consecration. It appears, that is, as an inter-
ruption.

c. At. the same time, Lv 1-7 is linked with Ps
by a practical identity of sacrificial terminology.

d. Certain elements, however, which are often
mentioned and constantly presupposed in ΡῈ and
Ps, are either absent from these chapters, or appear
in clauses which can be readily removed as inter-
polations, or find place in passages otherwise
marked as exceptional. Such are the presupposi-
tions that the people are living in a camp, that
their sanctuary is the Tent of Meeting, and that
the only priests are Aaron and his sons.

For instance, the Tent of Meeting is unmentioned from 110 to
216; in 18 its occurrence is plainly an interpolation, for it
interrupts the connexion (for the acceptance of the victim

depends, according to 221925, on the absence of blemish).
Awain, in 1-3 the priest occurs 11 times, and Aaron’s sons the
priests (or an equivalent phrase) 11 times. The facts, that
each paragraph reverts to the singular, that sing. verbs follow
plural subjects 15f 110. ete., that LAX twice, and Sam. once,
correct to pl, all go to prove that the priest was the original
term, and that the peculiar phrase Aaron's sons the preests,
15.8.11 22 32, is an adaptation of the simple term the priest by
prefixing Aaron's sons and altering sing. to pl. Contrast the
uniform formula of Ps Aaron and his sons.

e. Moreover, the conspectus A, given above, on
the face of it suggests that 1-7 is not itself
homogeneous. It falls apart into two codes, each
of which treats the whole round of offerings, but
without reference to the other, and with a different
aim and plan. Again, the two codes 1-67 and
6*-7°8 have been themselves subject to revision and
enlargement. The nucleus of 1-67 is 1-8, a little
code which perhaps never dealt with sin- and
euilt-offerings. In any case 5-67 are distinct in
torm, and much more so 4 (P°).

A few instances of the clues which have been followed may
be given as illustrations of method, 2416 is marked as sup-
plementary, for (1) it repeats 13, and (2) it uses thow and ye
instead of he as in the rest of 1-3.—4 distinguishes the altar
of sweet ineense from the altar of burnt-ofering (see art.
Exopvs, LV.), and elaborates ceremonial ; it is therefore given
to Ps (perhaps better to Ps’). In Ex 29 Ps and Lv 8 Ps even
at the consecration of Aaron the blood of the sin-offering was
not as here (4f, ef. 17f) brought into the holy place.—5!6 is
older than 4, because of the variety of cases in view, and the
absence of ritual direction. It has features that connect it
with Pbh,—514-16 and 61-7 are not by author of 51-6, for the guilt-
offering, which in 6 is confused with the sin-offering, is here
clearly assigned to cases of damage done to the interests of
Jahweh or a neighbour.—517-19 interrupts the connexion, and
completes 16, not 1416, In 16 atonement is provided for
unconscious offences after discovery; but what if calamity
vaguely convicts of unknown guilt? Here is the remedy.

The remaining section 687 has also been edited
afresh with several additions. ‘The original work
is easily separated by following the clues given by
the introductory formula 7.15 is the law of... s
and by the list of subjects given in the colophon
77, which concludes this little ‘ Priests’ Manual.’

3oth the order of subjects (see A above), and
the framework in which they are set, support the
view that this section is not based on 1-67, nor
by the same author as 1-3.

f. Except in 4, where the indications point to
a later date than Ps, there are no clear signs that
any of the sections in 1-7, THE LAW OF SACRI-
FICE, formed part of P£ or were subsequent in
date. On the contrary, when a few isolated
phrases have been removed, there is an unbroken
appearance of independence and priority. (In the
Oxf. Analyt. ed. of the Hex. the text is printed
so as to bring this out clearly). And, as this
conclusion agrees with the preceding indications,
it is regarded as established that these chapters
belong to an earlier series of priestly teachings
(doroth), and may be designated P*.

§ 2. 8-10: The Consecration of the Priesthood.
A. Analytical Summary.
i !|
| Pt | Ps a pal
| |
er
| |g in the Consecration of Aaron and his
| main sons.
| g10b- |) : A
| 11. 30 | ; Aaron’s sons, etc., anointed.
| 91-24 The octave of the consecration.
| | 101-5 Death of Nadab and Abihu.
| 106f. | Prohibition of mourning to Aaron
and surviving sons.
108f. Priests on duty not to drink wine.
1010f. Priestly duty as toclean and unclean
12-15r Priests’ dues.
| 1016-25] Blame for not eating sin-offering.
| Ι

B. Critical Notes.
As Ex 35-40 is generally supposed to have taken
the place of an earlier and briefer account of the

104 LEVITICUS

LEVITICUS

fulfilment of ἘΣ 25-28, so Lv 8 is held to be an
expansion of ὃ Aa asl short narrative, of the
consecration of the priesthood as ordered in Ex 29.
In view of its laborious reproduction of Ex 29, and
a few modifications introduced, it would be rash to
assign it to the original draft of Ps,

The anointing of the tent 1%, the altar, etc. 11, and Aaron’s
sons with his and their garments, 89, is irreconcilable with
the absence of such injunction in Ex 297-9, and marks these
verses as glosses, like Ex 254! and part of 2921 (and of the
anointing oil). LXX puts Ly 8100 after 11,

In 91 the main thread of the Priestly Law and
History Book Ps is resumed from Ex 29, the
original brief account of the making and erection
of the sanctuary and consecration of “the priesthood
having probably been displaced by fuller narratives
in Ex 35-40 and Lv 8, as suggested above. Note
that only one altar is mentioned, and that the
blood of the sin-offering is not broueht into the
Holy Place. That 9 is earlier than 4 is seen from
*, and than 8 from 18,

106f. is late Ps, for in 7 anointing is extended to Aaron’s sons
(see above). —108t. is itself a fragment, and to it 1% is loosely
attached. The latter betr ays attinity with Ph, cf, 2024b-25, (ΟἿ,
also Dt 143-90 248 3310,— 1012-15 Except the introductory clause,
this par. recalls Pt. In particular, notice the peculiar expression
a holy place 13 (| a clean place 14), which occurs also in 616. 90.
78 Itis defined in 15. as beside the altar; whereas the clause
in the court of the tent of meeting is probably a gloss in G16. "Ὁ
(in 1017 it is altered into the place of the sanctuary).—In 1016-29,
a late supplement, fault is ae for coutravention of 675 (see
further Kuen, He2, ὃ 6 n. 21).

8 3. 11-16: The Law of Clean and Unclean.
With Appendix on the Day of Atonement.

A. Analytical Summary.
errs !
Ῥι |
---...... Ξ-ὄὄ | [Ps |
Σ᾿ @ | |
«.-...--....-...... es sd lalla cats =
111-8 | CLEAN AND UNCLEAN Foop: land |
| animals. |
119-12 | | Foob THAT IS ABOMINATION : water |
| animals,
12.19 ὼ τ 5 birds.
20-23 r ie " e . Winged
. | creeping)
things.
1124-28 UNCLEAN TO TOUCH: land animals.
29-31 ; . creeping things on
earth,
+.32-38 : ᾿ ν᾿ .« things unclean by
contact.
-} 39f. ‘ dead clean beasts. |
11416. Foon THat 18 ABOMIN ATION ; creeping,
things on earth.
43-44a Conclusion of (2).
J 144a-45 Conclusion of (1).
46f. Colophon to (1) and (2).
121-7 Purification after CHILDBIRTH.
+8 case of poverty. | |
131-23 Leprosy : detection and disc rimina- |
tion, on the skin.
29-44 ‘ ‘ i on the head.
45t. : - rule for lepers.
«41:9 ‘ina garment (with colophon)
141-88 | LEPROSY CLEANSED BY SPECIAL RITES.
| 148b-20 iden ΠἸΣΟΠΕΡΘΗΣ regular sacrifices
4-21-32 : Ν case of poverty.
4-83-53 case of a house.
1454-576. 0 olophon to 131- 45, expanded.
151-83 | SECRETIONS and means of cleansing.
Ps Ps Ps’
16 Day oF ATONEMENT.
162-28 Solemn atonement by Aaron for
the people.
161.3.6 ])
ila. Special atonement for Aaron.
Θῦυ,
1629-31 Day of atonement made annual.
58 This to be repeated by each high
priest.

| PE st yPe Poe |
ne |-—;—
| | | 16342 Annual day of atonement.
1634b ᾿ | Statement as to accomplishment
| | by Aaron.
B. Critical Notes.
Like 1-3. 5-67 6°-7, the chapters 11-15 betray

that they are > stibstantially earlier than Ps, though
subsequently united in their present form with the
main Priestly code. In the case of 11 on food and
contact, and 13f. on Jeprosy, it is possible to dis-
cover several layers of legal material.

11: Oneating and touching animels.—The reasons
for the analysis given above lie mainly on the sur-
face. A section 2% on land animals which are
clean or unclean is followed by "9 which are
in subject a sequel, dealing with water animals,
birds, and winged creeping things, but which no
longer discriminate animals as arclean (ef. Dt
145-30), but as an abomination (Κρ, not Aayin, as
Dt 14°). These verses, again, are continued in #1!
on creeping things upon the earth which are an
abomination; while *%*, which uses the same
word as a verb, forms the obvious conclusion of
the series. Into this series 44 has been thrust,
dealing with the different subject of uncleanness
throueh contact. It is doubtful whether this last
passage is included in the colophon “1:

Dt 14-20 compared with 11. Though interpreters differ, the
facts, when taken all together, favour the priority οἵ Dt over
Ly. a) The clean animals’ names, given Dt [44-, are omitted
in Lv as covered by general law in 6f ; while names of birds,
ete., are retained of necessity. (2) The cases of camel, hare,
and coney are expanded in Ly 114-6, (3) Ly 11912 is an earn:
of Dt 149 (4) The new term abomination is used in Ly. (5) In
its present torm at least Ly 11 in 2449 covers the question of
contact, Which Dt would hardly have omitted had it been con-
tained in the ordinance quoted. (6) Dt omits mention of ereep-
ing things upon the earth, Ly 14 (7) The exceptions in
11°1f are wanting in Dt. (s) The prohibition which is absolute
in Dt 1424 is relaxed in Ly 1159; ef. 1715,

It is hard to say why the abomination series of verses should
begin where it does, seeing that the terminology in Dt is uniform
over the whole range of cases. Perhaps the compiler had before
him two variants of the ordinance quoted in Dt, and found one
fuller than the other in dealing with the later cases. The
signs of reduplication in 912 confirm this conjecture, by re-
vealing the presence of a ‘join’ of the two legal threads.

113449, This section is distinct from 1-8, for (1) it deals
mainly with touching (eating 48 only), while 1-23 deals mainly
with eating (touching 8 and perhaps 11}; (2) it enumer-
ates only the uwnelean, and mentions only two classes in-
stead of five; (3) it prescribes means of cleansing; (4) it is
doubtful if it is included in the colophon. But =449 is hardly
to be reckoned homozeneous. 32-88 is probabiy secondary on
its own account, for the transition is very abrupt from cases of
animals that make persons unclean to cases of things that any
of those animals may make unclean. But if 8 originally
belonged to 2449, then 32-35 js clearly an addition. 89f, how-
ever, Tooks more like a completion of 2:8, perhaps misplaced by
intrusion of the abomination passages. 2431, on the other

| hand, at no point presupposes 2-73, but is complete in itself.

: On purification after childbirth.—This short
Sees whose chief interest lies in the fulfilment
of its conditions at the presentation of Christ in
the temple, seems in 7” to refer to and depend
upon 15, and presents the same features.

The only trace of the camp form of legislation characteristic
of Pg is found in 6b, V.8 is marked as a supplement; for (1) it
comes after the colophon ΤΡ, and (2) elsewhere (7 1421, ef. 114)
the provision for cases of poverty is seen to be a later addition.

13f.: On leprosy.—The laws in this section pre-
sent a very complex problem to the student. Dt

248 cives no details such as are found about clean
and unclean in 14°, but refers for the procedure
in a case of leprosy to the torah of the priests,
presumably oral. The extreme elaboration of
treatment detailed in 13f. may perhaps indicate
that the usage was not committed to writing till
a late period ; but, apart from introductory phrases
and an occasional ‘gloss, there are no signs of the

(ee

———— SE

LEVITICUS

LEVITICUS 105

influence of ῬῈ in the seetions assigned to P* But
these relatively older portions are not homogeneous.
For while 13 is entirely occupied with the detection
and discrimination of leprosy and the regulation
of the leper’s life, and 14 provides for the cleansing
of the recovered leper, each is independent of and
distinct from the other. Each, too, contains earlier
and later elements, which may be readily separated
as in the analysis above.

The colophon 14°4+57 will furnish a good starting-point in
indicating the nature of the argument. Originally, it probably
consisted only of 4b: this is the law of leprosy, in accord-
ance with the usage elsewhere (fifteen times this is the law of...
in PS, and came after 1346, for even in its expanded form there
is no reference to cleansing, and 1347-59 has its own colophon,
Then the reference was made more explicit: this ἐδ the law for
(unique phrase) all manner of plaque of leprosy, and for a seall
54 (referring to 12:35. and 29-44), to teach when it is unelean and
when it is clean τα, The addition of 1847-59, though it has its
own colophon, produced the clause and for the leprosy of a
garment 4, and similarly there followed (for the Heb. con-
struction is different) and for an house »5>, to refer to 1423-53,
which was kindred to 1347-69 ; while 58, which clearly was a gloss
to make pointed allusion to 132-23, providing for ὦ rising and
jor a scab and jor a bright spot, has been inserted wrongly,
instead of before and for a scall.

In 136 ete. the priest, after examining a man with a favourable
result, shall pronounce him clean. .

clothes and be clean. But in 14, tf the plaque be healed, many

|

. and he shall wash his |

ceremonies must be performed before the priest shall pronounce |

him clean 7, and then he has not only to wash his clothes, but
to shave off all his hair, and bathe himself before he shall be
clean 84, Yet both the archaic colouring and the alternate
vagueness and precision of the ritual directions in 1428 proclaim
that this passage is comparatively earlv. Was the author of
13 ignorant of this ceremonial, or did he think it superstitious
or unintelligible ?—149-20 seems to be a description of an inde-
pendent form of cleansing after the pattern of the latest sacri-
ficial law (perhaps introduced to supersede the old form, or
because it was becoming obsolete), which the compiler has
combined with 1428 by the link δῦ, For originally a second
shaving % could hardly have been required. Moreover,
although the present arrangement is meant to suggest that the
first cleansing only admitted to the camp, there is no higher
grade of sanctity conferred in 20, only he shall be clean as
before. The clause ὅθι which leads up to this view contradicts
2142182 js a supplement, as it has a separate colophon (cf.
128), —1493-62 15. a fresh supplement independent of 1347-59, for it
combines the mode of cleansing in 1428 and 9-20, and has other
marks of later origin.

15: On secretions.—This chapter by its tedious
repetitions suggests a later date than most of Pt.
But only twice does a clause recall Ps, te. in 13
and 19 unto the door of the tent of meeting, and
this is a frequent gloss. The sacrificial ritual
enjoined does not go beyond the prescriptions of
5, and is omitted in the case of normal secretions.
The case of 12 is similar,

In 15814 we catch an echo of Ph; and 810 (RVm: when they
dejile my dwelling that is in the midst of them), which most
naturally refers to the gracious inhabitation of the land by its
Divine Lord, recalls a time when the visible structure had not
been elevated to the place it occupies in Pg, monopolizing the
term dwelling.

16 (Appendix): On the Day of Atonement.—This
is not the place to discuss the historical origins of
the great Jewish fast. See art. ATONEMENT (DAY
OF). It must suffice to support briefly the analysis
given above, which takes a middle course between
the conservative view that 16 is an early homo-
geneous whole, and the radical view that no part
of it is even as early as Ps. (1) It is possible to
disentangle a main thread of ordinance providing
for the cleansing of the holy place, and the tent of
meeting, and the altar, and for a solemn atone-
ment for the sins of the people. This bears the
marks of Ps. (2) From this there falls apart a
series of verses (see above) providing for a special
atonement for Aaron and his sons, which is con-
nected in 1 with the death of Nadab and Abihu,
but which does not fit in with the context. (3)
*t- orders the ceremonial to be repeated by each
subsequent high priest. (4) °°! and #4 make it an
annual fast day.

(1) The main thread is given to Ps, because it contains

nothing inconsistent with the ritual in Ex 29 or Lv 9, and be-
cause the altar 12.18. 20.25 js used as if only one were known,

while the use of ὦ censer in 12f seems to exclude the presence

of an altar of incense. (2) The atonement for Aaron, being
omitted in the summaries in ΠῚ and 20, can hardly be original,
and the awkwardness of 3 and ὁ justifies their excision as supple-
ments. The sevenfold sprinkling and the heightening of the
high priest’s dignity are both peculiar to Ps. (3) The absence
of any Aaron phrases, the substitution of holy sanctuary 38 for
holy place 16t.29, and of the priests 3 for himself and his house
11.17), and the generality of the terms, confirm the view that 38f
is a later addition. (4) Again, if 20-31. 54a were original, mention
would not be made only of one element, the atonement for the
children of Israel, while the cleansing of the holy place, the
tent of meeting, and the altar, is passed over. 9.4 would fit
better before 9},

§ 4. 17-27: The Law of Holiness.
With Appendix on Vows, ete.

A. Analytical Summary,
ph |
em Ps Ps
(yf 42) 4
171-7 Rule of Sacririck.
1786. A parallel ordinance.
10-16 Prohibition to eat blood,
or dead carcase.
181-29 ) sex RELATION
22-380 On SEX RELATIONS.

+21 On Molech-worship.

191-37 Various Laws, on justice,
equity, kindness, pure
worship, etc.

i 201-8 On Molech-worship.
49 On reverence for parents.
10-24a On SEX RELATIONS.

22 tb-26 On CLEAN AND UNCLEAN.

427 Against witchcraft.

211-9 On the ΡΕΙΕΒΊΠΟΟΣ : sanc-

tity of priests.
10-15 ᾿ ὦ the high priest.
16-24 ‘ ᾧ . disqualifying
blemishes.
221-9 < δ . rules of clean
and unclean.
10-16 r Ἔ their food holy.
17-20 On SaAcriFicEs without
blemish : burnt-offering.
2221-25 . peace-offerings.
2926-33 . When they are
acceptable,
231-2a A SACRED CALENDAR: in-
troduction.
252b-3 ᾿ The Sabbath.
234-8 * < Passover and un-
leav. bread.
290. 9.
et ire ᾿ F é The wave sheaf.
'15-18a.18b- ) . é The Feast of
19a’ 190-20} Weeks.
2321 Ἂ Feast of Weeks.
2322 is Fi On gleaning.
2528-25 ‘ ‘ Feast of Trum-
7 pets.
2326-82 |, » Day of Atone-
ment.
2508-38.44 : ὁ Feast of Booths,
and conclusion.
9339-437 4 ἣ Feast of Booths.
241-4 ΟἹ, for, and lighting of,
the lamps.
5-9 Reeulations for the SuEw-
BREAD.
2410-14-25) Stoning of ἃ BLASPHEMER.

9415-22 Stoning for blasphemy;
lex talionis, etc. ete.

251-7 The SABBATICAL YEAR.

8-13 The year of liberty in 50th
mainly |) year.

95 8b. 90. \

l0b. Ha. | The year of JUBILE.

12a. 13
19:95 The sabbatical year (con-

tinued).

2523 Land inalienable.

24-27. 27 Provision for REDEMPTION
oF LAND.

2529-31 | Rule as to HOUSE property.
+ 82-34 | Houses of Levites inalien-
able.

535-40

25 i χ ᾿ Usury, and hired sERVICE.

2540b-42) Termination of service.
44-467 Bond servants foreigners
only.

47-49. 53. }) Service with strangers,

δῦυ Ih with redemption.

edd 5 πῆς "Ἢ

LEVITICUS

LEVITICUS

| ph
-ο -.. .---- Pg Ps
ἘΝ:
| 7 |
| ἷ Redemption of Heb. slave.
| 26lf | Commands as to worship.
| 3-45. | CONCLUDING EXHORTATION,
4 CoLorHuon to the Law of
| Holiness.
271-25 | On Vows: persons, cattle,
| houses, fields.
+2629 | Firstlings and devoted
| things excepted.
| 30-83 | Appendix on tithes.
| 34 Colophon to Leviticus.

B. Critical Notes.

For a general account of the Law of Holiness,
and of the criteria which distinguish: it from the
rest of P, see art. HexarEucH. Careful lists of
peculiar words and phrases are given in Driver,
LOT; Wolzineger, Bint. in d. Hex.; and Οὐ. Anal,
Hex. Were we have to do only with the actual
use of the criteria in the analysis, and with the
internal structure of ΤΡ itself. Any general re-
marks under the latter head will be found under
5. It will be enough to point out in advance
hat traces of more than one series of parallel
laws will be found in the present code.

Wher: The place of sacrifiee.—As it stands, this
passage requires that no animal shall be slaugh-
tered except as a sacrifice, and at the door of the
tent of meeting. Inany case this conflicts with Dt
12, which allows slaughtering at home. But the
clauses referring to the camp and the (door of the)
tent of mecting can be excised without loss, as in
many other cases where they ill suit the context.
When they are removed, the injunction remains
that all slaughtering is to take place at the altar
of J”, which is only reasonable, on the one hand,
if many altars are allowable, as is recognized in
E’s Covenant Book, Gn 20*4, and in the pre-
Deuteronomie narratives ; or, on the other hand,
if a small company of exiles are gathered round
the restored temple in Jerusalem after the Exile.
The latter alternative is upheld) by Baentsch,
Addis, etc. The former is maintained by hkittel,
Bandissin, W. R. Smith, and Driver.—17** is to
the same effect, only including strangers.—In
17°16 the work of the later editor may be sus-
peeted, but cannot be pointed out with precision,

IS*!9: On ser relations.—VThis section has a close
parallel in 20'°*!, but it is not agreed how the two
are connected. The latter passage is composed of
rarious elements, not all on the same subject. Its
ordinances are in the form of Cases, or Judginents,
the man that... ,or ifaman.. . , whereas in
18 we have the older type of Words, Thou shalt
not... . Only in 20 are penalties stated. Prob-
ably we have in 18, nearly intact, the series which,
in an altered form, with Judgments instead of
Words, and with penalties attached, underlies
20-21, where it is combined with other quoted
laws.

19: Miseellancous.—The contents of this chapter
are clearly sclected from various sources, many of
them early, as is shown by the numerous parallels
with the most ancient codes (for refs. see Oxf.
Anal. Her). They illustrate both the diversity
of form in which ordinances were cast, and the
fondness of Hebrew jurists for sets of 5 or 10, An
outline of the 14 sections will show this.

ct ae

20-4 has 5 commandments of the type, ye shall (not). . .—
5-8 ig a cultus-section like 21-22 below.—% has 5 words
about gleaning.—Hf. has 4 commandments and 1 word, 5 in
all, about honesty and reverence.—l3!. has 5 words, not quite
uniform, on kindness.—l has 5 words, preceded by a com-

mandment, on justice.—17f has 5 words on kindness, clinched
by the grand positive word, Thow shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself.—19 has a general commandment, and 3 words on
mixtures, the last altered.—29 is a Judgment on seduction,
with a supplement by Ps 2!f-,—23-25 is an ordinance on young
fruit trees, like the law on the Sabbath year in 252b-7 ete., 26-31
has 10 commandinents against superstition and irreverence,
the last 2 in 8! being altered, and with supplements using 2nd
person sing, in 27b. 29,—32 has 3 words on reverence.—*5t. con-
tains laws of 3 types on strangers.—-37 contains 2 comomnand-
ments on weights and measures, and a general conclusion.

The next chapter, 20, is remarkable for the fact
that 4 of its 5 sections have a parallel in P" clse-
Where, “Rhis SF pseh, ἄν a See ee τρῶν
1 1147, 27 1951. Kor 1-24 see on 18%),

21-22: On the priesthood and sacrifices.—These
chapters, while presenting many of the features of
P», have undergone more revision, it would ap-

year, than 18-20, perhaps because their subject

᾽ . 2 . .
was one which occupied more of the attention of
later legislators. Differences of form, changes
from 8rd to 2nd pers., and the introduction of
fresh superscriptions 11+ 26 22! 17 26) all point to
diversity of source.

218, with its thou shalt, referring to Israel, may be a fragment
from an earlier source.—-22172) appears to be made up of two
ordinances, 18-29 and 21-25, with many parallels in detail. Both
this section and 2229f have been ascribed to Pt, not Ph, but
without sufficient reason. The marks of P» are not absent,
and there is enough difference in the ordinances trom those
on the same subjects elsewhere (711-18) to suggest that an
earlier stage is reflected here.

23: A sacred calendar.—In this chapter there
is prescribed a series of ‘holy convocations,’ in
language largely made up of phrases character-
istic of PS and Ps, with exact dates by numbered
days and months. This is ascribed to Ps. But
with it is combined another series of holy days,
which does not mention ‘holy convocations’ or
use the peculiar phrases of ῬῈ and Ps (except in
isolated sentences distinguishable as interpolated),
but bears indications of ΒΒ and is marked by a
picturesque style. Each of these series has been
interpolated or revised.

23203 on the Sabbath can hardly be original, for 4 is clearly
the commencement, and 4 also hardly includes the Sabbath
under its terms.—%l4 has been expanded. The original
elements from Pb are clearly seen in Wb-ll. Ida, Here a feast of
firstfruits is described which is not referred to elsewhere.
The morrow after the Sabbath, 11. 15f, requires explanation
by some context now missing. But probably it is rightly con-
nected with Unleavened Bread.—)°-21 relates to Pentecost, or
Feast of Weeks. 21 only is preserved from Ps, but in 18f par-
ticulars have been incorrectly added from Nu 2827-29, Ph had
ye shall present with the bread two he-lambs of the jirst year for
a sacrifice of peace-oferings.—22 is repeated from 19%f,—23-25
institutes the Feast of New Year’s Day, with trumpet blasts.—
26-32 js marked Ps, because on 16 we found that the Day of
Atonement as a yearly fast was not original in Ps. 25 is a
briefer title than If. 23f 33f,—33-36 contains Ps’s ordinance as to
the Feast of Booths complete, and 8/f- 44 his conclusion of the
calendar. But in 39-42 the editor has introduced from Ph a
graphic account of the manner in which it isto be kept. The
stress in this ison the mode of keeping the feast, as above in
9.20. and the date is left indefinite, when ye have gathered in
the fruits of the land, 3% being a harmonizing addition by the
editor, in accordance with later practice. Similarly 8%, which
uses the phraseology of Ps, and mentions an Sth day, is foreign
to the context, which like Dt 1613-15 only knows 7 days for the
feast.

24: On oil for the lamps \-4, shewbread 5, and
blasphemy 8, 1-4 is parallel with Ex 27-°* and
Nu 84, and it is not easy to determine the order
of priority. On the whole, the present passage
seems most original. Both it and >" are regarded
as fragments of Ps’, put here possibly to replace
similar ordinances of P®, even as in 23 a like pro-
cess has gone on. In each case the phraseology is
purely that of Ps.—l-** is a curious paragraph, in
which a central core ?', containing various
ordinances on blasphemy !, murder 17-*!>, assault
Wi. killing a beast 18: 2", is found surrounded by a
narrative envelope, which resembles others found
in Ps, while the phraseology supports this ascrip-
tion. The laws are given to P, as they contain

ee ταν

ee etm nse en ss senses

LEVITICUS

LEVITICUS 107

several words and phrases characteristic of that
code, and follow the same models. Contrast
ΙΞ0 aria see,

25: On the Sabbatical and Jubile years,—**7
with ™*- institutes the Sabbatical year as a
general fallow-year for the whole land. The par-
ticulars harmonize with the feast regulations of
P', and the phraseology is also that of Ph. Its
ascription to that code is therefore geuerally
allowed. But it is different with reeard to the
rest of the chapter, where undoubted marks of
Ps or Ps are found side by side with words and
yhrases (Baentsch notes 14 such) characteristic of
pou These phenomena point to the intermixture
of elements, but how to effect a separation is
matter of conjecture. The Analysis above adopts
the view that the term jgudile and the clauses or
passages in which it occurs are Ps. This’ is
thought probable, because—(1) Ly 26, which lays
stress on the Sabbath years, does not allude to the
jubile ; (2) most of these clauses and verses bear
other marks of late origin ; and (8) general con-
siderations (see art. SABBATICAL AND JUBILE
YEARS) support the same conclusion. The lin-
guistic evidence, however, leads to the inference

that the main ideas of the institution of the 50th |

year as a year of release were expressed in legal
form by the school of ΡΒ and have survived in a
modified shape in this chapter.

8:18 js full of redundancies, and when the clauses given to Ps
are removed, the remainder is almost complete as an intelligible
whole. 9> mentioning the day of atonement as an annual fast
must be late, and it is conjectured from Ezk 401 that the 10th
day of the 7th month was the old New Year's Day. Thus in
the original source the incongruity of the trumpet blasts on
the solemn fast day is not found, but has been inserted as an
interpretation of %, 14 shows in Heb. a confusion of sing. and
plur. persons, and its last clause seems to be altered to lead up
to 15, itself modified by Ps, while something which introduced
14 is now missing. That 818 breaks the connexion between
Zand 19 15 another proot that it has been the subject of editorial
handling.—-?3 is given to Ps for linguistic reasons, cf. 39, and
from analogy with 41, a jubile piece. It contains, moreover,
the final stage of principle, explicitly stated instead of merely
implied.—“4 states the rule of which 2 is a particular case.
Like 25, however, it may be Ps, as the plural is less common
in Ph.—In 26-31 the jubile references are so embedded in the
material that no analysis is feasible, though an earlier basis is
possible. Contrast and if aman 2%. 29 with 25. 35,—29-31 providing
for city property has the air of later legal refinement.—?2-34 is
the latest addition of all, with its provision for Levites who
have not yet been mentioned themselves, much less their
cities ;
chapter, see the art. referred to above.

26: Concluding exhortation.—* contains brief
laws forbidding false worship and commanding
the true. [πὶ ** is found a lone discourse, similar
to those found at the end of other codes, Ex 2320":
KE, and Dt 24 1. Already hortatory fragments
have appeared in 182- “4-80 ] 986% 992-26 9931-33, Ty
all a common phraseology is used, identical ex-
pressions frequently occur, the same stress is laid
upon the supreme deity of J”, the need for holi-
ness, and the danger of contamination by the
Canaanites. There can be no doubt that the last
and longest marks the completion of the code
known as the Law of Holiness. (See, further,
below under § 5).

27: On vows and tithes.—-* deals with the
subject of vows, and employs the fully developed
terminology of P£ and Ps. It is assigned above to
the latter, because in 172 the year of jubile is so
prominent an element.—**~" contains certain sup-
plemental og Sia ait is an appendix on
tithes which must be pronounced of very late
composition. Even in Nu 187!-*? tithes seem to
be, in accordance with the prescriptions of D,
restricted to vegetable produce.

ὃ 5. AUTHORSHIP AND DaTE.—As we have seen,

the Book of Leviticus turns out to be made up of-

many peces, so distinct from one another in style
and contents and tone that they can only he
assigned with probability to many writers, none

ef. Nu 351-8,—For further particulars about this difficult |

| line 8).

of whom can be identified with Moses. Thoueh,
however, we cannot arrive at names of authors,
we may approximately reckon up the number of
distinct writers whose hands betray themselves in
the striking example of well designed literary
product, which we call the Book of Leviticus.

a. We begin with that portion of the book
which all will admit is the oldest, .6. the Law
of Holiness in 17-26.

(1) The structure of this section is analogous to
that of two other important Hebrew codes, viz.
Ys combined Words of the Covenant and Judge-
ments in Ex 20°*-23, and the Deuteronomic Code
in Dt 12-28. In all three cases we have a collec-
tion of somewhat miscellaneous enactments, intro-
duced by a law as to sacrifice and the place of
worship, and closed by a prophetic discourse. In
Ly 26° there is in addition a colophon explicitly
marking the termination of a body of Sinaitic
legislation.

(2) The style and language prevailing in these
chapters distinguish them from the rest of P.
The peculiarities are best seen in 18 20 and in 90.
But, after gaining an impression of them there,
it is impossible to examine closely 17 or 21-22 or
23-25 without recognizing the presence of the same
characteristics. It is true that passages are en-
countered without these signs, and others in which
the phenomena are mixed. But these are sufti-
ciently explained by supposing that the compiler
who incorporated P® in P revised and supple-
mented his original, as was universally the custom
with ancient editors. It agrees with this that
the portions which have thus received alteration
are those which deal with ritual and the priest-
hood. Considering the shortness of the whole, it
is wonderful how many words and phrases are
peculiar to it among the Pentateuchal documents.
(See the lists already referred to, p. 100", § ἃ B
In the legislation the style is far more
concise and direct, and far less technical, than in
the rest of P, while the rhetorical mould in which
the discourse in 26 is cast has left its impress
upon a number of shorter hortatory passages
recurring anidst the legislation in’ a manner
equally foreign to P as a whole. But the most
marked etlect of style is produced by the reitera-
tion of phrases expressing the leading ideas of the
collection.

(3) These leading ideas are few but great, and
they dominate every chapter. i. There is a
unique sense of the majesty and presence of
God, expressed by the constant recurrence of the
‘Divine [’? in the phrases Jam J”, ete. If the
more diffusely rhetorical style of Dt is like the
varied harmonies of organ music, in the Law of
Holiness we. rather hear the solemn stiokes of a
great church bell, proclaiming the dwelling otf the
Most High God amongst men, and ealling them
to worship and obey. ii. This effeet is enhanced
by the isolation of one attribute, the Ao/iness οἵ
God, which carrics with it as a corollary the
holiness of His people. iii. The neeative to these
positives is supplied by the awful peril of profana-
tion from the peoples of the land, with their
heathen orgies and abominable customs. — No
other section of the Pent. shows the explicit com-
bination of the same elements.

(4) The nature of the contents makes for the
same conclusion, The entire legislative material
of the Pent. may be grouped under the following
heads :—1. The Family, 2. Persons and Animals,
3. Property, 4. Judgement and Rule, 5. Idolatry
and Superstition, 6. Clean and Unclean, 7. Sa: rifice,
8-ll. Sacred Dues, Seasons, Places, and Persons.
The last six classes thus relate to ceremonial and
ritual, the first five to religion and morals gener-
ally in social life. Now, while E and D are rela.

108 LEVITICUS

LEVITICUS

tively most copious on these five heads, P® is
practically the only part of the large mass of P
which deals with these matters at all, except the
law of jubile (certain temporary regulations in Nu
are not reckoned), 60 per cent. of the ordinances
of Ph belong to these five classes and have no
parallel in the rest of P, but, with one doubtful
exception, may all be matched from E or D. Only
40 per cent. come under heads where parallels with
the rest of P are numerous.

(5) The resemblances with Fzekiel have long
attracted attention. They are indeed so striking
as to have led many critics to argue that. the
prophet was the author of the code. The similar
relation between Dt and Jeremiah was indeed often
interpreted in the same way. But if in each case
it has been found impossible to sustain the hypo-
thesis of identity of authorship, in each case also
it has been demonstrated that a close connexion
subsisted between the two. And if it cannot be a
mere coincidence that Jeremiah is the first writer
to betray indebtedness to Dt, so it is natural to
conclude that, if ΡΒ had been Jong in existence
as a literary whole, it would not have been left to
Ezekiel to show traces of its peculiar phrases and
ideas. Some of the most striking of these parallels
inay now be enumerated for the examination of
the student.

Parallels between Lv 17-26 and Ezchiel.*

1. The Laws. 2. The Llortatory Passages.

Lv Ezk Ly Ezk
173. 8.10 144.7 182b 205. 7. 19. ef, 20
1710 145 2826 3052, 28
1113 941 (not in Is or
1716 1419 4410. 12 Jer)
1812 2010. 11. 9210. 11 183 207
12.17 188f. 5.26 1057 2018-21, ef, δ
1913 187. 12.16 2638 1112. 20 189.17
1915 188 3315 20H. 13 3627
1926 3325 1824. 30 90226. 207. 18
1986 4510 1829. 23 3617, cf, 18
909 227 1826, cf, 27-29 86. cf, 9.13.17 94
21 1b-8 4425 1313. 24
215 4420 2024 Heb. 3510
2114 4422 2025, cf. 1147 9520 4220 g10
228 4481 36h 9 3429-23 1417
2215 2226 269 Heb. 369. 10 1692
9518 2826, οἵ, 3425. 28 92011.12 3726. 27 437.9
388. 11. 14 396. 9G12b 8727 3628 1120
26 3723, cf. 1411
2536 Εν 188, cf, 18.17 9912 3424-30
2543 344 2618, cf, 1986 — 205b. 6 3427
ete, L1G;

(6) From the above (taken in connexion with
the previous critical notes) certain inferences may
be drawn: i. There is a substantial unity in Ly
17-26, but it is the unity of a school and not of an
individual. 11. It is difficult to say whether the
compiler of the code and author of the closing
discourse was before or after Ezk, but on the
whole it is more probable that he was later, to-
wards the end of the Exile. iii. But no part of
the legislation (occasional glosses excepted) need
be Jater than Ezk. iv. The prophet appeals to
and rests upon the collections of laws which under-
lie the present text. v. In their form (ef. their
frequent grouping in 10’s and 5’s) and in their
substance (ef. the Anglo-Saxon Penitentials,
framed also for a rude age) these laws may well
be very ancient. Their antiquity is indeed better
established than any theory of their origin. An
attractive and plausible conjecture, however, is
that they represent’ J’s missing legislation. The
sympathy of J with the priesthood is repeatedly
shown.

Ὁ. Enough has been said above under § 1 B and
§3 B to justify the inference that there was a second

* These instances are all taken from the forthcoming Oaf.

Anal. Hex., where they will be printed in full in the introduc-
tion, which deals fully with the whole question.

school of priestly canonists (P*), whe set them.
selves to reduce to writing the current religious
praxis of the Jerusalem Temple, all of which was
apparently accepted as Mosaic. It may be con-
sidered doubtful whether their work had been
carried very far, even if it was begun, before the
destruction of the Temple rendered it necessary,
if the whole tradition was not to be lost. 1-3
and 68-7 probably represent two collectors, and
11-15 one or more.

6. It nay very well have been one of this school
who developed its presuppositions yet further, and
rarried them out more vigorously, embodying them
in the great book of History and Law called PS, of
which but little is included in Ly. In it all takes
place in and for the camp, and centres round the
Tabernacle and its single altar, Aaron the one
anointed priest forming with his sons the exclu-
sive priesthood, and the sons of Levi the minister-
ing tribe. The most natural dete is after the
Restoration, as no trace of this system is found
till the arrival of Ezra.

ἃ. Last came a lone line of scribes (P%), com-
bining, revising, expanding, and supplementing,
until the Pentateuch reached its present form,

§ 6. HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF LEVITICUS.

a. As thus resolved into its component parts,
arranged in chronological order, though not all
furnished with detinite dates, the book becomes
a great witness to the Christian doctrine of evolu-
tion. As, under the inspiration and prompting of
the Spirit of God, the laws for conduct and worship
were shaped and modified, their form largely de-
pendent on historical circumstances, so we who
have had committed to us the revelation of absolute
truth in Christ may expect to have amongst us a
presence of the Spirit adequate to enable us to
apply that truth for each age till the end comes.

b. Ly is the literary monument of the Hebrew
priesthood. Overshadowed in the earlier history
by kings and prophets, represented in the pages
of written prophecy by the degenerate members of
the order, it is in Lv and Ezk that we see how
the priests trained Israel to associate a high
standard of morality with a stately form of
worship, which, though freely using material
means, was, in its essence, and still more as com-
pared with contemporary forms of religion, severely
spiritual and rich in symbolical significance.

c. The earlier collections in the one case (ΡΒ)
carry us back to the earlier years of the monarchy,
and in the other (P*‘) preserve probably with aceu-
racy the procedure at the Temple during the period
after Josiah’s reformation, and no doubt partially
reflect the praxis of previous centuries, for the
continuity of custom and persistency of ritual
where no historical revolution has taken place must
be remembered.

ἃ. As a whole, Lv is the mirror of the Second
Temple and its system. Whenever it or its several
parts were written, it is on all hands admitted that
its provisions were never fully executed till the
time of Ezra. ;

§ 7. RELIGIOUS VALUE OF LEVITICUS.

a. We still need, side by side with the prophetic,
the priestly view of religion. (See ὃ 6b). For all
J” was Israel’s God, but tor the one His Righteous-
ness, and for the other His Holiness was the
dominant attribute. (The earlier prophetic term
‘Holy One of Israel’ hardly belongs to the same
circle of ideas as Lv.)

b. Amid the labyrinth of connected but fre-
quently conflicting ordinances the watchwords of
the Law of Holiness enable us to thread the maze
securely. There are differences in the way by
which it is sought to realize the ideal: the 146}
is but one, the Holy God amid a Holy People in a
Holy Land.

LEWD, LEWDNESS

LEWD, LEWDNESS 109

ce. The Law of Sacrifice reminds us of our human
need for something visible and outward in our
worship, while its particulars happily illustrate,
even if they do not teach, the various parts of
Christian devotion, Sacrifices are elements in the
visible fabric of religion by which the spiritual
service of the Holy God was viven a protective
shell for its growth: eternal moments in the life
energy of the worshipping spirit, visualized in
temporary form: signposts pointing to the Perfect
Sacrifice: earnests of that Sacrament which re-
places sacrifice proper by commemoration and com-
munion.

ἃ. The Lav of the Consecration of the Pricsthood,
with the multitude of ordinances on the duties and
holiness of the priests, must ever remain solemn
reading for all those who believe themselves to
have been made priests unto their God, and especi-
ally for them on whom the great High Priest has
laid the awful burden of ministering as His com-
missioned representatives.

6. Lastly, the Law of Clean and Unclean enforces
one great lesson alike of the Incarnation itself and
of the life of the Incarnate, that the body matters
intensely. Health helps not happiness only, but
holiness. Cleanliness and godliness have their
real and close relations. The study of hygiene,
the promotion of public health by helping to make
or enforce good sanitary laws and bye-laws, the
provision of baths and wash-houses or of a water
supply, simple living, good housewifery, the stamp-
ing out of infectious diseases, the treatment of the
poor and sick,—if Ly only furnished texts for the
commendation of these things, could we say that
its religious value was insignificant ?

LITERATURE.—(See art. HEeExATevcH), Kalisch’s Comm. is the
best in Eng. ; ef. also Driver and White in Polychrome Bible
(brief comments); Kellogg in Hapos. Bible (for application) ;
Hexapla ii Leviticum, 1631 (older views fully given); see also
arts. PRIESTS AND LEVITES, SACRIFICE, TYPE, UNCLEANNESS.

G. HARFORD-BATTERSBY.

LEWD, LEWDNESS.—The Anglo-Saxon laéiwed
(or geléwed) was the past ptep. of laéwan, to
enfeeble ; in middle Eng. it appeared as leaed,
which was afterwards contracted to lewd. Thus
the earliest meaning is ‘ enfeebled,’ ‘useless,’ as in
Piers Plowman, ii. 186—

‘Chastite with-oute charite worth cheynid in helle ;
Hit is as lewede as a lampe that no lyght ys ynne.’
Next we find the meaning of ‘ignorant,’ which was
the usual sense of the word down to Shakespeare.
Thus Chaucer, (?) Romaunt, Frag. C. 1. 6217—
‘Lered or lewd, lord or lady’ ;

Spenser, Shepheards Calendar, ii. 10O—

‘Lewdly complainest thou, laesie ladde,

Of winters wracke for making thee sadde’;
and Ascham, Scholemaster, p. 45: ‘This lewde and
learned, by common experience, know to be most
trewe.’ From this arose a special use of the word
to designate the dwity, who are the lewd inasmuch
as they are the unlearned, and so are distinguished
from the ‘clergy’ or ‘clerks,’ the learned.* — Wyclif
(1382) translates 1S 214 ‘And answerynge the
pene to David seith to hym, [ haue not leeuyd
oouys at hoond (1388, ‘Y haue not lewid, that is
comyn, looues at hoond’), but oonli hooli breed.’
Again, in the Wycliflite tr. of 1388, Ac 418: is

rendered, ‘And thei siyen the stidfastnesse of |

Petre and of Joon, for it was foundun that thei
weren men unlettrid, and Jewid men, and thei
wondriden, and knowen hem that thei weren with
Jhesu’; which in 1380 had been ‘founden that
thei weren men with oute lettris, and idiotis’ (Gr.

* Trench and Skeat hold that the sense of ‘lay’ came first,
and that ‘ignorant’ developed out of it, the laity being seen to
be ‘the ignorant party.’ But the other order seems proved by
the examples we have gathered.

ἰδιῶται = private persons, ‘laymen’; Vule. idiotie ;
Tind. ‘laye people’; Cran. ‘laye men’; Rhem. ‘of
the vulgar sort’). The two meanines of ‘ignorant’
and ‘lay? are closely combined in Ascham, Works,
(ed. 1815), Ὁ. 206, ‘Hereby is plainly seen, how
learning is robbed of the best wits ; first, by the
creat beating, and after, the ill choosing of scholars
to go to the universities : whereof cometh partly
that lewd and spiteful proverb, sounding to the
just hurt of learning, and shame of learned men,
that the greatest clerks be not the wisest men’ ;
and in Sir John Davies, The Soul, st. 13—
‘Thus these great clerks their little wisedome shew,
While with their doctrines they at hazard play ;
Tossing their light opinions to and fro,
To mocke the lewde, as learnd in this as they.’
From this developed next the sense of ‘wicked’ by
an easily understood transition. Sir John Davies,
Discoverie of the State of Ireland (ed. 1613), p. 181,
says the followers of the Lvish chieftains ‘ were
borne out and countenanced in all their lewde
and wicked actions’; North (Plutarch, ‘Cicero,’
p. 862) has ‘This Verres had been Praetor of
Cicilia, and had committed many lewd parts
there’; and this is the meaning in Milton, PL iv.
193—
‘So clomb this first grand thief into God’s fold :
So since into his Church lewd hirelings climb.’
And then, finally, came the meaning of ‘lustful,’
the special wickedness to which the ignorant were
prone, and the only meaning that has remained
to the word. This is as old as Chaucer ; cf. also
Spenser, /'Q IL. 1. 10-—
Ὁ would it so had chaunst,
That you, most noble Sir, had present beene
When that lewd ribauld, with vile lust advaunst,
Laid first his filthy hands on virgin cleene’ ;
Milton, PZ i. 490—
‘Belial came last, than whom a Spirit more lewd
Fell not from Heaven, or more gross to love
Vice for itself’ ;
and Comus, 465—
‘But, when lust,
By unchaste looks, loose gestures, and foul talk,
But most by lewd and lavish act of sin,
Lets in defilement to the inward parts,
The soul grows clotted by contazion.’

In AV lewd, lewdly, and lewdness are found in
both the meanings last noted, and there is no sharp
distinction between them. The special sense of
‘lustful,’ while usual in OT, does not oceur in
Apocr. or NT.

The Heb. words are (1) 3231 zimmah, which is tr?
‘lewdness’ in Jg 208 (Moore, ‘abomination,’ which
is the Geneva word), Jer 13°7, Hos 6% (Cheyne,
fouprages *), and ΘΕ δα ἀν ik LG" oho) Zoe ace oe.
48 bis. 49 2413 5 see Davidson on 16%). This word has
a range of meaning from the colourless ‘ plan’ or
‘purpose’ (only Job 17") to the special sin of un-
chastity. Besides the above, it is rendered in AV
‘purpose’ (Job 174), ‘thought’ (Pr 24%, so RV,
but OHL ‘evil device’), ‘wicked device’ (Is 32°),
‘wickedness’ (Lv 18!" 19°89 2044s, RVm ‘enormity’),
“mischief? (Ps 26 119, Pr 10%, RV in last two
‘“wickedness’), ‘heinous crime’ (Job 31!) ; in Ezk
1677 the Heb. ‘way of lewdness’ is tr? ‘lewd way,’
so ‘women of lewdness’ in 234 ‘lewd women’; in
Pr 2127 Heb. ‘in lewdness’ is ‘ with a wicked mind,’
RVm ‘to atone for wickedness’; and in Ezk 22"
it is ‘lewdly.’ (2) The derivative once
(Jer 1115) rendered ‘lewdness’ ; and (3) m523 nabh-
Lith, in its only occurrence (Hos 2!") is so translated,
AVmm ‘folly or villany,’ RVmi ‘shame.’

In Apocr. the adj. occurs in Ad. Est 164 ‘lifted up
with the glorious words of lewd persons that were
never @ood’ (τοῖς τῶν ἀπειραγαθῶν κύμποις παρελθόντες,
RV ‘lifted up with the boastful words of them
that were never good’); 168 ‘lewd disposition ’

7319 is

110 LIBANUS

LIBERTY

(κακοπιστία) ; Sir 30% ‘lewd behaviour’ (ἀσχημο-
civn, RV ‘shameless behaviour’); and Sir 16 beading
‘It is better to have none, than many lewd
children’; the ady. in Wis 15° ‘employing his
labours lewdly’ (κακόμοχθος, RV “labouring to an
evil end’); and the subst. in To 4° ‘in lewdness
is decay and great want’ (ἐν τῇ ἀχρειότητι, RV ‘in
nauehtiness’). In NT the adj. occurs but once,
Ae 17° ‘certain lewd fellows of the baser sort’? (τῶν
ἀγοραίων τινὰς ἄνδρας πονηρούς, RV ‘certain vile
fellows of the rabble’); and the subst. once, Ac
1851} «If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewd-
ness’ (ῥαδιούργημα πονηρόν, RV * wicked villany’).
J. HASTINGS.
LIBANUS (Λίβανος. Libanus).—The (Greek) form
of the (Heb.) name LEBANON (wh. see), 1 Es 4 5”,
DMs 1, - bee 1, παν SO Call)

LIBERTINES. — In Ac 6° we read that ‘there
arose certain of them that were of the synagogue
called (the synagogue) of the Libertines, and of the
Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them
οἵ Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen.’ In
close relation to the question who the Libertines
were, stands the question as to the number of
synagogues here indicated. It has been held that
only one synagogue is implied (Calvin, Wieseler ;
ef. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 59); that there
were two synagogues —the one consisting of Liber-
tines and Cyrenians and Alexandrians, the other
of Cilicians and <Asiaties (Winer, Holtzmann,
Wendt); that each of the five parties had a separate
synagoeue (Schiirer, Hausrath). The last view is
supported by the fact that in Jerus. the synagogues
—though they did not number 48), as affirmed in
rabbinical traditions—were very numerous, and by
the consideration that even if the inhabitants of all
the places mentioned could have been accommodated
im one synagogue—a supposition which the large-
ness of the Jewish population in) Cyrene and
Alexandria renders very improbable —there was no
common bond to brine together men from towns or
districts so widely separated.

If this view le sound, it helps to determine the
question whether by the L. we are to understand
the inhabitants of some town or the designation
of a class. The association of the Libertines with
the Cyrenians, ete., would naturally suggest the
inhabitants of some town in Proconsular Africa,
and conjectural emendations of the text (Λιβυστίνων
(Wetstein. Blass) or Λιβύων τῶν κατὰ Kupijyny) based
on this assumption have been made (see Blass, 2’/:i/o-
logy of Gospels, 69f.). It is argued by Gerdes (‘de
synagoga Libertinorum,’ Lrercit. Acad. 1738, who
at the same time furnishes a complete statement
and discussion of other views) that if Luke had
meant Liberfint in the Roman sense, he would
have used a Gr., not a Lat. word ; that Suidas men-
tions a town named Lihertwm; and that among
those present at the Council of Carthage in 411 was
Victor Episcopus Leclesia Catholic Libortinensis,
between whom and the rival Donatist bishop a
sharp recrimination took place (Mansi, iv. 91, 92).
But the statement of Suidas is probably derived
from the passage in Ac; and, moreover, it is
altogether improbable that te Jewish contingent
from a town so obscure could have maintained
a separate synagogue at Jerusalem. Moreover,
the addition by Luke of τῆς λεγομένης seems
intended to guard against the possibility of our
misconceivine that the Libertines, like the others
mentioned, were inhabitants of a place.

Setting aside the fantastic conjectures that the
Libertines were a philosophical sect, or the adher-
ents of the school of one Libertus, and the sugges-
tion of Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. et Talm.) that they
were Pal. Jews who had been enslaved and sub-
sequently set free, we conclude that the Libertines

were frecdmen in the Roman sense of the term,
They were mainly descendants of those Jews who
had been taken as prisoners to Rome by Pompey
in B.C. 63, and there sold as slaves. We learn from
Philo (Leg. ad Gaawm, c. 23, i. 568 (Mang.)) that
the majority of the Roman Jews belonged to the
class ot freedmen (ef. Tacitus, Ann. 11. 85; Suet.
Tih. α. 36). Their enslaved condition lasted but a
short time, and they soon became an important
factor in the community. Whether they were
manumitted by their masters because their value
as slaves was vreatly lessened by their tenacious
adherence to their national customs (Hausrath), or
because their fidelity as slaves suggested to their
masters that as freemen they would be of still
greater service (Berliner), or whether they were
ransomed by their own countrymen (Griitz), we do
not know; but the language of Philo seems to
indicate that the first-mentioned cause was the
most influential. The fear of the Jews expressed
by Cicero (pro Flacco, ¢. 28) is no doubt rhetorical ;
but rhetorically it would have been pointless if the
Jews had been a feeble folk (ef. Hor. Sat. i. 4. 148).
By such of them as returned to settle in Jerus. or
were temporarily resident there, a synagogue was
built. According to Hausrath the building of a
separate synagogue was a necessity, as from a
theocratic point of view they were subject to
certain disabilities. Among the inscriptions quoted
by Schiiver (Vie Goieindorerfassung dev Juden in
Tom, p. 15) is one referring to ἃ synagogue τῶν
Αὐγυστησίων ; and if, as is probable, this refers to
freedmen or slaves in the house of Augustus, it
seems to show that at Rome was reproduced the
type of distinctions that existed in Jerusalem.
Like the other Hel. Jews, the Libertines were
keenly opposed to the new faith, and the very
inferiority of their social and theocratic standing
may have caused them to emphasize the distinctive-
ness of their religious position (cf. Gerdes, op. cit.;
Sehiirer, op. cit., JP 1 ii. 56 f., 276; Hausrath
in Schenkel, Bibel-Lericon; Meyer on Ac 6°; Ea-
positor, July, 1895, p. 39). JOUN PATRICK,

LIBERTY.—The only passage in which this
word needs verbal attention is 1 Mae 10: ¢ And
whosoever they be that tlee unto the temple at
Jerusalem, or be within the liberties thereof, being
indebted unto the king, or for any other matter,
let them be at liberty, and all that they have in
my realm.’ The ‘liberties’ of the temple are its
precincts, the parts within which its inmates have
liberty of action. The Gr, is épca, borders, bounds.
Scrivener gives this as one of the colloquialisms
peculiar to the Apoer., which the AV translators
accepted with slovenliness from the Bishops’ Bible.
It is also the tr. of Coverdale and the Geneva
Bible. Wyclif’s word is ‘ coasts’ = boundaries, and
so Douay, after Vulg. fines. J. HASTINGS.

LIBERTY.—This idea forms one of the char-
acteristic differences between OT and NT con-
ceptions of religion. In OT the idea is almost
entirely absent. ‘The fear of the Lord’ is the
distiyctive name for religion (Ps 341! ete.), ‘ser-
vant’ is the distinctive title of the good (Ps 19”,
He 3° οἷο). God is thought of chiefly as the
supreme, universal sovereign and ruler, Icy 959:
Obedience is the central virtue of religious char-
acter, to which all blessings are promised, 1S 15”.
To illustrate this position fully, it would be neces-
sary to quote a large part of the OT. We do not
mean that there are no indications of more in-
timate relations between God and man. The freer,
centler side of religion is undoubtedly known.
The law of love for God and man is promulgated.
Many of the psalinists and prophets rise to lofty
heights of divine joy and fellowship. But the

LIBERTY

ground-tone of OT piety is reverential fear. This
order of development in revelation was fitting and
indeed inevitable. The OT age was the ave of
childhood in revealed religion, and children are
trained for independence by a course of obedience
and subjection to authority (Gal 41). “Τὴ law
hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ’
(Gal 33. The patriarchal age certainly seems
to breathe a freer spirit than the age of the law
proper. Still, even then religious thought and
teeling can only have been elementary ; and this
is the impression made by the narrative. Of later
days St. Paul uses strong, even harsh, language,
‘weak and beggarly rudiments’ (Gal 49. The
prevailing spirit was a ‘spirit of bondage to fear’
(Ro 815. At the same time the emphasis laid on
God's work of redemption must have given rise
to thoughts of spiritual freedom (Ex 134, Dt 78,
1Ch 177 ete.), and in Is 61! this truth finds elori-
ous expression. It is perhaps worth while to
notice that, while in the political system of Israel
there is no trace of the idea of liberty in the
modern sense, that system is distinguished from
the despotisms of the day by many humane reen-
lations unknown elsewhere, such as those with
regard to slavery (Ex 217) and land (Ly 25! +),
Christianity brought, first of all, freedom from
the ceremonial restrictions and conditions of OF
religion. ‘The Mosaic law is described as ‘a yoke
which neither we nor our fathers were able to
bear’? (Ac 15°). To all attempts to continue or
reimpose the yoke on Christian believers, St. Paul
offered unflinching and successful resistance (Gal
ὅν 61), and so won the victory of Christian free-
dom for all time. The teaching of the Epistle to
the Hebrews throughout supports St. Paul (959 101).
The NT condemns beforehand all attempts to
reduce Christianity to a mere system of ritual.
The Lord Jesus, St. Paul, and St. John are at
one in their insistence on spiritual religion.
jut the chief NT doctrine on this subject is
that of inward freedom as the privilege of all
helievers. Sin brings into bondage (Jn 84, Ro
0101)... but from this bondage believers are saved
both negatively and positively. This is the pro-
found meaning of redemption in the NT sense—
deliverance from that sense of guilt and fear and
condemnation which oppresses and fetters the soul
(Ro 87, Tit 2! ete.). ‘Ye were servants of sin,
ye became servants of righteousness’ (Ro 6111),
vnowledge of the truth is the means (Jn 8335),
Christ Himself the source (Jn 890, 2 Co 311), of this
highest. freedom.

The ‘spirit of bondage’ vives”

DEBINACEL 11
τ Kons 3. dn of; Ὑπὸ exultant sense ΟΝ

power, of present and future triumph, enjoyed
by the believer, is vividly expressed in passages
like Ro δ 2° 6}??? 83. Spiritual freedom culimin-
ates in the relation of children in which believers
stand to God. In our Lord’s teaching, in St.
faul’s and St. John’s, this is always represented
as the distinctive privilege of the saved, so pro-
found and far-reaching is the NT revelation of
the divine Fatherhood in the fullest sense: ‘your
Τα ον ἀπ πολ" ΓΙ Pe “ἢ 535. Roe si,
Εὐπε 91:5)... St. Paul expressly contrasts the state
of the servant and the son: ‘Thou art no more
a servant, but a son’ (Gal 4"). God is thought
of as Father, no longer as Ruler merely. The
most signal exercise of the liberty of children of
God is the boldness with which believers draw
near to God (He 4} 10!), Christians are invested
with the fall privileges of the priesthood (1 P 2").
Liberty is not to pass into licence (Gal 5, 1 P 23%),
St. James speaks of a ‘law of liberty’ (1% 2!”).

On the thorny questions which have arisen in
connexion with liberty and necessity, Scripture
says nothing, but implies much. By always ap-
pealing to man as responsible, by calling upon
him to repent and believe, by holding him ae-
countable tor the results of his action, it assumes
that he is free, and in the most delinite way refutes
the dectiine of moral fatalism. Man may become
the slave of sin, sinking into spiritual paralysis ;
but it is his own act, and recovery is always pos-
sible in this life. Only so far as his action is
voluntary, and his slavery self-induced, is he
euilty. Pharaoh who hardened his heart repeat-
edly, Ahab who ‘did evil above all that were
before him,’ Jeroboam ‘who made Israel to sin,’
are terrible examples of the hardening effects of
sin; but their ruin was their own work; they
‘sold themselves to work evil’ (1 Ix 21°"). Other-
wise, they could not have been punished by God
as they were. Whatever speculative difficulties
may be raised on the ground of the divine omni-
science, or the law of heredity, or the principle
of cause and effect, they vanish before man’s in-
vineible consciousness of moral responsibility and
the Scripture declarations of God's righteousness
and man’s freedom (Gn 188, Ezk 35%, Jn 3! 5%),

J.S. BANKs.

LIBNAH (7725).—41. The third of the 12 stations
following Hazeroth, mentioned only in Nu 33": 7!
(see Exopus, LV.), unless it is the same place that
is called in Dt 1} Laban. Its position is not known.

2. A city taken by Joshua (Jos 10" °°), and, from

place to the ‘spirit of adoption’ (Ro 8”, Gal 4%). the context, situate between Makkedah and
Sin, death, the world, are conquered enemies (1 Co Lachish. The name occurs in the list of con-
| ;
ΠΥ Α. | F. Lue,
TIER Λεμωνά Λεβωνά 26.4, Λεβωνά
Sahay fe ᾿ς AeSwra as A.
Jos 10°? Λεβνά (ris) Λεβμνά 0's) def. Λεβνά
102! Ac Buva (bis) def.
Hoe ea def.
le ἫΝ Ae3ura def,
Τὴν: Λεμνά Aesva def.
1. 1: det.
BK SRE Levvd Λομνά def. Λοβνά
ΤῸ: Aouva Aosva def. ἫΝ
pave Anuva Ao3eva def. Λοβεννά
2418 om. Aouvd NY OY) Qms
Is 378 AoBvav Ao3va Λομνάν Aouva οἱ γ᾽ AaBava
1 Ch 6% [Heb.#7] AoBva AoBva Λοβνάν
23222 Oe? Λομνά Λοβνά AoBva

112 LIBNI

LIE, LYING

quered kings (12!) between Arad and Adullam,
in a group of 9 cities of the Shephélah (15%) and in
the lists of priestly cities (21°, 1 Ch 6# [v.o7 LXX
and Eng.]). The MT in Ch describes it as a city
of refuge, but the text requires emendation, and
the renderings of AV and RV give the probable
sense. The city revolted at the same time as

him through the king’s authority’); Ace 21% AV

Edom from under the hand of Judah in the time of.

Joram [Jehoram] (2 kk 85 ὦ Ch 21'"). It appears
to have been a stronghold, for the king of Assyria
attacked it in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ια 195, Is 378).
In the last days of the kingdom of Judah it was

inhabited by Jewish families, fer Josiah took to |
wife a daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah (2 kK 233)

2415). ‘This is the last biblical notice of the place, and
no reference to it occurs in later times. It was prob-
ably in the neighbourhood of Beit Jibrin, and a site
4 miles to N.W. has been proposed, and (PEFS¢,
Jan. 1897) another, 10 miles S.E. of Tell el-Hesy.
The LXX renderings are very varied, Λεβνά or
Λοβνά occurring most frequently ; for 8 is substi-
tuted in some places, and λεβμνά oecurs in A,
The first vowel is often varied, but generally no
vowel is found between 3 and vy, and in this respect

the renderings are distinguished from those of |

Libnah (1), which introduce ὦ between 8 and ν;
Λεβωνά, with « for 8 in B. The first syllable of
the rendering Σεννά in 2 Καὶ 835 may be a duplication
of the last syllable of the preceding word. On
the previous page is a list of the LXX variations.
A. T. CHAPMAN.
LIBNI ( AoSev(e)i).—The eldest son of Gershon,
that is to say, the eponym of a principal family
of Gershonite Levites, Ex 61%, Nu 318... 1 Ch 6! Ὁ
[Heb. > °). In 1 Ch 6° (Heb. 4], perhaps owing to
some dislocation of the text, the name appears as
that of the eponym of a family of Merarites. The
patronymic Libnites (3277) occurs in Nu 3* 26°.

ée7t!

sah

ates

LIBRARY.—See WRiTING.
LIBYA, LIBYANS.—See ΤΙ ΡΙΜ.
LICE

(213, 9 kinnim, op kinnam,

as alternative rendering to of Debir (text).

oxviges, |

κνίπες, sciniphes, cinifes).—The usual meaning of |

σκνίψ --ἰ κνίψ is plant-louse. It is also used for
various species of gnats. Some have supposed it
to designate a species of worm. Whether it can
be understood of the louse also is not clear. The
tr. in the text of EV (Ex 8:6 RVm ‘sandflies’
or ‘fleas, 718) Ps 105°) ‘lice’ is based upon
the authority of the Talmud; on the fact that
the insects alluded to sprang from the dust, not
from the water; that the lice were in, not on men
and beasts, te. in their hair; that the Targum,

‘And when he had given him licence’ (ἐπιτρέψαντος
δὲ αὐτοῦ, RV * And when he had given him leave’) ;
and 25'© AV ‘have licence to answer’ (τόπον ἀπο-
Aoyias, RV ‘have had opportunity to make his
defence’). AV had already changed ‘licence’ of
earlier versions into ‘leave,’ as Jn 19°8 Tind. ‘And
Pylate gave him licence.” The verb was once
common in the same sense, as Ac 22 ding Rhem.
‘Being licensed by the Tribune to speake to the
people’; Elyot, Governour, ii. 294, ‘he licenced
Plato to departe without damage.’ Milton uses
both subst. and vb. in their modern meaning in
Areopagitica (Clar. Press ed. p. 6), ‘But lest I
should be condemn’d of introducing licence, while
LT oppose Licencing.’ J. HASTINGS.

LIDEBIR (7275).—Proposed in RVm of Jos 1355
See
Derbir No. 2 and LODEBAR.

LIE, LYING, and the many other words of the
group, describe various forms of the sin against
truth, and serve to illustrate an important element
of the biblical morality.

The principal Heb. and Greek terms are the following :—
1. "py ‘lie’ (Qal and Pi.). Ape ‘falsehood’ (Jer 1014), ‘a lie’

| (Ps 11969), frequently preceded by 7137, also used adverbially

=‘ falsely’ (2 S 1815).

2. 31D (root meaning quite uncertain) ‘to speak falsely,’ esp.
in Pi. (with > or 2 pointing to the person addressed) ; Niph.
“to be found or show oneself a liar’ (Pr 306), Hiph. ‘make or
make out a liar’ (Job 245), 3153 ‘a lie’; “wig a ΠΗ
(Pr 1952); cf. Di2N Jer 1518 (of failing, deceptive brook, cf. vb. in
Is 5111), Mic 114,

3. ‘to be lean,’ ‘become emaciated’ (Ps 109%4); Pi.
with > or 2 ‘to lie to one’ (1 Καὶ 1318, Jer 512); Niph. ‘to feign
obedience’ (Dt 3329), vp ‘leanness’ (Job 163), usually ‘alie,’ ‘a
calumny’ (Hos 1038). > ‘deceitful’ (15 36%), The root mean-
ing is uncertain, possibly that of faiiing.

4.93, only in plur. 02 (root 393, @.e. 812 ‘to invent’)
‘empty or boastful talk’ (Job 118), thence applied to utterers
of such, as liars, diviners (Is 4429, Jer 5088),

5. oy’ ‘emptiness,’ ‘vanity’ (Ps 0011), thence applied to
things of no substance or injurious, as the falsehood, the idol,
the wicked or criminal act (Pr 308, Ps 244 264, Job 1111); cf.
Ny Ty ‘a hollow, insincere witness’ (Dt 520) with 7py 3B ‘a
false witness’ (Ex 2016),

6. In NT the subject is handled by the use of the group of
words connected with Leta, here used only in the middle
voice. “ψεύδεσθαι is used abs. (Mt 511, 2 Co 1191 ete.) ; with ace.
of person lied to (Ac 58); with dat. (Ac 54); εἰς τινα (Col 3%) ;
κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας (Ja 314), The list includes ψεύστης ‘a de-
ceiver’ (Jn 844 etc.), ‘a false teacher’ (1 Jn 22%); ψευδής ‘ false,’
‘wicked’ (Ac 613, Rev 218); ψεῦδος ‘Iving,’ “ἃ lie,’ esp. of false
religion (Jn 84, Ro 125); Yevcux ‘a falschood’ (Ro 31); ἀψ ευδής
of God ‘that cannot lie’ (Tit 19); Ψευδολόγος ‘teaching falsely’

~

we

Uiie
— 9

-"πΞ

wis
e

| (1 Ti 42); and various compounds descriptive of enemies of the

Syriac, and Arabic VSS tr. the word by one which |

appears to mean dice rather than gnats. Scholars
are still divided on the subject (see MEDICINE,
p. 380), but the weight of evidence seems to be in
favour of dice as the third of the plagues of Egypt.
Lice swarm on the persons of uncleanly people in
the East. The better classes of the ancient Egyp-
tians, however, were scrupulously clean; and Hero-
dotus says that the priests shaved all the hair
from their heads and bodies every third day, lest
they should harbour any of these unclean insects,
and so defile the temples.
would be peculiarly abhorrent to them.
the whole subject, Dillm. on Ex 8”,
{τ ἘΠ᾿ Oe.

LICENCE is simply ‘ permission’ in all its oceur-
rences in AV, where its spelling is indifferently
‘licence’ (1 Mae 1%, 2 Mac 4°, Ac 21# 251%), or
‘license’ (Jth 114, Sir 15°"), and the verb does not
occur. RV retains ‘licence’ (spelling so always),
except in 2 Mac 4°, AV ‘if he might have licence
to set him up a place for exercise’ (ἐὰν συγχωρηθῇ
διὰ τῆς ἐξουσίας αὐτοῦ, RV ‘if it might be allowed

See, on

Such a pest, therefore, —

faith, as Levdadergos (Gal 24), Ψευδαπόστολος (2 Co 1113), Ψευδο-
προφήτης (Mt 715 etc.), “Ψευδοδιδάσκαλος (2P 21), Ψψευδέχριστος
(Mt 2424, Mk 1322),

1. The biblical writers describe various types of
lying. In its most general aspect—the saying
what we know to be false with intent to deceive
—it is clear that it was reprobated by the common
conscience of Israel (cf. Pr 19°" 30°), and it is ex-
pressly condemned in the ancient Law of Holiness
(Ly 192-1), Usually, however, in the legislation,
including the Decalogue, special cognizance is
taken of lying of the criminal kind—consisting
either in the perjured testimony which procures
an unjust sentence (Dt 19%=!, cf. Ex 20'°), or in
the false statement which is the instrument of
fraudulent dealing (Lv 6!"). In the prophetical
writings lying is conceived, not merely as a prin-
cipal kind, but almost as the soul, of wickedness,
and so sometimes appears as the symbol of all
moral evil (Hos 19], cf. Is 6°). At a later period
‘lie’ is a favourite description of the message of ,
the false prophets (Jer 2719), and of the utterances
of soothsayers (Is 44), and the same idea is often
expressed in the designation of idols and idolatry

LIE, LYING

LIE EG

‘In NT, in which the duty of truthfulness is
strongly insisted on in contrast to Oriental deceit-
fulness, it is sugvested that there are three lies
par excellence—heathen religion (Ro 155), the claim
Jof the false apostle (Rev 93), and the denial ‘that
\Jesus is the Christ’ (1 Jn 222),
2. The heinousness of lying appears in various
)particulars—that it is utterly inconsistent with the
vholiness which is of the essence of the divine
)nature, and gives a law to the people (Ly 1911), and
/more particularly with the commandments of a
οὐ who Himself is absolutely true (Ps 89"); and
also that it has anti-social effects of a ruinous and
\far-reaching kind (Prophets, passim; ef. Pr 26%).
“In NY its sinfulness is further emphasized by
tracing it to the example and inspiration of Satan
(Jn 8¥, Ac 5%), or to the old man which is put off
/in conversion (Col 3°),
— 38. Lhe penalties of lying are set forth in an
ascending scale. Various saws in Pr point to the
heritage of contempt which is the portion of the
habitual iar, The judicial punishment of the
false witness is the recoil upon himself of the evil
‘he had thought to do unto his brother’ (Dt 1919).
In the history of Gehazi (2 Καὶ δ), and of Ananias
and Sapphira (Ac 5), the ageravated lie is punished
by a special Judgment of appalling severity. In
Ps 244 lying is numbered with the sins which dis-
qualify from the worship of, and so exclude from
communion with, God. And as a consistent de-
velopment of this stern judgment we find it in
the NT as one of the list of sins by which the
essence of character is tested, and which, become
habitual, entail the forfeiture of eternal salvation
(Rev 2127 2915),
Two problems arising out of the subject may be
briefly referred to. ‘The first is connected with
the passages which seem to represent God as using
deceitful means—esp. 1 KX 225, where He is said to
have lured Ahab to destruction by ‘ putting a lying
spirit in the mouth of the prophets,’ and in a lesser
degree 1S 16%, where He instructs Samuel to con-
ceal his real purpose from Saul by offering a
sacrifice. As regards the first of these cases it
may, however, be fairly held, as is indeed required
by the general tenor of OT religion, that the sense
is satisfied by regarding God, not as the author of
sin, but_as overruling wickedness to the working
out of His righteous purposes. ‘All that is meant
is that, in carrying out God’s decree of condemna-
tion, he (the lying spirit) becomes a means of
leading the king on to his doom through the fawn-
ing guile of these false prophets’ (W. S. Bruce,
Uthics of OT, p. 269). It should be added that the
difficulty of this class of passages is less keenly
felt when the mechanical theory of inspiration is
abandoned. *
A second problem concerns the attitude of the
‘Bible in its moral teaching towards the casuistical
controversy over the lie of exigency. In other
words : when we have said of a statement that it is
wittingly false, or intended to deceive, is it thereby
condemned as having the character of guilt? or
does it lose this character if it can be shown that
the false statement was required in self-defence, or
by the law of love? Of such lies we have examples
in the lives of Abraham (Gn 202) and of David
(18 21%), although obviously it does not follow,
any more than in the case of the graver failings of
{OT saints, that they are recorded for example and
guidance. On the whole, the rigorous doctrine must

*Under the same category reference may be made to the
passage (Jn 78.10.14) where our Lord said, τὰ εὖ not up to this
feast’ ; then ‘went he also up, not openly.’ But, with the
reading of BL (οὐκ. . . οὐ πω), or even without it, if the sentence
18 continued (ὦ ἐωὸς καιρὸς οὕπω πετλήρωται), the difficulty almost
disappears. What is quite certain is that the author of the
Fourth Gospel cannot have thought that any unveracity was
‘Implied. See Meyer, in loc.

VOL. 111. —8

be judged more in harmony with the spirit of the
biblical morality, the common scriptural ground
being that it is ours to obey the commands of the
moral law, and that God may be trusted for the
consequences. For a full discussion of the lie of
exivency in the light of Christian principles, see
Martensen’s Christian Ethics (Eng. tr. 4), vol. ii.
p. 21G1E, also Newman Smyth’s Christian Lthics,
p. 392 ff. W. Εἰ PATERSON

LIE.—The verb to lie was formerly used in the
sense of pass the night, lodge, sleep. We find an

-example of this in Is 1418 * All the kings of the

nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one
in his own house’ (ary; RV ‘sleep,’ as Gen.
Bible): cf. Jos 2! AVm ‘and lay there,’ for text
‘and lodged there’ (sz¥-313281).. So North, P/utarch,
‘Demetrius,’ p. 895, ‘For they ordained that the
place behind the Temple of Minerva called Par-
thenon (as who would say, the temple of the
Virgin) should be prepared for his house to lye in’;
and Bunyan, PP (Clar. Press ed. p. 240), ‘Then
they called for the Master of the House, and he
came to them. So they asked if they might lie
there that night?’ On which Venables remarks,
‘To die continued in familiar use till the end of the
last century for to stop the night at a place. This
is the hinge of Walton’s witty translation of Sir
Henry Wotton’s definition of an ambassador—‘‘an
honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his
country.”’

‘
«
᾿,

The following phrases should be noticed: 1. Lie
along. See ALONG. 2 Lie on or Lie upon. This

phrase occurs in the figurative sense of ‘oppress,’
‘annoy, as Dt 2090 ‘all the curses that are written
in this book shall lie upon him?’ (2 7329; Driver
remarks that 722 is ‘to lie down as an animal’
[Gn 499], and thinks the metaphor forced, preferring
the Sept. κολληθήσονται, ‘shall cleave to him’);
Je 14" Sand it came to pass on the seventh day
that he told her, because she lay sore upon him?’
Gnas”, RV ‘she pressed him sore,’ Moore ‘she
besieged him’; the same verb is tr? in 1016 ‘she
pressed him,’ AV and RV); Ps 887 ‘Thy wrath
lieth hard upon me?’ (229 ‘Sy, Driver ‘presseth
upon me’); Sir 6% ‘She will he upon him as a
mighty stone of trial’ (ἰσχυρὸς ἔσται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, RV
‘shall she rest upon him’); Ae 27:9 ‘no simall
tempest lay on us’ (χειμῶνος. . . ἐπικειμένου) : RV
accepts this very literal and old-fashioned tr. here,
as well as in 1 Co 916 ‘lie upon’ for the same verb,
but elsewhere ἐπίκειμαι is tr? ‘press upon’ (Lk 5!),
‘be instant’ (2359), ‘impose on’ (He 9:0) ; but where
the meaning is literal, ‘lie upon’ (Jn 1133 AV, but
RV ‘le against,’ with m. ‘upon’) or ‘lie on’ (21%)
is of course used. Tindale (/.xpos. p. 100) says,
‘Covetousness made the Pharisees to lie on Christ,
to persecute Him, and falsely to accuse Him?’ ; and
again (p. 119), ‘Thou wouldest not that men should
do thee wrong and oppress thee; thou wouldest
not that men should do thee shame and rebuke,
lie on thee, kill thee,’ where the editor of the
Parker Soc. ed. explains ‘on is used for of or
against, apparently taking ‘lie’ to mean ‘tell
lies.” In Jeg 1939 the phrase has a somewhat milder
but very similar meaning, ‘let all thy wants le
upon me?’ (the Heb. is simply ‘be all thy wants
upon me’). In Nu 21 the meaning is ‘touch.’
‘And at the stream of the brooks that goeth down
to the dwelling of Ar, and lieth upon the border
of Moab’ (jyvn, RV as AVm ‘leaneth upon’).
3 εἶδ Cte = projects INely B29620 tor the. tower
which projected from the kine’s palace (RV
‘standeth out’). The phrase appears not to be
English, but a literal rendering by Coverdale (who
in v.*7 has ‘lieth outwarde’) of the Heb. ποῖα, LXX
ὁ ἐξέχων, Vule. que prominebat.

The old past ptep. dien occurs in Gn 26", Ps 6813,

LIEUTENANT

LIFE AND DEATH

Jer 3°, and RV retains (except in Ps 68!°, where a
different tr. dispenses with it), but Amer. RV
changes to ‘lain.’ Cf. Job 813 Coy. ‘Then shulde
I now have lyen still, 1 shulde have slepte, and
bene at rest’; Fuller, Holy Warre, p. 187, ‘And
it was good plowing up of that ground which had
long len fallow.’ J. HASTINGS.

LIEUTENANT, RV Satrap, Ezr 8:6, Est 313 89
9°; also Dn: 37327 61%, where AV. *Princé,’—The
Heb. oiavizts (dhashdurpénim) represents the Pers.
khshatrapavan (=protectors of the realm), a title
found on Persian inscriptions, e.g. that of Behistun
(cf. Lagarde, Ges. Abh. 68, 14; Spiegel, Altpers.
Kreilinsch, 315). In Gr. the word became ἐξατράπης
or σατράπης; in the LXX we find a considerable
variety of rendering, διοικηταί Ezr, οἰκονόμοι 1 Es 8°7,
στρατηγοί, ἄρχοντες τῶν σατραπῶν Est, σατράπαι Dn,
ὕπατοι Dn (Theod.); in Vulg. satrapes, principes.
The satrap was the governor of a whole province
(cf. Dn 6! [but see Bevan, ad loc.], Herod. iii. 89),
and he held the position of a vassal king. His
power, however, was checked by the presence of a
royal scribe, whose duty it was to report tothe ‘great
king’ on the administration of the province. Also,
the troops were for the most part underthe command
of an independent a vee ἢ Under the satraps
were the ‘pehahs,’ or governors of smaller districts.
In Ezr 8 the term satrap seems to be used some-
what loosely, or the historian has unduly extended
the scope of Ezra’s commission ; the only satrap
whom it would really concern was the ruler of the
district west of the Euphrates, ‘the governor
beyond the river’ (Ezr 5°), H. A. WHITE.

LIFE AND DEATH.—

i. The Terms.

ii, Examination of the Biblical Teaching.

A, Old Test. teaching : (1) the early narratives of Gn;
(2) the Pentateuch; (3) the Prophets; (4) the
Poetical books ; (5) the Wisdom literature.

B. Apocryphal and Apocalyptic teaching.

C. New Test. teaching: (1) the Synoptics; (2) the
Johannine writings, (a) the Gospel, (ὁ) the First
Enistle, (¢) the Apocalypse ; (3) the Pauline Epistles ;
(4) the rest of the New Testament.

iii. sec to be drawn from the Scriptural use of the

erms.,
(a) Doctrinal.
(ὁ) Ethical.

i. THE TERMS.—(1) In the OT the regular word
for ‘to live’ is mn from the older root mn (so
Phen. ; Aram, xn) with the same signification, and
similar forms occur in Arab., Syr., and allied
tongues. It occurs in the sense of ‘having life,’
6.0. Ex 33° ‘man shall not see me and live’; Gn 5%
ete. ‘Adam lived an hundred and thirty years’; of
‘continuing in life’ when death threatens, 6.7.
Gn 207 ‘he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt
tive”; or specially of the soul as source of life, as in
(ὑπ 1219 ‘that my soul may Jive because of thee.’
It is also used with preps. =‘to live upon or by,
as Gn 27 “ly thy sword shalt thou dive,’ Dt 8°
‘man doth not Jive by bread only, but by every-
thing that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord
doth man Jive.’ So the life of man is spoken of as
consisting in obedience to the divine statutes (as
in Ezk 20" ete. ‘if a man do, he shall live in (by)
them’). ΤῸ live is used absolutely in the sense of
‘to prosper,’ as in 1S 104 « Let the king live’ (ΕΥ̓͂ μι).
It also has the signification of returning to life
from sickness, weariness, or death, as 2 K 88 ‘shall
I recover of this sickness?’ Jg 1519 ‘his spirit eame
again, and he revived’; Is 26! «Thy ἐμὲ: shall
live.’ In its causative forms it signifies ‘to give
life,’ ‘to preserve alive,’ ‘to quicken,’ ‘to restore,’
as Job 33! ‘the Lreath of the Almighty giveth me
life’; Ezk 13'8 ‘will ye save souls alive?’ Is 3816
‘make me to live’; 2 K 8! etc. ‘whose son he had
restored to life.’

The adjective πὶ ‘living’ is used of God as the
source οἵ all life, as Jos 3! ‘the living God is
ἀπο Πρ you’; and most commonly in the formula
of the oath ‘as the Lord liveth,’ e.g. Ru 3%. It is
the ordinary word for ‘living’ of men or animals.

The word for ‘life’ most generally is a plural
emphatic form (ὉΠ) from the same root. This is
used to denote not only physical life, but also
weliare or happiness, as Pr 161° ‘in the light of the
king’s countenance is life’; Dt 30° ‘to love the
Lord thy God . . . for he is thy life and the length
of thy days’; Ps 30° ‘in his favour is life.’ Once
(in late Hebrew) it is used of eternal life, viz.
Dn 12% ‘many shall awake, some to everlasting
life’ (ay vn). It bears also the signification of
means of life, sustenance, as in Pr 9272] ‘ mainten-
ance for thy maidens,’ though the general word in
this latter sense is a;0>. ‘There is also the form
a0, which denotes ‘a living being, ‘an animal,’
and more particularly ‘wild animals,’ but it is used
occasionally in later poetical writings in the sense of
‘life, as Ps 143° ‘he hath smitten my life down to
the ground’; Job 88:8 ‘he keepeth back his life
from perishing.’

It is noteworthy that the Hebrew name for
‘Eve’ (mr) is traced in Gn 3:0 to this root, though
it has been otherwise interpreted (see Ev).

A very important word is v3, dif. ‘breath,’ sig-
nifying the sow as the principle of life. We find
it in its literal sense in such passages as J6b 417°
[Ene.*!] ‘his breath kindleth coals,’ and Is 8",
As life, its seat was supposed to be in the blood, cf.
Ly 174 * For the /ife ot the flesh is in the blood.’
It is a general term for /ife in many senses, as
1K 2% ‘at the peril of his life’; Pr 10° one’s life
‘hungers.’ A special combination is 4:0 #23 ὁ living
creatures,’ as in Gn 15 etc.; so it is used by synec-
doche for a ‘man,’ as Ly 5! ete. ‘if any man sin’ ;
Gn 4015 ‘even sixteen souls, 1.6. persons’ (cf. corre-
sponding Eng. usage), and even for the emphatic
personal pronoun, as Is 46?‘ themselves are gone
into captivity’; Ps 11) ‘why say ye to me?’
Curiously it is sometimes = ‘a dead body,’ ef. Nu 5*.
222 ‘the heart’ is occasionally used 85: 52, see Ps
1023, Jer 418, See, further, art. SOUL.

In the LXX the usual equivalent of ov7 is ζωή,
though once (Pr 3115) βέος is used, and the latter
frequently has the signification of the period or
course of life inthe NT, e.g. Lk 815 ‘ pleasures of
this life’ ; as also of resources, as Mk 124 ‘even all
her living.’ The special NT ideas covered by ζωή
are discussed below. For w23 and also 25, ψυχή is the
equivalent ; and this word also plays an ον: angie
part in the language of the NT, as also does its
derived adj. ψυχικός.

(2) The most ordinary Hebrew verb signifying
‘to die’ is ns, and this is used in the most general
sense of man, beast, and even of trees and land.
Cf. Job 148 ‘the stock thereof die in the ground,’
and Gn 47:9 ‘wherefore should we die, both we and
our land?’ From this is derived the word n)>
‘death,’ sometimes personified, as in Ps 49!‘ Death
shall be their shepherd’; cf. Is 9818... It is used
as=the abode of the dead, as in Ps 918 ‘the gates οἱ
death,’ and Pr 77 ‘the chambers of death’ (though

these might be understood in the former sense as a

person). There is the derived form 7:2, only
found in the phrase “n7j3, as Ps 79" ‘the sons of
death ’=‘those that are appointed to death’ (EV).
(For Sheol and Abaddon, see arts. on these words,
and also ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OT in vol. i. p. 740).
For death in the special aspect of a destructive
plague on men, as Ex 5° ‘lest he fall upon us with
pestilence,’ or on cattle Ex 98, there is the word
7372 (LXX @dvaros). ’

The most general word in the LXX as equivalent
to the Hebrew terms above noted is θάνατος. In
the NT it is used in the same signification, and is

LIFE AND DEATH

LIFE AND DEATH 115

also found personified, as in 1 Co 15° “0 death,
where is thy victory 7’ Rev 118 “1 have the keys of
death and of Hades.’ [ is frequently used of
spiritual death, either during earthly life, as in
to 78 © Did then that which is good become death
unto me?’ 1Jn 34°‘ He that loveth not abideth in
death,’ or in the world to come, as specially ‘the
second death’ (ὁ δεύτερος θάνατος), as Rev 24 ‘he
shall not Le hurt of the second death.’

For ἄδης see art. HADES, sub voc., and also
ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NT in vol. i. p. 752.

ll. EXAMINATION OF THE BIBLICAL TEACHING ON
THESE [DEAS.—A. OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING.—
(1) dn the Karly Narratives of Genesis.—At the
very opening of Scripture, in both accounts of the
Creation, we find definite teaching on life and death.
God created every living creature. Gn 1:9 ‘And
God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly
the moving creature that hath life.’ Again we
read in Gn 150 of ‘every beast of the earth, and
every fowl of the air, and everything that creepeth
upon the earth, wherein there is 116. The second
account is more definite in its teaching as to the
creation of man; thus Gn 97 describes how ‘the
Lorp God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ;
and man became a living soul.’ Next we read of
the ‘ tree of life,’ which is common to the traditions
of other Semitic peoples, and of the punishment
attached to the eating of the ‘tree of the know-
ledge of good and evil’; Gn 917 ‘in the day that
thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.’ The
literal and metaphorical senses of the word ‘die’
constitute the force and subtlety of the serpent’s
temptation in Gn 34‘ Ye shall not surely die.’ To
prevent man gaining the gift of immortality he
15 driven out of the garden, and the tree of life
guarded, Gn 324-+4,

(2) In the Pentateuch.—The ordinary word for

‘life’ is w23 (LXX ψυχή), as in Gn 9? ‘but flesh
with the life (v23) thereof, which is the blood
thereof, shall ye not eat.’ This recurs repeatedly
throughout the whole of the legal writings, and the
narrative that is coloured by the priestly tradition
(see, e.g., Lv 171) 24)8, Dt 12). Life is used in the
familiar absolute sense in Dt 30! ‘See, I have set
before you this day life and good, and death and
evil’ (ct. Sir 151”),
_ (3) In the Prophets.—The main prophetic teach-
Ing on this subject is found in Isaiah and Ezekiel.
In a poetical (probably late) passage of the former
we read, Is 25°‘ He hath swallowed up death for
ever’ (cf. 2 Ti 1!), and in Is 2619 ‘Thy dead shall
live, thy dead bodies shall arise . . . and the earth
shall cast forth the dead (lit. the Rephaim, 1.6.
shades).’ In another poetic passage, the psalm of
Hezekiah, recorded in Is 38!-2°, there is much
Mnportant material, but it is probably late, and
should he classed with the teaching of the poctic
books (see below). The passage speaks of ‘the
gates of Sheol’ (v.19). Death is presented as the
end of all communion with God and men, ‘I shall
not see the Lord, even the Lord, in the land of the
living : I shall behold man no more with the in-
habitants of the world’ (v."). But God speaks to
him, and he cries, “Ὁ Lord, by these things men
live, and wholly therein is the life of my spirit.’
And again, ‘Sheol cannot praise thee, death can-
not celebrate thee : they that go down into the pit
cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living
he shall praise thee as I do this day” νυν ἢ

In the teaching of Ezekiel there is frequent
reference to life in the pregnant sense of enjoying
God’s favour, and the accompanying earthly pro-
Sperity that is its sign. Thus Ezk 332), the
teaching of which is summarized in vv. 18 19 ag
follows: ‘When the righteous turneth from his
righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall

| : Γ
| even die therein.

But if the wicked turn from his
wickedness and do that which is lawful and right,
he shall live thereby’ (cf. 318-8 182427 24"). In the
prophetic portion of the Bk. of Daniel there is one
reference, though probably of very late date, te
‘eternal life’ in 124 ‘many of them that sleep in
the dust of the earth shall awake, some to ever-
lasting life.’

(4) Ln the Poetical Books.—References are much
more numerous in the Psalms and in Job. Thus
in various passages of the Bk. of Job we have
presented the popular conception of the existence
of the dead, e.g. 3'*!°, where the ‘ wicked cease from
troubling, and the weary be at rest,’ where ‘the
prisoners are at ease together, and the servant is
tree froin his master’; or 10 350-29. where that world
is described as being ‘of the shadow of death,
without any order, and where tie light is as dark-
ness’; yet the writer rises to the vision of something
much higher and Lrighter, as in 14%-4, where he
asks, ‘If a man die, shall he live again? All the
days of my appointed time would 1 wait till my
release should come.’ Cf. 3355 ‘He hath redeemed
my soul from going into the pit, and my life shall
behold the light.’ His ‘blood’ is used for his
wrongful death (see legal idea of identity of the
blood and the lite, below) in 1018 “Ὁ. earth, cover
not thou my blood, and let my cry have no resting-
place’ (cf. Gn 4, Ezk 2478, Is 2674). As to the
great passage 19°°*7, and in what sense it denotes
personal immortality, see A. B. Davidson’s com-
mentary on Job, in doco, and Appendix.

In the Psalins we read of ‘the path of life’ in an
ethical and spiritual sense as the way of obedience
to God (cf. Ps 16"); of God as the ‘fountain of
life,’ Ps 36° (cf. Jer 215). Ps 30° ‘in his favour’ ;
Ps 214 ‘he asked life of thee, and thou gavest it
him’; Ps 27° ‘the Lord is the strength of my life’ ;
Ps 3413 “What man is he that desireth life, and
loveth many days, that he may see good?’ 498 ‘the
God of my life’; 66° ‘God . . . which holdeth our
soul in life.’

Death has all the gloom and disappointment it
had in Job, e.g. Ps 6° ‘In death there is no remem-
brance of thee: in Sheol who shall give thee
thanks?’ In 49" death is personified.

(5) In the Wisdom Literature.—(a) In the Bk.
of Proverbs the same poetic figures of life fre-
quently occur, e.g. ‘the paths of life,’ 2! 5°; ‘tree
of life,’ 315 118° 13"; ‘well or fountain of life,’ 10%
134 14°. In the absolute sense the word occurs,
e.g. 3° “80. shall they be lite unto thy soul’; 8%
‘whoso findeth me findeth life.’ Contrast the
use of ‘death’ in 8535 ‘all they that hate me love
death.’

By a figure ‘light and darkness’ are used for
‘life and death’ in Ee 1178,

B. TEACHING OF THE APOCRYPHA AND THE
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.—These words occur
most frequently and with most special significance
in the two books of the Wisdom Literature in the
Apocrypha, viz. those of IVisdom and Sirach. In
the former ζωή occurs in several interesting con-
nexions, cf. Wis 115 ‘Court not death in the error
of your life’ (cf. Pr 8°6 and 21); 1338 ‘for life he
beseecheth that which is dead,’ where reference is
made to idolatry ; cf. also 14” ‘the invention of
them (i.e. idols) was the corruption of life’; 16%
‘for thou hast authority over life and death, and
thou leadest down to the gates of Hades, and leadest
up again.’

In the Book of Sirach ἕωή occasionally means
sustenance, 6.6. 4'‘ My son, deprive not the poor
of his living,’ 3451: ‘The bread of the needy is the
life of the poor.’ The general use is that of the
figurative and absolute sense we have found in Pt
and elsewhere, c.g. 413 ‘He that loveth her ‘i.e
Wisdom) loveth life,’ cf. Pr 318; 016 ‘a faithful fclend

116 LIFE AND DEATH

LIFE AND DEATH

is a medicine of life,’ 1517 “before men is life and | 92. 103. and 108, from which we learn that the

death’ (cf. Dt 3019),
ζωῆς, see 21" «The knowledge of a wise man shall
be made to abound as a flood, and his counsel as a
fountain of life’ (cf. Pr 13" and 14*7), An instruc-
tive contrast is found in 40" “A man that looketh
unto the table of another, his life is not to be
counted for a life.’ ψυχή has also one or two usages
that may be noted here.
translated soul in the general sense of that word,
asin Wis 3! ‘the souls of the righteous are in the

For the special phrase πηγὴ

It is, of course, ordinarily |.

hand of God,’ but frequently comes near to its NT

significance, e.g. Wis 9! ‘a corruptible body
weigheth down the soul’ (cf. 2 Co 514), ef. 158
‘when he is required to render back the soul (life)
which was lent him.’ Two verses bring the several
terms into close conjunction, Wis 15": 1? * Te was
ignorant of him that inspired into him an active
soul (ψυχή), and breathed into him a vital spirit
(πνεῦμα ζωτικόν). But he accounted our very life
(ζωή) to be a plaything, and our lifetime (βίος) a
gainful fair’; cf. also 1014,

In Sirach we may note two passages :
will justify him that sinneth against his own soul
(ψυχή) ἡ and who will glorify him that dishonoureth

1039 * Who

life,” Mt 6°° ‘Be not anxious for your life.’

his own life (ζωή) 7’ and 16° ‘the soul of every living |
«ἡ ῳ 8

thine’ (ψυχὴν παντὸς ζφου).

In 2 L’sdras, ch. 7, there is ἃ very important
passage, mainly contained in the portion re-
covered by Bensly, a translation of which is to
be found in the RV. It is a vision of the
last judgment, which is to be preceded by seven
days of such silence as was before the Creation ;
then follows the general resurrection, and the
seating of the Most High in majesty as judge.
The seer understands how few can stand in the
judgement, and exclaims, ‘An evil heart hath
grown up in us, which hath led us astray from
these statutes, and hath brought us into cor-
ruption and. into the ways of death, hath showed

us the paths of perdition, and removed us far from |

life ; and that not afew only, but well-nigh all that
have been created’ (765), Thereafter follows a
vision of the various stages through which the
wicked and the righteous pass after death. The
day of judgement is declared to be ‘the end ef this
time and the beginning of immortality’ (though
et initiuim is omitted in the Lat. MS) (74 (8),
Again, in the 8th chapter the Most High declares
to the seer, ‘Unto you is paradise opened, the tree
of life is planted, the time to come is prepared...
Weakness is done away for you, and [death] is
hidden ; hell and corruption are fled into forgetful-
Ness . and in the end is showed the treasure
of immortality? (8 >),

In the Psalms of Solomon a few passages deal
with the resurrection, e.g. 3! “They that fear the
Lord shall rise again to life everlasting. And their
life shall be in the heht of the Lord, and shall fail
no more’; 1310 ‘Phe life of the righteous is for
ever, but sinners shall be taken away for destrue-
tion’; 16. Ὁ «The holy of the Lord shall live in him
for ever; the paradise of the Lord, the trees of life,
are his holy ones. The holy of the Lord shall in-
herit life in gladness.’ For'sinners the lot is also
appointed in accordance with their deeds; thus 318
‘He fell, because evil was his fall, and he shall
not rise again; the destruction of the sinner is
for everlasting’; and 1515 «Sinners shall perish
in the day of the Lord’s judgment for ever, when
God shall visit the earth in His judgment, to re-
pay sinners for everlasting.’

In the Book of Enoch (chs, 38-44) oceurs a pas-
sage resembling the one quoted above from 2 Esdras,
in which are seen in vision the celestial abodes
prepared for the righteous, where they bless and
magnify the Lord for ever and ever. Similar
passages on the judgment are found in chs. 51. 61.

resurrection of the body pertains only to the right-
eous.

In the Apocalypse of Baruch we lave the uni-
versal resurrection foretold, and the punishment
of the wicked, as, e.g., in ch. 30 ‘And the secret
places shall be opened wherein have been kept the
souls of the righteous, and they shall come forth
. . but the souls of sinners shall Jancuish the
more, for they know that their punishment has
come,’

C. NT TEACHING.—(1) The Synopties.—In the
first three Gospels these words are used with con-
siderable fulness and variety of meaning. We
have ‘life’ (¢#7) used absolutely as an equivalent
for salvation in its fullest sense, as in Mt 7!4 ‘ For
narrow is the gate and straitened the way that
leadeth unto life, and few be they that find it’;
and in the repeated phrase ‘to enter into life,’ Mt
188 ete., Mk 9” etc.; once (Lk 1055) the word is
used of ‘lifetime on earth.’ ‘Eternal life’ (ζωὴ
αἰώνιος) occurs ἃ few times, cf. Mt 192% 29, Mk 103,
ψυχή is frequently used for the natural physical
lite in the body, as in Mt 2” ‘the young child’s
Yet
these are separable, and are commonly spoken of
as ‘body’ and ‘soul.’ Thus Mt 10° ‘ Be not afraid
of them which kill the body, but are not able to
kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to
destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.’? ‘This
double sense of the word, as denoting the higher
and lower life,—that inherent in the earthly body,
and that which remains when the union is broken,
—lends itself to what may be alinost called a play
upon the word, as in the recurring thought, e.g.
Mt 10° ‘He that findeth his life shall lose it ; and
he that loseth his life for my sake shall tind it,’
cf. Mt 16° and the parallels. In the same sense
is life used in such passages as ‘rest unto your
lives’ (EV ‘souls’), Mt 1139; ‘In your patience ye
shall gain possession of your lives’ (EV ‘souls’),
Lk 21! In one case ξωή is used with a similar
meaning, viz. Lk 12! ‘a man’s life consisteth
not in the abundance of the things which he
possesseth.’? ψυχή 1s also used of our Lord’s offer-
ing of Himself, as in Mk 10% ‘to vive his life a
ransom for many.’

Bios is used of ‘living’ in the sense of mainten-
ance, and only occurs once outside of Luke, and
that in a parallel passage quoting eur Lord’s own
words, viz. ‘all her living,’ Mk 12", cf. Lk 214.
See also Lk 15% and 8*. In one case it denotes
the earthly existence, viz. Lk 84 ‘cares and riches
and pleasures of this life.’ θάνατος in the Synoptics
denotes death as the termination of this earthly
life, as Mt 1655 ‘shall not taste of death,’ Mk
105 “condemn him to death,’ Lk 22% ‘lam ready
to go to death,’ ete.

(2) The Johannine Writinas.—(a) The Gospel.—
The idea of life (ζωή) is a favourite one with the
writer of the Fourth Gospel, and has a special sig-
nificance. ‘Life’ in the absolute sense (with or
without the epithet ‘eternal’) in which he uses it
is the special possession of God, of which He makes
men sharers when they believe in Him through His
Son. ThusJn 14 ‘In him was life, and the life was
the light of men’; 3! ‘that whosoever believeth
may in him have eternal life’; 330 ‘he that be-
lieveth not the Son shall not see fe’; 576 ‘as the
Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to
the Son also to have life in himself’; 175 ‘This is
life eternal, that they should know thee the only
true God, and him whom thou didst send, even
Jesus Christ’; 1010 ‘I came that they may have
life,’ etc. Specially noteworthy are the phrases
Christ uses to describe Himself and His mission.
‘The bread of life,’ 6%; ‘the words that I have
spoken unto you are spirit and are life,’ 6%; ‘he

LIFE AND DEATH

LIFE AND DEATH bo ὴ

that followeth me shall have the light of life, 815;
Slam tue lire, 11 149. ct: Also: 43%

ψυχή is used in similar senses as above noted,
but of special value is the form of our Lord’s word |
in 12" ‘He that loveth his life loseth it; and he |
that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto |
life eternal.’

θάνατος in this Gospel forms a distinct contrast
to ¢w7, as above illustrated, e.g. δ. ‘He that
heareth my word and believeth him that sent me
.. . hath passed out of death unto life’ (cf. Pauline
use below); but it is also frequently used in the
ordinary signification.

(6) The First Epistle.—The special signification
ot ζωή and θάνατος that we have noted in the
Gospel recurs in the first Epistle, and receives new
applications. Thus 1 Jn 1? ‘That which was
from the beginning, that which we have heard
... concerning the Word of life (and the life was
manifested . . . and we declare unto you the life,
the eternal life, which was with the Father)’; * we
know that we have passed out of death into life,’
34; “God gave unto us eternal life, and this life
is in his Son, 5". Special note must be taken of
the verses (5'°!7) that deal with ‘sin unto death’
(ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον), probably ‘tending towards’
death (see Westcott’s Commentary, iz loco, and
Add. Note, p. 209).

(ὦ The Apocalypse.—This mystical book has
many references to life, particularly in figurative
phrases, such as ‘the tree of life,’ 2’ 22? (in which
return is made to the imagery of the early tradi-
tions of Genesis, ef. Ezk 47:13); ‘the crown of life,’
9; «the book of life,’ 3° 138; ‘waters of life,’ 7!”
21° 2217, ψυχή is used of the life separated from
the body, hence rendered ‘souls’ in our version in
09 and 20% Very Hebraic are its uses in 89 and
16°, being an obvious imitation of the language
of Gn 1 (7:9 ὅτ). A striking use is that in 18®,
where ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων are reckoned among the
merchandise of the traders, probably meaning
slaves (ef. Ezk 27" ; also Nu 31: 40. 46 [Heb)).

(3) The Epistles of St. Paul.—In addition to uses
of ψυχή similar to those already given, the follow-
ing are noteworthy: ‘doing the will of God ἐκ
ψυχῆς (‘from the heart,’ EV)’ Eph 6°; obviously
it means ‘putting all the power of one’s life into
it’; ef. Col 3%. The threefold partition of human
nature is given in 1 Th 5% ‘may your spirit and
soul and body be preserved entire.’

St. Panl’s use of ζωή in the absolute sense is very
much akin to St. John’s. The phrase ‘eternal life’
is common, cf. Ro 27 52! 62, Gal 68, 1 Ti 1186 ete.
Mlustrations of the use of ζωή as fully expressing
the highest possible life are found in Ro 5!7 ‘they

.. reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ’;
Ro 64 ‘we also might walk in newness of life’;
No 7° ‘the commandment which was unto life’;
No 8 ‘the Spirit is life because of righteous-
ness’; 2 Co 2! ‘a savour from life unto life’;
2 Co 410 «that the life also of Jesus may be mani-
fested in our body’; 2 Co 5* ‘swallowed up of
life” In the same way he frequently uses the
verb ζῆν, e.g. 2 Co 69 ‘as dying, and, behold, we
live’; Ph 12! ‘to me to live is Christ’; 1 Th 38
‘for now we live if ye stand fast in the Lord.’
The Heb. form +7 5x, in its LXX equivalent, θεὸς
ζῶν, is frequent, not only in direct quotations, but
in St. Paul’s own writing, 6.9. Ro 925 (from LXX)
2 Co 3? 68, 1 Th 19, 1 Ti 3% 41,

In the case of the word θάνατος, while frequently
used in its common signification, as, ¢.g., Ro $8, 1 Co
15", Ph 25 ete., it bears in the Pauline writings
very deep and wide-reaching meanings. Some-
times it is personified (as in the OT), e.g. Ro δ13
‘Death reigned from Adam until Moses’; 1 Co 1538
‘the last enemy that shall be abolished is death.’
It is frequently used in a figurative sense to

3

describe the putting away of sin, as in Ro 619,
where we read of being ‘baptized into Christ’s
death,’ of ‘him that hath died’ being ‘justified
from sin,’ and so on; or, on the contrary, Ro 7”
speaks of the commandment being ‘found unto
death,’ for ‘sin, finding occasion through it, slew’
Paul. The sinful flesh is called ‘this body of
death’ (Ro 7%). «The mind of the flesh is death ;
but the mind of the Spirit is life’ (Ro8*). ‘Death?’
in its figurative sense is further illustrated in 2 Co
19. 10 “Wwe ourselves have had the answer of death
within ourselves... God who delivered us out of
so great a death.’ The messengers of the Cross
are ‘in them that are perishing a savour from death
unto death’ (2%). The law is ‘the ministration
of death’ (2 Co 37, ef. 7"). Death as a dissolution
is spoken of as a present power in 2 Co 4! «we
which live are alway delivered unto death for
Jesus’ sake . . . so then death worketh in us, but
life in you.’

In 2 Ti 110 we read of Christ ‘who abolished
death, and brought life and incorruption to light
through the gospel.’

(4) Lhe Rest of the NT.—In He 7'® we read of
‘the power of an endless life (ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου --Ξ
indissoluble).’ In Ja 1! we have the figure of the
‘crown of life.’ In 1 P 8: we read of ‘the grace of
life, and in 2 P 15 of ‘all things that pertain unto
life,’ obviously in the absolute sense. In Jude
there is the striking phrase ‘looking unto the
mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.’
In 1 P ψυχή is of frequent occurrence in Hebraic
senses, and might sometimes be rendered ‘life,’ as
in 4” ‘commit their souls in welldoing unto a
faithful Creator’; οἵ. He 10° 12° 1317,

The most important passages on ‘death’ are in
He 925-13. which tells of ‘Jesus, because of the
suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour ;
that by the grace of God he should taste death
for every man... that through death he might
bring to nought him that had the power of death,
and might deliver all them who through fear of
death were all their lifetiine subject to bondage’ ;
and He 9"-!6 See also Ja 1% ‘Sin, when it is full-
grown, bringeth forth death’; and 1 P 3! of Christ
‘being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in
the Spirit.’

111, CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN FROM ScrIP-
TURAL USE OF THESE WorpDs.—(a) Doctrinal.—
God is in Himself the source of all life, physical,
moral, and spiritual. He has not only called it
into being, but sustains it. Life is God's gift, and
can have no other origin. It is therefore a direct
offence against God to destroy even physical life.
This sentient life is, in the OT, represented as
inhering in, and inseparable from, the blood of the
animal. Hence blood becomes sacred. It is a
symbol of the mystery of life with which it is
identified. Blood thus becomes the most sacred
and solemn sacrificial offering.

Sin is rebellion against God, and so involves
separation from Him, which culminates in death,
Thus death is the final punishment of sin. By
death, then, can it alone be destroyed. Therefore
sacrifice was necessary; and in the sacrifice the
victim and offerer become identified, so that the
latter’s sin is cleansed throueh the acceptance of
the offered life of the victim. Not only so, but
this sacrifice must be continual, in order to main-
tain the fellowship that is being daily broken.
Life is possible only through sacrifice. Yet ‘death
is common to the race. What then’? Death in
the OT means a land of gloom and shadow, where
intercourse with God isimpossible. The inhabitants
of that realm can neither pray nor praise. Their
life is joyless and colourless. That this could not be
the end for all gradually became clear, so there arose
a doctrine of a double meaning both in ‘life’ and

habe

118 LIFE AND DEATH

LIFE AND DEATH

‘death.’ True life meant conscious and purposed | great basis of Ezekiel’s appeal. One of the greatest

fellowship with God; true death was not the dis-
solution of body and soul, but the separation of sin
persisted in. Thus we find Job and the Psalmists
rising to the conception of escape from Hades, and
to the assurance of an endless life in God’s presence.
The way to ensure this is to walk in God’s statutes,
and love and honour Him with all one’s heart.
He will vindicate His chosen against all enemies.

Thus, through the more definite teaching on im-
mortality of later Judaism, was paved the way for
the doctrine of the New Testament. Our Lord
did not have to explain the meaning of ‘ eternal
life’ and its opposite, but to show how they
were respectively to be avoided and won. Fellow-
ship is once more the prominent and central idea.
All words point to it. To ‘know,’ to ‘love,’ to
‘eat,’ to ‘drink,’ to ‘keep words and command-
ments,’ to ‘have’—these constitute the language
of the eternal life. The intimacy of union with
God through Christ becomes its one essential con-
dition; and, on the contrary, the lack of that
union entails eternal death.

In the teaching of St. Paul we find that the
lower life is purified and transformed into the
higher. All that is sensual, sinful, earthly, dies,
and only the spiritual elements remain. But life
is one and undivided, so that even the body has
its spiritual protoplasm (so to say), like the germ
within the seed, which develops into the spiritual
body, and so gives reality to the resurrection. It
is the resurrection that crowns the work of faith,
‘if in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we
are of all men most pitiable.’ It is no unreal,
shadowy, or partial life that lies beyond the grave,
but life in all its fulness and perfection—‘ the life
that is life indeed.’

The NT is consistent in presenting Christ as the
sole mediator of life. His life inheres in God,
and the life He is enabled to communicate to men
inheres in Him. Even the life of the physical
universe is possil le only in Him—‘all things have
been created through him and unto him’ (Col 14-1,
1 Co 8°). In St. Paul and in St. John we find the
fullest presentation of these teachings, but all
agree in the primary conceptions. St. Jolin’s teach-
ing on the eternal life is very full and varied, and
is thus admirably summed up by Dr. Westcott :
‘It is a life which, with all its fulness and all its
Soe is now: a life which extends beyond the
units of the individual, and preserves, completes,
crowns individuality by placing the part in con-
nexion with the whole: a life which satisfies while
it quickens aspiration a life which gives
unity to the constituent parts and to the complex
whole, which brings together heaven and earth,
which offers the suin of existence in one thought’
(Comm. on Epp. of John, pp. 217, 218).

(ὁ) Ethical.—Because life is God's unique gift,
it is held to be sacred. Hence all crimes against
life, that lessen its value by maiming the body's
physical powers or purity, by rendering life burden-
some through oppression, or still more by destroying
it altogether in the act of murder, are reckoned as
amongst the most heinous. The sacredness of life
in all these forms is safeguarded in the command-
ments of the Decalogue, and in the various elaborate
provisions of the Jewish legislation. The ethical
value of life is distinctly felt by all the prophets,
so that their most severe denunciations are levelled
against those who oppress or debauch the poor,
and by acts of injustice render life hard and bitter.
In this same thought the OT finds its strongest
arguments for immortality. Life is too great to
be destroyed, therefore God will either save His
servants from Sheol altogether, or will reseue them
eventually from its thraldom. God is interested
that men shall live and not die ;—this makes the

|

lessons of the Book of Jonah is to enforce the
value of life in the eyes of God. He had pity on
the great city of Nineveh because it had within it
‘sixscore thousand persons ... and also much
‘rattle.’ Life, even that of animals, is precious in
His eyes, and all that is possible must be done to

| save it.

Life must be guided hy moral precepts, and these
are clearly set forth as the condition of a long and
honoured career, e.g. Ps 15, which states the char-
acteristics of the man ‘that shall never be moved’ ;
Ps 16, which contains the assurance of fellowship
with God, continued after Sheol has been passed
through; Ps 9118 119, Pr passim, but specially
Q82-86 1018-25 19°: 16. 20-28

When we turn to the NT we find these ideas
much more clearly emphasized and enforced by
additional considerations. Jesus in His teaching
re-sets the moral law, and renders it more stringent
hy His interpretation. Murder is no longer con-
fined to an outward act, but is an attitude of the
soul; lust is in thoneht as well as in deed. And
these standards are to be the guide of the new life
He bestows. A man can live only by obeying
these statutes in their spirit. To be an inheritor
of the kingdom of God one need only keep the first
and second commandments,—love God and love
one’s neighbour ; but their interpretation and out-
reach is very wide; they are not to be understood
inthe letter but in the spirit. If His conditions are
understood, then His command gives the promise,
‘This do, and thou shalt live’ (Lk 1038. ‘ Eternal
life’? is not only the gift of God, but the condition
of maintaining itis to be in constant communion
with God. ‘He that eateth me, he also shall live
because of ine,’ are Christ’s mystical words in Ju 6%.
And again, in Jn 10!° we read, “1 caine that they
may have life, and may have it abundantly (καὶ
περισσὸν ἔχωσιν). This links our Lord’s teaching
closely with that of St. Paul, who is very clear on
the ethical side of the doctrine of the divine life.
Thus in Ro 5'® he arenes that ‘if we were recon-
ciled to God through the death of his son, much
more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his
life.” From this thought springs the whole eon-
ception of the new life in Christ, with its powers,
privileges, and responsibilities. It is not the man
himself who lives, but Christ who lives in’ him.
The controlling force is Christ. ‘To me to live is
Christ,’ says the apostle. A new code of ethical
conduct therefore emerges, ‘We are debtors, not
to the flesh, to live after the flesh; for if ye live
after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the spirit ye
mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live’ (Ro
8-15)" Hence there is a mortal conflict in the
man who is ‘alive unto God’ between the fleshly
law and the spiritual. The tragedy of Calvary is
re-enacted in each individual soul, which has hoth
to be crucified with Christ and to rise with Hin.
The evidence of this new life is in the production
of the ‘fruits of the Spirit,’ of which we have a
Ist, as contrasted with the ‘works of the flesh’ in
Gal5!"4, Thus the great doctrine of the resurrec-
tion becomes the central power in daily Christian
living, and affords not only the assurance of a iife
beyond the grave, but renders possible the advance
in Psa without which no man can see the
Lord.

LITERATURE.—Laidlaw, Bible Doctrine of Man2, 233 ff.; De-
litasch, Biblical Psychology, Eng. tr., Index, 8.vv.; Cave,
Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, 312f.; Findlay, Christian
Doctrine and Morals (Fernley Lect.), 180ff. ; Deane, Pseudepi-
grapha (passim) ; Montefiore, Hibbert Lect., Index ; E. White,
Life in Christ ; Petavel-Olliff, Le Probleme de UImmortalité
(Paris, 1891-2); Farrar, Eternal Hope, and Mercy and Judg-
ment; Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, 1897;
Beet, The Last Things, 142 ff.; Hort, The Way, the Truth, and
the Life, 1893 (Hulsean Lect. for 1871); Sanday-Headlam, Com.
on Romans (on 68 79 86 10° 121); Stevens, Johannire Theology,

LIGHT

LIGHT, LIGHTNESS 119

312 ff.; Hyde, Social Theology, 149 ff.; Dahle, Life after Death ;
Macpherson, art. ‘The New Test. View of Life’ in Eapos. 1st
Ser. v. 72 ff.; Massie, art. ‘Two New Test. Words denoting Life’
in Expos. 2nd Ser. iv. 380ff.; Matheson, art. ‘Pauline View of
Death’ in Expos. 2nd Ser. v. 40 ff. See also the authorities cited
under the three articles on EscuaTooay in vol. i.; the Oaford
Concordance to the LX.X ; and the comm. on the books quoted.

G. C. MARTIN.

LIGHT (Heb. x, 7x2, the latter of the sun and
moon as the abode of light, Gn 11418, Gr. φῶς)."-
j. With the Jews, as among other Oriental peoples,
there was a feeling of sanctity connected with the
idea of light. It was, according to Gn 1’, the
first thing shaped by God out of chaos, and after-
wards located in the sun and moon. In Job 38"
the original source of light is a mystery known
only to God.

ii. By very natural processes of thought many
secondary ideas became attached to the word. (1)
In Job 3” it is a synonym of life, contrasted in 3'°
with the darkness of the womb, and in 10 with
the shadow of death. (2) It is associated very fre-
quently with joy and prosperity, as in Est 810, Job
18-6, where the light of the wicked is to be put
out, whereas in Job 22% the light shines on the
ways of the righteous. In Is 9 the joy of Israel
under the government of the ‘Prince of Peace’ is
to be like the shining of a great light in contrast
to the preceding misery (cf. 28 234). (3) It is used
as a symbol of moral excellence, as in Pr 418. where
progress in goodness is compared with the dawning
‘that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.’
This use is very frequent in NT, as in Mt 6%
(Lk 115), often with the collateral thought of
the influence which the light has upon others, as
in Mt δ1΄:.16 (Lk 816 11) ; so of Christianity in con-
trast with the darkness of heathendom, as in Eph
53 Col P28, 1 P 29, In Ro 134, 1 Th 5*8, in
connexion with this thought there is a contrast
between the active duty of a soldier’s life by day
and the debauchery of night. (4) The term is also
applied to spiritual knowledge. Thus in Lk 16°
the ‘sons of light’ are contrasted with the ‘sons
of this world’ in point of wisdom. In 2 (Ὁ 47: the
glory of Christ's revelation illumining the hearts of
Christians is beautifully compared with the light on
Moses’ face in Ex 34°28, See also iii. (3) («) below.
(5) Ina more intellectual sense the word is used ot
the ocewt wisdom of the sage in Dn 2” 51+14,

iii. By far the most important uses of the word
are those connected more definitely with theology.
That the Hebrews, like other Sem. peoples, origin-
ally worshipped the sun and moon may perhaps be
considered probable, but cannot be proved from OT.
In the earliest historical records they appear, on
the contrary, as believing in an intensely personal
God, as in Gn 38 8*!, Ex 44. At the same time
the idea of God was frequently associated with
light. How far such conceptions of the Deity
were the expression of definite theological belief,
how far they were merely the languaze of poetic
metaphor, cannot always be determined with any-
thing like certainty. In all probability the one
passed into the other by imperceptible gradations,
the thought of an earher becoming gradually the
poetry of a later age. (1) In Ex 24” the place
under God’s feet was like ‘a paved work of sapphire
stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness.’
In Ezk 1135 the heavenly beings who bear the
throne of J” are ‘like burning coals of fire,’ and in
1% ‘the appearance of the likeness of the glory of
J”’ is like ‘the bow that is in the cloud in the day of
rain.’ In Ps 104? He is described as at the Creation
covering Himself ‘with light as with a garment,’
and in 1 Ti 6° as dwelling ‘in light unapproach-
able.’ In Is 601-ὃ the presence of J” when He comes
to visit His people is described as a glorious sunrise
in contrast to the darkness which covered the earth

* See under art. LANTERN.

as a whole; and in θ0}9- 39 His perpetual presence is
as a sun which never sets, so that His people have
no need of the sun and moon, ef. Rev 21% 22°, (2)
In other passages God is described as Himself
Licht. In Is 10” He is called the ‘light of Israel,’
the main thought of the passage being that He
who is properly the glory of Israel becomes a con-
suming fire burning up the ungodly, cf. Hos 6°
(RVm). In Is 514, on the contrary, God’s judgment
of Israel, in the sense of His merciful acts of Justice,
is a beacon light to the Gentiles, οἵ. 60%. In the
words ‘God is light, and in him is no darkness at
all’ (1 Jn 1°), the intention is to express the ‘awful
purity’ of God, which makes it impossible to have
fellowship with God and walk in darkness. (3) In
NT the word ‘light’ is frequently applied to Christ,
a usage suggested by such passages as Is 9}"3, as in
Lk 2%, Jn 14:59 319 9° 124, especially (a) with the
idea of imparting light, in the sense of spiritual
and moral knowledge, to others, as in Jn 1° 31%),
(6) Asa source of safety to Himself (Jn 11% 7°) and
others (8!2 12%: 86), the hght making it possible to
walk in what would be otherwise darkness, and
therefore dangerous. (6) On the analogy of 1]. (1)
it is associated with spiritual life, as in Jn 148”;
cf. Eph 54 ‘Awake... and Christ shall give thee
light.’ (d) Although St. John speaks both of the
Father (1 Jn 15) and of the Son as Light, there is
nothing to show that he himself conceived of Light
as suggesting the relation of the Son to the Father;
on the contrary, Jn 11:18 would seem to imply a
leaning towards a more anthropomorphic con-
ception of the Divine Persons. But a step in the
direction of the Nicene conception of ‘ Light out of
Light’ had already been made by the writer of the
Wisdom of Solomon, who speaks of wisdom as an
ἀπαύγασμα φωτὸς ἀϊδίου, καὶ εἴσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς
τ. θεοῦ ἐνεργείας, ‘An ΘΠ] ΘΠ. of everlasting
Light, and an unspotted mirror of the energy ot
God’ (Wis 735). The writer of the Ep. to the Heb.
boldly applies this thought to Christ, whom he
calls the ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δύξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς
ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ (θεοῦ), ‘the etfulgence of (God’s)
elory, and the impress of his substance’ (He 15}, and
thus introduces the familiar thought of Catholic
theology, made all the more natural and easy by
the laneuage of St. John. (4) The word was
applied also in a less degree to others: as John
the Baptist, who lighted up the way to Christ (Jn
178 5%), and St. Paul, who carried out Christ’s
work among the Gentiles (cf. Lk 253 with Ae 13%).

Tt is needless, perhaps, to add that the ideas of
light derived from the Bible have in all ages been
reflected in the prayers and lrymns, as well as in the
creeds, of Christendom. We have familiar illustra-
tions of them in the collect ‘ Lighten our darkness,’
and the hymn ‘ Lead, kindly light.’

I. H. Woops.

LIGHT, LIGHTNESS.— The adj. ‘light,’ the
opposite of ‘heavy,’ was formerly used as we now
use easy. Thus in Lord Berner’s Frotssart, xxiii,
‘who gave light credence to them’; Hall's Works,
ii. 94, ‘the God of mercy is light of hearing, yet
He loves a loud and vehement solicitation, not to
make Himselfe inclinable to graunt, but to make
us capable to receive blessings.’ This passed into
the meaning of careless, which we find, for ex-
ample, in Tindale’s Pent. ‘Prologe,’ p. 12, ‘Then
marke the grevous fall of Adam and of us all in
him, thorow the lightregardinge of the com-
maundement of god.’ From which the step to
worthless was short. This is the meaning of
the word in AV: Nu 21° ‘our soul loatheth this
light bread? (Ὁ: ὈπῚ8 πὸ Ὁ, LAX ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ
ἡμῶν προσώχθισεν ἐν τῷ ἀρτῷ τῷ διακένῳ [τούτῳ],
Vulg. ‘anima nostra jam nauseat super cibo
isto levissimo,’ Wye. ‘oure soule now wlatith
upon this moost hght meet,’ Tind. ‘oure soules

120 LIGHT, LIGHTNESS

LIGH ENING

lothe this lyghte bred, Matt. [Rog.] ‘oure
soules lothe thys lyghte breade’ with marg. ‘that
is so litle worth,’ RVm ‘this vile bread’); Jg 9+
‘Abimelech hired vain and light persons, which
followed him’ (ain; apa Οὐ; LXX ἄνδρας κενοὺς
καὶ δειλούς [A θαμβουμένους] : Vulg. ‘viros inopes et
vagos,’ Wye. ‘nedi men and vagaunt’ ; Cov. ‘men
that were vagabundes and of light condicions’ ;
Gen. ‘vaine and light fellowes,’ so RV); Zeph 89
‘Her prophets are light and treacherous persons’
(naa ὉΠ Ν ome; Cov. ‘light personnes and unfaith-
full men’). In Sir Τὴ the meaning is more definite
and more disgracetul, ‘Hast thou a wife after thy
mind? forsake her not: but give not thyself over
to a light woman,’ ὁ.6. ‘wanton’: the Gr. is μισου-
μένῃ, AVin and RY ‘hateful,’ RVm ‘hated’: ‘light’
here is peculiar to AV, earlier VSS having ‘hate-
ful,’ and is rather a paraphrase than a translation.
For its meaning cf. Shaks. JJeas. Vv. i. 280,
‘Women are light at midnight.’ Shaks. often
uses the word in a double sense, as Merch. of Ven.
IL. vi. 42, ‘A light wife doth make a heavy husband.’

Lightminded occurs in Sir 191 ‘He that is hasty
to give credit is Hehtminded? (κοῦφος καρδίᾳ ; Vule.
‘levis corde est,’ whence Erasmus, Of the Cominrieie
Crede, fol. 32, ‘And a certayne wise man of the
Hebrues doth name those persones leves corde,
lyghte mynded whiche doo easilye and soon geve
credence’).

The ady. lightly is used in AV with the various
meaninys of the adj. (1) Quickly or easily τ Gn 261"
‘one of the people might lhehtly have hen with thy
wife’ (eyo, LAX μικροῦ, Gen. ‘had almost lien’) ;
Is 9' ‘at the first he lightly afflicted the land...
and afterward did more grievously afflict her’
(Spa, RV ‘he bronght into contempt’); Jer 4% «1
beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and
all the lills moved lightly’ (oprana7, RV ‘moved to
and fro, RVm as AV); Mk 9” ‘for there is no
man which shall do a miracle in my name, that
can lehtly speak evil of me’ (ταχύ, Vule. “ cito,’
Wye. ‘soone,’ Tind. ‘lightlyge, RV ‘quickly’).
Cf. Tind. Hapos. p. 61, ‘there is none so great an
enemy to thee in this world, but thou shalt lightly
love him, if thou look well on the love that God
showed thee in Christ’; Rhem. NT on Jn 4°
‘ Afterward the said Schismatikes (which is lightly
the end of al Schismes) revolted quite from the
Jewes religion, and dedicated their temple in
Garizim to lupiter Olympius, as Calvin’s supper
and his bread and wine is like at leneth to come
to the sacrifice of Ceres and Bacchus’; and Malory,
Morte @ Arthur, ii. 336, ‘But now goe againe
lightly, for thy long tarying putteth me in
jeopardie of my life.’ (2) Poorly, worthlessly,
always with ‘esteem,’ Dt 32%, 1 S 900 1828,

Lightness is frivolity, passing into wantonness.
Jer 3° ‘And it came to pass, through the lightness
of her whoredom, that the land was polluted’ ;
2a". “that, ‘ause Iny people to err by their
lies, and by their lightness’ (RV ‘vain boasting’);
2 Co 117 ‘did T use lightness?’ (ἐλαφρία, RV ‘ fickle-
ness’), ef. Jer 2° Cov. ‘What unfaithfulnesse
founde youre fathers in me, that they wente so
farre awaye fro me, fallinge to lightnesse, and
being so vayne ?’ ;

The verb to lighten means either (1) to make
light, unburden, 1 S 6° ‘peradventure he will
lighten his hand from off you’; Jon 15, Ac 9718. 38
spoken of ships; or (2) to give light, enlighten, as
Ezr 9 ‘that our God may lighten our eyes’ ;
Ps 13° ‘lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of
death,’ Bar 1}? “And the Lord will give us streneth,
and lighten our eyes’ (gwrice). Cf. Is 85° Cov.
‘Then shal the eyes of the blinde be lightned’ ;
Bunyan, Holy Warre, p. 116, ‘Emmanuel also ex-
pounded unto them some of those Riddles himself ;
but, oh ! how they were lightened !’

The phrase to light on or upon means always
to come down upon, to hit upon: Gn 28", Dt 19°,
τὰ ὦ, 25 17, BOs Nee μον ae ome weer
shall the sun light on them, nor any heat? (πέσῃ
ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, RV ‘strike upon them’). Cf. Mt 10%
Tind. ‘ Are not two sparrowes solde for a farthinge ?
And none of them dothe lyght on the grounde
with out youre father.’ J. HASTINGS.

LIGHTNING is a well-known phenomenon accom-
panying thunderstorms. It consists of brief, vivid
flashes, which are c*used by electric discharges
passing from one cloud to another, or from a cloud
to the earth. In the latter case great damage is
usually produced at the point where the discharge
strikes the earth. ‘Trees and houses are often
shattered, holes made in the ground, and life in
the vicinity destroved.

In EV of OT ‘lhehtning’ is usually the render-
ing of paz; but as this word sometimes refers to
the physical phenomenon and sometimes to other
appearances resembling it, it is not always literally
translated. DXX usually renders it by ἀστραπή,
but in Nah 3* ἐξαστράπτειν is used, in Ezk 211° 15
στίλβωσις, in Ezk 21% στίλβειν, in Job 20° ἄστρον (a
doubtful reading ἄστρα, A ἄνδρα), and in Job 38
κεραυνός. In AV pia is rendered ‘glitter’ or
“ehittering’ Dt 32", Job: 20, ἜΣ 21. Nahi sae:
Hab 38", and ‘bright’ Ezk 21%. The only places
in RV where 727 is not translated ‘lightning’ are
Dt 328 (‘elittering’ sword), Job 20° (‘littering ’
point), Nah 3°, Hab 3" (‘elittering’ spear). ‘The
verb p22 occurs once with the cognate noun Ps 144°.

‘Liehtnine’ in EV stands once (Job 87%) for
ἦν (Slight, LXX φῶς), and once (Ex 9018) for 12
(‘toreh,’ LXX λαμπάξ). In Ezk 14 the Heb. is pra,
which is possibly a corruption of p za (Cornill,
Smend). Here LXX (A) has βεζέκ, and so Theod. ;
Symm. has ἀκτὶς ἀστραπῆς, and Aq. ἀπόῤῥοια ἢ
ἀστραπή. In two passages (Job 2876 38%, also RV
Zec 101) ‘lightning’ is the equivalent of min, a word
the meaning of which is uncertain, though it is
undoubtedly connected with ἃ thunderstorm.
Gesenius-Buhl renders it by Gearitterwolhke, UXX
by τίναγμα in Job 28°, κυδοιμός in Job 38%, and
φαντασία in Zee 10!, where AV has ‘ bright clouds.’

ἐξαστράπτειν occurs in LXX as a rendering of
other Heb. words, Ezk 17, Dn 10°.

In Apoer. and NT ‘lightning’ always stands for
ἀστραπή or ἀστράπτειν. ‘These words, however, like
pr7, do not always refer to physical lightning, and
are not translated quite uniformly. Thus in
Wis 1118 ἀστράπτοντες is ‘shooting’ (AV) or ‘ flash-
ing’? (RV) sparkles, in Lk 244 ἀστράπτουσα is
‘shining’ (AV) or ‘dazzling’ (RV), and in Lk 11%
ἀστραπή is ‘ bright shining.’

Lightning is mentioned in connexion with
thunderstorms, mostly in poetic descriptions, 2
οι Ps 18" 971354-Jer 10% 514). ΤΙ association
with thunder is the basis of a comparison in Sir
32! The Epistle of Jer (v.®!) refers to its beauty,
and in the LXX Add. to Dn (3%, Song of Three ®!)
it is summoned along with the rest of nature to
praise God. God is generally represented as
sending it, and the lack of the power to do so is
one proof of the weakness of man (Job 3895),
Lightning is associated with theophanies as at
Sinai (Ex 19!6 20'8), in Ezekiel’s vision .(Ezk 13),
and in various stages of the Apocalypse (Rev 4° 8°
11° 1638). It is regarded as an instrument of God’s
judgement in Ps 144°, Sir 43%. In Zec 9! God’s
‘arrows’ of destruction are compared to lightning,
which seems also to be spoken of as His ‘sword’ in
Dt 32", and as His ‘spear’ in Hab 3". The glitter
of weapons is frequently described as ‘lightning
in ob 20. izle Noes ΝῊ ἢ, Hp clmelne
speed or the flashing of chariots is compared to
lightning in Nah 2+. Lightning is a figure for

CIGN-ALOES

LIKE, LIKING 12)

brightness of countenance Dn 10°, Mt 28%, and of
raiment Lk 24*, for the suddenness of the Second
Advent Mt D427, Lk 17%, and for the swift com-
pleteness of Satan’s overthrow Lk 101,
In some passages ‘fire’ evidently
lightning, as when ‘fire and hail’
together (Ex 9°, Ps
from heaven’ is spoken of either as an agency of
destruction. (2-15 1. Job 1) or as a token of
God’s acceptance of a sacrilice (1 K 188, 1 Ch 21°).
See Fire, THUNDER JAMES PATRICK.

LIGN-ALOES.—Sce

refers to

ALOES.

LIGURE (ον Jeshem ; λιγύριον ; Ligurius, ligyrius).
—In Ex 28) 39”, the only places where eshen
occurs, AV accepts the transliteration of the Vule.
ligurius, first introduced by Wyclif (1380 ‘ligyre,’
1888 ‘ligurie’).

row of the high priest’s breastplate (see BREAST-

PLATE OF THE HIGH PRIEST, vol. i. p. 319). The
Gen. Bible gives ‘turkeis’; RV ‘jacinth.’ See

JACINTH and STONES (PRECIOUS).

LIKE, LIKING.—The adj. ‘like’ is used in AV
for modern ‘likely,’ in Jer 38° ‘he is like to die
for hunger in the place where he is,’ and Jon 14
‘the ship was like to be broken.’ Cf. Bacon,
Essays, Ὁ. 48, ‘A Christian boy in Constantinople
had like to have been stoned, for gageing,
wagvishnesse, a long Billed Fowle’; and Ruther-
ford, Letters, No. xxi. ‘It is like the bridegroom
will be taken from us, and then we shall mourn.’
The obsol. expression ‘like as’ is common. ‘Thus
Jer 23% “15 not my word like as a fire?’ Wis 181}
‘Like as the king, so suffered the common person.’
So are the expressions ‘like to’ or ‘like unto,’ as
mek lpr ΠΟΥ . hardened their necks, like to
the neck of their fathers’; Ex 15" ‘who is like
unto thee, O Lorp, among the gods? who is like
thee, vlorious i in holiness, fearful in praises, doing
wonders?? Cf, Udall, Erasmus’ Paraphrase, vol. 1].
fol. 278, ‘He once purged us frely from al synne,
to make us lyke manered unto himselfe, w hiche
neyther any law nor any mortal man could be
hable to do.’ ‘Like’ is often found with the mean-
ing of equivalent ; modern usage would be content
with the less expressive ‘same,’ as Ex 30%4 ‘of each
shall there be a like weight’ (Tind. ‘of etch like
moch’); Wis 76 ‘all men have one entrance into

life, and the like going out’; Ac 14% ‘men of
like passions with you’; 19° ‘the workmen

of like occupation’; 1 P 3%! ‘The like figure

whereunto even baptism doth also now save
us. Of, Preface to AV, “If we will descend
to latter times, we shall finde many the like

examples of such kind, or rather unkind accept-
ance

As a subst. ‘like’ is now ay provincial ; in AV
it occurs a few times: (1) the like, 1 K 107° |
2 Ch 919 «There was not the like made in any
kinedom’ (13, LXX οὕτως) ; 2 Ch 1” ‘neither shail
there any tet thee have the like’ (13); Ezk 5°
‘I will not do any more the like’ (37 LXX
ὅμοια) ; 1810 «Τῇ he beget a son that is a robber, a
shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any
one of these things’ (nx; RV ‘that doeth any one
of these things,’ “RVm ‘that doeth to a brother
any of these ‘thines >; see Davidson's note); 45”,
7] 22 ‘there hath not been ever the like’ (sm 52) ;
Wis 16! ‘ Therefore by the like were they punished
worthily’ (δι᾽ ὁμοίων) ; Sir 72 (τὸ ὅμοιον) : (2) his like,
Job 41 “Upon earth there is not his like’ (Sz,
LXX ὅμοιον αὐτῷ) ; Sir 13% ‘Every beast loveth his
like’ (τὸ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ): (3) their like, Slee = Lhe
birds will resort unto their like’ (τὰ ὅμοια αὐτοῖς) :
(4) such like, Ezk 18 (jn2) ; Gal 5?! (τὰ ὅμοια τούτοι:).
Cf. Mk 2% Rhem. ‘al mar veleu, and glorified God,

.
?
Ὁ

Ma S

in a4

are mentioned
105" 148%), and when “fre ‘

It is one of the stones in the third |

*; Shaks. δ μὲ.

That we never saw the like
slo

saying,
ΑΚ ai wt
“Tis meet
That noble minds keep ever with their likes.’

The verb ‘to like’ is both trans. and intrans.
The trans. verb means either to ‘be agreeable to,’

please’; so Sir 15 ‘Before man is life and
death ; and whether him liketh shall be given
gt (ὃ ἐὰν εὐδοκήσῃ ; RV ‘ whichsoever he liketh’) ;
οἷ. Erasmus, Commune Credz, fol. ‘For so it
hath pleased god and hath lyked him to geve his
henefites and eyftes to one man, by another man’ ;
fol. 38 ‘The lorde hethe made all thynges, what
so ever it hath liked hym, in heven and in earthe? ;
Pr. Bk. «Of Ceremonies,’ ‘Some be so new- -fangled,
that they would innov ate all things, and so despise
the old, that nothing can like them, but that is

new’: or else it means to ‘be pleased with,’
‘approve of,’ so 1 Ch 284 ‘among the sons of my
father he liked me to make me king over all
Israel? (Aya. Ὁ, (RV πὸ took pleasure in me’),

Usually this trans. verb is used impersonally,
Dt 23! ‘where it liketh him best’ (1S a'e2, LXX οὗ
ἐὰν ἀρέσῃ αὐτῷ); Est 85 Sasit liketh you’ (a>yy2 3189}:
Am 4° ΜΕ this liketh you, O ye children of [srael’
(On208 j2°2, LAX ὅτι ταῦτα “ἠγάπησαν οἱ υἱοὶ ᾿Ισραήλ) ;
Sir 8815. CAs the clay is in the potter’s hand, to
fashion it at his pleasure ; so man is in the hand
of him that made him, to render to them as liketh
him best.’ Cf. Gn 16° Wye. (1888) ‘Lo! thi ser-
vauntesse is in thin hond; use thou hir as it
likith’; Hall, Works, 45, ‘It likes thee well,
that the Kingdom of heaven should suffer violence.’

The intrans. verb occurs twice, Dt 257 ‘And if
the man like not to take his brother’s wife’
(vam ND); and Ro 1° ‘And even as they did not
like to retain God in their knowledge’ (οὐκ édoxé-
μασαν, RV ‘they refused’).

In 1 Es 439 is found the obsolete form ‘like of,’
‘all men do well like of her works’ (πάντες εὐδοκοῦσι
τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτῆς), Which is retained in RY. So in
Preface to AV, ‘Solomon was greater than David.
: But was that his maenilicence liked of by
all? We doubt of it’; Melvill’s Diary, p. 362,
“The King had determined to brine ham the
Papist Lords again, and lyked of nan that wald
ree w ag as the bus w: ΠΝ 3 Defoe, Crusoe,
p. 27 ‘Upon the Captain's coming to me, I told
Ἔα “8 Project for seizing the Ship, which he
hk’d of wonderfully well.’

The verb to liken is of frequent occurrence, and
means to compare, as Is 4018 “ΤῸ whom then will
ye liken gon i CE. Tindale, Works, 1. 107, ‘On
this wise Paul also (Ro 5) likeneth Adam and
Christ together, saying that Adam was a figure of
Christ.’

For likeness see IMAGE.

Likewise is sometimes a mere conj., @/so, as
Dt 12” ‘even so will [do likewise’ (88, LAX ποιήσω
κἀγώ), especially in NT as tr. of caé But more
frequently it is an adverb, in the sume 4) ao thus,
Je 77 «Look on me, and do likewise’ (j2) Est αὐ
‘T also and my maidens will fast jikewise’ (12) 3
Lk 22°° ‘Likewise also the cup after supper’
(ὡσαύτως) ; Rev =. (ouoiws), In Mt 21% we have
the expression ‘in like wise,’ but the meaning is
simply @/so, ‘Tin like wise will tell you by what
authority Ϊ do these things’ (κἀγώ, "RV “TL like-
wise’). Cf. Jn 5?! Tind, ‘For lykwyse as the
father rayseth up the deed’; and Lever, Sermons,
p. 108, ‘ Excepte ye spedelye repente and amende,
ye shall everye one be lykewyse served.’

The subst. liking was at one time in use in
the sense of outward appearance, and then such
an adj. as ‘good’ or ‘ill’ qualified it. It oceurs
once in AV, Job 394 ‘Their young ones are in
good liking’ (327m). In the same sense ‘liking’
is used as an adj. in Dn 1° ‘why should he see

=
2)

122 LIKI

LILY

your faces worse liking (o°syi) than the children
which are of your sort?’ Wyclif (1888) uses the
subst. in Gn 2! in the sense of delight, ‘And a
ryver yede out fro the place of likyng to moyste
paradis’ (13880, ‘the place of delice’). For the
adj. cf. Ps 92" Pr. Bk. ‘They also shall bring
forth more fruit in their age, and shall be fat and
well-liking’ (in 1539, ‘ well lykenge’).*
; J. HASTINGS.

LIKHI (77>, ΤῈ Aaxeeiu, A Aaxecd).—The eponym

of a Manassite family, 1 Ch 7. See GENEALOGY,

Vil,

LILITH (nbd; LXX ὀνοκένταυροι ; Symm. λάμια
1" λαμία] ; Vulg. lamia).—Is 3444 RVm (only); AV
‘screech owl’; AVm and RV ‘night monster’ ;
Cheyne ‘night fairy’ (in PB ‘Lilith’).’ The Heb.
wordoccurs in a description of the scene of desolation
among Edom’s ruined fortresses, where ‘the wild
beasts of the desert (o°s) meet with the wolves (65 Ν),
and the satyr (vy¥) cries to his fellow, and Lilith
takes up her abode.’ The reference is not to an
animal, but to a female demon of popular super-
stition, analogous to the ‘a/ikah or vampire of Pr
30". The Jewish belief in Lilith probably grew up
during the Exile; the name was unquestionably
borrowed from Babylonia (ef. the Assyr. did and
(iit), Lilith was a demon (772) regarded by the
Jews as specially hostile to children, although
grown-up persons were also in danger from her
(cf. the “μπουσα of the Greeks, the Sétria and
Lamia of the Romans, and the ghils of the Arabs).

The name Lilith is generally derived from the
root meaning ‘night’ (Bab.-Semitie δέ, Eth.
lelit, Heb. 9), night being the special season of
this demou’s power and activity. Baudissin, how-
ever (op. cit. below), doubts whether this derivation
be correct, although it may have been assumed as
the basis of some later Jewish conceptions. He
quotes Jensen to the effect that the Sumerian Jila
(=Assyr. /i/) means ‘ wind’ (ef. Del. Assyr. HWB,
s.v. “110, and that ‘the handmaid of Lila’ is
brought into relation to ‘the house of the wind.’
Bandissin suggests that even in Zee 5° there may
be a thought of Lilith in the prophet’s mind, when
he describes the two women with stork-like wines
in which was the ewind (o>). ἊΝ

The belief in Lilith existed among the Jews of
Mesopotamia, where a species of Lilith-worship
prevailed as late as the 7th cent. A.D. In the
Rabbinical literature Lilith figures largely (see
Buxtorf, Lex. Talim. s.v.). She was said to have
been the first wife of Adam, and to have flown
away from him and become ademon. The Tare.
on Job 1” apparently identifies the queen of Sheba
with Lilith (see Griitz’s Wonatschrift, 1870, pp-
187 ff., cited by Cheyne in commenting on Is 34!),

See, further, arts. DEMON in vol. 1. p. 590f.,
and NIGHT MONSTER.

JATERATURE.—The commentaries of Cheyne, Delitzsch, and
Dillmann, on Isaiah, ad loc. ; Whitehouse, COT ii. 311; Levy
in ZDMG, ix. 470, 484f.; Schrader, JPTh i. 128 ; Lenormant,
Chaldean Magic [Eng. tr.], p. 38; Kisenmenger, Entdecktes
Judenthum, ii. 413 4%; W. R. Smith, RS 113; Wellhausen,
Reste2, 148 ff.; Baudissin, art. ‘Feldgeister, Feldteufel’ in
Herzog’s RE vi. δὲ. ; Weber, Jiid. Theologie, 255 ff. ; Sayce,
Hibbert Lectures, 1887, pp. 145 ff. ; Hommel, Vorsemit. Kult.
367. J. A. SELBIE.

* In a note on this passage in his edition of the Psalter of
1539 (p. 321), Earle says, ‘The old verb lictan was first im-
personal, and in that condition it produced this adjective, and
the substantive liking as in the sense of looking well and in
good condition, as in Shaks. J Henry IV. mi. iii. 6— TIL repent

- while [am in some liking.” When it became personal and
transitive, it produced liking=approval, as in The Epistle
Dedicatorie (1611), “who runne their owne wayes, and give
liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and
hammered on their Anville.”’ From the last came the modern
meaning, of which there is an example in AV, Wis 1621 ‘to
every man’s liking’ (πρὸς δ᾽ τις ἐβούλετο, Vuly. ad quod quisquam
volebat, RV ‘according to every man’s choice ae

LILY.—There are three questions to be settled
in reference to the lily: (1) What was meant by
we shushan, Ww shéshan, and πιο shéoshannah 1
(2) Are shushan and shéshannah the same as κρίνον
(Mt 6% *")? (3) What is meant by ‘lilies of the
field’?

(1) The word shtshan or shéshan is still pre-
served in svsan or sésan, ἃ word of Persian origin,
hut adopted in this form into the Arabic. It is
possiile that it entered the Heb. from the same
source. The capital of Persia was called in Heb.
Shushan (Neh 1, Est 2° etc., Dn 8?). Atheno-
dorus (xil. 513) says that this name was derived
from the abundance of the lilies (sha#shadnim) in
its neighbourhood. Stésan in Arab. is a general
term for lily-like flowers, as the lily, iris, pan-
cratiuin, gladiolus, ete., but more particularly the
iris. It is as general as the English term lily,
which is applied to flowers of the genera Lilium,
Gladiolus, Convallaria, Hemerocallis, of the bot-
anical order Liliacew, and to Nymphea, Nuphar,
Funkia, ete., not of that order. The Heb. shushan
must be taken in the same general sense. This
makes it easy to explain all the references to the
flower in the OT. Some of the lilies grow in ‘ the
valleys’ (Ca 21, not our ‘lily of the valley,’ Con-
vallaria, which does not grow in the East), such
as several species of Iris; others ‘among thorns’
(Ca 2*), as other species of Iris ; others in pastures,
as still other species of Iris and Gladiolus (2! 4° 6%).
Its flowers were typical of luxuriance (Hos 14°), as
are those of all the Irises, Gladioli, and Pancratia.
The comparison of lips to lilies (Ca 5) may refer to
fragrance, not to colour, The allusion to lilies as
features of architectural ornament doubtless refers
to the recurved leaves of various flowers of the
lily type, imitations of which were wrought in
stone for capitals of columns (1 Καὶ 715), and bronze
for the lip of the molten laver (2 Ch 4°), as they
have been in similar works of art in other lands,
from ancient times to our day. The meaning of
the term shoshannim in the title of Pss 45. 69 (ef.
Shishan-Cdith. Ps 60, and Shéshannim- edith, 80)
is obscure. See PSALMS.

(2) Is shishon the saine as κρίνον (Mt 038. 79)?
The Chaldee Targum and most of the Rabbis
render it by ‘rose.’ Kimehi and ben - Melech
render it in one place (1 K 7!) ‘violet.’ The
LXX, however, tr. it always by κρίνον. This is
probably correct for several reasons. («) Wherever
there are not urgent reasons to the contrary, a
LXX tr. has the preference. (0) Kpivov has in
Greek the same general application to lily-like
plants as shishan in Hebrew and Jily in Enelish.
(ὦ) There is no reason for translating shishan dif-
ferently in different places, as in the above men-
tioned authorities and in the Judeo-Spanish VS,
which tr. shishan in Ca by ‘rose,’ and in Hos by
‘Jirio’= Lilium candidum. Admitting, then, the
correctness of the LXX tr. κρίνον, we may assume
that Mt used this Greek word to express the
Aramaic word used by our Saviour, which was
doubtless a modification of shishan.

(8) What is meant by ‘lilies of the field’? It
is plain that our Saviour spoke in a way that His
hearers would understand. Therefore (7) there
could not have been included in His allusion any
plant unknown to His audience. This would
exclude Lilium Chalcedonicum, L., and Lilium
Martagon, L., which have been assumed by some
as the species intended, on account of their beauty,
but neither of which is found in Palestine. Lilium
candidum, L., is also not a plant of Palestine, and
being white would not suit the comparison with
Solomon’s royal garments. Furthermore, if this
species had been intended, pioy=white lily, would

robably have been used, instead of κρίνον, which
1s general. (6) None of the water lilies could have

LIME

LINE

been intended, as the lilies were ‘of the field.’
(c) It is not likely that they were anemones or
poppies or artichokes. All these flowers had their
own names, and would not have been suggested
to the popular mind by the term lily. (4) It must
therefore have been some plant of the modern
order Liliacee, Iridacew, or Amaryllidacee.
Any of these would have been called κρίνον, and
most would now be called popularly dé/ies in Eng-
lish. (6) It was not only a lily-like plant of the
field, but had a stem, which, when dried, would
be useful as fuel (Mt 6°). This would exclude
the crocuses and colchicums, Anemone Coronaria,
L. (which, however, has the support of Tristram),
and other stemless plants. (7) It was a flower
of rich colours. The plants which realize all
these conditions are the various species of Gladi-
olus, which are indigenous in Palestine, G. J/i-
ricus, Koch, G. seqetum, Gawl, G. atroviolaceus,
Boiss., and Jxiolirion montanum, Lab. All these
grow among the grain, often overtopping it, and
illuminating the broad fields with their various
shades of pinkish purple to deep violet-purple and
blue, truly royal colours. Any one who has stood
among the wheat fields of Galilee, and seen the
beautiful racemes of these flowers, peering up in
every direction above the standing corn, will see
at once the appropriateness of our Saviour’s allu-
sion. They all have a reedy stem, which, when
dry, would make such fuel as is used in the ovens
(Arab. tannir). ‘These stems are constantly
plucked up with the orher wild plants from
among the wheat, to feed cattle or to burn.
The beautiful Irises, 7. Sari, Schott, 7. Palestina,
Baker, J. Lorteti, Barb., and J. Helene, Barb.,
have gorgeous flowers, and would suit our Saviour’s
comparison even better than the above. But they
are plants of pasture grounds and swamps, seldom
found in grain fields. If, however, we understand
by ‘lilies of the field’ simply aild lilies, these
would also be included in the expression. Our
Saviour’s comparison would then be like a ‘com-
posite photograph,’ a reference to all the splendid
colours and beautiful shapes of the numerous wild
plants comprehended under the name lily. This
seems to us the most simple and natural interpreta-
tion, and meets every requirement of the passage.
Ge LH APOSsE,
LIME (τὸὺν, κονία) is the commonest of the so-
called ‘alkaline earths,’ its basis being the metal
calcium. )
which are very abundant in Palestine, are com-
posed of carbonate of lime. When this is strongly
heated, it isconverted into oxide of lime or ‘ quick-
lime,’ and becomes soft and crumbling. Quicklime
combines readily and even violently with water to
form ‘slaked lime,’ which is one of the chief ingredi-
ents of mortar (wh. see). As the mortar ‘sets,’ the
slaked lime absorbs carbonic acid gas from the air,
and is reconverted slowly into carbonate of lime.
_ Lime is mentioned only twice in EV. In Is 33!
it is predicted that the Assyrian oppressor shall
be ‘as the burnings of lime’ (ΤῊ ma ty>)—a figure
for destruction. (Similarly in Is 27% the stones of
idolatrous altars are to be ‘as chalkstones (73732x,
LXX κονία λεπτή] that are beaten in sunder,’ prob-
ably after being ‘burnt.’ See CHALK-STONES).
In Am 91 the Moabites are denounced because
they ‘burned the bones of the king of Edom into
lime’ (see Driver's note). Phosphate of lime is the
chief mineral constituent of bones, and is un-
changed by burning. Both in their appearance
and in their composition, therefore, bone ashes
have something in common with calcined lime-
stone, and are naturally described by the same
term. Besides these two passages, Ty occurs in
Dt 272-4 both as noun and as verb, and is trans-
lated ‘ plaister’ (wh. see).

The various forms of limestone, some of |

In Mt 9327 our Lord, in denouncing the scribes
and Pharisees for their hypocrisy, compares them
to τάφοι κεκονιαμένοι. Tt was the custom of the
Jews to whiten the outside of their tombs with
lime every year on the 15th of Adar, the object
being to make the tombs conspicuous, that passers-
by might avoid detfilement (see Meyer, Holtzmann,
in loc.). In our Lord’s saying, the whiteness is
viewed chiefly as a deceptive outward embellish-
ment, contrasting with the corruption within.
Similarly in Ac 23° St. Paul calls Ananias the
high priest τοῖχος κεκονιαμένος.

JAMES PATRICK.

LIMIT.— The subst. occurs only in Ezk 43”
‘Upon the top of the mountain the whole limit
thereof shall be most holy, where it means a
region. or space within certain limits or bounds
(Heb. S23, LXX τὰ ὅρια : the Heb. word is common
in this sense, but it isusually rendered by ‘ border’
or ‘coast’: Wye. [1888] has ‘coostes’ here, [1382]
“eendis’; Cov. ‘corners’; Geneva gives ‘ limits’).
For the Eng. word ef. Shaks. J Henry JV. I.
1. 73—

‘ The archdeacon hath divided it
Into three limits very equally.’

The verb occurs twice: In Ps 7851 it means to
set limits to, restrict, ‘they turned back and
tempted God, and limited the Holy One of
Israel’ (nan, LXX παρώξυναν, RV ‘provoked,’
RVm ‘ limited’).

The tr. ‘limited’ comes from the Gen. Bible, which explains
its meaning in the marg., ‘As thei all do that measure the
power of God by their capacitie.’ But it is usually taken in
another sense : thusin JQ/? iv. 441, Dr. Friedlander says, ‘ My
conception of God is based on the teaching of the Scriptures,
God is the Creator and the Ruler of the Universe, and by His
decree phenomena appear and events occur which are contrary
to human expectation, t.e. miracles are wrought by Him. <Ac-
cording to the idea of Mr. Montefiore, the Divine Being is bound
to act according to certain laws established by human reason.
This is by no means a new theory. Asaph in Ps 7831, speaking
of the Israelites in the wilderness, says, Yea, they turned back
and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.’ The
translation is due to the fact that the same Heb. form occurs in
Ezk 94 along with the word td (which is the name of the last
letter of the Heb. alphabet, and was originally in the shape of a
cross), Where it is trd ‘set a mark.’ But most follow the LXX

ρ
παρώξυναν, Syr. ἸοΖ, Vule. exacerbaverunt, and Jerome con-
citaverunt, and translate ‘grieved,’ or as RV ‘provoked,’
Kautzsch krankten.*

The Amer. RV introduces ‘limit’ in this sense
into Job 15%. Cf. Adams, Works, i. 26, ‘ being an
infinite and illimited God.’

The other occurrence of the verb is He 47
‘Avain, he limiteth a certain day,’ where the
meaning is ‘fix asa limit’ (ὁρίζει, RV ‘detineth’).
So Berners’ Froissart, xxiv. ‘It was not long after
but that the king came to his palace of West-
minster and all his council was commanded to be
there at a certain day limited? ; Bradford, Ply.
Plant. p. 82, ‘Their time limited them being ex-
pired, they returned to the ship.’

J. HASTINGS.

LINE.—1. The word most freq. translated ‘line’
in AViswkdw or iphkaw. The kaw is a marking off
or measuring line, asit is fully defined in Jer 31°, but
is usually called simply the ‘line.’ It is especially
the builder’s measuring line, as Zee 11° ‘I am re-
turned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall
be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts, and a line
shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem’; and so it
comes to be used of the line that marks off the part
that is to be taken down and destroyed, as 2 Καὶ 2113
“And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of
Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab,’

* Burgess (Notes on Heb. Pss) adopts the tr. ‘set a mark,’
and has the interesting suggestion that the Israelites proposed
to put God to the test: if He provides flesh in the wilderness,
then we shall acknowledge Him; somewhat after the manner

of Caliban—‘ That’s a brave god, and bears celestial liquor; I
will kneel to him.’

124 LINE

LINEN

2.e. the line that marked them off for their destruc-
tion ; Is 28 ‘Judgment also will I lay to the line,
and righteousness to the plummet’ (RV ‘And [
will make judgement the line’); Is 344 ‘the line of
confusion.’
phorically for whatever goes by line or measure-
ment, a rule of life: thus in Is 28?" the drunkards
of Ephraim mock Isaiah’s teaching as ‘precept
upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line,
line upon line, here a little, and there a little,’
showing by their use of a series of monosylables
(gw la-zaw, σαῖς la-zaw, haw la-kaw, kaw la-haw,
wr sham, σ᾽ δ)" shain) both their drunkenness and
their disgust. For the Eng. word here ef. Archbp.
Hamilton's Catechism (Mitchell's ed. fol. v), ‘ For
as ane bigeare [= builder] can nocht make ane evin
up wal without direction of his lyne, a mason can
nocht heu ane evin aislair staine without directioun
of his rewill, ane skyppar can nocht ¢yde his schip
to gud hevin without direction of his compas, sa

4 nan or ἃ Woman can nocht ordour or gyd his |

lyif evin and strecht to the plesour of Gob with-
out direction of his commandis.’

The only passage of difficulty is Ps 194 ‘Their line is gone
out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the
world.’ AVm sugeests as alternative translations ‘their rule’
or ‘direction’; RV accepts the tr, of AV (which comes from
the Gen.) without margin. The same verb is found with the
measuring line in Ezk 473, and perhaps the majority of mod.
expositors accept this tr., the meaning then being that the
heavens send out their line to mark off and take possession of
the whole earth, an idea suggested by the line of the horizon
running round the earth. So Del, Per., De Witt, Kirkp.,
Kautzsch. But the oldest translators thought of the line as
perhaps a bowstring that gives forth a sound. So LXX φθέγγος,
Symm. 7x05, Jer. and Vulg. sonus, Wye. ‘soun,’ Cov. ‘sounde,’
Dou. ‘sound,’ Segond retentisseiment, King ‘strain.’ Prac-
tically the same meaning is got by Cheyne and Wellh. in
another way. They read op for O°), and trans. ‘ their voice.’
They are not influenced, as some of the older expositors perhaps
were, by Ro 1015, where St. Paul quotes the LXX and applies
the words to the world-wide proclamation of the gospel.

The only places in AV where kaw is not tr? ‘line’
are Is 4419 ‘[carpenter’s] rile,’ where, however, IV
gives ‘line’; and 18*7, where the Heb. Wp a is
translated in AV ‘a nation meted out’ (lit. as AVim
‘a nation of line line’) ; the context demands rather
the active meaning ‘that meteth out,’ as RV
(which, however, retains AV in marg.), Cheyne
‘Expos. 3rd ser. vi. 455) criticizes AV as impossible
and RV as barely possible. His own rendering is
‘the strong strong nation’ (in SBOT ‘a nation of
sinewy strength’), which is ¢ot by changine the
MT into yp, a subst. formed after Arab. hire,
‘strength’; and with that Skinner agrees. Ges.
(Thes, s.v.) had suggested a distinct subst. x, and
tr? ‘gens robustissima, pr. roboris roboris,’ after the
Arab. ; Buhl in the latest ed. (1899) of the Hand-
worterbuch adopts x2P schnige Kraft with some
hesitation.

2. For ὅπῃ, see Corp. In Ps 16% ‘The lines are
fallen unto me in pleasant places,’ the reference is
to the portion marked off by the line or measuring
cord. In Jos 17° the word is tr. ‘portions,’ “ And
there fell ten portions to Manasseh’ (RV ‘parts,’
RVm ‘lines’), 8, 7 is tr. ‘line’ only in 1 K Year
‘a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them
[the pillars] about.2. See BAND. 4& For Sone (only
Ezk 40°) see LACE. 5, mpn Jos 2182! the line of
searlet thread which Rahab bound in the window.
It is Coverdale’s word here, who has ‘ excepte thou
knyttest in the wyndowe. the lyne of this rose-
coloured rope’... . ‘And she knyt the rose
coloured Iyne in the wyndowe.’ 6. 73%, in Is 4419
sered, is in AV mistranslated ‘line,’ RV gives
‘pencil,’ RVim ‘red ochre.’ See PENCIL.

In NT we have only 2Co 10 “not to boast in
another man’s line of things made ready to our
hand’ (ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ κανόνι, AVm ‘rule, “RV ‘in
another's province,’ RVm ‘Or limit, Gr. measuring

Then the word comes into use meta- |

rod’). The AV tr. is from the Gen. Bible, which
explains it by saying, ‘God gave the whole worlde
to the Apostles to preache in, so that Paul here
meaneth by the line his porcion of the countre is
where he preached.’ J. HASTINGS.

LINEAGE.—Lk 9: only, ‘he was of the house
and lineage of David’ (ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς, RV ‘of
the house and family’). Spenser uses the word in
the same sense, #@Q 1. i. 5—

“So pure and innocent, as that same lambe,
She was in life and every vertuous lore,
And by descent trom royall lynage came.’
Cf. also Nut-Brown Maid (in Skeat’s Specimens, p.
107)—

‘ Ye shal not nede further to drede, I wyl not disparage
You, god defende, sith ye descende of so grete a lynage.’
Wyclif uses the word in the wider sense of kin-
dred or tribe, as Ps 72'7 ‘And all the lynagis of
earthe schulen be blessid in hymn’; 788° “he
chees not the Iynage of Effraym. But he chees
the lynage of Juda’; Rev 5° ‘a lioun of the lynage

of Juda.’ J. HASTINGS.

LINEN.—The manufacture of linen is an ex-
tremely ancient art. The Egyptians attained
proficiency in it at a very early time. To them
Pliny ascribes the invention of weaving (vii. 56),
and the honour is given by Athenzeus to Pathymias
the Eeyptian (/24. ii). Linen-weaving became a
profitable calling, providing occupation for large
numbers. Strabo (xvii. 41, p. 813) says that
Panopolis, or Chemmis, was inhabited by linen-
weavers. Judging by the representations that
have been preserved, the implements used must
have been comparatively rude; but cloth of very
fine quality was produced with them. So delicate
indeed were certain fabries that they were deseribed
as ‘woven air.’ Specimens of Egyptian work in
the form of corselets are mentioned by Herodotus
(ii. 182, iii. 47), one dedicated by Amasis to
Minerva in Lindus, the other sent by him to the
Lacediemonians, ‘made of linen, with many figures
of animals inwrought and adorned with gold and
cotton wool’; and he notes that ‘each thread,
though very fine, contained 3860 threads all dis-
tinct.” Egyptian fine linen, yarn, and embroidered
work were widely prized, and reckoned superior to
those of any other country. Four qualities of
Keyptian linen are specitied by Pliny (xix. e. 1),
viz. Tanitic, Pelusiac, Butine, and Tentyritic. A
large export trade was carried on to Arabia and
India.

The Egyptian priests wore linen clothes, and
according to Herodotus (ii. 37) were not allowed to
wear anything else. But Pliny (xix. 8) says that
although they used linen they preferred cotton
robes; and the Rosetta Stone mentions ‘cotton
garments’ provided for the use of the temples. It
is most probable that the undergarments were
always of linen, while robes of cotton worn over
them would have to be left outside the temples.
Linen was regarded as fresh and cool in a hot;
climate, with a tendency to keep the body clean.
This, with the religious prejudice requiring linen
only to be worn in the temples, may account for
the belief that the priests were prohibited from
ever wearing anything else. When the worship of
Isis was introduced into Greece and Rome (Plut.
de Is. v. 3) the same customs as to priestly dress
were adopted (Wilk. Ane. Hyyp. iii. 117).

Great quantities of linen were employed in
wrapping the mummies of the dead (Herod. ii. 86).
The bandages used for this purpose were invariably
of linen. This has been demonstrated by a series
of careful microscopic examinations well described
by Wilkinson (Ane. Hgyp. iii. 115, 116). Wool

LINEN

LINEN

was never used in this way, because of ἃ belief
that it tended to breed worms which would destroy
the body. ‘The poor might wear cotton garments
in life, provided their mummies were wrapped in
linen after death. Linen was used for both men
and animals, and sometimes the bandages were as
much as 1000 yards in length (Wilk. 26. iii. 484).

The influence of Egypt on Israel is seen perhaps
in the prominence given to linen in the furniture
of the tabernacle and in the dress of the priests.
The trade with Egypt was maintained (Pr 716), and
the material was highly prized by the neighbour-
ing Tyrians (Ezk 97. Flax was early cultivated
in Palestine (Jos 2°), but the native industry in
linen, as in other woven stuffs, was chiefly contined
to the women of the household. The finer kinds
were brought from abroad.

The terms used for ‘linen’ in Scripture are—

1. 2. wy, 13. As a mark of distinction Pharaoh
clothed Joseph in linen garments (vy), from which
we may infer that linen formed part of the ordinary
dress of royal, or at least eminent persons (Gn
415). Shésh corresponds in form with the Arab
shash, a fine muslin, made of cotton, and much
used to guard against mosquitoes and sand-tlies.
Linen is, however, here intended. Shésh is some-
times used as the equivalent of bad (13), about
which there is no doubt (ef. Ex 28% 42 39°8, Ly 16+).
Shesh appears to be the more general term. — It is
used for the offerings brought by the people (Ex
254); the materials used in the hangings of the
tabernacle (Ex 261 ¢t 279 ¢t 35. 36. 38); the finery
of women (Pr 312, AV ‘silk,’ Ezk 16! 18) and the
cloth of sails (zk 27°), as well as for the various
garments of the priests (Ex 28° ete 39% ete), In
Ezk 168 we have the peculiar form οὖν; this is
probably due to proximity to the similarly sound-
Ing ‘wD,

32 is used exclusively of articles of dress, and
principally of the holy garments of the priests
(Ex 28% 3978, Lv 6° 164+), In 1 § 228 the priests
are designated as persons that wear a linen (bad)
ephod. Samuel, as a child, engaged in religious
service, was girded with a linen ephod (1 8 918).
David in his dance before the Lord was similarly
girded (28 6!, 1 Ch 157). The man wearing linen
garments is chosen for special work (Ezk 9% #7
105 7); and the great figure in the vision by the
river Hiddekel wears similar attire (Dn 10° 12° 7),
It appears therefore that dad is restricted to uses
that are of a religious character.

The distinetion between shesh and bad cannot be
indicated with certainty. Inthe phrase ‘dad of fine
twined shésh’ (Ex 39°), the latter term evidently
means the thread of which the cloth is woven.
This suggests that while dad is used only for the
cloth, shésh is applied indifferently, now to the
thread and now to the woven stuif. Abarbanel
(on Ex 25) says that bad was a single thread, and
shesh (Heb. =6) was formed by twisting together
six single threads. But this seems in contradiction
to the above.

3. p32, LXX βύσσος, is from the root 32, to be
white, still heard in the Arab bas used for native
linen. Of Aramiean origin, it was used specially
for the Syrian byssus (Gesenius). In Ezk 27!° it is
distinguished from Egyptian shésh (cf. v.7), but
elsewhere the distinction is ignored (cf. 2 Ch 3",
Ex 26%). Targum Onkelos gives biz as the equiva-
lent of shésh. Biz is the name given to linen, in
which the house of Ashbea attained eminence as
workers (1 Ch 421, cf. 9 Ch 24), of which David's
robe was made (1 Ch 152"), of which the veil of the
temple was woven (2 Ch 3"), and with which the
Levite singers in the temple were clothed (2 Ch 5").
Of this were also the cords which fastened the
hangings in the king’s gardens at Shushan the
palace (Est 16. Mordecai’s dress when he went

out from the king was of fine linen (4éz) and
purple (Est 8, ef. Lk 16%). The Syrian trade
with Tyre included ‘purple and embroidered work
and biz? (Ezk 2716). Josephus takes byssus as the
equivalent of both shesh and bad, describing the
otferings of the Israelites in the wilderness for the
tabernacle as byssus of flax (Ant. vi. 1), the hang-
ines for the tabernacle as sindon of byssus (ib. 2),
and the priests’ drawers and vestraents as byssus.
The vestment, he says, was called chethone (nanz),
which denotes linen (ἐΦ. vit. i. 9). This corresponds
closely with the Arab /iffdn, the common name
for linen stuffs. The presumption of the mystic
3abylon is shown by her arraying herself in fine
linen (4yssus), the fitting dress of the Lamb's
wife, since it symbolizes ‘the righteousness of
the saints’ (Rev 1816 108), Such raiment also 15
congruous with the character of those who follow
him who is called the Faithful and True (76. 19).

4, nav (or mz) is a general term; applied to the
plant (Jos 2°), to the raw material (Jg 154, Pr 31"),
to heckled flax (Is 19°), to threads in a mixed web
(Dt 22"), to cloth (Lv 13 e+), to the prophet’s
girdle (Jer 131), to a measuring-line (zk 40°), and
to the sacred garments of the priests (Ezk 44!7 5),
See FLAX.

5. 770, an article of fine stuff, of domestic manu-
facture (Pr 3152, and highly esteemed as a luxury
(Is 3%). The oso of Samson’s challenge to the
Philistines (Jg 1415: 19) were wrappers ‘worn as an
outer garment,’ or ‘as a night wrapper on the
naked body.’ They were sometimes used as
curtains (Mishna, Joma iii. 4), and also as
shrouds (Talm. Jerus., Ad/aim ix. fol. 32°). For
these purposes sheets of considerable size would be
necessary (Moore, Judyes, in loc.). With this the
Greek σινδών corresponds. It is the linen cloth or
dress in which the young man wrapped himself
(Mk 14°), and again it is a winding-sheet (Mt 27,
Wie 15%, LK 23%),

6. pox (AV ‘fine linen,’ RV ‘yarn,’ Pr 77%), by
a Syriacism for pos from an unused root poy ‘to
bind together’ (Gesenius). With this may be com-
pared the Arab ’wsun, ‘tent ropes.’ The fine
thread or yarn of Egypt was most probably linen.
That the ornamentation of coverings or tapestry
for which it was used is here intended, is supported
by the renderings of LXNX and the Vulgate, which
are ἀμφίταποι and pict tapetes respectively.

7. ὀθόνη (Ac 10" 11°) is the sheet let down from
heaven in St. Peter’s vision; while ὀθόνια (Jn 19%
205+ 6. 7) are the strips of cloth with which the body
was bound, after being wrapped in the σινδών.

8. A coarse cloth made of unbleached flax,
ὠμόλινον, was worn by the poorer classes (Sir 40?),

A combination of animal and vegetable products
in dress was prohibited to the Israelites. A kind
of cloth was sometimes made cf which the woot
was cotton and the warp linen (Julius Pollux,
Onom. vii. 17. Quoted by Wilk. Ane. Eqyp. iil.
118). Such may have been 1232 (LAX κίβδηλον), a
word of obscure origin, but denoting a mixed stufl
of wool and linen (Lv 19”, ef. Dt 22%).

Linen Yarn.—?>, sie? (1 K 10%, 2 Ch 18). For
mikweh Buxtorf gives netum filatim quod in
Agypto magni usus et pretit. He notes, how-
ever, that on 1K 10° 22. Sal. thi accipit. Mp> pro
apox, collectione, congregatione vectigalis. UV
renders in each case ‘drove.’ Perhaps the text
is corrupt. LXX B has for p> εκ Gexote, ‘from
Tekoa,’ Luc. ἐκ Kod, Vule. de Coa. Winckler
(Alttest. Untersuch. 168 1tt., ef. Altorient. Forsch.
i. 28), followed by Hommel and others, finds here
a reference to Awé (i.e. Cilicia).

LITERATURE.—Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians, iii. 115-128, 484;
Herodotus, ii. 36, 86, 182, iii. 47; Josephus, Ant. mi. vi. 1, vil.
1,2; Schroeder, de Vest. Mul, pp. 339, 361, etc. ; Hartmann,
Hebrierin, ii. p. 346, ete, W. EWING.

126 LINTEL

LION

LINTEL.—See Howse in vol. ii. p. 434°.
LINUS (Aivos).—One of the Christians who

joined with Eubulus, Pudens, and Claudia in a
salutation at the end of 2 1. This Epistle was
written from Rome, and it is generally allowed
that this Linus is identical with one of the first
bishops of Rome. The identification goes back to
Treneus (ὁ. fw. 1Π|. iii. 3). It is considered that
he was, if we omit St. Peter’s name, the first bishop
of Rome, though Tertullian (de Prescr. 32) implies
that Clement was the first. Nothing is really
known of his life and episcopate, which Eus. (///
ili. 13) says lasted twelve years. Many questions
have been raised about him: for instance, as to
whether he was bishop before St. Peter's death
or not, and whether he may not have been con-
temporary with Clement, and have exercised his
oflice as bishop of the Gentile Christians only,
whilst perhaps Clement was bishop of the Jewish
Christians. The date of his episcopate has been
variously given, the extreme limits being A.D.
56-67 and A.D. 68-80. Harnack, in his latest work,
dates the episcopate of Linus A.p. 64-76. It is
asserted in the Greek J/enew that he was one of the
Seventy. Various works are ascribed to him, but
without foundation: (1) the acts of St. Peter and
St. Paul; (2) an account of St. Peter’s controversy
with Simon Magus; and (3) certain decrees in
which he ordered women to appear in church
with covered heads. He is commemorated in the
Roman Service books on Sept. 23, where the
following account is given of him :—

‘The pontiff Linus, who was born at Volterra, in Etruria, was
the first ruler of the Church after Peter. His faith and holiness
were so great that he not only cast out devils, but also restored
the dead to life. He wrote the history of St. Peter, and in
particular of his opposition to Simon Magus. He ordered that
no women should appear in church unveiled, He was beheaded,
because of his adherence to the Christian faith, by the order of
Saturninus, whose daughter he had set free from demoniacal
possession. He was buried in the Vatican, near the Prince of
the Apostles, on Sept. 23. He was bishop for eleven years,
two months, and twenty-three days, during which he consecrated
or ordained (on two occasions in December) fifteen bishops
and eighteen priests’ (Brev. Rom.).

LITERATURE. — Pearson, De serie et successione primorum
Rome Episcoporum (G88); Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome
(1890); Harnack, Die Chronologie der Altchristlichen Litteratur
(1897); Duchesne, Liber Pontijiculis, i. (1884-86).

. A. REDPATH.

LION.—1. The generic name for lion is “Nari
or TN larych, pl. ove ‘ara@yim and now araycth,
This word is used /iteru/ly (Je 14:8 ete. ), of J yures
(Καὶ 1539 ete.), in comparison (Gn 46°, Nu 23" etc.)
metaphorically (Gu 49°, Nah 91: δύσιν. Be es
héphur, is the young lion (δ 145 ete.). 3. 32 gir,
Ta gor, signifies whelp or cub in general. It is
applied to the young of 755 tannin (La 43, AV
‘sea monsters,’ RV ‘jackals’; preferably, in our
opinion, wolves. See DRAGON, 4). It is usually
applied to lions’ cubs (Gn 49°, Ezk 19238 ete. In
the latter passage the distinction between σήν
and kephir is clearly brought out). It is used
metapherically, for the Babylonians (Jer 518) and
the Assyrians (Nah 24-1)” for Judah (ἀπ 49°),
for Dan (Dt. 33"), and for the Israelites (Ezlk 19?
ete.) 4 2? labi and κι πὸ lébiyyah, coznate with
the Arab. labweh, lahucth, labiah, or labath.
They are poctic forms in Heb. (Gn 499 etc.). The
masculine ending is paralleled by ‘athen = she-ass,
rahcl=ewe, and ‘tz=she-goat. There are numer.
ous parallels in the Arab. 5. wv) layish, is a
poetical word for the lion, possibly derived from
the idea of Ins courage and strength (Is 305 etc.).
Its Arab. equivalent is lait, evidcntly the same
as the Aram. mb and the Greek is (Hom. JZ. xi.
239, xv. 275). 6, Srv shahal, is another poetical
epithet of the lion, derived from his roaring (Job
ἀν 8 0 Oe A aka béné-shahaz, is tr. ‘lion’s
whelps’ (Job 288, RV ‘proud beasts,’ m. ‘sons

’
bs bia]

of pride’). The same word is tr’ (RV Job 4134)
‘sons [AV “children’] of pride.’ Undoubtedly this
is the correct tr., being figurative for the more
noble beasts of prey. In the first passage, after
the general expression ‘sons of pride,’ comes the
specitication of the lion as one of the noble beasts.
‘there are about four hundred words in Arab. for
the lion. Most of them are attributives. It is
very common to give the name Asud=‘ lion’ to
boys, as a prophecy of their prowess. This name
and that of other strong animals, as the leopard
and the weo//, are given to some boys, born after the
death of an older brother, in the hope that the
streneth of the animal will inhere in him, and so
his lite may be preserved. As there is abundant evi-
dence that lions were common in Greece as late as
the times of Xerxes, so we learn from the OT that
they were numerous in Palestine in ancient times.
They made their dens in the thickets (Jer 47 ete. ),
Jorests (Jer 5° ete.), mountains (Ca 45, Ezk 19%),
The ‘swelling of the Jordan,’ 1:6. the fringe of
thickets between its upper and lower banks, was
among the favourite haunts of the lion (Jer 49!
504, Zee 118). Reland (Pad. i. 274) says that they
were found here as late as the end of the 12th cent.
They are met with even now in Mesopotamia. The
lion of Palestine was probably the one deseribed
by Pliny (vili. 18); ‘the body is shorter and more
compact, and the mane more crisp and curly.’
This sort is the same as that found in Persia and
Mesopotamia, and figured on the Assyrian monu-
ments. Layard, however, says that he has seen lions
in Mesopotamia with long black manes (Vin. and
Bab. 481). It would seem that the lions of Pales-
tine were less formidable beasts than those of
Africa, as shepherds sometimes attacked them
single-handed (1S 175+). Samson rent one in
twain (Je 14°). Amos says, ‘as the shepherd
taketh out of the mouth of the lion two legs or
a piece of an ear’ (315). Lions were sometimes
sent as a scourge to the people (2 Καὶ 17 ete.).
They often attacked and devoured men (1 Καὶ 135
ete.; cf. Ps 2917 (ἢ, where Aquila is now known to
have read 2). They were hunted by driving them
with loud shouts into pits or nets (Is 314, Ezk 19% 8),
The passage telling of the exploit of Benaiah
(2S 23%) reads axio axis ΗΝ azo. AV text tr.
‘slew two lionlike men (μι. ‘lions of God,’ RV
[supplying 32, after LXX] ‘the ¢wo sons of Ariel ἢ
of Moab.’ We read also that ‘he slew a lion in the
midst of a pit in time of snow.’ Oriental monarchs
had pits of lions (Dn 67), the animals being used as
exccutioners, but not for combats with other
animals or with gladiators, as among the Romans.
The qualities of the lion alluded to in Seripture
are (1) his royal power and strength (Gn 499,
Pr 30"). In this respect he was the type of Christ,
‘the Lion of the Tribe of Judah’ (Rev 5°). Lions
were sculptured on the temple and king’s house
(11 788 14!) The castle of ‘Irakel-Amir in
Gilead has lions carved on its face. (2) His
courage (Pr 281 ete.). (3) His eruelty (Ps 9918 ete.),
compared with the malignity of Satan (1 P 53).
Four words express the voice of the lion. 4. νῷ
sh@ag (Jg 14° ete.), the true roar of the roaming
lion seeking its prey (1 P55). This is also used of
the thunder (Job 374). 2. ὅπ: na@ham, the savage
yell with which he lays hold of his victim (Is 539). "
3.927 hagah, the angry growl, when an attempt
is made to dispossess him of his prey (Is 314).
4. τῷ naar, the imperfect roar or growl of the
whelps (Jer 51°%). This term is used in Syriac to
express the braying of asses and the gurgling of
camels,
There are six words employed to denote the
* W. R. Smith (Prophets1, 129, 248) reckons sha@’ag the roar

at the moment of the spring, naham the growl with which the
lion devours his prey.

a9

LIP

LIVELY 127

attitudes and movements of the lion. 41. pa ra@haz
= Arab. rabad, signifies to crouch (Kzk 19°),
awaiting his victim. So sin is represented as
lying (725) at the door, @e. crouching (as in RY)
as a wild beast, ready to spring (Gn 4°), 2.3. 4
In Job 38 it is said 39x71? APE 395 Miatysa wei9.
The three roots nay shdhah, 28: ydshab, and τὴς
‘arab, may all indicate the same act, the ambush
of a beast of prey. But as wathab, which is the
Arab. cognate of yashab, means to spring, as well
as to crouch or sit, perhaps the passage may refer
to a habit of the lion, which is to crowch, then to
spring, and, if he fails to reach his prey by one or
two bounds, to crouch again. Yashohu would
express the lying in covert, yéshébv the spring,
and ‘dreé the disappointed crouch, awaiting another
victim. 5. #27 rduuts expresses the prowling (lit.
creeping : see CREEPING 'THINGS) of wild beasts
in search of their prey (Ps 104”). 6. ῥὲ zinnéh
expresses the fatal leap by which the lion bears
down his victim (Dt 33* only). G. E. Post.

LIP (πον, xet\o3). —In addition to its literal
sense, the word ἢν means ‘language’ (Gn 11}.
Ps 81°), ‘ bank,’ ‘shore,’ ‘edge,’ ‘side,’ ete. (Gn 41°,
Ex 2° 14° ete.). In the bible, the ‘opening of
the lips’ is so constantly used as the equivalent
of speech that the lips come to be regarded as an
originating independent centre of life and conduct.
Thus we have the ‘lip of truth’ Pr 12%, ‘lying
ies. “burminge lips? Pr 26 .and ‘this
figurative use of ‘lips’ is associated with other
figures belonging to ceremonial and sacrifices, such
as ‘uncircumcised lips’ Ex 6! ‘unclean lips’
Is 6°, ‘calves of the lips’ Hos 145; For ‘fruit of
the lips’ see FRUIT.

Orientalisms.—In the intolerable and incurable
sorrow referred to in Ezk 24:1. *?, the lips are not
to be covered as in the time of ordinary bereave-
ment. The word tr@ ‘lips’ here means the mous-
tache and beard, that is, the lower part of the
face. It is still the Oriental custom iu the house
of mourning for the bereaved father or husband
to put the hand or part of the head-dress or cloak
over the mouth, to indicate that he is stricken of
God; sand has not: a. word to say.* Also after
telling about some hard expericnce of sickness
and privation in the family, often brought on by
dirt and indolence, it is customary to lay the hand
on the mouth and look up, as much as to say,
‘God’s will be done’ (cf. Ps 397, Is 47°, Mic 37).

‘Grace is poured into thy lips’ (Ps 45°). This
is illustrated by the Oriental way of drinking
water from the mouth or short spout of the hand-
jar without touching it with the lips. The head
is thrown back, and the jar held from 6 in. to
a foot above the face, while the water is poured
gently into the open mouth and swallowed in a
continuous stream.

‘This people with their lips do honour me’
(Is 29, Mt 158). In addition to the ordinary
meaning of empty words, there may be a reference
to the Jewish custom of putting the tassel of the
tallith to the lips during worship as a sign that
the law is accepted, not merely as a duty of
obedience, but as an enthusiastic preference of
the heart. Putting the hand to the lips was also
an act in astral worship (Job 31°7), and is seen in
the ordinary form of Oriental salutations.

G. M. MACKIE.
_ LIST.—To ‘list’ (from Anglo-Sax. lust = pleasure)
is to desire, to choose. The earliest use was impers.,
as Piers Plowman, 165—‘ With posternes in pry vytie
to pasen when hem liste’; so Mt 20 Tind. ‘ Ys it
not lawfull for me to do as me listeth with myne

*Schwally (Leben nach dem Tode, p. 10) thinks that the

covering of the beard in mourning was originally a milder
substitute for cutting it off.

awne?’ and Tind. Words, 1. 106, ‘ For where riches
are, there goeth it after the common proverb, He
that hath money hath what him listeth. The
word is used once in AV as tr. of βούλομαι (Ja 34),
and thrice of θέλω (Mt 1113, Mk 918, Jn 3°), always
personally. Cf. Fuller, Holy State, ‘The Good
Wife,’ ‘ Her children, though many in number, are
none in noyse, steering them with a look whither
she listeth’; and Knox, /list. 374, ‘You forget
your selfe (said one) you are not in the Pulpit. I
am in the place (said the other) where [ am com-
manded in my conscience to speake the truth: and
therefore the truth [ speak, impugne it who so
lists.’ The subst. was also in common use till later
than 1611. North, Plutarch, Ὁ. 876 (‘Cicero’), has
‘He would ever be fleering and eibing at those that
tooke Pompeys part, though he had no list himselfe
to be merrie’ ; and often in Banyan, as /TIV, ἡ. 154,
‘for your Cordial 1 have no list thereto.” The word
still survives in Jistless. J. LASTINGS.

men
Ls.

ΤΕ (ae Nit is pe. Ts 66°° [all]).*—
This was probably a wooden construction resem-
bling a small ambulance waeeon, having, instead
of wheels, two shafts projecting at each end, be-
tween which a mule was yoked before and beuind.
The frame was furnished with a mattress and
pillows, and four posts at the corners supported
an awning with a movable screen around the
sides, for protection against the sun and dust.
Solomon’s chariot (RV *‘palanquin’), Ca 89 (pas
‘appiryon, perhaps the Gr. φορεῖον; see Driver,
LOT® 449), would be of the same form, but with
silver pillars supporting the awning of silk or fine
linen. The Arabs use a word of Persian origin,
tukht-rawdn, meaning a movable bed or couch for
the journey. See HoRSE-LITTER.

Gr. M. MACKIE.

LIVELY.—1. The mod. meaning /vdl of life,
brisk, 18 found in ES 1%; ΡΘΕ Wis. 77... Ch
Adams on 2 P 14 § Paul calls it [sin] an old man
—Put off the old man, Eph 4°—above 5000 years
old, and yet it is not only alive, but lively and
lusty to this day’; and Khem. NT, p. 215, ‘'Ter-
tullian also reporteth, that at Rome being cast
into a barrel of hote boiling oile he came forth
more pure and fresher or livelier, then he went
in.’ 2 But ‘lively’ once was a synonym for ‘ liv-
ing” In 1 P 9: Christ is described as ‘a living
stone,’ and in the next verse the translators of
AV speak of Christians as ‘lively stones,’ the Gr.
being thesame, carrying out their rule to introduce
variety into the language. The occurrences of
‘lively’ = diving in AV are Ac 7° ‘the lively oracles,’
1 P 15 “ἃ lively hope,’ 35 ‘lively stones.’ The Greek
is always the pres. ptcep. of ζάω to live, and RV
gives always ‘living.’ Cf. Ja 1 Gen. (1557), ‘he
is like unto a man, that beholdeth his lyvely face
ina ¢lasse’ (changed in 1550 to ‘his natural face’) ;
He 4:3 Rhem. ‘The word of God is lively and fore-
ible, and more persing than any two-edged sword’ ;
Δ ΧΟ ΤΑ Artictes, 1571, Art. xii. ‘ Albeit that good
workes, which are the fruites of fayth, and folowe
after iustification, can not put away our sinnes,
and endure the severitie of God’s indgement: yet
are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christe,
and do spring out necessiily of a true and lively
fayth, in so muche that by them, a lively fayth
may be as evidently knowen, as a tree discerned
by the fruit.’ So Knox speaks of Christ as ‘the

* The etymology of the word 33, which is found also in the
Targ., is uncertain. Six 3 τίν (EV ‘covered waggons’)
formed part of the orfering of the ‘princes’ (Nu 79). D’as
are named as one of the means of conveyance by which the
dispersed Israelites are to be brought back (Is 6629). In the
first passage LXX has ἁμάξα: λαμπηνικάς, Vulg. plaustra tecta ;
in the second, LXX ἐν saurivais, Vulg. tn lee/tcis. Kautzsch
translates in Nu by wéiberdeckte Wagen (Siegfried-Stade, Kutsch-
wagen), and in Is by Sante (so also Siegfried-Stade),

κι}

128 LIVER

LIVING CREATURE

lively bread? (Works, iii. 73, 266), and as ‘the
fountain of lively water’ (iii. 441). Still more
clearly, Judgement of Synode at Dort, p. 38, ‘as
for the will, hee infuseth new qualities into it,
and maketh it of a dead heart lively, and of an
evill good, of a nilling willing, of a stubborne
buxome.’ Fuller has a surprising example in /fo/y
Warre, ii. 19—* About the year 1160, Peter Waldo,
a merchant of Lyons, rich in substance and learning
(for a lay man), was walking and talking with his
friends, when one of them suddenly fell down dead,
which lively spectacle of man’s mortality so im-
pressed the soul of this Waldo, that instantly he
resolved on a strict reformation of his life.’
J. HASTINGS.

LIVER (722 χα οί, prob. ‘the heavy organ of the
body pur excellence,’ see Gesenius, Thes. s.r.; LXX
nrap).—1l. In the case of every animal offered in
sacrifice a special sacredness attached to certain
fatty parts of the viscera, among which we find, in
eleven passages of the Priests’ Code, ‘the yéthereth
(πη, EV ‘caul’) of (72) the liver’ or ‘which is
upon (2v) the liver’ (Ex 298 22, Ly 34 10-15 49 ete. ).
The evident sense of the words prevents us from
tollowing the LXNX and Josephus (Ané. In. ix. 2
fed. Niese, 228], σὺν τῷ λοβῷ τοῦ ἥπατος) in re-
garding the yothercth as one of the lobes of
the liver itself. Etymologically the word denotes
‘that which remains over,’ ‘excess,’ hence ex-
crescence or appendage (cf. Kautzsch - Socin’s
rendering Anhdnyse/). It most probably, there-
fore, is the technical name for ‘the fatty mass
at the opening of the liver, which reaches to the
kidneys and becomes visible upon the removal of
the ‘lesser omentum” or membrane extending
from the fissures of the liver to the curve of the
stomach’ (Driver and White’s Leviticus, p. 65, in
Haupt’s ‘Polychrome Bible’; see also illustr.
facing p. 4, and ef. the technical exposition by
Professor Reichert in Dillmann, apud Ly 34),
This peculiar sanctity of the visceral fat is to be
explained by the fact that the liver and kidneys,
with the fat surrounding them, were regarded by
the Semitic races as being, with the blood, the seat
of life (for fuller exposition and reff. see art.

KIDNEYS, and W. R. Smith, 22S? 379 f.). Hence
to have an arrow pierce the liver (Pr 739) or the

reins (Job 1015). is to receive one’s death-wound.

2. Like the kidneys, the liver was also regarded
as an important seat of emotion (ef. Assyr.
kabittu, ‘liver, ‘disposition,’ ‘feeling.’ Muss-
Arnolt, Assyr, Dirt.). Hence a Hebrew poet
could thus express the bitterness of his sorrow :
‘Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are
troubled, my liver (922)* is poured apon the earth ;
for the destruction of the daughter of my people’
(ia 24);

3. The prophet Ezekiel represents Nebuchad-
nezzar as standing ‘at the parting of the ways’
that led to Jerusalem and to ‘Rabbah of the
children of Ammon,’ and having recourse to three
forms of divination : ‘He shook the arrows to and
fro (so RV improving on AV), he consulted the
teraphim, he looked in the liver’ (Ezk 212! Ufev. 26) +
The last-named, the inspection of the liver of the
sacrificial victims, was a mode of divination much
affected by the Chaldean seers—by whom a com-

* But the Gr. and Syr. Versions read 723 ‘my glory’=‘my
soul’ (cf. Ps 169 etc.). Conversely the LXX read "19D ca
ἥπατά μον for 723 in Gn 496, They also make David's wife
put a goat’s liver (reading 122 for 1.23 of MT) in his bed in the
incident recorded in 18 1913: |

+ On this passage see, further, Wellhausen, Reste Arab
Heidentimns?, 133 f., and W. R. Smith, Journ. of Philol. xiii,
278. Wellh. maintains that there are not three forms of
divination referred to, the meaning of the passage being
simply that the king casts lots before the image of a god
and couples with this an act of sacrifice. But why the special
allusion to the liver? Cf. Bertholet and Davidson, ad loc.

plete set of rules of interpretation was drawn up
(see Lenormant, La Divination, etec., chez les
Chaldcens)—as also by the Greeks of the post-
Homeric age (Gardner and Jevons, Manual of
Greek Antigs. p. 259) and the Etrurians, from
whom the practice passed to the Romans (cf. art.
DIVINATION in this Dictionary, vol. i. p. 621°),
Another magical use of the liver (in this case
that of a fish) is found in the well-known incident
in the story of Tobit (64% 87),
A. R. 8. KENNEDY.

LIVING.-In NT βίος means either * (1) this
present existence, when AV and RV translate by
‘life,’ or else (2) the means by which this present
existence is sustained, when, with one exception,
AV and RV translate by ‘living.’ Thus (1) Lk 81
‘pleasures of this life’; 1 Ti 2? ‘that we may
lead a quiet and peaceable life’ (RV ‘a tranquil
and quiet life’); 2 Ti 2% ‘the affairs of this life’ ;
and 1 Jn 916 ‘the pride of life’? (RV ‘the vain-
glory of life’). (2) Mk 12" (|) Lk 214) “she of her
want did cast in all that she had, even all her
living’; Lk 8 ‘which had spent all her living
upon physicians’ ; 15! ‘he divided unto them his
living ; 15 ‘which hath devoured thy living with
harlots.”. The exception is 1 Jn 3!7 ‘whoso hath
this world’s good’ (τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου, RV “ the
world’s goods’): see GOOD, vol. ii. p. 229% Once
the subst. ‘living’ occurs in the Apocr., when it is
the tr. of ζωή, Sir 41 ‘Defraud not the poor of his
living’ (riv ζωὴν τοῦ πτωχοῦ μὴ ἀπαστερήσῃΞ).

For ‘living’ in the sense of ‘livelihood’ ef. Pr.
Bk. Catechism, ‘My duty toward my neighbour
is... to learn and labour truly to get mine own
living’; and Shaks. As You Like It, τ, iii. 33—

‘What ! wouldst thou have me go and heg my food,
Or with a base and boisterous sword enforce
A thievish living on the common road ?’
J. HASTINGS,

LIVING CREATURE.—The translation (AV and
RV) of am hayyah, in Bzk + (chs. 1. 8. 10) and
of ζῴον (the LXX equivalent in Ezk) in Rey (chs.
4, 5. 6. 7. 14. 15. 19) according to RV (AV ‘ beast’).
Hayyah is in LUXX most commonly rendered by
θηρίον, With emphasis on the wild or the bestial ;
when it is rendered by ζῷον (never in LXX used
of man) the emphasis is on life, but not reasoning
life, see ἄλογα, Wis 117%: it is thus, like animal,
contrasted with man. In NIT the same dis-
tinctions obtain: Rev 68 ‘to kill... by means
of the beasts’ (@npiwv); 13! ‘the beast’ (θηρίον) ;
He 13" the sacrificial (ga, and 2 P 2” (Jude 1)
Ta ἄλογα (wa, the unreasoning living creatures.

The hayyah of Ezk and the (wor of Rev are of
that composite creature form known as cherubic
(Ezk 10:9), partly human, partly animal, and
always with wings. (See the representations of
cherubic forms in Riehim’s Handiworterbuch, i. 267,
including a hypothetical construction of the Ezekiel
cherub-chariot ; see also the figures given at the
end of the article ‘Cherubim’ in Kitto’s Biblical
Cyclopedia). Such forms: were ‘deeply rooted in
ancient religious symbolism,’ and belong to the
‘common cycle of Oriental tradition.’ They were
conceived as symbols of the divine attributes
rather than as representations of actual beings.
The idea seems to have been a combination of the
intellect of man with the physical force and alert-
ness of the animal for the purpose of bearing up
or attending upon deity or guarding what was
sacred, (See CHERUBIM). The winged human-
headed bulls of the Assyrian monuments may be
regarded as the staple of these composite forma-
tions ; but, whether or not the ‘apparent corre-
spondences in non-Semitic mythologies are perhaps

* Omitting with edd. 1 P 43.

t On ‘living creature’ as the trn of “ΡΠ wz} etc., see alt.

CREATURE, ad init.
’

LIVING CREATURE

LO-AMMI 129

deceptive’? (Cheyne), it is difficult to class in an
entirely different category the sphinxes of Egypt
and of Greece and the gryphons of Teutonic fable.

While the representations of the nature and
functions of the ‘living creatures’ in Ezk and
Rev are closely allied, there are marked differ-
ences. In Ezk the four creatures have each four
heads, looking four different ways, the face of a
man being in front, and the faces of animals on
the three remaining sides: in Rev three creatures
out of the four are like animals, and only one has
the face of a man (47). In both (whether μόσχος
must be a calf or may be an ox) the animals are
the same, and in both therefore we have the

intelligence of the man, the sovereignty of the |

lion, the strength of the ox, and the swiftness of
the eagle. (Cf. Schultz, OL Theology, ii. 233).
In Ezk each has four wings, in Rev six wings.
In Ezk 1 the wheel accompanying each creature
and containing its spirit has its felloes full of eyes
(115):
eyes (as apparently in Ezk 1013, where the wheels
and the bodies are confused). In Ezk their
function is that of unitedly bearing in one
direction or another the firmament and, above
that, the throne, with the manifestation of
Jehovah upon it: in Rev the throne 15. im-
movable, and the function of the four living
creatures is that of choregi leading and concluding
the various portions of the unceasing hymn of
adoration (4° δ". 4); their position being somewhat
enigmatically described as ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ
κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου (4°), ‘in the midst of the throne and
around the throne,’ the first part of which may
possibly mean that they supported the throne
on each of its sides, or may be some original con-
fusion or early corruption due to the retention or
insertion of the simple καὶ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ of Ezk 15.
The symbolic, imaginary, and variable (cf. Ezk

. 4118 two faces) figures of Ezk became, by easy |
transference, before the date of the Book of |

Enoch, simply an order of angels, as did the
wheels likewise. In that book we read (61!) of
the ‘host of God, the Cherubim, Seraphim (per-
haps= princes), and Ophanim (wheels), and all the
angels of power,’ etc. At ch. 40 we are intro-
duced to ‘four presences’ (¢.e. four angels of the
Presence), different from (1.6. higher than) those
that sleep not (i.e. those that unceasingly bless
the Lord of spirits, saying ‘ Holy, Holy, Holy is
the Lord of spirits: He filleth the earth with
spirits’): and these four presences, ‘angels of the
Lord of spirits,’ are Michael, the merciful ;
Raphael, the healer; Gabriel, the mighty ; and
Phanuel, the spirit of repentance and hope : these
‘gave glory before the Lord of glory.’ The function
of the seraphs, each with six wings, in Is 62, is simi-
lar : ‘One cried to another, Holy, Holy, Holy is the
Lord of Hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.’

We can now see the syncretic character of the
nature and functions of the ‘living creatures” in
Rev. We can see how the composite, symbolic
creature-forms of the throne-bearers in Ezk—of
which storm and lightning clouds had probably

been the prototype—had been assimilated in nature |

and in function to the seraphs of Isaiah, and to
the four angelic ‘presences’ and ‘voices’ of
Enoch, and had thus finally taken ἀρ their
position as the highest angels, standing imme-
diately before the throne, and leading the heavenly
choir. And so we can understand how, in the
later Psalms, He who is said to be ‘enthroned
upon the cherubim’ (Ps 80! 99!) can also be spoken
ot (22%) as ‘enthroned upon the praises of Israel.’
If we take note of the diversifications in the
symbol as displayed in the history of its use (even
by one and the same writer), we shall not be hasty
to define rigidly the ideas its several attributes
VOL. 111.—9

in Rev the creatures themselves are full of |

|

embody. The notion that the living creatures
in Rev 4°" represent ‘ the quintessence of creation’
will scarcely be maintained in face of the fact
that in 5% creation is viewed as something quite
distinct from them. But if we regard them as
standing for the noblest of God’s creatures, the
most honoured and eflicient of His servants, the
most devout and constant of His worshippers, then
the numerical symbol of all pervasiveness, the
human and animal symbols of intelligence, of
sovereignty, of strength, and of swiftness, the
eyes-symbol of ubiquitous watchfulness and pene-
tration, and the sanctus-symbol of unceasing
praise and adoration, will all readily and easily
fall into their proper place. For early Christian
interpretations see Zahn, Forsch. 11. 257 ff. ; Swete,
St. Mark, xxx1 ff. J. MASSIE.

LIZARD (axed lét@ah, καλαβώτης, stellio). —The
word lizard occurs but once in AV (Lv 1139. It
is one of the following six names of unclean
animals (Lv 11°% *°), which we give with their Heb.
originals and AV and RV equivalents :—

AV RV
i Sy zab tortoise great lizard. See CHAMELEON.
2. ADR Vdnakadh — ferret gecko. yy GECKO.
3. 15 ἡ κοάλ chameleon land crocodile. ,, CHAMELEON.
4, TNO? ἰδέα ἀκ lizard lizard.
5. Ὁ2Π hdmet snail sand lizard. » SNAIL,
6. n° Jin tinshemeth mole chameleon. 3) CHAMELEON,

It will be seen from this list that the RV regards
all these creatures as lizards. In our opinion, 1, 3,
4 are pretty certainly lizards, 2 probably so, 5
dubious, and 6 perhaps the mole-rat, but possibly
the chameleon. KVm says of 2, 3, 4, 5, ‘words of
uncertain meaning, but probably denoting four
kinds of lizards.” What species of lizard is in-
tended by /ét@’ ah we have no means of determining.
The commonest species are Lacerta viridis, L.,
the green lizard ; Lacerta agilis, 1.., the sand lizard
(RV equivalent of AV snail, Heb. hémet) ; Zootica
muralis, Laur.; Ophiops elegans, Menetr.; Gongylus
ocellatus, Forsk.

In Pr 30°8, where AV has ‘ the spider taketh hold
with her hands,’ RV gives ‘the lizard taketh,’
ete., RVm ‘the lizard thou canst seize with thy
hands.’ The Heb. word is mary. The tr® ‘ lizard’
is supported by the LXX καλαβώτης, Vulg. stellio,
and is adopted by Reuss, Kamphausen, ete.,
although Delitzsch and some others still defend
‘spider.’ See further, Bochart, Higroz. 1. 1084.

G. E. Posr.

LOAF.—Sece BREAD, vol. i. p. 318%.

LO-AMMI (23-85 ‘not my people,’ LXX οὐ λαός
uov).—The second son and third child of Gomer, the
wife of the prophet Hosea. Whether or not we
infer from Hos 1 that Lo-ammi was the off-
spring of an unlawful union, he was recognized by
Hosea as his child, and from him received his
name. He was born three or four years after his
sister Lo-ruhamah, as we may infer from the
reference to the weaning of the latter (Hos 15), and
the fact that weaning took place at two or three
years from birth (2 Mac 7”, ef. Gn 218, 18 1%).
The detail is of importance against the purely
allegorical interpretation of the chapter, since it
is to the point only in a narrative of fact. The
name is symbolical, embodying Hosea’s conviction
that Israel had forfeited its claim to J”s protec-
tion: ‘call his name Lo-ammi; for ve (the Israel.
ites) are Jo-amimdi’ (t.e. ‘not my people,’ ef. Hos 1!!
RV), Hos 19. For symbolical names given to other
actual children, οἵ. MAHER -SHALAL-HASH - BAZ,
SHEAR-JASHUB. Nothing further is known of
the person Lo-ammi. ‘The name occurs again in
Hos 29 [Heb. 35] RVm, and also in the Hebrew in

130 LOAN

LOCUST

LJ
2! (Eng. 1°]; but in both these cases the name or
phrase refers to the people of Israel. Thus 2?
[Eng. 119] may be translated, ‘And instead of that
which was said to them, Ye are Lo-ammni (7.e. ‘not
my people’), it shall be said unto them (ye are)
sons of the living God’; and similarly 2” [Eng.
233) «And I will say unto Lo-ammi, Thou art
Ammi (¢.e. ‘my people’).’ Both these passages in
which the name of Hosea’s son is actually applied
to the people of Israel have been regarded by certain
writers as later additions to the Bk. of Hosea;
on 1-2! [ Heb. 91-3] ef. Wellh., Nowack, ad doc., and
Cheyne in W. R. Smith’s Prophets’, p. xviii; and
on 2'8-3 [Heb. 930-30] Nowack, ad loc. Zee 189 is an
interesting and suggestive parallel passage.

G. B. GRAY.
LOAN.

LOCK.—See KEY, vol. ii. p. 836.

See DEBT, vol. i. p. 579.

LOCUST. — The following words in the Heb.
refer to various species of the Orthoptera, viz.:—

1. naw arbeh. This is usually the generic name
for locusts, and the one most frequently used in
the OT (Ex 10% ete.). [10 is probably derived
from 727 rébdh, signifying to multiply, and is
highly descriptive of the fecundity of these insects.
It is limited by the deseription (Ly 115, which
makes it one of the ‘flying creeping things that
go upon all four, which have legs above their
feet, to leap withal upon the earth. It shares
these characteristics with the os5> sol’dm, bald
locust, S3an hargel, AV beetle (impossible, as the
beetle does not leap; it may be, as in RV,
‘cricket’), and 221 μηχα, grasshopper. In four
places only AV tr. it ‘grasshopper’ (Jg 6° 7%,
Job 39°, Jer 4653). In all these RV has ‘locust.’
Wherever arbeh is used, reference is made either
to its numbers or its destructiveness. It is evident
that the word refers to the migratory species,
which are such a terrible plague in the East. The
two which do the greatest damage are (dipoda
migratoria and Aecridium peregrinum. These
species are endemic in the deserts south-east and
south of Palestine, and at irregular intervals
spread northward and eastward.

2. 5:0 sol’dm, ἀττάκης, attacus (Ly 1133. This is
one of the edible leapers defined in the previous
verse. The obsolete root signilies to siallow or
devour. ‘The Talmud, which is the authority for
the EV bald locust, says that it has a smooth head.
Tristram suggests the species of Zruxalis, which
are common in Palestine.

8. Sian hargél, perhaps ‘ galloper,’ ὀφιομάχης, ophio-
machus (Ly 117%), tr. AV ‘beetle’ [quite inedible],
RV ‘cricket,’ is another of the edible species, dis-
tinguishable from the others in the list. But, as
there is no hint of the qualities of this kind, we
must be content to contess our ignorance. The
LXX guess of a serpent killer has no foundation.

4. 137 higdb, perh. ‘concealer (se. of the sun),’
ἀκρίς, docusta. It is evidently one of the devouring
species, and is tr. in one place AV and RY ‘locust’
(2 Ch 118), while in the others (Ly 1122, Nu 13%, Ee
12°, [5 4033) it is translated ‘grasshopper.’ What
species it is we have no means of knowing. Its
occurrence in the list with ’arbeh, soldi, and
hargol makes it sure that it was known to the
Israelites, and distinguishable from the other
edible insects mentioned.

5. κὸν (pausal form) zélézal (Dt 28%), is tr. by
the LXX ἐρυσίβη, and Vulg. rubigo = blight or
mildew. But it is much more probable that this
is a word referring to the whizzing, whirring, or
rushing of the wings of the locusts (ef. Is 181), or
the stridulation (of legs against sheath of wing).

6. [33] géb, only in pl. oa (Is 334); 123 δ δ
(Am 71, AV ‘grasshoppers,’ m. ‘green worms,’ RV

‘loeusts’) ; 343 gdb, 3 gébai (Nah 3"), AV ‘great
erasshoppers,’ RV ‘swarms of grasshoppers.’ The
LXX tr. all these ἀκρίς. Some have supposed (see
Driver on Am 7!) thisword to refer to the larval state
of the locust, but there is no certain proof of it.’
7. ἘΠ: gdzam, ‘lopper’ or ‘shearer.’ The two
lists of four devourers (J] 14 2”) have perplexed
commentators. “Arbeh, which is second in the
first list and first in the second, is, as seen
above, the most generic name for locust. In
the first list it is said that that which = the
gdzam, ‘palmerworm,’ hath left hath the ‘arbeh,
‘locust,’ eaten; that which the’arbcA hath left hath
the yelek, ‘cankerworm,’ eaten ; and that which
the yelek hath left hath the Ad@si/, ‘caterpillar,’
eaten. In the second list it is said, ‘T will restore
to you the years which the ‘arbch hath eaten, the
yelek, and the hasil, and the gazam.’ This dis-
crepancy in the order in lists found in successive
passages of the same author, creates an insuper-
able difficulty in determining with certainty the
destroyers intended. The attempt to identify
them as successive steps in the development of the

locust is defeated by the want of accord between

the two passages. (See PALMERWORM).

8. po: yelek, prob. ‘lopper,’ ἀκρίς, βροῦχος, bruchis,
cankerworm, caterpillar, The expression (Nah
3-16) “the sword shall devour thee like the yvelek ;
make thyself many as the yelek: make thyself
many as the “arbch . the ylek spoileth (m.
spreadeth himself) and fhleth away,’ has been
supposed to imply that the v-/eh is the larval stage
of the locust up to the time of the evolution of its
wings. But as it issaid that the yeles flies away,
the passage is not decisive. The ye/ek is spoken ot
as coming after the ‘arbch (Ps 105%), betore and
after (] 14 2%). In the passage in Ps, AV has
‘caterpillar? RV ‘cankerworm.’? In Joel both
VSS have ‘cankerworm.’ In Jer 51*°7 AV has
‘caterpillars,’ RV ‘cankerworm.’ [πὶ the latter
verse the creature is said to be ‘rough.’

9. Son Adsil, ‘finisher,’ ἀκρίς, βροῦχος, ἐρυσίβη,
rubigo, wrugo, caterpillar, This discrepancy ot
tr. in the VSS makes the meaning of this word
uncertain. It occurs after ’arbch (1 Καὶ 851, 2 Ch
6%), before it (Ps 78%, Is 334), after yelek (J1 14 2”).
In all the passages the context seems to point to
the destroying locust in some of its forms.

The destructiveness of locusts is often referred to
in Scripture. It is compared with that of a mighty
army (J1 27%). They are perhaps the most terrible of
all the scourges of Bible lands. Their swarms fill
the air, darkening the sky, and the noise of their
wings resembles the pattering of a heavyrain. They
fly with great rapidity, and towards nightfall they
light wherever they may happen to be; and such
are their numbers that they often break the
branches of the trees to which they cling. The
flying locust eats comparatively little, but will not
disdain any green thing that may be in his way.
But as the swarm invariably resumes its flight as
soon as the sun has warmed it a little (Nah 3"),
and does not return, it has not time to destroy
all the vegetation. Often a swarm comes and goes
away without having done much harm. But such
of the females as are ready to lay their eggs begin
as soon as they alight to moisten the spot of earth
with a secretion from their tails, and excavate in
the softened soil holes in which they deposit the
ovisac, which often contains as many as a hundred
eges. The next morning the swarm flies away,
and at night other females deposit their eggs at
their new resting-places. It is the larve of these
eggs which work the devastation which makes
the locust so great a scourge. .When a swarm of
locusts appears, the first care of the owners of
lands and gardens is to prevent them from alight-
ing on their grounds. For this purpose they beat

LOD, LYDDA

LOD, LYDDA 13]

pans, and shout, and fire guns, and make all
manner of noise. The locusts, which are easily
frightened, may thus be compelled to seek another
resting-place. But finally the vast swarm alights.
The people then pour out into the fields and gar-
dens, and catch as many as_ possible, and place
them in sacks, in which they are either pounded
to death or drowned. ‘The same hunt is repeated
the next morning, before the sun is up, while the
locusts, chilled by the night air, and weighted with
the dew, are still unable to fly (Nah 3:7. As soon
as they are gone the search tor their eggs begins.
The government either enforces a per capita con-
tribution of these ees, or offers a price for them
by weight. With all the exertions of many hun-
dreds of persons, however, vast numbers of the
eggs escape their search, and in about fifteen to
twenty days hatch out. The black larvee now spread
like a pall over the land, eating every green thing,
even stripping the bark off the trees. As they
cannot fly, they convert the district around which
they were hatched into a desert, until, after a
month to forty days, their wings are grown, and
they fly away to begin in other places their round
of devastation. The Arab. name for them is jerdd,
from a root signifying to strip. The march of
these destroyers is arrested in various ways. The
people dig trenches in their pathway, and, when
these are full of the creatures, turn back the earth
and bury them, or turn water into the trenches and
drown them. They often kindle fires in their path-
way, and drive them into tbe flames. Besides the
damage done by locusts in their various stages of
development in devouring vegetation, they choke
the wells and streams, which are often filled by
their innumerable carcases, and so defiled that their
waters are no longer drinkable. When driven by
strong winds into the sea or rivers, their bodies
are piled in prodigious heaps alone the shore or
bank, and breed pestilence by their intolerable
effluvia,

Locusts are unable to fly against the wind.
Their wings become entangled, and they are ‘ tossed
up and down’ (Ps 109”), and fall to the ground.
They are certainly used as food, and were doubt-
less part of the diet of John the Baptist (Mt 34).
The writer has seen them toasted and eaten. The
Arabs stew them with clarified butter, after tearing
off the head, legs, and wings. They are said to be
dried and ground to meal in some places.

Locusts are mentioned once in the NT (Rev $1)
as monsters, in the likeness of war horses, with

hair like women, teeth like lions, breastplates like.

iron, tails with stings like scorpions, their king
being Ahaddon or Apollyon, the angel of the abyss.

See on the whole subject of this article the
elaborate ‘Excursus on Locusts’ in Driver’s Joel
and Amos, 82 11, and the literature there cited.

G.E, Post.

LOD, LYDDA (ὦ; LXX Λόδ in 1Ch 8” ΓΑ;
B om.], Ezr 2", Neh 797; Λύδδα in Neh 11° ΓΑ ΒΝ}
om.], 1 Mac 11°4; NT Avéda) is identified as the
Arabic Ludd, a village in the plain of Sharon
about 10 miles S.E. of Joppa on the way to Jeru-
salem. From a distance its appearance is pleasant
and picturesque, occupying a fertile hollow in the
great undulating plain, surrounded by gardens of
olive and various fruit trees, and situated near a
valley that leads into the river ‘Aujeh. The
village itself is very dilapidated, a haunt of dirt
diseases, the effect of modern squalor being inten-
sified by the presence of noble ruins testifying to
former prosperity.

1. Bible references.—Lod is alluded to in 1 Ch 82
as having been built along with Ono by Shemed
of the tribe of Benjamin. The inhabitants of
these villages shared in the tribulations of the

abylonian captivity, and a considerable number

of them returned under Zernbbabel, Ezra, and
Nehemiah (Ezr 2°, Neh 737 11°),

The most interesting allusion to Lydda is in the
NT, where it is recorded that St. Peter visited
the saints there, and healed A{neas, and when
there received the urgent request to go to Joppa
on behalf of Dorcas (Ac 982°),

2. General history.—Besides being close to the
road from Joppa leading eastward to Jerusalem,
Lydda was also on the great caravan route be-
tween Babylon and Eeypt. Camels laden with
rich merchandise from Baghdad, Aleppo, Damias-
cus, and the region beyond Galilee, and protected
by armed attendants, were constantly detiling
through Shechem, resting at Lydda and Ono, and
passing on through Gaza to Egypt. Joseph would
be taken by the Ishmaelites along this route.
The manufacture and repair of such requisites
for the journey as sacks, saddles, and strappings,
would create the skilled labour in cloth, leather,
wood, and metal that made the neighbouring Ono
‘the valley of craftsmen’ (Neh 1135, During the
Jewish wars of independence, the frequent sieges,
change of ownership, and general lawlessness of
Jaffa would encourage the transit of goods by land
until, under more settled government, commerce
naturally chose the cheaper mode of conveyance
by sea. In this way, by a peaceful necessity of
trade, apart from the devastations of war, Lydda,
like Aleppo and other towns of the caravan route,
fell into insignificance and silent decay.

3. Non-biblical references.—Lydda 1s mentioned
by Josephus as one of the eleven toparchies or
chief sections of the kingdom of Judxa over which
Jerusalem presided (BJ 1m. iii. 5). Alone with
Apherema and Ramathaim it was taken from
Samaria and restored to Jerusalem by Demetrius
Nikator, B.c. 152 (1 Mac 10° 1134; Jos. Ané. XIII.
iv. 9). Its inhabitants were wantonly sold into
slavery by Cassius, and restored to treedom by
Antony (Jos: Ant. XIV. xi. Ὁ; xi. 2-5). Geéstius
Gallus, who inflicted such loss upon Joppa, also
burnt Lydda and killed about fifty of its inhabit-
ants, the majority being absent attending the
Feast of Tabernacles at Jerusalem (Jos. BJ τι.
xix. 1). Soon afterwards it was rebuilt, and was
a town of considerable wealth and importance
when it surrendered to Vespasian on his way to
the siege of Jerusalem (Jos. BJ Iv. viii. 1). About
this period Lydda was famous as a seat of Rab-
binical learning. In the early Christian centuries
it was of sufficient importance to be made the seat
of a bishop. Its bishop took part in the Council
of Nica, and, later on, Pelagius appeared before
an ecclesiastical assembly there on a charge of
heresy, and, amid considerable tumult, was ac-
quitted.

Lydda and St. George.—The celebrated St.
George, called by the Moslems el-Khudr, ‘the
ever-green or undying,’ was born at Lydda in the
3rd cent., and is said to have died there. The
beautiful cathedral church of St. George was built
over his reputed tomb. On account of its fortress-
like appearance, if was destroyed by the Moslems
when they invaded the land. After being rebuilt
with much magnificence by the Crusaders, it was
demolished by Saladin in 1191, after the disaster
of Kurn Hattin, where a disorderly rabble, bearing
the name and mission of the Cross, was annihil-
ated on the reputed Mount of Beatitudes.

After so many years of conflict, the church now
enjoys a truce of dilapidation, with a mosque in
one end of the ruin and a Greek church in the,
other.

From the 2nd cent. onwards Lydda was called
Diospolis, but the old name was never quite super-
seded, and in the Arabic Ludd survives to the
present day.

132 LODDEUS

LOGOS

LireraturE.—Robinson, BRP? ii, 244-248; Guérin, Jude,
ji. 322 ff.; Thomson, Land and Book, Southern Pal. 108-107 ;
Neubauer, Géog. du Talim. 76ff.; Schurer, HJP (Index, 8.
‘Lydda’); Buhl, GAP 197. G. M. MACKIE.

LODDEUS (B Λααδαῖος v.44, Λοδαῖος v.¥, A Aod-
datos; AV Saddeus, Daddeus; 1 Es 846 [Ὁ 1Ὁ
LXX]).—The ‘ captain in the place of the treasury Ὁ
(or ‘at the place Casiphia,’ Ezr 817), to whom Ezra
sent, while encamped on the river Theras, for
Levites to accompany him on the return. He is
called Ippo in Ezr 8%. The form Aodatos appears
to have arisen from repeating the > in ‘yx >s ‘to
Iddo.’ Η. 51. J. THACKERAY.

LO-DEBAR (in 2S 9% 5 12755, B Λαδαβάρ, A Λαβα-
dapi; in 17% 727 ἕν, BA Λωδαβάρ, Luc. AadaSap).—
A place in Gilead, near to, and apparently east
from, Mahanaim. It was the retreat of Mephi-
bosheth till he was sammoned to court by David,
28 945, It is mentioned also upon the occasion
of David's flight to the east of the Jordan, 17°.
The site has not been recovered.

Wellhausen and Nowack (in their Comm. ad
loc.) and Buhl (@AP 71), following Gritz, find the
proper name Lo-debar also in Am 6", where EVV
(followed by Driver) read and tr. 737 x ‘a thing of
nought.’ Lo-debar is perhaps intended in the 275
of Jos 13%. See DEBIR, No. 2. J. A. SELBIE.

LODGE.—To lodge is in AV nearly always to
spend the night, as Jos 85. ‘Joshua lodged that
night among the people’; Ru 1° ‘where thou
lodgest, I will lodge’; Job 31 ‘the stranger did
not lodge in the street: but I opened my doors to
the traveller’; Zeph 24 ‘both the cormorant and
the bittern shall lodge in the upper lintels of it.’
In OT that is always the meaning. The verb is
some part of p> or 7.2, except in Jos 2! ‘ And they
went, and came into an harlot’s house, named
Rahab, and lodged there’ (7y7312231, RV ‘and lay
there’); and 4° ‘the place where they lodged,’
Heb. pdr, elsewhere translated ‘lodging’? (2 Καὶ 19%,
15 10%), ‘lodging place’ (Jos 4%, Jer 9°), ‘inn,’
with RV ‘lodging place’ (Gn 427 4851, Ex 45. In
Apocr. and NT we find ‘lodge’ as the tr. of (1)
αὐλίζομαι, To 6! 19 95, Sir 1456. Mt 2177; (2) καταλύω,
Sir 14% °, Lk 9; (3) xoudoua, 1 Mac 11°; (4)
κατασκηνόω, Mt 1353, Mk 484, Lk 13 In all these
places the meaning of ‘lodge’ is ‘spend the
nieht.’ But we also find ξενίζω so translated in
Ac 10% 18. 23.82 916 987, and ἐπιξένδομαι in Sir 297",
and then the meaning is, if trans., ‘receive as a
guest,’ ‘entertain,’ or if intrans. ‘ be entertained,’
‘be a guest.” Thus the only meanings that the
verb to lodge has in AV and RV are (1) pass the
night in a place, and (2) entertain one or be enter-
tained by one as a guest. For the meaning ‘ pass
the night’ see Shaks. JJ Henry VI. τ. i. 80—

‘ Did he so often lodge in open field,
In winter's cold, and summer’s parching heat,
To conquer France, his true inheritance ?’
Rom. and Jul. UW. iii. 36—
‘ And where care lodges, sleep will never lie.’
Macbeth, i. Ὧι, 26—
; ‘ There are two lodged together.

One cried, ‘‘ God bless us!” and ‘* Amen” the other.’
And for the sense of ‘entertain’ or ‘be enter-
tained,’ He 13? Tind. ‘Be not forgetfull to lodge
straungers’; Taming of Shrew, Iv. ii. 107-- Ξ

‘And in my house you shall be friendly lodged.’
tee ΕΣ a subst. oceurs but twice: (1) Is 18

; he daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a
ἘΠ ΘΑ ond cueuners only ἐν τὲ ay tee
RV ‘hut’; it is the Ptah eat (Mt 9.1... ork iat

bs : ? ἀ “- 9 + - Ἶ
or hut in which the caretaker of the vineyard

tk
dwells while the crop is ripening until it is
gathered in: see Wetzstein in Delitzsch’s «700,
ii. 74f., and art. Bootu, with illustration under
CUCUMBER); (2) Jth 3° ‘Behold, our houses, and
all our places, and all our fields of wheat, and
flocks, and herds, and all the lodges of our tents,
lie before thy face’ (ai μάνδραι τῶν σκηνῶν ἡμῶν ;
RV ‘the sheepeotes of our tents,’ as AV in 2°
for the same word ; ‘lodges’ is from the Geneva
Bible, which has ‘lodge’ also in 250).

Lodging or lodging place is found in both mean-
ings belonging to the verb lodge: (1) a place to
spend the night in, as Jer 925. ‘Oh that 1 had in
the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men’
(ἡ 55); Sir 14% ‘He shall lodge in a lodging where
good things are’ (κατάλυμα) ; (2) a place of enter-
tainment, only Ac 28% and Philem * (ξενία).

J. HASTINGS.

LOFT (from the Scand., but the same as Anglo-
Saxon /yft, the sky) is used twice in AV. In 1K
17 it means an upper room in a house, ‘ And he
took him out of her bosom, and carried him up
into a left, where he abode, and laid him upon his
own bed? (πον την, RV ‘into the chamber’). Else-
where a5y is tr. ‘chamber,’ ‘upper chamber,’ ‘ par-
lour,’ ete. (but see Moore on J¢3"). LXX has ὑπερῷον,
its usual word for a:5y ; Vulg. coonaculum, whence
Wye. 1882, ‘sowping place,’ i.e. supper room, but
1388 ‘soter,’ i.e. upper room ; Dou. Supper chamber’;
‘loft’ is the Bishops’ word. In Ac 20" it means one
of the storeys of a house, ‘ Eutychus.. . fell down
from the third loft’ (ἀπὸ τοῦ τριστέγου, RV ‘from
the third storey’; Vulg. de tertio crenaculo ; Wye.
‘from the third stage or souping place’; Tind.
‘from the thyrde lofte,’ followed by the rest of the
versions). Cf. Gn 016 Tind. ‘And the dore of the
arcke shalt thou sette in the syde of it: and thou
shalt make it with three loftes one above an other.’
In Scots a ‘lofted’ house was a house of more
than one storey. Jamieson quotes from Scott,
Waverley, i. 298, ‘Tan nan Chaistel’s mansion, ὧν
high rude-looking square tower, with the addi-
tion of a lofted house, that is, a building of two
stories.’ J. HASTINGS.

LOFTINESS.—The adj. ‘lofty’ is used literally
as in Is 577 ‘upon a lofty and high mountain’ ;
and also metaphorically when it means ‘ haughty,’
as Is 2" «The lofty looks of man shall be
humbled’; so the adv. which occurs only in Ps
738 «They speak loftily’ (Οὐ, Vm ‘from on
high’). Loftiness is only metaphorical, haughti-
ness, Is 2!7 ‘the loftiness of man shall be bowed
down’ (2797 mn23), and Jer 48” ‘his loftiness’
(inna). Cf. Shaks. Love's Labour's Lost, Vv. 1. 11—
‘His humour is lofty, his discourse peremptory’ ;
Sandys, Sermons, 107, ‘ Another exposition is, to
make this a proper mean to keep and conserve
unity, rather than a way only to diminish lofti-
ness and pride.’ J. HASTINGS.

LOG.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

LOGOS (ὁ λόγος) signified in classical Greek both
Word (verbum, sermo, oratio) and Reason (ratio),
but in biblical Greek is used only in the former
sense, except in a few passages where it means
‘account’ (e.g. Mt 18%, Ro 14”, Ac 20°), and a
few brief phrases in which the sense of ‘reason’
more plainly appears (Ac 10” τίνι λόγῳ, ‘for what
reason’; 1813 ‘reason would’ κατὰ λύγον ; 2 Mac 4%,
3 Mac 78 παρὰ λόγον). By the LXX it is used to
tr. 123 (word) and its poetic synonyms 728 and ΠΡ,
In NT it signifies a verbal utterance, then discourse,
speech, instruction, narrative, and, when applied
to God, either a specific divine utterance, or revela-
tion in general, or tne Scriptures as the communi-
cation of God’s mind and will. Finally, it ws

LOGOS

LOGOS 133

employed by St. John to denominate the Son of
God, both before and after His incarnation. This
latter use gives the doctrine of the Logos which
the present article is to describe.

St. John’s peculiar use of Logos is found six
times, namely, Gospel 11 (three times) and 1,
where we read simply ‘the Word,’ 1 Jn 1! ‘the
Word of life,’ Rev 19! ‘the Word of God.’ [1 Jn 5°
of TRand AV is spurious]. In Rev 19 the term is
applied to the conquering Christ, since His progress
is the triumph of the divine revelation, of which He
is both agent and substance. The title naturally
associates itself with the author’s Logos doctrine,
either exhibiting an approach to it or an applica-
tion of it, according to the dates we assign to the
Gospel and the Apoc.; for in the Gospel the
Logos is identified with the historical Christ (113),
and in the Apoc. Christ is affirmed to be the
divine agent of revelation and redemption (6.7.
15: 6.17 δ6 97} φρο!) The reference of 1 Jn 1} to the
personal Logos is disputed (e.g. Westcott, Comin.) ;
but the verbs used, the parallelism with the pro-
logue of the Gospel, and the clear reference ot v.*
to the incarnation, indicate that here also Logos
means the personal Word (so Haupt, Schmid,
᾿ Weiss, ete.), although the subject of the Epistle is
not the person of the Logos, but the life which He
possesses and has manifested. It is, however,
from the prologue of the Gospel that we must
derive St. John’s doctrine of the Logos. Yet the
prologue is illuminated by many passages of both
the Gospel and the first Ep.; for, though with
historical fidelity St. John. does not impute to
Christ his own Logos terminology, the latter was
evidently meant to be supported by Christ’s self-
testimony which the Gospel records and the
Epistle implies. Nowhere else in NT is the term
Logos certainly applied to Christ. He 4" has often
been so understood, while others (6.0. Késtlin,
Bleek, Delitzsch) see in it, at least, an approach to
the Johannean usage;* but the context and
adjectives used have led most commentators to
refer the phrase to revelation, written or un-
written. Neither should 1 P 1% nor 2 P 3° be
understood of the personal Logos.

We shall first state St. John’s doctrine, and then
discuss the reason for his peculiar terminology.

I. 51. JOHN’s DOCTRINE is that Jesus Christ is
the real incarnation of an eternally divine person
(elsewhere called by him ‘the only-begotten Son’ of
God, Jn ])4 18 816.18. Jn 49; a term which declares
His Sonship to be unique; in Jn 118 Tregelles and
WH with much force prefer the reading ‘ only-
begotten God’), who has ever been the medium
through whom God (called 6 θεύς in antithesis to
the Logos, and ‘ Father’ in antithesis to the ‘ Son’)
has exercised His activity in relation to the finite
universe, and who, as the perfect manifestation of
God’s nature and will, is called the Word (Logos).
In vv.!-? of the prologue the relation of the Logos
to God is stated. ‘In the beginning’ of all finite,
temporal existence—a phrase suggested doubtless
by Gn 1}—the Logos was. He belongs, therefore,
to the superfinite category of being, and is an
eternal person. His existence is then more specifi-
cally detined as to both His personality and essential
Deity. ‘The Logos was with (πρός, towards) God
(τὸν θεόν),᾽ 1.6. eternally in relation to God, and,
therefore, a distinct personality from ὁ θεός, but
in intimate communion with Him (πρός). ‘The
Logos was God (@eds),’ i.e. in His essential nature
He was Deity. The formality of these condensed
statements, as well as the emphatic repetition,
‘the same was in the beginning with God,’ forbid

* Grimm (Clavis: followed by Thayer, Lew.) gives this as a
solitary instance of the use of Logos in the sense of the divine
mind or reason; but for this there is neither necessity in the
context nor warrant in NT usages.

the idea that they are not to be taken literally
(against Beyschlag, Bib. Theol. of NT). In vvy.*°
the activity of the Logos in relation to the universe
isstated. ‘All things were made (came into exist-
ence, ἐγένετο) through him, and without lim was
not anything made that hath been made’; a phrase
which describes the Logos as the medium of the
entire creative activity of God, and which excludes,
at least by implication, the notion that creation was
the formation of the cosmos from existing matter. ἢ
‘In’ the Logos, moreover, ‘was life,’ i.e. He pos-
sessed the divine fulness of physical, rational, and
ethical energy, with the implication that all the
manifestations of life in the universe are due to
His activity + (cf. Col 1%. Note here also 1 Jn
1'8), Hence to men, endowed with intelligence,
the life possessed by the Logos and manifested in
creation was originally the illuminating truth
(‘the light’) by which they apprehended God and
duty; but when man became immersed in dark-
ness (by sin), the divine light, though still con-
tinuing to shine, was not comprehended. This
divine person crowned His manifestation of God by
becoming flesh,—an expression which includes the
reality and totality of Christ’s human nature,
the identity of His personality with that of the
divine Logos, and, when taken with the context,
the voluntariness of the incarnation, —and in
the flesh manifested to His disciples, like the
Shechinah in the tabernacle, His glory, such as
became God’s ‘ only-begotten One,’ being ‘full of
grace and truth.’ Attested by the Baptist (vv.°* 16)
and the apostles (vv.!* 16), He surpassed the earlier
revelation through Moses (νν. 16: +7), though after,
as before, His incarnation He was rejected by
the world, and even by the Jews (ν.}}), and was
received only by the true children of God (νν. 1" 1).
He, however, is the only, but perfect, medium
through whom God is known (ν. 15).

From this summary it appears (1) that 6 λόγος is
not equivalent to ὁ λέγων, ‘he who speaks,’ as if
the term were used because Christ was the teacher
of whom St. John wrote; nor to ὁ λεγόμενος, ‘the
promised one’; but is a designation of the divine
Son in His everlasting function of revealer of God.
(2) That Logos means ‘ Word,’ not ‘ Reason,’ since
it represents Him as the personal manifestation,
not of a part of the Divine Nature, but of the
whole of Deity (cf. 14° 1°). (3) That the purpose
of the prologue was to summarily express the
teaching of the gospel (see 20") by representing
Jesus as the real incarnation of God (cf. 1 Jn 539: 7),
His spoken message (Christianity) as the expres-
sion of His inmost and eternal nature, and His
historical activity in the flesh as the crown of
all other manifestations of God, since these were
mediated by the same divine person. For this
purpose the term Word was an appropriate means
of describing the Son as the perfect medium of
God’s self-revelation.

Il. Sr. JonHn’s TERMINOLOGY.—In discussing
the historical origin of St. John’s teaching, it is
fair to distinguish between the source of the
doctrine and of the phraseology in which he clothed
it. Writers who regard the doctrine as an offshoot
of the Alexandrian philosophy (see, e.g., among
more recent writers, Holtzmann, Pin/eit. in das
N.T. p. 480, and, still more uncompromisingly,

téville, La Doct. du Logos dans le quat. Evang.
et dans les euvres de Philon) fail to do justice to the
testimony of the Fourth Gospel itself, to the teach-
ing concerning Christ’s person found in earlier

* Philo’s phrase, λέγος δὲ ἐστιν εἰκὼν θεοῦ, δι’ οὗ σύωπας ὁ κόσμος
ἐδημειουργείτο (de Monarch. c. 5), or κατεσκευάσθη (de Cherub. c.
35), is quite different from St. John’s.

+ Many MSS and the earliest Fathers and Versions punctuate,
‘That which hath been made in him was life,’ and WH prefer
this; but the perfect would then seem to require ‘is,’ not ‘ was,’
a reading not sufficiently supported (see Meyer, Comm, in loc.)

134 LOGOS

LOGOS

apostolic literature, and to the profound differences
between Philo’s doctrine and St. John’s. Thus the
Fourth Gospel itself indicates that the historical
personality and teaching of Jesus was the primary
source from which the writer drew his belief in
the Lord’s divinity and mediatorial function (see,
6-2, | n 1:Ὁ Bls-21, ὅς, BO 519-80 01: 62 ΩΣ “9 515. 25. 33. 42. 84. 58
1929-83) | QH-50 146-11 16) 28 172: 5 de 21 B87 B25. 80. δ
As the author appeals to historical testimony (e.g.
1.5. 90 14: 28-81) for his narrative, so the prologue
cannot be separated from the narrative which
follows it, but, while evincing the writer's reflection
upon the nature of Christ, evidently appeals to
Christ Himself for proof of the doctrine. More-
over, St. Paul and the Ep. to the Heb, had already
set forth the person of Christ in terms which
include every element of St. John’s doctrine,
though in ditrerent phraseology (see esp. Col 12
2°, Ph 2°", He 1!4). The doctrine of Christ’s
eternal divine Sonship, and His function as revealer
οἱ God (note εἰκών, ἀπαύγασμα, etc.), was therefore,
long before St. John wrote, an explicit belief of the
Christians, so that there is no need to go beyond
the sphere of apostolic testimony and teaching to
account for the substance of bis doctrine.

The difference between St. John and Philo will
appear later. St. John’s doctrine therefore is
not to be regarded as a philosophical speculation,
nor may it be rationalized into the idea that in-
telligence originated the universe, or that Chris-
tianity is the realization of God’s eternal thought.
It is rather the careful and complete statement,
in peculiar and significant phraseology, of a beliet
which already existed in the apostolie Church,
and which was based on Christ’s own testimony as
well as on later revelations and reflections.

Lut what led St. John to use his peculiar phrase-
ology ἢ

(4) Its source has been found by many in the OT
and in post-canon. Jewish literature.

+

In Gn creation is attributed to the conmand or word of God,
and this led to a quasi-personitication of the divine word in
later poetical descriptions of creation (Ps 336) and providence
(Ps 10729 14715. 18 1488), Still more emphatically was revelation
called ‘the word of the Lord,’ and hence such phrases occur as
‘the word of the Lord came,’ or even ‘the word which Isaiah saw’
(Is 21, so Mic 11, Am 11), which tended to represent the divine
utterance as a separate and continuous object, distinguishable
from the spoken and written word. With this are to be joined
the OT representations of ‘the angel of J”,’ or ‘of God,’ or ‘of
the covenant’ (Gn 167-13 2117 1g13 compared with 2 2211 247
8111. 13 gv24. 30 (Hos 123 5) 4810, Ex 32-6 1419 Ὁ 20. 23 3284, Jos 514. 15
with 62, Jy 21 523 611. 21.22, Zee 112 31, Mal 31), who appears now
identical with and now distinguished from God; as well as the
apparent personifications of the divine ‘name’ (Ex 2321, 1 Καὶ 829,
Is 3027, Ps 541, Jer 108, and perhaps Dt 1535. 11.21 ete.) and
‘presence’ (Ex 3314, Dt 437 [RV], Is 639) and ‘glory’ (Ex 3318
lef. v.20] 404, 1 Καὶ 811). Certainly, some of these passages repre-
sent J” as revealing Himself through a special personal organ,
whether that be identified with a divine person or regarded as
a created agent employed by such (see Oehler, O71" Theol. § 60).
That Heb. thought tended to conceive of the medium of revela-
tion%s personal is also shown by the description of ‘wisdom’
(7227) in some of the later books (Job 2812-23, and especially Pr
822-31), though it is doubtful if the language amounts to more
than poetical personification. Heb. belief in a living God, in
immediate relation to the world and to Israel, certainly called
for no intermediate being in the interest of philosophy, and the
approaches made in OT toward the idea of a second divine
person appear chiefly in the special theophanies and other
manifestations of God recorded in the history ; yet the descrip-
tion of ‘wisdom,’ even in the canon. books, may fairly be
regarded as constituting a phase in the development of the idea,
The post-canon. writings carry the tendency further. In Sir
(1. 24) wisdom is still more boldly personified and described as
premundane, though created, and manifested in the world,
especially in Israel and in the law. Other expressions, however
(2414. 23), show that the description is still partly poetical. The

Wisdom of Solomon’ approaches more nearly to attributing
hypostatical existence to wisdom (see 725-27 ‘Kor she is a breath
of the power of God anda pure effluence from the glory of the
Almighty ἡ therefore no defiled thing falls into her. For she is
an outshining of the eternal light (ἀπαύγασωο, φωτὸς ἀϊδίου), and
an unspotted mirror of the efficiency of God and image (ies) of
His goodness,’ ete., 83:5 949-11) and’ also speaks of God's Word
(Logos) as His agent in creation (9! ‘who didst make all things
ἐν λόγω gou’)and in judgment (1815 * Thine almighty word leaped
down from heaven from thy royal throne, as a fierce man of

war in a land devoted to destruction, bearing thir > unfeigned
commandment as a sharp sword’) The inthuence of Alex:
andrianism on this book is probable, and its conceptions move
in a different direction from St. John’s; but in the Tarzums ἃ
similar tendency appears ia phraseology more akin to the
apostle’s, This is shown in their frequent use of ‘Word’ wlohe)
in connexion with the name of God to express His agency (e.g.
Onkelos, Gn 38 ΝΞ 470N2 DTN NAA bon Dw
‘They heard the vqice of the Word of the Lorp God walking in
the garden’); Targum on Ps 24 j\7) FON NT NW (The Word
of the Lord shall have them in derision’). Other like expressions
are also .866,--- ΝΠ, NT NW, I] ΝΡ ΩΨ, --ἰῆς last of which
was commonly applied to the visible presence of J’ in the
tabernacle (e.g. Onkelos, Ex 255 ‘I will make my Shechinah to
dwell among them’). The Targuins do not appear to have
applied these epithets to the Messiah, though the application
did not lie far distant (e.g. Jerus. Targ. explains Gn 4918 of
deliverance, ‘not through Samson or Gideon, but of the re-
demption through thy Word’), Their usage perhaps arose
from an unwillingness, which the canon. writers did not feel, to
bring the holy God into immediate contact with men, and,
therefore, easily allied itself with the felt need of a Mediator 3
while the terms employed Jent themsclyes more readily to
Johannean doctrine than those of the Wisdom literature did.*

Thus Heb, thought tended to represent God's
self-manifestation as mediated by an agent, more
or less conceived as personal and yet blending with
the divine personality itself. Of the descriptive
terms used, one of the commonest, and the one which
seemed to rest directly on biblical language, was
the ‘Word’ ; and many consider this the probable
source of St. John’s phrascology. In favour of
this may be urged the fact that St. John was a
Pal. Jew; that his familiarity with current Jewish
religious ideas is abundantly shown in his Gospel ;
that in Rev 19% the title ‘the word of God’ is
certainly drawn from Jewish, not Alex., habits of
thought; that his writings evince loyalty to OT
teaching (cf. Jn 117 310. 15. 422. 88. 539. δ΄ 185 1. 938-40
19° 5) ; and that some expressions in the Gospel
indicate his belief that Jesus was the full realiza-
tion of the typical divine manifestations recorded
in Heb. history (14 ἐσκήνωσεν, δόξαν, “51 QI 31
GP? 9 48-90 895, Herhaps 10% 85, 124), The description
also of revelation as the word of God, common to
Jews and Christians (cf. Jn 10), together with St.
John’s view of Christ as the living embodiment of
the Truth (cf. 156% 8! 11° 14%, 1Jn 1-3 ete.), would
furnish additional reason for the application of
this current term to Him whom he wished to set
forth as the personal divine organ through whom
God ever has revealed Himself.

(4) The other source from which St. John might
have derived his phraseology was the Alexandrian
philosophy, chiefly represented by Philo. Since
the time of Heraclitus, ὦ Logos doctrine had been
developing in Greek thought for the purpose of
explaining how Deity came into relation with the
world. by the Logos, however, in this connexion,
the Greeks meant reason. With Heraclitus the
Logos was merely the universal law in accordance
with which the evolution of the universe from
primordial fire proceeds. When later thinkers
had risen to a clear distinction of mind from
matter, and had perceived its formative and per-
yasive presence in nature, the Logos came to
denote the distinctively rational principle mani-
fested in the cosmos. Plato, indeed, commonly
employed for this the term νοῦς ; but he occasion-
ally used λύγος as descriptive of the divine force
from which the world has arisen (e.g. Zim. 38 C),
and his doctrine of ‘ideas’ prepared the way for
Philo. It was, however, the Stoics who formally
developed the Logos idea. Interested mainly in the
ethical problems of life, yet reverting to the earlier
monism, they saw in the universe a rational principle
(the Logos), in one aspect divine and in another
finite, at once the divine reason and governor of the
cosmos and, as the ‘seminal Logos,’ distributed in

* In the Book of Enoch the term ‘ Word’ also occurs, and once
(905) is applied to Messiah ; but most critics, after Dillm., cone
sider this latter passage a gloss.

LOGOS

LOGOS 135

the rational germs from which all separate realities
emerge. Finally, in the Jewish philosophy of
Alexandria, Judaism united with Platonism and
Stoicism for the purpose of showing that the OT
taught the true philosophy, and expounded the
Scriptures in this interest by allegorical inter-
wretations. Philo adopted, after others, the term
sage probably because it was familiar to both
Jadaism and Hellenism, to denote the total mani-
festation of divine powers and ideas in the uni-
verse. God is abstract being, without qualities, but
from Him has proceeded the Logos, His rational
thought, which first existed, as the ideal world,
in the divine mind, and then formed and inhabited
the actual cosmos. The Logos is thus the former
of the world out of amorphous matter, and the one
through whom God may be rationally known.
Eternally in God, it has been implanted and
made active in the world, and has especially dis-
closed itself to the Hebrews and in the Scerip-

tures; and Philo describes the Logos in terms
which often bear striking resemblance to NT

descriptions of Christ.* The influence of this or
similar speculation must have been felt among the
Christians, and especially in Asia Minor; for the
tendency to unite Christianity with philosophy
appears as early as the Epistle to the Colossians,
and is combated in St. John’s first Epistle ; Cer-
inthus, Jolin’s contemporary, was probably affected
by the Alex. philosophy itself (see Neander, Ch.
Hist. vol. i. p. 396); and from the middle of the
2nd cent. the influence of Philo can be clearly
traced within the Church. Hence it is not improb-
able that St. John’s phraseology was partly de-
termined by the prevalence of this philosophic use
of the term.

Yet it is clear that Alexandrian philosophy did
not enter constructively into St. John’s doctrine.
Philo’s conception of the Logos was ‘radically
different from St. John’s, as was the philosophy
which underlay it. His Logos was the divine
Reason, only attaining existence objective to God
for the purpose of creation. It cannot be regarded
as really personal, though constantly personified,
and, if identical with divine thought, was in
another aspect identical with the rationality pos-
sessed by creation, being the totality of the many
loqoi (ideas) that exist in the world. God, more-
over, according to Philo, may be known, by
ecstatic intuition, more immediately than through
the Logos, and Philo’s notion of the whole relation
of God and the world was dominated by his
abstract conception of Deity and the impossibility

(de Profugis, c. 18, Mang. i. 560), as σοφίας πηγή, from which
drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death.

of the latter's contact with matter. Philo’s Logos
moreover, was not identified with Messiah, μοὶ
was there a place in his philosophy for an in-
carnation, nor in his theology for redemption in
the biblical sense.

It is, therefore, perhaps the most probable view
that St. John adopted his Logos phraseology be-
cause, in both Jewish and Gentile circles, the term
was familiar. It was a leading term by which
religious thought was striving to express the idea,
though with much misconception, of an all-com-
prehensive, all-wise, and directly active revelation
of God to the world. Its current uses, among the
Jews, rested ultimately on biblical language, and
suggested an intimate relation, amounting In some
aspects to identity, between the substance and the
agent of revelation, as well as between the latter
and God Himself. It was, moreover, among
Christians as well as Jews, the constant phrase for
revelation itself, whether oral or written. Hence,
as employed by St. John, it formed a synthesis of
several elements of truth. It set forth the Divine
Christ as sustaining a central and vital relation to
Christianity ; the latter being, on the one hand,
the didactic statement of the significance for men
of His person and mission, and, on the other hand,
the participation of the life with God which He
possessed and mediated for believers. As Chris-
tianity is the revealed Word of God, so He, out of
whose being and mission it has emerged (cf. 1 Jn
14), may be called emphatically the Word of God.
The term further set forth Christianity as the final
and perfect revelation of God to His creatures, since
it represents it as the highest manifestation of the
same Divine Person who has ever been the medium
through whom God has been manifested in the
creation and maintenance of the universe. Finally,
this term, thus applied to the Divine Son in the
whole series of His activities, represented Him as
the immediate expression and vehicle of God’s
mind and will, while the careful statements of the
prologue prevent the term from obscuring {116
Son’s essential deity and eternal personality, as
well as His true humanity after the incarnation.
St. John’s doctrine of the Logos therefore may be
said to sum up the biblical teaching concerning the
person of Christ, and, in doing so, to represent
Christianity itself as the final, absolute, and
universal religion.

Among post-apost. Christian writers the doctrine
of the Logos is prominent, but was often affected
by philosophical speculation. Gnosticism was an
eliort to unite Christianity with philosophy, and
indicates a direction which post-apostolic thought
and controversy largely took. In the Gnostic
systems, however, the Logos terminology is not
conspicuous. But, beginning with Justin Martyr,
it is constantly met with in the writings of the
Church Fathers. In Justin the biblical idea of
God struggled with that of Absolute Being, and
the Logos, represented as begotten by the Father
before creation, unites the biblical conception of
Word with the Hellenic one of Reason; a result
which further tended to obscure the apostolic
doctrine of salvation. In Theophilus of Antioch
also the procession of the Logos from God appears as
dependent on the Father’s will, though his eternal
relation to the latter is expressed more clearly
than by Justin. With Tatian the Logos was the
eternal world-principle, ideal in God and_ hypo-
statized at creation. In Athenagoras there ap-
pears a firmer grasp of the biblical doctrine which,
at the close of the 2nd cent., was still more ade-
quately expounded by Irenieus. The doctrine of
the Logos in the post-apost. age was the natural
meeting-point of Christianity with the best ele-
ments in the old religions. It seemed to many
to furnish proof that the new religion was in

136 LOIS

a

LOOK

reality the full expression of truths taught by
philosophy. Hence its prominence in the apolo-
gists. But it was also easy for them to lose the
biblical conception of Word in the Hellenic one
of Reason; so that the doctrine became also a
point of divergence between different schemes of
theology according to the view taken of the term.
The subsequent history of the doctrine lies beyond
the limits of this article.

LirERATURE.—Out of the large literature bearing on this 5110-
ject, the following works may be mentioned as useful and re-
presentative :—(4) On St. John’s doctrine, the Comm. of Liicke,
Meyer, Meyer-Weiss, Godet, Westcott, and Luthardt ; Light-
foot, Hore Heb., Exercitatio on Jn 1; Liddon, Bampt. Lectt.
(1866) on The Divinity of our Lord, Lect. vy. ; Watkins, Bampt.
Lectt, (1890) on Mod. Criticism and the Fourth Gospel, Lect. Vili. ;
Gloag, Introd. to Johan. Writings (1891), p. 167 ff. ; Stevens,
Johan. Theol. (1894), ch. iv. ; Bib. Theologies of NT of Weiss and
Beyschlag, as representative of different views; Lias, Doctrinal
Syst. of St. John (1875).—(B) On the Jewish doctrine of the
Word, Oehler, OT Theol. (1873), 88 55 ff., 237 ff. ; Schultz,
OT Theol. ii. 165 ff.; Nicolas, Les Doct. Relig. des Juifs
(1860); Langen, Das Judenthum in Palist. fur Zeit Christi
(1866), p. 248 ff.; Weber, System der Altsynag. Patlistin.
Theol. (1880), § 38; Schiirer, H-/P (1885) π΄. iii, 374 ff.—(C) On
the history of Gr. philosophy bearing on the growth of the
Logos idea, the Histories of Philos. by Zeller, Ueberweg, Ritter ;
Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der Gr. Philos. (1872) ;
Aall, Gesch. der Logoslehre in der Gr. Philos, (1896).—( D)
On Alexandrianism and Philo, P. Allix, Judgment of the
Ancient Jew. Ch. against the Unitarians (1699); Gfrorer, Philo
und die Alex. Theosophie (1831); Diihne, Gesch. Darstel. der
Jiid.-Alex, Religions-Philos. (1834); Siegfried, Philo von Alex.
(1875); Drummond, Philo Judwus (1888); Réville, La Doct. du
Logos dans le quatr. évang. et dans les wuvres de Philon (1881) ;
Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria (1886), ch. i. ; Eders-
heim, art. ‘Philo’ in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog.—(E) On the

doctrine of the Logos in the apost. and post-apost. Church, °

Dorner, Hist. of Doctr. of Pers. of Christ, div. 1. vol. i. ; Hag-
enbach, Hist. of Doctr. period i. div. 2; Harnack, Dogmengesch,
pp. 98-110, 413 ff. ; Loofs, Leitraden zwm Stud. der Dogmen-
gesch. (Ast Hauptteil). G. T. PURVEs.

LOIS (Awis, apparently a Greek name, akin to
λῴων, Aworos; ‘die Liebe, Angenehme ’ [Pape,
Handworterbuch der griech. Eigennamen], but not
found elsewhere except as the name of an island
off the Thessalian coast—Steph. Byz. s.v.).—The
grandmother of Timothy, and probably mother of
Eunice (2 Ti 1°). She was a lady of Lystra (but
see Blass on Ac 16'), probably, as the Greek names
of all the family sugeest, Hellenistic by birth, but
a devout and sincere Jewess of ‘unfeigned faith,’
who trained her family in the Jewish scriptures
(2 Ti-3”), and was probably converted to Christi-
anity on St. Paul’s first visit to Lystra.

W. Lock.

LONGSUFFERING.—This fine word is both an
adj. anda substantive. As an adj. it is thrice used
of God in OT (Ex 346, Nu 1418. Ps 865) as the trans-
lation of EN x, elsewhere translated ‘slow to
anger,’ and so translated in these passages by RY.
In Apocr. the adj. occurs thrice again of God as tr.
of μακρύθυμος (Wis 151, Sir 24 δ.) And in NT it
occurs once, 2 P 3° ‘The Lord is not slack con-
cerning his promise, as some men count slackness ;
but is longsutfering to us-ward’ (μακροθυμεῖ). The
adj. μακρόθυμος does not occur in NT, and the
adv. μακροθύμως only once, Ac 26°, where it is
rendered ‘patiently’; but the verb μακροθυμέω
occurs often. In 1 ΤΏ 5" for AV ‘be patient
toward all men’ (μακροθυμεῖτε πρὸς πάντας) RV pre-
fers ‘be longsuffering toward all’; in Lk 187 for
AV ‘though he bear Jong with them’ (καὶ μακρο-
θυμῶν [edd. μακροθυμεῖ] ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς) RV gives ‘and he
is longsuffering over them’ (Amer. RV ‘and yet
he is,’ ete.).

The subst. is found but once in OT, Jer 1615
‘take me not away in thy longsuffering’ (42x 475,
LXX eis μακροθυμίαν ; Vulg. in patientia tua, whence
Wye. ‘in thi pacience’; Coy. ‘in thy longe wrath’;
Gen. ‘in the continuance of thine angre’; Bish.
‘in the time of thine anger,’ Cheyne interprets,
‘suffer not my persecutors to destroy me through
the longsuffering which thou displayest towards

<

them’ ; soStreane ; but Orelli translates, ‘ Accord-
ing to thy longsuffering, carry me not away’). In
NI ‘longsutfering’ is the tr. of μακροθυμία in all
its occurrences except two (viz. He 6” and Ja 5”,
where AV and RV have ‘patience’). The Gr.
word is the opposite of d&vévuia =‘ quick temper,’
‘irascibility’: it is distinguished from ὑπομονή,
vax. being the temper which does not hastily
avenge a wrong, ὑπ. the temper which does not
easily succumb under suffering. See Lightfoot on
Col 1" and Ro 24 (in Notes on Epistles of St. Paul,
p. 259), Sanday -Headlam on Ro 24, “Abbott on
Eph 4° and Col 1", and Trench, NZ’ Synonyms,
188, 359. In his ‘ Prologe’ to Exodus, Tindale Says,
‘Marke the longesoferinge and softe pacience οὗ
Moses and how he loveth the people and is ever
betwene the wrath of god and them and is readye
to lyve and dye with them and to be put out of
the boke that god had written for their sakes (as
Paule for his brothren Roma. ix.) and how he
taketh his awne wronges pacientlie and never
avengeth him 5111. Cf. also Tindale’s tr. of Nu
1415 “the Lorde is longe yer he be angrye, and full
of mercy, and suffereth synne and trespace, and
leaveth no man innocent.’ See FORBEARANCE,
vol. ii. p. 47. J. HASTINGS.

LOOK.—The simple verb to look was formerly
used in the sense of ‘look for,’ ‘expect,’ as Hall,
Works, ii. 107, ‘Little did Zacheus looke that
Jesus would have cast up his eyes to him’;
tutherford, Letters, No. LL, ‘Our Lord, that
great Master of the feast, send us one hearty and
heartsome supper, for [ look it shall be the last.’
There are three examples in AV, Is 5? ‘he looked
that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought
forth wild grapes’ ; Sir 9015. ‘he looketh to receive
many things for one’ (RV ‘his eyes are many
instead of one’); Ac 28° ‘they looked when he
should have swollen’ (RV ‘they expected that he
would have swollen’).

Driver in his Parallel Psalter (p. 448) draws
attention to the specially biblical phrase look on
or look upon. This has sometimes a good sense,
sometimes a bad, but generally denotes satisfaction,
and is oceasionally paraphrased by ‘ see one’s desire
on.’ ‘Thus Ex 5% ©The Lord look upon you, and
judge’; Dt 267 ‘the Lord heard our voice, and
looked on our affliction’ ; 2.8 9° “what is thy ser-
vant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog
as Lam ?’?; 1Ch 1217 ‘the God of our fathers look
thereon, and rebuke it’ ; 2Ch 2422 * The Lord look
upon it, and require it’; Lk 1” ‘Thus hath the
Lord dealt with me in the days when he looked on
me, to take away my reproach among men.’ But
‘look unto’ in Dt 957 ‘look not unto the stubborn-
ness of this people,’ means ‘regard’; ef. Ly 19+ *,
Dt 31'* °° ete. Driver’s examples (in all of which
Heb. is 2 7x2) are Ps 9917 274 (‘eaze upon’) 15 3754 503
547 59!" 9116 92!2 1065 1128 1187 1285. The same phrase
occurs in line 4 of Mesha’s inscription, *s:¢7922 93477
‘he made me to look upon [i.e. let me see my
pleasure on] all my enemies.’

The phrase look upon is used occasionally in
another sense, Gn 2416 ‘the damsel was very fair
to look upon’; 2S 11 ‘the woman was very
beautiful to look upon’; Rev 4% ‘he that sat was
to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone.’
So to look on, Est 1% ‘she was fair to look on.’
And to look to, 1S 16% ‘Now he was ruddy, and
withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to
look to’; Ezk 9315 ‘all of them princes to look to.’

To look to a person or thing in the sense of
‘give attention to’ it, is also occasionally found,
Ex 1010 ‘look to it ; forevilis before you’; Pr 14%
‘the prudent man looketh well to his going,’ so
31°7; Jer 39" ‘Take him, and look well to mm,
and do him no harm,’ so 404; Ac 18" ‘ But if it be

LOOKING-GLASS

LORD OF HOSTS 137

a question of words and names, and of your law,
look ye to it.’ Cf. Cranmer, Works, i. 160, ‘My
chaplains and divers other learned men have
reasoned with him, but no man can bring him
in other opinion, but that he, like unto Esau, was
created unto damnation ; and hath divers times
and sundry ways attempted to kill himself, but by
diligent looking unto he hath hitherto been pre-
served.’

In2K14* oceurs the phrase ‘to look one another
in the face,’ of which the meaning is apparently ‘ to
join battle.” The Heb. phrase occurs nowhere else
(though 2 K 23” is very like it, ‘lhe slew him at
Megiddo, when he had seen him’), and the Eng. is
a literal translation. But see Barnes in vol. il. p.
513, and in Fapos. Times, ix. 464, 521.

Look ! as an exclamation, having no correspond-
ing word in Heb. or Gr., is common in Coverdale :
thus Ru 116. 11 «Loke where thou abydest, there wil
Labide also . . . Loke where thou diest, there wil
I dye.’ One example of this ‘graphic and_pic-
turesque pleonasm,’ as Driver calls it, has been
introduced by the AV translators (it does not seem
to occur in any earlier version) at 1 Mac 4°4 ‘ Look,
at what time and what day the heathen had pro-
faned it, even in that was it dedicated with songs,
and citherns, and harps, and cymbals.’ RV omits.

J. HASTINGS.

LOOKING-GLASS.—See GLASS, vol. ii. p. 181",

LOOPS (nb, ἀγκύλαι).---Ἐχ 264% 10% 360 17 only.
The term is used in connexion with the curtains of
the Tabernacle, and the arrangement for coupling
these together. Full details will be found under
art. TABERNACLE.

LORD.—Both AV and RV print this word in
three different ways, LorpD, Lord, and lord. (1)
Lorp. This form represents 77°, the proper name
of the God of Israel. It is a substitution adopted
by the Hebrews themselves, who shrank from pro-
nouncing a name so sacred, and directed that 198
should be read instead, except in the cases where
that word itself precedes the holy name, for which
pit was then substituted. When the vowel
points were invented, those belonging to these
words were respectively attached to the con-
sonants 77.

When this feeling first asserted itself cannot be
accurately ascertained. It prevailed before the
date of LXX, where Κύριος Fede represents the
divine name. The Jews justify the custom by an
appeal to Lv 2416, but this passage is rather an
indication of the strength of the feeling than a
justification of it. It was a grand opportunity
missed when RV followed AV in this practice,
especially in such passages as 1 K 1855, where the
whole meaning depends on the contrast of the
names J” and Baal. On the other hand, the
gradual suppression of the proper name was an
undoubted gain to religion. Had it, for instance,
appeared in the NT, the spread of Christianity
might have been seriously impeded.* The faith
that is to embrace the world must have no special
name for its God. J”, Molech, Chemosh were divini-
ties of tribes or nations. The God of Christianity
is universal, the God of the human race.

(2) Lord. This term in OT is used to translate
—1. ‘sx when applied to the Divine Being. The
word is in form a plur. majestatis (see e.g. Gn 39:0),
with suffix of Ist person with *- instead of "---,
presumably for the sake of distinction (meaning,
therefore, properly, ‘my Lord’). It is of infrequent
use in the historical books, and in some cases it is
uncertain whether it is a divine or a human appel-
lative (Gn 185 1918). he MT sometimes decides

* Neither AV nor RV of NT print Lorp in quotations, pre-
Serving in this way the change made by the LXX.

this by a note distinguishing between the word
when ‘holy’ or only ‘excellent,’ sometimes by a
variation in the pointing (3, 3, or 3). ‘ Lord’ appears
in combinations: O Lord my God (Ps 38:5), Lord
God (Gn 15:8), the Lord God (Is 25°). In the two
latter ‘God’ is a substitute for the proper name.
2. jx in its regular forms, when used of the
Divine Being (Ex 281, This rule has not, how-
ever, been observed with strict uniformity. In
Neh 3° 810 copies of 1611 printed Lorb. 3. 879, an
Aram. word (Dn 2*7 5°). The same word is repre-
sented by ‘lord’ (Dn 453).

In N'l, ‘Lord’ renders Κύριος when it refers
directly to God or Christ, or appears in, the
vocative case. (This rule is more consistently
followed in RV thanin AV. Comp. them in Mk
2°83) Rev 174). It also renders δεσπότης tive times,
Lk 2%, Ac 44, 2 P 2), Jude4, Rev 6 In the last
three of these RV prefers ‘ master.’

(3) lord. This form represents ten Heb. words.
The most common of them all is πὸ (Phoen. in-
scriptions often show 7x. The name Adonis is of
Phen. origin.), which is used to denote eminence
or superiority in every domain of life, of kings
(Jer 9918), governors (Gn 4219), prophets (1 Καὶ 18°),
fathers (Gn 3155), masters (Gn 45"). In the vocative
it is especially frequent. Joseph is so addressed
(Gn 4210), Moses (Nu 11°), Elijah (1 Καὶ 18%), the
theophanic angel (Jos 54), a captain (28 111),
a priest (1S 1°). In Jg 5° a bowl jit for lords is
oma Soo. In Nu 21° (ef. Is 168) ‘the lords of
the high places of Arnon’ tr. the plural of 5ysz,
which generally appears as ‘the Baalim.’ Baal
means ‘master’ or ‘owner’ In Gn 27 * “lord?
tr. 133 ‘a strong man.’

Lords of the Philistines (Jos 13° etc.) no doubt
represents some title peculiar to that people. The
Heb. is o°399 (const. *72) ‘axles,’ always applied to
the heads of the five chief cities, except in 1S 18°,
where they are called ony. In consequence of this,
Ewald would connect 70 with ww. But an Arab.
word meaning ‘axle’ is also used as a designation
of a chief, and, till a better origin of the name is
found, this analogy cannot be disregarded (see Gesen.
Thes, under 715, and Keil on Jos 13%). The LX-X em-
ploy carpareia or ἄρχων, Vulg. satrapes or princeps.

In Jer 2%! ‘we are lords’ (A Vm ‘have dominion ’)
tr. the verb 17. RV has ‘we are broken loose.’
The proper sense of the word is ‘to roam at large’
(see vol. ii. p. 527” note ἢ. In Ezr 8” ἫΨ is more
properly by RV tr. ‘prince.’ In Dn 210 the adjective
21 ‘great’ is tr. ‘lord’ (see RVm), and in the same
book 133, LXX μεγιστᾶνες. The word νον tr.
lord.” in. Bake Fee Poordrns), and: gk 23%
(ἡγεμών, RV ‘ princes’), apparently means a captain
of a chariot or of charioteers. A. S. AGLEN.

LORD OF HOSTS (nix2s m7").—This divine title
has been explained briefly under Gop (vol. 11. 203):
the object of the present article is to mention a
few further particulars respecting it. The usual
form of the title is ‘J” of Hosts,’—sometimes with
‘the Lord’ (x Am 9°*, Is 3% 10% al., or prep
t Is 123 194) prefixed ; there occur however, besides,
the forms ‘J’, the God of Hosts’ (mxas ὑπ m-°),
ation ate epee toe Om ΓΟ αν δ νος ἘΓῸΒ
Pee), ae be see Pet Br le eae chee? eA
Ps 898 ὁ), and with the strange o>sx for s7Sx—
originally, no doubt (see Cheyne or Baethgen on
Ps 59°) a correction, made mechanically, for m=,
which, however, afterwards regained its place beside
it—Ps 595 (6) 804 ()- 19 (20) 848 ®) ; “the Lord J”, the God
of Hosts,’ Am 3'8*; ‘the God of Hosts’ (without J”)
Am 5?7, and, as before, with o’7°x for πον, Ps 807 @-
14 (15), So far as usage is concerned, it is pre-
eminently the prophetical title of God. It occurs

2

ἘΝ ΞΖ ΣΠ (with the art.) in these passages.

138 LORD OF HOSTS

LORD'S DAY

with great frequency in the prophets * (except Ob,
Joel, Jonah, Dn, and, somewhat remarkably, Ezk ;
three other prophets, however, use it once only,
viz. Hos 125 (δ᾽, Mic 44, Hab 28, and two only twice,
Nah. 2°39" Zeplt. 2" 19) ἡ in the jist. books. it: as
found. only aS rls: Pde 154 17%, ΟΝ ΡΟ Ἐς ΡΟΝ yy)
ee apes een. ay Meat 1 Ἰς 10 LO as eee
LOM Gas Ts Bye
the mouth of prophets: it occurs also in 8 Psalms
(2470 407% 12 488 59° G98 SOF 7 14-19 ἢ. 61. 3.8. 12 89°), but
not in any other part of the Hagiographa (except
1 Ch 11. 17, from 28, just quoted).

The fuller and seemingly more original form,
‘J", the God of hosts, used by Amos + and Hosea,
might suggest —though the inference is not a
necessary one—that the expression was in their
days of comparatively recent origin. The origin
of the title is matter of conjecture. s2y¥ (‘ host’) is
used in Heb. in the sense of an army of men, as
in the common expression ‘captain ot the host’ :
the angels, and stars, were, however, also pictured
by the Hebrews as constituting a ‘host,’ and are
spoken of as the ‘HOST OF HEAVEN’ (which see).
The title thus signifies ‘J” of armies’; and the
question is, What armies are intended? One
opinion is that the armies are those of Isracl—the
supposition upon this view being that the title
originally denoted J” as a warrior, the triumphant
leader of Israel's forces against its heathen foes
(cf. Ex 15°, Nu 21 [the ‘Book of J”s wars’], Je
δὴν 1 4173 9: 8-45; 1817 O58, 2/8 ot, “Ps 2454.4? GOW,
Dt 234, Is 134 314 [where the word for ‘fight’ is
cognate with that for ‘hosts’] 42'%); but, as it
occurs in many passages where ἃ distinctively
martial sense would be inappropriate, and as,
moreover, it is used often when God is represented
as judging Israel, that the sense expressed by it
was eradually enlarged under the influence of the
other applications of the word ‘host’ just men-
tioned, so that it came to denote Him as the God
who had also other ‘hosts,’ or agencies, at His
command, and could employ, for instanee, the
armies ef heaven (cf. Je δ, 2 K 01 on His
people's behalf, and even the powers and forces
of nature in general. This is substantially the
view of Herder (Geist der Ebr. Poesie, ed. 1825,
li. S1f.); it has been developed most fully by
Kautzsch in Herzog’s Real-Encyk.? s.v. ‘Zebaoth,’
and ZAI, 1886, p. 17 ff. ; it is also that of G. A.
Smith, W/L Proph. i. 57f., Riehm, HIV B, sv.
‘Zebaoth, and Dillm. 47 Theol. 550 ἴ. Τὰ support
of it Kautzsch points to the association of the
title, in the first passages in which it oceurs in
the hist. books, with the ark (1S +" [the ark was
now at Shiloh, 45] 44, 2 6%), the significance cf
which in time of war is very evident (Nu 10%,
Jos 64%, 15 44%, ὁ ὦ 114), The larger ideas asso-
ciated with the title afterwards are apparent from
the solemnity and emphasis with which the prophets
habitually use it (observe, e.g., the climax in Am
415 5°", Jer 31°, Is 482 545), and from such passaves
as Ain 4%, Ts 51 54°, Jer 1010 31%, where it is
applied to J” as Creator and Ruler of the world ;
these ideas, it may be noted, appear already in
Hos and Am. Another opinion is that the armies
intended were originally the hosts of angels. Thus
Ewald (/7ist. iii. 62, Lehre der Bibel von Gott, τι.
1. 3839 ΤῊ), adopting this view, made the clever and
original conjecture that the title may have arisen
first on occasion of some victory under the Judges,
when it seemed as if J” descended (cf. Jg 5%) with
His celestial hosts to the help of the armies of
Israel: ‘born’ thus ‘in the shout of victory; it
fixed itself on the memory of the people, and im-
plying, as it did, that J’ was the commander and

*Am 9t., Is 1-39 (incl. 134. 13 2423 258) 56 t., Is 40-66. 6t., Jer
82 t., Hag 14 t., Zee 1-8. 44 t., Zec 9-14. 9 t., Mal 24 t.

t In LXX also (‘ the Lord J”, the God of Hosts *) in Am 95,

ee

, several of these occurrences being in |
~according to whom the title was used probably

organizer of the hosts of heaven (including stars
as Well as angels), it was suggestive of His omnipo-
tence, and became in the prophets ‘the loftiest
and most majestic title’ of Lsrael’s God. Oehler,
OL Lheol. ἃ 198 end, and Schulte. OF Whelan.
141, also think that the expression was used origin-
ally with reference to the hosts of angels. A third
view is that of Smend (5 Jel.-gesch. 185 tt),

first by Amos, the ‘hosts’ intended by him being
the forces and elements of nature (cf. 92). Suca
a sense is, however, too abstract to stand at the
origin of the expression ; nor is it borne out by the
usage of 82s in independent passages (uot even by
Gn 2', Ps 10371, cited by Smend).

Borchert, in SA, 1896, p. 619 ff., argues forcibly in support of
the view that angels were originally denoted by the expression.
He points out, as against the first view mentioned above, (1)
that ΓΝ ΖΝ ‘hosts’ is hardly used of the armies of Israel except
in three Psalms (449 6010= 10511) of uncertain date, and in the
late source P (Ex 626 ΤῈ 1217 41-51, ΝᾺ 18. +2 238. 96. [Olt 331), *
where it forms part of the unhistorical conception of the nation
at the Exodus as consisting of a vast organized army ; (2) that
the passages in which the title is brought into connexion with
the ark are, relatively, few, and that the connexion itself is
no specific or distinctive one; and (3) that the books which
principally use the title ‘J” of hosts’ do not speak of the
‘hosts’ of Israel (and conversely), and that, in general, it is
very rarely used in a connexion which suggests them. On
the other hand, passages such as Gn 2sl2, 1 kK 2219, Is 62f, Ps
201, show that J” was habitually pictured as attended by angels,
—the objection that, where angels are intended, * host’ (not
‘hosts’) “οὐ heaven’ is used, being met by the consideration
that such beings are not necessarily conceived as a single
detinite host, but might, from their numbers, be with equal
justice conceived as forming ‘hosts’: they attend Him naturally
as King; the title thus gives expression to Js royal state (ef.
Is 6°, Jer 4618 4810, Ps 241), and consequently, without any
change in the meaning of ‘hosts,’ such as is postulated in the
other explanation, it is at once adapted to express those id sas of
sovereign majesty and power which are undoubtediy ussociated
with it by the prophets.

Upon the whole, this seems to be the most
probable explanation of the title. Though other
‘armies’ might not be entirely excluded, the idea
which would most naturally sugeest itself, when
the term was used absolutely in connexion with J”,
would, it seems, be the armies of heaven. But,
whatever uncertainty may rest on the origin of the
expression, all agree that as used by the prophets
it is «775 most significant and sublimest title: it
designates Him, namely, as One who is supreme
over untold ‘hosts’ of spiritual or other agencies,
whom He can employ to give ellect to His purposes
(Ps 103? #1),—in a word, as the Omnipotent. It is
accordingly in the LX.X often t very appropriately
represented by κύριος παντοκράτωρ," Lord Omnipotent’
—or, more exactly (in contrast to the more abstract
παντοδύναμος), * Lord all-suvereign’ (see Westcott,
The Historie Faith, p. 21 11.).£ S. R. DRIVER.

LORD’S DAY (ἡ Κυριακὴ quépa).-—This terin has
from the very earliest times been applied in Greek
and Latin Christian literature to the first day of
the week in its religious aspect. The scope of this
article is necessarily limited ; we can here discuss
only (i.) the term ‘Lord’s Day’ itself, (ii.) The
connexion of the Lord’s Day with the Sabbath,
(ili.) the origin of the institution, (iv.) the nature
of Lord’s Day worship in NT times.

* The isolated passages Dt 209, 1 K 25, 1 Ch 273 (even if they
are not to be explained, with Borchert, by Ges.-Kautzsch,
§ 124. 2b) do not detract from the force of the remark.

{2 5 and Minor Prophets (usually), Jer (12 times). Elsewhere
κύριος Σχβαώθ is generally used (so Ro 929, Ja 54: see SABAOTH):
in Ps, however, and occasionaily also in other books, κύριος τῶν
δυνάμεων (ἴ.6. of forces, armies : see the use of d2veuis for RIS in
Nu 1. 2. 1014 passim, and in other similar passages).

: So in NT, 2 Co 618 (a reminiscence of the usage of the LXX,
but not an exact quotation); comp. %. ὁ θεὸς 6 παντοκράτωρ, Rev
15 48 1117 153 167 196 2122 (as Am 315 418 al.) ; ὁ θεὸς ὁ π., Rev 1614
1915 (as Am 527),

A title borne by Nebo, ‘Overseer or ruler (pakid) of the
niultitudes of heaven and earth’ (KAT? 413, cited by Cheyne,
Orig. of Psalter, 323, cf. Isatah3, i. p. 13; KIB iii. 2, 53
Delitzsch, Assyr. HW B 360f.), is perhaps worth comparing.

LORD’S DAY

LORD'S DAY 139

i, The scriptural authority for the term ‘Lord's
Day’ is Rev 110 ‘Twas in the Spirit on the Lord’s
Day,’ ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ. Few
will agree with Kichhorn in referring this to Easter
Day. The opinion of Wetstein and others, who
interpret it of the day of Judgment, seems plaus-
ible, but is open to two formidable objections.
(1) A writer so impregnated with ΟἽ phrascology
as is the author of the Apocalypse would surely
have used, in this sense, the familiar ἡμέρα τοῦ
Kupiov (κυριακύς is not in LXX). (2) Such a use of
the term is quite unknown to the Greek Fathers,
From the Diduché and Ignatius onwards they use
ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα, or Sunply 7 κυριακή, only in the sense
of Sunday. Such an unbroken and unquestioned
Church usage must be regarded as decisive on this
point. ΤῸ this may be added that as in ν." Patmos
gives the place ot the vision, so here ‘the Lord’s
Day’ naturally seems to fix the time. It would,
however, be a mistake to conclude that Rev 110 is
the origin of the term. [Ὁ is merely the first extant
example of its use (Didaché 14, lgnat. kip. Magn.
9 are certainly later). The phrase might have
arisen as early as A.D. 57, for in 1 Co 11” we find
κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, ‘This is the first occurrence of
κυριακύός in extant Greek literature. The absolute
use of Κύριος, which indicates an identification of
Christ with the J” of the OT, naturally led to the
formation of a corresponding adjective. However,
ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα was not yet in current use, for in
this same Epistle (1 Co 103) St. Paul uses ‘the first
da, of the week,’ μία σαββάτου ; and a little later,
Ac 20", we find the similar ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων, St.
Luke with his usual historical accuracy using,
doubtless, the phrase current at the time of which
he was writing. Contrast the inexactness of the
Gospel of Peter, where ἡ κυριακή is twice used of
the actual day of Cirist’s resurrection, and betrays
at once by the anachronism a 2nd cent. writer. At
some time, then, between A.D. 57 and A.D. 96 the
term ‘ Lord’s Day’ arose, and it was probably first
used in Churches which had to contend with
Judaism.

ii. It has been reckoned a pious opinion (Bram-
hall, Works, vol. v. pp. 41, 58) that the observance
of the Lord’s Day was one of ‘the things concern-
ing the kingdom of God’ of which the risen Lord
spoke during the forty days preceding the Ascen-
sion. This idea is probably due to the instinctive
desire to base on a direct divine sanction an
institution so universal and so binding on all
Christians. But the assumption is quite un-
necessary. Whether the first day of the week was
‘blessed and hallowed’ by Christ Himself with His
own lips, or by the Church, His body, His visible
representative, under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, in any case the Lord’s Day was certainly
sanctioned by inspired apostles, and thus con-
fessedly stands on a = with ordination, and
perhaps one or two other ordinances, as an institu-
tion as much beyond the power of the Church to
alter or to abrogate as it would be for her to
change the number of the Gospels.

The claim of the Lord’s Day to this pre-eminence
has been unfortunately prejudiced by controversies
on its relation to the Sabbath. This question has
been thought to be of much practical interest,
especially by that large class of persons who think
that they require guidance in details, and who feel
that a general direction to keep a day holy is too
vague, and leaves too much to their individual
responsibility. On the one hand, those who incline
to a severe observance of the day identify the
Lord’s Day with the Sabbath, regarding it as the
same institution with a Christian reference added,
the change of day being regarded as immaterial.
They combine with this assumption a theory of
scriptural Sabbath observance, for which there is

but slender evidence from ancient or modern
Jewish life. On the other hand, some of those
who revolt from this rigidity feel constrained to
justify themselves by a denial of any relation
whatever between the two days ; and then, in the
default of any divinely ordained rules for its
observance, they are in danger of not observing it
at all. The truth will be found to lie midway
between these two extremes. The Lord’s Day is,
and is not, the Sabbath, much as John the Baptist
was, and was not, Elijah.

When Jesus uttered the ery, ‘It is finished,’
the Mosaic dispensation virtually passed away.
His Resurrection, Ascension, and Outpouring of
the Holy Spirit were successive allirmations of the
great fact, and the destruction of the temple made
it plain to all but the blindest. But in the mean-
time nothing is moré striking than the tender way
in which the apostles and Christians of Jewish
birth were weaned from the old religion. The dead
leaves of Judaism fell off gradually, they were not
rudely torn off by man. The new facts, the new
dogmas, the new ordinances first established them-
selves, and then little by little the incompatibility
of the old and the new was realized, which
necessarily issued in the casting out of the old.
The old things of Judaism were made new in
Christianity. This, however, was not accom-
plished by a deliberate substitution of one ordi-
nance for another; but first the old ordinances
were simply antiquated, and then experience
matured under the influence of the Holy Spirit
proved that the positive institutions of the new
religion more than fullilled those of the old. This
was realized, first of all, in the case of the sacra-
mental ordinances. Baptism was soon seen to be
analogous to circumcision (Col 2"), and also to the
legal ablutions (He 10%); while the Eucharist.
corresponded to the peace-offerings (1 Co 10},
He 13:9). But the realization of the fulfilment of
the Sabbath in the Lord’s Day does not find
expression in the NT. This silence is especially
marked in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In that
Epistle the writer is addressing some who were in
danger of relapsing into Judaism, who could
scarcely bear to forego all the associations of the
old religion, its antiquity, authority, splendour,
variety. His design therefore is to adduce all
that Christianity had analogous to the cherished
rites of Judaism. The priesthood, sacrifice, the
temple, the solemn services, are all shown to have
their more than parallels in the gospel. jut
when he touches on the Sabbath, it is as a type of
the state of salvation on which believers have
entered, a Sabbath rest to be consummated in the’
world to come (4% 4). Hessey (Duimpton Lectures,
1860) proves by copious quotations that up to the
end of the 5th century, and even later, the two
days were not considered to have any relation to
each other. But a believer in the perpetual euid-
ance of the Church by the Holy Spirit will scarcely
accept this as conclusive that the Church of later
ages was not right in seeing a close analony
between the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath; an
analogy expressed by the retention of the Fourth
Commandment by all Christian Churches, as part
of the Decalogue considered as a convenient sum-
mary of the Moral Law. Assuming that public
worship is a moral duty, it is absolutely necessary
that a day of rest trom ordinary labours be
set apart for that purpose, and for the cognate
duties of religious instruction and special private
devotion. As regards the proportion of our time
which should be given to such duties, we may
well follow the apostles in accepting unquestion-
ingly that laid down in the Mosaic Law. This is
the moral element in the Fourth Commandment.
Experience has shown that the excessive multiph.

140 LORD’S DAY

LORD’S DAY

cation of holy days regarded as in any degree
co-ordinate with the Lord’s Day is fatal to the
maintenance of those objects for which the Lord’s
Day was designed. The antiquation of the
Sabbath equally with circumcision, ete., was gradu-
ally realized as the sequence of events led up to it.
The key to a right understanding of the revolution
is found in the first description of the public
worship of the apostolic Church: ‘continuing
steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and
breaking bread at home’ (Ac 2"). To the customary
Jewish devotions was added the one distinctive
Christian service. The Church professed to be a
divine development of Judaism (Ac 244 ete.). All
that was eternally true in the Law is with us
still, and that which was essentially transitory
was tolerated until it became positively hurtful.
At Jerusalem an inconsistent allegiance both to
the old and the new was maintained probably
until the destruction of the temple, but even there
we early find traces of the antiquation of the
Sabbath. | Considering the prominence assigned
to it in Pharisaic Judaism, there can be little
doubt that it is one of ‘the customs which Moses
delivered,’ the changing of which by Jesus of
Nazareth was announced by St. Stephen (Ac 6%,
οἵ. 213), The falsity of the witnesses lay in the
malicious spirit which prompted the accusation
rather than in the charge itself. Thirteen years
later, Sabbath keeping is not one of the ‘necessary
things’ enjoined on Gentiles by the apostolic
council (Ac 15”). This decision amounted to an
acknowledgment that the Sabbath as well as
circumcision, ete., was no longer binding on
Gentiles, though James, as we should expect,
seems to contemplate the continuance of the
ordinance for Jews (v.7!). No valid objection can
be drawn from the frequent references in Ac to
the apostles preaching in synagogues, or in Jewish
places of prayer, on the Sabbath day (1315 4 4
16° 17° 18*). Their mission was to the Jews first,
and, apart from the natural desire on their own
part to join in the only public worship avail-
able, common-sense would lead them to go
where they could address large bodies of Jews
assembled with minds disposed to receive religious
truth. About A.p. 58 St. Paul in Gal 4% 1
reckons ‘the observation of days’ as one of the
‘weak and begearly. rudiments.’ Now, as we
may gather from 1 Co 16" ὁ that St. Paul had
himself bidden the Galatians observe in a certain
way the first day of the week, it is plain that he
is not here condemning the principle of religious
distinction of days; and the fact that in this
Epistle he is combating Judaistic teachers forces
us to the conclusion that the compulsory observ-
ance of a specially Jewish day, i.e. the Sabbath,
is what is meant. On the other hand, in Ro 145 §,
written a little later, to a Church where the con-
troversy may not have reached such a height,
the regarding or not regarding of such days is a
matter of indifference. Finally, in Col 16 the
Sabbath is distinctly mentioned as one of the ordi-
nances ‘which are a shadow of things to come.’

ili. The necessary separation of Christians from
Jews, in Jerusalem, for a part of public worship
(Ac 2%), naturally led to a total separation else-
where, as in successive cities the Jews rejected the
gospel altogether (Ac 1346 142-8. 23 1.97 19"). Besides
these passages, assemblies consisting exclusively
of Christians are implied wherever we tind direc-
Co Ae Sg aang tues ith (Ac ἀν

Ae Οἷς : semblies
of a whole Church, of course, imply fixed days for
meeting. The antagonism already marked by
ditlerent places for worship, coupled with the con-
fessed antiquation of the Sabbath, would naturally
find further expression in the observance of ἃ

holy day different from that of the Jews. The
origin of the Lord’s Day must not indeed be traced
to mere opposition to Judaism, such as that
naively contessed in the Didaché (8), ‘Let not your

fastings be with the hypocrites, for they fast on

Monday and Thursday ; but do ye keep your fast
on Wednesday and Friday’; but this motive must
have commended the observance of the first day of
the week to a considerable number of Christians ;
and if the argument from silence could be pressed,
an argument especially precarious in the case of
an ordinance presuiably so much a matter of
course,—it would be significant that the distinct
notices of the Lord’s Day in the NT are in connexion
with Churches outside Palestine, 7.e. Corinth, and
by implication, Galatia (1 Co 16! 2), Troas (Ae 20°),
and Asia (Rev 14), while ΚΚυριακός seems to have been
applied to a specially Christian service before it
was applied to a specially Christian day. Be that
as it may, the first day of the week was certainly
selected because the Lord Himself had sanetitied
it by His resurrection (Mt 981, Mk 10" 19, Lk 242,
Jn 201. 1%), and had further emphasized it by a
second appearance to the disciples (Jn 202'), and
again by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the
day of Pentecost, which that year was also the
first day of the week. We cannot cite as instances
of the observance of this day the fact that on
these three occasions the disciples were assembled
together as if for a religious purpose. In those
days of fear and excitement they would naturally
come together every day. The Lord’s Day is
therefore, in an especial sense, the feast of life.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was not merely the
raising to life of an individual man, but of human
nature. On that first Lord’s Day our nature
entered on a new life: actually, as regards the
first-fruits of it; potentially, as regards every
Christian in succeeding ages. But besides the
life of the individual members, there is also the
life of the body, and this sprang into birth on the
day of Pentecost. Thus, without having recourse
to the more or less fanciful analogies of some of
the Fathers, we may, on sure grounds, contrast
the remembrance on the Sabbath of the repose of
the Creator of the physical world with the com-
memoration on the Lord’s Day of the beginning of
the activity of the new spiritual creation.

iv. Much reflex light is thrown on the apostolic
Lord’s Day worship by the well-known passage
(1 Apol. c. 67) where Justin Martyr, A.D. 150,
describes the Sunday service. It consisted of the
reading of the memoirs of the apostles and the
writings of the prophets, followed by an exhorta-
tion on the lessons read, common prayer, the
Eucharist, and a collection for the orphans, ete.
This service was probably modelled on that of the
synagogue, with the necessary additions, the chief
being the Eucharist, as in Ac οἵδ If the passage
in Ac be rightly understood to mean a daily service,
it must be noted that the daily Eucharist of the
early Jerusalem Church belongs to the same order
of things as its community of goods; an ideal
which is practicable only under very special cir-
cumstances. It may reasonably be conjectured
that experience which speedily led to the abandon-
ment otf the experiment in socialism, showed the
wisdom of restricting the Eucharist to the Lord’s
Day. This use, which is distinctly expressed in
Justin and Pliny (‘stato die,’ lib. x. epist. 97),
is implied in Ac 207, The Eucharist is especially
connected with the Lord’s Day, not only as the
perpetual memorial of the great sin-offering (1 Co
11°), but also as a means of renewing in us the
divine life communicated in the first instance by
the power of Christ’s resurrection, and as an
anticipation of the consummation of this divine
life at His coming (He 10”, Mt 26”, Mk 14”, Lk

.

LORD’S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER 14)

2918), Justin does not mention the agape. Τὺ
had probably been temporarily dropped in obedience
to the law of Trajan against clubs (Ramsay, Ch. in
the Roman Empire, p. 219). In 1Co 11 the agape
seems to precede the Eucharist, in Ac 201 it follows
(yevoduevos, ‘having made a meal’). This change
in the order of service was possibly made by St.
Paul himself (1 Co 11%). In Ae, as in Justin, the
sermon precedes the Eucharist. The preaching of
Jesus necessitated the telling of His deeds and
words either from personal knowledge or from the
written accounts of eye-witnesses, and this must
have been from the beginning ; on the other hand,
the reading of apostolic Epistles, at first occasional,
could become constant only after the Canon was
closed. The collection mentioned by Justin is
founded on 1 Co 167, where EV ‘lay by him in store’
conceals the fact that if must have been made at
the weekly meeting; otherwise, collections would
have been necessary on St. Paul’s arrival, the very
thing he was anxious to avoid. παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω
θησαυρίζων means ‘let him assign a certain sum as
he is disposed, and put it into the Church treasury.’
In Corinth and elsewhere the exercise of extra-
ordinary gifts formed part of the Sunday service
(1 Co 14:0), but this soon died out. Contrast the
brief list of charismata in Eph 4! with that in
eGo. 12,

See further, art. CHURCH, vol. i. p. 4975, and
SABBATH.

LITERATURE.—Hessey, Sunday: its origin, history, and present
odligation, BL, 1860, 5th ed. 1889; Beet in Haposttor, 2nd ser.
viii. 838-350 ; and the Literature under SABBATH.

Ne). DD, WITTE:

LORD’S PRAYER.— This prayer is so called,
not because the Lord used it, which He could
not do, for some of the petitions would be mean-
ingless for Him (and cf. Jn 9017), but because He
taught it to His disciples and us. It is given us
by two evangelists (Mt 6°)’, Lk 11°°), in differ-
ent forms, and in totally different connexions.

The form given by St. Luke is not only much |

shorter, but differs somewhat in wording; and
whereas St. Matthew represents Christ as giving
this form of prayer spontaneously in the Sermon
on the Mount, St. Luke places the delivery of the
prayer after the close of the Galilean ministry,
and in answer to a request from one of His dis-
ciples, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also
taught his disciples.’ But St. Luke gives no note
either of time or place, probably because his source
gave none. And it is quite possible that the in-

cigent which he here records took place very much

earlier than the point in Christ’s ministry at which
he places it.

There can be no doubt that if the prayer was
delivered only once, then it is St. Luke who has
preserved the true historical occasion. His narra-
tive has every appearance of originality, and one
sees no motive for invention, whereas it is quite
credible that St. Matthew, in recording Christ’s
injunctions about prayer, might emphasize and
illustrate these by adding to them the form of
ες which He had enjoined. Accordingly, ἃ
arge number of the best critics (Baumgarten -
Crusius, Neander, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek,
Holtzmann, Weiss, Godet, Oosterzee, etc.) regard
the position of the prayer in Mt as unhistorical.
But it must be remembered that there is no proof
that the prayer was taught on one occasion only.
The argument that, if the prayer was delivered
in the Sermon on the Mount, then a disciple can-
not afterwards have asked for a form of prayer ;
and that if he asked for one, then it cannot have
been previously delivered, holds good only if we
suppose that Christ’s followers remained always
the same. There is nothing to show that ‘one
of his disciples’ (Lk 111) means one of the Twelve.

Different groups of disciples might at different
times require teaching as to a form of prayer ;
and at one time Christ might give such instruc-
tion unasked, at another because He was requested
todo so. In either case it is remarkable that the
prayer is not directly alluded to elsewhere in the
Gospels (cf. Mk 14°), nor in the Acts (cf. 2%"), nor
in the Epistles (cf. Ro 1213, Col 45). There may
be indirect allusions to the last petition, Jn 17),
2 Th 3%, and possibly 2 Τὶ 4%. See Lightfoot on
BLS.

But if we admit that the prayer was delivered
only once, and that St. Luke gives the actual
occasion, it by no means follows that he gives
the original form of the prayer, as Meyer, Kamp-
hausen, and others suppose. In one sense neither
form is original, for the original would be in
Aramaic; and it is quite evident that both Mt
and Lk used a Gr. source, as the large amount
of agreement in wording, and, above all, their
common use of the unique word ἐπιούσιος, shows.
Their versions cannot be independent tr’ of the
same Aran. original. Much more probably they
had the same Gr. original; and Mt, although he
puts it in the wrong place, yet reproduces it more
exactly. Of course, if the prayer was delivered
more than once, then both forms may be original,
in the sense that both represent in Greek a form
which Christ used in His instructions. It is
conceivable that one form was suitable for one
group of disciples, another for the whole body of
them. ἢ

Accepting, however, the hypothesis that Mt

| more accurately gives us the original form, it may

be asked whether the variations in Lk are due to
himself or to the source which he used. There
are good reasons for believing that some of them
are due to himself. This is most apparent in
the fourth petition. For δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον (Mt) Lk
has δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν. Seeing that τὸ καθ᾽
ἡμέραν occurs in NT in St. Luke’s writings only (1957,
Ac 17"), we may feel confident that it is he who
has changed σήμερον into τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν rather than
St. Matthew who has done the reverse. This change
of σήμερον into τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν involved the change
from the aorist to the present imperative ; and
thus ‘Give us this day’ became ‘Continually give
us day by day.’ In Lk the petition is made more
comprehensive. That the aorist rather than the
present was the original form, is shown by the
fact that in all the other petitions the aorist is
used. Again, when we find ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα
in Mt, and ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας in Lk, we con-
jecture that it is Lk who has changed the ex-

pression in order to make the meaning clearer

to Gentile readers. The insertion of παντί with
ὀφείλοντι 15. also very characteristic of St. Luke,
and certainly ws καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν is more likely
to be a modification of ws καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν than
vice versd ; all the more so, as Lk is specially fond
of the combination καὶ αὐτός, καὶ αὐτοί, κ.τ.λ.

The differences which are the result of the
presence in Mt of clauses that are wanting in the
best texts of Lk require more detailed discussion.
These clauses are: (1) ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, (2)
γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ws ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
(3) ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. ‘Tisch., Treg.,
WH, RV, Alford, Weiss, Godet, Serivener, Ham-
mond, and many others, reject these passages as
insertions in Lk from the text of Mt. ‘If one of
the Gospels contained the Lord’s Prayer in a
shorter form than the other, nothing was so likely
as that a scribe in perfect innocence would supply
what he considered an undoubted defect’ (Scriv.

* F. H. Chase supposes that the disciples themselves adapted
the prayer to special occasions, both altering and adding, and
that ἐτιούσιος is one of the subsequent changes made for litur
gical purposes (T'exts and Studies, i. ἃ, Camb. 1891).

142 LORD’S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER

Introd. ii. p. 280). The evidence is not quite the
same in all three cases, but in all it is conclusive
against the clauses.

(1) Mor this clause entire we have ACDPXTAATI and nine
interior uncials, nearly all cursives, be flg of Vet. Lat. (ac ff, 1
have sancte for noster), three Syriac Versions (Cur. Pesh. Harcl.),
Boheiric, and Ethiopic. Agatnst the whole clause, 8B, 1, 22, 57,
130, 346, nearly all the chief MSS of the Vulg., and the recently
discovered Sinaitic Syriac. Against all but ἡ πων, L and one
cursive, one early MS of the Vulg. and the Armenian, Origen
expressly states that the words are wanting in Lk. Tertullian
and Cyril of Alexandria support the omission,

(2) For the clause, ΝΑΟῚ and many inferior uncials, nearly all
cursives, most MSS of Vet. Lat. Syrr. (Pesh. Harel.), Boh. Eth.
Against it, Bl, 1, 22, 130, 346; ff, of Vet. Lat., best MSS. of
Vulg. Syrr. (Cur. Sin.) and Arm. Orig. Tert. and Aug. give
express testimonyagainst, and are supported by Cyr. Alex,

(3) For the clause, ACD and many inferior uncials, nearly all
cursives; Vet. Lat. Syrr. (Cur. Pesh. Harel.) Boh. Eth.
Against it, X*BL, 1, 22,57, and six other cursives, most MSS
of Vulg. Syr-Sin. and Arm. Orig. Aug. and Cyr, Alex. give
express testimony against, and are supported by Tert.

The evidence for the clauses may look imposing,
but the explanation of it given by Scrivener is
simple and adequate; whereas neither accident
nor intention can explain the early and widespread
omission of all three, if they were found in the
original text of Lk. In sucha case the temptation
to insert would be at a maximum, the temptation
to omit at a minimum. A scribe might insert the
missing words almost mechanically, being so
familiar with them.

Convineed, therefore, that the clauses are not
genuine in Lk, we return to the question, What
ean have induced Lk to omit them, if he and Mt
had the same Gr. version of the prayer? His
verbal alterations in the fourth and fifth petitions
are intelligible ; but why should he, with his love
of completeness, omit’ He does sometimes abbrevi-
ate; but would he have abbreviated here? The
difficulty of finding an adequate motive for his
curtailing such words is in favour of the view that
Christ Himself on one occasion gave this shorter
form to some disciples. ΤῸ suppose that Lk
‘contented himself with words just sufficient to
remind his hearers of the fuller form,’ is quite
inadequate. In that case he would have left out
nearly the whole of the prayer. And to point out
that the five petitions in Lk correspond to the five
fingers, is grotesque.

The sources of the prayer have been often dis-
cussed, and rabbinical parallels to the different
petitions have been pointed out by John Lightfoot,
Schoettgen, Vitringa, Wetstein, and others. Z'ota
haee oratio ex formulis Hebracorum concinnata est
tam apte, ut omnia contineat que a Deo peti
possunt (Wetst. on Mt 09). But the parallels do
not carry us very far. The use of ‘ Father’ [53 Ν
ΠΡ ΟΣ: is a very common later Jewish title, Dalm.
151 ff. ] to designate God, and the petition,‘ Hallowed
be thy name through our works,’ are perhaps the
strongest instances [ef. also mov eapm and woo
mmo of the Kaddish, Dalm. 305]. Others are
similarities of wording rather than of meanine,
and some of these are not at all close. And in
most cases the date of the Jewish prayers in which
these expressions occur is either late or uncertain ;
so that the borrowing, if there is any, is on the
side of the Jews, or may be so. But no borrowing
is needed to explain such a petition as ‘Forgive
us our sins’ (Ex 32%, ἸΧ 834 36.3% δ T)n Ὁ:9)
which is perhaps as common in Jewish as in
Christian prayers. Not that there is anything
derogatory to Christ in supposing that He took
the best Jewish aspirations and combined them
in one prayer. He probably took the Messianic
title ‘Son of man’ from the Bk. of Enoch, and
applied it to Himself with a fulness of meaning
unknown before. He might have done the same
in the Lord’s Prayer ; but He does not appear to

have done so. Indeed, the prayer is free from any-
thing that can be called purely Jewish. (1) Its
symmetry and progressive development of thought,
and (2) its inexhaustible adaptability, are char-
acteristics which do not harmonize well with the
hypothesis that it is a compilation (Edersheim,
Life and Times of the Messith, i. p. 535. Ch.
Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Ὁ. 138 th.)
Let us examine these characteristics.

(1) The Lord’s Prayer is commonly regarded ἃ»
consisting of seven petitions.* ‘The frequent oceur-
rence of the nuinber seven in the Apoc. and else-
where renders this arrangement attractive. But
there are really only six; for ‘Lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from the evil one,’ should
be regarded as the negative and positive expression
of one and the same petition.| These six are
found to correspond to the Decalogue and the Two
Great Commandments (Mt 22%, Mk 12°), in that
the first half has reference to God, the second half
toman. In the first three petitions we seck the
glory of our heavenly Father; in the last three
the advantage of ourselves and our fellow-imen.
But these two are closely connected. What is to
God’s glory benetits His children ; and what is to
the advantage of men glorifies their heavenly
Father. Thus the first half shows the end which
man must have in view—the accomplishment of
God's glory, kingdom, and will; the second half
shows the means—daily provision, forgiveness, and
protection. And the parts correspond with one
another in each triplet. The first petition is
addressed to God as our Father, the second as our
King, the third as our Master. It is to our Father

that we look for sustenance ; to our King for par-

don ; to our Master for guidance and guardianship.
Moreover, the transition from heaven to earth 15
beautifully made in the third petition, which raises
earth to heaven. And in each of the triplets we
can observe progression. The hallowing of God’s
name leads to the coming of the kingdom ; and
when the kingdom is come God’s will shall be ful-
filled on earth as in heaven. In the second half
we have first the obtaining of good, and then the
removal of evil, past, present, and future. Or, if
we take the six petitions consecutively, we shall
find that they begin with the glories of heaven,
pass on to life on earth, and end with the powers
of hell.t Such exquisite proportion and develop-
ment (of which only specimens have been given)
are strong evidence that, if this marvellous prayer
was constructed out of fragments of other prayers,
it was composed in the spirit and power of Him
who said, ‘ Behold, 1 make all things new’ (Rev
21%).

(2) We are not to suppose that the disciple who
asked Christ to teach him and his fellows to pray
had never prayed, and did not know how to do so.
He had no doubt often performed this duty. Ταῦ
he had just witnessed Christ’s devotions ; and His
manner showed him the difference between Christ’s
prayers and his own. There was a more excellent
way than he knew, and he desired to learn it.
Moreover, the Baptist had taught his disciples a
distinctive form of prayer; and this suppliant
thought that Jesus also should give a similar dis-
tinctive mark to His followers. As so often, Christ
grants the substance rather than the letter of the
request. Just as a Christian mystery is a divine
secret revealed to all the world, so the distinctive

*So Augustine, Luther, Tholuck, Bleek, Hilgenfeld, Keil,
K6stlin, Nosgen, Wordsworth, etc.

+ This is Tertullian’s view (de Orat. viii.). In his form of the
prayer jiat voluntas tua in celis et in terra preceded veniat
regnum tuum. Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, Keim, Weiss, and
others, make six petitions. But an allusion to the Trinity is
very doubtful. To make the second petition refer to the Son,
and the third to the Spirit, is very forced and fanciful.

t All this is lost in Lk; and this is strong evidence that, if
only one form is original, his form is not the original one.

LORD’S PRAYER

LORD’S PRAYERR 143

rayer of a Christian is one which every human
ene who believes in God can use. There are no
other limits to its unique adaptability. Any one, of
any race or age or condition, who believes in God,
can use the Lord’s Prayer, and use it Just in pro-
portion to his belief. A peasant child can under-
stand enough of it to make it the expression of his
daily needs. The ripest scholar, philosopher, and
saint cannot exhaust all its possibilities of meaning.
In a few minutes it may be committed to memory ;
but it is the work of a lifetime to learn it by heart.
A Christian’s knowledge of the import of it grows
with his spiritual experience.

The prayer is at once a form, a summary, and a
pattern.

It is a form which every one can use, and be
certain that in using it he is expressing his needs
ina becoming manner. This advantage is possessed
by forms of prayer which have been composed by
saintly men, and which have been tested in use by
generations of Christians. How much more, then,
does it belong to a form prescribed by Christ Him-
self. Que enim potest esse spiritalis oratio quam
que a Christo nobis data est... agnoscat pater

filti sui verba, cum precem facimus (Cypr. de
Domin, Orat. ii. ii1.). Not that one form of words
affects God more than another, so long as the
language of the heart is according to His will; but
that the form of words that we use reacts on our
hearts, and if the words are unseemly our hearts
may become less subdued. And in prayers that
are to be used in common, the effect of the words
upon others must be considered. In giving this
prayer, Christ has both sanctioned the principle of
forms of prayer and has also provided us with a
form which is always safe.

The Lord’s Prayer is also a summary of all other

rayers. As Latimer says, ‘Like as the law of
ove is the sum and abridgment of the other laws,
so this prayer is the sum and abridgment of all
other prayers.’ It covers all earthly and spiritual
needs and all heavenly aspirations. It is not
meant to supersede all other forms of supplication.
When Christ gave us this, He did not forbid others.
But this one rightly accompanies all other prayers,
either following them to sum them up and prevent
grave omissions, or preceding them as a guide or
model: premissa legitima et ordinaria oratione
quasi fundamento, accedentium desideriorum jus
est superstruendt extrinsecus petitiones (Tert. de
Orat.). It is hreviarium totius evangelii (ih. 1.).

For the prayer is also a pattern. It shows in
what manner and spirit our other supplications are
to be made. We may pray only for those things
which tend to the glory of God and the good of
man; and the glory of God comes first. The final
end of prayer is not that our will should be done
by Him, but that His will may be done in us. In
the beautiful image used by Clement of Alexandria,
‘Just as men at sea attached to an anchor by a
taut rope, when they pull at the anchor, draw not
it to themselves, but themselves to the anchor; so
in the gnostic life those who (as they mean it) draw
God to themselves are unawares bringing them-
selves towards God’ (Strom. IV. xxiii. p. 633, ed.
Potter).

A consideration of the petitions one by one
belongs to commentaries and homiletics rather
than to a dictionary ; but some notice must here be
taken of three details in the prayer, (a) the
opening address, (2) the central word ἐπιούσιος, and
(c) the last clause.

(a) The address Πάτερ ἡμῶν has no parallel in OT.
There God is spoken of as the Father of the Jewish
nation (Dt 32%, Is 636, Jer 349 31°, Mal 182!) ; but
He is nowhere called the Father of individuals.
This step is taken in the Apocr. (Wis 916 14%, Sir 234
51”, To 134, 3 Mac 6), But it is only in NT that

we are told that men have received the ‘right to
become children of God? (Jn 1”, cf. Ro 8%, Gal 4°).
Every Christian, and indeed every human being, is
justified im regarding himself as the offspring of
God (Ac 177 *’), and in addressing Him with refer-
ence to his fellow-men as ‘Our Father.’ The
address is at once a claim to be heard, and to be
heard for others as well as for oneself. Quid enim

jam non det filtis petentibus, cum hoc ipsum ante

dederit, ut filit essent (Aug.). See vol. it. p. 618.
(4) It is not likely that we shall ever know with
certainty either the origin or the exact meaning
of the adjective ἐπιούσιος, the only adjective in the
prayer. Nowhere in Gr. literature is the word
found until the Gospels gave it currency. To
derive it from ἐπεῖναι, ἐπών, or ἐπί and οὐσία, is
precarious; for in that case we should expect
ἐπούσιος, and not ἐπιούσιος. 5 Most ancient versions
support the derivation from ἐπιέναι, by giving the
epithet a temporal rather than a qualitative ren-
dering; e.g. ‘of to-morrow,’ or ‘for the coming
day,’ or ‘that cometh,’ or ‘continual,’ or ‘daily.’
Jerome changed gvotidianum in Mt to. super-
substantialem, but made no change in Lk ; so that
in the West there was a general belief that the
two evangelists had used different words. It is
possible, as Chase suggests, that there was no
epithet in the Aram. original, and that its insertion
comes from liturgical use. But that hypothesis,
if true, is not decisive as to meaning, althoueh it
supports the temporal rather than the qualitative
interpretation. For the temporal meaning see
Grotius, Wetstein, Fritzsche, Meyer, and, above
all, Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the NT,
App. 1. For other views see Suicer, Tholuck,
Altord, Wordsworth, and, above all, M‘Clellan,
The NT, i. pp. 632-647. RV retains ‘daily’ in
the text, and puts ‘for the coming day’ in the
margin. The American Committee would add
‘needful’ in the margin. It is a strange pheno-
menon that the meaning of this unique word in the
model prayer should, almost from the earliest
times, have been doubtful. The Diduché, which
has the earliest quotation of the prayer (viii.),
throws no light on this point. '
(ὁ) Does ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ mean ‘ Deliver
us from (the) evil,’ or ‘Deliver us from the evil
one’? Have we here τὸ πονηρόν, as in Lk 6”, Ro
12?’ sor. 6 movypdss, as τ Mt 13": Eph:6!,. 1 dn
218.14 Zt" 518. and also probably Mt στ: Jn 17%,
2 Th 3°, 1 Jn 5%? The latter is almost certainly
correct. (a) The references just given show that
in NT itself there is abundant justification for this
meaning. (8) The contect suggests the masculine,
‘Bring us not into temptation, dé deliver us from
the tempter.’ If evil in general, including pain and
sorrow, were ineant, we should have ‘ and deliver us
from evil.?. Some Fathers explain Luke’s omission
of the clause by saying that it is really contained in
‘ Bring us not into temptation.’ (y) Of the earliest
verstons, ‘the Syr. and Sahidie point to the mascu-
line,’ the Lat. 15 ἃ5 ambiguous as the Greek. (6) The
liturgies of St. James, of St. Mark, and of Addceus,
which are each of them representatives of a
group, all explicitly support the masculine. See
Hammond, Liturgies Lustern and Western, pp.
47, 48, 188, 189, 279, 280. (e) The Greck Fathers,
who in such a matter have great weight, are
unanimous for the masculine. (ἢ So also the
earliest Latin Fathers, Tertullian and Cyprian.
See Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision, App. IL., from
which these six heads are taken; also Lightfoot
on 2 ΤῊ 3%. Erasmus, Beza, Maldonatus, Fritzsche,
Meyer, Ebrard, Wordsworth, support the mascu-

* But this is not conclusive; for the word may have been
coined in contrast to περιούσιο: (Ex 105, Dt τὸ 142 2618); and in
that way the « of the ἐπί might be retained contrary to usage
(Jannaris, Tholuck).

144 LORD’S SUPPER

LORD’S SUPPER

line; Luther, Tholuck, Keil, Noésgen, Alford,
M‘Clellan, follow Augustine in accepting the
neuter. Canon Cook’s defence of this view in the
Guardian, Sept. 1881, should be consulted.

That the doxology in St. Matthew is an inter-
polation due to liturgical use is admitted by all
competent critics on the authority of NBDZ, five
cursives, Latt. Boh. Orig. Tert. Cypr. Aug.
Those authorities which contain it vary as to the
wording, and as to the addition or omission of
‘Amen’; while some have ‘Amen ’ without the
doxology. Even Wordsworth surrenders _ it,
although ‘with hesitation.’ Perhaps its original
source is the Heb. of 1 Ch 29"; and not until
Chrysostom does its wording become in general
stereotyped. But as it is found in the Syr-Cur.
and in the Sahidic, it must have been added to
the Lord’s Prayer in some places as early as the
2nd cent. Comp. 2 ΤΊ 418, where we have an
ascription of glory to Christ, which is erroneously
supposed to favour the genuineness of the doxology
in Mt 08,

From Tertullian (adv. Marcion. IV. xxvi.), from
Gregory of Nyssa (de Orat. Dom. p. 60, ed.
Krabinger), and from the cursive 604 (Hoskier,
1890), we see that in Lk some texts had a petition
for the gift of the Spirit instead of either ‘ Thy
kingdom come’ or ‘ Hallowed be Thy name.’ The
fullest text of this petition reads thus: “EN@érw τὸ
πνεῦμά gov TO ἅγιον ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς.
Comp. the ἐφ᾽ ἠμᾶς in 1), which has ἁγιασθήτω ἔνομά
σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἐλθέτω cov ἡ βασιλεία, sanctificetur
nomen tuum super nos, veniat regnum twum.
Against all reasonable probability Keim holds
this petition for the Spirit to be ‘really original in
Luke,’ and points to 11° as evidence (Jesus of
Nazara, ili. p. 338 n.).

There is evidence also of an early Latin gloss

on Ne nos inducas in temptationem which was
soinetimes admitted into the prayer. Both Cyprian
(de Dom. Orat. xxv.) and Augustine (de Serm,
Dom. ix. 30) have ne patiaris induct nos,—obviously
in order to lessen the difficulty of supposing that
God brings us into temptation. This difficulty
produced another Latin gloss: ne inducas nos in
temptationcem quam ferre non possumus (Jerome,
in Hzek. xiviii. 16). And these two glosses are
sometimes found combined. Each of them is found
in writers of different ages and countries, and of
liturgies of different families ; they must therefore
be of early origin. Comp. Hilary, in Ps. exvill.
_ Liverature.—This is very abundant. Among the most
important: Origen, σερὶ εὐχής ; Chrysost. Hom. aix. in Matt.
and Hom. de inst. secundum Deum vita ; Greg. Nyss. de Orat.
u.; Tertul. de Orat.; Cypr. de Orat. Dom. ; August. de Serm.
Doin. in Mon.; Jerome, Dial. ce. Pelagianos, m1. xv.; Luther,
Small Catechism, and other writings; Gebser, de Orat. Dom.,
Regiom. 1830; Tholuck, Bergpredigt, 1833, 1844 [translation
by Brown, Edinburgh, 1869]; Kamphausen, Das Gebet des
Herrn, 1866; Chase, Lord’s Prayer in Karly Church, 1891 ;
Wunsche, Hriduterung der Evangy. p. 84 ff.

A. PLUMMER.
LORD’S SUPPER.—

I, TERMINOLOGY.

Il. OT Types.
(a) The Manna.
(Ὁ) Melchizedek’s gifts to Abraham.
(ὦ) The Shewbrcad.

TY. Partial ANTICIPATIONS,
(a) The Passover.
(>) Sacrificial Feasts.

IV. History oF THE CrristiAN RvB,
(a) The Institution.
(0) The Recipients.
(c) The Minister.
(d) The Rite.

V. Tue DocrrinE OF THE Lory’s Supper.

I. TermMinoLocy.—A discussion of the language
used in Scripture respecting the Lord’s Supper is
of necessity confined to the NT. But only once in
NT is the Lord’s Supper so called, Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον
(1 Co xi, 20); for we may safely follow the con-

|
|
|

|

sensus of ancient and modern commentators in
interpreting this unique expression of the Eucharist
(see, however, Maldonatus on Mt 26%), The
emphasis is on Κυριακόν : Sit is not (possible) to eat
a Lord’s Supper,’ for the unseemly conduct turns it
into ἰδιωτικὸν δεῖπνον (Chrys.). And we may possibly
infer from the use of an adjective rather than a
genitive that the name Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον was already
in use when St. Paul wrote. Cf. Κυριακὴ ἡμέρα
(Rev 1%),

There are, however, other expressions in NT

which certainly or possibly mean the Lord’s
Supper. ‘The cup of blessing,’ τὸ ποτήριον τῆς

εὐλογίας (1 Co 10"), 2.6. the cup over which the
blessing has been pronounced, unquestionably
refers to the eucharistic cup, as the context shows.
It is that ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, which we consecrate by
εὐλογία, by the expression in words of our εὐχαριστία.
We might tr. ‘the cup of thanksgiving over which
we give thanks,’ or ‘which we give thanks for’
(Crem. Lex. p. 767). But the use of εὐλογία rather
than εὐχαριστία is evidence that the latter word has
not yet gained its special meaning. The ex-
pression is borrowed from Judaism, being the
name of the most sacred of the cups handed round
at the paschal meal, of which cups it is commonly
identified with the third (Edersh. Life and Times,
ii. 511). Nor is there any doubt that ποτήριον
Κυρίου (1 Co 10") and τράπεζα Κυρίου (1 Co 10”, cf.
Mal 11:13) refer to the eucharistic cup and the
eucharistic table with the food thereon. Here we
have the genitive and not an adjective; and the
context shows that the dominant idea is union
between the recipients and Christ, rather than
union of the recipients with one another. About
ἡ κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου and κλᾷν ἄρτον there is more doubt.
In Scripture ‘bread’ is a common name for any
food, and includes drink also. ‘Eating bread’
(Mk 3”) and ‘breaking bread’ (Ac 2") may be the
same as ‘taking food’ (Ae 919 27°); but ‘eating
bread’ is the common general term, whereas
‘breaking bread’ is rare (Jer 167, La 44;
Is 587, Xen. Anab. VII. 111. 22). St. Luke is the
only writer who uses ἢ κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου (24°, Ac 235).
The former passage probably does not refer to the
Eucharist ; for the meal at Emmaus (Lk 24°) most
probably was not such. The context and the
imperf. ἐπεδίδου are against it. Nowhere is the
imperf. used of the distribution of the Eucharist
(Mt 26%, Mk 14, Lk 22, 1 Co 117); whereas it
is used of the distribution of ordinary food, e.g. at
the feeding of the 5000 (Mk 6#, Lk 916) and of the
4000 (Mk 8°, Mt 15%), But in Ac 2” the context
favours the eucharistic interpretation, which the
Lat. version of Cod. Bezie, followed by Vulg., en-
forces with in communicatione fractionis panis (cf.
Clem. Recog. vi. 15). The four elements of the com-
mon Christian life are given in two pairs; and the
combination τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς
indicates that ‘the breaking of the bread’ means
something more than an ordinary meal; and the
context here and in 907- 11 27% forbids us to interpret
it of distributing food to the poor (Is 58%). Yet
even here the explanation must not be confined to
the Eucharist. In Seripture there is no trace of
the Eucharist being separated from the joint
evening meal or ἀγάπη ; and ‘the breaking of the
bread’ covers the whole. We must not lose sight
of the family character of the life of the first
Christians. ‘The breaking of the bread’ took
place in their own homes ; ‘the prayers’ may refer
to their constant devotions in the temple (Lk 9459,
Ac 246 31). It is doubtful whether the Eucharist
is included in κλῶντες κατ᾽ οἶκον ἄρτον (Ac 2%) * or in
κλάσας ἤρξατο ἐσθίειν (27%), The latter is specially

* If Ac 246 does not refer to the Eucharist, then the supposi-

tion that the Eucharist was celebrated daily in the earliest age
has no foundation. Ac 207-11 points to Sunday as the usual day

ot, Liv: 2°,

LORD'S SUPPER

LORD’S SUPPER 145

improbable ; and here the Western interpolation
ἐπιδιδοὺς καὶ ἡμῖν was added to sugvest a Eucharist,
an interpretation which Tertullian adopts (de
Orat. 24). On the other hand, both the Eucharist
and the common meal are perhaps indicated in
Ac 2074, The mention of the first day of the week
points to religious observance : and γευσάμενος seems
to refer to the common meal after the κλάσας τὸν
ἄρτον in the Eucharistic rite. Only in 1 Co 14'° is
it supposed that ἡ εὐχαριστία is used in the specific
sense of Eucharist rather than in that of thanks-
giving generally. Yet it is not probable that St.
Paul is here deviating from his use of the word else-
where (2 Co 4% 94, Eph 54, Ph 4°, Col 27 42, 1 Th 39,
iin a amdein the plur. 2 Co 9.1 ΕΓ), which
is also the common use both in NT (Ae 24°, Rev 49
Mee and WN Lc CVV IS LOS: τ, 2 Mae 270):
The use of εὐχαριστεῖν in the next two verses (17: 1δ)
shows that thanksgiving generally is meant. And
this is confirmed by the use of εὐχαριστεῖν in Clem.
Rom. Cor. 41. But the use of εὐχαριστία in the
specific sense begins very early. We find it in the
Ignatian Epistles (Philad. 4; Smyrn. 7) side by side
with the general meaning (Lp. 13). The same
double use is found in Justin Martyr (Apol. 1. 64-
66, Try. 116, 117). The specific sense is common
in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian.
But it is remarkable that neither Justin, nor
Cyprian (Κρ. 63), nor Firmilian in his letter to
Cyprian (£p. 65), nor Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech.
19, 22, 23), say anything about either the εὐλογία
or the κλάσις, both of which are so prominent in
NT. Other terms which in course of time became
names for the Lord’s Supper are κοινωνία, τῶν
μυστηρίων κοινωνία, προσφορά, λειτουργία, μυστήριον
συνάξεως, μετάληψις ἁγιασμάτων, ἁγία μετάληψις, Com-
munio, communicatio, perceptio corporis et san-
guinis, ete. Words which originally designated
one part of the rite were used to express the whole.

Il. OT Typrs.-—(a) We have the authority both
of Christ and of St. Paul for regarding the manna
as a type of the Eucharist. The great discourse on
the Bread of Life, no doubt, covers all those means
of grace by which Christ is imparted to believers.
But a special reference to the Lord’s Supper is clear
from the words used about eating the flesh of the
Son of Man and drinking His blood, and from the
fact that just a year after this discourse Christ in-
stituted the Eucharist. It is incredible that this
momentous act in the work of redemption had not
yet been thought of by Him when He spoke at
Capernaum. ‘The references to the manna in the
discourse are frequent, and the correspondence be-
tween the language used (Jn 6°: 38) and the
accounts of the institution cannot be fortuitous.
The πνευματικὸν βρῶμα of 1 Co 10° refers to the
manna regarded as supernatural food. ‘The apostle
takes this supernatural food as a type of the
Eucharistic bread; and it is possible that the
epithet πνευματικόν is selected with reference to the
Eucharist rather than to the manna. The exact
meaning of what is said about the πνευματικὸν πύμα
is doubtful ; but evidently the water supernatur-
ally supplied to the Israelites is regarded by St.
Paul as a type of the blood of Christ received in
the Eucharistic cup.

(6) Patristic writers find types of the Lord’s
Supper in the gifts made by Melchizedek, in the
shewbread, and in other offerings. With regard
to Melchizedek, it is remarkable that the author
of the Ep. to the Heb., who is the only NT writer
who mentions him (5% ! 62° 71-17), passes over the
fact that Melchizedek ‘brought forth bread and
wine’ (Gn 1418). As we are immediately afterwards
told that ‘he was priest of God most’ High,’ it is
not surprising that patristic writers treat this
bread and wine as a sacrifice offered by the priest-
king, and as a type of the Eucharist: τὴν ἡγι-

VOL. III.—10
yi

ασμένην τροφὴν εἰς τύπον εὐχαριστίας (Clem. Alex.
Strom. iv. 25, p. 687, ed. Potter); tmago sacrifict
in pane et vino constituta (Cypr. Ep. 63). Jerome
goes further, and says that this sacrifice of bread
and wine was offered for Abrahain (ad Matt. 22%),
See Westcott on He 7}.

(6) It is obvious that, as the Lord’s Supper coim-
memorates the sacrifice made by Christ on the
Cross, whatever was a type of that sacrilice may
be called a type also of the rite which commemor-
ates it; and, where the offering was bread, the
inducement to treat it in this way would be
the greater. Cyril of Jerusalem thus uses the
shewbread (Catech. 22). In a similar manner
Justin treats Is 331° (7ry. 70), and Irencus treats
Mal 1" (Iv. xvii. 5, 6) as a prediction of the
Eucharist.

III. PARTIAL ANTICIPATIONS.—(a) Just as the
chief type, viz. the manna, is indicated by Christ
Himself, so also is the chief anticipatory rite, viz.
the Passover. It appears to have been [but see
JESUS CHRIST, vol. 11. p. 634] while celebrating the
paschal supper that He instituted the rite which
was to supersede it, and be known as the Lord’s
Supper. And here a remarkable parallel with
the institution of Christian baptism exists. The
original rite for admission to Judaism was circwn-
cision. This was supplemented by baptism, which
in later times became the only rite of initiation
applicable to both sexes. In the original ritual of
the Passover, the lamb, unleavened bread, and
bitter herbs were the essentials (Ex 128). The wine
and the solemn ‘cup of blessing’ were later acces-
sories. Just as in the one rite Christ abandoned
the circumcision and retained the baptism, so in
the other He abandoned the lamb and retained the
wine. In both cases the rite was made unbloody
and painless ; and from the treasure-house were
brought forth things new and old. There is a new
departure ; but also a clear connexion with the
past ; for Providence, even in its revolutions, is
conservative.

(6) By speaking of ‘my blood of the covenant,’
or ‘the new covenant in my blood,’ Christ seems
to have connected this new feast with those sacri-
ficial feasts in which the worshippers, by partak-
ing of the sacrifice, partook of the blessing which
the sacrifice was to win. This was an idea with
which the disciples were quite familiar. That
there was any idea of a death-feast, or of an
adoption-feast, is much less probable. We know
little about death-feasts among the Jews. And
although some Semitic peoples had rites in which
the partaking of the tribal animal was supposed
to put the blood of the tribe into the partaker’s
veins (W. R. Smith, Δ δ᾽ pp. 317, 318), yet there is
no trace of this idea in the Lord’s Supper. It is
by baptism that aliens are admitted to the Chris-
tian family.

IV. HistoRY OF THE CHRISTIAN R1IrTE.—This
can be conveniently treated under four heads : («)
the Institution, (4) the Recipients, (¢) the Minister,
(d) the Rite.

(a) The Jnstitution, according to the universal
testimony of Scripture and of tradition, dates from
the act and command of Christ at ‘ the last supper,’
—the last meal of which He partook before His
death. Anattempt has been made to show that He
must have instituted the Eucharist earlier in His
ministry : (1) because ‘*t. John in his sixth chapter
represents our Lord as using Eucharistic language
which would have been absolutely without mean-
ing, if the Eucharist had not been already in
common use’; and (2) because ‘the two disciples
journeying to Emmaus recognized our Lord in the
3reaking of Bread (Lk 24%-%), They had not
been present at the Last Supper. The rite, if it
was really then instituted for the first time, would

146 LORD'S SUPPER

LORD'S

SUPPER

have had no significance for them’ (Wright,
Synopsis, )). ili).

This is very unconvincing. (1) It was Christ’s
way, even with the disciples, to utter about future
events words which they did not, and in some
eases could not, understand at the time, but
which they did understand when the events had
taken place. He knew that the discourse on the
Bread of Life would acquire fresh and fuller mean-
ing when the rite which He intended to found was
instituted. But it isan exaggeration to say that
it was ‘absolutely without meaning’ and an
‘insoluble enigma’ until the Eucharist was insti-
tuted. Had it no meaning for the large majority
of the audience, who, upon any hypothesis, did
not know, and never would know, anything of the
Eucharistic rite? (2) The two disciples at Emmaus
may have been present when Christ broke bread
ad gave thanks at ordinary meals, or at the
feeding of the 4000 and of the 5000. It was
something in His way of doing this at Emmaus
that enabled them to recognize Him at the supper
there, which was probably not a Eucharist. We
may safely follow the clear and strong evidence of
the Synoptists and of St. Paul, that the Eucharist
was instituted at the last supper. St. Paul’s refer-
ence to it, τὸ Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, which is older than
any of the Gospels, could hardly have been made
in this form, if the Lord’s Supper, on the night
of His betrayal, had not been the time when it
originated. See vol. 11. p. 636.

Of the institution we have four accounts ; and it
will be worth while to place them side by side in
two pairs, to facilitate an estimate of their sub-
stantial agreement.* Brandt's assault on their
trustworthiness has been answered by Schultzen,
Das Abendmahl im NT, 1895, p. 67 ἢ. They are
neither intrinsically incredible, nor inconsistent
with other statements in the Gospels, nor con-
tradicted by early evidence outside the NT.

Mt 2676-29,
ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λα-
βὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ
εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν

Mk 147-5.
Kal ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν λα-
βὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας

Η ea νον ’ ων
καὶ ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς
δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς εἶπεν, καὶ εἶπεν Λάβετε, τοῦτό
f Ἶ Με 5
Λάβετε . φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. καὶ
ει fl é
ἐστιν TO σῶμα pov, καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαρισ-

λαβὼν ποτήριον καὶ εὐχα-
ριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς
λέγων, lieve ἐξ αὐτοῦ
πάντες, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ
αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ
περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον
εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν" Χέγω
δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ᾽
ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γεν ἤή-
ματοςτῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως
τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν
αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν καινὸν
ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός
μου.

τήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ
ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες. καὶ
εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, τοῦτό ἐστιν
τὸ alud μου τῆς διαθήκης
τὸ ἐκχυννύμενον ὑπὲρ πολ-
λῶν" ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι
οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ
γενήματοςτῆς ἀμπέλου
ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης
ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν
τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

ER ῬΘΊΤΗΝ,

καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον
εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν Λά-
βετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε
εἰς ἑαυτούς λέγω γὰ
ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τὸ
νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος
τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ
βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔλθῃ.
καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχα-

1 Co 11°35,

ἐγὼ yap παρέλαβον ἀπὸ
τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα
ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος ᾿Ἰησοῦς
ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἣ παρεδίδετο
ἔλαβεν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαρ-

,’ »᾿,
ριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ιστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν
eck δ ὲ τ A
a κεν αὐτοῖς λέγων Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα
~ ΄ e an a
οὔτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν" τοῦτο ποιεῖτε

* The elements common to all four are in thick type:
ype; those
common to the three Gospels are in spaced type. T x
followed is that of Westcott and Hort. Ὡ ΣῊ sak ial

pov [τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδό-
μενον᾽ τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν

εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον

ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. καὶ τὸ
ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ
δειπνῆσαι, λέγων Tovro τὸ
ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη
ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ
ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆοχι, λέγων
Ῥοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ
διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ
αἵματι" TOUTO ToLetTe,
ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς THY
ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

There is strong reason for believing that the
latter part of the passage in the Third Gospel is
not original, but a very early interpolation from
1Co. Dadtf,il omit from τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν to ἐκχυννό-
μενον, While be Syr-Cur. omit and put νν.}7: 38 in
the place of the omitted passage, so as to harmonize
with Mt and Mk and relieve the difficulty of the
twocups. Syr-Cur., like Syr-Sin., retains the whole
of v.", be only the first half. According to this
arrangement the verses run 36: 13. 17. 18, 21.-2 ete, Syr-
Sin. exhibits a more elaborate rearrangement with
considerable changes of wording ;—! 19. 20a. 17. 2ob. 18.
21.22 ete. In Internat. Crit. Comm. on St. Luke,
pp. 567, 568, these attempts at avoiding difliculties
by transposing parts of the text are shown in full.
WH consider that there is ‘no moral doubt that
the words in question were absent from the original
text in Lk’ (il. App. p. 64; see Introd. καὶ 240).
With this Brandt, Grate, Grass, Haupt, Schiirer,
J. Weiss, and Wendt agree. Spitta rejects v.°?
only, and accepts as original the whole of v.!%, the
second half of which has the support of Syr-Cur.,
Syr-Sin., and Justin. Scrivener, Schultzen (op.
cit, pp. 5-19), Re A. Hottmann (A bendmahls-
gedanken Jesu Christi, 1896, pp. 5-25), and others
defend the genuineness of the whole passage. But
in a discussion of the accounts of the institution
the whole passage should be treated as at least
doubtful. It does not support the Pauline account,
if it is (as is probable) borrowed from it.

The primary account is that given by St. Paul.
Those in Mt and Mk are virtually one and the
same; an account written later than his and inde-
pendent of it. Among the features which are
found in both Mt and Mk but not in 1 Co are the
change from εὐλογήσας of the bread to εὐχαριστήσας
of the cup, the Λάβετε of the bread, the λαβὼν
εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν of the cup, their all drinking
of it, the blood being ‘shed for many,’ and the
declaration about not drinking of the fruit of the
vine. This last, and εὐχαριστήσας of the cup, are
common to Lk also. The features which are
common to all four are the taking bread, giving
thanks or blessing, breaking, the words ‘This is
my body,’ and the mention of the cup.

In four points St. Paul differs from the Synopt-
ists. (1) He gives no indication that the meal was
a paschal one, and thus seems to agree with St.
John: it is the new covenant, rather than the con-
nexion with the old rite, which interests him
(Baur, Ch. Hist. i. pp. 161, 162). But 1 Co57 must be
remembered, (2) While Mt and Mk place the taking
of the bread during the meal (ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν), he
places the taking of the cup after the supper (μετὰ
τὸ δειπνῆσαι). If both.are right, there was a con-
siderable interval between the distribution of the
bread and the circulation of the cup. Lk gives
no intimation. (3) While St. Paul has ‘This cap
is the new covenant in my blood,’ Mt and Mk have
‘This is my blood of the covenant,’ where ‘new’
may have been dropped for the sake of closer
resemblance with Ex 248, In any case, Riickert’s
proposal to take μον with διαθήκης---“ὑπὸ blood of
my covenant,’ and Bousset’s to reject the words
about the covenant, because Justin omits them,
are inadmissible. (4) St. Paul gives twice, Mk and
Mt not at all, and Lk probably not at all, the
important charge, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε els THY ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
The explanation perhaps is, that the evangelist»

LORD’S SUPPER

LORD’S SUPPER 147

treat the repetition as a matter of course, and as
involved in the word ‘covenant,’ which implies
permanence: whereas, in order to convince the
Corinthians of the enormity of their misconduct,
it was necessary to point out that irreverence to
either bread ow cup was a violation of what Christ
Himself had prescribed. It follows from this that
the divine injunction to the Church to continue the
Eucharistic celebration in memory of its Founder
rests solely upon the testimony of St. Paul. Let
us admit that this is so. We do not thereby
render probable the hypothesis that Jesus gave no
such charge. The apostle could not have invented
such an injunction, if it had not been in harmony
with Christian practice already established. And
how could such a rite have been established with-
out the authority of the Twelve, who knew well
whether Christ had commanded it or not ?

Paulus was perhaps the first to deny that Christ
said τοῦτο ποιεῖτε. But Briggs, P. Gardner,* Grafe,
Immer, Jiilicher, Mensinga, Pfleiderer, Spitta,
Titius, and Wittichen are disposed to think that
the earliest tradition, represented by Mk and Mt,
knew nothing of an institution by Jesus, on the
night of His betrayal, of a sacrament to be observed
continually.+ And the earliest Christian observ-
ance of the Lord’s Supper as a permanent institu-
tion is explained by the hypothesis that Christ
gave this command after His resurrection (Briggs,
The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 123).

In what sense is the tradition represented by Mk
and Mt ‘the earliest’? That given by St. Paul
was written earlier, and is the earliest written
record of any words of Christ. It had been pre-
viously communicated to the Corinthians. And
St. Paul had derived it direct from the Lord Him-
self (1 Co 11). His words can mean no less. Had
he merely been told by apostles, he would have
had no stronger claim to be heard than hundreds
of other Christians. The silence of Mt and Mk
does not warrant us in contradicting such explicit
testimony, which would be sufficient, even if it
were unsupported, for the unvarying belief of the
Church from the earliest ages, that it was on the
night in which He was betrayed that Christ insti-
tuted the Eucharist and gave the command ‘con-
tinue to do this (pres. imperat.) in remembrance of
me. The proposal to ab the institution of the
Eucharist as a permanent rite later than the last
supper, is as unnecessary as the proposal to place it
earlier. The Pauline account fully explains the
connexion of the new rite with the Passover and
the Passion. If the command, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, K.7.A.,
was given on some other occasion, how did the new
rite become so universally connected with these
two facts? Any internal or doctrinal connexion
between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover is
denied by Haupt, Hoffmann, Jiilicher, Spitta, and
others. Their reasons differ; but the fact that
the Passover was celebrated only once a year, and
the Lord’s Supper frequently, is no argument.
The Passover celebrated a deliverance effected with
blood ; and the Lord’s Supper celebrated a deliver-
ance effected with blood. This is a real and
natural connexion.

But it is possible that there were sources for the
conviction that Jesus gave this command on the
night of His betrayal which were independent of

*Gardner argues, moreover, that the whole account in
1 Co 1125. is the record of an ecstatic revelation experienced
by St. Paul, and has no historical objective foundation. He
supposes an influence to have been exerted on St. Paul during
his stay at Corinth by the proximity of the Eleusinian mysteries.

+ The view that Christ gave no command, but merely per-
mission, to continue the ordinance, is found in Luther, who
regards éc¢ xis tov πίνητε as making τοῦτο ποιεῖτε purely per-
missive (De capt. Bab. eccles. preludium, ed. Pfizer, p. 195).
Strauss, Kaiser, and Stephani have urged that Jesus was too
humble to give such a command, and have been answered by
Hase (Gesch. Jesu, p. 691).

St. Paul. Justin Martyr states that ‘the apostles,
in the memoirs produced by them which are called
Gospels, related that Jesus, having taken bread
and given thanks, thus commanded them and said,
Do this for a remembrance of Me, this is My body ;
and that in like manner, having taken the cup and
viven thanks, He said, 7his is My blood; and dis-
tributed to them alone’ (Apol. i. 66). Although
Justin omits the reference to the covenant, yet he
regards the τοῦτο ποιεῖτε as part of the evangelistic
record.

(6) The Recipients of the Lord’s Supper were
required to ‘prove themselves,’ lest they should
‘eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord un-
worthily,’ and thus ‘be guilty of (profaning) the
body and the blood of the Lord. . For he that
eateth and drinketh without rightly judging (δια-
κρίνων) the body, eateth and drinketh judgment
(xpiua) to himself,’—a judgment which involves the
eravest consequences, as the experience of many in
Corinth proved. ‘But if we were in the habit of
rightly judging ourselves (διεκρίνομεν) we should
not be judged (οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα). Throughout the
passage (1 Co 11°!) the repeated contrast between
διακρίνειν and κρίνειν is to be noted; also the use
of κρινόμενοι and κατακριθῶμεν immediately after-
wards.

No definition of ἀναξίως is given. The context
shows that what is primarily meant is disorderly
irreverence in receiving either the bread or the
cup (ἤ, not καί). This external irreverence is proof
of internal contempt. It could not oceur, if the
nature of the body were rightly judged ; 7.e. if the
partaker devoutly realized that to which his eating
and drinking referred, viz. the death of Christ :
just as a loyal subject could not insult the king’s
efligy, if he knew that it was the king’s. The
context also shows that selfishness and greediness
are included in ἀναξίως. Surfeiting at the common
meal, while others are made to wait famished,
renders a worthy partaking of the Lord’s Supper
impossible ; for love of the brethren is indispens-
able. This irreverence and seltishness spring from
a wrong estimate of one’s own condition. There-
fore a man must prove himself and acquire a right
judgment as to his spiritual state. Reverence
towards God, His Church, and His sacraments ;
charity towards the brethren; a humble esti-
mate of self,—these are among the requirements
for a worthy reception of the Lord’s Supper.
Fasting could not be required so long as the
Eucharist was united with the agape, which it often
followed, as at the last supper, although it some-
times preceded it.

(ὦ) The Minister in the Eucharist is not deter-
mined by Scripture any more than the minister in
baptism. The primary charge to continue the rite
(1 Co 1155 35) was made to the apostles, and, on
the only occasion when the minister is named, the
celebrant is the apostle St. Paul (Ac 20"). Yet,
assuming that ‘the breaking of the bread,’ which
habitually took place among the first Christians
(Ac 2”), includes the Lord’s Supper, we need not
suppose that the celebrant was invariably one of
the Twelve. But this much may be asserted with
confidence. The NT tells us that from the first
there was a distinction between clergy and laity,
i.e. the Church had officers who discharged spiritual
functions which were not discharged by ordinary
Christians. This distinction appears in various
writings from the earliest to the latest (1 Th 5! 38,
1 Co 12%, Eph 47!, Ph 1}, Past. Epp. passim, He 1377,
3 90.9.10). and is abundantly contirmed by evidence
outside the ΝΤ which is almost if not quite con-
temporancous with the last of these (Clem, Rom. and
the Didaché). These witnesses do not define the
functions of the ministers whom they name. But
the clergy, whether missionary (as apostles, pro-

ee ἐν."

148 LORD'S SUPPER

LORD’S SUPPER

»-- --

phets, and evangelists) or stationary (as bishops or
presbyters, and deacons), discharge spiritual duties.
They deal with men’s souls rather than their bodies ;
and they have to do with religious service. It is
reasonable to suppose that one of the first things
that was reserved to the clergy was the right of
presiding at the Eucharist. This reservation is
found clearly enough in the first half of the
8nd cent. (len. Smyrn. 8, ef. Trail. 2.7, Phitad.
7; Tert. de Bapt. 17; Apost. Const. ii. 27).

(7) The fite is nowhere described in Scripture
with so much detail as in the accounts of the in-
stitution; and the small amount of detail given
there is strong evidence of the authenticity of the
accounts. A fiction of a later age would have
represented Christ as using the ceremonial which
was customary in that age, as is seen clearly in
the Apost. Const. ii. 57, vill. 12. The taking a
loaf or cake, giving thanks, breaking and _ dis-
tributing, and then the taking a cup, giving
thanks, and distributing, are the external acts
of the Founder, accompanied by the words, ‘This
is my body,’ ‘This is my blood.’ We know too
little about the ritual of the Passover at this time
to say how much, if any, of the new Eucharistic
rite was part of the paschal meal. Later Jewish

writers have described how the Passover was cele- |

brated in their time, with four (and sometimes
five) cups circulating at intervals, one of which
may have been the Eucharistic cup.* But we do
not know that this ritual was in existence in the
time of Christ. And if it was, we do not know
that Christ, in this highly exceptional celebration,
—which anticipated(7) that year’s Passover in
order to supersede it for ever,—tollowed the existing
ritual. In none of the reports is there any men-
tion of the lamb, or of the ‘passing over’ of the
destroying anvel, or of a deliverance from bondage ;
whereas the idea of a covenant, which of necessity
is a new covenant, is very conspicuous. It need
not be doubted that ‘my blood of the covenant’
(Mt, Mk) is essentially identical with ‘the new
covenant in my blood’ (1 (Ὁ). In either case the
blood is treated as the vehicle of the covenant,
which the disciples appropriate by partaking of
the cup. And this idea of a covenant is not con-
spicuous in the ritual of the Passover.+ ‘The three
fundamental acts seem to be, (1) the breaking and
pouring, (2) the distribution to the disciples, (3)
their eating and drinking ; which represent (1) the
death of Christ, (2) for the disciples’ salvation,
(3) which they must appropriate.

As regards subsequent Christian usage, we know
that in the apostolic age the breaking of the bread
was preserved (see above); and we may feel sure
that most of the other external acts of the Lord
were preserved also. Moreover, the Eucharist,
which at the institution was part of the paschal
supper, is in the apostolic age always part of the

_ common meal or ἀγάπη (1 Co 1117, Ac 20%"), a prac-

tice which continued down to the time of Ignatius
(see Lightfoot on Simyrn. 8). But whether there
was as yet any fixed form of words either for the
thanksgiving or blessing, or to accompany the dis-
tribution, is uncertain. The differences in the
four reports of Christ’s words seem to show that
exactness of wording was not regarded as essen-
tial. In the Didaché 9, 10 we find three forms of
thanksgiving: one for the cup, one for the broken
bread, and a third which apparently is to be used
after both ἀγάπη and Eucharist are over (μετὰ τὸ
ἐμπλησθῆναι). But it is expressly stated that ‘the
prophets’ are not tied to these forms (τοῖς δὲ προ-
φήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὅσα θέλουσιν). A similar

* Those who assume that the disputed passage αὖ Lk 9919. 20 js
genuine, commonly regard the two cups (vv.17. 20) as two of the
tour or five Jewish cups.

t But see Trumbull, Threshold Covenant, p. 208 ff.

feature is found in Justin Martyr, who states that
the presiding minister (ὁ προεστώς), after general
prayer is ended, and bread and wine mixed with
water have been brought, ὉΠΌΤΕ prayers and thanks-
givings according to his ability (don δύναμις αὐτῷ),
to which the congregation respond with the Amen
(Apol. 1. 67). It would seem, then, that this is
the second stage in the development of liturgies.
First there was no form, but the minister used
what words he pleased. He would, however, be
influenced by the words of institution as well as
by Jewish forms; and perhaps he conimonly in-
cluded the Lord’s Prayer. Basil asks, ‘ Which of
the saints has left us in writing the words of the
invocation at the displaying (avddecéis) of the bread
of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we
are not content with what the Apostle or the Gospel
has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion
we add other words’ (de Spiritu, 27). And Gregory
the Great seems to have believed that the apostles
used the Lord’s Prayer, and that only* (ix. Hp. 12;
Miene, Ixxvil. 956). But the meaning of the pas-
sage is not clear; and Gregory is very late authority
for apostolic usage (Maskell, Zhe Aneiont Liturgy
of the Ch. of England, 3rd ed. p. xviil). At the
next stage forms were drawn up, but some minis-
ters were allowed discretion as to the use of
them. Finally, all ministers were restricted to
prescribed forms. In NT we seem to be at the
first stage. In the Didaché the omissions are
remarkable, and power to supplement would seem
to be almost necessary. Among the gifts for which
thanks are given (ζωή, γνῶσις, πίστις, ἀθανασία, ζωὴ
αἰώνιος) there is no mention of ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν.
And although these gifts come διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ παιδός
cov, there is no mention of the death of Chiist.

Harnack’s theory, that until the 3rd cent. the
use of wine in the Eucharist was neither obligatory
nor universal, has been opposed by Zahn (Brot und
Wein im Abendmahl der alten Nirche, Erlangen,
1892) and Jiilicher (Theolog. Abhandlungen, Frei-
burg, 1892, pp. 217-231), and need not be discussed
here. Christ took the two simplest and most uni-
versal representatives of sustaining food, bread
that strenetheneth man’s heart, and wine that
maketh glad the heart of man, and employed
them as the universal representatives of spiritual
food, of His body broken and His blood poured
out. His loyal followers have from the first re-
tained these.

V. THe DocTRINE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER.—
There are few things more tragic in the history
of Christ’s Church than the fact that its central
act of worship has for centuries been, and still
continues to be, a subject for the keenest con-
troversy, and that Christians have cruelly perse-
cuted, and even put to cruel deaths, other Chris-
tians, for not holding doctrines respecting the
Lord’s Supper which cannot be proved, and which
are possibly not true. The Sacrament of Love and
of Life has been made an instrument of hate and
of destruction, because men have insisted upon
possessing knowledge which cannot be possessed,
and upon explaining what cannot be explained.
In the first centuries the Church was content to
enjoy and to use without explaining, and it would
be our wisdom to do the same.

1. The chief point of controversy has been the
meaning of the ‘is’ in ‘This is my body’ (Mt, Mk,
Lk, 1Co) and ‘This is my blood of the covenant’
(Mt, Mk), or ‘This cup is the new covenant in my
blood’ ({[Lk] 1 Co). The suggestion that at the
institution our Lord spoke in Aramaic, and that

* Orationem dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus,
quia mos apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem,
oblationis hostiam consecrarent. Cf. Amalarius, de Eccles. Off.
a Migne, cv. 1210. What is the exact meaning of the

a

LORD’S SUPPER

LORD’S SUPPER 149

in Aramaic the ‘is’ would not be expressed, renders
nohelp. It is not quite certain that He spoke in
Aramaic then, or that it was in Aramaie that He
made the special revelation to St. Paul. But we
may assume that He did so. Nevertheless, the
‘is’ must be supplied ; and, as soon as it is there,
inquiry will arise as to its meaning. Moreover,
not in Aramaic, but in Greek, has Christ handed
down these words of His to His Church. All four

accounts have the ἐστιν of the bread ; and, except- |

ing the disputed words in Lk, all have the ἐστιν
of the cup.
a language in which the copula was not expressed
is no good reason for giving the minimum of mean-
ing to the ἐστιν, which is conspicuous in the Scrip-
tures given to us by Him.

Perhaps the nearest approach to an explanation

The fact that Christ probably used |

that can be found in Scripture is that given by |
St. Paul: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is |

it not κοινωνία of the blood of Christ?
which we break, is it not κοινωνία of the body of
Christ?’ Here κοινωνία is more than ‘a partaking
of, which would be μετοχή or μετάλημψις rather than
κοινωνία. The latter is ‘fellowship with.’ Just as

The bread |

the bread is made up of many particles, gathered |

together in one loaf, so those who partake of the
bread that is broken are gathered together in one
body. ‘The bread which we break is fellowship
with the body of Christ.’ [See COMMUNION].
What, then, is the meaning of the ‘is’? Probably
that common use of the copula which identifies
cause and effect is part of the meaning (Hooker,
Ee. Pol. Vv. \xvii. 5, 6). J. H. Newman once warned
a friend who was visiting Rome for the first time,
and in the summer, ‘ Beware of a chill in Rome.

A chill is.a fever; and a fever is a shattered con- |
stitution for life,’ which meant that a chill causes |

a fever, and that a fever causes a shattered con-
stitution. By the same usage St. Paul may mean
that the cup, when drunk, is a cause of fellowship
with Christ's blood, and the bread, when eaten, is

a cause of fellowship with Christ’s body ; or (as in|

the words of institution) this bread is a cause of
the body. ‘The bread and wine after their bene-
diction or consecration are not indeed changed in
their nature, but become, in their use and in their
effects, the very body and blood of Christ’ (T. 5.
Evans on 1 Co 1010). This meaning is in harmony
with the context. The union with the Lord Him-
self, which those who partake of the Lord’s Supper
have, is compared with the union which those who
partake of a sacrifice have with the deity to whom

| or ‘flesh,’ but ‘bread’ (1 Co 11°%-°8),

the altar is devoted ;—in the case of the Israelites |

with God, of the heathen with demons.

This”

idea, that to partake of a sacrifice is to devote |

one’s self to the deity, lies at the root of the ancient
idea of worship, whether Jewish or heathen; and
St. Paul uses it as being readily understood. In
this connexion the symbol is never a mere symbol,
but a means of real union; and in the Lord’s
Supper the symbol is very significant. It is a
means of union with Christ in that character which
Is indicated by the broken body and the shed
blood; 1.6. union with the crucified Redeemer
(Pfleiderer, Puwlinismus, ch. vi. p. 240, Eng. tr.).
_ Those who insist on the literal meaning of the
1S" as expressing identity, must be prepared to
accept the literal meaning of the subject also;
and this in the case of the cup produces great
difficulty. ‘This cup (not its contents) actually is
(not is an instrument or a symbol of) the covenant.’
‘The fellowship with the body of Christ’ is two-
fold. It is fellowship of each recipient with Christ
by faith, and of all recipients with one another in
Christ by love. It is in Christ that the union of
all mankind subsists. There is communion in a
nature which is common to Him and to them ; ὅτι
els ἄρτος, ἕν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, ‘because one bread,

one body, we the many are.’ The act of eating
and drinkine together proclaims the union of
Christians in Christ. And this union and com-
munion is symbolized in the composite unity of
the bread and of the wine. ‘As this broken bread
(κλάσμα), scattered upon the mountains and gathered
together became one, so let Thy Church be gathered
together from the ends of the earth into Thy King-
dom’ (Didaché, ix. 4).

A Bible Dictionary is not the place in which to
discuss late developments of Eucharistic doctrine ;
but it may point out scriptural tests for judging
some of these.

(1) Christ placed the new rite in close connexion
with the Passover. Evenif He had not done so, the
apostles would inevitably have been influenced by
Jewish ideas, and especially by paschal observ-
ances, in interpreting the new rite. This fact.
seems to exclude all doctrines which teach that
the consecrated elements become or contain the
physical body of Christ which was ‘born of the
Virgin,’ with ‘bones and nerves and all that per-
tains to the true idea ef a body.’* To partake of
the blood of an animal was abomination to a Jew.
In the paschal ritual it was expressly provided
that the blood should Ye separated from the flesh
that was to be eaten. The idea of eating human
flesh and drinking human blood would have in-
spired the apostles with unspeakable horror ; and
it is incredible that Christ can have intended to
shock them with any such doctrine. He had
warned them beforehand (Jn 6°) against any such
carnal notion—cwyarich ἔννοια (Athan. ad Serapion.
iv. 19). (2) The words εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν exclude
a corporal presence; for a memorial of what is
bodily present would be meaningless. (3) St. Paul
repeatedly calls the consecrated bread, not ‘ body’
Can we believe
that the celebrant now distributes more than Christ
distributed then; or that what He held in His
hands and distributed to His disciples was nothing
less than His own Person, Body, Soul, and God-
head? (See Thirlwall, Charges, ii. p. 251; Schultzen,
Das Abendmahl, p. 48.)

2. Another aspect of the Lord’s Supper is pointed
out by St. Paul; and again it is an explanation of
the words of Christ. The Lord said, ‘This do ye,
for the remembrance of me,’ to which the apostle
adds, ‘For (confirmatory) as often as ye eat this
bread (bread thus blessed and broken) and drink the
cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come’ (ἄχρι
οὗ ἔλθῃ without dv, because the coming is certain).
As the Passover was for a memorial of the
deliverance wrought by J”, to be kept ‘throughout
your generations’? (x 12), so the Eucharist is a
memorial of the deliverance wrought by Christ’s
death, to be kept ‘till he come.’ Commemoration
ceases when He who is commemorated returns.
Meanwhile the Eucharist is the Church’s consola-
tion for the Lord’s withdrawal from sight. It
links the second Advent to the first by keeping
both in mind. Like the dramatic actions of the
Hebrew prophets, it illustrates, and emphasizes,
and impresses on the memory a special proof of
God’s care for His people. It is Christ’s last and
supreme parable ; a parable not merely told but
acted by Himself. He sets forth His own death,
and shows that those whe would profit by it must
make it their own by faith and love. As Chryso-
stom says, ‘We do not then offer a different
sacrifices, as the high priest formerly did, but
always the same: or rather, we celebrate a

* Verum Christi Domini Corpus, illud idem, guod natum ex
Virgine, in celis sedat ad dexteram Patris, hoc Sacramento
contineri (Catechismus Romanus, Pars 11. cap. iv. Quest. 22),

Hoc loco etiam explicandum est, non solum veri Christi
Corpus, et quicquid ad veram corporis rationem pertinet.
veluti, ossa et nervos, sed etiam totum Christum in hoc
Sacramento contineri (ibid. Quast. 27).

150 LORD’S SUPPER

LOT

memorial of a sacrifice’ (on Hebrews, Hox. xvii. 3).
This leads on to another aspect.

3. Christ’s death was a sacrifice: and to proclaim
His death, and appropriate His body and blood
offered in that sacrifice, is to realize the sacrifice
and to appropriate its effects. The ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν of
the body (1 Co) and the ὑπὲρ or περὶ πολλῶν of the
blood (Mk, Mt) point to this. And they mean
much the same ; for it is unreasonable to restrict
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν to the disciples then present. It was
in our behalf that the body was broken and the
blood shed. The sacrificial idea appears in He 137°,
where θυσιαστήριον probably refers indirectly to the
Eucharist. But the altar on which Christ offered
His sacrifice is the Cross; and the altar on which
we offer is Christ Himself. The θυσιαστήριον is not
the holy table. And it may be doubted if there is a
sacrificial meaning in the double τοῦτο ποιεῖτε (1 Co
11% *), For (i.) im LXX the frequent Heb. words
which mean ‘offer’ or ‘sacrifice’ are not translated
by ποιεῖν, but by προσφέρειν, ἀναφέρειν, θύειν, θυσιάζειν,
and the like. (11.} The ordinary meaning Οἱ ποιεῖν
in LNX, in NT, and elsewhere, is the natural
meaning here. (111.) The Gr. Fathers adopt this
ordinary meaning and interpret, ‘Perform this
action.’ (iv.) Syr-Sin. has, ‘7s do in remembrance
of me.’ (ν.) The ancient liturgies do not use ποιεῖν
or fucere of the bread and wine, but προσφέρειν or
offerre. (vi.) The sacrificial meaning might easily
have been made clear by the use of προσφέρειν.
Moreover, we have τοῦτο, not τοῦτον : not ‘Do this
bread, but ‘Do this thing.’ (See Hxrpositor, 3rd
series, vil. p. 441; T. K. Abbott, ssays on the
Texts of the OT and NT, 1891, p. 110; J. R.
Milne, The Doctrine of the Eucharist, 1895, p. 19).
The use of ποιεῖν here is exactly analogous to that
in Ex 12* of the Passover: ἐποίησαν οἱ viol ᾿Ισραὴλ
καθὰ ἐνετείλατο Κύριος τῷ Μωσῇ, οὕτως ἐποίησαν. Comp.
πάντα doa ἐλάλησεν Κύριος ποιήσομεν (Ex 947).

4. In the Lord’s Supper we receive spiritual
food, which continues and strengthens the spiritual
life begun in baptism. The soul is nourished by
the body and blood of Christ as the body is by the
bread and wine. His flesh is meat indeed, and His
blood drink indeed (Jn 6”), and to partake of Him
who is the Life (Jn 14%) is to have eternal life
(Jn 6 54-53), Comp. Ign. ELph. 20, Rom. 7;
Clem. Alex. Ped. it. 2; Cypr. de Dom. Orat. 18.

5. By Christ’s example this rite includes an
act of thanksgiving. In all four accounts we have
εὐχαριστήσας either of the bread or of the cup; and
Mt and Mk have a blessing or thanksgiving with
both elements. ἶ
as ἃ name fer the whole service shows that it was
regarded as the highest form of thankseiving.

With regard to all Eucharistic controversy we
may wish, with Hooker, ‘that men would more give
themselves to meditate with silence what we have
by the sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner
how.’ There have been those who ‘because they
enjoyed not disputed,’ and others who ‘ disputed
not because they enjoyed’ (Ze. Pol. v. Ixvii. 3).
Jam missa, quanto vicinior et similior prime
omninm masse, quam Christus in cana fecit, tanto
Christianior (Luther).

LITERATURE. —This is overwhelming. The following works may
be selected : Smith, Diet. of Chr. Biog. ii. p. 254 ; Schaff-Herzog,
Eneycl.? ii, p. 1352; Herzog, RE2 pp. 47, 61; Eneycl. Britan.9
viii. p. 654; La Grande Eneyel. xvi. p. 721; Schaff, Ch. Hist.,
A pos. Christianity, ii. p. 472. Add to these, for the subject in
general, the articles ‘Eucharist’ in Smith, Dict. of Chr. Biog.
and ‘Communion’ in Dict. of Chr. Ant.; ‘Abendmahl’ and
‘ Altarssacrament’ in Hergenréther, Kirchenlexicon ; comm. on
the accounts of the Last Supper, esp. Chrysostom on Mt. 26,
Hom. 82; Ellicott and T. 5. Evans on 1Co; also Westcott on
Jn Gand 18 ; Lobstein, La doctrine de la sainte cone, Lausanne,
1889; Jtilicher in Theologische Abhandlungen, Freiburg, i. B.
1892, pp. 215-250; Spitta, Urchristentum, Gottingen, 1893;
Perey Gardner, The Origin of the Lorvd’s Supper, Lond. 1898 ;
Schultzen, Das Abendmahl im NT’, Gottingen, 1895; R. A.
Hoffmann, Die Abendmahlsgedanken Jesu Christi, Konigsberg,

The very early use of 7 εὐχαριστία.

i. Pr. 1896: for the archeology, the art. ‘ Eucharistie’ in Kraus,
Real-Eneykl. ἃ. Christ. Altert.; the art. ‘Liturgy’ in Dict. of
Chr. Ant., with literature quoted, pp. 1036-38: for the philo
sophical argument respecting Transubstantiation, Gore, Dis-
sertations, Murray, 1595. A. PLUMMER.

LO-RUHAMAH.—See Hoska, vol. ii. p. 4214,
and Lo-AMMI.

LOT (οἷν; Awr).—The son of Haran, the brother
of Abrahain, and consequently Abraham’s nephew
(Gn 11773! [both Pjj;, -Particulass of lis. ite are
found in parts of Gn 11-14. 19: the cireumstantial
narrative belongs to J (except ch. 14, which comes
from an independent source), P giving only a brief
summary {ΠΣ Ὑ 55 [pie ARO rer ΡΣ
Lot’s father Haran died before the migration of
Abraham into Canaan—according to J, in ‘the
land of his nativity’ (¢.c. Hlaran in Mesopotamia),
accordingto P, in ‘ Ur of the WKasdim’; and when
Abraham left Haran for Canaan, he took Lot with
him: (12*:J°; 12° Pp). Lott may be anferred,
was with his uncle when he rested at Shechem,
and again on the mountain between Bethel and
Ai, as well as afterwards, when he journeyed
through the Negeb, or ‘South’ of Judah (12% δ. 9),
Whether, in the view of the narrator, Lot acecom-
panied Abraham into Eeypt (12!"*°), is less certain :
the complete silence respecting him in the some-
what circumstantial narrative of 12!" is notice-
able; and it is possible that the words ‘and Lot
with him’ in 13! are a gloss (xee, further, Dillm.
296, 229). However that may be, Lot is with
Abraham when he revisits the hill between
Bethel and Ai, whieh now becomes the scene of
Lot’s memorable choice (13'"). Both Abraham
and Lot, we are told, had numerous herds: the
land ‘was not able to bear them, that they
might dwell together, for their substance was

reat’ (P: ef. 367), 4.6. it could not supply pasture
for both of them; strifes arose between their
respective herdmen (J), viz. about wells and water-
ing-places (cf. 21° 26°F), which appear to Abraham
to be unseemly between ‘brethren,’ ὁ.6. relatives
(cf. 1416 24°7 29%), and he proposed accordingly a
separation. Though the elder, he generously offers
his nephew the first choice: ‘is not the whole
land before thee? . if thou wilt take the left
hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou take
the right hand, then I will go to the left.’ The
soil about Bethel is stony and bare; Lut a little to
the S.E. there is ‘a conspicuous hill; its topmost
summit resting, as it were, on the rocky slopes
below, and distinguished from them by the olive-
erove which clusters over its broad surface above’
(S. and P. 218); and here, it seems, the narrator
must have pictured Lot and Abraham as standing.
‘To the east there rises in the foreground the
jagged range of the hills above Jericho; in the
distance the dark wall of Moab; between them
lies the wide valley of the Jordan, its course
marked by the track of tropical forest growth
[the ‘ pride of Jordan’ of Jer 12° 49!°=50%, Zec 11°]
in which its rushing stream is enveloped; and
down to this valley runs a long and deep ravine,’
through which, it seems, parts of the plain across
the river can be descried, with long lines of verdure
fringing the numerous streams which descend from
the mountains beyond into the Jordan: on the 8. and
W. appear the bleak hills of Judah. The ‘ Kikkar,’
the ‘round;or “oval” of Jordan, ¢-¢.(cf. Buhi,
Geogr. 112) the middle, broader part of the Jordan
Valley beginning about 25 miles N. of the Dead
Sea, and including (probably) the Dead Sea itself,
and the small plain at its S. end,—though in parts
the soil, once a sea-bottom, is desolate and barren,
is in other parts extremely fertile, and produces an
exuberant vegetation (see HGHL 483 f., 487, 489) ;
and the writer, it seems, pictured it as having been

LOT

LOT 151

et more fertile, before Sodom and Gomorrah * had
ae destroyed—‘ well-watered everywhere,’ like
. the garden of Eden, or the valley of the Nile. A
region so blessed by nature proved to Lot an
irresistible temptation: heedless of lus uncle,
heedless of the wickedness of its inhabitants—
significantly emphasized by the narrator in ν.}"---
he made his choice; he left his uncle on the
bare hills of Bethel, while he himself descended
into the fertile valley, ‘and moved his tent (978™)
as far as Sodom.’ ‘By thus voluntarily quitting
Canaan, Lot resigns his claims to it, and the later
territorial relations of Moab and Ammon [see
below], and of Israel, are prefigured ᾿ (Dillm.).

The next incident in Lot’s life which is mentioned
is his rescue by his uncle after he had been taken cap-
tive by the expedition headed by Chedorlaomer (Gn
14). After the defeat of the king of Sodom and his
allies in the ‘ Vale of Siddim,’ Lot, who now ‘ dwelt
in Sodom,’ is, amongst others (v.1°), taken prisoner
by the victorious kings from the East, and carried
off by them. Abraham, who was now at Hebron,
hears of what has happened, and immediately,
with 318 followers, starts in pursuit. All through
Canaan, as far as Dan, near the foot of Hermon,
he follows the retreating hosts: there he surprises
them by a night attack, pursues them as far as
Hobah, probably some 80 miles N. of Damascus,
recovers Lot and his possessions, and brings him
back (it is implied) to Sodom (νν. 2:10).

The next time that we hear of Lot is in the
familiar narrative of Gn 19. The two angels,
whose mission it is to destroy the guilty cities of
the ‘Kikkar,’ arrive at Sodom at even. Lot,
sitting in the gateway of the city,—the common
place of resort in the East, whether for conversa-
tion or business (cf. Ru 4!),—rises up, with the
same ready courtesy which Abraham had shown
before (1839), and which is still usual among the
Arabs, to ofier them hospitality : at first, wishing,
it may he, to test his sincerity, they decline the
invitation, but being pressed by him they yield,
and are entertained by him sumptuously, at a
‘feast’ (snvo; cf. 218 269 29"). Lot’s hospitality
on this occasion is alluded to (probably), in con-
junction with that of Abraham (ch. 18), in the
well-known words (He 13°), which have passed into

a proverb, ‘ Be not forgetful to entertain strangers |

(τῆς φιλοξενίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε); for some have
thereby entertained angels unawares.’ The char-
acter of the men of Sodom soon discloses itself (cf.
Is 3°) ; and Lot, obliged to act quickly in a trying
situation, made the mistake of placing his duties
as a host (which, as is well known, are regarded in
the East as peculiarly sacred) above his duties as a
father. ‘The words of Lot (‘ have two daughters,’
etc.) have been much canvassed in all times. St.
Chrysostom thought it virtuous in him not to spare
his own daughters, rather than sacrifice the duties
of hospitality, and expose his guests to the wicked-
ness of the men of Sodom (//om. awaxiii. in Gen.).
So St. Ambrose (de Abrah. i. 6), speaking as if a
smaller sin were to be preferred to a greater. But
St. Augustine justly observes, that we should open
the way for sin to reign far and wide if we allowed
ourselves to commit smaller sins, lest others should
commit greater (Lib. contr. Mend. ¢. 9. See also
Quest. in Gen. 49). We see in all this conduct of
Lot the same mixed character. He intended to do
rightly, but did it timidly and imperfectly.’ In
fact, Lot ‘brought his troubles upon himself by
the home he had chosen. He was bound to defend

* On the difficult question of the site of these cities, see
HGHL 505 ff., and App. 678. To the present writer, the
arguments in favour of a site at the S. end of the Dead Sea
appear to preponderate: cf. the note below on Zoar. It is
not necessary to suppose that Lot saw the exact part of the
Kikkar in which the cities were; in any case, the word
‘all’ in Gn 1310 must be an exaggeration.

his guests at the risk of his own life, but not by
the sacrifice of his daughters’ (Speaker's Comm. on
v.8). The profligate multitude, resenting Lot’s
interference, and the assumption of moral superi-
ority which it implied, essay to lay hands upon
him; and are only prevented from carrying out
their purpose by the intervention of the two angels,
who forcibly bring Lot into the house, and strike
his would-be assailants with a dazzling (o7:0, only
besides 2 Καὶ 6018), preventing them from being able
to find the door. The anvels, satisfied now that
even ‘ten’ righteous men (185) are not to be found
in Sodom, urge Lot to quit betimes the doomed city,
taking with him all those belonging to him. But
his ‘sons-in-law’ mocked at his warnings; and even
Lot himself, though hastened by the angels as
soon as morning broke (v.), ‘lingered’ (v.’®), re-
luctant to leave his ‘ house’ (v.? etc.), and the city
which he had made his home. But the angels are
tender ta his weakness, J” being desirous to ‘ spare’
him ; they accordingly take hold of his hand, and
lead him, together with his wife and daughters,
outside the city. There they Lid him escape for
his life, neither looking behind him—whether to
be tempted back, or to watch with curious eye
the fate of the city—nor tarrying even for a
moment in any part of the coveted (13") ‘Kikkar’ :
‘escape to the mountain,’ —or ‘mountainous coun-
try,’ viz. of the later Moab (v.* 141°),—‘ lest thou be
swept away’ (v.!”). But the mountains are too
distant for Lot’s faith, or strength of purpose :
fearing he will not be able to reach them in time,
he asks to be allowed to take refuge in a city
nearer at hand, which, being a ‘little one,’ might
have been less guilty than the other cities, and
more easily spared. His request is granted, and
he escapes to Zoar. The aim of this part of the
narrative is evidently to explain the origin of this
name. Zoar is in all probability the Zoara, or
Zoor, of Josephus, and the Zughar of the Arab.
geographers ;* and this, as Wetzstein has shown
(in Del. Gen.4 564 ff.), lay in the plain at the S.E.
extremity of the Dead Sea, now called the Ghér
es-Satieh,t which, in striking contrast to the salt
and marshy plain opposite (S.W. of the Sea), at
the foot of the Jebel Usdum (see p. 152), is well-

watered, and ‘covered with shrubs and verdure,
dike the Plain of Jericho’ (Grove in Smith, DB ii.

1182; HMGHL 508n.). Lot reached Zoar soon
after sunrise (v.**) ; and the destruction of the other
cities of the ‘Kikkar’ then took place. His wife,
disregarding the injunction of v.'’, looked back
from behind him, and became ‘a pillar of salt’
(Agena es

After these events, Lot, dreading lest, after all,
a similar fate should overtake Zoar, ‘went up’ out
Of it inte the “mountain, -7.e,) as ἴῃ vvie?; the
hill-country on the E. of the Dead Sea; and dwelt
there ‘in a cave’ (19%), according to a custom
which appears still to prevail in this neighbour-
hood.g ‘Lhe only other incident in his life which
is mentioned is the story which now follows (19*!-*5)
of the origin of the nations of Moab and Ammon
from his incestuous intercourse with his two
daughters. Naturally, this narrative is not to be
understood as a record of actual fact. The story
is based in part upon a popular etymology of the
two names; but this does not explain it entirely.
There was much rivalry and hostility between
Israel and its trans-Jordanic neighbours, Moab
and Ammon; it is also, as Dillm. has remarked,
a probable inference from the present narrative,
that incestuous marriages, such as were viewed in

* See HGH L 506-7 n.

t So also Keil, Del., Dillm., Socin (Z7DPYV, 1880, p. 81), Buhl
(Geogr. 271 f.), Blanckenhorn (ZDIP?V xix. 1896, 53 f.).

t+ V.29 is a summary account, from P, of what has been
described at length, in vv.1-28, by J.

§ Buckingham, 7'ravels in Syria (1825), pp. 61-8, 87,

LOT

LOTS

Israel with abhorrence, were not uncommon among
these two nations ; and these feclings are reflected
in the disereditable story of their origin, which
the narrator has here preserved. ‘It was the
coarse humour of the people which put into words
its aversion to Moab and Aimmon by means of this
narrative’ (Dillm.).

The only other mention of Lot in the OT is in
the expression ‘children of Lot,’ applied to Moab
in Dt 2°, and to tne Ammonites in Dt 919. and to
both peoples indiscriminately in Ps 83%.

Lot is in character a strong contrast to Abraham.
He is selfish, weak, and worldly: he thinks of
himself before his uncle, and chooses, for the sake
of luxury and ease, to dwell in the midst of temp-
tation. Relatively, indeed, he was ‘righteous’
(2. P 278); his personal character was without
reproach ; and he was deemed worthy by God of a
special deliverance.* His ‘righteous soul’ was,
moreover, ‘vexed (€3acavifero) from day to day” by
the ‘lawless deeds’ which he saw around him; but
he had not strength of purpose to quit his evil sur-
roundings, and even betrothed his daughters to
natives of the sinful city. When ultimately he
left Sodom, it was with manifest reluctance, and
only after his daughters had become (if we may
follow the representation of the narrator) depraved
by contact with vice. He brought temptations,
and also troubles, upon himself,—and the man
who once was rich in ‘ flocks and herds and tents’
(13°) was, as the result of his own actions, stripped
of his possessions, and reduced to living penu-
riously ina cave. Lot is one of the many τύποι
ἡμῶν in the OT; and his history is a lesson of the
danger of thinking too exclusively of worldly
advantage and present ease.

The historical character of Lot must be judzed by the same
principles as that of Isumarn and Jacon(vol. ii. 533 £.): no doubt
tribal relations and characteristics are, to a certain degree,
reflected in him. Cf. Dillm. AZ’ Theol. p. 79. On Jewish
traditions about Lot, see the B’reshith Rabba (tr. Wunsche), and
the Pirké R. Eliezer, c. 25 (where his wife is called nny Edith,
and one of his daughters 55 Pelotith). In Fabricius, Cod.
Pseudepigr. VT, i. 428-431, there is a Greek legend of a tree
planted by him, which afterwards provided wood for the cross.
Treneus (iy. 81; 33. 9) interprets typically some of the incidents
of his history. In the Qor’an, Lot is often alluded to as a
preacher of righteousness to the people among whom he dwelt,
(δον. 775-82 [172-84 1558, 9174-75 9943 9160-175 9755-59 2057. 4B δ.
in these passages (as well as elsewhere) the men of Sodom are
called the ‘ people of Lot,’ as the Dead Sea is still called by the
Arabs Bahr Lit, the ‘Sea of Lot.’

Lot’s Wife.—Gn 19° ‘But his wife looked back
from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.’
At the S.W. end of the Dead Sea is the singular
formation called Jebel Usdum, ‘the mountain of
Sodom,’ a range of cliffs, some 6 miles long and 600
ft. high, consisting of crystallized rock-salt—once
part of the bed of the ancient Salt Sea—‘ covered
with a capping of chalky limestone and gypsum.
- . . It has ἃ strangely dislocated, shattered
look, and is all furrowed and worn into huge
aneular buttresses and ridges, from the face of
which great fragments are occasionally detached
by the action of the rains, and appear‘as “pillars
of salt” advanced in front of the general mass.
At the foot the ground is strewed with lumps and
masses of salt. + Such pillars, or pinnacles, of
salt lave been often noticed by travellers. Lieut.
Lynch, for instance, ¢ describes one which was
about 40 ft. high, cylindrical in form, and rested
ona kind of oval pedestal, some 50 ft. above the level
of the sea. It is probable that some such pillar,
conspicuous in antiquity, gave rise to the story.
Writers of a later age often felt satisfied that they

, Cf. Clem. Rom. Ep. 1 ad Cor. xi. 1, διὰ φιλοξενίαν καὶ

εἰν Λωτ ἐσώθη, κιτ.λ.
Sir G. Grove in Smith, DB iii. 1180; see also Rob. BR ii.
107-9 ; Hull, Mount Seir, Sinai, and W. Pal. (1889) 129-132,

t Narrative of U.S. Huped. to the Jordan and Dead Sea, ed.

1849, p. 307 ἢ. (with a view), ed. 1852 (condensed), p. 201 f. :

could identify the pillar in question. In Wis 107
mention is made of ἃ στήλη ἁλός, near the Dead
Sea, standing as a μνημεῖον ἀπιστούσης ψυχῆς.
Josephus (Ant. 1. xi. 4) says, ἱστόρησα δ᾽ αὐτήν᾽ ἔτι
yap καὶ viv διαμένει. Clem. Rom. (1 Cor. 112),
Trenieus (//eer. iv. 31. 3), and the unknown author
of a poem on Sodom (ap. Tertull., ed. Oehler, ii.
111 1,1. 12] f.), speak of it, though not apparently
from personal knowledge, as still remaining.
Whether, however, the pillar referred to by all
these writers is the same one, must remain uncer-
tain; as Robinson (11. 108) remarks, during the rainy
season such pillars are constantly in the process of
formation and destruetion, so that it is doubtful
how far any particular one would be permanent
(cf. Grove in Smith, DB? ii, 145).

Lot's wife ‘looked back’ with regretful longings
for the possessions and enjoyments which she was
leaving behind her, and so proved herself unworthy
of the salvation offered to her. Our Lord (Lk 17*2)
refers accordingly to the narrative about her, when
inculcating indifference to all worldly interests, as
the attitude with which the advent of the Son of
man should be met. ‘Note that Christ says,
“Remember,” not ‘‘ Behold.” Nothing that is in
existence is appealed to, but only what has been
told’? (Plummer, ad doc., in the ‘International
Crit. Comim.’). S. R. DRIVER.

LOTAN (1:15, Awrdv).—The eponym of a Horite
clan, Gn 367 %—] Ch 13-99 Ewald (Gesch.? i.
448 [Ene. tr. 1. 313]), followed by Dillmann (Genesis,
ad loc.), identifies with Lot, the father of Moab-
Ammon, who appears in Gn 1990 as a in ‘cave
dweller.’ See Lor.

LOTHASUBUS (Λωθασουβος), 1 Es 94,—A_ cor-
ruption of HASHUM in Neh δ᾽; ce'm was perhaps
read rem.

LOTS (573. In Ext 37 9% ° we have the problem-
atic word vs, the plur. of which is tr? by LXX in
956 φρουραί [see PURIM, FEAST OF]. The ordinary
rendering in LXX for 533 is κλῆρος, which is the NT
term also).—The lot was employed in ancient
Israel as a mode of deciding important issues in
cases When they were not decided by other me-
chanical modes, or were not left to the expressed
arbitrament of a priest, prophet, elder, judge (pz),
or king. The use of lots was governed by the
presupposition that divine influence controlled
their employment, and that the result coincided
with God’s will. We have, in fact, here only one
of a large cycle of modes of divination practised by
Israel and other nations of antiquity. Some of
these, as Urim and Thummim, were sanctioned by
the Jewish Torah as legitimate (see art. Uri
AND THUMMIM), and were at all events tolerated
(as the use of the ephod) in pre-exilian Israel (see
art. Epuop, No, 2). Others, on the contrary,
were regarded as illegitimate, as the pieces of
stick (ῥαβδομαντία, Hos 4:5) or arrows (βελομαντία,
Ezk 9156. [Heb.]). See Davidson on Ezk 217 in
Canch, Bible for Schools; and for the usage among
ancient Arabs, Wellhausen, Leste Arab. Heiden-
tums” p. 132. For Assyr. parallels see Lehmann,
Abergluuhe u. Zauberei, p. 40.

The religious aspect in the employment of lots
is expressed in the phrase m7 325 (Jos 18" 8), and
still more explicitly in Pr 16%°—

‘The lot is cast inte the lap,
But all its decision cometh from Jehovah.’

The verb used here for casting the lot is the
Hiph. of bx. In Jos 188 it is ya, in v.® it is a.
In J13*, Ob4, and Nah 3” the verb 72 is employed,
while in Jon 17 and many other passages we have
S87. When the word for ‘lot’ stands as subject,

LOTS

LOVE 153

the intransitive verb 799 (Lv 16%) or xy: (Nu 33%,
Jos 19) is employed. ΤῸ take by lot is 72).

The occasions on which decisions were deter-
mined by lot may be classified as follows :

(1) In criminal cases, in order to discover the
culprit. The earliest recorded instance is that of
Achan (Jos 71). Next comes that of Jonathan
(18 14%). In Jon 17 we read that the lot was used
as a means of fixing on the guilty source of the
continued stormy weather. This example is in-
structive, as it exhibits the common and identical
tradition as existing among ancient Hebrews and
the Pheenician sailors, as we may assume them to
have been, who accompanied Jonah (cf. Josephus,
Betis Ville 7).

(2) In appointing to office, e.g. to that of king
(LS 10%, where the choice of Saul as the first
king of Israel is recorded). We have another
example in the NT, when the vacancy occasioned
by the death of Judas is supplied by the election
by lot of Matthias (Ac 1°). Similarly, priestly
functions in the temple-worship were apportioned
among the sixteen sons of Eleazar and eight sons
of. Ithamar (1 Ch 24*°; ef. Lk 1°); so also in
the service of song (1 Ch 25°") and in the delivery
of wood for the altar (Neh 10® ; ef. 117).

(3) Inthe division of property. The most notable
instance of this is in the assignment of territory
among the tribes of Israel (Nu 26° 33°) 341 36°,
Jos 138 142 161 ete., Ps 105%, Ac 13%). Thus by ¢
natural transition the land itself, when divided,
‘ame to be designated by this word % 3 (Jos 15!
174", Je 15, Is 57°). Hence we frequently tind
this term metaphorically applied to express the
destiny which is awarded by God, whether favour-
Ἐπ δ] οὐ the reverse:(Ps.16°,. Is: 174.342") Jer 13”,
Dn 1913, The division of the booty taken in war,
or of the property of prisoners or criminals, was
often carried out by means of the lot (J1 3%, Nah
3° Obl, Ps 9918. Mt 27%, Jn 1924).

(4) The lot was also employed on the great Day
of Atonement in the selection of the he-goat for
Jehovah and for Azazel respectively (Ly 1671").
See arts. AZAZEL and ATONEMENT (DAY OF).
According to the Mishna Tractate Joni (ili. 9)
these lots were made at first of boxwood and after-
wards of gold, and shaken in an urn.

We have no clear indications as to the actual
nature of the lots used by ancient Israel. Probably

they were small tablets of stone or wood, and were |

inscribed with the name of the person or tribe ; or,
in cases of criminal trial, they may have been of
different colours, one (to express euilt) differing from
all the others. Probably in many cases (as in the
assignments of property) there was a second vessel
containing lots inscribed with the name of the
property (as land or slaves). But it is not necessary
to suppose this. The name of the property might
be called out and a lot containing the name of the
tribe or person would be drawn from the vessel, or
vice versd. All this belongs to the uncertain realm
of conjecture. We do know, however, that the
lots were sometimes held in the fold of the outer
garment (Pr 16°*),

Another point which is obscure is whether the
function of deciding by lot was predominantly
exercised by priests or not. From Neh 11! we are
led to infer that, unlike the use of the ephod and
Urim and Thummim in pre-exilian times, the em-
ployment of the lot, in the times both before and
after the Exile, was open equally to priests and laity.

Last of ali. we have to consider the obscure
derivation of the name of the feast of Purim from
the supposed Persian word pir, meaning ‘lot’
(Est 9% *5; ef, 37). Lagarde has shown that no
such Persian word exists.
not ‘lot.’ Zimmern’s combination of the name
with the Baby]. puhru, ‘assembly’? (ZATIV, 1890,

Pers. padre =‘ portion,’ |

p. 158 ff.), is far more probable. Comp. the Mand.
xamp, Syr. {;2sQQ ‘meal,’ ‘feast.’ The interest-
ing Babylonian parallels with the Esther narrative,
suggested by him and by Jensen, will be found in
Nowack’s Heb. Archdol. ii. pp. 194-200, and in
Wildeboer’s ‘Esther’ in the Kurzer Hand-Com-
mentar, p. 172 ἢ See, further, PURIM (EAST OF).

On the use of the lot in classical antiquity consult
Warre Cornish’s Concise Dict. of Greek and Ronwen
Antiquities, sub voce * Sortes.’

OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE.

LOVE (7278, dydin).—Love to God and love to
man are primary principles of the NT’ religion.
But Jesus declares that on these two command-
ments hang all the law and the prophets (Mt 22";
οἵ, 72, Mk 127-54), They are therefore primary
principles of the OT religion as well. They are
not, however, independent or co-ordinate, but are
so related that the second springs from, or is
conditioned by, the first. ‘The love to man, in the
biblical sense, springs from a heart renewed, and
possessed with the love of God (1 Jn 4: ; cf. aren
3” 411. 12). for only by such a heart will the view
be taken of man’s essential worth and dignity, of
the true ends of his life, and of the possibilities
of his recovery from sin, that makes love possible
(cf. Lk 15"); only in such a heart is the egoistic
impulse conquered which leads us to regard other
men as rivals to ourselves, to seek our own good in
preference to theirs, to use them as means to our
own ends, to treat them with indifference and
neglect, or, if they come into collision with our
interests, with envy, irritation, and resentment ;
only in such a heart is there the disposition and
a sufficiently powerful motive, to a sustained, holy,
spiritual, ungrudging, truly disinterested love to
our fellow-men, even to those who have no claims
upon us, or who may have injured us, or may be
personally unworthy (Mt 5%, Ro 12! 71, 1 Jn 516 17
411) On the other hand, it is vain for us to
profess to love God if we do not love our brethren
( Jn 2911 810 4%), But this love to God, again,
which is the spring of love to man, has its source
in the knowledge we have of the love which God
has to us (1 Jn 47). It is the loving character
of God as revealed in His words and acts to men
(Ps 114! ete.), peculiarly in His grace in Christ,
culminating in the sacrifice of the Cross (Eph 51:3,
1 Jn 49:}0 ete.), in conjunction with the love
which Christ Himself has manifested to us (Jn 13%
15”, Gal 2”, Eph 5” ete.), which begets responsive
love, and leads to the entire surrender of ourselves
to the service of God, and of our fellow-men for
God’s sake. Alike in OT and in NT, love to God
and love to man lead up as their last source to
love in God Himself, and it is from this highest
point of view, accordingly, that our proper study
of the subject must begin.

i. LovE oF Gop.—(4) The OT Doctrine.—Love,
generally, is that principle which leads one mora!
being to desire and delight in another, and reaches
its highest form in that personal fellowship in which
each lives in the life of the other, and finds his
joy in imparting himself to the other, and in re-
celving back the outflow of that other’s affection
into himself. The quality and degree of love
vary with the relation in which the persons
loving and loved stand to each other, the highest
examples of human love—those, therefore, which

* Trench accordingly remarks that ἀγάπη ‘is a word born
within the bosom of revealed religion. It occurs in the LXX,
but there is no example of its use in any heathen writer
whatever ; the utmost they attained to here was φιλανβρωπία
and φιλαδελφία, and the last, indeed, never in any sense but
as the love between brethren in blood’ (Trench, Synonyms,
p. 42). It has, indeed, been argued by Deissmann (but his
grounds are very weak) that ἀγα πη was a word in use in the
Egyptian vernacular, from which it was adopted both by Jews
and Christians. See Hapos. Jiines, ix. (1898) pp. 272, 501, 567.

154 LOVE

LOVE

are peculiarly taken as the images of the divine
in its tenderest relations (Is 54°, Ezk 23, Hos 11}
—being the love of husband to wife, and of parent
to child. Love, therefore, in God, is in general
that principle which leads Him to desire and seek
the good of all His moral creatures ; to impart
henetits to them in every scale and degree of
blessing ; to establish relations of fellowship with
them, that He may bless them more fully ; to recover
and restore them when they have turned aside
from their true end, and lost themselves through
sin (Hos 13°); highest of all, to admit them to
participation in His own holy, blessed life (1 Jn 15),
in which He and they become one, as the Father
and Son are one (Jn 172). As the central prin-
ciple of the divine character—for ‘God is love’
(1 Jn 4%)—every other attribute stands in relation
and subordination to this, though they are not on
this account (as by Ritschl and others) te be
unmediately identified with it. ‘All the divine
attributes are combined in love, as in their centre
and vital principle. Wisdom is its intelligence ;
might its productivity ; the entire natural creation
and the entire revelation of righteousness in history
are means by which it attains its teleological aims’
(Martensen). (lor an exhaustive examination of
the idea of the divine love in its theological and
ethical relations, see Dorner’s Sistem of Christian
Ethics, pp. 58-96, 374-382).

When, with this general conception of love
as an attribute of God, we turn to the OT, we
are apt to feel disappointment. Holiness is in
the foreground ; love seems in the background.
The term ‘love’ (vb. a9, noun 737y), used of God’s
love to His people, is not found, if Dt be late,
till the time of the prophets. Hosea is the
first who develops the idea (under the images of
marriage and sonship, Hos 3! 111 144). In Dt, Is,
Jer, etc., it occurs repeatedly (Dt 4517 718 10” ete.,
15. 48" 63°, Jer 31°, Zeph 31, Moreover, the love
thus spoken of is a love only to the covenant people.
‘The particular word love,’ says Schultz, ‘is
hardly ever applied to God; and where it does
occur in a late writer (Mal 1°), it denotes God's
special covenant love for Israel; and the reverse side
of this is, of course, hatred of the hostile peoples’
(Alttest. Theol. p. 547). This first impression,
however, regarding the OT religion, gives way to
a different one on narrower inspection. As respects
the mere word, we shall find that a quite analogous
phenomenon meets us in the NT. Singular as it
may appear, it is the case that the terms ἀγάπη and
ἀγαπᾷν are never once applied to God in the Synoptic
Gospels. The nearest approach is ἀγαπητός as a
designation of the well-beloved Son (Mt 317 12} ete.).
The Synoptics are full of a Father who loves, yet the
word is never once used. In the Acts the words ἀγάπη
and ἀγαπᾷν never once occur as applied either to God
orman. In the Gospel of St. John, apart from the
(evangelist’s) statement, ‘God so loved the world’
(Jn 3!°), it is, as in the Synopties, the Son who is
primarily the object of the Father's love (Jn 3
17°) ; and this love of the Father is extended to the
disciples in union with Him (Jn 142! 172-25), But
after the earthly manifestation of Christ had been
summed up in His death and resurrection, and
reflection had begun on the completed revelation,
there was no difficulty in speaking of the love of
God (Ro 5% § 8-89, 2 Co 1344, 1 Jn 31 48-22 etc.). In
a similar way God’s acts of love in OT precede the
use of the term. As Dillmann remarks of the
term ‘righteousness’ (0 πὸ), which likewise is not
found in the Mosaic books, ‘The ethical norm, the
will of God, must first be revealed according to its
content, before there could be mention of an agree-
ment of the acts of God with this norm’ (Alttest.
Lheol. p. 271; see his whole excellent treatment of
the love of God, pp. 258-283).

When Dt and the prophets speak of the love of
God, they carry back that love to the beginning of
God’s dealings with Israel as a nation, and find the
proof of it in His acts towards that people, and the
covenant He made with them (Hos 111, Is 639, Ezk
16). Dt carries the love further back still, to the
time of the patriarchs, for whose sake this kindness
was shown to their descendants (Dt 457, ef. Is 51').
And the biblical history has only to be studied in
its entirety to see that it isa revelation of the love
of God to Israel throughout. The word itself may
not be employed,—in the psalms we find it used
with such objects as ‘righteousness,’ ‘judgement,’
‘Zion,’ ‘the gates of Zion,’ ete. (Ps 117 33° 78° 822),
—but there is a rich vocabulary of terms to denote
the particular manifestations of Jove: as 427,
mercy, loving-kindness ; 1Π, grace, favour ; 318, 2:9,
goodness, long-suffering, ete., and these are con-
stantly in use. The wrath of God also is not a
blind impulse, but springs from an ethical ground,
and is tempered and restrained by His long-sutlering
and mercy (Ex 34°, Nu 14:8, Is 489, Jer 15, Nah
15.17 Ps 7855 ete.). It is no doubt true, as alleged,
that the special object of this love of God is the
covenant people Israel—a fact which has again its
exact analogue in the use of ἀγάπη in NT (see
below); but it is to be borne in mind that this
particularism is with a view to an ultimate wider
blessing (Gn 12'3) Ps 67. 87 RV); and the term
‘hate’ in Mal 18 is not to be more rigidly inter-
preted than Christ’s own use of the same term (Lk
14°). Schultz observes, ‘ Passaves like Gn 29"! and
Pr 30° show that the expression ‘‘hatred ” is taken
from the idioms of polygamy, and denotes, not
hostility, but neglect’ (Attest. Theol. p. 547). As
against the idea that the love of God was that of
the narrow partiality of a tribal deity for his
protéges many facts speak. The original creation
was evidently an outcome of goodness (Ps 136!°),
and God ‘blesses’ the original representatives of
mankind, and richly dowers. them with dominion
over the creatures (Gn 1°7*"), The patience of God
bears with the antediluvian world (Gn 6°); and
after the flood His covenant is made with Noah for
all flesh (Gn 98:7. The Abrahamic covenant has,
as shown, an aspect of blessing to the world. It
is repeatedly declared that the whole earth is full
of God’s goodness, and that His mercies are over all
His works (Ps 33° 119% 1457 ete.). When it is
declared that God desireth not the death of a
sinner, but rather that he turn from his wicked-
ness and live (Ezk 155 33!1), this cannot be held to
apply exclusively to Israel; and the Bk. of Jonah
furnishes a proof that the pity of God extends to
heathen nations as well as to His own people (Jon
4-11) The classical passage on the divine char-
acter in OT is that in the Mosaic history in which
J” proclaims His name, ‘The Lord, the Lord, a
God full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger,’
etc. (Ex 34° 7); and it is also that in which the
graciousness of this character is brought to fullest
expression. If the sins of the fathers are visited
on the third and fourth generation of those that
hate Him, mercy is kept for thousands of those
that love Him (cf. Ex 2u*: 6),

It is, however, doubtless, in the special relation
of God to Israel that, in OT, His love is distine-
tively manifested, for this people He has bound
in covenant with Himself, and set them apart,
that He might be glorified through them. ‘This
relation of love is already implied in the term
‘son’ which He applies to the nation (Ex 43" 33),
but comes out with peculiar distinctness in the
glowing language in which the covenant is proposed
to the people at Sinai (Ex 19°*), This relation
springs in no sense from desert, but is a result of
God’s free electing grace (Dt 77); and, so far from
placing Israel in a position of favouritism in which

LOVE

LOVE 155

their offences are lightly condoned, it lays on
them an increased responsibility and subjects them
to special chastisements in case of unfaithfulness
(Am 3’). But the same love secures that God will
not cast His people off, but will work on them by
judgement and mercy till He has finally subdued
them to Himself (Hos 2, 14 ete.).

An interesting point of inquiry relates to the
relation of this ‘love’ of God in OT to His other
ethical attributes of ‘righteousness,’ ‘truth,’ ‘zeal,’
‘wrath,’ holiness,’ ete. On the relation to ‘wrath’
(with ‘zeal,’ ‘holiness’), see ANGER; but a word
may be here said on the relation to ‘righteousness’
(with ‘truth,’ ‘faithfulness,’ ete.). These two
(‘vighteousness’ and ‘love’) are not to be identified
(as with Ritschl, ete.), yet they stand in the closest
relation, and God’s ‘righteousness’ is manifest in
His-savine “acts (Ps 31+ 48-1 10357, Hos 2” etc.).
Riehteousness, with Ritschl, is identical with grace ;
it is the consistency of God in carrying out the ends
of His love (Leecht, und Ver. ii. pp. 102-118). But
ethical norms are implied alike in the determina-
tion of these ends, and in the choice of the means
by which they are accomplished, and it is these
ethical norms with which ‘righteousness’ has to
do. ‘Righteousness’ is that which answers to
the ethically right norm or standard. So far as
‘love’ is involved in ethical perfection, or is
demanded by that, it falls under the category of
‘righteousness,’ and, so far as God has bound
Himself by covenant obligations to His people,
His ‘righteousness’ requires that He be faithful
to His pledges (cf. 1 9π 15). ‘ Righteousness’ thus
interposes for their salvation, help, protection, ete.
But it has other and more general functions in the
upholding of the moral order and judgment of the
world, and the punishment of the obstinately wicked
(e.g. Ps 94. 9615 085). Its highest satisfaction, never-
theless, is not the infliction of judgment, but the
conversion and salvation of the sinner and the
production of righteousness in the earth (Ezk 33",
Ps 117, Is 45° 612 ete. Dorner has an original
investigation of the relation of love to righteous-
ness in his System of Christian Ethics, pp. 68-93).
We may add that it is of the essence of love in
God as in man that it does not remain a mere self-
enclosed or inoperative principle, but reveals itself
in acts for the benetit of the beloved object. It is
impossitle to believe in a God of love who, as
Carlyle said, ‘does nothing.’ The religion of the
Old ‘Testament, therefore, and of the New as well,
is pre-eminently that of a God who reveals His
gracious purposes in history, and acts for man’s
salvation (Ps 103% 7, Ro 58 etc.).

(B) The NT Dactrine of the love of God pre-
supposes that of OT, and stands in no essential
contradiction with it (as Marcion supposed), but
perfects and completes it in the full revelation of
the character of God in His Son, and in the dis-
covery of His plan of love for man’s salvation,—
in the gospel. It is certainly a striking fact—
especially for those who would have us find the
whole revelation of Christ in the Synoptics—that,
as remarked above, Jesus in no single saying in
these Gospels speaks directly of the ‘love’ (ἀγάπη)
of the Father, or uses the corresponding verb
(ἀγαπᾷν). The impartial beneficence of the Father
is indeed urged as an example (Mt 55) ; and the
Father is set before us as rewarding, hearing
prayer, giving good gifts, forgiving trespasses,
caring for His children, as for the lilies and the
fowls, revealing Himself to babes, avenging in-
juries to His little ones, ete. (¢.g., Mt 61+ & 5 25-8
10*8-#1 1: 186 10.14), But perhaps even these deter-
minations do not carry us essentially beyond the
bounds of OT. Yet there is a new significance
in the very name ‘Father,’ the depth and tender-
bess of which are revealed in the relation of the

Father to the ‘beloved’ Son (ἀγαπητός) ; and tha
whole spirit, character, and gracious words and
deeds of Jesus are a revelation of the meaning of
love in God which is altogether new. [Ὁ is in the
Gospel of St. John that we have the assurances that
those who are in union with the Son are loved
with the same infinite and tender love with which
the Son Himself is loved by the Father (Jn 14°! *
17-28), In Ae the word ‘love’ is not used of
God's attitude to men, though God’s acts of grace
(χάρις frequently) in the sending of His Son, raising
Him from the dead, exalting Him to heaven,
sending the Spirit, granting forgiveness of sins,
salvation, and healing through His name, are
abundantly extolled (Ac 2. 3. 4b! 108% 13%8?
ete.). It is, however, in the Pauline and Johannine
Epistles that this doctrine of the marvellous love
of God, as revealed in the gift, incarnation, life,
death, resurrection, and glorification of the Son,
and in the salvation and eternal life that have
come to men through Him, with unspeakable
spiritual blessings and privileges here, and ever-
lasting glory hereafter, is discovered in its full-
orbed splendour (Ro 5°: 5 8%-%, 1 Jn 31 4°? ete.).
In so far as God desires the salvation of all
(1 Ti 115 24 410) and has provided in the mission
and sacrifice of His Son for the salvation of all
(1 Ti 2°, 1 Jn 2? 40), His love embraces the whole
world (Jn 3!),—this extension of the blessings of
salvation to the Gentiles on equal terms with the
Jews being the peculiar ‘mystery’ of God, which
had been hid from earlier ages, and which St.
Paul was commissioned to reveal (Eph 911, in
this sense the NT doctrine is a transcending of the
‘particularism’ of the OT. Gal 5®, Col 3" ete.).
Nevertheless, the love of God is not in NT, any
more than in OT, a vaguely diffusive, indis-
criminating affection, but has for its peculiar
objects those in union with Christ, who, as chosen
in Him (the elect one, Is 421, Mt 1918) before the
foundation of the world, and foreordained to the
adoption of children, and all spiritual blessings,
according to the good pleasure (εὐδοκία) of His
will — ‘the purpose of Him who worketh all
things after the counsel of His will’ (Eph 11:12
—are conducted by God (‘foreknown,’ ‘ fore-
ordained,’ ‘called,’ ‘justified,’ ‘ glorified’) to the
glory destined for them (Ro 8%, cf. Jn 6°
οἷο). The highest form of love, alike in God
and man, is not a matter of vague impulse, but in-
volves intelligent choice (didigo), the grounds of
choice lying sometimes in the objects loved, but
in the case of God, in dealing with the unworthy,
lying solely in His own good, wise, and holy will
(χάρις, Eph 2° ete.). The exponent of this love
ot God to us is Jesus Christ, whose own love is
joined with God’s as part of the same manifesta-
tion of the divine character (Jn 107}, Ro 5%,
Eph 3” 57, 1 Jn 4°, Rev 1° ete.). In the com-
passion, tenderness, devotion, grace of Jesus in
His earthly life; in His hope for the vilest, and
yearning desire to bring them back to God; in
His self-sacrifice and surrender of Himself for His
sheep (Jn 101-13), we have the ‘interpretation’
(ἐξηγήσατο, Jn 138) of the Father’s heart to us. Love,
as thus exhibited, is not simply complacency in
the good ; it unites itself also with the bad, yearns
over them with inexpressible tenderness and sorrow
(Mt 23°7), identifies itself so closely with them that
their sin and shame and sorrow are felt and shared
as if they belonged to the loving One Himself,—
love, in other words, becomes substitutionary, and
in the case of Christ propitiatory (Mt 811 9°, Lk 15,
Jn 1038, } Jn 45:1. The last and all-comprehen-
sive word on this subject is spoken by the Apostle
of Love when he sums up the whole significance of
the gospel revelation in the saying — ‘GoD Is

| Lovt’ (1 Jn 45).

156 LOVE

LOVE

It lies beyond our province to discuss the more
properly theological questions which arise out of this
scriptural doctrine of the love of God—its bearings,
e.g., on the doctrine of the Trinity (ef. Sartorius,
Doetrine of the Divine Love, p. 8tt., Eng. tr.) ; or
its relation to Creation, and the supreme ethical
end (cf. Ritschl, Recht, und Ver, iii.’ pp. 268-266).
It is a tempting, and not baseless, speculation,
that, as love in its essential nature has relation
to another, and involves, in its fulness, surrender
and self-commnunication to another, so, if love and
fatherhood are to be predicated eternally of God,
there must be self-distinction and sonship also
within the divine essence (for the world and human
spirits, as non-eternal, contingent, and finite, can-
not be adequate objects of this eternally complete,
and infinite, and active love of God). It is a
speculation, however, which lies, in this form,
beyond Scripture, though the NT doctrine of the
Trinity throws back light on it, and it has :
point of relation to the recognition of the Son in
the Gospels as the peculiar object of the Father's
knowledge and love (Mt 3!7 1151 128, Jn 52° ete.).

ii, Love IN MAN.—The primary and unalterable
duty of man, in both OT and NT, is to love God

This obligation is
based in part on the natural relation of man to
God as created and dependent (Dt 5116 15. Ps 9567
100°, Is 1°) ; but specially on the morally perfect
character of God (Mt 5, Mk 1015); and, above all,
on the fact that God is Himself a Being of Love—
this, too, not simply in a general respect, but as
having manifested His love in gracious relations
to ourselves. ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,’
ete. (Dt 05). In OT it is the superabounding grace
of God in His relations to Israel in the covenant
(Dt 41-.4 9:-0 111}. 10. 22 19° 301-14. Ps 511 41:3 1161],
is 54, Hos 111-14, ete.); in NT it is the love of
Ged in Christ (Ro 85:9 121, 1Co 2% Eph 95:0
1Jn 435) which is the ground of obligation. It is
evident how far we are here from the abstract
grounds of natural theology. This love, moreover,
is no mere sentiment, or excitement of feeling, but
is connected in both OT and NT with an obedient
will and the keeping of God’s commandments
(Dt 6, Jos 225, Is 110-18. Mt 722-3, In 14% 15°14 ete. ),
‘This is the love of God, St. John says emphati-
‘ally, ‘that we keep his commandments’ (1 Jn δ).
The seriptural love to God is thus entirely practical,
it is also intelligent, and fed throneh growing
knowledge (‘thy mind’ ; ef. Eph 117: 15. 317. 18 ete.),
It will specially manifest itself in the intelligent
adoption of the ends of God's kingdom as our own
(Mt 6°). The love of God thus enspheres the
being of the true child of God; it is shed abroad
in the heart (Ro 5°); the soul dwells in love, 7.e.
dwells in God and God in it (1Jn 410, But this
feeling and enlargement of the heart in love fo
God, and experience of the love of God, cannot
remain self-contained. It spontaneously overflows
in love to others, and yearns with the desire to
bring them within the same circle of blessing.
Specially will it feel a peculiar delight in those
who are within the same sphere of love as itself,
The love of God thus necessarily issues in love to
our brother ; and so imperative is this connexion,
that where the latter does not exist, we are
warranted in declaring that the former is absent
also (1 Jn 31:17 47. 8),

Love to man has thus its spring and principle in
love to God, and here a wider and a narrower
sphere is recognized—the one, the entire human
amily ; the other, the peculiar brotherhood in
Christ (Gal 6”, 1 P 2%). “The grounds on which
this duty of love is based are entirely different
from those of philosophical ethies. The stoical
ideal of a brotherhood of reason remained an

unrealized dream. The ethics of Jesus laid the
foundations of a true love to man in spiritual
relation to God, and the destination to sonship in
His kingdom. A brotherhood arises out of the
Fatherhood. If we inquire more narrowly into
the biblical development of this great duty of the
gospel, we find the principle in which the whole is
involved already enunciated in ΟἽ", though its
full scope and bearing were not apparent under
the Old Covenant. [Ὁ is from Leviticus (1918) that
Jesus quotes the precept, ‘Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself,’ as one of the two ‘great’
commandments on which hang all the law and the
prophets (Mt 22°49, Mk 12%); even as He declares
of His enunciation of ‘The Golden Rule’—‘ for
this is the law and the prophets.’ The question
was as to the breadth of the signification of the
term ‘neighbour’; and while here also the correct
principle was already involved in the doctrine of
the oneness of the human family as made in the
image of God (Gn 17), and in the truth of one
God of the spirits of all flesh (Nu 162), it was alien
to the modes of thought of antiquity, and perhaps
was impossible to the Hebrews under the peculiar
limitations of their national economy, to give to
this pregnant term ‘neighbour’ a universal appli-
cation. (How few do so even now under Christian
teaching !) It is certain in any case that they did
not give it this wider scope ; and it was reserved for
Jesus to correct ‘particularism’ here also, and, in
the light of His broad, universal doctrine of God
and man, to lift this duty to its proper level of
unlimited obligation. Our ‘neighbour,’ He teaches
in the parable of the Good Samaritan, is every
man without distinction of nationality (Lk 1029-*7);
and the obligation of love is extended to embrace
even enemies (Mt 5% 8), the pattern in this case
being the example of the Father in heaven. (The
germ is found here also in OT both in precept and
example, Lv 1917-38, 18 24. 26, Ps 75). This prin-
ciple, then, becomes in Christian morality the
single principle in which all duty to our fellow-men
is summed up, for it requires, comprehensively,
that we do our neighbour no injury (Ro 13!), but
do him all the good we can; it requires even that
we overlook his wrongs to us, and strive to over-
come his evil with our good (Ro 1221); and it
furnishes the only, but all-powerful motive, through
which this discharge of duty can be accomplished.
He who loves his neighbour as himself will not, e.¢.,
kill him, will not steal from him, will not bear false
witness against him, will not covet his possessions
(to 13°). But this love will further change these
negative precepts into positive ones, and lead him
to seek is neighbour's highest well-being in soul
and body. In this one word, therefore, as it is
repeatedly said, the whole law is fulfilled (Ro 131,
Gal 54, Ja 2%). The example of Jesus in His
earthly life is again the interpretation to us of the
depth and range of this precept, alike in its
practical beneficence, its compassion for the lost,
its forgiveness of injuries, and its voluntary self
sacrifice, even unto death, for others (Ae 1038,
Ro: 16°, He: 12? * 7 Ro. L.in:6” eter, How
high and wide-reaching the spiritual requirements
of this law of love are—how love is patient and
kind; excludes envy; is humble; not easily pro-
voked ; does not impute motives; mourns over
iniquity, and rejoices in truth; endures wrong;
believes the best ; where it cannot believe, hopes ;
where it cannot even hope, suffers—is magnificently
brought out in that incomparable hymn of love
chanted by St. Paul in 1 Co 13. In this prin-
ciple of love, as we are further taught by Christ’s
example, and by apostolic teaching, there lies, not
only the fulfilling of the law, but a great, nay,
the chiefest, part of practical religion (Ja 127
2-18) ἡ Jn ἢ And we are reminded that it is

LOVE (BROTHERLY)

LOVE-FEASTS 157

precisely these deeds of love which the King is
represented as inquiring into at the great last day
of account, and it is by their presence or absence
that men’s everlasting destinies are adjudged
(Mt 25°45),

LITERATURE.—OT Theologies of Oehler, Schultz, Dillmann ;
Sartorius, Vhe Doctrine of Divine Love; Wendt, Die Lehre
Jesu, vol. ii; Weiss, NZ’ Theology; Ritschl, Recht. und
Versohnung, vols. ii. iii.; Christian Ethics of Martensen (vol. i.)
and Dorner. vs ORR.

LOVE (BROTHERLY).—Sce BROTHERLY LOVE.

LOVE, LOVELY, LOVER.—In 1 Es 45: we find
‘love’ used in the concrete, one that is loved,
‘when he hath stolen, spoiled, and robbed, he
bringeth it to his love’ (τῇ ἐρωμένῃ 3 Vulg. amabili
suae; Wye. ‘leef’ [=loved one]; Cov. ‘his love’).
Cf. Shaks. Venus and Adonis, 867—

‘She hears no tidings of her love.’

The adj. lovely has come to be used somewhat
carelessly, and now means scarcely more than
attractive; but in AV it always carries a distinct
sense of its origin. It has two meanings, however.
1. Worthy of being loved, Ezk 33° ‘thou art unto
them as a very lovely song of one that hath a
pleasant voice’ (0°33), 1, lit. as AVm ‘a song of
loves,’ RVm ‘a love song’); Ca 5!® ‘he is altogether
lovely’ (a-72q9 953, lit. ‘all of him is loveablenesses res
Ph 48 ‘whatsoever things are lovely’ (ὅσα προσφιλῆ).
Cf. Preface to AV, ‘A man may be counted...
a comely man and lovely, though he have some
warts upon his hand’; Tindale, E.wpositions, p.
26, ‘If thou believe in Christ, that he is thy
Saviour, that faith will lead thee in immediately,
and show thee God with a lovely and amiable
countenance’; Fletcher, Wildqoose Chase, 1. 3—

‘Mir. Can you love a man?
Lil. Yes, if the man be lovely,
That is, be honest, modest.’
Milton, PL ix. 232—
‘Nothing lovelier can be found
In woman than to study household good.’

2. Loving, 2S 1% ‘Saul and Jonathan were lovely
and pleasant in their lives’ (ΟΞ: σα, lit. ‘the loved,’
LXX οἱ ἠγαπημένοι). Cf. Chaucer, Miller's Tale, 1.
156—

‘Many a lovely look on hem he caste.’
Shaks. Taming of Shrew, WW. ii. 125—

‘IT should bid good-morrow to my bride,
And seal the title with a lovely kiss.’

Lover has become restricted in meaning. Its
wider application formerly may be seen in Tindale’s
tr. of Lk 6° ‘For the very synners love their
lovers’; 15% ‘And when she hath founde it she
calleth her lovers and her neighbours’; 1559 ‘and yet
gavest thou me never soo moche as a kyd to make
mery with my lovers’; 3 Jn 14 ‘The lovers salute
the. Grete the lovers byname.’ Soin AV, 1 Καὶ δ!
‘Hiram was ever a lover of David’; Ps 38} ‘My
lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore.’
But if it was wider, it was also darker in meaning
sometimes and definite enough, as in Hos 2? ‘ For
their mother hath played the harlot: she that
conceived them hath done shamefully ; for she
said, I will go after my lovers.’ Cf. Knox, Works,
li. 196, ‘And Jeremie lykewyse in mokage of
thame, sayis, Lat thy loveris delyver thee; call
upon thame, and lat tham heir thee! Thow hast
committed fornicatioun with thame, and hes com-
mittit huredome with stoke and stone.’

J. HASTINGS.

LOVE-FEASTS (ἀγάπαι, Jude and some MSS
of 2P 28; δοχή, Apost. Const. ii. 28; ὑποδοχή or
διακονία τραπεζῶν, Julian, Frag. Lpist. p. 305 [ed.

Spanheim, 1696]; δημώδης ἑστίασις, Clem. Alex.
Peed. τι. i. 12; ef. συνευωχεῖσθαι, Jude, 2 P, luce. ;
Latin, epule, Jude *, Vulg. convivium, 2 P 2 76.,
but, technically, agape from the 2nd cent. onwards
[ef. Tert. Apol. 39, ‘ccena nostra... id vocatur
quod dilectio apud Griecos est’ ; Acta Perpet. et Fel.
17; Aug. c. Faustum, xx. 20]; Eng. RV ‘feasts of
charity ’).—These feasts sprang out of the common
meals of the early Christian Church, in which all
the members of the local church shared, and which
served at once as a token of brotherhood (Ae 2?°)
and as a method of helping the poor (Ac 6! 7; ef.
Chrys. ad 1 Co 11" καὶ yap ἀγάπης ὑπόθεσις ἣν Kai
πενίας παραμυθία καὶ πλούτου σωφρονισμὸς Kal φιλοσο-
φίας ἀφορμὴ τῆς μεγίστης καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνης διδα-
σκαλία). They probably originated in an imitation
of the private meal of a Jewish household, widened
out by the Christian conception of brotherhood,
and consciously reproducing the last Supper which
the Lord had kept at Jerusalem; but their wide
dissemination among the Gentile Christians would
have been facilitated by the similar common meals
which were usual in the pagan religious brother-
hoods (Hatch, BL ii. p. 31 note). The fullest
account of a love-feast in the NT is to be found
in 1 Co 1174; in subsequent writers, in Tert.
Apol. 39.

The feast was an afternoon meal at which rich
and poor met together in one common. building.
Formal prayers of benediction, based upon the
Jewish benedictions, were said over the food ; the
prayers preserved in Didaché, c. 9, are possibly
specimens of those used at the Agape. The
‘Kiss of Charity’ (φίλημα ἀγάπης, 1 P 5) perhaps
concluded the meal. After the meal, hands were
washed, lights were lit (cf. Ac 207), and there
followed singing and prayer under the leadership
of a prophet (Did. ¢. 14) or some other minister.
The Agape stood in close connexion with the
Eucharist, which possibly preceded it (so Chrys.
loc. cit.), but more probably followed it ; and hence
the phrase ἀγάπην ποιεῖν seems to include the
Eucharist in Ign. οὖ Smyrn. c. 8 (where see
Lightfoot), and εὐχαριστία is applied to Christian
meals in Clement of Alexandria (Peed. ii. 10).

But the NT itself bears witness to the dangers
which such a meal ran of degenerating into licence.
St. Paul had to check this at Corinth, and perhaps
also at Ephesus (Eph δ18:.19), St. Peter mentions
the presence of immoral men degrading the feast
into a banquet (συνευωχούμενοι). ‘Ihe heathen were
not slow to exaggerate this, and to accuse the
Christians of wild licence and immorality. Hence
in the course of the 2nd cent., throughout many
parts of the Christian Church, the Agape was
separated from the Eucharist, the former being
celebrated in the evening, the latter in the morn-

ing. This was already the case in Bithynia at
the time of Pliny’s letter to Trajan (Zp. 96), and

the Agape was dropped there owing to Trajan’s
edict against sodalitutes. Justin Martyr (Apo/.

67) describes the Eucharist without any refer-
ence to the Agape; Tertullian (pol. 39) describes
the Agape without any reference to the Eucharist,
and speaks of the Eucharist as celebrated before
daylight (de Corona, ὃ. 8). At Alexandria the
connexion of the two, at any rate on some occasions,
is found much later (cf. Socrates, HH v. 22), and
the Agape took two forms there: either it retained
the old idea of a common meal in the church,
and tended at Alexandria to become an elaborate
banquet ; or it took the form of a dinner for the
poor given by a richer brother at his own house,
and apparently it was then called δοχή rather than
Agape (Bigg, Christian Platonists, pp. 102-105).
By the time of St. Augustine it was little more
than a dole for the poor (ce. Faustum, xx. 20; ef.
Canons of Hippolytus, xxxi.-xxxv.). The changes

eee ee

158 LOVINGKINDNESS

LUBIM

in the observance of the Agape may be compared
with those in the Roman ‘sportula.’ For the later
history in which the meal was first banished from
the churches and then entirely disused, the reader
is referred to Smith’s Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities, The institution has left 105. per-
manent mark in two ways upon the Christian
Church: first, in all acts of charity that take the
form of entertainment of the poor; and, secondly,
in certain points of ritual connected with the
fucharist, such as the offertory, the washing of
hands, the kiss of peace, stat in the Oriental
Church the distribution among the poor of bread
which had been blessed but not consecrated. The
Methodist ‘ Love-feasts’ were a deliberate attempt
on Wesley’s part to revive the apostolic practice.

LITERATURE.—Lightfoot, Ignatius, i. 52 note, 400ff., ii. 87,
227, 312, 813, i. 467%, ; -8, ‘Chrysostom on 1. 09 11} Suicer;
Thesaurus, 8.v.; Bingham, Christian Antiquities, xv. 7; Bp.
John Wordsworth, The Holy Communion, pp. 44-46, 57-60 ;
Uhlhorn, Christian Charity in the Anetent Church; Spitta,
Zur Geschichte u. Litt. des Urchristenthums, i. (Gottingen,

1893); Zahn in Herzog’s RE}, s.v. ‘Agapen’; Brightman,
Liturgies, Eastern and Western, V. Lock.
LOVINGKINDNESS.—-We owe this beautiful

word to Coverdale. His use of it is somewhat
capricious, and in that respect he has been imitated
by all subsequent versions until we come to the
American Revised Version. The Heb. word so
translated (325 Aesed) is used of God’s love to man, |
and less frequently of man’s love to man. It is |

disputed whether it also denotes man’s love to |

God. The passages relied on for the last meaning
are Jer 2°, Hos Οὐδ, together with Is 57! men of
piety, and 2 Ch 3955 35°, Neh 13!! pious acts. The
Oxf. Heb. Lex. favours the sense of piety to God
in all these places. It is only when the word
means God’s Jove to man that it was translated
by Coverdale (followed by AV) ‘lovingkindness,’
and that was well, for, as Driver says, that term
is too strong to be used generally of men. But
unfortunately it is only some of the passages with
that meaning that have been so translated, chietly
in the Psalter, the other renderings in AV being
‘mercy’ (Gn 19!” 2477 3210 Ex 15% 908 347, Nu 1438,
Dt διυ ὙΠ, 2 S 71s 2951, l k gS. 1 Ch 16°: 41 Le.
2 Ch 5185. Gl. 42 73 6 207), Ezr 31} 7°38 99, Neh 15 9°? 1372,
Ps 57 64135 18° 217 936 O57 10 BY. 16 3210 B35. 18, "ὦ
36° 44:9 528 575. 10. 5Q1. 16. 17.011 091: ρ039 6918 778 857. 10
86%. 18.15 Ol. 2. 14. 24. 28 1ι901Δ 9418 983 100° 1012 1038: 1. 17
106): 7. 45 107} 1084 10971. 26 115) 118): 2. ὃ. 4. 29 1101. 64. 124
1307 136): 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
21. 22, 20. 24. 25. 26] BR8 1431: 1458 147}, Pr 16°, Is 553,
Jer 334, La 3%, Dn 94, Mie 7!* 2); ‘goodness’
(Ex 348, Ps 33° 52! 107% 15-21-81 1442); * kindness’
ἐν Sit, 4°); ‘merciful kindness’ (Ps 117?
119). The RV has made but few changes. It
has preferred ‘lovingkindness’ to ‘merey’ in 28
22°1, Ps 57 64 18° 217 257. 0 3116 365 4426 611 14312, to
‘goodness’ in Ps 33°, to ‘kindness’ in Ps 51, to
‘merciful kindness’ in Ps 1198, and once it goes
the other way, changing ‘lovingkindnesses’ in Ps
89 into ‘mercies.’ But the Amer. Revisers have
chosen ‘lovingkindness’ for all the passages in
which the meaning is God’s love to man, and for
these only. See their note on this word under
‘Classes of Passages’ in the Appendix to the
English RV.

The best statement of the meanings of hesed in
the OT will be found in the Oxf. Heb. Lexicon.
Cheyne has much to say of the word, see esp. his
Origin of the Psalter, p. 378 (where he happily
distinguishes ΠΕΙ͂Ν from 750 in reference to man,
the former being ‘right feeling towards J” as the
root of right action,’ the latter ‘right action as
the flower of right feeling’); see also W. R. Smith,
Prophets”, pp. 160f., 408f.; Driver on Dt 7°;

Kirkpatrick, Psalis, i. 220; Girdlestone, Synonyms

of OF?, p. 1114. sand the.art. HASIDAMANS: The
English word is purely biblical.
J. HASTINGS.

LOW COUNTRY.—See SHEPHELAH.
LOZON (Λοΐών), 1 Es 5%=Darkon, Ezr 956, Neh

Fae"

LUBIM (2235, in Dn 114235, Λίβυες LXX, Libyes
Vulg.).— They are mentioned as auxiliaries and
neighbours of the Egyptians : 2 Ch 12° as the chief
auxiliaries of Shishak, 168 with the Ethiopian
Zerah, Nah 3° as helpers of Thebes at the side of
Put, Dn 11* together with the Ethiopians as
neighbours of Egypt. Most probably the Le-
habim of Gn 10", 1 Ch 1 are the same nation
(see LEHABIM); the identification with the
LupiIM (which see), attempted by some, has
many difhculties to contend against. The name

appears in Arabie as Labi οὐ =the singular ‘2d
(occurring in the Talmud)
Egyptian form, see below).
The Greeks first used Libya of the whole
country W. of Egypt which was reckoned as ἃ
part of Asia; consequently Libya was equivalent
to Africa. Later, Libya was used only of the

‘Libyan’ (on the

part between Egypt and the Roman province of

x

Africa, consisting of Marmarica in the E. (Libya
Inferior asa Roman province) and Cyrenatea (Libya
Superior, modern Barka) in the W. (Libya Intertvor
was 8. of both). The Libyan Nomos (1.6. country)
of Egypt extended from Marea to Apis (W.) and,
along the frontier of Egypt, to Memphis (S.), a
strip of borderland always visited by Libyans with
their flocks.

The Libyans appear on Egyptian monuments
from the earliest period, but more frequently from
about B.c. 1600. They are depicted (earliest
example in Newberry, Benihasan, 1. pl. 45, 47) as
tall, well-built, of whiter complexion even than
the Syrians and Europeans, with blue eyes, blond
hair and beard. These pictures agree closely with
the type of the modern Kabyles in Algeria, in
whom many travellers have sought descendants
of strayed Germans, 6.9. Vandals (very errone-
ously, as the Egyptian pictures show). Their hair,
ornamented with ostrich feathers, was worn tied
in a long pig-tail hanging over the ear, while it
was cut half-length at the back part of the head ;
the beard was pointed. Blue tatoo-marks, vary-
ing according to the tribe, ornamented the body
The dress consisted of a girdle and a long mantle.
They were chiefly a pastoral people, wandering
with their leather-tents and their flocks of coats
and sheep over their sandy country. Frequently
they appeared at the W. frontier of Egypt as
invaders, especially under the 19th and 20th
dynasties, ὁ.6. after 1350. Seti 1., Ramses 11. and
ΠΙ. record invasions warded off with great diffi-
culty. Merenptah, the successor of Ramses IL,
defeated an army of Libyans allied with pirates
from Asia Minor and Europe, after they had nearly
reached Memphis, slaying almost 10,000 of them.
They fought with arrows and long swords, the
chiefs from chariots. Being very brave, they were
employed as mercenaries by the Pharaohs, more
and more frequently after B.c. 1100. Finally they
became the privileged soldiers of Egypt; and their
leaders, as Egyptian generals, erew so influential
that several dynasties of Egyptian princes, as well
as the great Bubastide (22) and Saitic (24, 26)
dynasties, which include most of the Pharaohs
mentioned by name in the Bible, were of Libyan
descent. #.g. Shishak (more correctly Shoshak
for Shoshank) is a name of Libyan etymology.
In their own country the Libyans assumed a few

LUCAS

LUCRE 159

elements of Egyptian culture, e.g. the worship of
the god Am(m)on (whose principal temple was in
the oasis of Amon, now Siwah), circumcision, ete.,
but always remained at a low stage of civiliza-
tion. Their strange and rude system of writing,
still employed by the desert tribes S. of Algeria,
and now called Zifinaghen, was borrowed from
Southern Arabia, it would appear, about the
Persian period. Also the introduction of the
amel, and several customs, possibly also elements
of their language, point to later Connexions with
this country—a strange fact, and not yet sutti-
ciently understood. ‘Their difficult language is,
however, witnessed to by Eegyptian monuments
from about 1400, so that only a small part of the
people can have consisted of immigrating Eastern-
ers. Under Greek (in Cyrene) and Carthaginian
influence, and still more under Roman dominion,
the Libyans were only superficially civilized in
the cities ; a large part of them, especially in the
interior, always remained barbarous shepherds.
They extended from Egypt to Timbuctoo and the
Senegal river until the invasion of the Arabs ; the
subsequent adoption of Arab religion made a great
part of them give up their language and nation-
ality. Their language (the Tamasheg), which
recently has been studied very zealously (in Eng-
land especially by the late Prof. Newman), is
at present much mixed with Arabie. Gram-
matically, however, it shows the purest Hamitic
type. It is not so closely related to ancient
Egyptian as we should expect, and betrays more
affinity with the Hamitic languages on the coast
of the Red Sea. The national name of this great
race (at present pronounced Imushagh, Imuhag,
etc.) is of obscure etymology. The Egyptians
called them 7hemhew (plural, perhaps the same
word), later Phaiat, and the easternmost part
Thehnu (or Thehnyu, plural) and distinguished
various tribes. Of these the Mashauasha (Mdéves
of Herodotus’) and Lob (written Ra-bu, plur.
fia -bu-y) were most prominent in the wars of
Dyn. 19 and 20 (minor tribes Kahak, Qaiqasha,
Shaitep, etc.), and we can observe how the name
Lob gradually became general, as we find it
among the Greeks and all Semites. It is prob-
able that in Gn 10 it already includes the whole
of the white Africans W. of Egypt, although
the Egyptians (and through these the Hebrews)
hardly knew any tribes W. of Cyrene ; the dominion
of the conquering Pharaohs did not extend even
so far. W. MAX MULLER.

LUCAS, Philem * (AV only) for LUKE (wh. see).

LUCIFER (bb ‘shining one,’ 1.6. the morning
star, as explained by the following words x¥-j3
‘son of dawn,’ Is 14!*).—The word is applied by
the writer of the prophecy to the king of Babylon,
partly in reference to the astrology for which
Chaldzea was famous in ancient times, partly to
the prevailing belief in the deification of heroes.
The king of Babylon had complacently looked
forward to the time when he would ascend into
heaven and exalt his throne above the stars of
God. But in reality his dead body would be
treated with the utmost contempt, ‘a carcase
trodden under foot’; while his soul would descend
into Sheol, and there receive but an empty honour
from the shades, astounded that the great and
mighty king could become like one of themselves.

From a supposed reference to this passage in our
Lord’s words, ‘I beheld Satan fallen as lightning
from heaven’ (Lk 1018), in connexion with Rev 9!!!
(the language of 9! being in part probably derived
from this passage), Lucifer came in the Middle
Ages to be a common appellation of Satan. The
star of Rev 9!" is a fallen angel who has given to

him the key of the abyss, from which he sets loose
upon the earth horribly formed locusts with
scorpions’ tails, who have, however, power to hurt
only such men as have not the seal of God on their
foreheads. But this angel is not actually identi-
fied with Satan by the writer of the Apocalypse.
The imagery in Is was no doubt suggested by a
meteor, and possibly it was so in Rev also.
IF. H. Woops.

LUCIUS (Λεύκιος) is described in 1 Mace 15! ag
the ‘consul of the Romans’ (ὕπατος Ῥωμαίων), who,
in consequence of the embassy sent to Rome by
the high-priest Simon, wrote to Ptolemy VII.
Euergetes, king of Egypt, to inform him that the
Jews were under the protection of Rome. He
sent copies of the same decree to other Eastern
sovereigns, and to several small independent states.
The title of this decree of the Senate is clearly
imperfect, and it is not certain who is intended by
this consul, whose prwenomen is alone given. His
date is approximately determined by the fact that
Numenius and his fellow-ambassadors returned to
Palestine in B.C. 139-138 (1 Mac 15!-5), Three
possible identifications may be mentioned.

1. Lucius Ceecilius Metellus Calvus was consul
in B.c. 142. This, however, seems too early,
though the historian places the despatch of the
embassy to Rome before the decree of the Jews in
favour of Simon, made on the 18th Elul, B.c. 141
(1 Mac 14-28),

2. Josephus mentions a decree of the Senate,
passed under similar circumstances, and couched
in similar terms, which he assigns to the 9th year
of Hyrcanus 11. (Ant. XIV. vili. 5). Most moderns,
however, except Mommsen, consider that Josephus
is in error with regard to the date, and identify
this senatus-consultum with that passed in the
time of Simon. In Josephus the pretor Lucius
Valerius is named as presiding in the Senate ; it is
possible that he is the ‘consul Lucius’ of 1 Mae 1518
(cf. Schiirer, H/P 1. i. 266 ff).

3. Most probably the reference is to L. Cal-
purnius Piso, who was consul B.c. 139. His
preenomen is often given as Cneius, but Lucius
is the best authenticated reading in Valerius
Maximus i. 3. 2 (see Westcott in Smith's DB
‘Lucius’; Schiirer, @.c.). H. A. WHITE.

LUCIUS (Aovxcos).—1. Of Cyrene (ὁ Κυρηναῖος). In
Ac 13] we are told that certain prophets and
teachers were at Antioch, and amongst them is
mentioned Lucius of Cyrene. He comes third in
the list, and is supposed to have been one of the
prophets. Nothing further is known about him.
The suggestion that he was the same as St. Luke
(Λουκᾶς) has nothing in its favour. Such evidence
as there is points the other way. For the difference
between the descriptions of scenes at Antioch and
those at places which the author of Acts must have
visited is striking, and makes it clear that the
writer had no intimate knowledge of the place, and
doubtful if he had ever been there. It is probable,
however, that it was this mistaken identification
which first caused the tradition that St. Luke was
an Antiochene by birth, which appears in Eus. Μ᾿
111. 4, and in many subsequent writcrs, and which
is also without foundation.

2. In Ro 167! a certain Lucius is introduced as

sending greetings with Timothy and others.
Whether he was the same person as Lucius of

Cyrene we have no means of judging.
A. C. HEADLAM.

LUCRE (from Lat. Jucrum through Fr. lucre,
gain) had not always the bad sense which belones
to it in AV and in modern use. Erasmus, Un the
Crede (1533), fol. 70, says ‘God is very greatlye to
be thanked, whose goodness hath tourned the
malyce and wickednes of other men unto his

160 LUD, LUDIM

LUD, LUDIM

servauntes, into the lucre and encreace of godly-
nesse.” In 18 8? ysa, which means gain obtained
by violent or dishonest means, is rendered ‘]lucre,’
‘And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned
aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted
judgment’? (LXX ἐξέκλιναν ὀπίσω τῆς συντελείας,
Vulg. declinaverunt post avariciam, Wye.
‘boweden aside after averyce,’ Cov. ‘enclyned
unto covetousnes,’ Gen. ‘ turned aside after lucre’).
The word is not again used in OT, but occurs five
times in NT, always qualified by the adj. ‘ filthy.’
In 1 Ti 3% 48, Tit 17 the adj. alcxpoxepijs is tr
‘creedy of filthy lucre’® (RV after edd. omits from
1 Ti 3°); in 1 P δ the adv. αἰσχροκερδῶς is translated
‘for filthy lucre’; and in Tit 1"! the phrase αἰσχροῦ
κέρδους χάριν is rendered ‘for filthy lucre’s sake.’
All these expressions we owe to Tindale.
in language coloured by biblical recollection the
word is no longer used. Bacon (ssays, ‘ Of
Superstition,’ Gold. Treas. ed. p. 69) shows the
ordinary use in lis day: ‘The Strategems of
Prelates for their owne Ambition and = Lucre.’
Shaks. uses the word twice (1 Henry VI. ν. iv.
141, Cymb. Iv. 11. 324), both in the same sense.
J. HASTINGS.

LUD, LUDIM (πὸ. plur. πο, 95, Aovd, Λουδιείμ,
Lud, Ludim).—In Gn 10” Lud appears as fourth
‘son’ of Shem, in Gn 10” we are told that Mizraim
‘begat’ Ludim. Here two very different races are
indicated, a Semitic Lud and an Egyptian Ludim.
Both names are, however, used by the prophets in
such ἃ way as to prevent any distinction between
the words Lud and Ludim. In 1 Ch 17 and 1" the
statements of Genesis are simply repeated. [ἢ
Is 66!" Lud is named with Tarshish, Pul (which is
generally considered to be an error for Put, de.
Phut), as among the far-off nations. In Jer 46% the
Ludim are mentioned with Cush and Phut as
auxiliaries of Egypt. In Ezk 27! Lud appears
with Persia and Phut as soldiers of Tyre; and in
905 Lud occurs with Cush, Phut, and others as
allies of Eeypt.

The many difficulties that arise from these
references are due to two causes—the difliculty of
recognizing the people referred to, and doubts as
to the integrity of the text. Since the time of
Josephus (Ant. I. vi. 4) a prevailing opinion has
been that the Semitic Lud denotes the Lydians of
Asia Minor; and would then correspond with their
mythical ancestor Lydus, mentioned by Herodotus,
i. 7. Herodotus (/.¢.) also describes their first king
Agron as a descendant of Ninus and Belos, which
may be taken toimply an Assyrian (or Babylonian?)
origin. To support this opinion, the many aflinities
of Lydian worship with Syrian, and the marked
similarity of their art to Assyrian types, have been
pressed. Against the Semitic origin of the Lydians
is the evidence of the remains of their language
embodied in place names and preserved in native
personal names. It is not too much to say that in
the earliest times of which we have evidence Lydia
was not Semitic, but peopled by a race that every-
where preceded the Greeks and spread wide into
Europe. Lydia admitted several successive over-
lying strata of population, Greeks and Persians,
not to mention Kimmerians and Scythians. These
were not Semitic. It is difficult to see in what
sense the classical Lydia was ever Semitic. That
Josephus meant that country seems certain, not
only from his own words, but from the fact that
Lydia was known by name to the Jews (1 Mac 83).
To the author of Gn 10" Lud may not, however,
have meant Lydia at all, but some more southerly
folk. The direction of the geographical distribu-
tion of the sons of Shem runs from S.E. to N.W.
then apparently W. and no farther S. than Aram.
Stress cannot be laid on this till we are sure which
way Arphaxad lay from Asshur. But as the genius

Except |

of Winckler has compelled us to admit the Syrian
land of Musri in passages where Egypt had always
been seen before (see Lapos. Times, vii. p. 405 f.),
and as even Cush may be the land Awsw in the
same horse-producing Cilician direction, so it may
be that cuneiform evidence will yet locate a Lud
in some North Syrian land. To the early Greeks
Lydia was unknown by that name, they called it
Meonia; its later name does not appear till the
7th cent. Bc. What if the founder of the Lydian
name were, after all, a Semitic Lydus bringing with
him Assyrian culture? He need not have made
Lydia Semitic, but he might have left a Semitic
Lud behind him. When Gyges, king of Lydia
(about B.C. 660), sent an embassy to Assurbanipal,
king of Assyria, to seek alliance against the
Kimmerians, it is stated that the Lydian tongte
was not understood by the king’s interpreters, and
that only with difficulty Was an interpreter found

(G. Smith’s Assurbanipal, p. 79). This seems

_decisive against Lydian being then a Semitic

tongue. We are further told that the name
Lu-ud-di had not been known before in Assyria
(AJB ii. p. 172). Whether this means that no
intercourse had ever taken place between the
countries is open to question; perhaps it only
means that the name was fresh. The mere absence
of any Assyrian mention of a Semitic Lud may be
pressed too far.

On the other hand, the theory of a widespread
Semitic nation, Lud, including (according — to
Knobel) Amalek, the Amorites, the Philistines,
the Egyptian Ludim, and the Lydians of Asia
Minor, seems out of the question.

If it is difficult as yet to locate a Semitie Lud,
the Egyptian Ludim are quite as difficult to locate.
No satisfactory identification from native Egyptian
sources has yet been given. The Rutw or Retu,
suggested by some, appear not to be a nation at all ;
the word even is now read Romet (see Dillm. on
Gn 103). It has been suggested to read Lybians,*
which is simply cutting the knot. Movers would
identify with the great Berber tribe of the Lewata,
inhabiting the shores of the Syrtes; but these
people do not appear in history till the 6th cent. A.D.

According to the direction of the geographical
distribution of Mizraim’s offspring, perhaps we
should find them W. of Phut, and so somewhere
S. or even W. of the Syrtes. This can hardly be
separated from the localization of Phut near Evypt.

When we turn to the prophetical passages, we
find some marked characteristics. The Ludim are
warriors and bowmen. Nowhere in antiquity do
we tind the Lydians famous as warriors or bow-
men. This, however, isnot of much weight against
the fact that the Carians and Ionians were mer-
cenaries of Egypt from the time of Psammetichus I.
(B.C. 663-610). The biblical Ludim may cover
these. Winckler has pointed out that in an inscrip-
tion of the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, a frag-
mentary account of his wars with Amasis, king of
Egypt, we have mention of the people Put-Iaman.
As Jaman (lonians) is the regular Assyrian term
for Greeks, we are forced to conclude that Put, the
biblical Phut, was, if not exactly Greek in race and
language, at least indistinguishable from them for
political purposes in Egypt. The prophets may
have had better knowledge of the racial afhnities
of these Egyptian mercenaries, and kept the term
Phut for one, Ludim for another.

The versions, whether influenced by Josephus
and Herodotus or independently preserving a
historical tradition, frequently render Ludim by
Lydians. The various commentators on the books
of the OT resort to all kinds of devices to bring
the text into accord with the facts known to them.

* For instance, by Stade (Javan, 5f.), who proposes to read
in Gn 1013 and Jer 469 0°23 (Libyans) for. 2739.

LUHITH

LUKE, THE EVANGELIST 161

Many of these difficulties will doubtless disappear

with greater knowledge of the ancient inhabitants |

of Egypt and Syria. They cannot be discussed

here. See also art. LYDIA.
LITERATURE.—Dillmann and Holzinger on Genesis ; Cheyne

on Isaiah; Kretschmer, Hinleitung in die Geschichte der
Griechischen Sprache, Ὁ. 284 f. (for Lydian race, Buresch, Aus
Lydien, must also be taken into account); Winckler, A/toriental-
ische Forschungen, series i. Ὁ. 5133; Frd. Delitzsch, Paradies,
oj οἷο ΘΟ πε. HAT 114 (COW it. Sit.) > . Movers,
Phénizier, ii, 1, 377 ff.; Ebers, Ayypten αι. die Blicher Mose’s,
i. 96 ff. Gi A XV 4) OFS,

LUHITH (mmba πον Is 155, nindo πον Jer 485
[Kethibh]; LXX in Is Λουείθ, in Jer BAMA, A
᾿Αλαώθ).---ΑΌΟΑ place which practically is only once
mentioned in OT. It occurs, as ‘the ascent
of or ‘to Lulith,’ in Is 15° and in the. corre-
sponding section of Jer (48 [LXX 31]*). The
refugees from ruined Moab are there represented
as fleeing to Zoar, by the ascent of L. and in the
way of Horonaim, names which may be selected as
local asylum sanctuaries where fugitives would be
secure, or as merely different roads for escape out
of the wasted country. The ‘ascent’ may then
mean either the hill on which the sanctuary stood
(cf. ony 45y2= mount of olives, 25 15%), or the
pass which led to safety (cf. βου 7)y2=the
scorpion ascent, Nu 344). :

The derivation of the name must at present
remain uncertain. Gesenius (7es.) translates it
‘made of boards, ¢.c. probably having houses made
of boards’; but this derivation ignores the fact
that Luhith must be a more or less exact trans-
literation into Heb. of an originally Moabite word.
In that connexion the variation between Is and
Jer (Avethibh) is noteworthy.

Eusebius still knew a village which bore the
name. The Onomasticon (s.v. Luith, Aovié) states
‘there is to-day a village between Areopolis (¢.¢.
Rabbath-moab) and Zoar which is named Luitha.’
See, further, RABBAH and ZOAR.

A. ὦ, WELCH.

LUKE, THE EVANGELIST.—The name Λουκᾶς
does not seem to occur before the time of the NT
(Zahn, Hind. ii. 336). As a Greek name, it is
found without any variation in spelling, unless
Aovxovas (Kus. iV iv. 2) is to be regarded as such.
It is, no doubt, a contracted form of Lucanus, a
Latin name which occurs frequently in inscriptions
(Lightfoot on Col 412), and is found in one Vulgate
MS at the head of St. Luke’s Gospel (as well as in
ὁ f g*i), the other MSS quoted by Wordsworth and
White giving only a Latinized form of the Greek
name, ‘ secundum Lucan or Lucan. The identili-
cation of the name with Λούκιος or Λούκειος (Ac 13),

to 1051) is not philologically impossible, but is un-
likely. As to the person, see Lucius and below.

A person of this name is mentioned three times
in the NT, viz. Col 44, 2 Ti 411, Philem™. From

place before St. Paul met him (but cf. Tert. ς. Mare,
lv. 2). In the other passage, Philem™, St. Luke
sends greeting to Philemon, and is spoken of as one
of St. Paul’s συνεργοί. We know then that he was
with St. Paul in éo¢fh his imprisonments at Rome,
but, from our finding no mention of him in Ph,
Lightfoot (PAd. p. 35) argues that he was not
there continuously. If we may assume (see ACTS
for the arguments to justify this assumption) that
St. Luke was the writer of the Acts, and refers to
himself in the ‘ we-sections,’ then we may note the
connexion with Antioch in Syria,* implied by the
Western reading of Ac 11°, inentioned by Eus,
(ΜΙ iii. 4) and others, but perhaps based on a
supposed identification with Lucius of Ac 13!
(Wetstein, Beneel). More certain is the inference
that he joined St. Paul at Troas (Ac 1019) about the
year 50 A.D. (see CHRONOLOGY OF NT, vol. i.
p. 422), and was with him until his arrival at

/Rome about A.D. 59, except during the period

| στύρησεν.

which elapsed between St. Paul’s departure from
Philippi on the Second Missionary Journey (173),
and his arrival again there on the Third (Ac 905).
If we may anticipate here the proofs (given in
next art.) that St. Luke was the writer of the
third Gospel, then, from the preface to that book,
we may add that he did not belong to those who
could claim to be οἱ am’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται. The refer-
ences to St. Luke in NT may be completed by a
mention of the tradition, first found in Orig.
(ism. 1. in Lue.), that he is the ‘brother whose
praise is in the Churches’ (2 Co 818), sent by St.
Paul with Titus to carry the letter. He is also
mentioned in the subscription to that Epistle as
one of the bearers. +

When we pass outside the NT we find a number
of assertions made about him, some of which are
contradicted by the statements already noticed in
the NT. Thus the late tradition that he was one
of the Seventy (Epiphanius), or the unnamed com-
panion of Cleophas, mentioned in Lk 24!" (The-
ophyl.; Gr. Menol. ete.), are both untenable in
face of Lk 15, The tradition that he was a painter
is also late, though not so late as it used to be
thought... What its oozgin was we cannot say.
It is first mentioned by Theodore the Reader,
whose date may be assigned to the 6th century.
Zahn suggests (Hind. ii, 837) that the tradition
may be due to a misinterpretation placed on the
word καθιστορεῖν in Theodore’s statement as to
τὴν εἰκύνα THs θεοτύκου, ἣν ὁ αἀπύστολος Λουκᾶς καθι-
A much earlier authority—the Prafatio
Luca, given in Wordsworth’s Vulgate, p. 269, and
ascribed by Harnack (Chronologie, p. 653) to the

ο Brd cent. at latest—gives us many additional facts

about St. Luke: ‘Luke, by nation a Syrian of
Antioch, a disciple of the apostles, and afterwards

᾿ ἃ follower of St. Paul, served his Master blame-

_lessly till his confession.

these passages we infer that he was with St. Paul —

at Rome when these Epistles were written, and
was alone with him at the date of the latest. In
the first passage he is spoken of as ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ
ἀγαπητός, and as he sends a greeting to the
Colossians, he must have been known (0 that
Church. He is, in this passage, distinguished
from oi ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς (Col 411), and so was a
Gentile by birth. This makes the identification
With Λούκιος of Ro 101 (see Orig. a7. loc.) impos-
sible,—for the latter was a kinsman of St. Paul,—
and disproves the view of Tiele and others that St.
Luke was a Jew. Jerome (Quest. in Cen.) refers
to a tradition that he was a proselyte (and as such
ignorant of Hebrew), but it is more probable that
he became a Christian without becoming a Jew,
and the Western reading of Ac 1135 (D) would
require that his conversion to Christianity took
* See next art. under ‘Style.’
VOL. HI,—11

-seventy-four, filled with the Holy Ghost.’

|

For having neither wife
nor children he died in Bithynia at the age of
To
Eusebius (//F ili. 4) we are indebted for some facts,
and he has been followed by Jerome (de Ver.
Iliustr.7). Probably, though not certainly, Euse-
bius’ words-—7rd μὲν γένος ὧν τῶν am’ ᾿Αντιοχείας---
imply that St. Luke came himself from Antioch,g
though some scholars regard this belief as resting
on nothing more substantial than the identification
of St. Luke with Λούκιος of Ac 13! mentioned above.
His special sphere of work is said to have been

* Not Antioch in Pisidia, as Rendall argues on the ground of
the ἡκάς in Ac 1423,

+ For the various forms of the tradition connecting him with
the Epistle to the Hebrews, see HEBREWS in vol. 11. p. 38888,

+ Plummer, Commentary on St. Luke, pp. xxi, XXxil.

§ Ramsay (St. Paul the Trav. 200ff., 3891.) regards St. Luke
as a Macedonian, who ‘belonged to a family that had a con-
nexion with Antioch,’ and thinks Eusebius’ phrase was intended
to preclude the belief that St. Luke himself belonged to Antioch

162 LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

Achaia, but (Const. Apost. vii. 46) another tradi-
tion connects him with Alexandria, where he is
said to have consecrated the second bishop. In
Achaia or in Bithynia (Rom. Martyr., ete.) he
died. As tothe mode ot his death there are two
traditions, one of which (enol. Basil.) says that
he died a peaceful death, the other (Greg. Naz.,
ap. Migne, Put. Gr. xxxv. 589) that le was mar-
tyred under Domitian. His bones are said to have
been carried from Achaia to Constantinople, and
buried there in the twentieth year of Constantius.

Lirerature.—In addition to the patristic references given
above, see Zahn, Einleitung in das NT, ii. 333 tf. Plummer,
commentary on St. Like; Nilles, Calend, Utr, Eceles, > Baring
Gould, Lives of the Saints; Acta Sanctoruin

Lu. J. M. BEBB.

** LUKE, GOSPEL OF.—

1. Authorship and Canonicity.

ὡς Date and Place of Writing.
3. Transmission of the Text.
. Sources used.
5. St. Luke and St. Paul.
i. St. Luke and Josephus,
. Luke and Marcion.
. Luke’s Style,
. Luke's Preface.
. Purpose and Arrangement of the Gospel.
. General Characteristics of the Gospel.

1. AUTHORSHIP AND CANONICITY.—(@) Author-
ship.—The proof that St. Luke was the writer of
the Third Gospel depends partly on internal, partly
on external, evidence.

The internal evidence consists in the connexion
between the Gospel and the Acts which is seen in
the style, and also in the common dedication of
the two books to Theophilus, and the reference in
Ac 1! to a ‘former treatise,’ which was no doubt
the Gospel. It is here assumed (see AcTs for the
arguments to support this view) that St. Luke was
the writer of the Acts, and on this assumption it
is impossible not to accept the Lucan authorship
of the third Gospel. The argument from style
(see below) is quite conclusive. Again, there are
many points of connexion between the Gospel and
Acts other than those of style, as, for instance, the
reference to the Holy Spirit as ‘the promise of the
Father’ (Ac 14; ef. Lk 244), the idea of apostolic

‘witness’? (Lk 2448, Ac passim), the common expla-_

nation of Simon as ὁ ζηλωτήσ in Lk 615 and Ac 13,
but not in the other lists.

The external
references which mention St. Luke by name as the
writer of one of the four Gospels. It is well known
that the earliest allusions to the Gospels do not
give the names of the writers, but so soon as this
mode of reference begins we find St. Luke’s name
connected with one of the Gospels. The earliest

of these is in the Muratorian Fragment, which |

opens With the words tertio evangelii librum secun-
dum Lucan Lucas .. . conscripstt. Irenus re-
peatedly refers to St. Luke by name, the strongest
passage being perhaps Her, ut. xiv. 8, where he
mentions multa que traeveniri possunt a solo Luca
dicta esse, quibus et Marcion et Valentinus utuntur,
and earlier in the same section a rejection of St.
Luke is spoken of as tantamount to a rejection of
‘the Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple.’
In very many other passages Irenzeus definitely
quotes St. Luke (e.g. 38! 322 ete.), and nowhere
is his authorship called in question. Another
passage which gives unquestionable support to St.
Luke’s authorship is to be found in Tert. ¢. Mare.
iv. 2—cf. ih. iv. 5, id evangelium quod Luce
refertur penes nos. So Clem, Alex. (Strom. i. 21)
quotes the Gospel often as by St. Luke.

It is unnecessary to multiply the evidence of

* The title κατὰ Λουκᾶν cannot be taken to prove much
though the forms cata Lucam, οἵοις in MSS of the old Latin, in
Cyprian, and elsewhere, show that the Greek MSS on which they
were based had the titles in 2nd or 3rd cent. (Zahn, Hind. ii. 178).

evidence * is to be found in the |

ρῶν authcrities, for the passages quoted show
| that writers of a comparatively early date and
coming from all parts of the Christian Church
unhesitatingly ascribe the authorship of one of the
| Gospels to St. Luke. ‘It is manifest that in all
| parts of the Christian world the third Gospel .
was universally believed to be the work of St.
Luke. No one speaks doubtfully on this point’
(Plummer, S¢. Luke, p. 16).

| (δ) Canonicity.x—Though the references which
connect Luke by name with the Gospel are, from
the nature of the case, comparatively late, those
which prove its use as an authoritative writing carry
us back very much further. We find. it is true,
no certain trace of its use in the Apostolic Fathers.
‘We must be content to leave it doubtful whether
Clement of Rome knew our Gospel according to
Luke, and the same must be said of Polyearp and
of Ignatius’? (Plummer, /.¢c. p. xxv); but when we
come on to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, the
evidence of a use of this Gospel is abundant and
unquestionable. Justin refers to a number of
details which are found only in this Gospel: thus
he mentions particulars given only in Lk 1. 2, such
as the message of Gabriel (1%) and the journey to
Bethlehem in consequence of the enrolment ; he
also alludes to other incidents from later chapters,
such as our Lord’s being sent to Herod (28°), or the
last word from the Cross (23%), or the explanation
of the Scriptures to the disciples on the way to
Emmaus (244°). The use of St. Luke’s Gospel by
Tatian, who was a scholar of Justin, is equally
clear from the Diatessaron, the second section of
which (as given by Hemphill) contains Lk 15:80

‘These writers sufficiently prove the use of the
Gospel within the Chureh, but perhaps more
striking testimony is to be found in the fact of its
use by those outside the Church, ‘Thus it formed
the basis of the narrative which Marcion drew up
(see below), it was used by the Valentinians in
their system of chronology (Lighttoot, Biblical
Essays, Ὁ. 57), and was the subject of a commentary
by Heracleon (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 9).

It was then, from the first, fully recognized and
used in the Church, and is omitted in no lists of
the canonical books.

Its position in the New Testament Canon among
the Gospels varies. It must be remembered that
the order in which the books suceced each other
would not tend to be fixed until the Codex began
to take the place of the Roll, that is, in the begin-
ning of the 8rd century. Origen (ap. Kus. IEF
vi. 25) mentions as traditional that order with
which we are familiar, Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, and this order is found in most of our
authorities, beginning with the Muratori Canon.
After this the order most frequently found is the
so-called Western order, Matthew, John, Luke,
Mark. The object of this—which is met with
in D, many MSS of the Old Latin, the Gothic
version, and elsewhere—was, no doubt, to bring
together the two apostles and place them first, and
afterwards the ‘apostolic men.’ The Curetonian
Syriac puts St. Luke’s Gospel last, & and X (a
Munich MS of the 9th cent.) have the order John,
Luke, Mark, Matthew, while in two cursives the
order is John, Luke, Matthew. The order in
which the Gospels come in the MSS may have
been affected, moreover, by their supposed chrono-
logical order, or by the symbols assigned to them.
We may perhaps notice here Blass’s view (Τὶ.
of the Gosp. p. 77) that there is evidence in the
spelling adopted by D of ‘a time when there was a
closer connexion between Luke’s first and second
parts than between Luke’s Gospel and the other
Gospels.’

2. DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.—(a) Date.—
Various dates have been assigned to the Gospel,

**Copyright, 1900, by Charles Scribner's Sons

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF 163

ranging from A.D. 56-60 (Blass, Philol. of Gospels,
pp. 53, 54) to some date after A.D. 190. The main
arguinent in favour of the latest date, which was
that accepted by Baur, Zeller, and others, was
the supposed dependence of the Gospel on that
of Marcion; but this argument has been proved
to be valueless by the almost universal agreement
of critics that Marcion is really dependent on St.
Luke. A comparatively late date for the Gospel
has also been urged on the ground of a similar
dependence on Josephus. ‘This, if proved, would
make the date about A.D. 100; but here, again,
the hypothesis must be regarded as unproven.
Nor can any definite and certain conclusion be
reached by comparing St. Luke’s Gospel with those
of St. Matthew and St. Mark, for the dates of
these two books are uncertain. It is true we
have a tradition which Clement of Alexandria
received from οἱ ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβύτεροι (Kus. HWE vi.
14) that the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke
—Td περιέχοντα Tas yeveadoyias—were the first
written. The statement of Irenzeus (iii. 1. 1) need
not be taken as giving the chronological order of
the Gospels (as Zahn, Hinl. ii. 181), for the ἔπειτα,
on which Zahn lays stress to prove this, only
implies that St. John’s Gospel was written later
than the other three, and though dates are by
him assigned to St. Matthew and St. Mark, none
is given for St. Luke, External evidence of any
value as to the relative dates of the three Synoptic
Gospels is therefore not forthcoming; nor does a
comparison of them show very clear results, as
will be seen below.

The first definite piece of evidence to be con-
sidered is that afforded by Ac 11, where reference
is made to a πρῶτος λόγος, Which, on the assumption
that the Acts and the Gospel were both St. Luke’s
writings, is the Gospel, the date of which we are
discussing. ‘The Gospel is therefore prior to the
Acts, but the date of the latter book cannot be
regarded as fixed; and the question is further
complicated, if we attach any weight to Blass’s
view that there were two separate editions of the
Gospel and the Acts. In any case the date of
the Gospel must depend on that of the Acts, and
from a careful comparison of the style of these
two books Sir John Hawkins (/Zore Synoptice, pp.
143-146) draws the conclusion that ‘a considerable
time must have elapsed between the writing of
the two books,’ and that there is ‘some internal
evidence in favour of placing the Gospel at a con-
siderably earlicr date than Acts.’

Another class of arguments is concerned with
data afforded by the Gospel itself. (1) Rams iy (S¢.
Paul the Traveller, p. 387) argues that St. Luke’s
dating of ‘Tiberius’ reign in 3! requires us_ to
reckon it from the time when he was associated
by Augustus in the empire. Such a method of
reckoning, he implies, is so unusual, that ‘there
can be hardly any other reason’ for it ‘than that
the calculation was made under an emperor whose
years were reckoned from his association as col-
league.’ This was the case with ‘Litus, who began
to reign in association with his father in A.D. 71,
and therefore Ramsay dates the writing of St.
Luke’s Gospel about that time, the ‘finishing
touches’ being given while Titus was reigning as
sole emperor, A.D. 179-81, This argument, as the
writer allows, ‘taken by itself would be insuffi-
cient.’

(2) The preface to the Gospel (1!++) states that
there had been ‘many? previous attempts to draw
up ἃ narrative of our Lord’s life, and this requires
us to assume the lapse of some time after our
Lord’s death. The length of the interval will
depend on whether St. Luke’s words are taken
to imply written narratives. ‘The process de-
Scribed in the preface implies a longer period than

would fall within the year A.p. 63: it is probable
that the common basis of our three Synoptic
Gospels was not committed to writing so early’
(Sanday, Jaspiration, p. 278).

(8) It is argued that we find in St. Luke’s Gospel
language so definite and precise in regard to the
circumstances of the destruction of Jerusalem, as
to suggest to us to date the writing of the Gospel
after that event. The three chief passages ad-
duced are 19%-44 21° 21°45, The first of these
passages occurs in the account of our Lord’s
triumphal entry, on His first coming in sight of
the city of Jerusalem. The words are ἥξουσιν
ἡμέραι ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ παρεμβαλοῦσιν οἱ ἐχθροί cov χάρακά
σοι καὶ περικυκλώσουσίν σε, καὶ συνέξουσίν σε πάντοθεν
καὶ ἐδαφιοῦσίν σε καὶ τὰ τέκνα σου ἐν σοί. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν οὐκ
ἔγνως τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς σου. Ilere the con-
eluding words imply that the whole passage is a
comment on the verse which precedes, and which

contains a statement of our Lord’s grief over
Jerusalem for her failure to forecast the conse-
quences of her conduct. The whole incident is

recorded by St. Luke only, which is a sufficient
explanation as to why the words in question
should not be found in Mt or Mk, and they form
an integral part of the incident. Nor is there
anything suspiciously definite in the words, for
if our Lord could foretell (Mt 242, Mk 152, Lk 218)
such a destruction of Jerusalem that ‘not one
stone should be left on another,’ there is nothing
so precise in the words quoted above—which refer
to the process by which that destruction was to
be effected—as to require that St. Luke has in-
serted these words-—and not only these words, but
the whole incident of which they form a part
after the event. In the next passage, 21°9, the
reference made by St. Matthew and St. Mark to
Dn 927 has been dropped, and, instead of the words
ὅταν οὖν ἔδητε TO βδέλυγμα THs ἐρημώσεως. K.T.r., WE
find the phrase ὅταν ἔδητε κυκλουμένην ὑπὸ στρατο-
πέδων ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, κιτιλ. The fact of our having
here a substitution tor words found in St. Matthew
and St. Mark, and not, as in the last. case, an
addition, is at first sight more suspicious. But
one very reasonable view is that St. Luke is giving
here an explanation of the words quoted from
Daniel, the exact meaning of which is uncertain
even now, while they would probably have been
quite unintelligible to St. Luke’s Gentile readers.
Some support is to be found for this view in St.
Luke’s use of the word ἐρήμωσις at the end of the
verse, Which may be an allusion to the words τὸ
βδέλνγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. Another equally possible
explanation of St. Luke’s divergence from St.
Matthew and St. Mark here is that he is drawing
from a different source from that used by the
other two Gospels, and this is borne out by
numerous other passages in this chapter, where
St. Luke’s independence is clear. The suggestion,
therefore, that the words were inserted after the
destruction of Jerusalem is only one of three pos-
sible explanations of the facts, and is not required
by the words themselves, which, like those in
194-44, are not, after all, particularly definite.
The last passage mentioned above, viz. 2124, is also
peculiar to St. Luke—vesobvrat στόματι μαχαίρης καὶ
αἰχμαλωτισθήσονται εἰς τὰ ἔθνη πάντα, καὶ ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ
ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν, ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ
ἐθνῶν. But these words only state the destruction
of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, and the further
thought of a terminus ad quem for the punishment
of the Jews is found in Ro 11%, an Epistle earlier
than the earliest date assigned to the Gospel.

Not one of the passages just examined seems to
the writer to contain anything incompatible with
the reference of the Gospel to an early date, and
all the arguments appear to rest on a very pre-
carious basis. Another passage (2151. 82) has been

aa

—___—

164 LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

thought to imply that, by leaving out the words
ἐπὶ θύραις found in the parallel passages of St.
Matthew and St. Mark,—érapv ἔδητε ταῦτα γιγνόμενα,
γινώσκετε ὅτι ἔγγυς ἐστιν ἐπὶ Oipas,—St. Luke has
emphasized a distinction between the fall of Jeru-
salem and the end of the world which they have
not, and is therefore later. ‘The next verse, stat-
ing that ‘this generation shall not pass away till
all these things be fulfilled,’ has, on the other
hand, been used (eg. by Weiss, Introduction to
the NT, ii. 313) as a proof that because it is im-
plied that the ‘second coming of Christ was still
expected by the first generation of Christians,’
therefore the words would not have been allowed
to stand in this form after about A.D. 80,

More weight may perhaps be attached to the
evidence afforded by the theological terms used
in this Gospel—as, for example, the expression
ὁ κύριος of our Lord (οἵ, Br. Pet.)—some of which
point to a date later than that of St. Matthew or
St. Mark. Another proof of a similar kind is to
be found in the points of contact which have been
noticed between this Gospel and that of St. John
(see below, p. 167).

These arguments, and that based on the lapse
of time required by the circumstances presupposed
in the prefiee, seem to preclude a very early date,
and there is little or no evidence to require a late
date. We may accept, perhaps, some date about
the year 80, that is, the beginning rather than the
end of the period (ΔΛ... 78-93) within which it is
placed by Harnack (Chronologie, p. 240 4f.).

(b) Piace.—In regard to the place at which the
Gospel was written, the data are too vague or
too late to give a certain conclusion. We have
seen above (p. 162) that St. Luke’s sphere of
preaching was associated with Greece, and so
Jerome tells us that ‘in Achalie Beothieque (var.
lec. Bithyniw) partibus volumen condidit’? (Vulgate,
ed. Wordsworth, i. p. 12), and within this district

Godet selects Corinth. Another tradition con-
nects St. Luke with Egypt, and accordingly a

catalogue of NT books aseribed to Ebed Jesu
(14th cent.) assigns the writing of the Gospel to
Alexandria. The address to Theophilus, and the
mention of St. Luke as St. Paul’s companion at
Rome, have led Keim, Holtzmann, and others to
place it at Rome, but we have no evidence to
prove this. Other scholars (as Michaelis, Thiersch,
and Blass) have fixed on Cesarea, others again
(e.g. Hilgenfeld) have suggested Asia Minor.
Many of these places and also others will be
found mentioned in the subscriptions to the Gospel
found in MSS of the Greek and of the versions
(Tischendorf, VT, i. 758). We cannot attempt,
in the absence of data, to decide finally between
the many various alternative suggestions just
mentioned, and may agree with Weiss (Jntroduc-
tion, Eng. tr. it. 314) that ‘all coniectures as to
the place of composition are quite visionary, and
have no value whatever.’

3. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT.—It is neces-
sary to deyote a separate section to this point,
because of the questions suggested by the ‘ West-
ern’ readings in St. Luke’s Gospel. Blass began
by basing on the ‘Western’ readings in the Acts
(which see) a theory that they preserve for us
another and earlier edition than that with which
we are familiar, and in his Acta Apostolorum
secundiin formamn que videtur Romanam (Leipzig,
1896) he attempted a reproduction of this. Since
then he has extended his theory to the Gospel
(Leipzig, 1897), but with this important difference,
that while the Western text of the Acts gives
us the earlier of the two editions, the same
text of the Gospel is in his opinion the later and
revised edition. Some explanation is necessary of

Western text in the two books, for in the Acts
these consist largely of additions to the ordinary
text, while in the Gospel they are, for the most
part, omissions, and Blass’s view (Philol. of the
Gospels, pp. 105, 104) is that the second edition
would in each case be shorter, for the author
would be naturally ‘disposed to omit many un-
essential circumstances and details.’ This is one
of several ‘a priori arguments,’ as Blass himself
calls them (1.6. p. 102), for a theory, which is an
extension of a view tenable and accepted by many
in regard to the Acts, but in the Gospel not estab-
lished by the facts. :

As far as the Acts is concerned, the theory of
two editions goes back to J. le Clerc (Clericus),
ie. to the middle of the 17th cent. Lightfoot
(Fresh Revision, p. 29) seems not unfavourable to
the view that in the Gospel also ‘the evangelist
may have issued two separate editions.’ It is
only within the last few years, however, that this
theory has seriously challenged the attention ot
textual critics. What, then. are the facts as far
as the Gospel is concerned ? The most. striking
are the series of omissions which we meet with
chiefly in the later, but also more sparsely in
the earlier, chapters. In these cases the omussions
are made by the same authorities for the most
part, sometimes with the support of a MS or
version not necessarily * Western.? ΑΒ. ilustra-
tions of sach omissions may be quoted the leaving
out in 249% of the words καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν,
in 249 of the words καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς Tas
χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας, and in 24°! of the words καὶ
ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. From other parts of the
Gospel we may quote 104, where μεριμνᾷς καὶ θορυ-
βάζῃ wept πολλά is shortened into θορυβάςῃ, and the
first part of the next verse is omitted, or 1219
where (in the parable of the Rich Fool) the words
ἔχεις πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ κείμενα εἰς ἔτη πολλά, ἀναπαύου,
φάγε. πίε. εὐφραίνου, are reduced to ἔχεις πολλὰ ἀγαθά,
avaravov. These passages suficiently illustrate
the nature of the omissions. We find also some
additions, but they are very few. As an instance
may be quoted the Jong addition in regard to the
man working on the Sabbath day, which we find
in D after 64. Of course Blass has to give some
explanation as to why in a second dratt these
omissions or additions were made, ‘Thus, of the
insertion at 64, he says (1.6. p. 154) that it was
probably omitted by St. Luke as likely to give
offence to Christian or other Jews who would
form a ‘considerable part’ of the Oricntal con-
eregations. Of the omission of the account of the
Ascension in 245! the explanation given is that it
was (lc. p. 140) ‘to fit the close of the Gospel
(Western text) to the beginning of the Acts (West-
ern text),’ or that it ‘might be not without some
degree of probability ascribed to some reader of
Luke who was offended by the repetition in Ac 1°
(1.6. p. 142). These will illustrate the explanations
by which the position is maintained, and in regard
to the last it will be noticed that the theory of
revision by St. Luke is so far modified that it is
referred to ‘some reader.”

What are we to say in regard to this theory
as an explanation of the facts? We may admit
that this Gospel, as having been addressed firstly
to an individual, and afterwards to a wider circle,
may have had a different textual history from the
others, and we may make all allowance for the
greater difficulty of establishing the theory in the
Gospel than in the Acts, because the Western
text in the Gospel differs almost entirely by its
omissions, and because the early history of the
Synoptie text must be obscure. Further, we may
allow that the term * Western non-interpolations ’
given to these omitted passages by Westcott ana

the difference between the characteristics of the | Hort is not applicable, inasmuch as there is, as

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF 165

a rule, little besides the suggestion of *‘ assimila-
tion’ to show that they are interpolations, And
yet we must demand further proof before we can
accept Blass’s view, for the arguments on which it
rests are inconclusive.

In the first place, the distribution of the pheno-
mena is at once too wide and too narrow. Similar
omissions are found in the same group of authori-
ties, or in some members of the group, in the other
Gospels, and elsewhere in the NI. We might
quote, for example, the omission of all reference
to the Pharisees in Mk 10? and other similar
instances, but two illustrations from Mt 199 and
1929 will serve to show not only that the omissions
are widely distributed, but also that they are
capable of being explained by a divergence in
the oral tradition. In the first passage, a number
of Western authorities (here with δὲ and other
Greek MSS) omit the words καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην
γαμήσας μοιχᾶται, and in the second many of the
same authorities (here with B) omit the words
ἢ γυναῖκα. The distribution of the instances of
omission in Western texts is therefore too wide.
It is also too narrow, for the most important of
the cases come in the last few chapters of the
Gospel, and are sufticiently explained by ‘the
natural variations between the reports given by
two different hearers of a story orally delivered
in the presence of both’ (Salmon, Teat. Criticism,
p. 148).

Again, it may reasonably be objected that ‘if
there had been a definite Western written text
we should have been able to reproduce it in a
way we cannot now’ (Salmon, 1.6. p. 148). There
is certainly very early support for many of the
readings, so that we may well believe that many
of them ‘express the form in which the Gospel
was read in the Church of Rome in apostolic or
sub-apostolic times,’ yet still the distribution of
the support cannot be regarded as indicating two
editions, one Eastern and one Western, and to
meet this difficulty Blass has to fall back upon
the position that in none of our authorities have
we ‘the Western text while still in its pure form.’
Blass, indeed, states that ‘besides conflations with
the other Gospels, which began at a very early
date, conflations [of the Western] with the Oriental
text must have been more inevitable than in the
case of the Acts.’ As instances of such ‘ confla-
tion,’ by which we suppose he means corruption
of the Western text by the Eastern, he would,
presumably, regard cases where the authorities
on which he relies are divided, as, for example,
the insertion of δευτεροπρώτῳ (61), or the word from
the Cross (2334). We cannot deny the very early
and varied character of the attestation which is
found for the Western readings, when we meet
with them in Justin, Tatian, and Marcion. We
can say that the evidence of these authorities does
not allow us to rest on their evidence an edition
. such as that of Blass.

Again, it is urged by Corssen, whose view is
endorsed by Bousset (Theol. Rundschau, July
1898), that the language of the Western text, as
Blass has constructed it, often shows an absence
of marked characteristics of St. Luke’s style, and
therefore is not the work of St. Luke himself, but
‘a revision by another hand.’

Finally, it has to be urged, if not against the
theory as a whole, at any rate against Blass’s
presentation of it, that the selection of one reading
in preference to another is often very arbitrary,
and that readings are adopted which have only
very slight support, or may be shown to be inferior
to the ordinary text, and less original. Some of
these are collected by Zahn (inl. ii. 354 ff.).

The theory, then, of two editions has been
rejected by most scholars, even by those who have

accepted it in regard to the Acts, and we must say
that it is at any rate unproved. ‘The phenomena on
which it rests point at most (Harnack, Chronologie,
p. 700n.) to a correction of St. Luke’s Gospel, not
to two editions of it; they are not peculiar to the
third Gospel, and, though they often preserve an
original reading, they are far from representing
always the best text, and they are sutiiciently
explained by a consideration of the circumstances
under which the Gospels were first circulated and
took written shape.

4, ‘TILE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL.—The deter-
mination of the sources used by St. Luke must
depend partly upon external, partly upon internal,
evidence. Under the first head fall the assertions
of the preface, and the statements made by early
writers as to St. Luke’s connexion with st. Paul.
Both these are dealt with below, Under internal
evidence will be included arguments based on
points of style, subject-matter, and arrangement,
which involve the question of St. Luke’s relation
to the other Gospels, and bring us face to face
with the Synoptic problem. This problem, which
is one of ‘extraordinary difficulty and complexity ’
(Sanday, Inspiration, Ὁ. 281), need be discussed
here only so far as it concerns St. Luke.

The first point to consider is the amount of
matter which is peculiar to St. Luke, and_ this
may be estimated in different ways.*

‘ According to one calculation, if the contents of
the Synoptic Gospels are divided into 172 sections,
of these 172 Luke has 127, Matthew 114, and Mark
84: and of these 172 Luke has 48 which are
peculiar to himself, Matthew has 22, and Mark
has 5. According to another calculation [that of
Reuss], if the total be divided into 124 sections, of
these Luke has 93, Matthew 78, and Mark 67, and
of these 124 Luke has 38 peculiar to himself,
Matthew 17, and Mark 2” (Plummer, St. Luke,
p. Xxxv).—Or we may consider the kind, as well
as the quantity, of peculiar matter, and then we
find that of the recorded miracles 6 are peculiar to
St. Luke, 3 to St. Matthew, and 2 to St. Mark ;
while of the parables, 18 are peculiar to St. Luke,
10 to St. Matthew, and 1 to St. Mark. Or we
may take the more mechanical method of reckon-
ing by the number of verses, and we find that St.
Matthew (RV) has 1068 verses, of which 857 are
not found in St. Mark or St. Luke ; St. Mark (RV)
has 674, of which 50 are peculiar to this Gospel ;
while St. Luke (RV) has 1149, of which 612 are
only found there. These figures show roughly the
state of the case, and we may say that the peculiar
matter in St. Luke is rather more than half of the
whole Gospel. The following is a list of the
more important longer sections found only in St.
Luke : —

1-2.

310-14 the questions asked of John the Baptist by ‘the multi-
tudes,’ * publicans,* and soldiers.

323-38 the genealogy of our Lord.

410-80 at Nazareth in the synagogue [this may be the narrative
of Mt 1354 and Mk 61, but is quite independent ].

51-11 the miraculous draught of fishes, and call of the disci-
ples.

62426 the denunciations on the rich, and on those well spoken
of.

71-7 the raising of the widow’s son at Nain.

736-50 the anointing by the sinner, and parable of the Two
Debtors.

813 the attendant women, the wife of Chuza

951-56 the rejection at the Samaritan village.

961. 62 a would-be follower,

101 the mission of the Seventy [our Lord’s address has much
in common with the address to the Twelve, Mt 10l,
Mk 618.1,

10170 the return of the Seventy—Satan fallen from heaven,

1028-42 parable of the Good Samaritan.

* See, e.g., Westcott, Introduction to Study of Gospelx®
p. 191 ff.; Plummer, St. Luke, p. xxxv ff. ; Reuss, ist. of Ser.,
Eng. tr. p. 176 ff; Hawkins, ον Synoptice (from which the
calculation by verses is taken).

166 LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

1158 parable of the Importunate Friend,

1127-28 the comment of the woman on our Lord’s teaching.

4vl821 the avaricious brother, leading to the parable of the
Rich Fool.

4247-50,

131-17 the Galilieans slain by Pilate, the falling of the tower in
Siloam, the parable of the Barren Fig-tree, healing of the
woman with the spirit of infirmity.

1331-89 the message to Herod Antipas.

141-14 healing of the man with the dropsy.

1415-24 parable of the Supper [οἷ Mt 227].

1428-35 conditions of diseipleship—the tan building a tower—
the king going to war,

158-2 parables of Lost Piece of Silver, and Prodigal Son,

161-12 parable of Unjust Steward.

1614. 15 the Pharisees’ comment, and our Lord’s rebuke.

168-31 parable of Rich Man int Lazarus.

177-19 the nature of serviee—the Healing of the Ten Lepers.

1728: 29 82 references to Lot.

1sl-14 the Unrighteous Judge—the Pharisee and the Publican.

191-10 Zacchieus.

191-27 the parable of the Pounds [but ef. Mt 254, the par-
able of the Talents].

1939-44 the Lament over Jerusalem,

Qy15, 27-32. 35-35 at the Last Supper.

287-12 Jesus sent to Herod.

9327-31 the daughters of Jerusalem,

2389-45 the penitent thief.

9346 the word from the Cross.

2418-53 the walk to Emmaus: the appearance to the Eleven,
and final instructions ; the Ascension(’).

Besides these longer sections there are a number
of shorter passages of varying length and import-
ance, which are peculiar to St. Luke, but are
embedded in material common to St. Luke and
one or both of the other Synoptic narratives.
These amount to about 113 verses out of the 612
mentioned above as peculiar to St. Luke, and will
be found collected in Hawkins, Πογ Synoptica,
Ῥ. 158 ff. In his ‘tentative and to a large extent
speculative attempt’ Sir John Hawkins classifies
these variations as follows :—(1) Cases where Luke
may have retained while Matthew omits the occa-
sions of sayings, Which they drew from a common
source, e.g. 111 13% 2 ete.; (2) cases where Luke
may have retained while Matthew, after
manner, shortens, ¢.9.
from other sources, e.g. 228-44; (4) independent
traditions, or variants of traditions, preserved also
elsewhere, e.g. 128 fof. Mt 256, Mk 1534]; (5)
additions which may be editorial, bringing out the
prayerfulness of Jesus, e.g. 6%, or the right use of
wealth, 6.0. 634, or heightening the effect of the
narrative, e.g. 318 98; (6) Pauline expressions,
e.g. 213+; (7) other various additions, probably
editorial.

Finally, we have to mention cases where the
general agreement of St. Luke with the other
Synoptic narratives is clear, but where we find
changes of expression or of order made by him in
going over common ground. Such will be in part
editorial and due to preference for a particular
word or to the need of explanation, in part due no
doubt to oral transmission. Special mention must
also be made of the evidence afforded by ‘doub-
lets,’ i.e. passages of similar content occurring in
two different places in the same Gospel, and pos-
sibly introduced trom different ‘sources.’ These
are carefully examined in Hawkins (Hor. Sym.
p. 64¢tf.), who sums up the evidence as pointing
in three directions—(1) to a use of two sources,
probably Marcan and Logian; (2) to a freedom of
the editors in using their own phraseology ; (9) to
divergencies between “Matthew and Luke which
may perhaps imply the use of a special source by
the latter.

Such are the data we have to discuss, and in
dealing with them in relation to St. Juuke’s sources
two general considerations are clear—(1) that St.
Luke must have had some souree or sources not
used by St. Matthew and St. Mark, and that, as
the above references show, not merely for one part
of our Lord’s ministry, but affecting the whole
of it. It is clear also that this source preserved

both narrative and teaching: (2) that ‘both St.

| Matthew and St. Luke, and especially St. Luke,

his |
74#6; (3) later insertions |

/ used it, became our canonical St. Mark.

have so ** worked over’? the sources they employed
that they frequently represent to us the substance
rather than the words of the original documents’
(Hawkins, 1.ς. p. 92). This fact obviously increases
the ditticulty of tracing the sources.

It will only be possible here to state, in a very
summary way, the relation of St. Luke (@) to St.
Mark, (0) to St. Matthew, (¢) to St. John, and
then (d@) to consider this special source or sources.

(a) St. Mark and St. Luke are mentioned as at
Rome together (Col 41-4, Philem#+, cf. 2-11, 411),
and, moreover, it is generally agreed that St. Mark’s
Gospel represents, in the main, the earliest form of
the Gospel narrative, and may, therefore, have
existed in substance before St. Luke. Weiss, in
his Markus-Evangelium, established the fact of a
relationship between them; and now ‘it is un-
necessary to prove anew that Luke used Mark’
(Harnack, Chronologie, p. 652), for * the use of Mark
as one of Luke’s sources is a generally-established
fact of Gospel criticism? (Feine, Kine vorcanonische

leherlieferung, etc. p. 4). At the same time, the
following points require explanation. Things are
omitted by St. Matthew and St. Luke which are
recorded by St. Mark, eg. Mk 476% 8ff or
omitted by St. Luke which are recorded by St.
Matthew and St. Mark, e.g. 6%, and we ask,
why, if St. Mark was used by St. Luke, were
these omitted 2? Again, we find instances in which
St. Matthew and St. Luke agree agaiast St. Mark,
and frequent cases where St. Mark ana St. Luke
are independent in regard to details. A sufficient
explanation of these faets would be that St. Luke
used not St. Mark as we have it, but the source
which underlies St. Mark, an Ur-Markus, which,
by additions and alterations made after St. Luke
Weiss,
however, maintains strongly that it was our St.
Mark which St. Luke used, and Sir J. Hawkins
explains away the difficulties which have just been
urged (1) by showing that many of the omissions
from St. Mark, which St. Matthew and St. Luke
make (generally independently), may well have
been made by them with St. Mark before them,
and that ‘the results are largely in favour of the
view that the Petrine source used by the two later
Synoptists was not an Ur-Markus, but St. Mark’s
Gospel almost as we have it now’ (/.¢. p. 122) ;
(2) by suggesting that the agreements of St.
Matthew and St. Luke against St. Mark, so tar
as they imply a common source, were first made
in one of these two later Gospels, and then were
carried across, intentionally or unconsciously, to
the other, either by scribes or more probably in
the course of oral transmission (/.¢. p. 176).

(b) St. Matthew and St. Luke have a great deal
in common which is not found in St. Mark, and
of this very much is oceupied with our Lord’s dis-
courses. ‘This general resemblance in material
not found in St. Mark may be explained on the
hypothesis of Simons, Holtzmann, Wendt, and
others, that St. Luke used the Gospel of St.
Matthew, or by supposing that both used a com-
mon written source, such as the Λόγια might have
been, or a common oral tradition. It is difficult to
believe that St. Luke had St. Matthew’s Gospel
before him, when we consider their great independ-
ence, amounting sometimes to divergence, as in
regard to chs. 1 and 2, and the genealogy, or in
reference to details of fact as in 1835 244. We may
accept Weiss’ statement (Introduction to the NT,
ii. 294) that ‘Luke’s acquaintance with and use
of the apostolic source of the first Gospel is just as
certain as his want of acquailtance with the
Gospel itself.’ Zahn, indeed, maintains (inl. ii.
402 ff.) not only that St. Luke did not use St

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF 167

—

Matthew, but also that their resemblances in parts
where they are not both dependent on St. Mark
are sufticiently explained by the use of a common
oral tradition. But such close verbal agreement
as we find in Mt 62 = Lk 1633 and Mt 6?" = Lk 1225
seems to require the use of ἃ common written
Greek source (Feine, Uc. pp. 10, 11) and not (as
Resch) different Greek translations of an Aramaic
original. It is probable that they had collections
of our Lord’s sayings in several forms and in
different. connexions. The use of some such
sources will explain on the one hand how it is that
the peculiarities of St. Luke’s style are most rare
in reports of discourses common to him and St.
Matthew, showing the fidelity with which he has
reproduced them, while on the
explain the differences both in expression and
context which exist in the two Gospels. We see
how it may have been possible for St. Matthew to
bring together all the sayings, as in the Sermon on
the Mount, which St. Luke has scattered over
many parts of his Gospel. We get also on. this
hypothesis an explanation of the ‘doublets,’ and
see why ‘the original form is preserved sometimes
in the first, sometimes in the third Gospel’ (Weiss),
while the original context also seems to be kept
sometimes in St. Luke, sometimes in St. Matthew
(Weiss, 1.6. p. 292 ff.).

(c) St. Luke and St. John.—We have already
noticed (above, p. 164) that St. Luke has more
points in common with St. John than either St.
Matthew or St. Mark has, but they are not enough
to establish any literary relation. Among such
points of contact may be noted the allusions to a
ministry in Judea (444 1334) ; the Galilean journey
before the death of John the Baptist (wh. see),
implied by the term ὑπέστρεψεν (44), 225) (= Jn 18!
τὸ δεξιόν) ; the visit of Peter to the sepulchre, 2.412

= Jn 203). Others may be seen by a reference to
the ninth of the groups marked in the Ammonian
sections, or in Weiss (1.6. p. 207 n.) or in Holtz-
mann (Joh. Evang. p. 6ff.). The result of a com-
parison does not ‘establish a literary relation,’
but indicates some common points in the oral
tradition used by both.

(d) St. Luke's special source or sources.—In face
of the large amount (see above, p. 165) peculiar to
St. Luke, we are justified in assuming that St.
Luke had access to some source or sources not used
by St. Matthew or St. Mark. Our object here
must be to try and determine the extent and nature
of these sources. This we might expect to do,
partly from the style, partly from the subject-matter.
(1) In regard to the first we do not get much help,
because St. Luke has so worked over the sources
that they are permeated by his own style ; nor do
the Hebraisms really help us much, if at all,
because on one theory (see below, p. 169) they are
artificially distributed by St. Luke to suit his
subject-matter, while according to another, and, as
it seems to the present writer, much truer, view
they are not due to the sources but are charac-
teristic of St. Luke’s style, and therefore appear in
the connecting links between the narratives. It
is possible that in such summaries of history or
teaching as we get in 44-9 44 etc., we may find,
as in Ac, the marks of the beginning or end of
documents used. Other expressions, like εἶπεν δέ
(424 63" etc.) or ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, may point in the
same direction, but they occur too frequently to be
safely used in this way.

(2) The subject-matter has to be considered
under the two main divisions of narrative and dis-
course. he additions in the narrative begin with
the first two chapters, and are scattered over the
whole Gospel. Some of these are sufficiently ex-
plained by oral tradition, such as the additional

other hand it will |

99 1331 237), which it is not fanciful to connect with
Chuza. To the same sort of tradition may be due
the additions which we find in the narratives of
the Passion and Resurrection (¢.g. 2224 δ᾽ 23412. 27-31
etc.), or the little differences of detail either by
way of addition or correction which we find in the
material which St. Luke has in common with the
other Gospels (see p. 105). This would explain
also points of difference in the order in which the
material is arranged (e.g. 22°34), We have also,
finally, to take into account cases where a harra-
tive is preserved in St. Luke, but in a form quite
independent of the other Gospels, ¢.g. those of 41%
5 ltt. 736,

In regard to the discourses we find very puzzling
phenomena. A large amount of them is common
to St. Matthew and St. Luke and not found in St.
Mark. These are no doubt due to some such
source as the Adya, and Sir J. Hawkins (J.c.
pp. 88, 89) in a ‘tentative’ list ascribes some 72
passages to this source, apart from the passages
derived through St. Mark. These amount to some
185 verses, or about one-sixth of the whole Gospel.
The special point which requires notice is that more
than two-thirds of this material appears in quite a
different connexion in St. Matthew and St. Luke.
There is nothing impossible in the supposition that
some of this teaching was repeated by our Lord on
more than one oceasion, and so preserved in both
places. Thus the teaching about anxiety occurs
in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 625) and also as a
corollary to the parable of the Rich Fool (Lk 12°).
The warning against serving two masters occurs
in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 674) and also as
an addition to the parable of the Unjust Steward
(Lk 1613), As a rule, St. Matthew has collected
together (e.g. ch. 10) what St. Luke has pre-
served in connexion with separate incidents ; but
sometimes the reverse has happened, as in the
passage beginning Lk 12%. The ‘doublets’? al-
ready referred to (see p. 166), which occur chiefly
in the discourses, are another perplexing factor.
These have been most fully dealt with by Sir J.
Hawkins (lc. pp. 64-92), and his conclusions have
been already given.

These differences in regard to the discourses may
or may not have been due to the use of a special
source by St. Luke. There can be no doubt as to
some special source for a large part of the material
found in the long section from 951 onwards, most
of which is recorded with only the vaguest refer-
ences to time and place, and some of which seems
obviously out of place, e.g. the lament over Jeru-
salem 1384, while in other places there are marks
of a grouping which regards the subject dealt with,
such as prayer or the responsibility of riches.

The most elaborate attempt to reproduce the
special source used by St. Luke is that of Feine.
He regards this special source as an enlarged edi-
tion of the collection of discourses common to St.
Luke with St. Matthew. To this had been added
(1) anumber of discourses and parables, (2) aseries
of narratives. Following Lipsius, he regards it as
a Jewish-Christian source, perhaps (1.6. p. 154)
originating from the Jerusalem community, written
in Greek, not after A.D. 70, and later than the
common groundwork of the Synoptic Gospels.

A summary of the results of this section would
show that the sources which St. Luke used were
as follows :— Firstly, he follows, over a large part
of the narrative, the Gospel of St. Mark, and that
probably in the form in which we have it, and not
merely some underlying document.—Secondly, the
matter common to St. Luke and St. Matthew, not
found in St. Mark, implies a common written
source, and that requirement is to be satisfied by
the hypothesis, not of a direct use of St. Matthew

references which St. Luke makes to Herod (e.g. 3! | by St. Luke, but by the supposition that both have

ace sama}

|

168 LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

used some one collection, or more, of our Lord’s
discourses.— Besides these, St. Luke seems to have
had access to oral tradition, by which he corrects,
or supplements, the narratives common to him and
the others.—Zastly, he used, especially for chs. 1 and
2 and the section beginning with 951. some special
written sources, which do not supply much infor-
mation as to Galilee, and may have been con-
nected in origin with Jerusalem. This would suit
Feine’s view that the special source of St. Luke
is that used in Ac 1-12, and would explain the
points of contact with St. John noticed above.
There is nothing to warrant the view that this
source was Ebionitic in character, or prejudiced in
favour of any peculiar and one-sided presentation
of the history and teaching of our Lord.

ὃ. ST. LUKE AND ST. PAUL.—The passages
already quoted (Col 414, 2 Ti 4%, Philem?) are
evidence of a close connexion of St. Luke with
St. Paul at Rome, and if we add to these the ‘ we-
sections’ of Ac, St. Luke will be seen to have
been with St. Paul for lone periods together be-
tween the date of Ac 16! and that of 2 Ti 41, To
describe this intimate relationship many different
expressions are used by early writers. The
Muratorian Fragment (as emended by Westcott)
says: Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi cui
eum Paulus quasi ut juris stud/osum secundum
adsumsisset nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit ;
Treneus (Llerr, iii. 1) says : ὁ ἀκόλουθο; Παύλου τὸ ὑπ᾽
ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ κατέθετο, and
more generally describes St. Luke (dlr. iii. 10. 1,
14. 12) as seetator et discipulus apostolorum, and
tnseparabilis a Paulo et cooperarius eius in evan-
gelio; Tertullian (¢. Ware. iv. 2) describes St. Paul
as St. Luke's i/lwiminator, and (ib. iv. 5) says:
Luce digestum Paulo adsecribere solent. Jerome
(de Vir. Iilustr. § 7) says St. Luke was. sectator
apostoli Pauli. None of these terms seems to
imply as close a relationship as that between St.
Peter and St. Mark in regard to the writing of
the Gospel. They do not support the view men-
tioned by Origen (ap. Eus. WE iii. 4, vi. 25) that
the expression ‘according to my Gospel? (Ro 213
16%, 2 Ti 2%) refers to that of St. Luke. Nor do
they lead us to believe that St. Luke derived all
or most of his information from St. Paul, for that
would be contrary to his own words in his preface.
Nor is there any reason, apart from the ‘strong
personal affection and enthusiastic admiration for
Paul” manifest in Ac, to regard the third Gospel
as Pauline, in the sense of its being a polemic
in favour of Pauline doctrine, or a ‘revision of a
hypothetical one-sided Pauline primitive Luke,
written with a conciliatory aim’ (Baur, Scholten,
etc.). On the other hand, it is difticult to main-
tain (as Jiingst, SA, 1896, p. 215 ff.) that there are
no traces of Pauline influence. The points in
which this influence are indicated are firstly in the
actual Greek words and expressions used, secondly
in the mode in which the teaching is presented,
Thus, in regard to the first point, while the
vocabularies of the Gospels give 32 words found
only in St. Mt and St. Paul, 22 found only in St.
Mark and St. Paul, and 21 found only in St. John
and St. Paul, we get as many as 101 found only in
St. Luke and St. Paul. Again, of the ‘character-
istic words and phrases’ which mark the three Syn-
optists, the proportion common to St. ona and St.
Matthew is rather above, and to St. Pauf and St.
Mark rather below one-half, while nearly two-thirds
are common toSt, Luke’s Gospel and St. Paul. These
details are taken from Hawkins οἷν δ bat
the points of language common to St. Paul and St.
Luke have been often collected, and are clearly
and most fully tabulated in Plummer (Commentary
on St. Luke, p. liv ff). In regard to the actual
teaching conveyed in the Gospel, there is evidence

that many leading ideas of St. Paul’s are to be
found in St. Luke. Thus both agree in laying
Stress on the universality of the Gospel, on the
need of πίστις, on the χάρις Shown by God to men,
on the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit.
Thus there are many points of contact between
St. Luke and St. Paul, both in the language they
use and in the teaching which they emphasize.
Many passages have been set side by side to show
the close relation of St. Luke to St. Paul (Resch,
dlussercanonische Paralleltexte, p. 121; Plummer,
ic. p. Xliv; Weiss, le. p. 812); from among them
the following may be selected, 1 Th 5°=Lk 213),
1 Co 11%-°6= Lk 22), 1 Co 155= Lk 243, 1 ‘Ti 58 =
Lk 107, 1 Co 107, =Lk 108, Eph 64=Lk 1239,

6. ST. LUKE AND JOSEPHUS.—The relation of
St. Luke to Josephus has been discussed in regard
to Acts (see vol. i. p. 30), and for the Gospel it is
equally true that the differences ‘are only conceiv-
able on the supposition of independence. Belser,
in two articles in the Theologische Quartalschrift
for 1895 and 1896, shows that the arguments of
Krenkel (Josephus und Lucas, Leipzig, 1894) to
establish a connexion, are based partly on resem-
blances which prove nothing, such as the use of
words like πορεύεσθαι and αὐξάνειν, partly on ex-
pressions used certainly by both writers, but in
different senses. The literary points in common
are sufliciently explained in other ways, as, for
instance, by the influence of the LXX on both,
while many of the alleged instanzes are ‘the
common material of various Greek writers.’ When
we pass from the language used to the facts referred
to by the two authors, their connexion is equally
unproved. Zahn (int. ‘i. 394 ff.) shows this in
regard to their references to the Census. Both
writers mention it, but the area which it eoncerned
is limited in Josephus to the territory of Archelaus
(Ant. XVUL i. 1, ii. 13 BY VIL. viii. 1), or at most
extends to Syria (And. XVII. xiii. 5), and is not, as
in Lk 21-ὸ an event of world-wide importance.
Again, Josephus seems to know nothing of the
official position of Quirinius in Syria, or at most
only vaguely implies it. ‘No single historical
fact of Luke finds its explanation by means of the
hypothesis that he has read Josephus. On the
contrary, he often shows a knowledge clearly
independent of Josephus in regard to historical
events of the time, and in regard to persons more
or less prominent’ (Zahn, 1.6. p.397). ΑΒ instances
may be quoted the facts mentioned in Lk 83 131
2.15, ‘These, however, only show that, independ-
ently of Josephus, St. Luke had detailed informa-
tion ; they do not disprove a use of Josephus. The
arguments dealing with the question are summed
up by Clemen in his Chronologie d. Paul. Bricfe,
Halle, 1895. We must suppose (with Schiirer) either
that St. Luke did not use Josephus at all, or that
if he did he forthwith forgot what he had learnt
from him. As maintaining a connexion between
the two writers may be quoted Holtzmann, Krenkel,
Keim, Hausrath, and others; while their inde-
pendence is upheld by such authorities as Schiirer,
Harnack, and Zahn. In the words of the last-
named we need not use further argument to
support the view that ‘Luke could have followed
Josephus as an authority neither ἴῃ historical
matters nor in his Greek style’ (1.6. p. 397).

7. ST. LUKE AND MARCION.—It is generally
adinitted by all scholars at the present day that
the Gospel of St. Luke was the foundation of
Marcion’s Gospel, and that Marcion’s work was
not enlarged so as to become our third Gospel.
Such was the unanimous opinion of early and inde-
pendent witnesses. Thus Irenzeus (Hier. 1. xxvii.
2) speaks of Marcion as cireumcidens id quod est
secundum Lucam evangelium, and (ib. 111. xii. 12)
describes Marcion and others as decurtantes secun-

| Ses

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF 169

dum Lucam evangelinm; Tertullian (6. Mare. ig
10. 1) speaks of Marcion as one qui evangelia
corrosit. The same is true of Epiphanius. It is
only in quite recent times, and partly on grounds
of textual criticism, that it has been maintained,
as by Baur and Ritschl, that Marcion’s was the
earlier form; but subsequent investigations have
established, beyond ἃ possibility of doubt, that
the statements of Ireneus, quoted above, give the
true state of the case. It is possible to reconstruct,
almost in its entirety, from the quotations of
Tertullian and others, the form of Marcion’s
Gospel. This has been done most recently by Zahn
(Geschichte des Nanons, i. O74 Τῆς, i. 409... Omit-
ting all the first three chapters except the chrono-
logical data in 81, Marcion begins with 414, and,
except for one or two small omissions, CG. 72035,

woes-on to 112% ° ‘Then, de" (the hag ha to
Jonah), 11! (ref. to OT history), 13! (the

massacre of the Galileans), 132°8 154-8 (prodigal
son), 171 183134 (announcement of the Passion),
19248 (triumphal entry), 20% 8 (wicked husband-
men), 2057. 88. (refs, to OT), 21!-4- 18. 21. 22 2916-18. 28-30.
35-38. 49-51 2447-3 are all omitted. It is to be noticed
that Marcion’s Gospel differs from that of St.
Luke almost entirely by omission, and that many
of the omissions are sufficiently explained by
Marcion’s dogmatic views. Such minor changes

‘all the righteous’ for ‘ Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob and all the prophets’ (1378) are also ex-
plicable in the same way. The omissions amount
in all to some 309 verses. Another point to notice
is that St. Luke’s Gospel and Marcion’s agree so
closely that not only has Marcion preserved almost
all the sections peculiar to St. Luke, but he has
kept the same order. In settling the question
which of the two documents was prior, the ques-
tion of style is decisive. This has been carefully
worked out by Sanday (Gospels tin the Second
Century, ch. viii.), and he comes to the conclusion
that there is a unity of style, both in regard to
words and syntax, so that ‘ the verified peculiarities
of St. Luke’s style are found in the portions
omitted by Marcion in a proportion of more than
one to. each verse’ (1.6. p. 229).

But while there can be no doubt that Marcion’s
work is only an‘abridgment of St. Luke’s Gospel,
made with a doctrinal object, the text preserved
in it often contains readings of great interest,
which cannot be regarded as arbitrary changes, for
they are supported by other early authorities.
The assertions of Epiphanius (Her. xii.) and
Tertullian, that Marcion altered the text of his
authorities to suit his views, must be qualified by
the fact that, in many of the instances mentioned,
Marcion’s reading finds other support, and repre-
sents (according to Blass) one of the two early
recensions of St. Luke’s Gospel (see above), though
not always ‘in its pure form.’ Blass, ἴῃ his
edition of St. Luke (see p. xliii ff.) has collected to-
gether the passages where Marcion departs from D
and other authorities. On the ground of the read-
ings they contain, the fragments of Marcion may
have an importance; but they throw no suspicion
on the integrity of St. Luke’s Gospel, from which
they are extracted.

8. ST. LUKE’S STYLE.—The verdict of Jerome
(Migne, Pat. Lat. xxiv. 100) in regard to St. Luke’s
style is sermo comptior est οἱ secularem redolet
eloquentiam, and Renan (Les Evangiles, ch. xiii.)
Says of it that St. Luke’s ‘is the most literary of
the Gospels.’ The opening verses, 1/4, arrest our
attention at once on account of. their classical
character, and offer a strong contrast to the verses
which follow, which are marked by a number of
Hebraisms. This combination of characteristics
is traceable in varying degrees throughout the
Gospel, but it seems a little fanciful to suggest

that St. Luke ‘has in places allowed his style to
be Hebraistic because he felt that such a style was
appropriate to the subject-matter.’ It will be
necessary to say something as to St. Luke’s char-
acteristics of style in regard to vocabulary and
syntax, and then to notice some points connected
with the Hebraistic usages.

(a) An examination of St. Luke’s vocabulary
shows that he uses a very large number of words
not found in any other NI writer. Sir John
Hawkins* (1.6. p. 162 ff.) gives the number of
words peculiar to the Gospel as 261, which number
is increased by 471 if we add words used only in
the Gospel and the Acts. If we further analyze
the character of these peculiar words, we find that
not quite three-fourths of them occur in the LXX,
St. Luke showing himself more familiar with the
vocabulary of the LXX than St. Matthew or St.
Mark. Out of the same total of peculiar words 3¢
are marked as non-classical, ἦν 6. ‘not oceurring in
Greek writers earlier than the Christian cra’; the
proportion of non-classical words is therefore about
one-seventh, which is the same as that in St.

Matthew, and very much smaller than that in St.
Mark. But these figures do not adequately repre-

sent the classical colouring of St. Luke's style,
which may be illustrated in almost every narrative
which he has in common with St. Matthew and St.
Mark, by his rejection of a non-classical word or ex-
pression in favour of one which is classical. ‘Thus,
to take a few illustrations, κατακείμενοι σαν (57) is
preferred to the συνανέκειντο of Mt 91) and Mk 215;
twice (433 827) a more classical expression is adopted
for St. Mark’s expression ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι
ἀκαθάρτῳ; St. Luke avoids (with St. Matthew) the
unclassical word κράββατος (Mk 241!) ; παραλελυμ-
μένος is preferred to παραλυτικός. Other instances
will be found in Plummer (1.6. p. li) or Zahn (de.
ii. 419). A very striking, because obviously un-
premeditated, illustration of the classical character
of St. Luke’s vocabulary will be found by examin-
ing in a concordance the distribution of the use of
τε in the books of the NT. Besides the greater
purity in choice of words, as compared with those
used by St. Matthew and St. Mark, another char-
acteristic of St. Luke’s vocabulary is his use of
medical terms. This point has been carefully
examined by Hobart (The Medical Language of
St. Luke, London, 1882), who has made a long list
of words which in the NT occur chiefly or solely in
St. Luke, and are also found in Greek medical
writers. Plummer (1.6. p. Ixiv) points out that a
very large proportion of these words occur in the
LXX, and may have come to St. Luke through
that channel, while he allows a large residuum,
which, taken together, point to a familiarity with
medical terms which would be natural in ‘the
beloved physician.’ As illustrations may be quoted
συνεχομένη πυρετῷ peyar@, 435 ; ἡμιθανής. 10?) ἔστη ἢ
ῥύσις τοῦ αἵματος, 8'4+; κραιπάλη, 213, Another point
in regard to St. Luke’s vocabulary is the amount
common to him and St. Paul, which has been
alluded to above (see p. 108). The last character-
istic which need here be noticed is St. Luke’s
fondness for compound words, e.g. mpocavaBaiverr,
ἐπεισέρχεσθαι, etc.

( In regard to St. Luke’s syntax, a number of
usages recur so frequently that they may be
regarded as characteristic. Thus πρός with the
accusative is preferred to the simple dative after
verbs of saying. This construction occurs 151
times in the Gospel and Acts, and 25 times in the
rest of the NT. Another noteworthy usage is that
of γίνομαι followed by καί, a finite verb, or an
infinitive ; these are almost confined to St. Luke,
in whose writings they are found more than 50

* Plummer (/.c. p. lii), following Thayer’s Lexicon, p. 703

gives the number rather differently. ᾿

170 LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

times. His use of the optative, a mood com-
paratively rare in the NT, is also remarkable. Τὰ
regard to conjunctions, his fondness for te, espe-
cially in Ae, has been already noticed ; he shares
with St. Paul a fondness for the expression δὲ καί.
These may be taken as illustrations of points in
St. Luke’s syntax. Complete lists will be found
in Plummer’s Commentary, Which is particularly
good and full on the linguistic side, and in the
| work of Sir John Hawkins already quoted, as well
| as in the older books of Gersdorf, Vogel, and
| Holtzmann.
| (6) The Hebraisms have attracted especial atten-
tion in St. Luke because of the purity of his own
style. Their distribution is ποῦ altogether ex-
| plained by saying that St. Luke has preserved
| them as he found them in his sources, for if they
~ had offended his ear he would no doubt have
τ removed them, with the same freedom which he
has shown generally in regard to tie use of his
authorities. It is pointed out by Zahn (/.¢, ii, 400)
that these Hebraistic turns of expression are used

in these places must be due to St. Luke himself.
This is especially true of the expression καὶ ἐγένετο
καί. or ἐγένετο δές This seems to indicate
that, though St. Luke, no doubt, did preserve the

(as in the first two chapters) have directly imitated
the style of the LX.X, yet his Hebraisms are in the
main to be attributed to the fact that he was
thoroughly imbued with the style of the LXX,
| and not only (as we have already seen) With its
vocabulary. Whatever the cause, the number of

they are scattered over the whole Gospel. Besides
the uses of γίνομαι, already mentioned, we may
notice his periphrastic use of the participle, his
use of ἰδού and καὶ ἰδού, such genitives as ὁ κριτὴς
| τῆς ἀδικίας (18°), or ὁ οἰκονόμος THs ἀδικίας (168), and
| cireumlocutions by means of words like πρόσωπον,
| χείρ, στόμα. etc., as in the expression πρὸ προσώπου
(727 982),

9. ST. LUKE’S PREFACE.—This is so unique in
| character as to claim = separate special

| Lagarde, in his Psalterium iueta Hebreos Hier-
|

onymi, tried to show that St. Luke’s is modelled
on that of Dioscorides in his .Wateria Medica.
There does not seem, however, to be much more
resemblance than would be natural in two cases
| where the writers were referring to the work of
| their predecessors in the same field, and therefore

used a number of similar words. The dedication,

us, of a custom which prevailed widely at that
time among Greeks and Romans,
What is of more importance for us is the evidence

narratives of our Lord’s life, in reference to St.
Luke’s use of his materials, and
questions. The exact meaning of each of the
more important words has been closely investigated,
as well as the inferences which may be drawn
from them. ‘This has been done most recently by
Blass in his Philology of the Gospels. The follow-
ing points deserve attention: (1) Many had before
St. Luke attempted to ‘restore from memory’
(Blass) a continuous narrative, not necessarily
written (διήγησις, see Liddell and Scott). The word
ἐπεχείρησαν does not necessarily imply (as Origen)
an unfavourable criticism of these ‘attempts,’ and
in the καὶ éuol of v.3 St. Luke puts himself on the
same footing as these predecessors. (2) These

orally (so Zahn argucs from παρέδοσαν). but based
on the evidence of those who had been eye-witnesses
from the beginning (i.e. of our Lord’s public

ministry). Are we precluded by these words from
supposing that amongst the διηγήσεις of ν.} was
any apostolic narrative? (3) St. Luke, inasmuch
as he had at some earlier date carefully investi-
gated all the facts to the very beginning (ἄνωθεν
perhaps goes further back than am ἀρχῆς). ventures
to write, and that (4) καθεξῆς, i.e. either a continuous
narrative in contrast with a number of narratives
of separate events, or a complete account in con-
trast with accounts marked by omissions. The
word does not necessarily, or probably, imply an
order of time. (5) St. Luke’s purpose in writing
was to supply Theophilus, as yet, perhaps, not a
Christian, with a convincing account of the things
in which he had been instructed.

The exact meaning of almost every word has
been pressed in one direction or another, and corre-

-spondingly divergent inferences have been made.

in the editorial links between the narratives, and |

Aramaic expressions of his sources, or may even —

Hebraistiec usages is very large in St. Luke, and

notice. |

though unique in form, as far as the NT is con-—
cerned, is in itself only an instance, as Zahn tells

10. PURPOSE AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE Gbos-
PEL.—The primary purpose of the Gospel (as well
as of the Aes) is stated in the preface. namely,
that ‘Theophilus may have fa/7 knowledge in re-
gard to the truth of the accounts given to him in
the teaching which had been imparted orally—iva
ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. What
was intended for a single person was adapted for
others in similar circumstances, and so St. Luke
may have sent out the Gospel in a second form (as
slass holds), though it has been said above that
this is unlikely, and not required by the facts of
the case, so far as the Gospel is concerned. ‘The
principle of arrangement is also stated in the
preface, in the word καθεξῆς, but the interpretation
to be put upon the word is doubtful, and has to
be gathered from the Gospel itself.

(a) Purpose.—Vhe first point which may be
regarded as significant of St. Luke’s purpose is the
way in which the facts aro definitely brought into
connexion with secular history. He alone among
the NT writers mentions 2 Roman emperor by
name (2! 31, Ac 1135 182). cad in Ac other Roman
ofticials, whose names would fix the dates, to some
extent at any rate. Another point which would
help to carry conviction (Zahn, Le. ii. 375, 391) is
the relatively large number of personal names, not
only of prominent actors, but also of those of
secondary importance (6.6. 21: ? 81:5 740 8? 191 2438),
Again, it is a noteworthy characteristic Of Sh
Luke that, while St. Matthew seems to collect our
Lord’s teaching together, he keeps the sayings in
what must have been their original setting, and
emphasizes the circumstances which called them
forth. This may best be illustrated from the way
in which the Sermon on the Mount in St. Matthew
is scattered over St. Luke’s Gospel. This greater
definiteness of circumstance could not fail to im-

press Theophilus, and from the point of view of

afforded by the preface in regard to the early |

other similar |

accounts were all second-hand, and handed down |

conviction is more important than definiteness of
place or time, which St. Luke, in the Gospel, as
in the Acts, often cannot give. In these ways
Theophilus would see the work of ‘the critic who
has had diligent inquiry made in regard to the
external facts of the history, and the historian who
makes every effort to bring his figures out of the
gloom of vague tradition into the clear light
of reality... Another point which St. Luke em-
phasizes is the impression which our Lord’s teach-
ing and acts made on those who were present ; and
just as St. John, in order to instil ‘the belief that
Jesus was the Christ the Son of God,’ is careful
to record the impression made by our Lord’s work,
so St. Luke lays stress on the way in which our
Lord’s hearers were affected (e.g. 41 94 18:8. 198
ete.), where these points are not mentioned by St.
Matthew and St. Mark. Again, there can be no
doubt that St. Luke, all through the Gospel, has
in mind the points on which a Gentile reader would
want further information or would feel greater or

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF 171

less interest, or would be more or less impressed,
and so we meet with explanations, we find teaching
of special Jewish interest ignored or curtailed, and
methods of argument such as appeal to the OT
dropped. ‘These are all illustrated in the next
section of this article.

We see, then, how the expressed purpose of the
Gospel seems to be carried out as the narrative
proceeds, and we may add that probably St. Luke
endeavoured to make his work as complete as
possible, and did not omit facts or sayings as
irrelevant to his immediate object of convincing
Theophilus.

Other objects have been assigned to St. Luke
of a polemical or conciliatory character, but the
features of the Gospel referred to below show that
it will be difficult to make a completely consistent
theory on these hypotheses.

(b) In considering St. Luke’s arrangement of his
Gospel, we may suppose him to have followed in
the main the sources which he used, unless he had
any occasion to think these were incorrect, or
unless his special purpose required him to deviate
from them tor the sake of clearness. And so we
find that over large stretches of the narrative the
order of events follows exactly that of St. Mark.
(1) After the first two chapters comes the narra-
tive of our Lord’s baptism and temptation. Here
St. Luke’s independence of arrangement is seen in
the way in which he finishes the history of John
the Baptist before beginning the account of our
Lord’s ministry. The most important deviation
at this period of the narrative is to be found in the
previous journey through Galilee, implied in the
word ὑπέστρεψεν, 44. The next peint to notice is
the visit to Nazareth, 415-0, In this account the
reference to miracles at Capernaum (433) seems to
indicate that it is inserted out of chronological
order, unless we suppose these miracles to have
happened on the circuit in Galilee just mentioned.
In 43! Capernaum is introduced as if it had not
been mentioned before, which supports what has
just been said. (2) 48!-619—St. Luke’s order follows
St. Mark’s (131-919) exactly, save for the section
51-1 which records the call of the disciples and the
miraculous draught of fishes. But there are marks
of independence: thus St. Luke assigns no time
or place to the healing of the paralytic (5),
unless the connexion with the call of Levi (53)
fixes it. St. Mark and St. Matthew dcfinitely fix
it at Capernaum. Again, the two cases which
touch Sabbath observance (6) and (6) St. Luke
assigns definitely to two different Sabbaths, St.
Mark apparently to the same. (5) 6*’-8%—the
record seems to agree generally with St. Matthew,
Thus in both the discourse on the Mount (or Plain),
62-9 is followed by, and in both definitely con-
nected with, the healing of the centurion’s servant
(omitted by St. Mark). St. Luke adds the incident
at Nain on the next day (?; var. lec. 74), and then
in both St. Luke and St. Matthew the message of
John the Baptist follows, but with no reference as
to time. The incident at the house of Simon the
Pharisee follows (7%), but with no note of time.
The section closes (8!) with a circuit of Galilee,
ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς. (4) 8#-9!'7—St. Luke and St. Mark
(41-644) agree, but St. Luke leaves out Mk 320*7,
and inserts later Mk 3280. Here St. Matthew
seems to support St. Luke’s order. As to Mk 388,
the visit of our Lord’s mother, St. Matthew and
St. Luke put it on the same day as the parable of
the Sower, but St. Matthew records it before, St.
Luke after, the parable. They all agree in insert-
ing here the parable of the Sower, but St. Matthew
records the ‘other parables’ and the private
explanation to His disciples, which are only
mentioned in St. Mark (4°34). The narratives
here diverge, because the crossing of the lake, the

storm, the events in Gadara are put much earlier
in St. Matthew (8). in connexion perhaps with
the jirst visit to Capernaum. St. Mark, however,
connects these detinitely (48°) with the parable,
while St. Luke, perhaps having St. Mark and also
the order of St. Matthew before him, records this
in the same place as St. Mark, but (872) with a
vague reference to ‘one of the days.’ It is possible
that St. Luke has acted in exactly the same way
with regard to the, events which follow in δῖ.
Matthew (the healing of the paralytic, the call of
Levi, the discourse on fasting, Mt 9!) after the
return from Gadara, but are in St. Luke and St.
Mark given earlier. Here, again (51), St. Luke
avoids the need of reconciling the accounts by
taking refuge in the phrase ‘on one of the days.’
The narratives then proceed together (but St.
Matthew 8:18 definitely adheres to his order, for he
connects what follows with the call of Levi), but
St. Matthew adds to the healing of Jairus’ daughter
and of the woman with the issue of blood two
miracles, 927-4, which he assigns to the same day.
Then follows a departure from Capernaum (Mk 61?)
to Nazareth, and a circular journey through Gali-
lee mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Mark,
though the reason for it is to be found in the
miracle recorded only by St. Matthew (9°!) requir-
ing his withdrawal. In this connexion (though
St. Luke does not state the time) occurs the mission
of the Twelve, followed by Herod's comments on
the result of that mission. St. Luke omits the
account of John’s death (which St. Matthew and
St. Mark here insert). With the withdrawal to
Bethsaida (which St. Matthew attributes to the
news of Jobn the Baptist’s death) and the feeding
of the five thousand this section closes (911), (5)
Here St. Matthew and St. Mark give in general
agreement a long section (Mt 1422-1612, Mk 615-876),
narrating a return to Gennesaret, a visit to Phooni-
cia, a return through Decapolis to the Sea of
Galilee, the feeding of the four thousand, a crossing
by ship and back, and (Mk only) a visit to Beth-
saida. All this is practically omitted by St. Luke,
except for one or two sayings which he records in
another connexion. (6) At 9!5°° the three narra-
tives proceed together in recording, exactly in the
same order, the confession of St. Peter (the scene
of which St. Luke does not mention), the announce-
ment of the Passion, the ‘Transfiguration, the
lunatic boy, another announcement of His death,
and the dispute as to who should be greatest (the
scene of which St. Luke again does not mention).
With this St. Matthew and St. Mark connect a
discussion as to offences which St. Luke puts much
later, and: distributes (L724) [4s* 1b) Ch). ihe
section beginning with 9°! is independent of the
other accounts, as far as 1814, All the narratives
(Mt 191, Mk 101, Lk 951) agree in making our Lord
leave Galilee at this stage, and St. Matthew and
St. Mark add ‘for Perea.’ St. Luke mentions a
journeying to Jerusalem several times during the
section, e.g. 951. 58. 132.23 1711. and St. John (7? 104
117-54) tells us of visits to Jerusalem and its neigh-
bourhood and withdrawals again ; and so some, 6.0.
Wieseler and Ellicott, have supposed that St. Luke
here gives us the narrative of three definite jour-
neys to Jerusalem. But St. Luke in this section
impresses upon us so often his uncertainty as to
time and place, that a chronological sequence seems
out of the question; and in certain chapters it is
obvious that the subject of prayer, or riches, or
something similar, is the link which holds the
narrative together. The proposal of Mr. Halecombe
(The Displaced Section of St. Luke, Cambridge,
1886) to remove bodily a small part of this section,
namely 1114-1321, and to insert it after 8533, involves
an impossible act of violence to textual evidence
with a very slight improvement from the point of

172 LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

view of harmonizing the narratives. (8) At 17/5

the narratives unite again, and go on to the end |

of 184; but St. Matthew and St. Mark are inde-

pendent in details, and St. Luke adds the incident |

of Zaccheeus, and the parable of the Pounds (191-8),
(9) At 1979 the account of the triumphal entry
begins, and from here on to the end of the Gospel
the question of arrangement does not need to be
considered, though even in the events of the last
week we may notice (e.g. 201) the same indefinite-
ness as to time, and resort to summaries (e.g. 195
2181), ‘The main facts recorded are the same in all,
though there are, of course, additions and omissions
in St. Luke’s account as in the others. Blass
(Philology of the Gospels) and Reuss assume that
a different source has been used here also, and
certainly St. Luke is independent of St. Matthew
and St. Mark in the form in which he gives the
eschatological discourses. The general order of
events is, however, the same, as must necessarily
have been the case. Here and there St. Luke
seems to have intentionally put together events
separate in time and place. Thus St. Peter's
denials are placed together in order ‘to add force
to the episode’ (Lightfoot), and in the account of
the appearances after the resurrection St.

the day of the resurrection, though he
from his acquaintance with St. Paul have been
ignorant of the events of 1 Co 15%, ,
We have seen that in the main St. Luke follows
the order of the framework found in St. Mark.
Are we in a position now to say, looking back over

the Gospel, what St. Luke meant when he purposed |
Various theories as to St. Luke’s |

to write καθεξῆς ?
principle of arrangement have been put forward,
Plummer (1.6. p. xxxvi ff.) says, ‘we may assert
with some confidence that Luke generally aims at
chronological order.? Weiss (lc. p. 301) says the
evangelist ‘has attempted to divide Jesus’ public
ministry into work in Galilee, outside Galilee, and
in Jerusalem.’ Another aspect is represented by
Godet and Westcott. ‘The former (Biblical Studies,
p. 43) regards the Gospel as giving an account of
the ‘organic growth of the person and of the
work,’ and Westcott (Jntrod. to the Study of the

(rospels, ch. vii. note G) gives an elaborate analysis |

based on a general development of ideas such as
‘marks of ‘the future Church,’ ‘the universal
Church,’ ete. Zahn (lec. ii, 366) thinks that ‘the
chronological exactness is not a clearly marked
principle in the representation,’ but that, ‘in con-
trast with the disconnected narratives of single
incidents,’ St. Luke’s object is to give ‘Theophilus
‘a continuous representation of the history, in
which the earlier prepares the way for the later,
and makes it intelligible.’

11. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GosPEL.—These

other word (e.g. 822), Hebrew names are trans-
lated : e.g. Γολγοθά (233) and Kavavaios (015). The
position of places, especially in Palestine, is often
defined, e.g. 451 825 2551, Expressions which might
be misunderstood by Gentile readers are moditied
or added to: thus (9%) in the account of the Trans-

_ figuration μετεμορφώθη (Mt, Mk) becomes ἐγένετο...

Luke |
seems to have summarized and put them all on |
cannot

must depend in ths, as in any other work, partly |

on the nature and extent of the sources to which
the writer alludes in his preface and the use he
makes of them, partly on his consideration of
the readers for whom the Gospel was intended,
partly on his own personality. It is not always
easy to say to which of these causes the different
characteristics are to be assigned: thus the selec-
tion of particular incidents may be due to the
personal interest of St. Luke, or to considera-
tion for the readers he wished to interest, or it
may be explained by the fact of his finding them
in the sources he used. The following are among
the most important characteristics which have
attracted attention in the Gospel. Some of them
have been alluded to already.

That St. Luke wrote for Gentiles is clear. A
number of technical terms are explained. Thus
we find νομικός (789 1025 etc.) instead of γραμματεύς.
ἐπιστάτης Where the other evangelists have some

ἕτερον. The appeals to the ΟἽ" are very few, and
the quotations from it are found for the most
part in the sayings of our Lord (e.g. 448 727 etc).
Which are reproduced by St. Luke from his authori-
ties, or are reminiscences of the LXX, with which,
as we have seen, he was very familiar. ‘There are
only five references to prophecy, and of these only
one (34) occurs in the narrative of St. Luke. Points
in our Lord’s teaching which would have no in-
terest for Gentile readers are altogether passed
over or curtailed. ‘Thus the teaching, in the Ser-
mon on the Mount, as to the relation of the new to
the old Law is omitted; so also is the denunciation
of the Jews for observing the ‘tradition’ at the
expense of the Law (Mt 161, Mk 7!); the rebuke:
of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23!) is very
much shortened. The frequent allusions to the
universality of the Gospel are to be explained by
the same reference to Gentile readers. St. Luke
alone quotes in full (3°) the prophecy of Is 403—
‘All flesh shall see the salvation of God ?-—a prophecy
Which all the evangelists connect with John the
Baptist. Our Lord’s tirst recorded teaching (4241 )
emphasizes the admission of Gentiles to privileges
at the hands of Elijah and Elisha, while His last
explanation of the Seriptures at Emmaus (244°)
showed that ‘repentance and forgiveness of sins
were to be preached to all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem.’ Between these limits a number of
passages and incidents might be quoted to estab-
lish this characteristic of the Gospel, e.g. 10st.
139 ete. In accordance with this, we find a
‘marked antipathy to -exclusiveness and_ intoler-
ance * (Plummer), and stress laid on those quali-
fications for entrance to the kingdom, which it is
open to all without distinction of birth to attain.
On the other hand, the Gospel ts not anti-Jewish,
though the Jews are strongly condemned direetly
or indirectly, and that in parts of the Gospel
peculiar to St. Luke, e.g. 103182 1615 ete. Jewish
expressions are often kept in parables or teaching
found only in St. Luke, and the regard for temple
worship and observance of the law is not depreci-
ated. All the rites of the law are fulfilled in our
Lord’s case (231 ete.): He is the ‘Son of David? (1888
ete.): The commands of the Jewish law are to be
observed (615 17!4 ete.). and are of lasting importance
(169 1829 ete.). In all these and similar cases St.
Luke may have been preserving only the language
of his scurces, but, if his purpose had been to
depreciate Judaism, he would no doubt have acted
as Marcion did towards the allusions to the OT
which he.found in St. Luke’s Gospel, aud removed
them.

In regard to the way in which he uses his sources,
it has been suggested that St. Luke ‘avoids dupli-
cates on principle’ (Weiss, Introduction, Eng. tr.
ii. 300), and thus gives no account of the cursing of
the barren fig tree (Mk 1118, Mt 2118) because he
has already narrated a similar event in 13°, does
not mention the anointing of Mk 143, Mt 265
because of the narrative of 7°, and so on. But
this supposed characteristic of ‘Sparsamkeit’ (as
Storr calls it), which may be illustrated by many
other omissions of St. Luke (such as the passing
over of the miracle of the 4000), has to be
taken in connexion with the numerous cases
where St. Luke does not show this tendency.
Thus we have a twofold dispute as to who should
be the greatest 945 2224; in regard to the miracles
and parables we find similar cases of repetition;

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

LUST 173

and the so-called ‘doublets (e.g. 816 = 118; 144 = 18")
show that not only in the narratives, but in our
Lord’s words, the same characteristic of repetition is
found. Other instances may be found in Plummer,
Le. p. xxviii, and Hawkins, //ore Synoptice, pp.
64 ff. Another characteristic of the Gospel is @
vagueness as to time and place, even in cases where
the other narratives are more definite. This vague-
ness may be illustrated from 15. ete., is perhaps
most marked in the section 9°", and extends even
to the account of the passion, e.g. 201, On the other
hand, it must be noted that St. Luke very frequently
connects sayings of our Lord with the occasion which
called them forth, which in the other Gospels are
collected together with no such reference, as for
instance in the Sermon on the Mount, e.g. 12°+#
142. Mention has already been made of the
stress St. Luke lays on the effect of our Lord's
words, of his preference for more literary Greek,
of his fondness for medical expressions, ot his close
connexion tn thought, and often in language, with
St. Paul.

In the account of Jesus’ life and teaching the
symbol of the ox (with which this Gospel is almost
universally associated ) may perhaps, as the sacrificial
animal, represent St. Luke’s Gospel as especially that
which emphasizes our Lord’s ‘ gentleness’ to the sin-
ner and the outcast. This may be illustrated from
the parables peculiar to St. Luke, e.g. the Prodigal
Son; or from such incidents as that of the sinner
in the house of Simon (735), or that of the peni-
tent robber (25%), Most marked, again, are the
repeated references to prayer, both in the narrative
of our Lord’s life—in which he records many in-
stances of our Lord praying which are not found
in the other narratives (¢.g. 321 56 6 etc.)—and
also in parables which he alone records (e.g. 11°
18-14), Again, it is noticeable how much of the
teaching preserved for us only by St. Luke deals
with the use of riches. This is to be regarded
rather as proclaiming him as the ‘ Evangelist of
Philanthropy’ (Herder), than as proving that St.
Luke made use of an Ebionitic source. This char-
acteristic appears in much of our Lord’s teaching
as recorded by St. Luke, as well as in a large
number of the parables peculiar to him, e.g. those
of Dives and Lazarus, the Rich Fool, the Unjnst
Steward. It may have had a special appropriate-
ness for a rich man like Theophilus (Zahn, 1.6. ii.
379), or may have been the outcome of St. Luke’s
‘oreat sympathy with the suffering poor, and a
ereat horror of the temptations which beset all the
rich.’ It does not (as Weiss, Jntrod., Eng. tr. il.
309) ‘rest on the idea that wealth is pernicious in
itself and poverty salutary in itself.’ There is no
sufficient evidence of St. Luke’s wse ofan Ebionitic
source or sympathy with Ebionitism, for many of
the expressions on which this theory is based are
found in the other Gospels; and the latter con-
tain many things not found in St. Luke which
have as good a claim to be regarded as Ebionitic :
thus they (Mt 1823, Mk 419), and they alone, speak
of ‘the deceitfulness of riches,’ where St. Luke
simply says ‘riches.’ ‘There is no evidence that
the protest against worldliness is due to some
particular source from which he drew and from
which the others did not draw’ (Plummer).

for a discussion of many difficulties connected
with special points in St. Luke, such as the Gene-
alogy, Census, etc., readers are referred to the
articles GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, JESUS
CikistT, vol. ii. p.:645 f., and QUIRINIUS. The
present article has aimed at dealing with the main
headings of the general topics connected with the
Gospel, and giving sufficient illustrations to explain
the allusions. The literature given below will
enable students to follow out the points more in
detail.

Lrrerature.— Besides general books of Introduetion to the
New Testament, and works on the Canon, the following may be
mentioned: (4) Commentaries.—<A list of these, complete for
all practical purposes, may be found in Plummer’s yolume on
the Gospel in the International Critical Commentary. This
may itself be recommended as the best English Commentary,
especially on the linguistic side, in regard to which it is very
full and scholarly. Jesides these, reference may be made to
Schanz, Das Erangelium desheiligen Lucas, Godet, Commen-
tuire surl Keangile de St. Lue y Knabenbauer (in the Crrsias
Scriptura Sacre); Mever, Aritisch-eregetischer Kommentar
(ast edition of St. Luke by B. and J. Weiss).

(B) St. Luke and Josephus.—Clemen, Die Chronologie der
Paul. Briefe, p. 66 ff., discusses the literature of the question,
ete.; see also Zahn, Fin/, ii. 394, 414, A connexion between
St. Luke and Josephus is maintained by Krenkel C/osephus
und Lucas), Keim (Aus dem Urehristenthum), and others, and
is denied by Nésgen (SA, 1879), Belser (Theol. Quartalschrift,
1895, 1806); ete.

(( St. Luke’s Style.—Besides grainmars of the NT, like
Winer, Schmiedel, and Blass, books on NT writers like that of
Simeox, and lexicons like that of Thayer (in which a list of
words peculiar to St. Luke is given), may be mentioned espe-
cially Plummer, Holtzmann, Gersdorf (Beitrdge zur Sprach-
characteristik, etc.), Vogel (Zur Characteristik des Lucas
nach Sprache und Stil),

(D) St. Luke and Marcion.—The most recent discussion of
Marcion’s Gospel is in Zahn, Geschichte des Kanons, i, 650 ff,
ii. 411 fF; see also Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, ch.
viii. ; Westeott, The Canon, p. d14 tf.

(FE) The Text of St. Luke’s Gospel, with reference to the
readings in the later chapters, has been examined by Graefe in
articles in SA, 1555, 1896, 1598. The theory of a double edition
is stated by Blass in his edition of St. Luke’s Gospel, and also in
his Philology of the Gospels,

Amongst other more recent literature of importance for the
study of points connected with St. Luke may also be included
Hawkins, orw Synoptice; Resch, Das Kindheits-erangeliu
nach Lucasund Matihdus (Texte und Untersuchungen,’ x. 5);
and Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ἢ

Lu. J. M. BEBB.

LUNATICK.—The Greek vb. σεληνιάζομαι (from
σελήνη. the moon) occurs in Mt 424 17!° and nowhere
else in class. or bibl. Greek, Its lit. meaning is
‘to be moonstruck’; the Vulg. has lunaticus and
(17) lunaticus est, and Wyc. followed with + is
lunatik... The other versions chose the same
expression (except Tindale’s ‘is franticke’ in 1715) .#
which also means literally ‘is moonstruck. RV
prefers ‘is epileptic,’ for which it is taken to task
by Beckett (Revised NT, p. 99). See MEDICINE.

J. HASTINGS.

LUST (Anglo-Sax. lust=Ger. Lust, ‘pleasure,’
‘ delight’) is now restricted to sexual desire, and that
special meaning is found alsoin AV. But the word
has a wider application in most passages, aud signi-
fies any gross appetite. Thus Ex 169 ‘The enemy
said, I will pursue... my lust shall be satisfied upon
them’ ("¥23, lit, “my soul,’ Amer. RV ‘my-desire’);
Ps 7818 And they tempted God in their heart by ask-
ing meat for their lust’ (2¥2I9); 7830 * They were not
estranged from their lust’? (8>/897) ; 8112 *So I gave
them up unto their own hearts’ lust? (272 ΤΥ),
‘These are all the examples of the subst. in OT. In
NT the word most frequently tr. «lust? is ἐπιθυμία.
‘strong desire’? of any kind, the special kind being
sometimes designated by an adj., ‘ worldly? Tit 2!°,
‘fleshly’1P 2", In 1’‘Th 45 we have the still more
general word πάθος; in Ro 151 ὄρεξις, a strong word,
but capable of a good or a bad sense; and in Ja 413
ἡδονή. in itself no more than ‘ pleasure.’

In his Com. on 2 P 14, "Thomas Adams says, ὁ Lust,
concupiscence in itself, as it is a faculty of the
soul, and gift of God, is not sin; but may be the
hand of virtue, or the instrument whereby she
works. Keep her at home, and set her on work,
to light the candle, and sweep the house; let her
be under the correction of grace, and she may
prove a chaste virgin, fit to meet the Bridegroom
at his coming. Lust is in itself as they write of
the planet Mercury in the horoscope of man’s
nativity ; if it be joined with a good planet it
makes it better; if with a bad one, it makes it
worse. There is a lusting of the Spirit; for ‘ the
Spirit lusteth against the flesh,’? Gal 517. But it

* Sir John Cheke, however (1550), in his preference for Saxon
words, chose ‘is moond,’

174 LUST

LYCAONIA

is most commonly taken in the worse sense.” And
he proceeds to say that, taken in the worse sense,
it may be either ‘a particular effect of that grand
beldam coneupiscence,’ i.e. uncleanness ; or stand
‘for the whole general corruption of our nature,
prone to all sin.’ And on the same verse he
comments : ‘Ambrose saith of Samson, he could
choke a lion, not his ust. Another of Hercules—-

Lenam non potuit, potuit superare leeenam ;

Quem fera non valuit vincere, vicit Hera,
He found the lioness weaker than his Just, and
no beast so savage as his harlot.’ Whittingham’s
New Test. of 1557 is distinguished from all other
versions by translating Jn 1! ‘Which are borne
not of bloud, nor of the lust of the fleshe, nor
of the lust of man, but of God.’
doubt used in the indifferent sense of desire. Cf.
Tindale’s renderings of Gn 31:6 * And thy Iustes

The word is neo |

shall pertayne unto thy husbond, and he shall rule |

the’;
do oure lust with them’; 27% ‘Yf Iacob take :
wife of the doughters of Heth, soch one as these
are, or of the doughters of the lande, what lust
shuld T have to lyve.’ But the difference between
the old and the new use of the word is more clearly
seen in his tr. of Nu 145° Yt the Lorde have lust
to us, he will bring us in to this londe’; or of
He 10° ‘In sacrifices and synneotferynges thou

hast no lust’; or in Coverdale’s tr. of Is 53?
‘When we loke upon him, there shal be no
fayrnesse: we shal have no lust unto him.’

Again, in his ‘ Parable of the Wicked Mammon’
(Works, i. 115) Tindale translates Mt 5° ‘ Blessed
are they which hunger and thirst for righteous-
ness’ sake (that is, to fulfil the law), for their
lust shall be fulfilled’; and still more striking
is the use in /rpositions, p. 168, ‘God hath no
rod in his hand, nor looketh sour, but merrily,
that it isa lust to behold his cheerful countenance.’
The verb to ‘lust’ or ‘lust after’ has the same
meanings as the subst., to desire or crave in
general, as 1 Co 10° ‘Now. these things were our
examples, to the intent we should not lust after
evil thines (εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν),
as they also lusted? (ἐπεθύμησαν) ; passing into the
special sense of sexual desire, in Mt 5°58 * Whosoever
looketh on a woman to Just after her hath com-
mitted aduitery with her already in his heart’ (apés
τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν [αὐτῆς}). Tindale has the verb in
a distinctly bad sense in Dt 52! *'Thou shalt not
Juste after thi neighbours wife, thoueh not in
the sense of sexual desire; it is more colourless
in Mt 17 ‘but have done unto him what soever
they lusted’ (so most VSS until AV ‘listed,’ Gr. ὅσα
ἠθέλησαν, Rhem. ‘whatsoever they would’); and
the better meaning is clearly seen in Tindale,
Works, i. 103, ‘ For if we were of God we should
cleave to God, and lust after the will of God.’
Cf. Archbp. Hamilton, Catechism, ‘The tabil’—
‘That the special faith suld be loiflit and lustit
for mony excellent operations, quhilk it workis in
Christen men and wemen’; and Rutherford,
Letters, No. cexxvi, ‘What heaven can be there
liker, to hell, than to Inst, and green, and dwine,
and fall a swoon for Christ’s love, and to want it 7’
Lusty, meaning stout and vigorous, is perhaps
still in good use. It occurs in AV but ones, Je 32°
‘all lusty, and all men of valour,’ Heb. p23. is
originally “Γαΐ, as AVm, and some take the
meaning here to be ‘wealthy, but AV is better.*
Ἂν Ps 5. 103° [Pr. Bk.] and As You Lik: It, 1. ili.
ae

Prem)
ἐν
ὦ

‘Though I look old, yet am I strong and lusty ;
For in my youth I never did apply
Hot and rebellious liquors in my blood.’
: J. HASTINGS.
RV adds Is 4910 ‘among them that are lusty we are as dead
men,’ for AV ‘we are in desolate places as dead men.’
passage is difficult, perhaps corrupt

19° * Bringe them out unto us that we may |

LUSTRATION.—See PURIFICATION.
LUTE.—See MUSIC.

LUZ (35 ‘almond’ or ‘bone’ ; Οὐλαμμαύς Gn 9839,
Aod¢a 35° ete. ; Sam. and, Luzah Gn 23" 48%),—1,
An old Canaanite city, afterwards known as Bethel,
Gu 28 351-484; Jos 1 Ἰ δὲ dt sos 10: 11) Jee.
See art. BerHEL, 2. A place in ‘the Jand of the
Hittites,’ founded by a man of Bethel, Je 1% The
mention of the ancient name of Bethel in P is in
accordance with the writer’s fondness for such
archeological details; cf. Gn 237 3577, Jos 154
211! (Kiriath-arba), Gn 351% 487 (Ephrath). The
meaning of Luz is ‘almond,’ Gn 386, as in Arabic ;
hence in the ‘Palmud the mystical characteristics
of the almond are ascribed to Luz, see art. BETHEL,
vol. i. p. 277 andn. Another meaning is ‘bone’; in
particular, a bone of the spine. So in the Midrash
Beresh, Rabba, § 28, fol. 51}, daz is the bone of the
spine out of which man is to be re-fashioned in the
world tocome; similarly 7] φοραῖς $18, fol. l4b, Mid-
rash Kohelcth, fol. 24a. Levy, ΝᾺ ΠΣ}, s.v., takes
this meaning as secondary, ‘a bone shaped like an
almond’; but Lagarde (Bi/dung εἰ. Nominee, Ὁ. 161 1.
n.) prefers ‘bone as the original meaning, and sup-
poses that the place was called Luz trom its resem-
blance toa backbone. Identifications have been
suggested for the Luz in ‘the land of the Hittites,’
e.g. Lizan in Kurdistan (see Neubauer, Géogr. du
Talmud, p. 394), and Shaizar (no=Nnw =, see
refs. to Midrash above) in Cowle-Syria on the
Orontes (Lagarde, d.c.); bat these identifications
are very doubtful. The place must have been
outside Israelite territory and in the north, some-
where in Cale-Syria or the Lebanon.

G, A. COOKE.

LYCAONIA (Av«aovia), the land of the Lycaones,
was a large country in the centre and south of the
ereat plateau of Asia Minor. It is almost entirely
a vast level plain, in the centre ot which, like an
island in the sea, the lofty Kara-Dagh has been
thrown up by voleanie action. On the edge of
Kara-Dagh are the remarkable ruins called Bin-
Bir-Kilisse (Thousand and One Churches), prob-
ably the site of the ancient Barata. The great
Lycaonian plain is merged on the north and east
in the plains of Galatia and Cappadocia ; on the
west and south it is limited by hills. The soil has
little value except for pasturage ; but the im-
mense flocks which grazed on it were a source of
revenue to king Amyntas (Strabo, p. 568), and are
still a feature that strikes the travellers. Many
of the wells supply a brackish water, unfit for
human use, but said to have a good ctiect on the
wool of sheep, which drink it frecly.

Lycaonia was bounded on the north by Galatia
proper, ou the west by Phrygia and Pisidia, on the
south by the mountainous country that stretches
back to the great ridge of Mount Taurus (a
country generally summed up in earlier time as
Cilicia Tracheia, of which Tsauria was part, and
in later time as Isauria in its wider acceptation),
and on the east by Cappadocia. The exact
boundaries varied at diflerent times. On_ the
north a large district, which had originally been
part of Lycaonia, was at some uncertain date (per-
haps about B.c. 164, see GALATIA, vol. il. p. 83;
Stud. Bibl. iv. p. 4649.) transferred to Galatia as
one of the twelve tetrarchies into which that state
was divided (Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 95); this district
contained fourteen cities, of which Iconium was
politically the capital (though ethnographically
and in the feeling of its inhabitants it was a
Phrygian city).* The fact that Iconium was the

* To the authorities quoted under Ivoxium add the words

The | in Vita S. Artemii (ascribed to Joan. Drinase.), διελθὼν ποίνυν

ἁπασαν τὴν Φρυγίαν, καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐσχάτην αὐτῆς πτόλιν TO καλούμενον

LYCAONIA

LYCAONIA

last city of Phrygia towards Lycaonia (Xen. nad.
τ Ὁ 19), and that the frontier must have been in
the hill-ridge fringing the vale of Lystra on the
north, gives a fixed point in earlier time; but
politically and in the estimation οἱ external
nations Tconium regularly, and even Laodicea
Combusta, and sometimes ‘lyriaion, were reckoned
to Lycaonia. The hilly country west of Teonium
was added to Lycaonia when it was constituted
a province of the Empire in A.b. 372; but previ-
ously that country was Pisidian. The southern
boundary ran through the hilly country between
Lystra and Isaura (Zengibar Kalessi) and south of
Laranda (Karaman). On the east the limit passed
near the lake Ak Gol, west of Kybistra (Eregli),
and touched Karadja Dagh, thus making Hyde
(Kara DBunar, probably) the frontier city of
Lycaonia towards Cappadocia on the east and the
enlarged Galatia on the north.*

Lycaonia was part of the great Seleucid Empire
until B.c. 190. Thereafter it was assigned to the
Pergamenian kingdom (Livy, xxxvii.); 1t was so
remote that there is little probability that the
sovereignty could ever have been made a reality.
The northern part was probably seized by the
Gauls. The southern part, after being probably
disputed between native and Galatian chiefs, was
given by Aquillius to Cappadocia in 129, temporarily
overrun by Pontus in 74, and finally set free by
Pompeys victories over Mithridates. At the
settlement of the East by Pompey in 64, Lycaonia
seems to have been divided into three parts: the
north was added to Galatia(Ptol. v. 4, 10); the south-
east to Cappadocia, forming an eleventh s¢rategia
of that country ;¢ the west was attached to the
Roman Empire, and administered by the governor
of Cilicia. ‘The Romans evidently retained a right
of way through eastern Lycaonia, tor the only
practicable road for an army between Iconium the
Lycaonian capital and Tarsus the Cilician metro-
polis passed across it by Kybistra and the Cilician
Gates; and Cicero’s movements during his governor-
ship of Cilicia show that he could go back and
forward at will, and yet that Kybistra was part of
Cappadocia. Thus Cicero was brought into close
and friendly relations with the Cappadocian royal
family, which was practically dependent on Rome,
and half subject to it.

The eastern part of Lycaonia long continued
subject, at least in name, to the weak Cappadocian
rule; but Antipater of Derbe, a friend of Cicero,
profited by the troubles of the Civil Wars to make
himself am independent chief; and Laranda also
was perhaps subject to him (see DERBE). Antony
gave the western part (certainly including Lystra |
and Teonium)s to king Polemon in B.C. 89; but in
36 it was transferred to Amyntas, king of Pisidia,
who also received all Galatia proper. Amyntas
conquered also Derbe and Laranda, which then
were incorporated in the Roman Empire, when |
Amyntas’ kingdom was made into the province
Galatia in B.C. 25. Roman soldiers from Laranda |
were serving in the seventh legion not long after |

Ἰχένιον καταντήσας. The other thirteen cities of the Tetrarchy
were Savatra or Soatra, and the towns on the west side of Lake
Tatta, probably Laodicea and Lystra, but not Derbe (which was
in the eleventh Strategia, attached to Cappadocia ; sce below |
and Strab. p. 569).

* Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 95, Ipsius: Lycaonie .... Hyde an |
confinio Galati: atque Cappadocia,

+ Especially as Pisidian Antioch was free (see ANTIOCH).

t See Strabo, pp. 535, 537, 569; Ramsay, Histor. Geogr. of
Asia Min. pp. 336f., 310n., 800. It included Derbe (Strabo,
p. 569), but certainly not Lystra.

§ Lycaonia is not formally mentioned in this transaction ; but
it is evidently summed up at this time under the general title
cf Cilicia, for Strabo, p. 568, mentions that Iconium was ruled
by Polemon, while Polemon’s kingdom is described simply as
μέρνς τι Κιλικίας by Appian, Bell. Civ. v. 75, and it was owing to
this connexion that Iconium is several times called a city of
Cilicia (see Icon1uM).

this (Corp. Inser. Lat. iti, 2709, 2818). In A.D. 37
eastern Lycaonia was placed under Antiochus of
Commagene along with most ot Cilicia ‘Tracheia,
and acquired the name Lycaonia Antiochiana or
(χώρα) Ἀντιοχιανή, Which is applied toit by Ptolemy,
v. 6. 17, in a Latin inscription, Corpus, x. S660,
and probably in a Greek inscription.” In 41
Claudius contirmed this arrangement. It is prob-
able that Laranda was at this time reunited to
eastern Lycaonia, for the policy of Antiochus (a
far more active king than the Cappadocian
monarchs) was carried out along lines of road
radiating from Laranda;}+ and his coins reading
AYTKAONEC were certainly struck at an important
city, and Laranda is the only important Lycaonian
city that could be within his kingdom. Ptolemy,
indeed, mentions even Derbe in Antiochiana; but
the name Claudio-Derbe (like Claud-leonium)
proves that it was in the province under Claudius
(A.D. 41-54), and Ptolemy has probably fallen into
error owing to the fact that Derbe had been
originally attached to the eastern or Cappadocian
half of Lycaonia at the settlement ot Pompey
in B.C. 64.

Under Claudius and Nero, when St. Paul visited
the churches of South Galatia, Lycaonia included
the two parts, the Roman and the Antiochian.
The former contained two cities, Lystra and Derbe,
and a number of villages and small towns, chietly
towards the north-east, and it is correctly de-
scribed (Ac 14°) as ‘the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra
and Derbe, and the region round about’ ; in other
words, the apostles, when driven out of Iconinm,
crossed the frontier of Phrygia into Roman Lyca-
onia. Moreover, the regions of which the vast
province Galatia was composed (see vol. 11. p. 87)
were called χῶραι, ‘Territories’; and, as we have
seen, the part of Lycaonia not governed by the
Romans was called the Antiochian ‘Territory, or
Lycaonia Antiochiana.} In distinction therefrom
the Roman part would naturally be called by an
adjective derived from the provincial name (for a
country became part of the Roman Empire in
virtue of being included in a province), te. it
would be styled either the Galatic Territory (Ac
18") or Lycaonia Galatica, a name which does not
occur, but is proved by the similar names Galatic
Pontus (as distinguished from Polemoniac Pontus,
ruled by king Polemon) and Galatic Phrygia (as
distinguished from Asian Phrygia in the province
Asia). In place of the bare title Λυκαονίαν τὴν
Ταλατικήν, the more descriptive and complete
appellation τὰς πύλεις τῆς Λυκαονίας, Avorpay καὶ
Δέρβην, καὶ τὴν περίχωρον is used in Ac 14°; and this
is practically equivalent to τὴν ᾿αλατικὴν χώραν τῆς
Λυκαονίας, ἔχουσαν τὰς πόλεις Λύστραν καὶ Δέρβην καὶ
περικειμένας κώμας. In Ac 16'4 this Territory is not
formally named, but merely its two cities are men-
tioned in succession. In Ac 18% the expression
τὴν Τ᾿αλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν is explained by
Asteriuss (bishop of Amaseia in Pontus in A.D.
401) as τὴν Λυκαονίαν καὶ Tas τῆς Φρυγίας πόλεις.

Both parts of Lycaonia were included in the
united province of Cappadocia-Galatia under the
Flavian emperors. When they were again divided
about 106 by Trajan, it is probable that eastern

~Lyecaonia continued to be connected with Cappa-

docia. But about A.D. 137 a new province was
formed, commonly called the Triple Eparchy, con-

* Frinkel, Inschriften Pergam. ii. 451, about A.p. 90, Φρυγίας
[Λυκαονίας ᾿Αντι]οχίας, Where Frankel wrongly restores [{ΠΠΠ᾿ἰσιδίας
᾿Αντι]χίας, understanding that the district) round Pisidian
Antioch was under a special administration. But that was not
so, and Antioch is included in the preceding term Φρυγίας,
᾿Αντιοχίας is here equivalent to ᾿Αντιοχίανης (χάραξ).

+ On his foundations see Ramsay in Revue Numisiat. 1894,
p. 169 ff.

+ Lycaonia ipsa in Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 95.

8 Homil. viii. (Migne, Patrol. Gr. tom. x1.).

176 LYCIA

LYDIA

sisting of Cilicia, Lycaonia, and ITsauria. The
Lycaonian cities were formed into a union called
Κοινὸν Λυκαονίας, meeting in the worship of the
Emperors: the cities composing it struck coins in
the name of the Koinon, If Ptolemy is correct,
neither Lystra nor Iconium was included in the
Triple Eparchy, but both continued to be in Gal-
atia; and, certainly, neither struck coins as
member of the Koinon. Derbe, on the other hand,
was ἃ member of the Koinon and included in the
Triple Eparchy.

The nanie of the Lycaonians (Auxdoves) is not
used in the Bible, but the adverb Λυκαονιστί, ‘in
the speech of the Lycaonians,’ occurs in Ac 14! (see
Lystra). While the villages and small towns
probably retained the native language and manners
of Lycaonia, the cities such as Lconium and Derbe
were likely to have been Grecized between A.D.
334 and 190, and probably had a Seleucid tone in
municipal law and customs (see Ramsay, /istorical
Comm. on Galatians, 1899).

A Jewish element was likely to spread in Lycaonia
while it formed part of the Scleucid Empire (see
LAODICEA); on the traces of it see GALATIA, vol.
11. p. 88, and IcontumM. A strong Christian infln-
ence is perceptible in the epigraphy of Western
and Northern Lycaomia (v7. ihedent).

Another people called the Inner Lycaones (Avk-
doves πρὸς ἔνδον), Who lived in Phrygia, must be
distinguished. It was probably this Phrygian
people to whom Bartholomew went as an apostle.
Their country was probably Cutchuk Sitchanli
Ova, north from Sandykli Ova. Their history is
treated in Cities and Bishops of Phrigia, pt. ii.
pp. 664, 693 11.

LirERAtUure.—-Lycaonia is treated by Ramsay, List. Geog. of
Asia Minor, pp. 330-346, 850, 355, 357-360 (in that work, sect.
17 on Castabala should be deleted; there was no Castabala
north of Taurus), and better in J/ést. Com. on Galatians.
Many Lycaonian inscriptions are given by Sterrett (who dis-
covered Lystra, and approximately located Derbe) in his Wolfe
Expedition to Asia Minor. See also the admirable Hamilton
and other travellers. W. M. RAMSAY.

LYCIA (Λυκία) was the country that oceupied the
south-eastern part of Asia Minor. Though it is
a land that presents great interest, as regards
antiquities, and history, and physical features, yet
it is of singularly little importance in the story
of early Christianity.

The country consists to a great extent of lofty
mountain masses, rising in many parts, especially
in the eastern half, almost direct from the sea-
shore. But in the fertile valleys of the Xanthos
and other smaller streams, which break the
mountains, or at their mouths, were situated many
great cities, such as Patara, Ac 21! (a famons seat
of the worship of Apollo), and Myra of Lycia, Ac
27°* (whose important harbour was a common
starting-point or finish of the run across sea be-
tween Alexandria and the Asia Minor coast). The
number of separate glens, by which Lycia is broken
up, prevented it from ever becoming a powerful

country. It derived its unity only from foreign
conquest. It was ruled by the Persians, and con-

quered by Alexander the Great: it formed part
of the Selencid Empire, and was disputed between
the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kines; it was taken
from Antiochus the Great by the Romans in B.c.
188 and given at first to Rhodes, but soon after-
wards in 168 it was set free, and for many years
it was very prosperous. It is mentioned as one of
the self-governing states to which the Romans
sent letters in favour of the Jews in B.c. 138-7,
1 Mae 15% (see Carta, DeLos). This implies
that there were Jewish residents; and the ships
carrying pilgrims to and from Jerusalem would
touch at Lycian harbours. The numerous cities
* Myra is mentioned also in the Bezan text of Ac 911,

of Lycia were united in an association called τὰ
Ἐν

Λυκιακὸν Σύστημα. Nearly 100 places in Lycia are
known to have struck coins, and Pliny, Nat.

Hist. v. 28, says there were formerly 70 cities,
and in his time only 36; but only 23 had votes
in the Assembly, called τὸ κοινὸν συνέδριον (six
cities of the first rank had three votes each, those
of the second class two votes, of the third one).
In reward for their fidelity to Rome in the Mithri-
datic war, the freedom of the Lycians was con-
firmed by Sulla. They sutfered exactions occasion-
ally, especially from Cassius in B.C. 43; but their
freedom was again confirmed by Antony. — Lycia
was formed into a Roman province by Claudius
in A.D. 43 on account of the dissensions between
the cities; and in 74 was formed into a double
province along with Pamphylia (see Mommsen on
Corp. Inser, Latin. IL. Suppl. No. 6737). From
43 onwards the governor was a prietorian legatus
Augusti pro pratore; and the old Systema was
transformed imto a union called Κοινὸν Λυκίων,
meeting in the worship of the Emperors under the
presidency of a Lykiarch.

Christianity does not appear to have spread very
rapidly in Lycia; and perhaps to this is due the
petition agaimst the Christians addressed by the
joint province to the Emperor Maximin in A.D.
312 (similar to many petitions from cities of the
Empire, replies to which were returned in identical
terms, quoted by Eusebius, //ist. Meeles. ix. 7).
Part of the petition, with a scrap of Maximin’s
reply, has been found at Arykanda, and is pub-
lished by Mommsen in Arch. Epigr, Mittheil. aus
(st. 1898, p. 98 4F.

An important Jewish inscription of Tlos in Lycia
is published in Lranos Vindobonensis, p. 99.

LITERATURE.—See the series of Austrian publications, the
result of numerous recent Austrian explorations and exca-
vations, especially Benndorf-Niemann, μία, in two folio vols.,
Heberdey, Opramoas, ete. τ also Pinder-Friedlinder, Beitrage
zur alt. Miinzkunde, i. 93-122 ; Hill, Catalogue of the Coins of
Lycia, ete.; Fougéres, de communi Lyctorum; Marquardt,
Rom, Staatsalt. i, 375 ff.; and the older travellers, especially
Fellows and Spratt. V. M. RAMSAY.

LYDDA.—See Lop.

LYDIA (Avéia),—A purple-seller from Thyatira
(Ac 1614. 1δ. 4), Tt is probable that Lydia was her
proper name, as we know that it was a name
commonly borne by women (Hor. Od. 1. 8, 111. 9,
vi. 90). but (see Ὁ: 177>) it may have been ¢

designation derived from the district of Lydia, in
which Thyatira was situated. The account of

Lydia’s occupation is confirmed by what we learn
from other sources of the purple dyes of this
district (cf. Hom. Jd. iv. 141; Claud. Rapét. Pro-
serp. i, 270); and the whole incident in Acts points

to her, having been a woman of some position and

means (cf. Ramsay, δέ, Paul the Traveller, yp. 214).
She had made her home apparently at Philippi,
and, having become a Jewish proselyte, was in the
habit of resorting to a place of prayer which was
located by a riverside, according to a common
practice among the Jews for the facility of the
frequent ablutions which their worship required
(Farrar, δέ. Paul, i. p. 487). There she was found
along with certain other women by St. Paul and
his companions on their first Sabbath in Philippi ;
and in her, at any rate, the apostle found a ready
listener. The Lord opened her heart, and along
with her ‘househoid’? she was baptized, the first
Christian convert, so far as we know, whom St.
aul made in Europe. (For the significance of her
conversion, taken in connexion with those subse-
quently mentioned in this chap., see Lightfoot,
Philipp. p. 524¥.). Lydia’s gratitude showed itself
in the eager desire (παρεβιάσατο, v., οἵ. Lk 24°)
that the apostle and his companions should take

LYDIA

LYDIA

up their abode in her house ; and it was thither
that they again returned after their imprisonment
(v.%), To the Church which yvrew out of this
little company St. Paul afterwards addressed the
most jubilant of all his Epistles ; though the fact
that Lydia herself is not mentioned in it by name
makes it probable that she had either died or left
Philippi in the interval. G. MILLIGAN,

LYDIA (Avéia).—A large country on the west of
Asia Minor, bounded on the north by Mysia
(called in later times Hellespontus), on the east by
Phrygia, on the south by Caria, and on the west
by the Atgean Sea. It contained the valleys of
the Cayster, the lower Hermus with its tributary
the Cogamos, and the Caicus, also as much of the
lower Meander valley as lay north of that river.
Several of the great Ionian cities, Smyrna, Colo-
phon, Ephesus, etc., were situated on its western
coast. The ancient Lydian kingdom, once great
and powerful, was conquered by the Persians about
546.* It passed under the rule of Alexander the
Great in 334; and it was disputed by his successors
after his death, especially between the Perga-
menian and Seleucid kings, until the victory of the
allied Roman and Pergamenian armies in B.C. 190
near Magnesia, in the Hermus valley, brought it
entirely into the Pergamenian kingdom of Eumenes
(as is Inentioned in 1 Mae 88). In 5,0, 183 Lydia,
according to the will of Attalus lr, the last
Pergamenian king, passed into the Roman Empire,
and formed part of the province Asia. The name
Lydia henceforth had πὸ political, but only a
geographical, ethnological, and antiquarian exist-
ence.
by the Romans; and Lydia was merged in that
great province, which embraced also Caria, Mysia,
and Phrygia. (Geographers and historians wrote
about Lydia ; coins (e.g. of Tralleis and Kidramos)
and inscriptions (6.0. CIG 5852, 5984, 6855)
mention facts of old Lydian religion or mytho-
logy ; but those who el regard to existing facts
of society and government had no reason to use
the name.

The avoidance of the name Lydia in the NT to
designate the country, though the action often
lies in its cities, is due to the fact that the early
Church accepted from the first the Roman political
divisions (7.e. the provinces), and classified accord -
ingly. St. Paul, St. John, and St. Peter always
speak of the Roman provinces Achaia, Macedonia,
Illyricum, Asia, etc.| So does St. Luke, except
that he sometimes uses the Greek instead of the
Roman name for each province in the cases where
there was a diflerence, as Hellas for Achaia, Ac
201, Hence Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, ete., are
summed up, not as ‘cities of Lydia,’ but as ‘cities
of Asia.’

It has, however, been maintained recently by
Blass (Acta Apostolor. p. 176) and Zahn (Ein/ei-
tung ind. NT, 1. p. 132) that Luke uses the name
Asia to indicate only the western part of the
province. According to Zahn, Luke’s Asia 15
restricted to Lydia, excluding Caria,t Phrygia, and
Mysia (which were all ineluded in the Roman
province Asia). Blass maintains that Luke’s Asia
included Mysia, Lydia, and Caria, and excluded
only Phrygia: the province had that extent from
133 to 84 B.c., and Ramsay, Church in Rom. Emp.
p. 150, wrongly admitted that sense in Ac 2°. But
there is no example of the name Asia being used in

* Lydia in Ezk 305 AV is corrected to Lud in RV. See Lup.

+ Scholars who hold the North-Galatian theory maintain that
in the single case of Galatia St. Paul made an exception to his
usual practice, and used that name to indicate, not the Roman
province, but the country inhabited by the Asiatic Gauls,

t He does not state his view about Caria explicitly ; some of
his words would place the Carian coast-lands in Asia, and
exclude upper Caria ; others would exclude all Caria,

VOL.. ΠῚ -- Ἶ 2

either of these senses at this time.* Towards A.D.
295 the province Asia was restricted to the country
Lydia, and thereafter Asia bore the meaning which
Zahn attributes to it in Luke’s writings. But in
earlier writers Asia has only two senses: (1) the
entire continent, (2) the Roman province distin-
guished by Ptolemy as ἡ ᾿Ασία ἰδίως λεγομένη. Some
Greek antiquaries, indeed, maintained that Lydia
had once, in very early times, been called Asia; but
this was a mere theory ; not a single example eau
be quoted in its favour; and, according to Strabo
(p. 627), these antiquaries qualified their theory
with a ‘perhaps’ (τάχα yap ἡ Μῃονία ᾿Ασία ἐλέγετο).
There appears in Aristides about A.D. 150 ἃ single
example (to which no parallel is known) of a third
sense, in which, by popular conversational usage,
the name Asia is restricted to the greatest and
most civilized part of the province, te. Asia par
excellence ; but evenin this narrow sense it includes
a considerable part of Phrygia, the Meander
valley from its source, with the rich and important
cities, Apameia, Eumeneia, Laodicea, Hierapolis
(λέγω δὲ (1) οὐχὶ τὴν μέχρι Μαιάνδρου πηγῶν [Asia par
excellence), (2) οὐδ᾽ ὅσην ὁ τῶν ἡγεμόνων ὑμῶν κλῆρος
ὁρίζεται [province], (3) ἀλλ᾽ ἣν ἐξ ἀρχῆς οἱ “Ελληνες
προσεῖπον ᾿Ασίαν [continent], xxii. p. 475 C, Dind.
vol. i. p. 441), se that it justifies neither Zahn nor
Blass. Moreover, it would be unjustifiable to
suppose that Luke uses the term in a sense which
is not found before Aristides, and is in him indi-
cated as a mere conversational expression. Again,
in the letter of the Church of Lugudunum,
addressed τοῖς ἐπ’ ᾿Ασίας καὶ Φρυγίας ἀδελφοῖς (imitated

| by Tertullian, adv. Praz. 1, ecclesiis Asiwet Phrygia),
The generic name Asia alone was employed
oD ᾿

we are not to understand a formal distinction
between Asia and Phrygia, as two mutually
exclusive divisions. Phrygia was divided between
the provinces Asia and Galatia; and Galatic
Phrygia, with the Churches of Iconium, Antioch,
Apollonia, ete., was closely connected with Asian
Phrygia, and is classed along with it as a recipient
of the Lugudunensian letter. The name ‘Acta
occurs very often in inscriptions and coins, both
within and beyond the province: usually it means
the province, sometimes it has a wider sense (e.g.
CIG 5127, 5918, a coin of Nicomedia boasting itself
πρώτη ᾿Ασίας), never a narrower sense. It is used
in many inscriptions of Phrygia to include that
country, in such cities as Apameia, Laodicea,
Eumeneia, ete. (Cit. and Bish. of Phr., No. 8, 292;
C1IG 3957, 39024, ete.). The ordinary usage of the
word ᾿Ασία in the province is beyond doubt.

The feminine of the adj. Lydian (Λυδία) probably
occurs in Ac 164%. The Thyatiran hostess of
the apostle in Philippi was familiarly known in
the town by the ethnic that showed her origin.
To every one who considers how common the
custom was of using a familiar name (a nickname
even) in place of the formal name, this opinion will
seem practically certain. Even in honorary in-
scriptions, and on the bases of statues, the familiar
name is often added to the formal name, and is
sometimes even expressed in a line by itself and
in larger letters,t to bring home to the minds of
citizens their peculiar and intimate relations to
the person honoured. But apparently Paul, who
is more formal and distantly courteous than Luke

* Blass quotes Pliny (Hist. Nat. v. xxviii. 102) as an example
of the sense which he advocates for Asia, but the passage does
not justify him, see Studia Biblica, iv. p. 45f. Zahn quotes it
as supporting himself, equally unjustifiably.

+ This is much the same as ἡ κάτω ’Acie (Pausan. I. iv. 6:
Ireneus, ap. Euseb. HE vy. xx. 5), t.e. lower Asia as distinguished
from upper Asia (compare ἡ ἐντὸς τοῦ Ταύρου ᾿Ασία, Cis-Tauran
Asia, as distinguished from Trans-Tauran, a common phrase);
but such expressions imply one part taken out of the whole.

{ See Marquardt, Rém. Privatalt. p. 27; Borghesi, (!uvres,
iii. p. 503 ff. ; Orelli-Henzen, No. 6252 ; Examples in Asia Minor,
Sterrett, Wolfe Exped. No. 419 (where read gen. or dat., not
accus.); Ramsay, Amer. Journ. Arch. 1888, p. 283.

178 LYE

LYSTRA

in his allusions to individuals, uses the formal per-
sonal name (possibly either Euodias or Syntyche,
Ph 42), just as he speaks of Silvanus (whom Luke
calls Silas), and once of Prisca (Ro 16%, though he
elsewhere, like Luke, employs the familiar diminu-
tive Priscilla; see Ramsay, Church in Rom. Emp.
p. 151f.).

The wealth, the ancient renown, and the high
civilization of Lydia (including the central Tonian
cities), gave it a specially important influence on
the development of Christianity during the first
three centuries. The evangelization of Lydia dates
from the long residence of St. Paul at Ephesus,
Ae 19, The apostle had aimed at evangelizing
Asia on his second journey, but was forbidden to
preach the word there. Accordingly, he did not
touch Lydian soil till he landed at Ephesus while
going back to Jerusalem from his second journey
(Ac 1839), when he made a promise to retin
shortly. On this subject see the special articles
PERGAMUS. SMYRNA, EPHESUS, SARDIS, THYATIRA,
PHILADELPHIA, W. M. Ramsay.

LYE (Jer 2” RV).—See NITRE.
LYING.—See LIE.

LYSANIAS.— The L. mentioned in Lk 31 as being
tetrarch of Abilene at the beeinning of John the
Baptist’s ministry is not expressly mentioned else-
where. Jos. (Ané. xv. iv. 1, and BJ I. xiii. 1)
relates that Lysanias succeeded to the government
on the death of his father Ptolemy, the son of
Menneus, and was killed by Antony at the in-
stigation of Cleopatra, on the charge of being in
league with the Parthians. This was about B.c.
34. In Δ. 42 (Jos. BJ I. xi. 5) the emperor
Claudius bestowed on Agrippa, besides the “terri-
tories given by Augustus to Herod, another king-
dom, called that of L. (see also BJ 11. xi. 8). In
Ant. ΧΙΧ. v. 1, Abila of Lysanias is said to have
been given by Claudius to Agrippa, and in af.
XX. vil. 1 occur the words ‘Apita, Avoavia δὲ αἵτη
γεγόνει τετραρχία. St. Luke has been accused of
inaccuracy in stating that the victim of Antony
was tetrarch of Abilene some sixty years after
his death. The facts may, however, be set forth
as follows:—On the murder of L. the son. of
Ptolemy, his ‘house’ (Ant. XV. x. 1), was farmed
by Zenodorus, and after the latter's death was
given by Augustus to Herod (Ant. XV. x. 3) B.C.
23. Abila is not mentioned among the districts
that passed to the latter, and is, in fact, expressly
distinguished from the possessions of Herod (4 nf.
xix. v. 1). It may well be that Augustus gave
this town, with its neighbouring district Abilene,
to Lysanias, a descendant of the former possessor,
He is known to have acted in a similar way, in at
least one instance, when Jamblichus was restored
to his father’s dominion of Emesa in Parthia, the
latter having been killed by Antony. Abila was
afterwards called A. of L., and was given by the
emperor Claudius to Herod Agrippat. The title
A. of IL. seems to point to a restoration of a
part of the kingdom of L. to a namesake (probably
a descendant) of the original ruler under the name
of tetrarch. In defence of this view it may be
noticed that the original L. only reigned about five
years, scarcely long enough for his name to attach
to the district in perpetuity. Again, a medal was
found by Pococke in the 17th cent., alluding toa L.,
both tetrarch and high priest, who could not have
been identical with the king. Two inscriptions,
also, of the time of Tiberius prove that there was
a tetrarch L., a freedman of whom executed some
work to which one inscription refers, while the
other implies from the mention of L.’s sons that
the tetrarch was a descendant of the king. [,.

was, no doubt, a family name attached to the dis-
trict of Abilene. The L. mentioned in Lk 3! was
probably a descendant, possibly ason of the L. killed
by Antony, and may have been identical with, or
the father of, the L. in the time of Claudius.

LITERATURE. —Godet on Lk 31; S. Davidson, Introd. to NT, i.
214-220; Schirer, HJP τ. ii, 335-339, and literature there
referred to. C. H. PRICHARD.

LYSIAS (Avoias).—1. A Syrian general. After
the victory of Judas Maccabzeus at Bethhoron
(B.C. 166), Antiochus Epiphanes, in departing for
Persia, appointed ‘ Lysias, an honourable man, and
one of the seed royal, to be over the affairs of the
king from the river Euphrates unto the borders of
Egypt, and to bring up his son Antiochus until he
came again’ (1 Mac 3).* His orders were to
‘arry on a war of extermination against the Jews
(v.%!), In fulfilment of this commission, Lysias
assembled a great army, which was placed under
the command of three generals, Ptolemy, Nicanor,
and Gorgias. Gorgias (or, according to 2 Mac 8",
Nicanor) was defeated by Judas at Emmaus (1 Mac
414.) and Lysias himself sustained a crushing
defeat the following year (B.C. 165) at Bethsura
(v.34, Jos. Ant. xu. vii. 5). Upon the death of
Epiphanes (B.C. 164) Lysias as regent-guardian of
the youthful Antiochus Eupator (wh. see) prose-
cuted the war against the Jews, captured Bethsura,
and was besieging Jerusalem, when he had to turn
his attention to a rival in the person of Philip,
another of the generals of Epiphanes, to whom the
latter, before his death, had transferred the care
of his son (1 Mac 64). Although he defeated
Philip (1 Mac 6"), he was unable to maintain the
cause of the youthful king against another claimant
to the throne, a nephew of Epiphanes, who after-
wards reigned under the title of Demetrius Soter
(wh. see). Both Lysias and Eupator, having fallen
into the hands of the latter (B.C. 162), were by his
orders put to death (1 Mac 774, 2 Mac 145, Jos.
ANC ERIE δὶ;

2. See CLAUDIUS LYSIAS. J. A. SELBIE.

LYSIMACHUS (Avoiuayos).—1. L., the son of
Ptolemy, of Jerus., is named in the subscription to
the Greek edition of Esther (Ad. Est 111) as the
translator of that book into Greek. ‘This state-
ment may imply that the additional sections, for
which no Heb. original existed, are also to be
ascribed to Lysimachus. We are told that the tr.
was brought to Eeypt in the 4th year of Ptolemy
and Cleopatra; but as four Ptolemies had wives
named Cleopatra, this information gives hardly
any clue to the date.

2. The brother of the high-priest Menelaus,
whom he left as his deputy (διάδοχος) in Jerus.
when summoned to appear before Antiochus (2 Mac
4%), 1,. excited the hatred of the populace by
his systematic plundering of the temple treasures ;
and seeing that an insurrection was imminent,
he took the precaution of arming 3000 men, and
letting them loose upon the people. Many were
injured in the riot which took place, and L. him-
self was killed beside the treasury (7b. 4°7”).

H. A. WHITE,

LYSTRA was founded as a Roman Colony by
Augustus, probabiy about B.c. 6, when an effort
was made to tame and regulate the mountain
tribes on the southern frontier of the province
Galatia by a system of military roads and garrison
cities (Antioch, Lystra, Parlais, Cremna, Comama,
Olbasa). These colonies all used the Latin language
officially, a rare and noteworthy fact in the eastern

* Cf. 2 Mac 1011 111, where, however, the order of events is
less correctly given, the appointment of Lysias to be ‘chan-
cellor’ and his defeat at Bethsura being placed under Eupator
instead of Epiphanes.

LYSTRA

LYSTRA τὴν

provinces, where, as a rule, Rome acquiesced in
the use of Greek, and made no attempt to natur-
alize Latin. The use of the Roman tongue implies
that these colonies felt a special pride ἴῃ their
Roman character. Lystra was about 18 miles
S.8.W. from Iconium, and a frontier line passed
between them (see ICONTIUM, LYCAONIA). Lt was
situated in a vale at the northern extremity of
the hills which fringe the Lycaonian plain on the
south, and which grow higher and higher as one
proceeds south, till they rise to the main mass of
Mount Taurus. <A stream, which flows eastward
between gentle hills through the smiling vale,
about a mile in breadth, loses itself after some
miles in the great plain. On the north of the
stream, about a mile north-west from the village
of Khatyn Serai, is situated a hillock of consider-
able extent, on which stood the fortified Colonia ;
but the buildings of the city certainly extended
to east and south, over the lower ground at least,
where a large basis bearing an inscription in
honour of Augustus stands probably in its original
position, and perhaps indicates the site of a sacred
place, Augusteum, dedicated to the worship of the
Emperor and of Rome. The city stood about 3780
ft. above sea-level, and about 430 ft. above Iconium.

The history of Lystra is quite unknown; and
even the fact that it was a Roman colony was
unknown until 1885, when the inscription just
mentioned was discovered by the American
Sterrett, and Waddington published a coin with
Latin legend of COLONIA: ΠΑ FELIX -
GEMINA:LUSTRA (the Latin form Lustra, in-
stead of the Grecizing Lystra, is usual on coins
and inscriptions). Leake guessed the site in 1820 ;
Sterrett proved it in 1885, after intermediate
travellers had rejected Leake’s view.

Hardly any remains of the old city are now
visible above ground. There is an Ayasma (as the
Turks call a fountain held sacred by Christians,
ἁγίασμα) in the low ground south of the hill. Not
a trace has been found of the temple of Zeus
Propoleos, Ac 14%; but it is possible that the
Augusteum was in the precinct of the temple ; it
was very common to unite the worship of the
Emperor to that of the chief god of a city. The
Bezan reading, τοῦ ὄντος Διὸς πρὸ πόλεως, is perhaps
the original Lukan text, and is certainly excellent.
The epithet Propoleos was a sort of technical
term, often given to gods whose temple stood out-
side the city; and it is characteristic of Luke’s
style to use the participle ὧν (much in the same
Way as καλούμενο9) before a name or technical
term ; compare Ac 5! 13! 28!7, No inscription has
yet been found relating to the worship of this god ;
but the analogy of other great native Aira in
Asia Minor* makes it practically certain that
there was a college of priests attached to it ; hence
the Bezan text ἱερεῖς 15 true to fact, though this
reading is rejected by all editors, even including
Blass, the special champion of the Western text.

The sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, in celebra-
tion of the Epiphany of the gods, Ac 14", was
probably made at the entrance to the sacred
precinct (πυλών). and the apostles hearing of it as
they were teaching in a public place in the city,
ran forth and stopped it.

Lystra, standing in a retired situation some miles
away from the high road, was not likely to par-
ticipate strongly in the diffusion of Greek civiliza-
tion, when Lycaonia was ruled by the Seleucid
kings; but its neighbourhood to Iconium, the
capital, would give it some opportunity of sharing
in the Grecizing tendency which was such a power-

_ ἢ Good examples are found in inscriptions of Pessinus (Kérte
in Athen. Mittheil. 1897, pp. 16, 39) and of the Milyadic Zeus-
ay (Ramsay, Cittes and Bishoprics of Phrygia, pt. i. p.

ful influence in the Seleucid and Pereamenian
cities of Asia Minor. A town doubtless existed
there before the Roman colony was founded ; but
it was only through that event that Lystra became
important. The population of the colony would
consist of (1) the Latin-speaking colonists, a local
aristocracy of soldiers; (2) the native population
(incole), some of whom were doubtless educated
in Greek, and strong supporters of the Roman
imperial policy ; while the majority were evidently
uneducated, not well acquainted with Greek, but
more naturally expressing themselves in the
Lycaonian tongue, and much under the intluence
of the native superstition, Ac 14",

While the presence of Jewish residents in Lystra
is clear, Ac 16!, no synagogue is mentioned there ;
and the general tone of Ac 14°! sueeests sur-
roundings more thoroughly pagan and less per-
meated by Jewish influence than in Iconium and
Pisidian Antioch. That is natural, for the Jews
would be found most in cities which lay on the
main trade road, and which had been important in
Seleucid times (when the large settlements of Jews
were formed).

When Paul at Lystra healed the lame man, in
whom he discerned the signs of a capacity for
faith, the multitude concluded that the two
apostles were the gods Hermes and Zeus, who had
visited the abodes of men according to a wide-
spread ancient belief. The same two gods are
mentioned in a legend, localized * in these regions,
as visiting the old couple, Philemon and Baucis,
who lived on the Phrygian hills. But afterwards,
when hostile Jews from Iconium and Pisidian
Antioch came to Lystra (probably in pursuance of
the trade which must have existed between those
cities and Lystra), they exerted such influence on
the weak and changeable superstition of the people
that a riot was aroused, and Paul was stoned and
thrown out of the city for dead. From 2 Ti 3!"
it is clear that Timothy, son of a Jewess Eunice,
wife of a Greek, and brought up in the Jewish
faith by his mother and his grandmother Lois,
saw this occurrence. Certainly he was converted
at this time, and doubtless helped to consolidate
the newly founded Church in Lystra, which Paul
revisited three times, Ac 147! 16! 183,

In Ac 14° Lystra is named before Derbe, in 16!
after it, corresponding to the geographical order
necessitated by the direction of the journey in each
Se.

The connexion between Colonia Lustra and its
Roman metropolis Antioch, the military centre of
Southern Galatia (which is well illustrated by the
dedication of a statue of Concord at Antioch by
Lystra, Sterrett, Wolfe Kapedition in Asia Minor,
Ρ. 219), was maintained by an imperial road, which
is called in the Acta Pauli et Thecle βασιλικὴ ὁδός,
‘the road made by the βασιλεύς,᾽ ae. the Roman
emperor. According to that document (which goes
back to a very early original, though much cor-
rupted by interpolation), Paul, when expelled from
Antioch, Ac 13°, went along the ‘royal road’ that
leads south to Lystra until he came to a place
where a cross-road diverged eastwards to [econinum :
here Onesiphorus of Iconium was waiting for him,
being warned in a vision, and induced him to go
to Ieconium with him.+t

Little is known about the post-biblical history

* The name is corrupted in Ovid, Metam. viii. 719, our only
authority. MSS. have trineius, fineius, thineyus, Ocineius,
chineius, tirinthius, tyreneus, thyrneius, etc. These point to
Tvrieius or Tyriaius, belonging to Tyriaion, though the editors
almost all give the impossible Tyaneius. Tyana was not in
Phrygia, and could not give an adj. of this form.

t The term royal road, denoting imperial highways as distin-
guished from common country roads, occurs also in an inscrip-
tion of Termessos, Lanckoronski, Studte Pamphyliens, ii. p. 203,
and regalis via is mentioned at Colonia Comaima, Corp. 1 σον,
Latin. iii. Suppl. No. 6974.

180 MAACAH

MAAREH-GEBA

of Christianity in Lystra. Artemas, one of the
Seventy disciples, is said to have been bishop there
according to a Jate and untrustworthy tradition,
Eustochius of Vasada settled at Lystra and was
arrested there and carried to Ancyra, where -he
was executed.

The tradition may be good, for it 1 ONIA, ANTIOCH, ICONIUM.

preserves the memory that Lystra was under
Ancyra, the metropolis of the province Galatia,
until about A.D. 295. Tiberius was bishop of
Lystra in A.D. 325 (for a list of later bishops see
Gams, Series episcoporum, p. 45). See also Lyca-
W. M. Ramsay,

M

MAACAH (a2y> ‘oppression’).—4. Father of
Achish, king of Gath in the beginning of Solomon’s
reign, | kK 2, It is just possible that he is identi-
cal with Maoch τὴν of 1 S 272; but as there is an
interval of about fifty years between the events
recorded in these two references, we may suppose
that Maacah was grandson of Maoch.
(Qu. Heb. on 25 10°) maintains the identity, but
says that M. was mother of Achish. 2. One of
David's wives, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur,
and mother of Absalom (2S 3°, 1 Ch 33). Jerome
(Qu. Heb. on 28 137) quotes a Jewish tradition
that she had been captured in war by David, who
used to raid the Geshurites while he was at Ziklag
(18 27%). Possibly David’s marriage with M. was
the ratification of a treaty with her father. 3.
Favourite wife of Rehoboam and mother of Abijam
or Abijah (2 Ch 1159. Probably she was named
after No. 2, In 1K 15% she is called the
daughter of Abishalom (Absalom, 2 Ch 1130. 510
But Absalom’s only daughter was Tamar ; accord-
ingly the LXNX of 2 1457 adds of Tamar that ‘she
became wife of Rehoboam?’ (γίνεται γυνὴ τῷ ‘PoSodu).
This is followed by Josephus twice (Ant. VIL. viii.
5, VIE. x. 3). However, in 2 Ch 13? she appears as
‘Micaiah, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah’ (LXX
and Syriac, Maacah). It is commonly supposed
that Uriel married Tamar, and so Maacah was
really Absaloin’s granddaughter (so Josephus once,
Ant. VWI. χ. 1). ‘Daughter’ is sometimes used in
this way, e.g. 2 Καὶ 8°. Jerome, however (Qu. Heb.),
distinguishes her father from David’s son. ΔΙ.
retained the position of queen-mother (gébirah,
ἡγουμένη) until the reign of her grandson Asa. He
in his reforming zeal deposed her ‘ because she had
made an abominable image (simalacrum Priapi)
for an Asherah’ (1 Καὶ 15%, 2 Ch 15'). She was
apparently shielded from the extreme penalties
resolved on by the people according to 2 Ch 1515,
4 Son of Nahor by his concubine Reumah (Gn
22"4), § One of the concubines of Caleb, son of
Hezron (1 Ch 3.8). 6, Wife of Machir, daughter
of Benjamin, and whole sister of Huppim and
Shuppim (1 Ch 71%), RVm_ supposes another
Maacah, sister of Machir. The text is corrupt
according to VPB. 1. Wife of Jeiel the father of
Gibeon (1 Ch 839. 9%) 8, Father of Hanan, who
was one of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11%). 9, Father
of Shephatiah, who was captain of the tribe of
Simeon in David's reign (1 Ch 9716),

N. J. D. WHITE.

MAACAH.~—A small Aramean kingdom in
Gaulanitis, the modern Jauldn, east of the Sea
of Galilee (6. A. Smith, WGAHL p. 553; Ewald,
HT ii. 302). In Dt 3%, Jos 12% the territory in
Bashan assigned to Manasseh extends ‘unto’ the
border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites,’
But in Jos 13" ‘the border’ of these peoples is
included in Manasseh. The discrepancy is ex-
plained by the fact that they maintained their
independence (Jos 13!, 1 Ch 2%), Accordingly in
2 5. 10° the Ammonites hire ‘the king of Maacah’
(Β ᾿Αμαλήκ) to aid them against David. Here and in

Jerome |

v.5 Maacah and Tob seem to be distinguished from

the other mercenaries, who were Syrians, but in |

the account of the battle all are alike called
Syrians. This is confirmed by the parallel narra-
tive (1 Ch 19°), where their country is called Aram-
maacah. It is evident that they were a small
community, from a comparison of the numbers
furnished by the other allies. Abel-beth-maacah
in Naphtali (28 204, 1 kK 15%, 2K 15”) was
probably a colony that went north-west. The
names of some Maacathites are recorded. Esh-
temoa (1 Ch 4:5), who occurs in the genealogy of
Judah; Ahasbai, father of Eliphelet, one of
David’s heroes (see ΟΡ on 28 9235: and 1 Ch
11-85) where MT, perh. by textual error, has
Mecherathite); and Hoshaiah, father of Jezaniah,
who was one of the captains of the forees who
joined Gedaliah (Jer 408 42"), See, further,
Dillm. on Gn 22%, Dt 34, Jos 138, and Driver on
Dt 34, N. J.D. WHITre,

MAACATHITE.—See preceding article.

MAADAI (p>; B Μοδεδειά, A Moodea, Lue.
Moovdeca). —One of the sons of Bani, who had
marricd a foreign wife, Ezr 1091, called in 1 Es 959
Momdis.

MAADIAH (πρὸ; A Μααδιάς, Lue. Μαασιάς, B
om.).—A priestly family which returned with Zerub-
babel, Neh 12°; called in v.!” Moadiah {πὸ},
A ἐν καιροῖς [apparently through a confusion with
oqs2 ‘sacred seasons’], Luc. Μασαί).

MAAI (‘y2; A Maai, Lue. Mad, B om.).—One of
the sons of Asaph who took part in the ceremony
of the dedication of the walls, Neh 12”,

MAALEH-ACRABBIM.—Jos 15° AV (‘ascent of
Akrabbim,’ RV). See AKRABBIM, and DEAD SEA
wath)

in vol. i. p. 575°.

MAANI (A Maavi, B Maveit, AV Meani), 1 Es 5°
=MEUNIM, Esr 2°, Neh 7°.

MAARATH (my; B Μαγαρώθ, A Μαρώθ, Lue.
Μααρώθ).---Α town of Judah, in the mountains,
noticed with Beth-anoth, Jos 15°, The site is
uncertain. Possibly the name survives corrupted
at Beit ?Umméar, in the Hebron hills west of
Tekoa. See SWP vol. ili. sheet xxi.

C. R. CONDER.

MAAREH-GEBA (323 προ; B Μαρααγάβε, A
δυσμῶν τῆς Ταβαά [ef. Vule. oh occidental urbis
parte]; AV ‘the meadows of Gibeah,’ RVm ‘the
meadow of Geba’).—The place from which the
men placed in ambush rushed forth to attack the
Benjamites (Jg 20°). There can be little doubt
that Bertheau, upon the authority of LXX (A)
and Vulg., rightly emends MT to yaad awe ‘to the
avest of Geba’ (better Gibeah ; see GIBEAH, No. 2).
This is accepted by Moore (who, however, reads
Gibeah), Budde, ete. Studer, following the Pesh-

MAASAT

MACCABEES, THE 181

itta, reads ‘3 mys ‘from the cave which is in
Gibeah.’ J. A. SELBIE.

MAASAI (vy; Β Μαασαια, A Maoal, Luc.
Maacei).—The name of a priestly family, 1 Ch 91",

MAASEAS (Maacalas).— The grandfather of
Baruch (Bar 1!)= MAHSEIAH (which see) of Jer 3213
ΘΙ ἢ

MAASEIAH (πὴ and savy ‘work of J”’; on
the distribution of this name in different periods of
Israel’s history and the inferences to be drawn
therefrom, see Gray, Heb. Proper Names, 181,
293).—41. A priest of the sons of Jeshua, who had
married a foreign wife, Ezr 1018, called in 1 Es 915
Mathelas. 2. A priest, of the sons of Harim, who
had committed the same offence, Ezr 105, Foreign
wives had been taken also by 3, 4 a priest, of the
sons of Pashhur, Ezr 10%, called in 1 Es 9”
Massias, and a layman, of the sons of Pahath-
moab, v.**. 5, The father of Azariah who helped
to rebuild the wall, Neh 3. 6. One of those who
stood upon the right hand of Ezra at the reading
of the law, Neh 84, called in 1 Es 95 Baalsamus.
7. One of those who expounded the law to the
neople, Neh 87, called in 1 Es 9 Maiannas. He
Is perhaps the same as the preceding. 8. One
of those who sealed the covenant, Neh 10%. 9.
A Judahite family name, Neh 115, in 1 Ch_ 9°
Asaiah. 10. A Benjamite family name, Neh 11’.
41, 12. Two priests (B om.), Neh 12%, 13. A
priest in the time of Zedekiah, Jer 21! 29° 354 37°.
14, The father of the false prophet Zedekiah, Jer
2971, 15. A Levitical singer mentioned upon the
oceasion of David’s bringing up the ark from the
house of Obed-edom, 1 Ch 15!8 2°, 16. One of the
captains who assisted Jehoiada in the overthrow of
Athaliah, 2 Ch 23!. 17. An officer (nv) of Uzziah,
2Ch 2611, 18. A son of Ahaz slain by Zichri the
Ephraimite, 2 Ch 987, 19. Governor of Jerusalem
under Josiah, 2 Ch 348. 20. In 1 Ch 6* Baaseiah
(m:¥33) appears to be a textual error for Maaseiah
(πὴ), by a not infrequent confusion between 2
and Ὁ. J. A. SELBIE.

MAASMAS (Μαασμᾶς, AV Masman), 1 Es 8*.—
Corresponds to SHEMAIAH, Ezr 8°. But the text
is corrupt, Σαμαίας the Gr. equivalent of Shemaiah
being inserted later in the verse.

MAATH (Madé).—An ancestor of Jesus, Lk 3%.
MAAZ (7x2, Mads).—A Jewish family name, 1 Ch
One

MAAZIAH (πηι, 3" y2).—The name of a priestly
family which constituted the 24th course, Neh 10°
(B Nadecd, A Μααζειά), 1 Ch 3418 (B Maacai).

MACALON (οἱ ἐκ Μακαλῶν), 1 Es 5%.—The same
as MICHMASH; cf. Ezr 277 (Mayuas). The second
syllable is perhaps due to reading M as AA.

MACCABEUS (Makka8aios).—The surname of
Judas, the third son of Mattathias (1 Mac 2? 3! ete.,
2 Mac 5” ete.). See next article.

MACCABEES, THE (οἱ Maxxafatoc),—

i. THE NATIONAL RISING UNDER MATTATHIAS.
In B.C. 175 Antiochus Iv. (Epiphanes) began to
reign over Syria. It was the ill-starred attempt
of this monarch to Hellenize the Jews by force
that caused the Maccabean revolt. At the time
of his accession to the throne the Greek influences
which everywhere followed in the wake of the
conquests of Alexander the Great were fast pene-
trating the life of Palestine ; the more aristocratic

section of the population were, in particular,
affected by them. ‘The advance of Hellenism was,
indeed, partially checkmated by the organized
resistance of the Hasidwans (Heb. Μασ =the
‘pious’), who were the champions of the law.
But only partially. The leader of the Hellenistic
faction in Judea was Joshua, a younger brother
of the noble-minded high priest Onias ΠῚ. He

Grecized his own name into Jason, and apparently

imagined that the name Jahweh might similarly
be converted into Zeus. At Antioch he bargained
with Epiphanes that the priesthood should be
transferred from Onias to himself, and that he
should be authorized to start an active pagan pro-
paganda in Judea. A gymnasium was accordingly
built at Jerusalem, and Greek sports were prac-
tised quite close to the temple; even the priests
forsook the altar to join in the games (2 Mac 41-44),
After holding office for three years (174-171), Jason
was supplanted by Menelaus, a Hellenistic Ben-
jamite, who became a complete renegade from
Judaism, and obtained the help of Syrian troops
against the unyielding Jason. An unfounded
rumour that Antiochus had died in Egypt led
Jason to attack Jerusalem, and Menelaus had
to secure himself in the fortress. The Syrian
despot viewed these disturbances as a_ Jewish
rebellion (2 Mac 511), and his arrival at Jerus. in
170 was signalized not only by the flight of Jason,
but also by the profanation and robbery of the
temple, and by the slaughter of many of the
inhabitants. At this time Philip the Phrygian, a
man of low morale, seems to have been appointed
governor of Jerus. so as to assist Menelaus in the
task of reducing the Jewish people to a proper
degree of subserviency to the king.

'l'wo years later, the Holy City was laid waste by
Antiochus’ general Apollonius, and Syrian soldiers
were placed in the Acra, a stronghold overlooking
the temple. The tyrant next gave orders that

Jewish rites should cease and heathen customs be |

observed, under pain of death. An idol altar (‘the
abomination of desolation’ [see art. ABOMINATION
OF DESOLATION], Dn 927) was set up in the temple,
and sacrifices offered to Jupiter; copies of the law
were searched for and destroyed ; women with the
babes they had circumcised were kurled headlong
from the city wall. But Antiochus had overshot
the mark. Hitherto under the Ptolemies as well
as the Seleucid religious freedom had been ex-
pressly guaranteed to the Jews, and, before the
province could be completely Hellenized, the stolid
conservatism with which they clung to the ébserv-
ances of the Mosaic law required to be overcome.
Experience showed that it could not be overcome.
The extreme measures of Antiochus alienated many
whose sympathies were largely with the Greek
party. In consequence of his avowed intention
to extirpate the Jewish religion the whole situation
in Palestine was changed, and an invincible spirit
of earnest religious patriotism was evoked. Many
saved their lives by acquiescing in the_king’s
measures, but others chose rather to die. It soon
became clear that nothing would induce Israel to
abandon her ancestral worship, and the moral
force of her leaders enabled her to withstand the
oppressive cruelty of the Syrians, and to achieve
what might well have been considered impossible.
The ruthless policy of Epiphanes, adopted at the
instigation of some apostate Jews who assured
him that the whole country could be Hellenized,
speedily brought matters to a crisis. Every village
in Palestine was required to set up its heathen
altar, and imperial officers were told off to see that
heathen sacrifices were duly offered by all the
citizens. A brave stand was made by Mattathias,
an aged priest whom the persecution had driven to
live at Modin, a little country town between Joppa

182 MACCABEES, THE

MACCABEES, THE

and Jerusalem. When ordered to offer the first
heathen sacrifice, he refused; and when a base
Jew was about to do the unholy deed, Mattathias
slew both him and the king’s commissioner (A pelles),
and pulled down the altar, Calling on all the faith-
ful to follow him, he then with his five sons—John,
Simon, Judas, Eleazar, and Jonathan—fled into
the mountains and raised the standard of rebellion,
Many who shared his feelings took refuge in the
wilderness, but were pursued by the Syrian officers,
who bade them yield or die. Rather than profane
the Sabbath by fighting, 1000 fugitives allowed
themselves to be slaughtered. But after this, to
avoid extermination, Mattathias and his friends
resolved to defend themselves from attack even
upon the Sabbath. Approving of this spirited
policy, a large army of Jews who loved their
country and their religion now came forward in their
support, and openly began to put down heathenism
throughout the land. Mattathias died in B.c. 166
after blessing his sons and solemnly charging them
to be zealous for the law, and to give their lives for
the covenant of their fathers. The leadership he be-
queathed to Judas, who was (? even then, cf. 1 Mac
265" or only afterwards) surnamed J/accabaeus, and
whose followers consequently came to be known as
the Maccabees.

ii, THE NAME MACCABEE. —As already indicated,
Maccabeeus (Cir. Μακκαβαῖος, ? Heb, "ΞΡ2) is properly
the distinctive surname of Judas, third son of
Mattathias, and after him leader of the heroic
strugele against the ΜΟΙ ποῖ Ὁ (1 Mac 2% 3! ete.)
For long it was held that Maccabee was formed
from the initials of the opening words of Ex 151}:
mi khamokhah ba’élim Jahweh (‘who is like thee
among the gods, Jahweh?’), which were further con-
jectured to have been inscribed by the party upon
their banners. But (1) the eustom of forming new
words in this fashion, although common among
the Jews ata later date, does not appear to have
as yet come into vogue; (2) the Gr. form as written
with κα cannot upon this theory be accounted for ;
(3) this interpretation of the name is too vague to
fit in with the facts of the history, for in the first
instance it was not the watchword of the party,
but the individual surname of Judas (ὁ Max«a-
Baios). In a treatise upon The Name Machabee
(Leipzig, 1876), S. J. Curtiss contends that the
word is derived from hahah and means ‘the ex-
tinguisher’ (of his enemies), after Is 4317. but this
derivation also rests on precarious grounds. The
original He), form having been lost, it is impossible
to say with certainty whether it was written with
ᾧ (3) or with & (>), and in fact the Rabbinical
texts use both letters indifferently. Curtiss argues
that Jerome’s spelling of the word (Machabacus)
points to his acquaintance with a Heb. form +220,
whereas he probably adopted the Latin ortho-
graphy current in his time. But as the Old Latin
version is derived from the Gr. text of 1 Mac, we
are thrown back upon the Gr. form of the name as
the nearest indication of the original, and this
leaves the matter uncertain, as MakxaBatos might
come either from a word with & or from one with ἢ.
There remains what must be regarded as the most
probable derivation, viz., that from makkabah
(7232) = ‘hammer.’ If, as Ewald supposes, the
surnames of the sons of Mattathias were intended
merely as distinctive titles, that of ‘hammerer’
appears to be natural enough ; while, on the theory
that they were symbolical, the idea conveyed will
be that of ‘vigorous, sharp-beating warrior,’ or
‘chivalrous hero,’ The case of Charles Martel is
not strictly analogous, as he derived the title
directly from his battle-axe. A better parallel
is aflorded by the designation of Edward 1. as
‘Scotorum malleus.’ Curtiss may be right in his
assertion that in the OT (Jg 42, 1K 67, Is 44:5

Jer 102) makkabah denotes an ordinary hammer,
and not the heavy sledge-hammer whi:h would
more adequately symbolize the impetuosity of
Judas; but this circumstance can scarcely be con-
sidered decisive. See, further, Kautzsch (Apoer. τ.
Pseudepigr. εἰ. AT, 24, where the interpretation
‘hammerer ἢ is adopted),

The name Maccabee was gradually widened in
scope so as to embrace not only the brothers of
Judas and all who were his blood relations, but
also all his followers and coadjutors in the desperate
strugele against the tyranny of the Syrian kings.
It became in a special manner connected with the
seven martyred brethren whose story is (rhetori-
cally) told in 2 Mac 6'8-7#, and whose moral
bravery is reckoned worthy to stand alongside of
that shown by those who fell in battle for the
same sacred cause. Ultimately the name came to
have a purely ideal significance, as, ¢.g., in the
titles of the so-called ‘Third and Fourth Books of
Maccabees. At present, however, it is used to
designate only the sons and descendants of Matta-
thias. Although even in this limited sense the
term Maccabees has established itself in general
usage, the proper name of the family is that of
Hasmonzans (or Asmonivans), derived from Hash-
mon (1.6. ‘fat,’ ‘rich’? = magnate; cf. Ps 68?! 2),
Gr. ᾿Ασαμωναῖος (Jos. Ant. XI. vi. 1), the great-
grandfather of Mattathias. Jewish writers accord-
ingly use this name in preference to that of Macca-
bees, and among the Jews 1 and 2 Mace are known
as ‘Books of the Hasmonzeans’ (ΟΝ ΤΠ 5D; see
Winer, Lealworterb. under ‘ Makkabiier’).

il. THE JEWISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE LED
BY THE MACCABEES.

(i.) Campaigns of Judas Maccabeus (166-161).—
The prescience of Mattathias in nominating Judas
as his successor was fully justified by events.
Judas soon proved himself a born general. He
united in his own person the faith of Abraham,
the zeal of Elijah, the stature of Saul, and the
courage of David. He was at once the terror of
his enemies and the pride of his nation. ‘He
angered many kings, and made Jacob glad with
his acts, and his memorial is blessed tor ever’
(1 Mac 97). In the very first year of his leadership
he rose to fame by defeating the Syrian generals
Apollonius and Seron: ‘Every nation told of the
battles of Judas’ (1 Mae 3”). Enraged at the
defeat of his forces, Antiochus sent his kinsman
Lysias with half of his whole army to root out
the Jewish nation and divide their land among
strangers, while he himself with the rest of the
troops crossed the Euphrates to exact tribute and
collect money. Lysias at once sent against Judea
a large army under three trusted generals, Ptolemy,
Nicanor, and Gorgias. The Syrians made so sure
of victory that they had arranged for the attend-
ance of slave-dealers to buy up Israelitish prisoners,
but Judas and his brethren met them fearlessly.
Gathering at Mizpeh, they observed a day of fasting
and prayer, and further prepared for battle by
organizing their troops into a regular army. With
a detachment of 6000 men Gorgias planned a night
attack on the Jewish camp; but Judas cleverly
removed his forces, smote the main army under
Nicanor, set fire to the Syrian camp, and waited
for the disappointed Gorgias, whose troops fled on
sighting the smoke of the burning tents. Thus
‘Israel had a great deliverance that day’ (1 Mac
4”). The next year (165-164) Lysias himself led a
still larger army against Judiea, but was heavily
defeated by Judas at Bethzur, between Hebron
and Jerusalem. He then retired to Antioch with
the view of enlisting the services of mercenary
troops to suppress the rebellion in Judea, Mean.
while Judas took occasion to restore the temple
worship. The shrubs that were growing wild in

MACCABEES, THE

MACCABEES, THE 183

the courts were cleared away ; the idol-altar was
destroyed, and a new altar erected ; and in general
the sacred furniture which had been removed by
Antiochus Epiphanes was replaced. On the 25th
Chislev (Dec.) 165, just three years after its first
defilement, the temple was purified by the offering
of the legal sacrifice upon the new altar, and the
Feast of the Dedication or Renewal (Jn 1053), which
continued to be observed until the destruction
of the temple by the Romans, was joyfully cele-
brated for eight days (1 Mac 45). Thereafter
Judas went on to fortify the temple mount and
the city of Bethzur. ‘These measures conclude
the first stage in the history of the wars of the
Maccabees. As yet they had never experienced
defeat.

The brilliant exploits of Judas and his brethren
excited the latent hostility of the neighbouring

heathen tribes, who formed a fresh coalition
against ‘the race of Jacob’ (1 Mac 5°). Among

other and less known parties to the league, Edom
and Ammon, both old hereditary enemies of Israel,
were routed by Judas. In response to appeals
made to them, the Maccabees then busied them-
selves for a time in delivering from their enemies
and lodging safely in Jerus. many Jews who were
shut up in the fortresses of Gilead and Galilee.
No fewer than 11,000 men were employed in these
expeditions—3000 in Galilee under Simon, and the
rest in Gilead under Judas and Jonathan. At
the fortress of Ephron, which lay in a deep and
narrow pass W. of Irbid, the inhabitants tried
to obstruct the Jewish caravan, with the result
that a way was forced over their dead bodies and
through the ruins of their city. In the meantime
Joseph and Azarias, who had been left in com-
mand at Jerus., foolishly risked an engagement
with Gorgias, and were repulsed with the loss of
2000 men. ‘This disaster, however, was counter-
balanced by some fresh successes of Judas against
the Edomites and Philistines.

No longer under the immediate necessity of
defending the Jewish religion, the Maccabees had
now begun to act upon the aggressive, and even
to aim at the restoration of Jewish independence.
Their ambition in this direction must have been
stimulated by the unexpected tidings that Anti-
ochus Epiphanes had died in the far East (164).
He had appointed Philip, one of his ‘Friends,’ te
act as regent and guardian to the minor Antiochus
v., but Lysias had the latter crowned as king with
the surname of Eupator. In the year following,
by making a determined attack upon the citadel
of Jerus. (Acra), Judas forced the Syrian garrison
to seek help from Antioch. With a great army,
including 32 fighting elephants, Lysias laid siege
to Bethzur, and Judas pitched his camp at Beth-
zacharias, 8 miles nearer Jerusalem. Although in
the battle that followed 600 Syrians were slain,
the Jews were defeated. This first check to the
victorious career of Judas was aggravated by the
loss of his brother Eleazar, who, seeing a superbly
caparisoned elephant on which he supposed the
king to be riding, stabbed the animal from be-
neath, but was himself crushed by its fall. The
Syrians had already got possession of Bethzur,
and were on the point of taking the temple mount
—it was a Sabbatic year, and the Jews were scarce
of food—when Lysias was obliged to hasten to
Antioch, where Philip, who had returned from
the East, was trying to assert his title to the
regency. Lysias therefore quickly made peace
with the Jews, and granted them by treaty the
religious liberty for which they had fought so
well (1 Mac 6”). As the formal abandonment of
the attempt to abolish the Jewish religion by
force, this concession marks the second important
stage in the Maccabwean struggle. Hitherto it

had been a war for religious freedom ; henceforth
it became a war for political independence.

Lysias soon got the better of Philip, but was
himself, along with his ward, put to death by
Demetrius 1., the rightful heir to the Syrian
throne, who had until now been kept as a hostage
at Rome. The Greek party in Judiea induced
Demetrius to send an army under Bacchides to
install the ungodly Alcimus as high priest. Con-
tent to have ‘a priest of the seed of Aaron,’ the
Hasideeans no longer opposed the Syrian rule, but
sixty of them were treacherously slain in one day.
After Bacchides had returned to Antioch without
being able to entrap Judas, the latter speedily got
the upper hand in Judea, and Alcimus had once
more to solicit help from Syria. In consequence,
Judas again met Nicanor in battle. The Syrian
general was beaten, and fell back upon Mount
Zion, where he insulted the priests and threatened
to burn the temple. But in a further battle at
Adasa (161), near the pass of Beth-horon, he was
himself slain, whereupon his army fled. The head
and hand of the insolent blasphemer were hung
up in front of one of the temple gates (Gorionides,
iil. 22. 12; ef. 2 Mac 15%), and the 13th Adar—
the day of the battle—was afterwards kept as
‘Nicanor’s day’ (1 Mac 7*). At this stage Judas,
despairing of being long able to continue the
unequal contest with the imperial armies, sent
ambassadors to the Roman Senate to invoke their
protection against the Syrians. But although a
treaty was concluded, nothing came of it beyond
a warning to Demetrius that further interference
with the Jews would mean war with Rome.
Before the Roman rescript could have reached
Antioch, the contingency dreaded by Judas had
actually occurred. About six weeks after the
defeat of Nicanor, Demetrius sent a fresh army
into Judea under Bacchides. Only 3000 men
were with Judas at Elasa, and most of these
deserted him on seeing the vastly superior strength
of the Syrian host. Even the noble 800 who stood
by him vainly tried to dissuade him from risking
a battle, and Elasa became ‘the Jewish Thermo-
pyle.’ In spite of all they could do, Judas and
his little band were overcome by sheer weight of
numbers. ‘Judas fell, and the rest fled’ (1 Mac
918), His body was carried off by his brothers
and laid in the sepulchre of his fathers at Modin
(161).

In the long roll of Israelitish worthies we meet
with no more striking personality than that of
Judas Maccabieus. His piety was manifest to all ;
his motives were pure and unselfish; he fought
for God’s glory and his country’s good. His un-
selfish devotion was equalled by his military
genius. For seven years, with an enthusiasm
that never flagged, and a generalship which has
never been surpassed, he led the Jews to victory,
and died only when even the noblest heroism could
not conquer.

(ii.) The leadership and high- priesthood of
Jonathan (161-143).-The friends of Judas, now
openly persecuted by the Hellenizers, chose as their
leader his brother Jonathan, surnamed Apphus
(τ. ᾿Απφοῦς,᾿Αφφοῦς, Σαπφοῦς, Σαφφοῦς; Syr. Happus
=?cunning), who filled the post with much shrewd-
ness and success. Wishing as yet to avoid Bac-
chides, Jonathan withdrew to the wilderness of
Tekoah, and sent his eldest brother John to de-
posit the baggage with the friendly Nabatheans.
But his plans miscarried, and John fell a prey te
a robber clan at Medaba. Jonathan crossed the
Jordan and avenged his brother’s death, but mean.
while Bacchides seized the fords and lay in wait
for him. The Jews thus found themselves in a
situation of extreme peril; they saved their lives,
however, by swimming across the river. The

184 MACCABEES, THE

MACCABEKS, THE

return of Bacchides to Antioch on the death
of Alcimus (160) so strengthened the Maccabzean
party, that within two years their opponents had
once more to call in his aid. Although they
had given Bacchides the assurance that Jonathan
should be made his prisoner, the vigilance of the
Maccabees made them cognizant of the plot, and,
after slaying about fifty of the conspirators, Jona-
than and lis followers entrenched themselves at
Sethbasi. This stronghold Bacchides could not
reduce ; he was repulsed with loss by Simon, while
Jonathan at the head of a detached squadron over-
ran the adjacent territory. Stung by these re-
verses, Bacchides slew many of the Hellenizers,
accepted Jonathan’s proposals for peace, and de-
parted into Syria vowing that nevermore would
he interfere in Judwa (c. 156). ‘And the sword
ceased from Israel’ (1 Mae 973). For four years
Jonathan dwelt at Michmash, ‘judging’ the people
and restraining the Hellenizers.

Unbroken peace prevailed until Alexander Balas
entered upon a contest with Demetrius 1. for the
Syrian crown (153). Happily for Jonathan, who
coveted the power and prestige belonging to the
high-priesthood, the office was vacant, and this
dispute over the succession to the throne of Syria
paved the way for his appointment. The rival
claimants looked upon him as a valuable ally, and
he knew how to exploit them. While availing
himself of certain privileges granted in a letter
from Demetrius, he unhesitatingly threw in his
lot with Alexander Balas, who appointed him high
priest, invested him with the order of ‘ King’s
Friend,’ and sent him a purple robe and a diadem,
the emblems of royalty. The same year, at the
Feast of Tabernacles, Jonathan assumed the sacred
vestments, and showed himself zealous in support
of the pretender Balas. Demetrius now, in turn,
offered the most tempting inducements (including
the abolition of taxes, the cession of Acra, the
release of Jewish prisoners, the enlargement of
Judean territory, the payment of Jewish soldiers,
and liberal allowances for the temple and the
building of the city walls) by way of outbidding
his rival; but Jonathan, sceptical as to the sin-
cerity of Demetrius, and aware that the claims
of Balas were favoured at Rome, wisely adhered
to his former choice. In a pitched battle which
ensued, Demetrius was defeated and slain. By
the distinguished reception given to Jonathan at
Ptolemais, where in B.c. 150 Alexander Balas
married the Egyptian princess Cleopatra, and the
rebuff given to certain apostates from Mosaism
who would fain have impeached him in the royal
presence, the triumphant Balas showed his grati-
tude to his Jewish ally. He also ‘wrote him
among his Chief Friends, and made him a captain
and governor of a province’ (1 Mac 10%), Subject
to the suzerainty of Syria, this gave him both the
civil and military command in addition to his
spiritual supremacy as high priest. When, three
years later, Demetrius 11. came from Crete as the
avenger of his father, his cause was espoused b
Apollonius, governor of Οὐ] γυῖα. But though
Balas had proved a worthless king, and had for-
feited the esteem of his subjects, Jonathan stood
loyally by him. ‘Taking the field against Apol-
lonius, he captured Joppa, won a battle at Ashdod
(where he destroyed the temple of Dagon), and
received the submission of Ascalon. In gratitude
for these services Alexander presented Jonathan
with the gold buckle worn by princes of the blood,
and with the city of Ekron. But no effort on
the part of Jonathan could save Balas from ruin
after his father-in-law Ptolemy Philometor turned
against him. In a pitched battle Balas suttered
defeat, and fled into Arabia; but a sheikh of that
country ‘took off Alexander’s head and sent it to

Ptolemy’ (1 Mac 11"), Within three days there-
after the latter died of wounds received in the
battle, and Demetrius 11. became king (145).

At this juncture Jonachan boldly laid siege to
the Acra, and as boldly appeared to answer for
himself before the king at Ptolemais. The result
was a triumph of diplomacy. He carried costly
gifts to the king; and the latter, instead of treat-
ing him as a rebel, ‘gave him pre-eminence among
his Chief Friends’ (1 Mac 1157), besides confirming
him in the high-priesthood, and conceding to the
Jews several of the benefits vainly offered by his
father as the price of their adherence. Shortly
afterwards Jonathan rendered useful service by
sei ling 3000 men to Antioch to aid in putting
down an insurrection which had broken out there
against Demetrius. The latter promised on his
part to withdraw the Syrian garrisons from Jewish
strongholds, but as he failed to keep this promise
Jonathan went over to the side of Tryphon, a
former oflicer of Alexander Balas, who took ad-
vantage of the unpopularity of Demetrius to bring
forward Antiochus, the son of Balas, as a claimant
for the throne, and who was careful to confirm
Jonathan in all his dignities. Jonathan lost no
time in bringing the entire territory between
Gaza and Damascus into subjection. Proceeding
to Galilee he met the generals of Demetrius,
whom, after a threatened reverse, he routed on
the plain of Hazor (¢. 144. At Hamath the
Syrians rallied once more with a view to invade
Palestine, but Jonathan marched beyond Lebanon
and dispersed them.* He afterwards subdued the
Arab tribe of the Zabadzans on the Antilibanus,
returned home by way of Damascus, and set him
self, in concert with the elders, to strengthen the
defences of the country. The walls of Jerus.
were heightened, and an effort made to isolate
the Acra. Meanwhile Simon had not been idle
in his new capacity of commander (στρατηγός) of
the Palestinian seaboard (1 Mae 11°). Besides
capturing Bethzur, he reduced and garrisoned
Joppa, and fortified Adida.

Tryphon now began to distrust the Maccabees,
who had certainly not been unmindful of their
own interests while ‘they fought for one king
against the other, and in the name of the Syrians
drove the Syrians out of Judiea and the adjacent
regions.” Surmising that the Jewish high priest
would probably oppose his plans for usurping the
throne, he suddenly marched into Palestine and
encamped at Bethshan (Scythopolis), where Jona-
than prepared to give him battle. But by dint of
artful flattery Tryphon induced even this wary
Jewish prince to walk into a trap. Having entered
Ptolemais, accompanied by only 1000 men, Jonathan
found himself a prisoner and had his escort slain.
Thus ended his period of active service. Although
a high priest of Israel, he was in no sense a
religious man; it was merely as a ladder to
power that the priest’s office had attractions for
him. He was essentially a worldly ecclesiastic.
And if he was less disinterested in his aims than
his brother Judas, he was also less scrupulous in
his methods of realizing them. But few men in
his circumstances could have achieved more, either
for themselves or for their party. By the adroit-

* According to 1 Mac 121-23 Jonathan at this juncture sent
ambassadors to Rome, Sparta, etc., to conclude or renew
friendly treaties, and they were favourably received by the
Romans. Nothing is said regarding their reception at Sparta,
but the writer gives what purports to be a ‘copy’ of Jonathan’s
letter, and also—apparently as a precedent—one of a letter
formerly written by the Spartan king Arius I. to the Jewish
high priest Onias 1. (B.c. 323-300). Wellhausen (JJG3 p. 266,
n. 3) rejects the whole passage as unhistorical. Unquestion-
ably, it interrupts the main narrative in a very awkward
manner ; but if Jonathan, who was at the time a Syrian officer,
did send such an embassy, it must have been because he had
no faith in the stability of the Syrian kingdom.

MACCABEES, THE

MACCABEES, THE 185

ness with which he turned to account the mistakes
of his enemies, he more than"made up for the lack
of strength in his adherents.

(11.) The administration of Simon, ethnarch
and high priest (143-135).—Simon (Cr. Συμεών,
Σίμων), surnamed Thassi (¢.e., probably, ‘the zeal-
ous’), the sole surviving son of Mattathias, now
gallantly stepped into the breach and was chosen
leader (ἡγούμενος) at a public assembly in Jeru-
salem. He had already justified the epithet, ‘man
of counsel’ (ἀνὴρ Bouvdys, 1 Mac 2%), and had also
distinguished himself as commander of the Medi-
terranean coast from Tyre to Egypt. Tryphon
soon marched against Judea, but found himself
intercepted by Simon at Adida. He thereupon
otiered to release Jonathan for 100 talents of silver
and the custody of two of his sons as hostages ;
but although Simon judged it best to accede to
these terms, Tryphon neither set Jonathan at
liberty nor relaxed his hostile attitude. ΑἸ] his
etforts to reach Jerus., however, were rendered
futile by the sleepless vigilance of Simon. Even
a projected night expedition with supplies for the
famished garrison in the Acra was wrecked by
a heavy fall of snow. Soured and _ battled, he
marched into Gilead and gave vent to his spleen
by putting Jonathan to death at Bascama (143).
The body of Jonathan was afterwards interred
at Modin, where Simon erected a magnificent
family monument, which appears to have been
a landmark for sailors on the Levant (1 Mac
13”). See MopIN.

Now that the war was over, Simon applied him-
self with increased vigour to the task of strength-
ening the defences of Judea. Having made Joppa
a Jewish port, he laid siege to the fortress of
Gazara, and expelled the heathen inhabitants.
Shortly afterwards he appointed his son John
commander-in-chief of his forces, with a residence
at Gazara. He achieved another noteworthy tri-
umph in the reduction of the Acra, the garrison
being at length starved into surrender, and in-
stituted an annual festival in commemoration of
the day of his entry into this last outpost of the
Syrians —the 23rd Lyyar (May) 142. Meanwhile
Tryphon had murdered the puppet-king Antiochus
VI. and seized the Syrian crown. Demetrius 11. was
also embroiled in difticulties with the Parthians,
who were invading his north-eastern provinces,
and Simon took occasion to demand complete ex-
emption from taxes. This Demetrius consented
to grant, along with an amnesty for all political
offences. Thus was ‘the yoke of the heathen’
removed, and the wished-for goal of Jewish inde-
pendence actually reached (1 Mac 13},

Simon was the founder of the high - priestly
dynasty of the Hasmoneans. In B.c. 141, in
recognition of his great services to the nation,
he was formally appointed leader, high priest, and
governor (€@vapyns) ; and these offices were declared
to be hereditary in his family until ‘a faithful
prophet’ should otherwise direct (1 Mac 145). The
popular decree embodying these honours was en-
graven on a memorial tablet placed in the temple.
The first year of Simon’s reign was made the
beginning of a new era, according to which Jewish
legal documents were dated. He also renewed the
friendship and treaty with Rome and Sparta, and
struck his own coins like any other independent
sovereign. The beautiful picture of 1 Mac 1418
shows how well Simon utilized the years of peace
that followed, in building up the prosperity of

Judea. In peace he was even greater than in
war. He possessed the administrative genius.

Under his wise and beneficent sway the country
enjoyed a period of moral and material well-being
for which there is no post-exilic parallel. He was
the patron of trade and agriculture; the friend of

liberty, justice, and religion; a brave soldier, a
worthy priest, and a gifted statesman.

After four or five years, during which ‘ Israel
rejoiced with great joy’ (1 Mac 14"), Simon was
once more caught in the meshes of Syrian politics.
Although Demetrius 11. was a prisoner in Parthia,
his younger brother Antiochus ὙΠ. (Sidetes) took
up arms against Tryphon, and wrote to solicit the
friendship of Simon. But after defeating Try phon
he reversed his policy. While he was besieging his
rival in Dor, Simon sent him gifts and auxiliaries.
These were haughtily declined, and a demand made
for 1000 talents, failing the surrender of Joppa,
Gazara, and the Acra. This was equivalent to a
declaration of war, and very soon the Syrian general
Cendebeeus invaded Judwa. Now an old man,
Simon left his two sons Judas and John to pro-
secute the campaign. Near Modin they gained a
decisive victory.

Vor two or three years more Simon laboured at
his favourite task of developing the internal re-
sources of his kingdom. ‘Then came the tragic
end. In the castle of D6k, near Jericho, at a
banquet ostensibly held in their honour, he and
two of his sons fell victims to the murderous
ambition of his son-in-law Ptolemy, the son of
Abubus, who aimed at the supreme power (1385).
Ptolemy’s designs were frustrated, however, owing
to the miscarriage of his plans for the assassination
of Simon’s third son, John, governor of Gazara.
The latter, warned in time, slew the emissaries of
Ptolemy, and forthwith assumed the government
and the high-priesthood.

More than thirty years had passed since Matta-
thias openly resisted the religious persecution of
his nation. In the faithful and skilful hands of
his sons the crusade inaugurated by him had been
singularly successful. One by one they had fallen
in the sacred cause which he had committed to them
(1 Mac 67% 918 936.42 133 1616), But they had not
shed their blood in vain. The valour of the Mac-
cabees had rehabilitated the Jewish nation. Not
only was the old spirit of independence thoroughly
aroused, but there was also developed a new con-
sciousness of the worth of their revealed religion.
As the most thrilling epoch in Jewish history, and
that which shaped the last phases of Jewish belief
prior to the advent of our Lord, the age of the
Maccabees has a peculiar interest for the student of
Christianity.

iv. THE HASMONEZAN DyNAStTy.—The relation-
ship of the various scions of the Hasmonaan
house is exhibited in the subjoined genealogical
table.

The reign of John Hyrcanus (135-105) was bright
and prosperous. After the flight of Ptolemy, his
brother-in-law, he encountered the hostility of
Antiochus vil. (Sidetes), to whom he agreed to pay
tribute. But in B.c. 128 Antiochus met his death
in fighting against the Parthians, and Hyrcanus
availed himself of the opportunity afforded by the
dispute which arose about the succession to the
throne of Syria to make the Jewish kingdom
territorially as extensive as it had ever been. The
country E. of the Jordan, Samaria, and Edom were
in turn brought under his sway, and no further
tribute was paid to the Syrian kings. He further
added to the defences of the country, and during
his reign the old fortress of Baris (later Antonia)
was rebuilt. Hyrcanus also concluded a treaty
with the Romans, and was the first Jewish prince
whose name was inscribed on the coins. Men liked
to flatter themselves that the prophetic gift had
been restored in his person (Jos. dnf. XII. x. 7).
Outwardly brilliant, however, as his reign was, it
was marked by a strong development of internal
discord. It was at this time that the sects of the
Pharisees and Sadducees first tovk delinite shape

186 MACCABEES, THE

MACCABEES, THE

Hashmon
Simeon

Johanan

Mattathias, t B.c. 166
|

|
Simon (Thassi)
t 135 1

|

|
Johannes (Gaddi)
ft 161

|
Judas (Maccabeus)
+ 161

|
Judas Johannes Hyrcanus
18 1.108
|

] |
Eleazar (Avaran) Jonathan (Apphus)
t 163-2 {148
ea |
Mattathias Daughter = Ptolemzus
t 135 (1 Mac 1011)

| |
Judas Aristobulus 1.=Salome (Alexandra)
t 104 t 69

as political and religious parties. The Maccabman
party was originally Pharisaic, but Hyrcanus now
went over to the Sadducees, who attached more
value to political supremacy.

Of the five sons left by Hyrcanus, three rose to
power. Their names were originally Judas, Matta-
thias, and Jonathan, but in accordance with their
father’s new-born Hellenistic proclivities they were
now designated Aristobulus, Antigonus, and Alex-
ander Jannieus.

Hyrcanus bequeathed the civil power to his wife,
and the high-priesthood to his eldest son Aristo-
bulus. But the latter shut up all his relatives in
prison except Antigonus, and openly assumed the
title Aing of the Jews, ‘a name previously unknown
to Heb. history, but destined to carry with it a
sacred and enduring significance’ (Mt 272, Mk 152
etc.). Antigonus also fell a victim to his jealousy,
owing to suspicions awakened in him by ‘his evil
spirit’ Salome Alexandra. In other respects he
appears to have deserved well of his country, whose
boundaries he enlarged by the subjugation of the
Iturians ; but remorse forthe murder of his brother
is said to have brought on his death, which occurred
in B.C. 104, after a reign of only one year.

The next king was Alexander Jannzus (104-78),
the eldest surviving brother of Aristobulus, Of
warlike disposition, he set himself to complete the
conquest of Palestine, which his father had begun,
and after varying fortunes succeeded in bringing
under his sway most of the important towns on
the Philistine coast, as well as the regions E. of
the Jordan. But Janneus had other battles to
fight. His reign was marked by civil dissension
and internal revolt. A supporter of Hellenism,
and a dissolute high priest whose hands reeked with
blood, he came into acute collision with the Phari-
sees, and took the most savage revenge on his
opponents,

Before his death Janneus handed over the
government to his wife Salome Alexandra, who
soon proved her fitness to rule. Shrewdly enough,
she at once threw herself into the arms of the
Pharisaic party, allowing them practically to re-
gulate the inner life of the nation, but reserving
to herself the control of external affairs, Her elder
ton Hyrcanus IL., asa pliable weakling, was invested
with the office of high priest, while her younger son
Aristobulus, who had energy and ability enough to

Antigonus

Alexander Jannieus = Alexandra
105 1 τ j

|
‘ |
Aristobulus 11
t 49
|

Antigonus
107

|
Hyrcanus 11, + 30

|
Alexander = Alexandra
t 49 t 28

Aristobulus

|
Mariamne= Herod the Great
+ 35 ὡς

ἘΈΕΡΥΝΝ
+ B.C. 7
render him dangerous, was kept strictly aloof from
public affairs. The latter, who disliked the Phari-
~sees and the docility with which his mother gave
_ effect to their wishes, particularly as regards an ill-
advised attempt to take vengeance on those who
had counselled the crucifixion of 800 rebels during
the reign of his father Janneus, ultimately seized
several fortresses, and contrived to raise an army,
with which he bore down upon Jerusalem. At
this stage Alexandra, who had on the whole ruled
happily and with discretion, died after reigning for
nine years (69).

Aristobulus soon got the better of Hyrcanus 11.,
who agreed to retire in his favour and reside in
Jerusalem as a private citizen. But the abdication
of Hyrcanus was distasteful to some, and especially
to one whose name we now meet with for the first
time—the Idumian Antipater, father of Herod the
Great. Working upon the fears of Hyreanus, this
man persuaded him to flee for protection against
his brother to the Arabian king Aretas, from whom
he extracted a promise to re-establish Hyrcanus in
his dominions, provided the latter gave up all
claim to twelve cities unjustly wrested from the
Arabians by Alexander Janneus. Defeated in
battle, and deserted by many of his troops, Aris-
tobulus retreated to the temple mount, where he
was besieged by a coalition army of Arabs and
Pharisees.

At this juncture (B.C. 65) the shadow of Rome
first fell upon the land. Scaurus, the legate of
Pompey in Syria, having been appealed to by both
parties, went to Jerusalem and decided in favour
of Aristobulus. Aretas had accordingly to with-
draw. But in the spring of 683 ambassadors from
both parties appeared before Pompey himself at
Damascus, while the representatives of a neutral
party pled for the abolition of the monarchy and
the re-establishment of the ancient constitution.
Pompey delayed his decision, and Aristobulus, feel-
ing insecure, at once occupied the stronghold of
Alexandrium. Pompey advanced to attack him,
whereupon Aristobulus surrendered all the for-
tresses, but fell back upon Jerus. and prepared
for resistance. His vacillating policy was further
illustrated when Pompey approached the city.
Aristobulus sued for peace, and offered to open the
gates and make a money payment; but when
Gabinius was, sent for the money, the gates were

|
Aristobulus
8 7

MACCABEES, THE

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 187

closed against him, and Pompey advanced against
Jerusalem. The party of Hyrcanus, to which fear
of the Romans brought many accessions, opened
the city gates, but the supporters of Aristobulus
entrenched themselves in the temple mount. After
a three months’ siege, however, the walls were
scaled, and 12,000 Jews were slain. Apparently
from curiosity, and to the lasting horror of the
Jews, Pompey entered the Holy of Holies, but
subsequently ordered the sanctuary to be purified,
and the usual sacrifices to be continued. The
ringleaders in the war were executed ; Aristobulus
and his family he took with him as prisoners ;
Hyrcanus was designated high priest and ethnarch,
but not king. The boundaries of Judiea were also
greatly contracted, and Jerus. was garrisoned by
the Romans. Not even yet had the Jews learned
to avoid calling in the interference of foreigners,
but Rome knew how to profit by their internal
strifes and factions.

As the star of the Hasmonzan dynasty set, that
of the Herodian rose. Hyrcanus was only a puppet
in the hands of Antipater and the Romans. ‘The
division of Palestine by Gabinius into five districts
(συνέδρια) did not, as was hoped, weaken the feeling
of national unity. The Hasmonzeans made several
abortive efforts to regain power. Revolts were led
in the year 57 by Alexander, the son of Aristobulus,
in 56 by Aristobulus himself and his son Antigonus,
and again in 55 by Alexander. Once more, in B.C.
54, after the defeat of the Romans at Carrhe, the
Jews rose in rebellion, but were routed by Cassius.
These attempts would have succeeded as against
Antipater, but they could not do so as against
Antipater and the Romans, who always came to
hisaid. Inp.c. 49 Cwsar set Aristobulus at liberty
in order to send him with an army against Anti-
pater ; but while he was yet in Rome Aristobulus
was poisoned by the adherents of Pompey, who
also contrived to have Alexander put to death at
Antioch.

While Antipater continued to curry favour with
the Romans, the Jews became jealous of his grow-
ing power. This feeling was intensified through
the appointment of his eldest son Phasael as
governor of Jerus., and of lis second son Herod
as governor of Galilee. The latter soon felt
himself strong enough to defy the Sanhedrin, and
even to menace Jerusalem. In spite of the accusa-
tions of the Sadduciean dignitaries, the two brothers
secured the friendship of Antony. Antigonus, the
son of Aristobulus Π., made yet another desperate
effort to obtain the kingdom. Although deteated
by Herod, he was actually set up as king by the
Parthians, and Herod’s fortunes sank to the lowest
ebb. Phasael made away with himself in prison,
and Herod escaped to Rome, where he was re-
cognized as king of Judea (B.C. 40). A year later
Herod landed at Ptolemais, and, after a war ex-
tending over two years, he at length, with the
help of the legions of Sosius, captured Jerus. and
mercilessly slaughtered his opponents. Antigonus
was carried a prisoner to Antioch and there put
to death. Herod now assumed the kingdom, and
the Hasmoniean dynasty was at an end. Shortly
before Jerus. fell into his hands he had married
Mariamne, who, as granddaughter to both Hyreanus
and Aristobulus, represented the two opposing
sections of the Hasmonean house. But within
the first decade of his reign this brilliant and
resourceful but cruelly jealous man murdered all
its still surviving members, to make sure that none
of them: should ever supplant him in the govern-
ment. So perishcd in succession the youthful
high priest Aristobulus, the aged Hyrcanus I,
Herod’s own wife Mariamne, and last of all Alex-
andra, the daughter of Hyrcanus 1. For these
crimes Herod was to sutler a poetic retribution.

In his closing years the murderer of the Has-
monwans became the murderer of his own sons,
having about the year 1.0. 7 ordered Alexander
and Aristobulus to be done to death at Sebaste,
where their mother Marianne had become his bride.
With them the history of the Maccabees comes to
a close.

LITERATURE.—The chief sources for the Maccabean history
are 1 and 2 Mac (see next article), and Jos. Ant. x11. v. 1
onwards... Several Psalms, notably 44. 74. 79. and 83 are prob-
ably Maccabwan ; some scholars, e.g. Reass and Cheyne, ascribe
many more to this period, but their conciusions are to be
accepted with caution. For passing references in Greek and
Roman authors, see Schiirer, ////? 1. i. p. 110 ff. Of modern
works, besides shorter articles in the best Bidle Dictionaries,
the student may consult Derenbourg, Histotre de la Palestine,
1867; Ewald, Hist. of Jsrael, vol. v. [Eng. tr.] 1874; Stanley,
Jewish Church, vol. iii. 1876; Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881;
Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1588 ; Schurer, HJP (Index);
Wellhausen, /sraelitische und Jtidische Geschichte, 1894 (81898) ;
Fairweather, rom the Haile to the Advent, 1895; H. Weiss,
Judas Makkabaeus, 1897 ; Streane, The Age of the Maccabees,
1598. W. FAIRWEATHER.

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF (λ[ακκαβαίων, a’, β΄, ete.).
—Some important MSS of the LXX contain four
books so entitled.* Of these the first two were
incorporated in the Vulgate from the Old Latin
translation, and accepted as canonical by the
Council of Trent (1546). The Churches of the
Reformation, on the other hand, adhering more
strictly to the Heb. Canon, placed them among
the OT Apocrypha, which were originally in-
cluded in the Geneva Bible (1560) and in all the
English Versions. The remaining books, which
are only very remotely connected with the story
of the Maccabees, have found, as they deserve,
much Jess recognition in the Church. The order
in which these books exist in the MSS, while not
chronological as regards their subject-matter,
accurately reflects the date of their composition
as well as their comparative worth.

A. I MACCABEES.
1. Contents and Style.
2. Unity.
3. Language of the original book.
4. Author.
5. Date.
6. Sources.
7, Historicity.
8. Religious character.
9. Use in the Christian Church,
10. The MSS.
1. Versions.
B. II MAccaB¥Es.
1. Contents and Historicity.
. Author,
. Language.
. Sources and Date.
. Relation to 1 Mac.
. Religious character,
. Use by Jews and Christians.
. MSS and Versions.
C. Il MAccaBEEs.
1. Contents.
2. Historicity.
3. Integrity.
4. Language.
5. Use by Jews and Christians.
6. MSS and Versions.
D. TV MAccaBreEs.
1. Contents.
2. Language and Style.
3. Authorship.
4. Aim and Standpoint.
5. MSS and Versions.
E. V MaccaBEEs.
Literature.

OATH Oe ODO

A. I MACCABEES is the main source we possess
for the history of the period with which it deals.
This period covers the forty years (B.C. 175-135)
from the accession of the Syrian king Antiochus Iv.
(Epiphanes) to the death of Simon.

1. Contents and Style.—After a brief introduc-
tory allusion to the conquests of Alexander the
Great and the partition of his empire among his

* A and Cod. Venetus contain all four books, δὲ contains
(apart from lacune) the first and the fourth. (See below).

-———~J

aap ene

188 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

successors, by way of tracing back to its com-
mencement the history of the Greek supremacy
in Judiwa (1159), the author goes on to give a de-
tailed description of the attempt made by Epi-
phanes, in concert with a Hellenizing party among
the Jews themselves, forcibly to introduce into
Palestine foreign customs and pagan rites, and
to destroy the Jewish religion root and branch
(110-64, He then narrates the action taken by
Mattathias the priest, who in his native town of
Modin openly resisted the persecuting measures of
Antiochus, and placed himself at the head of a
band of faithful Israelites who first betook them-
selves to the mountains, but who, as their numbers
increased, began to traverse the land and enforce
the observance of Jewish rites (ch. 9). Almost
before the movement had been well started,
Mattathias died (2%), and the remainder of the
book deals with the splendid strugele for faith
and freedom under the leadership of his sons, who
ultimately succeeded in securing for their country,
not only the religious liberty for which they first
took up arms (6%), but civil independence as well
(13. After graphically describing the course of
events under the successive leadership of the three
brothers Judas (3'-9*%), Jonathan (9°°-12°"), and
Simon (13!-16!8), the book closes with the record
of the escape of Simon’s son, John Hyreanus, from
the fate which overtook his father and his two
brothers, and with a reassuring reference to the
chronicles of his high-priesthood (161°*4),

The hero of the book is undoubtedly Judas Mac-
cabeus, and its most detailed section is naturally
that which narrates his achievements and fortunes.
It is written for the most part in the simple narra-
tive style of the OT historical books, and in the
phraseology it is easy to detect many reminiscences
of both the prose and the poetry of the older
canonical writings (175 "7 97). 149 ete.). At times
the language throbs with passion (175-8), becomes
eloquently descriptive (14°), or rises into poetry
(3°). But the work is in no sense that of a skilful
literary artist who groups his facts with a view
to scenic effect. The writer is a plain and honest
chronicler who sets down the facts in their historical
sequence, with scarcely an attempt to theorize upon
them or to point out their significance.

2. Unity.—Previous to the 19th cent. no attempt
was made to impugn the unity of the book. In
view of the striking absence of the Divine Name
from first to last, the careful chronology of the
work as a whole, and the uniformity of the style
throughout, there has been a very general dis-

position to ascribe the entire ses Sarg) to a
single author. Some modern scholars, however

(e.g. Whiston, Destinon, and Wellhausen), regard
chs. 14-l6.as a later addition unknown to Josephus.
The singularly brief manner in which that. his-
torian deals with the reign of Simon may perhaps
lend some colour to this theory, but can scarcely
be said to prove it. At the opposite pole from this
view, and still more improbable, is that of Ewald,
who thinks these concluding chapters are the main
portion of the book, to which chs. 1-13 are merely
introductory.

3. The Language of the Original Book. —The
Greek text of 1 Mac is beyond doubt a translation ;
the work was written originally in Hebrew. On
this point we have the express testimony of Origen
and Jerome. The former, at the close of his list
of the canonical books (in Euseb. HE vi. 25) says,
‘But outside the number of these is the Macca-
beean history (τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά), entitled Sarbeth
Sabanaiel’ (Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ). The work here
referred to as known to Origen in its Heb. form
is unquestionably the First Book of Maccabees.*

* The meaning of the Semitic title given by Origen has been
much disputed. Most of the conjectures advanced (see Grimm,

Jerome (+ 420) states explicitly: ‘The first book
of Maccabees I found in Hebrew; the second
is Greek, as can be proved from its very style’
(Prol. Gal. ad lib. Reg.). The internal evidence
for a Heb. original is also sufficiently conclusive.
Although the book has many points of resemblance
to the LXX, upon which its Greek seems to be
largely modelled, and from which it even directly
quotes (cf. 717 with Ps 795: 5), the constant use of
Heb. idioms and OT phrases (1 2% ete.), as well
as the whole structure of the sentences, precludes
the idea of its having been written originally in
Greek. There are also in the Greek text many
obscurities, due in all probability to mistaken
renderings from the Hebrew (2° 6! 118 145), More-
over, at this period no Palestinian Jew seems to
have written in Greek. A more plausible case
might be made out in favour of an Aramaic
original, although it is practically certain that
the author wrote in classical Hebrew, which was
still the language of the learned, and above all of
sacred literature.

4. The Author.—The name of the author is
unknown. It is, however, quite clear from his
warm sympathy with the Maccabean movement,
as well as from his minute knowledge of Palestine,
that he was an orthodox Jew of that country.
Nor can we tell who was the translator. In spite
of its Hebraistic character, his Greek is not difh-
cult to read, and is marked even by a certain
fluency. His translation was probably executed
somewhere about the middle of the Ist cent. B.c.,
and certainly not later than the time of Josephus,
who seems to have been acquainted with it.

5. The Date.—As to the date of the original
work, it is clear from 165 that it was not com-
posed until after the death of John Hyrcanus
(B.C. 105). Ewald’s opinion, however, that our
author wrote immediately thereafter, is not borne
out by the nature of the reference to the annals of
that prince as an already well-known work. On
the other hand, in view of the writer’s friendly
tone towards the Romans (ch. 8), the time of com-
position cannot have been later than B.c. 64, the
year prior to Pompey’s entrance into Jerusalem.
At some point between these two limits the work
must have been produced, but the exact year
cannot be determined. The likelihood is, how-
ever, that it belongs to the first or second decade
of the Ist cent. B.C., for as there is no allusion to
anything later than the death of Hyrcanus, it
seems best not to separate the composition of the
book by too long an interval from that event.

6. Sources.—There can be little doubt that the
author drew to a certain extent upon existing
written sources. Even if an old man at the
beginning of the Ist cent. B.c., his own recol-
lections could extend to only a part of the period
with which he deals. There is, of course, to be
kept in mind the possibility of his having gathered
information from older men, as well as the fact
that he had doubtless at command a body of
tradition singularly fresh, living, and distinct.
But the narrative is so well informed, includes
such a mass of detail, and is in general so accurate
and precise, that we must suppose him to have
had access to certain written notices of the Mac-
cabeean struggle, and of the three brothers with
whose names it is specially identified. Otherwise,
no one living in the second generation after could
Kurzgef. Exeget. Handb. p. xvii; Keil, Comm. p. 22; Bissell
in Lange-Schaff’s Comm. p. 475) are based upon the reading
Sarbeth Sarbane El (2p87 2x pBav:” Ea), adopted by Stephanus,
and accepted even by Fritzsche (Schenkel’s Bib.-Lex. under
‘Makkabaer’), although by far the best attested reading, and
according to Schtirer (JP 11. iii. 9) ‘the only reading that can
claim to be recognized,’ is that given above. It may possibly
be transcribed bx mizy m3 Wy (sar bayith shebbandah el), i.e.
‘the prince of the house which God hath built up.’ In any case
the title is Semitic, and points to a Heb. original of our book.

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 189

have produced such a work. The use of written
sources seems to be implied in 955, but the passage
throws no light upon their origin or nature.

Some of the official documents which, as in the
Book of Ezra, are incorporated with the narrative,
the author states to be ‘ copies’ (82? 125 19 14%. 27),
and these may perhaps for the most part be
accepted as genuine,—or at least as fairly accurate
Heb. translations,—as may also some of the letters
from the Syrian kings. Yet in not a few cases
(cf. esp. 10°! 127% 14+0-°3 1516%) we have probably
only an attempt on the part of the writer or his
authority to give a free version of the lost
originals.* He evidently did not hesitate to
deal in a free and easy manner with such docu-
mentary materials as lay to his hand. [πὸ sub-
stance, however, these ostensibly official records
are quite apposite to the historical relations of the
period.

7. Historicity.—In spite of the clever attempt
made by the brothers Τὸ, F. and G. Wernsdorf about
the middle of the 18th cent. to discredit 1 Mac as
a historical work, there is but one verdict among
modern critics with regard to its general trust-
worthiness. The writer’s habit of dating the chief
events according to a fixed era (the Seleucid era
of B.C. 312), the general agreement of his chron-
ology with that of Greek and Roman authors,
and with the data furnished by extant coins of
the period, the frankness and self-restraint shown
by him in chronicling victory or defeat on the
part of the Jews, and in speaking of their adver-
saries, the absence from his pages of tawdry
ornamentation and weak supernaturalism,— all
combine to give to his work the stamp of authentic
history. Occasional errors occur, as in 1°, which
represents Alexander the Great as dividing his
kingdom among his generals; in 8%, where the
author overstates the number of elephants em-
ployed at the battle of Magnesia (cf. Livy, xxxvii.
39); in 8:5 where mistakes are made in several

articulars regarding the Romans ; in 12°, where
1e speaks of the Spartans as racially. akin to the
Jews; and in 14!, where he is at variance with
other writers as to the time when Tryphon
murdered Antiochus vi. But these are mostly
blemishes due to his limited knowledge of the
world outside of Judiea, and do ποῦ seriously
affect the value of the book as a contribution to
Jewish history. The one criticism which may
with justice be offered in this connexion is that
the writer sometimes undoubtedly exaggerates in
point of numbers (5°4 680. 7 1147), but even this
fault is to some extent condoned by the prevailing
custom of that age.

8. Religious Character.—The religious character
of the book corresponds to its trustworthiness as
history. It breathes a spirit of genuine piety.
The standpoint of the author is that of orthodox
devotion to ‘the law and the ordinances’ (951),
and unqualified abhorrence of heathen presump-
tion (135), blasphemies (798), and enormities (155"),
In presence of the direst disssters he retains his
faith in an overruling Providence (14), and does
not forget that a righteous cause is more essential
than a great army (2°! 3!§), But, in spite of the
intense theocratic feeling that underlies the book,
there is a remarkable reserve shown in the ex-
pression of it. The Maccabees are pious (4538:
12 16°) and devoted men (227 3596. ete.), but their
triumphs are represented as due to their soldierly
skill and diplomatic wisdom, and not to any
special intervention of God. In this we detect a
deviation from the mode of statement adopted in
the older canonical histories. Yet the religious

* Fritzsche accepts as genuine all the documents called

‘copies,’ and regards all the rest as free reproductions by the
author. But this seems tvo artistic.

spirit of the book is such that Luther felt it mizht
with advantage have been included in the Canon
of Scripture, and altogether it stands ona higher
jane than the other ‘Books of Maccabees.’
ene Israelite as he is, however, the writer
avoids the mention of the Divine Name, which
(according to the true text) does not onee occur
in his narrative. Prayer is directed to the remote
heaven, not to a present encompassing Jehovah
(3°° 40), KExeept in the diluted form of a pathetic
forward look towards ‘a faithful prophet’ who
should announce the divine will with regard to
pressing problems in Church and State (4% 1441),
the Messianic hope is absent from the book. Nor
is there any reference to the doctrine of the
resurrection,

9. Use in the Christian Church.—Although not
extensively, 1 Mac would seem to have been used
in the Christian Church from an early date.
Tertullian (+220), adv. Judwos, ο. 4, says: ‘Nam
et temporibus Maccabweoruin sabbatis pugnando
fortiter fecerunt’ (cf. 1 Mac 24") ; Cyprian (¢. A.D.
250) quotes the book in his Testimonia (111. 4. 15,
53), each time with the formula in Machabacis ;
Clement of Alexandria (+ 220) speaks of τὸ (βιβλίον)
τῶν Μακκαβαϊκῶν, and also of ἡ τῶν Μακκαβαϊκῶν
ἐπιτομή, Strom. i. 123, v. 98; Hippolytus (+ 235) in
his Comm. in Daniel, chs. 31-82, draws largely on
1 Mac, quoting almost verbatim 2°; Origen
(+ 254) also, in his Com. in Ep. ad Rom. (bk. viii.
ch. i.), says: ‘Sicut Mattathias, de quo in primo
libro Machabzeorum scriptum est quia ‘ zelatus
est in lege Dei,”’ ete. (1 Mac 2%). References to
our book as the First Book of Maccabees also occur
in the Demonstr. Evang. of Eusebius (+ 338), and
in the writings of Augustine (+430). On the other
hand, the Maccabiean books are placed outside the
Canon by Origen, and omitted from the lists of OT
Scriptures given by Athanasius (+ 373), Gregory of
Nazianzus (+ 390), and Cyril of Jerusalem (+ 386),
and until the Council of 'l'rent enjoyed only ‘ eccle-
siastical,’ not canonical rank.

10. Lhe MSS. — The Greek Text of 1 Mace,
although not contained in the Codex Vaticanus (B),
has a place in both the Codex Sinaiticus (NS) and
the Codex Alexandrinus (A)—MSS dating respec-
tively from the 4th and 5th centuries. Next to
these in age and importance comes the (8th or 9th
cent.) Codex Venetus (V.). All the other (16) MSS
are later than the 11th century. The best modern
editions are those of Fritzsche (Lib. Apoe. Vet.
Test. Grace, 1871) and Swete (Old Test. in Greck,
Cambridge, 1894, 2nd ed. 1899).

11. Versions.—Only two ‘old versions of 1 Mae
are extant: (1) The Latin, which exists in two
recensions, (@) the common text embodied in the
Vulgate, and (4) another containing chs. 1-13,
printed in Sabatier’s Bibliorwm Sacrorum Latina
Versiones Antique, il. p. 1017 tf., and more recently
discovered in a complete form in a MS now at
Madrid. The latter appears to be the older recen-
sion. (2) The Syriac. This version, like the
Latin, was evidently derived from the Greek. The
translator’s mode of giving the names of places,
however, seems to point to his acquaintance with
them in their Semitic form, and this circumstance,
while rendering the version exegetically service-
able, is also a testimony to its antiquity.

B. 11 MACCABEES covers the history from the
close of the reign of the Syrian king Seleucus ry.
Philopator (B.C. 176) to the death of Nicanor (B.c.
161), a period of little more than 15 years. ‘This
takes us back one year further than 1 Mac does ;
but, on the other hand, the narrative stops short
by a quarter of a century of the point reached in
that work. Except that it deals with a relatively
smaller section ot the history, the Second Book
thus virtually runs parallel with the First. For

190 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

the opening year (or rather more) of the period
which it covers, ¢.e. for the events narrated from
3'—where, properly speaking, the book begins—-to
4°, it remains the chief authority, but for the rest
of this period it ranks only as an independent
supplement to the First Book.

1. Contents and Historicity.—In its present form
2 Mae begins with two letters in which the Pales-
tinian Jews urgently invite their kinsmen in Egypt
to take part in the Feast of the Dedication (1-2'°),
whether in Egypt or in Jerusalem is not quite
clear, althongh the latter supposition has the

greater probability. Then follows the writer's own |
preface, in which he remarks upon the source, |

scope, and design of his work (2!*), After this
comes the main narrative (3-15), which is an
abridgment (ἐπιτομή, 2° 55) of a larger history in
tive books by one Jason of Cyrene, a Hellen-
istic Jew. The first part of the abridgment (3'—4°)
tells of a futile attempt by Heliodorus, prime
minister of Seleucus Iv., to rob the temple, and
of the traitorous and slanderous policy pursued by
a certain Simon against the good high-priest Onias.
From 47-7" the narrative is practically an expanded
version of 1 Mac 1?°"4, setting forth with great
fulness of detail the religious perseeution under
Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes), and exhibiting at once
the lamentable apostasy of one section of the Jews
and the iminovable faithfulness of others, even to
the point of martyrdom. The remainder of the
work (8-15) corresponds broadly to 1 Mae 3-7, and
describes the rise and progress of the Maceab:ean
insurrection down to the crushing defeat of the
Syrian general Nicanor by Judas.* The epitomizer
concludes with some characteristic remarks regard-
ing his own work (1 199),

The first letter (1'°), which is dated from the
year 188 of the Seleucid era (B.C. 124), refers to
a letter written by the Palestinian Jews to their
brethren in Egypt during ‘the tribulation and
extremity’ induced by the apostasy of Jason the
high priestunder Demetrius I., and asks them to re-
peat the sympathy apparently shown to them then
by keeping ‘ the teast of tabernacles of the month
Chislev’ (¢.e. the Feast of the Dedication) now that
the temple service was happily restored. The
second letter (1!°-2!8), which bears no date, pur-
ports to be addressed by the Jews of Palestine,
the senate (γερουσία), and Judas to the priest Aris-
tobulus, king Ptolemy’s teacher (διδάσκαλος), and
to the Egyptian Jews. After telling how their
oppressor Antiochus Iv. (Epiphanes) had perished
while attempting to rob the temple of Nana
(1" 7), and intimating their intention of celebrat-
ing the Feast of the Dedication and commemorating
the recovery of the sacred fire under Nehemiah,
they invite their kinsmen in Egypt to take part in
the festival (115). There follow legendary stories
of the manner in which the holy fire was preserved
and found again (1°), and of the hiding by the
prophet Jeremiah, in a cave-dwelling, of the taber-
nacle, the ark, and the altar of incense until God

similar to that associated with Nehemiah had
already taken place at the dedication of the temple
by Solomon, who ‘kept the eight days’ (29-2),
Judas Maccabeeus is also represented ‘as having
meritoriously followed the example of Nehemiah
in making a collection of national records and
sacred books (2°), The letter closes with another
invitation to keep the feast, and with the hope
that God may speedily gather the dispersed Israel-
ites into the holy land (216-18),

The two letters prefixed to the book have in
reality no connexion either with it or with one

*Some prefer to divide the book into five sections, of which
the respective endings (340 742 109 1326 1537) are supposed to
be coincident with the close of the several volumes of Jason.

another, except in so far as they both aim at com-
mending to the Egyptian Jews the Feast of the
Dedication. The particle (δέ) by which they are
linked on to the ‘epitome’ does not necessarily
imply any prior narrative. Schiirer correctly holds
that ‘they are evidently originally independent
pieces of writing, afterwards combined by a later
hand, but not that of the epitomizer, with this
Second Book of Maccabees’ (/1JP 11. iii. p. 213).
The glaring contradictions of 17, which represents
the climax of affliction as having been experienced
under Demetrius 1. Nikator, and 15°7 which states
that from the time of Nicanor’s death (B.c. 161)
the Holy City had been held by the Hebrews, and
of 1" 7° and ch. 9 with respect to the death of
Epiphanes, render impossible the view that these
letters were indited by the epitomizer. Besides,
they are written in a simpler and less rhetorical
style than the main narrative, their proper chrono-
logical position in which would be after 10!-%.*
Both letters are palpable forgeries. In B.c. 144,
when the first was written, ‘the extremity’ (17)
was certainly past, and it seems incredible that
the second, which, among other blunders, ascribes
to Nehemiah the rebuilding of the temple and the
altar (11%), should have emanated from the Jewish
senate. Such blemishes unmistakably stamp both
epistles as apocryphal products of a later time.

Of Jason or of his history nothing is known
beyond what is conveyed in 2 Mac. That he was
identical with the ambassador of 1 Mac 8" is a
pure conjecture. Although a Jew ‘of Cyrene’ he
shows more acquaintance with Syria than with
Egypt and Palestine. In all that relates to the
former kingdom his knowledge is extensive and
minute. The names and rank of Syrian officers
(4:1 5" 12? 1415), as well as the identity of minor
personages (4° 8° 10°"), are familiar to him. On
the other hand, his knowledge of Palestine and even
of Egypt is geographically defective, and is limited
to outstanding events and personages. All this
points, perhaps, to his having been no longer resi-
dent at Cyrene when his work was written.

2. Author.—The personality of the epitomizer is
unknown. He was perhaps an Alexandrian Jew,
although his work bears no trace of the Jewish-
Alexandrian philosophy of religion, and contains
nothing alien to the orthodox Palestinian Judaism
of the period. His relation to Jason’s history is
made quite clear by himself (2!) ; he expressly
informs us that his work is only a condensed ver-
sion of Jason’s. From the ‘painful labour’ involved,
it is natural to suppose that his epitome covers the
whole of the ground embraced in the five books of
Jason. The latter was probably also the sole
literary source from which he drew. It is un-
warrantable to infer from the fact that in his
general digest of the contents of Jason’s work he
fails to mention that it included events within the
reigns of both Seleucus Iv. and Demetrius 1., that
it was therefore confined to the period during which

; ‘ L _ Antiochus Iv. (Epiphanes) and his son Eupator held
should again smile upon His people (2!-5). A miracle

the throne, and that he must have used other
sources for those parts of his narrative which deal
with events prior and subsequent to that period.
According to Grotius only chs. 3-11, according to
Bertholdt only chs. 4-11, are based upon Jason’s
history. But it was enough that in his summary
of contents the epitomizer should name the two
kings with whom the narrative is chiefly concerned.
Moreover, the way in which he disclaims originality
and even responsibility for the historical accuracy
of the facts embodied in his work (238) seems to

* Fritzsche (in Schenkel’s Bibel-Leaicon), while agreeing that
the epitomizer did not write these letters, thinks that he
prefixed them to the book because they were consonant to
Ὧν purpose. But even this is to rate his intelligence very
ow.

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 191

imply that had he made use of any other docu-
mentary material he would certainly have specitied
it. No doubt he has given a certain colouring of
his own to the Look as we possess it. The ex-
aggerations and florid rhetoric which characterize
it are probably due to him, but ‘the manifestations
that came from heaven’ on behalf of Judaism are
mentioned as being treated of in the original work,
to which also are undoubtedly to be attributed not
a few of the inconsistencies found in the ‘ epitome’
(ef. 9 with 13” ete.). And it is to be remembered
that the latter is probably quite as much of a
selection from the original as a digest of it. | To
judge from the sample of ability and literary taste
exhibited in the epitomizer’s prefatory and closing
words, his share in the subject-matter must in any
case have been slight.

3. Language. — Both Jason and his epitomizer
must have originally written in Greek. As a Jew
of Cyrene, Jason would naturally make use of that
language. “That he did so is also suggested by
the remarkably pure Greek of the epitome. The
Hebraisms which might have been looked for in a
translation from Hebrew or Aramaic are in general
conspicuous by their absence. Jerusalem is always
written ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα according to the Greek, never
᾿Ιερουσαλήμ according to the Heb. form. That the
Greek text of the epitome is the original can be
proved, as Jerome says, from its very style:
‘Secundus (Machabeeorum) Griecus est, quod ex
ipsa quoque φράσει probari potest.’ In this remark
we have at once external evidence for a Gr. original,
and the recognition of internal evidence pointing in
the same direction. The style of the present work,
although at times bald and rough (as e.g. in 13!%°*8),
is on the whole fluent and unrestrained, and not
seldom highly ornate. There is a certain straining
after rare words and expressions, as: φιλοφρονεῖν
eis Tt, 2%; ἀλλοόφυλισμὸός, 41° 67; SteumiumAnm, 4% ;
θωρακισμός. δ᾽ ; ὁπλολογεῖν τινά, 8521: 51, κατευθικτεῖν,
145, Some words are employed in an unusual sense,
e.g. εἰσκυκλεῖσθαι, 274; φροντίζειν τί, 2% 3 ψυχικῶς,
451 1451, δευτερολογεῖν, 137°. Several ἅπαξ λεγόμενα
appear also to occur, 6.4. δυσπέτημα, 5*°; ἀπευθανα-
rigew, 6; δοξικός, 8; ποχεμοτῥοφεῖν, 101+; διά:
σταλσις, 13%, The writer is fond of the allitera-
tive use of words from the same root, e.g. ἄγειν
ἀγῶνα, 4!8; ἀποδεχθείς. . εἰσεδέχθη, 423 ; δεξιασθείς

.«. δεξιάν, 453, εὐημερίαν δυσημερίαν, 5°; ἀποξενώσας
ἐπὶ ξένης, 5° ete. He is also partial to the use of
ποιεῖσθαι With the accusative of the substantive
necessary to complete the verbal idea, as in 2°?
etc. Clearly he had a large vocabulary at com-
mand, and could write the Greek language with
ease and master «..

4, Sources and Date.—Tf, as is probable, Jason
based his narrative on the oral accounts of con-
temporaries who recited from memory the stirring
events of those fifteen years, he must have written
soon after B.C. 160. The mythical strain of chs.
6-7, which relate the martyrdom of Eleazar and
the seven brethren, and of other parts of the
narrative, does not preclude this view, as such
myths require no long time for their formation,
especially at some distance from the theatre of
events. But the exact date of writing cannot be
determined. The same is the case as reeards the
epitome. The curious statement of 15°7 might
seem to suggest the period immediately subsequent
to Nicanor, but this is clearly out of the question.
All that can be said with safety is that the work
must have been written before the destruction of
Jerus. In A.D. 70, since the existence of the city
and the temple worship are presupposed. This is
further apparent from the fact that 4 Mae, which
is based on 2 Mac, was written prior to that event.
That our book was composed later than 1 Mac
may be inferred from the changed tone of the

references to the Romans. If 2 Mac was known
to Philo (see below), this would fix the inferior
limit of its composition at about A.D. 40,

5. Relation tu 1 Mac.—2 Mac contains much that
is special to itself, but where it evidently covers
the same ground as 1 Mac it does so with many
divergences of detail. It is not, of course, sur-
prising that between two independent narratives
dealing with the same events there should be many
points of difference. Our two books are, however,
so different in genius, form, and contents, that
strict comparison is impossible. In _ historical
credibility and value 2 Mac is admittedly inferior
to the First Book, the authority of which must
therefore be preferred in the case of irreconcilable
discrepancies. Of such it may suffice to enumerate
the following :—(1) The campaign of Lysias, as-
scribed in 1 Mac 4*** to the year before the death
of Antiochus tv. (Epiphanes), is transferred in 2 Mac
11 to the reign of Antiochus Vv. (Eupator) ; (2) the
Jewish raids on neighbouring tribes, and campaigns
in Gilead and Galilee, represented in 1 Mac 5 as
carried on in rapid succession between the rededica-
tion of the altar and the concession of religious
liberty, are separately placed in different historical
settings (890. 70 15:58, 12*4) 5 (3) the account given in
ch. 9 differs in several particulars from that of
1 Mac 6 regarding the death of Antiochus Iv.
(Epiphanes), who it is falsely declared wrote a
letter to the Jews; (4) the statement in 9” that
after the death of Antiochus, Philip tled to Egypt,
is at variance with that of 1 Mac 6° ®&; (5) in 14}
Demetrius I. is said to have landed in Syria ‘with
a mighty hest and a fleet,’ in 1 Mac 7! “ with a few
men’; (6) Nicanor’s personal liking fer Judas, 14%,
is an incredible circumstance, and contrary to the
whole trend of 1 Mac; (7) according to 1537 the
Acra was in the possession of the Jews at the
time of Nicanor’s death, whereas according to
1 Mae 13°! it was captured by Simon only in
B.c. 142, Other blemishes disfigure the work, e.g.
the absurd exaggerations in the numbers of the
slain (825 39 10% *! 1114); the highly coloured picture
of the martyrdoms in 6-7”, and the representa-
tion that Epiphanes witnessed them in person ;
the erroneous particulars as to the place and
manner of death of that monarch (9); and the
extraordinary details respecting the suicide of
Razis (14°""-), Yet with all its defects 2 Mac is
by no means historically worthless. The earlier
portion of the narrative (3'-4*) is of the greatest
value, and there is no reason to doubt its sub-
stantial truthfulness. ‘There are indeed many
important particulars in which the book agrees
with 1 Mac (cf. 4-6!” with 1 Mac 1°), It is aJso
in accord with Josephus, who was unacquainted
with it, in regard to several events about which
1 Mac is silent (cf. 4. 6? 13°8 14! with Jos. Ant.
KIL. Wi d, Weds 1x yg x. Lye Vain attempts: have
been made to reconcile discrepancies between 1 and
2 Mac on the theory that the writers followed
a different chronology. In all probability both
adopted the Seleucid era, which began in Oct.
B.c. 312. On the relation of this era to dates
B.C., see Schiirer, HJ/P 1.1. p. 36 ff, I. ii. Appen-
ix νι Ὁ:. 998.

6. Religious Character. — As to its religious
character, 2 Mac presents a strong contrast to
the First Book. In 1 Mac the name of God re-
mains unuttered, in 2 Mac it is freely used; in
the former frequent reference is made to the OT,
here it is but seldom alluded to (7° 819 1533) ; in the
one, great reserve is shown in the expression of
theocratic feeling, in the other the reverse is the
case. Again, instead of a simple objective narra-
tivein which the facts are allowed to make their own
impression, we have a highly coloured rhetorical
composition with a running commentary upon the

192 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

events recorded (410: 59. 17. 6136. 96.18 ete), The
writer aims at the glorification of Judaism, and
selects and modifies his historical material with a
view to homiletic ends. In particular, it seems to
have been the chief desien of the compilation in
its present form—and in this respect the two
introductory letters are certainly sienifieant—to
magnify the temple (2! 32 9!6 13%), to exalt the
importance of the two national festivals connected
with the re-establishment of the lecal worship and
the death of Nicanor, and to enc ourage, admonish,
and edify the Jews of the Dispersion. The work
can scarcely be termed a history in the ordinary
sense, its whole material being grouped around the
temple and the two great festivals, without regard
to strict chronological sequence. /.q. the institu-
tion of the Feast of the Dedication is placed after
the account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes
(cf. 105 with 1 Mac 450) for the sake of effect, and
the circumstances connected with the death of
Judas are passed over, apparently in order that
the previous engagement in which Nieanor lost
his life, and its commemorative. festival, might
stand out in bolder relief. Owing perhaps to an
inclination on the part of the Egyptian Jews to

set increasing store by their own temple at Leon- |
topolis, the writer seems to represent the temple |

at Jerus. as the only legitimate sanctuary. It is
the headquarters of the Jewish worship (2!9 5! 1431

ete.), and honoured even by heathen kings (3? 13°), |

The Almighty had often interposed to protect
it, and had severely punished its desecrators (3*4
13°8 143: 153): There are constant references to
heavenly manifestations (ἐπεφάνειαι, 22!) on behalf of
the defenders of Judaism (324 [0-2 ] 6 127")... ‘Lhe
history is only seen as it were throuch a coloured
spectrum of portents (54), dreams (151), and visions
(3°),
(τερατοποιύς) Who in answer to prayer sends ‘a good
angel to save Israel? (116 1521),

Israel is ‘God's people’ (12°), His ‘portion’ (7
μερὶς αὐτοῦ, 14"); their calamities are His loving
chastisement for their sins (5!8 6'*); and from them

He will never withdraw His mercy (01. The |
heathen, on the other hand, are allowed to fill up.

their cup of iniquity prior to their destruction (64),
Foreign kings and their Jewish supporters are the
unconscious instruments of the divine punitive
righteousness with respect. to Israel, but their
Insolence does not go unpunished (78°), and their
punishment exactly corresponds to their enilt (455
5° 188 15°F), The view taken of providential
rewards and punishinents is thus distinctly me-
chanical and external. ‘Providence appears no
longer as God’s providence, but man’s shaped by
his wishes and governed by his caprices.’* God
will one day gather the dispersed Israelites into
Palestine (918). than this there is no nearer
approach to the Messianic hope. The doctrine
of the resurrection, on the other hand, finds the
clearest expressicn (7%), and the offering of prayers
for the dead seems to have the sanction of 124A
According to Geiger, 1 and 2 Mae are partisan
writings, the work, respectively, of a Sadducee
who espoused the cause of the ΕἸ ἀπο τ Δ ἢ house,
and of a Pharisee who bore it a distinct grudge.
As regards 2 Mae at all events, his theory seems
to have much in its favour. Of the genealogy of
the Maccabees, the death of Judas, the family
sepulchre, no account is taken in the narrative.
The priestly order, as represented by Jason and
Menelaus, appears in the darkest light. Among
the martyrs spoken of there is no priest, whereas
one of ‘the principal scribes’ (6!) was the first to
defy imperial cruelty. The Pharisaic bias of the
work is seen also from its rigid Sabbatarianism
(555 6” ete.), its partiality for wonders and visions,
* Bissell, p. 555.

The Lord is conceived as the wonder-worker |

and its teaching concerning the resurrection (07):
| Even the action of Judas himself is ascribed to his
mindfulness of the resurrection (122)

7. Use by Jews and Christians. —Among the
Jews 2 Mac was never received as canonical.
In the Rabbinical writings, however, some use is
made of it, and in Philo’s treatise, Quod omnis
probus liber (Mang. ii. 459), the descriptions of
_ tyrannical persecutions of the pious appear to be
based upon it. The earliest Christian reference to
it is supposed to be in the Ep. to the Heb. (cf. He
11°" with 2 Mac 6! 28), The first quotation from
the book is found in the writings of Clement of
Alexandria (Strom. ν. 14. 97). Frequent reference
is made to it by Origen (Exhortatio ad mar tyrium,
0. 22-27, de Oratione, e. 11, contra Celsum, viii. 46,
etc.). The history of the Maccabean martyrs was
a favourite subject with the early Fathers gener-
ally (Cyprian, Vest. 111. 17; Jerome, Prol. Galeat. ;
Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. ii. 8, de Civitate Dei,
xvill. 36). That the estimation in which the Books
of the Maccabees were held by Augustine exceeded
that accorded to them by Jerome, who recognized
them as ecclesiastical but not as canonical, appears
from the passage last referred to: ‘Maccabeeorum
libri, quos non Judiei, sed ecclesia pro canonica
_habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones.’
| 8. WSS and Versions.—What has been said above
| on 1 Mae with reference to MSS and versions applies
| for the most part to 2 Mac also. But (1) ὃ Mae is

] omitted in δὲ ; (2) besides the Old Lat. version
which is adopted in the Vulg., and which is not,
as in the case of 1 Mac, supplemented in Sabatier

| by an older text, there is a Cod. Ambrosianus

| published by Peyron in 1524, The Syriac version
1s very inexact.

| C. WT MAccABEES, — 1. Contents. —This book

relates how Ptolemy Iv. Philopator, after defeat-

line Antiochus the Great at Raphia (B.c. 217),

visited Jernsalem, and ‘conceived the purpose of

| entering the sanctuary’ (11). Everything was
done to dissuade him from this act of desecration,
but in vain. Great excitement consequently arose
among the Jews, who were with difliculty pre-
vented from taking to arms (111-39), At the critical
moment the calm and reverend figure of Simon
the high priest was seen kneeling in front of the
temple, and in answer to his earnest prayers God
smote the king with paralysis, and he was borne
helpless from the sacred’ precincts (2'4). On
coming to himself Ptolemy returned to Egypt,
but vowing vengeance. This took the form of
subjecting the Jews of Alexandria to certain re-

ligious disabilities, depriving them of the equal
civic rights which they enjoyed with the Mace-

_donian founders of the city, and branding them

| with an ivy-leaf as worshippers of Bacchus. Only

| those who voluntarily embraced the worship of
| this deity were to retain their privileges (2>5-%),

Enraged at the steadfastness with which the great

| majority adhered to their ancestral faith, the king

|
|

commanded the entire Jewish population of the
country to be brought in chains to Alexandria
(251-31). In spite of attempts made to represent
them as disloyal citizens, the Jews had so won
the good opinion of all, that some of their Gentile
associates interested themselves on their behalf
(3°1), Notwithstanding the stringent terms of
the royal edict,—which caused as much grief to
the Jews as it did joy among the heathen,—and
the equally harsh manner in which it was carried
out, the majority succeeded in evading arrest (3!
4) Asa preliminary to the intended massacre,
the names of all were ordered to be taken down.
But, at the end of forty days’ continuous work, the
clerks reported that, owing to the vast number of
Jews to be dealt with, their writing nraterials
were exhausted (411), Ptolemy next commanded

--- a

eras

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 193

tnat 500 elephants should be intoxicated with wine
and incense and let loose upon the Jews in the
racecourse. Although all was in readiness for it,
the execution of the order was delayed for another
day because the king had slept until it was past
the hour fixed for his principal daily meal (5:33).
Next morning, however, Ptolemy was providen-
tially made to forget the orders he had given, and
recollected nothing but the loyalty of the Jews to
himself and his ancestors (5%°*°). Yet the same
evening he summoned the keeper of the elephants
and renewed his order for the destruction of the
Jews; and in reply to the higher officials, who
expressed amazement at his instability of purpose,
he swore that he would send the Jews to Hades,
and that he would invade Judea and destroy the
temple (5°). When, accordingly, on the third
day at dawn an enormous crowd had collected,
and the king rushed forth to see his commands
executed, the Jews called upon the Lord to show
them merey (54-5), At the prayer of the vener-
able priest Eleazar, ‘two angels, glorious and
terrible,’ appeared from heaven, to the conster-
nation of the king and his army. ‘The elephants
also turned upon and trampled down the royal
forces (61-, The king now directed his wrath
against his counsellors, ordered the Jews to be
released from their fetters, and feasted them for
seven days at the imperial expense. They re-
solved on their part to observe these days in all
time coming as a festival to commemorate their
deliverance. The king also provided them with
a letter to the provincial authorities securing them
against injury and reproach (603-795). They were
further empowered to put to death more than
300 of their kinsmen who had apostatized from
the law of God, and, after duly availing them-
selves of this concession, they joyfully set out for
their homes. At Ptolemais they celebrated their
deliverance for another seven days, and erected a
house of prayer. On arriving at their several
destinations they had all their property restored
to them, and were held in higher esteem than ever
by the Egyptians (79:3).

2. Historicity.—That the narrative has to some
extent a historical background is clear from the
opening sketch of the war between Philopator and
Antiochus. The details given agree broadly with
the statements of Livy, Justin, and Polybius. At
Raphia the scale was turned in favour of Philo-
per through the appeal made to the soldiers by
uis sister Arsinoe (1'+4), whom, however, Livy
(xxxvii. 4) names Cleopatra, and Justin (xxx. 1. 7)
Eurydice. According to Polybius (v. 87), Philo-
pator remained for three months in Coele-Syria
and Pheenicia. His Bacchanalian proclivities (2256)
are also mentioned by Justin (xxx. 1) and Strabo
(xvii. 796). Theodotus (1?) is a historical person-
age; Polybius (v. 40, etc.) speaks of him as an
Aitolian who was Ptolemy’s commander-in-chief
over Cocle-Syria, but who in B.c. 219 went over
to the side of Antiochus. Grimm (Jntrod. § 3) fur-
ther regards the observance of the two annual
festivals (6°6 713), and the existence of the syna-
gogue at Ptolemais (7:9), when the author wrote,
as the witness of tradition to some great deliver-
ance; put there is force in the remark of Fritzsche
(‘ Makkabiier’ in Schenkel’s Bib. -Lez. ), that among
the Jewish writers of that period it had become an
almost stereotyped custom to link on a festival to
every event of importance.

Certainly, in spite of the historical allusions
which it contains, and the manifest intention that
it should pass for real history, the work must be
regarded as a fiction, and that not of the highest
order. It abounds in incredible situations (4°,

-¢Cf. with 5° 61% 718) and ΡΣ absurdities

(57%) 5 it is characterize
VOL. III.—13

by false statements (5?

7*) and inconsistencies (418); it shows, too, great
zest in the interpretation of providence (4*! 5° ete. ).
In short, it bears every mark of being a mythical
tale founded perhaps on some no longer definitely
ascertainable historical occurrence. There is no-
where else any mention of Philopator having either
visited Jerus. or persecuted the Jews. But in
Jos. (c. Ap. ii. 5) there is a story of a somewhat
similar character connected with the reign of
Ptolemy vil. Physcon. That monarch, it is said,
punished the Alexandrian Jews for their loyalty
to Cleopatra by putting them in fetters and
throwing them to intoxicated elephants. As the
animals, however, turned against Physcon’s friends
and killed many of them, and as the king saw a
terrible visage which forbade him to injure the
Jews, he abandoned his intention, and the Jews
kept a feast in commemoration of the event. ‘This
appears to be the older as it is also a simpler
version of the same floating tradition, which may
have been based upon an actual but unsuccessful
attempt on the part of some monarch to enter the
temple at Jerus. by force—an attempt which was
followed up by an effort to be avenged on the
Jews. But in 3 Mac, which was apparently un-
known to Josephus, the reference of the story to
an earlier king of Egypt, and the addition of other
embellishments, already mark a deviation from
the older tradition. According to many scholars
(Ewald, Reuss, etc.), the legend is founded upon
the attempt of the emperor Caligula to erect his
statue in the temple at Jerus. (Jos. Ant. XVIII.
vill. 2), and his subsequent persecution of the
Jews, the transference of the event to the reign
of Ptolemy Iv. Philopator being due to prudential
reasons. But there is nothing in the work which
definitely points to Caligula’s time, and our author
does not represent Ptolemy as aspiring to the
honours of deity. The one significant parallel to
the times of Caligula is the circumstance, vouched
for by Philo, that the Roman governor Flaccus
Avillius deprived the Jews of the rights of citizen-
ship. On the other hand, if the work be referred
to this period (ὁ. A.D. 40), the confinement of the
Jews in the hippodrome of Alexandria (4"*-) might
have been suggested by Herod’s command that
his leading opponents should be so dealt with at
Jericho (Jos. Ant. XVII, vi. 5; BJ I. xxxiii. 6).
But the exact date of writing remains uncertain.
The Greek additions to Daniel are known to the
author, who cannot therefore have written earlier
than the Ist cent. B.c., but he very possibly lived
as late as the Ist cent. A.D. His design was
evidently to cheer and console his co-religionists
in a time of persecution at Alexandria.

3. Integrity.—In its present form 3 Mac appears
to be incomplete. It begins abruptly (ὁ δὲ Φιλο-
πάτωρ) ; in 1" there is a reference to ‘the plot’ (τὴν
ἐπιβουλήν) of which no previous mention has been
made; and in 2” allusion is made to the king’s
‘before-mentioned’ companions, although the fore-
going part of the work is silent regarding them.
But it is unnecessary (with Diihne, Ewald, Fritzsche}
to suppose that it is a mere fragment; the loss of
an introductory chapter would explain all (Grimm).
Fritzsche thinks the title of the book indicates
that we have in the extant fragment a sort of
prolegomena to a complete history of the Macca-

bees. Certainly ‘Book of Maccabees’ is a mis-
nomer as applied to the existing work, which

professes to deal with a situation considerably
anterior to the Maceabzean rising.

4. Language.- sir book bears every evidence
of having been written in Greek by an Alex-
andrian Jew. The vocabulary is exceptionally rich.
Hebraisms are comparatively rare, and never harsh
(e.g. ‘thy glorious name,’ 24%; ‘the heaven of
heavens,’ 2 ete.). ‘The style, however, is ‘bom-

70: MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

bastie and involved,’ and even further removed
from the category of ordinary prose narrative than
is that of 2 Mac, with which it has many points of
affinity, such as, ¢.g., the use of τύπος to designate
the temple at Jerus., and of ἐπιφάνεια to denote
the special miraculous interposition of God, and
the love of rhetorical word-painting (116% 49% 538f-),
It exceeds that work, however, in obscure eX pres-
sions (1% 4-17 231 41 and in straining after poetic
effect (178 45. 5°5 645). The opening words of 5*!
(ὅσοι γονεῖς παρῆσαν ἢ παίδων γόνοι) form an iambie
trimeter, and seem to be a quotation from some
Greek dramatist. Some words bear an unusual
meaning, 6,0. διάγειν (18), ἀπρόπτωτος (313), κατα-
χρᾶσθαι (45); others do not occur elsewhere, e.g.
ἀνεπιστρέπτως (1°), λαογραφία (259), προσυστέλλεσθαι
(259), χαρτηρία (4-"); and others are very. Tare, or
are used only in late Gr. writings, e.g. ἔνθεσμος
(251), φρικασμός (3!"), ἀλογιστία (5%), μεγαλομερῷ (055).
The work appears to be more or less coloured
by the influence of the Alexandrian philosophy ;
compare in this connexion the names (μέγιστος,
1°18 416 72 5 ὕψιστος, 6? 7°) applied to the Supreme
Being, and the distinction made between God and
His glory (2°),

5. Use by Jews and Christians.—The hook seems
to have been practically neglected by the Jews,
while the first Christian reference to it occurs in
the Canones Apostolorum, ο. 85 (MaxxaBalwy τρία).

It is mentioned (v7 Dan. 117) by Theodoret of |
the cataloeue of |

Antioch (t¢. A.D. 457); in
Nicephorus (Δ᾽ ακκαβαϊκὰ +’), and in the SYNOpsis
Athanasti apparently as Iro\euaicd.* The work
found no acceptance with the Latin Chureh, and
is not included in the Vulg.; but in the Syrian
Church it met with considerable favour, as is
shown by the existence of an ancient Syriac
version, by the respectful allusions of Theodoret,
and by the fact that in all probability the cata-
logue of Nicephorus had its origin inthe Syrian
Church.

6. MSS and Versions.—3 Mae is found in most
MSS and editions of the LXX. A Latin trans-
lation was first made for the Complutensian Poly-
glott, and has since been followed by several
others. Many German versions also now exist,
among which may be mentioned those of the
Zuricher Bibel, Berlenburger Bibel, Bunsen’s Bibel-

werk, and Kautzsch’s Apveryphen κι. Pseud-
epigraphen, According to Cotton (The Five Books

of Maccabees in English, Oxford, 1832, Introd.
p. Xx), the first English version (by Walter Lynne)
appeared in 1550, and was with some modifications
embodied in a folio Bible issued by John Daye in
1551.

D. TV MACCABEES. — 1. Conécnts. —This, as a
philosophical treatise, occupies a unique position
among apocryphal books. The writer’s theme is
‘the supremacy of pious reason (=religious prin-
ciple) over the passions,’ + and the Judaism whieh
he advocates is distinctly coloured by the Stoic
philosophy. Although the composition takes the
form of a discourse in which the direet mode of
address is adopted (11:7. 914 1319 181), we are not
therefore warranted in supposing (with Freuden-
thal) that we have here an actual specimen of a
Jewish sermon. The style is too abstruse for an
ordinary congregation, and it never became the
habit to base discourses upon philosophical pro-
positions instead of Scripture texts. At the same
time, the work is not a mere academical thesis. If
it suggests an artificial spirituality rather than
the natural outflow of a heart deeply under the

*The text reads Maxxn Saiz βιβλία 3’ Πτολεμαϊχά, but
Credner is probably right in substituting ze} for 3’, Υ

Ἐ1Ὶ εἰ αὐτοδίσποτός ἔστιν τῦν roby ὁ
αὐτοκράτωρ ἐστὶν τῶν παθῶν ἃ λογισμές ;
ὑστὶν ὁ εὐσειβ,,ς λογισμός.

εὐσεβὴς λογισικόξ ; 113 εἰ
181 τῶν παθῶν δεσπότης

power of religion (Grimm), the writer undoubtedly
handles his subject with vigour, moral earnest-
ness, and a desire to edify his readers (or hearers).
These were apparently confined to his co-religion-
ists (18! Ὦ τῶν ᾿Αβραμιαίων σπερμάτων ἀπόγονοι παῖδες
᾿Ισραηλεῖται), Whom he assures that in order to lead
a pious life they have only to follow the dictates
of ‘ pious reason.’

After an introduction (1), the author lays
down his thesis that pious reason is perfect masten
of the passions, and expounds this proposition
not without dialectic skill. Reason he detines as
‘intelligence combined with an upright life, and
holding in honour the word of wisdom’ {11} aa.
wisdom as ‘the knowledge of affairs divine and
human, and of their causes’ (128). Wisdom is
attained through ‘the instruction of the law’ (117),
and is manifested in four cardinal virtues, viz.
φρόνησις, δικαιοσύνη, ἀνδρεία," σωφροσύνη (118. A
description and classification of the affections,
with special reference to the antagonism offered
by them to the four cardinal virtues, is also given,
and it is shown by examples taken from Jewish
history that pious reason is lord of all the aftfec-
tions except forgetfulness (λήθη) and ignorance
(ἄγνοια). With this ends the first and more strictly
philosophical part of the book (1-3). In the
second part (3!%-18%), after a historical review of
the tyrannical treatment of the Jews under the
Syrian king Seleucus and his son (sic) Antiochus
Epiphanes (315. 450), the conquering power of reason
is further represented as most brilliantly illus-
trated in the martyrdom of Eleazar (5-7) and of
the seven brethren (8-14!) and their mother (140
105). The writer accompanies his account of the
martyrdom of these heroic defenders of the faith
with frequent and copious remarks of a religious
and edifying nature, and introduces occasionally
philosophical retlexions (e.g. 5%) which would
have been more in place in the first part of his
work. In 17-18? the author sets down his final
impressions regarding the character and signifi-
cance of the martyrdoms described by him. The
closing section (18***) appears to be an appendix
by a later hand, but the nature of it indicates
that it must have been added at no great interval
from the composition of the book itself. Fritzsche
and Freudenthal regard the spurious addition as
limited to 18%,

4 Mac possesses no value as history. The writer
merely appropriates certain incidents from 2 Mac
6°-7* by way of illustrating his fundamental pro-
position regarding the supremacy of pious reason.
His delineation of the tortures to which the
‘Maccabean martyrs’ were subjected is even more
gruesomely realistic than that of 2 Mac, although
the detailed description of the inhumanity of the
persecutors serves, of course, to bring out more
emphatically the steadfast patience of their victims.
He may have had sources of information other
than 2 Mac, but there is no evidence that he used
as an authority the five books of Jason of Cyrene
(2 Mac 2%). While the work does not aim at being
a history, it has nevertheless an importance of its
own as a unique example of the way in which
Jewish history was’ turned to account for didactie
and homiletic purposes.

2. Language and Style.—The Greek of 4 Mac,
although rather laboured, is not so involved or
so rhetorical as that of 3 Mac. Owing to the
uniformity of the style, which is clear, correct,
and genuinely Greek, the work has more of real
individuality about it than either 2 or 3 Mac.
Lavish use is made of metaphor and declamation,
yet the writer can deftly change his style to

* So the Alexandrian MSS. Nand Vread: ‘intelligence accom

panied by accurate insight (and) choosing the life of wisdom,’
t A has the later form ἀνδρία.

Ἵ

|
|

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 195

suit his subject. Considerable fondness is shown
for words and expressions of a rare, novel, or
poetical description. Frequent use is also made
of prepositional compounds, ἐκ. ἐπιρωγολογεῖσθαι
(2°), ἀντιπολιτεύομαι (4!), ἐξευμενίζειν (4!) ; and com-
pounds with πᾶν, e.g. πάνσοφος (13), πανγέωργος
(139), πάνδεινος (35), πανάγιος (74 147. Short as
it is, quite a number of words seem to be peculiar
to the book, ¢.g. αὐτοδέσποτος (11), μονοφαγία (17),
ἀρχιερᾶσθαι (4.5), ἀποξαίνειν (6°), ἐμπυριστής ΤῸΝ
μισάρετος (11), κηρογονία (14:5), ἑπταμήτωρ (105).
With the exception of Jerusalem (Ἱεροσόλυμα) and
Eleazar (’EXedfapos), the proper names are written
according to the Heb. form, although Hebraistic
expressions scarcely occur (cf., however, 115 δύξαν
διδόναι). Only in a very few passages (25 19.715) is
use made of the LXX.

3. Authorship and Date.—Eusebius (HE Ut. x. 6)
refers to our book under the title περὶ αὐτοκράτορος
λογισμοῦ, and ascribes it to Josephus. In this he is
followed by Jerome (de Viris Illustr. ¢. Xiil., ὁ.
Pelag. ii. 6), Suidas (Lez. s.v.’Iwonos), and others ;
and indeed for long it seems to have been regarded
as settled that Josephus was the author. In the
editions of his works it occupies the last place, and
is inscribed @d\a8. ᾿Ιωσήπου eis MaxkaBaious λόγος ἢ
περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ. But it exists also in
important Scripture MSS of the LXX, and both
A and & call it simply ‘the fourth of Maccabees’
(MaxxaSaiwy δ΄). Gregory of Nazianzus quotes from
it without naming Josephus or any one as the
author. Its ascription to the Jewish historian
must either have been a pure guess, or the result
of confusion between him and some other ᾿Ιώσηπος,
whom tradition named as its author, for the testi-
mony of Eusebius is quite overborne by the in-
ternal evidence. The language and style are utterly
different from those of Josephus; the latter was
unacquainted with 2 Mac, while 4 Mac is almost
wholly based upon it; the grossly unhistorical
statements of 41°: “6 51 17°! are inexplicable on the
hypothesis that the work was penned by Josephus ;
finally, there is about it a flavour of Jewish-
Alexandrian philosophy, and an enthusiasm for
the heroic, which we do not naturally associate
with that writer.

While the exact date of the book cannot be
determined, it seems certain that it must have
been written after 2 Mac, from which it borrows,
and before the destruction of Jerus., of which it
makes no mention. (Grimm would infer from the
statement of 4! that Onias was holding the priest-
hood for life (διὰ βίου) that the author wrote after
the overthrow of the Hasmoniean dynasty, when
the life-tenure had been abolished, and from the
horror-stricken concern of the Egyptian Jews on
hearing of the sufferings endured by the Maccabmean
martyrs (145) that the former were themselves at
the time exempt from persecution. This would
point to a date prior to their experiences under
Caligula (A.D. 40). Schiirer (HJ P I. iii. 246), on
the other hand, accepts as the date of composition
the first century after Christ.

4. Aim and Standpoint.—The aim of 4 Mac is
by demonstrating the supremacy of pious reason to
exhort the Jews steadfastly to adhere to the Mosaic
law, and not allow themselves in any particular to
depart from it (181), either through fear of sutfer-
ings or through the subtle attractions of Hellenistic
culture. As an educated Jew acquainted with the
exacting demands of philosophic paganism, the
writer seeks to show his countrymen how to main-
tain their Judaism intact. Taunts about the
fatuity of their ceremonial law were levelled at
the Jews by the persecutor (5°"-), and doubtless by
the philosopher as well; but our author reminds
his co-religionists of the essential reasonableness of
the law even in regard to ritual commands (5”*),

and seeks to show that only through obedience to
its precepts can the Stoic ideal of humanity be
realized. In the concrete examples of endurance
unto death furnished by the Maccalwean martyrs
he sees the perfection of piety (12% 15"), and a
conclusive proof that in virtue’s cause the Hebrews
alone are invincible (915).

The writer's own standpoint is formally in-
fluenced by Greek philosophy, especially by Stoi-
cism, which placed the passions under the sover-
eignty of reason, 50. providing him with his
central idea, as well as with the postulate cf four
‘ardinal virtues. In his division and description
of the affections, however, lhe does not so-much
adopt the position of any of the current Greek
philosophies as give to his own treatment a philo-
sophic cast. And if he writes from the stand-
point of Stoicism, he is none the less true to that
of legal Judaism. Wisdom, of which the four
cardinal virtues are forms (ἰδέαι), cannot be attained
apart from the Mosaic law (116), Τῦ is not reason
as such, but pious reason (ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός), 1.6.
reason regulating itself by the divine law (1151),
that he exalts as ruler over the passions. 50
literal, indeed, is his conception of the Mosaic law,
that some* on this account maintain the Pales-
tinian origin of the book. His philosophy certainly
resembles Pharisaism in its advocacy of rigorous
legalism, and of carrying piety into every relation
of life (181). In his doctrine of the resurrection,
however, it is not the Pharisaic but the Alex-
andrian position that is reflected. The writer
believes, not in a bodily resurrection confined to
the Jews, but in the immortality of all souls, the
pious entering into blessedness (9° 171°), and the
wicked into torment (99 12 ete.), upon the death of
the body. It is also noticeable that he regards
the sufferings of the martyrs as a vicarious atone-
ment for the sins of the people (059 17%), and that
a Pelagianistie spirit underlies the book in so far
as no account is taken of the influence of divine
grace upon human reason.

5. MSS and Versions.—The Gr. text has come
down (1) in some Scripture MSS, including A and
δ: (2) in MSS of Josephus; and has been printed
under both categories. The best recensionsare those
of Fritzsche in his edition of the Libri Apoc. Vet.
Test. Grace, 1871, and Swete in the Camb, Septuagint,
1894, 2nd ed. 1899. There is an old Syriac version,
published by Ceriani in his photo-lithographed
facsimile of the Milan Peshitta manuscript of the
OT (1876-83). An English translation by Cotton
(The Five Books of Maccabees in English) was pub-
lished at Oxford in 1832.

Another Fourth Book of Maccabees is mentioned
by Sixtus Senensis (Biblictheca Sancta, i. p. 39) as
still extant in manuscript when he wrote (1556).
He himself saw it at Lyons, in the library of Santes
Pagninus, which soon afterwards perished by fire.
It was written in Hebraistic Greek, and began
with the words, ‘ After the murder of Simon, John
his son became high priest in his stead.’ Sixtus
thinks it may have been a Greek translation of
the ‘chronicles’ of the reign of John Hyreanus
referred to in 1 Mac 164; but, in view of the state-
ment he makes as to its contents, it is more likely
that the book was ‘simply a reproduction of
Josephus, the style being changed perhaps for a
purpose’ (Schiirer, HJ P IL. iii. p. 14).

E. V MACccABEES.—This is the title given to an
Arabic ‘Book of Maccabees’ printed in the Paris
and London Polyglotts, the Arabic text being in
both cases accompanied by the Latin translation
of Gabriel Sionita. Cotton’s Enelish version is 4
literal rendering of the Latin. The book purports
to be a-history of the Jews from the time of
Heliodorus (B.C. 186) to the last years of Herod

* Langen, Judenthum tn Paldstina, p. 80.

196 MACEDONIA

MACHAERUS

(B.c. 6-42). It is merely a Hellenistic compila-
tion, not always accurate, from 1 and 2 Mac and
the writings of Josephus, and is in no sense an
independent history. In ch. 12, the only passage
which does not directly depend upon these works,
the author shows himself singularly ill-informed
with regard to certain well-known facts of Roman
history. He evidently wrote after the destruction
of ‘the temple in A.D, ΠΟ (cf. 9° 21% 22° 53°), In
point of language the book is decidedly Hebraistic,
even after veing twice translated, although this
does not prove that it was originally written in
Hebrew. The religious standpoint of the compiler
merely reflects that of his authorities.

There is also another so-called ‘Fifth Book of
Maccabees’ in the great Ambrosian Peshitta, but
it is nothing else than a translation of the sixth
book of Josephus’ de Bello Judaico.

LITERATURE.—The principal authorities upon points of literary
and textual criticism have been named in the body of the
article. Among older commentaries may be mentioned those
of Drusius on 1 Mac, and of Grotius on 1, 2, and 3 Mac in
Critict Sacri ; and that of Michaelis on 1 Mac (Uebersetzung der
1 Mace.-B.’s init Anmerk., Gotting. u. Leipz. 1778). The most
complete modern comm. is that of Grimm on 1, 2, 3, and 4 Mac
in the Kurzgef. Exeget. Handb. series, 1853-57. Since that
date there have appeared commentaries by Keil on 1 and 2 Mac,
1875; Bissell on 1, 2, and 8 Mac in Lange-Schaf?s Commentary,
1880; Rawlinson on 1 and 2 Mac in the Speaker's Comm. 1888 ;
Zockler on 1, 2, and 8 Mac in his Die Apokryphen des Alten
Testaments, 1891; Fairweather and Black on 1 Mac in the
Cambridge Bible Jor Schools, 1897; Kautzsch on 1 and 3 Mac,
and Kamphausen on 2 Mac in Die Apokr. u. Pseudepigr. des
AT, 1898. W. FAIRWEATHER.

MACEDONIA (Makxedovia=the land of the Maxe-
d5ves, Who, themselves akin to the Dorie branch of
the Greeks, formed the core of a mixed nationality,
to which Ilyrian, Preonian, and Thracian elements
contributed along with numerous Greek colonies)
was in antiquity the common name for a region in
the centre of the Balkan peninsula, separated for
the most part by natural boundaries of mountain-
ranges from Thessaly on the south, Llyria on the
west, Meesia on the north, and Thrace on the east.
It contained the river-basins of the Haliacmon
(Vistritza), the Axius (Vardar), the Strymon
(Struma), and the Nestus (Aara-su); and it pre-
sented along its Afgean shore the three prongs
of the great Chalcidian peninsula between the
Thermaic and Strymonic gulfs (now named from
Saloniki and Lendina). This region, with its
mountainous interior rearing a hardy population,
its well-watered and fertile plains, and its extensive
fringe of seabonrd encouraging colonization and
commerce, obtained a political significance and
exercised a paramount: influence for two centuries
over the fortunes of the ancient world, such as could
hardly be expected from its earlier history or from
its size and apparent resources. The steps of this
development, the growth and unifying of its
military power—the avcressive policy and gradual
ascendency of Philip over the Greek republics—
the supremacy of alueadccer: whose world-empire
reached from the Adriatie to the Indus—its parti-
tion after his early death among his leading
generals, out of which sprang the Seleucid empire
in Syria, the rule of the Ptolemies in Egypt, and a
series of violent changes in the occupancy of the
throne of the Macedonian motherland—and_ the
final strueeles, which, culminating in the battles
of Cynoscephale (B.C. 197) and Pydna (B.C. 168),
brought Macedonia under the power of Rome—
hardly fall within the province of this article,
except in so far as they helped to shape the
Macedonia which confronts us as an Oriental
power at the outset of the Maccabean history,
and as a Roman province in NT.

The history of the conflict with Epiphanes and
his successors opens (1 Mac 11:9) with a striking
description of the achievements of Alexander the

Great, and of the division of his dominions upon
his death. There (1!) he is said to come forth from
the land of Chittim (Χεττιείμ), and at 6? to have
been the first reigning as king over the Greeks ;
while at 85, in the account of the power of the
Romans whereof Judas had heard, there is mention
of their having discomtited and overcome Philip
(V.), and Perseus who is called king of the Chittim
(Κιτιέων, see KITTIM) At 2 Mac 8” the term
Macedonians seems applied to the Syro- Macedonian
warriors in the service of the Seleucid kines. On
the application of the epithet to Haman in the LXX
Ad. Est 16°, and its use in 164, see HAMAN.

The Macedonia of NT is the Roman province of
that name. For a time after the Roman victory
at Pydna (B.C. 168) it was allowed to retain some
measure of independence and_ self-government ;
but its unity was broken up. It was divided into
four districts, in which republican federative
leagues were modelled on the system of the Greek
contederacies. The first embraced the region
between the Strymon and Nestus; the second,
that between the Strymon and Axius with the
Chaleidian peninsula; the third, that from the
Axius to the Thessalian Pencius; and the fourth,
the mountain lands towards the north-west. Their
capitals were, respectively, Amphipolis, ‘Thessa-
lonica, Pella, and Pelagonia. [lor details of the
arrangement, see Liv. xlv. 29,32; Mommsen, /Zist.
of Rome, ii. p. δ08 1.1. But in b.c. 146 dependence
was exchanged for subjection ; the country received
a definitive provincial organization ; and from that
date began the Macedonian era, henceforth used on
inscriptions and coins. ‘The new province included
portions of Ilyria and Thessaly, and Thessalonica
became the headquarters of the homan government,
although it and some other towns retained local
autonomy. It was administered by a proprietor
with the title of proconsul ; and there was usually
associated with it the province of Achaia or
Greece, which was administered by a legate [on
the relation of Greece as a Roman province to
Macedonia, see Mommsen, Hist. of Lome, 111. p.
271, note}. On several occasions in NT we find them
mentioned together; but Macedonia takes pre-
cedence’ (Ac 19", Ro: 16%7;.2.Coe ὙΠῸ ae?) EG
was traversed by the great Roman military road,
the Via EHgnatia, and attorded a fruitful soil for
the missionary labours of St. Paul,* who amidst no
small opposition and with various success sowed
the seeds of the gospel, and founded Churches in
some of its chiet towns, Philippi, Thessalonica,
Berwa (Ac 16°-17%), and subsequently revisited
them on his way to and from Greece (Ac 1991 20'4),
when several of his Macedonian converts accom-
panied him to Troas (Ac 205. His warm interest
in the Churches which he had planted bore fruit in
the Epistles addressed to Thessalonica and Philippi;
and their readiness to receive the word, to love the
brethren, and to minister to his personal needs, are
heartily acknowledged and commended (1 Th 15 ὃ
86 49. ΟἽ} 14) Ph 419. 15. 16),

WILLIAM P. DICKSON,

MACHAERUS (Mayarpofs, Grecized from >,
Tamid iii. 8, sometimes 33 and 332) is con-
fidently identified (originally by Seetzen, Reisen
durch Syrien, ii. 330, iv. 378) with Mkawr (but
see Jastrow, s.v.), an extensive collection of ruins
on the spur of a hill overlooking the Dead Sea
from the east. It was first fortified by Alexander
Janneus (Jos. Wars, Vil. vi. 2), but was taken
from his grandson by Gabinius and demolished
(t6. I. vill. 5; Ant. XIV. v. 4). Herod the Great
fortified it (Jos. Wars, VII. vi. 1, 2), and used it as
one of his principal residences. On his death it

* Ramsay (St. Pawl the Trav. p. 203) suggests that the ‘man

of Macedonia’ who was seen by Paul in a vision (Ac 169) is to be
identitiéd with Luke himself, who meets the apostle at Troas.

MACHBANNAI

MACHPELAH 197

became the property of Antipas, being situated in
his tetrarchy. When Avtipas divorced his wife,
the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabatieans, she
desired to be sent to Machaerus, which is incon-
sistently described (Jos. dat. XVUI. ν. 1) as on the
borders of the dominions of the two kings, and as
subject to Aretas. The inscriptions do not reveal
the exact frontier at the time; but there is no
evidence in support of the latter statement of
Josephus. He is probably in error, especially as
the context implies that the queen chose her place
of retreat with a view to avail herself of its
proximity to her father’s dominions for the pur-
pose of escape. Shortly afterwards John the
Baptist was imprisoned and put to death in the
dungeons of Machaerus (76, xvuI. v. 2; Mk 6?! is
not against this, as Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv.
218, note 1, shows). The fortress, of whose im-
portance Pliny speaks (Hist. Nat. v. 16, 72), was
garrisoned by the Romans until A.D. 66 (Jos.
Wars, 11. xviii. &), when they withdrew to avoid
its investment. But six years later it was re-
covered (7. VII. vi. 4), and finally demolished by
Lucilius Bassus.

Keim, Jesus of Nazara, En

. li. 329 ff.; Edersheim, Jesus
the Messiah, i. 120, 658 ff.

R. W. Moss.

MACHBANNATI (3222; B Μελχαβανναί, A Maya-
Bavai).—A Gadite who joined David at Ziklag,
eh 2,

MACHBENA (73320, van ἃ. H. 3222; B Μαχαβηνά,
A Maxaunvd, Luc. MaxSavd).—_Named in the genea-
logical list of Judah (see GENEALOGY, IV. 34) as.
the ‘son’ of Sheva, 1 Ch 2”. It is clear that a
place and not a person is intended. Machbena is
probably the same as Cabbon (ji22) of Jos 15%,
which may perhaps be identified with ed-Kubeibeh,
situated about 3 miles south of Beit Jibrin (see
Dilim. on Jos 15"). J. A. SELBIE.

Se

ΜΆΘΗΙ (‘>> [derivation and meaning uncertain :
if the vocalization implied in Maxxé is correct, the
word comes from the Hiph. of 723, and means
‘striking’]; LXX Maxyi, Maxi, Makosi: F has
the more familiar form Maxeip, in which it agrees
with the Peshitta -2280).—The name occurs only
once, in Nu 13", where P mentions Machi as the
father of Geuel, who acted on behalf of the tribe
of Gad as one of the twelve men sent to spy out
the land of Canaan. J. TAYLOR.

MACHIR (+>2).—4. Son of Manasseh (the son of
Joseph), Gn 50°,—the eldest son, according to J
(Jos 17!©), the only son, according to P (Nu 2039).
Machir has, however, really a tribal significance :
he, or his ‘sons,’ represent the leading branch of
the tribe of Manasseh,—usually that warlike part
of the tribe (Jos 17!” ‘for he was a man of war,
and had Gilead and Bashan’) which, after Moses
had assigned inheritances on the E. of Jordan to

teuben and Gad (Nu 32), went and took possession
of (the N. half of) Gilead (v.%; ef. νι Ὁ. Dt 315), to
which other passages add Bashan (N. and N.E. of
Gilead) as well (Jos 13%! 17!) : in Deborah's song,
however (Jg 54 ‘from Machir came down com-
manders’ [Moore, ‘truncheon - bearers’; Heb.
a pprd]), it seems that Machir must denote that
part of Manasseh which was settled on the W.
of Jordan (so practically all commentators). On
account, partly, of this localization of Machir in
Deborah’s time W. of Jordan, it has been supposed
by many modern scholars that the conquest of
Gilead was in reality effected, not at the time
when Israel first invaded the lands E. of Jordan in

the days of Moses, but subsequently, later even
than the time of Deborah, by Manassites invading
it from W. Palestine (cf. MANASSEI). From the
connexion subsisting between Machir and Gilead,
he is habitually spoken of as the ‘father’ * of
Gilead, Jos 171 1yi7 vax (where the art. shows dis-
tinectly that ‘Gilead’ is the name of a locality),
LC hss (er Nu 26" Prwhere it as sack that
Machir ‘begat’ Gilead); and, conversely, Gilead
is called the ‘son’ of Machir, Nu 27! 364, Jos 173
(all P), 1 Ch 7!7 (ef. GILEAD 4, above, vol. ii. p.
174). In Nu 205 (P) mention is made of the family
of the Machirites, who traced their descent from
‘Machir.’ See, further, MANASSEH, where the
genealogies in which Machir is included are
printed in tabular form, and where the inferences
which seem to be suggested by the differences
between them are more fully stated.
2. See next article. S. R. DRIVER.
Mayeip).— The son of Ammiel,

MACHIR (7>>,
described as living at Lo-debar, on the E. of Jordan.
The site of this spot is uncertain, but it probably lay
on the N. border of Gilead, and is to be identified
with Lidebir (Jos 13°°RVm). We eather from the
biblical narrative that Machir, who was evidently
a wealthy and powerful landowner, had remained
faithful to the house of Saul during the struggle
between David and Ishbaal (or [shbosheth), and
after the latter’s death had extended his protec-
tion to Meribbaal (or Mephibosheth), the lame son
of Jonathan, until assured of the friendly intentions
of the reigning monarch (2.8 9'"), His friendly
support doubtless contributed in no small measure
to Meribbaal’s escape from the subsequent destrue-
tion of his father’s house at the hands of the
Gibeonites (311-15), an event which chronologically
must have preceded 91, At a later date Machir,
together with Barzillai of Gilead, and Shobi, an
Aimmonite prince, came to the assistance of David
and his army at Mahanaim when they were pur-
sued by the rebellious Absalom, and furnished them
with ample supplies of food and drink (17°7-?%),
According to Josephus (Ant. VIL. ix. 8), Machir was
the principal man of the country of Gilead.
J. FL STENNING.
MACHNADEBAI (22:22; B Mayadvasov, Μαχνα-
daaBov, SN ᾿Αχαδναβού, Luc. καὶ NadaBov).—One of
the sons of Bani, who had married a foreign wife,
Ezr 10”, G. Buchanan Gray (Ezpos. Times, Feb.
1899, p. 282f.), partly upon the strength of the
above readings in B and &, argues that the latter
element in the word is the divine name Nebo. He
thus obtains the form 123929, which he would further
change (1 and 1 being often confused) into 12:32 =
‘possession of Nebo.’ In the same article, which
is well worthy of study, Mr. Gray argues that the
same species of compound is found in the name
Barnabas, which would thus be=‘son of Nebo.’
J. A. SELBIE.
MACHPELAH (a92227, always with the article).
—The name of the spot where was the piece of
ground and cave bought by Abraham for a burying-
place. The name is not met with outside Genesis ;
but though the meaning is uncertain, authorities
generally concur in one rendering. Gesenius
(Lex.) gives ‘a doubling.” The LXX, Vulgate,
Targum of Onkelos, and Pseudo-Jonathan, render
it ‘double.’ The place is mentioned twice (Gn
23° 25°) as ‘the cave of Machpelah’ (ἘΠ ny), once
(23!) as the ‘cave of the field of Machpelah’
(20 TY MIy>), once (6015) as ‘ the field of Machpelah’
(8 π m3), once (49°) as ‘the cave which is in the
field of Machpelah’ (‘97 atva 128 syn), and once
(2311) as ‘the field of Ephron, which was in Mach-
pelah’ (‘2 wx psy ππῷ). In this latter case the
LXX render ‘Machpelah’ as the ‘double cave,’
* Cf., on the expression, above, vol. ii. p. 5354, ἢ, ζ. |

198 MACHPELAH

MACHPELAH

and in Gn 49* render ‘in the cave which is in the
field of Machpelah’ by ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ τῷ διπλῷ,
thus leaving out ‘field’; this takes place again in
Gn 50%, The Syriac in Gn 50", on the other
hand, leaves out ‘ cave,’ and renders the passage as
the ‘double field.’ It may be noted that all the
passages in Genesis belong to P.

Stanley (Lectures on the Jewish Church, p. 488)
considers the name ‘the Machpelah’ to have be-
longed to the whole district or property, though
applied sometimes to the cave and sometimes to
the field, and that the ancient versions used it
almost always as if applied to the cave. The
matter is of some interest, because the traditional
cave is supposed to be in two parts. Dillmann on
Genesis says, ‘We learn froin him [A, 1.6. P] that
[Machpelah] was the name of a locality in Hebron
in which lay Ephron’s land with the cave in it.
It and Ephron’s field lay on the front side, i.e. east
of Mamre. Mamre was therefore west of it.’

‘So Abraham acquired possession of the piece of
land in Machpelah, which lies before Mamre, with
the cave in it, and all the trees on it’ (Gn 23'7),
This transaction accentuates the fact that Abraham
was a stranger and a sojourner in the Jand_pro-
mised to his seed, and that the burying-place he
bought in Machpelah was his sole landed posses-
sion in the land of Canaan. Abraham at this
time was dwelling at the oak of Mamre, to the
west of Machpelah. In this cave, that is, in the
field of Machpelah, which is before Maimre, in the
land of Canaan, they buried Abraham and Sarah,
Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah (Gn 49° 5018),

There is nothing further in the Bible concerning
the burying-place of the patriarchs, except that in
the speech of St. Stephen (Ac 7!5), by a singular
variation, the tomb at Shechem is substituted for
that at Hebron. Tt is not mentioned in the visit
of the spies to Hebron, in Caleb's conquest, or in
David’s reign there (Nu 13, Jos 15", 28 δὴ, The
only possible allusion is in the account of Absalom’s
vow of a pilgrimage to Hebron when absent. in
Geshur (2.8 157), During the
Maccabees many battles were
Hebron, which had become one of the northern
towns of Idumiea, and was taken and burnt by
Judas Maccaheus ; but no mention is made of the
burying-place of the patriarch, or of the monu-
ments erected there (1 Mac δύ),

The priests at the temple, as they looked for
break of day, used often to say, ‘The face of all
the sky is bright even unto Hebron’ (Tal.
Joma, ch. 3). Not a few believed that Adam was
buried there in like manner [as Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, and their wives]. ‘Adam said, After
my death they will come, perhaps, and, taking my
bones, will worship them ; but I will hide my coftin
very deep in the earth, in a cave within a cave.
It is therefore called the Cave, Macpelah, or the
doubled Cave, Juchasin, fol. 63. 1 (Lightfoot,
ii. 47). A tradition concerning the death of Esau
is noticed in the Talmud (Seta i. 13). A quarrel
occurred at the burial of Jacob, between his sons
and Esau, concerning their right to sepulture in
the cave. Huskin, son of Dan, cut off Esau’s head,
and left it in the cave, his body being buried else-
where. Jelal ed-Din repeats this story, and the
grave of Esau is still shown at Sivir, north of
Hebron (PEF St, 1882, 208). Josephus (γέ. 1.
xiv. 1) tells us of the purchase of the field of
Ephron at Hebron by Abraham, and that ‘both
Abraham and his descendants built themselves
tombs (μνημεῖα) in that place’ (Ant. 1. xxii. 1). In
speaking of the death of Isaac he relates his
burial at Hebron, ‘where they had a monument
(μνημεῖον) belonging to them from their forefathers.’
Josephus, states (BJ Iv, ix. 7) that ‘Abraham had
a habitation at Hebron, whose monuments (μνημεῖα)

fought around

struggles of the |

are to this very time shown in this small city:
the fabric of which monuments is of the most
excellent marble, and wrought after the most
excellent manner.” He makes Hebron, and not
Gibeon, the site of the ‘high place’ where Solomon
prayed for wisdom (2 Ch 1°; Ané. vit. ii. 1); and
Jerome appears to suggest (Qu. Heb. on 28 15°)
that the ancient sanctuary οἱ J” there was at the
ancient sepulchres of the patriarchs. But this
altar, built by Abraham at Hebron (Gn 1315), had
no connexion with the cave of Machpelah.

The connexion of Adam and Esau (Edom) with
Hebron is very interesting, and it is diflicult to arrive
at any conclusion as to the period when this view
first arose. Perhaps it was in later times, when
Idumeea extended over the Negeb or South country.
Originally the land of Esau (or Edom) was Mount
Seir (‘rough’ or ‘hairy’=Esau, with a different
pointing), which lay to the east of the Arabah and
east and south of Moab (Gn 27! ; Ant. τ. xviii. 1).
In process of time, however, when the power of
the Edomites increased, the territory west ex-
tended to the south of Palestine, so that Josephus
(Ant. V. i, 22) describes it as taking in the lot
of Simeon, and in 1 Mae it includes even the
hills north of Hebron, and Hebron itself was an
Idumiean city (1 Mac 5°),

Isaac was buried at Hebron by his sons Esau
and Jacob (Gn 3559), and after this (?; according to
324 [J] Esau was already resident in Seir when
Jacob returned from Mesopotamia) Esau is said to
have left the land of Canaan and ‘dwelt in Mount
Seir: Esau is Edom?’ (Gn 36°; both P).

Adam and Eve are traditionally (by
supposed to have been buried at Mecca, and have
no Makadms in Palestine. On expulsion from
Paradise, however, they are supposed to have
hidden themselves in, or near, a spring at Hebron,
which is now called ‘Ain el-Judeidah. Here, also,
the red earth from which Adam was said by the
Jews to have been formed, is shown by the Moslems.
This tradition is mentioned by several writers in
the time of the Crusaders, and may be of Chris-
| tian origin (SJVP, 8. Pal. 261).

Hebron is also called the City of Arba (Kiriath-
arba), ‘the greatest man among the Anakim?’ (Jos
Ie”), which by later writers was fancifully inter-
preted as the ‘city of four.’ Thusa fourth patriarch
was required in addition to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, and the substitution of Adam for Edom
(Esau) may be suggested as the consequence. The
view taken by the Jewish writers (from the words
of Jos 14") (Boreshith rabba, quoted by Beer, Leben
Abrahams, 189) is that the ‘city of four’ refers to
Abrahain, Isaac, Jacob, and Adam, who are buried
there. See KrrraATH-ARBA. Jerome (Onomast. p.
120, Ep. Paul, 11) also explains that the ‘city of
four’ refers to the four‘a! ove mentioned.

The statements of the various historians con-
cerning the sepulchres of the patriarchs are to be ©
found collected together in Archives de V Orient
Latin, ii. (1884), 411, and in Palestine under the
JMosfouis (1890), 318, The following are the more
important. It will be noted that there is no direct
allusion to the present Haram enclosure until the
12th cent., and as its construction is considered
to be at least as early as the time of Herod the
Great, it seems doubtful whether it was ever visited
hy Christians until the time of the Crusades, the
House of Abraham, about two miles north of
Hebron, being then probably the Christian tra-
ditional site of the tombs of the patriarchs. In
the 4th cent. the sepulchres of the patriarchs are
spoken of as existing at Hebron, built of marble,
and of elegant workmanship, and the Basilica of
Constantine close to the great enclosure is called
‘Abraham’s House’ (Onomast. art. ‘Arboch’). The
' Bordeaux Pilgrim (A.D. 333) describes the square

Moslems)

MACHPELAH

MACHPELAH 198

enclosure within which Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, with their wives, were buried, as built of
stones of great beauty. Antoninus Martyr (ὁ. A.D.
600) adds Joseph to the three patriarchs, and says
that a Basilica was built there ‘in quadriporticus ’
with an interior court open to the sky, in which
the Jews and Christians entered from different
sides, burning incense as they advanced, Arculf
(6. A.D. 698) speaks of the double cave and the
monuments of the four patriarchs, Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and Adam, enclosed by a low square
wall; the tomb of Adam lies not far from the
others, and the three women, Sarah, Rebekah, and
Leah, have smaller monuments, and were buried in
the earth. The hill of Mamre is a mile from these
monuments, with a church and a stuinp of the oak
of Mamre. Mukaddasi (6. A.D. 985) speaks of the
strong fortress round the tombs of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, and their wives, built of great squared
stones, the work of Jinns (2.6. of people before the
Moslems: the Moslems often attribute old build-
ings of superior construction to Jinns). The
Moslem name at the present day for the enclosure
is ‘The wall of Solomon.’ Saewulf (A.D. 1102)
and the Abbot Daniel (1106) are the first Christians
who speak of the tombs being surrounded by a
very strong castle or high wall. The caves are
said to have been discovered and opened in A.D.
1119 (Archives de VOrient Latin, ii. 411). John of
Wurzburg (A.D. 1100), Theodoricus (A.D. 1172),
Jacques de Vitry (A.D. 1220), Burchardt (A.D, 1230),
speak of the fourth tomb being that of Adam,
while Saewulf and Daniel make the fourth the
tomb of Joseph.

Benjamin of Tudela (1163) states of Hebron :
‘Here is the large place of worship called St.
Abraham, which during the time of the Moham-
medans was a synagogue. The Gentiles have
erected six sepulchres in this place, which they
pretend to be those of Abraham and Sarah, of
Isaac and Rebekah, and of Jacob and Leah ; the
pilgrims are told that they are the sepulchres of
the fathers, and money is extorted from them.
But if any Jew come, who gives an additional
fee to the keeper of the cave, an iron door is
opened, which dates from the time of our fore-
fathers who rest in peace, and with a burning
candle in his hand the visitor descends into the
first cave, which is empty, traverses a second in
the same state, and at last reaches a third, which
contains six sepulchres, those of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, and of Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah,
one opposite the other.’ Ali of Herat, writing in
1173 (PEFSt, 1897, p. 59), fifteen years before
Hebron was retaken by Saladin, states that he
was informed that in the year 1119, in the reign of
Baldwin IL, a certain part over the cave of
Abraham had given way and was repaired by the
Franks from below. Rabbi Samuel bar Simson in
1210 claims to have visited the cave. ‘We de-
scended by 24 steps, very narrow, and without
means of turning to the right hand or the left.
We saw there the place of the Holy House, and we
noticed these monuments. This place has been
erected 600 years (7.c. about A.D. 600), it is near
the cavern’ (PEFSt, 1832, p. 212). Sir John
Maundeville (1322, Early Travels in Pal. Ὁ. 61)
says: ‘In Hebron are all the sepulchres of the
patriarchs, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and
their wives, Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah—they
suffer no Christian to enter that place except by
special grace of the Sultan--and they call that
place where they lie Double Spelunk, Double Cave,
or Double Ditch, because the one lies above the
other.’ (The tomb of Joseph had already been
added here by the Moslems).

Nasir-I-Khussan (A.D. 1047, Diary of a Journey
through Syria and Palestine), after describing the

tombs of the patriarchs, states, ‘It is said that in
early times the sanctuary (at Hebron) had ne
door into it, and hence that no one could come
nearer to (the tombs) than the outer porch (ivan),
whence from outside they performed their visita-
tion. When, however, the (fatemeh Khalif) Mahdi
‘ame to the throne of Egypt (A.D. 918) he gave
orders that a door should be opened (into the
sanctuary). The entrance door of the sanctuary
is in the middle of the northern wall, and is four
ells high from the ground. [Note.—This door is
usually now said, at the present day, to be on the
eastern side : it is actually north-east]. On either
side of it are stone steps, one staircase for going
up and one for coming down, and the gateway is
closed by a small door.’

Jelal ed-Din (A.D. 1470) says that the Moslems
destroyed the Christian church in the Haram
enclosure when Saladin took Hebron; this de-
struction may have been only partial, as the church
still exists. This author’s writings are not con-
sidered as reliable as those of Mijr ed-Din.

Mijr ed-Din (A.D. 1495) speaks of the Mosque of
Hebron as the work of the Greeks (dém), by
which term he may mean the Christians, t.¢. the
Crusaders (see BRP ii. 78). He gives an account
of the ‘invention’ of the Tomb ot Joseph, outside
the Haram enclosure, opposite the Tomb of Jacob,
in A.D. 908-932, and states that the doorway
through the west Haram wall between the two

tombs was pierced A.D. 1394 by Yaghmuri,
eovernor of Hebron. Makrisi (followed by

Mijr ed-Din) relates that a poor idiot boy, having
fallen through the hole existing in the floor of the
mosque leading down into the cave, some servants
descended into the cave and rescued him. They
saw a stone staircase of 18 steps which led to the
Minbar.

David the Reubenite, a Jew (A.D. 1523, PEF St,
1897, p. 47), visited the Haram area at Hebron,
and, on being shown the cenotaphs of the patri-
archs, said, ‘These are not true; the truth is that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in the cave under
eround; and I told them to show me the cave.
So 1 went with them, and they showed me the
opening of the door of the cave in the mouth of
the pit; and they let down the lamp into the pit
by a rope, and from the mouth of the pit 1 saw
the opening of the door about the height of a man,
and 1 was convinced that it was under the cave.
Then I said, This is not the opening to the cave,
there is another opening; and they answered me,
Yes, in ancient times the opening of the cave was
in the middle of the Great Church, in which is a
cenotaph of Isaac.’ They showed him this open-
ing, which was shut with large stones and lead ;
and they read to him a book in which it was stated
that a certain king (the 2nd from Mohammed),
after the Moslems had taken the sanctuary from
the Christians, had built up the opening to the cave.

Jichus ha-Aboth (1537, a tract) describes the
Haram area: ‘An admirable and magnificent
edifice, attributed to king David on whom _ be
peace. Near the door is a little window in the
wall; they pretend that it extends to the cavern :
it is here that the Jews pray, as they are not
allowed to go into the interior’ (PF St, 1882,
p. 212).

The only Europeans who had visited the Haram
enclosure during this century before 1867 were the
Spaniard Badia (Ali Bey), travelling as a Moslem
(1807) ; Giovanni Finati, the Italian servant of Mr.
Bankes (1816); and the servant of Mr. Munro
(1833). Ali Bey is said to have entered the cave
through an iron door in the north side of the
Haram at the bottom of the steps; but this was
only the popular account in Hebron in 1867, and
cannot be δεῖν, on.

200 MACHPELAH

MACHPELAH

In 1834 Ibrahim Pasha was let down into the
cavern from the mosque, but was quickly brought
up again, he being suddenly smitten with the
impropriety of looking on another man’s wife. In
1862 the cenotaphs of the patriarchs were visited
by the Prince of Wales, accompanied by Dean
Stanley (see a full account in Lectures on the Jewish
Church, p. 483 tt). In 1864 they were visited by
Mr. James Fergusson, who gives additional infor-
mation in Appendix J, ‘The Holy Sepulchre.’ In
1867 the present writer was shown the iron door
which is said to lead into the eaves. It is situated
on a level with the street at the bottom of the
steps leading up to the mosque at Jawaliyeh, at
the north-west entrance to the Haram. It probably
Jeads to the tomb of Joseph outside the Haram.
This door, the guardians of the mosque stated, had
not been opened for 600 years (Recovery of Jeru-
salem, p. 41). In 1882 they were visited by Princes
Albert Victor and George of Wales, Canon Dalton,
Sir Charles Wilson, and Captain Conder, and
complete information is given about everything
except the cave itself (SH P iii. 305).

The space containing the traditional caves of
Machpelah is enclosed by a magnificent quad.
rangle of masonry 197 ft. in length and 111 ft. in
width, measured externally, called the Haram.
The length lies N.W. and 5. Εν, the breadth lies
N.E. and $8.W. The walls are of one class of
masonry throughout, as in the original construe-
tion, The stone is of grey limestone, very hard,
and akin to marble. The whole character of the
masonry is similar to that, of the lower portion of
the Haram wall at ‘the Wailing place,’ Jerusalem,
The courses of stone average 8 ft. 7 in. in height,
the longest stone visible being 24 ft. 8 in. in length.
There is a slight bdatéer in the walls; that is to say,
each course stands back about 4 in. from the course
below, as at the Wailing place, Jerusalem.

At the height of about 15 ft. (i.e. level with the
floor of the mosque or church within) portions of
the wall 7 ft. wide are set back about 10 in, by
means of a batter, leaving 16 pilasters on the
longer faces and 8 on the shorter face, These
pilasters are 3 ft. 9 in. wide each; the angle
pilasters are each 9 ft. 6 in. wide—the space be-
tween the pilasters being 7 ft. This wall, with
pilasters, is continued up for about 25 ft., making a
height of 40 ft. from the ground on the western side
and 25 ft. above the pavement within. The wall
and pilasters have a simple projecting cap or coping
at the top. ‘These pilasters are similar to two at the
N.W. angle of the Haram wall, Jerusalem, which
are 4 ft. 6 in. wide, with an interval of 6 ft. and
set back of 8 in. The thickness of the VWaram wall
of Hebron is 8 ft. 6 in., counting from the intervals,
or 9 ft. 4 in. from the face of the pilasters. On the
top of this old masonry, which is all in situ, is an
Arabic wall of recent date.

From the west on the north and south of the
enclosure (along the shorter faces) steps run up to
the level of the floor within, and a passage at this
level runs round the eastern and longer face.
This passage leads to the mosque Jawaliyeh,
situated immediately N.E. of the Haram. There
was originally no opening on the eastern face, but
a doorway at a distance of 93 ft. 7 in. from the
south-east angle has been knocked through the
Haram wall. So that the passage on the eastern
face now leads on one side to the Jiwaliych
mosque, and on the other side to the interior of the
Haram, 15 ft. above the roadway to the west.

There is no positive information as to what there
is below the level of the passage to the east of the
Haram, but the general impression was that the
rocky surface rises to the east, the Haram wall on
the eastern side being built on the rock or at the
level of the passage. Dr. A, Paterson, in a recent

communication to the present writer, entirely
confirms this view.

Conder’s account, however (PEFSt, 1881, Ὁ. 267),
seems to settle this question. ‘We visited the
eastern side of the enclosure, and found ourselves
on the housetops almost level with the cornice of
the old wall. We here found a mosque, called ed-
Jdwaliyeh, with a large dome. There is also a
third entrance to the enclosure on this side, and
the old wall appears to be almost as high here as
on the west, although the mountain called. οἰ.
Ji@abireh rises very suddenly behind the Haram
on the east. It would appear, therefore, that the
rock beneath the Haram platform, in which the
great cave is said to exist, must be a detached
knoll; since on all sides there is lower ground, and
a retaining wall 40 ft. high’ (PEFS¢, 1881, p. 267).
jut Robinson (BRP ii. 76) says, ‘The buildings
stand on the slope of the eastern hill; the rocks
having been excavated along the upper side, in
order to lay the foundations.’ Canon Dalton
(PEFSt, 1882, note, p. 201) suggests that a portion
of the interior of the Haram probably represented
originally ‘ the field of Mamre before the cave,’ and
was then on a level with the exterior.

When the level was artificially, and probably
gradually (with débris of Byzantine church, etc.)
raised 15 ft., the present approaches round the
exterior of the Haram, and at a higher level, were
necessitated, and are entirely Moslem. As there
is no ancient gateway through the Haram wall
above the level of the floor inside, it is apparent that
all that is to be seen inside above this level is of
a later date than the Haram enclosure.

It has been mentioned that the walls of this
enclosure are precisely of the same appearance as
the wall of the Jews’ Wailing place at the Haram
ot Jerusalem, and probably of the same date. This
unfortunately gives no clue to the date, as views
differ as to the age of ‘the Wailing place,’ between
the time of Solomon and king Herod. Wilson
and Conder without hesitation consider the wall to
be Herodian ; de Vogiié and Fergusson appear to
have the same view; on the other hand, Grove,
Ritter, Stanley, Robinson, and the present writer,
consider these walls to be pre-Herodian.

The interior of the Haram enclosure (above the
level of 15 ft. above the roadway) is occupied by
buildings of Christian and Moslem construction,
nothing in it being earlier than the 12th cent. except
the Minbar or pulpit (completed A.p. 1091), and
brought by Saladin from Ascalon.

The southern portion of the enclosure is taken
up by a mosque (formerly a church), with length of
aisles 70 ft. and breadth across aisles 93 ft. The
central aisle is 35 ft. wide, and the two side aisles 30
ft. wide each. The length (70 ft.) is broken up into
three bays of unequal space ; that to the south is
15 ft. wide, and contains the MWihrab and Minbar.
The central bay is 30 ft. wide, and contains the
cenotaphs of Isaac and Rebekah. The north bay
is 25 ft. wide, and contains the Mehala or reading-
desk, The church is Gothic, closely resembling the
Crusading churches of Palestine, and the four pillars
supporting the roof are clustered, 12 shafts being
carried up the clustering walls and supporting
ribbed groins; in this respect it resembles the
Church of St. John at Samaria, dating between
A.D. 1150 and 1180. The capitals resemble those
of the Church of Bireh, completed A.p. 1146, and
the general style resembles the Church of St.
John at Gaza, dating about A.D. 1152. Conder
considers that the building of this church may
be attributed to the latter half of the 12th
cent., probably about the year A.D. 1167, when
the town became a bishopric. Fergusson’s view
was that this church most probably was not
erected Lefore 1167 nor later than 1262, more

MACHPELAH

nearly approaching the former than the latter
period.

All the other buildings in the interior of the
enclosure are of Moslem construction, and are attri-
buted to the Mth cent. The Arab historians
Makresi and Mijr ed-Din state that they were
erected in A.H. 732-(A.D. 1331) by the Mameluk
Sultan Muhammed Ibn Kelawun. Beyond the
church to the north is a porch or narthex, which
includes two octagonal chapels, containing the
cenotaphs of Abraham and Sarah.

The porch appears to be of later date than the
chapels, and there is an inscription on it stating
that. it. was. restored im <A.H. 1172 (A.D. 175d).
seyond the porch is an open courtyard with a sun-
dial, and beyond this courtyard are chambers
occupying the nerthern portion of the enclosure,
and containing the cenotaphs of Jacob and Leah.

On the outside of the Haram enclosure; and
adjoining it to the north-west, is a Moslem build-
ing, containing the cenotaph of Joseph. According
to Mijr ed-Din, it was discovered on the traditional
site by Khalanji during the reign of the Khalif al-
Muktadir (A.D. 908-982), and a dome subsequently
built over the spot. He speaks of the walls of the
Haram as the walls of Solomon’s enclosure. He
further states that one of the guardians of Hebron
(Jaghmuri), A.D. 1394, pierced a gate in the western
wall of Solomon’s enclosure, opposite to the tomb
of Joseph.

The outer gates, together with the two flights of
steps and passages round the exterior of the Haram,
are attributed to the 14th cent., and have the
character of the best Arab work; this, however,
must have been a reconstruction, as they would
have been required, and were probably constructed
when the Fatemite Khalif Mahdi caused the door
to be pierced through the east wall of the Haram
enclosure, A.D. 918 (Diary of a Journey through
Syria and Palestine, A.D. 1047). It was appar-
ently at this time that the Moslems first used
the interior of the Haram area as ἃ mosque or
sanctuary.

The cave of Machpelah is the one ancient burying-
place which has been handed down with certainty
as a genuine site, and the great interest which
gathers round it is enhanced by its being the
earliest burying-place of the Hebrew race in the
Promised Land, and by the impenetrable mystery
in which the sanctuary has been involved. This,
as Stanley suggests, is a living witness to the
wnbroken local veneration with which the three
religions of Jews, Christians, and Moslems have
honoured the great patriarch. But it is to the
cave and not to the monuments or building that
the great interest attaches, and about which so
little has been known even with the researches in
modern times. Even now it is uncertain whether
the chamber known to be under the floor of the
church in the Haram area is of masonry or cut in
the rock, and what its extent may be. The follow-
ing is a brief summary of what is known at present
on the subject.

Within the church, adjoining its northern wall,
ina line between the tombs of Abraham and Tsaae,
ix a perforated stone (at point EK on plan) which rises
above the floor of the church. The perforation is
a circular hole, a little more than 12 in. in diameter,
leading by a shaft into a chamber below, the
bottom of which is about level with the roadway
outside to west. The chamber (as seen by the
light of a lamp lowered down) seems to be square,
about 12 ft. either way, with vertical walls covered
with plaster. ‘Towards the south-east a square-
headed doorway can be seen in one of the chamber
walls. The plaster on the walls prevents it being
ascertained whether they are of rock or masonry,
but the mouth appears to be in part at least of

MACHPELAH 201
rock, like that of a cave or cistern, while in the

south-east corner a piece of
ject across the angle of the chamber. The tloor
of this chamber is thickly strewed (1882) with
sheets of paper (Moslem supplications), and it has
been suggested that as they do not seem to he
old, and that as the whitewash on the walls of the
chamber is white, clean, and apparently of no
great age, it may be inferred that the chamber,
whence there is an entrance to the cave, is periodi-
rally visited and cleaned by the guardians of the
mosque, and that entrance can be obtained by
removing the perforated stone from the pavement.
The sheikh of the mosque describes the cave as
being double, in accordance with the tradition.

rock appears to pro-

fs
= = == oes 7757 1
τῇ ἢ Ξ Sundial , F a
Se es Ὲ 3
= 6 Ξ
== a: ΕΒ: πὶ Ε
) : =
KEKE «
17 ta} Ἢ
i τ,
>!
ἢ E
5 Ko ΓΙ A
Arab Work Herodian Work. ΒΕ

Christian Work Recent Work. ZZ

Scale 32%

IO 45. 20 "40 +30 Bo γ᾽. “δὃ)6 88 0° of Feet

HARAM ENCLOSURE, HEBRON.
(By kind permission of P.E. Fund),

There are two other points where there are
supposed entrances to the cave as shown by the
sheikh of the mosque in the royal visit of 1882.
At A (on plan), at the south end of the church close
to the pulpit, where there are stone slabs cased
with iron, and a small cupola supported on four
slender pillars: this entrance is said to lead to the
western cave, where, or in the inner cave, the
actual tombs of the patriarchs are reputed to exist.
At B (on plan), near the tomb of Rebekah, is the
supposed entrance to the eastern cave. [ is closed
with flagging, forming the floor of the church.
From these two points A and B it is supposed that
staircases lead down into the cave, but practically
only the entrance at C (as described) is known for
a fact. At the point D, outside the Haram wall,
close to the steps of the southern entrance gate-
way, there is a hole through the lowest course of
the masonry, on a level with the street. It ex-
tends some distance, and is said to admit of the
whole length of a Jance being passed through the
wall, and probably communicates with the western
rave. Through this Jews were allowed to iook

202 MACRON

“MAGADAN

and to stand and pray, as they were not permitted
to enter the Haram enclosure.

All those who have written on the subject
appear to concur in supposing that the double cave
did not extend beyond the limits of the floor of the
church, and that there is no cavity, but made
earth, under the floor of the inner court, where
tre the cenotaphs of Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, and
weah, and that there was originally an entrance on
v level with the street to the west, and that the
ld portal is concealed by the buildings known as
Joseph’s tomb. Some also think that there was a
Byzantine church in the interior before the arrival
ot the Moslems.

There is another view, however, that may be
taken of the matter, viz. :—That originally there
was no doorway or entrance to this massive en-
closure, and that the first opening through the
wall was made by the Moslems in the 10th cent.
The Israelites in early days had no reverence for
sacred graves or tombs, and the general feeling of
the people appears to have been averse to memorials
to the dead. ‘There is nothing known of the tombs
of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elisha, etc., and even the
site of the tombs of the kings is lost. Abraham’s
desire was to ‘let me bury my dead out of my
sight.2 But the cave of Machpelah, being the
resting-place of the patriarchs in a well-known
position, could not be hidden away : it may seem,
then, that the massive wall built round the cave
without any entrance or means of ingress was
the most effectual method that could be adopted
to prevent the place being used as a sanctuary.
It is suggested that this continued until the
Moslem occupation in the 7th cent., and that as
they developed their desire for Makdms and sacred
places, they eventually (in A.D. 918) pierced through
the wall and built in the interior, and also opened
a door into the cave from the north-west corner,
to enable the vestibule of the cave to be cleared
of the offerings, ete., put through the opening in
the floor of the mosque ; and that the first Chris-
tian building inside was erected in the 12th cent.

LITERATURE.—Ritter, Erdkunde, Paldstina, 209; Robinson,
BRP ii. 75; SWP iii. 333; Stanley, S. and P., and Lectures on
the Jewish Church; Archives de VOrient Latin, ii. 411; Pal.
Pilgrim Text Soc. Publications ; Palestine under the Moslems,
p. 218; PHESt (1882) 197, (1897) 53. C. WARREN.

MACRON (Μάκρων), the surname of Ptolemy,
who was at one time governor of Cyprus under
Ptolemy Philometor (2 Mac 10"), and subse-
quently governor of Ccele-Syria and Phenicia
under Antiochus Epiphanes (//. 8%). He is to be
identified with ProLemMy the son of Dorymenes
(1 Mac 3*5, 2 Mac 4%),

MADAI.—Sce MEDEs.

MADIAN.
MIDIAN.

Jth 2° Ac 7° (both AV). See

MADMANNAH (7:>77).—A town of Judah in the
south, noticed with Ziklag, Jos 15"! (B Maxapetu,
A Βεδεβηνά), 1 Ch 2 (where Shaaph the ‘father’
of Madmannah is a son of Caleb by his concubine
Maacah ; B Μαρμηνά, A Madunvd). The site is
uncertain. There is a ruin called Umm Demineh
north of Beersheba, but this does not appear to
be a suitable site. Dillmann thinks it may be
the same place which is called in Jos 195, 1 Ch 431
Beth-marcaboth (‘place of chariots’; ef. 1 K 91
10°, Mic 118. In the Onomasticon (279. 139)
Μηδεβηνά (which, however, is confused with m:n
Madmenah of Is 10°!) is identified with Myvoeis
near Gaza, hence it has been proposed by some
to find Madmannah in the el-Minydy of Robinson
(BRP? i. 602). This last name is a corruption of
the Latin dimen =‘ shore.’ C. R. CONDER.

MADMEN (j27>).—A place in Moab, which, if
the MT be correct, has not been identified. The
name occurs only in Jer 48 [Gr. 31]2, where there
is a characteristic word-play ‘.5n ΠΡ, 82. ‘also, O
Madmen, thou shalt be brought to silence’ (LXX
καὶ παῦσιν παύσεται). It is a very natural sugges-
tion that the initial Ὁ of 151 has arisen by ditto-
graphy from the final Ὁ of the preceding word, and
that for Madmen we should read Dimon (ef. Is 15°),
ae. Dibon (cf. 4818 in Jer). This appears to be
favoured by Siegfried-Stade (5.0. 1,212) and Buhl
(GAP 268). Dillmann thinks it unlikely that in
Is 25 the words 73979 ‘02 (Keré Ὁ 123) ‘in the
water of a dunghill,’ there is an allusion to the
name Madmen (supposing this reading to be ac-
cepted). See, further, Cheyne’s note on this
passage.

MADMENAH (π:512, MadeSnvd).—A place appar-
ently north of Jerusalem, named only in the ideal
description of the Assyrian invasion, Is 10%. The
name has not been recovered.

MADNESS.—See MEDICINE.

MADON (j1>).—A royal Canaanite city, noticed
with Hazor of Galilee, Jos 11! (B Μαῤῥών, A
Maddy) 12! (B Μαρμώθ, A Mapév). Madon has
been suspected to be a clerical error for Maron
(by a frequent confusion in Heb. between 7 and
1; ef. the LXX forms above), the reference being
to one of the two places in Upper Galilee called
Miriin and Mdrin. There is a ruin called el-
Medineh (‘the city’) on the plateau west of the
Sea of Galilee, but this is near the shrine of
Nebi Sho’eib (Jethro), and probably connected
with the legend of the ‘city of the grove’ taken
from the Koran. The site of Madon (which is
noticed in the list of Thothmes 111.) is therefore
doubtful. See SWPP vol. i. sheet iii., vol. 11. sheet
vi. ; van de Velde, Wem. 140."

C. R. CoNDER.

MAELUS (A Manos, B Μίληλος), 1 15 9} =
MIJAMIN, Ezr 10”,

MAGADAN (Mayadav: the reading ΜΙαγδαλά, Mag-
dala, of TR and AV has no support).—The name
occurs but once in the NT. In Mt 1639 it takes the
place occupied by Dalmanutha in Mk 80, where
Codex Bezie gives prop. man. Medeyadd, D! Μαγαιδά,
and a few cursives Mayaéd. In each case the indi-
cation is general. After the miracle ‘he entered
into the boat, and came εἰς τὰ ὅρια Mayaddy’ (Mt),
‘eis Ta μέρη Δαλμανουθά᾽ (Mk); from this we may
justly infer that the two places were in close
proximity, so that ‘the borders of Magadan’
correspond with ‘the parts of Dalmanutha.’
Brocardus identifies Magadan and Dalmanutha
with a place called by the Arabs Me-Dan, or
Syala. He is obviously confused. MZe-Dan must
be the Leddan, the stream from Yell el-Kadi ;
while Syala is evidently Phiala, now called Birket
Ram, 4 miles east of Banids. Both sites are
alike impossible. Megiddo, on the south edge of
Esdraelon, is also out of the question. With the
information at present available no certain decision
can be reached. The direction taken by the boat
is not stated, therefore we cannot say they sailed
to the western shore. There is no site with a
name at all resembling Magadan round the lake ;
and the only place in any degree like Dalmanutha
is ed-Delhemiyeh on the eastern bank of the Jordan,
a little north of its confluence with the Yarmuk.
To this town may have belonged the land stretch-
ing to the south shore of the lake. The identi-

* On the LXX reading ἀνὴρ Maddy in 2S 2120 (Heb. 7 wy
Kethibh, Υγ “δ Keré) see Driver, Teat of Sam. p. 273.

——————

MAGBISH

MAGI 208

fication is hazardous; but if established would
point to the only recorded visit of our Lord to the
S. or S.E. of the Sea of Galilee; in which case
Magadan would probably have to be sought farther
to the east.

Schwarz (quoted by Stanley, SP 383) speaks of
the cave of Lediman or Lalmanutha in the clitts
overlooking the sea, W. and S.W. of ed-Me/del.
This lacks corroboration: during years of inter-
course with the natives the present writer never
heard the name. Should it prove correct, it would
be a strong point in favour of placing Dalmanutha
at the south end of the cliffs where they sink into
the valley which opens on the sea in the fertile
plain of ed-Fudiyeh (see DALMANUTHA). Here are
a number of springs, walled round in ancient times,
presumably to raise the level of the water for irri-
gation. It is brackish and slightly tepid. Where
it enters the lake great shoals of fish constantly
congregate, and may be seen from an elevated
rock, closely packed over a wide area. On a rocky
eminence south of the valley are extensive ruins
which bear the name Ahirbet Nuncitriyeh. Uf this
identification be accepted, then probably ed- Medel
represents Magadan, although the change of name
remains to be explained. The village stands at
the $.W. corner ot the plain of Gennesaret ; it is
a cluster of wretched mud huts, such stones as
are used being taken from older buildings. That
it occupies a site of antiquity is proved by the
remains of ancient walls between the village and
the sea. The position may haye been chosen for a
tower (Heb. 57:9: the modern Arab name also
signifies ‘tower’ or ‘ fortress’) to guard, as here it
could do effectively, the entrance to the plain from
the south. A comparatively modern tower, now
also ruinous, stands to the north of the village,
and hard by a palm-tree rears its solitary form. A
large thorn shelters the wely by the wayside, and
several spreading trees afford shade, in which the
village fathers spend most of their days. The
inhabitants are of mingled blood, Arab, fel/ah,
and gipsy; and they own no high reputation.
Part of the plain, farmed by a capitalist in Acre,
is cultivated by the peasants for a pittance. Their
life is mean and miserable. Behind the village to
the west, the mighty gorge of Wady Hamdém, with
the robber caves, and the fortress of Jon Maan in
its precipitous cliffs, breaks away towards Aurin
Hattin, the traditional Mount of Beatitudes: the
clear stream that flows down the vale, waters the
south of the plain and enters the sea hard by the
Village.

Lil-Mejdel, with a confidence by no means justi-
fied by known facts, is often pointed out as the
birthplace of Mary Magdalene. This hamlet, and
a handful of squalid hovels at Abu Shusheh above
the stream of er-Rubadiyeh, with a few tents of
the humbler Arabs, are all the dwellings of men
now found in this once densely populated district.

LITER aTURE.—Stanley, SP p.383; Thomson, Land and Book,
fi. 394; Henderson, Palestine, 157, 160; Robinson, BRP ii.
396; Baedeker, Pal. and Syr. 255; Buhl, GAP 225f.; Guerin,
Galilée, 1. 203ff.; Neubauer, Géog. du Talmud, 216 ff. ; also
Literature cited under DauManvtita. W. EwWINa.

MAGBISH (e*2:2; B MayeBds, A Μαγεβίς, Luc.
Maafeis).—The name of an unknown town, pre-
sumably in Benjamin, whose ‘children’ to the
number of 156 are said to have returned from the
Exile, Ezr 2% The name is omitted in MT of
the parallel passage Neh 7** and in B of the LXX,
but A has Μαγεβώς and Luc. Μαγβείς. See Smend,
Listen, 15. A name which Ryle (Ezr. and Neh.

. 270) considers to be identical with it occurs
in Neh 10° in the list of those who sealed the
covenant, namely Magpiash (v.52, B Βαναφής,
A Μαιαφής). J. A. SELBIE.

MAGDALA.
MAGDALENE.—See Mary, No. V.
MAGDIEL (5y232).—A ‘duke’ of Edom, tn 36%

=1Ch 1° (in Gn A has MerodijA; in 1 Ch B has
Medien, A Μαγεδιήλ).

See MAGADAN.

MAGI (μάγοι; AV and RV ‘wise men’).—In Jer

39° 8 one of the Chaldean officers sent by
Nebuchadrezzar to Jerus. is called Rab-mag

(32°21; probably a title, like Rab-saris or Rab-
shakeh, not a proper name: the title Rab-mag,
or ‘chief of the Magi’ (ef. Dn 2%), may well be that
of Nergal-sharezer, whose name immediately pre-
cedes it). The traditional account of the Magi is
that they were a Median race (Her. i. 101; Amm.
Mare. 23. 6; Agathias, 2. 26; see also Parsi
tradition in Sacred Books of the East, iv. p. xlvii),
who acted as priests of the Persians (Her. i. 132 ;
Soz. Hi ii. 9, etc.), but whose persistence as a
race is frequently attested and occasionally causes
violent conflicts (e.g. Her. i. 120, iii. 65, 73, 79).

This view raises two difliculties—(1) How do the
Magi come to occupy an important place (cf. that
in Justin, XII. xiii. 3; Q: Curt. v. i. 22) under the
Chaldieans? It has been suggested that, as Media
reached a high level of civilization before its neigh-
bours (ef. Sacred Bocks of the Hast, iv. p. 1), one
effect of this may be seen in the influential part
played by Median priests in various countries. It
is no more diflicult to imagine the Medes as
exercising great influence at the court of Nebuch-
adrezzar, than to find them in Cappadocia (Strabo,
xv. 733), in Cilicia (Movers, Phdn. 1. 240), or Persis
(Strabo, xv. 727), the introduction of the Magian
priesthood in the last case being expressly ascribed
to Cyrus the conqueror of the Medes (Xen. Cyr.
VIII. 1. 28).

(2) If the Magi are identified with the Median
priests of Zoroastrianism, how are we to account
tor the fact that the officials of a religion whose
sacred books contain strong invective against magic
(see J. G. Miller in Herzog’s LE! viii. 676) should
yet come to give their name to magicians in
general? For, in classical writers, the Magi
appear, not only as performing the duties of a
national priesthood, but as occupying themselves
with the interpretation of dreams (e.g. Her. i. 107,
120, vil. 19: for this other works than the Avesta
would have had to be consulted, as is admitted by
Spiegel, Kran. Alterth. 111. 504), as well as with
natural science and medicine (cf. Plin. ΜΝ xxx.
1), while Zoroaster himself is described as the
inventor of astrology (Just. i. 1; Suid. s.v. Zwpo-
dotpns). It is true that μάγος occurs often in an
idealizing sense (e.g. Philo, de Spee. Legg. 792,
Quod omnis probus liber, 876; Plato, Aleib. 1.
122; Aristotle in Diog. Laert. fr. 8; Cie. Div. 1.
41; Dio Chrysost. Orat. 36, ete.), but its use for
a magician is to be found already in Soph. Oed.
Tyr. 387. In the Sept. μάγος is the equivalent
of ax, a charmer or astrologer (Dn 2? !", so Theod.
Dn pass.); in Aq. it represents 2x, a necro-
mancer (the secondary use of this word for the
familiar spirit which abides with such a neecro-
mancer, produces the strange rendering τὴν ἔχουσαν
μάγον in 1 8 28’); in Symm. it stands for ὈΞΘΊΠ,
interpreters of signs (see Hatch and Redpath,
Concord. to Sept. 5.0. μάγοι). The expression μαγικὴ
τέχνη in Wis 177 (of Eqgyp. conjuring) is parallel to
Gn 418 Symm., Philo 2705. 616, ete. (Herzog,
RE" viii. 682); and shows the transition in the
sense of the word, from the practices of a local
priesthood to similar actions wherever performed,
as completely effected (cf. non-ethnic sense of
‘Chaldicans’ in Dn pass.). Ought we therefore
to take advantage of Jer 395-13, and assume that

204 MAGI

MAGI

the Magi were either (@) a Babylonian, or possibly
an Assyrian, race, or (ὦ) not a race at all, but that
Magi is ouly a general name for a priestly caste
of ‘magical’ tendencies, who corrupted a purer
religion in Media and Persia’ (Ὁ) As regards the
former supposition, Jer 39, though it gives us the
earhest allusion to the Magi, sa.s nothing as to their
relation to the Chaldieans. It is true that Ctes.
Pers. 46 (15), Nicol. Damase. fr. 66, ete., speak of
the Chaldeans in such a way as apparently to
identify them with the Magi, while the distinctions
drawn in Diog. Laert. fr. ὁ, Porpiyr. Vit. Pyth. 6,
do not succeed in removing the impression that the
two were frequently confused; but if once a simi-
larity of occupation between Magi and Chaldzeans
were admitted, this would account for the identi-
fication easily enough (Spievel, iii. 588). (ὦ) The
second view suggested is tempting (cf. modern view
of Druids: Rhys, Ce/tic Brituin, 68), but the con-
nexion between Magism and Media is too strongly
attested tomakeiteasy. The absence of the name
Magi frem the Avesta (Spiegel, ili, 585) does not
show that they belong to a ditierent religion from
the Zoroastrian, since the racial name may have

been treated as a title of scorn (Sacred Books of

the East, iv. p. li). But the full discussion of the
question does not belong to this place, where it
is merely necessary to indicate the importance
of Jer 39° 8 in the controversy. (See Pauly,
RE? iv, 1374; Zickler in Herzog, RE* ix. 127;
Schrader, COT? 110, 114).

It is partly owing to this vagueness in the
meaning of the word that so little certainty ean
be arrived at in regard to the most important
allusion to the Magi in the Bible—that in Mt 2.
We are told that certain μάγοι came from the
east to pay their homage to the king of the
Jews, whose star they had scen at its rising (ἐν
ἀνατολῇ, AV and RV ‘in the east,’ which would
probably require the plural). They consulted
Herod, who procured them the required informa-
tion by help of the scribes, and, after seeing the
star again, they were successful in their search,
offered their gifts of gold, frankincense (ef. Holtz-
mann, 17, Zoe.), and myrrh, and, in consequence of
a divine warning conveyed in a dream, returned
home by a different route, without revisiting
Herod. The king, who had inquired of them
secretly at what time the star first appeared, with
a view to ascertaining the age of the child, put
to death all the male children in Bethlehem ‘from
two years old and under,’ the Holy Child escaping
through the flight of his parents into Egypt.

(1) The Magi came trom the east (ἀπὸ ἀνα-
τολῶν should probably be taken with μάγοι in
spite of the absence of the article, see Alford,
in loc.; but this makes no difference to the general
sense), but no conjectures as to the particular part
of the east can pretend to any certainty. Prob-
ably most is to be said for Arabia (Just. Martyr,
Tertvl., Epiphan., to whom it was suggested
by Ps 721) Is 60°; the view has also modern
defenders, 6.5. Grotius, Wieseler, Holtzmann,
Edersheim) ; but others have favoured Persia,
Parthia, Babylon, and even Egypt (see the names
in Meyer’s and Holtzmann’s Comm.). The ex-
pression is quite vague (cf. Mt 8" 2427, Lk 1559
tev 2113), and Plumptre has pointed out that
‘the language of OT, and therefore probably that
of St. Matthew, included under this name countries
that lay considerably to the N. as well as to the
E. of Palestine’ (sée e.g. Nu 237, Is 412); while
the nature of the gifts’ presented is not decisive
(Weiss, Life of Christ, Eng tr. i. 266). It may,
however, safely be assumed that they are not
Jews (as v. d. Hardt, Miinter, Paulus, ete.); the
words ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν and the exact terms of their
question seem inconsistent with this supposition,

while the evidence of Christian tradition is also
weighty.

(2) The controversy whether μάγοι is here to be
understood in a good or bad sense is really unim-
portant. It is, no doubt, true that*the bad sense
predominates in classical writers of the time (e.g.
Tac. Ann. ii. 27, xii. 22, 59; Plin. HN xxv. 59,
xxvi. 0, xxx.-I, 63 of,, Kleuker, Anhang zum
Zend-Avesta, ii. 3), that the Magus is frequently
denounced in Rabbinical works (Hamburger, RE
s.v. ‘ Zauberei’; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus
the Messiah, i. 210), and that the other NT
allusions bear an unequivocally bad sense (Ac 89
Simon Magus, 138 Elymas). However, the
evangelist lays no stress, either on the value of
the religion of the Magi in general or on its
falsity, so that the attempt of many ancient
commentators (Just., Chrys., Pheauael, ct, a.
Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ii. 36) to press the bad sense
here, is as irrelevant to the story in the Gospel as
the ironical fears of Strauss for the dogmatic
consequences of a favourable construction. ‘The
newly-born king of the Jews receives homage from
Eastern sages; their views (beyond the reference
to the star, which does not imply any opinion on
astrology in general) are not touched upon, and
therefore neither praised nor blamed—a point in
which Mt 2 contrasts with Sen. Hp. 58, where
some critics have endeavoured to find a parallel.

(3) The exact cause of the Magi’s coming can
apparently only be guessed at. The passages
in the Avesta on the three sons of Zoroaster and
the triumph of Soshyos would appear, even if
their bearing on the present story were more
clear, to be too late in date to afford any assist-
ance (Sacred Books of the Eust,iv. p. xxxvil). We
must suppose that the Magi, to whatever nation-
ality they themselves belonged, derived their in-
ference that a king of the Jews was born, from
Jewish sources. ‘The coming of Messiah seems
certainly to have been expected among the Jews
at this time (Lk 2%; Ellicott, Hulsean Lectures 6,
75); and though the widespread feeling in the
East, that a Jewish Messiah would conquer the
world, is only attested tor a later period (Eders-
heim, op. cit. i. 203), Jewish authorities, if eon-
sulted on the appearance of an exceptional astro-
nomical phenomenon, might well have explained
it of Messiah. Unfortunately, it is difficult to
ascertain either (4) what the precise Jewish view
in regard to the star of Messiah was, or (6) what
the actual astronomical fact was in which they
regarded the expectation as now fulfilled.

(4) As regards the former point, in Nu 2417
(referred to by Just. 7ryph. 106; Iren. 11. ix. 2;
Orig. Cels. 1. 59, ete.), the star would most natur-
ally apply to the prince himself, not to a sidereal
phenomenon heralding his appearance (cf. Weiss,
op. cit. τ, 266; G. Baur, Altt. Weissag. i. 346); the
passage in Aggadoth Mashiach (quoted by Eders-
heim, op. cit. i, 211), however important in other
ways, is quite vague as to the nature of the star ;
while Abarbanel (1437-1508, a Portuguese Rabbi
commenting on Daniel), who attaches special im-
portance to the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn
in Pisces, is a very late writer, the value of whose
evidence for the earlier period is a difticult matter
to decide.

(4) Various attempts have been made to discover
unusual astronomical phenomena at this time,
which might have aroused the attention of the
Magi. Kepler (De vero anno, ete. 1614) calculated
that a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn took
place in B.c. 7; Ideler (Handb. d. Chronol. ii. 399),
and more recently Pritchard, have repeated the
calculations, the latter showing (JZemoirs of Royal
Ast. Soe. xxv. 119) that three conjunctions took
place between May and December B.c. 7. This

MAGI

MAGLI 205

conjunction (besides agreeing very well with the | to very little. Commentators are unable to agree
hint in Abarbanel, whatever that may be worth) | how soon after the birth the visit is to be placed ;

would certainly present a rare and splendid spec-
tacle, and would undoubtedly cause much interest
to those engaved in the study of the stars. No
difficulty would be caused by the use of ἀστήρ in
Mt 2, for (in spite of Suidas, s.v. ἀστήρ) the word
may apparently be employed for any sidereal
appearance (at least in the popular language of

2.0. Le 21>, A627, Hell; cf, also Sehater
in Brunck’s Ap. Rhod. ii. p. 206), while Lotz has
remarked that, as neither the evangelist nor any
authority of his seem to have seen the star, the
word used is indifferent. But Pritchard has
shown (‘Star of the Wise Men,’ in Smith’s DB)
that this conjunction cannot be considered to have
guided the Magi to Bethlehem or stood over
Bethlehem at tiie time required by the story ;
possibly also some weight may be attached to his
remark that a still eloser conjunction took place
in B.C. 66, whien ought to have aroused similar
interest. Wieseler (Chronol. Synops. 67) follows a
suggestion of Kepler, that a peculiarly coloured
evanescent star may have appeared between
Jupiter and Saturn, of the same kind as one which
appeared at the similar conjunction observed by
Kepler in 1604. Wieseler further, adopting a hint
supplied by Miinter (Stern der Weisen, 1827, in
which work interest in Kepler's suggestion was
again aroused after a long interval), claims the
support of Ciinese tables for the appearance of
such astar in Feb. B.c. 4, and the moderate weight
attached by him to this evidence seems (in spite of
the ridicule of Strauss) to be justified. Accord-
ingly he regards the evanescent star, not the con-
junction, as the star of the Magi; Edersheim (op.
cit. 1. 211), by referring to two passages in the
Midrashim which represent the star of Messiah as
appearing two years before His birth, is able to
suggest further that the conjunction in B.C. 7 may
have aroused the attention of the Magi, and the
evanescent star of B.C. 4 have seemed (as it appar-
ently well might) to guide them and stand over
Bethlehem. On the other hand, the narrative
implies that the star guiding the Magi to Bethlehem
was believed to be the same star as that seen at
its rising before; so we should either have to
credit the Magi with a mistake (which seems im-
probable under the circumstances), or to suppose
that the evanescent star appeared twice (which is
in conflict wit! the Chinese records, on which the
hypothesis depends).

We must therefore be content to believe that
astronomical reasons prompted the Madgi’s visit,
but that it is doubtful whether the exact cause has
as yet been ascertained. Considering the number
of astronomical possibilities, this fact is not in
itself surprising. But there is nothing in the
language of Mt 2 to imply that the star is of
such a kind as could not be shown to be subject
to natural laws. The universal belief in ancient
times that stars acted as guides (Winer, RIV B®
li. 524), would serve to convince the Magi that
this had happened in their case; their story,
which may have corresponded accurately enough
to the apparent facts, is simply Sorted. without
comment in the Gospel. The question is not
whether a star can lead men and stand over a
place, but whether it can appear to do so; the
passage is undoubtedly of ‘vreat poetical beauty’
(Holtzmann), but it does not follow that it rests
on no historical basis (cf. Weiss, op. cit. i. 265).
A wooden interpretation of the text is in any case
to be deprecated, whether adopted in the super-
natural (as Wordsworth, iv doc.) or anti-supernatural
interest.

(4) The attempt to use the date of the Magi’s
visit for establishing that of Christ’s birth, comes

the order of Herod would certainly be meant (as
Euthymius already pointed out) to be inclusive,
and would not show that the child was nearly two
years old; the astronomical data are too uncertain
to be of any value. [But cf. art. CHRONOLOGY OF
NT, vol. i. p. 403; and Ramsay, Was Christ Born
at Bethlehem ? p. 215).

(5) Much criticism has been directed against the
whole story in Mt 2; but a careful study of the
writers who oppose it most strongly, would seem
to show the difliculty of explaining it, even from ἃ
purely destructive point of view. It has been
suggested that the visit of these Eastern sages
would, if true, have made a great impression, and
that accounts from other quarters would almost
necessarily be expected ; but the attitude of
Herod, which would at once be suspected, would
make the utmost secrecy desirable. It is admitted
that the murder of the children is in keeping with
Herod’s character (see Jos. Ant. XVIL vi. 5; BJ 1.
xxxill. 4, 6); the number of children killed would
be small (‘probably 20 at most,’ Edersheim, 1.
214; Holtzmann exaggerates it); and those who
remember the controversies on the ‘silence of
Thucydides’ and ‘the silence of Eusebius’ will
have no difficulty with ‘the silence of Josephus’
here. The references in Macrobius, Sat. 11. 4. 11
(Holtzmann, 77 doc., regards this as a certain allusion
to our story), and Chalcidius, 7 2). vil. 126, are too
late in date to afford any clearly independent
evidence, but the absence of confirmation cannot
under the circumstances be regarded as unfavour-
able to Mt 2 (for the earliest patristic allusions, see
Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ii. 2, 80). Lk follows
entirely different sources from Mt in his account
of Jesus’ childhood, and therefore the omission of
any allusion to the Magi in the third Gospel can-
not be regarded as surprising. The question how
room is to be found for the Magi’s visit, so as to
make a consistent story of the two narratives, is a
ditheult one, but the view of Wieseler (Chron.
Synops. 152) may perhaps be considered satisfactory.

The attempt to discredit Mt 2 by producing close
parallels is not successful. The scene at Plato's
death in Sen. Hp. 58 is more remarkable for its
differences than its resemblances; the story of
Moses, as given in Jos. dnf. 11. ix. 2, though more
like Mt 2 than the parallel section in Ex, does not
deserve the importance which some scholars attach
to it (ef. Weiss, op. cit. 1. 268); the looser illustra-
tions of Strauss carry no conviction. The expecta-
tions of the Jews as to their Messiah do not appear
to have been of such a kind as would account for
the invention of the story in fulfilment of them
(Edersheim, op. cit. i. 209). It is true that certain
parts of OT (esp. Ps 72!°, Is 60° #°) might lead to a
modification of the tradition in the direction in-
dicated by those passages, and the subsequent
history of the story shows this to have been the
case, but those very points are conspicuously absent
from Mt’saccount. Again, the two places in which
Mt adduces OT quotations (2% 18) certainly raise
difficulties of interpretation (Edersheim, i. 206;
Weiss. i. 270), but those very difficulties show that
the story has not been invented to fulfil the pro-
phecies. The utterance of Balaam (Nu 9417) would
necessarily be regarded as fullilled in the star of
the Magi, but it is hard to see how it could have
given rise to the latter; that there should be signs
in heaven at the advent of Messiah (Rev 12!) is as
natural as that a pretender should subsequently
call himself Bar-Cochba (‘son of the star’), but
that Mt 2 should correspond in any sense to an
expected star of Messiah is extremely unnatural.
We should rather have to think of the evangelist
as deliberately inventing a fulfilment, suggesting

206

MAGI

MAGIC, MAGICIAN

a reason why it should not have caused more
excitement at the time, and combining it with
the gifts of Ps 6859 32!) and the worship of Is 497.
ut the connexion with the prophecies is too slight,
the combination too inferential, and the style of
the whole too simple, to make this supposition
satisfactory. To suppose, further, that this very
fact is due to the author's ingenuity, is to credit
him with almost superhuman cleverness. That
Jerus. should be troubled at one moment and
should have forgotten the cause at the next, is
not inconsistent with the habits of an excitable
populace. Nothing need be said of Keim’s objee-
tion that Herod ‘would not have exalted the
position of the Sanhedrin’ (see Weiss, i. 269), of
his somewhat simple suggestion that Herod would
probably have put the Magi to death, or of the
difficulty found by Holtzmann in the king’s secret
interview with them. That so Jong a journey
should be undertaken for such a cause is no doubt
@ priort improbable, but it is not impossible. If
the story is legendary, the explanation of the
legend has certainly not been found yet, and
critics ought carefully to consider whether the
difficulties involved in rejecting the account are
not greater than those of accepting it as historical.
But it is impossible to arrive at any definite con-
clusion, on critical grounds, with regard to the
Magi’s visit, unless it is taken in connexion with
the other incidents related in the Gospels about
the childhood of Jesus (see JESUS CHRIST).

(6) Tradition has much to say in regard to the
Magi’s visit. The influence of Ps 6881 721, Ts
497 60" 1°, makes itself felt in the belief that they
were kings (perhaps already in Tert. Jad. 9, Mare.
3.13; but see Patritius, de Hrangel. ii. 320, where
it is contended that there is no clear instance before
the 6th cent.).. Their number was fixed at three
(in spite of an Eastern tradition that they were
twelve: Drisler, Classical Studics, p. 31; Op. Imp.
in Mt 2 ap. Chrysost. vi. 638), probably from the
threefold nature of their gifts, though symbolical
meanings were also attached (e.g. Orig. Hom. Gen.
14.3; Leo, Serm. 31.1; [Aug.] Serm. App. 136. 4;
Bede, Collect. v. 542). The gifts themselves were
explained in symbolical ways (Suicer, hes. s.v.
λίβανος), though it is perhaps worth notice that
Christian art attached but little importance to the
actual gold, frankincense, and myrrh, for which
other offerings were generally substituted (Kraus,
LE s.v. ‘Magier’). The star received miraculous
additions (Ign. Eph. 19, see Lightfoot, ad loc. ;
Chrysost. Hom. Mt. 6. 2), as did the whole story
(Op. Imp. l.e. ; Hyde, Rel. Vet. Pers. ch. 31). The
names of the Magi, and tue traditional way of
representing them, became iixed (Spanheim, Dud.
Evang. i. 287; Moroni, Dizion. s.v. ‘Maei’; Kraus,
l.c.). Their bodies were discovered in the East in
the 4th cent. and removed to Constantinople ;
thence they travelled to Milan on the consecration
of Eustorgius, and to Cologne on the conquest of
Milan in 1162. Their festival, combined at first
with a commemoration of Christ's baptism, His
first miracle, and the feeding of the 5800 (Max.
Taur. Hom. ad Epiph.7; [Aug.] Serm. iAnp. 1534. 1),
appears in the 4th cent. (Amm. Mare. 21. 2, Julian;
Greg. Naz. Orat. 43. 52; Valens); and though
rejected by the Donatists as an innovation (Aug.
Serm. 202. 2), was honoured by the Catholies (Const.
Apost. 8. 33; cf. Cod. Theod. xv. t. 5. 5; Cod.
Justin. iii. Ὁ. 12. 7). Though the ‘Epiphany’
always retained traces of its origin as a celebra-
tion of Christ’s baptism (hence its special suita-
bility for the administration of baptism; Augusti,
Handb. d. Christl. Archiiol. ii. 376), the Magi
assumed a gradually increasing importance in its
solemnities (cf. Binterim, Denkwiird. d. chr. hath.
Kirche, v. i. 310).

LirERATURE.—The most important works are cited in the
course of the article, while further references can be found
from them. On traditions as to the Magi and Epiphany see
also Smith, DB, art. ‘Magi’; Bingham, Origines, vol. ix. p. 663
Hone, Hveryday Book, Jan. 6. P. V. M. BENECKE.

MAGIC, MAGICIAN.—Magie, ars magica, is the

profession and practice of the magi or μάγοι. This
1s the etymological signification of the word. The

name and office are associated by Greek writers
with the Persians. ‘Among the Persians they
who are wise respecting the deity, and are his
servants, are called magi,’ says Porphyry (de
Abstin. An. iv. 16). Both Herodotus and Xenophon
employ the term in the sense of priest and sooth-
sayer (Her. vii. 37; Xenoph. Cyr. Vu. i. 23).
Indeed, according to Porphyry, Darius declared
himself to be a teacher of magic (μαγικῶν dddoKados),
In Sophocles, Oed. Tyr. 387, the word is used in an
unfavourable connexion ; but this cannot he said to
be necessary and inevitable. In Dn 1*° Theod., 2?
ΤᾺΝ and Theod. ete., μάγος occurs with by no means
a bad sense attaching toit. Indeed, Daniel himself
(51! Theod.) was chief magus, and obtained this
appointment from Nebuchadnezzar himself (ἄρχων
ἐπαοιδῶν, μάγων, Χαλδαίων, ΠΑ Ή 3} ἘΡΝ poe 32). And
in the same ethically neutral and official sense the
word μάγος occurs in the Matthew narrative (2! 71%),

One passage in Herodotus (i. 101} need not detain
us. Here the magi are called a ‘tribe’ of Medes.
As Schrader points out (COT ii. p. 113), they were
rather a class than a tribe, i.e. the Median priestly
order. We have a close parallel in the Hebrew
Levi.

The origin of the name and oflice of Magian (μάγος,
Heb. 32 only in foreign name Rab-mag) is un-
certain. Both Schrader and Delitzsch claim for
it a Babylonian origin, and this certainly seems
probable. Yet it must be confessed that at present
there is no satisfactory derivation of 29 from
Assyro-Babylonian forthcoming. Schrader’s com-
bination of it with émku (imgu) ‘deep,’ ‘wise’ (p2y),
is very hazardous ; while Delitzsch in his Prolegg.
eines neuen Heb.-Aram. Worterb. p. 138, footn. 1,
surrenders, on phonetic grounds, his former com-
bination of the word (propounded in Heb. in the
Light of Assyr. Rescarch, p. 14) with the Assyr.
mahhu, meaning ‘ prophet,’ ‘soothsayer’ (=aSipu).
Nevertheless, the close parallel between the ex-
pression 32 32 (in Jer 39%) and the Assyrian title
Rab-sak(é) (IVA / ii. pl.67, line 66),* points decisively
to a Babylonian origin.

But our subject is not limited by the original
etymologic import of the name. Magic is a term
used by us to connote a certain range of acts
standing in very close relation to ancient religion,
yet hardly forming anormal or essential part of it.
A satisfactory definition of the term is by no means
easy. Ina recently published work by Dr. Alfred
Lehmann, entitled Superstition and Magic, in which
the accompanying beliefs and usages are traced
from the earliest times down to the present, the
writer defines magic as every act which arises from
superstition or may be explained on the assumption
of superstitious ideas (p. 7, Germ. ed.). But the
definition is too broad; and when we come to the
definition of superstition as ‘every hypothesis
which has either no justification in a given religion
or stands in contradiction to the scientific concep-
tions of a given time’ (p. 6), we have too shifting a
basis on which to construct an adequate definition
of nagic. We must therefore endeavour to fix on
a more stable connotation for this term. Ludwig
Blau, Das alt-Jidische Zauberwesen, detines magic

* See Schrader, COT ii. pp. 3f., 114. The word Sak as an
Assyrian official term is to be found not only in the annals of
Tiglath-pileser 11. but also in the Rassam cyl. of Assurbanipal,
col. ii, 15, 3u-ut-Sak-ja ; see Delitzsch, Assyr. Lesestticke 3, No, 88
in the Schrifttafel.

MAGIC, MAGICIAN

MAGIC, MAGICIAN 207

as consisting of those acts ‘whereby an event or a
condition 15 conceived of as brought to pass in some
supernatural way’ (p. 3). We are here standing
on firmer ground. Yet even here greater clearness
is needed, for the term ‘supernatural’ requires
elucidation. Robertson Smith (Prophets of Isr.,
Lect. vii. ad fin.) has shown that our terms
‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ had no relevancy to
ancient Semitic modes of thought. The definition
would be clearer if by ‘supernatural’ we meant
‘transcending the normal coexistences and sequences
of cause and effect.’ Yet even then Blau’s defini-
tion of magic remains too broad, since it might
include sacrifices, augury, and soothsaying. But
in its strict sense magic stands outside these, and
should be entirely separated from the normal
thoughts and acts of religion,

Magic may, in its historic sense, be best described
as the special and abnormal agency, whether through
words or acts, whereby certain superhuman personal
powers are constrained either to create evil (or
good) or to avert baleful effects. Accordingly
magic falls into two parts. We have to do with
the art with which the Babylonian systems make
us familiar, whereby the superior deities or good
demons are influenced to exercise their good oftices
to avert the evil, ae. whereby counter-spells or
charms are worked. This art may be called ‘sacred
magic.” On the other hand, we have to do with
the Black art* called sorcery (see art. SORCERY),
whereby evils are wrought on the unfortunate
human victim through the power of the evil
eye, etc., by the male sorcerer, or more frequently
through the female witch, who is able to summon
supernatural powers of darkness to his or her
aid. Of this sume illustrations will be given
below.

In the definition, or rather description, above
given we have had chiefly in view the usages and
beliefs of the Christian era and the ages that pre-
ceded it. In other words, magic is regarded as the
outgrowth of demonology, the necessary accom-
paniment of a belief in demons. To quote once
more from Blau’s treatise: ‘These spirits the
magician endeavours by his occult methods to
bring under his power, or to compel them to carry
out his will. ‘The conceptions respecting the
nature and power of these spirits, whom man can
make serviceable to himself, differ with the different
races. This does not, however, alter the essential
fact. Belief in demons and belief in magic are in-
separable the one from the other’ (p. 7). As it is
not the purpose of this article, contributed to a
Bible Dictionary, to travel beyond the confines of
the subject in its biblical relations, we shall con-
tent ourselves with the above conception of magic
based on the animistic interpretation of the universe
out of which demonology arose t (see article DEMON,
DEVIL, vol. i. p. 590). It must be premised, how-
ever, that demonology does not wholly explain
magic in all its varied forms and ramifications.

Investigation of the historic sources of the
magical beliefs and practices of Israel leads us to
ancient Egypt and Babylonia—more especially the
latter. In both magic was highly developed, and
penetrated deeply into the life of the people. In

* See Lehmann, 7b. p. 31f.

t Tylor (Prim. Culture, i. p. 116), basing his generalization
on a broad survey of savage life, modern superstition and
folk-lore, tinds the psychology of magic in faulty association of
ideas. ‘By a vast mass of evidence from savage, barbaric, and
civilized life, magic arts, which have resulted from thus mis-
taking an ideal for a real connexion, may be clearly traced from
the lower culture which they are of to the higher culture which
they are in. Such are the practices whereby a distant person
is to be affected by acting on something closely associated with
him, his property, clothes he has worn, and above all cuttings
from his hair and nails.’ This is, no doubt, largely true. But
the following passage in Tylor’s work clearly shows that the

theory must be supplemented by the assumption of demonology
or a belief in the sorcerer, who is a quasi-demon.

both we fortunately have access to ancient docu-
ments in considerable abundance belonging to an
age far anterior to the Exile and even the Regal
period in Hebrew history.

Erman’s instructive work, Life in Ancient Eqypt,
describes vividly the magical conceptions and prac-
tices that prevailed in the Nile Valley. As in
Babylonia, magic was one of the most potent
influences in the intellectual and moral life of
ancient Egypt. ‘The belief that there were words
and actions by which they could produce an effect
on the powers of nature, upon every living being,
upon animals, and even upon gods, was indissolubly
connected with all the actions of the Egyptians’
(p. 852). It infected their funeral ceremonies.
Wooden figures were supposed to do the work or
prepare the food for the deceased. These with
stone geese and wooden models of kitchens had
been endowed through incantations with magical
power. Even gods availed themselves of magic
tormule to constrain each other, or wore amulets.
Isis pre-eminently was mistress of magic. Her
name was placed on amulets worn by the deceased
as a protection, and it was also used in medicines
prepared for the living. The underlying concep-
tion in many of the formule employed was that in
the history of ane of the gods some good fortune
came to the deity. The magician for the time
regarded himself as identified with the god, and
would repeat the words which the god had spoken
on that occasion, and he might even designate
himself as the god. Erman cites the example
(p. 353)—

‘ Thou art not above me—I am Amon,
Iam Anhor, the beautiful slayer,
Iam the prince, the Lord of the Sword,’ etc.,
by which crocodiles were conjured.

In the description of the great trial for high
treason—a harem conspiracy against Rameses UI.
(contained in the judiciary papyrus of Turin, papy-
rus Lee and papyrus Rollin)—we read that ‘the
royal superintendent of the cows, a man of high
rank, procured a magical book from the Pharaoh’s
own library, and according to its directions made
certain wax figures which were smuggled into the
palace, where they were supposed to cause lameness
and illness’ (Erman, p. 143). Magie and medicine
were closely bound up with one another in Egypt
asin Babylonia. Our chief authority on this sub-
ject is the great papyrus Ebers. In order that a
special remedy mieht be efiective, certain incanta-
tions were pronounced over it. The following
formula, we learn from the above papyrus, was
recited in the preparation of all medicines: ‘That
Isis might make free, make free. That Isis might
make Horus free from all evil that his brother Set
had done to him when he slew his father Osiris.
O Isis, great enchantress, free me, release me from
all evil red things, from the fever of the god and
the fever of the goddess, from death, and death
from pain, and the pain which comes over me ; as
thou hast freed, as thou hast released thy son
Horus, whilst I enter into the fire and go forth
from the water,’ etc. (Ebers, i. 12 ff). From the
same authority we can readily perceive the dense
ignorance of Egyptian doctors respecting the in-
ternal organism and its parts. They had a vague
conception of the heart as the centre of the circula-
tory system, as well as some knowledge of the
bones and large viscera, but respecting the eti-
ology of disease knew nothing. Diseases they, like
other ancients, ascribed to demons. The body was
divided into 36 parts, and over each part a demon
presided, and in case of disease he was addressed
in order that restoration to health might follow.
From the Book of the Dead we learn that in the
case of a dead body the different parts of the body
fell to the care of respective deities. Thus Nu

208 MAGIC, MAGICIAN

MAGIC, MAGICIAN

guarded the hair, RA the face, Hathor took the
eyes under her protection, Anubis the lips, while
Thoth took oversight over all the limbs. Further
interesting details on this subject may be obtained
from Dr. A. Wiedemann’s Religion der alten
Agypter, p. 146 f.

In Babylonia demonology and magie were even
more prevalent than in ancient Eeypt. To the
inhabitants of the Euphrates and Tigris lands the
existence of a vast host of demons was an ever-
present fact. Now demons, as we have already
pointed out (art. DeMoN, DrvIL), are simply a
development of Animism. In the words of Prof.
Morris Jastrow (Leligion of Babylonia and As-
syria, p. 49), ‘the more important and the more
uniform of the natural forces became gods, and

the inferior ones were, as a ceneral rule, relecated |
᾿ς > 85

to the secondary position of mere sprites, like the
jinns of Arabic belief.’ Mere sprites or demons
personify the irregular and destructive forces of
nature (cf. Chantepie de la Saussaye, i. p. 214).
The incantations, of which so large a number has
been supplied to us in the 4th vol. of the Cunei-
form Inscr. of Western Asia (IAT, occasionally
designated Rawl.; sce Sayce, Hibbert Lect. pp.
441-447), usually deal with bodily or mental afHic-
tions, of which evil demons were held to be ‘the
cause. These were believed to have obtained
power over the human subject owing to the wrath
of some deity, or because the victim had been sub-
jected to blighting influence through the instru-
mentality of some sorcerer or witch. Angry gods
made use of demons for the infliction of punish-
ment. Moreover, it was believed that domestic
misfortunes, such as jealousy, evil reports, and
quarrels, were brought about by these supernatural
agents. In magic, forms of words constituted the
means by which the demons were constrained to
work these mischiefs on the unfortunate victim.
Or it might be effectuated by poisonous breath
or spittle, and yet more often by the evil eye.
For in the very earliest times it was a popular
superstition that certain beings possessed demonie
power, and could exercise it malignantly on human
victims of their displeasure.
‘this belief may have originated in the abnormal
appearance presented by certain individuals in
consequence of physical deformities. . . . The un-
camny impression made by dwarfs, persons with a
strange look in their eyes, and, above all, the
insane, would give rise to the view that some
people possessed peculiar powers. By the side of
such as were distinguished by bodily defects, those
who outranked their fellows by virtue of natural
gifts, by keenness of intellect’ or cunning, would
also be supposed to have received their power
through some demoniac source. There would thus
be associated ideas of sorcery and witchcraft. The
sorcerers might be either maie or female, but, for
reasons which are hard to fathom, the preference
was given to females.’ Thus among the Baby-
lonians, as in medieval Europe, the witch appears
more frequently tuan the male sorcerer. She
possesses the power of demons, and in incantations
the two are often conjoined.

The predominance of the sorceress may also be
observed in Jewish literature as well as in that of
other races, notably in that of Greece and Rome (ef,
Horace, Epod. xvii., Sat. i. 8; Theocritus, /dyll ii.).
Citations from the Talmud in Blau’s Das alt-Jiid.
sche Zauberwesen, p. 23f., show how deep-seated
was the belief that sorcery was the work of women.
Sorceresses, in fact, abounded ; and according to
Simon ben Jochai (A.D. 150) they had increased in
number in his time, while Rabbi Eliezer declares
that Simeon ben Shetach had hanged eighty of them
in Ascalon in one day. Popular belief among the
Jews even assigned rabies among dogs to the agency

Jastrow thinks that

of women. This predominance of the sorceress
meets us in ancient Arabia.*

The witch held close personal relations with the
demons, and could control them, being able to
invoke them at her will in order to effect her
malignant purposes on mankind. Magical potions
constituted one of the arts which she employed.
But among the most effeetive was the method which
has been termed ‘sympathetic magic’: ‘Under
the notion that the symbolical acts of the sorcerers
would have their effect upon the one to be be-
witched, the male sorcerer or the witch would tie
knots ina rope.| Repeating certain formulas with
each fresh knot, the witch would in this way sym-
bolically strangle the victim, seal his mouth, rack
his limbs, tear his entrails, and the like. Still
more popular was the making an image of the
desired victim in clay or pitch, honey, fat, or other
soft material, and either by burning it to infliet
physical tortures upon the person oy φάναι, it,
or by undertaking various symbolical acts with it,
such as burying it among the dead . . . to prognosti-
cate in this way a fate corresponding to one of
these acts for the unfortunate victim.’

Cuneiform scholars have devoted much attention
to this weird branch of Babylonian literature.
Since the days, twenty-five years ago, when Lenor-
mant expounded this subject in his Cha/daan Magic
with much graphie vigour and detail, several
scholars, including Sayce and recently L. W. King
(Babylonian Magic and Sorcery), Vallqvist, and
Zimmern, have made notable contributions.

The demons which are mentioned in the incanta-
tion texts amount to hundreds. They are of
various Classes: those which inhabit the field,
those which haunt the resting-places of the dead,
and the evil demons which inflict physical suffer-
ing. It is with the last we are now specially
concerned ; and the means by which these evil
influences were counteracted occupy a vast number
of cuneiform tablets. We possess a great collection
of incantations directed against these demons,
ralled by a variety of names, and also against the
sorcerers. In many cases the interpretations are
provisional,

The utukku of the field and the utukku of the
mountain,

The utukku of the sea, and the one that lurks
in graves,

The evil shedu, the shining alu.

Beside these we have mention of the eimmu,
‘which seizes hold of a man.’ These incantations
fall into various elaborate series.

* Wellh. este Arab. Heidenthums?, Ὁ. 159 : ‘There were men
and women who made this art of magic their profession. The
witches, however, were more numerous. They distinguished
themsclves among the Arabs, as among other races, from the
male sorcerers by showing themselves more passive than active.
Hence the demons do not serve them, but vice versd. In fact
they almost seem incarnations of the demons. In the time of
Ibn Munkidh the witches rode about naked on a stick between
the graves of the cemetery of Shaizar. Similarly they still
ride by night on palm sticks through the air, having stripped
themselves stark naked, smeared their bodies with cow’s milk,
and abjured Islain in a formula of renunciation.’ The witches
riding resemble demons in this respect ; comp. p. 152. They
were credited also with acts of unchastity, drawing the blood
from the other sex, changing them into animals, or robbing
them of reason. See Doughty's entertaining references, in
Arabia Deserta, vol. ii. p. 106f., to the Kheybar witches.

+ Comp. the Hebrew 71379 used of binding and conjuring by
the tying of knots, Dt 1811, Ps 586, and 735 frequently used in
the plur., Is. 479.12, ᾿ -

1 From the root ekému, ‘to take’ or ‘seize’; see Delitzsch,
Assyr. Handw. 8.0. 028. Apparently the word properly means
the manes or shade that wanders by night. We have other
demons specially mentioned, viz. Lilu and lilitu, the demons of
night (see art. Demon), the gad/w that attacks the hand, the
rabisu and labartu, demons of nightmare, Namtar and asakku,
plague demons. We find some of them pictured on the bound-
ary stones. These are the demons of the field, who will inflict
punishment on the trespasser or any one who will invade pro-
prietary rights, and whose power the owner invokes to defend
them. Students of Is 1321. 3415f should take note of the fact

MAGIC, MAGICIAN

MAGIC, MAGICIAN 209

One series, consisting of sixteen tablets, known by the natural
name of evil demon, contained protective incantations against
various classes of evil spirits. Another is called the series of
‘head sickness,’ which covered nine tablets. Two others, have
lately been the subject of careful investigation,—the Surpu
series by Zimmern, and the Maklu series by Tallqvist. Both
expressions signify ‘burning,’ since in both the subject dealt
with is the burning of images of sorcerers and the incantations
recited when this symbolical act was performed. These incan-
tations were of superior force, intended to countervail and over-
power the baleful influence of the spells used by the hostile
sorcerer. Symbolical loosening of knots counterworked the
symbolic tying of the same. Sometimes we have the symbolical
peeling of several skins of an onion. As night was the time
chosen by sorcerers and witches for their work, the three
divisions of the night, evening, midnight, and dawn, corre-
sponding to the temple watches, were the times chosen for the
countervailing incantations and symbolic acts.

The Surpu and Makli series formed incantation rituals.
Certain formulas were found to be effective, and were therefore
preserved for use; but since acertain formula only availed for
a particular set of circumstances, it was necessary to preserve
as many formulas as possible to meet every case with which the
professional exorcizer might be confronted. This exorcizer
naturally plays a great part as a controller of the destructive
spirits. One citation, modified from M. Jastrow’s recent
work, may suffice. It is taken from the Maki series. First the
sufferer describes his troubles (Tallq. ii. col. iii, 148 f.)—

‘They have used all kinds of charms
To entwine me as with ropes (Ὁ)
To catch me as in a bird’s snare,
To tie me as with cords,
To overpower me as in a net,
To throttle me as with a noose,
To tear me as a fabric.’

After which the exorcizer says—

‘But I, by the command of Marduk, lord of charms,
By Marduk, the master of bewitchment,
Both the male and the female sorcerer,
As with ropes I will entwine, :
As in a bird's snare I will catch,
As in a net I will overpower,
As in a noose I will throttle (apattil),
As a fabric I will tear.’

The byplay of action that accompanied each
phrase of the incantation must be supplied by the
reader's imagination. These acts were symbolically
performed by the exorcizer on an image of the
witch made of bitumen and pitch, of clay or wax.
Sometimes the sufferer had been bewitched by
concoctions of herbs. In this case other herbs
or potions are concocted by the exorcizing priest
as a counter charm.

In the lines repeated by the exorcizer above
quoted we notice as significant the appeal to
Marduk. The invocation of the greater deities
was the leading characteristic of these counter-
spells. Demons were related to the gods as in-
feriors to superiors. Doubtless, in some cases,
the dividing line was slight, but that the mastery
belonged to the Great Gods is clear. ‘Those in-
voked were chiefly Samas, who, as the rising sun,
was supposed to scare away the haunting spectres
of the night; Sin, the euardian and illuminator
of the darkness; [Star and her consort Tammuz.
But the most important place in these incanta-
tions was held by the macical triad Ea, Marduk,
and Gibil (as well as Nusku). Here the two
points to be noticed Jare, (1) the appeal to the
gods of light, Marduk, Samas, and Sin, as opposed
to darkness, and the works of sorcery carried on
in darkness (cf. Ps 91), (2) Water and fire,
as the two purifying elements, are summoned to
the magician’s aid througin the gods whom he
invokes. Observe that it is in fire the images of
the witches were burned, while the cleansing and
healing properties of water were recognized even
in those primitive times. Ea was the Babylonian
god of water as well as of wisdom, the city of
Eridu being the ancient seat of his cult. He is
the lord of all secrets, whose name was awful,

that the demons were always endowed with some animal or
human shape. Frequently they are embodied in serpents,
scorpions, or other monsters. Comp. WAT iv. pl. 5, and Perrot
and Chipiez, Mist. of Art in Chaldwa and Assyria, i. Pp: 61562,

ii. p. 81.
VOL. 111.---14

ineffable, and disguised in ciphers. His wonder-
working name was inscribed on the sacred brazen
vessels. But he stood on too lofty an eminence
to be practically useful. In his place Marduk, *
god of the sun as he rises from the ocean and
brings with him the water of purification, is
usually invoked by the exorcizing priest. On the
other hand, Gibil and Nusku were invoked as re-
presenting the sacred element of fire. The follow-
Ing incantation—

‘Nusku, great God, counsellor of the Great Gods,
Guarding the sacrificial gifts of all the heavenly spirits,
Founder of cities, renewer of sanctuaries, . . .

I prostrate myself before thee ;
Burn the sorcerer and the sorceress ;
May the lite of my sorcerer and sorceress be destroyed ’—

was recited in a whisper before the wax image of
the sorcerer or witch. A noticeable feature of
these invocations of the fire-deity is the lofty
language in which they are expressed. We con-
clude with the following (Tallq. Makld, i. 130 f.)—

‘The witch who has charmed me,
Through the charm with which she has charmed me,
charm her ;
Those who have made images of me, reproducing my
features,
Who have taken away my breath, torn my hairs,
Who have rent my clothes, have hindered my feet from
treading the dust,
May the fire-god, the strong one, break their charm.’

We have no space to refer to many other interest-
ing features of this great subject of Babylonian
magic, more especially to the ethical ideas that
occasionally appear in the Surpu texts. These
must be studied in the attractive pages of Morris
Jastrow’s work from which quotation has been
made. The importance of Babylonia in its rela-
tion to Greek and Roman culture must not be
forgotten, and in the realm of astrology and magic
this especially holds true. In the early days
of the Roman empire the mathematici or ‘ astro-
logers’ were also called Chaldq@i (cf. Gell, i. 9). Far
more potent was the influence of Babylonia upon
Isracl. The influence of Egypt over the ancient
Hebrews is by no means so definite.t Certainly
no inference contirmatory of such influence can be
drawn from the post-exilian passage, Ex 7! (P).
The Piel partic. of 5x2, there used to characterize
the magicians and their practices, is connected by
Semitic philologists with the Arabic root CawS

‘cut off (used of an eclipse). The Ethpa. of the
same root, employed in Syriac in the sense of

0 0 »
“rey (ers lasao ‘prayer’), is combined in
Gesen. /eb. Lex.!? with 1 Καὶ 1838, where reference is
made to the self-mutilation of the devotees of
Baal. But this is a highly precarious speculation,
and we are on a safer path if we go to the ancient
Semitic Babylonian for light. Aa@sdpu in Assyrian
means ‘to bewitch,’ and Aispu means sorcery.

* We cannot fail to note the corresponding réle in comparison
with Ea played by Marduk in the cosmogonic legend. See
CosMoGony.

t The influence exercised by Egypt was far more definite and
powerful from the 8rd cent. B.c. onwards, when Alexandria bhe-
came a centre where Greek and Oriental culture met. We see
this in the later Jewish literature, from which Blau gives copi-
ous citations (Das ult-Jiidische Zauberwesen, p. 38f.). Thus
in Kiddushin 49b we read that out of the ten measures Ces
of sorcery which descended into the world, Egypt claimed for
itself as many as nine. In Menachoth 85a we find an interest-
ing reference to Jannes and Mambres (Johana and Mamra), the
heads of the Egyptian magicians (cf. 2 Ti 38). Blau thinks that
the Egyptian potion ‘327 On", to which Pesach. iii. 1 refers,
was a magical healing draught. Among the Greeks and Romans
Egypt was regarded as the classical land of magic and medicine,
Yet this is more true of the later than of the earlier Greck
history, and it is obvious that the Jewish Midrash read the con-
ceptions of its own time into OT passages. Thus in 1 Καὶ 439 the
‘wisdom of the sons of the east,’ which Solomon’s wisdom ex-
ceeded, is interpreted to mean the wisdom of the Egyptians.

|
mad

Reece

210 MAGIC, MAGICIAN

MAGIC, MAGICIAN

Here, as in the case of x (Dn 159 277 47 5), cf.
Assyr. asipit), we have probably Babylonian loan
words. We have already indicated (art. DEMON)
that the Heb. 7 (with its Aramaic equivalent)
was of like origin. In earlier days than the Exile,
especially in the 15th and previous centuries,
Canaan was largely under Babylonian influence.
From Is 2% we are disposed to conclude that Baby-
lonian magic and other foreign superstitions pre-
vailed in Israel in the daysof Ahaz, if the reading 5155
(LXX ἀπ᾽ épxjs) is to be accepted as sound. The
validity of this reading most recent commentators,
including Dillm. and Duhm, admit, though with
the addition of opp or ‘pep before o77> to make
better structure and rhythm: ‘They are full of
soothsaying from the East.’ Similarly Cheyne in
SBOT. It is true that Balaam came trom Pethor
(Dt 234 [5 Heb.], ef. Nu 22°), the Pitriof the Assyri-
ans, on the western bank of the Euphrates, and
that he was regarded as a soothsayer (Nu 22").
Yet it must be admitted that the insertion of 5?
here is mere hypothesis. How deeply soothsaying
and magie had infected Judah a century later
is shown by Jer 27% The prevalence of the
magical arts in early pre-exilian times is clearly
evidenced in the most primitive code of Hebrew
legislation, which strictly prohibited such practices,
and regarded them as closely connected with
heathen worship. It is, moreover, significant that
in Ex 9918. the passage referred to, it is a Woman
professor of these arts, 72822 or ‘sorceress,’ who was
not to be permitted to live. Similarly in Islam
both the witch and the sorcerer were punished with
death. The punishment of drowning was inflicted
on the witches of Kufa by the Khalif Valid 1.; see
Wellhausen, Leste Arah, Heidenth.? p. 100.

In the list of prohibited practices in Dt 18}
the 422 or magician is coupled with those who
worked spells (129 725) by tying knots, whereby the
victim was bound by an evil charm.
of these customs have been already given in the
account of Babylonian practice. Closely associ-
ated in the Deuteronomic passage with the magi-
cian (9¢'22) and the sorcerer who binds the knots,
are the soothsayer (2732) and the necromancer, and
those who inquire by familiar spirits. On these
subjects, nearly allied to magic and sometimes
included in it, the reader is referred to the separ-
ate articles, DIVINATION, SOOTHSAYING, and
SORCERY. In Ps 58+? and Jer 817 we find interest-
ing parallels which show that serpent-charming was
practised as a mode of conjuring the demons, which
the ancient Hebrews like the Arabs considered to
reside in serpents. Illustrations of this popular
superstition may be found in Bandissin, Stud. zur
Semit. Relig. 1. p. 27910; W. R. Smith, LS p. 120,
n. 1, and p. 138. The root n> used in the Piel of
the serpent-charmer (Ps 58”) is probably a mimetic
word meaning to hiss or whisper,* and thus to con-
jure serpents. See W. Τὺ. Smith, Jowrn. of Phil.
xiv. p. 1221 Lagarde, indeed, would be disposed
to connect ena and πὸ, and derive the latter from
the former. The Assyrian parallel Pael form
luhhusu is obscure as to meaning.

Is 47 is a song (arranged in strophes) concerning
the fall of Babylon. Its value for the stndent
of history is the clear evidence it affords that by
the Jews of the 6th cent. Babylonia was regarded
as the land where magic had been practised from
time iminemorial (q7ey32 v."). The prophet utters
his warning in the words (vv.22)—

‘Yea there shall come over thee both these...
childlessness and widowhood in their full measure
though thy magic arts (2583) be many, though thy

*The presence of the significant sibilant w in all these
words Fux, 92, end, ens, suggests an ultimate mimetic
ovigin connected with the sound of hissing or whispering. Ct.
j223¥ ia Is 1019 294,

Hlustrations |

spells (3:239) be very potent... Abide by thy
spells * and thy many incantations whereby thou
weariest thyself.—Perhaps ye are able to obtain
advantage, perhaps ye scare away [the foes].’

The references to popular magic in the OT are
not infrequent. The oxspa of Reuben of which
Rachel made use (Gn 304 J) seem to be a re-
miniscence of some magic superstitions connected
with the worship of the deity a, which the
Moabite Stone (line 12) would lead us to regard as
a deity of love belonging to the tribe of Gad.

There can be little doubt that the earrings
buried by Jacob as idolatrous were magical

amulets inscribed with words or tokens to avert
the evil eye or other disasters (Gn 85. Simi-
larly the ‘crescents’ or ‘little moons,’ μηνίσκοι
(ἡ 5), of which Isaiah speaks in 3!°“ (Cheyne
and Duhm make the passage post-Isaianic), may
be compared with the Ad/a/at or crescents adorn-
ing a modern Arabian maiden. Similar crescents
were worn on the camels’ necks (J@ 831) of the
Midianite kings, and were undoubtedly employed
as amulets or charms (see Delitzsch on Is 315),
Lane, in his Janners and Customs of the Modern
Egyptians, observes that horses often wear append-
aces consisting of a few verses of the Koran enclosed
in cases of metal. That the lady of fashion in
Jerusalem, whose attire is described by Isaiah, wore
crescents as a charm, is shown by the subsequent
mention of the amulets (vss). See chs. xi. Xi. in
Lane’s work on Hejabs (charms) and Magic.

An obscure reference in the Bk. of Job (8%), in
which the speaker, cursing the night of his birth,
exclaims—

‘May those who curse the day, curse it,
Who understand how to stir up Leviathan,’ t—
has been considered to refer to the mythical dragon
who was believed to seize upon the sun or moon when
eclipsed. The magician’s power was supposed cap-
able of compelling the dragon monster Leviathan to

seize or give up his victim (ef. Is 271, Job 26%). On
δ

Nu 21 see SERPENT, and Dillm. ad doe.

The prophets habitually associate magic with
idolatry (Mic 5", cf. 2 K 9”, 2 Ch 33°). Yet the
history of Israel constantly reveals the continu-
ance of popular superstition and practice even
after legislation had long pronounced them un-
Jawful. In the later days of Judaism learned
Rabbis did net forbid the study of magical arts,
though the practice of these arts was ποῦ per-
mitted. Of one it is even said that he considered
the knowledge of magic to be essential to any
member of the Sanhedrin in order that he might
be capable of pronouncing an opinion upon it
(Blau, Zauberiwesen, p. 20). The fact that the
practice of magic was forbidden does not by any
means imply that the Jews did not believe in its
power. ‘I'he truth is precisely the reverse. They
believed in magic as the inevitable result of their
belief in demons, but regarded it, just as St. Paul
himself did, as bound up with idolatry and the

* The word 729 (pl.) ‘magic art’ or ‘spell’ probably refers to
the binding of the knots. The same root occurs in Assyrian,
The Pael of 728 ubbure is used of binding under the spell of the
sorceress (WAT iv. 49, 5a; 50, 52b; Delitzsch, Mandwért. sub
voce). In v.11 we have an interesting word any (evil which
thou knowest not) to avert by incantations,’ Piel infin. with suff.

of the root which in Arabic Cs) is constantly employed in

the sense of using magic spells (see Wellhausen, Reste2, p. 159).

+ Gunkel’s reading of D2 for DY in the first line, and rendering
‘may those who keep the sea under a spell curse it,’ ete.
(Schopfung u. Chaos, p. 59), are far-fetched though ingenious.
Gunkel holds that 318 and Wy refer to spell and counter-
spell, a view which does not appear to us at all warrantod

1 There possibly lurks a reference to a demon in the arog
of Pr 8015 and some magic ritual connected with it, to which al
clue has been lost. See Baudissin’s art. ‘ Feidgeister ’ in PARES
vi. p. 6, and Wellh. Reste Arab. Heidenth.? p. 149.

MAGIC, MAGICIAN

MAGIC, MAGICIAN 21)

realm of darkness, and therefore to be shunned.
It comes within the circle of the ἐνέργεια τοῦ
Larava.*

As a matter of fact, however, the mass of the
people could not be delivered from the influences
of their time, and troubled themselves little about
the religious scruples of their teachers, and, like
the Greeks and Romans, Eeyptians and Baby-

lonians, were delivered up to the superstitious |

tendencies and practices of their age. Hence the
Mishna, Sofa ix. 13, deplores that Jealousy and
magic were ruining society. Indeed we even hear
of distinguished Rabbis practising mavic, 6.0.
Eliezer, son of Hyreanus, who at the request of
Akiba was able, throuch a charm, to fill an entire
field with eourds, and by means of another formula
to transfer them toa single place (Sanhedrin 68e in
Blau, p. 90). Jesus Christ was regarded by His
countrymen as a magician, and was called by them
Balam, Sanh. 1000, Scta47b. According to the
Gospel narrative (Mf 1274"), He was even called a
sorcerer who worked [lis wonders in league with
Beelzebub. Tobit, ch. 6, clearly Ulustrates how
thoroughly demonoloey and magie practices had
taken hold of the Jewish people. This tradition
even influenced dress (see FRINGES, PHYLACTERIES,
and οἵ, Lk 85); also dwelling-houses (mézdzéth,
Dt 68 9, see Driver, ad loc.).

“We have no space to describe with any fulness of
detail the great world of Jewish magic and the spells
which were employed. ‘These consisted of special
formule in which certain names were recited (see
AMULETS, DEMON, EXORCISM, and Brecher’s Jas
Transcendentale, Magi: uw mag. Heilarten im Tal-
mud). Certain mavical practices were forbidden
as heathenish (Brecher, p. 192 {f.); on the other
hand, special formule, involving the invocation of
angels and the pronunciation of words, whereby
certain evils were counteracted or diseases healed,
were not only permitted but even recommended.
The personal names of the celestial hierarchy
which are most potent are given on p. 21 ff of
Brecher’s treatise. We cite the translation of
one formula among the large number given by
this writer and Blau. It is a remedy against an
ulcerous swelling. ‘The original may be found
in Brecher, Ὁ. 198ff.: ‘Baz Bazia, Mas Masia,
Kas Kassia, Sharlai and Amarlai [cf. Ὁ: 388, and
Shabb. 6774], the aneels which came trom the land
of Sodom to heal painful sores. May the colour
not become redder, not extend further; may the
seed be absorbed in the belly. And as a mule
does not propagate itself, so may the evil not
propagate itself in the body of N., son of N.’

Against possession by devils: ‘Cursed, broken
in pieces and conjured be the demon named Bar
Tit, Bar Tama, Bar Tin4,’ ete.

Most potent of all names in these spells was
that of God, expressed in every conceivable form,
sometimes as D2'7, sometimes as the tetragrammaton
itself. This subject, as well as the great variety
of modes in which the sacred Hebrew name appears
in Egyptian magie papyri, will be found fully set
forth in Blau’s instructive work, pp. 117-144.

The survey of this stranee world of abject super-
stition and triviality enables us to realize in some
measure the nature of those methods whereby the
Pharisees professed to exorcize demons in the days
of our Lord (Mt 193, and of those arts which
Elymas +t the sorcerer employed (Ac 135) and Simon
Magus (Ac 89). In Ephesus the Apostle Paul was

confronted with this realm of magical superstition
in its most aggravated form, for Ephesus was the

* φξαρμακία belonged to the ἔργα τῆς σαρκές (Gal 529) Cf. the

tap ΠΕ of Rev 921 1823 (ref. to Babylon) 218 2215 with 2 Th

’

t Probably the Arabic ‘a/im ‘knowing.’ Moses in Koran,
Sur. vii. 106, is called s@hirun‘alimun ‘wise magician.’
> cs a

greatest centre of Greco - Oriental life in Asia
Minor. From this city came the famous ’E@écce
γράμματα, frequently employed in conjurations. *
Probably these and a vast number of other magic
formule of incantation, resembline those found in
recently discovered Keyptian papyri, were recorded
in the magic treatises, worth 50,000 drachmias, which
were publicly burned in Ephesus through the in-
fluence of St. Paul’s preaching (Ac 1919). Deissmann
in his Bibelstudien, p. 20 11, has published a long
inscription of singular interest engraved on a
leaden tablet (of which he gives a facsimile) dis-
covered in 1890 in the necropolis of the ancient
Hadrumetum, in which a spirit is conjured by
Domitiana, daughter of Candida, to cause Urbanus
to be united to her in marriage speedily. The
most remarkable characteristic of this long docu-
ment of 47 lines is that we have not a single
heathen deity invoked, but only Jehovah under the
forms Jao, Aoth, and Abaoth, and many others.+
The origin of the first form Taw as an abbreviation
of ma can hardly be doubted in this case and in
those of the Abraxas’ gems and amulets. Aoth
and Abaoth are obviously abbreviations taken from
the name nixzs (see Blau, p. 102 ff).

Another remarkable feature in this and in other
documents is the powerful influence exercised by
Judaism and afterwards by Christianity on the
Hellenistic and Roman heathen world. In an in-
structive chapter on this subject in Schiirer’s GJ V?
111. p. 297 Π., useful citations may be found (n. 86)
from Origen, ὃς Cels. iv. 33, to prove that in the
closing years of the 2nd and the beginning of the
3rd_scent. A.D., nearly every one (σχεδὸν καὶ
πάντας) Who used spells and incantations invoked
the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
in order to avert the power of demons. From
Hippolytus, Philosophumen. iv. 28, we learn that
the magicians made use of Hebrew words as well
as Greek, stress being evidently laid on the original
form of the name or word, no translation having
any efficacy. Further illustrations of this literature
will be found in Schiirer (see esp. the citation from
Kenyon’s Greek papyri in the British Museum, and
from the Carthage tablets on p. 298, footn. 88).
Jewish literature of the Christian era abounded in
magical works. In the Book of Jubilees, ch. 10,
mention is made of a pseudepigraphic trentise by
Noah on healing, and Gasters recently published
magical book, Lhe Sword of Moses, is another
striking illustration. The name of Solomon is
constantly associated with magic prescriptions and
formule (comp. Kohut, Judische Angelol. p. 81 ΠῚ,
and Joseph. Ané. vol. i. 5), and this tradition
survived to the Middle Ages. We find an echo
of it in Goethe’s drama, in the words addvessed to
Faust’s poodle—

‘On this mongrel brood of Hell
The charm of Solomon worketh well.’

Will magie ever die? Lehmann’s instructive
treatise exhibits its present wide prevalence.
Even with the marvellous advance of modern
culture, its power does not disappear as rapidly
as might be expected. In pre-Christian times
the growth of civilization only produced more

* See Schiirer, GJV3 111. 297, n. 88, where citations are given
from Plutarch, Sympos. vii. 5. 4; and Hesychius, the translation
of which is here appended. ‘The magi bid those possessed with
demons recite to themselves and name the Ephesian formule.’
Hesych. says respecting these: ‘They were once [six] in
number, but subsequently others were deceptively added.
It is said that these are the names of the first : ἀσκὶ, χατὰ ox,
aik, τετραξ, dauveucvers, αἰσιον.᾽ Explanations of these names
follow, based evidently on etymological guesswork.

} The names of the patriarchs occur under the forms A£seey,
Texzov. Iopaun.

1 This refers to a special series of amulets inscribed with the
word Αβρασαξ or Αβραξας, either alone or in combination with
others. On this subject the student should consult’ Dreyler’s
elaborate article in PREH®, vol. i. s. ‘ Abrasax.’

MAGISTRATE

MAHALALEL

highly developed forms of magic. Religion and
religious philosophy were accompanied by hosts of
yojres. Modern spiritualism points to a factor in
human life which nothing will eradicate unless man
is to become ultimately an acquiescent machine. As
long as he continues to live, he will attempt to defy
the limitations that surround him. It is this very
sense of limitations that stimulates these abnormal
endeavours to transcend them in modes that lie
beyond the ascertained lines of cause and effect.
‘Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.’
Lirerature.—The literature of this subject is very copious,
and a full list will be found in the pages of Schiirer, pp. 300 -
304. In addition to the catalogue there given, Morris Jastrow’s
chapter on Babylonian Magic and Blau’s treatise should be con-
sulted. To these we have made frequent reference, See also
Lehmann, Aberglaube αι. Zauberei; Wiinsch, Sethianische Ver-
Jluchungstagzein, and Ramsay, Hapos. July 1809, p. 99, For
further information, see articles SORCERY and Exorcism.
OWEN C, WHITEHOUSE.
MAGISTRATE.— This word is used several times
in AV, where it represents different words in the
original. At Je 187, where it is said of Laish,
‘there was no magistrate in the land that might

put them to shame in anything’ (79x82 937 E>227pN1 |
ἜΣ ey), the meaning of the expression has been |

much discussed and is confessedly obscure ; but it
probably denotes, not any particular office, but the

more general idea of ‘some one possessing power of |

restraint, oras in RV ‘possessing authority.’* At
Ezr 7°, where Ezra is directed to appoint ‘ magis-
trates and judges,’ the first word (pore) is the Aram.
form of what is in Hebrew the usual expression for
‘judges’ (shophetan, which reappears in the Cartha-
ginian sufetes). At Lk 12" ‘magistrates’ repre-
sents the general word (ἀρχαί) for ‘ruling powers,’
and is better rendered as in RV ‘rulers’; while
at Lk 12° the ‘magistrate’ (ἄρχων) to whom it
pertains to receive a complaint appears to denote
a local authority of somewhat higher position than
the ‘judge’ (κριτής) to Whom he remits the case.
At Tit 3! the phrase ‘to obey magistrates’ repre-
sents the compound verb πειθαρχεῖν, which may
probably be better rendered as in RV by the simple
‘to he obedient.” But the principal use of the
word ‘magistrates’ is in Ac 16, where it denotes the
chief authorities of the Roman colony of Philippi.
When Paul and Silas were dragged into the
market-place before the ‘rulers’ (ἄρχοντας, i.e. the
local city-judges), the charge against them re-
solved itself into one of political disturbance, con-
flicting with the allegiance due to Roman authority,
and the accused were brought unto ‘the magistrates’
whose duty it was to deal with it (the στρατηγοί, 162:
22.95. 36-38) These were the duwmnviri or pratores,t
as they were called in towns which were colonies,
They had officers in attendance on them to execute
their orders, called ‘serjeants’ (EV) or ‘ lictores’ ;
but in this case they exceeded their powers, and
when they were made aware that the prisoners
whom they had ordered to be scourged were entitled
to the privileges of Roman citizens, they were glad
in turn to become suppliants that the released
captives might leave the city.
WILLIAM P. Dickson.

MAGNIFICAL.—The old adj. ‘maenitical’ is
retained by AV in 1Ch 995 from the Geneva
version, and it is still kept in RV—‘the house that
is to be builded for the Lorp must be exceeding
magnitical —though the word has long since been
displaced by ‘magniticent.’? The adv. occurs in
them. NT, Lk 16 «There was a certaine riche
man, and he was clothed with purple and silke :
and he fared every day magnifically.’

J. HASTINGS.

_* The MT appears to be hopelessly corrupt, and the Versions
give no help (see Moore, ad Zoc.).

a2 On the application of the term preetores to the magistrates
at Philippi, see Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 217 ἢ,

MAGOG (332, Mayay).—Enumerated amone the
sons of Japheth between Gomer (the Cimmerians)
and Madai (the Medes) in Gn 105. Ezekiel (38)
8.115 Gog ‘the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and
Tubal, of ‘the land of Magog.’ In Rey 208, Gog
and Magog are alike made representatives of the
northern nations. If Gog is Gyges of Lydia,
Magog would be Lydia, and we should have to
explain Magoe as signifying ‘the country of
Gog’ (but see Dillm. on Gn 10%, where this explana-
tion, which is that of Ed. Meyer [Gesch. § 464], is
emphatically rejected). It is noteworthy that mdys
meant ‘land? in the Lydian kinguage, and that the
Assyr. inscriptions give the name of a district in
Armenia as indifferently Ma-Zamua and Zanua.
In any case, as Meshech and Tubal were nations
of 1. Asia Minor, Magog would seem to have been
in the same part of the world, and its association
with Gomer in Gn 10? would be explained by
the Cimmerian settlements in Asia Minor. Cap-
padocia is even called) Gamir by Armenian
writers. Josephus (Avé. 1. vi. 1) identifies Magog
with the Scythians; but the term Scythian was
used vaguely to denote almost any northern popu-
lation about which little was known.

The propheey of Ezk 38*-39° was the source of
the constantly recurring notion in Apocalyptic
literature that Israel's enemies would be finally
destroyed at the advent of the Messiah (see Liter-
ature below, and cf. Rev 20°). In the Assumption
of Moses, where there is no mention of the Messiah,
this final destruction is the work of God Himself,
as itis also in Lnoch, where the Messiah appears
after the judgement. Gog and Magog not only
meet us in Rev, but recur constantly in the
‘antichrist-Apocalypses’? (see Bousset, Antichrist,
Index, s. ‘Gog u. Magog’).

LITERATURE.—Dillmann on Gn 102; Davidson and Bertholet
on Ezk 85 ἢ, ; Bousset on Rey 203; Schrader, AAT 80, 427 [COT
i. 62, ii. 123]; Stade, GV/ ii. 61f.; Schiirer, 1. πὶ. ii, 165, iii.
279; Kisenmenger, Mntdecktes Judenthuin, ii. 732 ff. ; Weber,
Jiid. Theologie Undex, s. * Gog’); Renan, UA ntichrist 2,

A. EBAY CHs

MAGOR-MISSABIB (2252 2; LAX, Theod.
μέτοικον (-xov A*); according to Jerome (ap. Field),
Aq. Ist ed. circumspivientem (περιορῶντα), 2nd ed.
peregrinwim (πάροικον, προσήλυτον, μέτοικον Or ξένον) ;
Symin. ablatim (ἀφῃρημένον), or congreyatuiur et
coactum (συνηθροισμένον) ; according to Qs. Aq.,
Symun., and Theod. added κυκλόθεν with an asterisk ;
Vulg. pavorem undigue; ἘΝ ‘Magor-missabib,’
RVin ‘terror on every side” LXX, Theod.,
Aq. 2nd ed. connect 732 with a fo sojeurn).—
Name given by Jeremiah (Jer 20°) to Pashhur ben-
Immer, governor of the temple, who had had the
prophet beaten and put in the stocks. Jer 90
explains, ‘For thus saith J”, Behold, [ will make
thee a terror to thyself and all thy friends.’ The
phrase occurs also (not as a name) in Ps 31%,
Jer 6% 20! 465 49”, La 2; where LXX has similar
translations to the above, except Jer 4959 ἀπώλειαν.
See Field, Swete, and Giesebrecht (/Zandhom-
mentar zum AT), in loco. W. H. BENNETT.

MAGPIASH.—See MAcpisu.
MAGUS.
MAHALALEEL.—See MAHALALEL.

MAHALALEL (5x¢5->* ‘praise of God,’ ef. the
name bbb Jehullelel, ‘he shall praise God’ ;
MadedejA).—1. Son of Kenan and great-grandson
of Seth, Gn 5! }- 15. 16.17 (p)=1 Ch 17. The name
corresponds to Mehujael ($y3n>) in J’s list, Gn 43°.
See MEHUJAEL. In the genealogy of Jesus, Lk

*Gray (Heb. Proper Names, 201n.) viould point ΚΣ"
(so also Nestle, Marginalien, p. 7).

See MAGI, MAGIC, and SIMON MAGUS.

.

Ι

| petuum for an original D9¢a7) (Aram. 092'37).

1

MAHALATH

MAHANAIM 213

3°7, RV has Mahalaleel, AV (following the Greek,
Μαλελεήλ) Maleleel. 2. The son of Perez, who
dwelt at Jerusalem after the Captivity, Neh 114
(B Μαλελήμ).

MAHALATH (nbn>).—1. (ΛΙαελέθ) A daughter of
Ishmael, and wife of Esau, Gn 28° (0). In Gn 2634
(also P) a ‘Hittite’ wife of Esau is mentioned
whose name was Basemath, and in 36° (prob. It)
this Basemath is called daughter of Ishmael (Sam.
has here and throughout ch. 36 ndno, which,
however, may be a harmonistic correction). ‘The
whole subject of Esaws marriages is wrapt in
obscurity (see Comms. of Dillm. and Holzinger,
and art. Esau in vol. i. of this Dictionary, p. 7344,
note). 2. (ἡ]ολ(λ)άθ) Wife of Rehoboam, 2 Ch 118,
She was the daughter of Jerimoth, one of David’s
sons, and hence a cousin of Itehoboam.

MAHALATH LEANNOTH.

MAHANAIM (oun> ‘two camps’ or ‘hosts’ (Ὁ);
the LXX renders by Iapeufortai Gn 32%, 1 Καὶ 98,
Ἢ παρεμβολὴ 2N 2; in Jos, B has Βαάν (Madyv),
Maava, Καμέιν, A Διανάιμ; in 28, B A Mavdeu,
Μανάειμ, Μαανάειμ (1774 A Mavaev); 1 Καὶ 4111} Μααν-
αιεῖον, A Μαανάιμ; 1 Ch ὑδ B Μαανάιθ, A Μαανάιμ).
—An important city on the E. of Jordan, of which
the exact site is unknown. The above explanation
of the name is due to J, whose narrative (Gn
32718, esp. vv." ‘two. companies,’ and v.34 ‘and
he lodged ¢here that night’) indicates that it
originally contained an explanation of the manner
in which the place obtained its name: probably
this was omitted as inconsistent with v.2. In E,
on the other hand, nothing is known of the dual
meaning of the word, the forms Jlahanaim, Ma-
haneh (cin2, mint) being used indifferently (32?
‘This is God’s host’ (mahaneh), v.2) “and he himself
lodged that night in Mahaneh (not as RV ‘in the
company ’)).* According to Gn 32)® (vy.}: 2 1b ἘΣ
vv.2!84 J) Jacob was here confronted by a vision of
angels after he had parted from Laban on the
mountain range of Gilead. No further mention is
made of Mahanaim until after the conquest. of
Palestine by Joshua, when it is described as lying
on the border between Gad and Manasseh (Jos
13°6- 39), According to Jos 9138. it was one of the
cities of Gad assigned to the priestly family of
Merari.

It was, however, more especially during the early
period of the monarchy that Mahanaim eame into
prominence. Owing possibly to the timely assist-
ance which Saul had rendered to the inhabitants
of Jabesh-gilead at the commencement of his reign
(1S 111}, the country Εἰ. of Jordan long remained
faithful to the house of its deliverer. Hence it
was that, after the death of Saul, Abner established
Ishbaal (Ishbosheth) as kine of Israel at Ma-
hanaim, in opposition to David, who reigned over

See PSALMS.

1 Judah in Hebron (28 2%"). From Mahanaim Abner
started on the expedition to Gibeon, which, result-

* It seems probable that Mahanaim is yet another instance
of a place-name with an apparently dual termination which has
arisen from a later expansion of the original termination in -@in
and -éim (or,-@2 and -én). The most striking instance of this

_ change is Dy (Jerusalem), which represents the Keré per-

Similarly in

Aramaic we find γὙὺ Ξε δῷ for the Heb. jim (Samaria
ett dammed eee i's >

| while the Mesha inscription affords several examples of the
᾿ termination in 7 το (-én), which in Hebrew is represented by

Ὁ" -- (-aim). Other cases in Hebrew are Dothain quo Gn 38717)
and Dothan (jn 2 Καὶ 61%); Kartan (ja9) Jos 2182) and Kiriath-
aim (2:09) 1 Ch 676 (61)), and Enam (ΟΣ ΝΠ Jos 15%4)=Enaim
(ΟΣ Gn 8821). For further discussion see especially Strack,
Genesis, p. 189; Wellhausen, JDTh xxi. 443, Comp. D. 45 ἢν:
Philippi, ZDMG xxxii. 65f.; Barth, Nominalbildung, p. 319;
Ges.-Kautzsch, Heb. Gram. p. 256. Against this view, Konig,
Lehrgebiude, ii, p. 437.

ing in the defeat of the Israelite forces at the hand
of Joab and his Benjamite followers, proved to be
the turning-point in the strugele between the rival
kings. In their flight it is stated that Abner and
his men passed through the Arabah alone the right
side of the Jordan, and thence made their way
across Jordan and up the gorge (RV ‘ Bithron’) to
Mahanaim. Despite this reverse the war between
the house of Saul and David still continued until
the murder of Ishbaal, which followed soon after
the defection and death of Abner, left David in
sole command. Presumably, the tribes on the ΚΕ.
of Jordan joined in the universal recoenition of
David as king and acknowledved his rule. That
they proved faithful to the new monarch is
shown by the fact that David, when driven from
Jerusalem by the rebellion of Absalom, at once
directed his flight to the capital of his former rival
and was there royally received by the chief men of
the country, among whom was a son of his former
aly, Nahash the Ammonite (2.8 17247). The
encounter between the forces of David and those
of Absalom took place in the Forest of Ephraim
(which see), apparently the wooded district of
Gilead which lay opposite to Ephraim on the E. of
Jordan.* Information of the defeat of Absalom’s
army was conveyed to the king, who had remained
in Mahanaim, by Ahimaaz the son of Zadok, who,
running by the way of the plain (1z27=the circle
of Jordan, Sinith, MG/L p. 505), outstripped the
previous messenger who had been sent by Joab
(2S 18"). Apart from a possible reference in
Ca 6" (RV ‘of two companies,’ LXX τῶν παρεμ-
βολῶν), Mahanaim occurs only once more, as the
dwelling-place of one of Solomon’s twelve com-
missariat officers (1 Kk 4!4).

From the above sketch of the history of Maha-
naim it will be seen that the biblical narrative
affords but little assistance in identifying its exact
site. T'rom Gn 32 it seems clear that it lay some-
where near the Jordan to the N. of the Jabbek
and of the great gorge (or Bithron,2 8 939), Accord-
ine to Jos 13 it was situated on the border of Gad
and Manasseh, a position which agrees with the
history of the monarchy. Conder (//eth and Moab,
p. 1791F.) places it near e/-Bukeia, to the E. of
es-Salt ; but this is too far south. More probable
is the view of Merrill (Last of the Jordan, p. 483 ff.),
who identifies Mahanaim with Ahurbet Suleikhat,
at the entrance of the Wady Sulcikhat, 3 miles
N. of the Wady ‘Ajlun. He points out that the
present ruins stand some 900 feet above the plain,
and command an extensive view across the valley
to the W., and down the valley almost to the
juncture of Wady Zerka (Jabbok) with the Jordan.
This situation agrees admirably with the details
supphed in 28 18, according to which the wateh-
man of Mahanapn discerned the Cushite and
Ahimaaz from a considerable distance (v.24) It
also throws light on the statement of v.23 («Then
Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain’), the point
being that Ahimaaz chose the longer but more
level route along the plain, and so outstripped the
Cushite, who made lis way across the intervening
hilly country. Earlier travellers (Seetzen, Reisen,
i, 885; Robison, Phys. Geogr. p. 18 1.) place Ma-
hanaim at the modern J/cAne, which according to
the old Jewish traveller Parchi (Benj. of Tudela,
11. 408) lay about half a day’s journey due E. of
Bethshean. The latter statement 15. certainly
erroneous, but in any case JWene is too far from
the Jordan, and its position in the midst of the
mountains of Gilead does not suit the narrative
of 28. Buhl, however (@AP p. 257), seems to

* It is noteworthy that Luc. gives Μαασινάν, i.e. Mahanaim
instead of Ephraim, but this may be only a correction ἢ see
Smith, HGHL p. 3357; Buhl, GAP p. 121; Budde, Li. uw. Sai,
p. 34 ff.

214 MAHANEH-DAN

MAUHLI

place Mehne (or Mihne) considerably farther S.,—
slightly to the N. of the Wady “Ajlun; the latter
he would then identify with the gorge (or Bithron)
OF 2 S407 p. 121). J. I. STENNING.

MAHANEH-DAN (jr7302, παρεμβολὴ Adv). — The
name occurs twice: in Je 18! of a place ‘ behind,’
ne. ΟὟ. of Niriath-jearim, in Jg 13” of ἃ place
between Zorah and Eshtaol, where Samson began
his work. Whether one identifies Kiriath-jearim
(which see) with IKwhirbet Erma or with Aba Ghosh,
it is scarcely possible to take both these references
to be to the same place. Nor has the name been
found. It is true that Williams (oly City, i. 12,
note) hada site pointed out to him, north of Wady
Ismail, as bearing the name Beit Mahanem. Both
name and situation are tempting, but the statement
lacks confirmation. Guerin (/udeée, 1. p. 62 ff)
places the Mahaneh-dan of 1813 near ‘ Abou-Goch,’
Imt he ignores the other. Moore on Jg¢ 13” accepts
the position assigned to Mahaneh-dan in 1815, and
thinks there is no support for the supposition that
there were firo camps of Dan. It seems probable,
however, that the name, since it was never attached
toa town, was floating rather loosely in this quarter
of Palestine. The author of 13” then understood it
to refer to the original war-camp which the Danites
occupied at the time of the conquest, before their
permanent settlement ; the author of the clause in
Is® took it to be the name of the first camp which
the 600 Danites occupied outside their own terri-
tory when they marched northward to attack
Lash. (Ch ZUPV x. p. 137 with Guthe’s note).

A.C. WELCH.

MAHARAI (77> ; B Noepé, Neepé, Menpd; A Maepaci,
‘foopa, Moopat).—-A native of Netophah in Judah,
the modern Beit Nettif (Buhl, GAP p. 194), in the
Wady es-Sunt, or Vale of Elah, the third of the
live valleys which, cutting right throneh the
Shephelah, connected the Philistine plain with the
hill-country of Judea. Maharai was one of David's
thirty heroes (2.8 25°, 1 Ch 11°), and according
to LCh 27" was of the family of Zerah, and captain
of the temple guard for the tenth monthly course.

J. F. STENNING.

MAHATH (nz>).—1. The eponym of a Nohathite
family, 1 Ch 6® [Heb.2’] (B Méo, A Μαάθ), 2Ch
29!" (DB Macaé, A Maéd), perhaps to be identified
with Ahimoth (ners ‘my brother is death’) of
1Ch 6” [Heb.?°], B ᾿Αχειμώθι See Gray, Heb.
Prop. Names, 281, note 1. 2 A Levite in the
time of Hezekiah, 2 Ch 811} (B Μαέθ, A Ναέθ).

MAHAVITE, THE (ovntr).— The designation in

1Ch 11° of Elicl, one of David's heroes. The
MT is unintelligible and certainly corrupt. Ber-
thean proposes to emend to ‘tt axa ‘the Maha-

naimite’; Nittel, following the Vule. Mahumites,
reads LAX B has Mee’, A Μαωείν.

ΠΕΣ,

MAHAZIOTH (nsin> and nisin ‘visions’; B
Μελζώθ, A Maagidé).—The Hemanite chief of the
23rd course of singers, 1 Ch 254 8 On the extra-
ordinary conglomeration of names in νοΐ and the
supposition that they are really a fragment of a
hymn, see W. R. Smith, O7./C? 143, note 1, and
art. GENEALOGY, vol. ii. p. 124°.

MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ (12 vin Sos πη
‘spoil specdeth, prey hasteth’; LXX, νι} τοῦ ὀξέως
προνομὴν ποιῆσαι σκύλων, ν." ταχέως σκύλευσον ὀξέως
προνόμευσον ; Is 8" 5).- ΟΑ syimbolical name given to
one of Isaiah's sons to signify the speedy destrue-
tion of the power of the allied kings Rezin and
Pekah by the king of Assyria. The propheey was
fuliilled in the invasion of the North in the follow-
Ing year (754) by Tiglath-pileser, who entirely

erushed Rezin, and took many cities of Israel and

devastated the country (2 K 15” 16°), though the

-actual capture of Samaria did not take place till

13 years later (721). I, H. Woops.

MAHLAH (552; as a proper name it is thus
vocalized in order to distinguish it from the
common noun 7972 ‘sickness’; but some of the
LXX forms show that this distinction was not
observed in the living language, and doubtless the
meaning is identical; LXX Madd, Μααλά, Maeda,
Moo\a).—1. In Nu 26° 27! 36", Jos 179, the name of
one of the five daughters of the Manassite Zelophe-
had. Probably she was the eldest, for the MT
always puts her at the head; and although B of
the ΤᾺΝ reverses the order in Nu 361, A and F
retain the ordinary arrangement. P, to whom all
the passages in question belong, states that Zelophe-
had left no sons, and consequently the daughters
eame before Moses and claimed their father’s in-
heritance, lest his name should become extinct.
By the divine direction their claim was allowed, the
only condition being that they were obliged to
marry within the limits of their tribe. Accord-
ingly Mahlah and her sisters married their cousins.
The narrative illustrates the well-known Israelite
law that property was inherited in the male line,
and could descend to females only if they married
Within tribal limits. This has been variously
accounted for, by some on the ground that women
were incapable of performing one of the duties
which property involved, that of offering sacrifice
to dead ancestors (Schwally, Leben nach dem Tode,
Stade, Geschichte, i. 888-391), by others in accord-
ance with the Arab maxim that ‘none ean be
heirs who do not take part ἱπ battle, drive
booty, and protect property’ (ΝΥ. R. Smith, Avin-
ship and Marriage). In the Midrash Rabba on
Numbers the conduct of Mahlah and her sisters
serves as a text for the doctrine that ‘the women
of that generation builded up what the men broke
down,’ the two other instances being that the
women took no part in making the golden calf,
and that they did not share the pusillanimity of
the men after the alarming report of the spies had
been received,

2. In 1Ch 7 the RV has Mahlah, the AV
Mahalah. The former is correct, the Heb. being
mop as above. The Vulg., which has J/aala for
Zelophehad’s daughter, here employs J/ohola or
Moola, Most likely the Mahlah of this passage is
a female name. The Chronicler is dealing with
the genealogy of Manassch’s descendants, tracing
them, unlike Nu, along the female line, and
stating that Hammolecheth, granddaughter of
Manasseh, bare ‘Ishhod and Abiezer and Mahlah.’
Ishhod and Abiezer are names of men: for this
and other reasons it is impossible to identify the
Mahlah of Nu with the same name in Chronicles.

3, PAS OR:

MAHLI (ὑπ ‘a sick or weak one,’ from 757;
ΤᾺΝ MooXei, Moodi, Modi, Model, Μοολλεί; Vulg.
Moheli, Mooli).—1. In Ex 6” (AV Mahali), Nu 3”,
] Ch 247% 2. 10 is the name of a son of Merari,
Levi's youngest son. 2. In 1 Ch 28:9 24°" a son of
Mushi, Mahli’s brother, bears the same name,
Izy 818 informs us that whilst Ezra was waiting
leside the river Ahava, he secured fer the service
of the house of God, amonest others, ‘a man of
discretion, of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi

ες and Sherebiah,’ ete. 1 Es 8 drops the ‘and,’
thus identifying this son of Mahli with Sherebiah.
It is more likely, either that the name has dropped
out, or that it was something like Ish-sechel
(rendered in our versions ‘a man of discretion or
understanding’). See ISHSECHEL.

Mahlites (Scza).—In Nu 3% (Vulg. Moholite)
9055 (Vule. Moholt) Mahli’s descendants are called
‘the family of the Mahlites.’ According to 1 Ch

MAHLON

MAKE 215

23% these Mahlites were destended from the
daughters of Eleazar, the elder son of the Mahli
mentioned in Ex 6% Eleazar left) no male off-
spring. ‘Their cousins, the sons of Kish, therefore
took them in marriage, and prevented the extine-
tion of their fathers name. [ is a little curious

that in the enumeration of the families derived |

from Levi, Nu 26°, the LXX omits ‘the family of
the Mahlites.’ J. TAYLOR.

MAHLON.— See CHILION.

MAHOL (Sinz, Μασούλ, B Mad, Luc. Μααλά,
"Hudwr, Jos. Ant. VIL. 11. 5).—Named in 1 Καὶ 4?!
(Heb. 5!) as the father of certain sages with whom
Solomon is compared. ‘The expression ‘sons of
Mahol’ has been referred to the four sages, Ethan,
Heman, Chaleol, and Darda, as well as to the last
three or the last two only. The Midrash to the
3k. of Proverbs gives it an independent application
(Wiinsche, Bibl. Rabb. p. 2). It isimprobable that
all the typical wise men whose names occur to the
writer should be regarded as the sons of one man.
The Lucianic Sept. (and Β 3) reads, ‘D. son of
Mahol.’ But this may not be original. In 1 Ch 2°
Ethan, Heman, Chalcol, and Darda are sons of
Zerah. Unless ‘son’ be taken in the general sense
of descendant (see DARDA), this conflicts with the
statement in Kings, whether that be limited to
Darda or not. It may be supposed that the Chroni-
cler inferred the ancestry of Zerah (mj) from the
expression Ethan the Ezrahite (ΠΝ Π), 1.6. directly
or indirectly from this passage. This is, perhaps,
evidence that the phrase ‘sons of Mahol’ was not
in his text of the verse. The appellative signifi-
cance of Mahol suggests an explanation of its
appearanee. The word is late rather than early,
and means ‘dance.’ St. Jerome's rendering chorus
(Lag. Gnom. Sae.? p. 73) should be interpreted in
this way, and not in its musical acceptation. The
intimate connexion of the temple ritual with the
names Ethan and Heman permits a conjecture
that the expression ‘sons of dance’ was originally
a note applying to Ethan and Heman. Dancing
was part of the worship of J’, and Sind is twice

used in the Bk. of Psalms in a ritual sense
(149 150). Such a note when inserted in

the text might readily be given its present
position. ὟΝ. B. STEVENSON.

MAHSEIAH (-cn>). — A priest, grandfather of
Baruch and Seraiah, Jer 32'2 51? (AV Maaseiah).
He is called in Bar 1! Maaseas (Maacaias).

MAIANNAS (Matavvas, AV Maianeas), 1 Es 9%
= MAASEIAH, Neh 87.

MAID, MAIDEN.—Several words, easily distin-
guished in Heb, and Gr., are rendered ‘maid’ or
‘maiden’ in AV. 4. v3 na‘drdh, a girl, is τ
‘maid’ in 2K 54, Est 279-12 44 (all ‘maiden’ in
RV), Am 2’; and ‘ maiden’ in Ex 2°, Ru 2°» * 32,
18 94, Est 248 9 bis 28 416) Job 415, Pr 95 2777 31), all
retained in RV. 2. πρὴν ᾿αἰηχῶ,, a young woman
(see under IMMANUEL, vol. ii. p. 454), is rendered
‘maid’ in Ex 28, Pr 30%. 3. apna béthulah, a
virgin, is tr’ ‘maid’ in Ex 22)6 (RV ‘virgin’),
Job 311}, Jer 2°? 51%, La 51} (RV ‘maiden’), Ezk 9°
(RV ‘maiden’), Zee 917. and ‘maiden’ in Jg 19",
2Ch 367, Ps 78% 148”, Ezk 44 (RV ‘ virgin’).
Also ovtsna ad snxy> 85 is tr? in AV ‘I found her not
a maid’ in Dt 224-17, ἃ, acy ‘dGmdh, a maidservant,
is often rendered ‘handmaid’ or ‘maidservant,’ but
also simply ‘maid’ in Gn 30°, Ex 2° (RV ‘hand-
maid’) 21+" 25, Ly 258, Ezr 2% (RV ‘maidservant’),
Job 195, Nah 2? (RV ‘handmaid’). 5. amEY
shiphhah, a maidservant, female attendant, is tr
maid’ in Gn 162% 5 6&8 2922 3Q7- 9-10.12 Ts 242;

and ‘maiden’ in Gn 3018, Ps 1232, Ec 27: RV has
‘handmaid’ for ‘maid’ in all the passages except
Is 242, but retains ‘maiden’ except in Gn 30}
(‘handmaid’).

Notice also the obsol. expression ‘maid child?
for n2p3 in Ly 12°, retained in RV. It comes from
Tindale, who has the similar rendering in Ex 1"
‘When ye mydwive the women of the Ebrues and
se in the byrth tyme that it isa boye, kyll it. But
if it be a mayde, let it lyve.’

In Apocr. and NT we find the following words
translated maid: 4. κοράσιον, a girl, To 6%,
Sus! 19 Mt 922 (both ‘damsel’ in RV). 2.
παιδίσκη, ἃ young woman, a maidservant, ‘To ὌΝ
813.13 (RV all ‘maidservant’), Jth Lol’ (RV ‘hand-
maid ’), Sir 4122, Sus *%, Mk 145% 8, Lk 22°% 5 masdionn
is also rendered ‘maiden’ in Lk 128 (RV ‘maid-
servant’). 3. mais, a young person, usually male,
also used for a servant or attendant, is tr? ‘maid’
in Lk 8°#(RV ‘maiden’), and ‘maiden’ in 8°. 4,
παρθένος, ἃ Virgin, is tr’ ‘maid’ in Jth 9° (RV
‘virgin’). 5. ἄβρα, a maidservant, is tr’ ‘maid?
in Jth 1025 13° 16%, Ad. Est 15%. δ. dovdAn, a
female slave, is rendered ‘maid’ in Jth 12! (RV
‘servant ’).

We thus see that AV, according to its principle,
varies the words indefinitely and almost indiffer-
ently, RV lays down the principle that as far as
possible the same word in Heb. or Gr, should be
rendered by the same word in Eng., but the only
case in which a serious effort is made to carry it
out is in the rendering of shiphhah. Except in
three passages, that word is rendered ‘handmaid.’
One of the exceptions is Is 24°, where the assonance
between ‘mistress’ and ‘maid’ is allowed to stand ;
the other two are particularly unfortunate, since
tnere is little reason for departing from the rule
of uniformity in Ps 123? and less in Ee 27, and
especially since the word ‘maiden,’ which is re-
tained is no longer used for a servant. Even
Shakespeare, who uses ‘maiden’ freely in the sense
of ‘ virgin,’ never has it in the sense of ‘servant.’

J. HASTINGS.

MAIL.—See ARMOUR.
MAINSAIL.—See Suips AND BOATs.

MAKAZ (722, Mayxds Luc.; Μαχμάς A and Μαχεμάς
B are probably erroneous forms due to confusion
with the more familiar name JJirhmash, which
the Sept. transliterates by Mayuds or Makuds).—
One of five places( MT four) which compose, or iden-
tify, the second of the 12 Solomonic prefectures
(LK 4°). The probable identifications of (Shaal-
bim) Bethshemesh and Elon (= Aijalon) show that it
was situated on the western slopes of Judah, but
the exact site remains uncertain. Two of the
towns in the same group are elsewhere assigned to
the territory of Dan. The spellings Maxés (Euseb.
in Lag. Onom.*) and Macces or Maces (Vule.,
Jerome) may be compared with Jerome's deriva-
tion (de fine) from 72 a boundary (Lag. Onom. Sue?
Doct) W..L. STEVENSON.

MAKE.—The verb to ‘make’ is used in AV both
transitively and intransitively, and is so retained
in RV, though the intrans. use is now obsolete.
In both forms it has some constructions and mean-
ines that need attention.

1. With the meaning of to cause it is followed
by the infin., sometimes with and sometimes with-
out to :* 2 Ch 7%‘ This house, which I have sancti-
fied for my name, will 1 cast out of my sight, and
will make it to be a proverb and a byword among
all nations’ (RV ‘J will make it a proverb’); 8°
‘them did Solomon make to pay tribute’; Jer 34%
“I will make you to be removed into all the king:

* See more fully Craik, Lng. of Shak. p. 63 ff.

216 MAKE

MAKE

"

doms of the earth’; and Dn 7: ‘it was lifted up
from the earth, and made stand upon the feet asa
man’ (RV ‘made to stand’). Cf. Shaks. Comedy
of Hrrors, IW. i. 26, ‘This servitude makes you to
keep unwed’; Aamlet, WL. iii. 186, ‘Make you to
ravelall this matter out’; and (without to) Tempest,
1. 11. 172—
‘Tlere

Have 1, thy schoolmaster, made thee more profit

Than other princesses can that have more time

For vainer hours and tutors not so careful.’

2. ‘Make’ was once common in the simple sense
of do.” There is a single example in AV, Je 18°
‘What makest thou in this place γ᾽ (sy2 sy smc ;
RV ‘What doest thou in this place?” Wye. [1382]
‘What here dost thow?’ [1388] ‘What doist thou
here?’ Coy. ‘What makest thou here?’). Cf.
Spenser, FQ VII. vi. 25—

‘Whence art thou, and what doost thou here now make ?

What idle errand hast thou earths mansion to forsake ?’

3. InJns8** Whom makest thou thyself ?’ (ποιεῖς),
and 197 ‘he ought to die, because he made himself
the Son of God’ (ἐποίησεν), the meaning is ‘claim
to be,’ almost ‘pretend to be.’ This meaning of
“pretend” or ‘feign’ is seen in Jos 8 ‘Joshua and
wl Israel made as if they were beaten’; 9!‘ They
did work wilily, and went and made as if they had
been ambassadors’ ; and Lk 243 * He made as though
he would have gone further.’ But even without
‘as if’ the verb is once used in this sense, 28 13°
‘Lay thee down on thy bed, and make thyself
sick’ (o9n7; LXX μαλακίσθητι ; Vule. danquorem
semula; Wye. ‘feyn sijknes’; Cov. ‘make the
sicke’?; RV ‘feign thyself sick’; cf. νι ‘So
Amnon lay down, and made himself sick, RV
‘and feigned himself sick’). With Lk 94:8. ef.
Ps 28! Coy. ‘thinke no scorne of me, lest (yf thou
make the as though thou herdest not) I become
like them, that eo downe in to ye pytte’; and
with 28 13° cf. Shaks. Zio Gent. τὶ ii. 102—

‘She makes it strange ; but she would be best pleased
To be so anger’d with another letter

4. There are some phrases : (1) Wake ado, Mk 5%
‘Why make ye this ado, and weep?’ Cf. Nu 167
Vind. ‘Ye make ynough te doo ye childern of
Levi.’ See Apo. (2) Make away =destroy, Dn 114
‘he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and
utterly to make away many’ (2°22 ono Tend ;
ΤᾺΝ ἀφανίσαι καὶ ἀποκτεῖναι πολλούς ; Vule. ut con-
terat et interficiat plurimos ; Wye. [1382] ‘for to
breke to gydre, and slea ful manye,’ [1388] ‘to al
to-breke, and to sle ful many men’; Gen. ‘to
destroy and roote out many’; Dou. ‘to destroy and
kil very manie’); 1 Mac 162 ‘he laid hands on
them that were come to destroy him, and slew
them ; for he knew that they sought to make him
away’ (αὐτὸν ἀπολέσαι ; RV ‘to destroy him’). Cf,
Dt 32° Tind. ‘I have determened to seater them
therowout the worlde, and to make awaye the
remembraunce of them from amonge men’; Mt
27 Rhem. ‘ But the cheefe Priestes and auncients
persuaded the people, that they should aske
Barabbas, and make Iesus away’; Spenser, On
Ireland, ‘Clarence soon atter, by sinister
means, was clean made away’; and Shaks. As
You Like It, v.i. 58, ‘I kill thee, make thee away,
translate thy life into death.’ (3) Make Sor=help,
Ezk 17% ‘Neither shall Pharaoh with his mighty
army and great company make for him in the
war’ (729022 ἘΠ nips; LXX ποιήσει πρὸς αὐτὸν
πύλεμον ; Vulg. faciet contra eum prelium ; Wye.
“make batayle agens hym’; Coy. ‘maynteyne
him in the warre,’ after whom the correct transla-
tion is found, except Dou. ‘make battel agaynst
him’); Ro 14" «Let us therefore follow after the
things which make for peace’ (τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης; Vule.
que pacis sunt; Wye. ‘tho thingis that ben of
pees’: we owe the idiomatie tr. “which make for

peace’ to Tindale). ‘Tind. in a note to Ly 13 says,
‘This chapter maketh not for confession in the
sare, but is an example of excommunicacion off
open sinners.’ The phrase is not obsolete, it
occurs in Δ]. Arnold’s famous definition (Lit. and
Dogma, i.) ‘The not ourselves which is in us and
all around us became to them adorable eminently
and altogether as a power which makes for right-
cousness,’ but no doubt this is a recollection of
Ro 1415, In older Eng. the phrase was often make
to, as Udal’s Erasmus’ NT, ii. fol. 283, ‘those
thinges that are availeable to the life of heaven,
and make to the glory of Christ’; and Davenant
(Puller’s Life, 314), 1 shewed no letter or instrue-
tions, neither have any but these general] instrue-
tions, which King James gave us at our going to
Dort, which make little or nothing to this business.’
(4) Make up=put together, complete, Ezr 5* «Who
hath commanded you to build this house, and to
make up this wall?’ (RV ‘to finish this wall’);
Ezk 13°*Ye have not gone into the gaps, neither
made up the hedge’; Mal 3" * And they shall be
mine, saith the Lorb of hosts, in that day when I
make up my jewels’ Ὁ ayy cas agg oF... oo am;
LXX Kai ésovrai wo . els ἡμέραν ἣν ἐγὼ ποιῶ eis
περιποίησιν ; Vule. Μὲ erunt mihi . in die qua
ego fucio, in peculium, whence Wye. ‘And thei
shuln be to me in the day in whiche Y shal
make, into a special tresoure,’ and Cov. ‘And in
the daye that 1 wil make . they shalbe myne
owne possession,’ and that is no doubt the correct
rendering ; so RV ‘And they shall be mine .
inthe day that [do make, even a peculiar treasure,’
or more clearly in marg. ‘in the day that I do this,’
which is the tr. of the Geneva Version ἢ); 2 Co 9%
‘and make up beforehand your bounty’ (προκα-
tapricwot). Ct. Shaks. Rich. IL. 1. i. 21—
“Sent before my time

Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,

And that so lamely and untashionable

That dogs bark at me as I halt by them’;
Timon, V. i. 101—

‘Remain assured

That he’s a made-up [=perfect] villain’ 3
and in a slightly different sense, Knox, Hist. 177,
‘oppress the inhabitants thereof, and make up
strangers with their lands and goods.’

5. Among the archaic uses of ‘make’ we find it
followed by a subst., the two together expressing
no more than a verb formed from the subst. would
express, as ‘make request’=request, ‘make pro-
vision’ =provide. In almost every instance the
Heb. or Gr. is a verb and no more. Thus (1)
make account, Ps 144° ‘Lord, what is man, that
thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man,
that thou makest account of him !? (s7aginm; LXX
ὅτι λογίζῃ αὐτόν). So Shaks. Mich. LH. ww. ii. 71—

‘The princes both make high account of you’;
Milton, P& ii. 193—
‘Among the sons of men,
How many have with a smile made small account

Of Beauty and her lures, easily scorn’d
All her assaults, on worthier things intent!’

(2) Make confession, as Dn 9** And I prayed unto
the Lord my God, and made my confession’ (771ny,
tV ‘made confession’). (3) Make count, Ex 123
‘Every man according to his eating shall make
your count for the lamb’ (329). (4) Make an end,
Jg 815. ¢ And when he had made an end to ofter (RV
‘an end of offering’) the present, he sent away the
people that bare the present’ (752); Is 33!‘ When
thou shalt make an end to deal treacherously’
(7072) ; 3813 ‘From day even to night wilt theu
make an end of me’ (3>°5z'm) ; Jer 427 “Yet wil! I

* The marg. note in Gen. Version is, ‘When I shal restore my

Church according to my promes, they shalbe as mine owne
propre goods.’ See, further, art. JEWEL in vol. ii. p. 655»,

MAKELBATE

MAKKEDAH

217

not make a full end’ (ἥν υν &> abn). (5) Wake
inquisition, Dt 1915. «And the judges shall make
diligent inquisition? (297 397). (6) Wake mention,
as Ps 87. “1 will make mention of Rahab and
Babylon to them that know me? (vx). (7) Wake
matter, Gal 2° ‘whatsoever they were it maketh
no matter to me’ (οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει). Cf. Holland’s
Livy, p. 247, ‘What makes matter, say they, if a
bird sing auke or crow cross 7’ Tindale, H.positions,
p. 81, ‘Chou wilt say, What matter maketh it if I
speak words which [ understand not, or if 1 pray
notatall, seeing God knoweth my matter already τ᾽
(8) Make merchandise, Dt 21 24° ‘If a man be
found stealing any of his brethren of the children
of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth
him, then that thief shall die’ (2-207; RV ‘deal
with him as a slave,’ RVm ‘as a chattel’); 2 P 28
‘And through covetousness shall they with feigned
words make merchandise of you’ (ἐμπορεύσονται).
Cf. Shaks. Merch. of Venice, ut. i. 134, ‘ Were he
out of Venice, | ean make what merchandise |
will.’ (9) Make provision, 11 47 ‘Hach man his
month in a year made provision’? ($252); Ro 134
‘Make not provision for the flesh’ (πρόνοιαν μὴ
ποιεῖσθε). (10) Make riddance, Ly 2372 ‘thou shalt
not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field
when thou reapest’ (a32985; RV ‘thou shalt not

“wholly reap’); Zeph 118. “he shall make even a

speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land’
(772; RV ‘he shall make an end, yea a terrible
end’). (11) Make a sport, 1 Es 1! ‘they made a
sport of his prophets’ (ἦσαν ἐκπαίζοντες ; RV ‘they
scoffed at’), Cf, Milton, PL. vi. 632—
‘Eternal Might
To match with their inventions they presumed
So easy, and of his thunder made a scorn’ ;
and Sanson Agonistes, 1331—
‘Do they not seek occasion of new quarrels
On my refusal, to distress me more,
Or make a game of my calamities ?’
J. HASTINGS.
MAKEBATE.—There was an old Ene. word bite
(from Old Vr. datre, to beat) which signified strife,
discord. Thus Shadwell, Am. Bigot, i. 1, ‘UU
breed no bate nor division between young people.’
Sometimes it is a shortened form of ‘debate’ (from
Old Fr. debutre), but more often it is ἃ distinet
word. ‘Makebate’ is a compound of this word,
and means a maker of strife. It occurs in the
plural in AVim of 2 Ti 835, Tit 23, as an alternative
tr. of διάβολοι, text ‘false accusers’; RV ‘slan-
derers,’ which is as old as Wyc, (1388) at Tit 2°.
The tr. ‘false accusers’ is from Tindale. Hall
(Works, ii. 74) says of the Pharisees, ‘ When these
censurers thought the Disciples had offended, they
speake not to them but to their Master, Why doe
thy Disciples that which is not lawfull? Now,
when they thought Christ offended, they speak
not to him, but to the Disciples. Thus, like true
make-bates, they goe about to make a breach in the
family of Christ, by setting off the one from the
other.’ J. HASTINGS.

_MAKED (Maxé3, Maxéd).—A ‘strong and great’
city in Gilead (1 Mac 5°: *), The site is unknown.

MAKHELOTH (ndnp>, Μακηλώθ, Luc. Μακηδώθ,
Maceloth, Nu 33”: *6),—One of the twelve stations
in the journeyings of the children of Israel, follow-
ing Hazeroth, which are mentioned only in Nu 33.
Nothing is known about it. The word occurs

Ps 68 [Eng. 36], where it is translated ‘ congrega-
tions” The occurrence of AKeheldéthah (a name of

similar meaning) in v.*? should be noted.
A. T. CHAPMAN.
MAKKEDAH (πρὸ; Μακηδά [in Jos 102829 154
B has Μακηδάν]; Syr. Mokor; Vule. Maceda).—
A royal city of the Canaanites, situated in the

Shephelah or lowland of Judah, mentioned (Jos 154!)
with Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and Naamah in the
list of cities allotted to Judah. The last three are
perhaps to be identified with the modern villages
of Katrah, Dajun, N@anch, and Makkedah with e/-
Mughdr—all lying in the vicinity of Ludd (Lydda,
Diospolis) and Vebnahk (Jabneel). [Ὁ is mentioned
ten times (Jos 10! 12! 154) in connexion with
Joshua’s great victory in the day when the
Lord fought for Israel Makkedah is first men-
tioned (Jos 10!) with Azekah as one of the two
points to which the allied forces were followed by
the victorious host of Israel, and they were not
necessarily near each other: in the list of cities
allotted to Judah they are both stated to be in the
Shephelah, but Azekab is in one group of fourteen
cities, While Makkedah is in another group of six-
teen cities. Azekah is mentioned with Adullam,
Socoh, and Jarmuth, which have all been found
together about 14 miles S.E. of Makkedah.

When the battle had reached these points, it is
related (Jos 10!) that Joshua returned and all
Israel with him unto the camp to Gileal, and then
the narrative of the battle is resumed and other
victories of Joshua recorded, and then again it is
stated (v.*") that Joshua returned to Gileal in the
same words. ‘The LXX omits (vv. 4) all mention
of the return of Joshua to Gilgal, and some com-
mentators propose that at least v.!° should be
omitted, or even that it should be treated as part
of the quotation from the Bk. of Jashar and not
as part of the narrative, so that the action of
Joshua atter leaving Gilgal until the taking of
Makkedah is continuous, and occurred on the
great day when the sun stood still in the midst of
heaven. It appears clear, however, that the
passage is composite, the narrative of JE being
interrupted by comments and generalizations of
D? (see Driver, LOT® 108).

Joshua was in iis camp at Gilgal (Jos 10°) in the
plains on the east border of Jericho when he
received a pressing message from the men of
Gibeon, urging him to come up and save them
from the kings of the Amorites. Now Gibeen was
in the hill-country (present e/-Jeh), 3400 ft. above
Gilgal and 10 miles distant as the crow flies, but
by the rugged devious mountain passes a_ stiff
uphill march of 16 to 18 miles. Joshua went up
from Gilval all night, he and all the people of war
with him, and all the mighty men of valour, and
coming upon the Amorites suddenly and unex-
pectedly, probably at early dawn while they still
slept, he slew them with a great slaughter at
Gibeon, and chased them by the way of the pass
of the Upper and Lower Beth-horon as far as
Azekah and Makkedah, over a rough country, a
distance of at least 25 miles from Gibeon as the
crow flies.

It may have been somewhere in the upper portion
of the pass of Beth-horon that Joshua said in the
sight of all Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still upon
Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Aijalon.’
The expression ‘upon (3) Gibeon’ rather indicates
an early hour when the sun would be rising over
the ridge and hills where Gibeon was situated, but
Stanley (δ. and P. 210) considers that the emphatic
expression that the sun stayed in the midst of
heaven seems intended to indicate noonday. On
the other hand, the geographical conditions, Gibeon
being to S.E. and Aijalon to S.W. of the Upper
3eth-horon, would indicate some hour midway
between sunrise and noon, according to the time
of year; while the view also is held by many that
the account of the miraculous standing still of the
sun, being derived from the poetical Bk. of Jashar,
is not to be considered as part of the historical
narrative of the Bk. of Joshua (Speaker's Com.
Add. notes on Jos 10%, and Dillmann, ὧν Juc.),

218 MAKTESH

MALACHI

Ξ ; |
It is evident from our present knowledge of the sur- |

rounding country, that if the attack of Joshua took
place at early dawn, and the flight of the Amorites
immediately followed, consequent on their being
taken by surprise,the force of Joshua may have been
at Beth-horon two hours after sunrise and at Makke-
dah from eight to ten hours after sunrise, so that
the cireumstances related as having taken place
on the great day may have occurred within the
limits of an ordinary day at any time of the year,

On arrival at Makkedah, Joshua was told that
the five kines of the Amorites were hid in the cave
(πΊ.,33, so correctly RV) at Makkedah. This cave
is mentioned eight times in the Bk. of Joshua
always with the article as ‘¢/e cave’: it was
evidently a well-known cave close to the city
Makkedah, and probably near to a grove of trees
(cf. Jos 1050),

Joshua did not stop the battle tide, but, ordering
ereat stones to be rolled to the mouth of the cave
and setting a guard there, caused the pursuit to
be continued until the children of Israel had made
an end of slaying the enemy with great slaughter
and returned to the camp αὖ Makkedah. Then the
cave was opened, and the ings of the Amorites,
after the ceremonial degradation, were smitten by
Joshua, and were hanged on five trees until sun-
down. At sunset (ef. Dt 2122") the five kines were
taken down off the trees and cast inte the cave
wherein they had been hid, and great stones were
laid at the cave’s mouth.

In the PEF survey of Western Palestine the
present village of e/-Mughar (* the caves) Was
adopted by the surveyors, who found that at this
site alone, of all the possible sites for Makkedah
in the Philistine plain, do caves still exist. The
following points are in favour of this site. Τῦ is
on the northern border-line of Judah immediately
south-west of Ekron, opposite to Avtrah (Gederoth)
and near to Daj (Beth-dagon) and Δα ηολ
(Namah). It is an ancient site, as evidenced by
the rock-quarrying and the rock-cut tombs with
loculi. There are caves of various sizes, in front
of which the houses are built, and small caves exist
in the cliffs north of the village. It is on the
northern side of the valley of Sorek (Wady Surar),
in the lowlands about 4 miles from the sandy dunes
bordering on the seashore. It is situated on a
sort of promontory stretching into the valley of
Sorek, divided into three plateaus ; on the lower of
these to the south is the modern village οἱ e/-
Mughar, Wilt in front of the caves which are cut
out of the sandstone. The city of Makkedah was
probably to the north of these caves. The sur-
rounding country is very fertile.

TLirerature.—Robinson, BRP2 ii, 251; Stanley, Sinai and
Palestine, 210; SW WP ii. 412; Dillmann, Jos. ad loc, (leaves the
site doubtful). C. WARREN.

MAKTESH (e'nzen ‘the mortar’ [Pr 27]; ἡ κατα-
κεκομμένη ; Aq. eis τὸν ὅλμον ; Theod. ἐν τῷ βάθει;
Vule. Pila).—The name of a locality mentioned in
Zeph 14 ‘Howl, ye inhabitants of the MWaktesh ;
for all the people of Canaan (or, the merchant
people; ef. Ezk 174, Pr 314) are undone, all they
that were laden with silver are cut off’ The con-
text shows that it was in Jerusalem; it is also
evident that it was a locality in which traders
dwelt—perhaps, in particular, that, as Ewald con-
yectured, it was the ‘Phomnician quarter’ of the
city. From the meaning of the word,—it is used
in Je 15" of the ‘hollow place’ out of which the
spring of Ha-IKoré issued forth,—it may be inferred
that it denoted some basin-like hollow or de-
pression. The Targ. understands by it the Kidron
valley, which, it is true, forms a deep depression on
the E. and $.E. of the city : but it is more probable
that some locality within the city itself is intended ;

and it is a plausible suggestion that it was the
name of the upper part of the ‘T'yropmon valley
(b tween the KE. and W. hills of Jerusalem). The
Maktesh may have been mentioned in particular
by Zeph. on account of the omen of the name (Jer.
‘quod scilicet, quomodo frumenta feriente desuper
vecte, contunduntur ἢ). ye DRT:

MALACHI (2x52, Μαλαχίας in the title enly).—
The last in the Canon of the OT prophets.

i. NAME OF THE Boox.—If the title contained
in the opening verse be accepted as original,
Malachi may be taken as the personal name of
the prophet. In that case it is generally under-
stood as a contraction of miso Malachiyah, and as
meaning ‘the messenger of J’? This translation,
however, presents difliculty,* and the word as a
personal name does not occur elsewhere. Or the
word may be regarded as the official title of the
prophet, and be rendered ‘my, 7.¢. Js messenger.’
The LXX so understood it in 1!,f but, by using
Madaxias as the head title, preserved both inter-
pretations. The Targuin of Jonathan ben-Uzziel
added at 11 “whose name is called Ezra the seribe’ ;
and Jerome { gave this last addition as a current
belief among the Jews of his time. If, however,
Ezra was the author of the book, it is difficult to
understand why his history contains no hint of its
existence. And the fact that tradition also attaches
the book to the names of Nehemiah and Zerubbabel
strengthens the supposition, that, ina period which
had forgotten the avthor’s name, the close corre-
spondence between the aims which the prophet
desired and which the legislator accomplished led
te their identification.

Many modern commentators (e.g. Wellhausen,
Nowack, Kuenen) regard 1! as a late addition.
Emphasizing the similarity of this title to those
whieh precede Zee 9! 19}, and noting the prominence
of the word ‘2x92 ‘my messenger’ in 3!) they have
concluded that the compiler ot the separate volume
of the twelve minor prophets found this book with-
out an author's name, and, borrowing a name from
the body of the work, pretixed the entire title as it
stands at present. ‘The opinion is plausible, and
enjoys this advantage, that, as it is not based on
facts but on several large suppositions, it is Incap-
able of disproof. Nothing is known of the personal
history of the author, for the tradition of pseudo-
Epiphanius (de vitis Proph.), which calls him aman
ov. «pha in the tribe of Zebulun, is so late as to be
valueless.

ii. DATE.—The general period in which the book
was written is easy to determine. The Exile is so
far in the past that it is not even mentioned. The
temple, to the rebuilding of which Haggai needed
to exhort the people, is already restored: the
sacrificial ritual is being carried on within it
(119. 31), The offenders whom Malachi rebukes
are the laity who do not support the established
ritual (37); and the priests who bring it into
contempt through their carelessness πεν An
the other hand, Judah is still under the civil
vovernment of a Persian satrap (7772 ‘thy governor,’
18, ef. Hag 1, Neh 5™ 12%), and the title ‘great
king,’ which Malachi applies (115) to J”, may be
borrowed from the official style of that court. A
comparison of the abuses which the book attacks,
and the reforms which it advocates with those

* For the contraction it is possible and customary to appeal to
the fact that the name of the mother of Iezekiah is given as °28
Abi in 2K 182, and as M38 Abijah in 2Ch 291. But, since
Abijah must be translated “J” is father,’ this by analogy would
require that Malachi should be rendered, not * the messenger of
J*2 bute 3" issmessenger.

+ Its reading is ἐν χερὶ
hand of //is messenger.’

t ‘Quem Esdram scribam, legisque doctorem, Hebrei esti-
mant? (Pruwfatio in duodeciin prophetas).

ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ, the word of J” ‘by the

MALACHI

MALACHI 21S

which are mentioned in the histories of Ezra and
Nehemiah, clearly proves a very similar condition
of affairs in the community. Legislators and
prophet have alike to protest against: such abuses
as neglect of the sacred dues, irregular sacrifices,
and intermarriage with foreign women.* — So
sunilar is the whole situation that Malachi must
have been nearly contemporaneous with those
reformers.

Opinion, however, is still divided as to whether
Malachi prepared the way by word for the later
legislative acts of Ezra and Nehemiah, or whether
he supplemented and enforced the work which
these began. In the former case, the book must
have been written before B.C. 458, the date of
Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem ; in the latter, either
shortly before or after B.C. 432, when Nehemiah’s
second visit to that city took place. The question
cannot be decided with certainty. But the manner
in which intermarriage with foreigners is con-
demned as a sin, not against the strict letter of
the law, but against J’s relation as Father to
His people (2'°"), agrees best with a time before
Ezra had legislated on the subject (cf. 91. ὶ p.
427,n.2). Malachi also connects those foreign
marriages with the prevalence of divorce, as
though the one caused the other. Such a con-
nexion seems more likely at a time when foreign
intermarriage, being novel, was causing many to
put away their native wives, than at the period
when Ezra found it a settled practice among his
people. ‘The terms also in which the governor is
alluded to (18 ye treat J” as ye would not treat the
Persian satrap) lose half their force if the position
was oceupied not by a foreigner but by Nehemiah.

A more uncertain means of dating the book is
found in its information about the details of ritual.
Thus the priests are regarded as the sons of Levi
(9: ὃ 38), not of Aaron. ‘This would seem to imply
that the book was written from the standpoint of
1), and before the Priestly Code had degraded the
Levites into a subordinate position towards the
sons of Aaron. On the other hand, the command
to offer tithes in the temple (319), presumably for
the support of the officiating Levites, agrees more
closely with the rule of P (Nu 18?!) than with
that of D (Dt 1422"), which commands the giver to
share them at home with the Levites and the poor.
This may mark the transition from the earlier to
the later practice—a transition which was made
easier by the fact that, when the community was
the city, all the Levites were attached to the
temple. The priest is still the exponent of the
law (27); after the promulgation of P he was only
its servant.+ Were we less ignorant of the history
of Edom at this period, the opening section (17°),
with its reference to the condition of that people,
would furnish the best means of determining the
exact date.

iii. CONDITIONS PRESUPPOSED BY THE Book.—
The condition of the people was enough to cause
erave anxiety. They had suffered from drought
and locusts (3106), The revolts of EKeypt against
Persia, which were quickened by news of Persia's
waning streneth in Asia Minor, must have entailed
heavy military requisitions on Palestine for the
support of the armies which were sent against
the rebels. Men were losing heart. They had
sacrificed something when, at the bidding of their
religions leaders, they returned from Babylon.
They had expected that the holy land would
repay those sacrifices, and instead it was demand-
ing larger. The glowing visions of Deutero-Isaiah,
some of which were dangerously material in them-

* Cf. Mal 37-12 with Neh 102239 13414, and Mal 210-16 with Ezr
92 103. 16-44, Neh 1030 1322-81,

+ For an adequate statement of the relations between Malachi,
Ὁ and P, cf. W. R. Smith, ΟἽ ΟΣ 425 ff.

selves, and were further materialized in the popular
mind, did not correspond with the stern realities
of Jerusalem. Hageai had believed (2'°) the
cause of their misery to be their negligence in
the restoration of the temple, and had promised
“5 return on the completion of the work. But
the temple was rebuilt, and everything remained
as before, which, to men who had hoped tor so
much, must have appeared worse than before.
Men were beginning to ask for proofs of that
divine love of which they heard so often, but of
which they thought that they saw so little (17%).
They were debating, though not yet openly,
whether it were not better, after all, to become
like the heathen among whom they lived (3!}5).
And, where such ideas were even being debated
among the better minds of the nation,* the less
religious must have already begun to show their
discouragement, and to cast off those distinctive
forms which separated Judah from the other
nations. The priests, as a rule, were slovenly in
their performance of the ritual. That it was a
weary form (115) they expressed by their cxreless-
ness of its requirements more eloquently than by
words. The laity, miserable, heartless, and copy-
ing their religious leaders, were inclined to stint
their sacrifices (14), and to withhold their dues
(8), And the increasing practice of intermarriage
with foreign women (2!"!5), itself both sign and
cause of a slackening devotion to the God of Israel,

was sapping their family life and helping to merge,

the people into the surrounding paganism. [Ὁ is
this condition which Malachi faces; and he is
prophet enough to see the root from which all the
rest springs. Their religious life is weak, their
spiritual vision dim. And this weakened religious
life is affecting their moral and social condition, as
wellas their religious practice. It is causing them
at once toimake lieht of marriage, and to neglect
ritual. The people must return to J” (97). They
need a quickened sense of the worth of the divine
favour. For that would bring with it a different
judement of life. To be written in God’s book of
remembrance, to belong to God, would make many
ills in life tolerable (816), To return to J” would
make impossible their frequent divorce, which at
present is rendering God deaf to their prayers (215).
If the prophet seems to write as though the whole
content of repentance consisted in the due pay-
ment of Levitical tithes (37), and so makes the
return to J” shallow, one must join with that his
idea of the priesthood in itself and in its work.
The glory of the priests of olden time was in his
eyes their moral dignity. His representation of
that past may be very far from what the historical
books and the earlier prophets show it to have
been. But this only makes Malachi’s ideal (2°)
the more striking.. And he expects that, when J”
has purified the recreant class, the first result will
be that they will offer offerings in righteousness
(3°). The priests represent to him a moral and
spiritual force in the community. That men
starve them by withholding their tithes, is a
proof that they are not interested in the ideals
which the priests represent. That the clergy in
any community are underpaid, does often mean
that men are not interested in religion. And a
prophet may point to the outward fact as a sign
of the inward cause. What redeems Malachi from
even the suspicion of formalism in this respect is
his high appreciation of the services offered to J”
beyond the limits of Palestine (11). On any inter-
pretation + that verse implies that temple and

* One must understand the doubts of 319-15 as being those
ice ‘they that feared the Lorb’ were uttering among them-
selves.

+ Two interpretations are possible. According to one, the
verse means that even those sacrifices which the heathen offer
to their own deities under the names of Vishnu, Osiris, Jove

en τς, τὸς

220 MALACHI

MALACHI

priesthood, sacrifice and tithes, are not an essential
to a spiritual worship. But the prophet has to
deal with the facts before him. He is a man to
whom the essence of all religion consists in its
spiritual and ethical elements. But he not only
finds a sacramental system in existence among his
people ; he also recognizes its power as a factor in
the religious life of any people. Such a system
both represents and educates their spiritual life.
And Malachi is one among the many who have
tried to correlate those two truths, instead of
denying one in the interests of the other.

iv. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE Book; ITs ATTI-
TUDE TO RITUAL, ΕΤΟ. --- Undoubtedly, what charae-
terizes this book as contrasted with the earlier
prophetic literature is the high value which it
sets upon a correct observance of ritual.

But it has never been sufliciently recognized
that Malachi’s attitude to the priestly ritual
differs from that of the earlier prophets, just because
the work of these had not failed to produce some
result. It may still be considered a question open
for further discussion, how far the rites with which
Hiosea found himself face to face in’ Israel were
the outcome of a faith which, though once purer,
had degenerated through contact with a heathen
surrounding, and how far they were the natural
expression of the faith of a people which was still
at a low stage of religious development. In either
case that system, because it embodied and so
perpetuated a debasing idea of J’, was abhorrent
to the prophet, who himself held a purer faith.
And he called on his people before all else ‘to
take with them words.’ He urged them to realize
that higher conception of J” which he himself had
won, The first effect of such a thought of their
God would be to make impossible some of the
grosser elements in their ritual. Men who thought
of God as Hosea did, would give up kissing calves
as a means of worship. But, as a second effect,
whether the prophet recognized it or not, a people
who had gained this clearer thought of J” would
embody it in a ceremonial which would be com-
petent to express it. Israel went into exile and
so lost the position in which this might have been
done. But Judah did in some measure accept the
prophetic teaching about J” and their relation to
Him. And in the law and the ritual they sought
to embody and perpetuate those ideas. “Ezekiel,
himself a prophet, formulated a legislation. — It
may be impossible to determine which forms in
the ritual are common to heathenism and to
Judaism. What is certain is that all the forms
were remoulded and coloured by the spirit of
Judah’s religion. Now to a law anda ceremonial,
which were framed to express, however inade-
quately, such ideas, a later prophet like Malachi
was compelled, by his very vision of the truths
which forms express, to assume an attitude different
from the attitude which the earlier prophets
assumed to the ritual of their time. Any neglect
on the part of the people to fulfil the demands of
this law, unless that neeleet was due to the people
finding the law inadequate to express their re-
ligious faith, must appear to the prophet a failure
to appropriate through obedience to the ritual
that understanding of Js will which the ritual
conveyed to the worshippers. As Malachi is
diligent to show, the disobedience of his time was
the outcome cf a lowered morality, not of a clearer
spiritual vision. And he maintained the worth of
the temple-service in the interests of theispiritual
religion of which that service was the expression.

The prophet, however, is no creator. Satisfied

etc., are really offered to the one and only God. According to
another, it refers to the already widel, scattered Jews of the dis-
persion, who, in the many lands of thuir exile, are offering to J”
sacrifices, Which are pure though Leyond the holy land.

with the ideas in which he had been educated, and
their stereotyped expression in the ritual, he
models his very style on that of earlier prophets.
He is the preservér of the past rather than a
creator for the future. By his whole mental atti-
tude he represented what was necessary for the
period in which his activity falls. He belongs to
an age which had to retain rather than to create,
to impress on men, through institutions and ritual,
ideas which had been conceived in the sore travail
of preceding controversies. Ideals ia this world of
men need to be expressed in institutions as well
as in words, if they are to influence not only a
select few but a whole generation, and, above all, if
they are to be transmitted to the following genera-
tions. And, since men are influenced by uncon-
scious habits as well as by conscious convictions,
great religious truths must create forms which
touch the whole life of a community. Probably,
at that period of the national history, when Judah
had been reduced to a community of humble men,
and when so many of its purely secular hopes had
disappeared, the utmost it could accomplish was
to maintain the ground already won, to cling: to
the ideas already learned, and to continue institu-
tions which were fitted to be the home of souls in
the after generations, the birthplace for larger
ideals in more fruitful years. Ὁ undervalue the
law is easy ; to appraise it is a much harder task.
Yet the law kept a kingless people together
through several centuries. The truths it embodied
made Judiea almost unique in resisting the dis-
integrating influence of the Hellenic spirit. The
ideals which it represented produced men who
were capable of accepting the higher ideals of
Jesus Christ, and of becoming the founders of His
Church. At the period when his countrymen ran
grave risk of Josing their hold on this ritual and
all it contained for them and their descendants,
Malachi lent his whole influence to maintain its
pewer. To him, however, it continued to be valu-
able because of the expression it gave to spiritual
realities and the support it afforded the moral life.
And if the Judaism of the silent centuries grew
often formal in its reverence for the law as law
and for the ritual as ritual, this was due as much
to their forgetfulness as to their memory of the
message they had received from the prophet. The
exhortation which falls near the end of the book,
‘to remember the law of Moses,’ became dangerous
so soon as the minds of men grew unspiritual ; but
what truth is not dangerous τ

This attitude to the law explains in part the
high value which Malachi sets on the priesthood.
It is no longer. the prophets but the priests who
are the messengers of J” (91), It is they who must
first be purified by Js visitation, in order that
they may then direct the people (3). | Their
office and work are set in an ideal and beautiful
light. But the prophetic period is se far behind
this teacher, and its fresh creative life so dead,
that, when he thinks of the possibility of a new
revelation of J”, the medium of that revelation is
no longer a man whose lips God should touch with
pure fire. It is that one of the prophets of the
past who did not die, and whom J” should restore
to His people’s necessity (45), But this expecta-
tion has a deeper root than the higher estimate of
ritual and so of priesthood can explain. It 15
allied to the hope which the prophet cherished for
the future, in which he diverged most widely from
the early prophets. When Judah became a_de-
pendent satrapy, and its royal house fell into
insignificance, the Messianic figure of the Davidic
king naturally and inevitably disappeared. But
the ‘suffering servant’ has also passed out of sight:
the priestly figure has equally gone. Judah has
lost contidence in her destiny and her mission.

MALACHI

MALACHI 221

It is not out of the people itself that any deliverer
or new spring of life is expected, even by its
prophets. Malachi believes that a deliverer shall
come, that Judah still has a mission, that J” has
not forsaken His people. But he expects that the
messenger of the covenant, who can hardly be
distinguished from J” Himself, shall appear in the
temple to renew all things. The Messiah is not
thought of as having his roots in the soil, he has
lost all essential relation to the people whoin he
comes to deliver, he is less a gift than an emana-
tion from J”.

This altered hope witnesses to an altered con-
ception of God and of His relation to imen.
That hard deism, into which Hebrew theology
was always liable to degenerate, is showing it-
self afresh, and now in the minds of the prophets.

‘Persian thought, with its dualism and its idea of

popular conception of the connexion between guilt
and physical calamity ministered to 1t in a com-
munity which was always in distress. J” was con-
ceived as so far separated from men that any
revelation from Him was increasingly thought of
as αὖ extra, and not through the inner life of man.
He must send His angels or Elijah, if the people’s
life is to be guided by Him. Such a conception
was certain to have further results. So long as
prophecy lived with its witness to the God, who is
not only beyond all men’s thought but who is
present with and in their highest thought, so long
as prophecy founded the appeal of religion on the
moral and spiritual instincts of men, by which
they were related to their God, there was little
danger from sacerdotalism. The ritual existed, but
it was construed as the outward expression and
satisfaction of those instincts. But when the
people, impotent, conscious of euilt, came to think
of J” asso far removed from them that any message
from Him must be an importation from without,
and must be guaranteed, when old and long present
by tradition, when new by miracle, they were sure
to fall into a material idea of divine grace.

It is only the beginning and the first causes of
such a state of thines which are to be found in
Malachi. The contlicting ideas seem to strugele in
his mind. He can write of J“ as receiving an accept-
able worship beyond the limits of the holy land,
and so can forecast the worship ‘in spirit and in
truth.” But already the people are no longer
thought of as the children of J”: only a select
class among them dare so to think of themselves
(1%). And, though that class ought to be moral
and spiritual guides to the people, it is not this
qualification but their being descendants of Levi
which gives them that position. Now the more
that idea gained on men’s ininds, the more also
would the ritual be thought of as able of itself
to maintain divine favour. The grace of J” which
men need, and the covenant which is life and
peace, must be mediated to them through a system
which was wholly outside of them, and which
based its validity less on its appeal to their
spiritual nature, and more on its being an arbi-
trary regulation from which they did not dare to
deviate. Again, it was only when this conception
of the relation between God and man formed the
medium through which men approached it, that
the command to remember the law of Moses (4)
grew dangerous. The living word of prophecy,
with its underlying conviction of God’s presence in
and with the soul of man, was delivered from
literalism. One great prophet could and did criti-
cize the doctrine of another, and in the interests of
the spirit could dare to touch the letter of the
word. Micah could urge how the temper of the
peop of Jerusalem made them grossly abuse

salah’s promise of the security of Mount Zion.

the impurity of matter, fostered tue tendency. The

A prophet could base his appeal on the witness of
the spirit in those to whom he spoke. But, when
the soul of man was thought of as wholly alienated
from God, with no essential relation to Him, and
only brought into relation with divine truth by an
outward mediation, there grew up a hard theory
of inspiration. The revelation from God was a
deposit of faith and a rule of practice which could
not change. The law of Moses became the medi-
ator between God and man; and the prophet was
transformed into the scribe. An especial interest
must always attach to the Book of Malachi; be-
cause both conceptions of God and His dealing
with man are there, and the prophet seems hardly
conscious of their antagonism. But the less
spiritual one was the easier to hold, and was
favoured by many circumstances. Despite several
protests from Judaism itself, of which the Book of
Jonah is the most beautiful example, it triumphed
over the higher. And Malachi stands at the be-
ginning of that long and swift decline, which
finally separated J” and His people by so wide a
gulf that official Judaism ended by rejecting the
very idea of the Incarnation as blasphemy against
God.

The literary style of the book is peculiar to itself
among the prephetic literature. Malachi does not
attempt the ruetorical development of a great
principle, in the way which is so characteristic
of Deutero-[saiah. In part this is caused by the
difference in subject and in aim. “The writer is
applying principles to the details of life. But the
style is strictly dialectic. The writer states his
thesis, a principle or an accusation. Over against
that he sets an objection, which he may have
heard urged against it, or which from his knowledge
of the people he believes to be present in their
minds. After this he proves and elaborates the
truth of what he began by asserting. If these
addresses were ever delivered in public, the audi-
ences must have been very dissimilar to those
which faced the herdsman of Tekoa. On the
ground that the style seems that of a man who
developed his ideas in writing, several editors of
the book have concluded that the author from the
first circulated his message to his people by writing.
A more accurate des. ription would be to name it
the style of the schools, and to sce in it the
beginning of the method of exposition, which
afterwards became universal in the schools and
synagogues of Judaisin.

v. ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENTS.—The book is
divided into four chapters in the English version,
which in th’s respect follows the printed edit.ons
of the LXX, Peshitta, and Vulgate; the Hebrew
text unites the third and fourth chapters into one.
According to its subject-matter it falls into the
following seven sections :—

(1) 125, Men are asking for the proof of the reality of J’”’s
love toward their nation. Malachi finds the proof in history,
and especially in the differing histories of Edom and Judah.
Because Jehovah hated Edom, that nation has suffered and will
suffer more in the immediate future, so that Judah through
seeing their fate will learn to acknowledge the sovereign love
of their God.*

(2) 16-29. J’ had a right to expect a return for His love (16).
Instead, those who were nearest Hinw among the people, the
priests, offer a scant and weary worship, the perfunctoriness
of which proves their indifference to His claim (17-9. 12). The
result is that the laity are offering their worst at the altar
instead of their best (113). The whole ritual has grown value-
less ; but, though it should cease, a worship acceptable to J”
will not come to an end (110°), For their neglect punishment
will fall on the priesthood ; it has already begun to fall Ὁ (21-5).
Their indifference to ritual was at once sign and cause of a
moral corruption. The priests were appointed to be examples
of righteous life, and so guides to the people. But they hav«
abused their position, to the ruin of many. And their office has
already become contemptible (249).

(3) 210-16, The guilt of those who marry foreign wom@

* Contrast Am 82,
+ The terms of that punishment are not quite clear in 23,

—

222

MALACHY

MALCHUS

Such a marriage is a profaning of J’’s holiness. It has brought
about an increase of divorcee, with the misery and moral laxity
which that produces. Because of this, εξ prayers are un-
heard, though they entreat the favour of Jehovah with tears,

(4) 217-35, Men are doubting whether there is any righteous
governor of the world (9.11). Malachi prophesies the appearance
of J’’s messenger to prepare His way, and of the messenger of
the covenant (who may be J” Himsclt) (35, But the coming of
the Lorn, for which the people lowe, will be a coming to judg-
ment in Judah (32). He must begin His sifting work among
the temple priesthood (3°), and trom them pass to judge the
moral errors of the nation (3°).

(5) 3812).* The people are now more directly addressed.
They are suffering from famine, drought, and locusts. These
are the judgments of J” on them for having withheld His ducs.
If they bring their tithes, He will certainly pour out on them
the abundance they have lacked.

(6) 318-44, The prophet returns to the root of all .other
laxity, to the complaint that it is useless to serve J”, because
He does not care for His servants. Prosperity is not following
devotion. Even the best of the people are beginning to whisper
among themselves doubts like these (318-162), They need not
despair. J” is regarding them, and before Him the names of
those who fear Him are inscribed for eternal remembrance
(316-18), The day of sifting is aguin promised, though here it is
uncertain whether the sifting is within the nation between the
righteous remnant and the apostatizing, or whether by the
ungodly are meant those who are beyond Judaism (414), The
prophet adds ἃ Deuteronomic exhortation to remember the
Mesaic law (44).

(7) 45%, The promise is added that Elijah will reappear on
earth to heal the divisions amone the people, especially to fill
the cleft between the ideals of the old and new generations.
By his means the threatened curse will be averted. +

The Book of Malachi is directly or indirectly
quoted in the NT in the following passages: Mk
ght Lk 117, Ro 9,

LiIreraturE.—Driver, LOTS 355 ff.3; the Finleitungen of
Cornill, Strack, Konig; Wildeboer, Zit. ἃ. AT’, 333, 361; the
commentaries of Pocock, 16775 Kohler, 1865; Wellh. Cy/.
Proph.) 1893; Nowack (ἢ Iandkon.), 1807; G. A. Smith
‘Book of Tivelve Prophets in * Expositor’s Bible’), 1898; cf. also
Stade, GVJ ii. 128ff.; Ἢ. Boehme in ZA7W vii. 210ff.; J.
Bachmann, Alttest. Uitersuch, 1894, pp. 109 ff.

A. C. WELCH.

MALACHY. — The form adopted by both AV
and RV in 2 Es 19 for the name of the prophet
MALACHI.

MALCAM (o-5s).—4. The eponym of a Benjamite
family, 1 Ch 8? (B Medyds, A Med\ydu). 2. * Mal-
cam oceurs as a proper name in RVin of 9 5 12%,
where David ‘took the crown of 2:92 (AV and RV
‘their kine’) from off lis head’ LXX B has
Μελχὸλ τοῦ βασιλέως αὐτῶν, A om. ΔΙελχύλ. Wellh.
and Driver consicer that the true reading is prob.
capo Mileom, the suffix ἃ -- ‘their’ havine no
proper antecedent in the context (but see Nirk-
patrick in Cawh, Bible, ad loc).

In Zeph P (that swear by the’ Lorp and that
swear by a7f27?) AV and RV both vive ‘ Male(hjam’
as ὦ proper name, RVin has ‘their king.’ Here,
again, in all probability, we ought to point 2359
(so Wellh. and Nowack, following Lue. Μελχόμ).
Davidson, upon the whole, prefers the spelling
cro? ‘their king, but adds that ‘it is possible
that Maleham is merely another pronunciation of
Milcom, meaning Molech.’

In Am 1” both AV and RV (without any mar-
ginal alternative) rend ‘their king (στὸ) shall go
into captivity” (LNX of βασιλεῖς αὐτῆς), but Aq.,
Symm., Theod., Pesh., and Vulg. all imply a
reading 0272, which both Driver and Nowack are
inclined to ado;t. This verse from Amos. is
borrowed by Jeremiah, practically unaltered, in
a prophecy against the Ainmonites, Jer 46°, where
AV has ‘their king,’ AVm ‘Melcom,’ RV ‘ Mal-
cam, RVm ‘their king.’ Here, as well as in v.},
where texts and margins of AV and RV are the
same as in v.*, we ought probably to point cto.
In both verses of Jer the reading of B is Μελχύλ,
in v.° A has MedyJu. See, further, art. MOLECH.

J. A. SELUIE.

* The uncertainty of meaning in 26 makes it a little doubtful
to which section that verse should he assigned,

tIt is a recent suggestion of Nowack that these last verses
are a later addition to the original prophecy.

MALCHIAH (7253 and Ἰπϑὸρ ‘J” is king,’ see
Gray, Heb. Prop. Names, 118 ff. ; Medxias).—4. A
priest, the father of Pashhur, Jer 21! 38!, same as
Malchijah of 1 Ch 9%, Neh 11". 2. A member of
the royal family, to whom belonged the pit-prison
into which Jeremiah was let down, Jer 38°,

MALCHIEL

(este SH] ae kine 47). — "Phe

eponym of an Asherite family, Gn 4617, Nu 26% (Mea-
χιήλ), 1 Ch 7%! (B Μελλειή, A) Μελχιήλ).

ὶς

The gen-
tilic name Malchielites (ΝΞ: 5Π) occurs in Nu 26%,

G. Buchanan Gray (eb. Proper Names, Ὁ. 206)
thinks that >s2>)2, judged by the probable history
of the similar name 7392, was perhaps not created
or adopted by the Hebrews earher than the 7th
cent., but notes that it was in very early use
(ὁ. B.C. 1500) in Canaan, being found repeatedly
in the Tel el-Amarna letters. (See ‘ Milkili” in
Petrie, Syria and Egypt from the Tell El Amarna
Letters, p. 143, and ct. Jastrow, JBL xi. 120, and
Hommel, AAT 231, 2337; 200 π.).

J. A. SELBIE.

MALCHIJAH is the form preferred by RV as
transliteration of πὴ, although in two instances
it has Walehiah (wh. see).—4. A descendant. of
Gershom, 1 Ch 6" [Heb.”}. 2. A priest, the father
of Pashhur, 1 Ch 9!, Neh 1115, same as Malchiah
of Jer 911 881: 3 Head of the Sth course of
priests, 1 Ch 24°, perhaps the same as the pre-
ceding. 4 5. Two of the sons of Parosh who
had married foreien wives, Ezr 10" "%, called in
1 Es 95) Melchias and Asibias respectively. 6. One
of the sons of Harim who had married a foreign
wife, Ezr 16%. In Neh 3! he is mentioned as
taking part in the repairing of the wall. He is
called in 1 Es 9°* Meichias. 7 Malchijah the son
of Rechab repaired the dung-gate, Neh 34. 8.
One of the guild of the goldsmiths who helped
to repair the wall, Neh 39. 9. One of those who
stood at Ezra’s left hand at the reading of the
law, Neh S440. One of those who sealed the
covenant, Neh 10%, probably the same as No. 2.
14. A priest who took part in the ceremony of
dedicating the wall, Neh 12". J. A. SELBIE.

MALCHIRAM (ovzbz ‘ Melech is exalted’ [?], see
Gray, Heb. Proper Names, 147; B Μελχειράμ, A
MeAxipdu).—Son of Jeconiah, 1 Ch 85,

MALCHI-SHUA οὐὐτῦβ ‘the king is wealth’ or
possibly ‘Meleech is wealth,’ Gray, feb. Prop.
Names, p. 1464.; in 1S, B Μελχεισά, A Μελχισοῦε,
Μελχιροῦῖε, AV Melchi-shua ; in 1 Ch, B Μελχεσοῦε,
Μελχεισοῖε, A Μελχισοῦε; 1 Ch 10" % Μελχισέδεκ).
—The third son of Saul (1S 144), who was slain
by the Philistines at Mt. Gilboa (1S 313,1 hi ΤΟΣ
In the gencalogical lists given by the Chronicler
Malchi-shua’s name occurs in each case immedi-
ately after that of Jonathan, but though 1S 14%?
is clearly the work of a later hand (It?) the balance
of evidence seems in favour of its tradition.

J. F. STENNING.

MALCHUS.—The name of the man whose right
ear Peter eut off when Jesus was arrested (Jn 18",
ef. Mt 26°, Mk 1447, Lk 22°"). He was the personal
servant (τὸν δοῦλον) of the high priest (1.6. prob-
ably of Caiaphas, ef. Jn 18'*), and had accom-
panied the soldiers and Jewish officials Es)
under the lead of Judas. He had a kinsman in
the same service (Jn 18*8). The fact that St. John
alone names Malchus, as well as Peter, accords
with the evangelist’s apparent claim (1819: 16) to have
been known to the high priest, and is one of many
minute historical details which appear in his
Gospel. Some have thought that prudential
motives kept the earlier evangelists from giving
the names of the parties, but this explanation 15
unnecessary and improbable. The servant was

ἢ

MALEFACTOR

bo

MALLUS 223

evidently eager to carry out his master’s wish to
secure Jesus, and was therefore struck at by Peter.
The stroke missed, and only cut) off Malchus’
ear (ὠτίον (Mt), ὠτάριον (Mk, Jn), and ois (Lk)
are synonymous; cf. Lk 22 with®!; and consult
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 311). It could not have been
entirely severed, since Jesus ‘touched ἐξ and healed
him.’ Jesus’ words (Lk 22°), ‘Sutler ye thus far’
(ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου), have been supposed by some to
have been addressed to the arresting party as a
request not to bind Him until He had repaired the
injury. But that they were addressed to Peter
appears from the preceding word ‘ answered,’ and
from the fuller account in Mt and Jn (see Meyer,
ad loc.). It has been noted that St. Luke the
physician alone records the healing.* The name

Malchus (Mddyos, a grecised form from the root.

522) was common in different forms amone the
Hebrews and neighbouring peoples. Cf. 72, 1 Ch
teen el τ τ» ρος LO Maki οὗ
Madovx. There were Nabatiean kines (Eutine, Vad.
Jnscr, 08, 811, 91) of this name, which is written by
Josephus Μάλχος or ΔΙ άλιχος (= 792, Dalman, p. 104).
It was the name also of the philosopher Porphyry,
a Syrian by birth (cf. Del. Zeit. f. Luth. Th. 1876).
G. T. PURVES.

MALEFACTOR.—The Gr. word κακοποιύς occurs
in Jn 18 (TR, but edd. κακὸν ποιῶν), where it is
rendered in AV ‘malefactor’; also in ] P 2! 4 415,
where it is ‘evil doer”) RV gives ‘evil-doer’ in
all the passages. Again, κακοῦργος is in AV ren-
dered ‘malefactor’ in Lk 23%: 3-39) but in 2 Ti 29
‘evil doer’; RV ‘malefactor’ everywhere. There
is no difference in meaning between κακοποιύς and
κακοῦργος, and there is none between ‘ malefactor’
and ὁ eyil-doer,’ but this is a good example of the
care of the NT Revisers to express the same Gr.
word always by the same Eng. word. Fuller,
Holy State, 208, says, ‘Thus Cranmer (who sub-
scribed to Popery) grew valiant afterwards, and
thrust his right hand which subscribed first into fire,
so that that hand dyed (as it were) a malefactour
and all the rest of his body dyed a martyr.’

J. HASTINGS.

MALICE, MALICIOUSNESS. — Both ‘malice’
and ‘inaliciousness’ have become restricted in
meaning since 1011] to a special form of wicked-
ness. In AV of NT the only word they translate
is κακία, 1.6. wickedness of any kind, ‘the vicious
character generally, as Lightfoot says, or as
Wilson (Christian Dictionary, 1616) describes it,
‘the whole pravity and naughtines of sin.’ Other
words are translated ‘malice’ in the Apocr. as μῆνις
(Sir 27°) RV ‘wrath’), ἔχθρα. (1 Mac 13% RV
‘hatred’), but the same general meaning attaches
to the word there also. ἮΝ generally retains
‘malice’? and * maliciousness,’ but prefers ‘wicked-
ness’ to ‘malice’ in 1 P 2!) and to ‘maliciousness ἢ
in] P 2'6; and wherever in the Apoer. the Gr. is
κονία (Wis 12) 29 1614, 2 Mac 45) RV has ‘ wicked-
ness.” The Douay Bible translates Is 403 “Speake
te the hart of Terusalem, and cal to her; because
her malice is accomplished, her iniquitie is for-
given’; and cf. Hooker, Eect. Pol. v., App. 1, ‘It
hath been ever on all sides confest that the malice
of man’s own heart doth harden him and nothing
else” Tindale’s tr. of Ja ΕἿ is ‘Wherfore laye a
parte all fylthynes, all superfluite of malicious-
nes’; and Hall, Works, ii. 17, says, ‘Doe thou

that in us, which was done to thee for us; cut off

the superfluitie of our maliciousnesse, that we may
be holy, in, and by thee, which for us wert content
to be legally impure.’

The adj. malicious occurs in 3 Jn! 5] will re-
member his deeds which he doeth, prating against
us with malicious words’ (λόγοις πονηροῖς, RV ‘with

*On the difficulty of admitting the historicity of Luke’s
narrative, see Hxpos. Times, x. 139, 188.

wicked words’); and a few times in Apoer, (Ad.
Pet lec ta Vyssh ἀσ yh er. Hos. G2 Cov
‘Galaad is a cite of wicked doers, of malicious
people and bloudshedders.’ For the adv. ‘ matlici-
ously,” which is found in Sus #6, 2 Mac 14), cf.
Cotton, Calvin’s Isaiah on Is 401, ‘Now the Pro-
phet enters upon ἃ new argument, for he lets the
people alone, which made no use neither of ad-
monitions nor threatenings whatsoever, in regard
they were become maliciously desperate.’
J. HASTINGS.

MALLOTHI (:nSz).— A son of Heman, 1 Ch 25* 26,
There is reason to believe that this and five of the
names associated with it are really a fragment of a
hymn or prayer (see GENEALOGY, ILL. 23n. ; and
ct. Kittel in SBOT, and W. R. Smith, OTJC?
143n.). Inv.tLXX B has Mavéei, A Meadw@i; in
ν. Ὁ B Μεθαθεί, A Μελληθί.

MALLOWS (πὴ mal/iiah, ἅλιμα, SA ἄλιμμα, πον

et arbor cortices).—Two names of plants in Arab.

(1) WWelikhiyeh, the ‘Jews’ mallow,’

are derived from the same root as malliah:
Corchorus
olitovius, Τ.. 'Vhis is an annual herb of the order
Liliaceae, with oblong -ovate, serrate leaves, the
lower teeth of the leaves tipped with long bristles.
It bears pods 3 to 4 in. long. The mature stem
furnishes the fibre so well known in commerce as
‘jute. The immature stem and leaves are tender
and succulent, and have a mucilaginous juice, which
is nutritious like that of the mallow. They are

extensively used in the East as a pot-herb. This
plant grows only in well-watered ground. As the

context of the only passage in which malliah
occurs (Job 304) refers to desert places and plants,
and to the food of the very poorest of the people,
this is not likely to be the plant intended.
(2) Matlikh. 'Vhis word is identical with malliah
in form. In some places the allied form mi#/ldh is
used. Both are popular names for the Sea Orache
or Sea Purslane, Atriplex falimus, L. RV tr. it
‘saltwort.’ [t is a perennial shrub, of the order
Chenopodiacee, with silvery-white, ovate, obtuse
leaves, and densely spiked flowers in ἃ thyrsoid-
pyramidal panicle. The plant grows in. salt
marshes alone the seacoast and in the interior.
The leaves are sour; and Dioscorides says that
they were cooked as vegetables. They would cer
tainly be the food of none but the poorest, and
well suit the context. ete POST.

MALLUCH (7:5>).—1. A Merarite, ancestor of
Ethan, 1 Ch 6" [Heb.*], LXX Maddy. 2. One of
the sons of Bani who had married a foreign wife,
Ezr 10% (B ᾿Αλούμ, A Marov’x), called in 1 Es 9°?
Mamuchus. 3. One of the sons of Harim who
had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10° (LXX Μαλούχ).
4%. 5. Two of those who sealed the covenant, Neh
10% *7 (LXX Μαλούχ). No. & is probably identical
with Malluch of Neh 12°, called in 124 Malluchi.

MALLUCHI (mS Kethihh ; το Keré, followed
by AV Melicu; LXX Μαλούχ; Vule. Afilicho).--
The eponym of a priestly fainily who returned
with Zerubbabel, Neh 124, probably the same as
Malluch of Neh 10: 12°.

MALLUS (ΛΤαλλός, 2 Mac 4°°) rebelled (along with
Tarsus) against Antiochus Epiphanes about B.c. 171.
According to Heberdey, the latest explorer, the city
was situated on the river Pyramos, about 150 stadia
from its mouth : at the mouth was situated Magarsa
(called Antiocheia in the 8rd and 2nd cents. B.C.).
The Pyramos had two mouths in ancient time, of
which the principal joined the sea a little to the west
of the modern village called Kara-Tash, in which
many inscriptions both of Antiocheia and of Mallus
have been found; but this branch is now almost com-

|

224

MALOBATHRON

MAMRE

pletely dried up. Kara-Tash is situated on a low
range of hills along the coast between the Pyramos
arms: the eastern arm is rapidly filling up the bay
of Ayash (into which it flows): in ancient times
this branch was quite secondary. Aecording to
Heberdey, the site of Mallus was between the fork of
the two branches, as coins show the goddess of the
city sitting between two river-gods ; but the marshy
nature of the soil prevents exploration at that point.

The serious difliculties in this theory are—(1)
Strabo, our best authority, says that Mallus was
situated on a height (p. 675), not in a low marsh ;
(2) the Stadiasmus implies that Mallus was not 150
stadia up the river, but close to the sea 150 stadia
east of Antioch-Magarsa; (3) the presence of so
Inany inscriptions of Mallus at Kara-Tash. Perhaps
the correct view is that Mallus was beside Kara-
Tash, east of the Pyramos, while Magarsa was west
of the river, and the distance stated in the Stadias-
mus is over-estimated like many others. ‘Thus,
when Malius was beside Kara-Tash (probably on its
astern side), while Magarsa lay to the west, in-
scriptions from both cities should be brought to the
modern village τ the old bed of the Pyramos, being
dry in modern times, would not prevent transport.

Mallus (originally Marlos) was an ancient and
wealthy city, with a rich coinage. Magarsa was a
comparatively unimportant place, which struck no
coins; and probably it was subject to Mallus, serving
as its harbour from being closer to the river.

W. M. Ramsay.

MALOBATHRON (RVm for EV text Bether,
12°27 Ca 211, AVm ‘division’; LXX ὄρη κοιλω-
μάτων: Theod. θυμιαμάτων; Aquila and Symin, Bad jp,
Bacbijp).— The leaf of the Cassia lignes tree, Cinna-
monn Cassi¢, Blume (Laurus malabathrum, 1...
known in the old Materia Medica as tamealapatra
or ‘Indian leaf,’ a lofty tree cultivated in China
and Java. Its leaves are 10 in. or more lone, and
6 to 8 broad. It was formerly used as astomachie,
sudorific, and a remedy for headache, and as an in-
eredient of aiithredate and therivca. A macerate
in oil, and a vinous tincture, were used by the
ancients as a perfume.
authority of Wellhausen (Prol.2 415), it is certain
that this spice did not grow wild on any of the
mountains of Pal., and therefore no mountains in
this land would have been likely to have derived
their name from it. Even had it been cultivated
in the botanical gardens of Solomon, it is Lnprob-
able that any mountain, much less ‘mountains,’
would have taken their name from this cireum-
stance. It seems better, therefore (although the
rendering mad/obathron is adopted by Reuss, Baeth-
gen, Budde, Siegfried, and nearly all modern com-
nentators), to retain the proper name Bether (wh.
see), as in text of both VSS. G. E. Post.

MALTANNEUS (B Μαλτανναῖος, A ἄς AV
Altaneus), 1 Es 9%.—A son of Asom or Hashum,
one of those who agreed to put away their ‘strange’
wives. Called MATTENAI (322, B Ma@and, A Μαθ-
@avai) in Ezr 10°,

MAMDAI (B Mauédai, A Μανδ-, AV Mabdai),
1 Es 9*.—The same as BENAIAH, Ezr 10°,

MAMMON (μαμωνᾶς [μαμμωνᾶς only in cursives];
Vulg. memimona; Syr. mimuni; AV and RV
‘mammon’).—A common Aram. word for riches
(Aram. 8322, rarely ssox2), used in Mt 6% and Lk
16° 11-18, in the latter case in the parable of the
Unjust Steward. LXX translates appx in Ps 373
by πλούτῳ, and possibly in Is 33% by θησαυροῖς ; it
may have read a Heb. equivalent for siie2 in one
or both passages. The spelling xsox> sugeests a
derivation from ;2* ‘to be firm, steadfast,’ Hiph.
‘trust,’ hence ‘that which is trusted in’; but in

Notwithstanding the |

NT it has simply its Aramaic sense. According
to Augustine (On the Sermon on the Mt. ii. 14, 47),
‘Lucrum Punice mammon dicitur.’ p22 occurs in
Sir 315, 9255 > Sm. of falsehood’ often in Targe.,
e.g. 15 8,28 144, Hos 54, Am 5!, Is 33%; also
yen PD Sim. of wickedness’ in Hab 99, The phrase
“Imamumon of unrighteousness’ occurs in the Book
of Enoch (Ixiii, 10), probably a post - Christian
reference to the ΝΊ" passages. Mammon. is per-
sonified in Lk 915. but there is no reason to suppose
that there was a Syrian deity Mammon in NT
times. Such an idea owes its currency to Milton.
Ges, (Thes.) derives from Heb. mutmon, ‘ treasure,’
and 755. ‘to hide’; but no example of the assimila-
tion of Leth (12) 15. cited. zgarde thinks ΠΣ is
by elision for p2yp, which would be the Aram.
form of the Arabic madmun, ‘contents,’ e.g. of a
book.

LitkrRatURE.—Plummer (International Crit. Comm.) on Lk
169-13; Thayer-Grimm, 8.7. + Brockelmann, Syriae Leax., s.t.;
Lagarde, Uebersicht, p. 185, Mitteil. i. 229; Arnold Mever, Jesu
Muttersprache, p, 51 n.; Jastrow, Dict. of the LOG: 8,0.

W. H. BENNETT.

MAMNITANEMUS (A Μαμνιτάναιμος, B Maur-,
AV Mamnitanaimus), 1 Es 9%4, — Corresponds to
the two names Mattaniah, Mattenai in Ezr 10%7, of
which it is a corruption.

MAMRE (x7>>; MauSpn).—Mentioned (7) in the
expression ‘terebinths of Mamre? (‘2 ὍΝ) Gn 1318
(+ joanna ws ‘which is [or are] in Hebron’), 18!
(both J), and 1418 (+ πῶνπ ‘the Amorite’), from an
independent source; (4) in P, in the expression
‘which is before Mamre,’ in descriptions of the
cave of Machpelah,or of the field in which it was.
Gn 23! 19 (4 nan si ‘that is Hebron’) 259 49° 50},
and in 35°77 ‘to Mamre, to Wiriath-arba, that is
Hebron’; (¢) in Gn 14% as the name of one of
Ahrain’s allies, in his expedition for the recovery
of Lot. In (4) M.is an old name either of Hebron
or of a part of Hebron; in Gn 149" it is the name
of a local sheikh or chief, the owner of the ‘tere-
hinths’ called after him; in Gn 1315. 18! it is not
clear whether it is the name of a person or of a
place, The ‘terebinths of M.’ are the spot at which
Abraham pitched his tent in Hebron.

The site of Mamre is uncertain. ‘ Befere’ (25 $y)
in topographical descriptions generally, though not,
it is true, universally, means ¢o the east of. The
traditional site of Abraham’s sepulchre is in the
mosque at the S.E. of the modern city: so that
Mamre would, in the first instance, be looked for
to the W. of this, and at no great distance from it
(for it is described as being ‘in’ Hebron). Sozomen
(1 il. 4) says that the oak by which Abraham
dwelt still existed in the time of Constantine, 15
stadia N. of Hebron; and Jerome (Onom. 114. 17)
says that it continued to be shown till the time of
his youth. The site where this oak stood would
agree with that of Mdmat el-WKhalil (or, more
brictly, er-Rameh), 1 mile N. of the mosque (see
the plan of the environs in PHI’ Jem, iit, after
p. 852); and a spot } mile N. of this, with a fine
spring-well, is still called by the Jews Beit el-
Khali, or ‘Abraham’s House’ (Rob. BRP i. 216;
Thomson, Z..and B., ἃ. Pal. 304-6, with view ; PEF
Mem. iii. 316, 322f., also with view). Jor some
time past, however, perhaps from the 12th cent.,
a large and beautiful oak (Sindidn), 14 mile
W.N.W. of the mosque, has been shown as the
oak of Abraham (Rob. ii. 72, 81; Thomson, 1.6.
282f., with illustration; PEF Menv. iii. 308; Bad.
Pal.*173f.). Neither of these spots seems sutticiently
near to Hebron to be a probable site for Mamre.
Dillm. thinks of the height, with accompanying
spring, of Nimre, 1 mile N.N.W. of the mosque ;
but this also is more distant than would be ex-
pected. Josephus (BU Iv. ix. 7) says that a very

MAMUCHUS

MAN 225

ancient terebinth was shown in his day only 6
stadia from the city; but he does not indicate in
which direction it lay.

Sozomen adds some remarkable particulars re-
specting the tree, which show that it was vener-
ated as a sanctuary. He says that an annual fair
and feast was held at it in the summer, which
was largely attended by Jews, heathen, and
Christians (cf., more briefly, the Onom. 114. 19f.,
249, 29f.). There was also a well beside it; and
the heathen visitors not only offered sacrifices
beside the tree (§ 3), but illuminated the well with
lamps, and cast into it libations of wine, cakes,
coins, myrrh, and incense (8 5; ef. #S 177, 193).
These observances were suppressed by Constantine,
as superstitious ; and a church was built there
(ξ8 6-8; Euseb. Vita Const. ili. 51-53 ; οἵ. SP 143).

S. R. DRIVER.

MAMUCHUS (Mauovxos), 1 Es 9°°.—The same as
MA.Luucn, Ezr 10%. The original LXX form was
probably Μάλλουχος; AA would readily be cor-
rupted into M.

MAN.—One of the peculiarities of the Hebrew
language is the distactibatian to form adjectives,
or rather the love of placing substantives in such
relation as in Western languages would be ex-
pressed by a subst. and an adjective. Thus 1 Καὶ
201 AV and RV ‘merciful kings,’ Heb. 797 129>=
‘kines of mercy.’ See Davidson, Heb. Syntaa,
p. 82 1; Gesenius-Kautzsch, Heb. Grammar (Eng.
ed. by Collins and Cowley, 1898, p. 437 1f). This
form of expressing attributive ideas is especially
common with the words vx ‘man,’ 5y3 ‘master,’
‘owner,’ 72 ‘son,’ and their feminines.

With the first of these words, with which we
have to do at present, the Eng. VSS deal variously.
(1) Sometimes they ignore the Heb. idiom entirely :
18 3113 and 28 24° Heb. ‘man of might,’ AV and
RV ‘valiant man’; 1 K 14 Heb. ‘man of might,’
AV ‘valiant man,’ RV ‘worthy man’; 1S 174
Heb. ‘man of the space between’ (στ), AV
and RV ‘champion’ (see CHAMPION); 1 K 20”
Heb. (oun wx) ‘man of my ban,’ AV ‘man whom
IT appointed to utter destruction,’ RV ‘man whom
Thad devoted to destruction’; Pr 1518 Heb. ‘man
of wrath,’ AV and RV ‘wrathfal man.’ (2) Some-
times the Heb. idiom is recognized in the margin:
28 1678 AV ‘bloody man,’ AVm and RV ‘man of
blood’ (cf. Ps 5° ‘The Lord will abhor the bloody
and deceitful man,’ AVm ‘the man of bloods and
deceit,’ RV ‘the blood-thirsty and deceitful man’);
1 K 2° ‘thou art worthy of death,’ AVm and RVm
‘thou art a man of death’; Is 4015 ‘his counseller,’
RV ‘his counsellor,’ AVm ‘man of his counsel’ ;
2S 18” ‘Thou shalt not bear tidings,’ AVm ‘be a
man of tidings,’ RV ‘be the bearer of tidings’;
Ps 1401: * An evil speaker,’ AVm and RVm ‘a man
of tongue’; Ex 4° ‘Tam not eloquent,’ AVm and
RVm ‘a man of words’; Job 112 ‘a man full of
talk,’ AVm and RVm ‘a man of lips’; Job 22%
‘the mighty man,’ AVm and RVm ‘the man of
arm’; Pr 3°! ‘oppressor,’ AVm and RV ‘man of
violence’; 18% “A man that hath friends,’ RV ‘He
that maketh many friends,’ RVm ‘a man of
friends.’ (3) Sometimes the Heb. idiom is pre-
served in the Eng. text: Gn 6+ ‘men of renown’;
Pr 24° ‘a man of knowledge’; so frequently ‘man
of Belial’ (for which see BELTAL).

Perhaps the most frequent expression of this
kind is man of war, which occurs 42 times in AV
text, and always signifies a soldier or warrior. In
Ex 15° J” is called ‘a man of war’; see Montefiore,
Hibbert Lect. p. 39f., and art. LoRD oF Hosts.

The expression man of God (o°7>x vx), to desig-
nate one acting under Divine authority and influ-
ence, is used in Jg 13% of an angel; in Dt 33},
Jos 14° al. of Moses; in 2 Ch 8" al. of David; in

VOL. Il]. —15

1S 277 910, 1 K 1318: al. of prophets, as a title for
whom it appears to have come into use in the N.
kingdom in the time of Elijah. See, further,
OLD PROPHET. J. HASTINGS,

MAN.—i. Worps.—1. στὰ. For derivation and
original meaning see ADAM(LXX usually ἄνθρωπος,
Vulg. homo). The most frequent use of this word
as a common noun is for mankind generally (Gn 6°),
or for any member of the human race (Gn 5*), but
occasionally it stands for a man in distinction from
a woman (Gn 2”). It is used especially when the
sinfulness, frailty, or mortality of the race is re-
ferred to (Job 57). 2. vx (LXX mostly ἀνήρ, Vulg.
vir). Del. compares Assyr. isanu, ‘strong.’ A name
for man in his vigour or valour; for a masculine
member of the race, thus standing for ‘husband’
(Gn 3°), and even applied to the male of lower
animals (Gn 7°). While os often refers to the
race as a whole, ex points to the individual. By
a common Heb. idiom it is employed for ‘any one’
(=Gr. τις, Fr. on, Ex 214), and so gives rise to a
similar idiom in NT Gr. (1 Co 4!). 3. 42x, simply
man, With perhaps some reference to his mortality
(mostly poetical, 18 times in Job, 13 times in Ps).
4, 23 (from 123 ‘to be strong’) ‘a mighty man,’
‘a warrior.” The cognate 733 is used for a nan
as opposed to the weaker one, woman (Dt 22°).
5. [n>] common in Eth., only found in pl. (an
defect. 00>), except in compound pr. n. Methusaed,
Methuselah. The word stands for men as distin-
guished both from women and from children (Dt 2*).

In NT ἄνθρωπος and ἀνήρ are used with the dis-
tinctions of meaning found in classic Greek. av-
θρωπος stands for a human being, whether male or
female, and is sometimes used with the association
of weakness or imperfection (1 Co 8). The two-
fold nature of man is expressed by ὁ ἔξω ἄνθρωπος and
ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος (2 Co 45). ΓΑνθρωπος is employed in
the Heb. idiom as the equivalent of τις, for ‘any-
body’ (e.g. Mt 174, Mk 12!, Lk 13%). In AV,
however, τις is sometimes rendered ‘man’ (Mt 8*).
᾿Ανήρ stands for a man as distinguished from a
woman. It is also used in pl. as a title of honour,
equivalent to our word ‘gentlemen’ (Ac 24). In
AV ἄρρην and ἄρσην, ‘male,’ are translated ‘man’
(Ro 17, Rev 12°).

ii. OrtGin.— According to both accounts of his
origin, Gn 177 (P) and Gn 27 (J), man was made by
God and through an act of Divine will. P states
that God ‘created’ man; J indicates that he was
formed out of previously existing matter (‘the
dust of the ground’), but that he received his life
immediately from God—J” breathing into him the
breath of life. The doctrine of the pre-existence
of souls cannot be discovered in OT, although 15
26, Job 11, and Ps 139% have been thought by
some to imply it. The first of these passages
refers only to natural birth and death. What-
ever the second may mean, it would appear from
Job 10° that the author of the poem held the
genesis of the personality to be contemporary with
that of the body in the womb. The expression in
Ps 139% “when I was curiously wrought in the
lowest parts of the earth’ comes nearer to the idea
of pre-existence; but the context points to the
embryonic development of the body, and therefore
it is reasonable to suppose that the phrase is an
imaginative allusion to that process (see Schultz,
OT Theol. (Eng. tr.) vol. ii. p. 25016). The doctrine
of pre-existence appears in Alex. Judaism and is
met with in Apocr. (Wis 8!"). It is distinctly set
forth by Philo (de Somn.i. 29). It is not taught in
NT, although it was held by contemporary rabbis
(see Lightfoot, ii. p. 569), and the disciples may refer
to it with regard to the man born blind (Jn 9?).

11. NATURE.—In the Bible man is treated as a
creature sharing the nature of the world around

i pete ale

226 MAN OF SIN AND ANTICHRIST

MAN OF SIN AND ANTICHRIST

him. A common Heb. name for mankind is ‘flesh,’
a term which expresses at once the materiality and
the frailty of the race. The latter quality is much
insisted on ; compared with God, man is but ‘dust
and ashes’ (Gn 27 3!9 18*7). Nevertheless, in both
accounts of his creation (P and J), while man is
associated with the universe around him he is
described with separate statements that indicate a
unique nature. According to P, man was made
‘in the image of God’ (Gn 1° +7), This phrase,
taken in connexion with P’s doctrine of the spiritual
existence of God, must refer to mental and moral
faculties, not to physical form, ὁ.6. to intellect,
affections, will, moral personality (Delitzsch). In
Ps 8° man is described as ‘made to lack but
little of God,’ a passage in which, while the high
endowments of the race are gratefully acknow-
ledged in daring language, it is to be observed
that the word for God is αὐτὸν (softened in LXX to
ἀγγέλους), not m7, and that this is mentioned in the
third person though the psalm is addressed to J”
(Schultz, OL Theol. vol. ii. p. 954). It has been
suggested on the ground of Gn 15 that P teaches
that mankind was originally androgynous, and on
the ground of Gn 251 that J contains the same idea ;
but this is more ingenious than reasonable.

iv. UNITY OF THE RACE.—This is implied in the
accounts of the Creation, the Deluge, and the tower
of Babel, and in the genealogies of Genesis. [Ὁ
has been asserted that Gn 61: 5 points to two distinct
species of mankind (Keil); but elsewhere in OT the
expression ‘the sons of God? (27987 732) invariably
stands for angels (Job 15 [see Dav.] 2) 387; cf. 32
ΕΝ Ps 901 89°; papr 3, ‘a son of gods’ Dn 355).
So LXX of Gn 0]: " and Philo on this passage ; also
Josephus (Ant. 1. ili. 1). Moreover, there is nothing
to indicate that the phrase ‘the daughters of men’
could refer to the women of one race to the exclu-
sion of others (Delitzsch, 7” /oc.). The development
of monotheistic ideas tended to deepen the sense
of the unity of mankind, and so to correct any
influences in the opposite direction that might
arise from the exclusiveness of Jews with regard
to Gentiles and that of Greeks in their view of
primitive races or even of foreigners generally
(βάρβαροι). ‘This unity is distinctly affirmed in St.
Paul’s speech on the Areopagus with an emphasis
which indicates that if might not be fully acknow-
ledged by his audience (Ac 173). It is taken for
granted in the NT statements of the redemption
of the world by Jesus Christ (¢.g. Jn 3!). While it is
at the foundation of St. Paul’s universalism, it is
never contradicted by his Judaizing opponents.

v. DestTiny.—It is the teaching of OT as well as
NT that God has a great future in store, first for His
elect, and then through them for the race. This
is to be preceded by a ‘day of the Lord,’ in NT the
Parousia, which ushersin the glory through terrible
judgments. The grounds of hope for the future are
all found in the merey and the faithfulness of God,
whose own glory is realized in the ultimate well-
being of His creatures. While the end of the
physical universe is contemplated, that of the
race of man is not predicted—whatever may be
the fate of individuals. On the contrary, OT
points to a boundless future of peace, and NT
to the final establishment of the kingdom of God.
See EscHAToLoGy. On the whole subject. see,
further, under ADAM and CosMOGONY; and for
the Psychology of Man see PSYCHOLOGY.

W. Ε΄ ADENEY.

MAN OF SIN anv ANTICHRIST (ὁ ἄνθρωπος
τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ vids τῆς ἀπωλείας, ὁ ἀντίχριστος, ὁ ἀντι-
κείμενος, ὁ avouos).—There are three principal sources
in the NT whence we derive our knowledge of
the beliefs of the Ist cent. concerning the Anti-
christ and Man of Sin, viz. 2 Th, 1 and 2 Jn, and
the Apocalypse.

i, The Pauline account (2 Th 2) is this, that the
final coming of Christ is to be preceded by (1) the
falling-away (ἡ ἀποστασία). (2) After this, the re
vealing of the Man of Sin, who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is called God. or
thatis worshipped, so that he as God sitteth in the
temple of God, giving himself out that he is God.
He has power to do miracles which are lying
miracles. The Lord will come and destroy him
with the breath of His mouth. There is some-
thing, described first as a thing (neuter, τὸ κατ-
éxov), then as a person (mas¢., ὁ κατέχων), which
prevents the appearance of the Man of Sin for the
time being. St. Paul reminds the Thessalonians
that he used to tell them these particulars when
he was with them (ἔτει ὧν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ταῦτα ἔλεγον
ὑμῖν; v.°).

u. In the Epistles of St. John we have little but
the name of Antichrist (which oceurs nowhere else
in NT). In 1 Jn 2'8 occur these most important
words: ‘ Little children, it is the last hour: and as
ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even
now there are many antichrists ; whereby we know
that it is the last time.’ From this we gather, as
from 2 Th, that the belief in Antichrist was one
familiar to the Christians of the time. The name
occurs again in 2” 45 (‘this is that matter of Anti-
christ ’—7d τοῦ ἀντιχρ.--- whereof ye have heard
that it should come’), 2Jn%. St. John, then,
alludes to a popular belief, and spiritualizes it,
applying it to tendencies already at work.

iii. In the Apocalypse a far more complex state
of things isfound. It is necessary brietly to sketch
the characteristics of the various evil powers
(Beasts) which appear in it.

(av) First in 117 we have, suddenly intreduced
without any previous description, ‘ the Beast that
cometh up out of the abyss.’ Of him it is only
said that he slays the Two Witnesses, and we
gather that his seat is at Jerusalem. In connexion
with him we find mention of ἃ period of 42 months
or 1260 days (-- 3} years), of which more will be said.

(6) Next inch. 12 appears the Great Red Dragon
in heaven, who is expressly identified with Satan.
He persecutes the woman clothed with the sun,
and is cast out of heaven.

(ὁ) Inch. 13 a Beast with seven heads and ten
horns, crowned, comes up out of the sea. One of
his heads is wounded to death and is revived. And
the Dragon (ef. 12) gives to him his power.

(7) In 13" another Beast comes up out of the
earth, which has two horns like a lamb (evidently,
therefore, is a rival and counterpart of the Lamb),
and speaks like a dragon (being in reality Satanic
and not divine). This being is afterwards (19°
etc.) called the False Prophet. His function is to
support the former Beast by lying miracles, and
induce mankind to worship him. ‘The former
Beast is accordingly worshipped as God, and sets a
mark upon his adherents ; and his name is indi-
cated by the mystic number 666 (or 616). The
principal Beast and the False Prophet appear again
in chs. 19 and 20, where they make a final assault
on the saints, and are vanquished by Christ.

(6) Lastly, in ch. 17 another Beast, scarlet, with
seven heads and ten horns, appears, upon which
the woman (Babylon) is seated. This Beast is ex-
plained to the seer: it is said that it ‘was, and is
not, and shall ascend out of the abyss and go into
perdition.’ Its heads are seven hills, and seem-
ingly also seven kings (five past, one present, one
to come), and its horns are ten kings (all future).

Of this exceedingly complicated series of images
it would be absurd to attempt to give all the
solutions which have been suggested. W. Bousset
in his recent commentary on the Apoc. gives a
view which commends itself as nearest to the truth
of any. It is shortly this:—The Beast of ch. 11 is

MAN OF SIN AND ANTICHRIST

MAN OF SIN AND ANTICHRIST 227

the Antichrist of current belief, taken over by the
author of the Apocalypse together with the other
traditional imace of the Witnesses. The Beast of
ch. 12 is perhaps an ancient mythical personifica-
tion of some natural force (see below) identified by
the Apocalypse with Satan. The Beast of ch. 13
is Rome, and its slain head which is revived is
Nero redirivus. Certain of its characteristics
are derived from the popular conception of Anti-
christ. Its number 635 is taken to mean Nero
Cesar. It derives its power from Satan. The
‘alse Prophet of ch. 13 is in many respects the
Antichrist of popular belief, posing as a counter-
part of the Lamb, and able to work wonders. But
here it is ina subordinate position to Rome: the
apocalyptist borrows the figure from the beliefs of
his time: by it he probably intends the heathen
priesthood, especially in its relation to the worship
of the Cwsars. The Beast of ch. 17 is, as we have
seen, a complex image. It is partly representative
of an individual who was, and is not, ete.—-Nero
redivivus ; partly of a polity--that of Rome.

iv. With these notices from the Epistles and
Apocalypse we must couple a few of less certain
import from the Gospels. (α) In Mt 244, Mk
13°: **, Lk 21° our Lord predicts the coming of false
Christs and fa!se prophets. In Mt and Mk there
is also mention of the ‘abomination of desolation ἡ
in the Holy Place, coupled with an injunction that
when this appears they that are in Judea are to
flee to the mountains. This is the sequel to a
‘great tribulation,’ of which the duration will be
shortened by God for the sake of the elect. And
upon this follow portents in heaven, and the
coming of the Son of Man. This ‘abomination of
desolation’ is very plausibly interpreted by many
modern critics of the session of Antichrist in the
temple as God. And some critics suppose that this
portion of our Lord’s eschatological discourse has
been influenced or interpolated in accordance with
current beliefs. See, further, art. ABOMINATION
OF DESOLATION. (ὦ) Lastly, in Jn 5 our Lord
says, ‘I am come in my Father’s name, and ye
receive me not: if another shall come in his own
name, him ye will receive.’ Many commentators,
e.g. Chrys., Cyr., Theod. Mops., explain this
‘other’ to be Antichrist.

Such are the passages of the NT which throw
light upon the subject of Antichrist: and we
gather from them unmistakably that teaching
concerning Antichrist was orally current at a very
early time. Did it originate with Christianity, or
is it a pre-Christian Jewish idea ?

In Jewish apocalyptic literature we find un-
doubted evidence of this belief. In the Book of
Daniel are certain passages which bear on the
question. (a) In ch. 7 appear four beasts, the
last of which has a ‘little horn’ which makes war
against the saints. This horn, it is explained to
the seer, is a king who will war against God and
the saints for a period expressed as times, a time
and half a time (33 years) : upon his fall follows the
judgment. (8) In ch. 8 out of one of the four
horns of the he-goat (Greece) comes a little horn
which waxes great and casts down some of the
stars of heaven, and magnifies himself even to the
prince of the host, and takes away the daily sacri-
fice. In connexion with him is mentioned, but
obscurely, the abomination that maketh desolate.
This lasts for 2300 half-days, or 1150 days. In the
interpretation this horn is said to represent a king
of fierce countenance understanding dark sentences,
who stands up against the Prince of princes, and is
‘broken without hand.’ (y) In ch. 9 the daily
sacrifice is taken away, and the ‘abomination’
takes its place for half a week (34 years). (δὴ In
chs, 11. 12isa long prophecy of a king of the north
who will oppress Judwa, take away the daily

sacrifice, and set up the abomination that maketh
desolate. He comes to a sudden end, and then
follows the great tribulation, and then a resurrec-
tion of the dead.

It is agreed that these predictions, while partly
applicable to a historical person, Antiochus Epi-
phanes, do not apply to him in full. Those who
regard the book as written during his persecution,
take the view that the seer anticipated the end of
all things to happen immediately upon the fall of
Antiochus, and that he wrote shortly before that
event. It is at least clear that parts of this
picture, as of so many others in the Bk. of Daniel,
were used by the author of the NT Apocalypse :
notably the casting down of the stars from heaven
(Rev 12), and the length assigned to the reien of
the wicked king (see the 42 months and the 1260
days of Rev 11* ἢ.

In the third Book of the Sibylline Oracles (e. B.C.
170) is a prediction that Beliar will come in the
last days, ἐκ Σεβαστηνῶν, which according to
Bousset means ‘ot the race of Augustus’; while
others, comparing the Ascension of Isaiah, inter-
pret it as ‘from Samaria.’ Note that the final
adversary is here no other than Satan, apparently
in the form of man. To this S’b. Orde. il., origin-
ally a Jewish composition but extensively Chris-
tianized, adds that Elias (alone) will come as a
witness, and that Beliar will do many siens.

In 4 Hzra (5* 5) are traces, though obscured and
corrupted, of the belief. We read, amone a list
of the signs of the end; ‘thou shalt see the kingdom
that ws after the third (1.6. the power of Rome)
shaken,’ * and also ‘he shall reign whom they look
not for who dwell on the earth.’

In οι. Bar (ch. 40) is a prediction of the de-
struction of the last leader of the enemies of Israel
by the Messiah on Mount Sion.

In Ase. Isa. (ch. 4) are clear predictions of the
advent of Antichrist, who is identified with Nevo
vedivivus, and of his reign for the traditional
period of 35 years. But this cannot safely be
regarded as pre-Christian.

From this evidence, and from an examination of
a number of patristic documents, Bousset (Der
Antichrist, 1895) has concluded, and as it seems to
us rightly, that there was among the Jews a fully
developed legend of Antichrist—perhaps oral, but
more probably written—-which was accepted and
amplified by Christians; and that this legend
diverges from and contradicts in important points
the conceptions we find in the Apocalypse. As
formulated by Christians of the Ist cent. its main
features are—

That Antichrist would not appear before the
fall of Rome; that he would then appear among
the Jews, proclaim himself as God, and claim to be
worshipped in the temple at Jerusalem; that
Elias would appear and denounce him, and be slain
by him; that he would be born of the tribe of
Dan: this idea being due to an interpretation of
Gn 49:7, Dt 33°, Jer 8!&—a tradition known to the
apocalyptist, who omits Dan from the list of the
tribes; that his reign would last for 35 years ;
that the believing Jews (or all the Church) would
flee into the wilderness, whither Antichrist would
pursue them ; that he would then be destroyed by
the Lord with the breath of His mouth (a concep-
tion derived from Is 114).

It will be seen that there is here a considerable
disagreement with the Apocalypse. In that book
the principal beast is Rome, and there are two
witnesses, not one. The first point is very im-
portant: the Apocalypse is anti-Roman. The
current belief expressed by St. Paul regarded

**Post tertiam turbatam’ is taken as the equivalent of
an original Greek τὴν μετὰ τὴν τρίτην (36. βασιλείαν) θορυβου

μένην. The old reading was ‘ post tertiam tubam.’

228 MAN OF SIN AND ANTICHRIST

MANAEN

the Roman power as a bulwark against Anti-
christ.

In later times the mass of conflicting traditions
about Antichrist led to the idea of a twofold
Antichrist—one for the Jews and one for the world
at large. This is seen with the greatest clearness
in the writings of the 3rd cent. poet Commodian,
especially in his Carmen Apologeticum, where Nero
redivivus appears as the antichrist of the Gentiles
(‘nobis Nero factus antichristus, ille Judeis’). Of
the ultimate source of this belief it is not possible
to speak with certainty.

Gunkel, in a recent work (Schépfung und Chaos),
has struck out a line of interpretation which has
already been fruitful, and promises to be more so
in the future. He regards the conceptions of the
Apocalyptic beasts as survivals of ancient mytho-
logical beliefs to which the Apocalyptic writer
gave new life and meaning. The primeval dragon
of the deep (7iamat in Babylonian mythology),
which opposed the Creator in the beginning, and
was overcome and bound by him, would, it was
thought, in the last days rear up its head again
and break out in a final rebellion, to be vanquished
this time for ever. And it is at least a plausible—
to the mind of the present writer a more than
plausible—theory that beliefs of this kind belonging
to the common Semitic stock, and refreshed in the
recollection of the Jews during the Exile, should
in their later literature once again appear in the
guise of ‘ancient wisdom,’ with a new and loftier
spiritual meaning read into them.

Antichrist—the Antichrist believed in by the
Jews—passes through several stages. He is per-
haps originally a natural force personified, repre-
senting Chaos as opposed to order, Darkness as
against light. He is then identified with Satan,
the great adversary of God in the moral world.
The Antichrist of the Sibylline Oracles is, as we
have seen, Beliar. And, lastly, he is thought
of as a man in whom Satan’s power is concen-
trated, as the power of God is concentrated in the
Messiah.

In the New Testament St. Paul adopts, and St.
John in the Epistles alludes to, a conception of
Antichrist which had been coloured largely by the
identification (in the Book of Daniel) of Antichrist
with a historical person (Antiochus Epiphanes),
In the Apocalypse the traditional Antichrist
appears for a moment (in ch. 11); and thereafter
his characteristics are divided between the Beast
of ch. 13, who is Rome, headed by Nero redivivus,
claiming divine worship, and the False Prophet
who parodies the Lamb and performs the lying
wonders.

The wish to identify the Antichrist of tradition
with definite contemporary personalities (as Anti-
ochus and Nero) is very largely responsible for the
confusion which surrounds the whole subject.

A word as to later Jewish beliefs. The destrue-
tion of Jerusalem by Rome operated Jargely upon
Jewish minds. Whereas to them Rome had been
the bulwark against Antichrist, it now took the
place of Antichrist in Jewish thought ; and accord-
ingly in such late compositions as the Book of
Zerubbabel (as well as in the earlier Targums) the
name of Antichrist is Armil/us (=Romulus=
Rome). But, in spite of the adverse view of the
Apocalypse of John, the Christian Church con-
tinued to regard Rome as the protector of the
world against Antichrist, and to pray for its pre-
servation accordingly.

The clearest of the utterances of our Lord and of
St. John point rather to a plurality of antichrists
who are to appear in different ages of the Church’s
growth—rather to movements and tendencies of a
kind hostile to Christianity, than to any one well-
defined personality.

LITERATURE.—The most important sources of knowledge on
the subject of Antichrist are given in full in Bousset’s excellent
monograph, Der Antichrist, which has been copiously used in
the body of this article. Besides those already named, the
following may be mentioned here: Hippolytus, de Antichristo
—sermons attributed to Ephraem Syrus (Latin and Greek);
Victorinus Petabionensis on the Apocalypse ; Lactantius (a very
important authority); the pseudo-Methodius, de principio et
jure seculi; the tract of Adso (printed among Anselm’s works),
de Antichristo. Of Apocryphal documents, the following con-
tain interesting details: the Coptic Apocalypse of Elias (Chris-
tian, in its present form), recently edited by Steindorff in ‘ Texte
und Unters.’ (Neue Folge); the Syriac Book of Clement or
Testament of the Lord, coupled with a Latin fragment found by
the present writer at Treves; the late Greek Apocalypses of
Esdras and of John (these four will be found collected in
Apocrypha Anecdota, i.); the various forms of the Apocalypse
of Daniel (see Bousset, and Vassiliev’s Anecdota Byzantina,
and Klostermann’s Analecta zur LYX). An Armenian prophecy
of St. Nerses, published by F. C. Conybeare (Academy, 1895),
and an interesting Latin document attributed to St. John in

toger Hoveden’s Chronicle (lolls Series), should be added to
Bousset’s stock of documents.

A principal feature in the later Apocalyptic literature is the
description of Antichrist’s personal appearance, which is de-
scribed as very unpleasing. It is curious to note that several
traits of this are borrowed in the Greek Acts of St. Christopher
(Analecta Bollandiana), and attached to that saint before his

conversion. M. R. JAMES.

MANAEN (Mavayy, Gr. form of on39 Menahem,
LXX Mavayu, ‘consoler,’ 2 Kk ΤΟ) one of the
‘prophets and teachers’ in the Chureh of Antioch
at the time of St. Paul’s departure on his First
Missionary Journey (Ac 13!),* and σύντροφος of
Herod the tetrarch, t.e. Herod Antipas, son of
Herod the Great (Lk 31:19 97 ete.). σύντροφος may
mean either collactancus, ‘foster-brother,’ ‘nursed
alone with’ Herod (Walch, Ols., de Wette, Alf.,
Words. ; cf. Xen. Alem. ii. 3. 4), or merely con-
tubernalis, ‘brought up in the same household,’
or ‘on intimate terms with’ him (Eras. Luth.
Caly. Grot. Baume. Ew.; cf. 1 Mae 139. Walch,
recalling that the brothers Antipas and Archelaus
were brought up together (Jos. Ant. XVII. i. 3),
argues for the closer (without excluding the more
general) relationship, on account of the tetrarch +
alone being here mentioned.

It is highly probable that this Manaen was
related to an older Manaen referred to by Josephus
(dnt. XV. x. 5) as a notable Essene who, about
B.c. 50, met Herod, afterwards the Great, then a
schoolboy, and saluted him as future king of the
Jews (Antipater, the father of Herod, was then
chief minister of the Hasmonzean prince Hyrcanus).
When the anticipation was afterwards realized
(B.C. 37), Herod sent for this older Manaen, treated
him as a friend (δεξιωσάμενος), and thenceforth
honoured the whole Essene sect. A Talmudic
authority identifies the same Manaen with a
leading Rabbi who entered the: household service
of the king. When Antipas was born, some years
later, Herod may very naturally have selected, as
the child’s foster-brother and youthful companion, a
erandson ἃ or grandnephew of the senior Manaen,
who would thus be honoured in the person of the
boy.|| As σύντροφος (in either sense) the younger
Manaen would receive a place at the royal table,
be educated along with Antipas, and probably
accompany him and Archelaus when the two
princes were sent to complete their education at
Rome (Jos. Ant. XVI. i. 8). When Antipas be-
came tetrarch (he was called ‘king’ only by

* The arrangement of the conjunctive particles suggests that
the first three mentioned were prophets, the last two (Manaen
and Saul) teachers. See Meyer, tn doc. ; cf. Xen. Mem. ii. ἃ. 19.

+ Antipas is the only Herod whom St. Luke elsewhere (Lk
31.19) calls ‘Herod the tetrarch,’ although Philip (Lk 3!) and,
up till a.p. 52, Agrippa (Ac 2513) might also have been so called.
Agrippa, however, was only about seventeen at the time
Manaen is designated as a teacher; Antipas would be over
oe by J. Lightfoot in Hor. Heb. et Talm. p. 25.

§ While stricter Essenes eschewed marriage, a section of them
allowed it. See art. ESSENES, vol. i. p. 768.

|| Cf. Chimham’s reception into the royal household as a
token of honour to his father Barzillai (2 S 1987),

MANAHATH

MANASSEH “Ὁ

courtesy) on his father’s death, Manaen would
naturally have some position in the ‘royal’ house-
hold; and, assuming that St. Luke and Manaen
afterwards became acquainted at Antioch, with
which both were connected,* it would most prob-
ably be from Manaen that St. Luke derived his
knowledge of many facts concerning Antipas, his
household, and other members of the Herodian
family (Lk 3! 1820 g3 97-9 1351. 82 23812, Ac 12).

The time, occasion, and instrumentality of
Manaen’s becoming a follower of Christ are un-
known. He may have been,drawn to the Master
simultaneously with Joanna, the wife of Chuza,
Herod’s steward (Lk 85), or with the Herodian
nobleman (βασιλικός, 1.6. courtier) Whose son was
healed by Jesus (Jn 445%), The ministry of the
Baptist,f which notably influenced Herod himself
(Mk 659), may have been blessed to one whose
Essene origin might predispose him towards our
Lord’s ascetic forerunner. His discipleship need
not have involved departure from Herod’s court ;
but the separation must have taken place, if not
earlier, in A.D. 39, when the tetrarch, instigated
by his ambitious wife, left Palestine for Rome, in
order to obtain royal dignity, but was condemned
by Caligula to perpetual exile (Jos. Ant. XVII.
vii. 2). About the time of Antipas’ removal, or
soon after, the Gentile Church of Antioch was
founded by Jewish Christians who had left Judea
after Stephen’s martyrdom (Ac 11°). From his
subsequent position as a prominent Christian
teacher at Antioch, we may assume as highly
probable that Manaen was one of these founders.
At all events, he had a leading share (1) in build-
ing up a mother Church in the third city of the
empire, (2) in propagating successfully the pure
Christian faith and life in a city whose moral cor-
ruption was proverbial, (3) in establishing the great
truth, then but dimly discerned even by apostles,
that the Gentiles were fellow-heirs, on equal terms
with the Jews, of the divine promise of salvation.

LITERATURE.—Walch, ‘de Menahemo,’ in Diss. Ac. Ap.; J.
Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. ; Plumptre, ‘ Manaen’ in Biblical Studies ;
Cassell’s Bible Educator, ii. 29, 82. H. COoWwAN.

MANAHATH (nmr, Mayava6(e)i, Manaoth).—4.
Mentioned only in 1 Ch 8° as the place to which
certain Benjamite clans were carried captive.
Targ. adds ‘in the land of the House of Esau,’ and
Syr. and Arab. VSS borrow a word from the next
verse and translate ‘to the plain of Naaman.’
The town is probably identical with that implied
in Manahethites (wh. see), with the Mavoyw of the
Greek text of Jos 15°°, where the LXX preserves a
list of towns which had been lost from our Heb.
text ; and if the text in Jg is correct, with the
Menuhah (wh. see) of ὅς 20% RVm. The site of
the city is unknown. Conder (PEF Mem. iil.
21, 136) sugeests Mdlha, 3 miles 8.W. of Jeru-
salem. The text of 1 Ch 8° is probably corrupt.

2. (Mav(v)axa(0), Mayavau, Μαναχάμ, Manahit(h)).
—Gn 367 (P), 1 Ch 1 ‘son of Shobal, son of Seir,
the Horite,’ 1.6. eponymous ancestor of a clan of
Edom, or of the earlier population conquered and
absorbed by Edom. See, further, art. MANA-
HETHITES. W. H. BENNETT.

MANAHATHITES.— See MANAHETHITES.

MANAHETHITES stands in AV for nin3> (A’Au-
μανίθ, B Μωναιώ, RV Menuhoth) in 1 Ch 2°? ‘(These
were the sons of Caleb . . . Shobal) And Shobal
the father of Kiriath-jearim had sons, Haroeh, half

* Eus. (HE iii. 4) affirms St. Luke’s Antiochene parentage,
and the numerous references to Antioch in Ac suggest the
familiarity of the writer with this city.

Τ From Manaen St. Luke may have obtained the information
sri the Baptist not given by the other evangelists (Lk 157-80

of the Menuhoth’; and also for πὸ (A Μανάθ, B
Μαλαθεί, RV Manahathites) in 1 Ch 2% ‘(These
were the sons of Caleb... Salma) The sons of
Salma; Beth-lehem .. . and half of the Mana-
hathites, the Zorites.’ The Vulgate translates
‘rest’ (dimidium requietionum (or -is)) in both
verses. We should read (with Kittel, SBOY) -nn32
‘“Manahathites’ in both verses. The genealogy is
to be interpreted as meaning that the city Mana-
hath, occupied by portions of two sections of the
Edomite clan Caleb, came to be reckoned to Judah.
See art. MANAHATH. W. H. BENNETT.

MANASSEAS (ΜανασσήαΞς), 1 Es 9°! = MANASSEH,
ἘΣ

MANASSEH (7¥3>).—1. A king of Judah. He
was the son of Hezekiah and father of Amon.
His mother’s name was Hephzi-bah (2 Καὶ 21’).
He probably came to the throne B.c. 685. He is
said to have been twelve years old on his acces-
sion. The length of his reign is given as fifty-five
years; but this should, it seems, be reduced to
forty-five, in which case he died B.c. 641. Of the
actual history of this long reigr we know very
little, the attention of the author of the Book of
Kings being fixed on the condition of religion.
The reign was probably peaceful and prosperous,
at any rate we have no indication to the contrary
in our oldest source. But in the matter of religion
it was quite otherwise. During the reign of
Hezekiah those who attached themselves to the
higher teaching of the prophets had formed a

owerful party which had great influence over the
king, who seems to have done something towards
a religious reformation (2 K 18). But there was
always a strong party which resented reform, and
on Hezekiah’s death it improved its opportunity
by capturing his successor. All the superstitious
cults and practices of the time of Ahaz came back,
and were established with the royal sanction (2 Καὶ
21°). But they did not come back alone. The
most important feature of M.’s reign is its religious
syncretism, the blending of foreign worships with
the popular religion of Israel. Especially signifi-
cant is the worship of the host of heaven (ν.ὅ),
which shows the influence of Assyria and Babylon.
The Baal and Asherah cults were probably revivals
of old Can. worship. Mention is also made of
dealings with familiar spirits and wizards (v.°). It
is not unlikely that we should connect with this
the shedding of innocent blood (v.!%), with which
the king is also charged. This points to a
systematic religious persecution. The time was,
accordingly, one of religious reaction—not of re-
action only, however, but of syncretism, of gloomy
superstition and cruel fanaticism. Out of it sprang,
according to the teaching of the prophets (2 Καὶ
23%6. Στ 94"-4) the destruction of Jerus. and the
Exile, which even the piety of Josiah and the
Deuteronomic Reformation were unable to avert.

In Chronicles it is said that, in consequence of

his sin, M. was taken by the τς asta in fetters

to Babylon (2 Ch 33"), There he humbled himself
before God, and was restored to his kingdom,
whereupon he cleansed Jerus. and the temple of
idols, and strengthened the fortifications of the
city (ν.138), The silence of Kings is very strong
evidence against the story; for if M. had been
really taken into captivity, repented, and on his
return sought to undo the sel he had wrought,
the writer in Kings would not have left the im-
pression of unbroken idolatry and sin. (Contrast
the case of Ahab, 1 K 21°7-**), That the Assyrians
should have taken a prisoner to Babylon is not in
itself very suspicious. But the mention of it prob-
ably gives a clue to the origin of the story. The
Bab. exile was traced by the prophets to the sin of

230 MANASSEHL

MANASSEH

M., and the Chronicler would feel it a fit thing
that the author of this calamity should himself
experience a captivity in Babylon. There was this
further reason for the story. The long and peace-
ful reign of so wicked a king called for explana-
tion. And this was accounted for by the story
of his penitence and reformation. It is a char-
acteristic example of the Chronicler’s method of
rewriting history. See, further, Driver in Hogarth’s
Author. and Archeol. pp. 114-116, where the
archeological data bearing on the question are
fully discussed, and the conclusion is reached that
while the inscriptions do not decide the question,
they fail to neutralize the suspicions attaching to
the Chronicler’s narrative.

2. Manassch in Jg 18* is a correction for Moses,
since it seemed derogatory to the reputation of the
latter that his grandson should have been the first
priest at the sanctuary of Dan. The correction was
made by inserting the letter 3 above the line, thus
changing the word into Manasseh (cf. Moore, ad loc. ).
3. 4. ‘Two contemporaries of Ezra who had married
foreign wives (Ezr 1059. **), 5, See next article.

; A. 5. PEAKE.

MANASSEH (7¥'3>,—-according to the etymology
given in Gn 4151, ‘making to forget,’ from πὸ ‘to
forget’; LXNX usually Mavaco4), the elder son of the
patriarch Joseph by his Egyptian wife, Asenath,
and also the name of the tribe reputed to be
descended from him. Of Manasseh as the son of
Joseph, nothing more is stated than what. is
recorded in Gn 48, where Jacob (1) blesses his two
grandsons, giving Ephraim, against their father’s
desire, the first place (vv.1-% 8" JE), and (2) adopts
them, placing each on the same level with his own
sons (vv.27 P). Both these transactions have mani-
festly a tribal significance ; they are traditional
explanations of the relations existing subsequently
between the two tribes Manasseh and Ephraim
themselves, and between these two and the other
tribes. In Gn 50" it is also stated that the children
of ΜΆΘΗΙ, the son of Manasseh, were ‘ born upon
Joseph’s knees,’ i.e. he survived their birth, and
was able to recognize them as his descendants
(cf. 805; Odyss. xix. 401 ; Stade, ΖΑ W, 1886, 146 f.).

Manasseh as a tribe is, however, more important
than Manasseh as an individual. 1. History of
the tribe. All that the oldest tradition of the
Exodus (JE) says about the tribe is, that after
Moses had allotted inheritances on the E. of
Jordan to Reuben and Gad (Nu 32), particular
families of Manasseh took possession of districts
in the same neighbourhood,—the children of
Machir, the (eldest) son of Manasseh, occupying
Gilead generally, Jair, ‘son’ (i.e. descendant) of
Manasseh, occupying the distriet in it called after-
wards HAVVvoTH-JAIR (which see), and Nobah
occupying Kenath, with its ‘daughters,’ or de-
pendent villages, νν. 39. 110 42. ἡ The oldest parts of
the Hex. thus recognize only two trans-Jordanic
tribes as receiving their territories from Moses : t
different Manassite clans conquer territories N.
of these for themselves. Whether these state-
ments, exactly as they stand, are historical, is
doubtful: it is remarkable that in Jg 10° the
‘tent-villages of Jair’ are represented as deriving
their name from Jair, a Gileadite, who was one of
the Judges : hence it is very probable that the con-
quest of Jair is ante-dated in Nu 32 ; and in fact,

* V.40 must be a later addition : not only is it out of place
after v.89, but ‘their tent-villages’ (nn) in v.41, which can
refer only to the ‘ Amorites’ of v.39, shows that once v.41 must
have immediately followed v.39, The intention of the addition
is evidently to legitimize the conquest of Machir, by repre-
senting it as sanctioned by Moses.

t V.88, in which, for the first time in the chapter, the ‘half-
tribe of Manasseh’ is mentioned, seems plainly to be a later
addition, made for the purpose of harmonizing the passage
with the representation of Dt and P,

if v.” (see note * above) be disregarded, we have in
vv. 42 (Dillm.) ‘a good historical account of
the gradual advance of Manassites into the terri-
tory E. of Jordan, though not under, but after
Moses.’ By the Deut. writers, a large part of the
territory E. of Jordan, viz. ‘the rest of Gilead
(.e. the half of Gilead N. of the Jabbok ἢ), and all
Bashan, even all the region of ARGOB’ (Dt 3" +4), is
said to have been given specifically by Moses to
‘the half-tribe of Manasseh’ (cf. Dt 298, Jos 128
13° [LXX, Dillm.] * 187 227:+ for Bashan, also,
as belonging to Manasseh, Dt 44%, Jos 908 216 27),
The same half of the tribe is in Jos 115 414 (D2) also
represented as crossing over Jordan, together with
teuben and Gad, to assist the other tribes in the
conquest of Canaan:§ Jos 22'6 describes the
blessing with which Joshua sent them away to
their homes, when they had discharged this task.
According to Jos 22° (probably from a special
source, allied to P), the half-tribe took part with
Reuben and Gad in building the altar by Jordan,
which so nearly led to a rupture between the E.
and W. parts of Israel.

All these statements relate to the part of the
tribe settled E. of the Jordan. There was, how-
ever, another part settled W. of the Jordan ; and
J’s description of the territory belonging to this,
and of the manner in which it enlarged the lot
originally assigned to it, is preserved (imperfectly)
in Jos ]7!> 28-943. 100-18. (taken in connexion with
169°), In J’s account of the conquest, the two
divisions of the tribe, Ephraim and Manasseh, are
treated as one (16! 17!7 18°, Jg 123: 5. 5, where note
the expression ‘House of Joseph’); they receive

accordingly a single ‘lot’ (16'; ef. 174), the
borders of which are defined in 1013: the N.

border—which would be the N. border of Man-
asseli—is now missing. Jos 171°? describes how
the Manassite clans were distributed : Machir had
Gilead and Bashan; the other clans (Abi‘ezer,
Hlelek, Asriel, Shechem, Hepher, and Shemidw)
were settled (it is implied) in W. Palestine. Vv.*
%2, 10-13 || are fragments of J’s account of the cities
of W. Manasseh: all, however, that these frag-
ments state is that Tappuah, on its S. border,
belonged to Ephraim, and that on the N. the
towns of Beth-shean, Ibleam, Dor, En - dor,{
Taanach, and Megiddo, though actually in the
territories of Issachar and Asher, belonged in fact
to Manasseh, but that the Canaanites maintained
their ground in them (vv.!-®, with verbal dif-
ferences, =Jg 1518), The historical significance of
this statement is that on the N. Manasseh was
confined to the mountains and ‘cut off from the
fertile plain of Esdraelon and the tribes which
struggled for a foothold beyond it in Galilee by a
chain of fortified cities guarding the passes,’—Beth-
shean being in the Jordan Valley on the east,
Ibleam, Taanach, and Megiddo in the centre, where
the central highlands slope down into the plain,
and Dor on the seacoast, about 15 miles S. of
Carmel. There follows(vv.'418) the curious narrative
describing how the children of Joseph (i.e. Ephraim
and Manasseh together), finding the hill-country
insufficient for them, and being unable to make
their way into the plain on the N. on account of
the Canaanites, with their ‘chariots of iron,’ com-

* Cf. Jos 122.15 1381; the other, southern ‘half,’ belonged to
Gad (Dt 312),

t Vv.14. 15 are repetitions (in substance) of Nu 3241. 40, and
are, indeed, most probably a later insertion in the original text
of Dt (see Dillm.).

{ So also in P, Jos 1329 148,

ἃ In Nu 32 the command to do this is laid upon Reuben and
Gad; but nothing is said about its being laid upon the half-
tribe of Manasseh.

| On vv.5. 6 see Dillmann.

“| The clause relating to En-dor is, however, omitted in LXX
and in Jg 127; and its originality is questioned by Dillm..
Budde, Ri. u. S. p. 18; Moore, Judges, p. 46.

MANASSEH

MANASSEH 23%

plain to Joshua ; and are advised by him in reply,
if they are the great people that they claim to be,
to go up into the mountains and cut down the
forest there ὦ ον, apparently, augment their avail-
able territory by clearing the large thickly wooded
areas which it still contained (Stade, Gesch. 1. 163 ;
Dillm.)—and (v.!8*) apply themselves more vigor-
ously to expel the Canaanites. | Fragmentary,
and in parts obscure, as these notices of JE are,
they nevertheless show clearly how imperfectly,
for long after the Israelites first entered into
Canaan, the W. half of Manassel—in this re-
spect, indeed, not differing from many of the
other tribes (Jg 1)—obtained possession of its
territory.

The passage is undoubtedly obscure ; and Budde (7.4 Μ΄, 1887,
p. l23tf. = Rw. S. 1890, pp. 33 ff.,87), questioning thisexplanation
of the ‘forest,’ and developing further the opinion already ex-
pressed by previous scholars (e.g. Ewald, Hist, ii, 251, 299f.,
307, 321, 322; * Wellh., Mist. 445 ; Stade, Geseh. i, 149), that the
E. half of Manasseh was really, at least in part (Ewald), a colony
thrown out by the W. branch of the tribe, after its settlement
in Canaan, conjectured that Jos 171418 referred originally to
this undertaking, and that v.J8 read originally ‘but the hill-
country of Gilead shall be thine, urging in support of this
view that the children of Joseph could not have complained
that they had only ‘one lot,’ if besides their W. territory they
had already received from Moses a territory E. of Jordan; and
afterwards (7.4. W, 1888, p. 148, Ri. κι. S. pp. 88f., 60, 87) adopted
the suggestion of Valeton that Νὰ 3289. 41. 42 once followed Jos
171418, and described how the permission then given by Joshua
was acted upon. The conjecture is an attractive one, but too
bold, esp. in the transposition assumed for Nu 328% 41.42, to
be accepted with any confidence: had this, moreover, been
the original sense of the passage, some allusion to crossing
the Jordan (‘get thee over’ rather than ‘get thee wp’ in v.1,
for instance) might have been expected (cf. also HGHL p.
577 n.). Nevertheless, whether Budde’s view of these pas-
sages be accepted or not, Jg 514 (see the last paragraph of this
art.) undoubtedly lends probability to the opinion that the
Manassites on the E. of Jordan were really immigrants from
the West.

Of the later history of the tribe little specific is
known. It played no prominent or distinctive
part in the history of the nation. From the wild
and exposed character of the district which the E.
half of the tribe occupied, it may be inferred that
its members were «a brave and hardy race, able to
maintain their own in the face of opposition (cf.
Jos 171, Machir a ‘man of war,’ and 1Ch 5°,
the narrative of a successful enterprise in which
the E. Manassites took common part with Reuben
and Gad against the Hagrites and other neigh-
bouring tribes). Gideon in W. Manasseh (Jg 6”,
ef. v.5), and (probably) Jephthah in E. Manasseh
(Jeg 111, ef. v.%%), were brave and distinguished
members of the tribe. The strong Israelitish feel-
ing which characterized ‘Gilead’ (including E.
Manasseh), and the keen sense of common interests
which bound it closcly together with its brethren
W. of Jordan, are well brought out by G. A. Smith
(HGHL 578 ἢ). ‘The story of Jephthah throbs
with the sense of common interest between Gilead
and Ephraim.’ Jabesh-gilead, romantically con-
nected with the history of Saul (1S 11. 31), was
in all probability in E. Manasseh (about 20 m. 8.
of the Sea of Galilee). The tribe is specitied by
name in the Blessing of Moses, though characterized
as less numerous than Ephraim (Dt 3917, the ‘ ten
thousands of Ephraim,’ and the ‘ thousands of Man-
asseh’). Different districts of Manasseh (both E. and
W.) are mentioned in 1 Καὶ 411-|5 as supplying provision
for Solomon’s court during three months of the
year. One city of refuge, Golan, was in E. Manasseh
(Dt 4% αἰ.). The tribe suffered severely during
the Svrian wars (Am 1’, 2 K 10%; ef. 8 137). It
is implied in 2 K 15%, and stated expressly in 1 Ch
56, that the E. Manassites were included among
the trans-Jordanic Israelites transported by Tiglath-
pileser to different places in the Assyrian empire.
The statements in P respecting the numbers ΟἹ the

* Jg 124 is, however, an uncertain passage to rely upon in
support of this opinion ; see Moore, ad loc.

tribe at the time of the Exodus (32,200 at the first
census Nu 1, and 52,700 at the second census Nu
264), and (Nu 9:0) its position in the camp (W. of
the tabernacle, between Ephraim and Benjamin),
and on the march (vehind the tabernacle), have no
historical value; the numbers of the Manassite
warriors who, according to 1 Ch 1291. 88. attended
at the time of David’s coronation at Hebron, are
equally unhistorical. For other scattered notices
of the tribe, see Is 97, Ps 607=1088, 1 Ch 9" (in
the post-exilic community) 26°? 27°71, 2 Ch 15°
3001. 10. 1. 18 31}.

ii. The borders of the territory occupied by either
the W. or the E. half of Manasseh cannot be fixed
with precision. Of the W. half, the N. boundary
seems to have been approximately the imperfectly
defined line, where the hills slope down into the
plain of Esdraelon, touching Asher and Issachar
(Jos 17°) ; on the W. the border was the sea; on
the S. it began (on the W.) with the Wady Kanah,
perhaps (but see KANAH) a wady running up from
the W. in the direction of Shechem, at about 32°
8’-10' N., then, crossing this wady to the %., it
passed along by Tappuah (unknown) and Mich-
methath ‘in front of (1.6. E. of) Shechem’ to Asher,
according to the Onom. (222. 93), a village 15
miles N.E. of Shechem, on the road to Beth-shean,
thence (to judge from 16° 7) it turned back sharply
to the S. and passed down by Taanach-shiloh (7
miles S.E. of Shechem) and Naarah (in the Jordan
Valley, 5 miles N. of Jericho), as far as Jericho
itself ; the E. border was the Jordan. The E. half
of the tribe possessed, starting from the border city
Mahanaim (74. vv.2% 8, site uncertain; but near
the Jordan, and probably not far N. of the Jabbok
Gn 322, cf. vv.! 24), ‘half-Gilead’ (Jos 13*1), z.e. the
half N. of the Jabbok (see above) and all BASHAN
—the whole comprising the well-wooded and (espe-
cially in its N. part) remarkably fertile tract of
country stretching out northwards nearly to
Hermon (the kingdom of Og, Jos 121. 5, ef. 1 Ch

iil. The clans and subdivisions of Manasseh.—
In the enumeration of these there is much diversity ;
the different schemes will be apprehended most
clearly if presented in tabular form.

1. In J, then, we have the following genealogy
(Jos 171-2) —

Manasseh

| | | | | ae
Machir Abiezer Helek Asriel Shechem* Hepher Shemida’

Gilead
(with the art.,
the country).

2. But in P the genealogy is as follows (Nu
2678-34)
Manasseh
| 5
Machir
(hence the Machirites)
|
Gilead
(hence the Gileadites)
|

Pe | | |

Tezer® Helek Asriel Shechem ἢ Shemida’ Hesner
(the (the (the (the (the (the

*Tezer- Helek- Asriel- Shechem- Shemida’- Hepher-
ites) ites) ites) ites) ites) ites)

|
Zelophehad
|

| | | |
Mahlah noah Hoglah Milcah Tirzah>

awyx: in Jos 172, Jg 654 82, called Abi'ezer (1.3); so Jg
611. 24 892 the Ab? ezrite.

* Pointed D2, not (like the name of the place) D2z’

Ἐπ:

232 MANASSEH

MANASSES (PRAYER OF)

3. We have also (1 Ch 714-19)...

Manasseh = Aramitess concubine

Ma’ acah = Machir *
|
| Gilead Ϊ |
| Ishhod = Abi ezer

Peresh Sheresh
|

| tC
Ulam Rekem

Bedan

|
Ham-Molecheth
|

|
Mahlah

Zelophehad is also mentioned as the ‘second’ son
of some one, whose name does not appear, and
it is said that he had daughters: the sons
of Shemida’ are also enumerated, viz. Abhian,
Shechem, Likhi, and Aniam; but the text is evi-
dently either corrupt or defective ; and what place
Zelophehad and Shemida’ held in the genealogy is
not clear, though Berth. and Kuenen think that
Zelophehad is meant to be the second son of Man-
asseh.
4. There is, lastly (1 Ch 22!-3)—

Manasseh J cr

Γ. ἢ ae arate

: |
Machir Er Onan Shelah Perez Zerah
| |
|
|
a daughter =Iezron
|

Segub

|
Gilead Hamul

Jair
(‘ who had 23 cities in
the land of Gilead’),

It is impossible to harmonize these conflicting
schemes: it is manifest that they are diflerent
attempts to correlate and account for the principal
clans of Manasseh, or for the names of districts
colonized by it.+ Gilead is ‘son’ of Machir, simply
because the country was occupied by Machirite
clans. Abi‘ezer is mentioned in Jg Gi. 24. 34 ge. 82
as the family, or clan, to which Gideon belonged :
the other names, Helek, Asriel, etc., do not occur ex-
cept in the passages cited. The only point on which
the schemes all agree is in representing Machir as
‘son’ of Manasseh, and as ‘father’ of Gilead. In
other respects the conspicuous difference is that,
according to J, Machir is the eldest son of Man.
asseh, and the other clans, Abi'ezer ete., are co-
ordinated with him as his brethren ; Whereas in P
Machir is Manasseh’s only son, and the six clans,
Abi‘ezer, etc., are represented as being his descend-
ants, and in fact descended from him through his
son ‘Gilead.’ Thus, as regards Machir, three
Stages seem to be discernible in the manner in
which he was viewed. (1) In Jg 54 he represents
the West half of Manasseh. (2) In J (Jos 171b-2,
Nu 32°) he is the ancestor of the principal part of
the Last half of Manasseh, his brother clans being
located, it is implied, on the W. of Jordan. (3)
In P (Nu 265") he is the ancestor, through his
son ‘Gilead,’ of ail the Manassites, Eastern and
Western alike.

_ Accordingly, Jos 1381 (‘ even for,’ etc.), restricting what is said
in v.* of all the Machirites to halt of them, is (Kuen., Dillm.) a
correction of v.3la, made for the purpose of harmonizing it with
the representation of P (according to which, as Machir was

Manasseh’s only son, the E. half of the tribe could form only a
part of his descendants).

* Asriel in v.14 seems to be a corrupt anticipation of the
following words, ΠῚ ἼΣΝ (Berth., Kittel, Oettli, al.).

t Zelophehad and his daughters, who play such an important
part in the law of Hebrew inheritance, are, no doubt, historical
personages ; but among their ancestors there appears, in P, the
name of a country (cf. Jg 111),

It is hardly possible to interpret with confidence
the historical significance of these variations ; but
it is possible that the variation between Jg 54 and
1 may point to the fact that between the age of
Deborah and that of J Gilead had been conquered
by immigrants from the tribe of Manasseh settled
on the W. of Jordan ;* and that the representation
of P may imply that (vol. 11. p. 1290), ‘holding
Gilead to have been first conquered, as represented
in the Hex., he regarded the W. Manassites as
offshoots of the E. Manassites.’ In 3 the state-
ment that Manasseh’s concubine was an Aramitess
may be an indication that there was an admixture
of Aramiean blood in the tribe, especially in its
Eastern half; Ma‘acah, Machir’s ‘wife’ (1 Ch 710),
also suggests some connexion with the Aram.
tribe of Maacah, in the same neighbourhood
(Dt 34, Jos 13", 28 10° αἰ.). In 4 the connexion
with a clan of Judah, assumed for Jair, is remark-
able.

LITERATURE.—See, in addition to the authorities quoted (esp.
Dillm. on Nu 323942, and Jos 16-17), Kuenen’s essay on the
tribe of Manasseh, in 7’A7’, 1877, p. 478 ff. ; and cf. art. GENE-
ALOGY in vol. ii. p. 129 f. S. R. DRIVER.

MANASSES (Mavacoy B, -ῆἣς A).—1. 1 Es 9% =
MANASSEH, No. & 2. Judith’s husband, Jth 82,
8. An unknown person mentioned in the dying
words of Tobit as one who ‘ gave alms and escaped
the snare of death’ set for him by Aman (To 142°,
AV and RV, following LXX B Μανασσῆς). The
text of &, ἐν τῷ ποιῆσαί με (sic) ἐλεημοσύνην ἐξῆλθεν,
κιτιλ., Where the subject understood is Achia-
charus, maintains the parallelism with the preced-
ing clause, from which it repeats also the name
Nada instead of ᾿Αμάν of A, or Addu of B (ef. 1128,
where B reads Νασβᾶς, δὲ Ναβάδ, as the name of the
ungrateful nephew of Achiacharus). Cosquin 1}
Rev. Biblique, Jan. 1899, p. 52f., argues strenu
ously in favour of the reading of & in To 14!-
holding that Μανασσῆς is due simply to a scriba
error. See, further, NASBAS, Topir. 4 —=MAn-
ASSEH king of Judah in title of apocr. book. See
following article. J. A. SELBIE.

MANASSES (PRAYER OF).—In place of the
remote threats against Manasseh in 2 Καὶ 9111π|5 we
have in 2 Ch 33'!!8 an account of his just punish-
ment for his sins by captivity, his repentance and
restoration ; and in vv.!® 19 the statement that
other details of his life and his prayer were re-
corded in the Acts of the Kings of Israel, and in the
History of Hozai (or the Seers). Does the Greek
Prayer of Manasses of our Apocrypha go back to
this Prayer in the lost sources (or source) of Ch as
its Hebrew original; or is it a free Greek com-
position sugeested by Ch? Budde, after Ewald,
argues for the former view (ZA IW, 1892, p. 39 f.),
and Ball (in Speaker’s Com.) thinks it probable.
Fritzsche (σου. Handb. zu αἰ. Apok. i. 157) favoured
the latter view, on the ground that the Greek is
not a translation (so Schiirer). ;

The Prayer stands among the Canticles appende L
to the Psalter in some MSS of LXX. Swete (iii.
802 ff., cf. 11. pp. ix, xi) prints A with variants of
T (Psalterium Turicense). It is never found in
LXX of 2 Ch, and is often missing in Greek Psalters
which include the Canticles. It is found in the
Apost. Const. ii. 22. Nestle (Septuaginta Studien,
ill. 1899) argues that the text of our MSS A and T
comes from the Apost. Const. or from its original,
the Didascalia, and that the Prayer is not, as
hitherto supposed, cited in these works from a MS
of LXX. It appears in the Const. in connexion with
the entire story of Manasseh as ‘ written in 4 K

* So Ewald, Wellh., Stade, and Budde, as cited above ; Moore,
Judges, pp. 150f., 274f. ; Kittel, Gesch. ii. 69 (Eng. tr. ii. 76 f.] i
see also art. HAVVOTH-JAIR. ᾿

Ee “ΠΟ 2.

MANASSES (PRAYER OF)

MANDRAKE 233

and 2 Ch.’* We read that Manasseh was bound
with iron in prison, that bread made of bran and
water mixed with vinegar were given him in
scant measure, and that in such straits he humbled
himself before God and prayed. After the Prayer
the narrative proceeds: ‘And the Lord heard his
voice and had compassion upon him. And there
came aflame of tire about him, and all the irons
which were about him were melted: and the Lord
healed Manasseh from his affliction,’ etc. Julius
Africanus knew that ‘while M. was saying a
hymn his bonds burst asunder, iron though they
were, and he escaped’ (John Damasc. Paral. i.
15). He may therefore have read the Prayer in
this βού προ. Ὁ If it was written in this connexion,
its author showed more liturgical sense than his-
torical imagination ; for the allusions to Man-
asseh’s situation are hardly more explicit than
might be found, for example, in Ps 107!%1°,

Jewish traditions show no knowledge of our
Prayer, though they add details to the story of
Ch. Manasseh was put into an iron mule, be-
neath which a fire was kindled. He prayed to the
idols which he had served, and at last to the God
of his fathers. ‘ Lord of the universe, wilt thou
allow the man who has served idolatry and put an
idol in the court of the temple to repent?’ God
answered, ‘If I do not receive his repentance
that will shut the door to all penitents’ (Jerus.
Sanhed. x.2. See also Midr. rab. Dt 2 and Midr.
rab. Ru 2!*; ef. Midr. rab. Lv 30). The story of
Manasseh’s conversion was rather a problem than
a comfort to the Rabbis, and the Mishna (Sanhed.
x. 2) decides that he was restored only to his king-
dom, not to his part in the world to come (but cf.
Gemara). So in Apoc. Bar 64, where the tradition
is already known that ‘he was cast into the brazen
horse, and the horse was heated’; though ‘his
prayer was heard,’ yet the fire from which God
then delivered him was only a sign of the fire with
which the same God would afterwards torment
him.

Does our Prayer itself contain any evidence
which indicates a Hebrew or a Greek original,
an early or a late date?

The petitioner calls on the Lord almighty,
heavenly (cf. 3 Mac 658), ‘the God of our fathers,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous
seed,’ who created heaven and earth and bound
and sealed the ocean (ef. Job 38°) ete.), whose
glory all things fear, and whose anger is toward
sinners (vv.'°); who is yet a God of compassion
and repents of evils (=Jl 2%, Jon 4%). [In his
goodness he has appointed to sinners repentance
unto salvation (Swete (47) omits)]. But ‘the
God of the righteous has not appointed repent-
ance to the righteous, to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, who have not sinned,’ but ‘to me the
sinner’ (vv.°3). He confesses his sins, for which he
is bowed down by many an iron band (cf. Ps 107"),
especially his setting up abominations and multi-
plying offences. With humble confession he prays
for forgiveness and salvation from death, since
God is “ the God of the penitent,’ and can show all
His goodness only toward the unworthy (vv.%?).

This is a fine penitential prayer, deserving its
ancient place in the Christian Psalter, casting a
favourable light on the age and community that
produced it. That it is Jewish there can be no
doubt [but see Swete in Expository Times, xi. (1899)
p. 38f.]. But the Greek nowhere requires a Hebrew
original, though it cannot be said to exclude its
possibility. The belief that through repentance

* The passage is made up about as follows: 2 Καὶ 2021-2116,
2 Ch 3311, addition, 3312. 15a, Pr. Man, add., 3314b, add., 3315. 16.
20a.c 22, There follows a Midrashic form of the story of Amon’s
reign.

_ t Cf. later references in Fabricius, Biblioth. grec., ed. Harles,
ii, 732 f.

ὃ sinner can gain forgiveness is contained as
clearly in the story of Manasseh in Chron. as in
the Prayer, and does not point to a time ‘not long
before the Christian era’ (Westcott in Smith’s
DB). It has, indeed, deep roots in the OT.
There the hope for forgiveness and grace some-
times rests on the forgiving nature of God as
Ex 34° 7 proclaims it,* sometimes more directly on
the merit of the fathers, or God’s promises to
them.{+ The efficacy for sinners of the merit of
the righteous was early disputed (Gn 18", Jer 15},
Ezk 1415. °°), but the tendency of rabbinical Judaism
was to put chief stress upon it (cf. Mt 3°; Weber,
Die Lehren d. Talmud, § 63; Ass. Mos. 3° 42° 1127),
while Hellenistic Judaism was less national and
more ethical in character.

This suggests a test by which our Prayer may
be judged. It is a mistake to find in it an appeal
to the merit of the patriarchs. They are simply
the righteous, toward whom and toward their
righteous seed, God is only just. The sinner
cannot appeal to them, but only to that quality
of the Divine nature, compassion, which has no
application to the righteous. It is only as a
repentant sinner, not as a Jew, that the petitioner
appeals to God. The only distinction recognized
is that between the righteous and sinners, but
God is believed to be ‘the God of the penitent’ as
well as ‘the God of the righteous.’ It was
Hellenistic Judaism that regarded the patriarchs
chiefly as examples of righteousness (4 Mac 2? 17-19
35H 1620-22; Philo, de Abra. ete.; see also contrast
between Sir 44-49 and Wis 10-19). The Book of
Wisdom bases forgiveness only on the nature of
God (1123-122: 1% 1. 15-19) - and a book in which rab-
binical and Hellenistic elements are united ex-
presses just the thought of our Prayer, ‘ because
of us sinners thou art called merciful,’ ete. (2 Es
8*0-86), These considerations favour the view that
our book is not a translation of the old Hebrew
prayer in the source of Chron., but a Hellenistic
composition. The date cannot be determined, but
the eschatology of the expressions, ‘ Do not con-
demn me in the lowest parts of the earth’; ‘I will
praise thee always in the days of my life,’ seems
early rather than late.

The Prayer was not revised by Jerome, and is
not in the Vulgate canon. According to Nestle, it
may be said to owe its rank as a semi-biblical book
to Luther, since before him it appears in no list of
canonical or apocryphal books. It is not found in
many editions of the LXX. Details in regard to
texts and editions are given by Nestle. Cf. Apoc-
RYPHA.

LivERATURE.—Teat.—Fritzsche, Lib, Apocr. VT, and Swete,
OT in Greek. See also Nestle, Septuaginta Studien, iii. 1899.

Commentaries. -—Fritzsche (1851), C. J. Ball (Speakers Com,
1888). See also V. Ryssel’s translation of the Prayer (with
critical and exegetical notes) in Kautzsch’s Apocryphen τι.
Pseudepigraphen d, AT’, 1899. Ἐν Ὁ. PORTER.

MANDRAKE (ot diid@im, μῆλα μανδραγορῶν,
pavdpayopai, mandragore).—The Heb. word (in Gn
3048, Ca 7}*) means ‘love-plants.’ The ancient VSS
agree in translating the word ‘mandrake.’ Numbers
of other plants have been suegested, as bramble-
berries, Zizyphus Lotus, L., the sidr of the Arabs,
the banana, the lily, the citron, and the fig. But
none of these renderings is supported by satis-
factory evidence. The mandrake, Mandragora
officinarum, L., is a plant of the order Solanacee,
called by the Arabs ἐπα, or beid el-jinn (i.e.
‘genie’s eges’). The parsley-shaped root is often

* e.g. Hos 515-68, Jer 187-10, Ezk 18, 3310-20, Ig 656.7, J] 212-14,
Jon 3°19, Ps 32. 51. 86 (δ. 15) 10318) 130, 1458, Sir 211 1724-29 1811.12
yy After Ex 315, e.g. Ex 8211-14, Dt 925-29, 1 K 846-53 1936, 2 Ch
207-9, Ps 195, Neh 9, Lk 154. 55. 72f, The two appeals are united
in Mic 718-20, Dn 93-19,

234 MANEH.

MANGER

branched. The natives mould this root into a rude
resemblance to the human figure, by pinching a
constriction a little below the top, so as to make a
kind of head and neck, and twisting off the upper
branches except two, which they leave as arms,
and the lower, except two, which they leave as
legs. This root gives olf at the surface of the
ground arosette of ovate-oblong to ovate, wrinkled,
crisp, sinuate-dentate to entire leaves, 6 to 16 In.
long, somewhat resembling those of the tobacco-
plant. There spring from the neck a munber of
one-flowered nodding peduncles, bearing whitish-
green flowers, nearly 2 in. broad, which produce
globular, succulent, orange to red berries, resem-
bling small tomatoes, which ripen in late spring.
The ancients used the mandrake as a love philtre
(Gn 304-6) ‘They believed that he who in-
cautiously touched a root of it would certainly
die. Josephus (27 vil. vi. 3) gives the following
directions for pulling it up. ‘A furrow must be
dug around the root until its lower part is exposed,
then a dog is tied to it, after which the person
tying the dog must get away. The doe then
endeavours to follow him, and so easily pulls up
the root, but dies suddenly instead of his master.
After this the root can be handled without fear.’
The ancients also believed that this root gave a
demoniacal shriek as it was pulled up. The
‘smell’ of the mandrakes (Ca 713) is the heavy
nareotic odour of the Solanaceous plants. The
allusion to it in this connexion doubtless refers to
its specific virtues. G. E. Post.

MANEH.—Sce WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

MANES (Mdvys, AV Eanes, due to a misprint
’Havys for Mavys in the Aldine ed.), 1 Es 9*!.—One
of those who agreed to put away their ‘strange’
wives. RVim identifies the name with Harim in
Ezr 1071; more probably, perhaps, it takes the place
of the two names Maaseiah, Elijah.

MANGER. The NT tr. of φάτνη in three places
out of the four where the word occurs (Lk 91:15. 38),
and in RVin of the fourth (Lk 13", where ‘stall’ is
inthe text). The chief OT Eng. equivalent is ‘ crib,’
Heb. ‘ehis (fattening - place), LXX always φάτνη
(Job 995, Pr 144, Is 1°); while φάτνη is also the
LXX rendering (once in each case) of "wreak
(‘ collecting-place’ or ‘collected herd’), AV and
RV ‘stall, 2 Ch 32°; of repheth (not occurring
except at Hab 317, but probably=Arabie raffat,
‘herd’ or ‘stall’), AV and RV ‘stall’; and,
possibly, of bcedil (‘food’), AV and RV < fodder,’
Job 6°, if the Heb. be not represented rather by
the otherwise superfluous βρώματα. Tt seems clear
(from such a parallelism as in 2 Ch 328 ‘stalls for
all manner of beasts and folds (lit. treasure-houses)
for flocks,’ and likewise from such companionship
as in Pr 144 ‘where no oxen are, the crib is clean’),
that, like the Latin presepe and our erth, φάτνη
in the LXX signified not only, as in classical
Greek, a manger, but also, metonymically, the
stall containing the manger; an extension due
bnmediately, perhaps, to some of its Heb. originals.

This ambiguity in the meaning of φάτνη would
be of small moment but that it affects the story of
the Nativity. Did the mother of our Lord lay her
babe in a wenger or ina stall? And is the very
early tradition that the birth took place in a cave
inconsistent with the NT narrative? These ques-
tions cannot be decisively answered either (as has
been shown) from the word itself, or from the con-
text, or from our knowledge of the customs of the
time. There is an ambiguity about κατάλυμα, ‘the
inn’? (AV and RV), as well as about φάτνη. This
was not an inn in the modern sense of the term,
nor apparently even such an approximation to it

as the more regularly organized πανδοχεῖον of Lk
104, with its πανδοχεύς, host or managing tétendant,
who provided necessaries and was paid for then.
All that we can be sure of as to κατάλυμα is that it
was a resting-place where animals were relieved of
their packs (καταλύω, ‘I let down’), and where
travellers ungirded their garments. But Lk 22",
Mk 14% (cf. Swete), bring the word before us in
another sense—that of ἃ quest-room (‘ My κατάλυμα,
sald Jesus, according to Mk), one of the rooms com-
monly and hospitably lent, perhaps, for the occa-
sion, to parties of strangers visiting Jerusalem for
the passover. For this the ‘master of the house’
seems to have substituted, in the case of Jesus and
His disciples, the more private and fully furnished
ἀνάγαιον, upper chamber (Lk 251). When, there-
fore, it is said (Lk 27), ‘{She] laid [the babe] in a
φάτνη, because there was no room for them in
the κατάλυμα,᾽ our ignorance of the exact mean-
ing of κατάλυμα dept ves us of its guidance to the
exact meaning of the alternative φάτνη ; while the
absence (according to the best documents) of the
article with φάτνη leaves us at liberty to believe
that the φάτνη was not connected with the κατά-
Auua. At first sight the antithesis seems to
require that the φάτνη should be a kind of room
corresponding to the superior κατάλυμα, though of
course the sentence may be elliptical and the
manger may be picked out as the special feature
in the corresponding room not itself mentioned.

But, if the κατάλυμα was anything like the
modern khan, it was a rest-house like those exist-
ing in the East, outside towns, as unfurnished
places of gratuitous lodgment during the night
for strangers, and containing (as to the ruder sort)
two contiguous portions not very distinctly divided
—the one for the travellers, and the other for their
animals; and (as to the better sort) a central
(usually roofless) court, with cells for travellers
opening out upon it, and, beyond these, just
within the outside wall, stalled places for the
beasts of burden. Tf this be so, then Joseph and
Mary, finding the travellers’ portion full, probably
abode in one of these stalled places, and the babe
was laid either in the stall or in the manger be-
longing to the stall. Or, as Tristram suggests
(Land of Israel, pp. 73), they took refuge in some
poor cottage close by, similar to one wherein he
himself had seen a community of shelter for man
and beast, the dwelling portion (to which, for one
reason or another, Joseph and Mary were not
invited) being an upper platform ascended by a few
steps; and the Jower portion being half granary
half stable, and containing a long earthen trough
which served for a manger. ‘Tristram’s sugges-
tion has this additional element of probability,
that, if the rest-house was full, the stalled places
attached to it were likely to be full also.

The tradition that Jesus was born in a cave
near Bethlehem is at least as early as the first
decade of the 2nd cent., and is found in Justin
(Trypho, 78), in the Arabic Gospel of the Infuncy
(c. 2, p. 181, Tisch.), in Origen (c. Celts. 1. 51),—
who says that the cave and the manger were
shown in his day,—in Epiphanius (Her. li. 9) and
in Eusebius (Vita Constant. iii. 48, Dem. Ev. vii. 2).
The cave as the place of birth is mentioned also in
the Protevangel of James (c. 18), but in ὁ. 22 the
swaddling and the ‘crib for oxen’ are referred to
the time of the massacre of the Innocents, and the
crib (the Babe’s hiding-place) is not connected in
any way with the cave, while neither here nor in
the Gospel of the Infancy is the cave connected
with an ‘inn.’ Eus. and Epiphan. (see Nestle,
Vite Prophetarum, p. 8) both affirm that the cave
story appears in 1 ἀπὸ while Anastasius of Sinai
(Vie dux, ¢c. 1, p. 6) assigns it to ‘unwritten
tradition. Resch, (Zezte, x. 3) sees in the una

——

MANI

MANIFOLD 235

nimity of the cave tradition a sign that it belongs
to the original source of the Infancy history, and
from the varieties of phraseology in the Greek
narratives he conjectures that this source was
Hebrew. [Ὁ has been suspected (with what proba-
bility it is impossible to say) that the cave story
grew out of the prophecy, Is 33!° (* He shall dwell
in a lofty cave,’ LXX), just as the prophecy in
regard to Shiloh, Gin 49", led to the later addition
in Lk 105) (‘a colt tied fo α ving’). See Justin,
Apol. i. 32. Thomson, Land and the Book (vol. on
Central Palestine and Phanicia, p. 35) says that
many inns or khans have caverns below them,
where cattle are sheltered, and where, built along
the walls, are stone mangers which, ‘cleaned out
and whitewashed as they often are in summer
when not required for the animals, would make
suitable cribs in which to lay little babies.’ He
does not, however, say that he ever saw any little
babies in them except his own. Over such a
grotto, near Bethlehem, called the Grotto of the
Nativity, now stands the Church of St. Mary ; and
the grotto contains a manger ; but (adds Thomson)
‘the real manger was transported to Rome.’
LireratuRE.—Petri Horrei, Miscell. critic. libri duo, ii. pp.
241-416 (utrum de spelunca an de stabulo), Leovardiw, 1738 ;
Schleusner, Lewic. Vet. Test. φάτνη; Plummer on Lk 27 (nter-
nat. Comm.) ; Mever-Weiss, tbid.; Farrar’s Life of Christ, p.
12 (illust. ed.) ; Keim, Jesus of Nazara (Eng. tr.), ii. 80; Eders-
heim, Life and Times of Jesus, i. 185, ii. 483; Texte und
Untersuchungen (Gebhardt and Harnack), x. 5, pp. 124 ff.; and
Thomson’s Land and the Book, and Tristram’s Land of Israel, as
above quoted. J. MASSIE,

MANI (Mavi), 1 Es 9°=BAntr, Ezr 10”, as he is
called in 1 Es δ᾽" (Baveé).

MANIFEST.—The verb to ‘manifest’ is used
actively, passively, and reflexively. The active
use Is seen in Ec 318 (the only occurrence of the
word in OT), “1 said in mine heart concerning the
estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest
them, and that they, might see that they them-
selves are beasts’ (072?, RV ‘that God may prove
them’); and Jn 176 “1 have manifested thy name
unto the men which thou gavest me out of the
world’ (ἐφανέρωσα ; RV “1 manifested’). In Jn 24
AV has ‘manifest forth’ (‘manifested forth his
glory’) for the same verb, RV ‘manifested.’ It is
a favourite verb with St. John, occurring 9 times
in the Gospel and 9 times in the First Epistle,
which are nearly half its occurrences in NT. The
AV usually renders it ‘manifest’ or ‘make mani-
fest,’ but also ‘appear’ (Mk 1614, 2 Co 5” 712,
Col 34, He 9%, 1 P 54, 1 Jn 2% 32, Rev 318), ‘shew’
(Jn 74 211), and ‘manifestly declare’ (2 Co 85).
RV everywhere has either ‘manifest’ or ‘make
manifest.’ The retlexive use of the verb ‘to mani-
fest’ is found in Jn 147-2; the passive is more
common. ‘The past ptep. is twice ‘manifest’ in-
stead of ‘manifested,’ viz. 1 Ti 3" ‘God was
manifest in the flesh’ (θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; RV,
reading ὅς for θεύς, ‘He who was manifested in the
flesh’); and 1 P 12° ‘who verily was foreordained
before the foundation of the world, but was mani-
fest in these last times for you’ (φανερωθέντος, RV
‘was manifested’). The meaning is not exactly
the same as now, if indeed we use the verb ‘to
manifest’ at all. It is to uncover, lay bare,
reveal. Cf. Cromwell (in Prolegoniena to Tindale’s
Pent. by Mombert, p. xlii), ‘The Kinge highnes
therfor hathe commaunded me to advurtyse you
that is plesure ys, that ye should desiste and leve
any ferther to persuade or attempte the sayde
Tyndalle to cum into this realbne ; alledging, that
he perceyving the malycyous, perverse, uncharyt-
able, and indurate mynde of the sayd Tyndall, ys
in man[er] with owt hope of reconsylyacyon in
hym, and is veray joyous to have his realme

destytute of such a person, then that he should
retourne into the same, there to manyfest his
errours and sedyceyous opynyons.’? An earlier
meaning—‘ detect,’ ‘disclose’—is seen in Rhem.
NT, Mt 8 bing «beyond the sea he manifesteth
the devil’s malice agaynst man in an heard of
swine.’

The adj. ‘manifest’ signifies ‘open to sight, un-
covered’ (not ‘evident to reason,’ as now). ‘Thus
Wis 12” ‘thou makest their boldness manifest’ (τὸ
θράσος ἐξελέγχεις ; RV ‘ puttest their boldness to con-
fusion’); He 415 ‘ Neither is there any creature that
is not manifest in his sight’ (ἀφανής) ; 98 ‘the way
into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest’
(μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι) ; 1 Jn 3 ‘In this the children
of God are manifest, and the children of the devil’
(φανερά ἐστι τὰ τέκνα). Cf. Shaks. 1 Menry VI.
I. ili. 88, ‘Stand back, thou manifest conspirator.’

The adv. manifestly means openly, visibly,
2 Ἐπ 14° ‘In the bush [ did manifestly reveal
myself unto Moses’ (revelans revelatus sun);
2 Mac 3° ‘manifestly they acknowledged the
power of God’ (davepws). Ct. Dt 278 Tind. ‘And
thou shalt write uppon the stones all the wordes of
this lawe, manyfestly and well’; and Rhem. NT,
Lk 8 heading «He preacheth to the [ewes in parables
because of their reprobation ; but to the Disciples
manifestly, because he wil not for the Iewes
incredulity have his cumming frustrate.’

Manifestation occurs but rarely, Wis 19 ‘the
sound of his words shall come unto the Lord
for the manifestation of his wicked deeds’ (εἰς
ἔλεγχον ; AVim ‘for the reproving,’ RV ‘to bring
to conviction’); Ro 8 «For the earnest expecta-
tion of the creature waiteth for the manifestation
of the sons of God’ (τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν, RV ‘the re-
vealing’); 1 Co 127 ‘the manifestation of the Spirit
is given to every man to profit withal’ (ἡ davépwors),
and 2 Co 4? ‘by manifestation of the truth’ (τῇ
φανερώσει, RV ‘by the manifestation’). So Lk 189
Rhem., ‘And the childe grew, and was strength-
ened in spirit, and was in the deserts until the day
of his manifestation to Israel.’ J. HASTINGS.

MANIFOLD is properly ‘of many kinds,’ ‘ vari-
ous,’ as Howell, Letters, iv. 47, ‘The Calamities
and Confusions which the late Wars did bring
upon us were many and manifold.’ And so it is
used sometimes in AV: Wis 72 ‘in her is an
understanding spirit, holy, one only, manifold’
(πολυμερές, Vule. mdtiplec); 1P 16 ‘Ye are in
heaviness through manifold temptations’ (ἐν ποι-
κίλοις πειρασμοῖς) ; ἢ 410 ‘as good stewards of the
manifold grace of God’ (ποικίλης xdpiros) ; Eph 3!°
‘the manifold wisdom of God’ (ἡ πολυποίκιλος
copia, the only occurrence of this word in NT.
See Abbott, im doc.). But elsewhere the word
means no more than ‘many,’ Neh 9-27 “manifold
mercies’ (0°22, LXX πολλοί); Am 513 ‘manifold
transgressions’ (0°22, LXX πολλοί) ; Ps 1042: ‘ How
manifold are thy works’ (ara2; LXX ὡς ἐμεγα-
λύνθη; Vule. quam magnificata); Sir 51 ‘from
the manifold afflictions which I had’ (ἐκ πλειόνων
θλίψεων).

In Lk 180 ‘manifold’ is an adv., ‘There is no man
that hath left house . who shall not receive
manifold more’ (πολλαπλασίονα, Vule. malto plura;
Wye. ‘many mo thingis’; Tind. ‘moche moore,’
and all VSS till the Bishops ‘manifold more’).
The adv. ‘manifoldly’ is used in Rhem. NT,

* The adj. attached to these temptations, says Salmond
(Pop. Com. on NT’, iv. 158), is used in the classics to describe
the many-coloured leopard or peacock, the colour-changing
Proteus, the richly-wrought robe or carpet, the changeful
months, the intricate oracles. What a picture does this
epithet ‘manifold,’ which is applied by St. Peter also to the
grace of God (410), by St. James again to temptation (12), and
elsewhere to such things as the divers diseases healed by
Christ (Mt 424), present of the number, the diversity, and the
changetulness of these trials !

236 MANIUS

MANNER

Mt 27beading <The chiefe of the Iewes accuse him
to Pilate (his betrayer, and the Iudge, and the
Tudge’s Wife, testifying in the meane time mani-
fodly (sic) his innocencie).’ J. HASTINGS.

MANIUS, AV MANLIvS (Mdmos A and V, Syr. ;
Μάνλιος al., Manlius Vulg.).—According to 2 Mae
11°88 Quintus Memmius and Titus Manius were
two Roman legates (πρεσβῦται) in the East, who
sent a letter to the Jews after the first campaign
of Lysias (B.c. 163), confirming the concessions
made by the Syrian chancellor. But there are
many reasons against accepting as genuine either
this letter or the three others contained in the
same chapter. From 1 Mae 4:69 it appears that
the first expedition of Lysias took place in B.c.
165, before the re-dedication of the temple and the
death of Antiochus Epiphanes. No mention is
there made of negotiations between the Jews and
Lysias, who is simply stated to have returned to
Antioch to collect new forces. The supposed con-
cessions seem to rest upon a confusion of this
expedition with a second, which took place about
three years later. The names given to the Roman
commissioners raise further difliculties. Polybius
records the names of several Roman degati in Asia
about this period, but neither Ὁ. Memmius nor T.
Manius is to be found among them. Possibly
one of the persons intended was Manius Sergius,
who, with C. Sulpicius, was sent to Syria shortly
before the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (Polyb.
XXXI. ix. 6, cf. xil. 9, xxiii. 9). It is, moreover, a
suspicious circumstance that the date of the sup-
posed Roman letter should be exactly the same as
that of the letter of Eupator (15th of Xanthicus,
v.*), and that the year should be given according
to the Seleucid era. Finally, we learn from 1 Mac 8
that Judas Maceabieus first entered into com-
munication with the Romans after the landing of
Demetrius (B.c. 162) and the death of Nicanor.
It is, no doubt, possible that some foundation of
fact underlies the correspondence contained in
2 Mac 11, but in their present form and present
connexion none of the letters can be regarded as

historical. (Cf. Rawlinson and Zickler, ad loc.).
H. A. WHITE.
MANKIND.—In Ly 18°? 20 ‘mankind’ means

men as opposed to women, the male sex. Cf.
Shaks. Timon of Athens, Iv. iii. 491—
‘T love thee,

Because thou art a woman, and disclaim’st
Flinty mankind.’

MANLY, MANLINESS.—‘ Manly’ occurs once as
an adj. (2 Mac 7* ‘with a manly stomach,’ ἄρσενι
θυμῷ, RV ‘with manly passion’), and once as an
adv. (2 Mac 10% ‘Twenty young men... assaulted
the wall manly,’ ἀῤῥενωδῶς, RV “with masculine
force’). ‘Manliness’ is used in 1 Mace 455. 2 Mac
81 1418 of the valour of soldiers in battle.

MANNA (13 min; LXX μάννα; Vulg. man, manhu,
manna).—A substance which fell along withthe dew,
or was rained around the Hebrews’ camp during
their 40 years’ wilderness life. It was in flakes or
small round grains, like hoarfrost, white, in appear-
ance like coriander seed or bdellinm, and in taste
was like thin flour-cakes with honey, or like fresh
oil (Ex 16)4- 5-3!) Nu 117-8). It was gathered every
morning except on Sabbath, and a double portion
on Friday morning. Τ kept overnight it became
corrupt, and bred worms, except on the Sabbath
day. The supply continued until they came to a
land inhabited, to the border of Canaan, Ex 16%6
(P); or until they reached Gilgal, in the plain of
vericho, and ate the old corn of the land, Jos 5!
(JE). During this time it was the chief part of
their diet, but not their only food (Lv 82 263! 94 1012

24°, Nu 73.198. Dt 26, Jos 14). It is said to owe its
name to the question s37 72 mdn hit, ‘what * is it?’
ν. 15. (EK), asked by the people when it fell. For
Egyptian aftinities of the word, see Brugsch,
HIWB vi. 606; Ebers, Gosen, 236. As a perpetual
memorial of this provision, Aaron was told to place
a zinzeneth (pot or basket) full of it before the
Testimony (Ex 16°), which was in the ark (2510),
This vessel was of gold, He 9’, but was not itself
in the ark as there stated (see 1 K 8°). The manna
is mentioned also in Neh 9*°, and in Ps 78%, where
it is called the ‘corn of heaven’ and the ‘bread of
the mighty.’

Our Lord speaks ef the manna as typical of
Himself, the true bread from heaven, conferring
immortality on those who spiritually become par-
takers of His grace, Jn 6%: ὅτ. St. Paul ealls it
‘spiritual meat,’ and seems to regard it and the
stream from the smitten rock as a type of the
Eucharist (1 Co 105), The ‘hidden manna’ is one
of the rewards of ‘him that overcometh,’ Rev 917,

A sweet, semifluid substance called mann or
mann es-samd (“heavenly manna’) exudes in drops
from the tarfa tree (lamarix mannifera, Ehr.),
the bvx of the Hebrews, when it is punctured by
an insect, Gossyparia mannipara (Hardwicke,
Asiat. Research, xiv. 182, also Ehrenberg, but
doubted by Ritter). This is collected in the desert
by Arabs, and sold to pilgrims. A second kind,
the terengabina of Ibn Sina, is yielded by a thorny
leguminous shrub, Alhagi Camelorum, Fisch., and
other allied species in Arabia and neighbouring
countries. A third sort, the Sirachosta of the
Arabians, is yielded by Cotoneaster nummularia in
Herat (Haussknecht). Niebuhr describes a kind
found on oaks, called ‘a/fs or ballét, at Mardin in
Digarbekr, This oak-honey is mentioned by
Hesiod, Op. et Di. v. 230f., and Ovid, Meé. i. 119.
For stories of manna found on the ground in open
places, not dropping from plants, see Athenzeus,
Deipnos. xi. 102, and Wellsted, Arabia, ii. 409.

The manna of commerce (not now in the Phar-
macopa@ia) is a sickly-smelling, sweet, laxative
exudation from the flowering ash Fraxinus Ornus,
L., and F. rotundifolia, and mostly comes from
Calabria. None of these could be the manna of
Exodus, which was a miraculous substance. These
only flow in small quantities, and all the tamarisks
in the desert could not have yielded the daily pro-
vision of more than 300 tons. ‘They only flow at
special seasons—May to August (Burckhardt), or
August and September (Breydenbach, Reisshuch,
i. 193). They are physiologically insufficient as
food, can keep indefinitely, and could not be cooked
as the manna was. The Sabbatic intermission and
final cessation likewise show that it was not a
natural substance; besides, while it could be
ground in mills, beaten in mortars, seethed in pots,
or baked by artificial heat into cakes, yet, if not
gathered, it volatilized in the heat of the sun.

LITERATURE.—The old authors are quoted and summarized in
Fabri, Historia Manne, in Fabri and Reiske’s Opuse. Med.
Arab. 1776, p. 88, and Reinke, Beitrdge zur Erkldrung d. Alt.
Test. v. 305. See also Rosenmiiller, Alterthumskunde, iv. 316,
and Curmann’s account given by Oedmann, Verm/schte Samm-
lungen aus der Naturkunde, vi. 7; cf. also Wellsted, Burck-
hardt, Ehrenberg (who figures the tarfii), and Forskal.

A. MACALISTER.

MANNER.—The word ‘manner,’ to be traced
back to Lat. manus, the hand, may be said to
be originally the way of handling or managing

* Properly ‘who’?, as is pointed out by Dillm.-Ryssel, Ex-Lv,
p. 189, and Hommel, 4H7' 2764. The argument of the latter,

os
that man (Arab. |.) hu proves that the early Hebrews spoke
a pure Arabian dialect, is dealt with in Eapos. Times, ix. p. 478,
by Ed. Konig, who doubts whether man hu was originally

meant to be a question. It might be an imitation of an Egyp
word mannu (so Ebers, Durch Gosen zum Sinav2, 236 f.).

-

—— ΣΣΣ

MANNER

MANNER 237

a thing. Its uses in AV are sometimes obsolete,
more often archaic and misleading.

1. Method of action, way, as Mt 6° ‘ After this
manner therefore pray ye’ (οὕτως) ; Lk 6% ‘In the
like manner did their fathers unto the prophets’
(xara ταῦτα, edd. κατὰ τὰ αὐτά); He 11] ‘in divers
manners’ (πολυτρόπως).

2. Habitual method of action, custom, as Ru 47
‘This was the manner in former time in Israel
concerning redeeming’ (RV ‘ecustom’); Am 81!
‘They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say,
Thy god, O Dan, liveth; and, The manner of
Beer-sheba liveth?’ (yaya 772; RV ‘the way of
Beersheba,’ RVm ‘the manner’); * 2 Mae 418 “Such
was the height of Greck fashions, and increase of
heathenish manners’ (πρύσβασις ἀλλοφυλισμοῦ, RV
‘an advance of an alien religion’); 6° * Whoso
would not conform themselves to the manners of
the Gentiles should be put to death’ (μεταβαίνειν
ἐπὶ τὰ Ἑλληνικά ; RV ‘go over to the Greek rites’).

3. Sometimes it is custom in its origin, the
regulation, or ordinance that afterwards becomes
fixed as habit. Thus nov is often tr. ‘manner,’
when RV prefers ‘ordinance’ in Ly 5! 739 9/6,
Nu 914 1526: 24 996. 18. 51. 24, 27. 80. 38.37 Ch 249 ὁ Ch
4°, Neh 8.8. ‘order’ in 2 Ch 30%; ‘judgement’
in Ezk 23%%is; and leaves the rest unchanged
(Gn 40%, Ex 219, Lv 24”, Jos 6%, Jg 187,1 Κα 89.11
10%, 1 Καὶ 18%, 2 K 17 1] 1728 dis. ὅτ. 38. 40 Joy 3018),
See also 2S 7!9* And is this the manner of man,
O Lord God?’ (oqx7 min, AVm ‘the law of man,’
RV ‘and this too after the manner of men,’ RVm
‘and is this the law of man?’)+; Est 913 ‘accord-
ing to the manner of the women? (o°¢37 nia, RV
‘according to the law for the women’); Ac 223
‘Taught according to the perfect manner of the
law of the fathers’
νόμου, RV ‘according to the strict manner of the
law,’ lit. ‘the strictness of the law’: it-is the
only occurrence of ἀκρίβεια in NT). Cf. Tindale’s
tr. of Nu 15% « All the multitude shall offer a calfe
for a burntofferynge to be a swete sivoure unto
the Lorde, and the meatofferynge and the drynk-
offerynge there to, accordynge to the maner’;
and of 19! ‘And this shalbe unto the childern
of Israel and unto the straunger that dwelleth
amonge them, a maner for ever,’

4. Personal behaviour, conduct, as Sir 317 ‘Leave
off first for manner’s sake’ (χάριν παιδείας) ; 2 Mac
5” ‘He left governors... at Jerusalem, Philip
... for manners more barbarous, than he that
set him there’ (τὸν δὲ τρύπον, RV ‘in character’) ;
Ac 13! “And about the time of forty years suttered
he their manners in the wilderness” (AVm ‘Gr.

* This passage is obscure. The Heb. word is the usual one
for a way or path, and so Driver takes it here, quoting from
G. A. Smith and Doughty as to the Arabic custom of swearing
by the way to a place. This is apparently the tr. of Vulg.
Vivit Deus tuus Dan et vivit via Bersabee, and of Wye. ‘the
waye of Bersabe lyveth,’ and of Douay. Coverdale and the
Bishops follow the LXX (zai ζῇ ὁ θεός σον, Bugouw Zee), thus Cov.
‘as truly as thy God lyveth at Bersaba.’ The AV tr. is from
the Gen. version, which has the marg. ‘That is, the commune
maner of worshiping and the service or religion there used.’
Thus the meaning of AV is ‘manner of worship,’ ‘cult,’ and
that meaning W. R. Smith favours, though doubtfully (2,82 182),
‘In Am 814 there is mention of an oath by the way (ritual?) of
Beersheba.’ See BrersikBa. The Heb, word derek is fre-
quently trd ‘manner’ in AV, in the sense of custom, once in

Amos (410 ‘T have sent among you the pestilence after the
manner of Exypt’).

t Kirkpatrick (Hapos. iii. [1886] 358f.) explains the AV
text, ‘Thou dost condescend to speak familiarly with me, as
man speaks to man.’ It is the rendering of Ges. and others.
But there is no other passage in which térdh has the meaning
of ‘manner.’ The literal tr. is given in AVm, and is found in
Wye. and Cov. The Gen. and Bish. have ‘Doeth this apper-
teine to man?’ Driver says that as the text stands the best
explanation is that of Hengst. and Keil, ‘to evince such regard
for me is in accordance with the law prescribed by God to
regulate men’s dealings with one another; displayed by God
it argues unwonted condescension and affection.’ But he con-
siders the text probably corrupt (Notes on Sam. p. 213), and
H. P. Smith counts it certainly corrupt (Jitern. Com. on Sam.
p.

(κατὰ ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ πατρῴου,

ἐτροποφόρησεν, perhaps for ἐτροφοφόρησεν [bore or

Sed them) as a nurse beareth or feedeth her child,

Dt 17’; RVm ‘many ancient authorities read
bare he them as a nursing-father in the wilderness,
see Dt 151 "; 264 “My manner of life from my
youth . . . know all the Jews’ (βίωσι:) ; 2 ΤΊ 310
‘But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner
of life’ (ἀγωγή, RV “conduct’). In this sense RV
uses ‘manner of life’ as the tr. of ἀναστροφή in
most of its oecurrences for AV ‘conversation’? or
the like. Cf. Jg 13 Cov. ‘What shal be the
maner and worke of the childe Ὁ

5. There are two passages in which the meaning
is more clearly ethical conduct, morals, 2 Es 919
‘Now the manners of them which are created in
this world that is made are corrupted’ (corruptt
sunt mores corum); 1 Co 15 ‘Evil communica-
tions corrupt good manners’ (ἤθη χρήσθ᾽ [xpynord]).
Cf. Knox, /fist. 318, «And wonder not, Madame,
that I call Rome an Harlot; for that Church is
altogether polluted with all kinde of Spiritual
Fornication, as well in Doctrine, as in manners’ ‘
and Calderwood, Hist. 107, ‘Their [the Elders’ }
office is as well severally, as conjunctly, to watch
diligently over the flock committed to their charge,
both publickly and privately, that no corruption
of Religion or manners enter therein.’

6. A thing which is done in a certain way is of
a certain kind, and the commonest meaning of
‘inanner’ in AV is sort or kind, as Gn 252 «Two
manner of people shall be separated from thy
bowels’; Ex 22% « For all manner of trespass. ες
or for any manner of lost thing . . . he shall pay
double unto his neighbour’; J¢ 818 “What manner
of men were they whom ye slew at Tabor?’ Dn
6 “no manner of hurt was found upon him’; Sir
37'S *Four manner of things appear: good and
evil, life and death’ ; 2 Co 79 “ye were made sorry
after a godly manner’ (RV ‘after a godly sort’) ;
ΤΡ 1" “Searching what, or what manner of time
the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify’;
2 P 3" “what manner of persons ought ye to be’
1 Jn 3! ‘what manner of love the Father hath
bestowed upon us.’ So Berners’ Froissart, XViil.,
‘The king gave licence to all manner of people,every
man to draw homeward to their own countries’ ;
Tindale, Pent. (Prologe to Ly) ‘The popettes and
xx maner of tryfles which mothers permitte unto
their yonge children be not all in vayne’ ; Elyot,
Governour, ii. 388, ‘Experience whereof commeth
wysedome is in two maner of wise.’ In all these
examples ‘manner’ is sing., being used as the
words ‘kind’ and ‘sort’ are used still. Cf. Shaks.
Lear, It. ii. 96, ‘These kind of knaves.’ For there
is a doubt in the mind whether the word is a subst.
or an adj. Hence the connecting word ‘of’ was
frequently omitted, as in Tindale’s tr. of Gn ιν;
‘And after that the Lorde God had make of the
erth all maner beastes of the felde and all maner
foules of the ayre, he brought them unto Adam to
see What he wold call them’; and of Lk 436 «And
feare came on them all, and they spake amonge
them selves sayinge: what manner a thinge is
this’; and on 1 Jn 4!8 he says, ‘John speaketh not
generally of all manner fear, but of that only

we

* The TR ἐτροτοφόρησεν is best attested (SBC2DHLP, as
against ACIE for ἐτροφοφόρησεν). In the original passage Dt 151
there is also uncertainty of reading. The decision between
the two readings, though they yield such different meanings,
must be mainly due to the view taken of the context. Page
and Rendall take opposite sides—the former thinking that the
apostle is dwelling, not on the perversity of Israel, but on the
care and affection of God for them, so that ἐτροῷ. is clearly
required here as well as in Dt 181; the latter holding that
ispor., correctly rendered ‘suffered their manners,’ agrees en-
tirely with the context and the circumstances, ‘for it exactly
describes God’s longsuffering with a perverse and rebellious
generation.’ Perhaps the strongest argument against ἐτροῷ.
is that it is doubtful if τροφοφορεῖν means simply ‘carry.’ It is
rather ‘give suck.’ Rendall further urges that in Dt 131 we

should expect τίκνον, not υἱόν.

i

238 MANOAH

MANSION

which the conscience of sin putteth a man in.’ So
Spenser, /Q IL. xii. 70—

‘Right hard it was for wight which did it heare

To read what manner musicke that mote bee.
In AV 1611 this construction occurs in Lv 73 ‘Ye
shall eat no mancr fat of oxe’; 145} This is the
law for all manner plague of isireas and skall’ ;
and Rev 1815 ‘all maner vessels of Yuorie, and all
maner vessels of most precious wood’ ; but modern
editions have retained it only in the last passage.

The phrase ‘in a manner’ is found in 1S 21° ‘the bread is in

amanner common.’ The passage is a particularly difficult one.
W. R. Smith (AS? 455) translates : “Nay, but women are forbidden
to us as has always been my rule when I go on an expedition, so
that the gear (clothes, arms, etc.) of the young men is holy even
when it is a common (not a sacred) journey ; how much more
so when [Pr 2127] to-day they will be consecrated, gear and all.’
Driver (Notes on Samuel, p. 138 f.), on the whole, favours the
rendering of AV, which makes the ‘vessels’ to be the wallets or
utensils in which they carried food, and represents David as
saying that these vessels being ceremonially clean could not
defile the sacred bread put into them. But he does not regard
the interpretation as certain, or the text as free from suspicion.
H. P. Smith (/ntern. Com, on Sain.) is more suspicious of the
text. He agrees with others that to David war was sacred,
peace secular (‘common’), but he sees no occasion David had
for saying that now he was on a peaceable expedition. Rather,
David s says his men and their vesseis were consecrated for war,
and therefore, even if the bread were common, it would be con-
secrated by the vessels into which it was to be put. For the
Eng. phrase, which means ‘in some respect,’ ‘to a certain
extent,’ cf. Shaks. A. John, Vv. vil. 89—‘ Nay, it is in a manner
done already’; and Beaumont and Fletcher, Laws of Candy,
i, 1—

*°Tis not a time to pity passionate griefs,

When a whole kingdom in a manner lies
Upon its death-bed bleeding.’

More obscure is the phrase ‘with the manner’ found in Nu 518
‘If a man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him
. and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken
with the manner’ (RV ‘in the act’). The RV gives the modern
equivalent of the phrase, which is a legal one. In Old Eng. the
word is in this phrase spelt mainour (from Fr. manier, to take
with the hand), and for a thief to be ‘taken with the manner’ is
with the stolen goods about him. The phrase in AV comes
from Tindale, who also uses it in Expositions (Prol. to 1 Jn), p.
142, ‘Ye have corrupt the open scripture before our eyes, and
are taken with the manner.’ So Shaks. J Henry IV. mu. i
347 —‘O villain, thou stolest a cup of sack eighteen years ago,
and wert taken with the manner, and ever since thou hast
blushed extempore’; and Love's Labour's Lost, 1. i. 205, ‘The
manner of it 15,1 was taken with the manner.’ Sometimes the
phrase is ‘in the manner,’ as Hall, Works, ii. 190, ‘ But, O foolish
sinners, all your packing and secrecy cannot so contrive it, but
that ye shall be taken in the manner.’ J. HASTINGS

MANOAH (739, Mavde, ΜΙανώχης [Jos.], Manue).—
A native of Zorah, of the Danites, whose wife had
no children (Jg 13"). When it had been revealed
to her by the angel of the Lorp that she should
have a son, who was to be brought up as a
Nazirite, and to be a saviour for Israel from the
Philistines, she told her husband of the vision, and
of the instructions of the messenger (vy.**§). Upon
Manoah’s entreaty, God sent the angel again to
his wife as she sat in the field. She at once ran
and fetched her husband, who received the same
instructions about the child as his wife had done.
Manoah invites the angel to stay and eat. He
declines, but tells them to offer a burnt- offering to
the Lorp Manoah did not know that he was an
angel of the LORD, and asks him his naune, but he will
not reveal it, ‘seeing it is ineflable’ (vv.9}8), The
offering is otter ed on the rock, and a wondrous sign
is at once given.* The angel ascends in the flame
of the sacrifice. Thereupon Manoah and his wife
fall on their faces to the ground, and Manoah
realizes that he has seen an angel of the Lorp
Manoah is greatly alarmed, but his wife comforts
him (vv.#! ἜΝ

Josephus (Ant, V. viii. 1--3) decorates the narra-

* In v.19 the MT nie; ὦ xbers, from which it is impossible to
obtain the FV tr, tanh (the angel) did wondrously,’ is mani-
festly corrupt. While B reads καὶ διεχώρισεν ποιήσαι, A has τῷ
θαυμαστὰ ποιοῦντι κυρίῳ (cf. Vule. Domino mirabilia Facienti),
Perhaps we ought to restore the text accordingly, Ν᾽ 2280 m1 Ὁ
nivy? » ‘to J” who worketh wonderfully ’ (so Moore).

tive, but adds nothing to our knowledge. When
the promised son has grown up, he asks his father
as well as his mother to ol.tain for him as his wife
a woman of Tinnah, but they are much displeased ;
still Samson persists in the request to his father,
who was the proper person to make the proposal
for the marriage (see Gn 344). Overruled by him,
they went down to Timnah, and some time later
Manoah accompanied his son to the wedding-feast.
Manoah seems to have died before his son, and
‘the burying-place of Manoah’ is mentioned as
the place of burial of Samson (Jg 165). It has
been questioned whether Manoah really after all
took part in the marriage of Samson, and some
have looked upon this as an interpolation (see
Moore’s Judges, pp. 829, 330). The ‘Menuhoth?’
and ‘ Manahathites’ of 1 Ch 24 are connected with
Manoah, the latter being called also Zorites.
H. A. REDPATH.
MANSION (Lat. manco to stay, mansio a staying,
place of abode, Old Fr. mansion a dwelling-place,
abode; ‘manse’ and ‘manor’ are of the same
origin, the one directly from Lat., the other
through the Fr. manoir),—A mansion is primarily
any kind of dwelling-place, as in Milton, /¢ Pens.
92—
‘To unfold

What worlds or what vast regions hold

The immortal mind, that hath forsook

Her mansion in this fleshly nook.’

‘specially a place to abide in permanently, as T.
Adams on 2 P 14 ‘Worldly things are but a
tabernacle, a movable; heaven is a mansion.’ Cf,
Shaks. Timon, Vv. i. 218—
‘Timon hath made his everlasting mansion
Upon the beached verge of the salt flood.’
Later it came to signify a house of some grandeur,
which is its modern meaning.
In AV ‘mansion’ occurs only Jn 14? ‘In my
Father's house are many mansions’ (wovai, RVm
‘abiding places’). The tr. is Tindale’s (perhaps
sugwested by Vulg. mansiones ; but neither Wye.
nor Rhem. uses the w ord) ; Cov. chose ‘dw ellinges’
(which was Wycelit’s word), the Gen. and “the

Bishops’ Bible ‘dwelling places,’ but the rest
followed Tindale. It is curious, however, that in

14} the only other place i in NT where μονή is found,
πὸ version cives ‘mansion’; some tr. by a verb
‘dwell,’ others use ‘dwelling,’ Rhem., AV, and RV
Sabode.’

What is the μονή It is clear that in both
passages its meaning is the same, and the simplest
meaning is the best—an abode or dwelling. In
Jn 142 Jesus says, ‘If a man love me, he w ill keep
my word: and my Father will love him, and we
will come unto him, and make our abode with
him.’ Where the man may be is of no account.
Wherever he is and loves, there the Father and
the Son have their abode παρ᾽ αὐτῷ beside him—in
his conscious presence. Cf. Lk 1° ‘Fear not,
Mary ; for thou hast found favour with God " (παρὰ
τῷ 860). That after Tindale’s tr. the word should
he applied to heaven was natural, since that is
the meaning that has been almost always given to

‘my Father's house.’ But there is nothing in the
word or in the context to suggest rooms in ‘heaven ; 5
still less Westcott’s idea of ‘stations’ or temporary
resting- places on a road. For the application of
the word ‘mansion ’ to heaven see hem. NT,
note on Lk 16° ‘yea and that they be in such
favour with God, that they may and doe receive
their frendes which were once their benefactors,
into their mansions in heaven, no less then the
farmers whom the il steward pleasured, might
receive their freend into their earthly houses’
and Adams, Works, i. 68, ‘It is small comfort is
the harbourless wretch to pass through a goodly

city, and see many glorious buildings, when he |

MANSLAYER

MANTLE 235

‘annot say, fleece mea domus, Τ have a place here.
The beauty of that excellent city Jerusalem, ...
affords a soul no comfort, unless he can say, mea
civitas, | have a mansion in it.” But the word was
still free enough to let Milton use it of hell, as in
PL i. 268—
‘But wherefore let we then our faithful friends,
The associates and co-partners of our loss,
Lie thus astonished on the oblivious pool,
And call them not to share with us their part
Jn this unhappy mansion, or once more
With rallied arms to try what may be yet
Regained in Heaven, or what more lost in Hell?’
J. HASTINGS.
MANSLAYER.—In Nu 35%! AV uses ‘man-
slayer’ for the person who unwittingly causes
another's death. Elsewhere for the same Heb.
and in this sense (9349 or ΠΕ, ptep. of πε to murder)
AV gives ‘slayer’ or ‘murderer,’ RV always
‘manslayer. The word ‘manslayer’ is used also
in 1 Ti 19 as tr. of ἀνδροφόνος in its only occurrence.
The mod. word is ‘homicide,’ but there was no
difference in meaning between ‘manslayer’ when
it was in use and ‘murderer.’ Thus Jn 84 Wye.
‘ye ben of the fadir, the devel, and ye wolen do
the desyris of youre fadir. He was a mansleere
fro the bigynnyng’; and Udal, Hrasmus’ Para-
phrase, ii. tol. 278, ‘ Whosoever hateth hys brother
isa man slear. And ye knowe that no man slear
hath eternal life abiding in hym.’ Other forms
were mankiller, as the Rhem. tr. of Jn 8# “he was
a mankiller from the beginning,’ and of Ac 34
‘But you denied the holy and the just one, and
asked a mankiller to be given unto you’; and
manqueller: thus, the marg. note in Matthews’
Bible to Dt 194 is, ‘Here are shewed ii maner of
manquelling, one done wyllyngly and οἱ set
ΠΡ een the other unwyllinglye ; for even he that
cylleth with the hande maye before God be no man-
quellare : and agayne he that is angrye and envyeth
althoughe he kyll not wyth the hande, cannot but
be a manslear before God : because he wylleth hys
neyghboure evyll.’?. See GOEL, REFUGE (CITIES OF).
Manslaughter is perhaps more general, but not,
as now, carefully distinguished from murder: 2 Es
1°° ‘ye have defiled your hands with blood, and
your feet are swift to commit manslaughter’
(homicidia) ; Wis 14% (φόνος, RV ‘murder’). Cf.
Milton, 222; x1..693—
‘To overcome in battle, and subdue
Nations, and bring home spoils with infinite
Man-slaughter, shall be held the highest pitch
Of human glory.’

J. HASTINGS.

MAN-STEALING.— In Ex 911 (Book of the Cove-
nant, JE) the law is laid down, ‘he that stealeth a
man (wx 233) and selleth him, or () if he be found in
his hand, shall surely be put to death.’ In Dt 247
this enactment is repeated in Deuteronomie lan-
guage, and the general term ex is restricted to
Israelites (dxte7 322 raND 952), arestriction which ‘is
introduced even in Ex by Tare. Onk. and LXX (τινὰ
τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραήλ). The penalty of death is to be
inflicted in either of two events,—if the kidnapped
Israelite is retained as a slave by his fellow-country-
man, or if (which would happen more frequently) he
is sold into slavery in a foreign land (cf. the story of
Joseph, Gn 37% 36. 27-28 ..}}. The LXX and Vule.,
indeed, understand the words ἘΞ ΝΥ in Ex 21%
differently from EV, rendering respectively καὶ ἐὰν
εὑρεθῇ ἐν αὐτῷ, and convictus noxa, but there can be
little doubt that ‘if Ae be found in his hand’ is the
correct sense. This is confirmed by Dt 247 t2-23:n7)
‘if he play the master over him’ (Driver); LXX κα
καταδυναστεύσας.

The aggravated nature of the offence of one

’
ἢ
t

Israelite selling another into foreign slavery is

- Mang.).

insisted upon by Philo (de Leg. Spee. ii. B38, ed.
The facilities attorded for the slave trade

(the Edomites, the Philistines, the Phoenicians, the
Greeks, etc., were ready purchasers, οἵ. Ezk 27, Am
1°, .1 3**), and its lucrative character, necessitated
the prohibition of kidnapping a fellow-Israclite on
pain of death (inflicted, according to Sanhed. xi. 1,
by strangulation). A similar law was in force
amongst the Athenians (Xen. Jem. 1. 11. 62: ἐάν
τις φανερὸς γένηται ἀνδραποδιζύμενος, τουτῷ θάνατον
εἶναι τὴν ζημίαν).

In the list of those for ‘whom the law is made’
(1 Ti 1196} are specified men-stealers (ἀνδραποδισταί).

J. A. SELBIE.
MANTELET (722, AV ‘defence’; LXX τὰς mpo-

φυλακάς ; Vule. winbraculum).—The only occurrence

of this word is in Nah 2° [Heb. 6], in the (ideal)
description of the siege and fall of Nineveh.

The Heb. term comes from the root 429 ‘to
cover or protect’ (hence AVm ‘covering’). In

all probability Nahum refers to some engine of
war, such as a sieze tower or a vinca or testudo
under cover of which the battering-ram (which see)
was worked, The context appears to require that
the 323 belong to the assailants, not to the de-
fenders, See Wellh., Nowack, and especially A.
B. Davidson, ad loc.

The Eng. word is formed by adding the dimin.
suffix οὐ to the word ‘mantel,’ which in that
spelling is now used for the shelf over a fireplace,
but it is really the same word as ‘mantle,’ a
cloak. The origin is unknown, but the meaning
is always ‘covering.’ J. A. SELBIE.

MANTLE.—41. n77x * ’addereth, from a root [1s]
‘to be wide,’ wideness being apparently the char-
acteristic feature of this article of attire, which is
rarely mentioned, and generally, if not always, as
a robe of oflice or state. On its possible form
(which there are not sufticient data in Scripture to
determine) see art. Dress in vol. i. p. 6255. The
name is used 5 times (1 Καὶ 19! 19, 2 Kx 98:13. 14) of
Elijah’s ‘mantle’ (AV, RV), which was probably of
hair,+ and appears to have been copied by succeed-
ing prophets (cf. Zee 134 [Ὡν my § “ἃ hairy
mantle’; AV ‘a rough garment’], and what we
are told in Mt 34, Mk 1° of John the Baptist). A
Babylonish mantle (lit. ‘mantle of Shinar’ ‘a
ὭΣ) was one of the articles appropriated by
Achan from the spoil of Jericho, Jos 724 "4, See
3ABYLONISH GARMENT. The king of Nineveh
laid aside his myx and put on sackcloth when
the news of Jonah’s proclamation reached him,
Jon 3%,

2. mavy2 once only, Is 3° (where both AV and
ἐν have ‘mantles’). The article of dress referred
to is probably (Dillm. compares Arab. ‘itdf, mi‘taf)
an upper wide tunic (Léthéneth) with sleeves (so
Siegfried-Stade—‘ dic obere Tunika’).

8. Syp LS 15°7 284, Ezr 95, Job 129 212, Ps 1092,
In all these passages AV has ‘mantle’; in the first.
two RV has ‘robe,’ which is read in the whole of
them by Amer. RV, and is generally eiven else-
where by AV as tr® of Syn (e.g. Ex 28% 31-34 and
oft., Lv 87,1 5 18, Ezk 261%). This article of dress
is fully described in vol. 1. p. 6254,

* ππν in Mic 28 may be a textual error for NWN, the n having
been lost before the following n (so Oxf. Heb. Lea. and Siegfried-
Stade). Wellh. and Nowack pronounce the text hopelessly
corrupt.

+ The LXX has in Kings μηλωτὴ, ‘sheepskin’; in Zee 134
ἐῤῥις, ‘leathern coat’; in Gn 2529, Mic 28 δορά, ‘hide’; in Jog
2) Ψιλὴ ποικίλη; in Jon 80 στολή.

t In Zec 113 it is uncertain whether NJ=N should be taken in
the sense of ‘glory,’ ‘magnificence’ (cf. its use in Ezk 178,
unless here it is an adjective fem. from W4N, and the use of Ty
in Zec 111°), or of ‘mantle,’ the shepherds being false prophets.

ὃ
us

Nowack emends OF TIN to ΠΡ Ἢ ‘their pasture.’
§ The same Heb. expression is used in Gn 2525, where Esau’s
_ appearance is compared to that of a hairy mantle (AV and RV

“yy ’
| *yvarment’).

240 MANUSCRIPTS

MAR

4, aroy (B ἐπιβόλαιον, A and Luc. δέῤῥι5) occurs
once only, Jg 413, of the article with which Jael
covered Sisera. AV has ‘mantle,’ RV ‘rug, AVm
‘rug or blanket.’ Either ‘rug’ or ‘tent-curtain’
is probably the meaning. See notes of Moore and
Budde, ad loc.

In addition to the above, RV introduces ‘mantle’
in (a) Ru 3% (AV ‘vail’; AVm ‘sheet ov apron’)
as tr” of ππξορ, which in the pl. ninpo> is rendered
by AV ‘wimples’ and RV ‘shaw!s’ in Is 3%, the
only other occurrence of the Heb. word. The root
[ney] means ‘ to extend 07 spread.’ Dillm. (on Is 3**)
and Bertholet (on Ru 3!) give ‘shawl’; Oxf. Hebd.
Lex. ‘cloak’; Siegfried-Stade ‘plaid’; LXX has
in Ru περίζωμα. See also art. Dress in vol. 1.
p262 7%:

(ὁ) The ‘veil’ of AV (so also RVm) is changed
by RV into ‘mantle’ in Ca 5‘, although it trans-
lates the same Heb. word 7°77 ‘veil’ in Is 3:9, its
only other occurrence. LXX has in Ca 5? θέριστρον,
which denotes a light kind of veil. Budde and
Siegfried (in their Comm. on Ca) both think that
an ‘ Ueberwurf?’ rather than a veil suits the con-
text. The bride in escaping leaves her 77 in the
hands of her captors (cf. Mk 14°) °*). But see art.
Dress in vol. i. p. 627°.

(ὦ) In Dn 32 RV tr. pandznp ‘their mantles’ (AV
‘hats’). See HAT.

(d) In He 113, which is a quotation from Ps 102°6
[Heb. and Gr. *7], RV substitutes ‘mantle’ for AV
‘vesture’ as tr® of περιβόλαιον, which in the ΤᾺΝ
answers to win? of MT. The Heb. word is ren-
dered by both AV and RV ‘vesture.’ The only
other NT occurrence of περιβόλαιον is 1 Co 11”,
where it is used of the ‘covering’ or ‘ veil’ which
nature supplies to a woman in her hair.

Once more, Amer. RV tr. >y> in Is 59" by
‘mantle’ (AV and RV ‘cloke’).

J. A. SELBIE.

MANUSCRIPTS.—See TEXT.

MAOCH (προ; in 1S, Β ᾿Αμμάχ (= δ» by transposi-
tion for 730), A Μωάβ ; in] Ια, B’Aunod, A Μααχά).
—The father of Achish king of Gath, under whom
David took service when his life was threatened by
Saul (1S 27°). He is probably to be identified with
Maacah (wh. see), the father of Achish kine of
Gath, who is mentioned at the beginning of Solo-
mon’s reign (1 Καὶ 2%). In favour of this view is
the fact that the Peshitta reads [ὭΣ Ο (= Maacah)
in both passages, while the Targum of Jonathan
in each case preserves the shorter form 2
(= Maoch). J. F. STENNING.

MAON, MAONITES (j\v7). — Mentioned among
the oppressors of Israel before the time of Jeph-
thah in Jg 10%, a late passage, probably due to
the post-exilic editor, For Maon LXX reads
Midian (Pesh. Ammon, Vulg. Chanaan, Targ. =
MT). Though accepted by many critics, the cor-
rection is suspiciously obvious; and it does not
materially relieve the anachronisms that remain in
the verse. he editor included Maon in his list
of representative oppressors as being an enemy
familiar to later times. Hommel (4 A7' 251, 272)
suggests that the LXX reading is an explanatory
gloss on Maon. In 1 Καὶ 1118 Thenius reads Ma'on
for Midian; so Stade, ΟἿ i. 302, but without
sufficient reason, and with no support from the
Versions,

The Maonites (Maon) are usually regarded as the
same as the Meunim, 1 Ch 4# (JWeinim Keré), 2 Ch
20! (for Ammonites read Mevinim, LXX) 267.
Their headquarters have been sought in Ma‘on
(Arab. Ma‘an), 4 hours S.E. of Petra, on the ancient
caravan road from Damascus to Mecea; but all
that can be gathered from the references above is
that they inhabited the Edomite country, and were

regarded by the Chronicler as Edomites. 2 Ch
20-8 refers to them as ‘inhabitants of Mt. Seir’:
this would favour a connexion with Maan. On
the other hand, 1 Ch 4*: 4! rather points to a situa-
tion on the western side of Edom, where the
country corresponds to the description in v.®.
Bull, Gesch. der Hdomiter, 42, n. 1, suggests a con-
nexion between the Meunim and Mayén, a place
of wells, on the S.W. corner of the Edomite
plateau. The Meunim are met with again among
the Nethinim who returned from exile with Zerub-
babel, Ezr 950 (LXX 1 Es 551 υἱοὶ Mavei, A Maayvi)
= Neh 7° (LXX 2 Es 17 viol Mecewau, A Meera) ;
it has been suggested that these were captives
taken from the Meunim after their defeat by
Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 20! 7") or Uzziah (2 Ch 267), and
relegated to menial service in the temple.

In Ch the LXX renders Aeuntin by Μάε)ιναῖοι
(1 Ch 41 Lue. Kwaito), ef. also Job 24 Σωφὰρ ὁ
Mewaiwy βασιλεύς. The Alexandrian translators
probably intended to identify * the Meunim with
the Arab tribe whom Pliny mentions as mer-
chants in spices and incense (//ést. Nat. xu. 30),
with their principal home in 8. Arabia (EHadra-
maut). They are mentioned also by Eratos-
thenes (in Strabo, p. 708,7 ed. Casaub.), in whose
time they were the most northern of the four
nations of Arabia, with their home by the Red
Sea. This rendering of the LXX has suggested
the theory that the Meunim belonged to the
ancient kingdom of the Minzeans, or more correctly
Mainites, whose chief city was Main in 8. Arabia.
So Halévy, Glaser (Gesch. u. Geogr. Arahiens, ii.
450), Hommel (Avfsdtze κι. Abhand!. 3,5,and AHT
251, 272). See art. ARABIA in vol. i. p. 133. But
the great antiquity of the kingdom of Ma‘in (B.c.
1000) seems not to agree with the fact that in the
OT the Meunim are found only in late writings. It
may be that the Meunim were survivors of the
kingdom of the Mainites, dwindled toa single tribe;
but on the whole it seems safer to regard the
Meunim simply as an Edomite tribe, and their con-
nexion with the Mainites as not yet sufliciently
established. See Sprenger, ZD.MG xliv. 505; Buhl,
Gesch. εἰ. Edomiter, 40th; Kittel, ‘Chronicles’ in
SBOT 59.

The name J/aon was given to several places in
S. Palestine. Besides Maon near Petra, there was
Maon near Hebron, Jos 15°, 1 S 237% 25? (Smith,
HGHLE 316), and [Beth]-baal-Meon on S.E. of
Jordan, Nu 32° (perhaps pyo for pra Nu 32%), Jos
1317, Jer 483, Ezk 25°, 1 Ch 58, Moabite Stone, Il. 9,
80. See Gray, Heb. Prop. Names, 126 f. Hommel
(AHT 273 f.) makes the suggestion that these places
were named after the ancient Arabic kingdom of
Main, and marked the extent of its northern
frontier. G. A. COOKE.

MAR.—To ‘ mar’ (from Anglo-Sax. merran, root
MAR, seen in Gr. μαραίνω, to waste) is to damage
or disfigure. It is the opposite of to ‘make,’ in
opposition to which it is used still and is frequent
in Shakespeare. Thus 7imon, Iv. 11. 41—

‘For bounty, that makes gods, does still mar men.’

It is used in AV of land spoiled by mice (1 Κ 6°),
and by stones (2 K 819), of a path or road destroyed
(Job 30%, RVm ‘break up’), and of vine shoots
spoilt by trampling down or plucking off (Nah 2°).
The potter’s clay-vessel was marred in the turning
(Jer 184), and old wine-skins are marred by pouring

* ΜΙ ναῖοι can hardly be a transliteration. Gentilic names in
-αἴοι are formed from place-names in -«, e.g. Σαϑαῖοι, Vepposo.
Thus Miveio presupposes Μινά, which can hardly be a trans-
literation of Ma’6n. 7

Ἐ χχτοικεῖ δὲ τὰ μέγιστα τέτταρα ἔθνη τὴν ἐσχάτην λεχθεῖσαν
χώρων, Μιναῖοι μὲν ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὴν Ἐρυθρὰν μέρει, πέλις δ᾽ αὐτῶν ἡ
μεγίστη Κάρνα ἢ Κάρνανα ; cf. p. 776. "

+ Cf. Tindale’s tr. of Ex 824 ‘The londe was marred with flyes.

MARA MARANATHA 24]
new wine into them (Mk 2”, ἀπολοῦνται, RV | Jos 19% The Pesh. has Ramath-tale’, ‘height of

‘perish’). Jeremiah’s girdle was marred by being
put into a damp hole (137), an illustration of the
way in which J” will disfigure the pride of Judah
and Jerusalem (135). The visage of the servant of

the Lord ‘was so marred more than any man.’ Cf.
Milton, PZ iv. 116, ‘Which marred his borrowed
visage,’ and better, Shaks. fh «Cesar; ἘΠῚ. i
201 —

‘Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold

Our Cwsar’s vesture wounded? Look you here,

Here is himself, marr’d, as you see, with traitors.’
The Israelites were forbidden to mar the corners of

their beard (Lv 1957: it is Tindale’s tr. ‘Ye shall
not rounde the lockes of youre heedes, nether shalt
thou marre the tuftes of thy beerde’). The next
of kin was afraid that if he married Ruth he shoul
mar (the same Heb. as of the marring of the land
by mice, and the taking down of Jud: uh’s pride) his
inheritance (Itu 46). The full force of the word as
used in AV will be seen from Ex 32° Tind. ‘the
people which thou broughtest out of the lande of
Egipte have marred all’; Jg 2! Cov. ‘ Nevertheles,
whan the judge dyed, they turned backe, and
marred all more then their fathers’; and Ruther-
ford, Letters, No. xxx. ‘Madam, many eyes are
upon you, and many would be glad your Ladyship
should spill a Christian, and mar a good professor.
Lord Jesus, mar their godless desires, and keep the
conscience whole without a crack.’
J. HASTINGS.
MARA (s7> or 77> [so corrected by Keré] ;
Πικρά, A Mexpia).—The name which Naomi claimed
for herself: ‘Call me not Naomi (‘pleasant’), call
me Mara (1.6. bitter): for the Almighty hath dealt
very bitterly with me’ (Ru 1°). The Latin is able
to retain the play upon the words by the use of
Mara (id est aimaram). H. A. REDPATH

MARAH (77>).—The first station of the Israelites
after crossing the sea, mentioned only Ex 15” ana
Nu 33°, from which passages it appears that it
was distant three days’ journey from the place of
crossing. The difficulty of locating the latter has
been pointed out under Exopus, vol. i. p. 808. If
we assume that the passage was in the neighbour-
hood of Suez, then Wady Hawarah, about 15 to 16
hours’ camel-ride from ‘the Wells of Moses’ (nearly
opposite Suez on the E. side of the Gulf of Suez)
on the route to the convent of St. Katharine
(the traditional Sinai), is a suitable identification.
Wady Amara, about 14 hour N. of this, or Wady
Ghurundel, about 2 hours to the S., have also
been suggested, though the last is generatly con-
sidered to be Elim. If, on leaving Egypt, the
Israelites went by the present haj route towards
‘Akabah, then Marah must be somewhere on the
plateau of the Tih (see EXODUS, ii.). If a more
northerly position (near the Bitter Lakes) be
assumed for the passage, then the position of
Marah would not be far from the ‘Wells of Moses,’
and ‘Ain Ndba or Gharkadch, about 1 hour to the
N. of these wells, has been proposed. Brugsch’s
theory would place Marah in the neighbourhood
of the Bitter Lakes. In the present state of our
knowledge no identification can be made with any
degree oF probability. Descriptions of some of
these sites are to be found in Robinson and
Palmer.

The LXX gives for Marah in Ex 1523 Mepze twice, but renders
the word on its third occurrence by Ilzgia, endeavouring to
indicate the meaning of the Hebrew word (cf. Thiersch, de
Pent. Vers. Alex. 31ff.). In Nu 388-9 it adopts the form
Πικρίαι. The manner in which the Vulg. employs amarus is
worth quoting : ‘eo quod essent amara, unde et congruum loco
nomen imposuit, vocans illum Mara, id est ares itudinem.’

A. 'T. CHAPMAN.

MARALAH (πη; B Mapayed da, Mi Μαριλά, Lue.
Mapadd).—A place on the west border of Zebulun,

VOL. III. —16

lor con-
CONDER.

the fox.’ The site is quite uncertain.
jectures see Dillm. ad loc. ΓΝ υἷε

MARANATHA. — An expression used by the
Apostle Paul in 1 Co 16% ‘Tf any man loveth not
the Lord, let him be anathema maranatha.’ It
has somewhat perplexed the interpreters from
early times quite down to the present. They have
been puzzled to determine its connexion, its com-
position, and its significance. ‘The early Greek
expositors who attempt to explain it (as Chrysost.
Hom. 44 on 1 Co, Migne, 61, x. col. 377 ; Theodoret
in Migne, 82, 11]. 373 ; ; John of Damascus, Migne,
95, 11. 705; Theophylact, Migne, 124, ii. 793, ete.,
down to Euthym. Zig. ad loc. vol. i. 369, Athens,
1887), together with the early lexicographers (as
Hesychius, ed. Schmidt, iii. 71; Suidas, ed. Gaisford,
2297, ete.), generally agree in translating it ‘The
(or ‘our’) Lord came’ or ‘has come.’ This render-
ing is corroborated by marginal annotations in one
or two of the later MSS (see Tisch. Nov. Test. Gr.,
ed. octava crit. maior, ad doc.); and with it agree,
though amid some vacillation, the leading Lat.
expositors also (as Jerome, ad doc., Migne, 30, xi.
772; August., Migne, 33, vol. ii. 1161; Pseudo-
Ambros. ad loc., Migne, 17, iv. 276).

But the association of the expression with ‘ ana-
thema’ seems to have led gradually to a minatory
interpretation of it, so that the phrase thus formed
came to be regarded as a kind of reduplicated com-
mination, or a curse reinforced by a prayer. Traces
of its official use in this sense may be found as far
back at least as the 7th cent. (see IF. Kober, Der
Kirchenbann, Tiibingen, 1857, p. 40f.; du Cange,
Gloss. med. et infim. Lat., ed. L. Favre, 1885, vol. v.
s.v.; compare Tertull. de Pudicitia, § 14, where,
however, the reading is doubtful) ; indeed, a still
earlier instance of this use is afforded by one of the
two or three occurrences of the term which are all
that have yet been met with in extra-biblical Greek.
A sepulchral inscription, believed to be of the 4th
or 5th cent., from the island of Salamis (referred to
by Schmiedel in the Hand-Commentar on Cor. l.c.,
2nd ed. ii. 208 sq., and ath in the CJG@ vol. iv.
Ρ. 475, inser. 9303, Berlin, 1877), which marks the

‘eternal home? of the ‘ reader’ Agathon and his
wife, for each of whom a separate compartment
has been prepared, closes as follows: ‘ But if any
private man or any other person dare to deposit a
body here besides cur two, let him give account. to
God, and be anat)ema maranathan’ (sic). ‘The
Pauline order is deviated from here in the Greek,
so that maranatha is separated by one word from
anathema; but the maledictory import 15. plain.
This imprecatory u: c of the expression was thought
to be substantiated by its assumed correspondence
to the third or hi,hest degree of Jewish excom-
munication, the Shammatha. The word Sham-
matha (variously interpreted, see Buxtorf, Lex.
Chald. ete. 2466) was held by some to mean ‘'The
Lord cometh’ (a, the name, being taken as a
substitute for the tetragram), and thus to furnish
an analogy which had been followed by the
Apostolic Church. For this view the authority
of such eminent Jewish scholars as Rabbi Solo-
mon Ha-Levi, known among Christians as Paulus
Buregensis (15th cent.), and Elias Levita in his
Tishbi (16th cent.), has been unwarrantably claimed
(cf. e.g. Leigh, Critica Sacra, s.v. Mapavaéd). For
Elias makes no mention of maranatha, and follows
Rab in the Talmud (Moed Katan, lia; see Buxtorf,
u.s.) in taking ‘shammatha’ as equivalent to sham
metha, ‘there’s death’; while Paulus Burgensis
(in Lyra, vi. 61a, Basel, 1508) finds in ‘anathema
maranatha’ a combination of the three alleged
forms or grades of Jewish ecclesiastical censure,
maranatha being a (post-apostolic) corruption from

Prana

242 MARANATHA

MARANATHA

a mutilated ‘macharam’ (maran) and ‘shammatha’
{atha). Echoes, however, of the Talmudic inter-
pretation of shammatha meet us, apparently, in
Luther's ‘accursed to death’ (‘maharam motha’),
and the ‘Let him be had in exeeration, yea, ex-
communicate to death’ of the Genevan version
of 1557; while W. Mace, in his NT .Greek
and English, 1729, gives simply ‘Let him be
accurst” as the rendering of the entire phrase.
This imprecatory sense of the Pauline term, which
was thus linked to supposed Jewish precedent,
though without warrant either in philology or in
fact (see John Lightfoot, Works, ete., ed. 1684, ii.
796 f., or Hore in Acta apost. etc., Amst. 1679,
p. 107f.; Schiirer, HJP τι. i. 60 ff), received,
nevertheless, the endorsement of such names as
Beza, Bibliander, Bullinger, Capito, Calvin (ef.
Suicer, Zhesaurus, ete. 1. 604; Pfeitler, Dubia
Veaata, ete. 4th ed. 1699, p. 944 sq. for references),
and others too numerous to catalogue here. Hlustra-
tion of its prevalence and persistency is afforded by
its adoption in our English Bibles (with the single
exception of the Rhemish) from Tindale’s to the
Authorized Version. Indeed, although a comma
seems to have been inserted between ‘anathema’
and ‘maranatha’ as early as the Cambridge folio
of 1629, it was removed again in Blayney’s standard
ed. of 1769, and is wanting in not a few modern
editions (see Scrivener, Cambridge Paragraph Bible,
Introd. p. Ixxxii, reprinted under the title The
Authorized Edition of the English Bible, Cambr.
1884, p. 191). Other isolated instances occur of
dissent from the prevalent theory that the words
should be combined into a malediction. For ex-
ample, in Robert Stephens’ edd. of the Gr. text
issued in 1549 and 1551 a colon (or stop) is inserted
after anathema, as also in the Elzevir edd. of 1624
and 1633; an Enelish Bible, also, bearing the im-
print of Henry Hills, London, 1660, although it puts
no stop after anathema, adds at maranatha the
marginal note, ‘That is, The Lord is come,
Nevertheless, the compound imprecatory interpre-
tation has lived on quite to modern times, and has
even found its way into popular literature.

This opinion, however, may be said to be at
length extinct in scholarly circles. It is not only
confessed to be without intrinsic or historic founda-
tion, but it conflicts with the intimations afforded
by the independent use of the word in early
Christian documents. The earliest is that in (he
Teaching of the Apostles, a document belonging to
the early part of the 2nd cent. or possibly even to
the Ist. The thanksgiving in connexion with the
Eucharist, as there given ch. 10°, closes as follows :
‘May grace come and may this world pass away.
Hosanna to the God of David. If any man is holy,
let him come; if any man is not, let him repent.
Maranatha. Amen.’ Plainly, then, the term has
an inherent meaning wholly detached from an
anathema ; and the preceding words here, though
permitting this meaning to be admonitory, are
remote from any suggestion of imprecation. But
in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 26, p. 209, 26,
ed. Lagarde), where the same thanksgiving is
substantially reproduced and expanded, any
thought of malediction is conspicuously out of
place: . . . ‘Gather us all together into thy king-
dom which thou hast prepared. Maranatha.
Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he that
cometh,’ ete.

But the acknowledgment that the term must be
taken and interpreted by itself has rather increased
than diminished the perplexity respecting its com.
position and meaning. Passing over attempts to
analyze it which have found little favour, we may
say that scholars now almost unanimously agree
that the first part of the expression is the Aramaic
word for ‘Lord’; though as to whether the ἢ is

a formative appendage (cf. rabban), or belongs
to the pronominal suflix ‘our,’ they are not so
harmonious. That it should be connected with
the first half of the word and not the last is sup-
ported not only by the earliest MSS that divide
the term, but by the use of marin by Philo (in
Flaccum, ὃ 6, ed. Mang. ii. 522, 47) as the current
Syrian appellation for ‘ Lord,’ as well as by extant
Aram. inscriptions (see Néldeke in ZDAMG for
1870, p. 101). The chief problem, accordingly, lies
in the last part of the term. If the second half of
the compound is held to be atha, the Fathers were
right in taking it as a past tense (ἦλθεν, ἥκει, ete.:
‘the’ or ‘our Lord has come’), and understanding
the advent in the flesh as referred to. But the
explanations they give of the apostle’s reference to
this past event are far-fetched and unsatisfying ;
such as, ‘whoever does not love him waits in vain
for another,’ or ‘he has come; hence the folly of
opposing him’—the words being assumed to be
addressed to Jews: if spoken to Christians, they
were thought to be designed to shame them for
withholding love from one who has so humbled
himself on their behalf, ete.

The obvious inappositeness, however, of an
allusion to the past early began to tempt ex-
positors to force the verb into a future reference,
viz. to the final coming in judgment. This result
has ordinarily been reached, at least in later times,
by taking the past tense as ‘ prophetic,’ ὁ... as an
emphatic declaration of the certainty of the future
event by representing it as having already
occurred: ‘has come,’ i.e. ‘most certainly will
come.’ The incipient stage of this opinion appears
in the ‘in adventu domini’ of certain Latin texts,
and the ‘donee adveniat’ (or ‘redeat’) of Augus-
tine and some later Fathers. But a prophetic or
anticipatory past tense here is more than question-
able grammatically ; and its inappropriateness 15
indirectly το ρον ὁ by modern expositors, who, as
with one consent, substitute for it a present or a
future in their translations: ‘Our Lord cometh,’
‘is at hand,’ ‘will come,’ ete. Under these cir-
cumstances, certain Aramaic scholars have pro-
posed to restrict the verbal! part of the expression
to the final sylable ‘tha,’ and understand the
whole as an ejaculation ; ‘Our Lord, come!’ Com-
pare ἔρχου Kipre Ἰησοῦ, Rev 22; and the Amen bo of
the Jewish liturgies. See C. Taylor, The Teaching
of the Twelve Apostles, p. 77 tf One of the first to
make this suggestion seems to have heen Gustav
Bickell of Innsbruck in the Ztschr. f. Kath. Theol.
for 1884, vol. vill. p. 403, n°. During the same
year, however, this opinion was shown by Halévy
in the Rev. des études Juives, vol. ix. p. 9, to have
the support of sundry inscriptions from Arabia,
and was also advocated by Néldeke in the GGA
p. 1023 (in a review of Kautzsch’s Grammatik,
u.s.w.), Where Wellhausen is cited as making the
same suggestion (yet cf. GGN, 1895, p. 3, n. 2).
Siegfried, also, in reviewing Kautzsch’s work
in Hilgenfeld’s ZWVTA., compares the frequent
phrases ἽΠ xn ‘come and see,’ yow xn ‘come and
hear,’ and proposes to take μαραναθά as equiv. to
μαρανθά, signifying “Ὁ (or ‘our’) Lord, come!’
This supplicatory sense has been accepted by
G. Wohlenberg (Die Lehre der Zwolf Apostel, u.s.w.
1888, p. 82 sq.), Arnold Meyer (Jes Mutter-
sprache, 1896, p. 50), who compares (p. 156f.)
Marna or Marnas (ΝΥ ‘our tote ἢ, the name of
the chief deity of Gaza (ef. the new edition of
the deacon Marcus’ life of Bp. Porphyrius of Gaza,
Leip. 1895; also Stark, Gaza, u.s.w. 1852, pp. 576-
583); and is sustained by G. Dalman in his Gram-
matik des Jiid.-Paldst. Aramdisch, 1894, pp. 120,
297, ef. 162.* It will doubtless prevail.

* Dalman (Worte Jesu, i. 269) calls 8372 the earlier and fuller
form. See Zahn, Finl. in das NT, i. § 18, Anm. 11.

=

MARBLE

MARDOCHEUS 243

To the question why the apostle deserts the
Greek for the Aramaic language here, many con-
e:tural answers have been given: such as, to
Hejabie the pride of his Corinthian converts by
reminding them that the gospel did not originate
with them; to affect the more readily his Jewish
opponents by a phrase from their vernacular; to
suggest that Christ will judge all nations and
tongues, and the like. These may pass for what
they are worth. The expression, as embodying
the consummation of Christian desire and aspira-
tion, may have become a current ejaculation
among the early disciples (cf. ‘Abba,’ Mk 14°, Ro
8, Gal 4°), and as such would doubtless be intelli-
gible to the Christians of Corinth. This supposi-
tion gains plausibility from the recurrence of the
term, in varied connexions, in the Teaching and the
Apostolic Constitutions. Its specific tone it takes
from its context : in the Ep. to the Cor. it is admoni-
tory ; in the Apostolic Constitutions it is jubilant.

Whether it is a fragment of some confession,
creed, or hymn (cf. Het NT’... op nieuw uit den
Grondtekst overgezet, De Nederlandsche Bijbel-
Compagnie, 1868, ad loc.), or is a germ of some
early liturgical formulary, this is not the place to
consider (see Bickell, ‘Die Lehre d. Apostel u. d.
Liturgie,’ in the Ztschr. 7. Kath. Theol. as above ;
Weizsiicker, Apostolic Age, li. 286; Spitta, Zur
Gesch. u. Lit. des Urehristentums, 1. 256 f., 1893 ;
Th. Zahn, Forschungen 2. Gesch. u.s.w. ili. 1884,
7 904 ἢ),

LITERATURE.—Some of the more extended. discussions of the
term are by Anthony Leger in Hase and Iken, T’hes. Nov. Theol.-
Philol. (1732), vol. ii. 879-888; A. Klostermann, Probleme im
A posteltexte (1883), 220-246; G. Wohlenberg, as above, pp. 78-
85; and especially N. Schmidt in the Journ. Bibl. Lit. for
1894, pp. 50-60; cf. the same Journ. for 1896, p. 44, nl4. More-
over, Schmiedel’s note in the Hand-Commentar, as above, should
not be overlooked. εἶ. 4H “PHAYER,

MARBLE (vv, vv, udpuapos) denotes, strictly
speaking, limestone (carbonate of lime), which is
sufficiently hard and close-grained to be capable of
receiving a polish. It is valuable both as an orna-
mental building stone and as a material for sculp-
ture. The most famous kinds are those associated
with classic statuary and architecture, such as the
Pentelic and Parian marbles of Greece and the
Carrara marble of Italy. The purest marble is
white, but many coloured varieties are found, and
some of these were highly valued in ancient times.
Among them may be mentioned the ‘ Breccia di
Verde,’ which varies from all shades of green to a
purplish red, the ‘onyx’ marble, and the so-called
‘Oriental alabaster.’ All these are Evyptian
stones. The last named is quite different from
true alabaster (sulphate of lime), being a carbonate
of lime of stalagmitic origin and of an amber colour.
The famous obelisk of Shalmaneser If, found b
Layard at Nimrfid, is of black marble (Hull,
Building and Ornamental Stones, 148-152).

In 1 Ch 29? ‘marble stones in abundance’ are
mentioned among the materials prepared by David
for the building of the temple. The Heb. is ew
(B πάριον, A mapios). According to Josephus, Solo-
mon’s temple was built of white stone (λευκὸς λίθος,
Ant. VII. 111. 2), quarried and prepared in:Lebanon
(ib. VII. iii. 9). ‘The OT narrative (1 K 517-38) does
not expressly state the locality from which the
stone came. Hard white limestone is found in
Lebanon, and has been used in the temples of
Baalbek (Robinson, BRP iii. 508 ; Thomson, Land
and Book, iii. 341, 342). But the stones in the
foundation walls of the temple, as seen at the
Jews’ Wailing Place, appear to have been brought
from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The lime-
stone found in the quarries under Bezetha is ‘hard,
compact, and delicately variegated, and is capable
of being cut as marble into objects of ornament

and use, and of receiving a polished surface
(Hull, SWP 59; Warren, Underground Jerusa-
lem, 60; King, Recent Discoveries on Temple Hill,
ch. i.). Josephus (Wars, Vv. v. 2) says that the
pillars of Herod’s temple were μονόλιθοι λευκοτάτης
μαρμάρου. Some of the marble used in Roman and
post-Roman buildings in Palestine, and found still in
their remains, may have been imported from abroad.

In Est 16 the palace of Ahasuerus at Shushan
(Susa) is described as having ‘pillars of marble’
(ew may, LXX στύλοι πάρινοι), While in the same
verse the pavement of the palace is said to have
been of ‘red, blue, white, and black marble’ (AV),
or ‘red, white, yellow, and black marble’ (RY).
Of the four words thus translated the second is vw
(LXX πάρινος λίθος), and this was evidently under-
stood as ‘white marble’ in AV as well as in RV,
in spite of the transposition which has taken place
in the former, since ‘marble’ is the second word in
the alternative rendering in the margin. The
other three words are ὅπ, ὙΠ, and nq95, and they
occur only in this verse. LXX renders the first
by σμάραγδος or σμαραγδίτης λίθος, the second (appar-
ently) by πίννινος, and does not translate the third.
AVm and RVm give ‘porphyre (porphyry), ala-
baster, and stone of blue colour.’ Oettli (Awrzgef.
Comm.) translates ὧν by ‘ Marmor,’ and has for the
other three words ‘ Alabaster und Perlmutterstein
und Fleckmarmor.’ The LXX rendering of e73
suggests some green stone, and that of ὙΠ some
stone with a pearly lustre. Malachite (a green
mineral) is found in Persia, as is also the stone
called ‘Yezd marble.’ The latter is described as
a stalagmitie carbonate of lime resembling the
Egyptian stone known as ‘Oriental alabaster,’
except that the colour is greenish-white instead of
yellow (Blaneford in astern Persia, 11. 486).
Marble capitals and broken shafts were found in
the ruins of Susa by Layard (Karly Adventures,
ii. 296). The palace of the Shah at Ispahan has
columns of Tabriz marble, while white and coloured
marbles are profusely used in the interior of the
building (Hull, Budlaing and Ornamental Stones,
152).

In Ca 5” there occurs the simile, ‘ His legs are as
pillars of marble’ (ey Ray, LAX στύλοι μαρμάρινοι).

In Apocr. μάρμαρος occurs only once (Ep. Jer”).
Here it is said that the idols of the heathen shall
be known to be no gods ἀπὸ τῆς πορφυρας καὶ τῆς
μαρμάρου τῆς ἐπ᾽’ αὐτοὺς σηπομένης. ‘The context
seems to make it necessary to understand μάρμαρος
here in its root meaning of ‘sparkling,’ or ‘ bril-
liance,’ and so both AV and RV render τῆς mop. καὶ
τῆς wap. by ‘ bright purple.’

In NT μάρμαρος also occurs once, being named as
part of the merchandise of the apocalyptic Babylon
(Rev 1812). JAMES PATRICK.

MARCHESHYAN (<2, Mish. Taanith, i. 3, 4;
Mapoovarys, Jos. Ant. 1. ili. 3).—See TIME.

MARCUS (Mépxos, or, perhaps more accurately,
Μᾶρκος ; see MARK [JOHN], p. 245°).—This form of
the name of St. Mark (wh. see) occurs in AV of
Col 4, Philem*, 1 P 5", RV has ‘ Mark’ in every
instance.

MARDOCHEUS (Mapéoxatos Mardocheus). —1.
The name of MORDECAI, the uncle of Esther,
appears in this form in the apocryphal additions
tore Booksot Bsther (Ad, Betas 115.18 τοῦ τα
1615). In 2 Mac 1858 the 14th of Adar, that is, the
first day of the feast of Purim, is called ‘ Mar-
docheus’ day’ (ἡ Μαρδοχαικὴ ἡμέρα, RV ‘the day of
Mordecai’). 2. In 1 Es 5°, for MORDECAI, one of the
leaders of the Jews, who returned from Babylon
with Zerubbabel and Joshua ; cf. Ezr 2”, Neh 77.

H. A. WHITE.

244 MARESHAH

MARK

MARESHAH (7¥x > and 7y727).—1. The ‘father’
of Hebron, 1 Ch 2*(B Μαρεισά, A Μαρισά). Perhaps
we may gather from this passage that Mareshah,
which is really the city of Jos 15, colonized Hebron.
2. A Judahite, 1 Ch 41 (B Marya, A Μαρησά). See
next article, and GENEALOGY, IV. 2. 29.

MARESHAH (yn, in Jos 15% aygxqe).—A city
in the Shephélah of Judah, near Keilah and Achzib
(Jos 15%; B Βαθησάρ, A Mapnoa); fortilied by Reho-
boam (2 Ch 118; B Μαρεισά, A Μαρισά) ; the scene
of the encounter between Asa and Zerah the
Ethiopian (2 Ch 14% 28; Bo Μαρισήλ, Mapeion, A
Mapnod); the birthplace of Dodavah the father
of the prophet Eleazar, 2 Ch 20%7 (B Mapeion, A
Mapicn); mentioned also in Mic 1” (where see
Nowack’s note). On 1 Ch 2” 4”! see the preceding
article. The Valley of Zephathah (Wdady es-
Sdfich) was to the ‘north’ of Mareshah (κατὰ
βοῤῥᾶν M.) according to the LXX version of 2 Ch
1410. In Mic 115 there is a play on the name as
if meaning ‘ inheritance.’

Outside the canonical Scriptures, Mareshah
plays an important part. It was plundered by
Judas Maccabwus (Jos. Ant. XU. vill. 6, after
whom we ought certainly to correct Σαμαρίαν of
1 Mac 5 to Mapicay ; cf. 2 Mac 12%), subdued by
John Hyrcanus (Ant. Xu. ix. 1, x. 2), freed by
Pompey (ib. XIv. iv. 4), and finally destroyed
by the Parthians (7+. XIV. xiii. 9).

In the 4th cent. A.D. the site was known
(Onomast. 279. 139) as being 2 Roman miles
from Eleutheropolis (Bet Jibrin), which is a
somewhat overstated distance. The present ruin
Mer'ash, in spite of its guttural, no doubt repre-
sents Mareshah (see Onomast. s. ‘Marsa’). There
are some remarkable rock-chambers, with flights
of steps, close by, which seem to have been gran-
aries or reservoirs. See SIP vol. iii. sheet xx.

C. R. CONDER.

MARIMOTH (Marimoth), 2 Es 12=MERAIOTH,
an ancestor of Ezra (Ezr 7°). Also called MEME-
ROTH, 1 Es 82,

MARISA (Mapica, Maresa).—The Greek form of
the name MARESHAH. It occurs only in 2 Mae
12, but should be read also in 1 Mac 5%, where all
Greek MSS wrongly have ‘Samaria’; but Old Lat.
Marisan, Jos. Ant. XII. viii. 6 Mapica. The false
reading ‘Samaria’ is found in 2 Mae 12 in four
cursives and Syr. H. A. WHITE.

MARISH.—This old form of ‘marsh’ has been
allowed to remain in modern editions of AV. It
is still occasionally seen in poetry, as Tennyson,
Dying Swan—

‘And far through the marish green and still
The tangled water-courses slept.’

It occurs in Ezk 47", 1 Mac 944, Cf. Berners’
Froissart, 37, ‘True it was that some of the knights
of Scotland did ever the annoyance they could to
the Englishmen, and kept them in the wild country
among marishes and great forests, so that no man
could foliow them.’ The word is also an adj., as
Bacon, Essays, p. 142, ‘in Marish and unwholesome
Grounds.’ J. HASTINGS.

MARK.---1. m22 1S 20°, Job 16%, and sq
La 3", a target, a butt. As 1S 20% 1 will shoot
three arrows on the side thereof, as though I shot
atamark.’ Cf. Shaks. Venus, 941-—

‘Thy mark is feeble age, but thy false dart
Mistakes that aim and cleaves an infant’s heart.’

2. σκοπός, a mark to keep the eye on, in shooting
or running; Wis 5! ‘Like as when an arrow is
shot at a mark’ (ἐπὶ σκοπόν) ; 52, Ph 34 1 press
toward the mark for the prize of the high calling
of God in Christ Jesus’ (κατὰ σκοπόν ; RV ‘towards

the goal,’ but it is not a technical word in the race-
course ; in class. Gr. it is a target, here like 1 Co 976
οὐκ ἀδήλως, ‘not in the dark,’ or as Moule, ‘ with
my goal clear in view’). Cf. Pref. to AV ‘We
never thought from the beginning that we should
need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make
of a bad one a good one . . . but to make a good
one better, or out of many good ones, one principall
good one, not justly to be excepted against ; that
hath been our indeavour, that our mark’; Shaks.
Love's Labour’s Lost, 1v. ii. 115—

“If knowledge be the mark, to know thee shall suffice.’

3. 3259, place of striking or impinging, ἴ.6. a butt
or mark : Job 7”? ‘why hast thou set me as a mark
against thee?’ RV ‘as a mark ἴοι thee.’ AV
understands Job to be a target for the arrow of
God’s displeasure, RV that he is an object over
which God stumbles. ‘Job,’ says Davidson, ‘ feels
that he is continually in the way of God, an
obstacle against which the Almighty is always of
set purpose striking Himself. The thought is one
of unprecedented boldness.’

4. mw sign, token: Gn 4% ‘And the Lord set a
mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill
him,’ RV ‘appointed a sign for Cain.” ‘A mark
set upon Cain would have distinguished him, so
that all who met him might know him. This
would be no pledge of security, no consolation to
the guilty man. But when we see that the Lord
appointed a sign for Cain, so that, looking upon it,
he might be reminded of the divine protection, the
words of the passage become easy to understand ’—
Ryle in Lapos. Times, 111. 211; and Larly Narra-
tives, 70; also Sayce in Laxpos. Times, vii. 367.

5. ypyp a puncture, tattoo: Lv 1055 ‘Ye shall not
make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor
print any marks upon you.’ Driver and White (in
SBOT) tr. ‘You shall not make any incisions in
your skin for the dead; nor shall you tattoo any
marks upon you,’ and explain that the tattooing
here alluded to implied probably dedication to a

deity. Cf. W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage,
212 1f., and RS 334; also Stade, ZATW xiv.
250 f.

6. in tdw, the letter T, the last of the Heb.
alphabet, which in the old Phoenician characters
had the shape of a cross. See ALPHABET. Ezk
τό the mark set on the forehead of those that
bewailed the abominations in Jerusalem. The
Vulg. tr. of 94 15 signa thau super frontes virorum
gementium, to which Tindale refers when he speaks
(Expositions, 13) of ‘the sign Than, that defendeth
us from the smiting and power of the evil angels.’
In Job 31* the word is used of a person’s signature :
ef. Shaks. JJ Henry VI. Iv. il. 110, ‘ Dost: thou use
to write thy name? or hast thou a mark to thyself,
like an honest plain-dealing man ?’

7. χάραγμα (fr. χαράσσω, to cut, engrave), a stamp
or brand. This word is used in Ae 17” of sculp-
tured work, and tr? in EV by the verb ‘graven.’
Elsewhere it is found only in Rev (13% 17 14% 1! 163
1920 204; TR and AV add 15%, omitted by edd.) of
the brand (EV ‘ mark’) by which the followers of
the Beast were known. The brand was on the
right hand or on the forehead (1316). See MAN OF
SIN. The ¢déw of Ezk is in the writer’s mind.

8. μώλωψ, weal, quoted in 1 Ῥ 2% from Is 53° and
tr? ‘stripe,’ is in Sir 23!° rendered in AV ‘blue
mark,’ ‘a servant that is continually beaten shal]
not be without a blue mark’ (RV ‘shall not lack a
bruise’).

9. στίγμα (from στίξζω, to prick; connected with
Eng. ‘sting’), brand, scar: Gal 6” only, ἐγὼ γὰρ
τὰ στίγματα τοῦ [Κυρίου] Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου
βαστάζω (edd. omit Κυρίου of TR after best text) ;
Vule. ‘Ego enim stigmata Domini Iesu in corpore
meo porto’; Wye. ‘For I bere in my bodi the

i

they were consecrated.’

MARK (JOHN)

MARK (JOHN) 245

tokenes of oure Lord Jhesu Crist’; Tind. ‘ For I
beare in my bodye the markes of the lorde Jesu,’
so succeeding VSS including AV ; RV ‘for 1 bear
branded on my body the marks of Jesus’). The
reference is to the suffering which the apostle had
endured in the service of Christ, of which he gives
a rapid account in 2 Co 113, and which, whether
Jewish whipping, or Roman flogging, or more
arbarous mob violence, must have lett scars on
his person, some of them no doubt visible. But
why does he call them the scars or brands of Jesus ὃ
Two explanations have been given. (1) The marks
which were left in the body of Jesus by the nails
and the sword are reproduced figuratively in the
apostle’s body. Cf. 2 Co 49 ‘always bearing about
in the body the dying (RVm ‘putting to death’)
of Jesus’ (παντότε τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματι
περιφέροντες) ; also 2 Co 1°, Col 1%; and especially
the references to his crucifixion with Christ, Ro 6°,
yal 2°. This interpretation is forcibly illustrated
by the stigmata of St. Francis of Assisi, to whom
the word (left untranslated in the Lat. versions)
‘suggested, whether by a more or less distant
association, the idea which took so strong a hold
upon his mind, that in ἃ moment of extreme
spiritual tension the actual marks of the Pession
seemed to imprint themselves upon his body ’—
Sanday, NZ’ Com. for Eng. Readers. Among
recent commentators Moule (Camb. Bible) con-
siders that there is ‘something to be said’ for
this explanation, and Huxtable (Pwd. Com.) argues
ably and at length in its favour. (2) The marks
identify the apostle as belonging to Jesus. This
receives the nearly unanimous consent of modern
expositors, and is actually introduced into the
translation of the RV, on which Westcott (Lessons
of the RV of NT, 130) comments, ‘ the addition of
the word branded—I bear branded on my body the
marks of Jesus—points the reference to the slaves
who bore the names of the deities to whose service
(Cf., further, art. Curt-
TINGS IN THE FLESH, vol. i. p. 538"). But even on
this interpretation the question remains, Does St.
Paul refer to the custom of marking the devotees of
a deity, or to the custom of branding deserters and
evil-doers asa sign of degradation? Lightfoot (Com.
on Gal.) refers the metaphor to the practice of brand-
ing slaves and other persons who were devoted to
the service of some deity, and considers that ‘such
a practice at all events cannot have been unknown
in a country which was the home of the worship of
Cybele.’ But the verb used (βαστάζξω, which im-
plies at least that the thing carried is easily seen,
cf. Ac 9° ‘a chosen vessel unto me to bear my
name before the Gentiles,’ βαστάσαι. . . ἐνώπιον
ἐθνῶν), and the apostle’s glorying in being regarded
as περικαθάρματα τοῦ κόσμου, πάντων περίψημα, ‘the
filth of the world, the offscouring of all things’
(1 Co 4%), make the reference most probable to
such stigmata as (now also in the modern use of
the word) carried punishment and degradation.
These are the only marks that would involve at
once much suffering at the time of their infliction
and much courage to carry afterwards.
J. HASTINGS.
MARK (JOHN).—In this art. the identity of the
John Mark of the Acts with the Mark of the Pauline
Epistles (Col, Philem, 2 Ti), with the Mark of 1 P,
and with Mark the Evangelist, mentioned in early
Christian literature, is assumed. This identifica-
tion is confirmed by the link between the Acts and
the Pauline Epistles supplied by Col 410 (‘cousin
of Barnabas’), and by the fact that the name Mark
does not appear to have been common among the
Jews.
1. NAME.—The Hebrew name of this companion
of the apostles was Ιωάνης ; it appears without
addition in Ac 13*8, To it the Roman prenomen

Marcus was added (‘Iwdvou τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου Μάρκου,
"L. roy ἐπικληθέντα M., Ac 12)*- 5), just as the Roman
cognomen Paulus was added to the Hebrew name
Saul. The name Marcus was that by which its
bearer was commonly known among those for
whom the Acts was written (τὸν I. τὸν καλούμενον *
Ma@pxorv, Ac 15%); so Col 4, Philem™, 2 Ti 4",
1P 5%. For the accentuation Μᾶρκος, see Blass,
Gram. NY Greek, ὃ 4. 2; the form Μάαρκος is
found in C/G, 5644, 6155. For the frequency of
such double names among the Jews, sce Deiss-
mann, Bibelstudien, p. 181 11 ; and for the common
use of the name Marcus ‘among Greek-speaking
peoples from the Augustan age onwards,’ see the
inscriptions quoted by Swete, S¢. Mark, p. ix. There
is no evidence, however, that it was common among
the Jews; the only Jew of this naine mentioned by
Josephus is the nephew of Philo (Ané. XVILL. viii. 1,
ἌΧ ον 1)

2. FAMILY AND PosITION.—The father of Mark
is not mentioned in the NT or by any reliable
tradition. His mother bears the common Hebrew
name Mary (Ac 1913). She appears as a woman of
some wealth, the possessor of a house with a muddy
and with a room large enough to contain many (οὗ
ἦσαν ἱκανοὶ συνηθροισμένοι), the mistress, it would
seem, of a household, the duty of one radicxnn—
bearing a Greek name (see Blass on Ac 12!*)—being
to keep the door (cf. Jn 1817, Her house is one of
the centres of the life of ‘the brethren’ at Jeru-
salem. St. Peter goes there as a matter of course
directly he has escaped from prison, and is well
known there (v.4). It is a natural conclusion that
‘the house of Mary’ had become the home of St.
Peter, and that the guest was in a sense the head
of the household (ef. 1 P 5). Again, in Col 4!
Mark is spoken of as ‘the cousin’ (ὁ ἀνεψιός, see
Lightfoot’s note) of Barnabas (on the name, see
especially Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 175 ff.), the
Joseph Barnabas of Ac 4°, of the tribe of Levi,
born in Cyprus, ἃ man of substance, and from
almost the earliest days a leader among ‘the
brethren.’ It is not improbable, in view of the
later history, that Mark too was by birth or
previous residence connected with the Jewish
colony in Cyprus (Schiirer, HJP 11. ii. p. 221f.),
and, if we may assume that the cousins were the
sons of two brothers, we learn that he was a Levite
(see below, 4 (i.)). There is every reason to think
that he, like Saul, was a ‘Hebrew of Hebrews’
(Col 411; ef, Gal 913, Tit 110),

In Ac 13° we read of Barnabas and Saul that
at Salamis in Cyprus κατήγγελλον τὸν λόγον τοῦ
θεοῦ ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων: εἶχον δὲ καὶ
Ιωάνην ὑπηρέτην <All writers, it would seem,
take the last clause to mean that the apostles
‘had John as minister,’ @7.e. as their assistant in
their evangelistic work (οἵ, 10% προσέταξεν) A
different interpretation seems to the present writer
to be at least possible. The clause stands in close
connexion with the mention of ‘the synagogues.’
Further, if ὑπηρέτην were a predicate, the more
natural order would have been ὑπηρέτην δὲ εἶχον
καὶ ᾿Ιωάνην. A Jewish epitaph found at Rome
φλάβιος ᾿Ιουλιανὸς ὑπηρέτης (see Schiirer, Gemeinde-
verfassung der Juden in Rom, pp. 28, 39; ef.
HJP i. ii. p. 67) suggests that ὑπηρέτης here is
John’s official title—‘ And they had with them also

John, the synagogue minister’ (cf. Lk 430), The
article in such a case would be omitted (cf. e.g.

CIG, 9906, ᾿Ιουλιανὸς ἱερεὺς ἄρχων. . . vids ᾿Ιουλιανοῦ
ἀρχισυναγώγου and inscriptions passim, also Winer-

* The reading ἐπιχαλούμενον, found in δὲς (quod vide) CD 61 Gig,
seems to be a ‘ Western’ reading due to assimilation.

+t ‘Western’ (paraphrastic) readings are (a) Ἴ. ὑπηρετοῦντα
αὐτοῖς, D 321 syr. hl. mg.; (ὦ) ἔχοντες μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν xoel’l. εἰς διακονίαν
(in ministerium, lat. vg.), Ε. Compare Ignat. Philad. xi.,
Φίλωνος τοῦ διακόνου... ὃς καὶ νῦν ἐν λόγω θεοῦ ὑπηρετεῖ μοι.

246 MARK (JOHN)

Ἢ

MARK (JOHN)

Moulton, p. 172).* If this interpretation be the
true one, we have an important fact about Mark
which reveals how close his ties with Judaism were.
Among his tellow Jews he was known as ᾿Ιωάνης
ὑπηρέτης.

3. MARK IN THE AposToLic HISTORY OF THE
NT.—Mark is one of those minor characters, a
careful study of whose movements throws consider-
able light on the relation to each other of the
apostohe leaders. In the NT he stands in close
connexion with Barnabas, St. Peter, St. Paul.

(1.) The first notice of Mark in the Acts is at the
time of the famine in Judea, some 15 or 16 years
after the day of Pentecost. He is at Jerusalem,
and Barnabas and Saul, returning thence to the
Syrian Antioch, take him with them as their com-
panion (συνπαραλαβόντες 12% 3 cf. 15°, Gal 9, It
15. important to notice that Barnabas, Mark’s
cousin, still retains the leading position (Βαρνάβας
δὲ καὶ Σαῦλος 12°), that as yet there is no hint of any
evaneelistic work further afield than Antioch, and
that there the Church had not spread beyond the
‘Grecian Jews’ (1139). Some time—how long we
have no means of discovering—-after their arrival
at Antioch a decisive summons comes. Barnabas
and Saul, at the bidding of the Spirit, are solemnly
set apart and dismissed to do ‘the work,’ the scope
of which remains still undefined. With Mark they
cross to Cyprus. After work among the Jewish
settlers at Salamis, they journey westwards till
at Paphos they meet the Jewish Magus among the
comites of the Proconsul, and the encounter ends
with the conversion of the Roman magistrate—the
firstiruit of St. Paul's Gentile converts. From
Paphos they cross to the mainland, and journey
inland as far as Perga. Here, perhaps when his
leaders were discussing or had already determined
upon the plan of crossing the Taurus and pene-
trating into a wholly new district, Mark separates
himself from them and returns to Jerusalem (131),
His conduct, it is clear, made a deep impression on
St. Paul. What were Mark’s reasons for this act
of seeming desertion? The conditions of their
common work, it must be remembered, had altered
since he left Jerusalem with them, in three im-
portant respects. (1) The call at Antioch had
Inaugurated a new epoch in the history of the
Church, and as ‘the work’ advanced it became
clear that it would lead the workers μάκραν (Ac
22"1), (2) There were already indications that ‘the
work’? would include the Gentiles ; and that this was
anew departure appears from 1427, (3) Barnabas
is passing into the background, and Paul is taking
his place as the acknowledged leader (note the
very significant οἱ περὶ Παῦλον in 13). For these
new conditions of service Mark was not prepared.

(il.) Some three or four years pass betore we
mect Mark again in the history. The great con-
troversy as to the freedom of the Gentile converts
had been closed, outwardly at least, by the decision
of ‘the Council’ at Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas
returned to Antioch. At Antioch (if without further
discussion we may assume the identity of the
visit to Jerusalem recorded in Ac 15 with that
recorded in Gal 2) there took place the events
which St. Paul briefly narrates in Gal 2U, St,
Peter followed to Antioch the emissaries of the
Church at Jerusalem, and proved himself loyal to
the concordat of ‘the Council.’ But the arrival of
‘certaix from James’ wrought a disastrous change.
‘Fearing those of the circumcision,’ he withdrew
from full fellowship with Gentile believers. His
example was the signal for a general revolt.

* With this interpretation, as indeed with the common one
(cf. Cod. E), though less conspicuously, εἶχον τ εἶχον μεθ᾽ ἑκυτῶν.
This sense of ἔχειν is common (especially in the participle) in
all Greek, οἰὸς Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. 29—‘et sepissime Thucydides
ceterique omnes’ (Stephanus, Thes., ed. Hase, iii. 2616). Here
εἶχον takes up συνπαραλαίβεντε;, ν. 25,

All the Jewish Christians at Antioch (οἱ λοιποὶ
‘Tovdator) joined in his time-serving policy, and the
pressure of their opinion seduced even (kal) Bar-
nabas, St. Paul’s old and close companion. St.
Paul’s public rebuke of St. Peter and (by implica-
tion) of Barnabas and the rest closes the his-
tory, so far as he has chosen to reveal it. It
has an obvious bearing on the relations of St.
Paul with Mark. We know that Mark was at
Antioch shortly after these events (Ac 15°”). The
three leaders with whom he was most intimately
associated, St. Peter, St. Paul, Barnabas, were
there already. It seems an almost certain infer-
ence that Mark had come as the companion of
one of them. If so, he was among οἱ λοιποὶ
᾿Ιουδαῖοι, who proved traitors ; and his example and
opinion must have been conspicuous among the
influences which led Barnabas astray. We can
understand that to St. Paul’s mind his later
conduct set its seal upon his earlier. His loyalty
to ‘the truth of the gospel’ was more than ques-
tionable, and his intluence over Barnabas was
harmful. When Barnabas proposed that Mark
should again be their companion, an indignant
reference to his former desertion of ‘the work’
(15°5) was suflicient answer. If we realize the
significance, personal and doctrinal, of the history
in Gal 2, we can understand the παροξυσμός which
separated Barnabas from Paul. The notice that
Mark with Barnabas sailed to Cyprus immediately
after these events is the last reference to him in
the Acts.

(iii.) After an interval of ten or twelve years we
meet with Mark again in St. Paul’s letters to the
Colossians (4!°) and to Philemon (ν.3). Mark is
at Rome. His presence there is ‘a solace’ to St.
Panl. In both Epistles the apostle speaks of him
as one of the few whom he can call ‘ fellow-workers ’
(contrast Ph 1). The happy change in the re-
lations between St. Paul and Mark is an important
indication of the triumph of St. Paul’s ‘catholic’
views of Christianity among the higher type of
Jewish Christians. It is clear from St. Paul's
language that Mark had contemplated, and it
appears was still contemplating, a journey to
Asia; and the Asiatic Christians had already
received from St. Paul a brief message commend-
ing him to them.

(iv.) Some three or four years later, St. Paul’s
last Epistle associates Mark with Timothy. The
words (2 ‘Ti 41) seem to imply that the two were no
strangers to each other, and that Timothy was
already acquainted with Mark’s movements.
Timothy, it seems probable, was still at Ephesus
(Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 437). Heis bidden
to come to Rome by the shortest route (v.°), and to
execute a commission at Troas on the way (ν.}5).
From Troas he was doubtless to cross to Neapolis,
to travel along the Eenatian Road to Dyrrhachium,
to cross to Brundisium, and to hasten to Rome by
the Via Appia. At some point in the journey he
is to ‘pick up’ Mark {γι} If that point was in
the neighbourhood of Ephesus, the notice is perhaps
an indication that Mark haa carried out his purpose
of visiting Asia (Col 41°). If not, it cannot be a
place which is otherwise associated with Mark
either by history or by tradition. To this diree-
tion St. Paul, remembering the help rendered to
him by Mark in his former captivity, adds the
reason of 1ὑ--ἔστιν γάρ μοι εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν.
The last three words, as Swete observes (p. xv),
‘assign to Mark his precise place in the history of
the Apostolic age.’

(v.) One more notice of Mark is found in the
apostolic writings. In his First Epistle, written
at Rome (see article BABYLON IN NT), St. Peter
sends to the churches of Asia Minor the salutation
of ‘Marcus my son.’ This greeting makes it prob-

MARK (JOHN)

MARK (JOHN) 247

able that Mark had visited some of the churches
to which the apostle is writing (see above (iii. ) (iv. )).
It is certain from these words that Mark was with
St. Peter at Rome—an important point of contact
between the NT and early Christian tradition.
The tenderness of the phrase ὁ vids wou is explained
by St. Peter's early intimacy with Marx in ‘the
house of Mary.’

4. MARK IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION. *—(i.) Mark’s
povition by birth.—The Pretace to the Gospel found
in MSS of the Vulgate contains the notice : ‘sacer-
dotium in Israhel agens, secundum carnem levita’
(Wordsworth-White, p. 171, οἵ. p. 1738)—a_mere
deduction, it seems probable, from Mark’s kinship
to Barnabas. The remembrance of a personal
deformity survives in an epithet well known at
Rome early in the 3rd cent.—obre Παῦλος 6 ἀπόστολος
οὔτε Μᾶρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος (Hipp. Philos. vil. 30).

A reference to this epithet is found in the Latin Prefaces to
the Gospel (see below), and with these substantially coincide
she notices in one or two later writers (see Lipsius, Dre A pocr.
Avostelgesch, ii. 2, p. 327; Zahn, Hind. ii. p. 211)... Three-ex-
planations of the epithet ‘stump-fingered’ or ‘mutilated in
the finger(s)’ have been suggested. (i.) Tregelles (Jowrnal
of Class. and Sacred Philol., 1855, p. 224 f.) thinks that the
epithet stigmatizes Mark as ‘pollice truncus,’ ‘the deserter’
(Ac 1313), (ii.) The Pref. to the Vulgate : ‘Amputasse sibi post
fidem pollicem dicitur ut sacerdotio reprobus haberetur’ (so
Isidore). (iii.) The Pref. to Cod. Toletanus : ‘Colobodactilus
est nominatus ideo quod a cetera corporis proceritatem digitos
minores habuisset’? (Wordsworth-White, p. 171). It is just
possible, however, that the word may refer to some mutilation
or malformation of the toes, resulting in lameness—an infirmity
which would be more likely to attract attention than a detormity
of the hand.

words of Papias (ap. Eus. //£ iii. 39), on the
authority of ‘John the Elder,’ are explicit—otre
yap ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῳ.

Do the words (clearly referring to Mark), with which the
Muratorian Canon begins, suggest a qualification of the asser-
tion of Papias? They run thus: quibus tamen interfuit et ita
posuit. It is possible that the first word has been mutilated,
and that we should restore aliquibus ; but see below. The Canon
is in full accord with Papias if, with, e.g., Lightfoot and Swete,
we take the words to refer to Mark’s presence at St. Peter's dis-
courses. Zahn (Gesch. Kan. ii. pp. 17f., 80, Hind. ii. pp. 200,
211), however, maintains that in the previous context of the
Fragment it had been said that, speaking generally, Mark was
not an eye-witness of the Lord’s ministry, and that then the
qualification is added: ‘nevertheless he was present at some
(events), and so recorded them.’ If the Canon was written at
Rome, and still more, if the writer was Hippolytus (Lightfoot,
Clement, ii. p. 412 f.), it is clear that it might embody an inde-
pendent and true tradition about Mark preserved by the Roman
Church. On the other hand, in the succeeding context dealing
with Luke (Lucas... cum eum Paulus... adsumsisset ...
conseripsit. Dominum tamen nec ipse uidit in carne, et idem
prout assequi potuit, ita et a natiuitate Johannis incepit dicere),
it is unsatisfactory to take nec (ipse) as referring to St. Paul,
who has been only incidentally mentioned, as Zahn is obliged to
do. The writer is clearly throughout (comp. the passages deal-
ing with John and with Acts) comparing the Evangelists in
regard to the power of giving ἃ personal witness. Accordingly,
both nec ipse and idem (αὐτός) bring out the parallel in reference
to this point between Mark and Luke.t Further, in the case
of Luke, who was not a personal disciple of Christ, the writer
notes that he was a companion of St. Paul.
still more reason for noting that Mark was a follower of Apostles.
We may conjecture, therefore, that the context immediately pre-
ceding the first sentence of the Fragment ran substantially thus :
‘Mark was not a disciple of Christ. But he was a follower of
Paul and also of Peter.
preached.
Some, therefore, of his discourses he did not himself hear ;
at others (οἷς 3:—literally translated by the quibus tainen of the
Latin Fragment) he was present, and so set them down, On
the whole, therefore, Zahn’s interpretation must be rejected,
and with it goes any shred of reliable evidence that Mark had
part in any events of the Gospel history.

Later traditions, however, give Mark a place in
the history of the Lord’s ministry.
Adamantius with the Marcionite, a work which

But he was not continuously a companion of Peter.

*Patristic passages dealing with the composition of the
Gospel according to St. Mark are not discussed here: see the
following article.

+ This parallel is still more marked if we adopt Lightfoot’s
emendation of the words referring to Luke: ‘et idem, prout
assequi potuit, ita posuit. Ita eta natiuitate .. .’ (Kssays on
‘Supernat. Relig. p. 189 n.); comp. the ‘ita posuit’ in the
account of Mark.

cannot be placed earlier than the later years of
Constantine (Hort in Dict. of Christ. Biog. 1. p.
30f.), the orthodox disputant obviously has ἃ con-
troversial reason for asserting that Mark and Luke
were among the seventy-two disciples (ed, Wetstein,
p. 8. Epiphanius (Her, pp. 50, 428 ed. Petav.)
wives the same piece of information, and further
tells us that’ Mark was one of those disciples who
turned back (Jn 6%). For other references sce
Lipsius, p. 328f. A more interesting tradition,
which first appears in a writer of the 6th cent.,
Theodosius (de Situ Terra Sancte 43, p. 20, ed.
Gildemeister), identifies the Church Sencta Sion,
mentioned by earlier writers as the scene of the Last
Supper, of the meeting of the apostles (Ac 15), and
of the events of Pentecost, with ‘the house of Mark
the Evangelist.’ Another writer of the same cent.
—Alexander (Laudatio Barnaba 13 in Acta SS.
Jun. ii. p. 440)—repeating the legend about Sancta
Sion, adds a story learned from ‘the aged,’ which
identifies Mark with the man ‘ bearing a pitcher
of water’ (Mk 14%). For these references sce
Zahn, p. 212f. The idea that the young man who
followed and fled on the night of the betrayal (Mk
1451) was Mark, is a modern but not improbable
conjecture.

(11) Mark and St. Peter.—A constant tradition
in the early Church, reaching back to the confines
of the apostolic age and harmonizing with the
notices of the NT, certifies us that Mark was a
companion of St. Peter (i.e. in his missionary

: ; ro -Jabours), was with him towards the end of his life,
(ii.) Mark's relation to the Lord’s ministry.—The | ‘

There was clearly |

He records in his Gospel what Peter |

but |

In the Dial. of |

and wrote the Gospel to preserve his Master's
teaching. The early authorities are these: (1)
Asiatic and Western: Papias ap. Eus. 11. 39 (on
the authority of ‘John the Elder’); Iren. iii. 1. 1,
10.6; Canon Murat. (see above) ; Tert. adv. Mare.
iv. 5. (2) Alerandrian: Clem. ap. Eus. HE vi. 14,
Adumb. in Priorem Petri Ep. (Migne, Pat. Gr. 1x.
732); Eus. ii. 15 (on the authority of Clement) ;
Origen ap. Eus. HE vi. 25. For references to
later writers see Lipsius, p. 322; Zahn, p. 216.
The above classification of authorities is due to
Swete (p. xvilif.), who notices that ‘the Asiatic
tradition goes behind St. Mark’s work as an Evan-
velist, and describes the nature of his services to

St. Peter. He had been the Apostle’s inter-
| preter.’

Some scholars maintain that the word ἐρμηνευτής (interpres)
points rather to Mark as the scholar of St. Peter, through whom
his Master's teaching reached a wider circle, with special refer-
ence to the composition of the Gospel. This is the view taken
by Zahn (Geseh. Kan. i. pp. 878 ff., Kini. ii. pp. 209, 218 ff.), who
urges that Papias uses the word in close connexion with Mark’s
composition of the Gospel, and that no early writer preserves
any detailed notice of Mark as ‘dragoman’ of the apostle. On
uh® other hand, the following considerations seem conclusive
for the strict sense of the word. (1) Such is the usual sense of
the word (see Swete, p. xix); the passages which Zahn (Gesch.
Kan. p. 880 n.) adduces, in which poets and prophets are spoken
of as ἐρωηνευταὶ τῶν θεῶν, are really instances of a metaphorical
use of the term. (2) Papias himself uses the cognate verb
(ὁρμήνευσε δ᾽ αὐτὰ ὡς ἣν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος) in the strict sense. (8)
Irenzus connects the word, not with the writing of the Gospel,
but with Mark’s previous relation to St. Peter, iii, 1. 1. M., δ
μαθητὴς 5. ἑρωηνευτὴς Πέτρου καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ 1]. κηξυσσέμενα
ἐγγρεζως ἡμῖν παραδίδωκεν, tb. 10. 6 M. interpres et sectator Petri
{note the order] initium evangelice conscriptionis fecit sic.
Zalin’s position is criticized by Link in Studien τι. Kritiken,
1806, pp. 405-436,

The ten or twelve years which elapsed between
the last mention of Mark in the Acts and St. Paul’s
reference to his co-operation in Rome were probably
the period in which Mark accompanied St. Peter.
It may well be that the help which he rendered to
the apostle when the latter first worked among
Greek-speaking people gained for him the title of
‘the interpreter of Peter.’ There is no reason why
we should infer that, at least at the end of his
life, St. Peter could not speak Greek, still less that
he could not write a Greek letter. Moreover, it
must be remembered that the word ‘interpreter’

248 MARK (JOHN)

MARK, GOSPEL OF

may have been used in reference to Latin rather
than to Greek (so Lightfoot, Clement, ii. p. 404).

(iv.) Mark's connexion with Rome and Alex-
andria.—(a) Rome. For the evidence of the NT
see above. The evidence that St. Peter at the
close of his life, when Mark was certainly his
companion, was at Rome, is overwhelming (Light-
foot, Clement, ii. pp. 493 ff.). Moreover, all the
early writers who mention the place of its com-
position speak of the Gospel as written at Rome
(Iren., Clem. Alex., Eus. H# ii. 15; for other
references see Zahn, p. 215), the only exception
being Chrysostom (vii. 7B), who says that it was
written in Egypt. (Ὁ) Alexandria. It is remark-
able that the great Alexandrian Fathers, Clement
and Origen, make no reference to any sojourn or
work of Mark in that city. Their silence cannot
but throw some suspicion on the notices of later
writers. The earliest witness is Kusebius, JIE
ii 16 (on ii, 24 see below), who records the
tradition (φασίν) that Mark ‘was the first to
found churches in Alexandria itself.’ After the
time of Eusebius, notices of Mark’s work § in
Egypt are frequent in Christian literature—(i. )
Greek: Epiph. Ler. li. 6 (p. 428 ed. Petav.) ;
Chrysost. lc. ; Constit. Apost. vii. 46. (ii.) Latin :
Jerome, de Vir. Illustr. 8, Prol. ex Comm. in
Matth. (Wordsworth-White, p. 12), Pref. to MSS
of the Vulgate (Wordsworth-White, p. 173). (ili. )
Syriac: Doctr. Apost. (Cureton, Ancient Syriac
Documents, p. 33). For other references see
Lipsius, p. 325 ff. ΤῸ pass to the evidence as to
the date of Mark’s work in Egypt, Eus. ITE ii. 16
(apparently), Jerome, de Var. Ilustr., and Epiph.
lace his journey there after the composition of the
‘xsospel. On the other hand, the Chronicle. of
Husebius (ed. Schéne, ii. pp. 152 f., 154 f.) places his
arrival at Alexandria in the first (Arm.) or the
third (Jer.) year of Claudius (A.D. 41-42 or 45-44) .*
the appointment of Annianus, his successor as
bishop, in the eighth year of Nero (A.D. 62-63 ;
so Rus. IF ii, 24).¢ It seems to be impossible to
reconcile these dates with the statements of the
NT. If we accept the tradition of Mark’s work at
Alexandria, we must apparently place it either in
the ten or twelve years to which we have already
assigned his journeys as St. Peter’s ¢ interpreter,’
or in the period after the death of that apostle. ἢ

The legends of Mark’s mission to Aquileia and
of the translation of his body to Venice belong to
medieval hagiology, and lie outside the scope of
this article. See Lipsius, pp. 346-353.

(v.) The Acts of Mark.—The Greek text is given

in Migne, Pat. Gr. exv. 164-170. The document

has been translated into Latin, Arabic, and
Kthiopic. — Livsius (p. 345) assigns it to a date

between the middle of the 4th and the beginning
of the Sth century.
it was written at Alexandria. [{ is historically
worthless, telling the usual story of a successful
war against idolatry, a growing Church, perse-
cution, martyrdom. The evangelist expires as he
ss being dragged through the streets by an infuri-
ated mob, who burn his remains, but are at last
dispersed by a tempest. Some forms of the Acts
give a detailed account of his person, Clearly in part

* The Chronicon Paschale (Migne, Pat. Gr. xeii. 559, ef, 546)
places the foundation of the Church of Alexandria by Mark in
the same year (A.p, 39) as the foundation of the Church of
Antioch by St. Peter, adding that Mark presided over the
former 22 years.

t The Armenian yersion puts Annianus’ appointment a year
earlier, For the emperors’ regnal years see art. CHRONOLOGY
or NT, i. p. 418b,

Φ With the belief that Mark founded the Church at Alexandria
is connected the ascription to him of the Liturgy. In the Aets
of Mark (c. 7) his enemies find him Tas εὐχὰς τῆς θεϊκῆς ἀναφορᾶς
ποιούμενον. According to Swainson (The Greek Liturgies,
>. Xxix), ‘the first time that we hear of a Liturgy of St. Mark is
in the 11th or 12th cent.’ (ef, Brightman, Liturgies, Ὁ, Ixvi).

Internal evidence shows that

a reminiscence of the portrait of St. Paul in the
Acta Thecle.

(vi.) Περίοδοι Bapyd8a.—These Greek Acts are
printed by Tischendorf in his Acta Apost. Apocry-
pha, pp. 64-74. The author writes in the name
of Mark, who is made to describe himself before
his conversion as a servant of a high priest of

Zeus. The Acts are wholly unhistorical. The
local colouring shows that the writer was a

Cypriot. The aim of the document is, by asserting
for the Church of Cyprus an apostolic origin and
the possession of the tomb of Barnabas, to support
her claim to be independent of the see of Antioch.
Hence Lipsius places the date οὐ its composition
Jate in the 5th cent., probably 485-488.

(vil.) Martyrdom.—Karly writers are silent as to
the time and manner of Mark’s death. The state-
ment of Jerome, de Vir. Ilustr. 8 (Mortuus est
octauo Neronis anno et sepultus Alexandriz) is
obviously a mere inference from Eusebius’ notice
of the appointment of Annianus. It would seem
that no document earlier than the ets of Mark
gives the evangelist the glory of martyrdom, In
these Acts, as in the Menologium of Basil, and as
in the later tradition of the Western Church, April
25 is fixed upon as the day of his death. The
different texts of the Martyriun Hieronymianum
mention May 18, Sept. 28, Oct. 3, 7 as Mark’s
memorial day (Lipsius, p. 326; ef. Diet. Chr.
Antig. p. 1089),

Lirerature.—Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark 1898,
has a full and suggestive chapter on the * Personai History of
St. Mark.’ Exhaustive collections and discussions of Patristic
and other authorities are to be found in Lipsius, Die Apoeryphen
Apostelgesch. u. Apostellegenden, 1884, ii, 2, pp. 821-358 ; Zahn,
Kinleitung in das NT, ii. (1899), pp. 199-220. Reference may
also be made to Harnack’s article * Mark’ (1853) in the Eneyelo-
pedia Britannica, F. H. Crass.

*“MARK, GOSPEL OF.—

Introduction.
i, Compass and Contents.
ii, Selection and Arrangement of Matter,
iii. Diction and Style.
iy. Original Language.
vy. State of Text and Integrity of the Book.
vi. Genius of the Gospel.
vii. Historical Attestation.
viii. Authorship.
ix. Sources,
x. Relation to Matthew and Luke.
xi. Purpose,
xii. Destination,
xiii. Place and Date.
Literature,

Of the four canonical Gospels the one which
has come down to us with the title ‘according to
Mark’ is the simplest, the most pointed and con-
cise. Its brevity was noticed by Jerome in the
account which he gave of its composition (de Vir.
Mi. c. 8); and the peculiarity of its narrative, in
respect of things omitted. has been the subject
of comment from ancient times. On all that
concerns its origin it is resolutely silent. It has
no such descriptive statement as is found in the
opening paragraph of the third Gospel. It neither
names nor indicates its writer. It gives not the
remotest hint that could put us on his track, if
we had nothing outside itself. All that we know
of its authorship rests, in the first instance, on
tradition. The question is whether that tradition
is historically credible, and whether it tallies with
the contents and character of the writing.

In the ancient lists of the New Testament books
this Gospel does not always occupy the same place.
In a considerable number of MSS, almost entirely
Latin and Greco-Latin (D, a,b, e, f, fq”), as well
as in the Gothic Version, the Apostolical Constitu-
tions, and the Latin Stichometry of Codex Claro-
montanus, it is placed last (with the variation
third) in the number of Gospels. But in the great

**Copyright, 1900, by Charles Scribner's Sons

MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF 249

| οστο

ae

majority of Greek MSS, as well as catalogues and
lists given in ecclesiastical writers, it has the second
place. This second Gospel (see below, vi.) is seen at
once to have a character of its own distinguishing
it unmistakably from the first and third Gospels,
not to speak of the Fourth. [ἢ ancient times its
special worth and peculiar features were imper-
fectly recognized. The tendency was to give it
a subordinate place, and to attach less value to
it than to the other Gospels. Even the great
Augustine fell into the mistake of speaking of
Mark as the ‘follower and abbreviator of Matthew’
(‘subsecutus tanquam = pedisequus et breviator
ejus’; cf. de Cons. Evang. i. 4). A curious
epithet, of obscure origin and uncertain inter-
pretation, Μᾶρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος. Which is applied
to the evangelist in the writings of Hippolytus
(Phil. vii. 80), is supposed by some (e.g. Keim) to
refer to the cropped, curtailed character of the
narrative (but see the preceding article, p. 2475).
The oldest Commentary (not to reckon certain
Homilies supposed to belong to Jerome ; οἵ, Anec-
dota Maredsolana, iii. 2, p. 319, ete.) which we
possess on this Gospel, one ascribed to Victor of
Antioch, is not older than the 5th or the 6th cent.
(Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit. i. p. 889; Hort,
Votes, p. 34; Burgon, Twelve Last Verses of St.
Mark, p. 272, etc.). The author of that com-
pilation states that he had entirely failed to find
any commentary on Mark, although there were
many expositions of Matthew and John, and not
a few also of Luke (cf. Swete, Gospel acc. to St.
Mark, p. xxix). And for a considerable period,
as various things go to show, this Gospel was less
regarded and less used than the others. One
reason for this may have been the fact that it
did not profess to be the immediate work of an
apostle, and was not taken to be such. But there
was probably a further reason in the difficulty
which seems to have been felt in defining its
proper function. How great this difficulty was
may be seen perhaps by the variety of the symbols
applied to it. In the distribution of the well-
known evangelic figures no Gospel had so uncer-
tain a position as this one. Each of the four
symbols, the lion, the man, the ox, the eagle, was
selected in one quarter or another as the best
expression of Mark’s distinctive place and pur-
pose. And it may be said that, at least for the first
five centuries, less was made of this Gospel than
ot the others, especially the First and the Fourth.

But all is changed now. The genius of the
second Gospel is better understood. Its peculiar
falue and its particular function in the holy
quaternion of the Gospels are better appreciated.
It is recognized to be of singular interest for the
direct, simple, objective view which it gives of
Christ and His ministry in deed and word. The
spell of its vivid realism is felt as it never was
before. The historical matter enshrined in it,
which at first sight seems so limited as to give the
book the aspect of an incomplete or abbreviated
narrative, is seen to be of the first importance
both in amount and in kind. The things which
caused it to be less regarded in ancient times are
the very things which attract special attention to
it now—its shortness, its simplicity, the fact that
it looks like a first, unstudied outline rather than
a history, the character which belongs to it as
the transcript of a disciple’s notes rather than
the direct work of an apostle. It is seen, too,
to be at the basis of the whole problem of the
origin and mutual relations of the canonical
Gospels, and is believed by many to take us
nearest the primitive form of the evangelic narra-
tive. So it has become the subject of a quite
peculiar interest, and engages the sedulous atten-
tion of students.

i. COMPASS AND CONTENTS.—The ‘programme?’
of the second Gospel (Meyer) is given in Peter’s
statement of the apostolic preaching in his dis
course before Cornelius (Ac 10°). Mark keeps
within the limits and answers to the character
attributed there to the ‘word published’ by the
apostles. He begins with the Forerunner’s mission
and ends with the Resurrection. The framework
of the narrative and the course of events are toa
very large extent the same as in Matthew and
Luke. He has ἃ brief introductory paragraph
dealing with the ministry of John and the pre-
paration of Jesus for His official work by His
Baptism and Temptation (11:19). a large central
section containing the main stream of narrative
(14-1547) ; and a conclusion relating to the Resur-
rection of Jesus (16'8). ΑἸ additional paragraph
gives details of His Risen Lite, and a brief account
of His Ascension (16%) ; see below.

In the body of his Gospel Mark introduces us
first to the Galilean Ministry in the Eastern parts
(14-73) and in the Northern parts (774-95); then
to the Ministry in Persea (10181) ; and finally to the
last Journey to Jerusalem and the closing events
(ΤΟΣ 15:1). The principal divisions of the narra-
tive also have a certain order, and consist of cer-
tain distinct sections. The story of the Ministry
in Eastern Galilee is given in three parts, viz.:
(a) from the first announcement of the Kingdom
and the call of the first disciples to the beginning
of the conflict with the official classes (114-3!) ;
(δ) from the call of the apostles to the rejection
at Nazareth (313-68) ; (¢) from the mission of the
Twelve to the withdrawal to the borders of Tyre
and Sidon (67-773), The story of the Ministry in
Northern Galilee is given in two sections, viz.:
(a) from the meeting with the Syrophoenician
woman to the cure of the blind man, and the
departure to the vicinity of Csarea Philippi
(774-825) ; (δ) from Peter’s Confession to the second
declaration of the Passion, and the words to the
apostles on self-denial (827-9). The events of the
last week of the Ministry are reported as they
took place day by day—Sunday (11!1), Monday
(11!*-19), Tuesday (1179-1587), Wednesday (141),
Thursday (1412), Friday (1453-15#"),

The whole matter falls at the same time very ob-
viously into two great blocks of narrative—the one
occupied with the Galilean Ministry (1'4—9°°), the
other with the Last Week at Jerusalem (11)-168).
There is a difference also between the two. In the
first the narrative, while always vivid and at some
points full, is often compressed. In the second it
is minute, circumstantial, and more of the nature
of a journal. The intervening story, including
the journeys in Perea and Judea, the words on

divorce, reward, and the purpose of Christ’s
coming, the incidents of the blessing of the

children, the question of the rich inquirer, the
request of the sons of Zebedee, and the cure of
Bartimeeus, is rapidly disposed of.

There is more of a scheme in the second Gospel
than is at first surmised. But it is a simple,
natural scheme, corresponding with the earliest
description which we have of this evangelist’s
method, viz. that given by Papias, which we shall
afterwards consider. Christ’s work is seen to
follow a certain plan, beginning with the preach-
ing of the largest truths of the kingdom, first in
the towns in the vicinity of the Sea of Tiberias,
and then throughout Galilee generally; moving on
through intervals of seclusion and periods of de-
cision ; and fulfilling itself in the stated training of
the Twelve for their future vocation and the final
crisis. Christ’s teaching is also seen to proceed by
certain stages, first in the way of synagogue ad-
dresses and free discourse by the lake side or in
the interior parts; then in the specific form of

250 MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF

parabolic instruction; and, finally, in the com-
inunication to the Twelve of the deeper mysteries

of the kingdom, especially those relating to the |

Passion.
ii. SELECTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF MATTER.
—Like the other Synoptists, Mark carries us

through the successive periods of our Lord’s course
and experience—His first popularity, with the
shadow of opposition in its train; the formation
of a body of apostles; the rising enmity of the
ruling classes; the combination of hostile forces,
and the result in the crucifixion. But he does
this with a difference, which is due partly to his
object and partly to his sources. He deals
primarily with Christ’s public ministry. He
passes by, therefore, much that appears in the
other Synoptists—the preliminary history, the
genealogy, the circumstances of our Lord’s birth,

infancy, and years of privacy. He omits the
greater discourses. He includes, indeed, the

eschatological discourse (13! *), but he has no
place even for the Sermon on the Mount, and
does little more than mention the denunciations
on the seribes and Pharisees. He is equally
meagre in his report of the parables. Of the
parables proper he records only four—the Sower
(48), the Fruit-bearing Earth (4°°~"), the Mustard
Seed (4282), and the Wicked Husbandmen (12"1!),
He gives none, therefore, belonging to the inter-
mediate period,
later. Of the minor or germ parables also he has
only about as many—the new patch on the old

cloth (22!) ; the new wine in the old skins (259) ; the |

kingdom and the house divided against themselves
(33:36),

He is concerned with the acts rather than the
sayings of Jesus, and especially with those which
show Him in His power. He reports, therefore,
a considerable number of the miracles. The
instances which he gives are those of the demoniac
in the synagogue (18), Peter’s wife’s mcther
(150.31), the leper (14), the paralytic (25:12), the
man with the withered hand (5!), the stilling
of the storm (4%-!), the Gadarene demoniac (61:11).
the woman with the issue of blood and the daughter
of Jairus (524%), the 5000 and the walking on the
sea (62), the Syrophanician woman’s daughter
and the deaf mute (72437), the 4000 and the blind
man at Bethsaida (81:9. 226), the lunatic boy (911-39),
Bartimeus (10), and the withering of the fig-
tree (1124), Of these eighteen, most are of the
class of healing miracles. Most also belong to the
period before the Transfiguration.

In the construction of the narrative Mark ap-
pears to place some things in bold relief, particu-
larly the crisis of the first intimation of Christ’s
destined death, and His various periods of retire-
ment: His withdrawals to ‘a solitary place’ after
the early cures (1°), to ‘desert places’ after the
cleansing of the leper (14°), to the lake after the
healing of the man with the withered hand (37-1),
to the villages after His rejection at Nazareth
(6°), to ‘a desert place’ after the murder of the
Baptist (6°), to the borders of Tyre and Sidon
after the opposition of the Pharisaic party (774),
to the neighbourhood of Cvzesarea Philippi after
the cure οὗ the blind man (827), to the range of
Hermor. after the first open prediction of His
Passion (9°), to Bethany after the triumphal
entry (1153), and again after the cleansing of
the temple (111%), end yet again after the dis-
course on the end of things (14%). The added
paragraph on the Ascension also reads like the
story of the last of His withdrawals (1619).

While the mass of Mark’s matter is also found
in Matthew and Luke, there are some interesting
paragraphs which he has in common with only one
of the two. ‘The incidents of the demoniac of

and only one belonging to the |

ΜῈ synagogue, the journey through Galilee, the
prayer of the Gadarene demoniac, the complaint
of John, the women bringing spices to the tomb,
are given by Mark and Luke, but not by Matthew
(Mk 12527, Lk 43337; Mk 13539, Lk 44-44; Mk 518,
Lk 88; Mk 988, Lk 949; Mk ΤΙ Lk 241). While
the peculiarity of Mark as compared with the
other Synoptists is mostly in omissions, he has
also certain additions. They are not many, but
they are of importance. They include one of the
parables, the Fruit-bearing Earth (4029), two of
the miracles, those of the deaf mute (7°), and
the blind man at Bethsaida (8726); and such
incidents or circumstances as the three questions
about the dulness of the disciples (817: 18), the ques-
tion about the disciples disputing (938), the young
man with the linen cloth (14°! 53), the smiting of
Jesus by the servants of the chief priests (14%),
Pilate’s wonder and his questioning of the cen
turion (1544).

Besides these, there is much additional matter
in the form of striking detail in the narrative
that is common to Mark and the other two, or to
Mark and one of the two. This is seen especially
in such cases as those of the paralytic, the de-

moniac boy, the departure from Ephraim, the
purgation of the temple, ete. In these Mark

describes, as the others do not, the wneovering and
breaking up ot the roof (24); the pining and
miserable condition of the boy, the question of
Jesus, and the father’s ery for faith (9-6) ; the
walking of Jesus before His disciples (1088) ; the
prohibiting ct the carrying of vessels through
the temple courts (11!%).

While there are only four paragraphs (together
with the opening verse) out of the 106 of which
Mark’s Gospel may be said to consist, that are not.
found at all in Matthew or in Luke, the quantity
of matter proper to Mark is calculated to amount,
when all kinds of additions to the common record
are taken into account, to about a sixth of the book.
But in the strictest sense of incidents or sayings
reported by Mark and not found in any form in
either of the other Synoptists the case is different.
In this sense the matter peculiar to the second
Gospel does not extend to more than from twenty-
five to thirty verses.

In the arrangement of the narrative this Gospel
follows in some respects a course of its own. As
regards the connexion in which it gives the narra-
tive that is common to the three, its two main
sections differ widely. In the report of the
ministry in Galilee (114-9°), Mark’s order of events
diverges largely from Matthew’s on to the story of
Herod (614) ; after this point the disagreement dis-
appears for the most part. In the case of Luke
the difference is much less. The second and third
Gospels observe much the same order, yet with
some notable exceptions. The incident of the
blasphemy of the scribes, e.g., is introduced by
Mark (322) before the coming of the mother and
the brethren of Jesus, brt wy Luke (1115) after
that; and the parable oi the Mustard Seed is
given by Mark (4%) in connexion with that of
the Sower, but by Luke (13.1!) after the healing
of the woman with the spirit of infirmity. The
visit to Nazareth which Mark records (6'*) would
have to be added to these exceptions, if it were
necessary to identify it with the visit reported by
Luke (41682), But, in placing the visit which he
has in view at the beginning of the ministry, Luke
is so far supported by Matthew (411°) ; and the
case recorded by Mark, which appears to be the
same as is also given by Matthew at a later stage
(135456), is possibly different. In the second of
the two main sections of his Gospel, from the
journey to Jerusalem on to the Resurrection

(101-168), Mark has generally the same order as

MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF 251

the other Synoptists. There are some exceptions
indeed, but they are of minor importance. Mark,
δι ΘΟ ports the blasting of the fig-tree as witnessed
the morning after the curse (115), while Matthew
records the effect along with the pronouncement
(21819) 5 and while Luke (22?!) gives our Lord’s
declaration of the traitor as made after the giving
of the bread and the cup, Mark (1418) introduces
it before that.

iii, DICTION AND STYLE.—As might be expected
from the measure of agreement in contents, Mark
has much in common with the other Synoptists in
diction. More than asixth of his entire vocabulary
is found also in Matthew and Luke, or in one of
them, and nowhere else in the NT. The affinities
with John are more limited. There are only
15 words peculiar to the second Gospel and the
Fourth, and of these only a few are of distinct
interest (6.0. ἀκάνθινος, ἐνταφιασμός, πιστικός, προσ-
αἰτη:). Nor is the case much altered if we take
words peculiar to Mark and John together with
one or other of the remaining Gospels. ‘There are
only 7 words of all kinds peculiar to Mark with
sohn and Matthew (ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, μοιχεία, ὄψιος,
πλέκειν, ῥα38:εί, σπόγγος, ocavyd), aud only ὃ peculiar
to Mark with John and Luke (ἄρωμα, γαζυφυλάκιον,
iuds, «pd3arros, φανερῶς). ‘The similarity between
the second Gospel and the Pauline Epistles is
somewhat more marked. The number of words
peculiar to these writings, together with the
Epistle to the Hebrews, is about 23; while the
measure of resemblance becomes much greater if
words peculiar to Mark and the Pauline Epistles,
together with Matthew or with Luke, are taken
into account. The linguistic affinity is smallest
between Mark and the Apocalypse, and between
Mark and the Catholic Epistles, the peculiar words
in the former case being only 5 (δρέπανον, λευκαίνειν.
μεγιστάν, χιωρό.. χοῦς), and in the latter only 2
(δαμάζειν, δωρεῖσθαι).

On the other hand, there is ἃ considerable
number of words which occur only in Mark and
the LXX. They amount to about 40, and most of
them are words which are replaced by others in
the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke. To
the last-mentioned class belong such terms as
ἀγρεύειν, ἀμφιβάλλειν, δύσκολος, ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι, ἐνειλεῖν,

καταθαρύνει", πρ᾽σάϑ3ατον, στίλβειν, τρυμαλιά, etc.
There are also some 38 words of various kinds
(omitting proper names) which occur only in Mark,
and neither in the other NT writers nor in the
LXX. Among these are such terms as adexropo-
pwvia, ἀλλαχοῦ, ἀνατυλίειν, ἄναλος, ard5nuos, ἀποστε-
γάζειν, ἀφρίζειν, ἐκπερισσῶς, ἔννυχα, ἐσχάτως, κωμό-
TIALS, νουνεχῶς, παρόμοιος, προαύλιον, προμεριμνᾷν,
πυγμῇ. στασιαστῆς, στιβάς, τηλαυγῶς, τρίζειν, ὑπερ-
περισσῶς. The number of words of all kinds
peculiar to Mark among the NT writers amounts
to somewhat less than a seventeenth of his entire
vocabulary. Discounting proper names and trans-
literations like Boavnpyés, ἐφφαθά. κορϑάν, ταλειθά,
kowvu, paBBouvel, the proportion will be about 79 to
1270. The strictly distinctive element in Mark’s
vocabulary, though of great interest, is not particu-
larly large. It is much smaller than is the case
with Luke, who has about 250 ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, and
also many words peculiar to himself and St. Paul.

‘There are certain words and phrases for which
Mark has a peculiar fondness, and which are used
much more frequently by him than by the other
Synoptists. Of this class are these: ἐπερωτᾶν,
διαστέλλεσθαι, εἰσπορεύεσθα', παραπορεύεσθαι, περιβλέ-
πεσθαι, εὐαγγέλιον, πρωΐ, pope, ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐξ. Where
Matthew and Luke have προσέχειν ἀπό, Mark has
βλέπειν ἀπό; Where these have ‘Hpdns ὁ τετράρχης.
he has 6 βασιλεὺς ‘Hp 5ys; Where Matthew has
συμθούλιον λαμθάνειν, Mark has cvu8Bo0vAi ποιεῖν,

Mark has also a predilection for diminutives, such

as θυγάτριον, κοράσιον, κυνάριον, ὠτάριον, πλοιάριον,
παιδίον, ἰχθύδιον ; and for accumulated negatives,
e.g. οὐκέτι ov μή (142°), μηδενὶ μηδέν (113), οὐκ οὐδείς
(957), μηκέτι μηδέ (2%), οὐκέτι οὐδείς (55 οἴο.), μηκέτι
μηδείς (1115), μὴ μηδέ (939), etc. Latinisms, such as
δηνάριον, κῆνσος, κεντυρίων, κοδράντης, κράβαττος,
λεγίων, ξέστης, σπεκουλάτωρ, ἱκανὸν ποιεῖν, OCCUr in
larger measure in his than in the companion
Gospels. Old dialectic forms, such as εἶτεν, παιδιό-
θεν, occasionally reappear in Mark. He has a
particular liking for the use of εὐθύς (εὐθέως) in
transitions. He has a disposition also to use full
or pleonastic forms, especially in statements of
time and place, and in the case of prepositions in
composition, e.g. τότε ἐν ἐκείνῃ ἡμέρᾳ (2? etc.), ἐκ
παιδιόθεν (931), ἀπὸ μακρόθεν (5° 83 etc.), ἐξάγειν ἔξω,
ἐκπορεύεσθαι ἔξω. ἐξέρχεσθαι ἔξω.

Further, Mark often adds to the force οἵ his
statements by the use of repeated, explanatory, or
balanced expressions (e.g. 142 326 612), In construc-
tion he has a preference for the use of εἶναι and
ἐλθεῖν With the participle ; ΟΝ av ἐνδεδυμένος.
καὶ ἔσθων (1°) ; ἦσαν καθήμενοι καὶ διαλογι(ύμενοι ( 26):
ἦν κράζων Kal καϊανόπτὼν (5°). He is accustomed to
heap participles together (as in 121. 41 525 1467 ees
and to use ἄν with the indicative (ὅταν αὐτὸν.
ἐθεώρουν, 81}. ὅταν ἐγένετο, 1119. etc.). He has ἃ
liking also for the use of the article with the
infinitive (e.g. διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν. . δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσ-
πάσθαι, 5* etce.). The ‘ historic present’ is frequent
(Hawkins, 115 ff.). Broken and irregular con-
structions are by no means unusual (cf. 223 816-18
82 920 1314. δὲ etc.).

The connexion of the sentences, again, is of the
simplest, one being attached to the other usually
by a καί or a be. There is a marked absence of
such particles as οὖν, But there is considerable
freedom in the use of prepositions, and there is
more in the use of the tenses. The latter vary,
often within the same sentence, so as to express
changes in circumstance, position, or point of view
(e.g. eynyeptar.. . ἠγέρθη; 614; ἐλύθη... . . ἐλάλει...
διεστείλατο. . . διεστέλλετο, 7° 9 5 ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. . .
ἠσπάζοντο, 915; cf. 515 etc. 9° etc. 16 etc.).

The style has the constant qualities of life and
force. When elaboration or repetition is needed
in order to make his narrative distinct and vivid,
Mark employs a copious phraseology, and adds
word to word, e.g. ‘he went out and began to
publish it much and to blaze abroad the matter’
(145) ; 1 Anow not neither understand 1 what thou
sayest’ (14°°) ; ‘that sprang up and increased; and
brought forth’? (48), ete. But usually Mark’s style
is terse. It abounds in passages which are remark-
able for the large amount of matter compressed
within the narrowest limits. Examples of con-
densed yet singularly distinct narrative are found
everywhere. ‘They are particularly frequent in the
earlier chapters (cf. 118. 12° 27 etc.), but are by no
means strange to the later (cf. 879 12°54 etc.).

In much Mark’s Greek is like that of the LXN.
at once in vocabulary and in style. It differs boti
from that of Matthew and from that of Luke. It
has a Hebraistic colouring. But it has less of that
than Matthew, though more than Luke. It lacks
the flow and the literary quality of the Greek of
the third Gospel. It is the Greek of one to whom
Greek is not his mother tongue, and who knows
the language in its biblical, popular, and colloquial
forms, not in its literary usage. The command of
words is moderate, and the grasp of idiomatic
expression is limited. But there is enough for the
purpose—enough for simple, truthful narrative ;
not enough for a literary composition, but enough
for the construction of a collection of notes and
reminiscences.

iv. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.—From the earliest
times to the present day the general opinion has

252 MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF

been that the second Gospel was written origin-
ally in the language in which we now possess it.
The testimony of antiquity is entirely in this direc-
tion. The Fathers either speak of Mark’s Gospel
as written in Grvek, or proceed on the supposition,
and betray no knowledge of any other view of it.
And in the book itself there is little, if anything,
to suggest aught else. It has been held by some,
however, that the original language was Latin.
This view found favour with Roman Catholic
scholars of a former age, although it has been
generally given up by their successors in our own
time. It was upheld by Baronius (Ad ann. 45,
No. 389) among others, and there were even those
who thought that part of the Latin autograph was
to be seen in the Library of St. Mark’s, Venice.
The document in question was found, however, to
be simply a part of the Vulgate, and to belong to
a Latin MS of the Gospels, another portion of
which had found its way to Prague (ef. Dobrowsky,
Fragm. Pragense Ev. St. Mare’ vulyo autographe ;
Simon, J/ist. Crit. iii. 14; Gregory-Tischendorf,
Proleg. p. 185).

It is true that the subscriptions of certain manu-
scripts (e.g. 160, 161) speak of this Gospel as
written in Latin (ἐγράφη Ῥωμαϊστὶ ἐν Ῥώμῃ). But
they are few in number and of relatively late date,
not earlier in any case than the 10th century.
It is true, too, that the same idea is conveyed in the
subscriptions or marginal notes of certain versions
—the Peshitta and Hareleian Syriac (Latine
Rome). But there is probably nothing more in
this than a hasty inference that, if the Gospel was
written in Rome or for Roman readers, it must
have been written in the Roman tongue. There
is absolutely nothing in Patristic testimony to
support the theory of a Latin original. It is hard
to believe that such an original could have perished
so completely. It is true that there is the supposed
parallel of a Hebrew original for Matthew's
Gospel (see art. on latter). But in that case there
is an early and considerable tradition at the basis
of the theory, whereas in Mark’s ease the original,
if it was in Latin, has disappeared without leaving
a trace of itself. And further, if the second Gospel
was meant specially for Roman Christians, the
probability is all on the side of its being composed
in Greek, as St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the
Romans in that tongue. Colloquial Greek would
be a more natural medium of communication be-
tween the evangelist and Roman Christians than
Latin.

It has also been held that this Gospel was written
originally in Aramaic. Blass (cf. his Philology of
the (rospels, p. 196, ete.) in advocating this view
points to the condition of the text, which suggests,
he thinks, the existence of a ‘plurality of versions
of a common Aramaic original.’ But the data
which he produces, though ingeniously presented,
are neither numerous enough nor certain enough
for the purpose. His argument in other directions
is also mixed up with doubtful speculations. It im-
plies that Papias mistook a translation for the
original. It supposes that in the first part of the
Bk. of Acts Luke followed an author who had
written in Aramaic, and that. this author was
Mark. To say that Mark’s Gospel had Aramaic
sources is ne thing, to say that it was written in
Aramaic is 2 different thing. ‘The theory in ques-
tion makes the Mark which we have a translation,
and the argument in view fails to account for the
many things in the book, in its style and its strong
individuality, which give it the character of a
primary, not a secondary composition.

v. STATE OF TEXT AND INTEGRITY OF THE
BooK.—The tert of the second Gospel, like that
of the others, is in a satisfactory condition. It is
attested by the Primary Uncials (including C,

which gives chs. 111-081 85.10.99 1319-1629); by most
of the later uncials which are of special interest in
respect of age, completeness, or character of text,
e.g. KE, K, L, M, N, 8, U, V, A, I (complete, but
having 1615 in a later hand), = (containing all but
164-0), @, etc.; by the mass of the cursives, among
which are 1, 33, the Ferrar group, and others of
critical importance ; and by the best of the ancient
versions—Latin (Old Lat. in its best MSS, and
Vulg.), Syriac (Old Syriac, both Curetonian and
Sinaitic, Peshitta, Harcleian, Palestinian), Egyptian
(both Memphitic and Thebaic), Kthiopic, Gothic,
Armenian; and by a large body of Patristic evi-
dence.

It presents, nevertheless, not a few problems, of
more or less importance, in textual criticism. The
chief of these is the one raised by the existence of
alternative endings. But there are others of smaller
compass Which are of interest. They are spread
over most parts of the Gospel, and in many cases
have a considerable bearing on the exegesis. In-
stances are found in 1! (the τοῦ θεοῦ); 12 (the
reading ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτην ; 14 (the point of
the description of the Baptist being affected by the
retention or omission of 6 and καί) ; 127 (the διδαχὴ
καινήν; 3!° (Kavavaiov); 4:8 (πληρὴν or πληρὴ σῖτον);
5! (Γερασηνῶν) ; 5 (παρακούσας) ; 73 (πυγμῇλν ; 15 and
7 (the omissions) ; 8% (Βηθανίαν) ; 824 (the graphic
reading βλέπω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ὅτι ὡς δένδρα ὁρῶ περι-
marouvras); 9) (the omission of καὶ νηστείᾳ); 944-46. 49
(the omission of the sentences gov σκώλῃς, ete., and
καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται) ; 118-26 (the στιβάδας
in the former and the omission of the latter) ; 131
(the omission of τὸ ῥηθέν, etc.) ; 1429 (the omission
of kal ἄλλος, Μήτι ἐγώ) ; 14° (προελθώνν ; 1528 (its
omission). Of special importance are these—the
reading ἁμαρτήματος for κρίσεως in 329; the well
actested ὁ τέκτων in 63; the ἠπόρει for ἐποιεῖ in 62 2
the puzzling αὐτοῦ for αὐτῆς, supported by ¥,B,D,L,4,
in the description of the damsel in 6°25 the καθαρίζων,
attested by x, A, B, L, and many cursives in 72°,

The only case affecting the integrity of any con-
siderable part of the Gospel is that of the concluding
paragraph. It is also the great problem in the
textual criticism of the book. The documents show
three different forms for the close of the Gospel—
(7) the longer form as given in TR, embracing 169-2);
(}) the shorter form, ending with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ in
16°; (6) an intermediate form which runs (with
some variations) thus—mdvra δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς
περὶ τὸν Πετρὺν συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν " μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ
αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι
δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλεν δι’ αὐτῶν τὺ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον
κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας.

The intermediate form is found in 4 uncials (1,
sl’, P, W), the cursive 274 (in a footnote), the mar-
gin of the Harcleian Syriac (with a note), the margin
of two good MSS of the Memphitic, and certain
MSS of the Ethiopie (continuously with 168. and
followed immediately, without note, by 16920), In
most cases it appears as an alternative to the
longer form; but in the Old Latin codex k it is
given alone. In style it resembles Luke rather
than Mark. Neither in whole nor in part has it
been found in any of the Patristic writings. It is
probably due to a scribe or editor of early date, who
found it difficult to believe that the Gospel could
have terminated so abruptly as it does at 168. and
there is no reason to suppose that it ever found a
very extended acceptance.

The question is as to the ec mparative claims of the
other two forms. The longe: 2onclusion is supported
by the vast majority of uncials, including A, C, D,
E,F,G,H,K,M (N), S,U,V,X,T, A, 1, 3,,3, by the
cursives in a body, most of them giving the paragraph
16°29 without note, 20 ov more of them stating that
it was found in the best inanuscripts, though [Ὁ was
wanting in some ; by all the Lectionaries for Easter

- - ee

MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF 253

and Ascension Day, by the Old Latin (¢, ff σ΄. 0,
n, 0, 4) and Vulgate versions, the Curetonian,
Peshitta, Harcleian and Jerusalem Syriac, the
Meimphitie or Bohairic, Gothic (in part), Ethiopic
(as a secondary reading), and Armenian (in later
Mss); and by many of the Fathers, including Justin
(possibly), Hermas (doubtfully), Irenaeus, Eusebius
or his correspondent Marinus, Macarius as report-
ing an anonymous heathen writer, Epiphanius,
Didymus, Nestorius, Chrysostom (doubtfully),
Ambrose, Augustine, and most Latin writers after
these, as well as by the Apostolic Constitutions, the
Gesta Pilati, the Syrian Aphraates, ete. 10 is also
urged in its favour that the competing conclusion
is inconceivably abrupt.

On the other hand, the shorter ending is given in
the two great uncials δα and B (the latter leaving a
column blank), by L (as one of three endings), by
the cursive 22 (with a note and as one of two end-
ings), by & of the Old Latin (implicit), the margin
of the Harcleian Syriac, the Sinaitic Syriac, the
best MSS of the Armenian, and by the Ethiopic
in some of its older MSS. It is also favoured by
Eusebius (who speaks of vv.**? as not found ‘in
all the copies’ or ‘in the accurate copies’), by
Jerome (who probably repeats Eusebius, stating
that the passage is found ‘in few Gospels, almost
all the Greek copies not having it’), by Victor of
Antioch, and by the writer of the Oration on the
Resurrection, wrongly attributed to Hesychius of
Jerusalem or to Severus of Antioch. The lack of
all reference to it in writers who might have had
oecasion to deal with it, such as Cyril of Jerusalem,
Cyprian, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory
Naz., Gregory Nyss., Cyril of Alexandria, Theo-
doret, is also significant.

Internal considerations, too, are, on the whole,
adverse to the longer conclusion. It is true that
ἐφοβυῦντο γάρ makes an extremely abrupt termina-
tion. But such terminations, even where the last
word happens to be a particle, are not unknown
in Greek literature. It is true, too, that it seems
strange that the evangelist should close his narra-
tive with a single incident of the Lord’s risen life,
and that one in which we are left with the final
impression of terror. But this may be due to the
narrative having been left for some reason un-
finished, or less probably to the loss of a leaf;
while in point of fact the additional statement in
16929 does not give the harmony and completeness
which one expects. But, further, there is a marked
difference between the two paragraphs in general
character. It is easy indeed to make too much of
matters of vocabulary and style where the area of
comparison is so limited, and some of the alleged
peculiarities of the longer ending may admit of
explanation. The fact, however, remains, that in
16° there is an unusual number of words and
phrases that are strange to Mark, e.g. @edouar,
ἀπιστέω, μετὰ ταῦτα, πρώτῃ σαββάτον, ὁ κύριος AS
applied to Christ, πορεύεσθαι (three times in this
section, and nowhere else), πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις, τὸν κόσμον
ἅπαντα, παρακολουθέω. ἐπακολουθέω, βεβαιόω, etc.

The style, too, changes. It is less graphic, but
more constructive. It drops the simple connexion by
καί, and runs in terms of μετὰ ταῦτα, ὕστερον δέ, ὁ μὲν
οὗν, ἐκεῖνος δέ, etc. There are peculiarities also in
its matter. Mary Magdalene, who has been intro-
duced in 161, is mentioned in 109 as if for the first
time, and gets a note of identification (ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβε-
βλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια). The motive of the paragraph
seems not to be purely historical. The thing on
which all turns in it is the passing of the apostles
out of their first hopelessness, unbelief, and weak-
ness into the certitude, the courage, and the power
of faith. To exhibit this is perhaps the purpose
for which it was written. In any case it is com-
plete within itself. It is ‘a condensed fifth narra-

tive of the Forty Days’ (Hort), a summary of the
appearances of the risen Christ and their effeet
upon the apostles, concluding with His ascension,
and their subsequent work.

The probability, therefore, is that these last
twelve verses did not belong to the original form
of the Gospel. This probability is strengthened
both by the case of the intermediate ending, and
by the consideration that there was an inducement
to supplement the narrative so as to remove the
strangeness of the shorter conclusion. In view of
the peculiarities of style and connexion, it is diffi-
cult to suppose that it was added by the original
hand. It must have been of very early date, how-
ever, and it is not the kind of addition that can be
readily explained as a work of mere invention. It
embodies a true apostolic tradition, and may have
been written by some companion or successor of
the original author. In an Armenian manuscript
of the Gospels, which was discovered in 1891 in the
Patriarchal Library of Edschmiatzin, and is stated
to be written A.D. 986, the paragraph bears to be
the work Of the Presbyter Ariston. It is suggested
by Mr. F. C. Conybeare, the discoverer of the
manuscript, that this Ariston may be the Aristion
who is named by Papias (Kuseb. ΖΔ iii. 89) among
the disciples of the Lord, and that the question of
the authorship of these twelve verses is thus solved
(Expos. viii. [1894] p. 241, etc., and in Swete’s S¢.
Mark, p. ciii ff.).

The genuineness of the paragraph has been de-
fended by R. Simon, Mill, Bengel, Wolf, Eichhorn,
Storr, Kuinoel, Matthei, Hug, Scholz, Guericke,
de Wette, Olshausen, Bleek, Lange, Ebrard, Bis-

ping, Hilgénfeld (in part), McClellan, Scrivener,
Canon Cook, Dean Burgon, Morison, Words-

worth, G. Salmon, E. Miller, etc. It is contested
by Michaelis, Fritzsche, Griesbach, Lachmann (al-
though according to their method these two give
it a place in their texts), Credner, Ritschl, Meyer,
Ewald, Reuss, Holtzmann, Keim, Hofmann, Tisch-
endorf, Zahn, Tregelles, Schatf, Weiss, Westcott
and Hort, Alford, Swete, and most English schol-
ars. Some (Scholten, etc.) have solved the diffi-
culty by supposing that the Gospel had originally a
different conclusion ; and attempts have been made
(by Ewald, Holtzmann, Volkmar, and Ritschl) to
restore this hypothetical ending. But these have
been more venturesome than convincing. (See
the great critical editions by Tischendorf, 'Tregelles,
and especially Westcott and Hort (Appendix, pp.
28-51) ; Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticism
of the NT; Burgon’s The Last Twelve Verses of
the Gospel according to S. Mark, etc.; Weiss,
Das Markusevangelium ; Klostermann, Untersuch-
ungen, pp. 298-309; Martin, Jnrtroduction ἃ la
critique textuelle du NT, partie pratique tome ii.;
G. Salmon, Jntrod. to the NT, pp. 141-151; Har-
nack, Bruchstiicke des He. uw. der Apoe. Pt., ἃ Aufl.
p. 83; Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Markusevange-
lium; Strzygowski, Byzantinische Denkmiler, 1.
(1891) ; Resch, Ausserhanonische Parallelterte zu
den Evang. it. pp. 450-456 ; Swete, The Gospel ace.
to St. Mark, pp. xevi-ev; Zahn, Geschichte des
NT’ Kanons, ii. pp. 910-988, and FHinleit. in das
NES tp. 2215-60.)

vi. GENIUS OF THE GOSPEL.—The second Gospel
has a noticeable individuality. Qualities which at
onee catch the eye distinguish it from its com-
panions. One of its most marked characteristics
is the simple objectivity of its narrative. It is not
the product of reflection, nor does it give things
coloured by the writer’s own ideas. It has been
called a ‘transcript from life’ (Westcott). It is
in the main a simple and unqualified transcript.
It has been described also as the realistic Gospel,
and the description is just if it means that Mark
brings things before us as they were, simply and

MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF

entirely as they were, and as if one’s own eye were
on them. With this, too, it has the charm of a
singular vividness. It is beyond the others graphic
and dramatic, rich in pictorial effects and lifelike
touches. This is true in some degree even of the
discourses. It is pre-eminently true of the deeds
and incidents. Examples are seen in the narratives
of the storm (43641), the demoniac (01:39), Herod’s
feast (621), the feeding of the 5000 (6%), the
blind man (826), the son with the dumb spirit
(919), the rich young ruler (10!-**), Bartimus
(104-52), ete. Often the effect is produced by a single
word or phrase, e.g. the κύψας in 17; the σχιζομένους
in 1; the ἐκβάλλει in 112, as compared with Mat-
thew’s ἀνήχϑη and Luke’s ἤγετο; the εὐθὺς ἄρας τὸν
κράβαττον in 212; the ἐπέβαλλεν and the γεμέζξεσθαι
in 437; the περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης in 6; the
προσωρμίσθησαν in 6°3; the κράξας, σπαράξας. etc., in
926 ; the θερμαινόμενον in 147 ete. It belongs to the
same quality of vividness that the direct form of
speech is so often chosen, e.g. * Peace, be still? (45);
‘Come out of the man, thow unclean spirit’? (58) ;
‘Send us into the swine’ (5!?) ; ‘Come ye your-
selves apart’ (63!) ; + Thow dumb and deaf spirit, I
charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more
into him’ (9%).

So, too, Mark preserves notable words of Christ
in the mother tongue (Boanerges, Talitha cuin
Ephphatha, Corban, Abba), and delights to record
His actual gestures and movements. Thus he tells
us how He ‘looked round about’ on the men in
the synagogue (3°) ; how He ‘tuyned him about in
the press’ (53’) ; how He ‘looked up to heaven’
when He took the loaves and the fishes (64), and
when He cured the deaf-mute (784); how He
‘turned about, and looked on the disciples’? (833) ;
how He ‘sat down and called the twelve’? (9°) ;
how He took little children ‘up into his arms, and
put his hands upon them’ (983 10!) ; how ‘ behold-
ing’ the young ruler He ‘loved him,’ and ‘turned
about and looked on his disciples’ (1071-3) ; how
He ‘looked round about upon all things’ in the
temple profaned (111).

Akin to this, too, is the quality of peculiar
cirownstantiality. Mark’s is the Gospel of greatest
detail. As a general rule, it is richer than the
other Gospels in the particulars which go to give
certainty and distinctness to narrative. It is
copious in indications of time, place, number,
situation, and the like. It tells us, e.g., that
the swine which ‘ran violently down a steep
place into the sea’ were ‘about two thousand ’
(513) ; that the disciples were sent forth ‘two and
two’ (6°); that on the occasion of the miracle of
the 5000 the people ‘sat down in ranks, by hundreds
and by fifties’ (6°); that Jesus went to pray,
rising up ‘a great while before day’ (18°) ; that it
was ‘the third hour’ when they crucified Him
(1835) ; that it was ‘very early in the morning, the
first day of the week, at the rising of the
sun,’ that the women came to the sepulchre (161).
So, too, Mark explains how Jesus withdrew ‘to the
sea’ (37); how He ‘sat in the sea’ (4!); how He
was in ‘the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a
pillow’ (435); how He sat ‘over against the treasury’
(1211), and on the Mount of Olives ‘over against
the temple’ (13%) ; and how the healed demoniac
preached ‘in Decapolis’ (5°); how Peter ‘went
out into the porch’ (14*8); how the centurion
‘stood over against’ Jesus (1539) ; how the young
man was seen ‘sitting on the right side’ in the
sepulchre (16%), ete.

‘He is an author,’ says Keim, ‘in a flower-
bedecked garment. . . . He makes the narratives
more effective by the contrast between rapid
progression—marked by the continually repeated
‘¢immediately *’—and contemplative stillness, paint-
ing the scenery with a thousand touches, the house,

the sea, the followers, the growing throng, the
names of persons, the numbers of the men and
of the animals and of the pieces of money, the
greenness of the grass, the pillow in the stern of
the boat on Gennesareth—all given with a prefer-
ence for affectionate and familiar diminutives, and
in the present tense’ (Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr.
lepp. 128,:129):

It belongs also to its genius that it is distinc-
tively the Gospel of action. It is this in a two.
fold sense. Its primary interest is in deed and
incident rather than in discourse. It does not
limit itself, it is true, wholly to the works of
Christ. It gives a considerable place to dialogue,
and records not a few of our Lord’s briefer sayings.
But these seem to be introduced mainly because of
their connexion with the events and acts; while
the longer discourses, which are characteristic of
each of the other three evangelists in different
ways, do not appear in Mark. ‘The one great
exception is the Eschatological Discourse in ch.
13. It is the Gospel of action, too, in the sense
that its narrative of the deeds of our Lord is
rapid, energetic, undisturbed by reflection, moving
steadily and regularly to its goal. The only
passage that is of the nature of an episode is the
story of Herod (6%), With the briefest possible
preface it goes straight to its main subject, the
official ministry of Christ; and it proceeds with
that subject with a simple and rapid directness,
passing from one thing in it to another often by
abrupt transitions and without pausing to study
form or artistic connexion. The same holds true
of it when it goes beyond the function of a
chronicle. It does not always confine itself to
the simple report of what was done by Christ and
others or what befell them. In not a tew cases
it records the impressions which were produced—
the awe and wonder with which the crowds beheld
Christ’s works or heard His words (1%? 2.215. 6?) ;
the eager anxiety of the multitudes to get near
Him as they thronged and pressed Him, so that
there was scarce room to stand, or sit, or leisure
even to eat (22 Bl. 2. 32 41 H21 31 G 31-33 81); the teelings
ot fear, sore amazement, astonishment, and the
like, which overcame the disciples (44! 69! 1024 26.82),
At times Mark even explains cases that he records,
e.g. Herod’s attitude to the Baptist (6'%); the terror
ot the disciples when they saw Jesus on the sea
(052), the silence of the women (16%), etc. He deals
in the same way now and again with things
which he reports Christ to have done (e.g. the
‘knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of
him,’ 5°’; the καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα 717)9 etc.).
But all is done rapidly and by a few clear strokes.
It is in harmony with this that Mark presents
Christ so largely in the exergy of His superhuman
power. The prevailing aspect in which the second
Gospel sets forth its Subject is not that of the Son
of David and Abraham, in whom Matthew sees the
fulfilment of OT prophecy ; nor that of the Son of
Adam, in whom Luke sees the Perfect Man, the
Saviour for all mankind, the minister of love and
compassion for the worst and most despised ; nor
the eternal Word, in whom John sees the fulness
of the Godhead. It is that of the ‘Son of God
with power’ (Ro 14), moving among men with His
eift of miracle, and making the things of nature
the servants of His grace. So Mark gives a large
place to His mighty works, and exhibits Him in
the majesty of His energy. He shows us how He
used His miraculous power; how that power was
felt and recognized by different classes ; how the
multitudes believed in it and made their appeal
to it, and brought their sick to Him, confident that
if they could secure His notice or even touch Him
it would be enough (18: 810 5?8 6° ete.) ; and how
resistless were the effects that were produced alike

MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF 255

on people and on disciples by His wonderful works

121. τ πον GLE)

Yet this is not due to any neglect of His true
humanity. It is a remarkable fact that, while
this Gospel depicts the Jesus of history 850. pre-
eminently in His power, it records with literal
faithfulness things which might seem so far to
limit that power. It tells us how the unclean
spirits first resisted (124); and how He could ‘do
no mighty work’ in Nazareth (6°). 10 describes
with precise and vivid circumstance those miracles
which were wrought not instantaneously and by
word, but with comparative slowness and by the
use of means (73! 825-90). ΤΌ is also rich in touches
which speak to the identity of Christ’s human
nature with ours in feeling and in the experience
of infirmity, revealing Him not only in His com-
passion (634 83), His love (1071), His majesty and
serenity (439 92 ete.), but in His sense of hunger
(1112), His need of rest (488), His anger and dis-
pleasure (3° 1014), His sighing (7+ 8!*), His wonder
(6°), His grief (3°), His longing for solitude (1%
ox? etc. ).

The peculiar place which the disciples have in this
Gospel has also been noticed. They have a large
place in all the Gospels, and much of each of the
Gospels is given to the description of how the apos-
tles were taught and trained by their Lord. But
Mark appears to dwell with a special interest on all
that belongs to the disciples —their intercourse with
Christ, the way in which they became first attached
to Him, the deepening of that attachment, the
choice of Twelve from among them, the experience
of the elect three, the things said and done by
Christ with a particular reference to His immediate
followers. So much is this the case that some
would speak of it as distinctively the ‘ Disciple Gos-
pel’? (Weiss).

It has also been claimed for Mark that his is the
chronological Gospel. But this is true only in a
very qualified sense. His narrative is no more a
history than are those of the companion Gospels,
nor does it give events in strict chronological succes-
sion. ‘There is at the same time a difference be-
tween Mark and his comrades in this respect as in
others. Mark observes a certain order of a large
kind in his report of Christ’s teaching and in his
account of His ministry. While he omits much,
he gives what he includes in a certain connexion
and sequence. The order which he exhibits, how-
ever, seems to be that in which facts came to him in
the communications of his chief informant rather
than that of actual occurrence. He does not follow
the method of grouping words and events to the
extent seen in Matthew, nor does he attempt the
literary arrangement of the matter, as we observe
it so far in Luke. It is by taking Mark’s narrative,
however, as the framework and adding to it from
the other Gospels that we appear to come nearest
the actual succession of events. His narrative,
though not strictly chronological and by no means
devoid of dislocations, is more continuous than
those of the other Synoptists.

vii. HISTORICAL ATTESTATION.—The historical
testimony to the early circulation and acceptance
of this Gospel is sufficient. It is scantier, however,
at the earliest point than might have been expected.
There is scarcely any mention of the second Gospel
in the Apostolic Fathers. In Clement of Rome
there is one saying which looks like a reminiscence
of Mk 4-29 (1 Cor. 23), but it may come from
another source. There are also two quotations
(1 Cor. 15. 46) which are much in Mark’s style.
But they are scarcely sufticient to establish the fact
of Clement’s acquaintance with this Gospel (cf.
Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, pt. i. in loc.). Nor
is there anything in Ignatius, Polycarp, or Barnabas
to point certainly to the existence of the written

Gospel, although some find references to Mk 1614 in
Barnabas, c. xv. 9, and to Mark 9% in Polycarp,
Philipp. v. Much the same is the case with the
Didaché, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Martyrium
Polycarpi, the so-called Second Clement. Nor is
there any quotation from this Gospel, or reminis-
cence of it, in the fragments of Papias, although
there is much about Mark and his writing (Kuseb.
HE iii. 39, etc.).

It is perhaps somewhat different with Hermas, in
whom we have one or two sayings which remind
us of expressions peculiar to this Gospel. Thus
ἔνοχος ἔσῃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας in Mand. ii. 2 recalls Mk 35*9;
and the sentence τοιοῦτοι οὖν δυσκόλως εἰσελεύσονται
εἰς δὴν βασιλείαν ποῦ Oeovd . 0... τοῖς σσιούτοις
δύσκολόν ἐστιν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσελθεῖν
points to the form in which Christ’s declaration
on riches appears in Mk (10° *4) as distinguished
from Mt and Lk. In Justin Martyr, again, there
are several passages which have been thought to
indicate an acquaintance with the second Gospel,
e.g. Dial. 88 and Apol. i. c. 16, as compared with
Mk 68 128°; Dial. 106; also Apol. i. cc. 39, 45, 49,
50, and Dial. 82 as recalling perhaps Mk 1015. Ὁ
The most relevant of these are Dial. 88, where we
have the phrase τέκτονος νομιζομένου applied to
Christ, as Mark alone of the evangelists designates
Him so; and Dial. 106, where mention is made
of certain ἀπομνημονεύματα or Memoirs appar-
ently of Peter, and the words Boavepyés, ὅ ἐστιν
viol βροντῆς are given. ‘These words occur in
Mk alone of the Canonical Gospels, and there
seems little reason for supposing (e.g. with Har-
nack, Bruchstiicke d. Ev. d. Petrus, p. 37, ete.)
that they are taken from the Apocryphal Gospel of
Peter rather than from Mark.

We are on much more certain ground when we
come to Irenveus. His testimony is as unambiguous
as itisample. He speaks of the ‘ fourfold Gospel ’
(τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, 11]. 11. 8). He tells us
both about Mark himself and about his Gospel. He
quotes the opening words, Jnitium Hvangelii Jesu
Christi filii Dei, etc., expressly as Mark’s (iii. 10.6);
and a number of passages are given by him in exact
terms (ἐξ 9: 1**iniv.6. 6% 58 in te 3% bs δὲ yi
18. 1; 8% in iii) 16.6 ; 888 init, 18.6; 923 in iv: 87.6
04 101], -82. Ts: 1055 τὴ Σ 921, 8; 105 τὴ ἢ, 98, 6:
These quotations extend also to the disputed end-
ing, 161% being introduced thus—‘in fine autem
Evangelii ait Marcus Et quidem Dominus Jesus,
postquam locutus est eis, receptus est tr celui, et
sedct ad dexteram Dei’ (iii. 10.6). A place in the
line of historical witnesses may also be claimed
for Athenagoras (Legatio, ¢. 35, though less def-
initely), the Muratorian Canon (in all proba-
bility), Hippolytus (especially Eis τὰ ἅγια Θεοφάνειο,
Lagarde’s Hippol. p. 38, where Mk 17-8 is quoted,
also Περὶ χαρισμάτων and contra Her. Noeti,
Routh’s Opp. i. 80, 545, as compared with Mk
161.19), ‘Tertullian (on whom see RGnsch, Das
NT Tertullians, p. 148, ete.), Clement of Alex-
andria (Adumbr. in Petr. p. 1007, Euseb. HE ii.
15, vi. 14), the Clementine Homilies e.g. ii. 19, iii.
543, Dos 57 81x) 20) Cle.

There is evidence also to show that the second
Gospel was known in the earlier heretical circles,
especially the Gnostic. Irenzeus refers to a sect who
separated Jesus from Christ, and preferred Mark’s
Gospel (iii. 11. “7; the reference, however, is not
quite certain), and to a Valentinian School as using
Mik 6°) (led: 3), Clem. Alex, also: GStrgimuiv.. $25
Exc. 85) reports Mk 838 as quoted by Heracleon,
and the statement about Christ being ‘with the
wild beasts’ as quoted by certain Valentinians
(cf. also Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century,
Dp. Wit, <etc. s (Zahn. Gesell. d.* Ne Aanonss ss ps
741, etc.). References to our Gospel, especially
to its last chapter, some doubtful, others more

256 MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF

definite, are found in the Gospel ace. to Peter (on
these see Zahn, Hinleit. in d. NT, ii. p. 237, Das
Ev. des Petrus, p. 53; Lods, L'évangile de St.
Pierre, p. 64; Harnack, Bruchstiiche des Ev. τι. αἰ.
Apoc. des Pt. p. 33; Swete, Akhmim Fragment,
p. xl; Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Markusev. pp.
27-33, etc.).

To this it must be added that, as far back as we
can trace the idea of a fourfold Gospel or the prac-
tice of harmonizing the Gospels, Mark forms one of
the four. The idea of a fourfold Gospel, however,
is probably of older date than Ivenwus, some dis-
covering indications of it a generation before the
Bishop of Lyons (Taylor, Witness of Hermas, 1,
etc.) ; and the practice of harmonizing, of which
the first great evidence is Tatian’s Diatessaron, is
probably of earlier date than that work. It appears,
therefore, that there is valid evidence to the fact
that this Gospel was in circulation by the middle
of the 2nd cent.; that by the last quarter of that
century it had an established position ; and that it
became so generally recognized as to find a place in
all the early lists of canonical books, whether of the
Eastern Church or of the Western, in which the
Gospels are given, and in all the great versions of
the NT, including the Old Latin, the Egyptian, both
Memphitic and Sahidic, and the Syriac in all its
forms.

viii. AUTITORSHIP.—Ancient tradition connects
the composition of this Gospel with two names—
those of Mark and Peter. Much of the historical
testimony, from Papias on to Jerome, which attests
the early circulation and acceptance of the Gospel,
also speaks to Mark as the writer, and this Mark is
usually identified with the disciple of that naime
who appears in the N'T in relation both to Paul and
to Peter. This identification, indeed, has not been
universally accepted. Some have taken the differ-
ent accounts to point to several Marks. Hippolytus,
e.g. (Fragment on the Seventy Apostles), distiu-
guished between the cousin of Barnabas (bishop of
Apollonia), John Mark (bishop of Bibloupolis),
and the evangelist (bishop of Alexandria). On the
ground that the earliest writers outside the N’T do
not call the person in question John, and represent
him as the companion, not of Paul but of Peter,
others (Grotius, Calovius, Schleiermacher, Tille-
mont) have held it necessary to affirm the existence
of two Marks, a Pauline and a Petrine, and have
ascribed our Gospel to the former (Kienlen). But
the case is best satisfied by supposing, as most have
done, that all the various references in Scripture
and in tradition point to one and the same individ-
ual, especially as Barnabas makes the connecting
link between Peter and Paul in the story of
Mark.

The person to whom the preparation οὗ this
Gospel, therefore, is ascribed, is the disciple who
in the NT is sometimes called simply Mark or
Marcus (Ac 1589, Col 41), 2 Ti 44, Philem 24,1 P
518), sometimes represented as having Mark for
his surname, Ac 12!2-% 1537, and sometimes called
John (Ac 15°!) ; while outside the NT he is spoken
of as evangelist and as bishop of Alexandria, and
in the later tradition as martyr (Euseb. HE ii.
16, iii. 89; Epiph. Her. li. 6; Jer. de Vir. Ill. 8;
Niceph. ii. 48). In the Gospel itself he does not
appear, unless it be ir the person of the young
man who followed Jesus on the night of the
betrayal, ‘having a linen cloth cast about his
naked body’ (Mk 145!-52), or, as has also been
conjectured, in the person of the ‘man bearing a
pitcher of water’ whom the disciples were sent to
meet in preparing for the passover (Mk 1418), But
elsewhere we see that he was a Jew by birth (Col
411), the son of a certain Mary, a Christian lady
apparently of some position and means, whose
house in Jerusalem was a gathering point for

believers (Ac 1213), and cousin (ἀνεψιός) of Barna-
bas (Col 419), See preceding article.

In the NT the traditional author of the second
Gospel is associated mostly with Paul. He is
mentioned as returning to Antioch with Paul and
Barnabas, after their visit to Jerusalem with the
contributions of the Antioch Christians (Ac 122);
as going with Paul and Barnabas on their first
missionary journey, in the capacity of their ὑπηρέτης
(Ac 13°); as breaking away from them at Perga,
and returning to Jerusalem (Ac 1333); as causing
a ‘sharp contention’ between the two friends
when Paul proposed to revisit the Churches and
declined to take him with them (Ac 15°49), He
reappears, however, in Paul's company at the time
of his first imprisonment, and sends salutations
along with others through Paul (Col 410, Philem 24),
And he is referred to in appreciative terms by
the great apostle in his second imprisonment
in Rome as a friend whose presence he desired
(2 Ti avy,

In the NT his association with Peter is quite
subordinate. It is suggested in the notice of Mary
his mother and Peter’s reception in her house after
his deliverance from prison (Ac 12!2), and it is
implied in 1 P 6!8, where he is spoken of as Peter's
convert (vids μου, however, not τέκνον μου). But
this is all. In the non-canonical literature all is
different. There the relation to Paul drops out of
sight, and Mark is statedly associated with Peter. .
The tradition is both very ancient and remarkably
continuous, beginning with Papias (reporting the
Presbyter John, and giving also explanations of his
own), and carried on by Justin Martyr, Iven:eus,
Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian,
Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, ete. In
these writers it assumes different forms, but as
regards the main points it is consistent.

In Papias (Euseb. HE’ ili. 39) the presbyter
speaks of Mark as Peter’s épunvevrys, a term which
is understood by not a few to mean that Mark
acted as interpreter or dragoman, translating
Peter’s Aramaic into Greek; some (e.g. Bleek)
supposing him to have served as Latin interpreter.
It is better taken, however, to express the fact
that he did the part of amanuensis, committing to
writing, with more or less freedom in the composi-
tion, the oral communications of Peter. The Elder
further says of him that he wrote down accurately,
not, however, in order (acpiBas ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι
rater), all the things that he remembered, both

_those said and those done by Christ; that he was

not himself a hearer of the Lord, but was indebted
for his matter to Peter’s instructions, which were
adapted to the needs of his hearers. and were not
designed to give a connected account of the Lord’s
words (οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος
λόγων) ; and that he made no mistake, but made
one thing his care, namely, neither to omit any-
thing he had heard nor to set down anything false.
It is to be noticed also that this statement defines
the scope of Mark’s work, or, as it is understood
by Zahn and others, the extent of his dependence
on Peter. What he is said thus to have written
down is ‘Some things as he remembered them’
(οὐδὲν ἥμαρτε Μᾶρκος, οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ame-
μνημόνευσεν).

If Justin’s ἀπομνημονεύματα αὐτοῦ (Dial. 106) are
taken in their most probable sense as Peter's
memoirs, Justin also is a witness to the belief that
Mark’s Gospel was substantially Peter’s. Irenzeus
likewise speaks of Mark as the μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμην-
εὐτὴς Πέτρου, the interpres et sectator Petr’, who
‘committed to writing the things preached by
Peter,’ but adds that he did this after the decease
of Peter and Paul (iii. 1. 1, 10. 6). Clement Alex.
(Hypotyp., as in Euseb. HE ii. 14) enlarges the
tradition, stating that when Peter- had preached

MARK, GOSPEL OF

257

MARK, GOSPEL OF

at Rome many who had heard him urged Mark
to write down what had been spoken; that the
evangelist did this ; and that when Peter came to
know it, he ‘neither forbade nor encouraged. it.’
Tertullian (ade. Mare. iv. 5) says of the Gospel
which Mark published that it ‘might be aftirmed
to be the Gospel of Peter, whose interpreter Mark
was’; and Origen (Euseb. WE vi. 25) speaks of
)Mark as having written ‘as Peter directed him.’
Eusebius himself, who has much to say on the
subject, goes beyond Clement’s negative position,
and gives the report that the apostle confirmed or
Pauthorized Mark’s writing at the request of the
Churches (xupwoal τε τὴν γραφὴν εἰς ἔντευξιν ταῖς
Πέκκλησίαις, WH ii, 15). And Jerome, who also
speaks of Mark as Peter's disciple and interpreter
(de Vir. Til. c. 1), states in one passage that Mark
wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren
vat Rome, and that Peter approved of it and
authorized it to be read in the Churehes (de Vir.
Ill. ὁ. 8). while in «nother (Zp. ad. Iedib. c. 2) he
describes the Gospel as composed by Peter narrat-
ing and Mark writing (‘habebat ergo ‘Tituni inter-
pretem sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cujus
Evangelium Petro narrante et illo seribente com-
positum est’).

| There are variations, therefore, in the traditions,
particularly as to the time when the Gospel was
written and the measure of its dependence on
the apostle. In some forms it is represented as
written during Peter’s lifetime ; in others, as com-
posed after his decease. As time goes on, too, the
tendency is to make Peter more and more re-
sponsible for it, until in Eusebius it is described
as authorized by the apostle to be read in the
churches, and in Jerome it is said to have been
dictated as well as sanctioned and authorized by
Peter, but the tradition is consistent all through
in referring the authorship of the Gospel in one
sense to Mark and in another to Peter. And the
general view which it gives us of the Gospel is that
of a composition embodying Peter’s recollections
of Christ’s words and deeds,written by Mark from
his notes of the apostle’s discourses, and giving the
substance of these discourses exactly as he heard
them. The tradition is so ancient, so consistent
in its main affirmations, and so widely extended,
that only internal considerations of exceptional
Weight could justify its rejection. Does the Gospel
as we have it, then, tally with it or not ?

It has been contended by some that the second
Gospel as we have it does not correspond with
| Papias’ description, and cannot be the work which
| he ascribes to Mark (Schleiermacher, Weiffenbach,
| Beyschlag, S. Davidson, etc.). It is asserted that
| our Gospel is the composition of some unknown
writer, who worked up into order and arrangement
the unconnected notes which the evangelist had pre-
pared. Mark’s own work, it is held, cannot have
been anything like a * Gospel in the sense now under-
stood, but something in the style of the Clementine
Homilies—a κήρυγμα Mérpov, in which Mark wrote
down sayings, narratives, and teachings of the
apostle Peter’? (S. Davidson). Some (e.g. Wendt)
have supposed that what Papias had in view was
only a series of narratives, which are embodied in
our present Gospel, and can be critically separated
irom it. And the hypothesis of an Urmarkus, a
primitive pre-canonical writing, has been advocated
in various forms (e.g. by Baur, Kostlin, 8S. David-
son, Jacobsen, etc. ).

But there is no trace in ancient literature of
this supposed Urmarkus. It has been thought,
indeed, that we have a glimpse of it in a reference
in Justin to a passage In Peter’s ἀπομνημονεύματα,
Which is found only in the second Gospel (Dial. ο.
) Lryph. ec. 106; cf. S. Davidson's Introd. to the NT,

" VOL. I11.—17

is no suggestion anywhere in early Christian
literature of a substitution of a later writing for
an earlier, or a transference of the name and
authority of a preceding composition to our present
Gospel. Nor is it easy to understand how a primi-
tive writing by the evangelist Mark, giving an
apostle’s account of Christ’s words and deeds,
it it ever existed, could have been so absolutely
Jost and forgotten. And with regard τὸ. the
evidence which is thought to be furnished by the
Gospel itself as it exists, it is enough to say that
it is of the most slender kind. It is urged. ¢.4.,
that a series of older narratives is presupposed in
‘the account of the replies of Jesus to objections
and questions, given in the two groups, Mk 1-38
and 121°3'7 (Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus. i. Ὁ, 21,
Wilson’s tr., ef. Lehre Jesu, i. pp. 9 ff., 25 ff.), and
that in 1218 we have the narrative of 3: resumed.
This is perhaps the strongest case, but it is not
sufficient to take us back to an Urmarkus. The
things, indeed, which are held by some to indicate
that the book as we have it is the product of a
process of compilation or literary remodelling are
few in number, and can all be otherwise explained.

Neither can it be said that the reasons advanced
for the contention that our Mark does not corre-
spond with the writing described by Papias, are of
sufficient weight to discredit the tradition. The
statement that Mark wrote ‘not in order’ is not
inconsistent with the kind or measure of arrange-
ment which may be discovered in our Gospel.
For Mark comes short at any rate of recording
things in each case in the succession in which
they actually took place, and attempts πὸ liter-
ary form. Norean it be allowed that the occurrence
of certain repetitions (such are alleged, ¢ g.. in 64
ete, 8°85 437-41 (7-51) or the omission of some par-
ticulars bearing specially on Peter (¢.g. the want
of the word bitterly, which is given by Mt and Lk
in their account of his repentance, and the faet
that he is not named as one of the two sent ta
prepare for the Supper), are of much weight. Most
of the reasons, indeed, which are urged in support
of the position are highly arbitrary or hypothetical.
The fact, e.g., that this Gospel gives the two dis-
tinct narratives of miraculous feedings is turned
into an argument against its having derived its
matter from an eye-witness. Much is made, too,
of certain statements (e.g. L025 1538. as compared
with 2 Co 8111. 15). which are declared to have
‘passed through the mind of a Paulinist? (S. David-
son, Introd. to the NT, i. pp. 465-484).

On the other hand, the lifelike character of the
narrative, its vividness and circumstantiality, and
the peculiar fulness and certainty of knowledge
which show themselves often in minute details,
suggest that it is due, directly or indirectly, to an
eye-witness. The difference between it and the
apocryphal Gospel according to Peter in these and
other respects is significant. There is much in it
also to connect it with the apostle, as indicated by
Papias and others. The great bulk of its narrative
consists of things of which Peter might have per
sonal knowledge. Peter’s call. Peter’s confession,

the message of the risen Christ to Peter, are
great turning-points in the story. There are

many touches in the narrative (e.g. in 11-2) 129 95
14! 101) which indicate first-hand knowledge,
and that on the part of one like Peter. There are
some things noticed in the other Synoptists which
are unexpectedly omitted by Mark, e.g. Peter's
walking on the water (Mt 1439), his appearance in
the incident of the tribute money (Mt 1724-7),
Christ’s statement that He prayed for him indi-
vidually (Lk 228"), the great word addressed to him
as the Rock (Mt 1018). On some occasions, too, his
name is not given where it is introduced by Mt or

sp, 408). But this is utterly insufficient. There | by Lk (e.g. 111, cf. Mt 15%; 1418. ef. Lk 228).

i

MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF

The silence of this Gospel in matters honourable
to Peter has been commented on from the time
of Eusebius (Dem. Evang. iii, 5) onwards, and
explanations of most of these cases of suppression
may be suggested. On the other hand, there
are reports of incidents which would come most
naturally from Peter, and there are suggestive
occasions on which Peter is introduced ἴῃ this
Gospel, and only in it. It is only Mark who
records, e.g., that ‘Simon and they that were with
him followed after’ Jesus when He departed into
a solitary place at the beginning of His ministry
(136); that he called Christ’s attention to the
withered fig-tree (112!) ; that with his brother and
the sons of Zebedee he questioned Jesus on the
Mount of Olives about the destruction of the
temple (133). It may be added that a comparison
of the narratives which we have of the three
seenes at which only Peter and James and John
were present, the raising of the daughter of Jairus,
the Transfiguration, and the Agony, will show
that the versions given in the second Gospel have
peculiar details and distinctive features which
suggest not only that the writer had more imme-
diate) knowledge than Matthew and Luke, but
that he had it from Peter. A certain likeness
has also been observed between Mark and Peter
in respeet of style. Peter’s First Epistle has at
certain points a vividness that recalls Mark’s way.
Hiis discourses as given in Acts show still more

of the realistic faculty that is characteristic of
Mark. It is noticed, eg., that there is much the

same wealth of picturesque detail in the account
of the cripple healed by Peter (Ac 51:11) as in one
of Mark’s narratives (see Farrar, The Messages of
the Books, p. 61).

The phenomena of the Gospel, therefore, are not
inconsistent with its Mareo-Petrine origin, Of
themselves they are quite insufficient to lead us
to definite conclusions as to the authorship. But
they are in harmony, on the whole, with the
account of the composition of the second Gospel,
which has come down to us from the 2nd century.

ix. SOURCES.—The chief source of the second

Gospel is those discourses of Veter of which
tradition speaks. Most of its matter looks like

the apostle’s reminiscences as transcribed and put
together in a connected but unstudied way. This
is most evidently and continuously the case with
the first great section of the Gospel,—the narra-
tive of the Galilewan ministry. It is the case also
with the short intermediate section dealing with
the Judean and Perean journeys, though the
indications of particular acquaintance with dates,
localities, and circumstances are somewhat fewer.
And in the second main section, the narrative of
the Passion, we have much the same features as
in the first, with a greater fulness of statement,
and with more of the element of discourse.

These Petrine reminiscences, however, will not
account for all that is in the Gospel. The differ-
euce between the two main divisions in style and
proportion, the more compressed character of the
narrative in the former, the greater fulness and
variety in the latter, the different treatment of
discourse and the like, can scarcely be accounted
for simply by the difference in the subjects. They
seem to point to the employment now and again
of other sources. There are some things which
are due probably to Mark himself, such as the
explanations about the Jewish washings (73-4), the
comment on Christ’s word regarding defilement—
‘This he said, making all meats clean’ (79), and
the incident of the young man (145!-52), The long
eschatological discourse in ch. 13 seems to require
for its explanation a written source (cf. especially
1514). There are some paragraphs, too, which are
of so distinct a style as to point to dependence

on another source, perhaps a written document.
To these belong in particular the episode of Herod
in ch. 6 and the opening of ch. 14.

It is difficult to say whether the Gospel owes
any part of its matter to an editorial hand. it
is most difficult to determine whether the Logia
must be reckoned among its sources. Some,
especially Weiss and Titius (the latter in the
Theologische Studien Herrn Prof. 12. Bernhard
Welss zu seinem ΤῸ Geburtstage dargebracht), are
of opinion that its contents cannot be explained
without the assumption of some written source such
as the Logia. There are passages occupied with
discourse or conversation, it is held, which cannot
be referred to independent oral tradition (e.g. 323-29
Gil 1037-81. 2-45), The opening quotations (i=),
the secondary form of the voice from heaven at
Christ’s baptism (1!!), the account of the Tempta-
tion (1.48), and other things of a similar kind, it
is argued by Weiss, indicate acquaintance with an
earlier writing, and that writing can only have
been the original apostolic source to which the
other Synoptists are indebted. On the other hand,
it is to be noticed that Mark, who is usually
sparing in his report of Christ’s sayings, is now
and again fuller than Mt and Lk in the matter of
Christ’s private instructions to the Twelve, and
that in Mk there is only one instance of a doublet
proper (9% with 1033-4; cf. Hawkins’ Hore Syn-
optica, pp. 73, 81,178). These things rather tell
against the idea of a written source additional to
Mark’s notes of Peter’s reminiscences. At the
most. the debt to the Logia can only be very
limited, and the influence of such a source very
oceasional. But in a few passages, and especially
in ch. 18, these may be recognized.

x. RELATION TO MATTILEW AND LUKE.—While
the three Synoptical Gospels cover for the most
part the same field, and have also a consider-
able measure of agreement, especially ἴῃ their
latter portions, in the arrangement of events, they
have also notable differences in the amount, dis-
tribution, and connexion of their matter. Mk
wants much that is found either in Mt or in Lk.
Such sections, e.g., of Mt as chs. 1-2. 5-7, and of
Lk such parts as chs. 1-2. 9°!-18, are entirely, or
almost entirely, unrepresented in Mk. On the other
hand, Mk has a small proportion of matter not
found either in Mt or in Lk—amounting to about
tifty verses. He has also a certain proportion of
matter Which is found either in Mt and not in Lk,
or in Lk and not in Mt. Omitting the opening
verse and the disputed conclusion, reckoning the
second Gospel to consist of 106° sections, and
deducting 5 as wholly peculiar to Mk, the result
is that 98 are common to Mk and Mt and 8 not
found in Lk, while 81 are common to Mk and Lk
and 10 not found in Mt (Swete, Gospel ace. to
St. Mark, p. |xili).

Tried, again, by the test of characteristic words
and phrases, and defining these as words and
phrases which occur at least three times in Mk,
and are not found at all in Mt and Lk, or occur
in Mk oftener than in Mt and Lk together, Mk
is seen to contain a comparatively small proportion
of such—only some 87 in all; while in Mt. the
number is about 140, and in Lk about 86 (Hawkins,
Hore Synop. pp. 1-12). In arrangement, too,
Mk differs considerably, as we have seen, from
Mt and Lk—more especially from Lk—in the
arrangement of the common matter on to the
end of the ninth chapter; while from this point
onwards there is general agreement, the main
departures being in the cases of the withering of
the fig-tree and the exposure of Judas.

But it has also to be noticed that in not a few
passages, some brief and others of greater length,
the second Gospel shows remarkable coincidences

i

MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF 259

in word and phrase with Mt or with Lk. These
are seen, ¢.y., in Mk 44, Mt 1334; Mk 45-0. 1
Mt ΤΟ ὩΣ Mk 87-91) Mt 1623: Mk 929. Mt

17-0; Mk 14%, Lk 4345, Mk 345, Lk 6% 10,
Mk 10!*P Lk 18!" There are certain parts,
again, in which Mk exhibits verbal agreement

partly with Mt and partly with Lk, as, ¢.y.. Mk
Mires, eV te ce τ ρον Ni BOS ATG OT. Τῆς
57-8), In what relation, therefore, does the second
Gospel stand to these others? Is it: independent
of both and privr to them? Or does it occupy an
intermediate position 2? Or is it dependent on both
and posterior to them ?

Ancient tradition is not in favour of the priority

of Mk. It generally regards Mt as the first of the
Gospels. Clement Alex. (Kuseb. ΜῈ vi. 14) gives

the tradition regarding the order of the Gospels.
He reports it, according to Eusebius, as ‘derived
from the oldest presbyters,? and as being to the
effect that the Gospels which contain the genealo-
gies were written first. Augustine regarded Mk
as dependent on Mt (de Cons. Evang. i. ἃ). And
many in modern times have held Mk to be later
than Mt, or than both Mt and Lk. Griesbach
(Opuse. Acad. ii, p. 3858, ete.) propounded the
hypothesis that the second Gospel was derived
from the first and third, partly by combination,
and in larger measure by abridgment. In this he
has been followed, with minor modifications, by
Fritzsche, de Wette, Baur, Bleek, Delitzsch, Ko6st-
lin, Kahnis, and many more. ΠῚ some cases Gries-
bach’s view is followed, but with the additional

supposition of a third written source, a proto-Mark

(ὃ. Davidson, ete. ).

The arguments in support of the theory of Mk’s
dependence and posteriority are taken so far from
the witness of tradition already referred to; from
general considerations, such as the improbability
that a Roman Gospel would precede a Palestinian :
and from the evidence of quotations in ancient
Christian literature, the attempt being made (but
with doubtful success) to show that the earliest
citations from the Gospels, particularly in writings
like the Gospel ace. to the Hebreus, presuppose Mt
and Lk, but not Mk. But the main arguments
are based upon an analysis of the Gospel itself,
It is held to be improbable that a Gospel which

contains so little of the discourses of our Lord

should be the earliest, and this improbability is
thought to be confirmed by an examination of
the contents of Mk, which discovers, it is held,
many evidences of dependence, condensation, and
alteration. Cases of incompleteness, obscurity,
incongruous combination, and the like, are said
to exist, which are explained, it is asserted, by
haste, inattention, or lack of discernment in draw-
ing from Mt and Lk. But surely incongruities of
that kind are more likely to disappear than to

persist when a writer is not first in the field and
has the opportunity of consulting previous authori-
ties.

Most of the instances, too, come to little. Why
Should it be necessary to suppose, e.g., that when
Mk (515) speaks of the demoniac as ‘clothed,’ he

‘must have Lk’s statement in view that ‘he ware

no clothes’ (Lk 82) Or why should the cen-
turion’s cry, ‘Truly this was a Son of God,’ in
Mark’s record (15%), presuppose that the evyan-
gelist had before him Matthew’s statement about
the earthquake, the rending of the rocks, and the
opening of the graves? ‘Those peculiarly graphic
descriptions, which are usually taken to indieate
Mark’s originality, are in many cases (e.g. 117
7 etc.) strangely interpreted as due to pragmatism,

ence and comparative lateness.
are not easy to grasp, the historical, geographical,

design, reflectiveness,—things suggestive of depend.
For reasons which |

and archeological explanations in such passages as |

2°) 725 810 ete., are supposed to betray the secondary

character of Mark. But it is entirely to misunder-
stand these to speak of them as ‘unimportant,
prosaic, unsuitable, and trifling’? (S. Davidson,
Intr. to NT, i. 494).

Opinion, however, has gone more and more in
the other direction, The independence and priority
of Mk have been accepted by some (6.0. Ritschl)
who originally held) the other view; and scholars
of different tendencies (Weisse, Wilke, Lachmann,
Reuss, Thiersch, Ewald, Volkmar, Holtzmann.
Schenkel, Weizsiicker, Weiss, Meyer, ete., and
most English authorities) have been led, though
not always in the same way, to the common econ-
clusion that Mk is the most primitive of the
Gospels. It is also very generally held that our
second Gospel, or a source corresponding substan-
tially to it, forms the basis of the first and third
Gospels.

Many considerations, not a few of them of great
force, support this conclusion. The peculiar fresh-
hess and realism of the second Gospel, the vivid-
ness of its descriptions, its liveliness even in
dialogue, its precision and circumstantiality in its
notices of time, place, custom, situation, and the
like, and the simple objectivity of its narrative,
are not consistent with the idea that it is the
laboured work of an epitomizer (as Augustine
supposed), or of a compiler who produces his com-
position by selecting, curtailing, and combining,
‘These are characteristics that speak of originality
and priority. Nor is it easy to understand why a

writer should have set himself to the task of
constructing out of two larger Gospels, whieh

nevertheless were neither of them very large, a
smaller Gospel, following much the same plan, and
having very littlke new matter by which to justify
itseif.

Further, if Mark had Mt and Lk before him,
the use he has made of them is strange. His selee-
tion of matter is puzzling. An epitomist or a
constructor of abstracts is expected to eultivate
brevity. But Mk does not always do that. In
many cases where he reports the same incidents as
Mt or Lk his narrative gets enrichments peculiar
to itself. Sometimes, too, we should have to
suppose him preferring the fuller version of Lk to
the briefer version of Mt. And why should he
omit such passages as Mt 927-31 1222 ete., or 1428-32
17°+", where Peter is introduced, and so much of
the richest matter of Lk, while he takes over
short and less significant sections, such as 013. Se
cf. Lk 9°; 680 etc., οὗ, Lk 9! ete. ; 98541, ef, Lk 949. δὺ
ac.

It is to be noted, also, that Mk preserves his
distinctive character all through, and does not owe
anything that is peculiar either to Mt or to Lk.
Nor do the eases in which Mk is held to give the
clearest evidence of dependence on tiie other
Synoptists stand the test of a careful examination.
Much is made, e.g., of Mk’s tendency to adopt
at points ἃ copious narration and a twofold method
of expression. This is explained by supposing
him to have borrowed now from the one and now
from the other. But it is found that these Ways
of writing are not confined to passages which
might be regarded as extracts, but are generally
characteristic of Mk. Not a few cases of agree-
ment with Mt or with Lk, again, are thought to
be best explained as the results of the carrying
out of Mk’s purpose to omit the longer discourses,
But there are cases (e.g. 69) 94) where Mk quotes
Lk without the occasion created by a discourse ;
and there are paragraphs, such as those where
the Sermon on the Mount (12! ete.) and certain
parables (4° etc.) might come in, where the selec-
tion of verses cannot be explained by the mere wish
to pass over these discourses. In short, the pro-

|

wi)

260 MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF

cedure which Mk must be supposed to have followed
in these passages and in great parts of his narrative
becomes incredible. He is made to leap from Mt
to Lk and from Lk to Mt, taking a verse now
from one and now from the other, and mixing up
his borrowings in a way that can only diseredit the
hypothesis.

xi. PURPOSE.—The second Gospel gives no such
declaration of its aim and intention as is found in
the third and the fourth (Lk 1, Jn 20%). But
that its object was a simple, practical one, appears
to be borne on its face. More subtle meanings,
however, have been read into its story. That it
Was composed with a specifically dogmatic purpose,
and that in the choice and presentation of its
inaterial it was ruled by that purpose throughout,
was the contention of Baur and his school. The
Tiibingen critics dealt’ with it as ἃ Tendeney-
writing coustructed with the view of mediating
between two antagonistic parties in the Church, and
effecting their reconciliation. In harmony with
their idea of the rise of the Catholic Church and
the relation of the NT writings to that event, they
explained the second Gospel as a neutral com-
position, prepared on the principle of taking over
from Mt nothing that would offend Gentile or
Pauline Christians, and from Lk nothing that
would offend Jewish or Petrine Christians (so. too,
Schwegler, Késtlin, ete.). Even the choice of the
name given to the professed author was supposed
to point to this, Mark being associated in the
earliest literature both with Peter and with Paul.
The same general idea was put by Hilgenfeld in the
particwar form of a purpose to mediate between
the Jewish-Christian Matthew and the Pauline
Luke,

Pileiderer, again, takes this Gospel to be the
product of Pauline influences adapted to medi-
ating uses. He thinks the opening sentence which
speaks of the * Gospel,’ the summary of the preach-
ing of Jesus in terms of repentance and belief (1),
ef. Gal 82653), and other things in what follows,
run in terms of Pauline ideas and expressions ;
that the recital of the wonderful works and the
polemical discourses of Jesus is so put as vividly
to contrast the free spirit of the Gospel with the
narrow legalism of Judaism ; and that the accounts
given of the lack of spiritual discernment on the
part of the disciples (Mk 915. 65. ef. 2 Co 4 5101,
Gal 62), the lack of power on their side to expel
evil spirits, while it was possessed by one who
did not follow in their company (Mk 915 138.99,
ef. 1 Co 123 15%, 2 Co 124-2, Gal 26 3%), and
similar things which appear prominently in| Mk’s
record, are the ‘Pauline reply to the glorification
of the Twelve in the Apocalypse at the cost of the
Apostle to the Heathen’? (/ibbert Lectures, pp.
170-177). ‘Thus the second Gospel is made a Paul-
ine writing, connected with the Roman Chureh, and
the product of the movement in behalf of a recon-
ciliation between Paulinism and Jewish Christianity
in which that Church took an early and leading
part.

In the hands of Baur himself and his original
followers, the purpose ascribed to Mk was con-
nected with the place given to Mk as dependent
on Mt and Lk. With the disproof of the latter
position the situation is materially altered, and
important members of the Titbingen school have
broken away from Baur’s presentation of the case.
Hilgenfeld and Holsten deny that Mk can be later
than Lk. Volkmar admitted that it cannot be
later than Mt any more than Lk. Hilgenfeld finds
in it a mild Jewish Christianity ; Holsten and Volk-
mar discover in it a sharp Paulinism. Pfleiderer,
too, who attempts to put a new complexion on the
mediating purpose, has respect for the ancient tra-
dition, but reads Mk through Paul. Apart, how-

ever, from these differences, the Tiibingen theory
in all its forms involves an interpretation of many
rassages of the Gospel which is in a high degree
fanciful and artificial. It allegorizes freely in deal-
ing with the narrative. Even in the hands of
Pfleiderer Mk’s reports of Christ’?s announcements
of His death and resurrection become a ‘strong
hyberbole,’? and his account of the transtiguration
is regarded as a ‘hieroglyphic’ ; while Peter’s words
about the building of three tabernacles (Mk 9°
ete.) are an expression of the ‘desire to see the
transient and the permanent, the old and the new,
the letter and the spirit associated for all time?
(Hibbert Lect. p. 176). The theory reads into the
narrative references to divisions in the Church, and
allusions to the condition of things in the post-
apostolic age, Which the common eye cannot see
there. It does violence to the simple, natural,
descriptive, reporting character of the record, and
puts a strained meaning on Christ’s words regarding
the Law, His Messiahship, His Mission, the Sab-
bath, and much else.

A didactie purpose of another kind has also been
attributed to the Gospel. It is understood to have
been written with a view to the effeet which the
delay of Christ’s Second Coming might have on the
primitive Chureh. The hope of that event was
waning. It was necessary to reawaken it, and to
secure Christians against the loss of faith and cour-
age. With this object the second Gospel was com-
posed, Christ’s lite on earth being so set forth as to
show that in it, ‘apart from Tis glorious Return,
Jesus has sufliciently attested the Messianic char-
acter of His Mission” (so Weiss, Man. of Introd. to
the NT, § 46.7). But even this is to aseribe too
much art and didactic design to Mk. To give wit-
ness to Christ as the Messiah, no doubt, was in the
purpose of Mk as in that of the other Synoptists.
But beyond this Mk has no other object than to tell
asimple story of things as they happened, and for
the most part as Peter reported them to have been
seen and heard.

xii. DESTINATION.—So far as historical testimony
bears on the destination of the Gospel, it points to
Gentile readers. That is the inference from the
terms in which Mk is spoken of by Irenceus (ade.
Her. iii.), Clement Alex. (Euseb. J/F vi. 14),
Jerome (de Vir. Til. ὁ, 8), ete. The way in which
Rome is connected by some of the Fathers (eq.
Clement Alex. and Jerome) with the request that
Mk showd write a Gospel, implies that it was also
understood to have been written for Roman Chris-
tians in particular. The internal evidence amply
sustains the former position, but leaves the latter
uncertain. The existence of a number of Latinisms
in Mk is not enough to prove Roman readers to
have been specially in view. For while Latinisms
oecur in larger measure in Mk than in the others,
they are not absolutely peculiar to it. Far less
can this definite destination be inferred from such
alleged peculiarities of its narrative as the re-
duction of coins to the Roman quadrans (12),
its reference to the Roman practice of divorce, or
the fact that it takes it for granted that the readers
knew Pilate.

The locality of those addressed is not definitely
indicated. But that they were Gentile Christians
appears from the fact that Aramaic terms, which
would be strange to Gentiles, are interpreted, and
that Jewish customs, localities, seasons, ete., with
which Gentiles could not be presumed to be fa-
iniliar, are explained. Instances of the former are
seen in Boavnpyés (317), ταλιθὰ κούμ (541), κορβάν
(71), ἐφφαθά (734), ἀββά (14%), ἐλωΐ, ἐλωΐ, λαμὰ
σαβαχθανεί (1534), as also in Βαρτιμαῖος (1010). 10
the latter class belong the statements on the Jewish
washings (7% 4) and on what was done on ‘the first
day of unleavened bread’ (14) ; the interpretation

=

nr

MARK, GOSPEL OF

MARK, GOSPEL OF 26]

of ‘defiled’ or “common? as ‘unwashen’ (7?) ; the
explanation of the λεπτὰ δυό (124%) ; and the deserip-
tions of the Mount of Olives as κατέναντι τοῦ ἱεροῦ
(133), of the παρασκευή or * Preparation’ as Ὁ the day
before the Sabbath’? (προσάββατον, 15), ete.

Certain suggestive omissions and insertions may
also form part of the same case, ¢.g. the omission
of the genealogies, the passing over of the limita-
tions put upon the mission of the apostles according
to Mt 10°, and the insertion (only in Mk) of the πᾶσιν
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν in 1111. Vhe way in which the Jewish
law passes into the background and the limited
use of the OT have also their significance. Mk
himself never quotes the OT, except once in the
introductory paragraph (12: ὃ; the passage in 1828
being of doubtful authority, as not found in δ, A,
B, C, D, X, ete.). The entire number of references
of all kinds to the OT is 67. Of these, only 7 are
peculiar to Mk. The quotations amount to 25.
They are generally in agreement with the LXX,
with a few exceptions (those giving Is 2918 40%, Zec
137, Mal 81). With the one exception mentioned,
all the reterences to OT in this Gospel and all the
citations from it occur in reports of sayings of
Christ or of those who spoke with Iim,

xiii, PLACE AND DAtTE.—So far as bistorical
testimony pronounces on the question of the place
in which this Gospel was written, it is in favour of
Rome. 10 this effect are the statements made by
Clement Alex., Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and
others. These statements have been suspected.
But there is nothing to show that they were made
under the influence of the belief that Mark wrote
under Peter’s superintendence ; and they have
nothing against them in ancient tradition, except
that Chrysostom named Alexandria as the place.
But in this he stood alone, his statement having
no support even on the part of Alexandrian writers.
The only other place which has been suggested is
Antioch (so Storr). But the suggestion is founded
on an uncertain inference from Mk 15?! and Ac 1139,

The idea has been mooted that there may have
been a publication of the Gospel both in Rome and in
Alexandria (R. Simon, Lardner, Eichhorn). There
are, it is true, one or two passages in the Fathers
which bring the composition of the Gospel and a
mission of the evangelist to Egypt or to Alexandria
in particular together. Eusebius, ¢.g., expresses
himself thus: τοῖτον δὲ Μᾶρκον. πρῶτον φασὶν ἐπὶ τῆς
Αἰγύπτου στειλάμενον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ δὴ καὶ συνε-
γράψατο κηρύξαι. ἐκκλησίαις τε πρῶτον ἐπὶ αὐτῆς ᾿Αλεξ-
ανδρείας συστήσασθαι (IIE ii. 16) ; and Jerome gives
it even more explicitly, thus: ‘assumto itaque
evangelio quod ipse confecerat perrexit /Zgyptum,
et primus Alexandrice Christm annuntians, con-
stituit eeclesiam,’ ete. (de Vir. II. ἃ. 8; cf. also
Epiph. Her. ii. c. 1). But the passages do not
imply that the Gospel was written or published at
Alexandria. Rome, therefore, remains the only
place with any claim on our attention so far as
ancient tradition goes, and that Mk was in Rome
with Paul appears from the NT itself (Col 4:0,
Phijem24), Whether it can be said that the NT
represents Mk as in Rome also along with Peter, de-
pends on the interpretation of ἐν Βαβυλῶνι in 1 P 5).

As the Gospel itself gives no certain indication
of its date, opinions have differed greatly on the
subject. They have been largely influenced by
the views which scholars have taken of the purpose
of the Gospel and of Mk’s relation to the other
Gospels. Those who have seen in it a Tendency-
writing composed with a view to the harmonizing
of two opposite parties in the Chureh, have natu-
rally placed it very late. Baur himself put it far
within the 2nd cent., our present Gospels having
been assigned by him to somewhere between A.D.
130 and A.b. 170.

‘Those, too, who deny that Papias’ statements

refer to our Mk, and betieve in the existence of an
earlier and simpler Mk, naturally assign our Gos-
pel to a comparatively late date. Dr. Samuel
Davidson, e.g., thinks A.D. 120 is as near the true
time as we can get. Those who hold it posterior
to Mt and Lk (Griesbach, ete.), or posterior at.
least to Mt (Hilgenfeld, ete. ), put it at various dates
after the destruction of Jerusalem. Volkmar = re-
ferred it to A.b. 179. Hilgenfeld himself ascribes it
to Domitian’s time ; Keim brings it down to about
A.D. 115-120; Kostlin, distinguishing between two
Marks, refers the earlier one to A.b. 65-70, and our
present Gospel to the first decade of the 2nd cent.
On the other hand, some have attributed to it a
very early date. Theophylact, ὁ... and others
place it some 10 years after Christ’s death. The
subscriptions of many manuscripts, both uncial
and cursive, assign it to 10 or 12 years after the
Ascension (cf. Harnack, Chronologie, pp. 70, 124).
Schenkel refers it to A.D. 45-58; Hitzig, to A.b.
55-57.

The data available for the determination of
the time of composition are limited and uncertain.
The Paschal Chronicle places the Gospel at A.D.
40, and Eusebius in his Chronicon puts it in the
third year of Claudius (A.D. 43). TIreneus and
Clement Alex. both represent it as written after
Peter’s arrival in Rome, which might be early in
A.D. 68. But they differ in that Clement speaks
of it as composed while Peter was alive. whereas
Tremeus describes it as published after the death
of Peter and Paul.

Of the various historical testimonies, that of
Irenzeus appears to be both the most definite and
the most credible. Doubt has been cast upon it.
Some allow it to be nothing more than an interence
from the statement made by the author of the
Second Epistle of Peter (1%) regarding his purpose
to ‘have these things in remembrance’ atter his
decease (Fritzsche, Hug, Eichhorn). Others sus-
pect it as if it were more doctrinal than historical
(Weizsiicker). But these objections are not οὗ
serious weight, and the difference between Irenzeus
and Clement on the one point is neither sufficient
to diseredit the whole tradition, nor large enough
to atfeet by more than a few years the indication
of date which we get from tradition.

The internal evidence points on the whole to
the same approximate period. There are things
indeed in the Gospel which are thought to point
to a later date than that suggested by Irenzus.
The references to the coming of the Son of Man,
and the final tribulation in 91 13°4, are said, when
eompared with their parallels in the first Gospel,
to betray the disposition to put these events further
forward than is the case in Mt. But it is precari-
ous, to say the least, to build much upon the phrase

‘till they see the kingdom of God coming with

power,’ as if it meant that the mighty effects of
that kingdom must first be seen at large on earth.
Nor ean much be made of the change from
‘immediately after the affliction of those days’ in
Mt 2429 to ‘in those days after that affliction’ in
Mk 1324. The use of the word εὐαγγέλιον in 11 is
taken to be another sign of a late date, the term
being supposed to mean there ‘gospel history.’
But it may mean simply the ‘glad tidings* or
announcement of the promised Messiah. Internal
considerations of this kind are altogether uncertain
and inadequate. Nor do they gain much when it
is urged in addition that it is antecedently improb-
able that any Gospel in the form of a regular,
finished, written record could have been produced
before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Much turns upon the view taken of the eschato-
logical passages. The parable of the fruit-bearing
earth (426) has been placed alongside these, and
has been strangely regarded (by Weizsacker) as au

262 MARKET-PLACE

MARRIAGE

indication that the Gospel was composed after the
destruction of Jerusalem. But the impression
produced by the words on the end in ech. 13 (espe-
cially vv. 4. +4. 30.33) js different. ‘They naturally
suggest that the end as yet was only in prospect,
and there is no passage which clearly means or
certainly suggests that the fall of Jerusalem and
the temple was an accomplished event. It is
reasonable to suppose that, if so great a catastrophe
in Jewish history had taken place within a recent
or a comparatively recent period, there would have
been indications of it in less obscure forms in the
earliest of the Gospels. There are also occasional
expressions, such as the reference to the presenta-
tion of the shewbread as if it were an existing
custom (2%°), which imply rather that the city and
temple were still standing. And there are others
which are difficult to harmonize with a late date.
It is admitted, e.g., that ‘the recollection implied
in the notice that Simon was the father of Alex-
ander and Rufus prevents the Gospel from being
put too late into the znd cent.” (S. Davidson, Intr.
to the NT, i. p. 508).

The period which seems to be made most prob-
able, both by historical testimony and by internal
considerations, is that between Irenweus’ date and
the year A.D. 70. Weiss proposes the close of the
seventh decade, or about A.D. 67. A date only a
little before the destruction of Jerusalem, perhaps
early in A.D. 70, is as near as we ean get. But

in the writing itself are of such uncertain inter-
pretation, it remains a question only of greater or
less probability.

—Of the Comm, those especially by Victor, Theo-
phylaet, Maldonatus, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Wetstein,
Fritzsche, Morison, Sehanz, Knabenbauer, Lange, Alford,
Michelsen, Meyer, Cook (Speaker's Commentary), Holtzmann
(Hand-Commentar).Plumptre (Cassels Commentary), Riddle
(SchatPs Popular Commentary), Maclear (Caimbr. Serves),
Bruce (Expos. Gr, Test.), Gould (Intern. Crit. Com., Swete.

Of the treatises on NT Introduetion, those especially by B.
Weiss, Th. Zahn, Hilgenteld, Bleek, Reuss, Holtzmann. G,
Salmon, S. Davidson, Jiilicher,Godet, Also the following: Weiss,
Das Marcusecangelium > Klostermann, Das Marcuse range-
dinm: A.B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels; Charteris, Canon-
icity, Westeott, Canon of the NT. and Introduction to the
Study of the Four Gospels: Kenrick, Biblical Exsays > Ptleid-
ever, Hibbert Lectures, and Urehristenthuim : Harnack, Ge-
schichte der altchrist!, Literatur: Grau, Entiwickelungysge-
schichte des NT Schriftthums: ¥.C, Baur, Das Mareuserange-
Zium nach seinem Crsprung i. Charakter; F.C. Baur, Ar it-
ische Untersuchungen itherdie Kan. Brang,., and Christen-
thumu. Wirehe der drei ersten Sahrhunderte: Schwegier,
Nachapost, Zeitalter τ Wilgenteld, Die Erangelien nach ihrer
Enistehung ww. ges. Bedeutung, Kanon w. Tradition, and
Das Mareusevangelinin: Weisse, Die Erang. Geschichte
Krit. uw. phil, bearbeitet: Woltzmann, Die Synopt. Bv., ihr U7-
sprung wo gesch. Charakter: Weizsiicker, Untersuchungen
aber die “δι. Geschichte: Credner, Einleitu ngin das NT;
Credner, Zur Geschichte des Kanons 5 Griesbach, Opuscula:
Ewald, Die drei ersten Erangelien; MWofmann, Die heilige
Schrift NT zusanunenhdngend untersucht: Reinhard, Obser-
vationes phil, et exeg. ib. Evangel. Marci; Scholten, Het
oudste Evangelie, ete; Witzig, Ueber Johannes Markus 1,
sete Schriften ; Thiersch, Airche im apost, Zeitalt,; Delitzsch,
Newe Untersuchungen ith, die Entsteh. uv. Anl. dad. Kanon.
Evangel. : Weitfenbach, Die Papias-Fragmente iiber Mareus
und Matthdus; Ritsehl, Theol. Jahrb. Isd1; Huidekoper, Jn-
direct Testimony of History to the Genuinenens of the Gos-

LITERATURE.

unknown ;

pias peas _kovca ὀδύνας), but there is much that. is
Where facts are so scanty and the indications given |

between Lachish and Joppa.

pels; Volkmar, Die Evangelien, oder Marcus u. die SyN0p- |

sis; Iolsten, Die drei ersten noch ungeschr, Evangel. + Giese-
ler, Mistorisch-krit, Vi reuch, ete.: Keim, History of Jesus of
Nazara ς Wilke, Der Crerangelist, oder exeg.-krit. Unters.

ber dus Verwandschaftsverhdltnis der drei ersten Frang. + |

Koppe, Marcus non Epitomator Matthei: Girike, De fonti-
bus Er. Mares: Knobel, De Er. Marci Origine; Schultze,
Der schriftstellerisehe
Schenkel, Charakterbild Jesu; B. Bauer, Avitik der Er.
Geschichte > Kienlen in SA, 1343; Baiumlein, 7). 1563; Badham,
St. Mark's Indebtedness to St. Matthew ; Titius, Dus Verhdlt-
nis der lerrniworte in Maurkusevangelium zu den Logia des
Matthius: Hadorn, Die Entsteh ung des Markus-erangelium :
Wright, Some New Testiment Problems Blass, Philology of
the Gospels; Chaies. Markus Studien: du Buisson, Origin,
ete., of Gospel of St. Mark; Hawkins, More Sunopticw.
8.0: By SALMOND:

MARKET-PLACE is in RV the fuller and better
rendering for the Gr. ἀγορά, oftener represented in

Charakter wu. Werth des Ev. Mareus :

AV by the more general term ‘ market.’ Its primary
and comprehensive sense is that of a place of
asseinbly, which may as such be associated with
various uses. We find it mentioned accordingly in
connexion with the holding of trials (at Philippi, Ac
161°), with public resort and discussion (at Athens,
Ac 17"), with business dealings and traftic, such as
the hiring of labourers (Mt 203) or the buying and
selling of goods, which implies risk of pollution
(Mk 74), with the sports of children in its open space
(Mt 11, Lk 732), and with the passing exchange
of formal greetings in its thoroughfare (Mt 237, Lk
11%). Italways conveys the suggestion of openness
and publicity, and forms a contrast to what takes
place in private or within doors. The like associa-
tions of a place of counsel, of traftic, and of idling
gathered round the Latin word form (see APPIUS,
MARKET OF). The ἀγορά Was probably at first sim-
ply an open space ; but it subsequently in the more
important towns became marked off by colonnades,
embellished by statues, and surrounded by public
buildings for judicial and other business.
WILLIAM P. DICKSON.

MARMOTH (B33 Μαρμωθί. A Μαρμαθί). 1 Es 862 (οἱ
LXX)=MEREMOTH, Ezr 833,

MAROTH (7*>?).—A town named only in Mie 122,
There is a play upon the name of this town, which
means * bitternesses’ (LXX tr. 2 72% by caror-
obscure
both in this and in the preceding verse (see Well-
hausen, Nowack, and esp. Ryssel. 32 f.). ‘The site is
but as Maroth is noticed with Saphir
and other places. in Philistia, as attacked by the
Hebrews, it is probably to be sought in the plain
C. R. CONDER.

MARRIAGE.—

i. Form and Duties of Marriage,
ii. The Sphere of Lawful Marriage,
1. Conditions and Bars of Marriage,
2. The Levirate Custom,
iii. Marriage Procedure.
1. Betrothal,
2. Nuptial Rites and Customs.
iv. The Moral Subversion of Marriage (Adultery).
vy. The Legal Dissolution of Marriage (Divorce).
vi. Marriage as a Symbol of Spiritual Truths.
Marriage (with Fr. mariage, Ital.
and transitional forms maridatye, mariatge, trom
Low Lat. maritaticum) is used to describe —
(1) the legal relationship of husband and wife ;
(2) the act, ceremony, or process by which this
relationship is constituted. In the former case it
is equivalent to wedlock or the estate of matri-
mony (Bhestand, cf. Old Eng. wéw or aé, custom,
marriage); in the latter it corresponds to the
marriage ceremony (Germ. Eheschliessung), or, by
an easy transition, to the whole of the proceed-
ings of which that ceremony is the essential part
(wedding, Hochzeit). Forthe estate of matrimony
the OT has no name: where ‘marriage’ appears
in our versions the translation is a cireumlocution
(Gn 34°, Ex 212, Ps 7883), and the want was only
supplied at a late date by the Talmudic my ~ and
an. ‘The function by which a union was consti-
tuted is also indirectly referred to by some verb
indicating that one takes, or gives, or becomes a
wife (see Note on Nuptial Rites). The idea of
the rite is apparently conveyed by the word
‘espousals,’? but in Jer 22.7 > which is so trans-
lated really refers to the period of betrothal,
while in Ca 31! 4299 includes the whole marriage
proceedings or wedding. The later word for the
ceremony is pew) or aan. In NT ‘marriage ’
translates γάμος, which, like the Eng. word, means
both the estate of marriage (He 134) and the cere-
mony with its attendant proceedings (Jn 22), and
also stands for the marriage feast (IV of Mt 227),

maritaggio,

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE

263

i. THE ForM AND DUTIES OF MARRIAGE AS
DEVELOPED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF REVELA-
TION.--The history of marriage, in the extent
which here concerns us, is the history of a Semitic
institution which by natural development had
reached a comparatively excellent form, and
which, under the successive influences of Juda-
ism and Christianity, was gradually improved
and perfected. The tresher problem relates to the
evolution of Hebrew marriage anterior to its con-
tact with OT revelation ; and the difficulty is to
do justice, neither more nor less, to the theories
which have been propounded as to the early his-
tory of marriage, and which at certain points
clanm biblical support.

lL. OT VESTIGES OF PRIMITIVE MARRIAGE.
The scriptural account of the origin and history of
marriage cannot satisfy the thorough evolutionist.
According to the biblical representation, its per-
fect type was exhibited in the union of the first
pair, upon this followed a declension to im-
perfect forms and sexual licence, and_ finally
Christianity summoned mankind to realize the
ideal by reverting to the divinely instituted
original. But on evolutionary principles the ideal
is to be found, not at the beginning but at the end
—if anywhere ; and the problem is to show from
what base beginnings, under what impulses, and
by what stages, marriage as we uncerstand it
came to be, and to be entrenched behind the laws.
The theory which has served as the basis of the
discussion (M‘Lennan, Prim. Mar.) distinguishes
four stages in the development —(1) a state in
which the unions of the sexes were ‘loose, transi-
tory, and in some degree promiscuous’; (2) the
system of polyandry, of which the lowest form is a
kind of communal marriage, the highest the union
of ἃ woman with a band of brothers; (3) the re-
versal of polyandry in the system of polygyny ; and
(4) as the result of prolonged experience, and also
of changed conditions, an exclusive monogamy.
For a time this scheme was generally accepted as an
assured result of anthropological science, but during
the last decade it has been subjected to searching
criticism, esp. by Starcke and Westermarck, and
has been discredited in various important points.
In particular, there is growing incredulity as to
the alleged original promiscuity. Though the
poverty of primitive languages in words expressive
of relationships lends it some support, the counter-
argument is stronger: human nature was_ sufli-
ciently armed with jealousy, if not otherwise, to
fight for and secure a better order from the first.
As regards polyandry, it is not open to doubt that
this form of union has played a part in human
history of an importance which was till lately not
even suspected. Still met with in widely remote
parts of the globe, the custom of polyandrous
marriage was yet more extensively prevalent in
antiquity. The recollection of it is preserved in
traditions and usages of the progressive nations
of the old world, as well as in their notices of the
manners of barbarians. It was doubtless at least
one of the roots of the remarkable system of the
Matriarchate, of which there are so many traces
in ancient law, and which is still maintained by
‘some score of peoples representative of all the
great regions of the barbarie world.’ But, im-
portant as this discovery is, there is a growing
conviction that M‘Lennan exaggerated. Even if
it be admitted (and it is not admitted by all com-
petent authorities) that the matriarchal system
was exclusively the outgrowth of polyandrous
marriage, the proof would still be far from com-
plete that polyandry had been a universal and
necessary phase in the evolution of the institution
of marriage.

By the Matriarchate, maternal system or ‘mother-right’ is

not to be understood a system in which women actually rule
(gynwkocracy), but only one in which they are regarded as con-
stituting the family bond. They determine the recognized
relationships, so that maternal relatives are treated as kin,
while the paternal are ignored; and names and property are
consequently transmitted through the offspring of the female
members of the group. Such a system, M‘Lennan contends,
points toa time when paternity was usually, or in a great pro-
portion of cases, uncertain, ‘The connexion between these two
things—uncertain paternity and kinship through females only—
seems so necessary—that of cause and effect—that we may con-
fidently infer the one where we find the other’ (Pron. Mar?
126). This theory as to the origin of the maternal system is
doubtless much more plausible than that of Bachofen, the
pioneer in the field (Das Mutterrecht, 1861), who supposed that
women, disgusted with the licentious primitive customs, rose
in rebellion, procured the benefit of a marriage-law, and Wy
their victory won an influence by which they reorganized the
whole social life in their own favour. Starcke, however, denies
that female descent necessarily points to uncertain paternity.
‘The reckoning of kinship through the father only is a fact, yet
no one has ever asserted that this is due to uncertainty with
respect to the mother’ (Prim. Fam. p. 18).

While Hebrew society in OT times represents
an advanced stage in the evolutionary scheme,
viz. that in which polygyny and paternal govern-
ment are the dominant forms, the OT litera-
ture has nevertheless been largely drawn upon in
the discussion, on the ground that it embodies
survivals from the diverse customs of prehistoric
times.

The evidence for a prehistoric stage of poly-
androus marriage among the ancestors of the
Hebrew stock is of no great weight. Most stress
has been laid on the peculiar custom of the
levirate marriage, which M*‘Lennan seeks to
interpret as a right of succession derived from
the special form of polyandry in which a family
of brothers have a wife in common (Prin. Mar.*
163), but this explanation is viewed with growing
disfavour. Some use has also been made of the
observation that the Hebrew words for brother,
sister, and father occur with considerable latitude
of meaning (ef. especially 2 with root-meaning
‘nurturer,’ thence ‘progenitor’ and even ‘hus-

and,’ Jer 34; W. R. Smith, Ain. and Mar, p. 118)
—the suggestion being that this points back to a
time when paternal relationships were not distin-
euished because not ascertainable. It may, how-
ever, be safely said that these arguments would
carry no conviction were it not for the assertion
that an early stage of polyandry is proved to have
been traversed by the kindred stock of the Arabs
(ib.). And even the assertion that Tibetan
polyandry prevailed among the early Arabs is only
made in the modest form that it meets all the
conditions of a legitimate hypothesis, and that
the conditions under which this type of sexual
relationship arises were actually present in Arabia
(p. 124).

The evidence for the operation of the so-called
matriarchate or ‘mother-right’ is of much greater
weight, though some of the arguments are far.
fetched and weak. (@)The custom of tracing descent
through the female line may have survived in the
distinction which long continued to be drawn
between paternal and maternal relatives, with the
consequence that marriage was allowed with a sister-
eerman, ἃ father’s sister, ἃ brother's daughter, ete.
(see Bars of Marriage). From the same point of
view Abimelech seeks assistance against his brothers
from ‘the family of the house of his mother's
father, and urges the plea, ‘Remember that [am
your bone and your flesh’ (Jg 9'°). Agreeably to
the same system, under which the uterine brothers
have special duties of guardianship, we find that
Laban is prominent in the negotiations about
Rebekah’s marriage (Gn 24”), and that Simeon
and Levi avenge the wrongs of Dinah (34°). In
the patriarchal history the family-tree of the tyro
allied families in Syria and Palestine is worked
out with reference to Milcah and Sarah (Fenton,

264 MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE

Burly Heb. Life, p. 7).* The force of much of this
ix indeed weakened by the obvious consideration
that under a system of polygyny it is absolutely
necessary for purposes of distinction to give promi-
nence to the mother, and in case of domestic
troubles to seek help of her kindred ; but enough
remains, especially in the matter of permitted
dezrees, to justify the belief that the Hebrew
history contains fossil remains of the matriarchate.
(ὁ) The allegation that among these vestiges we
are to reckon the so-called deena marriage, made
simultaneously by M*‘Lennan and W. R. Smith,
and since repeated with the utmost confidence,
really rests on a most precarious foundation. ‘In
becna marriage,’ to quote the former (Patr. Theory,
p. 42), ‘the young husband leaves the family of
his birth and passes into the family of his wife,
and to that he belongs as long as’ the marriage
subsists. The children born to him belong not
to him, but to the family of their mother. + ais
marriage involves usually a change of village ;
nearly always (where the tribal system is in force)
a chanve of tribe.’ Of this cust6m an example is
furnished, it is said, in Jacob's marriage (Gn 29 61}.
He becomes a member of his wives’ group, he buys
his place by service, and Laban claims the wives
and children as his own (313). What has been
overlooked is that Jacob is represented as a fugi-
tive from vengeance, who was not in a position to
bring his wife into his own family, and that there
is a design to exhibit Laban as a grasping and
churlish person; and in the light of these facts
Jacob's marriage appears to be merely an excep-
tional arrangement with «a hard man, to which he
was driven by stress of circumstances. A further
proof is discovered by W. R. Smith in the phrase
‘go into’—a relic, as he thinks, of the time when
the husband literally left his home to join his wife,
while the staame practice had its visible monument.
in the lone-continued custom of pitching a special
tent for the consummation of marriage (Ain,
and Mar, yp. 176, 991}. More impressive is the
M‘Lennan-Smith sugeestion, widely accepted by
later writers, that it is beend marriage whieh is
indicated in Gu 24in the words (of Adam [Del.]; of
the narrator | Neil, Dillin.]) : ‘therefore shall (doth)
aman leave his father and his mother, and shall
(doth) cleave unto his wife ; and they shall be (are)
one flesh.” What is here contemplated, it is said,
is that the man leaves the household. the family,
of his birth and is adopted into his wife’s kin. Now
in interpreting the verse the first question which
we have to ask is, What was the sense which the
narrator intended to convey? And what seems
quite certain is that it cannot have been the inten-
tion of a writer standing on the contines of the
prophetical period to give his sanction, if not that
of Adam, to a form of marriage which was obso-
lescent if not obsolete. If it be admitted that in
the historical period ‘the man is the head of the
family, and of the wife, who is transferred from
her family to that of the man?’ (Nowack, Arch.
i. p. 158), it cannot be supposed that the purpose of
J owas to revive the abandoned and discredited
type of family life. Much more likely is it that
the command to leave father and mother and
cleave to one’s wife was directed against some
loose form of marriage which does not involve the
founding of a home, e.g. the so-called iota type,
m which the husband’s association with his wife
is limited to occasional and clandestine visits
(cf. Samson's marriage). There remains, indeed,
the possibility that the saying ‘therefore shall a

ἜΤΗ the name of Eve, which he connects with hayy (a group
based on female kinship), W. R. Smith finds a recognition
of the fact that female descent had been the original system
(Kin. and Mar, p. 177); while, according to Stade, the older
tradition was that the twelve tribes were descended from twelve
wives of Jacob (GV).

man,’ ete., while employed by the narrator as
suitable to express his own idéa, was an ancient
form of words, and that as first coined it sanetioned
and commended deena marriage. But it is rather
unlikely that the characteristic formula of one
system should have been cherished by the rival
system which displaced it. In general it must be
granted that in prehistoric times beena marriage
may well have existed; but it must also be said
that no direct conclusive evidence of such marriage
can be drawn from OT sources.

2. FORM AND DUTIES OF MARRIAGE ΙΝ OT
TIMES.—(1) The Form of Marriage. -Vhe typical,
though, of course, not the exclusive form of Hebrew
marriage in’ historical times was polygyny. It
emerges as an early and firmly established insti-
tution; and the interest centres in the attitude taken
up towards it by the OT religion, which as Law re-
gulated it, and as Prophecy began to undermine it,

The practice of polyeyny is vouched for through-
out the whole of the period in question. — It appears
as patriarchal usage: Abraham has a principal
wife and two secondary wives (Gn 168 251), Jacob
has two wives of each class (292% 30°80 iwi
practised by at least some of the Judges (Je SP 9°),
and in the cases of David and Solomon it comes in to
account for their personal backslidings, and for the
troubles and calamities of their reigns (9 5. 5!) 1K
1 From these examples it is clear that it was
customary for exalted persons to take several wives
~— whether from a desire for a numerous progeny, or
with a view to strengthen themselves by influential
connexions, or even to satisfy what were deemed the
requirements of their position. Butit might still be
open to question whether the practice was at all
general. Great importance accordingly attaches to
the mention of Elkanah (1S 14), who was doubtless
representative of a large class. Weare also justified
in supposing that the peasant and the shepherd
usually supplied themselves with two wives, or with
a wife and a concubine. And this is confirmed by
the implication of bigamy in Dt, which vives us a
glimpse of the strained relations within the bigamous
family (21; ef. Nowack, Arch. i. p. 158 10).

The wide prevalence of polygyny and bigamy
hecomes a certainty when we reflect upon the
position of the female slaves in the Hebrew family.
These were the property of the man, in the full
sense of the word ; and unless his establishment
was on the scale permitting of the inter-marriage
of slaves, they naturally became the coneubines
either of himself or of his sons. The recognized
limitation of this right which is indicated, is that
he could not appropriate a slave belonging to his
wife except on the initiative of the latter or at
least with her consent (Gin 162%). These slave-
concubines were supplied from various sources —
especially in sale by impoverished Israelitish
parents, or as booty of war. The foreign origin
of one name (e352, ef. πάλλαξ) has been supposed to
point to an extensive traflic, through the medium
of the Phoenicians, in this class of slaves (Nowack,
i. p. 159; cf. on the name and position of the
concubine, art. FAMILY).

The measures taken for the legal reeulation of
polygyny pursued two main objects. In the first
place, there is some evidence of a purpose to con-
fine the practice within narrower limits. The
Deut. code, voicing the sense of the calamities it
brought upon royalty and the nation, forbids
kings to ‘multiply wives’ (Dt 1717. With this
censure of royal licence is closely connected, as
has been acutely pointed out (art. ‘Marriage’ in
Smith’s DB), the contumelious treatment of the
eunuch-state, which is a presupposition of the
system. But the purpose to which the law ad-
dresses itself with most earnestness and particu-
larity is the protection of the interests of the

ORI meetin

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE 265

several wives, and the amelioration of the con-
dition of the slave-wives. The oldest code deals
with the case of the [sraelitish woman who has
been purchased for ἃ slave-wife, asserts her title to
the three conjugal rights, and provides that if these
are withheld she must be set tree (Ex 217). Inei-
dentally it refers to the wife of the Hebrew slave,
and humanely enacts that the two must not be com-
pulsorily separated: when the time of emancipa-
tion arrives, the wife in one instance follows the
husband, in the other he may elect to remain with
her in slavery (21°). The cause of the foreign
slave captured in war is maintained by Dt. She
is to be allowed a month of mourning, and her
master, after living with her as his wife, is for-
bidden to sell her (21). A fourth case w vould be
that in which there were two wives of equal
standing ; and in this instance Dt interposes in the
interest of the wife who imay have lost her husband's
affection, and insists that her son, if the first-born,
shall receive his due portion * (vv.?-7). The same
spirit inspired, and to some extent the same end
was accomplished by, certain provisions restricting
the right of divorce (see below). To those enact-
ments little was added by the later legislation,
except that the ritualistic requirements may have
militated against polyeyny by enforcing a rule of
continence within the pale of marriage (Ly 1516).

A spinit of protest against the whole system,
and the promise of more drastic reforms, is dis-
coverable within the prophetic school. [πὶ opposi-
tion to existing practice, J sounds the significant
note that in the beginning it was not so. Accord-
ins to the antique mode of thought, to say that
the first man had one wife only, was as much as
to say that monogamy was the ideal system ; and
it is no accident that according to the same narra-
tive, which is deeply conscious of the disturbance
and corruption introduced by the Fall, polygyny
first makes its appearance in the lawless line of
the Cainites (Gn 4°). It is, further, not without
significance that Noah, the second father of the
liuman race, also represents monogamy (Gn 77).
And it is noticeable that there is an apologetic
strain in the references to patriarchal polygyny :
the bigamy of Abraham is explained by Saralvs de-
sire for children (Gn 1085), of Jacob by the deceit
of Laban (29%). Of still greater importance than
this class of incidents is the circumstance that
monogamous marriage was extensively used i
the prophetic teaching as the symbol of the union
of God with Israel (Hos 2, Is 50! ete., see below),
while polygyny had its counterpart in idolatry.
The imagery shows that monogamous marriage
was felt to be the highest form, and on the
other hand the detestation of idolatry naturally
strenethened the dislike of the form of marriage
by which it was so eloquently typitied (Hamburger,
art. ‘ Vielweiberei’).

(2) The Wifely Status and Conjugal Duties.—
In OT times various circumstances tended to
depress the status of the wife—the logic of the
patriarchal svstem, the custom of the ‘dowry,’
which suggested property, and the institution of
polygyny, which divided her legitimate influence
amone several claimants. In theory she was the
‘owned one’ (az), while the husband was the
‘owner’ (992, fox, see FAMILY), and in the Deca-
logue she isnumbered with his possessions (12x 20").
And in certain strata of the population the practice
doubtless largely corresponded to the theory—
the wife being httle more than chattel and over-
driven drudge. But among the wealthier classes the
wife had no small liber ty of action (1 5. 258, 2 Καὶ 422),
And where a woman possessed exceptional capacity,

* Favouritism was also discouraged by historical examples,
which suggested that childlessness w as ordinarily the judgment
upon the | preferred wife (Gn 30!, 1S 12),

knew how to increase her husband’s affection,
she asserted her title to a very dilicrent status.
The wives of the patriarchs are not only consulted
in matters of importance, but often uipress us as
accomplishing their purpose by their superior force
ofcharacier (Gn ΤΡ a7). Tn the period of tle
Judves the interest centres more than once in a
strong woman (4617); and in the history of the
monarchy there are times when the queen or the
queen-mother is the real power behind the throne.
From the description of the virtuous worn in Pr 3h
we learn how much iiftlience could be acquired by
a wise and energetic wife of the middle rank, and
how much she might do to advance her husband's
fortunes and to enhance his reputation.

Reference has already been made to the sympa-
thetic attitude of the Law towards the wife, and we
have to note inaddition the bearing of the J narrative
of Creation on the wifely status. [Ὁ acknowledges
that the subject and even servile position actually
occupied by the wife is the appropriate one, but
suggests that it is the punishime ut of her initiative
in the original transeression (Gn 3!%), and thus con-
trasts it with the position of a ‘helpmeet’? which
was designed by God in creation (918),

The duties ot the husband were generally recog-
nized to include all that is involved in the support
of the home. Incidentally Ex 21!° enumerates as
the minimum of obligation the provision of food
and raiment, and cohabitation. As regards sexual
morality the OT theory as well as frequent practice
fell far short of the standard of equality of treat-
ment. The chastity of the wife was jealously
guarded by the heaviest penalties, but custom and
law recognized no parallel obligation of conjugal
fidelity as resting on the hush: ind —proy ided always’
he respected the rights of other men. At the same
time conjugal fidelity was naturally involved in
the loving relations of the husband towards his
wife, depicted in more than one touching instance
(28 34). And there is evidence that the Hebrew
intelligence, as tutored by experience, came to
realize the folly, and through it the iniquity, of all
sexual licence (Pr 2). Still more clear is it that
the prophetic conscience was possessed by a deep
sense of the abomination of whoredom; and finally
a principle which claimed absolute marital fidelity
was laid down by Malachi when he taught that
neglect and inconstancy have (τοι for their witness
and avenger (24-15), The duties of the wife are
not so specifically stated. The fundamental ones
were chastity and submission (Gn 3'%), with devo-
tion to the husband's family and interests. And
by general consent the standard maintained by
the Hebrew wives was high. Many daughters
have done virtuously (Pr 31*"), and the invectives
of Amos and Isaiah only illustrate the principle —
‘corruptio optimi pessima.’

3. THE LEAVENING BY CHRISTIANITY.—With
Christianity begins a new epoch in the history of
marriage. The changes which it introduced were
due, partly to express enactment of Christ and
His apostles, partly to the obvious implications of
fundamental Christian principles.

(1) The Christian system involved the adoption of
monogamy, and the prohibition of polyeyny and
bigamy. It is true that there is no direct con-
demnation of the latter. And the omission cannot
be explained by saying it would have been super-
fluous, for, although in NT times monogamy was
the rule, polygamy was certainly practised to
some extent (Jos. Ant. XVII. 1. 3).* As in the
case of slavery, Christianity, without directly

*In opposition to the usual view (Selden, Ux. Heb. i. 9), it is
contended by Abrahams that monogamy had become the settled
Jewish custom in Roman times apart from imperial or Christian
influence, and that the theory was only tardily brought into

harmony with the established practice by Rabbi Gershom,
c. 1000 a.d. (Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, ch. vii.).

266 MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE

attacking the custom, inevitably discredited and
destroyed it. Our Lord’s emphasis on the intimacy
of the union between husband and wife (Mt 19+ 5)
at least suevested that no second woman could be
admitted to the sphere. Above all, the golden rule
was incompatible with polygyny, for under this
system other men are robbed and wives aredegraded,

(2) The duties of the married state were also
revised in the spirit of Christianity. (@) The hus-
band’s duties, the minimum of which were promal-
gated as the demand of the law, were comprehended
by St. Paul in the manner of His master under the
requirement of Jove ἃ love which has self-love, and
also Christ’s love for His Church, for its standard
(Eph 5°, cf. 5%, Col 3!).* (b) The silence of the
OT Jevislation in regard to licence outside the
marriage bond was broken, and faithfulness was
made strictly obligatory. The latter was evidently
not taken for granted, from the first at least, among
the Gentile Christians, and it was necessary for the
Council of Jerusalem to educate their conscience by
makine it clear that fornication did not belong to
the class of thines indifferent (Ac 1539), In various
passages of the Pauline Epistles the imperative obli-
gation of chastity is enforced with the menaces of
excommunication (1 Co 5) and of eternal judg-
ment (1Th 4°, Gal 5”, cf. He 134), while the loose
state of Corinthian opinion on the subject may be
gathered from the careful argument by which the
apostle dernonstrates from the doctrine of the body
as an integral and abiding element of personality,
the incompatibility of sexual licence with an
interest in Christ (1 Co 015. (ὦ Yet again the
ranve of the husband’s duty is extended to include
constancy in love, which has its practical expression
in the recognition of the perpetuity of the marriage
tie (sce below, Diroree).

The duties of the wife, in spite of the improve-
ment of the status of woman which Christianity
carried with it, continued to be developed from
the presupposition of her subordination, and were
summed up, not in love, but in obedience (Eph δ,
Col 8185. cf. 1P 8). The new rcligion included
various clements which tended to elevate and
indeed revolutionize her position—especially the
fact that in the spiritual sphere she was on the
same platform as the man, redeemed by the same
Saviour, saved by the same faith, destined to the
same everlasting inheritance (cf. 1 P 37). In view of
this stupendous fact, which St. Paul refers to in Gal
3°, she could no longer be treated as an appanage
to another, but was in herself an end. But the
apostle did not hold it to be a consequence of this
equality within the Kingdom that husband and
wife were henceforth to be regarded as coequal
partners in their union, or that women were to
engage on equal terms with men in the varied
work of the Church and of the world. The sub-
jection of the wife to the husband, according to
the apostle, was founded upon the original purpose
and decree of God in creation, which could not be
annulled (1 Co 11°), and upon her constitution, which
was modelled upon that of the man, and not, like
his, an immediate reproduction of the image of God
(v.°). The question which arises at this point is
whether the apostle has consistently argued from
his Christian premises—whether the teaching of the
OT on the relation of man and wife is the last word
of Christianity. Expositors by whom his self-
consistency is doubted might find in the teaching
one of the Pauline antinomies—an old garment
showing around the piece of new cloth; and it is
certainly surprising that St. Paul, who elsewhere

* While summing up the husband's duties in love, St. Paul’s
reverence for OT lcads him also to re-emphasize the particular
heads of marital duty which it had specified, e.g. in 1 Co 78-8
where he asserts the law of conjugal rights sensu angustiort, and
in 1 Ti 58 where stress is laid on the husband’s fundamental
duty of providing for his household.

trusted to Christian love to fulfil all righteousness,
should not have been satisfied with requiring of the
wife true and constant conjugal love. His sur.
marizing of wifely duty in obedience, however,
had its firm supports, not only in his reverence for
the religious tradition, but also in the monitions of
his strong practical sense, which made it clear that
in marriage, as in every other association of human
beings, there must be at least in reserve a supreme
court of appeal.

The incompleteness of the Pauline treatment of
marriage is more conspicuous in relation to the
ethical dignity of the institution, and the ends
which it subserves. There were, it is to be re-
membered, two conflicting views in relation to
which the Christian teaching had to be developed
—the traditional Jewish view, according to which
marriage was at once a duty and a privilege,* and
the ascetic view maintained in Essene_ circles,
according to which it was to be avoided as pol-
luting andeyil. The teaching of our Lord avoided
both extremes: against the dominant opinion He
affirmed the possibility of a duty arising under
certain circumstances to abstain from marriage
(Mt 1913); against the ascetics He by word and
countenance showed His estimate of marriage as a
divine institution (Jn 8, Mt 195). The teaching of
St. Paul inclines more to the ascetic side. He
allows, as he could not but allow, the lawfulness of
marriage (1 Th 44, ef. 1 Ti 4°), but declares the
celibate condition to be preferable. ‘It is good for
aman,’ he says, ‘not to touch a woman’ (1 Co 7),
and again he would have all men even as himself
(v.7). Where he allows it, it is from a point of view
which discloses a relatively low view of the ends of
Invrriage—as a preservative from immorality (1 Co
7% 81 'Th 4® 4); and to the same purpose he discusses
the marriage of virgins (1 Co 7°). In extenuation
of these views it is usual to refer, and legitimately
enough, to two facts—the first, that in an age of
missionary hardship and impending persecution,
celibacy was expedient (v.*°) ; and the second, that
when the end of all things was believed to be at
hand (v.“), the importance of the family as an
ethical sphere could not be taken at the same
estimate as by those who look back upon and for-
ward to a long development of Church and civiliza-
tion. But St. Paul gives another reason in com-
mendation of celibacy which is independent of
temporary conditions and unfounded expectations,
viz. that the married state brings with it cares and
temptations which tend to weaken the heavenly
affections and to cripple for Christian service
(vv4), Tt may therefore be said with justice that
his teaching on the subject is not quite on a level
with the ethics of Protestantism. But, in taking
up a more positive and sanguine attitude towards
marriage, Protestantism has started from his own
principle of ‘all things are yours,’ and in his spirit
has conceived it to be a truer Christian achievement
to bring the full circle of human experience into
the obedience of Christ than to shun spiritual
danger by the evasion of natural responsibilities.
It may be added that the ideal view of marriage
owes much to the apostle who compared it to the
union between Christ and the Church,

ii. Tre SPHERE OF LAWFUL MARRIAGE.—1. CON-
DITIONS AND BARS OF MARRIAGE.—In fixing the
limits within which marriage is permissible, custom
has varied widely, and it has not even been uniform
among peoples oecupying the same stage of civiliza-
tion. In the phase in which the family is the most
important social unit, it is common to prohibit a

* According to Weber, Jiid. Theol.2 p. 234, a youth was ex-
pected to marry between 14 and 20. But the zealots of the Law
did not deem themselves to be so bound. Rabbi Asai took no
wife. ‘My soul,’ he said, ‘cleaves to the Law: let others see to
the upbuilding of the world’ (p. 30).

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE 267

man from marrying within his own family group,
or at least within that from which his mother
sprang (Exogamy). Usually at an earlier but some-
times ata later period of the social history there
is found the opposite custom, which forbids mar-
riage outside the group (Endogamy). When the
family comes to be superseded in important fune-
tions by the State, both obligations are naturally
relaxed : & man may marry either within or without
his ancestral stock, and only near relationships
continue to be recognized as bars to union (Post,
Stud. p. 79 f.).

(4) Racial Bars to Marriage. —Whien the Hebrews
emerge into the light of history, exogamy (if it
ever prevailed among them) has disappeared, and
endogamous marriage is strongly favoured. That
a lively prejudice of this kind existed in’ early
times is shown in the patriarchal histories, in which
great anxiety is shown to procure wives from the
original stock —marriages with cousins being most
favoured, while loud protests are heard against
marriage with aliens. In the period subsequent
to the settlement in Canaan, racial intermixture
was inevitable, and the old sentiment was in
danger of being crushed out. Not only did the
kings contract foreign alliances (David 2 5. 3°,
Solomon |] Kk 3! ΤΙ, Ahab 1 16%), but there is
reason to believe that national distinctions were
lightly regarded by the common people (Ru 14, 2 Ch

24°"). Israclitish women also married aliens (1 Καὶ
74), but usually, as it would seem, under the

condition that their husbands settled in Israel (28
1, 1Ch 2"). In this matter, however, religious
interests were at stake, a halt was ealled, and the
reaction gradually carried the people back to the
primitive position, In Dt marriage was expressly
forbidden with the original inhabitants of Canaan
(7°, cf. Ex 341°) as the race most likely to debase

|
:

the religion and morals of the people; but an ex-
ception seems to be intended in the case of Edomites
and Keyptians (937). During the Exile and for
some time subsequent to it the law had again fallen
into abeyance, only to be revived in ereater strin-
gency under Ezra (9? 10°) and Nehemiah (133). The
exclusive spirit was fostered by historical examples
of the low type of character that sprang from such
mixed marriages (Ly 241°),

(ὁ). Forbidden Degrees of Kinship. —The older
custom, which confined marriage within the limits
of the family group, had its natural counterpart in
lax views as to the bars arising from consanguinity
and aflinity. Unions tolerated among other nations
were indeed regarded as incestuous, viz. with a
daughter, or with a uterine sister, but, at least as
regards relatives on the paternal side, the utinost
Jatitude was allowed. Thus, Abraham is repre-
sented as marrying a half-sister, the daughter of
his father (Gn 9015), and the words of Tamar imply
that this was recognized as lawful down to the time
of the Monarchy (28 13"). As late as the ave of
Kzekiel, marriage with a stepmother must. still
have been common (2910), Moses himself seems to
have been the offspring of a marriage between a
nephew and his paternal aunt (Nu 26°, ef. v.97),
Of these cases the more obnoxious were prohibited
in Dt, viz. marriage with a stepmother (27%), a
half-sister (v.*), and a mother-in-law (v.28),

The list of forbidden degrees is extended in Ly
(1877, cf. 2014+), and largely on the basis of the
general principle that paternal relationships rank
equally with maternal for purposes of marriage.
The following table gives a conspectus of the code—
the names of the prohibited relatives being printed
in italies, while those about whose identification or
otherwise some doubt exists are marked with a 4
(cf. Selden, Ux. Hed. p. 5).

TABLE OF FORBIDDEN DEGREES,

Paternal Grandfather

| |
Uncle = Wife (ν.14) Paternal Aunt (v.42)
|
A former wife ee

4 former husband = Stepmother (v.8)=Father

|
Stepsister? (ν.11)

Paternal half-sister (v.9)

Maternal Grandfatner

att
| Maternal Aunt (v.43)
A former husband
= Mother(v.7) = Stepfather

Maternal half-sister (v.9)
Father-in-law = Mother-in-law (v.17)

|
Brother =Sister-in-law (v.46)

|
Man

| |
= Wife=A former husband. Living wife's sister ? (v.18)

| |
Stepson Stepdaughter ? (v.17)

|
Son = Daughter-in-law (v.15) Daughter = Son-in-law

Granddaughter (v.10) Granddaughter (v.10)

Various problems arise out of the table of prohibited degrees.

(1) The prohibitions of marriage with sisters are somewhat
obscure. The obvious sense of v.9 is that it forbids marriage
with a half-sister, whether on the father’s or the mother’s side,
and v.41, which prohibits ‘ the father’s wife’s daughter, begotten
of thy father,’ simply repeats the prohibition of a half-sister on
the father’s side. While the prevalence of the custom (sanctioned
as it was by Abraham’s example) and the gravity of the evil
might justify the repetition, the interposition of different
matter in v.!0 makes it probable that a fresh case is contem-
plated. The most plausible interpretation of v.11 is that, in
addition to the half-sister of v.9, it prohibits the daughter of a
man’s stepmother by a previous husband. This resuit has been
got in two ways—either by regarding the phrase ‘begotten of
thy father’ asan interpolation, or by (illegitimately) treating the
participle ΤΠ as active, with the meaning ‘who hath borne
children to thy father’ (Bohl, Contra Matr. Comprivignorum ;
ef. Michaelis, ii, 107). Another view is that v.41 is to be taken
as withholding the half-sister, and that v.9 (where read not ‘or’
but ‘and’ the daughter of thy mother) would point to the full
sister. Keil (Com. in loc.) finds in the text as it stands a dis-
tinction—that in v.11 the prohibition refers to a son by a first
marriage, wna eas v.9 treats of the son by a second marriage.

Stepson’s daughter (v.17) Stepdaughter's daughter (v.17)
This, however, involves no difference of relationship, though
possibly some difference of status on the part of the hait-brother.
It is unfortunate that the most satisfactory explanation which
connects v.11 with the stepmother’s daughter by another hus-
band requires alteration of the text.

(2) A second difficulty arises from a group of three ambiguous
prohibitions which might be regarded as referring either to
polygamous or monogamous marriages. Marriage is prohibited
(a) with a stepdaughter (v.17), (6) with the daughter of a step-
son or stepdaughter (¢b.), and (ὦ) with a wife’s sister (v.18); but
is the decease presupposed in (a) of the wife who is the girl’s
mother, in (ὦ) of the wife who is the girl’s grandmother, in (ὦ)
of the wife whose sister is mentioned? In case (6) it is possible
that the original wife is dead, and the same may fairly be held
in case (a); but in case (ὁ) it is certain that the wife is alive,
and that what is forbidden is a special type of bigamy. The
discussion of this brings us to the more famous problem.

(3) Marriage with a decvased wife's sister is certainly not
directly forbidden. The actual words are, ‘thou shalt not take
a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her
nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime’ (v.18), The AVm
suggests translating ‘one wife to (i.e. in addition to) another’
instead of ‘to her sister’—in which case we should have a direct

268 MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE

prohibition of bigamy ; but modern scholarship has not been

able to sustain this. The Mosaic law was not anciently under-
stood to preclude marriage with the sister of a deceased wife.
It was declared Jawtul by the Talmudists, and it was even
encouraged by removing or mitigating in this special case the
conditions governing the remarriage of a widower. The opposi-
tion to it began among the Jewish sect of the Karaites, whose
origin is traced to the 8th cent. of our era, and whose leading
principle was the Protestant one of going behind the accumu-
lated traditions and decisions of the Rabbis to the written word,
with the accompanying proviso that Scripture was to be inter-
preted by Scripture. In the case before us the plain sense of
Scripture is that no objection is raised to marriage with a wife’s
sister if the former is deceased, and the argument against it is
consequently constructive. The argument may be summarized
as follows: (1) Marriage is interdicted with those that are near
of kin (Ly 180); (2) ‘near of kin’ are shown in the legislation to
include, along with mother, daughter, ete., sisters and half-
sisters ; (3) the wife’s ‘near of kin’ are to be regarded as standing
in the same relationship to the husband, and that because (a) it
was declared in the primordial decree that the twain shall be
one flesh (Gn 224), and (4) the principle is conceded and exempli-
fied in other instances—e.q. in the prohibition of marriage with
a deceased wite’s granddaughter (v.17) (Selden, Ux. Heb. i. 3 ff.,
where are set forth the various arguments of the different
Karaite teachers, who, however, agreed in the conclusion,
‘Uxoris soror, tam ea demortua quam superstite, in vetitis
habenda’). But the argument is unsound. If the question be
ts determine whether the Mosaic law sanctions marriage with a
deceased wife’s sister, we must adhere as closely as possible to
the statute, and, as we have seen, the object of the relevant
clause is something quite different—the regulation of bigamy.
If we fall back on the principle underlying the prohibitions we
do not settle the matter, for it is not clear that the principle is
theoretically adopted of treating the wife’s near of kin as if they
were the husband’s ; rather it would seem that this guidance is
followed only in so far as it was necessary on grounds of ex-
pediency—e.q. in the case of the stepdaughter or granddaughter
who would be living (unlike the sister) in the man’s family, and
who would thus, as a possible wife, be in an obnoxious position.
Various other extensions of the forbidden degrees specified in
Ly have been made i
with a niece, and of the nephew with the widow of his maternal
uncle 3 and, as in these instances, the problem of the deceased's
wife’s sister falls to be settled in accordance with the circum-
stances of a given age and the teaching of experience.

(4) The rationale of the forbidden degrees has been variously
interpreted. The following is a summary of the older explana-
tions (ef. J. D. Michaelis, Mos, Reeht (Eng. tr.) ii. p. 53 ff.).
The cases in which marriage is disallowed in the Mosaic law
have been supposed to be proscribed as those (@) which are
repugnant to the natural sentiments of mankind (horror
naturalis), or (b) which lead to the physical degeneration of a
stock, or (ὁ) which tend to the aggrandizement of particular
families by the concentration of wealth and power, or (41) which
are subversive of natural rights—e.g. degrading an aunt from
her due rank, and elevating a stepdaughter above her proper
position. Without denying a certain influence from these con-
siderations, Michaelis himself argues with great force that the
real reason of the prohibition of marriages among near of kin
is, that, ‘ considering the free intercourse that such persons have
with one another, some of whom, besides, live from their
infancy in the same house, it would be impossible to prevent
the presence of wloredom in families, or to guard against the
effects of very early corruption among young persons if they
could entertain the least hope of throwing a veil over past
impurity by subsequent marriage’ (ii. p. 6S). In recent times
the whole subject has been re-examined from the evolutionary
point of view, with the result of showing that every system of
forbidden degrees has been a growth to which something has
been contributed by successive forms of social organization, and
which has been dominated at different pcriods by different
ideas. Of the Levitical system we may say that it has as its
nucleus a list of prohibitions inherited from the maternal type
of family organization, and that it has extended these in general
(though not doctrinaire) accordance with the demands of the
patriarchal system, and with a keen instinct for the interests of
domestic and social purity.

The penaltics for violation of the forbidden
degrees Were proportioned to the gravity of the
vase. In Dt those forming the three types of in-
cestuous union there specified (272% 28) have a
curse laid upon them. In Ly 20 capital punish-
ment is decreed against the partners in three cases
of incestuous intercourse or marriage, viz. with
a stepmother (v."), a daughter-in-law (v.12), and
with a woman whose daughter has already been
taken by the man as his wife (v4). The same
may be assumed in the possible cases of still deeper
guilt. The mode of death was probably stoning,
and in the case of the last group of offenders it is
provided that their corpses shall be burned. The
penalty for marriage with a half-sister was excom-
munication (v.17), In ancther group of cases, viz.
intercourse or marriage with an aunt (v.!’), an

uncle’s wife (v.?°), and a sister-in-law (v.24), the
culprits are left to the vengeance of Heaven, with
the added menace in the last two cases that ‘they
shall be childless.’

(c) Official Restrictions.—In OT certain restrie-
tions are imposed upon the sacerdotal class. A
priest was forbidden to marry a harlot, or a fallen
woman, or a divorced person (Ly 21%); the high
priest was not even allowed to marry a widow
(v.48). Tt was not, however, held by the Talmudists
that the latter enactment required a high priest,
on his elevation, to divorce a widow whom he
might have previously married or betrothed
(Selden, Ux. Heb. δὲ 46).

To this closer fencing of married life in the case
of the OT priesthood there is a certain analogy in
the NT provision that the bishop shall be the
husband of one wife (1 Ti 3°), and likewise the
deacons (v.!"). The interpretations of this much
disputed enactment are as follows: (1) It provides
that the bishops and deacons shall be monogamists.
But, even if it be assumed that polyeyny was still
practised among the Jews, it is unlikely that it
was represented amone the Jewish Christians ;
and 1 ‘Vi δϑ is decisive, as, similarly interpreted, it
would mean that no woman living in polyandry
was to be enrolled amone the widows. (2) It dis-
qualifies for office a man who has been more than
once married, and prohibits him after his appoint-
ment from contracting a second marriage. This
view derives strong support from the fact that it

ἶ ( was embodied in the current opinion οἵ the
notably in barring marriage of an uncle |

patristic Church, and was reinforced by the decision
of Councils (Plummer, Cath, Epp. in * Expos.
Bible’), and it would doubtless have been more
generally adopted but for the prejudice created by
existing practice. At the same time it is right to
observe that the admission of this interpretation
does not involve the permanent condemnation of
second marriage on the part of the clorey, as the
reason for the apostolic prohibition might be
peculiar to the apostolic age. (3) The reeulation
disqualifies for oflice those who had availed them-
selves of the rights of divorce which Christ sought
to curtail, or (according to some authorities) who
had in another way (concubinage, lcentiousness)
sinned against the marriage law. The sueeestion
that it was designed to support our Lord's con-
demnation of capricious divorce has lately grown
in favour, and must be regarded as at least a
possible interpretation.

(“) Natal Disability.—On the score of a taint of
birth, a class of person known as 22 was debarred
from marriage with Israclites. ‘A bastard shall
not enterinto the assembly of the Lord, even unto
the tenth generation’ (Dt 985. By ‘bastard’ is to
be understood, not a person born out of wedlock, —
illegitimacy did not entail any serious penalties
under Jewish law,—but one born of an unlawful
marriage (Driver, 77 /oc.). Such at least is the
plausible interpretation given in the Mishna in a
passage which determines the status of children
(Widdushin iii. 12). In a lawful marriage, it is
held, the child follows the father ; in an unlawful
marriage, e.g. of a high priest with a widow, or of
an Israelitish woman with one of the Nethinim,
the child follows the party by whom the marriage
is vitiated. The offspring of such illegal marriage,
it is added, is Ἴ25.

(e) Additional marriage-bars that fall to be noted
are (1) the physicad disqualification of certain
mutilated or injured persons (Dt 231); (2) the
hereditary Uisqualification of the heiress who was
not allowed to marry into another tribe (Nu 36°) ;
(8) the retributive disqualification, which disallowed
remarriage under certain circumstances with a wife
who had previously been divorced (see below,
Divorce).

PS Sait

3

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE 269

2. The Levirate Marriage of the OT (levir,
brother-in-law, 22; husband's brother ; 03: to per-
form the marriage obligation of a husband’s brother ;
Talm. mathe type of marriage; Gr. ἐπιγαμβρεύω,
Mt 22%), formerly treated as a curious anomaly,
has been shown by modern research to be widely
prevalent at certain stages of civilization.* ‘The
fundamental character of this type of marriage,’
says Post (Studien, p. 248), ‘is that a widow is
inherited in accordance with the system of kinship
dominant mone a people, and is married by the
heir whence there then arises the obligation to
provide for her and her children.’ In the narrower
sense it is defined (as by Starecke, Pron. eam,
Ὁ. I41) as ‘the custom which enjoins a man to
marry the widow of his brother, if he die childless,
in order to raise up children to the dead man, to
whom the children produced by such a marriage
were supposed to belong.” Obviously, the custom
is one which is capable of large modification in
detail, and it would seem that even within the
limits of ΟἿ᾽ times there was some shifting of
view as tothe object of the levirate marriage, and
the range of the ol eation.

What is virtually an enactment of the levirate
law, and that the oldest, is given in narrative form
in the story of ‘Tamar and Judah (Gn 388). Here
the object of the marriage is ‘to raise up seed’ to
the deceased (v.8); the person upon whom the
obligation rests is the younger brother, failing
whom the next in ave (v.*°); the issue of the
marriage becomes the head of the family (ν.39; ef.
Mt 1°); and the sanction of the law, the binding
character of which is generally admitted, is in the
last resort a special retributive judement (ν. 19).

In the formal cnactment of the Deut. code (955-10)
the ancient custom is similarly motived and as ear-
nestly supported, if with some relaxation in detail.
The obligation rested on a brother only if he had
‘dwelt together’ (Ze. ‘on the same family estate,’
Driver) with the deceased (v.°), and only the eldest
son of the new marriage was to be reckoned as the
son of the deceased (ν. ἢ. On the other hand, the
obligation was not superseded if the deceased left
daughters (v.° ‘no son, as against the Sadducean
interpretation in Mt 2274, Mk 1919: Lk 9055). The
duty was not legally enforced, but was supported
by the resources of public opinion. A brother
evading it publicly forfeited lis right—syimbolized
by drawing off his sandal—and was to be openly
insulted by the widow, and condemned to perpetual
obloquy (v.°).

The Book of Ruth, while certainly referring to
the custom, is by no means faithful to the Deut.
model. As judged by Dt, Boaz was under no
obligation to wed Ruth unless it should be argued
that as Elimelech’s brother (48) he was bound to
murry Naomi, and that as the latter was past
child-bearing he married instead her widowed
daughter-in-law. Asa fact, the view taken is that
the next of kin, who may be quite remote, is in
duty bound to redeem a dead man’s estate and
marry his childless widow. Further, as Ruth's
son by Boaz ranks as the son of the latter (v.74),
not of Ruth’s fermer husband, it would seem
that the earlier intention of the law is abandoned
(Nowack, Arch. i. p. 347, who even argues that in
the writer's view tie sole object is the welfare of
the widow). It is also noticeable that the repudia-
tion, with the ceremony of the drawing off of the
shoe, πὸ lonever has the ancient stigma attached to
it (v.72). On the whole, if must be said that the
book reveals a state of things when the strict law
had been found impracticable, but when its principle

* The parallel in the Laws of Manu (ch. ix. 59-64) has heen
cften cited. Instances of the custom among other races have
been collected by Post, Einleitung tn das Stud. d. ethiotoy.
Jurisprud, 1866, and Westermarck, Hist, of Hum. Marriage.

continued to be in a wider way operative, and was
favoured as fostering humane dealing and averting
the pathetic event of the extinction of a line.

The attitude of the later leeislition towards the
custom is matter of dispute. Certainly Lv (1S!%
202!) forbids marriage with a deceased brother's
wife without any qualification ; and it is therefore
held bo) many modern critics that P designed to
abolish this type of marriage as incestuous in the
minor deeree (Nowack, Arch. i. 346; Benzinger,
art; δ; Leaner?) Τὰ ΟΠ δ at
this it is pointed out that in this code the estate,
failing a son, descends to the daughters (Nu 27!").
By others the traditional view is still maintained
that P lays down the general rule against marriage
with a deceased brother's wife, while Dt specifies
the exceptional case (Driver, Deut, ὧν loe.). Tt has
also been held that the collision of the codes is
only apparent, as Lev prohibits illicit intercourse
with a brothers wife, and is not legislating im
the passage in question about marriage (Bertholet,
Com. en Deut., but erroneously). Whether P in-
tended to repeal the special law is a question likely
to be determined by subjective considerations. The
famous disputation with the Sadducees clearly im-
plies that the levirate law was regarded as binding
in the time of our Lord, while it was perhaps even
acted on (ἦσαν δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἑπτὰ ἀδελφοί, Mt 22-9").

In the later period, however, its observance was
exceptional: in the language of the Mishna, the
dispensation (73°95) was preferred to the observance
(Bechoroth 134). Theoretical opposition accom-
panied, and the opinions of the Rabbis of the {πὶ
four Christian centuries were divided as to its
lawfulness -Rabbi Jose declaring it unpermissible
even when desired by both parties concerned.
The same division of opinion ran through the
Middle Ages, though the preponderance of opinion
favoured the dispensation (Mishna, treatise Vebo-
moth; Surenhusius, ii. ; Hamburger, Leeal-Hucyhk.
art. ‘Schwacerelhie’).

Of the origin and primitive purpose of the
levirate marriage various explanations have been
propounded, (1) The first group of theories accepts
the biblical statement that the object was the
procreation of a son or sons who were regarded as
the children of the deceased. But on this assump-
tion the further question arises, What was the
object of the fiction by which the line was con-
tinued? To this the principal answers which have
been given are (ἃ) that it was regarded as ἃ
cauamity (where personal immortality was not
realized, a calamity tantamount to annihilation)
that one’s line should become extinet (Dt 25°) ; (4)
that the custom was connected with a system of
ancestor-worship, under which failure of offspring
entailed deprivation of cherished rites and service.’
Popular, however, as the latter theory is, it assumes
the influence of a form of religion, for the existence
of which in Israel the evidence is of the seantiest.
(2) A second theory, propounded by M‘Lennan and
supported by W. RK. Smith, pushes the question
further back and discovers in it a survival from
polyandry. ‘It could more easily be feigned.’
says the former, ‘that the children belonged to the
deceased brother if already, at a prior stage, the
children of the brotherhood had been accounted
the children of the eldest brother’? (Prim. Mav.
p. 164). And in regard to this view it must he
admitted that polyandry may well have left
behind such a custom as its legacy. As Stareke
observes (Prim. Hai. p. 150), ‘the Levir-child was

* An expression of this idea is quoted from the Mahabharata
(Muir's tr.) by Max Muller, Anthrop. Rel, p. 31—

‘That stage completed, seek a wife
And gain the fruit of wedded life,

A race of sons, by rites to seal,

When thou art gone, thy spirit’s wesh’

270 MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE

ascribed to the dead man in virtue of the same
ideas according to which, in Tibet, the eldest
brother and ruler of the house was held to be the
father of all the children of the household.’ This
proves that a system of polyandry may sometimes
have had as an offshoot the levirate marriage, but
does not preclude the possibility of its develop-
ment in other quarters from other primitive prac-
tices and modes of thonght—c.g. the exercise of
paternal authority in setting aside in certain cases
the direct fatherhood (Starcke, με δι» fo); Yet
gain it has been suevested that in conditions
where marriage was associated with purchase, and
the wife was treated as a chattel, it was natural
that she should be claimed by the next of kin as

part of the inheritance (Spencer, Principles of

Sociology). Well, however, as this practice 15
vouched for, the inheritance of a wife by a sur-
viving brother is widely removed from the bibli-
cal theory, for the essence of the latter is the
concession that the younger brother, instead of
himself heiring, raises up heirs to the deceased.
(4) Yet again the object of the custom has been
found in an agrarian motive, the law being de-
signed to keep together under the ον σατο hus-
band the property which would otherwise have
been divided amone all the brothers (Meilziner,
quoted by Starcke, p. 150). But, thoueh at a late
date (Iu 4°) the custom was utilized in connexion
with the conservation of lands, the evidence points
to its having reached back into the nomadic stage
of civilization.

On the whole, the question of origin is, and
probably will remain, matter of controversy.
Widespread as the custom is, it may well have
sprung from various roots—according as in one
region an ancestor-eult prevailed, in another a
system of polyandry had developed, ete. Where
it meets us in Hebrew history it clearly connects
itself with the natural desire for survival in pos-
terity, later with the endeavour to perpetuate
family property ; and if in spite of the benediction
of early tradition and Jaw it gradually -fell into
abeyance, the cause is to be soneht in the erowth
of the self-consciousness and of the claims of the
individual with the provress of society.

lil, MARRIAGE Procepure.—l. 7.6 System of
Betrothal._Vhe betrothal, as the first stave in the
formation of a marriage union, had a prominent
position amone the Hebrews, as wanone other
peoples at the same stave of social development.

The act of betrothing is described by three Hieb. verbs :—
BON (Pi. of [LIN] ‘pay the price,’ Dt 207, Hos 919. 20), Ἴ (‘ desig-
nate’) Ex 218.9, [75] acquire’) Lv 1929; and by one Greek verb
—uvrorecey (Mt 118, Lk 157 25), In AV the Hebrew verbs are
usnally rendered by ‘betroth,’ occasionally by ‘espouse’ (28
34): the Greek verb is translated by ‘espouse.’ In RV ‘betroth’
is exclusively used where the reference is to the initial stage
(28 314, Mt 118 ete.), while ‘ espouse’ is restricted to the passaves
which imply completed marriage (Ex 218-9). The ceremony of
betrothal has no name in OT. The Talmudists refer to it under
the names of Pep (consecration), Pes (betrothal), and
[2 (compact) or 2°N3N (conditions).

The custom of allowing the individuals con-
cerned to arrange a marriage according to inclina-
tion is a late and exceptional concession. — In
socicties in which the family organization is strong

and stable the betrothal is treated as a concern of |

the family group or of the tribe. The powers are
vested in the head of the tribe, or they may be
devolved upon particular members of ἃ family
group—under the patriarchal system upon the
father or nearest paternal relative, under the
matriarchal upon the maternal uncle or the eldest
uterine brother (Post, Studien, pp. 103, 164). From
this standpoint the betrothal is viewed in OT. In
the exercise of his patriarchal function Abraham
through a servant negotiates with Bethuel for the
hand ef Rebekah, and Laban as her brother is

taken into council (Gn 24); Hamer endeavours
in treaty with Jacob and his sons to arranve a
marriage on behalf of his son Shechem (Gn ΟΣ οὐδ iy
even the lawless Samson requests his father to
procure for him to wife a woman in Timnah (J¢ 142).
The advances, further, were made by the house of
the bridegroom, except in cases where the superior
rank of the bride’s family justified them in taking
the first step (Ex 951, Jos 15'7, 18 18:7). Resent-
ment was expressed when a man repudiated the
rights of the natural guardians and took the
matter into his own hands (Gn 26") —a feeling
strongly shared by the Arabs, who held it suffi
cient ground for withholding a bride (Wellhausen,
Die Ehe bei den Arabern, p. 452); and the protest«
were not unreasonable in view of the interest of
the family in the alliance that might be formed,
and of the women in the bride with whom in a
patriarchal society they were to be so closely
associated (Gm 274°). Yet, while the system re
quired that the machinery of the family should be
employed, it might easily happen, as the cases of
Shechem and S:umson show, that it might be set
in motion by a lover, and the more so that in
ancient Israel the association of the sexes was
comparatively unrestrained, and naturally led to
personal attachments which sought satisfaction in
marriage (Gn 24° 29! ; cf 1S 15:0), Among the
Hebrews, in any case, the tyranny of family rule
does not appear to have dispensed with the con-
sent of the parties (Gn 245), which under this
regime is often treated as matter of indifference, at
least as respects the bride (Post, Studion, Ὁ. 166 fF).

The first important stage in the betrothal
procedure was the settlement of the amount of
the so-called dowry, and the payment or part
payment of the same.

The dowry of the OT (ππῷ Gn 34”, Ex
185. cf. Ex 9916 where RV has ‘pay a
Was not a portion brought by the bride into the
husband's family, but a price or ransom paid to
the father or brothers of the bride. That this
Was its original significance is not open to doubt.
Tn primitive conditions it was naturally claimed
as compensation for the loss to a fainily of a
valuable member. Recent research has “shown
that it was so regarded in ancient times in Arabia
(Winship and Marriage, 68, 78 ti; Die Ehe bei den
Aroboun, 43316); and among the same stock it
retains this character. ‘An Arab father,’ says
Tristram, regards his daughters much as he would
his sheep or cattle, selling them for a greater or
less price, according to his rank and fortune and
their beauty? (Lustern Customs, p. 92). And so it
appears in OT: Hamor offers to pay for Dinah
‘never so much dowry’ (Gn 3413) ; in Ex 22" it is
referred to as a settled custom. Dt 222 assesses
the damages for seduction, which are payable to
the father, and thus fixes the amount in ‘one par-
ticular case. For the common people the sum to
be paid was doubtless settled by custom, while in
the case of important alliances it was matter of
negotiation (Gn 34"). The ‘dowry? was not neces-
sarily paid in money or kind, but might take the
form of service, as in the case of Jacob (Gn 29)
and David (18 18” ; ef. 17:5).

With the advance of families in dignity and
wealth the ‘dowry’ easily passed into a new
stave. It was natural that a portion, if not the
whole, should be appropriated to ensure the com-
fort and security of the bride. A hint of the
custom of so diverting a part is given in the com-
plaint made by the daughters of Laban, when they
declare that he ‘hath sold us, and hath quite
devoured our money’ (Gn 3115), In later times the
appropriation of the ‘dowry’ to the wife became
customary ; it was conserved as capital; and in
the event of the death of the husband, or an

OOM, Tas
dowry ἢ)

|

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE ὉΠ

arbitrary divorce, it furnished a useful provision.
A parallel development took place to some extent
among the Arabs, as the Koran assumes that the
‘dowry’ falls to the wife (Wellhausen, Die he
bei den Arabern, p. 435).

The dowry in the modern sense was not cus-
tomary, but was occasionally met with. The
daughters of wealthy houses at least received
handsome eifts: Rebekah brines female slaves
with her to her new home (Gn 24"), Laban makes
a similar present to Leah (2974). As a special
instance of liberality, doubtless also with some
reference to proprietary rights, mention is made
of Caleb's gift to lis daughter of a field of springs
(Je 1!). The alliances of the kings with foreign
princes furnish examples of the dowry—in one case
a princess brings with her a city as her portion
Cie oe

In addition to the mohar, there is mention of other gifts
which, naturally prompted by the occasion of a betrothal,
might de distributed more or less lavishly as a means of con-
eiliation or a token of goodwill G2, Gn 3412). The gift to the
bride, which came under this category, was significant of the
wealth of the wooer (24°%), The latter had its counterpart in the
saddk of the Arabs ; and as the bestowal of the αν came to
be treated as part of the marriage ceremony, it is possible that
among the Hebrews also it was incorporated in the formal
procedure either of the betrothal or of the marriage.

While the settlement and payment (in whole or
in part) of the ‘dowry’ was the decisive act in the
betrothal, there was probably also an additional
ceremony of a more or less formal kind. Of the
procedure various elements appear to be preserved
In the narrative of Rebekah’s betrothal (Gn 24).
The terms in which she is asked, and vives her
consent, in all likelihood preserve an ancient and
familiar formula (* Wilt thou go with this man ?’
‘T will go,’ v.°8); and the same applies to the
blessing which is pronounced upon her when she is
handed over or ‘sent away’ (y.°). The conjecture
that a ring was given to the bride has no support
in the passages referred to (Ex 8525, Is 3%), yet the
use of the ring, which plays an important part in
the Talmudic formalities, may well have been of
considerable antiquity.

In the procedure sanctioned by the Talmudic authorities the
bridegroom handed to the bride an article of value, such as a
ring, or a written document, adding : ‘ By this ring, etc., may
she be consecrated (or betrothed) to me.’ The presence of two
male witnesses was required, so that the appropriate bene-
dictions might be pronounced on the union. According to the
Mishna (treatise Aiddushin), there were three modes of be-
trothal—by the payment of money, by the conveyance of a
contract, and by coition; but the third was prohibited by the
later Rabbis under penalties (Hamburger, arts. ‘Trauung,’
‘Verlobniss’).

After the betrothal the bride was under the same
restrictions as a wife. If unfaithful she ranked
and was punished as an adulteress (Dt 99:9. ™) ; and
on the other hand the bridegroom, if he wished to
break the contract, had the same privileges, and
had also to observe the same formalities as in the
case of divorce. The situation is illustrated in the
lustory of Joseph and Mary, who were on the
tooting of betrothal (Mt 113).

2. Nuptial Rites und Customs.—Upon the be-

* Among the Greeks the dowry had a similar origin and a
parallel development. In the Homeric age it was customary
for the father to receive a purchase-price from his future son-
in-law (11. xi, 244)—hence the expression raepllives ἀλφεσιβοίωα,
the oxen-bringing virgin; and if it was rare for a father to
give his daughter gratuitously (ἀνά δνον), it was reckoned an act
of the most signal generosity to offer presents (ἐπι μείλια), aS Was
done by Agamemnon (ix. 146) along with the daughter. The
ancient custom gradually disappeared, and was referred to by
Aristotle as barbarous (Pol. ii. 5. 11), but Euripides voices a
comnplaint of the women ofa later day that it had become the
custom that women had to purchase their husbands at a great
price (Med. 232; Derenberg, Dict. des Antiq. Grecq. et Rom.,
Paris, 1892, art. ‘Dot’). In Rome from an early period the
wife who did not bring with her a dowry was regarded as a
concubine rather than as a wife (Plaut. Trinum. iii. 2, v. 73, 5),
and it was a duty of clients to make up a dowry for the daughter
of @ poor patron (td.)

trothal followed, after a lonver or shorter period,
the marriage proper or wedding, the features of
which may be collected partly from = incidentat
allusions in Scripture, partly from = survivals of
ancient custom in Talmudic literature and in the
life of the East.

The Heb. terms translated ‘marry’ are np? ‘to take’ (Gn 1914
etc.), in late Heb. xvi (2 Ch 132! a/.)—both with a probable
reference to ancient marriage by capture, Ν᾽ aD ‘to be
married’ (Hos 3? a/.), and πον 5? An ‘to become a wife’
(Nu 363.611), Sya to ‘become master of,’ expressive of the
husband's authority (Dt 2222 ete.) ; later 2°15, lit. ‘make to
dwell,’ ‘give a dwelling to’ (cf. Ps 113%), zr 109 10.14.17. 18)
Neh 13°3-27 [.}. ‘To form marriage alliance with’ (lit. ‘to
make oneself daughter’s husband’) is JATAT (Gn 349 ete.) AV
‘given to marriage’ in Ps 7863 is merely a paraphrase ; Heb. is
lit. ‘were not praised.’ In NT yeuew is used οὐ either sex (Mt
582199 LY etc.) ; also γίνεσθαί τινι (Ro 73), used of a Woman, means
to be married to a man (RV to be ‘joined to a man’), yxts-
czisles, to be given in marriage (Mk 1939), γαρίζειν, to give in
marriage (1 Co 788). The word translated ‘espousals’ (Ca 31)
comes nearest to describing the subject here discussed.

It is probable that in the early period the prin-
cipal if not the only ceremonies were connected
with the betrothal, and that when these were
completed the consummation of the marriage might
follow at the option of the parties concerned
(Nowack, Arch. i. p. 102). In the case of Isaac and

tebekah the formalities were over with the be-
trothal, and on the bride’s arrival at her new home
she was simply conducted to her tent (Gn 2457),
Similarly, whenever David has fulfilled the condi-
tions imposed by Saul, he receives Michal to wife
(LS 18%). That this was, however, not universal
appears from Gn 9037, The later practice was to
draw a clear distinction between betrothal and
marriage (Dt 207 28%), to magnify the final fune-
tion, and to invest this increasingly with characters
of publicity and pomp. And in the celebration of
Hebrew marriage the most noteworthy point is the
retreat of the distinctively Hebrew element. We
seem to be in the atmosphere of Hellas rather than
of the Holy Land. ‘There is no evidence that, in
the older period, the proceedings were reeulated
from the theocratic point of view, or even that they
included a religious ceremony: rather is there a tem-
porary abandonment to the cult of mere happiness,
with its unconsecrated ritual of feasting and sone,

In the biblical references to the marriage cele-
brations two functions stand out prominently —the
wedding procession and the wedding feast or mar-
riage supper. As regards the nature and place
of the ceremony by which the woman was trans-
ferred to the husband (the counterpart of our
marriage service), the biblical notices leave us un-
informed.

The wedding procession naturally fell into two
parts. First the bridegroom and his friends may
be supposed to have marched to the home of the
bride, then in a return procession the festal com-
pany, reinforced by the bride’s friends, conducted the
pair to their future home. Of the movement and
colour of this picturesque drama graphic touches
are preserved in Scripture. We catch a glimpse
of the garlanded bridegroom in his splendid attire
(Is 61'°), and of his veiled bride surrounded by the
friends of her youth (Ps 45-19); the attendant
throng gives vent to its Jubilant feelings in dancing
and shouting, and songs are struck up (some per-
haps preserved in the Song called Solomon’s) which
sound the praise of wedded love and of the newly-
wedded pair.

The relation of the wedding procession to the situation pre-
supposed in the parable of the Ten Virgins requires elucidation.
‘More rarely it happened,’ says Nowack (i. p. 163), ‘that a
procession conducted the bride to meet the bridegroom as he
approached with his friends (1 Mac 927); in the evening such
ἃ procession sometimes took place by lamp and torchlight.’ The
explanation here suggested is that the marriage took place late
at night, and that the bride’s company was preparing to sally
forth to meet the bridegroom on his first appearance. It is,

. young men of the family.

272 MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE

howevei, plausibly argued by Mackie (Bibl. Manners and
Customs) that the parable presupposes that this stage is past.
The bride, he infers from existing custom, has already been
conducted to her future home, the bridegroom has subsequently
withdrawn to the house of a relative, where he is to stay with
his Companions till a late hour; meanwhile the bride and her
companions grow weary, and sleep falls upon them; until at
last a clamour in the street heralds the approach of the torch-
illumined party, and within all are roused to life and excitement,
* Before he arrives the maidens in waiting come forth with lamps
and candles a short distance to light up the entrance and do
honour to the bridegroom and the group of relatives and inti-
mate friends around him. These pass in to the final rejoicing
and the marriage supper ; the others, who have discharged their
duty in accompanying him to the door, immediately disperse
and the door is shut’ (p. 126).

The marriage supper, which took place in the
house of the husband, was the great social event

in the life of a family, and, where the standing and
means allowed it, might be planned on the most
lavish scale. In the parable of the Marriage of the
King’s Son we have an example of boundless hos-
pitality, and also an indication of the resentinent
felt when the invitation was slighted (Mt 22'"). A
difficulty in the parable has been met by the con-
yecture that persons of high rank further showed
their magnificence by furnishing the invited guests
with festal robes (ἔνδυμα γάμου). The wedding at

Cana of Galilee gives us a elimpse of the way in |

which the spirit of hospitality was exhibited in
humbler homes (Jn 2!). But, while the same
spirit prevailed throughout Hebrew society, it is to
be remembered that among the poorer classes the
marriage feast must have been very different from
the picture which at the mame naturally rises
before the imagination. *

The scene at the marriage supper is depicted with
some fulness of detail. Now (probably not in the
procession) the high-born bride appeared in the full
splendour of her bridal array, in a robe embroidered
with gold (Ps 45! 4) Jer 2°), which was gathered
up by a peculiar girdle adorned with jewels (Is 49"),
and on her head a crown. Prominent in honour, as
they had been in service, were the male friends of
the bridegroo: (viol τοῦ νυμφῶνος, Mt 9°), one of
whom was charged with the duties of a master of
ceremonies (Ja 2, cf Jn 5353. From descriptions
of later times we can fill out other spaces with
panegyric and blessing uttered by the company in
song and speech. At the close the bride was con-
ducted by her parents to the nuptial chamber (cf.
Je 15). Throughout the whole proceedings it may
be noted, as explaining the deeption practis d upon
Jacob, the bride had remained veiled (Gn 29%"). Lhe
daty of preserving evidence of the bride’s antenup-
tial chastity, which was enforced in Dt 22!) was
attended to as a safeguard against the slanders of
a malicious or inconstant husband.

A marriage ceremony, io which proceedings like
those described are mere adjuncts, is naturally
assumed by us, but the idea is not to be summarily
imported into early Hebrew marriage. We are
doubtless nearer the mark in regarding the mar-
riage supper as being in early times itself the
marriage ceremony. Among primitive peoples the
public meal has a quasi-sacramental character ;
and it was quite in harmony with this mode of
thought to look on the feast of which bridegroom
and bride partook in company with their friends as

* The following realistic description by a modern traveller is of
use in this connexion: ‘He found that the villagers of Schwat-
el-Blat were engaged in the wedding festivities of one of the
: After the reception, ete., a huge
platter, 6 feet in diameter, made of tinned copper, was brought
in, on which was piled a mountain of boiled crushed wheat
mingled with mnorsels of boiled meat. When this had been set
in place, a dish of melted, clarified butter was poured over the
wheat until it was quite saturated. Loaves of bread in the form
of cakes were placed by the side ‘of the platter, and the guests,
rolling up their sleeves, proceeded to help themselves with their
fingers, and consumed the provisions, as is usual, in silence.
Water and soap were then passed around to the guests, who
washed off the remains of their greasy meal, after which coffee
and pipes were served’ (Pal. παρ]. Fund Quart. St. 1888, p. 204).

on which two embroidered cushions are planted.

the rite by which they were definitely placed upon

the conjugal footing. The view is supported by
the fact that at a late period the feast was still

treated as so essential a part of the proceedings
that γάμος stands equally for the marriage and the
supper (Mt 224). Its original significance would
thus have been similar to that of the confurreatio
~-a mode of contracting marriage through a sacri-
ficial use of bread anciently practised in Rome. — It
was, however, inevitable that in course of time :
more definite rite should be instituted. The most
natural occasion might seem to be the point at
which the bridegroom came to fetch the bride from
her parents, but the evidence goes to show that the
matter was still in suspense so long as her parents,
who accompanied her to the feast, were at her side.
The act upon which attention would readily fasten
as the decisive and uniting act was the leading of
the bride to her ‘chamber,’ which in the old period
was a tent specially erected for the wedded pair.
The central importance of this act is further attested
by the circumstance that the chamber (27) supplied
a name for marriage —marriage being described, as
it were, as ‘the tenting’ (Wellhausen, op. cit. p. 444).
Out of this other acts would as naturally develop
to form a kind of ritual. From a hint in Mal 2 it is
supposed that the pair entered into a solemn cove-
nant, and it is also probable that the good wishes
of the company came to be crystallized into deti-
nite benedictions craving prosperity and posterity.
After the Exile the ‘covenant’ was embodied in
a written contract (To 7 συγγραφή, Π5:Π5).

This somewhat conjectural account of the ancient marriage
eeremony would have an important addition could we foilow
Mackie in interpreting Ps 166 in the light of modern custom.
‘At a Jewish wedding,’ he says, ‘the most interesting feature
is the canopy under which the bridegroom and bride sit or stand
during the ceremony. It is erected in the court or large room
of the house where the guests are assembled, and it is made of
palm branches and embroidered cloth. It is suggestive of the
dome sometimes seen above pulpits, and gives to the wedding
the appearance of a coronation. ... The sight of the robed bride-
groom issuing from the canopy (tabernacle) and receiving the
congratulations of his friends sugested the simile of the sunrise
in Ps 19°? (p. 195). But in early times the huppah would
seem to have been an actual tent (cf. 41 216), and the canopy
described by Mackie (a pieture of which is given in Boden-
schatz, Kéveh. Verfas. iv. p. 126) is doubtless a late ornamental
erection evolved from the old bridal tent.

The wedding festivities which followed were
long drawn out. In ancient times, as still among
the fellaheen of Syria, the usual period for the
rejoicings was a week (Jeg 7). Feasting, music,
and dancing, such as celebrated the return of the
Prodigal Sou, were the staple of the festivities
of the season, and we hens of the exercise of
the wits by riddles and wagers (74.). The ex-
pense must have pressed somewhat heavily on
the humbler folk—the more so that a marriage
seems to have been treated as a festival for the
conmmnity, and more than one thrifty saw in Pr
may well have been suggested by an extravagance
that injured the guest with the host. It is prob-
able that then as now some contribution towards
the cost was made in the case of peasant marriages
by the guests themselves (Tristram, p. 93).

One of the most important contributions to this subject is
the description of the marriage rejoicings of the Palestinian
fellaheen in an article on the Syrian threshing-sledge by Dr.
J. G. Wetzstein (Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologie, Bd. v. 1878, Ὅν
2387 ff.). The following are the principal points. During the
seven days following the wedding the voung couple are treated
by the villagers as king and queen; the thre shing-floor, where
they are married, is their court; and the threshing-sledge is
their throne. March is the favourite month. The most pro-
minent incidents of the wedding-day are the sword-dance of
the bride, and the great feast. On the following day they hold
a reception, being greeted first by the best-man (vezir), then
by the friends of the bridegroom (κου αν el-aris). Then the
sledge is transported on stalwart shoulders, with singing of
martial or erotic songs, to the threshing-tloor. Here a stage
or scaffolding some two 6115 high is erected, and on this the
sledge is placed and covered over with a gaily-coloured carpet
i On this with
all pomp the husband and wife are enthroned. A tribunal ig

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE 278

then set up, whose business is to ascertain that the marriage
has been consummated (Dt 2218-21). The tribunal being satisfied,
there follow dancing and singing, the staple of the song being
praise of the graces of the newly wedded pair (cf. Ca 4-7).
Games follow, which begin on the first day in the morning, on
the succeeding days shortly before noon, and last late into the
night. During the whole week their majesties wear their testal
clothes, do not work, and merely look on at the games--except
that now and again the queen joins in a dance, The expenses
are borne by the friends of the bridegroom eked out by fines.
The proceedings end with a supper, and the degradation of the
king to his proper rank. ‘The festal regulations are annulled,
the jokes become rougher, and scarcely is the meal over when a
pair of hands smear the king’s face from a dung-heap ? (p. 293).

iv. THE MORAL SUBVERSION OF MARRIAGE.
Adultery falls to be considered here as the practice
subversive of the institution of marriage (Old Ene.
acu-bryce, Germ, HKhebruch),

ons ‘adultery’ (Jer 13°", Ezk 23%), verb 5x3 Qal
and Pi. (Ex 204, Dt 5! ete.) ; worxeta (Jn $8"), and of
the same group μοιχός (Lk 18"), μοιχεύειν (Mt 5°),
pocxaabat (Mt 5°"), μοιχαλὲς (2 P 2M),

The biblical conception of adultery is often ex-
pressed by saying that, as in Roman law, a woman
could violate only her own marriage, a man only
that of another. In other words, an unchaste bride
was guilty of adultery, an unchaste husband was
guilty of it only if he sinned along with the bride of
another. Ifin certain cases the law took coenizance
of a husband’s Hcentiousness, it was because it in-
volved infringement of property rights, and gave
rise to a claim for damages (Ex 9916. Dt 22"),

At ἃ certain stage of social evolution, adultery
is commonly regarded as an injury which a lus-
band is entitled to avenge by slaying the culprits ;
and when important powers of the family come
to be taken over by the nation, it often happens
that the death-penalty continues to be attached,
at least in theory, to the capital sexual crime
(Post, Séwien, Ὁ. 35310.). To this generalization
of the sociologist the history of adultery among
the Hebrews closely corresponds. According to
the tradition the unfaithful wife was in old times
put to death (by burning, Gn 38%), and, alike
from the character of the people and the duties
anciently assigned to the Goel, it may be assumed
that the wrong was one which was held to invite
and justify the extreme of vengeance. The legis-
lation confirmed the estimate of its enormity
—the Decalogue condemns both the overt act
and the lawless desire in which it originates (Ex
2017), and the prohibition is solenmly repeated
in the later legislation, and supported by the
sanction of capital punishinent. The mode of
execution varied with the standing of the woman:
a guilty wife was to be put to death, 7.7. strangled,
along with her paramour (Dt 222; ef. Ly 20"),
while a betrothed woman who should be seduced
was to be stoned (v.44). Tf, however, the betrothed
woman was seduced in circumstances suge¢esting
that she had been violated, the man only was to
be executed : she received the benefit of the doubt
(v.?") 3 if she was a bondmaid, the culprit escaped
with a guilt-offering (Ly 1950}, In the ease of
a priest's daughter, the punishment of sexual im-
morality was death by burning (Lv 21°). The

same hich ground is taken by Ezekiel, who
threatens the adulterer with death (1511,

It must be added that there is no evidence that
the capital penalty was actually inflicted in his-
torical times. In late Jewish practice the penalties
were merely divorce, with the wife’s forfeiture of
her dowry (Bodenschatz, Nirch. Verfass. iv. p.
164); and a long tract of earlier practice is dis-
posed of by Lightfoot, who remarks: ‘L do not
remember that 1 have anywhere, in the Jewish
Pandect, met with an example of a wife punished
for adultery with death’ (/for. Heb. ad Mat. 195).
The NT evidence is to the same effect. In His
references to the subject (Mt 5®° ete.) Jesus im-
tlies that it simply entailed divorce. The reason

VOL. HIL—I8

|

given for Joseph’s purpose to put away his be-
trothed wife privily is that he was a just man-
a reason which could hardly have been civen if
he had been frustrating the recognized operation
of the Jaw, and saving Mary from the usual death
by stoning (Mt 1). Phe weiehtiest evidence on
the other side is derived from the narrative of
the woman taken in adultery (Jn 85:1), From
the reference to stoning it might be inferred that
her status was that of a betrothed woman, and
the implication of the narrative scems to be that
there was but a step between her and death. [t
is, however, to be remembered that Jesus was
surrounded by enemies who laboured to entanele
Him in His talk—esp. to bring Him into collision
with Moses; and the plot in this instance doubt-
less was to ‘put Him in the dilemma of either
declaring for the revival of a practice which had
already become obsolete, er of giving His sanction
to the apparent infraction of the luw which the
substitution of divorce involved? (art. ‘ Adultery,’
Kitto, Bib. Cycl.). At allevents, the reply of Jesus
supported the abrogation of the law: until judges
were found, themselves innocent as tried by His
own heart-searching test, the tithe was wanting
to execute the law of Moses (v.7). Nor do the
historical records of the pre-Christian period supply
any evidence of the operation of the law in the
exaction of the death-penalty. On the contrary,
the prophetical writings imply that there was
widespread guilt and widespread immunity. If
the story of Hosea be accepted, as by most
moderns, as a real history, and as implying the
post-nuptial fall of the prophet’s wife, it would
follow that in the Sth cent. the law not only did not
inflict capital punishment, but did not even (as
later) insist on divorce. In spite of the legal enact-
nents, then, it may be assumed that death was
not actually inflicted, and that it was deemed
that the husband was sufliciently protected by his
right of divorce, the woman sufficiently punished
by loss of status and property, while the adulterer
might be mulcted in damages.

In OT it is sought to intensify the moral senti-
ment on the subject by picturing the miserable
disenises and subterfuges of the adulterer, and by
dwelling on the risks to which he was exposed —
as degradation (Pr 918). poverty (6°°), and the strokes
of unbridled vengeance (5°). In ΝῊ (1 Co 6%)
the sin is declared to be utterly inconsistent with
a Chiristian standing, and to entail exclusion from
the eternal kingdom (1 Co 6°),

A charge of adultery was ordinarily substan-
tiated at a formal trial. The reason for this, when
the death-penalty was no longer intlicted, was at
least partly connected with money. A husband
could divorce his wife on suspicion, but if le did
not prove his case she retained the ‘dowry.’ It
lay, however, in the character of the crime that
it was often impossible to prove guilt according
to the ordinary canons of evidence, and to meet
this difficulty P provides that a suspected woman
shall submit to trial by ordeal (Nu 5!!**!),

The particulars of the remarkable enactment of the ordeal
of the waters of bitterness are as follows :—

(1) The trial takes place when a husband forms a suspicion,
founded or untounded, of his wife’s chastity (vv.J2-14),

(2) The procedure is that he brings his wife to the priest,
along with a sacrificial gift of barley-meal (v.15); the priest
sets her ‘before the Lord’ (v.16), loosens her hair (v.18), places
in her hand the meal-offering (v.18), and stands before her
holding an earthen vessel which contains a potion of holy water
sprinkled with dust from the floor of the tabernacle (v.17), He
then sets apart the potion to its judicial use—declaring that
if she be innocent it will not injure her, if guilty it will cause
her belly to swell and her thigh to shrink (v.22). The woman
having acquiesced with an ‘Amen,’ the priest writes down the
curses, washes them off, adds the rinsings as a new ingredient to
the potion (v.%), and after some ritualistic observances gives
her the water to drink (v.28),

(3) The issue is a judgment of condemnation or acquittal. 1
guilty, she is smitten with the threatened diseases (usually sup-

judicin Dei

274

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE

posed to include dropsy, Jos. Ant. 11, xi. 6), and is shunned as
accursed (v.27); if innecent, she has the compensation of again
becoming a mother (v.23).

In the ordeal of the bitter waters (so called as
the instrument of a curse) we have doubtless
an ancient custom surviving in a modified form,
and amended in the interests of good sense and
humanity. Similar practices have been discovered
among other peoples, e.g. in Sierra Leone and
Upper Guinea, and, according to various authori-
ties, im the African practice it is common to
employ a deadly poison, when the accused may
hope to escape only by the accident of vomiting, or
by the surreptitious use of an antidote. In the OT
legislation, on the other hand, the case was not
prejudged against the accused ; the ingredients of
the potion were innocuous, and reliance was placed
on exposure through divine intervention. That
the ordeal was at least occasionally eflicacious in
revealing cuilt through the workines of fear and
an accusing conscience, necd not be doubted.

From the long persistence in Christendom of the
in various forms (judicium= ignis,
aque, panis adjurati, ete.), the last trace of which
only disappeared in the ISth century, it may be
surmised that the ordeal appeals stronely to
human nature. But amone the Jews as amone
the Christians, experience bred doubts as to its
trustworthiness. Sometimes the curse tailed to
operate, and that although the euilt was morally
certain, or was established by later discoveries.
Of such miscarriages of justice two explanations
were offered. God, it might be said, stayed His
hand because adultery had become so common
among the accusing husbands that they had lost
all claim to justice as against their wives.*
Another reason was discovered in the doctrine of
‘merits, and it was sugested that, on the ground
of other eood deeds, the woman might, if pot
altogether escape, at least have the punishinent
deferred. But at all events it was no longer
relied upon, and so naturally fell into disuse.

vy. ΤῊΝ Leagan DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. —
Divorce (Old Eng. hiw-gedales, forlacton, Germ.
Ehescheidung) is expressed in Heb. and Gr. by a
number of words embodying the idea of dismissal
or separation, The usual Heb. verb is ase to send
away, LXX ἐξαποστέλλειν (Dt 22!) Jer 3), and for
the practice of divorce moe is once used (Mal 2");
in the later books xy: occurs in Hiph. (simake to go
forth, Ezr 10% 3"). A divoreed woman is a7 72x
(Ly 21%, Ezk 443). The bill of divorce (Old Eng.
hew-gedales bok, Vater * hook of forsaking’) is 722
noe (Dt 24'). In classical Greek the legal terms
are ἀποπέμπεσθαι, ἀποπομπή (of the man), ἀπόλειψις
(usually of the woman). In the Greek of NT
their place is taken by three verbs: (1) ἀπολύειν,
used throughout the Synopt. (Mt 1! 531-85. Mik
105: Ὁ. Lk 16!) 3 (2) ἀφιέναι, which with St. Paul
describes the action either of husband or wife in
promoting divorce (1 Co 7! 728) ef, Rey 24), but in
Synopt. has the meaning of ‘leaving’ a wife at
death to another (Mt 22”) ; (3) χωρίζειν, χωρίζεσθαι,
‘to separate, depart,’ then (ef. seheiden) to ter-
munate ἃ Marriage union (1 Co 719. 1.. 15). Tn the
translation of those terms, both AV and RV are
timid about using ‘divorce,’ and prefer the vaguer
phrases of ‘putting away’ (ἀπολύειν) and ‘depart’
(χωρίζειν), the explanation of which is to be
sought in a desire partly to mark the fact that
ancient and modern divorce are on a different leeal
footing, partly to avoid prejudicing the much dis-
puted question as to the dissolubility of marriage.

* «After that adulterers multiplied, the bitter waters ceased,
and R, Jochanan Saccai abolished their use according to Hos
414 T will not punish your daughters when they commit
whoredom, for they themselves go apart,’ etc.—Mishna, Sota,
cap. 9, Surenhusius, iii. p. 291.

| Gott.

The Jewish law of divorce has a long history,
beginning with the early period in which the right
of * putting away’ a wife appears as the traditional
prerogative of the husband, then passing into the
stage in which the exercise of the right was at
least impeded by prophetic protest and legislative
enactment, and ending with the effective protec-
tion of the wife’s position, alike by the Talmudic
jurisprudence and the ethics of the Gospel.

That the power of divorce should have been
anciently regarded as a traditional right was in
harmony with the general ideas and practice of
the time in regard to woman's status. When
compensation was given to the wife's relatives it
was natural to regard her under the point of view
of property, and the notion of property involves
liberty to alienate it. In heathen Arabia the
continuance of ἃ marriage depended on the hus-
band’s pleasure, and Mohammed was content to
leave matters on the old footing (Wellhausen,
Nach, 1893, p. 452th). The old Hebrew
practice, perhaps also the very procedure, is ex-
emplified in’ Abraham’s dismissal of Hagar (Gn
2115). From the action of Saul (1S 254) it might
be supposed that the wife's father had also power
to dissolve a qarriage, but the transference of
Michal to another husband by paternal authority
evidently has the aspect of an outrage.

The Deut. code acknowledged the husband's
right of divorce, but guarded against its abuse.
To prevent so important a step being taken in the
heat of passion, it required him deliberately to
write her ‘a bill of divorcement’? (245. Another
check was imposed upon impulsive action by the
provision that, under certain conditions, the scpara-
tion should be final —if, that is, the divorced woman
should marry a second time, and should later on
be again free to marry (vv."*4). That this was an
innovation may be inferred from the story of
Hosea (Nowack, Arch. i. p. 347). The purely arhi-
trary exercise of the prerogative was discouraged
by assuming that there was some solid ground of
resentiment—‘ that she finds no favour in his eyes
because he hath found some unseemly thing in
her’ (v.!, see below). In certain cases, again, the
right of divorce was forfeited by misconduct. The
husband who falsely charged his wife with ante-
nuptial fornication (22'""!%), and the ravisher of a
betrothed virgin (2.55: 55). were bound in perpetuity
by the marriage tie. In the school of the prophets
the higher conception of woman's claims, which
has some expression in Dt, found more definite
utterance. The germ of the Deut. reforms, and οἱ
ereater than these, was contained in J (Gan 2!--),
which in the narrative of the Creation had described
the husband as knit to the wife in the most
intimate union. It is, however, in Mal that the
prophetic spirit definitely breaks with established
custom, and declares without qualification that
God hateth divorce (916), God’s disregard of the
sacrifices is due, he teaches, to His wrath at men’s
treacherous dealing with the wife of their youth
(v.43). In the period following the Exile it would
seem that divorce had become very common ; doubt-
less the divorce of strange women required by Ezra
(9. 10) had reacted upon the general practice, and
had retarded and even set back the movement
carried forward by the prophets.

In the succeeding period interest centred in the
question of the precise nature of the Deut. con-
dition justifying divorce, ard the vagueness of the
language in which the wife’s offence was described
gave rise to one of the most famous of rabbinical
controversies: What was the ‘unseemly thing’
(133 nny, lit. ‘nakedness of a thing,’ LXAX ἄσχημον
πρᾶγμα) The account of the dispute is given as
follows in the Mishna (Giffin ix. 10) :—

‘The school of Shammai says, ‘‘ No one shall divorce his wife

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE 278

unless there shall have been found in her some unchastity (727
My ‘a thing or matter of nakedness’), since it is written,
Because he hath found the nakedness of a thing (937 173) in
her”; the school of Hillel says, Even if she shall have burned
his food in cooking, since it is written, Because he hath found
in her the nakedness of « thing” (ἑν. anything): Re Akiba Says,
“Even if he tind another fairer than she, as it is written, If
she find no favour in his eves.”” As indicated in this passave,
the latitudinarian view was adopted on the ground that the
governing principle is laid down in the opening clause ‘if she
find no favour «n his eves,’ and it was also supported by refer-
ence to v.38, where it is implied that a second husband will also
divorce the woman if he hate her. The emphasis was also laid
on ‘matter? rather thanon ‘unseemly,’ thereby sugeesting that
the unseemliness might appear in various matters. The school
of Shammai treated the second clause as the significant one,
and emphasized * unseemly,’ which they interpreted as meaning
immoral or at least: indecent conduct. The opinion of Hillel
was generally adopted as the true representation of the state
of the law (‘decisio juxta scholam Hillelis,’ Maimon. in lod.),
although it is to be remembered that many who endorsed the
position as jurists condemned it as moralists. ‘Over hint who
divorces the wife of his youth,’ said R. Eleazar, ‘even the altar
of God sheds tears’? (Amram, Jewish Law of Divorce, p. 37).
That ‘the unscemly thing’ was not a euphemism for unchastity
may be confidently assumed in view of the fact that Dt pre-
scribes the capital punishment for adultery. But recent scholar-
ship at least agrees with Shammiai in confining it to the region
of immodest or indecent behaviour (Driver, i ἰ00.).

Upon this vexed question of the schools the
judgment of Jesus was eagerly sought (Mt 10:9,
Mk 101:15), and in view of the great practical im-
portance of the subject it was even spontancously
given (Mt 5%, Lk 16%). Our Lord decreed in
favour of the rigorous view, and indeed disallowed
any ground of divorce, with the probable excep-
tion of adultery. He does not, it is true, base this on
His interpretation of ‘the unseemly thing’; on
the contrary, He crants that the Mosaic law cave

. J 4 . = . a
some latitude in the matter of divorce, and woes
on to reform the law so as to bring it into con-
formity with the older ideal (Gn 24), or the original

1 > . =

purpose of God. But did Jesus allow even adultery
to be a valid ground of divorce? A negative
answer 1s given from opposite quarters. The Rom.
Cath. Church, as is well known, is committed to the
position that adultery does not justify the total
dissolution of a marriage (quoad vinculum) between
two Christians, but only separation from ‘bed
and board,’ * and some modern German critics
have supported this contention as at least corre-
sponding to the teaching and intention of Christ.
This view, it must be admitted, is not without
foundation, while yet regard for the accepted
‘anons of N'T criticism precludes the claim that
it has been established.

A presumption that Jesus intended to prohibit divorce in all
cases is created by the following considerations :—(1) In two
passages of the Gospels it is stated without reservation that
“he who putteth away his wifeand marrieth another committeth
adultery’ (Lk 161%, cf, Mk 1011), and the Pauline report of our
Lord’s teaching on the subject (1 Co 710.) js similarly un-
qualified ; (2) it is in harmony with the spirit of Christ's general
teaching to suppose that He inculeated towards the erring one
utter constancy in love and forgiveness unto seventy times
seven. The Book of Hosea, it may be added, shows the possi-
bility of a love which feels that the bond which binds a husband
to even a faithless wife is indissoluble. But the foree of this
seems to be dissipated by the fact that Jesus actually admitted
the exception in the proviso, ‘saving for the cause of fornica-
tion’ + (Mt 5#2199%), The objection is met in two ways. (1) The
Rom. Cath. theologians deny that the punishment contemplated
was more than a separation, and urge in proof that the woman
who is put away commits adultery if she marries another.
If the union was really dissolved, it is argued, there could be
no allegation of adultery. But these statements rest on erro-

* “Tf any one saith that the Church has erred in that she
fath taught and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical
and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be
dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married
parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not
occasion to the adultery, can not contract another marriage
during the lifetime of the other; and that he is guilty of
adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall take
another wife, as also she who, having put away the adulterer,
shall take another husband, let: him be anathema’ (Canons and
Decrees of the Council of Trent, De Sacr. Matri., Can. Vi1.).

t It has been held by some critics that as the word used is
πορνεία, the justification of divorce here admitted was ante-
nuptial fornication ; but cf. Weiss-Meyer, in loc. ἱ

neous exegesis. The verb ἀπολύειν was ἃ recognized Hellenistic
term for divorce, and could not convey to the early Christians
the modified conception of a separation. Further, it is not cer-
tain that according to this passage Christ taught that a man
committed adultery by marrying a divorced cuilty wite, and con-
sequently it may be held that in her case at least the marriage
was regarded as annulled by divorce.* (2) Instead of explaining
away the exception, Bleek, Keim, and others have denied the
genuineness of the clause specifying it, and this on the vround
that the original unqualified statement of Jesus was felt to be
a stumbling-block, and that the exception ( saving for the cause
of fornication ’) crept into the traditional report as a concession
to the realities of social life. In support of the cenuineness it
is pointed out that the MSS indicate no uncertainty as to the
rehability of the text in Mt; while the absence of the exception
from the parallel passages in Mk and Lk is explained either by
saying that it was taken for granted (Meyer), or by recalling
that the law already provided for the punishment of adultery
(Schege). Yet another sugeestion is that the teaching of Jesus,
which was originally comparatively lenient, eventually withdrew
the single concession which had been made (lug, quoted in
Weiss-Meyer, 7 ἰος.). The question at issue must eventually
be settled in the light of a general theory as to the trustworthi-
ness of the Synoptic report of our Lord’s sayings, and the ex-
planation of the Synoptic divergencies ; and it must be added
that this particular instance does uot materially strenethen the
evidence that the oral tradition seriously modified the sivings
of our Lord (on this subject cf. Bruce, Aingdom of God, Crit.
Introd.).

Among Protestant writers the more ureent
question has been whether, consistently with
the teaching of Christ and His apostles, ‘divorce
may be sought on other erounds than adultery ;
and the Jaxer modern practice has usually been
Justified as an extended application of the principle
embodied in the words ascribed to Jesus.

The prima facie sense of the relative passages in the ospels
(Mt 582 199) certainly is that Jesus permitted divorce on one
ground only, though the precise bearing of His references to
remarriage presents considerable ditticultics. + Are we then to
describe a system of law which has multiplied erounds of
divorce as openly defiant of the mind of Christ? To this it is
replied in the first place that the apostolic teaching sanctioned
further extension. The reference is to what Roman Catholics call
‘the Pauline privilege’ (1 Co 715.16), according to which if a
Christian husband or wife is deserted by his or her consort—
being an unbeliever, the former is declared to be no longer
under bondage, 7.e. free to marry again. In the second place, it
is contended that in this case Jesus, as in so many other cases,
states a principle under the form of a particular instance, and
that other instances are to be allowed which can be shown to
embody the same principle.t And certainly it must be granted
in general that the Christian morality does not consist of a
vast-iron system of laws, but rather of germinal principles
which entail the labour and responsibility of thinking ont their
inmost significance and judging as to their proper application.
In the evangelical precept the spirit counts for more than the
letter. If, therefore, we assume that Jesus allowed divorce at
al, which is the most doubtful point in the argument, it is
quite legitimate to extend the exception to cases involving a

* The weakness of the exegetical argument is obviously felt by
arecent Rom. Cath. writer, who, atter admitting the reality of the
difficulty, and pleading that the passage be interpreted in the
light of the clearer Scriptures, remarks that the matter affords
a good instance of the impossibility of arriving at any assured
interpretation of Scripture except in the light of the traditional
teaching of the Catholic Church hunter, Dog, Theology,§ 815).

t As regards remarriage, the main exegetical ditticulty is
to know whether the phrase, ‘whosoever marrieth her that
is put away committeth adultery’ (Mt 582), prohibits the re-
marriage of every divorced woman, or only that of a woman
who has been unlawfully divorced. The latter view, supported
by Weiss-Meyer and Alford (who translates ‘her when put
away’), is the natural one, though it has the curious consequence
that an innocent wife is, but a guilty wife is not, prohibited from
forming a second marriage. The husband of a guilty wife, as is
clearly implied in Mt 199, may marry again ; and by parity of
reasoning, ina case Which cond not lawfully occur in the Jewish
Church, a woman who has divorced her husband on the ground
of his immorality should be tree to take another husband. On
the other hand, it does not follow that a legal dissolution of
marriage justifies remarriage. The legal decision gives rise, for
the Christian conscience, to the further question whether the
marriage has been broken in the sense intended by Christ.

1 This argument is suggestively stated by Newman Smyth
(Christian Lthies, p. 410 ff.): ‘There is no other legitimate
principle for divorce than that presented by the nature of the
sin of adultery, If, however, we can say with a good conscience
that some other sin (some sin which possibly in Christ's day had
not reached its full measure of iniquity—a sin, for instance, like
drunkenness, Which may utterly destroy the spiritual unity of a
home and threaten even the physical security of one of the per-
sons hound by the vows of marriage) is the moral equivalent of
the cause which our Lord had immediately before Him for pro-
nouncing divorce, we shall be justified in admitting it to be
likewise a proper Christian ground for divorce?’ Martensen
argurs to a similar purpose (Christian Ethics, Social, p. 41 ff ).

276 MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE

real moral subversion of marriage under the proviso that the
Verification of such be taken out of private hands and vested in
a public tribunal. Nor can it be said that, at least in Great
Britain, the occasions of legal dissolution allowed by law amount
to less than a moral subversion.

While Christianity broke down the husband’s
right of divorce along one line, on another the
Talmudic law was developed with the purpose of
impeding its exercise.

The most important provisions making in this direction may
be thus distinguished : (1) Inculcation of the doctrine that the
right was not absolute by the statement of grounds justifying
it—viz. suspicion of adultery, violation of decency and of Jewish
customs, obstruction of religious service, refusal of conjugal
rights; (2) enforcement of penalty in the restoration of the
‘dowry’; (3) complication of procedure in carrying out the
divorce ; (4) deprivation of the right in cases where the husband
had come under some incapacity, ον. as insane, or as a deat-
mute, or where the wife—as insane, or a captive, or a minor—
was specially entitled to ee (ef. Amrain, Jerish Laie
of Dir. ο. 4, ‘Laws of the Mishna restricting the husband’s
right to divorce’), On the other hand, circumstances were
specified in which the husband was compelled to divorce his
wife, viz. cases of adultery, clandestine intercourse, leprosy,
childlessness, ete. (lamburger, art. ‘Scheiden’). The abolition
of the man’s theoretical right to divorce was decreed in 11th
cent. by Rabbi Gershom, who enacted that ‘as the man does
not put away his wife except of his own free will, so shall the
woman not be put away except by her own consent’ (Amram,
op. cit. p. 52). The decree, however, was not universally
accepted as law by the Jews, and is ignored by Maimonides (¢.).

The right of the wife to divorce her husband,
which was conceded at least under later Greek
and Roman law, was an idea repugnant to Hebrew
custom and enactment. The only trace of such
an idea is the legal provision that if a bondweman
become a wife, and if she be denied conjugal
rights, she shall go out free without money (Ex
QI) 'Phis, however, was not a concession to
the woman of power to divorce; in any such
case the theory was that the husband was called
upon, in the exercise oi his exclusive prerogative,
to put away his wife (Amram, op. cif. p. 60).
Under the inthuence of alien customs, and with
the support of Roman haw, the practice came into
vooue in NT times, whereby the wife directly
repudiated the husband by sending him a * bill of
divorce. The innovation was opposed by Jos.
(Ant. XV. vii. 11]. XVI. ν. 5), and was expressly
condemned by our Lord in the words, ‘if a woman
shall put away her husband and marry another,
she committeth adultery’ (Mk 1013, The Tal-
mudists upheld the old theory, allowing the wife
to demand divorce in certain cases—e.g. leprosy,
apostasy, cruelty, impotence (Amram, op. c/f. ος 0).

The writing or bill of divorcement (nn72 750,
ΤΆ]. 23, Gr. By3dov ἀποστασίου), which figures so
largely in this subject, was of great antiquity
(Dt 24). Is 50!, Jer 8°). In earlier times no great
ceremony was used (Gn 21"), and the form of words
would doubtless be similar to those in use among
the Arabs.* While necessary to make a divorce
16.081, it would appear that in the time of our
Lord the ‘bill’ could be granted without bringing
the matter under the cognizance of the authorities
(Mt 1159). From the Mishna, a treatise of which
takes its name from the ‘bill? (@vfiim), it appears
that most elaborate regulations were enforced in
regard to the judiciary, clerk, witnesses, time
and place, and also the medium and mode. of
the delivery of the document. The following
is given by Maimonides as an ancient and model
form of the gef or bill: ‘On the - day of
the week and —— day of the month of —— in
the year since the creation of the world
(or of the era of the Seleucidie), the era accord-
ing to which we are accustomed to reckon in
this place, to wit, the town of —— do I —— the
son of —— of the town of (and by whatever

*Two formule are given by W. Τὸ. Smith (Kinship, pp. 94,

168: $ Begone, tor 1 will no longer drive thy flocks to the

asture.” ‘Thou art to me as the back of my mother’; cf. the
tin formula: ‘Tuas res tibi habeto, tuas res tibi agito.’

other name or surname [ or my father may be
known, and my town and his town), thus determine,
being of sound mind and under no constraint ; and
I do release and send away and put aside thee
daughter of —— of the town of (and by
whatever other name or surname thou and thy
father are known and thy town and lis town),
who hast been my wife from time past hitherte,
and hereby I do release thee and send thee away
and put thee aside that thou mayest have per-

mission and control over thyself to go to be
married to any man whom thou desirest, and

noman shall hinder thee (Gn my name) from this
day forever. And thou art permitted (to be
married) to any man. And these presents shall
be unto thee from me a bill of dismissal, a docu-
ment of release and a letter of freedom, according
to the law of Moses and Israel.

—— the son of —— a witness.
the son of a witness.’
(Amram, pp. 157-158, with which cf. original text
and Latin rendering in Snrenhusius, J/ishaah, 111.
p. 823, and commentary, 7. p. 825).

vi. MARRIAGE AS A SYMBOL OF SPIRITUAL
Trurus.—Although modern exegesis has given
up the idea that in Canticles divine love is set
forth under the image of human love, it is a
familiar biblical thought that the marriage rela-
tionship is typical of the union and communion
of God with His people. After Hosea, whose
domestic life is reasonably supposed to have im-
pressed him with the suitableness of the imagery,
it became a commonplace of prophecy that God
was to Israel as a husband, and Israel to God as
a. bride (Hos 919. Jer 3" 31°; 15. δ45)." ὙΠῸ con-
ception passed over into NT, but with moditica-
tions avreeable to the nature of Christianity—the
bridegroom being now God in Christ (Mt 9%, Jn
3°), the bride the spiritual Israel elect out of
every nation (2 Co 11", Rev 197).

Now, this conception of God as the husband,
though it has been little utilized in theology,
cannot be said to be less apt or important than
the two other conceptions of God which have been
made the basis of systems. ‘These are the idea
of God as King, which lays the main stress on
the divine sovereignty, and the idea of God as
Father, which lays the main stress on the divine
love. And as the weakness of the system built
upon the principle of the divine sovereignty has
been widely felt to be that it does less than justice
to the ethical being of God; and as, on the other
hand, the theology based on the divine fatherhood
has been in danger of obscuring the divine might
and majesty, there is certainly something to be
said for putting in the foretront the thought
of Hosea, which, representing God as husband,
equally emphasizes to our minds His sovereignty
and His goodness.

How large a portion of the body of Christian
doctrine may be set forth, and with the sanction of
Scripture, under the category of the marriage re-
lation, may be briefly indicated.

(1) Under the doctrine of God this representa-
tion, besides embodying as its fundamental prin-
ciples the divine sovereignty and love, lays special
stress on the attributes of clemency and long-
suffering, while it safeguards the holiness of God
by showing Him grieved and provoked to anger by
contumacy and unfaithfulness (Hos prssim). As
husband God also provides for His people (2°).

(2) The doctrine of sin is, from this point of
view, characterized as adultery (Hos 2’, Jer 3° 13” ;

* The germ of the conception, according to W. R. Smith, was
found in Semitic heathenism ; and the service of ilosea was to
purify the gross physical conception of the god as the husband
of the motherland, and to apply it to describe moral relations of
Jehovah with His people (Prophets of Israel, new ed. p. 170 ff.)

MARSENA

MARTHA

_—

hatred toward God, and the giving of the allec-
tions to other objects (Hos 2°, Jer 2%, Ezk 20°) ;
(ὁ) the heinousness of sin, draws attention to its
ageravation as unfaithfulness to solemn obligation
and ingratitude for high favours (Jer 5%); and
(ὦ) the punishinent of sin, teaches that persistence
in it entails a casting-off, of which human divorce
is a pale emblem (Hos 2", Jer 2%),

(3) In. the Christological doctrine the points
which are chiefly emphasized by the conception
are the love of Christ, His kingly office as exer-
cised in His headship over the Church, and His
intimate union with it through the indwelling
Spirit (2 Co 112, Eph 5%),

(4) In close relation to the last the doctrine of
the Church is elucidated and enriched by the
assertion of its mystical union with and depend-
ence upon Christ (Eph. δυσὶ c/f.), and of its essential
note of sanctity—-the latter, which includes all the
eraces included in sanctification, being beautifully
portrayed as the bridal adornment (Rev 19).

(5) Finally, as regards eschatology, the figure
concentrates attention on the momentous event
of the Second Coming, which is sudden as the
coming of the bridegroom (Mt 25'!%), and places in
a clear light the bliss, the security, and unutterable
evlory of the everlasting kingdom (Rev 197 21%").

LITERATURE.—Next to the Scriptures the chief source is the
division of the Mishna 2 792 (Liber de re uxoria), containing,
with two others, the treatises nD2° (de levirorum tn fratrias
officio), Man2 (de dote Literisque matrimonialibus), TWO (de
τον adulterii suspecta), [oi (de divortiis), and Pup (de
sponsalibus)—pt. 3 in the ed. of Surenhusius, Amsterdam, 1700.
The best of the above material is collected in Selden, Uxor
Hebraica, London, 1546, and Hamburger, Real-Encycloped ie
fiir Bibel und Talmud, Breslau, 1870. Of the older articles,
that in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia is distinguished by Talmudic
erudition. The recent German manuals which cover the ground
are Benzinger, Ποὺ. Arch., Freiburg, 1894, cf. his ‘Familie ἃ.
Ehe’ in Hauck=Herzog?; Nowack, Lehrb. der Heb. Arch,
Bd. i., Freiburg, 1894, with which may be mentioned Stade, G VE,
Berlin, 1887, i. pp. 371-395. On primitive marriage the chief
works from the general standpoint are M‘Lennan, Primitive
Marriage, reprinted in Studies in Ancient History, London,
1876; Starcke, The Primitive Family, London, 1889; Wester-
marck, History of Hunan Marriage, London, 1891; Post,
Studien zur Eutwickelungsgeschichte des Familienrechts, Leip-
zig, 1889; while the theories are tested in the Semitic field
with special knowledge by W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage
tn Early Arabia, Cambridge, 1895, and Wellhausen, ‘Die Ehe
bei den Arabern’ in the Gétténger Nachrichten, 1893, p. 431 ff.,
following Wilken, Das Matriarchat bei den alten Arabern,
1584. For the interpretation of the laws there is much to be
learned from Michaelis, Moscisches Recht, Eng. tr. ‘Commen-
taries on the Laws of Moses,’ London, 1814. Amram, Jewish
Law of Divorce according to Bible and Talmud, London, 1897,
is an important discussion by a legal expert. See also Fenton,
Early Hebrew Life, London, 1830; Jacobs, Studies in Bibl.
Arch., London, 1894; Abrahams, Jewish Life inthe Middle Ages,
London, 1896; Tristram, Hastern Customs, London, 1894 ;
Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs, London, 1898.

W. P. PATERSON.

MARSENA (xim2; Madnoeap AB, Μαλισεαρ,
Μαρσανά ; Marsana)..-One of the seven princes of
Media and Persia, who ‘sat first in the kingdom,’
and had the right of access to the royal presence
(Est D4, ef. ADMATHA). The name is doubtless
Persian, but the derivation is uncertain.

MARSHAL.—The word does not occur in AV,

but in RV it represents two Heb. words. (1) 735
sopher (Jg 5'4) in the difficult phrase 322 »3v3 ΞΘ

‘fout of Zebulun] they that handle the marshal’s
staff’ (RV). The usual meaning of 722 is ‘scribe ® or
‘writer,’ and so AV, aereeing with Syr.* ἜΤΕ 23.2)
|-2:009 and Targ. 1907 oodypa pan, gives

* We have verified the Syr. from MSS, viz. the Ambrosian, the
Buchanan Bible (Jacobite of cent. xii.), and Camb. Univ, Add,
1964 (Nestorian of cent. xiii.) for Jg 514, and from the first two
of these MSS together with Camb. Univ. Add. 1965 (Nestorian of
cent. xv.) for Jer 5127 and Nah 317,

‘They that handle the pen of the writer.’ None
of the Greek versions, however, give ‘pen,’ in A
pova=év σκήπτρῳ, in B and Theod. ἐν ῥάβδῳ, in
Symm, μετὰ ῥάβδου. ‘Therefore we may take Greek
authority to be on the side of * marshal? as against
‘scribe,’ ‘writer, though an abstract noun, ace.
to A ἡγήσεως, ace. to B (and Theod.) διηγήσεως
(error for ἡγήσεως ἢ, seems to be the original
Septuagint rendering. B olfers γραμματέως as ἃ
second rendering, and Symm. has γραμματέως only,
the meaning of which is ‘marshal? as appears from
1 Mac 5%, ἔστησεν (se. Judas) τοὺς γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ
ἐπὶ τοῦ χειμάρρου. The office of a marshal was to
help the general to maintain discipline. His wand
of oftice (σκῆπτρον or ῥάβδος) could be used, if neces-
sary, for inflicting chastisement.

(2) apes fiphsar (Jer 517) or 3229 taphser (Nah 317),
The meaning of this word—a loan-word in| Heb.—
is not certainly known, but Lenormant (followed
by most scholars) compares the Bab, - Assyr.
dupsarru (dupsarru, Delitzsch], ‘tablet-writer’ ;
so RVm to Nah 317 ‘thy seribes.’ The title ‘scribe’
might very well be given to a provost-marshal ; cf.
γραμματεύς in 1 Mac 5* (cited above). The VSS
vive no help, and the meaning of the word was
evidently lost in early times. LXX has βελοστάσεις
(‘batteries of warlike engines’) in Jer, but leaves
the word untrenslated in Nah. Symm. has ἐκλεκ-

τούς in Jer (so Field). Syv.* has b,2| ‘destruc-

tion’ in Jer, but in Nah Qa e4/49 ‘thy aroused
ones’ or (possibly) ‘thy warriors.’ 'Targ. gives ‘73
xanp ‘warriors’ in Jer, but leaves the word untrans-
lated in Nah. All these renderings of the VSS are
founded on cuesses from the context, rather than
on real knowledge. W. EMERY BARNES.

MAR’S HILL.—See AREOPAGUS.

MARTHA (Μάρθα, an Aramaic form [xn7>, fem.
of w72 ‘lord’}, not found in Heb., meaning
‘inistress’ or ‘lady.’ Compare Kupia in 2 Jn},
which some interpret as a proper name, and some
identify with the Martha of the Gospels).-—The
name does not occur in OT. Only one person
called Martha appears in NT, mentioned in Lk
10% #, Jn 113-5 1-389 19?) It is not possible to
doubt the identity of the Martha of the Fourth
Gospel with the Martha of the Third. In both
cases there is a sister Mary, and similar traits in
the characters of the two women appear in each
of the narratives. But the course of events in Lk
would suegest that the village where the sisters
lived was situated in Galilee; according to Jn
it was Bethany. The harmonistic su¢vestion, that
they may have ehanged their place of abode
previous to the events with which they are con-
nected in the Fourth Gospel, is evidently a device
invented to meet adifficulty ; it has no probability.
St. John is so exact in his topography that it is
not reasonable to suppose he was mustaken in this
instance. Bethany is one of the centres round
which the history in the Fourth Gospel moves.
It would seem, therefore, that the order of the
narrative is dislocated in Lk, so that a Judean
incident is inserted in the course of events that
transpired in the north. Martha here appears
actively engaged in serving Jesus and His dis-
ciples at a hospitable feast. In this case, and in
the Johannine incidents, she takes the lead in a
way that implies that she is the elder sister.
According to the Synoptic account, if was in the
house of Simon the leper that a woman, pouring
precious ointment over Jesus, was rebuked Ly the

disciples for her wastefulness (Mt 26%, Mk 149);

according to Jn, this occurred at the house of
Martha and Mary, the latter being the woman
who testified her devotion to Jesus by the costly

Pr

278

MARTYR

MARY

gift (Jn 12!) Therefore it has been suggested
that Martha may have been Simon's wife or
widow. In St. Luke’s narrative Martha is gently
corrected for her excessive anxiety and the im-
patience with which she complains of her sister.
Thus she is seen to be one who, while truly
devoted to Christ, and commendably energetic
in the service of hospitality, does not possess her
soul in quietness; sets too high a value on the
material stimptuousness of the feast for which
she is responsible; fails to understand how best
to entertain her divine Guest by best pleasing
Him; and hastily blames the gentler Mary.
According to the oldest MSS and some VSS and
Fathers,” Jesus said to her, ‘There is need of but
a few things or one*—the ‘few’ pointing to sim-
plicity inthe provisions at table (compare Lk Lo),
the ‘one” perhaps carrying her thought to what
alone He supremely cared for, the kingdom of
God (see Mt 6), to show profound interest in
which was to receive Jesus in the way most
acceptable to Him. In the narrative of the death
and raising of Lazarus, Martha and Mary are true
sisters, echoing one another's thoughts, both trust-
ing in Jesus as their one friend who could help
them in the ereatest need. In Jn 122, as in the
Lk narrative, Martha is found ‘serving.’ See,
further, under Mary, No. iv.

A tradition, which cannot be traced earlier than
the Middle Aves, is cherished all over the south of
France, to the effect that during a persecution of
the Christians
sisters, having heen sent to sea ina boat without
rudder, oars, or provisions, drifted to land near
Marseilles, founded many ehurches in Provence,
in particular those αὐ Marseilles, Aix, and Avie-
non, and finally lived jin retreat at Tarascon (see
Guettée, Histoire de l Bylise de France, i, 402, 0.5;
Guerin, Les Petits Bollandistes, ete. x. 91—105:
where many childish but picturesque legends of
Martha are recorded; cf. also Duchesne, Fusfes
épuscopanue de Fancienne Gaule, ic BLOAT).

W. FL ADENEY.

MARTYR.— The Gr. word μάρτυς (from a root
signifying to ‘remember,’ connected with ‘memory’
and μέριμνα. ‘eare, therefore primarily ‘one who
testifies to what he remembers’), whieh in AV
is frequently translated ‘witness,’ is rendered
‘martyr’ in Ac 22”, Rev 28 176 The Vule. has
mortyr im the last passage only, in the other two
the usual testis, and Wye. and Rhem.. follow.
Tind., Cov., Cran. have ‘witness’ in all: Gen. and
Bish. ‘witness’ in Ac, but + martyr in Rey. The
Versions, even the earliest, seem to have used
‘martyr? in its modern sense, one who seals jis
testimony with his blood, not merely a witness,
but a witness who suffers. But the Gr. word does
not appear to have acquired that meanine within
the NT, though it is common in early Christian
writings. In Ac 22” the tr. ‘martyr’ loses the
reference to the preceding ‘witness’ (μαρτυρία, 22"),
RV gives ‘witness’ in Ac 222? and Rev 9.3. Dot
retaims ‘martyr’ in Rev 17%, m. ‘witness.’

J. HASTINGS.

MARVELLOUS is an adverb in Wis 19°, ‘seeing
thy marvellous strange wonders’ (θαυμαστὰ τέρατα,
RV ‘strange marvels’). — Cf, 313; Pr. Bk.

Ps
‘Thanks be to the Lord: for he hath showed me
marvellous great kindness in a strong city’; and
Ps 145° ‘Great is the Lord, and marvellous worthy
to be praised ’® (but mod. edd, wrongly print ‘ Great
is the Lord, and marvellous, worthy to be praised’).
Cf. also Jer 30° Coy. ‘Yee all their faces are mar-
vellous pale.’ Tindale uses ‘marvellously,’ as Mt
2” * When they sawe the starre, they were mar-
velously glad.’ So also often in Shakespeare.
J. HASTINGS.
ΚΝ BC21L 1. 33, Syr.hel mg Memph. Eth., Origen ct Bas,

yy the Jews, Lazarus and his two,

MARY (Heb. on Miriam; LXX and NT Mapidu
or Μαρία ; Josephus Μαριάμμη or Μαριάμη or Mape-
auvn).*—The name, as Stanley says, probably owes
its frequent recurrence in the narratives, alike of
the Evangelists and of Josephus, not to the
memory of Miriam the sister of Moses, but to the
sympathy felt for the beautiful Hasmoniwean prin-
cess, the high-souled and ill-fated wife of Herod
(Jewish Church, iii. 429). We find it used as follows
in the NT—

i. Mary the mother of James,
li. The other Mary.
iii, Mary of Clopuas.
iv. Mary the sister of Martha.
v. Mary Magdalene.
vi. Mary the mother of Mark.
Mary saluted by St. Paul.
ii. Mary the mother of the Lord.

i. il. iii, Of the above, the first three are gener-
ally identified. The first is mentioned in the three
Synoptic Gospels as one of those who were present
at the crucifixion, In Mt 9785: δό we read, * many
women were there beholding from afar, which had
followed Jesus trom Galilee, ministering unto him ;
among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary
the mother + of James and Joses, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee.” [αὶ ν᾿ we are told that the
same evening, after Joseph of Arimathiea had
buried the body in his own new tomb hewn out
of the rock, ‘Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary
(evidently the betore-mentioned mother of James),
were sitting over against the sspulchre.’ Next day,
‘as the sabbath beean to dawn towards the first
day of the week, the other Mary again appears
with Mary Magdalene (981). It is to them that
the angel at the sepulchre speaks words of com-
fort after rolling away the stone, ‘Fear not ye:
for 1 know that ye seek Jesus, which hath been
crucified. He is not here; for he is risen, as he
said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples.’ In fear and
joy they ran to carry the message; and as they
went, ‘Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they

came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped
him. Then said Jesus unto them, Fear not: ¢o

tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and
there shall they see me.’

Mark (1529) gives some further details. © Mary is
called the mother of James the Little and Joses, and
Salome is mentioned as one of her companions along
with Mary Magdalene. In v.47 she (now called Δ]. ἡ
᾿Ιωσῆτος) is watching where He was laid. In 16!
“Mary of James’ is joined with Salome and the
Magdalene, as buying spices and bringing them to
the tomb at sunrise on the first day. As they eo
they wonder how they shall get the stone rolled
away; but this is already done when they arrive,
and they find in the tomb a young man in white

* It has been asserted that the form Μαριάμ is used ex-
clusively for the Virgin, and Μαρία for the others; but, though
the Hebraic form is in general used of the former (nthe
nominative), perhaps as being the more dignified, it is by no
means confined to her, nor is the Hellenic form contined
to the latter. Thus, where the Virgin is spoken of,
WH read Mzgiz with Codd. BD in Lk 2!9, and though they
follow B in calling her Μαριάμ elsewhere, yet it is only in Lk
127 that this form has the support of all the MSS. In Mt 1355
Megs is read by C, in Lk 156. 69.56 and 25 by 1), in Lk 184. 3s. 46
by both. On the other hand, the best text has Megeuw of the
Magdalene in Mt 2761, Mk 1540, Jn 2016.18) and this reading has
the support of C and Lin several other passazes. Magia is not
used of the mother of James in the best MSS, though C has it
in Mt 2796 and Lk 381, Μαριάμ is used of the sister of Martha
in the best text of Lk 1039. 42, Jn 112. 20. 62 128,

In the other cases the Hebraic and Hellenic forms are used
indiscriminately. Thus the best text has the acc. Μαρίαν of the
Virgin in Mt 129 and of St. Paul’s friend in Ro 165, but Macau
of the Virgin in Lk 216.34, of Martha’s sister in Jn 1119. 28.31 45,
The gen. Μαρίας is the only form used as well of the Virgin
as of Martha’s sister and the mother of Mark. The dat. Mzgizu
is used of the Virgin in Lk 25, Ac 113, but Magse of the Mag-
dalene in ‘ Mk’ 169,

+ Here and in Mk 1540 Syr. Sin. has ‘daughter’ instead of
‘mother.’

=

MARY

MARY

2ae

raiment, who bids them not be amazed, but carry
word to the disciples to meet the Lord in Galilee.
‘But they said nothing to any one; for they were
ΓΔ ΠΝ C4").

In Lk 23! we are told generally that the
women which came from Galilee stood afar off at
the eeifixion and followed Joseph to the tomb to
see how the body was laid, and prepared spices and
ointments, which they brought at early dawn on
the first day. Entering into the tomb they saw
two men in dazzling apparel, who asked them why
they sought the living among the dead. * Re-
member the words he spake unto you in Galilee,
saying that the Son of Man must be crucified, and
the third day rise from the dead. And they
remembered his words, and told ali these things
to the eleven and to all the rest.? From 24° we
learn that Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and
Mary of James were among the number of these
women.

Jolin (19) tells us that there were standing by
the eross, His mother and His mother’s sister
(identified with Salome, see article on BRETHREN
or THe Lorp), Mary of Clopas, and Mary
Maedalene. Comparing this with Mk 15%, we
naturally conclude that Mary of Clopas inust be
the same as Mary of James. All we know of Clopas
is derived from Hegesippus (ap. Euseb, Δ 17 11]. 11),
who tells us that he was brother of the reputed
father of our Lord, and that Symeon the second
bishop of Jerusalem was his son. Whether ἡ τοῦ
KAwrd means wise or (as Jerome suggests) daughter
of Clopas is uncertain.
above-named article) holds that there is no ground
for identifying the name Clopas with Alpheus, and
that the Peshitta version and Jerome may be right
in regarding it as another form of Cleopas. [
Mary was daughter of Clopas, she may have been
wife of Alpheus, and her son James may be the
apostle known as the son of Alpheus, Jerome,
however, maintains that Mary of Cleophas, the
aunt of the Lord, is a different person from the
mother of James (see Hp. ad HHedibiam cited by
Lightfoot, Ga/. p. 900). John of Thessalonica
and other Fathers (quoted by Faillon, i. p. 150)
strangely identify the mother of James with the
mother of the Lord, thinking that her presence at
the crucifixion could not have been passed over
without mention by the Synoptists.

iv. Mary, sisreER OF MAnTitA,—It is only in
the last two Gospels that her name occurs. Luke
(16), after narrating the return of the Seventy,
says vaguely that, ‘as they went on their way,
Jesus entered into a certain village: and a certain
woman, named Martha, received him into her house.
And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at
Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.’ When Martha
complained that she was left to serve alone, Jesus
answered that, whereas she was anxious and
troubled about many thines, her sister had chosen
the good part, which should not be taken from
her. In Jn 11 we find the two sisters living with
their brother Lazarus in a village named Bethany ;
and all three are said to have been beloved by the
Lord. Jesus, on His last journey to Jerusalem,
receives tidings of the sickness of Lazarus, and,
when He reaches Bethany, finds that he had been
dead four days. The behaviour of the sisters 1s
such as we might expeet from Luke's narrative.
Martha goes out to meet Him; but) Mary sits
still in the house, till she receives a message that
the Master called for her. Then rising quickly.
she came where He was, and fell down at His feet.

Both meet Him, however, with the same words
of sorrowful reproach: ‘Tf thou hadst been here,
my brother had not died. It would seem that,
though Martha was apparently the elder sister,
Mary was for some reason held in greater con-

Lightfoot (cited in the |

|

sideration. In v2% we are told that many of
the Jews had come to comfort Martha and Mary ;
but, while nothing is said of their accompanying
Martha, we read in v."! that the Jews, who were
in the house with Mary, when they saw that she
rose up quickly and went out, followed her, think-
ing that she was going to the grave to weep there ;
and inv.¥ it is said that many of the Jews that
came to Mary believed on Jesus.

In the chapter which follows we have the story of
the anointing of the feet of Jesus. Each evangelist
tells us of an anointing of the Lord by a woman,
whilst He was reclining as a guest ata hospitable
entertainment; and there has been much discussion
as to how often He was anointed, and (supposing
Him to have been anointed more than once) whether
the anointing was by one and the same woman,
Speaking generally, it will be seen from the con-
spectus given on next page that Matthew and
Mark are in agreement, and that Luke's account
differs widely from theirs, whilst Johims is inde-
pendent of either, yet presenting points of contact,
now with the one, now with the other, We will
consider these differences in order,

(1) As to dime and place: if we may judge from
the context, the anointing described by Luke took
place in Galilee while the Baptist was in prison ;
that described by the other evangelists took place
in Bethany shortly before the crucifixion, (2) As
to the Aos?: Luke names Simon the Pharisee, the
other Synoptists Simon the leper, while John is
indefinite, merely stating that after the raising of
Lazarus ‘they made him a feast, at which Lazarus
sat at meat, and Martha served.’ (3) As to the
action: whilst the first two Gospels speal of the
head being anointed with precious ointment, Luke
says that the feet of Christ were first wet with the
tears of the woman standing behind Him, and then
wiped with her hair and anointed; John says
nothing of her tears, but agrees in the statement
that it was the feet which she anointed and wiped
with her hair. (4) As to who or what the women
was, the first two Gospels tell us nothing beyond
the fact of her pouring the ointment on the head
of Jesus; Luke says that she was a sinner in the
city, and that Jesus said of her, ‘her sins which
are many are forgiven, for she loved much’; John
tells us that she was the beloved and honoured
sister of Martha and Lazarus. (5) As to the
criticism passed upon the action: Mark speaks
vaguely of some who were indignant at the waste
of money, saying to themselves, ‘this ointment
might have been sold for more than 800 denarii
and viven to the poor’; Matthew puts this censure
in the mouth of the disciples ; John aseribes it to
Judas, who bore the bag; while Luke reports
quite a different criticism made by a different
person, Simon the Pharisee, who becomes SUSPICIOUS
of Christ’s pretensions as a prophet, on the ground
that He had failed to read the character of the
woman who touched Him. (6) As to cur Lord's
Justification of the woman : this, of course, is differ-
ent in the two cases, since it has to meet two
distinct charges. The Pharisce is answered by the
parable of the Pwo Debtors; and a contrast is drawn
between Ais neglect of the ordinary forms of hos-
pitality and the humble devotion of the penitent
woman, Who is bidden to go in peace. Inthe other
Cospels the disciples are reminded that. the poor
would be always with them, while their Master
would shortly leave them; that the woman had
done a good work in anointing His body for the
impending burial; nay, that this action of hers
would be reported in her praise throughout the
world, wherever the gospel was preached.

Such being the diversity of the narratives, it: is
evident that there are many difficulties in the way
of any one who would regard them as all speaking

MARY

MARY

a

{The thick type is used in the Synoptic Gospels to mark their mutual
opposite purpose of marking his resemblances to one or other

Mr 265,

Τοῦ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦ γενομένου
ἐν ηθανίᾳ ἐν οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος
τοῦ λεπροῦ. προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ
γυνὴ ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον
μύρου Baputipoy, καὶ κατέ-
χέεν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ
ἀνακειμένου. ἰδόντες δὲ ot
μαθηταὶ ἠγανάκτησαν, λέ-
γοντες, Kis τί ἡ ἀπώλεια
αὕτη ; ἐδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο
πραθηναι πολλοῦ, καὶ δοθ-
ναι πτωχοῖς. γνοὺς δὲ
ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τί
Komous παρέχετε τῇ γυναικί;
ἔργον γὰρ καλὸν ἠργάσατο
els ἐμὲ" πάντοτε yap τοὺς
πτωχοὺς ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν,
ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε᾽
βαλοῦσα γὰρ αὕτη τὸ μύρον

οι sau ae ΤΣ ,
τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματός μου,
πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι με ἐ-
ποίησεν. ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
ὅπου ἐὰν κηρυχθῇ τὸ εὐαγ-

Conspectus of the Anointings.

Mk 14°,

Kai ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἐν Βηθ-
ανίᾳ, ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος
τοῦ λεπροῦ, κατακειμένου
αὐτοῦ, ἦλθεν γυνὴ ἔχουσα
ἀλάβαστρον μύρου νάρδου
πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς" συν-

τρίψασα τὴν ἀλάβασ-

τρον, κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ τῆς
4 [Ἢ L

κεφαλῆς. ἦσαν δέ τινες

ἀγανακτοῦντες πρὸς ἕαυ-
τούς, Eis τί ἡ ἀπώλεια
αὕτη τοῦ μύρου γέγονεν :
ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ μύρον
πραθῆναι ἔπάνω δηναρίων
τριακοσίων, καὶ δοθῆναι
τοῖς πτωχοῖς" καὶ ἐνεβρι-
μῶντο αὐτῇ. ὋὉ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς
εἶπεν, ΓΑΛφετε αὐτήν: τί
αὐτῇ κόπους παρέχετε ;
καλὸν ἔργον ἠργάσατο ἐν
ἐμοί. πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς
πτωχοὺς ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν,
καὶ ὅταν θέλητε δύνασθε

Ὑέλιον τοῦτο ἐν b\w τῷ αὐτοῖς “πάντοτε εὖ ποιῆ-

κύσμῳ, λαληθήσεται καὶ ὃ Oat. ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάνγοτε
ἐποίησεν αὕτη, εἰς μνημύ- ἔχετε" ὃ ἔσχεν ἐποίησεν,
συνον αὐτῆς. τότε πορευ- προέλαβεν μυρίσαι τὸ

θείς... ᾿Ιούδας. σῶμά μου εἰς τὸν ἐνταφι-
ασμόν. ἀμὴν δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν,
ὅπου ἐὰν κηρυχθῇ τὸ εὐαγ-
γέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κύσμον,
καὶ ὃ ἐποίησεν αὕτη λαλη-

θήσεται εἰς μνημύσυνον
αὐτῆς. Kai Ἰούδας...
ἀπῆλθεν.

of one person and recording one scene.* And yet

it is almost as difficult to suppose that such an.

action could have been repeated.
our Lord would have uttered such a high en-
comium upon Mary's act if she were only following
the example already set by the sinful’ woman of
Galilee; or (taking the other view) if she herself
were only repeating under more favourable. cir-
cumstances the act of loving devotion for which

Is it likely that

she had already received His commendation? Ts |

it likely, again, that St. John would have distin.
guished Mary as ‘her who anointed the Lord with

ointment and wiped his feet with her hair’ if he |

had known that in this she was only doing what
had been done by another before her? Taking a
more general view, is it likely that so rare an act,
the beauty of which lay in its instinctive spon-
taneity and freedom from self-consciousness, could
have been imitated or reproduced without losing
all its savour ?

Perhaps it may be answered that the act was

not really unusual, since the context in Luke
implies that not to anoint the head of a enest is
to be wanting in ordinary courtesy.+ It is true
we have no other reference to the anointing of
the feet in the Bible, but that this was not un-
precedented may be seen from Arist. (Vesp. 605, ὃ
δέ γ᾽ ἥδιστον τούτων ἐστὶν πάντων. . . ὅταν οἴκαδ᾽ ἴω
τὸν μισθὸν ἔχων

ἢ This view is taken by Ephraem Syrus, Paulinus, Victor of
Capua in his Diatessaron (see quotations in Faillon, i. 37, 146),
Grotius, Strauss, and the rationalistic interpreters generally,
and also by Hengstenberg.

t See art. on ANOINTING, Where reference is made to Egyptian

monuments, as bearing witness to the practice of anointing the
head of the guest at a feast, cf. also Ps 235 457,

|

- +. Kal πρῶτα μὲν ἡ θυγάτηρ με dtrovi¢y |

Lx 7°,

"Hpwra δέ τις αὐτὸν τῶν

Φαρισαίων, ἵνα φάγῃ μετ᾽

αὐτοῦ" καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν
οἶκον τοῦ Φαρισαίου κατε-
κλίθη. Kai ἰδοὺ, γυνὴ ἥτις
ἣν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἁμαρτωλύς,
καὶ ἐπιγνοῦσα ὅτι κατά-
κειται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ Φαρι-
Tatov, κομίσασα ἀλάβαστρον
μύρου, καὶ στᾶσα ὀπίσω
παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ
κλαίουσα, τοῖς δάκρυσιν
ἤρξατο βρέχειν τοὺς πό-
δας αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν
τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς ἐξέ-
μασσεν, καὶ κατεφίλει
τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ
ἤλειφεν τῷ μύρῳ. ἰδὼν δὲ
ὃ Φαρισαῖος ὁ καλέσας
αὐτὸν εἶπεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ,
λέγων, Οὗτος εἰ ἦν προ-
φήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἂν τίς
καὶ ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ, ἥτις

differences : in Jn for the
of the Synoptists].

JN 11? 121-8,

Hy δὲ Μαριὰμ ἡ ἀλείψ-
ασα τὸν Κύριον μύρῳ, καὶ
ἐκμάξασα τοὺς πόδας αὐ-
τοῦ ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς...

λθεν εἰς Byéaviay...
ἐποίησαν οὖν αὐτῷ δεῖπνον
ἐκεῖ καὶ ἡ Μάρθα διηκόνει,
ὁ δὲ Λάζαρος εἷς ἣν τῶν
ἀνακειμένων σὺν αὐτῷ. ἢ
οὖν Mapa λαβοῦσα λίτραν
μυρου νάρδου πιστικῆς

, » 5

πολυτίμου, ἤλειψεν τοὺς

/ > “ ἢ "Ὁ is
πόδας ᾿[ησοῦ, καὶ ἐξέμαξεν
ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς τοὺς
πόδας αὐτοῦ: ἡ δὲ οἰκὶα
ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ
μύρου λέγει ᾿Ιούδας ὁ
᾿Ισκαριώτης εἷς τῶν μαθη-
τῶν αὐτοῦ, ὁ μέλλων αὐτὸν

Ω Ν , ~

παραδιδόναι, Ava τί τοῦτο
τὸ μύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη
τριακοσίων δηναρίων καὶ
ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς ; εἶπεν δὲ

τοῦτο, οὐχ ὅτι περὶ τῶν
πτωχῶν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ ἀλλ᾽
ὅτι κλέπτης ἣν, καὶ τὸ
γλωσσόκομον ἔχων τὰ βαλ-
λόμενα ἐβάσταζεν. εἶπεν
* ‘> a» ee 2
οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ades αὐτήν,
ἕνα εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ
ἐνταφιασμοῦ τηρήσῃ av-
τὸ. τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ
πάντοτε ἔχετε μεθ᾽ éav-
Tov, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε
ἔχετε.

ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ap-
aptwids ἐστιν. Καὶ dro-
κριθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, κιτ.λ.

καὶ τὼ πόδ᾽ ἀλείφῃ καὶ προσκύψασα φιλήσῃ), where the
daughter is represented as Washing, anointing, and
kissing the feet of her father, when he comes home
from his day’s work. Still this does not furnish a
precedent for the hair being used to wipe the feet ;
and it must be remembered, on the other side, that
in proportion as we diminish the rarity of the act,
we find it more difficult to account for the value
set upon it by our Lord, and the importance
ascribed to it by St. John.

We turn now to consider how it has been
attempted to harmonize the different narratives
by those who believe that only one event is
recorded. — The most elaborate attempt is that
made by Hengstenberg,* who replies to (1) the
first difficulty above stated, that Luke’s context is
determined here, not by the order of events, but
by the connexion of thought; since the contrast
between the Pharisees and the publicans, in
νν. "Ὁ 50, and the description of Christ as the Friend
of publicans and sinners, in y.*4, naturally lead on
to the story of the sinful woman at the “house of
the Pharisee. This, we think, must be conceded.
As to (2), if we are to identify Simon the Pharisee
with Simon ‘the leper,’ we must understand the
latter title to refer not to his present condition ; for
in that case he could not himself have entertained
guests, as he does in Luke. Some have thought
that he may have been previously healed of his
leprosy by Jesus. But this is not at all suggested
by the words addressed to him in Luke, nor does
it seem consistent with his ungracious behaviour.
There is less force in the argument that the
injurious title ‘leper’ would not have been re-

* Comm. on St. John, Eng. tr. pp. 1-33, 78-89.

MARY

MARY 28\

tained in the case of one who had been cured of
his leprosy.

Lastly, is it likely that so pronounced a Pharisee
as the Simon of Luke would have entertained
Jesus at so late a period in His career, when the
Pharisees had already resolved upon His death ”
or, on the other hand, that one who was so much
lmpressed with the raising of Lazarus as to preside
at a banquet given in honour of the occasion,
should have shown so little respect for the prophet
Whom he professed to be honouring ”

The other incidents of the supper may be treated
together. It is said that the discrepancies in the
two accounts are due merely to the different
points of view taken by the narrators. The
anointing gave rise to both conversations—that
with Simon and that with the disciples. Luke
seizes the point of her repentance, the other
evangelists that of her lavish expenditure. But
surely this is psychologically impossible.

Let us examine a little more closely the story
in Luke. A notorious sinney, learning that Jesus
is sitting at meat in the house of a certain Phari-
see, makes up her mind to follow Him there. She
enters the house, and immediately takes up her
stand behind the Lord.* It is evident that some-
thing must have happened to make her loathe the
life she had been living, and feel that her only
hope of escaping from it was to take refuge with
Hin whose words, spoken to the scornful Pharisees,
may have been brought to her ears: “1 am not
come to call the righteous, but sinners to repent-
ance.” As she stands behind Him she wipes away
with her hair the penitential tears which fall fast
upon His feet. Then, as the agony of shame is
gradually conquered by the sense of the Saviour’s
forgiving love, she kneels and kisses His feet and
anoints them with the ointment she had brought
with her. She has no thought, no eye, for any-
thing but Him. For a while no notice is taken,
but at last words of comfort come, addressed first
to another, ‘ Her sins, her many sins are forgiven,
for she loved much’; and then directly to herself,
‘Thy faith hath saved thee. Go in peace.’ How
would it be possible for her after this to have
stayed on and listened to the reproaches of Judas
and the others, or how could they have ventured
to find fault where their Lord had already given
His blessing? Turn now to the other side of the
story, if we are to piece it out from what we read
of Mary. Is it possible that she who had long ago
made the good choice, who was now living quietly
with her brother and sister, all three noted as
especially dear to Christ ; she whose house had been
chosen by Him for His temporary home before the
end came, and who had lately been brought into
such intimate contact with Him when He raised
her brother from the dead,—is it possible that she
should be spoken of as a notorious sinner, who
was forcing herself into His company’? No! If
we want to make one consistent story out of the
four narratives, our only course is to suppose with
Strauss that the underlying fact has been much
falsified by tradition, especially in the case of
Luke, who has, he thinks, mixed up with it the
story of the woman taken in adultery.

Before examining other explanations, we will
just mention the attempts which have been made
to get over two minor difficulties: (1) the dis-
crepancy as to the anointing of feet or head ;
(2) the nature of the locality where the sinful
woman lived. As to (1), some have compared Ps

* The reading of the best MSS, ἀφ᾽ ἧς εἰσῆλθον, in Lk 745, seems
to contradict the words ἐπιγνοῦσα ὅτι κατάκειται in v.37, which
imply that it was the knowledge of His being seated at table
which led her to seek the house herself. This is an argument
in favour of the reading εἰσῆλθεν, which is witnessed to by
several of the most ancient versions, The reading εἰσῆλθον is
perhaps a repetition from ν. ἡ,

133°, where the precious ointment is said to have
run from Aaron's head down to the skirts of his
clothing ; but (even if the correct {τ is “collar?
instead of ‘skirts’), this could only happen in the
case of one who was standing and not reclining at
table. Others have assumed two anointines, first
of the head and then of the feet, the former of
which they think may have been omitted by John
as being generally known. This does not seein
probable. The writer’s own view of the matter is
given below. As to (2), the ἁμαρτωλύς is said to
have been ‘in the city’ (πόλει, Lk 757), but Bethany
is described as a κώμη (Lk 10%, Jn 11. To this
it is replied that there is no reason why Bethany
should not be regarded as a suburb of Jerusalem.

We will now examine the view which has been
most generally held in the Latin Church, viz. that
Luke describes a different scene from that in the
other Gospels, but that the woman is the same.
This gets rid of some difliculties, but is open to the
objections stated above, as to multiplying what
appears to be a unique occurrence. According to it,
we are to suppose that the sister of Martha had at
one time lived a vicious life, but had been con-
science-stricken by some word of the Saviour, and,
hearing that He was in Simon’s house, had felt her-
self constrained to seek Him there, and received
from His lips the word of forgiveness and blessing.
If we allow an interval of two years, it is, of course,
not such a flagrant impossibility for the sinner to
have changed into the saint; and the quiet weep-
ing of the one is not unlike the quiet sitting of the
other at the feet of Jesus. Some have thought,
too, that the remarkable reticence as regards the
family at Bethany, which characterizes the Synoptic
Gospels, might be explained by the wish not to
all attention to a history which would bring dis-
credit on the early life of a leading member of the
Church. But if this danger of scandal still existed
when the Gospels were written, how much more
strongly must it have been felt some 30 years
before, when the memory of the past was. still
fresh, and the Jews were on the watch for any-
thing which might raise a prejudice against the
prophet whom they sought to kill. Is it possible
that they could have crowded to Bethany to express
their sympathy and esteem for one who had so
lately done such dishonour to the name of Israel ?
The difficulty as to the recurrence of the name
Simon is perhaps fairly met by calling to mind its
frequency at the time: we find no fewer than 9
different Simons in the NT. This led to its often
having some distinctive appellation attached, e.g.
Simon ‘ Zelotes,’? Simon ‘ Peter,’ and here Simon
‘the Leper.’

The third view is that most generally entertained
among Protestant divines, viz. that there were two
anointings—one of the feet by the penitent sinner of
Galilee, the other of the head and feet by a totally
different. person, the*saintly Mary of Bethany.
It has been objected to this that the way in
which the latter is described in Jn 115 ‘ Mary was
she who anointed the Lord with ointment, and
wiped his feet with her hair,’ must refer to some
previous occurrence ; but the object of the evan-
gelist is simply to introduce Mary to his readers
by referring to an action which was in itself
famous, though it had not been connected with her
name in the earlier Gospels. Just in the same
way Judas Iscariot is distinguished, in the earliest
list of the apostles, by the addition ‘which also
betrayed him.’ There remains the serious objection
already stated : Could John have used these words
to describe Mary, if he knew that they were
equally true of another woman? Could our Lord
have promised world-wide fame to her action, if
the same thing had been already done by another
in much more trying circumstances ἢ

282 MARY

MARY

It appears to the present writer that the easiest
way in which we can escape these difficulties is by
supposing that the story told by St. Luke cannot,
in its original form, have contained any reference
to anointing. In that case the final words of ΜΡ
καὶ ἤλειφεν τῷ μύρῳ and the whole of v.*% must be
revarded as later developments. Τῦ is easy to
understand their being added under the idea that
the words recorded by Matthew and Mark, ‘ where-
soever this gospel is preached in the whole world,
there shall also this that she hath done be told for
a memorial of her, required that the act of anoint-
ing should appear in each separate Gospel. If we
do not feel ourselves at liberty to make such a
supposition, we must find some other means of
accounting for the high commendation bestowed
on Mary. [t cannot have been simply for anoint-
ing, but for anointing with the precious spikenard
in the prospect of the Lord's death. Tn any case it
seems probable that the anointing with the common
ointment, of which Luke speaks, was something
of an afterthought. It is hardly likely that one
in such extreme agitation of mind would have
planned such an action beforehand. How could
she know that she might not be forestalled by
Simon? It will be noticed, too, that the anointing
follows, not, as in John, precedes the wiping of
the feet with her hair. If the details are correctly

given, we may conjecture that she happened to |

be carrying a flask of myrrh, and, finding that the
Lord’s feet had been unwashed and left unanointed,
had been seized by a sudden impulse to anoint them,

Prof. W. M. Ramsay * favours this third view,
but considers that ‘the attempts to harmonize John
with Mark and Matthew fail completely. John,
who says that ‘they made him a supper there,
and Martha served,” obviously places the meal in
Martha's house: it seems quite absurd to suppose
that she would be serving in the house of Simon,’
He thinks Mark fell into errer from putting
together two separate incidents, one of which was
connected with the name Bethany, the other with
the name Simon: whom he identifies with a ‘Simon
who lived at Bethany and was or had been a leper.’
It does not, however, seem hkely that Mark, whose
mother was at this time living in Jerusalem, and
whose house was a centre of the early disciples,
could have been ignorant of the facts connected
with the anointing at Bethany. We must there-
fore accept the fact that it took place in the house
of Simon, just as we accept the fact that Martha
had the chief ordering of the feast. The two
facts are not necessarily opposed. [Ὁ may be, as
Nicephorus says (///2 i, 27), that Simon was the
father of Martha, though living apart from his
family. But we need not even suppose any such
connexion. Jolm’s description, from its vagueness,
‘they made him a feast, rather implhes a public
entertainment given in His honour by the = in-
habitants of Bethany, probably in the largest or
most convenient house in the village, which might
be the property of ἃ leper named Simon.+

The fourth view is that there were three distinct
anointings by either two or three distinct persons.
This view was first propounded by Origen in order
to meet the discrepancies between the account
given in John and in the first two Gospels. The
latter appear to fix the date of the supper two
days (Mt 965, Mk 14!), the former six days (Jn 19),
before the Passover. The latter represent the
ointment as poured upon the head, the former

speaks of the feet as anointed and then wiped by | :
Ι ᾿ y | extends to the following verses.

Mary with her hair. The latter state that the
supper was held in the house of Simon the Leper,
the former appears to imply that it was in the
* In the work entitled, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? p. 91.
t Dr. E. A. Abbott suggests that the appellation Λάζαρος
may represent lazzariad (y3935), ‘belonging to the leper.’

house of Martha (this difficulty has been already
discussed). Hence it has been supposed that ἃ ere
were two different anointings in the same week ;
that on each occasion the same objection was made
by the bystanders, and the same answer returned
by Jesus. Such a repetition, we may at once say,
is impossible; but what are we to make of the
discrepancies? Shall we say that they are of no
Importance, and only such as must be expected in
different reports made several years after the
occurrence? We may be quite prepared to allow
this; but it appears to be possible to vet a little
nearer to explaining them, when we observe that
the dates given in the different Gospels do not
reter directly to the supper. John’s ‘six days
before the passover’ is the date on which Jesus
came to Bethany, where, as we learn from the other
Gospels, He was lodging during the week before the
crucifixion.® On the other hand, the two days of
Matthew and Mark refer to the close of His
discourses in Jerusalem: ‘when he had finished
all these words he said to his disciples, Ye know
that after two days is the passover. + Thus both
dates may be literally exact, and yet neither may
be the precise date of the supper. As to the other
discrepancies, it is possible that the narrative in
John, which seems to have been edited by the
elders of Ephesus (see 21-4), las been to some
extent affected by that in Luke. It is remarkable
that the feet are thrice referred to (in 115 12%) as if
the writer wished to lay stress on this by way of
correcting a current misapprehension, Such a
correction seems strange to us in the present day,
to whom the written Gospels are the ultimate
authority ; but in the first century the appeal was
still to oral tradition, as we may see trom the
Preface to Luke, and it seems not improbable that
the predominant tradition may have laid hold on
the anointing of the feet as testifying to a higher
degree of humility and reverence than that of the
head. If, then, the original narrative of John
spoke only in general terms of the anointing of
Jesus, we may conceive that the elders might have
taken the opportunity to correct what they deemed
to be an erroneous report in Mark. Our present
feeling would probably be that. where lonour ts
intended by anointing, the head rather than the
feet should be anointed. On the other hand. it
was natural that the penitent, standing behind

the Lord, should wipe away with her hair the

tears that fell upon His feet, but less natural that
it should be used to wipe away the ointment,
which would simply have the effect of anointing
her own hair.

It may be interesting to add a brief sketch of the history of
opinion on this question. The treatment of Scripture by early
Christian writers is, as a rule, uncritical. Difficulties are not
teat. They are much more anxious to extract a useful morai
from their text by means of some forced allegory, than to
ascertain the precise meaning of the words as they were
understood by the speaker and hearers, or to get a clear
conception of the actual facts referred to. Hence they are
often careless of distinctions, and, like children, apt to mistaxe
resemblance for identity. It is only when there is some special
call for the attention of the writer, as when he is engaged on
a commentary ora haricony of the Gospels, that we can attach
much weight to any critical judgment. This is seen in the
references to the present question. Clement of Alexandria
speaks of the woman who was still a sinner bringing the
alabaster box of ointment, which she thought the best of her

possessions, to anoint the feet of the Lord, and then wiping

on His feet the libation of her tears.

away with her hair the superfluous ointment, whilst she poured
These things, he says,

* Mt 2117, Mk 111-0), Lk 2137,

+ There is no reason to suppose that the date given in Mk 141
he phrase zai ὄντος αὐτοῦ of
the third verse is well explained by Dr. Abbott as meaning,
‘And here let me state something which happened while Jesus
was still in Bethany, which should be mentioned here to pre-
pare the reader for the betrayal which follows.’ So in Mk 1488
καὶ ὄντος means, ‘And here let me say that Peter had been some
time ago in the court exposed to temptation, a.d this must be
mentioned here, because now comes his fall.’

MARY

MARY 283

¥
symbolize both the preaching of the gospel and the passion
of the Lord (Pad. il. 61, p. 205). Tertullian more distinctly
identifies the two anointings in the words, ‘ Peccatrici feminwe
etiam corporis sul Contact permittit, lavanti lacrimis pedes
ejus et crinibus detergenti et unguento sepulturam ipsius
inauguranti? (Pedic, xi.) On the other hand, Tatian, towards
the end of the 2nd cent., in his Diatessaron, * which was for many
years the only torm of the Gospel known in) Mesopotamia,
separates the story in Lk from that in the other evangelists,
and shows that he distinguishes the sinner from Mary by
placing the visit to Martha and Mary before the anointing.
Victor of Capua, who published a Latin revised version of the
Diatessaron some 500 years later, mixed up Luke's anointing
with that which took place at Bethany, to suit the view whieh
had then become popular in the Western Church.t Origen
is the first distinctly to grapple with the difficulties of the
question. In his commentary on Mt ($ 77), after stating the
points of agreement im the four accounts, he proceeds to
argue against the prevailing view that the actor was in every
case the same, on the ground (1) that according to Matthew
and Mark it was the head of Jesus which was anointed with
precious otufiment, while, according to the other evangelists, t
His feet were anointed with wyvrrh(!); (2) that it is incredible
that Mary the sister of Martha, who chose the better part
and was beloved by Jesus, could be spoken of as a sinner;
(3) that the sinner in Luke does not venture to approach the
head of Jesus, but waters His feet with penitential tears,
whereas there are no tears and no sinner in John. He then
goes on to say that some will perhaps argue that the actor in
each Gospel is different ; but he thinks it enough to distinguish
three different actors ; and he adds further reasons for holding
that the nameless woman in the first two Gospels is not the
same as the sister of Martha, the supper being at a different
time and a different place.
disciples could not have repeated their complaint of the waste
of so much valuable ointment, by making a distinction between
the honest indignation of the others and the veiled covetousness
of Judas; and concludes with an allegorical interpretation of
the three anointings. Elsewhere he seems to accept the view
that there were only two anointings (ct. Hom. ὧν Ca 112 ‘scio
Lucam de peccatrice, Matthweum vero et Johannem ct Marcum
non de peccatrice illa dixisse cujus nomen quoque
Johannes inseruit,’ also on Ca 18 ‘si quid peccatrix habuit,
ad pedes referendum est; si quid ea que non erat peceatrix,
ad caput’). Chrysostom also makes only two anointings, but,
stranvely enough, he holds that one of these is narrated only
by John, the other by the three Synoptists. Accordingly, he
considers that the indignation of the disciples and the com-
forting words of the Lord have reference to the πέρνν γυνή of
Luke, who is encouraged to come to Jesus by the thought that
he did not disdain to eat in the house of a leper (Com. in
Matt, 80). in his Gznd homily on John he says that the sister
of Martha is not ἡ πόρνη ἡ ἐν τῷ Ματβαίω οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ Αουκῷ ᾿
ἐκεῖναι μὲν γὰρ πόρναι... πολλῶν γέμουσαι κακῶν" αὕτη δὲ καὶ ELT
καὶ oxounam. Ambrose (Nap. in Lue. 6) is inclined to think
that one woman only was concerned in the anointing, but in
the end leaves it an open question : ‘potest non eadem esse,
ne 510] contrarium evangcelistee dixisse videantur: potest
etiam quiestio meriti temporis diversitate dissolvi, ut adhue
illa peccatrix sit, jam ista pertectior.” So Augustine, speaking of
the anointing in Matthew (de Cons. Evang. 2.154), says, * Lucas
quamvis simile factum commemoret, nomenque conveniat ejus
apud quem convivabatur dominus . . . tamen potius credibile
est alium fuisse illum Simonem, non leprosum in cujus domo
hoc in Bethania gerebatur. Nam nee Lucas in Bethania rem
gestam dicit. ... Nihil itaque aliud intelegendum arbitror
nisi non quidem aliam fuisse mulierem que peccatrix tune
accessit ad pedes Jesu et osculata est et lavit lacrimis .. . sed
eandem Mariam bis hoc fecisse’ (so too Tract. in Joh. 49).
Jerome, on the other hand, distinguishes between the two
women (Comin, i Matt. 262), ‘Nemo putet eandem esse quie
super caput effudit unguentum et que super pedes. ΠΙᾺ enim
et lacrimis lavat et crinibus tergit et manifesto meretrix
appellutur. De hac autem nihil tale scriptum est. Gregory
the Great finally decided the question for the Latin Church
by identifying the peeeatriy first with the sister of Martha, and
then with the Magdalene s (om, 33 in Evang.), “anc, quam
Lucas peccatricem, Johannes Mariam nominat, illam
Mariam credimus de qua Marcus septem diemonia ejecta fuisse
testatur. Et quid per septem diemonia nisi universa vitia
designantur?’ Jlom. 8, ‘venit Maria Magdalene post multas
maculas culpe ad pedes Redemptoris nostri, 74. 25. This was
the generally accepted opinion in the West from the beginning
of the 7th to the 16th cent. as testified to by the office in the
Breviary for July 22.

Discussion recommenced with the rise of the Reformation
in the treatise of Faber Stapulensis de Maria Magdalena,
which was somewhat feebly answered by Fisher, bishop of
Rochester, and condemned by the Sorbonne in 1521, on the
ground that Faber departed ‘ab universali Ecclesiz ritu

esse

* See the translation in vol. of Anfte-Nicene Library pub. 1897,
and Hemphill’s Diatessaron, 1888, also Lightfoot on Siper-
natural Religion, Fssay ix., and articles on Tatian and Victor
of Capua in Dict. Christian Biography.

+ This version by Victor is wrongly described by Faillon and
Migne (Patrologia, vol. 64) as the Diatessaron of Ammonius.

t But John speaks of νάρδος σιστική, and the word μύρον seems
to be used generally of any sort of ointment.

§ On this identification see No. v. below,

He meets the objection that the |

unicam Magdalenam in suo officio asserentis,’ and that he
deprived the Church of her chief type of the penitent sinner 5
also that there would be no certain truth, if each, at his
own caprice, might reject accepted tradition. Later Roman
Catholics, however, have not been unanimous: Estius, Tille-
mont, and others denying the identity, while Maldonatus,*
Lamy,t and the Bollandists{ have argued with reason and
moderation in its favour, Indeed, the reaction against the
old view prevailed more in France than in England, going so
far that, in a whole series of dioceses with Paris at their head,
new editions of the Breviary were issued in the 17th cent.
without those portions of the office of St. Mary Magdalene
which referred to Lk 7 and to the sister of Lazarus. ἃ Dupin,
Mabillon, Bossuet, and Fleury are mentioned as favouring the
newer view,

Meanwhile the Menology of the Greek Church assigns three
distinct days for celebrating the imemory of the sister of
Martha, the Magdalene, and the ἁμαρτωλός, And Theophylact,
writing in the lth cent., savs in his comment on Mt 26 that
some hold that there were three, others that there were two
only, who anointed the Lord; that Simon the leper was father
of Lazarus, and that he is the man who showed the disciples a
room ready furnished for the last supper. In his commentary
on Mk 14 and Lk 7 he declares himself in favour of the view
that there were three anointings -one by the regz of Lk, one
by the sister of Lazarus six days before the passover, one in
the house of Simon the leper two days before the passover.

It has been already stated that the view most commonly
entertained in the Reformed Churches has been that the sinner
of Lk is distinct from the sister of Lazarus, and both distinct
from the Magdalene. The two former are, however, confused
by Grotius and by many of the recent German theologians, as
Schleiermacher, Ewald, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenteld, Weisse, Keim,
as well as by the orthodox Henestenbere. In the Anglican
Church the medieval view was followed by Bishop Andrews,
who speaks of ‘Mary Magdalene anointing Christ: three several
times one after the other, and being permitted to see two
angels, one at the head the other at the feet where the body
of Jesus had lain, because she had herself anointed His head
and anointed His feet; by Donne, who identifies the sister of
Lazarus with the Magdalene (Sermons, 25 and sv); by Jer.
Taylor (iii. 248, Heb.), ‘ Mary Magdalene having been reproved
by Judas for spending ointment upon Jesus’ feet, it heing so
unaccustomed and large profusion, thought now to speak her
love once more and troubie nobody, and therefore she poured
ointment on His sacred head’; and in late years by Dr. Pusey. |

Having thus examined the general question of
the anointings of Jesus, it remains for us to con-
sider inore particularly the motive ascribed by
our Lord Himself for the anointing by the sister
of Lazarus. This is given with slight variations :
in Mt 3015 ‘In that she poured this ointment on
my body, she did it to prepare me for burial’ (apos
τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι με), Mik 145 *She hath done what she
could : she hath anointed my body aforehand tor
the burying” (προέλαϑεν μυρίσαι τὸ σῶμά μου εἰς τὸν
evragiaguov) ; Jn 127 Sutter her to keep it against
the day of my burying,’ or (mare.) ‘Let her alone :
it was that she might keep it’ (ἄφες αὐτὴν © ἵνα εἰς
τὴν ἡμέραν Tov ἐνταφιασμοῦ μου τηρήσῃ αὐτό ; several
MSS, including A, read τετήρηκεν, omitting ἵνα).
pig ; ; f b
Phe meaning of the word ἐνταφιασμός ix explained
in Jn 10% 4°) where we are told that Nicodemus
brought ‘a mixture of myrrh and aloes about 100
pound weight, and wound the body in linen cloths
with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to
bury | (ἐνταφιάζειν). The eeneral sense seems to be
eiven inest simply in Mark’s words. ‘She hath
done what she could’ is an answer to the assertion
that she ought to have spent her money other-
Wise, viz. in distributing to the poor. We are
to understand, apparently, that this was not the
work for which she was fitted: she probably did
not possess the practical business habits which
would enable her to decide as to the best way of
helping the poor. But wisdom is justified of all
her children. What she had, what the grace of

* Comment. in Evang. Matt. 26.

t 106 unica Maria’ in Harmon, Evang. Ὁ. 636 ff.

Acta Sanctorwin, July 22.

See Henrstenhers: 7,6. p, 2,

See his sermon on ‘Our Risen Lord’s Love for Penitents,’
in which he refers to his note at the end of Sermons preached
at St. Sariours proving the identity of the sister of Martha,
the penitent who anointed the Lord’s feet, and St. Mary
Magdalene.

« Dr. Ε. A. Abbott suggests that 7 may have been lost after
ἀὐτη, and that the words are a reproach to Judas, ‘or is it
your wish that she should keep it for my embalming?’ ie. ‘do
you grudge it the living, that she may bestow it on the dead?’

++

284 MARY

MARY

God working in her enabled her to do, was to
‘ull forth generous emotion in others by being |
herself an example of the highest and noblest of |
all emotions, the impassioned devotion of a pure |
and loving heart to Him who is absolute Purity |
and Love. The genuine simplicity of a beautirul |
soul, however lable to misconception for the —
moment, yet in the end appeals more strongly
to what is best in man, and is at the same time
a more acceptable offering to God than any out-
ward manifestation of human activity, however
useful or charitable.

Then how are we to understand what follows :
‘she hath anointed my body atoretime for the
burying’? From the phrase in Jn, ‘suffer her to
keep it,’ we gather that the spikenard had not
been bought on purpose, but was applied to this
use after being some time in her possession. Some
have supposed that she had bought it for her
personal adornment, but such a supposition is
unworthy of Mary; and as our Lord associates
it with the thoueht of death, it seems more prob-
able that it had been purchased for the burial of
her brother, and perhaps left unused from some
faint hope that the coming of Chiist might still
render such a use superfluous. Compare Martha's
words, ‘Even now [T know that whatsoever thou
shalt ask of God, God will give it thee.” Destined
for the tomb, the precious ointment now becomes
a thankoffering to Him who called Lazarus from
the tomb; but it is only in anticipation—was this
Mary’s own foreboding, or did she learn it: first
from the Lord’—of a mightier death to come.
The words in Jn must, we think, be taken to
mean, ‘Allow her to have kept it for my burial,’
i.e. ‘do not find fault with her for doing so.’

History tells us nothing more of Mary. Her
name is not mentioned among the women who
were present at the crucifixion, or who brought
spices to lay in the grave. This strange silence
was, no doubt, one of the reasons for identifying
her with the Magdalene. It seemed so natural
that she who had been specially honoured and
beloved by the Lord, who had been conspicuous
beyond all others in doing honour to Him during
His life, should have been also the last to watch by
His cross and the first to whom He would appear
on His resurrection, A late legend reports that
Lazarus with his two sisters and Maximin, one
of the Seventy, fled from Palestine in the persecu-
tion deseribed in Ac 8 and took refuge in Massilia,
and that Mary (confounded with the Magdalene)
retired to a cave near Arles and died there.

LIrERATURE.—In addition to the books mentioned in the
course of this article, see Abbé Faillon’s Monuments tneédits
sur UApostolat de S. Marie Madeleine en Provence, 2 vols. 410,
1859.

ν. Mary MAGDALENE (ἡ Μαγδαληνή) is probably
named from the town of Magdala or Magadan (wh.
see), now JWedjdel, which is said to mean ‘a tower,’
It was situated at a short distance from Tiberias,
and is mentioned (Mt 15%") in connexion with the
miracle of the seven loaves. An ancient watch-
tower still marks the site. According to Jewish
authorities it was famous for its wealth, and for
the moral corruption of its inhabitants (Edersheim,
vol. i. p. 571). Lightfoot (ον. Heb. on Mt 9756),
following some of the rabbinical writers, gives a
different derivation, according to which the name
would mean a plaiter of hair, a phrase sometimes
used of a woman of heht character.

The first notice we have of the Magdalene is in
Lk 8°, where we read that certain women which
had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities
accompanied Jesus and the Twelve in their mis-
sionary journeys, and ministered to them of their
substanee. Among these are mentioned ‘ Mary

that was called Magdalene, from whom seven

demons had gone out (cf. § Mk’ 16°), and Joanna the
wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna.’

The question has been raised whether this
possession implies moral as well as physical dis:
sase or infirmity. Those who affirm this have
found in it a ground for upholding the identity of
the Magdalene with the ‘sinner’ of Luke. Others
hold that the phrase implies nothing more than
that ‘the wretchedness of despair, the divided
consciousness, the preternatural frenzy, the Jong-
continued fits of silence, which we read of in
other demoniaes, were exhibited here in their
most aggravated form; that such a state is ‘all
but absolutely incompatible with the life implied
in ἁμαρτωλός,᾽ and that to speak of ‘seven demons’
as equivalent to ‘many sins’ is ‘to identify two
thines which are separated in the whole tenor of
the NT by the clearest line of demarcation.’ *
3ut surely this is going too far. We are told
of some who were ‘vexed with unclean spirits,’
and the parable speaks of an ‘unelean spirit’
taking with him ‘seven other spirits more wicked
than himself’? and dwelling within a man. It
would seem, therefore, that wickedness may be a
sign or effect of possession. But this possibility
goes a very little way towards proving what is
wanted. If St. Luke knew that the Magdalene
of ch. 8 was the same as the sinner of ch. 7, would
he not have given some hint to this effect ? Should
we not have been told before, that the sinner had
been under a Satanie influence, and had been
delivered from this by the Saviour previously to
her entrance into Simon’s house? Then is it
likely that she who had been known as the
‘sinner’? would have been allowed to accompany
the Lord and His disciples in their journeys?
Would this have been in accordance with the oft-
repeated principle that we have to ‘provide
things honest,’ not only in the sight of God, but
also ‘of men’? Would it not have been putting an
additional stumbling-block in the way of the weak,
if one of notorious character were known to be
habitually in the company of the new Prophet ?
There would seem to be at least as much eround
for the identification of the Maedalene with the
daughter of the Syro-phanician woman, proposed
by Nicephorus (141 i. 33).

No further mention of the Magdalene is made
till the crucifixion, where she appears with the
other women who had accompanied Jesus from

Galilee. See above under ‘ Mary the mother of
James.’ We contine ourselves here to her experi-

ence, apart from the others, which is recorded by
John alone, excepting for the brief note in ἡ Mark’
109 ‘He appeared first to Mary Magdalene.’ 1
we are to reconcile this account with what we read
in the other Gospels, it would seem from a com-
parison of all the accounts that, after setting out
for the tomb with the other women, she must
have hurried on, found the stone rolled away, and
hastened at once to tell Peter and John. She
returns with them, and waits outside after they
have gone (Jn 901). While weeping there, she
stoops and looks into the tomb, and sees two
angels sitting, one at the head and the other at the
feet, where the body of Jesus had lain, To their
question, ‘Why weepest thou 7’ she repeats what
she had said to Peter and John, ‘They have taken
away my Lord, ἀπά I know not where they have
laid’ him.’ Turning round, she sees behind her
one whom she supposes to be the gardener, who
also asks, ‘Why weepest thou? Whom seckest
thou?’ In answer, she begs him, if it is he who
has borne Him hence, to tell her where He was
laid, that she might take Him away. ‘The one
thought that fills her mind is still that... she
has been robbed of that task of reverential love on
* E. H. Plumptre in Smith’s DB.

MARY

MARY 286

which she had set her heart. . . . The utter
stupor of grief is shown in her want of power to
recognize at first either the voice or the form of
the Lord. δος At last her own name uttered by
that voice, as she had heard it uttered, it may be,
in the hour of her deepest misery, recalls her to
consciousness ; and then follows the cry of recog-
nition, and the rush forward to cling to His feet.’ *
The tithe Rabboni, however, by which she ad-
dresses the risen Saviour, falls very far short of
the address of Thomas, and shows that she had
not yet realized the change which hacdk come over
her relation to Him, whom she had known as her
earthly master and teacher. And therefore the
first lesson which she receives is a warning against
supposing that the familiarities of earth are any
Jonver possible. A higher and closer communion
will be open to her when He has ascended to the
‘ather, but it will be that of spirit with spirit. She
must cease to clasp His feet, must rise and carry to
the disciples His message, “1 ascend to my Father
and your Father, to my God and your God.’

This is all that the Bible tells us of the Mag-
dalene. Before going on to inquire what has been
built up on this foundation by the later legends,
it may be well to consider whether the facts as
given above lend any probability to the medieval
belief that she was the same as the sinful woman
or the sister of Lazarus. It may be granted
that something of the same type of character is
visible in them all. ΑἸ] show an impassioned
devotion, a generosity of feeling, which lifts them
far out of the common groove. But may it not be
said that this is partly a national trait, Jewish
history abounding in high deeds of female
heroism, and is partly due to the overpowering
spiritual influences of the tune? Anyhow, the
similarity was suflicient to suggest to the in-
terested hearer or reader of the three stories,
whose imagination was already at work to ΠῚ]
in the picture from the slight outline given in
each case, that this result might be most easily
obtained by combining them into one. She who
had been possessed by seven demons and came
from Maedala must have been a sinner: she
brought spices to the tomb, she clasped the Lord's
feet, she was the most faithful and loving of all
the women that followed Him from Galilee :
must if not have been she who anointed His

feet during His life, and whose faith and love had |

been specially commended by Him’? And_ the
sane would apply to Mary of Bethany. She, too,
ministered to Jesus of her substance, she fell at
His feet, she anointed Him beforehand for His
burial, she, too, was lovine and beloved — she
cannot have deserted her Lord in His last strueele,
she cannot have left it to others to pay Him the
last token of respect. It is she, and not another,
who performed these pious offices under the name
of Mary Maedalene, Yet the improbability is
even greater on the other side. We have seen
this already in the ease of the sinful woman, and
it is equally impossible that Jobn should either
lave been ignorant of the identity of Mary of

Bethany and the Magdalene, or knowing it should

have given no hint of it to the reader, Nor can
it be said that the characters are quite the same.
The Magdalene could not be selected as a type of
contemplation like the sister of Martha ; and we
‘an hardly believe that the latter, who had so
lately witnessed the triumph over death in the
raising of her brother, could have been so slow to
believe in the rising again of Him whom she knew
to be the Resurrection and the Life.

It may seem strange that while the general

tendency was to comline the three of whom we |

have spoken into one, others were led to make two
* EB. H. Plumptre in Smith’s DB.

|

different Magedalenes, owing to the difficutty of
reconciling the narratives of the crucifixion. ‘Phus
Eusebius (αὐ Marini, ii. 7) says there may have
been two Marys, each belonging to Magdala, one
of whom is the subject of Matthew's narrative, the
other of John’s. The first goes to the tomb with
the other Mary ; they see the angel sitting on the
stone; they receive lis message for the disciples,
and depart quickly in fear and ereat joy. As they
are on their way Jesus mects them, and they come
and hold Him by the feet, and worship Him.
The second goes alone to the sepulchre, stands
weeping outside, is forbidden to touch the feet of
Jesus when He appears to her. Some identified the
former, the rejoicing Magdalene, with the sister
of Martha; the latter, the weeping Magdalene,
with the sinner,

Nothing is really known to us of the subsequent
history of the Magdalene. The Greek Church
believed that she died at Ephesus, whither she had
followed St. John,* and that her relics were
removed from thence to Constantinople by the
Emperor Leo vi. The story, however, which took
root in the West was very different. It was said
that she belonged to a wealt iy family possessed of
ereat estates at Maedala and Bethany; that she
abused all her admirable eifts to tempt others to
sin; that after the Ascension she remained at
Bethany till the disciples were scattered by the
persecution which fotlowed the martyrdom of
Stephen. The two sisters and others were placed
in a boat by their persecutors, and were provi-
dentially carried without oars or sails to Massilia,
where, by their preaching and miracles, they con-
verted the heathen, and Lazarus was made bishop,
while Mary retired to the wilderness and lived a
life of extreme asceticism for thirty years. Finally,
she was carried up to heaven in the arms of
ascending angels.

Apparently the earliest document which gives
the legend is the Life by Rabanus Maurus, a
pupil of Alcuin, who Hourished at the beginning
of the 9th cent. This was greatly amplified by
Vincent of Beauvais in the 13th cent. The story
was not known to Gregory the Great, or to Gregory
of Tours in the 6th cent., as he mentions the death
of the Magdalene at Ephesus (Wire. i. 80), nor,
if we may believe Launoi,t is there any allusion
to it in the writings of Bernard or Peter of
Cluny or Peter Damianus, all of whom took the
Magdalene as the subject of panegyrie. It is
treated as unworthy of examination by the Bol-
landists, and is probably due to misapprehension
arising from the great place occupied ἴῃ the
traditions of Provence by Marius, who defeated
the Ambrons and Teutons in the battle of Aix,
B.C. 102. Marius was accompanied, as we learn
from Plutarch, by a Syrian prophetess of the name
of Martha, and it is suevested by Baring-Gould,
after Gilles, that the connexion of these two
names may have been the starting-point of the
whole legend. At Les Baux, where Marius was
encamped, there are some ancient sculptures on a
limestone block, one, known as the 7Trémaié, con-
tainine three standing figures, which tradition
holds to be the three Marys, but Gilles is of opimion
that they represent Marius with his wite Julia and
the prophetess Martha. The Vrots Maries here
are said to be Martha with her attendant Marcela
and the Magdalene. It is curious that at another
Trois Maries in the Camarene, the landine-place,
according to the legend, of the whole party from
Palestine, the three Marys are said to be the
mother of James, Salome, and the attendant Sara.
As there is really only one or, at most, two Marys

* Modestus ap. Phot. cod. 275, speaks of her as παρθένος διὰ
βίου, and says she was martyred at Ephesus,

+t See Faillon, i. 1368.

os a εν eee ae ree

286 MARY

MARY

in sither case, we naturally ask how the number
three came in, and it may not be irrelevant to
remember that the famous Fosse Jariane from
Arles to Massilia were constructed by Marius in
his third consulship, while he was preparing for
his campaion against the Ambrons, and would no
doubt be commemorated by inscriptions which
might run something as follows: OC. Marinus C.F.
cos 111]. fossas fuciendas curacit ; and these, as they
vot defaced with age, might easily be supposed
to bear witness to Trois Maries. The tradition
had pretty well established itself by the llth cent.,
though it was a matter of hot dispute whether
Aix or Vezelay possessed the true relics of the
Magdalene. Fortunately, in) 1279 Charles the
nephew of Louis IX. (who had himself made a
pilgrimage to her cell at St. Baume) discovered
her body in St. Maximin’s Chureh at Aix, and
since then the cult of the Maedalene has had
hardly less vogue than that of the Virgin. The
romantic character of her story and the feeling of
a common frailty endeared ler to all classes, and
even reformers were loth to disturb a belief which
on the whole worked for good. For an account of
her place in art the reader is referred to Mys.
Jameson's Sacred and Legendary Art, vol. ii. p.
343 fh

LITERATURE.—A cta Sanctorian for July 223 Faillon, Wona-
ments deédits sur UApostolat de oS. Marie Madeleine, (sig:
Gilles, Campagne de Marius dans la Gaule, is70; Baring-
Gould, Jn Troubadour Land, yp. 130 ff.

vi. Mary rik Moriner or MArk.—The only
place in which she appears in the NT is Ac 12",
where we read that many were gathered together
and praying in her house when Peter knocked at
the door after his escape from prison. As Mark is
called cousin (ἀνεψιός) of Barnabas (Col 4!°), she
would be aunt of the latter. Later writers believed
that her house was situated on Mt. Zion, and that
it was the place of meeting for the disciples from
the Ascension to the day of Pentecost. It was
said to have escaped the destruction of the city by
Titus, and to have been used as a church ata later
period (Epiphanius, de Pond. ef Mens. τ 14; Cyril
Jerus. Catech. 16),

vil. MARY SALUTED BY Sr. PAuL.—Nothing is
known of her except that her name appears after
Priscilla, Aquila, and Epienetus in the list of 24
persons to whom St. Paul sends ercetines in the
16th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. She,
like the other women (‘Tryphiena, Tryphosa, and
Persis) mentioned in v.22, is said to have ‘laboured
much’ for the Church, and may possibly have held
the position of deaconess or ὁ widow’ at Rome.

vill. Sce next article. J. B. Mayor.

MARY (THe Vircin).— This subject may be
considered under four heads: (1) the story of her
life as it is given (1) in the NT, (2) in the Apocry-
phal Gospels and elsewhere; (7) the history of
opinion respecting her; (ἢ her place in Liturgi-
ology ; (12) her place in Art.

A. 1. What we are told in the Bible about Mary
falls naturally into two portions —that which pre-
cedes, and that which follows the baptism of our
Lord. (@) All that we know of the former is in-
cluded in the earlier chapters of St. Matthew and
St. Luke. These agree in the main facts, that Jesus
was ‘conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the
Virgin Mary,’ that His mother was espoused to
Joseph, that the birth took place at Bethlehem
towards the end of the reign of Herod the Great,
that Nazareth was the subsequent home of the
Holy Family, that previous intimation of the
supernatural birth had been given through the
instrumentality of angels, that Jesus was descended
from David, as shown in the appended genealogies.
To these facts St. Matthew adds that the marriage

of Joseph and Mary was carried out after the
doubts of the former had been set at rest by an
angelic vision; that wise men from the East, undet
the guidance of a star, came to offer their gifts
at the cradle of the infant Saviour; that the
children at Bethlehem were massacred owing to
Herod's jealousy, Jesus and His parents having
previously taken refuge in Egypt, from whence
they returned on the death of Herod, and settled
at Nazareth in consequence of a divine warning.
St. Luke adds the story of the birth of John, the
lorerunner; the statement that Mary was already
living at Nazareth when the angel Gabriel an-
nounced to her that she should be the mother of
the Messiah; the visit of Mary to her cousin
Elisabeth, and her reception by the latter as the
destined mother of the Lord; Mary's song of
praise; the journey of Joseph and Mary to
Bethlehem to be enrolled there as belonging to
the family of David; the birth in the stable; the
announcement to the shepherds ; the circumcision ;
the purification in the temple; the blessing of
Simeon and Anna; the return to Nazareth; the
Visit to the temple when Jesus was twelve years
old; His questioning of the doctors; His answer
to Mary's complaint (Ἢ δον, why hast thou thus
dealt with us? behold, thy father and [ have
sought thee sorrowing’), in the words, ‘How is
it that ye sought me’ Wist ye not that I must
be inamy Fathers house?’ and lastly, the general
statement as to the Son's humility and the thought-
ful pondering of the mother, *

It is a significant fact that the story of the
Infancy is confined to these two Gospels. We
Inay explain its omission in the Fourth Gospel
by the consideration that this, being evidently
supplementary to the others, often omits details
Which were assumed to be already familiar to
the reader. But in the case of St. Mark we are
forced to the conclusion, either that he was un-
acquainted with the details of our Lord’s life
previous to the preaching of John, or that, know-
ine them, he did not regard them as an essential
part of the Gospel message. ‘The general impres-
sion left by all the Gospels certainly is that during
our Lord's life the secret of His miraculous birth
had been communicated to very few. Thus we
read in Mt 13° “15 not this the carpenter's son?’
Lk 4° ‘Is not this Joseph’s son?’ Jn 6” “15 not
this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and
mother we know’? And so in Jn 1” Philip says
to Nathanael, ‘We have found him of whom
Moses in the law and the prophets did write,
Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph’? ; and both
the genealogies of our Lord are traced to David
through Joseph ‘the son of David.’ + Nor have
we any evidence that the mysterious truth was
generally known during the apostolic age. No
allusion is made to it in the Acts or the Epistles, *
and the ‘woman clothed with the sun’ in Rev 19,
though interpreted by some of the Virgin, is plainly
intended to symbolize the Church. St. Paul, St.

* Resch thinks (Aindheitsevangelium, Leipzig, 1895) that

both evangelists borrowed from the same source, the Bisres
| γενέσεως Ἴγσουῦ Ἀριστοῦ mentioned by St. Matthew (14), which we

may suppose to have been published after the Virgin’s death,
about a.b. 60. He accounts tor the differences between them by
supposing that St. Luke purposely omitted those incidents
which had been already selected by St. Matthew as showing the
fulfilment of Hebrew prophecy, while he prererred himself to
dwell on that part of the story which possessed the widest
human interest. Prof. W. M. Ramsay, on the other hand,
thinks that Luke’s account is directly due to Mary herself (Was
Christ born at Bethlehem ? pp. 73-88).

t Mt 12,

{It is true that Gal 44 ‘When the fulness of time was come
God sent torth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
to redeem them that were under the law,’ has been cited as
such an allusion; but the phrase there used γενόμεενον ἐξ yoveeizes
may be merely an equivalent of γεννητοὶ γυναικῶν found in Job 141
1514 254, Mt 1111, Lk 728, or at most it may refer to the proinise
of Gn 815,

MARY
Peter, and St. John are alike emphatic in in-
sisting on the fact of the Incarnation as the

central truth of the Christian religion, and alike
silent as to the way in which it was brought about.
The ancient Syriac Gospel discovered at Mt.
Sinai, and published in 1894, of which a translation
was published by Mrs. Lewis in 1896, has some

renarkable: variants i NG Pos; It uns: tlins:
‘Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was be-

trothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus who is
valled Christ’; again in νοῶ the re: idine is ‘she
shall bear to thee BOI’ τ ἀπ τῇ Ὁ “she bore
to hima son? ‘The publication gave rise to much
discussion inthe aleadenmy * and elsewhere: amone
other theories it was sugeested that this might be
an Ebionite revision of our Gospel; but this seemed
inconsistent with the word * Virgin? which appears
in ΟΣ as well as with vv.!8"". Others supposed
that the Syriac version represents an earlier form
of the genealogy, which may have been taken from
a Jewish register and incorporated in. the Gospel.
This view received a certain amount of support
from some of the old Latin versions, which have
Joseph cui despousata virgo Maria gqenidt Jesum,
where the use of geniié instead of peperit has
been thought to betoken an earlier form, in which
desponsata was followed by erat. + See, further,
art. JESUS CHRIST in vol. il. Ὁ. G44.

However this may be, there can be no doubt
that the miraculous conception was denied by
several of the early heretics, who either maintained
(with Cerinthus) the naturalistic birth of the Lord,
followed by the bestowal of supernatural powers
through the descent of the Spirit at His baptism,
or held (with Marcion) that He was without earthly
parentage, but descended from heaven in the 1: 5th
year of ‘Tiberius and showed Himself in the syna-
govue of Capernaum.

On the other hand, stress is laid on the super-

uatural birth of the Lord by Tgnatius, who in oppos-
ing the phantom theory of the Docetie uses such
phrases as καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ, Mph. 7; 6 γὰρ θεὸς
ἡμῶν ᾿Τησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ᾽ οἰκονο-
μίαν ἐκ σπέρματος μὲν Δαυεὶδ πνεύματος δὲ ἁγίου, ih. IS;
ἔλαθεν τὸν ἄρχοντα τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἣ παρθενία Mapias
καὶ ὁ τοκετὸς αὐτῆς, ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ θάνατος τοῦ ἸΧχυρίου,
ih, 19: these, he says, are τρία μυστήρια κραυγῆς,
three mysteries wrought in the silence of God,
though destined to be proclaimed aloud. +

(4) Proceeding now to the second part of Mary’s
life, we find her, after the death of her husband (who
is introduced for the last time in the visit to the
temple), residing, as it would seem, with the Lord
and His brethren [see BRETHREN OF THE LorD},
partly at Nazareth (Mk 61, Lk 416. Jn 1% 19!) and
partly at Capernaum (Mt 4% 91, Mk 91, Jn 2!).
We are not told that she accompanied our Lord in
His missionary journeys, like Mary Maedalene and
Susanna (Mik 15?, Lk 8). The first mention of her
in this period is at the marriage at Cana in Galilee
(Jn 2), where her direction to the servants, ‘ What-
soever he saith unto you, do it,’ seems to show that
her relation to the br idegroom was such as to Justify
the exercise of authority on her part. Her previous
appeal to her Son to provide for the deficiency of
wine had drawn forth from Him the
correction as her complaint at His disappearance on
the occasion of the visit to the temple, τί ἐμοὶ Kai
σοὶ, yivac; ‘ Woman, what hast thou to do with me %’
Though there was nothing of harshness in the

* See letters by Conybeare, Sanday, Charles, Badham, and
others in the Academy for 1894 and 1895 ; also Blass, Philology
of the Gospels, p. 86 Ὁ,

t The verse occurs in ‘a (recently discov ered) fragment of the
oldest known MS of any part of the NT) which has just been
edited by Messrs. Grentell and Hunt in the Ist part of the
Oxyrhynchus Papiri. It appears there in its ordinary form,
Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν Ἴωσὴφ τὸν ἀνδρα Mapias, ἐξ ἧς ἐχεννήθη ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ
λεγόμενος Χριστός.

δθ6 Lightfoot, Zgnatius, vol. ii. p. 76.

same sort of |

| all,

| as in Mt 274, Jn 2122

MARY PAs
appellation γύναι, as we may see from its use in
the last tender commendation of His mother te

the beloved disciple (Jn 19°"), yet the choice of a
word applying alike to all women is not without
its sienilicance, and the clause which follows un.
doubtedly contains a warning that it was not for
her or for any human being to determine His course
Of fiction. “Ehenextnenruion-of Mary 16 i, Mk
3°") where we are told that the people pressed
upon Jesus tosuch an extent that He had not even

time to eat; and that His friends hearing this,
‘went out to lay holt on hime: for they said, He
is beside himself.’ Accordingly in the 3ist verse
|} we read that ‘his mother and brethren came
where he was, and, standine without, sent unte
him, calling him. ... And they say unto him,
Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek
for thee. And he answereth them, and saith,

Who is my mother and my brethren? And look-
ing round on them which sat round about him
(in Mt 12" * stretching forth his hand towards his

disciples’), he saith, Behold) my mother and my
brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of
God, the same is my brother, and sister, and
mother. Here, too, the same lesson is taueht,

viz. that the knowledee of Christ after the flesh
conveys no special privilege, no right of interference
or control, not even any exclusive or peculiar
blessedness, for in Lk 11°? the exclamation, § Blessed
is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which
thou didst suck,’ calls forth the correction that
His mother’s true blessedness consisted, not in the
fact of a physical connexion, but in those moral
and spiritual qualifications which were open to
‘Yea, rather (μενοῦν),Ὑ blessed are they that
hear the word of God and keep 1 The next
occasion on which we meet with Mary is at the foot
of the Cross. She had come up with other women
from Galilee to be present at the passover. As
she stood watching the dying agony of her Son,
she received His latest charge, entrusting her to
the guardianship of the beloved disciple, who from
that hour took her to his own home (Jn 193, The
only remaining notice of her in the NT is contained
in Ac 14, where she is mentioned as continuing in
prayer and supplication with the apostles and the
other women and the brethren of the Lord.

2. The brief but exquisite sketch of our Lord’s
wide years contained in the N'T provided a natural
stimulant to Imagination and curiosity, and the
craving for further particulars was supplied by the
writers of the Apocryphal Gospels, sometimes with
the ulterior aim of magnifying asceticism or incul-
cating some special doctrine of their own. Hence
in the Apostolic Constitutions(vi. 16) these works are
spoken of as ‘poisonous apocryphal books in which
the wicked heretics reproach the creation, mar-
riage, the providential government of the world,’
etc. Their popularity, however, was so creat,
that Catholic writers found it necessary either
to imitate or to revise them. We will give here a
general sketch of the further story of the Infancy,
derived from a comparison of these apocryphal
sources, disregarding minor discrepancies,

* Blass (1.6. p. 288) quotes Nonnus’ paraphrase σῇ ἐμοί, γύναι,
2 σοὶ αὐτῇ, AS IMplying that 7 must have been read instead of
καί in a contemporary MS of the Fourth Gospel, and argues
that we should replace 7 in the text. Prof. Ramsay thinks that
we may understand the existing text in the same general sense,
‘how does that concern ws’ (1.6. p. 84). The objection to this
is (1) the constant use of the phrase in the other sense ; (2) the
consensus of the ancient commentators 3 (3) the almost | Ο ertainty
that the other mez aning would have been expressed by τήσρος %uxs
; > (4) the inappropriateness of the supposed
language in the mouth of Jesus under the actual circumstances.
Surely it is every man’s ‘concern’ to save his friend from incon-
venience or discredit. And what, on this supposition, is the
force of the words which follow ‘mine hour has not yet come ἢ
—words which give a natural reason for the τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί:

+ TR reads μενοῦνγε with B2CD, but the γε is rightly dropped
by WH, Nestle, et al.

ἂν

——— eek:

288 MARY

MARX

The first development is concerned with the
period preceding the betrothal of Mary. Her
parents are said to have been Joachim of Nazareth
and Anna of Bethlehem, both of the family. of
David. When they had been married twenty
years without children, Joachim, going up to make
his offering at the temple, was repelled as coming
under the curse pronounced in Scripture against
those who had not raised up seed to Israel. Being
ashamed to return home, he retired to the wilder-
ness and fasted there forty days, and received
an assurance that a child should be born to him.
Meanwhile his wife was bewailing her barrenness
and her husband's desertion, envying even the
sparrows which had their nest in her garden. An
angel comforted her by the news that Joachim was
returning, and that she should bear him a child,
whom she at once vowed to dedicate to the service
of the temple. At the ave of three, the child of
promise was accordingly taken by her parents to
the temple, where she charmed all the beholders
by dancing on the steps of the altar. She remained
in the temple, ministered to by angels. till she
had completed her twelfth year, when the high
priest was directed to summon all the widowers of
Israel to bring each his rod to present before the
altar, in order that it might be made known by a
miraculous sign to whose care the Virgin was to
be committed. When Joseph's rod was returned
to him, a dove issued from it and hovered over his
head: to him therefore Mary was entrusted in
spite of his protests. Seven virgins were appointed
to be her companions, and to work with her at
a new veil for the temple, while Joseph left his
home to follow his calling as a shipwright. One
day Mary, going out to draw water, heard a voice
saying, ‘Hail! thon that art highly favoured.’
Being alarmed at seeing no one, she left her vessel
and returned! to work at the veil, when an angel
appeared and addressed her in the words, ὁ Fear
not, Mary, thou hast found favour with God by
thy vow of chastity, and shalt conceive by His
word, . . . A virgin thou shalt conceive, a virgin
bring forth, a virgin rear thy Son.’ Shortly after-
wards Mary appeared before the high priest with
the veil, and received his blessing. Then come
the visit to Elisabeth, the return home, the meet-
ing with Joseph, the quieting of his suspicions by
& vision, a Summons from the priests, directine
hoth Mary and Joseph to attend at the temple
and reply to the charge brought against them ;
the proof of their innocence by the ordeal of the
water of bitterness (Nu 55),

In the apocryphal account of the visit to Beth-
lehem the following points are noticeable. Mary
rides on an ass, and is accompanied by Joseph and
two of his sons ; as they approach Bethlehem they
stop before a cave.* into which Joseph carried her.
As soon as she entered it the darkness was lit up
by a glory brighter than the sun, which continued
as long as she remained there. Meanwhile Joseph
had gone to seek for a midwife. As he went, he
looked up and saw all movement brought to a
sudden pause, both in heaven and earth. When
the pause was over, he beheld a woman coming
down from the mountain, who told him she was
a midwife, and went with him to the cave, on
which a bright clond was resting. Going in
they found Mary with her Child at her breast,
but no other sien of her delivery. Salome, who
had followed them, would not’ believe in’ the
miraculous birth without further examination, t

* The tradition of the cave is found in some of the earliest
Christian writers, e.g. Justin, Dial. 78; Orig. ον, Cels. i. 51. It
is supposed to have been derived from Is 8316 οὗπος οἰκήσει ἐν
ὑψνυλῶ σπνυλαίω πίτρας ἰσχυρός. See Blass, Le. p. 16.

t This is referred to by Clem. Alex. Strom. S89, werd τὸ τεκεῖν
αὐτὴν μαιωθεισάν φασί tives παρίξνον εὑρεθνναι ; οἷ, Jerome, adr. |
Felag. 2, ‘Solus Christus clausas portas vulve Virginalis |

and was punished for her impiety by the withering
of her hand, which was, however, restored on her
repentance. On the third day after the birth,
Mary moved from the cave to a stable, and placed
the Child in a manger, where the ox and the ass
worshipped Him, thus fulfilling the word of the
prophet, ‘the ox knoweth his owner, and the ass
his master’s crib.’

The adoration of the Magi and the subsequent
massacre of the Innocents are taken with little
alteration from the Bible. But many fanciful
additions are made in narrating the journey to
Egypt. Wild beasts play around the infant Saviour;
trees bend down their branches to offer their fruit
to Mary; springs burst forth at her need; the
idols fall from their bases to the earth; the
journey is miraculously shortened; lepers and
demoniacs and sick people of all sorts are healed
by being sprinkled with the water in which Mary
had washed her Child, or by handkerchiefs which
He had touched. One of the most remarkable
stories is that of the healing of a young man whe
had been turned by enchantment into a mule.
His sisters having besonght the Virgin’s help, she
placed her Son on the mule, and at her prayer He
restored the youth to his original shape. Another
story relates to the two robbers who were after-
wards crucified with Jesus. The one, called Titus,*
had with difficulty prevented his fellow from giving
the alarm as the Holy Family passed by. Mary
thanked him, and prayed that he might receive
foreiveness of his sins; w hereupon Jesus answered,
‘After thirty years he shall be crucified on my
right hand, and shall precede Me to Paradise.’
At the end of the third year they returned from
Eeypt to Nazareth. It is unnecessary to relate
the miracles, trivial or even malicious, said to have
been wrought there by the child Jesus. Joseph
cied when Jesus was eighteen years of ave.

No further particulars of interest are added to
the life of Mary, as recorded in the Bible, till
after the resurrection, when Jesus is said to have
appeared to her, first of all, accompanied by the
patriarchs and prophets whom He had released
from Hades.t ‘Two years later (other versions
give 22 or 24 years) she was warned by an anzel
that her death was approaching, and the apostles
were all miraculously conveyed from various parts
of the earth to be present at her bedside. Jesus
Himself received her soul, and after three days her
body was carried up by angels to heaven. — St.
Thomas, who had come too late for her death,
Was privileged to behold her ascension, and to
receive her eirdle as a sien of blessing.

In his note on Jn 1957 Westcott says, ‘ Nothing
is known with reasonable certainty of the later
life of the mother of the Lord. Epiphanius was
evidently unacquainted with any accepted tradi-
tion on the subject (fer. 78). He leaves it in
doubt whether she accompanied St. John to Asia
Minor or not. But in the course of time surmises

aperuit, que tamen clause jugiter permanserunt’; and, on the
other side, Tertull. de Carne Christi, 23; Orig. Jom. 14 in
Lue. Epiphan, Heer, Ὁ. 1051.

* Brang. Infant. ος 23, elsewhere called Dysmas.

t Pseudo-Ambrose, de Virginitate, i. ὃ.

} For the story of the death and Assumption, see the apocry
phal treatises de Transitu. Maria, ascribed to St. John and te
Melito. The earliest hint of such a belief among orthodox
writersis to be found in Epiphanius (d. 403), who, while strongly
censuring the heretical sect of the Collyridians for their worship
of Mary (Panar. p. 1061), believes that some extraordinary
mystery about her death is implied in the words of Rev (1214),
‘there were given to her eagle’s wings.’ Melito’s de Transitu
was condemned as heretical in the decree de Libris Canonicis,
attributed to Pope Gelasius, A.p. 494. The most recent state-
ment of the Roman Catholic belief on this point will be found in
Wilhelm and Scannel, vol. ii. p. 220: ‘ Mary’s corporeal assump-
tion into heaven is so thoroughly implied in the notion of her
personality as given by Bible and dogma, that the Church can
dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact.’ Cf. alse
Livius, Blessed Virgin, pp. 338-378.

MARY

MARY 289

were converted into facts ;
{πὸ 1350), Hist. Becl. wi. 3, relates that she lived |
with St. John at Jerusalem for eleven years after
the death of the Lord, and died there in her 59th
year. ‘The site of the Tomb of the Virgin, Just to
the north of the Garden of Gethsemane, is not
mentioned by any traveller of the first six centuries,

and Nicephorus Callisti

and the later tradition that the church there was |

built’ by Helena is certainly false. See Quares-
Witiices εἰς απο Wallin. ἀν οὐ: a, Aba,
From a passage ina synodical letter of the Council
of Ephesus (A.p. 431, Cone. iii. 573, Labbe) it
appears that, according to another tradition, the
mother of the Lord accompanied St. John
Ephesus, and was buried there.’ See, further, art.
“Le lieu de la dormition de la Tres Sainte Vieree,’
by Pere Séjourné in ferme Biblique, Jan. 1899, p.
141 ff. The traditional site of the Vormitio Maric
in Jerusalem was made over to the Emperor of
Germany in 1898,

For Jewish and Mohammedan traditions with
Terard. to Neary, s¢e Ganon Meyrick’s artide
‘Mary the Virgin, in Smiths V5. The only point
which need be mentioned here is the Jewish slander
reported by Ceisus,* to the effect that
the illegitimate son ‘of Mary and a soldier Pandera.

B. As early as the 2nd cent. we find Eve made
a type of Mary, as Adam was cf our Lord. As
Eve had brought about the curse by listening to
the Serpent, so Mary the blessing by listening to
the Anegel.t Still she shared man’s fallen nature,
and was guilty of actual sin. So Trenzeus (11. 16,
7), ‘Dominus repellens ejus intempestivam festi-
nationem dixit: Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier?
So Origen (//om. ὧν Luc. 17) interprets the pro-
phecy of Simeon, ‘A sword shall pierce through
thine own soul also,’ of the doubts felt by Mary,
in common with the apostles, at the crucifixion :
‘Si omnes peccaverunt et egent gloria Dei, justifi-
cati gratia ejus et redempti, utique et Maria illo
‘empore scandalizata est’: and still more strongly
Tertullian (de Carne Christi, 7), and Chrysostom,
commenting on Mt 12%" (Hom. in Matt. 44), where
he says Mary called down her Son’s rebuke by her
presumption (ἀπόνοια). ἃ

Aucustine || was among the earliest of the
Fathers who thought it possible that she might be
an exception to the rule that all have committed
actual sins; though he allows that she shared the
common corruption of humanity,‘! and quotes Lk
1157 as showing that even the mother of Jesus was
blessed, not because in her the Word was made
flesh, but because she kept the word of God.

It does not appear that we have any direct. evi-

9?

dence of prayer being made, or worship offered, to |

Mary during the first four centuries, ** except bythe
obscure sect of the Collyridians already mentioned,

and images under new
~countenanced by St.

to.

eultus and invocation of the martyrs, and belief in
their miraculous power, had been growing up as

early as the 38rd cent.,* and the gradual paganiz-
ine of the Church, which followed the establishment
of Christianity as the religion of the empire, led,
in many places, to the substitution of Christian
saints tor the old local divinities.| = Indeed the
continued use of the old temples and ceremonies
names might seem to be
Pauls words in reference to the
Athenian altar ‘whom ye ignorantly worship, lim
declare Lunto you.” Then the worship of the Lares,
the apotheosis of the dead, the almost blasphemous
homage paid to the living emperor in the East, pre-
pared the way for the worship of saints. ‘Phe
votaries of Demeter and Persephone and of other
female deities found it easier to transfer their alle-
giance to the Christian Church, when they were
permitted to make their vows there to Miry as
the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven ;t
while at the same time these titles were demanded
by the more fanatical Christians, who claimed divine
honours for the ideal and prototype of virginity,

~ which they held ¢o be the highest of all virtues.

Jesus was |

against Whom Ejiphanius lays down the rule, ἐν

τιμῇ ἔστω Μαρία. 6 δὲ Πατὴρ καὶ Lids cal” Ayov Ivetua
προσκινείσθω" τὴν Μαρίαν μηδεὶς προσκυνείτω. But the

* Orig. c. Cels. i. 89, This calumny is denounced in the Koran
(iv. 15) as one of the sins of the Jewish people.

¢ Justin M., Dial. 100 ; Iven. 111. 22. 4, v. 19. 1, ‘siea inobedierat,
Deo, sed hee suasa est obedire Deo, ‘uti Virginis Evie virgo Maria
fieret advocata. Et quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus
humanun per virginem, salvatur per virginem’; cf. also Tert.
de Carine Christi, 17.

tSo Basil, A’pist. 260, and others ;
it is said that even Mary has to pass through the purgatorial
fire.

ἢ Stephanus cites other instances from Chrysostom.

|| De Nat. et Grat. c. 36, where in answer to Pelagius, who
had given a list of sinless saints from the OT, concluding with
the names of Elisabeth and Mary, ‘quam dicit sine peccato
conufiteri necesse esse pietati,’ Augustine maintains that all had
sinned ‘ excepta sancta virgine Maria de qua propter honorem
Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo
questionem,’ Ephracm Syrus and Ambrose are quoted to the
same effect.

4) See Ὁ; Julian. v. 15, quoted in Livius, p. 246f.

** Smith’s DD, s.r. Mary THE VIRGIN, vol. il. p.
Roman Worship of the Virgin.

VOL. 1Π1.-|π 19

260% Tyléns

ie

favoured by the reaction

The movement in this direction was especially
against the Nestorian
heresy, condemned at the Council of Ephesus in
A.D. 431—a reaction shown in the multiplication
of pictures of the Virgin, and in a readiness to
accept, as authentic, any supposed tradition or
revelation which tended’ to her elory. On the
other hand, the Divinity of Christ tended to
obscure his Humanity. The loving sympathy of
one who could be touched with the feeling of our
infirmities was transferred to Mary, whose media-
tion with her Son, the stern and terrible Judge,
was every day felt to be more necessary to weak
and erring mortals. Add to this the chivalrous
sentiments and the respect for woman amone the
northern nations of Europe, and we shall not be
surprised at the subsequent developments οἵ
Mariolatry. The languaee of the Bible, especially
in the Vulgate, was strained to support this: the
name ‘Mariam’ itself received various interpreta-
tions, of which the most popular was Stella Maris :
the promise to the seed of the woman in Gi 810
was transferred to the woman herself in accord-
ance with the Vulgate mistranslation, ‘ipsa con-
teret caput tuum’: the ereeting in Lk 158 χαῖρε
κεχαριτωμένη (Wule. Save gratia plena’) was a proot
that Mary was herself a fountain of grace: her
reply to the angel (οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα) is taken to be
avow: the words by which she was entrusted to
the care of the beloved disciple, ἰδοὺ ὁ vids σου,
describe her relation to all true members of the
Chureh. She is the Bride of the Canticles, the
Woman persecuted by the dragon in the Apocalypse,
the Wisdom of whom Solomon speaks, whom the
Lord possessed in the beginning as His daily delight,
rejoicing always before Him. Christian orators, be-
ginning with Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople
in the middle of the 5th cent. (who spoke of the

| Mother of God, ἡ Geordkos,§ as ‘the only bridge be-

ef. Hilary, Ps. 11820, where |

* Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s.v.
Wonvers, LIGHTS.

+ See Gieseler, E.H. ii. p. 24 ff.; Bede, HLF. Angl. i
Augusti, Denkw. iii. 9 ff.; Maitland, Dark Ages, p. 149 ff.,
Homily on Idolatry, parts ὃ and 33; J. J. Biunt, Vestiyges of
Ancient Customs in Modern Italy.

t ‘The fact that some ancient heretics actually did maintain
the Holy Ghost to be a female (Iren. i. 38; Gospel of the
Hebrews, ap. Orig. Comm. ti Joan. ii. 6), only serves to show
the reluctance with which mankind bade adieu to that sex as
objects of worship.’ Blunt, 1.6. ch. 3.

ἃ This phrase, condemned by Coleridge (Ena. Div. i. 45), though
accepted by most Anglican divines (e.g. Pearson, Creed, p. 177),
is open to the objection contained in Augustine’s words (de
Fide et Symbolo, 9), ‘nec nos ad negandam Christi matrem
cogit quod ab eo dictum est Quid mihi et tibi est malier!.. .
sed admonet potius ut intelligamus secundum Deune non
habuisse matrem.

Martyrs, REuIcSs,

290 MARY

MARY

tween man and God’), vied with one another in
devising new phrases in her honour; and the glowing
hyperboles of an earlier generation were fixed in
the dogma or ritual of a later generation, which
again quickly gathered to itself a new halo of senti-
ment, to be tollowed by a yet further advance both
in theory and practice. We may consider this
development under three heads: (1) the personal
holiness of the Virgin ; (2) her power and dignity ;
(3) the nature of the worship due to her.

(1) We have seen that Augustine thought Mary
might be exempt trom actual sin, though sharing the
general corruption of man’s nature. Pelagius and
his disciple Julian denied this hereditary sinfulness. *
Paschasius Radbertus (¢.830),in his controversy with
Ratramnus, maintained that Mary was sanctified in
the womb; and this was the doctrine of Bernard (b.
1091), who, however, protested strongly against the
institution of the feast of the Conception by the
Canons of Lyons, Dec. 8, 1140, as sanctioning the
belief in the Immaculate Conception, which he re-
garded as superstitious and opposed to the tradition
of the Church. Bernard was followed by the greatest
schoolmen, including Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274); but
abont the year 1300 Duns Scotus maintained that,
since it Was as much in the power of God to blot
out sin in the moment of conception as at a later
period, it was more conernous to attribute to the
Virgin the higher perfection. This view was
adopted by the Franciscans and supported by the
visions of St. Brigitta, while the older view was
maintained by the Dominicans and supported by
the visions of St. Catharine of Sienna. Pope
Sixtus Iv. (1476) declared it an open question,
but gave his sanction to the festival. Finally,
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was pro-
claimed by Pius 1X., Dee. 1854.+

(2) By the end of the 7th cent. the belief in wonder-
working pictures, icons, and the honouring of
these with oscalation, lights, and incense, to-
gether with the invocation of the Virgin and other
saints, had become so common in the Eastern
Church, that Christians were regarded as idelaters
by the Mohammedans. Leo the Isaurian, who
became emperor in 716, tried to avert this charge
by forbidding the use of images altogether ; and
his prohibition was confirmed by the Synod of
Constantinople in 754. The chief opponents of
the Iconoclasts were Germanus of Constantinople
and John of Damascus, who, in their writings,
assign to Mary the highest place in heaven next
to the Blessed Trinity, though they guard them-
selves against the imputation of deifying her,
as the pagans did their Mater Deorum (see
Damasce. Hom 1. in Dorm. Marie, $$ 11, 15).
John addresses her as ‘the rest of the weary,
comfort of the sorrowful, healing to the sick,

pardon to the sinful, a ready help to all.’ In
the llth cent. Damiani speaks of her as ‘non

solum rogans sed imperans, domina non ancilla.’
In the 12th cent. Bernard, in the 13th Thomas
Aquinas and Bonaventura, carry their adoration
to a still higher pitch. Thomas is cited as say-
ing that ‘in Mary is all our hope of salvation,’
and that she has obtained half the kingdom
of God, ‘ut ipsa sit Regina misericordia, ut
Christus est Rex justitie’ ; Bonaventura speaks
of her as the ‘porta cli, quia nullus potest
jam celum intrare nisi per Mariam transeat
tanquam per portam,’ and to him are ascribed
the contemporary adaptation of the Psalter and
Te Deum to the worship of the Virgin, as a speci-
men of which may be quoted the versicles of the

“Cf. Aug. de Nat. et Grat. c. 36, and the words of Julian
quoted by Aug. contra Jul. iv. 122, ‘ipsam Mariam diabolo
nascendi conditione transcribis.’

+See the very careful catena of earlier declarations on this
subject, contained in Pusey’s Letter to Newman, 1869.

latter—‘ All the earth doth worship Thee, Spcuse
of the Eternal Father’ ; ‘ Vouchsafe, O sweet Mary,
to keep us now and ever without sin.’ What. is
perhaps even more remarkable is that, in an early
sermon of Wyclif’s* (ἃ. 1384), we read: ‘It seems
to me impossible that we should obtain the reward
without the help of Mary. There is no sex or age,
no rank or position, of any one in the whole human
race, which has no need to call for the help of the
Holy Virgin.’+

It must not be supposed, however, that there
was no protest against the constantly advancing
tide of Mariolatry. Beside the Nestorians and
the Eastern Iconoclasts, who were to a certain
extent supported by the Frankish Church under
Charlemagne, there were various sects, Paulicians,¢
Cathari, and later the Waldenses and Moravians,
which condemned the Invocation of Saints ; and at
least two eminent Churchmen in the 9th cent.
wrote against it, viz. Agobard, archbishop οἵ
Lyons, and Claudius, bishop of Turin.g Weyclif
gradually came to the same conclusion, and some
of his followers, e.g. Lord Cobham, were condemned
to death for contradicting the teaching of the
Church as to the worship of saints. The desire
for reform in the practice and teaching of the
Church was strongly reinforced by the reaction
from the medieval system, which came in with
the Renaissance: and by the end of the 15th cent.
there were many signs that the old ideas as to the
Virgin were becoming untenable. This may be
seen from the reference made to her in Dean Colet’s
Preceptes of Livinge, ‘Byleve and trust in chryst
Jesu. Worship hym and his moder Mary,’ especially
when viewed in the light of his favourite principle,
‘Keep to the Bible and the Apostles’ Creed, and
let divines dispute about the rest’; as well as from
the charge brought against him (1512), that he
denied the worship of tinages.|) The opinion of
Erasmus is known frem the Hreomiwm Mare
and Peregrinatio, in which he ridicules pilgrimages
to the shrine of St. Mary of Walsingham, the
prayers offered to her, and generally the specula-
tions of the schoolmen as to her virginity and
sinlessness. Even Sir Thomas More condemns
image-worship in his Utopia, and in a letter to
Erasmus expresses his disgust at the Mariolatry
which he witnessed at Coventry, where a Francis-
can was preaching that ‘whoever made daily use
of the Psalter of the Blessed Virgin could never be
damned,’ while the parish priest, seeing that men
became emboldened to crime through trust in
their devotions to the Virgin, made a vain protest,
which only drew on him the charge of impiety.
In another letter to a monk in defence of Erasmus,
More mentions that he had himself known of a
band of assassins, who used to kneel before the
Virgin, and then proceed ‘piously to perpetrate
their crime.’ He adds that he does not say this ‘to
condemn those who occasionally salute the Holy
Virgin, than which nothing is more beneficial.’
While all the Reformed Churches condemned tne
doctrine of Rome on this point, the Lutherans
were less prominent in opposing it than the Swiss
and the French, who often drew upon themselves
persecution by their violence in destroying images.
Berquin, the first Protestant martyr in France,
was charged with asserting that it was wrong to
invoke the Virgin Mary in place of the Holy
Spirit, and to call her the source of all grace, or
assign to her such titles as ‘Our hope’ and ‘ Our
life,’ which belong only to Christ. The doctrine

* See Lechler’s Wyclif, p. 299, Eng. tr.

+ Compare, too, Luther's favourite, Tauler, in Hagenbach’s
Hist. of Doctrines, vol. ii. p. 317, Eng. tr.

t See Conybeare’s Key of Truth, 1893.

§ Neander, Eng. tr. vi. 210. i
| See Lupton’s Injluence of Dean Colet on the Reformation
895.

MARY

MARY 29)

of the Church of England is given in the 15th Art.,
Of Christ alone without sin, and in the 22nd,
where it is said, ‘The Romish doctrine concerning
Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration,
as well of Images as of Reliques, and also In-
vocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented,
and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but
rather repugnant to the word of God.’ Both
articles are unaltered from the form in which they
were originally put forth in 1553, except that the

hrase ‘ Romish doctrine’ was substituted in 1562

or ‘doctrine of the school-authors’ in the earlier

form.
iven the Council of Trent (1545-1563) gives
evidence of this change of feeling in the guarded
language used in Sess. xxv.: De invoeatione,
—veneratione, et reliquiis Sanctorim et sacris imagini-
bus, where it is enjoined that ‘the people be taught
that the Saints reigning with Christ offer their
prayers for men to God, and that it is good and
useful to invoke them as suppliants, and to have
recourse to their prayers for the sake of obtaining
benefit from God, through Jesus Christ our Lord,
who is our only Redeemer and Saviour.’ This is
followed by a warning against superstition in such
worship, and the caution that no innovation should
be made except with the approbation of the bishop.
The Roman Catechism speaks more particularly of
the Virgin: ‘Rightly are we taught to pray to the
most blessed Mother of God, wt nobis peceatoribus
sua intercessione conciliarct Deum, bonaqee tum ad
hance tum ad eternam vitam necessaria impetraret.’

The check on superstition was, however, only
temporary. Mainly owine to the efforts of the
Jesuits, Mariolatry is probably now more pre-
valent in the Church of Rome than at any former
time, if we may judge from the Decree of 8th
Dec. 1854, the enormous crowds of pilgrims who
flock to Lourdes, and the popularity of such books
as the Glories of Mary, brought out in 1784 by St.
Alphonsus de Liguori, of which the English trans-
lation is ‘heartily commended to the taithful’ by
the late Cardinals Wiseman and Manning. Even
Cardinal Newman does not shrink from using the
phrase ‘deification’ in reference to the Romish
doctrine of the Virgin and the Saints (Hssay on
Development, ch. 8).*

(3) As early as the 5th cent. Augustine gives a
warning against the worship of saints in the words,
‘Honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non ador-
andi propter religionem’ (de Vera Religione, 55) ;
‘Colimus martyres eo cultu dilectionis et societatis

uo in hae vita coluntur sancti homines Dei .
illo cultu qui Greece ‘Latria” dicitur, cum sit
quedam proprie divinitati debita servitus, nec
colimus, nec colendum docemus nisi unum Deum’
(ec. Faustum, xx. 21). In the 2nd Couneil of
Niceea (786) it was decreed that the Cross οἵ
Christ, the Virgin, Angels, and Saints were
entitled to religious reverence, τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις,
but not to divine worship, λατρεία. Peter Lombard
(Sent. IIT. Dist. 9. 1) uses the word ‘dudia’ for the
former, but he says that there is a special dudia
due to the humanity of Christ, ‘est quaedam dulia

soli humanitati Christi exhibenda, non alii
creature.’ Thomas Aquinas gives this higher

dulia the name of Ayper-dulia, ‘but transfers it
to the worship of Mary, not to that of the
humanity of Christ, which he identifies with datria
(Summ, Pars. 3, Qu. 25). He cites Augustine for
the distinguishing feature of latria: ‘aliquid est
quod soli Deo exhibetur, scilicet sacrificium’ ; and

*See also W. Palmer, Letter to Dr. Wiseman; Burgon,
Letters from Rome. In the latest scientific exposition of Roman
doctrine recommended by Card. Manning it is maintained that
the Intercession of Mary is an ordinary and necessary means of
salvation; and the dictum of certain theologians, that ‘God
grants no grace except on the intercession of Mary,’ is defended
(Wilhelm and Scannel, ii. pp. 223, 224).

later writers have maintained that, as the Mass is
never offered to the Virgin, her worship never over:
steps the limit of dudia. If, however, we under-
stand sacrificium, as Augustine does (Cir. Dei, x
σι 1892-35. ¢. 3,.4,,5;:6),.1n' a spiritual sense of fer
vent love and devotion, it is difficult to see how
the worship inculeated in such a book as the
Glories of Mary differs from this; and Pusey
quotes passages from Corn. a Lapide, Faber, and
others, in which it is actually maintained that
Mary is present and received in the Eucharist, and
feeds the worshippers there with her own flesh.*

C. By far the commonest form of devotion to
the Virgin is the Ave Maria, consisting of two
parts: the salutation—‘ Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among
women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb’ ;
and the prayer—‘ Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of death.’
The former part was first ordered to be used as a
church formula by Odo, bishop of Paris, in 1196 ;
the latter part first appears in the 15th cent., and
was directed to be used daily at the seven canonical
hours by Pius v. in 1568. The ‘Anevelus’ (said
to have been introduced in 1287) consists of three
recitations of the Ave Maria at the sound of the
Angelus bell, at morning, midday, and night, the
first recitation on each occasion being introduced
by the words, ‘The Angel of the Lord announced
to Mary, and she conceived of the Holy Ghost.’
The ‘ Rosary’ is the string of beads introduced by
St. Dominic in 1210 to facilitate the repetition of
150 Ave Marias and 15 Pater Nosters. The name is
also used for this particular kind of devotion.+

The oldest festival connected with the name of
Mary is the Purification,t observed on 2nd Feb.,
thus consecrating, as Bede observes, the old lustral
month of the Romans to a higher purpose. It was
probably instituted by Justinian in 542. Its name
of ‘Candlemas’ was derived from the custom of
consecrating candles and marching in procession
with them on that day, in remembrance of the ‘ light
to lighten the Gentiles.” The Annunciation Ὁ (Lady
Day), of which St. Bernard spoke as the ‘radix om-
nium festorum,’ was instituted about the end of the
6th cent. The pagan feast of the Hilaria Matris
Deum was held on the same day (25th March).
The Assumption (15th Aug.), instituted by the
emperor Maurice about the beginning of the 7th
cent., was introduced into the West by Charle-
magne. The Nativity§ (Sth Sept.) was probably
instituted in Italy in the LOth cent. The Presenta-
tion (2Ist Nov.) commemorates the dedication of
Mary by her parents in her 3rd year. This festival
was known in the East in 1150, but not till 1375
in the West. We have already spoken of the Con-
ception ἃ (Dec. 8). The Visitation § (2nd July) was
instituted in 1389 to commemorate the visit of Mary
to Elisabeth. It may be worth while to mention two
other festivals: that of Mount Carmel, instituted
in 1587 to commemorate the appearance of the
Virgin to the general ot the Carmelites in the year
1251, when she is said to have presented him with
a scapular of the order, telling him that whoever
died wearing this would escape the flames of hell.
The other is the Translation of the House of
Loretto, instituted*in 1669 to commemorate the
miraculous removal to Italy in 1294 of the house
at Nazareth in which the angel appeared to Mary.

Saturday was appropriated to the worship of
the Virgin in 1096, so far as the clergy were con-

* Eirenicon, pp. 168-172.

+ See articles Hain Mary and Rosary in Dict. of Christian
Antiquities.

t The festivals thus denoted are marked with red letters in
the Church of England calendar.

§ The festivals thus denoted, as well as that of St. Anne, the
mother of the Virgin (July 26), are marked as black: letter feasts
in the Church of England calendar.

a

292 MARY

MARY

cerned, and this rule was extended to the laity in
1229. The month of Jay is also dedicated to her
honour

1). Development in opinion is illustrated by de-
velopment in art. During the first five centuries
there is nothing to show that the Virgin was in
any way raised above other saints. She appears
simply in scenes taken from Scripture, e.g. the
Annunciation, the Adoration of the Magi, the
Mother and Child (of frequent occurrence after the
Nestorian controversy), or pessibly as a single
figure in the attitude of prayer. In an Adoration
dated A.D. 435, Christ is seated alone on a throne
with angels above Him, while His mother occupies
a subordinate position on one side near two of the
Magi. The ἐλέει is given to Christ, the angels,
and king Herod, not to Mary.* It is not till the
6th cent. that we find evidence of pre-eminent
dignity ascribed to her in the painting of an
Ascension, contained in a Syriac MS dated 586,
where she stands in the centre of the apostles
beneath the ascending figure of Christ. In this
picture she, as well as our Lord and the angels,
has the aianbus, but the apostles are without it.
With one remarkable exception, it is not till the
9th cent. that we find her enthroned as Queen of
Heaven in the centre of the apse t—a_ position
formerly reserved for Christ. The exception
referred to is ‘the mosaic of the apse of the
eathedral of Parenzo in Istria, the work of Bishop
Euphrasius, 4.1). 535-543. She is throned and
mimbed and supported by angels, holding her Son
in her Jap. Phe climax is reached in the 12th
cent., When we find the Virgin enthroned with
Christ, as His equal, in a mosaic of the Church οἱ
St. Maria in Trastevere.

Mrs. Jameson, in her Legends of the Madonna,
distinguishes between representations of real or
supposed historical scenes, and purely ideal or
devotional paintines. Amone the latter may be
noted those which exhibit the Virgin as Virgo
Sapientio, Sponsa Dei, the Picta (Madonna with
dead Christ), Meter Dolorosa, Regina Coli, Mater
Misericordia, in which character she is sometimes
represented as endeavouring to shield mankind
from the wrath of her Son,

The most famous of the ancient portraits of the
Virgin was that attributed to St. Luke, which was
sent to Pulcheria from Jerusalem in 488. This
was subsequently regarded as a kind of palladium,
and accompanied the emperor to the battletield,
till the capture of Constantinople in 1453.

From what has been said, it appears that no
kind of justification for the worship of Mary is to
be found in the Bible, or in the theory or practice
of the Early Church. Indeed the silences no less
than the utterances of Scripture might seem provi-
dentially ordered so as to forbid any such develop-
ment in after-ages. It may be argued, however,
that there is an@ posteriort Justification in history.
The idolatry of the Canaanites, against which
the Mosaic law was primarily directed, was the
deification of cruelty and vice, a true worship of
devils. The idolatry of Greece at its best was the
deificationof beauty and intellect,sometimes favour-
able to virtue, as we may see in Herodotus, but
more frequently to vice, if we may trust the witness
of Plato. The worship of the Virgin is the deifica-
tion of beauty and goodness. Regarding this from
the historical point of view, who can dispute the
immense gain to humanity of the substitution of
such worship for any pre-existing idolatry? Con-
trasting it even with some other forms of Christi-
anity, say with the more rigid Calvinistic school, we

* See Marriott, Testimony of the Catacombs, p. 40.
ἡ This is seen in two churches built by Pope Paschal 1.
τ Dict. of Christian Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 1154.

can see reasons why the continued existence and pre-
valence of Mariolatry should have been permitted
‘for the hardness of men’s hearts’ by Divine Provi-
dence. Tenderness, gentleness, reverence, sympathy;
enthusiastic devotion to high objects ; a deepened
sense of the gracious dignity of motherhood ; joy
in all beauty, whether of art or nature, as the
outward manifestation of the Supreme Beauty ; a
kindly natural piety breathing trust and hope ;
some faint reflexion οἵ the modest meekness, the
resigned submission, the pure unruftled calm of the
maiden of Nazareth,—such we might anticipate
would be some of the effects of the contemplation
of so noble an ideal. And such, no doubt, have
been its effects in thousands of simple believers to
whom Mary has been the authorized representa-
tion of the Divine goodness. But even so, there
are certain qualities of mind and character, such as
veracity, justice, fairness, honesty, an open eye,
robust common-sense, laree-minded considerate-
ness, Which are liable to fall into the background,
when the feminine ideal, often coloured by medi-
νὰ} modes of thought, bulks so large in the fore-
ground, And if the only acceptable worship is
that in spirit and in truth, must we not expect
that a worship, founded in mere hiiman invention
and the capricious movements of an unchastened
piety, would give proof of its unsoundness by its
fruits? We shall not therefore be surprised to
find that, where the sovereignty of Mary has
tended to eclipse the sovereignty of God, the
idea of goodness has been exchanged for that of
mere weak indulgence, while the thought of the
All-Holy and All-Just has been first shrunk from
and then forgotten. If Christ has entrusted to
His mother the whole treasury of grace, what need
is there to look beyond her? The repetition of a
few prayers, the offering of a few candles, even
the presence of a picture of the Virgin, acts as a
sort of charm to win her favour, even for the
vicious and criminal.* ‘The sense of personal re-
sponsibility, of the inexorable claims of duty, of
the heinousness of sin, has been perilously weak-
ened by the fatal error which led to the separation
of the spheres of mercy and justice, assigning the
former to the Madonna, the latter to her Son.
The God of love, the meek and lowly Saviour, are
robbed of their highest prerogatives, while the
Virgin and the Saints, whose perfeetion on earth
consisted in conforming their wills to the Divine
will, are too often represented in popular Catholi-
cism as seeking to resist and control that will.
That the above view of the dangers of Mariolatry
is no mere delusion of the Protestant mind, but 1s
shared more or less by many Anglicans who claim
to adopt the Catholie position, as well as by some of
highest authority among Roman Catholies them-
selves, is shown by Pusey’s Lirenion and Letter to
Newman, and by Newiman’s reply to the former,
in which be says (p. 108), ‘Now at length coming
to the statements . which offend you in works
written in her (Mary’s) honour, I will frankly say
that I read some of them with erief and almost
anger... . And 7 hate those perverse sayings so
much, how much more must sie in proportion to
her love of him?’ Again he says (p. 119), ‘ They
(these statements) seem to me like a bad dream. [
could not have conceived them to be said. IT know
not to what authority to go for them, to Scripture,
or to the Fathers, or to the decrees of Councils, or
to the consent of schools, or to the tradition of the
faithful, or to the Holy See, or to reason.’ And
he refers to Gerson, and Petavius, and others, who
condemn the ‘prurience of innovation,’ and the
frivolous and sophistical reasonings ‘in which so
many indulge in order to assign any sort of grace
they please, however unusual, to the Blessed Vir-
* Many instances will be found in Liguori’s Glories of Mary.

MASCHIL

MASSAH 290

gin. The motive of this is, according to Petavius,
a ‘kind of idolatry, lurking, as Augustine says,
nay, implanted in human hearts, which is greatly
abhorrent from theology, that is, from the gravity
of heavenly wisdom.’

Lireraturr. —Hofmann, R., Leben Jesu nach den Apokriphen
erzdhit, i851; Proterangelium Jacobi, σά. Thonwe, Keang.
de Nativitate Mari, the Latin Historia de Nativitate Marte
et de Lifuntia Salratoris, the Avabic Iistoria Josephi and
Evangelium Infanti, de Dormitione, and de Transitu Marie,
All these are translated in Clark's Ante-Nicene Christian Library,
vol. 16. Marriott, Testimony of the Catacombs ; Mrs. Jameson,
Legends of the Madonna; WK. Hase, Handbuch d. Protestant-
ixchen Polemik gegen die rimisch-katholischen Kirche, ed. 4,
1878; Lehner, Die Marienverehrung in den ersten Jahrhun-
derten, 1881; V. Schulte, Archdologische Studien tiber alt-
christlichen Monwmente, 1880; Review of Mariolatry, Liturgical,
Devotional, Doctrinal (Anon.), Rivington, 1869; Tyler, Romish
Worship of the Virgin; Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten aus d. christ-
lichen Archiologi2, vol. iii, 1-124 5 Schatf, Creeds of Christendom,
vol. i. pp. 108-128; Lechler, John Wyelif, Eng. tr. ; Seebohin,
Oxford Reformers; Burgon, Letters from Rome; Pusey,
KBirenwcon, 1865, pp. 101-190, Letter to Newman on the Tininacu-
late Conception, 1869; Gore, Dissertations, London, 1895; Her-
zog’s Real-Eneyclop icf. protestantische Theologie, s.r. ‘Maria.’

Rom. Cath. —Newman, Hssay on Development, 1846, pp. 376-
388, 398-409, Letter to Pusey on his Hirenicon, 1866, pp. 28-159 ;
Liguori, Glories of Mary, Eng. tr. 1868; Rohault de Fleury,
La Sainte Vierge, 2 vols. 1878; Livius, The B. V. in the
Fathers of the First Six Centuries, 1893; Wilhelm and
Seannel, Manual of Catholic Theology, based on Scheeben’s
Dogimatik, 1890, vol. ii, pp. 122-126, 208-224 ; Addis and Arnold,
Catholic Dictionary, ed. 4, 1893 (ander headings ‘ Mary,’
‘Loretto,’ ‘Immaculate Conception,’ ‘Saints,’ ‘ Assumption’);
Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlevikon, vol. viii. ed. 2, 1893 (under
headings ‘Maria,’ ‘Marientfeste,’ Marienlegenden,’ ‘ Marien-
wallfahrtsorte ’), where a full bibliography will be found.

J. DB. MAYOR,

MASCHIL.—Sce PSALMs.

MASH (v:).—A son of Aram, Gn 10”. The par-
allel passage 1 Ch 117 substitutes Meshech; the
LXX in both has Μύσοχ. A name corresponding
with Mash is found in Assyrian inscriptions,
especially the cylinder R@™ of Assurbanipal, who,
in describing his Arabian campaign, sayshe marched
through the desert of Mash, ‘a place of thirst and
fainting, whither comes no bird of the heaven,

neither do asses nor gazelles feed there’ (5. Α.
Sinith’s edition, i. pp. 67, 68. Frd. Delitzsch

(Paradies, 242, 243) interprets this to mean the
Syrian desert ; Glaser (S/izze, i. 419), as ‘the in-
terior of Western Arabia’; and the word, according
to Delitzsch, is foreign, and means ‘ wilderness.’
Ὦ. 5. MARGOLIOUTH.

MASHAL (ν᾽, Maacd).-—1 Ch 6% [Heb. *]. See
MISHAL.
MASIAS (A Macias, B Mewaias), 1 Es 5*4,—One

of Solomon’s servants (RVm Misaias). ‘che name

is absent from the parallel list in Ezra.

MASON.—In Syria masons both hew and build.
In hewing they use the different kinds of hammers
mentioned under art. HAMMER. In Ezr 81,1 Ch 22’,
hewers (2°384) are mentioned ; the word in Arab. VS
is nahatin, those who smoothed the stones. Masons
use several instruments in building the phunb
line, a line wound on a reel for laying the courses
of stone, a long rod of wood about 6 ft. in length,
and a very curious kind of trowel. The trowel is
of iron, about a foot long, fully an inch broad in
the widest part, and tapers to a point; it is about
half an inch thick. Tt is used asa lever for putting
the stone exactly into its place, as well as for
spreading the mortar.

The masons of Lebanon seem still to be the
skilled builders of Palestine and Syria, as they
were in ancient times (as we read in 28 5"! that
Hiram, king of Tyre, sent masons [j2x ‘Sq7] to
David to build him a house), for they travel all
over Syria, Palestine, and the Mauran, building
houses for the people, and forts for the govern-
ment. W. CARSLAW.

MASREKAH (-p7¥2, Macéxxa). — Mentioned i
connexion with the list of ‘the kines that reigned
in the land of Edom before there reigned any king
over the children of Israel,’ Gn 36". When one
of these kings, named Hadad, diced, Samah of
Masrekah reigned in his stead (v.%=1 Ch 1").
The locality has not been identified. The Ono-
masticon delines it thus: ΔΙαρσικὰ πόλις βασιλείας
᾿Εδὼμ περὶ τὴν Τ᾿εβαληνήν. The name apryt may
signify ‘place of Sorek (p2%) vines’ (Del. on Gn
36°). J. A. SELBIE.

MASSA (s¥>).—Name of a son of Ishmael (Gn
254 [A Μασσή]-Ξ] Ch 1° [B Μανασσή, A Δασσή)).---
The correct translation of Pr 91}, where Lemuel is
described as ‘king of Massa, is due to Hitzig
(Leller’s Theol. Jahrb. 1814, 269-305), and it is prob-
able that the sense of the words following the name
‘Avur’ in Pr 80! is similar, though they cannot be
rendered with certainty. Delitzsch (Peviaidies, 301)
called attention to the occurrence of the name
Ma-as-a-at unmediately before Taymieans and
Sabieans in a list of States which brought presents
to ‘Tiglath-pileser m. (WAT iii. 10. 1, 38), and
justly identified these people with the Ishmaelite
tribe. He also (76. 302) thought there might be
a reference to them in a tablet published in WAT
iv. ὅθ. 1, and further edited by (ἃ. Smith (/Listory
of Assurbanipal, 296-298), and most recently by 5.
A. Sinith (Neilschriftterte Asurbanipals, i. 36-38).
In that tablet a certain Nebo-sum-esir, who has
been told to send the king anything that he may
hear about the Arabs, states that Akamaru, son
of Ammeé'ta of Mash (VWash-a-a7/), made a raid on
the people of Nebaioth, and killed all the troops
except one man, who is despatched to the king to
give him personal information. It is more probable
that a tribe of moderate size is referred to than a
vast region like MASH; and the difference in spelling
between this tablet and the former may be due to
the popular pronunciation which is represented in
the letters (5. A. Smith, p. 88). The scene de-
scribed in the tablet resembles that of Job 17 (as
Delitzsch observes), and it is probable that we
have in these chapters a specimen of the famous
wisdom of the ‘children of the East.’ From none
of these passages can any data be got for the
localization of Massa, and the conjectures of
Hitzig (repeated by him in his comm. on Pr 90)
scarcely deserve mention. See, further, art.
SIMEON (TRIBE). Such portions of chs. 30 and 31
as really come from Massa are probably trans-
lated ; but the first verse of ch. 30, which is unin-
telligible, may be partly in the original dialect.
Of the proper names, Lemuel or Lemoel might be
Hebrew or Arabic (compare Lishemesh, Lidzbarsky,
Handbuch der nordsem. Epig. 304), Yakeh seems
to be old Hebrew, while lgur is uncertain. On
the other hand, the names given in Nebo-sum-esir’s
letter are very clearly old Arabic, and he certainly
implies that the ‘ Mash-a-ai’ are Arabs.

D. S. MARGOLIOUTH.

MASSAH (no, 1.6. ‘ proving,’ ‘trial’; (ὁ) πειρασμός,
in Dt 33° etpa).—The name viven to the place,
uear Rephidim, at which, according to Ex 17'%,
the Israclites ‘tempted’ J” (i.e. in the old sense of
the word, tried Him, put Him to the proof), doubt-
ing (v.*) His power to save them in their thirst, and
saying (v.7) ‘Is J” among us, or not?’ This in
cident at Massah is alluded to in Dt 6! ‘Ye shall not
“tempt? J” (put J” to the proof), as ye “tempted”
Him (put Him to the proof) at JJassah? (cf. Driver),
92, and Ps 958 ‘Harden not your heart as at
Meribah, as in the day of MZassah in the wilder-
ness, when your fathers tempted (de. tried) me,
tested me, but also saw my work (se. of Judgment).’
In Dt 83> the name is either played upon diflerencly,
or there is an allusion to a different version of the

294

MASSIAS

MATTANAH

incicent at Massah ; ‘Thy Thummim and thy Urim
be for the man, thy godly one, whom thou didst
preve at Massah, with whom (or, according to
others, for whom) thou contendedst at the waters
of Meribah.” The words have reference to the
tribe of Levi; and the idea expressed by them may
be that at Massah J” either ‘proved’ the tribe in
Moses’ person, or (Dillm.) ‘proved’ Moses himself,
by observing how he would behave under the pro-
vocation of the people’s complaints. However, this
explanation is not perfectly satisfactory ; and it
becomes less so when the attempt is made to ad-
just the Meribah clause to it: so that the opinion
vannot be excluded that the allusion is to some
different account of what happened at ‘Massah,’
according to which the fidelity of the tribe was
tested directly by J”. The Arabs point to a rock
‘alled Hesy el-Hattatin, in the arid N.W. part of
the Wady Feiran, as the one struck by Moses
at ‘Massah’ (Palmer, Desert of Exodus, 159). See,
further, REPHIDIM. S. R. DRIVER.

MASSIAS (A Μασσίας, B ᾿Ασσείας), 1 Es 92=
MAASEIAH, Ezr 10%,

MASSORAH, MASSORETES.—See Text of OLD
TESTAMENT.

MASTER. See Lorp. Like the Lat. magister
from which it comes, ‘master’ was formerly used
for ‘teacher,’ as Mal 2 *The Lord will cut off the
man that doeth this, the master and the scholar.’
Cf. He 5 Rhem. ‘For whereas you ought to be
maisters for your time, you neede to be taught
againe your selves what be the elements of the
beginning of the wordes of God.’ Especially was
it used for the head of a school (as it is still in use
in the rural parts of Scotland), as Goldsmith, Des.
Village, 196 —

‘There in his noisy mansion skilled to rule,

The village master taught his little school.’
The Gr. διδάσκαλος, teacher, is in AV rendered
‘master’ in 2 Mae 1!, Ja 31], and in all its occur-
rences in the Gospels, except Lk 2% ‘doetor’? (RVm
‘teacher’) and Jn 3? ‘teacher.’ But elsewhere it
is tr? ‘teacher’ in both AV and RV (Ac 13}, Ro 2”,
1 Co 12%, Eph 4", 1 Ti 27, 2 Til" 43, He 512), So
also paS3ei, though it is transliterated ‘Rabbi’ in
Mt 237 5, Jn 158: 49 32: 26 625 and is tre ‘Lord’ in Mk
10° (after TR, but edd. mostly paS3ouvei, whence
RV‘ Rabboni’), is elsewhere rendered ‘master’ (Mt
26%. 9, Mk 9° 117 14, Jn 481 95 118). RV has
Rabbi throughout. See Raper.

Mastery is four times used for mod. ‘victory’ :
Ex 32" «It is not the voice of them that shout for
mastery’; Dn 6°4 ‘the lions had the mastery of
them’; 1 Co 9% ‘Every man that striveth for the
mastery is temperate in all things’ (ὁ ἀγωνιζόμενος,
RV ‘that striveth in the games’); 2 Ti 25 “If a
man also strive for masteries’ (407; RV ‘contend
in the games’). Cf. Milton, PL ii. 899

‘For hot, cold, moist, and dry, four champions fierce
Strive here for mast’ry.’

The verb to ‘master’ in the sense of ‘control’
occurs in Wis 12'S «But thou, mastering thy power,
judgest with equity’ (δεσπύζων ἰσχύος, RV ‘being
sovereign over thy strength’). RV has the word
in the mod. sense of ‘overcome’ in Ac 1916 “the
man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them,
and mastered both of them.’ J. HASTINGS.

MASTICK (cyivos,* lentiscus).—A diccious tree,
Pistacia Lentiscus. L., of the order A nucardiacee,
of a spreading growth, 10 to 12 ft. high and broad.
The leaves are persistent, with 3 to 5 pairs of
oblong lanceolate to obovate, leathery, mucronu-

* Note the word-play in the 7x7 Of che following verse

(Sus %), and cf. African. Ep. ad Orig. (Lommatzsch, xvii. p. 18).

late leaflets, 1 to 14 in. long, on a winged rachis.
The fruits are dry, globular-obovate, somewhat
flattened drupes, }th of an in. in diameter, borne
on short stiff panicles. It grows in thickets, in
rocky places, along the coast and on hills to a
height of 2500 feet, all around the Mediterranean.
The gum is obtained from incisions in the bark,
made in August. The juice exudes in the form
of tears, which harden into spherical, flattened
or irregular, pale-yellow masses, covered with a

bloom, caused by their mutual attrition. They
have a mild terebinthine odour and taste. Mastick
is known in Arab. by the name mistaki. It is in

universal use by women and girls as a chewing-
gum, partly because of its pleasant taste and the
agreeable odour it gives to the breath, and its
reputed virtues as a preservative to the teeth and
gums, and partly for the amusement of chewing
it. It is also used as a temporary stopping for
cavities in the teeth. It is an astringent, used to
check discharges from the mucous membranes.
A sweetmeat is made of it in Chio, and forms a
considerable article of export. The tree is men-
tioned once only, in Apocrypha (Sus >),
G. E. Post.

MATHELAS (A Μαθήλας, B ΜΙαεήλας, AV Matthe-
las), 1 Es 9%=MAASEIAH, Ezr 108% The LXX
forms are due to confusion of ¢ with Θ or e¢.

MATRED (772>,

all compares the Arab. mitrad,
‘a short spear’).—The mother-in-law ( of Hadar
(Gn) or Hadad (Ch), one of the kings of Edom,
Gn 36° (A Marpai@)=1 Ch 1° (A Ματράδ). In Gn
the LXX and Pesh. make Matred the son not the
daughter of Me-zahab, which is accepted by Ball,
who reads j2 instead of MT na. Kittel ‘is not
indisposed to accept the same reading in Ch, thus
making Watred a masculine name.
J. A. SELBIE.
MATRITES (7227=the Matrite; B Marrapei, A
Ματταρεί and Marrapeir).—A family of the tribe
of Benjamin to which Saul belonged (18 10”),
The readings of the LXX point rather to a form
20 (Mattarite). Klostermann would substitute
‘of the family of M.’ for ‘the son of a Benjamite’
inlS9g. J. F. STENNING.

MATTAN (γκρ ‘a gift’; more usually, with
explicit addition of the divine name, in the form
Mattaniah).—41. (Marédvy Luc., λίαγθάν B, Μαχάν
A; in Ch Ματθάν without variation). Priest of
the temple of Baal in Jerusalem during the reign
of Athaliah. He lost his life with the queen,
when she was deposed (2 Καὶ 118, 2 Ci 2817. Ahab,
presumably at the instigation of his Phoenician
wife Jezebel, built a temple for the worship of
Baal in Samaria (1 Καὶ 16%). Their daughter Atha-
hiah was probably founder of this temple in Jeru-
salem. Possibly, therefore, Mattan was not a
Judean. The name is known as Phoenician
(Gesenius, HW B 13}.

2. (Nadav B, Μαϑθάν Q™s). Named only as the
father of Shephatiah, a contemporary of the prophet
Jeremiah (Jer 38!). W. B. STEVENSON.

MATTANAH (πιὸ; LXX Μανθαναείν B, -viv A,
-νέν F*; Eus. Maééavéu).—A station mentioned
only Nu 21'* 1 Tt was on the route from the
Arnon to the plains of Moab, and would therefore
be to the E. of the Dead Sea and N. of the Arnon.
No satisfactory identification has been made; but
if the position assigned to it by Eusebius (Onom.
p. 169 and p. 274, ed. Lagarde), 12 Roman miles
to the E. of Medeba, be correct, the course taken
by the Israelites must have been farther to the
E. than is generally supposed. *

A. T. CHAPMAN.
* In an article on the ‘Song of the Well’ in the New World

MATTANIAH

MATTHEW, APOSTLE 295

MATTANIAH (7::n>).—1. The original name of
king Zedekiah, 2 K 24" (B Μαθθάν, A Me@davias).
2. An Asaphite, 1Ch 9% (B Mav@avias, A Mar-
@avias), leader of the temple choir, Neh 117 (B
Maéand, A Maééavias) 12° (B Μαχανιά, A Madara),
door-keeper 12%. (B Nadav, A Maédand). 3.
Mattaniah, a descendant of Asaph, was, according
to 2 Ch 204 (B Μανθανίας, A Ματθανίας), contem-
porary with Jehoshaphat, but this mame should
probably be identified with the preceding. 4 8.
6. 7. Four of those who had married foreign wives,
Ezr 105 (ΒΒ Μαθανιά, A Μαθθανιά, called in 1 Es 9%
Matthanias), v.27 (B ᾿Αλαθανιά, A Μαθθανιά, called
in 1 Es 9% Othonias), ν. Ὁ (Bo λαθανιά, A Μαθθανιά,
ealled in 1 Es 9%! Matthanias), ν. (B Μαθανιά,
A Μαθθανιά, combined in 1 Es 9 with the follow-
ing Mattenai into Mamnitanemus). 8. A Levite
who had charge of the offerings, Neh 13% (B
Ναθανιά, A Maéédavias). 9. (1π282) A Hemanite,
1 Ch 25+ 36 (B Mavéavias, A Ματθανίας). 10. (37;1m2)
An Asaphite, 2 Ch 29% (B Μαθθανίας, A Ματθανίας).

MATTATHA (Marraéa).—Son of Nathan and
grandson of David, according to the genealogy of

Lk 3°.

MATTATHIAS (Marrafias), the equivalent of the
Heb. Mattithiah (προ smnmz). 1. AV Matthias,
a Jew, who had married a foreign wife in the days
of Ezra (1 Es 9%*). In Ezr 10 the name is given
as Mattattah, AV Mattathah (περ). See GENEA-
LOGY. 2. One of the men who stood at the right
hand of Ezra during the reading of the law (1 Es
9); in Neh 84 Mattithiah. See GENEALOGY. 8.
The father of the five Maccabean brothers (1 Mae
91. 14. 16f. 19. 24. 27. 39. 45. 49 1.5), See MACCABEES. 4.
The son of Absalom, a captain in the army of
Jonathan the Maccabwean, who, together with Judas
the son of Chalpi, stood by his commander during
the flight of the Jews at the battle of Hazor, and
helped to turn the fortunes of the day (1 Mae 117).
5. A son of Simon the high priest, who was
murdered, together with his father and_ brother
Judas, at a banquet at Dok, by Ptolemy the son of
Abubus (1 Mac 1618), 6. One of three envoys
sent by Nicanor to treat with Judas Maccabeus
when he invaded Palestine in B.c. 161 (2 Mae
1419). Negotiations on the part of Nicanor are
mentioned also in 1 Mae 7°71, but it is there stated
that they were immediately broken off by Judas,
who discovered that they were only a treacherous
device for vetting possession of his person. 7. The
son of Amos in the genealogy of Jesus Christ
(Lk 3%). 8. The son of Semein (AV Semei) in the
same genealogy (Lk 3”). H. A. WHITE.

MATTATTAH (nanz).— One of the sons of
Hashum, whe had married a foreign wife, Ezr
105} (B Add, A Μαθθαθά), called in 1 Es 9 Matta-
thias.

MATTENAI (37>).—1. 2. Two of those who had
married foreign wives, Ezr 16° (B Μαθανιά, A Mad-
davai, called in 1 Es 999 Maltanneus), v.°7(B Maéavay,
A Μαθθαναί, combined in 1 Es 9% with the pre-
ceding Mattaniah into Mamnitanemus). 3. Repre-
sentative of the priestly house of Joiarib in the
days of Joiakim, Neh 12 (BS* A om., N° * ΤῈ zie
Maééavat).

MATTER.—In Sir 28 ‘matter’ is used where
we should now use ‘material’ instead, ‘As the

(March 1895, p. 136 ff.) Budde argues that Mattanah is not a
proper name at all, but that the song should end—

“With the sceptre, with their staves,

Out of the desert a gift’ ;
and then v.19 resume ‘and from Beer (LXX ἀπὸ φρέατος) to
Nahaliel.’ See also Expos. Times, vi. (1895) p. 481 f.

matter of the fire is, so it burneth? (κατὰ τὴν ὕλην
τοῦ πυρὸς, RV ‘As is the fuel of the fire’). Cf.
Chaucer, Persones Tale, § 8, ‘But for your sinne
ye been woxen thral and foul, and members of the
feend, hate of aungels, sclaundre of holy chirche,
and fode of the false serpent, perpetuel matere of
the fyr of helle’ ; and Bacon’s Essays (Gold. ‘Preas.
ed. p. 57), ‘The surest way to prevent Seditions,
(if the Times doe beare it,) is to take away the
Matter of them. For if there be Fuell prepared,
it is hard to tell, whence the Spark shall come,
that shall set it on fire.’ In Ja 3° the same Gr.
word (ὕλη) is tr? ‘matter,’ ‘Behold how great a
matter a little fire kindleth, but it is clear from
previous versions that the Eng. word means here
‘affair Coverdale’s tr. is ‘Beholde how gret a
thinge a lyttell fyre kyndleth’; the Gen. Bible
has the same with ‘matter’ in the mare., and the
Bishops place ‘matter’ in the text. RV renders
‘Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small
a fire!’ marg. ‘how great a forest is kindled’ ;
this is very near Wycelif’s ‘Lo! hou miche fijr
kyndlith hou greete a wode,’ after Vule. Lece
quintus ignis quam maqnam syleam incendit.

For the phrase ‘ Make matter’ see under MAKE ;
and add this illustration from Tindale (}Vorks, 1.
169), ‘Let this little flock be bold therefore: for if
God be on our side, What matter maketh it who be
against us?’ J. HASTINGS.

MATTHAN (Maéédv). —Grandfather of Joseph
the husband of Mary, Mt 1%, perhaps to be
identified with Matthat, who occupies the same
place in St. Luke’s genealogy of our Lord (Lk 3”).

MATTHANIAS.—1. (A Ματθανίας, B Ματάν), 1 Es
927 — MATYTANIAH, Ezr 1026, 2, (A Ματθανίας, B Beo-
κασπασμύς, AV Mathanias), 1 Es 951- MATTANIAH,
Ez 10".

MATTHAT (Maéédr).—1. Grandfather of Joseph
the husband of Mary, Lk 3%, perhaps to be identi-
fied with Matthan, who occupies the same place
in St. Matthew’s genealogy of our Lord (Mt 115).
2. Another ancestor of Jesus, Lk 8359,

MATTHEW, APOSTLE (ΛἸαθθαῖος, Lachm. Tisch.
Treg. WH ; Ματθαῖος TR).—Matthew's place in the
Apostolic list is not quite constant, varying be-
tween seventh and eighth, and so affecting the
station assigned to Thomas (in the Synoptics ; in
Ac 118. Bartholomew). His position in Mk, Mt,
and Lk, viz. seventh, must give his standing in the
original apostolic circle, as reflected in St. Peter’s
mind. He is called in Mt 10° ‘the customs-officer ’
(ὁ τελώνης). and is thus identified with the Matthew
of 99 (ef. Mk 24, Lk 5°"), called while sitting ‘at the
toll-office’ near Capernaum, on the Great West
Road from Damascus to the Mediterranean. St.
Mark styles this servant of the tetrarch Herod,
‘Levi the son of Alpheus’; but that does not bar
the identification. For there is analogy for even
two Hebraic names, both outside (Jos. At. ΧΥ ΠῚ.
ii. 2, "lwo ὁ καὶ Καϊάφας) and within the apostolic
circle. And it is likely that, as with Simon
Cephas, Matthew was the later name, given after
hiscall. This fits its probable meaning, ‘Jehovah’s
vift Matthew, then, was the name by which this
apostle became known in Christian circles ; and by
it even St. Mark indicates him in his official list,
while giving his call with strict historic fidelity.
So Thomas is ‘Judas Thomas’ in Acta Thome ;
and Bartholomew was perhaps Nathanael’s usual
Christian name. On the forms and meaning of
the name Matthew see, further, Dalman, p. 142.

Several things seem implied in this call οὗ
Matthew. He must already have been familiar
with Jesus and His gospel as preached in Caper

296 MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

nam (for there is no sign that he, like the first
six apostles, had been an adherent of the Baptist) ;
and the feast which he gave in honour of Jesus
(Mk 2148.) probably marked the new relationship.
Finally, while we cannot date his call with pre-
cision, Pharisaic suspicion was already awake ; so
that his call and consequent experience οὐ his
Master’s ministry can hardly go back to the very
earliest days (this bears on the next art.).

The only other facts related of Matthew on good
authority concern him as evangelist. fusebius
(HE iit, 24) says that he, like John, wrote only
under the stress of necessity. ‘ For Matthew, after
preaching to Hebrews, when about to go also to
others, committed to writing in his native tongue
the Gospel that bears his name; and so by his
writing supplied, to those whom he was leaving, the
loss of his presence.’ The value of this tradition
can be decided only after considering the Gospel
itself. No historical use can be made οὐ the
artificial story in Savhedr. 458, that Matthew was
condemned to death by a Jewish court (see Laible,
Christin the Talmud, ed, Streane, 71 ff.); especially
in face of Heracleon’s explicit denial of martyrdom
in his case (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 9). Refer-
ences to him in apoeryphal sources are specially
doubtful on account of the easy confusion between
Matthew and Matthias, to whom gnostic Para-
doseis were attributed (e.g. Clem. Pied. ii. 16).
See, turther, the following article.

J Vi DART ΤΗΝ:
**MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF.—
i, External Evidence of Authorship, ete.
ii. Internal Data and Characteristies.
(7) OT Quotations.
(4) Chs, 1-2,
(c) The Sources :
(1) The Logéa : (a) Sermon on the Mount : (8) the
Disciple Discourse, ch. 10; (y) the Parables
of ch. 15; (6) the Discourse in ch, 1s;
(e) the later Parables.
(2) Mt’s relation to Mk.
(7) The setting of the Sermon on the Mount.
(e) Artificial grouping in chs. s-9.
(7) Modifications in the narrative of the Passion and
Ἢ the Resurrection.
(7) Eschatological standpoint and date.
(4) The Genealogy,
iii. Conclusions :
(1) Mt used the Petrine memoirs written by Mk.
(2) Mt and Lk probably did not use in common a
Logia document.
(3) The Logia as found in our Mt are largely coloured
by the life of the Palestinian Church.
(4) Their nucleus is the common Apostolic didactic
tradition, but with
Matthew.
(5) Matthew is only indirectly the author of our Mt.
(6) Mt was written to establish a true Messianic ideal.
(τ) It was probably written in S. Syria, and certainly
by a Jew: its standpoint.
(5) Concluding remarks.
Literature.

i. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP, ETC,
—Referring the reader to the article GOSPELS for
the outlines of the Synoptie problem, we have here
to investigate the specific features and origin of
the Gospel which bears the name of Matthew.
tiven were the title in our oldest authorities,
* According to Matthew’ (κατὰ Mad@aiov), to be held
original, it need not imply more than that. this
written Gospel contains the substance of the oral
Gospel as taught by Matthew. Nor is the matter
carried much further by the words of Papias
(Eus. ΠῚ iii. 39), that ‘ Matthew, then, in Hebrew
speech compiled the Logia ; while they were inter-
preted by each man according to his ability.’ For
(1) it may be taken as proved that our Mt is not a
translation from Hebrew or Aramaic ; (2) it is im-
probable that the Logia or ‘Oracles’? of the Lord,
giving all due latitude to the term logion, included
anything like as much narrative as does our Mt;
(3) tradition is apt to transform indirect into direct
authorsnip. Matthew’s connexion, then, even with

the special impress of

the first collection of Christ’s sayings (Logia) may
have been simply that of their guarantor in the
region in which they were reduced to writing, just
as Mark’s Gospel might have been called“ aceord-
ing to Peter,’ or ‘Peter’s memoirs’ (ἀπομνημονεύματα"
—to use the actual words of Justin. If it was a
disciple of Matthew, corresponding to John Mark.
who actually redacted the oral instruction in
question, it would best fit what we know οὗ the
literary habits of the first generation; and the
difference would be little more than formal.

The external evidence as to a written Gospel by
Matthew resolves itself into the witness of Papias
(6. 110-125) ;* for upon him later writers depend
for all save traditions too vague to be trusted in
such a case. Various views, however, are taken
of Papias’ meaning. The only safe mode of
approach is through a careful study of his motive
in referring to Matthew at all. Eusebius, to whom
we owe our quotations, begins by saying that
Papias compiled five books of ‘Exposition of Say-
ings of the Lord? (λογίων Κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεως). He
then challenges Ireneus’ statement that Papias
had been a hearer of John the apostle; and. to
prove his point quotes Papias’ preface to his work.
From this we gather that, in order to youech for
the truth of his expositions of the above Sayings
(διαβεβαιούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀλήθειαν). he subjoined to
his own interpretations (ταῖς ἑρμηνείαις) ἃ number
of primitive traditions, carefully gathered) from
‘the Elders,’ and of which he had taken special
note (ὅσα ποτὲ mapa τῶν πρεσβυτέρων [ i.e. men of the
former, here the first. generation] καλῶς ἔμαθον x.
καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα). He was anxious, that is, to
show that his views of the Gospel, unlike those of
many who were glib in giving their opinions on
the subject, were formed under the influence οἱ
first-hand traditions, running back, as he believed,
to the Lord Himself. These, moreover, were sup-
plemented by the best sort of second-hand inquiry,
made of companions of the first witnesses, ie.
certain apostles now dead, but also of two apos-
tolic men, Aristion and John the Elder, personal
disciples of the Lord. still alive in his youth,
From these sources he had got his best understand-
ing of the Lord’s deep sayings, namely, from oral
tradition continued in living men, and not from
books (i.e. probably written gospels, rather than
exegetical writings of any kind),

His whole interest, then, is in the true inter-
pretation of certain sayings of the Lord, embody -
ing the genuine Gospel. But he wishes also. to
make clear to his readers the source whence came
the Logia or Sayings themselves on which he
commented.+ He has found, he seems to say,
Matthew’s collection of these Logia preferable to
any other. For as an ordered body (σύνταξις) of the
Lord’s Sayings,—with which alone his comments
had to do,—Mark’s Gospel was not its equal. But,
after all, Matthew had compiled these Sayings in
Aramaic before Papias’ own day; and at that
time each man had had to interpret them as best
he could, @e. for the most part without the rare
advantages to which VPapias could appeal in his
own case.t In a word, his call to write his ‘ Ex-
positions’ lay in the absence of any written body

* A later date for Papias’ work is too readily assumed.
Eusebius (/// iii. 87) reckons him in ‘the first line of succession
(διαδοχήν. from the apostles,’ through whose writings the tradi
tion of apostolic teaching lived on, He then names Tenatus
and Clement as cases, and proceeds at once to Papias. The next
book opens with Trajan’s latter-years, later than which Ens
does not seem to place Papias’ work ; while Polycarp he names
after Justin.

+ Euseb, does not necessarily give us the extracts in. the
order in which they came in Papias’ preface. The statement,
‘M., then, in Hebrew speech compiled the Logia: but as for
their interpretation, each did as best he could,’ may well have
led up to the reference to his own ‘4nterpretations.’

+ Comp. Irenwus, Pr@f., of men in his own day, ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες

τα λόγια Κυρίου, ἐξηγηταὶ κακτὶ τῶν καλῶς εἰρημένων πενόμενος.

**Conuriaht, 1900, by Charles Scribner's Sons

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

GOSPEL OF

MATTHEW, 297

of authorized interpretations of the Logéa in detail
(αὐτά). So had it been at first, so was it still;
while the need, in an age of wild speculation, was
greater than ever.

Zabn and others find Papias’ emphasis to lie on the Semitic
form of Matthew's work, But then we should expect this to be
brought out by a contrast, Sin Greek,’ in the antithetical clause,
In its absence the quotation: seems motived by Papias’ main
idea of right ‘interpretation (ἡρμήνευσε follows immediately
On συνεγράψιατο). Further, for Papias’ use of ‘interpret,’ his
reference to his own ‘interpretations Ὁ (ἑρμηνεῖαι) outweighs his
use of ἑρμηνευτής in another context, where he is citing another's
words. Finally, according to Zabn’s view, Papias should go
on to say how a Greck edition of the Aramaic Mt finally arose.
But, to judge by Eus.’s silence, he did nothing of the kind.
He knew a Greek Mt; he knew of Aramaic Logi current in
Matthew's name; and he assumed the Greek Gospel to be a
version of an original Aramaic writing by the apostle.

Thus, according to Papias’ own personal belief,
Matthew had indeed written down the Logia.
But he had left no written interpretation of their

meaning. The result was a divergence of views as
to the Lord’s teachings which VPapias deplores,

and which he seeks to rectify by aid of traditions
which had reached him from Matthew and other
disciples of the Lord.

So far, then, external evidence to the connexion
of Matthew with our Greek Gospel is slender.
Papias dnaplies, no doubt, that the apostle wrote,
and that in Aramaic. But what he is asserting is
neither the one nor the other, but rather the fact
that the Matthean Logia were at first left to
chance interpretation. As to Papias’ implication
that Matthew actually wrote out in Aramaic the
Sayings of the Lord, its worth is doubtful. Against
it stands the weighty witness of St. Luke (1!),
who seems to know of no narrative of the matters
on which Christian faith had assured hold drawn
ap by an eye-witness. The force of this can hardly
be turned by saying that his word διήγησις suggests
narrative, rather than a collection of Sayings.*
To say the least, St. Luke would surely have con-
structed his careful paragraph otherwise had he
known of—much more intended to use—a writing
by an apostle embodying Christ’s own sayings.

The strange divergence of the Lovian elements in Mt and Lk
respectively seems inconsistent with a common written basis.
Thus, if one still suspects positive tradition to lie behind Papias’
reference to Matthew as having written the Logia, it must be
conceded that Lk at least had not access to it. And even as
to our Mt, it seems casier to suppose that it incorporates the
composite catechesis of a locality, than that it blends so much
pure local tradition with the written Logi of Matthew (see iii.
(2) ete. below). The meagreness of the historic setting of the
Logia common to Mt and Lk may be gauged from Mt 112-=Lk
T1835 1 (12-16. 21, 5

Before leaving St. Luke, however,
remark that he also uses much

one may
matter which, as

found also in Mt, may well go back to the Apostle |

Matthew in some form ;
found it for the most part already in its present
historical setting (e.g. in Lk 991-1814)
differs widely from that in which the like sayings
occur in Mt. But no early work, such as Luke’s
‘special source,’ would have departed far from a
setting provided in an apostle’s work. Hence the
Apostle Matthew did not give the Logia such a
setting: and it has to be seen whether even the
Logia themselves as used by our first evangelist
owed their exact form to an apostle at all, rather
than to oral tradition starting from Matthew’s
teaching. For that Matthew had some hand in
shaping the Logia in question seems certain from
the mere fact that to him, quite an obscure apostle,
tradition uniformly and in all circles assigns our
first Gospel. On the other hand, the variety of
Gospels which in the 2nd cent. claimed to
represent the Apostle Matthew—our Mt and _ the
two forms of the ‘Gospel according to the He-

* In Sir (35 διήγησις θεία is μὲ arallel to παροιμίαι συνέσεως:

and in 915 we get πᾶσα διήγ. σον ἐν νόμῳ Ὑψίστου. Cf, Eus. WL
iii. 39. 12-14,

only, he seems to have |

This setting ,

᾿

brews " *—

along with the lack of any trace of a
common Matthwan document in Aramaic or Greek,
suggests that all that really belonged to the apostle
was a type of oral teaching. In that case our Mt
would be related to the apostle much as Mk is
related to St. Peter; and the difference in their
titles may simply mean that Mark was a well-
known apostolic disciple, whereas the name of the
author of the Mattheean Gospel was early forgotten,
Then posterity, fixing instead on the ultimate source
of its tradition, would call the work κατὰ Μαθθαῖον."
ii. INTERNAL DATA AND CHARACTERISTICS—

General ground-plan—
i. Messiah’s person, 1-2.
τε ΠῚ reparation for Messianic ministry, 3-411,
iii, Ministry in Galilee, 41-16
(Introductory, 412-25 ‘typical words, 5-7
deeds, S-084; > expansion by delegation, 958-10:
Messiah's own estimate of His ministry, 11: attitude
of different classes and typical persons, 12- 1520),
iv. Moving towards crisis αὖ Jerusalem, 162!-2s
S81_16),

tv pical

(=ME

(a) OT Quotations.—In this inquiry welcome aid
would seem to offer itself in’ the phenomena of
biblical quotation, This has two aspeets—a formal
and a material. The formal relates to the text
used, whether Hebrew or Greek (or even that of the
vernacular paraphrase or Targuin accompanying
the reading of the Hebrew O'T in the synagogue);
and, if Greek, to the local variety of LXX text
implied. The material aspect concerns the mode
of thought reflected in the formula of citation, and
the degree to which the evangelist’s purpose shines
through his use of the words or even modifies what
he remembers and writes.’

Formally, then, the quotations in passages
peculiar to Mt diverge from the LXX far more
than those in parts common to it with Mk or Lk
or both. This is specially the case with quotations
introduced by the evangelist himself in comments
signalizing ‘fulfilment ? (πληρωθῆναι) of prophecy.
These are ten in number (128 215. 18. 29 41st. B17 ὙΠ τῶ
138 215 27%); and of the words composing the
citations nearly half do not σου in the LXX
equivalents. The significance of this is indubitable,
when we observe that in nineteen quotations com-
mon to Mt with at least one Synoptic, less than a
sixth of the words diverge from the LXX. In
other words, the homogeneity of our Mt, and so
any claim to be a simple version of an Aramaic Mt,
is at once disproved.

(b) Chapters 1-2.—Zalhn maintains that the first
verse of Mt is a title for the whole book, arguing
that βίβλος γενέσεως Cannot linguistically and by
LXX usage mean ‘genealogy’ or even ‘nativity,’
but only ‘history’? or ‘career.’ But as Ireneus
evidently thought otherwise (adv. Ter. 1Π1. xi. 11,
ef. frag. 27, ap. Harvey, li. 498, Dial. Tim. et Aq.
[see below, Ῥ. 305 ], where γενέσεις = γενεαλογίας. tol.
93 Τὸ et v°), one has only to prove the fitness of an
introductory section, to which v.t may serve as
opening. Thus it might refer to the nativity (ef.
Lk 1") and its attendant circumstances, including
the antecedents of the seed royal, arranged so as to
indicate three great moments in Israel’s fortunes
climax in David, anti-climax in the Exile, and the
moment of restored Davidie glory in Messiah. This
would be paralleled, not only in the three prefatory
chapters of Hosea, especially in the LXX (1? ἀρχὴ
λόγου Κυρίου ἐν ‘Qaje. .. 1] ἀκούσατε λόγον Κυρίου, υἱοὶ
Ἰσραήλ), but also in MK 1], taken as the first verse
of a prefatory account of the Forerunner’s ministry

* The idea that this in cither form was an enlarged edition
of the ‘Ur-Matthiius? rests only on the asstimption that the
Apostle Matthew was a Judaizer—an assumption improbable in
the case of any of the primitive apostles, who saw the Gospel
in its continuity with the prophets.

+ In this section, as in some others, the ‘Statistics and Obser-
vations * collected with scholarly care by Rev. Sir J.C. Hawkins,
in his Hore Synoplice (1599), have been of great service.

A ee ut

298 MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

(cf. Hosea, above). Further, since 155. ‘Now the
birth (γένεσις) of the Christ * was on this wise,’
seems to follow closely on the last clause of 117,
‘until the Christ, fourteen generations,’ and 11
sums up the gist of 1°! the whole of ch. 1 might
easily be subsumed under 1!. But it is better to
take βίβλος γενέσεως as ᾿ birth-roll,’ and see in 1/8
a fresh section; so also with ch. 2, which sets
forth certain prophesied corollaries of the birth of
Messiah (on the genealogy itself see below (h),
p. 302).

(6) The Sources.—(1) The Logia.— Here two
things must be borne in mind. In early days the
tradition of Jesus’ Savings ‘did not remain merely
personal reminiscence and communication, but
served the Church as law and doctrine, and was
accordingly put into the form of didactic pieces.’
‘ Again, this was done in a spirit and amid associa-
tions that prevented the rise of a binding letter’:
and hence we must be ready to recognize among the
Logia, along with the voice of the Chureh’s Lord,
echoes awakened in’ the Church’s experience.
These conditions have been stated, and applied to
the forms in which the Logia meet us in Mt and
Lk respectively, by Weizsiicker in particular, in
his Apostolic Age (Eng. tr. ii. 32 ff.); and his views
are largely utilized in what follows. The differ-
ence in style and standpoint between the Logia
groups in Mt and Lk is due to the differing history
of the Logian tradition in the apostolie Church.
The preoccupation amid which our Mt’s type of
Logia took proximate shape was ‘the secession of
the Church from Judaism and its authorities.
Thus did Jesus Himself oppose the Pharisaism and
the scribes of His time.’ So, too, the main lines of
our first Gospel reflect the practical wants of the
early days—‘the doctrines of righteousness, the
disciples’ vocation, the kingdom of God, the duties
of the society, the false system of the Jews and
Pharisees, the future of the kingdom of God.’
These answer to chs. 5-7. 10. 18. 18. 23-25, sections
in which the unity of the parts is didactic rather
than historical, kindred matter having gravitated
to each considerable nucleus by the exigencies of
memoriter instruction, That our evangelist was
already familiar with these sections as more or less
connected wholes, is probable from the formula
which he appends to each of them: καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε
ἐτέλεσεν 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς τοὺς Adyous τούτους (778 19! 261), or
Tas παραβολὰς ταύτας (13), OY διατάσσων τοῖς δώδεκα
μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ (111). Wetake, then, these didactic
sections of our Mt in order.

(a) The Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5-7.—Weiz-
sicker subjects this sermon, ‘a kind of catechism’
set in the forefront of this Gospel, to an analysis
which reveals its true nature as ‘a kind of code,
such as originated in and was designed for the
Chureh.’ This transformation of Christ’s teaching
into forms adapted to the religious use of disciples
was inevitable so long as the evangelic tradition was
a matter of catechesis, with a view to edification.
Indeed this fact witnesses to its vital hold on
Christians at a time when the Spirit was every-
thing and the letter little thought of, and so when
fresh applications of a principle laid down by the
Master could not in oral teaching be kept apart
from the germinal saying which had given them
birth in the Church’s mind. The question, then, is
here not so much one of the Lord’s ipsissima verba,
lying behind the Logéa used in our Gospel, as touch-
ing the nucleus of a sermon formed out of such
Logia which Mt expands.

Weizsiicker makes it consist of three sections originally inde-
pendent, as is seen from LK: viz. the new Christian law in

* The diverse orders, ‘ Jesus Christ’? (NCEKL a/. Pap. Oxyr.

(see. iii.) wey pt. syr. Ut arm. ath. Or.) and ‘Christ Jesus’ (B),

voint tu the originality of ‘the Christ’ (D ΤΙ, it. vg. syr, sin: cur.
ren.) ; cf, 117,

contrast to the existent legal usage of the scribes (521-48) ;
Christ’s estimate of the pious usages then in honour (alms,
prayers, fastings); and His reformation of them (61-18) and His
exposition of the higher life in contrast to division of heart
and care for the worldly life (6194), Secondary to these, even
as combined, he regards not only ch. 7—an appendix of seven
short sections supplementing and partly repeating the foregoing
(715, with its ‘false prophets which come to you in sheep’s cloth-
ing,’ being clearly a late touch)—but also the twofold introduction
in O12. 13-16, Now, that 515-16 is out of place one may justly infer
from Lk 1454f- 816 1188. But Lk also makes the Sermon open
with beatitudes, though less than half Mt’s number (which
seems filled out with OT phrases), and otherwise contradicts
Weizsiicker’s analysis. For this among other reasons, the
reconstruction of the Logian Sermop favoured by Weiss and
Wendt (with some divergences) is to be preferred. Yet even so,
one must not assume that the Sermon was known to Mt and Lk
in the same recension, Thus, while it is probable that Lk’s four
beatitudes (apart from the parallel woes, a secondary feature)
best represent the criginal apostolic Legian tradition (not
necessarily as Matthew taught it), it is clear that Luke knew the
Lord’s Prayer in another form from Mt’s, and that not as part
of the Sermon at all,

Allowing, then, for the different history of the
Logian tradition before it reached our Mt or
Luke, we may regard the following as ‘ Mattheean’
in substance :—Four beatitudes parallel to Lk
(53-4. 6.11f) > four revised readings of Mosaic mor-
ality as understood by the scribes—about murder,
adultery, retaliation, hatred of enemies (651-35
(24). 51Ὲ 38-40. 43-48) > three corrections of the Jewish
ideal of piety—alms, prayer, fasting (6115) ; *
four dangers of the higher life—earthly-minded-
ness, insincerity, a divided heart, carefulness for
things bodily—the remedy being absorption in the
Father’s kingdom (6!) ; + some more miscellane-
ous counsels (7), These last, most of all, owe
their combination to our evangelist, as they repeat
a good deal ; and in one ease (7!*), the Golden Rule
of duty towards one’s neighbour, a verse comes
more naturally in Lk (63!), earlier in the Sermon.
Yet the words on criticism and self-criticism (7),
Lk 6%. 4... on fruit as the test of goodness (716),
Lk 64-46), and the similitade which clinches the
whole Sermon (72427, Lk 64-45, come in fitly.t
Probably even this reconstruction leaves too much
in the Sermon for it really to have been spoken at
one time: it expects far more of men’s hearing
capacity than Jesus ever demanded. But it may
stand as representing the Matthwan didactic cate-
chism for the citizen of the Father’s kingdom, and
as suggesting the processes of further accretion
in later use, and of tinal compilation, which lie
between it and Mt 5-7.

(8) The Disciple Discourse, ch. 10,—The action
of local Church usage upon the tradition is also
implied in the specific disciple-discourse. This in
practical use must early have lost much of its
original restrictions, as intended for the guidance
of the Twelve in their first preaching by the side
of their Master’s own ministry (cf. Mk 915 16]
Thus in Lk it refers to the conduct of a large
circle of disciples who assisted Jesus in a similar
way ; and in either form it doubtless embodies
rules taught in the churches for the guidance of
all who acted as missionaries (‘apostles’ in the
larger sense, for which ‘evangelists’ became a
synonym). The words in Mt 1073 cannot have
been used of the original temporary mission :
‘When they persecute you in the one city, flee to
the other: for verily I say to you, ye shall not
finish the cities of Israel before the Son of Man
come.’ This must rather represent an early stage

* Each of these sections admits of further analysis: note
particularly the change from ‘ye’ to ‘thou’ (? of catechesis)
in each case. We cannot, of course, by such rough tests dis-
tinguish the teaching as original and derivative. But certainly
the Lord’s Prayer did not come originally in the Sermon (see
Lk 111). The backbone of Mt’s form of this section consists
of Gl: ὅ. 16,

+ Here, too, there may be later or editorial elements, v.54
in particular. But Lk’s divergent arrangement by no means
proves that these subjects were no part of the Matthwan Logia.

+ On the other hand, 76 (7-11). 22f- are out of place,

MATTHEW, QOSPEL OF

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF 299

of the Church’s echoed counsels to the Messianic
missionaries in general, on the lines laid down by
Jesus for His first disciples. | Weizsiicker sees in Mt
10°66) the original tradition as to the apostolic
mission, once current as an independent piece (cf.
Mk 67-38, Lk 9! 10711), and here given in a form
retaining the restricted scope of Christ’s own
earthly ministry—the form in which the Matthzan
Logia were current in our evangelist’s region. <A
secondary formation follows in the section on
persecution, which reflects the experience of the
Apostolic age at least as late as St. Paul’s trials
before Roman courts at Cwsarea. Its originally
detached character is shown by its appearing in
the eschatological discourse In Mk 1598, Lk 2112f,
where Mt faintly echoes Mk. Here, however, Mt
seems independent of Mk’s form, having points in
common with Lk’s ‘doublet’? (12!*), and being the
more original in its basis (apart from the evan-
gelist’s own colouring). ‘These two sections Weiz-
sicker calls ‘the fundamental law for the mission-
ary activity of the Church.’ He adds that they
were naturally extended by analogous sayings, like
Mt 10° (many of which are clearly misplaced, see
Lik 12*%.91-33 ]4--7) either by Mt or in the tradi-
tional form under which he was wont to teach the
Matthiwan Logia.

(y) The Parables of ch. 13. ables,
where Mt’s love of the number seven (ef. the double
sevens of the genealogy) attracts our attention,
it appears that all three evangelists possessed
collections of parables, beginning with ‘ the funda-
mental parable,’ the Sower. ΤῸ this main parable
there were two types of sequel: one as in Mk and
Lk, where it is combined with the simile of the
Lamp, whereby Jesus explained to the disciples
(in the actual course of events) the function of
parable as a test of hearers’ receptivity ; the other,
as in Mt, where it is followed didactically by other
parables more or less related in thought. These
appear to come from different sources. The pen-
dent parable (to the Sower) of the Wheat and
Tares has a peculiar opening, ὡμοιώθη 7 Bac., Which
recurs in parables in 1823 222, and may point to
the three having been once a didactic whole, re-
presenting a late stage of Logian teaching. On
the other hand, the remaining five begin with
ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ Bao., probably the usual opening in
parabolic collections.*

Weizsiicker’s ‘reflexions’ deserve attention. Viewing the
Wheat and ‘Tares as a later supplement to the Sower, he says :
‘From the very nature of this form of instruction, the discus-
sion of one parabie leads naturally to the invention of others:
interpretations develop into fresh parabolic material.’ Thus this
parable reflects ‘an experience from the life of the Church,’
which may be the case also with the Drag-net and some others.
But ‘in any case the collection gives us an insight, not only
into the way in which the tradition operated, but also into the
metnod of editing passages for definite didactic purposes.’ — Its
object is to set forth notso much distinct commands, as ‘the
fruits of the teaching received, the perfection and divine nature
of the cause.’ It is, in any case, characteristic of Mt’s stand-
point that his first special parables—the Tares and the Leaven—

‘carry us involuntarily into the primitive Church. They found
their most direct use in the relations of that Church to the
nation.’

(6) The Discourse in ch. 18.—In the discourse on
the ‘little ones’ and fraternal treatment of all
brethren, even the least, Weizsiicker thinks 186
is an organic unity. ‘The whole refers to the
conduct of the disciples to each other: the sayings
teach the nature of their communion,’ even if some
took shape rather later than others. It seems a
proof of the general justice of these remarks that

* Weizsiicker thinks ἄλλην παραβολήν (1574-91-53) and πάλιν
(4-47) original parts of special collections. But they rather
show Mt’s compiling hand. He also thinks that the reflexions
in 1384f-, coming in the middle of things, must be due to a
source used. But against this must be set Mt’s favourite
formula in v.35a, 116. inserts them from Mk and practically
where Mk has them. Then he returns to explain the Wheat
and Tares, and adds other parables,

the parable of the Lost Sheep, which Lk gives as
an apology fcr Jesus’ own attitude to outcasts,
came to Mt as a lesson for believers, in relation
ἡ Κατ to converts from among such ‘little
ones’ of society. It had lost its original appli-
cation and gained another in the Church’s life.
Moreover, already in 18% Mt has made humility the
note of the kingdom, in place of the spirit which
thinks of ‘ greater? and ‘lesser’? among brethren,
Kach must be ready to sink all ‘superiority.’ to re-
ceive even a young child on the ground of Christ’s
name, and to avoid wounding the feelings of the
humblest believer—one of no more account than a
child (cf. Mk 9#f). Hence, however much our Mt
may be influenced in the wording of 18! %-6.5f Dy
Mk 988-87.#47, yet his mind is already filled with
a Logian piece of didactic which asserts itself both
in idea and in phrasing, as well asin 1836 asa whole:
‘The intention of its original form’ shines through ;
and ‘the apostles are thought of as patterns for
the Church.’

(e) The later Parables.—Similarly the three par-
ables of 21°°-22, centring in that of the Vineyard
common to the Synoptics, define the Church’s rela-
tions to Judaism. In the first two of these parables
we get the phrase ἡ Bac. τοῦ θεοῦ, so rare in Mt, and
perhaps a mark of the later stratum in its Logia.

In 122% the phrase may be due to parallelism with ἐν mvev-
ματι θεοῦ in 258; and in 1924 it seems to come from Mk 1624,
In 2151. #8, however, we can only suppose that this Hellenistic
or un-Hebraic expression (so Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 155) marks
the secondary, rather than Matthwan, element in the tradition
reflected in Mt, to whose own usage ἡ Bao. τῶν οὐρανῶν can by
no means be exclusively traced.

The parable of the Marriage Feast is partly
paralleled by Lk 144, and is an old) Logian ele-
ment which has undergone change in two lines of
tradition. Mt seems to have it in a late form;
for it has gained an appendix, on the Wedding:
garment and. the fewness of those who respond and
are elect. And even the part parallel to Lk adds
the feature of insult and death visited on the
king’s messengers, resulting in vengeance on the
murderers and their city—surely an echo of the
experiences and expectations of the later apostolic
age, though not necessarily after, rather than
just before A.D. 70 (cf. Mk 129-19, Lk 201618) Mt
214-4 for the like as already foretold in prophecy).
We shall return to the subjeet in discussing Mt’s
date. Meantime this impression of the absolute
rejection of the national religious system is con-
firmed by the great anti-Pharisaic discourse in ch.
23—an exce ent ‘ase of didactic compilation, the
bulk at least of which our Mt found ready to
his hand, though the seven distinct Woes may
betray his schematismm. We must now turn aside,
for the moment, to consider the other chief factor
of Mt, the narrative sections parallel to Mk.

(2) Mts relation to Mk.—To begin with asimple
case, namely one which involves no other connected
source like the Logia, Christ’s walking on the sea
may be taken (Mt 14°, Mk 6#t). Here we observe
slight omissions—av’rotv (followed by addition of
αὐτόν). τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαιδάν, αὐτός ; insertions—
κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, μαθηταί (to Compensate for αὐτούς in ἃ
clause omitted), ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου ἔκραξαν in place of
ἀνέκραξαν, [ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς } ; use of favourite forms of a
word—rovs ὄχλους for τὸν ὄχλον, ἀνέβη tor ἀπῆλθεν ;
changes in construction—i.e. ἕως οὗ ἀπολύσῃ for
ἕως. . . ἀπολύει, ὑπὸ τ. κυμάτων for ἐν τῷ ἐλαύνειν,
τετάρτῃ φυλακῇ for περὶ TET. φυλακήν, ἦλθεν for ἔρχεται,
περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τήν (ct. 39, only Mt) for ἐπὶ τῆς, λέγων
for κ. Aéyer—Sometimes involving transposition of
a word, like ἐταράχθησαν (λέγοντες, κιτ.λ.} in 25;
paraphrase—%5n σταδίους πολλοὺς ἀπὸ γῆς ἀπεῖχεν for
ἐν μέσῳ τ. θαλάσσης ; OMission of ἃ cClause—x. ἤθελεν
παρελθεῖν αὐτούς, Mk 64>, πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον, 5a,

In the general result’ Mt’s Greek is smoother
and better ΣΉΝ Mk’s, though less vivid ; also the

ee]

300 MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

changes appear for the most part involuntary,
due to memoriter rewriting of section by section
after perusal, rather than to line for line copying.*
This less mechanical conception of the process by
which Mk passes into Mt is not only most likely,
but helps to explain much elsewhere. In fact it
secures the advantages claimed for the purely
oral theory, without sacrificing what gives to the
documentary theory its strength. The section
affords other lessons. Peter’s walking on the
water (31) is an insertion from tradition,t and
points to a factor which must be reckoned with
throughout, e.g. in 27°86 281}, as also in relation
tothe parables peculiar to Mt. And, finally, the
description of the effect upon the disciples’? minds
is put ina different form from Mk—one reflecting
less upon their slowness of heart and pointing
more directly the moral of this Gospel (v.33, ef. 1016
2754), The phrase full of adoration, ‘Truly thou
art Son of God,’ is here anachronistic in view of
16%f, Mk 829 These various points might be
illustrated from the next few sections. But space
forbids; and so we tum to apply our principles to
the parts where Logia and Mk may be thought to
blend.

(d) Setting of the Sermon on the Mount.—Mt 43—
51 is crucial for the evangelist’s methods. Is his
relation to Mk here determined by other narrative
material, oral or written, or simply by his own
plan for the use of his didactic or Logian matter ?

Historically arbitrary as the latter hypothesis
would argue Mt’s eclectic use of Mk to be, it is
yet probably correct. For in fact all close study
of Mt shows its historic interest to be quite sub-
ordinate to the interpretative, the setting forth in
orderly fashion of the salient features of Messiah's
activity and teaching. Here, then, Mt*s prime
eare is to find a fit point of contact with the
traditional narrative—oft which Mk is the form
before him—for the general Sermon on the king-
dom. As it stood in the forefront of the Logian
tradition, so should it stand in a full written
Gospel as Mt conevived it. Starting from Mk 153
(Mt 7256), he readapted Mk 3, where Jesus ‘ascends
the mountain’ in order to associate with Himself an
inner circle of disciples; assuming that such a eall
would imply a prior formal exposition of the
nature of the new kingdom. And so far he may
have followed tradition—a tradition, too, which
knew of a discourse on a mountain. But, this
identification once adopted, Mt carried out his use
ot Mk with great freedom.

The whole of Mk 315 influenees Mt δὲ. Not only does Jesus
ascend ‘¢#¢ mountain,’? though no special locality is in question ;
but the reference to disciples as coming to Him creates some
obscurity touching the persons addressed in the Sermon. Mt
has just referred to ‘the crowds’? ; and at the end we hear of its
effect, not on disciples, but on these same crowds. Hence,
apart from the form in which the Sermon is cast (perhaps mainly
that of current Log/an catechesis ; contrast Lk 050. where the
diseiples are first addressed, and then hearers in general, 77),
we have the blending of Mk’s context with that which Mt has
just created for himself. For with the hint supplied by Mt δ᾽ in
relation to Mk 81, we ean hardly fail to see in Mt 4%5-9 a mosaic
of Marean situations and expressions, generalized in order to set
forth the earlier activity of Jesus in word and deed—the pre-
supposition of ‘the crowds’ present at the Sermon, Similarly,
the eall of disciples had been hinted at by the typical cases

* That renewed reference was sometimes made, seems proved
by Mt’s reversion to Mk’s περιπατεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης. in 269,
after writing automatically περ. ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν. his own con-
struction (ef. ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα inf), For a parallel, compare the
freer parts of Codex Bezie.

+ As such it gives a good specimen of Mt’s style when free to
follow its own literary form. Note ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν [Mk 5 times,
generally ἀποκ. λέγει } common in Lk, and in Mt 14-25 (34 times),
where rewriting Mk, but rare in 3-13 (7 or 8 times), where
using Logia: hence not a Logian phrase : Jn ἀπεκρίθη]. ἀπὸ τοῦ
rAocov(ct. 315, Mk prefers ἐκ) καταποντίζεσθαι( Mt 1s8)oAryomvatos
(S25 168), διστάζειν (2517), and κύριε in later religious sense (cf. Lk).
It shows also the easy way in which an insertion may blend with
the Marean context, 7.¢. ἀναβάντων αὐτῶν for ἀνέβη (πρὸς αὐτούς).
Note κελεύειν (1428, οΓ. 9. 19) never in Mk, once only in Lk (1599).

borrowed from Mk in 18:33 The artificial nature of 346. is clear
from the fact that no little lapse of time is implied in the going
forth of Jesus’ fame ‘into the whole of Syria’ and the gathering
of crowds from Decapolis and Judiwa and bevond Jordan—
features natural in Mk’s later context (87, Lk 617), but not in
Mt, if it were meant to be chronological. Similarly 423 is based
on Mk 189 66, with 128 for starting-point (just as 122 is used at
the end of the Sermon in 138); and 9% repeats the borrowing
when Mt gets really parallel to Mk 66, Ι

The fact that both in 433 and 3: there are echoes
of more than one passage in Mk, suggests that
our Mt was so familiar with the latter as to
combine his phrases in memory without ἃ full
sense of their actual position in Mk’s narrative.
And this is confirmed by the fact that these verses
appear quite in Mt’s style. But in any case Mt’s
generalizing use of Mk seems clear (so 816 1580-81),
and is illustrated by our next paragraph.

(e) Artificial grouping in 8-9,—In 5-7 Mt has
been drawing on his prime Zogian source. In
7b he returns to Mk (132) with ἐξεπλήσσοντο (οἱ
ὄχλοι) ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὑτοῦ" ἦν yap διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ws
ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς (αὐτῶν). He
thus draws attention to the authority of Jesus’
manner of teaching, and then proceeds to show
how this Messianic mien extended to His action
and attitude towards nen. In fact the series of
works and words of power which follow, fulfils
the second part of the forecast in 423. © Once more
we get the broad, vague background of ὄχλοι
πολλοί (cf. 455); and then the cleansing of the leper
(Mk 14°) is introduced with an abrupt καὶ ἰδού.

Thus he the deliverance of the man with an
unclean spirit (Mk 155-38). since he has already used the im-
pression produced by it, ἡ ἀκοή (φήμη is Mt’s own word $26), in
his general description in 4 This omission was the easier
that the story has much in common with the fuller Gadarene
incident which he is about to use shortly (s23%— Mk OUP), But
why does he take Mk 14° before 2&2? Partly perhaps because
it contains words of respect for Moses in keeping with 51, and
partly because in Mk the healing of the leper comes between a
reference to a general ministry in Galilee (18%), in which Mt sees
the continuation of his own πῆς and an entry into Capernaum,

passes over
28

Mt is not concerned with tenrporal sequence,
but tries to preserve local conditions. | Hence he
goes on with something which had come to hin
connected with Capernaum (8°, cf. Lk 7!). In the
healing of the centurion’s servant (παῖς, Lk δοῦλος)
the interest centres in the dialogue: and the story
may have come in the Logia just after the Sermon
(as in Lk [or his special source, ef. 9°! ], who has
already used Mk’s material right up to the with-
drawal with disciples to the mountain).

To Mt it had special value here as introducing the idea of
authority (ἐξουσίαν. which the centurion implicitly recognizes as
on the side of Jesus (89). Vy. 11. 15 are attached by logical
atlinity (Y already so in Logia tradition in Mt’s region, against
Lk 1328), and serve to justify Gentile faithin Mt’s day. Then,
at last, he returns to the thread of Mk 1°84 (65-58 illustrates
nothing that is to his purpose). The healing of Peter’s mother-
in-law becomes a mere typical case, one of a class, like the many
referred to iny.1, This verse summarizes Mk 4 with some
characteristic changes (e.g. demoniacal possession is put first
as marking authority), and is followed by the citation of pro-
pheey with Mt’s usual formula of * fulfilment.’

The next step is more obscure; but the link
seems to be a similarity of occasion (to which
time is subordinated). As the last event was ὀψίας
γενομένης (M=Mk 1), so he subjoins another
evening scene (Mk 435. ὀψίας yev., Jesus saith
Διέλθωμεν εἰς TO πέραν" K. ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον... ).
The motive of departure, too, comes from Mk’s con-
text,* (adv δὲ ὁ 1. ὄχλον περὶ αὐτὸν ἐκέλευσεν ἀπελθεῖν
εἰς τὸ πέραν. The episode of the two aspirants to
discipleship, which intervenes, needs some special
reason for its position; it comes in very abruptly.
It is otherwise placed in Lk (9°), at a later part
of the ministry, and rightly. But this does not

* This is a crucial case of Mt’s use of Mk. For whereas the
sing. ὄχλος is Mk’s regular form (33 to 1), Mt prefers ὄχλοι (25
times, ὄχλοι πολλοί 5, ὄχλος 19, generally parallel to Mk): and the
foregoing context would suggest ὄχλοι (cf. v.1) or at any rate τὸν
ὄχλον.

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

MATTHEW, GOSPEL

OF 301

hinder its having stood in local catechesis after the
Sermon, as logically akin, viz. as affording a typical
case of response to the Master’s call to disciple-
ship :
so stood.
tion, that marked the Son-of Man (esp. 22). From
v.23 to the end of ch. 8 Mt follows Mk 5, the only
points calling for note being the softening down of
the disciples’ alarm and surprise in the storm (ὀλιγό-
πιστοι ANd of δὲ ἄνθρωποι), the substitution of the

more familiar Gadarene region for the obscure
Gerasene (ée of Kersa, a village on the lake's
edge), and the fresh reading of the demoniac

incident by which Mt follows the plurals in’ the
dialogue (ον. Mi?s παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες) to
the ignoring of the sing. of Mk’s narrative. It is
possible that this reading had already in. oral
tradition generated the δύο δαιμονιζόμενοι, and that
Mt uses Mk in the light of the story as known to
him orally. Yet Mts general tendeney to duality
(ef. 208") is to be noted ; particularly the clear case
in 215: where his narrative is warped by words of
prophecy which he himself introduces with his own

formula, The divergences from Mk seem to be
quite in Mt’s own style.* The words with which

he returns to Mk 2!" are still coloured by Mk 5, καὶ
ἐμβὰς εἰς πλοῖον (MK 518) διεπέρασεν t (ib. 21, the verse
after which Mt resumes this section of Mk in 9:5}.
Capernaum is cailed τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν in terms of 41,
Once more, in the healing of the paralytic, the
note of authority is struck in both Gospels. In
99 Mt seems to show that his aim is to present a

series of typical scenes in their logical rather than (

strict historical connexion; for adopting Mk’s
Taptywy, appropriate to progress alone the lake's
margin, he uses it as a mere verb of motion by
inserting ἐκεῖθεν, ignoring the teaching on the
shore which comes in between. In the incident
itself it is interesting that he substitutes > Matthew?
(with Aeyouevoy, a favourite phrase), Levi's disciple-
name, for that by which he was known at the time
of his call: 1.6. his standpoint is less purely his-
torical than Mk’s. If in 94% Mt were not following
Mk, he would hardly have inserted the defence
against criticism at this point, but rather reserved
it for the later section devoted to the topie (121).
For the very next paragraph shows that he is still
dominated by the idea of the mighty deeds of Jesus.
He goes back, that is, to Mk 52: but Jhaving
already used the link of circumstance in v.2!, he
uses one belonging to a later stage of the incident
(Vv. ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος) and compresses the whole.

That Mt is here using Mk rather than a shorter source is
shown by (1) the mention of the duration of the wotan’s
malady, (2) the c incidence in ὄπισθεν, (3) the rather otiose καὶ
οἱ μαθπταὶ αὐτοῦ in ν.19 (secing that they “play no part in what
follows in Mt) due to Mk (vv.87 #9), (4) the fact that neither Mt nor
Lk really adds any fresh matter, so that their deviations in form
are to be put down to their style and aim.t Μὰ ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν
is a result of Compression; and the other turns of phrase and
additions are in Mt’s special manner,

The last two incidents of the section are ecom-

pilations of Mt completing the cyele of typical
healings. They have distinct echoes of Mk, as
also marks ot Mt’s own style; but possibly they

+ Nts ἰσχύειν seems due to ΜΚ ἔσχνεν, his ἦλθες to ΜΕΚΊΡΕ:
even μακρὰν an’ αὐτῶν may gloss πρὸς τῷ Oper. As the case is a

srucial one for the use of narratives assumed to exist in written
Rhee. one may refer also to the case of the demoniac boy (ΠτΉπος
Mk 9H) Lk 987) What there seems to exclude such Logia as
causing Met's abbreviation of Mk, is the sudden emergence of 70
δαιμόνιον (v.18), © asily explained by his knowledge of Mk, but not
a natural sequel of the description of the lad’s symptoms in ν 15,
If this be so, then that section affords eases of pure transposi-
tion by Mt (1, ef. Mk 2) 5 recurrent comment (1); a favourite
nee ἃ ΩΣ τὴν ὀλιγοπιστίαν, 5.) andafavourite word, θεραπεύειν
(15. 18

eek ‘he other case of this rare word, 1484. is also in Mk*s wake,

Ζ The mpog(eAbovaa) . . . τοῦ κρασπέδου common to Mtand Lk
might seem to need a literary link. But both regularly preter
προσέλθεῖν for ‘approach” (see Mt S%=Lk 855, cf. Lk W412 while
the addition of τοῦ «p. is a quite natural (οἵ, Mt 148%) explanatory
touch, Which may even come trom oral tradition,

and that Mt forces it in here suggests that it |
It illustrates the authority, even in isola-

|

| sial’s lot.

have also a traditional ie ΗΝ ἐμά in the
ease of the dumb demoniac, 2. 0 For though Lk
ΕἸ πον has the same in substance, yet the for
differs, especially if we omit v.3# as a later gloss,
as.do O.L., Syr-Sin., Tat. (see 1224).

Another view is possible, namely, that Lk 1f4f shows the
story of the possessed mute in its right place, so introducing the
dialdgue with Pharisees as to exorcism ovigin: illy in the Logie.
In that case Mt may use the incident twice: first, among
the works of power in 9, where the people's comment comes
from Mk 23 and next in 122m, tors the two incidents in
127-35 appear fused into one case as occasion of the people's
wonder, Which elicits the Pharisees” retort.

The cycle of typical Messianic deeds is now
complete: and Mt wishes to present Jesus in the
further aspect of authority shown in commission-
ing others to aid in gathering in the harvest of the
Kingdom. In so doing he omits for the present
(but see 13°) a few verses in Mk, and takes the
first words of his introduction to the Mission of
the ‘Twelve from Mk 6°, ΄. ὁ. καὶ περιῆγεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς
τὰς πύλεις πάσας κ. τὰς κύμας, διδάσκων. repeating
also the bulk of 459, his earlier programme ot Mes-
sianic ministry. Then he takes part of Mk 6%
(where Mt omits half the verse) and generalizes
the statement of Christ’s compassionate perception
of the people’s shepherdless condition, In 987 he
probably eniploys the opening words of the Logia
at this point (cf. Lk 105). and then follows Mk
once more in 102, repeating words used already in
425. 05) (θεραπεύειν πᾶσαν νόσον K. πῶσαν μαλακίαν).
The names of the Twelve are next given, without
any interest in the circumstances of their original

call (Mk 3), Indeed it is assumed that they
are already known. *

CT) Modifications tn the Passion and Resurrec-
tion narratives.—Most will agree with Dr. Salmon
that Mt 27 ‘copied the narrative as we find it in
St. Mark, interpolating in it different passages
founded on knowledge derived from some other
source.’ A word or two on such a source, or rather
sources. In the Institution of the Supper it is
likely that the slight differences in Mt are due
mainly to loeal Eucharistic use, the cause of Lk’s
inversion of the Bread and Cup (so the Didaché).
In the Crucifixion, on the other hand, the slight
divergences are due to the subtle reaction of

] certain details of OT prophecy—now seen to be

since suffering was included in Mes-
The influence of Ps 22 (whence came
Jesus’ great cry) is especially marked (as also in
Ero 23s. ck soy) Thus—

Mk ἐδίδουν αὐτῷ ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον.

Mt 27°! ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ πιεῖν οἶνον μετὰ χολῆ ς μεμιγ-

μένον.

Ps 69 (68) 7! ἔδωκαν.

μου ἐπότισάν με CEs.

Then, after the casting of the lots, Mt adds—

καὶ καθήμενοι ἐτήρουν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ,

Cf. Ps 22 (21) 15 αὐτοὶ δὲ κατενόησαν καὶ ἐπεῖδόν με. ἡ
And once more—

Mt 2748 (only) πέποιθεν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, ῥυσάσθω νῦν εἰ

θέλει αὐτόν.

Ps 22° ἤλπισεν ἐπὶ Κύριον, ῥυσάσθω αὐτὸν. ..

θέλει αὐτόν.

Such apologetic use of prophecy is yet more
obvious in 817 12") and it may have helped the
evangelist to his own faith in Jesus’? Messiahship ;
while the elaborative influence of the O'T is seen in
Mt’s Beatitudes as compared with Lk’s.

Probably the modifications of the Passion story

Messianic,

χολήν, kK. εἰς τὴν δίψαν

«

οτι

second of
(ρον. Ties,

* Similar analysis of 12-1629 may be seen in the
W.C. Allen's * Critical Studies in Mt’s Gospel’
March 1900),

+ Following on reference to the sufferer’s deadly thirst, and
the fact that many ‘dogs? or wicked ones encompass him and
pierce his hands ‘and feet ; while the next words are διεμερί-
σαντο Ta ἱμάτιά μον ἑαυτοῖς. Fiore Mk’s lancuage may already
have been coloured by this Ps. as also in the use of κινοῦντες τὰς
κεφαλάς: ch Ps 227 πάντες οἱ θεωροῦντές με ἐξεμυκτήρισαν Me,
ἐλάλησαν ἐν χείλεσιν, ἐκίνησαν κεφαλήν,

302 MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

were already part of Mt’s way of telling it, before
he sat down to write, and spontaneously reasserted
themselves, sometimes more, sometimes less de-
cisively, as he freely reproduced Mk. And this
may afford us a fresh analogy for the way in
which the general tradition of the Lord’s ministry,
already living in memory, modified the impressions
left by his perusal of Mk.

A good instance of this is the Resurrection,
where Mt’s narrative is modified by the story of
the Guard in the tradition known to him. Hence
the women come, not to anoint the body, but only
‘to behold the tomb’; and the influence of Mk,
if present at all, is very slight. There is no con-
sciousness that the women entered the sepulchre,
as in Mk; the fulfilment of Jesus’ word in his resur-
rection is emphasized (καθὼς εἶπεν, cf. 273) ; and so
the element of fear is overshadowed by joy. The
great fear, which is the note of Mk, has been toned
down in tradition by later feelings on the subject.
The rather indistinct account of the promised
Christophany to ‘the eleven disciples’ is part of
the generalizing style of oral tradition, where the
original facts are set in the light of their abiding
bearing on the Church’s life. The ‘authority’
which was largely veiled in Messiah’s earthly
ministry is now His chief note, shown in the
extension of the Kingdom to the Gentiles, and in
His abiding presence with His own during the days
between the Resurrection and the Parousia (note
silence as to Israel and the Law, in contrast to Mt
ΟΣ

(yg) Eschatological Standpoint and Date.—Here
the concluding Woes on the seribes and Pharisees
lead up to the Last Things.

2534-36) The blood of the Prophets will come on
them. This is fuller than Lk of colour from Pales-
tinian experiences, and of presage of the reckoning
imminent. The addition of ‘son of Barachiah’ (not
in Lk) quite possibly shows that Mt took certain
words in v.% as referring to events early in
A.D. 68 (found in Jos. BJ IV. v. 4)

23°99, Their house is deserted by the Divine
presence till they repent. This implicit reference
to the Parousia is here arbitrarily connected
(against Lk 114% 1346) with the judgment on
Jerusalem (see Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew,
Jewish, and Christian, p. 528).

241.2. Destruction of the temple (cf. Mk 13!f,
Ac G14),

248. Tokens of this and the Parousia.

The specification of the * Parousia’ (only in this chapter in the
Gospels) and the phrase συντέλεια τ᾿ αἰῶνος, found only in Mt (ef.
1389. 40.49 2520), Hoint to this being a special form in which this
discourse was quoted in Mt’s circle (see note below).

24:-ὸ The preliminary troubles * (ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων).

Clearly Lk is not entirely dependent on Mk. Nor does Mt
seem to be so in all parts of this discourse.

24°15, Trial (θλίψις) for Christians—

Vy.10-12 are peculiar in form (see below on 23:24 for affinity
with id, 163-4); and in their light v.° may also be recognized
as not altogether dependent on Mk, referring to Jewish
hatred, 55 to Gentile. What Mk has here, is partly in different

* These reproduce in general conception the 12 divisions or
elements in the Last Times as given in an Apocalypse em-
bedded in Apoc. Bar (27-301), and dating ὁ, 50-65 ‘a.p., ἔ.6.
before the Jewish War. They are in this order—(1) The
beginning of commotions; (2) slayings of the great ones;
(3) the fall of many by death; (4) the sending of desolation
(or ‘the sword’); (δ) famine; (6) earthquakes ; [(7) terrors] ;
(8) portents and incursion of the Shedim or demons; (9) the
fall of tire; (10) rapine and much oppression; (11) wickedness
and unchastity ; (12) confusion from the mingling together of
all these. There follows a reference to ‘the consummation of
the times.” In our Gospels we find these elements of popular
Jewish Messianic expectation, blended with features drawn
from the experiences of the Palestinian Church in particular,
viz. the appearance of pseudo-Messiahs, and persecutions.
Mt’s order keeps close to the above list, including (11) alluded
to in v.1? (avouca); while Lk’s puts (6) before (5), as in another
kindred place in Apoc. Bar (708), and also aliudes to (7)-(9).
Charles (op. ¢/t, 325 ff.) thinks that an independent apocalypse
(ef. Eus. WE it. v. 3) underlies Mt 246-8. 15-22. 29-31, 34f.),

order, and partly occurs in the Commission to the Twelve in
Mt (1017-22) 5 ef. Lk 121-12. Vy.9-12 seem very significant for
Mt's date in virtue of their special phrasing (ef. the Christian
section of Ascensio Isai@, ὁ. 65-63, or else SU-YU ALD. js

2414. The witness to the Gentiles.

In Mt’s form, preaching ‘in all the inhabited world?’ is, in con-
trast to Mk’s ‘unto all the Gentiles,’ as ‘witness to the
Gentiles.’ Here we probably get the idea of the Gospel in
relation to the Gentiles current among Jews in 8. Syria. In
1025 we had the corresponding idea touching Israel: the two
are combined in 1018, *And then shall come the end’ (in
contrast to v.6), de. the συντέλεια or tinal climax—a unique
clause in Mt and one going far to date the first Gospel at a
period just before the tinal catastrophe of * the holy city,’ the
crisis of whose fortunes is seen to be approaching, as appears
from the nota bene in v.53 ef, 1023, :

24, The final Crisis of Distress (θλίψι:).

The forecast in 15 is still on the vague lines of consummate
evil in Daniel (a reference made explicit by Mt), of which
Caligula’s purpose of setting up his image in’ the temple must
have seemed the foreshadowing (cf. Mt’s ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ, again
making more explicit what is implied in Mk, ὅπου οὐ δεῖ). Lk’s
deviation, in terms of the actual events of 70, is instructive as
showing that these were not yet in view in Mt and Mk; ef. also
Lk 212. (See further the article A BOMINATION OF DESOLATION.)
Vy.1625 are in the main in terms of current Apocalyptic
notions, including Dn 121; Lk 2123b-24 aeain presents a some-
what more developed form of the tradition, The specifically
Christian touches, e.g. 25-24, parallel features found in two
documents of ὁ. 64-68 A.D... viz. Didaché 16, and the Christian
section of the Ascensio “ναῷ. The former, which echoes
its own local tradition rather than the words of any of our
Gospels, has, ἐν yap ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις πληθυνθήσονταὶ
οἱ ψευδοπροφῆται καὶ οἱ φθορεῖς, κ. στραφήσονται τὰ πρόβατα
εἰς λύκους, K. ἡ ἀγάπη στραφήσεται εἰς μῖσος. αὐξανομένης
γὰρ τῆς ἀνομίας (cf. Μι15) μισήσουσιν ἀλλήλου; κ. διώξουσι κ.
παραδώσουσι (Mt!!), καὶ τότε φανήσεται ὁ κοσμοπλάνος ὡς υἱὸς
θεοῦ κ. ποιήσει σημεῖα κ. τέρατα. Here the false wonders
are attributed summarily to a supreme Antichrist: yet his action
may.inelude that of many subordinate agents, as in Ase, “να ἰῷ
(4), where Nero is expected to develop into or reappear as the
incarnation of Berial, and along with Berial’s hosts of evil spirits
to parody Beloyed’s (Messiah’s) works of power.

2427-8, The Son of Man comes like the lightning.

Mt (Lk elsewhere, 1125.) repeats the warning against being
led away by rumours of Messiah’s having been seen in yarious
retired places (cf. Apoc. Bar 4534)—so showing the topic of the
hour when he wrote. The comparison of Messiah’s Coming to
lightning is found in Apoe. Bar 538f-, ef, TZU (Apoe, A8, not long
before 70), being suggested apparently by the imagery of Dn 733,

242931, The Coming of the Son of Man.

Here εὐθέως points to an early date for Mt, i.e. before a.p. 70.
The signs of v.2% are the conventional ones derived from pro-
phecies like Is 1510, 344, and appear in varying forms in the
three Synoptics. V8 καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὸ σημεῖον τ. υἱοῦ τ.
ἀνθρ. ἐν οὐρανῷ, κ. τότε κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς is
peculiar to Mt. The former half is akin to Did. 166 καὶ τότε
φανήσεται τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας" πρῶτον σημεῖον ἐκπε-
τάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ: the latter comes from Zec 121% (ef. Rev 17),
In y.%, where it is parallel to Mk and Lk, Mt has τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
after τῶν νεφελῶν, as in Dn 78, whence all derive their language.
In *! Mt, as distinct from Mk, speaks of the angels sent forth,
as Messiah’s (αὐτοῦ) ; of their agency in gathering the elect
(ἐπισυνάξουσιν): and of the ‘great trumpet? which summons
these. ‘This last Jewish trait appears not only in 1 Th 426,
1 Co 15°, Rev. 88-914 107 1115, but also in Did. 166 in the same
position, πρῶτον σημεῖον ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ (Mt), εἶτα
σημεῖον φωνῆς σάλπιγγος (Mt31), καὶ τὸ τρίτον ἀνάστασίς νεκρῶν
(see Mt 2553): οἵ. 105 Prayers for the Gathering of the Church ἀπὸ
τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς OY ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων (see Zec 26,
Dt 304) into God’s Kingdom (94 105).

2482.33, The parable of the Fig-tree.
245442, ‘The exact time of the Coming unknown,

Mt, like Lk, goes its own way after v.36, citing the Noachie
Deluge for the way in which the Parousia will surprise men (ef.
Lk 172f. 30), and intimating how it will separate neighbours (ef.
Lk τό), Here the independence of Mt’s tradition is specially
evident. At v.42 the three are once more parallel in thought.
But each ends the solemn call to vigilance in its own way, Mt
being fullest. Its form seems to reflect the dangers of its day,
viz. bad stewardship of the sacred charge of fellow-servants, and
fellowship with the worldlings (v.48), men being thrown off guard
by their Lord’s long delay. This is just the state of things in
the Christian section of Asc. /sai@ 3, where the faithless
shepherds are spoken of. Such shall share the lot of the
‘hypocrites,’ the term by which Pharisaic Jews were spoken of
in the circle whose tradition Mt inherited (02. 5.16 75 157 9918
2313f.)—another link with the Didache (51-2 ‘ Let not your fasts
be μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν ἢ).

(h) The Genealogy.—This is of importance for
our Evangelist’s scope and method. As Zahn
says (The Apostles’ Creed, 126 ff., ct. Hinleitung in
das NT, ii. 271 ff.), this Gospel is ‘a carefully
arranged account of events of which a superficial

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF 303

knowledge is for the most part assumed.’ We find
‘not the simple confession that Jesus is the prom-
ised Messiah. The point kept strictly in view
from the first page to the last is much more apolo-
getic, and, so far as it is unavoidable, polemic.’
In spite of all so bitterly urged against Jesus’ claim
to be the Messiah, that claim is absolutely true.
Thus, though the Jews scoff at His obscure origin,
He fulfils the prophecy of the Messiah. It is from
this point of view that we must read ch. 1 and, as
Zahn well shows, much in ch, 2 likewise. Mt lays
before his readers ἃ genealogy artificially con-
structed in terms of the throne-succession in the
Davidic line, and not that of the actual progenitors
of Joseph (as in Lk). But why, we ask, should he
go out of his way to make certain additions, need-
less to a bare genealogy, including four women’s
names ? Above all, why choose ‘women whose
characters are highly offensive to Jewish, and in
three cases out of four to every human, feeling’ ?
Zahn alleges ‘the same apologetic purpose which
governs his account of the Conception and Birth of
Jesus’; andeven argues that the well-known Jewish
slander that Jesus was a son of shame (cf. Laible,
Jesus Christ in the Talinud, Ὁ. 7 tt.), is itself pre-
supposed by Mt’s genealogy, just as 28!-1)9 presup-
poses the Jewish story that the disciples stole the
body of Jesus. This is going too far, even were
the direction followed the right one. But this is

doubtful. There was another Jewish objection to
be met. Granting Joseph’s paternity,—which the

Jews always assume in the Gospels,—was Joseph
of Davidie descent ? And further, was God likely
to send Messiah as the son of a carpenter, even
though of Davidic stock? To this twofold query
Mt’s genealogy is a reply ; and to the latter phase
of it the additions already alluded to are an im-
plicit rebuke.* The God who chose from various
brethren the younger son’s line, and who over-
ruled unlikely unions to continue the chosen seed,
—this God of Israel ever worketh according to His
own good pleasure, and His ways of sovereign
elective freedom are often marvellous in men’s eyes.
Thus it is in the home of the humble, yet Davidic,
carpenter Joseph, that Messiah Jesus has really been
born. How, it is Mt’s next step to show in 1}8#,

Since the discovery of the Sinaitie codex of the Old Syriac
version of the Gospels, it has been argued that our text of Mt 116
is not original, but secondary. Not only is this refuted by study
of the various forms in which divergence from our oldest Gr.
MSS occurs in certain groups of authorities (see, e.g., Zahn’s
Finleitung, ii, 291-293); but even the view that Mt used a
source in which Joseph’s full paternity was assumed, is itself
unlikely. For the way in which Mt calls attention to the
numerical symmetry of the three divisions in the pedigree, each
fourteen ending with a great crisis in Israel's fortunes, suggests
that he has himself so constructed it.t Further, the four women
cannot have stood in an earlier source, and yet here they seem
integral. The pedigree is through and through didactic: and
the fact that it was from the first compiled by the aid of 1 Ch
1-3, shows that it was never other than in Greek, the language
of our evangelist (cf. W. C. Allen, Hapos. Times, Dec. 1899).
Hence it seems best to conclude that Mt did not use a pre-existing
genealogy (see GENEALOGY OF Jesus Cirist for another view : yet
cf. also ii. 645b),

A fresh witness for 116 has just come to light in the ancient
basis of the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (itself of the
Sth cent. at least). This basis is carried back by its editor, F. C.
Conybeare, to the Dial. Jusonis et Papisci, c. 135. The Christian
cites Mt’s genealogy, and gives 116 tirst in the form, Ἰακὼβ
δὲ τὸν ᾿Ιωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα Μαρία, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ λεγ.
X.; and next as ᾿Ιακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τ. Ιωσὴφ τὸν μνηστευσά-
μενον Μαριάμ, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ὁ Χ. ὁ υἱὸς τ. θεοῦ. These passages

* Similarly the enigmatic, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene,’
seems an implicit reply to criticism. The flinging at Jesus of
the epithet * Nazarene ’—a term of contempt on lofty lips—really
fulfils the substance of ‘the prophets’ as a whole, touching
Messiah’s humble and even despised lot (e.g. as the faithful
‘Servant of Jehovah,’ Is 531#-),

+ This will be the more convincing if even some of the other
numerical arrangements which Sir J. Hawkins suggests as
intended by Mt, hold good (/or@ Synopt. 131 ff.). We cannot,
however, see that the number of the ‘formula’ verses, 728 111
1358 191 261, is intentional. They are far apart, and no attention
is drawn to their number any more than in the case of the
recurring formule in Jg 26-1631,

seem to cast light on the real origin of the readings unsupported
by our oldest Gr. MSS (for the evidence in full see art. Jesus
Curist, vol. ii. p. 644). They are in fact explanatory glosses, such
as the Dialogue presents us with in reply to the hostile gloss of
the Jew, ᾿Ιακὼβ ἐγεννησεν τ. ᾿Ιωσήφ, τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς
ἐγεννήθη ᾿Ιησοὺῦς ὃ λεγ. X., και Iwan ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Ιησοὺν τὸν
Aey. X., περὶ οὗ νῦν ὁ λόγος, φησίν, ἐγέννησεν ἐκ τῆς M. The
Jews glossed τὸν ἄνδρα M. one way, in the teeth of the narrative ἣ
the Christians glossed it another, in harmony with the narrative.
And this crept into some MSS.

SupPLEMENTAL Nores.—This Dialogue quotes the parable of
the Husbandmen in extenso ; and in so doing shows the way in
which materials derived from similar sources tended to blend in
the memory of an early Christian, The case is the more instrue-
tive that the writer has just quoted Isaiah's parable-germ of
Jehoval’s vineyard (51), to which the Gospel parable was
probably meant to point back : and we see how Isaiah's language
affects the form at the beginning of Christ’s parable. It runs
ῳκοδόμησεν αὐτῷ τεῖχος καὶ πύργον κ. ἐποίησεν ἐν αὐτῷ ληνον
κ. ὑπολήνιον, omitting φραγμὸν περιέθηκεν and changing the po-
sition of ληνὸν (Mt) or ὑπολήνιον (Mk). as well as uniting the two
—which were in fact both integral—to a wine-press. Here the
writer quotes freely, but is quite possessed by his sources, of
which Mt counts for most. Thus he reproduces almost every
syllable and letter of the triple tradition, while the result is a
wonderfully eclectic composition, produced not mechanically, but
by the subtle tricks of memory. We may be prepared, then, for
the recurrence of similar phenomena in Mt.

The FayyGm = papyrus fragment parallel to Mt 2631. 33¢.,
Mk 1477. 29r. is too scanty and mutilated to justify much infer-
ence. But it omits a verse common to Mt and Mk; while it
combines features of both (ἐν ταύτῃ τῆ νυκτί with Mt, τὰ mpop.
διασκορπ., καὶ εἰ πάντες οὑκ ἐγὼ]. δὶς κοκ[κύξει], with Mk). It
may, then, represent oral tradition; but more likely a free
memoriter use of Mt and Mk in some manual of catechesis or

edification like the Oxyrhynchus Loyia.

[και εν Tw απαλ]

λαγεὶν woavtws παϊΐντες εν ταυτὴ]

τὴ νυκτι σκανδαλισθησονται κατα

To γραφεν παταξω τον [ποιμενα και τα]
προβατα διασκορπισθησίονται ειἰποντος]
Tolv meT και εἰ παντες ουκ Eyw AEyer|
ts] 0 adextpuwy dis κοκ[κυξει και συ]
πρωτον τρις alrapvy[on με]

Here ὡσαύτως is to be noted as pointing to a series of detached
sayings rather than a gospel.

iii, CONCLUSIONS.—On the whole, then, the
following results emerge as the most probable.
(1) The order of narration common to the latter
parts of Mt and Mk in particular, the closeness of
which is made the more striking by the deviation
of their earlier parts, points to the use by Mt of
the Petrine memoirs written by Mk. (2) Con-
versely, the notable deviation of Mt and Lk in the
order of the Discourses and Sayings (Logia element)
common to them, combined with their textual
variations, goes strongly against common use of a
Logia document, as distinct from an oral Greek
tradition which reached them in detached portions
and in somewhat different forms.* (3) The Logia
familiar to Mt, who had long taught them cate-
chetically,—so that their vocabulary and his own
were virtually one and the same,—reflected in
epitome the whole experience of church life in
certain Palestinian apostolic circles. They were
rooted in the memories of the germinal Christian
society, the apostles who had companied with
their Master. But they contained also echoes of
the first missionary commission as repeated for
the guidance of others in the early days of Pales-
tinian evangelization ; of the persecution that had
been their lot all along; of the forms in which the
Master’s principles of fellowship among brethren
took actual shape as the life became more organ-
ized; and not least of the terms in which the
polemic against their religious environment of
Pharisaic Judaism was conducted in ever-grow-
ing voluine and detail. That is, these Logia, far
more than the Lukan, are memorials of the life of
the Palestinian Church as well as of its Messiah.
(4) The Matthean Logia have as their nucleus
the common apostolic didactic tradition, which
took shape in the early Jerusalem days under the
lead of Peter—a tradition which passed into Mk in

* Lk probably had in his ‘special source’ a mixed gospel
embodying the bulk of his Logian element as it now stands in
our Lk.

3501 MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

its ijater Petrine form. At some stage which we
cannot now trace they took on the special impress
of the Apostle Matthew,* probably in a ministry
of which Galilee, rather than Judwa, was the
scene. In this form they passed, as Jewish unrest
became more acute, to the neighbouring parts of
Syria, in the person of our evangelist among
others, still reeciving fresh elements in the course
of oral teaching.+ And it was at this stage that
they took written shape, as the main constituent
in the mixed gospel composed with the aid of the
Marean memoirs of Peter. The freedom with
which the writer has accommodated Mk’s narrative
to massed Loyian discourses, suggests that these
distourses already existed orally much ἢ this
massed form, and were not then first thrown into
it by Mt. That Mk should early reach S. Syria
is the more probable that St. Peter was evidently
held in high honour there, witness the special
references to Peter in 1478 15'5 16138 1724 18-1; cf. 102,
. First, Simon who is called Peter.’ Indeed it
seems likely that Peter had left a strong oral
tradition behind him in those parts, so that Mt
knew the substance of Mk before it came into
his hands. This may help to explain certain
phenomena in his use of it. (5) The fact that
the Matthiean eyele of Logia was taken up into
our Mt, gave it its distinctive status and accept-
anee ; and the actual facts of its origin were soon
forgotten—probably never known outside a narrow
circle. Thus the indirect sense in which Matthew
Was its authcr and guarantor dropped out of tradi-
tion, and Papias could simply take for granted that
the Gospel κατὰ Maééatoy was from the apostle’s
pen. (6) The actual conditions giving its author
the stimulus to compose his artistic and reflective
Gospel, must be gauged from the perspective in
which he places the central Figure. He is set
forth ἀπ΄ {πὸ fall blossoming of Israel’s prophetic
ideal of the King ruling in righteousness, and in
wondrous gentleness too, The picture is the im-
plicit corrective of the false Messianic ideal which
had made the nation as a whole reject Jesus, and
had already led it yet further astray in the path
of earthly force, Thus, as we have seen, the
urgency of the Warnings against going after false
Messiahs on the felt approach of the great national
crisis (coneeived on the lines of Daniel’s prophecy
of Jerusalem’s last trial and in terms of current
apocalyptic based thereon), points to the actual
erisis of 68-70 as to the specific occasion which gave
it birth. It is an appeal to waverers of all sorts
to trust the true King, whose reign is of heaven,
and depends on the action of God, not of men ;
and not to become involved in the cerrent of the
false national ideal. It is meant to do the same
work as the Epistle to the Hebrews, only in another
fashion and at a rather later date. And, like it,
it is at once apologetic and polemical: it is a dis-
suasive in the form otf a positive presentation.
Jesus is God’s Messiah in spite of all superficial
appearances, and that by realizing the essence of
Moses and the Prophets. It is hard to see which
of the alternative dates, shortly before or after
A.p. 70, makes the Gospel the more pertinent as
a book for the times—and so satisfies the law of
all early Christian writings. On the whole, Mt 24
adheres so closely to Mk’s standpoint, in contrast
to Luke’s modifications and omissions, after 7T0—
notably in counsels practical before 70, but not
after (e.g. >. Wa. 20) esp. μηδὲ σαββάτῳ. *3)—that ὁ.
68-69 seems the best date.

* Similarly, the Epistle of James echoes in its own way nota
few of the precepts of the great Sermon, esp. those on Swearing
(otherwise peculiar to Mt) and on Censoriousness towards
brethren (= towards *‘ Law,’ 411, perhaps that of Mt 71, Lk 687).

+ This kind of expansive and explanatory activity of the
Christian
<aken for granted in 13°: cf. 2354 for the catechist.

‘scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven’ seems |

|
1

In 2419 ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ follows Dn’s forecast of Temple-desecra-
tion and not the tacts of το, Some, however, doubt whether Mt
2-™ can have been written before 70, since it implies use of the
triune baptismal name. But, if a similar clause be an original
part of Didacheé 7, its evidence may be cited. For the work as
a whole, and not the * Two Ways’ only, seems to be implied by
the Christian interpolation in Ascensio Isa ice, which perhaps talls
before Nero's death (/.e. 6. 66-65). Henee there is nothing de-
cisive against ὃ. 6%-59 a.p.; while the statement in 278, ‘that
field is called the Field of Blood until this day. and casual
references to ‘the holy city’ and the temple-worship, are more
natural at that date than after the utter ruin and change of ΤΌ,
So with the reference to ‘going over the cities of Israel,’ 1025,
Perhaps, then, 22>. τὸ are additions after 70: contrast Lk 1421,

(7) The evangelist writes, however, with a sort of
detachment hard to imagine in one living in Palestine
about τ. Thus it is best, and most in keeping with
the Greek form and with internal evidence, to loeate
him in S. Syria, say Phoenicia (4448 1521 alongside
Mk 1°8 74, cf. Ac 1119 158). That the author wasa
Jew, is clear from the text and manner of his special
OT quotations, which so eolour his work. But his
Was a spiritual Israel, new while old, inclusive
not exclusive, conceived on prophetic lines after
the manner of Peter and the Apocalypse of Johi—
with the latter of which its affinities are most
marked. Jesus of Nazareth is really the Christ.
since in Ilis person, teaching, work, and even His
tragic end, all has been as prophecy πα inti-
mated. While as to the scope of Messiah’s
Evclesia, the elect Israel, it was but a little thing
that God should through Him raise up Jacob: the
nations, too, were to be His inheritance, by the
incorporation into the Kingdom of αἰ] who were of
faith (et. Kiibel (as below), Introductory Remarks,
trans. in Bibl. World, i. 194 ti, 265 ff. ]

(8) Alltheoriesof Mtmust be both problematic and
complex. Zahn’stheory of an ‘apologetic ? Aramaic *
Gospel by the Apostle Matthew, ¢. 62 a.p., turned
into Greek, ¢. 85, is too simple for the phenomena.
The prevalent ‘two document’? hypothesis, with
the use of special oral traditions, comes far nearer
the truth. But it may be doubted whether the
second or Logian document is needed to account for
Mt’s divergences from Mk ; and whether the differ-
ences as well as similarities of the Logian element
in Mt and Lk are not best explained by a common
Gr. Loyian type of catechesis + behind both. In
favour of such a ‘one document? hypothesis may be
alleged the Logian quotations in the Didaché, per-
haps also in the first Ep. of Clement and the Oxy-
rhynehan fragment. as seeming to reflect local eate-
chesis rather than either Mtor Lk. It would be some
time before a written gospel superseded traditional
local usage as the prime factor in forming the
Logian equipment of Christians. It is in Ignatius,
then, that we seem first to have good evidence of
Mt as an influence at work (e.g. ad Eph. 193). But
not even then did oral tradition cease to operate.
To its reaction on the written text we owe in large
part early secondary readings, such as those mis-
named ‘ Western’: and from it, especially in its
later stages, come those Logig known as Agrapict.

Lireratvre.— The following aims at indicating only the more
representative works of earlier times, with a rather fuller cita-
tion of those since 1550,

Textr.—In checking the witness of the MSS and VSS, we have,
besides the fragments of Tatian’s Diatessaron (in Hamlyn Hill,
Tie Earliest Life of Christ, pp. 883-377), which are common to
the four Gospels, a special aid in the 5rd cent. papyrus of
Mt 1120 (Grenfell and Hunt, Oryrhynchus Papyri.i. pp. 4-7).
This supports not only the usual reading in 116) but also the
‘Neutral’ type of text resting on xb.

* We can merely note the weighty witness of Dalman (Die
Worte Jesu, 1595) against the directly Aramaic antecedents of
our Gospel-material. The Hebraisms of our Gospels he traces
chiefly to LX.X influence on their writers.

+ The absence of all historical trace of such a revered writing
as an Ur-Matihdus would have been, is rendered doubly inex-
plicable if it be granted that it was ever current in Greek,
Here is the one strong point of Zahn's theory over against the
‘two document’ theory of Weiss and others.

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

MATTHIAS 305

ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.—There is a special treatise by Gla,
Die Originalsprache dex Mt, Paderborn, IS8T. But the most
authoritative discussion in relation to the whole subject of the
Semitic basis of the Svnopties is that in Dalman, Die Worte
Jesu, Bd. i., Leipzig, 1595. There, as also in Zahn’s Kintleitung
ind. NT, Ba. ii., will be found the earlier history of the subject.

RELATION TO THE Goseet oF THE Heprews,.—Hilgenfeld, V7
extra Canon, rece ptune, Ist; Nicholson, Gospel according to
the Hebrews (1589): Handmann, Hebrdererangelium (1888), in
TU vy. 3 (with good Geschichte der hritik); Resch, Agrapha
(1350). in TU v. 4, p. 822 ff; Zahn, Gesch. des NT Kanons, ii.
642 ff. Harnack, Chronologie, Bd. i, 625 tf. Hilgenfeld’s thesis,
that in the original Nazarene Ποὺ. Be. {=the Web. Matt., 1.6. Pa-
pias’ Logica] is to be sought the Archimedean point of the whole
Gospel problem, has met with little support (yet see MceGiffert’s
note on Eusebius, iii. 27). It is largely another case of dgnotum
per iqnotins, Thus Nicholson falls back on the rather effete
view that Mt wrote both in Greek and Hebrew (sthe Μοῦ. Ev.).
Handmann and Resch agree in denying the identity of the //eb.
Er. with the supposed Hebrew Matt. The former makes it a
second source of our Synopties, alongside ‘Ur-Markus,” and
perhaps even what Papias meant by the Loyia; the latter
emphasizes its apocryphal features (even in its original form),
and makes it dependent on our Matthew, Warnack, here in
principle agreeing with Zahn, takes a middle position, making
it originally a sort of cousin of our Jfa?t., each being an enlarged
edition of the Matthwan Logia, Only Harnack differs from
Zahn in making both recensions of about the same date (not
long after το). Finally, J. Armitage Robinson, in Aarpos. Sth
Ser. v. (1807) 194-200, discusses three of the fragments of the
Heb. Ev. in such a way as to traverse the main conclusion of
these two scholars.

Commentaries.—DPatristic and Medieval: Origen (in Greek
for 1535 33, in Latin to 27), Chrysostom (91 //oimiélies, ed.
Field, 3 vols. 1839), Hilary of Poitiers (ed. Oberthiir, tom, vii.),
Jerome, Augustine (on parts), Bede, Theophylact, Euthymius
Zigabenus (ed, ©, F. Matthwi, 1792, a valuable work), Thomas
Aquinas, To these may be added Cramer’s Catena grec,
patrum in NT, tom, i, 1844.

Reformation and Post-Reformation.—Frasmus, Luther,
Calvin, Beza; the Roman Catholics Maldonatus (1596; Eng,
tr. Hodges, 1894), Jansen and Cornelius a Lapide; Grotius,
Calovius, Hammond, le Clerc, Olearius (1715), J.C. Wolf (Cura,
Philolog. et Crit. 1733), Bengel, J.J. Wetstein (V7 gree. 1751),
H. Ε. (ἃ. Paulus (1800), Campbell (18078), Kuinoel, Fritzsche
(1826), Bland (Cambridge, 1828), Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius,
de Wette, Ewald, Meyer, Alford, Patritius (R.C.), Bleek, Mori-
son, M'Clellan, Keil, Lange, Schatf and Riddle, Schanz (R.C.,
1519). Nicholson, Knabenbaner (R.C.), Noésgen (1886, 18977),
Broadus (Philad. 1887), Holtzmann (//andkom, 1889, 18927),
Kiibel (Hreg.-Hom. Handb, 1889), Mever-Weiss (18908, 1895°),
Maclaren (1892), A. B. Bruce (Kapos, Greek Test. vol. i.).

ILtustrations.—Hebrew and Talmudic parallels are collected
chiefly in the Mora Heb, et Talm., of Lightfoot and Schottgen,
and in Gerh. Meuschen, V7 ea Talmude et antiquit. Ebrao-
rum illusty. 1736; Weber's Jiid. Theologieand Dalman’s Worte
Jesu also contribute thereto, In the enormous accumulation of
Greek parallels to word or phrase, the following have done good
service: Price, Comm. in Varios NT Libros (1660); Raphel,
Annot. Philolog. in NT ex Xenophonte, Polybio, Arriano et
Herodoto Ai09-31) 3 Elsner, Obserc. sacr@ in NT libros 1720)
J. Alberti, Observ. Philolog. in Sacros NT Libros (1725),
Palairet (French pastor in London, 1752); Kypke (1755) ; Krebs
(esp. from Josephus, 1755), and Loesner (esp. from Philo, 1777);
Campbell, Dissertations, 178s; Grintield, Seholia Hellenistica
in NT (1815): and Field, Otiwm Norvicense, Pars iii? (1899).

DISCUSSIONS ON SPECIAL SEcTIONS.—Lutteroth, Essai dinter-
prétation de quelgues parties de U Brangile selon S. Matt.,
1864-16. Nativity: Resch, Kindheitsenangeliun, TU x. ὃ
(where further references will be found). Sermon on_ the
Mount: Trench (1844), Tholuck (translation, 18697), H. Weiss
(Freiburg, 1593). The Lord’s Prayer: Chase, Lords Prayer
in the Eurly Church (Camb, Texts and Studies, i. 8, 1591).
Parables: ‘Trench, Arnot, Bruce Parabolic Teaching of
Christ (18895), and Jiilicher Gleichnisreden Jesu (1888, 18992,
review in Erpos. Times, Sept. 1899, and in J7S, Jan, 1900).
Eschatologiceal Discourse: Woelemann, Bibelstudien (Leipzig,
1860), 129-186; ef. Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkunfisgedanke
Jesu (Leipzig, 1873); Schwartzkoptf, Die Welssaguagen Ses
Ohristi (1896, Eng. tr. 1591).

ORIGIN, CHARACTERISTICS, SYNOPTIC Rerations.—Hilgenfeld,
ZWTh ix. 303 4f., 366 ff; Scholten, Das d/teste Evangelium (El-
berfeld, 1869), valuable for data; Renan, Les Erangiles (ST1 ;
Schanz,‘Matt. u. Lukas,’ 77@Q, 1882, pp. 517-560; Massebiean, Aaa-
mendescitationsdelancien Test.danslEvang. selon. Matt,
Paris, 1835; Th. Naville, Bssaé sur Vécang. selon δ Matt., Lau-
sanne, 1893: A. Réville, Jésus de Nazareth, 1397: Roehrich, La
Composition des Evangiles, Paris, 1897; Bruce, With Open Face
(1896), pp. 1-24: F. P. Badham, St, Mark's Indebtedness to Nt,
Matt. (1897) Sir J.C. Hawkins, ore Synoptic (1809) ,;Dalman,
Die Worte Jesu (1898); P. Wernle, Die Synopt. Frage (1599).
Also the Introductions of Hilgenfeld, Davidson, Bleek-Mangold,
Westcott, Salmon, Weiss (also Life of Christ, trans, i. 95 ff.
55ff.), Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Godet (part on Matt., 1508), Zahn ;
as well as articles in Bible Dictionaries and Eneyelopwdias.

Supposep Soverers.—Weitfenbach, Die Papiasfragmente,
1S7S; also Jacobsen and Lipsius in JP? 77 for 1855, pp. 167-176 5
see, further, ap. Zahn, Einleitung, Bd. ii. τ Resch, Agrapha
(1889), and Aussercanonische Parallelterte (1893-94), in TU
v.4.x.1.2: and Ropes, Die Spritche Jesu (a critical sifting of

Resch’s material), 7U xiv. 2 ΠΕ). Jw. Vi. BARTLET.

VOL. Ili.——20

MATTHIAS (Ματθίας ['Tisch. Treg. WH Μαθθίας],
abbreviated from Ματταθίας, the Gr. form of TOs
‘ciftof J’? > cf. the name Theodorus).—The disciple
selected along with Barsabbas, after the Ascension,
from those followers of Christ who were deemed
qualified for appointment to the apostleship vacant
through the death of Judas (Ac 1!*6),) ‘The pro-
cedure was adopted on the initiative of St. Peter,
who applied Ps 109° to the circumstances ; and the
selection appears to have been made by the
assembled Christian brotherhood.* The general
qualification required was to have ‘companied
with us (the apostles) all the time that the Lo..t
Jesus went in and out amongus.’ Barsabbas and
Matthias had also, presumably, special graces of
character and gifts of teaching and administration.
After prayer, addressed probably to Christ, and a
solemn appeal to the lot,{ Matthias was elected.

This is the sole instance of the lot being em-
ployed in the history of the Apostolic Church, and
it occurs significantly between the Ascension and
Pentecost, when the disciples were ‘ orphans” (Jn
1418), Stier (Words of the Apostles, tn loc.) regards
this election as premature and unwarranted, the
outcome of St. Peter’s officious impetuosity. * The
lot fell: not the Lord chose.’ He holds that St.
Paul was the true successor of Judas, chosen, like
the other apostles, by the Lord Himself. It may
be granted that the appointment of Matthias
stands on a somewhat lower level than that of the
original Twelve and of St. Paul; but, in the
absence of any direction to the contrary, the pro-
cedure was a legitimate exercise of human wisdom
in dependence upon divine guidance; and St.
Luke, the ‘ beloved’ friend of St. Paul, appears to
endorse the election (representing, doubtless, the
general opinion of the Apostolic Church) ; for
after speaking of the eleven apostles (Ac 129) he
refers (Ac 62) to the * Twelve.’ ὃ

The historical character of Matthias’ election
has been impugned by Zeller (Acts of Apost.. Eng.
tr. i. 168) on account of (1) the assumption that
the apostles remained in Jerusalem ; (2) the close
connexion of the narrative with Pentecost. But
the departure of the apostles to Galilee after the
Resurrection did not preclude their early return
to Jerusalem; and the second objection can have
weight only with those who reject entirely the
supernatural in primitive Church history.

According to Eus. (HF i. 12, ii. 1) and Epiphan.
(Her. i. 22), Matthias was one of the ‘Seventy’
(Lk 10').|| Hilgenfeld identifies him with Natha-

*So Beng., Stier, Mey., Alf., Baumg., ete. on the ground that
the subj. in v.25 must be the same as in vv.24 26. Some (Mosh.
Ham. Jacobson, ete.), assign the selection to the apostles,
taking the subj. from v.17.

+So Beng., Ols., Baumg.. Alf., Words., Hows., and most com-
mentators, on the ground that the choice of apostles is always
referred to Christ (Lk 615, Jn 67 1515, Ac 12), the same Greek word
being used. Meyer, Moltz., Zock. refer 1°4 to God (Ac 459 158),

+ The jot, presumably, would be taken in the usual way, the
names of the two men being written on tablets. and shaken in ἃ
vessel, and he whose tablet first leapt out being regarded as
divinely designated (Lv 168, Nu 2655, Pr 1088), So Jate as 1751
the Moravians decided by lot the question whether they should
retain their own organization, or be incorporated with the
Lutherans (Gloag, in /ee.). Wesley also had a predilection for
sortilege (Southey. Life of Wesley, i. 186, 1ST). Mosh. (Comm.
See, i. 14) and others (Gagneius, doubtfully, Salmeron) maintain,
chietly on the ground of ἔδωκαν instead of ἔβαλον in v.26, that the
election was by ballot. But this view harmonizes neither with
Jewish usage nor with the context (‘show of these two the one
whom Thou hast chosen’); and while αὐτοῖς in v.?6 is the correct
reading, the rendering ‘ for them’ is legitimate.

§ The objection of Stier, that St. Luke here avoids the ex-
pression ‘ Twelve Apostles,’ is hypercritical.

| It is noteworthy that the ancient Syriac translation of Eus.
substitutes Zo/mai and the ancient Armenian version Dar-
tolmai (Bartholomew) for Matthias (when referring to him as
one of the Seventy), embodying probably a very early local
tradition that Matthias bore this additional name. See Nestle
in Kepos, Tiines, ix. 568 (Sept. 1595)... This Tolmai or Barthoto-
mew may have been a brother or other relative of Bartholomew
the Apostle, ‘to avoid confusion with whom the other name
Matthias would commonly be used. Or perhaps this Syriac

306 MATTITHIAH

MAUZZIM

nael, owing to the two names having nearly the
same meaning.* A tradition preserved by Niceph.
Call. (ATE ii. 40) represents Matthias as labouring |
in Ethiopia ; and in the apocryphal 4 cts of A nidrew
and Matthias + (assigned to the 2nd cent.), Matthias
evangelizes the Ethiopian man-eaters, from whom
he is delivered by St. Andrew. See ANDREW.
Another ancient tradition assigns to Matthias
Jerusalem as scene of ministry and place of burial
(Pseudo-Hipp. in Combesis, ἡ μοί, Nov.).

The Gnosticism of Basilides, or of his followers,
was professedly based on the παραδύσεις οἱ Matthias,
which the Basilidians held to embody instruction

secretly rec eived by Matthias from our Lord (PAs/o-

sophoumena, vii. 20). This work is probably iden-
tical with a Gospel of Matthias referred to by
Origen (Hom. in Luc. i.) and by Eus. (HF iii. 25),
who includes it among spurious works cited by
heretics under names of the apostles. Ὁ

LITERATURE. —The commentaries on Acts quoted above; Lipsius,
Apocr., Apos.; Seufert, Zwolfapost.; Bp. Bev eridge, Works, vol. 1.
Theoloq. Repos. i. ; Congreg. Mag. xxvi.; J. Cochrane, Digicult
Texts, 1851 (regards Matthias el-ction as unwarrante d).

Η. COWwAN.

MATTITHIAH (7:nn2).—4. One of the sons of
Nebo who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10}
(B Θαμαθιά, A Μαθθαθίας, called in 1 Es 9:9 Mazi-
tias). 2. A Korahite Levite who had ‘the set
otlice over the things that were baked in’ pans,’
1Ch 9° (LXX Ματταθίας). 8. A Levite of the
euild of Jeduthun, who ministered before the ark
with harps, etc., 1 Ch 1515: 253-21 (in all these
the Heb. form is Ἰππβο; B has in the first two
respectively Ἰμματαθιά, Merradias, and in the last
two Marraéias; A has in the first three Ματταθίας,
and in the last Ματθίας). 4 An Asaphite Levite,
1 Ch 16° (Marra@ias). 5. One of those who stood at
Evzra’s right hand at the reading of the law, Neh 83
(Ματταθίας), called in 1 Es 92 Mattathias).

J. A. SELBIE.

MATTOCK (πὶ ¥102, δρέπανον, 1 S 137-21, say, ἄροτρον,
>; Arab. ma‘wil, a pickaxe).—The pickaxe used

Sale

MA'WIL OR PICKAXE.

in Syria is of different shapes, but the most common
has a long arm for breaking up the ground, and a

tradition originated in a confusion occasioned by a possible
early anticipation of the double later identification (1) of
Bartholomew with Nathanael, and (2) of Nathanael with
Matthias—a confusion which might lead to Matthias being
identified with @ Bartholomew.

* John Lightfoot had previously (Com. on Ae, in loc.) regarded
this identification as tenable, but preferred on the whole to
identify Nathanael with the Apostle Bartholomew.

t So the oldest MS, which Tisch. follows; some later MSS
substitute Matthew for Matthias. Lipsius, however (4 pocr.
Apos. iii. 258), regards these Ethiopian traditions as really re-
ferring to Matthew.

{ Some fragments of the παραδόσεις are preserved by Clem.
Alex., and indicate a high moral tone : ‘When the neighbour of
an elect person falls into sin, the elect one sins himself” (Strom.
vii. 13). ‘We must contend with the flesh, and in our treat-
ment of it yield nothing in the way of wantonness to its crav-
ing’ (7b. iii. 4). The reference in the Philos., however, indicates
that the work countenanced Gnostic speculations.

short broad one, like a small axe, for cutting
roots. In ploughing, the plough is always fol-
lowed by one or two men with pickaxes, breaking
the large clods of earth turned up by the plough.
share, or digging up the ground which cannot be

MIJRAFAT OR HOEK.

reached by the plough.
is also used both for dig

The hoe (Arab. mijrdfat)
ging and for filling baskets
with earth for remoy al. “The shovel (rufsh or mir-
Sishét) is sometimes used. The RVm of 15 137 is
the same as the Arab. Version.
W. CARSLAW.
MAUL. — In Pr 25" the Arab. Version gives
mikmaat for maul (082). It is a stick for striking
a person on the he: ad as a mark of disgrace, but
it may also mean a club. Clubs are always carried
by the shepherds of Lebanon, slung from the wrist
by a thong or cord. The head of the club is round
and heavy, and is sometimes studded with iron
spikes. ‘The common name for it in Lebanon is
dabis; in Egypt, nabit. In Jer 51° the Heb.
is tr. in RV ‘battle-axe,’ and in the mare.
‘maul.’ In the Arab. VS it is fa’s, an axe, not
very unlike 72> in sound. W. CARSLAW.

ta)

Ϊ ph

MAUZZIM.—The text of the AV of Dn 11° con-
tains the title ‘the God of forces’: the marg. has
‘Heb. Mauzzim, or Gods protectors.’ The same
Heb. word ΕἼΣ. occurs in the beginning of the next
verse. Our marg. note may be traced to Theo-
dotion’s rendering, θεὸν μαωζείν, Which, however,
he does not repeat inv... The Vulg. is more con-
sistent: ‘Deum autem Maozim.. . et faciet ut
muniat Maozim.’ The LXX has no trace of this
inclination to find a proper name here: in v.*8 the
present reading is ἔθνη ἰσχυρά, and in v.™ ὀχύρωμα
ἰσχυρόν ; but Jerome, in his Commentary on Daniel,
states that its rendering in v.35 was dewmn fortissi-
mum [Is ἔθνη, a corruption of θεόν ἢ. Aquila has
θεὸν ἰσχύων. The Rhemish Version follows the
Vulg. : ‘ But he shall worship the god Maozim....
And he shall do this to fortify Maozim,’ ete.
Luther’s Bible is under the same influence, ‘ seinen
Gott Miuzim... stiirken Miiuzim,’ as is also the
Authorized Dutch Version, but not quite to the

same extent, ‘den god Maiizzim . vastizheden
der sterkten.’ The Pesh. has ‘strong Pod - es.

strong fortress.’

It is now universally agreed that Mauzzim is
not a proper name. Hitzig proposed to divide the
word into two, reading o: 19 (which at Is 23+ is
the designation of Tyre), and taking δὲ ΤΡ as to
be Melkart, the god of Tyre. But this seems
unnecessary. ‘The god of fortresses,’ v.**, and
‘the strongest fortresses,’ ν. 89, of our RV are an
adequate rendering. The only remaining dispute
is as to Who was meant by ‘the god of fortresses.’
Livy (xli. 20) states that Antiochus Epiphanes—
whose deeds Daniel here depicts—began to build
a splendid temple at Antioch in honour of Jupiter
Capitolinus. Hence it has been inferred that this

i μυυδνσυνονν.

MAW

MEADOW 307

is ‘the god of fortresses. Again, 2 Mac 62
informs us that he re-dedicated the temple at
Jerusalem to Jupiter Olympius. And this has
given rise to the conjecture that the Olympian
Jupiter is the one referred to. With equal reason
might the same verse induce us to fix on Jupiter
Hospitalis. A yet more doubtful conjecture is
that Mars was intended. And, on all erounds,
Layard’s suggestion must be put aside. He was
inclined towards the Assyrian Venus, who is repre-
sented as ‘
with a tower or mural coronet.? Perhaps the
choice, if a choice must be made, Hes between
Jupiter Capitolinus and Ζεὺς ΠΟολιεύς, the cuardian

standing erect on a lion, and crowned |

of the city, the family god of the Seleucids, |

to whom there was an altar on the Acropolis
at Athens, whose claims are strenuously muain-
tained by G. Hoffmann and Behrmann. In point
of fact the evidence is not suflicient to justify a
decision.

As curiosities of exegesis may be mentioned the
view of Sir Isaac Newton and others, that the
Mauzzim of Dn 1138 are protectors or guardians,
the verse being a prediction that the doctrine of
guardian angels should be introduced by the
Roman Antichrist, and Pfeitler’s view that ‘the
idol of the Mass’ is intended. J. TAYLOR:

MAW (Anelo-Sax. maga, the stomach).—This
old name for the stomach is used in Dt 18* as the
tr. of 42) in its only occurrence. RV uses the saine
word in Jer 51 for AV ‘belly’ as tr. of #72 in its
only occurrence also, The tr. in Dt 188 is from
Tindale, who uses the word also in his exposition
of Mt 7 ‘Your prayer is but pattering without
all affection ; your singing is but roaring to stretch
out your maws (as do your other gestures and
rising at midnight), to make the meat sink to the
hottom of the stomach, that he may have perfect
digestion, and be ready to devour afresh against
the next refection’; and Coverdale uses it in
translating 1 Kk 22%, * A certayne man bended his
bowe harde, and shott the kynge of Israel betwene
the mawe and the longes.’ J. HASTINGS.

MAZITIAS (A Mag¢irias, B Zerias), 1 Es 9%=
MATTITHIAH, Ezr 10.

MAZZAROTH (n\>;2).—This word oceurs only in
Job 38%, and seems early to have been regarded by
commentators as being connected with the norm
(mazzaloth) of 2 K 23°, as is indicated also by the
LXX, which has Μαζουρώθ in both passages. In
the AVm Mazzdrith is rendered by ‘the twelve
signs, and in the RV by ‘the signs of the Zodiac,’
both of which may be regarded as the true signifi-
cations of the word. Ges., who proposes the latter
rendering, and suggests its identity with mazzaloth
(‘lodgings’), compares the Chaldee mazzalayd.
Mazalcth would therefore be the plural of the
Hebrew equivalent of this Chaldee form, given in
late Jewish works as $3 (mutzzd/), which was used
to denote not only the single signs and the planets,
but also their influence on the fate of men (Selden,
de Dis Syv., Synt. ic. 1).

If the etymology of |

This comparison, however, is not without its difli-
culties, as the Assyr. word is for aanzezi, from
nozazu, ‘to stand,’ whence also manzezu, ‘station,’
‘resting-place. This, of course, would disconnect
mazzaroth and mazzaloth trom the late singular
form qazsad.* Other renderings of wezcarcth
that may be noted are the Syriac (Peshitta) agalta,
‘the wain,’ or ‘the great bear’; ‘Lucifer, the
morning star’ (Procopius of Gaza); ‘stars?
generally, and ‘a northern constellation’? (Aben
Ezra and R. Levi ben Gershon), ete.

The Babylonian names of the twelve signs of
the Zodiac are given in vol. 1. p. 192 (footnote),
and the inhabitants of that country were accus-
tomed to observe them and to note the dates when
the moon and the planets entered them, for the
purpose of forecasting events, drawing up horo-
scopes, etc. These people were therefore wont to
see Mazzaroth ‘led forth in their season, and
the passage in Job where this word occurs would
seem to point to the author of the book being as
well acquainted as they with the wonders of the
starry heavens, eG PERCHES:

MAZZEBAH.--Sce PILLAR.

MAZZOTH.—See PASSOVER.

MEADOW.—This purely English word (Anglo-
Saxon, ΤΠ], Medewe) occurs in the AV only in
Gn 415 15 and Jo 20,

1. In Gn 417-18 τὸκ (LXX dye), the word tr4
‘meadow’ is of Egyptian (demotic ax) origin
(cf. Jerome on [5 197; Wiedemann, Sanunlung
altaugyptischer Worter, p. 16; Ebers, Laypten und
die Bucher Mose’s, p. 338), and believed to mean
the reed-grass (so RV) which in Lower Eeypt
borders the Nile and its branches, together with
the marsh-lands, during floods.f As sueeested,
also, in the art. MEADOW in Smith’s V2, the
word may denote the pasturage afforded by
the growing crops during high Nile. But the
pasturage of cattle was carried on extensively
in Lower Egypt under the Old Empire. In
modern Egypt cattle are fed in cultivated clover
fields, for there are but few natural meadows of
wild grass; but in ancient Egypt it was otherwise.
As we know from numerous Egyptian tablets,
cattie were fed on the stretches of marshy land in
the Delta, whether beds of old rivers or water-

courses, or such extensive shallows as that of Lake

Menzaleh, now covered by brackish water, but
once forming to a large extent one of the most
productive tracts in Eeypt.t The dream of
Pharaoh, therefore, in which the fat cattle were
seen to feed in the reed-grass by the river side
was the natural sugevestion to the mind during
sleep of a custom which he may often have
witnessed.

2. Jg 20" (MT yaa save; B MapoayaBe, A δυσμῶν
τῆς VaSaa; Vulg. ab occidentali urbis parte; AV

*It is worthy of note that the Assyr. intermediate form
mazzarti has not yet been found, and that, if found, it would
be singular, like manza/ti. On the other hand, the plural, if

| regular, would be manzazati (1 or + changing back to z before a

Mazzar6th (=mazzaléth) be, as Ges. suggests, the |

same as that of the Arab, manzi/, * lodging-place,’
the root would be n@za/, one of the meanings of
which is ‘to descend,’ 7c. ‘to alight ata place in
order to sojourn there.’ Another etymology, how-
ever, has been revived by Jensen, who compares
Mazzarcth (= imazzaloth) with the Assyr. manzelti.*
* The original text of the Assyr. inscr. here referred to is as
follows :—
“(If) the planet Jupiter approach,’ ete. etc. ete.,
tant ina Same ina manzalti-sunw izzazzant
parakke-sunu dahdn inammari,
‘the gods in the heavens in their station remain,
their shrines will see plenty.’ (WAT iti, 59, 35-36).

vowel), and ought to have been borrowed by the Hebrews, not
as mazzaroth or mazzaloth, but as mazzazoth. Both Heb. forms,
therefore, if borrowed from Assyr., must have come from the
Assyr. singular without regard to the original root of the word.

+308 occurs also in Job 811 (LXX πάπυρος ; AV, RV ‘rush,’
RVm ‘papyrus’), and should be restored in Hos 1319 (ΠΝ for
DON (Oars. Heb. 1.62.1, or read 348 OND 733 [Wellh. and Nowack]).

‘Meadows’ is introduced by RV also in Is 197 (AV ‘paper
reeds’). The Heb. is ΠῚ), a ὅπ. Aey.; LXX (so also Syr.) has
0% It is just possible that they may have read or misread
minx for nny. The LXX reads ἄχει also in Sir 4016 (AV ‘weed,’
RV ‘sedge’). The recently recovered Heb. text has ni277p,
which is prob, a corruption (see Konig in Hapos. Times, Aug.
1899, p. 513 f.).

t Adolf Erman, -#aypten, translated as Life in Ancient
Egypt by H. M. Tirard, pp. 438-444 (1894),

Kb.

308

MEAH

MEAN

‘meadows of Gibeah,’ RVm ‘meadow of Geba,’ RV
Maareh-geba). Much uncertainty attaches to the
correct tr" of this passage. By alteration of the
vowel-points adopted in MT, the word signifies ὁ ς
cave’ (π|}3). So Studer, following the Peshitta.
This is a probable enough translation, as_ the
position of Gibeah (which is the correct reading,
not Geba), high up amongst the hills of Central
Palestine, puts the idea of meadows in connexion
therewith out of the question. On the other hand,
caves amongst the limestone rocks are not in-
frequent in Palestine. Of Gibeah (Z'wlei el- Ful)
Tristram says: ‘Dreary and desolate, scarce any
ruins, save a confused mass of stones, which form
a sort of cairn on the top [of the hill]. As we
recall also the hideous deed of the men of Gibeah,
the bighting doom seems to have settled over the
spot? (Land of Lsractl*, p. 171).

Another probable emendation, in the line of
LXX (A) and Vulg., is ‘19 ΞΟ ‘to the west of
Gibeah.’ See MAARENH-GEBA. | E. HULL.

MEAH.—See HAMMEAH.

MEAL.—1. A repast, the portion of food eaten
at one time. The word is used only in the com-
pens ‘Mealtime’ (Ru 2"), where it is the tr. of
moka ny, literally ‘the time of eating.’ See Foon in
vol. il. p. 41 f.

2. The substance of grain ground but not sifted.
Our Enelish word is from the Anglo-Saxon medi,
which is connected with the Gothic malan, ‘to
erind.’ The word is used as the tr. of n2p hemah,
which signifies meal in general, sometimes used
with the genitive of the kind of grain from which
it is made, as of the jth ephah presented by the
husband for his wife in the Jealousy Offering,
Nu 5%, In this case, the homely nature of the
material is supposed to typify the humiliation of
the woman accused. When used to represent
fine flour it is combined with n92 as in Gn 18°,
Three sevhs of this fine meal (probably about 4
pecks) were used by Sarah to make eakes for
the angelic visitors at Mamre. The mention of
the same quantity, ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία, in the parable
of the leaven, Mt 13°, Lk 1374, seems to show that
this was the ordinary quantity to prepare at one
time. Kemah and séleth are sometimes contrasted,
as in the account of Solomon’s daily provision,
which consisted of 60 Lors (=6225 bushels) of meal
and 30 hors of soleth (1 Ww 433). Meal was the bread-
stuff used by the poor. The widow of Zarephath
had only a handful of Lema in her meal-tub, 1 Ix
1713, Τὸ was with Aemah that Elisha healed the
poisonous pottage, 2 Κα 4. Meal was brought as
part of the tribute te David on his becoming king
in Hebron, 1 Ch 12%".

In the prophetic writings ‘meal’ is used in
several figures. The humbling of the Danehter
of Babylon was to be shown by her being reduced
to the work of grinding meal as a sign of servitude,
Is 47%. Hosea represents the unprofitableness of
the evil works of Israel as sowing the wind, reap-
ing the whirlwind whose bud (2x) makes no meal
(Hos 8. There is a peculiar force here in the
assonance rn lo gémah beli yaddseh πόρε. Yor
other particulars see BREAD and Toop.

In the RV the word oecurs very much more
frequently in connexion with the minhdah or meal
offering, Ly 2)" and many other passages. This is
called ‘meat offering” in the AV. See OFFERING
and SACRIFICE.

The Israclites seem to have employed mills from
a very carly period, but it is remarkable that they
were apparently unknown in Egypt until a com-
paratively late time. There is no word which

unequivocally signifies ‘mill’ in the language of |
the O'd er Middle Empire, as far as we know. | mean season, 1 Mace 114 15”.

Their grain seems to have been pounded ort
brayed. The word kemA occurs in a list of ofter-
ings at Denderah as a kind of flour. In Ethiopic
kamiht is used for ‘pulse.’ The word ke-me is
used for meal in several cuneiform texts (see
Strassmaier, Jrschr. v. Nabonidus, Leipzig, 1889).
A. MACALISTER.

MEAL-OFFERING is the rendering substituted
by the OT revision for AV ‘meat-oftering’ (4732).
The American Revisers further record their prefer-
ence for ‘meal-offering’ in Jer 14)? 1778 33!8 41°.
In these passages our RV reads ‘oblation” with
‘meal-offering’ in the margin. For details see
general article SACRIFICE.

MEAN.—The verb to ‘mean’ (from Anglo-Sax.
moaenan to intend, tell, and connected with ‘mind,’
the root being man to think) signifies sometimes
to intend, purpose: Gn 5°” But as for you, ye
thought evil against me; but God meant it unto
good’; Is 3% ‘What mean ye’ that ye beat my
people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor?’ ;
107 *Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth
his heart think so’; Ac 21 ‘What mean ye to
weep and to break mine heart?’?; Ac 27° ‘We
launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia’ ;
2Co 813 ‘For 1 mean not that other men be
eased and ye burdened. Cf. Shaks. Merry
Wives, Vv. ii. 15, ‘No man means evil but the
devil, and we shall know him by his horns.’

The subst. meaning, which in Dn 8”, 1 Co 147
signifies ‘understanding,’ ‘sense,’ as in its modern
use, expresses ‘purpose,’ ‘intention,’ in 1 Mae 15+
‘My meaning also being to go through the country’
(βούλομαι δὲ ἐκβῆναι κατὰ τὴν χώραν ; RV “1 am
minded to land in the country’). Cf. Jer 44°
Coy. ‘Purposly have ye set up youre owne good
meanynges, and hastely have ye fulfilled youre
owne intente’; Hall, Works ii. 108, ‘Good mean-
ings have oft-times proved injurious.’

The subst. ‘mean?’ (from Old Fr. meten, neoten ;
Lat. medius) signified originally something that
was in the middle. Thus Vymme’s Calrucs
Genesis (1578), p. 678 ‘[Moses] was a meane be-
tweene the Patriarches and the Apostles’ ; Elyot,
Governour, ii. 334, ‘He that punissheth whyle he
is angry, shall never kepe that meane which is
betwene to moche and to lyttell’; Barlowe,
Dialoge, 108, ‘God loved the people so entyerly,
that of theym he chose bysshoppes, preistes, and
deacons, to offer speciall sacrifices for the clensynge
of theyr synnes, and to be as meanes betwene
hym and them’; and Knox, Works, ili. 98, ‘Is
he who discendit from heaven and vouchsaftit
to be conversant with synneris, commanding all
soir vexit and seik to cum unto him (who, hanging
upon the Cross, prayit first for his enemyis),
hbeeum now so untractable, that he will not heir
us without a person to be a meane?? From this
arose easily the sense of instrument, which is often
sing., ‘a mean,’ in the Eng. of that day, though
in AV itself it is always plu., ‘means.’ Thus
Lever, Sermons, 79, ‘Ot God surely’ thou hast
received it, by what messenger or meane so ever
thou came unto it,’ and Knox, Works, ii. 299,
‘The instrumente and meane wherwith Christe
Jesus used to remove and put awaye the horrible
feare and anguysshe of his Disciples, is his only
worde’; and in AV, Wis 8% ‘By the means of
her [ shall obtain immortality’ (RV ‘because of
her’); 2Co 1" ‘the gift bestowed upon us by
the means of many persons’ (RV ‘by means of
many’); Rev 134 ‘by the means of those miracles’
(RV ‘by reason of the signs’). This word is some-
times alsoan adj., of which we have such examples
in AV as tn the mean while, 1 Καὶ 18", Jn 4%, Ro 2”;
in the mean time, 1 Mac 114, Lk 191]; and in the

Ci. Pr. Bk. The

MEARAH

MEDEBA 304

Communion,’ ‘My duty is to exhort you in the

mean season’; Jer 32% Cov. ‘In the meane season
the cite 1s delyaered in to the power of the Cal-
dees.’

There is another adj. ‘mean,’
to the Anglo-Sax. gemaene, ‘common,’ ‘general,’
and is possibly connected with Lat. commanis,
though Skeat counts that very doubtful. Phis
word was early confused with the distinct Anglo-
Sax. word mene, ‘false, ‘wicked,’ with the
result, that from signifying merely peasant-born,
of common origin, it came to express ‘low -minded,’
‘base’ (the word ‘base’ has a parallel history,
see BASE), and again ‘ niggardly,” ‘penurious.” In
AV the word is used only in the sense of ‘low-
born,’ ‘common’: Pr 22%) ‘Seest thou a man
diligent in his business? he shall stand before
kines ; he shall not stand before mean men mt)
Dvn, lit. “before obscure persons’ as AVm and
RVin); Is 2%*And the mean man is bowed down,
and the great man humbleth himself,’ Heb. τὶ
opp. to x, so δὲ 31°; Ac 21° ‘a citizen of no
mean city’ (οὐκ ἀσήμου πόλεως). Cf. Pref. to AV
1611, ‘If any man conceit, that this is the lot and
portion of the meaner sort onely, and that Princes
are priviledged by their high estate, he is deceived’ ;
Elyot, Governour, 1. 25, ‘It is expedient and also
nedefull that under the capitall governour be
sondry meane authorities’; Knox, J/ist. 392,
‘When scarcely could be found ten in a Country
that rightly knew God, it had been foolishnesse
to have craved, either of the Nobilitie or of the
mean Subjects, the suppressing of Idolatry.’

The adv. meanly is found in 2 Mac 1538. ‘Tf I
have done well and as is fitting the story, it is that
which 1 desired; but if slenderly and meanly, it
is that which I could attain unto.’ The meaning
is ‘imoderately’ (μετρίως). Cf. Spenser, Mother
Hubberds Tale, 297 —

‘The Husbandman was meanly well content
Triall to make of his endevourment’ ;
and Shaks. Com. of Errors, τ. 1. 59—
‘Thy wife, not meanly proud of two such boys,
Made daily motions for our home return.’
HASTINGS

MEARAH (73> ‘cave’ [cf. AVE: LXX seems to
follow another reading). —Mentioned amonest the
districts of Palestine that had yet to be possessed,
Jos 134. The text is doubtful (see Dillm. ad /oc.,
and Bennett in SLOT’, the latter of whom emends
ἽΝ. ‘from Arvad’); but if we accept the MT,
then Mearah, ‘which belongeth to the Zidonians,’
may be Aogheiriyeh (‘small cave’), a village near
Zidon ; ef. Aquila, καὶ σπήλαιον 6 ἐστι τῶν Σιδωνίων.

C. R. ConpDER.
AND MEASURES.

which is traced

MEASURES.—See WEIGHTS

MEAT (Anglo-Sax. mete, perhaps from mete to
measure, but more probably connected with Lat.
mandere to chew) is in AV food in general, not,
as now, flesh food only. Thus 2 Es 2) «But 1
remained still in the field seven days, as the angel
commanded me ; and did eat only m those days of
the flowers of the field, and had my meat (ὑπο)
of the herbs.’ The ‘meat-offering’ contained no
flesh, but was composed of meal and oil, Fuller,
Holy State, 185, says, ‘A rich man told a poore
man that he walked to get a stomach for his
meat: And J, said the poore man, walk to σοί
meat for my stomach’; cf. Adams on 2 P 14 ‘He
feeds the ravens, and the young lions seek their
meat at him.’ In their Preface the AV_ trans-
lators say of the Seripture, ‘It is not a pot of
manna, or a cruse of oyl, which were for memory
onely, or for a meals meat or two, but as it were
a shower of heavenly bread, sufficient for a whole
host, be it never so vreat.’ So Hall, Works, i. 806,
‘There was never any meat, except the forbidden

fruit, so deare bought as this broth of Jacob.’
a the word signifies whatever is caten, it may

»appled to flesh, as in Fuller, //o/y Warre, 212,
yee he giveth away the meat he selleth the
sauce’; so in Gn 27+ 7%! of the venison Esau pre-
pared for Isaac, and 27% of the goat's flesh
which Rebekah prepared.

The plu. ‘meats’ for ‘kinds or portions of food’
occurs some ten times in the Apocr., also in) Pr
23° “neither desire thou his dainty meats,’ where
the Heb. is simply ‘ his dainties.’ as RV; Ae 15%

‘meats offered to idols,’ where the Gr. is ‘ offerings

to idols’? (εἰδωλόθυτα, RV ‘thines sacrificed to
idols’); -and in Mk 7, 1 Co 6%, 1 Ti A*,
He 9" 13°, where the Gr. is always βῥώματα,
things to eat. Cf. Rhem. ΝΟ, Preface, ‘When
we are litle ones, let us not covet the meates
of the elder sort,’ and the Rhem. tr. of Lk
9 <Dimisse the multitudes, that goine into

townes and villages here about, they may have
lodging, and finde meates,’ Jn 45 * For his Dise iples
were gone into the citie to bie me: nore

. HASTINGS.
M or L-OFFERING,
and SACRIFICE.

MEAT-OFFERING.- Sce
MEAT, OFFERING,

MEBUNNAI pore ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν (i.e.
MSS Σαβουχαί, Luc. Safevi).— According to 9 8 2377
a Hushathite (wh. see), one of David's thirty
heroes. The name here given, however, is clearly
a mistake for Sibbecai, the form which has been pre-
served in the parallel lists, 1 Ch 1159 9711 (Σοβοχαί),
and also 28 9118 (B Ὀεβοχά, A YeSoxaet)=1 Ch 90",

J. F. STENNING

MECHERATHITE.—See MAACAH.

230), Many

MEDABA (M7éa8a).—The form of the name
MEDEBA, which appears in 1 Mac 990,

MEDAD.—See ELpDAD.

MEDAN (j72).—Name of a son of Abraham and
Keturah, Gn 25? (B Madaiu, A Maddv)=1 Ch 1
(B Μαδιάμ, A Μαδάν). The word is probably to be
identified with J/addn, the god of some Arab
tribe, best known through the proper name ‘A dd-
Al-Maddn, ‘worshipper of Al-Madan’; the tribe
or family called Bani ‘Abd-Al-Maddn was pro-
verbial for various sorts of excellence in the earliest
Arabic known to us (Ad@mil of Al-Mubarrad, i. 56,
72). Unlike most of the names of the Arabie
deities, the word appears to have an appropriate
etymology, and to mean simply ‘object of wor-
ship’; and with this sense the employment of the
article accords, as well as the alternative vocaliza-
tion, Al-Miuddn (Sakt Al-Zand of Abu ’l-Ala, ed.
Boulak, i. 47). The occurrence of the name of this
god in a context in which we expect the name of a
tribe, implies that the word was used as a national
name also; and the word Aais is precisely parallel
to Madan as being used for both a nation and a
god, and as taking the article in the latter applica-
tion. The seat of the worship of Al-Madan appears
to have been Yemen (7a) Al“ Aris, s.7.), whereas
the descendants of Keturah appear to be far away
from S. Arabia; but this may be due to the migra-
tion of a tribe; and indeed the word occurs as a
eeographical name in N. Arabia (Yakut and ΑἹ-

Bekri). Ὁ. 5. MARGOLIOUTH.
MEDEBA (Ἀπ ‘gently flowing waters,’ Nu
21%) Jos 13% 16 1] Ch 197, Is 152).—A town in the

Mishor,* east “of Jordan, about 14 hour S. of
* Mishor (Ww Dt 310 443, Jos 139. 16.17.21 208, Jer 488. 21;

translated by AV ‘plain,’ or ‘plain country,’ by RV € plitini,?
m. ‘tableland’) is the name given to one of the divisions of
Eastern Palestine, comprising the country between Heshbon
and the Arnon, assigned to Reuben. It is a treeless plateay

310 MEDEBA

MEDES

Heshbon on the Roman road from that place to
Kerak. It originally belonged to Moab, but was
taken from them by Sihon, who was in his turn
dispossessed by the children of Israel (aN ea):
It was assigned to Reuben (Jos 13°76, where v.9
should be translated ‘all the tableland—Medeba
to Dibon,’ and v.%® ‘all the tableland as far as
Medeba’). The Syrians who came to assist the chil-
dren of Ammon pitched at Medeba, and, from the
account of Joab’s battle with them, it would seem
that the city was then in the hands of the children
of Ammon (1 Ch 19%). Since David’s time (28 83)
Moab must have regained possession of the city
and territory around, for, according to the Moabite
Stone (line 8), Omri took possession of [the land of]
Mehedeba, and Israel dwelt therein during his
days and half his son’s days, forty years; but
Mesha recovered the territory, and rebuilt the
cities which had been held by Omri and his son
Ahab. Medeba is (perhaps) named in line 380, but
the stone is here defaced, and the reading not
quite certain. Joram’s attempt in company with
Jehoshaphat to recover these cities (2 Καὶ 8) was
but partially successful, and the Moabites τὸ-
mained in them unchallenged until the prosperous
reign of Jeroboam TL, when they were driven to
the south of the Arnon. Medeba is mentioned
as belonging to Moab in [s 15°, but not in Jer 45 —
an pike which is the more remarkable, as the
list of Moabite cities in Jer is more full than that
in Isaiah. Where by comparison with Isaiah we
might expect to find it, occurs Madmen (Ser
48"), a name occurring only in that verse. See
MapMEN. The LXX renderings are Jos 13°
Δαιδαβάν B*, Macdasavy B**, MacdaSa A. The word
is omitted in v.!8 1 Ch 197 Μαιδαβά B, Μηδαβά A,
Βαιδαβά ἃ. The text of Nu 21° is uncertain ; for
the last clause LNN has πῦρ ἐπὶ Μωάβ, Vesh.
ΝΣ. The 7 of sex, which has been marked with
point by the Massoretes, is not regarded by the
LXX, and neither they nor Pesh. read Medeba.
Tn Is 159 τῆς Mwapeircdos (B) represents the Medeba
of MT.

In Macealvean times John, the eldest son of
Mattathias, was killed by a rebber clan which lived
at Medeba. The name of this clan was Jambri
or Ambri. How Jonathan avenged the death of
his brother is related in 1 Mac 9% and Jos. And,
xt. i. 2,4. John Hyreanus laid siege to Medeba,
and took it with difliculty (Jos. dat. XILL ix. 1).
Alexander Janneus afterwards took it alone with
others from the Arabians, and Hyreanus If,
promised to restore them to Aretas (ὦ. XIII. xv. 4,
KIL =1, 4);

The city appears to have been a flourishing
Christian centre during the Byzantine period. It
was the seat of a bishopric, and was represented
at the Council of Chalcedon. After remaining
desolate for centuries if was occupied in 1880 by a
colony of Christians from Kerak, and some Latin
fathers have established a mission there. [ἢ
digging for foundations of houses many ancient
remains have been brought to light. Besides the
large pool with solid walls mentioned by several
travellers, the remains of gates, towers, and four
churches, besides some beautiful mosaics, have
been discovered. An interesting account of ἃ visit
to these ruins is contained in PHF S# for July
1895, and Pere Sejourné has written a full article
on Medeba in the Rerue Biblique for Oct. 1892.
A remarkable mosaic map of Christian Palestine
and Eeypt has also been discovered, a description
of which appears in Δ δὲ for July 1897, being

affording pasture for flocks, and at one time suited for the cul-
ture of the vine (Is 108). The number and extent of the ruins
in this district sliow that it was once thickly inhabited. The
Bedawin in their black tents are now the chief inhabitants ;
see ὦ, A. Smith, ΠΟ ὦ pp. 585, 548.

a translation from Clermont -Ganneau’s Lecueil
εἴ Archéologie Orientale, tom. xi. p. 161, 1897.
Further communications with reference to this
mosaic are to be found on p. 239 of PEF S# for
July 1897, p. 85 of April 1898, p. 177 of July 1898,
p. 251 of Oct. 1898. A. T. CHAPMAN.

MEDES (τ, λ1ῆδοι).---ἰὰ Gn 10° Madai is a son
of Japheth, and is associated with Gomer and
Javan. The Assyr. form of the name is Mada, but
when we first meet with it in the annals of Shal-
maneser II. (c. B.C. 840) it is written Amada.
Hadad-nirari 111. (6. B.C. 800) overthrew Khana-
aziruka, king of the Mata, who inhabited Matiéné,
S.W. of the Caspian ; W. of the Mata was Parsuas
(perhaps Parthia), with its 27 kings, on the shores
of Lake Urumiyeh. It is doubtful whether we
should identify Mata and Mada as variant forms
of the same name, or regard the Mata as a division
of the Mad&; at all events, Hadad - nirari {Π|.
also employs the name M: ada, and it is the only
form of the name henceforth found in the cunet-
form inscriptions. ‘Tiglath-pileser If. overran the
Median states E. of Zagruti or the Zagros, send-
ing one of his genet rals against ‘the Medes at the
rising of the sun’ (B.C. 743) ; and Sargon in B.C
713 subdued a number of Median chieftains, one of
whom was the chief of Partakanu. Ksarhaddon
divides Partakanu into the two provinces. of
Partakka and Partukka, and describes it as ‘re-
mote. In the early part of his reign Assyria
was threatened by a combined attack on the part
of the Medes, Kimmerians, Saparda (Sepharad),

and ‘Ikaztarit, king of Karu-Wassi’; but the
Assyr. king carried the war into the enemy's

country, and the defeat of the Median ‘ city-lords’
in the far east relieved him of all danger from the
Median tribes. A portion of the Kimmerians, how-
ever, took possession of the old kingdom of E llipi,
north of E lam, where a new power arose, with its
capital in Ecbatana (Pers. /Iangmatana). In the
cuneiform inscriptions the Kimimerians are called
Umman Manda or nomad § Barbarians’ (Goiim in
OT), and the resemblance of Manda to Mada caused
the two words to be confused together by the

classical writers.

The Medes, like the Kimmerians, belonged to the
Tranian branch of the Aryan race, the Persians
being a kindred tribe, which pushed farther south
towards the Persian Gulf. According to Herodotus
(vil. 62, 1. 101), they were called Arians by their
neighbours, and were divided into six tribes: the
Busie, Paretakéni (Assyr. Partakann), Struchates,
Arizanti, Budii, and Magi. The Magi, however,
seem rather to have been a priestly caste. The
Assyr. inscriptions show that the Medes obeyed
no central authority, but were divided, like the
Greeks, into a mumber of small states, each under
the rule of its own ‘city -lord.’ Consequently
the classical belief in a ‘ Median empire’ was
eroundless, and was really due to the confusion
between the names Mada and Manda.

A recently discovered inscription of Nabonidos
has informed us that the destruction of Nineveh
(B.C, 606) was brought about by the Manda, not
by the Mada or Medes. We have also learned
from the cuneiform texts that it was the Manda
who devastated Mesopotamia, destroying Harran
and its temple of the Moon-god ; that Astyages
(Istavigu in cuneiform) was king’ of the Manda .
and that the revolt of Cyrus was against the
Manda, and not against the Medes. Medes may
have been included amone the Manda or ‘ Bar-
barians,’ but the term was primarily applied to
the northern hordes who had swarmed across the
Caucasus into ΝΥ. Asia, and were called Kim-
merians (see GOMER) and Scythians by the Greeks.
The kingdom of Ecbatana was founded by these

MEDES

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION 311

Manda, who had conquered the ancient kingdom of
Ellipi.

The ‘Median’ kings of Herodotus and Ctesias
are alike artificial creations. Herodotus makes
the Median monarchy begin with Deéiokes, B.C.
710, at a time when the Assyr. empire was at the
height of its power, and Sargon was punishing the
‘city-lords’ of the Medes. Deiokes is the Dainkku
of the Assyr. inscriptions, a vassal-chief under the
king of the Manna (Minni), who was carried cap-
tive to Hamath by Sargon in B.C. 715: Phraortes,
who is said to have succeeded Déiokes, is 1τὰ-
wartish, who carried on wars against the Persians
and the Assyrians, and called himself Nathrites
(Kaztarit). His successor Cyaxares may be NKaz-
tarit, or he may have been a genuine king of
Eebatana, and the actual predecessor of Astyages.
At all events Astyages was a king of the Manda,
and his conquest by his rebel vassal Cyrus took
place in B.c, 549. On Arphaxad king of the Medes
(Jth 11), see ARPHAXAD.

The list of Median kings given by Ctesias prob-
ably comes from a Persian source, and the chrono-
logical arrangement of it is even more artificial
than that of the list of Herodotus. Lenocsant
seems to have been right in suggesting that two
of the kings in it, Arteeus and Astibaras, are the
kings of Ellipi, Rita (Dalta) and Ispabara, who were
contemporaries of Sargon and Sennacherib.

After the capture of Samaria by Sargon in B.C.
722, some of the Israelites were transported to
‘the cities of the Medes’ (2 kK 178 18"). This
probably took place after Sargon’s campaign
against the Medes (B.C. 713), when he penetrated
as far as the distant land of Bikni. Isaiah (13!
21°) calls on the Medes and Elamites to overthrow
Babylon (cf. Jer 9539) ; and Jeremiah (5111: 38) speaks
of the ‘kings’ of the Medes combining with
Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz to destroy the Bab,
empire. At this time it would seem, therefore,
that the Medes were still governed by a number
of different chiefs. In Elam we must see Anzan,
the ancestral kingdom of Cyrus, which an Assyr.
tablet states was equivalent to ‘Elam’; the in-
vasion of Babylonia, referred to by Jeremiah, may
have been one which took place in the reign of
Nergal-sharezer, not that of Cyrus. Cyrus, how-
ever, united the Medes and Persians under his
sway ; Gobryas, the governor of Kurdistan, whom
he made the first governor of Babylonia after its
conquest, was a Mede, according to the classical
writers; and Mazares and Harpagos, who con-
quered Tonia for Cyrus, were both of Medic
descent. Hence the JIonian Greeks spoke of
‘Medes’ rather than of ‘ Persians.’ Gomates, who
pretended to be Bardes (Smerdis), the son of
Cyrus, anc usurped the throne of Cambyses, was
a Magian, and therefore also of Median origin ;
and, in the troubles which followed his murder,
Media endeavoured to secure her independence
under Frawartish or Phraortes. Frawartish, how-
ever, was at length defeated in a pitched battle,
and, after being taken prisoner near Rhages, was
impaled at Ecbatana. After the destruction of the
Persian empire, Media was divided into Media
Atropaténé (so named from the satrap Atropates),
which corresponded with the modern Azerbijan,
and included the Parsuas of the Assyr. monuments,
and Media Magna to the south and east of it. Here
were Ecbatana (now Hamadan), and Bagistana
(now Behistun) in the ancient territory of Ellipi.
Bagistana is probably the place called Bit-ili or
Bethel by Sargon. Media had thus come to ex-
tend widely beyond its limits in the Assyr. age,
when the Medes inhabited little more than Mati-
éné and the district to the E. of it, and S. of the
Caspian, in which Raga or Rhages (now Ra) was
situated. ‘They were, in fact, mountaineers, and

hence had the reputation of being brave and war-
like, delighting in arms, in brilliant clothing, and
in carrying off booty from their more settled
neighbours. From the Persian monuments we
eather that they let the beard grow, and wore
caps, long robes with full sleeves, and shoes. ‘Their
religion was a form of Zoroastrian fire-worship,
and they left the bodies of the dead to be devoured
by wild beasts or birds of prey. (See J. V. Prasek,
Medien und das Haus des Kyacares, 1890).
A. H. SAYCE.
MEDIA. —See MEDEs.

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION.—

INTRODUCTION.
1. Meaning and use of the term ‘ Mediator.’
2. The idea of mediation in religion,
. PAGANISM.
1. Savage notions.
2. Civilized ideas.
. THE OLD TESTAMENT.
1. In OT history.
2. Priestly mediation,
3. Prophetic mediation.
4. Mediation in the Wisdom Literature,
5. The mediation of angels.
iii, IN ΤῊΝ NEW TESTAMENT.
1. Christ as Mediator.
2. The teaching of Jesus on mediation.
a. In the Synoptics.
b. In the Fourth Gospel.
8. Apostolic teaching.
a. Speeches in Acts.
Ὁ. St. Paul and 1 Peter.
c. Epistle to the Hebrews.
d. St. John («) in the Gospel and the Epistles ;
(2) in the Apocalypse.
Literature. :

INTRODUCTION.—l. JWerning and use of the term
© Mediator.—The word ‘mediator’ (Gr. μεσίτης) is
found only in NT, namely at Gal 3%, 1 pl a oa?
He 8° 915795 Phe verbal form (μεσιτεύω) occurs
once, in He6” The derivation from the adjective
μέσος ‘in the middle’ merely suggests the idea
of one who is found in the midst, or who enters
into the middle. But usage gives a more specific
meaning to the term. Thus we always find it
standing for a person who in some way inter-
venes between two. This intervention is of two
kinds: (1) in order to bring about a reconcilia-
tion where there has been division or enmity—
the thought in Job, and in St. Paul's use of the
word; (2) quite apart from any notion of ἃ
previous quarrel, with the idea of drawing two
together into a compact or covenant—the mean-
ing in Hebrews in each of the three cases where it
occurs. Moses was regarded as a mediator in a
general sense, as coming between God and Israel,
both to shield the people from the Divine severity,
and to introduce God’s law to their notice
and effect their union with Him as a covenant
people. The first of these ideas appears in Dt 5°,
where, while the word ‘mediator’ is not used, the
idea is suggested by a cognate adverbial form
(ἀνὰ μέσον, Heb. 72). Philo uses the word ‘mediator’
(μεσίτης) for Moses in the same connexion (Vit.
Moys. iii. 19). Elsewhere Philo refers to speech
as ἃ ‘mediator and intercessor’ (de Sanit. 1. 22),
Josephus writes of Agrippa being a mediator be-
tween the people of Hium («4 ππέ. XVI. 11. 2).

2. The idea of mediation in religion.—While the
word ‘mediator’ is rarely met with, the idea con-
tained in it is one of the most vital and influen-
tial thoughts in religion. Nearly every religion
bears witness to it. Both priesthood and prophecy
rest upon the conception of mediation—-priesthood
in the selection of certain men for approach to
God and the reconciliation of the people with Him
by means of sacrilice ; prophecy in the sending of
Divine messengers who are to deliver to the people
the oracles they have received from heaven. The

*The LXX employs μεσίτης in Joh 933 as rendering of ΠΣ,
which AV and RV tr. ‘daysman’ (wh. see).

ciara

312

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

ilea emerges in the lowest grades of civilization
under the form of the medicine man, the rain-
maker, the sorcerer, whose function, however, is
rather to coerce than to conciliate inimical powers.
While the purilication of religion eliminates
degraded, distorted, and superstitious forms of
mediation, it does not destroy the essential idea,
which is found more clearly and forcibly expressed
in Christianity than in any other type of religion.
So prominent and characteristic is the idea that
we might define Christianity in the abstract as
Theism plus Mediation—understanding the latter
term to include all that is taught concerning the
person and mission of Christ, for it is this idea
that most distinguishes the religion of the NT
from pure Theism. But Butler pointed out that
the specially Christian idea of ‘the appointment
of a Mediator, and the redemption of the world by
him, was analogous to many thines in the con-
stitution and course of nature’ (dnalogy, pt. il.
ch. v.).

i, MEDIATION IN PAGANISM. —Space will not
permit of more than the briefest notice of this
branch of the subject ; and yet it is impossible to
do justice to the great biblical doctrine of media-
tion without giving at least some attention to its
position in the light of comparative religion.

1. Savage notions of mediation.—It has been
pointed out that as in course of time the indi-
vidual faculties in men were seen to be differenti-
ated, some were held to be specially gifted with
oceult powers. These men came to be regarded
with awe ; they were not as other men. ΤῸ them
it was given to penetrate the unseen world, read
the secrets of futurity, influence the supernatural
powers with which primitive man in a dim way
felt himself to be surrounded. In so low a race as
the Australian aborigines, the medicine men are
credited with the power of controlling all occult
influences. This mysterious power is claimed
among the Andaman Okopaids and the Peaimen
of Guiana. In Melanesia it is known as mane,
and is said to be imparted by cannibalism. This
mana is conveyed by the medicine man to the
charms he uses. A similar power was recognized
among the N. American Indians. In the lowest
condition, while the medicine man uses charms
and spells, he does not invoke spirits. A higher
stage is attained when he calls in the aid of
ghosts, the totem animal belonging to an inter-
mediate condition. In some savage communities
demoniacal possession is supposed to confer priestly
or mediatorial powers. ‘Thus we learn from ‘Tylor
(Prim. Cult. ii. p. 121) that among the Pata-
gonians persons afflicted with St. Vitus’ dance
were selected as magicians, and that amon& the
Liberian tribes the Shamans brought up children
liable to convulsions for the profession of magic
(see King, The Supernatural, bk. ii. ch. iv.). The
medium of modern spiritualism may be compared
with the medicine man who has dealings with
ghosts, the special gift with which the medium is
credited leading him to be consulted by others as
though he were a kind of mediator between
ordinary mortals and the spirit world.

2. Civilized pagan notions of mediation, — All
religions that contain a priesthood with functions
not shared by the main body of the community
predicate some form of mediation in connexion
with that office. The priest sacrifices to, or inter-
cedes with, the god to whom he is attached, on
behalf of the people. But the two greatest
faiths of the East have peculiar relations to this
subject. The distinction between the priesthood
and the laity is more pronounced and rigorous in
Hinduism than it is in any otier religion the
world has ever known. This is owing to the
institution of caste. Of the four great classes re-

cognized in the Hindu system, Brahmans, soldiers,
agriculturists, and servants, the first consists
of priests, and an important part of the Veda,
the Bralmanahs, is devoted to the ritual they are
required to follow. Inasmuch as the observance
of this ritual is regarded with favour by the gods,
all classes of society benefit by the Divine com-
placency thus secured ; but the hopeless inferiority
of the other castes destroys one important element
in the mediatorial idea, the community of nature
between the priest and the people which is
essential to the NT idea of mediation set out in
the Epistle to the Hebrews. On the other hand,
the Brahmanahs contain the idea of gods sacri-
ficing, and so bring in the notion of mediation
from another point of view. Thus in the Vandyu-
bradhmanahs it is stated that ‘the Lord of creatures
(praja-patt) offered himself a sacrifice for the gods.’
The same idea emerges in the sacrifice of ‘the
primeval male.’ Thus it is stated in the sa@ta-
patha-brahmanah, ‘He who, knowing this, sacri-
fices with the Purusha-Medha, the sacrifice of the
primeval male, becomes everything.’ Monier-
Williams regarded thisas a witness to ‘the original
institution of sacrifice,’ and ‘typical of the one
great voluntary sacrifice,’ ete. (/induism, p. 36).
On the other hand, it must be observed that the
oldest Hindu sacrifices are not piacular, but simply
consist of food offered to the gods. The idea of
expiation came later, and with it the notion of
mediation, But about the time of the rise of
Buddhism, 7.¢. ¢. 500 B.C., the development of Hindu
philosophy removed all belief in vicarious sacrifice
and mediation from the mind of the speculative
Brahman by developing a system of Pantheism.
If man is one with God, there can be no room for
mediation between man and God. And yet, again,
the evolution of gods as forms or manifestations
of Brahm introduces another form of mediation,
the merits of an inferior god availing with one
above him, that god’s merits with one still higher,
and so on in the ascending scale up to the highest.

When we turn to Buddhism it would seem
reasonable to regard the Buddha himself as a
mediator, since he is seen sacrificing himself for
others, even for animals. In former states of
existence, it is said, he often eave himself as a
substituted victim in place of doves and other
innocent creatures, to satisfy hawks and beasts of
prey. Then, having freed himself from the tive
great passions, he will help others to alike freedom
by his teaching. Still, there are two features of
Buddhism that render it inherently inconsistent
with the idea of mediation. One is its protest
against the Hindu caste system. Holding the
equality of all men, it teaches that every one must
suffer the consequences of his own deeds, either in
the present life or in a future condition, and
repudiates the possibility of a transference of

responsibility or of an atoning sacrifice. The
other feature is its virtual denial of God. But

in practice the Buddha is deified, and then the
Buddhist monk becomes a sort of priest, so that
the notion of mediation comes round again from
another quarter.

We may look for antecedents to the biblical
doctrine of mediation in the religion of ancient
Egypt, which was associated with a richly de-
veloped hierarchical system, the priests enjoying
high rank above the common people, and occupy-
ing themselves with elaborate sacrificial perform-
ances ; in the religion of Babylon, which, owing to
the very early connexion between the Babylonians
and Palestine (evidenced by the Tel el-Amarna
tablets), must have been known in the latter
country in primitive times; and in the Semitic
religions of Canaan and Phoenicia, where, though,
as Robertson Smith showed, the primitive notion

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION 313

of sacrifice suggested a common feast with the god,
« communion, the piacular idea appeared later.
Thus the prophets of Baal, in the time of Elijah,
act as mediators, performing sacrificial functions
op. behalf of king and people.

ii. MEDIATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. —
Mediation appears in various forms during the
course of the OT history, in the specific regula-
tions of the law, and in the teachings of the
prophets.

1. Mediation in OT history.—In the oldest parts
of the patriarchal history (JE) the head of the
household officiates as the family priest, sacrific-
ing and entering into covenants on behalf of his
people, e.g. Abraham (Gn 12% 8 15% 1), Tsaac (Gn
252°) Jacob (Gn 33'*~"), Tt is to be observed
that the later narrative (P) does not describe
patriarchal altars and sacrifices. Although the
earlier narrative in its written form is assigned
to the period of the monarchy, this primitive style
of religious observances speaks for its own
antiquity, and for the probability that traditions
embodying old customs are here preserved. ‘Two
incidents in particular, connected with the patri-
archal narratives, bear especially on ancient views
of mediation. Melchizedek, king of Salem, is
introduced as a priest of God Most High (Gn 14").
He blesses Abraham, and receives a tenth of the
spoil after the battle of the kings. This kingly
priesthood of Melchizedek laid hold of the Jewish
imagination, and reappeared in the Messianic
ideal of Ps 110, to be recognized and elaborately
discussed in its application to Jesus Christ by the
author of He (6-7). Then Abraham’s pleading
for the cities of the plain shows us the patriarch
asa typical mediator. In this wonderful picture
of earnest prayer we see mediation in the form of
intercession. No. sacrifice is offered, but the
patriarch pleads on behalf of the doomed cities
with singular persistence, and yet with pro-
found humility. The promise of deliverance if a
suflicient number of righteous men can be found,
introduces another element of mediation, what we
might call the passive mediation of the goodness
of one, on account of which favour is shown to
others,—-in this case corresponding to our Lord’s
idea of His disciples as the salt of the earth (Mt

δ), Moses appears as a mediator in various
relations. First, as the deliverer of his people he

comes from Jehovah with a mandate to Pharaoh
(Ex 3). This is an instance of the descending
mediation, in which the mediator comes from God
with a divine message. In the same way Moses
appears as the lawgiver, receiving the law from
Jehovah and giving it to the people. πόποι
maintains that the tradition about Moses as a law-
viver shows that, even if not a single one of his laws
are extant, he was prominent asa revealer of God's
will (Religion of Isracl, i. 273). Moses appears
repeatedly as the prophet through whom God
communicates with Israel. Thus it is said (in the
JE narrative), ‘And the Lord spake unto Moses
face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend’
(Ex 334, see also Nu 12%%), Then Moses also
appears most conspi uously as the mediator in the
other form of mediatorial work, the ascending
mediation, representing the people to God in inter-
cession. A striking instance of this mediation
occurs in relation to the molten calf, when Moses
beseeches God on behalf of the people (Ex 327%),
and even expresses a willingness to be himself
blotted out of God's book if only the people may
be forgiven their sin (Ex 32%), appealing to the
favour he has found with God as a ground for
pleading the cause of the people he represents (Ex
33%, see Schultz, O07 Theol. i. 188). A special
form of mediation comes in with the idea of the
theocratic king, who is both the representative of

Jehovah to Israel and the representative of the
people before God. David officiates in’ priestly
apparel,—‘ girded with a linen ephod,’ offering
burnt-offerings and peace-ollerings, and blessing
the people in the name of Jehovah (28 611%). A
mediating position between God and the people
appears in the Messianic Psaltis, 2, 21,72, 45 (where
perhaps the king is called ‘lohim’), 210. ‘The
Chronicler, reflecting on the history from the Greek
period, regards David’s throne as divine; it is
‘the throne of Jehovah’ (1 Ch 29°), Thus a pre-
paration is made for regarding the Messiah of the
future as a Mediator, standing between God and
man, exalted above the common human stand-
point, and brought near to God, but with a view
to the benefit of the people He represents.

2. Privstly mediation. —The conception of a
priesthood separate from the rest of the community
implies mediatorial functions on the part of the
priests for the benefit of the laity. In itself the
idea of priesthood may be regarded absolutely,
the priest being the man who has a right of ap-
proach to God, and on whom devolves the duty of
sacrificing, ete., quite apart from any considera-
tion for others. In this sense Israel as a whole
nation is ‘ holy’ (Lv 1145 19°, Nu 15%"), and is named
a ‘kingdom of priests’ (Ex 195: Ὁ). Similarly in
late poetry the nation as a whole is said to consist
of ‘prophets’ (Ps 1055). But this is exceptional.
Asarule, the function of the priest is vicarious and
mediatorial. In early times, however, this was
not confined to any tamily or tribe. Gideon (J¢
6-34), Samuel (1 5 167), and Elijah (1 Καὶ 18%") per-
formed the priestly function of oilering sacrifices,
and, in a mediatorial way, for the benetit of the
people. When a priestly order was first recognized
this was not necessarily of one tribe or family, as
in the later system. Thus David made priests of
his own sons and of the chief men of the kingdom
(28 818 RV).* Zabud the son of the prophet
Nathan is also described as a priest (1 Καὶ 45). In
the oldest stratum of the law, the ‘Book of the
Covenant,’ it is assumed that the Israelite offers
his own sacrifices in primitive patriarchal style.
Thus, in the directions Moses is to give to ‘the
children of Israel,’ we read, ‘If thou make me an
altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn
stones,’ ete., and ‘neither shalt thou go up by steps
unto mine altar’ (Ex 20%: *8), where no priestly
order is referred to. In the story of Micah (Jg 17.
18, assigned to JE) a certain Levite appears as a
priest, but in a most primitive fashion, consecrated
or installed by Micah in his own house, and serving
as a domestic chaplain. The whole narrative
reveals a condition of superstitious faith in the
mediatorial eflicacy of the mere presence of a
priest. In the narrative of Eli and his sons (1S
1. 2U_3, assigned by Budde to E? and by Kittel to
SS, ¢.e. an Ephraimite history of Samuel and Saul
compiled from various sources about the time of
Hosea) we have a recognized priesthood at Shiloh,
so completely accepted that the priests are resorted
to in spite of their tyrannical and immoral be-
haviour. In Dt the priesthood of the Levites is
regulated by law, and a complete system of priestly
mediation by means of sacrifices, etc., elaborated.
Jeremiah (7) enforces this by dwelling on the import-
ance of the priesthood (Jer 33!*~"), | Ezekiel, in
pronouncing the degradation of the Levites who
had been the priests of the various high places,
and confining the priesthood to the house of Zadok,
i.e. the Jerusalem order, concentrated the media-
torial work in this body. Ezra’s great reform
carried Ezekiel’s ideas out in practice, and advanced
them still further in the development of the hier-

*See Driver, Notes on Heb. Text of Samuel, p. 220; H. P.

Smith, Comm. ad loc.; and, for ἃ different view, Cheyne in
Hxpositor, June 1899, p. 453 ff.

=

314 MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

archy. After the Exile, P and the complete Pen-
tateuch established the mediatorial functions of
the sons of Aaron, with the high priest at their
head “NIG, gure ae Sh Now thesmiest
hood becomes the official representative of the
people before God, only the priest being permitted
to approach Jehovah. This approach depends on
ceremonial purity; and the priest must be free
from bodily blemish (Ly 2135); but his function,
unlike that of the prophet, does not depend on
personal worth. As the mediator between Israel
and Jehovah, the priest expiates guilt by prayer
and sacrifice, and secures blessings for the people.
Aaron the high priest is to ‘bear the iniquity of
the holy things which the children of Israel shall
hallow in all their holy gifts’ (Ex 28%5)—a regula-
tion which Schultz interprets as meaning that his
surrender to God is a compensation for whatever
duties towards God the actual Israel has unwit-
tingly failed to perform, Sinilarly, the priests eat
the flesh of the sin-offering ‘to bear the iniquity
of the congregation, and to make atonement for
them?’ (Ly 10"),

The specific mediatorial functions of the priests
and of the high priest are kept quite distinct.
While apparently the high priest, being «@ fortiori
a priest, is at liberty to undertake any sacerdotal
function if he chooses to do so, he cannot delegate
the specific duties of his own office to any members
of the ordinary priesthood, nor may any of them
usurp his functions. lor the purpose of represent-
ing the people before God, the priests are permitted
a nearer approach than is allowed to the laity,
they only being allowed to enter ‘the sacred place,’
i.e. the first and larger portion of the sanctuary,
while the high priest, and he only, can enter the
inner chamber, ‘the most sacred place.’ The
priests perform a multitude of services for the
benefit of the community ; but the chief of these
is sacrificing, and it is at the altar that they
appear most conspicuously as mediators between
God and man. The old custom of private sacrific-
ing by individuals is now entirely abandoned, and
all sacrifices must be presented by the priests.
The first act, indeed, still rests with the lay
worshipper. It is he who procures the victim,
brings it up to the temple, and in some cases kills
it. Then itis taken over by the priests and their
officers. In the case of the zebah (AV ‘peace-
offering,” RVin ‘thank-oflering’), the priests lay
part, chiefly the fat, on the altar, and the rest is
eaten, partly by the offerers, partly by the priests,
so that the idea of Communion is still preserved,
The ‘dlah (* burnt-ollering’) being wholly consumed
on the altar, and representing complete surrender
to God, though not directly aimed at effecting an
atonement, points in that way more eijectually.
The rite would express any intense feeling, as of
gratitude, devotion, ov the craving for propitiation
(Lv 14). The hattath (" sin-otfering,’? Ly 4. δ. 674%,
Nu 15**) and the ‘d@sh@m (AV ‘trespass-offering,’
RV ‘guilt-oliering,’ Lv 5-7. 14. 19) were directly
anned at the removal of uncleanness and atone-
ment for breaches of Divine commands. [ἢ the
case of the sin-offering, while the offerer brought
the victim, the priests were to kill it, sprinkle
part of the blood betore the veil, and pour out the
rest at the base of the altar of burnt-offering.
The fat was to be burnt on that altar and the rest
burnt ‘without the camp, in a clean place, where
the ashes were poured out.’ There was this differ-
ence in the case of the trespass-ollering, that the
rest of the flesh was to be eaten by the priests in
a sacred place (Lv 7°).

In the daily service of the temple two lambs
were offered as burnt-offerings—one in the morning,
the other in the evening. The sin- and trespass-
oflerings were more occasional, as offences called

for them, and of a more private character. It is
in relation to these offerings that the priest stands
more cspecially as a mediator between the offender
and Jehovah, whose wrath he has occasioned, in
whose eye he is unclean, though perhaps owing to
some unintentional or ignorant act. But on the
great Day of Atonement the daily sacrifice was
supplemented with other burnt-offerings, and also
a sin-olfering, Which in this case was of a public
character, for the faults of the people generally.
In these matters the priest mediates in the God-
ward action, presenting the people’s sacrifices, and
seeking the Divine grace; but at times he also
acts as mediator from God to the people, when he
pronounces people clean, as in the cure of lepers.
See, further, arts. PRIESTS AND LEVITEsS, and SAC-
RIFICE.

The high priest appears still more specifically
as the mediator between the whole nation and
Jehovah. This is suggested by the fact that when
clothed with the ephod he bears the names of the
twelve tribes on his heart and shoulders as their
representative before God. On the Day of Atone
ment he enters the most sacred place and sprinkles
blood on the merey-seat, thus bringing the vital
part of the sacrifice into the Divine Presence
to make atonement for the sins of the nation.
Whether the idea embodied in this ceremony was
that expressed by the primary meaning of Aipper,
as a covering over of sin, or a covering of the
offender from the wrath of God (Cave, Schultz) ;
or whether, neglecting the primary signification,
it was suggestive of ἃ ransom or an atoning
payment (Bennett, Smend),—in either case the
action that secured pardon was performed by the
hich priest on behalf of the people. [For details
of the laws and processes here referred to, see
ATONEMENT (DAY OF) |.

3. Prophetic medintion.—Side by side with the
differentiation of the priest from the rest of the
community grows up the corresponding dilleren-
tiation of the prophet, who also has assigned te him
specific mediatorial functions. While the priest
comes between God and man chietly at the altar,
and for the offering of sacrifice, {νον in ascending
mediation, the prophet represents the descending
mediation, speaking for God, and revealing the
Divine will. This specific prophetic function has
been acknowledged in other nations besides Israel.
Thus among the Greeks from the carlest times
prophecy was hereditary in many families—among
the Jannide, the Clytiadie, the Telliadie, ete. In
later ages there were two classes of soothsayers,
—in one the enlightenment not being acquired by
art or study (ἄτεχνον καὶ ἀδίδακτον γένος), the soul
being either illuminated awake or thrown into a
trance or ecstasy ; in the other, the faculty being

obtained by study, as an art (τὸ τεχνικὸν yévos). See
Schémann, Griechisches Alterthuiu, vol. i. Plato

distinguishes between the μάντις, who has direct
communication with God, and the προφήτης, whe
merely interprets (7imaus, 711%). In Israel nee-
romancy was sharply distinguished from prophecy,
and considered wicked, as inconsistent with faith
in God. Soothsayers are not to be sought after
(Dt 18%-), nevertheless they are credited with real
power. The witch of Endor summons the shade of
Samuel, and thus obtains information for Saul (1S
28a late narrative, but so lifelike as to point
to a historical tradition), Then the true prophets
are marked off from lying prophets, who, however,
might be inspired by an evil spirit from Jehovah
(e.g. 1 KK 2254), The prophets who cry, ‘Peace,
peace,’ to flatter the people, are mere tricksters.
Still, in early times, the higher prophets were not
above doing in their Divine power what soothsayers
aimed at by sorcery (e.g. 1 5. 915. 1038), But it 15 in
the loftier functions of prophecy that its media

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

torial power is developed. ‘The prophet may have
been trained in one of the brotherhoods of the
‘sons of the prophets, in which case he corre-
sponds to the second class of the Greek prophets ;
but he may have been called without any such
preparation, and quite apart from professional
associations, as in the case of Amos the herd-
man (Am 7/4). Yet in any case le must have a |
Divine call and commission (e.g. Is 6). Then he |
comes forth with a Divine message, frequently
asserted in the phrase ‘Thus saith the Lord.’
Such a man mediates in the region of revelation.
Prophets also mediate with God on behalf of
Israel, Thus Jeremiah intercedes in prayer for.
Jerusalem (Jer 52!"), and Ezekiel for his people
(Ezk 134), But prophetic mediation of the
ascending kind is most explicitly described in the
classical passage Is 53. Whoever the ‘servant of
the Lord’ may represent,—whether Israel, the
spiritual Israel, the ideal Isvacl, Jeremiah, Zer-
ubbabel, the Messiah, or some unknown prophet
or martyr,—it is equally clear that the passage
assiens to him lofty mediatorial functions in giving
his life as an offering for sins.

4. Mediation in the Wisdom Literature. —'The
famous passage in Job where, according to AV,
the sufferer exclaims, “ΤΟ know that my Redeemer
liveth,’ ete. (Job 19°°*7), formerly appealed to as
an OT anticipation of the mediation of Jesus —
Christ, cannot be so employed on any principle of |
sound exegesis. The ‘redeemer’ is the gdel (9x3),
i.e. the next of kin whose duty it is to serve as the
avenver of blood; and the context shows that this can
only be God, whois described as the great Deliverer
in an earlier passage (57!) ; see Davidson, ‘Job, in
Camb. Bible, 14811., 991 We must look for this
doctrine of mediation in a totally different quarter,
It emerges in the personification of Wisdom, ‘That
is seen in a purely imaginative and metaphorical
form in the Bk. of Proverbs, where Wisdom appears
exhorting her son to receive her words (e.g. Pr °°"),
Thus Wisdom says what, if it appeared in the
Prophets, would assume the form of a message
from God. Wisdom is now the prophetic mediator.
In the Books of Wisdom and Sirach the personifi-
cation is carried still further, and yet it must be
regarded as wholly ideal. Philo consummates the
process in his doctrine of the Logos, repeatedly
described in personal language, and even mentioned
as τὸν δεύτερον θεὺν (in a fragment preserved by
Eusebius; see Drummond, P///o, ii, p. 197). He is
the mediator of creation, of the Jaw, of all the
OT theophanies and revelations. And yet it is a
mistake to regard Philo’s Logos as an actual
person. Strong as his language is in this direction,
it is only the language of allegory, and in the exact
interpretation of it we cannot take the Logos to
be other than the Divine Reason, or, when regarded
more objectively, God’s ideas and plans concerning |
the universe (see Leg. Allegor. 1. 19). Still less |
‘an we admit that Philo identifies the Logos with |
the Messiah. Any Messianic mediation is entirely
foreign to his philosophy. See, further, art. LoGos,
p. 135.

5. The mediation of angels.—Closely associated
with this subject, the Wisdom mediation, is that
of angels—the one representing the trend of Alex-
andrian Jewish thought, and the other the specu-
lations of the Jerusalem Rabbis. ΠῚ both cases
the same cause is behind. Both Alexandrian and
Palestinian Judaism were profoundly influenced
in their conceptions of the Divine nature by the |
dread of anthropomorphism, and by the conse. |
quent tendency to widen the interval between God
and man. ‘The result is an immense enlargement
of the necessity for mediation. God does not come
into direct contact with man and the universe ;
creation is carried out by means of angels; the

law is given by angels; the OT theophanies are
angel appearances. Preparation is made for these
ideas in the OT itself, where we have not merely
angels communicating between earth and heaven,
as on Jacob’s ladder (Gn 28!"), but one—‘ the
angel of Jehovah’ (J; e.g. Gn 16"), or ‘the angel ot
God’ (E; e.g. Gn 21!) —in direct dealings with men,
But the mediation of anvels is all in one direction
—the descending. “The ΟἿ᾽ nowhere teaches the
intercessory mediation Of angels (see ANGEL).

iii, MEDIATION IN THE NT.—The doctrine of
mediation in the NT is wholly centred in’ Jesus
Christ. Intercessory prayer is recognized as a
means of securing blessing when offered by Chiis-
tians on behalf of their brethren (e.g. 1 Th 5°,
2Th 3!, Ja 5!) ; but this is quite secondary to the
mediation of Christ, and may be regarded as
dependent on it, since Christian prayer is in the
name of Christ (e.g. Jn ζοῦν, Similarly, eitts of
healing being limited to certain persons, the exer-
cise of them on behalf of others may be regarded
asa kind of mediation ; but here, too, the power is
through Christ and exerted in His name, as that
of the real Mediator (e.g. Ac 3° 0%).

1. Christ as Mediator.— The very Messianic
conception essentially involves the idea of media-
tion. From the thought of God coming to deliver
Israel and judge the oppressors in His own Person,
in a theophany, the later Jews came to look for
deliverance and judgment in the advent of the
Messiah, who was to execute the Divine will and
realize the blessings of Divine erace for Israel.
At first regarded as an exalted king of the line οἱ
David restoring the throne of his ancestor, the
Messiah came in course of time to be invested with
superhuman powers. In the Psalms of Solomon
the hope is very vivid. Sinless himself, he wil
come as a king both to purify and to liberate Israei
(Ps.-Sol 17% %: 47 189-18), As the son of David, he
will feed Israel like a shepherd (178: 3). A Jewish
Sibyl hopes for the Holy Ruler who will come to
his everlasting kingdom. In the Apocalypse of
Enoch the Messiah is the rigiteous one who
reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden
(382 53° 468). He will come to be both Ruler and
Judge (45* 46°), There is some doubt as to the
date of these passages. But Charles has success-
fully vindicated the pre-Christian origin of the
greater part of the Messianic references (see The
Book of Enoch, Append. B, pp. 312-817). In all
this we have only the kingly rank and influence.
There is no indication of the priestly sacrifice of
mediation.

In the Synoptic Gospels we have accounts of the
realization of the essential elements of these expec-
tations, though with a complete conversion of
them into spiritual facts and a great elevation of
them in character and aim. In Mt’s account of
the angel's announcement to Joseph, Mary’s child
is to be called Jesus because Sit is he that shall
save his people from their sins’ (Mt 15), and the
propheey about Immanuel in Isaiah is applied to
Him (1393. Thus, since in Him Gou’s presence on
earth will be realized, He will be the connecting
link between God and man, and by being this
accomplish salvation, In Lk’s account of the
Annunciation it is) promised that He shall be
‘ereat,’ ‘called the Son of the Most High,’ and
receive ‘the throne of his father David.’ Here the
Messiahship is distinctly adlirmed of Him, and this
is connected with a Divine Sonship. We cannot
take the latter attribute in its full Christian
import—it is used as a title of the Messiah by
Caiaphas (according to Mt 26 and Mk 14°), per-
haps traceable ultimately to Ps 2% Still it inti-
mates at least a very close connexion with God,
and so helps the idea of the mediation of Christ.
The life of Christ opens out iv the Gospels in

316 MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

accordance with these anticipations, though doubt-
Jess not as they would be interpreted by Jews of
the first century. In particular, the following
facts may be noticed as indicative of our Lord’s
mediatorial character and work. (a) fis teaching.
As a teacher, Jesus Christ realized the idea of
prophetic mediation in the highest degree. The
originality, the lofty tone, the spiritual force, the
self-evidencing truthfulness of His utterances pro-
claim their Divine origin, and show the speaker to
be the medium through which the will of God is
revealed on earth. (8) His works. Here also
Jesus realizes a form of the descending mediation,
bringing down Divine power to effect the cure of
disease, ete. Thus He claims to work His miracles
by ‘the finger of God’ (Lk 1139. (y) His prayers.
Jesus carries on the mediation of intercession
(e.g. Jn 17). (6) His death. As we are concerned
only with the facts of the history at this point,
and should not import the subsequent reflexions
springing from apostolic teaching and later specu-
lations, we must not yet bring in any ‘doctrine of
the atonement.’ But, merely contemplating the
historical situation, we have in it a vivid picture
of mediation. Starting with our Lord’s self-evi-
dencing Messiahship in His life, teaching, and
work, we see Him facing death and enduring the
horrors of the Passion and the Cross, when He
might easily have avoided them. Had He re-
mained in Galilee, or had He continued in retire-
ment such as for a time He sought at Caesarea, in
Pera, and at Ephraim, still more had He aban-
doned Palestine and gone to Alexandria or Athens,
where His teaching would have been weleomed, at
all events superficially, for its novelty, He might
have eluded the pursuit of His enemies. But any
such course would have shattered His aims as the
Redeemer of Israel and the Founder ef the king-
dom of heaven. Accordingly, Jesus is seen sacri-
ficing His life for no personal object, but wholly
on behalf of His people ; and this we may accept as
a fact of history quite independent of specific
apostolic teaching and later theological speculation.

2. The teaching of Jesus on mediation. —a. The
teaching in the Synoptics.—The descending media-
tion of one who comes from God is not only
apparent throughout our Lord’s life on earth ; it is
distinetly claimed by Him in His utterances about
His own mission. Thus it is implied in His
acceptance of the Messianic title (Mk 839). and His
prophetic statements concerning His future action
in His second advent (Mk 8*8). He has come now
on behalf of God to establish the kingdom of
heaven ; He will come in the future with the glory
of His Father and the holy angels to judge the
worid. Then He is the revealer of God, and no
one can know the Father but he to whom the Son
is willing to reveal Him (Mt 1157). In the parable
of the Vineyard He is the Son sent by the owner to
collect the revenue—a mediator in the form of an
agent (Mt 21). When declaring that He will
own before His Father every one who confesses
Him on earth, and deny before His Father every
one who denies Him on earth, He approaches the
other form of mediation in which His words and
actions are efficacious with God on our behalf (Mt
10"). There are two passages in the Synoptic
narratives that connect this mediation with the
death of Christ. The first is the declaration that
He came ‘to give his life a ransom for many’
(Mk 10%, Mt 9038), The following points should
be observed :—(1) This phrase must be approached
from the context, where we find our Lord. is
teaching the duty of humble service by His own
example, as coming to minister and not to be
ministered unto, so that the primary intention of
the passage is not to teach any specific doctrine con-
cerning His mediatoria! work, and therefore must

not be pressed as though that were its aim. Still He
could not have spoken these words without meaning
that some sueh work was to be accomplished by
Him. (2) The expression ‘give his life’ (δοῦναι
τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ) cannot mean spend His life in ser-
vice, but must signify surrender it in death as all
parallels show (e.g. Mk 3¢ 8%, Lk 956 12%, Jn 101
13°7 15%), (3) This is voluntary (‘ give’—not ‘lose’
His life as in Mk 835), and emphatically the sur-
render of His own life (αὐτοῦ) in distinction from
the familiar Jewish notion of the giving some
payment or the offering some sacrifice distinct
from the person performing the act. (4) The
life of Christ thus surrendered is given as a ransom
(λύτρον). The Greek word occurs in LXX as a
translation of several Heb. terms (a5x3 Ly 25%! ;
119 Nu 34-51; p43 Ex 21%; oma Nu 3) which
signify ‘ransom,’ 7.e. ἃ payment to effect liberation
or to release from penalty. It also appears in the
LXX as a rendering of the Heb. 123, which means
literally a covering, i.e. a propitiatory gift (Ex 21
302, Nu 35°", Pr 6 138), but “15 restricted by usage
to a gift offered as an equivalent for a life that is

claimed, the wergild’ (Driver, Deut. 425f.). This
second sense, though accepted by some here

(Ritschl, Lehre v. der —Rechtfertiqung wu. Vers.’ ii.
p. 08 Π1.), is not so appropriate as the primary
meaning of the word, since, though the LAX
writers give it in place of the Heb. word for
‘atonement,’ there is no evidence that the meaning
‘atonement’ was ever given to the Greek word.
Its usage follows its derivation, and wherever it
can be tested gives the idea of that which effects
release by being paid for that purpose (so Wendt,
Lehre Jesu, Ὁ. 512 Π.). (δ) This ransom is to effect
the liberation of many. It is for (ἀντί) many.
The exact sense of this word will depend on the
meaning given to λύτμον. Tf this could) mean
‘atonement,’ the Gr. ἀντί would=‘ instead of’;
but if it means‘ ransom,’ ἀντί must =‘ in exchange
for’; ae. Christ pays His life as the price in
exchange for which many are given up or set at
liberty. Two further points are left undetermined.
First, as to what that is from which the many are
set free. The close analogy of the ideas of the
passage would suggest death, or we may say a
state of slavery (see Lk 418 ‘deliverance to the
captives... to set at liberty’), especially that of
sin (cf. Jn 8-34), Second, as to the person to
whom payment is made. The widest differences
of opinion have prevailed on this point, patristic
opinion being for the devil (Origen, Gregory of
Nyssa), scholastic and later for God (Anselm).
Considering that the purpose of the ogion is not
to expound the doctrine of the atonement but to
enforce an example of service, it is probable that
both of these points are left out of account, so
that the teaching goes no further than the idea of
deliverance at the cost of Christ’s life voluntarily
given up for the purpose.

The other passage in which Jesus Christ ascribes
a mediatorial character to His death occurs in the
institution of the Lord’s Supper. The Eucharist
itself reveals Christ as a mediator, the elements
representing His body and blood as the media
through which His people are nourished with
Divine life. Lk reports Christ as saying of the
bread, ‘This is my body which is given for you? (τὸ
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον, Lk 2215), and St. Paul the
shorter phrase, ‘which is for you’ (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν---
κλώμενον being omitted from the best MSS, 1 Co
11%), words which describe the giving of His body
on behalf of or for the benefit of His people. And
a specific connexion with His death occurs in the
words about the cup. (1) In all four accounts the
blood of Christ is connected with the New Cove-
nant (Mk 14*4, Mt 2678, Lk 22”, 1 Co 11%), and in the
three accounts of the Gospels it is said to be ‘shed’

a

. towards what Jesus Christ actually effected.

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION 317

(ἐκχυννόμενον). This must point to death. The
connexion of the blood with a covenant is based on
a familiar Jewish idea—that of confirming a cove-
nant by a sacrifice, the blood of which is thrown
on the parties to 10. Thus in the sealing of the
covenant of the law vietims are sacrificed, and
Moses sprinkles (literally throws’) half the blood
on the altar and half on the people (Ex 24°), as
though to express the union of Jehovah and Israel
in the covenant by means of the blood, the sacri-
ficed life of the victim, shared by both. This rite,
being familiar to Jews who knew the law, must
have been sugeested to their minds by our Lord’s
words concerning the cup and His blood. He
teaches that His blood, 1.6. His sacrificed life, con-
firms the New Covenant (Jer 31°), making it
effectual and binding. (2) In one of the four
accounts if is added that this shedding of our
Lord’s blood is ‘for remission of sins’ (εἰς ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν, Mt 26%). Jesus had claimed the right to
forgive sins much earlier in His ministry (Mk 2°").
Now for the first and only time He connects this
with His death. The second evangelist uses just
the same phrase of John’s baptism of repentance
(βάπτισμα μετανοίας eis ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν), Where the
language does not determine whether it is baptism,
or repentance, or the two together that are con-
nected with forgiveness. Further, in neither case
does the language declare that the result is cer-
tainly attained, the preposition (es) indicating the
end aimed at, not the result reached. But in the
case of its association with Christ other teachings
and the whole tenor of His work indicate that it is
effectual, that the end is reached—a result which
the sequel shows was not always the case with
John’s baptism. The baptism of John pointed
Now
the connexion of this forgiveness with the shedding
of His blood draws our thoughts again to the
Jewish sacrificial system, where animals were slain
and their blood poured out as atoning offerings.
Thus the blood of the sin-offering was placed on
the altar (Lv 418). Jews hearing Christ’s words
must have understood Him to mean that He was
to die as a sacrifice for sin. Wendt considers this
phrase to be an addition of the evangelist, but
springing out of the consciousness of the Church
as a true interpretation of the significance of the
Lord’s Supper (Lehre Jesu, Ὁ. 521). Though a
Pauline thought, it is in Mt, not Lk.

b. The teaching in the Fourth Gospel. —This
introduces both aspects of our Lord’s mediatorial
work more clearly than the Synoptics, but here
it is not so easy to discriminate between Christ’s
original teaching and the form in which it is cast
by the writer. Jesus comes claiming Divine Son-
ship and union with His Father (Jn 10°), and
dispensing the Water of Life (44% 7°"). He is the
Bread of Life (64°), the Light of the world (815),
the Good Shepherd (10"), the True Vine (15) ; in
all these aspects He is the medium for bringing
to us the life and blessedness that God confers.
Then, on the other hand, He also appears as the
Mediator throuch whom men attain to God. He
is the Door of the sheepfold (10°), the only Way to
the Father (14°), and to see Him is to see the
Father (145). Further, He intercedes on behalf of
His disciples (175). He teaches that the raising of
Lazarus was in answer to His prayer (115). In
regard to His death, Jesus does not here use the
sacrificial language found in the Synopties, but He
describes it as voluntarily accepted, for He has
authority to lay down His life and to take it
again (10!'5), and also as being on behalf of His
people. He is the Good Shepherd laying down
His life for (ὑπέρ, ‘on behalf of -—John never uses
ἀντί, ‘instead of,’ in this connexion) His sheep
401). The metaphor in its connexion suggests

the shepherd facing the wolves in defence of his
flock ; and the first historical application of it may
be found in the scene in the garden, where Jesus,
instead of escaping,—like the hireling who ‘tleeth?
when he sees the wolf coming (10!¥),-- came forward
and surrendered, with the stipulation that His
disciples should not be touched (18'S). But it is
not possible to see the full meaning of our Lord’s
words realized in this incident or in any external
event. His solemn reference to His authority to
lay down His life, combined with the assertion that
He does so for the benefit of His people, points to
a deeper purpose, though one that is not here at
allexplained. Wendt holds that Jesus was pointing
to His whole saving work, which would be ruined
if He deserted His people and relinquished His
task; and also that Jesus thus set His disciples a
great example, and in doine that died for their
benetit—a somewhat vratuitous limitation where
nothing but the great purpose is defined. Wendt
points out that as the author himself is more
explicit on the relation of the death of Christ to
the forgiveness of sins (1 Jn 2? 410), and ascribes to
John the Baptist sayings on the subject (Jn 12% 6),
the reticence of Christ is an indication that so far
our Lord’s teaching has been correctly rendered
(Lehre Jesu, p. 539).

3. The teaching of the apostles on mediation.—a.
The speeches in Acts.—In St. Peter’s speeches
redemption is offered through Jesus Christ, who is
described as God’s servant (6 παῖς), a title reminding
us of Is 53 (e.g. Ac 3” *°), and therefore as bringing
His gift of redemption in obedience to the will of
God. The name ‘Sen of God’ is not here given to
Him; but He is called ‘Lord’ (κύριος), though in
distinction from Jehovah in an OT passage applied
to Him (Ac 25. The primary point to be made
out is that He is the Messiah. In treating of this,
St. Peter has to encounter the fact of our Lord’s
crucifixion. He does not here connect it with the
mediatorial work by introducing any doctrine of
the Atonement. He has to face the great objec-
tion arising in Jewish minds from the fact that He
who is aflirmed to be the Christ had been executed
in ignominy. This he does (1) by correcting
popular conceptions of the Messiahship, in calling
attention to other titles than that of the victorious
king, viz. that of Prophet (Ac 3”), and that of
God’s servant (3! 4°7); (2) by pointing to predic-
tions of the death of the Christ (e.g. Ac 28), so
that this should have been expected ; (3) by appear-
ing as a witness of the Resurrection, and appealing
to the like testimony of the other apostles. This
was the clinching proof that death had not an-
nulled the Messianic claims of Jesus, since He
had received the greatest mark of God's recogni-
tion. Having thus met the reproach of the Cross
and also given the positive proof of the Messiah-
ship of Jesus afforded by the Resurrection, St.
Peter proceeds to urge His claims (2%); to lay the
charge of their guilt against His murderers (34) ;
and to invite them to repentance with the promise
of future ‘seasons of retreshing’ in the return of
Christ (3! *°), but also with the gospel declarations
that God had raised up His servant to be a means
of blessing to the people in turning them from
their sins (37°), that in Him and in Him alone is
salvation (41:12. He was described earlier as the
‘Prince’ or ‘Author of life’ (τὸν δὲ ἀρχηγὸν τῆς
¢wns, 815), and later as exalted by God to be ‘a
Prince and a Saviour.’ Thus these speeches dis-
tinctly set forth the idea of tlee descending media-
tion with the presentation of Jesus Christ as the
Divinely-appointed intermediary through whom
salvation is brought tomen. They do not set forth
any doctrine on the Godward aspect of mediation,
though the choice of the title ‘the Servant,’ pointing
to 15 53, brings in the germ of it for reflecting minds.

318 MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

v. St. Paul and 1 Peter.—When we come to
St. Paul’s Epistles we reach a fuller expression of
the Christian doctrine of mediation in both its
aspects. He is the first NT writer to use the term
mediator (μεσίτης), viz. where he says the law
‘was ordained through angels by the hand of a
mediator, and adds, ‘now a mediator is not of
one; but God is one’ (Gal 3! *°), Winer states
that the number of interpretations of this passage
mount up to 250 or 300. Origen and commentators
who have followed him are plainly wrong in under-
standing Christ to be the mediator St. Paul here
mentions. Undoubtedly he means Moses, who
received the law, according to the rabbinical
doctrine, not directly from God, but through the
angels, and communicated it to the people (see
Ly 26" LXX). Lightfoot’s view of the second part
οὗ the passage is as follows: ‘The very idea of
mediation implies two persons at least, between
whom the mediation is carried on. The law, then,
is of the nature of a contract between two parties,
(rod on the one hand, and the Jewish people on
the other. It is only valid so long as both parties
fulfil the terms.’ But it is different with God's
promise. God is one, and no other person is
concerned with the promise ; therefore it is ab-

solute and unconditional (Lightfoot, Gal. in
foe.). "This interpretation is substantially that

of Schleiermacher, Winer, Herrmann; it is sup-
ported by Lipsius (/fand-Com. in loc.). Hausrath
treats the ‘ot one’ (évcs) as neuter (in spite of the
cis), and takes it not numerically, but quantita-
tively, as signifying that the mediator is not a
unit, but admits two distinctions of will—-a diffi-
eult and improbable position.

no direct reference to Christ’s mediation, but that
it even excludes this from view for the time being
by contrasting God’s direct promise in the Gospel
with the mediation of Moses in the law.
ix only one form of mediation that is thus ex-
cluded, for the idea of mediation is prominent in
the apostle’s writings. In 1 Ti 2” Jesus Christ is
distinctly called a mediator between God and men.
Both aspects of mediation are set forth in St.
Paul’s writings. (1) Christ is the Mediator in
bringing Divine grace to man. St. Paul carefully
distinguishes the Son from the Father. The
Father sends His Son to effect redemption (e.g.
Cal 4*, Ro 85). Phroughout, St. Paul teaches that
this blessing originates in the love of God, who
therefore does not require to be rendered gracious
hy the offices of a mediator, but, on the contrary,
out of His own grace provides the mediator (¢.q.
Ro 3°? 58). To effect the great purpose οὗ re-
demption, Christ communicates to us the know-
ledge of God (2 Co 4°), the grace of God (Ro 5”),
renussion of sins together with ‘the righteousness

If, then, we follow |
Lightfoot here, we not only see that the passage has |

Still it |

of God? (Ro 38”, Ph 3"), God’s free gift of eternal |

lite which is ‘in Christ Jesus our Lord’? (Ro 6”), |

and all the blessings of the Christian gospel. St.
Paul, writing out of his own experience, describes
the Christian life as a condition of union with
Jesus Christ (e.g. Ph 2), (2) Christ is also the
Mediator in bringine about reconciliation with
God. There is a point where these two kinds of
mediation coincide or work together. Thus St.
Paul writes of ‘God reconciling us to Himself
through Christ’ (2 Co 5!8), and describes God as
thus reconciling the world to Himself, with the

addition ‘not reckoning unto them their trespasses ’

(v.""). This clause suggests that, while the passage
as a whole points to the overcoming of man’s
enmity to God, there was also the removal of

God's charge of guilt against man, and therefore |

a certain Godward aspect of the mediation, ἃ]-

though even this originated with God.
Greek word for ‘reconcile’ has this

bearing is suggested by other instances of the use
of it, e.g. Ro 5, where the ‘reconciled’ (καταλλα-
yévres) appear as those restored to the Divine
favour and not merely turned from their own
enmity, and 1 Co 7!!, where the wife’s being recon-
ciled to her husband includes a kindly reception on
his part. St. Paul sets out his ideas on this sub-
ject very explicitly in Ro το in which passage
the following points may be noted: (a) The
redemption originated in God who ‘set forth
publicly’ (προέθετο, proposuit; Vulg., Sanday-
Headlam, though RVim follows Pesh. and Origen
with the meaning ‘ purposed’), showed His right-
eousness in regard to His previous forbearance,
and now acts as ‘the Justifier.” (3) It is mediated
by Christ. The redemption is in Christ Jesus.’
God set Him forth to effect this end. It is en-
joyed through faith in Him. (y) This is accom-
plished by Christ becoming a ‘ propitiation,’ and
by means of ‘His blood.’ The word rendered
‘propitiation’ (iNagryjpiov) is literally ‘a place or
vehicle of propitiation’ (Sanday-Headlam), and is
used in LXNX and He 95 for the lid of the ark, the
‘merey-seat?; but it cannot be so employed here.
Either it is a neuter adjective, or a mase. accus,
adjective used predicatively of Christ (Sanday-
Headlam). As a neuter it is often taken to be
equivalent to a ‘propitiatory sacrifice’ (Luther,
Thol., Phil, Delitzsch, Ritschl, Lipsius, ete.), or
indelinitely as ἃ ‘means of propitiation’ (Hot-
mann, Weiss, etc.). Whichever interpretation we
accept shows that the ordinary pagan thought cf
propitiating an offended divinity cannot be in.
tended ; besides, it is to be observed that the wore
ἰλάσκομαι is never used in LNX or N'T in the middle
form, as with the classics, for propitiating God,
but always in the passive, for God’s being gracious.
Therefore we must understand the propitiation,
even if sacrificial, as a means by which God acts
graciously to man. Then the statement that this
is by means of Christ’s blood, points to the death

of Christ as a sacrifice; but with the distinctive

thought that His life was given, that the value of
this life, surrendered in death, might be the propi-
tiation, or means of bringing God’s grace to man.
Elsewhere St. Paul emphasizes the importance of
the death of Christ in this connexion, ‘The mexsage
he preaches is ‘the word of the cross’ (1 Co 18),
‘Christ died for (ὑπέρ) our sins’ (1 Co 159. This,
St. Paul gives as part of what he had ‘received
from the Lord,’ adding that it was ‘according to
the Scriptures.’ Here we have two sources of the
apostle’s doctrine of the atonement—tradition of
Christ's teaching (e.g. 1 Co 11”, and such a dogion
as Mi 10"), and inferences from Scripture (6,0.
5" 83° Ὁ: or, ΤῊΣ Bate ste Ad OSs) ΒΕ Ῥὰπ
writes of Christ as dying ‘én behalf of?’ (d7ép)
and ‘concerning’ (περί, the LXX word for sin-
oflerings) our sins; but he never uses the expres-
sion ‘instead of? (ἀντί), dying in our stead. He
says that Christ was ‘made to be sin on our
behalf? (2 Co 54), a powerful expression for being
treated as a sinner, and so ‘a curse for us’ (Gal
3), He does not explain low it comes about
that this suffering and sacrificial death of Christ
effect our redemption. He seems to have the
analogy of the Jewish sacrifices in mind, though
he does not directly cite it (as the author of He)
in explanation of his doctrine. He also points to
the obedience of Christ as a ground of justification
(Ro 5!%). Τὸ is impossible to read St. Paul’s words
on this subject without seeing that he very closely
connects the death of Christ with the salvation of
souls, that he regards this death as sacrificial—/.e.
as an offering to God—while at the same time he
never regards it as inducing God’s grace, but, on the

That the contrary, treats it as springing from the love of God
twofold . to mankind, St. Paul does not contine his teaching

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION 31S

on the mediatorial work of Christ to His death.
The Resurrection is also for our benefit; our
Lord was both ‘delivered for our trespasses” and
‘raised for our justification’ (Ro 4°). In His risen
life He is ‘the first-fruits of them that are asleep’
(1 Co 15°). Lastly, His intercession, now carried on
in heaven, is an important part of His work as
Mediator (Ro 85. In St. Paul’s later Epistles the
more advanced Christology necessarily affects the
doctrine of mediation. In Colossians we seem to
have a Christian alternative to the Jewish doctrine
of the mediation of angels in the administration
of the universe, and perhaps to Philo’s specitic
teaching concerning the Logos as the mediator of
creation, for there we read concerning Christ. that
‘in him were all things created’ (Col 1:6), and
the mediator of providential government, for ‘in
him all things consist’ (v.17). Referring to his
teaching on the death of Christ who had ‘made
peace through the blood of his cross,’ St. Paul
enlarges the application of it to a future ‘recon-
ciliation of all things. . . whether things upon the
earth, or things in the heavens’ (v.*’), thus repre-
senting Christ as the great mediator and peace-
maker for the whole universe.

1 P closely follows the Pauline teaching. Christ
redeems us with His ‘blood as of a lainb without
blemish’ (115), this reference to the lamb making
the shedding of the blood evidently sacrificial.
Similarly St. Peter writes of His bearing our sins
in His body upon the tree (2), and suffering ‘ for
sins once, the righteous for (ὑπέρ, on behalf of) the
unrighteous, that he might bring us to God? (318).
The only addition to the Pauline thought is the
greater stress laid on the sufferings of Christ—
while St. Paul usually confines our attention to
His death. The idea of bringing us to God sug-
vests reconciliation, and Christ, through His suffer-
ings, coming as the Mediator who effects this
reconciliation. In one mysterious passage the
source of which, or subject alluded to, cannot be
traced, St. Peter enlarges the idea of the mediation
of Christ in an entirely new direction, assigning
part of its operation to the state of the dead ; for
such is the simplest and most generally accepted
interpretation of the statement that ‘he went and
preached unto the spirits in prison’ (3! °°). That
this was only a brief episode, confined to the time
between the death and the resurrection of Christ,
is suggested by other passages in the Epistle in-
dicating that He was raised from the dead (1°), and
that He passed into the heavens, there to exercise
exalted powers of government (93).

c. Lpistle to the Hebrews.—The main topic of
Hebrews is to exhibit the mediatorial status and
functions of Jesus Christ in contrast with the
various forms of mediation recognized in Judaism.
The Epistle opens with a contrast of the unity and
exalted character of the new revelation in a Son
with the broken and varied nature of the OT revela-
tion by means of prophets. Christ there appears as
the agent of creation, the sustainer of all things,
who has also made purification for sins (1'**). Then,
taking up the contents of this revelation, it pro-
ceeds to work out the contrast in several regions.
First, we have the mediation of angels in giving
the law ; the writer contrasts the higher status of
the Son, whois honoured with Divine titles,
though addressed by God as another person to
whom is committed the government of His king-
dom (14-2!8), Here Jesus is named ‘the Apostle
and High Priest of our confession,’ in contrast
with Moses, who was only a servant in God's house,
while Christ is both the Builder of the house and
the Son set over it (3°). The idea of our Lord’s
High-priesthood thus introduced is enlarged. He
has passed into the heavens, and therefore we are
encouraged to draw near with boldness to the

throne of grace (4:8). This leads on to specific
teaching concerning our Lord’s priestly office. Two
general considerations arise—the priesthood is of
Divine appointment ; yet it requires human sym-
pathies on the part of the priest. Both of these
conditions are fulfilled in Christ's priesthood. In
taking the two together we see that His office is
related both to God and to man, so that He stands
in the intermediate position of a priestly mediator
(5). A reference to Melchizedek in Ps 110 leads
to a comparison of the Messianic priesthood ‘after
the order of Melchizedek,’ with the priesthood of
Aaron to the advantage of the former, since
Abraham, the ancestor ot Levi, did homage to Mel-
chizedek, and since the priest of the Melchizedek
order is declared by the Psalmist to be perpetual.
After alluding to the sacrifices—a subject to be
developed later—the writer returns to the idea of
Sonship as the crowning proof of the superiority οἱ
Christ as a priest (ch. 7). Then he passes to a
fresh consideration. It must be admitted that
Christ is not a priest under the Jaw, and therefore
not in accordance with the OT covenant. But a
new covenant is introduced — that predicted by
Jeremiah, concerning the law written in the heart.
It is under this covenant that Christ’s priesthood
is exercised. It is through Him that the covenant
itself is brought into effect. Here we come to
another instance of the use of the word ‘ mediator’
in the NT: Christ is described as the ‘Mediator’
of this new and better covenant, ‘that is, the
Agent by whom it is established’ (Bruce, Hebrews,
p. 296). This use of the word is parallel to St.
Paul’s in Gal 3 °°, where the apostle applies it to
Moses as the agent through whom the covenant of
the law was introduced. In both cases we have
only the descending mediation, the mediator repre-
senting and executing God’s will among men. But
though the author does not use the title for the
other aspect of mediation, he is most explicit in
teaching the truth that represents in etlect the
Godward side of mediation. ‘This is implied in the
priestly work of Christ. Like the Levitical priests,
Christ approaches God on our behalf; but with
these important differences, that He not only
etfects much more than Aaron efiected for Israel,
but also brings His people directly into the
Divine Presence. Subsequently the argument
proceeds to develop the idea of the sacrifice of
Christ in contrast with the Jewish sacrifices, and
here it directly deals with the Godward aspect of
mediation. Christ offers the sacrifice of Himself
to God (91). Later, contrasting this sacrifice of
Christ’s with the Jewish rites, the author quotes
Ps 40, where God says He has no pleasure in burnt-
offerings and sacrifices for sin, and where the
Psalmist promises instead of such oblations the
offer of his own service to do the will of God. That
surrender of obedience is taken over by the author
of Hebrews and applied to Christ as the essence of
His sacrifice. By this will, 2.6. by Christ thus
doing God’s will, we are sanctified. But such
obedience involves dying, it is carried out to the
very end and consummated in death (cf. Ph 2°
‘becoming obedient unto death’); and thus it is
oflered as a ‘sacrifice for sins.’ This is so effectual
that it needs to be offered but once, while the
Jewish sacrifices were repeated (He 101-19), Here
we have most distinctly set forth the Godward
aspect of mediation. It is impossible to under-
stand the writers doctrine of Christ’s sacrifice
merely as God sacrificing Himself in the person of
His Son in the sense of giving Himself to us, for
he distinctly says that the sacrifice is offered by
Christ ‘unto God’ (τῷ θεῷ, 91. The etfticacy of
this is widespread. It is to cleanse the conscience
from dead works to serve the living God (9%),
for ‘the redemption of transgressions’ (v.15), ‘to

320 MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION

put away sin’ (v.*5), a ‘sacrifice for sins” (ὑπὲρ
ἁμαρτιῶν, 10"), and so leading to ‘remission of sins’
(10). At the same time it is for the confirmation
of the new covenant. The author connects the
death of Christ with this result in two ways:
reading the word for covenant (διαθήκη) in the
classical Gr. sense as a will [but see Westcott, ad
loc.], he argues that for the will to take effect there
must be death (9!7); then, returning to the idea of
covenant, he compares the blood of Christ to that of
the sacrifice which confirms a covenant (Ex 24°*),
ἃ. St. John. —(a) The Johannine theology as
represented in the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles.
—The Prologue to the Gospel introduces the Logos
as the mediator of creation and revelation, the
title probably coming from Philo and Stoic usage,
but the idea from Hebrew conceptions of the
‘Memra’ [see JOHN, vol. ii. p. 685]. God’s revela-
tion in nature (Jn 15), in prophecy (νν. 8), in
consciousness (vv. 2°), and in the incarnation
(vy) is in every case mediated by the Logos,
who is a Divine Being, in intimate relations with
God, and Himself essentially God, yet with a
certain personal distinction from God {ἢ God
vives eternal life to the world through Christ (310).
To have the Son is to have the life, and not to
have the Son is not to have the life (1 Jn 5). It
is through Him that we receive the knowledge of
truth and God (ν.3). Other ideas of the same
character are containe | in St. John’s accounts of
the teachings of Christ, referred to above. Then
the apostle distinctly sets out the other aspect οἱ
mediation, in the atonement for sin offered by our
Lord. Christ was ‘manifested to take away sins’
(or ‘bear sins.” RVin; Gr, iva τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ. 1 Jn
3°). Compare St. John’s report of John the
Baptist’s words about ‘the Lamb of God which
taketh away (RVim ‘ beareth,’ Gr. a%pwy) the sin of
the world? *(Jn-1).
describes Jesus Christ as fan advocate’ (mapa-
κλητον) with the Father (1 Jn 91), 7.e. as a pleader
who mediates on our behalf, and represents our
“ase to God; and as a ‘propitiation for our sins’
(ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, 95). It is to
be observed that the word rendered ‘ propitiation ἢ
is not the same as that employed by St. Paul in
Ro 3% (ἰλαστήριον), and signifies distinctly either

More specifically St. John

an act of propitiation, or, in Alexandrine usage,

259),

ἃ means of propitiating (e.g. Nu ὅν, Ly 25 In
2 Mace 3° ποιεῖσθαι ἱλασμόν is used of a priest making
ἃ propitiatory sacrifice (see Thayer-Grimm). Δς-
cordingly St. John seems to mean that Christ is
the propitiatory sacrifice. He had said earlier
that ‘the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from
all sin’? (1 Jn 17); where, as usual, the word 6/o0d,
written by a Jew with reference to cleansing from
sin, must refer to a sacrificial idea. Thus by His
death Christ becomes the sacrifice which removes

our Lord liberated religion from the external and

the guilt of sin, and secures forgiveness for the -

penitent. In common with other N'T writers, St.
John does not explain the rationale of the process.

(3) The idea of mediation in the Apocalypse.—
Soth aspects of mediation are here presented to
us. On the one hand, Jesus has come from God
with truth and erace, and will come again to
execute judgment. He is the Logos, ‘The Word
of God’ (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, 19), and so the source of
revelation. He is the ‘Living One’ (ὁ ζῶν, 4° 7°
10°), and therefore the source of life. He appears
as the mediator of creation, like the Logos in the
Gospel, for He is ‘the beginning of the creation of
God? (ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, 34). Beyschlag
understands this to mean the first being created
(NT Theol. ii. 381); but most interpreters regard
the ἀρχή as independent of creation, its determin-
ing principle (so Weiss, Gebhardt, Lechler, Bousset,
sriges, Stevens, etc.). Further, he holds the keys
of Hades and of death (18), a.¢. determines who

shall enter and who shall leave the region of the
dead. He sits on the throne with God (37! 7! 12°),
and will be the assessor of God in the judgment
(6117), In all these respects God acts through
Him. On the other hand, we see in Christ the
Godward aspect of mediation in which He repre-
sents us to God. As in Hebrews, though less
explicitly, Christ is both priest and sacrifice. The
opening description of Him as ‘clothed with a
ciurment down to the foot, and girt about at the
breasts with a golden girdle’ (1'8), plainly points to
priestly robes. But He is also the sacrifice. The
most characteristic designation of our Lord in this
book is ‘the Lamb of God,’ a title which occurs 29
times: He ‘loosed (RV λύσαντι, following best MSS,
instead of ‘washed,’ λούσαντι, AV) us from our
sins by his blood’ (1°); the saints ‘have washed
their robes and made them white in the blood of
the Lamb’ (74). Such language in a book that
has many features of Judaism cannot but contain
a sacrificial allusion. At the same time, here and
elsewhere in NT, while the explanation of ideas
of ‘blood’ and ‘sacrifice’ must take account of the
OT, the advance of the Christian revelation to
higher and more spiritual conceptions of religion
forbids us to limit the meaning to Jewish ideas.
The spiritual essence of sacrifice, the surrender of
will, is the specially Christian thought.
Conclusion.—Al through the Bible the idea of
mediation in both its aspects is continually appear-
ing. In the OT we find it distributed among a
number of persons and functions—in the patriarch,
the king, the prophet, the priest, the sacrifice,
the ‘servant of the Lord.’ In the NT all these
distinctions are merged in the sole mediation of
Jesus Christ, both aspects of which are seen in
His life and teaching, and in the apostolic writ- |
ines. Our Lord appears throughout asone sent by |
God to reveal Divine truth, to execute the Divine
will, to bring deliverance to mankind from sin
and ruin, to confer the gift of eternal life, and to
establish the kingdom of heaven on earth. On |
the other hand, His action, to some extent His |
teaching, more explicitly the apostolic teaching
(represented by St. Panl, St. Peter, St. John, and |
Ep. to Heb.), present Him as the Mediator with
God on behalr of mankind, making intercession
in His prayers on earth and in His heavenly life
after the resurrection, but chiefly giving His life |
as a ransom, shedding His blood for the remission ——
of sim, acting as a means of propitiation, doing
God’s will, and dying as the perfecting of obedience
to please God for the benefit of mankind, contirm-
ing the new covenant by His death. ‘The images
of ‘blood’ and ‘sacrifice’ are drawn from the OT,
and can be understood only when their origin and
allusion are recognized. At the same time, since

material limitations of Judaism, this process must
be acknowledged with regard to the priestly and
sacrificial functions. The revelation of the Father-
hood of God necessarily modifies the idea of inter-
cession and priestly mediation. The revelation of
His spirituality, and of the spiritual character of
religion, carries with it freedom from material
conceptions of sacrifice. The OT priest killed
animals and sprinkled actual blood. Christ gave
His life on the cross; but the reference to His
blood has no such material connexion. We must
take it metaphorically for His life surrendered in
death. Similarly, since He was not, like the
Jewish sacrifices, an oblation laid by a priest on an
altar, His sacrifice must be interpreted spiritually,
and its reality found in the spiritual act of giving
Himself to God in death.

Explanatory theories, as that the ransom was
paid to Satan (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa), that the
atonement was offered to the rights of God, whose

MEDICINE

MEDICINE

suzerainty had been outraged (Anselm), that it
was for the satisfaction of law and abstract justice
(Protestant theologians, especially), that it con-
sisted in our Lord’s repenting on our behalf
(M‘Leod Campbell), ete., do not come within the
scope of this inquiry, as they appear only in later
speculations ; and though all of them appeal to
the Bible for the justification of their positions,
none of them can claim to be results of pure
exegesis, or even contents of strictly biblical
theology.

LitEkatuRE.—The place of mediation in foreign religions may
be gathered from the Introduction to The Sacred Books of
the East; the Hibbert Lectures; Monier Williams’ works on
Hinduism and Buddhism; and Non-Christian Religious
Systems (S.P.C.K). For treatment of the OT teaching see
works of OT theology by Oehler, Schultz, Smend, Piepenbring,
Bennett ; Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites ; Trumbull,
The Threshold Covenant. For the NT teaching see he each-
ing of Jesus by Wendt ; do. by Horton ; works on NT theology
by Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Bovon, Weiss, Stevens, Adeney ;
Bruce, Vhe Kpistle to the Hebrews; Ritschl, Die Lehre v. d.
Rechtfertigung τι. Versihnung, 3 vols. (Eng. tr. of vol. i}
M‘Leod Campbell, On the Nature of the Atonement; R. W.
Dale, The Doctrine of the Atonement; H. N. Oxenham, The
Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement ; Bruce, The Humiliation
of Christ ; Simon, The Redemption of Man, and Reconciliation
by Incarnation; Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine : Cave,
Script. Doct. of Sacrifice ; Pryce, ‘The Atonement,’ in Old Faith
in New Light. W. F. ADENEY.

MEDICINE.—Compared with other countries in
the same latitude, Palestine is, and probably was
in Bible days, a fairly healthy land. It has few
sluggish streams, and most of its valleys are wind-
swept; except in some few localities malarious
diseases are not very rife, and owing to its want
of harbours, and consequently of maritime com-
merce, imported epidemics are not as common as
they are in Egypt, which in the Old Testament is
regarded as very much more unhealthy (ef. Dt
718 28%, Am 4:0), In addition to these natural
advantages, if at any time the sanitary legislation
of the Priestly Code were strictly observed, this
must have been instrumental in preventing and
checking the spread of disease. Under the social
system set forth in the law, if it could have been
carried out, there would not have been any very
poor class, subject to the diseases fostered by
destitution ; and it is probable that until a com-
paratively late period there was no permanent
overcrowding in the larger towns. It is difficult
to estimate the density of the population in ancient
times, but, considering the frequent checks it
received from wars internal and external, it is not
probable that even in the most prosperous days
it ever exceeded 300 to the square mile. (The
numbers in 1 Ch 21> or 28 24° are obviously un-
reliable). The conditions of life contemplated in
the Priestly Code are those of a community of
agricultural freeholders ; and the social and moral
enactments of the law provide for the maintenance
of a healthy discipline, and for the repression of
excesses injurious to health.

Health, the state in which the bodily functions
are perfectly discharged, is, according to Sirach,
the greatest of earthly blessings (301%), The
word occurs 15 times in the OT (AV), but in
different connotations. It is used twice as the tr.
of DY shalom, referring to material prosperity
(Gn 4355, 9 5 20°), but here it is replaced by ‘well’
in the RV. Thrice in Ps ‘health’ in the old sense of
welfare is the rendering of ayes yéshii'ah (42" 435
07: ; in the first two places RVm substitutes “ΠΟΙ "Ὁ.
Four times a7 “drikah (prop. the new flesh that
forms on a wound), is tr. ‘health,’ but ‘ healing’ is
better (so RV, as in Is 588, and RVm in Jer 3017 a
In Pr 3° ‘health’ in the ordinary sense of the word is
the tr. of πνεῖ riph ath ; but in Pr 422 1918 1317 1624
and Jer 8, in which ‘health’ is used metaphori-
cally, the Heb. is xaq2 marpé’ (in the last ref. RV
renders ‘healing’). In the NT ‘health’ occurs

VOL. HI.—2I

twice: Ac 274, where it is the tr. of σωτηρία, and is
better rendered in RV ‘safety’; and 3 Jn 2%, in the
sense of bodily welfare, to ‘be in health’ being
the tr. of ὑγιαίνειν.

The blessing of health was rezarded as a reward
of service (Is 588), or withheld on account of sin
(Jer 8%"), In both OT and NT the popular belief
is referred to, that diseases are penal in their origin,
inflicted by God on account of sin either personal
or parental (Jn 9°) ; and coming sometimes directly
from Him (Ex 4", Dt 32%), or from Satan when
permitted (Job 27), or by the agencies of other
spirits, as those of dumbness (Mk 9!7) or foulness
(Mk 9”). Diseases might also be caused by envy
on the part of others (Job 5%), and the power of
the evil eye is referred to in 1S 18% as well as in
the Talmud (Shabbath 67, Pesachim 119, ete. ). They
might also come as consequences of gluttony, of
drunkenness, of vicious or self-indulgent. practices
(Sir 37°"1), but even in these cases they were re.
garded as coming by God’s direct. interposition,
Therefore healing was a divine token of forgive-
ness: God was the physician of His people (Ex
15°), and it was their duty to look to Him for
relief ; hence Asa’s sin in seeking to the physicians
(2 Ch 163).

Physicians. — The medical knowledge of the
biblical peoples was small in amount and crude
in character. In Egypt there were schools of
medicine in the 15th cent. B.c. (Papyrus Ebers i,
cili); but there are no traces of any system of
medical education in Palestine in Bible times, and
allusions to physicians are few. Egyptian physi-
cians, who are called Joseph’s servants, embalmed
Jacob (Gn 50"), These were probably Ar-hbu, the
class of priests whom the Greeks called paraschistes
and taricheute, whose long misunderstood relations
have been cleared up by Revillout (4g. Zeitschr.
1879, 1880). The existence of physicians in the
days of the compilation of the Book of Judgments
(Ex 9119) has een inferred from the order that the
assailant of his neighbour is to cause him to be
thoroughly healed. The x25 rdphé’, of Jer 8%,
was a healer of wounds, a bandager (cf. Ee 33).
While in Asa’s time to seek the physician was to
depart from God, Sirach in later days regards him
as God’s servant, ‘for from the Most High cometh
healing’ (385). At the same time repentance and
a memorial offering on the part of the sick man
are to precede the visit of the physician, who is to
be priest as well as healer (v.4). In the newly
discovered Heb. the passage in ν. 5, which, in the
Greek, seems to speak slightingly of him, says.
‘He that sinneth against God will behave sarro-
gantly before his physician’ (xp 55 723).

In early Egypt also the physicians were priests,
and Papyrus bers gives several formule to be
used as prayers while compounding medicaments
(for later Egyptian physicians see Herod. ii. 84).
The Hebrew priests had charge of certain branches
of public health, e.g. leprosy, but it was to the pro-
phets that those requiring medical aid chiefly
applied : Nathan (28124), Ahijah (1 K 14°), Elijah
(1 Καὶ 1718), Elisha (2 K 4), and Isaiah (ἡ Καὶ 207)
are examples. In post-biblical times Jewish
physicians were famous throughout the East, and
the sayings of many of these are preserved in the
Talmud and other rabbinical writings. According
to Sanhedrin 17b there was a physician in every
town, and there was also in the temple a physician
for the priests (Shekalim 5. 1, 2). At the same
time it was not unlawful to employ a Gentile,
even to perform circumcision, if no qualified Jew
was avallable (Menahoth 42a); but Gentile medi-
cine was to be taken with caution, as it might
contain blood. At first these physicians and
surgeons were mostly priests possessed of a certain
amount of traditional and empirical knowledge,

322 MEDICINE

MEDICINE

a, for example, in connexion with the diagnosis
of leprosy. Doubtless many of them were, like
Job’s friends, 5>x -x25 Job 134, that is, having the
same relation to real physicians as that which an
insignificant idol bears to the true God. Men of
this kind probably gave rise to the proverb in
Kiddushin 4. 14, that the best of physicians was
deserving of hell. In the NT we have Luke, ‘the
beloved physician’ (Col 413), in whose writings the
influence of a medical training has been recognized
by Lagarde (Psalterium jucta Heb, Hieron. 165),
Hobart (Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882); see
also Blass, Philol. of the Gospels, 1898. The refer-
ence to physicians in Mk 5% is not very apprecia-
tive (ef. with Lk 8:3).

Until a comparatively late period, the objections
to touching the dead, and the ceremonial unclean-
ness associated with such contact, prevented the
Jewish physicians from obtaining any practical
acquaintance with the interior of the human body,
as dissection was regarded as dishonouring the
dead (Chullin 116). ‘The famous Rabbi Ishmael
(A.D. 100), of whose anatomical knowledge many
stories are told, broke down this prejudice to some
degree, and obtained the body of a condemned
criminal for anatomical purposes (Bechoroth 457) ;
see also Nazir 32), for stories of Theudas recog-
nizing bones. Something of the structure of
animals must have been known from the priestly
experiences in. sacrifices, in which the operator
had the opportunity of inspecting the viscera of
the slain beasts. The methed employed in’ the
slaughter of the animals whose earcases were used
as food, in order to drain the body of its blood,
must also have given to the shehet (butcher) and to
the shomer (inspector), whose duty is to certify the
meat as kosher or clean, a certain amount of
empirical knowledge of the anatomy and pathology
of animals (Chud/in 94). In the Sepher Zabahi ot
Rabbi Meir Cohen (Leghorn, 1832) the ritual for
this examination is given at length, and from it
the stringeney of the rules for the recognition of
clean flesh can be estimated. This code is of con-
siderable antiquity, and must have been of great
henetit to the publie health (Buxtorf, Syn. Jud.
XXVIL.).

There are very few biblical references to the
facts of anatomy or physiology. ‘The blood is
the life,” and therefore tabooed as focd (Gn 94, Ly
111}. This in itself was an important sanitary
precaution, considering the highly metabolic nature
of blood, which is of all the materials in the body
the most likely to carry the microbes of disease,
as well as parasites of larger size. [π Job 10!° and
Ps 139-16 the current notion of embryology, which
was one of epigenesis, is set forth ; but the details
were considered as beyond human knowledge (Ke
115); see also Nidda 25. In Aruch the embryo
is said to appear at first like a grasshopper. 7,
tr. ‘navel,’ appears in Pr 3° as the seat of health,
perhaps as being the mid-point of the body, but
the word is perhaps a slip for 372 ‘flesh,’ in contra-
distinction to bones, as LXNX reads it (τῷ σώματί
σου). The heart (wh. see) was, to the Jews, as to
all the peoples of antiquity, the seat of emotion,
thought, and wisdom: the reins or kidneys (wh.
see) were the seats of feeling, passion, and deter-
mination: the bowels (wh. see) were supposed to
be the organs of affection and sympathy (see Job
30:7). In Zohar (Bemidbar 128) there is a remark-
able account of the anatomy of the brain.

There were many proverbial sayings current
among the Jews referring to physicians. Our
Lord quotes one of these: ‘Physician, heal thy-
self’ (Lk 4%). A similar saying, ὙΠ ὌΝ NON,
oceurs in Jalkut on Bereshith 38, and in Midrash
Rabbah (Beresh. 23). The same idea is expressed
in a saying ascribed to R. Levi (Midrash on Ly 5) :

‘It is a shame on the country whose surgeon is
gouty and whose oculist is blind.’ See Burek-
hardt’s Arab. Prov. No. 404. A proverb, the
parallel of our Lord’s parable of the Mote and the
Beam, occurs in Baba Bathra 15b, ‘Say not, Take
the straw out of thine eye, when thou hast a stick
in thine own.’ Another of His sayings, ‘They
that are whole have no need of a physician ; but
they that are sick,’ is nearly alike in sense to a
sentence in Baba Kamima 46h, ‘They who sutter
pain should seek the physician.’ Other medical
proverbs are, ‘God determines the healing before
the disease’ (Wegillah 13); ‘A wise man will not
live in a town where there is no physician’ (Sren-
hedrin 170); and, on the other hand, ‘Do not live
in a town of which the chief officer is a physician’
(Pesachim 113. 1); ‘ Honour the physician before
thou hast need of him?’ (Zanhuma, see also Sir 38!
Hebrew version).

Visitation of the sick, although not enjoined in
the Mosaic books, is urged as a duty in the Talmud
(Shabbath 127 B), and several paragraphs in the
Shulhan Aruch (Jére De'ah 335 11.) are devoted to
this subject. Several cases are excepted, such as
ophthalmie or abdominal diseases, and headache,
as these may be aggravated by disturbance,
Rabbi Johanan says, ‘He who visits the sick
lengthens his life, and he who refrains shortens it ’
(Nedarim 39). Our Lord’s enforcement of this
duty in Mt 25° # is noteworthy.

Of the general terms referring to disease in the
Bible the word in commonest use is sick. This
occurs 98. times in ΟἽ and 50 in NT. In the
former it is usually the tr. of app ha/ah, but in Ly
1555 (ef. 9018) it represents m7 davah, in the sense
of temporary periodic sickness: a cognate word
(11 in Is 1515 tr. ‘faint,’ and another (11) in Ps 41°
anguishing’ (subst.). In 28 1915 the word is 23s
‘Gnash (in imperf. Niph.). The ptep. pass. Qal is
used in Job 348 of an arrow wound, but. tr.
‘desperate’ in Is 171, fineurable’ in Jer 30%, and
‘desperately wieked? in Jer 17% ‘Sick? in [5.15 is
S05 Joholi, the word ὅπ being usually tr. ὁ disease.’
In Jer 1418 (‘sick with famine’) it 15. Os.nR
tauhali@im, lit. ‘sicknesses’ (cf. ΤΥ πὰ). This word is
tr. ‘diseases’ in Ps 103° and 2-Ch 21% ‘Sickness’
in OT is in 12 cases the rendering of μόλε, and
thrice of 75n> mahalah, Ex 23°, 1 Ik 8*, 2 Ch 6%,
‘Sicknesses” in the plural occurs in the ΟἿ᾽ only in
Dt 9859 (o7)5) 2978 (6 28).

Disease occurs 10 times in OT, 8 times as the
rendering of Addi; once in Ps 415 in the phrase ‘an
evil disease’ (AV, RV; Heb. 53252 727, νὰ ‘some
wicked thine’), and once as tr. of mahdalah in
2Ch 21, ‘Diseased’ represents nahdoth (Niph.
ptep. of Aon) in Ezk 34:51, and halah (Qal) int Ax
15% and 9 Ch 1013. ‘ Diseases’ in the plural is the
tr. of ἐσ μαζί ἴηι in 2 Ch 21 and Ps 108°, of γε πὴ,
in Ex 15, of map madveh in Dt 7° and 28”, and
of mahdaliyim in 2 Ch 24°.

Infirmity is used thrice in the OT, each time in
a different sense, and representing a diflerent
word, davdh in Ly 12? (in infin. con. with sutlix
anit), referring to periodic sickness ; 4@/ah (in intin,
Piel) in Ps 77!°, in the sense ef infirmity from sick-
ness; and mahdaleh in Pr 184, in the sense of
weakness in general. Plague is used sometimes as
the name of a specific epidemic and sometimes in
the sense of sickness in general, and is the tr. of
maggtphah, makkah, nega. In other places it
refers to other forms of affliction or to the Judg-
ments of God (1 Καὶ 851, Rv 1671). See PLAGUE.

The RV has changed ‘sick’ in Pr 23” into
‘hurt,’ and in Mie 6% ‘will I make thee sick in
smiting thee’ has-been altered to ‘I have smitten
thee with a grievous wound.’ —‘ Loathsome disease ”
in Ps 387 has been properly altered into ‘ burning,’
as the reference is to the heat of fever. ‘ Pining

MEDICINE

MEDICINE

sickness’ 353 in Hezekiah’s prayer, Is 3813. has been
also altered into ‘from the loom. Literally it
means ‘from the thrums’ whereby the web is
fastened to the weaver’s beam, the idea being that
as the web is cut off from the loom, so his life
was separated from its surroundings. The ‘evil
disease’ of Ps 41° is rendered in RVim ‘some wicked
thing’ (see above).

The words for ‘sickness’ are often qualified by
some expression or phrase. ‘Sickness unto death?’
of 2. Ch 32%, 1 Kk 14!, and Is 38! is contrasted with
‘sickness and recovery,’ [Is 301, R. Hanina ben
Dosa used to say of his patients, ‘This one is
sick unto death, this will recover? (Berachoth
5. 5). ‘Sore [sickness]? is the tr. of hazak,
‘violent,’ in 1K 17, The prefix in ‘sore diseases’
of 2 Ch 21 is the tr. of ra’. An ‘evil disease’ in
Ps 415 is literally a ‘thing (327) of Belial. The
diseases of Keypt are referred to as especially
severe in Ex 15%, Dt 7 28°7 286, «Tneurable
disease? used literally in 2 Ch 9115 is a phrase used
figuratively in Job 34°, Jer 1515, Mie 19. ‘Sickness
of long continuance’ is mentioned in Dt 28°,

Figurative expressions referring to disease are
not uncommon. It is a ‘scouree’ in Job 933: a
‘pestilence walking in darkness,’ Ps 91% The
Jewish idea of disease and death being inflicted by
a special angel is referred to in 28 24 1 Ch
21.5.18. 7 2 K 19%, Rev 68. In the second of these
passages he appears with a sword in his hand.
Diseases are also spoken of as God’s arrows, Dt
323-8, Job 64, Ps 647 915 1448, La 313, Zee 9 ete.
The Arabian proverb says that the pestilence is
God’s arrow which always hits its mark.

In the NT ‘sick’ and ‘sickness’ occur 58 times,
‘diseases’ and ‘diseased’ 15 times, and ‘infirmities’
19 times. These are tr. of various words: ἀσθένεια,
meaning primarily weakness and usually tr. ‘in-
firmities,’ sometimes ‘sick’ as in Ae 28° (ἔχοντες
ἀσθενείας) ; μαλακία, meaning softness or effeminacy,
as well as sickness, is used in Mt 459 9% 101, prob-
ably referring to wasting chronic diseases, and
contrasted in some passages with νόσος, which
indicates more acute violent seizures. Homer (Od.
Xv. 408) compares the hateful sickness (νούσος) fall-
ing on wretched mortals with the visitation of the
gentle shafts of Artemis and Apollo, whereby the
old are slain; and Hesiod assigns the origin of
diseases of this kind to the box of Pandora (Op. et
M1. LOL). νόσημα oceurs in Jn 54. The unfaith-
ful use of ordinances is said to cause those who
transgress to become weak and ἄρρωστοι (1 Co 11°),
Jerome on this passage says, ‘There are three
‘auses from which infirmities arise, either froin
temptation as Job and Tobiah, from sin as Asaph
the king and those referred to here by the apostle,
or from some intemperance as Timothy,’ ete.
Chryscstom interprets this as referring to bedily
ailments, great diseases, and premature deaths.
The reference is, however, possibly to mental and
spiritual weakness, as in Xenophon ((2conom. iv.
11 : καὶ αἱ ψυχαὶ πολὺ ἀρρωστότεραι γίγνονται). Hippo-
crates uses the word for disease either of mind or
body. In Mt 14 τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας is used for
‘those that were sick’; and in Ro 15! ἀσθενήματα
means weaknesses or infirmities of conscience, as
in Aristotle (de Gener. Animal. i. 18, where it is
used as the parallel of ἀρρωστήμα).

Some sicknesses, such as leprosy, rendered the
patients unclean, and caused their exclusion from
cities (see LEPROSY); but in general the sick were
treated at home. In later times hospitals were
established, generaily near the city gates. These
were called mvrn cna, and were like the Awati of
the present day.

In the earlher days of Jewish medicine it is
probable that bleeding, the universal panacea in

the dominant classical medical schools, was not. form of ague,

*

used, on account of the tribal belief concerning
the blood. In this the Jews were in accord with
Pythagoras and Erasistratus. It has been thought
that they were acquainted with the use of leeches
from the words of Agur (Pr 30%); bat if ‘horse.
leech? is the correct rendering (cf. HORSELEECH,
ad fin.), this only implies their knowledee of the
bloodthirsty habits of the leech, and does not refer
to its medicinal use. ‘Tare. on Ps 12 paraphrases
nor p72 as the ‘leeches which suck blood See
on this point Ahoda Zara 180, In later days,
however, the Jewish physicians conformed to the
universal practice.

Biblical references to sperifie diseases are of
two kinds, either so very eeneral that they are
indefinite, or concrete in Connexion with individual
cases. The former class for the most part consists
of names alone which are as vague as the folk-
names of disease usually are. Several of these
disease-names are grouped together in Dt 28% as
forming a class, which, on account of beine sudden,
severe, epidemic, and often fatal, appear as if
judgments directly from God. Most of these are
febrile diseases, and although it is not possible
precisely to identify the disease expressed by each
name, yet, from the experience which residents in
the East have acquired of the most prevalent
forms of disease, it is mest probable that the
diseases referred to are malarial fevers of different
kinds with, perhaps, tropical typhoid, and Medi-
terranean fever.

The first name on the list is neo shahepheth,
from a root signifying “leanness or wasting,’ hence
it is rendered ‘consumption’ both in RV and AV
(LXX ἀπορία). This may be phthisis, but, from
the connexion in which it occurs, is more likely a
febrile disease of long duration and attended with
wasting, something of the type of Mediterranean
or Malta fever, which may last for months, and
whose most prominent characteristics are the
weakness, anemia, and wasting with which it
is accompanied. The same word occurs in Ly
26'°. In both RV and AV the word. ‘consump-
tion’ is used in Is 10% as the tr. of prea Δι από,
meaning a wasting or destruction in general. The
RV, however, distinguishes in Is 1022 and 2822 be-
tween this and καΐαλ, translatine the latter as
‘consummation,’ whereas the two are confounded
inthe AV. In neither case, however, does it seem
to be a specific disease. Phthisis is not a charac-
teristic disease cither in Syria or in Egypt, although
it does occasionally occur in the former country.
See Tobler, Jed. Lopugraphie von Jerus. 42, and
Wittman, p. 92.

The three names that follow in Dt are nani
kaddahath, ‘fever’? (RV and AV; LXX πυρετός);
npia dalleheth, ‘inflammation’ (LXX ῥῦγος, ‘ague’) ;
and 1799 horhir (AV ‘extreme burning’; RV ‘fiery
heat’; LXX ἐρεθισμός, ‘irritation’). That these
three describe different kinds of fever is plain, as
all three words imply burning or heat. The
kaddahath is called in AV of Ly 9016. ‘burning
acue,’ and is said to ‘consume the eyes and make
the soul to pine away’ (LXX calls this disease
ixrepos, * jaundice’). It may be the malarial fever
which occurs in the Jordan Valley and the Lebanon
valleys, in Jerusalem and in the Shephélai, as
well as around the Sea of Galilee. This disease is
occasionally accompanied by jaundice. πυρετύς was
the disease of the nobleman’s son at Capernaum
(Jn 4°°) and of Simon’s mother-in-law (Lk 4% ‘a
great fever’) at the saine place (see Hippoer.
Epidem. iii.). The word in Mt 84 and Mk DP is
πυρέσσουσα.

Dalleleth was considered by some Jewish writers
as a burning fever, but by the LXX as an inter-
mittent fever. It may possibly have been some
which often occurs in the same

"

324 MEDICINE

MEDICINE

localities as the other forms of malarial fever,
perhaps indeed typhoid, which is now, and prob-
ably was in former times, one of the commonest
fevers in Palestine. Typhus was probably rare,
and is so still except in crowded places. Burck-
hardt mentions its occurrence under the name of
putrid fever at Djiddah (Arabia, i. 495), but says
that most of the tevers elsewhere are intermitting
in type, ii. 290. For typhus in Palestine see
Rafalowitsceh in Ausland, 1847, p. 1084.

Harhir must be something characterized by
irritation and heat, such as erysipelas, only that
this is not at all common as an epidemic, indeed
is not very common in Palestine. It might be one
of the exanthemata. The Hebrew name refers to
its heat, the Greek to the local irritation caused
by it. Of all these fevers the Rabbinic physicians
recognized four stages: incubation, beginning,
augmentation, and decline or convalescence. For
erysipelas in Egypt see Pruner, p. 118; see also
Brayer, Veuf années ἃ Constantinople, p. 46.

Following these in the Dt passage MT has 275
hereh, ‘sword’; but probably we should read 397
(as in margin of AV, RV) = ‘drought,’ either a
disease attended with dryness, or else simply
drought of the earth. The latter is more prob-
able, as it is followed by the words shiddaphén
and yerdkon, tr. here as in Am 4° and Hag 2"
by ‘blasting and mildew,’ penal destruction of

the fruits of the earth. For a5" as a disease
see Zee 127. It is tr. ‘a sword’ both in AV

and RV: but from the effects given in the pas-
sage, wasting of the arm and shrivelling of the
eye, it is plainly such a condition as the wasting
paralysis described below under diseases of the
nervous system (but see Nowack, Comm. ad loc.).

Two other words are used to describe wasting
diseases. Man chastened by God for his iniquity
has his attractiveness consumed (792 mdsah, ‘melt
away’) as by a moth (Ps 391 (Heb, 1*]). The same
condition is named ppt (mdkak, ‘fester’) in Zee 14".
This disease is threatened against the enemies of
Jerusalem, and is to consume their flesh, their
eyes, and their tongues. This is the ‘pining
away’ to which sinful Israel is condemned (Ly
263°" Ez 24 33), and the same term is applied
to festering wounds in Ps 38°, where it Is associ-
ated with burning pain in the loins, weakness,
violent action of the heart, ete. Much of the
description is plainly figurative of mental and
spiritual disquiet; but the imagery might well
be taken from an attack of contluent smallpox,
with its disfiguring and blinding effects, causing
the repulsion even of lovers and friends. There
is little reason to doubt the antiquity of smallpox.
Philo in his life of Moses (ed. Turnebus, 622 A.B.)
describes the sixth plague of Egypt as beginning
with a red eruption whose spots became swollen
and pustular, appearing as if they had been boiled
with the sudden heat. The sufferers were worn
down with anguish from these inflammations and
ulcers. ‘For to one looking upon one of these
cases in which the pustules, confluent into a mass,
were spread over the body and limbs, it appeared
as if they formed a continuous ulcer from head to
foot. Mas‘udi (in the Meadows of Gold, ed.
Meynard, iii.) states that in A.D. 370 smallpox
broke out among the Arabs for the first time,
but that the disease had been known among the
Jews before that time. (See also Hirsch, Sydenham
Soc. Tr. i. 125).

The word 52 (alah, ‘to come to an end,’ ‘ to
vanish away’) is used in Ps 71° of strength failing
in old age, and in Job 19°7 33" of flesh becoming
emaciated through illness (see Comm. ad loc.).

Pestilence or plague is also used as descriptive
of a violent disease, extremely fatal, and sent as a
punishment on large masses of people. Pestilence

is the tr. of 133 deber. ‘Plague,’ as far as it refers
to these epidemics, is the rendering of several words:
mean maggephah, in Nu 1437 16%. 49. 60 958. 9. 18 261 3116,
‘Cle Qe. Ὅν wae ses. NOG a a Zee tet ra
makkah, in Lv 262, Nu 11%, Dt 28°; ἢ negeph,
in Nu 16% 47, Jos 22'7; it is ya nega’, in Ex 11},
1S 64, Ps 911}, The fear of this deber was used
as an argument by Moses to Pharaoh to induce
him to let Israel go (Ex 94). With this disease
God threatens rebellious Israel repeatedly, Nu 14",
Dt 28:1. and there were at least four outbreaks
during the wanderings in the wilderness, just as in
later years it has appeared among the hordes of
Mohammedan pilgrims on their way to Mecca.
At Kibroth-hattaavah (Nu 11) it broke out
suddenly while the Israelites were consuming the
quails ; it is quite conceivable that these birds
may have come from some plague-stricken Arabian
district and conveyed the infection, as rats, oxen,
deer, and others animals have done in later times
(see Rocher, Chinese Imp. Cust. Gaz. Med. Rep. 15).

There was a second outbreak after the rebellion
of Korah (Nu 16%), stayed by the intercession of
Aaron; and a third to punish the discontent con-
sequent on the evil report of the spies (Nu 14%).
Here it is called maggephah. The fourth epidemic
followed the iniquity of Baal-peor, and probably
the infection was communicated by the Moabites
(Nu 25% 918), The judgment which followed David's
sin of numbering the people was of the same nature
(2.8 248, 1 Ch 21"; Jos. Ant. VIL. xiii. 3). Plague
was threatened on account of the sin of Jehoram
(9 Ch 214). It is called ‘noisome’ in Ps 91° (437
na), and characterized as walking in darkness (v."),
as its attacks often begin at night. It was often
threatened by the prophets, especially Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Amos, and Habakkuk, and appears to have
broken out in Jerusalem during the siege (Jer 21°),
and also among the fugitives from Jerusalem to
Egypt (Jer 421. The destruction of the army of
Sennacherib was most probably effected by a
sudden outburst of this disease (2 Καὶ 1955), and
it is noteworthy that presumably about the same
time, or at least shortly after it, Hezekiah was
seized with an illness, supposed to be mortal, in
the course of which a ‘boil’ developed which may
well have been the bubo of the plague (Is 3881).
The destroying angel is mentioned as inflicting
the plague in 28 2417, 1 Ch 2115-16 and 2K 195,
2 Ch 322! (ef. Jos. Ant. X. 1. 5).

The bubonic plague has been from time im-
memorial the periodic scourge of Bible lands. Τὺ
is mentioned in the oldest medical literature
(Hippoe. Aph. iv. 52, Τρία. ili, 595). Rutfus

-mentions a visitation of plague in Syria about

p.c. 300; and the dreadful epidemic in the reign
of Justinian, about A.D. 544, is graphically re-
corded by the historians as leaving whole districts
depopulated. Its outbreaks are sudden, it spreads
rapidly, and simultaneously affects large bodies of
veople. At its onset it is remarkably fatal: in the
fast visitation in this country (1664-1669) 4000 died
in London within the first week, and during the
period of the epidemic 70,000 died in that city,
about 1 in 5 of the population. It has a short
incubation period ; ‘in highly malignant epidemics
the disease may show itself within three or four
hours of exposure to infection’ (Manson, 770}.
Diseases, 156; see also cases cited by Pruner, p.
396). The bubo or glandular swelling in the groin
or axilla often develops within a few hours. Death
generally ensues (in more than 60 per cent. of those
attacked) within the first three days (Colvill). In
the type called pestis siderans, death often occurs
within twelve to twenty-four hours. In one village,
out of 534 inhabitants 311 died within three days
(see Hirsch, op. cit. i. 495, and Allbutt’s Syst. of
Med. 1. 917).

atarelthianat

MEDICINE

MEDICINE 325

There are in the Levitical code no sanitary pre-
cautions given to prevent its spreading, This is
probably due to the belief that it was a divine
judgment supernaturally inflicted, and to be stayed:
only by prayer and repentance. Had the Israelites
kept themselves, as they were hidden, from inter-
course with their neighbours, it is probable that
they would have remained tolerably free from it,
as itis not endemic anywhere in Palestine, and is
always propagated along trade routes. [πὶ this
respect it was really a punishment for breaches of
their law. In Zaanith 3. 4, the inhabitants of a
district visited by a plague are directed to fast,
and to blow trumpets, while their neighbours are
to fast without blowing trumpets. Baba Kamma
recommends staying at home and fleeing the society
of others in time of plague (60. 2).

Emerods.—In the account of the Philistine plague,
after the capture of the ark (1S 5°!) it is said that
the people of Ashdod and the other cities were
smitten with emerods (AV). The word is obay
‘Ophalim, for which Wéré substitutes aw téhorim
(the latter is used in the text in 1S 6-17), These
words mean ‘swellings or rounded eminences.’
Aquila renders gayedaivns ἕλκος; LXX B has in
LS 5° ἐξέζεσεν αὐτοῖς eis τὰς vats [A ἕδρας ; cf. BA in
v.° καὶ ἐπάταξεν. . . εἰς τὰς ἕδρας αὐτῶν, and Vule.
in secretiort parte natinin, ν. 5]. From comparison
with Ps 78°6, where God is said to have smitten His
enemies on the hinder part (RV ‘ backwards’), it
was supposed that the tumours were on the

- buttocks, and they were therefore identified with

hemorrhoids. There is, however, nothing in the
narrative to bear out this exegesis, and RV trans-
lates ‘tumours.’ The disease was epidemic, in-
fectious, often fatal; was attended with tumours
somewhere about the lower part of the abdomen,
and these were so definite that they could be
represented by models. It is certain, therefore,
that it was no kind of heemorrhoid, and the proba-
bility is great that this also was the plague
whose buboes were the tumours. This view is
advocated by Hitzig (Urgesch. d. Philist. 201) and
Wellhausen (Samuel, 64), and it satisties all the
conditions, this being of all the diseases of the
East the most likely to have set in with the fatal
suddenness described in the text. The same word
occurs in Dt 2857, and from the analoey of the
Syriac word used in the passage, 3... ἐ, which is
akin to ΟΖ, meaning tenesnius, Driver suggests
that the reference may be to dysenteric tumours
(Comm. on Deut. 1895, xx and 310): but there are
very seldom any tumours in dysentery, while
tenesmus and evacuations of blood are common
in the plague. The images of the emerods are
called in Vule. quingue anos aureos.

Disorders involving the digestive organs men-
tioned in the Bible are either due to malaria or are
the results of intemperance. The case of the father
of Publius was one of acute dysentery. The
disease is called in AV Ac 28° bloody flux; in Gr.
πυρετὸς καὶ δυσεντερία. Sir W. Aitken gives Malta
as one of the six districts in which this disease is
most prevalent and most fatal (ii. 841). The pres-
ence of haemorrhage shows that the disease in this
instance was of the ulcerative or gangrenous type,
either of which is a most dangerous form. The
germs of this disease are water-borne, so it is
common in swampy, moist localities, as by river-
sides. In Egypt its mortality is said by Griesinger
to be about 36 per cent.

The description of the disease of which Jehoram
died (2 Ch 21"), which began at a period of a general
epidemic, lasted two years, and was incurable, as
in its course the bowels were shed or fell out, tallies
with the condition met with in some forms of
chronic dysentery with sloughing of the intestine,

‘one of the most hopeless and intractable forms of
disease which the physician has to treat’ (Aitken,
i. 859). Dutrouleau records an example of this
kind in which about 13 inches of the mucous and
submucous coats of the colon were evacuated. In
certain forms, also, there is a diphtheritic exuda-
tion on the mucous membrane, which may be
detached in larger or smaller masses. In Papyrus
Hbers xlit there is an account of a disease of this
kind, with swelling of the abdomen, and pain, pale
face, aching head, the abdomen hot to the touch,
and with a discharge of a black or white material.
This was called the sin disease.

Digestive and other disorders from intemperance
are graphically enumerated in Pr 23%’; interjec-
tional cries of distress, accident, redness of eyes,
strange visions, bitings as sharp as those of the
serpent. In Is 194 the drunkard is represented as
stageering or falling in his vomit; in Is 28% they
defile all that they touch (see Jer 2527), being ulti-
mately drugged to sleep (Jer 51%": °7), Disease is
also associated with riotous eaters of flesh (Pr 23°),

Disorders of the Liver.— ‘The Heb. physicians
regarded many diseases as due to an alteration in
the bile, and in this respect they agreed with the
dogmatic school of Humoralists, such as Plato and
Praxagoras. This is expressed in Baba Kamina
92, Baba mezia 107, Chagigauh 26. There is an
allusion to this belief in Job 16%, where the patri-
arch complains that the disease, God’s arrow, had
compassed him about, and poured out his gall upon
the ground. The gall in La 3? and Dt 9915 is,
however, not the bile, but a poisonous plant.
Celsius regards rdsh here as perhaps a poppy. See,
further, art. GALL. In La 2" the same expression
is used of the 732 or liver, the pouring out of which
is regarded as a fatal condition. Hence the dis-
solute fool is punished by a dart striking through
his liver, Pr 7%. Of the true functions of the liver
the Jewish physicians were as ignorant as were the
fgyptians. In Papyrus Ebers xxxvi, ¢, ciii, it
is said that the vessels brought air as well as blood
to the organ.

The πυκναὶ ἀσθένειαι of Timothy (1 Ti 5°) were
probably digestive troubles, tlatulent atonic dys-
pepsia, whose most urgent symptoms are tempor-
arily relieved by alcohol. This disease seemed
to have produced in him a disposition to slackness,
concerning which St. Paul repeatedly waras him
(1 Ti 4'28), In such eases, however, while alcohol
allays the morbid functional sensibility, it does
not really remove the cause of the disease.

Mental emotions of a lowering nature, such as
grief or anxiety, produce important physical
effects on the alimentary canal, checking certain
secretions ; hence in Ps 69° the dryness of the
throat in such cases is mentioned. In Is 16! and
Jer 4 31° there are references to the suddenly
arising flatulent distension of the colon, which is
often to be noticed under the same conditions.
These borborygmi are referred to the heart in Jer
4836,

The effects of the water in the jealousy ordeal
(Nu 5!") may here be referred to. The ‘bitter
water which causeth the curse’ consisted of holy
water, consecrated by the priest, into which dust
from the floor of the sanctuary was put, and with
which the curses pronounced against unfaithful-
ness written out by the priest were washed off the
parchment on which they had been written. This
is a kind of ordeal of which examples are not un-
common in primitive religions. The meaning of
the dust is given by R. Menahem in Siphre x.,
that as the dust is regarded as detiling the holy
place, so the suspicion of unfaithfulness defiles the
person suspected. In the same place the priest is
recommended to write the curses out on tablets,
not on paper, but on prepared skins, and not with

326 MEDICINE

MEDICINE

gum or copperas, but with black ink. The ordeal
was a direct appeal to God, and the water was
supposed, in cases of guilt, to cause wasting of the
buttock (dislocation of the right thigh, Jos. Ant.
lt. xi. 6) and swelling of the abdomen, possibly
ovarian dropsy ; see Dillmann, 7 (oe.

The effects of eating that on which prophetic
writings were inscribed as a preparation for dis-
chareine the prophetie oflice are referred to in
Ezk 3!, Rev 109. This is also an action of which
examples are known in several folk-religions (see
Lane, JJodern Eqyptions, i. 847), and even in British
folk-lore. Our Lord promised His disciples pro-
tection if they were subjected to the ordeal of
poisonous drinks (Mk 1015).

The heart, mentioned more frequently (716
times in OT and 105 in NT) in Seripture than any

other of the bodily organs, on account of its sup- |

posed connexion with the intellectual as well as
the moral and spiritual life, was, as far as its
physiological action is concerned, so little known
that there are few references to physical disease
affecting it (see Heart, vol. ii, 317). The pert-
cardium or caul over the heart is mentioned in
Hos 13%. © A sound heart is the life of the flesh’
(Pr 14°"), which is parallel to Juvenal’s mens senda
in corpore sano (x. 356), may have a physical as
well as a psychological reference. ‘The curious
proverb, ‘A wise man’s heart is at his right hand,
but a fool’s heart at his left’ (Ee 105), has its par-
allel in the ancient Egyptian aphorisin,* The breath
of life passes to the right side, the breath of death
to the left’ (Pap. hers ¢).

Syncope, or failure of the heart's action, causing
fainting, is described in several instances. Jacob's
heart fainted at the news of Joseph’s exaltation
in Egypt (Gn 45°). Eli had a sudden attack of
syncope, leading to a facal fall, from the shock of
the news that the Philistines had taken the ark
842%). Saul fainted with hunger and fear on
the reception of Sammuel’s message through the
witch of Endor (1S 28°). Daniel also fainted and
was sick for several days on receiving Gabriel's
messave (8°), See FALNT, vol. i. 826. Heart pal-
pitation is given in Pup, Ebers xlv as a symptom
of the ‘7° disease or chlorosis.

‘A broken heart’ is mentioned 11 times in
Scripture, but always in its metaphorical sense of
repentance and sorrow for sin, The condition
literally expressed by the term has acquired a
special interest on account of Dr, Streud’s hypo-
thesis that rupture of the heart was the condition
to which our Lord’s death was due (see Stroud,
Physical Causes of the Death of Christ, 1847, also
Bennett's Diseases of the Bible, p. 117).

Although it is only in Daniel that the functions
of the nervous centres are recognized (see 110 258
$2719 71-1) yet diseases affecting this system are
often mentioned ;—

Paralysis or Palsy.— These words are used to
express loss of the power of motion, a common
symptom in diseases of the central nervous system.
This condition is usually serious, often intractable,
and is generally fairly rapid in its onset, but slow
in disappearing. In the NT there are_ several
accounts of the miraculous cures of paralysis by
our Lord, as in Mt 424; here as in Ac 87 these are
recorded in general terms. In the case of the an
at Capernaum, borne of four, whose friends let
him down through the tiling into the presence of
Christ, Matthew (9°) uses the word παραλυτικός, as
also does Mark (935, Luke (5'8) uses the term
παραλελυμένος. ‘The man seems to have suffered
from paraplegia, ie. complete loss of power in his
lower limbs. ‘The prognosis in this disease, due
as it generally is to an organic change in the
spinal cord frou myelitis, is generally unfavour-
able, and even in the best cases progress is slow.

Our Lord calls this man ‘son,’ which may be in-
tended as a mark of age; but both this and the
conjecture that the paralysis was a judgnent on
him for immorality, on account of our Lord's
having prefaced his cure by declaring the for-
viveness of his sins, are deductions not warranted
by the very slender data from which they are
drawn.

The example of Aineas, healed. by St. Peter
(Ac 953), that of a man eight years bedridden, was
probably one of the same kind,

The centurion’s servant (Mt 8°) was ‘ grievously
tormented’ (δεινῶς βασανιζόμενος). This is descrip-
tive of the pain which he suffered, as the phrase
is used in classical Greek of torture to extort
confession (see the case of Gylippus in Thueyd. vil.
86, and the Argive in viii. 29). It was probably
an acute case, possibly of spinal meningitis.
Bennett conjectures ‘progressive paralysis with
muscular spasms involving the respiratory move-
ments’ (p. 92), but the former seems to tit the
description better, as in it the ‘torment’ is the
more grievous,

The man with the withered hand (Mt 12°", Mk
35, Lk 6) was probably a sufferer in his early
years from anterior poliomyelitis, causing intantile
paralysis. In such a case the bones as well as the
muscles atrophy, and the limb becomes reduced to
a mere stick. ΤῸ the same category probably be-
longed the lame man healed by Peter and John at
the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Ac 3°), although
this may have been congenital want of develop-
ment of the lower limbs; but from the narrative
it would appear that the limbs were well formed,
although for forty years deprived of strength,

Cases like these were probably included in the
general term ‘withered’ (ξηροί), applied to a group
of the expectant waiters at the Pool of Bethesda
(Jn δὴ). ‘The word is used of shrivelled parts (as in
Esch. Orestes, 387), or of ἃ generally wasted frame
(Blectra, 239). The man who is called ὁ ἀσθενῶν
(Jn 57) was probably thus afleeted. The thirty-
eight years’ duration of the case is against its
having been an example of locomotor atacin.
Moreover, the diseased condition to which locomotor
ataxia is generally due was probably unknown at
that time. He was able to move himself, although
slowly, for he says, ‘while Lam coming,’ meaning
by his unaided exertion (/4.). "There appears to be
an OT reference to this condition under the name
horcb, elsewhere translated ‘ drought,’ and in this
passage (Zec 1117 tr. ‘the sword’ (i.e. hereb); but
the context shows that it is really the diseased
condition of hemiplegic shrivelling in this wasting
disease that is referred to‘ his arm shall be clean
dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly
darkened.’ See above, p. 824".

The sudden paralysis of Jeroboam’s hand (1 Καὶ 13*)
was a case of the condition technically known as
brachial monoplegia, probably due to a sudden
hemorrhage affecting a certain area of the posterior
central convolution of the brain or of the part of
the corona radiata or genu of the internal capsule
connected with that area. Decaisne has collected
and analyzed a large number of cases of this
kind. When the sudden supervention of the
paralysis depends on a clot plugeing the vessels
which nourish this area, it may prove only a
temporary paralysis, as in the case of Jerobowm

The word ‘palsy’ is a corruption of the French
paralysie, and came into use in English at any rate
about the year 1500, for it is used in the English
tr. of Mandeville’s 7ravels.

The case of Nabal (1 ὃ. 25°8) seems to have been
a typical example of an apoplectic seizure, a
condition closely allied to paralysis, in that it is
usually produced by hemorrhage or effusion of

oe ‘

MEDICINIE

MEDICINE 327

serum on or into the brain. When in the disturbed
condition of brain which followed his drunken
bout the churl was excited to passion by the story
of his wife’s generosity, some vessel probably gave
way in his brain, and he became comatose (v."7 ‘as
a stone’), lingering in that state for ten days until
he died. The death of Alcimus (1 Mae 9’) was a
typical case of apoplexy (see Jos. Ané. XIL x. 6).

The arteries of the brain in a man addicted to
drink, and in other conditions of weakness or senile
decay, are liable to atheromatous disease, which
diminishes their resisting power; and if in this
condition the heart’s action be increased in force,
as by «a fit of passion, rupture of one of these
vessels is not unlikely to occur. Tt has even been
conjectured that the sudden deaths of Uzzah
(28 67) and of Ananias and Sapphira (Ac 5°?) may
have been apoplectic in their nature also. ‘The
great surgeon John Hunter died suddenly of an
apoplectic attack, the result of severe mental
emotion.

There are several terms used to describe varying
forms of abnormal psychical conditions, of insanity
and allied inental diseases. ‘The state of trance
or deep profound sleep is described in connexion
with the tradition of the making of Eve (Gn 2”).
A similar sleep fell on Abraham (1513), and Saul in
the eave (1S 9613). In this last case it was the
profound sleep of exhaustion; the phrase ‘deep
sleep from the Lord’ is merely a Hebrew superla-
tive. Sisera’s deep sleep of fatigue was of the
same nature (J@ 4*!), and other examples are those
of Jonah (1°), and our Lord in the boat during the
storm (Mt 8", Mk 438). The ecstatic condition of
the prophet described by Balaam (Nu 24% *) was a
condition of mental exaltation believed to be due
to possession by the Divine Spirit, a state in
which individual will becomes paralyzed, and the
person becomes subject to more or less violent
emotion by suggestion. Hence prophets were
called [not necessarily disrespectfully, see vol. 11.
p. 564” note *] ‘mad fellows’ (2 Καὶ 9"), and Isaiah
speaks of the false prophets as those that peep and
mutter (819). See also the use of the word "8:
méshugga@ or ‘raving, for the utterances οἱ
prophets (Jer 29°5, Hos 97. Saul is a singular
study in mental pathology ; naturally a shy, self-
conscious man (18 05-8 10%), easily exalted into the
condition of ecstasy (1010), and by his exaltation
ρα θα up to tyrannical self-satistaction (115: 1,
then filled with an irresistible impulse towards
homicide (1811). turning even against his own son
(202-85) . but liable, under conditions suggesting it,
to return to the eestatie state (194), then falling
into despondency (2859), and dying by suicide (31).
To such a one of weak judgment, violent passions,
and great susceptibility, the influence of music is
a powerful agency to calm and soothe. ‘The cause
of his madness is ascribed to an evil spirit from
God (18), and the raving consequent on it is
called ‘prophesying’ in AV and RV (s3im, impert.
Hithpael of na@b@). His case is a typical one of
recurrent paroxysmal mania rather than of melan-
cholia. Perhaps it was the object-lesson of Saul’s
insanity which prompted David to feign madness
before Achish (1S 21%), the lunatie being a sacred
person in the eyes of the Oriental (Stanley’s Lect.
li. 52). The symptoms he imitated were change
of behaviour, raging to and fro, as they tried to
hold him with their hands, like a man in acute
mania. He scratched or made marks on the doors
Qo; but the LXX and Vulgate have ἐτυμπάνιζεν
and impingebat, as if the Heb. were 4m. ‘and he
beat on’), and he defiled his beard by letting his
saliva fall upon it. This in itself showed loss of
all self-respect, as to spit on the beard of an
enemy would be a deadly insult (see Dt 25°, Job
30), The malingering was so successful that the

king regarded him as genuinely atfected with τὴν
or ‘frenzy? Madness was one of the plague
threatened for disobedience to the law (Dt 28°).

Another striking instance of insanity is presented
by the ((Hageadic) story of Nebuchadnezzar
(Dn 4. Puffed up by an overweening self-conceit,
he was sinitten with mania, cherishing the delusion
that he was a beast, and so was driven from his
throne until his recovery at the end of seven
years. Instances of ἃ monomania in which the
chief delusion is that one is an animal have been
often recorded, and most alienist pliysicians of ex-
perience have met with such cases. Vireil (εἰ.
vi. 48) describes the daughters of Proetus as
believing themselves to be cattle, and while each
of them collo timuisseé aratriam, ef spe in leve
quassisset cornua fronte, they filled the fields with
counterfeit lowings. From monomaniics of this
kind have probably arisen the legends of lycan.
thropy or were-wolves (see Hertz, Der MWeriolf,
1509). There is no need to invoke totemisin to
account for them, nor to believe with some of the
Rabbins that Nebuchadnezzar was miraculously
transformed into an ox. According to Ader (p.
32) the Gadarene demoniacs were of this kind.

In the NT there are probably several cases of
insanity and of allied diseases of the nervous
system included among those who are said to
have been possessed with devils. This is especi-
ally the case with regard to those spirits called
dumb in- LE 1115. οὐ blind and ἀὐπ τὰ Mt 12°.
Stammering (μογιλάλος, adj.) is in Mk 7°? associ-
ated with deafness. ΤᾺΝ uses this word in Is 85°
as the tr. of o>x ‘dumb.’ The Heb. word has in it
the idea of binding (see Gn 37%), as though dumb-
ness were due to the constraint of the tongue by
bands, the idea embodied in the account of the
case of the stammerer in Mk, ἐλύθη ὁ δεσμὸς τῆς
γλώσσης. Stammering, 373, as in Is 28" (ef. 331%),
means rather babbling, speaking gibberish, than
actual stuttering from defect (ΤᾺΝ φαυλισμός,
‘contempt ’). The same meaning is conveyed by
a3 in Is 324, but ΠΙᾺ Χ has here ai γλῶσσαι ai ψελλί-
ζουσαι, the word used of Demosthenes (Libanius,
iv. 319. 4) for inarticulate or infantile speech.
Moses in Ex 4? (J) is said to have been 7223 737732
ped “heavy of speech and heavy of tongue,’ LAX
ixvigwvos καὶ βραδύγλωσσος, ‘lame in speech and
slow in tongue,’ not necessarily ‘stammering.’
Temporary aphasia has been otten observed in
cases of sudden terror or other emotion, as in the
‘ase of Zacharias (Lk 1°"), and St. Pauls com-
panions (Ac 9). The speechlessness of the man
without the wedding garment (Mt 22) was not
aphasia, but due to the fact that he had no excuse
to offer.

Epilepsy is mentioned in Mt 17° (RV) as the
cause of the convulsive seizures of the boy described
there and in Lk 9°. The account of the fit, begin-
ning with a ery, followed by his falling down and
becoming convulsed, foaming at the mouth, grind-
ine his teeth, bruising himself sorely, sometimes
falling into the fire and sometimes into the water,
is exactly in accord with a typical epileptic fit.
He had been subject to these from childhood ;
about one-fourth of epilepties have their first fit
within the first decade of life, 12 per cent. within
the first three years. The ‘pining away’ imen-
tioned in Mk 918 is characteristic of one form of the
disease, in which the fits are frequently recurring.
The reeord of the last attack, in which he
‘wallowed foaming,’ is very graphic. The verb
used to describe the attack in Mt is σεληνιάζομαι,
literally ‘to be moon-struck,’ but thereby is meant
epilepsy, not Imnacy as in AV. The connexion
between epilepsy and the phases of the moon was
believed in down to a comparatively late period.
| Vicary, the surgeon to Henry VIL, writing in

aw

328 MEDICINE

MEDICINE

1577, says of the brain that ‘it moueth and followeth
the mouing of the Moone: for in the waxing of
the Moone, the Brayne followeth upwardes: and
in the wane of the Moone the brayne discendeth
downwardes, and vanishes in substance of vertue :
for the Brayne shrinketh together in itselfe and is
not so fully obedient to the spirit of feeling. And
this is proved in menne that be lnnatike or madde,
and also in men that be epulentike [= epileptic] or
having the falling sickness, that be moste greeved
in the beginning of the new moone,’ etc. The
moon-struck are distinguished in Mt 45} from the
paralytic and from those possessed by devils.
Moonstroke is also mentioned in Ps 121% Among
the later Jews epilepsy was treated by means of
amulets called japy nyrap, and by the application of
certain insects named syn pw. See Shabbath 61,
and Tosefta Shabbath, in loc.

Sunstroke in Ps 121°, coupled with moonstroke,
is also mentioned in Is 49, It was the cause of
the death of the Shunammite’s son, stricken in
the harvest field (2 K 415), and of Manasseh,
Judith’s husband, as he stood overseeing the
binders of sheaves in the field (Jth 89). In the
former case the child was suddenly affected with
sharp pain in his head, and, on being carried to his
mother, lay on her knees till noon, and then died.
There are several diseases which are confounded
under the name of heat-stroke or sun-stroke,—
sun-syncope, Sun-traumatism, sometimes menin-
gitis; but this seems to have been a genuine
example of siriasis. ‘This disease has been described
by Sambon (Brit, Med. Journ. 1898, March 19,
p. 744) as a rapidly fatal, febrile condition, begin-
ning with high temperature, violent pains in
the head, and passing rapidly into coma, death
taking place ‘within a few hours or even minutes
of the onset of insensibility’ (Manson, 510). The
Shunammite’s child was laid, after his death, on
the prophet’s bed until his mother had brought
Elisha back from Mount Carmel. By the time
Gehazi arrived the body had become cold; and
the subsequent restoration to life was plainly
miraculous, as the mere stretching of the prophet
on the body could not have brought back the life.
Syria is one of the countries in which this disease
occurs.

The case of Jonah, on the other hand, was one
of heat syncope; he fainted from the heat, and
suffered the severe headache which always super-
venes in such cases after the recovery of conscions-
ness. In these cases, unlike true siriasis, the
temperature of the body falls, and the surface
feels cold and appears pale ; ‘usually after a short
time the patient gradually recovers, very likely
with a splitting headache and a feeling of intense
prostration’ (Manson, 202). It was in this con-
dition that the prophet said ‘it is better for me to
die than to live’ (Jon 48).

Dropsy.—In Lk 14* the cure of a case of dropsy
is recorded. The patient had been able to enter
into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees
at Jerusalem, where Jesus was being entertained.
The man is called ὑδρωπικός, the word used by the
Greek physicians for dropsy in general. The
disease may have been a universal anasarca, due
to disease of the kidneys or heart, or else abdominal
dropsy, usually dependent on disease of the liver.
In all cases this is a dangerous symptom, and it
usually indicates 4 comparatively large amount of
organic disease. In Shabbath 33. 1, dropsy is said
to be the punishment of transgression. It is
common in Jerusalem; see Macgowan in Jewish
Intelligence, 1842, p. 319.

_ Pulmonary disease, as such, is not referred to
in Scripture. It is said of the widow’s son at
Zarephath that his sickness was so sore there
Was no breath left in him (1 Καὶ 17); but this simply

means that he died. The modern Jewish authori-
ties, in their directions for the slaughter οἱ
animals for purposes of food, regard the state of
the lungs as of the utmost importance, and minute
instructions are given for the recognition of patho-
logical conditions which rendered the carcase unfit
for food.

The nature of the disease from which Asa
suffered in his feet is not mentioned (1 K 1559,
2Ch 16"). The former writer says that it affected
him in his old age, the latter in the 39th year of
his reign; and adds that he sought not to the
Lord, but to the physicians. This may have been
suggested by the kine’s name (xox), which prob-
ably means ‘healer.’ Josephus apparently knows
nothing of the disease, and describes Asa as dying
happily after he had attained a long and blessed
old age (Ané. VIL. xii. 6). The Rabbinical belief
was that the malady was gout (Sota 10a, Sanhe-
drin). Rashi has conjectured from the wording of
v.!* that the disease mounted to his head. Others
have supposed that this infliction was a punish-
ment because he had not exempted the children
of the wise from the labour of carrying away the
stones of Ramah (1 K 153). There is no clue in the
passage to the nature of the disease. Hippocrates
says truly that gout, although it may be long and
laborious, yet is seldom mortal (pert Pathon, ed.
Kuhn, 407). As Asa’s disease began in old age, it

may have been a case of senile gangrene. Gout is
very rare among natives of Palestine. Kamp-

hausen suggests that it may have been articular
leprosy (see Riehm’s HIV B, art. ‘ Krankheiten’).

A few references to surgical disease and accident
occur in the Bible. Among primitive peoples, as
a rule, surgery preceded medicine, as the conditions
of their life expose the body to violence. The
following are cases of surgical disease :—

The woman bound by the spirit of infirmity,
and unable to lift herself (Lk 13'-!7), was yet able
to attend the synagogue. This was probably a
case of senile kyphosis, due to chronic osteitis of
the vertebrae, a condition not infrequent among
aged women whose lives have been spent in agri-
cultural labour: in these the vertebrae become
gradually distorted and modified to the new posi-
tion, so that by nothing short of miracle ¢an the
spine be straightened without violence. Why this
deformity was regarded as of specially Satanic
origin is not apparent, but some Rabbinic authori-
ties regard every disease which produces distortion
as due to demons.

Crook-backedness rendered a man unfit for the
priesthood. This condition, called 13} in Ly 21°
(LXX κυρτός), differs from the last in that it occurs
in the young, and is due to caries of the vertebrae.
It must have been fairly common in Egypt, as the
present writer has found a considerable number of
spinal curvatures of this kind in collections of
Egyptian bones. The Jerus. Targ. renders gibben,
‘very dark coloured,’ but this meaning is 1m-
probable. .

In a metonymic or metaphorical sense the bones
in many poetical passages stand for the whole
human frame as affected by mental emotion.
Rottenness or caries (177 γάζαν) of the bones is
compared with envy (Pr 14”), with a wife that
causes shame (Pr 124), and with the emotion of
terror (Hab 3:6): LXX, however, puts σής, σκώληξ,
and τρόμος respectively for caries in these three
places, but there is no suggestion of worms in the
Hebrew. The bones are said to shake with fear (Job
414) or with grief (Jer 23’). The bones are burnt
with heat in Job’s disease (3099), with grief (Ps
102°, La 113), with the fire of suppressed emotion
(Jer 209). They are said to wax old (Ps 32°), to be
pierced (Job 301), vexed (Ps 6), out of joint (Ps
2214), consumed (Ps.31°), or broken (La 8). A

MEDICINE MEDICINE 329
mentioned in| In Lv 21” it is called ‘scurvy’ in AV. This

Ezk 801. cf. use in same verse of verb wan
‘bind up.

Fracture of the skull without immediate in-
sensibility, showing the absence of compression
of the brain, was produced by the fall of the
millstone on the head of Abimelech (Jg 955), In
the case of Eutychus the fall produced fatal com-
pression and most probably a broken neck (Ae
20°). Goliath is said to have fallen on his face
when struck by the slingstone, as if his fall was
due to flexor spasm (1 αὶ 175), Ahaziah died
ultimately of the injuries sustained from his fall
through the lattice (2K 1°). It is difficult to
understand the parenthetic account of Judas’
suicide in Ac 116; see art. JUDAS ISCARIOT.

Mephibosheth’s lameness in both his feet (2S 44
93), due to a fall from his nurse’s arms, seems to
have been some kind of injury which produced
bone disease, for when he hastened to meet David
on his return he did not delay to ‘dress’ his feet
(19%). LXX tr. ayy by ἐθεράπευσεν. Both these
words, however, may simply mean ‘to wash,’
parallel to the trimming of his beard in the con-
text. In spite of his friendship for Mephibosheth,
it was proverbial that the lame were among the
hated of David’s soul (28 5°). This curious pas-
suge appears to be corrupt (see Driver, Heb. Text
of Sam. 199; Smith, Comm. on Sam. [1899], 288).
Lameness incapacitated a descendant of Aaron
from the priesthood (Ly 2135), but did not prevent
the access of such into the temple, for many lame
persons were healed by Christ there (Mt 21"; for
other lame men healed see Mt 11° 15%!, Lk 7%;
they are called ‘halt’ in Mt 188, Mk 955, Lk 147,
Jn 5°. See HALT in vol. 11. p. 288). Jacob’s lame-
ness has been referred to in connexion with the
sinew that shrank (see Foon, vol. ii. p. 39). The
Jewish butchers now extract the great sciatic
nerve as the gid. See Meir’s Sepher Zabahi, 63.

Of congenital malformations the giant with six
fingers and six toes on each side is the most re-
markable (28 21°, 1 Ch 905). Persons with such
superfluous parts were disqualified for the priest-
hood, Ly 2118 where yny may mean ‘having
members of unequal length’ (LXX renders it
ὠτότμητος, ‘crop-eared’), o77 in Ly 2118, tr. ‘flat-
nosed’ (LXX κολοβόριν, ‘snub-nosed’), may refer
to the deformity in hare-lip (RVm ‘slit-nose’).
Dwartishness also disqualified a son of Aaron from
the priesthood (Ly 21°): this, however, has by
some been supposed to refer to emaciation from
wasting disease. See art. DWARF.

Skin diseases, using the term in the widest
sense, were and still are common in the East.
They are frequently referred to in their relation
to leprosy and the allied conditions, which are
carefully described on account of their causing
the uncleanness of the sufferers from it. See
Leprosy. The words referring to these diseases
are baldness (treated of in vol. i. p. 234f.), itch,
scab, scurvy, blemishes, wen, blains, boils, botch,
seal], and spot :—

bandage (Snn) for broken bones is
Ω
3

Itch (075 λόγος, LXX κνήφη), Dt 9857. is probably

the parasitic disease of this name now known to
be due to a small mite, Surcoptes scabiet, which
burrows in the skin. In some cases, when
neglected, it spreads over the whole body, which
becomes covered with a rough crust adhering to
the surface. It is very easily communicated from
person to person, and cannot be healed unless the
parasite be destroyed. It disqualified its victims
trom the priesthood (Ly 215). The Heb. word
is derived from a root which means to scratch,
hence the Vulgate uses prurigo. It is not at all
uncommon in Syria at the present day. ;

Scurvy (RV), scab (AV) (Dt 9857 273 garab) is
the ψώρα ἀγρία of LXX, scabies of the Vulgate.

disease has nothing to do with the true scurvy,
but is also an itchy disease in which a thick crust
forms on the skin; it is most rebellious to treat-
ment, and technically known as favus. It is
commonest on the head, where it is called ‘scald
head,’ and is due to a funeus, the Achorion Schon-
leinte. This is the garabu of WAT ii. 44.13. It
sometimes spreads over the entire body, and, in
neglected, exaggerated cases, covers the entire face
as with a mask. Sometimes it causes ulceration
of the subjacent skin, and Alibert describes it as,
in some cases, affecting even the cranial bones.
It also is not uncommon in Syria.

Scab in Lv 21” is the tr. of nae yallepheth,
meaning ‘an itching,’ ‘scab’ (LXX Aexjv). It is
probably another form of the disease just described.
The infliction of this scab on the head is described
in Is 3!” by the verb nay sippah (LUXX ταπεινώσει) ;
see Gittin 70a.

The scall or scurf of the head and beard of
Ly 13° is pai netheh, probably tinea tonsurans or
mentagra, another parasitic disease of somewhat
similar character ; p73, the freckled spot of Lv 13”,
may be psoriasis, & non-contagious scaly eruption.
See LEPROSY, p. 96.

The botch of Egypt of Dt 9857. 55 is called
an inflamed or ulcerated spot. The same word
is used to describe Job’s malady (Job 2%), the boils
of the Egyptian plague (Ex 95), and Hezekiah’s
boil (2 Καὶ 207=Ts 381). Τὸ is probably a general
term for a sore swelling of the skin. Those in
Ex 9! are distinguished from the others because
they were accompanied with nyzyax or ‘blains,’
explained by the Talm. as ΠῪΞ or yrzy32, pustules
containing fluid (LXX ἕλκη, φλυκτίδες ἀναξέουσαι).
If, as already surmised, this disease was smallpox,
this character would distinguish it from the others ;
and if the last example was a plague spot, it would
account for its reputedly fatal character. The
botch of Dt 28” especially affected the knees and
legs (see Pruner’s Krankheiten des Orients, 167).
Job's disease, however, was not a fatal one,
and instead of a single tumour he was covered
with sore spots from head to foot, and these
were attended with an intolerable itching. The
Egyptian word skn means an abscess, and is used
in Pap. Ebers xxxviii. It was common in that
country, and is therefore called the botch of Egypt
(Dt 28°"). It is called in Coptic shash, and possibly
the *adba'bu'dth may be connected with a Coptic
root meaning to be rounded or to boil up. In
Papyrus Ebers ev it is said, ‘Tf thou findest a
swelling that is connected with the beginning of
uhetu it is as a bean, a sore boil on his skin, not
very large, containing pus; say thou, He has
hunhunt which suppurates. I shall treat this
disease; make thou a remedy that shall remove
the swelling and set free the matter.’ A poultice
is recommended of wax, suet, bean-flour, and cer-
tain plants. For the peculiare Agypti malum
see Lucretius, vi. 1113, and Pliny, xxvi. 5.

Job’s body was covered with irritating ulcers
(ἕλκει movnpw), Whose itchine he endeavoured to
allay by scraping himself with the rough but soft
edge of a piece of unglazed earthenware. The
disease distigured his face (27), so that he could
not easily be recognized by his friends; his pains
led him to groan continually without relief (3%),
and he felt as though burnt by a fiery poison (64),
shattering his nervous system (3”); the loathsome
sores made his breath feetid (1917), and were in-
fested with maggots (7°). He was so helpless that
he required aid to rise, and he sat among the
ashes (23; LXX ἐπὶ τῆς κοπρίας, ‘on a dunghill’)
to mitigate the itching. See Carey, 178; Magnus,
311. 161; Keil, Archdol. ii. 94. The malady is
called (1815) πὴ 32 ‘the firstborn of death,’ and

Pre,

330 MEDICINE

MEDICINE

it has been supposed to have been elephantiasis

(KKimechij, leprosy (Origen), sinallpox (Shapter, |

169), guinea-worm, which is credited, but falsely,
by one writer with being called Job's diseas+ in
Bokhara (but see Burnes, Zrerels into Bokhara,
11. ISI, where no mention is made of Job), malig-
nant pustule, or framboosia (see Pruner, 174), ete.
The characters given, however, agree better with
those of the Biskra button or Oriental sore, endemic
along the southern shore of the Mediterranean sand
in Mesopotamia, This begins in the form of papular
spots, which ulcerate and become covered with
crusts, under which are itchy, burning sores, slow
in granulation and often multiple: as many as
forty have been found on one patient. It 18
probably due to a parasite, is communicable by in-
oculation, and very intractable even under modern
treatment. It is sometimes called ‘Aleppo sore’
or ‘ Bagdad sore.’

Lazarus in Lk 16°° was probably afflicted, like
many of his class, with old varicose ulcers of the
leg. Burckhardt says that sores on the legs are
very common at Dyiddah (i. 448).

Spot in Job 11, Ca 47, Dt 325, blemish in
Ly 21", Dn 14, are apparently general terms for
any skin disease? Wen in Ly 22%, used as the
name of a disease of cattle, means a gall or sup-
purating sore,

Among affections of the skin may be considered

the bloody sweat of our Lord in the garden (Lk |

224). The passage (on the question of whose

genuineness see Westcott- Hort) says that His —
sweat was ὡσεὶ Ppru8o αἴματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ

τὴν γῆν. ‘Theophylact, Michaelis, Olshausen, and

others take this to mean that His sweat dropped, |

as clots of blood drop from a wound. The word
ὡσεί is frequently used to express a mere com-
parison, as in Mt 28? λευκὸν ὡσεὶ χιών. There are
no modern trustworthy cases of genuine bloody
sweat; and although in some older writings com-
parable instances are quoted, none of them are
properly authenticated. Tissot (7raité des Nerfs,
279) records one such, and others are given in
connexion with legends of stigmatization, ete., as
in the cases of Catharine of Raconizio (1446), and
Stephano Quinzani in Soncino (1467).

of Louise Lateau in 1870 (see also Schenck, Ods.
Med. iii. 458, for ancient examples, and refs. in
art. ‘Stigmatization,? Mneye. Brit. xxii. 550). It
is Significant that the word used is θρόμβοι, ‘clots,’
not σταγών used of blood-drops by A’schylus
(Agam., 1122), or oradayu's used both of blood
(Eurip. Jon. 351, 1003) and sweat (Hippoe. Ap.
1251). Bourrut and Burot have described a red-
coloured sweat in a hystero-epileptic, but the con-
ditions were equivocal.

Poisonous serpents are mentioned in Nu 215,
Dt 32%, Job 204-16 Ts 118 14" 595, Jer 817, Mt 37
124 23%, Mk 1618, Lk 37 10, Ac 28*6 The fiery
serpents of the plague in the wilderness are not
valled flying: that word is imported into their
description from Is 14°" and 30° There are several
poisonous serpents in the Desert of the Exodus,
the sand-viper Evhis carineta, and the horned
viper Cerasles Egyptiacus and Hasselquistii, which
are sometimes found in great numbers in favour-

able localities, and whose bites are burning and |
Naia Haye, the

often fatal (see Strabo, xvi. 2. 30).
asp, has also been found there. One or other of
these was most likely the fiery serpent, the brazen
model of which miraculously healed the bitten
people. Kiichenmeister (Sydenham Soe. Tr. i. 391)
suggested that these fiery serpents were guinea-

worms, Filvria Medinensis, parasitic worms which |

burrow under the skin and set up local inflamma-
tion: these are not uncommon in this region, and
he supposes that they are the same as the δρακόντια

BEC Uae ae a

Bleeding |
tock place from the stigmatic wounds in the case —

μικρά of Plutarch (Symposiakon viii., Question 9),
which are said by Agatharchides of Cnidus to eat
away the flesh of the peoples near the Red Sea (see
for other refs. Bennett, Diseases of Bible, 134). The
story of Moses and the serpents given by Josephus
2) is interesting in this connexion.
Scorpion bites are not very common and rarely

fatal in Palestine, but are common and often fatal

to children in Egypt ; see Pruner, p. 4380.

The disease of Herod Agrippa 1., recorded in
Ac 12°") was a sudden and fatal seizure of some
abdominal complaint, accompanied with intense
agony, and in some way connected with worms.
Sir J. R. Bennett has surmised that it was acute
peritonitis set up by the perforation of the bowel
by an intestinal worm. This is a rare but not
an impossible condition. The term employed is
σκωληκόβρωτος, used here, as also in Theophrastus
(de Causis Plantarum, v. 10), to signify ‘eaten of
worms. Vulg. has ὦ vermibus erosius. The mis-
taken idea that it was a case of phthiriasis has
no support in the passage, and still less from the
narrative in Josephus, which doos not mention
worms, but says that Herod was seized with a
violent abdominal pain which lasted for five days
(Eusebius says four) and proved fatal (XIX. viii. 2).
The death ot Pheretime (Herod. iv. 205) took place
not from this disease, but from some exhausting
disorder with superticial ulceration ; the εὐλαί or
mageots which were fatal to her were probably
hlow-fly larvie. Antiochus Epiphanes, fatally in-
jured by a fall, had probably compound fractures
in which blow-flies laid their eves and maeeots
were hatched. In former times cases of this sort
were not rare when the injuries were neglected
(2 Mac 9°). See also Jos. Ané. XVII. vi. 5.

The third Egyp. plague was one of insects which
are called δ (ΠΝ ΝΟ oxvtpes) ; and as the root
p2 probably means ‘to pierce or cut into,’ it is
likely that they were mosquitoes or sand-fleas, or
some pest of that nature, which would be a much
more serious plague in the East than one of lice.
It was only the priests, Herodotus tells us, that
were defiled by these (ii. 37). RVin renders ὁ sand-
flies or fleas.” The arguinent that they must have
been lice, because coming from the dust, is not
of much force, for sand-fleas live in the same
material, and lice are not generated in dust any
raore than gnats. It is therefore improbable that
this plague was phthiriasis.

Among the causes of ceremonial impurity were
certain discharges (Ly 15°), some natural (Dt
231°), others probably the result of evil practices.
How far the diseases consequent on vice were
known among the ancients is a doubtful point.
The. passages. in Ps. 1071, Pr 24 98-73
(see tract Zebaim, and Maimonides’ commentary
thereon) seem to refer to such, but this group of
diseases was not known in Europe until A.D. 1495.

Blindness was, and is, one of the commonest
afflictions of the natives of Palestine; the Llear-
eyes, often crusted round with dried secretion, and

fly -infested, make some of the most sickening

sights in a Syrian village crowd. The words
‘blindness’ or ‘blind’? oceur 87 times in the Bible;
41 times in a metaphorical sense, and 39 in refer-
ence to literal want of sight. The OT uses the
words ‘ blind’ or ‘blindness’ 85 times: in 28 the
word is my (Pi. ‘to blind’) or ‘¢rvér (adj.), 19 times
literal, 9 figurative ; in 3 it is ἡνυάγόγ, or avvereth,
‘blindness,’ always literal; in 2 it is 2-32 sanverin,
‘a dagzline* Gn 1914). 2.1K 6) oncestis. Gun LO
hide’ (se. my eyes, 1S 12%, but the text here
is probably corrupt, cf. the LXX). In Is 29° RV
has ‘be blind,’ where AV has ‘ery’ as tr. of
we. In the NT, in which ‘blind’ or ‘blindness’
is used 52 times, 36 literally and 16 metaphorically,
the word is τυφλός or (verbal) τυῴφλόω. In four

MEDICINE

MEDICINE 33]

places where the word is πώρωσις or πωρόω RV has
replaced ‘blindness’ or ‘blinded? by ‘hardening °
ον linndeneds (vow τὸ ΘΟ sia. Hl ate) ΟΡ ΤΟΙ
fusion in MSS between πηροῦν and πωροῦν in Job 17".

Apparently but two forms of blindness were
recognized : (1) that due to the prevalent ophthal-
mia. It is a highly infectious disease, and is
averavated by sand, sun-glare, and dirt, so that
it almost always leaves the organs damaged, and
often renders them useless, causing opacity of the
cornea or closure of the pupil; (2) that due to
ave: Eli at the age of 98 was blind, his eyes
waxed dim (1S 32). David’s eyes were ‘set’ at
an earlier ave (1 K 4!) Ahijah was blind froin
ave (1 K 14+). Isaac was also blind (Gn 27!) ;
and it is noted of Moses that in spite of his age
his eye was not dim. Like other plagues, blind-
ness was believed to be ἃ visitation from God, and
curable only by Him (Ex 41. It incapacitated
for the priesthood (Ly 21); but by Jaw com-
passion for the blind was enacted (Ly 19"), and
offences against them were accursed (Dt 27!*).
The minor form of ophthalmia caused redness of
the lids and loss ef the eyelashes. Leah was thus

‘tender’ or weak-eyed (Gn 9010. Blindness from
birth arises from ophthalmia neonatorum, which
is often severe enough to cause permanent opacity
of the cornea. Sometimes ophthalmia accoin-
panies malarial fever (Ly 901. Smiting with
blindness as a punishment occurred in the case
of Elymas (Ae 13}. This was only temporary,
and may have been hypnotic. The Syrian soldiers
seeking Elisha were also affected, probably in the
same way (2 Καὶ 018). It was also probably sub-
jugation to His overmastering power that caused
the inhibition of the angry manifestations of the |
Nazarenes towards our Lord (Lk 490),

Of the blind men cured by our Lord the cases
of interest were (1) the man congenitally blind
(Jn 9'), and (2) the man whose progress in vision
was gradual (Mk 8:3. Probably the latter also
was blind from birth, and the intermediate stage
was that before he had learned to interpret the
new sensation, although, on the other hand, the
use of the word ἀποκατεστάθη would seem to imply
that he had at one time possessed sight which was
restored to him. Cases are on record of men to
whom sight was suddenly given by operation,
being unable to understand visual appearances
until verified by touch (see discussion of this in
Locke’s Essay, u. 9. 8). Our Lord in His miracles
used different methods to restore sight, all of them
inadequate without His divine power, but doubt-
less suited to the condition of faith on the person
healed; a word, a touch, anointing with saliva,
with clay, or testing his faith by sending him to
wash his eyes. Maimonides refers to the use of
fasting spittle as an application to sore eyes, but
expressly forbids its use on the Sabbath.

The blindness of St. Paul (Ac 951} was doubtless
a temporary amaurosis, such as that which has
been caused by injudiciously looking at the sun.
The ‘scales’ which fell from his eyes were prob-
ably not material, but vision was restored as if
scales had fallen ; the word used is ὡσεί, for which
see p. 3805, It is not improbable that this left a
weakness of eye, which may have been the ‘thorn -
in the flesh’ whieh rendered his bodily presence
weak (see Gal 4:8. Tobit’s blindness from the
irritation of the sparrow’s dung (‘To 210) was cured
by the gall of the fish caught by his son (1151.
Pliny recommends the bile of Cu//ionymus Lyra
as a cure for blindness (xxxil, 24). There is a
reference to eye-salve in Rev 318, Magical means
for curing eye diseases are referred to in Rawlin-
son, WALI. 47. Many eye-washes are mentioned |
in Papyrus bers Wit.

The poetical description of the failure of the |

powers of nature in old age, in Ke 12, has beer
commented upon by many authors, and the details
are carefully reviewed by Sir J. Re Bounett (op.
cit. p. 106). The Rabbins recognized 903 modes
of death ; and, commenting on Ps 9), said that
death at 70 is old age, at 80 is streneth (JZoed
Natan 28. 1). On account of the impurity of
adead body, the older Jewish plysicians did not
make post-mortem examinations (Lboda Zara 29 ;
Baba Bathra 1554), but at a later date these were
permitted (see Willstiidler in Ad/y. Zeitung des
Judenthums, viii. 568). Burial with or without
the external application of antiseptics was the
common method.

The process of child-birth is mentioned in Scrip-
ture: (a) in individual cases, (3) in lewislative
enactments, and (y) in metaphor. Leaving on one
side the narrative of the birth of Eve (see ἢ] ρα)
Rubbah on Nu 14, where Adam is described as
androgynous), there are details of a number of
births, most of which are illustrations of the
primal curse of Gn 3!° Two of these are cases οἵ
twins (Gn 257% and 3878), The latter was a case
of spontaneous evolution with perineal laceration,
probably fatal to the mother (although a Rabbinic
tradition in Zohar hadash says that she lived long
after); Rachel’s was a case of fatal dystocia, prob-
ably on account of some delicacy or unhealthi-
ness of long standing (31°) ; and Phinehas’ wife was
anexample of premature labour (Jos. Aaé. V. xi. 4),
brought on by shock, and proving fatal (1S 4!%).

The cases of Sarah, Manoah’s wife, Hannah,
the Shunamiite, and Elisabeth, are instances οἱ
wnipore at alate period, Barrenness was regarded
as a divine judgement (Gn 2018 30°), and was a cause
of much unhappiness (Gu 801, Pr 3u!°), for the re-
moval of which the forked root of the mandrake
was used as a charm (Gn 901, A multitude of
children was believed to be a signal proof of the
favour of God (15 25, Ps 113° 127% 128%). Hence
miscarrying was regarded also as a sign of God's
displeasure (Hos 94). The attendants on child-
bed were women, 77:9 (Gn 3517, Ex 115), of whom
two were enough for the Israelitish women in
Eeypt, indicating a small number in a circum-
scribed locality. Midrash Leabbah credits Puah
with being the inventor of artificial respiration by
insulilation. The mother was placed in a kneeling
posture, leaning on some one’s knees (Gin 30°) or on
a labour-stool. There is some obscurity as to the
nature of the o2sof Ex 1156, Sa‘adyaand the Targ.
believe it to have been a seat on which the mid-
wite made the patient to kneel,* others a bathing-
tub. Ibn G‘anach considers it a name for the
uterus, others believe that the dual refers to the
two sexes of the children which they were to see
and note (see Dillmann-Ryssel on this passage, pp.
14, 15). Diffienlt labour from weakness of the
mother is mentioned metaphorically in 2 Καὶ 199,

According to the law of Lv 12*"* the mother was
revarded as unclean or taboo for 7 days, until the
date of circumcision in case of a male, or for 14
days if the child was a female. After this there
was a second period of separation, during which she
was not permitted to appear in the temple. This
period for the mother of a boy was 33 days, of ὃ,
cirl 66 days, after which the offering for purifica-
tion was made. The difference of period in the
case of the two sexes was due to the belief that
the lochia lasted longer after the birth of a female
child. Nursing was continued for 2 or 3 years
(2 Mac 73), and the child was taken by a relative
to wean (1 K 117°).

The lecislation for the catamenia and for menorr-
hagia was characterized by a rigid system of puri-
lication, and the cleansing of everything that was

* For particulars of this 124 or labour-stool see Rashi on
21 198, Aelim 23, 4.

332 MEDICINE

MEDICINE

defiled thereby (Lv 15), The sufferer from this
disease in Mt 959, Mk 52, and Lk 8* had suffered
many things of many physicians and only grew
worse ; so much was this eondition considered as
beyond treatment that it was recommended to
treat it magically and by amulet (Baba Shab. 110,
Gittin 09). According to the early legend, the
votive figure at Banias, supposed to be that of
Christ, was put up by her (v. Dobschiitz, Christus-
bilder, p. 197). Amulets of the lapis resurrectionis
were used to prevent miscarriage (Shabb. 66). To
this day, charms, usually in the form of verses or
incantations from the Bible, are used in the in-
terval between birth and circumcision to keep
away Lilith: these are called my-xp (Shebuoth 15,
Chiutlin 77, Shabbath 57, Sanhedrin 90). Cesarean
section (implied in the expression j27 sv) is men-
tioned in Sanhedrin 45. There is a description of
a newborn infant given in Ezk 16’ with undivided
umbilical cord, unwashed and undressed. Salt was
rubbed on the skin of infants to make it firm, and
to remove the vernix caseosa.

In the prophetic writings labour pains, pangs,
and travail are frequent images, representing (1)
the affrighting of God’s enemies, Ps 48", Is 138 ete.;
(2) God’s declaration of judgment, Is 42; (3) the
sorrews of God's people under chastisement, Is 2017.
(4) claim of spiritual parentage, Gal 4” ete.

Infantile diseases seem to have been exception-
ally severe in Palestine, and at the present day
mortality in the early years of life is exceptionally
high. The Rabbinical writers speak of the 7s
O32 913, or pain of bringing up children, and in
Bereshith Rabbah it is written that it is easier to
rear a forest of young olive-trees than one child.
Biblical references to sick children are not afew:
Bathsheba’s infant (2S 12!5), the Shunammite’s
son (2 Καὶ 4), the widow’s son at Zarephath (1 Καὶ 17).
Christ healed many children, among whom were the
fever-stricken son of the nobleman of Capernaum
(Jn 4%), and Jairus’ daughter (Mt 918, Mk 5%, Lk
87), who was 12 years old. No particulars are
given of their diseases.

Several general references to sicknesses whose
characters are not specified oecur. We do not
know the maladies of Abijah (1 K 141); Benhadad
(2 Καὶ 8’), whose disease was not mortal, but who
was too weak to struggle with Hazael:; Elisha
(2 Καὶ 13), Joash (‘afflicted with great diseases,’
2Ch 24”), Lazarus of Bethany (Jn 111), Doreas
(Ac 95, Epaphroditus (Ph 2%), or Trophimus
(2 Ti 4”),

Similarly, the metaphorical allusions to sickness
are numerous, as typical of the weakness brought
on by sin and neglect of God’s commandments.
This moral sickness is especially compared to the
severe pains in the back from fever and exposure :
anguish in loins (Is 21°), pains in loins (Nah 910)
smitten in loins (Dt 3311). disease in loins (Ps 38"),
affliction laid on loins (Ps 661), breaking of loins
(Ezk 23”) ; see for other images Is 15,Ps 554, Jer 419.

There are very few references to methods of
treatment in the Bible. External applications,
such as bathing or washing (2 K 5!) ; diet (Lk 8) ;
the application of saliva (Jn 9°; see Maimon. on
Shabb, 21); anointing with oil (Ja 5%) ; binding of
sores and mollifying them with ointment (Is 10) ;
pouring in oil and wine (Lk 10); Hezekiah’s
plaster of figs prescribed by Isaiah (Is 382); animal
heat by contact (1 K 1719, 2 K 4"4), es veclally with
those failing from old age (1 K 12). Claudius Her-
mippus is said to have prolonged his life to 115
years by breathing the breath of young girls,

Of actual medicines few are mentioned ; possibly
the balm of Gilead was one, Gn 37”, 434, Jer 82
46" 51° (from this last passage it appears to have
been used as a local sedative, Ezk 274); ΗΝ
material was probably the resin of Pistacia lentis-

?

cus, the mastic tree ; as the plant now called Batm
of Gilead (Balsamodendron Gileadense) is a native
of Somali-land and S$. Arabia, and it is doubtful it
it ever extended as far north as Palestine. The Ὃς
may, however, have been the resin of Balanites
Aigyptiaca, still used as an application to sores.
See, further, art. BALM. Mandrakes (ἀπε im)
were used as a stimulant to conception, the forked
root as a charm, and the sweetish fruit as a medi-
cine. The plant is Mundragora officinalis (for
ancient views on this see Deusing, de Waundragora,
Groningen, 1659 ; Celsius, Hierobot. s.v. ‘Dudaim’).
Of other plants, mint, anise, and cummin, men-
tioned under Foop (vol. ii. p. 38"), are used as
carminatives. The last was used for the wound in
circumcision, Shabbath 1330. Myrrh, lign-aloes,
onycha, stacte, frankincense, spikenard, are odorous
materials, but scarcely remedial ; salt was used for
hardening the skin and as a preservative ; nitre,
native sodic carbonate, not saltpetre (Pr 25%,
Jer 259), was used as a cleansing agent to remove
the fatty secretions of the skin. ‘The caper-berry
(Capparis spinosa) had a considerable reputation as
an aphrodisiac (Ee 12°). Narcotics were used to
abate pain (Baba mezia 836). The wine given to
our Lord at His crucifixion was probably for this
purpose.

As in Egypt, the most of the remedies in com-
mon use were dietary: meal, milk, vinegar, wine,
water, almonds, figs, raisins, pomegranates, honey,
dibs, and butter, made up a large part of the
Egyptian as of the Jewish pharmacopwia. Some
few remedies were of a less agreeable nature, such
as the heart, liver, and gall of Tobiah’s fish (‘’o 67).
The Talmud adds to this list radishes, mustard,
ginger, dog’s dung, wormwood, calamus, cinnamon,
ladanum, galbanum, storax; and of poisons, hemah
(supposed to be some hemloch-like plant), rosh
(probably poppy), and bashah or aconite. Many
of the medicines given in the Egyptian medical
writings, and almost all in the Babylonian and
Assyrian plant lists, cannot be identified.

The art of the apothecary is mentioned in Ex
30°55 3779, as well as in Ee 101. The spin was,
however, rather a maker of perfumes (2 Ch 101
than a compounder of medicines. ‘They seem to
have formed a kind of guild (see Neh 3’). RV has
replaced the word by ‘perfumer’ except in Neh,
1 Ch, and Sir 385 and 491, Probably, as in Egypt,
the physician compounded his own medicines. In
Pap. Ebers there is an invocation given to be used
by the physician when thus engaged: ‘ May Isis
heal me as she healed Horus from all pain which his
brother Set hath inflicted on him when he slew his
father Osiris. Oh Isis! great wonder-worker, heal
me and set me free from all evil, destructive, and
demoniacal intlictions, from fatal diseases and un-
cleanness of every kind which befall me,’ ete.

It is probable that charms of this kind were in
use among the later Jews. Neck-chains like ser-
pents, such as those mentioned in Is 3*°, protected
against diseases produced by envy and the evil eye
(see Berachoth 55, Shabblath 57, Chullin 77, Shebuoth
17, and Elworthy’s Hvil Lye, 1898). The ovin> of
Is 3°? and the 212 or ear-rings of Gn 354 are sup-
posed to have been charms.

The Levitical code contains a large number of
Hygienic enactments with regard to food, sanita-
tion, and the recognition of infectious diseases.
It prescribes as sources of food, animals of the
herbivorous and ruminant group, excludes all
birds which live upon animal food, and permits the
use of all true fishes; and, among invertebrates,
permits only the use of locusts. Of food-animals,
the fat and the blood are prohibited ; and special
rules were laid down for the slaughter and inspec-
tion of the animals, that the meat may be clean
from the taint of infectious disease. Among fruits,

MEDICINE

MEEKNESS 333

those produced by trees in the first three years of
their life are ‘uncircumcised’ and not to be eaten ;
that of the fourth year is ‘devoted’; and that of
the fifth and later years may be used as food
(Lv 1955. The provision of the periodic cleaning
out and destruction of leaven, that even the bread-
stuffs may be kept wholesome, is also an important
law for the maintenance of a pure food (Ex 1919 137,
Dt 163).

The agricultural sanitary laws forbid the mixture
of seeds in a field at the same time, the sowing of
crops in a vineyard, the cross grafting of fruit-
trees, the cross-breeding and even the yoking
together of dissimilar cattle, and enforces the
complete rest of man and beast on the Sabbath
days, as well as on the great religious and national
festivals (Ex 2813). ‘To ensure the perfect purifica-
tion of garments, no mixture of linen and woollen
materials was permitted (Lv 1919, Dt 22"), as they
‘cannot be so thoroughly or easily cleansed as pure
garments of one material (see Ailayim). Such
compound fabrics, however, might, according to
Nidda, be used as shrouds.

In domestic sanitation the covering with earth
of excreta and of blood are prescribed, and the
expansion of these rules in the Mishna (baba
Kamma) forbids dung-heaps, and gardens requir-
ing manure within the city, and intramural inter-
ments. The fires of the valley of Hinnom perhaps
consumed the city offal (but see Robinson, BrP
1/274). Houses were built with parapets to pre-
vent accidents (Dt 228), and persons suspected of
having infectious diseases in the stage of ineuba-
tion were isolated (Ly 19). Those who had to touch
corpses or things unclean were themselves rendered
unclean, and had to wash their clothes (Nu 1911),

In the Talmudic code of uncleanness there were
five or, according to some, six grades recognized.
Decomposition, death, or leprosy, or certain other
diseases, were the central causes of all impurity,
and hence were called ‘fathers of fathers of un-
cleanness.’ That which was atfected by these
became the ‘father of uncleanness,’ and could not
be purified: for example, a corpse, or carcase ex-
cept such as was killed in the proper way, certain
issues, a leprous man, an idol, the water of purifi-
cation (Nu 19), the propitiatory parts of sacrificed
animals. Whatever was defiled by contact with
these was the first son of uncleanness, to be
cleansed by sacrifice, by a period of isolation and
a process of purification by water or fire; what-
ever was defiled by contact with a first son of
uncleanness was ἃ second son of uncleanness, to be
purified by seven days’ isolation and washing ; and
whatever was rendered impure by one of these was
a third son, to be purified by a day’s isolation and
washing of the clothes and person. By these
lustrations and by the careful isolation of cases of
suspected contagious disease, the chances of the
propagation of infection were much diminished.

Of surgical instruments a flint knife called τὴς
was used for circumcision (see vol. 1. p. 443), but
later, steel knives, mb2~>, called also 730, were used
(Chullin). An awl] or yss2 was used for boring the
servant's ear (Ex 21%). Other knives called pigion
izmel, kesilt@ are mentioned in different Talmudic
tracts—AWelim 13. 1; Shabbath 130; Moed Katan
and Aboda Zara 276.

Of surgical operations, circumcision has been
already dealt with. The exclusion of eunuchs
from the service of God under the theocracy was
probably a protest against either of these opera-
tions referred to in Dt 23! as performed among
heathen nations in the service of their gods (see
Driver, Deut. p. 259). Under the kingdom, how-
ever, they became important officials as Samuel
predicted, 1S 8 (AV and RVm), 1 kK 22%, 2 K 88
92 2412-15, Jer 292 3419 387 4116, and no spiritual dis-

ability attached to their state, Is 564; see out
Lord’s words in Mt 19:3}, and also Ac 877,
LITERATURE.—Few of the books on the subject written before
this century (which number at least 150) are of any value. The
only works worth consulting are: Ader, de chyrotis in Hvan-
gelio, Toulouse, 1626 ; Bartholinus, de Morbis biblicis Miscellanea
Medica, Hafnie, 1671; Lundt, Die alten Jiidischen Heyligthu-
mer, Hamburg, 1695; Cremont, Dissert. de Ebreorum veteruim
Arte Medica, Viteborg, 1688; Moles, Pathologia anorborum
quorum in Sac. Scrip. mentio fit, Madrid, 1642; Calmet, de re
Medica Hebrei, Paris, 1714; Colmar, uber die Arzneigelehrheit
dey Juden, Gera, 1729; Mead, Medica Sacra, London, 1749;
Reinhard, Bibelkrankheiten, 1767; Sprengel, de Medic. Kbre-
orum, Halle, 1789, and his Geschichte d. Arztneykunde, vol. i.
Of later works: Pruner, Krankheiten des Orients, Erlangen,
1847; Macgowan in Jewish Intelligence, and Journal of
Missionary Labours in Jerusalem, London, 1846; Roser,
Krankheiten des Orients, Augsburg, 1837; Wittman, Hinem
Artzte Reisen nach Syrien, etc., Weimar, 1805; Tobler, Beitray
zur medizinischen Topographie von Jerusalem, 1855; Nowack,
Heb. Archdol., Freiburg, 1894, i. p. 52 ff. ; Bennett, Dtseases of
the Bible, London, 1887. For Jewish Physicians, see Carmoly,
Histoire des médecins Juifs, Brussels, 1844, For Talmudic
Medicine, Joseph Salomo’s 72 229; Cohn’s de Med. Val-
mudica; Wunderbar, Biblisch-Talmudische Medicin, Riga and
Leipzig, 1850-60. A. MACALISTER.

MEEDDA (A Μεεδδά, B Acdda, AV ΜΕΕΡΑ), 1 Es
5% — MEHIDA, Ezr 2", Neh 7%,

MEEKNESS must not be considered alone, but
in connexion with the group of virtues of which
it is one, and which are especially characteristic
of the Christian temper. Meekness goes along
with poverty of spirit, humility, mercy, ete.,
Mt 5°" (πρᾷος, mpaitns; but in the best uncials
both in LXX and NT, pais, mpaiirns). The grace
is found in similar company in the Epistles, ‘ With
all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering,
forbearing one another in love’ (Eph 4°, Col 3",
Gal δ). This association best illustrates the
meaning of the word; it connotes gentleness,
kindness, forbearance, and is the direct opposite
of a proud, harsh, unforgiving spirit. The high
place given to this virtue in the beatitudes (Mt
5°12); which represent the higher Christian law,
its special prominence in-the character as well as
in the teaching of the Lord Jesus (‘I am meek
and lowly in heart,’ Mt 1159), its frequent mention
in the Epistles (Gal 61, Tit 3%, 1 Ti 64, 2 Ti 2%,
Ja 12! 338.17, ΤΡ 3+), all indicate the determining
influence assigned to this class of virtues in the
NT ideal of character. The’ insistence upon the
duty of forgiveness (Mt 015 18%, Eph 4°) is another
striking illustration. Our Lord prayed for His
murderers (Lk 23°). His meekness deeply im-
pressed His followers (2 Co 10!, 1 P 2”). ‘The
Lord’s servant’ must possess the same spirit (2 Ti
ὩΣ... ef. what is said of Moses in Nu 12°, that he
was meek [137] above all men upon earth). Row
justly calls attention to the fact that Christianity
transfers supremacy from the stronger to the
milder virtues (Bampton Lect. p. 154). The
result in the growth of the spirit of sympathy
and love in the world amply justifies the change.
The improvement would have been still greater
if Christians had better understood and followed
the Christian ideal as set forth in passages like
Mt 5, Ro 12- Too often they have preferred
the heathen worship of the stronger virtues to
the Christian ideal. Hence the slow fulfilment
of prophecies like the one in [5 24.

The NT teaching on this subject, while going
beyond the OT teaching, is rooted in it (see Ps 9!
10}7-2276. “72 ον 82? 1475, Ts: 1)? 614). Lhe: Heb:
word (33, 1:2) * denotes, first of all, a distressed,
helpless state in the literal sense, and then ac-
quires ἃ moral meaning, poe as there is a close
connexion between literal and spiritual poverty
(ef. Mt 5° and Lk 6°°). The Christian beatitude
(Mt 5°) almost literally translates Ps 37. It is

* See Rahifs, ὯΝ und yin den Psalmen ; and cf. Driver, Par.
Psalt. 445. (s.v. ‘humble ), 451 ἢ, (8.v. (1) ‘ poor’)

pepresenn era. τα τ.

334 MEET

MEHIR

no less striking a fact that the possession of the
earth is promised to the meek in both passages.
J.S. BANKs.
MEET (Anglo-Sax. gemet ‘suitable,’ from metan
to measure, whence Eng. ‘mete,’ thus ‘according
to the proper measure or standard’). The Heb.
and Gr. words rendered ‘meet’ in AV are numerous,
but the meaning is either ‘fit’ or ‘fitting’ Ἢ:
Fit, suitable, 2 Κα 108 «Look even out the best and
mectest of your master’s sons, and set him on his
father’s throne’; Wis 132 ‘He hath sawn down
a tree meet for the purpose’; Mt 3° ‘Bring forth
therefore fruits meet for repentance’ (TR καρποὺς
ἀξίους THs μετανοίας, edd. καρπὸν ἄξιον, RV ‘fruit
worthy of repentance’); 1 Co 15° “1 am the least
of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an
apostle’ (ἱκανός) ; Col 112 “Givine thanks unto the
Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers
of the inheritance of the saints in light’ (τῷ πατρὶ
τῷ ἱκανώσαντι ἡμᾶς). Cf. Erasmus, Commune Crede,
tol. 79, ‘It is not in the mete place.’ So Tindale’s
tr. of Nu 1°? ‘whatsoever was mete for the warre’
(so 1°, but 126 ‘all that were able to warre,’ and
55 “what soever was apte for warre’), and of Mt

10% 8 «He that lovith hys father or mother more |

then me, is not mete for me.’ Also 1S 1453 Cov.,
‘And where Saul sawe a man that was stronee
and mete for warre, he toke him to him’; Hall,
Works, 11. 30, ‘Piety and diligence must keepe
"θοῦ changes with each other; neither doth God
lesse accept of our returne to Nazareth, then our
going up to Jerusalem’; and Shaks. Lear, 1. ii.
200—

‘Let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit,

AH with me’s meet that I can fashion fit.’

2. Fitting, proper, as 2 Mac 913 “Τὸ is meet te
be subject unto God’ (dicacov, RV “It is right’);
Mt 15° ‘It is not meet to take
bread, and to cast it to dogs’ (οὐκ ἔστιν καλόν).
Shaks. Mich. IT. v. iii. 11S —

‘No word like ‘‘ pardon,” for kings’ mouths so meet.’
J. HASTINGS.

MEGIDDO (1:5. }}π2 Mesiddon in Zee 1911; Mayedau
or Μαγεδδών, Μαγδώ in 1 Καὶ 9 A fom. in B]) was an
old Canaanite capital (Jos 12°', B om.) situated in
Issachar but assigned to Manasseh (Jos 174, 1 Ch 7”),
The Can. inhabitants were, however, ‘put to tribute’
and not driven out (Jos 17!) Je 12723) The
town was in the district from which Baana, one of
Solomon’s twelve commissariat oflicers, drew sup-
plies for the royal household (1 K 413), and Solomon
restored the fortifications (1 K 9%), which were of
very ancient date (Inser. of Thothmes 111.). Accord-
ing to 2 kK 957 Ahaziah died at M.; but elsewhere
(2 Ch 22") it is said that he was found in Samaria,
taken to Jehu, and slain. Barak fought Sisera ‘in
Taanach by the waters of M., and the Canaanites
were swept away | y the suddenly swollen Kishon
(Jg 51). Pharaoh-necho, whilst on the march
from Egypt to Carchemish and the Euphrates,
defeated and slew Josiah ‘in the valley’ or ‘plain’
of M. (2 K 23%. 2 Ch 35", 1 Es 1%); δε the
‘mourning of Hadadrimimon in the valley (LXX
plain) of Megiddon’ may refer to the same event
(Zec 12"). Possibly this was the battle at Mag-
dolum mentioned by Herodotus (11. 159). M. is
frequently mentioned in close connexion with
Taanach (Jos 1271 174, Je 5”, 7 Καὶ 413. 1 Ch 7%),
which was certainly at Ta‘annuk—a small village,
on a large isolated mound, or 7.01], near the edge
of the plain of Esdraelon, and about ΘῈ τη. N.W.
of Jenin. M. was taken by Thothmes tt. after
a great battle, in which he defeated the confeder-
ated kings and princes of Palestine. Leaving his
‘amp at Aruna (a place identified by Maspero with
Umm el-Fahm, but which is more probably Ararch),
he marched through a defile (IWady Arah) in which
ue expected to be attacked, and in seven hours

Cf.

the children’s |

reached the south side of M. (RP, Ist ser. ii. 35-
47). The town is noticed in the ‘Travels of an
Egyptian,’ apparently in connexion with the Jordan
(76. 11. 112); but Max Miiller has shown (Asien γι.
Europa, 195) that Jordan is probably an error for
Kishon. M. is also mentioned in the cuneiform
inscriptions. At Armageddon (RV Har-magedon),
that 1s, ‘the fortified city or mountain of M.,’
according to Rev 161%, the final conflict between the
hosts of good and evil will take place ; see ii. 304f.
About 45 m. N.W. of Taanach are two ancient
sites. One, Vell el-Mutasellim, is at the end of a
spur that runs out from the ridge of Carmel into
the plain, and is a conspicuous feature in the land-
scape, This is Megiddo. The other, close to it, is
Lejjun, the Roman Legio, which took the place of
the earlier Can. town, and gave its name, Campus
Legionis, to the great plain of Esdraelon, which
is called by Jerome ‘the plain of Megiddo.’
Lejjun is identified with Meeiddo by Robinson
(BRP? Ὁ, 329), Dillm. (on Jos 1231), Moore (Judges,
45, 47), G. A. Smith (HGHL 386 f.), Buhl (GAP
209). Moore (p. 47) thinks Tel e/-Mutasellim may
/have been the citadel of Megiddo. The ruins of
Legio cover a wide area on both sides of a perennial
stream, which is one of the principal feeders of the
Kishon, and sometimes called its head (PHF Mem.
i. 39). This stream is apparently ‘the waters of
Mevgiddo.’? Legio was a centre from which Euse-
bius and Jerome measured the distances of other
places, and probably a military station. ‘It
occupied an important position on the road from
Bethshean and Jezreel to the coast, and guarded
the northern end of the pass over the ridge of
Carmel, which forms the easiest line of communica-
_tion between the plain of Sharon and that of
| Esdraelon. Through this pass ran the great road
from Egypt to the north, along which invading
| armies have marched from the time of Thothmes
Ur. to that of Napoleon. It was apparently during
the passage of the defile that Josiah’s hillmen
attacked the army of Necho, hoping to obtain an
easy victory over soldiers trained on the plains of
Egypt. A large ruined ‘han shows that, even in
the Middle Ages, commerce followed the same
route. There would seem to be a trace of the
name Meeiddo in the Arab name of the Kishon,
Nahr el-Muhkutta. (See Smith, ΧΟ ΜΠ, 386, 387,
whose view, however, is strongly opposed by Moore,
Judges, 158). Conder (PEF Jem. αἰ. 90-99) identi-
fies Megiddo with Jujedd¢é in the Jordan Valley
near Bethshean. This site has in its favour simi-
larity of name, and a doubtful reference in the
description of the journey of an Egyptian traveller
in the 14th cent. B.c. It is, however, far removed
from the Kishon; is a long way from any road by
which an army would march from Evypt to Car-
chemish and the Euphrates; the flight of Ahaziah
would not have been towards Bethshean, whence
Jehu had come; and the expression ‘'Taanach by
the waters of M.’ cannot apply to any site beyond
the limits of Esdraelon. (See the criticism of G. A.
Smith, p. 387f.). C. W. WILSON.

MEGILLOTH.—See TExtT or OT.
MEHETABEL, AV Mehetabeel (Sx2279 τὸ ὈΝΞ Ὁ

‘God benetits’).—4. The erandfather or ancestor
of Shemaiah, the son of Delaiah, the false prophet,
who was hired by Tobiah and Sanballat against
Nehemiah (Neh 610), 2. The wife of Hadar or

Hadad, king of Edom (Gn 36°, 1 Ch 189),

MEHIDA (x77>).—The eponym of a family of
| Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr 952
| (Maovéd) = Neh 7 (Meecda), called in 1 Es ὃ Meeda.

|
| MEHIR (vn).—A Judahite, 1 Ch 4" (LXX Maxeip),

MEHOLATHITE

MELECH 335

MEHOLATHITE (πρπεπ; in 1S B omits, 25 B
ὁ Mwovradel, A ὁ Moovdadeirns).—Probably an in-
habitant of Abel-meholah, the birthplace of
Elisha, which is usually placed in’ the Jordan
Valley, 10 miles S. of Beth-shean τὰ. A. Smith,
HGHL yp. 581 n.), in accordance with the identi-
fication of Eusebius and Jerome (Onom.? 227, 35).
Conder (SIP AZemotrs, p. 221) identifies 1t with
‘Ain Helweh in the same neighbourhood ; but
Moore (Judges, p. 212) rejects both these con-
jectures (ef. Buhl, Geogr. p. 206 n.). Possibly we
should look for Abel-meholah or Meholah on the
east of Jordan, in which case Barzillai, the father
of Adriel, who is described as an inhabitant of this
place (LS 18, 28 215), is to be identified with the
wealthy Gileadite Of Liat ames (295. bp). im
favour of this view is the close connexion which
existed between the house of Saul and the in-
habitants of the trans-Jordanic country.

J. I’. STENNING.

MEHUJAEL (5x02 or Syvnn [Keéré oyna]; A
ΔΙαιήλ).---Α Cainite, Gn 438 (J), corresponding to
Mahalalel of Ps genealogy (Gn 5%). Dillmann
remarks that the name may mean ‘destroyed of
God,’ or (Jewish-Aramaic) ‘smitten of God’ (so
Holzinger), or ‘(rod gives (to me) life’ es Budde
[Urgeschichte, 128], who points ΝΠ or 2x70; ef.
Philo’s interpretation, ἀπὸ ζωῆς θεοῦ).

Ball (in SBOT) agrees with Hommel (PSBA,
March 1893) in holding not only that the two lists
of the antediluvian patriarchs are identical, but
that the Heb. names are either adaptations or
translations of the Babylonian as found in Berosus
and cuneiform sources. Ball considers that the
form Sx¢sa2 of Gn 5!" is more original than either
Sxono or Syene [the AWeré ox:52 he “calls “ἃ triumph
ot absurdity Ἴ, as is shown by Berosus’ MeydAapos,
a phonetic improvement of Medddapos = A mel-
Arurn, ‘Arurw’s man’ (Hommel), > and > being
sometimes confused. See, further, Nestle, J/ar-

ginulien, 7, and Sayce, Lapos. Times, May 1899,
p. 353. J. A. SELBIE.

MEHUMAN (j>7>).—One of the seven eunuchs
in attendance upon king Ahasuerus (Est 1°, DXX
‘Audv), The name has been explained from the
Persian Mehhuim-van, * belonging to the great Hum?’
(cf. Berth.-Ryss.); the former has perhaps been

y ;
Be el\oy We) =faithful.
H. A. WHITE.
ME-JARKON (ὑπ πὶ *2).—An unknown place in
the neighbourhood of Joppa, Jos 194. The text is
doubtful, the following Kakkon (p72) being in any
‘ase almost certainly due to dittography from the
second part of iWe-jarkon, while the latter name
itself is not beyond suspicion. The LXX reads καὶ
ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ᾿Ιερακὼν ὅριον πλησίον ἬΜΗΝ which
Dillm. points out implies a reading ‘9 5:23 Spy oN,
t.e. ‘and westward, Jarkon the boundary over
against Joppa.’ J. A. SELBIE.

assimilated to the Aram.

MEKONAH (7:22; BA om., Nv 2™e@" Mayva).—
A town noticed. with Ziklag, as inhabited after
the Captivity, Neh 1158, The site has not been

identified.
MELATIAH (7252 ‘J” hath delivered,’ MaXrias,
but xA om.), a Gibeonite, who, with the men

of Gibeon and of Mizpah, repaired ἃ portion
of the walls of Jerus. in the days of Nehemiah
(Neh 37).

MELCHI (Δ ελχί TR, but Medxeé Tisch. Treg.
WH).—1. 2. Two ancestors of our Lord bear this
name in St Luke’s genealogy (3% 38).

MELCHIAS (B Medyxeias, A -x/as).—1. 1 Es 9°6=

2 1s 9? = ALOHA,
Neh 84,

MALCHIJAH, Ezr 10°. _
πῆ ΟΠ ΗΣ

MELCHIEL(B Μελχειήλ, A Μελχιήλ; Vule.om.).—
The father of Charmis, one of the three governors
of Bethulia, Jth 615. (cf. the name 23:5, Melchiel).

MELCHIZEDEK (p7s-252, MeA\yicedéx).—Kinz of
Salem and priest of the Most High God, who, after
Abramwn’s defeat of Chedorlaomer and his Bab.
allies, met the patriarch on his return, offered him
bread and wine, blessed him, and received tithes
from him of the spoil (Gn 141 39)... Salem is Jeru-
salem, which appears already in the Tel el-Amarna.
tablets (B.C. 1400) as one of the most important
cities of Canaan, and is called Uru-salim. An
Assyr. lexical tablet (IVAJ IL ii. 393) states that.
urwis the equivalent of the Assyr. ἀν, ‘city’; and
in the hieroglyphic inscriptions of the Eeyp. kings
Ramses If and Ramses ΠΙ. (19th and 20th dyn-
asties) Jerus. is called simply Shalam or Salem.
Several of the Tel el-Amarna tablets are letters
written to the Pharaoh by Ebed-tob (or, as read by
Hominel, Abdi-khiba), the king of Uru-Salim, who
begs for help against his enemies. He tells the
Pharaoh that he was not like the other fey ptian
governors in Palestine, nor had he received his
crown by inheritance from his father or mother ;
it had been conferred on him by ‘the Mighty
King.’* In another letter he speaks of ‘the city
of the mountain of Uru-Salim, by name Bit-
Ninip,’ becoming disaffected ; and we may perhaps
infer from this that the ‘ Most High God? of Jeru-
salem was identified with Ninip, the warrior Sun-
god of Babylonia. Ina letter from Phanicia we
hear of a second Bit- Ninip in the N. of Palestine.

‘The Mighty King’ is distinguished from the
‘ creat king’ of Egy] pt; and in one passage Ebed-
tob declares that, although the Pharach sends
no troops, ‘the arm of the Mighty King shall
reach the lands of Naharaim and Babylonia.’
Ebed-tob would therefore appear to have been a
priest-king, and thus to offer a striking parallel te
Melchizedek. Moreover, Ebed-tob’s words, that
he had received his royal dignity neither from his
‘father’ nor from his ‘mother,’ are a curious com-
mentary on He 7% As Uru-Salim probably (but
see JERUSALEM, vol. 11. p. 584%; ZA, 1891, p.
263; JPL xi. (1892) p. 105) signifies ‘the city
of the god Salim,’ the god of peace and safety
(Heb. shalém) (thoueh the Babylonians seem to
have interpreted the name the ‘city of alMance,
sali having that meaning in their own language),
the action of M. in welcoming the peaceful return
of Abram is easily explained. The offering of the
esrdé or tithe to the priests and temples was a lone-
established Bab. custoin, and the formula used by
M. in blessing the patriarch is met with in Aram.
inscriptions found in Keypt. (See a series of papers
on ‘ Melchizedek’ by Sayce, Driver, Hommel, and
others in the Lapos. Times, vols. vii. and viii., and
ef. art. EL ELYON).

For ΝΊ" references see art. HEBREWS,
331 f., and MEDIATION, pp. 3137, 319°.

A. H. SAYCE.

MELEA (Mede@ TR, but Μελεά Tisch. Tree.
WH).—An ancestor of Jesus, Lk 851.

vol.

MELECH (35> ‘king’; οἵ. Nabataan 125n, the
name of several kings in Ist cent. B.C.-Ist cent.
A.D. (Gray, Heb. Proper Names, 116]).—The name
of a grandson of Merib-baal (Mephibosheth), 1 Ch
855 (Bb Μελχήλ, A Μαλώθ) 9% (B Madax, A Mardy).

* Acc. to Hommel (Eapos. Times, viii. 95), the ‘Mighty King’ is
in Abdi-khiba’s letter the king of the Hittites, but he considers

it probable that this was an applied reference, the original
sense of sarru dannu (‘mighty king’) having been a religious

one, parallel to the ivy by (¢ Most High God’) of Gn 1418

336 MELITA

MELITA

Siegfried-Stade compare, further, the names MdAyos
(Jn 18!) and Mdduyos (Jos. Ant. XIV. vy. 2).
J. A. SELBIE.

MELITA (Μελίτη; but B*, the Arm. VS, a
Greek corrector of the Philoxenian Syr., the Bo-
hairic, some good MSS of Vule., and other
authorities read Μελιτήνη, a natural and probably
very early error in transcription).— The island
upon which St. Paul was shipwrecked (Ac 981).
The ship had drifted thither from Cauda, a small
island off the coast of Crete (Ac 9710, The violent
wind Euraquilo (which see), the ‘Gregalia’ or
‘Levanter,’ blowing from E.N.E., would have
drifted the vessel to the Syrtis (which see) had not
its course been changed. St. Luke gives a partial
account of the steps taken with this object ; but,
writing as a landsman, he omits the one essen-
tial point, viz. the setting of storm-sails, without
which ‘way’ could not have been kept on the ship,
and she would have drifted straight on the Syrtis.
It has been shown that a ship of the kind in
question, close-hauled on the starboard tack, before
an E.N.E. gale, would make a course about W.
by N. This would bring her to Malta within
about the time stated (v.*7) to have elapsed. Τὺ
could not possibly have carried her to the Dal-
matian coast. This fact,
the party proceeded from Melita to Rome by
Syracuse and Rhegium, is conclusive against the
claim of Mclita in the Adriatic, in spite of the
identification of our Melita with the latter island
by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (de Admin. Im-
per. 36, apparently the only express allusion to
the question in early literature; he gives no
reasons). ‘he mention of Adria (which see) proves
nothing. Malta was recognized as marking the
point where the Tyrrhenian Sea ceases and the
Adriatic (in the wider sense) begins (Procop. 1. 372).

To Malta, then, the apostle and his fellow-
voyagers quite indisputably came. At night the
watch were convinced that ‘land was getting near’
(προσάγειν -- προσαχεῖν is an attempt to replace a
curious phrase by an explanatory one, Ac 9727, As
the soundings confirmed this, they threw anchors
out from the stern (to avoid the risk of ‘swinging’
on toa lee shore), and ‘ prayed for day.’ The dawn
revealed a bay, with a shelving bit of beach.
Upon this they decide to run the vessel. Simul-
taneously they cut the cables, let the ‘rudders’
down (they had been braced up for safety), hoist
the foresail, thus getting way on to enable them
to steer, and head tor the beach. What happened
next is in dispute. The beach is not coextensive
with the bay. There is a beach at the head of
it, and apparently at one or two other points at
the foot of the cliffs. But before they reach the
beach they meet unexpectedly a τόπος διθάλασσος,
and the ship grounds in water too deep for wading.
Accordingly swimmers were bidden to save them-
selves, the rest make use of boards, spars, ete.,
and all are saved. The natives * receive the party
kindly, and light a fire. As St. Paul warms him-
self, a snake, roused by the heat, darts at him
from a faggot he has piled on the fire, and hangs
by its teeth on to his hand. The apostle shakes
otf the animal into the fire, and, to the amazement
of the natives, suffers no injury. Escorted to the
house of Publius (which see), the πρῶτος + or Prin-
ceps of the island, St. Paul heals his father of
dysentery. This miracle is followed by others.
The party are honourably treated, and after three
months proceed to Italy by a ship which has
wintered at the island.

“Be p2ae0. The language was probably Punic (Bilingual
Punic and Gr. inse. 670 5753). The modern Maltese is a corrupt
Arabic with words from Italian, ete.

+ The title is confirmed by Boeckh, CiG 5754, Λοίκιος Κλαυδίον
υἷος. . . προύδηνς ἱππεὺς Ῥωωαχίων πρῶτος Mererecwy καὶ πατρῶν,
and by an earlier inscr. published by Caruana.

as well as the fact that |

-

Malta lies 60 miles from Pachynuin (Cape
Passaro), the southern headland of Sicily, and
nearly 200 from Cape Bon, the nearest point of
Africa, in lat. 35° 53’ N., long. 14° 30’ E. It is
separated by a channel of geologically recent
formation, 44 miles wide, from the Isle of Gozo
on the west. The length of Malta is 17 miles, its
greatest breadth 9, its circumference 60, its area
95 square miles. Its population is very dense,
2000 per (productive) square mile. The Greeks
seem to have colonized it at an early date. It
is said (Diod. v. xii.) that the older inhabitants
were Pheenician. [10 was long held by Carthage ; in
B.C, 218 it was taken by the Romans, under whom
it became part of the province of Sicily (Cicero,
in Verr, If. iv. 18, 46). In A.D. 399 it became parc
of the Eastern Empire; Belisarius recovered it
in 533 from the Vandals; but in 870 it passed
under the power of the Abbasside Caliphs. In
1090 it was reunited by the Normans to Sicily.
In 1580 Charles y. gave it to the Knights of St.
John, who had just lost Rhodes. The Turks
attempted to seize it in 1551, 1563, and 1565, but
were gallantly repulsed. On the last occasion,
one of the great sieges of history, the Turks lost
30,000 men out of 40,000, and the 9000 defenders
were reduced to 600. In 1798 the island was
seized by Bonaparte; but the harsh rule of the
French led the inhabitants to revolt, and in
1800 ‘the island was taken by the English, to
whom it was confirmed by the Treaty of Paris in
1814.

The narrative of the Acts, summarized above,
fits well with the topography of ‘St. Paul’s Bay,’
some 8 miles in a direct line from Valetta, and
hardly 5 from the old capital, Melita, now Medina,
Notabile, or Citta-Veechia. The tradition identi-
fying the bay is of great antiquity (see below),
and its correctness is practically certain. In 1530
tradition coupled the events with the east side of
the bay, where stood the old church of S. Paulo
ad mare, and the Ayin tal Razzul (fons Apostoli),
and where Quintinus (1533) identities the ‘locus
bimaris’ with the ‘ Chersonesus’ of Ptolemy (Koura
Head) projecting into the sea. This can hardly

MAP A.

A, ‘Ayin tal Razzul; B, St. Paul
Valetta is about 8

(After Con. and Howson).
ad mare; C, the Wied tal Puales.
miles E.S.E.

be correct, as the ship would more probably, as
Smith and all modern investigators assume, be
stranded on the west side of the bay; it may be
noticed, moreover, that the oldest map (reproduced
below) shows the serpents, etc., on the west side,
opposite the islet of Selmun, though the church
of St. Paul is shown on the E. side. If the
modern view is correct, the ‘locus bimaris’ will
be a spit of mud projecting under the sea with
deep water on either side—possibly, as Ramsay,

MELITA MELZAR 337
etc., sueeest, between the islet of Selmun and the | the establishment of some local tradition. Citta-

mainland.

MAP B.
Venetian map soon after 1530. The church on the left of
the bay is St. Panl ad mare. Citta-Vecchia is beyond
the letter M at the corner.

Three points require final consideration: (1) The
title and position of ‘ Publius.” If Malta was by
this time enfranchized, the πρῶτος may have been
a seml-oftticial position corresponding to that of
the princeps colonie at Pisee (see Woolsey, quoted
by Hackett, ὧν doc.). Otherwise he might be the
legate of the proprietor of Sicily (Cicero, on Verr.
iV. xvill.). Tradition, supported by excavations,
puts the Rom. governor's house at Citta-Vecchia.
But Playfair mentions the ruins of an important
house. now covered up for protection, apparently
near the Church of St. Paul ad mare, certainly
on the east side of St. Paul’s Bay.

(2) Malta has now no venomous snakes ; but
the increase of population and cultivation may
well have killed them out. Venomous snakes,
again, do not hang on after biting. The smooth
snake (Coronella levis) is said to do so (Tristram),
but it is not venomous. But to peasant-folk all
reptiles, even lizards, are venomous.

(3) A question of more far-reaching interest is
the history of the local tradition, which modern
research so remarkably confirms, of the site of St.
Paul's shipwreck. Apart from the variation above
mentioned as to the side of the bay, the general
accuracy of the tradition is remarkable. How did
it originate? Have we here a unique instance of
local tradition remounting to the actual landing
of St. Paul, or the happy conjecture of a later
date, which fixed upon a likely spot near at hand
to the capital’ The matter cannot be settled with
our present knowledge. All one can say is, that
the tradition was clearly old when the first maps
of Malta were made (after 1530). Before that
time no writer appears to allude to the place ;
but Quintinus (see above) and Fazelli (about 1555)
both take its identity for granted. ‘The Church
of St. Paul ad mare was rebuilt in 1610 by the
Grand Master Vignacourt, who also built the
neighbouring Torre di δ. Paulo. The statue of St.
Paul which crowns the isle of Selmun is modern
(1845).

The first known bishop of Malta (the Episcopate
of Publius is assumed in the Roman Martyrology
with no known evidence) is Acacius, at the
Council of Chalcedon in 451. But Caruana claims
the existence of Christian monograms and inscrip-
tions as early as the 2nd cent. This makes it just
credible that there may have been a continuous
Christian tradition in Malta since St. Paul’s.days.
But if the gospel were reintroduced at a later
date, the mention of Melita (Ac 28!) would lead to

VOL 111.--- 22

Vecchia abounds with sites traditionally associated
with St. Paul, including the cave where he lodged
during his sojourn. And the foundation of a
Church of St. Paul ad mare in the neighbourhood
of the capital, the original centre ot tradition,
would be natural.

LireratUuRE.—The ancient commentaries on the Acts contain
nothing bearing on the question. Oecumenius in his summary
of St. Paul’s journeys (Migne, Pat. Gr. cxviii. 312 .D) does not
mention Melita by name. The ancient map reproduced above
was published at Venice by ‘D. B.’) Another by Battista
Agnese (Ven, 1554) is similar in treatment, but marks ‘Cala de
S. Paulo’ at Koura Head. <A similar map was published at
Rome in 1551. Other maps published (at Rome and Nurnberg)
in 1565 have also been consulted. Quintinus’ Descriptio Melitce
(1533) is printed in P. Burmann’s Thesaurus, xv. 110. Fazelli,
de resus Siculis, ed. by Ὁ. Vito 6 Statella (Catan. 1749), 1, 16, 27
(sensible refutation of Dalmatian theory. Refers to virtue of
stone from St. Paul’s cave against snake-bite, immunity of
persons born in any country on Conversion of St. Paul, Jan. 25,
etc.); Deserippao da Famoza Ilha de Malta (Lisbon, 1761),
Part I. based on Fazelli; Historisch-Geographische Beschreibung
M.’s (Frankf. 1782), unimportant; [O. Bres] Recherches His-
toriques, etc., sur Malte (Paris, An, vii., te. 1798), anonymously ;
Onorato Bres, Malta Antica Illustrata (Rome, 1816, dedicated
to the Prince Regent) refutes Const. Porphyr. (supra) and Don
Ignazio Georgi, the Benedictine of Ragusa, the chief moderu
advocate of the Dalmatian theory (1730). Bres is worth con-
sulting. Mitge, Histoire de Malte (Paris, 1840), 2, 15 ff.,
formerly French consul at Malta, no topographical references,
but argues against continuous Christian Church in M. from
time of St. Paul. Neueste Gemihlde von Malta (Ronneburg
and Leipzig, 1800); Playfair (Sir R. L.) [Murray’s], Mediter-
ranean® (Lond. 1890), very useful ; Porter, Hist. of the Knights of
M. (Lond. 1858), for the later history. See also Sicilia Sacra,
ii, 900-928 ; Ferres, Descriz. storica delle Chiese di M. e Gozzo;
Saint Pres, M. par un Voyageur lrangais; W. M. Ramsay,
Expositor (5th Ser.), vi. 154, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 314 ff. ;
Caruana, Reports on Phen. and Rom, Antiquities in M. (1851
and 1882); James Smith, Voyaye and Shipwreck of St. Paul
(1866), very important; Con. and Howson, St. Paul, vol. ii.
(nost useful ‘Malta’ in Haney. Brit.9 by Miss L. Toulmin
Smith; also Smith's Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geoy., both with
tuller reff. to Literature. A. ROBERTSON.

MELONS (creas “abattihim, wéroves, pepones).—
The cognate name bottikh in Arab. =imelon, with
the testimony of the ancient VSS, leaves no reason
to doubt the identity of the fruit mentioned (Nu
11°) along with cucumbers, leeks, onions, and
garlic. The term in Arab. is generic. It includes
all the varieties of cucurbitaceous fruits known as
water-melons, bottikh akhdar =‘ green meloa,’ and
cantelopes or muskmelons, bottikh as far =<‘ yellow
melon.’ Melons of excellent quality (under the
name of battikh or bittikh) are still produced in
dgypt, and their succulent pulp was remembered
with vreat regret by the Israelites in the burning
sands of the Desert of the Wandering. Had their
faith or their knowledge been greater, they needed
not to sin by their impatient expressions of long-
ing, for Palestine and Syria produce melons no Jess
renowned for their excellence than those of Egypt.
The water-melons of Jaffa are specially prized tor
their luscious pulp. Those of Hems and Lattakia,
where the fruit is called yabas, are also of very fine
quality. Melon patchesare to be seen everywhere,
often on the driest of hillsides. The vine has the
power of extracting moisture from a soil which
appears entirely parched and barren. The fruit is
very cheap, and forms an important part of the
diet of the poorer classes, but is equally enjoyed
by the rich in Bible lands. During the season
long trains of camels and donkeys transport melons
from place to place, and boat-loads are constantly
entering the seaports, G. BE. Post.

MELZAR (7520 Dn 1". 6),—The LXX (Αβιεσδρί),
Theodotion (‘Auedodd or ‘Auepoap), the Vule. (Wala-
sar), all regard it as a proper name, and have been
followed in this by our AV and other modern
versions. This is now universally admitted to be
a mistake. The article precedes the noun, and
the two together must be rendered ‘the steward
(RV), or ‘the cupbearer’ (IKautzsch’s AZ), er ‘the

338 MEM

overseer’ (Nowack’s Handkommentar). The last
is best. It expresses fairly well the functions with
which the man in question was charged. The
prince of the eunuchs bade him superintend the
diet, training, and conduct of Daniel and his three
faithful companions, until the time when they
should be fit to enter on the king’s service. It has
been well said that he thus combined the duties of
the παιδαγωγύς and τροφεύς, and attention has been
called to the inscription on the Bellino cylinder
which mentions the son of one ‘who was governor
over the young men educated in my [the king of
Assyria’s] palace.’ This was hardly the cup-
bearer’s work. And the title steward leads our
thought to the superintendence of property rather
than of persons.

The derivation of the word melzar has been very
variously given. Hitzig, in his Commentary, com-
pared with it Μολοσσός, Laconian Δολοσσόρ, and
connected this with κολοσσός. Halévy compares
μυλωθρός, ‘miller’: Griitz, coming a little nearer
the meaning, μελέτωρ. The Pers. mul-ser, ‘ keeper
of the cellar,’ has met with much favour, but the
duties of that official do not square with those
assigned to ham-melzar, Lenormant thought of
the Assyr. amil ussur, ‘treasurer.’ Other sug-
gested Assyr. origins are mul, ‘a star, and Mnudal-
Assur. But the most probable is that of Frd.
Delitzsch and Schrader, who point out the frequent
interchange of 5 and 3 in Semitic, and hold that
our word may be the same as the Assyr. massarn,
‘ouardian,’ from the root 733. Schrader compares
massar babi, ‘zatekeeper.’ As to the 4, Delitzsch
points to βάλσαμον, from oye. In the Pesh. and
Arab. of the two Daniel passages we find the n,

~ 4 ¢

: Fi :
Pea to, clr.

MEM (15).—The thirteenth letter of the Hebrew
alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm
to designate the 13th part, each verse of which
begins with this letter. It is transliterated in this
Dictionary by m.

2. TAYLOR.

MEMEROTH (A Μαρερώθ, B om., AV Meremoth),
1 Es 8°=MERAIOTH, an ancestor of Ezra (Ezr PE),
Also called MArimornH, 2 Es 1°.

MEMMIUS, QUINTUS (Κόιντος Μέμμιος), a Roman
legate (2 Mac 114), but no Memmius with this
preenomen is mentioned elsewhere. The Memmii
were members of a plebeian gens which. first
appears in history in B.C. 173, and more frequently
from the time of the Jugurthine war (B.c. 111).
In 170 T. Memmius was sent by the Senate to
Macedonia and Achaia (Livy, xliii. 5). See
MANIUS. H. A. WHITE.

MEMORIAL, MEMORY.—A memorial is that
which preserves alive the memory of some person
or event; but in earlier English the words were
not carefully distinguished, so that in AV we find
“memorial? where we should now use ‘memory,’
and ‘memory’ where we should use ‘memorial.’

MEMORIAL: Est 9° ‘The Jews ordained...
that these days of Purim should not fail among
the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from
their seed’; Ps 9° ‘Thou hast destroyed cities ;
their memorial is perished with them’; 135";
Wis 4! ‘Better it is to have no children, and to
have virtue; for the memorial thereof is immortal’
(ἀθανασία yap ἐστιν ἐν μνήμῃ αὐτῆς, RV ‘in the memory
of virtue is immortality’); 4! ‘their memorial
shall perish’ (ὠνήπη, RV ‘memory’); Sir 45}
‘Moses, beloved of God and men, whose memorial
is blessed’ (uvnusovvoy ; so 49! 1 Mac 37 12°8; else-
where uw. is rendered ‘remembrance,’ ‘renown,’
etc., RV prefers ‘memorial’). Cf. Pr 107 Cov.

‘The memorial of the iust shall have a good
reporte, but the name of the ungodly shall
stynke’; Ps 145’, Pr. Bk. ‘The memorial οἵ thyne
aboundant kyndnes shal be shewed, and men shall
synge of thy righteousness.’

Memory: 1 Mac 13” ‘ Upon the pillars he made
all their armour for a perpetual memory ’ (εἰς ἔνομα
αἰώνιον). Cf. Mt 2015, Rhem. ‘Wheresoever this
Gospel shal be preached in the whole world, that
also which she hath done, shal be reported for a
memorie of her’; Shaks. Jud. Cas. m1. ii. 139—

‘And they would go and kiss dead Cxsar’s wounds,
And dip their napkins in his sacred blood,
Yea, beg a hair of him for memory,’

But ‘memory’ is also used for remembrance, the
retaining of the past in memory, 2 Mac 7% ‘But
the mother was marvellous above all, and worthy
of honourable memory.’ Cf. the Rhem. tr. of Ae
10"? “thy almesdeedes are in memorie in the sight
of God’; Ro 1° ‘I make a memorie of you alwaies
in my praiers.’ J. HASTINGS.

MEMPHIS, the capital of Egypt, is, in the Heb.
text, only once (Hos 9°) written correctly 42 Moph.
In the other passages (Is 19, Jer 916 441 4614! Ezk
4013. 16) it is corrupted to 43 Noph. EV is correct and
in agreement with the ancient versions in render-
ing Moph, ‘Memphis’; Noph, which likewise all
ancient versions render ‘Memphis,’ is merely
transliterated. The name Memphis was in ancient
Egyp. Jen-nofer (=later Men-nufe), i.e. ‘the good
(or fine) abode.’ Plutarch’s translations (de /side
et Osiride, 20), ὅρμος ἀγαθῶν, ‘landing-place of the
good,’ and ‘tomb of the good god’ (2.6. Osiris), are
erroneous, betraying little knowledge of Egyptian.
The vernacular shortening was Mennefe, Menfe, in
the Coptic period Menbe, Membe, Memfi, but more
frequently Mefe (Arab. Mdfe, more commonly
Menf). These shortened forms passed over into
many languages: Assyrian, Mempi, Mimpi; Greek-
Latin, Memphis (hence Targumie Jéphis), ete. The
Heb. renders the most abridged form J/eph(e).
The corruption Noph is, yearn due to an
attempt at taking 4D for 3, and, subsequently,
shortening this.—The sacred name of Memphis,
preferred especially in the religious texts of the
Egyptians, was /la(t)-ha-ptah, ‘the abode (or
temple) of the likeness of god Ptah,’ whence the
designation of all Egypt as Αἴΐγυ-πτος, E-gy-pt,
seems to have arisen.

Memphis was one of the most ancient cities of
Egypt, at least near it was the earliest residence of
those Pharaohs who ruled over both Upper and
Lower Egypt. Herodotus (ii. 99) reports that the
earliest historical king Menes (before 3000 B.C., an
accurate determination of the date will never be
found) built M. after winning the ground from the
Nile by an immense dyke, still existing in Hero-
dotus’ time, 100 stadia (1.6. almost 12 miles) south
of M., and completely changing the course of the
river (5). Menes, Herodotus says, built the tensple
of Hephistus (1.6. Ptah). This tradition is now
supported by hieroglyphie inscriptions as old az
the 14th cent. B.c., claiming indeed king Mena,
Meni, as founder of that most ancient and most
important temple, the Ha(t)-ka-ptah or ‘sanctuary
of Ptah.’ Diodorus attributes the foundation of
M. to a king Uchoreus, a name admitting of no
certain identification. The name Memphis origin-
ated from a new suburb which grew up to the
west of the original city, around the pyramid of
king Pepi (Apopi) 1. of Dynasty 6 (ec. 2700 B.C. 2),
that pyramid being called Mennofer, ‘good abode’
(see above).

We can observe that before this time the city,
or at least a large part of it, was shifted repeatedly
over a space of several miles. Most kings liked to
build a new palace, and around it their ‘ own city.’

MEMPHIS

MENAHEM 339

Consequently it might be disputed if this changing
series of cities and suburbs can properly be called
Memphis. But if the name is not old, and the
situation was as unstable as that of many Oriental
cities, the religious centre, the temple of Ptah,
always remained the same.

The city extended on the western bank of the
Nile over an area of 150 stadia (more than 17
miles) from N. toS., according to Diodorus. rom
Kk. to W. the diameter cannot have been more
than 3 miles. The names of several quarters
are known : the quarter of Sokari(s) (now Sakkara),
near the desert in the west, touching the necro-
lis, a part of which was called Avo-kume (‘of the
Rie bull’). The ‘ White wall’? was the chief part
of the city, with the citadel, always occupied by a
strong garrison. Another quarter was Makha-
tout, ‘the balance of both countries.’ Ankh-touwi,
‘the life of both countries,’ in the E. was on the
bank of the Nile, a quarter rich in temples, but
also in pleasure-places, a temple of the Syrian

goddess Astarte combining both functions. This
part was inhabited by a mixed population. The

classical writers (above all Herodotus, about 450
B.C., and Strabo, 24 1.0.) give very impressive
descriptions of the several large temples, especially
of the old ‘sanctuary of Ptah-Hephiestus,’ remark-
able for immense statues (75 feet) standing before
it. Almost every king had built here ; the largest
part of the various constructions seems to have
been due to the greatest builder of ancient Egypt,
Ramses 11., the Sesostris of the Greeks. Canals
crossed the city; an artificial lake was in the
western part.

The chief local god of Memphis was Ptah, the
former of the world, whose high priest had there-
fore the name ‘the great workman.’ Other
divinities were, e.g., the lion-headed goddess Sokh-
met, the Eeyp. Asclepius TImouthes (/-m-hotep),
Nefer-Atum, ete. The western suburb had its
own local god Sokari, a hawk sitting in a kind of
sledge, later assimilated to Osiris, the god of the
dead. ‘The Serapeum, described by Strabo (p. 807),
was in this quarter. The worship of Apis (fap),
the sacred animal of Osiris-Sokaris—according to
vopular belief the incarnation of this god himself—
han its own temple opposite the great temple of
Ptah. The Apis was a black bull with certain
white spots and other marks—the description of
which, by the classical writers, e.g. Herod. ii. 153,
does not agree with the monumental evidence.
Also the cow, which had been mother of an Apis,
was adored in a special temple. Sometimes all
Egypt was searched for a new Apis for a long
time. The discovery, the bringing to Memphis,
and the solemn enthronization were public festivals
of the highest rank, immense sums being fre-
quently contributed by the kings for the celebra-
tion. Likewise thedeath of the Apis was followed by
public mourning and a splendid burial in the large
crypt at Sakkara. Marictte found there, in 1859,
sixty-four embalmed bodies of sacred bulls and
cows. The goddess Isis had a remarkable temple,
finished by kine Amasis (¢. 550 B.C.)

Memphis owed its importance chiefly to its
situation near the southern angle of the Delta,
where the Libyan mountain-ridge in the W. almost
meets with the Arabian mountains in the EK. It
thus commanded all Egypt, just as Cairo does at

resent. Dynasties 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 are reported to
ae been Memphitic. The city continued to be
the unrivalled metropolis down to Dynasty 18
(beginning about 1650 B.c.) Dynasties from Upper
Egypt, as, e.g., 11 and 12 (from Thebes), could not
disregard it; also the foreign invaders, called
Hyksos or ‘shepherd kings,’ seem to have resided
here. Only during Dyn. 18 to 20 (to ¢. 1100 B.C.)
Thebes, as residence of the kings, rivalled success-

fully Memphis for splendid buildings. Yet M. con-
tinned to be the most populous city, and became
again the residence of the Pharaohs until the end
ot Egypt’s independence (525 B.c.), although it was
frequently ravaged by war, ¢.g. when the Ethio-
pian conqueror P(i)'ankhi (about 750) took it by
storm. [Τὺ experienced the woes threatened by the
prophets of Israel repeatedly at the hands of the
Assyrians under Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal,
last and worst in 525 B.c. at the hands of the
Persian king Cambyses. Under the Persian rule it
was the stronghold of a powerful Persian garrison,
and proved to be the key of Egypt in the various
rebellions against the Persians, suffering especi-
ally from the Persian king Ochus after the last
revolution. The foundation of Alexandria made
ΔΙ. the second city of Egypt, but the Ptolemies and
the governors of the Roman and Byzantine lords
used it as a second capital. The deathblow was
dealt to it by the Arab conquest and the founda-
tion of Old Cairo (Fostat) in 688 A.D. The Arabs
employed the stones of the ruins (which are
described by Abulfeda in the 14th cent. as still
being very extensive) for building up the new city,
and, later, Cairo. Therefore the present site does
uot indicate the former size (marked by Aun e/-
Azizyeh in the N., Bedrashen in the δ.) and splen-
dour. That the poor modern village of Mitrahineh
occupies the centre of M. and the site of the cele-
brated temple of Hephiestus, is indicated only by
the fallen stone colossus of Ramses I. (originally
43 feet high). Mariette’s excavations produced
only insignificant fragments of this temple, and
showed that the destruction of the whole city has
been very complete. But the immense necropolis
at the west of M., on the borders of the Libyan
desert, still extends from Abu-Rosh in the N. to
Dashur in the 8. The gigantic royal tombs, the
pyramids, attract numerous visitors from the
whole world. Usually, only the most remarkable
group of pyramids (those of Khufu, Khafre, and
Menkare of Dyn. 4 [in Herodotus, Cheops, Cheph-
ren, and Mycerinus)) at Gizeh are visited ; about 50
other pyramids of smaller size or still more dilapi-
dated are less known (those at Sakkara, belonging
to Dyn. 6, and of Dashur of Dyn. 4, being most
remarkable). The immense sphinx at Gizeh (prob.
a work of Ahafre-Chephren, although recently some
scholars place it in Dyn. 12), and many private
tombs, the latter much destroyed, contribute to
make the site of ancient M. still remarkable.
W. MAX MULLER.

MEMPHITIC YVERSION.— See EGyprian VER-

SIONS.

MEMUCAN (Est 14-16 21 paso, jam v.16 Kethibh ;s
in νν. 16. #1 BA have Movyatos; in v.18 N° ἃ Mauouxatos ;
in ν. 1 N* has εὐνοῦχος, N& ἃ Movxeos, N°? λΙαμούχεος:;
inv.4 LXX om.; Mamuchan).—One of the seven
princes of Persia who held the highest rank in the
kingdom, and had access to the royal presence (see
ADMATHA). These men, who formed the king’s
council, are represented both as astrologers (‘wise
men, who knew the times’) and as authorities on
all questions of law and custom. When Ahasuerus
consulted his counsellors with regard to the con-
duct of Vashti in refusing to come to the banquet
at his bidding, Memucan was the first to speak.
He represented that the queen’s example was likely
to be followed by all the princesses of Media and
Persia, and recommended that she should be de-
posed from her royal dignity, and that a decree
should forthwith be published enjoining upon all
wives to give due honour to their own husbands.
This advice pleased the king, and was at once

carried into effect (Est 1)°-**), H. A. WHITE.

MENAHEM (05:2 =‘ consoler’ ; Mavayjju, A Μαναήν,

340 MENAHEM

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN

the latter form being the same as is found Ac 131).
—The history of Menahem is recorded 2 Καὶ 15'-*2,
He is there called ‘son of Gadi’ (Heb. πὶ LXX
Vaddet). Gadiis most likely the name of his father,
but it is possible that ‘son of Gadi’ may mean that
he was a member of the tribe of Gad, many of
whom had become regular soldiers in consequence
of the harrying of the East Jordan land in the
long course of the Syrian wars (see 2 καὶ 15%, and
cf. Stade, Gesch. des V. Isr. i. 576). During the
six months’ reign of Zechariah, the last king of the
house of Jehu, Menahem seems to have been one
of the foremost generals ; and when Shallum con-
spired against and murdered Zechariah, Menahem
Was in cominand at Tirzah, once the capital of the
northern kingdom and still an important military
post Menahem did not acquiesce in Shallum’s
usurpation. He marched from 'Tirzah to Samaria,
defeated and slew his rival, and mounted the
throne. According to the MT of v.!® his next
move was against ‘Liphsah, which refused to admit
him. He took it by storm, slaughtered the inhabit-
ants, and treated the unhappy women with the
atrocious cruelty too common in those days. In
several particulars the text of this sixteenth verse
is corrupt, and there can be little doubt that it is
so in respect of the town-name. The only city of
this name mentioned in the Bible is the well-known
Thapsacus, on the Euphrates (1 Καὶ 43: [Heb 54).
Rawlinson’s sugvestion (Speakers Comm. in loc.)
that an expedition thither by Menahem would be
the natural sequel to Jeroboam Il.’s occupation of
Hamath, is condemned by the fact that Menahem’s
position at home was too insecure for him to venture
far afield. Onthe other hand, we need not assume
the existence of a Tiphsah in the Jand of Israel,
unmentioned in any other passage. The LXNX,
which has Θαρσειλά in v.44, here reads Θερσά (A
Θαιρά). It is not difficult to believe that in those
disturbed times, when no one knew who would ulti-
mately come out at the top, Tirzah closed its eates
behind Menahem as soon as he marched out against
Shallum, and was therefore visited with bloody
vengeance when he foreed them open again. On
this view we should read aytm instead of nofA, and
omit ΠΥ as a clerical error. The other alterna-
tive is to adopt Thenius’ conjecture, and, with the
minimum of alteration, read mpm for norm; the
town thus named, Tappuah, being on the boundary
between Ephraim and Manasseh, Jos 168 177: ὃ (ef.
Benzinger, Aonige, in Marti’s Handkomm.). A
keen sense of the evil and misery of these days of
internal strife is best gained from such writings as
Hos 7st. igo.

It was in the short and troubled reign of
Menahem that the Assyrian invader first set foot in
the Holy Land. ‘There came against the land Pul
the king of Assyria’ (2 Καὶ 1619), Schrader (COT?
i, 222, 230) has shown that this Pul, the Πῶρος of
the Ptolemaic Canon, and ‘Tiglath-pileser m1. of
the cuneiform records, are identical, that probably
‘when he became ruler he exchanged the name
Palu, which belonged to him as a subject, .. .
for the other name Tuklat-abal-isarra. Yet the
earlier and original name was perhaps the most
popular one. It was that under which he first
became known to the Israelites.” The books of
Hosea and Isaiah exhibit a deep and abiding
division between an Egyptian and an Assyrian
party in Israel. It is possible that at this crisis
the king and his faction actually solicited the
interposition of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser’s own
account would look as though he came unsolicited,
sweeping Israel, along with the other states of
Western Syria, into his net In IIT R9, No. 3,
lines 5U0-57, he enumerates ‘the tribute of Kush-
tashpi of Kummuch, Rezin of Damascus, Menahem
of Samaria (Mi-ni-hi-im-mi Sa-mi-ri-na-ai), Hiram

of Tyre,’ and many other petty kings (see Winckler,
Keilinsch. Textbuch, pp. 17, 18; cf. Schrader COl*
i, 284). In any case, Menahem succeeded in
inducing Tiglath-pileser to accept him as a vassal,
and it may well have been his policy on this
occasion that evoked the prophet’s reproaches,
Hos 5® (ef. 74) 89 108 (ef, 124) 14°,

The method by which Menahem met his suzerain’s
demand for money has thrown light on the economic
condition of the kingdom. ‘Menahem gave Pul a
thousand talents of silver that his hand might be
with him. . . . And Menahem exacted the money
of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth,
of each man fifty shekels of silver’ (2 Καὶ 15”),
That is to say, there were 60,000 ‘men of means’
in the land.

The mention of Menahem on Tiglath-pileser’s
list of tributaries enables us to fix his date with a
fair degree of precision, and compels us to correct
the number of years assigned to him in v.!7. The
Assyrian list is of the year B.c. 738. | Pekah, who
succeeded Menahem’s son, Pekahiah, after the
latter had reigned two years, occupied the throne
in 734. The Assyrian invasion must have occurred
not very long after Menahem had seized the reins ;
otherwise he would not have been so eager to
utilize it for the confirmation of his authority.
Hence the dates given for Menahem in the art.
CHRONOLOGY, vol. i. p. 401 of this Dictionary, are
more probable than Wellhausen’s (J/G* p. 80)
view that Menahem seized the kingdom in 745, or
even than that of Kautzsch (/list. of OT Lit., Eng.
trans., p. 185), who gives 743-737. Three or four
years, not ten years, must have been the extent of
his reign. And that was quite long enough. "ἢ 6
was a military adventurer, who reigned for him-
self, not for his people, and did nothing to heal the
sores of the land. ‘The prophecies of Hosea present
us with an all too vivid picture of the drunkenness,
debauchery, injustice, oppression, superstition, as
well as of the confused and fluctuating politics of
the time. And if it is unsafe to fix on individual
traits as belonging specifically to Menahem’s reign,
we are at all events quite justified in forming our
general idea of the character of the reign from the
dark picture which the prophet paints. Menahem
seems to have died a natural death. He was the
last king of Israel who was succeeded on the throne
by his son.

One of the best sketches of Menahem and_ his
rule is that given by Kittel (//ist. of the Hebrews,
ii. 332-337), although it is difficult to understand
the reason for the assertion (p. 382), ‘Of the few
kings of the kingdom of Ephraim who died a
natural death, Jeroboam 11. is the last.’ Benzinger
(Aonige, 167, 168) is excellent; and Stade (Gesch.
des V. Isr. 1. 576) is still worth reading. See also
his discussion of the text of v.18, ZA JV, 1886, p. 160.

J. TAYLOR.

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN (jn 832 ΝῺ
pots; Theod. Mavy, θεκέλ, φαρές ; LXX tr. in Dn 5”
"HplOunrat, κατελογίσθη, €&jprac).—The words of the
famous handwriting on the wail at Belshazzar’s
feast (Dn 5”). The construction of the enigma in
this chapter is similar to that in ch. 2: by per-
forming one part of it Daniel certifies the correct-
ness of his performance of the other part. Here,
by deciphering what no one else can read, he gains
credit for his explanation and application of the
words. The author does not state wherein lay the
difficulty of reading the words on the wall, and
none of the many guesses on this subject made in
ancient and modern times is worthy of attention.
Clearly, however, the writing must have been, in
the author’s intention, of a kind with which the
king and his wise men were familiar, though in
this particular case they were unable to read it.
It requires no flight of the imagination to conceive

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN

MENELAUS 34]

such a case. The CZS contains numerous speci- | conceivably be got rid of by a better interpreta-

mens of Pheenician and Neo-Punie texts, which,
owing to careless writing or ignorant transcription,
still bafile the ingenuity of decipherers ; and the
same is the case sometimes with Greek cursive. Yet
these alphabets are not more liable to become unin-
telligible than that Aramaic cursive which was
probably in ‘ Daniel’s* mind, and of which we have
specimens in the Blacassian papyri. When such
texts are read, those who are familiar with both
script and language can easily see whether the
readings are right or wrong. ‘The test of Daniel’s
ability, though not equal to that given in ch. 2,
was therefore still considerable.

Daniel's interpretation and application of the
words occupy vv.""*, where it is noticeable that
the readings differ slightly from those given in v.,
Méne appears only once, and the singular pérry is
substituted for the plural parsin. The texts of
Theodotion and Jerome bring v. into agreement
with vy." Τὴ the opinion of many critics (ef.
Peters in JBL xv. 116) rightly. The general
principle of Daniel’s interpretation is to render
each word twice (as Hitzig observes). This appears
most clearly in the case of the last word, which is
made to mean ‘thy kingdom is broken up and
given to Media and Persia,’ a rendering whieh suits
persin if interpreted (1) as ‘fragments’ (Ewald
and others) or ‘they break’ (Hitzig and others) ;
(2) as ‘the Persias.” The Persias, according to the
writer, stands for Media and Persia, just as with
the Arabs ‘the Euphrateses’ [dual] means the
Tigris and the Euphrates, ‘the Basras’ [dual]
means Basra and Kufa (Vennier, Grammm«aire
Aiabe, § 288). The second word means ‘ weighed’
(from ἐξ) and ‘thou art light’ (from ζ,1). The
first word is apparently made to mean ‘counted’
and ‘handed over’ (s25e7), the second sense being
perhaps given it on the authority of Is 65” (where
for ‘132 the Targ. has 702s, a synonym of obs),
Hitzig suggests that the second sense of méne,
‘completed,’ is got from the similar mélé, ‘full.
The grammar of the second word suffers somewhat
in this interpretation, since $pn should be Sn in
the first sense.

It might seem that this explanation of the words
must be certainly right, since either the whole
narrative is the author’s invention, or, if it be
historical, Daniel’s explanation was found satisfac-
tory by those likely to know. There is, however,
a third possibility, viz. that an actual inscription

found on the walls of the palace at Babylon, or at |

any rate found somewhere, was worked by the
author of Daniel into this dramatic scene, and
arbitrarily explained. Somewhat similarly Epi-
phanius (adv. Har. xix. 4) produces the saying of
the Arabic prophet Elxai and interprets it quite
wrongly ; it was left to M. A. Levy to interpret
the words correctly in 1858 (ΖΜΟ xii. 719). In
the case of the words in Daniel there is something
in favour of such a supposition. Besides the
grammatical difficulty in the case of the second
word, the uncertainty as to signification in the
case of the first, and its actual repetition, make the
principle of rendering each word twice resemble
the artifice of an interpreter rather than what was
actually intended by the author of the inscription.
But if that principle be abandoned, the words
‘counted, weighed, and = fragments’ are ποῦ
sufficient to justify the gloss; for the word
‘weighed’ by no means implies that the weight is
deficient, any more than ‘counted’ implies that
the number is complete. Moreover, if the author
Was composing a suitable death-warrant for
Babylon, it is probable that he would have given
a sentence which would be clear, or a quotation
which would be appropriate. But if he is not the
author of the inscription, these difliculties may

tion.

A suggestion for a fresh rendering of the words
in Dn was made by Clermont-Gannean in the
Journal Asiatique for 1880 (Sér. viii. vol. 1. 36 ;
translated in Hebratea, 1887), which was followed
up by T. Néldeke (ZA i. 414-418), G. Hoffmann
(0. 11. 45-48), P. Haupt (John Hopkins Univ. Cire.
No. 58, p. 104), Bevan (Dan. 106 f.), and J. D. Prince
(Journ, of the American Oriental Society, xv.
e1xxxii-clxxxix). He regarded the words in the
text as the names of weights, ‘a Mina, a Mina, a
Shekel, and [two] Peras.’ The word pers is used
in Jewish writings for ‘a half,’ especially ‘a half
mina.’ ‘This discovery seemed to shed some light
on the difficulty of reading the words, which could
all be represented by ideographs; though it is not
clear why the wise men of Babylon should have
been puzzled by such common signs. It also
seemed to give an explanation of ¢¢/é/ which did
not violate grammar (though this is not certain),
Otherwise this discovery seems to give little help.
Por, besides the improbable character of the sum
(which would be like £1, Is., some £4), how came
it to be connected with the fall of Babylon’? Cler-
mont -Ganneau therefore practically abandoned
his discovery as soon as made, and offered a
variety of renderings, of which ‘Mina by Mina
weigh the Peras’ may be given as an example.
Haupt, who adopted the rendering ‘there have
been counted a Mina, a Shekel, and Perases,’
thought these weights stood symbolically for
Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and the Medes and
Persians. But it is incredible that this, if correct,
could have escaped the author of Dn 2; and for a
death-warrant it is by no means dramatic.

We are driven back therefore to Daniel’s expla-
nation of the first two words as verbs, which, if we
had the inscription on stone, we should probably
render ‘he has counted, counted, weighed.’ It is
curious that the third word on. has in the Targum
a sense which is very similar to that of the pre-
ceding two, 1.6. ‘to assess’ (for the Heb. pays in
Ly). The reading of νν. 6.38. would therefore be
naturally rendered ‘he has counted, weighed,
assessed,’ and that of v.% ‘he has counted, counted,
weighed, and they assess.’ The first of these reads
like a commercial formula with which goods might
be labelled, implying that they were ready for
immediate delivery ; while the second might be a
description in technical language of a sale in which
the salesman gives an accurate description of the
goods, for which the buyers offer a price. The
interpretation given in vy.7°*8 would in either case
err in assigning @ separate application to each of
the words of a formula which as a whole was a
symbolical description of the occasion,

If the inscription given in Dn 5 be historical, it
is probable that some euhemeristic explanation of
its appearance, such as Prince suggests, should be
adopted. The historical character of the name
3elshazzar leads us to seek for more elements of
fact in this chapter than in the rest of the Aramaic
portion of the book ; and if it could be made out
that the inscription had been misunderstood by the
writer, there would be some probability in favour
of its authenticity. It must be confessed, how-
ever, that the assumption that the inscription is b
a different hand from that of the rest of the idol
opens a wide field for conjecture.

1). S. MARGOLIOUTH.

MENELAUS (Mevédaos).—A usurping high priest
in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. According
to Josephus (Anf. XII. v. 1) he was originally named
Onias, and was a brother of Onias 11. and Jason ;
but the account in 2 Mac, which is probably more
trustworthy, states that he was a Benjamite, a
brother of Simon, the guardian of the temple, who

342 MENESTHEUS

MEONENIM, OAK OF

had instigated the attempt of Heliodorus to plunder
tle treasury «2 Mac 4%, οι ἢν in. apc 17]
Menelaus was sent by Jason to convey his promised
tribute to Antiochus, and by offering the king a
still larger bribe secured the high priesthood for
himself. When Menelaus was established in
Jerusalem this money still remained unpaid, and,
a dispute on this matter having arisen between
him and Sostratus, the Syrian commandant, they
were both summoned to appear before Antiochus
(2 Mac 44), When they arrived in Antioch, the
king was absent in Cilicia. Menelaus therefore
took the opportunity to secure the support of the
vicegerent Andronicus by means of rich presents,
which were commonly supposed to have been stolen
from the temples. He also persuaded Andronicus
to murder treacherously the ex-high priest Onias
ΠΙ., who had taken refuge in the sanctuary at
Daphne (vy.°!*%), Meanwhile the misconduct of
Lysimachus (wh. see), the deputy left by Menelaus,
had led to a serious riot at derusalem, and the
Jews sent a deputation to meet the king at Tyre,
and to make formal complaints against the high
priest. Menelaus, who seems to have remained in
Syria, again had recourse to bribery, and having
won over an influential courtier, Ptolemy the son
of Dorymenes, he secured both his own acquittal
and the execution of his accusers (vv.*"°"), During
the Egyptian expedition of Antiochus (B.C. 170),
Jason attempted to regain his former position, and,
suddenly attacking Jerusalem, forced his rival to
take refuge in the citadel. Antiochus treated this
attack as an act of open rebellion. He marched
on Jerusalem, gave orders for a terrible massacre,
and plundered the temple of its most sacred
treasures, receiving (it is said) in this sacrilege the
assistance of Menelaus himself (ὁ, 5°18 **t, ef.
1 Mac 1:5, Menelaus was confirmed in power,
but after the second attack of the Syrians on
Jerusalem (1 Mac 1*"-*, 2 Mae 5°°°5) we hear no
more of him till the next reign. We do not know
who exercised the office of high priest after the
victories of Judas. But in B.c. 162, either before
(2 Mae 13°’) or after (Jos. Ant. XII. ix. 7) the
vampaign of Lysias and Eupator, Menelaus met
his death. He had incurred the anger of the
Syrian chancellor, who represented him as the
cause of all the troubles in Judiea. He was accord-
ingly sent by the king to Beroa, a town between
Hierapolis and Antioch, and there executed.
According to 2 Mae /.c. he was carried to a certain
tower, and thrown down into the ashes with which
it was filled—a fitting retribution for one who had
so grievously desecrated the holy altar at Jerusalem
(ef. Rawlinson on 2 Mac in Speaker's Comm. ;
Schiirer, HJ/P I. 1. 204f., 225 f.).
H. A. WHITE.

MENESTHEUS (Mevec@e’s Band prob. A; J/nes-
theus).—The father of Apollonius, a general of
Antiochus Epiphanes and chief collector of tribute
(2 Mac 451. cf. 54, 1 Mac 1”). In the RV of 2 Mac
44, on the strength of a conjecture of Hort’s in a
difficult’ passage, mention is again made of Apol-
lonius the son of Menestheus (reading Μενεσθέως
for μαίνεσθαι ἕως), but the person there intended
seems rather to be Apollonius the son of Thraseus
(ef. 3°). See, further, under APOLLONIUS.

H. A. WHITE.

MENI (32; ἡ τύχη [but in some MSS, the render-
ines of 5 and 33 being interchanged, 6 δαίμων or
τὸ δαιμόνιον]; Aq. Theod. weer; Vulg. omits; Targ.
panna their object of fear [i.e. their false god];
Syr. combining both clauses, ΝΗ fortunes).—In
Is 65! the name of a divinity, worshipped by the
Israelites, ‘But ye... that prepare a table for
Gad (Fortune), and that fill up mingled wine unto
Meéni (Destiny); 121 will destine (1223) you to the
sword,’ ete. ‘The root 132 means in Heb. to nwniber,

I
τ

in Arab. to assign, apportion (cf. Heb. 3:2 ἃ portion);
and there is little doubt that Méni (properly,
that which is apportioned or destined) was a per-
sonification of destiny, and was a male deity cor-
responding to Mandt, one of the ‘daughters of
Allah,’ a great stone worshipped by the old heathen
Arabians (see particulars from [bn Kalbi and others
in Wellh. Reste Arab. Heid. 22-25 [3, 25-29]), and
mentioned in Ixoran 53”, and also to maniyya
(plur. mandya, mand), an expression for fate
(fates) used by Arabic poets. Juncot—or rather
(N6ld. ZDMG, 1887, p. 709) its plural WWancaiedt,
‘the fates’—ovcurs also in the Nabatiean inscrip-
tions of Higr, at about the period of the Christian
era, as the name of one of the gods worshipped by
the Nabatieans (Euting, Nab. fnschr, 2° 34 5 98 208
O77. δα, Δ 197%, 1O8t> ete, senda also ΟΡ,
and 271 the n. pr. nxo7ay]: m2). The name dene
itself has been supposed to occur in the pr. 1. ὙΠ»
found on some of the coins of the Achiemenidie
(Roédiger, in the app. to Ges. Tes. Ὁ. 97) ; and also
in the inscription on analtar at Vaison in Provence
(Orelli Henzen, 5862), ‘Belus Fortune rector,
Menisque magister’ (where Belus, as the parallel
Greek inscription shows, is the bel of Apamea in
Syria), quoted by Mordtmann, ZDMG = xxxix.
(1885) p. 44.* As Jewish tradition identified Gad
with the planet Jupiter, and Arab. astrology
‘alled Jupiter the greater fortune, and Venus the
levser fortune, it has been conjectured (Ges., Del.,
Cheyne) that Meni denoted Venus.
S. R. DRIVER.

MENNA (Mevya, Tisch. Treg. WH ; Maivay TH,

hence AV Menan).—An ancestor of Jesus, Lk 3*!.

MENUHAH (m3>).—In Jg 905. ‘They enclosed
the Benjamites . Qa> qi ams menthah hidri-
khuhi)’; AV ‘trode them down with ease’ (A Vm
‘from Menuchah’), RV ‘trode them down (RVm
‘overtook them’) at their resting-place’? (RVm ‘at
Menuhah’); B ἀπὸ Nova κατὰ πόδα; Vulg. nee
erat ulla requics morientinm. We should perhaps
read noit, Manahath (which see), or better ans
‘from Nohah.’ In 1 Ch 8? Nohah (which see) is a
clan of Benjamin. Cf. Moore, ‘Judges’ in Internet.
Crit. Comm.; Kittel in SBOT'; Budde, Aurzer
Hand-Comm. zum AT, W. H. BENNETT.

MENUHOTH.—See MANAHETHITES.

MEONENIM, GAK OF (RVm ‘The augurs’ oak
or terebinth,’ AV [wrongly] PLAIN oF M., AVm
‘(Plain of) the regarders of times’ [ef. Dt 1811;
Heb. δ: ἦν» pox; A δρυὸς ἀποβλεπύντων, B Ἤλων
μαωνεμείν ; Vule. quae respicit. quereum).—Only in
Jeg 97, where Gaal tells Zebul that he sees troops
approaching, ‘and one company cometh by the way
ot the oak of Meonenim.’ JMé'onenim is mase. pl.
participle Polel (possibly a denominative from
‘anan, ‘cloud’), which occurs as &@ common noun,
Dt 181-34, Mic δ12 (Heb), AV ‘diviners,’ ‘sooth-
sayers, RV ‘them that practise augury,’ ‘sooth-
savers.’ Other forms of the verb occur Ly 1950, 2 Ix
216 2 Ch 33%, Is 28 573, Jer 27°. Alé‘onénim were a
class of diviners, whose character is uncertain, the
connexion with “πη γι being perhaps only an acci-
dental resemblance (see SOOTHSAYER).

Sacred trees at or near Shechem are mentioned :
Gn 12° JE ‘Abram passed through the Jand unto
the place of Shechem, unto the oak (j)>x) of Moreh’
(see MOREH) ; Gn 354 E, Jacob buries the family
images under the oak (79x) which was by (23)
Shechem ; Jos 24% E, ‘the oak (a>) that was in

* On the possible occurrence of the name in Assyrian, see
Johns inthe Lup. Times, June 1899, p. 423 (the Egyptian-looking
proper name Puti-mani), and Aug. p. 526 f. (a deity, *‘ Manu the
great,’ worshipped in the city of Asshur, IIT R. 66. 2, 3), and
Hommel, ib. Sept. p. 566f. (Manawdt also Minzan).

———

MEONOTHAL

MERAB 342

the sanctuary of J”, under which Joshua set up ἃ
stone, i.e. a mazzebhah ; ὅσ 9°‘ the oak of the pillar
(RVm ‘ garrison,’ 2¥2 pox) that was in Shechem.’
Instead of τὺ read 4382, so that this oak is the
same as the preceding. Generally, some or all of
these five references may be to the same tree ; the
uge of different terms is no objection, as pox and
mx are used loosely for trees of the same kind,
and aby is mistaken pointing for 75x ; the trees in
Gn 354, Je 9°7 seem to stand outside Shechem ; and
if so, the references are not to the tree Sant
Shechem’ in the other passages. But (Moore,
Internat. Crit. Comm., ad loc.) ‘there is no reason
why there may not have been three, or a half-
dozen, well-known sacred trees in the vicinity of
Shechem.’ There is nothing to indicate the exact
position of the Oak of the Me‘onenim.
W. H. BENNETT.

MEONOTHALI (nisy>; B Μαναθεί, A Mavaéi).—

Son of Othniel, 1 Ch 4". See GENEALOGY, LV. 48.

MEPHAATH.—A city of Reuben, Jos 131° (nyse ;
B Μαιφάαθ, A Μηφάαθ) ; assigned to the Levites,
Jos 2157 (nypp; B Maga, A Μασφά), 1 Ch 6”
(Heb. 4, nypp; B Μαέφλα, A Padé); a Moabite
city in Jer 48°! (Kethibh nya, Were nyEd; LXX
[313] B Μωφάς, A Μωφάθ). On the name see
D. H. Miiller, ZD.UG, 1876, p. 679; 1883, p. 362.
Mephaath is noticed with Kedemoth and Jahaz,
and lay apparently to the south of Reuben. In
the 4th cent. A.D. (Onomast. 5.0.) it is said to have
been the station of a Roman garrison near the
desert. C. R. CoNDER.

MEPHIBOSHETH (nviz52, B Μεμφιβύσθε, A -ar).—
4. A son of Jonathan (28 44a/.). As the real name
of Ishbosheth was Eshbaal (man of Baal), so Mephi-
bosheth is a transformation of the original name
Meri-Baal or Merib-Baal, which has been variously
rendered ‘ Baal’s man,’ ‘ Baal contends.’ or ὁ Baal’s
warrior. * As in the case of Ishbosheth, it is the
Chronicler who has preserved the true name (1 Ch
84 [B MepiBdar, A Μεφριβάαλ])] and 95) [B Μαρειβάαλ,
A Μεχριβάαλ]). The reason why Baal was thus
transformed into Bosheth has been already ex-
plained, See [SHBOSHETH.

Upon David's accession to the throne, it would
have been quite in accordance with Oriental custom
if he had exterminated the family of Saul. (Com-
pare the conduct of Athaliah in 2 Kk 1} ees
friendship for Jonathan led him, however, to follow
a different course. With Ishbosheth had perished
the last of Saul’s sons by wives of the first rank,
and with the exception of Jonathan none of them
seem to have left any issue, although we read in
2 218 of sons of Saul by his concubine Rizpah,
and also of grandsons, the children of his daughter
Merab. Once David was firmly established upon
the throne, he ascertained by inquiry of Ziba,
who had been the steward of Saul, that a son of
Jonathan named Merib-baal (Mephibosheth) still
survived (28 9!). This son of his most intimate
friend could all the more safely be spared by
David, as his bodily condition made him of little
account in a warlike age, and precluded the
possibility of his proving a dangerous rival. From
2S 44 we learn that in the hurried flight of Saul’s
household, when tidings came of the defeat at
Gilboa, M., who was then five years old, sustained

*See Gray, Heb. Proper Names, p. 200, n. 3, and Kittel (in
SBOT) on 1 Ch 8%, who both hold that “05. (‘man or hero
of Baal’) is the original form, Kittel offering as an alternative
rendering ‘my lord is Baal’ (cf. CZS 1, 111). On the other hand,
Nestle (Higennamen, p. 120f.) adopts the form Sya a5... athe
change of ‘YD into "Ξ2 (besides that of bya into na) was
probably intended still further to disguise the original form of
the name, nvarsd being probably taken to mean ‘one who
scatters or disperses shame’ (Driver, Heb. Teat of Sam. p. 195).

such injuries through a fall, that he became per
manently lame. Since his uncle Ishbosheth’s
death, he had been living in’ concealment at
Lo-debar to the Εἰ. of the Jordan. It was probably
not without trepidation that he obeyed the sum-
mons to court, and, in answer to David’s promises
of protection and favour, he could only reply with
true Oriental self-depreciation,‘ What is thy servant
that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as
Tam’? (2895). Asa pledge of the sincerity of his
promises, the king restored to Jonathan's son all
the personal estates of Saul, Ziba being appointed
to Eiht thes these for the benefit of M., who was
himself maintained as a permanent guest at the
kine’s table (28 91). This latter arrangement
commended itself from the point of view both of
friendship and of policy.

The next mention of M. is during the troublous
period when, in consequence of Absalom’s rebellion,
David had to abandon Jerusalem. At the Mount
of Olives the king was met by Ziba, who brought
a couple of asses laden with bread, bunches of
raisins, cakes of dried fruit, and wine, which he
offered for the use of the royal household. In
answer to the question, ‘Where is thy master?’
Ziba declared that M. had preferred to remain in
Jerus. in the hope that the kingdom of Saul would
be restored to him. It was an unlikely story, for
M. had surely less to expect from Absalom than
from David; yet it served its purpose, and the
crafty Ziba had the satisfaction of hearing David
say, ‘Behold, thine is all that pertaineth to M.’
(2°S 164). When David returned to Jerus. after
the defeat and death of Absalom, M. came to con-
eratulate him ; and being met with the stern ques-
tion, ‘ Wherefore wentest thou not with me, Δ. ??’
proceeded to exculpate himself and to accuse Ziba
of fraud. David’s flight, he alleged, had occasioned
him the acutest grief, and in token of mourning he
had not trimmed his beard nor washed his feet or
his clothes from the time the king left his capital
till he returned to it. Nay, he had intended to
accompany | s benefactor, but Ziba had taken
advantage of his helplessness, and, instead of
saddling an ass for him to ride after David, had
gone and basely calumniated him to the king.
David’s answer seems a strange one, ‘ Why speakest
thou any more of thy matters? I say, thou and
Ziba divide the land.’ It would seem as if he only
half believed M., or at least despaired of reaching
the truth. Ziba might have been faithful to
David, simply because he felt sure of being on
the winning side; but at all events he had been
faithful, and the king felt in no mood to reproach
him. The easiest way was to compromise the
matter, leaving the steward and the master each
in possession of half the profits of Saul’s estates.
A strange way of doing justice from a European
but not from an Oriental point of view! M., who
always makes a favourable impression upon us,
and who seems to have inherited the warm heart
and generous disposition of his father Jonathan,
replied, “Yea, let him take all, forasmuch as my
lord the king is come in peace unto his own house ἡ
(25 19).

According to 2S 9! Mephibosheth had a son
named Mica (x22), from whom seems to have sprung
a family afterwards well known in Israel (1 Ch 8°
911 [πϑῷ, Micah)).

2. One of the sons of Rizpah handed over by

| David to the Gibeonites for execution (28 21°).

J. A. SELBIE.
MERAB (222; 1S 14% B Mepé8, A omits; 18
18:7. 2 B omits, A MepJ3).—The elder daughter of
Saul. According to the later of the two doen-
ments in 18, Saul promised his daughter to the
slayer of Goliath (1 8 1755). This promise, how-
ever, was afterwards ignored, and Saul is repre

|
|
|
|
|

344 MERAIAH

=

MERCURY

sented as trying to bring about David’s destruction
by offering him Merab’s hand as a reward for his
military services against the Philistines (1S 182%),
But, though David successfully carried out the
task which the king had set him, Saul failed to
keep his promise, and Merab became the wife of
Adriel the Meholathite. In the earlier document
nothing is known of this incident in connexion
with Merab, but only of the affection of Michal,
Saul’s second daughter, for David. In 28 218
Michal is clearly a mistake for Merah, whose five
sons were delivered by David into the hands of
the Gibeonites, by whom they were slain and
‘hanged before the Lord.’ See, further, art.
MICHAL. J. Ε΄. STENNING.

MERAIAH (77>; B Maped, A Mapid).—The re-
presentative of the priestly house of Seraiah in the
days of Joiakim, Neh 191:

MERAIOTH (ni7>).—1. Son of Ahitub and father
of Zadok, 1 Ch 9" (Β Μαρμώθ, A Μαριώθ), Neh 11}
(AB Μαριώθ). 2. A Levite, or a Levitical family
name, 1 Ch 6° (Heb, 5°] > [Heb. 87], Ezr 78, In
the first two of these passages B has Μαρειήλ, A
Μαραιώθ and Μεραώθ, in the third B has Mapepad,
A Mapawéé. This Meraioth is called in 1 Es 82
Memeroth and in 2 Es 1" Marimoth. 3. A priestly
house which was represented by Helkai in the days
of Joiakim, Neh 1915 (B x* Aom.; Νοιἃ Μαριώθ) =
Meremoth (which see) of v.°.

MERARI (77>, Mepap(e)i) 1. is known to us only
from P and the Chronicler. According te these
writers he was the third of the three sons of Levi
(Ex 6, Nu 37, 1 Ch 6116 236), and accompanied
Jacob into Egypt (Gn 46"). He had two sons,
Mahli and Mushi (Ex 6", Nu 3”, 1 Ch 6)%- 2),
Nothing further is related of Merari personally,
but of the fortunes of his descendants we have
fuller particulars. Their history falls into three
periods—(1) the wilderness wanderings, and the
settlement in Canaan ; (2) the monarchy ; (8) after
the Exile.

(1) At the time of the census taken by Moses in
the wilderness of Sinai the Merarites were divided
into two families, the Mahlites and the Mushites
(Nu 3°). The whole number of males from a month
old was 6200 (3), and between 30 and 50 years of
age 3200 (4%). Their position in the camp was
on the side of the tabernacle northward, and their
chief at this time was Zuriel the son of Abihail
(3). The office assigned to them was the carry -
ing of the less important parts of the tabernacle
—boards, pins, cords, ete. (336. 87 431. 32 1017), In this
they were to be superintended by Ithamar the
son of Aaron (433), and four wagegons and elght
oxen were given to them for transit purposes (78).
The two families of Merarites are mentioned in
the account of the second census taken by Moses
and Eleazar in the plains of Moab by the Jordan,
when the whole number of the Levites was 23,000
(2051. δ), After the settlement in Pal., 12 cities out
of the territories of Reuben, Gad, and Zebulun
were assigned to them (Jos 217-4 [Ρ] = 1 Ch
683. 77-81),

(2) In the reign of David, as
Chronicler, we have several references to the
Merarites. The Merarite family of Jeduthun
(= Ethan, 1 Ch 6 1617), together with the Kohath-
ite family of Heman and the Gershonite family
of Asaph, were, according to this writer, specially
set apart to administer the temple music (ef. 1 Ch
ΟῚ 1641-2 951-7. and sée ETHAN, JEDUTHUN).
Consequently at the bringing up of the ark from
the house of Obed-edom into Jerus. we find that,
of the 220 Merarites who are said to have been
present under the leadership of Asaiah (1 Ch 15°),

narrated by the

Ethan and certain others took part !n the music
(15'7-19), Descendants of the two families of
Mahli and Mushi are mentioned as ‘heads of the
fathers’ houses’ when David divided the Levites
into courses, 1 Ch 23-8, and in 1 Ch 261-19 certain
Merarites are specified as doorkeepers (cf. 91°25 Daya
Further, in the reign of Hezekiah, Merarites are
mentioned as taking part in the cleansing of the
temple (2 Ch 291”: 14),

(3) For the period after the Exile we have a few
scattered notices of members of the family of
Merarites. 1 Ch 9=Neh 11 seems to contain a
list of those who were known to be dwelling in
Judwa during the period immediately after the
return from captivity. In these lists oceur the
names of ‘Shemaiah...of the sons of Merari’
(1 Ch 9= Neh 1125), and ‘Obadiah or Abda . . . son
of Jeduthun’ (1 Ch 9%=Neh 1117), Lastly, when
Ezra went up to Jerus. in B.C. 454 it is expressly
stated that certain Merarites accompanied him
(Ezr 818-19),

The Merarites (7727) occur Nu 26°", elsewhere
called ‘the sons of Merari,’ Ex 619. Νὰ 320 429 33.42. 45
78 102%, 1 Ch 6): 29. 44. 63. 77 Qi4 158-17 O82) 9427 2619,
2 Ch 9013, Ezr 819. or ‘the children of Merari,’
Jos 3217: 54. 0. For their history see above.

2. The father of Judith (Jth 8! 167).

W. C. ALLEN.

MERATHAIM (5:52) is given as a proper name
by both AV and RV in Jer 502 ‘Go up against
the land of Merathaim’ (AVm ‘or of the rebels,’
WV ‘i.e. double rebellion’). The term is an enig-
matical one, possibly suggested (Del. Parad. 182)
by Bab. Marrdtim, the land by the nar Marrdtu,
or * bitter river’ (Persian Gulf)=S. Babylonia, and
adapted so as to recall to a Heb. ear either ‘double
rebellion’? (a2) or ‘double bitterness’ (6.512).
The LXX (B) πικρῶς ἐπίβηθι ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν (277!) connects
on}? with the root meaning ‘ bitter.’

J. A. SELBIE.

MERCHANDISE, MERCHANTMAN.—Tie word
merchandise (from Old Fr. marchandise, a mer-
chant’s wares), somewhat archaic now, is used in
AV in two senses, one of which is quite obsolete.
1. The first meaning is goods, wares, any object
of commerce, as Rev 18! ‘The merchants of the
earth shall weep and mourn over her ; for no man
buyeth their merchandise any more’ (τὸν γόμον
αὐτῶν, RVim ‘their cargo’). Defoe, Crusoe, p. 535
‘He confess’d, he said, it was not a Place for
Merchants, except that at some certain Times
they had a kind of a Fair there, when the merchants
from Japan came over to buy the Chinese Mer-
chandizes.’ 2. But the word was also used for
‘trathic’ in goods, and even for ‘gain’ from such
trafhic : so Pr 34 * The merchandise of it [wisdom]
is better than the merchandise of silver, and the
gain thereof than fine gold’ (422-999 72ND 3.0). ΟἿ.
Shaks. Merch. of Venice, ut. i. 134—‘Were he
out of Venice, I can make what merchandise
I will.’

Merchantman is in AV simply ‘merchant,’ Gn
37°, 1 Καὶ 10%, Mt 13%. Latimer, Sermons, p. 500,
says, ‘The craftsman or merchantman teacheth
his prentice to lie, and to utter his wares with
lying and forswearing.’ J. HASTINGS.

MERCURY.—The {τὰ of Ἑρμῆς, Ac 142°, for which
the rendering ‘Hermes’ of RVm is referable.
The Romans in many cases transferred the attri.
butes and functions of the Greek deities to their
own. Thus Mercury (from merz = merchandise),
the god of commerce and profit, was identified with
the Greek Hermes, the patron of good luck. One
of the many functions of the latter was that of
messenger and spokesman of the gods. Hence the
word épunve’s=an interpreter (‘interpres Divom,’
Verg. An. iv. 356). He was also regarded as the

MERCY, MERCIFUL

MERCY 345

inventor of speech and the god of eloquence. When
Panl and Barnabas had healed the cripple at
Lystra, the inhabitants in their gratitude wished
to sacrifice to them as gods, and they called the
former Hermes because he took the lead in speak-
ing. Ἢ, PRIGHAD:

MERCY, MERCIFUL.—These words have some-
what changed in meaning since 1611. As the
next article will show, they do not in AV express
pardon, they denote compassion. Thus He 2!
‘Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be
made like unto his brethren, that he might be a
merciful and faithful high priest in things per-
taining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins
of the people’ (€Aejzwv =pitiful, Vule. misericors) ;
Mt 57 ‘Blessed are the merciful, for they shall
obtain mercy’ (οἱ ἐλεήμονες. ἐλεηθήσονται, Vule.
misericordes .. misericordiam consequentur) 5
Lk 1051 “which now of these three, thinkest thou,
was neighbour unto him that felle among the
thieves? And he said, He that shewed merey on
him’ (Ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔλεος μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ) ; Sir 29! * He
that is merciful will Jend unto his neighbour’
(ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεος). Cf. Shaks. Othello, v. ii. 86—

“Not dead? not yet quite dead °
I that am cruel am yet merciful ;
I would not have thee linger in thy pain.’

Merch. of Venice, τν. i. 6B—

* Uncapable of pity, void and empty,
From any dram of mercy.’

Pity is the oldest meaning of the word, which, it is now
generally allowed, comes from Lat. mercedem, ‘ pay,’ ‘ reward.’
In Low Latin mercedem meant ‘ pity’; in French it expressed
the ‘thanks’ of one who receives reward or consideration ;
taken into English, it seems to have been associated with
‘amerce’ and to have denoted the pay or penalty due for
transgression, as ‘ to be in grievous mercie of the king’ (Statute
of Henry vI.), 7.e. ‘to be in hazard of a great penaltie,’ as
Minshew explains. Then to ‘cry mercy’ is to beg off a penalty,
and, that being granted, the sense of pardon and of the grace
that pardons successively developed. Thus ‘ pity,’ found in the
word as it came from Low Latin, was obscured through the
association with ‘amerce,’ and restored by the natural use of
the word.

In Ps 117? 119% 499 is translated ‘ merciful kind-
ness.’ The translation comes from Coverdale.
RV gives ‘mercy’ in the first passage, ‘ loving-
kindness’ in the second; Amer. RV prefers
‘lovingkindness * in both.

‘Tender mercies’ is a frequent tr., esp. in the
Psalter, of on ‘ bowels’ (as the seat of compas-
sion), ‘pity.’ This tr. is from the Gen. Bible, and
is retained in RV. In Ph 182? RV turns ‘ bowels’
of AV into ‘tender mercies’ (Gr. σπλάγχνα, Which
is the LXX tr. of oon in Pr 12). See BOWELS,

The form mercifulness occurs in Sir 4017 * Merci-
fulness endureth for ever’ (ἐλεημοσύνη, RV ‘ alms-
giving’). Cf. Matt. Bible, Notes to Dt 22 ‘ This
law wyll no more but that in dealyng mercifullye
with beastes we shoulde lerne mercifulnesse unto
oure neighboures.’ J. HASTINGS.

MERCY.—I. OLD TESTAMENT.—‘ Mercy’ is used
in AV to translate the following :—41. 197 hesedh,
LXX usually ἔλεος (see below on NT), Vule. usually
misericordia ; the translation ‘mercy’ is sometimes
retained by RV, sometimes replaced by ‘loving-
kindness’; also AV ‘merciful-kindness’ (Ps 1172),
and often ‘loving-kindness.’ The Hithpael of the
cognate verb is rendered by LXX ὑσιωθήσῃ, Vule.
sanctus eris, EV ‘ show thyself merciful’; the adj.
von λας, by LXX usually ὅσιος, Vulg. sanctus,
EV ‘saint,’ ‘holy (one), ‘godly,’ and RV of Ps
145” ‘oracious.’ There are no English words to
which hesedh and hdsidh are exactly equiva-
lent. Oxf. Heb. Lex. renders hesedh by ‘ good-
ness,’ ‘kindness’ ; and hasidh, ‘as denoting active
practice of 97,’ by ‘kind,’ ‘ pious.” G. A. Smith

renders 1937 by ‘leal love,’ and explains that it.

‘means always not merely an affection, “ loving-
kindness”... but a relation loyally observed ’
(Book of the Twelve Prophets, 1. 243 n.). That hesedh
includes these two qualities of hindly affection and
of doyalty is shown by the fact that it is coupled
with and used as a parallel to rahdmim (see below),
Ps 77? 1034, on the one hand, and to émeth, “ fidelity,’
Ps 25 26%, and bérith, ‘covenant,’ Dt 7%, on the
other, Hesedh is used of man towards man, 6.7.
between David and Jonathan and his house, 1S
20; of Israel towards Jehovah, Hos 6% 6; but
chiefly of Jehovah towards His people. Μαρία, is
almost always—only two exceptions, Jer 312, Ps
1451, of God—used of men, probably as exercising
hesedh (so Oxf. Heb. Lex.). Its application to God
is in favour of this view rather than that of ‘object
of God’s hesedh.” Hadsidh became specialized in
the’sense of pious towards God, hence the versions.

2. oom rahamim, lit. ‘bowels,’ so fie. ‘tender
affection,’ ‘compassion’ ; LXX ἔλεος, οἰκτιρμοί, ete. ;
Vule. misericordia(@), miseratio, ete. ; also trans-
lated in EV ‘compassion.’ The adj. 92 rahi
is rendered; LXX οἰκτίρμων, etc. ; Vulg. misericors,
elc. ; EV ‘ merciful,’ ‘full of compassion.’ Corre-
sponding translations are given of the Piel of the
verb ona. These are used of man towards man,
and of God towards man.

3. The verb jin Ann, ‘to show favour,’ ‘do kind-
ness,’ of man towards man, and of God towards
man, and the adj. )5π hanndén, only of God towards
man, are rendered by EV ‘ be merciful or gracious,’
‘show mercy,’ ‘have pity,’ ‘merciful’; by LXX
ἐλεέω, οἰκτείρω, ete. ; ἐλεήμων, οἰκτίρμων ; by Vule.
misercor, ete. ; clemens, misericors, ete.

4. In Gn 19% ‘the Lord being merciful unto
him’ is EV tr" of ypy ma ndonz. Sen here rendered
‘be merciful’ is ‘spare,’ ‘have compassion’ (Ozf.
Heb. Lex.); UXX usually ἐλεέω, φείδομαι ; Vule.
misereor, parco; elsewhere in EV ‘have pity.’ It
is often parallel to on ‘pity,’ ‘look upon with
compassion,’ e.g. Ezk 7. 9.

5. In Dt 215 32% ‘be merciful’ is the translation
of 122, here = ‘clear,’ ‘treat as forgiven, and
therefore as enjoying full favour.’ In these two
passages LXX has ἵλεως γενοῦ (ef. below), ἐκκα-
fapet, Spurge’; Vulg. propitius esto, erit; RV
‘forgive,’ ‘make expiation.’

Il. New TESTAMENT.—‘ Mercy, merciful, to be
merciful, to show mercy,’ etc., are used in EV to
translate the following :—1. ἔλεος, ἐλεήμων, ἐλεέω,
‘to be pitiful, compassionate.’ ‘These terms are
used both of God and man, and are not applied
with any special frequency to God; so that in NT
ἔλεος is ἃ divine attribute, but no special emphasis
is laid upon it. Its most common use with refer-
ence to God is in the salutation χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη
in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Ti 1°, 2 Ti 1°, Tit 14)
and in 2 Jn’; ef. Jude?.

2. οἰκτιρμοί, οἰκτίρμων, ‘ compassion, -ate,’ not com-
mon, but chiefly applied to God, Ro 12', 2 Co 19,
Lk 68, Ja 5".

3. ἵλεως, ‘forgiving,’ He 8”;
pitiated, forgive’; dvitews, ‘not forgiving’
‘without mercy’), Ja 915,

Thus the chief OT terms which AV, and in a
measure RV, translate most unsuitably by ‘mercy,’
ascribe to God the following attributes : (@) tender
compassion, rahdmim, ete., for man’s misery and
helplessness ; (4) a disposition to deal kindly and
generously with man, hanan, ete. ; (6) the divine
affection and fidelity to man, on which man may
confidently rely, as he would on the loyalty of his
tribe or family, Aesedh. Though these terms may
include the ordinary sense of ‘ mercy,’ the ‘ sparing
of a wrongdoer,’ and the context sometimes shows
that they do include this meaning, the terms
themselves do not suggest it. Hence the use of
the word ‘mercy’ to translate them, represents

ἱλάσκομαι, ‘be pro-

(AV

346 MERCY-SEAT

MERIBATI

God in the OT as occupied with the position of
man as a crininal, a rebel, and an enemy, to an
extent entirely unwarranted by the original. ΟΥ̓
Driver, Sernons on OT, 220 it., also Par. Psalt.
443 f., 447, and see preceding article.

The NT use of the corresponding terms is neither
frequent nor characteristic, and is only a faint
reflexion of OT teaching. The great ideas repre-
sented in OT by rahdmimn, hanan, hesedh, and their
cognates, are mostly expressed in NT by other
terms than ἔλεος, οἰκτιρμοί, etc. One might almost
say that Aesedh covers the whole ground of χάρις,
ἔλεος, εἰρήνη (but see Hort on 1 P 1°), and implies
the NT doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood.

The subject of ‘mercy,’ in its usual sense of
‘That benevolence, mildness, or tenderness of
heart which disposes a person to overlook injuries
or to treat an offender better than he deserves,’ is
treated under ATONEMENT and FORGIVENESS.
The qualities dealt with here are those which moved
God to provide an atonement, but they describe
God’s attitude to man, as man, and do not, except
OT, 5, of themselves call attention to man’s sin.

W. H. BENNETT.

MERCY-SEAT.—See TABERNACLE.

MERED (77>; B Πῶραδ, A Μῶραδ, Luc. Bapad).—
A Judahite, 1 Ch 417, See Brruran.

MERES (29> Jares, LX X om.).—One of the seven
princes and counsellors of Ahasuerus (Est 1!) ; ef.
ADMATHA. With this name and with Marsena,
Benfey (see Ges. Theos.) compares Sansk. mdrsha,
Zend. meresh =<‘ writing.’

MERIBAH (x27 ‘strife’).—The werd occurs by
itself Ex 177, Ps 95°, and in both places Massah
(which see) is also mentioned. Massah is rendered
by LXX Mepacuds, Vule. Tentatio, in both; Meri-
bah of Ex 177 by LXNX Λοιδύρησις, but omitted in
Vulg.; Meribah of Ps 95° by LXX παραπικρασμῷ,
Vulg. irritatione, RV Sas at Meribah as in the day
of Massah,’ AV ‘in the provocation as in the day
of temptation’ [these are the only two places where
Massah and Meribah occur. Massah occurs with
‘waters of Meribah’ Dt 33°, and by itself twice
Dt 6 953]. The expression ‘ waters of Meribah’
is more common, occurring Nu 9015 4, Dt 338, Ps
817 (Hed. 8] 1062, Meribah is in LXX ἀντιλογίας in
all these places except Nu 20%, which has λοιδορίας ;
Vulg. has Contradictionis in all; RV has in these
passages uniformly ‘waters of Meribah,’ while AV
has ‘waters of strife’ in Ps 106%.

A fuller expression is #17 πὴ Ὁ in Nu 9714, Dt
32°, LXX and Vulg. render as in Nu 9018, RV
has ‘ waters of Meribah of Kadesh,’ while AV has
‘Meribah in ΚΔ 65}} in Nu and ‘ Meribah-kadesh Ὁ
in Dt. Besides these passages in which reference
is made by name to the waters which flowed from
the rock when smitten by Moses, many others
mention the providing water from the stony rock
without detail of name or place, e.g. Dt 8”, Ps
781520 10541 1148, Ts 4821,

According to Nu 20% the children of Israel,
finding no water at Kadesh, in the desert of Zin,
strove with Moses (both in ν. and ν.} ἮΝ has
‘strove,’ while AV by putting ‘chode’ in v.* ob-
scures the double reference to strife which exists
in the original), The Lorb commands Moses,
‘Take the rod... and speak ye unto the rock
before their eyes, that it give forth its water’; but
Moses struck the rock with his rod, and water came
forth abundantly. ‘Then follows the sentence of pro-
hibition : ‘ye shall not bring this assembly into the
land which I have given them.’ The carrying out
of this sentence in the case of Aaron is related in Nu
20°-*9 in the case of Moses in Nu 9712:14. Dt 3239-52 (see
above for the words employed in these passages).

Another account is also given (Ex 1717) of water
flowing from the rock when smitten by Moses.
The language is very similar to that of Nu 20, and
in points of detail there is a marked resemblance
between the two narratives. In this account stress
is laid (v.*) on ‘tempting’ ({.6., in the old sense of
the word, proving) as well as ‘striving,’ and in v.?
two names are given to the place, MASSAH (‘tempta-
tion,’ 1.6. proving) because the children of Israel
‘tempted’ the Lord, and Meribah (‘chiding or strife’)
because of the ‘striving’ of the children of Israel (in
both verses AV has ‘ chide’ for ‘strive’ as in Nu 905).
Other passages referring to these events are given
at the beginning of this article, from which it ap-
pears that Massah by itself is mentioned twice,
Massah with Meribah twice, and in Dt 338 mention
is made of Massah and the waters of Meribah
in connexion with Levi, and the verse apparently
refers to an incident not recorded in Ex 17 or Nu 20,

A comparison of these two narratives (those in
Ex 17 and Nu 20) suggests many difficult questions.
Kuenen was not prepared with an answer, and
abstained from expressing a decisive opinion (//ea-
teuch, $6 π, 42, p. 101, Wicksteed’s translation).
Cornill (in ZATIV, 1891, p. 20 11.) discusses these
narratives at Jeneth, and submits them to a
searching analysis, arriving at results which are
in the main adopted by Bacon (7'riple Tradition) in
his notes on these passages.

There appear to be two alternatives: (a) the
narratives in question are different versions of
the same occurrence which has been assigned to
different periods in the journeyings of the children
of Israel; or (6) an account of occurrences at a
place to which the name of Massah was given
(mainly preserved in Ex 17:7 and there called
Rephidim), and another account of occurrences at
Meribah (preserved but with considerable moditi-
cations in Nu 20!) and these connected with
IKkadesh) existed at one time as independent narra-
tives; but details have been transferred from the
one account to the other in the process of compila-
tion, perhaps the addition of Meribah and the idea
of strife to the narrative of Ex 17.

From Nu 20 it is difficult to understand clearly
wherein the sin of Moses and Aaron is supposed to
have consisted. According to 20% 27" it is described
as rebelling against the word of the Lorp. The
waters of Meribah receive their name because the
children of Israel strove with the LorbD, and on
this occasion the words assigned to Moses are
‘Hear now, ye rebels.’ May Moses and Aaron on
this oceasion have shown themselves unworthy of
their position as leaders, and in some way joined
in the strife? Then a reason for their heavy
punishment would be apparent, while reverence
tor the great leader may suggest a further reason
why the narrative appears in its present form.

In art. ExopUS, ROUTE OF (ὃ iv.), Some reasons
have been given for ascribing to the events re-
corded in Nu 9010 an earlier date than that
usually given to them. They may be noted here,
as (whatever weight they may have) they reduce
the interval between Massah and Meribah.

A note on Dt 332 should find a place here. According to RV,
‘He shined forth from Paran, and came from the ten thousands
of holy ones [m. holiness].’ AV has ‘with’ for ‘from,’ which is
not defensible. The rendering in italics arouses suspicion.
After mention of Seir, Paran, we might expect the name of some
place ; and as the words which follow (ἢ At his right hand was a
fiery law’) are certainly corrupt, it is probable that emendation
is needed here also. A slight modification of the text would
give ‘and came to Meribath-kadesh,’ an cmendation which has
found much favour.

The manner in which the words ‘strife’ and
‘temptation’ and the corresponding verbs are used
in the passages already quoted, invites comment.
In Ex 172, Nu 20° the people strove with Moses,
but in Nu 20" they strove with the Lorn, in Ex
172-7 they ‘tempt’ the Lorp. But in Dt 83° another

MERIBBAAL

MEROM, THE WATERS OF 347

view of the relation between God and His people
is represented: ‘whom thou didst prove at
Massah, and with whom thou didst sfrive at the
waters of Meribah.’ The word prove is the same
word as that rendered tempt, and occurs in Gn 22!
(‘God did tempt [RV prove] Abraham’). The same
thought is found in Ex 1555 (‘there he made for
them a statute and an ordinance, and there he
proved them’). Whether in the first part of this
passage there is any connexion between amishpat
and Meribah-Kadesh may be questioned (but
note that a cause in Judgment is 27, and Kadesh is
in-mishpat), but that the latter clause contains
the idea underlying Massal: is clear.

This double view of the wilderness history is
found also in the Psalms. Ps 817 has ‘J fried thee
at the waters of Meribah,’ Ps 95° has ‘when your
fathers proved me, tried me’... Inthese two places
the Heb. for try is jna. The above may serve to
illustrate the fulness of the religious teaching which
may be derived from the Pentateuchal narrative.

Meriboth-kadesh.—‘ The waters of Meriboth-
kadesh’ are given in Ezk 4719, and ‘the waters of
Meribath-kadesh’ in 48°, as a southern limit to
the land. The difference between the singular
and plural in the two passages seems strange, and
the LXX renderings Μαριμὼθ Καδήμ (47:5), Βαριμὼθ
Kadys (4835), which suggest the plural in both verses,
are to be preferred. Note the interchange of 8
and uw. In 48:5 QU have Μαριμώθ. AV has ‘the
waters of strife in Kadesh’ in both places.

Here is a clear reference to the events recorded
in the Pentateuch, but it is doubtful whether the
inference may be drawn that a place bearing the
name of Meriboth-kadesh was known to the pro-
phet or his contemporaries. A. Τ. CHAPMAN.

MERIBBAAL.—-See MEPHIBOSHETH.
MERIBOTH-KADESH.
MERODACH (3753).—A Bab.-Assyr. deity men-

tioned asa separate name but once in OT (Jer 50[Gr.
2715), BMawodx, SAQ Μεωδάχ. The Bab. pronuncia-
tion of the name was JWar-u-duk. Its signification
is still uncertain, though its Bab. origin is strongly
maintained (cf. Delitzsch, Paradies, 228; Jensen,
Kosmologie der Babylonier, 242 ἢ). On the side
of astronomy M. is identified with Jupiter, of the
Romans. In the earlier Bab. history he occupies
a seat on the same platform with Anu, Bel, Ea,
Nergal, etc. But in later times he occupied a
position of pre-eminence, particularly as the patron
deity of the city of Babylon. In Jeremiah’s refer-
ence he seems to be one of the two chief gods of
Babylon. [ἢ his inscriptions, Nebuchadrezzar
speaks of Merodach (Mar-duk) as ‘the great lord,’
‘the exalted governor,’ ‘king of the heavens and
the earth,’ ‘the supreme god’; Assurbanipal speaks
of him as ‘king of gods’; Nabonidus (Cyl.) calls
him ‘Lord of the gods’; and (Stele) speaks of the
king of Assyria as having wrought the ruin of the
land by M.’s wrath. The many hints in later Bab.
literature of his importance show that he was
held to be the supreme god, the source of power, and
of all the blessings which showered upon mankind.
At the fall of Babylon, Merodach receives the pro-

See MERIBAH.

foundest reverence from Cyrus, the victor. For
his relation to Nebo see the art. NEBo. Under

the name Bél he was worshipped among the Man-
deans. His name forms an important element in
many late proper names of Babylonia, e.g. Mero-
dach-baladan and Evil-Merodach, as well as in
some of an earlier date, e.g. Marduk-adin-ahi_ of
17th cent. B.c. For his possible connexion with
the story of Esther see art. SORDECAL.

LITERATURE (additional).—Schrader, COT ii. 115 ff., Ass
Bab. Keilinschrif. p. 129; Hommel, Gesch. Bab.-Assyr. p. 773,

n. 1; Tiele, Bab.-Assyr. Geschichte, p. 531 f.; Jensen, Kosmo-
logie, p. 88; Winckler, Geschichte Bab.-Assyr. p. 34f.; Baudissin,
PRE ii. 35ff.; Jeremias, Alf., art. ‘Marduk’ in’ Roscher’s
Ausfuhr. Lex. der Gr. ue. Rim. Myth.; Jastrow, Religion of
Bab. and Assyria. InA M. Prick.

MERODACH - BALADAN (j7xb2 32852, Mapwdax
Βαλαδάν), Is 39!; misspelt (in MT, but not in
LXX, BA having Mapwéax [Badaddv]) Berodach-b.
in 2K 20!2,—In Assyr. the name is written
Marduk - bal-iddina, and means ‘ Merodach has
given a son.’ Merodach-baladan was the heredi-
tary prince of the Kald& or Chaldieans, who
inhabited the marshes at the mouths of the Tigris
and Euphrates. The inscriptions eall him the son
of Yagina; but this may signify that Yagina
was a more remote ancestor. In 2 K_ he is
made the son of Baladan: this would be the
abbreviated form of some name, the first ele-
ment of which was the name of a deity. In the
troublous period which followed the death of
Shalmaneser Iv. before Samaria, B.C. 722, M. pos-
sessed himself of Babylonia, and was crowned king
at Babylon (B.C. 721). After a few years, however,
Sargon of Assyria found himself sufficiently strong
to think of reconquering Babylonia, which had
been annexed to Assyria by ‘Tiglath-pileser IIL.
M. accordingly looked for allies, and in B.C. 711 sent
an embassy to the West, where the vassal-princes
were disposed to throw off their allegiance to the
Assyrian king. Judah with the Philistine cities,
and Edom and Moab, entered into the alliance,
and Eeypt promised help. It was on this occasion
that Hezekiah boastfully showed the Bab. envoys
the material resources which he could bring to the
alliance (2 kK 20!-!¥, Is 39).* Before the allies were
ready to move, however, the army of Sargon had
descended on Palestine, and severely punished
Ashdod, which had been the centre of disaffection.
Judah, Edom, and Moab thereupon submitted,
and the Assyr. king was free to turn to Babylonia.
M. vainly sought aid from the Elamites, who were
defeated by the Assyrians before they could come
to his help, and he accordingly tled from Babylon,
which was entered by Sargon, 8.0. 709. After
being proclaimed king there, Sargon pursued Δ].
to Bit-Yakin, the capital of the Kaldaé in the
marshes, which he captured along with its prince.

ΔΙ. afterwards recovered his freedom, and in
B.C. 702, after the death of Sargon, he returned to
3abylon, and reigned there a second time for
about six months; though the Annalistic Tablet
seems to imply that this M. was not identical with
the Kald&a prince (as it calls him ‘an Assyrian
soldier’). At any rate, the usurper was over-
thrown by Sennacherib at Kish, and Bel-ibni was
made king of Babylon by the Assyrians. For
some time M. defended himself in the marshes ;
but after a time, growing weary of the struggle,
he embarked for the eastern shore of the Persian
Gulf, with his followers and gods, and settled in
the Elamite city of Nagitu. ‘To this retreat, in
B.c. 695, he was pursued by Sennacherib, who
stormed the Chaldean colony. M. himself seems
to have been already dead, but at a subsequent
date we hear of his son Nebo-sum-iskun assisting
the Elamites in a war against the Assyrians.

A. H. SAYCE.

MEROM, THE WATERS OF (οἰ, τὸ ὕδωρ
Mappwy or Meppdév), where Joshua overthrew the
confederation of the northern kings, are commonly
identified with the highest of the three lakes in the
Jordan Valley, now called Baheiret el-Huleh, ‘the

*So Driver, Isaiah2, 14, 45, 49; Skinner, Isaiah, vol. i. p.
283; Tiele, Bab.-Assyr. Gesch. (1888). p. 349; et al. On the
other hand, Schrader, AAT? p. 344 (COT ii. 28], prefers to date
the visit of Merodach-baladan’s envoys c. 704 B.c. ; so also W. R.
Smith, #roph. of Isr. p. 318—at a time, however, when he was
not king of Babylonia.

348 MEROM, THE WATERS OF

MEROM, THE WATERS OF

little lake of e/-Huleh.’ The height of the waters
here relatively to those of the Sea of Galilee and the
Dead Sea possibly accounts for the name oa
used by the ancient historian (Jos 110. 7). Several
of the places mentioned in the chapter have been
identified with tolerable certainty, e.g. Hazor and
Achshaph ; while Mizpah, from the position as-
signed to it, must have lain immediately to the
north of ed-Huleh. The open land in the neighbour-
hood of “Ain el-Melldha would therefore attord an
excellent rallying-ground for the hosts assembling
for one supreme eflort to stay the progress of the
victorious invaders.

No absolute proof of this identification can be
offered, and certain objections have been raised,
none of which, however, is insuperable. (1) The
word mé [constr. of mayim, ‘waters’] is nowhere
else applied to such a large body of standing
water; in such cases the term yam (‘sea’) is
commonly employed. Too much may easily be
made of this objection, which, being only of a
negative character, must give way to more positive
considerations. (2) Josephus places the camp of
the kings at Beroth in Upper Galilee, and makes
no mention of waters. Here, therefore, we are
told the scene of the battle must be sought, and
not in the Jordan lowlands (Socin’s note in
Schumacher’s Jauldn, 102). Josephus says (Ant.
V. 1. 18) that Beroth was ‘not far from Kadesh’:
this fixes the locality, Kadesh lying on the heights
west of the valley. But the battle was not neces-
sarily fought at the spot where the camp stood.
Long afterwards, in this same district, Demetrius
pitched his camp at Kadesh, and fought Jonathan
in the plain below (Jos. Ant. Xi. vy. 7). Why
should not the kings have followed ἃ similar
course? (3) By giving battle in this plain the
kings would have exposed themselves to grave
peril in the event of defeat, since it is so hemmed
in by hills and marshes as to make escape ex-
tremely difficult ; immense natural barriers lying
especially between it and great Zidon, towards
which a great part of the routed army fled (Jos
11. In reply to this, it may be pointed out
that for the evolutions of the chariots on which
the Canaanites so much relied, there was no
ground anywhere near so suitable as the com-
paratively easy downs south of ‘Ain e/-Melldha.
To secure this advantage, they were doubtless
willing to take some risk. It should also be
remembered that the Canaanites were at home
amid the intricacies of mountain and marsh, of
which their pursuers were largely ignorant. In
their flight to great Zidon, the fugitives would
probably follow the course of the ordinary route
from Banids to the sea, and familiarity with these
wild uplands would greatly facilitate their efforts
to escape.

Baheiret el-Huleh is a pear-shaped basin, pointing
southward, and having a distinet bulge to the
north-west. It lies 7 ft. above the level of the
Mediterranean, and is from 10 ft. to 16 ft. in
depth. Its greatest breadth is about 3 miles, and
its length from the edve of the marshes to the
exit of the Jordan is 3} to 4 miles. Measurements
vary somewhat with the amount of rainfall and
the condition of the muddy banks. The N. limit
is especially ill detined, as the waters of the upper
Jordan, forcing their way in different channels
through the swamp, are constantly changing the
line. Owing to the formation at the southern
end, the lake might be drained or enlarged with
almost equal ease. Probably it was once much
larger than it is now (HGHL p. 481, note). To
the means taken for this extension, possibly
Mukaddasi (A.D. 985) refers in the following
sentence: ‘In order to form the lake they have
built a wonderful embankment of masonry along

|

the river, confining its waters to its bed’ (Le
Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, 68). The
floor of the valley northward is one vast morass,
varying in breadth from 2 to 3 miles. From the
chief source of the Jordan at Zell el-Kaddi to
the lake, a distance of 11 miles, there is a fall
of 498 ft. Towards the lower end the marshes
are covered with papyrus-reeds (Arab. babir),
and through them in dark sluggish lanes the
waters from the north make their way into the
lake. The whole place is literally alive with
wild fowl, ranging in size from the pelican to
the tiny but gay-plumaged kingfisher; and
the water is plentifully stocked with fish (see
JORDAN). All the waters from the S.W.. of
Hermon, and as far north as Hasheiyeh, from Merj
Ayim, and from the western slopes south of the
Litiny, are carried down into e/-Hulch. A few
miles above the lake on the west side of the
valley there is a copious spring, ‘Ain el-Balata.
Almost due west is the much larger ‘din el-
Το μα, which turns a mill and sends a broad
stream across the plain. Possibly misled by this
name, Burekhardt gave currency to the statement
that the S.W. shore of the lake was covered by a
saline (Arab, mall@hah) erust (Travels, 316). There
is no trace of salt here or elsewhere in the valley.

The uplands of: Naphtali drop almost precipi-
tously on the west edge of the plain. On the east
the mountains descend from a greater height, but
much more gradually, approaching almost to the
water's edge. From the lake northward the land
is called Ard ed-Huleh; southward it is known as
Ard el-Khait.

The Waters of Merom appear no more in history
under that name; but of the lake and the district
under different appellations we have frequent
notices. It figures as the lake of Semechonitis
in Jos. Ant. v. v. 1 (ef. Jeg 42). Here, in the
‘plain of Hazor,’ or ‘ Asor,’ Jonathan defeated
Demetrius (Ant. XI. v. 7; 1 Mac 11%). When
Zenodorus died, Cesar bestowed his country, lying
between Trachon and Galilee, upon Herod. “It con-
tained Ulatha and Paneas, and the country round
about (Ant. XV. x. 3; BJ. xx. 4). Οὐλάθα here
is evidently equivalent to Mule, and to xndm xo
of the Talmud (Neubauer, Géog. du Talmud, 24,
271th; HGHL 481), note), and it is applied in accord-
ance with subsequent usage to the district as well
as the lake. Josephus gives a brief description of
the place in BJ ΠΙ. x. 7, IV. 1.1. Seleucia, which
he mentions, is Selikiyeh, about 9 miles S.E. of the
lake, while Daphne corresponds with Difneh, near
Tell el-Kadi. ‘The Arab geographers speak of the
lake now as Bahairah Kadas and anon as Bahairah
Baniyas, from its proximity to each of these strong-
holds ; but the name e/-Huleh constantly asserts
itself as applying to both lake and district (Le
Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, 52, 68, 32, etc).
To the district also Boh& ed-Din refers (Life of
Saladin, PEF tr., p. 155).

The highway from the south and from the west
by way of Safed keeps close to the hills on the
western edge of the plain, to escape the marshes.
It crosses the vale in the north past Zell el-Kadi
to Banids, and thence to Damascus.

The land is occupied to-day by the Ghawédrineh
Arabs, ‘the dwellers in the Ghér.’ The herds of
buffaloes that find congenial haunts in the marshes
are their chief care. They also till the soil, which
still justifies its ancient reputation for fertility
(Mukaddasi, A.D. 985; Yaktit, A.D. 1225). Their
other occupations are hunting and fishing, and
making mats, ete., of the reeds from the marshes,
Of these also many of their fragile houses are built.
The women, however, do the most of this work.

LITERATURE.—Stanley, SP 390 ff.; Thomson, Land and Book,
li. 450 ff. ; Smith, HGHLZ 481; Schumacher, The Jouldn, 102:

MERONOTHITE

MESHA 345

Macgregor, Itoh Roy on the Jordan; Guy Le Strange, Pal.
under the Mosleins, 32, 34, 39, 52, 68, 455; Robinson, BRP. ii,
435, ili, 392-395; SWPP Mem. i, 205, Map Sheet iv. ; Buhl,
GA P 113, 234 (doubts the identification with el-Huleh); Dillm,.
on Jos 119, WW EWING:

MERONOTHITE.—1. Jehdeiah ‘the Merono-
thite’ (3507) was over the asses of kine David,
1 Ch 27 (B 6 é€k Mepadav, A —Mapadwy), 2. Jadon
‘the Meronothite’ assisted in repairing the wall
of Jerusalem, Neh 87, No place of the name of
Meronoth is mentioned in OT, but from the context
of Neh 87 it would appear to have been in the
neighbourhood of Gibeon and Mizpah.

MEROZ (ὑπ; Μηρώζ, A Mafwp, Lue. Mapup ;
Vulg. Aeroz) is nowhere mentioned in Scripture
except in the Song of Deborah (Je 5%), whose curse,
like that of the Saviour on Chorazin, has alone pre-
served it fromoblivion. ‘The bitterness of the curse
against Meroz can be accounted for only by some
special ageravation of its offence. Of Reuben, Dan,
and Asher, who also played an ignoble part, the lan-
guage of the song, although satirical, is restrained.
But with what impetuous fury it bursts forth—

“Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord,
Curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof ;
Because they came not to the help of the Lord,

To the help of the Lord against the mighty.’

This may have been because of their nearness to
the field of battle, while the others were far away.
If the surrounding country were in a fever of
excitement because of the presence of the hostile
forces, and the grave issues depending on the
coming conflict, the appeal to their patriotism was
strengthened unspeakably. If, within sound of the
strife when their heroic kinsmen of Zebulun and
Naphtali closed in deadly struggle with the
oppressor, the men of Meroz skulked, sullen
and craven, behind their walls, we can under-
stand why the hot heart of the prophetess
overflowed upon them in a flood of corrosive
rhetoric.

There is but one site in the neighbourhood with
any reminiscence of the ancient name to which
these conditions could apply. This is e/-Murussus,
about 5 miles N.W. ot Beistén, and 9 miles E.
of Jezreel, on the northern slopes of the vale which
runs down from Esdraclon to the Jordan, between
Little Hermon and Gilboa. Built entirely of mud,
the modern village stands on rising ground, in the
midst of plough land. For water it is dependent
on the streain below, in Wady Yebla.

Another suggestion (Moore, Judyes, pp. 135,
163) is that Meroz was a hamlet in the line of
Sisera’s flight, ‘whose Israclitish inhabitants
suffered him to escape,’ thus proving traitors to
their country’s cause, and earning the fierce re-
proaches of Deborah. Sisera tled ‘to the tent of
Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite’ (Je 417, who
had pitched his tent by the terebinth of Betsa’anim
by Kedesh. Identifying Kedesh with the ruined
Kudish W. of the Sea of Galilee, and Betsa‘anim
with Khirbet Bossi (Conder, ent-Work in Pal,
69; Smith, WG//L! 396), the direct road from the
battlefield would have been round the base of
Tabor, and across the head of Wady esh-Sherrdr.
But as this way was probably barred by the Israel-
ites, whose army descended from Tabor, Sisera
would most likely rush down the valley of Jezreel,
skirting the southern terraces of Little Hermon.
In his endeavours to elude pursnit he may easily
have approached ¢/-J/irussus before turning north-
ward. This site, therefore, meets the requirements
of either case ; and Moore is not justified in saying
that all proposed identifications ‘may safely be
dismissed’? (Judges, p. 162).

LITERATURE.—Guérin, Galilée, i. 127; Smith, HGHL1 pp. 395,
396 ; Conder, Tent-Work in Pal. pp. 58, 59; Robinson, BAP ii,

356; SWP Mem. ii. 85; Moore, Judges, pp. 135, 162 ; Hender-
son, Palestine, p. 107 ; Douglas, Judyes, p. 3s.
W. EwInc.

MERRAN (Μερράν, Syr. ποθ, Vet. Lat. b.
Myrrha).—Found only in Bar 3% ‘the merehants
of Merran and Teman.’ Grotius identified it with
ΠΣ, a town of Sidonia, Jos 134; Hiivernick, with
Moarrah, a Syrian city ; Fritzsche, with the sterile
Arabian desert Mahrah ; and Keil, with Marane,
a city placed by Pliny near the Red Sea, in the
country of the Sabeeans. It is decidedly preferable
with Kneucker and Ball to suppose that there has
been a misreading of Ἢ for 3 in the Semitic original
from which our Greek text was taken, and that
we should read ‘the merchants of Medan (or
Midian) and Teman.’ The doubled p is no obstacle
to this, since we have Σαρρά for m2. In favour of
it we may cite Gn 37*, where Midianites are called
‘merchants,’ and Hab 39. 7 where Teman and Midian
are named in connexion. Ja; Ἐς; ΜΙ ΑΈΒΕ ΔΊΣ

MESALOTH (Δ εσσαλώθ, Μαισαλώθ), 1 Mac 9"...
Probably representing ΠΊΡΕΣ ‘steps’ or ‘ascents’ (Ὁ),
referring to the plateau near Arbela, W. of the
Sea of Galilee. C. R. CONDER.

MESHA.—4. (κ᾽) Son of Shaharaim, a Benja-
minite, Whom his wife Hodesh bare in the land of
Moab (1 Ch 8°). LXX reads, A Mwod, B Μισά;
Vulg. Mosa. The two latter readings seem to
have been based on an original δες. 2. (yes)
Firstborn of Caleb (1 Ch 2”). He became the
father of Ziph, possibly the founder of the Ziphites.
LXX reads Μαρισά, and the Vule. Mesa; Kittel
(in Haupt’s Ο7) follows the LXX, reading 797,
which he thinks is to be expected from the context.

3. Mesha (sep, Mwod), a king of Moab, who was
a sheep-master, and was tributary to Ahab, king
of Israel. Upon the death of the latter and the
accession of his son Ahaziah, Mesha rebelled and
refused to pay bis annual tax of ‘an hundred
thousand lambs and an hundred thousand rams
with the wool’ (2 Καὶ 3*°). The people of Mesha
had fallen before the arms of David (28 8%), and in
all probability remained subjects of Solomon till
the division of the kingdom. The infection of re-
bellion at that period probably seized the Moabites,
and they, in common with other extra-Israelitish
subjects of the united kingdom, struck for in-
dependence and secured it. The tenor of the
record on the Moabite Stone (wh. see) favours this
supposition. It also informs us that the subjection
of Moab, which Mesha threw off, was due to the
prowess and power of Omri, the founder of the
4th Dynasty of Israel. After forty years of yoke-
bearing, Mesha’s god, Chemosh, delivered him from
Israel, in the middle of the reign ef Omri’s son,
This appears to imply that the secession (2 K 11)
occurred, not at the death of Ahab, but in the middle
of his reign (see ‘Moabite Stone’ in art. MOAB).
At any rate this rebellion cut off valuable revenues
from Israel's exchequer, and Jehoram, Ahab’s son,
who came to the throne after the two years’ reign
of his brother Ahaziah (1 K 22°!,2 K 127), aspired
to re-conquer the rebels. With Jehoshaphat of
Judah and his army, and the Edomites of Mt.
Seir, Jehoram and Israel marched against the
seceders, Upon the counsel of the prophet Elisha,
the encamped armies dug trenches to catch the
water necessary to slake thirst. Led on by an
illusion (2 K 3-4), the Moabite army recklessly
rushed into the enemies’ camp, only to be routed,
cut to pieces, trodden down, and dismayed. ‘The
few escaped ones entered Kir-hareseth, and the
combined armies destroyed the land with stones,
stopped cisterns and fountains, felled the forests,
and beleaguered the fortress. With 700 warriors
the king of Moab attempted to break through

eee en σον τα | |

350 MESHACH

MESHECH

the ranks of the besiegers. But utterly failing in |
this he went to the top of the wall, and, in full |
view of the armies of Judah, Israel, and Edom, he
propitiated the wrath of Chemosh by offering up
as a burnt-offering his firstborn, the heir-apparent
to the throne. Thereupon the three armies with-
drew, leaving Mesha master of the situation, though
routed, and his land greatly damaged (2 Καὶ 3:7).

4. Mesha (xv) was the name of one of the
limit-points of the territory ascribed to the descend-
ants of Joktan in Gn 105, ‘And their dwelling |
was from ΝῊ as thou goest toward Sephar, the
mountain of the East.’ It is plain that it must be
sought for in the Arabian peninsula. The earlier
views are amply presented by Gesenius (Thesaurus,
p. $23), who concludes by finding the location at the
E. boundary of J/Zesene, not far from the mouth οἵ
the Tigris river. Pliny, Ptolemy, Arrian, and
others mention a seaport Μοῦσα or Motfa, ἃ
celebrated place in classic times, which is now in
ruins. Pullen, in his surveys in the Admiralty
chart of the Red Sea, cites, at 13° 40’ N. lat., 43°
20° E. lone., a mountain called Jebel Mousa.
Delitzsch (Paradies, p. 242 f.) identifies xgo with
the Bab.-Assyr. term J/as, which is the name
attached to the district of the Syrian-Arabian
desert touching the Lower Euphrates on the S.W.
(LXX reads, A Maocone, E Mavacoy). The terri-
tory of the Joktanites is fairly well determined, |
from the language and monuments of S. Arabia, to
be in the S.W. portion of that peninsula, extending
from modern Yemen on the W. to Hastramanut on
the EK. The latest and perhaps the most authori-
tative statements on the location of this hard-to-
find locality are made by that successful explorer of
Arabia, Eduard Glaser. In vol. 11. of his recent work
(Shizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens,
Serlin, 1890, pp. 336 ff, 420f., 437) we find his
results presented. In W. Central Arabia he found
a Maciya near Jebel Samar, which he identifies
with the biblical Massa. He even goes further
and asserts (p. 420) that the biblical Mash, v2
(Gn 10:9), Mesha xv (Gn 10°), and Massa x22 (Gn
25") are found in one and the same territory, the |
difference in spelling being due imerely to the
different sources or times from which the names
reach us. Sephar he locates only in the S. part of
Arabia, hence he looks for Mesha at the other
limit (Gn 16°) in the north. The most northern |
Joktanide group (Ophir, Haiwilah, Jéobab, Uzal,
and Diklah) is hounded by a line drawn obliquely
from the northern end of the Persian Gulf across
Arabia to Medina. Such a line would touch the
territory of Dichel Samar (p. 437), and in particular
the district of Massa. "Thus, in a word, Glaser
concludes that Jebel Samar and its Westland,
already identified with Mas, and inclusive οἵ
Massa, also encloses within it the biblical Mesha
of Gn 10", Ιπὰ M. PRICE.

MESHACH (το ; LXX and Theod. M(ehody ;
Vile. Misach).—The name Mishael, by which one
of Daniel’s three companions, of the children of
Judah, was originally called, was changed by the
prince of the eunuchs into JMWeshach (Dn 1? and
ch. 3). Such changes of name were not uncom-
mon: they marked the fact that a new state of
life had now begun. In the present instance there
is no idea of dishonour or humiliation.

Many conjectures have been put forward with
respect to the origin of the word. Fuerst dragyved
in the Sansk. aéshah=‘a ram,’ and afterwards
the name of the sun-cod of the Chaldeans. Ges.
was favourably inclined towards the Pers. miz
shah=*triend of the king.’ Another suggestion
connected it with the Accadian mas, a protecting
genius, who stood at the head of the demi-gods,
and is described in the old magical books as having

IL. ii. pp. 181-249).

his abode on the top of the mountains, and pro.
tecting all who seek refuge with him. Frd.
Delitzsch’s proposal to consider it identical with
Mi-sha-Aku is rightly rejected by Schrader (COT
11. 126), who points out that the correct form would
have been JMannu-ki-Aku. The fact is that no
name such as this has been found in the inserip-
tions; and when we look at the word itself, it gives
us the impression that it was formed partly by
imitation of the first part of Mishael, and partly
out of the companion name Shadrach.
J. TAYLOR.

MESHECH (35, Sam. τ, Moodx).—Son of
Japheth, Gn 10°=1 Ch 15, This nation is regularly
mentioned in company with Tubal (Ps 120° is the
only exception), and in the two names the Moschi
and Tibareni ‘are scarcely to be mistaken’
(Lagarde, Ges. Abh. 254). The vocalization of the
ΤᾺΝ agrees with that of the Assyrian inscriptions,
in which a country called Mushi or Mushki is of
frequent occurrence. The passages in those in-
scriptions which treat of the inhabitants of tha‘
country are collected by Frd. Delitzsch (Vo lag
das Paradies ? p, 250), and these, with the other
notices of them to be found in ancient writers, are
discussed by Lenormant (Les Origines de U Histoire,
An individual named Meshak
is known only to Moses of Khorene (Venice, 1865,
p. 32), according to whom such a person was left by
Aram as governor of the region called Armenia 1.,
who built there a city called by his own name,
but mispronounced Mazhak by the people of the
country. The first mention of the nation is in an
inscription of Tiglath-pileser 1. (¢. 1100 B.c. ; WAT
1. pl. 9, 6Off, translated by Lotz, Die Inschriften
Tiglath-pilesers, p. 16, and Winckler, AJB 1. p. 19),
where it is stated that in the first year of that
monarch’s reign 20,000 Moschians with their five
kings, after having occupied the lands of Alzi and
Purukuzzu for 50 years, came down and_ took
possession of Kummukhu. The last place has
been identified with Commagene ; and Alzi with
Anzitene, mentioned by Ptolemy (v. 13. 18) as a
district between the sources of the Tigris and
Euphrates. Tiglath-pileser went out to meet
them, traversed a region called Kashuyara, and
defeated them with great slaughter. They are
next mentioned in an inscription of king Asshur-
nasir-abal (WAT i. 18; translated in AJB 1. 65)
about 220 years later, who professes to have re-
ceived tribute of the Moschi and Commagenians,
consisting of ‘howls of brass, sheep, and wine,’ in
which the first item agrees curiously with the
“vessels of brass’ which, according to Ezk 27",
were supplied by ‘Tubal and Meshech’ to Tyre.
Their power had become formidable by the time of
Sargon (B.C. 722-705), in whose annals the Moschian
kine Mita plays an important part (Winckler, 1)
Keilschrifteate Sargons, pp. XXiV-XXXixX); from 715
this king appears as a formidable enemy of Assyria,
who makes common cause with Rusa of Urartu,
seizes cities in Cilicia, and otherwise supports
Sargon’s enemies. The fortresses of Usi, Usilu,
and Uargin are built in 712 to protect the new
province of Kammannu against him (4, p. 33, 1.
192). Not till 709 is Mita forced to make peace
with the Assyrian king, owing to an invasion of
his territory by one of the latter’s lieutenants
(ib. p. 128, Ml. 151-153). The Moschi do not,
however, appear in the lists of tributaries of the
later Assyrian kings, though in Persian times they
figure in the 19th Satrapy of Daiius (Herod. iil
94). In chs. 37 and 38 Ezekiel mentions them
among the allies of Gog, king of Magog, but in
3225-27 he reckons them among the great departed.
It is probable, therefore, that the Israelites knew
of their fame only at second-hand, and hence
Ezekiel would not be clear as to whether the

MESHELEMIAIL

MESSENGER 351

nation still existed or not. It is not, however,
krown at whose hands they lost their independ-
Cree,

Their geographical position probably varied
somewhat with the vicissitudes of their fortune,
but can be generally fixed by the historical refer-
ences in the inscriptions, where it is approached
through Kummukh, and has for its neighbours
Tubal te the south and Kammanu to the west, and
where it is reduced by the governor of Kui (Cilicia).
In Greco-Roman times the nation that bore their
name is represented as much farther north, be-
tween the Cyrus and the Phasis (cf. Strabo, xi. 2.
§§ 14, 16); Hecatieus placed them next to the
Matieni (Steph. Byz. s.v.). Too little is known of
their language and customs to make it possible to
locate them ethnographically.

_ D.S. MArGontouri.

MESHELEMIAH (προ ρ and samen). — The
epenym of a family of Korahite doorkeepers, 1 Ch
91 (B Μασαλαμί, A Μοσολλάμ), 26! (B Μοσολαήλ,
A Μοσολλάμ), 2 (B Mocadnd, A Μασελλαμιά), 9 (B
Mocouayeid, A Meood\eud)=Shelemiah of 2614,
Shallum of 917: 8-3!) and Meshullam of Neh 19:5,

MESHEZABEL (Seayyn).—~t. One of those who
assisted to repair the wall, Neh 34 (Bom.; Ν' Mac-
εζεβηά, A Μασεζειήλ). 2. One of those who sealed
the covenant, Neh 107) (B Μεσωξεβήλ). 3. The
father of Pethahiah, who was at the king’s hand
in all matters concerning the people, Neh 114 (B
Baoncd, 8° ἃ Βασηζαβεήλ). It is quite probable that
all three references are to the same individual or
family.

MESHILLEMITH (n>bz'2).—A priest, 1 Ch 913
(B Μασελμώθ, A Μοσολλαμώθ), called in Neh 111
Meshillemoth (wh. see).

MESHILLEMOTH (n‘zbv'>).—4. An Ephraimite,
2 Ch 28 ἐΜοσολαμώθ).. 2. A priest, Neh 1118 (AB
om. ; N° ἃ Μασαλαμίθ), called in 1 Ch 913 Meshille-
mith (wh. see).

MESHULLAM (0*<'2 perh. ‘ the devoted one,’ cog-
nate with Arab. Waslim, οἵ. Del. and G. A. Smith on
Is 42", LX X Μοσολλάμ, Moooddouos, Μεσουλάμ, ete. ).—
A common OT pr. name. 1.2.3. Three Benjamites
(1 Ch 8” 97-8), 4 A Gadite (1 Ch 5%), “5. The
grandfather of Shaphan the seribe (2 Καὶ 22%). 6.
The father of Hilkiah the priest (1 Ch 95}, ἢ,
Another priest of the same family as the preceding
(1Ch9). 8 A Kohathite, one of the superintend-
ents appointed by Josiah to direct the repairs on
the temple (2 Ch 34%). 9. A son of Zerubbabel
(1Ch 3"). 140. One of the ‘chief men’ whose
services were enlisted by Ezra to procure Levites
to accompany him to Jerusalem (Ezr 816), 44. A
Levite who opposed Ezra’s proceedings in con-
nexion with the foreign marriages (Ezr 1015), 42.
One of those who had married foreign wives
(Ezr 1039). 13. Son of Berechiah, one of those who
helped to repair the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 3% °°),
His daughter was married to Tobiah (018), 414,
Son of Besodeiah. He helped to repair the old
gate (Neh 3°). 15. One of the company that stood
at Ezra’s left hand during the Ha RE of the law
(Neh 84). 16.17. A priest and a chief of the
people who sealed the covenant (Neh 1077). 48.
One of the princes of Judah who marched in pro-
cession at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem
(Neh 12%). 19, 20. 21. Two heads of priestly
houses and a porter in the time of the high priest
Joiakim (Neh 1918. 16. 25),

MESHULLEMETH (n7%'n, Luc. and B Μεσολ-
Adu, A Μασσαλαμείθ, Vule. Messalemeth, Jer. de
interpr. Messalem).—Wife of king Manasseh and

ed

mother of Amon (2 Καὶ 9119). Her father’s name
(Haruz) and her birthplace (Jotbah) are both
given, Similarly in the case of ail the queen-
mothers who follow, but of none who precede,
Meshullemeth. If the formula ‘daughter of X
from (the locality) Z? is due to a preference of the
compiler, it may be an indication of the farthest
point of time to which he was independent of his
main source, in virtue of oral tradition, ete. But
the change of style may have occurred in the main
source itself. The name is a feminine form of the
frequent masculine Meshullam (εἴ. UXX B and
Luc). It is a passive in MT, but Jerome (Lag.
Onom, Sac.* p. 77) gives the active meaning reddens
as an alternative to the passive reddit (cf. the
spellings of LAX A and Vule.).
W. B. STEVENSON.
MESOPOTAMIA.—See Aram.

MESS.—A mess is a viand, a dish, properly a
dish of food sené to the table. It comes from Old
Fr. aes (of which the mod. form sets is due, says
Skeat, to a wish to show the connexion with
mettre), Which is formed from Lat. missin ‘sent.’
Ci. More, Richard IL. p. 46, ‘My Lord you have
very good strawberries at your gardayne in Hol-
berne, I require you let us have a messe of them.’
Shaks. uses the word often, thus Lear, L i. 119—

‘He that makes his veneration messes

To gorge his appetite.’
Fuller, Holy State, p. 283, says, ‘How often did
reverend Whitgift (knowing he had the farre better
cheere) send a messe of meat from his own table to
the Ministers of Geneva γ᾽

The word πα mas’eth (from xy3 to ‘lift up’) is
translated ‘mess’ in Gn 43%, 28 118 Mess
occurs also in Sir 30 ‘Delicates poured upon a
mouth shut up are as messes of meat set upon a
grave’ (Gr. θέματα [from τίθημι to place] βρωμάτων).
And RV introduces the word into He 1916 * Esau,
who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright’
(ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς, lit. ‘for one eating,’ ἐν. one
meal: ‘mease of meat’ is the tr. of the Great
[Cranmer’s] Bible ; it is echoed by Shaks. in Merry
Wives, 111. 1. 683—ST had as lief you would tell me
of a mess of porridge.’ The tr. of the Rhem. NT
is ‘a dish of meate’; the AV ‘morsel of meat’
comes from the Bishops’ Bible). J. HASTINGS.

MESSENGER.— The Heb. word ἡνῖρ amalak
means ἃ messenger, and is so translated about 100
times in AV. Τῦ is used of messengers both public
and private, both Satanic and Divine. But so
frequently does the word designate a messenger
from God that it assumes the special meaning of
‘angel.’ In LXX it is nearly always translated by
dyyedos (exceptions are, ¢.g., Nu 217! 225, Dt 2°6 all
in plu. πρέσβεις ; Jos 6” of κατασκοπεύσαντες : 1S
25" παῖδες); but this word ἄγγελος is rendered
‘messenger’ in AV in Mt 11, Mk 1°, Lk 7%
9°", 2 Co 127, Ja 2”, where it is evident that. human
messengers are spoken of ; in 2Co 127 St. Paul
calls his thorn in the Hesh ‘a messenger of Satan to
buffet me? (ἄγγελος σατανᾶ iva με κολαφίζῃ). It is
rarely doubtful whether the meaning is ‘messenger’
in the original sense, or ‘angel’ in the derived or
restricted sense. Only once does RV change ‘ mes-
senger’ into ‘angel,’ Job 33°, and Oxf. Heb... Lew.
says that there the ‘angel’ of RV is too specific ;
the reference is to ‘a messenger from God acting as
an interpreter and declaring what is right’ (RVm
has ‘messenger’). Only once * is a prophet directly
valled a messenger of God (4x72, ἄγγελος), Hagesi
(1), but the mame MALACHT (wh. see) is ‘my
messenger,’ and Malachi uses the title not only of
himself, of the priest as God's messenger carrying

* Unless Nu 2016 refers to Moses, which is not probable ; RV
keeps AV tr. ‘angel.’

392

MESSIAH

MESSIAH

the law of the Lorp to the people (27), of the
Forerunner of the Messiah (31), but even of the
Messiah Himself (3!, AV and ἘΝ ‘messenger,’
RVm ‘angel’). See art. ANGEL.

Other words tr? ‘messenger’ are self-evident,
but it may be pointed out that in NT ἀπόστολος
‘apostle,’ lit. ‘one sent out,’ is twice rendered
‘inessenger,’ 2 Co 83, Ph 2%, See APOSTLE,

J. HASTINGS.
MESSIAH.—

Introduction.
i. Jewish Messianic belief.
1. Outlines of its history.

(a) ‘Messianic’ expectations prior to or in-
dependent of the notion of a unique
personal Deliverer.

(Ὁ) Hopes attached to the House of David.

(ὦ Early Evidence of Expectation of Messiah.

(4) Jewish beliefs as reflected in the Gospels.

(e) Evidence of Apocalyptic literature.

2. Discussion of special points.

(a) The Messiah as Prophet.

(Ὁ) The Suffering Messiah.

(c) The ‘Son of Man’—Dn 7—Messiah’s pre-
existence,

ii. The Christian transformation.

Jesus the true Prophet—the Servant of Jehovah—
suffering and death the way to triumph—the kingly
office of Jesus—His heavenly priesthood—His re-
lationship to God.

The argument from prophecy still valid.

Literature.

In approaching this subject, it seems important
to distinguish between the historical and the
theological points of view from which it may be
regarded, and to vindicate the rights of both.
There is a danger that a sense, derived from Chris-
tian faith, of the purpose and the fulfilment of
the hope of the Messiah may somewhat interfere
with the accuracy of our view of the course of its
history. The Messianic expectation was formed
under the intluence of the fundamental beliefs and
the national experiences of the Israelite people,
interpreted first by the prophets and subsequently
by more ordinary religious reflexion and specula-
tion. In a historical study we must be careful
not to attribute greater distinctness or scope to
the expectation at any epoch than had then been
attained. The actual genesis and connexion of
ideas must, so far as possible, be observed ; and
elements of the final conception, which existed
first as separate thoughts and did not affect the
process of development during its earlier stages,
must be treated as separate till the time when
they were in reality combined with the main
body of doctrine. On the other hand, in the
endeavour to appreciate the true lessons of the
history, to understand aright the meaning of the
facts, considerations are in place and are necessary,
which are, properly speaking, theological—such,
namely, as furnish the ground for, or are connected
with, our belief in the Moral Government of the
world and the Divine plan for man’s Redemption,
and determine our estimate both of the Christian
Faith and of the OT dispensation, and of their
relation to one another.

It will be our aim in this art. (i.) to trace the
origin and growth of the Messianic beliefs of the
Jews, and then more briefly (ii.) to mark the
character and extent of the change which these
beliefs underwent in the Christian Church, and
its results as to the interpretation of OT prophecy.

i. JEWIsH Messtanic BELIEF.—1. Outlines of
its history.—(a) We shall be mainly concerned with
the expectation of a personal deliverer. But it is
impossible to place this in a right light, if we do
not view it in connexion with the belief, as a whole,
which the Jews had in the future blessings assured
tothem. From the conviction that they were the
chosen people of Jehovah, and that He would be
faithful to His covenant made with them, there
arose in times of common distress and of exile the

confidence taught by the prophets, and which
sustained the most pious and best part of the
nation, that their national life, after it had been
purified by the punishment of sinners and the
discipline of the godly, would be restored, that
they would obtain complete victory over their
enemies, and that God would bestow upon them
such glory and peace and well-being as would
surpass all that had been realized in the happiest
preceding times, and would satisfy perfectly all
the longings of their hearts. These hopes existed
before the expectation of a unique person who
was to come—the Messiah—had been formed.
This is exemplified by the Book of Zephaniah, the
whole of which is occupied with a vision of the
great day of the Lord’s vengeance on the sinners
in Israel and destruction of the surrounding
nations, and the subsequent happiness of Zion,
while yet the figure of Messiah does not appear
at all. Again, there were periods in which, or
portions of the Jewish world where, the expecta-
tion of a coming King seems to have fallen into
abeyance, though the more comprehensive hope for
Israel and Zion was still vigorous. This is ex-
emplitied by the Apocrypha and the writings of
Philo. Nevertheless, these different forms of
expectation had their roots in beliefs which were
closely connected. This whole body of expectation
may therefore not untitly be, as it often is, called
‘Messianic.’ The importance of those originally
simple anticipations, to which we have referred,
will further appear when it 15 observed that out
of them, and out of the imagery in which they
were expressed, grew in time the elaborate and
mysterious doctrines concerning the millennium,
the final judgment, the world to come, and other
last things (cf. ESCHATOLOGY in vol. 1.).

(6) We come now more definitely to the history
of the idea of the Messiah. God had not only
made a special covenant with Israel, but with David
and his descendants as its royal house (28 751,
Ps 89!*7), To the days of David and Solomon,
especially, after-generations looked back as fur-
nishing a pledge for the future. It is the renewed
glory of the house of David, and the reunion of
all the tribes under it, that Amos, for instance
(944) and Hosea (3°) foretell, not the coming of the
Messiah. Again, it is on the restoration of a suc-
cession of kings, not on one pre-eminent king, of
David’s line, that Jeremiah dwells (177° 224 33! 1),
In some prophecies, however (Is 7/18 9° 7 11, Mic
4, δ), attention is concentrated upon a single
descendant of David;-and the language used
respecting him, taken by itself, would seem clearly
to imply the conception ef the Messiah, strictly
so called. Any remaining doubt whether it did so
is suggested by the absence of confirmatory lan-
guage, and even the contrary representations, In
other nearly contemporary, or later, prophets.
Unquestionably, however, the image of the king
who, in accordance with God’s covenant with
David, stood in a peculiar relation to Jehoyah
(‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son’),
who reigned by His appointment, in His name,
and by His power, who would do all God’s will,
whose rule should be one of absolute righteousness,
who would compel all men to honour the God of
Israel and bestow on His people perfect peace and
happiness for ever, contained the essential charac-
teristics of the idea of the Messiah, as that name
came to be commonly understood among Jews.
At most it was only necessary besides that the
conception should be firmly apprehended, that it
should be fixed in language, and become clearly
recognizable. Ἷ

(c) We proceed to examine the early evidence of
the expectation of the Messiah as a unique per-
sonality, and in particular of the use of the title

MESSTAH

MESSIAH

‘the Messiah’? (‘the Christ’) as the distinctive
name for sach ἃ one,

In order to understand the sienificance of the
application of the name Messiah im the special
manner which has become so familiar, we must
glance at the use of the word in ΟἽ. The cere-
mony of anointing was used in making priests and
prophets, as well as kines, and πὰ (ΤᾺΝ χριστός),
‘anointed, is a few times applied to the first of
these as an adjective (Lv 4* !° 6", 2 Mac LV). But
as a substantive, ‘the Lord’s anointed,’ ‘ Mine
anointed, ‘Thine anointed, it is used only of
kings. A possible exception to this is the use of
the plural to designate the Jewish people as a
whole (7), at/Ps-105 (1 Ch 167), Hab 3; althouch
even in these passages the reference may be
to the king. It is employed of the king, in
contrast with the priest, even at 1S 855. The
title is repeatedly given to Saul (1S 1925 ete.) ; but
it acquired a far fuller meaning when used of
David and his descendants, by reason of God’s
covenant with him (Ps 2° 18° ete.). Its transfer-
ence to Cyrus (Is 45!) does but illustrate its
primary foree. See, further, art. ANOINTING.

At Dn 9536 we possibly have the word used in
that which has come to be its distinctive sense.
If so, it is the eartiest instance of this.

In the next oldest works which have to be
noticed, as probably giving indications of the
expectation of the Messiah, the title is not used ;
but this is explicable from the oracular, apocalyptic
character of the writings in question, which favours
an allusive or symbolical mode of speech. In the
most ancient portion of the Sibyllimne Oracles (ili.
1. 97 to 1. 807, or according to some critics a little
more), composed about B.C. 140, we have (1. 652 17
a description of a king whom God should send,
who can hardly be other than the Messiah. Again,
in one of the older sections of the Book of Enoch,
the Vision of Seventy Shepherds, which probably
belongs to the reign of John Hyreanus (B.C. 135-
106) [in art. ENOCH, vol. 1. p. 707, it is placed some-
what earlier}, and in which the history and destiny
of the Chosen People are symbolically represented,
the white bullock, it is generally allowed, denotes
the Messiah. Another portion of the Book of
Enoch, the so-called Book of Parables, should be
considered at this point, if the period assigned for
its composition in art. ENocu, 10., is adopted,
and if the chronological order ought to be strictly
adhered to. But crities differ widely in respect to
its date. The supposed historical allusions in it
are of very uncertain import. Even on_ this
ground it would be well to reserve it for separate
treatment, when the course of the history of the
Messianic Hope, so far as it may be determined by
means of evidence of more unquestionable char-
acter, las been reviewed asa whole. But there is
still stronger reason for doing this. The Messianic
doctrine of this book is, by common admission,
unlike in important particulars to that found in
any other Jewish document. Whatever, there-
foye, the time and circumstances of its origin may
have been, it seems certain that it did not exer-
else any general influence.

We pass to the Psalms of Solomon, which con-
tain full and clear evidence of the idea of the
Messiah and also (Ps-Sol 1786 18": 8) of the use of
the title. These psalms were most probably
written by one author, and within no very wide
limits of time. They contain allusions which can
best be explained if the taking of Jerusalem by
Pompey (B.C. 63) was still recent when some of
them were composed. Though we possess them
only in Greek, they were evidently written origin-
ally in Hebrew, and there is every reason to regard
them as Palestinian. Pss 17 and 18 are some of
the most important passages in all Jewish litera-

VOL. I™.—23

ture in connexion with the history of the Messianic
Hope. ‘Their thought and language are moulded
on the portions of OT which celebrate God's cove-
nant with David. Another fragment of the
Sthylline Oracles, which is probably of a little later
date than the Psalms of Solomon, contains an
allusion to the Messiah (Or. S74. ili. 46-50).

The comparative scantiness of the indications
which we possess of the expectation of the Messiah
in the last two or three centuries B.C. cannot be
wholly explained by our want of knowledge of the
period. The silence of the Apocrypha has already
Ι been referred to. The truth would seem to be
that, in part owing to changed political circum.
stances, in part also to a deeper cause, a move-
ment of religious feeling, the hope of the

om?
restoration of the Davidic monarchy, after it had
slumbered for a while, re-awoke gradually, and in
some parts of the Jewish world more decidedly
than in others, and especially so in’ Palestine,
during the last cent. and a half B.c., and that as
it did so, a unique and ideal character was attri-
buted to the person and mission of the expected
king, such as had not before been, commonly at
least, associated with any looked-for occupant
of the throne. The fact itself that he would be
separated by so long an interval of time from all
his predecessors contributed to this, and in addition
a deepened sense of the magnitude of the events
in connexion with which he would appear, and in
which he would bear a part, had beeun to enhance
the idea of his greatness.

The chief elements in this early conception of
the Messiah have become apparent in tracing its
history, but it will be well to mark them carefully
before proceeding further. He will be a descendant
of David; Son of David comes to be used of him
as ἃ special appellation (first in Ps-Sol 172%, in the
Gospels Mt 957 ete., and commonly in) Rabbinic
literature). He will be the ideal king, whose
nund and action shall be in entire accord with
the will of God, who will be God’s true representa-
tive upon earth, in whose days and throue¢h whom
God will make good all His promises, and who
will Jead all inen to honour the God of Israel and
to respect Israel as God’s people. The relation of
the Messiah to the actual inauguration of this
happy state of things cannot be precisely deter-
mined, It is clearly an cxageveration to say with
Castelli 4 Messia secondo gli Bbrei, yp. 164) and
Dalman (ΤΠ ον Jesu, p. 242) that the Messiah is
never according to the original conception himself
the deliverer, but only the king of the people after
God has wrought deliverance. The writer of Ps 2,
and those who took their ideas from it (e.g. Ps—
Sol 17*4), manifestly attributed the subjugation of
the enemies of God to the agency of the Messiah.
It was also evidently possible for writers who con-
templated this to use language implying that the
deliverance was God’s work. The part taken by
supernatural and by human agency would be, no
doubt, somewhat variously conceived by different
minds ; but the language of the documents is not
full enough to justify us in detinine the views of
the several writers with exactness. At the period
we are considering, thought upon this subject
would be vague. Only through a process οὗ re-
flexion, and when it came to be a question of
harmonizing diverse representations in the pro-
phets, would the place in the succession of events
Messiah would

at which the appear be deter-
mined,
(7) The evidence so far considered brings us

down approxinately to the middle of the last cent.
B.C. Lhe Gospels ave our next important source
of information. They supply us with a lifelike
picture of Jewish behefs in Palestine at the time
' of our Lord’s ministry. We gather that the ex-

354 MESSIAH

MESSIATL

pectation of One who should come—the Messiah
—was an article of faith with the masses of the
Jewish people, and with the Pharisees there. In
the main, their conception of him is that which
has already been before us. But one or two adidi-
tional traits appear. The Jews, whose discussions
are reported in Jn 7°7, assumed that the coming of
the Messiah would be unexpected and mysterious.
The same idea is met with in the Talmud and
Targum of the prophets, and in the mouth of
Trypho in Justin (Dial. chs. 8 and 110). Again,
we have a feature in the réle of the Messiah corre-
sponding rather to what is recorded of some of the
greatest prophets than of the kings of old, when
it is expected that he will work mighty miracles.
That this was the common anticipation is implied
in the answer of Jesus to John (Mt 11°"), and in
the questionings of the Jews (Jn 7°). In Rabbinic
literature we find evidence to the same ettect.

(e) The development of eschatological doctrine,
which may be traced especially in the Apocalyptic
literature (see EscitATOLOGY in vol. 1. p. 74110),
necessarily aflected the conception of the Messiah
and his office. As the order of events at the end
of the world came to be more clearly defined, his
work was marked ont with greater precision. A
more unearthly character was also imparted to
him, The Apocalypse of Baruch and Fourth Ezra
(see ESDRAS, SECOND Book OF) are important for
illustratine the change. They may with confi-
dence be pronounced to be Jewish, and there is
a large amount of agreement among critics that
their composition should be placed between A.D.
70 and the beginning of the 2nd cent. Δ... The
calamities that are to come upon the earth are
described in dark colours. In the midst of them
the Messiah appears. He is said to be preserved
by the Most High to the end of the days. In
4 Ezr 13!" he is seen as a man coming from the
sea, flying with the clouds of heaven. Neverthe-
less Just before, at 12° he is referred to as ‘the
Anointed One of the seed of David.” We must
suppose, therefore, that the author had the notion
which is met with in the Rabbinie literature, that
one born of David’s line had been caught away
from the earth and was being kept in heaven, or
in Paradise, till the time should have arrived for
his Advent. When he has executed vengeance on
all the enemies of God, and the dispersed of Israel

have been gathered together, he will reign for a |

long period (400 years according to 4 Ezr) in a
state of peace and plenty, such as that imagined
in what Christians came to call the Millennium,
Then the Messiah himself and all flesh would die.
After this there would be a general resurrection
and judgement by the Most High, and a new world.
The Messianic doctrine of the Talmud and Targum
agrees as to its main outlines and character with
that attained at the time we have now reached.
The additional point of most interest to be con-
sidered in connexion with them is the extent to
which they bear testimony to the belief that the
Messiah would participate for a time in the suffer-
ings of men. Further reference will be made to
this presently.

It has sometimes been held that there existed
even in pre-Christian times various types of
Messianic expectation. Gfrérer (in Jahrh. d.
Hieils, 1838) formulated this theory, distinguish-
ing them as ‘the common-prophetie,’ ‘ the Danielie,’
‘the Mosaic,’ and ‘the Mystical - Mosaic’; and
Westcott (Introd. to Study of Gospels, ch. 11.)
countenances this idea. But it does not fairly
represent the evidence of our documents. In the
Enochie Look of Parables, indeed, to which refer-
ence has already been made, and to the doctrine of
which we shall recur under the next head, we do
find a different type. But, putting this on one

side, the evidence, when arranged according to the
times that the different portions of it most prob-
ably illustrate, sets before us a single line of
orderly development. ‘There is one root -con-
ception which in process of time is elaborated,
and in some respects changed, yet so that its
original features remain recognizable throughout.

2. Discussion of Special Points.—There are some
questions which need to be more particularly con-
sidered on account of their intrinsic importance,
or the diversity of views held in regard to them,
or their connexion with Christian doctrine. The
first relates to an ideal other than the kinely
one which was combined with it in Christian faith,
but which seems in Jewish belief, at least before
the Christian era, and in the main throughout, te
have been kept separate.

(a) The Prophet.—In Dt 18” the promise 18
given of ‘a prophet like unto Moses’; yet if the
whole context be taken into account the meaning
seems to be, not so much that one supereminent
prophet should be sent, but that God’s people
should not be left destitute of prophetic guidance.
When prophecy had for a time ceased, and at a
period when the expectation of a king of David’s
line does not seem to have flourished, religious
hope was fixed upon the rise of a true prophet
(1 Mae 143; ef. 415 and 957. Among the Jews of
the time of our Lord’s ministry the return of one
of the famous prophets of old (Mk 8° and parallels,
Mk 6”), or the coming of one who was defined as
‘the prophet’ (Jn 151: 35 6"), was awaited. But in
all these passages, except Jn 64", it is evident that
‘the prophet’ is distinct from the Messiah ; and
in that place, also, there is no need to suppose an
identification of, or confusion between, the two
ideas. Nevertheless, some traits taken from the
prophetic character seem to have found a place in
the conception of the Messiah’s work and office.
One, the working of miracles, has been referred to
already. Again, the Messiah, according to the
woman of Samaria, is to be the revealer of all
truth that men need to know (Jn 4°). This
view of the Messiah agrees with the special com-
plexion of Messianic doctrine among the Samaritans
at ἃ later time.

(ὁ) Lhe doctrine of a suffering Messiah.—There
are passages in the OT which teach deep lessons
as to the Divine purposes that are accomplished
through the sufferings of the righteous, and fore-
shadowings even of one pre-eminent vicarious
swierer. But, so far as we can trace the connexion
of ideas in these passages and their contexts, there
does not seem to have been any clear reference to
the Messiah and his atoning work in the thought
of the writers. The suggestion for their pro-
phecies seems to have come either through indi-
vidual experience, or (as notably in the latter half
of Isaiah) from the belief that, through the afflic-
tions which the better part of the Israelite nation
was undergoing, its purification and restoration
were being effected.

We desire, however, to know what the influence
of these prophecies was upon Jewish Messianic
belief. The true answer appears to be that for a
long time they did not affect it at all, and that
they never did so to any considerable degree.
There is no trace of the idea that the Messiah
would undergo suffering, in the extra-canonical
pre-Christian literature which we have been re-
viewing. And the evidence supplied by the
Gospels seems to show conclusively that no such
belief existed among the Jews at the time of our
Lord’s ministry. His own disciples were totally
unprepared for His announcements on the subject.
And yet, if such a belief was to be found any
where, it might be expected to be among those who
were attracted by the character and teaching of

MESSIAH

MESSIAH Bi

Jesus. There were differences in the spirit: in
which the Messiah and his times were thought
of and desired. The mass of men thought chietly
of victory over their enemies and the bringing in
of great material prosperity, while the truly pious
dwelt on the remission of sins (Lk 1), But there
is no sign of this remission being connected with
the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah except in
the Baptist’s words (Jn 1%); and plainly this
inspired utterance cannot be taken as evidence of
Jewish belief: those who heard it do not seem to
have understood it at the time. Some have held
that in our Lord’s time there had, through devo-
tion to earthly ideals, been a decline, esp. in regard
to the point under consideration, from a conception
of the Messiah prevalent in an earlier age which
had been more truly in accord with prophetic teach-
ing (cf. Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, i. ii). Wt
would be strange if this fuller and higher doctrine
had been so completely lost, as it must in that
vase have been. Moreover, as we have seen, this
theory has no documentary support.

We pass to writings subsequent to the Christian
era. The view of 4 Ezr that Messiah would die after
a long and prosperous reign, at the end of this
world, has evidently nothing to do with atoning
suffering. Christian controversialists appear to
have been equally mistaken in the meaning they
have often attributed to the doctrine of two
Messiahs—Ben-Joseph and Ben-David. The for-
mer is the Messiah of the ten tribes, a warlike
deliverer and king. He was, it is true, to die, but
only in order to make way for the union of the
whole nation under Messiah Ben-David.

In the ‘Targum of Jonathan much of Is 52'3-53!
is applied to the Messiah, but those verses which
speak of the sufferings of the Servant of Jehovah
are referred to the Israelite nation. And the
general current of Jewish interpretation is to the
same effect. There are some traces in the Talmud
of the belief that the Messiah would suffer with
the sufferings of his people, and that he is the
subject of the whole of this propheey; but they
are rare, and are not found in the earlier portions.

A good deal of stress has been laid on the fact
that Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho
represents his Jewish interlocutor as forced to
allow that the Scriptures foretell a Messiah des-
tined to suffer (chs. 68. 89. 90). But this cannot
rightly be pressed, since Justin may attribute this
admission to his, perhaps partly imaginary, oppo-
nent, as a literary device for setting forth nis
own argument. If accepted as evidence of Jewish
opinion, it could only show that some Jews a little
before A.D. 150 did not feel able to resist this inter-
pretation of prophecy when it was urged upon
them by Christians.

We may observe, in taking leave of this sub-
ject, that before the historical realization in Jesus
Christ, and apart from belief in Him, it must have
been extremely difficult to combine the idea of
suffering with the conception of the promised king
derived from the representations of OT prophecy
generally. It can have been possible at all only for
men of unusual depth of spiritual insight and
sympathy with the sorrows of their people.

(¢) The use of the name ‘the Son of Man,’ the
Messianic interpretation of the vision in Dn 7, and
the doctrine of the Messiah’s pre-existence.—TVhe
Messiah was certainly not called ‘the Son of Man’
by Jews with that fulness of signification which
Jesus gave to the name. The use of this title for
the Messiah among Jews, if it was used by them
at all, is closely associated with the interpretation
of Dn 7, and the discussion of the two points may
conveniently be connected.

From Jn 12% it appears that the Jews were

puzzled by the designation ‘the Son of Man, and |

that it was not with them a recognized title for the
Messiah. Indeed, if it had been, the use of it by
Jesus could hardly be reconciled with His course of
action as a whole. We eather from the records
generally, that He refrained till the very end of
His ministry from claiming before the maltitude
to be the Messiah, and till within a few months
of the close from making this claiin before even
the innermost circle of His disciples. Yet He re-
peatedly and openiy designated Himself from an
early period by the name ‘the Son of Man It
Is true that, in connexion with this early and public
use of it, He does not introduce imagery taken
from, or similar to, that of the vision in Dn 7, as
He does in later sayings addressed to His disciples
which contain this title. From the first, however,
His use of it was marked and emphatic, and
such as would not have been consistent with the
rest of His conduct, if it already commonly denoted
the Messiah.

With respect to the vision in Dn 7 it has to be
observed that he who is brought to the Ancient
of Days is described not as ‘¢/2 Son of Man,’ but
as ‘one like unto @ son of man.’ Further, the
vision is accompanied by an interpretation, from
which it appears that this human form represents
‘the saints of the Most High? (νν. 18: 2% 27) in con-
trast with the earthly kingdoms represented by
forms of beasts. Nevertheless, from the relation
between the form of the vision in 4 Ezr, to which
allusion has already been made, and that in Dn 7,
we may clearly infer that the writer of the later
Apocalypse saw a reference to the Messiah in the
language of his prototype. But it should be noted
that he described the Messiah not as ‘the Son of
Man’ or as ‘like unto ason of man,’ but as ‘like
unto aman.’ In Rabbinic literature, from the 2nd
cent. onwards, indications of the Messianic intetr-
pretation of the vision in Dn7 are not wanting,
but they are not prominent. There is nothing in
this literature to lead us to suppose that ‘the Son
of Man’ was ever in common use as a name for the
Messiah.

The employment of imagery such as that of
Daniel’s vision in describing the advent of the
Messiah implies his existence before his appearing,
in some extra-terrestrial region. But this view
could, as we have seen, be harmonized with the
belief that he would be of David’s line, by sup-
posing that a descendant of David had been first
caught up from the earth, or that David himself
or one of the kings of his house would reappear.
And as the Davidic lineage of the Messiah was a
thoroughly established dogma, and there is no
reason to suppose that any doubt on the point was
entertained, or would have been tolerated, in the
Rabbinic schools, we must conclude that any pre-
existence of the Messiah before his mnifestation
to men which they thought of, was only such as
was consistent with a previous human birth.

Harnack indeed (Dogmengesch. 1. 755) asserts
that, as a way of representing to themselves the
Divine foreknowledge, the Jews were in the habit
of supposing that every important person or thing
which has successively appeared or is to appear on
earth has first existed in heaven, and that such a
heavenly pre-existence was assumed in the case
of the Messiah in accordance with this mode of
thought. But G. Dalman, the chief expert in
Jewish literature among recent writers, emphati-
‘ally denies that this was a Jewish, or at all events
a Palestinian, principle. He does not allow that
the familiar instances of the heavenly proto-
types of the holy city and the temple establish it
(Worte Jesu, p. 245). We may at least say that it
must be difficult for us to understand exactly ana
fully what such a notion imported, even where we
seem to find if and that consequently it must be

I

356 MESSIAH

MESSIAH

rash for us to imacine it in the case of persons and
objects with which it was not plainly associated,
The older Rabbinism at least seems to have con-

tent-d itself with the idea of the pre-existence of |

the Name of Messiah (Ps 72"). (See Dalman, 7. p.
94:7};

One work there is, apparently Jewish, which is
an exception in Jewish literature in regard to more
than oneot the points which we have been discussing
—the Enochie Book of Parables, to which reference
has been made, but the consideration of which was
deferred. The present is a suitable opportunity
for making a few remarks upon it. In this docu-
nent the Messiah is repeatedly called ‘the Son of

Man,’ and described as surrounded with majesty in|

the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and reserved for
a future manifestation. Furthermore, he is to be
the Judee in the Universal Judgment—a function
never assigned to the Messiah, but always ascribed
to the Most High in other Jewish writings. Yet,
in spite of the various points of contact with Chris-
tian ideas and Janguaee, there is nothing (save one
phrase, which is probably to be otherwise explained )
to connect this Son of Man with the Christ. of
Christian faith, who has been erucified and has
since ascended to His throne, and is waiting to
return in glory. It is very unlikely that a Chiris-
tian writer would have so concealed his own belief,
or that a Christian interpolator, while introducing
those passeees and expressions which correspond
with Christian rather than with Jewish ideas,
would have done his work with so much reserve.
The traits in question may however, for all that,
be due to Christian influence. To any one who
considers how Christian teaching affected the
thought of many pagans in the early centuries,
even sometimes of such as remained most hostile to
Christianity, or who is at all familiar with the many
instances of the same kind which there are among
educated Hindus at the present day, this will seem
a not improbable hypothesis. And in the relations
which existed during the Ist cent. A.D. between
Jewish Christianity and Judaism there were the
conditions which would make such effects natural.
Tt is to be added, that even if it is a mistake to
trace the peculiarities of the Enochie Book of Three
Parables to Christian influence, it may still be
post-Christian. Tt is true that ‘the figure of the
Messiah is here drawn specially in dependence upon
the Bk. of Daniel’ But it would not be justifiable
to regard this as making an early date more cred-
ible. For between the original vision and this
rendering of its imagery there lies a difference in
the definiteness and fulness of the Messianic ideas
implied, which was only by degrees approached and
never elsewhere attained among Jews.

ii. THE CHRISTIAN TRANSFORMATION. —The fact
that Jesus claimed to be the Christ, and the signi-
ficance of this fact, the manner in which and the
time when He did so, and the part which the tem-
per of the prevalent Jewish expectation had in
determining His course of action, need not here be
considered. It must suflice to note that He gave a
new character to the conception of the Christ when
to His acceptance of His disciples’ faith in Him, as
such, He linked the distinct announcement of His
approaching sufferings (Mk 877" and parallels, Mik
10 - Mt 90,50-38). In the minds of the first mem-
bers of the Christian Church, the experiences of
the Cross, the Resurrection, and Pentecost, together
with the impression which the character and work,
the life and teaching of Jesus had made upon them,
led to a rapid transformation, pregnant with im-
portant consequences, of the idea of the Messiah
which they had held as Jews. They turned again,
as Jesus had taught them ‘o do (Mk 1910. 5:5 Mt
9115 22) Mk 4! Mt 26%, Lk 417 In 5% ete.), to
their ancient Scriptures, and read them with new

eyes. They found scattered there the elements of
a relatively complete ideal, which had been per-
fectly fulfilled in Jesus. The process by which
they combined them was uncritical, and was to
a large extent performed unconsciously, but the
result was in harmony with essential truth.

By the very character which Jesus had assumed
in His mode of life and ministry, attention was
directed to the promise of ὦ true prophet, and we
are not surprised to find that special stress is laid on
it in the early preaching in the Acts (Ac 372 7°”).

The references in the same part of NT to ‘the
servant of Jehovah, though they have not perhaps
been commonly noticed, can hardly be questioned
when they have been pointed out (Ac 451: 50 where
mats should, in view of the manifest allusions to Is,
and the use of this term in the LXX, be rendered
—not with AV ‘child’—but with RV ‘servant,’
as also at Ac 34-5), His ‘anointing’ (Ac 47, cf.
Is 61!) with the Spirit served as a link to connect
Him with the king of David’s line. It may be
permissible to see an allusion to the same figure of
prophecy in the parable Lk 141°, though δοῦλος is
the word there employed.

But the question upon which the whole contro-
versy between believers in Jesus as the Christ and
the Jews necessarily turned was as to the Divine
intention, foreshown in the prophets, that He
should pass through suffering and death to His
trimmph (Ac 818 8! 178 26%). Stress was also laid
upon those spiritual blessings, the expectation of
which had already been associated with the Messi-
anic times—the call to repentance, the remission of
sins, peace, the outpouring of the Spirit (Ac 2!"
91 105),

Two comings of the Messiah, first in humiliation,
then in glory, were now distinguished, and_ this
distinction became a characteristic article of the
Christian faith ; for the withdrawal from the earth
of one who had not in any way discharged the oftice
of Messiah, though destined to do so hereafter,
according to the Jewish notion referred to above,
can hardly be regarded as equivalent. Further,
even from the very necessities of the case, the
kingship of the Messiah could no longer be con-
ceived as primarily an earthly one. He had been
exalted to a throne in heaven at God’s right hand,
whence He was expected to returnin glory. Some,
and for a time many, Christians supposed that He
would then reign upon earth for a certain period.

Sut to thoughtful believers this must always have

seemed a very subordinate part of His discharge of
His kingly office. It searcely appears in the NT
(Rey 20° is the only passage that can be regarded
as a distinct indication of it). The predominant
thought was that of a heavenly king. Moreover,
He was to be the Judge in the final universal judg-
ment (Ac 10% 17331, Ro 916. 2 Co 5!, Mt 2571"),

Meanwhile He exercises a heavenly priesthood,
This aspect, too, of Messiahship was first clearly
brought out in Christian teaching. That this was
so, appears from the fact that Christian believers
did not at once perceive it. The title of ‘priest’
is in NT given to Jesus Christ only in Ep. to Heb. ;
and His right to it is founded primarily upon a
passage in which a psalmist had once recognized
the priestly character belonging to Israel’s king
(Ps 1104, He 5° 7. 84). Lastly, a meaning so much
loftier than before was given to /His relationship to
God, that the title ‘the Son of God’ lost, or almost
so, the associations with specilically Messianic
ideas which it once might have had.

To some the view of OT prophecy suggested in
this article may be disappointing. lor the purpose
of the argument from prophecy in support of the
Christian faith as it has been ordinarily used, the
strictly miraculous character of the prophecies
should be as plain as possible. Predictions are

Ι.

METE, METEYARD

ME-ZAHADB 35

therefore demanded, the reference of which 15
guaranteed by their circumstantial accuracy, and
by their having been more or Jess clearly intelli-
gible before the time of fulfilment came. Modern
inquiry has rendered it doubtful how far the pre-
dictions satisfied these requirements. But, on the
other hand, the history which we have been tracing
is full of the signs of Divine Providence. The
whole religious history of Isracl down to the time
of Him whom Christians believe in as the Christ,

phets, formed a most remarkable preparation for

and historical investigation only confirm it, that the
Scriptures were in reality full of Him, and that,
in proportion as men had entered into their spirit,
they must have been able to receive Him (Jn 5° 3),
Tt is still legitimate as ever to regard types and
ideals which were first fully realized in Him as
divinely intended to foreshadow Him. And if the
method in which Israel was trained in its great
hope, even while in many respects unique, was
more analogous to that in which truth has ordin-
arily been unfolded to mankind, permitting a larger
amount of illusion and error on their part than has
sometimes been supposed, it may for this very
reason be the more instructive.

LITERATURE.—Drummond, The Jewish Messiah: A critical
history of the Messianic idea among the Jews from the rise
of the Maccabees to the closing of the Talmud ; Castelli, 17
Messia secondo gli Ebrei, Schiirer, GJ V 3 ii, 496 ff. (7 Ὁ πὶ. ii.
126 5.1; Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, and
Die Worte Jesu: Driver and Neubauer, The Jewish Literpreters
of Isaiah εἰν Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah,

For the literature connected with the Jewish documents re-
ferred to, see the arts. upon those works.

V. H. STANTON.

METE, METEYARD.—To ‘mete’ (from Anglo-
Sax. mefan, and radically connected with Gr.
μέτρον, Lat. metivi, Eng. ‘measure’; and even
with Gr. uéder to rule, Lat. modus, measure,
moderation, Ene. ‘mode,’ ‘modest,’ ete.) is to
measure. ‘Thus Ex 16 ¢And when they did mete
it with an omer, he that gathered much had
nothing over, and he that gathered little had no
lack’: Mt 72 ‘With what measure ye mete, it
shall be measured to you again.’ Cf. Knox, Hist.
97, ‘But bee yee assured, my Lord, with such
measure as ye mete to others, with the same
measure it shall be met to you againe.” Tind.
uses the word in Dt 21° ‘Then let thine elders and
thi judges come forth and meet unto the cities
that are rounde aboute the slayne,’ and Coy. in

tu 84 «And he meet her sixe measures of barlye.’
Sir John Cheke, in his determination to ἀπὸ Anglo-
Saxon at all hazards, turns Tindale’s ‘cubite~ in
Mt 6” into ‘half yard mete.’ Chapman uses the
verb in Jliads, ii. 327—

‘Then Hector, Priam’s martial son, stepp’d forth, and met

the ground,’

Meteyard is used by Tindale in Ly 19° as the tr.
of ππῷ, a measure, and it is retained in AV and
2V. The word occurs also in Pref. to AV,
‘neither is it the plain-dealing Merchant that is
unwilling to have the weights or the meteyard
brought in place, but he that useth deceit.’
Coverdale has the similar forms ‘meteline’ (Jos
175: 34) and ‘meterod’ (zk 405. ° 41°).

J. HASTINGS.

METHEG-AMMAH.—AV and RVm in 258 8!
‘David took Metheg-amimah (πεν πὶ apt) out of the
hand of the Philistines.’ AVim_ has ‘the bridle of
Ammah,’ RV text ‘the bridle of the mother city.’
This last rendering is pronounced to be ‘probable’
by Driver (Text of Sam.), who points out (see his
references) that cx has the sense of mother city or
capital in Phoenician. ‘'The bridle of the mother
city’ would mean the authority of the metropolis or
capital of the Philistines, namely Gath (so Ges.,

|

and in ἃ special manner the teaching of the pro-

His coming. It remains true as ever, and criticism |

Keil, Stade). Budde [in SLOT) makes various
objections to this, aud leaves the expression blank
in his Heb. text as irrecoverably corrupt. ‘ihe
LXX reads τὴν ἀφωρισμένην, which moy, according
to Wellhausen, imply a reading aemn>. Wellh.
himself (Sam. 174) emends to πεν πὸ ‘Cath the
mother city, comparing L Ch 181 aman (Gath
and her daughter towns’), which he argues may
have arisen from the text he postulates im Samuel.
Klostermann attempts to obtain from the two
texts (of S and Ch) 7: apasny nang ‘Gath and
her border to the west.’ Thenius emends to 30>
ava ‘bridle of tribute,’ ae. ‘David laid the
Philistines under tribute.’ Lohr despairs of re-
covering either the meaning or the text. Cheyne
(Lucpos. Times, Oct. 1899, p. 48) emends to Wy NAR
on no, ‘Ashdod, the city of the 5868. Sayce
(HHH 414n.) suggests that v2x7 an? is the Heb.
transcription of the Bab. metéeg aimiuerte (tor ἡ δ ἢ
amieti) = ‘the highroad of the mainland’ of Pales-
tine. The reference would thus he to the command
of the highroad of trade which passed through
Canaan from Asia to Keypt and Arabia; bat the
appearance of such distinctively Babylonian words
in Hebrew of this date is extremely unprolable.
: J. A. SELBIE.
METHUSELAH (nbvsn>).—A Sethite, the father
of Lamech, Gn 524", P (Α Μαθουσάλα), 1 Ch 15 (ἢ
λΜΙαθθουσάλα, A Μαθουσάλα), Lk 3% (Matovcada)=
METHUSHAEL (which see) in J’s genenlogy, 4:5,
The name ndzwn2 is interpreted by Holzinger
as ‘man of the javelin’? (Jlanuw des Geschosses),
a fitting name for a time when the earth
was full of violence. Ball (in SLOT), follow-
ing Hommel (Δ ΔΩ, March 1893), makes the
name=tman of Selah,’ where Sel¢i may be a
modification of Bab. Sarrahu, a title of Si, the
eod of Ur Casdim, Wethuselah would thus answer
to Berosus’ ᾿Αμέμψινος = Amel-Sin, ‘Sin’s man.’
While Ball remarks that the form Jlethushael,
‘man of El,’ is less original than JWefhuse/ah ‘man
of Selah,’ Sayce (in Lapos. Times, May 1896,
p. 367) suggesis that Methushacl, an exact tran-
scription of the Bab. Mutu-se-ii, has been in ‘the
Sethite genealogy corrupted into Jethusclah (per-
haps for Mutu-sa-dati, ‘man or husband of the
eoddess’), Which does net adimit of an etymology.’
: J. A, SELBIE.
METHUSHAEL (κεῖτ). —A Cainite, the father
of Lamech, Gn 418 (J); LXX (A) δΔΙαθουσαλά, which
is read also for Methuselah (no¢:n2) in P's gene-
alozy, 64". ‘The interpretations of the name are
various. Dillm. remarks that Sxg:n2 may have
meant ‘suppliant or man of God? (Ges. Thes. 3=
Mutu-Sa-ilt according to Lenormant, Origines εἶα
Vhistoire?, 262 f., ef. Sayce in ρου. Times, May
1896, p. 367, May 1899, p. 853 ; Hommel, ΖΡ Μὰ
XXXii. 714), or Sone who has been obtained by
asking’ (Budde), but not ‘man of Sheol’ (Redslobi.
See, further, Spurrell, Votes on Genesis, ad loe.;
Gray, Heb. Proper Names, 1041.: Budde, Ur-
geschichte, 129. J. A. SELBIE.

METRE.—See POETRY.
MEUNIM.—-See MAon.
MEUZAL.—Ezk 27 AVm. See UZAL.

ME-ZAHAB (27: °2 ‘waters of gold’).—Father of
Matred and grandfather of Mehetabel the wife of
Hadar (Hadad), one of the kings of Edom, Gn 36°
(A Mefoo3)=1 Ch 1° (LXX om.) The name Mvé-
zahab (ef. Mé-deba) is certainly, as Hommel (4 7/7
264n.) remarks, much more like that of a place
than of aperson. Holzinger (Gen. ad loc.) suggests
that it is the same name which appears in a cor-
rupted form in Dt 11 as 391 Ἢ Di-zahab, Homme

358 MEZOBAITE

MICAH

(/.c.) makes the radical suggestion that ‘it is a
question whether we ought not to restore Gn 36°"
as follows: ‘Sand his (Hadar’s) cities were Pa‘ish
(in MT ῥα, var. Pui, LXX Φογώρ), Me'eshet,
Mehétab-el, Bath-Matred, and Mé-zahab.”’

MEZOBAITE.—One of David's heroes is called in
1Ch 11” ‘Jaasiel the Mezobaite’ (a:ast5). As
Kittel (in SLOT) remarks, the MT is ‘certainly
incorrect, but totally obscure.’ B has Μειναβειά,
A. Μεσωβιά, Luc. Δίασαβιά.

MIBHAR.— In 1 Ch 1138 one of David's heroes

appears as “ Mibhar the son of Hagri’ (72 7529

30). The parallel passage 2 S 23° reads, ‘ of
Zobah, Bani the Gadite’ (737 +32 m2y>), which is

probably the correct text. While the LXNX has,
in 1 Ch 1155, B Μεβαὰλ vids ᾿Αγαρεί, A Μαβὰρ vids
‘Arapai, it reads in 28 23° ἀπὸ δυνάμεως [1.6. ΜΞ
instead of 7282] υἱὸς Ταλααδδεί (B; A... Γαδδῶ.
See Driver (Του of Sam. 284) and Kittel (SBOT
on 1 Ch 1135).

MIBSAM (oy27).—1. A son of Ishmael, Gn 9518
(A Μασσάμ)--1 Ch 159 (B Maced, A Masodv). 2. Δ
Simeonite, 1 Ch 45 (B MaSacau, A Μαβασάν).

MIBZAR (7x22 ‘ fortification’). — A ‘duke’ of
Edom, Gn 36" (Ma¢dp)=1 Ch 158. (B Magdp, A
Mafcdp). If we take Mibzar as a place-name,
Dillm. rejects decidedly Knobel’s identification
with Sela or Petra, and, while pronouncing Hitzig’s
view ‘more possible’ that Mibzar is the same as
Bozrah of v.*, he thinks it ‘most probable,’ in view
of the words of the Onomeastivon (ἔτι καὶ νῦν κώμη
μεγίστη MaScapa ἐπὶ τῆς Ἰ'αθαληνῆς, ὑπακούουσα τῇ
Πέτρᾳ), that this identification must also be given
up.

MICA (x>>). —1. Son of Merib-baal (Meplii-
bosheth), 25 9" (B Mecxd, A Μιχα), ealled in 1 Ch
St 94°F Micah (72°27). See MICAH, No. 2, 2. Son
of Zichri, 1 Ch 9% (B Μειχά, A Μιχά), Neh 1117 (B
Maya, A Μιχά), where he is called son of Zahdi, v.22
(Bo Meya, A Mixd)=Micaiah (t2>7) of Neh 19:5,
See MICATAH, No. 7. 3. One of those who sealed
the covenant, Neh 104% (A Μιχά, Bom.).

MICAH.—4. (a2, but 22 in Jg 17-4; see Gray,
HPN 157, B Mecyaias, A Mexi). A resident in the
highlands of Ephraim, whose story is related in a
supplement (chs. 17, 18) to the Bk. of Judges, with
a view to explain the origin of the sanctuary of
Dan. There is no need to doubt the historicity of
the narrative, though it contains signs of revision,
if not of Composite authorship. That two accounts
were woven into one, is the conjecture of some
critics, whilst others try to explain the phenomena
of the text on the supposition of redaction by a
reviser who was indignant at the pretensions of
the Danite priests. For a full and fair statement
of the different opinions, see Moore, Judges, xxix.
xxx. 366-369, The nucleus of the story is evidently
of great age, and the events it describes may be
assigned with some confidence to the generation
after the invasion by Joshua.

Micah stole 1100. shekels of silver from his
mother, but restored the money on hearing the
curses with which she threatened the unknown
thief. His mother thereupon had part of the silver
made into ‘a graven image and a molten nage’ ;
but as the context speaks of but a single image,
and the former term is sometimes used (15 4019 4410)
generically for an idel though east, the latter term
is probably an editorial explanatory addition of
subsequent date to that of the earliest form of the
story. This image of J” was given to Micah, who
placed it in Wis private chapel, together with an

‘ephod,’ which was some portable object used in
divining (Jg 8*7, 1S 23% 9 307) and not necessarily
a part of a priestly dress, and ‘teraphim’ or idols,
possibly household gods. There is no evidence
that these were the busts or images of ancestors ;
but they were used at least in later times in some
unknown way for the purposes of divination (2 Καὶ
23@, Ezk 2171, Zee 10"). See Eruop. One of
Micah’s sons was formally invested with the office
of priest.

In the course of time a Levite in search of a
livelihood migrated from Bethlehem to Mount
Ephraim, and settled there. He is described as of
the family of Judah (177), and as a grandson of
Moses (18°, where MT has Manassch, written,
however, with 3 suspensum). The most likely
explanations of the former phrase are that Levite
here means merely a descendant of Leah, or that,
the tribe having been broken up, the man in
question had attached himself to that of Judah
(Gn 495: 7), or that the word Levite is not used here
technically of a clan but of a profession, and
denotes that the man was an expert in religious
lore and in the art of divination: but no explana-
tion is entirely free from difliculty. In the latter
phrase the change of Moses to Manasseh in
some of the texts was possibly due to an attempt
to detract from the dignity of the priesthoods
of the early northern sanctuaries, for whose
officials a Mosaic lineage seems to have been justly
claimed; see JONATHAN, No. 1. This young
Levite was welcomed by Micah, who attached him
to his household (17"), and transferred to him the
duties at first assigned to his own son. But soon
afterwards the Danites, finding their quiet estab-
lishment in the district allotted them by Joshua
impossible on account of the resistance of the
Philistines and the Amorites (Je 14, Jos 19"), sen
five of their tribe to find a suitable place for settle
ment elsewhere ; and these, while passing through
the highlands of Ephraim, stayed for a night at
the house of Micah. There they recognized the
Levite by his voice, as, if he were actually a
descendant from Moses and a recent residen€ in
their own neighbourhood, they may well have done ;
though, according to a less natural explanation,
the southern dialect that he used was the cause of
the recognition. At their request he consulted the
oracle for them, and promised them success in their
expedition. At Laish (or Leshem, Jos 19%), the
northern limit of the settlement of Israel, identi-
fied by name and ancient authority with Tell el-
Kkadi (less probably with Banias; see G. <A.
Smith, HGHL, 473-481), they found an attractive
locality and an unwarlike people, and returned with
the tidings to the temporary centre of their tribe
in the district made famous by Samson’s exploits.
Six hundred of the Danites, with their families
and cattle (1851), determined to migrate to Laish.
On approaching the village in which Micah lived,
the main body halted at its entrance, whilst the
five were detailed to secure the idols. They pro-
ceeded to the house of Micah, and, after greeting
the Levite, seized the idols; and when the Levite
expostulated, they persuaded him to keep quiet
and even to accompany them as the priest of their
tribe. Hastily rejoining their comrades, they sent
forward their families and flocks, placed the
Levite and his apparatus in their midst, and
marched with the majority of the 600 in the rear
to guard against attack by pursuers. Micah
collected a few of his neighbours, and overtook the
column at some distance from the village + but his
remonstrances were received with contemptuous
menace, and, as the employment of force by his
little band was out of the question, he was obliged
to return home and leave his idols in the hands of

the Danites. They continued their march te

——— δ είς

MICAH

MICAH 359

Laish, which they took without difficulty 5 and |
in ἃ new town built on the site of the old they |
set up a temple of their own in charge of Micah’s
Levite, who thus became the ancestor of the Danite
priesthood,

How long this priesthood lasted is not known.
The note of time (18*!) is of little help. If ‘the |
day of the captivity of the ]and® (18°) is not a late
editorial addition, 10 will probably denote the times
of the Philistine wars under Eli; but if it is, the
conquest of Galilee (2 1K 155). by Tielath-pileser in
B.C. 734. See art. JUDGES (Book OF), in vol. il.
p. SIS f.

2. (arp in 1 Ch 8-8 ΓΒ Mexid, A Mixa] aaah
[B Μείχά, A Μιχά; x2, RV Mica, in 28 9%) A
son of Merib-baal (or Mephibosheth), and grandson
of Jonathan. The name occurs alike in the general

Jenjamite genealogy (1 Ch 8% *), and in the specific
one of the house of Saul (1 Ch 9%: 3). The allusion
in 2S 9"(B Mexd, A Mixa) is probably a late gene-
alogical gloss to remind the reader of the line of
descent notwithstanding such passages as 28 21%.
3. The name and head of the chief family of the
Uzziel branch of the Kohathite Levites, according
to the arrangement for public service attributed to
David in 1 Ch 23° (B Mecxds, A Μιχά). The name
is repeated in 1 Ch 245: 5 (B Mecxa, A Μιχά) in the
classification of the Levites according to their
duties. 4 A name occurring in the genealogy of
Reuben (1 Ch 5°) as that of an ancestor of Beerah,
the chief of the Reubenites carried into captivity
by Tiglath-pileser. 5, A contemporary of Josiah
and the father of Abdon, 2 Ch 34° (B Mecxaias,
Α Μιχαίας), who is called Achbor son of Micaiah
in2 Kk 222, 6 A Simeonite, father of Ozias, one of
the three rulers of Bethulia in the story of Judith
(Jth 6). To the same tribe belonged Judith her-
self (92) (B Μειχά, A Μιχά), and probably the other
rulers, with the majority of the population of the
district ; and warrant for confidence in the anti-
quarian accuracy of the author of Jth, and tor the
assumption of a Simeonite settlement in the north,
may be found in Gu 497, 2 Ch 15" 34°. 7. See next
article. R. W. Moss.

MICAH πο Jg 17%4; in pause 333"> 2 Chir
shortened s:25 Jer 263 and are Mic 11 ;=‘ who is |
like J?’ [ef. Ex 15", and xy>2 in Nu 13%4\).—A |
proper name of very frequent occurrence in the
OT (see preceding article). The best-known men
who bore this name are—1. Micah of Mt. Ephraim,
who appointed a Levite to minister as priest before
the image (tex) which his mother had caused to ]
be made from 1100 shekels of silver. See the pre-
ceding article, No. 4. 2. Mica(iajh ben-Lnlah,
a man of kindred spirit with Elijah, who, at the
moment when Ahab of Israel desired to secure
the alliance of Jehoshaphat of Judah against the
Syrians, predicted, in opposition to the prophet
Zedekiah, the unfortunate issue of the campaign
and the death of Ahab, and ranged himself as
a true prophet of J” over against the lying
prophets (1 K 22). One will hardly be wrong”
in tracing the attitude of Mica(iajh ben-Imlah
to the cireumstance that Ahab favoured the
worship of the Tyrian Baal in Isracl—a practice
which appeared to Mica(iajh irreconcilable with
Israel's belonging to J”. On the reference prob-
ably intended in 1 Καὶ 2938 μὲ σὸν yee to the open- |
ine words of Mic, see Konig, Kinleit. in d. AT,
p. 330. See, further, MICAIAH, Nops: |

|

3. MIcAH (B Μειχαίας, A Mcxads) THE PROPHET,
—of Moresheth (wh. see), the younger contemporary
of Isaiah, after whom one of the writings in the
Dodekapropheton is named, the 6th in the Heb.
order but the 3rd in the Greek.

i. The Contents and Unity of the Book.—There
can be no doubt that the prophecies collected in

the book which bears his name proceed only in
part from Micah, for alike in contents and style
they are totally diverse in character.

(4) The first three chapters, apart from
present no difficulty. The prophet begins with
announcing the Divine judgment, which accom.
plishes itself in two acts, namely, upon Samaria
and upon Judah, although, of course, the judy-
ment upon Judah forms the central point of his
messave. Then chs. 2 and 3 state the reasons tor
the judgment denounced upon Judah in 1, and
it is especially against the ruling classes in Jeru-
salem that Micah utters his reproaches. The
verses 2 are quite foreign to this line of
thought, for they presuppose .the Exile, and
ocenpy themselves with the restoration of the
people. *

(6) To these denunciations of judgment in chs.
1-3 we have the counterpart in chs. 4-5, which
open ἃ glimpse into the Messianic time, Against
their composition by Micah there are the following
objections: (1) The strange conjunction of the
Messianic hopes of 4! with the threatenings of
3; (2) the circumstance that mutually exclusive
views present themselves (ef. 4%5 with v.%, 4th!
with v.84, 5% with v.4f), and that frequently a
connexion can be established only by very arti-
ficial methods (cf. 44 with v.®, 48 with v.!, 44279
with v.44 5!) ; (3) the dependence upon trains of
ideas which did not become current till after the
time of Mieah (ef. 42! with Ezk 38 f.), as well as
the presupposing of relations which were strange
to Micah’s era (cf. 4%8 [2] 518.) ΤΙ there are any
words of Micah at all in chs. 4-5, these can include
no more than 4% 14 5928,

(c) 6'-78, which consist of three short addresses
(G18 6216 71-6), whose original context, however, iv
doubtful, might, so far as their contents are con-
cerned, proceed from Micah. They present Js
controversy with His ungrateful people, the pro-
phet’s denunciation of the people for the unright-
eousness which marked their whole manner of life,
and finally Zion’s lament over the decay of her
children. This lament is intelligible in the time
of Manasseh, when the sacrifice of children (Mic 07)

CPt
ar ’

was a flourishing custom ; but not only the tender-

ness of feeling exhibited in 6™, but also” the
dramatic and exceedingly animated descriptions,
make the composition of this section by Micah
very improbable.

(7) 77 cannot possibly be attributed to Micah,
for what in 6-75 is yet in prospect is in 77
actually come to pass—Zion suffers for her sins,
and the prophet looks to a better time, when J”
will again interest Himself on behalf of His
people, and build the walls of Jerusalem.

ii. Vhe Activity of the Prophet.—It follows from
the above investigation, thai if we are to form an
idea of the characteristics of Micah and the method
of his activity, we must base our conclusions only
upon P24 3 (4% 14 5%), Tt results from these
data that the title in 1! rightly represents the pro-
phetic activity of Micah as having begun as early
as the reign of Ahaz, for according to 1" he pre-
dicted the fall of Samaria, Since of the two con-
tradictory dates given in 2 K 18! (ef. 17°) and in
1819. the latter is clearly the better entitled to
credit —i.e. Hezekiah probably ascended the throne
B.C. 715 —it follows that at the time of the destruc-
tion of Samaria the occupant of the throne of the
Southern kingdom was not Hezekiah (as in 2 Καὶ
18), ef. 17%) but Ahaz, who would have begun to

*Cf. Driver (LOT® 327f.), who, though he questions the
necessity of attributing the verses to an exilic (Stade, Kuen.) oz
post-exilic (Vellh.) hand, agrees that they do not now stand
in their proper context.

+ So Wellhausen, Stade, Kuenen, Cornill. Giesebrecht. For

the reasons on the other side, we may refer to the discussion in
Driver, LOT, 33 f.

360 MICAH

MICATAH

reign c. 734. Whether Micah had entered upon his
prophetic activity before 734, 7.c. in the time of
Jotham, as the title asserts, we have no certain
data to enable us to decide, for the threatening
of 3 was, according to the express testimony of
Jer 261% uttered under Hezekiah, and probably
after the accession of Sennacherib in 705-—an event
which appears to have determined Hezekiah toa
change of policy towards the Assyrians. Since
ch, 3 stands in close connexion with ch. 2, and the
latter as the foundation for the threatenines of
1 is not to be separated from ch. 1, we can only
assume that the threatenings once uttered and
meanwhile realized against Samaria were taken
by Micah into a written discourse against the
Southern kingdom (cf. Is 28 th) —a happy thoueht
whereby this denuneiation, caleulated ‘to strike
terror into all, acquired special weight against
Jerusalem,

ill. Style and Message of Micah.—It has rightly
been remarked that in’ his rhetorie Micah is
sharply distingnished from the simplicity of Amos
and the originality of Hosea. He begins with the
violent hiatus of 1? and the imposing description of
Jahweh’s descent in storm from heaven to earth
(v.*"), to which the denunciation of judement
upon Samaria attaches itself, in order finally to
introduce the burden of his disconrse—the jude.
ment upon Judah,—a discourse, however, which
runs off into mere puns attached to local and per-
sonal names. It is possible that this, as Well-
hausen sugeests, was the ancient scholastic model
of prophetic style, which elsewhere has maintained
itself especially in prophecies regarding foreign
nations. Apart from this peculiarity, Micah has
close points of contact with Amos. Like the
latter, he displays a deep moral earnestness which
does not shrink from drawing the last conclusions,
and which, in opposition to his great contemporary
Isaiah, who looked with contidence to J” the holy
God to preserve Jerusalem, leads him to predict
the destruction of the city as a punishment for the
treading under foot of righteousness, Whether
we are justified in concluding from 915 that Micah
anticipated the destruction of the whole kingdom,
has been rightly called in question and denied
by W. R. Smith (Prophets of Israel, 287 4¥.), tor
Micah in assigning the ground for judgment—
and in this likewise he agrees with Amos —has
specially to do with the aristocracy of Jerusalem,
against whom his whole anger is turned on account
of the injustice perpetrated by them (‘Jerusalem
is Judah's sin,’ ef. 15. LXX),
Impression this message of Judgement produced
upon Micah’s contemporaries we may infer from
Jer 26) where we find that 100 years after its
utterance this denunciation of judement, which
stood in such glaring contradiction to the preach-
ing of Isaiah, is not vet forgotten.

Whether Micah had a glimpse of better days
and committed his anticipations to writing, must,
in view of what has been said above, remain un.
certain; the verses which alone could come into
consideration as from his pen, contain scarcely
anything more than a reference to a future deé-
liverance and a removal by J” of things displeasing
(cf. 4% 5°83), In any case, our prophet, even if he
hever gave expression to such hopes, would in this
respect also have a predecessor in Amos, for the
Messianic hopes expressed in Am 958: are a later
addition to that book.

A brief reference may further be made to Mic
6, which are net only marked by a depth and a
moral earnestness, but also interpenetrated hy an
intensity of genuine feeling such as are scarcely
paralleled elsewhere. These verses likewise have
a point of contact with Amos, in so far as in them
the thought is emphasized that moral goodness

coincides with humanity (‘Das Sittlich-Gute ist
auch das Natiirlich-Menschliche’) ; but in another
point they go far beyond Amos—in fact, scarcely
anywhere in the OT is the essence of true worship
expressed so brietly and appropriately as in 68
‘It is said to thee, O man, what is good and what
J” requires of thee : to do justice, to love kind
ness, and to walk humbly before thy God.’

LITERATURE.—Driver, LOT6 325 ff. : Cornill, Evnleit.2 182 ff.;
Wildeboer, Lit. d. Α T, 148 ff. 5 Strack, Hindeit. 104 ff. ; Stade,
ZAT'W, 1881, p. 161ff., 1883, p. 1ff., 1884, p. 291 ff. ; Nowack,
ib. 1884, p. 277 ff. : Kuenen, Etudes dédiées ἃ Mr. le Dr. Leemanns,
116 ff.; Pont, ‘Micha-Studién’ in Theol. Stud. 1995, Ds Seat.
1889, p. 436 ff., 1892, p. 329 fF. ; Kosters, ‘ De samenstelling y,
het boek Micha’ in TAT, 1893, p. 249 ff; V. Ryssel, Untersuch.
duiber die Textgestalt wu. die Echtheit d. Buches Micha, Leipzig,
1857 ; J. Taylor, Vhe Massoretic text and the ancient versions of
Micah, 1891; Elhorst, De projetie van Micha, Arahem, 1891:
W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel, 287 ff.

Of commentaries the following may be consulted :—Pocock,
Comm. on Micah, 1677 ; Caspari, Veber Micha den Morashthiten
τι. seine prophet. Schrift, 1851-52 + Roorda, Comm. in Vaticrn,
Miche, Leiden, 1869; LL. Reinke, Der Prophet Micha, Munster,
1874; Cheyne, Micah (in ‘Camb. Bible’), 1882, 2nd ed. 1895;
Pusey, The Minor Prophets, 1860; Wellhausen, Die Kl. Pro-
pheten, pp. 22ff., 131 ff; G. A. Smith, Book of the Twelve Pro-
phets, vol. i. (1896), 900 ff.; Nowack (in the Handkomimentar),
1898, p. 185 ff. W. NOWACK.

MICAIAH.—The Heb. name s:29 (‘who is like
J’) and its abbreviations 22, MDD, 12°, NI are
variously rendered in AV: but, with the exception
of one instance, the first three words appear in
RV as Micaiah. The exception is in Je 174,
Here the name sz2, which occurs frequently in
Je 17. 18, is found in the longer form 329, and
is rendered Micah for the sake of the unity of the
narrative. The LXX equivalents of Micaiah have
in every case the alternative spellings Mex. and
Mecx., the latter being found uniformly in 10.

1. Micaiah (7:22, Maayd, AV Michaiah) is the
name given in 2 Ch 132 to the mother of Abijah.
Tt is evident from 1K 152, 2 Ch Ii”, and: trom
LXX, that thisisa corruption of Maacah (wh. see),
2. One of the princes of Judah (2 Ch 177) appointed
by Jehoshaphat to superintend religious instrue-
tion throughout the kingdom, was called Micaiah
(ΠΣ, Μιχαίας, AV Michaiah),

3. Micaiah (2, Μ(ε)ιχαίας) the son of Imlah was
a prophet of J” in Israel in the days of Ahab.
His name is once (9 Ch 1810 spelt azo (RVin
Micah). In Scripture history he appears only on
the great occasion described in the almost identical
narratives of 1 K 22475) 2 Ch 18°27, It is evident,
however, from 1 K 228) that this was not the be-

ginning of his prophetic activity, and that his

What a powerful |

former messages had not been favourable to the
king. = Josephus (Amt. VII. xiv. 5) identifies
Micaiah with the prophet who diseuixed himself
after the victory over the Syrians at Aphek, and
reproved Ahab for allowing the king of Syria
to escape (1 Καὶ 20-48); and adds that Ahab, in
his displeasure at this, put Micaiah in prison.
These statements at least harmonize with the
Scripture account, and the identification is not in
itself unlikely.

In LXX 1 K 22 follows 20, and both chapters are derived from
ἃ special source (see KinGs 1. and 11., vol. ii. pp. 867, S68) in which
Elijah is not mentioned, but which has several references to un-
named prophets. In so far as any prophet is mentioned by
name, Micaiah may be said in this section to take Elijah’s place
(Kittel, Hist. Heb., Eng. tr. ii. 275).

On the occasion recorded in Scripture, Jehosha-
phat, king of Judah, was on a visit to Samaria,
when Ahab asked his co-operation in recovering
Ramoth-gilead, which the Syrians had formerly
captured, and which they were new retaining,
contrary to the conditions of the latest peace
(1 Ik 2055 228), Jehoshaphat declared his wiliine-
ness to join in the expedition, but sugeested that
at the outset they should ‘inquire at the word of
J’. The prophets of Israel, to the number of 400,

MICATAH

MICAIATL 361

were accordingly assembled where the two kings
suit in royal state at the gate of Samaria. They
prophesied unanimously that the undertaking
would be successful, and one of them, Zedekiah
the son of Chenaanah, emphasized the prophecy
by producing horns of iron as symbols of the
conquering might of Ahab and Jehoshaphat.
These Tsraciite prophets posed as prophets of J”%
and spoke in His name (2 Ch 185 has ‘God’ instead
of SJ); but Jehoshaphat was doubtful of their
true character, and asked anxiously if there was
not besides a prophet of J” whom they might con-
sult (ef. 9 Καὶ 3"). Ahab then mentioned Micaiah
for the first time, but added that he hated him, as
le was always a prophet of evil—a remark which
Jehoshaphat courteously deprecated. A eunuch
was sent to fetch Micaiah (whe, according to
Josephus, was already in prison), and this officer
told him of the favourable reply which the 400
prophets had given to the inquiry of the kings,
counselling him in a friendly way to answer in
the same strain. Micaiah, however, replied
boldly that he would speak only what J” should
say to him. When he appeared before the kings,
and when Ahab asked his counsel, he at. first
echoed ironically tie advice of the 400. But
Ahab detected the irony; and Micaiah, when
pressed for his true opinion, answered in words
of solemm imagery, which boded nothing but
disaster. Tle had scen all Israel scattered upon
the mountains as sheep that had no shepherd :
and J” had said, ‘These have no master, let them
return every man to his house in peace.’ Besides
replying thus to Ahab’s immediate question, he
went on to pronounce a verdict on the whole
situation and on the prophets who were opposed
to him. This he did in an account of a remark-
able vision. J” sat on a throne, attended by all
the hest of heaven. He asked who would entice
Ahab that he might go and fall at} Ramoth-
gilead, A spirit volunteered to do so by being
a ‘lying spirit’? (PY ox) in the mouth of Ahab’s
prophets. J” accepted the offer, and sent the spirit
forth with a promise of success. Micaiah’s con-
cluding message to Ahab, therefore, was that his
prophets were false prophets, and that J” had
spoken evil concerning him. Zedekiah the son
of Chenaanah replied to Micaiah by an insulting
blow and a mocking question. The account of
Jos. (Ant. Vill. xv. 4) adds that Zedekiah sought
to refute Micaiah’s prophecy by appealing to the
prediction of Elijah (1 Καὶ 9115), who had foretold
that the dogs should lick Ahab’s blood in Jezreel ;
and that Zedekiah also challenged Micaiah to
wither the hand that smote him, as had been
done in the case of Jeroboam (1 Καὶ 13). Micaiah
warned Zedekiah of the future perils that awaited
lim, and, when he was carried off by Ahab’s orders
to suffer rigorous imprisonment, le contented him-
self by appealing confidently to the issue of events
for proot that his prophecy had been true. At
this point his history, which may have been
continued in the source (Ewald, ΟΣ» Eng. tr.
iv. 76), breaks off abruptly, and is not resumed.
The exordiam, ‘Hear, ye peoples, all of you,’ is
apparently an interpolation, taken from Mie 1",
and due to a confusion of Micaiah the son of
lanlah with the canonical Micah.

Much interest attaches to Micaiah’s vision. It is not to be
taken, of course, as a literal description of an objective scene,
but a question may be raised as to how far it shows us the
form in which the truths proclaimed by the prophet were first
presented to his own mind, and how far he consciously cast
these truths into this dramatic shape in order to convey them
to others. In regard to such visions it seems best. while
allowing for a possible element of literary embellishinent, to
hold with Davidson (Hzckiel xxix.), that they are ‘not mere
literary invention,’ but that the spontaneous working of a
prophet’s inspired imagination threw truths ‘into a physical
form, making them stand out before the eye of his phantasy

as if presented to him from without.’ The vision, with its
picture of a scene in heaven, is strikingly similar to the Prologue
of Job (1612 21-6). Another parallel may be found in Zec 3,
and the idea of a heavenly assembly is present also in Ps 890. 7,
The account of Micaiah’s vision embodies theological concep-
tions which are strange and even perplexing to the Christian
mind. In opposing the 400 prophets Micaiah did not question
their claim to have J’’s inspiration, but simply asserted that
this was in their case an inspiration of falsehood. The explana-
tion of this (to us) apparently self-contradictory conception is
to be found in the strength of the OT idea that J” is supreme,
and that nothing happens independently of Him. The pro-
blems raised by the varied moral quality of events in relation
to the holiness of J” were as yet in the background. A ‘spirit
from J”,’ such as the ‘lying spirit’ of Micaiah’s vision, signified
simply a real Divine influence directing actual events. In
this OT view, to use the words of Schultz, ‘the Spirit of God
is in itself only a wonderful power by which the life of man
is regulated . . . but in itself there is no direct moral element’
(Theology of OT, Eng. tr., ii, 205-208. See also Dillmann, A/t.-
Lest. Theol, 304-5; Stanley, Jewish Church, ii. 270). Schultz
goes so far as to say (i. 257) that Micaiah ‘had at first, in
accordance with the Divine will, to say what was untrue,
because he was aware that God intended to beguile the king.’
This, however, seems an exaggeration. If Micaiah’s first reply
had been anything but ironical, it would have been inconsistent
with his position as a true prophet of J”, as well as with his
declaration to the eunuch. In connexion with Micaiah’s
standing as a true prophet, Zedekiah’s mocking remark deserves
to be noticed. Whether we take it as in EV following MT, or
in the sense of the LXX reading (τοῖον veiw κυρίου τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν
σοί ;), the implication of the question is the same. Zedekiah did
not deny the charge of false ins iration, but insinuated that
Micaiah’s own inspiration was of the same kind. Had Micaiah
been under any compulsion even temporarily to speak what was
untrue, there would have been a measure of truth in Zedekiah’s
taunt. We can only reconcile Micaiah’s conception of the
‘lying spirit from J”? with the reality of his own inspiration,
by regarding him as a messenger sent to declare the unqualified
truth upon the situation, Stripped of all figurative dress, the
facts which Micaiah proclaimed were these: that Ahab’s
prophets were false prophets, that in spite of warning Ahab
would believe them, and would go to Ramoth-gilead to meet
his doom.

The whole history of Micaiah presents impres-
sively the contrast between true and false pro-
phecy which became so marked afterwards in
Jeremiah’s time. We see in it already some of
the features by which, apart from the decisive
test of the event, the false could be distinguished
from the true. The false prophets relied on the
consent of numbers; their message fell in with
the royal wishes ; and, whatever truth there may
be in Josephus’ account of Zedekial’s argument
from Elijah, it at least illustrates the method of
mechanical and mistaken inference from predic-
tions already accredited which Jeremiah denounced
in the false prophets who were his contemporaries
(Jer 74 23°), Micaiah, on the other hand, was
independent, conscious of Js inspiration, reso-
lute to speak only what J” said to him, indifferent
to the anger which his message mieht excite, and
to the personal hardships and dangers he might
incur by delivering it. He stands out in this
single scene which has been recorded of his life
as a solitary and heroic figure, in whom are
embodied many of the noblest characteristics of
the true prophet, the instrument of God’s genuine
revelation to men,

4. Micaiah (72% [Δ οὐ ., Μ(ελιχαίας or Muyéas;
AV, RVin Micah) the Morashtite in Jer 9618 is
the same as the canonical prophet MICAH (wh. see).

5. Micaiah (amp, M(e)cxaias or Mixéas, AV Mich-
aiah) the son of Gemariah (Jer 8011: 18) was one of
the nobles of Judah in the days of Jeremiah. In
the fifth year of Jehoiakim he heard Baruch reading
the roll of Jeremiah’s prophecies in the ears of
the peopie from the chamber of his father Gema-
riah in the Temple. He then told what he had
heard to the other nobles who were gathered in
the ‘seribes chamber’ in the royal palace, and it
was his report which led to the subsequent reading
of the roll first to the nobles and then to the
king.

6. In 2 Κα 22 mention is made of Achbor the
son of Micaiah (33% M(e)cxaias, AV Michaiah, A Vm
Micah) among the messenvers whom Josiah sent

362 MICE

MICHAEL

to consult Huldah after the discovery of the book
of the Law (see AcHBOoR). This Micaiah may
very possibly have been the same as the son of
Gemariah referred to in 5 above. In 2 Ch 345
‘Achbor the son of Micaiah’ appears as ‘ Abdon
the son of Micah.’

7. Micaiah (2, Μ(ε)ιχαιά, AV Michaiak) the son
of Zaceur is named (Neh 12%) in the Asaphite
genealogy of Zechariah the son of Jonathan, one
of the priests of Nehemiah’s time, who took part
in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem. In
the parallel genealogy of 1Ch 9% this Micaiah
is ἀπ ἢ ‘Mica (AV Micah) the son of Zichri,’ and
in those of Neh 117 he appears as ‘ Mica (AV
Micha) the son of Zabdi.? All the lists mention
that he had a son called Mattaniah.

8. There was a Micaiah (m9 AV Michaiah)
among Nehemiah’s priests themselves (Neh 12#').
He took part in the dedication of the wall, and
is not to be confounded with the ancestor of
Zechariah (7 above) mentioned in the same

chapter. Neh 124! is omitted in the chief MSS
of LXX. Those that have it give this name as
Μιχαίας. JAMES PATRICK.

MICE.—See MOUSE.
MICHAEL (ox>> ‘who is like (τοῦ τ᾿: on the

name see Gray, “Ὁ. Prop. Nanies, 157, 165, 181,
210, 221; LXX Μειχαήλ, Μιχαήλ).---Ἴ. Father of
the Asherite spy, Na 131, 2. 3. Two GCadites,
1Ch 5%. ἃ, The eponym of a Levitieal guild
of singers, 1 Ch 6 [Heb.”]. 5. Name of a family
in Issachar, 1 Ch 7° 2718 (B Mewand, A Μιχαήλ).
6. Eponym of a family of Benjamites, 1 ( 816,
1. A Manassite chief who joined David at Ziklag,
1Ch 12”. 8. A son of king Jehoshaphat, 2 Ch 21?
(B Μεισαήλ, A Μισαήλ). 9. The father of Zebadiah,
an exile who returned, Ezr 88, 1 Es 8% (in the
latter Μ(ε)ιχάηλος). 10. The archangel. See next
article.

MICHAEL (Sx>9 = ‘who is like unto God 2’; in the
LXX and NT Μ(ε)ιχαήλ) holds a very lofty réle in
Judaism from B.c. 200 onwards. He is one of the
seven archangels who execute the commands of
God at the final judgement (Eth. Enoch 90°°*!), or
present the prayers of the saints before God (To
12), or who stand in the immediate presence (Rev
11 4° 85). Michael appears as fourth in the oldest
list of the seven: Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael,
Suriel, Gabriel, and Remiel (Eth. En. 90). In this
list the order is no key to the relative dignity of
the angels mentioned; for according to other
authorities Michael stands at the head of the four
great archangels, who apparently form a class
apart, though three of them are members of the
sacred seven. These four angels are Michael,
Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel (Eth. En. 40°71), or
Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel (Eth. En. 91
Gizeh and Syncellus Greek).

We must now consider the various functions
assigned to Michael in Judaism and the NT.
Thus he appears variously as Israel’s angelic
oie and warrior, their mediator and likewise
aweiver. With these and other functions of
Michael we shall now deal.

i. Michael is first mentioned as the angelic patron
of Israel. Thus he is called ‘your prince,’ ὁ.6. the
prince of Israel, Dn 1074. In 10! he is described as
‘one of the chief princes.’ All nations have their
angelic patrons or guardians (see art. ANGEL, vol. i.
p. 96), and the destinies of the former are determined
by the relations of the latter in heaven. As the
end draws nigh the strife grows fiercer, and Michael,
Israel’s angelic guardian, becomes the great hero of
the last days. ‘And at that time shall Michael
stand up, the great prince which protecteth the

children of thy people,’ Dn 191, According to Eth.
En. 20° he ‘is set over the best part of mankind, over
the people,’ ὁ.6. Israel. As Israel’s champion, he is
appointed to avenge Israel on their enemies at the
close of the world (Assumption of Moses 10°). It is
not improbable also that he is referred to in Dn 8!!
[LXX and Theod.] under the phrase ‘ prince of the
host’ (ἀρχιστράτηγος). The same idea reappears in
the Slav. Enoch 22°, where he is termed ‘ the chief
‘aptain,’ and in 33'° ‘the great captain.’

11. Another hardly less ancient conception ts that
which regards Michael as the heavenly scribe who
entered in the heavenly books the deeds of the
angelic patrons of the nations. That the angel who
discharges this function is Michael in Eth. En. 90
we infer from two facts: first, this angel is one of
the seven archangels (90?*) ; and, secondly, he is the
archangel who helps Israel (901). No further
record of this function is found till the Ist cent.
A.D. According to the Ascension of Isaiah 955 959
(Latin), Michael records the deeds of all men in
the heavenly books.

iii. Michael seems also to have been regarded as
the medium through whom the Law was given.
This is clearly stated in the late Apocalypse of
Moses I: Acjynows . . . ἀποκαλυφθεῖσα. .. Μωυσῇ

. ὅτε Tas πλάκας τοῦ νύμου τῆς διαθήκης ἐκ χειρὸς
Ιζυρίου ἐδέξατο, διδαχθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου Μιχαήλ.
Most probably, therefore, the angel of the presence,
who in Jubilees 157 2! instructs Moses on Mount
Sinai, and delivers to him the tables of the Law, is
to be taken as Michael, and the same identification
should no doubt be made in the case of the angel
In Ae 7

iv. A very notable extension of the attributes
and offices of Michael is attested in the Simili-
tudes and the Testaments of the XIL Patriarchs.
Thus he is described as ‘the merciful and the long-
suffering,’ Eth. Enoch 40° (cf. 68% %), and as ‘the
angel who intereedeth for the race of Israel and
of all the just’? (τὸν ἄγγελον τὸν παραιτούμενον
k.7..), Levi 5, and ‘the mediator of God and
man for the peace of Israel’ (μεσίτης θεοῦ Kai
ἀνθρώπων k.7.d.), Dan 6. The same view of Michael
appears in the Ascension of Isaiah 9° (Latin)
‘Maenus angelus Michael deprecans semper pro
humanitate.’

In the NT’ Michael is mentioned twice by name,
Jude® Rey 12%. In both these passages the con-
ception of Michael belongs to division 1. above.
Thus what is more fitting than that the angelic
patron of Israel should protect the body of Israel's
creat lawgiver against Satan? Jude*, as we are
aware, is derived from the Assumption of Moses
(see Charles’ Assumption of Moses, pp. 105-110).
We find elsewhere the burial of Moses attributed
to the agency of angels, particularly of Michael,
in the Targum of Jonathan on Dt 34°.

In the second NT’ passage (Rev 127°) Michael
and his hosts go forth to war against the dragon,
‘the old serpent’ that is called the Devil and
Satan. Here the figure of Michael thrusts aside
that of the Messiah ; for it is Michael and not the
Child that overthrows Satan when storming the
heavens —a fact which speaks strongly for the
Jewish origin of most of Rev 12.

Under division iii. above we have already
noticed a possible reference to Michael in Ac ΤῸΝ

With the Talmudic conceptions of Michael we
have not here to deal. For these the following
books may be consulted: Lneken’s monograph,
Michael, 1898; Weber, Jiudische Theologie*, 167-
172, 205, 253; Schoettgen, Hor. Hed. i. 1079, 1119,
ii. 8, 15 (ed. Dresden, 1742); Hamburger, Heal.
Encyclopedie fiir Bibel und Talmud, 1892, pp. 753,

* In Eth. En. 6913-17 (a fragment of the Book of Noah) Michael
is said to be the guardian of the mysterious magical formula
wherewith the heavens and earth were founded.

MICHAL

MICHMASH 363

754. On later Christian conceptions see Bousset,
The Antichrist Legend, 227-231.
R. H. CHARLES,
MICHAL (035 contracted from Sx2°> ‘who is like
unto God %’).—The younger of Saul’s two daughters
(1S 14%, Μελχόλ). Saul, who was wavering between

desire to destroy David and reluctance to promote |

him to be the king’s son-in-law, suddenly gave.
Merab his eldest dauehter to Adriel (1 Κ 1819). It)

now transpired that Michal had fallen in love with
David. For a woman to take the initiative in
such matters is without a parallel in the Bible, but
it suited Saul’s designs, and David, on his part,
Jost no time in providing double (not LXX) the
dowry demanded. It should be noted that the
LXX (B), followed by Josephus (Ant. VI. x. 2),
simplifies the story by omitting the incident about
Merab (1S 18%! 6): and Josephus here, and
again in Ané. VIL. 1.4, misses the point of Saul’s
savage mockery of ‘the uncircumcised Philistines’
by representing the conditions imposed on David
as six hundred heads of Philistines. David was
soon to owe his life to the wife whom Saul had
designed to ‘be a snare to him.’ When the
emissaries of Saul ‘watched the house to kill him’
(1S 1947, Ps 59 title), Michal batiled them by
letting David down by the window, and delayed
pursuit by a clever ruse. Placing the household
god in the bed, she covered the supposed sick
man’s head with a mosquito net (Vm), and tinally
disarmed Saul’s jealous anger by a plausible lie,
In this passage the rare word in ν. 8 ‘pillow’ +22
(on which see Driver's note) was read 723 (constr.
of 722) ‘liver’ by the LXX. Josephus (dné.
VI. xi. 4) seems not to have understood the LXX
translation of ‘teraphim,’ τὰ κενοτάφια, for he says
that Michal placed in the bed a goat’s liver, which,
as it palpitated and shook the bedelothes, might
suggest that David was gasping for breath.

The last scene in which Michal figures (2 S 616-23)
presents a startling contrast to the time when, for
ae of David, she had flune aside conventionalities
and braved her father’s fury. That love was now
all changed into coldness and dislike. When from
a window in the palace on Mt. Zion Michal looked
down on David leaping and dancing before the ark,
it was not merely her woman’s impatience of the
absurd that made her ‘despise him in her heart,’ or
that prompted the sarcasm in which that contempt
found utterance later on. To appreciate her daring
mockery, and the cold anger of David's rejoinder,
we must read them in the light of the years that
had passed. {vis probabie that Michal had been
happy with Palti, or Paltiel, to whom she had been
married on David’s banishment (1S 25%). From
that home she had been torn (2.8 3) merely that
David might be enabled to claim a sort of heredi-

tary right to the throne, and have by him a living |

memorial of his early prowess. Now she was but
one of many wives, equalled with mere ‘hand-
maids,’ probably neglected. What wonder if the
bitter reflexion that she had indirectly facilitated

the humiliation of her own family was coupled |

With a suspicion that David had from the first
regarded her merely as a means of self-agerandise-
ment? It isdiflicult not to feel some sympathy with
Michal; though the historian characteristically
sees In her childlessness a punishment for that. ill-
omened outburst of spleen on the most glorious
day of David’s life. The Chronicler omits, as
usual, the painful incident, except 9 Καὶ 016,

It remains to add that in 9 5. 218 ‘Michal’ is an

ancient but obvious mistake for ‘ Merab’ (which is

read by Luc. and Pesh.). Josephus (Ané. VL. iv. 3)
says that Michal returned to her former husband
(Palti), whom he docs not name, and bore five
ehildren.

The AV explanation ‘brought up’ for |

‘bare’ is that of the Targum and Jerome (Qu. |

Heh.) ; and the Targ. on Ru 3° mentions ‘the pious
Paltiel, who placed a sword between himself and
Michal . . . because he had refused to vo in unto
her. Similarly Jerome (Qu. Heb. on 1S 25%)
explains that Paltiel wept for joy because the Lord
had kept him from knowing her. He also (Qu.
Heb, on 28 3° 6”) mentions a Jewish tradition
that Michal is the same as Eglah, who is emphati-
cally styled ‘ David's wife’ because she was lis first
wie, and that she died when giving birth to a

child, N. J.D: WHITE.
MICHEAS (Jicheas), 2 Es 1°%.— The prophet
Micah.

MICHMAS (5>2>).—The form in Ezr 957 (B Maywuds,
A Xaupds)= Neh 77 (A B Mayeuds) of the name
which appears elsewhere (1S 13% 1. 16. 23 145. 81, Το
1058, Neh 11%) as Michmash (22>), See next
article,

MICHMASH (#222; in Ezr 2”), Neh 7 poss;
ΤᾺΝ Max(e)uds; Josephus Mayud; Vule. Machmas).
—A town in the tribe of Benjamin east of Bethel
and Beth-aven (1S 135, ef. Jos 72). In OT it is
valled nine times Michmash (1S 13° 145%, Ts 102%,
Neh 11') and twice Michmas (Ezr 227, Neh 7531).
In 1 Mae 9% AV has Machmas, RV Michmash.
Michmash is mentioned only in connexion with
the war of Saul and Jonathan with the Philistines,
the (ideal) invasion of Judah by the Assyrians
described by Isaiah, and as the seat of government
of Jonathan Maceabieus.

It still bears the name J/nukhmds, and stands in
the mountains of Judah about 7 miles north of
Jerusalem on the eastern slopes at an altitude of
2000 ft. above the Mediterranean Sea, about 900
ft. below Bethel, which is situated on the back-
bone of the country. Though located in the midst
of the tribe of Benjamin, it is not mentioned in the
list of the towns of that tribe.

Michmash is first mentioned as the headquarters
of Saul, who, on being made king over Israel,
came up from Gilgal, and with two thousand men
occupied the mountains of Bethel, while Jonathan
with a thousand men occupied Gibeah of Benja-
min, a stronghold about 4 to 5 miles north of
Jerusalem ; between them lay a strong mountain
fortress, Geba, occupied as an outpost by the
Philistines. Jonathan, with his characteristic
intrepidity and impulsiveness, smote the Philistine
garrison (ἢ 5.2) at Geba. On hearing of this, the
Philistines of the Shephélah got ready for battle,
and, coming up with great multitudes of chariots
and horsemen and swarms of footmen, drove the
badly armed Hebrews out of the hill-country about
Bethel, and pitched their camp at Michmash, east
of Beth-aven, opposite to Geba, which was occupied
by Jonathan.

The Hebrews were greatly perturbed at this
invasion of their lands, and some fled beyond
Jordan, while others hid in caves and cisterns,
and inany assembled at Gilgal with Saul in fear
and trembling. Saul, fearing that the Philistines
would pursue him even to Gilgal, disobeyed the
directions given to him by Samuel, and, after a
very unsatisfactory interview with the prophet,
abode with Jonathan at Geba (1316 RV, not Gibeah
as AV ; but see vol. ii, 116%, 169°) of Benjamin with
only six hundred badly armed men.

The Philistines sent out three companies east,
west, and north to spoil the lands of the Hebrews,
much to the distress of Saul and Jonathan, who
were not strong enough to prevent it. Jonathan
now secretly devised a scheme (14!) for dividing
the Philistines against themselves and securing
their arms for the defenceless Hebrews, and with
this intent he left the camp at Gibeah (ν.3) during

364 MICHMASH

MICHRI

the night, unknown to Saul and the garrison, and
in company with only his armour-hearer set out on
a very perilous and heroic enterprise.

They descended the rocky crag called Senneh,
protecting Geba to the north, and, arriving at the
bottom of a deep valley, found the precipitous cliff
of Bozez terminating Michmash, facing them to
the north. Here Jonathan, having ascertained
that the young man with him would be faithful to
death, disclosed his plans, an expanded account of
which is given by Josephus (4 πέ. VI. vi. 9). The
camp of the Philistines was on the spur of a hill,
with three plateaus shelving down, one below the
other, with precipitous sides and terminating in
the rocky crag of Bozez; and at this point the out-
posts of the enemy were neglectful of their watch,
because they thought it impossible that any one
would ascend this crag. Jonathan therefore dis-
covered himself just aiter daybreak to some other
Philistine outposts, who called out to the Hebrews
to come up and receive the chastisement due to
them. This invitation Jonathan considered to be
a favourable omen, and retiring cut of their sight,
with the aid of his comrade, by ereat labour and
ditheulty, scaled the heights of Bozez and fell upon
its outpost (while they slept %), slaying about twenty
of them. The Philistines, waking up in the dim
light of dawn, could not imagine that there were
only two Hebrews at work; but supposing they
were surprised by a strong force, and being of
different tribes, and suspecting each other to be the |
eneiny, fought against one another, as so often
happened on other occasions, and some of them
died in battle, while others threw away their
armour and fled, many of them being thrown down
the recks headlong. When the watchmen οἱ
Geba saw that the multitude of the Philistines
melted away from Michmash they reported it to
Saul, who went out to battle with his six hundred.
The Hebrews that were in hiding in the rocks eame
out, and those who were with the PuiUstines also
turned from them, so that Saul found himself
suddenly in command of a large force (Josephus
says ten thousand men), all fully equipped with
the arms of the slauehtered or fleeing Philistines ;
and they smote the Philistines that day from
Michmash to Aijalon.

Benjamin was now in peaceful possession of
Michmash, and there is no further record of. it
until the time of the Assyrians’ threatened march
on Jerusalem in the reign of king Hezekiah,
spoken of by Isaiah (10%). Sennacherib is de-
picted as coming alone the northern road from
Samaria against Jerusalem, along the backbone
of the mountain chain; but instead of passing
south from Bethel to Beeroth he turns aside
to the eastern slopes towards Ai, and passing
Migron (the precipice) lays up his bageage (AV
carriages) at Michmash, becanse they could go no
farther in a southerly direction. See, further,
Micron. The Philistines, when they brought
their chariots to Michmash, came from the west.
The host of Sennacherib then go on foot to Geba,
where they make a lodgement. They arrive here
over the passage or pass of Michmash, mentioned
as the place where the Philistine garrison was
encamped before Geba when Jonathan scaled the
crag bozez (1S 13% 14). The town Makaz (1 Καὶ
4°) is given by the LXX as May(e)uds. See MAKAZ.

Ezra relates (277, Neh 7*!) that one hundred and
twenty-two men of Michmas came with Zerub-
babel out of the Captivity unto Jerusalem and
Judah.

When Bacchides returned to Antioch with his
army from Judiwea, after having been so rudely
repulsed by Jonathan Maccabieus, Michmash was
made the seat of government, and Jonathan dwelt
there, 1 Mac 918,

Eusebius and Jerome describe Machmas as a
large village 9 miles distant from Jerusalem and
not far from Ramah (Onomast. 5. ‘Machmas’).
In the Middle Ages the site of Michmash was
removed to el-Bireh (Beeroth). Cf. Brocardus,
ὃ, 7; Quaresimius, i. p. 786; Maundrell.

The Mishna describes Michmash as famous for
its barley, giving rise to the Talmudic proverb ‘to
bring barley to Michmash’ (Reland, Pa/. 897).

The great valley west of Ai, which runs to
Jericho as the Wady Welt, becomes a narrow gorge,
a great crack or fissure in the country. On the
south side of this great chasm stands Jeba (Geba
of Benjamin) on a rocky knoll, with caverns be-
neath the town and arable land to the east.
Looking across the valley, the stony hills and
white chalky slopes present a desolate appear-
ance ; and on the opposite side, considerably lower
than Jeba, is the little village of J/u/Améds (Mich-
mash), on a sort of saddle backed by an open
and fertile corn valley (Conder, Vent- Work in
Palestine, ii. 115). With regard to the description
of Michmash by Josephus, Conder states, ‘ Exactly
such a natural fortress exists immediately east of
the village of Michinash, and it is still called the
fort by the peasantry. It is a ridge rising in thin
rounded knolls above a perpendicular crag, ending
in a narrow tongue to the east with clitts below,
and having an open valley behind it, and a saddle
towards the west on which Michmash itself is
situated. Opposite this fortress to the south there
is a crag of equal height, and seemingly impass-
able: thus the description of the Old ‘Testament
is fully borne out’? (1S 14), ‘The picture is
unchanged since the days when Jonathan looked
over the white camping-cround οἵ the Philistines,
and Bozez must then have shone as brightly as
it does now, in the full ight of an Eastern sun.
To any one looking over the valley it seems a
most difficult feat to cross it, and, in the words
of Josephus, “it was considered impossible not
only to ascend to the camp on that quarter, but
even to come near it”? (fent-Work in Pal. ii.
113). Mukhmas is a small stone village. The
water supply is from cisterns, with a well to each.
On the north are rock-cut tombs. ‘There are
foundations and remains of former buildings in
the village, and the masonry of what appears to
have been a church (SIV VP vol. 111.).

LITERATURE.—Josephus, Ant. Vi. vi. 2; Robinson, BRP2, i.
440 1%. ; Tristram, Land of Israel (Index); Conder, Tent-Work
in Palestine Index); Buhl, Gl? 1763 Guerin, Jidée, iii. 63 Ε,;
σι A. Smith, ΟΝ 178 n. 1, 250, 291. C. WARREN.

MICHMETHAH (sn2=20 with art.).—The name
of a place on the north border of Ephraim, to the
east of Shechem, Jos 16° (B Ἵκασμώ», A Διαχθώθ,
Lue. εἰς ᾿Αχθώθ) 177 (where ‘2a exp of MT is
represented in B by Δηλανάθ, A and Lue. ἀπὸ ᾿Ασὴρ
Max@w0). From the circumstance that the art. 15
prefixed, Siegtried-Stade suggest that ἘΠ may not
be a proper name, but an appellative. If so, its
meaning must remain obscure, as the meaning of
the root [Π|23] is quite unknown, The name may
perhaps exist in a corrupt form as JMJuhkhnah,
applying to the plain east of Shechem. ‘The
change may be compared with that which has
certainly taken place in the case of Michmash
(mod, Aukhmds), and the change of Ἢ, for im
is not infrequent in Aramaic as compared with
Hebrew. But JMukhnah may also stand for
mahaneh ‘camp, a term applied in two cases
(Mahanaim and Mahaneh-dan) to plains. Buhl
(GAP 202) conjectures that Michmethah may be
Khirbet kefr beita, between Sichem and Tana.

C. R. ConDER.

MICHRI (722).—Eponym of a Benjamite family.
1Ch 98 (B Μαχείρ, A Moxopé, Luc. Maxerpi).

MICHTAM

MIDIAN, MIDIANITES 365

MICHTAM.—Scee PSALMS.

MIDDIN (τὸ; B apparently Αἰνών, A Madar,
Luc. Maddeiv),—A town in the wilderness (2). εἰ 4}
of Judah, Jos 15%. The site has not been re-
covered. [f we might suppose p72 to be an early
clerical error for 379, the site of JMWird on the
plateau S.W. of Jericho would be a likely one.
This was at one time occupied by a monastery.
See SIVP vol. 111. sheet xvill. C, R. CONDER.

MIDDLEMOST, MIDLAND.—The Heb. word 73}
tikhon, usually translated ‘middle,’ is rendered
‘middlemost’ in Ezk 42° The tr. comes from
Cov., and RV retains it. Cf. Jer. Taylor, Works,
ii. 65, ‘Truth hath a mysterious name, .. . it
consists of three letters [νον nos], the first and the
last and the middlemost of the Hebrew letters.’

Midland is still in use as an adj., and as a subst.
in the pl. ‘the Midlands.’ As a sing. subst. it
occurs in 2 Mac 8535. ‘he came like a fugitive servant
through the midland (1611 ‘mid land’) unto
Antioch? (διὰ τῆς μεσογείου). RV retains the word,
but mod. Ene. is ‘ interior.’

The form middest for ‘midst’ often occurs in
the early editions of AV. Mod. editions spell
‘“midst.2 Cf. Fuller, Holy State, 260, ‘Two eyes
see more then one, though it be never so big, and
set (as in Polyphemus) in the middest of the tore-
head.’ Other forms are, besides ‘midst’ itselt,
“midest’ (Jth 6); tmiddes’ (Ps 1164; Ac 27-7,
Phe) cand? mids: (erodes Cree eos se oo),

J. HASTINGS.

MIDIAN, MIDIANITES (;72).—A son of Abraham
by Keturah (Gn 25'+, 1 Ch 1°? 8), and the name of
the nation of which he is reckoned the progenitor.
The plural 37> occurs Gn 37°8, Nu 25!" 31? only.
In Gn 37% ot is probably a variant of O32, and
refers to the same people as in v.*% The LXX
have the same rendering in both verses. Ὁ
occurs Nu 10°, but elsewhere the nation or the
country is called j:t2, LDXX Μαδιάμ (but B has
Maddy in-Nu), Vulg. Median, and in “th 2°,
Ac 7%, AV has Madian. Other renderings of
LXX are Μαδιηναῖοι Gan 37°88) Nu 25! Μαδιαν-
etra, Nu 10% 815, Both AV and RV have Midian
or Midianites in OT.

In connexion with the genealogies of Gn
three points may be noted.

(7) The name Keturah. The meaning of the
word is either incense or the perfumed one (ef.
Ca 3° perfumed with myrrh or frankincense), and
may imply that the tribes descended trom her
were occupied in the production of incense and
spices, or were traders in these articles. It will
be remembered that the merchantmen (described
as Midianites in Gn 37) who carried Joseph into
Eeypt are represented as bearing ‘spicery and
balm and myrrh’ (ν.325), and that the dromedaries
of Midian and Ephah are mentioned as bringing
gold and incense (Is 60°).

(4) The relationship between Midian and the
Israelites. The genealogy, by tracing the descent
of both nations from Abraham, acknowledges
kinship, but assigns separate territory to each
(Gn 255). But among the descendants of Midian
are Ephah, Epher, and Hanoch. Ephah 15
mentioned twice in genealogies connected with

-οὸ
1“

25;

Judah 1 Ch 2-47, Epher in connexion with
Judah 1Ch #7, and with the half-tribe of
Manasseh on ΕΣ of Jordan 1 Ch 5%. Hanoch is

the name of Reuben’s eldest son. This similarity
of names (note that they belong to frontier tribes)
may point to further alliances between the Midian-
ites and Israel. The marriage of Moses with a
Midianite woman is recorded without disap-

proval, and it may be but one of many similar.

unions of which no record has been preserved.

(6) The distinction between the Midianites and
the descendants of Ishmael. This distinetion,
clearly indicated in the genealogy of Gn 25 (cf.
v.° with v.*), is not so marked elsewhere, for in Gn
37 the merchantmen who carried Joseph into Egypt
are described both as Ishmaelites and Midian-
ites, (cf; Vv. with v.2 and ‘v.*), ‘and: in Jo 8 the
same interchange of names occurs.

The Midianites appear in Gn as traders moving
about in companies with camels. In the earlier
chapters of Ex they are described as a pastoral
people tending their flocks. Moses flees from the
face of Pharaoh to Midian, is hospitably received
by Jethro the priest, and marries his daughter
Zipporah. While Israel is at Sinai, Jethro visits
his son-in-law, and at their departure from Sinai
Moses bees him to accompany them, but he declines.
The descendants of Jethro continued their friendly
relations with the children of Israel, for in the
time of the Judges they are found dwelling in the
land (Je 18 411-17) and Saul shows favour to them
because of the services which they rendered to the
Israelites in the wilderness (1S 15°). In these
passages they are called Kenites. Towards the
end of the journeyings, when Israel is on the E.
side of the Jordan, Midianites are acting in concert
with Moab in procuring the services of Balaam ;
they tempt Israel to idolatry and lewdness, and
are defeated with great slaughter [Nu 22, 25°18 31,
with ref. in Jos 137}: 22],

The character of the Midianites as here por-
trayed is very different from that presented in the
earlier chapters of Exodus. Instead of a friendly
people, with Jethro their priest acknowledging
and praising the God ef Abraham (Ex 185-15),
the children of [srael are now confronted with a
nation of idolaters, on whom they are bidden to
take vengeance. ‘These varied aspects under
which Midian is presented to us may be accounted
for by supposing that the name of Midian was
applied to a number of clans spreading over a
large area, some of whom settled down peacefully,
tending their flocks, while others were of a roving
and warlike character.

Due regard must also be had to the fact that
the accounts of the Midianites are derived from
different sources. The chapters which refer to
Jethro are assigned to JE, and Nu 25°38 and 31
to P. Nu 31 states that the action of the
Midianites described in 25°! was prompted by the
counsel of Balaam. In the account of Balaaim
(Nu 22-24) the elders of Midian are mentioned
twice at the commencement (Νὰ 227), but
throughout the rest of the section Balak and the
princes of Moab are represented as treating with
Balaam, and there is no further reference to
Midian. Some commentators are of opinion that
this cursory mention of Midian implies the ex-
istence of a document which gave further details
about the conduct of Midian on this oecasion,
some of which are preserved in Nu 25 and 31 (ct.
Jos. Ané. IV. vi. 6-13). Another view is that
Midian is inserted in Nu 22 on harmonistie grounds.

The account of Gideon is also a composite one,
and it is generally allowed that Je 6'-8° and Je
Stl are from different sources, though the con-
trast between the two sections has been exaggerated
(see Moore, Jaudges, in loc., and art. GIDEON). As
the Midianites disappear from history after their
acfeat by Gideon, it is possible that later writers
may have employed the name of Midian in a less
exact manner, as a general designation of ancient
foes of Israel. The peculiar character of Nu 31
will not escape the notice of the thouehtful reader.
The ideal picture of a holy war there portrayed
may remind him of that symbolical treatment of
Midian as the spiritual enemy which is to be found
‘both in Jewish and Christian writers,

366 MIDIAN, MIDIANITES

MIDWIFE

Yet another characteristic of Midian, which
distinguishes nomad tribes even to the present
day, appears prominently in the Book of Judges :
they made raids upon their neighbours at harvest
time and stripped the land bare, coming as grass-
hoppers for multitude with their tents and camels
as far as Gaza. The story of their defeat by
(rideon is told in Jeg 6-8. He not only drives
them out of Western Palestine, but pursues them
on the east side of the Jordan, captures their
two chiefs Zebah and Zalmunna, and takes ven-
veance on them for their slaughter of his brethren
by putting them to death (Je 8!2!) (see GIDEON),

The memory of this great deliverance was
cherished by the people. Isaiah uses the phrase
‘day of Midian’ to describe the joy of Israel
when the rod of his oppressor is broken (Is 91 10°),
and the Psalmist prays that the enemies οὗ his
nation may be put to shame and perish, as were
the Midianites and their chiefs Zebah and Zalmunna
(Ps 834). A victory over Midian by Edom in the
field of Moab is recorded (Gn 36°, 1 Ch 14%), but its
date cannot be determined. The only other refer-
ences to Midian are 1 Καὶ 1118, and in the * prayer
ot Habakkuk,’ Hab 37.

Livtent and position of territory.—The accounts
given in Nu and Jg imply that the Midianites
secupied country to the E. and S.E. of Palestine.
tn the genealogy (Gn 25') Midian and the sons of
Abraham other than Isaac are sent away into
the cast country, and in J@ 6° Midian is associated
with the children of the East. This is the only
direct evidence of position afforded in the OT, and
it indicates a territory E. of the Jordan and of the
Arabah. Moab and Edom oceupied the country
on the E. and S.E. of Palestine from the river
Arnon to the head of the Gulf of Akabah. There
would remain, therefore, for Midian a tract. of
country to the N. of Arabia, and on the E. shore
or the Gulf of Akabah, with freedom to roam
northwards along the E. boundary of Edom and
Moab, In this region Ptolemy mentions (vi. 7)
« city Modiava on the E. shore of tne Red Sea
(ne. the Gulf of Akabah), and another Maéiaua
situated inland. The former of these corresponds
in position with the Madian of Onom. Sac. (136. 31,
p. 168, ed. Lagarde) and with the Medyen of Arab
writers, who locate there the well of Moses from
which he watered the flocks of his father-in law.
Classical writers give no information about Midian.
Josephus says that Moses in his flight eame toa
city of Midian, lying on the Red Sea, so called
from one of Abraham’s sons by Keturah (Anf.
iW. i 1). Philo considers Midianites to be an
ancient name of the Arabians (de Fortitudine, ii.
8sl. 7, ed. Mangey). In recent times the country
on the E. shore of the Gulf of Akabah has been
explored by Sir R. Burton. The account of his
first journey is given in The Gold Mines of
Midian, 1878, and of his second in The Land of
Midian Revisited, 1879. In the first book he gives
a résumé of Jewish tradition with reference to
Midian (ὁ. vii.), and, in the second, extracts from
Egyptian papyci and Arabic writers are collected
τ; 1V.).

No reference has been made in the geographical part of this
article to passages in Exodus. The only geographical detail
which these passages supply is relative, viz. that Mt. Sinai or
Horeb was in or in close proximity to Midian. If-from other
considerations the position of Sinai be determined, then an
additional fact is known concerning the territory of Midian.
It the traditional situation of Sinai be accepted, then Midian-
ites must have moved westwards into the peninsula between
the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Akabah. Remembering the
wide area over which the Midianites roved, such a migration is
not improbable. But this proximity of Sinai to Midian may
be urged in favour of assigning to Sinai a position E. of the
Arabah, thereby assigning a uniform geographical position to
Midian and rendering the hypothesis of migration unnecessary’.

Other considerations in support of this view may be brieily
indicated -—

t

(1) The poetical references to Sinai, Dt 332, Jg 54 5, Hab 33,
imply that the writers regarded Sinai and Seis as contiguous.

(2) The geographical note (Dt 12) and the account of Elijah’s
visit to Horeb (1 K 19—the only visit recorded in the OT outside
the Pentateuch) supply no definite data for assigning a position
to Sinai. The same may be said of Josephus’ account of Elijah
(Ant. vin. xiii. 7) and of his other references to Sinai (11. xii. 1,
11; '¥. ΤΉ,

(3) The peninsula at the time of the Exodus was part of Egypt,
or inhabited by Egyptian settlers. A journey due east (in the
direction of the modern hajj route) would lead the Israelites
most quickly to safety, whereas that to the traditional Sinai
would bring them again into contact with their Egyptian
enemies,

(4) Elim may be a variant of Elath or Eloth, and a place ot
this name is on the Gulf of Akabah. The encampment by the
sea following suits this position very well.

(5) The absence of satisfactory identification of any of the
stations on the road to or from Sinai. Cf. Exopus AND JOURNGY
TO CANAAN, δὰ ii. lii., and separate articles.

The question as to the position of Sinai is discussed by Sayce,
ACM p. 264 ff. St. Paul's reference, Gal 425, to Sinai in Arabia
is not conclusive as to the position of Sinai, for the boundary of
Arabia towards the W., according to Herodotus, reaches to the
canal dug by Necho and Darius, and includes part of the coast-
line of the Mediterranean to the S. of Gaza (Herod. iii. 5, iv.
99). The LXX speak of Goshen as Γέσεμ ᾿Αραιβίας. Arabia may
then include territory as far west as the modern canal. See
ARABIA, GOSHEN, SINAL. A. ‘T. CHAPMAN:

MIDIANITISH WOMAN (mse), Nu 906:|8. by
name Cozbi, the daughter of Zur, was brought
into the camp of Israel by Zimri the son of Salu.
The parents of both were persons in high station.
The people were weeping before the door of the
tent of meeting (v.°, and from vv.* 5 it appears that
a plague was raging among Israel at the time); and
Phinchas, enraged at this profanation of the camp,
thrust both of them through with a spear (‘javelin’
AV). His zeal was rewarded by the promise of an
everlasting priesthood to him and to his seed after
him (vy.l@"), The plague was stayed after 24,000
had been slain.

This account (vv.%) belongs to P. According
to Wellhausen (Comp. εἰ. Hex. p. 114), it is placed
here after the Balaam section because it was
originally connected with an account of Balaam,
in wle-h he appears as the counsellor of Midian,
advising ¢hem to tempt Israel by means of their
daughters, This part of the narrative has been
replaced by the account in vv.'? of Israel’s con-
nexion with Moab, and joining themselves to
Baal-peor (JE). Here the daughters of Joab make
Israel to sin, stress is laid on sacrifice and worship
to strange gods, and the ‘judges’ carry out the
sentence. But Kuenen doubts whether, in joining
the two accounts together, so interesting a detail
would have been entirely suppressed, and is dis-
posed to think that Balaam’s name did not occur
in the original introduction to the story of the
Midianitish woman. This is certain, that the two
accounts in Nu 25 are from different sources, that
they are incomplete, and that emendation must be
conjectural. It is probable that νν. 106-18 have been
added by way of introduction to the account of
Nu 31. For further details the writers above
mentioned may be consulted, and Dillmann’s
commentary on the chapter. A. T. CHAPMAN,

MIDRASH.— See COMMENTARY.

MIDWIFE (πη, μαῖα, obstetrix. — Midwives
must have been employed among the Hebrews
from a comparatively early period (Gn 3817 3878,
Ex 15f-); but it would appear that Hebrew
‘women usually had little dithiculty in childbirth,
and that such assistance was not always required
(Ex 115). In some cases the necessary service was
rendered by friends or relatives (1 δ 4”), as is still
the custom in many parts of the East. From the
fact that in Ex 1 only two Hebrew midwives are
spoken of, it may perhaps be inferred that they
Were not a numerous class.

A word used in the narrative of Exodus has

MIGDAL-EDER

MIGRON 367

given rise to some difficulty. o32x "obnayin —a
dual form meaning apparently ‘the double stone’
—occurs again only in Jer 185, where it is applied
to the ‘potter's wheel.’ In Ex 1} it can hardly
denote anything but a special kind of stool used
by women in labour. Gesenius (Thesaurus, p. 17)
doubted the early invention of such a contrivance,
and interpreted the word of a stone bath in which
the child was washed ; but the study of medicine
had made considerable progress in Eeypt in very
early times ; birth-stools of various patterns have
been employed in many parts of the world (Ploss,
Das Weirb?, ii. 35, 179 tf.) ; and at the present day
in Egypt a chair of peculiar form, called the
Kursee elwilddeh, is still in common. use (Lane,
Modern Eqyptians > (1871), ii. 241).

The meaning of the names Shiphrah and Puah
is quite uncertain; also whether they are of
Hebrew or of Egyptian origin. The statement
that ‘God made for these women houses’ (Ex 13
must refer to their numerous or prosperous families,
which were regarded as a reward tor their upright
and courageous conduct towards their Hebrew
patients. H. A. WHITE.

MIGDAL-EDER.—See EDER, No. 1.

MIGDAL-EL (Sx-Saan ; B Μεγαλααρείμ, A May-
δαλιηωράμ, the following name Horem being incor-
porated).—‘ The Tower of God,’ a town of Naph-
tali (Jos 1958) between Tron and Horem. ‘The
exact site is uncertain, though Eusebius (λοι.
vi.) places it between Dora (Tantra) and Ptole-
mais (dere), and 9 miles from the first. In this
case it would correspond with ἀλλ. But the
territory of Naphtali did not extend so far, and
the site must rather be looked for in one of the
numerous Jejdels of N. Palestine. See, further,
Dillm. Jos. ad loc. A. TH. SAYCE,

MIGDAL-GAD (72°57: ‘ tower of Gad’; B Mayada
Γάδ, A Μαγδὰλ Τ΄. ; Vule. Magdal-Gad).-—-Men-
tioned only (Jos 1557) in the list of the cities of
the lot of Judah, together with Zenan and Hada-
shah, neither of which has been identified. It
is one of the group of sixteen cities which are
found in various parts of the Shephelah, so thar
there is no clue as to the position. Of the same
group, Makkedah, Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and
Naamah have been found to the north, Lachish
and Eelon to the south, and Socoh, Adullam,
Azekah, and Jarmuth to the east of the Shephélah.
The name, the ‘Tower of Gad’ (‘ Fortune’), may
refer to the ancient worship of Gad (good luck or
fortune) among the Canaanites. Gesenius con-
jectures that Gad was the planet Jupiter. In
the north of Palestine the modern representation
of Baal-gad is conjectured (BRP iii. 409) to be
Banias, which is known to have been the sanctuary
of Pan; but there is nothing whatever at present
known of the remains in the Shephélah to allow
of any conjectures concerning Migdal-gad.

There is a town named J/ejded about 25 miles
north-east of Ashkelon (Ashkaldan) which is sue-
gested as possibly the site of Migdal-gad, solely
from the resemblance of the first portion of the
name. It is the most important modern town of
the district (Ndhict el-Mejdel), has a good weekly
market, and a population of about 1500 inhabitants,
There is a bazaar in the town; rope-makine is
carried on outside; the inhabitants are traders, rich
and prosperous, and there is a bustle and activity
about the place contrasting with most towns in
Palestine. There is ἃ mosque with a very con-
spicuous minaret, seen for a long distance inland.
The houses are of mud, the water supply from
wells and a pond to the east, where there is also
a grove of palms. ‘To the north are olive groves

with large trees, and it is a rich corn country.
The sandy dunes are encroaching on the west
close on to the town.

Eusebius and Jerome (Onom.) mention Magdala,
but give no information, This town may be the
Magdolon (Maydodov) mentioned by Herodotus (ii.
159) where Pharaoh-necho conquered the Syrians
(B.C. 608). As the conquest of Cadytis (Jern-
salem 3) follows, it is usually conjectured that the
Maedolon of Herodotus is the Miedol of the Old
Testament (Ex 14°, Nu 337), situated in Lower
Egypt (Eusebius, Prep. Hvang. ix. 15).

LITERATURE.—Dillmann, Jos. ad loc. ; Guérin, Judée, ii, 131;
Buhl, GAP 189; Baedeker-Socin, Pal.* 210.

C. WARREN.

MIGDOL (51739, 5539, Μάγδωλον), the name of one
or more places on the frontier of Egypt. The word
is Semitic, and means ‘tower’; it is commonly found
in composition, as in the names Miedal-el, Miedal-
eder, Migdal-gad. Similarly in Eeyp. inscriptions of
the 19th and 20th Dynasties, at a time when many
Semitic words were adopted into the hieroglyphic
vocabulary, the word occurs compounded with the
names of different Pharaohs, etc., to designate what
appear to have been fortresses on the eastern fron-
tier. In OT, however, the simple form Migdol is
always found whenever the place in question is in
Egypt.

In Ex 14°, Nu 337 ‘ Migdol’ refers to a place
situated between Goshen and the Red Sea, and
near the spot where the Israelites crossed the
latter. According to a papyrus, there was in this
region, near Succoth, a Migdol of the Pharaoh
Seti 1.

In Jer 441 and 401: Miedol, Noph (Memphis),
and 'Tahpanhes (Daphnae) are named as the cities
in which the Jews dwelt in Egypt, together with
the country of Pathros (the south country, or
Upper Egypt). Ezekiel twice mentions Migdol as
the N.E. extremity of the country, the other
extremity being Syene (‘from Migdol to Syene,’
the marginal rendering in Ezk 29:10 30°, preferable
to AV and RV). One of the principal routes from
Palestine passed along the Wady Tumilat; it is
possible that the Migdol of Ex was the first station
in Egypt en this route from Syria, and was thus
considered as marking the N.E. frontier. But a
Roman Itinerary mentions a Magdolo nearer the
coast, only 12 miles south of Pelusium, and this
situation (perhaps at the modern Tell el-Hér) agrees
still better with the biblical indications. Mashtal.
the present form in which the name Miegdol occurs
in Eeypt, is derived through the Coptic; it is
found as a village-name three times—twice in the
eastern Delta, and once in Middle Egypt. But
none of these Mashttils can be identified with a
biblical Migdol. F. Lu. GRIFFITH.

MIGRON (ji1:0; B Μαγών, Luc. Mayeddw).—1.
A place in Benjamin, in the neighbourhood of
Gibeah (1S 145). There are reasons for suspecting
that the vocalization of the ΔΙ is incorrect, and
that a proper name should not be read here at all.
The Syr. read juja ‘by the threshing-tloor,’? and
Wellh. (Sain. ad loc.) proposes 72222, with the same
meaning. This is accepted by Budde (in SBO7),
who objects to Klostermann’s emendation v :92
‘in the common-land,’ that this is hardly an old
enough word to be used here. If 75 be taken as
a proper name, it is a question whether it is to be
identified with—2. Mieron of Is 10°°(B Μαγεδώ, A
Mayeddw, 1.6. Megiddo, which of course is out of
the question). The prophet, in his (ideal) descrip-
tion of the Assyrian invasion, mentions Migron
as one of the stages in the march of the enemy,
and appears to place it north of Michmash, and
thus at a considerable distance from Gibeah (ef.
v.). W. R. Smith, indeed, proposes (Journ. of

368 MIJ AMIN

MILETUS

Philol. 13, 624f.) to identify with the Migron of
LS 14", south of the Weady Suweinit, by supposing
that the Assyrian, before marching through the
pass, is pictured as seizing by a couwp-de-main this
position at its southern end. This is accepted by
Driver (lsaiah*, p. 72), but Dillmann and Buhl
both object to it as too artificial, and agree in
locating Isaial’s Migron at the modern Jahrun,
about ὁ mile S.E. of the village of Burka (ef.
Baedeker-Socin, Pal.* 121). J. A. SELBIE.

MIJAMIN (j2:> and j>>).—1. One of those who
had married a foreign wite, Ezr 10° (BAuaueiy, A
Meauiu called in 1 Es 056 Maelus). 2. Eponym of
the 6th of the priestly courses, 1 Ch 24" (B Bema-
wey, A Μειαμείν). This family returned with
Zerubbabel, Neh 12° (x ἃ Μειμίν), and was repre-
sented at the sealing of the covenant 107 (B Mcaueiu,
A Μιαμείν) = Miniamin of Neh 12",

MIKLOTH (n$p>).—1. A son of Jeiel, 1 Ch 8®=
wt. Phe words ‘and Mikloth? (nigpe) have prob-
ably been dropped at the end of 551 (0) καὶ Μακαλώθ).
In 9°? they are found both in MT and LXX (B
ΔΙακελλώθ, A Μακεδώθ). 2. An officer of David, 1 Ch
274. ‘There is a strong suspicion that the MT is
corrupt. The name is wanting in LXX (BA).

MIKNEJAH (:π25}.---Α gate-keeper of the ark,

1 Ch 1515 (B MaxedX\eca, A διακενιά, δὲ Μακκελλά) 2! (Β΄

ΔΙακενιά, A Makevias).

MILALAI ($52, LXX om.).—The eponym of a
priestly family, Neh 12°.

MILCAH (252, Me\ya).—4. Dauehter of Haran,
and wife of Nahor who was her uncle,* Gn 115.
The names of her children are given in 22°",
Rebekah was her eranddaughter, 24%: 24. All
these passages proceed from J. Néldeke (ZDMG
xlii. 484) conjectures that J/i/eah may be the same
name as 7272, the goddess worshipped by the Pha-
nicians. Ball (SBOT) thinks it possible that 7252
and az: (also Gn 1159) may be phonetic or dialectic
variants of the same (tribal or local) name; ef.
orva=Assyr, Alda. *The weakening and dis-
appearance of mis a well-known feature of Baby-
lonian. This, however, appears somewhat pre-
carious. See, further, art. ISC.AH.

2. Daugiiter of Zelophehad, Nu 26° 27! 86", Jos
(all P). ‘There can be little doubt that Kuenen
ix right in pronouncing Zelophehad’s ‘ daughters ’
to be really towns, and, if the above conjecture of
Noldeke he correct, ἡ] ει may be an abbreviated
form of Beth-milcah (see Gray, Heb. Prop. Names,
p. 116). J. A. SELDIE.

MILCOM.—See MouLecn.

MILDEW (jpr yérdhin, ὥχρα, rubigo), — This
word occurs with par shidddaphon, ἀνεμοφθορία, aire
corruptus (Dt 28, 1 K 8%, 2 Ch 6, Am 49. Hag
2"). Yerdkdn signifies ‘yellowness’ or * pallor?
(ef Arab. yerukdn =‘ jaundice’). It is in contrast
with shiddaphon, which signifies the drying up or
scorching of the grain or fruit by heat, during the
siroccos or Ahamsiu winds Mildew consists of
various species of parasitic fungi, which grow at
the expense of their host, and suck out the juices
of the grain or fruit, and so destroy them. ΔΒ
shiddaphon is Aue to excessive drought, yérdkon
is due to excessive moisture. They are both
peculiarly liable to occur in a climate marked by

* For other instances of marriages of relatives in the family
of Terah, Dillmann cites Gn 9013 248! 2919, pointing ont at
the same time that ‘such marriages are only a short way of
sheet the amalgamation of fair-sized communities into one
whole.’

stances narrated
|

long periods of uninterrupted heat, followed by a
winter season, during which most of the raintall
of the year takes place within two or three
months, ὑπ θ᾽ δῆς

MILE.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

MILETUS (Mé\nros) was in very early times the
most famous and important of the Ionian cities, an
ancient Greek colony on the coast of Caria. It
was situated at the southern end of the sea
entrance to the gulf into which the river Meander
formerly emptied itself. But the silt which the
river carries with it has entirely filled up the gulf,
and forced the coastline far out to sea. Hence the
modern Palatia, which marks the site of Miletus,
is about 5 or 6 miles from the sea, and Lade, which
in the time of Strabo (A.D. 19) was an island in
front of the harbour of Miletus, is now a small
hillin the low alluvial plain. Once the vreatest
Greek city in Asia, Miletus was a second-rate
town under the Romans, and now is, and is likely
always to continue, an obscure village or a ruin.
Our ignorance of the exact truth as to the situa-
tion of Miictus in relation to the coastline about
the middle of the Ist cent. makes the cireum-
in Ae 20-21) rather obscure.
The present coastline extends nearly direct north-
wards on the west side of the site of Miletus.
But in A.p. 19 Miletus was. situated on the
south coast of a gulf of irregular shape (Λατμικὸς
Kodros), Which extended far into the country east-
wards. ‘The south-eastern extremity of this eulf
is now alake. The rest of the gulf is now land,
often swampy, through which the Meander tiows
in two arms—one keeping near the north side of
the low alluvial plain, and one near the south side.
The southern arm in its upper part seems to be the
channel of the ancient river. The two arms unite
close on the north-west side of the site of Miletus,
and flow into the sea by one mouth. We do not
know the exact line of the coast about A.D. 50;
but Strabo gives a rough idea of its situation 30
years earlier.

Thus, in modern times, a messenger could easily
be sent by land straight north from Miletus to
Ephesus. But in ancient times a foot-messenver
would have to make an immense circuit: for ex-
ample, he would have to traverse about 110 stadia
from Miletus to Heracleia, and 100 from Heracleia
to Pyrrha, whereas the sea-crossing from Miletus
to Pyrrha was only 80 stadia. Pyrrha was 50 stadia
south of the mouth of the Meander, which joined
the sea between Pyrrha and Priene. At the pre-
sent day Priene is 12 miles from the coast. The
coastline on to Priene is not stated by Strabo, but
it must have been more than 100 stadia. Hence
the foot messenger would have a journey of over
360 stadia from Miletus to Priene (45 miles),
whereas the straight line across the enlf is barely
100 stadia (124 miles). From Priene to Ephesus,
the land road across the mountains cannot be less
than 25 miles, though the air line is under 90. St.

-aul’s messenger, then, probably sailed to Priene
and walked or rode thence to Ephesus. The vague
statement often made, that Ephesus was by land
only about 20 or 80 miles distant from Miletus, is,
as we now see, very misleading.

If we accept as true* the Bezan and Western
addition to Ac 20 μείναντες ἐν '!ρωγυλλίῳ, Wwe sce
that the ship on which were St. Paul and the dele-
gates, bearing the contributions of the Churches of
the four provinces, Achaia, Macedonia, Asia, and
Galatia, after sailing from Assos on a Monday

* True, whether as a correct tradition added by a reviser, or
as a part of the original text written by St. Luke, which dropped
out either in the transmission of the text, or through the act
of the author (according to Prof. Blass’s theory).

MILK

'

MILL, MILLSTONE 369

morning,* must have spent Wednesday night at
Troeyllion, the extreme promontory of Mount
Mykale on the north side of the Meander valley,
projecting far out towards the west and towards
Samos. On Thursday a voyage of only about 23
miles with the morning breeze from the north
would bring them to Miletus. A messenger was
then found, and sent to Ephesus. He would prob-
ably reach Ephesus during the course of Thursday
night, and the assembling of the elders and their
journey (some being doubtless comparatively elderly
men) would take time. The morning of Saturday,
then, is the earliest possible date for the arrival of
the elders in Miletus; and we must suppose that
St. Paul spent the day with them; and probably
the early morning of Sunday + was the time when
the ship proceeded on its voyage to Jerusalem,
reaching Cos that day.

According to 2Ti 4° St. Paul visited Miietus
(AV JWileftum) on some later occasion, and there left
Trophimus sick. This visit is quite inconsistent
with the narrative of Ac, and must be referred to
a later period, after St. Paul was released from 1115
Roman imprisonment, and returned to the σθαι
lands and churches.

The famous temple of Apollo Didymeus at Bran-
chide was about 20 miles south of Miletus, in the
territory subject to that city. It stood about 2
miles back from the coast, overlooking the harbour
Panormus. The best account of Miletus and
Branchide is given in Sir C. T. Newton’s works,
and in Radet’s Wilet et le Golfe Latonique.

Miletus is mentioned as a bishopric in all the
Notitie Episcopatuum; but, although it is given
first in the list of Hierocles’ Synekdemos, the com-
mon statement that its bishop occupied the first
rank among the bishops of Caria is wrong: that
rank belonged to Aphrodisias, for the coast cities
of Caria lost and the inner cities gained importance
in the late Roman and Byzantine times. But during
the 5th cent. Miletus became an archbishopric +
independent of the control of Aphrodisias (αὐτοκέ-
φαλος), but without subject bishopries.

Few traces of the influence of Christianity in
Miletus have been discovered. It is apparent that
in the coast towns of Asia, which were less thoroughly
Christianized and also more closely under the eye of
the imperial officials than those of Phrygia, hardly
any public memorials of the new religion can have
been erected before the time of Constantine. An
official inscription of the time of Justinian is pub-
lished in Byzant. Zeitschrift, 1894, p. 21. Another
late inscription mentions the saint and martyr
Onesippos (C7G 8847). A strange example of
popular superstition and angelolatry, invoking the
seven archangels to guard the city, was found in
the theatre (C7G 2895) ; it perhaps belongs to the
4th cent. : on the kind of practices connected with
this class of superstition see Wiinsch, Sethianische
Verfluchungstafeln, 1898.

Miletus is mentioned in LXX of Ezk 9718 (see
Field, Hexapla). W. M. RaMsaAy.

MILK.—See Foon in vol. 11. p. 36%.
MILL, MILLUSTONE (om, Arab. raha).—The

hand-mill is in constant use in many parts of
Syria at the present time. It consists of two
circular stones, one of which is placed on the top
of the other, and the upper and lower surfaces
of each of them are flat. From the centre of the
lower stone a strong pin of wood passes through
a funnel-shaped hole in the upper stone. Into

* In the year a.p. 57 1t would be Monday 25th April.

+ Sunday Ist May, a.p. 57.

1 See Gelzer’s articles in Jahrb. f. protest. Theol. xii., and
Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor, p. 428. Gelzer
fixes the date between 459 and 536, but it may be earlier.

WO ri 24

this hole the grain to be ground is thrown, and
it escapes as flour between the two stones at the
circuinference, and falls on a smooth sheepskin
which is placed under the lower stone. On the
surface of the upper stone, near its circumference,

SECTION OF HAND-MILL,

the handle is inserted, which may be of any length,
according to the number of hands used in turning
it. Small stones are generally turned by one
woman, but larger ones may be turned by two,
three, or four women.

In ancient times, turning the mill was a work
deemed fit only for women and slaves. In Je 16°
Samson was set to grind in the prison. In La 5",
rendered in RV ‘the young men bare the mill, and
the children stumbled under the wood,’ it should
probably be, as in the Arab., ‘They eaused the
young men to grind, and the boys stumbled under
the wood.’ The poet laments that the young men
should be put to so degrading an employment,
and that the boys should be put to a work for
which they were not able, such as carrying the
wood to the oven for firing the bread which was
made from the flour ground by the young men.
Hand-mills have no wood about them except the
handle and the central pin, which are fixed se
that they cannot be taken out. In Lebanon and
those parts of Syria where a fall of water can be
obtained, Jarge millstones are turned by a hori-
zontal water-wheel. The water falls through a
pipe formed of large stones perforated, and at the
lower end of this pipe a wooden channel directs
the stream against the floats of the wheel. The
water-wheel is enclosed in a vault, the roof of
which forms the flosr of the room in which the
millstones are placed. The wooden axle of the
wheel passes through the roof of the vault, through
the lower millstone, and is fixed to the upper muill-
stone, which it turns round. When the wheat is
ground into flour it is gathered in the same way
as when the hand-mill is used. This kind of mill
is called téhoon. Cf. the Heb. téhon. There is
another kind of mill turned by animals, which is
called tdhdnet. In Mt 18°, Mk 9 we have μύλος
ὀνικός, © millstone turned by an ass. Usually the
stones of the mill are of a dark-brown sandstone,
and when the stone is soft the flour is full of sand.
The upper stone has frequently to be taken off to
have its under surface roughened; but when the
porous Hauran stone is used, that is not necessary,
as the stone in wearing presents new holes, and,
consequently, new cutting edges.

The hand-mill being an implement absolutely
necessary in a household, it was forbidden to take the
upper millstone (229, Arab. mirddt) as security for
debt. as that would render the mill useless (Dt 24").

Mills are used not only for grinding wheat into
flour, they are used also tor making crushed wheat
(burghal). The wheat is first boiled and then
dried in the sun, and when put into the mill
water is sprinkled upon it to prevent its being
ground into flour, ‘The mill is turned slowly.
Crushed wheat 1s used to make a kind of foad
which is a great favourite with the mountaineers
of Lebanon ; it is called Aibby. It is a mixture of
crushed wheat (RV ‘bruised corn,’ Pr 27:32) and

370 MILLENNIUM

MILLENNIUM

raw mutton beaten together in a mortar for
hours, and is generally eaten cooked, but often
raw. The grinding of the burgha/, or bruised

Wheat, was a season of rejoicing in Lebanon some |

years ago. The young men gatherea together,
and, while the grinding was going on, <ones were
sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments
and a kind of small drum. W. CARSLAW.
A name suggested by the period

MILLENNIUM.
of 1000 years described in Rey 20° τ during which
Satan is confined in the abyss, and the martyr
saints reign with Christ. Hence variously under-
stood, according to the interpretation put upon the
passage, either as (1) the period, present or future,
definite or indefinite, ‘during which the kingdom
of Christ will be established upon earth, and will
dominate over all other authority’ (Cent. Dict.) ;
or more specially (2) as the period in which ‘Christ
will reign in bodily presence on earth for a thou-
sand years’ (Oxf. Eng. Dict. s. ‘Chiliasm’). In
this latter sense it is associated with pre-millenarian
views of Christ’s Second Coming, the word Chiliast
or Millenarian being usually applied in the pre-
millenarian sense (Oxf. Lng. Dict. le.; Cent. Dict.
*Millenarian’).

That which is characteristic of the doctrine in
all its forms is the belief in a period of triumph
and blessedness for the saints on earth, preceding
and distinet from the final blessedness of the
world to come. Such a belief meets us not only in
the early Christian eschatology, but also in that
of the later Jews, where it was probably due to

a combination of the simpler eschatology whose |

horizon is bounded by this world and the hope of
earthly triumph, and a more developed eschatology
which distinguishes two worlds or ons, and places

che trne salvation in the latter (Schiirer, 1.7}
While the term is often used loosely |

WT. 117,,1:78);
to describe carnal ideals of the future, whether
limited in duration or not (as when reference is
made to the chiliastic views of the Jews in Christ’s

time), it should properly be restricted to those |

opinions which, making the above distinction be-
tween the two ions, hold to a preliminary period
of blessedness in the former. Hence those modern
millenarians (like Seiss, The Last Times, 211) who
identify the Millennium with the world to come,
use the term in a sense altogether different from
that which we are now discussing.

As thus defined, the doctrine of the Millennium
is not found in OT. The prophets look forward
to a state of blessedness and glory for Israel, to be
introduced, either by the advent of J” Himself
(Is 40%"! 527°), or of the Messiah (Is 9°, Zee 9% 1),
This state is variously described—sometimes in
language which requires no more than the estab-
lishment of the redeemed Israel in the first place
among the nations; at others, in words which
imply a change of nature itself, and the creation
of a new heavens and a new earth (Is 657, Yet
note that even this picture does not represent the
individual members of the redeemed Israel as im-
mortal. Cf. Enoch 5° 10!7 258, Apoc. Bar 73%).
But, however conceived, this blessed state bounds
the horizon of prophecy (cf. Jer 3317-2, Ezk 37%,
J1 4°). Especially in Daniel is the eternity of the
Messianic kingdom emphasized. ‘And in the days
of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom which shall never be destroyed’ (2%).
‘And the kingdom and the dominion, and the
greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven,
shall be given to the people of the saints of the
Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting king-
dom?’ (777, cf. 74).

In much of the Pseudepigraphical literature we
find the same point of view. So Sibyl] 3%-°, Jub 32
(quoted oy Drummond, 314), Ps-Soi 174, Sibyll 3166

᾿Ξ And then will he raise up a kingdom for all time
for all men’; Enoch 624 * And the Lord of spirite
will abide over them, and with that Son of Man will
they eat and lie down and rise up for ever and ever.’
Doubtless it is true, as Drummond remarks (314),
that these expressions do not necessarily imply strict
eternity (cf. Bar 73! with 40%; and see Enoch 7
although, in the case of Enoch 62" as of Daniel,
this seems required by the context. But in any
case the ideal which is set forth in these passages
is final. The same view appears (Jn 12) in the
objection to Christ’s prophecy concerning His lift-
ing up. ‘We have heard out of the law that the
Christ abideth for ever.’ So in the Tare. Jon. (on
1 K 4*) the Messianic time and the world to come
are identified. ({f Mishna, Berachoth i. 5. and the
literature cited by Schiirer, ZZ/P 11. ii. 177.)

Side by side with this view, we find in the
Pseudepigraphical books another, which distin-
guishes between the Messianic kingdom, which it
regards as belonging to this present age, and the
final consummation of all things in the world to
come. Perhaps the first trace of this doctrine is in
Enoch 91!*""7, a fragment assigned by Charles to
B.C. 104-95, and by Dillmann to the time of John
Hyreanus. The seer has described the seven weeks
into which he conceives the past history of the
world to be divided (93°!"). ‘And after that
there will be another week, the eighth, that of
righteousness, and a sword will be given to it that
_ judgment and righteousness may be executed on
| those who commit oppression, and sinners will be
_ delivered into the hands of the righteous. And at
| its close they will acquire houses through their
| righteousness. And the house of the Great King

will be built in glory for ever more. And after
that, in the ninth week, the righteous judement
will be revealed to the whole world, and all the
works of the godless will vanish from the whole
world will be written down for
destruction, and all markind will look to the path
of uprightness. And after this, in the tenth week,
in the seventh part, there will be the great eternal
| judgment, in which he will execute vengeance
amongst the angels. And the first heaven will
depart and pass away, and a new heaven will
appear, and all the powers of the heavens will shine
sevenfold for ever. And after that there will be
many weeks without number for ever, in goodness
and righteousness, and sin will no more be men-
tioned for ever’ (Charles’ tr. p. 9681). Here we
have a period of righteousness, in which the temple
is to be rebuilt, and a missionary week resulting in
the conversion of the world, preceding the final jude-
ment, which introduces the new heaven. There is,
however, no mention of a personal Messiah. Briges
| (less. Gosp. 15,16; cf. Mess. Apost. 9), calls atten-
tion to the parallel between this passage and the
later Persian eschatology, which regards the final
resurrection and judgment as preceded by two
preparatory millenniums, in which the prophets
Ukhshyat -ereta, or Atishétar, and Ukhshyat-
nemah, or Atshétar-mah, of the Avesta and the
Pehlevi literature of Zoroastrianism, prepare the
way for the coming of the final redeemer Saoshyant
or Soshans. It is, of course, possible that in this,
as in the allied doctrine of the resurrection, Jewish
thought may have been aflected by Persian ideas.
But our sources for the Persian eschatology are so
late (the Bundahis, in their present form, dating not
earlier than the 7th cent. A.D. ; ef. West in Sar.
Books of East, ν. p. xli, ef. also vols. XXIV. XXXVii.
and xlvii.) that we must use great caution in draw:
ing conclusions. ἢ

| sarth, and the
|
|

*On Persian eschatology, cf. Htibschmann, ‘Die parsische
Lehre von Jenseits,’ Jahrb. Prot. Theol. 1879, ii. ; Fr. Spiegel, art.
‘Parsismus,’ in Herzog, RE 2; Jackson, ‘The Ancient Persian Doc:
trine of a Future Life,’ in Biblical World, 1896, pp. 149-163. For

MILLENNIUM

MILLENNIUM 371

In the later Jewish Apocalypses, as in Talm., we
find the limitation of Messiah’s kingdom clearly
set forth: thus Apoe. Bar distinctly limits its dura-
tion to this present world. Δὲ erit principatus ejus
stuns in seculum, donee finiatur mundus corrup-
tionis et donec impleantur tempora predicta (40°).
The character of this kingdom is set forth in extra-
vagant language (women bearing children without
pain, the vine yielding 1000 branches, each branch
1000 clusters, each cluster 1000 grapes, each grape
a cor of wine, ete., ec. 29. 73), which occurs
also in Papias, and is applied to the Christian
Millennium. Still more striking is 2 Es 728 29 « For
my Son the Messiah (so Syr. Eth. Arab. over ae.
Lat. ‘Tesus’) shall be revealed with those that are
with him, and shall rejoice with those that remain
400 years. And it shall come to pass after these
years that my Son the Christ and all men who
have breath shall die. And the world (saecudum)
shall be changed into the ancient silence seven
days as in the first beginnings, so that no one shall
be left. And it shall come to pass after the seven
days that the world which does not now wake
shall be aroused, and the corruptible shall die.
And the earth shall give up them that sleep in her,
and the dust them that dwell in that silence, and
the store-houses (promptuaria) shall give up the
souls entrusted to them. And the Most High
shall be revealed upon the seat of judgment,’
ete. (cf. 12%). Here, unlike Baruch, where the
Messianic age forms a transition between this
world and that which is to come (742, ef. Schiirer,
11. ii. 178), the contrast between the Messianic age
and the world to come is emphasized in the
sharpest way. The Messiah and all flesh die, and
remain dead for seven days. The length of the
Messianic kingdom is expressly limited to 400
years—a number explained in the Talmud as due
to the combination of Gn 15" (the sojourn in
EKevpt) with Ps 95% ‘Make us elad according to
the days wherein thou hast afflicted us’? (Sah.
99a). Another passage cites Mie 7 ‘As in the
days of thy coming forth out of the land of Egypt
will [ show unto him marvellous things’ (Zan-
thuma, Ekeh 7, quoted Weber?, 379). In the later
Jewish theology the view of the Messiah’s kine-
dom as limited became the prevailing one (Schiirer,
as above; cf. Weber, 373). Its duration was a
favourite subject of speculation. The classical
passages are Sanh. 97, 99a, where the following
reckonings are given: three generations, 40 years
(corresponding to the 40 years in the wilderness),
70 years, 100 years, 365 years, 400 years, 600 years,
L000 years, 2000 years, 7000 years (see the passages
quoted at length in Gfrorer, 11. 252 ff ; also Weber,
3711F ; Drummond, 3151f.). The determining prin-
ciple seems to have been either ‘the analogy be-
tween the first and the last redemption, therefore
40 or 400 years,’ or ‘the symmetry of the final
period with those which precede,’ hence 2000 years,
corresponding to the 2000 before and the 2000
under the law ; or finally, ‘the thought that the
Messianic time isa time of joy, Israel's marriage—
hence 1000 or 7000 years’ (Weber, 373). Still
another reckoning is based upon the idea of a
Sabbatical week, in which six millenniums. of
work are followed by one of rest. This view, per-
haps first found in Secrets of Enoc 1 33! = (see
Cuarles’ note at the passage, and Index ii., s. ‘ Mil-
lennium’; also art. ENOCH in vol. i. Ys 7115), τοβϑῦϑ
upon Ps 904 (ef. Jub 4, Sanh. 97a) and meets us in
the Christian Epist. of Barnalas (6. 15).

In early Christian esc.atology we find a like

a discussion of Persian influence on OT eschatology, Cheyne in
Exvos. Times, ii. (1890) pp. 202, 224, 248, and Bampton Lectures
Jor 4880, p. 381 ff.; Moulton in Eapos. Times, ix. 352 ff. ; Stave,
Finjluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum, 1898, p. 145 ff. ; on
the eschatology cf the Talmud, Kohut, ΖΗ ὦ, 1807, p. 552 ff.

difference of view. On the one hand, we find pas-
sages in which the horizon of prophecy is bounded
by the second advent of Christ, which, like the
day of J” of OT, is regarded as closing the present
age, and introducing the world to come. In many
passages it is expressly associated with the general
resurrection and the judgment (Mt 13”, parable
of the Tares ; Mt 25°, the great judement scene ;
Jn 5” 64, Ac 171, ef. 10%). It results, for the
wicked, in ‘eternal destruction from the face of
the Lord and from the glory of his might’ (2 ΤῊ
160). while it introduces the saints into ‘an in-
heritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that
fadeth not away’ (1 P 14’, ef. 2P 1, On the
other hand, we find a view which distinguishes
between the Coming of Christ and the end of the
world, and inserts between the two a period of
millennial reign, in waich Christ will dwell with
the saints upon the renewed earth, and in which the
OT prophecies concerning the glory of Jerus. and
the victory of Israel over the nations will find their
fulfilment. This period is variously described in
language more or less gross or spiritual. But its
essential features are these: a preliminary victory
of Christ over the forces of evil at the advent
(the destruction of Antichrist) ; a double resurrec-
tion, first of the saints at the beginning of the
millennial period, then of all men at the last day ;
an earthly kingdom, in which the saints reign
with Christ on the renewed earth, and the OT
prophecies find literal fulfilment ; a last brief out-
break of the forces of evil, followed by the uni-
versal resurrection and final judement.

The doctrine of the Millennium is set forth in NT
in clear terms only in Rev, where it constitutes
‘the most easily recognizable dogmatic peculiarity’
(Holtzmann, Hdcom. iv. 319). It is here taught that
after the victory of the Messiah and His army
over the beast and his army, and the destruction
of the latter with the false prophet and all his
followers (ch. 19), Satan himself will be cast into
the abyss, and confined there for 1000 years, ‘ that
he should deceive the nations no more until the
1000 years should be finished’ (905), This triumph is
followed by the resurrection of martyr saints, who
reign with Christ as kings and priests 1000 years
(20%, οἵ. δ᾽). This is expressly called the first
resurrection, it being stated that ‘the rest of the
dead lived not until the 1000 years should be
finished’ (v.°), At the close of the 1000 years
Satan is loosed for a little while. Then follows
a last world-conflict of the powers of evil, at the
close of which takes place the final resurrection
and judgment, ending in the destruction of all
evil, Death and Hades themselves being cast into
the lake of fire. ‘This is the second death (201, ef,
2), ‘This passage is most naturally understood as
teaching a pre-millennial advent of Christ, and
an earthly reign (so most recently by Salmond,
Christian Doctrine of Immortality, 2nd ed. p. 442).
It is to be noted, however, that the reference is only
toa reign of the martyrs, not, as the later theory
represented, of all Christians. Those who reject
this interpretation are obliged either to break the
connexion between chs. 19 and 20 (so Briges, who
regards the two chs. as belonging to two different
Apocalypses, Jess. Apost. 305), or else to deny to
ch. 19 any reference to the second advent, seeing
init only such a preliminary advent for judgment

| as is referred to in 95:16 3% 1 (go Moses Stuart, who

sees in it no more than a reference to the approach-
ing destruction of heathenism, ii. 359), The most
serious difficulty in the way of this interpretation
is the reference to the resurrection of the martyrs.
In NT the resurrection of the saints is always
associated with the advent of Christ. The older
interpretations of a symbolic resurrection (as that
of Israel in Ezk), or of a spiritual resurrection (as

372 MILLENNIUM

MILLENNIUM

in regeneration), are rendered untenable by the
explicit reference to the martyrs (cf. 6°!) 19°),
Those who reject the idea of a physical resurrec-
tion are obliged, therefore, to think of a resurree-
tion from Hades to heaven, taking place at the
close of the martyr age, and introducing those
who are thus specially honoured into a state of
heavenly blessedness which continues till the close

of human history. (So Briges, Jess. A post. 357,
who quotes Mt 275%, Eph 4°, 1 P 3! 4°, Jn 5”;
Moses Stuart, 11. 478. The case of Moses and

Elijah might also be cited. Cf. Schiirer, If. 11. 180,
for similar ideas among the Jews). From this point
of view, the significance of the Millennium, while
introduced indeed in time by the martyr age, and
corresponding in general ‘with the duration of the
Chureh as the triumphing institution of the world
in the last complete period of human history’
(Briges, 357), is not earthly but heavenly.

Outside of Rey many interpreters find reference
to a millennial kingdom in 1 Co 15% “4, where St.
Paul scems to distinguish between the Parousia
of Christ with the resurrection of the saints, and
the end when He shall deliver up the kingdom to
the Father. Between these two events they con-
ceive to lie that reien referred to in v.%, which
they identify with the period of 1000 years de-
scribed in Rey 20 (so Olshausen, de Wette, Moses
Stuart ; Godet, Com. 1 Cor. Ene, tr. ἢ, 377 tf et αἷ.}).
Meyer distinguishes the two events in time, but re-
jects the identification of the intervening period with
the Millennium of Rey 20. So Schmiedel, Hdcomiue.
ii. 101. On the other side, Heinrici, 1 Aor. 503 fF. ;
Weiss, Bib. Theol. 401; Harnack (art. ‘ Millenniuin,’
Enc. Brit. xvi. 315); Briges, Mess. Apost. 114, and
the majority of modern interpreters. ‘Those who
find a pre-millenarian meaning in 1 Co 15" inter-
pret in like sense Ph 3!! (St. Paul’s hope of attain-
ine the resurrection), 1 Th 417 (which clearly
refers, however, not to two resurrections, but to a
resurrection of the faithful dead, to be followed
immediately by the transformation of the ‘quick’),
Lk 141} (the resurrection of the just), 20° (‘they
that are accounted worthy to attain to that world,
and the resurrection from the dead’), and Mt 1955
(the regeneration, when the apostles shall sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel). Pre-
millenarian interpreters also refer to the period
between the advent and the end, the promises in
Mt5°(the meek shall inherit the earth), Mt 205"
(the reward of the labourers), and Mk 16°, Lk 1850
(the reward given to the disciples in this world,
which is distinguished from that in the world to
come; yet cf. Lk 20%, where the resurrection
introduces the world to come). For a temperate
statement of the exegetical argument for pre-
millenarianism, ef. H. Schultz in JD7h, 1867, pp.
120-127. On the other side, Salmond, op. cit. pp.
520, 561 11, and the authorities cited above. See,
further, under PAROUSIA.

Millenarian views were common, though by no
means universal, in the early Church. They meet
us in gross form in Papias, who quotes as a genu-
ine word of Christ a prediction, generally agreeing
with Apoc. Bar, concerning the remarkable fer-
tility of the vine in the millennial kingdom (Tren.
adv. Her. v.33; cf. Euseb. 11]. 39) ; in more spiritual
form in Barnabas, who, combining Gn 2? with Ps
904, looks for a Millennium of Sabbath rest, follow-
ing the present six millenniums of work, and in-
troduced by the coming of the Messiah ‘to put an
end to the time of the wicked one, and to judge
the ungodly, and to change sun, moon, and stars’
(15°). This he declares to be the true Sabbath
rest for which Christians look—a time when, hav-
ing been themselves justified, and having received
the promise, lawlessness no longer existing, but
all things having been made new by the Lord,

they will be able to keep holy the Sabbath, having
first been sanctified themselves (v.7). At the close
of this millennial period follows the beginning οἱ
the eighth day, which is the beginning of another
world (ν.8). Hermas and 2nd Ep. Clement are also
claimed as pre-millenarian, but without sufficient
reason. There is no trace of the doctrine in either
I Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, or the Epistle to
Dioenetus. The Didaché, indeed. restricts the
resurrection at the Advent to those who are
Christ’s, but is silent as to what follows thereafter.
‘And then shall appear the signs of the truth:
first the sign of the outspreading in heaven, then
the sign of the voice of the trumpet, thirdly the
resurrection of the dead, yet not of all; but as it
was said, The Lord shall come, and all his saints
with him. Then the world shall see the Lord
coming upon the clouds of heaven.’

The prevalence of millenarian views in the later
Church was due partly to the Jewish Apocalypses,
which were read and highly esteemed in the
Christian Church (Papias, ef. Harnack, art. ‘ Mil-
lennium,’ 315), partly to the explicit statement of
the Apoe. of St. John (Justin, 7rypho, 81). Hence
we find later opponents of Chillasin denying the
authenticity of Rev (Dionysius ap, Euseb. vil. 25).
While most common amone the Jewish Christians,
to whom their origin was attributed by later
opponents (Cerinthus ap. Euseb. iii. 28; ef. Test. XT.
Pat. {Jud. ¢. 25; Benj. ο. 10]; Ebionites ap. Jerome,
Com. on Is. 1x. 1, Ixvi. 20), such views early meet us
among the Gentile Christians. Justin, while in cer-
tain passages apparently ignoring them (dApo/, 52,
Trypho, 45, 49, 118; οἵ. Briges in Lath. Quar, 1879),
elsewhere explicitly recognizes them. Whenasked
by Trypho whether he really admits that Jerus.
will be rebuilt, and expects that his people will be
gathered together and made joyful ‘with Christ
together y ith the patriarchs and the prophets, and
the men of our nation and proselytes who joined
them before your Christ came,’ Justin answers in
the affirmative. While admitting that ‘many who
belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true
Christians, think otherwise,’ he declares that he
and others ‘who are right-minded Christians on all
points, are assured that there will be a resurrec-
tion of the dead, and 1000 years in Jerus., which
will then be built, adorned and enlarged as the
prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and others declare’ (80).
For this view he cites Rev as follows: ‘There was
a certain man with us whose name was John, one
of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a
revelation which was made to him that those who
helieved in our Christ would dwell 1000 years in
Jerus., and that thereafter the general and in
short the eternal resurrection and judgment for
all men would likewise take place’ (81). With
the exception of Justin, the Apologists show no
trace of Chiliasm. ‘The anti-Gnostic Fathers of the
close of the 2nd cent., on the other hand, were
pronounced Millenarians. Irenweus (adv. Her, v.
32-35), Tertullian (adv. Mare. iii. 25), and later
Hippolytus (Com. in Dan. 1772, p. 99) give us in
their writings full descriptions of the millennial
kingdom. ‘Tertullian wrote an entire work on the
subject (de Spe Fidelium), which has unfortunately
perished. Doubtless the views of these Fathers
were influenced by their opposition to the Gnostics,
who with Chiliasm rejected also the entire Christian
eschatology. But the adoption of chiliastic views
by the Montanists, who looked for the speedy
setting up of the millennial kingdom at Pepuza in
Phrygia, soon brought them into disrepute. They
were opposed in Rome by the Presbyter Caius,
who attributed their origin to the arch-heretic
Cerinthus (Euseb. iii. 98). In the East they were
attacked by the Alexandrines, who, following the
example set by the Gnostics, interpreted the pas-

MILLET

MILLO 373

saves cited by the Chiliasts allegorically (ef. Origen,
de Prin. it. 11). Theattempt of the Egyptian bishop
Nepos to enforce a literal interpretation was un-
successful. Especially effective was the opposition
of Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote a book ‘On
the Promises,’ in which he advocated thé alle-
gorical exegesis, and denied the Johannine author-
ship of the Apocalypse. Later Chiliasts, like
Methodius of Olympus (Banquets of the Ten
Virgins, ix. 5) and Apollinaris of Laodicea (Basil,
Ep. 263), were unable to stem the tide.

In the West, Chiliasm was longer lived. Here
the doubts as to the authenticity of the Apoe.
found little hearing. Commodian (Jnst. adv. Gent,
deos, 43, 44) and Lactantius (/is¢. vil. 24) were pro-
nounced Chiliasts. Victorinus of Petau 15. so
claimed by Jerome, although his commentary on
the Apocalypse shows no trace of such views (yet
cf. Briggs, Luth. Quart. Ὁ. 234). Jerome himself,
while often speaking contemptuously of the Chili-
asts as ‘our half-Jews (semi-Judec), who look for
a Jerus. of gold and precious stones from heaven,
and a future kingdom of 1000 years, in which all
nations shall serve Israel’ (Com. on Is. 1x. 1, 1xvi. 20),
elsewhere (Com. on Jer. xix. 10) speaks of them
with more respect, as holding views ‘which,
although we may not hold, we cannot condemn,
because many ecclesiastical men and martyrs have
taught the same.’ Even Augustine, the strongest
of all opponents of Chiliasin in the West, distin-
guishes between a gross and a more spiritual form,
and admits that in his early days he himself had
been an advocate of the latter (de Civ. Dei, xx. 7).

The final defeat of Chiliasm in the West was due
to Augustine, who, in his City of God, identified
the Millennium with the history of the Church on
earth, and declared that, for those who belonged
to the true Church, the first resurrection was passed
already (de Civ. Dei, xx. 7-9). With the accept-
ance of this identification by the Roman Church,
the power of Chiliasm was permanently broken.

Pre-millenarian views have, indeed, been revived
from time to time, now in grosser, now in more
spiritual form, and have never been without their
advocates in the Church; but they have failed to
win general acceptance. The Church as a whole,
Protestant as well as Catholic, has either adopted
Augustine’s identification of the Millennium with
the Church militant, or else looks for a future
period of prosperity, preceding the second advent of
Christ. The history of later Millenarianism lies
beyond the scope of the present article,

LITERATURE.—The article ‘Chiliasmus’ by Semisch-Bratke, in
Herzog, MH*%; Harnack, ‘Millennium,’ in πιο. Brit.; Fisher,
‘Millennium,’ in M‘Clintock and Strong; Kellogg, ‘ Pre-millen-
arianism,’ in Schaff-Herzog, in which last the later literature is
given; Corrodi, Krit. Gesch. d. Chiliasinus (1781); Munscher,
*“Entwickelung der Lehre vom Tausendjihr. Reich. in d. drei
erst. Jahrhund.,’ in Henke’s Magazin, iv. 233. Specially for the
Jewish Chiliasm, Schurer, HJ P 11. ii. 178 ff. ; Drummond, The
Jewish Messiah ; Gfrorer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils ; Weber,
System der altsyn. Theol. (2nd ed., under title Jiidische Theologie
auf Grund des Talm., etc. 1897]. Much information concern-
ing Jewish eschatology may also be obtained from Charles’
ed. of Enoch (Oxford, 1893). For the biblical doctrine, cf. the
Comm. on Rey, esp. Moses Stuart, ii. p. 355 ff., Exc. vi. p.
474 ff., on the Millennium; Dusterdieck in Meyer4, 545 ff.
{new edition by Bousset, 1896]; D. Brown, Christ’s Second
Advent, 1846-53 ; Schultz, J DTh (1867) pp. 121-127 ; Briggs, The
Messiah of the Apostles, 341-358, where much information is

iven as to the history of interpretation ; Salmond, Christian

octrine of Immortality, 437 ff. For the early history of Mil-
lenarianism in the Christian Church, cf. Dorner, Person Christi,
i. 240ff.; Nitzsch, Dogimengesch. i. 400 ff.; Harnack, Hist. of
Dogma, i. 167 note, ii, 294 ff.; Briggs in Luth. Quart. (1879),
an answer to Seiss, The Last Tiimes (Phil. 78), which latter
gives a full statement of the literature from a pre-millenarian
point of view ; Terry, Bibl. Apocalyptics (N.Y., 1898).

W. ADAMS Brown.

MILLET (jn dohan, κέγχρος, milium). —The
testimony of the ancient VSS, and the identity of
the cognate Arab. dukhn = Panicum miliaceum, L.,
leave no reasonable room for doubt as to the grain

mentioned once as an ingredient of the very
complex bread made by Izekiel (459). It has a
seed not much larger than mustard, much used for
feeding the smaller kinds of birds. [t is also
sometimes used, mixed with wheat and barley, to
make bread. Sefaria Italica, Kth., is also culti-
vated in the East, under the name of dukhn. Its
seed Closely resembles that of Panicum miliacewn,
In addition to the above, Sorghum vulgare, L.,
has been proposed as the equivalent of dohan.
This is a tall Gramen, with broad leaves, and a
compact panicle, often a foot long, and 6 to 8 in,
broad. The seeds are white, and larger than
hemp seeds. They are extensively raised in the
East as a cheap bread-stuff for the poorer classes,
The Arab. name of this, dhwrah, usually given in
Eng. books dowrra, seems to be ancient, and is
never confounded with dukhn. The Arabs call
the sorghum dhurah beidd=‘ white dhurah,’ and
dh. saifi or dh. haizge= ‘summer dh.,’ in distinction
from maize, which is known as dA, safra=< yellow
dh.,’ or dh. shdmiyyoh=‘Syrian dh., or dh. hizan
=‘dh. of Aizén.’ The sorghum is cultivated in
the ereat central plains of Syria, and ripens in
midsummer, having had no water since the cessa-
tion of the spring rains. Ga ch Post:

MILLO. — 14. (sibor, always with the detinite
article, probably [but see below] ‘the fill’ [of earth]:
2S and 1K 11° ἡ ἄκρα 1 9 (Aq. 7] τὴν Medw Kai
τὴν ἄκραν, ν.Ξ' τὴν Μελώ ; 2 Chiro ἀνάλημμα). Accord-
ing to the brief notice in 28 5° (=1 Ch 118) ‘and
David built round about from (the) Millo and
inward,’ the Millo formed part of the original
defences of the old Jebusite city, situated on the
easternmost of the two hills on which Jerusalem
stands: most probably it was an outwork or
rampart of earth, which protected the northern
entrance of the Jebusite fort. After the capture
of the city and its subsequent extension by David,
it became necessary to fill up that part of the
Tyrop@on valley, which separated the new from
the old city at this point, in order to connect the
two. To this end David built a new and larger
Millo, of which traces remain to the present day
(Schick, ZDPV, 1894, p. 68). With this agrees
the statement of Josephus (Awé. VIL. i. 1, 2), that
David, having crossed the ravine and seized the
citadel (τὴν "Ακραν), rebuilt the city and called it
by his own name. He further states that David,
‘having also surrounded the lower city (τὴν κάτω
πόλιν), and joined the citadel to it, made them one
body.’ It would seem, however, that this im-
portant work was only planned or, at most, only
begun by David; for we learn from 1 Kk 9! *4
(and especially 1157 ‘Solomon built [the] Millo and
shut in the ravine [RV ‘repaired the breach’] of
the city of David’), that the actual building was
carried out by his successor. The Millo is men-
tioned again as forming an important part of the
defences of Jerusalem in 701 B.c.. when Hezekiah
prepared to resist the attack of Sennacherib
(2 Ch 32°).

The above explanation is quite consistent with
the old derivation of the word given by the Tar-
gums (Ἐπ ἢ ‘a filling up’), and adepted by
Gesenius (Thes. 787 f.), Schick, and others. The
Millo would, on this view, be connected with the
Hebrew root δ, but, as Grove (Smith, DB? ii.
p. 367) and Moore (Jg 9%) have pointed out, its
occurrence in connexion with the old Canaanite
town Shechem (see below) makes it probable that
it is an archaic, possibly Jebusite, form borrowed
by the Israelites. See JEBUS and JERUSALEM.

2. The House of Millo (xis> m2=Beth-millo ;

* Elsewhere in the Targums ΝΠ corresponds to the Hebrew
abe =the mound raised against a city by the besieging force.

814 MILLSTONE

MINES, MINING

B οἶκος Βηθμααλών [Π)ηθμααλλών] ; A οἶκος Μααλλών).
(4) Most probably the name of a place (Beth-millo)
in the neighbourhood of Shechem (Jg 96: 2%),
Some identify it with the tower of Shechem
(vv.°*), but this view lacks support, as ap-
parently the latter verses do not belong to the
same narrative as the rest of the chapter. (See
Moore, @d loc.). Tf we accept the rendering of the
RV, we must take ‘the house of Millo’ as the
name of a family or clan.

(Ὁ) (oikos Maad& ; dons Mello), the place where
Joash was slain by his servants (2 Καὶ 12”), ap-
parently in Jerusalem. See above, under 4, and
art. SILLA. J. Ἐς STENNING.

MILLSTONE.—See MILL.

MINCE (derived by Skeat from Angio-Sax.
minsiin to grow small, fail, but clearly connected
with Old Fr. mincer to shred) is found in 4 V only
in Is 38! *Because the daughters of Zion are
hanghty, and walk with stretched forth necks and

wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go,’
where the meaning is ‘taking short steps.’ Cf.

Shaks. Jerch. of Venice, ut. iv. 67—
‘And turn two mincing steps
Into a manly stride.’
J. HASTINGS.

MIND.— This aspect of the human soul, or of
man’s inner life, is not distinguished in the OT
by any radical term, but only by derivatives such as
sayz, Which las the meaning of ‘ prudence’ or ὁ good
sense“ rather than ‘ knowledge’ or ‘ understanding.’
The term 229 or 25, and its equivalent καρδία in the
N'T, include the intellectual as well as all other
inward movements. (See HEART). The greater
analytic precision of Greek thought and its closer
atcention to the intellectual element in our nature
brought into the laneuage of the Ν such words as
νοῦς with its congeners διάνοια, ἔννοια, vinua: also
σύνεσις, diatoyouds, ete. But even there, they are
not used with any psychological refinement or
exactitude. if is quite impossible, for example,
to follow Olshausen (Opuscala Theologica, p. 156)
when he attempts to show that νοῦς and σύνεσις, with
their corresponding verbs, as used in the NT,-repre-
sent the Kantian distinction between Vernunft and
Verstand, familiarized to us in Enelish by Coleridge
as that between Leason and Understanding—the
former, the higher intuitive perception ; the latter,
the lower or dialectic judgment. It is plain that
the terms are really interchangeable (Mk 8",
Mt 131, 2 Ti 27). Some more abstract terms,
such as ‘thought,’ ‘minding,’ ‘thinking,’ are used
in the NT, almost indiscriminately, to represent the
contents or products of the inward life, or what
the OT calls ‘the imagination of the thoughts of
the heart’ (Gn 6°).

Of the two Greek words most frequently repre-
senting the notion, νοῦς may be held to denote the
faculty of reflective consciousness, the organ of
moral thinking and knowing; σύνεσις a peculiar
force or acuteness in the exercise of that faculty.
The leading word (νοῦς) oceurs very seldom in the
Septuagint. In the few places where it does, it
represents 225 or 25. In Is 40 νοῦν Κυρίου stands
for m7 0, and the rendering is retained in 1 Co 916,
The OT Apocryphal writers have used it a few
times and in a sense more distinctively Greek. In
the NT its almost entire absence from the Gospels
and from the writings of the older apostles (it
occurs there only in Lk 24%, Rev 13 17°) shows
how closely they adhered to OT phraseology from
which the special notion represented by νοῦς was
absent. To note its frequent use by St. Paul and
that almost delicate antithesis in which he con-
trasts it with σάρξ in one connexion and with
πνεῦμα in another, completes its history.

St. Paul uses πνεῦμα for the divine or spiritual
power coming to the renewed man: for man’s own
highest sense of right or faculty of knowledge he
uses νοῦς, as do the best classical writers. Accord-
ingly, in sharp contrast with the ‘flesh,’ in which
evil dwells, he calls the divine commandment ‘the
law of his mind’ (Ro 7*), and declares that ‘with
the mind?’ (y.*°?) he serves it. This same faculty,
when perverted or enthralled by inherent evil,
becomes ‘ the fleshly mind’ (Col 2!%), ‘a reprobate
mind’ (Ro 1*), ‘corrupted mind’ (1 ‘fi 6°, 2 Ti 38).

The other antithesis is when the apostle takes
νοῦς for deliberate, reflective consciousness —its
proper sense—and contrasts it with πνεῦμα in the
sense of affatus or unconscious impulse coming
from without or above (1 Co 141%), See,
further, next art. and PSYCHOLOGY.

J. LAIDLAW.

MIND.— The verb to ‘mind’ is both trans. and
intrans. Asa trans. verb it means to ‘ give atten-
tion to, Ro 85 ‘They that are after the flesh do
mind the things of the flesh’ (φρονοῦσιν) ; 12!6
‘Mind not high things’ (μὴ τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες, RV
‘Set not your mind on high things’); Ph 3! ‘Let
us mind the same thing’ (τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν) ; 3! * Who
mind earthly things’ (οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες).
Intransitively it means to purpose, intend, Ae 90}8
‘for so had he appointed, minding himself to go
afoot’? μέλλων! ΟἹ Pr: Bki *¥e that mind to
come to the holy Communion’ ; Golding’s Calvin's
Job, 562, * Althoughe they protest that they minde
to justifie him . yet neverthelesse they con-
demne him’; and Lk 14°8 Rhem. ‘For, which of
you minding to build a toure, doth not first sit
downe and recken the charges that are necessarie 7’

The phrase “τὸ be minded? has the same meaning
as the intrans. verb ‘to mind,’ as Ru 118. When she
saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with
her’; 2 Ch 244 © And it came to pass after this that
Joash was minded to repair the house of the LORD’;
Ac 27 ‘They discovered a certain creek with a
shore, into the which they were minded, if it were
possible, to thrust in the ship’ (TR ἐβουλεύσαντο,
edd. ἐβουλεύοντο, RV ‘they took counsel’); Ph 3!
‘Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus
minded: andif inanything ye be otherwise minded,
(ἴοι shall reveal even this unto you’ (φρονῶμεν, καὶ
εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε).

There are many phrases of which the ptep.
‘minded’ forms a part: ‘earnally minded’ (76
φρύνημα τῆς σαρκός, RV ‘the mind of the flesh’)
Ro 8°, and in the same verse ‘spiritually minded ἢ
(τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος, RV ‘the mind of the
spirit’) ; ‘double minded? (δίψυχος) Ja 1545; ‘ feeble
minded’ (ὀλιγόψυχος, RV ‘fainthearted’) 1 Th 5";
‘highminded’ (ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, edd. ὑψηλὰ φρονεῖν, ‘he
highminded’) Ro 11%, 1 Ti ΟἽ {τεγυφωμένος, RV
‘puffed up’), 2 Ti 84; ‘light minded? (xot@os καρδίᾳ)
Sir 194; ‘likeminded’ (τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν, RV ‘to be
of the same mind’) Ro 15°, Ph 2? (écdpuxos), Ph 27°;
‘sober minded’ (σωφρονεῖν) Tit 2°.

J. HASTINGS.

MINES, MINING.—We are here concerned with
this subject only so far as it relates to Bible
history and Bible lands. Mines are but once
referred to in OT, and for the reason that in
Palestine proper they are unknown. In the
Sinaitic peninsula it is otherwise. The remark-
able passage in the Bk of Job (28'"), in which
the process of mining and the miner’s life are
graphically described, must have been written by
one who had a personal knowledge of the subject.
Egypt and Arabia Petra probably furnished to
the writer the details on which the poem is
founded. We shall take the passage as given
in RV, with some notes from the Speaker's Com-
mentaury—

1. ‘Surely there is a mine (vein AV) for the silver, and a place

MINES, MINING

375

MINES, MINING

for gold which they refine.’ Two processes were known to the
ancients—one by washing, described by Diodorus (iv. 2), as
practised in Egypt; the other by smelting. The word here
denotes the former.

2. ‘tron is taken out of the earth, and brass (copper) is
molten out of the stone.’

3. ‘Man setteth an end to darkness, and searcheth out to the
furthest bound the stones of thick darkness and of the shadow
of death.’ The miner lets in light to the very abode of dark-
ness (in the mine or shaft) by means of the lantern.

4. ‘He breaketh open a shaft away from where men sojourn ;
they are forgotten of the foot that passeth by : they hang afar ;
they swing (or flit) to and fro.’ This passage is also rendered in
the margin, ‘the flood breaketh out from where men sojourn,’
suggestive of the sudden outburst of pent-up waters in the
mine when a fissure is broken open: and after the waters are
escaped ‘they are minished, and gone away from man.’ .

7. ‘That path no bird of prey knoweth, neither hath the
falcon’s eye seen it ; the proud beasts have not trodden it, nor
hath the fierce lion passed thereby.’ The mine is a path which
none but man can discern. The ingenuity of man is contrasted
with the instinctive sagacity of animals.

9. ‘He putteth forth his hand upon the flinty rock : he over-
turneth the mountains by the roots’; apparently referring to
blasting. Pliny describes various processes (ΛΠ xxxiii. 21).

10. ‘He cutteth out channels’ (corrugt, Pliny) ‘among the
rocks ; and his eye seeth every precious thing.’ Channels to
drain the mine, while he carefully scans the mineral vein for
traces of ore.

11. ‘He bindeth the streams that they trickle not, and the
thing that is hid bringeth he forth to light.’ Descriptive of
the alternative process to that in v.10 of damming up the waters
in the river while the miner digs out the auriferous alluvial
gravel—a process described by Pliny (WH xxxiii. 21).

The whole passage, though couched in poetic
language, shows us that the processes of mining
nearly 2500 years ago were not dissimilar to those
practised in the time of Pliny, and even down to
the present day, except in the use of machinery
and of powerful explosives.

We shall now describe some localities where
mining operations were carried on, and = con-
sider them under the head of the minerals pro-
duced.

Gold (177).—This was one of the earliest metals
discovered by man, as may be gathered from its
occurrence in the sepulchres of the most ancient
races, worked into ornaments. Mining for gold
was carried on in many countries in ancient times
by the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Babylonians.
In Upper Egypt it was worked in the country of
the Bisharéech Arabs, and between Coptos and
Kossayr (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians, i. 232, ili.
227). The gold occurs in quartz-veins amongst
the Archean rocks, from which it was extracted
by breaking, grinding, and washing; criminals
being employed and compelled to work under
overscers taken from tribes speaking a different
tongue. Gold was also worked by Ramses I. at
Akita (Wady Ollagi) by means of shafts, but the
mines had to be abandoned owing to want of
water (Brugsch, Lgypt under the Pharaohs, 287).
The gold which was so abundant in Palestine in
the reign of Solomon (1 Καὶ 10!) came from
various countries—Spain, India, Arabia, and prob-
ably South Africa. The Phoenicians, according to
Herodotus (vi. 47), worked mines for gold in the
island of Thasos, but Spain was the country which
yielded to these navigators the most abundant wealth
in metals.
in the bed of the 'fagus, and there were mines of it
in Galicia, Asturias, and elsewhere (NV// xxxiii. 4).
The produce of Asturias formed the major part.
The process of mining gold from shafts and galleries,
as well as by washing the alluvia from the bed of
streams, is described in what must be considered
highly exaggerated language by Pliny (ΝΜ xxxiii.
ch. 21); but in the auri sacra fumes (Verg. Aen.
il. 57) human life was little accounted of, and
both in Egypt and elsewhere the hardships and
cruelties endured by those employed in mining
must have been great indeed. The gold of Ophir
may have come from India ; but it is not improb-
able that some of the ancient workings visited by
the late Mr. Theodore Bent in 8. Africa may date

| pp. 7, 8).

—

back to the time of Solomon (J. Th. Bent, « Ruins
of Mashonaland,’ Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1892, pp. ὃ
See, also, art. GOLD.

Silver (422), which Pliny calls ‘the next folly of
mankind’ (after gold), was mined by means of shafts
‘sunk deep in the ground,’ and smelted in combi-
nation with lead ore or galena (Pliny, NH xxxili.
31). Most of our silver comes from argentiferous
galena. The finest ores were worked in Spain.
In Upper Egypt silver mines were worked in the
mountains bordering the Red Sea (Wilkinson,
Anc. Egypt. i. 235). See, further, art. SILVER.

Copper (n¢'n3, brass [which see], which in Old
Eng. means copper).—Copper mines were worked in
very ancient times in Arabia Petriea. The earliest
mining operations of which we have any record
were those carried on by the Evyptian kings of
the 4th, 5th, and 12th Dynasties in the Sinaitic
mountains. In the Wady Magharah and at
Sarabit el-Khadim copper ore was extracted from
veins in the ancient rocks by means of shafts,
under the auspices of the early Pharaohs (Brugsch,
Ancient Egypt, 1. 65; Birch, Ancient Eqypt, 64).
It must have been this part of the Promised Land
that is referred to in Dt 87°, for in Palestine
proper copper is unknown. ‘The ore also occurs in
the Wadis Nasb and Khalig (in the latter some-
what extensively) in company with those of iron
and manganese; while the smelting of the ores
was carried on in the Wady Nasb near to the
springs, where extensive slag-heaps may still be
seen (Bauerman, Quart. Jowrn. Ceol. Soc. xxv.
27). Similar mines and slag-heaps occur in Wadis
el-Marka and Sened, where a dyke rich in copper
ore traverses syenite for a distance of nearly 2
miles (Holland, in Ord. Survey of Sinai, 224).
The ore was extensively worked by the Phani-
clans in Cyprus, where, according to Pliny, it
was first discovered, and from which the island
derives its name.

Tin.—This metal, which, when used as an alloy
of copper, produces bronze, was wrought in very
early times in Egypt, as bronze implements have
been discovered in ‘Thebes. ‘Tin (973) is mentioned
in Nu31* P, and also in Is 1”; in the latter in a sense
indicating its use as an alloy (cf. also Ezk 9918. 30
27)", Zec 410), The word used by Homer (J/. xviii.
474 and 613), κασσίτερος, is the same as the Arabic
kasdeer, probably derived from ancient Phoeni-
cian, Certain it is that these mariners brought
tin from the Cassiterides, which embraced the
Scilly Isles and the coast of Cornwall (Wilkinson,
Ancient Egyptians, vol. 111.).. One of the most
remarkable facts connected with the early races
in Europe and Asia was the extensive use of
weapons and implements of bronze ; and Sir John
‘vans shows that the use of bronze preceded that
of iron in Egypt (Ancient Bronze Implements,
See, further, under TIN.

Iron (593).—Though iron ore is more extensively
diffused in the rocks than any other, it seems to

have come into general use later than copper,

Gold, according to Pliny, was found |

bronze, and tin. Iron ores are unknown in Pales-

| .
tine, except at the southern base of the Lebanon
| (Porter in Smith’s DB ii. 87) and near Beirfit ;

| perhaps it was from these deposits that the cele-

brated Damascus steel was manufactured. The
ore is scarce in Evypt, but one mine οὗ rich
hematite, discovered by Burton in 1829, was
worked in ancient times in the eastern desert
at Hammami (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians. iii.
246). Tron ores were mined, also, in the Wadis
Nasb and Khalig, and in the mountain of Sarabit
el-Khadim, associated with manganese and copper ;
also in Jebel Hadid, all in the Sinaitie recion
(Holland, Ord. Surv. Sinai, p. 230). It is prob-
aile that these mining operations were carried on
at the same time as those in search of turquoise

376 MINIAMIN

MINISTER, MINISTRY

stones during the early Pharaonie oceupation—
about 8.0. 2500. Cf, also art. IRON,

Turquoise Mines.—Of all the ancient mines of
which we have any knowledge in the countries we
are dealing with, the most remarkable are those
of Jebel Sarabit el-Khadim, and Wadis Sidreh
and Magharah in the Sinaitie peninsula, from
which turquoises were extracted by the early
Keyptians. Amongst the lofty and precipitous
cliffs of the Nubian sandstone, extensive galleries
were opened out by colonies of slaves presided over
by taskmasters, in the time of Sneferu of the
4th Dynasty of Manetho, and of Amenemhat Ir.
or the 12th Dynasty, and his successor. The
numerous inscriptions and cartouches on the walls
of the mines, the steles and ruined buildings
scattered over a considerable area of this moun-
tainous region, indicate extensive mining opera-
tions at this early period, ¢. B.C. 9500. From
recent examinations of these galleries, it appears
that the turquoise stone (‘mafka’) occurs in thin
threads and pockets in an ochreous matrix. But,
notwithstanding the extent of these ancient works,
the turquoise is a gem almost unknown amongst
the Pharaonic ornaments in the tombs of Egypt,
from which it is inferred that the stones have
decomposed and crumbled away to powder. These
old mines were reopened a few years ago by Major
Macdonald, who employed Arab labour. The
ruins of a church indicate inhabitants in early
Christian times. * E. HULL.

MINIAMIN (;*>:32).—1. A Levite, 2 Ch 3115 (Bena-
wetv).— 2. Neh 12'7(B yt A om. ; N°? Βενιαμείν) =
Mijamin of 1 Ch 24°, Neh 107 19», 3, A priest
who took part in the ceremony of the dedication
of the walls, Neh 124 (Β δ᾽ A om. ; N°? Bena-

ety),

MINISH (from Low Lat. minutiare and Lat.
monutia smallness, through Fr. ménuiser to make
small, extenuate) has been displaced in mod. Eng-
lish by its derivative ‘diminish.’ It occurs twice
in AV: Ex 5! *Ye shall not minish ought from
your bricks of your daily task’ (730-85), and Ps
107" * They are minished and brought low through
oppression, affliction, and sorrow’ (eyo). Further
examples from the older versions are: Wyclif, 1K

74 *The stene of mele shal noght fayle, ne the
vessel of oyle shal not be mynushid, unto the day
in the which the Lord is to gyue reyn upon the
face of the erthe’ (1388 ‘schal not be abatid ’) ;
Tindale, Ex 5° ‘the nombre of bricke which they
were wont to make in tyme passed, laye unto
their charges also, and minysh nothinge therof’ ;
Coy., Ezk 5'° 1 will encrease hunger, and mynish
all the provysion off bred amonge you’; Great
Bible, Ps 12! ‘For the faythfull are mynisshed
trom amonge the children of men’; Rhem., He 27
“Thou didst minish him litle lesse then Angels.’
As the same Heb. verbs are frequently translated
‘diminish,’ it does not seem that the Revisers
were justified in retaining this obsolete form in
the two passages quoted. The Amer. Revisers
prefer ‘diminish’ in both passages. But RV
turther introduces §‘ minish’ into Is 19°, Hos 81:9,

J. HASTINGS.

MINISTER.—in modern English this word is
applied either ecclesiastically to the servant of
(sod, or else politically to the servant of the crown
or state. The eccles. use has come from the
practice in the early Church of translating did-
xovos by Lat. minister, and then making the title

” For a description of these mines, see Ordnance Survey of
Sinai_by Wilson and Palmer (1869), with notes by 5. Birch
and F. W. Holland; Lepsius, Briefe aus gypten, p. 336
(1352); Bauerman, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. xxv. 31, 32; Maspero,

Dawn of Civiliz. 354 ff., 475 1f. Bauerman believes that flint
implements were used in cutting the rock.

apply to all under the order of the presbyter.*
See Smith and Cheetham’s Dict. of Ant. 5.0. But
in AV, though the translation of διάκονος as well
as of other words, ‘ minister’ has always the primi-
tive sense of ‘ servant,’ ‘attendant,’ or ‘ officer,’ as
in Classical Lat. minister had.

Thus Joshua is called Moses’ minister (Ex 2413,
Jos 1'), being first of all his personal attendant ;
and John Mark is called (Ac 13°) the minister
of Barnabas and Paul. The ministers of Solo-
mon, at whose ‘attendance’ the queen of Sheba
marvelled (1 Καὶ 10°, 2 Ch 94), were not officers of
state, but household servants; and the minister
to whom Jesus handed the book (Lk 42°) was the
hazzan or attendant in the synagogue. St. Paul
speaks of Christ as ‘a minister of the cireum-
cision’ (Ito 15°), in conformity with the Lord’s own
words that He was sent to be a servant to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel ; he also asks if
Christ can be the minister of sin (Gal 2"), by which
he means its agent ; and when he speaks of being
himself a minister of Christ (Ro 1510, 2 Co ΤᾺ
Eph 3") or of the gospel (1 Col 125-29), he does not
use the word in any other sense than the absolute
sense of servant. The word ‘servant’ in AV
means commonly modern ‘slave,’ and so ‘minister’
is modern ‘servant.’ The minister in biblical
language is always a ‘waiter on,’ as Sir John
Cheke translates the word in Mt 9050 * Whoso-
ever will be great among you, let him be your
minister.’

Elyot (Governour, i. 18) says that ‘in the
message to kynge Pharo, Aaron rather as ἃ
ministre than a companyon wente with Moses.’
Tindale’s tr. of Mt 5” is ‘ Agre with thyne adver-
sary quicklye . lest . the judge delivre the
to the minister.” Wyclif, who has ‘minister’
very often for ‘officer, as Jn 95:9 72 1818. has
‘domesman’ here; the Geneva Bible has ‘sar-
geant’; the ‘oflicer’ of AV is from the Rhem-
ish. Cf. Udall, Erasmus’ Paraphrase, i. fol. ¢.,
‘Finally entring in he satte emong the ministers
warming him at the coles.’ See next article.

J. HASTINGS.

MINISTER, MINISTRY.—14. IN Ομ ΤΈΘΤΑ-
MENT. —These words are still employed by RV as
the tr® almost exclusively of shércth and its corre-
lates, which again are translated in the LX X almost
exclusively by λειτουργεῖν and its correlates. The
exceptions in the ΤᾺΝ are so rare as to be almost
negligible ; and yet the exclusiveness and some of
the exceptions, when examined, are striking and
suggestive. Shcreth is the word chosen to express
ministration towards a higher being for the com-
mon weal; hence it expresses the ministration of
the priests and Levites as a high function, for the
common weal, in relation to God (e.g. Ex 29% ;
and, ironically, the ministration to gods of wood
and stone, Ezk 20°"): it stands also tor the minis-
tration Godward of the elemental angels as the
forces of nature (Ps 1037! 1044); and likewise of
one human being to another of higher rank, again
most frequently for some public good, as of Joshua
to Moses (Jos 1').

To represent ministration looked at in this light
—a high function for the common weal—the LXX
most fitly chose λειτουργεῖν (-ia, -nua, -ds, -ικός,
τήσιμος), derived, as it was, from ἔργον and the Attic

*For the practice in the Scotch Reformed Church, cf.
Calderwood, The True History of the Church of Scotland,
105—‘ Pastors, Bishops, or Ministers are they who are ap-
pointed to particular congregations, which they rule by the
word of God, and over the which they watch. In respect
whereof, sometime they are called Pastors, because they feed
their Congregation ; sometime Kpiscopi, or Bishops, because
they watch over their Flock; sometimes Ministers, by reasor
of their service and office; and sometimes also Presbyters or
Seniors, for the gravity in manners, which they ought to have,

in taking care of the spiritual government, which ought to be
most deare unto them.’

MINISTER, MINISTRY

MINISTER, MINISTRY 377

λεῖτος (Ionic λήϊτος, Doric λάϊτος, ‘ pertaining to the
λαύς, the people), and carrying with it, as it did,

the remembrance of public duty discharged for

the state by richer citizens at their own expense.
That the idea of priestly ministration, though
strange to the word in classical literature, was not
strange to it in Alexandrian Greek, is proved by
Egyptian papyri of the 2nd cent. B.C. (see Deiss-
mann, Beitrage aus den Papyri, p. 137 f.) 3 and it
is found later on in the use of the word by
Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
and Plutarch (see Deissmann, tid., and Cremer,
Lexicon, Eng. tr. p. 104). Λατρεύειν (only twice
for shereth, Nu 16°, Ezk 20°2, and each time of the
priestly function) is mostly in LAX the repre-
sentative of ‘abhad, and ditlers from λειτουργεῖν in
being not so much priestly service as the religious
service of the entire congregation (Ex 3!) or of the
individual worshipper (28 155; cf. Ph 3°, Ro 1°).
(It is true, on the other hand, that, almost in
every case where the subst. λειτουργία appears, the
original is ‘abhodah ; but this may be because no
abstract subst. had been formed from shéreth).
When θεράπων stands for shéreth (ptep.), as it once
does, Ex 33" ‘his minister (RV) Joshua,’ the idea
present is non-servile attendance, like that of a
squire in the Middle Ages. (Cf. Hom. 14. xvi. 244,
the relation of Patroclus to Achilles ; and Nu 12%,
He 3°, the relation οἵ Moses to God). Twice only
does λειτουργεῖν represent the rare Aramaic pélah,
Ezr 74 (-os), 1.3 (-ia), and in both cases in regard to
the service of the sanctuary. Here the idea in the
Aram. appears to be that of labour, as though it
were the labour of ploughing. Διακονεῖν (-ia, -os) as
the rendering of shéréth is entirely contined to
{sther, and occurs but two or three times even

there. The idea in this word will be dealt with
below. Not one of the instances in Esther touches

the priestly function.

These remarks on the variations in the Heb.
and LXX will suttice to show how shéreth and
λειτουργεῖν have practically the monopoly of ex-
pression when the subject is priestly ministration,
whether narrowly or widely interpreted.

2. IN NT.—While λειτουργεῖν is the word for
ministration in the LXX, the word in NT is
διακονεῖν. ‘The exception in the OT is the rule in
the NT. And this is a suggestive fact. The NT
ministry is not one of the priest as distinct from
the people: the exclusive class becomes a universal
priesthood. λειτουργεῖν and its correlates occur (in
St. Paul, St. Luke, and He, and nowhere else) only
about fifteen times in all, and not in any single
case can they be made to apply to a literal priestly
function on the part of the Christian ministry.
Sometimes there is a literal reference to the
Jewish ritual (Lk 1°, He 97! 10"). Once Christ
is spoken of in the same region in the light of ful-
filment as ‘minister, λειτουργός, of the sanctuary
(in the heavens) and of the true tabernacle.’ Once
the word is used of prophets and teachers at
Antioch, Ac 13°, with reference, perhaps, to the
otfering of prayer in the face of the congregation.
Twice there is, in connexion with St. Paul, the
thought of sacrifice; but in Ph 2" ‘the Philip-
plans are the priests, their faith is the sacrifice,
St. Paul's life-blood is the accompanying libation’
(Lightfoot, in doco); and in Ro 15", though St.
Paul is the sacrificing priest, he is so only tigur-
atively: his priestly function is preaching the
gospel, and the sacrifice is the believing Gentiles.
Its uses elsewhere concern the ministration to the
wants of the poor saints, 2 Co 913, or of St. Paul
himself, Ph 2”-%*—the sacrifice of charity ; or
the service rendered to God by state officials, Ro
13°, or by the angels of wind and fire, He 17: 14,
The fact seems clear that the NT writers prefer
διακονεῖν (-ia, -os) because it connotes two things:

the first, which λειτουργεῖν also connotes, mints-
trution Godward in the service of others; the
second, which λειτουργεῖν does not connote, lowli-
mess in that ministration. In both these senses it
is in the line of succession from classical usace.
To the Greek the practically dominant connotation
was a service relatively low and even menial.
That διάκονος and δοῦλος breathed in classical
Greek the same air is obvious from Plato’s junc-
tion of διακονικάς With δουλοπρεπεῖς and ἀνελευθέρους
(Gorg. 518 A), and from his identification of
διακονεῖν and the work of δοῦλοι in tending cattle
and tilling the soil (Laws, vii. 805 Ε), In NT the
use is in no wise different. St. Paul employs both
δοῦλος and διάκονος to define his relation to his
Master (Ph 11, 2 Co 11°) and to his converts δι᾽
᾿Ιησοῦν (2 Co 4°, 1 Co 3°); and he tells how Christ
Himself both took the form of a δοῦλος (Ph 97) and
became a διάκονος of the circumcision (Ro 155). as
though his Lord’s own description of His position
had impressed him with the parallel (Mt 207%°*).
And though, in the parable of the Wedding
Garment, it is δοῦλοι that invite and διάκονοι that
cast out, Mt 22% 6: 10-15) the latter word appears to
be preferred in v.!° because attendants at table are
there spoken of, such attendants being either bond
or free, Lk 12°, Mt 8%. This menial service of
waiting at table (διακονεῖν) is cited by Christ, Lk
178 22°", as the characteristic sign of the contrast
between the relative positions cf master and
servant, and furnishes Him with ἃ parabolic
picture both of His own position among His dis-
ciples, Lk 22°7, and of the striking way in which
the Great Master shall reward His servants’ con-
tinued watchfulness, Lk 12°7. Even in secular
Greek there was an inkling of the dignity of this
menial humbleness in relation to the gods. Aris-
teides (Orat. 46, p. 198 f., quoted by Hort, Chris-
tien Ecclesia, p. 209 1.) ‘refuses to call [Athenian
statesmen who had saved their country] διάκονοι of
the state, but will gladly call them διάκονοι of the
Saviour Gods who had used their instrumentality’ ;
and Epictetus (Hort, p. 204) ‘in several remark-
able passages (Diss. iil. 22. 69; 24. 65; iv. 7. 20;
cf. 11. 26. 28) makes it the dignity of a man to
be a διάκονος of God. The Gospel gave the word
a still higher consecration of the same kind. . .
For [a Lord who had taken on Himself the form
of a servant] every grade and pattern of service
was lifted into a higher sphere. . . . Ministration
(διακονία) thus became one of the primary aims of
all Christian actions’ (e.g. Eph 41", where ‘the
work of διακονία ᾿ is parallel with ‘the edification
of the body of Christ’), whether for apostles, 2 Co
4. or for evangelists, 2 Ti 4°, or for the presbyter
or episcopus, Col 417, or for the ‘deacon’ himself :
whether the emphasis was (Ph 1’) on government
(ἐπισκοπὴ) Or On service (διακονία), διακονία was ‘ the
badge of all the tribe’; whether the service was
to God, 2 Co 64, or to Christ, Col 1’, 1 Ti 4%, or to
the gospel, Eph 87, or to the Church, Ro 12’, or to
the material wants of the poor saints, Ac 61%,
2 Co 9}, He 610. or to St. Paul himself, officially
Ac 19”, Col 17,2 Ti 44, or materially Philem τς
2 Ti 118 (ef. Lk 8°, women διηκόνουν to Christ and
His disciples of their substance). In all cases
there was διακονία to the Master for the benetit of
others, Col 17, And so also in the technical sense
of the word, the definite office, διάκονος (see
DEACON). This office did not exclude teaching :
such exclusion, in the presence of capacity, ‘ would
have been contrary to the spirit of the Apostohe
age’ (Hort, p. 202). Stephen, one of the Seven,
was a powerful preacher (Ac 6. 7); and whether
the Seven (cf. Ac 6? διακονεῖν tpamégais) were
technically deacons or not, they must surely have
suggested the office in the several churches later
on: ‘analogous wants might well lead to analogous

378 MINISTER, MINISTRY

MINNITH

institutions’ (Hort, p. 209). That teaching, how-
ever, Was “no part of the official duty ’ of a deacon,
is suggested by a comparison of the qualifications
required for a deacon at Ephesus and those re-
quired for a presbyter or episcopus (1 ‘Ti 328M) ;
while the injunction against talebearing in the
men-deacons and backbiting in the women suggest
a frequent contact with individual Christians and
Christian families, a going in and out among them,
a visitation from house to house. Thus they ap-
pear to have been ‘the main instruments for
giving practical etlect to the mutual sympathy
of the members of the body’; and the efficiency
of the office was sensibly increased by being
divided between the sexes (1 Ti 3" compared with
Ro 16!).

Besides λειτουργός and διάκονος there is in
NT a third word still (RV) occasionally trans-
lated ‘minister,’ viz. ὑπηρέτης (-eiv), lit. an’ ‘under-
rower’ in a galley, but used simply as ‘servant,’
and retaining no special connotation from. its
derivation, unless it be that of subordination.
The verb is used of David’s service of God, Ac
13°, and Moses is called by Josephus God’s ὑπηρέτης
(Ant. 1.1. 4). The subst. is found only twice in
the canonical LXX, and -εἶν and -ecia once each,
and all in the various senses of ordinary service,
But in Wis the words occur cight times, and once
(67) in a lofty sense,—kings the ὑπηρέται of God’s
kingdom. In this word the subordination comes
out more distinctly than in the other two (ef.
Xenoph. Cyr, vi. 2. 13=the orderly of a com-
mander), but διάκονος and ὑπηρέτης are continaally
running into one another (1 Co 41, 2 Co 11"), Of
the five places where AV translated the subst. by
‘minister,’ three remain in RV: Lk 12 (“m. of the
word’: cf. Ac 64 ‘ διακονία of the word’), Ac 9016
(‘m. and eye-witness’ for Christ), 1 Co 4: IV sat
Christ’: cf. 2 Co 11 “ διάκονοι of Christ’). RV
appropriately gives ‘attendant’ or ‘servant’ else-
where: so John Mark (Ac 13°) is now the
‘attendant’ on Paul and Barnabas; possibly, as
Blass suggests, for the secondary work of bap-
tizing ; and, as Ramsay suggests (Sé. Parl the
Traveller, p. 71), ‘the curiously incidental way’
in which he is brought before the reader’s notice
(and, we may add, the word of subordination,
chosen to describe his position) may serve ‘to
emphasize the secondary character of John Mark,
in view of what was to happen in Pamphylia :
he was not essential to the expedition: he had
not been formally delegated by the Church of
Antioch: he was an extra hand, taken by Paul and
Barnabas on their own responsibility.’ So also the
‘minister’ in Lk 450 is now the ‘attendant’: he
was the hazzdn of the temple,—‘a kind of vereger,’
see DEACON in vol. i. p. 575,—‘ whose office it was
(Schiirer, /7./P 11. ii. 66 f.) to bring out the Holy
Scriptures at public worship and to put them by
again.” He was no Jewish anticipation of deacon,
but was in every respect the servant of the con-
gregation, having, e.g., to execute upon those con-
demned to it the punishment of scourging (Makkoth
ii. 12), and also to instruct the children in reading
(Shabbath i. 3; but see EDUCATION in vol. i. p- 650*).
A similar use of the word oceurs in Mt 5% ‘deliver
thee to the officer, i.e. one of the attendants or
officials of the Sanhedrin, like lictors or sergeants-
at-arms (Schiirer, //.7P τι. 1. 187), the temple police,
aspecial feature in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 1818 ¢.9.),
rom whom Jesus doubtless takes His parallel
when in Jn_18*' He says, ‘my ὑπηρέται would now
be striving.’ For Mt’s ὑπηρέτης (855) Lk (1258) gives
πράκτωρ, the wvenger of the tragedians (Aésch. Ew.
319), the taxgathcrer of Demosthenes (778. 18), the
public accountant of the papyri (3rd cent. B.C., see
Deissmann. Beitrige, Ὁ. 152), who has now become
an under-orlicer of justice. J. ΜΑΒΒΙΕ.

MINNI (32, LXX παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ, Aq. Symin. Mevei).—
Name of a country mentioned in Jér 517 between
Ararat and Ash-kenaz, and summoned to make war
on Babylon. It is evidently equivalent to Mann,
which figures frequently in Assyrian inscriptions
in close connexion with Urartu (Ararat); and
which the authors of the maps appended to A/E
i. and ii. place somewhere between Lake Van and
the Araxes, while Sayce (JAS, 1882, p. 889) infers
from the line of march of the Assyrian kings that
this people must have lived on the S.W. shores of
Lake Urmia. The Assyrian texts supply us with
several names, both local and personal, connected
with Mann. Their chief city was called Zirtu or
Izirtu, and their chief fortress Ishtat (Assurbanipal,
ed. S. A. Smith, i. 21); other cities were Izibia,
Armed, Shuandakhul, and Zurzukka (Sargon, ed.
Winckler, pp. 105, 107); tribes included in Mann
were Umildish, Zikirtu, and Misianda (ἰώ.).
Shalmaneser 11. in the year 830 A.D. attacked
king Udaki of Mann (A/B i. 147), and his sue-
cessor Shamsi-Ramman received tribute from this
country (ἰώ. 179). In Sargon’s history the kings
of Mann play an important part. He relates how,
after the death of their king Iranzu, he put on, the
throne Tranzu’s son Aza. Aza was shortly atter-
wards murdered by insurgents, who at the instiga-
tion of king Ursa of Urartu put Aza’s brother
Ullusunu on the throne. Sargon marched against
the insurgents and defeated them, but on Ulusunu’s
submission received him into favour. Presently,
however, Ullusunu again revolted, but the inserip-
tion is defective at the point where it originally
recorded his fate (Winckler, 1.6. and 89). Assur-
banipal in his fourth campaign attacked Akhsheri
king of Mann, seized his capital Izirtu, and Jaid
waste 15 days’ extent of country. After Akhsheri
had been betrayed by his subjects, the Assyrian
king set Akhsheri’s son Ualli on the throne, but
increased the tribute of Mann by 15 horses, and
took Ualli’s son Erishinni and his daughter to
Nineveh (S. A. Smith, de. 23).—In the Vanic
inscription of the kings Minuas and Argistis,
whose dates can be approximately fixed for the
last decade of the 9th and the first decade of the
Sth cent. B.C., there are repeatedly allusions to the
country Ja-na-a, and even to a king named Haza,
probably a namesake of, though not identical
with, Sargon’s contemporary (Sayee, 7.6. 607).
These inscriptions imply with certainty that the
country of Mann was raided by the kings of Van
(=Urartu), but the language in which they are
composed is perhaps still too obscure to give us
much more information. Both sets of documents
lead us to suppose that Mann was a province of
considerable extent, and thickly populated ; that
it was alternately under Assyrian and Vanic
domination, and suffered severely from the rivalry
of these powers. The words that have been quoted
have no obvious linguistic affinities, and it does
not appear that any of the local names have Leen
maintained. D. 8. MARGOLIOUTH.

MINNITH (n35).—1. Jephthah smote the Am-
monites ‘from Aroer until thou come to Min-
nith,’ Jg 11° (B dxypis "Apydv, A eis Deuweid, Luc.
Σεμενείθ)Ρ. According to the Onemasticon (5.0.
‘Mennith’) it was shown 4 Roman miles from
Heshbon on the road to Philadelphia, but the
name has not been recovered in this direction,
which, as Moore points out, does not suit. the
requirement of the text that Minnith should be
in Ammonite territory beyond Aroer, not in the
immediate vicinity of Heshhbon. <A site called
Minyeh is found south of Nebo, but this may he
derived from another root, and in any case is
much too far south. Tristram (Land of Moab,
p. 140) could find no trace of Buckingham’s Menjah,

a ΚῊΣ-.

MINT

MIRACLE

which was alleged to exist 7 miles east of Hesh-
bon. 2. In Ezk 2717 ‘wheat of Minnith’ is speci-
ficd amongst the merchandise of Tyre which she
traded in with Israeland Judah. Davidson ( Coma.
ad loc.) thinks there is something unnatural in the
iatter bringing an Ammonitish product to Tyre
(but see Bertholet, ad loe., Who appositely refers to
δι aril ements Pty Wh to Pty ee)
‘wheat, tragacanth’? (ef. Gn 87° 450). This corre-
sponds with the ΤᾺΝ σίτου... . καὶ μύρων.
Cy Ry -CONDER:

MINT (ἡδύοσμον. mentha).—Mint isnot mentioned
in the OT, and only once in NT (Mt 2573 || Lk 114?)
along with dill, rue, and cummin,.as a tithable
product. The ancient Greeks employed in medicine
a plant called μίνθος or μίνθη, which likewise bore
the name ἡδύοσμον = " the sweet-smelling,’ on account
of its pleasant odour. It is believed by some to
have been the peppermint, Mentha piperita, LL.
It is more probable that it was generic, and in-
cluded M. sativa, Τὰς the garden mint; JW. viridis,
L., the spear mint; Jf sylvestris, L., the horse
mint; and JW. aquatica, L., the water mint; and
perhaps 21. Pulegiwim, L., the pennyroyal. A patch
of garden mint is cultivated near almost every
house in Bible lands, and the fragrant leaves
enter into many of their salads and cooked dishes.
It is known in Arab. as nena. It is the only
species now cultivated and eaten. IW. sylvestris
grows wild everywhere by ditches and banks. MV.
aquatica grows in water. It is less common than
the other. MW. Pulegiwm is not uncommon in wet
places. For illustrations trom Rabbinical sources
of the tithing of mint, see Wiinsche, Vewe Beltrdge,
291, 443. κι νυ.

MIPHKAD, THE GATE (72927 7°"; RV Ham-
miphkad ; πύλη τοῦ Μαφεκάδ ; porta judicialis).—A
gate near the east wall of Jerusalem during the
rebuilding of the city walls on the return from the
Captivity (Neh 3%). Its position was somewhere
between the northern portion of the Ophel wall
and the Sheep Gate, 1.6. somewhere east of the
temple buildings and adjoining palaces. It can be
deduced as follows : —

On the dedication of the city walls on their
completion (Neh 12%£), two great companies issued
from the temple to the centre of the western wall
of the city, and, separating near the Valley Gate,
proceeded along the walls to the temple—one by
the northern defences, and the other by the southern
defences. The principal gates and towers they
passed during their progress are enumerated. By
the north they traversed the whole way along the
wall, and, passing the towers of Hananel and
Meah, and the sheep-gate, stood still in the prison-
gate, 27.e. to the north of the temple. The cther
company traversed the southern wall, and, passing
the dung-gate and the fountain-gate (near Siloam),
eame down from the wall, and went up by the
stairs of the city of David, even unto the water-
gate eastward, 7.e. to the south of the temple.

In the aceount of the rebuilding of the walls
(Neh 3) the same gates and towers are enumerated,
and, in addition, all that portion of the wall to
the east of Jerusalem, from the fountain-gate, the
pool of Siloam, the armoury, to the court of the
prison ; and another portion along the Ophel wall
to the place over against the water-gate (of the
temple) towards the east, and thence by the horse-
gate and the east to the place over against the
gate Miphkad, to the going up of the corner, unto
the sheep-gate. This apparentiy indicates that
the gate Miphkad, if not actually in the eastern
city wall, was very near it, to the north-east of
the temple. .

The following passage seems to indicate that it
was the place where the sin-offering was burnt

outside the sanctuary, but inside the city walls:
Ezk 432! «Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin-
offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place
(miphkad) of the house, without the sanctuary.’

Miphkad has three meanings (Ges. Les.) : (1) A
number, or numbers ; (2) ἃ commandment or man-
date ; (3) an appointed place. It is used in con-
nexion with the chambers of the house of the Lord,
and the oblations and tithes: e.g. by the command-
ment (miphhad) of Hezekiah the king and Azariah
the ruler of God’s house, certain men are appointed
overseers (2 Ch 3118). It is used in connexion with
David’s numbering of the people of Israel (2 8S 24°,
ΤΟ

Lightfoot (ii, 27) points out that the Vulgate
renders the gate Miphkad as the gate of judgment :
this may perhaps refer to the hall of judgment
in the Preetorium, situated in later days in the
Antonia, to the north of the temple, or it may
refer to the east gate of the temple (Ezk 35-39,
Jl 2, Mice 43) overlooking the Valley of Jehosha-
phat: both Moslems and Jews believe that the
last judgment is to take place there. Brocardus
speaks of a Porta Judiciaria over against the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

The general opinion is that Miphkad was situ-
ated to the north-east of the temple (PHF St, 1879,
176 ; 1883, 215; 1885, 61; 1889, 90; 1890, 47).

C. WARREN.

|" **MIRACLE.—

i. The objective possibility of miracles.
ii. Their subjective credibility.
Their evidential value.

iv. The miracles of the Gospels, their characteristics

and their attestation.
y. Other Bible miracles:
(4) In the Acts of the Apostles.
(1) In the Old Testament.

vi. Christian miracles after the apostolic age.
i. THE OBJECTIVE POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES.
4. It isa remarkable circumstance that the great
stumbling-block at the present day to many persons
who are anxious to accept the Christian creeds
should be the statement of the very facet which was
put forward in the apostolic age as the one con-
vineing proof of their truth, viz. the fact of the
Resurrection of Christ. The Christian miracles
were once an ‘aid to faith’; they are now regarded
by many as a grave hindrance to the acceptance of
Christianity. [Ὁ is not hard to account for this.
With the development of physical science, and with
the largely increased knowledge of what we are
accustomed to call the laws of nature, and still more
with the growth of the conviction which is at the
root of all science that nothing happens abnormally,
but that in the physical world every effect has its
cause, and that the same causes under the same
circumstances will always produce the same effects.
men have come to think that there is something
about a ‘miracle’? which no scientifically educated
person can believe. So it has come to pass that
the argument based on the miracles with which
Christianity was ushered into the world, has been
more vehemently attacked than any other of the
‘evidences’? which are usually marshalled :
strenuous, Indeed, has been the attack, that not
a few theologians, in deference to the spirit of the
age, while not conceding in so many words the im-
possibility of miracles, have relegated the miracu-
lous to some obscure corner of the religious system
which they profess and teach, And the 7mposs/-
Lility of miracles is avowedly the foundation of
much of the negative criticisin to which the
Christian documents have been subjected. The
spirit in which Goethe said to Layater, * A voice
from heaven would not convince me that water
burned or a dead man rose again,” often finds
expression in literature. Renan prefaces his ΕΓ Δὸ
de Jésus by saying of the Gospels, ‘C’est parce

50

**Copyright, 1900, by οἰκο Scribners Sons

380 MIRACLE

MIRACLE

qwils racontent des miracles que je dis, Les
Kvangiles sont des légendes; ils peuvent contenir
de Vhistoire, mais certainement tout n’y est pas
historique.” And Strauss is careful to distinguish
the ‘supernatural’ element in the Gospels from
‘the natural element which alone is historically
available.” criticism of the documents being thus
prejudiced at the outset by the assumption that no
account Which involves the miraculous can possibly
be historical.

2. What then is a ‘miracle,’ and wherein con-
sists the difficulty of believing that it has taken
place? Τὸ is evident that precise definition is
necessary, if we are to arrive at any conclusion of
value in respect of a question like this. Let us
start with the definition given by J. S. Mill: ‘To
constitute a miracle, a phenomenon must. take
place without having been preceded by any ante-
cedent phenomenal conditions sufficient again to
reproduce it. The test of a miracle is, Were
there present in the case such external conditions,
such second causes we may eall them, that when-
ever these conditions or causes reappear the event
will be reproduced? If there were, it is not a
miracle ; if there were not, it is..* Now from this
detinition it is apparent that to one who holds that
there is nothing to be known save the sequences
and coexistences of phenomena, that ‘nature? is
only a name for the sum-total of the mechanical
and chemical forces of the universe (see NATURE),
that there is, in short, no other mode of existence
than that which can be perceived by the bodily
senses, the oecurrence of a miracle would be a
Violation of the law of causation, which demands
a cause for each observed effect. No causes other
than material can come within the cognizance of
man, and therefore, since a ‘imiracle’? has no
material cause, it Cannot be considered as within
the field of possibility. To consistent and thorough-
going materialism miracles are impossible. If, by
any chance, some anomalous and extraordinary
phenomenon were attested on unimpeachable testi-
mony, Which satisfied the detinition that has been
quoted from Mill of a ‘miracle,’ the conclusion
that the materialist would be foreed to adopt
would be that the phenomenon in question was
due to some hitherto unobserved combination of
physical forces. It could not be a miracle, for a
miracle, er hypothesi, is a perturbation of the nor-
mal sequence of physical causation, and the
materialist does not admit the existence or the
possibility of any force adequate to produce such
perturbation.

3. Materialism, however, is not the last word of
philosophy. It is inconsistent with any form of re-
ligion, and need not be elaborately discussed here.
All Theists recognize that the operation of spiritual
forces is just as real, just as familiar, an experi-
ence as the operation of material forces. An
obvious illustration of the intervention of spiritual
force in the phenomenal world is afforded by the
consequences Which ensue in the visible order every
time we exert our free will. Mind is not a mere
function of the bodily organism, and thought is
something distinct from those movements of the
grey matter of the brain which seem to accompany
it perpetually in our present experience. But
mind, νοῦς, reason, is a vera causa—a cause which
produces effects in the physical order, effects which
are often far-reaching and important. The action
of man’s free will, of which the outward effect. is
the motion of his limbs, is not a violation of the
law of causation: that law is true only of physical
causes, and the physical sequence is perfectly
observed, so far as we know. But the originating
impulse comes from a region other than physical,
even from the domain of spirit, where man lives

* Essays, p. 224.

his highest life and from which he catches his
highest inspirations. We shall see presently that
there is no complete analogy between such inter-
vention of human will in the physical order, and
that intervention of the Divine volition which we
shall find to be the characteristic of a ‘miracle’ ;
but, although the analogy is incomplete, it is im-
portant to recognize that we have experience of an
intrusion into the physical by the moral order
every time that we exert our wills to move our
bodies. There are forces other than physical to
be reckoned with.

4. Thus among the agents which can produce
effects in the physical order spiritual agents must
be counted ; and of these the highest is God. Our
conception of the universe is partial and inadequate
unless we realize that a great Spiritual Being is
the ultimate source of all the manifold activities
which it daily and hourly presents to our view.
(See NATURE.) And if, with this in our minds,
we approach an anomalous phenomenon which
seems to us to interrupt the continuity of physical
sequence, we shall have to enumerate among
possible explanations this other, that it is due to
the direct volition of the Deity. If we are satisfied
that this zs its explanation, we call it a miracle.
and Mill’s definition of a miracle may be replaced
by words of a thinker of a very different school.
*Miraculum,’ seid St. Thomas Aquinas, ‘est preter
ordinem totius nature ereatee: Deus igitur cum
solus sit non creatura, solus etiam virtute propria
miracula facere potest.’ * It would not be easy to
express oneself more succinetly than this. And it
is important to observe that the very idea of a
miracle, in this view, presupposes the existence of
a supreme spiritual agent, To attempt to prove
the existence of God by the aid of well-attested
occurrences of ‘miracle’ is idle, because we have
not any conception of the possibility of miracle
apart from His existence and providence.

5. The possibility of miracle involves the exist-
ence of God; it does not at once follow that the
converse is true, and that the existence of God
implies the possibility of miracie. And we have
now to consider whether, granting tie existence
of a Supreme Being who stands to nature in the
relation of Author and Governor, its Creator and

its Life, at once immanent in it and transcending
it, there are any grounds in reason for denying

unfolding itself in the natura naturata.

the possibility of His miraculous intervention in
the universe which He has made. The argument
by which Spinoza attempted to subvert this possi-
bility has become famous, and, inasmuch as almost
all @ priori arguments on the negative side are but
variations of it, a summary of it is essential to
the present discussion. In the article NATURE,
Spinoza’s view of the relation of God to the world
is briefly explained. It was a kind of Pantheism,
according to which the processes of the universe
were the manifestations of its Spiritual Life, the
exhibition, as it were, of the natura naturans
Thus no
place is left for free acts of the Divine volition.
And Spinoza lays down as a thesis that ‘nothing
happens in nature which is in contradiction with
its universal laws.’ Proceeding, then, to define a
miracle as an event in contradiction with the
universal laws of nature, he has no difficulty in
establishing the impossibility of any event of the
miraculous order. The whole force of the argu-
ment, and at the same time its whole fallacy, is
found in the ambiguity of the word nature.
Spinoza’s thesis that ‘nothing happens in nature
which is in contradiction with its universal laws’
is true only if nature includes all that is, if it is
understood as embracing the sum of all existence
aud of all force, material and spiritual, as including
* Summa, τ. cx. 4.

MIRACLE

MIRACLE 381

not only physical movements but the energy of
man and of God. But if nature be taken in this
large sense, it is quite unjustifiable to assert with-
out proof that ‘miracles are in contradiction with
the universal laws of nature.’ They are only, as
Aquinas has it, ‘preter ordinem totius nature
create’; miracles are contrary to the order of
nature, only if nature be regarded as exclusive
and independent of God.* The distinction is as
old as Augustine, and must be earefully borne in
mind: ‘Portentum fit, non contra natura, sed
contra quam est nota natura? (de Civ. Dei. xxi.
8). Nature as we know it is not to be identified
with nature as God knows it, with the ‘nature’
of which He is a part; and it is only of the latter
that we can say that its laws are universally
valid.

6. There is, however, a form of Spinoza’s argu-
ment which has more plausibility than that just
considered, based as the latter is on a palpable
logical fallacy. For it may be argued that miracles
are contrary to the very conception of God as the
All-Wise. A miracle would be an introduction of
disorder into that creation of which the only idea
worthy of God is that of an unchangeable order.
It would be a contradiction of God by Himself, for
the law which is at variance with the miracle is as
much the reflexion of the divine will and purpose
as the miracle itself God ‘is not a man that he
should repent’? (1S 1539). His eternal decrees are
unchangeable, and they are dictated by perfect
wisdom, But a miracle is an intervention which
can only be demanded by an imperfection in the
existing order; and thus we have to suppose that
the creation is, after all, but an imperfect ex-
pression of the Divine will. Here, it is urged, is
something inconsistent with the infinite wisdom
and power of Him who pronounced all, at thé
beginning, to be * very good.’ In a perfect system,
any interference with the normal course of things
could only be for the worse.

The answer is not far to seek, when we express
our difficulty in such words as these last. For this
world is not, however much we may desire it, the
best of all possible, or even of all imaginable,
worlds. At some remote epoch in man’s history
his progress was violently interrupted ; his career
was checked in its progress ‘from strength to
streneth.’ The free will, whieh was his greatest
gift. became the source of his greatest misery.
And his fall has left permanent traces on the fair
universe of God. How evil could ever have entered
into the world we do not know (see FALL) ; but as
things are, man has not fulfilled the Divine in-
tention for him. From the consequences of his
sin he cannot be saved by the mere normal opera-
tions of natural law, by the orderly development
of hisownnature. ‘That redemption can be brought
about only by an act of Divine merey, which may
involve — which perhaps necessitates —a_pertur-
bation of the established order. But the real
marvel is not the intervention of grace, but the
sin which demanded it. For sin is ἀνομία, law-
lessness (1 Jn3#) ; it is a violation of moral law,
which may be—and we ean see reasons which
sugzest that it ἐδ τ ἃ far greater anomaly than any
apparent vioiation of physical law could possibly
be. There is an incongruity which we cannot re-
concile (see FALL) between our conceptions of an
All-Wise and All-Good God and the existence of
sin; but that incongruity being frankly recognized,
there is no further difficulty in conceiving of God
as intervening, in an exceptional way, at an ex-
ceptional moment, to save man from the conse-
quences of his own rash acts.

*See Spinoza, Tractutus Theologico-Politicus, c. 6, and
Mozley, Miracles, p. 215 ff.

t See Trench, Miracles, p. 73.

7. There is, indeed, a point of view from which
it would be impossible to conceive of such inter-
vention taking place, without doing violence to our
best notions of the Supreme. We are not to
conceive of the relation between God and nature
as that merely which subsists between an architect
and his work (see NATURE), between a mechanic
and the machine which he has made, and which,
once made, is left to its own devices, unless it gets
out of order.

‘The reason why, among men, an artificer is justly esteemed
so much the more skilful as the machine of his composing will
continue to move regularly without any further interposition of
the workman, is, because the skill of all Awaman artiticers eon-
sists only in composing, adjusting, or putting together certain
movements, the principles of whose motion are altogether
dependent upon the artificer, . 2.) But with regard to God, the
case is quite different ; because He not only composes or puts
things together, but is Himself the Author and continual Pre-
server of their original forces or moving powers. And conse-
quently it is not a diminution, but the true glory of His
workmanship, that vothing is done without His continua
government and trspection. *

On the mechanical theory of nature, the word
‘intervention’ might seem to suggest imperfect
workmanship or foresight on the part of the
Creator ; but that is not a theory with which, as
Christians, we are concerned. One who upholds
‘all things by the word of Ilis power’ (He 18)
cannot be spoken of as ¢ntruding, either in nature
or in grace. And thus, despite the associations
which cling to the word ‘intervention,’ it is hard
to get a better word to express a special and ex-
traordinary manifestation of purpose on the part
of Him who is ever immanent in nature. We do
not imply by its use that God stands aloof from
the affairs of the world, save on those few occasions
which we call miraculous, but we mean that. at
certain critical moments in the history of the
human race, the uniformity of His rule has been
departed from, ‘lest one good eustom should cor-
rupt the world.? + When,’ says Augustine.t ‘things
happen in a continuous kind of river of ever-flowing
succession, passing from the hidden to the visible,
and from the visible to the hidden. by a regular
and beaten track, they are ealled natural; when,
for the admonition of men, they are thrust in by
an unusual changeableness, then they are called
miracles.’

& There prevails, however, at the present day a
widespread dislike to any conception whieh in-
volves a break in the continuity of the physical
order, and thus various hypotheses have been pro-
posed, according to which miracles may be made to
appear more or less ‘natural. Indeed, ‘natural
law in the spiritual world’ has been accepted by
some as the principle of the much desired eirenicon
between science and religion. It will be instrue-
tive to consider in detail some of these hypotheses.

(a) In the discussion of the miraculous, stress has
at times been laid on the principle that God works
by means. ‘Miracles,’ says the Duke of Argyll,
‘may be wrought by the selection and use of laws
of which man knows and can know nothing, and
which, if he did know, he could not employ. t And
he suggests that much of the difficulty attendant
on belief in supernatural agency is due to neglect
of this truth. Most people seem to understand by
supernatural power, power independent of the use
of means. and the scientific mind cannot bring
itself to believe in this. Τ is doubtful if this helps
usmuch. The difficulty of accepting an alleged
miracle as real would not be much lessened, if it
were shown that natural means had been used for
its accomplishment. For example, in several of
the ‘miracles’ of the OT, it is distinctly asserted
that natural forces were employed as means. Thus

* Clarke, First Reply to Leibnitz, p. 1d,
eee Lee lls (6.
+ Leign of Law, p. 16.

382 MIRACLE

MIRACLE

the dividing of the Red Sea and the supply of
quails are asserted to have been brought about
through the agency of a wind blowing in a par-
ticular direction (Ex 14°!, Nu 11%). Now, if any
ineredibility attach to these events, it does not seem
that the introduction of machinery renders them
any more credible. For the introduction of this
machinery does not remove the direct intervention
of God ; it merely shifts it back to an earlier stage.
The wind brought the quails, but what brought
the wind ?

‘It is as real a miracle that the wind should come at the
direct command of God, as that the quails should come with-
out the wind, And so in every case. The immediate consequent
of the special exertion of the Divine will is a miracle. Between

the immediate consequent and the final result any number of

‘means’? may be interposed; but this does not alter the
miraculous character of the event—it only disguises it. A
miracle is not the less a miracle because in the
phenomena which we call an event there are present in addi-
tion to the one miraculous element a hundred elements which
are not miraculous.” *

(b) Such events, however, as the dividing of the
Red Sea and the supply of quails are not in them-
selves extraordinary; they can be classed as
‘miracles? only because of the circumstances under
which they happened, and should perhaps be rather
described as ‘special providences,.’ to use ἃ. common
phrase whose meaning is discussed below. But can
we conceive any way in which events which seem
to be an interruption of the physical order may be
brought under Jaw?) An ingenious illustration was
put forward in this connexion by Babbage in his
Ninth Bridgewater Treatise. He supposed the case
of a complicated machine, so constructed that by
turning the handle the first 100,000 natural numbers
appear consecutively at regular intervals on a dial
plate, but such that the next number is 100,100
instead of 100,001; after which apparent miracle
the series goes on as before in arithmetical pro-
gression. Now, the exceptional numbers are not
mniracles or even anomalies ; they were all provided
for in the original construction of the machine ; they
are examples of law, unknown to the unscientific
public, but known to the wise artificer. Peabody
gave a similar illustration. He told a story of a
chureh clock, so contrived that at the close of a
century it strikes the years as it ordinarily strikes
the hours. * As 100 years come to a close, suddenly
in the immense mass of complicated mechanism a
little wheel turns, a pin slides into the appointed
place, and in the shadows of the night the bell tolls
a requiem over the generations which during a
century have lived and laboured and been buried
around it. One of these generations might live
and die and witness nothing peculiar.’ The ano-
malous striking of the clock at the close of the
century would scem a miracle to the uninstructed
public ; and yet it was not ahbaormal in any true
sense. Such analogies are obviously not apt in
certain particulars, Not to speak of the comparison
of nature to a machine, which, as we have already
seen, is misleading, it is plain that the exceptional
phenomena deseribed above would react at regular
intervals, however long. We cannot suppose that
there is any such periodic law in the case of mir-
acles, Which, as sigvs, are in their very nature
unique. And so the only service which such
analogies render is to remind us of our unfathom-
able ignorance of the inner constitution of nature,
and so to guard us from hasty dogmatic negations
of the possibility of this or that alleged event.

(c) A better illustration, perhaps, than either of
the above is the following, which was (like that of
the numerical machine) suggested by Babbage.
The science of mathematies teaches us that there
are many curves made up of isolated points, in
addition to a continuous curved line. ‘To a non-
mathematical mind it seems an absurd paradox

* Jellett, Lficacy of Prayer, ᾿ς 166,

series of

|

to maintain that a single outlying point can be
treated as lying on a continuous curve in its
neighbourhood. But, in spite of the apparent
absurdity, nothing is more certain than that it
can be so treated. A curve, which to the eye
appears to be discontinuous and broken, is known

by the mathematician to follow an unvarying
law. Now, it is not extravagant to suppose that

our knowledge is at least as inferior to that of
the Divine mind as the knowledge of geometry
possessed by the beginner is inferior to the know-
ledge of the skilled mathematician. Τὴ short,
apparent discontinuity may not involve any real
breach of law, the whole progress of science tending
as it does to bring what were formerly anomalous
facts under the protection of general principles.
And thus a ‘miracle’? may really be explicable by
Supreme Intelligence as an illustration of law.
These considerations do not prove that miracles
are reducible to law, but show that there is
nothing incongruous with daily experience in
supposing that they may be so reduced.

9. The law of continuity, which is often appealed
to as putting out of court the possibility of miracles,
is—it must ever be remembered — nothing more
than a convenient principle for the direction of
scientific Investigation. It may often deceive us ;
we may imagine that phenomena exhibit discon-
tinuity, when a larger experience shows us that
continuity has been most strictly observed. But
it is even more important to recognize that it
has no claim at all to be regarded as a constitutive
principle of nature; it is not a tetish before which

we must bow down, and which we must worship.

The gap between the inorganie and the organic.

between death and living matter, between animal
life and human thought, —all these are chasms
which cannot be bridged, so far as we know.
In each case there is a μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος.
The most evident breach of continuity that can
be imagined is the Creation itself: to conceive an

Infinite Creator calling into existence ἃ finite
world, is to conceive discontinuous action. And

other points of singularity on the curve of develop-
ment of life are to be found at the points where
man became conscious of his powers and of him-
self, and, lastly, when, in the fulness of time, God
beeame Man. Stupendous miracles, indeed !
‘Tria mirabilia,? said Descartes, *fecit) Dominus ;

res ex nihilo, liberum = arbitrium, et hominem
Deum.’
10. We may put the case in another way. Con-

ceive for the moment the existence of beings
confined to two dimensions of space. Length and
breadth they understand ; of height they can have
no conception whatever. They live their lives in
a plane; that space has other possibilities in store
would be to them the maddest of dreams. To
move northward or southward, eastward or west-
ward, would be within their power; but the terms
‘upward? or *downward’? could have no meaning
at all. To such beings the advent of a visitor
from the third dimension of space would be a true
‘miracle’? ; it would be a violation of all the laws
by which their universe has been ordered in the
past. For such visitation could be reduced by
them to no law; the appearance or disappearance
of the vision (whieh would be simply brought
about by descending upon or rising from the plane
of their being) would be inexplicable. The move-
ments of a visitor who could thus intrude into their
universe would remain for ever anomalous and
extraordinary, inasmuch as the third dimension of
space is for them inconceivable. Watato nomine,
de te fabula narratur. By what right do we,
the inhabitants of this solid earth, assume that
space is necessarily limited to three dimensions,
and three only 2?) Why not four or five? Indeed,

MIRACLE

MIRACLE

mathematical research does not get very far before
it begins to suggest that the possibilities of space
are infinite, though inconceivable. We cannot, in
short, assert the Gapossibility of miracle unless we
are prepared to assume that the laws of space
Which fetter and confine us in every region of
outward experience are laws for the whole universe.
It does not need a study of the Kantian philosophy
to perceive that such an assumption is entirely un-
warranted. But—it is only a possibility, yet one
worth pondering—if the existence of a world where
space has forwr dimensions be credible (though not
imaginable), it may well be that what we call
miracles are to the inhabitants of that world the
ordinary manifestations of * natural’ forces. *

11. Such considerations as these lead to a con-
clusion of considerable importance. They teach
that the wonderful or anomalous or extraordinary
character of any phenomenon is quite insufticient,
by itself, to justify us in asserting that it must
be due to the intervention of supreme spiritual
powers. ΕῸΡ there is always the possibility,
not to be ignored. that it is due to unknown
combinations of known natural forces, or to a
natural force hitherto undetected. A remark-
able verse in the Bk. of Wis (19!8) illustrates the
anomalous combination of natural forces in a
miracle, by likening it to the transposing of the
melody played on a musical instrument to a
ditferent key: ‘As the notes of a psaltery vary
the character of the rhythm, even so did the
elements, changing their order one with another,
continuing always the same, each in its several
sound.’ And (as is pointed out in art. NATURAL)
it is inevitable that what seems extraordinary to
one man will not seem so to another. Cortes
seemed a superhuman person to the Mexicans
when he predicted an eclipse. To a dog, the
actions of his master must repeatedly seem ‘extra-
ordinary,’ ἦς anomalous and inexplicable to his
faculties. ‘Thus Locket defines a miracle as ‘a
sensible operation, which, being above the compre-
hension of the spectator and in his opinion contrary
to the established course of nature, is taken by him
to be divine.” The definition is not entirely
satisfactory, for it loses sight of the important
consideration which has been under discussion,
viz. that the anomalous character of the alleged
oecurrence does not by itself establish the operation
of spiritual force ; but it is valuable as bringing out
clearly the inadequacy of any such criterion to
serve as an objective or universal test of * miracle.’
To class all + extraordinary? or ‘abnormal? occur-
rences as ‘miracles’ is to make an unwarrantable
assumption,

miracles ‘ea que natura facit nobis tamen vel
alicui occulta,’ viz. the effects of physical forces as
yet unknown.

12. Further, the wholesome consciousness of the
limitations of our knowledge will prevent us from
describing miracles as ‘violations of law,’ a phrase
too commonly used, without any clear conception
of the meaning of the words employed. If law
here means ‘law of the universe,’ of that sum of
existence which includes God Himself, it is plain

In short, to use the technical language |
of scholastic theology, we must not include among |

that such a phrase is self-contradictory ; the laus |

of the Cosmos, in this view, are the general
principles of wisdom according to which the world
is ruled, and ‘these are, strictly, inviolable. Thus,
when Butler suggests that ‘God’s miraculous inter-
positions may have been all along by general laws
of wisdom,’ } and that we shall be able to see

* The argument suggested in this paragraph was developed
in an ingenious essay, published anonymously in 1Iss4, under
the title Flatland.

t Discourse on Miracles.

t Analogy, ii. 4.

this in a future state of wider knowledge, he
means by ‘laws of wisdom,’ not physical sequences
which have been observed to be invariable in our
experience, but the reasons by which the Divine
Being is guided in the action of His Providence.
And his observation amounts to this, that although
miracles, produced as they are by the direct inter
vention of the Divine volition, do not obey the
ordinary rule that every physical effect may be
accounted for by an antecedent physical cause,
yet they are not, on that account, larless. They
are Wrought for a worthy end, and in accordance
with a wise plan. And Butler explains elsewhere *
that there may be an inherent limit in the nature
of thines to the utility of miracles, beyond which
they would produce injury and disadvantage ; the
general bad result of the interposition being greater
than the particular benefit’ produced by at, “Phas
one of the ‘general laws’ which might be sup-
posed to govern miraculous interposition would be
a Law of Economy, that it should take place only
at exceptional crises in the history of man or of
the universe.

13. But. no doubt, when miracles are described
as ‘violations of law,’ what is generally meant by
law is physical law, the kind of law which is
ascertained in the laboratory, and whose operation
comes within the sphere of the bodily senses to
observe. Such a law might be conceived as violated
without any violence being done to our reason, for
the sum of physical forces is not the entire Cosmos,
or its most essential factor. But, as a matter of
fact, observation could never demonstrate a viola-
tion of law in this sense, save to a being who was
omniscient. For (see NATURAL) we have no title
to assert that we know and can infallibly predict
the outcome of a hitherto unobserved eombination
of physical forces; we cannot tell what is above
nature, unless we know all that is orithin it. >
As Huxley tersely wrote: ‘If a dead man did
come to life, the fact would be evidence. not
that any law of nature had been violated, but that
those laws, even when they express the results of
a very long and uniform experience, are necessarily
based on incomplete knowledge, and are to be held
only on grounds of more or less justifiable expecta-
tion.’ Ὁ With our imperfect knowledge of the eondi-
tions of life, we are not justified in saying with con-
fidence that the dead could not be restored to life
by some, to us, unknown combination of physical
forces. And thus the mere marvellousness of our
Lord’s miracles by no means justifies us in ascribing
them to supernatural agency. All that the evidence
in respect of their extraordinary character would
justify would be that they were what He Himself
called them, ‘the works which none other did’ (Jn
1523). In this regard, suggestions have often been
made to the effect that those phenomena which
we now call miraculous may be all scientifically ac-
counted for in the future, and shown to be the
action of obscure natural causes, with whose action
we are only partially acquainted. — Archbishop
Temple hints that ‘the miraculous healing of the
sick may be no miracle in the strictest sense at all.
It may be but an instance of the power of mind
over body —a power which is undeniably not yet
brought within the range of science, and which,
nevertheless, may be really within its domain.
In other words, what seems to be miraculous,
may be simply unusual.Ӥ And so all that the
anomalous character of these recorded events
would prove would be, that Christ's healing acts

* Analogy, i. 7.

+ Augustine suggested that the miracle at Cana of Galilee is
only the acceleration of a natural process: ‘Ipse feeit vinum
in nuptiis qui omni modo hoe facit in vitibus.’ It is the rate of
the process which is extraordinary.

t Hume, p. 135,

§ The Relation between Religion and Science, p- 195.

384 MIRACLE

MIRACLE

were at least relative miracles, in Schleiermacher’s
well-known phrase, ‘miracles if not for the purpose
of science, at least for the purpose of revelation,
arresting attention on the Agent, accrediting Him
as God’s messenger, singling Him out from other
men and proving Him to be in possession of cre-
dentials deserving serious consideration ; miracles
for Christ’s own time if not for ours, and having
for that time the function and value of genuine
miraculous deeds.’

14. Weare thus led round again to the conclusion
that the true miracle, which shall enable us to
see the finger of God in the matter, must be more
than awonder. The word τέρας is never used in

the NT of a miracle, save in connexion with
another word, viz. σημεῖον. Ὁ The miracles of
Christ are not only wonders; that would not

euarantee their quality : they are sigs (see SIGN).
They must not be separated from their context
and viewed as the prodigies of a thaumaturgist ;
for they are capable of being interpreted as the
manifestations of supreme. spiritual force, only
when the attendant circumstances are considered.
Mozley puts the case thus :

‘To say that the material fact which takes place 77 ἃ
miracle admits of being referred to an unknown natural cause,
is not to say that the miracle itself does, A miracle is the
material faet as coinciding with an express announcement, or
with express supernatural pretensions in the agent. It is this
correspondence of two facts which constitutes a miracle, If a
person says toa blind man, ‘see,’ and he sees, it is not the
sudden return of sight alone that we have to account for, but
its return at that particular moment, For it is morally im-
possible that this exact agreement of an event with a command
or notification could have been by ἃ mere chance, or, as we
should say, been an extraordinary coincidence, especially if it is
repeated in other cases.”

Thus, then, in the case of an alleged event
whieh would seem to satisfy the definition of a
miracle given above by Mill, we have two possible
explanations. One is that it is the result of un-
known natural law; the other is that it is due to
the intervention of supreme spiritual power. And
the latter explanation is the one which we feel
compelled to adopt, when the extraordinary event
presents distinct evidence of purpose. A miracle,
then, may be described as an event manifesting
purpose, occurring in the physical world, which
cannot be accounted for by any of its known
forces, and which, therefore, we ascribe to a
spiritual cause. It is an interference with the
ordinary action of the forces of nature on the part
of the Author of Nature—an event brought about,
not by any observed combination of physical forces,
but by a direct Divine volition. It is thus at once
a τέρας and a σημεῖον.

15. These two characteristics enable us to dis-
tinguish miracles, so called, from other phenomena
which resemble them in certain respects. For
instance, as has been already said, an interference
with the physical order on the part of the spiritual
takes place every time we exert our free will. On
every oceasion of such exertion we demonstrate
the possibility of material phenomena being in-
fluenced by a personal, conscious, free agent. The

resulting action is a σημεῖον of the Intelligent Will |

which started the series of physical movements
with a view to the fulfilment of foreseen purpose.
We do not, however, call this a τέρας, a wonder,
although it is truly a very wonderful thing. But
there is no sensible interruption of the physical
sequence ; the continuity seems to be unbroken ;
and, so far as the powers of observation reach, it
is unbroken. Once the initial impulse has been
given, the power of the muscles is subject to
physical laws, like any other physical force. An
act of free will is not, strictly, comparable to a
miracle, but to the action of Divine Providence in
relation to mankind. All ‘ special providences,’ or
* Ac 219, an apparent exception, is a guotation trom J] 280,

—to use a better phrase—all answers to prayer,
are strictly due to the intervention of the spiritual
in the physical order. We do not call these
miracles, because there is no apparent interruption
of the ordinary course of nature; but yet at some
point in the physical series there has been the
intervention of the Divine will. Our conception
of God (see NATURE) is not that He stands aloof
from the world save on those rare occasions where
we speak of miraculous interposition, but that He
perpetually directs and controls the forces of
nature in accordance with His purposes. But these
forces are not His masters ; they are His servaits.
And we have no ground for assuming that He ean-
not. for a special purpose, combine, counteract,
paralyze their energy as He wills. Here we have
reached the point beyond which the analogy of
man’s free will does not carry us. For man’s free

will is subject to strict limitations in its exercise...

One obvious limitation is that man’s influence
over foreign bodies is possible only through the
instrumentality of his own body. Despite some
recorded phenomena, it seems to be true that
man’s will can enter the physical series only
through the medium of the grey matter of his own
brain. We have no warrant whatever for extend-
ing any such limiting law to the action of the
Divine will, nor indeed would it be consistent
with the conception of a Supreme Agent who is
immanent in nature, while transcending it. This
is a fundamental difference, indicating, as it does,
that the Divine volition is related to the forces of
nature ina fashion very diverse from that in which
the human volition is related to those forces. The
result of the exercise of human will is a σημεῖον:
it is not a τέρας.

16. It may be asked αὖ this point (and the
question demands an answer), If miracles are not
impossible, can it be said that anything is im-
possible 2? Has the word impossibility any mean-
ing, if the possibility of interruptions of the
ordinary course of nature, of breaches of the law
of physical continuity, be admitted? It has a
meaning. There are certain permanent impos-
sibilities which can ἧς. ated be conceived nor be-
lieved, of which we cannot assert in any intelligible
sense that they could become possible by the act
of Omnipotence, viz. Jogical impossibilities, viola-
tions of the laws described by logicians as the laws
of thought, the laws of identity, contradiction,
and excluded middle, That A should be the same
as not-A, that a thing should possess two directly
contradictory attributes at the same time,—these
are permanent impossibilities; their truth is in-
conceivable for any rational being. Such axioms
are not like the axioms of mathematics, which
depend for their validity upon the constitution of
space, and which therefore may not be true in
regions where the conditions of space are not the
same as they are with us. We cannot impose the
laws of space upon Him ‘ whose kingdom is where
space and time are not.’ But it is quite otherwise
with the laws of thought, of that reason in virtue
of which it is written that man was made ‘in the
image of God.’ These laws we must consider to
be of universal and permanent validity, unless we
are prepared to surrender ourselves to intellectual
chaos; and a violation of them must be counted
by us as strictly impossible. It is evident that
such violation is not ejusdem generis with those
anomalies in the ordinary course of nature which
we call miracles. ‘There is no miracle recorded in
the Bible or anywhere else which is in the least
like a violation of the laws of thought: if there
were, we could not believe it, no matter what the
authority on which it were presented to us, for we
should be prevented from doing so by the constitu-
tion of our own minds. Far from being violations

MIRACLE

MIRACLE 385

of the laws of thought, miracles cannot (as has
been shown) be accurately and with confidence
described as violations of the laws of nature; they
are not violations, for instance, of the law of
causation, that every effect must have an adequate
cause, bece vuse in each case, ex hypothesi, the cause
that is assigned is the direct action of the Divine
will. It is doubtful, even, if any of the Gospel
miracles could be described as violations of the
laws of space and time. But however that may
be, the point necessary to emphasize is, that in
asserting the possibility of miracles on the hypo-
thesis of Theisin, we are far from denying the im-
possibility of any such contradiction as a violation
of the fundamental laws of thought would in-
volve. Such a violation would be contradictory
to reason; it is a misuse of language to say that
the miracles of the Gospel are so.

17. The problem of the abstract possibility of
miracles cannot be considered further here. No-
thing has yet been said as to their probability, or
credibility, or utility ; but, before this section of
the subject is closed, it may be worth while to
remark that representative thinkers of many
schools of thought have expressed their conviction
that thus far the argument is impregnable. ‘Thus
Kant, the apostle of criticism, while allowing no
value to miracles as credentials of a moral religion,
distinctly concedes their possibility, and indeed
their utility, under certain circumstances.* So,
in like manner, Rousseau declared: ‘'This ques-
tion, whether God can work miracles, seriously
treated, would be impious, if it were not absurd ;
and it would be doing too much honour to him who
would answer it in the negative to punish hin ;
it would be sufficient to keep him in custody.’t
And, once more, Huxley wrote: ‘Denying the
possibility ot iniracles seems to me quite as un-
justifiable as speculative Atheism.’{ There is, in-
deed, a growing conviction among Christians and
non-Christians alike that @ priori speculation in
theology, as in science, is worth very little; that
the one hope of arriving at truth is to keep an
open mind, and to w elcome evidence from any and
every quarter, without previous decision as to its
value or worthlessness. It is in this spirit that an
investigation into the evidence of the Christian
miracles must be approached.

li, THE SUBJECTIVE CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES.
—1. It would seem, from the preceding discussion,
that the question whether miracles have ever
happened or not is a mere question of fact. This
question, like all similar ones, must be determined
by evidence—the evidence of the senses if the
‘miracle’ is within the range of our own personal
experience, the evidence of credible and sufficient

testimony if it belongs to an age other than our
own. In the case of the miracles which accoim-

panied the dawn of Christianity, the former kind
of evidence is not now to be had; we must have
recourse to the testimony of others. And so it
might be thought that the only problem for the
scientific inquirer is to investigate the nature of
the evidence which is forthcoming, its amount, its
date, and its consistency, and to determine, if it
may be, the character and veracity of the witnesses.
A preliminary difficulty, however, was raised by
the ingenuity of David Hume, which still remains
to be dealt with.

In his famous essay on Miracles, Hume took up
the remarkable position, that even if miracles
happened, their occurrence could not be established
by testimony ; for, without troubling ourselves with
any metaphysical discussion about their objective

* Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft,
p. 99. ed. Rosenkranz.

+ Lettres dela Mon tagne, iii.

} Spectator, Feb. 10, 1866

VOL. 111.--2 Ὁ

possibility, they. may be seen to be subjectively
incredible. Hume’s case has often been argued
since his day, but it is doubtful if any writer has
ever presented it in a more plausible form than its
original advocate; and it will therefore be best τὰ
take it in his own words:

“A miracle,’ he says, ‘is a violation of the laws of nature ;
and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these
laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the
fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly
be imagined. . . . It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in
good health, should die on a sudden; because such a kind of
death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been
frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead
man should come to life; because that has never been observed
in any age or country. .. . The consequence is that no testi-
mony is suflicient to establish a miracle, wrlexs the testimony
be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miracu-
lous thin the fact which it endeavours to establish. Or,
briefly, it is contrary to experience that a miracle should be true,
but not contrary to experience that testimony should be false.’

2. In this argument a careful observer will not
fail to observe that the point to be proved is
assumed at the outset. ‘A firm and unalterable
experience has established these laws .. . that,
has never been observed in any age or country.’
Why, this is the very question at issue. (i.) The
very thing that the believers in miracle assert is
that experience has not always given negative
testimony on the point. All the evidence (what-
ever it be worth) that has ever been produced to
guarantee the occurrence of miracles must be
reckoned as counter evidence in refutation of the
ground on which it is asserted that miracles must
be disbelieved. It is in the highest degree un-
scientific to sweep away all the positive evidence
for any alleged fact in such a fashion. In matters
of science a new trial must always be granted
whenever there is any reasonable ground to sup-
pose that new evidence has turned up, or that any
fault can be found with the processes by which,
from ascertained facts, inferences have been drawn.
‘The question can only be stated fairly as depend-
ing on a balance of evidence; a certain amount of
positive evidence in favour of miracles, and a
negative presumption from the general course of
human experience against them’ Ἢ ; 1t being always
borne in mind that negative evidence is never so
conclusive as positive, since facts of which there
had been no previous experience are often dis-
covered and proved by positive experience to be
true. (ii.) Next, Paley’s familiar criticism must
not be forgotten. Paley points out + that Hume’s
argument turns on an ambiguity in the phrase
‘contrary to experience.’ The miracles of the
Gospel are not contrary to experience in the
sense that they contradict our own present ex-
perience, the witness of our own senses; they
can only be said to be contrary to experience
in the sense that we have never experienced any-
thing like them. ‘This unusualness is, of course,
a distinguishing feature of miracles, a mark of
their sic¢nal character (see SIGN); if they were
ordinary occurrences, they would cease to be
miracles, but the fact that they are thus unusual
or extraordinary does not in itself make them in-

credible. These two considerations may be thus
summarized. Hume says that miracles are contrary

to experience, Now, if by experience he means ail
experience, his maxim is a plain xeiitio principii ;
and if he only means general experience, it sinks
into the platitude that miracles are uncommon. ἢ

3. We refuse, therefore, to allow that Hume’s
argument is complete in logic. Viewed as an
attempt to eliminate the credibility of miracles

* Mill, Exsays on Religion, p. 221, where the illogical char-
acter of Hume’s argument is plainly exhibited.

+ Paley, Hvidences, Introduction.

¢ An ingenious practical illustration of the fallibility of
Hume’s principles as to the value of human testimony will be
found in Whately’s onge famous pamphlet, /isturic Duuhis
concerning Napoleon Buonapurte,

980 MIRACLE

MIRACLE

on the ground of the fallibility of human. testi-
mony, it is a failure. But we cannot fail to
recognize the element of truth which has given
the argument its plausibility. It is this. The
course of nature is, as a rule, uniform. What is
disturbed by the assertion that a miracle has
taken place is the mechanical expectation of a
recurrence, and we find it hard to get out of our
scientific groove, in which everything does recur
mechanically, because we so often regard nature
as ἃ mere machine—self-acting, whether — selt-
created or no.* If nature were such a machine,
the improbability (we are not justified in speaking
of ineredibility) of a miracle would be enormous,
although even then there would be no reason why
that improbability should not be overcome by ade-
quate testimony. But the question as to the proba-
bility or improbability of miracle assumes quite a
different aspect when we recognize that nature is
the exhibition of the Divine will and purpose.

‘Hume's argument is far from being conclusive when the
existence of a Being who ereated the present order of nature,
and therefore nay well be thought to have power to modify it,
is accepted as a fact, or even as a probability resting on in-
dependent evidence. Once admit a God, and the production
by His direct volition of an effect which in any case owed its
origin to His creative will is no longer a purely arbitrary
iaypothesis to account for the fact, but must be reckoned with
asa serious possibility.’ t

The question 7s one of balancing improbabilities,
as Hume said, but we must now take into con-
sideration, on the positive side, not only the mere
evidence of the witnesses, but also whatever there
is of a priori probability that the Supreme would
intervene in such fashion. Such @ priori proba-
bility undoubtedly exists in the case of a miracle
like the Incarnation. There is, on the one hand,
if you will, the improbability that an event thus
anomalous and out of the established order should
take place. There is, on the other hand, not only
the witness of the Gospels and of the Church to
the claims of the Christ, not only the striking fact
that thus all the hopes and expectations of ages
found their realization, but this other serious con-
sideration as well. If God made man in His own
image, and intended him at the first for holiness,
there is an @ prioré improbability in the supposi-
tion that such Divine purpose would be for ever
frustrate and in vain. The Fall demands the
Incarnation and the Atonement; it demands a
fresh act of Divine grace, which shall raise man
out of the slough in which he is struggling. And
so we can perceive a reason why, in the interests of
morality and goodness, some such miracle as that
of the Word who became flesh should appear in

‘the fulness of time.’ In other words, if we
adopt Hume’s way of looking at the question,

though our belief in a miraculous occurrence de-
pend wtimately oi onr regarding the testimony to
if as so strong thac its falsity would be more
miraculous than the truth of the miracle in ques-
tion, yet when thus balancing probabilities we
must not forget to give due weight to the moral
probability that the Author of Creation may de-
sire at certain epochs to give a special manifesta-
tion of Himself, of His will, of His grace, to the
creatures Whom He has made.

4, It must be frankly conceded that such con-
siderations have been at times made too much of.
A priori speculation in theology, as we said above,
is often misleading ; and if we committed ourselves
altogether to its guidance we might be led to con-
clusions which should forbid us to regard as recon-
cilable the benevolence of God and the misery and
sin and sorrow with which this earth is afflicted.
If it be regarded as a priori probable that a

remedy should be provided for sin, why, it has |

* See Temple, Bampton Lectures, p. 216.
t Mill, Z.c. p. 232.

been asked,* is it not also a priori probable that a
remedy should be provided for disease? Why
should not sin be just as permanent an inherit-
ance of man as death? And to that the only
answer is that we do not rely solely on @ priori
probabilities in religion ; if they were contradicted
at every turn by experience, we could not trust
them. But when, as in the case of the miracle of
the Incarnation, the @ posteriori witness falls in
with the @ priori suggestion of reason, then the
two kinds of evidence, derived respectively from
abstract and concrete considerations, mutually
corroborate and support each other. A priori
reasoning may lead us astray, but that is no
reason for believing that it never points to the
truth. Indeed, to profess that there is no scope
for moral and rational probabilities in God’s
government of the world, is to accept a creed
more gloomy and more irrational than any which
has yet been proposed to man.

58. It is not too much to say that the occurrence
of miracle can hardly be certified to the intellect
in a quiet hour of atter-reflection, unless there be
a convergence of both lines of evidence—the
a posteriori of testimony, the @ priori of ante-
cedent probability. This is to say, that more
and higher evidence is required to substantiate a
miracle than is required to substantiate ordinary
matters of fact. As the course of nature is gener-
ally uniform, we must grant that there is some
special improbability attaching to the allegation
that an event of a miraculous order has been
witnessed. To overcome this special improba-
bility it is needful, first, to adduce some seem-
ingly adequate reason why the Creator should
deviate from that observed course of action which
(save in the specific cases of alleged miracles) prior
experience proves to have been His rule; and
secondly, that we should have stronger and more
unimpeachable direet evidence than that which is
required for an ordinary event. Certainly ‘le vrai
west pas toujours le vraisemblable’ ; we must
never reject any statement merely because it
sounds improbable. We must try to discover if
its falsity would be more or less improbable than
its truth. But, granting the force of this proviso,
we must also admit that more evidence is required
for a miracle than for ordinary matters of fact.

Butler takes a different view, and his position
is worthy of scrutiny. His words are as_fol-
lows 7 :—

‘There is a very strong presumption against common specu-
lative truths and against the most ordinary facts, before the
proof of them, which yet is overcome by almost any proof.
There is a presumption of millions to one, against the story of
Cesar, or of any other man, For suppose a number of common
facts so and so cireumstanced, of which one had no kind of
proof, should happen to come into one’s thoughts, every one
would, without any possible doubt, conclude them to be false.
And the like may be said of a single common fact. And from
hence it appears, that the question of importance, as to the
matter before us, is, concerning the degree of the peculiar pre-
sumption supposed against miracles ; not whether there be any
peculiar presumption at all against them. For, if there be
the presumption of millions to one against the most common
facts, What eat a small presumption, additional to this, amount
to, though it be peculiar? It cannot be estimated, and is as
nothing. The only material question is, whether there be any
such presumption against miracles as to render them in any
sort incredible.

Now, Mill pointed out very clearly ¢ the con-
fusion of which Butler is here guilty: it is that
Butler does not distinguish between two different
kinds of improbability, which may be called respec-
tively improbability before the fact and improba-
bility after the fact. The antecedent presumption
against any ordinary occurrence taking place,
which it comes into my head to imagine taking
place, is immense ; but if a credible witness asserts

* e.g. by Mill, ἐ.6. p. 230 ff.
+ Analogy. ii. 2.
+ System of Logic, ii. 118.

MIRACLE

MIRACLE 387

that it has taken place, that improbability be-
comes as nothing. ‘This is the improbability
betore the fact. In fact, that any ordinary event
should take place is improbable before testimony

has been given, but not a whit improbable after |

testimony. But the case of miracles is quite dif-

ferent: the presumption against a miracle is not |

merely a presumption against a specific event, but
against that αὐ of event taking place. And this
presumption remains, and must be allowed for

even after testimony has been given. Butler
really compares the improbability of miracles

(which remains after testimony to their occur-
rence has been given) with the improbability of
the truth of a random guess (which vanishes after
testimony to its accuracy has been brought for-
ward); and this is to compare two things not fairly
comparable at all.

6. The truth is, that when estimating the dif-
ference between miracles and ordinary facts as
matters of credit, we must not lose sight of our
fundamental assumption of the existence and
activity of supreme spiritual powers.

“A miracle,’ says Mozley, ‘is on one side of it not a fact of
this world, but of the invisible world: the Divine interposition
in it being a supernatural and mysterious act : and so the evi-
dence for a miracle does not stand exactly on the same ground
as the evidence of the witness-box, which only appeals to our
common-sense as men of the world and actors in ordinary life,
but it requires a great religious assumption in our minds to
begin with, without which no testimony in the case can ayail;
and consequently the acceptance of a miracle exercises more
than the ordinary qualities © { candour and fairness used in
estimating historical evidence genera ly, having, in the pre-
Vious admission of a Supernatural Power, first tried our faith.’ *

As we conceive the case, then, there must be,
to certify the miracle—(a@) ἃ posteriori evidence
greater in degree than would be required for ordi-
hary matters of fact; (b) an a priori conviction of
the Divine power, and an a@ priori faith in the
Divine will to intervene. And this conclusion (to
which we have been led on grounds of reason alone)
receives remarkable confirmation from the circum-
stances of our Lord’s miracles as recorded in the
Gospels. The great miracle of the Resurrection
was only witnessed by believers; there was no
manifestation of the Risen Christ to the soldiers,
to the priests, to Pilate (cf. Ace 10#). It is a
question, indeed, which may fairly be raised,
Whether the recognition of the Risen Lord would
have been possible for the faithless, and whether
unbelievers would have perceived any exceptional
appearance at all in the Garden, in the Upper
Room, or on the Galilean mountain.t It is a
question whether we have not here the supreme
illustration of that strange limitation to the
powers of the Incarnate Word described in the
words, ‘He could do there no mighty work?
(Mk 65): ‘He did there no mighty works because
of their unbelief’ (Mt 13%). But, without entering
into so difficult and sacred a field of inquiry, it is
at least certain that miracles are not regarded in
the Gospels as sufticient objectively in themselves
to generate faith. ‘If they hear not Moses and
the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one
rise from the dead’ (Lk 1631), is the general teach-
ing of the Synoptics.

iii, THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF MIRACLES. —
1. We pass to the consideration of the evidential
value of miracles. It is an ‘acknowledged histori-
cal fact,’ as Butler says, ‘ that Christianity offered
itself to the world and demanded to be received
upon the allegation . . of miracles publicly
Wrought to attest the truth of it in such an age.’
The Christian Church was founded on the basis

* Miracles, p. 102. It is especially the fault of the apologetic
writers of the 18th cent. that they neglected this considera-
tion, Itis a fault from which Paley is not entirely free, but it
appears most plainly in books like Sherlock’s Trial of the Wit-
nesses, which once had a wide vogue.

t See Westcott, Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 155.

of belief in a stupendous miracle, the resurrection
of Christ: this was continually put forward by
the early Christian Apologists as chief among the
credentials of the Gospel. Whether the reasoning
of Nicodemus was logically valid or not, it un-
questionably was accepted by thousands. ‘We
know that thou art a teacher come from God; for
no man can do these signs that thou doest except God
be with him,’ Jn 32. (See SIGN), And it was largely
due to the miracles which (it was alleged) accom-
panied the advent of Christianity, that Christian
missionaries were able in the early ages to get a
hearing for their message. But it has been urged
that, granting the historical fact that this line of
argument was once very attractive, it ought now
to be set aside, for it is quite fallacious and inade-
quate, Miracles as credentials seem now to be at
a discount, and the reaction against the exclusive
attention to this aspect of their purpose which
prevailed in the last century in English theology
has perhaps gone too far. We have already said
above that we do not claim for miracles that testi-
mony to their occurrence is by itself sufticient to
prove the existence of Divine power. The possi-
bility of a miracle implies the existence of God,
and no testimony would be sufficient to convince
one who did not recognize the Divine existence
that a miracle had ever occurred (sce ii. § 6).*
But a difficulty emerges, even in the case of a
believer in spiritual ferce, which must now be
considered.

2. A miracle, ὁ.6. an anomalous intervention of
spiritual force indicating purpose, supposed to be
established by testimony, would merely prove the
energy of superhuman power ; it bears no necessary
Witness to superhuman goodiuess. It might be of
Satanic origin, not of Divine, and it is not a
credential which ought, by itself, to inspire belief,
for it may be a delusion of the Prince of lies, rather
than a manifestation of Him who is the Truth.
Indeed the advent of antichrist is to be ushered in
‘ with signs and lying wonders’? (2 ΤῊ 2°). It is here
that the context, so to speak, of the miracle is all-
important. Miracula sine doctrina nihil valent is
the principle which will resolve our difticulty.
Certainly miracles, regarded merely as tokens of
power, do not establish the goodness of the agent
who works them; but if we are able to recognize
this latter characteristic from the doctrines which
he teaches, then the miracle will pronounce that
those doctrines proceed directly from the Author
of goodness. If the doctrine commends itself to
the conscience as good, then the miracle seals it as
Divine. As Pascal has it, * Les miracles discernent
la doctrine, et la doctrine discerne les miracles.’ t
And Pascal points out that this twofold test of
power and of goodness, which must be applied to
a miracle, is like the twofold test by which a
prophet was to be tried according to the Penta-
teuchal Law. <A prophet was not to be regarded
as speaking in the name of Jehovah if (a) his
prophecy was falsified by the event (Dt 1822), or
(b) if his teaching led the people into the ways of
idolatry (Dt 153). He was to be tried by his doctrine
no less than by the superhumaa prescience which
he exhibited. And so a miracle is not only to be
regarded in the tight of a wexder; it is also a
sign—a sign of the character of the agent from
whom it proceeds, not only in itself but in all the
circumstances which lead up to and result from it.
So the reply to the frequent query, ‘Do the
miracles prove the doctrine, or does the doctrine

*This is the contention of Spinoza: ‘Porro quamvis ex
miraculis aliquid concludere possumus, nullo tamen modo Dei
existentia inde possit concludi.’ As we agree with his con-
clusion here, it is unnecessary to quarrel with the argument by
which he reaches it, but we do not regard it as convincing,

+ Pensées * Des Miracles,’ afew pages in which there is perhaps
more wisdom than in anything else ever written on the subject.

388 MIRACLE

MIRACLE

prove the miracles?’ is strictly this: Miracles are
a proof of the Divine origin of a doctrine, provided
the doctrine be in itself worthy of a Divine author.
No miracle could justify us in acting or teaching
contradictory to conscience, or in referring such
teaching to God. But if the moral teaching of
one who professes himself to be a messenger from
God be of surpassing excellence, then His pos-
session of superhuman power corroborates His
authority and justifies His claim. If it be histori.
eally true, e.g. that Jesus Christ rose from the
dead, then this fact ‘identifies the Lord of physical
life and death with the legislator of the Sermon on
the Mount. Miracle is the certificate of identity
between the Lord of Nature and the Lord of Con-
science—the proof that He is really a moral being
who subordinates physical to moral interests.’ *

3. A miracle is not only a display of thau-
matureic power. This enables us to answer an
objection raised by Matthew Arnold, who asked
what possible evidence of authority would be
shown by a man’s turning a pen into a penwiper
before our eyes.t And truly the answer is, None
whatever! But then this applies only to miracles
which are τέρατα, Without being σημεῖα ; whereas,
in the view we have adopted, the true miracle is a
vehicle of revelation, as well as an evidential
adjunct.

‘This guarantees the standing of miracles, gives them a secure
position in connexion with revelation; and also it guarantees
their quality ; it requires them to possess characteristics con-
gruous to the nature of the revelation with which they are
associated, If it be a revelation of grace, the miracles also
must be gracious. Any kind of miracle will not do; a definite
ethical character is indispensable, They must tend directly to
advance the interests of the Divine kingdom.’ ¢

When miracles are regarded as credentials, their
inward meaning no less than their outward form
must receive attention. Thus Augustine likens
the man who sees the outward side of the miracle
to one who, being unable to read, admires the fair
writing of a manuscript which the student valucs
rather for the message it brings him: ‘est oculis
laudator, mente non cognitor..§ No amount of
evidenee to the occurrence of a miracle, in short,
is sufficient to justify us in inferring the inter-
vention of Divine power, unless the miracle be one
which our conscience assures us is not unworthy
of God.

4 It hardly needs illustrations to explain that
this is a test, which, though necessary to apply
with all care and reverence, may yet be applied
with some confidence. Many of the miracles
recorded in the Apoeryphal Gospels and in the
Acta Sanctorum when submitted to this moral
test are found at once to be lacking in the qualities
which alone would justify their claim to be cre-
dentials. ‘They are grotesque and absurd; they
teach no definite lesson; they are associated with
no word of wisdom; they are signs of nothing,
save the poverty of imagination possessed by the
romancers who invented them.

The alleged miracles of the infancy of Christ are
purposeless and wanton, even when they are not
deliberately c-uel. There is an absence of dignity
about them, for they are worked without any
great or worthy object. And, speaking generally,
if a recorded miracle does not serve any moral
purpose, if it be unfruitful in any good result, if
the teaching by which it is accompanied be not
spiritually elevating, then it stands — self-con-
demned, ‘the story,’ as Butler would say, ‘ being
rightly proved false from internal evidence.’ On
the other hand, the miracles of the Gospel are not

x eee Elements of Religion, p. 73; see Trench, Jfiraucles,
sree The
+ Literature and Dogma, p. 9.

t Bruce, Miraculous Llement in the Gospels, p. 290.
§ Serm. xcviii. ὃ. -

-

mere freaks of power; they have a definite moral
purpose. They are examples. and acted parables
of the love of Christ ; they are the works of Him
‘who declares His almighty power most chiefly
by showing mercy and pity.’ ‘As nature is an
image of grace, so,’ says Pascal, ‘the visible
miracles are but the images of those invisible which
God wills to accomplish’; they are, as it were,
sacraments of the Divine operation. Thus, then,
if a miracle be looked upon merely as an act of
power beyond the power of man, it would not prove
that the revelation which it accompanies is from
God ; but if it bear marks of wisdom in regard to
the time and circumstances of its introduction, and
of goodness as regards its moral character and its
fruits, there can be no further doubt about the
matter. And when we so look at the Christian
miracles, we see that the supposed alternative that
they might be due to superhuman malevolence
rather than to benevolence is only ingenious but
not serious. For Christianity so completely
opposes evil and is so identified with God’s provi-
dential working both before and since its promulga-
tion, that to say that its miracles might have been
worked by Satanic agency is simply absurd.

It is not contended that the Gospel miracles are all alike the
evident work of supreme wisdom and goodness. The blasting
of the fig-tree (Mt 2119 |) Mk 112°f-) has often been described as
being rather like a freak of power than a sign of love. But, not
to speak of the many explanations of the purpose of such an
act at such a moment which have been suggested, and passing
by the lesson which it surely conveyed to the observers, that
the Divine judgment on unfruitfulness is stern and final, it may
be said at once that ἐμὴν miracle must not be detached from the
others which were wrought by Christ. Vose/fiur ὦ sociis is a
maxim of prudence; and a miracle like this of the fig-tree is
guaranteed, so to speak, by the company in which it is found,
and by the character, otherwise known, of Him who worked it.
Viewed as an isolated marvel, it would 2,07 serve as a sufficient
credential of the claims of the Christ; viewed as one of the
incidents of His Passion, as one of His ἔργα, it has a meaning
full of instruction. And the same may be said of any other
cases in which a similar objection might be raised.

5. It has been already pointed out (ii. § 6) that
miracles are not represented in the Gospels as
sufficient of themselves in all cases to generate
conviction. ‘Though he had done so many signs
before them, yet they believed not on Him?’ (Jn
1287), All the spectators at the Raising of Lazarus
were not persuaded of the claims of Christ (Jn 11*).
Yet the miracles of Jesus are repeatedly said to
have arrested the attention and quickened the
faith of those who witnessed them (Mt 827, Lk 58,
Jn 20), Not only the disciples, but the populace
were impressed (Jn 614, Lk Τ 0). * Many believed
on his name, beholding his signs which he did’
(Jn 238), is a typical statement. And this aspect
οὐ His miracles, their witness to the truth of His
claims, is emphatically asserted by Christ Himself.
‘The very works that I do bear witness of me’
(Jn 535), *Thet ye may know that the Son of man
hath power cn earth to forgive sins, I say unto

| thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy

house’ (Mk 2°): the cure of the paralytic was ἃ
credential of His claim to be the pardoner of sin.
When the tidings reached the disciples that Lazarus
was dead, He said that it was well, for the miracle
of his recovery would be the greater ‘sign’ (Jn
114), He rebuked the greedy multitudes, because
they followed Him for what they might get, and
not because of His signs (Jn ὁ), He upbraided
Chorazin and Bethsaida because His mighty works
had not drawn them to repentance (Mt 1130), And
St. John expressly states that the signs of Jesus
were recorded ‘that ye may believe’ (Jn 2051) ; the
evidential function of miracles was not merely an
accidental result, due to the credulity of the con-
temporaries of Jesus ; it was a function, according
to the Fourth Gospel, which miracles and the record
of them were in some measure to fulfil throughout
the Christian centuries (see, however, iv. § 7).

MIRACLE

MIRACLE 389

But it is also to be observed that Christ more
than once refused to work ‘signs,’ and that He
often kept secret those which had been wrought.
‘Tell no man,’ He said to the leprous, the blind,
the deaf, who had been healed (Mt 8+ 99), Mk 73°).
Herod ‘hoped to see some sign done by him?’ (Lk
235), but ne sign was forthcoming. ‘The scribes
and Pharisees who sought a sign were sternly re-
fused (Mt 1238), The faith which would be enkin-
dled by signs, though it may be true faith, is not
the highest. To believe Him ‘for the very works’
sake’ is the lower stage of discipleship (Jn 14!);
though it, too, may find its reward (Jn 4:8). ‘The
highest faith is not that of Thomas, who believed
when he saw the wound-prints, but that which can
believe without seeing any sign (Jn 20”).

In brief, miracles are represented in the Gospels
as of considerable evidential importance, although
they will not convince an unwilling heart (Lk 1091),
nor is the faith which they enkindle the purest
form of spiritual allegiance.

iv. THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPELS.— Their
Characteristics.—1, A somewhat closer examination
of the miraculous element in the Gospels must now
be made. We have seen that miracles are possible
objectively and in the abstract; that it is unrea-
sonable to declare that no testimony can make
them credible, albeit testimony of a high order may
fairly be demanded; and that, when put forward
as credentials, a scrutiny of their internal character
is necessary as well as a scrutiny of the evidence
by which they are substantiated. The miracles of
the Gospel come wel: out of this last test ; and we
go on to ask, Are there any other leading charac-
teristics which they present to our view besides this,
that they are morally sublime ?

2. A second characteristic is probably that they
are certain, not tentative or doubtful. Many al-
leged cases of thaumaturgic power profess to be
no more than this. Out of many trials there are a
few successes. Such, doubtless, were the supposed
cures wrought by the relics and at the tombs of
martyrs. Nothing is alleged concerning them which
is not alleged of various quack medicines, namely,
that out of the thousands who use them a few will
be found to assert that they have derived benefit.
But the phenomenon presented by Christ’s miracles
as recorded by the evangelists is quite different.
There is nothing in the narratives which in any
way suggests that the Lord attempted cures in
many instances and succeeded only in a few; we
seem to be told of a ‘standing miraculous power
lodged in a person.’ *

Here, however, we must speak with great caution. ΤῸ assert
that the miracles of the Lord were wrought without effort, as it

were, and that they are to be ascribed to the exercise of His 1

Divine nature rather than to the operation of His human nature
enriched and glorified by His indissoluble union with the Father,
is perhaps to go beyond the evidence. The power, the δύναμις
which He put forth as He ‘went about doing good,’ is not
spoken of as always present in the same fulness or as bearing no
relation to the faith of those for whose sakes it was exercised,
He said once that power had ‘gone forth’ from Him (Lk 846) ;
He ‘sighed’ as He restored hearing to the deaf (Mk 734); and a
mysterious limitation to His power to heal seems to be hinted
at in passages such as Mt 135°, Mk 65, of which something has
been said above.t The truth is, that we so little understand the
conditions of the Incarnation that we find ourselves at fault
when we attempt to define closely the laws (if we may so speak)
of Christ’s miraculous activity.” Considerations such as have
been suggested hardly touch the miracles which He wrought
upoa nature, as distinet from those which He wreught upon
man ; and all that can be gathered on this subject with confi-
dence from the Gospels resolves itself into this, that while there
was a ‘standing miraculous power’ in Him, there was also a
remarkable economy in its exercise, the reasons for which we
cannot fully comprehend, ;

3. There is, indeed, an intimate connexion be-

* Cf. Mozley, 1.6. p. 168.

+ This train of thought is carefully worked out in Mason’s
Conditions of our Lord’s Life on Earth, pp. 95 ff., 108 tf. οἵ
Sores Dissertations, pp. 80, 140, 165; and Westcott, Vebrews,
p- 66.

tween the several miracles of Christ, arising from
the fact that the greatest miracle of all is the
Person of Christ Himself. Sin is the true ἀνομία,
the true violation of law ; and this finds its remedy
in a corresponding miracle of grace, even the In-
carnation. It is quite misleading to compare the
evidence, say, for the raising of Lazarus with that
for a miracle in the life of a medieval saint ;
for the heart of the Christian position is that the
circumstances were quite dissimilar. Christians
assert, at the outset, that the Person of Christ is
supernatural, or rather that the perfectly ‘natural’
humanity which He took upon Him was associated
with the unearthly spiritual powers of the God-
head ; and, that being so, it is natural, 7.e. con-
gruous, that His advent and ministry should be
attended with works ‘such as none other man did.’
All through the Fourth Gospel, Christ’s miracles
are described as His ἔργα : they did not stand, as
it were, in a class by themselves, but they con-
stituted a part of that Divine manifestation which
dwelt in Him. We say that His life being greater
and larger than that of a mere man like ourselves,
was irradiated by the awful light of His super-
human origin, and that therefore (as might have
been expected) that superhuman origin betrayed
itself by a superhuman energy of action, that,
after a public life of superhuman works of mercy,
He suffered, died, was buried, but rose again,
appeared on several occasions to His followers,
and finally in their presence ascended into heaven.
This is not like the allegation of a single isolated
miracle. The whole advent of Jesus Christ was
miraculous, and therefore we refuse to isolate any
one of His works from His life. ‘Isolated events,’
it has been profoundly said, ‘are often incredi-
ble,’ but the crowning miracle of Christianity is
the Incarnation. If Christ were altogether an ex-
ceptional personage, there is nothing to stumble
at in the miracles recorded of Him, which in-
deed then are seen at once in their true char-
acter aS σημεῖα, or €pya,—His signs or His works,
—pbut which refuse to rank themselves as θαύματα
or prodigies which amaze and perplex. ‘They are
not specimens of His power, but manifestations of
His Person.*

4 Arother consequence of importance follows
from these considerations. The miracles, the σημεῖα
of Jesus Christ, are essential to the Gospel history.
And this does not mean merely that Christianity
is a ‘supernatural religion,’ and that it is impossible
to retain its consoling and strengthening power over
mankind if we reject the supernatural element,
true and deeply important as this is. But it means
that we cannot construct a consistent picture of
the life of Jesus Christ from the Gospels, if we do
not take account of His miraculcus powers, how-
ever those ‘miraculous’ powers are to be explained.
His miracles are not like the miracles in Livy or
in the history of many of the medieval saints,
detached pieces that do not disturb the history,
which goes on very well without them; but the
whole history is grounded in them and presupposes
them. Without making any assumption as to the
date and manner of composition of the Synoptic
Gospels, this fact stands out. We cannot con-
trive any theory by which we may entirely elimi-
nate the miraculous, and yet save the historicity,
in any intelligible sense, of those wonderful nar-
ratives. It is vain to say, as some have done,
that possibly the original nucieus of the Gospels
contained no miraculous. stories. For what is
the fact? Even if we attempt to reconstruct
the original document which the Synoptic evan-
gelists had before them when compiling their

* So Augustine: ‘Mirum non esse debet a Deo factum mir-

aculum .. . magis gaudere quam mirari debemus’ (in Joan,
Tract, xvii. 1).

390 MIRACLE

MIRACLE

Gospels, by the simple (though unscientific) process
of rejecting everything as added which is not com-
mon to al) three, and so arrive at the ‘triple
tradition,’ we shall find that it still teems with
miracle. The Feeding of the Five Thousand, the
Raising of Jairus’ daughter, the Stilling of the
Storm, besides half a dozen miracles of healing,
are still left.* We cannot, in short, by any arti-
fice reach a primitive gospel which is not to a
greater or less extent a miracle gospel, and so we
cannot treat off-hand the Gospel history .in the
matter of rejecting miracles as we would treat the
Acta Sanctorum. But if we admit one miracle,
there is little intellectual hindrance to admitting
twenty. There is no aid to faith in the mere
reduction of the number of miracles. Matthew
Arnold compared this modern tendency to saying
that while it is extravagant to suppose Cinderella’s
fairy godmother to have actually changed the
pumpkin into a coach-and-six, we may believe that
she did change it into a one-horse cab.t The
iustration is flippant, but it is just. There is
nothing to be gained by the attempt to minimize
the supernatural in the Gospel history. It is there,
do what we will. ‘Miracles play so important
a part in Christ’s scheme, that any theory which
would represent them as due entirely to the
imagination of His followers or of a later age,
destroys the credibility of the documents not
partially but wholly, and leaves Christ a personage
as inythical as Hercules.” 1 We have, indeed, no
warrant for insisting that any particular expla-
nation or theory of the miraculous shall be ac-
cepted by a believer in the Gospels; but the fact
of the miraculous, however we define it, remains.
And a miracle reduced to its lowest terms, remains
a miracle still.

5. Classifications, more or less instructive, of the
miracles of Christ, have often been drawn up.§
We can here only briefly indicate their general
character in respect of their claim to be regarded
as due to power other than that of the ordinary
forces of nature, as known or as conceivable to us.
(a) There are, first, the miracles worked upon man,
the miracles of healing. Some of these present no
peculiar difficulty of credence to any one who is
familiar with the remarkable phenomena of hypno-
tism, or more generally with the influence of a
strong will over a weak one, though it would be
rash to assert, and (in view of all the facts) is in
itself improbable, that this is the whole secret in
any case. Such, for instance, are the cures of the
demoniacs (Mt 828 152! 1714, Mk 128), of the impotent
man at the Pool of Bethesda (Jn 5%), of the man
with the withered hand (Mt 1210), of the woman
with the spirit of infirmity (Lk 15"), of the dumb
nan with a devil (Mt 934), and of the man “ pos-
sessed with a devil, blind and dumb’ (Mt 12%).
We find it increasingly difficult to accept any such
explanations in the cases of the tealing of the
paralytics (Mt 8° 93), of the deaf man (Mk 73), of
the blind (Mt 927 202, Mk 822, Jn 91, the last of
which is specially remarkable, and was so regarded
at the time), of the dropsical man (Lk 14?), of the
fever patient healed with a touch (Mt 814), of the
woman with the issue (Mt 92°), of the lepers (Mt 82,
Lk 1711, the healing in the former case being brought
about by a touch, in the latter case by a mere word
of power), of Malchus’ servant (Lk 225’). And
more wonderful (to our eyes) than any of these was
the raising of the dead, the daughter of Jairus
(Mt 98, though here it is noteworthy that the
statement that the child was really dead was not

ee question has been carefully examined by Bruce, d.c.
VO a inate Bible, p. 23.

Φ Ecce Homo, Ὁ. 41. :

§ See especially Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the
Gospels, p. 480 τῇ,

made by Christ Himself), the widow of Nain’s son
(Lk 711), and Lazarus (Jn 114%), in the last of which
cases, at least, all doubt as to the fact of death i
excluded by the.attendant circumstances.

(b) We have, secondly, the cosmic miracles, as
they have been called—those which were wrought
upon nature. The Blasting of the Fig-tree (Mt 21),
the Stilling of the Storm (Mt 8°), and the Walking
on the Sea (Mt 1475), betray the energy of One who
had power not only over man, but over the unin-
telligent forces of the universe. Certainly these
cannot be explained, or explained away, by any
hypothesis such as that which has been resorted
to in the case of the healing of demoniacs or the
like. And a controlling force of a quite extraordi-
nary character seems to have manifested itself in
the Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mt 1832) and
of the Five Thousand (Mt 1419), as well as in that
first ‘sign’ of all, the Transformation of water into
wine at the marriage feast (Jn 21).

(c) Four cases have been left out of considera-
tion, inasmuch as if they stood alone they might be
explained as coincidences, the like of which hap-
pens in every one’s experience. ‘The great draughts
of fish (Lk δ᾽ and Jn 216) and the finding of the
stater in the fish’s mouth (Mt 17°4, although here it
is noteworthy that we are not told that the coin was
actually found), as well as the recovery of the
nobleman’s son at Capernaum (Jn 426), are not in
themselves preter naturam; but they receive their
significance from their connexion with prophetic
words of the Christ. They are (to take the lowest
view) σημεῖα of His superhuman wisdom.

6. Thus, on a review of all the miracles of the
Ministry of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, al-
though no doubt this or that isolated event might
be plausibly referred to natural causes, yet un-
doubtedly there are some among the number which
cannot be reasonably thus explained; and_ all,
taken together, if they have been correctly re-
ported to us, present a phenomenon for which we
are driven to seek a cause other than the physical
forces of the universe can provide.

7. The Evidence—What is the value of the
evidence for these phenomena? ‘The Gospels re-
ceived their present form, let us assume, between
the years 60 and 90 a.p. That is to say, we have
written testimony to the facts set down within
half a century of their alleged occurrence. [5
this testimony strong enough to outweigh the ad-
mitted improbability, @ posteriori, of such anom-
alous and extraordinary events? ‘The question
about the Gospel miracles is often put in this form,
but it is not the form in which it will be put
by any one who appreciates what is the real
problem at issue. For nothing has been said in
the foregoing summary of the alleged resurrection
of Christ Himself. It was this upon which the
controversy as to His claims hinged in the early
days of Christianity, and it was a true instinct
which led the first preachers of the gospel to
place it in the foreground. If He really rose
from the dead, then it is plain that He cannot
be judged by the standards which we rightly
apply to the alleged doings of men like ourselves.*
The miracles of the ministry, with rare exceptions,
were not worked under circumstances which should
fit them to be absolutely convincing credentials to
the world of the Divine mission of Jesus. They
were, speaking in general terms and with reserva-
tions which have been already explained (see iii. § 5),

* All through, however, we must bear in mind that it is not
the anomalousness of the resurrection of Christ which is the
significant matter. ‘It is quite possible that our Lord’s resur-
rection may be found hereafter to be no miracle at all in the
scientific sense. It foreshadows and begins the general resur-
rection ; and when that general resurrection comes we may find
that it was, after alt, the natural issue of physical laws always
at work’ (Temple, Bumpton Lectures, p. 196).

MIRACLE

MIRACLE 391

rather sacramental sigus of His grace than proofs
that He had the power to bestow it. But it was
otherwise with the resurrection on the first Master
Day. This was a credential to which the Church

continually appealed (Ro 14 4°4, 1 P 1°°), although —

it, too, Was a σημεῖον of spiritual truth. And the
evidence for this is not confined to the Gospels. 1
is presupposed in all the apostolic Epistles, as it is
the burden of the apostolic sermons recorded in
the Acts (of. Ac 232 315 104 133+ 17331 268) ; and not
only is this the case, but the whole history shows
that be.tef in tho resurrection was the one source
of the continued faith of believers after their hopes
had been shattered by the crucifixion, and was, as
a@ matter of fact, the foundation on which the
editice of the Christian Church was raised. Ex-
amine the evidence of the four ‘undisputed’
Epistles of St. Paul. These were all written
before the year 58, 1.6. about a quarter of a cen-
tury after the crucifixion. St. Paul bears direct
testimony to the fact of the resurrection, as be-
lieved in by all Christians of the day. ‘To this
end Christ died and lived again, that he might be
Lord of both the dead and the living’ (Ro 14%) ;
41 delivered unto you . that which also I
received . how that he hath been raised on
the third day, according to the Scriptures; and
that he appeared to Cephas; then to the Twelve ;
then he appeared to above five hundred brethren
at once, of whom the greater part remain until
now . ; then he appeared to James ; then to all
the apostles’ (1 Co 15*7), For circumstantiality,
it would be difficult to surpass this last statement
(cf. also Ro 14 8%, 2 Co 5%, 1 Th 4*). Again, St.
Paul is so confident of the fact of the resurrection
of Christ that he uses it as a proof that we too shall
live after death: ‘if there is no resurrection of the
dead, neither hath Christ been raised’ (1 Co 1515);
he does not consider it necessary to add anything
to this reductio ad absurdum. And, finally, the
fact is so familiar that it is repeatedly appealed to
in its symbolic and spiritual significance: ‘that
like as Christ was raised from the dead through
the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in
newness of life’ (Ro 64; cf. Ph 3!°, Col 3!).

8. This was the confident belief of St. Paul
and of his correspondents years before the Gospels
assumed their present forms, and (although we
cannot here enter fully into the question) all
attempted ‘naturalistic’? explanations of that
belief are entirely inadequate. This is good
evidence; it is quite different in degree from
the evidence which might be brought for any
of the Lord’s miracles of healing, taken singly ;
indeed it is not too much to say that had
not the evidence been entirely satisfactory to
those who had the best means of judging, the
Christian Church would not have lived for a year
after the crucifixion. ‘Thus it is the Church itself
that is the abiding witness to the resurrection ;
otherwise we should have to believe a more ‘in-
credible’ thing than any ‘miracle,’ viz. that the
greatest and most blessed institution in this world
is based on the delusions of a few crecdulous and
superstitious fanatics. The question to be answered
is, not, Is the evidence of the Gospels for the miracles
of the ministry sufficient by itself to inspire belief —
not, Is the documentary evidence for the resurrec-
tion of Jesus provided in the Gospels and Epistles
sufficient by itself to command our acceptance of it
— but, How are we to account for the origin of the
Christian Church on the basis of belief in the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, supposing that belief
to have had no foundation in fact ? And to that
question there is no satisfactory answer. We
are driven back on the hypothesis that the belief
grew out of the fact, and with that hypothesis
all the existing evidence is in entire agreement.

Leslie in his once famous tract, A Short Method
with the Deists, may have laid too much stress on
the evidence viewed in a purely juristic aspect,
but there is real force in his argument that the
four tests which may be applied to the testimony
to the fact of the resurrection of Christ are tests
which would satisfy a reasonable court of inquiry.
The alleged fact was (1) one which could be judged
of by men’s senses ; (2) it was public ; (3) it was
verified by a monument set up in observance of it,
i.e. the Christian Church ; and (4) this was set up
immediately after the event.

9. We may now turn back to the miracles of
the Gospel. They fall into line at once, if the
miracle of the resurrection is a fact; they become
σημεῖα and ἔργα (as they are represented by St.
John to be) of the Christ. The evidence for ἐξ is,
prima facie, evidence for them. ‘True it is that
St. Paul does not mention them at all ἴῃ his
letters, but it did not come within his purpose to
do so. It was the permanent results, not the
temporary incidents, as it were, of the Divine life
on earth with which he and his correspondents
were concerned. And yet it is worth observing
that, so far is St. Paul from thinking that miracles
are foreign to the Christian dispensation, that he
claims the power of working them himself, and
that in letters addressed both to strangers who
did not know him and to friends who did. Christ
wrought by him, he says, ‘in the power of signs
and wonders’ (Ro 1518) ; ‘truly,’ he writes to the
Corinthians, ‘the signs of an apostle were wrought
among you in all patience, by signs and wonders
and mighty works’ (2 Co 1213) ; among the Divine
gifts of the Church are ‘miracles (δυνάμεις), gifts
of healings, divers kinds of tongues’? (1 Co 1228) ;
and he asks the Galatians, ‘he therefore that
worketh miracles (δυνάμεις) among you, doeth he k
by the works of the law?’ (Gal 38). If it had not
been a matter of acknowledged fact that some
such Divine powers had attended his apostolic
ministry, it would have been truly extraordinary
that he should have claimed them. And, further,
it is plain that he would never have claimed
powers for himself of which he believed his Master
to have been destitute, so that his omission of any
mention of the Lord’s miracles. of healing cannot
have any significance as regards St. Paul’s belief
in the supernatural character of Christianity.

10. ‘To this mass of evidence, @ priori and
a posteriori, in favour of the miracles of the NT,
the answer that is usually returned in our time is
not that of Spinoza (though his presuppositions
are more widely accepted than is always recog-
nized), nor of Hume, but of Matthew Arnold, who,
while declining metaphysical disquisitions as to
their possibility or credibility, attempted to settle
the controversy by declaring that at any rate
‘miracles do not happen,’ * and that the vast
number of admittedly fabulous miracles recorded
in ecclesiastical literature dispenses us from formal
inquiry into the excellence of the evidence for
those of one particular period. It is plain that
the mere dictum, ‘miracles do not happen,’ has no
application whatever in logic, unless the pro-
pounder of it is prepared to accept the principles
either of Spinoza or of Hume; and these we have
already examined. The force of the statement
resides in this, that the modern world is very
chary in receiving the report of any alleged
miracle, because we know of so many cases in
which like reports have proved untrue. But that
‘miracles do not happen’ within a certain area of
experience, does not prove that they have never
happened outside that area. The rule ‘all or
none’ is a very unsafe rule for common life. Every
case that arises ought to be judged on its own

* God and the Bible, p. 232.

392

MIRACLE

MIRACLE

merits. And the first question to be asked about
the evidence for the NT’ miracles is, Were the
witnesses predisposed to believe such things of
Jesus Christ? In particular, was there any pre-
conception in favour of His resurrection ? Were it
so, there might be considerable room for hesita-
tion in accepting report of it, and the rapid dis-
semination of belief in it might be set down to ἃ
widespread credulity. Now (a) it is true thai
belief in the supernatural was quite common in
the first century of our era, nor could men and
women then have had the same intellectual difti-
culty in trusting the evidence for an alleged
miracle that we, with our larger. knowledge of the
laws of nature, now experience. In particular, the
lower classes of Roman society, though not ready
to accept miraculous stories which interfered with
their traditional beliefs, were steeped in an atmo-
sphere of magic and superstition. But it was not
so with the higher classes. The first century
could not be called an ‘age of faith.’ Stoics and
Epicureans alike were disinclined to believe in
any irruption of the spiritual into the established
physical order. (b) And when we turn from
Gentile to Jew, when we consider the national
prejudices alike of the first preachers as of the
first hearers of the gospel, we see that nothing
could have been more opposed to preconceived
ideas than the doctrine of the Incarnation, with
the resurrection as its appropriate and (so to
speak) inevitable sequel (Mt 27%, Lk 2425, Jn 518
88 1033 ete.). This once recognized, there would,
no doubt, have been no difficulty in believing
that the ‘works’ of One like Christ should be
superhuman, but this was not recognized at the
first even by the faithful apostles. Prejudice in
favour of the Incarnation, of the Resurrection, of
the Ascension, there was none. The evidence can-
not be set aside on the score that it grew up in
the course of years as the outcome of presupposi-
tions as to what the Messiah should be and do.

14. This was the theory of Strauss; but it is not
tenable, for this reason, among others, that the
interval of time which elapsed between the death
of Christ and the composition of the records which
described Him as a superhuman personage is not
long enough to account for such legendary develop-
ments. The evidence is not like that for the
miracles attributed to St. Anthony or to Ignatius
Loyola, which are found only in the later and not
in the earlier biographies. It is as nearly contem-
porary as we could expect. It does not grow as
we advance from decade to decade in the history
of the Church. The belief in a superhuman
Christ is as deep-rooted in the letters of St. Paul
written before the year 58 as it is in the Gospel
according to St. John written at least thirty years
later, although it is not expressed in the same
way. The evidence is as good in degree and in
kind as we could expect it to be, without the
intervention of a special miracle by which scientific
testings, not in the least necessary for the faith of
the first century, should have been provided to
satisfy the cravings for certitude of the nineteenth.
It is fully detailed, delivered in transparent good
faith, and under circumstances which would Του
a careless assent.*

v. OTHER BIBLE MIRACLES. —1. The Acts of the
Apostles. —The miracles ascribed to the apostles
in Acts stand on a somewhat different platform.
Standing alone, the evidence for them would
hardly be sufficient to compel their reception.
But they must be considered in their relation to
the advent of Christianity, and to the super-
human powers of the Founder of the Christian
Church. The commission to the apostles (Mt 108)
included the direction: ‘ Heal the sick, raise the

* This is all worked out by Paley, Zvidences, pt.i. ch. 2.

dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils.’ This
does not suggest, it will be observed, that what
we have called cosmic miracles came within the
powers with which they were entrusted by the
Lord, and we find no trace of such miracles
in Acts. In the appendix to St. Mark (Mk 1617)
the remarkable promise is recorded: ‘ These signs
shall follow them that believe: In my name shall
they cast out devils; they shall speak with new
tongues ; they shall take up serpents; and if they
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;
they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall
recover.’ With the exception of immunity from
poison, instances are given in Ac of all these
powers being enjoyed, not only by the original
eleven and by St. Paul, but by many other dis-
ciples. Thus the gift of tongues found its fulfil-
ment at Pentecost, and is alluded to by St. Paul in
his Epistles. Prophecy, which was akin to this, is
frequently spoken of as a ‘sign’ of an apostle.
Agabus not only predicted a famine (Ac 1148), but
also warned St. Paul of what would happen to him
at Jerusalem (Ac21!). Twelve unnamed Ephesian
disciples on whom St. Paul laid his hands were
endued with this gift (Ac 19°), as were also the four
daughters of Philip the Evangelist (Ac 219). And
that ‘wonders and signs’ were wrought by the
apostles is repeatedly asserted (Ac 243 512 68 813),
and it is in entire harmony with St. Paul’s own
claims (see iv. § 9). Among these were the ex-
pulsion of demons (Ac 5!6 1638), the healing of
the lame (Ac 37 148), of a paralytic (Ac 9, and of
the sick (Ac δ16 289 1912, the cures in the last case
being described as δυνάμεις od τὰς τυχούσας, Which
operated through the medium of St. Paul’s cloth-
ing). Two cases of raising the dead are recorded
(Doreas, Ac 951, and Eutychus, Ac 20%). Visions
and voices from heaven are spoken of (Ac 93-10
10°11 125), and the intervention of angels is men-
tioned (Ac 5!9 839). Two visitations of judgment,
upon Elymas (Ac 1311) and upon Ananias and
Sapphira (Ac 5° !°), are brought about by St. Paul
and St. Peter respectively. It is not necessary to
discuss the healing virtue ascribed to St. Peter’s
shadow (Ac 5!), or the deliverance of St. Paul
from the viper (Ac 283); for in the former case
nothing is said as to the success of the attempted
remedy, and in the latter case no miracle is
necessarily involved (but ef. Mk 1638). But, on the
whole, it is impossible to evade the consequence
that the ministry of the apostles, according to the
only records which we have got, was sustained by
powers which are beyond the power of man or of
nature as known to us. They fall into their place
immediately if Christ was what He claimed to
be, and the Church which He founded the minister
of His grace; but on any other hypothesis they
cannot be explained.

2. The Miracles of the OT. —Similar observations
may be made about the miracles of the OT. It is
evident that we cannot speak with the same con-
fidence about these that we can feel when describ-
ing the miracles of Him who showed in His own
person His superiority to death, of Him who is the
Prince of Life. For they are narrated in ancient
books, the origin of which in many instances is
wrapped in obscurity. We cannot claim to have
contemporary evidence for the miracles of the OT
as we have for those of the NT. And so to one
appreaching the OT literature without any appre-
ciation of its fulfilment in the Christ, some of the
miracles therein recorded, while always possible
to a believer in God, may perhaps seem to be
guaranteed by no sufficient testimony to compe!
belief in occurrences so improbable in themselves.
But for us ‘Vctus Testamentum in Novo patet.’
The obscurities of the older revelation find their
explanation in the fuller light of the later. And

MIRACLE

MIRACLE 393

if it be a fact that the law was a παιδαγωγὸς εἰς
Χριστόν, and that Israel was chosen by the Almighty
as His instrument for the teaching of the world,
then it ceases to be a priori improbable that, at
exceptional crises in the history of the Hebrews,
special manifestations of Divine power might be
vouchsafed, which should enable men to say with
boldness, ‘This is the finger of God.’ And, again,
it is not to be forgotten that the use of the OT by
Christ and His aposties sufficiently proves to
Christians that the literature therein contained
was a unique literature, and was produced under
quite unique conditions of inspiration. Thus the
records must, at the least, be treated with respect
greater than that which we bestow upon books
like the Acta Sanctorum, and we are entitled to
place fuller reliance on the accuracy of the writers
than would be justifiable in a history which came
to us without any such lofty guarantee and claim.
It is in such a spirit that we approach their
accounts of miracles.

The OT miracles are chiefly grouped round
two epochs —the Deliverance from Egypt, and the
Reformation of Elijah and Elisha. It is true that
these periods are described in greater detail than
any other periods in the history, but nevertheless
it can hardly be without significance that it is at
these two great crises in the fortunes of Israel
that the tokens of God’s providence were most
apparent to pious observers. Of the former cycle
it should be observed that very’ few of the so-
called miracles are difficult of credence, inasmuch
as the majority of them are not (seemingly) in
themselves out of the order of nature. The Ten
Plagues (Ex 8-12), the Parting of the Red Sea
(Ex 142131), and of the Jordan (Jos 315, cf. 2 K 27-14),
the Water from the Rock at Rephidim (Ex 17°),
and at Kadesh (Nu 201), the Curing of the Waters
of Marah (Ex 1533, cf. 2 K 221), the Budding of
Aaron’s rod (Nu 178), the deaths of Nadab and
Abihu (Ly 101), as of Korah and his company (Nu
1631), did not involve any apparent breach in the
continuity of the physical order. We can readily
conceive how similar occurrences might be brought
about through the operation of the ordinary forces
of nature. None of these events, considered singly,
would seem a prodigy to an impartial observer.
It. is the concurrence of so many circumstances of
the kind which forbids us to deny their signal
character, and conveys to us the conviction that
here was the finger of God. And it is even more
important to observe that these remarkable events
were associated in many cases with a word of
power from God’s ministers. ‘The predictive element,
which we have spoken of above (see i. § 14) as char-
acteristic of so many of our Lord’s miracles, is here
conspicuous. The plagues are foretold; so was
the dreadful death of the rebels in Korah’s
rebellion; and the division of the waters of the
Red Sea is described as having been connected
with prayer and invocation on the part of Moses.
Here we come upon the most prominent aspect of
miracle in the OT, viz. the element of prophecy,
which includes prediction. However this feature
may have been exaggerated in Christian anolo-
getics in the past, and however we may try to
reduce it to lower dimensions, it is impossible to
eliminate it from the Hebrew literature. The
function of a prophet was not confined to predic-
tion, but this was certainly within his powers, as
indicated from time to time in the history of Israel.
And true prediction is essentially miraculous ; it
is beyond human powers, and it is a sign of a
special revelation of God to man over and above
that which is continually offered in His provi-
dence (see PROPHECY). Prophecy being admitted
as possible, and the actual prophecies of the O'T
seers being certified, the * wonders and signs’ with

which their ministry was accredited are deprived
of much of that antecedent improbability which
(as we have admitted) attaches itself to miraculous
stories in general.

The miracles of Elijah and Elisha may _ be
viewed in this light. They are, as it were, their
credentials. Other prophets, both of OT and of NT,
worked no signs indeed (Jn 1011), and this shows
that it was not the habit of the Hebrews to surround
the figure of every prophetical personage with a
halo of miraculous glory. But Elijah and Elisha
lived in an age of spiritual upheaval: great wicked-
ness and deep piety came into conflict. “ Let it be
known this day that thou art God in Israel’ (1 K
1836) was the perpetual burden of Elijah’s prayers.
And perhaps nothing short of a miraculous sign
would have satisfied the Israel of his day that the
Lord was God. At the same time it may be freely
conceded that the accounts of these two great pro-
phets, Elijah and Elisha, stand somewhat apart
trom the general history of Israel. The miracles
of Elisha are never alluded to in the OT after the
story of their occurrence, and they are only once
mentioned in the Apocr. (Sir 48!4). It cannot be said
that the miracles ascribed to these prophets are
essential to the history, nor can it be maintained that
all of their miracles are on the lofty moral level
which we have found to be conspicuously the case
with the miracles of Christ. It is an hypothesis with
a good deal of prima facie evidence in its favour
that the miracle-stories of 1 K 17. 18, 2 K 1-6 are
rather of the nature of Jewish Haggadoth than of
sober history.* With even greater probability may
this be said of the stories of Dxniel and the den of
lions, and the Three Children in the furnace of Ne-
buchadnezzar (Dn 3! 616f), Τὴ the vest of the OT
the miraculous element (if we exclude prophecy) is
remarkably small. ‘The song of the Bk. of Jashar,
which speaks of the sun standing still at Gibeon
(Jos 1013), can hardly be taken as a scientific state-
ment of fact ; itis poetry, not prose. ‘Thesomewhat
similar story of the shadow moving backward on
the sundial of Ahaz (2 K 2011) is related in prose
and interwoven with the history of Hezekiah, and
cannot be dismissed so easily. But in the absence
of fuller knowledge of the circumstances it would
be impossible to be sure that in this there was any-
thing ‘supernatural,’ beyond the foreknowledge
which Isaiah seems to have had that this ‘sign’
would take place. The story of Balaam’s ass
speaking has been referred to its parallels, s.v.
BALAAM;t and the episode of Jonah and the
whale seems to be of a similar class. In the latter
case, it has been urged, indeed, that our Lord’s
application of the story (Mt 12%) forecloses all
inquiry into its literal truth. But this is not the
judgment of the most careful and devout scholars
of our own time.t

On the whole, then, while we maintain that
the history of the Jews cannot be truly interpreted
unless the special intervention of Providence in
many a crisis of their national life be discerned,
and while we distinctly recognize the miraculous
nature of the Messianic prophecies of the OT, and
are not slow to accept the allegation that miracles
may have accompanied their progress, we cannot
think that the evidence for several recorded mir-
acles, such as Elisha making the axe-head to swim
(2 Καὶ 65), the speaking of Balaam’s ass (Nu 2258),
and the staying of the sun and moon at Gibeon
(Jos 1013), is at all sufficient to compel implicit
credence in their literal truth.

vi. CHRISTIAN MIRACLES AFTER THE APOSTOLIC
AGE.—1. The last section of this article must be

* See above, vol. i. p. 696%, art. Eviswa.

t See vol. i. p. 2945,

tSee Sanday, Jnspiration, p. 414 f., and Gore, Bampton
Lectures, p. 195 f., and cf. art. Jonau, above, vol. ii. p. 151.

394 MIRACLE

MIRACLE

far too brief for its subject, but something ought
to be said of miracles recorded elsewhere than in
the OT and NT, if our discussion of miracles in
general is to be in any way complete. We have
seen that the infant Church is described in Ac as
having been favoured with miracles as well as with
other gifts of the Spirit. When did these miracles
cease in Christian history ?. Many different opinions
have been held, one branch at least of the Church
believing that there has been no cessation and that
miraculous powers are still in her possession, it
being often urged, on the other hand, that they
died with the apostolic company. The chief reason
alleged for this latter opinion is apparently based
on the assumption that miracles are given only for
evidential purposes, that their sole function is to
certify the Divine character of revelation, and that
when this has been sufticiently established their
work is done, and that they may not be expected
to continue. And, curiously enough but most un-
reasonably, it has been assumed that the apostles
could not have worked any miracle save those
recorded in Scripture, or at least that no record of
such could be trustworthy. Between these extreme
views are to be ranked the great body of old English
divines, e.g. Dodwell and ‘Tillotson, who held that
miracles were occasional in the Christian Church
until the time of Constantine, when, Christianity
being established by the civil power, it no longer
needed such supernatural assistance. ‘Thus Fuller
explains that ‘miracles are the swaddling clothes
of the infant Churches’; and yet another view has
commended itself to many, viz. that the power of
working miracles extended to but not beyond the
disciples upon whom the apostles conferred it by
lnposition of their hands.*

2. According to Acts, the Divine powers promised
by Christ to His Church were at least occasionally
exercised, not only by the apostolic company but
by other persons as well. It would not be sur-
prising, therefore, if we found in the literature of
the early 2nd cent. many references to miracles
like those in Acts. And yet such references are
few and scanty. Our records of the period are
fraginentary, to be sure, but it is remarkable that
they tell so little on the subject. With a few not-
able exceptions, of which something is said further
on, there is no trace up to the end of the 2nd cent.
of any miraculous gift still existing in the primitive
Church save those of prophecy and healing, including
exorcism, both of which are frequently mentioned.

(4) In Hermas (Mand. xi.) and in the Didaché
the abuse of the grace of prophecy is spoken of, and
a little later Justin (Dial. § 82) has the statement
mapa yap ἡμῖν καὶ μέχρι viv προφητικὰ χαρίσματά
ἐστιν. We observe here that the earliest notices of
the power of prophecy imply also the presence of
its counterteit, and indeed prophecy is, of all the
Divine ‘gifts,’ that which would most easily lend
itself to imposture. And Justin’s statement seems
to imply his surprise that prophecy should have
continued so long, for he says ‘even up to the pre-
sent,’ trom which we might gather that instances
of genuine prophecy in his day and in his neigh-
bourhood were not very numerous.

(6) The gift of healing is also noted by Justin
(Dial. § 39), though he does not give any instances
within his own observation. Origen goes further
(contra Celsum, iii. 24), and says that he has seen
many persons rescued from delirium. But the com-
monest exemplification of this gift was displayed
in the expulsion of demons; exorcism is regarded
quite as a thing of course by the 2nd cent. Fathers.
Justin (Apol. ii. § 6, Dial. $$ 30, 76) and Ter-
tullian (Apol. 23, 87, 48, de Idolol. 11, etc.) speak
in extravagant terms as to the certainty with
which demons could be expelled by the prayers of

* See Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 49. +

the faithful. They allege these powers to be the
common property of all Christian people, and to be
susceptible of exercise at any moment and on any
occasion. This is going far beyond the language
of the Gospels and Acts, but it is here sutticient to
observe that phenomena of this sort are often
explicable without any recourse to supernatural
agency (see above, iv. § 5).

3. Next, it is important to note that the early
Fathers, although seeing the miraculous in the
incidents of their daily life, place the miracles of
the apostolic age on a pinnacle quite above the
miracles of their own time. When we go to the
4th cent., we find Chrysostom saying that ‘all the
men of his time together’ could not do as much as
St. Paul’s handkerchief (de Sacerdot. iv. 6), and he
implies that in his day there were no raisings from
the dead (cf. Hom. in I Cor. vi.2). But, much earlier
than this, Tertullian, after saying that the apostles
had spiritual powers peculiar to themselves, adds
‘nam et mortuos suscitaverunt quod Deus solus ;
et debiles redintegraverunt, quod nemo nisi Chris-
tus? (de Pud. ο. 21) —language which would be
strange if such oecurrences were even occasional
in his day. And of the miracles of the apostolic
age, Origen only says that traces (ἔχ vn) remain in
his time (contra Celsum, i. 2). We find then Chg
that by the end of the 2nd cent. there is a growing
suspicion that miracles are dying out, Gi.) that
such miracles as are recorded are generally re-

garded as different in kind from those of the
apostolic age, and (iii.) that in the earliest age
of post-apostolic Christianity the ‘miracles’ are

almost, without exception, of prophecy, healing,
and exorcism.

4. The exceptional cases remain to be mentioned.
(4) Eusebius records (JE iii. 39) that Papias re-
lated that in his time a man rose from the dead, as
he had heard from the daughters of Philip the
Evangelist, and that Justus Barsabbas was once
delivered trom the effects of drinking poison. The
former of these occurrences may relate to some
such occurrence as the raising of Doreas (Ac 9°"),
which the daughters of Philip may have witnessed,
and the latter is not related in sufficient detail to
enable us to draw any conclusion from it (οἷ. Mk
1015). But it is significant that Papias’ account
seems to have been silent as to miracles which
came within his own observation. The occur-
rences he mentioned were in the apostolic age, and
he does not profess to speak as an eye-witness.

(b) The often quoted statement of Irenzeus is
more difficult to explain or to explain away. He
speaks of prophecy, healing, and exorcism as im-
possible in heretical circles, but as common in the
Church, and he adds, ‘Yea, even the dead were
raised and abode with us many years’ (ἠγέρθησαν
καὶ παρέμειναν σὺν ἡμῖν ἱκανοῖς ἔτεσι, adv. Her. 11.
ΧΧΧΙΪ.). All that can be said about this is that.
no specific instance is produced ; the language is
rhetorical, and the statement occurs in the middle
of a polemic against heretics. Nor are we furnished
with details. Further, when Ireneus passes from
the mention of the more common miracula to speak
of raising the dead, the tense is suddenly and un-
expectedly changed. Healing, exorcism, and pro-
phecy, these are matters of present experience for
him ; but he speaks of resurrections from the dead
in the pasé tense. Even the words quoted hardly
mean more than that such events happened within
living memory. Now Irenzeus was a disciple of
Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John,
so that if we view his statement thus it will not
appear so extraordinary. The inference, in short,
from the whole passage is that the major miracles
no longer happened —an inference which is con-
firmed by all the available evidence. *

* See further, Mozley, Miracles, p. 295.

|
|
|

MIRACLE

MIRACLE

5. But if the miraculous powers of the Church
seem to have grown less and less as the 2nd cent.
went on, it must also be remembered that miracles
of the most astounding character abound in the
records of ecclesiastical history from the 4th cent.
onward. On what grounds, it may be asked, do we
reject these ὃ Or must we reject them? Is there
any reason why these should be rejected and those
of the N'T accepted? and on what principles is such
differentiation to be made ?

6. It is plain, at the outset, that miracles are
always possible to the believer in God, and again
that there is always a presumption against them
to one who believes that God governs the world
by general laws. ‘This fact, that His rule is uni-
form for the most part, is what gives to miracles
their signal character, their character as signs, and
so forbids us to see ‘miracle’ in the ordinary
activities of Providence. They are σημεῖα, and are
therefore a priori unlikely to be of everyday oc-
currence. And the remarkable economy in the
use of miracle displayed both in the O'T and in the
NYT confirms us in the conviction that there is an
antecedent probability against them as a general
rule. This antecedent improbability may be over-
come by the special circumstances of the case (as
we have pointed out is true of the miracles of
Christ), or by the strength of the evidence which
may be adduced ; but normally it has considerable
force. Further, supposing true miracles occur,
nothing is more certain than that they will provoke
imitation and imposture, and will encounter the
rivalry of a host of false ones. Pascal goes so
far as to say that the existence of the false neces-
sarily points to the existence of the true as their
antecedent cause, without which they would never
have gained a footing.* We need not accept this
dictum in its integrity, but there is this of truth in
it, that it shows on the one hand how unscientific
it is summarily to reject the evidence for a given
occurrence, merely because somewhat similar evi-
dence has proved misleading in other cases ; and,
on the other hand, that we must. always allow for
a readiness to believe in miracle arising from
previous (real or imaginary) experience of such
interpositions of Divine favour. We say then,
first, that while we do net in the least feel bound
to reject mediwval or modern miracles, we start
with a determination to test the evidence for them
very severely. If we draw conclusions as to the
history of the Christian Church from what we read
in the OT of the history of the Jewish Church, we
shall expect to find miraculous interposition very
rarely exhibited, and then only at great national
crises, and not inerely for the warning and instruc-
tion of individual souls.

7. This same law of Divine economy will bid us
also to exclude from the category of miracles such
events as may reasonably be referred to natural
causes. Visions or voices which may be resolved
into false perceptions or deceptions of the senses
must be so classed. The extraordinary phenomena
whieh are recorded as having accompanied the
martyrdoms of Polycarp,t of Savonarola, of Hooper,
may readily enough be explained as the operation
of physical forces, a little exaggerated perhaps
by pious enthusiasm. Stories like that of the
Thundering Legion and the rain which followed
the prayers of the Christian host may be true in
the main, although the events of which they tell
are not necessarily miracles in any other sense
than that in which every answer to prayer is a
miracle (see above, i. § 15). In other cases the
recorded phenomena are too like the tricks of
a thaumaturgist for sober piety to recognize in
them the finger of God; and in many the alleged

* Pensées, ii. 252 (ed. Fangéres).
+ See Lightfoot, Apostolic Futhers, τι. i. 516.

miracles are grotesquely absurd and utterly devoid
of that character of σημεῖα which all true miracles
have as revelations of the Divine will and purpose.

8. Next, in an overwhelmingly large number of
the cases which remain, both of medieval and
modern miracles, the evidence is entirely insuffi-
cient. There is no @ priori probability in their
favour, and very inadequate @ posteriori testimony.
In how few cases, outside the NT, have we got the
evidence of the agent who is supposed to have
worked the miracles! And it is to be feared that
many stories of miracles worked by saints may be
accounted for by the misguided piety of their
biographers. All too soon in the Church’s history
a false criterion of sanctity grew up. It was sup-
posed that the measure of a man’s goodness was
the amount of miraculous power by which his
preaching was aided.* Now from the belief that
the man who works miracles must be a good man,
the transition is easy to the converse inference.
This man was a good man, hence he must have
worked miracles, and so it can be no harm to write
down a few in his biography. He must have
worked, if not these particular wonders, at least
others very like them.t We thus find that the
further removed in time the saint is from his
biographer, the more is his life embellished with
legend and glorified with miracle. We distrust
the medieval records on these grounds. Falsius in
uno, falsus in omnibus, we say. No criticism of
this sort can be applied to the miracles of the NT ;
for here we have contemporary testimony of the
principal persons concerned, and the miraculous is
as prominent in the earlier as in the later canonical
writings.

9. It is a suspicious circumstance that many of
these medizval miracles happened so opportunely
for the triumph of a particular party or the
glorification of a particular individual. In one
sense, indeed, it is very far from suspicious to read
that a miracle came at the right moment, ὁ.6. for
the support of God’s truth, but in another sense it
is suspicious. If men are anxiously expecting a
sign from heaven to guarantee the piety of a doubt-
ful undertaking or the success of a hazardous
cause, it is very likely that they will see the finger
of God in what is really only the operation of His
ordinary laws, and it is not improbable that they
may be the dupes of unscrupulous persons who
play upon their prejudices.

10. All these qualifications being made, a re-
siduum of recorded cases is left, which it is diffi-
cult to explain. Men will view them differently,
aceording to their predispositions, But it is not
too much to say that no recorded occurrences in
recent centuries seem to bear the character of
σημεῖα in at all the same degree as the miracles of
the Gospel, whether we have regard to the general
circumstances under which they were worked, or
the results, moral and spiritual, which were conse-
quent upon men’s belief in them. Quite apart
from the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence
brought forward in their favour, or the possibility
of ‘natural’? explanations, alleged miracles such
as the apparition of the Blessed Virgin at La
Salette, and the cures of pilgrims at the shrine
which has been built at the spot, are lacking in
the dignity and moral grandeur of the miracles of
the Gospel. Whatever may be thought about them,
it is plain that even if these and their like are
really to be traced to the intervention of the
Divine mercy which loves to reward a simple faith
(and it does not seem to us that the evidence is
sufficient to establish such a conclusion), yet they
do not serve as vehicles of revelation as the miracles

* See Mozley, Miracles, p. 180.
+ Newman Jays down a principle very ike this (University
Sermons, p. 340).

-------

896 MIRIAM

MIRROR

of the Gospel did. They may be θαύματα, δυνάμεις.
τέρατα, but they are not σημεῖα of a new spiritual
Inessage to mankind, which it sorely needed to
learn. And this is the essential characteristic of
the miracles of the Christ.

On the whole subject of this article ef. JESUS
CHRIST, in vol. ii. p. 624-628 ; and see NATURAL,
NATURE, PROPHECY, SIGN.

Lireraturr.—The subject has been treated by innumerable
writers, but the following books are among the most important,
and are easily accessible : Origen, contra Celsum; St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, τι ex. Spinoza, Tractatus Theo-
logico-politicus, de miraculis (on the negative side) ; Pascal,
Pensées ; Butler, Analogy; Hume, Enquiry concerning the
Human Understanding, x. (on the negative side); Paley, Fvi-
dences ; Babbage, Ninth Bridgewater Treatise ;'Trench, Notes
on the Miracles; J.B. Mozley, Bampton Lectures; Lange, Life
of Christ, ii, pp. 96-172 (Eng. tr.); J. S. Mill, Three Essays on
Religion (negative); Duke of Argvll, The Reign of Law;

‘Matthew Arnold, Literature and Dogma and God and the
Bible (on the negative side); Supernatural Religion (negative);
Temple, Bampton Lectures; Westcott, Jutroduction to Study
of Gospels, The Gospel of the Resurrection, and The Gospel
of Life: Bruce, TheCh lef End of Revelation, and The Miracu-
lous Element in the Gospels; Newman, Two Essays on Mira-
eles; E. A. Abbott, Philomythus (a reply to the last) ; Boedder,
Natural Theology; Mlingworth, Divine Immanence; A. T.
Lyttelton, Hulsean Lectures. J. H. BERNARD.

MIRIAM (2307; LXX and NT Μαριάμ, Josephus
Mapiduyn).—1. The daughter of Amram and
Jochebed, and sister of Aaron and Moses, being
probably the eldest of the three. Though not
mentioned by name, she was the sister who
watched from a distance what would happen to
Moses in the ark of bulrushes, and went and
fetched her mother to act as nurse to her brother
for Pharaoh's danghter (Ex 250 (E)). She took a
leading part in the Exodus with her two brothers.
She is called ‘the prophetess, the sister of Aaron,’
and she led the women in their chant of victory after
the passage of the Red Sea (Ex 15% (E)). We find
her during the wanderings combining with Aaron
against Moses at Hazeroth because of his marriage
with a Cushite woman. They claimed to have the
power of prophecy equally with him, though Moses
stood upon a higher plane in the world of revelation,
which ought to have made them afraid to rebel.
Miriam and Aaron were both severely rebuked,
but the chief punishment fell upon Miriam. ‘The
cloud removed from over the tent; and, behold,
Miriam was leprous as white as snow.’ Aaron at
once confessed their sin, and begged Moses’ forgive-
ness ; whereupon Moses obtained Miriam’s healing
from God. She was, however, sentenced to exclu-
sion from the camp for seven days, and the camp re-
mained unmoved for that time (Nu 121-16). ‘Towards
the end of the wanderings Miriam died at Kadesh,
and was buried there (Nu 20!). Two allusions are
made to Miriam in other books of the OT. As an
incitement to the strict observance of the law of
leprosy in Dt 248 the people are bidden to remember
her case: ‘Remember what the Lord thy God did
unto Miriam, by the way as ye came forth out of
Egypt’ (Dt 249). In Mic 6 she is mentioned with
Moses and Aaron as a leader with them of the
people. Josephus asserts (Ant. ILL. ii. 4) that she
was the wife of Hur, and grandmother of Bezalel.
Jerome (de Loc. Heb. 108) says that her tomb
was shown close to Petra in Arabia in his day.
Josephus adds other details, which we need not
trouble ourselves with; and the Koran identifies
her with the Virgin Mary. The name ‘ Miriam’
is of great interest to Christians as being the
name by which the Virgin Mother of Christ was
known.

2. A second Miriam is mentioned in 1 Ch 417
(Heb.). It has been supposed by Bertheau that
the last clause of 1 Ch 418 should ‘come before the
three names of which this is one, If so, they would
be the children of a daughter of Pharaoh.

H. A. REDPATH.

MIRMAH (727?).— Eponym of a Benjamite
family, 1 Ch 8 (Β΄ Ἵμαμά, A Mapud, Luc. Μαρμιάλ).

MIRROR (7897, Ἐπ 1°22, κάτοπτρον. ἔσοπτρον) .---
Any surface so smooth and regular as to reflect uni-
formly the rays of light, produces, by the operation
of simple optical laws, images of objects in front of
or above it, which appear to the eye as if they were
behind or beneath it. This property has been
valued and applied as an aid to the toilet from
very early times. The surface of a transparent
substance like glass or still water may thus act as
a mirror (Pr 2719), and even a black surface if
highly polished may do the same. The higher the
reflecting power of a substance, however, the brighter
and clearer the image which it gives. A flat mirror
produces images of the same size as the objects,
a convex mirror diminishes the images, while a
concave one (if sufficiently near) gives magnified
images, which are erect or inverted according to cir-
cumstances. Modern mirrors are commonly made
of glass coated on the back with an amalgam of
mercury and tin. Mirrors for scientific purposes,
however, are either of polished ‘ speculum metal?
(a special alloy of copper and tin) or of glass
silvered in front. The words ὁ glass’ (in the sense
of mirror) and ‘looking glass’ occur in AV (see
the places below); but as all mirrors used in
biblical times were metallic, so far as we can judge,
RV substitutes for these terms the more general
one ‘mirror’ (see GLAss, 2).

Our knowledge of ancient mirrors is derived (a)
from literary notices, and (+) from actual speci-
mens that have been preserved.

(a) Under the first head we note only references
to material, manufacture, and the like. Pliny
(Nat. Hist. xxxvi. 26) describes what seems to
have been an attempt to make glass mirrors at
Sidon, but nothing is said as to the success of the
experiment. Alexander of Aphrodisias, a writer of
the 5rd cent. a.p., refers (Problem. i. 152) to glass
mirrors coated with tin (Marquardt, Das Privat-
leben der Rimer, Ὁ. 737, ἢ. 2), and an Egyptian
mirror made of glass is said to be in the museum
at Turin (ἐδ. ἢ. 1). In Pliny’s day, however, only
metallic mirrors were in use. The ordinary mate-
rial for them was an alloy of copper and tin, and
the best of this kind were made at Brundusium,
Silver mirrors were the finest, and were first made
by one Pasiteles in the time of Pompey. The effects
of the various kinds of curvature in mirrors were
also known (Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxiii. 45, xxxiv. 48).
Seneca describes the phenomena of reflexion in
a concave mirror (Nat. Quest. 1. iv. 3), and
speaks of gold and silver mirrors large enough
to give an image of a whole human figure Cb
xvii. 8).

(b) The ancient mirrors still existing may be
classified as—

(1) Egyptian. These are made of an alloy of
copper, highly polished, and are nearly circular
with ornamental handles of wood, stone, or metal.
They are described and figured in Wilkinson,
Ancient Egyptians, ii. 350 ff. (2) Etruscan. These
have been tound in great numbers in the ruins of
Preneste and in other Etrurian burial-places. They
are round or pear-shaped, with handles attached,
and are remarkable for the elaborate engravings
of mythological scenes on their backs. See Ger-
hard, Liruskische Spiegel, i. 78 ff., and the plates
in the other 4 vols. (8) Roman. The mirrors of
this class are mostly circular. Some have handles
and some are without them. The term for the
latter variety was orbis (Mart. IX. xvii. 5). Among
those found at Pompeii some are square (Overbeck-
Mau, Pompeiit, p. 453). (4) Greek. Specimens of
these were unknown till 1867. They are of two
kinds: circular discs with handles in the form of

MIRROR

MISHMANNAH 397

statuettes, and box mirrors consisting of two discs
which fit into one another and are sometimes
hinged together, the outer surface of the polished
dise being ornamented in low relief and the inner
surface of the other being engraved.

LITERATURE.—De Witte, Les miroirs chez les anciens ; Bauer-
meister, Denkmiler des Classischen Alterthums, iii. 1690-3 ;
Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Riémer, p. 669 ff. ; Collignon,
Manuet d’Archéologie Grecque, 346ff.; Mylonas, Ελληνικὰ
κάτοπτρα ; Seyffert, Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, by
Nettleship and Sandys, s.v. ‘Mirror’; Guhl and Koner, Life of
the Greeks and Romans, 184, 499.

The following are the Scripture allusions to
mirrors. In Ex 388 the laver of the tabernacle is
said to have been made of ‘the mirrors’ (AV
‘looking glasses,’ AVin ‘brasen glasses’) of the
serving women.* This implies that they were
made of metal (see Brass). The Heb. is Axi
(LXX κάτοπτρον), a word which is elsewhere ren-
dered ‘vision.’ In Job 3718 the sky is compared
for strength to a molten ‘mirror’ (x9, LX.X ὅρασις
ἐπιχύσεως, AV ‘looking glass’). The whole verse
embodies the ancient conception of the sky as a
hard metal-like solid. The verb at the beginning
(‘spread out’ AV and RV) is ym ‘to beat, beat
out,’ from which comes the term 3°) (‘firmament’)
applied to the sky (see Cosmogony). In Is 359
‘hand mirrors’ (AV ‘glasses’) are named among
the articles of female luxury denounced by the
prophet. The Heb. is jivb3, and the general idea of
the word appears to be that of a smooth flat surface.
It oceurs again in Is 8!, where it is rendered
‘tablet’? in RV and ‘roll’ in AV. In late Heb. it
came to mean the blank margin of a book. In the
former passage, however, LXX understands by
our>3 garments of some thin transparent material,
and renders by διαφανῆ Λακωνικά.

In Apocr. and ΝΊ ἔσοπτρον takes the place of the
usual classical word for mirror, κάτοπτρον. In Wis
7:5 wisdom is called the unspotted ‘mirror’ of the
working of God. In Sir 12‘! the persistent malice
of an enemy is compared to the rust on a ‘mirror’
(AV ‘looking glass’), which it is difficult to wipe
away completely—a metallic mirror being clearly
referred to. In 1 Co 13" the spiritual knowledge
of the present life is likened to the dim perception
of images in a ‘mirror’ (AV ‘elass’). In Ja 1598:
the Christian law of liberty is described figuratively
as ἃ ‘mirror’ (AV ‘glass’). The careless hearer
of the law, who does not obey it, is compared to
one who looks at himself in the mirror and forgets
the retlected image as soon as he has turned away
from it, while the obedient disciple is likened to
one who keeps gazing steadfastly into the mirror,
and who thus has the image of what he ought to
be always before the eye of his soul.

The verb κατοπτρίζεσθαι occurs once (2 Co 3'8),
Here AV has ‘ beholding as in a glass’ the glory of
the Lord, RV ‘retlecting as a mirror,’ and RVm
‘beholding asin a mirror.’ The translation of the
word is closely connected with the interpretation
of the context, and the two renderings in RV mark
the wide divergence which exists among scholars
and commentators with regard to the passage.
Yor the new translation ‘reflecting’ there may be
quoted Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Bengel,
Billroth, Olshausen, and, more recently, Schmiedel,
and Mayor (on Ja 1%). The old rendering ‘ be-
holding’ is supported by Grimm, Winer, Meyer,
Heinrici, Beet, and Denney, and should, we think,
be preferred. The idea of ‘reflexion’ does not
accord well either with the context or with the
usage of κατοπτρίζεσθαι in other writers. The simple
physical fact that one who beholds a bright light
reflected in a mirror has his own face illumined by
it at the same time is taken as an illustration of the
transformation of the Christian’s character, which
eomes about through beholding the glory of God

* On this passage see Ismar Peritzin JBL, 1898, Pt. ii. p. 145 ἢ,

reflected in Christ, or the glory of Christ reflected
in the gospel. JAMES PATRICK.

MISAEL (B Μεισαήλ, A Mis-). —1. 1 Es 94=
MISHAEL, Neh 84. 2, Thr % (LXX, Dn 3%), else-
where MISHAEL, the Heb. name of one of Daniel’s
three companions in captivity ; called MESHACH in
Babylon (Dn 1°"),

MISAIAS.—See MASIAS.

MISGAB (1357 with art.; B ‘Audé, AX τὸ
κραταίωμα). --- Mentioned along with Nebo and
Kiriathaim in the oracle against Moab, Jer 48
[Gr. 311}. Perhaps it is not intended as a proper
name. The same Heb. term occurs in Is 25!%,
where both AV and RV tr. ‘high fort’ (ef. 28 223
Ps 98 bis 182 467-1 48% 599. 16.17 Gv2.6 94:2 144?, Is
30”), C. R. CONDER.

MISHAEL (5x¥*> [the derivation is disputed. It
comes either from 5x ᾧ τον Wx Ὁ ‘Who is
what God is?’ or from 5x my cs ‘Who is like
God?’ In either case it is sufficiently near such
Assyrian forms as Mannu-ki-ilurabu, Manum-ki-
Ashur|; LXX Μισαήλ, Μεισαήλ, and [Ly 1013] Μισα-
dai).—1. According to Ex 6% Mishael belonged to the
Kohathites, and stood fourth in descent from Levi.
At Ly 10: he and his brother Elzaphan are ordered
to carry from before the sanctuary out of the camp
the dead bodies of Nadab and Abihu, who have
perished becanse of their presumption. Both of
the passages in which Mishael is mentioned are
attributed to P. 2. A man named Mishael was
one of Ezra’s supporters in his great work of
reform. He was amongst those who stood at the
scribe’s left hand on the great pulpit of wood from
which the law was read aloud to the people, Neh
84. These men, twelve in number, one for each
tribe (as Ryle appears to think), or thirteen (MT
and LXX), or fourteen (Guthe on 1 Es), have been
supposed to be the chief priests of the course which
was at that time performing the temple service.
But there is nothing in the text to support this.
Almost certainly they were either Levites or lay-
men. 8. One of Daniel’s three companions, Dn
[1-0 2). (ee MESHACH, J. TAYLOR.

MISHAL (oxz2).—A town of Asher, Jos 1936
(Maaca), given to the Gershonite Levites, 21°° (B
Βασσελλάν, Α Macaadd\)=1 Ch 67 [Heb. 59], where,
perhaps by a clerical error, it is called Sy Mashal.
In this last instance B has Maacd, A* Μασάλ. The
site is ttnknown. It is only an inference from the
context, when Eusebius (Onomast. 280. 139) says
Μασὰν συνάπτει τῷ Καρμήλῳ κατὰ θάλασσαν.

C. R. CONDER.

MISHAM (0722). — Eponym of a Benjamite
family, 1 Ch 8! (B Meocadyu, A Micadd, Lue.
Μεσοάμ).

MISHMA (νοῦ; in Gn 2514 Michaelis points
yoyo). —41. A son of Ishmael, Gn 25" (A Macud,
Luc. Macudv)=1Ch 1° (B Maud, A Μασμά). The
tribe of which Mishma is the eponym has not been
identified. The name has no connexion, accord-
ing to Dillmann, either with the Μαισαιμανεῖς of
Ptolemy (VI. vil. 21), or with the place called
el-Mismiye in the Lejjaéh, south of Damascus. He
thinks that a trace of the name may remain in
one or other of the two places — Jebel Misma’,
south-east of Ads, east of the Wady Sirhan, in
the latitude of Idumeea, or another Jebel Misma'
farther south, tewards Teimd, where inscriptions
have been found. 2. The eponym of a Simeonite
family, 1 Ch 4:5 (B A Μασμά). J. A. SELBIE.

MISHMANNAH (732%). —A Gadite chief who

398 MISHNA

MITYLENE

joined David at Ziklag, 1 Ch 1910 (B Μασεμανή, A
Macuay).

MISHNA.—See TALMUD.

MISHNEH (nit), 2 K 224, 2 Ch 34”, Zeph 1°
ItkVm.—See COLLEGE.

MISHRAITES (37227). — A family of Kiriath-
jearim, 1Ch 2* (B ‘Hyacapacin, A —eiv). No
place of the name of J/ishra’ is mentioned in OT,
and the MT of the closing verses of 1 Ch 2 is
involved in considerable uncertainty. See Kittel
in SBOT, ad loc.

MISPAR (75>2).—One of the exiles who returned
with Zerubbabel, Ezr 2? (B Madcap, A Macddp),
called in Neh Τὶ Mispereth (mz02, B Μασφεράν, A
ΔΙαασφαράθ, κα ΜΙασφαράδ).

MISPERETH.—See preceding article.
MISREPHOTH-MAIM (c°2 πξη 5, Μασερών, Macpe-

φωθμαειμ, Macepedueupwudin).—One of the places to
which Joshua (115) chased the Northern Canaanites
after their defeat near Lake Merom. The older
explanation, following the Jewish commentators,
was to translate the words ‘ burning of waters,’ and
to refer them to local hot springs or smelting-works
(cf. Ges. Thes.). This ignored the fact that the
words are Canaanite in origin, probably assimi-
lated to like-sounding Hebrew words.

Others gave the site as Zarephath (1 Καὶ 179) on
the ground of the similarity of name, and because
‘Zarephath belongeth to Zidon,’ which place occurs
in the verse from Joshua.

Most probably we should revert to a sugges-
tion of Thomson (Land and Book, ch. xv.), who
identified it with Musheirifeh or ‘Ain Meserfi,
a site on the coast, S. of Ras en-Nakhurah or the
Ladder of Tyre (Seetzen, ii. 109; Scholz, Reise,
154).

This position would agree much better than
Zarephath with the only other passage in which
the name occurs (Jos 13°). There the Zidonians,
who are not yet dispossessed, are said to extend
from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim. We should
scarcely expect Zarephath, a place which lay be-
tween Tyre and Zidon, to be given as the 8. point
of the dominion of Zidon, while the Ladder of Tyre
night well be so named. AO. WELCH:

MITE.—See MONEY.

MITHKAH (7pn>, Ματεκκά B, Madexxa AF, Methea
Vulg.).—One of the 12 stations following Hazeroth,
Nu 3378-29, See EXODUS AND JOURNEY TO CANAAN,
vol. i. p. 805a, § ili.

MITHNITE (:in273). — ‘ Joshaphat the Mithnite’
appears in the catalogue of David’s officers in 1 Ch
11* (B ὁ Βαιθανεί, A ὁ λαθθανί). This gentilic name
would imply the existence of a place called jne
(however we may vocalize that word), which, how-
ever, is nowhere mentioned in OT. Kittel (in
SBOT, ad loc.) suggests that the LXX (A) and
Vulg. (the latter has Mathanites) readings appear
to have j7> in mind, in which case the gent‘!ic name
would be vocalized ‘397.

MITHRADATES.—1. (A Midpadarns, B -ριδ-, AV
Mithridates), 1 Es 2" (LXX 10) = MITHREDATH,
Ezr 15, the treasurer of Cyrus king of Persia. 1 Es,
by translating his title 131 correctly with ya¢o-
φύλαξ, shows itself independent of the LXX of
Ezr, which renders it as a proper name Γασβαρηνός.
2. (BA* Midpad-, ΑΔ Beh Midpd-, AV Mithri-
dates), 1 Es 26 (LXX 4)=MITHREDATH, Ezr 4’, a

Persian officer stationed in Samaria under Arta.
xerxes.

MITHREDATH (nton>, Pers. =‘ given by Mithra,
or the sun’; Μιθραδάτης ; 1 Es 2" Μιθριδάτης B, v.44
Ba» A*; Mithridates).—1. The Persian treasurer,
whom Cyrus commanded to deliver to Sheshbazzar,
the prince of Judah, the sacred vessels taken from
the temple by Nebuchadrezzar (Ezr 18).

2. Apparently a Persian oflicer stationed in
Samaria. Together with his colleagues he wrote
to Artaxerxes (Longimanus) to hinder the rebuild-
ing of the walls of Jerusalem (Iizr 47, The corre-
spondence between the Samaritans and the Persian
court probably took place in the interval between
the missions of Ezra and of Nehemiah.

MITRE.—1. The word used in AV for nais9
(LXX μίτρα or xidapis), the official head-dress of the
Heb: high priest (Ex 28% ὁ θη 06, ΘΟ. Το τ 16%:
ef. also Ek 91. RVm has ‘turban,’ except in
Ezk 2155 where AV has ‘diadem’ and RV ‘mitre,’
without marginal note. The head-dress of the
ordinary priest was 1230 (AV bonnet, RV headtire).
The mitre of the high priest was, like the headtire
of the subordinate priests, of fine linen, and was
made from a piece, said by the Rabbins to have
been sixteen cubits long, rolled into a sort of turban.
Hence its name, from 433 ‘ to wind.’ On the front
of the mitre, just above the high priest’s forehead,
was the sacred crown (see CROWN, 2). The precise
shape of the mitre is, however, disputed. It is
frequently represented as lower, rounder, fuller at
the sides, and resting more lightly on the head
than the headtire of the ordinary priests, which
was shaped somewhat like a helmet (so Braunius,
de Vest. Sacerd. Heb. lib. ii. cap. 21). On the
other hand, Bihr (Sym. i. p. 110) maintains that
it was higher and longer, though perhaps, as
Maimonides seems to imply, with the top bending
over. The description of Josephus (Av. UL. vii. 6,
‘The (high priest’s) hat was similar to that used
by all the priests, but above it was sewn another
embroidered with blue’) has given trouble to
archeologists; and Philo (de Vit. 105. ii. 11)
seems to speak of a third part of the head-dress,
besides mitre and crown, which he calls κίδαρις or
diadem. The Janguage of O'T is, in fact, quite
indefinite as to the shape of the mitre, and Philo
and Josephus may either have misinterpreted its
expressions, or have had in mind latér embellish-
ments. The mitre was as representative of the
priestly dignity as the crown or diadem was of the
royal. Hence in Ezk 21" ‘Remove the mitre ; and
take off the crown’ (RV), may signify the desola-
tion of both priesthood and monarchy.

2. Another word (43) from the same root is in
Zee 3° tr? ‘mitre® in AV and RV (RVm *turpan
or diadem’), and is applied, apparently as a syn-
onym of the technical word described above, to the
head-dress which the prophet saw placed on Joshua
the high priest. It is also found in Job 29% (AV
‘diadem,’ RVm ‘ turban’) in a figurative descrip-
tion of a righteous man arrayed in the garments of
nobility ; in Is 3% (AV ‘hoods,’ RV ‘ turbans’) as
an article of elaborate female attire (cf. μίτρα in
Jth 168, Bar 5°); and in Is 62° Keré (AV and RV
‘diadem’) as a symbol of the honour which J” will
place upon His people. See HEAD-DREss.

G. T. PURVEs.

MITYLENE (ΔΠιτυλήνη), or Mytilene (as usually
spelt on coins, cf. Blass on Ac 1114), the chief town of
Lesbos, lies on the E. side of that island, about 10
or 12 miles from the coast of Asia. M. itself was
originally built on a small island, and perhaps
joined to Lesbos by a causeway which formed twe
excellent natural harbours, one on the N. and the
other on the 5. St. Paul on his return from his

MIXED MULTITUDE

MIZAR 399

Third Missionary Journey had arrived at Troas
from Philippi, and, after a week’s stay at the
former place, had preferred travelling by land to
Assos, While the ship rounded the promontory of
Lectum and picked him up on its S. voyage. His
motive for going by land may have been to remain
longer with the disciples at Troas, or to be assured
of the complete recovery of Eutychus. After St.
Paul was taken on board at Assos, the ship sailed
to Mitylene (Ac 204) and stayed there for the night.
This was the usual practice for vessels in the
-Egean Sea, where, during the summer, the N.
wind blows during the day but falls in the after-
noon. An early start would be made each morning
before sunrise, so as to get the full benefit of the
wind. After leaving Mitylene (Ac 20%) the
travellers sailed to a point opposite Chios, prob-
ably near Cape Argennum.

M., which has in later times given its name to
the whole island of Lesbos, was a town of some
importance in early history. It joined the Athen-
ians in the Peloponnesian war, revolted from them,
and was punished by almost complete annihilation.
It made an alliance with the iit sssaticnlaess under
Alexander the Great, it offered a stubborn resist-
ance to the Romans in the Mithridatie war, and
was afterwards made a free city by Pompey. There
is no record of any Christian church existing in the
island at the time of St. Paul’s visit. ΔΊ. formed
part of the eastern half of the Roman empire, and
was conquerel in A.D. 1462 by the Turks, under
whose power it has since remained.

LITERATURE. —Ramsay, St. Pawl, p. 291 ff. ; Bouillet, Dict.

Univ., 8.v.; on the present town see Tozer, Islands ‘of the
kgean, 121, 134 f., and on the ancient city, 7). 136.

C. ἢ. Pricnarp.

MIXED MULTITUDE, an expression used to
describe certain people who accompanied the
children of Tama out of Egypt Ex 12%, and
‘fell a lusting’ at Kibroth-hattaavah Nu 114.
It is also used of those who were separated from
among the Israelites after their return from cap-
tivity Neh 13%. In Ex 12% the Heb. is 31 ay,
LXX ἐπίμικτος πολύς, Vule. vulgus promiscuum
innumerabile, Targ. Onk. ‘many strangers,’ Syr.
xed xany. The VSS agree in giving ‘to zy the
sense of a mingled people, as it is rendered in
other passages (see further on), and to 531 its
common meaning of ‘many,’ so that ‘ mixed multi-
tude’ represents adequately the original in this
passage. But in Nu 11} Heb. has a different word,
RDpoNT (the x being quiescent) occurring only in
this passage. It is probably a contemptuous term
for a gathering together of the people, and there
is no further indication of multitude than that
implied in any gathering. The LXX and Vulg.
omit the adjectiv es πολύς and innumerabile, but
otherwise render as in Exodus. The earlier English
translations indicate the difference in the original.
Wyclif has in Ex 12° ‘the comoun of either sex
unnoumbrable’ (where the influence of the Vule.
is evident), and Nu 11+ ‘the comoun forsothe of
either kynde.’ Tindale in Ex has ‘moch comon
people, and also Coverdale ; but in Nu Tindale’s
‘the rascall people’ was perhaps a little too
forcible, and Coverdale has ‘comon_ sorte of
people.’ The rendering of AV puts out of sight
a variation in the original indicated in the earlier
translations, and RV has not (as in some similar
cases) brought it back into view.

A similar criticism of AV and RV applies to
Neh 13% There the Heb. is 29752, the LXX
renders the noun as before, but Vulg. has omnem
alienigenam, which W yclif renders by " alien,’ and
the early English versions ‘every one that had mixte
himself therin,’ a fair rendering of the Hebrew.

The same Heb. word occurs, but with the def. art.
(327), Jer 50°" (cUppcKros), Ezk 30°, where it prob.

means ‘mercenaries,’ and (the y being pointed with
Seghol) Jer 25° *4 (σύμμικτος). Both AV and RV
translate ‘the mingled people’ in these passages,
in 25° the people are in or near Egypt, in 2574
they are to the S.E. of Palestine on the borders of
Arabia. ‘The same Heb. consonants (differently
pointed) denote Arabia; and for the parallel pas-
sages 1 K 10%, 2 Ch 94, where both punctuations
occur, see ARABIANS. The meaning of the Heb.
word in the account given in Neh is evident.
The strangers with whom Israel had contracted
alliances, and the children of such alliances, formed
the ‘mixed multitude’ or the ‘mingled people.’
The verb (in Hithpael) is used, Ezr 9’, of these
marriages, and Ps 106° of ‘mingling with the
heathen.’ A similar condition of affairs existed
when the Israelites came out of their bondage in
Keypt. The intercourse between Egypt and Israel
continued, Solomon allied himself with Pharaoh’s
daughter, and the special permission for the children

both of Edomite and Egyptian parents to enter
into the congregation (Dt 23%) shows that alliances
between Israel and these nations were recognized.
After the return from captivity a strict rule of
severance from surrounding nations was enforeed.

A. T. CHAPMAN.

MIZAR.—Ps 42° [Heb.”] reads, following the MT,
“Ὁ my God, my soul upon me* is cast down ;
therefore do 1 remember thee from the land of
Jordan and the Hermens, from the mountain of
Mizar’ (so Driver, Parallel Psalter, and [substanti-
ally] AV and RV; AVm and RVim suggest as an
alternative tr™ of the last expression ayso 370 ‘from
the little hill [or mountain], cf. LXX ἀπὸ ὄρους
μικροῦ, and Vule. a monte modico). The question
is whether mizar is an appellative or a proper
naine. If the latter, Mt. Mizar must have been
in the vicinity of (or perhaps a part of)+ Hermon,
but it cannot be identified. In the former sense
(=‘a little thing,’ ‘a trifle’) mizar occurs in Gn
19-2, where by one of J’s characteristic etymo-
logies the substitution of the name Zvar for the
earlier Belw’ is accounted for by Lot’s plea, “Ὁ let
me escape thither, is 1t not a little one (1ys0)?

therefore the name of the city was called
Zour’ (ἽΝ, 1.6. * pettiness,’ * petty town,’ see Dillm.
ad loc.). Ci. 2: Ch: 24% ove rysp “a, small company
of men’; Job 87 3239 anvxa ‘thy beginning was
small’ ; Is 638 ays25 “for a little while? fall].

It is "possible that we ought to understand the
word in this second sense in Ps 42°, the reference
being to Zion, ‘the détt/e mountain,’ in contrast to
the giant Hermon (so Smend, Wellhausen, Sieg-
tried-Stade).§ The Psalm may be the expression of
the feelings of an Israelite, who, when he has
reached the northern boundary of the Holy Land
on his way to exile, sends back his sighs to the
temple-hill and its services. Of course this involves
an alteration of the MT, but all that is necessary
is to drop the Ὁ in 772, which may casily have crept
into the text by accidental repetition of the final
letter of onoq5. This would give the rendering,
‘TL remember thee, thou little mountain, from the
land of Jordan and the Hermons.’ Wellhausen-
Furness (in ?), reading, as above, 77 instead of
ama, tr. ‘ Therefore on thee do 1 think, thou dimina-
tive mountain, above all the land of Jordan and of
Hermon,’ ἐ.6. Zion is the one spot in all Palestine
(‘the land of the Jordan and of Hermon’) which is

* See note in Driver, Parallel Psalter, p. 464.

t In which case ‘ the little hill of Hermon’ of the Pr. Bk. may
be materially correct, although as a translation of O20
AWsD 179 it is, of course, quite inaccurate.

{ ‘Isaiah’ elsewhere (10% 2917) uses 3:12 (a word confined to
Book of Is) in this sense,

§ Cf. Ps 6815f, where the high mountains look askance at ‘ the
mountain which God hath desired for his abode’ (DTN iets ἼΠΠ
sna’),

400 MIZPAH AND MIZPEH

MIZPAH AND MIZPEH

ever present to the Psalmist’s mind. Wellh. (in
ΟΠ remarks that the expression 1789 7 ‘little
mountain,’ for Vy¥ 47, is very strange.

J. A. SELBIE.

MIZPAH and MIZPEH.—A name of several
places and towns in Palestine. In most cases it
is spelt (in AV) Mizpch, but in several instances
Mizpeh. The same variety of reading, 7539 or
ΒΝ, occurs in the original. In three cases only is
Mizpeh used with the definite article, viz. Mizpeh
a town of Judah (Jos 15°), Mizpeh a town of
Benjamin (Jos 1830), and ‘the watch-tower of the
wilderness’ (2 Ch 20%4). In the other cases the
article is omitted, viz. ‘the Valley (bik'ah) of
Mizpeh? (Jos 11%), Mizpeh of Gilead (Je 1129),
Mizpeh of Moab (18 22%); but in these last
two instances it would in any case be without the
article, as it is followed by a word in the genitive.

Mizpeh (7282) is derived from πεν to look out, to
view; from the same root are derived the proper
names Zephath (Jg 117, Zephathah (2 Ch 14:0),
Ramathaim-zophim (1S 1); an impossible name), *
the field of Zophim(Nu23"). TheTargum translates
both Mizpeh and Zophim by xmzo ‘place of view,’
‘watch-tower’(%).- Mizpeh is used to denote either
a town (Jos 15° 1836. Je 11°°, Καὶ 223) or a watch-
tower (2 Ch 20*4, Is 218). In the two cases where it
is used to denote a watch-tower, it is translated so
both in AV and RV, and by LXX τὴν σκοπιάν ; in
the other cases the AV and RV render it as a
proper name.

Mizpah is always used with the article except in
Hos δ᾽. It is used only in connexion with the land
of a νος near Mount Hermon (Jos 11°), the site
of the heap of stones of witness on Mount Gilead,
and the sanctuaries of J” in Benjamin and near
Shiloh. It is possible, then, that Mizpah represents
an aboriginal name connected with a sanctuary,
and hence the play upon the word Mizpah, and its
root zapiah (‘to look out or view’), between Laban
and Jaccb (Gn 31:5).

The LXX gives a variety of readings for Mizpeh and Mizpah.

(1) Mizpeh—

(a) B Μασσώχ, A Μασσηφά.
Lebanon (Jos 118).

(b) Mecge. Town of Benjamin (Jos 1538),

(ὁ) B Μασσημά, A Μασφά. Town of Benjamin (Jos 1826).

(d) Μα(σ)σηφά. Town of Moab (1 S 223),

(6) 15 τὴν σκοτιάν, A τῆς σκοπιᾶς. Mizpeh of Gilead (Jg 1129),

(7) τὴν σκοπιάν. The watch-tower (2 Ch 2024, Is 215),

(2) Mizpah—

(a) ἡ ὅρασις (‘that which is seen,’ ‘a vision’). The scene
ot the covenant between Jacob and Laban in
Gilead (Gn 3148),

(0) B Μασσευμάν, A Μασσγνψάθ.
under Hermon (Jos 115).

(¢,) Μασσυφά. The Mizpah of Gilead, where Jephthah
spoke before the Lorp, and where Jephthah’s house
was (Jg 1111-34), Mizpah near Shiloh, where Israel
met before the Lorp (Jg 201-8). Mizpah of Benjamin,
where Gedaliah ruled Israel (2 K 2525 [Β Μασσηφά],
Jer 406-15 411.10 (Gr. 476-15 481.10)), Mizpah near
Shiloh (Jg 211. 5.8),

(62) Β Μασσηφαθ, A Meonger, Μασσηφά. Mizpah of Ben-
jamin, where Israel met before the Lorp (1 Καὶ 7516),
Mizpah of Benjamin, where Gedaliah ruled Israel
(2 Καὶ 2523),

(4) Meeg:. Mizpah of Benjamin, where Gedaliah had
ruled Israel (Neh 319), ἢ

(6) Marge. Mizpah of Benjamin in time of Asa (2 Ch

30),

Οὐ) ἡ σκοτιά. Mizpah of Gilead (Jg 1017),

Benjamin in time of king Asa (1 K 1522),

Josephus gives Μασφά (Ant. vi. iv. 8, vu. xii. 4) for
Mizpah of Benjamin, Μασφαθή (Ant. v. vii. 9) and
Μασαφθά (x. ix. 2) for Mizpah both of Benjamin and
Gilead ; see also Ant. VI. ii. 1.

The valley of Mizpeh in the

The land of Mizpah

Mizpah of

These differences of name may give some indica-
tion of the views held by the LXX as to the
location of the various Mizpehs and Mizpahs. The
two in the Lebanon and the town of Judah have
special names; the remainder, viz. Mizpah or

* See Comm. ad loc. and art. RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM.

t Neither 8M10 nor ΠΌΣΙΣ is necessarily a watch-tower; ‘n=
‘place of watching,’ which may have been merely a hill.

Mizpeh of Gilead, Shiloh, Benjamin, and Moab,
are given under the names of Μασῴφά, Μασσηφά,
and Μασσηφάθ. But Mizpah of Gilead is once
translated as ‘the watch-tower,’ and Mizpah of
Benjamin is given (in 2 Ch 168) as Μασφά, and in an
identical passage (in ] Καὶ 15%) as ‘the watch-tower,’
The inference may be drawn that, according to the
view of the LXX, there was a Mizpeh or ‘watch.
tower’ in Gilead, not far from the meeting-place ot
Jacob and Laban, and this may have given rise to
the play upon the word in naming ‘the heap of
witness’ Mizpah. As Mizpeh was a watch-tower
over the land of Gilead, so the Lord was ‘the
watch-tower’ or ‘witness’ to the covenant at
Mizpah ; and thus the two names would be bound
together ; and when the ark of the covenant in
after-ages was stationed at Shiloh, Gibeah, the meet-
ing-place of the people before the Lord, would be
the Mizpah, while the nearest high place or ‘ watch-
tower’ which for military purposes they would
constantly have in use would be Mizpeh. ‘The
tabbins took a similar view as to the word ‘Rama-
thaim-zophim,’ to which they gave the impossible
translation ‘ Ramotha of the scholars of the pro-
phets,’ regarding the prophets as watchmen.

There are at least seven distinct places alluded
to under the names of Mizpeh and Mizpah,
namely—

1. Mizpah (s2s27, Samar. sason, i.e. mazzcbah=
the pillar).— One of the names of the pillar
(mazzebah) and heap of stones (gal) put up by
Jacob and his brethren in the mountain of Gilead
in token of God being a witness te the covenant
made that day between Jacob and Laban (Gn
31").* The other names were Jegar-sahadutha
(which see) and Galeed, the former being the
western Aramaic for the ‘heap of the testimony,’
the latter being the Hebrew equivalent of the
same (see GALEED, GILEAD).

The name Mizpah, if it had the sense of a place
where the Lord watched between two parties to a
covenant, may have come to be applied to the
places where the people held solemn assembly
for deliberation in time of difficulty near the
sanctuary of Jehovah, and it thus would be likely
to be found near every place where the ark of the
covenant or tabernacle remained for any time in
addition to its original position in Gilead. 10
appears in connexion with the battles between all
Israel and the Benjamites a few years after the
death of Joshua, and is then evidently near Bethel
and Shiloh, and again it appears in its original
position some 150 years after in the time of
Jephthah,

Theve is no record showing to what extent this
ancient sanctuary in Gilead was used during the
times of the Judges, when the ark and tabernacle
were at Gilgal and Shiloh, but at the time that
the children of Israel were oppressed by the chil-
dren of Ammon, and in their misery put away
their false gods, the Ammonites were encamped
in Gilead and all Israel at Mizpah (Jg 10!7). It
is apparent from the context that this was the
original Mizpah of Gilead and not that of Shiloh
or Benjamin, and from the expression ‘ before the
Lord in Mizpah’ it is surmised that the ark was
present with the host of Israel (Speaker's Comm.
on Jg 1)1), If this were so, it was sent over
without the consent of the tribes of Israel on
the western side of Jordan (Jg 12!), as Jephthah’s
action in fighting the Ammonites without the
assistance of western Israel was called in question
by them. The whole account would lead to the

* On this passage see Dillmann’s note. The name ‘Mizpeh’
comes in very strangely. It is plain that there is an allusion te
the mazzébah of the preceding context, as well as a desire te
explain the origin of a Watch-Tower in the neighbourhood.
See art. Jacos, vol. ii. p. 529.

MIZPAH AND MIZPEH

MIZPAH AND MIZPEII 40]

inference that the eastern tribes assembled as a
solemn conclave at the ancient scene of the cove-
nant between Jacob and Laban at Mizpah, and
then elected Jephthah as their captain-general
to lead them to victory against the Ammonites,
without any recourse to Shiloh. He then in the
spirit of the Lord passed over Gilead and Man-
asseh, and over Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah
of Gilead to the children of Ammon (Jg¢ 11”). The
LXX give the term ‘watch-tuwer’ both for the
Mizpah where the eastern tribes uf Israel encamped
(Jg 1017) and for the Mizpah over which Jephthah
passed. On Jephthah’s return from his victory
over the Ammonites he came to his house at
Mizpah, which the LXX render Μασσηφά, as they
name the spot near the sanctuary where the tribes
gathered before the Lord. There would thus
appear, in the view of the LXX, to have been the
Mizpah adjoining the sanctuary where the tribes
gathered before the Lord and where Jephthah
dwelt, and the Mizpeh on high ground near where
the tribes encamped and where Jephthah passed
over with them.

The topographical indications as to the position
of Mizpah of Gilead are meagre. It was in the
mountains of Gilead (Gn 8133), and it was north
of the Jabbéok, because Jacob crossed that torrent
after parting with Laban. It was a well-indicated
boundary, to be used in succeeding ages between
the Hebrews and the Aramians (Gn 3182, It
was in the vicinity of a Mizpeh, watch-tower,
or commanding situation (Jg 1153). Beyond this
there can be little but conjecture. There is one
indication, however, which seems to limit the line
of Jacob’s journey east and west: he was coming
from Padan-aram in the north-east, and with his
herds and flocks would naturally travel along the
level tableland to the east of the broken country
falling towards the Jordan Valley, near the line
of the present Derb el-Hajj, which avoids crossing
the «Τα θῇ; by making a little detour to the east.
Whether he came by Damascus or by Bozrah, he
would arrive north of the Jabbék by passing
through the vale in which Jerash is situated. It
is suggested that this is the site of the meeting
of Jacob and Laban. From the abundance of its
waters, enough for an enormous city, this site
must from the earliest times have been a resting-
place for herds and flocks on their travels. Near
to these waters (1960 ft.) are the commanding
situations or Mizpehs, Neby Hid (2400 ft.) and
Jebel Hakdrt (3480 ft.), and to the west are dol-
mens near the village of Séf. Sir George Grove
has suggested that the site of Mizpah at Jerash
is also identical with those of Ramath-mizpah and
Ramath-gilead (which see); and this seems to be
the most satisfactory identification.

2. Mizpah (7232).—The events related in Jg 19
to 21 concerning the extermination of all the
Benjamites save 600 by united Israel, though
placed chronologically after the time of the Judges,
are, from the mention of Phinehas, the grandson of
Aaron (20°), usually considered (so far as the
account is historical) to have occurred about 20
years after the death of Joshua, at a time when
there were no Judges in the land and the Israclites
forsook the Lord and served Baal and Astarte
(215). Josephus also places these events at the
commencement of his account of the Judges
(Ant. v.).

The tabernacle with the ark had been set up at
Shiloh in Ephraim, 10 miles north of Bethel,
before the death of Joshua, and remained there
as its chief and permanent residence until the
death of Eli; but it would appear from the account
here given (Jg 20. 21) that the ark of the covenant
was carried about from place to place in time of
war to the spot where the people assembled, and

VOL. III. —26

in later years to where the Judge resided (Speaker’s
Comm. on Jg 230). The positions of the places
mentioned, so far as they are at present identified,
are: Gibeah (Tell el-Fil?), 4 miles north of Jeru-
salem ; Bethel (Beitin), 6 miles north of Gibeah; and
Shiloh (Sei/déin), some 10 miles north of Bethel. A
Levite was on his way to the house of the Lord,
probably at Shiloh (Jg 1851 9"), possibly at Bethel,
when he turned aside to spend the night at Gibeah
of Benjamin close to Ramah (er-Rdém), and here
his concubine was outraged to death by Benjamites
of that city. This deed united all Israel against
Benjamin, and they gathered together as one man
unto the Lord at Mizpah (in AV it is given as
Mizpeh throughout), Jg 201.

In order to understand the account, the question
‘where was Mizpah?’ requires to be answered.
Tt has usually been understood * that tlhe Mizpah
here spoken of and that where Samuel gathered
the people together (1S 7) were identical. But
there is no necessity for this conclusion: and the
confusion of the two places renders the accounts
of the occurrences unintelligible. The Mizpah of
Samuel was in the heart of Benjamin near to
Jerusalem, and it would have been impracticable
for all Israel to have gathered together on this
occasion before the Lord, at such a crisis, in the
midst of the people with whom they were about
to wage a war of extermination (but see Budde,
‘Richter,’ in Kurzer Hdcomm. ad loc.). The two
Mizpahs may have been quite distinct: they were
the places of assembly of the people in solenin con-
clave near a sanctuary or where the tabernacle and
ark were, and in this particular case Mizpah would
appear to have been some place of assembly between
Shiloh and Bethel, probably close to Shiloh, where
the tabernacle was. This is accentuated by the
statement (20°) that the children of Benjamin
heard that the children of Israel had gone up to
Mizpah : suggesting certainly that Mizpah was out-
side the boundaries of Benjamin.

3. The Mizpeh (Jos 1855), elsewhere the Miz-
pah.—Mizpah of Benjamin is first (7) mentioned in
the early days of Samuel (1S 7°). At this time
Shiloh had fallen from its position as the sanctuary
of J” (18 44, Jer 7.3 26") on account of the wicked-
ness of Israel, the ark of the covenant had been
captured by the Philistines, had been released by
them, and abode in Kiriath-jearim twenty years
(1S 7°), during which time the children of Israel
had fallen into idolatry and suffered severely at
the hands of the Philistines, and then repented,
and at the exhortation of Samuel put away the baals
and Ashtaroth, and served the Lord only. Then
Samuel with all the authority of judge and prophet
gathered all the children of Israel to Mizpah to
pray for them unto the Lord, as Joshua had
gathered the tribes together to Shechem (Jos 24).

The question again arises, Where was this Miz-
pah where the tribes gathered together before the
Lord, and drew water and poured it out before
the Lord, and fasted and confessed their sins?
There is divérsity of opinion as to the position
of Samuel’s residence, Ramah or Ramathaim-
zophim(?); but that which lends itself most readily
to the account of Samuel’s life is a few miles north
of Jerusalem, either Nebi Samil or some point on
the high ridge north of Shiéfat (so van de Velde,
Dillm., Tristram, ἃ. A. Smith, ete.); and here
Samuel built an altar, which may have been in
connexion with the tabernacle, and this Mizpah
may have been in close proximity to Samuel’s
residence. If this were so, the position near Sha fat
is most suitable, as it will be shown that in after-
years Mizpah appears tu have been located not
very far north of Jerusalem and overlooking it.

* e.g. by Moore (Judges, p. 423), Budde (op. cit. supra), Buhl
(GAP 168), and the majority of recent scholars.

402 MIZPAH AND MIZPEH

MOAB, MOABITES

We can now follow the changes which, upon
the views adopted in this article, took place in the
position of the Mizpah. First, it named the spot of
the covenant between Jacob and Laban in Gilead ;
secondly, we find it attached to the place of
gathering of the people before the Lord in Shiloh,
where the tabernacle was; then again we find the
people gathering together before the Lord at the
original ‘heap of witness’ in Gilead in the time
of Jephthah ; and, lastly, it names the spot where
Samuel gathered [srael before the recently-erected
tabernacle near Ramah to serve God and resist the
Philistines, and subsequently to choose the first
king over [srael. Here the tabernacle remained
for about fifty-seven years, until the dedication of
the temple of Jerusalem ; and in process of time the
name Mizpah appears to have clung to this spot,
for we find that king Asa built Geba and Mizpah
(2 Ch 16%); and it is to be noted that the LAX call
it in one case δίασφά and in the other τὴν σκοπιάν
(LK 15%). During the days of the temple of
Jerusalem the sanctuary at Mizpah would lose
prestige; but it must have retained the affection
of the people, for during the Captivity, when Jeru-
salem lay desolate, Mizpah became the seat of
government of the ruler of Judzea (Gedaliah) under
the king of Babylon, 2 K 25%, Jer 40° 417.

At the time of the revuilding of the temple the
district of Mizpah and men of Mizpah are spoken
of, and it is alluded to as ‘the seat of the governor
on this side the river’ (Neh 87). The account (in
Jer 418) of the pilgrims who were met by Ishmael
out of Mizpah on their way southward trom She-
ehem, Shiloh, and Samaria with offerings to the
house of the Lord, shows that Mizpah was on the
hieh road from Shiloh to Jerusalem.

In the time of the Maecabees, Mizpah (Macongd)
appears again as a place of solemn conclave, ‘ where
the Israelites assembled themselves together and
came to Mizpeh over against Jerusalem, for in
Mizpeh was there aforetimes a place of prayer of
Israel’ (1 Mac 3). The expression ‘over against
Jerusalem,’ taken in conjunction with the fact
stated in Jer 41° that Mizpah was on the north
road leading from Shiloh to Jerusalem, seems
absolutely to fix Mizpah to a spot immediately
north of and close to Jerusalem, as will be seen
also to have been the view taken by Josephus.
Yor the relation of Mizpah to Nob, and the view
held by some that the two places are identical, see
art. Nos.

4. 5. The land of Mizpah (2820 px, τὴν Macevua,
terra Mispha, Jos 11°). The valley of Mizpeh (nya
nzsp, A τῶν πεδίων Μασσηφά, campus Masphe), Jos
115.—These two places, which, according to Dillm.
(Jos. ad loc.) and Buhl (@AP 240), should perhaps
be regarded as one and the same, are mentioned in
connexion with the battle which took place at the
waters of Merom, when Joshua led Israel against
Jabin king of Hazor and the northern tribes.
Joshua chased them (Jos 118) unto great Zidon,
and unto Misrephoth-maim, and unto the valley of
Mizpeh eastward. On his return he burnt Hazor,
which, though not identified, is generally supposed
to have been situated somewhat to the north of the
waters of Merom (Lake Huleh). Joshua would thus,
on going eastward from Zidon, have gone into the
valley between the two Lebanons and have arrived
at the buka’ or valley (bi/'ah) of Lebanon under
Hermon. We read (Jos 1127) of Baal-gad in the
valley (bil’ah) of Lebanca under Hermon (Jos 11}
127), and the Hivite live’ under Hermon in the
land of Mizpah (Jos 11°). At the present time
the only bikah or buka (Arabic) of any extent in
the neighbourhood is the great plain between the
two Lebanons, reaching from the foot of Hermon
to Baalbek. It would therefore appear that,
whether these two places are identical or not, they

are both near to Hermon. If the land of Mizpah
may be taken to be all the country around
Hermon, then the valley (di ah) of Mizpeh may
be the southern portion of the valley of the
Lehanon. For other conjectures see Dillm., Jus.
ac’ loc.

6. Mizpeh (n=s27, Μασφά, Mispha), a city of
Judah (Jos 15°) in the Shephélah or lowlands, in
a group of sixteen, some of which have been identi-
fied both in the north and south of the Shephelah.
It is given together with Dilean and Joktheel,
neither of which has been identified; and there
is no clue to its position, and no account is given.
Tell es-Sdfieh, the Blanche Guarde or Alba Specula
of the Middle Ages, has a name equivalent to
Scopos or Mizpeh, but it has been suevested that
this is Gath (so G. A. Smith, HGHL 9217). Robin-
son (BRP ii. 31) suggests that the valley of Zepha-
thah, 2 Ch 14 (same root as Mizpeh), may have
been near Tell es-Sdfieh.

1. Mizpeh Moab (ays 239, Μασσηφὰ τῆς Μωάβ,
Maspha que est Moab) is mentioned only once
(LS 223), as the place where the king of Moab
was staying when David consigned his parents to
his care. At this time the territories of Moab
did not extend north of the river Arnon, the whole
of the old Moabite country beyond having been
allotted to Reuben. As Mizpeh means a lofty
place where one can see far and wide (Gesenius,
Lex.), the only suitable position in Moab appears
to be the fortress of Moab (Ixir of Moab), which
commands the passes going down to the Dead Sea
(Luhith and Horonaim). David probably brought
his parents from Adullam down by the pass of
Ziz to En-gedi, and thence round by the southern
end of the Dead Sea up the pass of Horonaim to
Kir of Moab (now Kerak). ‘There can, however,
in the absence of further information, be no cer-
tain clue to the situation of Mizpeh Moab.

LITERATURE.—BRP i. ii. ; Stanley, S. and P.; SWP ii.;
PEFSt, 1875-1877 ; Schwarz; Lightfoot, Syrian Stone Lore ;
Conder, Heth and Moab, 175; G. A. Smith, HGH 120, 586,
589; Buhl, GAP (Index); Poels, Hist. du sanctuaire de CArche,
1897; the Commentaries of Dillm. on Genesis and Josua, of
Moore and Budde on Judges, and of H. P. Smith on Samuel, ad
Ul.citt. C. WARREN,

MIZPEH.—See preceding article.

MIZRAIM.—See EcyprtT in vol. i. pp. 653%,

MIZZAH (777). — A ‘duke’ of Edom, descended
from Esau and Basemath the daughter of Ish-
mael, Gn 3013. 17 (A Mogé)=1 Ch 151 (B ’Opogé, A
Moxé). The clan of which he is the eponym has
not been identified.

MNASON (Mvdcuv [ἢ Cypr. spelling of Attic
Mvjowv—Blass] ; δὰ Ἰάσων), of Cyprus, with whom St.
Paul and his companions lodged on the occasion of
the apostle’s last visit to Jerusalem (Ac 217°). He
is described as an ‘early’ (ἀρχαῖος) disciple, by
which we may perhaps understand one who had
been a disciple from the time of Pentecost. (cf.
ἐν ἀρχῇ, 11%). Nothing further is known of him,
though from his Greek name he was prob-
ably, if not a Gentile Christian, at any rate an
Hellenist, with whom it would be natural and

rudent for St. Paul to lodge, looking to the
Putas which existed among the Jewish Christians
against him (vv.*-*1, and see Meyer). For an
interesting address on Mnason, in which the utmost
is made of these scanty notices, see M‘Laren,
Week-Day Addresses. G. MILLIGAN.

MOAB, MOABITES (in MT ‘ Moab’ is a2; on
Moabite Stone 2x0; LXX Μωαβ, ἡ Μωαβεῖτις, -βῖτις ;
Josephus, Mwa8os; Vulg. AMoad ; ‘Moabite(s)’ is

MOAB, MOABITES

MOAB, MOADITES 403

*zxiD, "32ND, Jain ya; LXX Mwafeirns, -Birys; Vulg.
Moabita; Assyr. Mwaba, Mwbu, Mwaba).—
i. The Name.
ii. The Territory.
iii. The Language.
(A) Proper Names.
(B) The. Moabite Stone. (a) Notes on the Text; (6)
Translation ; (ὦ) Notes on the Translation; (0)
Features in which the language of the Moabite
Stone differs from the Hebrew of OT.
iv. The Religion.
v. People and History.
Literature.

i. NAME.—The MT gives no etymology, but in
Gn 19°7 (J) LXX adds after ‘she called his name
Moab,’ Néyouca,’Ex τοῦ πατρός μου, ἴ.6. (28D ‘from my
father? The presence of an etymology of Ammon
in the following verse favours the LXX text, which
is adopted by Jos. Ant. 1, xi. 5, Jerome, de Wette,
and Ball, SBOT. Other etymologies suggested
are a8 w= ay Ὁ ‘seed of a father’ (Ges. Lhes.;
Fuerst, HIV B); or from 28° ‘to wish for’ (Maurer,
Cursus, p. 130), referring to the attractive char-
acter of the land. The last is the only one that is
possible, and it is scarcely probable. ‘Moab’ serves
indifferently as the name of the land or the people,
the Moabites occupying Moab throughout the
whoie period during which they are known to
history. Probably ‘Moab’ was first the name of
the land and then of the people.

1. Terrtrory.—‘ Moab’ was the high tableland
east of the Dead Sea and the southernmost section
of the Jordan. Its western frontier is clearly
defined by these natural boundaries: to the south
lay Edom and the desert ; to the east, Ammon and
the desert; to the north, before the conquest by
the Israelites, probably Ammon, after the conquest
Israel. ‘Towards the desert there could be no
clearly -detined boundary, and the frontiers be-
tween Moab, Edom, Aminon, and Israel shifted with
the balance of power; but, roughly speaking, the
territory inhabited by Moabites, and forming
the Moabite state when not encroached upon by
foreign aggression, was the cultivated plateau
(specially known as ham-Mishér, ‘the Level’ or
‘Plateau, HGHL 53; or Mishér of Medeba,
Jos 13%16; or Sharon, 1 Ch 519. HGHL 548) from
the southern end of the Dead Sea to a line some
miles beyond its northern extremity. Kir of Moab
is nearly as far south as the southern end, and
Heshbon and Jazer (wh. see) are some distance
beyond the northern end of the Dead Sea. This
plateau is divided by the deep chasm of the Arnon.
The northern part of this territory is claimed by
some documents for Reuben or Gad, and was at
times under the dominion of Israel (cf. below,
History). The extreme area of Moab might be
reckoned at 50 miles long by 380 broad, 1500 sq.
miles, about as large as Hiampentcs, but the
cultivated plateau is only about 10 or 12 miles
broad.

Conder (Heth and Moab, p. 124) describes Moab
as ‘a plateau about 3000 feet above the Medi-
terranean level, or 4300 feet above the Dead Sea.
The western slopes are generally steep. The
lower formation is the Nubian sandstone .. .
above this a dolomitic limestone, with bold preci-
paces in some places, forms the upper part of the
uills, and is capped by a soft marl tull of Hints...
the general aspect of the Moabite mountains rising
to the plateau is barren in the extreme. The
sandstone varies from purple to a light tawny
colour, and the ridges are divided by deep narrow
ravines. . . . In spring the rounded, shapeless hills
are covered with grass and wild flowers, and parts
of the plateau are now sown with corn; but the
number of trees in Moab might be counted with
the fingers of one hand. . . . Moab is a land of
streams.’ According to H@GHL (p. 535) the plateau
is broken by ‘deep, wide, warm valleys,’ with

springs and brooks; and ‘eastward the plateau
is separated from the desert by low rolling hills.’
Conder states that gazelles, wild oxen, wolves,
jackals, hywenas, vultures, and eagles are found on
the plateau. But the appearance of the country
to-day must be very dillerent from that which it
presented when it was the seat of a powerful and
prosperous state. The prophets dwell upon the
“cities of Moab’; and in their days this land of
streams was carefully cultivated, dotted here and
there with fortified towns and villages. [ts roads
and ruins still witness to ancient fertility and
populousness. Although the existing remains are
largely Greek and Roman, they show the former
capabuities of the country, and fairly represent
the prosperity of Moab in OT times.

The population must have been considerable.
Conder estimates the present population of the
Belka, of which Moab is a part, at about 19,000.
Hampshire in 1891 had 666,250 inhabitants. Per-
haps 500,000 would be the highest possible estimate
of the population of Moab in its most flourishing
days. One remarkable feature of the country is
its great wealth of cairns, stone-circles, dolmens,
and menhirs. Conder states that 700 of these
rude stone monuments were found by the Pa/estine
Exploration Fund surveyors in [55] τ he is doubtiul
whether as many similar monuments exist in all
the rest of Palestine.

In addition to the platean itself, Moab comprised
the southern corner of the eastern part of the
Arabah or valley of the Jordan, the ‘arboth Moéah,
the low hills skirting the plateau east and south,
and pasture land beyond these hills out into the
deserts. The climate, natural products, ete., are
those of Eastern Palestine, in which part of
Moab is usually included.

The following cities, ete., are mentioned as at
one time or another Moabite ; the names in italics
are probably variants of those in ordinary type,
which respectively precede them ; they are some-
times placed slightly out of alphabetical order to
show the connexion. Names in capitals are found
only on the Moabite Stone. For details see the
separate articles on these names.

Ar-of-Moab, Arnon, Aroer, Ataroth, Bayith, Beer-elim, Beser,
Beth-bamoth, Bamoth, Bamoth-baal, Beth-baal-meon, Beth-
meon, Beth-diblathaim, Beth-gamul, Beth-jeshimoth, Beth-
peor, Bozrah, Dibon, Dimon, KEglaim, Eglath-shelishiyah,
Elealeh, Heshbon, Holon, Horonaim, Jahaz, Jahzah, Jazer,
Kerioth, Kir-of-Moab, Kir-heres, Wir-hareseth, WKiriathaim,
Kiriath-huzoth, KRHH (? Korhah), Luhith, Madmen, Medeba,
Mephaath, Misgab, MIIRT (? Moharath), Nebo, Nimrim (waters
of), Nimrah, Nophah, Nobah (ἢ), Peor, Pisgah, Sela, Sibmah,
SRN (Sharon), Zoar, Zophim.

iii. LANGUAGE (Proper Names and Moabite
Stone).—Our knowledge of the language is derived
from the Moabite proper names in OT, ete., and
from the Moabite Stone. Both show that Moabite
is ‘simply a dialect of Heb.’ (Stade, i. 118). Where
it differs from biblical Hebrew it agrees either with
Phoenician or Canaanite, which is also very closely
allied with Hebrew ; or with Arabic, the language
of the eastern neighbours of Moab. According to
Hommel (4 //7 275), the spelling on the Stone has
a strong affinity with that of the Mincean inscrip-
tions; e.g. the Moabite Mehdeba’, Neboh, are more
akin to Minwean than to Heb., which writes /¢debd,
Nebo.

The close connexion with Heb. is shown by the
following resemblances—the details of diflerences
are given below. The ferms of almost all the proper
names are consistent with their being of Hebrew
origin. This might ve partly accounted for by the
fact that, for the most part, they are known to us
only from Heb. sources. But the Stone is un-
doubtedly a Moabite document, and almost all its
words, inflexicus, and idioms occur in OT. For
instance, it has two characteristic Heb. idioms—

MOAL, MOABITES

: te ab yon poyn on * ** pag sie a wan inp - ΠΝ
Pe abs ay oes limos onndss | may - ΠΝ - Sse
“symm SNSN- AN cw aoe ees a Ὑπ

ODT We Na awe ope weed. aan

** aya. bona - ΩΝ qos ayy anda - ὍΝ | Sane
Ἐκ sy δον Sata Spe ἜΜ Ὁ Οὐ ie a ν-

Ἢ ΜΝ “ἼΘ᾽ ** ΨῸΞ po pwn. ὍΝ
som Jann ΠῚ ὙΦ an by. gon as oo
99 pommpa- ΩΣ - ΤΙΝῚ nant ws cas ones on
say Daw - 555 son >%n. Son ewes yw

ἼΝΒ EES pase ap poy ann msn Osan. ton.
PEE ose org [AND IR NTT 2 es ea ebro | te
tik wy vr οέοΨσΨΕΨνΨΠος,ΨὋἘΕΠἔι͵,

“ds ppm - ΤῊΝ yam. 9 ΜΔ awn | sao - *
"ΤΌΝ - Dy - ῬΡΩΤΣΒ ΠΝ, TaN ΤΠ ΥΘῚΒ - ΦῺΘ "ΤΣ

an oe by ΤᾺΣ a - ΠΝ - qb wand spe | ain

ΝῊ] ΓΊΝΕΙ - ἫΝ omen - ypan- ΠΣ - onnbdsn - $ba - on
ὦ λα Ὁ TREAT ESS ploy σε. tom ἀντ τὶ

own - ΤΡΝῚ omen wes anwys oo ln
MRE nia Maar ce anos) - mm.
** yo - Ὁ Ὼ - ΠΣ ΓΞ oenndna- ΓΞ aw po

TAT POND Tw | Te - 5 - ὩΝ peer - aie - ps

Dam pw man arp sna 50. Sy - nab
so Ponda - oni. Janay ona - gaan | Syn
50} “wanda cmp qi ton na on - 73
ney oy. bab. os amps apn aqpa- Ram apn
Sona - ommp> - nna ona. Jaen | maa 2 we -

ΓΕ

κ by ΜΕΡῚΣ ΓΤ - ja . τς ἡ πὴ Ἐν Ww : 27 ν κεν
ὅπ Jaan past. by -ὝΠΒΘΣ awe + ya nn ee

*. py ow swan. poodya-oolyndat- nas πὐ

% % x % %

i ee | Δ᾽ TD» Dwr: PWT | PONT: INS

** oy | poana- onda. nw 9 - ἼΩΝ

by own © * yy a wos πο *
a | paw n*

MOAB, MOABITES

THE MOABITE STONE.

a

406 MOAB, MOABITES

MOAB, MOABITES

the waw consecutive with Impf., onl certainly
elsewhere in Phienician Tee eee, | Tenchi
136 n.; cf. Konig, Syntax, 510f.); and the use of
the Inf. Abs. to emphasize a finite tense (7ae TaN
in 1. 7),—not, however, peculiar to Hebrew. The
characters on the Stone are very similar to those
of the Siloam inscription.

(A) Proper Names.—In addition to the names of
cities given at the end of the section on Territory,
the following proper names are found in OT and
Moabite Stone (the latter in italics). (1) PERsons:

—Balak, Chemosh-melek or Chemosh-gad, Exlon,
Ithmah, Mesha, Orpah, Ruth, Sanballat (?),

Shomer or Shimrith, Sihon (?), Zipper; also in
inscriptions (see History), Kammusu (Chemosh)-
nadab, Kmshyhy (Chemoshyehi =‘ Chemosh gives

life,’ Baethgen, p. 13), Mutsuri, Salmanu. (2)
DEITIES :—Chemosh, Ashtar - Chemosh. (3) the

RIVER Arnon.

(B) Moabite Stone.—This Stone was a monument
erected by Mesha king of Moab, c. 850, to com.
memorate his victories over Israel. In 1868 a
Prussian traveller, the Rev. F. A. Klein, discovered
the upper portion of it, about 33 ft. high, by 2 ft.
broad and 2 ft. thick, with rounded top, amonest
the ruins of Dibon (Dibdn). In 1869 a rough
squeeze was taken by an Arab for M. Clermont-
Ganneau. There is also a copy of 1]. 13-20 made
for him by another Arab. Then the Stone was
broken up by the Arabs in the hope of making
more profit out of the fragments. Two large frag-
ments and 18 small ones were recovered. From
these, with the addition of reconstructions from
the squeeze of the missing portions, a restoration
of the Stone has been made, and placed in the
Jewish Court of the Louvre at Paris. There is a
facsimile of this restored Stone in the British
Museum. ‘The text is printed on Ρ. 40-4.

Moabite Alphabet—

HEBREW. MOABITE, HEBREW, MOABITR,

-

a)

&

Lo

ae
at eo τυ,

© does not occur. 5

us
eee ee ND OO Hy - τὰ

ty

ae oa

. (α) Notes on the Text.—The following abbrevia-
tions are used in what follows :—
ae -Ganneau, La δέξο de Mlésa, 1887 (a review
of SS).
G=Ginsburg, Moabite Stone, 1871.
L=Lidzbarski, Nordsemitisehen Epigraphik, 1898, p. 415,

etc.
N=Nordlinder, Die Inschrift des Kinigs Mesa von Moab,
1596, apud SZ, only referred to when differing from

SH=Socin (with Holzinger), Zur Mesainschrift, Berichte der
Sdchsischen Gesellschaft der Wisseuschaften, 1897,
only referred to when differing from SN.

SS=Smend and Socin, Die Inschrift des Koénigs Mesa von
Moab, 1886.

The differences of opinion given here relate to
what and how much can he actually seen on the
fragments, squeeze, etc., of the Stone. Conjee-
tures as to letters entirely missing or quite illegible
will be referred to under the translation. Dots
over letters signify that, in the opinion of the
authority quoted, they are indistinct. As Οἱ had
not access to the squeeze or any reproduction of
it, Οἱ cannot be cited for its readings.

1. After wn3—SS, bo; Cl, G, 33; Cl suggests as alternatives
τὸν or oby from Pheenician parallels; L, on

3. After DI—SS, D+ yw: Cl, nothing distinct; L, B+ $y,

4. In 1305 7—SS, Ὁ; Cl, G, N,v; L, Ὁ.

5. In }ix*—SS, L,*; Cl, G, πὶ; N, 3,

6. After 1Ox—Ss, 1273; Cl, only part of a 3 visible; L
3379,

7. After nN—SS, axb3 ; Cl, G, only 7; ἢ, [ἽΝ $3,

8. At the beginning—SS, Ci; Gy L, δ᾽

In "2..-.-55, G, δ, 7; Cl, tor 1, possibly *° should be
joined with ‘sn, and the combination read as a proper name,
After " nw—ss, L, wv, -
9. After NI—SIS, 73; Cl, nothing distinct ; ZL, N, SH, ΤᾺ
10. Inn*** — SS, L, roy; Cl, nothing distinct.
After *79D—SS, *; Cl, not visible; L, N, SH, ".

11. In ***n_SS, D+ DY; Cl, not visible; L, SH, D+ py,

12. In* i—SS, L, 0; Cl, not distinct.

18, In * * *x—SS, {was Cl, N, nothing distinct; L, [2] v3.

14. In *1—SS, L, ΓΕ ΟἹ, N, not visible.

15. In *Ni—SS, Cl, L, 1.

16. In *93—SS, 0; Cl, 7; G, 1; L, ©; N, nothing distinct,

After }9X—SS, jin. pas "[Π5Ν]; ΟἹ, 7753 j[Ddx],
nothing else distinct, nothing on squeeze where SS, see the ]
after 32>), neither can there be a 2 in this word; (ee [95 5];
Δ," 5}. 713} j[pbx].

In * *1—SS, 22; Cl, L, nothing distinct.

17. In * *X—SS, x1; Cl, nothing distinct ; L, [x}h.

18. In ὉΠ *3n=Ni—SS, °; Cl, G, L, N, H (in SH) only a dot.
Note size of Moabite yod. —

After 7131—SS, L, nx,

19. After * *352—SS, 1°; Οἵ, nothing distinct; Z, 1°, 2°,

23. In *vxa—SS, 1; Cl, not distinct ; ΝᾺ

In * Ρ3- ϑ 1; Cl, L, N, SH, 3.

24. In * wy—SS, L,>; Cl, only visible with the eyes of faith.
G does not give bin facsimile, but prints it in Heb, Text, with-
out any indication that it is restored and not read.

26. At the beginning—SS, Ὁ. 5 7 ; Cl, neither visible nor con-
sistent with the amount of space or the traces visible; L, *;
N, te <a. ep

In * *3983—SS, L, 1]; Cl,173 G7.

27. In* *y—SS, Δ, 7}; Cl, nothing distinct ; G, Ζ in facsimile
¥ in Heb. Text.

55. ΤῊΝ boss) Zh; 3; Cl, N, not visible.

29. At beginning—SS, ‘n; Cl, ‘n; Jonny

In * 32—SS, L, mu

80. At beginning—SS, δὲ νον

ee
δ 55

ΝΠ τ παπυ τ τ τοὺ οι τ τον

MOAB, MOADBITES MOAB, MOABITES 407

A Seen = thousand (men, SS, Cl, G, L) (and boys, ΟΣ ΤΡ

Atend—SS, b, 193; Cl, Win. SH), «+4635 GD. ᾿ ; a ne s, L) | and women, and (girl, SS,......

31. After AI—SS, WR TW FIT [35 CL sox PNPM; 17. s and female slaves™ | for 1 had made it

L, wort *n * 833-55 Nb }un: 52.
80. In * * *aN—SS, ποδὶ" 7; Cl, not visible, and too much
for the available space; L,* *1° 1.

38. Τὴ ἢ *2=55, ue apparently by some misunderstanding,
as, according to Cl, no portion of either fragiuent or squeeze
exists before the 1; L, δ *.

In * * * 539_SS, 7aN; Gt, ὙΠ] πον

“ ΤΣ ΟΝ, C7, ws SS suggest that possibly may be
represented and not w ; they discover before this letter traces
ofa‘; Socin thinks that the letter in pw read as Ἵ may be
εν aay

(b) Translation.

Words in () represent Moabite words, some or all the letters
of which are not clear enough to make it certain what they
are. Words in{ ] represent conjectural restorations where the
text has entirely, or alinost entirely, disappeared. Words in
{( )] represent conjectural restorations of words, in which one
or more, but not all the letters, can be distinctly read. OT
names are given in AV spelling ; in other cases the consonants
are viven, Without supplying vowels. Words required by Eng-

8
lish idiom but not by Hebrew are in italics. Symbols as in

Notes on Text. In some cases the Hebrew order has been
preserved, and the English order is shown by subscript
numerals.

1. Lam Mesha, son of Chemosh (-melech, SS, L,
or -gad, Cl, G), king of Moab, the D-

2. ibonite | My father was king over Moab thirty
years and I became ki-

3. ng after my father | And I made this high-
place of Chemosh in IXRHH | as α token of grati-
tude for (the deliverance wrought tor M-, SS, Lye

4. esha, because He saved me from all the (king,
SS, L, or ‘despoiler,’ Cl, G) s, and because He
caused me to see my desire upon all that hated
me—Omr-
δ. i, king of Israel, and? he oppressed Moab
many days, because Chemosh (was) angry with
lan—

2

6. ἃ his| And his son succeeded him, and he
3 1

also said, 1 will oppress Moab | In my days, he
spoke (thus, SS, L) [Let us go, G]

7. But I saw my desire upon him and upon his
house, and Israel perished for ever* Now Omri
annexed (all the lan-

8. d) of Medeba, and Jsrael occupied it, his days
and half his son’s days, forty years, and (resto-

2

9. red) it Chemosh in iny days | And I built
4 1

Baal-meon, and I made in it the ’SLWHe, and I
(built)
10. Kirjathaim | And the men of Gad occupied
the land of (Ataro)th from of old, and built for
Bee

himself the king of (I-)
8 1 2 Φ 4
ll. srael Ataroth | And 1 fought against the
5

town? and took it | and put to death all the
(people of, SS, 1)

12. the town, a pleasing spectacle for Chemosh
and for Moab | and 1 removed thence gl Bt
DWDH*}, and I

13. [7 it, before Chemosh in Kerioth | and I
settled in it—Ataroth—the men of ShRN, and the
(men of)

14. MHRTh | And Chemosh said to me, Take
Nebo* against Israel | and I (w-)

15. ent by night, and fought against it from
break of dawn till noon | and I (t-)

16. ook it, and put them’ all to death, seven

taboo” to‘ShTR? Chemosh | and 1 took thence (?

18. 2)? s of YHWH and I (4 them before
Chemosh | And the king of Israel built (7)

19, Jahaz, and occupied it while he fought
against me | And Chemosh drove him out before
(me and, SS, L)

20. | took from Moab two hundred men, of
all its clans’, and led them! against Jahaz, and
took it

21. to add it to Dibon | TI built
of the forests”, and the walls of

φῦ, the ‘PhL?| And I built its
built its towers | And I”

2% built the house of the king,” and I made
sluices” [(for the reservoirs for the water, SS)] in
the (midst) of

o4, the city | And there was no cistern in the
midst of the city in KRHH, and 1 said to all the
people, Make (for)

25. you, each of yor, a cistern in his house | And
I hewed the MKhRThTh? for ΚΆΜΗ by means
of the prisoners

26. taken from

QREH, the walls

gates, and 1

Israel {1 built Aroer, and I
made the road by the Arnon, (and, SSiatee CH)

97, T built Beth-bamoth, for it had been de-
stroyed | 1 built Bezer, for (it was in ruins),

OS... seseseeee 2 (men) of Dibon, fifty, for all
Dibon was loyal | And I (reign-
a hundred in the cities which I

sa
Horonaim, wherein dwelt
Dedan said, SS). 7

Perree Toe Ee Vee eh td

ER syle sduisaedi cannes Chemosh said to me, Go
down, fight against Horonaim, and 1 went (down
and 99).......

Fi EE ee a. ? Chemosh in my
days and ?......” from thence ? pe

ἌΣ ΟΝ eae er νὰν ταὶ yas SEF vs A 8 earn an ny

(c) Notes on Translation.

3. a. The Moabite of ‘the deliverance wrought for Mesha’ is
MSh’ MSh’.

5. ὃ. More idiomatically, ‘Omri, king of Israel, who oppressed’ ;
cf. Ges.-Kautzsch, Eng. tr. p. 341 n.

7. ¢. So SS, Noldeke (1870).

G, ‘In my days’ he [the king of Israel] said,
and I will see my desire on him and his house’ ;
said, ‘1 shall destroy it for ever.’

9, d. i.e. ‘extended and fortified.”

9. e. *ShWH only occurs here and perhaps line 23, which,
with 24f., deals with the water supply of h RIL; perhaps=
reservoir; SS, ‘ Teich.’

10. f. Kirjathaim and Diblathaim, 30 end in N in the
Moabite text.

11. g. ‘town,’ SS. ‘Wall,’ G, Noldeke.

12. h. Ἔ 1, perhaps also in i7f., probably = Heb. boy Is 293
(AV, Ariel) Kethibh of Ezk 4315.16, Keré ΝΣ, not found else-
where, usually rendered ‘ altar-hearth’ (Oxf. Heb. Lex. 8.v.).

19. i. DWDH, apparently the name of a deity worshipped by
the Israelites of Ataroth ; not mentioned elsewhere, unless the
same as the sun-god Dodo, cf. the proper name Dudu in the
Amarna tablets. All these names, as well as David =‘ Beloved.’
It is curious that, of the three or four places in which "RL
oceurs, it is connected with the City of David in 15 291 and with
DWDH here. Cf. ARIEL and Davi.

191, j. Read 7270N1; cf. 1. 18. In 28 1713 anD=‘ drag,’ so
here SS, L, ‘schleppen’ ; in Jer 153=‘ tear,’ so here Neubauer.

G translates ‘ offered.’

14. k Nebo, spelt NBH.

16. 1. The sense is the same,
them,’ or 793, lit. ‘all of it.’

17. m. female slaves, ΓΤ, so SS,.b3 ch Jg
ἐᾷ damsel, two damsels.’

17. n. made it taboo, =n200",
usually by slaying men or animals ; cf. Jos 617,

‘(Let us go)
and Israel

whether we read 53 ‘all of
580 ΟΠ ἘΠῚ

pin=‘devote’ to a deity,

17. 6. ‘ShTR= Babylonian /sitar, cf. on Religion.
17 ἢ. p. How much is visible is doubtful, but we may restore
R'LY ; cf. A, ‘altar-hearths ole

ha ee ee Cee ee

408 MOAB, MOABITES

τοὺ τ a arr as
MOAB, MOABITES

1S. y. ‘dragged’ or ‘tore’; cf. 7.

18. a: Pull τον ta.

920. 8, its clans, aw.

Either ¢ is for 2x3 head, so I, which may be interpreted
‘chiefs,’ Noldeke, we, SS, chiefs and their followers, ‘clans’ ;
cf. 019 for YN poppy, Dt 3232.

Or for 7 poor, Ps 823, also written @ NT Pr 104, so G.

20. t. led, lit. carried. ;

21. τι. walls of the Sorests, perhaps enclosing wooded hills, or
gardens ; or the walls on the side towards the forests.

22. v. ‘PhL=Heb. boy either hid, SS, L, RV of Is 3214, 9K 534,
or citadel, Neubauer, in Neh 326f-—a quarter of Jerusalem,

22. τὺ, I.’ The letters of this word are partly in 23.

23. 2. Neubauer, ‘house of Moloch,’ y. sluices, x53, so SS (2),
LL (2), a sense suggested by the use of x59 in Heb. for ‘shut
ints or ZB (2), Driver, construct of ΝΞ ‘both’; G, ‘prisons,’
from Heb. 899 m'2=‘ prison.’

25. 2. 7 hewed (KRTY) the MKhRThTh, te. a ‘cutting’ of
some kind ; SS, ‘ich schnitt ein (2) die Einschnitte (”)’ ; a ἿΙ
hewed timber’ ; G, ‘I dug the ditch.’

27. aa. rwins reading PY, plural of +y ‘heap,’

28. bb. The beginning of 1. 28 is lost; the 2 is probably the
lost letter of ux (collective) ‘men.’

29. cc. in the cities, so SS, L, Neubauer ; but G, ‘Bikran’ ;
Noldeke, ‘cattle.’

30. dd. And as for Beth-haal-meon, so, SS, the | is probably
equivalent to a Stop; moreover, Beth-baal-neon is probably
the same as Baal-meon, which was built in 1. 9 But G and
Neubauer neglect the |, and make Beth-bwai-meon the last of
the list of towns beginning with Προ.

30. ee. (flocks), so SS, L, translating the reading 7P3, Neubauer
‘shepherds,’ as Heb, “Nes, 2 BA RY *sheepmaster,’ of Mesha,
and Am 1],

1 δὲ (the Son of Dedan, etc.), so SS, translating their read-
Ing ; the text as seen by Cl and L is too fragmentary to admit
of probable restoration.

32. gg. and I went (down and), translating SS, L's ) WN1; if
with SS we further read nby, we should restore with them
onnbe « fought,’ so Neubauer {and made war].

33. hh. The readings of SS, mindy; ὦ, 77*5y, point to a
place-name ‘L’DhH (‘Eleadeh).

(d) Features in which the language of the Moabite
Stone differs from the Hebrew of OT.

(a) 38 ΝᾺ for “Τ᾽ without the final » Y of the
Heb. 28. As elsewhere the Stone always expresses
the silent consonant of final vowels, 73x can
scarcely be ‘23x written defectively. ‘The same
form is found in Phen., 1, συν.

(8) The feminine singular ends in Π instead of π
as in Hebrew.

(y) The plural is formed by Nun, asin Aramaic
and Arabic, instead of by Jem, as in OT Heb.
jew 2, 20D 4, I> 5, 127 5, iyaw 8. So occa.
sionally in OT.

(5) The form nv 9, 8, ShTh for Heb. ποῦ ‘year,’
as in Neopunic inscriptions (1, p. 379).

(e) In 1339 5, ‘and he humiliated,’ and wyx 6,
‘and T humiliated,’ the last radical is apparently
a Waw with full consonantal force, whereas the
corresponding radical in Heb. is a silent He.

( The attix for "1s," ἐπάγη ga He 6,
mpm 6, 732 6, 8, 72 7, Anan 7, 7 8, ΡΟΣ, a8
occasionally in Heb., e.g. abax “his tent,’ Gn 991
(see Ges.-Kautzsch, § 9] 6).

(η) Line 8, satay ΜΗ ΘΒ", for Heb. xato MYDB’,
Medeba.

(9) The form onnbs « fight against,’ line 11.

Heb. uses the Niph. (in three cases the Qal) in
the sense of ‘fight.’

onndy, if parsed as Heb., must be taken as Hith-
pee. the 7 of the prefix and the first radical ὃ

eing transposed, a transposition only occurring
radical is a sibilant. ‘This
transposition, however, regularly oceurs for all
first radicals in the Arabic 8th conj. igtatala,
which is equivalent in sense to the Heb. Hithpa'el.
See, further, Driver, Sam. xciii.

(.) The inscription belongs to the primitive stage
of Hebrew writing, in which doubtless most of the
OT books were original] written, in which the
seriptio defectiva was Used, and no distinction was

in Heb. when the first

made between medial and Jinal letters of alphabet.
Silent consonants, however, are used for final]
vowels, ΣΝ ‘my father,’ 1. 2; 22=Heb. 12, ete. 3 in
the affixes, o7°(?), 1, 18, π', 1. 22; and in (Peay AE hak

(x) The following words, in addition to proper
names, do not occur in the OT: myx, 1. 9; nm,
1, 12; man, 1. 25 from Heb. μη ; pw (?), 1. 34.°

(A) According to the readings of SS in 1]. 11, 16,
26, the prefixed preposition Ὁ is used to express
the genitive.

iv. RELIGION. —Up to a certain point the
Moabite religion was henotheistic, and the rela-
tion of Chemosh to Moab was exactly that of J”
to Israel (see CHEMOSH). On the strenvth of a
winged sun-disk on the gem containing the name
Chemoshyehi, Baethgen regards Chemosh as God
of the Sunshine, and a manifestation of Molech.,
The Greeks identified Chemosh with Ares. Sanctu-
aries to Baalpeor (wh. see), and possibly Nebo (wh,
see), and other gods, neither destroy the parallel
with Israel, nor prove that Moab failed to pay a
special, unique homage to Chemosh. Even the
occurrence on the Stone of a deity Ashtar- (or
Ishtar-) chemosh would not destroy the parallel
with Israel. Ashtar-chemosh (see ASHTORETIL in
vol. i. 171*) is usually distinguished froin
Chemosh ; and probably El Shaddai, ΕἸ Elyon,
Jahweh Zeba’oth, are not sufficiently similar ¢éom-
pounds to be urged against this view. But if in-
scriptions of Solomon or Ahab were preserved, the
might name other deities beside Jaliweh. Accord-
ing to Baethgen, Ashtar-chemosh is ἃ name which
claims for Chemosh the attributes of Ishtar,
Chemosh had his temples, priests, sacrifices, and
offerings. The inhabitants of conquered cities were
‘devoted’ to him, 1.6. massacred in his honour
(Stone, 1). 12, 17). Mesha sacrificed his firstborn
to Chemosh, as Ahaz offered his son to Molech.

But there is no extant evidence that any Moab-
ites regarded Chemosh as the one God, in a mono-
theistic sense ; or that there was any attempt by
priestly legislation to purify the ritual from super-
stition and immorality; or that there was any
ethical or spiritual movement parallel to the minis-
try of the prophets in Israel.

v. PEOPLE AND Hisrory. — The patriarchal
narratives in Gn preserve a tradition, which mary
be unhesitatingly accepted as historical, to the
effect that Moab was very closely akin to Israel,
and that up to a certain point the history of Israel
is also the history of Moab. Moab is the son of
Lot and the brother of Ammon, Lot is the nephew
of Abraham, and accompanies him in the migra-
tion first from Ur and then from Haran. In
other words, Lot (t.e. Moab with Ammon), Ish-
mael, the Bné Keturah and Edom, once formed
with Israel that loose confederation of kindred
tribes which bore the common naine Hebrews, and
followed Abraham from Mesopotamia into Canaan.
According to these narratives, Lot shared for a
time the nomad life of the other Hebrews in
Western Palestine, but was the first of the allied
clans to leave the confederacy. Lot settled in
Sodom and Gomorrah, but after the calamity
which overwhelmed those cities the Bné Lot be-
took themselves to the pasture-lands E. of Jordan,
and, as the separate political organizations of Moab
and Ammon, occupied the territory in which they
remained till they disappeared from history. Thus
Moab passed from the nomad stage into tha of
agriculturists and city-dwellers ata much earlier
date than Israel. Possibly the Khabiri of the
Amarna tablets are the Hebrews at their first
entry into Palestine before the confederacy began
to break up.

We do not know the exact limits of the territory
first occupied by Moab, but it probably stretched
northward from the Arnon, along the eastern

MOAB, MOABITES

MOAB, MOABITES 409

banks of the Dead Sea and the Jordan. We read
in Dt 2 «the Emim dwelt therein ‘(in the land
of Moab]” aforetime, a people great, and many,
and tall, as the Anakim: these also are accounted
Rephaim, as the Anakim ; but the Moabites call
them Emim.’ J” gave this land to Moab as He
gave the land of the Horites to Edom. In Gn
[45 the Emim are at Kiriathaim, a town north of
the Arnon, spoken of later on as Moabite. The
statement is quite consistent with the position of
ch. 14, as the birth of Moab, ὁ.6. its first appear-
ance as a distinct tribe, is not related til 19°7,
If we could trust the synchronisms with Baby-
lonian and Elamite history based on the names
in 141, the incident happened shortly before the
restoration of Babylonian supremacy by Ham-
murabi, B.c. 2200; and Moab made its appearance
somewhat later ΟῚ p. 161 1h). But the archaeo-
logical relations of Gn 14 are still uite uncer-
tain (ef. L. W. King, Letters, ete., of Tammurabi,
Introd.). The antiquarian note, Dt 2 is a late
addition, and, according to Holzinger on Gn 14°
and Steuernagel on Dt 2”, the Emin are purely
legendary (cf. MIM).

The OT says nothing more about Moab till the
time of the Exodus. From the Amarna tablets
and other Exyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian
monuments we gather that Babylonia and the
Hittites exercised great influence in Syria before
δι B.C. 1400; and that for some time before that
date Syria was an Egyptian province, but that,
apparently, about 1400, Egyptian authority was
breaking ‘down throughout Syria. Moab is ποῦ
mentioned in the Amarna tablets at present pub-
lished (Winckler, Petrie). It lay rather out of
the way of the main routes between Syria and
Egypt and the East, and especially was not on
the Egyptian line of march into Palestine. Pos-
sibly, therefore, both as to politics and culture, the
relations of Moab with the great empires were
slight and superticial. On the other hand, Moab
commanded the great routes from Western Pales-
tine and Northern Syria into Arabia (ὦ Π|, 430,
597 ff., 626); and probably during this early period
and throughout its history Moab remained in
touch with its Arab kinsfolk: thus the Mesha
inscription shows traces of the influence of Arabic.
Yet there is evidence of the connexion of Moab
with Egypt. According to Sayce (Patr. Pal, 153),
Moab was included in the Canaanite province of
Egypt at the time when the Amarna tablets were
written; but Edom then encroached on what was
afterwards Moabite territory. Ramses 11. (c. 1300)
fought several campaigns to restore the Eeyptian
dominion in Syria. In the list of his conquests on
the base of one of six colossal figures at Luxor
there occurs the name Muab (Patr. Pal. p. 21).
Karhu, in a similar list at Karnak (Patr. Pat.
p. 237), is probably the KRHH of the Moabite
Stone. Other traces of Egyptian influence E. of
Jordan are a monolith near the Lake of Tiberias
bearing the cartouche of Ramses H., now known
as the Stone of Job (see vol. i. p. 166"); and the
delineation of a local deity Akna-zapu, ‘ Yokin of
the North,’ with the full face and crown of Osiris
(Sayce, Egypt of the Hebrews, p. 81).

We now come to the biblical accounts of the
Exodus, which include statements as to the for-
tunes of Moab in the period immediately preceding
the appearance of Israel in Eastern Palestine.
According to these, Moab, shortly before the ad-
vent of Israel, was deprived of its northern terri-
tory, at least, by an Amorite king, Sihon; and
though Israel occupied the land of Moab, 1ῦ νὰ
conquered, not from the Moabites, but from Sihon.
But the historicity of this account is disputed.
We will first give the narrative as it stands, and
then the criticism of it.

The original authority for the narrative is the
section of E, Nu 217! (Wellh. J), which contains
the account of the defeat of Sihon, and the con-
quest of his dominions. V.25, sometimes held to
be a later gloss, states that ‘Sihon, king of the
Amorites, had fought against the former king of
Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even
unto Arnon’; and vv.27* give, on the authority
of ‘them that speak in proverbs,’ 2.e. the com-
posers or reciters of * taunt songs,’ celebrating the
discomfiture of Israel’s enemies, the following
poem, probably taken from the Book of the Wars
of J”, quoted in ν.1 :--

*Come ye to Heshbon,

Let the city of Sihon be built and established ;
For a fire is gone out of Heshbon,

A flame from the city of Sihon.

It hath devoured Ar of Moab,

The lords of the high places of Arnon.

Woe to thee, Moab!

Thou art undone, O people of Chemcsh.

He hath made his sons fugitives,

And his daughters captives

To Sihon, king of the Amorites.

We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto

Dibon,

And we have laid waste even unto Nophah,
Which reacheth unto Medeba.’

According to Dillmann, the speakers are Tsrael-
ites, who, in celebrating their victory over Silon,
describe his recent conquest of Moab. Unless v.*°
is a gloss, Sihon’s war against Moab, and Isracl’s
against Sihon, rest on substantially the same
authority. The latter is frequently referred to
by the Deuteronomie writers ; it is also alluded to
in P’s account of the division of Canaan, Jos 13) 51
(unless these verses are P%), in the late passage
Jg 11-4 (RIE, Budde, Moore), in Neh 9%, and in
Ps 135" 136% The poem is quoted in Jer 489 (a
late addition, Corn., Giesebr.), but there is no
reference to Israel’s war with Sihon. Thus the
tradition is comparatively early, and was con-
tinuously recognized ; moreover, the narrative 1s
not intrinsically improbable.

On the other hand, neither J nor P mentions the
Sihon episode (unless Jos 137! *7 are rightly assigned
to b2), and none of the accounts of Moab’s rela-
tions with Israel suggest that Israel had avenged
Moab by conquering its oppressor. Hence, though
the narrative is accepted by Dillmann (on Nu 21),
Cornill (Hist. of the People of Israel, p. 45), ete., it
is regarded as unhistorical by Stade (Geseh. Isr.
117 1.), Addis (on Nu 21), etc. According to the
latter, the poem refers to the conquest of a Mobite
king, Sihon, by Israel in the 9th cent. (cf. STON).

If we accept E’s narrative, we may follow
Cornill (Z/ist. p. 45) in recons ructing the history
somewhat thus: Sihon expelled the Moabites and
Ammonites from the most fertile parts of their
territory. The conquered either invited the Israel-
ites, then occupying the country about Kadesh, to
come to the rescue, or welcomed them as allies
when they appeared on the scene. But, after the
Israelites had overthrown Sihon, they kept for
themselves the territory he had taken trom Moab.

Nu 25! (JE), according to which the women of
Moab led the Israelites into immorality, and the
Israelites worshipped Baal-peor as guests at
Moabite sacrificial feasts, is entirely in accordance
with E. Similarly Dt 2’, in stating that J” for-
bade Israel to attack Moab, and that Moab allowed
the Israelites to pass through its territory, and
furnished them with provisions; and Jg 11°
(RE2), in stating that Balak did not fight against
Israel, are following either EK, possibly in a fuller
form than we have it, or some equivalent account.
The futile attempt of Balak to induce Balaam to
curse Israel occurred, according to current analysis,
both in J and E, and seems also to imply that up
to that point no hostilities had taken place be-

410 MOAB, MOABITES

MOAB, MOABITES

tween Israel and Moab. Possibly, however, the
whole Balaam section belongs to E, with the
exception of the episode of the speaking ass, which
may be J, but may orivinally have had nothing to
do with Balak or Moab (cf. BALAAM and the
analysis in NUMBERS). In P, Nu 315, Jos 13%,
Balaam is connected with Midian, and P may have
followed a lost section of J.

On the other hand, there is a series of passages
which suggest hostile relations between Moab and
Israel at this time. Ex 15% (JE), the Sone of
Triumph after crossing the Red Sea, speaks of the
dismay of the Moabites at that event. Dt 23°
states that Moab did not furnish Israel with pro-
Visions; it does not mention any war between
them ; and, according to Jg 1117 (RAE%), the Israel-

ites were refused permission to pass through
Moab. But, curiously enough, it is in Jos 24°, the

E-speech, that we find the explicit statement,
‘Balak ben Zippor, king of Moab, arose and fought
against Israel; and he sent and ealled Balaam
ben Beor to curse you.’ Perhaps at an earlier
stage of the Wanderings, before Sihon attacked
Moab, the Moabites feared Israel, and refused to
adinit them into Moab: after the conquests of
Sihon, Moab was glad to obtain the help of Israel,
but again became hostile when Israel refused to
restore to Moab its former territory.

Whether Israel took the land north of Arnon from
Sihon or from Moab, it) was always debatable
ground, and stimulated and ageravated the quar-
rels that naturally arose between neighbours. The
northern frontier of Moab retired or advanced as
the power of Israel waxed or waned. The most
important incident narrated as to the relations of
Israel and Moab, in the period of the Judges, is
the ocenpation of Jericho by the Moabites, the
assassination of their king, Eglon, by the Ben-
jamite Ehud, and the consequent slaughter of the
foabites and the recovery of the territory of
Jericho for Israel, Je 32-3 (J 2, in Dt setting).
The occupation of Jericho implies that Moab had
reconquered the country north of the Arnon, as
far as opposite Jericho (ef, EHUD, EGLon). LXX
(not all MSS) and Syr. insert Moab in the post-
exilic (Budde, Moore) list of the oppressors from
whom Jeplithah delivered Israel. The conjecture,
though late, was natural, and probably correct.
Moab would take advantage of so good an oppor-
tunity, and was always closely connected with
Ammon, The anthor of Je 11228 was certainly
under the impression that Moab was concerned in
the controversy. The Book of Ruth assigns its
story tu the period of the Judges, and illustrates
the friendly relationships which sometimes existed
between the neighbouring peoples. Perhaps the
obscure verse 1 Ch 42 (a late addition, Kittel,
SBOT) is intended to refer to this period. The
Heb. includes in the Est of Imdahites ‘and Jokim,
and the men of Cozeba, and Joash, and Saraph,
who had doniinion in Moat, and Jashubi-lehem’ ;
LXN and Vule., followed by Kittel, read for
‘Jashuhis Sand they returned,’ ie. probably to
Bethlehem when unable to retain power in Moab,
Vule. has the remarkable translation, ‘Et qui
stare fecit solem, virique mendacii, et Securus,
et Incendens, qui principes fuernnt in Moab, et
qui reversi sunt in Lahem; hae autem verba
Vvetera,’ apparently on the lines of ancient Jewish
exeveosis, which sees here a reference to Elimelech,

Mahlon, and = Chilion of the Book of Ruth
(Berthean). But the original meaning, and in-

tended period, and the
quite uncertain. Another hopelessly corrupt and
obseure passage, 1 Ch 88 (late addition, Kittel;
according to Gray, Heh. Proper Names, the names
are ancient), seems intended to refer to this period,
cf. Ehud, 8°, and furnishes another statement as to

value of the verse, are

Israelites, here Benjamites, settling in the Field of
Moab, whether as part of an Israelite colony or as
gerim of Moab, does not appear. Further, the
Israelites, Jg 106 (RY), worshipped Moabite ods.

Any account which can now be given of Moab is
necessarily one-sided. Our information is chiefly
from Israelite sources; and our only Moabite
document, the Mesha inscription, happens to be
wholly taken up with a war with Israel. But the
consequent impression that Moab was chietly
occupied with its relations with Israel would
obviously be a mistake. Their dealings with other
neighbours, e.g. Ammon and the nomad Arabs,
must have been equally important to them—to
say nothing of their own private affairs. Here
and there we havea gleam of light on such subjects.
In the list of Edomite kings, Gn 36-89 (J usually,
but Dillm. P), 1 Ch 1-51, we read, Gn 36", of a
Hadad ben Bedad, who defeated Midian in the
Field of Moab, which suggests that at some period,
probably that of the Judes (Ewald, in the time of
Gideon), part of the Moabite territory was occupied
by Edom. Two of the capitals of these kings,
Avith and Dinhabah, have been identified with
sites in Moabite territory; ef. DINHABAH. Whether
the Midianites were present in ‘the Field of Moab?
as invaders (Moore on J¢ 6) or allies is not clear.
In Nu 21-25, read continuously, Midian appears in
about the same district as the ally of Moab; the
references to Midian may be P and R?, and yet be
based on older documents. It is not clear that
Moab and Midian were combined in any of the
sources. ‘To this period may also be assigned the
capture of KREH by Ramses IL. ¢. 1280, during
one of his Syrian campaigns (Sayce, Patr. Pal.
p. 165).

Passing to the united monarchy, Saul to Solomon,
in addition to the account of Saul's victory over
Nahash king of Ammon (1S 11), Moab, Ammon,
and Edom are mentioned (1S 147) amongst the
enemies against whom Saul fought successfully ;
he clearly did not conquer Moab, since David’s
parents found an asylum there (1S 22%); accord-
ing to Ru 4382, Ruth the Moabitess was an
ancestress of David. During the civil war be-
tween David and Eshbaal, Moab must have been
able to hold its ground, or even to agerandize itself
at the expense of Israel. Hence, perhaps, David’s
war with Moab, in which ‘he smote Moab, and
measured them with the line, making them to lie
down on the ground ; and he measured two lines
to put to death, and one full line to keep alive.
And the Moabites became subject to David, and
paid tribute’ (2S 83). Part of the spoil of Moab,
as of that from other conquests, David dedicated
to J” (28 813. Probably instead of the “two
lion-like men of Moab,’ slain by one of David’s
warriors (2 8 23°), we should read with Kloster-
mann and Budde, partly following the LXX, ‘two
lions in their lair. In the parallel passage, 1 Ch
11**, Kittel reads ‘two sons of Ariel from Moab.’
Bertheau, who adopts a similar reading, under-
stands Ariel as the name of the king of Moab (ef.
ARIEL). In 1 Ch 1145, in ἃ passaee which Kittel
ascribes to an ancient source, no longer extant,
Ithmah the Moabite is mentioned among David's
mighty men. Kautzsch and Budde ascribe 2 S 8% 15
to late editors. According to 1 K 111: 1.88. (D2,
Kautzsch), Solomon had Moabite women ἴῃ his
harem, erected a temple to Chemosh, and wor-
shipped him.

How long Moab remained tributary we do not
know. It is next mentioned as rebelling against
Ahab; and it has been supposed that it remained
subject to Solomon till his death, and was trans-
ferred to Israel after the formation of the Northern
Kingdom. But the silence of our meagre and
fragmentary authorities as to any prior revolt does

MOAB, MOABITES

MOAB, MOABITES 41]

not prove that Moab remained in subjection till
the time of Ahab. The express mention of the
revolt of Edom from Solomon is slightly against
the supposition that a revolt of Moab at that
time has been passed over. Further, the fact that
Jeroboam’s capital was at first E. of Jordan shows
that Israel then was in strong force in the east,
and makes it possible to suppose that Jeroboam
succeeded in wresting the suzerainty of Moab
from Rehoboam. On the whole, it is more likely
that Moab recovered its independence at this time ;
or, if not then, soon after, at some point in the
period, after Jeroboam, during which Israel was
distracted by foreign and civil wars and frequent
changes of dynasty. ‘The disaster which almost
blotted out Reuben as a tribe may have been
suffered at the hands of Moab, at this or at an
earlier date.

2 Ch 20! narrates a campaign of Moab, Ammon,
and Edom against Jehoshaphat, in which the in-
vaders massacre each other. The passage is prob-
ably a Midrashie adaptation of 2 Kk 3, and in its

resent form rests on no older authority than the
lidrash of Kings used by the Chronicler.

The period of Omri-Ahab-Jehoram is specially
important, because we can supplement the bible
account by the Moabite Stone, the text and transla-
tion of which are given above, in the section on
Language. In the Moxubite Stone (1. 1-S) Mesha
tells us that, in the reign of his father, Chemosh-
melek (ἢ of Dibon, Chemosh was angry with
Moab, and Omri and his son oppressed Moab,
subjected and occupied it forty years. This brings
us to the point at which Kings first refers to Moab.
2K 11 3° states that Mesha king of Moab was
rich in sheep, and paid to Israel a tribute (? annual)
of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams (AV), or their
wool (RV); and that when Ahab died he rebelled
avainst the king of Israel. According to Mesha
(I. 8), the revolt took place in the middle of Ahab’s
reien. Probably the war of Israel with Syria,
which cost Ahab his life, afforded the opportunity
for the revolt of Moab. [Ὁ is not clear how we
are to combine the inscription and 2 Καὶ 3. We
may suppose (Cornill, p. 107; Wellh. Zisé. ete.
Eng. tr. p. 460) that Mesha’s victories took place
at the time of the revolt, before the events of
2K 3; or that, at first, Moab simply asserted its
independence, and that Meshas conquests were
made after the retreat of Jehoram; or that the
inscription is a comprehensive account of Mesha’s
achievem nts both before and after Jehoram’s
campaign, his reverses being ignored, just as Kings
makes no mention of the loss of Israelite cities
to Moab. In 2 Καὶ 3 we read that Jehoram, at the
head of a general muster of Israel, and with
Jehoshaphat of Judah and the king of Edom as
allies, marched round the southern end of the
Dead Sea, a route which suggests that Israel was
very weak on the east of the Jordan; that the
Moabites fell into an ambush, and were defeated ;
that the allies captured and destroyed the cities
and Jaid waste the land, and at last shut up Mesha
in Kir-hareseth. After an unsuccessful sortie,
Mesha ‘took his eldest son . . . and offered him
for a burnt-ofiering upon the wall. And_ there
was great wrath against (IV), or upon (RVm),
Israel ; and they departed from thence and returned
to their own land.’ Possibly the Israelite account
disguises a defeat as a voluntary withdrawal ; but
the prophets’ accounts of the superstition of their
fellow-countrymen show that they may have been
afraid to press the siege after what they believed
to be an irresistible appeal to Chemosh. But the
retreat’ was a disastrous blow to the prestige of
Israel. Probably the retiring army suffered heavy
loss; and the Moabites would certainly be em-
boldened to make further additions to their terri-

tory at the expense of the eastern tribes. The
relations of Edom and Moab in this narrative
suggest the existence of bitter hostility, which
must have led to other wars between the two
neighbours. Nothing is said of Edom in the in-
scription, possibly because part of it is lost.

The inscription sugeests that the revolt arose
(11. 6, 7) through hostile measures of Ahab.* Mesha
recovered the territory oceupied by Omri, and
fortified Baal-meon and LWiriathaim. He then
threatened the Gadites—the Reubenites are never
mentioned, and had apparently disappeared —
in their long-occupicd territory of Ataroth. In
defence, the king of Israel fortified the city of
Ataroth. But Mesha took Ataroth and Nebo,
and massacred their inhabitants. The king of
Israel fortified Jahaz, but it shared the fate of
Ataroth. Mesha seems also to have conquered
Horonaim. After his victories he fortified many
cities, and provided them with a water supply, and
executed other public works, largely, no doubt, by
means of Israelite prisoners, as in 1. 25.

According to the cities mentioned in the inserip-
tion as conquered or held by Moab, its territory
stretched along the whole eastern coast of the
Dead Sea, from Kir in the south to Horonaim and
Nebo in the north. The silence as to Heshbon may
possibly be due to the loss of part of the Stone ;
but as Mesha’s father reigned in Dibon on the
Arnon, probably Mesha’s conquests did not include
Heshbon.

According to 2 Ch 24°, one of the assassins of
Joash of Judah had a Moalite mother. The story
of Elisha (2 Καὶ 13*°) mentions Moabite raids in
Israel.

2K 14° states that Jeroboam 11. recovered the
border of Israel from the entering in of Hamath
to the sea of the Arabah, z.c. the Dead Sea. Prob-
ably he recovered the suzerainty over Moab (so
Cornill, p. 122, ‘suceeeded ... in subduing all
Moab’). 1 Ch 5'7 seems to imply a tradition of an
effective Israelite occupation of territory between
Jabbok and Arnon in the time of Jeroboam II.
Am 21-8 may refer to Israelite conquests in Moab
at this time, thoueh it only refers expressly to the
feud between Edom and Moab. Possibly the
Israelite victories over Moab in Nu 24” (Balaam’s
oracles) belong to this period, though they might
refer to the wars of Omri or even David.

Another trace of the hostility of Moab to both
Israel and Judah, in the period of the two king-
doms, is the unsympathetic attitude of both J and
Eto Moab; the most striking example being the
account of the birth of Ammon and Moab,

In the period from Jeroboam 11. to the Fall of
Samaria, the catastrophes of Israel, especially the
deportation of the eastern tribes by Tiglath-pileser,
and, in a less degree, that of the inhabitants of
the rest of the Northern Kingdom, left Moab free
to agerandize itself. All the evidence seems to
show that, in the century and a half after the fall
of Samaria, the prosperity of Moab reached its
climax. Apparently its rulers were wise enough
to observe the essential condition of continuous
prosperity, and submitted to the suzerainty of
Assyria; cf. COT ii. 49. Salmanu the Moabite
occurs in the Nimrud Clay Inscription of Tiglath-
pileser as one of the tributaries of Assyria; and
it is perhaps this Salmanu, and not the Assyrian
Shalmaneser, who is to be identified with the
Shalman who sacked Beth-arbel in Hos 10% (so
Sayce, HCM yp. 482).

In a fragment, indeed, of Sargon HW. (Kellner,
Isaiah, p. 34), Moab is mentioned as allied with
Philistia, Judah, and Edom in a conspiracy against
Assyria; but on the great Taylor Prism, which
gives Sennacherib’s account of his campaign against

* The translation of these lines is doubtful, cf. above.

412 MOAB, MOABITES

MOAB, MOABITES

Hezekiah and his allies, Kammusu-nadab (Chem-
osh-nadab) of Moab brings tribute to the Assyrian
king, and does homage to him. Mutsuri (probably
‘the Egyptian’) king of Moab is mentioned as
attending the court of two successive kings of
Assyria, Esar-haddon and Assurbanipal, in com-
pany with twenty-one other subject kings, including
Manasseh of Judah (Sayce, CM p. 4501). In
the last days of Jerusalem, Moab had transferred
its allegiance to Babylon; Moabites fought for
Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim, 9 Καὶ 24%, At
the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, according
to the original text of Jer 27%, Moabite envoys
came to Jerusalem to arrange a revolt against the
Chaldians ; and later on Jewish refugees found an
asylum in Moab, Jer 40"; and Ezk 25%" also im-
phes that the prosperity of Moab continued after
the fall of Jerusalem.

Much light is thrown on the condition of Moab in
this period by the references to Moab in Am, Is,
Mic, Zeph, Jer, and Ezk; although there is much
difference of opinion as to the dates of the passages
in question. For Am and Ezk, see above; it may
be noted also that in Am the ruler of Moab is called
sew ‘judge.’ Mic 6° merely refers to the story of
Balaam and Balak, probably in a different form
from that in which we now have it. Zeph 2314,
which threatens Moab and Ammon because they
have despised and harassed the Jews, is commonly
regarded as exilic (cf. ZEPHANIAI).

The Ls-Jer oracles on Moub present a very com-
plicated question. Is 15f. and Jer 48 are two
independent editions of an older lament over some
ruinous catastrophe which befell Moab. Cheyne
(‘Tsaiah? in PB p. 168) thinks the enemy of Moab
may have been either Nebuchadnezzar, Assur-
banipal, or Jeroboam U1. Cheyne, Duhm, Giese-
brecht, ete., hold that the later editions of the
lament were compiled and inserted in Is and Jer
by late post-exilic writers; Duhm refers Jer 48
to the time of Alexander Jannieus and John
Hyreanus. But many critics (e.g. Cornill and
Driver) regard Is 15f. as the work of Isaiah, and
Jer 48 as that of Jeremiah—substantially. In
the jlament the territory of Moab has reached its
maximum, and extends from Jazer, Sibmah, and
Heshbon to the southern end of the Dead Sea.
Thus the poem is probably later than Mesha, and
does not refer to the conquest of Moab by Οἱ,
or the campaign of Jehoraim; the Stone does not
mention Heshbon. Hence the disaster to Moab
was probably an invasion by Jeroboam IL, a view
possibly confirmed by Is 16'5, which is often
interpreted as meaning that the king of Judah
was ruling over Edom; while 2K 147° suggest
that, some time before, Amaziah of Judah had
recovered the suzerainty of Edom. The lament
shows that, since Mesha, Moab had made steady
progress, and advanced its border beyond Heshbon ;
that it possessed numerous ‘cities,’ de. walled
towns, and doubtless many villages; that it was
fertile, well-cultivated, and, probably, densely
populated ; and that it had reached a coimpara-
tively high level of civilization, not very different
from that of Judah. Jeroboam ravaged the
country in the same fashion as Jehoram; and
perhaps some districts and cities were occupied by
Israclites, but Moab as a whole probably remained
autonomous under a native ruler appointed by
Jeroboam. If Nu 21*!-*” refers to this invasion
(see above), the king of Moab at this time may
have been named Sihon. The author of the lament
shows marked sympathy for Moab; Israel was
generally hostile to the Southern Kingdom after
the extinction of the house of Omri, and Moab
and Judah were drawn together by a common
enmity to Samaria. <A token of their mutual
good feeling was Solomon’s temple to Chemosh,

which was not interfered with till the time of
Josiah. However severely Moab suffered at the
hands of Jeroboam 11., it recovered speedily, and
became more prosperous than ever, so that Isaiah (Ὁ)
and Jeremiah (2) do not hesitate to adapt and ex-
ae the pictures of the pride and prosperity of
Moab, and the lists of its numerous cities, in their
descriptions of the doom that threatened Moab
at the hands, first of the Assyrians and then of
the Chaldeans. The attitude of Is 15f. is still
sympathetic; but Jer expresses the bitter resent-
ment inspired by the alliance of Moab with the
besiegers of Jerusalem in 48! ‘Cursed be he that
doeth the work of J’ nezligently, and eursed be he
that keepeth back his sword from blood.’ Jer also
(4811) testifies to the continued prosperity of Moab
and its consequent corruption: ‘Moab hath been
undisturbed from his youth ; he hath settled on
his lees; he hath not been emptied from vessel to
vessel; he hath not gone into captivity: there-
fore his taste remaineth in him, his scent is not
changed.’* Jeremiah, or an editor, has incorpor-
ated Nu 21° asvv.4!.+ Cf. Jer 928252) 273; Το ΤΑ τ,
book OF; JEREMIAH, Book OF.

In Is and Jer we see Moab, at the height of its
prosperity, suddenly seized in the grip of an over-
whelming calamity: here the curtain falls upon
its history. The land is still for some time called
Moab, and the name lingered on even into the Chris-
tian era; the term Moahite is occasionally applied
to cities or people of the district, and doubtless
survivors of the old race were still to be found in
the land; but there seems no evidence of the
existence of Moab as a state, even a dependent
state, after the Exile, and we know that at the
time of the Maccabiean revolt: Moab was occupied
by the Nabatiwan Arabs (1 Mac 9°; Jos. Ané.
MI Kui 62h, avi, ὁ αν Goa. Ἃ comparison
of the last two passages shows that Josephus uses
‘Moabites’ for the Nabatiean Arabs, which ex-
plains the statement in Avnf. I. xi. 5, that the
Moabites were still a vory great people in his
time. 1 Mac never names the Moabites, even in
such passages as 5)° (cf. Bevan, Dan. p. 199;
Baethgen, Ps. p. 260). The comparative silence
of post-exilie literature as to Moab suggests an
early date for its disappearance ; even in Neh 4?
the Arabians have taken the place of Moab as the
allies of Ammon. Possibly Moab, in its pride,
unduly tasked the patience of Nebuchadnezzar
and was overthrown, and the bulk of its popula-
tion deported ; then the Arabs may have occupied
Moab and absorbed the remnant of the people ; or
the Nabatwans may have conquered Moab (ef.
ARETAS). Then Is 15 f., Jer 48, if late editions of
an earlier lament, may have been inspired by the
report of this great catastrophe; Ezk 25%" states
that Moab shall be conquered by the children of
the East, 1.6. Arabs.

The post-exilic references to Moab are as follows :
—In the apocalyptic Is 24-27, variously dated from
the time of the Exile to that of Alexander the
Great, Moab is the one Gentile people mentioned
by name (25!) as doomed. Unless the section is
contemporary with Jer 48,1 ‘ Moab,’ like ‘Edom’
and ‘ Babylon,’ in later times is used as a type of
the enemies of God (Cheyne, ‘Isaiah’ in PB p. 204).
Ezr 91, Neh 13! are mere references to ancient
literature. Sanballat the Horonite (Neh 2” ete.)
may have belonged to Beth-horon; even if he
belonged to Horonaim, he may have been one of

* If Bozrah is Bosrah esh-Sham in the Hauran, the territory
of Moab had extended far to the N.E.: but cf. Bozran.

t Unless Jer 482 ‘In Heshbon they have devised evil against
her,’ t.e. Moab, is a deliberate modification of the ancient poem,
connected with the insertion of Nu 2128; it seems better to
read with Giesebrecht, ‘Against Heshbon they have devised
evil,’ omitting my ‘against her.’

3 Ct. Jer 4843f with Is 2417f,

MOADIAH

MODERATION 413

its Arabian conquerors ; and if a Moabite, merely
an individual who survived the ruin of the state.
In Dn 11° Moab may be merely the country, or
else combined with Edom and Ammon through
the influence of older literature. Similar con-
siderations may explain the occurrence of Moab in
the late psalms (60° 83° 108"), unless the lists of
peoples in these psalins are fragments from older
poems. The references to Moabites in Jth are
entirely unhistorical, and due to a use of older
literature.

See also arts. AMMON, EpomM, GAD, ISRAEL,
JUDAH, REUBEN.

LITERATURE.—The Commentaries on passages referring to
Moab, and the Histories of Israel on the relations of Israel to
Moab; Wellhausen, art. Moan in Hneyel. Brit.8; Clermont-
Ganneau, Recueil d’Archéol. Orient, ii, 185-234.

For the Geography—Tristram, Land of Moab ; Conder, Heth
and Moab; G. A. Smith, HGUL 517-573; Stanley, Sin. and
Pal. 319-334; Buhl, GA P 45-50; Picturesque Pal. it 193i.

For the Religion—W. R. Smith, AS 376, 460; Baethgen,
Beitrige z. Sem. Leligionsgesch. pp. 13 ff., 79, 89, 210, 298, 256-
261.

On Moabite Stone, see above ; also in Driver, Heb. Text of Sam.
Ixxxvff.; and for other literature, in Ginsburg and Lidzbarski.

W. H. BENNETT.

MOADIAH.—See MAADIAH,

MOCHMUR (ΔΙοχμούρ B, Δίουχμούρ x*; Machur
Old Lat., Peor Syr.; A omits; Vulg. Jth 7° omits
LXX 7!7-%).—A wady (χείμαῤῥος) on which CHUsI,
near EKREBEL, was situated, apparently S.E. of
Dothan (Jth 7®).

MOCK, MOCKINGSTOCK.—The verb to mock is
both trans. and intrans. Used transitively it has
two distinct meanings: (1) To ridicule, as 1 K 18:7
‘Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud’ ; Job
12! “[ am as one mocked of his neighbour’ (RV
‘one that is a laughing-stock to his neighbour’).
(2) To deceive, bequile, Jg 16° ‘And Delilah said
unto Samson, Behold, thou hast mocked me, and
told me lies,’ Job 13° ‘As one man mocketh
another, do ye so mock him?’ (RV ‘as one de-
ceiveth a man, will ye deceive him?’). So Shaks.
Rich. IL, 1v. iv. 87—

‘A mother only mocked with two sweet babes’ ;
and Macbeth, I. vii. 81—
‘ Away, and mock the time with fairest show.’

The only meaning of the intrans. verb is to ridi-
cule, as Job 21° ‘Suffer me that I may speak ; and
after that I have spoken, mock on’ (from Gen.
Bible ; Cov. ‘laugh my wordes to scorne’); Pr 1”
1 will mock when your fear cometh’; Ac 17°
‘And when they heard of the resurrection of the
dead, some mocked.’ The phrase to ‘mock at’
occurs in Pr 30!7, La 17, Tindale has ‘mock out,’
Expositions 39, ‘their sophistical glosses, feigned
to mock out the law of God, and to beguile the
whole world’; and ‘mock with,’ Works, 1. 205,
“So ay doth the covetousness and ambi-
tion of our prelates mock with the law of God.’

Mock was once common as a subst.: thus in
Matt. Bible, marg. note to Gn 3” ‘Here thys
worde lo is taken as ἃ mocke as it isin 1 K 18’;
Joy, Apolegye to Tindale, 14, *Vhis saith Tindale
yroniously in a mok as though it were false that
oure soulis as sone as we be dead shulde go to
heven’; Shaks. Henry V. 1. ii. 285—

‘For many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands ;
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down ;

And some are yet ungotten and unborn
That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin’s scorn.’

The only example in AV is Pr 14° ‘Fools make a
mock at sin.’ Cf. He 6° Tind. ‘For as moche as
they have (as concerninge them selves) crucified the
soune of God a fresshe, makynge a mocke of him.’

The subst. ‘mocking’ (=mod. ‘mockery,’ which
also oceurs) is found in Ezk 22+ ‘ Therefore have I
made thee a reproach unto the heathen, and a
mocking to all countries,’ and He 11% ‘ And others
had trials of cruel mockings and scourgings.’ Cf.
Shaks. Love’s Labour’s Lost, V. ii. 59—

* We are wise girls to mock our lovers so.
They are worse fools to purchase mocking 80.”

Mockingstock is used in 2 Mac 77 ‘to make him
a mocking stock’ (ἐπὶ τὸν ἐμπαιγμόν, RV ‘to the
mocking’), and 7!° * After him was the third made
a mocking stock’ (éveraifero). So Raleigh, Hist.
World, v. v. 7, ‘Philip... was taken by the
consul; made a mocking stock; and sent away
prisoner to Rome.’ J. HASTINGS.

MODERATION.—For moderation in eating and
drinking, see TEMPERANCE. ‘The word itself occurs
but once in AV, Ph 4° ‘Let your moderation be
known unto all men.’ The Greek is τὸ ἐπιεικὲς
ὑμῶν. This adj. ἐπιεικής occurs also in 1 Ti of
Tit 32, Ja 37, 1P 918. in the first passage AV
gives ‘patient,’ RV ‘gentle,’ in the others both
versions give ‘gentle.’ The neut. form (τὸ ἐπιεικές)
does not oceur again, but it is common in class.
writers as equivalent to ἐπιείκεια. This subst. itself
[WH ἐπιεικία] is found in Ac 244 (AV and RV
‘clemency ’), and in 2 Co 10! (AV and RV ‘ gentle-
ness’). Both adj. and subst. occur in Apocr.,
chiefly of the ‘ gentleness’ of God.

But ‘gentleness’ is not the exact idea. Both 76
ἐπιεικές and ἐπιείκεια expressed in class. Greek the
spirit that declines to exact its legal right. In
Eth. v. 4 Aristotle points out that justice is one
thing, equity (ἐπιείκεια) another, and in i. 13, 171.
he gives a full description of ἐπιείκεια as that which
looks to the spirit and not the letter, the intention
and not the act, the whole and not the part, etc.
This is in exact agreement with what is undoubt-
edly the derivation of the word, εἰκός ‘ reasonable,’
‘ becoming,’ and the idea in Ph 4° may be expressed
in Matthew Arnold’s phrase ‘sweet reasonable-
ness,’ or in a single word ‘ considerateness.’

In the trans. of the word two mistakes have been
made. On the one hand, there was a time when
the word degenerated into the expression of re-
spectable behaviour, and respectable behaviour is
always the pursuit of a middle course, in mediis
tutissimus. Hence Thue. (i. 76) makes τὸ ἐπιεικές
equivalent to τὸ μετριάζειν ‘moderation.’ This idea
was seized by the AV translators at Ph 4° (they
seem to be alone in thus translating the word), and
a modern translation (Ferrar Fenton, The ΝΊ in
Current English) has ‘ good conduct.’* Cf. Light-
foot on Ph 45.

On the other hand, there has been an influence
on the word (perhaps on the Gr. word itself,
certainly on its trans.) of εἴκω to yield. Thus
Moule, though he says (Camb. Bible, in loc.) that
the connexion with τὸ εἰκός ‘the equitable’ is more
probable, allows εἴκω a place, and in his Philippian
Studies, p. 228, he translates by ‘yieldingness,’
explaining it to mean ‘selflessness, the spirit which
will yield in anything that is only of self, for
Christ’s sake.’ This trans. is represented in Tin-
dale’s ‘softenes’ (followed by Cov., Cran., anid
Matt.), as well as by RVm ‘ gentleness’ ; Luther's
Lindigkeit (followed by Weizsiicker) leans too

* Perhaps this is also the idea contained in Vulg. modestia, it
that word is used in its earliest classical sense of ‘sobriety,’
‘moderation.’ But the Rhemish ‘modesty’ is a mistranslation
(no more than a transliteration, perhaps), for ‘modesty’ was
never used in English in this sense. Sir Thomas Elyot uses it so
in The Governour, i. 267, but he explains that he is adopting the
classical sense of the word: ‘In every of these thinges and their
semblable is Modestie ; whiche worde not beinge knowen in the
englisshe tonge, ne of al them which understode latin, except
they had radde good autours, they improperly named this
vertue discretion.’ Wyclif did not adopt ‘modesty,’ but usec
“temperaunce or pacience’ (var. lect. ‘ tholmoundness’).

=

414

MODERN VERSIONS

MOLE

much in this direction, and even the RV ‘forbear-
ance,’ which is the favonrite rendering since Light-
foot adopted it. ‘Gentleness’ and ‘forbearance?
are too passive. The ‘considerateness’ of the
Bible, whether applied to God or man, is an active
virtue. It is the spirit of the Messiah Himself,
who will not break the bruised reed nor quench
the smoking flax, and it is the spirit of every
follower who realizes that ‘the Lord is at hand.’
J. HASTINGS,
MODERN YERSIONS.—See Versions.

MODIN (Mwéelv or Δωδεείν : but also Μωδεείμ,
1 Mac 2% ete., Jos. Ant. XI. vi. 1, etc., Onomast.
Kuseb,—rendered by Jerome, Modeim; Μωδαείμ,
1 Mac 164; Mwdielu, 2 Mac 134: Talmud oy
and myn — Neubauer, Géog. du Talm. 99).—
This was the ancestral home of the Maccabrean
family (1 Mac 917. τὸ). and its interest is derived
solely from its connexion with their illustrious
history. Unable to endure the outrage upon
Jewish faith and feeling perpetrated by Antiochus
Epiphanes in Jerusalem, the priest Mattathias re-
tired hither in B.c. 168. But the emissaries of the
persecutor followed him; and at last, stung to
action alike by the insulting orders of the king’s
officer and the shameful compliance of a renegade
Israelite, he raised his hand on behalf of religion
and fatherland. The blow he struck initiated that
struegle for freedom which, under the leadership
of his heroic sons, forms such a brilliant chapter
in the closing history of his people (1 Mae 2! 15. bat
Jos, Ant. XII. vi. 1,2; BJ1. i. 3). When Matta-
thias died he was buried in Modin (1 Mac ὍΤΟΥ and
here also each of his sons, with their mother, was
finally laid to rest (1 Mac 9! 1375-8 5 Jos. An#. XI.
xi. 2, XIII. vi. 6, ete.). Judas encamped by Modin
the evening before his suecessful night-raid on the
army of Antiochus Eupator (2 Mac 134); and here
John and Judas, the sons of Simon, rested over-
night before going forth to the defeat of Cende-
beeus (1 Mae 164).

Simon, the last of the five brethren, built at
Modin a splendid sepulchral monument, to per-
petuate the memory of his heroic family. ‘It was
a square structure, surrounded by colonnades of
monolith pillars, of which the front and back were
of white polished stone. Seven pyramids were
erected by Simon on the summit for the father and
mother and the four brothers who now lay there,
with the seventh for himself when his time should
come. On the faces of the monument were bas-
reliefs, representing the accoutrements of sword
and spear and shield, ‘for an eternal memorial ”
of their many battles. There were also the sculp-
tures of ‘‘ships”—no doubt to record their interest
in that long seaboard of the Philistine coast,
which they were the first to use for their country’s
good. A monument at once so Jewish in idea, so
Gentile in execution, was worthy of the combina-
tion of patriotic fervour and philosophic enlarge-
ment of soul which raised the Maccabiean heroes
so high above their age’ (Stanley, Hist. of Jewish
Ch. iii. 318).

This famous structure continued in a state per-
mitting recognition down to the 4th cent. of the
Christian era (Williams, Holy City, i. 96), and so
long there could be no question as to the site of
Modin. Then all trace of the tomb seems to have
been lost, and for many centuries the situation of
the town was unknown. At different times the
home of the Maccabees has been sought at Latrin,
at Soba, and even away to the S. of Anathoth. It
is unnecessary to discuss the arguments in favour
of these proposed identifications. The ancient
Modin is certainly represented by the modern
el-Medych, a village standing on the E. of Wady
Mulaki, about 13 miles W. of Bethel, on one

of the lower ridges by which the mountain range
lets itself down towards Lydda. Struck by the
resemblance between the ancient and modern
names, and also by the name Kabir el-Yehid,
‘Tombs of the Jews,’ given to a remarkable series
of tombs near by, the late Dr. Sandreezki, of Jeru-
salem, called attention to the place in 1869; and
subsequent investigation has gone to confirm his
suggestion. The identification has been opposed
by le Camus (Lev. Biblique, i. 109 11.) on insutticient
grounds (ef. Buhl, GAP 198).

Modin was near the plain (1 Mae 16% 5); the
monument built by Simon was clearly visible from
the sea (1 Mac 13%); and we learn’ from Euseb.
and Jerome, that Diospolis (Lydda) was not far
distant. £7-Jedych itself is hidden from the sea
by the slope of the hill; but immediately to the
south a rocky eminence, er-Ras, with’ ancient
remains, commands a view of the lower hills, the
plain of Sharon, and the sea, while Lydda is seen
at a distance of not over 6 miles, reposing among
her fruitful olives. On the opposite side of the
Wady, about half a mile west of the village, there
are several tombs, one, associated with the name
Sheikh el-Gharbdwi, claiming special interest on
account of its size and construction. At one time
it was thought this might prove to be the tomb of
the Maccabees ; but later investigation revealed
its Christian origin. ΤῸ these tombs Conder gives
the name Kabir el-Yehid. Of the ruins + mile
to the south, called by Sandreezki Kabir el- Yehiid,
he speaks as Ahirbet el-Medych. Guerin says an
old inhabitant of the village eave the name NKhirbct
el-Medyeh to the whole group of ruins. The tomb
of the Maccabees is not yet identified. The place
is about 16 miles from the coast. At this distance,
to one looking from the sea, towards evening, with
the sun behind him, such a monument would stand
out with great distinctness, even if the details of
the carving could not be plainly traced.

LITERATURE. — PEF Mem. iii. 341 ff.; Stanley, History of
Jewish Ch. iii. 267, 318; G. A, Smith, ΜΟΠ ΠῚ 212 n.; Conder,
Judas Maccabeus, 84, 176; Schtirer, HJP 1. i. 209 f.; Guérin,
Samarie, ii. 55 ff., 404 ff., Gadilée, i. 46 ff. W. EwIna.

MOETH (Mwé@).—1 Es 8%=Noadiah of Ezr 8%.
See NOADIAH, No. 1,

MOLADAH (79>\>).—A city in the south of Judah,
Jos 15% (B Mw add, A Μωδαδά) : reckoned to
Simeon in 19? (B Κωλαδάμ, A Mwdadd) and 1 Ch 428
(B Μωαλδά, A Μωλαδά) ; peopled after the Captivity
by Judahites, Neh 11” (BA om., ~¢#™ γωλαδαάΐ.
In the 4th cent. A.D. (Onomast. s.v. ‘Arad’) a
place called Malatha is located 4 Roman miles
from Arad (cf. Jos. An¢. XVIII. vi. 9). This site is
clearly the present Tell el-Milh, ‘hill of salt,’ and
is that of an early town, but the modern name has
no connexion with the Heb. MJoladah, the site of
which is unknown (ef. Buhl, GAP 183, who rightly
points out that instead of 4 Roman miles from
Arad, as Eusebius states, Tell el-Milh and Arad
are double that distance apart) in spite of the
identification with 7d el-Milh which is adopted
by Robinson (BRP? ii. 201), Guérin (.Judée, iii.
184 ff.), and others. C. R. ConvrEr.

MOLE.—Two words are tr? in AV ‘mole.’
1. nowin tinshemeth. This occurs twice in the list
of unclean creatures: (4) As the name of a bird
(Lv 1118 LXX πορφυρίων, AV ‘swan,’ RV ‘horned
owl,’ m. ‘swan’; Dt 141° LXX is, AV ‘swan,’
tV ‘horned owl.’ See SWAN, Owt). (4) As the
name of a ‘creeping thing’ at the end of a list of
lizards (Lv 11% LXX ἀσπάλαξ, Vulg. talpa, AV
‘mole,’ RV ‘chameleon’). The authority of the
LXX and Vulg. favours the rendering ‘mole.’ No
true mole exists now in Palestine. The word

MOLECH, MOLOCH

MOLECH, MOLOCIL 415

ἀσπάλαξ probably refers to the mole-rat Spalvx
typhus, Pall., a rodent, the appearance and habits
of which closely resemble those of the genuine
mole. It is about the size and shape of a common
brown rat, but with much shorter legs. The
forelegs are adapted for digging. The head is
flattened from above downwards, with a wedze-
shaped snout, which acts as a shovel in perforating
the soil, and raising the hillocks which occur every
few feet along the burrow. The fur is greyish-
brown. The eyes are hardly to be made out at all,
being quite rudimentary. The animal is nocturnal
in its habits, and seldom seen above the surface.
It is called by the Arabs khuld, plainly the cognate
of Aéled, which EV tr. ‘weasel.’ See CHAMELEON,
WEASEL; and Dillmann on Ly 11”.

2. mia 10 hdiphér péréth (to be read nist
hipharparéth, see Dillm. ad loc.), τὰ μάταια, talpe.
This expression is tr? in EV (Is 2°) ‘moles.’
The LXX τὰ udraca=‘ the vain things,’ sheds no
light on the meaning. But the root hdphar=
Arab. hafar, ‘to dig or burrow,’ and paréth re-
calls Arab. far, generic for ‘rats’ and ‘mice.’ The
compound name may be that of some digging
or burrowing animal. There is a large number
of such creatures in the Holy Land, of which we
note: fam. Murida, the rats and mice, including
numeros species of Acomys, the Porcupine mouse ;
Mus, the true rats and mice, of which there are
a considerable number; Cricetws, the hamster ;
Gerbillus and Psammomys, the sand rats; Spola-
cide, the mole rats; Dipopide, the jerboas; JWyr-
cidw, the dormice, ete. It is most probable that
the Heb. hdpharparcth is generic for all such
animals as burrow in waste places, as ‘ bats,’ in
the same passage, is generic for the well-known
winged tribe of dwellers in caves and ruins.

(xf: POST.

MOLECH, MOLOCH (322 ham-Molech, always
with the article except in 1K 11’, Moddx, Vulg.
Motloch).—Vhe Heb. pointing does not represent the
original pronunciation, but is intended to suggest
bosheth, ‘shame’; just as -baald in Ishbaal and
Meribaal was changed to -bosheth in Ishbosheth
and Mephibosheth. Originally the word was
simply ham-Melech, ‘the king.’ We find also
the forms Mileom (a352), Maleam (azn, ᾿Αμελχόμ,
μελχόμ, μολχόμ, μελχόλ, MOAXIA, Melcom), and
Malcan; see below.

i. Zable of the oceurrences of Melech, etc., as
divine names.—(a) Cases in which MT uses the
pointing Molech to show that it regards Melech
as the name of a false god. Lv 187! 20% % 4.5
ἄρχων ; 1 K 117 A μελχό, Β βασιλεύς, Luc. μελχόμ ;
2 Καὶ 23”, Lue. μελχόμ ; Jer 32% τῷ Μολὸχ βασιλεῖ.

(ὁ) Cases in which Melech is pointed as a
common noun ‘king’ by MT, but is regarded
as a divine name by other authorities. Is 30°
EV ‘the king,’ with LXX and Vulg.; Is 579 EV
‘the king,’ with Vulg.; LXX has entirely different
reading. In both, Cheyne, Dulm, Siegfried-Stade
(Lex.) have Melech. In Am 7” EV ‘the king’s
sanctuary,’ so LXX and Vulg., it has been sue-
gested that ‘king’ should be Melech, but this is
unprobable.

(c) Cases where MT points MLKM as the divine
name, A/ilcom: 1K 11° *, ro βασϊχεϊ: αὐτῶν; 2K
238 A ἀμελχόμ, B μολχόλ.

(d) Cases where MT points MLKM as JMaleam,
‘their king’; but other authorities regard it as
the divine name, Milcom: 2S 12%(=1 Ch 20?)
AV, RV ‘their kine,’ so Vulge.; RVm Maleam,
i.e. Milcom, so LXX; 1 Ch 20? AV, RV ‘their
king,’ RVm Malcam, so LXX and Vulg.; Jer 491: 3
(cf. Am 145) AV, RVm ‘ their king,’ so Targ.: AVm
_Melcom, RV Malecam, so LUXX μελχόλ, and Vulg. ;
, Am 1% (cf. Jer 4913) EV ‘their king’ with LXX ;
but Aq., Symm., Vulg., and Syr. Melchom, ete. ;

Ain δ RV ‘your king,’ so Symm. and Theod.;
AV ‘your Moloch,’ with LXX rod MoAéx ὁ Aq. and
Syr. Alalchom; ef. SiccurH; deph 1° AV, RV
Malc(hjam, so LXX MSS ap. Field, μολόχ, μελχύμ,
Vulg. RVm ‘ their king,’ LAX B, ete.

(6). Malean, in 2 8 12%, the readine of the
Kethibh, 7259 MLKN, was probably intended to
mean ‘he passed them through the fire to Melech? ;
but the reading 7259 malben, ‘brick-kiln,’ of the
Keré, t.e. as RVm ‘made them labour at the
brick-kiln,’ is probably correct ; so Budde, H. P.
Smith, LXX πλινθεῖον, Vule. typo laterum.

11. Leelation of the forms Melech, Milcom, ete., to
one another.—Baethgen (Beitrage, p. 15) maintains
that though Mileom was originally only a dialectic
variety of Molech, yet Molech and Milcom were re-
garded as two distinct deities, and supports his
contention by the statement in 2 K 93:10. 16 that, at
Topheth in the valley of the Béné Hinnom, chil-
dren were passed through the fire to JZo/ech, while,
opposite Jerusalem ‘on the right hand of the
mount of corruption,’ the Mount of Olives, there
was a high-place for MWilcom. The argument im-
plies that vv.' 15. belong to the same source: thus
Kamphausen (Kautzsch’s 47’) refers both to the
Deuteronomie author of the pre-exilic Book of
Kings. Benzinger (4vénigqz), however, refers them
to different sources, and regards JMelech (MT
Molech) in 10 as a title of J” (cf. below). Jelech
and Milcom were originally variants of the name
of the same deity, they are both applied to the
god of Ammon; cf. 1 Καὶ 117 (J/evech here may be
a mistake), 2 Kk 23"; but at different sanctuaries
and among different peoples, one or other name
may have been specially used, with the natural
result that the J/edech of one sanctuary or one
people would be popularly distinguished from the
Milcom of another. Aalc(hjam and Aale(h)yan (if
read) are only mistaken pointines of J/i/com. The
deity as worshipped by different peoples would be
differentiated through various causes ; the sense of
the special bond between the national god and the
nation would encourage the view that this national
god was not the same as any deity worshipped else-
where ; this view would be supported by dialectic
differences between the forms of the name, e.g. the
Pheenician Milk and the Ammonite JJilcom, and
by such expansions of the name as the Phoenician
Melkart (=mp yn Milk of the City) and the
Palmyrene Malachbel ; cf. below.

The references to Milcom (1 K 115 8, 2 K 2338 -
ef. Am 1% above) and J/olech (1 K 117) as the
‘abomination’ or ‘god’ of the Ammonites, show
that Aileom or Molech was the national god of
Ammon, and stood to Ammon in the same special
henotheistic relation in which Chemosh stood to
Moab, and J” to Israel. The analogy suggests
that in practice such a relation by no means ex-
cluded the worship of other gods. But the £7 in
the name Pudu-idu, king of Ammon, on Senna-
cherib’s ‘Taylor Prism’ inscription, is merely a
general term for ‘ god,’ equivalent to Wileom; and
the same may be true of the baal in Baalis, king
of Ammon, Jer 401, Baethgen, indeed (Deitrdge,
p. 16), suggests that Baalis is a compound of Baal
and 1515, either as a double name asserting the
identity of the two, or with the meaning ‘ Spouse
of Isis,’ Isisgemahl. But Gritz explains Baalis as
ovy yz ‘son of delight’ (Oxf. Heb. Lex.). The
reading o>y3 Baalim, of some MSS, and of Jos.
(Ant. X. ix. 2),is clearly a mistake. No details of
the worship of Milecom are given; Jer 49° ‘his
priests and his princes’ implies that the priest-
hood was numerous and important. In 28 12%
the reference to Milcom’s crown weighing a talent
implies the existence at Rabbah of a great statue
of Milecom from which the crown was taken. Per-
haps the ‘Chemarim’ or priests of Zeph 1+ were

416 MOLECH, MOLOCH

MOLECH, MOLOCH

priests of Molech (cf. CieMARIM). None of the
passages which speak of child-sacrifice connect it
either with Mileom or the Ammonites, and we do
not know how far the Ammonite worship of Mileom
resembled the Phoenician worship of Melech.

iii, The worship of Moloch (Melech) in Israel
and the relation of Moloch to J” raise difficult
questions : the following facts are clear :—

(a) There was a high-place for Milcom, the god
of Ammon, on the Mount of Olives, 1 K 110 93,
2K 23", the erection of which was ascribed to
Solomon; 115: 38 are regarded as Deuteronomic, but
may embody an authentic tradition.

(ὁ) ‘Passing children through the fire to ham-
Melech’ is forbidden in Ly 1551 202345 Dt 1810
(Melech not named). 2 K 16° states that Ahaz
‘made his son to pass through the fire,’ so 21° of
Manasseh.

The Deuteronomic author of 2 K 1717 states that
the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom passed
their children through the fire. From 2 Kk 232,
Jer 7° 191-18 we learn that such sacrifices were
offered at Topheth (wh. see), in the valley of Ben
Hinnom, outside Jerusalem ; ef. Ps 106273, Ezk
1620: 21 9337-39.

(c) From Jer 19°, where the children sacrificed at
Topheth are said to be offered to Baal, it appears
that the deity thus worshipped was known both as
Baal and Melech.

(d) In Is 6° J” Zebaoth is described as ham-Melech,
‘the king,’ and is frequently spoken of as the ‘king
of Israel,’ Is 44°, cf. Jer 8! ‘her king,’ Mie 2!
‘their king.’ Further, the occurrence of such
names as Malchiram 1 Ch 3!8, Malchishua 18 14%,
Ebed-melech Jer 39%, Nathan-melech 2K 23%,
Tegem-melech Zee 7*, point to the use of Melech
as a divine name. Ebed-melech, however, was an
Ethiopian ; Nathan-melech, a eunuch, and there-
fore probably a foreigner ; and Regem-melech was
a Babylonian Jew.

These facts are variously explained. (1) Melech
and Milcom are regarded as absolutely identical,
and the child-sacritices to Melech as part of the
worship of Milcom borrowed from the Ammonites.
But Melech is probably to be distinguished from
Milcom, ef. above; pay ἐδ 2K 16° the practice of
child-sacrifice is not said to have been borrowed
from the Ammonites, but from the Canaanites, ef.
ὌΝ,

(2) The worship of Melech by child-sacrifice was
borrowed from the Canaanites, and was distinct
from the worship of Mileom. This would be sup-
ported by 2 Καὶ 16° and by the identification of Baal
and Melech in Jer 19°. Probably the Tyrian Baal,
whose worship Jezebel introduced into the Northern
Kingdom, was Melech or Melkarth.

(3) Whichever of the two previous views be
accepted, the Melech in question was quite dis-
tinct from J”. The use of Jelech as a title or
even name of J” no more identified Him with the
Pheenician Jfelech, than the use of the title or
name al identified J” with the Tyrian Bad.
As Schultz says (O7 Theol., Eng. tit, dy ΘΠ
the oldest sources of the Semitic religion, the god
who became J” for the Israelites may not have
been different from the one who became Moloch for
the Canaanites. But, since the time when Israel
and the Hamites separated, there was at any rate
no kinship between J” and Moloch, not to speak of
identity.’

(4) The Melech to whom child-sacrifices were
offered was simply J” under another name (Ben-
zinger on 2 Καὶ 93:10 ; Smend, AT’ Theol. 271). When
J” says, Jer 19°, of the child-sacrifices to Baal,
‘which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither
came it into my mind,’ the statement seems to
imply that those who offered these sacrifices
thought that they were obeying a command of Ae

οἵ. Ezk 23°". Similarly, the account of the pro-
posed sacrifice of Isaac points to the existence of
a practice of offering firstborn sons to J”, which
practice was forbidden by the prophetic revelation ;
cf. Ex 22 E, and Jephthah’s vow, Jg 11. This
view might imply either that J” and Melech were
originally one, and afterwards differentiated by
prophetic teaching; or that two distinct deities,
J” and Melech, were popularly identified. It can
searcely be that Afelech was used as a mere title
of J” in connexion with child-sacrifice, without any
reference to the Phoenician Melech.

iv. Range of Worship.—Meleci is found as a
divine name, not only in Ammon and Israel, but
in all Semitic peoples of whose religion we have
any considerable knowledge. The Assyrians and
Babylonians had a god Malik; the Sepharvites had
Adram-melech and Anam-melech, 2 K 178, The
Pheenicians worshipped Melharth = Melech Kiriath,
‘king of the city,’ at Tyre, Carthage, ete. The
Palmyrenes worshipped Malach-bel (Baudissin,
Studien, p. 193 tt.).

It is generally stated that the Moabite Chemosh
was a torm of Melech (Baethgen, Beitrage, p. 238 ;
Movers, Phon. p. 333 f.). This seems probable on
general grounds, on account of the wide extent of
the worship of Melech amongst the Semites, and
the connexion of Baal and possibly J’ with Melech ;
and the intimate racial and political relation of
Moab and Ammon. But the express testimony is
hardly conclusive. In Jg 11°! Chemosh is spoken
of as the god of the Ammonites, in a passage often
ascribed (Budde, Moore) to RJ", who should have
been well informed on the subject. But the whole
passage hopelessly confuses Ammon and Moab;
the reference to Phen: may be a slip; or the
passage may originally have referred t. Moab and
have been very impertectly adapted to its present
context ; or it may be late post-exilic. Melech in
1. 23 of the Moabite Stone is treated as a divine
name, ‘Moloch,’ by Neubauer and Sayce (HCM
367, 373), but is more probably to be translated
‘king’ with Smend and Socin.

On Sennacherib’s ‘Taylor Prism’ an Edomite
king Malik-rammu is mentioned, in which Malik
is doubtless a divine name, showing that Melech
was worshipped in Edom.

This widespread worship of Melech is regarded
as an inhevitance of the separated Semitic peoples
from the primitive stock ; but it can scarcely be
assumed that his attributes and worship were the
same amongst all the different races. Indeed, as
in the case of the Ammonite Mileom and the
Phenician Molech er Melkarth, different peoples
considered that they were worshipping different
gods. Amongst the Greeks and Romans ‘king’
or ‘the king” is not a divine name (Baethgen,
Beitrage, p. 263), though an occasional title of
various gods.

v. Attributes.—Melech, like Baal, Adon, Marna,
implies the recognition of the sovereignty of the
god over his people. The offerings by fire, the
identity with Baal, and the fact that in Assyria
and Babylonia Malik, and at Palmyra Malach-bel,
were sun-gods, suggest that Melech was a fire- or
sun-god (Jastrow, /teligion of Babylonia, p. 176 f.).

Melkarth at Tyre was identified with ercules,
at Carthage with Saturn. Such names as J/i/k-
baal, Milk-Astart, Milk-Osir, suggest identification
with Baal (as shown otherwise), Astarte, Osiris.
As in the case of Baal and other Semitic deities,
Melech had a feminine counterpart Milkat, cf.
Milcap ἀπ 1135 :

vi. Worship.—Melech was doubtless worshipped
in a similar fashion to other Semitic gods. The
feature which seems peculiar is the practice of
sacrificing children as burnt-offerings, which is
found amongst the Israelites, Phoenicians, and

MOLID

MONEY 417

Sepharvites, 2 K 1751; οἵ, Mesha’s offering of his
firstborn to Chemosh.

The theory of some Rabbis, that ‘passing through
the fire’ meant merely a ceremonial purification by
walking between two fires, is contrary to all the
evidence. But the case of Isaac (Gn 9910) seems to
show that in Israel the child was slain before the fire
was kindled. Diodorus Sieulus (xx. 14) describes
child-sacrifices at Carthage, at which the victim
was placed on the hands of a colossal image, from
which it rolled off into a pit of fire. Kimchi’s de-
scription (on 2 Kk 9510) of the hollow brazen image
of Molech within a sevenfold temple outside Jeru-
salem, and of the placing of the victim in the
hands of Molech, is a mere medieval conjecture
based on Diodorus or on some other record of the
Carthaginian sacrifices.

The object of these offerings was probably to
propitiate the deity, or show devotion to him, by
the gift of the most precious possession. Movers
(Phon. 328-330), however, holds that the children
offered were supposed to be purified from all fleshly
corruption and to attain union with the deity.

In the NT, Molech is mentioned only in St.
Stephen’s quotation, Ac 75 ; ef. Am 5°,
See also articles AMMON, BAAL,

MALCAM.

CHEMOSH,

LITERATURE. —Baethgen, Beitrdge zur Sem. Rel. pp. 11, 15, 20,
«22, 37 ff., 84, 234-238, 254, 263; Baudissin, Studien zur Sem.
Rel. i. pp. 5, 29-36, ii. 152-215, 246, ‘J” et Moloch’; Dillmann,
AT’ Theol. pp. 49, 56, 85, 98, 120, 161; Buchanan Gray, Studies
tn Heb, Proper Names, p. 146 ff. ; Kuenen, ‘J” en Moloch,’
Theol. Tijd. 1868, 539 ff.; Movers, Die Phédnizier, 1841-56,
pp. 322-414 ; Schultz, ΟΤ' Theol., Eng. tr. i. 233 ἢ.
W. H. BENNETT.
MOLID (+vbin).—The name of ἃ Judahite family,
1Ch 2% (B Mani, A Mwéad). Kittel (in SBOT)
abe out that the reading of B, namely MQHA,
as origine ‘ed from MQHA (A and A being often
confused), and that Mw7d, 1.6. ryin= vin, the
two letters y and 9 being similar in the oldest
script.

MOLLIFY (from mollis ‘soft’) is used literally
‘to soften,’ in Is 1°‘ mollified with ointment,’ and
Wis 16 ‘mollifying plaister’ (μάλαγμα). Cf.
Purchas, Pilgrimage, 213, ‘When they have killed
a great beast, they cut out all the veines and
sinewes .. . and likewise all the Suet: which
done, they dive them in water to mollifie them.’
The figurative use seems to be quite as old, and
was common about 1611, though not found in AV.
Thus Tymme, Calvin upon Genesis, p. 605 (on ch.
28), ‘It may be, that he was thus sent away, that
the cruecll mind of Esau, by so miserable a sight
might be mollified and aswaged’ (Lat. ad mollitiem
jlecterctur). So Tindale, Prol. to 1 Jn, ‘The lusts
of the flesh are subdued and killed, and the spirit
mollified and made soft.’ Cf. Knox, Works, iii. 93,
‘QO! hard ar the hartis whome so manyfold, most
sueit, and sure promissis doith not molefie.? And
in the Preface to Rhem. NT, ‘ Moreover, we pre-
sume not in hard places to mollifie the speaches or
phrases, but religiously keepe them word for word,
and point for point, for feare of missing or re-
straining the sense of the holy Ghost to our

phantasie.’ J. HASTINGS.
MOLOCH.—Sce Morecn.
MOLTEN SEA.—See TEMPLE.
MOMDIS (A Μομδείς, B Μομδεῖος), 1 Es 9%=
MAADAI, Ezr 10*4,
MONEY.—The nature and origins of money, the

importance and principles of the science of Numis-

matics and kindred topics—for which the student

is referred to the authoritative writings of Jevons,
VOL. III. —27

|
|
|

Walker, Ridgeway, Babelon (Les origines de la
monniie, 1897), Lenormant (La monnaie dans
Vantiquité, 2nd ed. 1897), Poole (art. ‘Numismatics’
in HLneycl. Brit.®), and others—fall without the
scope of an article on the money in circulation
among the Hebrews in the various periods of their
national life. This more limited, but still sutti-
ciently extensive, section of ancient numismatics
we propose to study under the following heads :—

A, UNCOINED MONEY BEFORE THE EXILF.

_

. Money in Palestine before the Conquest.
weight-standards of antiquity.

Hebrew money from the Conquest to the Exile.
value of the Shekel.

The principal

τῷ

Sterling

B. CoiseD MONEY FROM THE EXILE TO THE REIGN OF NERO.

3. The Coinage of Darius and his successors. The ‘ Shekel of

the Sanctuary.’ Coins of the Phoenician cities.

. The Coinage of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and of the
autonomous Cities of Phoenicia, to the death of Simon
Maccabwus.

The first Jewish Coinage (copper) under John Hyrcanus.
The question of the so-called Maccabwan shekels. Bronze
(copper) Coins of the Hasmonwan princes.

6. Coins of the Idumean princes.

7. The Roman Imperial Coinage, including the Coins of the

Procurators.
8. Coins of preceding 88 mentioned in the NT.

~

ἂν

C. Tue Coins oF THE REVOLTS.
9. The Coinage of the First Revolt (a.p. 66-70).
The Coinage of the Second Revolt (A.p. 132-135).
- Appendix, The purchasing power of money in Bible
times.
Literature.

UNCOINED MONEY FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES
TO THE EXILE.

81. Money in Palestine hefore the Conquest.
The principal weight - standards of antiquity.—
The oldest traditions of the Hebrews, as these
have come down to us, do not reach back to the
time when trade was still carried on by the primi-
tive system of barter. Already in the patriarchal
age the existence of a metallic currency is assumed
(cf. Gn 178 ‘he that is bought with thy money.’
ἤΘΌΞ, dit. ‘thy silver,’ and 28:58. cited below) ; and
rightly so, for, as we now know, the land of
Canaan was even at this early period far ad-
vanced in the arts of civilization, including the
use of the precious metals as media of exchange.
For the century immediately preceding the Hebrew
conquest we have the contemporary evidence of the
Tel cl-Amarna letters, which show not only that
gold and silver were in daily use as money, that
is, as media in terms of which all other merchan-
dise was valued, but also that already the ‘ nar-
rowing lust of gold’ had asserted its empire over
men (see Hugo Winckler’s or other rendering.
passim). "The value, in other words, the pur-
chasing power of these metals, was determined by
their weight—a fact which renders some acquaint-
ance with the metrology of the ancients an indis-
pensable preliminary to the study of their money.
Fortunately, the question of the origin and inter-
relation of the weight-standards of antiquity— one
of the most complicated in the whole range of
Oriental archaeology — will be discussed in the
article WEIGHTS AND MEAsuReS. It will suffice,
therefore, in this place to sketch in the barest
outline the results of the most recent metrological
research, taking as our guide the elaborate treatise
of the veteran metrologist, Friedrich Hultsch,
Die Gewichte des Alterthums nach ihrem Zusam-
menhange dargestellt (Leipzig, 1898; ef. C. F.
Lehmann, Sitzungsherihte der archdolog. Gesell-
schaft zu Berlin, 1888, and esp. the same scholar’s
Das altbabylonische Maas- und Gewwichtssystem,
Leyden, 1893; also ἃ. F. Hill, 4 Handbook of
Greck and Roman Coins, 1899, p. 26 ff.).

Proceeding from the simpler to the more com-
plex, we begin with the weight-system of Egypt,

418 MONEY

MONEY

a system characterized by extreme simplicity.
‘fwo weights only were in use from very early
times—the ket (also transliterated kat, kite, qedt,
ete.), of 140 grains, and its multiple the deben (also
transliterated uten, tabnu, etc.), equal to ten ket, or
a little over 1400 grains (Hultsch, 1403°5 grs.). The
Rhind mathematical papyrus, which dates from
the Hyksos period, contains, according to an excel-
lent authority, the earliest reference in Egyptian
literature to the metals as standards of value.
‘It is not known,’ says Mr. Griffith in his im-
portant essay, ‘Notes on Egyptian Weights and
Measures,’ in PSBA xiv. p. 436 ff, ‘how far back
into antiquity true money, 7@.e. pieces of defi-
nite weight and value, can be traced. About the
time of the 18th Dynasty we know that the
precious metals were kept in dust, in ingots, and
in ornamental forms, but more especially in rings,
and it is almost certain that the important weight-
name uten has the root- meaning of a ring or
coiled wire. It is well known not only that the
metals were bought and sold by weight, but
further, that goods of all kinds might be valued
at a certain weight of metal in order to be ex-
changed against each other.’ One of the most
frequently reproduced of contemporary illustra-
tions of the daily life of the Egyptians is the
weigher with his balance * and scales, the stone
weights of various animal forms (ox, or ox-head
only, gazelle, ete.) in the one scale balancing in
the other the rings of precious metal, which ap-
pear to have had ‘a uniform diameter of about
5 inches’ (Erman, Hgiypt, 464).

The Egyptian temple inscriptions contain numer-
ous lists of the amount of tribute paid to successive
Pharaohs by the kings and peopies of Syria, the
best known being that inscribed on the walls of
the great temple of Amon at Karnak by order of
Thothmes 11. (frequently published ; see histories
of Brugsch, Petrie, ete., under Thothmes). From
the mass of detail in this list three typical entries
may be selected as having an important bearing
on the topic of this section. (1) The tribute of
Naharina in Thothmes’ thirty-third year (B.C. 1471
ace. to Mahler’s chronology) consisted, inter alia,
of 45 deben 1 ket of gold; (2) that of ‘the great
Khita,’ or Hittites, comprised among other items
8 silver rings weighing 301 deben; (3) in the
thirty-fourth year ‘the tribute of the princes of
the land of Retennu,’ or Palestine, shows, inter
alia, 55 deben 8 ket of gold. From these and
similar fractional weights (45,45 deben, 554 deben,
and, since we know that the gold and silver rings
were accurately adjusted to definite weights, the
curious number 301 deben) metrologists have long
suspected that the tribute here specified had been
re-weighed before being entered as above by the
Egyptian recorder, its original weight having been
in terms of another system and in whole numbers
(J. Brandis, Das Miunz-, Maas-, und Gewichts-
wesen in Vorderasien, 1866, p. 91 ff; Fr.
Hultsch, Griechische und rémische Metrologie,
zweite Bearbeitung, 1882, 374ff. [this work to be
often cited in the sequel as Hultsch, JJetrol.*] ;
id. Gewichte des Alterthums, 1898, 25 1). This
second weight-system in use in Syria and Palestine
in the 15th cent. B.C., it was inferred, could only
be that known as the Babylonian system. This
inference was raised to a certainty by the dis-
covery of the Tel el-Amarna clay tablets, which con-
clusively proved the exclusive use of the Babylonian
weights by all the peoples of Mesopotamia and Syria
at the date in question.t Here we find not only

* For the construction of the Egyptian balance, see Flinders
Petrie, A Season in Egypt, p. 42, and pl. xx. ; also art. BALANCE
in this Dictionary, by the same authority.

+t The importance of this testimony was first noted by C. F.

Lehmann, ‘ Aus dem Funde von Tel-el-Amarna’ in the Zeitsch.
f, Assyriologie, iii. 391-393.

the sovereiens of Babylonia, such as Kallimasin (see
Winckler’s Yel-el-Amarna Tablets, 21 21 §#4- 27 32)
and Burnaburyash (74+ 14), reckoning their gold
and silver by shekels, minas, and talents, but
also the kings of the West, such as Dushratta of
Mitanni (17°: 5-6) and the king of Alashia, which
is Cyprus (25! 269 27!8 33°—in three cases the metal
is copper), employing the same system.”

This system, which is based on the mina, with
its subdivision (ἰοῦ) the shekel and its multiple
the talent (60 minas), was in use in Babylonia
from time immemorial. From the evidence of
inscribed stone-weights dating from the reigns of
Gudea and Dungi, 1.6. from the first half of the
third millennium B.c., Dr. C. F. Lehmann has
recently proved in numerous essays (see esp. Das
altbabylonische Maas- und Gewichtssystem, 1893)
that what may be called the common trade mina
was a weight averaging 4912 grammes=circa
7580 grains. The sixtieth part of this trade mina
was the shekel of ὁ. 126 grains,t while the talent
consisted, as above indicated, of 60 minas, or 3600
shekels. The temple accounts from Tello further
show that about B.c. 2000 the shekel was sub-
divided into 180 shé (G. Reissner, ‘ Altbabylonische
Masse u. Gewichte,’ in the Sitzungsb. εἰ. Berliner
Akad. εἰ. Wissensch, 1896, pp. 417-490). Side by
side with the above series ot trade weights was a
parallel series of the same denominations, but of
double the weight. The latter are known as the
heavy shekel (252 grains), mina, and talent re-
spectively, to distinguish them from the light
shekel (126 grs.), mina, and talent first mentioned.
All these were employed. for the weighing of
ordinary merchandise. For weighing the preci-
ous metals, on the other hand, important altera-
tions were made in the scale. Thus, for gold, the
shekel of 126 (and 252) erainst was retained, but
a new mina of 50, instead of 60, shekels was
created, the talent of gold, however, still com-
prising 60 of these new minas of ὁ. 6320 (12,640)
grains, and therefore 3000 shekels, as compared
with the trade talent of 3600 shekels. For silver,
as money, the weights were on a different scale,
being to the weights for gold just enumerated in
the ratio of 4:3; in other words, the light Baby-
lonian silver shekel=168 grains, the mina of 50
shekels = 8400 ers., and the talent = 60 minas
(with, as before, their respective Acavy denomina-
tions of double these weights). It has been custom-
ary since Brandis (see op. cit.) to account for this
double scale for the precious metals by the long-
prevailing ratio of gold to silver in early times,
viz. 40:3, which means that an ingot of gold was
worth 134 times its weight in silver. The ex-
treme awkwardness of this proportion for every-
day transactions, if the metals were to be weighed
on one and the same standard, scarcely needs to
be pointed out. Hence, in order that a given
weight of gold might be exchangeable for a whole
(not a fractional) number of bars or wedges of
silver, the weight of the silver shekel (mina,
talent) was raised till it stood to that of the gold
shekel in the proportion of 4:3. The practical
result of this alteration was that a given weight
of gold was always equivalent to ten times the
same weight of silver (1 gold shekel=10 silver
shekels, 2 ninas of gold =20 minas of « ‘Iver, ete.).§

*The statement $89 is noteworthy. Bur sh com-
plains that the king of Egypt had sent him no)
of gold, but, when tested, this quantity had sh
of fine gold ! ᾿

+ Throughout this article fractions have bee) La, except

where special accuracy seemed to be required; ᾿

t The reader is reminded that an ounce troy weight contains
480 grains; the light Babylonian gold shexel, therefore, is
slightly over } 0z. troy, and only three grain. heavier than an
English sovereign (see Table, below). ᾿

§ The equation of the two metals may be sstated more ex-
plicitly thus: 1 gold shekel of 126 grs.=126 x 133, or 1680 grs

2

MONEY

MONEY 419

This extremely convenient ratio between the
respective denominations was not, however, uni-
versally adopted in the East. The great mercantile
cities of the Pheenician coast when, at a later
veriod, they began to strike coins, employed a
henry silver shekel of circa 224 grains—hence
universally known as the Pheenician shekel—with
its companion light shekel of 112 grains. This
shekel was one of the most widely spread of all the
weights of antiquity, being found not only through-
out Syria, but in Western Asia Minor, and even
in Greece (for further details and discussion as to
origin, etc., see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES). — It
stands, as a glance will show, to the heavy Baby-
lonian silver shekel in the proportion of 2:8 ; *
consequently with gold to silver in the ratio of
134: 1, the gold shekel of 252 (126) grains is
equivalent to fifteen Phoenician silver shekels of
224 (112) grains, since 252 x 135 =224x 15. On the
Pheenician silver standard, as on the Babylonian,
50 shekels went to the mina, and 60 minas to the
talent,

In addition to all the above weights on the
common standard, we find still another parallel
series on the so-called royal standard—the origin
of which can only be conjectured,—the latter being
simply the common weights raised by a certain
percentage. Thus the gold shekel on the royal
standard weighs 130 (and 260) in place of 126 (and
252) grains. The first of these weights, the light
royal shekel of 130 grains, plays an important
part in the subsequent history of the gold coinage
of Western Asia (see below, §'3).+

The Babylono- Phoenician weight-system, as
outlined above, clearly stands in an intimate
relation to the Egyptian. Happily, the long-stand-
ing feud between Assyriologists and Egyptologists
as to the relative antiquity of the two systems
does not here concern us, but the fact remains that
the Babylonian gold shekel of 126 grains is exactly
7 ths, the Babylonian silver shekel of 168 grains
$ths, and the Pheenician silver shekel of 224 ers.
$ths of the Egyptian weight-unit, the ket of 140
grains—results which cannot be the ‘accident of an
accident.’

ὃ 2. Hebrew money from the Conquest to the
Exile. Sterling value of the shekel.—The evidence
of the tribute-lists of Thothmes ur. and other
Egyptian monarchs, confirmed by the more explicit
data of the Tel el-Amarna letters, may now be
taken as proving beyond a doubt that, in taking
possession of the land of Canaan, the Hebrews
settled among a people long accustomed to the use
of gold and silver as the recognized media of ex-
change, and to the use of the balance for estimat-
ing the amount of each metal to be given or
received. We have not yet been fortunate enough
to recover inscribed Canaanite weights of this early
period, so that one is compelled to admit at the
outset that we have no direct witness to the weight
of the ancient Hebrew shekel.t Still the facts
adduced in the foregoing section regarding the
wide diffusion, in space and time, of the Babylono-
Pheenician weight-system, afford at least a strong

of silver, since gold was to silver in the ratio of 13}:1.
Dividing this amount of silver into 10 equal parts, we see that
1 gold shek«’ of 126 grs. =10 silver shekels of 168 grs.

πο {115 ~336-Ci6s)-< * 2-3,

t Prof Ridgeway, in his elaborate work, The Origin of

Moe rency and Weight- Standards (1892), has en-

‘h much ingenuity and learning to prove (1) that

.6] of 130 grains lies at the basis of all the weight-

.tiquity, and (2) that originally ‘it was nothing

more lu amount of gold which represented the value of

eee the nit of barter throughout all Europe, Asia, and
rica.’

{ Whatever nay have been the standard of weight in use
among the EH brews before the conquest, there need be no
hesitation in «firming that from that epoch onwards the
ea adopted the standards of the country in which they
settled.

presumption in favour of our accepting it as the
system by which money was reckoned in Old
Testament times. This presumption is confirmed

by the following testimonies of the historian
Josephus. In the fourteenth book of his An-
]

tiquities he informs us that Crassus robbed the
temple of a beam of solid gold 3800 minas in weight,
and adds the following important sentence : ‘7 δὲ
μνᾶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἰσχύει λίτρας δύο ἥμισυ᾽ (XIV. vil. 1, ed.
Niese, § 106). ‘The Hebrew gold mina, therefore,
was equal in weight to 25 Roman pounds, or
12,630 grains (taking the debra [λίτρα] according to
the best authorities at 5058 grains = 327°45 grammes,
see Hultsch, Jetrol.2 159-161), which gives 50
shekels of 252°6 grains, the exact weight of the
heavy Babylonian shekel (8.1). In another passage
of the same work, Josephus informs us that the
Hebrew silver shekel is equivalent to ‘four Attic
drachms’ ( Αττικὰς δέχεται δραχμὰς τέσσαρας, Ant. 11.
vill. 10, N. ὶ 194), by which is meant, as will be shown
in the sequel (§ 7), four Roman denarii of 55-56
grains each. This is in complete agreement with
the weights of the best specimens of the extant
silver shekels, which weigh 218-220 grains, as
near an approximation as ancient silver coins in
general show to the theoretical standard (in this
case 224 vrs.).* These conclusions are summed

| up in the following table, which gives the scale

by which it is assumed, throughout this article,
that gold and silver were weighed from the con-
quest of Canaan to the extinction of Jewish
nationality, the weight of the shekel being given
to the nearest large fraction :—

GOLD STANDARD.

HEAVY. LIGHT.
Shekel ὁ A 2525 grs. troy 1 1263 grs.
Mina = 50shekels 12,630 ,, ἀν 6, 516 Ὁ
Talent=3000__,, 758,0002 ,, δ 379,000 ,.
SILVER STANDARD.
Shekel . i 4 2243 ers. troy 3 112} grs
Mina = 50shekels 11,2254 ,, ἢ διίᾳυ:,,
Talent=3000 __,, 673,50095 ,, a 336,790 - ,,

Notes.

1. The standard weight of the English sovereign (20 shillings)
is 123-274 grains troy. The ordinary or heavy gold shekel,
therefore, weighed a little more than two sovereigns.

2. Since a pound avoirdupois contains 7000 grains, the Hebrew
gold talent weighed ὁ. 108 lb., rather less than a hundred weight
(112 1b.).

3. Rather more than the weight of an English half-crown
(218 grs.).

4. As the pound troy contains 5760 grs. the silver mina may
be taken as = circa 2 troy pounds, or more precisely 1! Ib.
avoirdupois.

5. Circa 96} Ib. avoir., a heavy load for a man to carry (see
2 K 528),

At this point the question naturally suggests
itself as to the value in sterling money of the
Hebrew shekel as gold and silver unit respectively.
Since the English sovereign is only eleven parts pure
gold to one part alloy, the mere comparison of the
respective weights of sovereign and shekel, as in
the preceding table, note 1, is not sufticiently
accurate for our present purpose. We prefer, there-
fore, to base our calculations on the price at which
the Royal Mint buys its gold, viz. £3, 17s. 104d.
(934°5 pence) per ounce of 480 grains. This gives
us as nearly as possible £2, 15. sterling as the
value of the Hebrew gold shekel. The gold mina,
accordingly, we value at £102, 10s., and the talent
at £6150.

The calculation of the intrinsic value of the
silver shekel must be even more carefully set about.
By many previous writers the important fact has
been overlooked, that the silver currency of this
country is but money of account, our only standard
being gold. In other words, the coin which we
call a shilling, of which the standard weight is

* See also the discussion of ‘the shekel of the sanctuary,’ § 3.

420 MONEY

MONEY

87.272. grains, is not worth that weight of silver
at so much an ounce,* but has its value legally
fixed as the twentieth part of the gold unit or
sovereign, Hence, in order to arrive at even an
approximate valuation in our currency of any
weight of silver anciently used as money, whether
coined or uncoined, we must know in each case the
ratio then existing between gold and silver. In
the period of Hebrew history with which we are
now dealing, this ratio, as we have already learned,
appears to have been fixed as 13°3.:1, which
resulted in the convenient adjustment that one
gold shekel of 252 grains was equal in value to
fifteen silver shekels of 224 grains (ἃ 1). This gives
us, Without further calculation, the value of the
Hebrew or Phoenician silver shekei as ,'sth of
41 shillings, or 2s. 84d., say 2s. 9d. The same
proportion holds with regard to the silver mina and
shekel, which are τς πὶ of the same denominations
in gold, viz. £6, 16s. 8d. and £410 respectively. It
will be convenient to have these values in tabular
form for easy reference.

VALUES OF ANCIENT HEBREW MONEY IN
STERLING MONEY.+

GOLD. SILVER.
Shekel . . £2°-1.°0 £0 2 9 nearly
Mina Ἂ 102 10 Ὁ 6 16

Talent . . 6150 0 0 410 0 0

It cannot be
throughout the
return from the

too strongly emphasized that
whole period ending with the
Exile there can be no question

of coined money. For every transaction of the
least importance the balance had to be employed,
and the tale of silver duly determined by weight.
Thus, in the incident of Abraham’s purchase of
the cave of Machpelah, though its present record
may be late, we have a lifelike picture of how
business was done in pre-exilic times. The price
having been fixed in approved Oriental style,
‘Abraham,’ we read, ‘weighed to Ephron the
silver which he had named, four hundred shekels
of silver, current (money) with the merchant’
(and ray aca Gn 9316). del, as a late Targum has
correctly paraphrased it, in ‘good silver passing at
every (banker's) table and receivable in all trans-
actions.” The weights employed were of stone, and
were kept in a bag (hence Pr 16!! o> ‘32x ‘the
weights [lit. stones] of the bag’). From the
earliest of the prophetic writings onwards, we find
repeated warnings against the use of unjust
weights (Am 8°, Mic 6, Pr 11! 9010. 33). and both
the Deuteronomic and the Levitical codes find it
necessary to issue strict injunctions against the
falsification of the balance and its weights (Dt
2513-16) Ly 19%. 36; cf. Ezk 2613. to be read in the
light of the Gr. text). It is somewhat remark-
able, however, that we nowhere find any attempt
to regulate the fineness of the silver, which seni
shows that there was as yet no thought of a preper
coinage, the essential characteristic of which is the
guarantee by the State of the quality as well as
the quantity of the metal. It must not be thought,
however, that it was necessary to have recourse to
the balance for every transaction however small.
On the contrary, there is ample evidence that the
precious metals circulated in the form of ingots of
nown weight. Saul’s servant, for example, had
with him an ingot t of the weight of a quarter of
a shekel (18 9°). In the case of large sums, and
especially in official and legal payments where

* This is the fallacy which vitiates the calculation of the
values of the NT silver coins given in the margins of our AV
(see below, $$ 7, 8).

_ + These figures give merely the intrinsic value of the metal ;
its purchasing power, as compared with these sums to-day, was
many times greater (see § 11).

{It is an anachronism to speak of it as a coin, as in the

Internat. Crit. Cumm. (1899) ad loc.

great accuracy was necessary, as well as in cases
where the parties concerned were not well kno yn
to each other, the money was invariably weighed.
Hence the word shakal (9pv), to ‘weigh,’ is used as
synonymous with ‘pay’ (Ex 2215 1 K 10%, Is 55?
ete.). In illustration of this extensive use of the
balanee in the most varied transactions, it will
suffice to refer to such additional passages as 2 Καὶ
12-11 RV (where the money is both ‘told’ and
να δα θ᾽), Jer 32°40, Is 46%, ἀν 8% 2°,

The custom of wearing ornaments of an accur-
ately determined weight—such were Rebekah’s
gold nose-ring of half a shekel weight and her
bracelets of ten shekels, Gn 24°?—would naturally
tend to facilitate their use on occasion as money.
The ‘wedge (lit. tongue) of gold of fifty shekels
weight’ purloined by Achan was probably an orna-
ment of some sort (Jos 72). The ring-money so
popular in Egypt, to which allusion has already
been made (§ 1), does not appear to have been
current among the Hebrews.* ‘The nature of the
piece of money—for such it surely must have been
—called késitah (πῦρ Gn 33”, Jos 2455, and Job 424
only) is quite unknown. From the fact that the
oldest versions render it by ‘lamb’ or ‘sheep,’ it is
a plausible conjecture, but nothing more, that the
hésitah may have been a piece of precious metal,
the value of which was in some way indicated by
its having a lamb stamped upon itt (see art.
IKK ESITAH, and add to the reff. there given, Hultsch,
Metrol.* pp. 460-63, who attempts to determine its
value from utterly insufficient data, and Ridgeway,
Metal Currency, pp. 270-72 [with illustrations],
who concludes ‘ that the gesitah was an old unit of
barter like the Homerie ox, and as the latter was
transformed into a gold unit so the former was
superseded by an equivalent of silver’).

Before we pass from this section, it may be
added that the predominant use of the shekel as
the monetary unit in ordinary transactions has
led to its frequent omission in statements of price
in the OT. Joseph, for example, was sold for
‘twenty (shekels, AV pieces) ot silver,’ Solomon
paid for his Egyptian chariots ‘six hundred of
silver’ apiece (see complete list of such omissions
in Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 15). It is worthy
of note, tinally, that the mina (732 in Ezk 4512 by
AV transliterated ‘maneh,’ elsewhere in OT and
NT ‘pound’) does not occur in any pre-exilic
writing. The price of a chariot we have just
seen was ‘600 shekels,’? not ‘12 minas’; Achan’s
wedge weighed ‘50 shekels,’ not ‘one mina,’—
examples might be multiplied indefinitel y,—while
large sums are quoted by talents and shekels only.
From among the latter may be singled out
Solomon’s annual revenue of 666 talents of gold
(1 Καὶ 104, 2 Ch 9}8) = £4,095,900, as also the incredible
total of David’s Temple Fund, which, according to
the Chronicler, amounted to the colossal sum of
one thousand and twenty-five millions sterling
(£1,025,000,000) ! ὃ

*G. Hoffmann, in Zeit. f. Assyriol. ii. (1887) 48f., has pro
posed to render the obscure word 133 of Job 2224.29 (AV gold,
RV treasure, RVm ‘ Heb. ore’) by ‘ ring-gold,’ 7.e. gold circulat-
ing in the form of rings, but on insufficient grounds.

+ Compare the Assyrian ingots stamped with ‘the head of
Istar of Nineveh,’ to which Babelon refers in Les Origines de la
Monnaie, p. 58, and those apparently stamped with a plant, to
which Mr. Pinches has called our attention. These stamped
ingots were the precursors of true coins. (Cf. now, Johns, ‘ Did
the Assyrians coin Money?’ Expos. Noy. 1899).

t For this and other reasons the MT of 2 Ch 916 giving ‘ three
hundred (mw) of gold,’ viz. shekels, is to be preferred to, and
to be substituted for, the text of the parallel passage 1 K 1017
‘three minas (n)39) of gold,’ and not vice versa, as most modern
critics. This disposes of the hasty inference which several
writers have drawn from these passages, that in the time of the
Chronicler the mina was computed to contain 100 light shekels
or drachms (cf. below, §§ 3, 4).

§ ‘One hundred thousand talents of gold and a thousand
thousand talents of silver’ (1 Ch 2214).

MONEY

MONEY 421

Δ. COINED MONEY FROM THE PERSIAN PERIOD
TO THE REIGN OF NERO.

§ 3. Invention of the art of Coining. Money of
Darius and his successors. The ‘Shekel of the
Sanctuary.’ —Modern research tends to confirm the
statement of Herodotus (i. 94), that coins are an
invention of the Lydians. To the reign of Gyges
[6. 700 B.C.] may perhaps be ascribed the earliest
essays in the art of coining (Head, Hist. Namorum,
p. xxxill; to this work, to Babelon, Les Origines
dela Monnaie, and the other works mentioned at
the head of this article, the student is referred for
full discussion of the question as to the invention
of coining, the process employed, ete.). Wherein,
it may be asked, does a true coin differ from the
ingots of gold and silver of specified weight so long
in use in the ancient world?) We answer that an
ingot becomes a coin when it receives the impression
of an oficial mark—called by numismatists the
‘type’ of the coin—which serves as a_ public
guarantee of its weight and fineness, and hence of
its value in the currency of the country. When
the last band of Jewish exiles left for the land of
their captivity (B.C. 586) true coins had circulated
in western Asia Minor and Greece for about a
century, but there is no evidence that this economic
revolution had atfected Palestine. Forty years
later (B.C. 546 or 548, ace. to Winckler, Unter-
suchungen zur altorient. Gesch. 131) Cyrus gained
his decisive victory over Croesus king of Lydia,
who had reorganized the currency of his kingdom
(Head, Coinage of Lydia and Persia, 19%., H. ist.
Num. 546), introducing a gold stater, the famous
κροίσειος στατήρ, Of the weight of the light Baby-
lonian gold shekel (126 ers.), and a corresponding
silver stater or shekel* of 168 ers. Lenormant,
Head, and others consider that Cyrus continued
the issue of these coins from the mint at Sardis;
but Babelon has shown that this view is untenable
(Les Perses Achéménides, Introd. iif.), and that
the royal coinage of Persia was first issued by
Darius Hystaspis (B.C. 522-485). Darius’ coins
were of two denominations—(1) a stater of pure
gold (χρυσίον καθαρώτατον, Herod. iv. 166), weighing
130 grs. and circulating throughout Asia and
Europe under the designation στατὴρ δαρεικός or
daric ;+ and (2) a silver coin of almost 87 grts.,
known as the σίγλος μηδικός or Median shekel.t
The former was the light Babylonian shekel on
the royal standard (see § 1),—otherwise one half
of the corresponding heavy shekel (260 grs.) repre-
sented at this period by the popular gold coin
known as the stater of Phocea (Babelon, op. cit.
iv f.; Head, op. cit. 506; see also footnote),—while
the latter, the s¢glos, was one half of the light
Babylonian silver shekel on the same standard.
These were in all probability the first coins to cir-
culate among the Jews. No 1 of the plate of illns-
trations shows a gold darie of the Persian kings,
the type of which is fairly constant throughout.
The obverse represents the king as an archer,
bearded, crowned with the cidaris, and kneeling
right ; clad in long robe with left knee bare, he
holds a bow in his outstretched left hand, and in
his right a spear. The reverse is not occupied by

* It is of great importance, in view of subsequent discussions,
to observe that the word στατήρ, stater (from ἵστηωι in the sense
of ‘to weigh’), is the true Gr. equivalent of the Semitic sheked,
of which σίγλος (see below) is a transliteration.

+ The word daric (δαρεικές) has probably no etymological
connexion with Darius (Old Pers. Darayavaus), but is rather to
be traced to the Assyrian dariku, applied to a piece of money in
the reign of Nabonidus.

+ The sigdos, it must be observed, is in reality a half-shekel,
being ys,th of the Babylonian silver mina. Inasmuch as the
term. stater, as the equivalent of shekel, represents 7th of the
mina, the Greeks applied the term dpzy7, drachm, to the half-
stater, or y4,th part. From this point of view, the daric—while

a stater or shekel on the light Babylonian standard—might be
regarded as a irachm on the heavy standard (see below).

a ‘type’ but by an irreeular oblong ‘incuse.
The type of the siglos closely resemiles that of the
daric, but is less constant. In sterling money the
daric (130 grs. of pure gold), on the basis of calcula-
tion adopted in § 1, was worth £1, 15. ld., say one
guinea, and, since the gold unit was equal to twenty
of the silver unit* (on the basis of 13°3:1; εἶ
Xen. Anwh, i. 7. 18), the sigdos was worth a fraction
more than a shilling.

The daric and siglos, we have said, are the first
coins that can possibly have circulated in Pales-
tine, which formed part of the fifth satrapy
(Babelon, op. cit. xxf.). Is there any reference to
either in the Hebrew literature of the period ?
Our Revisers reply in the aflirmative, since in six
passages of the historical work Chronicles-Ezra-
Nehemiah (see Driver, 501" 516) they have sub-
stituted ‘darics’ for the ‘drams’ (i.e. drachms) of
AV (1 Ch 297, Ezr 2° 827, Neh 77-77), The
original has js277 except in 1 Ch 297, Ezr 827, where
we find favx.+ The first passage must be set
aside as a pure anachronism. Of the remainder,
Neh 7°" and its parallel Ezr 2% bring extracts
from an earlier document recording the contribu-
tions for religious purposes given on the occasion
of the return under Cyrus, tc. nearly tiventy years
before the introduction of the daric, while Ezr 82
refers not to money but to the weight (1000
‘adarkonim) Ὁ of ‘twenty basins of gold.’ Since,
then, the darkemon is clearly a weight and not a
coin, it scarcely can be anything but the word
dpaxun, the standing designation among the Greeks
for the τὸ σαι part of the mina. This conclusion is
confirmed by the following considerations: (1)
Lucian’s Greek text has δραχμάς throughout ; (2)
darkemon was the recognized Semitic transerip-
tion of δραχμή, as is proved by a Phoenician in-
scription from the Pirewus, in which a colony of
Sidonians there (prob. in the 3rd cent. B.C.) vote
two sums of twenty darkemonim (p22277)§ each to
defray the expense of a gold crown and a gilded
stele in honour of a countryman, ‘ Shemabaal, son
of Magon.’

In attempting to estimate the value of the
darkemon or drachm as the weight in terms of
which the contributions are entered in Nehemiah’s
lists, we would lay stress on the fact above indi-
cated, that the drachm is essentially the hundredth
part of the mina—in other words, @ half-shekel.
Now if, as we believe, the Hebrew gold shekel par
excellence was the heavy shekel of 252-260 grains,
and if, as is most probable, the original entries
were made on the Persian or Jight Babylonian
royal standard, of which the shekel was 130 grs.
(the weight of the later daric), we can understand
why a Jewish author—or, it may be, editor—to
avoid possible ambiguity, should have altered
the original light shekels into the equivalent
drachms (either being yj 5th of the Hebrew gold
mina). If this be so, the total amount of gold
contributed by ‘the Tirshatha (1000 drachms), the

* This proportion of 20 to 1, first adopted by Darius, is still
maintained in most currencies at the present day (cf. sovereign
and shilling, ‘ Napoleon’ and france, etc.).

t For the conflicting views of scholars as to the etymology of
these words, see sub }12377 in Oaf. Lex. (Brown-Brigys-Driver)
and reff. there. Also Madden, Coins of the Jews, 46; Hultsch,
Metrol.2 485. 2.

{ The interesting corruptions in the Greek text of A and B (é30y-
dpuxpavery—odovyauaeve) seem to prove that the original here
was 0°312377 darkémonim, as in the other passages just cited.

§ In line 8, owing probably to a slip of the engraver, the word
is written 0°3277, On the strength of this, Ed. Meyer in his
detailed discussion of Neh 77f. in his Entstehung αἰ. Judenthums,
196 ff., takes 0°3379 as=gold darics and 0°3377 as= Attic (silver)
drachms ; but it is much more likely that the same denomina-
tion, viz. Attic gold drachms, is intended throughout (cf. the
interesting parallels from the Greek Corpus given by Lidzbarski,
Handb. d. nordsemit. Epigraphik (1898), pp. 124 and 160. The
inscription itself, ἐδ. pl. viii. 6, in square characters, pe 425:
Other literature apud Bloch, Phén. Glossar. p. 6).

422 MONEY

MONEY

chief of the fathers (20,000), and the rest of the
people (20,000),’ is equal to 41,000 drachms, darics,
vr guineas.* In the same way the mina (EV
pound), by which the silver contributions are

reckoned, can hardly be other than the Perso-—

Babylonic royal mina, of which the later siglos was
the hundredth part.
aA,th of the daric, its mina was equal to five darics,
snd the total contributions (4200 minas, Neh
77.72) to 21,000 darics, that is, to circa as many
guineas.

The shekel (178 grs.) of this mina, of which the
siglos is the half-shekel (see above), is perhaps
intended in the reference Neh 5” to the table
allowances of Nehemiah as a high official of
Artaxerxes I. Longimanus (see Babelon, op. ctf.
p. 6f., for the coins of this sovereign). ‘The satraps
of the Great King enjoyed to a limited extent
(Lenormant, La monnaie dans Cantig. iW. 10 1.,

Since the latter was in value |

the LXX (εἴκοσι ὀβολοί). ἢ The obol is, of course, the
sixth of the Attic drachm, at this period =c. 11:24
ers., twenty of which give us a shekel of 224 grs.
(cf. Josephus’ statement (Ant. ILL vi. 7) that the
Heb. talent =100 (Attic) minas, 7.¢. 3000 shekels =
ae ite drachms or 60,000 obols ; hence 1 shekel =20
obols).

(2) The testimony of the New Testament and
Jousephus.—In the 1st cent. the amount of the tax
paid by every adult Jew for the maintenance of
the temple services had long been fixed at half a
shekel, which, since the tax was ultimately Lased
on Ex 30" (see next paragraph), must necessarily
have been the ‘sacred’ shekel. Now, on a well-
known occasion in the life of our Lord (Mt 17":),

the amount due by two persons was paid by a
καίουν, which can only bea tetradrachm of Antioch

and esp. Babelon, op. cif. xxiff.) the privilege of

issuing silver (not gold) coins in their own name.
With one of these, Bagoas, satrap of Egypt
(e, 345-343) under Artaxerxes ΠῚ. Ochus, 15
generally identified the Bagoses of Josephus (Ant.
ΧΙ. vil. 1, N. § 297), who under the circumstances

ἥμισυ, the half-shekel.

there recorded imposed a tax of 50 shekels upon |

every lamb offered in the daily sacrifice. These
must have been either Persian shekels, as above, or,
since Bagoas’ Egyptian coinage is entirely on the
Phoenician standard (see ap. Babelon, pp. 52-55),
shekels on the Hebrew-Phoenician standard (224
ers. ).

~ Since the document known as the Priests’ Code
(P) is now universally recognized as having first
received public sanction under the governorship of
Nehemiah (6. 444 B.c.), we have reserved for this
section the discussion of the monetary unit adopted
therein for various important payments, viz. the
so-called ‘ghekel of the sanctuary’ + (e370 972, more

srobably ‘sacred shekel’), regarding which so
] «' ᾽ δ DoD |

much has been written and so many conjectures
hazarded. The expression occurs in the following

A;

passages of P only : Ex 3013- 4 882-26. Ly 51 27%, |

Nu 327: 8 7-86 (14 times) 1516. and in these it is used
not only of silver and gold but of spices (Ex 30°")
and presumably copper (9859),
impression we derive from Ly 27° (‘ all thy estima-
tions shall be reckoned according to the shekel of
the sanctuary’) that part of P’s aim is to introduce
a uniform shekel for all transactions.
numbers given Ex 38°", an easy calculation proves
that 3000 ‘sacred’ shekels went to the talent.
What, then, is the value of P’s shekel? Let us
examine (1) The testimony of the teat andthe
versions. In four of the passages cited (Ex 30”,
Ly 272, Nu 347 18!) the ‘shekel of the sanctuary’
is defined as consisting of 20 gerahs (5733 ΠῚ} os),
words which Ezekiel had already applied to his
shekel (45').§ Now the gerah—whether its original
meaning be a seed-grain generally, or specially the
seed of the carob tree (Léw, Aramdische Pflanzen-
namen, p. 317) or the lupin (Ridgeway, op. cit. 217)
—was most probably a small Babylonian weight
(ef. the girw of Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions, used
in connexion with money, see Muss-Arnolt, Lex.
s.v.), identified by Talmudic writers with the ΠΝ
or obol, by which it is rendered in the Targum of
Onkelos. The same identification is adopted by

*The first being the weight of the whole, the second its
equivalent in the later coinage of Darius, the third the same in
sterling money.

+ This rendering probably presupposes that the standard
weight was kept in the temple in accordance with a well-attested
ancient custom. But this hardly suits the exilic or early post-
exilic origin of P.

t In this, as in so much else, P continues the policy of Ezekiel,
who appears to contemplate a simplification of the standard
measures (4510-12),

§ Hence it is possible that the words in question are every-
where in P a gloss introduced from this passage of Ezekiel.

From the |

This confirms the |

or of Tyre (see 88 4, 7, 8), both of them slightly
reduced from the standard weight of 224 grs.t+
Josephus, also, in his references to this tax, uses
in one place (Ant. XVUI. ix. 1) the same word as the
evangelist (τὸ δίδραχμον ; ef. Mt 17%), in another
(Wars, VIL. vi. 6) the equivalent δύο δραχμάς, while
in a third (ἀπέ. I. viii. 2) he writes σίκλου τὸ
(3) The testimony of the
Talmud. The Talmud repeatedly lays down the
canon that all sums mentioned in the Pentateuch
are to be reckoned in the money of Tyre (ΝΣ 953,
see reff. in Zuckermandel, Ueber talmnudische Ge-
wichte u. Mimzen, pp. 5, 15); and in particular in
Bekhoroth viii. 7,- with reference to the very
passages we are discussing, we read that ‘all pay-
ments according to the sacred shekel are to be made
in Tyrian (i.e. Phoenician) currency,’ in other words,
according to the Hebrew-Pheenician shekel of 224
ers. On the strength of this threefold testimony,
we are justified in maintaining that ‘the shekel of
the sanctuary’ is nothing but the ancient silvei
shekel of the country, fifteen of which (at 224 grs.)
we saw ($1) to be equivalent to the gold shekel of
253 ers. It was ‘sacred,’ not only as having been
associated with the payment of the priestly dues
from time immemorial, but also as being the speci-
fically Hebrew shekel, just as the Hebrew language
was distinguished from all others as ‘the sacred
tongne (πα 0.05). Some epithet of the kind was
required in early post-exilic times to distinguish
this shekel from the Perso-Babylonic shekel of
168-173 grs. (see next paragraph), which may
well have been the only shekel then officially
recognized in Judea, a province of the Persian
empire.

The date of the institution of the temple tax of
half a shekel, above referred to, has been the
subject of much discussion. It does not appear
to have been contemplated by the original framers
of the Priests’ Code,t since we find the community,
immediately after ratifying that code, charging
themselves ‘yearly with the third part of a shekel
for the service of the house’ (Neh 10% Heb. 38),
Since the Hebrew- Phoenician shekel is never
divided otherwise than by halves and quarters,
this must be the official Perso-Babylonian shekel
(4=56-58 grs., worth ¢. 8$d.). At a later date,
certainly before the time of the Chronicler (6. 300
B.c.; ef. 2Ch 2459), the tax was raised by the

* The LXX gives the same rendering to the obscure 403 ΤΩΝ
1S 236 only (AV a piece of silver, LXX ὀβολοῦ ἀργυρίου). This
word is probably to be restored in the Marseilles sacrificial
tablet (CLS i. 165 ; Lidzbarski, Nordsem. Epigraphik, 428), line
12, where Driver (Authority and Archwology), 1899) renders
10 g[erah] each.’ (In 2nd ed. “10 af{gorahs?],’ with note that
perhaps same as the gerah). Lenormant (La monnaie, i. 107)
thought he had discovered the word girv in an Egyp. papyrus.

+ The effective weight of good specimens of the extant half-
shekel lies between 108 and 110 grs. .

t Were Ex 3011-16 a late addition to the code, inserted with a
view to legalizing the half-shekel tax, as some modern critics
hold, the fact of its being an annual contribution would surely
have been emphasized.

MONEY

MONEY 423

priestly authorities+-appealing, no doubt, to the
passage in Exodus—to half the native shekel (112
grs., worth c. Is. 43d.).

The daric and siglos, we have said, were the
first coins to have legal currency in Judwa. But
soon after Nehemiah’s time another silver coinage
made its appearance. In the second half of the
5th cent. the wealthy commercial cities on the
Mediterranean seaboard had begun to issue silver
money under their native kings.* Aradus, Sidon,
Tyre, and Gaza were among the greatest trade
centres of the period. The ‘men of ‘lyre,’ we may
be sure, were not the only traders that brought
‘all manner of ware’ to Jerusalem (Neh 13!°), and
the coins followed the trade. One of the earhest of
these is a fine double-shekel of Sidon (423 grs.) in
the British Museum (see Plate No. 2).

Rev. A Phoenician galley with mast and sails.

Obv. King of Persia in his chariot, driven by his
charioteer, At. Wt. 423 gers.

Of no city or sovereign, however, are the coins
of such importance to the student of Jewish
numismatics as those of Tyre. Have we not seen
that all the moneys mentioned in the Pentateuch
were to be paid in Tyrian—rather, in a wider
sense, Phoenician—currency? ‘The earliest coins
of Tyre take us back to near the middle of the
5th cent. B.c., the latest date from the reign of
Septimius Severus. No. 3 of our Plate shows an
early, not perhaps the earliest, specimen of a tetra-
drachm of Tyre (a shekel of 6. 220 grs.), the real
‘shekel of the sanctuary.’

Vbv. Melkarth (the Tyrian Hercules) holding a
bow, and riding over the waves on hippocamp
or sea horse ; beneath, a dolphin.

Rev. Owl bearing over left shoulder the Egyptian
crook and flail (the symbols of Osiris).

The reverse is of great interest as showing the
range of the mercantile relations of Tyre and the
resulting influence of Athens on the one hand, and
of Egypt on the other (cf. Babelon, op cit. Introd.
elxxxix). The influence of Athens on Palestine
at this early period is still more strikingly shown
by the coins of Gaza, which not only imitate the
type and legend of the coins of Athens, but are
struck on the Attic standard.

§ 4. Coinage of the Ptolemies and Seleucids and
of the semi-autonomous cities to the time of Simon
Maccabeus.—At the date of his conquest of Asia,
Alexander the Great introduced his international
currency in the three metals, gold, silver, and
bronze.t The principal coins are the gold stater
or didrachm of 133 ers. actual weight; for silver
the tetradrachm (266 grs.) and the drachm (664
grs.). These weights introduce us to a new
standard, the Euboie-Attic,t on which the cur-
rency of Athens was based—from this time on-
wards to the 8rd cent. A.D. the most widely
spread of ancient monetary standards. Coins
with Alexander’s types were struck, even long
after his death, by various cities of Syria and
Palestine.

After years of varying fortune on the field of

*The brilliant sketch of M. Six, ‘Observations sur les
monnaies phéniciennes,’ in the Numismatic Chronicle, 1877,
p. 177ff., is still of value alongside of the more recent and
exhaustive work of M. Babelon, Les Perses Achéménides, Cypre
et Phénicie, 1893. Cf. Head’s résumé in Hist. Num. 665-676 ;
and, of older works, Brandis, Das Miinz- Maas- und Gewichts-
wesen in Vorderasien, 1866 passim.

+ The chief authority is still Ludwig Miiller’s La Numis-
matique d’ Alexandre le Grand, 1855 (cf. Head’s conspectus,
Hist. Num. 310 ff.).

t For which see Head, op. cit. xl-xliii and p. 309f. Acc. to
Hultsch (Gew. d. Alt. pp. 66-68), the shekel or stater of this
standard was μοῦ of a mina of 60 light Phoenician shekels=
134°7 (112} x 60+50) grains, which is found as early as the 12th
Dynasty in Egypt, whence, through Phanician intermediaries,
it was carried to Greece and Asia Minor. This gives c. 269°5
and 67°36 grs. for the Attic tetradrachm and drachm respectively,
and for the mina and talent 6735 and 404,100 grs. respectively.

battle, Ptolemy 1. finally succeeded (8.6. 301)
in adding Palestine to his Egyptian dominions.
The Jews were still, however, but ‘a feeble folk,’
content to use the coins that issued in great
abundance from the royal mints at Alexandria
and the cities of the seacoast. ‘This was all the
more practicable, since Ptolemy (from B.C. 305),
alone among the successors of Alexander, coined
on the light Phoenician standard (see Poole, The
Ptotemes: [.Brit. Mus, Cat.-of Gr. Coms], 1882,
Introd. xxiiif.; Head, Hist. Num. 711 ff; Hultsch,
Metrol.? 646ff.). No. 4 of our Plate is a typical
coin, a tetradrachm or double-shekel of the
Ptolemies.

Vbv. Head of Ptolemy 1. diademed.

tev. NTOAEMAIOY ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ. ‘Type, eagle *

on thunderbolt. At. Wet. 224 ers.

Tyre, which passed into the hands of Ptolemy 11.
Philadelphus in B.C. 275, still possessed a flourish-
ing mint, its coins bearing as adjunct, in addition
to the Ptolemaic types, the monogram of the city
with the club of the Tyrian Hercules (see Poole,
op. cit, Plate LV. 8). Sidon, Acco (named Ptolemais
by Philadelphus), Gaza, Joppa, were all Ptolemaic
mints,t from which, especially from the three
latter, the peaceful Jewish community derived
their supply of shekels. The yoke of the Ptolemies
pressed lightly, for the greater part of the century
(B.C. 300-200) at least, upon the Jews. According
to the highly embellished story of Joseph, the
nephew of the high priest (Onias I7.), told in detail
by Josephus (An#. xii. 4), the tribute in the reign
of Ptolemy 1. Euergetes did not exceed twenty
shekels of silver (7b. XII. iv. 1, Niese, ἃ 158). ΤῸ
obtain the modern equivalent of a Ptolemaic talent
of silver (6000 drachms of 56 ers.), we must, in
accordance with the principles laid down in § 2 of
this article, first translate the silver into gold,
which is our only standard. Now the ratio of
gold to silver in the Ptolemaic system is 123: 1,
eight gold drachms being equivalent to a mina
(100 drachms) of silver (ef. Hultsch, Metrol.* 646 f.).
We thus obtain, at the mint price of gold £3, 17s.
103d. per oz. of 480 grs., 9s. 1d. as the value of the
gold drachm, £45 for the gold mina (3 Mac 1),
Sid. for the silver drachm (ib. 378), and £218 for
the silver talent, twenty of which amount to £4360.
The total revenue of Ptolemy’s Asiatic possession,
Cole-Syria, and Phoenicia, and Judea, and Samaria
amounted—if the figures (Ant. ΧΙ]. iv. 4, N. 175 f.)
are to be trusted—to 8000 talents, raised by Joseph
to 16,000, almost three and a half million pounds
sterling! On the same standard are to be reckoned
the numerous other sums mentioned throughout
the story.

When we reflect that the Ptolemaic silver
shekel is a double-drachm or stater (of 112 grs.)—
the latter term, when the didrachin fell into dis-
favour, the Greeks applied to the tetradrachm—
we understand how the Alexandrian translators of
the Pentateuch so frequently render the Hebrew
shekel, which weighed 224 grs., by δίδραχμον as
well as by σίκλος, instead of by the more exact
τετράδραχμον (in LXX only Job 42!).¢ Similarly
the δόξες (yp2) or half-shekel is in the two passages
where it occurs (Gn 24**, Ex 38°°=LXX 392) ren-
dered by δραχμή.

In B.c. 198 Antiochus IIT. succeeded in wresting
Palestine from the feeble grasp of the youthful
Ptolemy Epiphanes ; it now became a province of
the Syrian empire. The Seleucids, like all the
successors of Alexander save the Ptolemies, con.
tinued his coinage on the Attic standard, retain.

* The special badge or ‘crest’ οὗ the Ptolemies, as the anchos
was of the Seleucids (see below).

+t See Poole, Table II. Mints and Dates, p. xevi ff., for com
plete list of Phoenician and Palestinian mints to B.c. 198.

; ; tear translators, Aquila and Symmachus, prefer στατύρ
ῸΣ, ἃ ᾿ Τὰ Ὁ"

424 MONEY

MONEY

ing, for some time at least, even his name and
types, to which the anchor was added —the family
badge or cognizance of Seleucus, the founder of
the dynasty. Gold coins are comparatively rare ;
the commonest silver coins are the tetradrachm
(at this period as high as 265 ers.) and the drachm,
to which fall to be added bronze coins of numerous
denoininations.* For half a century (ὁ. 150-100
B.C.) the Phoenician standard appears alongside of
the Attic (Babelon, op. cif. clxxxiiit). The mints
are numerous; besides Antioch and other cities
of Northern Syria we still have Sidon, Tyre,
Ptolemais, Ascalon, and others. +

Antiochus treated the Jews with great con-
sideration, even with kindness. Taxes were re-
mitted, in some cases permanently, in others for
three years, with one-third abatement thereafter ;
while a grant of 20,000 drachms, in addition to
allowances of wheat and salt, was made from the
imperial treasury to defray the cost of the temple
service (Jos. Ané. XID. ili. 3, N. 138 ff). From this
time onwards to the date of the complete rupture
with Antioch the taxes and other official pay-
ments must have been settled in Attic drachms
(see below) from one or other of the coast mints.
For ordinary transactions and for the sacred dues,
the former Ptolemaic currency, based on the
native standard, probably still held the field.
We give (No. 5) a tetradrachm of Antiochus Iv.
Epiphanes, with whose accession, in B.C. 175, we
approach a turning-point in the fortunes of the
Jews.

νυ. Head of Antiochus Epiphanes (looking)
right, diademed, with fillet border.

Rev. BAZIAEQE ANTIOXOY OEOY ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ
{king Antiochus, divine, illustrious]. Zeus
(looking) left, seated on throne, naked to the
waist, and holding a Nike, who crowns him,
in right hand, while left rests on sceptre. In
exergue a monogram. We. 259 ers.

The portrait of Antiochus is considerably ideal-
ized Ὁ the titles on the reverse show that the coin
was struck about the middle of his reign (Babelon,
op. eit, xxili.), probably before he had set up ‘the
abomination that maketh desolate’ in the Jewish
temple (Dn 1151 12"),

Several of the more important cities of the
Seleucid empire were about this time permitted
to issue a series of semi-autonomous bronze coins,
distinguished from the royal bronzes of the same
minting-places by having, besides the royal por-
trait on the obverse, the name of the issuing city
(TYPIQN, os ox as5) § on the reverse.

To the earlier part of Antiochus Epiphanes’
reign belong the intrigues of Jason, brother of the
high priest Onias ΠΙ., who offered Antiochus the
large sum of 440 talents for the high-priestly office,
with ‘a hundred and fifty more, if it might be
allowed him... to set up a (Greek) place of
exercise and (form) a body of youths (to be trained
therein), and to register the inhabitants of Jeru-
salem as citizens of Antioch’ (2 Mac 4°). Jason in
his turn was outbid by Menelaus, who offered the

*See the standard work of E. Babelon, Les Rois de Syrie,
1890; also P. Gardner, Whe Seleucid Kings of Syria (Brit. Mus.
Cat. of Gr. Coins), 1878. Cf. Head, Hist. Num. 637 ff., where
the older literature is given.

+ From the royal Seleucid coins struck in the cities just
named must be carefully distinguished the coins of these and
other cities issued by them on their obtaining a measure of
autonomy, which increased as the power. of the Seleucids
declined (see below).

t On the coin-portraits of this famous figure in Jewish history
see Babelon, op. cit. xciiff., and Plates XII.-XV.

§ The title here assumed by Tyre is noteworthy, ‘mother
(city) of the Sidonians,’ a reply to the, historically more justifi-
able, pretensions of Sidon to be the ‘mother -city of ‘Tyre.’
Similar rivalries were common in the Roman period. Also of
interest, in view of the legend on the later Jewish shekels, is
that on the bronze coins of Gebal-Byblus, ΠΡ 523 ‘Gebal the
holy.’

impecunious monarch ‘more than Jason by 300
talents of silver’ (ὁ. v.74). These and the other
sums mentioned in 1 and 2 Maccabces (1 Mac 1178
19» ee reall tarher tis ate Vie Gye ire Ὁ
drachms] ete.) are to be reckoned as Syrian-Attie
drachms and talents. In endeavouring to reach
an approximate valuation of these sums, it must
be remembered that the Syrian currency is on a
silver, ours on a gold standard. The gold of the
Seleucids, even in the shape of coins, was always
bullion, and varied in its ratio to silver between 10 :
land 124: 1 (see Hultsch, MWetrol.? sg 30 f.). Now,
if we take the normal weight of the Attic drachm
at 67°367 grs. (=4°366 grammes), we have as the
sterling value of the gold drachm at the mint price
10s. llid., and of the talent (6000 drachms) in
round numbers £3280. At the ratio of 10 : 1 this
gives £328 for the silver talent, at 124 :1 £262, the
mean value being £295, for the silver drachm 11 {d.,
which is considerably higher than the estimates of
previous writers. The large sums deposited in the
temple (400 talents of silver and 200 talents of
gold, 2 Mae 3") would thus amount to £118,000
and £656,000 respectively, a total of over three-
quarters of a million.

$5. The first native coinage; the problem of
the so-called ‘ Macecabean shekels’ ; the bronze
coins of the Hasmonean princes.—The latter half
of the 2nd cent. saw the once powerful empire
of the Seleucidee rent by internal dissensions and
hasting to its fall. Already the Jews, under the
brave sons of Mattathias the Hasmoniwan (2): Π),
had taken the field in defence of the national
religion, and had proved themselves so dangerous
as foes that Demetrius If (145-139/8 B.C.) recog-
nized them as likely to prove not less valuable as
allies (1 Mae 1355: The privileges then granted
by Demetrius, amounting to political antonomy
under the suzerainty of Syria,—not, as is often
represented, to complete independence,—were con-
firmed by his brother Antiochus VIL. Sidetes (B.C.
138-129) in the famous rescript preserved in 1 Mac
15°-. ‘Now therefore,’ it runs, according to the
best text, ‘I confirm unto thee [Simon] all the
exactions which the kings that were before me
remitted unto thee, and 7 give thee leave to coin
money for thy country with thine own stamp (ποιῆσαι
κόμμα ἴδιον νόμισμα τῇ χώρᾳ cov), ete. Did Simon
avail himself of the privilege here recorded of
issuing money in his own name? This has hitherto
been the questio vexatissina of Jewish numis-
matics. For some time past, however, the attri-
bution to Simon the Hasmonman (less correctly,
the Maccabee) of the well-known silver shekels and
half-shekels with the legends Shékel Yisrael and
Yerishalém Kédéshah, and the dates ‘year 1’ to
‘year 5,’ has been an accepted numismatic doctrine,
so much so that very convincing reasons will natur-
ally be expected to justify the present writer’s
rejection of it. These reasons may be stated here
in preference to a later section. ‘They are (1) the
principles of the rights of coinage in antiquity.
These cannot be here set forth in detail (see esp.
Lenormant’s classical work, La monnaie dans
Pantiquité, ii. § 1, ‘ Le droit de monnayage,’ ete.) ;
it must suffice to emphasize the fact that the right
to coin money of the standard metal, whether gold
or silver, was the exclusive prerogative of the
sovereign power. Just as the Persian kings, for
example, guarded most jealously their exclusive
right to coin gold, which was their standard, so
the Seleucid sovereigns, coining on the silver
standard, permitted certain privileged cities to
strike bronze coins only (see previous section, and
cf. Babelon, Rois de Syrie, cxi, exliv). The re-
sumption of a silver coinage with a special era by
the cities of Pheenicia, at a slightly later period,
was tantamount to the assertion of their complete

1}:

τ.
a is

COINS CURRENT IN PALESTINE ec. B.c. 500-A.D. 135

1. Persian gold daric, $3
2)

2. Double shekel or octadrachm of Sidon, καὶ 3.

wo

3. Shekel or tetradrachm of Tyre, ὃ 3.
. Tebradrachm of Ptolemy 1.; 5 ἂν
5. Tetradrachm of Antiochus Epiphanes, ὃ 4.

i

ἈῈΣ

αἰ
ἐς βὰν |

p<
ἣν

KENNY

“AC c (
+, ~

ι-

. Bronze coin of Herod Antipas, ὃ 6.

-
nee
ig
4 4 re
2 ors
3 :

_ Small bronze of John Iyreanus, § 5.

. Small bronze of Alexander Janneus, ὃ 5.

. Shekel or tetradrachm of Tyre, § 5.
Sg
§

Bronze coin of Herod the Great, ὃ 6.

11. Bronze coin of Agrippa 1., ὃ 6.

SUNT G.

’
4

NT IN PALE

VRE}

COINS οὐ

λον ὅς
mae y

2 QMnvy
rat A Σ
\y γ
Vk τὰ ὦ
HES ad
SS 2.3 .

:

18

achm of Cwsarea Cappadociw, re-struck, 8 10.

Denarius of Trajan, re-struck, 8 10.

The original of No. 18, ὃ 10.

lon

Το

Ἧς

1

12. Small bronze (quadrans ’) of Pontius Pilate, ὃ

13. Denarius of Tiberius, § 8.

14. Shekel of year 5 (a.p. 70), § 9.

Tetradrachm of Antioch, re-struck as Jewish shekel, § 10.

20),

Half-shekel of year 1 (A.p. 66-67), $9.

Aureus of Titus

15.

econd revolt, ὃ 10.

svonze Coin of sé

al ie

16.

MONEY

MONEY 425

independence. The admitted fact that the only
other silver coins of the Jews date from a time of
asserted independence, at least suggests a similar
date for the icles in question. (2) The shekels of
years 1 to 5 cannot be fitted into the chronology of
this period. Since Simon died in the year B.C. 135,
tive years backwards Demetrius 11. was still on the
throne. Accordingly supporters of the Maccabeean
theory are compelled to asswme that Antiochus
Sidetes was merely confirming a right that had
already been usurped by Simon. On the other
hand, if the dates run from B.C. 142 (see 1 Mac
13”), two years are left without any coins.
Whereas on the theory advocated in this article
(see, further, αὶ 9), that these coins belong to the
first revolt, A.D. 66-70, we understand both why
there should be only shekels of five years, and why
those of the fifth year should be so rare. (3) The
silver coinage ceascs, ex hypothesi, with Simon. No
reason for this can be given on the hypothesis we
are combating. Subsequent Hasmonzean princes,
such as John Hyreanus and Alexander Jannieus,
were men of greater wealth and power than Simon :
why should they have been content to issue only
bronze coins, if Simon had already struck in
silver? (4) There is, further, the more technical
argument from the size, fabric, and style of the
coins in dispute. They do not resemble the con-
temporary silver coins of the Seleucid nearly so
much as they do the imperial coins of the Ist
cent. A.D. (see § 9, below), nor do they show
any points of contact with the types or legends of
the bronze coins of Simon’s successors. The palo-
graphic argument from the forms of the old
Hebrew characters is of little weight either way ;
it is almost impossible to distinguish between the
genuinely archaic and the intentionally archaistie
in Semitic epigraphy. We believe, then, that if
Simon availed himself of the right, which was
soon withdrawn (1 Mae 15:7), of issuing coins,
these can only have been of bronze. No such
coins, however, can with certainty be ascribed to
Simon.

The first native Jewish coinage dates from the
reign of Simon's son and successor, John Hyreanus.
The earliest coins, however, that can with any
confidence be said to have been struck at Jerusalem
are some small bronzes—hemichalki,* according
to ΔΙ. Babelon—of Antiochus vi. of dates B.c. 132
and 131 (see Madden, Coins of the Jews, 76;
Jubelon, op. cit. Nos. 1166-7, pl. xxii. 1; Gardner,
op. eit. 75, pl. xx. 14). The coins of Hyrcanus are
of small size, three specimens in the British Museum
averaging 28 grs., and undated. In place of atype
the field of the obverse is occupied by an in-
scription in the old Hebrew character, see plate
No. 6.

Obv. onan sam Syrian yaaa pm A (John, the high
priest and (with) the commonwealth (2) of the
Jews) within a wreath of olive leaves.

Rev. A double cornucopix with a poppy head in
the centre. At.

The initial A of the obverse is probably the first
letter of the name of his suzerain Alexander II.
Zebina (B.C. 128-123), who introduced the double
cornucopie as his monetary badge, and from whose
coins it was borrowed by Hyreanus. The earlier
coins of Hyreanus were issued, as the above
example shows, in his own name and that of the
Ieher (nan) of the Jews; his later issues, however,
read: John the high priest, head of the heber of
the Jews (wtva ssn ex). The word 127, now
generally pronounced as above, has been a fruitful
subject of speculation among historians and numis-
matists, since its precise significance is unknown.
A summary of the more important of the interpre-

* The χαλκοῦς was a copper coin, eight of which were equiva. |
lent to a silver obol (4 drachm). |

tations proposed is given by Madden (Coins, p. 77;
cf. Schiirer, H/JP 1. i. 284f.). Only two need be
mentioned here.

(1) Heber is the Heb. for the γερουσία or senate
of the books of Maccabees and Judith, the later
Sanhedrin (so Geiger, Levy, Madden, ete., and
most recently Wellhausen, Jsr. u. sud. Gesch.
[1894], 236).

(2) Heber denotes the whole body of the people.
This view has found an able advocate recently in
Prof. Eb. Nestle (ZA TW, 1895, 288 tf. : 12m = ἔθνος),
who seeks to prove the equation stated in the
title of his paper, and this other : 72n wx =ێvdpyns,
a title frequently given to the Hasmonean princes
in the books of Maccabees. Neither of these views
quite commends itsclf to the present writer. On
the .one hand, it is difficult to account for the
mention of a body like the γερουσία, which our best
authorities regard as of little or no importance at
this epoch (see Wellh. doc. cit., and Holtzmann-
Stade, Gesch. ii. 398); on the other hand, it is not
less difficult to see why the more familiar words oy,
572, ete., were passed over if Nestle is right. The
LXX, we believe, supplies the key. In Pr 21°
(-- 255 the Heb. 720 72 (lit. house of association,
i.e. one shared with another) is rendered ἐν οἴκῳ
κοινῷ, While κοινωνέω and κοινωνός are elsewhere em-
ployed to render derivatives of the root 127. We
consider, then, that the 725 of the coins is the
equivalent of the Gr. expression τὸ κοινόν in one of
its various significations. Of these the following
are the most probable: (κα) respublica, common-
wealth, community.* τὸ κοινόν in this sense is
synonymous with ἡ πόλις (Aristotle, a». Bonitz,
op. cit.), and may be illustrated by the expressions
τῷ πολιτεύματι τῶν ἐν Bepevixy ᾿Ιουδαίων, CIG ili.
No. 5361 (date B.c. 13), quoted by Schiirer, H/P
Il. 11. 246, and τὸ σύμπαν τῶν ᾿Ιοππιτῶν πολίτευμα,
2 Mac 127. In favour of this interpretation may
be adduced the fact that the contemporary bronze
coins of the semi-autonomous cities, as we saw
above, combine the royal name with that of the
people (TYPIQN, etc.; see list in Babelon, ci).
(6) Public authorities, officers of state (Staats-
behorden), perhaps the executive. In support of
this rendering we would appeal to the use by
Josephus in his Life (passim) of the expression τὸ
κοινὸν τῶν ᾿Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν, apparently in the sense
of ‘the executive authorities of the people of
Jerusalem.’ A comparison of § 52 (Niese, 266 f.)
with ἃ 60 (N. 309f.) seems to show conclusively
(1) that the κοινόν must have been a body with
functions resembling those of an executive of the
δῆμος, and (2) that the former is to be taken as
synonymous with οἱ τῶν ἱἹεροσολυμιτῶν πρῶτοι, by
which expression, at the first mention οὗ his
appointment as governor-general of Galilee (§ 9),
Josephus designates the nominating body, which
in all succeeding references he names τὸ κοινὸν
τῶν ‘Iep. (0) The meaning ‘ confederation,’ which
κοινόν so frequently has in the constitutional
history of the Greek states, may also be suggested ;
but, with our Jack of knowledge regarding the
constitution of the Jewish State at this period,
it is best to leave the solution of the equation 737
Ξε κοινόν an open question.

Aristobulus (B.c. 105-104), in his few extant
coins, retains the earlier legend of his father:
‘Yéhfdah high priest and the commonwealth (Ὁ) of
the Jews.’ They were all apparently struck before
he assumed—first of the Hasmonieans—the title
of king (Jos. Ant. XU. xi. 1). The powerful Alex-
ander Jannieus (Heb. ‘xx, contracted from jn3', jas)
during his long reign (B.C, 104-78) issued a plenti-
ful supply of bronze coins. Some of these are
remarkable (1) for the appearance for the first

* See Liddell and Scott ; Schweighiuser, Herod. Lex. ; Bonitz,
Index Aristot. 8.0,

426 MONEY

MONEY

time of the royal title, and (2) for the introduction
of a Greek legend. Thus (No. 7)—

Oby. 7b25 jnnm Vehonathan ham-mélek, Jonathan
theking. Type: ahalf-opened flower (another
series has the same legend with each letter be-
tween the rays of a star, which serves as type).

Rev. BAZIAEQE AAEZANAPOY. Type: an
anchor with two cross-timbers within a circle.

Besides these regal coins, Alexander issued a
series of pontifical coins with the legend ‘Jonathan
(written jnnq and jns) the high priest and the
commonwealth (7) of the Jews.’ On the reverse is
the double cornucopize with the poppy-head, which,
like the anchor on the regal series, shows the con-
tinned influence of the Seleucid coinage. For full
details of the numerous varieties of Alexander's
coins as for those of John Hyrcanus, the student
is referred to Madden and the other writers men-
tioned in the bibliography at the end of this article.
The only other Hasmoniean prince whose coins are
of sufficient interest to warrant mention in this sum-
mary is Antigonus (B.C. 40-37), the protégé of the
Parthians and the last of the dynasty. These inform
us that Antigonus bore the name of his illustrious
ancestor, Mattathias, and they are the first Jewish
coins to show a date: xv and 22, ὁ.6. ‘year (73%)
one’ and ‘year two’ of his unfortunate reign.
‘The Asmonean dynasty commenced with a Matta-
thias, with the coins of a Mattathias the Asmonean
dynasty concludes’ (Madden). All these native
coins, we must repeat, were from first to last
of bronze, and all, with the exception of some
of those of Antigonus, of very small size, viz. 2
and 3 of Mionnet’s seale, 7.c. about τ“ and Ὁ in. in
diameter. Further research, and in particular
much patient weighing, of the extant coins will be
required before we can pronounce with confidence
on the denominations they represent—in other
words, on their relation to the standard silver
money. ‘The smallest coins, at least, can scarcely
be other than the peritah of later Jewish writings,
the lepton of the NT (cf. § 8).

The money par excellence (403, ἀργύριον) of the
Jews during the greater part of the Maccabiean
period was obtained from heathen mints, as,
with the decline of the central power, the cities
of the coast one after another recovered their
autonomy. ‘Tyre, in particular, began in B.c. 126
—from which its new era is dated—to issue an
important series of silver and bronze coins with
considerable variety of types. The principal de-
nominations were the tetradrachm or heavy shekel,
and longo intervallo, the didrachm or light shekel,
which was doubtless in considerable demand among
the Jews for the payment of the temple tax. The
weights are at first well maintained, αὖ 6. 220 and
110 grs. respectively. No. 8 illustrates a Tyrian
shekel or tetradrachm ofethe Hasmonzean period.

Obv. Head of the Tyrian Hercules (see 2 Mae
419), laureate (looking) right.

Rev. TYPOY IEPAZ KAI AZYAOY. Eagle, left,
on rudder, and bearing a palm branch over left
shoulder. In the field, date and a club (symbol
of Tyre).

§ 6. Bronze coinage of the Idumean dynasty.—
In the year B.c. 37, with the help of the Roman
legions, Herod, the son of Antipater, ‘ by birth an
Tdumeean, by profession a Jew, by necessity a
Roman, by culture and choice a Greek,’ succeeded
in securing the throne which Rome had promised
him a few years before. Nothing could better
show the condition of vassalage under which Herod
held his kingdom than the fact that for all his
enormous wealth, as evidenced not only by his
princely gifts to foreign cities and his lavish ex-
penditure at home, but by the great sums of coined
money (ἀργυρίου ἐπισήμου) Which he bequeathed at
his death (Ant. XVII. vill. 1), he was restricted by

the suzerain power to a coinage exclusively in
bronze. The Hebrew of the legends is now dis-
ἐς by Greek, while, in addition to the familiar

asmonean typesof the anchor and the cornucopie,
we have such new types as the tripod,—another
favourite Seleucid emblem,—the helmet, the Mace-
donian shield, the pomegranate, the caduceus, ete.
One of the most interesting of Herod’s coins is
that represented by No. 9.

Obv. Metal helmet with cheek pieces; in the
field above, a star; on either side, a palm
branch. (Others with the same type have
only one branch to left, above).

Rev. BAZIAEQE HPQAOY. ‘Type: a tripod; in
the field to left LF [=year 3],* and to right
the monogram of TP. 46. Wt. ς. 104 grs.

The coins of Archelaus are identified by the title

ἐθνάρχης on the reverse, a title borne by Archelaus
alone of all the Herodian princes. On the de-
position of Archelaus, Judiea and Samaria were
placed directly under the Roman government (see
§ 7 for coins of the Roman procurators). His
brother, Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee (Lk 81;
cf. Lk 237), founded the city of Tiberias on the Sea
of Galilee, where most, if not all, of his coins were
struck, and whose name, given in honour of his
patron, Tiberius, he placed on the reverse (see
No. 10)—

δι. HPQAOY TETPAPXOY. Palm leaf (or
branch); in the field right and left, L-AT
(year 33= A.D. 29-30).

JE 6.

In an article devoted rather to an exposition of
the principal varieties of money in circulation
amone the Jews than to a catalogue of coins, we
must be excused from entering into an examination
of the coins of Philip the tetrarch (Lk 8), and
especially of the long and complicated series of
Agrippa It, the last of the Herods.| A word must
suffice even for those struck by Agrippa 1. during
his short reign (A.D. 41-44) over the reunited
territories of the great Herod. According to de
Saulcy these all bear the same date, ‘ year 6,’ 1.6.
according to the Jewish method of computation
the year A.D. 41-42, reckoning from the first year
of Caligula A.D. 37.t (See No. 11.)

Rev. BACIAEQC ΑΓΡΙΠΑ (szc). Type, umbrella

with tasselled fringe.

Obv. Three ears of corn united on one stalk;
to right and left LS (year 6). Ai 4. Wts.
38-47 grs. a

These were the last Jewish coins legitimately
and constitutionally struck in Jerusalem. — In
allusion to his alliance with Claudius, Agrippa
struck elsewhere coins with the interesting legend
BACIAEYC ΜΕΓΑΟ ATPINNAC ¢IAOKAICAP
(friend of Cesar, ef. Jn 19”). On the death of
Agrippa, Judea was once more, and finally, in-
corporated with the Roman empire. ;

$7. Imperial coinage of Rome, including coins of
the Procurators, and of the autonomous cities of
Palestine. —When the Romans entered upon their

*The symbol L to denote ἔτος (year) is first found in the
Ptolemaic papyri. The monogram is probably the initial letters
of ΤΡίχαλκον, indicating that the coin is of the value of three
chalki, the chalkus, in the Greek system, being a copper coin,
eight of which were equivalent to an obol (4 drachm). For
coins of Antiochus Iv. Epiphanes with similar monograms of
value, and for details as to the weights of the Seleucid bronzes
generally, see Babelon, Rois de Syrte, clxxxv ff.

+ ‘Unter allen numismatischen Kreuzen sind die Jahreszahlen
auf den Miinzen Agrippas 11. eins der peinlichsten.’ So wrote
Mommsen in 1871 (Wiener Num. Zeits. iii. 451). For the latest
attempt to adjust the chronology of this prince, see Carl Erbes
‘Das Todesjahr Agrippa’s 1.’ [year of death fixed at 86 instead
of 100 a.p.] in Ζ. f. wiss. Theol. 39 (1896), pp. 415-435.

t See, however, for the chronology of Agrippa 1. and for the
possibility of coins of seventh to ninth years, Unger: ‘zu
Josephus’ in Sitzb. d. philos.-philolog. Classe d. k. b. Akad. ἃ
Wiss. zu Miinchen, 1896, 394f.; cf. Reichardt apud Maéden,
Coins, 132.

Rev. Area within a wreath.

MONEY

MONEY 427

career of conquest in the East, they found, as the
universal silver unit, the Attic drachm, now
reduced to about 62 grains. The corresponding
Roman unit was the denarius, also reduced from
τς to Jy of the Roman pound, 2.6. to 60 grains. It
followed as a matter of course that the two coins
were identified, with a slight advantage in favour
of the denarius. Henceforward, in Greek and
Noman writers, ‘Attic drachm’ * and ‘denarius’
are convertible terms (see Hultsch, J/etrol.? 250 f.) ;
a tetradrachm is now, in ordinary speech, the
equivalent of four, an Attic talent of 6000 denarii.
Since Pompey’s conquest of Syria, B.C. 65, the
denarius had cirewlated in Palestine alongside of
the tetradrachms of Antioch and Tyre, both
tarifled by Pompey at four denarii. In B.c. 15
Augustus carried through his thoroughgoing
reform of the currency, retaining the gold and
silver coinage in his own hands, while the senate
was accorded the exclusive right of striking copper
coins, the distinguishing mark of which was the
letters S. C. (senatus consulto) on the reverse.
The principal coins of the Augustan currency
were—in gold, the aureus ; in silver, the denarius ;
the sestertius (=4 asses or 4th denarius) and
dupondius of fine brass (orichaleum) ; finally, the
as (jth denarius) with its half (semis) and quarter
(quadrans), all in copper. All government pay-
ments, such as taxes and tolls, fines imposed by a
Roman court, and the like, were calculated in this
currency throughout the empire. We Jearn, how-
ever, from the Palmyra tariff, regulating the
amount of toll or custom to be paid on various
articles of merchandise, that while the amounts
were calculated according to the denarius and as,
payment of sums under a denarius was accepted
in the native copper currency + (see, further, § 8).

In A.D. 6 Archelaus was deposed by Augustus,
and Judea became a Roman province under an
imperial procvrator, with headquarters in Cresarea.
Neglecting the copper coins of the Herodian
princes, which had merely a local circulation, we
may group the principal denominations circulating
in Palestine during this period as follows :—

A. Imperial aurei and denarii, with ‘superserip-

tion’ in Latin.

}. Roman provincial silver and copper from the
mint of Antioch, to which were added,
after A.D. 17, the issues of the mint set up
at Casarea Cappadocice.

C. Silver and copper from the mint of Tyre.

D. Copper coins trom the procurator’s mint at
Civsarea.

A. The aureus and, in particular, the denarius
were the standard coins ot the empire, circulating
everywhere. ΑΒ first fixed by Julius Cassar, the
aureus } weighed 126°3 ers. (45th of libra or pound)
of pure gold. This represents, at the mint price of
gold, a sterling value of £1, 05. 6d. In Augustus’
later years, however, and under his successors to
the time of Nero, the eflective weight of the coins
never exceeds ὡς pound or 120°3 ers. (see Hultsch,
Metrol.? 309 tt.), equal to 19s. 6d.§ Under Nero the
weight fell to 115 yrs. (18s. 8d.). The pieces of
gold swallowed by the wretched fugitives from
Jerusalem at the time of the great sieve were
aurei, the supply of which was so great after the
capture of the city that—if we can believe Josephus

*In Josephus δραχμὴ ᾿Αττική or ’Arlis is everywhere the
denarius.

+ For this important inscription in Greek and Aramaic, dis-
covered in 1881, see de Vogué, Jour. Asiat. 1883; Schroeder,
Sitzb. d. Berl. Akad. 1884, 417-436 ; and esp. Dessau in Hermes,
xix. 486-533 for Greek text, and Reckendorf in ZDMG 42, 1888,
370 ff., for the Aramaic text.

t Scil. nummus, the χρυσοῦς [στατήρ] of Greek writers, in-
cluding Josephus ; in the Mishna 27) 13° (=denarius aureus),
also 731.

§ The mean of these two values is a sovereign, at which the
aureus may be reckoned for the first half of the 1st cent. A.D.

(BJ Vv. xiii. 4)—the value fell from twenty-five
denarii, the legal tariff, to twelve. The denarius
(δηνάριον, originally the equivalent in silver of ten
copper asses,—hence its name) from Augustus to
Nero weighed ὡς libra or 60 ers., and was now =
4 sestertil or 16 asses. By Nero it was reduced to
τ Or 52 grs., still retaining, however, its legal
‘alue of οἷς of the aureus. ‘The many conflicting
estimates of the value of the denarius (the penny
of our EV) which are to be met with in works of
repute, render it imperative to discuss this subject
more fully. King James’s translators give the
value thus: ‘The Roman penny is the eighth part
of an ounce [which it was not till after A.D. 60],
which, after five shillings the ounce, is sevenpence
halfpenny’ (Mt 18*™8-), This method has two
grave defects : (1) it attempts to value the denarius
in terms of a constantly fluctuating quantity, the
price of silver; and (2) even at the market price
of silver at any given date, by this method we
should only have the price ot the denarius as
bullion, not as a coin with a fixed legal currency.
In order to express the value of the denarius in
terms of our English standard (gold), we must
start from its value relative to its own gold unit,
viz. as o>th of the aureus. ‘The denarius accordingly
varied in value with the aureus from 9°83d. to
9°37d., of which 93d. may be taken as a sufficiently
accurate mean value for ordinary calculations. *

SL. Throughout the western half of the Roman
empire the denarius was the only legal silver
coin. In the East, however, the system based on
the Greek drachm was continued, the coins on
this standard, chiefly tetradrachms and drachms,
being issued for Syria and part of Asia Minor
from the two imperial mints of Antioch and
Cwsarea of Cappadocia. From the former mint 4
were sent forth tetradrachms with Greek legends,
which, though actually weighing 220-230 gers.,
were tariffed by the imperial government at only
three denarii (see Mommsen, Rém. Miinzwesen,
37 f., 715f.; Hultsch, J/etrol.2 595). Antioch,
moreover, shared with Rome the honour of having
a mint for the issue of senatorial copper distin-
guished by their Latin legends, and, in particular,
by the letters S. C., within a wreath, on the
obverse. The two denominations issued, which
also had legal currency throughout the Syro-
Cappadocian monetary province,t are generally
identified with the sestertius and the as(Mommsen,
op. cit. 718; Madden, Coins, 301f.). The coins of
Cewsarea§ (from A.D. 17) are principally drachms
and didrachms on the Phoenician standard. Vast
numbers of the former must have circulated in
Palestine in the 2nd cent. (see below, § 10), but
they can scarcely have reached that country in any
number in the time of our Lord (see drachm, next §).

C. The great mint of Tyre continued to issue
silver and bronze, the former mainly tetradrachms,||
without interruption down to the eve of Nero’s
innovations, on the old Phoenician standard (220-
224ers.). In Josephus’ day the Tyrian tetradrachm
was, at least in popular usage, accepted as equiva-
lent to four denarii (τοῦ Tupiov νομίσματος ὃ τέσσαρας
"Arrixas divara, BJ ii. 21. 2, N. 592). It is the
stater of the N'T (see next ἃ).

D. The procurators who governed the province

* After Nero it would not exceed 9d.

+ For the coins of Antioch in detail see Warwick Wroth’s
(Brit. Mus.] Catalogue of the Gr. Coins of Galatia, Cappadocia,
and Syria, 1899, pp. lviii and 158-232.

t On the other hand, the municipal coins of Antioch had only
local currency, and do not concern us here.

ἃ For coins in detail see Wroth, ov. cit. pp. xxxvif. and 45-93.
For some interesting constitutional questions raised by the
money of Antioch and Cwesarea, see Pick, Zeit. 7. Numism. xiv.
1887, p. 294 ff.

|| For specimens of those struck B.c. 15—A.p. 57, and therefore
in use among the Jews till the destruction of Jerusalem, se6
Babelon, Les Perses Achéménides, No. 2093 ff.

eee ee eee τσ ον

--΄-΄------

428 MONEY

MONEY

of Judiea from A.D. 6 to the outbreak of the great
rebellion of A.D. 66, of Whom Pontius Pilate, Felix,
restus, and Gessius Florus are the best known,
issued copper coins in the emperor's name,” prob-
ably at Cresarea. These are of small module, and
apparently all of one denomination (the quad-
rans (7). Under Augustus they are dated according
to the era of Actium, 1.6. 31,+ but under Tiberius
by the years of his reign. Though Roman coins,
they avvid all representation of living creatures,
in deference to the susceptibilities of the Jews.
The legend of the oby. generally runs, KAICAPOC
or TIB. KAICAP.; or in full, TIBEPIOY KAICAPOC,
as on the coins of Pilate. Thus illustr. No, 12—

Obv. TIBEPIOY KAICAPOC LIS (year 16=A.D.
29-30). Type, a stinpulium.

Rev. WOYMA KAICAPOC. ‘Three ears of corn
bound together. 42 3, The date shows that
this coin was struck by Pontius Pilate.

In order to complete this sketch of coins cir-
culating in Palestine in the first century of our
era, a single reference must be made to the money
of the numerous cities (¢.g. Samaria-Sebaste and
the cities of the Decapolis) to which Rome had
granted the right to strike ‘autonomous’ bronze
coins. The circulation of these, it is true, was
local and restricted, yet they are full of interest
to the historical student,t who is referred to the
classical treatise of M. de Sauley, La Naeinis-
matique dela Terre Sainte, 1874.

$8. Money of the New Testament.—Under this
head it is proposed to bring together the references
to money and coins in the NT, at the same time
avoiding all unnecessary repetition. In the NT,
as in the OT, ‘money’ is still par excellence silver
money (ἄργυρος, ἀργύριον), although all three metals
are in circulation (cf. Mt 109 χρυσύν.-- ἄργυρον.---
χαλκόν). Large sums are expressed in_minas (μνᾶ,
AV pound) and talents (τάλαντον). The latter is
no longer a weight of silyer, but the Roman-Attic
talent, which comprised 6000 denarii or drachms
(Hultsch, MZefrol.2 252, and Index ‘'Talent’). [0
was thus equal to 240 aurei, or £240 (see previous §).
The mina (Lk 1915:35) is the sixtieth part of the
talent, 100 denarii, or £4. Of specific coins, the
aureus is only indirectly referred to in the passage
above referred to: ‘provide neither gold, nor silver,
nor brass in your purses’ (Mt 105). On the other
hand, the denarius (δηνάριον, EV penny) is men-
tioned sixteen times in all in the NT, and con-
stantly as the diner (779) in the Mishna. Its value
in our Lord’s time may with sutlicient accuracy be
set down as 95d., as was shown in the previous sec-
tion.§ Our Revisers unfortunately have still ad-
hered to the ridiculous rendering ‘ penny’ instead
of admitting the more accurate ‘shilling,’ as
proposed by the American translators, and retain-
ing ‘penny’ for the as|) and ‘farthing’ for the
quadrans (see below). The Roman taxes were
reckoned and paid in denarii (cf. τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ
κήνσου, Mt 22"); the ‘image and superscription ἢ
(Lk 20%) of acontemporary denarius of the emperor
Tiberius is given in our plate, No. 13.

Obv. TI. CAESAR DIVI AVG. Filius] AVGVS-

TVS. Head of Tiberius, right, laureated.

Rev. PONTIF. MAXIM. Livia seated r.,

holding sceptre and flower.

*The emperor’s peculiar relation to the procuratorial pro-
vinces explains why this coinage was not issued in the name of
the senate in accordance with the agreement of B.c. 15. See,
further, Pick, loc. cit.

+ See for this question Pick, J.c. p. 307f.; Schtrer, HJP πι.
ii. 80, and cf. Madden’s tables.

t This is well shown by the use made of these coins by
Schiirer in his great work. See HJP Index under ‘Coins.’

§ The real test, however, of the value of this or of any other
coin is its purchasing power, for which see the appendix to this
article.

\| ‘Let ἀσσάριον (Mt 1029, Lk 126) be translated ‘‘penny,” and
δυνάριον “shilling,” except in Mt 2219, Mk 1215, Lk 20, where
the naine of the coin should be given.’

The Greek drachm (δραχμή ; in later Hebrew 5]
zz, also x71, by which Onkelos renders correctly the
quarter of the shekel, 1 S 9%) is only once mentioned
by name (Lk 15° ‘ten pieces of silver’). Its value
at this time was neither 73d. as AVm, nor 8d. as
RVm, but was the same as that of the denarius in
ordinary transactions. In government payments,
however, as we saw above, it was tarifled at #
of the denarius. The 50,000 ‘pieces of silver’
(ἀργυρίου, Ac 19'¥) at which the magical books were
valued, are also to be understood as denarius-
drachms,* the universal unit of calculation. = In
a previous section it has been shown that the
δίδραχμον, or double-drachm, was the Gr. equiva-
lent of the half-shekel, the whole shekel being a
tetradrachm of Tyrian currency, The didrachm
was very rarely coined at this time, and indeed
was at all times much rarer than the tetradrachm.
Hence it must have been very common, if not the
usual custom, for two persons to unite in paying
‘the tribute money’ (τὰ δίδραχμα, Mt 17%)—the
annual contribution of every male adult Jew to
the maintenance of the temple services—by means
of a Tyrian or other tetradrachm on the Phoenician
standard. This last is the stater (στατήρ, Mt 17°,
AV piece of money, RV shekel +) found in the
fish’s mouth, which Peter was instructed to pay
as ‘tribute money’ for the Master and himself.
The contributions of Jews in foreign lands were
collected and changed into gold pieces (@273
darkonim, Shekalim ii. 1, which are not darics
but aurei; ef. Bab. bath. x. 2) for convenience of
transport (see, further, Jos. dnt. ΧΥΠΙ. ix. 1, N.
312, where τὸ δίδραχμον is used precisely as by
St. Matthew for ‘half-shekel’). Atter the de-
struction of Jerusalem the half-shekel, otherwise
two drachms or denarii (δύο δραχμάς, Jos. BJ VIL.
vi. 6), was appropriated by the Roman authorities
for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (Jos. ¢.¢.).
The ‘thirty pieces of silver’ (τριάκοντα ἀργύρια,
Mt 26% 278) for which our Lord was betrayed,
are in all the cireumstances more likely to have
been thirty Phoenician tetradrachms—hence = 120
denarii (£4, 16s.) —from the temple treasury (cf. Zee
112 in LXX), than thirty denarius-drachins,

We come now to the copper coins of the
NT, and find mention of three different de-
nominations. (1) The lowest of these is the

lepton (λεπτόν, Mk 195 -- Lk 21° the widow's
‘mite’; Lk 12%" ‘thou shalt not depart [out of
prison] till thou hast paid the very last ‘‘mite”’ [76
ἔσχατον Nerrov=Mt δ: τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην, ‘ the
uttermost farthing’]). The coin mentioned in
these three passages can only be the pérituh
(aye), so often spoken of in the Mishna as pro-
verbially the smallest Jewish coin (so Lk 12).
In at least two places (Aiddush. i. 1, Ediyy. iv. 7)
it is expressly declared to have been tariffed as {th
of the Italian or Roman as (‘pox ἫΝ tssdr (or asscr)
italki), in other words the half of the Roman
quadrans. This agrees precisely with the much
discussed note — whether original or marginal —
in Mk 12” λεπτὰ δύο ὃ ἐστιν κοδράντης, ‘two lepta,
which makes a quadrans,’ as it accords with ‘ the
unanimous tradition of the Hellenistic metrolo-
gists’ (Hultsch, Metrol.* 605, π. 6). [Ὁ must be
sought for among the minute bronzes of the Has-
monean and Herodian princes, some of which do
not weigh more than 15 to 20 grains. Since it is
ith of the as, or ;}<th part of the denarius, its
legal value was about 4rd of an English farthing.
The two remaining bronzes may best be examined
together ; they are (2) the kodrantés (κοδράντης,
Mt 5%, Mk 12” already cited), and (8) the

* This use of ἀργυρίον is often met with in Josephus. ᾿

+ The OT word bay was in later Hebrew displaced by Y9D
sela’, stater or tetradrachm, which in the Mishna contains four
on zazim, or drachms.

MONEY

MONEY 429

assarion (ἀσσάριον, Mt 10° ‘are not two sparrows
sold fora farthing Ὁ’ ἢ Lk 12° ‘are not five sparrows
sold for two farthings γ᾽ Cf. Vule. nonne quinque
passeres veneunt dipondio%). The kodrantes is
undoubtedly the Roman quadrans (the fourth
part of the as, value about 3 farthing)—from
which, of course, the name is derived—since in
the one passage (Mk 12") the note is clearly
intended for Roman readers, and in the other
(Mt δ") the popular perutah-lepton of Lk 1959 is
replaced by St. Matthew, familiar as a tax-gatherer
with the Roman system of accounting, by the
lowest denomination in the Roman scale. With
regard to the assarion (from the Latin assarium,
a by-form of as) we are on less firm ground, for,
in the existing uncertainty as to how the copper
of the Hellenistic system was adjusted to that of
the Roman system, we must not hastily identify
the Hellenistic assarion with the Roman as. The
former passed into the contemporary Hebrew as
the issar (~ox, see Mishna, passim ; cf. πον of the
Palmyra tariff, and the assara of the Peshitta
and Palestinian Syriac, Lk 128), and the authori-
ties of the Mishna repeatedly refer to the dinar or
zz (the denarius-drachm) as containing 6 maoth
(my obols), and 24 tssarim, from which it is
evident that in the 2nd cent. at least the issar-
assarion was a different coin from the as. We
venture to think that the key to the difficulty is
to be found in the distinction between the
‘current’ and ‘tariff’ value of a coin, to adopt
expressions employed in the East at the present
day. In ordinary transactions the drachin and the
denarius were equal in value, the former contain-
ing 6 obols, 24 dichalki or 48 chalki, and the latter
8 dupondii, 16 asses or 64 quadrantes. Since 24
issarim-assaria also went to the denarius-drachm,
we must infer that the Greco-Roman name
assarion was popularly applied to the old di-
chalkus. jut all government dues and_ official
payments were calculated on the Roman denarius-
as system (see the rescript of Germanicus Cvesar,
A.D. 17-19, quoted in the Palmyra tariff de? πρὸς
ἀσσάριον ira{hixdv]—elsewhere εἰς δηνάριον--- τὰ τέλη
λογεύεσθαι, Col. LV* 41 ff.), with the proviso added
that small dues amounting to less than a denarius
(τὸ δὲ ἐντὸς δηναρίου τέλος) might be defrayed in the
native copper + (πρὸς κέρμα =jEqy ; ef. same word in
Peshitta Jn 2%). Now the Romans, it will be
remembered, tariffed the tetradrachm at 3 denarii
(te. 1 drachm=# denarius) ; accordingly a tax of
the latter amount, ? denarius, might be paid either
in Roman copper, if available, i.e. by 6 dupondii
or 12 asses, or 48 quadrantes, or in native copper
on the drachm-system, in this case by 6 obols
(a drachm), or 12 tetrachalki (half-obols), or 48
chalki. By government tariff, therefore, the
dupondius was made equal to the obol, the as
to the tetrachalkus, and the quadrans to the
chalkus. These equations are confirmed (a) by
the ancient gloss: ὀβολός hoe duopundium (Corp.
Gloss. 11. 378, cited by Kubitschek, art. ᾿Ασσάριον in
Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyl. vol. ii.) ; and (2) by the
Peshitta rendering of «odpdvrns, viz. shamdnd,
which is the Talmudic poy shdmin, Kiddush.
120, Ὁ 1.6. the eighth part (of the obol), in other
words the chalkus.§ We assume, then, that just
as in Alexandria at the present day we have the
‘piastre tariff’ and the ‘piastre current,’ the
former equal to two of the latter; so in NT times

_*See above for improved rendering of the American Re-
visers.

t For this see Dessau’s paper cited above (Hermes, xx. p.
520); cf. ZDMG 42, p. 412.

1 Where it is added : ‘two peratahs make a shamin,’ another
confirmation of Mk 1242,

§ This identification of the quadrans with the chalkus has
Ratti has suggested on other grounds (see Madden, Coins,
p. 300 f.).

there was the current issar-assarion, which was
the dichalkus, and the tariff or Roman as—dis-
tinguished from the other as the issar italki of
the Mishna and the Palmyra tariff; οἵ, ΑΣ(σάριον)
IT(dAcckov) on coins of Crete of the Ist cent. (Svoronos,
Num. dela Créte ancienne),—which was double the
value of the former. The quadrans, finally, was
always a tariff coin, represented by the imperial
coins of the procurators (40-45 ers.), but popularly
known by the name of its tariff equivalent, the
Greek chalkus (Heb. shdimin).*

C. THE COINS OF THE REVOLTs.

§ 9. Coins of the First Revolt (A.D. 66-70).—In
the year A.D. 66 began the struggle against the
might of imperial Rome, which ended in the de-
struction of both temple and city, August A.D. 70.
To these five years (spring 66-67 to autumn 70-71)
of the so-called ‘ first revolt’ must be ascribed the
first issue of silver money from a Jewish mint.
These are the famous shekels and half-shekels of
which we now give the illustration (Nos. 14, 15 of
plate) and description.

Obv. Serer Spe’ [shélel Yisrael, the shekel of Israel]
in old-Heb. characters. Type: a jewelled
chalice with knop on stem ; above the cup av
[contraction for 7 nx year tive]; border of dots.

fev, sepa poe [Verishaldyim ha-kédéshah,
Jerusalem the holy]in same characters. Type :
a flowering lily ; border of dots.

Obv. Spen sn [hiizi ha-shékel, the half-shekel] in
old-Heb. characters. Type: ἃ broad-lipped
chalice with knop on stem, on either side a
pellet (of incense Ὁ); above the cup %[=year 1];
border of dots.

Rev, reap δῶν [Verishdlém kédéshah}. Type
and border as in shekel.

The shekels and half-shekels of the first year are
distinguished from those of the following years (1)
by the chalice having a broad projecting lip instead
of a jewelled rim ; (2) by the letter x alone, without
w; and (3) by the seriptio defectiva of the reverse
legend, the adjective ‘holy,’ further, being without
the article. No Jewish coins have given rise to so
much discussion, or have been assigned to so many
different periods of Jewish history as these.t The
time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the age of Alexander
the Great, and the principate of Simon Maccabzeus
have all been proposed, the last in particular, by
almost all recent writers on Jewish history and
archwology. The main grounds on which this
date must be pronounced untenable have been
given in a former section (8. 5). The explicit
testimony of the coins themselves, with the uniform
legend ‘Jerusalem the holy,’ proves, according to
a well-known numismatic canon, that the authority
under whose auspices the coins were struck was
that of an independent and autonomous. city.
Now Jerusalem enjoyed the requisite independence
only on two occasions,} and on both the independ-
ence was not constitutional but usurped. These
two occasions coincide with the first and second
revolts. The latter is out of the question, since
the coins of that period are now known in great
detail (see next ἃ). There remains only the period

* This explains how the quadrans does not appear in a
Hebraized form in the Mishna, like the as and the dupondius
(vane), which the Vulgate inserts in Lk 126. The coins of
Herod with a Χ (χαλκοῦς) on the obverse within a circle
(Madden, p. 111), which weigh 43-48 g¢rs., are also probably
quadrantes-chalki. For the circulation of the quadrans in the
East, see the Blass-Ramsay controversy over Mk 1242 in the
Exp. Times, x. (1898-99) passim.

+ Besides the discussions in the numismatic works mentioned
in the bibliography to this article, see Schiirer, HJ P11. ii. 879 ff,

1 The most recent theory of all, that these shekels were struck
by ‘ the [hypothetical] republic of Jerusalem’ set up by Gabinius,
B.C, 57/6-53/2 (Unger, ‘zu Josephus iv., Die Republik Jerusalem,’
Sitzb. ἃ. philos-philolog. Classe d. Akad. zu Miinehen, 1897,

p. 199ff.), is based on too many hazardous combinations to
command our confidence.

430 MONEY

MONEY

of the first revolt, A.D. 66-70.% We maintain,
therefore,—and in this contention we claim the
support of a growing body of expert opinion (Im-
hoof-Blumer, Babelon, Reinach, and others),—that
the coins in question were struck by the same
executive authority (7d κοινὸν τῶν ἱΙεροσολυμιτῶν,
Jos. Life, passim) as was responsible for the defence
of the city and the general conduct of the war.
This attribution is confirmed by the comparative
frequency of coins of the first three years, by the
rarity of coins of the fourth year, and by their
almost complete absence in the fifth year (April
to August A.D. 70), all corresponding in the most
complete manner with the success and gradual
collapse of the Jewish power in the course of the
revolt. Further, the fabric and module of these
shekels present a remarkable similarity to those
of the tetradrachms of Nero and Vespasian, issued
about the same time from the mint of Antioch.t
It is possible, as Reinach suggests, that the im-
mediate purpose of the new coinage was to supply,
for the first time in Jewish history, native ‘ shekels
of the sanctuary’ for the various religious dues.t

The question of the copper coinage of the two
revolts is too intricate a subject for detailed dis-
cussion here (see Schiirer, 3.1.4 τ. 11. 883 ft. for the
conflicting views of numismatists). Only two sets
of bronze coins can now, in all probability, be
assigned to the same period as the silver shekels.
These are (1) a set of small coins distinguished by
the legend jvs nnn (héruth Ziyyon, emancipation of
Zion) round a vine leaf, and on the obverse, in old-
Hebrew characters, ‘year two’ and ‘year three’
(illustr. Madden, p. 206). (2) A series of copper
coins of three denominations, of which the dis-
tineuishing mark is the legend prs πον (dig’udlath
Ziyyon, the redemption of Zion) on the reverse ;
the obverses have the following : (@) Ἐπ yarns may (year
four—a half), (ὁ) 3739 pans now (year four—a quarter),
and (0) yaw mw (year four) alone. The principal
types (see Madden, p. 71 ff.) are the déilab (3555, a
sort of bouquet composed of twigs of the myrtle and
willow with a palm leaf ; see Lv 23%) and'‘ethrog (s5ny
a citron), which were carried in either hand at the
feast of Booths. The obverse of the third group (ec),
however, is the chalice, which serves to connect the
whole series with the shekels of the first revolt. The
coins just described are generally known as ‘ the
copper shekels of the year four,’ it being asswmed
that they represent ἃ, 4, and 4 shekels respectively.
If this be so—the view is by no means beyond
question—these coins will be specimens of ‘siege
money,’ tokens issued by the authorities to be re-
deemed by silver money after the victory—which
never came.

Perhaps no coins of antiquity have been more
frequently reproduced in illustrations than the
numerous coins struck by Vespasian, Titus,
Domitian, and the Roman senate to commemorate
the subjugation of Judiea (see Madden, pp. 207-229 ;
de Sauley, Numism. de la Terre Sainte, p. 79 1h;
Pick, Zevt. f. Numism. xiv. 1887, 328 ft.). One of
these, an aureus of Titus, is shown in No. 16.

Oouz Τὶ CAKES. INP, 2VESP PON. “CRE POT,

Head of Titus, right, laureated.

Rev. No legend (other coins have JUDAEA
CAPTA and the like). Palm tree; to left:
Titus, with left foot on helmet, holding spear
in right hand, with left resting on para-
zonium ;§ to right: Juda as a Jewess seated
on the ground.

* This date was first advocated by Ewald in the Géttinger
Nachrichten, 1855.

+ Cf. our illustrations with plates xxi. and xxii. of Wroth,
Greek Coins of Galatia, etc.

t For weights of extant shekels and half-shekels, see Madden,
Coins, p. 286 n. 5.

§ A short sword attached to a belt round the waist; see Rich,
Dict. of Antig. 8.v.

§ 10. Coins of the Second Revolt, A.D. 132--135.—
The history of the Jewish community in Judea
during the sixty years that followed the destrue-
tion of their temple is very imperfectly known ; in
particular, the antecedents of the shortlived but
sanguinary rebellion which broke out in the 16th
year of Hadrian’s principate.* The conflicting
and fragmentary evidence seems to warrant either
of two alternatives. Either the Jews were
goaded to revolt by coercive measures on Hadrian’s
part, and by the founding of Aflia Capitolina
with its heathen temple, on the occasion of his
visit to Jerusalem A.D. 130;+ or on a former visit
in A.D. 117 (see for this Diirr, op. cit. p. 63, follow-
ing Epiphanius) the Jews had received permission
to rebuild the temple, and were now incited to
revolt by Bar Cochba, whose Messianic claims had
been approved by R. Akiba, the most respected
religious leader of the time. The founding of
Aflia Capitolina would thus fall naturally after
the suppression of the revolt. The numismatie
evidence seems rather favourable to the second
alternative.

The distinguishing feature of the silver coins of
the ‘second revolt’ is the fact that they are all, prob-
ably without a single exception, imperial denarii,
drachms, and tetradrachms from the mints of
Rome, Caesarea, and Antioch respectively, which
have been re-struck with Jewish types and legends.
On most of them some trace, more or less, of the
original legend, and even in some cases of the head
of the emperor—from Galba to Hadrian inclusive
—has survived. Where such is not the case, we
may assign as the cause the success of the process
of re-striking rather than the use of native flans.
Our knowledge of these coins has recently been
enlarged by a valuable find a few miles from
Hebron, which has enabled a German numismatist
to undertake an exhaustive study of all the known
specimens (see L. Hamburger, ‘Die Silbermiinz-
priigungen wiihrend des letzten Aufstandes der
Israeliten gegen Rom’ in Von Sallet’s Zeitsch. fiir
Numismatik, xviii. (1892) pp. 240-347).

The activity of the Jewish moneyers during the
short period of the revolt is very remarkable,
since, according to Hamburger’s data, no fewer
than twenty-four different classes of silver coins
have to be registered (op. ci¢é. p. 246). From these
we learn that the leaders of the revolt were the
secular chief, ‘Simeon, Nasi (or Prince) of Israel,’
and the religious head of the nation, ‘ Eleazar the
(high) priest.” The latter has been variously
identified as Eleazar of Modein, whose priestly
descent, however, is uncertain ; Eleazar ben Aza-
riah (Hamburger), and most recently Eleazar
ben Harsom (Schlatter, op. cit. 54 ff; ‘assez
plausible’ is Bacher’s verdict, RE#/, 1898). The
Simeon of the coin-legends can hardly be other
than the pseudo-Messiah known as Simon bar
Cochba (x3353 12 bar Kékébd, ‘son of the star,’ +
in allusion to Nu 24:7), whose real name was prob-
ably Simeon bar Kozéba, ὑ.6. native of Kozeba, a
place on the road to Jericho (cf. Buhl, Geogr. 176).

The following, apart from graphical details, is
substantially Hamburgers arrangement of the

* Besides the well-known histories of Gritz (vol. iv.),
Mommsen (Provinces, etc. ii. 228 ff.), Gregorovius (The
Emperor Hadrian, 1898, unfortunately not brought down 10
date), and Schiirer (HJP 1. ii. 287ff., with ample reff.), -. 2
Dirr, Die Reisen Hadrians, 1881, and Schlatter, Die Taye
Trajans u. Hadrians, 1897 (an attempt to construct a connected
history from the scattered notices in later Jewish literature).
For the Roman forces engaged in suppressing the revolt (which
were more numerous than has hitherto been supposed), see,
besides Pfitzner, Gesch. d. rém. Kaiserlegionen, J. Offord in
PSBA, 1898, pp. 59-69.

+ This visit is commemorated by the coins of Hadrian with
the legend ADVENTVI AUG. IVDAEAE (see Cohen, Déscrip-
tion de monnaies impériales, ed. 1, p. 176 ἢ. ; Madden, p. 251 f.).

t The star on some of the tetradrachms has generally been
supposed to refer to this.

ἌΣ Ss fe a a

MONEY

MONKEY 431

silver coins of Eleazar and Simeon, the three larger
groups bemg determined by the legend of the
reverse,

I. Coins (denarii, drachms, and tetradrachms) of
‘the year one * of the redemption of Israel’
—Serer πον now mw.

1. Denarius - drachms with the

‘Eliezer the priest’ [727 ἭΝ,

ii. Tetradrachms with legend ‘Jerusalem’
round the conventional representation of
the ‘golden gate’ (7) of the temple (see
below).

If. Coins (as before) of the ‘year 2 of the emanci-
pation of Israel ’—Sxrw? mand av.

This group is composed of two main
classes of denarius-drachms of Simeon,
ν]Ζ.---

ui. A. D.-d. of Simeon, with his name, con-

tracted (yov) or in full (ΠΡ), within a

wreath.

BL. V).-d. of Simeon, with his name always

in full round ἃ bunch of grapes.

Each of these may be arranged in four sub-
classes, according to the type of the reverse,
viz.—

(a) Lev. Sacrificial flagon,

palm branch above.

(6) Rev. Three-stringed lyre.

(¢) Rev. Two trumpets.

(@) Rev. Palm branch.

iy. Tetradrachms of the same year with οὖν.
legend ‘Jerusalem.’

v. Tetradrachms of the same year with οὖν.
legend ‘Simeon.’

Ill. Undated coins of ‘the emancipation of
Jerusalem ’—o>vry mand.

vi. D.-d. of Simeon, falling into two classes

(Ad and B), each into four sub-classes

(a@)-(d) as under division iii. above.+

vii. Undated tetradrachms of Simeon.

From the great variety of coins above repre-
sented we have selected three from group III. fer
illustration —a re-struck drachm, denarius, and
tetradrachm (this last showing no traces of the
original) from the British Museum collection.

Οὐυ. yoy round a bunch of grapes.

Rev, ποῦν mand round a three-stringed lyre (class
vi. B ὁ of Hamburger’s classification above).
Plate No. 17.

This is ἃ re-struck drachm of Trajan from the
mint of Casarea Cappadocie ; on the reverse may
be seen AYTOKP. KAIC. of the legend of the
original obverse, and on the present obverse
[AH]MAPX from the original reverse legend (see
Wroth’s Catalogue, p. 54 ff.).

Οὐ». As above (Plate No. 18).

vev. Same legend ; type, two trumpets (= Ham-

burger’s vi. B c).

A re-struck denarius of Trajan; on the obverse
are clear traces of the back of the emperor's head,
with the ends of the ribbons with which the wreath
was fastened, while the reverse shows the arm of
Arabia as a female holding a branch over a camel.
No. 19 shows the original denarius of A.D. 105.

Obv. pyow. Type of uncertain significance (Ὁ
Madden, ‘a conventional figure of the Beauti-
ful Gate of the Temple; below, Solomon's
colonnade’ [%]); above, a star.

Rev. ὑῶν mand. Type, a lélab (see previous
section) with small ‘ethrog as adjunct. (No. 20).

A tetradrachm of class vii. above; weight of
specimen, 213 ers.

name of

with small

*In the sequel, ‘year one,’ ‘year two’ denote that the
Hebrew words are written in full; ‘yr. 1,’ ‘yr. 2’ represent the
contractions Xv, Iv.

+ This gives in all sixteen possible varieties of denarius-
drachms issued in Simeon’s name, only fifteen of which have as
yet been recovered.

Hamburger has not dealt with the copper coins
of this period in the same systematic way. The
following arrangement is here proposed, and will
be found to embrace most of the coins.

I. Bronze coins of ‘the first year of the

redemption of Israel.’

i. Coins of ‘Eleazar the priest,’ written in
bizarre fashion on either side of the stem
of a palin-tree. Ltev. type a bunch of
grapes (see Madden, 198th, who refers
these coins to an Eleazar of the first
revolt). It is now evident that these
cannot be separated from the Eleazar
silver coins of the second revolt.

li. Various denominations of ‘Simeon, prince
of Israel,’ with, as types, palin, vine leaf,
diota (two-eared jar), lyre, etc. (Madden,
203 ff. ).

If. Bronze coins of ‘ year 2 of the emancipation
of Israel.’

ili, Obv. Ἰνὸ (sic) and yov' on either side of a
palm-tree.

Types of Lev. (a) bunch of grapes, (Ὁ) vine
leaf.

iv. Obv. obevy arranged as in iii, and with
same rev. types.

ΠῚ. Undated bronzes of ‘the emancipation of
Jerusalem.’

v. Obv. pyow arranged as above, and with
same rev. types.

vi. Oby. nbery arranged as above, and with
same rev. types.

From the relative sizes (/£ 4 and 6) and weights
of the bronzes with the bunch of grapes and the
vine leaf respectively as obv. types (see No. 21),
it is evident that the former are one half of the
latter, perhaps ‘current’ chalki and dichalki re-
spectively (see ὃ 8. The types of these revolt
coins, silver and copper alike, in almost all cases
have a reference to some characteristic product
of the country (palm, vine, grapes), or to the
paraphernalia of the temple-worship (Lyre, flagon,
trumpets).

The fall of Bethar, the modern Bittir, a few
miles S.W. of Jerusalem, where Simeon and
his frenzied followers made their last despairing
stand, had been preceded by the recapture of Jeru-
salem, on the site of which Hadrian built his new
city of Atlia Capitolina. The coins commemor-
ating its foundation are given by Madden, p.
249 tt., and de Sauley, Nwmism. de la Terre Sainte,
p. 63 ff.

Our task is done. Yet the writer cannot forbear
to call attention once more to the most striking
feature of Jewish numismatics, and to a reflexion
which it suggests. Not once in the whole course
of their history did the Jews enjov, as a constitu-
tional and legal right, the privilege of coining
money in either silver or gold. —Is not this a
remarkable testimony to the fact that the true
mission of the Hebrew race lay in another than the
temporal sphere, even the spiritual? ‘Out of
Zion’ went ‘forth the Law, and the Word of the
Lord from Jerusalem.’

8.11. Appendix. The purchasing power of money
in Bible times.—Throughout this article an approxi-
mate estimate in sterling currency has been given
of the moneys of the various standards we have
met with in the course of the history of the Hebrew
race. A much more adequate idea of their real
value, however, would be gained if we knew their
purchasing power in these ancient times. Con-
sidering the compass and variety of our Scriptures,
it is somewhat remarkable how few indications are
to be found of the prices of the ordinary articles of
commerce. The purchase of land is probably more
frequently mentioned than any other (Gn 230.
33", 28 24%, 1 K 16%, Jer 32°, Mt 277), but in no

432 MONEY

MONEY-CHANGERS

case have we definite information as to the size of
the ground acquired. From Is 7° we learn that a
good vineyard was valued at the rate of a thousand
vines for ‘a thousand silverlings’ or silver shekels,
a sum (6. £135) which represents the yearly rent
(though this is not certain) of Solomon’s vineyard
at Baal-hamon (Ca 8"). This monarch paid ‘ 600
shekels of silver’ (ὁ. £80) for an Egyptian chariot,
and a quarter of that sum for a horse (2 Ch 117); in
each case, no doubt, a high price. A better indica-
tion of the value of money in antiquity is the rate
of wages paid. Micah’s private chaplain received
but ten shekels a year (16. 1119. He had, however,
‘everything found’ in addition, as had the angel
Raphael when he accepted service with Tobit for
a drachm a day (Tob 54 (τ. 15 δραχμὴν τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ
τὰ δέοντά cour). In NT times a denarius (93d.) was a
fair day’s wages fora labourer (Mt 20?"*). Labourers
in Cicero’s time got only 12 asses (ἐς 7d.), but soldiers
received a denarius. The price of slaves naturally
varied not only according to age and capacity, but
also according to the supply. The normal value,
aceording to the Priests’ Code, was 30 shekels, over
£4(Ex 2133). Joseph was sold for twenty (Gn 37%).
The former price differs but little from the average
of 120 drachms in the age of the Ptolemies (Jos.
Ant, ΧΙ. 11. 8). A talent was a high price even for
an educated slave ‘in the flower of his youth?’
(Ant. XIL. iv. 9), while ninety slaves for that
amount (2 Mae 81 represent the other extreme.
The truest indication of all would be the price of
the standard food-stuffs, especially wheat and
barley, but unfortunately the biblical data are
scanty in the extreme. In 2 k 7! a seah (about 15
peck) of fine flour was sold for a shekel (2s. 9d.),
and two seahs of barley at the same price. ‘This
gould only be considered cheap in comparison with
the previously existing famine prices (2 K 6? ).*
Another ‘ famine’ price is found Rev 66: a choenix
(abont a quart) of wheat for a denarius, and three
of the same measure of barley at the same price.
From these two passages (2 Καὶ 71, Rev 6°) we learn
this at least, that in the period of the monarchy
flour was twice as dear as barley meal, while in
the Ist cent. A.D. the price of wheat was to that
of barley δὲ 8:1. In any case the prices in Reve-
lation are very high, about twelve times the ordi-
nary prices, to judge from those of the 2nd cent. as
given in the Mishna. ‘Thus a seah of wheat is
there priced at a denarius (/rubm viii. 2), about
165. a quarter. Little can be learned from the
contradictory statements of Josephus (IWars, I.
xxi. 2, and Life, 13) regarding the price of oil,
beyond the fact of its extreme cheapness in Galilee
during the war with Rome. ‘The low price of the
sparrow, finally, is familiar to every reader of the
Gospels, two being sold for a ‘current’ issar-
assarion, or a farthing and a half (see § 8), and
five for three English farthings.
LITERATURE.—Indispensable for the study of Jewish numis-
matics is F. W. Madden's exhaustive corpus, Coins of the Jews,
1881, which has taken the place of his earlier work, History of
Jewish Coinage, 1864. Hardly less so are B. V. Head’s Historia
Numorum, 1887, which covers the whole field of Greek numis-
matics, and Fr. Hultsch, Griechische und Rémische Metrologie,
2te Bearbeitg. 1882. Other standard works are, besides the
general works of Eckhel and Mionnet :—F. de Saulcy, Recherches
sur la Nuimismatique Judaique, 1854; Cavedoni, Biblische
Numismatik, trans. from the Italian by Werlhof, 1855; Levy,
Gesch. d. jtidischen Miinzen, 1862 ; de Saulcy, Numismatique
de la Terre Sainte, 1874 (complement of his Recherches, dealing
only with non-Jewish coins of Palestine); Merzbacher in the
Zeitschrift f. Numismatik, Bd. iii.-v., 1876-78 (specially on the
‘“Maccabean’ shekels); Th. Reinach, Les monnaies juives,

* MT is herecorrupt. Cheyne emends: ‘A homer(10 bushels)
ef lentils for 50 shekels, and a quarter of a cor (23 bushels) of
carob-pods for 5 shekels,’ Expos. July 1899.

+ Cf. Baba Meziav. 1, where a kor (30 seahs) of wheat is bought
for 25 and sold for 30 denarii, also 16s. a quarter. In Cicero’s
time wheat was sold at Rome at the rate of 3 sestertii the
nodius, which is under £1 a quarter.

1887; Hamburger, Z. f. Numism. xviii. 1892 (see § 10). The
standard works on the Persian, Phoenician, Ptolemaic, Seleucid,
and Roman coins respectively are given in the body of the
article. A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MONEY-CHANGERS (EXCHANGERS, CHANGERS,
BANKERS).—In the preceding article it has been
shown how various were the standards according
to which money was reckoned in the course οἵ
Jewish history. In the Ist cent. of our era, for
example (MONEY, § 8), we find coins of the Roman
system (denarius, as, ete.) side by side with coins
of the Greek system (drach, tetradrachm, ete.).
The Jews, moreover, according to the testimony of
their own Rabbis, were required to pay the sacred
dues in coins of still another standard, viz. the
Pheenician. When to these facts is added the
circumstance that Palestine and Jerusalem, in par-
ticular, were visited by vast numbers of Jews ‘out
of every nation under heaven’ (Ac 2°), each of
whom required to be furnished with the current
coins of the country, it will be admitted that
there was great need for ‘the tables of the money-
changers.” The words denoting this important
class of the community in N'T are three in number :
(1) κερματιστής (from κέρμα, a small coin, then money
generally, Jn 2"), Jn24 only, AV and RV ‘changers
of money,’ parallel to and synonymous with (2)
κολλυβιστής (from κόλλυβος, originally a small coin,
apparently one fourth of the χαλκοῦς [Hultzsch,
Metrol.? yp, 228), then the ‘commission’ or agio
paid to the money-changer), Mt 9115, Mk 11%, AV
and RV ‘money - changers,’ Jn 2! ‘changers.’
According to some we should distinguish the
κερματιστής Who gave sinall change (κέρματα) for
the larger coins, copper and silver, ete., from the
κολλυβιστής Who ‘changed foreign money at an agio
(καταλλαγή), or provided gold to be remitted abroad ’
(Smith’s Dict. of Antig.? ‘ Argentarii’). The Jews,
however, expressed both words by the post-biblical
ant shulhané (from shulhan, table), which is merely
the Hebrew equivalent of (3) τραπεζίτης (from
τράπεζα, the table or stand at which the changer
sat and on which he ranged his money, Mt 21”,
Mk 115, Jn 2%, AV and RV ‘tables,’ but Lk 19%
‘bank’ *), only Mt 25%, AV ‘exchangers,’ RV
‘bankers.’ The business of the Jewish shulhani
was threefold : (1) he changed the larger denomina-
tions (fetradrachin, denarius, drachm) into their
equivalent in the copper money in which the minor
purchases of the average household were made, or,
it might be, the gold aureus into silver coin, and
vice versa. (2) He exchanged all money that had
not legal currency in Palestine into such as had.
(3) The wealthier members of the class received
money on deposit for the purpose of investment,
on which interest (τόκος, Mt 25°7, Lk 19°3 AV ‘usury,’
RV ‘interest’) at fixed rates was paid. They also
negotiated drafts on correspondents abroad. This
third department will be dealt with more in detail
under UsuRY.

The ‘money-changers’ are introduced in the NT,
in respect of the first two departments of their
business, in the incident (or incidents) of the clear-
ing of the temple courts (Mt 217%, Mk 115%, Jn
gut.) The practice had grown up of allowing the
shulhdnim to set up their stands or ‘tables’ (j7)z')
in the outer court or ‘court of the Gentiles’ for
the convenience of the numerous worshippers,
especially of those from foreign countries—a practice
which evidently led to much unseemly wrangling,
and even to acts of downright dishonesty (cf. Mt
2133, Mk 1127, Lk 19%), A special and important
branch of the money-changer’s work was the pro-
viding of the half-shekel or didrachm (MONEY,
§ 8) required annually of every adult male for
the maintenance of the public servicesof the temple.

* The Latin mensa and mensarius afford a complete parallel ;
ef. our own ‘ bank’ cognate with ‘bench.’

MONSTER

MOON 433

From the Mishna treatise Shélalim we learn that
one month (15th Adar) before the Passover festival
accredited shudhanim set up their tables in the
provinces to receive the contributions of the

|

provincials, removing ten days later to the capital |

(see, further, TRIBUTE MONEY). While in their
ordipary transactions the changers were probably
ποῦ over-scrupulous as to the amount of com-

mission they charged, in the case of the half- |

shekel the amount of the agio (j)2>}p, κύὐλλυβον)
was fixed at 4 per cent. This seems the natural
inference from the data in Shéhalim i. ὁ, 7, which
we understand to mean that the price of the Tyrian
tetradrachm or stater (Mt 17*7), which contained
24 moth (my2) or obols, was 25 obols, the extra
obol (1 in 25, or 4 p.c.=c. 14d.) being the agio.
This we saw (MONEY, ὃ 8) was probably the usual
method of paying the tax. For a single half-
shekel or didrachm of silver apparently only half
an obol was charged (see Shek. i. end ἢ). A com-
mission of 4 p.c. seems to have been usual in secular
transactions also. In MWeilah vi. 4 we read of an
aureus (=25 denarii) being spent, although the
total of the purchases amounts to only 24 denaric.
Clearly the remaining denarius was retained as
agio. The changers had always to be on their
guard against false money, hence the saying—

SPT Mew Ἣ aS AD Ie AT PN

‘it is not the custom of the money-changer to give
change (lit. an issar or as) until he receives [and
has tested] his denarius !’ A. R. 5. KENNEDY.

MONSTER.—The only occurrence of this word is
in La 4°, where in AV pin tannin (ΤΙΝ Χ δράκοντες)
is tré ‘sea monsters,’ RV ‘jackals.’ Post prefers
woives ; see DRAGON, vol. 1. p. 621% Amer. RV
prefers ‘monster’ to ‘dragon’ in Is 27', Jer 5153,

The adj.‘ monstrous’ is applied in Wis 1715 to the
apparitions which terrified the Eeyptians during
the plague of darkness,—‘ were partly vexed with
monstrous apparitions (τέρασιν φαντασμάτων, Vulg.
monstrorim timore), and partly fainted.’

A monster (Lat. monstrum, a divine omen, from
monere, to warn) is anything which attracts the
attention from being out of the ordinary course of
nature. The ‘sea monsters’ above are so on
account of their size, while the adj. ‘monstrous’

is used of the apparitions, because of their warning |

or ominous character. Cf. Udall, Erasmus’ Para-

phrase, i. fol. Ixvi, ‘It semeth a monstreous thing
unto them which chaunced to the Prophete Jonas :
ΤΥ shall have a lyke monstre, but more wondre-
ul.

The tr. of Ps 716 in Pr. Bk. is, ‘I am become as it were a
monster unto many,’ on which Davies (Bible English, 183)
remarks, ‘We might suppose that the Psalmist meant that he
was an object of horror and detestation, but he is affirming that
his preservation through so great trials and dangers appeared
miraculous to many.’ Driver (Parallel Psalter) translates, ‘lam
become as it were a portent unto many,’ and in a footnote
explains, ‘ Attracting attention on account of my extraordinary
sufferings,’ comparing Dt 2846 (‘for a sign and for a portent’).
So most commentators. Shakespeare often uses the adj. of that
which attracts attention because of its magnitude, as J Henry
IV. τι. iv. 530, ‘the sheriff with a most monstrous watch is at
the door’; 11 Henry VI. iv. vii. 88, ‘O monstrous coward.’

J. HASTINGS.

MONTH.—See ΤΊΜΕ.

MONUMENT.—This word occurs in Is 654 ‘A
rebellious people . which remain among the
graves, and lodge in the monuments’ (13%) oNs323,
RV ‘and lodge in the secret places,’ RVim ‘ vaults’).

*See this treatise for other details, especially chs. i. and ii.
E.g. the priests, but not the Levites, were exempt from the
payment of commission. Again, ‘if one gives [to the changer]
a tetradrachm (j=) and [after paying the half-shekel due]
receives back a didrachm (py), he has to pay double agio’
(ΣῚΡ vagy an Spe Sein yb pia, ἐδ. 1. 7).

VOL. II. —28

The EV word ‘monuments’ means ‘tombs.’ The
Rhemish NT often uses the word in this sense,
after the Vule. moniumentum. Thus Mt 23°9 * You
build the Prophets sepulchres, and garnish the
moniments of iust men’ ; Lk 8** ‘There mette him
acertaine man that had a devil now a very long
time, and he did weare no clothes, neither did he
tarie in house, but in the monuments.’ So John’s
disciples (Mk 059) ‘tooke his body, and they put it
ina monument’; and our Lord’s sepulchre is called
a ‘monument’ in Mt 27™, Lk 23°, Jn 19%, Ac 13”.
Cf. Shaks. 71:4. Andronicus, 11. 111. 228—

‘Upon his bloody finger he doth wear

A precious ring, that lightens all the hole,

Which like a taper in some monument,

Doth shine upon the dead man’s earthy cheeks,

And shows the ragged entrails of the pit.’

The translation of Is 654 is uncertain, owing to the un-
certainty of the reference. The Heb. word means literally
‘guarded places.’ The LXX renders the two clauses in one, ἐν
τοῖς μνήμασιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς σπηλαίοις κοιμῶνται διὰ ἐνύπνικ 5 the Syriac
follows this interpretation, which is explained by Jerome as a
method of obtaining oracles in dreams by what is known as
incubation (κοιμῶνται), 1.e. spending the night in subterranean
sacred places. W. R. Smith (2s2, 195 f.) points out that ‘the
whole N. Semitic area was dotted over with sacred tombs,
Memnonia, Semiramis mounds, and the like, and at every such
spot a god or demigod had his subterranean abode.’ See also
A. van Hoonacker’s art. on ‘ Divination by the Ὁ amongst the
Ancient Hebrews’ in Expos. Times, vol. ix. 1898, p. 157 ff., and
the artt. DivINaTIon, WITCHCRAFT. J. HASTINGS.

MOOLI (A MooX, Β -εἰ, AV Moli), 1 Es 8% (LXX
46) — Manni, Ezr 818, son of Merari and grandson of
Levi (see Ex 66 19), The LXX in all places renders
“bn in this way.

MOON.—The most common name used for the
second of the great lights of heaven in the OT is
m,* written in Phoenician with the same con-
sonants; in Assyr. ἡ τ; Eth. wareh. The mean-
ing of the word is regarded as uncertain, but there
can be but little doubt that the root to which it
belongs was originally of the class 15, as is clearly
indicated by the Ethiopie, and also by the Assyrian
name for ‘month,’ which, being transcribed in the
month-name Marcheswan with oO replacing the
original w (m and w are interchangeable consonants
in Assyrian), implies a connexion with the Assyrian
word wrhu ‘road,’ and contirms the correctness of
the suggestion of Ges.-Buhl that 1; means ‘ wan-
derer,’ and is connected with the cognate my ‘to
wander,’ ‘journey.’ The less common word 733:
designates the moon as ‘the white one,’ from the
root 72> ‘to be white.’ There is also another
word, namely #14, which is used to designate the
new moon (see NEW Moon, and art. FEASTS in
vol. i. p. 859°).

Where first mentioned in the Bible(Gn 116), neither
of the above words is used, the luminary being de-
scribed as ‘the lesser light’ (parallel with the deserip-
tion there given of the sun as the ‘ greater light’).
It is described as being placed in the heavens to
rule the night, and also ‘ for signs, and for seasons,
and for days and years’; and it was apparently as
a time-measurer that it was principally looked
on by the Hebrews, and also, to a somewhat less
degree, by the Babylonians and Assyrians, to
whom the chief character of the moon was a per-
sonal one, namely, that of the representative of the
moon-god Sin (cf. Sennacherih = * Sin has multiplied
the brothers’) and the moon-goddess (the moon as
the consort of the sun) Aa. A further reference
to the moon as the indicator of the (religious)
festivals is to be found in Ps 104!" ‘he appointeth
the moon for seasons, and the sun knoweth his
going down.’ F

Notwithstanding that the bright portion of the
moon’s dise, being always turned towards the sun,

* According to Sayce (ΕΠ 240), Jericho n(°)V means ‘city
of the moon-god.’

434 MOON

MOON

implied that it received its light from that body,
the moon is represented in Gn 1 ἃ5 having been
created at the same time as the sun, and appar-
ently as shining by its own light. It was also, with
the sun, set in the heavens to give Hgeht upon the
earth, and as the ‘lesser light’ to rule over the night,
and to divide between the Hight and between the
darkness, though this is, with reference to the
moon, a very loose phrase, when we take into
consideration the imperfect way in which it per-
forms this office.

All these statements would, of course, lead one
to suppose that the Hebrews had but avery imper-

fect knowledge of astronomy, and especially of the |
movements of the luminary in question, though |

they must have seen and noticed the regularity of
its motions, and it apparently became for them, in
course of time, a kind of emblem of constancy and
everlastingness, hence the expressions ‘ peace as
long as the moon endureth’ (Ps 727), and ‘estab-
lished for ever as the moon’ (Ps 89°7, likewise Ps
727 ‘as long as the sun and moon endure [lit. with
the sun and in the presence of the moon] through-
out all generations ’).

The calm, clear light of the moon
noticed in the expressions ‘fair as
parallel to the second member of the
as the sun,’ both being comparisons referring to
the Shulammite in Ca 6. Increase of the light
of the moon to the equal of that of the sun is
foretold for the day when the Lord should bind
up His people’s hurt, and heal their wound (Is
30°). The influence of the moon on persons is
apparently referred to in Ps 121°, in the phrase,
‘~The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the
moon by night,’ where the smiting by the sun
being undoubtedly sunstroke, the smiting by the
moon may well be regarded as an early instance of
the beliet that the rays of the moon could exert an
influence so baleful as to produce lunacy, or to
cause that a person might become ‘moon-struck.’
That the moon was supposed to have this effect: is
hardly to be wondered at, as many people believe
the same thing at the present time ; and in ancient

seems to be
the moon,’
verse, ‘clear

this word that we find in the Babylonian royal
name Eri-aku (Eri-eaku) or Arioch. Another not
uncommon name of the moon-god among tha
Babylonians was Nannara, under which appella-
tion he was worshipped at Ur (Mugheir or Mukey-
yer), a city probably possessing his oldest and most
renowned temple.* The month Sivan was dedicated
to the moon-god by the old inhabitants of Baby-
lonia. Reference has already been made to the
moon-voddess Aa, who was regarded as the consort
of the sun-god Samas, and was probably the
equivalent of the Ashtaroth-karnaim of the Phoe-
nicians. +

The name of the moon-god seems to have been
Sin, not only in Assyria and Babylonia, but in
other parts of the ancient East also. Thus we
have reference to this deity in the name of Mount
Sinai, the peninsula of which, even at the end of
the 6th cent. B.c., was devoted to the worship of
the moon. Antoninus Martyr relates that, at the
time of the worship of the deity in this district,
the marble of which the idols were made changed
colour, and ultimately became black as pitch,
returning when the festival was over to its original
hue, at which he wondered greatly. This was, of
course, a symbolical festival, typifying the phases
of the moon in its monthly journey, the change of
the colour of the statues of the god being brought
about artificially, but in such a way as to work
upon the superstitions of the ignorant. The Pho.-

/nicians seem to have worshipped the new moon

days it was supposed also that its rays could |

bring on epilepsy, as is illustrated by the Greek
text of Mt 4% and 17", where the original has
σεληνιαζομένους and σεληνιάζεται, ‘epileptic’ (RV).

There is some uncertainty as to what is intended
by the ‘precious things put forth by the moons” in
Dt 334 (AV). The phrase has been supposed to
refer to the produce of the months in their order,
which is not improbable. An Assyrian tablet
exists in which the produce of every month is
enumerated in order, and as moon and month are
convertible terms it is not unlikely that something
of the kind is intended here, rather than omens
derived from the moon’s motions, such as are so
often found among the numerous astrological fore-
casts of Babylonia and Assyria. In fact we should
probably translate ‘months,’ not ‘moons,’ although
any certainly contains a play upon 77; ‘moon,’ in
poetical parallelism with sun (Driver, ad /oc.).*

With the nations around, the moon was, con-
jointly with the sun and the other heavenly bodies,
regarded as a deity, and divine honours were paid
it as such. Among the Babylonians and Assyrians
the moon, as a deity, was apparently not called
iritv, but Sin (possibly also pronounced Sen), and
it is this word that we meet with as the first
element of the name of the well-known Assyrian
king Sennacherib.t Besides this, however, he
was also called Aku, and it is in all probability

+ Steuernagel, who retains ‘moons,’ thinks the allusion is to
the dew, which is traced to the moon as light is to the sun.

+ With regard to the etymology of the word Sin, it has been
suggested that this is for Zu-en, ‘ knowledge-lord’ (generally
written En-zu-na—t.e. so as to be read Zu-en-na), one of his
Aceadian names.

|

under the name of van flodesh (Baethgen, p. 61).
See New Moon. The moon-god was represented
either standing with his attributes, or seated upon
a horse. In Palmyra he seems to have been called
Yarkhibol (= Varewh-baal), and in the nune Agli-

| bol we have a reference to the moon as a ‘young

steer,” by the Assyrian equivalent of which it is
designated in the hymn to the moon-god published
in WAZ iv. pl. 9 In an Assyrian inscription the
name of an Arab, Aa-hamearu, leads one to ask
whether we may not have here two old names of
the moon-deity : Aa, the Babylonian goddess of
the moon as the consort of the sun-god ; and
kameru, an Assyrian transcription of the Arabic
hamar, «the moon.’

With the Eeyptians there were several moon-
deities, all masculine. The principal of these was
Thoth, the god of knowledge, an attribute apphed
to him in consequence of the moon’s character as
time-measurer (for such is the meaning of its
name in the Indo-European languages). Sefekh,
a goddess associated with Thoth, in all probability
typified the full moon, As the wanderer, the
moon was called Khunsu or Khons. Isis, Muth,
and Hathor, who wear as their crowns the dise of
the moon, were evidently in some manner asso-
ciated with that luminary.

The worship of the moon and the other heavenly
bodies is mentioned and prohibited in Dt 17°.
Kissing the hand on seeing the moon (undoubtedly
an act of adoration) is referred to in Job 31°, and

sacrifices made ‘unto the queen of heaven’ } are
spoken of in Jer 44°, The moon- or crescent-

shaped ornaments spoken of as adornments of * the
daughters of Zion’ in Is 3!8 (cf. Jg 8*'**), were

* This is the Urie (=Uriwa, the Accadian form) of Eupolemus
(ap. Eusebius, Prep. Kran. 9), who says that it also bore the
name of Camarina, apparently from the same root as the Arab.
kamar (see below). :

Ὁ + There is also a deity named Laban, mentioned as having
been worshipped in the temple of Anu, in the city of Asshur.
As the moon-god was the minister of Anu, the question naturally
arises whether the word Laban may not, in this passage, be
another name οὗ Sin. If this be the case, Laban would be con-
nected with 732).

t See the elaborate article, ‘Die Melecheth des Himmels,’ by
Kuenen, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 186ff., and cf. the
chapter on Al‘Uzza in Wellhausen’s Reste Arab. Heidentums%.
p. 34 ff.

MOOSSIAS

MORDECAT 435

probably due to the same idolatrous tendency
which at the time often led the chosen people
astray. See CRESCENTS. T. G. PINCHES,

MOOSSIAS (B Moosceias, A Mods: Suds, AV Moo-
sias), 1 Es 99!=MAASEIAH, Ezr 10,

MOPH.
MORALITY.

MORASHTITE (so correctiy in RV, in place of
Morasthite of AV; Heb. cnga(sjoa; LXX in Jer
ὁ Μωραθείτης, in Mic τὸν τοῦ Μωρασθεί B, ᾿
ΔΙωραθεί A).—A gentilic adjective used to desig-
nate the prophet Micah (Mic 11, Jer 26 (Gr. 33] 18),
probably derived from Moresheth-gath (wh. see).

See MEMPHIs.

See Ernics.

MORDECAI (‘277>, Baer ‘272; Μαρδοχαῖος ; Mar-
dochwus, Ezy 93. Mardochai: the name denotes
‘belonging to Merodach, or Marduk,’ a Babylonian
deity).—4. One of the leaders of the people at the
time of the return of the exiles under Zerubbabel
and Jeshua (Ezr 2°, Neh 77, 1 Es 58). From a com-
parison of the three lists it appears probable that
the leaders were twelve in number.

2. The deliverer of the Jews in the Book of
Esther. He is described as a Benjamite, the son
of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, one of
the Jewish captives who had been carried away by
Nebuchadnezzar in the days of Jehoiachin (Est
2-°).* Mordecai lived in Shushan (Susa), the
Persian capital, and brought up as his own
daughter his cousin Esther, whose parents were
dead (27). When Esther was taken into the royal
harem, Mordecai forbade her to reveal her con-
nexions or her nationality (230), He was never-
theless able to remain in close communication with
her, and for this purpose he was constantly at the
gate of the palace. Here he discovered the plot of
two eunuchs against the king, and, by informing

Esther of it, procured their execution, the only |

reward which he himself as yet received being the
entry of his name in the royal chronicles (2!-*),
When Haman [which see] was exalted to the rank
of chief minister, Mordecai aroused his wrath by
repeatedly refusing to bow before him: and, to
avenge the slight, Haman procured from the kine
a decree for the destruction of the Jews, Mor-
decai’s fellow-countrymen (3). After Esther, who
had heard from her maidens of the distress of
Mordecai and the Jews, had sent to inquire the
cause, Mordecai, by means of the eunuch Hathach,
informed her of the king's decree, and bade her eo
to the king and seek for protection for her people,
reminding her that she also would be one of the
victims of the massacre (4). Meanwhile, however,
Haman, mortified at the continued disrespect
shown to him by Mordecai, determined to antici-
pate the massacre, and, preparing a high gibbet,
went to the palace to obtain permission to hang
Mordecai thereon. The king, who during a sleep-
less night had heard the chronicles read, and thus
learnt that Mordecai’s services remained unre-
warded, consulted Haman, on his appearance, as
to a fitting recompense for one whom the king

* The interpretation of v.6 is disputed, the relative ‘who’
being referred either to Mordecai himself, or to Kish, his g¢reat-
grandfather. On chronological grounds it is practically im-
possible to suppose that any one carried to Babylon in B.c. 597
should be living in the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) 485-465. If,
on the other hand, we regard the Book of Esther as being in
the main unhistorical, this difficulty ceases to be of weight.
Grammatical considerations do not decide. the question, for,
though certainly it is more natural to refer the pronoun to
Mordecai, the other construction cannot be regarded as im-
possible, if on independent grounds we are unwilling to convict
the author of a great anachronism (comp. Bertheau-Ryssel, ad
doc. ; Kuenen refuses to lay any weight on this passage, H1ist.-
kKrit. Einl. 1. ii. 209).

wished to honour. In consequence of his own
suggestion the vizier was then bidden to conduet
his enemy in honour round the city, while his
friends saw in this misfortune an omen of his
coming overthrow by Mordecai (5-6). After the
disgrace and death of Haman, Mordecai succeeded
to his place, receiving the kine’s seal, being
arrayed in gorgeous attire, and writing letters in
the king’s name to grant the Jews permission to
defend themselves; while the fame of Mordecai
throughout the empire led all the Persian officials
to assist the Jews (8. 9058), Finally, Mordecai and
Esther wrote two letters to all the Jews, enjoining
that the feast of Purim should be everywhere cele-
brated on the 14th and 15th days of Adar; and
that fastings and lamentation should be connected
with the observance of the festival (92!-*%), The
Bk. of Esther closes with an account of the fame
and dignity of Mordecai, who stood next in rank
to the king, and was recognized as the protector
of his countrymen (10).

The apocryphal additions to Esther in the Greek
version glorify Mordecai still more. In the LXX
the book opens with the description of a dream
which he had concerning two ereat dragons, and a
great river springing from a little fountain. In
the last chapter Mordecai interprets this dream,
explaining the river of queen Esther, and the
dragons of Haman and himself (Ad. Est 112-2 10).
We tind also a few more particulars regarding the
conspiracy of the two eunuchs, and a prayer of
Mordecai, in which he declares that his refusal to
bow before Haman was prompted by zeal for the
glory of God, and not by human pride (13817). In
later literature the first reference to the Bk. of
Esther is in 2 Mac 15**, where the 14th of Adar is
called the Day of Mordecai.

As the general question of the historical char-
acter of the Bk. of Esther is discussed elsewhere
[EsTHeER], it will be sufticient to add here one or
two coments on the position assigned to Mordecai.
There is a certain inconsistency in the representa-
tion that Esther's Jewish descent was unknown
(2), whereas Mordecai was recognized as a Jew
(34 51), and was in frequent conimunication with
the queen (253 4), and also in the fact that the king
should bestow honour upon Mordecai the Jew
after the race had been proscribed. On the other
hand, it is a plausible view which regards Kish (95),
not as the great-grandfather of Mordecai, but as
his remote ancestor, the father of Saul, and holds
Haman to be an Amalekite (so Jos. n¢é. Xt vi. 5,
12; and Targ.); in this case the descendant of
Saul is opposed to the descendant of his ancient
enemy Agag. In profane history we hear of no
great minister of Xerxes whom we can identify
with Mordecai, but it must be admitted that the
domestic annals of this reign are scanty. To
connect the Jewish vizier with the influential
eunuch Matacao, named by Ctesias (so Rawlinson),
seems very precarious. During the last years of
Xerxes, Artabanus, the commander of the body-
guard, was the chief minister. *

In Rabbinical literature Mordecai is a favourite
character. The late Targum on Esther traces the
descent of the ‘righteous’ Mordecai from Shimei,
who cursed David, and from Jonathan the son of
Saul: he knows the seventy languages, he receives
supernatural warning of the danger of the Jews,
and a long description is given of the pomp and
splendour bestowed upon him after he becnme the
king’s minister. H. A. WHITE.

* For a full account of Jensen’s attempt to explain Mordecai
(Marduk), Haman (Humman, the national god of the Elamites),
and the other principal characters in the Bk. of Esther upon
the theory that in that book we have a Judaized form of Baby
lonian legend, see Wildeboer, ‘ Esther,’ in Awrzer Hand-Comon.
172 ff.; cf. Kapos. Times, Aug. 1898, p. 498, and art. Puri
(FEAsT OF) in this Dictionary.

435 MORE

MORESHETILGATH

MORE.—In middle English there were two com-
paratives, ‘moe’ referring to number, and ‘ more’
referring to size or importance ; and the distinction
between them was occasionally observed as late as
the publication of AV in 101]. Thus Nu 22? in
the first ed. of AV reads, ‘ And Balak sent yet
againe Princes, moe, and more honourable then
they’; and 33° Τὸ. the moe ye shall give the
more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give
the lesse inheritance.’ The Anglo-Saxon word was
mda, originally an adv. and connected with Lat.
magis, Goth. mais, Germ. mehr. This mda became
in Eng. ‘mo’ with subscript e (whence ‘moe’ and
‘moo’) as ban became ‘bone,’ drdn ‘drone,’ and
the like (Earle, PAilology, ὃ ii.). The spelling is
capricious even in Elizabethan writers. Shaks.
varies between ‘mo’ and ‘moe’; Tindale’s favourite
spelling is ‘moo.’ Ridley, A Brefe Declaration,
has ‘mo’ on p. 163 (Moule’s ed.), ‘ Therfore I wyll
rehearse mo places of him than hertofore [ have
done of the other’ ; and ‘moo’ onp. 171, ‘it should
not nede to bring in for the confyrmation of
thys matter anye moo.” In AV ‘mo’ occurs once
28 513. and ‘ moe’ 34 times.

‘More’ is really a double comparative, already
formed in Anglo-Sax., mdra. It is at least prob-
able that it was originally confined to greater
bulk or importance, but even early examples show
that ‘moe’ and ‘more’ were used almost indis-
criminately. Wright (on Shaks. ds You Like It,
p. 185) thinks that, as far as Shaks. and AV are
concerned, all that can be asserted is that ‘moe’
is used only with the plural, ‘imore* with both
sing. and plural. Modern editors of Shaks. (chiefly
Rowe in 1709) and of AV (chiefly Paris in 1762 and
Blayney in 1769) have changed * moe” into ὁ more.’
Serivener restored ‘moe’ in his Canh. Paragraph
Bible, but nothing seems to be gained by it. In
Shaks., on the other hand, the form ‘ moe’ is some-
times required by the verse. Thus in JJuch Ado,
1. 111. 72

ἐστ

‘Sing no more ditties, sing no moe,
Of dumps so dull and heavy ;
The fraud of men was ever so,
Since summer first was leavy.’

Examples of ‘more’ in the sense of ‘ greater’
are Ac 19°" ‘the more part knew not wherefore
they were come together’; 27'% ‘the more part
advised to depart thence also.’ Cf. Mt }}}, Wye.
‘Trewly ΤΠ say to you, ther roose noon more than
Joon Baptist amonve children of wommen; forsothe
he that is Jesse in the kynegdam of hevenes, Is
more than he’; Ro 9%, Wye. ‘the more schal
serve to the lasse’; Tind. Mapos, 228, ‘ Locusts
are more than our grasshoppers’ ; Shaks. AY. John,
Il. 1. 34—

©O, take his mother’s thanks, a widow’s thanks,
Till your strong hand shall help to give him strength
To make a more requital to your love !’
J. HASTINGS.

MOREH.—1. OAxk(s) oF, RVm ‘'Terebinth(s),’
AV [wrongly, with Targ. Onk.] PLAIN(S) OF ;
Gn 128 ayn pox, τὴν δρῦν τὴν ὑψηλήν, convallem
tllustrem; Dt 11° a7) cox, τῆς δρυός (so Sam.)
τῆς ὑψηλῆς, vallem tendentem et intrantem procul ;
Syr. has the impossible ‘oak of Mamre’ in both
places. A sacred tree near Shechem, mentioned
Gn 12° as the scene of a theophany to Abraham,
in consequence of which he brilt an altar there
(J; but according to Ball, SBOT, ‘unto the Oak
of Moreh’ is RJ). In Dt 11 (late R) the Oaks
of Moreh are named amongst other landmarks
given to fix the position of Ebal and Gerizim.

Moreh is the participle of Adrah, ‘to give (divine)
direction,’ c.g. Is 9° nabi moreh sheker, ‘a prophet
who gives a false direction.’ The oak, therefore,
was connected with a sanctuary, whose priests
gave oracles on questions asked by worshippers.

According to Dillm., ‘Gilgal’ in Dt 11°) is to ba
taken as a common noun, ‘a circle of sacred
stones’ or ‘cromlech,’ which was another feature
of this sanctuary. There is nothing in the con-
text, either in Gn or Dt, to tell us anything more
of the position of the Oak of Moreh than that
it was in the neighbourhood of Shechem. Buhl
(GAP 202 1.) identities ‘Gilgal’ in Dt with Jile7i/,
some little distance to the east of Shechem, and
concludes that the Oak(s) of Moreh were not close
to Shechem. But, even if the identification be
aceepted, Gilgal and Moreh in Dt may be inde-
pendent jandmarks for Ebal and Gerizim, and
Gilgal not defined by Moreh. Sam. adds in Dt
after ‘Oak of Moreh,’ ‘opposite Shechem,’ a gloss
suggested by Gn 12°. It is not likely that Mabortha,
according to Pliny and Josephus (2) Iv. vill. 1),
the native name for the Greek city Neapolis,
which replaced Shechem, has any connexion with
Moreh. Morthia also occurs on coins as a title
of Neapolis (cf. Smith’s )B, s. Moreh’), but is
probably connected with the Aram. maréha, ‘ mis-
tress.” On the suggested identification of Moreh
with Moriah, and with the sacred trees in Gn
351, Jos 9458, Je 9% 7, οἵ. MEQNENIM (OAK OF).

2. HILL oF, Je 71 only (τ θα nyaa; A τοῦ βωμοῦ
τοῦ ᾿Αβώρ, B Ταβααθαμωρά, Luc. ἀπὸ βουνοῦ τοῦ
᾿Αμωρέ ; collis cavelsi. Targ. for B20 gives x}3A707
‘that faces’). Mentioned in describing the posi-
tion of the camp of the Midianites on the eve of
their defeat by Gideon. RV translates MT of
v.'> ‘and the camp of Midian was on the north
side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the
valley’ (RVm ‘from the hill of Moreh onwards
in the valley’). The text is probably corrupt,
Moore proposes to read, * While the camp of Midian
was north of Gibeath ha-Moreh,’ but suggests as a
possible alternative, ‘was north of him in Gibeath
ha-Moreh.’ Budde proposes, ‘was beneath him
north of Gibeath ha-Moreh.’ Neither the well of
Harod, mentioned as the site of Gideon’s camp,
nor the hill of Moreh, can be certainly identified.
If Τὶ and ὁ are referred to the same source (Τὺ;
so Kautzsch, Budde), probably the ‘valley’ in 7!
is the ‘valley of Jezreel’ in 6", and the hill of
Moreh is Jebel Nabi Dahi, sometimes called the
Little Hermon, to the N.W. of the plain of Jezreel
(ἃ, A. Smith, WGI p. 397; Buhl, GAP p. 202).
Moore refers 7! to J, and 6 to E, and is inclined
to connect the Hill of Moreh with the Oak οἱ
Moreh. The LXX seems to have read ‘ Hill of
the Amorites.’? See Morranu. ‘Hill of Moreh?
sugvests that the hill was the site of a sanctuary ;
cf. 1. See HAROD, W. H. BENNETT.

MORESHETH-GATH (ni nein, κληρονομίας Τέθ)
is mentioned only in Mie 14, in a group with
Gath, Zaanan, Lachish, Achzib, Mareshah, and
other towns of the Judahite-Philistine region,
The daughter of Zion is advised to make a bridal
speeding - gift (ef. 1 K Ὁ Ex 150) concerning
Moresheth-gath. Micah is himself a Morashtite,
that is, a citizen of .Moresheth (Mic 1’, Jer 267%),
which may or may not be the same place.
Moresheth- gath may signify ‘she that takes
possession of Gath,’ or ‘that which Gath pos
sesses,’ or simply as a proper name, ‘ Moresheth
of Gath,’ with other possible variations. Or the
word ‘gath’ in the combination may be the com-
mon noun ‘ winepress.’

In the Onomeasticon, and in the Prologue of the
Commentary of Jerome on Micah, Morasthi is
said to be a village east of, and near by, Eleuther-
opolis. There is no sufficient reason for disputing
this, though the site has not been identified. Or
again, when we note that the context 1s full of
puns on the proper names that are mentioned
(ον 18a Ὁ ete.), we find it possible to regaré

MORIAH

MORTAR 437

Moresheth-gath as a play upon the proper name
Mareshah, leading up to the statement, ‘I will
yet bring in to thee him that taketh possession,
O lady that inhabitest Mareshah’ (!5), and so,
virtually, as ἃ mere variant of Mareshah. Well-
hausen (Ad. Proph. ad loc.) takes ni as vocative,
rendering, ‘Thou must let go Moresheth, O Gath,’
and this is favoured by Oaf. Heb, Lex. Nowack
(ad loc.) thinks that neither this nor the usual
construction gives a sense quite apposite to the
context. W. J. BEECHER.

MORIAH, the land of (Gn 222), or the mountain
of (2 Ch 8) (a9, 497: in Gn, LXX εἰς τὴν γῆν Τὴν
ὑψηλήν [prob. a paraphr. of conspicuous : AND ON
in 128, and πο 1319s in Dt 11°, are also rendered by
LXX ἡ δρῦς ἡ ὑψηλή], Aq. τὴν καταφανῆ (connecting
the word falsely with x7; so Aq. Symm. for
mo Dt 11°), Symm. τῆς ὀπτασίας," Vulg. visionis,
Onk. (paraphrasing) x:9713 yiy ‘land of worship,’ +
Pesh. x*nont ‘of the Amorites’: in 2 Ch, LXX τοῦ
Apopeca, Luc. τῷ Αμορια, Vulg. in monte Moria, Pesh.
as in Gn, Targ. (late) ‘ the mountain of Moriah,’
but with a long Midrash about its being the place
where Abraham and others worshipped).—What
was originally denoted by this designation is very
obscure. It is indeed evident that in 2 Ch 3! the
Temple hill is referred to; but this does not settle
the sense of the expression ‘land of Moriah’ in
Gn 22°; the Chronicler may, in common with the
later Jews, have supposed that that was the scene
of the sacrifice of Isaac, and borrowed the ex-
pression from Gn 22?—perhaps to suggest (Bau-
dissin, Studien, ii. 252) that the spot was chosen
already by J” in the patriarchal age. In Gn, how-
ever, even supposing—what certainly seems to be
implied from the terms of v.4—that the writer
placed the sacrifice of [saac on the ‘Temple hill, he
does not apply the name Moriah to it: ‘the land
of M.’ is the name of the region into which Abra-
ham is to go, and he is to offer Isaac on ‘ one of the
mountains’ init. The mountain on which Isaac is
to be offered does not even seem to be mentioned
as a central or important one, from which, for
instance, the region might have derived its name :
it is merely ‘one’ of the mountains in a region
which, so far as the terms of this verse go, might be
co-extensive with a large part of Palestine. It is
remarkable that, though it 1s here implied that it
is well known to Abraham, the region is not men-
tioned elsewhere in the OT. It is difficult, under
the circumstances, not to doubt the originality of
the text; and it must be admitted that—though
it has the disadvantage of being the proclivis lectio,
—the reading of Pesh. ‘of the Amorites’ (15!8 4822,
Jos 5! al.) has some claims to be considered the
original one.

Heb. pr. names, when accompanied by the art., have the
presumption of possessing, or at least of having once possessed,
an appellative force : but the meaning of AD is obscure ; and
the etymologies that have been proposed are far from satisfac-
tory. It is at least certain that it does not mean ‘shewn of Jah’
(which—cf, 379393, 7°¥2—would be MNT), or ‘vision of Jah’
(which would be ΠΡ Ν 2), ‘neither of which forms could pass into
am). For various ‘ Midrashic’ explanations of the name, see
Breshith Rabba, ad loc, (p. 263f. in Wiinsche’s tr.), or Beer,
Leben Abr. nach der Jtid. Sage, pp. 59, 177.

It is held by the Samaritans (see ZDPV vi. 198,
vii. 133; and above, s.v.), that GERIZIM was the
scene of the sacrifice of Isaac ; and the same opinion
has been advocated by some modern scholars. The

* The same interpretation is expressed by the reading of the
Sam. text 7NN07, and by the Sam. Targ. ΠῚ ΠῚ ‘of vision’ (cf.
Dt 1130 Sam. text NN, Sam. Targ. 7210 ‘of vision’).

+ Cf. Onk.’s rendering of v.14: ‘And Abraham worshipped and
prayed there in that. place; he said before J’, ‘‘ Here shall the
generations be worshipping” : therefore it is said at this day,
“In this mountain did Abraham worship before J”.”’

grounds for it are stated most fully by Stanley,
SP pp. Zolt., and Grove im Smith’s Db, siv.
Morian: Abraham saw the spot ‘afar off ‘on
the third day’ (v.4) after leaving ‘the land of the
Philistines’ (21°!)—a_ statement which suits the
distances much better if the goal of his journey
were Gerizim than if it were Jerusalem ; Gerizim,
moreover, is an elevation which a traveller ap-
proaching from the 8. might ‘ lift up his eyes’ (224)
and see conspicuously at a distance, which is not
the case with Jerusalem. In view of the rivalry
which prevailed in later times between the Samarti-
tans and the Jews, the preference of the former for
Gerizim does not count for much ; and with regard
to the other arguments it may be doubted whether,
in a narrative which cannot be by an eye-witness or
contemporary of the facts recorded, the expressions
used are not interpreted with undue strictness.
The presumption derived from v.14 is strong, that in
the view of the narrator the Temple hill was the
scene of Abraham’s trial (cf. JEHOVAH-JIREH ; and
HGHL yp. 334n.). But of course Gerizim might,
equally with Jerusalem, have been (so far as we
know) within the undetined limits of the ‘land of
Moriah,’ as it certainly would be within the limits
of the ‘land of the Amorites.’

MORNING.—See TIME.

MORROW.—Both ‘morn’ and ‘morrow’ are
formed from Anglo-Sax. morgen, the former by
contraction, the latter by changing the g to wand
dropping the » (whence morwe=morrow); and
‘morning’ is the same, with subst. Βα ΠΧ -ing.
Thus ‘morn,’ ‘morning,’ ‘morrow,’ and ‘ to-
morrow’ (with prep. to=‘for’ or ‘on’) are all
one and the same word, and have all the same
meaning. They mean either early in the day=
mod. ‘morning,’ or next day =mod. ‘ tomorrow.’

The word ‘morrow’ about 1611 usually means
next day (‘tomorrow’), but sometimes it is used
for ‘morning.’ Thus 18 30!7, Cov. ‘And David
smote them from the morow tyll the even’;
Shaks. Lucrece, 1571—

S. R. DRIVER.

‘She looks for night, and then she longs for morrow.’

In AV p73 Joker is translated ‘morrow’ in Ly 22°,
Nu 224, Est 24, Zeph 3%, and ‘tomorrow’ in Nu
16°, 1S 919, Est 54. RV changes into ‘morning’
in-iv 228" Ni δ ΟΝ 1 Ν' 9! ist δὲν -biut. leaves
the other two unchanged. Now boker usually
means ‘morning,’ and is mostly rendered so in
AV; but the editors of the Oxf. Heb. Lex. believe

places; ΕΣ
221,15 9, Zeph 3°. If they are right, as they
appear to be, some passages should have been left
‘morrow’ or ‘tomorrow’ by RV, and some that
have ‘morning? in AV should have been changed
to ‘tomorrow. But as reeards AV itself, it seems
probable that, in every case in which ‘morrow ἡ is
found, the translators intended to express what
we now express by ‘tomorrow.’ J. HASTINGS.

MORTAR (252, wnazt).—Probably the first kind
of mortar may have been, as is generally supposed,
two stones, between which the grain was pounded.
Mortars in Syria and Palestine were anciently
of wood, and the larger ones were cut out of the
trunk of a tree, the sindiydn, or evergreen oak,
being preferred.

The passage in Pr 27” (on which see Lapos.
Times, March and April 1897, pp. 287, 336) does
not, of course, refer to any custom in Syria or
Palestine of pounding men in a mortar (az)
The reference seems to be to the custom = or
making /ibby, a favourite dish in Syria (see MILL).
The more the ibby is pounded, the more excellent

438 MORTAR

MOSES

it becomes. Hours are spent in beating it, and
certain women are celebrated for their skill in
preparing it. It is very hard work, and requires
strong as well as skilful arms to make it.

In Syria at the present time there are two kinds
of mortars used: small ones are made of wood,
and the large ones of stone. The wooden mortars
are generally used for pounding coffee or spices.
They are often beautifully carved, and the pestle
is sometimes 2 ft. lone.* The stone mortars are
now preferred for making /ibby; they are large
and very heavy, and the pestle is a heavy block of
wood.

Lifting a stone mortar with one hand and rais-
ing it above the head, was a favourite test of
strength among the young men of the villages
of Lebanon a few years ago. W. CARSLAW.

MORTAR (AV morter).—In Gn 11? it is said that
the builders of the tower of Babel used slime or
bitumen (727) instead of mortar (175, Arab. Admini,
asphalt or bitumen),

Asphalt or BrruMEN (wh. see) is found on the
shores of the Dead Sea, and at Hasbeyah near Mt.
Hermon, but it is not used in Palestine or Syria
in building. ‘The most common material in use for
that purpose is clay (wh. see), and the ordinary
Arabic word for mortar is fin, which properly
means clay. Walls of houses are plastered inside
with clay, but the clay must be well trodden and
mixed with water to a proper consistence, else,
if too dry, it will not adhere, but crack and fall
off, In Bzk 13! the Arab. VS has ‘dry clay’ (¢@/fal)
instead of ‘untempered mortar.’

Mortar made with lime is being more frequently
used now than formerly. The lime is slaked in a

long wooden box, and the liquid portion run. off

into a pit; when the pit is full, the lime is covered
with sand. It is the opinion of the builders in
Lebanon that the lime should remain in the pit for
several months before being used. The lime in
Lebanon is rich, and has no hydraulic properties ;
and during the rainy season a good deal of the
lime in a building is washed away, even when the
mortar seems to be hard. In making mortar the
lime is usually mixed with ordinary clay, but a
reddish clay containing some red oxide of iron is
preferred. Sand is used for outside work on
account of its colour.

For making plaster for coating the inside walls
of houses, lime and sand are ecnerally used now,
mixed with straw or hemp cut small, instead of
hair, which is never used. A cement for plastering

the sides of cisterns is often made with lime, wood |

ashes, pounded calcareous spar, and sand. Over
the coating just mentioned a finer one is put,
consisting of lime and Aomra, which is broken
pottery ground very fine. All channels for run-
ning water are coated with lime and omra.

Roofs and floors of houses are often laid with
concrete, Which is formed of lime, sand, and stones
broken small. ‘This has to be beaten constantly
day and night till it has hardened. Some of the
very old buildings in Lebanon are said to have
been built with mortar in which oil took the
place of water. W. CARSLAW.

MORTIFY.—To ‘mortify’ is to put to death.
The word was once used literally, as in Erasmus,
Commune Crede, fol. 81, ‘Christ was mortified and
killed in dede, as touchynge to his fleshe τ but was
quickened in spirite.” In AV it is used only
figuratively, Ro 8 ‘Tf ye through the Spirit do
mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live’ (εἰ
. . θανατοῦτε, RVm ‘make to die,’ Amer. RV
“put to death’); Col 3° ‘ Mortify therefore your

* Brass mortars are now generally taking the place of the old
wooden ones.

Jication ἢ

members which are upon the earth’ (vexpwoare,
RVm ‘make dead,’ Amer. RV ‘put to death’).
The translation in both places comes from Tindale,
and is adopted by all the versions ; Wyclif’s word
is ‘slay.’ Cf. Tindale, Prologe to Leviticus, « Bap-
tism signyfyeth unto us repentaunce and the
mortefyinge of oure unruly members and body of
synne, to walk in a newe lyffe and so forth.’
Fuller (foly State, p. 70) exclaims of the ancient
Fathers, ‘O the holinesse of their living and pain-
fulnesse of their preaching ! how full were they of
mortified thoughts, and heavenly meditations’ ;
and (p. 81) he describes St. Anthony the monk as
‘having ever (though a most mortified man) a
merry countenance.’ Hall, Works, i. 68, says, Ἢ
we preach plainly, to some it will savour of a care-
lesse slubbering, to others of a mortified sincerity.’
The biblical use of the word is clearly seen in
togers, Chief Grounds of Christian Religion, one
of the early Catechisms (1642): °Q. What is Sancti-
A. The purifying of our whole nature.
ῳ. Which be the parts of it? A. Mortifying and
quickening.’ J. HASTINGS.

MOSERAH, MOSEROTH.— Moserah oceurs Dt
10° (AB Μεισαδαί, F Μισαδαί, Vule. JMosera), and
is noted as the place where Aaron died and
was buried. This’ passage is generally considered
as a part of E’s narrative of the journeyings.
Moseroth occurs Nu 33%: (ἡ]ασσουρώθ Bv.* and
-ροὐθ By.*!, and A in both vv., Vule. JWoseroth)
as the first of the 8 stations following Hashmonah,
on the route to Mt. Hor. For discussion of these
names see EXODUS AND JOURNEY TO CANAAN,
vol. i. p. 805, ἃ 1i1., and Driver's notes on Dt 10° in
Int. Crit. Com. p. 1191. Trumbull (Nadesh Barned,
p. 128) thinks that Jebel Madura is the modern
equivalent of Moserah, and would make that the
burial-place of Aaron. A. 'T. CHAPMAN.

MOSES. —

A, Name.
. Moses in the Old Testament.
i. The Documents.
ii. The Narrative in J,
iii, The Narrative in FE.
iv. The Narrative in P.
v. Moses in D, ete.
vi. Moses in the OT outside the Pentateuch.
vii. Reconstruction of the History.
C. Moses in the New Testament.
1). Moses in Tradition.
Literature.

A, ΝΑΜΕ.---πτ (J/osheh) ; Josephus, Philo, SAB,
ete., in LXX and NT generally Μωυσῆς, but occa-
sionally, as in later MSS, Μωσῆς, etc.; Moyses ;

nr
|wato. The MT form and pointing imply the
derivation from aw ‘draw,’ given in Ex 2", which
is not accepted. The form Mevo7s implies the
derivation, given by Josephus (Av. 11. ix. 6, ¢. Ap.
i. 31) and Philo (Vita Joys. i. 4), from the Coptic
mo ‘water’ and ushe ‘saved’; or mow ‘water’ and se
‘taken,’ a view once fashionable, but now mostly set
aside in favour of the derivation from the Egyptian
mes, mesu, ‘son, child’ ; see Oxf. Heb, Lex.*

B. MOSES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. —i. The
Documents.—As the OT includes more than one
tradition as to the life and work of Moses, these
traditions are given separately below. The sepa-
ration, however, of J from E cannot. be effected
with absolute certainty; and the division of JE
material between J and EK and the various editors
is, ina measure, provisional. Some of the points
as to which there is most doubt are placed in

* Other derivations are from the Egyptian royal rame A mosis
by way of contraction, favoured by Renan (Hist. i. £60) ; and as
act. ptep. =‘ saviour,’ favoured by Seinecke (Gesch. i. 78). The
pointing supports the latter view, but not the usage. See alse
Gesenius, T'hes. 8.v.

MOSES

MOSES 439

square brackets []. In the main, the analysis of

B. W. Bacon in his Triple Tradition of the Nuwodus | shalt’ say? (Ex 324% δ. 7. δὼ, 16, Tae, 18 ΡΟ,

has been followed here, as in the articles on
Exopus and NUMBERS (wh. see). As in art.
Exopus, corresponding features are marked with
the same letter in the different documents. The
general features of the character and work of
Moses will be seen to be the same in all the docu-
ments, and are epitomized at the beginning of vii.
The chief ditterence is in the relation 6f Moses and
Aaron (see ii.-iv. (a)).

uu. Lhe Narrative in J.—(a) It is doubtful
whether J, at any rate in its earliest form, men-
tioned Aaron. Dillmann, indeed, regards the
prominent position given to Aaron as a mark of J ;
and the analysis as given by Bacon, and in the
articles AARON, Exopus, finds Aaron in this source.
But Wellhausen and Stade (i. 127) hold that J does
not mention Aaron. If this is so, Moses stands
alone in J, and some of the passages mentioning
Aaron, given here as J, must be referred to other
sources, while in other passages the references to
Aaron are due to one of the editors (Holzinger,
Hex. p. 76).

(b) J says nothing as to the parentage of Moses.
Even if ‘Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother?’ in
Ex 44 is J, ‘ Levite’ here is probably a title and
not a gentilic name. The absence of any informa-
tion on this subject may be orizinal ; or J’s state-
ment may have been omitted because of its identity
with that of Εἰ ; or suppressed because it contra-
dicted E.

(c) In J, as we have it, Moses first appears as a
fugitive in Midian. As Jacob (Gn 29%! J) met
Rachel at the well, helped her to water her sheep,
and was received as a gér into her family; so
Moses met the seven daughters of the priest of
Midian, helped them to water their sheep, in spite
of the shepherds, and became a gér in the priest’s
family. He married Zipporah, one of the seven
daughters, and had one son, Gershom, Ex 21-22,

(d) After a time the king of Egypt, from whom
Moses had fled,* died; J” told Moses to return to
Keypt, for all the men who sought his life were
dead ; Moses set out with his wife and son. t
(6) At a caravanserai on the way, J” sought to kill
Moses because he was uncireumcised. Zipporah
averted His wrath by cireumcising their son,t Ex
Oru 4.15. 2a, oes

(f) On the way, or even after Moses reached
Goshen, the angel of J” appeared to him in a bush
which burned without being consumed, and J” |
said that He had seen the oppression of His people,
and had come down to deliver them, and bring
them to Canaan. Moses was to repeat this to the
elders of Israel ; and was to go with them to request
Pharaoh that Israel might go three days’ journey
into the wilderness to sacrifice to J’. ~ Moses
feared they would not believe that J” had ap-
peared to him. Whereupon J” gave him three
signs to convince them: a rod turned into a
serpent, and back again into a rod; his hand
made Jeprous, and then restored as his other flesh ;
water poured on the ground and turned into blood.
At J”s command, Moses now performed the first
two signs in His presence. Then Moses objected
that he was not eloquent; and J” answered, ‘I

* Probably stated in an omitted portion of J, unless Ex 211-14
belong to J ; ef. iii. (Ὁ).

+ MT, sons; but in J Moses has only one son, so that the
plural is R (cf. Ex 222),

{ An ancient account of the origin of circumcision ; οἴ. how-
ever, CIRCUMCISION in vol. i. p. 443 and Jos 58,

§ Bacon’s analysis, followed here, requires the transposition
of the journey from Midian before the Theophany in the Burning
Bush ; the account of the latter in J gives no direction to leave
Midian, and takes for granted that Moses is on his way to Egypt,
i.c. implies what is given in these verses. Cf. Exopvs in vol. i. S07.

| Here, as elsewhere, ‘Angel of J”’ and ‘J”’ are inter-
changeable.

|

will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou
| Moses
still begeed J” to send some other messenger, and
J” in anger gave him Aaron as a spokesman to the
people, Ex 4". 141. 15. εὐ τὼ

(n) Moses [with Aaron] delivered J’s message to
the Israelite elders, and showed them the. signs.
The Israelites believed. Moses [and Aaron] τα:
quested Pharaoh to let the Israelites go into the
wilderness to sacrifice; Pharaoh refused, and
increased their taskwork, whereupon they turned
upon Moses [and Aaron] and reproached them ;
Moses, in turn, appealed to J”, Ex 42-3! 5% 5-23,

(i) At the command of J”, Moses inflicted upon
the Egyptians seven plagues—the turning of the
Nile into Blood; Frogs; Gnats (EV ‘lice ); Mur-
rain; Hail; Locusts; the Death of the Firstborn
(for the last see next paragraph). As regards the
first six—in each case Moses + asked permission for
Israel to go to sacrifice to or serve J’, threatening
the plague as the penalty of refusal; after Pharaoh’s
refusal—implied, not stated—the plague happened
—nothing is said of any utterance or action ot Moses
or J“ as the immediate cause of the plague, except
that J” brings the locusts with an east wind, and
removes them by a west wind. In the case of the
Frogs, Gnats, Hail, and Locusts, Pharaoh sent for
Moses [and Aaron] and begged for his intercession
to remove the plagues, promising, after an attempt
to obtain better terms, to grant Moses’ request.
After the cessation of each plague, he hardened
his heart and withdrew his promise. In the case
of the Locusts, however, Pharaoh was induced by
his servants to make concessions on the mere
threat, before the plague was actually inflicted ; he
offered to let the men go, without the women and
children. Moses refused, and the plague followed,
Ex 5713. 16. 171ὰ. 18 de D4. 25 Sl. 8-l5a. 20-32 91-7. 18-18. 380. 24,
250-29, 31-34 10]. 90-11, 180. 140. a. 150-19.

(j) After the removal of the locusts, Pharaoh
sent for Moses and offered to let all the Israelites,
both old and young, go to sacrifice if they would
leave their cattle behind. Moses refused, and
Pharaoh, in great anger, bade him go, and declared
that he should never see his face again. Moses
answered, ‘Thou hast spoken well, 1 will see thy
face again no more,’ and announced that all the
firstborn of the Egyptians should perish, while no
Israclite should suffer anything ; and that in con-
sequence all Pharaoh's servants should come to
Moses, and entreat him and his people to go.
After this utterance, Moses, in hot anger, left the
presence of Pharaoh, Ex 102% 28-29 }}.8 [Then
Moses directed the elders of Israel to kill the
passover-lamb, and to put some of its blood upon
their lintels and door-posts, that when J” was
slaying the Egyptians He might spare the Israel-
ites, Ex 1277-3 47)) + At midnight J” slew all the
firstborn of the Egyptians ; and the Egyptians, in
a panic, made the Israelites start on their journey
to the desert in such haste that they carried their
dough with them unbaked. A mixed multitude
went with them, Ex 1239. 80. 31b-34. 37-39. g

[Moses gave laws as to the Passover, ete. 13%
4-7, 11-18

}}

(k) Guided by J” in ἃ pillar, by day a cloud, by
night a fire, Moses led the Israelites into the
wilderness, towards the sea.{ Pharaoh, recovering
from his terror, pursued them with his army. At

*So Bacon, followed in AARON and Exopus ; Dillmann,
Julicher, and Cornill ascribe these verses to R; cf. (a).

+ The introduction of Aaron into the J narratives of the
plagues is due to R.

{So Dillmann and Bacon; but, according to Addis, Cornill,
etc., inserted by R, perhaps from source other than JE.

ὁ The 600,000 in v.87 is probably R ; so Addis, etc.

| So Bacon ; but mostly assigned to R. It may be J material,
but owes its position to R; i.e. in the separate J the giving
of Jaws was not an incident of the hurried flight.

« Cf. art. Rep Sga.

440 MOSES

MOSES

his approach the panic-stricken Israelites turned
upon Moses, and upbraided him for bringing them
out of Egypt. He replied, ‘Fear not, be still, and
see how J” will deliver you to-day. You shall
never see again the Egyptians whom you saw to-
day. J” shall fight for you, and you shall hold
your peace.’ The pillar placed itself between the
Israelites and the Mov Gane. J”, by means of a
strong east wind, drove back the waters, so that
the Israelites passed over in the night ; while from
the pillar He ‘discomfited’ the Egyptians, so that
they turned and fled; but they perished in the re-
turning waters ; and, in the morning, ‘Israel saw
the Egyptians dead upon the seashore,’ Ex 132: 2
145-7. 10-14. 19D. 2015. 210. 24. Z5b. Z7b. 981». 30.

[Then Moses and the Israelites sane to J’—

“I will sing unto J”, for he hath triumphed gloriously :
The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea,’
Ex 15'].*

(m) Irom the sea, Moses led Israel on into the
wilderness, where they found no water till they
rame to Marah (‘bitter’), where the waters were
bitter; and the people murmured against Moses.
In answer to his prayer, J” showed him how to
make the waters sweet by using a certain tree.
At their next camping-place, Elim, they found 12
springs and 70 palm-trees, Ex 1522-25" ὅτ Ὁ

(p)} At Massah the people murmured against

Moses because they were without water. He re-
proved them for tempting J’... (κα hence the

place was called Massah (‘temptation’), Ex 17° and
the references to ‘tempting’ and ‘ Massah’ in
yee &

(q) || Moses brought the Israelites to Sinai, and
they encamped before the mount. J” came down
upon Sinai, called Moses to Him, and bade him
charge the people and the priests not to ‘ break
through unto J” to gaze... lest he break forth
upon them.’ Bounds were to be set round the
mount, not to be passed on pain of death, Ex
] 92). 20-22. 24. 11b-13. 25.

{Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and 70 elders
went up, and beheld J” afar off, and ate and drank
a covenant-meal, Ex 94}. 3.9. 11] ἘΞ

Moses, who alone was allowed to approach 1.1}
received from Him ‘Ten Commandments, ‘the
words of the covenant’ concerning ritual, which he
(Moses) wrote on two tables of stone. He remained
with J” forty days and forty nights, and neither
ate nor drank, Ex 341-58 τὸ [J” told Moses that
the Israelites had corrupted themselves, and that
He intended to destroy them; but at Moses’ inter-
cession “J” repented of the evil which He said He
would do unto His people.’ When he reached the
camp, Moses called to his side those who were
faithful to J”; the Levites responded, and at his
command massacred 3000 evil-doers, and thus con-
secrated themselves to J, Ex $27 9-12. 4. 25-297 gg”
bade Moses and Israel geo up without
Canaan; but, moved by their distress and prayers
He relented, and said, * My presence shall go with
thee, and [will give thee rest’; then He permitted
Moses to see something of His glory, and pro-
claimed His name ‘J’, J’, a God full of compassion
and gracious, slow to anger, and plentcous in mercy

* So Bacon and Exovvus ; usually assigned to E or R.

+ So Bacon, Driver, etc. ; others, e.g. Addis, refer vv.22-25a to
E, and v.27 to P.

{ For (n) and (0) see after (r).

§ J's account of how water was provided is omitted.

In the transposition of passages, Bacon is followed ἐυσί,
Exopus in vol. i. 809,

“| There is no similarity between the Hebrew words for ‘ break
through’ (C95) and ‘break forth’ (719).

** So Bacon, and similarly Dillmann ; most critics give these
verses to KE.

tt Ex 242,

tt The references to a former set of tables and some other
matters are R.

$$ These verses are often ascribed to R or E,

Him to |

and truth,’ Ex 31/3, Νὰ 1110-13. 14.156 Ry 3312-28
840: Κ

(ry) Moses’ father-in-law, Hobab the son of Reuel
the Midianite, having come to visit him,t+ Moses
invited him to accompany the Israelites to Canaan,
At first he refused. But Moses told him that his
local knowledge would enable him to guide Israel
through the desert, and promised that he should
share in the blessings promised to the Israelites.
Whereupon he consented to accompany them,t
Nat 10:

(n) (0) After the departure from Sinai,§ the
Israelites, lacking food and reduced to manna,
apparently a natural product of the desert, hank-
ered after the flesh-pots of Egypt, and ‘wept
... every man at his tent-door.’ Moses remon-
strated bitterly with J” for assigning him a task
entirely beyond his powers! ‘I cannot bear all
this people by myself, it is too much for me. If
thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out
of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight; and
let me not see my wretchedness.’ J” bade him
tell the people that they should have flesh for a
month. Moses asked how he should find so much
for 600,000 men. J” bade him wait and see; and
sent a wind which brought an immense flight of
quails; but while the people were only beginning
to eat them, J” smote them with a plague, Nu
J] 4-45. 18-23. 31-85

(y) Perhaps the narrative of Dathan and Abiram
given under E, with Kuenen, should be ascribed to
J, with Cornill. Bacon analyzes the JE portions
of Nu 16 into two narratives, J and KE; and this
analysis is adopted substantially in NUMBERs ; cf.
iii.

(aa) At Kadesh the people lacked water, and
murmured against Moses, who at J’s command
procured them water by smiting a rock. The
water was called ‘The water of Meribah?’
(‘striving’). Parts of Nu 20!-8,

(bb) Moses sent Caleb and others into the
southern highlands of Canaan as far as Hebron,
to view the land. They reported that the land
was fertile, but the inhabitants powerful. Never-
theless, Caleb encouraged the people to invade the
land ; but his comrades dissuaded them, and they
were panic-stricken and refused to go forward. J”
proposed to destroy them and make Moses the
ancestor of a greater nation ; but spared them at
his intercession. Yet because they had tempted
Him ten times, none of the adults of that genera-
tion should enter Canaan, except Caleb, Nu 13!
Isb. 19. 22. 27 to honey. 28. 30. 31 1416 8. 9. 11-24. ol. Moses pro-
mised Caleb Hebron as his future possession, Jos
149-141

(ff) Israel marched along the borders of Edom
to Moab, Nu 217% °° 5 (gg) and conquered Heshbon
and other Amorite cities, Nu 9153». 36. 91. 83... (hh)
Balaam, sent for by Balak of Moab, to curse the
Israelites, blessed them. Parts of Nu 22-24; (ii)
When the Israelites sinned with Moabite women,
Moses, at the command of J”, hung their chiefs
before J”, Nu 25!»- 2 8b. 4,

(1) Moses delivered final laws and exhortations
to the Israelites, Nu 313622 32!-; (nn) J” called
Moses to the top of Pisgah, whence He showed
him all Canaan. After Moses’ death, J” buried
him in a valley of Moab, opposite Beth-peor, Dt
341» to land, 4. ba,

iil. The Narrative im E.—(a) It is generally agreed
that Aaron and Miriam appeared in the original
E-story, Miriam being specially conspicuous. But

* Ex 3312-23 or portions of it are often ascribed to R.

+ There are probably traces of J’s account of Hobab’s coming
in Ex 18. Bacon, ete., refer νν. 7. 10.11 to J.

{ This seems implied by Jg 116 J.

§ No mention, however, of this in J.

! Nu 2118, usually given to J, clearly connects with these
incidents, but is probably from another strat m of J.

MOSES

MOSES 44]

Aaron does not appear in the narrative of the
plagues, the references in the present text being
due to redactors, and his 7d/e is not clear; he
scarcely seems to have been the brother and
almost equal partner of Moses, perhaps not even
the priest; but is chiefly conspicuous as oppos-

ing Moses and leading Israel in sin. He was |
perhaps represented as a chief amongst the

elders. *

(b) Moses was born of parents of the house of
Levi, at a tie when Pharaoh had ordered that
all male children Lorn to Israelites should be put
to death. He was hidden for three months, and
then placed in an ark of bulrushes, amongst the
flags by the Nile. His sister + watched him, and,
when he was found and = pitied by Pharaoh's
daughter, the sister induced her to employ Moses’
mother as his nurse. Later on he was taken into
the princess's house and trained as an Egyptian
noble, Ex 2' 1% (¢) But when he was grown up,
and had Jearnt that he was an Israelite, he went
to see how his people fared, slew an Egyptian
who was ill-treating an Israelite, and when he
found, on attempting the next day to reconcile
two Israelites, that 115 deed was known, he fled to
Midian, Ex 2!-1.+

(e)$ While Moses was keeping the flock of
Jethro, his father-in-law, on Horeb, the mountain
ot God, God called to him, and announced Himself
as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; ‘and
Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon
God. God told him that He had heard the cry of
the oppressed Israelites, and would send Moses to
Pharaoh, that the Israelites might be released.
Moses pleaded his untitness for such a mission ;
and God promised to be with him, and gave him a
sign, that the people, afier escaping from Egypt,
should worship Him on Horeb, Ex 3): 30. 6 912)))

(Ὁ God revealed to Moses His mew name,
YAHWEH, which is explained as equivalent to
7EHYEH (EV, ‘I am’), in the phrase ’KHYEH
"ASHER ’EHYEH (EV, ‘I AM THAT I Am’); ff
warned him that Pharaoh would not release the
Israelites till Egypt had been smitten with ‘ all
my wonders,’ and directed that, when the Israelites
departed, their women should borrow jewels and
raiment of their Egyptian neighbours. He gave
Moses a rod, with which to work the wonders,
Ex Bis. 14. 19-22 417,

(d) Moses took leave of Jethro, and set out for
Egypt ‘with the rod of God in his hand,’ Ex
418. 2b.

[(g) At ‘the mount of God,’ Aaron, sent by J”,
met him; and he told Aaron all Js words, Ex
e728) *

(h) Moses [and Aaron] went to Pharaoh, and in
the name of J” bade him let Israel go ; he refused,
reproached them with keeping the Israelites from
their Jabour, and bade Moses iad Aaron] get to
their burdens, Ex 5! 24,

(i) At the command of J”, Moses inflicted upon |
the Keyptians five plagues—the turning of the |

Nile into Blood; Hail; Locusts; Three Days’
Darkness; the Death of the Firstborn (for the
last see next paragraph). As regards the first four
—in each case Moses worked the miracle by lift-
ing up or stretching out the rod; ++ and Pharaoh’s
heart was hardened. It is stated that after the
Jagues of Locusts and Darkness J” hardened

haraol’s heart.. The Hail destroyed both man

* Holzinger, Mexateuch, 175.

{ Her name is not given.

1 Vv.11-15, sometimes given to J.

§ For (d) see after (f).

|| Omitting the reference to the bush in v.4b,

4 Cf. Gop in vol. ii. 199.

** Often ascribed to R.

tt Not mentioned, however, in connexion with the Darkness,
Ex 1021-25,

tt Ex 10-0. 27,

and beast, Ex 61 715. 1b. 20b. 58. gee. asa. σα. 85. 7012. 13,
Ida. 20-23. 27.

(j) J” announced to Moses that, after the in-
fliction of ἃ final plague, Pharaoh would let the
people go; He bade him instruct them to borrow
jewels of their neighbours. ‘J” made the Evyp-
tians favourably disposed towards the people.
Moreover, the man Moses was very great in the
land of Egypt, and in the eyes of Pharaol’s ser-
vants, and of the people.’ * Pharaoh sent for
Moses [and Aaron| by night, and bade them de-
part with the Israelites. ‘The latter borrowed
Jewels and raiment of their Egyptian neighbours,
and started on their journey, They were armed,
and carried with them the bones of Joseph. God
led them to the wilderness of the Red Sea, to
avoid the warlike Philistines, Ex 111 12°14 85. 36
1311-9.

(k) Pharaoh pursued with 600 chosen chariots ;
the Israelites cried unto J”, who bade them go
forward ; Moses lifted up his red: . the Anvel
of God placed himself between Israel and its pur-
suers . and took off their chariot wheels .
[and when the Israelites saw what had been done
they believed J’ and His servant Moses], Ex 14%7
in part. id. Ια. 19a. 20a. Lda. 91. ἡ

(1) Miriam the prophetess [the sister of Aaron] +
led the women in ἃ triumphal dance, while they
sang—

‘Sing ye to J”, for he hath triumphed gloriously :

The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea,’
Bx hoses

(n) J” gave the Israelites ‘bread from heaven,’
2.€. manna, Ex 164.8

(p) They reached Horeb, where, finding them-
selves without water in the wilderness, the people
strove with Moses, who, by command of J”, smote
a rock, and water came from it. Hence the place
was called Meribah (‘striving’), Ex 1710. 15-ὸ and the
references to ‘ striving’ and ‘ Meribah?’ in vv.* 7.

(q) || Moses went up to God, and received in-
structions for the people to purify themselves in
preparation for a ‘Theophany on the third day.
This was done, Ex 19% 60-94-10. 12a.34.15° Qn the
third day there was a thunderstorm, and God
descended on the mountain in a thick cloud, to
the sound of a trumpet. Moses brought the people
before the mountain to meet with God. Moses
spake and God answered, Ex 1916: 1719) ‘The people,
terrified by the storm and the trumpet, fled from
the mountain, and begeed that they might hear
God’s words through Moses. Moses reassured
them, and ‘drew near to the thick darkness where
God was.’ God spake ‘all these words,’ i.e. the
Ten Commandments.$i Moses reported them to
the elders of Israel; and the people promised to
obey them; and Moses told J” their promise, Ex
(pera 1 The Ate s command. Noses. and
Joshua went up to tie mountain and reniained
there forty ‘iays and nights, leaving Aaron and
Hur in charge of the people. But, meanwhile,
Aaron, at the request of the people, made a golden
‘alf as an image of J”; built an altar ior it, and
celebrated a feast to J” At the end of the forty
days, God gave Moses two talles of stone, written
with the finger of God, and probably containing
the Ten Commandments. As Moses and Joshua

* According to this analysis, E’s account of the Death of the
Firstborn and the Institution of the Passover have been
omitted ; but doubtless the final plague of 11! was the Death
of the Firstborn, especially if 42%. 25 are E (so Bacon, etc.).

+ V.81, usually assigned to J or R. E’s account of the cross-
ing of the Red Sea has been almost entirely omitted, probably
because it was closely parallel to J’s.

{ Perhaps R.

§ Usually ascribed to J.

|| For transposition of passages see ii. (4).

€| Those usually so called.

** Bacon's order as in Exopis is 201-21 196b-8 ; but if 80, ‘ these
are the words’ in 195» have nothing to refer to.

|

442 MOSES

MOSES

!
returned, they heard the noise of the feast; and

when he came near, Moses saw the calf and the
dancing. His anger waxed hot; he threw down
the tables of stone, and broke them. He burned
the calf, ground it to powder, and made the
children of Israel drink water upon which the
powder had been strewn; le reproached Aaron

with his sin; and Aaron excused himself as having |
Then Moses returned to |

acted under compulsion,
J” and interceded for the people: ‘This people
have sinned ἃ great sin, and have made them a god
of gold! Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin— ;
and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book
which thou hast written” And J” answered :
‘Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I
blot out of my book. And now go, lead the
people into the place of which L have spoken unto
thee. Behold, mine angel shall go before thee:
nevertheless, in the day when 1 visit, I will visit
their sin upon them.’ At these tidings the people

mourned, and put off their ornaments, Ex 9415:

σον BOE Ὁ LSP) BONS. es ees Αγ, lars
were given by J” to Moses, Ex 207?°6 2310-33
D229-31

Moses repeated these to the people, who pro-
mised to obey them; Moses wrote them down.
The next day he built an altar and set up twelve
mazzeboth, one for each tribe. Under his direc-
tions, certain young men offered burnt-offerings
and peace-offerings. © Moses sprinkled half the
blood of the vietims on the altar; and then read
to the people the Book of the Covenant, contain-
ing the laws just referred to. The Israelites again
promised to obey these laws, and Moses sprinkled
the people with blood: ‘Behold the blood of the

covenant which J” has made with you concerning |

all these words,’ Ex 24°,
(yr) Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, hearing what

him at Hore), and brought to him his wife and his
two sons.* Jethro and
Aaron and all the elders of Israel, partook of a
sacrificial feast before God. Observing the con-
tinual concourse of the people to Moses ‘to inquire
of God,’ Jethro advised him to appoint subordinates
to deal with lesser matters. Moses accordingly
appointed rulers of tens, fifties, hundreds, and
thousands. Then Jethro departed to his own
land, Ex 18.+

(s) {At this point, apparently, some account
was given of the construction of the ‘Tent of
Meeting,’ and perhaps of the Ark; for we are now
told that Moses used to pitch the tent outside the
camp, and worshippers used to go out to it. When
Moses went out to the tent, the people stood at
their tent-doors to watch him. As he entered, the
pillar of God descended, and stood at the door of
the tent; and the people prostrated themselves.

Meanwhile, within, ‘J” spake unto Moses face to |
3 3 ] ja ]
When |

face, as ἃ man speaketh unto his friend.’
Moses returned to the camp, Joshua, his minister,
remained as attendant to the ‘Tent of Meeting,’
Ex 3374,

(t) The Israelites, guided by the Ark, departed
from the Mount of J”. When the Ark set forward
Moses used to pronounce the blessing—

‘Rise up, O J”, and let thine enemies be scattered ;
Let them that hate thee flee before thee’ ;
and when it rested—
“Return, OJ”, unto the ten thousands of the thousands
of Israel,’
Nu 1 0382b,3- 34-36 | §
(u) At Taberah, a consuming fire from J”, sent

* Cf. ii. (a); ‘after he had sent her back’ in v.2 is a har-
monistic addition to reconcile J and E.

+ There are probable traces of J in this chapter.

t Cf. P (q).

§ Sometimes given to J.

Moses, together with |

to punish the people for murmuring, was quenched
at the intercession of Moses, Nu 11!°.

(v) At the command of J”, Moses went out to the
Tent of Meeting with seventy elders; J” came
down in a cloud and spake to him, and ‘took of
the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the
elders,’ so that they prophesied. Two of the
selected seventy, however, Eldad and Medad, had
stayed in the camp ; nevertheless the spirit came on
them, and they prophesied. A young man ran to
the Tent of Meeting to tell Moses, whereupon
Joshua urged Moses to forbid them; but Moses
replied, ‘Art thou jealous for my sake’ Would
that all J’”s people were prophets, and that J”
would put his spirit upon them,’ Nu 1116: 17, 4-30, *

(w) Miriam and Aaron attacked Moses, saying,t
‘Has J” spoken only by Moses, and not also by
us?’ J” suddenly summoned Moses, Miriam, and
Aaron to the Tent of Meeting, and declared to
them, that while He made Himself known to
prophets in visions and dreams, He would speak
plainly to Moses face to face, and Moses should
behold the form (témiandh) of J” Miriam was
smitten with leprosy, but healed at the intercession
of Moses, Nu Lv.

(x) At Rephidim, Amalek attacked Israel.
Moses committed the direction of the battle to
Joshua, while he himself, with Aaron and Hur,
went up to the top of a hill, and held aloft the ‘rod
of God.’ When it was held up, Israel prevailed ;
when it was lowered, Amalek. But when Moses
was exhausted, Aaron and Hur made him sit down
while they held up his hands till sunset. Then
Amalek was completely routed. J” bade Moses
record ina book the victory, and J”s purpose to
war against the Amalekites till they were extermi-
nated. Moses built an altar called J’-nissi, ‘J”

| my banner,’ Ex 176,
God had done for Moses and Israel, came to visit |

(y) Two Reubenite chiefs, Dathan and Abiram,
rebelled against Moses because he sought to make
himself a prince over Israel, and had failed to fulfil
his promise to bring them into a land flowing with
milk and honey. Summoned to appear before
Moses, they declined ; whereupon he went to them,
hade the other Israelites separate themselves from
the rebels, and appealed to J’ to punish them by
a hitherto unknown chastisement—the earth should
open and swallow them up—as a sign that he had
J’s authority for his leadership of Israel. Where-
upon the earth opened, and swallowed them up
with their households, and they went down alive
into Sheol, Nu 1010» Ἐν. τὸν Lb 15). 25. 26, z7b-Bea. 3. 94. 8

(z) When the people reached Kadesh, Miriam
died and was buried, Nu 901, (bb) Moses urged
the people to invade the land ; but, at their request,
consented to send 12 men to survey it. These
went as far as Eshcol, returned with a gigantic
cluster of grapes and other fruit, but reported that
the inhabitants were numerous and powerful.
Whereupon the people cried out against Moses,
and proposed to appoint a new captain, and return
to Egypt.||. . . Moses bade the people return to
the wilderness of the Red Sea; but, in spite of
him, they advanced towards Canaan, but were

* Often referred to a later stratum of E than Ex 18. The
paragraph is probably an expansion of an older narrative con-
taining only the prophesying of Eldad and Medad, Joshua’s
protest, and Moses’ answer.

+ Moses’ ‘Cushite wife,’ v.Jagb, is never again referred to,
either in this chapter or elsewhere ; and it is clear from the
rest of the chapter that the controversy between Moses on the
one hand, and Miriam and Aaron on the other, had nothing to
do with any such matter; v.!48> can hardly have been inserted
by either RD or RP, but by RJE from some older source ; it, is
probably a fragment of an ancient uarrative, the rest of which
has been omitted because it was not considered edifying.

fee

§ On in v.1 is probably due to textual corruption. Bacon
thinks the name occurred in a J version; this view is adopted
in Numbers ; cf. ii. (y).

|| The immediate sequel is omitted.

MOSES

MOSES 443

attacked and routed, Dt 119-46 (probably based on
E), Nu 13} Sac. 20. 23. 24. 26b. 970. 29. 33 14}"»- 3. 1. 25. 39-45 *

(ec) Moses sought permission for Israel to pass
peaceably through Edom, but without success, Nu
204-1, (dd) In the course of the journey from
Kadesh, Aaron died, Dt 108 te buried,

(ee) For murmuring at the hardships of their
renewed march through the desert, the people
were plagued with fiery serpents. Moses prayed
for them, and was told to make a brazen serpent,
and by looking at this the sufferers were healed,
Nu 214°. (ff) Israel marched along the borders of
Edom to Moab, Nu2t!!! ; (gg) and conquered the
τον Of τοῦ, Ni 212 eae <( hh) Balaam,
sent for by Balak of Moab to curse the Israclites,
blessed them, parts of Nu 22-24. (ii) Israel wor-
shipped Baal-peor, and Moses bade the judges slay
the offenders, Dt 9518. 3 5,

(kk) J” announced to Moses that he was about to
die, and Moses appointed Joshua his successor,
N u 3115. 15. τὸς

(Il) Moses delivered final laws and exhortations to
the people. Ex 211-238, displaced by ΒΡ to make
room for D. Dt 1-4 is probably an ΠΡ expansion
of E’s farewell speech of Moses, parallel to that of
Joshua in Jos 34, Dt 971-8. 47-19,

(nn) Moses diced in the land of Moab; his tomb
was unknown. ‘There hath not arisen a prophet
since in Isracl like unto Moses, whom J” knew
face to face,’ Dt 34% + 10,

iv. The Narrative in P.—(a) Aaron is Moses’
brother, and Aaron and Moses are constantly
coupled together. Miriam is ignored.t (0)
Moses and Aaron were the children of Amram and
Jochebed; Amram was the son of Kohath, the
son of Levi, Ex 6-*7, Nu 26%%-6!.§ ef. 1 Ch 6,
Moses’ wife and children are ignored. |

(e) (f) When Moses was 80 and Aaron 83 years
old (Ex 7"), God spoke to Moses in Egypt,“ and
revealed His new name—J”—thus: ‘fam J”: and
I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name J” Twas not
known to them’—and declared that He had heard
the groaning of the Israelites under the oppression
of the Egyptians; and that He would now fulfil
His covenant with the patriarchs, by ¢iving Canaan
to their descendants. Moses told this to the
Israelites, but they would not listen because their
spirit was broken by their sufferings (Ex 6%),
(g) When J” bade him demand from Pharaoh the

release of the Israclites, he replied that he had not |

the eift of speech, and that, as the T[sraclites had
not listened to him, it was not likely that he would
make any impression upon Pharach. J” replied :
‘[T have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron
thy brother shall be thy prophet . Twill harden
Pharaoh’s heart... Pharaoh will not listen to
you... so 1 will bring forth my people by great
judements,’? Ex 642271 (i) At the command of
J”, conveyed through Moses, Aaron inflicted six
plagues on the Eeyptians—his Rod changed into a
Reptile ;** all the Water in the land turned into
Blood; Froes; Gnats; Boils; the Death of the
Firstborn (for which see next paragraph).

The first four wonders were wrought by means
of Aaron’s rod; but, in the case of the fifth, the
Boils were caused by Moses appearing before

* Nu 1441-4 15. sometimes given to J, and probably contains
R-additions.

t Vv.38-59 (Og) are referred to R.

{ Miriam in Nu 901 is E, and 2659 is RP.

§ These passages are often referred to late strata of P or to
RP; even in that case they would probably be based on P;
which throughout implies that Aaron and, therefore, Moses
belong to the tribe of Levi.

i Tais gap is supplied by 1 Ch 2414-17,
co sins are mentioned Ly 102.

4 Cf. Ex 628, RP,

** A wonder rather than a plague, but reckoned by P in the
Sime series as the rest.

Aaron’s uncles and

Pharaoh and throwing soot into the air. In each
case Pharaol’s magicians competed with Moses
and Aaron; the magicians succeeded in turning
Rods into Reptiles, Water into Blood, and in
producing Frogs, so that Pharaoh was encouraged
in hardening his heart against the request of
Moses and Aaron; but the macicians tailed to
produce Gnats, and said, * The finger of God is
here’; but Pharaoh still hardened his heart. In
the case of the Boils, the magicians themselves
were smitten and fled from Moses; but J” har-
dened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not listen
to Moses and Aaron, Kx π δι 19. 19, θα. 51}. 22 GS-7. 16-19

(j) At the command of J’, Moses and Aaron
instituted the Passover, which was observed for
the first time ἢ... The Israelites marched out of
Egypt into the wilderness, Ex 191-30. 38. 43-51 ] 3h 2 τὸ

(k) At the command of J’, Israel turned back
and encamped by the sea, that J’ might harden
Pharaoh’s heart, and make him pursue Israel. ΑἹ]
of which happened. Still, at the command of J”,
Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, the
waters were divided, and the Israelites ‘ went into
the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the
waters were a wall unto them on their right hand
and on their left.” The Egyptians pursued into the
sea, but Moses again stretched out his hand over
the sea, and the waters returned and overwhelmed
them; while the Israelites reached the further
shore in safety, Ex 141: 2. 4. 8. 9. 1ὅλο, 16-18, 218. 21c-23, 26.
27a. 28a. 29.

(n) (o) In the wilderness the Israelites hankered
after the flesh-pots of Eeypt, and murmured
against Moses and Aaron; J” sent them manna in
the morning, and quails in the evening, Ex 101:-Ὁ 6:
7. 9-14. 15b. 160}. 31+

(q) After sundry journeys (Ex 17! 191 *4), the
Israelites came to the wilderness before Sinai.
The glory of J” dwelt on Sinai, hidden for six days
in a cloud, but (apparently) manifested on the
seventh like fire glowing through the cloud. On
the seventh day J” called Moses into the cloud
(Ex 2415>-184)) where he received instructions as to
the tabernacle and its furniture, and the priests
and their vestments and duties, Ex 251-3127)

Moses came down from Sinai with the two
Tables ; his face shone so that he veiled it § when
he spoke to Aaron and ‘ the princes of the congre-
gation.” He gave the Israelites J”s commands,
which they executed with e¢reat zeal; the taber-
nacle was constructed, furnished, and consecrated.
The glory of J” filled it, and the cloud covered it
(Ex 34°-40°),|) Aaron and his sons were consecrated
as priests, and entered upon the work of their
office ; but two of the sons, Nadab and Abihnu,
offered before J” ‘strange fire, which He had not
commanded ; and fire went forth from the presence
of J” and devoured them.’ From time to time J”
revealed various laws to Moses at Mt. Sinai, which
make up the Book of Leviticus.

Moses and Aaron proceeded to organize the
nation and its worship. A census was taken
showing the number of the adult males, apart
from the Levites, to be 603,505; a census of male

* P’s account of the Death of the Firstborn, implied in Ex 1212,
has been omitted.

¢ RP adds in νν. 17:20, 82-34 details as to the amount gathered,
the observance of the Sabbath, and the placing of a pot of
manna before the Testimony, /.¢e. the Tables in the Ark. Unless
this chapter originally stood after the narrative of the events at
Sinai (so Addis and Bacon), the reference to the tables is an
anachronism due to an oversight,

t P contains a large number of laws revealed by J” to Moses,
and promulgated by him to the people. It is not necessary to
enumerate these in an article on Moses. See under HEXATRUCH
in vol. il. p. 368.

ἃ According to 2 Co 318 Moses veiled his face that the Israelites
might not see the glory pass away.

| Part or all of Ex 349-4038 belongs to late strata of P ; and
Leviticus contains material from various strata; see Exopus,
LEVITICUS.

444 MOSES

MOSES

Levites, young and old, taken later, showed them
to amount to 22,000, Nu 7. 7

(t) On the 20th day, of the 2nd month, of the
2nd year, the cloud was taken up from over the
Tabernacle, and the Israelites left the wilderness
of Sinai, according to Js commandment given
through Moses, Nu 1011-:8,

(y) ‘Korah and 250 princes attacked Moses and
Aaron for claiming a sanctity superior, 2.6. an
exclusive priesthood, to that of the rest of the
congregation. This claim, apparently, was made
by Moses and Aaron as Levites (so v.7™, which
has been transposed from v.° ‘Ye take too much
upon you, ye sons of Levi’).+ Moses proposed
that Korah and his company should ofliciate before
J” as priests, that He might show His will in the
matter. They did so, and appeared supported by
all the congregation. J” threatened to destroy all
Israel, except Moses and Aaron; but, at the inter-
cession of Moses, the congregation were allowed to
separate from Korah and his 250 princes, who were
devoured by fire from J” The congregation mur-
mured and were smitten with a plague, which was
stayed by an atoning oblation of incense made
by Aaron, Νὰ 10} te Korah. 2-7. 18-24. 27 to side. 35. 41-50. +
Twelve rods, one for each tribe, being pli wed
before the Ark, Aaron’s rod budded to show that
the tribe of Levi was chosen for the priesthood.
J” ordered that Aaron’s rod should be kept always
before the Ark, Nu 17.

(aa) In the wilderness of Zin, the people, oe
water, murmured at Moses and Aaron. ’ bade
Moses take Aaron’s rod from before 7 Αὐἱ ὃ
Moses did so, gathered the congregation together
before the rock, saying, ‘ Hear now, ye rebels ;
shall we bring you forth water out of this rock ?’
He smote the rock twice with his red, and the
water gushed forth. But J” rebuked Moses and
Aaron for Jack of faith, and told them that they
should not be allowed to lead Israel into Canaan.
Parts of Ni-20™ 2-4 ἢ

(bb) At the command of J”, Moses sent from the
wilderness of Paran Joshua and Caleb and ten
others to survey the land. They went through
the whole land, as far as Rehob on the borders of
Hamath; and, after forty days, they brought
back an evil report, that it was a land which ate
up its inhabitants, and that all the people in it
were giants. The congregation murmured against
Moses and Aaron, who prostrated themselves
before them. Joshua and Caleb protested that
the land was a good land. But the congreeation
were about to stone Moses and Aaron, when the
glory of J” appeared in the Tabernacle, and
declared that of the grown men only Caleb and
Joshua should enter Canaan. The other ten spies
died at once by a plague, Nu 131-17 21. 25. 26a. 32] 41a.
2. 5-7. 10. 26-30. 34-98. (dd) When Israel, journeying from
Paran, reached Mount Hor, Δὲ oe died, and was
succeeded by Eleazar, Nu 2074)-*,

(ff) Israel marched alone the borders of Edom to
Moab, Νὰ 205: 214-10. ὅς,

(ii) An Israelite broueht ina Midianite woman ;
whereupon there came a plague, which was stay ed
by the execution of the enilty couple by Phinehas
the grandson of Aaron. J” bade ioses promise
Phinehas ‘an everlasting priesthood,’ Nu 25%,
(jj) Moses and Eleazar took a second census, none
of those included in the former census surviving,

* From various strata of P.

¢ See NuMBERS, p. 570%,

t Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in vvy.2427a=R. Α later
priestly writer has made additions, according to which Korah
and the princes were Levites, sions sought the peeps s and
specially neta Aaron, 161-son... Levi. 8-11. 16.17. 32b. 37-

§ Nu 1710,

i Wherein the sin of Moses and Aaron lay is not clear. The
LXX for ‘shall we bring forth ?’ μὴ ἐξά ξοωεν, may imply that he
doubted whether they could. Ps 10633 states that Moses
‘spake unadvisedly (82371) with his lips.’

except Joshua and Caleb, Nu 26. (kk) J” told
Moses he was about to die; and, at J’s command,
Moses appointed Joshua his successor, Nu 27.
(1) Moses delivered final laws, ete., Nu 28-30.
The Israelites defeated the Midianites and slew
Balaam, Nu 31. (mm) Moses gave the territories
of Sihon and Og to Reuben and Gad, Nu 391-385

(nn) Moses went up to Mt. Nebo and died there,
at the age of 120, in full possession of all his
faculties. The Israclites mourned him thirty
days; and Joshua succeeded him, ‘full of the
spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands
ἘΡΡΕ him, Dydd,

Moses in D, ete. —The additions made by the
Packaces seen writers and the various editors to
the Pentateuch simply expound, interpret, and
harmonize the information given by the older
sources, and add nothing to our knowledge of the
character and work of Moses. The various songs,
though probably included in J and E, or JE, ete.,
are really independent sources. Ex 1577} (Sone at
the Red Sea) is doubtless the oldest account of the
great deliverance. It states, in accordance with
J, that J”, through a mighty wind, which first
held back and then let loose the waters, over-
whelmed the E syptians in the Dead Sea. The
‘ Blessing of Moses,’ Dt 33, speaks of a Theophany
from Sinai, Seir, Mt. Paran, of a Law given by
Moses, whot was ‘king in Jeshurun,’ and con-
nects Levi with Massah and Meribah, either
because Levi was regarded as equivalent to Moses,
or else following an otherwise unknown tradition.

1. Moses in the OT outside the Pentatenuch.—
In the pre-exilic prophets, Hos 1215, sometimes
regarded as a later addition, states that J” brought
up Israel from Egypt, and preserved him, by a
prophet ; Mic 6** refers to Moses, Aaron, and
Miriam as the leaders of Israel in the Exodus ;
Jer 15! couples Moses with Samuel. In the post-
exilic prophets Moses is referred to in Is 031} 13,
and the law of Moses in Mal 44, Dn 911.1 In the
Psalter, Ps 105. 106 are a lyrical summary of the
history of the Exodus; they are based on an
edition of the Pentateuch, in which P had already
been combined with JED, but which did not con-
tain some of the latest priestly additions. Moses
and Aaron are also referred to in 777° as leaders
of the people, and in 99%—

‘Moses and Aaron among his priests,

And Samuel among them that call upon his name.’

In Jos the Deuteronomic editors make frequent
reference to the ‘law of Moses,’ i.e. D, which,
according to them, was strictly observed by
Joshua and the elders of his generation, ¢.g.
8°85 In Sam.-Kings, the Deuteron. editors seem
to hold that this law was ignored till discovered
in the temple in the reign of Josiah. In Ch, the
priestly edition of the history, the law of Moses,
we. the laws of the Vents iteuch, was stricily Ὁ:
served by all good kings from David onwards,

In Jos 2419 (E) Joshua’s farewell speech gives
a brief summary of the history of the Exodus,
beginning, ‘I sent Moses and Aaron.’§ There is a
similar reference to Moses and Aaron in 18 12°
(Ε ἢ, Samuel’s farewell speech. 1 Ch 234)" cives
the sons and grandsons ΟἹ ‘ Moses the man of God,’
and states that they were reckoned with (ΟΝ +877)
the tribe of Levi.

vii. Reconstruction of the History.— We can
take as our starting-point certain facts as to which
the ancient sources and most modern critics agree
—(a) That Moses was the leader under whom
Israel was delivered from bondage in Egypt and

* Probably RP, but based on JE.

+ Driver, Steuernagel, etc., prefer to refer ‘the king’ to Jahweh.

t Perhaps written in the reign of Manasseh.

§ Omitted by the LXX. In view of the general attitude of ἃ

to Aaron, the words ‘and Aaron’ are probably R, if the clause
belongs to the text at all.

MOSES

MOSES

from peril of annihilation by the Red Sea, and was
governed during its sojourn in the wilderness ; (4)
that through him Israel received a revelation,
which was a new departure in the national re-
livion, and the foundation of Judaism and Chris-
tianity ; and (¢)—practically another aspect of the
last point—that he originated or formulated many
customs and institutions from which the later
national system was developed; that thus (ὦ)
Israel owed to Moses its existence as a nation ;
and (6) Moses is a unique personality of supreme
Importance in OT history.

The following quotations will show the extent to
which the general historicity of the Mosaic narra-
tive is accepted; in (A) are placed those which
minimize the historical element ; the rest in (B):—

(A) Stade, who in his ΟἹ] was more sceptical about the
sojourn of the people in Egypt than in more recent utterances,
accepts Moses as a real person, thus: ‘Like all founders of
religions, he brought to his people a new, creative ideat which
moutded their national life. This new idea was the worship of
Yahwe as national God’ (Stammgottes), p. 130. Cf. Akad.
Reden, 105 ft.

Renan, /list. du Peuple d’Isr. i. Ὁ. 161: ‘Mais ce qui est
possible aussi, c’est que tous ces récits de l’Exode, ot la fable a
pénctré pour une si large part, soient plus mythiques encore
qu’on ne le suppose d'ordinaire, et qu’il ne faille, de tous ces
récits, conserver que le fait méme de la sortie d’Israél de
lEgypte et de son entrée dans la péninsule du Sinai Of
Moses he says: ‘La légende a enti¢rement recouvert Moise . . .
quoique son existence soit trés probable,’ p. 159.

(B) In Ewald’s treatment of this period, Hist. of Isr. [Eng.
tr. | ii. 15-228, his own view of the history is partly subordinated
to an exposition of the narratives in the various sources ; but
he clearly accepted the historicity of the leading events. Thus,
of the passage of the Red Sea, he wrote : ‘ Whatever may have
been the exact course of this event, whose historical certainty
is well established, its momentous results, the nearer as well
as the more remote, were sure to be experienced, and are even
to us most distinctly visible,’ p. 75.

Wellhausen, /ist. of Isr. pp. 429-488: ‘Moses... saw a
favourable opportunity of deliverance. . .. At a time when
Egypt was scourged by a grievous plague, the Hebrews broke
up their settlement in Goshen one night in spring . . . on the
shore... of the Red Sea... they were overtaken by Pharaoh's
army. ... A high wind during the night left the shallow sea
so low that it became possible to ford it. Moses eagerly
accepted the suggestion, and made the venture with success.
The Egyptians, rushing after, came up with them on the
further shore, and a struggle ensued. But the assailants
fought at a disadvantage: the ground being ill suited for their
chariots and horsemen, they fell into confusion and attempted
a retreat. Meanwhile the wind had changed; the waters re-
turned, and the pursuers were annihilated. After turning to
visit Sinai. . . the emigrants settled at Kadesh.’ ‘A certain
inner unity actually subsisted long before it had found any
outward political expression ; it goes back to the time of Moses,
who is to be regarded as its author, The foundation upon
which, at all periods, Israel’s sense of its national unity rested
was religious in its character. It was the faith which may be
summed up in the formula, Jehovah is the God of Israel, and
Israel is the people of Jehovah. Moses was not the first dis-
coverer of this faith, but it was through him that it came to be
the fundamental basis of the national existence and history.’
‘From the historical tradition . . . it is certain that Moses was
the founder of the Torah.’

The late W. Robertson Smith wrote, OTJC2: ‘Moses... is
the father of the priests as well as the father of the prophets,’
p. 303. ‘He was a prophet as well as a judge. As such, he
founded in Israel the great principles of the moral religion of
the rightcous Jehovah,’ p. 305.

Smend, 47’ Religionsgeschichte2, writes : ‘The narrative of the
Mosaic period contains certain leading features, the historicity
of which there is no reason to doubt, viz. the sojourn in Egypt
of the Israclites, or at any rate of a part of them; their flight

from Egypt; their connexion with the tribes of the Sinaitic |

peninsula and with the holy mountain ; their stay at Kadesh,
and finally the conquest of the Amorite kingdom east of the
Jordan. . . . Moses was not the lawgiver of Israel, but he was
much more than that. By leading the Israelites out of Egypt,
by unifying them in the wilderness, by conquering the land E.
of Jordan, thus giving the Israelites a settled abode, and en-
abling them to become agriculturists instead of nomads, he
created Isracl. . . . Through him Yahwe became the God of
Israel, pp: 15-17.

Kittel, in his //ist. of the Hebrews (Eng. tr.], which applies
Dillmann’s critical views to the history, writes: ‘Not only the
Song (at the Red Sea), but all three main sources (J E P) have
historic ground beneath them. The Passage through the sea
is a historical fact, but this is a link of a chain which implies
others, earlier as well as later. The abode in Egypt, the Exodus
thence, the continued journeying in the Desert towards Sinai,
are thereby all made certain,’ i. p. 227f. Similarly he accepts
connexion with Midian and the sojourns at Sinai and Kadesh,
pp. 229-234, and finds a Mosaic kernel in the Decalogue and the

|

Book of the Covenant. Further: ‘If the events of that period
are, as a Whole, beyond dispute, they demand for their ex-
planation such a personality as the sources give us in Moses,’

239,

” Goraill, Hist. of the People of Isr. pp. 41-43, writes : ‘ Moses,

a Hebrew of the tribe of Levi, had by favourable providence had
access to the learning and civilization of Egypt,’ and led the Israel-
ites out of Egypt. They were overtaken by the Egyptians at
the Red Sea, but ‘a mighty north-east wind lays dry the
shallow strait, and they go through on the bottom of the
sea, into the desert, into treedom.’ ... ‘In Sinai. . . tradi-
tion locates the capital achievement of Moses, his religious
reorganization of the people. It is one of the most remarkable
moments in the history of mankind, the birth-hour of the
religion of the spirit. In the thunderstorms of Sinai the God
of revelation Himself comes down upon the earth: here we
have the dawn of the day which was to break upon the whole
human race, and among the greatest mortals who ever walked
this earth Moses will always remain one of the vreatest.’

Passing to details: Moses’ connexion with the
Levites is vouched for not only by the statements
as to his birth, Ex 2? E, 6° P, but also from the
fact that the Levites of the sanctuary at Dan
claimed to be descended from Moses ;* and also
by the designation of the Levites in Dt 33° as
‘the people of thy holy one,’ ττὸπ ΟΝ, Ὁ i.e. Moses.
Perhaps Mushi (Ex 6 [P]), as the name of a divi-
sion of the Levitical clan Merari, denotes another
group of Levites, who at one time claimed descent
from Moses. 1 Ch 23-17, where it is stated that
the sons of Moses were reckoned (3997) to the tribe
of Levi, is possibly a trace of some arrangement
by which the Mosaic Levites were placed on the
same level as the other Levites; the genealogical
statement of the transaction would be that Ger-
shom was a son of Levi and not of Moses. Cf.
LEVI.

The E ssatement (Ex 910), that Moses grew up in
Egyptian surroundings,is supported by the apparent
identity of his name with the Eeyptian mesu ; but
it is not likely, as Renan (Hist. du Peuple εἰ 15».
1. 142 ff.) supposes, that he was greatly influenced
in his work as the medium of divine revelation
to Israel, by any Egyptian training. The pre-
prophetic religion of Israel has little in common
with that of Egypt. Moreover, the early narra-
tives make it clear that the scene of what we may
vall his religious education was the desert between
Egypt and Palestine. It was at Horeb or in Midian
that God appeared to him; and the only human
being by whose advice he was guided alike in re-
ligious and secular matters was his father-in-law,
‘arlously styled Jethro, the priest of Midian,
Reuel, Hobab ben-Reuel, the Kenite. See Hoban,
Jeruro. It was at Horeb or Sinai that Moses re-
ceived his fuller revelation ; and throughout the
sarlier history J” is specially connected with Sinai.
Thus it appears that Moses, as an exile from Egypt,
found among the Bedawin of the wilderness of
Sinai} the human influences which helped to shape
his subsequent teaching,§ cf. art. Gop in vol. ii. p.
200"; there, too, he received the divine inspiration,
which sent him back to Egypt to rescue his people.
In that rescue and for the rest of his life, Moses
was the mediator between J” and Israel alike in
things material and spiritual. Israel, in its better
moments, recognized that J” enided, protected, and
championed His people through the leading and
vovernance of Moses, and instructed them through
his teaching. The tradition is equally clear that
Israel had its evil moods in which it strove to

* Jg 1830 (J Ὁ, where the true reading is Moses, not Manasseh.
The suggestion (Addis, Hea. p. 196 n.) that 1S 227 implies that
a similar claim was made by the priesthood of Shiloh is not
supported by the general sense of the passige, which, more-
over, was probably not written till after the destruction of
Shiloh.

+ So Dillmann, Addis, etc. ; Driver prefers to render, ‘the
man, thy godly one,’ ἡ.6. the tribe of Levi.

t Cf. the exile of the Egyptian Sanehat amongst the Bedawin,
Petrie, Kgypt, i. 153.

§ The occurrence of J” in Jochebed suggests that the name
J” was known in the tribe of Levi before the time of Moses;
but this name is found only in P.

446 MOSES

MOSES

shake itself free from the control of Moses, and
that there were times when even he despaired of
accomplishing the task which J” had laid upon
him. ‘The repeated offers of J’ to annihilate Israel
and make Moses the ancestor of a new nation, are
probably a faithful reminiscence of importunate
doubts as to whether Israel was worthy to be ‘the
people of J’? ae. to receive and entertain the
Divine Presence by which Moses felt himself
possessed and inspired. For then a nation was a
necessary correlative of a religion. Would it not
he better to leave Israel to its fate and to gather
round himself some new community, just as cen-
turies later Paul turned from the Jews to the
Gentiles? But Moses’ intense patriotism made
such a course impossible. ‘If thou wilt forgive
their sin —; if not, blot >, IT pray thee, out of

thy book which thou ha γι τη. Again and
again he returned to the task of keeping the
people true to their high vocation, alike by per-

suasion and chastisement ; while he as constantly
besought J” to pardon their sin and bear with their
frailty.

We may also trust the tradition that Moses led
Israel first to NKadesh and then to the plains of

Moab, but that he died before the invasion of
Palestine. The tradition of some sin, of which
exclusion from Canaan was the penalty, is too
obscure to be interpreted, far less verified. The
important and controlling element of Moses’ work
for Israel, and through Israel for the religion of
the world, was the uniting of the various tribes
as ‘the people of J’ and of J” only, in the faith
that J” could control nature and history to His
purposes. The mutual loyalty of the tribes to one
another had an immense ethical value, cf which
their common loyalty to J” was the bond and
symbol. Hence an ethical character necessarily
attached to J” Himself. In a primitive age a new
departure necessarily had a concrete embodiment ;
Moses therefore provided for J” a sanctuary and a
priesthood. The Tent of Meeting is mentioned by
EK (Nu 11 ete.) ; and, even apart from P, who has
probably expanded ancient material, the Ark was
evidently constructed by Moses; it is conspicuous
in JE at the crossing of the Jordan, but entirely
absent at the Red Sea. As to the priesthood,

Moses clearly placed the care of the Ark and the
Tent of Meeting in the hands of his own family.
Joshua, indeed, was left in charge of the Tent, but
only as the deputy of Moses, who was the real
priest, or, as Philosays, high priest. Moses appears
(see above) to have left the succession in the priest-
hood to his children; it is not clear how far P’s
statement that the family of Aaron was entrusted
with the priesthood is derived from ancient tradi-
tion, but the ordinary analysis supports this view
by giving Dt lo’, Jos 14% to E, but they may
belong to RP; see ‘Joshua’ in PB. Cf. ARK,
TABERNACLE, ete.

The Pentateuch also states that Moses committed
to writing certain laws and records : ‘all the words
of J”, Ex 24° (E)— what these ‘words’ were is
not stated; the ritual Ten Commandments, Ex
34°85 (J) ; the register of the Stations in the Wilder-
ness, Nu 33! (RY); ‘this law,’ probably the original
Deuteronomic Code, Dt 31° (RY). The articles
Exobus, DEUTERONOMY, NUMBERS explain why
even these sections, at any rate in their present
form, are not attributed to Moses. Yet these
passages warrant us in believing that many of the

laws and institutions of the Pentateuch originated
with Moses, or received his sanction, or are the
natural application to later times of the principles
involved in his government of Israel.

It is doubtful whether we can regard Moses as

an author in the literary sense. His name is
indeed found in the OT in connexion with various ἃ

poems, viz. Ex 151-18. the Song of Triumyh at the
Red Sea; Dt 821-48. the Song of Moses; Dt 332%;
and some other poems in Ex—Dt; Ps 90, the Prayer
of Moses; and the whole Pentateuch and the Bk.
of Job have been attributed to him by rabbinical
and other theories. The reasons why this aserip-
tion of these books and poems to Moses has been
for the most part abandoned will be found in the
articles on the several books. It is not impossible
that he may have composed narratives and poems,
and that portions of such work are preserved in
the Pentateuch, but we have no means of identify-
ing them.

It will be obvious that the question, ‘What
new elements of cult and faith did Moses add to
the religion of Israel?’ can be only very partially
answered. Later times rightly held that, in a
sense, they were lis debtors for their whole trea-
sure of religious faith and life; they were not
vareful to distinguish between original Mosaism
and its developments; but included both alike
under the formula, ‘J” said to Moses.? Modern
analysis has not yet succeeded in definitely and
certainly separating the one from the other. It
has been proposed to determine Mosaism by ascer-
taining the nature of the pre-prophetic religion of
Israel. But our data for this calculation are in-
adequate ; and even if it were successfully per-

| formed, we have still to discover the exact state

of pre-Mosaic religion, and to establish some prin-
ciple by which the credit for the advance from that
to prophetic religion is to be distributed between
Moses and other teachers, such as Samuel and
Elijah. Moses’ work was rather practical than
didactic, the influence of an iispired life rather
than the inculcation of abstract dogmas. He
made the faith, the sanctuary, the Ark of J” the
rallying-point of a united Israel. This point is
rightly emphasized by EK and P in their statements
that it was through Moses that the name YAHWEH
was made known to Israel. What there was new
to Israel in this name, as compared with the
divine names they had hitherto used, we cannot
at present determine. But, in the natural course
of things, each of the tribes of Israel would have
developed, like Ammon, Moab, and Edom, its own
henotheistic religion. The devotion of so great a
group of tribes to J”, and J” only, and the survival
of this common devotion when the political unity
disappeared, under the Judges and again during
the divided monarchy, was a distinct step from
henotheism to monotheism. Moreover, the faith
that the God whose sanctuary was Sinai could
rescue Israel from Egypt, protect and provide for
them in the wilderness, and put them in possession
of Palestine, emphasized the truth that J” was not
the God of a country, but of a people; and the
relation of a deity to a people is far more spimtual
than the relation of a deity to a country—J” is
of a higher order than Baal. Hence the Mosaic
faith, ‘J’ is the God of Israel,’ and the realiza-
tion of that faith in the events of Israel’s history
during the leadership of Moses, constitute a dis-
tinct advance in spiritual monotheism,

Moses’ personality cannot be exactly defined,
for similar reasons. In the oldest tradition he
stands in such isolated grandeur,* is so constantly
thought of as the ideal ruler and prophet, that
the traits of human, individual life and character
are lost. Even points that seem characteristic
are soon seen to belong to the Israelite ideal of
the saint and prophet. His shrinking from his

mission he shared with men like Jeremiah and
Ezekiel. When Nu 12° (ΕΞ or perhaps R) states

that Moses was meek (‘a@ndw) above all other men,

it means that he was unique in his piety, for to

be ‘dndw came to be the characteristic grace of
* For Aaron see ii.-iv. (8).

MOSES

MOSES 447

‘

the godly man. On the other hand, his wife and
sons vanish silently from the story, which cares
nothing about his personal relations, and is in-
terested only in the official successor to his leader-
ship. The picture drawn of him in the Pentateuch
is adequately sketched by saying, with Philo, that
Moses is portrayed as supremely endowed with the
human gifts and divine inspiration of king and
lawgiver, priest and prophet.

(. Mosks IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.—The NT
makes frequent reference to the history of Moses.
For the most part, however, it adds nothine to
the OT narrative. In some instances it follows
a text differing from MT, or a tradition varying
from the Pentateuch,* but these differences do
not affect the general history of Moses. In other
cases, the ΝΊΣ follows tradition in obtaining new
features from the interpretation of the O'T narra-
tive. The simple a2 (EV ‘goodly’ of Ex 2?)
becomes, by a development. from the LXX ἀστεῖος,
the emphatic phrase ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῴ (EV ‘exceeding
fair’), Ac 7”; cf. He 11%. So, again, He 124-25
‘Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be
called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter ; choosing
rather to be evil entreated with the people of God,
than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a Season ;
accounting the reproach of Christ greater riches
than the treasures of Egypt: for he looked αἴ, [0
the recompense of the reward.
sook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king :
for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.’
Similarly, St. Stephen (Ae 724). in stating that
Moses ‘was instructed in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians,’ that he was about forty when he fled
from Egypt, that he spent forty years in Midian,
ete., follows traditions which aré an obvious de.
duction from the OT statement that Moses was
brought up as the ‘son of Pharaoh's daughter,’
and from the chronology of the Pentateuch.

There are, however, a few statements about |

Moses in the NT which can scarcely be conjectural
expansions of suggestions found in the Pentateuch.
They are, for the most part, derived from apo-
eryphal works: 2 Ti 3°" ‘Jannes and Jambres
withstood Moses,’ and ‘their folly came to
be evident unto all men,’ is said by Origen (on
Mt 27°) to be taken from an apocryphal Book of
Jannes and Jambres; see JANNES AND JAMBRES
(Book OF). Jude 3, the contention of Michael
and Satan oter the body of Moses, is from another
apocryphal work, the Assumption of Moses; see

following article.

The NT constantly refers to the law of Moses,
and to Moses as the founder of OT religion, and
refers to the Pentateuch as ‘Moses’ (Lk 16"),
His prophetical status is recoenized by the quota-
tion in Ac 3%. At the Transfiguration, Moses and
Elijah appear as the representatives of the OT
dispensation, and Christ and they speak of His
approaching death as an ‘Exodus’ (Lk 9°, ef,
2 Pe 15). While the NT contrasts the law with
the gospel, and Moses with Christ (Jn ΕΥ̓ ete.),
yet it appeals to the Pentateuch as bearing witness
to Christ (Dt 18-9 in Ae 77), in a way which
implies that what Moses was to the old, Christ
is to the new dispensation. Similarly, the com-
parison between Moses and Christ in’ He 3% ὅ im-
plies that, though Christ was greater than Moses,
He was, in a sense, ἃ greater Moses, and that
Moses was a forerunner and prototype of Christ.

D. Moses ΙΝ TRADITION.—An immense mass
of traditions vathered round Moses. Many of these
are collected in Josephus, Ant. IL.-Iv., ¢. Apion. ;
Philo, Vita Moysis; Eusebius, Prem 2, 92 an
the Targums and rabbinical commentaries ; and
in the pseudepigraphal works ascribed to Moses. t+

* 2 Co 315, He 94 (cf. Nu 1729).
1 See Moss, ASSUMPTION OF.

By faith he for- |

Traditions are also found in the Koran, and in
other Arabian works. It is possible that there
may be in this wilderness of chat! some erain of
fact not otherwise known ; but, speaking eenerally,
the student of OT history may set the whole on
one side,

So Canon Rawlinson, Moses, Mis Life and Times, Pref. iii:
‘Many legends have clustered round the name of Moses, some
Jewish, others Mahometan, but these are almost always worth-
less, and throughout the following pages, excepting in a single
instance, no notice has been taken of them. The writer’s
strong conviction has been that it is from the Scriptures almost
entirely, if not entirely, that we must learn the facts of Moses’
life and deduce our estimate of his character.’

Hence, with the partial exception of the Manetho
traditions preserved by Josephus, to be noticed
hereafter, these legends are mostly ignored by
historians. The chief Ὁ “eption is Stanley, who,
in his Jewish Church the article ‘Moses’ in
Smith’s DB, interweaves legends with biblical
data in his usual picturesque fashion.

Doubtless, however, the ideas which the Jews
in the NT period had of Moses were somewhat
influenced by such traditions-—witness their cur-
rency in Philo and Josephus: these traditions,
howeyer, would not—and the N'T shows that they
did not—seriously modify the account given in the
OT of the life and work of Moses. They supply
details of names and numbers ; narrate incidents
hat fill gaps in the story ; and provide facts which
explain obscurities. Further, by adding to the
marvellous in the history of Moses, they attempt
the superfluous task of increasing his unique
spiritual importance. We can cite only a tew
examples. Thus Josephus * (Anfé. iL. ix. x.) gives
many details of the childhood and youth of Moses,
Pharaoh’s daughter's name was Thermuthis ; the
infant refused to be suckled by Egyptian nurses ;
he was of divine form (μορῴῃ θεῖον) ; the princess
induced her father to put his crown on Moses’
head, but Moses threw it down and trod on rt,
etc. ete. An account of a suecessful campaign
against the Ethiopians, in which Moses commanded
the Egyptian army, and married Tharbis, the
daughter of the Ethiopian kine, probably grew
out of the reference to his ‘Cushite wife* in Nu
121. The account of Moses’ death (IV. viii. 49)
concludes: ‘As he was embracing Eleazar and
Joshua, and was still talking with them, a cloud
suddenly stood over him, and he disappeared down
a certain valley. But he wrote in the Sacred
Books that he died (αὐτὸν τεθνεῶτα), fearing lest
men should venture to say that he had been
deified (πρὸς τὸ θεῖον αὐτὸν ἀναχωρῆσαι) on account
of his extraordinary virtue.’ Elsewhere (e. Apion.
i. 26) he quotes Manetho to the effect that Moses
was born in Heliopolis, and bore the Egyptian
name of Osarsiph, Philo (Vita Moysis, i. 5) gives
the details of his education in the learning of
Egypt, Greece, Assyria, and Chaldea. In i, 39
he has a version of the fight at Rephidim (Ex
17*-""), in which Aaron and Hur are dispensed
with, and Moses’ hands are miraculously upheld,
In iii. 89 he speaks of Moses’ prophesyinge his own
death, by divine inspiration, while yet alive, and
being buried ‘not by mortal hands, but by im-
mortal powers,’ and concludes, ‘Such was the life
and such the death of Moses, king, laweiver, high
priest, and prophet, as it is recorded in the Sacred
Scriptures.’

Although the Manetho traditions belong rather
to the general history of the Exodus than to the
personal career of Moses, something more may be
said about them here. Josephus (6. Apion.) gives
the traditions as to the Exodus preserved by

* The many tedious expansions of the Bible story in Josephus
and Philo, especially the speeches, which, after the manner of
Thucydides, they put into the mouths of Moses and others,
have of course no historical value.

448 MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF

MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF

Manetho, an Egyptian priest and historian of
Heliopolis, during the reign of Ptolemy Philadel-
phus, B.C. 285-246. In i. 26, 27, Manetho is quoted
as stating that a priest of Heliopolis, named Osar-
siph, afterwards Moses, raised a revolt of persons
afilicted by leprosy and other foul diseases, who
had been settled on the borders to deliver Egypt
from the pollution of their presence. They were
defeated and driven out of Egypt into Syria by
Amenophis king of Egypt. In ch. 32 a similar
story is quoted from Chawremon,* the leaders of
the Jews being Moiises Tisithen and Joseph
Peteseph. In ch. 34, ef. ii. 2, a third version of the
story is quoted from Lysimachus.+ According to
i. 14, 15, 26, ii. 2, Manetho stated that Jerusalem
was built by the followers of shepherd kings,
Hyksos, when they were expelled from Egypt
by Tethmosis; and, apparently, regards these
Hyksos as the ancestors of the Israelites. — It
has sometimes been maintained that the story
of the expulsion of the lepers is a truer version of
the Exodus than that given in the OT ; and some
who reject Manetho’s main story quote his names
of persons and places. It is safer to regard his
and other narratives as mere perversions of the
biblical account (Stade, Gesch. i. 128; Seinecke,
Gesch. 1. 80).

The Mussulman legends are partly imaginative
but tedious expansions of the Bible narrative, prob-
ably known only indirectly ; partly pure myths.
Thus, when Moses struck the rock, ¢iedve streams
eushed forth, one for each tribe (Koran, 11.).. Sura
xviii. gives a story of the journey of Moses with
el-Khidr, the Unknown, which reads like ἃ section
of the Arabian Nights. The numerous legends
about Moses illustrate the fact that the Moslems
recognize Moses, in common with Jesus and Mo-
hammed, as ἃ prophet and apostle (Koran, xix. ).

Cf. CHRONOLOGY OF ΟἿ᾽, EXODUS TO CANAAN,
TsRAEL (Hisrory oF), ΠΈΧΑΤΕΟΟΘΗ, Exobus,
Leviticus, NumBers, DkEUTERONOMY, ARK,
TABERNACLE, AARON, and articles on the various
persons, places, and things mentioned in Ex—Dt ;
also MOSES (ASSUMPTION OF).

LITERATURE.—Commentaries on the Pentateuch, and sections
referring to Pent. in the OT Introductions, Sections on Mosaic
period in the //istories and OT Theologies cited in Literature
under IsrAkL (History OF); also in the O7' Theologies of Kayser-
Marti, Oehler [Eng. tr.J, Piepenbring [Eng. tr.J; W. R. Smith,
OTJIC2 pp. 254-430. See also G. Rawlinson, Moses; Baker-
Greene, Migration of the Hebrews.

A list of pseudepigraphal books ascribed to Moses is given in
Charles’ Assimption of Moses, pp. Xiv-xvii. For the Jewish and
Mohammedan legends see Stanley, Jewish Church, i. 86-173,
and art. ‘Moses’ in Smith’s DB; also Koran, Suras ii., vii., X.,
xviii., XiX., XX., xXVi., xxviii, xl. ; Gustav Weil, Biblical
Legends of the Mussulimans, trt as The Bible, the koran, and
the Talmud, and notes to Rodwell’s {τ of the Koran ; d’Herbe-
lot, Bibliotheque Oricntale, Moussa ben-Amram ; P.1. Hershon,
Genesis, with a Talmudical Commentary, see under ὁ Moses’ in
Index iii. For the Egyptian traditions of Manetho, Cheeremon,
and Lysimachus, and for Artapanus (ap. Eus. Prep. Hv. ix. 27),
ete., see Ewald, ist. of Isr. ii. 76-94. For the Archeology see
Driver in Authority and Archeology (Hogarth), pp. 54-79.

ΝΥ. H. BENNETT.

MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF.—The Assumption of
Moses [Δνάληψις Μωυσέως ap. Gelasius of Cyzicum
(Mansi ii. 844)] is a Jewish writing originally com-
posed in Hebrew or Aramaic early in the Ist cent.
A.D. It is extant in a Latin translation preserved
in a single palimpsest MS, which was discovered
by Ceriani and edited by him in Monwmenta Sacra
et Profuna, vol. i. fase. 1. pp. 55-64 (1864). The
best edition is that of Dr. R. H. Charles (1897) :
his division of the text into chapters and verses is
here adopted, and his edition quoted by its pages
[e.g. ‘Charles 87 ’].

1, CONTENTS (Historical allusions not expressly

* An Alexandrian living shortly before the Christian era
(Ewald, tstxof or. tr il, Sh 00.),

+ ‘Otherwise unknown, but certainly still later than Cheere-
mon,’ Ewald, op. cit. 11. 86.

named in the text are given in brackets).—]I. In
the year 2500 A.M., Moses, being 120 years old,
‘alls Joshua and appoints him to be his successor,
at the same time giving him the books, which he
is to bury carefully in a safe place. II. Joshua
shall give the people their inheritance (1, 2):
afterwards they will be ruled by chiefs and
kings, and God will fix the place of His sanctuary
(3, 4), though the ten tribes will break off (5). But
the people will fall into idolatry (0.9). ΠῚ. Then
a king from the East [Nebuchadnezzar] will burn
their ‘colony’ [/ernsalem| and the temple, and
will carry them captive (1-3). The ten tribes and
the two tribes will mourn together and pray, and
will remember the warnings of Moses (4-13). They
will be in bondage about 77 years (14). IV. Then
a certain one [Daniel] will pray for them (1-5),
and some of them will be allowed to return, though
the ten tribes will remain among the Gentiles (6-9).
V. At a later period the priests, ‘slaves, sons of
slaves,’ will fall into idolatry and iniquity through
the wicked kings who are over them [Antiochus
and the Hellenizing Priests, such as Menelaus
(2 Mae 450]. VI. Then will come kings calling
themselves priests [The Hasmonwans], who also
will work iniquity (1). These in turn are to be
followed by a king not of the race of the priests
{Herod}, who will tyrannize over them for 34
years (2-6): his children will reign for shorter
periods (7), and a powerful king of the West
[Varus, governor of Syria, B.C. 4) will conquer
them and burn part of the temple (ὃ, 9). Vail.
Here the history ends and the predictions begin :
first will come rulers who will be hypocrites,
eluttons, tyrannical, impious, boastful, proud...
(This chapter is much mutilated inthe MS). VEIT.
Another visitation of wrath will descend upon them,
and the ‘king of the kings of the earth’ will
crucify those who confess their circumcision and
give their wives to the Gentiles, and will make
them carry unclean idols and blaspheme. IX,
Then there will be a man of the tribe of Levi
whose name will be TAxo [L/eazar (see below)],
who will take his seven sons into the wilderness
to fast for three days and then die, rather than
transeress the law of the Lord of lords. Ν. Then
the Lord’s kingdom will appear, and the angel
[Michael] will be commissioned to avenge the
enemies of Israel (1, 2). The Most High will
arise, While the earth trembles and the sun and
moon are darkened, and He will punish the Gen-
tiles ; but thou, Israel, wilt be blessed and mount
up to the heavens, and thou shalt see thy enemies
on the earth,* and shalt give thanks to thy Creator
(3-10). But now Joshua is to keep these words
safe: from the death of Moses to the Advent shall
le 250 ‘times’ (11-15). ΧΙ. When Joshua hears
these words of Moses, he is much grieved. What
sepulchre (he says) can be fit for Moses? How can
I, Joshua, guide the 600,000 Israelites, or defend
them from the Amorites, who will attack them
when Moses is gone? XII. Moses then places
Joshua in his own seat, and comforts him by

reminding him of the providence of God...
(Here the MS breaks off in the middle of a
sentence).

ii. DATE.—It follows from the above analysis
that the Assumption was written after Herod's
death, but before any of his sons had reigned so
long as their father, i.e. between B.C. 3 and A.D.
30. The most probable date is soon after the
deposition of Archelaus in A.D. 6. - (So Charles
lviii, who also examines the views of other
scholars).

iii. STANDPOINT AND TEACHING.—The value of
the Assumption of Moses for modern students is
expressed by the title of J. E. H. Thomson's work,

* Or, according to Charles’ conjecture, i Gehenna.

MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF

MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF = 449

‘ Books which influenced our Lord and His Apostles’
(see Charles xxvii f.).. The author is characterized
by Dr. Charles as a Pharisaic Quictist. He was
not a Sadducee, for he attacks the priests and
expects a theocratic kingdom. He was not a
Zealot, for he is significantly silent about the
exploits of the Maccabees, and lis ideal hero,
Taxo [Lleazar], is one who will be passively faith-
ful unto death. Nor was he an Essene, for he is
keenly interested in the fortunes of .the temple.
‘He was a Pharisee of a fast-disappearing type,
recalling in all respects the Chasid of the early
Maccabiean times, and upholding the old traditions
of quietude and resignation’ (Charles li-liy).
Hence he represents that tendency in Jewish
thoneht which was most nearly allied to primitive
Christianity.* It is this which gives real interest
to the investigation of the many critical ditticulties
presented by the text of the book.

iv. THe LATIN Text.—The Milan Palimpsest
(Bibl. Amb. ὁ. 73 inf.), our sole witness for the
text, appears to date from the 6th cent.+ The
Assumption occupies quire xvii, the preceding
quires containing the unique fragments of the
Latin translation of the Book of Jubilees (wh.
see). But, though the whole volume is marked
by peculiarities of writing and spelling due to the
scribe, the two works were not translated at the
same time or place, as is clear from the divergent
renderings of Greek words. The Latin vocabulary
of the Assumption includes aedes (ναός), arbiter
(μεσίτης), colonia (=Sa town’)$, muntins (ἄγγελος),
palam facere (ἀποκαλύπτειν), Sunaries (Ὑ ψιστος), and
transliterations such as acrobistia (=dxpoBvaria),
clibsis (θλίψις), scene (σκηνή). Important for the
date is the rare use of secus for κατά ‘according
to,’ parallels to which occur in Clem. Rom. Jat 21%,
and in a non-Christian inscription found at Pes-
chiera (CTL ν. 4017). |!

The MS (which is often very hard to read) was
transcribed by Ceriani with wonderful accuracy.
But the Latin itself is disfigured by many corrup-
tions, mostly due to the carelessness of tran-
scribers, e.g. ex tribus for patribus (i. 8), sub
anulo for sub nullo (xii. 9).** More serious are
those which rest on mistakes in the underlying
Greek. Dr. Charles has detected a notable instance
in 11. 7, where adcedent ad testamentum Domini et
finem pollucnt must correspond to προσβήσονται τῇ
διαθήκῃ Kupiov καὶ τὸν ὅρον βεβηλώσουσιν ; here by
reading παραβήσονται τὴν διαθήκην and ὅρκον (for
ὅρον) We get the appropriate sense, ‘they will érans-
gress the covenant of the Lord and profane the
oath. No doubt there are cases of still deeper
corruptions which arose in the original Semitic, but
these are nore difficult to discover and remove.

A full discussion of all the obscurities presented
by the text as we have it would be impossible
here: one point, however, must be noticed, as it
atlects the general understanding of the book.
This is the interpretation of chs. villi. and ix.,

*Comp., for instance, Mk 336 with Asswimp. xi. (tune parebit
reguum | Dei). . . et tune Zabulus jinem habebit).

f A rough facsimile of a couple of lines is given in Volkmar’s
edition of the Assumption, p. 153.

$ So ds in He 915 (not elsewhere).

§ Cf. Clem. Rom. dat, p. 2611,

|| This use of secus must not be confused with the late and
vulgar use of secus for rapa, e.g. secus mare Mt 13! in latt.
omn. (exc. afr.), examples of which are hardly found before the
4th cent. a.p. Secus for παρά occurs in Jubilees 1615 4915 ete.

“| Only in four places have we found ourselves unable to
follow Dr. Ceriani. We read acrobisam (not acrosisam), MS p.
67a12; iain (not tam), p. 100a7 ; ewin (not cum), p. 100a13 ; ineut
(not in eut), p. 10007, The last word we take to be a mistake in
the MS for sicut.

** The obscure phrase in tempore tribum (iv. 9) seems to the
present writer like a corruption of in tempore retributionis (or
retribuendi): cf. Hos 97. In the same verse Schmidt-Merx and
Charles have already recognized that natos isa mistake of the

scribe for nationes. In the very corrupt clause at the end of
ΝΗ], 5 suum looks like a mistake for suemn.

VOL. Ill.—29

describing the ‘second tribulation’ of the Jews.
As it stands, this section comes between the death
of Herod and the final judement, but the details
of the persecution notably coincide with that which
befell the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, a period
which is very rapidly passed over in chs. v. and vi.
owine to the author's dislike of the Hasmonzeans.
Dr. Charles, therefore, in his Notes to pp. 28-30,
supposes that the section has been titapteenty and
that its real place is between chs. v. and vi. But
this violent remedy is inadmissible: the final
Theophany (ch. x.) comes in well after the story
of the ideal saint Taxo (ch. ix.), but very badly
after the description of the wicked priests and
rulers in ch. vii. In the opinion of the present
writer, the difficulty disappears if we regard the
author of the Assumption as having filled up his
picture of the final woes from the stories of the
Antiochian martyrs. Dr. Charles himself says of
ch. ix. (p. 34): ‘Its purpose is to indicate the line
of action which the Chasids or Pharisaic party of
his own time should pursue. . . . It prescribes the
duty our author would enforce on the Pharisaisin
of his own time. Just as his complete silence as
to the Maceabean uprising forms an emphatic
censure of its aims, so his vigorous statement of
the opposed and Chasid line of action is designed
as a commendation of its character.’

The latter part of the above quotation refers
especially to Taxo, who (as Dr. Charles points
out, p. 35) has been evolved out of the story of
Eleazar (2 Mae 6, 4 Mac 5%). His seven sons
correspond to the seven sons of the widow (2 Mac 7),
and his cave of refuge corresponds to those of the
Chasids (1 Mae 1° 2%), Various unsatisfactory
explanations of the origin of the name 7uzo have
been put forward: they are given in Charles 35 f.
What has hitherto escaped observation is that
‘Taxo’ itself, when put back into the original
language of the book, is nothing more than a
slightly corrupted cipher for Eleazar. All that
is necessary is to read “πὰς for Taxo. The letter
may have fallen out in the Latin of the Assumption,
as in ore for orbe (xii. 4), or in the underlying
Greek, as in ὅρον for ὅρκον (11. 7). Now Taxoc
in the Latin implies tazwk in the Greek, and this
in turn implies ~:227 in the Semitic original. This
word means nothing as it stands, but if we take in
each case the next letter of the Semitie alphabet,
c.g. B for A, M for L, ete., we get my>x Lleazar, the
very name which of all others is most suitable. ἢ

Thus the future anticipated in the Assumption is
a period of triumphant wickedness and oppression ;
but just when the saints have given an example of
passive endurance, at once most hopeless and most
splendid, the Most High will Himself intervene and
deliver His people.

v. THE END oF THE Work.—The Milan Pal-
impsest breaks off in the middle of a sentence,
and the question arises how much is lost. The
yurely internal evidence would suggest that very
Fittle is lacking. Moses has finished his prophecy
and is about to die: there is nothing more to be
said. With this also goes the fact that all the
leaves of the quire containing the fragment of
the Assumption are preserved. If the missing
portion consisted of several whole quires and not
merely a single leaf or pair of leaves, it is some-
what strange that the final quire of the extant
fragments is intact.+t

* We know from the parable in St. Luke (1620) that Eleazar
(or, in the Greek form, Lazarus) is an appropriate name to give
to the pd ea pers of the poor but pious Israelite.

+ The Stichometry of Nicephorus does not greatly help us to
discover how much is missing at the end. The numberof στίχοι

. there given for the ’Avaaz Lis is, ,a’—t.e. 1400. If this be correct,

about 1000 στίχοι are lost, equivalent to 20 leaves; but as the
number assigned to the preceding work on the list (the Διαθήκη
Μωυσέως) is on any hypothesis corrupt, too much reliance must
not be placed on the figures for the Assumption.

450 MOSOLLAMUS

MOTE

jut a number of Greek patristic references
(collected in Charles 107-110) indicate that the
book was in circulation with an Appendix con-
taining the dispute of Michael and Satan over
the body of Moses after the latter’s death, followed
by his triumphant ‘assumption’ into heaven. A
detail of this dispute is alluded to in the canonical
Epistle of St. Jude (v.%). Especially clear is a
quotation in Gelasius of Cyzicum: ‘In the book of
the Asswmption of Moses, Michael the archangel,
disputing with the devil, saith, For from His holy
Spirit we all were created. And again he saith,
From before God went forth His Spirit, and the
world was made.* The formula of quotation is
identical with that used by the same author (ap.
Mansi ii. 844) for quoting i. 14 of our Assumption.

It is difficult to decide whether the Latin of
the Assumption ever contained the Appendix.
On the one hand, it is hard to imagine how the
book could have reached a Latin-speaking com-
munity without the Appendix having been associ-
ated with it. Yet the work could only have been
spoiled by the addition, and there is a certain im-
probability that the accidental loss of a couple of
quires from the Milan Palimpsest should improve
the artistic unity of the book. The interest of the
Assumption as we have it is wholly taken up with
the fate of the chosen people, present and future,
but the Appendix is concerned with the personal
fate of Moses.t

LITERATURE. — Full Bibliography in Charles xvili- xxviii.
Editions: Ceriani, Monumenta Sacra et Profana, vol. i. fasc. i.
pp. 55-64 (1864); Hilyenfeld, Ν᾽ extra Cunonem receptum,
Ist ed. (1866), 2nd ed. (1876); Volkmar, Mose Prophetie und
Himmelfahrt (1867); Schmidt and Merx, Die Assumptio Mosis,
mit Einleitung ... (Merx, Archiv f. wissen. Erforschung des
AT, τ. ii. pp. 111-152] (1868).

See also Ronsch in Zeitschr. f. Wissen. Theol. xi. 76-108, 466-
468, xii. 213-228, xiv. 89-92, xvii. 542-562, xxviii. 102-104;
Schurer, GJV8 iii. 213 ff. [ΠῚ τι. iii. 73 ff.]; C. Clemen in
Kautzsch’s A pocr. u. Pseudepigr. (1899).

¥F. C. BURKITT.

MOSOLLAMUS.—41. (A Μοσόλλαμος, B Mecoda Bus,
AV Mosollamon), 1 Es 8# (LX-X #)=MESHULLAM,
Ezr 816, 2. (Μοσόλλαμος, AV Mosollam), 1 Es 94=
MESHULLAM, Ezr 10”.

MOST HIGH (by, properly wpper Jos 165, or
uppermost Gn 40!7, Dt 2015 (‘high’), 98] (on high’) ;
Aram. Ἐπὴν Kt., asby Keré, also in Dn 1|8: 22 25-27
rape the Heb. form, as plur. of majesty : ὕψιστορ).---
| _~? . 5 ᾽ - . .

An epithet, or title, of dignity, applied to God, and
occurring in the OT as follows:—God Most High
(ἦν Sx) Gn 1428: 19. 20.22, Ps 7835. (by onde) Ps 572
78°; J” Most High, Ps 77; the Most High (jy,
without the art., only in poetry), Nu 24!°(Balaam’s
prophecy), Dt 328 (Song of Moses), Is 14! (words
put into the mouth of the king of Babylon), Ps
18 (= 2'5 22)4) O17 46)" 50¥ (779 98 82° 879 O14 aot
1074, La 3°; as predicate, Ps:47°.83497°.+. And
in Daniel: God Most High, 3°° 453 5'*1; the Most
High, 4% *4 *5. 82. 34725; and in the expression ‘saints
of the Most High’ (p3v>x), 78? 27, According
to Philo of Byblus (ap. Euseb. Prep. ἔν. i. 10
8§ 11, 12; ef. Lenormant, Oriqgines?, i. 540), there
was in the Phenician theogony a god Lliién,
father of heaven and earth, who was slain in an
encounter with wild beasts, and afterwards divin-
ized (κατὰ τούτους γίνεταί τις ᾿Βλιοῦν καλούμενος Ὕψιστος,
καὶ θήλεια λεγομένη Βηρούθ, of καὶ κατῴκουν περὶ Βύβλον,
ἐξ ὧν γεννᾶται ᾿᾿ὑπίγειος ἢ Αὐτόχθων, ὃν ὕστερον ἐκάλεσαν

* From Mansi, ii. 857: ἐν βιβλίῳ δὲ ᾿Αναλήψψεω: Μωυσέως Μιχαὴλ
ὁ ἀρχάγγελος διαλεγόμενος τῷ διαβόλῳ λέγει ἀπὸ γὰρ πνεύματος
ἁγίου αὐτοῦ πάντες ἐκτίσθημεν. καὶ πάλιν λέγει ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ
θεοῦ ἐξῆλθε τὸ πνεύωα αὐποῦ, καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἐγίνετο. The second part
of the quotation is not given by Fabricius ud Charies.

+ Perhaps we may take as a parallel the transmission of the
Epistle of Barnabas. The concluding chapters in our Greek
MSS (chs. 18-21) are taken from the ‘Two Ways’ or some such
source, and these chapters are wholly wanting in the Latin.

t Eight out of these 17 Psalms are Korahite or Asaphite
Psalms.

Οὐρανόν, κιτ.λ.). The’ £1 ‘Elyén of Gn 14 may stand
in some relation to this Phoen. deity. El (God}
was often distinguished by different epithets,
bringing out different aspects of the divine nature,
as in the patriarchal τῶ 9x (Gn 171), ody bx (21°),
bay sabe Sx (33%), Sena 5x (357), and in the Phen.
jon Sx (CIS 1. i. 8; Lidzbarski, Nordsem. Epi-
graphil:, 419); and so the Canaanite has here his
Ll'Elyon, It may have been a deity whoin Mel-
chizedek recognized, in opposition to other inferior
ones, as the Aighest, and in whose name, tradition
told, he had blessed Israel’s ancestor: the Israel-
itish narrator, not unnaturally, identifies him (v.**)
with J”. Thestatement, however, that a deity bear-
ing this name was worshipped at ‘Salem’ has not,
up to the present time (July 1899), received any
confirmation or illustration from the inscriptions. *

In the other passages quoted, the title seems
simply to give expression to the thought that J” is
the God who is supreme,—whether over the earth,
as ruler and governor of the world (ef. Ps 47 δ: %
8.}8 97% 997), or over other gods (95° 964 97°”; -cf.
also Cheyne on Ps 78; Schultz, OY Theol. ii. 129 f.;
Smend, 41 7᾽ Ived.-Gesch. 470). Like ‘God of heaven’
(LOT 519, °553), it is a title which was undoubtedly
in frequent use in post-exilic times (Cheyne, OJ’,
20,7 27, 41,7 83 f., 164, 314, 464); but it may be
questioned how far, except when found in com-
bination with other indications, it can be used as
a criterion for the date of a psalm. In its Greek
form (see Hatch and Redpath’s Concordance to the
LXX, under ὕψιστος), it occurs in the Apocrypha
1 Es 23 68 1921 0416. To 1448+ 4+ Jth 138, Est
1616, Wis 5t 6%, Bar 4” (A), 2 Mac.3#,+ 3 Mac 677°;
and with particular frequency in Ecclus.,—much
more frequently indeed than the corresponding
Heb. form oceurs in the recently discovered Heb.
text of this book.§ It is also frequent (as a title)
in the Book of Enoch (see Charles’ note on 99%),
the Apoc. of Baruch (see Charles on 17!), and 2 (4)
Esdras. In the Assumption of Moses it occurs 10’.
In Rabb. literature it is stated by Dalman (Worte
Jesu, 162 f.) to be exceedingly rare.

In the NT the use of the expression is almost
confined to St. Luke, the occurrences being Mk 57
= Lk 838 (υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ bY. : τοῦ bY. om. in Mt 8“),
Lk 124 %+ 76+ 65+ (cf. Ps 825: notin the {| Mt 5*),
Ac 7*t 1617, He 7} (from Gn 14}8),

S. R. DRIVER.

MOTE.—Mote is the word chosen by Wyclif
and Tindale, and accepted by all the subsequent
versions as the tr. of Gr. κάρφος in Mt 7% 49, Lk
64! 9. The root of κάρφος is κάρφω to dry up,
and it signifies a bit of dried stick, straw, or wool,
such as, in the illustration, might be flying about
and enter the eye. In its minuteness it is con-
trasted by our Lord with δοκός, the beam that
supports (δέχομαι) the roof of a building. The Gr.
word does not elsewhere occur in Mt, and in LAX
only in Gn 8! as the tr. of 479, the adj. applied to
the olive leaf which Noah’s dove carried ; ‘ plucked
off? is the Eng. translation.

The origin of the Eng. word ‘mote’ is unknown.
It means any small particle, as Hall, Works, ii.
136, ‘Our mountaines are but moates to God’ ;
especially a particle of dust, as Chaucer, Wife of
Bath’s Tale, 12, ‘As thikke as motes in the sonne-
heame.’ The use of the word by Wyclif and
Tindale led to its early application in the same
connexion: thus Barlowe, Dialoge, 73, ‘ Woulde

* The combinations in AHT 155 ff. are purely hypothetical.

+ The title ‘high priest of God Most High’ given to John
Hyrcanus (Rosh ha-shana, 18b), and Hyrcanus n. (Jos. Ant.
XVI. vi. 2): see further, Geiger, Urschrift, p. 33 ff. On the
Assumption of Moses, vi. 1 [not 17], cited OP, p. 27, see, how-
ever, Charles, ad loc,

t In these passages standing as a title, alone.
§ See 637 401 marg. 414. 8 422 442.29 494 5014.16.17 (alone): Sy

prby 465. 5 475.8 4820

“ἢ

MOTH

MOUNT, MOUNTAIN 451

God they were as prest to remove the balk out of
their owne eyes, as they be prompte to aspye a
lytle mote in other men’s’; and Lever, Sermons,
119, ‘You of the laytye, when ye see these small
motes in the eyes of the clargye, take hede too the
greate beames that be in your owne eyes.’
J. HASTINGS.

MOTH (e3 ‘@sh).—The LXX tr. this word in Ps
38 (39)!" ἀράχνη, in Is 51% χρόνος, in Hos 5!” ταραχή,
in all other instances o/s. There is no reason for
these variations. The Arab. ‘wth is the coynate
form of the Heb. word. In the NT σής only is
used (Mt 61% 2°, Lk 12°%). There are many species
of the Vineid, or ‘clothes’ moths,’ in the Holy
Land. They are small lepidopterous insects, which
commit immense havoc in clothes, carpets, tapestry,
etc. In this warm climate it is almost impossible
to guard against their ravages (Is 50°, Ja 5? ete. ).
‘He buildeth his house as a moth’ (Job 27)8)
alludes to the frail covering which a larval moth
constructs out of the substance which he con-
sumes. ‘Crushed before the moth’ (Job 419) refers
to the way in which woollen stuffs are riddled by
the larvie of moths, until they become so fragile
that they break down to powder at a touch (but
see Dillm. and Dav. ad loc.). Moths are men-
tioned in Sir 19% 423, G. BE. Post.

MOTHER.

MOTION.—In 2 Es 6" ‘motion’ is used loosely
for ‘commotion’ (Lat. commotio). In Wis 5" the
meaning is ‘movement’: ‘As when a bird hath
flown through the air, there is no token of her
way to be found, but the light air being beaten
with the stroke of her wings, and parted with the
violent noise and motion of them, is passed
through ᾿ (βίᾳ ῥοίζου κινουμένων πτερύγων ; RV ‘with
the violent rush of the moving wings’). ΟἹ.
Bacon, Essays, p. 176, ‘In Beauty, that of Favour
is more then that of Colour, and that of Decent
and gracious Motion, more then that of Favour.’
In Wis 74 ‘ For wisdom is more moving than any
motion’ (πάσης yap κινήσεως κινητικώτερον copia ; RV
‘more mobile than any motion,’ after Vule. ‘ Omai-
bus enim mobilibus mobitior’), the reference is to the
speed of thought. Farrar aptly quotes Cowper—

* How fleet is the glance of the mind!
Compared with the speed of its flight,
The tempest itself lags behind ;
And the swift-winged arrows of light.’

See FAMILY.

The only other occurrence of the word is in Ro 75
‘For when we were in the flesh, the motions of
sins, Which were by the law, did work in our mem-
bers, to bring forth fruit unto death’ (τὰ παθήματα
τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, RV ‘the sinful passions,’ RVm ‘Gr.
passions of sins’: this is Wryelif’s tr. ‘ passiouns of
synnes,’ so also Rhemish NT; ‘motions’ comes
from the Gen. Bible). The word was often used
by writers of the day in this sense of mental or
spiritual impulse or agitation. It became almost
a technical expression in Scotch Reformed religion.
Thus Knox, Works, iii. 286, ‘When I feele any
taste or motion of these promyses, then thinke 1
myselfe most happy’; Livingstone (in Select Bio-
raphies of Wodrow Soc., p. 305), ‘He [Robert
3ruce} did goe on, and celebrated the communion
to the rest with such assistance and motion, as
had not been seen in that place before’; Melvill,
Diary, 16, ‘Ther first I fand (blysed be my guid
God for it !) that Spirit of sanctification beginning
to work some motiones in my hart, even about the
aught and nynt yeir of my age’; and p. 37, ‘Onlie
now and then 1 fand sum sweit and constant
motiones of the feir and love of God within me.’
Cf. also Bacon, Essays (Gold. Treas. ed. p. 38),
‘There is in Mans Nature, a secret Inclination,
and Motion, towards love of others’; p. 52, ‘ He

that standeth at a stay, when others rise, can
hardly avoid Motions of Envy’; and Shaks. Jul
Ces. IL. i. 64—-
* Between the acting of a dreadful thing
And the first motion, all the interim is
Like a phantasma or a hideous dream.’

In the Preface to AV ‘motion’ is used in the
sense of ‘proposal.’ So Fuller speaks of Eliezer,
Abraham’s servant: ‘Then concludes he, with
desiring a direct answer to his motion.’ Cf.
Berners, Froissart, p. 208 (Globe ed.), ‘And
then he said to his cardinals: Sirs, make you
ready, for I will to Nome. Of that motion his
cardinals were sore abashed and displeased, for
they loved not the Romans.’

In the Preface to AV occurs the verb to ‘motion’:
‘In some Common-weales it was made a capitall
crime, once to motion the making of a new law.’
Cf. Milton, Samson, 222—

‘They knew not
That what I motioned was of God.”
J. HASTINGS.

MOUNT.—The subst. 28> muzgzabh in its only
occurrence (15 29%, unless Jg 9° is another) is trans-
lated ‘mount’? in AV. The root of the word is
[332] 20 to set up, and means a mound or in-
trenchment (Cheyne), palisade (Kay), RV ‘ fort.’

Another word translated ‘mount’ is 1999 sdlélah,
Jer 65-327 334; -Hizk 45. VP? 21% 268; Dn 11:5: . EV:
retains the tr. ‘mount,’ but Amer. RV_ prefers
‘mound’ in all these places. Elsewhere this word
is: rendered ‘bank’ (ΟΝ 205, 2K 195, [5 37*),
See BANK. Its root is $$ 9 to cast up, heap up,
and it means an earthwork or rampart.

The only other occurrence of ‘mount’ in the
sense of ‘mound,’ ‘intrenchment,’ is 1 Mac 12%
‘raising a great mount between the tower and
the city’ (ὕψος, RV ‘ mound’).

This Eng. word ‘mount’ meaning an_ earth-
work is the same as mount=mountain, and comes
directly from Lat. mons, montis. Its use to de-
scribe an earthen defence seems due to confusion
with ‘mound,’ a native word (Anglo-Sax. awn),
which meant a protection or guard, and was used
of a bodyguard of soldiers as well as a defence of
earth or the like. The word ‘mount’ has gone
out of use in prose. It has given up its own
proper meaning of an elevation (same root as
e-min-ere to be prominent) to ‘mountain’ (which
eame into English from Lat. not directly as
‘mount,’ but through the Ir. montaigne, mon-
taine; Lat. montanus, ‘hilly’). And it has re-
stored the meaning of earthwork to ‘mound,’
from which that was borrowed. Its use in AV
may be illustrated from Hakluyt, Voyages, ii.
122, ‘ They raised up mounts to plant their artil-
lery upon’; Knox, Hist. 246, ‘The English men
most wisely considering themselves not able to
besiege the Town round about, devised to make
Mounts at divers quarters of it; in the which
they and their Ordnance lay in as good strength,
as they did within the Towne’; and Bunyan,
Holy War, 69, ‘ Besides, there were Mounts cast
up against it. The Mount Graciovs was on the
one side, and Mount Justice was on the other.
Further, there were several small banks and
advance- grounds, as Plain-Truth-Hill and No-
Sin-Banks, where many of the Slings were placed
against the Town.’ J. HASTINGS.

2y
J

MOUNT, MOUNTAIN (Tleb. 17; Gr. ὄρος ; Celt.
tor?).—In Dn 955. 45 the Aram. Ὁ ¢7r is tr4 “moun-
tain.’ The word 1 is also pretty frequently tr? in
AV ‘hill,’ as in Ps 28 and 6838 In most of these
instances RV has with advantage substituted the
rendering ‘mount’ or ‘mountain.’ See, further,
on this subject, and on the distinction between τὰ
and ayia, art. HILL. It is clear that tle AV trans.

452

MOUNT, MOUNTAIN

MOUNT, MOUNTAIN

lators used ‘mountain,’ ‘mount,’ and ‘hill? inter-
changeably. The distinction between these terms
has never been clearly recognized, even down to
the present day ; and we cannot feel surprise that
it was not so recognized by the translators of the
AV. Thus, if we take the word ‘mountain’ to
signify a range or group of high elevations, we are
met by the same word as applied to Moriah, a
single elevated summit amonest the hills of Pales-
tine, the scene of Abraham’s intended sacrifice,
elsewhere called ‘the mount’ (ef. Gn 22? and 22),
Yet, upon a general comparison of the passages in
which these terms are used, it appears clear that
the word ‘mount’ is more frequently applied to
some specialized summit or elevation, such as
Carmel (Jos 19°"), Hermon (Jos 11), Sinai (Ex 192
οὐ passim, except v.*), and Seir (Dt 1, while
‘mountain’ is used to designate an extensive
district of elevated ground, such as those of Moab
(Gn 1959}, South Canaan (Nu 1317), Gilboa (9 5 19}

Amongst geographers, the terms ‘mountain’
and ‘hill’ are generally used as relative terms to
designate the higher and lower elevations in
special countries. Thus we apply the term ‘moun-
tain’ to those of North Wales as being the
hiszhest elevations in S. Britain, though they are
really lower in height than those of the Jura,
which are generally called ‘hills,’ as being of less
elevation than the neighbouring Alps. All that can
be said on this point is that geographers have not
settled the question at what elevation above the
sea a ‘hill’ becomes a ‘mountain.’

ORIGIN. —W ithout entering at any great length
into the question of the mode of formation of
mountains, which would be here out of place, it
may be stated that in the great majority of cases
they are referable to three natural modes of
formation, namely (1) elevation, (2) erosion, and
(3) accumulation: of these three modes we have
examples in Palestine and the regions around.

1. By elevation.—Many mountain ranees owe
their origin to direct elevation en masse at various
ancient geological periods, above the surface of
the ocean, or the general level of the adjoining
lands. — Some of these have been upraised at
successive intervals of time, and from very early
periods have preserved their dominant characters.
To this class may be referred the Scandinavian
and Grampian ranges, that of North Wales, the
Bavarian (or Hereynian) Hiehlands, and the
Sinaitic group between the Gulfs of Suez and of
‘Akabah. This last probably existed as a part of
an extensive tract of continental land in Palseozoic
times, and has maintained its dominant position
down to the present day during the general sub-
mergence of the adjoining regions in the Cretaceous
and Tertiary periods. ‘lhe Alps and Pyrenees
received their final and probably most important
upheaval in late Tertiary times.

2. By erosion.—In various parts of the globe
mountain groups or ranges have been formed,
owing to the erosion of valleys amongst previously
existing tablelands. When the floor of the ocean
has been upraised into dry land in the form of a
plateau, consisting of approximately horizontal (or
even inclined) strata, rain and river action sets in,
owing to which channels of ever-increasing depth
and breadth are eroded, thus carving the plateau
into separate and independent mountain masses
if the process is sufficiently prolonged. In this
manner the great ranges of the Colorado in North
America, the lesser group of Central and South
Wales, the range of the Jura on the borders of
Switzerland ; and, in Eastern countries, those of
ay pper Egypt, Edom and Moab, and of Southern
Judea, have been formed. The Lebanon range
owes its predominant position, with its culminating
dome-like mass of Hermon (ἢ Mount Hor, Nu 347-8),

which formed the northern limit of the land given
to Israel, to direct elevation followed by erosion,
by which the deep valleys and ravines have been
worn down through an original tableland in late
Tertiary and post-Tertiary times. The range of
Edom and Moab, stretching from the Gulf. of
‘Akabah to the shore of the Dead Sea, is doubtless
originally due to the elevation of the Arabian
tableland from the bed of the ocean alone one or
more lines of fracture (or ‘fault’) in the erust of
the earth, but has subsequently been carved out
into many distinct summits by river erosion at a
period when the rainfall was more abundant than at
present (see ARABAH); and amongst these Mount
Hor (Jebel Haroun), the scene of Aaron’s death, is
the most conspicnous example (Nu 202"),

3. By accumulution.—Vo this third class of
mountains nearly all those of modern yoleanic
origin may be referred. During eruptions of
volcanoes, either upon the surface of the land or
upon the floor of the sea, molten lava is poured
forth in sheets or streams from the throat of the
crater in each case, together with solid blocks of
lava, showers of ashes, and lapelli, which spread
over the flanks of the mountain and adjoining
tracts, and ultimately rise in piled-up masses to
varying heights in the form of truneated cones or
domes, The most familiar examples are the groups
of Auvergne in Central France, and the isolated
Mounts of Vesuvius and Etna. The revions ad join-
ing Eastern Palestine present numerous examples
of voleanic mountains. In the region east of the
Upper Jordan, called in the NT Trachonitis, but
now known as the Jaulan and Hanran, there are
several distinct volcanic cones rising above the
general surface of the country ;* and still farther
eastwards, in the wild region of the Lejah, a
grand range of volcanic mountains dominates the
wide expanse of lava-fields of Bashan. Similar
features are to be observed in parts of Central
Arabia, and were little known until brought to
our knowledge by a recent traveller.t Here, not
far from the cities of Mecea and Medina, a group
of volcanic mountains rises above the expanse of
the Arabian Desert, from which lava-tloes descend
to the plain. In all these distriets of Arabia
volcanic action has long been extinct; perhaps
even before the appearance of man.t

From the above account it will be seen that in
strictly Bible lands we have representatives of
mountain forms owing their origin to the various
modes of natural operations which in past ages
have diversified the surface of our giobe.

A few special biblical references to mountains
may be noted. ‘Mountain of God’ (ods 15) in
Ps 0816 is general=a God’s mountain, indicating
greatness or majesty. On the other hand, Sinai
or Horeb is called ‘the mountain of God’ in a
special sense (Ex 427 18° 9418} K 198; ef. ma πὰ in
Nu 10%). The ‘mount of congregation’ (RV;
better, ‘mountain of meeting or assembly, 7352 79)
in Is 14% refers to the dwelling-place of the gods,
which the Babylonians located in the far north.
See CONGREGATION in vol. i. p. 4060, Mountains
are frequently alluded to in connexion with theo-
phanies; they melt at the presence of J”, Je δ᾽,
Ps 97° ete. ; they are called on to cover the guilty
from His face, Hos 108, Lk 23 ||; they leap in
praise of J”, Ps 114%; they are called on to wit-
ness His dealings with His people, Mic 6? ete. ete.
Mountains were resorted to as hiding-places in
time of war, Jg 65, Mt 24'6 ||; they were hunting.
grounds, 1 5. 26”; grazing-places for cattle, Ps 50"

* G. Schumacher, ‘The Jaulan,’ PEFSt, 1866-1888.

tC. M. Doughty, Arabia Deserta, 2 vols. (1888).

t The age of these volcanic eruptions is discussed in the
present writer’s ‘ Physical Geology of Arabia Petrwa and Pales-

tine,’ PEF Mem. p. 98 (1886).

MOURNING

MOURNING 452

ete. ; places of illicit worship, [5 657, Ezk 6" ; beacon
stations, Is 30:7; Inrking-places for ambuseade,
Je 9%. Mountains are typical of difficulties,
Zec 47, Their removal is spoken of by our Lord as
a type of what is possible to strong faith, Mt 172° ||.
E. Huu.

MOURNING (ὅταν ‘mourn’; 73x ‘si¢h or groan’ ;
πὰ lament’; 759 ‘wail’ (κόπτεσθαι); θρηνεῖν, πενθεῖν)
in Scripture is sometimes attributed in a figurative
sense to wVifure,—the withering of the pastures
beneath and the blackening of the sky above, the
wasting of the fruit-trees, and the destruction of the
beasts of the field, of the fowl of the air, of the fish
of the sea, being at once the effects of God’s judg-
ments upon her for man’s sin and the manifestations
of her sorrew and grief as the sharer of his punish-
ment and misery (Jer 4°, Hos 4°, JL 110-12). In a
like figurative sense it is attributed to nations,
and especially to Israel, as when the prophet
(] 18) summons the daughter of Zion to repent-
ance, and bids her ‘lament like a virgin girded
with sackeloth for the husband of her youth’; or
when, in a time of famine, Judah is said to mourn
(Jer 14°), and the people assembled at the gates
are in deep mourning, and sit humbly on the
ground; or when, again, it is predicted (Zee 12-14)
that, in the day of the outpouring of the Spirit of
grace and supplication upon the house of David
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, ‘they shall look
unto me whom they have pierced, and they shall
mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son,
and shall be in bitterness for him as one that is in
bitterness for his first-born’ (RV). With a moral
connotation, too, expressive of sorrow for sin, or
distress for the miseries of the nation, it is
ascribed to individuals, as to Daniel (102), to
Ezra (10%), and to Nehemiah (14), while Ahab in
penitential mourning rends his clothes and puts
sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasts like a man
sorrowing for the dead (J Καὶ 21),

Mourning in the literal sense, as the expression
of sorrow for the dead, appears in Scripture not
only with all its ordinary natural manifestations,
but also with the large body of conventional and
formulated grief which usage had gathered round
it among the Israclites as among other Oriental
peoples. However ready to submit to the will of
God without murmur or complaint, the Oriental
is demonstrative in the social and public manifesta-
tions of his sorrow, and has reduced the expression
of his grief for the dead to a system which tends
to crmsh out natural feeling. In Jer 16%8 and Ezk
24'° 7 together there is a fairly complete list of
the mourning customs of Israel.

Weeping is the most general and most strongly
marked expression of pain or mental emotion, and
is the primary and, indeed, universal expression
of mourning for the dead. This, like other mani-
festations of deep emotion, is more under control
among civilized than uncivilized peoples, and more
restrained among the staid and unimpassioned
people of the West than the lively and excitable
children of the East. ‘Englishmen,’ says Darwin
(Lhe Expression of the Emotions, p. 155), ‘rarely
cry except under the pressure of the acutest grief.’
‘Egyptian funerals,’ says Maspero (The Struggle
of the Nations, p. 511),—and his description of
Egyptian mourning finds frequent parallels among
the Hebrews,—‘ were not like those to which we
are accustomed,—mute ceremonies, in which sorrow
is barely expressed by a furtive tear: noise, sob-
bings, and wild gestures were their necessary con-
comitants. Not only was it customary to hire
weeping women, who tore their hair, filled the air
with their lamentations, and simulated by skilful
actions the depths of despair, but the relatives and
friends themselves did not shrink from making an
outward show of their grief, nor from disturbing

the equanimity of the passers-by by the immoderate
expressions of their sorrow.’ Of weeping for the
dead the books of the Old and New ‘Testament are
full. It was considered unnatural not to weep for
the dead. ‘Weep for the dead,’ says the Son of
Sirach, ‘so as not to be evil spoken of’ (Sir 3817),
Whatever the position of woman in the ancient
Hebrew cult, there is evidence that mourning was
performed both for women and by women. In
proof that women were mourned for, we have the
notices recorded in Genesis of the care and interest
taken by the patriarchs in the burial of their
Wives, παν was comforted after lis mother’s
death (Gn 24°7) ; and grief for a mother was always
bitter (Ps 354). We have also Barzillai’s words to
David, ‘ Let thy servant, I pray thee, be buried in
the grave of my father and mother’ (2S 1057), In
NT times we have the case of Doreas, around
whose remains, in the short interval before inter-
ment, all the widows for whom she had done so
much stood weeping (Ac 9%). Abraham, as we
have noted, wept for Sarah (Gn 232); Jacob when
deceived by the report of Joseph’s death (37) ;
Joseph for his father (601) ; the ‘amp of Israel for
Moses (Dt 34°); David and his men for Saul and
Jonathan (28 1); David at the crave of Abner,
for the child of Bathsheba, for Amnon, for Absalom
(353. 1271 1356 18%); the mothers of Bethlehem for
their murdered innocents (Mt 915). Jesus at the
grave of Lazarus (Jn 11), where His weeping
was restrained and silent (ἐδάκρυσε), and over the
coming doom of Jerusalem (Lk 19*), where He
wept aloud (ἔκλαυσε). Wailing is sometimes added
to weeping, to express a deeper intensity of grief,
as in the case of the mourners gathered in the
death-chamber of Jairus’ daughter (Mk 5% ὃν),
Wailing like the jackals, and mourning as the
ostriches (Mic 18), is expressive of the bitterest
sorrow ; and groaning like the bear, the dove, or
the crane (Is 38 59"), of a grief more restrained.
Exclamations of grief were common along with
wailing (Jer 2918. Am 5'8, 1 Καὶ 13%). Vociferous
grief, as Maspero points out above, was specially
characteristic of the Egyptians. It was heard as
a great cry in Egypt that night when all the first-
born were stricken (Ex 12”), and it no doubt
entered into the ‘grievous mourning’ which the
Egyptians made for Jacob as they escorted the
remains of the patriarch to his last resting-place
in the cave of Machpelah (Gn 50"). Of such
mourning a striking illustration is given (Ball,
Light from the Eust, p. 119) from a wall-painting in
an Eeyptian tomb. i the funeral procession here
represented, a master of the ceremonies, followed
by eight women, precedes, and four men with
long statis follow the shrine; ‘all making gestures
of mourning by beating their breasts and their
mouths while wailing (the interrupted sound has a
peculiarly melancholy effect), or by throwing dust
on the head.’

The excitable Eastern temperament, however,
was not content with weeping and wailing and
exclamations of grief. Beating the breast (Is 32”,
but text dubious) was one of the commonest forms
of lamentation. Beating the breast and the mouth,
as we have just seen, was a feature of the mourn-
ing of the early Egyptians. The bewailing which
accompanied the weeping for the daughter of
Jairus (ἐκόπτοντο) probably included the beating
of the breast (Lk 853), and so also the lamentation
(κοπετόν) made by devout men for Stephen (Ac 8°).
Of Joseph it is recorded that he fell upon his dead
father’s tace and kissed him (Gn 50), although this
is a solitary instance in Scripture. See art. Kiss.
Tamar is represented (2 S 13") as laying her hand
upon her head and going her way, crying as she
went. To tear the hair and the beard (Ezr 95), to
rend the clothes and put on sackcloth and filthy

454

MOURNING

MOURNING

garments (28 3%! %, Est 4%), to sit among the ashes
(Job 2°), and to sprinkle earth or dust or ashes upon
the head (28 13, Rev 1819), were actions in which
sorrow and grief more or less naturally or con-
ventionally expressed themselves. To go bent as
under αἰ load (Ps 354 38°"), to go barefoot and
bareheaded and to cover the lips (Ezk 9416. 37, Mic
97), were less demonstrative tokens of mourning.
Mutilation of nose, brow, ears, hands is mentioned
by Herodotus (iv. 17) as being practised by the
Scythians in token of mourning for a departed
king. Such mutilation was forbidden by the law
of Moses (Lv 19°5, Dt 141), although we read of
making bald the hair and cutting off the beard
(Is 15°), and even of lacerating the body, as a sien
of vexation and erief (Jer 415). Amone the Arabs
it was customary in mourning, especially for the
women, both to scratch their faces till the blood
flowed and to shave off the hair; and it looks as if,
in spite of the Deuteronomic prohibitions, similar
practices had come into vogue among the Israelites
(Driver, Deuteronomy, p. 136).

Fasting, more or less strict, seems to have been
an invariable accompaniment of mourning, and
mourners denied themselves recreation and other
enjoyments. When it is said that the men of
Jabesh-gilead fasted seven days in grief for the
death of Saul and Jonathan (1S 31%), we must
suppose the fast to have been less strict than
usual among Orientals, and that some food was
allowed to the mourning people. From the
Talmud (Baba Bathra, 16a) we learn that lentils
were allowed during the period of mourning. It
was customary for friends and neighbours after
an interval to come and comfort the mourners
and urge food upon them (2S 12 37), and food
was also distributed at funerals (Jer 147 RV, Ezk
2411, Hos 9"), especially to the poor (? Job 4!7),
“The bread of mourners,’ the bread partaken of
by the nearest relatives of the Suse during the
period of mourning, was accounted ceremonially
unclean and detiling (Hos 9. It has been dis-
cussed whether this mourners’ meal of the days
of the prophets was not in some way connected
with a funeral feast. The subject is obscure, but
in Dt (264) the Israelite, speaking of the tithe,
is represented as saying, ‘I have not eaten
thereof in my mourning, neither have I put
away thereof, being unclean, nor given thereof
jor the dead? It we adopt the rendering ‘for the
dead,’ the passage may be taken as pointing to
the custom for the friends of the deceased to
testify their sympathy with the mourning rela-
tives by sending bread or other food for their
refreshment, as we have just observed. If we
render ‘to the dead,’ the passage would rather
point to the widespread custom of placing food in
the grave with the dead—a custom common among
the Egyptians, and found among the later Jews
in ‘the messes of meat laid upon a grave’ (Sir
8018, See the subject discussed ἴῃ Driver,
Deuteronomy, pp. 291, 292. That funeral feasts
became an institution of later Judaism is clear, for
Josephus (BJ 11. i. 1) records that the custom of
giving funeral feasts ‘is an occasion of poverty to
many of the Jews, because they are forced to feast
the multitude, for if any one omits it he is not
esteemed a holy man.’ To this day it is a custom
among the Jews to dispense alms with a liberal
hand during the week of mourning in honour of
the departed.

In a time of mourning it was a good custom to
send messages of condolence to the bereaved (28S
10'**); and friends were wont to eather to com-
fort them in their sorrow (Jn 11!%)—a custom
which prevails to this day in Syria in the bands of
mourners who assemble from neighbouring villages
to join in the lamentations. Funeral orations

were common in later times. Elegies, as we learn
from Scripture, were composed to be sung for the
dead. David composed his well-known elegy to
honour the memory of Saul and Jonathan (2S 117),
and another for the gallant Alner (2 5 3%). Such
an clegy was composed by Jeremiah for king
Josiah, and the ‘singing men and women’ sang
dirges for him, continued, as it would appear,
throuch a course of years (2 Ch 35”). Of this
character were the Lamentations of Jeremiah,
called in the Talmud and elsewhere by the very
name (3p), ‘elegies,’ ‘ dirges,’ full of the bitterness
of grief, as they were, for Jerusalem destroyed by
the Chaldeans. See LAMENTATIONS (BOOK OF),
and, on the rhythm of such indth, Pokrry. When
a young person dies unmarried, modern Syrians
make the funeral lamentation more pathetic by first
going through some forms of a wedding ceremony.

The chief mourners naturally were the relatives
of the deceased, —husband (Gn 23"), widow (Job 2715),
father and mother (Mk 5*: +), brother (Lk 738),
sons (Gn 25° οὐ passim). Among the well-to-do it
was common to hire professional mourners. They
accompanied the dead body to the grave, moving
onwards with formal music (cf. Mt 959), and singing
dirges to the dead. They were both men and women.
We have already noted the presence of both in
Eeyptian funeral processions, and, as has been
just observed, they were ‘singing men and women’
that lamented Josiah. Itis men skilful in lamenta-
tion whom Aimos (5'6) summons to pronounce a
dirge over the moral ruin of their country. It is
men that are spoken of in Ecclesiastes (12°) as the
wailers that go about the streets. It was male
flute-players that were present lamenting the death
of Jairus’ daughter (Mt 9535. On the other hand,
it is the women whose profession it was (ΠῚ 0) to
attend at funerals, and by their skilled lamentations
to aid the real mourners In giving vent to their grief,
whom Jeremiah has in view when he says, ‘Call
for the women who chant direes, and send for
cunning (Heb. ‘ wise’) women that they may come’
(Jer 91, They are still required for such service,
and are skilful in interweaving family references
and in improvising poetry in praise of the departed.
These professional mourning women are met with
both in ancient and modern Arabia (Trumbull’s
Studies in Oriental Life, p. 153 tf.) ; and Maspero
(Dawn of Civilisation, p. 684) mentions that among
the ancient Chaldeans old women performed the
office of mourners, washing the dead body, per-
funing it, and clothing it in its best apparel.

The period of mourning fer tle dead is variously
viven. The ordinary time, however, as we have
already noticed, was seven days. All that was in
a house or tent along with a dead body was unclean
for seven days, and the bread which the mourners
ate was, as we have seen, defiled. The period of
mourning prescribed by Jewish authorities for a
parent isa year. Of this time the first thirty days
are considered the most important, and of these,
avain, the first seven are most stringently observed.
The first seven days after a death are known as
the Shiva, during which the mourners, as has
already been indicated, are not permitted to cook
anything for their own use, and are required to
avoid all forms of amusement and recreation, not
even listening to music. On hearing of the falsely
reported death of Joseph, Jacob mourned for him
many days (Gn 37°), and he himself in turn was
mourned by the Egyptians threescore and ten
days (Gn 503), including, however, forty days of
his embalming. Herodotus (ii. 86, 88) tells us that
the Egyptians had seventy-two days of mourning
for the dead. Joseph’s own mourning for his
father is said to have lasted seven days (Gn 5010).
The children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains
of Moab, as they had wept for Aaron when he died

MOUSE

MUFFLERS 494

upon Mt. Hor (Na 20°, Dt 848. Of Judith it is
said (Jth 16%) that the house of Israel mourned for

herseven days. ‘Seven days,’ says the Son of Sirach |

(Sir 9912), ‘are the days of mourning for the dead ;
but for a fool and an ungodly man, all the days of
his life’ ‘Phe prescribed period of mourning for a
father and mother expires on the eve of the first
amabieant of the death. The anniversary itself
is invariably observed with strict solemnity by the
Jews. It is said that hundreds of Israelites who
profess none of the orthodox beliefs of Judaism,
and recognize none of its ceremonial laws as bind-
ing upon them, yet keep this anniversary, attend-
ing the synagogue for the only time in the year,
and distributing money among their poor and
afflicted co-religionists. The scriptural instance
of commemorating the dead on the anniversary of
their death is that of the daughters of Israel who
went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah
the Gileadite, and kept up the celebration four
days (Jg 11”).

LITERATURE.—Nowack, Heb. Arch. i. Ὁ. 193 ff.; Benzinger, Heb.
Arch. p. 163 ff.; art. ‘Trauer bei den Hebréern’ in Herzog, AE,
and ‘Mourning’ in Kitto, Cyel.; Thomson, Land and Book
(S. Pal. and Jerus. See ‘Funerals and Mourning’ under
‘Manners and Customs’ in Index); Mackie, Bible Manners and
Customs; Peritz, ‘Woman in the Ancient Hebrew Cult’ (re-
printed from /2L, 1898, Part ii.); continuation of art. in JQR
on ‘Death and Burial Customs among the Jews,’ by A. P.
Bender. Cf. also W. R. Smith 1052 (see ‘ Mourning’ in Index) ;
Schwally, Leben nach dem Tode ; Well, Reste?, 177 ff.; Driver on
Am 52-16 and p, 232 ff.; and Bertholet, Jsr. Vorstell. υ. Zustand
nach dem Tode. Ἔ; NCOL.

MOUSE (r2ry ‘akbar, μῦς, mus).—‘The mice that
mar the land,’ of which the Philistines made golden
images (18 64°), were probably the short-tailed
field mice, or ‘voles,’ Arvicola arvelis, Desm.,
which are universal in Palestine. The kind of
mouse that was eaten (Is 0017) may be the hamster,
Cricetus pheus, Pall., which is edible. The mouse
forbidden as food (Lv 1173) is probably a generic
or family name. See, further, Dillm. on Lv 11°
and W. R. Smith, 2S? 275. Tristram found 25
species of rats and mice, six of sand rats, three
of jerboas, and four of dormice, in Pal. and Syria.
Immense numbers of the warrens of these eadoute
are found even in the deserts. Their food is pro-
vided for them by the vast number of bulbs and
corms of crocus, iris, squill, asphodel, cyclamen,
erodium, etc.

On the question whether the mouse was anciently
used as a symbol of pestilence, see J. Meinhold,
Die Jesajaerzdhlungen, p. 34 tf GE“ POST;

MOUTH (x2 the commonest term, also 99 ‘ palate,’
‘roof of mouth’; Aram. 05 Dn 4%+5 t. in Dn;
LXX and NT oréua).—as peh, the ordinary Heb.
word for ‘mouth,’ means also ‘language,’ ‘ corner,’
‘edge,’ ‘skirt,’ and any opening such as of a well
Gn 29", sack Gn 42°", the earth Nu 16°, a cave Jos
10°, grave Ps 141’. 49 hék, ‘palate,’ is used where
the reference is to the sense of taste or to the
interior of the mouth, as when the tongue cleaves
to the roof of the mouth, Job 12" 20%, Ps 1378,
Ca 7°, but in Hos 8! this is the word that is used in
connexion with the blowing of the trumpet.

The way in which the Bible constantly uses the
organ of speech in the sense of ‘language’ is a
conspicuous instance of its employment of the
concrete for the abstract. Thus enforced silence is
the laying of the hand upon the mouth, Jg 18”,
Job 29° 404, Mic 716, Tit 14 (see Lip). So freedom
of speech is the enlarged mouth, 1S 21, Ps 35>,
Is 574, Eph 61% Similarly, to receive a message or
he instructed as to what to say is to have words
put into the mouth, 28 14", Jer 153, Humiliation
is the mouth laid in the dust, La 3°.

In this figurative usage the final form is personi-
fication where the mouth is regarded as an inde-

pendent agent, with feelings, purposes, and actions
of itsown. ‘Thus it has free-will offerings to give
Ps 119!8, God is asked to set a watch before it
Ps 141%, it selects its food Pr 1515, uses a rod Pr 143,
and has a sword Rev 19", Such a familiar use of
personification with regard to the lips, mouth, and
voice would have an influence on the Jewish
mind in the discussion of such subjects as ‘The
angel of the Lord’ and ‘The voice of the Lord’
(buth-él), and would prepare the mind to appre-
hend the meaning of the word made flesh. See art.
Locos. G. M,. MACKIE.

MOWING.—See AGRICULTURE.

MOZA (xyi2).—4. Son of Caleb by his concubine
Ephah, 1 Ch 2 (8 Ἰωσάν, A’Iwod), 2. A descend-
ant of Saul, 1 Ch 8% 87 (Mad) 9% 8 (B Maced, A
Macd, Luc. Mwod).

MOZAH (7322 with art. ; Β ᾿Αμωκή, A ‘Apwod).—
A town of Benjamin, mentioned next to Chephirah,
Jos 186, A possible site is the ruin Beit Mizzeh,
close to Kulonich (i.e. Colonia), west of Jerusalem.
The Heb. Tsade becomes the Arabic Zain in some

cases. The modern name means ‘house of hard
stone.’ There is a good spring at this site. (See

SWP vol. iii. sheet xvi. ;
Guérin, Judée, i. 262 f.).

Buhl, GAP 167;
C. R. CONDER.

MUCH is used in AV with more freedom than
we now permit. It is quite common, for example,
with collective nouns. These are nearly always
either ‘ cattle,’ as Ex 12% ‘And a mixed multitude
went up also with them; and flocks, and herds,
even very much cattle’; or ‘people,’ as Nu 9030
‘Edom came out against him with much people.’
But we also find ‘ much goods,’ Lk 12", and ‘much
alms,’ Ac 10% Cf. Rhemish NT, Lk 10? ‘ The har-
vest truely is much, but the workemen few.’

Again, ‘much’ is an adv. and qualifies an adj. in
Philem 8 ‘Though I might be much bold in Christ’
(πολλὴν ἐν Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων), RV ‘Though I
have all boldness in Christ.’? Cf. Pref. to Pr. Bk.
‘Here you have an order for prayer . .. much
agreeable to the mind and purpose of the Fathers.’
So Cranmer in Pref. to Great Bible, ‘Concernyng
two sundry sortes of people it seemeth much
necessarie that some thyng be sayde in the entrie
of thys booke by way of a Preface or Prologue’ ;
and Udall’s Erasmus’ Paraphrase, fol. xxxiv. ‘This
disease [leprosy] emong the Jewes was counted
muche abhominable, and is thought to be suche,
that no Physician can heale it.’

In the Pref. to AV ‘ much’ occurs in the sense
of ‘nearly,’ ‘Much about that time.’ The word is
often so used by Shaks., as Meas. for Meas. 111. 1].
242—*Much upon this riddle runs the wisdom of
the world,’ and Iv. i. 17—‘ Much upon this time
have I promised here to meet.’ J. HASTINGS.

MUFFLERS.—This term occurs only once in the
Bible, as tr® in Is 319 (EV) of ni$in ré‘aléth, in the
midst of a list of articles of female attire and
adornment. The LXX, which, however, does not
apparently include all the items enumerated in the
Heb. text, perhaps tr. by τὸν κόσμον τοῦ προσώπου
αὐτῶν ; Vulg. has mitras. It is generally agreed
that some kind of veil is intended (so Siegtried-
Stade, Dillm., Del., Guthe [in Kautzsch’s 4/7,
‘Kopfschleier’]). Delitzsch derives ΠῚ) from a
root [>y7], Aram. Sy ‘to be loose or flaccid,’ ‘to

hang down or hang over loosely,’ and pronounces
the veil spoken of to be more costly and of better

quality than the ordinary one worn by maidens,
which is called yy. Dillmann compares the Arab.
rel (see also Mishna, Zahim, vi. 6, where msn is

| applied to the veils worn by Arab women), and

456 MULBERRY TREES

MUSIC

describes the veil in question as consisting of two
pieces, one starting above the eyes and thrown
back over the head and neck, the other beginning
below the eyes and falling down over the breast.
See, also, art. Dress in vol. i. Ἐς 627%;

J. A. SELBIE.

MULBERRY TREES (o-xra Uéh@ im, κλαυθμών,
ἄπιοι, pyri). —41. The Heb. word is the name of a tree
(28 5% 4=1Ch 14 16). to the identity of which we
have no clue. From a confusion with the root 722
bakah, ‘to weep,’ “220 pry ‘the valley of Baca’
(Ps 84°) has been often tr? ‘the valley of weeping.’
Neither of the LXX renderings supports the claim
of the mulberry, κλαυθμών signifying ‘a place of
mourning,’ and ἄπιοι ‘pear trees.’ The tree is
supposed by different writers to have been the
balsam tree (so Oxf. Heb. Lex.), the poplar (Arab.
shajaret el-bok, ‘the bed-bue tree’), and the pear.
Abu el-Fudli mentions a tree, with an Arab. name
similar to dék@im, which has been identified with
almyris or Balsamodendron. But this tree grows
only in tropical countries, and could never have
flourished in the Plain of Rephaim. There is no
support to the tr" ‘mulberry’ or ‘poplar. We
must therefore be content to remain uncertain as
to the identity of béh@im, and it would perhaps
be best to transliterate it. See, further, BACA
(VALLEY OF).

2. Although it is thus probable that the mul-
berry is not mentioned in the canonical books
of OT, the blood (juice) of the fruit of this tree
(μόρον) is said to have been mingled with that of
the grape (1 Mac 09}, and shown to the elephants
of Antiochus Eupator, to enrage them and excite
them to war against the Jews.

3. The sycamine (Lk 17°) is the ‘black mulberry’
(see SYCAMINE). G. E. Post.

MULE.—Three Heb. words are tr? ‘mule’ in
ΑΥ 1. 82) rekesh. This word (which is really
a rare synonym of o) is tr’ only twice in AV
‘mules’ (Est 8 4, RV ‘swift steeds’), once ‘swift
beast’ (Mie 115, RV ‘swift steed’), and once ‘drome-
daries’ (1 K 4%, m. ‘mules’ or ‘swift beasts,’ RV
‘swift steeds’). See DROMEDARY.

2.02, yémim. ‘This word oecurs only once (Gn
36%), and refers to something which Anah (wh.
see) found when feeding his father’s asses in the
desert of Edom. Mules would not have been a
likely find in such a place. The LXX tr. it by
τὸν Ἰαμείν, a proper name, showing that the signi-
fication was not understood. The Vulg. tr. it
aque calide=RV ‘hot springs.’ Such springs
exist at Callirrhoé and elsewhere around the Dead
Sea. Callirrhoé is called by the Arabs Hamdmim
Suleiman=‘the hot springs of Solomon.’ The
springs below Umm-Keis (Gadara) are known as
Ard el-Hamma=‘land of hot springs.’ Yémim
may be a dialectic modification of this local term.
The Arabs attach great medicinal value to such
hot springs, and such a discovery would be con-
sidered well worthy of record.

3. τῷ peredh, ὁ ἡμίονος, mulus. This is the
common word for ‘mule’ in both AV and RV.
It occurs once in the feminine στη pirddh, ἡ ἡμίονος,
mula (1 K 1%-%- ἡ, Mules were forbidden (but
see below) in the Levitical law (Ly 19”) ; but this,
like many minor provisions of the law, was not
in force in the era of the kings. David seems to
have been the first to ride one, as also to introduce
the horse (2 8 83), contrary to the previous practice
of the people, and the sentiment reflected in the
rohibition of Dt 171° (where see Driver’s note).
Mules became common during David’s reign, and
were ridden by his sons (2S 13”). Absalom rode
a mule in war (28 189). Solomon rode one when
he was proclaimed king (1 K 13). He received
tribute in mules (1 Καὶ 1055. The subsequent mon-

archs kept them (185). The Gentiles, riding on
mules, are to honour Israel (Is 0030), The Phu-
nicians imported them from Togarmah= Armenia
(Ezk 274). Mules are mentioned in Jth 15!.
They are still used as riding animals by high
functionaries. The Governor-General of the pro-
vince of Beirat often goes to the seraglio on his
spirited and sure-footed mule. The late Governor-
General of Lebanon, Rustem Pasha, had a very
fine riding mule, which he much preferred to a
horse. Mules were also used as beasts of burden
(1 Ch 12", 2K δ); A good pack-inule brines a
much higher price than a pack-horse. He is longer-
lived, much surer of foot, and will carry a heavier
burden. In the later days of the Heb. State, the
law against mules (which may have been inter-
preted as forbidding the dreeding but not the use;
see Dillm. on Ly 19!) seems to have been quite
disregarded, as so strict a legalist as Ezra allowed
his returning people to bring 245 of them from
Babylon (Εν 2° ; see Ryle’s note). They are now
universally used in Bible lands. G. E. Post.

MUNITION is used in AV in the orig. sense of
the Lat. manitio (from munio, to fortify), a fortitied
place of defence, a stronghold or entrenchment.
The places are Is 297 ‘all that fight against her and
her munition’ (ap7s2, RV ‘her stronghold,’ which
is Coverdale’s word); 33! ‘his place of defence
shall be the munitions of rocks’ (so RV, Heb. nn
oy?c); Nah 2! ‘keep the munition’ (so RV, Heb.
ays ἦν, Amer. RV ‘fortress’); 1 Mac 14” ‘He
provided victuals for the cities and set in them
all manner of munition’ (ἔταξεν αὐτὰς ἐν σκεύεσιν
ὀχυρώσεως ; RV ‘furnished them with all manner
of munition,’ RVm ‘Gr. implements of munition ἢ);
also marg. of Dn 1135 38-39” Cf, South, viii. ser. 5,
‘No defence or munition can keep out a judgment,
when commissioned by God to enter.’ This mean-
ing of the word is retained in AV from the Geneva
Version ; in 1611 the commoner meaning was that
of the Fr. munition, i.e. military stores, provision
for an army or fortress. ‘Thus Shaks., A. John,
Vv. 11. 98---

‘What penny hath Rome borne,
What men provided, what munition sent,
To underprop this action ?’
J. HASTINGS.

MUPPIM (c2:). — A son of Benjamin, Gn 4031
(Maugeiv), called in 1 Ch 7% 2615 Shuppim (o2:'),
in Nu 9059 Shephupham, and in 1 Ch 8° Shephu-
phan. The proper form of the name can hardly
be determined. See Ball and Kittel (on Gn and
Ch in SBOT) and Dillm. on Nu 26*°, See, further,
separate articles on the above variant forms.

MURDER.—See Crimers AND PUNISHMENTS, vol.
1. “3-52.

MURRAIN.—See PLAGUES.

MUSHI (‘es>, in 1 Ch 6’ -y2).—A son of Merari,
Ex 6% (Ὀμουσεῖ), Nu 3”, 1 Ch 6 [Heb. 4] (B’Ououceé,
A ’Opovsi), 647 [Heb. 33) (B Μοσεί, A ᾽Ομουσί), 232! (B
᾽Ομουσεί, A Μουσί) * (B Μουσεί, A Μουσί) 9.4.6 (B
μουσεί, A Μουσί) 3. (B Μοουσεί, A Μουσί). The
patronymic Mushites (55) occurs in Nu 399. 2653
(B ὁ Μουσεί, A ὁ ’Opovai),

MUSIC.—

i. Occasions when used.
ii. Nature of Hebrew music.
iii. Musical instruments.

1. Stringed : (a) the kinndr ; (Ὁ) the nebel ;—the terms
gittith, ‘dlamoth, néginoth ; (c) the stringed in-
struments named in Dn.

2. Wind : (a) the haléil or flute ;—the terms nekeb and
néhiloth ; (Ὁ) the ‘ugab ; (6) the mashrokithad ; (d)
the symphonia; (6) the shophar or keren, the
horn ; (f) the hazozérah or trumpet.

MUSIC

MUSIC 457

8. Percussion : (a) the toph or tabret; (ὁ) the mézil-
taim or zelzéiim, eymbals ; (6) the meénwanim 5
(da) the shalishim.
Literature.

i, OCCASIONS WHEN USED.—The most cursory
glance at the books of the OT shows the devotion
of the Hebrews to the art of music. It is unlikely
that it was so predominantly a sacred art as would
at first sight appear from the Bible. The sacred
writers look at everything more or less from a
religious point of view ; but we have quite sufli-
cient evidence that music was loved by all classes
of the people; and was practised in the home and
in the fields. The favourite instruments had been
invented long before the institution of the national
religion and its ceremonies (Gn 45); Laban the
Syrian was agerieved that Jacob had stolen away
without the usual song of leave-takine (Gn 8157);
and Job (2113) refers to the performance of music as
a common feature in an unsophisticated prosper-
ous life (cf. Νὰ 9117), In the headings of some of the
psalms we have probably traces of popular secular
sones: thus Ps 45 is to be sung to the tune of ‘The
Lilies,’ 60 to that of the ‘ Lily of the Testimony,’
etc. We have references also to vintage songs
ΕΝ δ: Gh. «ile, “oF ῬΉ δ, 58. 69). 75), avbicl
would not always be as sacred as Isaiah’s (Is 5),
and to music performed at feasts (Am 6°), and
at processions (1 αὶ 18°). Wherever there was a
dance, or wherever two or three joined together in
some common occupation, the movement would
suggest rhythm, and rhythm melody. Dancing
and music emerged spontaneously, and were prac-
tised together under all sorts of conditions. The
kinah or wailing song was also familiar to the
Hebrews. See LAMENTATIONS (BOOK OF).

But the consecration of music to the service of
religion led to its being developed and cultivated
with greater zeal and earnestness. Even if we
cannot accept all the details in the statements of
the historical books, at least as applying to the
dates to which they are referred, they are not
altogether valueless. We may allow for exag-
gerations in respect to figures, and we must
transfer descriptions of the worship in the first
temple to that of the second, but the tradition
reveals the fact that sacred music was raised by
the Israelites to the dignity of an art, and was
treated accordingly.

It is in Chronicles that we have the fullest
account of the musical arrangements in the
temple service. According to 1 Ch 154, David
organized the Levitical chorus and orchestra.
Heman, Asaph, and Ethan (? Jeduthun) were ap-
pointed chief conductors (under the king himself),
giving the beat with their cymbals ; seven Levites
played on nebels πυρὸν by, 1.6. of a high pitch (7; see
p. 460°), while six accompanied on cinnors, whose
description is quite uncertain (myrgia-Sy, lit. ‘on the
eighth’). The whole of the choristers and players
were divided into 24 classes, and are said to have
been 4000 in number, with 288 leaders. Even the
name of the director of the choral rehearsals is
given. Although such minute details must be un-
historical, one feature is probably correct for all
periods of the history, 1.6. the large proportion
of experts (a'722) compared with pupils (avn).
The whole of these forces were employed to add
extraordinary impressiveness to the ceremonies at
the consecration of Solomon’s Temple (2 Ch 5!”).

After idolatrous kings had occupied the throne,
Hezekiah and Josiah made it an important part
of their task to restore ‘ the instruments and songs
of David.’ Among the exiles who returned from
Babylon, and took part in consecrating the
foundations of the second temple and the walls
of Jerus., were the descendants of the great
Levitical choristers (Neh 12:7), and in vv.4-47 we

are informed that from that time divine service
was regularly performed as instituted by David,
the people contributing the necessary support for
the singers.

ii, NATURE OF HEBREW Music. — We know
nothing whatever of the nature of the music per-
formed by these singers and players. What
ancient instruments have been preserved have
either been too frail to admit of being handled,
or have refused to emit any sound. Besides, even
if we could reproduce the ancient harps and flutes,
ete., we shouid require to know the method of
blowing or of tuning them. Nor can we learn
anything from the music still performed in the
synagogues. It is possible that the trumpet-calls
now in use originated at an early date, but that
does not take us far. The hymn-tunes are cer-
tainly comparatively modern, and their composi-
tion shows traces of the country and period in
which they have originated. Of a musical nota-
tion there is no trace. Much ingenuity has been
lavished on the attempt to interpret the accents
from a musical point of view. It has been sug-
gested that they were signs of musical phrases, or
that they were even a kind of figured bass ; but
these are only far-fetched guesses. Not only were
they of late origin, but their purpose was wholly
different. They are guides to the proper recitation
or cantillation of the text. Even to this extent
they do not furnish any reliable information as to
ancient usage: meant to preserve tradition, they
are themselves subject to tradition, and are inter-
preted differently in different synagognes.

Under the circumstances, it is possible to form
only avery general and vague idea of the character
of Hebrew music. It was evidently of a strident
and noisy character. The melody was apparently
often reduplicated in octaves. Harmony in our
sense of the term was almost certainly unknown,
though it does not follow that the accompaniments
were wholly unisonous. It is hardly possible to
conceive of players on harps and lyres not adding
something of the nature of a chord. They could
not fail to discover that certain notes produced
a pleasing effect when played together or in
arpegezios. The psalms show by their construe-
tion that they were intended to be sung anti-
phonally,—in some cases (6.5. Ps 13. 20. 38 ete.) by
two choirs, in others by a choir and the congre-
gation, the part taken by the latter being limited
to the singing of a simple constantly recurring
phrase or refrain (6.0. Ps 186. 118'4). The leaders
would possess the tradition of the music, and
would impart it to the general body of the chorus.

The psalms must have been chanted, but it is
most unlikely that the chants bore any resem-
blance to what we understand by the term. Our
irrational and exceedingly artificial method of
rushing over any number of syllables on a fixed
note would hardly commend itself to a people to
whom their sacred songs formed a living expres-
sion of their deepest feelings. The elaborate
provision made for instructing the chorus suggests
the existence of a system, which, along with a
certain uniformity, admitted of some flexibility
in its application. We can quite well imagine a
chant which would allow of a greater number of
notes being used in the longer verses, and which
would vary slightly in character with the changing
sentiment of the text. In point of fact, however,
this is wholly conjectural, and the vocal method
of the Hebrews is a lost and unknown art.

11, MusicAL INSTRUMENTS.—We know a little
more about the instruments employed by the
Hebrews. It is true that the OT, while it con.
tains numerous references to them, gives us no
detinite information as to their form or construc-
tion, and that this defect is not supplied by the

458 MUSIC

MUSIC

existence on Jewish ground of any sculptures or
pictures, such as have been found in Egypt or
Assyria. It is also true that the inferences drawn
from etymology, the translation of Heb. names
in the Greek versions, the statements of the
Church Fathers. and the records of ancient
nations, fall very far short of affording us
delinite and precise information, and have given
rise to an endless diversity of opinion on almost
every detail. Yet in spite of this we can form a
general idea of the nature of a Jewish orchestra,
and of the construction of the instruments of
which it was composed. We consider them under
the usual division into String, Wind, and Per-
cussion Instruments.

1. Stringed Instruments.—Of these the kinnor
and the nebel (RV ‘harp’ and ‘psaltery’) are
the most important, and may be described as
the favourite national instruments. The kinnor
is indicated as having been the older, and is said
to have been invented by Jubal, the second son of
Lamech (Gn 43). It is the only stringed instru-
ment mentioned in the Hexateuch. The nebel
first occurs in 18 10°, where it is found among
the instruments played by the prophets who met
Saul.

There is now a general consensus of opinion
that these were species of the lute or lyre and the
harp, but there is no agreement as to which was
which, and many scholars have given up the
attempt to distinguish between them, content-
ing themselves with describing the various instru-
ments to which the names may have been applied.
In any case, even if we attempt to reach ereater
precision, we must admit that we come very far
short of certainty, and that a considerable pro-
portion of our conclusions is more or less con-
jectural,

It is clear, however, that the kinndr and the
nebel were not identical, and that the names were
not used indifferently for the same instrument.
They seem to be coniused in one or two places in
the LXX (cf. Ps 149°); but in the great majority
of instances 132 is rendered by κιθάρα or κινύρα, and
533 by ψαλτήριον, νάβλη, or νάβλον. The few cases
in which they are identified can be satisfactorily
accounted for by supposing that the translators
were not musical experts, or felt that in the
particular passage the difference was trivial. But
the great mass of evidence shows that they were
different, and were known to be different.

Before trying to distinguish them, however, we
may note certain common features. They were
mainly, if not exclusively, used to accompany
vocal music. They were par excellence the vy *b3
(Am 6°). They are said to have been the sole accom-
panying instruments in the temple service, though
this is doubtful. ‘Their use was associated princi-

ally with joyful and exultant strains (the captives
ed up their Zinnors in their time of dejection,
Ps 137°), but it is perhaps straining poetical lan-
guage unduly to confine it exclusively to those.

In 2Ch 9" itis said that the nebel and kinnér
under Solomon were constructed of almug or
algum, a wood which it is impossible to identify
with any certainty, but which was at all events
very valuable and much sought after (sce art.
ALGUM TREES, and Cheyne and Hommel in
Expos. Times, viii. 470, 525). According to
Josephus (Ané. VUI. 111. 8), the framework was
fitted with electrum, i.e. either a mixed metal or
amber, which in any case could have served only
for decorating the body of the instrument. The
strings (0°33) were originally made of twisted grass
or plant-fibres, then of gut, and in later times of
silk and metal.

(a) The kinnor (22, a mimetie word derived from
the rustling sound of the strings) has been identi-

fied with a number of instruments: the tanbur ot
tinbur, a kind of guitar; the lute (ad-’ood), which
is closely allied to the guitar ; the ¢trigon, a small,
easily portable triangular harp ; a large harp pro-
vided with 47 strings; and the lyre. We can at
once delete several of these if we remember -the
hints given in the OT. The kinndér was portable ;
it was played during marches and processions, and
was hung upon the willows by the Babylonian
captives. It was therefore not a harp of the larger
sort.
is urged that the latter could not have been the
favourite instrument of a people so musically
gifted as the Jews. It was small, and from its
construction weak in tone, and would have con-
trasted unfavourably with the larger and fuller-
toned harps and citterns which intercourse with
other nations had rendered familiar. The guitar
or lute, again, is open to several objections. [0 is
not known to have been current among Semitic
nations in early times. We have a representation
of one lute-shaped instrument in Nineveh; it has
a small oval body and a very long neck, exactly
like those depicted in Egypt; but this one example,
most probably derived from Ezy pt, does not furnish
adequate support for the theory that the lute was
familiar to the Semitic peoples, and may therefore
have formed the model of the δώ». Besides, it
is hardly conceivable that such a slim long-necked
instrument could have been easily portable, and a
favourite for processional music.

But the strongest evidence we have for the
nature of the Ainnor is to be found in the LXX.
The translators, except in a very few cases, render
3:2 by κιθάρα, or by κινύρα, which is explained by
Greek writers as equivalent to κιθάρα. Unless we
suppose that the LXX wrote in utter ignorance of
the shape of the Zinnor, this fact is decisive against
either the Inte or the harp. It would have been
impossible for even the most careless or inexpert
writer to confound the lute with its long neck and
finger-board, or the harp, with the kithara or the
lyre. It is probable that the Ainndr presented
differences from the dithara, but it is unnatural

PLAYING THE LYRE,
(Middle Empire).

to suppose that these should have been so great as
to make the rendering of the LX.X wholly inappro-
priate. ae
Now numerous lyre-shaped instruments, ?.e. in-
struments with resonance-body at the base, side
arms of wood, and cross-bar at the top from which
the strings descend to the sound-box, or string:
holder resting on it, are found on the monuments

As against the view that it was ἃ trigon, it +

τ

|
|

MUSIC

MUSIC

A very ancient one is depicted in an Eeyptian
tomb, and dates fromthe 12th Dynasty. It repre-
sents a Semitic Immigrant with an eight-stringed
hithera, which he holds in a horizontal position
under his right (?) arm; he plucks the strings
with the fingers of the left hand, while he uses a
plectrum with the right. The body of the in-
strument is really a quadraneular-shaped board
with the upper half cut ont. There is also ¢
picture of a player on the Aithara, accompanying
two harpists, in a grave at Thebes belonging to
the period between the 190} and 18th Dynasties.
Here, again, we have the ruder form characteristic
of the Semitic Aifhara, Later the Aithara becomes
quite common, andis more artistically constructed.
It generally has a square, sometimes an urn-
shaped sound-box, from which rise arms of various
design and thickness, bound together by a wooden
cross-bar. These arms are often of different lengths,
and the cross-bar therefore slopes downwards, thus
serving to give the strings their proper pitch. The
strings radiate from the sound-box in the form of
a fan, and vary in number from 3 to 12.

The kithira was, however, not properly an
Egyptian but an Asiatic instrument. We have
already seen that the oldest known to be depicted
in Egypt was played by a Semitic immigrant.
The very earliest representation of a stringed
instrument is that discovered at 'Telloh in Southern
Babylonia. It is of a large size, but the frame
shows a sound-body beneath, on which are set the

HARPER AND CHOIR
(6. B.C. 8000),

two upright posts and the cross-bar of the lyre.
The number of the strings is great enough to
suggest that a harp was meant, but the imodel,
which is exceedingly rude, is that of the Aithara.
Many specimens have been also found at Khorsabad,
Kouyunjik, and Nimrud, which strongly resemble
those ot the immivrant Semites in Keypt. They
are, however, more fully developed and have a
larger sound-box at the base. They differ in form
and in number of strings at the same period. A
twelve-stringed hithara, shown on a bas-relief at

IKhorsabad, is remarkable for its rectangular form
and the exceptional fulness of its sound-box,

The evidence of Jewish coins also points to the
similarity ef the Ainnor to the kithara or lyre.
The representations of instruments found on them

ΠΝΊΞΗΙ LYRES,

are unmistakable.. The strings are fixed in a
strone oval body resting on a kettle-shaped or
vase-like sounding-box ; the frame is simple and
nearly square. The projecting arms are curved
and joined by a cross-bar to which the strings,
which vary in number from 3 to 6, are fixed.
The figures thus resemble the Greek lyre or
kithara. It is not likely, however, that they
simply depict foreign importations, and that they
‘annot therefore be relied upon as evidence for
the ancient Aimnor. Oriental conservatism was at
its strongest in matters affecting the cultus of the
Israelites, and though the Aimnor may have been
modified in certain details, it is unlikely to have
been wholly supplanted. We may assume with
creat probability that these coins represent Jewish
instruments, and in that ease the biblical Ainnor.
We may then sum up, following Weiss. The
ancient versions render kinnor by hithara: the
hithara was of Asiatic origin, was introduced by
Semites into Egypt, and was in common use in
Western Asia; and the representations on Jewish
coins of the 2nd cent. before Christ clearly resemble
the Greek hithara. The view is therefore very

credible, that we should regard the ancient Heb.
kinnor as ἃ simple and primitive form of the
hithara.

(6) The nebel. Tf we suppose the Ainndr to have
been a Zyre, then it almost necessarily follows that
the nebel was a harp. We ean hardly imagine this

instrument, so familiar toall early nations, to have
been absent from the Jewish orchestra. Many
other suggestions have been made, mostly based
/on the etymological meaning of the word (523 ‘a
| skin or bottle’). It has been identified with the
bagpipe, with some sort of wind instrument, and
with the lute, guitar, or mandoline; but none of
these suppositions is satisfactory. The lute was
held to be supported by reference to the Egyptian
nfr, which denotes a lute with two or three strings
and a very long neck; but the identification of τ
with afr is now abandoned, and the lute, as has
been said, is not known to have been a popular
Semitic instrument. A somewhat more likely
supposition is that the nebel was a kind of dulcimer,
This instrument oceurs in a monument of the time
of Assurbanipal (B.c. 668-626), on which is depicted
an Assyrian orchestra of 11 performers. Of these,
7 are harpists, 2 flautists, one a drummer, and
one a dulcimer player. This dulcimer is said by
some to have been the vehe/, the chief reason being
that its Arabic name, santir, 1s ἃ corruption of the
Greek psalterion, which in turn is the equivalent of
the Heb. nablion or nebel. But psalterion was a

Neate ei

ee ornamented, While playing

MUSIC

460

general name for several kinds of instruments,
and was expecially applied to every stringed in-
strument which was played upon with the fingers

—

ASSYRIAN DULCIMER,
(δ. B50, 640),
of both hands, instead of by one hand and a
plectrum held in the other. Therefore the Greek
name fora harp was also psalterion. The Greek

PRIEST PLAYING Harr,
(Tomb of Ramses 111),

translation does not, therefore, decide in favour of
the dulcimer, and the very fact that psalterion
was a generic term would make it particularly
appropriate as a designation of the harp, which
varied so much in size and shape. That a corrup-
tion or derivative should be applied to a stringed
instrument of another kind is quite intelligible.
The description of the nabla by Ovid (Ars. Am. iii.
327), the statement by Josephus (An¢. VIL. xii. 9)
that the nebel had 12 strings and was played with-
out plectrum, and, as we shall see, the distinction
drawn by the early Fathers between instruments
with a sound -body below and those having a
resonance-board above the strings, all point to
the harp.

The Egyptian monuments present us with a
great variety of harps. The earliest form shown
is very primitive ; it is in the shape of an archer’s
bow, possesses no sound-box, and has but a limited
number of strings. As early as the 5th Dynasty,
however, improvements began to be effected ; the
upper part, to which the strings were affixed with
pegs, was broadened and developed into a sound-
body, and the frame beean to be more or less ela-

g, the musi-

MUSIC

cian knelt, and the frame rested on his shonider.
As time advanced, harps were. still further
developed. The lower part of the frame was con-
verted into a sound-body, whieh was broadened
at the base so that it could rest on the ground
unsupported by the player. Some harps were
placed on a stool, or raised upon a stand or limb
attached to the lower part. The players of these
large instruments stood during thie performance,
While we cannot deny the possibility or even the
probability of the Hebrews having ‘been familiar
with such harps, they were not the common or
popular vebels, which were easily portable.

Now, smaller portable haips ‘did exist in Eeypt
}in a great variety of forms. One is bow-shaped
With a transverse string-holder:a second has a
quadrangular flat-shaped sound-hex piereed with
holes, while the strings are stretched froma strine-
holder resting on the sounding-board to a post
rising at right angles from one end of the latter ;
and a third, ornamented with a bird's head, is
quite triangular, the upright post heing at once
string-holder and sound-box. Another instrument
is very common in Upper Egypt. It resembles a
tandoline, with the neck bending abruptly upwards
from the sound-body ; the strings, which are from

three to five in number, are not attached to the
body of the instrument itself, but to a string-
holder attached to its centre. At the upper end
“οὗ the neck are pins for stretching and tuning the
| strings.

We might have regarded one or other of these
smaller harps as furnishing the model of the nehel

EGYPTIAN HARPS,

but for one fact. They all have the sound-hox at
their base. But we have already come to the
conclusion that the Διώνη)" had its resonance-body
beneath ; and if we are to follow the description
given by the Fathers (Augustine on Ps 42, Jerome

ASSYRIAN ITARP,

on Ps 149°, Isidore Etym. U1. xxii. 2), who dis-
tinguished between instruments with the sound-
body beneath and those possessing it above, we
must look for a harp that satisfies the latter
‘condition, And this we find, again among a

|

MUSIC

MUSIC 46]

Semitic people, in Assyria. On the bas-relief at
Kouyunjik there are seven of these harps. They
are portable, are triangular in shape, and are sup-
ported by a belt worn by the player. The reson-
ance-frame slopes upwards and forwards from the
player and jis pierced by holes, and the strings
descend from it to a bridge or string-holder be-
neath which they fall. The performer plays while
marching, using both hands without plectrun.
While, of course, certainty is out of the question,
this Assyrian harp seems to satisfy the requisite
conditions best, and is most likely to have been the
biblical nedel.

It is highly probable that there were different
species of Ainnors and nebels, but whether these
are designated in the OT or not is unknown. In
one case this is almost certain. The vy 523 of
Ps 33° and 144°, or simply wy Ps 92%, was in all
likelihood a ten-stringed harp.

The meaning of the mond! nna (Gittith) in the
headings of Bs δι. 81. 84 is wholly obscure. The
LXX and Vule. suggest the rendering ‘Song of the
vintage’; but it may be derived from Gath, and
may refer to a mode, or singers, or instruments
named after that town. Ewald understands it to
be ‘the March of the Gittite euard.’

The meaning ‘Gittite instruments’ is rendered
not improbable if we translate maody-Sy (1 Ch 152°
and 46 times in Ps) with Wellhausen ‘on Elamite
instruments.’ This term is, however, more gener-
ally taken to mean ‘with women’s voice’ (lit. ‘on
or ace. to damsels’; RV ‘set to’ Sy as name of a
tune, which is quite possible), i.e. soprano, and to
refer to instruments of a higher pitch.

Néginoth (nixvii) has sometimes been taken to
denote a particular kind of instrument, but it is a
general term for string music. In Ps 68” we have
ony contrasted with o3:3, 2.6. the singers with the
players.

(c) This division of the orchestra is supplemented
by instruments which occur only in the Book of
Daniel (351), These are the psantérin (γ12:55), the
kitharis (orp), and the sabbekha (222). The
psuntéerin * is the Greek ψαλτήριον, and that is all
we know definitely about it. It has been identified
by some with the magadis, but this is itself only a
general term for an instrument (most commonly,
however, a lyre) which could be played in octaves ;
and with a dulcimer because of the retention of
the word in the Arabic santir. But psantérin may
just as well have kept its original force, and have
denoted ἃ harp played with both hands. There is
nothing to lead us to identify it with the dulcimer
represented on Assyrian monuments. The {μα εἰ Ὁ
is the Greek κιθάρα.

The sabbekhat is the Greek σαμβύκη. But the
sambuca is itself a word of very varied import.
Stainer (JTus. of the Bible, p. 39) concludes that. it
was a large and powerful harp of a rich quality of
tone, eRe simular to, if not identical with, the
great Egyptian harp. Weiss (J/us. Jrst. p. 67) goes
to the opposite extreme, and holds that it was a
small ¢rigon characterized by a high shrill tone,
and used to accompany female voices. Chappell
(Hist. of Mus. p. 255) summarizes the various mean-
ings given to the word in Greek writers: it was
either a ¢rigon, a barbitos or many-stringed lyre, a
lyrophenix or Phoenician lyre, a Greck lyre, a
magadis, & pipe, a dulcimer, or a siege-ladder ; in
short, anything made of elder-wood. It was not,
however, a ‘sackbut,’ ἐν 6. a trombone.

2. Wind Instruments.—(a) Of these the one in
most general use was the flute or Halil (05 π). It
has been denied that it was ever used to accompany

* In Dn 35. 10.15 the word is spelt AIO, in v.7 7 IwID.
1 Dn 35.7.10.15, Kethibh ΠΤ, Keré DIN? (as in Targums).
t Bacr reads x>2y-

sacred song, but this is very doubtful. In 1S 108
chee lel OO cage ἢ ae in descending from and
ascending to the High Place, and its tones accom-
panied the festal processions of pilgrims from the
country (Is 30%). In the second temple it was
played before the altar on twelve days: the day of
killing the first and that of killine the second
Passover, the first day of unleavened bread, Pente-
cost, and the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles
(Lrachin ii. 8, Succah v. 1). While the singers
required to be Levites, other distinguished [srael-
ites might perform on the instruments. The tluite
was also used at marriage feasts and funerals: in
the time of Christ, even the poorest were expected
to provide two flautists at a funeral.

Flute-like instruments date from the very earliest
times. Irom the first, two kinds are met with—the
long flute, played by blowing in one end and held
straight before the player, and the oblique flute,
played by blowing in a hole at the side. Both
these kinds are depicted on the Egyptian monu-
ments. Double flutes are also shown in the
feyptian and Assyrian monuments; they were
probably preferred as giving the performer a
greater range or compass. The material of which
flutes were made was at first the reed, then wood
of various kinds, and lastly bone and ivory.

Wood-winds were of two kinds: those with and
those without reeds or vibrating tongues. The
former are represented by the oboe and clarinet,
the latter by the flute proper. From = specimens
found in Pompeii and elsewhere it is known that
the Greeks were familiar with reed instruments,
especially those provided with a single tongue, and
therefore of the clarinet class. If we are to trust
the evidence ef ancient myths (ef. legend of Apollo
and Marsyas), the Greeks owed this instrument to
the Phrygians, who may have acquired the double
flute from the Assyrians.

Whether the Λα δ was a sinele or double flute,
or a flue or reed pipe, we donot know. — It is certain
that the Hebrews had every opportunity of becom-
ing acquainted with all these kinds, but we have
no information on the subject. In any case, the
number of notes was limited to those produced by
stopping the holes with the fingers, as the keyed
flute is entirely a modern invention.

Tt has been held by some that neheb (293 Ezk 9813
AV and RV ‘pipes’) designates the double flute ;
but this is inconsistent with the context, and is
altogether erroneous. A. b. Davidson renders the
word ὁ grooves.’

Again, nrhiloth (τ 5552) in the heading of Ps 5 is
a term of very uncertain meaning.

(Ὁ) The ‘ugab (239 or hy) is a somewhat uncer-
tain term. ‘The LXX renders the word variously,
κιθάρα (Gn 471), ψαλμός (Job 21? 8031), and ὄργανον
(Ps 1504). It is not a weneral term for a musical
instrument (ὄργανον), as we can see from the con-
text. Some writers think it to have been a syrinz
or Pan’s pipe, others a bagpipe. But we have
really no evidence in support of either view. If
32} means to blow in (which, it must be confessed,
is pure conjecture), then the noun would denote
wind instruments in general, and this gives a good
sense in all the above passages. Thus Jubal
(Gn 451) is the inventor of string and wind instru-
ments, and in Ps 150 minnim and ‘ugab represent
the same divisions of the orchestra.

(ce) Mashrohithdé (xmprs>) is another of the instru-
ments mentioned in Dn (835: 7.15, The name 15
derived from a verb meaning ¢o Aiss, and is there-
fore applicable either to the oblique flute or Pan’s
pipe. Of course the hissing effect is more pro-
nounced in playing the syrinz, and it is most
probably the instrument meant.

(d) The symphonia (973220) is also mentioned in
Dn (3°) alone. The Greek συμφωνία, from which

462 MUSIC

MUSIC

this word is derived, did not originally denote an
instrument, but a concordant interval. ‘Tradition
applies it to the bagpipe. Originally the form of
this instrument may have been developed from the
double flute, one of the pipes being shorter and
being used for the melody, while the loner fur-
nished a droning bass accompaniment. We are
told by Athenweus (Lib, x. p. 439) that Antiochus
Epiphanes used to dance to the sound of the syim-
phonia. To this day the Italians have a bagpipe
called zampugna or sampogna, and a ehifonte or
symphonic Was an instrument of the same class
used in the Middle Aves. In Rome this instru-
ment was introduced in the time of the Empire
under the naine of tibia utricularis or chorus, and
soon became highly popular. Seneca (10. 76) is
indignant at the applause bestowed on a bagpipe
player.

(6) The horn (an shiphdar, > heren ; AV trumpet,
and so confused with Ajzozérah except where they
occur together, when av is rendered cornet [sce
Driver, Joel and Asvos, p. 146)) originally consisted
of aram’s horn. It was afterwards sometimes made
of metal, but the actual rain’s horn was always re-
tained for certain purposes. It had a loud piercing
tone, was of limited compass, and was wholly un-
suited to concerted music. It was used to summon
the people to attention, and for making signals.
The first mention of it in the OT is at the giving of
the law (Ex 19). Its blasts proclaimed the year of
Jubilee (Ly 25"). The ‘blowing’ (293), commanded
in Nu 29', was probably performed on the shophar,
as it is still employed at that festival. It was also
blown at the feast of the New Year and on fast-
days. In time of war the shophar summoned and
assembled the army (1 351 and often), and the
prophet foretold that it should announce the recall
of the people from exile (Is 27").

MODERN SHOPHAR

The shophdr is retained in the serviee of the
modern synagogue : it is blown during the services
on New Years Day (except when that happens to
be a Sabbath), at the conclusion of the Day of
Atonement, on the 7th day of the Feast of Taber-
nacles, and during the entire month of Elul, after
the recital of the supplications. The modern
shophar is a real ram’s horn, curved at the end, but
otherwise straightened by heat.

(7) The trumpet or hizozérah (77887) is the only
Heb. instrument of which we have an indubitably

TABLE OF SHEWBREAD AND TRUMPETS,
(From Arch of Titus).

authentic representation. On the Arch of Titus
two specimens are depicted along with the golden
Table of Shewbread. Some little difficulty las

been caused by their not tallying perfectly with
the description given by Josephus (Ané. 111. xii. 6).
He says that the trumpet (“susr) was nearly a
yard long, a little wider than a flute, with a slight
expansion near the mouthpiece, to catch the
breath, and ending in a bell, just as in the war-
trumpets. This description corresponds with the
form of trumpet shown on a coin of the time of
the emperor Hadrian, which bears the inscrip-
tion Boevy mand «Deliverance of Jerusalem.’ The
instruments on the Arch of Titus, of which we do
not sce the mouthpiece, are very long, being sup-
ported by rests, and gradually swell out into along
and not very wide bell. See, further, TRUMPET.

The Silver Trumpets are said to have been
made by Moses of beaten silver (Nu 103); they
were blown by priests; and they belonged to the
sacred vessels. The nature and meaning of the
signals is indicated in Nu 10?!"

3. Percussion Lnstruments.—(a) The toph (Fh) or
tabret is first mentioned in Gn 317. The LXX
and other Greek versions render this word by
τύμπανον ; in Arab. we have di, in Spanish aduffa.
This instrument was a small hand-drum. The duf
of the Arabs is made of a cirele of Jight wood, over
the edge of which is stretched a piece of goat-skin.
The wood is pierced with five openinys, in which
thin metal dises are set, in order to give greater
effect tothe drum-beat. The auf is about 10 in. in
diameter, and 2in. indepth. It is usually played
by women to accompany their dances and pro-
cessions at weddings and pul. lic festivals.

The hand-drum is frequently represented both
in Egyptian and Assyrian monuinents, Some-

ASSYRIAN HAND-DRUM,

times we have an approach to the modern use
of the drum. In some cases it is attached to the
player by a belt fastened round his waist, while
his hands act as drumsticks. One form of this
instrument is slightly bulged, like a little barrel.
Perhaps the rudeness of the drawing alone accounts
for its somewhat square appearance.

The modern Eeyptian ἐμέ are of two kinds.
The one is like our common military drum, but
not so deep; it is hung obliquely. The other is
a kind of kettledrum, of tin-copper, with a parch-
ment face ; it is generally about 16 in. in diameter,
and not more than 4 in depth in the centre, and is
beaten with two slender sticks.

(6) Cymbals are mentioned in the OT under two
names, méziltaim (Bars?) and gelzélim (6355); the
latter only occurs in 28 6° and Ps 150. In Zee
14” the RV translates o107 πῆρε by ‘the bells of the
horses,’ but there is no absolute necessity for
departing here from the commoner rendering. The
Egyptians at the present day decorate the breast- ,
leather and head-stalls of their horses with coins
and other ornaments, and a metal dise would be
better suited for inscriptions than a bell. The
word used elsewhere for a bell is poye. In 1 Ch 15”
we are told that eymbals were made of brass.

Two varieties of cymbals have been found in

MUSTARD

MYNDUS 462

Eevypt and Assyria: the one similar to a modern
soup-plate, but having a somewhat larger rim;
the other conical in form, with a handle at the
peak. The flat cymbals have a hole through
which a thong or cord was passed, and were
played by clashing the instruments together side-
ways: of the second kind, the one was brought
down on the top of the other. In Eeypt, Grecce,
and Rome, as well as among the Hebrews, the
cymbals were uscd by the conductor to mark the
time.

It has been supposed that the pre sss of Ps
150° (AV ‘loud cymbals’) were castanets, or metal
discs fixed to two fingers of one hand; but this is
by no means certain, though such castanets are
still used.

(c) The méndantim (oyiss>) are mentioned in
28 65, where the RV renders ‘castanets,’ and in
marg, sistra. ‘The latter suits the root-meaning,

EGYPTIAN SISTRUM.

and is supported by the Vulg., where we have
systra, The sistrum consisted of two thin metal
plates, bent together at the top, and fitted with a
handle at the bottom. The plates were pierced
with holes, through which rods were passed having
rings at their ends. This instrument was used in
Egypt to call attention to the various acts of
public worship, or to scare away malign influence.

(d) The word shdlishim (ov-dy¥) occurs, evidently
as an instrument of some sort, in 1S 18% It can
hardly mean a trigon (but see Wellhausen, ‘Psalms’
in PL 230, and references in Driver, Joel and
Amos, 236n.); but what it does mean we do not
know. Wehave no evidence of the existence of the
triangle (to which it has been referred) in Assyria
or Egypt.

LireraTuRR.—Pfeiffer, Ober die Musik der alten Hebréer;
Saalschiitz, Form der heb. Poesie, etc. ; Leyrer, art. ‘Musik’ in
PRE2; Riehm’s HW B des bibl. Alterthums ; Ambros, Gesch. der
Musik ; Fetis, Hist. dela Musique ; Naumann, Rowbotham, and
Chappel!’s Histories of Musie; Wilkinson, Anc. Eqyp. (ii. 222 ff.);
Wetzstein in Del., Commentary on Isaiah; Stainer, The Music
of the Bible; Edersheim, The Temple, etc.; Wellhausen, The
Psalms, with App. on the Music of the Ancient Hebrews (in
the ‘Polychrome Bible’); Benzinver, Heb. A rehdologie, 271 ff.
Nowack, Heb. Arch. i. 270ff.; Koberle, Die Tempelstinger im
AT’; Biichler, ‘Zur Gesch. d. Tempelmusik und der Tempel-
psalmen’ in ZA7'W, 1899-1900. But especially, J. Weiss, Die
musikalischen Instrumente in den heiligen Schriften des Alten
Testaments, 1895. JAMES MILLAR.

MUSTARD (σίναπι, sinapis).—The conditions to
be fulfilled by the mustard are that it should be
a familiar plant, with a very small seed (Mt 17%,
Lk 17°), sown in the earth, i.e. annual, growing
larger than garden herbs (λάχανον, olus, Mt 13*4),

having large branches (Mk 4%), or, in the more
exaggerated language of Luke (13!%), becoming a
‘great tree,’ attractive to passing birds. The wild
mustards of the Holy Land, Sinapis arvensis, L.,
the field mustard or charlock, and S. alba, L.,
the white mustard, are familiar weeds, growing
in every part of the country. They would have
been called σίναπι in the time of Christ, as they
are now called Ahardal=sinapis. The cultivated
mustard is Sinapis nigra, L. The seed is well
known for its minuteness. The plant grows to
a size larger than the garden herbs, with which
it is compared. The mustards are annuals, repro-
duced with extraordinary rapidity wherever the
seed finds a lodgment, a particular which seems
to be implied in the parable. In fat soil they
often attain a height of 10 or 12 ft., and have
branches which attract the passing birds. Many
plants which attain a far less size than these are
called shajar=‘tree’ by the Arabs. One of the
many examples of this is in the plants of the
LBorraginacecous genus Arnebia, which are only a
few inches to a foot in height, but are known as
shajaret el-arnch=‘the rabbit tree.’ It would not
seem at all strange to any native to speak of a
mustard plant as shajaret el-khardal=‘ mustard
tree.’ Finally, they are favourites of the birds,
which alight upon them to devour their seeds.
The Greek word κατεσκήνωσεν does not refer to
nestiny, but to a temporary rest. We may, then,

justly conclude that the traditional and obvious ἡ

interpretation meets all the reasonable demands
of the passage.

Owing to the expression ‘¢reat tree’ (Lk 1315),
some have sought for an arboreal plant. Sadve-
dora Persica, Garcin, has been suggested by Royle,
on the authority of Ameuny, who states that this
plant is found all along the banks of the Jordan,
near Damascus, and is called by the Arabs khardal
=‘mustard.’ We unhesitatingly reject this plant
for the following reasons. (1) it is not found in
the localities mentioned, but only around the Dead
Sea. It would have been quite unknown to most
of the hearers of the parable, and to them only by
chance. (2) We have not heard it called Ahardal,
and doubt the fact of its being generally known
by this name. But, admitting that it is known
locally by this name, as attested by Ameuny, it
would not have suggested itself at once to the
simple hearers of the parable. (3) Its seed is never
sown in gardens, while it is expressly stated that
the mustard seed was so planted (Lk 1319). (4) It
is a perennial shrub, and therefore not a plant
conspicuous by its rapid propagation from seed,
a point of prime importance in the parable. (δ)
Although a taller plant than the mustard usually
is, it would not suit the literal requirements of a
‘great tree.’ It is a shrub, seldom more than 6
to 8 ft. tall, and grows in thickets. It would
require as much exaggeration to call it a ‘great
tree’ as to so designate the mustard. (6) Salva-
dora Persica could, by no stretch of the imagina-
tion, be called an herb, while of mustard it is
expressly said that it is μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων, ‘the
greatest among herbs’ (Mt 13°”). G. .BePost,

MUTH-LABBEN.

MUTILATION. — See CRIMES AND [PuNISH-
MENTS; vol.ip. 025°.

See PSALMS.

MYNDUS (Mivéos) was a city of Caria, situated
on the extreme western extremity of the peninsula
on whose southern coast lies Halicarnassus. [Ὁ
plays very little part in ancient history; and its
only importance seems to have lain in the silver
mines beside it, which were worked in ancient
and in medieval times. From them the site de-

|
|
|
|

164 MYRA

MYRRH

rives its modern name, Gumushli. It was one of
the places to which letters in favour of the Jews
were sent by the Romans about B.c. 139, 1 Mac
15%; cf. DeELUS, Cos, CNIDUS, HALICARNASSUS.
This fact proves that Myndus must have been a
self-governing and independent city at that time,
and not one of the cities of the Carian confederacy;
see CARIA. It also shows that Jews went there,
and the silver trade would naturally attract per-
sons with their financial instincts. On the site,
see Paton in Journal of LHellenic Studies, 1887,
p. 66; 1896, p. 204. W. Μ. RAMSAY.

MYRA (Mvpa or Μύῤῥα), a city of Lycia.—The
name is used in neuter plural, Ae 275, where,
however, many authorities have feminine singular.
The same doubt between neuter plural and femi-
nine singular exists in Ac 21!, where the Western
Text adds after Patara καὶ Μύρα, et deinde Myram ;
some MSS Mvpay in Acta Pauli et Thecle, 40 (but
ἐν Mvpos, al.); the form in Strabo p. 666 and
Ptolemy ν. 3, 6, is Mvpa, of doubtful gender and
number: but Pliny Nat. Hist. xxyxii. 2, 17,
Ptolemy vill. 17, 23, use the plural form; Athe-
nivus il. 63, p. 59, C/G 4288, and Basil Lpist.
218, have ἐν Mipos: the Byzantine lists frequently
have gen. Mépwv, probably never Μύρας. Many
late writers, Theophanes pp. 465, 483 (de Boor),
Glykas p. 587, Basil Sel. Wit. 8. Theele, i. p. 272,
Cedrenus pp. 511, 512, Zonaras iii. p. 589, use the
plural form; and Malalas varies, p. 365 τῇ Muvpa,
p. 448 τὰ Mupa. Constantine Porph. de Them. 1.
p. 36 avoids the name, but says it is called from
the sacred μύρα (suggesting thus the reason why the
Christian writers preferred the neuter plural form) ;
Stephanus mentions that hoth the feminine and
the neuter forms were in use; but there is hardly
any authority for Μύρα fem. sing. in any case
except accus.; and even there it is inferior. The
literary form therefore was certainly τὰ Μύρα, but
there was evidently also a popular torm τὴν Mipav
(with which compare Λύστραν - Λύστροις Ac 145-8
101- ἡ, Clupeam-Clupeis Woltilin’s note on Cesar
Bell. Afr. 8, 1), which has given rise to the modern
Dembre. In the words where double declension
exists, the tendency to ace. sing. fem. and plural
in other cases is marked.

Myra was not one of the greatest cities of Lycia
in the Greek period, but rose to importance under
the Empire, and became the capital of Lycia under
the Byzantine Empire and in the ecclesiastical
organization. The reason for its growth lay in
the development of navigation. In the older
system of sailing by hugeing the coast from point
to point, Myra was merely one out of many coast
towns, and had nothing to give it special import-
ance. But as the bolder method became common
of running direct between the Lycian and the
Egyptian coasts, keeping off Cape Akamas, the
western point of Cyprus, the two harbours that
were found most convenient were Myra at the
north end of the course and Alexandria at the
south. There had been an immense development
of trade between the East A®gean coasts and
Egypt under the Ptolemics (compare Paton-Hicks,
Inscriptions of Cos, p. Xxxiii): under the Roman rule
Egyptian export trade was diverted towards Italy
and Rome (which was to a considerable extent fed
on Eeyptian grain). As the prevailing wind in the
eastern Mediterranean is westerly, the corn-ships for
Rome could not make a direct voyage towards the
west, but had to use the protection of the irregular
coasts of Asia Minor and Crete and the local coast-
winds. For that purpose they must either take the
long circular course round the Syrian coast, or sail
direct across to Lycia; and the steadiness of the
Western winds tempted to the direct crossing.

Examples of this direct course, showing that it

was regarded as quite usual, are—(1) the Alex-
andrian corn-ship (Ac 27°) for Rome, which St.
Paul found in Myra, Ac 278; (2) an ideal voyage,
founded, of course, on contemporary facts, is de-
scribed in Lucian’s Navigiwm 5. Vota.: an Italian
corn-ship, sailing from Alexandria, sighted Akamas
on the seventh day, but the strength of the west
wind prevented it from clearing the cape, and it
had to run for the Syrian coast (Cyprus offerine
no harbours, but only open roadsteads); in ten
days from Sidon the ship reached the Khelidonian
Islands east from Myra (compare St. Paul’s fif-
teen days, according to the Western Text, from
Cresarea to Myra), and afterwards it failed to
keep the proper course in shelter south of Crete *
(Ac 277), and ultimately on the seventieth day
from Alexandria took refuge in the harbeur of
Pirreus, where its ereat size attracted many
Visitors, and gave the opportunity for Lucian’s
Dialogue; (3) Gregory Nazianzen, sailing from
Alexandria direct for Greece, ran across the Par-
thenic Sea (the Levant, defined by Ammianus
xxii. 15, 2, as another name for the Issiac Sea),
till he came near Cyprus, ‘and under Cyprus cut
the wave in a straight course for Hellas? (Carmen
de vita sua 128 1h, Orat. xviil. 31); he set sail in
November, and apparently took twenty days to
Rhodes (Carmen de rebus suis 312).

The maritime importance of Myra continued
into the Middle Ages. 'Tomaschek quotes from
the pilgrim Swwulf the description of it as portus
Adriatict (i.e. the eastern half of the Mediter-
rancan, compare Ac 972 maris, sicut Constanti-
nopolis est portus Lgei maris.t The town by the
harbour, strictly speaking, was Andriake, while
Myra was 20 stadia or 245 miles inland ; but com-
monly the port town is called Myra. It was a
well-protected harbour ; but storms in the neigh-
bourhood are mentioned, such as that which
destroyed the Arab fleets in A.D. 807 (Theophanes,
p- 483, de Boor); compare others mentioned in
Acta δι, Nicolai (ander Constantine), and in
Lucian’s Naviginm at the Khelidonian Islands.

As Myra was at one end of an unusually long
sea-course, the sailors paid and discharged their
vows there to the deity that protected their course.
The ancient name of this deity is not known:
Tozer, in a note to Finlay’s //istory of Greece, i.
p. 124, suggests Poseidon. The Christians put in
his place St. Nicolas, who was bishop of Myra
under Constantine ; and that saint became the
great sailors’ patron for the Levant, as St. Phocas
of Sinope was for the Euxine. According to the
story, Nicolas was born at Patara and buried at
Myra; and the pilgrim Siewulf touched at these
two ports on his return from the Holy Land, just
as St. Paul did in the Western Text of Ac 91},

See the descriptions in Benndorf Lykia, Spratt and Forbes,
Beaufort, Fellows, Leake, Texier, etc.; Vomaschek ἢ fstorische
Topographic von Kleinasien tin Mittelalter (Wien, Akad.
Sitzungsver. 1891); Ramsay St. Paul the Trav. pp. 298, 319.

W. M. Ramsay.

MYRRH.—Two words in Heb. are rendered in
AV ‘myrrh.’ 41.15 mér. The LXX tr. it vari-
ously: σμύρνα (Ex 30" ete.), xpdxevos (Pr 7 B),
στακτή (Ca 1 ete.). The Arabs call it γῆ; ΤῈ
is a gum resin from Balsamodendron Myrrha,
Nees, a shrubby tree, which grows in Yemen and
the adjacent regions of Africa. The leaves are
ternate, with obovate, obtuse leaflets, denticulate
at tip, and the fruit ovate, smooth, somewhat
larger than a pea. Wurr occurs in pieces of
irregular form, composed of more or less agelu-
tinated tears, usually covered with the dust caused
by their attrition. The colour varies from pale
reddish - yellow to red or reddish-brown. The

* Des τὴν Κρήτην δεξιὰν λαβέντας, z.7.4., Lucian, lc.
t The same passage is referred to in vol. ii. p. 449.

MYRTLE

MYSTERY 465

odour is balsamic, and the taste bitter and acrid.
Myrrh is astringent, stimulant, and antiseptic. It
is used in medicine as an astringent and emmena-
gogue, and its powder is an ineredient of many
dentifrices. The tincture is used in gareles, and
the powder as a stimulant to foul and indolent
ulcers. It was one of the gifts of the Mavi
(Mt 2"). It was used as a perfume (Ps 45%, Pr eh
Ca 115 5°), for the purification of women (Est 23),
for embalming (Jn 19%), and as an anodyne (Mk
ee):

2. 3b Uét, oraxrh, stacte. This Heb. word is the
same as the Arab. didhan or ladhan, and the Gr.
Andavov or Adédavoy, Lat. Jadanum or labdanum.
This is a resinous exudation of various species of
Cistus (‘rock rose’), particularly (΄ villosus, bi
which grows abundantly along the coast and in
the mountains of Syria and Palestine. It is a
low shrub, of the order Cistinw, with pink, rose-
like Howers, in umbel-like cymes. The leaves are
elliptical to obovate-oblong, and more or less Wavy.
A drink like tea is made from the somewhat
aromatic Icaves. The exudation is sometimes
collected from the beards of goats. In Cyprus
men with leathern breeches go through the lad-
anum thickets, and the resin which adheres to

their garments is seraped off and moulded into |

rolls, It is also collected by a kind of rake or
whip, with a double row of leather thongs. It
has rubefacient properties, and was formerly a con-
stituent of warming plasters. dt is mentioned
only twice (Gn 37° AV and RV text
RVm ‘ladanum,’ 431 AV and RV ‘myrrh’).
Στακτή is mentioned in Sir 24", The Turks still
value it as a perfume. GB Fost:

MYRTLE (297 Adidas, hence 3277 Hidassah, the
Jewish name of Esther).—The Arabic has three
words for the myrtle, riidn, ᾿ς. and hadas, the
Jast of which is identical with the Hebrew. Hadas
occurs six times in the OT. In three of these
(Neh 815. Is 41!9 5513) the LXX has μυρσίνη, in the
rest dpéwy =‘ of the hills’ (Zee 18!) where the
translators must have had the reading D-97 instead
of wenn). The myrtle, Wyrtus communis, L., is
an evergreen shrub, usually from 3 to 4 ft. high.
Occasionally, in moist soil, it attains a height of
8 ft. It flourishes from the sea-level to an alti-
tude of 4000 ft. The southernmost range of
Lebanon is called Jebel Rihan, from the abund-
ance of this shrub on its flanks. It grows on
bare hillsides and by watercourses in beautiful
green clumps.

Being so low a shrub, it is quite improper to
speak of it as forming eroves. A variety is
cultivated, especially in) Damascus, which often
reaches a height of 10 or 12 ft., but never attains
the proportions of a tree. The translation ‘ myrtle
trees’ (Zee 15: 111) is unwarrantable, as the original
has not the word trees ‘yy (const.), but simply ΟΣ ΠῚ
=‘myrtles.’ The flowers are white, about an inch
broad, and of a delicate, pretty structure. The
berries are first white, and then’ turn to a bluish-
black. They are sweetish -astringent in taste,
and are much liked by the natives, who call them
hienblis, « corruption’ of hab cl-ds (‘the berry of
the myrtle’). The leaves are lanceolate, dark
green, and fragrant, especially when pressed and
rubbed between the thumb’ and fingers. ‘The
natives use them as follows :—(7) The dried leaves
are pounded in a mortar, sifted, and the powder
mixed with oil is used to anoint the bodies of
young infants, or the dry powder is dusted over
the surface to toughen’ the skin, and prevent
excoriations from the friction of the clothing.
(6) The beds of infants are sometimes stuffed with
the dried leaves, from a belief in their medicinal
irtue.

VOr.111s—320

‘myrrh,’ |

in the markets, but the writer has never seen the

flowers sold, nor has he heard of fragrant water

being distilled from them, as alleged by some.
Gr. OST

MYSIA (Μυσία) was the name customarily used
for the north-western part of Asia Minor, border.
ing on the Hellespont and the Propontis, and
hounded east and south by Bithynia, Phrygia,
and Lydia. The Troad is sometimes included. in
it, and sometimes distinguished from it. Under
the late Roman empire the name fell into disuse,
and Hellespontus was substituted for it as the
title of a province in the fourth and following cen-
turies, The boundaries were vague and undeter-
minable ; and the uncertainty led to the proverb
χωρὶς τὰ λ[υσῶν καὶ Φρυγῶν, applied to what cannot
be defined. Of places mentioned in. the sible,
Assos and TRoAs were in Mysia, ADRAMYTTIUM
on the border between it and Lydia. It formed
part of the Roman province Asia.

Mysia is mentioned only in Ac i678,
with Silas and Timothy, being prevented by the
Spirit from preaching in Asia, turned northward
with the intention of entering Bithynia, with its
great, populous, and civilized cities, hardly inferior
even to Ephesus ; but when they came so far north
as to be opposite Mysia (κατὰ τὴν Μυσίαν: for
this use of κατά compare Herodotus i. 76, Thuey-
dides vi. 65 and 104, Ae 27°; but see Blass on
Ac 167), they were ordered not to enter dithynia ;
and they then turned towards the west, passing
through but not preaching in Mysia, till they
reached the coast at Troas.

A tradition existed that, on this journey throagh
Mysia, Paul and Silas had founded a church ata
place named Poketos, between the Rhyndacus and
Cyzicns, as is mentioned in the Aeta'S. Phileteri
(Acta Sanctorum, May 19). This is hardly con-
sistent with Ae 167, but is not absolutely contra-
dictory, as, though not regularly evangelizing in
Mysia, it is clearly possible that Paul and Silas

St. Paul,

Sinteht convert individuals on the way either 2t

Both the berries and the leaves are sold | doubtless, in

Poketos or at Troas. But the tradition is late,
for the Acta Philetari profess to be only of the
4th cent., and may be later. An ancient Mysian
tradition existed, assigning to a certain ‘One-
siphorus the evangelization of part at least of
Mysia: Onesiphorus was martyred αὖ Parium
under the proconsulate of Adrian, and this date
is a strong proof of trustworthiness, for Adrian
was actually proconsul of Asia about Ἂν. 100-114.
It is unlikely that the recollection of so obscure an
officer could have been correctly preserved except
in a true old tradition: see Expos. Limes, 1898,
p. 495. W. M. Ramsay.

MYSTERY.—-The term ‘mystery’ opens up a
wide and interesting, thongh somewhat obscure,
field of inquiry to the Christian theologian. Much
of it is, however, extra-biblical, and must therefore
rather be indicated than discussed in this place.
We shall consider, first, the NT use of the word
μυστήριον ; second, the chief features of the Greek
mysteries ; and, third, the question how far the
latter influenced the language of the NT.

i. NT USE OF THE TERM Mva7ipeov.—The mean-
ing of this word in classical Greek was anything
hidden or secret, especially in the plural τὰ μυστήρια,
the sacred rites above referred to, from which all
who had not passed through a ceremony of initia-
tion were excluded. The root verb μύω is formed
by that act of closing the lips which it primarily
signifies (though it is applied also to the closing of
the eyes), and appears alike in the Latin mutus,
and our own (colloquial) ‘mum.’ ‘Mummery ἡ is
a curiously parallel formation to the Greek
‘mystery.’ They find their point of contact,
the mystery-plays of the Middle

466 MYSTERY

MYSTERY

Ages. The verb μυέω, most frequently met with
in the passive, means to initiate into the mysteries,
—oi μεμυημένοι ὁ the initiated, cf. 3 Mace 2°°,--and
then generally to instruct. St. Paul says, Ph 4”
μεμύημαι, RV “1 have learned the secret.’

That which is hidden or secret may, it is evident,
be (1) absolutely so, that is, in its own nature
inaccessible or incomprehensible, or (2) completely
hidden, that is, as yet unrevealed, or (3) partially
or comparatively secret or obscure, due to some
want of clearness in the medium of communica-
tion, as when the expression is figurative instead of
being literal.

The first of these, which is emphatically the
modern signification of ‘mystery,’ as that which
cannot be known, is practically foreign both to
Classical and biblical Greek. With regard to it,
Cremer (s.7.) quotes two remarks of the Scholiast
on Aristophanes (/tan, 459, Av. 1078) bearing ont
this statement; and though Lightfoot on Col 1°
apparently finds this meaning in two passages
(1 Co 1581. Eph 5), of which the one seems to fall
under (2) and the other under (3), he admits that
the ‘idea is quite accidental, and must be gathered
from the special circumstances of the case, for it
cannot be inferred from the word (μυστήριον) itself.’
This is not, of course, to say that in religion, in
the Christian religion itself, there are no difliculties,
nothing transcendental or mysterious in the ordi-
nary sense. On the contrary, such difficulties must
ever attach to man’s thoughts of the infinite and
the divine, but it is not upon these elements that
the attention of the biblical writers is concentrated.
If they are thought of at all, it is rather as the
unrevealed than the incomprehensible, the result
of seeing through a elass darkly, until the time
when man shall know even as also he is known. In
the third of the significations noted above, μυστήριον,
it has been remarked (Thayer-Grimm, Lewicon,
s.v.), like smand to in Rabbinic writers, denotes
the mystic or hidden sense, that which is conveyed
in a figure, parable, or vision.

‘It is plain,’ says Principal Campbell (Dissertations on the
Four Gospels, ix. pt. i.), that, in this case, the term wurry, ρον
is used comparatively ; for, however clear the meaning intended
to be conveyed in the apologue, or parable, may be to the
intelligent, it is obscure, compared with the literal sense, which,
to the unintelligent, proves a kind of veil. The one is, as it
were, open to the senses; the other requires penetration and
reflection, Perhaps there was some allusion to this import of
the term when our Lord said to his disciples, “ΤῸ you it is
given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to them
that are without, all these things are done in parables” (Mk 411).
The apostles were let into the secret, and got the spiritual sense
of the similitude, while the multitude amused themselves with
the letter, and searched no further.’

Thus we have the ‘mystery of the seven stars’
(Rev 129) and the ‘mystery of the woman’ (Rev
1177). The difficulty or obscurity is here of a sub-
jective character, while that in the case of the
second of the three senses which we have dis-
tinguished, and which is the most prominent
throughout the NT, is objective. In the case of
the latter, μυστήριον is correlative to ἀποκάλυψις,
the secret to the discovered or revealed. In so far
as revelation has taken place, the ‘mystery’ is a
knowledge of that which had been secret but is so
no longer; while yet unrevealed, ἀποκάλυψις is a
possibility only which awaits the time at which it
shall become actual and the hidden pass into
knowledge. The latter sense is naturally most
conspicuous in the passages of the Apocr. in which
the word occurs, whether referring to the secret
purpose or will of men (To 127 4, Jth 25, 2 Mac 137?)
or of God (Wis 953), or simply to secrets in general
(Sir 22°2 9710. 27. 3) In the NT the samme meaning
is perhaps conveyed in 1 Co 13? 14°, while in 1 Co
15°! μυστήριον ὑμῖν λέγω we see the mystery in the
act of passing out of the one stage into the other.

The great ‘mystery’ of the NT is the Divine

plan of salvation, hitherto hidden from the world,
but now made known in Christ (cf. Ro 11”, Eph 6,
Col 1°, 1 Ti 3%), In this sense the apostles
and ministers of Christ become οἰκονόμοι μυστηρίων
θεοῦ (1-Coi4t: cf, (Col. 2? 42, also Wal} 1 Co 24). Tit
is the ‘mystery of his will’ (Eph 1°), the ‘mystery
of God, even Christ’ (Col 2? RV), the ‘mystery of
Christ,’ that is, respecting Christ (Col 4°), the
‘mystery of the gospel’ (Eph 619), but everywhere
it is the ‘dispensation of the mystery which from
all ages hath been hid in God who created all
things’ (Eph 39), It is noteworthy that, out of 26
(or 27) occurrences of μυστήριον in the NT, 10 should
be within the comparatively brief compass of Eph
and Col. The saving purpose of God, hitherto a
mystery because unrevealed, is still such where it
is not yet received, as by those destitute of πίστις
or εὐσέβειω (1 Ti 85.536)... or in so far as it has not
been grasped, e.g. in its extension so as to include
the Gentiles (Eph 3° ἢ, Nor is the term contined
to Divine secrets. “Τὺ expresses sometimes those
of a different and even contrary nature. Thus the
apostle, speaking of the antichristian spirit, says,
“The mystery of iniquity doth already work”
(2Th 37). ‘The spirit of antichrist aath begun to
operate ; but the operation is latent and unper-
ceived? (G. Campbell).

An interesting point, and one full of significance
for the history of the Church, is the Vule. rendering
of μυστήριον by svcramention. This is found in Dn
215 46 To 19. Wis 2 Eph? ae 8 fe er
19. Upon Eph 5° is founded the doctrine that
marriage is a sacrament. The association of ideas
connecting the two words appears to be the refer-
ence to religion ard the use of the symbol, whether
in word or deed, Solemnity, awe-inspiring quality,
marked both the mystery and the sacramental
rite, whether we derive the latter from its legal or
its military reference. Both came to be used in a
very general and indefinite way, until the ecclesi-
astical sienilication of sacramention became fixed.
Their primary application, however, was obviously
the reason why ‘sacrament’ was first used of
baptism and then transferred to the Lord’s Supper,
while with μυστήριον the opposite process took
place.

ii. THE Greek Mysteries. — As the Jigher
thought of Greece found expression in’ its phil-
osophy, so, though all may not be true of them
which the later writers report, it may be said that
its deeper feelings found expression in the Mys-
teries. In these there was, first of all, an element
of tradition; they gathered up reminiscences of
nature-worship,--man’s witness to his sense of
dependence upon his natural environment,—and
particularly those elements of it which still sur-
vived in village custom and observance. But they
seem also to have fixed attention upon problems
of which nature-worship offered no solution—those
suggested by the enigma of death, a certain sense
of sin, the thought of an offended Deity, the need
of purification. It is still a question how much in
the development of these institutions was of native
growth, how much was derived from foreign
sources, and still more what these foreign
sources were. Leaving such discussions aside, and
also the tempting subjeet of Orphism, which is
‘credited with two great contributions to religion
—the belief in immortality, and the idea of personal
holiness’ (1... Campbell), we note Lobeck’s division
of the multitude of rites which passed under the
name of Mysteries into (1) civic mysteries, (2)
fanatical rites, whether public or private, and (3)
occasional functions, designed to meet individual
and special needs.

Belonging to the first class, and under the
patronage of the Athenian state, were maintained
two forms of the worship of Demeter, the earth-

ee es ae

MYSTERY

MYSTERY 467

—

mother—the Vhesmophoria and the Elcusinia.
The former were so called from the ancestral
precepts (θεσμοί) by which the observances were
strictly regulated. They constituted a festival of
seed-time, lasted four days, were essentially a
country rite; and those who took part in them
were married women, the fruitfulness of married
life being here, as elsewhere, associated with that
of the soil. The most remarkable and elaborate of
all the mysteries were, however, those celebrated at
Hleusis, certainly in the beginning of the 6th cent.
B.C.. and perhaps at a much earlier period. They
gathered up almost all the elements belonging to
such rites which elsewhere are found separately ;
with the worship of Demeter they combined that
of Dionysus ; and some of their most profound and
interesting features were probably derived from
the kindred Orphie Mysteries. The Eleusinia
included two annual celebrations — the Lesser
Mysteries held at Agra, a suburb of Athens, in
the month Anthesterion (roughly corresponding to
February), and the Greater observed at Eleusis in
the month Boedromion (September). The latter,
therefore, was the autumn festival, the hiding
away of the seed ; the former, the spring festival,
celebrating its reappearance ; the interval between
the two being mythologically represented as the
sojourn of Persephone, the daughter of Demeter,
in the under-world. Every one who desired to be
initiated at Eleusis had to pass through the cere-
monies at Agree, and probably a cycle of at least
four stages, including two visits to each place,
had to be observed. This might be spread over
several years, so that it was said: παῖς μύστης καὶ
ἐπόπτης avip—it bridged over the passage from
youth to manhood. The more important Mysteries
(those at Eleusis) were under the control of a body
of magistrates, but the active direction was taken
by the ἱεροφάντης, who must be a descendant of
Eumolpus, the Thracian bard, to whom the origin
of the Mysteries was traditionally attributed.
Candidates for initiation, having already qualified
at Agra, were called μύσται, and the leader or
instructor of a group of such candidates was the
μυσταγωγός. ‘The privilege of participation, at first
confined to Athenians, was afterwards extended to
all, women as well as men, except slaves, Persians
(the hereditary enemy, specially excluded), and
infamous or criminal persons. They took an oath
of secrecy, were subjected to certain ceremonial
restrictions in respect of diet and behaviour, and
received some sort of instruction which prepared
them for the experiences which lay before them.
In the ceremonies themselves, which lasted nine
days, from the 15th to the 28rd of the month,
‘four acts were distinguished : (a) κάθαρσις, the
preliminary purification ; (6) σύστασις. the rites and
sacrifices which preceded and prepared the way for
the actual celebration ; (6) τελετή or μύησις, the

initiation properly so called ; and (d@) ἐποπτεία, the |

last and highest grade of initiation’ (Gardner and
Jevons). Secrecy characterized only the last two
stages, One of the most interesting features of
the occasion was the sacred truce which was pro-
claimed at the beginning of the festival, and which
was usually observed, theugh circumstances led to
its abandonment during the latter portion of the
Peloponnesian war. In the celebrations them-
selves, only two points can be absolutely fixea—
the purification known as ἄλαδε μύσται (“70 the
sea, O myst’), which took place on the 16th of
the month, and the day of Tacchus, the 20th;
other features are more or less hypothetically
placed (Mommsen, Feste, p. 207).

The probable order was as follows: On the first.

day, called ἀγυρμός, the assembling, the μύσται

joined the group to which they were to be |

alluded to. On the second (the 16th) they went
in solemn procession to the seacoast and bathed
in the purifying waters. The third, fourth, and
fifth days were occupied with various sacrifices,
processions, and feasts. The last of these was
known as ‘the day of the torches,’ because in the
evening, just before sunset, the great procession of
the mystw, each group led by its δᾳδοῦχος, or
torch-bearer, set out for the temple at Eleusis,
where they seem to have spent the night in visit-
ing the places associated with the wandering of
Demeter in search of her daughter Persephone,
This procession divides what may be termed the
Athenian from the Eleusinian section of the
Mysteries. The sixth day (the 20th) was specially
sacred, and bore, as we have seen, the name of
Tacchus, who was identified with Bacchus
(Dionysus), and represented as the husband or
son of Persephone, his statue being borne in the
procession. The next two nights were occupied
with the higher stages of the symbolical cere-
mony. These included a further purification, a
progress through darkness unrelieved by either
moonlight or torchlight, whence the mystw passed
into the lighted interior of the Great Hall of
Initiation, where they were allowed to see and
handle certain sacred objects which nene but the
ἐπόπται (those who had received tinal initiation,
éromreia) ever beheld. It seems certain that there
were some representations of a dramatic character
illustrating the myths of the deities involved—
miracle plays, as we might call them, in which the
more profound lessons which those in charge meant
to convey were communicated. The return to
Athens was made in a jesting mood, both on the
part of the myste themselves and on that of the
general population, which may have been due to
the reaction from the strain and solemnity of the
preceding days. The ninth day was termed πλη-
μοχόαι from certain peculiar libations with which
the rite was brought to an end. Associated with
these libations was one of the mystical formulas
which were imparted in the course of the pro-
ceedings, were esteemed specially sacred, and
throw light upon the original character of the
festival. The ninth day formula was te, «ve—the
first a prayer for rain, the second for fertility ;
but the most notable of these sayings was that
connected with the ‘communication of the sacred
things’ (παράδοσις τῶν iepdv)—‘I have fasted: 1
have drunk of the potion: T have taken out of the
casket, and after having tasted 1 have deposited
in the basket: I have taken out of the basket
again, and have put back into the casket.’ The
combination of sight and sound, of rhythmic
movement, sacred association, mystic formula,
and, above all, the obligation of secrecy, must
have been deeply impressive, especially after being
long looked forward to, and being made the object
of careful preparation.

Later writers exaggerated many of the features
of the Mysteries, whether as Christians they re-
garded them with suspicion and detestation, or in
a wider interest supplemented by the help of
imagination what history had lett vague and
obscure.

‘High authorities,’ it has been said (lL. Campbell, p. 264),
‘whose gravity and depth of mind cannot be disputed, bear
witness with one voice to the elevating influence of the
Eleusinian Mysteries. Sophocles dwells emphatically on the
incomparable happiness of the initiated both in life and after
death ; and Plato, who had a far clearer vision both of God and
immortality than any child of Eumolpus, can find no more
fitting vehicle for his most transcendent thoughts than the
imagery which he borrows from the contemplation of the
Mysteries.’

This is not incompatible with the view that
little or nothing of positive doctrine was conveyed

attached, and received the instruction already in the Mysteries, from the symbolism of which

468 MYSTERY

MYSTERY

each man was left to take what he would, accord-
ing to the dictum attributed by Synesius ὕο
Aristotle—‘ He is of opinion that the initiated
learned nothing precisely, but received impres-
sions, and were put into a certain frame of mind.’
Much has been done by excavations and the
‘vareful examination of contemporary inscriptions
to throw light upon this interesting subject, but
much more in this direction must be accomplished
before we can claim to tread with confidence in a
region the character of which rendered it peculiarly
liable to be misunderstood and misrepresented.

iii. THe MyYsrertks AND THE NT.—That the
writers of the NT have derived much of their
language and imagery trom the Greek Mysteries,
and that a consideration of the different shades of
meaning in which μυστήριον is employed in the NT
indicates that they have in this reference their
unifying element, has been maintained with much
ability and ingennity by A. 8S. Carman in a paper
contributed to the Bibliotheca Sacra for October
1893. ‘The allusions which he recognizes in Seripture
are to the following features of the Mysteries :—

‘The word μυστήριον and other derivatives of the verb μύω ;
the word τελετή, or the allied adjective form τέλειος with the
idea of maturity or perfection; the word ἐτοστεία and its
derivatives with the associated idea of a personal experience
ot the Divine fellowship; certain specific allusions to the con-
trast of light and darkness with the derived ideas of enlighten-
ment, Wumination, and the like: the term si/ence; the ideas
of reservation and revelation of religious truth ; ideas associated
with the office of hierophant, kerux, mystagogue, and the like ;
and certain formal uses of the expressions touch, taste, handle,
behold,—associated with the mystic paradosis’ (p. 623).

Carman refers to similar allusions ἴῃ classi-
eal writers and the Church Fathers, but especially
in the works of Philo Judeeus, and then examines
the principal passages of the N'T, printing in italics
the wore: ia which allusion is supposed to be de-
tected. as in the following example: He 61 ‘ Let
us press on wnto perfection. For as touching those
who were once enlightened and tasted of the
heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the
Holy Ghost and tasted the good word of God, ete.,
where, on this assumption, reference is made to
‘the perfective aim of the rites, the characteristic
idea of enlightenment, the symbolic tasting, and
the participation in the Divine nature’ (p. 636).

The attempt thus to trace in the apostolic
Janguage direct allusion to the Mysteries is pro-
nounced by Anrich, in his careful and scholarly
treatise on the connexion of the Mysteries with
Christianity, to be ‘wholly unsuccessful’ (p. 143
note). This writer regards the approximation of
Christianity and the Mysteries, both in idea and
asage, as having been introduced by the Gnosties,
whose position in this respect Clement of Alex-
andria and Origen sought to legitimate in a
modified form within the Church. For the pre-
Gnostic use of μυστήριον and allied terms and
ideas he turns with Hatch (Fssays in Biblical
Grech, pp. 57-62) to Jewish literature, especi-
ally the apocryphal books of the OT. In these
‘the plans of a king or general are termed μυσ-
τήρια ; they are his secrets, in so far that no one
knows about them until he communicates them to
his subordinates or puts them into operation’
(Anrich, p. 144). ‘This,’ says Hatch, ‘was a
strictly Oriental conception. A king’s ‘ counsel ”
was his ‘“‘secret,” which was known only to him-
self and his trusted friends. It was natural to
extend the conception to the secret plans of God’
(Ρ. 58). Hatch apples this conception to the ex-
planation of the various passages in the NT, and
finds it sufficient in every case except the two
passages in Rev (1°° 177) and Eph 5%, where he
has recourse to the ‘light which is thrown back-
wards on the NT by Christian writers of the 2nd
cent.” (p. 59), in which light μυστήριον is seen to

have a certain parallelism to σύμβολον, τύπος, ΟΥ̓
παραβολή.

It is doubtless an excellent rule to interpret NT
language by reference to the LXX wherever pos-
sible ; it is to adduce a known cause where others,
however plausible or probable, have about them
more or less of uncertainty. But may not the
latter be unduly and unnecessarily ignored? If a
writer under ‘the constantly deepening impression
produced by prolonged study of the subject that
such allusions colour a large portion of those writ-
ines of the NT which had Gentile environment’ is
apt to push his theory too far, in accounting, for
example, for the allusions in Eph and Col by the
association of Ephesus with the impure rites of the
predominant Diana-worship and the fact that
Philippi was ‘ built upon the Thracian frontier, in
the pathway of the original course of the Mysteries
of Dionysus, and probably also of those of Demeter,
as they spread throughout Greece’ (Carman, p.
634; cf. Anrich, p. 144 note), may not another whose
immediate object is to demonstrate the influence
of the LXX underestimate indications of other
influences? At least a side reference to the heathen
Mysteries could scarcely be denied except upon the
supposition, in itself somewhat unlikely, that the
NT writers, and particularly St. Paul, were so
ignorant of the Mysteries that the term had only
its LXX association for their minds, or that the
Mysteries had altogether failed to colour by
imagery drawn from them the language of the
time. The cautious words of Kennedy (Sources of
NT Greek, p. 109) should be borne in) mind:
‘Several of the biblical meanings, though appar-
ently moulded by the Greek of the OT, may have
been common enough in the spoken language as
found in Egypt, Asia Minor, and Syria. When it
is borne in mind that there are literally almost no
remains of the later spoken language except the
LXX andthe NT, in addition to the Comic writers,
the supposition gains colour. At any rate, it shows
us that we are not at liberty to make dogmatic
assertions even in that sphere of the NT vocabu-
lary where the influence of the LXX appears most
powerful, the sphere of religious and theological
terms.’ That a writer like St. Paul, who alludes
to the Greek gaines, the Greek theatre, the Roman
camp, should have passed over a phenomenon which
offered so many suggestive points of view as the
Mysteries, is almost incredible. Hatch himself, in
his Hibbert Lectures, ascribes to them great in-
fluence upon the language and institutions of the
early Church. Clement of Alexandria sees and
makes explicit use of the parallelism (Protrept. ch.
xii.). Lightfoot (on Col 15) holds that there is a
connexion between the language of St. Paul and
the Mysteries, though he dwells on the ‘intentional
paradox,’ that while ‘the heathen mysteries were
strictly confined to a narrow circle, the Christian
mysteries are freely communicated to all.’

If Lightfoot were right in finding in Col traces
of an incipient Gnosticism, and if, as Anrich says,
the relation between the Greek Mysteries and
Christianity began with Gnosticism, the special
frequency of reference to the Mysteries in Col and
Eph, already noted, would acquire a new signifi-
cance. But it 1s fair to say that the present trend
of opinion is to follow Hort in giving a Judaic
rather than a Gnostic interpretation to the heresies
referred to in these Epistles. The tendency to re-
gard the Mysteries as ignored in the NT is possibly
due in part to a disinclination to find in them any
formative influence upon primitive Christian insti-
tutions. For such influence at this early stage it
is not contended here ; later, as Cheetham remarks
(Mysteries, p. 74), the concern is not with words,
but things. But, as he also says, ‘ when Mysteries
were every where found, their terminology naturally

a a ay are

ye -.

TT os

NAAM

AAMAN 469

came to be commonly employed, and to be applied
to matters altogether foreign to its original usage.’
The question is whether the analogy between the
experiences of Christians and those who had under-
gone the mystic initiation was sutliciently close
and striking to account for the former being ex-
pressed to some extent in terms of the latter even
in the apostolic age. It must be admitted that
the balance of authority on this point is somewhat
doubtful; we must wait, as already remarked, for
further light from inscriptions and other sources
upon the usage of the time before it can be de-
finitely decided. Meanwhile it cannot be called
illegitimate, as it certainly is an enrichment of NT
language, to surround such words as μυστήριον,
τέλειος, ἐπόπτης With associations derived from so
important an element of contemporary Greek life
as the Mysteries.

LiTreRATURE.—A great deal has been written upon this sub-
ject. Its modern treatment dates from the publication of the
Aglaophamus of C. A. Lobeck in 1829. One of the most recent
books is Canon Cheetham’s Hulsean Lectures—The Mysteries,
Pagan and Christian, in the preface to which a good account
of the most important works is given. Special reference mar
be made here to W. M. Ramsay’s article in Hneyel. Brit., 9th
ed., to the chapters on the Mysteries in Gardner and Jevons'
Manual of Greek Antiquities (1898); in Jevons’ Introduction
to the History of Religion (A896) ; and in Professor L. Campbell's
Religion in Greek Literature (A898). Compare also Mommsen’s
Feste der Stadt Athen in Alterthum (1898), a revision of the
same author’s Heortologie; Anrich’s Das antike Mysterieniwesen
in seinem Hinjluss auf das Christenthum (1894); and Wobber-
min’s Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der Beeinjlus-
sung des Urchristenthums durch das antike Mysterienwesen
(1896). For the use of μυστήριον in the NT sce Cremer’s Bidlico-
theological Lexicon; Thayer-Grimin’s Lexicon; Principal ἃ.
Campbell’s Dissertations on the Gospels, ix. pt. i. 3 Hateh’s
Essays in Biblical Greek ; and Cariman’s article, Bibliotheca
Sacra, vol. 1. pp. 613-639.

A. STEWART.

N

NAAM (cy3).-—The eponym of a Calebite family,
1 Ch 415 (B Noou, A Naau).—See GENEALOGY, LV.
δύ.

NAAMAH (n2y3‘ pleasant’; Noewd).—1. Sister of
Tubal-cain, daughter of La.iech and Zillah (Gn 455;
Josephus, Ant. 1. 11. 2). 2. One of Solomon's
Ammonitish wives, and mother of Rehoboam (1 Kk
1451. [B* Maaydau, A Νααμά]"} [Gr. 1274, B Naavav],
2Ch 1918 [Noouud]). According to the second Greek
narrative, which follows 1 kK 12, she was the

daughter of Ana, 7.e. Hanun, son of Nahash, king |
of the Ammonites (2S 10'%+, where, however, B |
If Rehoboam were forty-one at his —

reads ᾿Αννών).
accession (1 kK 14, and not sixteen as in the
second Greek account, Naamah must have been
married to Solomon before the death of David.
Nida (Da. Wad Ce
NAAMAH (7793; Νωμάν; Ime. Nowa; Vulg.
Neema).—A town of Judah in the lowland or
Shephélah, named in conjunction with Gederoth,
Beth-dagon, and Makkedah, and forming one of
a croup of sixteen (Jos 15°41), There is no notice
of it elsewhere. Zophar the Naamathite (nty:z)

is mentioned in Job (2!! ete.), but there is nothing

to connect him with this town.

It is proposed to identify Naamah with Δ᾽ πολ
(SWP it. 408); Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and Mak-
kedah being respectively identified as AKatrah,
Dejiin, and el-Mughdr (‘the caves’), villages on
the northern border of Judah near Ekron and
Jabneel. Naneh is a small mud village on low
ground 6 miles south of Ludd (Lydda).

C. WARREN.

NAAMAN (7253; BA Ναιμάν ; Luc. Neeudy; NT

Neeudv (TR), Ναιμάν (WH) =‘ pleasantness,’ perhaps |

the name of the god Adonis [Lagarde, Sem. 1. 32],
ef. o3oy3 yes ‘plantings of Adonis,’ RVm of Is Le
where see Dillmann-Kittel’s note).*—4. A Syrian
warrior known to us only through the remark-
able cure of his leprosy by the prophet Elisha,

recorded in 2 kK 5, and referred to by our Lord |

asa rebuke to Jewish exclusiveness, and an illus-
tration of the anomalous manifestations of divine
mercy (Lk 4:7). According to the Midrash, Naaman
was the man who at the battle of Ramoth-gilead
‘drew his bow at a venture’ (1 Κα 22"), and inflicted
on Ahab his fatal wound—a tradition apparently
accepted by Jos. (Ant. VII. xv. 5), who describes
Wi aia ad further the name °D)3 (Naomi) in the Book of
uth, .

‘the areher in question as παῖς δέ τις βασιλικὸς τοῦ
᾿Αδάδου, ᾿Αμανὸς ἔνομα. But this identification may
have been a mere conjecture, due to the statement
in2 Καὶ 5! that ‘by Naaman J” had given deliver-
ance (4338) unto Syria,’—an expression which may
naturally be held to refer to the battle of Ramoth-
gilead, since the issue of that engagement is ex-
pressly attributed in 1 K 22%" to the counsel of
J” (although G. Rawlinson [in Speaker's Comm. ]
would rather connect it with Syrian successes
against Shalmaneser 11. [Ane. Mon. il. 344, 361)),
on the general principle recognized (nearly a
century later) in Am 97,

With regard to the date of Naaman’s visit te
Israel as a suppliant for ‘deliverance’ of another
sort, the sequence of the narrative would lead us
to suppose that Ben-Hadad was king of Syria at
the time; but no indication is given of the interval
that had elapsed since Ahabs death, to enable
us to determine who was king of Israel. Ewald
(H1 4) prefers the reign of Jehoahaz, and Schenkel
(Bib.-Lewx.) that of Jehu. But the general view
that Jehoram was king seems more probable, in
view of the recent Syrian raids (2 K 57), the pre-
carious friendship between the two kings (νν." 7),
and the prevalence of paganism and unbelief (νῦν,
ΓῸΣ ena accel

The miraculous character of Naaman’s cure
exposes it in some degree to the objections taken
to Elisha’s life as too ‘thaumatureic.” Noéldeke
(Schenkel’s Bib.-Lex.) comments on the absence of
antecedent faith on the part of the sufferer, and sees
no sien of spirituality in his conversion ; but it is
only the outstanding features of the incident that
have been preserved to us, and on the whole the
miracle must be acknowledged to be one of the most
dignified in the life of Elisha. Even assuming that
there was an ancient Semitic belief in the eflicacy of
running waters as a cure for leprosy, we find some-
thing analogous to this in the miracles of the NT
(Jn 9°, Mk 8%). The narrative is ‘thoroughly in
keeping with the state of things in the time of
Elisha’ (Kittel, Hist. of Heb. ἃ. 279). Its portrayal
of Naaman’s character is natural and lifelike. It
does not conceal his pride and irritation at the
slight offered to himself (2 Καὶ 5!) and to his country
(v2 Damascus being famous for its noble streams),
which was designed doubtless to induce a more
humble and reverent spirit in his approach to the
| God of Israel (cf. vv.>;*"). Yet on the whole it
| depicts a manly and attractive character, which

470 NAAMAN

NABAL

won for him the sympathy of the little Jewish
maid who was the first to suggest his cure at the
hands of Elisha, the warm friendship of his
sovereign, Who spared no expense (the gold and
silver sent with Naaman are generally estimated
at upwards of £10,000) and lost no time in seeking
to obtain the remedy, and the affectionate de-
votion of his servants, who were anxious for his
welfare and knew how to appeal to his better
judgment. One of the most striking features of
his character is his sense of gratitude (cf. the
healing of the ten lepers in Lk 17>"), which led
him to retrace his steps from the Jordan to
Samaria, a distance of nearly 30 miles, to thank
and reward his benefactor, and to devote himself
henceforth to the worship of the God of Israel,
which he does with a strength and decision ef
faith that has scarcely any parallel in the lan-
guage of Gentile converts in the OT. This was a
fullilment of the hope expressed by Elisha (2 Καὶ δὴ).
and justified the lofty attitude which he had
assumed towards Naaman when he communicated
with him only by messenger, bidding him wash
seven times in the Jordan, showing, by this absten-
tion from personal intercourse as well as by his
refusal of the gifts customary at heathen oracles
(Herod. i. 14.50) and not forbidden to the prophets
of J”(1S 99, 1 Ix 147, 2K 4 ct. Mt 108, Ac 8”),
how little he had in common with the artful and
obsequious sorcerers familiar to Naaman and. his
master (2 K 5% 21),

There are two points in which Naaman’s conduct
has given rise to controversy, viz. (1) his request
for two mules’ burden of earth to carry away with
him for the purpose of offering sacrifice to J”; and
(2) the ‘lesire to be forgiven when he attended
his royal master as heretofore in the temple of
Rimmon and bowed down with him. With reeard
to the first, Naaman simply shared the universal
belicf of those days, that the god of each land
could be served only on his own soil; ef. the com-
plaint of David (1S 26!) that he was being driven
out to serve other gods. Further, the transporta-
tion of earth from the Holy Land in the Middle
Ages for the Campo Santos of Italy; the erection
of a Jewish synagocue (to which Calmet refers in
Comm. Lit. vol. ii.) at Nahardea in Persia, com-
posed entirely of stones and earth brought from
Palestine; and even the preference shown for
water from the Jordan in Christian baptisin, are
instances of a similar feeling in later times.

the obeisance in the house of Rimmon, on the
part of Naaman (which he wished to be condoned),
was purely external, arising out of his official
position and his personal relation to the king (‘he
Jeaneth on my hand,’ cf. 2 Καὶ 7?:37), we see that it
does not really imply any attempt to dissemble his
convictions, and that his appeal to Elisha may be
more reasonably attributed to a sensitive con-
science than to a spirit of compromise. There is
therefore no warrant for drawing a parallel he-
tween Naaman and those who from worldly
motives profess a faith and conform to a worship

led to much irrelevant discussion,
art. ELISHA in vol. i. p. 695".

In many respects the story lends itself with
singular aptitude to the illustration of evangelical
and sacramental doctrine; and the passage has
been frequently so employed in homiletical litera-
ture.

2. According to Gn 462!:°6 (ef. Nu 264), one of
‘the sons of Benjamin’ who came with Jacob into
Egypt, but more precisely designated in Nu 26%: 40
and 1 Ch 8", ef.) asa son of Bela and grandson
of Benjamin, and as head of ‘the family of the
Naamites’ (Nu 26, where is probably a

See, further,

As

to the latter point, when we bear in mind that |

textual error for 3273; so Sam., ef. LXX Noeuavet),
See NAAMITE. J. A. M‘CLymonv.

NAAMATHITE (:n2y3, ὁ Μ(ε)ιναίων βασιλεύς, ὁ
M(e)watos). — The description of Zophar, Job’s
friend, in Job 2", 11! ete. The name is unknown
elsewhere, the rendering of the LXX being hy po-
thetical only. The name Na’amah (‘pleasant-
town’? is not infrequent in Syria and Palestine
of later days. It indicates a town in the Shephelah
in Jos 154, W.T. Davison.

NAAMITE (*>2:7).—The patronymic of a family

descended from Naaman, who is represented Nu

| of Jos. Ant. XVII. iii..1).

26" as a grandson of Benjamin, but in Gn 462! as
son, though the LXX agrees with Nu(see NAAMAN,
No. 2).

NAARAH (=; ‘cirl’).—4. One of the wives of
Ashhur the ‘father’ of Tekoa, 1 Ch 45" (B Θοοδα, A
Noopd, Luc. Noepd). 2. A town belonging to the
tribe of Ephraim, Jos 167 (πρην»5, with = locale ;
Ὁ αἱ κῶμαι αὐτῶν as if for main, A Νααραθά, Luc
‘Avaipada). AV has Naarath (so also Dillm. and
Buhl). The same place is called in 1 Ch 725 Naaran
(73; B Νααρνάν, A Νααράν). According to the
Onomasticon (Lagarde, 283. 142), there was a village
Noopa# 5 Roman miles trom Jericho (cf. the Neapa
This would suit well the
ruin ¢e/-duje situated on the river of the sane
name. Guerin places the site farther up the river
at es-Sdameie.

LITERATURE. —Gueérin, Samaric, i. 210 ff., 226 f.; PEF Mem. ii
3925 Neubauer, Géog., du Tati. 163; Buhl, GAP 131; Dillm.,
Jos. ad loc. J. A. SELBIE.

NAARAI (73; B Naapai, A Noopd). —One of
David's heroes, 1 Ch 11°7, descrilied as the son of
Ezbai. In the parallel passage, 2S 23”, the name
is Paarai, who is called ‘the Arbite’ (247). It is
impossible to decide with any contidence between
the rival readings yi and “ye, or to say what is
the relation of ‘ziyj2 to ‘awa. See ARBITE,
EZBAT. PAARAT, and cf. Kittel’s note on 1 Ch 1b?
in “ΟΊ.

NAARAN, NAARATH. See NAARAH, No. 2.
NAATHUS (A Νααθύς, B Λάθος), 1 Es 9°1.—One of

the sons of Addi. The name seems to correspond
to Adna in Ezr 103, The form in B is due to con-
fusion of Aand A, and to attaching the initial N
to the preceding word (Αδδείν),

NABAL (533, Na8a\).—S. of Hebron lies one of the
few fertile stretches of Judiea, where the soil, less
stony than usual, succeeds in covering the limestone
skeleton of the country (cf. G. A. Smith, Hist.
Geogr. p. 305 f.). In this distriet, which was
settled by the clan Caleb, were clustered Maon,
Ziph, and Carmel, on the last of which Nabal lived
as a sheepmaster. So it can be understood why,
according to Jos. (Ant. VI. xiii. 6), he was a Ziphite,

according to 1 8 25° (LXX) a Carmelite, according
in which they do not believe—a view which has |

to ν." a Calebite. His shepherds drove the flocks
(8000 sheep and 1000 goats), at the suitable season,
to pasture on the uplands of Carmel. Annually
the sheep-shearing was celebrated with a feast
‘like the feast of a king,’ v.°, The farmer was of
considerable wealth, but of a surly and niggardly
temper.

In the desert adjoining this district, David,
seeking refuge from Saul, arrived. Living in the
wilderness of Maon (so read with LXX for Paran,
v.!), he and his men subsisted by levying blackmail
from the sheepmasters of the richer plateau above
them. Irom these they exacted a certain tribute
in return for their services in protecting the grazing

ee

τ

NABARIAS

NADAB

flocks against the wandering Bedawin of the desert.
Accordingly, at one of the shearing-feasts 10 men
appeared from David’s camp to require this tribute.
But Nabal was ‘flown with insolence and wine,’ and
sent back an insulting taunt about the increase
of masterless men in the district. His servants,
knowing their master’s intractable character too
well to interfere directly, appealed to his wife, who
had woman's wit enough to see and instantly to set
about averting the danger. Abigail, having loaded
several asses with (probably) something more than
the expected tribute, set off to seek David. She
met him already on the way to execute signal
vengeance. Her subtle flattery (which suegested
that one so ‘senseless’ [n@bal, see Driver, Par.
Psalt. 457) was not worth his anger), her gifts,
perhaps herself, softened the leader, and he returned
to his camp gratefully acknowledging that she had
caved him from a crime. Inthe morning the shock
of discovering what peril he had run, following on
his over-night debauch, frightened Nabal into some
kind of fit, from which after a few days he died.
Thereupon Abigail became wife to David.
A. C. WELCH.

NABARIAS (B NaSapeias, A -pi-), 1 Ex 9", appears
to correspond to Hashbaddanah in Neh δὲ (7723
for 737207).

NABATHEANS (οἱ Χαβαταῖοι, 1 Mac 5° 9°5).—See
NEBAIOTH.

NABOTH (niz3, NaSovdai).—A native of Jezreel,
who in the time of Ahab owned land near that
town. Atthat period Jezreel was the residence of
the kings of Israel (1 Καὶ 18%, 2 kK 8539), having prob-
ably risen into importance through Ahab's policy
of allying himself with Phoenicia. Naboth’s land,
which he cultivated as a vineyard, lay close to the
royal palace (1 K 21', Heb.) or threshing-floor (7b.
LXX). The statements are compatible, since the
palace at Jezreel was near the city wall (2 K 9°).
On this piece of ground Ahab cast covetous eyes,
since it lay convenient to his own property.
Accordingly, he approached Naboth with the offer
either to purchase his vineyard or to exchange
it for ground of similar value. But, whether he
was attached by sentimental ties to his family
property, or whether he was governed by an
unwritten custom that land should descend in
the same tribe and house (ef. Nu 36), Naboth
declined the proposal (1 kK 915). Ahab, himself
a Hebrew who understood his people's temper,
was about to desist, however unwillingly (v.4);
but Jezebel, a foreigner with Phomnician ideas of
royal authority, overruled him to grasp with the
strong hand. She used his authority to have
Naboth falsely accused of speaking evil of God and
the king, and stoned to death by the local authori-
ties (νὴ. The deed made a lasting impression
upon the popular mind. Elijah pronounced doom
upon the tyrant (v7); and the deaths of Joram

and Jezebel, which took place at the hands of |
Jehu near this very spot, were reearded as Divine

retribution upon the guilty house (2 K 9% 9),
In 1 K 22 (R) and by Jos. (Ant. VIEL xv. 6) it is
even stated that, when Ahab’s body was brought
home from Ramoth-gilead, his blood was washed
trom the chariot by the pool of Jezrecl.

This incident has many points of interest. It
gives a tantalizingly inadequate glimpse into the
existence of local tribunals in Israel at that period.
It serves to prove the power of local customs, which
none but the strongest kings dared override (con-
trast Josiah’s conduct, 2 K 23). It shows how
the opposition against Ahab’s house arose from
social as well as religious feelings, and that
prophets like Elijah were inthuenced by such
feelings. It gives, too, one of the sources from

—_—_—-—

which sprang such condemnations of the kingdom
5.1. 5: 8.05:

LITERATURE.—Kittel, Hist. of Ieb. ii. 269; W. R. Smith,
Proph. of Isr. 77, 87; Cornill, Isr, Prophetisinius, 32 f. 5 Well-
hausen, Comp. d. Hea. 287. A Ce WELCH:

NABUCHODONOSOR (NaSovxodov0cdp).—The Gr.
form of the name Nebuchadrezzar (which see).
This form is retained by RV in the following
passages in the Apocrypha: 1 Es 14%, Ad. Est 11",
Bar 2. In ΤῸ 14% and throughout the Bk. of Jth
the name is given as Nebuchadnezzar,

NACON.—-The threshing-floor of Nacon (7523 713 ;
B ἅλω Νωδάβ; BY ἁλῶν (sic) Ὥδαβ; A adrwuevos
Ναχών ; Vulg. area Nachon) is mentioned as the
place where Uzzah the priest was slain for laying
hold of the ark, when it was being brought trom
Kiriath-jearim to the ‘city of David’: owing to
this mishap, the spot was re-named Perez-uzzah by
David (2 8 6°), Klostermann, however, comparing
the use of the word Nacon (j237>x Vine ‘to a set
place’) in 1S 23%, treats it as an appellative, and
renders ‘to a fixed threshing-floor’; but this is
very improbable. On the analogy of other place-
names (see Wellh. and Driver on 2 8 6°), the second
word should be a proper name; possibly, the
parallel passage (1 Ch 13°) has preserved the more
original form, viz. CHIDON (719 [133]; ἢ τῆς ἅλωνος ;
A adds Χειλών). See CHIDON.

J. F. STENNING.

NADAB (273).—1. (Nada) the eldest son of Aaron
(Ex 62, Nu 3? 26" [all ΡΊ, 1 Ch ὁ} feb. 54 241),
Along with his father, his brother Abihu, and
seventy of the elders of Israel, he accompanied
Moses to Sinai, and ‘saw the God of Israel’ (Ex
241-9 [probably JJ); was admitted, along with his
three brothers, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, and
their father Aaron, to the priestly oflice (Ex 28}
[P]); and on the very day of his consecration (Ly
10" compared with ch. 9) he and Abihu perished
(Ly 10! 2, Nu 8: 26°! [all PJ, 1 Ch 945) for offering
‘strange fire’ (Aq ey, LXX πῦρ ἀλλύτριον), 1.0.
strange to the requirements of the law. Wherein
the transgression of Nadab and Abihu is supposed
to have consisted is not clear. It is often suggested
that ‘strange’ fire means fire taken from a common
source instead of from the altar (ef. Ly 16, Nu 177?
(Eng. 16"}) Dut, as Dillm. remarks, in that case we
should expect in Ly 10! not my ex ΞΡ but sm
‘Tes jaa. Perhaps esx should be taken in the sense

of 7x ‘an offering made by fire.’ in which case the
| offence may have lain in presenting an wnantho-
rized (cf, DDN 73 x5 agg, “which he commanded them
|
|
|
|
|

not, ν 1) offering. It is possible at the same time,
but not certain (see Dillm.), that the writer may
have had in view the prescriptions of Ex 307%
regarding the offering of incense. In-v.* Ovhieh,
however, probably belong to a later stratum of P)
Aaron and his surviving sons are forbidden to
mourn for the victims of the Divine judgment.
There is not the slightest warrant for the idea
(found in the Midrash and in Aphraates, fom. 14,
and repeated even in modern times) that the prohi-
bition (v.*=) against the use of wine or strong
drink by priests on duty implies that Nadab and
Abilu were intoxicated when they committed
their fatal offence. Any superficial plausibility
which this notion might derive from the context is
entirely taken away by the circumstance that v.**
are really a fragment, having no connexion with
δ ον Oliva:

2. A Jerahmeelite family name, 1 Ch 2°: 3
(Χαδάβ). 3. A Gibeonite family name, 1 Ch δ (B
"4648, A Χαδάβ) -- 959 (BA Nadas).

4, A king of Israel, son of Jeroboam, 1 Καὶ 145 (A
᾿ Χαβάτ; the passage is wanting in B). He reigned
| for two years (ὁ. 915-914 B.C. ), 15%, While enraged

ς--

472

NADABATH

NAHOR

in besieging Gibbethon, which was then in the
possession of the Philistines, he was assassinated
by Baasha, who seized the throne and extirpated
the dynasty of Jeroboam, v.27, | [In yy.227 B
has Ναβάθ, in v.*! Ναβάτ, while A has in all these
passages Ναδάβ, J. A. SELBIE.

NADABATH (A Ναδαβάθ). --- An unidentified
town (7), east of the Jordan, in the neighbourhood
of which a wedding party of the sons of Jambri
was attacked, and many of them slain, by Jona-
than and Simon the Maccabees, 1 Mae 987%,
Fosephus (Ant. ΧΙ. i. 4) gives the name as Γαβαθά
(ef. δὲ Παβαδάν) ; Syr. has Nubath; Vulg. Wadaba
(1.¢. Medeba), as in preceding verse.

NAGGAI (Nayyai, AV Nagee).—An ancestor of
Jesus, Lk 3%. It is the Greek form of the Heb.
name 733 Nogah (which see).

NAHALAL (55n3, in Jy 1% S433 Nahalol).—A town
of Zebulun (Jos 191), given to the Levites 21°, Its
inhabitants were not expelled by the Zebulunites,
but were made tributary, Je 180. In all these three
passages the LXX readings are corrupt (Jos 191
[where AV has incorrectly Nahallal]: B Βαιθμάν,
A Νααλώλ; Jos 215: B Σελλά, A Δαμνά; Je 1: B
Δωμανά, A ᾿Εναμμάν). The place seems to have
been unknown in the 4th cent. A.pD. A suitable
site is‘Ain Mahil, north of Nazareth, on the hill
which formed the limit of Zebulun to the east,
above the plateau of Tabor belonging to Naphtali.
Another site which has been advocated (e.g. by
Schwarz, Knobel, van de Velde), is Malu, a
village west of Nazareth, and on the south border
of Zebulun. The towns of Zebulun are so little
known that either site becomes possible. The
substitution of .WZ for V is not uncommon.

LITERATURE.—SWP vol. i. sheets ν. vi. ; Guérin, Galilée, i.
387 ἔν ; Dillm. on Jos 1980 ; Neubauer, Géog. du Tali. 189.

C. R. CONDER.

NAHALIEL (dxebns “torrent-valley of God’; B
Mava(va)y\ [the letters in brackets are inserted
above the line], A Νααλιήλ ; the word is imperfect
in F; Lue. Naya; Vule. Nahelicl).—A station
in the journey from the Arnon to Jericho (Nu 91}
[JE] only), either Wady Waleh, a N.E. tributary
of the Arnon (see Bliss’s map in PLFESt, 1895,
p. 204, and ef. p. 215), or the Wady Zerka Main,
farther north, which runs into the Dead Sea (see
G. A. Smith, HGHL Ρ. 561 f.). The name does not
occur in the itinerary of Nu 33.

A. T. CHAPMAN,

NAHALLAL, NAHALOL.— See NAnarat.

NAHAM (073). — The father of Keilah the
Garmite, 1 Ch 419 (B Χαχέθ, A Naxéu, Lue.
Naovu).

NAHAMANI (:3273).—One of the twelve heads of
the Jewish community, Neh 77 (B Naewavei, A
Ναεμανί, Lue. Nauavi), omitted in the parallel
passage Ezr 25. In 1 Es 5° he is called Eneneus
(RVim Enenis; B“Evyvus, A ᾿Εννήνιος, Lue. Neyavi)

NAHARAI (01: ; Tedwpé ; Naarai).—The armour-
bearer of Joab, a native of Beeroth (25-2270). Τὴ
the parallel list (1 Ch 1159) the name is written
Nahari (773; B Naywp; A Naapai; AV, RV
Naharai), the form given by the AV at 9 § 23%,

NAHASH (ὑπ: ‘serpent,’ Nads).—It is probable
that all the passages in which this name is found
refer to the same individual. He was king of the
Ammonites at or before the beginning of Saul’s
reign, and did not die until David had been some
years established at Jerusalem (2S 10], 1 Ch 19!).

Such a length of reign is quite possible even if we

(Jos. Ant. VI. xiv. 9, Ac 1331), but there are many
indications that this estimate is excessive. It wag
‘about a month after’ Saul’s election by lot at
Mizpah (18 1027 LXX, reading w7h22 for w4nD2, so
Jos. Ant. VI. v. 1) that Nahash made that attack
on Jabesh-gilead which called forth all Saul’s
latent capacities as a leader, and thus vindicated
to all Israel the choice of the Lord. The later nar-
rative, on the other hand, implies (1S 12") that the
attack of Nahash had been the immediate cause
of the people’s demand for a king. ‘This discrep-
ancy nay be solved, of course, by supposing that
Samuel refers to Nahash as having been a standing
menace to Israel, and that the invasion of 1S 11
had been preceded by many similar incursions.
Josephus (Ant. γι. v. 1) takes this view, and says
that Nahash was in the habit of putting out the right
eyes of all Israelites beyond Jordan that came into
his power, ‘that when their left eyes were covered
by their shields they might be wholly useless in
war.’ The same writer asserts (Ant. VI. v. 3) that
Nahash was slain on this occasion; but that is
merely his inference from the completeness of the
Ammionite defeat. We are not told anything more
about Nahash until the notice of his death (28
10" *), where we learn that he had ‘shown kindness
to David in time past,’ probably after he left
Achish (1S 215), and because they were both
Sauls enemies (so Jerome, Qu. Heb., in loe., and
1 Ch 193. Again, when David was at Mahanaimn,
‘Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the chil.
dren of Ammon’ was one of those who befriended
him (28 17:7. There seems no reason why we
should suppose with Ewald (/// iii. 185) that’ this
Nahash was only a member of the royal house,
and not the king himself. These two notices seem
to indicate some special connexion of Nahash with
David, and lend some confirmation to Stanley's
theory that the mother of David and his brothers
had been originally wife of Nahash the king, and
mother of Abigail and Zeruiah (2 5 172);* see J ESSE.
It is fair to add that Wellh. (Zeat d. BB Sam.
p. 201), followed by Gray (Heb. Prop. Names, 91),
regards v7; 12 as a textual error introduced from
Ὁ ΠΣΞ of v.27, which itself he thinks probably stood
originally in the margin. Budde (SBOT, ad loc.) is
inclined to think that Wellh. may be correct, al-
though he himself emends em; to Ὁ" (Jesse), which
agrees with the facts (cf. 1 Ch 2!) and is supported
by Lue. ᾽Ιεσσαί. N. J. D. WHITE.

| accept the tradition that Saul reigned forty years

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

NAHATH (nc3).—41. A ‘duke’ of Edom, Gn 3618.
(A Nayou, Ds! E Νάχοθ) 7 (A D Νάχοθ, E Νάχωρ) =
1 Ch 1 (B Νάχες, A Νάχεθ). The clan of which he
is the eponymous head has not been traced. 2. A
Kohathite Levite, 1 Ch 6%6l4eb. 1] (BA Katvaé, Lue.
Νάαθ), called in v.24 Toah, and in 1 S 1) Tohu.
Kittel (on 1 Ch 6% in SBOT) holds this last to be
most probably the original form of the name (so
also Driver, eat of Sam. p. 3). As Kittel points
out, nA might readily be corrupted into either in
or nna, and the latter again into nn3. 3. A Levite
in the time of Hezekiah, who was one of the over-
seers, under Conaniah and Shimei, in charge of the
oblations and tithes and dedicated things, 2 Ch 31%
(B Maeé, A Naed). J. A. SELBIE.

NAHBI (1273, B Ναβεί, A Na8d).—The name of
one of the twelve men sent by Moses to spy out
the land, Nu 134. He was the representative of
the tribe of Naphtali.

NAHOR (π|; LXX and NT Naywp: in AV Jos
3245, Lk 3%, Nachor).—1. The grandfather of Abra-
ham, son of Serug, and father of Terah (Gn 11°2-24

* Another explanation makes of Nahash a female name, sup-
posing her to be the mother of Abigail.

eee ΚΡ ΟΝ ΟΝ

a νὰ ἐς νναενδει

NAHUM 473

NAHOR
Pe Gh. Uk 8) 2. Grandson: of “the —pre-
ceding ; son of Terah, and brother of Abraham

ance Hara. (Gt Π| ob αὐ θ. The τὰ 1»
(J) he is said to have married Mileah, the dauehter
Of tits) brother “Hara: “and im 227-7) twelve
sons of Nahor are enumerated, viz. eight by
Mileah : Huz,—i.e. ‘Uz, RV Uz, the people of
Jobs fatherland,--Buz (the tribe of Elihu, Job
32°), Kemuel (the father of Aram), Chesed, Hazo,
Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel (father of Laban
and Rebekah ; cf. Gn 24): 4-47 29%) ; and four by a
concubine Reumah: Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and
Maacah. In 241° (J) ‘the city in Aram-naharaim
to which Abraham's servant goes to tind a wife
for Isaac, de. (27% 294) Haran, is called the ‘city
of Nabor’; and in 31° (JE) Laban, in concluding
the covenant with Jacob, on the borders of Gilead,
appeals to ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of
Nahor,’—the God, that is, or rather, perhaps, the
gods,* of their respective ancestors,—to Judge be-
tween them. These are all the passages in which
Nahor is mentioned. His ὁ sons” are certainly in
several cases (see Buz, “Uz, ARAM, HAzo, TEBAH,
MA ACAH, CHESED),+ and probably in most, not
individuals, but tribes (ef. ISHMAEL, vol. i. p. 503),
504%; JACOB, p. 533?— ὅθι. ): heis thus the unit from
which were derived by the Hebrew genealogists a
group of Aramiean tribes, resident on the E.
N.E. of Canaan, just as other groups of tribes
were derived from Ishmael (Gn 25!*!), or from
Abraham's concubine WKeturah (25'4). Whether
or not Nahor was an historical individual, must
remain an open question: his relationship to
Abraham, whether real or assumed, served in
either case as a measure of the degree of relation-
ship which was held to subsist between the tribes
referred to him and the descendants of Abraham
(cf. above, dd.ce.). If the name be not that of an
individual, it will naturally be that of a lost tribe,
resident once about Haran in Mesopotamia, of
which the ‘sons’ of Nahor were regarded as off
shoots, and recollections of which were preserved
by the Hebrews (cf. Ewald, Hist. 1. 310 f., 268 f.) :
in this case, the marriage of Nahor with his niece
Mileah will represent the amaleamation of two
kindred tribes (Dillm. on Gn 115, who compares
161 91: 367%). As contrasted with Abraham, the
ancestor of the Israelites (and EKdomites), Nahor
appears as the ancestor of a group of Aramean
tribes,t the most prominent members of which (on
account of their connexion with Isaac and Jacob)
are LABAN and Rebekah. The contrast between the
two parallel branches appears plainly in Gun 31%
(quoted above), and Jos 24° ‘ Your fathers dwelt
of old time beyond the River, even Terah, the
father of Abraham, and the futher of Nahor: and
they served other gods.’ The allusion in the last
cited passage is to the common home of the
ancestors of the Abrahamidee and Nahoridee,
‘beyond’ the Euphrates, 1.6. in Aram-naharain,
‘Mesopotamia,’ between the Euphrates in the
upper part of its course, and the Habor (now the
Khabour), inwhich was the ancient and important
‘city of Nahor’ (see above), the site of which is
well known (see HARAN). There seems, it may
be added, to be much probability in Dillmann’s
view (on Gn. 11284! 19! ef. 244-7) that, according
to J, Haran was the native and not merely the
adopted home of Nahor and Abraham (cf. above,
vol. i. p. 15). S. R. DRIVER.

* The verb ‘judge’ is in the original a plural (though this, in
view of Heb. usage, does not absolutely settle the question) ;
cf. also Jos 242end, The words ‘the God of their father’ (.e.
of Terah), which in the Heb. follow awkwardly after ‘judge,’
are not in LXX, and are very probably a gloss, designed to
identify expressly the God of Abraham with the God of Nahor.

t In the genealogical scheme of P (Gn 1155. 2), Aram (the
Syrians) and ‘Uz are placed differently.

t Observe the epithet, ‘the ace ok

applied to both
Bethuel and Laban, Gn 2520 985 3120. 24

NAHSHON (j'n3 [meaning doubtful} ΤᾺΝ and
NT Naao(c)wv), brother-in-law of Aaron, Ex 6% P,
descendant in the 5th generation from Judah,
1 Ch 2%, and prince of the tribe of Judah, Nu 1? ὧν
7217 10 P, is mentioned as one of the ancestors of
David, Ru 4%, 1-Ch ον, and of Christe Mt 1%,
ΤᾺ Ὁ

NAHUM.—
i. Name and Place in the Canon.

ii. The Prophet's ida ποῦς

iii. Contents of the Book of Nahum.
iv. Integrity and Authenticity of the
y. Occasion and date of chs. 2 and 3.
vi. General characteristics of chs. 2 and 3.

Literature.

i. NAME AND PLACE IN CANON.—The Book
of Nahum occupies the seventh place in the list
of the so-called ‘Minor Prophets’ in the second
division of the OT Canon. Its twofold title (Nah
1') αὖ once indicates the subject-matter of the

300k.

book, ‘the oracle* of (concerning) Nineveh
(RVin), and furnishes us with the sum of our

knowledge regarding ‘the book of the
vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.’ In our canonical
Scriptures Nahum is not elsewhere mentioned ; in
extra-canonical Jewish writings he is referred to
in 2 Es 1” and by Josephus, who gives (Ant. ΙΧ
Dal bah Niese, § 239 ff.) a free rendering of Nah 2°),
anid assigns to him an impossible date (see below).

Several persons bearing the name Nahum are
known to later Jewish history —among them an
ancestor of Joseph of Nazareth (Lk 355), and a
well-known teacher of the 2nd cent., ‘ Nahum
the Mede’ (for whom see Bacher, Die Agada der
Tannaiten, 1. p. 359), more than once cited in the
Mishna (λα. ii. 1, ete.). Another Nahum is
there described as a seribe or copyist (ap2°a = libel-
larius, Peah, ii. 6). Traces of still another have
been discovered by Clermont -Ganneau (‘ Epi-
graphes heb. . sur des ossuaires juifs,’ in lev.
Archéol, Ser. 11. t. 1. No. 41). The name appears,
also, to have been not ἀπο ΔΚ ΘΝ among the
Phoenicians (see Baeckh, C/G ii. 2: CIS 1. No.
12328. 13),

Nahum (an nahhwin—in some codices and
editions less correctly on3 na@htin—LXX and NT
Naovu,inJosephusand C7G (above) intlected Ναοῦμος,

its author,

-wov, Vule. Nahum) signifies primarily ‘full of
consolation or comfort,’ + then, perhaps, * com-

forter, consoler’ (Jerome, consolutor), and is prob-
ably contracted from the fuller form ἃ AA 18
full of consolation’ (cf. mon; Nehemiah, and the
later Jewish name 903, Clermont-Ganne: w, Scemue
et cachets isratlites, No. 42 [1883]).

THE PROPHET’S BIRTHPLACE.—Of the per-
sonality of the prophet, as has been said, nothing
whatever is known} beyond the description of
him in the title of his book as the Elkoshite
Cepona, LXX ᾿Βλκεσαῖος, Vule. Lleeseeus), that is,
in all probability, as a native of Elkosh.g The
OT, unfortunately, gives no clue to the situation
of Elkdésh. Four sites have been proposed at
various times and with varying degrees of proba-
bility. (1) As a product of medieval fancy, we

tA
veils

* This rendering of 83D ‘utterance, oracle’ (cf. the common
expression ?)p N¥'3 ‘to lift up the voice’) is certainly prefer-
able to the AV and RV rendering ‘ burden.’

+ The form nahhiim is intensive (see Gesenius-Kautzsch, Heb.
Gram. 1898, ὃ 845, 9), from the intensive stem of DM) ‘to com-
fort, console.’ The common adjectives pq ‘full of pity,’ O30
‘full of compassion,’ support by Sista the rendering given
above, in preference to an original substantival signification,
“consolation, comfort’ (so Orelli and others). From the same
root are derived several other proper names, such as Nehemiah,
Menahem, Nachman, ete.

t The numerous legends that gathered round his name have
been collected by Carpzov in his /ntroductio, iii, 886 ff.

§ The Targum renders ‘yp m3 as if Nahum were ‘of tha
family of Koshi.’

474 NAHUM

NAHUM

may dismiss the identification of Elkésh with
the Christian village of Alkish, about 27 miles
(c. 48 kilometres)* due North of Mosul, where the
tomb of the prophet is still shown (see Layard’s
description in Nineveh and its Remains (1849), i.
233). This identification, according to Assemani,
does not date beyond the 16th cent. of our era,
and is, moreover, easily accounted for by the sub-
ject-matter of the prophecy, just as the tomb of
Jonah, whose book also deals with Nineveh, is
shown at Nebi Yunus to the South of Mosul. (2)
Equally inadmissible is the view of Hitzig and
Knobel, that Elikosh was the original name of the
town which in the Ist cent. bore the name of
Καφαρναούμ (so the best authorities, see CAPER-
NAUM), te. probably 122 ‘the village of
Nahum,’ since, apart from the somewhat pre-
carious etymoloey, there is nothing in the genuine
portion of the Book of Nahum (see below) to
suggest a Galilean origin for its author. The
objection of the Sanhedrin, moreover, expressed in
the words, ‘Search and see that out of Galilee
ariseth no prophet? (Jn 7°? RV), could scarcely
have taken so emphatic a form had Capernanm
been associated in the popular mind with ow
Nahum, (3) A similar objection applies to the
identification, dubious on other erounds, which we
owe to Jerome. In the prologue to his com-
mentary on Nahum, he writes : ‘ Helkesei + usque
hodie in Galilwa viculus [est], parvus quidem et
Vix ruinis veterum :edificioruim imdicans vestigia ;
sed tamen notus Judivis, et mihi quoque a cireum-
ducente monstratus.” The hamiet which was
pointed out to Jerome by his guide as the ancient
Elk6sh is generally identified with the modern
Elk6ézeh in Northern Galilee, a short distance to
the north-east of Ramieh. (4) Inasmuch as the
date of Nahum’s propheey—long after the fall of the
Northern Kingdom (see below)—rather points in
the direction of a Judivan origin, the most probable
location of Elk6sh is that furnished by a collection
of traditions known as the Lives of the Prophets, for-
merly ascribed to Epiphanius, from A.D. 367 bishop
of Constantia, the ancient Salamis, in Cyprus.

mee

cin

This curious work exists in a double form, Greek and Syriac.
The former was first published as a genuine work of Epiphanius
by Torinus in 1529, in more recent times by Migne (vol. xliii.),
Tischendorf (Anecdota Sacra, ete., 11855, 21861), Hall (Journ.
of Soc, of Bibl. Exegesis, June 1886, p. 29ff.), and, from two
fresh MSS, Nestle (Die dem Epiphanius zugeschriebenen Vite
Prophetarum in doppelter Recension,t pp. 16-85). As to the
Syriac form of these traditions, we find them not only appended
to the respective prophets in Paul of Tella’s Syriac translation
(616-617 A.D.) of Origen’s Hexaplar text of the Greek OT (see
Ceriani’s Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ainbrosianus photolithoaraphice
editus in his Vonumenta Sacra, etc., vol. vii. 1874), but ina more
or less independent form in various quarters (sce Budge. The
Book of the Bee (1886), 741%. ; Nestle, Syriae Grammar [1559],
Chrestomathy, S6ff. ; translated, Budge, (bid. 69 ff. + Hall (from
a Philadelphia MS) in Journ. of the Soc. of Bibl. Hey. (1887 |,
28 fF.).§

The portions of the Vite Prophetarum relating
to Nahum have been edited in Greek and Syriac
with full critical apparatus by Nestle (op. cit.
431.). The former, in the oldest MS from ‘the 6th
or 7th century,’ begins thus: Ναοὺμ ἀπὸ ᾿Βλκεσὶ πέραν
τοῦ ᾿Ισβηγαβαρὶν φυλῆς Συμεών, which corresponds
to the Syriac: ‘Nahum was from Elk6sh (in the
country) beyond Béth Gabré (#723 m2) of the tribe
of Simeon.’ || Now Beth-Gabré, the Betogabra of

* So, according to the latest map of this district by Colonel
Billerbeck, in the joint monograph by Billerbeck and’ Jeremias
on ‘The Downfall of Nineveh and the Prophecy of Nahum of
Elkosh’ (see the Literature at the end of article).

+ This form of the word is itself suspicious, since it pre-
supposes the LNX form of the adjective ᾿Ελκεσαῖος.
= f 4 separate off-print from his Marginalien und Materialien,

$93.

§ For further details as to the origin and relation of the
recensions see the exhaustive investigation of Professor Nestle
(cited above), which the author kindly put at the present
writer’s disposal for the purpose of this article.

|| Nestle was the first to call attention to the important bear-

cee

Ptolemy, is beyond question the modern Beit.
Jibrin, the ancient Eleutheropolis—about half-
way, as the crow flies, between Jerusalem and
Gaza-—an identification confirmed by the variant
on ma (= Home of the Free) found in some of the
Syriac MSS (Nestle, op. cit. 44, and the Chresto-
mathy, p. 89). Unfortunately, the uncertain
authorsnip of the work in question prevents us
from regarding the above statement as a genuine
local tradition, as would have been the case had
the Livres of the Prophets been a genuine work of
Epiphanius, who was born near Eleutheropolis,
and there ordained a presbyter. Still we do not
hesitate to characterize this tradition as the most
credible of the four here adduced. Nahum was
thus, it is allowable to infer, a fellow-countryman
of Micah, whose native place, Moresheth (Mie 1),
according to Eusebius and Jerome, lay a little to
the east of Eleutheropolis.

11, CONTENTS OF THE Book oF NAnuM.—The
gennine oracle of Nahum is preceded by a psalm
(17-213) which still bears manifest traces of an
criginal alphabetic or acrostic arrangement (see
next section), It begins by asserting the qualities
and attributes of J” as ‘a God jealous and aveng-
ing? (1°; cf. RVm), passing into a fine description
of the effect on the world of nature when 91"
appears for judgement on His enemies (vv. δ. δὴ, Ὁ
To those, however, who truly wait upon Him,*+
J” is true and faithful (v.7). In the second part of
the psalm (v.""), where the original alphabetic
arrangement has largely disappeared, and where the
present text is in some places extremely corrupt,
the poet announces the destruction of the enemies
of Judah; the yoke that has pressed so long and
so heavily on the necks of God's people shall be
broken, the enemies’ gods cast down, and they
themselves brought to an utter end. Already the
bearer of the glad tidings is speeding over the hills
of Judah (1° [ Heb. 917); the final restoration of J’”’s
land and people is at hand (2? Leb. 3) +

In chs, 91:5. 319 we have the eenuine ‘oracle con-
cerning Nineveh.’§ It consists of two parts, cor-
responding to the present division of the chapters.
(4) The lirst part may be described as a triptych, in
which, with a few bold and etlective strokes, the
prophet-artist has painted in succession the siege,
the capture, and the final overthrow of Nineveh,
with its resulting desolation. First of all he por-
trays the approach of the besiegers in scarlet
uniforms and with steel-mounted |) chariots (2! 5),
then the stubborn fights in the outplaces and
broadways without the walls (v.4). On this fol-
lows {I (y.°) the hurried muster of the troops within,
the rush to the walls to place in position the engines
of defence (7; see MANTELET).** But the imme-
diate source of danger is elsewhere, for the pro-
tecting dams and sluices are burst open (v."); the
result is panic in the palace, which is immediately
ing of the Syriac reading in the ZDPV i. 122 ff. A translation
of his communication appeared in the PLE'St, 1879, p. 136 fi.

* In ν δὲ in place of the obscure and irrelevant 72\p (MT) the
parallelism requires us to read with most of the VSS 1272
(Buhl, ZATW v. 1813 cf. Davidson, in Zoc.). ;

+ Adopting the reading of the LXX τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν Ξε ὙὙ}Ὁ
(La 325; cf. Ps 253 697).

j The references in the sequel to ch. 2 follow the verse-
numeration of the EV, which is one less throughout than
in the Hebrew.

§ The words, ‘Thus saith J”,’? now found at the head of 122,
are probably part of the original introduction to the oracle.

{| A conjectural rendering (cf. RV), the meaning of the
original n793 being unknown. The AV rendering ‘torches’
rests on a mistaken etymology.

“1 The proposal of Billerbeck and Jeremias to insert ch. 312-15
between 24 and 29 is quite unnecessary.

** Heb, 9257, lit. ‘the coverer,’ RV ‘mantelet,’ apparently
a military terminus technicus. An elaborate and technical
account of the Assyrian ‘siege artillery,’ both for attack and

defence, with numerous illustrations, is given in Billerbeck and
Jeremias’ monograph already cited.

NAHUM

NAHUM

stormed, and the queen (?)* captured and carried
off amid the lamentations of her maids (v.7). In
vain is every effort to rally the panic-stricken
defenders (v.5); the city is given over to be looted
by the victors (v."). ‘The final tableau shows
the climax of the catastrophe. Nineveh has dis-
appeared! Where stood the queen of cities there
is now a ‘wild and weary waste’ (if thus we may
imitate the alliteration (70h vmncéhikah timeébul-
lakah) of the original, v.'); to the prophet’s
unteigned delight, the Assyrian, once brave as a
lion and as cruel, has passed away for ever (v.!"),

(ὁ) In ch. 3. the prophet, enamoured of his theme,

returns to fill in certain details of the overthrow |
of this ‘city of blood’ (v.!), and furnishes us with —

a graphic word-picture of the final attack (vv. %)—
‘Hark! the whip! Hark! the rattle of the wheels ;
And (see !) the prancing steeds and the bounding chariots,
The horsemen charging (Ὁ),
And the flash of the swords and the-glint of the spears,
And the masses of the slain and the heaps of the dead.’

And why has this fate overtaken Nineveh?
Because of her unprincipled diplomacy, her har-
lotries, and her witchecratts (ν. ἢ. As punishment,
she will be exposed like a vulgar adulteress to the
gibes and insults of the nations she has so long
oppressed (vv. ἢ. Lhe prophet further dwells
complacently on the thought that, in Nineveh’s
hour of doom and shame, there will be none to
comfort her or to bewail her (v.7). Let her not
think she will fare better than No-amon, the
mistress of Upper Eeypt(v.s!). With the measure
wherewith she meted out cruelties unspeakable to
the Eeyptian capital, it shall be measured to
Nineveh in her turn (v.!"). For her fortitied out-

posts, with their effeminate defenders, already fall |
before the invader as readily as ripe figs fall into |

the mouth of one who but shakes the laden fie-
tree (v.!2). Now is the time to prepare for the
sieve. ‘To the mortar-tub and the brick-mould’
is the prophet’s sarcastic call (v.!4)! The countless
merchants of the city, a heterogeneous and un-
patriotic throng, vanish as locusts vanish with the
morning sun, And thus, to the accompaniment of
a universal song of joy on the part of all that have
suffered at her hands, the city of blood makes her
final exit from the stage οἵ history (v.!").

iv. INTEGRITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE
300K. — Until a very few years ago the authen-
ticity of all three chapters of the Book of Nahum
was regarded as beyond suspicion, even by scholars
so ‘advanced’ as Kuenen (Onderzoch, ti. $75), Well-
hausen (Skizzen uw. Vorarbeiten® [1898], p. 155), and
Cornill (indeit.* 1892, p. 188). Since 1880, how-
ever, in various publications (ZD A/G xxxiv. 5591F.,
Carmina Vet. Test. metrice, 212, etc.)
in this following out indications given by Frohn-
meyer and Franz Delitzsch—had maintained that
Nah 1°6 was in reality an alphabetic poem, whose
original structure was easily recoverable by means
of various slight alterations and transpesitions
(see esp. ZDMG, ut supra). Tn 1893 ἃ more suc-
cessful attempt was made on the same lines by
H. Gunkel in Stade’s ZATW (xiii. 2231f). In
this essay Gunkel succeeded, in the present writer's
opinion, not only in proving more conclusively
than Bickell had done the existence in vv.2" of
a clearly designed acrostic arrangement for the

* The word of the original, ayn, is still unexplained (AV, RV
as a proper name, Huzzab, but see margins).
already 8nD9D ‘queen.’ Seeart. Huzzan. The following sn>yr
should perhaps be read 75ny7 and understood as a loan-word
from Assyrian, like 1050 317 and prob. ΕΣ
‘watcher’ (see Jensen’s review of Billerb. and Jerem, in Theol.
Ltztg. 1895, p. 507).
etellitu, ‘a lady (of rank).’

p. 202, and more in detail PSBA xx. (May 1898) p. 173 ff. ‘An |

Oracle of Nahum’; cf. Bxpos. Times, vii. (1896) p. 568, viii.
p. 48

siekell— |

The Targum has |

ib. = massarit, |

It would then correspond to the Assvr. |
See BP. Ruben, Acadeniy, 1896, |

first half of the Hebrew alphabet (x to δ), bat in
establishing a strong probability that the same
arrangement for the second half (2 to n) originally
appeared in the verses following (1%-2* of the
Hebrew numeration, see footnote above). Bickell
has since issued a much improved edition of his
restoration (Beitrage zur Semit. Metrik:, 1894, being
an olf-print from the Sifzungsberichte of the Vienna
Academy of Sciences), which in its turn has sug-
gested to Gunkel a few emendations, incorporated
in a note to his Schopfung u. Chaos (p. 1201.)
Finally, Nowack in his commentary (see the Litera-
ture at end of article) has adopted, and in’ some
points has still further improved upon, the results
of his predecessors. As regards the opening verses
at. least (νν. 3), the chaneves which the acrostic
scheme demands are not more numerous or more
radical than those required in several of the other
alphabetic poems of the OT, as we propose to show
(see small type below). An alphabetic psalm,
however, must by its very nature be complete ;
hence we do not hesitate to affirm that in Nah 12-2
we have the remains of an acrostic psalm, of which
the first nine verses (Ν to 8) have suffered little,
the next four or live (* to 3) considerably more, and
the rest (0 ton) so much that their restoration
‘can never be more than an academic exercise,’
—words which A. B. Davidson has applied rashly,
as we think, to the whole of ch. 1. Each of the
_ twenty-two verses consisted originally of two lines
each, each line containing, as a rule, three or four
accented words,

The following brief note will sufficiently indicate the plan of
the psalm: the N-verse consists of v.28 of the MT, 1.6. of two
lines of four words each, vv. 90. 8a (ΠῚΠ) being probably part of

the and 3 verses introduced here by an editor to qualify the
general statement in v.28 (Nowack). The 3-verse, two lines of
three words each, extends from 75103 to end of v.28; the j-verse
=v.4a also of six accented words. At v.4ba 7 is needed, and
here the VSS certainly had two different verbs, which renders
the first $Sox suspicious ; read perhaps 997 (Gray, Cheyne) or
3n7 (Now.). The 7 - verse = v.58, }=v.5b; for 1 it is only
necessary to transpose V2)1 to the head of 6 and read ys Η
n=6>,»=7a. For * we would propose to read 7" (cf. Ps 1388),
or, as hitherto proposed, delete 1 of 7 in v.7>, Now in all
these ten verses, involving only one serious interference with
| MT, we have surely something more than chance coincidences,
/ namely, a conscious design which cannot be explained by the
‘fact that the author allowed himself here and there and per-
haps hulf accidentally to follow the alphabetic order’ (Driver,
Expos. Times, ix. (1897), p. 119—review of Nowack’'s Kleine
Propheten).

Reearding the author of this psalm, we ean only
say that he lived at some period of the post-exilic
history,+ when the yoke of the heathen pressed
heavily on the people of God, whose coming to
judge the oppressor and vindicate His own could
not be tone delayed. The poem, it was felt αὖ ἃ
later period, fithy expressed the general principle
of God’s avenging justice, of which the destruction
of Ninevelh was the most striking concrete ilustra-
tion. Accordingly, it was prefixed as an appropriate
introduction to the genuine ‘vision of Nahum the
Elkoshite.’

v. OCCASION AND DATE OF Cus, 2 AND 3.—The
prophecy itself provides us with two fixed points
between which its date must fall. These are the

* The English-speaking student will find a very lucid account
of the proposals of these scholars, with some original sugges-
tions, in G. Buchanan Gray's article, ‘The Alphabetical Poem
in Nahum,’ Earpositor, Sept. 1595.

+ The artificiality of the acrostic form is generally supposed to
point to a late rather than an early date for the poems which
show this construction. If our psalin is really post-exilic, then
ja (Heb. 311) is taken from Is δῖ, Other parallels, such as 17
, (restored. text) = La 325 11ὅ0 (712 De) = Ps 618, partake too much
| of the nature of theological commonplaces to permit of an
assertion of borrowing on the one side or the other, while almost
all the points of contact adduced by older commentators (sce
| esp. Strauss, Vahwmni Vaticin., Prolegom. xv f.) are quite
' illusory.

476 NAHUM

NAHUM

capture of No-amon (Thebes, 38%) and the down-
fall of Nineveh itself. Regarding the former
event, our ferminus a quo, there need be no
hesitation in identifying it with the capture and
destruction of the capital of Upper Egypt by
Assurbanipal in B.C. 664-663 (see Schrader, COT
u. 1491; Tiele, Bab.-Assyr. Geschichte, ii. 149 ΗΠ.
An event of such far-reaching consequences for

the Western world would long remain tresh in the |

minds of men, so that it is quite unnecessary,
because of its mention by Nahum, either to assign
the prophecy to a date B.c. 660 (so Schrader, Joc.

οὐξι, and Orelli), or with Wellhausen (Shizzen, ete. |

v. 160) to suggest whether the prophet may not
refer to some later capture, regarding which
history and tradition are alike silent.

With regard, in the next place, to the ferminus |

ad quem, We are now in possessien, since 1895, of
native cuneiform testimony to the manner and
date of the final overthrow of Nineveh. In the

course of his excavations in a mound near Hillah |

(Babylon), Father Scheil came upon a semicircular
stele of Nabonidus (B.C. 555-538), now in the
Imperial Museum at Constantinople (publ. by
V. Scheil in Maspero’s Recueil de Travauc, οἵοις

1896, livr. 1, 2; 1. Messerschmidt, Die Inschrift.

der Stele Nabonwids, 1896; summary by Johns in
Expos. Tomes, vii. (1896), p. 360f.; also, with illustra-
tions, by C. J. Ball in Light from the East, 1899,
p. 212 ff. ; cf. A. B. Davidson, Nahwm, ete. 137 f.).
In this inseription it is expressly stated that ‘the
aid of the king of the Umman-manda folk ’—that
is, either the Medes alone, or a mixed follk of which
the Medes were the predominant constituent *-—
was invoked by Marduk, the great god of Babylon,
in order to avenge the insults offered to him by
the Assyrians in the days of Sennacherib. The
Medes alone ave credited with the destruction of
the cities and temples of Assyria (column ii.),
which agrees with the well-known statement of
Herodotus (1. 103 ff).

The date of the fall of Nineveh is also, for the
first time, fixed for us within narrow limits. In
col. x. Nabonidus informs us that the temple of
the moon-god Sin αὖ Harran (which had been
destroyed by the Medes about the same time as
Nineveh) was restored by him fifty-four years after
its destruction. This restoration, as we know
from another inscription, took place in the third
year of Nabonidus’ reign (B.C. 553). Hence we
obtain 607 as the date of the destruction of Harran

and—sinee Nineveh was doubtless the last to fall |

before the Medes — B.c. 606 as the nearest ap-
proach to the date of the fall of Nineveh.

These, then, are the two fixed points, viz. B.C.
664-663 and B.C. 606, between which the prophecy
of Nahum must he placed. The upper limit, it
will be seen, is fatal both to the earliest tradition
known to us, according to which Nahum prophe-
sied 115 years before the fall of Nineveh (Jos.
Ant. IX. xi. 3), and to the conclusions of older
scholars, such as Pusey, Nigelsbach, δέοι, who
placed the prophecy in the reign of Hezekiah or
the earlier years of Manasseh.

Another factor, which was of the greatest
moment in former attempts to fix more definitely
the date of our prophecy, must now he set aside,
namely, the supposed references in ch. } to the
political and religious condition of Judah under
the later Assyrian kings.t This chapter, we have
seen reason to believe, is no part of the genuine
prophecy of Nahum—a conclusion which disposes

* See Messerschmidt, p. 71 (a general term for northern peoples,
tneluding the Medes); Del. HWB p. 87>. According to Ball, op.
ert, p. 208 n., the Umman-manda are the ‘ Medes’ of Astyages,
who appear, he adds, ‘to have been Iranian Scythians’ (2).

+ Such references were found in vy.9.11 (the ‘wicked coun-
gellor’), 13 (the heavy yoke [of Assyria?]), 15 (the religious zeal of
the Jews [under Josiah ?}), etc., see the commentaries.

at once of the views of two groups of seholars—
(a) those who, like Kuenen (Ouderzoek?, § 75),
Cornill (Hindeit.* 188), and Wildeboer (Die Littera-
tur d. AT, 1895, pp. 194, 197), lay stress on the
fact that the yoke of Assyria was still heavy on
the neck of Judah (113), and are therefore com-
pelled to postulate a date ἐς 624, after which time
the power of Assyria rapidly decayed, and Josiah
was able to extend his borders at her expense ;
and (4) those who, like Robertson Smith (art.
‘Nahum?’ in Lneye. Brit.”), basing too exclusively
on ch. 1, consider that the prophet had in his eye
no particular assailant of Nineveh, but based his
prophecy solely on the general principles of the
divine moral government. With ch. 1 falls also
the hypothesis advanced by the present writer in
1891 (Δ Burden of Nineveh’ in Good Words,
IS91, 741th )—and by H. Winckler independently
in 1892 (A/test. Untersuch, 1892, 124 1¥.)—based ona
study of the relations between Assyria and Judah
during the period in question, that the prophecy
is to be placed ὁ. 645 B.C., near the close of the
rebellion of Samas-sum-ukin, viceroy of Babylon,
against his brother Assurbanipal.

If, then, as we believe, chs. 2 and 8 alone con-
stitute the genuine prophecy of Nahum, th- task
of determining its date is very materially simpli-
fied, for the situation portrayed in these chapters
is scarcely open to doubt. It is the moment
between the actual invasion of Assyria by a hostile

Sorce and the commencement of the attack on its

capital, The ‘mauler’? or destroyer (adopting
with most moderns Michaelis’ reading ps2 for
7722) 1s already on the march (2! lHeb- *}) ; the frontier
fortresses have opened their gates to the foe (313,
where note the tenses). The latter, it is clear
(34-1), has not yet begun to invest the city. Such
was the situation when Nahum = received the
prophetic impulse to proclaim to the ‘city of
blood? (3!) that the cup of her iniquities was full
to overflowing. It is needless to attempt to dis-
entangle the statements of classical historians as
to the various attacks which Nineveh had to meet
during the last years of her existence. The whole
of the genuine prophecy palpitates with the con-
viction that the ‘utter end’ of the Assyrian is at
hand. The closing verses of the prophecy, in
particular, are strangely out of place, if the writer
has in view any other but the final attack by the
Umman-manda of Nabonidus’ stele. B.C. 608-607,
therefore, we consider to be the date of the vision
of Nahum, an approximation as close as is attain-
able in the case of any book of the OT.

Nothing in these chapters, we may add, compels
us to believe that Nahum was himself an eye-
witness of the scenes he so vividly portrays. Com-
munication, easy and frequent, lad Jong existed
between Nineveh and the tributary West-land,
whose inhabitants were therefore well acquainted
with her situation and defences. Such an ae-
quaintance, joined to a poet's intuition and a seer’s
prophetic insight, is sufficient for all the facts.

vi. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF Cus. 2 and
3.—The most striking characteristics of the poetry
of Nahum are its intense force and its picturesque-
ness. Although, as Dr. Pusey has remarked, it is
only in the original that ‘the grandeur, energy,
power, and vividnessof Nahum can be fully felt,’ still
even in an English dress no one can be insensible
to the onward rush of the movement in 2!, the
graphic word-picture of 37°, the aptness and force
of the figures of the lion and his cubs (2113), and
of the locusts’ flight (317, the pathos of 38, and
similar features. ‘ Of all the minor prophets none
seems to reach the sublimity, the fire, and the
daring spirit (audaces spiritus) of Nahum,’—sach
is the judgment passed on our prophet by Bishop
Lowth in his classical work on Hebrew Poetry

|
|
|

NAHUM

NAIN 477

* Of all the prophets,’ writes ἃ more recent autho-
rity, ‘he is the one who in dignity and force
approaches most nearly to Isaiah’ (Driver, 1.016
nou; ct, Kirkpatrick, Doct. of the Prophets, p.
250). It is unfortunate that in several passages
even of the genuine prophecy the text is uncertain.
The use by the prophet of so many apparently
technical terms (cf. G. A. Sinith’s list, Zhe 7'welve
Prophets, ii. 89) further helps to obscure his
meaning,

The direct teaching of the book is mainly con-
fined to ch. 1. Its leading thought we have
already seen to be the attribute of J” as ‘a God
jealous * (cf. Ex 20° 344, Dt 4) and avenging,’
who, though He suffer Jong, will assuredly ‘take
vengeance on bis adversaries’ (cf. Is 34° 634, Dt
32). The elaboration of this aspect of the Divine
nature serves to throw into higher relief the assur-
ance that follows—

‘The Lord is good to them that wait upon him (LXX).’
‘In the day of trouble will He deliver them.’ Ὁ
“(Yea) the Lord knoweth them that put their trust in hin.’

Passing to chs. 2 and 3, we note one important
respect in which Nahum differs from all his pre-
decessors in the prophetic office. His mind is so
full of the iniquities and impending punishment of
Nineveh, that he has no thought for the short-
comings of his own people. In this he presents a
stiiking contrast to his contemporaries, Zephaniah
and Jeremiah. Nahum’s heart, it has been said,
‘tor all its bigness, holds room only for the bitter-
nesses, the batiled hopes, the unappeased hatreds
of a hundred years’ (G. A. Smith, op. cit. ii. 90).
In ch. 3, especially, the prophet’s indignation
burns with a white heat as he lays bare the moral
gangrene at the heart of the Assyrian nation, the
moral atrophy which was the real source of the
weakness that made its sudden and complete
collapse without a parallel in history (ef. Strabo,
xvi. 1. 3: ἡ μὲν οὖν Nivos πόλις ἠφανίσθη παραχρῆμα,
x7.) Wanton bloodshed, inhuman cruelty,
commercial immorality, bad faith in her political
relations,—in his denunciation of these Nahum
gave voice less to his own personal conviction
than to the outraged conscience of humanity.
Assyria in his hands becomes an object-lesson
to the empires of the modern world, teaching, as
an eternal principle of the divine government
of the world, the absolute necessity, for a nation’s
continued vitality, of that righteousness, per-
sonal, civic, and national, which alone ‘exalteth
a nation.’

LITERATURE.—The older commentaries are discussed by O.
Strauss (see below); list of titles at close of art. ‘Nahum’
in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclop.? (1866). The chief modern commen-
taries are those on the Minor Prophets generally by Ewald,
Pusey, Keil, Hitzig-Steiner4 (1881), Orelli (in Strack and Zéck-
ler’s series, Eng. tr., T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh), Wellhausen
(translation and critical notes in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten,
pt. v. 8rd ed. [1899]) ; A. B. Davidson, Nahum, Habakkuk, and
Zephaniah Gn Cambridge Bible 1896—the best English com-
mentary); Nowack (1897); G. A. Smith, The Twelve Prophets,
vol. ii. (1898). Τὸ these may be added Farrar, Minor Prophets
(‘Men of the Bible’ series), and Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the
Prophets (2nd ed.). A detailed commentary on the military
references is supplied by the monograph of Ad. Billerbeck and
Alf. Jeremias, * Der Untergang Nineveh’s und die Weissagunes-
schrift. des Nahum von Elkosch,’ in Delitzsch und Haupt’s
Beitrige zur Assyriologie, Ba, iii., 1898, pp. 87-188. A complete
monograph, though now largely out of date, is that of Otto
Strauss, Vahiwmi de Nino Vatictniuim (1853).

For the more purely critical study of Nahum see the essays
of Bickell, Gunkel, and G. B. Gray, on ch. 1 cited in the body
of the article ; also P. Ruben, ‘An Oracle of Nahum’ [112-214], in
PSBA xx., May 1898, pp. 173-185. For the Versions in general,
L. Reinke, Zur Krittk der dilteren Versionen des Propheten
Nahum, 1867. For the LXX, Karl Vollers, Das Dodekapro-
pheton der Alexandriner, 1880, and Schuurmans-Stekhoven, De
Alexandrijnsche Vertaling van het Dodekapropheton, 1887, For
the Targum of Jonathan, in addition to Reinke, op. cit. p. 55 ff.,

* On the Divine attribute of jealousy see A. B. Davidson's
note on 1°. Ἶ
t Adopting Bickell’s restoration D2°s:.

see the critical edition with notes by M. Adler in the JQR vii.
1894, pp. 630-657. For the Syriac, M. Sebok, Die Syr. Ueber-
setz. ἃ. 12 klein. Propheten, 1887. A, 1}, S. KENNEDY.

NAIDUS (A Νάειδος, B Ndados), 1 Es 981, ap-
parently =Benaiah, Ezr 10%.

NAIL.—1. Heb. p5y, Aram. 15», Arab. zufr, a
finger nail, Dt 9}. Dn 4". In Jer 17! the word
refers to the diamond point of the graver or stylus.
2. πρὶ, Arab. watad, a pin or peg of wood, a tent
peg. In Syria tent pegs are usually of oak, very
roughly shaped and pointed. It was with one of
these that Jael treacherously murdered Sisera, Je
421% (see Moore, ad loc.). In Ex 9715 it is said that
the pegs of the tabernacle were of copper. In old
houses in Lebanon wooden pees are driven into
the walls of rooms, so that articles may be sus-
pended on them. Sometimes the pin is drawn out
by the weight of the article hune on it, having
been driven into a mass of clay, used as mortar,
between the stones of the wall. The ‘nail ina sure
place’ (Is 22**: *) is one wedged firmly between two
stones. 3. 1909 (ποῦ Eo 12"), Arab. misnuir, a
nail, generally of metal. In 1 Ch 22° it is said that
‘David prepared iron in abundance for the nails’ ;
2 Ch 3° mentions that ‘the weight of the nails was
50 shekels of gold.’ In the ΝῚ ἧλος is the corre-
sponding word, Jn 20”, see CROSS.

W. CARSLAW.

NAIN (Naiv).—This place is mentioned only once
in Scripture, in Lk 7, The site of the ancient
village} is well authenticated ; it is occupied by the
modern Wein, a squalid, miserable collection of
mud-hovels, situated on the north-western edee of
Jebel ed-Duhy, or the ‘ Little Hermon,’ where the
hill slopes down into the plain of Esdraelon. The
mountain is called Jebel ed-Duhy from an unknown
Mohammedan saint, whose wely or sacred place is
on the summit of its conical peak. Around the
village are numerous rubiish heaps and stony
ruins, which indicate that at one time it must have
been a place of much greater importance. [{ docs
not seem to have ever been a walled and fortitied
place, for no indications of a wall can be scen.
But Conder (7ent-Work, p. 122) supposes that by
the phrase ‘gate of the city,’ in the Gospel narra-
tive, we are to understand merely the ordinary
entrance among the houses by the open path, just
as we commonly speak of ‘the gate of the valley’
or the ‘gate of the pass,’ where no gate or wall
actually exists. Stanley (SP p. 357) says that ‘no
convent, no tradition, marks the spot.’ But he
must have overlooked the rude little mosque so
prominent amony the houses, strangely enough
stalled the ‘Place of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ which,
from the signilicance of its name, must indicate
the previous existence on the spot of a Christian
chapel, which disappeared at an early period.
The rough steep path leading up to the village
is unchanged since that memorable day when
our Lord traversed it with weary feet, and met
the funeral procession of the widow’s only son.
And behind it, in the face of the rocks that pro-
ject from the rugeed side of the hill, may still be
seen shadowy holes and caves, which doubtless
mark the old place of sepulture to which the youne
man’s dead body was being carried on its bier. No
grander view can be obtained anywhere in Palestine
than that which stretches around Nain, from its
green nest on the mountain side, amply justifying
its descriptive name, if this is to be derived (with

**The paring of the nails corresponds to one of the acts by
which an Arab widow dissolved her widowhood and became
free to marry again’ (W. R. Smith, Ainship, 178; cf. OTIC
368; Lane, drab. Lex. 2409; Wellhausen, Reste2, 171).

{ It must be distinguished from the Nain mentioned by Jog
(BJ ιν. ix. 4), which was on the other side of the Jordan, prob.
ably in Idumia.

478 NAIOTH

NAME

the Talmud) from a Hebrew word oy:, signifying
‘beauty? or ‘pleasantness.’ Within the circle of
the surrounding hills some of the most stirring
events in Old ‘Testament history have oceurred.
Below is the extensive plain of Jezreel, which was
the great battlefield of Palestine from the days of
Nebuchadnezzar to those of Napoleon. Right
across are the uplands of Nazareth ; to the left are
the bare limestone ridges of Gilboa; away in the
distance is the white range of Carmel, with a blue
gleam of the Mediterranean at its foot ; while far
up in the north is the snowy top of great Hermon,
dominating all the wide view.

The story of Nain has been told in the simplest
and most touching manner by the evangelist.
Every word is a picture: the desolation of the
widowed mother, the compassion of Jesus, the
significance of His action in touching the bier, and
so becoming ceremonially unclean through this
forbidden contact with death, showing that He
raised the young man to life not by His absolute
power as God, but by the power of His own
suffering and death; the pathetic deliverance to
the mother of her son, for she needed him most,
instead of asking him to forsake all and follow
Jesus as His disciple.

LITERATURE.—Robinson, BRP? ji. 356, 361; van de Velde,
Syria and Palestine, ii, 382; Guerin, Galilee, i, 1150; Buhl,
GAP 217; Stanley, SP 357; Neubauer, Geog. du Talim. 18s.

HuGH MACMILLAN,

NAIOTH (ni3 Keré; Kt. nna, ie. probably ΠῚ}
Naw yath (like nay Zar phath, m3 Dabrvath, ete.:
see Driver on 1S 198], though any and πὴ would
both be possible: LXX Avaé [5 times after ev, av
having evidently dropped out in transcription, ef.
Je 164 ἐν Αλσωρηχ for pre Ὁπ23], cod. A Ναυιωθ.
No root πὸ is known: the form Vai yath is thus
much more probable than Vaioth).—The name of
a locality in Ramah, mentioned LS 1918: 19. 22 23. 28
20', in which David and Samuel took refuge,
when the former was pursued by Saul. This is
really all that can be said about it: what the
nature of the locality was, is entirely uncertain.
It is an old explanation, not out of harmony with
the context, that the term denotes the howe, or
cenobinin, of the prophets (ef. Tare. ssp m3
‘house of instruction,’ or school): but the philo-
logical basis of this interpretation is very in-
secure ; for m3 (of which πὸ might be a fem. form)
does not mean ‘habitation’ in general, but denotes
in particular ain abode of shepherds or sheep (see
esp. 28 78; and ef. Is 65, Jer 3319), or a country
habitation, or domain (Job 524, Is 3915. Jer 102 25°
ete.), and is only applied figuratively to other
kinds of abode, in poetry (Ex 153, Is 332°, Jer 50°),
or elevated prose (28 15”): hence it is doubtful
whether a word closely allied to this would have
been chosen to denote a residence of prophets in a
villaze or town. The absence of the art., not
merely in the vocalized text (1S 1018 ete.), but in
the consonantal text (20!), is also an objection to
its being supposed to have had an appellative
sense. Under the circumstances, we must be
satistied to know that Na@uwyath was the name
of a locality in Ramah : the original signification
of the name, and also the nature of the place
denoted by it, are both uncertain. (Ewald’s
attempted justification of the rendering school,
Hist. iii, 49 f., is far too conjectural to be prob-
able: see Driver on 1 8 19%), S. R. Driver.

NAME in EV corresponds to the Heb. cz, Aram.
ov, and Gr. ἔνομα. The Hebrew word is of ver
ancient and obscure origin. Redslob (ZD.MG,
1872, pp. 751-756), tracing it- to the root smw
(= Aw=‘to be high’), argues that its funda-

mental sense is height, and hence (1) a monument

(Gn 114, 28 1015, Is 55) or mausoleum (Is 56°), (2)
excellence, majesty. e.g. Ps 54); and that ‘name’
in the sense of a mere token of distinction repre-
sents the last stage in the impoverishment of the
original idea, Others (6... Lagarde, Bildung der
Nomina, p. 160; W. TR. Smith, Ainship, Tee lay
connect it with the root wsm, which gives sign or
token as the original meaning. In view of. this
uncertainty, it will be wise not to base too much
in our discussion of the term on the etymology.
The Greek term as used in NT has many mean-
ings that are foreign to Classical usage, but are
due to the direct or indirect influence of the
Hebrew term.

In discussing the present subject we have to
consider, firstly, the significance of the term and
the ideas expressed by it ; and, secondly, the vari-
ous customs connected with the giving of names.

I. ‘THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TEnM.—1. In in-
numerable passages alike in OT and NT the term is
used as by ourselves in reference to words by which
persons, places, or objects are designated and dis-
tinguished from others. It is also by a familiar
transference of meaning that it comes to mean
reputation or fame; see e.g. 1S 18”, 28 79 2315,
and in consequence δ is sometimes translated in
EV by ‘renown?’ Gn 64, Nu 162, or ‘famous’ 1 Ch
54, Ru 4" (cf. Job 308 ‘base’=Heb. cy cS2=lit.
nameless) ; it may even by itself and unqualified
mean a good reputation, e.g. Pr 991, Ee 7}, Sir
41°; or, on the other hand, a false reputation,
Rev 3!. But the more peculiar senses of the term
are due to the close relation that was supposed
to exist between the mame and the personality.
It is a widely-spread belief among primitive
and less developed peoples that one who knows
a person's name has power over the bearer of
the name; hence the reluctance to give a stranger
ones name. It was but a modification of such
belicf that made the Hebrew frequently use
‘name’ as almost an equivalent of the ‘ per-
sonality” or ‘character’ or nature of the person or
thing named; and consequently, when a writer
Wishes to express forcibly the nature of a person
or place, he says he will be called so-and-so, or his
name will be so-and-so. Thus when in the future
Jerusalem is purged from injustice she will be
called ‘the city of righteousness’ (fs 1°56); when
J” returns to the deserted city after the Exile, its
name will be ‘J” is there’ (Ezk 48). The nature
of Egypt is summed up in the name that is given
her, ‘Rahab that sitteth still’; and the meaning
of Is 9° is that the child will actually be all that the
name ‘wonderful,’ etc., implies ; cf. further Pr 9133,
Ts 631%, and probably [5 62° 65%. Again, the Greek
ὀνόματα is actually rendered by ‘persons’ in Ac 1,
Rev 11%, where the sense closely resembles that of
the original term in Nu 1" 9623, Rev 34, in which
cases EV adopts ‘names’ as its rendering. For
instances from Gr, papyri see Deissmann, Newe
Bibelstudien, 24 f.

2. It is not difficult to understand how ‘name’
may express the idea of authority (see e.g. Ex 5*,
1K 215, Est 3%, Jn 5%), but it is perhaps through
this sense that a phrase arose the meaning of
which is much less immediately obvious, especially
in the EV. In Hebrew we frequently read of
some one’s name being called over something
(‘> Sy cx xpi); in EV this idiomatic phrase is
generally transiated so as to confuse it with the
entirely distinct phrase ‘to be called by some
one’s name’ (‘5 οὖ N73). But the former phrase
does not mean that the person or object referred
to will bear the name of that person whose ‘name
is called over it’: it means that it will come
under his authority, pass into his possession.
Thus Joab bees David to be present at the final
scene in the siege of Rabbah, lest Joab take the

IT ae om!

ue le “ . ΠΠΠΠΠΎΉΉΎΎὙΉΉΉΉΉΎΉΉΉΉΉΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΉΨΥΥ 0

NAME

NAME 47

city, and his name be called over it, 2.6. lest the
city pass under his authority and not David's
(28 12-8). ‘All the nations over which J”’s name
was called’? (Am 9!*) are all the nations which had
once owned Js authority, i.e. had once formed
part of the dominion of Isracl—the people of J”
Israel in its confession (Is 63!") says—We are be-
come as they over whom thou never barest rule ;
as they over whom thy name was not called, é.¢. as
they who have ceased to be regarded as thy people
and subject to thy authority. Women have the
name of their husbands called over them, 1.6. be-
come subject to their authority at marriage, [5 4],
With regard to the precise sense of ‘name?’ in the
phrase there may be difference of opinion: thus
Driver (Deuteronomy, p. 306) interprets Joab’s
saying thus, ‘lest [ gain the credit of having
captured it [Rabbah], and it be counted as my
conquest.’ But the meaning of the whole phrase
is quite clear: in the further words of Driver,
‘the phrase expresses . . . the fact of ownership
—whether acquired by actual conquest or other-
wise (cf. Ps 49! ()—coupled at the same time
with the idea of protection: and occurs frequently,
especially with reference to the people of Israel,
Jerusalem, or the temple. The passages are: Am
Oe. Jer 710. 11. 14. 0 149" 1516. ς Ω539 3984 34%, Lk 859
(=2 Ch’ ¢?)™ (all DP), Is.63", 2-Ch 34, Dn Bp 2.”
Cfi., in the Apocrypha, Bar 2%-*6, 1 Mac 7*7, and
in NP Ac 15" (cited by St. James from Am 9),
Ja 2’, We may allude to one other passage where
‘name’ probably means ‘authority, viz. Is 96}
(cf. 0319, The words rendered by EV, ‘by thee
only will we make mention of thy name,’ should
contain an antithesis to the first part of the verse,
“Ὁ LorD our God, other Lords beside thee have had
dominion over us,’ and consequently must be trans-
lated ‘but thee, (to wit) thy name (authority), alone
will we (in future) mention (/.e. acknowledge)’ ;
for the construction in the Heb. ef. Dillm. in duc.
3. We may pass on now to some of the special
ideas that are expressed by the phrase ‘name of
J”’ in the OT, ‘name of Jesus,’ etc., in the NT.
The name cf J” as equivalent to the person of J”
is represented as the subject or the object. of
various actions: thus, for example, it sets men
on high (Ps 201). It is loved (Ps 51), praised
(Ps 7"), sanctified (15 29%); it is described, e.g., as
being glorious, fearful (Dt 2858), holy (1 Ch 29"),
everlasting (Ps 135"), But in particular the ‘name
of J’? is used as a succinct expression for the re-
vealed character of God for all that is known of
him. Hence such frequent expressions as to
declare (120, e.g. Ex 916 2274), or to know (yt, e.g.
is 52”, ef. 64%) tlie name of J”. J” acts for “his
name's sake (e.g. Ezk 909) when he so acts that
his hitherto revealed nature is not belied; e.g.
when he vindicates his power by bringing the people
out of Egypt. Wherever J” records his name,
according to the early law book (Ex 903), there
men are to build an altar to him: whav was meant
by this ‘recording of his name’ may be seen by
examining the various narratives of the building of
altars, ¢.e. of the observations of this law (see e.g.
Gn 127 229 2641, Jo 674 fin the light of the pre-
ceding narrative], 1S 14%); it was the indication,
by a theophany or by some great success or de-
livery or the like, of the divine presence and
favour; in other words, it was a self-revelation of
J” to men. From the time of Deuteronomy on-
wards Jerusalem became the one special seat of
the divine presence in Israel ; there, therefore, he
is said to cause his name to dwell or abide (Dt 12"!
and very often); hence the temple is a house for
J’s name, 28 78, 1 Καὶ 8!" ete.; and even earlier
the supremacy of Jerusalem among the shrines of
the S. kingdom had become so great that Isaiah
(187) speaks of Zion as the place of “75. name,

unless, with Cheyne (Introd. to Book of Isaiah,
p. 313), we regard this verse as post-cxilic.

ἃ, Of the numerous shades of meaning connected
with and probably springing out of the usave
just noticed, we may refer to one or two. ‘The
name of J”? itself becomes a term to express a
theophany in Is 9057 (aiso, according to Cheyne,
post-exilic), where it is described ‘as coming from
far, burning with his anger, and in thick rising
smoke,’ etc.; with this passage we may perhaps
compare 59" In [5 489 the term is probably used
in the transferred sense of the praise which the
divine self-manifestation calls forth from men ;
note the parallel clause and a similar transference
of meaning in the parallel phrase ‘elory of J”?
(seé GLORY OF 01. ad fins). In Zec 14? (cf. 16.66%)
the name of J” is the manner in which men recog-
nize the divine self-revelation —in other words, the
worship of J”; Hitzig rightly interprets ‘his name
shall be one’ as meaning that the unity of J’,
which already exists in reality, will then also be
acknowledged and recognized on earth.

But in virtue of its most characteristic and
frequent usage ‘the name of J”? belongs to a
series of phrases, to which the ‘¢lory of J”, ‘the
face of J”, ‘the angel of J”’ also belong, by
which the Hebrews endeavoured to distinguish
between the Deity in himself and the Deity as
manifested to and coming into relation with men ;
or, in earlier tines, between the Deity conceived as
local and confined to Sinai, and on the other hand
as accompanying his people in their jJourneyings.
In the latter case, however, it is the ‘angel of J”’
that most frequently figures, and we need call
attention only to one peculiar passage (Ex 23!) in
which both phrases are combined, and ‘the name
of J” is said to be in the angel; the meaning of
this appears to be, that though che angel is not J” in
his fulness (ef. v.*4), yet Js nature is so far in him
that what would offend J” will offend him. Tc
the OT usage of the term ‘name of J”? we have ὃ
parallel, striking at once in its similarity and its
dissimilarity, in Phoenician. Ino an inscription
(CLS 3!) from Sidon we find mention of ‘ Ash-
toreth the name of Baal (ΡΞ nv ΤΠ ¢.e. an
Ashtoreth distinguished from other Ashtoreths
by the fact that she was regarded as being a
manifestation or representative of Baal. In this
case, as in the parallel case of ‘Tanith the face of
Baal (5ya 15 nin), Phoenician, in striking contrast
to Hebrew, has made of the representation or
manifestation a new and distinct deity.

5. Finally, in our survey of OT usage we have
to notice that in Ly 2#)-!8 the name (227) is used
as a substitute for J” according to a practice
which became very customary in post - biblical
Hebrew. It is, however, probable that we owe
this usage to the scribes and copyists rather than
to the author of the section in question (cf. Geiger,
Urschrifé, 273.4. ).

6. When we turn to NT we find, as we should
expect, that in several instances ‘the name of
the Lord’ occurs in actual quotations from OT
ἐπα ΝΠ Ie" 2S") Ae OA) e te ka, ees 2); “ane
that in others the phrases are of the same or
nearly the same character as those current in OT
(e.g. Mt 6°, Jn 17%). The question is how far
does OT usage serve to explain the NT term where,
owing to new circumstances and conditions, it
has to express ideas in large part new? Ts it
necessary to presuppose entirely different modes of
thought to explain the NT term; or is it possible
to explain its new meanings as the natural de-
velopment out of the old?

Clearly, phrases which differ from the OT
equivalents only by the substitution of ‘Jesus’
for ‘J’? may be similarly interpreted unless
cogent reasons for the contrary be forthcoming :

——

480 NAME

NAME

hence, ¢.g., ‘to prophesy in the name of Jesus’
corresponds in NT to prophesy or speak in_ the
name of J” in OT. Such a phrase as ‘to believe
in the name of Jesus’ differs somewhat more
from OT usage, and yet is certainly in line with
it. It very significantly alternates in the same
writer with the phrase ‘to believe in Jesus’ (see
ὁ δε σὰ 12 Bs Bi 8 6%) /.°4, ¢. Thenams Of0 Cans
is a parallel term to the word * Jesus’ itself, and
is most appropriately used in the present phrase
because ‘the name of Jesus’ briefly sums up the
personality of Jesus as made known; to believe
in his name is to believe in and accept his claims.

But a very different mode of interpretation has
been recently advocated by Conybeare. Brietly
stated, it is an assimilation of ‘the use of the
name of Jesus Christ to ancient magic’ (JQP ix.
66); or again, in Conybeare’s own words, ‘ Why
did Jesus instruct his disciples to cast out demons
in his name? Why do we ‘end our prayers with
the formula in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord ?
Why did the Christians glory in the name? Why
were they persecuted for the name? ‘The answer
to all these questions is furnished by ancient
magic’? (i 581). ‘In or by the name of Jesus
Christ our Lord’ is a ‘theureie formula,’ and its
use was due to the fact that Christians shared the
ancient but still prevalent belief that a god or
demon must come when his name is correctly pro-
nounced in an invocation,

Conybeare has clearly shown that this magical
view of the name was held by several of the early
Fathers as well as by non-Christian and pre-
Christian Greek and Latin writers; he has also
collected much comparative evidence of the general
existence of such a belief relative to names.
Further, it may be admitted that in some cases
aud by some people the name of Jesus may have
been regarded as possessing magical eflicacy—see
e.g. Mt 77, Ac 47; and again that the ‘names’
referred to in Eph 1! (and, therefore, probably
also in Ph 2") are names of angels, but that the
reference s ‘to the use in exorcisms of names of
angels and patriarchs’ is far from obvious. It is
impossible here to discuss the very numerous
passages concerned in detail; but the general
reasons which appear to the present writer cogent
against admitting Conybeare’s mode of interpre-
tation, except in a few isolated passages, may be
briefly stated thus: (1) It is obviously imapplicable
in many eases, e.g. Mt 185, (2) A number of the
phrases, as we have already seen, are identical
with, a number more are closely similar to, those
found inthe OT. The ΟἿ᾽ terminology may and
probably should be traced back ultimately to the
magical view of ‘name,’ but in itself expresses an
immeasurably higher type of ideas. But the
influence of the OT on both Jesus and the dis-
ciples was obviously so great that we have a right
in ambiguous cases to adopt the higher interpre-
tation suggested by ΟἿ᾽ usage rather than that
suggested by popular Jewish and Greek super-
stition. To take a single instance, the analogy of
OT instances would lead us to infer from the fact
that Simon was surnamed ‘Rock,’ and the sons
of Zebedee ‘sons of thunder,’ that the names were
given because the persons in question possessed
qualities described by these new names; and this
is surely far more reasonable than to infer ‘that
the new names were supposed to impart to them
(Simon and the sons of Zebedee) new qualities,
or fortify their moral characters.’ It is unques-
tionably a right principle to interpret the NT in
the light of contemporary ideas ; but it is ἃ wrong
application of this principle to neglect the most
potent of these ideas—those, namely, of the OT.
(3) The magical significance attached to the names
by early Christian Fathers, which at first sight most

favours the theory, is explicable by a misunder-
standing, under the influence of Greek superstition,
of a terminology which must have been but half
intelligible to Greeks and Latins.

II. CUSTOMS CONNECTED WITH THE GIVING OF
Names.—1. Personal. A child received its nama
most frequently from the mother (Gn 4” 101} (9%?
OQB2E. 85 * 3006. 8. 11. 13. 18. 20, 24. 29 3.518 98, Jg eos 15 1
—all the foregoing are early narratives; 1Ch 49
7/6), but frequently also from the father (see
especially Hos 199+", Ts G? and in-P (Gn 5° 16) 1p?
21°, but also in early narratives, Gn 456 5% 8518
Alt Ux 2%) Je 8" sob further: Chal. Joba}.
In Gn 8389, 2 5 12% the text varies (between ‘ he,’
i.e. the father, and ‘she,’ z7.e. the mother, ‘ called’).
More rarely and under exceptional circumstances
the child received its name from others ; compare in
this connexion the stories of Moses receiving his
name from Pharaoh’s dauehter (Ex 9219), Ruth’s
child from the mother’s women neighbours (Ru
41, Solomon from a prophet (2S 12%). In some
cases the verb which refers to the naming of the
child has an indefinite subject; so certainly in
Gn 25°, perhaps also in some of the cases referred
to above as instances of naming by the father. In
most of the cases just cited ‘naming’ is immediately
connected with birth, and we may perhaps infer
that the name was, as a rule, in early times given
immediately after birth, as is said to be the case
with the modern Arabs (cf. Lane, Arabian Notes,
ch. iv. n. 4). In later times the name was given
at circumeision, 7e. on the 8th day after birth
(Lk 1 2!) ; but of this particular custom we find
no trace in OT except in so far as the change οἱ
Abraham’s name in connexion with the institu-
tion of circumcision may point to it (Gn 17 (P)).
In the earlier period the name was chosen on
account of its significance, and recorded some cir-
cunstance connected with the birth, some natural
feature of the child, or the parents’ wish con-
cerning it, or their gratitude to God for the gift of
it. This is clear from the meaning of the names
(see following art.) and also from the numerous
narratives cited above, which are good evidence as
to general custom, though as accounts of par-
ticular instances they are mostly legendary rather
than historical. The custom which was already
frequent in the time of Christ (Lk 15:5} of naming
children after a kinsman, most generally the

grandfather, cannot be traced back with any
certainty before the 8rd or 4th cent. B.c. The

only early evidence for kinsmen even bearing a
common nameis25 217; Ὁ 13! 1477; 28 3%, 1 K 15°;
ΤῈ 2200, ὁ χα Biss 264 De 11» 5 TL eee sae
these five instances it will hardly be questioned
that some are mere coincidences. Further, in only
one instance, the third, is the relation of the two
persons concerned direct; in others it is lateral,
the cases being those of cousin or nephew and
uncle. On the other hand, in the numerous early
genealogies which we possess, we find no trace of
the custom of naming after ancestors: thus no
two kings of Judah (21 in number, and all of the
family of David), and no two kings of the same
Ephraimite dynasty, bear the same name, nor does
the same name recur in any other early genealogy
(see Zeph 1'; Zec 1); Jer 41+ 2; 1 S91 14%; 2 K 9? 22°;
ef. v.)2 and Jer 41? 224),

On the other hand, from
the 4th cent. B.c. and onwards the custom became
prevalent, not only among the Jews, but also among
the Pheanicians, Nabateeans, and Palmyrenes.

For sake of distinction, the father’s name was
sometimes added ; as in the case of David, the son
of Jesse; and occasionally a person was calle?

* Also, no doubt, Gn 2954, where we ought to read ΠΝ Ἢ =she
called (so Ball in 5.801).

+ On the cause of the ambiguity in these cases, ef. Davidson,
Syntaa, §108a.

he, Te See

i

NAME

NAMES, PROPER 48]

simply son of so-and-so, often in contempt (6.7.
Is 74). But the familiar Arabic custom of making
actual proper names out of such combinations as
father of so-and-so, or son of so-and-so, did not
exist among the Hebrews. Nor, again, have we
any evidence that anything strictly corresponding
to our family names was in use; though, of
course, there were clan names, and a man might be
described as being the ‘man’ or ‘son’ of such and
such a clan (Jeg 10!) A woman did not change
her name on marriage, though to her own name
the description ‘ wife of so-and-so’ was often added
(Gn 12!7, Je 44). Is 41 does not refer to such a
custom: for its interpretation see above [. 2. It
is not therefore to the family name, but to the
memory of a deceased person, that the term
‘name’ refers in the very frequent phrases ‘to
blot out’ or ‘to take away’ the name (with refer-
ence to childless people ; οἵ. e.g. Nu 274, Dt 25% 7,
18 24; ef. in Aramaic, CIS ii. 113); it is the
memory, not the actual name, of an ancestor that
posterity preserves (cf. Is 56°).

Several instances are recorded of change of name
in mature life. But most of these instances are of
a special character, and it is therefore diflicult to
feel sure that the custom was at all frequent.
Thus we find (a) three or four instances in the
legends of the patriarchs, Gn 3238 (J) 17° 2 352,
Nu 1316 (P); (6) two instances of the names of
kings of Judah being changed (by their Babylonian
conqueror) on their accession to the throne (2 Ik
23"4 2417); (0) instances of Hebrews resident in a
foreign country taking names of that country
(Gn 4145, Dn 1%); (d@) some instances in NT of new
names given denoting some striking quality of the
person in question (Mk 3:16: 1%),

On the other hand, after the contact of the Jews
with the Greeks, it became quite common for a
man to adopt a Greek as well as a Jewish name ;
in these cases a Greek name similar in sound or
significance to the Jewish was often adopted, 6.7.
Jakim changed his name to Alcimus (Jos. Ant.
XI. ix. 7; 1 Mac 7°), and Saul to Paul. Peter is
the Greek name with the same signification as
Cephas in Aramaic. This was one cause of the
custom unknown to early times of a man being
referred to by two names at the same time, 6.7.
Thomas Didymus, Simon Peter, John Mark. In
other cases the second of two names may denote a
man’s city, 6.0. Judas Iscariot (=nrapers ; ef. Pirke
Goth, 15:8. 3! ete,.),

2. Cities.—Of the customs connected with the
naming of cities we know little beyond what can
be inferred from the meaning of the names (see
following art.). But we must note that certain
narratives trace back the names of cities to their
founders or captors (Gn 417, Nu 32”, Dt 34, Jos
10. But these are for the most part, if not
entirely, name-myths. How far it points to a
custom it is difficult to feel sure, because we are
il informed as to the extent to which the place
names of the OT originated with the Hebrews.
The Shemer after whom Samaria was named was
probably a clan rather than an individual (Stade
in ZATIW, 1885, p. 165 ff). In one instance the
new name given by a king of Judah toa conquered
town (2 K 147) was that of an old town of Judah.
It cannot be inferred from 1S 12% that it was
customary to name a city after its conqueror (see
above, I. 2). In the Greek period, Hebrew
‘Semitic) names of places as well as of persons
gave place to Greek names, 6.4. Beth-shan became
Scythopolis (Jth 3"; ef. Jg 1% LXX); but in
unis, as in so many similar instances, it is the
Semitic name which has subsequently survived
(mod. Beisdn).

LITERATURE.—More especially dealing with the subject of
§ I. of the article :—Oehler, O7' Theol. (Eng. tr.) i. pp. 181-185 ;
VOL. III. —3I

Schultz, OT Theol. ch. xxviii. 2; Smend, Alttest. Relijions.
geschichte2, pp. 28f., 102; Baethgen, Beitrage zur semit. Religions:
geschichte, p. 267f.; Stade, GVJ ii. 247f.; G. Hoffmann,
Ueber einige phon. Inschriften, pp. 47-52 5 Driver, Deuteronomy,
pp. 141, 3806; Sayce, Midsbert Lecture, p. 302 ff. ; Woltzmann,
Neutestamentliche Theoloqie, ii. 484f.; F.C. Conybeare, ‘ Chris-
tian Demonology,’ in JQKR viii. 576-608, ix. 59-114, 447-470,
481-603 (esp. 581-589). More especially dealing with the subject
of ἃ Il. :—Gray, Studies in Heb. Prop. Names, pp. 1-10;
Benzinger, Heb. Archdologie, 124-131, 150-153 ; Nowack, Lehr.
ἃ. Heb, Arch. 148 f., 165f.; L. Low, Beitrage zur jiid. Alter-
thumskunde, ii. pp. 92-110; Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 181-136.
G. B. Gray.

NAMES, PROPER.--How much a name meant
to the Hebrews is indicated in the article NAME.
The importance attached to names makes the

| study of them a valuable means to appreciating

the religious and social ideas of the Hebrews. An
historical study of them enables us in some measure
to trace the growth of ideas; a comparative study
of Hebrew and other Semitic names brings to
light many similarities and some dissimilarities in
the Hebrews to their Semitic kinsfolk. In the
present article if will be unnecessary to examine
these names in any exhaustive manner ; but, so far
as space allows, the attempt will be made to
indicate the large classes into which great numbers
of names naturally fall, the degree to which the
meaning of the names is ambiguous, the points of
similarity and dissimilarity in Hebrew and the
cognate languages, and the history of ideas and
their prevalence, so far as the existing data permit
these to be traced in the proper names. The
meanings of particular names must be sought for
under the several articles.

Proper names fall into two main divisions,
according as they are names of persons or names
of places. Of these the names of places are,
generally speaking, much more ambiguous and
difficult of interpretation. But the place names
of the OT are also in all probability—once avain
speaking generally—more ancient than the per-
sonal names. It will be convenient, therefore, to
deal with them first. It must not, however, be
supposed that, in thus dividing the subject, any
assumption is made that place names were always
independent of personal names, or that the latter
were derivative from the former. As a matter of
fact, there are probably instances of both kinds—
personal names that were originally names of
places ; place names that were originally names of
persons. But certain broad differences in character
between personal and place names do suggest that
in the main the two classes grew independently of
one another. And this is particularly true with
regard to names of individual persons, if certain
phenomena are rightly interpreted as pointing to
the derivation both of some place names and also
of some names of individual persons from clan
names. But this is an obscure subject, which
‘cannot be discussed here.

I. PLACE NAMES.—1. Obviously, the name of a
place may have been long in existence before its
first mention in extant records. All names of
places in the Bible may therefore, except in those
cases in which we have definite evidence to the
contrary, have been in existence before the Israel-
itish conquest of the country. In other words,
they may have originated with the Canaanites or
other early inhabitants of the land, and not with
the Israelites. In several cases we are not left to
mere conjecture on this point. We have direct
evidence of the pre-Israelitish existence of many
names familiar to us in the OT. Thus the Tel el-
Amarna tablets mention Aijalon, Hazor, Jerusalem,
Lachish, Megiddo, Zorah, and others; the list
(15 cent. B.C.) of Tahutmes TIT.’s conquests includes
Abel, Ain, Gath, Miedal, Mishal; and other early
Egyptian lists, Beth-anath, Luz, and Secu. The
significance of these lists is not exhausted by the

482 NAMES, PROPER

NAMES, PROPER

actual number of OT place names which they
record, and thus directly prove to be pre-Israelitish.
Vor, in the first place, the mention of Jerusalem
proves the biblical writers (Jg¢ 19, 1Ch 114%,
Jos 15% 1816 38) ill informed in believing that naime
to be of Israelitish origin, and consequently lessens
our confidence in their testimony relative to other
names. And, secondly, some of the names actually
found in these early records are typical of large
classes of OT names. ‘The consequence is, that it
is only in the case of a very few names indeed
that we can feel confident that they were of Israel-
itish origin, They must not therefore be indis-
criminately used as evidence of Hebrew belief or
custom. Fortunately, many of the place names
reter to abiding features of the place, not to the
changing customs of the inhabitants. To some of
these we may turn first.

2. Many names refer to the physical features of
the town or its surroundings. Ramah, the name
of several places, means ‘height’; Geha, Giherth,
and Gibeon mean ‘hill.’ Other names of similar
significance are Joghehah (/731=‘ to be high’), Seda
(=‘ the cliff’), Shechem (=‘ the shoulder of a hill’).
A low-lying situation or the neighbourhood of
some hollow seems to be referred to in Beth-emek
(‘house of the valley’), Horonaim (‘the two
hollows’), and perhaps Beten (lit. =‘ the belly,’ so

΄΄

Arabie |

ure? ). The nature of the soil gave rise to

other names: Argob indicates a rich and earthy
soil; Lkron, ‘barren’; Horeh and Jabesh, ‘dry’ ;
Carmel, ‘garden-land’; Abel (in several com-
pounds), ‘a meadow.’ The numerous compounds
with “nm (py) and Beer (2x3) imply the presence of a
spring ; Hammath, Hammoth-dor, and Hammon,
of hot springs. The * white’ clifis of the range are
probably commemorated by the name Lebanon ; the
duskiness of its waters by Kidron ; the blackness
of the soil by Hawran. But these and other names
(Hachilah, Zalmon, Adummin, Mé-jarkon) which
may refer to colour are more or less ambiguous.

3. A very considerable number of place names
are names of plants, or are compounded with such
names. The shrubs or trees referred to in such
names are the acacia (Abel-shittim, Beth-shittah),
the apple-tree (Beth-tappuah, En-tappuah, and
Tuppuah), the palm-tree (Tamar, Baal-tamar,
Hazazon-tamar), the terebinth or oak (//-paran =
Lath, Elah, Kloth, Elim, and Elon), the pome-
granate (the Rock of Limmon, and probably also
iin-rimmon, Rimmon, Rimmon-perez, and Gath-
rimmon), the cucumber (Dilan), the olive-tree (the
Ascent or Mount of Olives), the vine (A bel-chera-
mim, Beth-haccerem, Eshcol, and probably Sorek
and Masrekah), the juniper (2éthmah), the gada-
tree (Hzion-geber), the almond-tree (ZLwz), the
balsam-tree (valley of Baca), the sycamore-tree
(Gonzo), thorn-bushes (Atad, Shamir and perhaps
Seneh).

Another large group consists of names of animals,
or words derived from animal names, viz. Aijalon
(the stag), Lebaoth, Laish (the lion), Beth-nimrah
(the leopard), Ophrah and Ephron (the gazelle),
Arad (the wild-ass), Hazar-shual, the land of Shual
and Shaalbim (the fox), Zeboim (the hyena),
Telaim and Beth-car (the lamb), Parah (the cow),
En-eglaim, Eglon (the calf), Hazar-susah (the
horse), Hn-gedi (the kid), Beth-hoglah (the part-
ridge), Etam (birds of prey), Jr-nahash (the
serpent), Humtah (the lizard), Zorah (the hornet),
Akrabbim (scorpions), Gudgodah (the cricket).
The derivation of a few of these is uncertain, but
in most of them it is unmistakable. It is easy to
understand how trees which always occupy the
same position may have given a name to a place ;
it is less easy to feel sure that the other places

derived their names from the abundance of animals
in their vicinity. In recent times several scholars
have been inclined to seek the origin of these
names in totem clans.

4. Characteristics of a place more liable to
change, 6.4. its size, the occupation or cultus of its
inhabitants, have given rise to other names. In
these cases we can only be sure that the place
corresponded to what the name says about it when
the name was given; in other words, we can only
be sure, in the case of all names about the date of
whose origin we are uncertain, that the name was
true to the place in an indefinite past.

The various compounds with Huzar or Hazor,
Ir, and Kiriath indicate the character of the city
at the time when these names were given, but
clearly the Hazor of Jg 417 (cf. Amarna tablets,
154") had grown into something more than a
Hazor, 1.6. a fixed settlement as contrasted with
the mere encampments of nomads, but also as
contrasted with the walled cities. Again, the
various Gaths appear to have derived their names
from the existence in them of a wine-press :
Rabbah from its large, Zoar from its small size ;
En-mishpat from having been a place for settling
disputes.

5. But most important of the names due to
characteristics liable to change are those referring
to religious belief and practice. Thus several
names of places preserve the names of various
deities that were at some time worshipped in
Canaan. Thus sun-worship has left its mark on
Beth-shemesh (‘temple or house of the sun’), /n-
shemesh (‘spring of the sun’), Vhe ascent of
Heres (i.e. ‘the sun’), Timnath-heres (‘portion of
the sun’); moon-worship, according to some, on
Jericho (im, inv, ef. ou=‘moon’) and Lebanon
(1337, ef. 7:37=‘moon’*). We can trace the
worship of Babylonian deities not only in the
Sinaitic peninsula where Sin and Sinai record
the worship of the Babylonian moon-god Sin, but
also in the land of Israel and its immediate prox-
imity. Nebo, the name of a Babylonian deity, is
also the name of a town (Nu 32°) and a mountain
(Dt 32%) of Moab, and of a town of Judah (Ezr 239) ς
the worship of Anath, the female double of Anu, is
reflected in Beth-anath, Beth-anoth, and Anathoth ;
the name of the Babylonian Bel is, perhaps, to be
found in Ebal (Academy, June 27, 1896) and
᾿Αρβηλά (= Heb. ban in Nu 34}. Academy, July 4,
1896). The name of the goddess Ashtoreth appears
in Ashteroth-karnaim and Be-eshterah ; of the god
Dagon in Beth-dagon. An old divine name (familiar
in Arabic) is perhaps to be found in Aishon and
Elkosh (ZATW, 1897, p. 349).

A large number of names of places refer to the
worship of a god by a general title, especially Baal
or El, e.g. Baal-meon, Baal-hazor, Pen uel, Jezrecl,
A peculiar feature of the compounds with Baal is
that they are not as they stand properly names of
places at all, but titles of deities (‘owner of the
township Meon,’ ‘owner of the palm-tree’). They
have arisen by abbreviation, their original form
having been Beth-baal-meon (which also actually
occurs Jos 137, Mesha Inscr. 1. 30), Beth-baat-
tamar, etc. In some cases, however, Baal was
omitted and Beth retained, and thus we find Beth-
meon (Jer 48"), It is quite possible, therefore, that
some of the numerous compounds with Beth which
are not now of manifestly religious impert were
so originally. Names of the type Jezreel, Tabneel
are probably to be translated ‘ Let ΕἸ sow, build,
El being the genius of the place.

II. PersoNAL NAMES.—1. Personal names are
either simple or compound. The latter in Hebrew
generally consist of two, and only in a very few

* But a more probable etymology of Lebanon has been sug-
gested above, § I. 2.

ae

NAMES, PROPER

NAMES, PROPER 483

(probably late) names of three elements. The
greater number of the compound personal names
—and in this respect these differ from place names
—are sentences, ¢.¢e. they make some statement
or express some Wish, generally of a religious char-
acter. The simple names, many of which are very
obseure, and also the compound names which are
not sentences, generally refer directly or meta-
phorically to some personal feature or circumstance
attending the birth. Some apparently simple
names appear to have arisen by abbreviation from
compound names, 6.9. Nethan (from Elnathan or
Nathenel), Shama (= ‘he heard,’ from Elishama =
‘God heard’). The explanations of names found
in the OT (e.g. Gn 3°? 4% 59 161 32%, Je 62,18 12%,
1 Ch 4°) do not generally coincide with their true
etymological meaning, but arise from some simi-
larity of sound to a word that gave what appeared
subsequently a suitable significance to a man’s
name. ‘Thus Noh (73) eannot. be derived from the
root beginning with a similar sound which is used
in the explanation of it (3203) Gn 5°). The value
of these narratives lies chiefly in the evidence they
afford as to the kind of idea which names were
generally selected to express. Thus the explana-
tion of Ls (Gn 25”) indicates that the personal
features of the child, of Jacob (Gn 25-%) that the
circumstances of the birth, of Ichabod CL + 425)
that the state of public affairs at the time of the
birth, might suggest the choice of a child’s name.
2. In classifying the personal names into their
chief groups, it will be convenient to follow as far
as possible at the same time a chronological order.
As we have seen, simple Israelitish names are
comparatively more frequent in earlier than in
later times. Their origin, too, for the most part
goes back to the early period. Most of the appar-
ently simple names that can be first traced in later
periods are really abbreviated compound names.
A. SIMPLE NAMES,.—Of 28 names recorded in
Jg 2-16, six or eight only are compound, the rest
are simple. Several, though apparently personal,
were perhaps really clan names. In 2S 9-20 (time
of David) the compounds number 22, the simple
names 23. On the other hand, among the names
of Jeremiah’s contemporaries (3-4 centuries later
than David) the compound are several times as
numerous as the simple names. Among the
simple names of the time of the Judges and
David we find the following :—(a) Several names
of animals—Deborah (‘bee’), Gaal (probably
‘beetle’), Zola (‘worm’), Caleb (‘dog’), Nahash
(‘serpent’). Names of this class very rarely appear
in the later periods, except that at the time of
Josiah we find four (Hu/dah =‘ the weasel,’ Achbor
=‘the mouse,’ and Shaphan (2 persons) -=‘ the
rock badger’); all of these are names of uncleen
animals, and may be due to a recrudescence of
ancient superstitious practices of which we certainly
find traces somewhat later; ef. Is 667 (sacrificial
eating of the mouse). In any case strictly personal
names of this class are not numerous as compared
with the clan and place names, and some of them
may be indirectly derivative from a totem stage of
society. Otherwise we may explain these personal
names as the attempt to express metaphorically
some characteristic of the child, or the hope that
as it grew up it would possess the characteristic
of the animal. This would without much difficulty
account for Deborah (‘bee’), Zibiah (‘ gazelle,’ ef.
the comparison Ca 2° 45), but not very obviously
for some others. For names of this type among
other Semitic peoples, ef. (for the Arabs) Hammer-
Purgstall, Ueber die Namen der Araber, pp. 3, 4.
(6) Names of trees.—Tamar (‘the palm-tree’),
the name of two women ; cf. the comparison in Ca
7", Similar comparisons are to be found in Arabic
poetry. Hlah (2K 15”, 1K 16) and Elon (‘the

terebinth or oak-tree’), Hadassah (Est 27 ‘the
myrtle’), Aezivh (‘cassia’), and perhaps Solomon
(cf. Wellh. Js. we. gud. Gesch.® p, 103, πὶ 1) are other
instances. For Arabic instances, cf. Hammer-
Purgstall, op. cit. p. 3.

(ὁ) Other early simple names are Barwk (‘light-
ning’), Lappidoth (‘torches’), Samson (derived
from shemesh=‘sun’), Zadok (‘just’), Burzillai
(from 93=‘iron’).

B. COMPOUND NAMES.—The most numerous of
these in OT are the compounds with Yah (=
Yahweh); but they are not the earliest. The
earliest are compounds with ᾿χ (ἢ) (‘father’), “«h(<)
(‘ brother’), ‘wmm(¢) (‘kinsman’), Δ (ἢ (‘eod’). Of
these classes compounds with ὦ, ‘uh, and ann
(=‘kinsman’) are not only early, but they seem to
have ceased to be formed soon after the time of
David, and fell wholly into disuse before the close
of the Exile. On the other hand, compounds with
‘£1, though found in the earliest periods of which
we have records, for long furnished fresh forma-
tions, and were in frequent use after the Exile.
Each of these classes requires some separate dis-
cussion.

(a) Compounds with ab, ah, and amm.—Inter-
pretations of particular instances must be sought
under one several articles. All that need be at-
tempted here is to indicate the different views that
have been held as to the relation of the two
elements in the compounds, and as to the more
precise significance of the term of kinship. In a
name like Abinadadb, are the two elements related
to one another as construct and genitive, or as
subject and predicate? In the former case, is the
second element the name of the actual son of the
person named, or of a quality, so that the whole
name is equal to an adjective’ In the latter case,
is the ὁ of ‘ahi (: of 028) a binding vowel, or the Ist
personal suffix? In other words, does Abinadab
mean ‘father of Nadab,’ or ‘father of generosity’
(t.e. ‘generous ’), or ‘the father is generous,’ or ὁ my
father is generous’? Every possible answer has been
given by one or another at one time or another.
Against the view that the relation between the
two elements is that of construct and genitive, the
following objection among others may be urged—
(1) αὖ, ah, ‘amm all denote aanale kinsman, but the
names compounded with them are used indifferently
of men and women; examples of such names of
women—<aAbigal, Abital, Abishag; (2) in some
cases the elements appear in reverse order, e.g.
Ahijah and Joah, Eliab and Abicl. There is little
doubt that the relation is predicative; the names
are sentences. It is a much more nicely balanced
question to decide whether the ὁ in “whi, ‘ahi, ammi
be the binding vowel or the personal suflix ; but in
the judgment of the present writer the evidence
inclines in favour of the former alternative.

A further ambiguity attaches to the names com-
pounded with'aum. That element has often been
rendered ‘people.’ But the parallelism of several
of these names with the compounds with’ad, ah
(e.g. Ammicl, Abiel, Hiel), which is even more
prominent in Saban proper names, the certainty
that ‘amm had the sense of ‘kinsman’ in Semitic,
and survivals of this meaning in Hebrew, have
led most modern investigators to the conclusion
that in several compounds (e.g. Amiuiel, Eliam,
Amminadab) ‘amm means kinsman. Yet a third
view is that‘ Amm is the proper name of a deity
(cf. e.g. Sayce, RP, 2nd series, ii. 123 f.).

In the case of all these names there has been
some difference of opinion as to whether the term
of kinship refers to the human kinsman (father,
brother, uncle), or whether it is a divine title.
Opinion prevails in favour of the second alterna-
tive. It seems not unlikely that names of this
very early type, which are widely distributed over

484 NAMES, PROPER

NAMES, PROPER

the Semitic field, originated in totemistic concep-
tions. It is remarkable that they disappear in
the course of Hebrew history, though they con-
tinued in use to a late period among, e.g., the
Phoenicians and Aramieans.

(b) Before dealing with compounds with ’E7, we
may briefly refer to a class of names which appear
to have been adopted for a time by the Hebrews
from the Canaanites among whom they settled,
but to have been again almost entirely discarded
soon after the time of David. These are the
compounds with Adon (Adoni-bezek, Adoni-zedek,
Adonijah, Tob-adonijah, and Adonikam); Baal,
which has sometimes been mutilated by the seribes
into Bosheth=‘shame’ (e.g. Meribbaal, Eshhaal) ;
Melech (6... Abimelech, Elimelech, Matchiah). The
main question in the case of these names is whether
Baal, Melech, Adon are titles applicable to any
gods, and therefore to J”, or proper names of
distinct deities. The question is of considerable
historical importance; for if it be answered in
the latter sense, the names are evidence that Saul
and David and Jonathan were worshippers of
other gods beside J”; since each of these princes
gave names of this class to their children (sce
ISHBOSHETH, BERLIADA, MEPHIBOSHETH). This
view was vigorously maintained by Kuenen, and
has recently been revived by Hommel and Ker-
ber; but the trend of scholarly judgment. has
been against it, and, in the opinion of the present
writer, with justice. At the same time there can
be little question that the ultimate entire dis-
appearance of the Baal names and almost entire
disuse of the compounds with Melech was due to
the idolatrous significance which became attached
to these words (cf. Hos 919 [Heb. 15}).

(6) Compounds with El.—These names have been
found in almost every Semitic language and dia-
lect. They reach back to a remote antiquity ;
they continue in use to the latest period. It is
possible that they were first used as place and
clan names; but some of our earliest names of
Hebrew individuals are of this type (e.g. Lliah,
Nu 16! (J), K/kanah, 1 5.1). In the case of these
and the compounds with γα, it is important to
observe certain differences in the formation of the
names. Thus, in the earliest times, compounds in
which the divine name is the first element exceed
in numbers those in which it forms the second
element; this gradually changes until, from the
times of Jeremiah onwards, the names in which
the divine name forms the second element are
many times as numerous as those in which it
forms the first. We might perhaps attribute
this change, which has the effect of removing the
emphasis from the subject to the predicate, to
the growth of the monotheistic idea—it being no
longer necessary to emphasize what god was re-
ferred to when only one was believed in—and the
desire to emphasize the activity or quality of God
referred to by the predicate. At the same time
it must be borne in mind that a similar tendency
is (according to Hommel) to be traced in the
names of the Sabweans and Babylonians who re-
mained polytheists. In the history of the com-
pounds with ‘7, it is to be remarked that at first
they outnumbered the compounds with Yah, that
from the time of David to the Exile they were
quite eclipsed by the compounds of Yah, but that
after the Exile they regain much in popularity,
especially in certain circles [cf. the priestly list
in Ezr 1038"; the list of angels in Enoch, ch. 6
(Greek text, ed. Charles, p. 64); the list of princes
in Nu 15:15 (P), in which several of the individual
names are ancient, but which, as a list, is a late
artificial compilation].

(4) Compounds with Yah before the time of
David are very few, and are contined to families

more or less closely connected with the worship
of J”. In the time of David they grow frequent,
and thenceforward never lose their popularity, but
gradually drive out almost all other compounds
save those compounded with ’£7, so that in the
post-exilic period, and indeed as early as Jere-
miah, Hebrew names consisted for the most part
of (1) compounds with the divine proper name
J”, or (2) the divine title #7, which had now ltecome
a virtual equivalent for J”, since J” was regarded
as the only true God, or (3) truncated names—
verbs where the implicit subject was God.
Special features of interest in names of this class
are their rare occurrence among names of women,
their almost invariable use for heirs to the throne,
whether of Judah or Israel, their rare use as place
names (Ananiah and Jeshua being almost the only
instances),—An important question connected with
the class is whether the names were peculiar to
Israel. We find one or two foreigners with names
of this type mentioned in OT. But Uriah the
Hittite may have adopted this name on taking
up his residence among the Hebrews ; Tobiah the
Ammonite lived at a time when the worship of
J” may have passed from Israel to some of the
neighbouring peoples (cf. the case of the Samari-
tans). The decision really rests with the Assyri-
ologists, who are not as yet agreed whether the
-in at the end of a great number of Assyrian
proper names be a divine name or not.

It remains to add that many of the individual
names can be paralleled in several other languages,
especially those which refer to the gift of J” or
God (£7); the thought that the god worshipped
has given (viz. the child) is expressed in many
Hebrew names, e.g. Elnathan, Nethanel, Jone-
than, Nethaniah, Jehozabad, Zehadiah; and also
in many names of other peoples, 6.7. in the
Phoenician Eshmuniathan (‘Eshmun has given’),
the Assyrian Assur-ah-idding (* Asshur has given
a brother’), the Sabean Wahabailu (‘God has
viven’), and the Palmyrene Zahadnebo (‘Nebo
has bestowed’). Nor is this parallelism confined
to names so early in use as some of the Hebrew
names just cited. Corresponding, for instance, to
Bezalel (perhaps=‘in the shadow of God’) we
have the Assyrian Jna-silli-Bel (‘in Bel’s shadow’).
But however great this similarity between the
class of ideas expressed by the later Jewish names
and by other Semitic names may be,—-and it is cer-
tainly great,—they differ in this very important
respect, that the Jewish names refer to one God
only, viz. J”, and that by means of the proper
name J” or the one general term £7 only.

Much that has been said on the relative pre-
valence, at different periods, of different types of
names, depends on the conclusion established by
the present writer elsewhere, viz. that /ists of names
in P and Chronicles cannot, unless they are inde-
pendently supported, be cited as evidence of early
custom. Hommel’s Ancient Hebrew Tradition has
in no way affected this conclusion, except in so
far as it has by certain analogies confirmed it ;
for it has not addressed itself to the data on which
the conclusion rests. To the character of the
individual names in these writings it is impossible
to refer at length. But the names recorded only
by P contain two classes of which no instance is
found elsewhere in OT, viz. compounds with the
divine name Shaddai and compounds with Zur
(‘Rock’), which appears to be a divine title.
Hommel has discovered analogous names (6.0.
Suri-addana, οἷ. Jehoaddan) to the latter class
in some South Arabian names of the 8th cent. B.C.
or somewhat earlier. The compounds with Shaddai
(Ammishaddai, Zurishaddai, Shedeur) still remain
absolutely unique. It is a pure hypothesis of
Hommel’s that an Assyrian name which has been

NANA

NAPHTALI 485

transliterated Ammisatena, but by others (¢.7.
Sayce in PSBA, Nov. 1897, p. 292) Ammiditana,
has anything to do with Ammishaddui.

LITERATURE.—Nestle, Die Israel. Eigennamen nach threr
religionsyeschichtlichen Bedeutung (1876); Gray, HPN (1896).
To these two books reference may be made for, the earlier
literature and for further literature on special points. Grun-
wald, Die Hiyennamen des AT’ (1895); Kerber, Die religions-
geschichtliche Bedeutung der heb, Eigennamen (1891). For
the names in Gn 1-11 see Budde’s Urgeschichte; for other
important special points, the articles of W. R. Smith on
© Animal and Plant Names,’ in Journal of Phil. ix. pp. 75-100 ;
Noldeke in ZDMG, 1886, pp. 148-187 (review of Smith), and
1888, pp. 470-487 (review of Baethgen’s Beitrdge) ; Stade in ZA W
(1885), pp. 175-185; Jacob, ‘Are there Totem Clans in the OT?’
in Studies in Biblical Archeology (1894); de Jong, ‘Over de
met ab ach zamengestelde heb, Eigennamen,’ in the Vers/.
en mededelingen der kon. Akad. van Wetenschappen (Amster-
dam), i880, pp. 52-68; Renan, ‘Des noms théophores apoco-
pees,’ in REJ v. 161ff.; Jastrow in Journal of Biblical Lit.,
1894, pp. 19 ff., 101-127 (on (1) compounds with Bosheth = Baal,
(2) compounds with -yah); Gilbert in Hebraica (April—July
1895); Gray in Expositor, Sept. 1897, pp. 173-190, and δ'-
pository Times, Sept. 1897, pp. 555-558 (replies to Hommel’s
AHT); Barton, ‘Native Israelitish Deities,’ in Oriental Studies
of the Oriental Club of Philadelphia, 1894, and ‘The Kinship
of Gods and Men among the early Semites,’ in Journal of
Bib. Lit. xv. pp. 168-182. For comparative purposes, jn addi-
tion to the recent Hebrew dictionary of Gesenius-Buhl and
Oxf. Heb. Lex., the following will be found valuable: the notes
in CIS; Fried. Delitzsch, Prolog. eines neuen heb.-aram.
Worterbuch zum AT, ch. vi. (for Assyrian parallels); Hommel,
AHT, esn. ch. iii. (for Assyrian and South Arabian parallels) ;
Ledrain, Dict. des noms propres Palmyréniens ; Bloch, Phonie-
isches Glossar; Wammer-Purgstall, Ueber die Namen der
Araber; and Wellhausen, Die Leste des Arabischen Heiden-
thums?, esp. p. 1 ff. Ε

Of literature that has appeared since the foregoing article
was written, there may be mentioned: von Gall, Altisr, Kult-
stitten; Clay, ‘Dr. Jastrow: Isr. and Assyr. Prop. Names’ (in
The Lutheran Church Review, xiv. pp. 196-201), containing an
extract from a letter of Fried. Delitzsch (11th Mar. 1895) inter-
preting the -ia at the end of Assyr. names (see above) as a
personal suffix; the articles ‘Abi’ and ‘Ammi’ in Hncyclo-
pedia Biblica. This question of‘wammi has been most recently
discussed by Hommel in Die siidarab. Altertiimer des wiener
Hofmuseums und ihr Herausgeber Prof. 1). H, Miller (Munich,
1899), pp. 21-34; and Glaser, Punt und die siidarab. Reiche
4899), pp. 20-22, 24-28, 71. On some exilic and post-exilic
names see Hilprecht, ‘Notes on recently found Nippur Tablets,’
in PEFSt, 1898, p. 54f.; Gray, ‘Nebo as an element in Hebrew
Proper Names,’ in Expos. Times, Feb. 1899, pp. 282-234.

Gy Bs. GRAY.

NANA (Navala, 2 Mac 17*-),—A goddess wor-
shipped in Syria, Persia, Armenia, and other parts
of Asia. Various forms of the name occur, such
as Anwitis (Strabo, xv. 733), Anaad (ib. xvi. 738),
Aneitis (Plut. Artax. 27), Tanais (Clem. Alex.
Protrept. p. 19). By the Greeks this goddess was
identified sometimes with Artemis (so Plut. d.c. ;
Paus. ii. 16. 8), sometimes with Aphrodite (so
Clem. Alex. /.c.). She seems to have represented
the productive powers of nature, and in many
Feces ἱερόδουλοι Of both sexes were consecrated to

rer worship. In 2 Mac 110 1 we have a legendary
account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, who
is said to have attempted to plunder a temple of
Nana in Persia, and to have been treacherously
killed in the temple by the priests. This temple
may be identified with the temple of Artemis
(Polyb. xxxi. 2; Jos. Ant. XI. ix. 1), or Aphrodite
(Appian. Sy. 66), in the province of Elymais, upon
which Antiochus made an unsuccessful attack ;
but the statement that the king met his death
here is certainly untrue (see also 1 Mac 6'4). The
plea alleged to have been made by Antiochus, that
he wished to marry the goddess Naniea, may be
illustrated by the conduct of M. Antonius at
Athens (cf. Rawlinson, Speaker's Comm. ad loc.).
Ho AL. WHALE,
NAOMI (233; LXX B Νωεμείν, A Νοεμμεί(ν) and
Nooupei(v), Luc. Nooul).—The wife of Elimelech
the Ephrathite, of Beth-lehem-judah, who was
driven by famine into the land of Moab. There her
husband died, and she was left with her two sons,
who married two Moabite women. On the death
of her sons, she determined to return to her own
country, the land of Judah. On the way she bade

her daughters-in-law go back, each to ler mother’s
house, while she expressed a hope that they might
each find another husband. Orpah followed her
mother-in-law’s advice, but Ruth in loving terms
declared that she would not be separated from
Naomi. The return of Naomi was a matter of
surprise to the people of Bethlehem, and they
said, ‘Is this Naomi?’ Her answer included a
double play of words on her own name, ‘Call me
not Naomi (‘pleasant’), call me Mara (‘bitter’) ;
for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me
.. . Why call ye me Naomi, seeing the Lord hath
testified (“@ndh) ayvainst me’ (Ru 153. For the
rest of her history, and how she became the nurse
of Ruth’s child by Boaz, see under RUTH.

H. A. REDPATH.
NAPHATH-DOR.—EiVm of Jos 12", 1 καὶ 411, See
Dor.

NAPHISH (z*53).— A son of Ishmael, Gn 251%
(A Ναφές, D Nagé#)=1 Ch 15: (BA Ναφές) 5” (B
Ναφεισαδαῖοι, A Ναφισαῖοι). The clan of which he is
the eponymous head has not been traced. In the
last cited passage (1 Ch 5!) we are told that along
with others of the Hagrites this clan suffered an
overwhelming defeat at the hands of the trans-
Jordanic tribes (possibly in the time of Saul). In
all probability it is their descendants who are
mentioned amongst the Nethinim in Ezr 2° as
‘the children of Nephisim’ (RV, following Kethibh
885}; Β Ναφεισών, A Νεφουσείμ) or Nephusim (AV
and RVm, following Aeré 61:52). In the parallel
passage (Neh 7°") the reading is Nephushesim (RV,
following Kethibh movi; B Νεφωσασεί, A -εἰμ) or
Nephishesim (AV and RVim, following Aeré Dy"23).
The reading in 1 Es 5°! is Naphisi (B Ναφεισεί, A
Ναφισί). See, further, Wellhausen-Bleek ὅ, p. 585.

J. A. SELBIE.

NAPHISI (B Nadewei, A Ναφισί), 1 Es δ51:-
Nephisim, Ezr 2°; Nephushesim, Neh 7°.

NAPHOTH-DOR.—RVm of Jos 11°. See Dor.

NAPHTALI (πε), Χεφθαλείμ) was the fifth son of
Jacob, and the second borne to him by Rachel's
handmaid Bilhah, Gn 307. He was thus full
brother to Dan, with whose descendants his were
afterwards closely associated.

‘ApAES OWN 52, exclaimed Rachel at his birth :
‘wrestlings of God have I wrestled.’ She had pre-
vailed in a great wrestling match with her sister,
for the grace and blessing of God (DiJJmann on
Gn 308), as evidenced in the birth of sons; there-
fore she called him Naphtal.

The information regarding Naphtali given in
Scrip. is extremely scanty, and it is not greatly
augmented by tradition. Targe. Pseudo-Jon. and
Jerus. say that he was swift of foot, and that he
was the first to tell Jacob that Joseph was alive.
This may be due, however, to a certain under-
standing of Gn 4951, When the family went dowr
into Egypt he had four sons (Gn 405), The Targg.
above cited say that he was one of the five whom
Joseph presented to Pharaoh (Gn 47°). According
to ‘The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,’ he
died in his 132nd year. Like all his brethren except
Joseph, he found sepulture in the land of Egypt.

According to the figures given in Nu 1* 2°,
when the people were numbered in the wilderness
of Sinai, the tribe of Naphtali occupied the sixth
place with 53,400 men over 20 years old, ‘able
to go forth to war.’ Before entering Canaan
Naphtali had fallen to the eighth place with 45,400
(Nu 264-5), The position of Naphtali in the
march through the desert was with Dan and
Asher, on the north side of the tent of meeting
(Nu 239). These three together formed the ‘ camp
of Dan,’ numbering in all 157,600 fighting men.

486 NAPHTALI

NAPHTALI

When the host moved forward, they acted as rear-
guard, setting forth ‘hindmost by their standards’
LNT ee

With the probable exception of Barak, Naphtali
added no distinguished name to Israel’s historic
roll. The prince and representative of the tribe in
the wilderness of Sinai was Ahira’ ben Enan (Nu 1
2). He having perished in the desert, the prince
chosen to represent Naphtali in the division of the
land was Pedahel ben ‘Ammihud (Nu 3423). The
Naphtalite Nahbi ben Vophsi went with the spies
from the wilderness of Paran (Nu 13%). At the
close of David’s reign, Jeremoth ben ‘Azriel was
over the tribe (1 Ch 9719). The mother of Hirai,
the cunning artificer in) brass, whom Solomon
brought from Tyre, is claimed for Naphtali in 1 Καὶ
74, but in2Ch 24 is given to Dan. That Barak
belonged to Naphtali has been questioned on the
ground that Jg 5! seems to associate him with
Issachar ; but, owing to the contusion of the text
(Moore, Judges, in loe.), this point is extremely
doubtful, and it is natural to infer, from his resi-
dence in Kedesh (Je 4°) and his influence with the
mountain tribes (Jg 410), that he was connected
with Naphtali.

Naphtali was the Jast but one to receive his
portion in the land of promise (Jos 19°?-8%), This
involved no disadvantage ; the district that fell to
him included some of the finest land in Palestine,
rich and beautifully diversified. On the east it was
bounded by the Sea of Galilee and the Upper Jor-
dan. Josephus (Ant. Vv. i. 20) says it reached east-
ward to Damascus. This is improbable, and lacks
corroboration. The northern border coincided with
that of Israel's possession ; while west, south-west,
and south, Naphtali marched with Asher, Zebulun,
and Issachar. These marches cannot be traced
with certainty; but recent identifications of ancient
sites, due chiefly to Col. Conder, make possible
an approximation (see names of cities in Naphtali).
Beginning at the confluence of Wady el-Bireh with
the Jordan, the line might run westward, following
the northern side of the valley, including Adami
(ed-Damich, about 10 miles north of Beisdn), to
Tabor, the lower slopes of which are probably
indicated by Aznoth-Tabor, ‘the ears of Tabor.’
Tt would then run northward by way of Ziddim
(Hattin) and Hukkok (Yahik) to Hannathon
(Kefr Andn); thence turning westward, taking in
the lands of Ramah (er-Rdmeh), until it touched
the border of Asher, whence, running northward to
almost opposite Tyre, it turned eastward, and again
northward, dividing with Asher the districts now
known as Beldd Beshdrah and Belid esh-shukif,
the larger portion of which fell to Naphtali. These
boundaries include the land lying around the springs
of Jordan. This, however, soon passed to Dan (Jos
1947) by means of the raid described in Jg 18, which
Naphtali does not seem to have either resisted or
resented, possibly because of the close kinship of
the tribes. Laish, held by its Pheenician inhabit-
ants until attacked by Dan, and Hazor, which is
subsequently found in the hands of Jabin, must be
added to Beth-shemesh (not yet identified) and
Beth-Anath (‘Ainitha, 6 miles W.N.W. of Kedes),
as cities out of which Naphtali did not drive the
Canaanites. Kedesh in Galilee (Jos 207: see
KEDESH- NAPHTALI) was set apart as a city of
refuge, and this city, along with Hammoth-dor
and Kartan, with their suburbs, was given to the
Levite family of Gershon (Jos 212, 1 Ch 6%).

_ The lofty region to the north-west of the Sea of
Galilee formed by far the larger part of the territory
of Naphtali. It is in every sense a pleasant land—
a country of healthful air and noble scenery. It is
plentifully watered, and, compared with the rest of
Palestine, well wooded. Olive and lemon trees are
specially abundant, while the fig, the mulberry,

and the apricot are general. The vine is cultivated
on many asunny slope, and wide reaches of plough-
land in the valleys yield fine crops of wheat and
barley. The villages which dot the landscape give
evidence of all the comfort and prosperity possible
under the present government. Jebel Jermuk, eut
off from the Safed hills by the tremendous gorge of
Wady Leimin, is the highest mountain in Western
Palestine, reaching a height of nearly 4000 ft. To
Naphtali also belonged the plain of Ijon, now 7765]
A‘yun, in the valley west of Hermon, and the
upper valley of the Jordan, from the springs to
the Sea of Galilee, both containing much excellent
arable and pasture land. As if this were not
enough for one whom the Lord blessed with such
goodwill (Driver, Deut. p. 413), to Naphtali were
assigned the broad fertile terraces by which the
land lets itself down from Tabor to the Sea of
Galilee, the fruitful level stretches before Hattin,
and the Plain of Gennesaret, a tract of unequalled
richness and luxuriance on the north-west shore of
the lake. 'To this, doubtless, allusion is made in Dt
33°, where ΟΣ should be rendered ‘sea,’ not ‘ west,’
and is certainly the Sea of Galilee. The region has
always been famous for its productiveness, ‘ inse-
much that it invites the most slothful to take pains
in its cultivation’ (Jos. BJ UL. 111. 9). It was one
of the districts from which Solomon drew provisions,
presided over for this purpose by the kine’s son. tn-
law Ahimaaz (1 K 415. ‘To the inhabitants of
such a land the more luxuriant vegetation of the
hot lands on either side spread its temptations in
vain... It is Juxury where luxury cannot soften.
On these broad heights, open to the sunshine and
the breeze, life is free and exhilarating.

‘* Naphtali is a hind let loose.”

This beautiful figure (Gn 497!) fully expresses the
feelings which are bred by the health, the spacious-
ness. the high freedom, and glorious outlook of Upper
Galilee’ (//GHZ? 420). The reading, ‘ Naphtali is
a stretched out, ae. slender, terebinth,’ adopted
by Ewald (fist. of Israel, tr. 11. 291), Dillmann
(Grenesis, 11. 472), and others in preference to MT,
is rejected by Delitzsch (Genesis in loc.), with
apparently good reason. The figure of a slender
tree seems to suit neither the territory nor its in-
habitants. The latter appear to have been from
the first a robust and numerous people; while
neither in shape, nor in the character of its pro-
ducts, is the land at all open to such a description
(HGH? 420, note). Delitzsch further points out
that mSy, in the meaning of stretched,-slender, is
uncorroborated and linguistically improbable. M'T
is supported by the Targeg. and Sam., and is alto-
gether appropriate to people nurtured amid the
freedom of the mountains. ‘ He who giveth goodly
words’ seems to mark out Naphtali as possessing,
in special measure, the gift of eloquence. Of this,
however, there is no extant evidence.

His position as a border tribe exposed Naphtali
to constant peril from marauding bands, and in-
roads of hostile neighbours. In conflict with those
who sought the spoils of his fair territory, no doubt,
was developed that alert, eager, fearless, warlike
spirit, which shone so conspicuously under the leader-
ship of Barak and Deborah (Jg 5'°), and which made
the men of these uplands so formidable in later
days. A thousand captains and a contingent of
37,000 men ‘with shield and spear’ were sent to
David at Hebron (1 Ch 123). In Tiglath-pileser’s
first raid against Pekah, Naphtali fell into the
hands of Assyria, and the people were taken inte
captivity (2 K 15%; ef. 1 Ch 5°, Is 9"). The heroic
zeal and bravery of the inhabitants of this region
in the war of independence was worthy of the
greatest traditions of the past (see GALILEE).
Josephus, whose knowledge was intimate, testifies

NAPHTUHIM

NARD 48)

that they were ‘inured to war from their infancy,’
‘nor hath the country ever been destitute of men
of courage’ (2/J 16 ili. 2). Much of our Lord’s
ministry was fulfilled within the borders of Naph-
tali; and of those chosen to be His companions
and witnesses, the chief were natives of this soil.

There are but two towns of amy consequence in
the territory of Naphtali to-day, both ‘holy cities’
of the Jews: Tiberias, on the western shore of the
Sea of Galilee, with about 5000 inhabitants, where
the tombs of Maimonides, Rabbi Akiba, and other
great ones are shown, the ruins of the ancient city
stretching 2 miles to the south; and Safed, with
over 20,000 inhabitants, crowning the mountain
north of the sea, dominated by the ‘castle hill.’
The castle itself, dating from Crusading times, was
finally wrecked in the earthquake of 1837, which
wrought such havoc both in Safed and in Tiberias.
At Jleirén, a few miles north-west of Safed, are
the ruins of an ancient synagogue, and the tombs
of Hillel and Simeon Bar Yochai. This is a popu-
lar Jewish place of pilgrimage. Of the villages
representing ancient cities, er-Ramch is perhaps
the most prosperous ; and on the ridge north of ev-
Rameh stands the hamlet of ed-Bukeita, the highest
place of human habitation in Palestine, whose
Jewish inhabitants claim to have held it in un-
broken possession since Joshua’s conquest.

Naphtali, Mount (‘723 70, ἐν τῷ ὄρει TH Νεῴ-
θαλεί, Jos 207) was the northmost of the parts into
which the central range of Western Palestine was
divided, named after the tribes that mainly occu-
pied them—Mount Judah, Mount Ephraim, and
Mount Naphtali. It is a mistake in either case
to translate ‘hill-country’ (see, however, Driver
in art. Hitt-Counrry). The rendering ‘mount’
or ‘mountain’ is in accordance with immemorial
usage in these lands. The modern Jebel Safed
corresponds generally with the ancient lar Naph-
tali, and Jebel Nablus with Har Ephraim: the
name in each case is taken from the seat of
government in the district. No one thinks of
translating Jebel Libndn (Mount Lebanon) by
‘the hill-country of Lebanon,’ although the scenery
there is as diversified as in any district in the
southern range.

LIrERATURE.—Thomson, Land and Book, ii. passim ; Merrill,
Galilee in the Time of Christ; G. A. Smith, HWGHL pp. 53,
392, 420; Henderson, Palestine, p. 102 f.; Douglas, Joshua,
103-105 ; Ewald, I/ist. of Israel, tr. ii. 290 ff. ; Keil and Delitzsch,
Joshua; Driver, Deut. 413; and art. GALILEE.

W. EwInc.

NAPHTUHIM (onnr3, Νεφθαλ(ι)είμ, Nephtuin,
Nephthuim) is given in Gn 1015 and 1 Ch 1! as the
fourth ‘son’ of Mizraim. Nothing definite is
known of a place or people bearing this name.
One view, as old as Targ. Jon., transposes the
first two consonants, reads Pentaschanum, identi-
fies with Νέφθυς, and puts the situation N.E. of
Egypt. An attempt to find an Egyptian etymology
takes nw as the plural article and Ptah as the god's
name, thus yielding naptah, with a meaning ‘ they
of Ptah,’ an appropriate name for the district about
Memphis, the centre of the Ptah cult. This name,
however, does not seem to have been in actual use,
in native documents, to denote a place or people.
The Ethiopian capital, Napata, mentioned by
Ptolemy (iv. 7, 19) is a tempting parallel, but
would be more likely to be assigned to Cush.
The certainty of Pathrusim being the Egyptian
peterst or ‘southern land’ Jed Erman to suggest
a corruption from onons for petemhi ‘northern
land.’ If we are to admit corruptions, we may
compare the Assyrian form Nathu, given in Assur-
banipal’s Annals (Col. i. 94, 99), as a district, prob-
ably in Lower Egypt. This seems to represent the
Egyptian n-idhw, ‘the marshes,’ and is used in
opposition to Patrusi. Herodotus (11. 165) gives

this name as Ναθῶ, and indicates that there were
two such districts. The disappearance of p may
be compensated by the change from ἔ to 6 in the
Assyrian spelling. For other suggestions 566
Dillmann and Holzinger on Gen. and the references
there; Steindortl, Beitr. zur Assyr. i. p. 600 f.
Oy HL. We Jd OHNE 4
NAPKIN is the EV tr® in Lk 19%, Jn 114 207 (in
Ae 19" [the only other occurrence of the Gr. word |
‘handkerchief’) of σουδάριον, which is really a Lat.
word sudarium* (from sudor, ‘sweat’). The name
refers to the use of this article to wipe off perspira-
tion from the hands and face (ef. Quintil. vi. 9). In
Lk 1939 the man who had received the one pound,
wrapped his lord’s money in a suderium, which
may here mean either a species of head-dress like
the Arab. kijfiyeh, or a towel or the like (the reader
will recall instances in the Arabian Nights Tales
of the wrapping up of money ina linen cloth and
then concealing it, and also of the carrying of it
in the folds of one’s turban). The same uncer-
tainty attaches to the meaning of the handker-
chiefs (σουδάρια) which are said to have been
brought in contact with the person of St. Paul
and then used for the healing of the sick, Ac 19".
The face of the dead was bound up with a napkin,
Jn 115 (Lazarus) 207 (Jesus). See, also, art. Dress
in vol. i. p. 627". J. A. SELBIE.

NARCISSUS (Ndpxiocos).—In Ro 16" St. Pau!
salutes, among other Roman Christians, those ‘ of
the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.’
The name was common, especially among slaves
and freedmen ; ef. C/L vi. 4123 (in the household
of Livia), 4346, 5206 HELICONIS NARCISSI AVGVS-
TIANI: 22875 NARCISSVS - AVG - LIB.; but it is
best known as that of the notorious freedman of
Claudius, who had been put to death by Agrip-
pina shortly after the accession of Nero, some three
or four years before this letter was written (Tac.
Ann. xili. 1; Dio Cass. Ix. 34). It was an obvious
suggestion that the reference was to members of
his household, but the faet that he was already
dead when the letter was written seemed to make
this impossible. Bishop Lightfoot has, however,
sugeested that the identifieation is still possible.
When Narcissus was put to death, his property
would be confiscated and become the property of
the emperor, and his slaves would swell the
imperial household, but be distinguished as the
Narcissiani. We find servants of Livia called
Macenatiani, as having come from the household
of Mirecenas (CTL vi. 4016, 4032); we find also
Amyntiant (4035 ; ef. 8738), Agrippiumnt, German-
iciani. Vhe same explanation is given for the
household of ARISTOBULUS (wh. see). The form
Narcissianus occurs, but apparently not necessarily
with this meaning, Murat. p. 1150, 4 :'rI - CLAVDIO
-SP Εν NARCISSIANO. The following inscription
is Jater, CL vi. : D.M|T. FLAVIVS - AVG. LIB |
NARCISSVS+ FECIT - - -, and lower down : T. FLAVIVS
« AVG + LIB + FIRMVS + NARCISSIANVS «9... REFECIT.
It may be possible to work this point out more
completely when vol. vi. of the Berlin Corpus of
Inseriptions is finished. An inscription quoted
by Plumptre (Liblical Studies, p. 428) is of doubt-
ful genuineness. The later traditions about
Narcissus are quite valueless. He is made by
Pseudo-Hippolytus (de LAX Apostolis, p. 955,
ed. Migne), bishop of Athens, and is commemorated
on Oct. 31.

LITERATURE. — Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 173; Sanday-
Headlam, Jiomans, p. 425; Acta Sanctorum, Oct. vol. xiii.

p. 687. A. C. HEADLAM.
NARD.—-‘ Pure nard’ is the AVm rendering for

* It appears in the Targums as N17°D (Buxtorf, Lex. alm.
2442),

pera

488 NASBAS

NATHANAEL

‘spikenard’ (Mk 14°, RVm ‘pistic nard’).
SPIKENARD.

See

NASBAS (B Nac Sas) oceurs only in To 11'8
‘And Achiacharus and Nasbas his brother’s son
came,’ namely, to the wedding of Tobias the
son of ‘Tobit. The AV gives in the margin
the suggestion of Junius: ‘ Achiacharus, who is
also called Nasbas’ (i.e. ᾿Αχιαχαρ ὃς καὶ N. for
᾿Αχιάχαρος καὶ N.). The MSS and Versions offer
the following variants (cf. Ball, Variorwm Apoc-
rypha): δα ‘A. and Nabad his cousins’ (but a
second hand corrected οἱ ἐξάδελφοι into the singular) ;
cursives ‘ A. and Nadas his cousins’; Itala ‘A. and
Nabal his maternal uncle’ (Cod. Sangerm. 15:
‘Achiacar in Navis soceri illius’); Syr. ‘A. and
Laban, lis sister’s son’ (73 omitted in the Thes.
Syr. col. 1886); Vulg. ‘Achior and Nabath the
cousins of Tobias.’

The question whose brother’s or sister’s son
Nasbas was, whether of Tobit (so Vulgate and
others) or of Achiacharus, which could not be
settled by the data in the Book of Tobit, is now
decided in favour of the latter view through the
newly published Story of Ahikar and his Nephew.
For there can be no doubt as to the identity of
these personages ; and it is now also certain that
we must find the same person (Nasbas) in the
Aman of the received text of To 14! (see art.
AMAN in vol. i. p. 79 and correct there, that the
Syriac spells ‘ Axab’ [223] not ‘ Ahab’); ef. further,
Ball, Variorum Apocrypha, where the Sinaitic
Text (ἐν τῷ ποιῆσαί με ἐλεημοσύνην) must be trans-
lated : ‘because he gave me alms,’ not ‘ because I
did alms.’

The original form of the name is most probably
Nadab, though it is not easy to say on palieo-
graphical or other grounds how all the variants
could arise, especially the received form Nashas.
See J. R. Harris in the Introduction to The Story
of Ahikar (London, 1898, pp. xxix, xlv).

Ep. NESTLE.

NASI (B Νασεί, A Νασίθ, AV Nasith), 1 Es 5°2=
Neziah, Ezr 2°4, Neh 758,

NATHAN (jn; ‘(whem God) gave’; Na@dv).—1.
Successor of Samuel in the line of prophet states-
men (Sir 47). When first introduced into the his-
tory (28 7417, 1 Ch 171-15) he is already David’s chief
spiritual adviser (ef. 1 K 1*7 Keré). The incident is
a remarkable one, whether we regard it as indi-
cative of the prophetic as contrasted with the
priestly policy in religious affairs (Ewald, HJ iii.
131), or as marking an epoch in the development
of the Messianic ideal. The transfer of the seat
of government from Hebron to Jerusalem was the
first step towards the unification of the kingdom.
It only remained to centralize the religious system
as well, and so render Israel completely See
geneous. The building, therefore, of the temple at
Jerusalem was something more than an expression
of fervent piety; it was a stroke of far-reaching
policy. At first, indeed, it was not altogether
successful; but after the fall of the Northern
Kingdom the temple became so inextricably associ-
ated with the religion of the Hebrews as to involve
mn its own ruin the system which it was designed
to consolidate and preserve. The prophet his-
torlan represents Nathan’s purely human impulse
as favourable to the project. That very night,
however, a Divine revelation warned him that the
time was not yet ripe for this innovation, and bade
him communicate to the king a consolatory promise,
which is one of the most important “Messianic
prophecies in the whole OT. The conception of
the Son of David, whose kingdom should have no
end, struck the imagination of every subsequent
Messianic prophet, and is the most prominent

feature in NT retrospect. The signisacant varia-
tions of the Chronicles in this speech need not here
be indicated. But Nathan fulfilled the prophet’s
truest function in that scene in which his idyllie
parable awoke the conscience of his friend and
master (28 12), Ps 51 title); As we read the
words of restrained emotion in which Nathan lays
bare the meanness and selfishness of David’s sin,
we feel that their effect must have been, in great
measure, due to the peculiarly intimate relations
of the king and the prophet. Doubtless it was a
consolation to Nathan to be commissioned subse-
quently (2S 12”) to bestow on the first child of
the now forgiven union his name ‘in religion,’
‘Jedidiah, after the meaning of Jah’ (Ewald, /HJ/
iui. 108). The infant thus favoured was afterwards
to owe his crown to the prophet’s astuteness and
promptitude. It was Nathan that first detected
the plot of Adonijah, and suggested and carried
through the plan of action by which it was bafiled,
and he took a leading part in the joyous corona-
tion ceremony that followed (1 kK 1). One is
tempted to suggest that the far-seeing and enlight-
ened statesmanship which marked the early years
of Solomon’s reign was a result of the teaching of
Nathan. It is significant that his son Zabud was
selected by Solomon as a special priest and ‘ king's
friend’ (1 K 45. The Chronicler ascribes to Nathan
histories of David (1 Ch 29’) and of Solomon (2 Ch
9”), It remains to add that Jerome (Qu. Heb. on
1S 1713, 28 2121, 1Ch 207 27%) identifies Nathan
with David’s nephew Jonathan. He says that
he is called Nathan as a prophet, but Jonathan
as a warrior, and that when called by the former
name his father is not mentioned, since he was not
a prophet.

2. Son of David, born at Jerusalem (2S 54,
1 Ch 144). According to 1 Ch 3° he was third son
of Bathshua (Bathsheba), Solomon being fourth.
But we should naturally infer from 28 12" that
Solomon was the first son of Bathsheba’s that lived
for any time. The princely family of Nathan is
mentioned in Zee 1212 as a specific division of the
house of David. St. Luke (3°!) traces the descent
of our Lord from David through Nathan rather
than through Solomon, as is done by St. Matthew.
3. Father of Igal (2S 23°), or brother of Joel (1 Ch
1138), who was one of David’s heroes. The text of
Chronicles is preferred by Rawlinson, but seems a
corruption of that of Samuel. 4 A Judahite
(1 Ch 2%), 5, One of the deputation sent by Ezra
to request Iddo to provide Levites, ete., for the
temple (Ezr 8", 1 Es 8#). 6. One of those who had
taken strange wives (Ezr 10°), called in 1 Es 95
Nathanias. N. J.D; WHITE.

NATHANAEL.—1. (Χαθαναήλ) one of the ‘cap-
tains over thousands,’ who played a prominent
part at Josiah’s passover, 1 Es 1%. 2. (B Ναθανάηλος,
A om.) ἃ priest who had married a foreign wife,
1 Es 92=NETHANEL of Ezr 1023, 8. (Na@ava7d) an
ancestor of Judith, Jth 81... 4. See next article.

NATHANAEL (Χαθαναήλ, equivalent to xin
[‘God has given’; οἵ. the names Dorotheus,
Dositheus, Theodore}, Nethanel [which see], Nu 18
ete.).—A man of Cana of Galilee (Jn 21*), whom
Philip, after having himself been called by Christ,
induced to come into the Master’s presence (Jn
1585.) Our Lord describes him as ‘an Israelite
indeed,’ 1.6. one who valued the spiritual privileges,
and sought to realize the ideal life of an Israelite :
and as a man ‘in whom there is no guile,’ 2.6. not
sinless, but sincere and candid, open-minded, and
single-hearted, one who was free from the guile of
Jacob before he attained to the nobility of Israel.
Nathanael showed his candour (1) by not allowing
himself to be deterred from coming to see Jesud

NATHANAEL

NATURAL 489

through his natural reluctance ἢ to accept Nazareth,
an insignificant townlet, mentioned by no prophet,
as the place whence the expected Messiah would
come forth; (2) by at once surrendering his pre-
judice when adequate evidence of Christ’s super-
natural power was received. His eventual faith
in the Messiahship of Jesus could hardly have been
due to the mere fact that Christ, unseen by
Nathanael, had beheld him under the fig-tree,
even assuming that he was seen there engaged in
devotion or religious meditation. Christ alludes,
doubtless, to some recent crisis or special incident
in Nathanael’s spiritual experience which had
taken place while he sat under the fig-tree—an
awakening, perhaps, to a higher ideal of life and
duty, or a successful struggle with some strong
temptation, or a devout longing for the coming of
Messiah and His kingdom. He who had then
not only seen, but seen into him, must be ‘ He that
should ‘come,’ the Son of God (in Messianic sense,
cf. Ps 27), and the (spiritual) king of Israel (Is 97).
The name of Nathanael occurs only once again
in the Gospel history, namely, in Jn 20°, where
he is one of the seven to whom the risen Jesus
manifested Himself at early dawn after a night of
fruitless fishing. One expects to find Nathanael
included (like the other disciples who were simul-
taneously called) among the Twelve apostles.
Aug. (Hom. vii. on the (rosp. of Jn.) accounts for
his non-selection by the assumption that Nathanael
was learned in the law, and that Christ ‘desired
to transform the world through unlearned’ apostles.
Somewhat similarly, Gregory the Great (J/or. 33.
21) represents our Lord as ‘ passing over Nathanael
in order to show, by the choice of apostles who
had nothing praiseworthy of their own, that their
sutliciency came not from themselves, but from
above.’ The now widely accepted + identification
of Nathanael with Bartholomew is not known
to have been adopted until the 9th cent., by the
Nestorian Elias, of Damascus (A ssem. B.O. iv. p. Vv). ἢ
To the considerations already adduced under BAR-
THOLOMEW in favour of this suggestion, may be
added (1) Nathanael’s apparent-‘inclusion (Jn 315)
among the ‘disciples,’ by whom, in the context
(Jn 20% 2114), the evangelist seems to mean
apostles ; (2) the fact of most of the other apostles
bearing two names, and, in particular, the parallel
case of Levi, who is so called in Mk 24, Lk 5*7, and
whose other name, Matthew, signifies ‘ gift of Jeho-
vah,’ almost equivalent to Nathanael. ‘The identifi-
cation, however, cannot be regarded as more than a
plausible conjecture, against which the absence of
any hint of the identity in any early writer tells
strongly, although not decisively. Nathanael has
also been identified with (1) the triend of Cleopas in
Lk 24 (Epiph. Her. 23, without reason given) ; (2)
Matthew (LThoma in Genes. εἰ. Jn. Ev.), a supposi-
tion negatived by the diverse circumstances of
Nathanael’s call ; (3) John himself (Spaeth in Hilg.
Zeitsch. 1868), Jn 913 being treated as a mistake
of the alleged ‘supplementer’; (4) Matthias (Hilg.
NT extra Can. iv., and, doubtfully, Jn. Lightt.
Com. Ac. in. loc., who elsewhere, in his Comm. on

* Some early writers, however (e.g. Cyril of Alex. Comm. in
doc.), interpret Nathanael’s words in Jn 146, not interrogatively,
but as an acquiescence in Philip’s statement contained in v.49.
Augustine (in loc.), while giving both interpretations, appears
to prefer ‘From Nazareth some good might come,’ and deduces
from the answer that Nathanael was a learned man, who had
‘looked well into the prophets,’ and perceived a hidden refer-
ence to Nazareth in their writings.

+ Among others, by Ew., Mey., Lange, Keim, Wesl., Newm.,
Alf., Tren., Millig., Farrar, Westcott. The Apocr. Judicium
Petri represents both Bartholomew and Nathanael as apostles.

t Elias is followed by Ebedjesu and other Nestorians (Ass. iii.
306). In the West the suggestion is found first in Rupertus
of Deutz (12th cent., Com. in loc.), but did not excite much
attention until the 16th cent., when it was approved by C.
Jansenius (Com. p. 142), and condemned by Baronius as ‘ levis
conjectura’ (1. 123).

Mt. and Jn., prefers to identify Nathanael with
Bartholomew); (5) Simon the Cananwean, from a
misinterpretation of this surname, as if ‘of Cana’;
and (6) Stephen, owing to Jn 1° and Ac 75 (both
the last conjectures mentioned by Chemmnitinus,
Harm. Evan. 312; οἵ. Lipsius, Apocr. Apos. ii. 152).
LITERATURE (in addition to works quoted).—Kindler in Thes.
Theol.-Philol. ii. 370ff.; Trench, Studies in the Gospels; N.
Marshall, Three Discourses on Nathanael in Sermons, VOL. ὙΠῚ
Newman, Sermons, vol. ii.; M‘Laren, Year's Ministry, ii. 169.
H. COWAN.
9 = Nathan,

NATHANIAS (Nadéavias), 1 Es

Bar 10”.
NATHAN-MELECH (352773; Eng. as Vulg.).—

An official in the reign of Josiah, whose name is
used to designate one of the halls or chambers
(may>) of the temple (2 Καὶ 23"; see EUNUCH).
Gifts and offerings were received in these cham-
bers (Neh 1039 @)), and they may have been assigned
particularly to the control of those whose names
are attached to them (Jer 354 36"). In the ‘hall
of Nathan-melech’ Josiah deposited the horses of
the sun (ῦ ἃ group of statuary) which he removed
from near the temple entrance (2 Καὶ 23"; translate,
‘and he removed the horses . . . to the chamber
of N.’). The express identification of the chamber
suggests that it was a permanent repository for
these horses rather than an ‘ office’ to which they
were handed over. Regarding its situation in the
temple area, see PARBAR. ‘The name πϑ 2 ‘ Melech
gave, is exactly paralleled by m32n3 and ὅπ: “97
gave,’ ‘El gave.’ It is not necessarily a recognition
of an idol god Melech (Molech), for Melech, ‘ king,’
was no doubt a title of J’. But the name may bea
trace of the idol-worship of the 7th cent. (Gray,
Heb. Proper Names, pp. 146-148). In the LXX πὸ
does not seem to have been taken as part of the
proper name (Luc. Ναθὰν εὐνούχου τοῦ βασιλέως; B
Nadav βασιλέως τοῦ εὐνούχου. W.B. STEVENSON.

NATIONS.—See GENTILES, ΟΟΠΜ, RACES.

NATURAL.—Two different Greek words are thus
rendered in AV and RV, which it is necessary here
to distinguish. 1. φυσικός, ‘that which is according
to the nature’ (φύσις) of any organism, which is the
outcome of its constitution. Thus St. Paul con-
trasts ἡ φυσικὴ χρῆσις with that which is παρὰ
φύσιν (Ro 1°5); and in like manner the ‘natural
branches,’ οἱ κατὰ φύσιν κλάδοι (Ro 1171), are con-
trasted with the graft from a foreign stock. It is
plain that it is impossib‘e to decide finally whether
or not any process is or is not φυσικός, unless we
understand thoroughly the constitution of the
φύσις. It is only because we assume that we
certainly know the true τέλος of sex, that we un-
hesitatingly condemn as ‘unnatural,’ abominable
practices like those condemned by St. Paul (Ro 15),
despite the fact that they are widely prevalent in
various parts of the world. Science assures us
that they contradict the ‘constitution of human
nature,’ the φύσις of man, and conscience acquiesces
in the decision.

There is, however, little dispute as to what is
unnatural for man, i.e. that which contradicts the
whole system of man’s nature, and is not merely
repugnant to certain elements of it. But when we
ask questions about the distinctions between what is
natural and what is supernatural in the universe,
difliculties emerge. Certainly (see NATURE, p.
493"), if we understand by φύσις ‘the sum of all that
is,’ nothing is strictly supernatural. But science
usually employs the word ‘nature’ (described in
art. NATURE, § 1) as equivalent to the complex of
phenomena, the sum of material forces. And we
have not yet exhausted the meaning of ‘nature’
in this sense, for we are not omniscient. Many

490 NATURAL HISTORY

NATURAL HISTORY

things once considered supernatural are now found
to be strictly the results of ‘natural’ processes, of
hitherto undiscovered laws of the physical universe.
The progress of science largely consists in’ en-
larging the domain of ‘natural’ law. Hence of a
given event, seemingly anomalous, it may be im-
possible for the observer to say with confidence
that it is not the result of unknown natural law,
and that it must be referred to supernatural inter-
vention. The degree of confidence with which
this can be asserted in any particular instance
must be measured by the completeness of our
knowledge of the circumstances and of the agents.
And Butler's observation is profound, ‘that there
may be beings in the universe whose capacities and
knowledge and views may be so extensive as that
the whole Christian dispensation may to them
appear natural, @e. analogous or conformable to
God’s dealings with other parts of His creation ;
as natural as the visible known course of things
appears to us. For there scarce seems any other
possible sense to be put upon the word, but that
only [of] similar, stated, or uniform?’ (Anal. I. 1
sub fin.). This, however, is only a speculation ;
the fact remains, that of certain alleged phenomena
our knowledge of nature assures us that they are
not in accordance with its ordinary laws as known
to us, and that they must therefore be classilied
as supernatural, ‘The classification is provisionally
necessary, although it may not be scientifie seh
specie aternitatis. See MIRACLE (p. 383) for a
fuller discussion of this point.

2. ψυχικός is twice rendered by ‘natural? in the
RV, and twice by ‘sensual.’ The mind of man is
frequently spoken of in the NT as twofold (see
PSYCHOLOGY), embracing the πνεῦμα or νοῦς, the
higher faculty which he enjoys as made in the
image of God, and the ψυχή, the lower element
which he shares with the beasts. The wisdom
which is ‘earthly’ and ‘devilish’ is also ψυχική
(Ja 3”), and the ψυχικοί are described by St. Jude
(v.19) as πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες. In like manner St. Paul
says of the ψυχικός that ‘he receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God’ (1 Co 24), and he contrasts
the σῶμα ψυχικόν of this life with the σῶμα mvev-
ματικόν of the life to come (1 Co 15) 5 ETS
natural man? and ‘the natural body’ are alike of
the earth, earthy. It is questionable if the Revisers
were well advised * in retaining the word ‘natural’
in these last passages as the rendering of ψυχικός ;
‘sensual’ gives the meaning better, and the old
rendering sugvests to the reader a quite unwarrant-
able antithesis between the ‘natural lLody’ and
that which is presumed to be ‘supernatural.’

J. H. BerNarp.

NATURAL HISTORY.—In entering on the study
of the natural history of the Bible we have to con-
sider

1. That, with the exception of Solomon + (1 Κα
453), the authors of the several books were in no
sense naturalists, The allusions by ‘Solomon’ to
objects of nature are so few and general as to give
us no idea how far he had reduced his knowledge
toa scientific form. There is no evidence in the
Scriptures written after his day that he formulated
and gave to the world a scientific treatise on these
subjects. The imperfect descriptions of natural
objects given by the Gr. and Rom. and Arab.
naturalists many centuries later, make it quite
improbable that any treatises of Solomon on plants
and animals were such as, had they been pre-
served, would have enabled us to identify with
accuracy the objects alluded to.

* They have also retained the rendering ‘his natural face’
for τὸ πρέσωτον τῆς γενίσεω: αὐτοῦ (Ja 123), although they render
the Greek literally in their margin,

+ Supposing we have any productions of his pen in the OT,
which is denied with practical unanimity by modern scholars.

2. Apart from the question of the degree of
knowledge of natural history possessed by the
writers of the Bible, their allusions to natural
objects are, for the most part, incidental and
general, not scientific. Even in the lists of clean
and unclean animals in Ly and Dt a large propor-
tion of the names refer to classes and genera, such
as the ‘falcon, after its kind’; ‘the raven, after its
kind’ ; ‘the hawk, after its kind’; ‘ the heron, after
its kind,’ ete. ete. It is clear from this that the
class or genus was in the mind of the writer, and
not an individual species, except in those cases in
which there was but one well-known species in
Bible lands, as the camel, the coney, the swine, ete.

3. The Heb. literature is confined to the can-
onical books. We have no sidelights from other
books in that language to aid us in determining
the objects referred to. In the case of objects men-
tioned but once or a few times only, it is often
difficult or impossible to be certain as to what was
intended. The LXX gives the judement of its
translators as to the Gr. equivalents in their day.
This opinion may not be always well founded.
And it is still more probable that in many cases
they used a text very different from the MT. The
cognate Arab. often sheds light, but in the more
diflicult cases it is of the least value.

4. The books of the Bible were written by
numerous authors, in various parts of the East,
and through a period of at least 1000 years. Any
one who has endeavoured to collect the common
names of plants and animals in any country, but
especially in Bible lands, has been strack with the
fact that a given name refers to different objects
in regions not far apart. For example, in Lebanon
the word faikob is used for several species of
maple. In Gilead it is used for Arbutus And-
rachne, 1... a tree known in the rest of Pal. and
Syria as kotlih. The word ballit is properly an
acorn, but it is used also for the Portuguese Oak,
Quercus Lusitanica, Lam., and another species of
oak, @. Cerris, L. Again, the same object has
often different names in regions within Bible
lands, The cedar of Lebanon has three names
within the limits of N. Lebanon, ’arz, ibAul, and
inub. The term’arz is also used for the Aleppo
Pine. Again, some generic names, as Oak, have no
names in Arabic. Some of its species have names,
as sindiin for (). coccifera, L., mallil for Q. Lusi-
tanica, Lain., look for Q. Look, Ky., ballit for Ὁ
Cerris, L. It is by no means impossible that the
names of plants changed, either by the inutro-
duction of foreign terms, or the adoption of iocal
designations into general literature. It may thus
happen that a certain name, as cedar (Ly 144), refers
toa plant different from that to which it was applied
in later times. There may be many such cases.

5. It is certain that the writers of the Bible
were not more precise in their designation of
objects of natural history than writers in general
literature to-day. When speaking of grass, Lilivs,
mustard, thorns, thistles, owls, bats and other sorts
of natural objects, of which there are numerous
species, belonging perhaps to several genera,
writers of the Bible must not be understood as
having in mind a particular species. An attempt
to find for every allusion to natural objects a
particular species, results in confusion of thought,
and endless and insoluble controversy. In many
cases where individual species are intended, de-
cisive evidence is not to be found as to what the
species is. In such cases we have adopted the
plan of presenting the evidence for one or more
interpretations, and making no attempt at a
decision. Fortunately, these are usually the less
important animals and plants. ᾿

6. In some cases popular errors as to species
appear in the EV. Such is the application of

Fetters reeresenttiseeereremennen

NATURAL HISTORY

NATURAL HISTORY 49]

the term ‘mole’ (Lv 1139) to the mole rat, Spalax
typhlus. The.e are no true moles in Pal. and Syria.
But the spadaz has the aspect and habits of ἃ mole.
Some imaginary animals, as the satyr, are spoken
of in the Bible. It is as idle to look for their
equivalents in nature as it would be when men-
tioned in profane literature. But some such
monster is a conception well-nigh universal among
mankind. In so far as possible it has been the aim
of the author in these articles to give the evidences
which establish or vitiate the claims of the names
adopted in AV and RY, rather than the numerous
and contlicting opinions of scholars. Those who
may wish to enter into that phase of the question
may easily find the topics im the indices of the
large number of books on ancient and biblical
natural history. Among the principal ancient
and medieval authors who have written on these
topics are Pliny, Dioscorides, Theophrastus, Galen,
Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Herodotus, Abu el-Fudli,
Avicenna, and Ibn el-Bitar. Their testimony, as
well as that of others, has been summed up in the
erudite works of Bochart (/fierozoicon), Celsius
(Hierobotaunicon), Rosenniiller (Natural History of
the Bible), Hiller, Royle, Ursinus (Arbor. Bidblic.),
etc. Many naturalists have written of the Fauna
and Flora of Bible lands. Prominent among them
are Hasselquist, Russell, Ehrenberg, Hemprich,

Michaelis, Schweinfiirth, Ascherson, Hooker,
Carruthers, Wood, Tristram, Houghton, and

Boissier, Allusions to natural objects are frequent
in all the standard works of travel, especially in
Burckhardt, Robinson, Thomson, and Tristram.

Pal. and Syria are at the meeting-point of three
continents, Asia, Africa, and Europe. Their ani-
mals and plants connect the Fauna and Flora of
all. Furthermore, their surface is greatly diversi-
fied. Lebanon is over 10,000 and Hermon over
9000 ft. above the sea. A number of peaks of
Amanus and Akher Dagh are nearly as high, as
also the higher mountains of Sinai. The Jordan
Valley is from a little below to 1294 ft. below the
Mediterranean. In the 50,000 square miles be-
tween Sinai on the S., Taurus on the N., the sea
on the W., and the Syrian desert on the E., are
maritime plains, seaward and landward mountain
slopes, alpine summits, tropical valleys, the quag-
mires and marsh thickets of the Hialeh, the salt
Jakes and marshes of Aleppo and Palmyra, the
rolling plateaus of Moab, Gilead, and Bashan, the
ancient lake bed ef Cosle-Syria, and the arid
Syrian desert. The natural result of these great
diversities of surface and climate is a large num-
ber of species and varieties in proportion to the
extent of the land.

A, ANIMAL KINGDOM. —i. MAMMALS, — Tris-
tram (Fauna and klora of Pal.) gives the number
of mammals in the Holy Land at 118... This
number, which has been considerably angmented
by subsequent discoveries, is very large in pro-
portion to the size of the country. A number of
those mentioned in Scripture, as the lion, the
unicorn, and the wild ox, are now extinct. The
larger carnivora, once so numerous, are now
rare. ‘The leopard is found only in lonely retreats,
while the bear is confined to alpine Lebanon and
Antilebanon. The hart is no longer found in Pal.,
but still exists in Armanus, The pygarg (A ati/ope
Addax, Dt 14°) is now no longer found, or only
onthe borders of the desert. Others of the Scrip-
ture mammals which remain have become very
scarce, as the wild goat, the coney, and the roe-
buck. The last is likely soon to become extinct.
The following is a complete list of the scriptural
and apocryphal mammals :—Antelope (RV;— Wild
Ox, AV), Ape, Ass, Wild Ass, Badger (AV;=Seal
or Porpoise, RV), Bat, Bear, Behemoth, Boar,
Camel, Cat, Cattle, Chamois (Wild Sheep), Coney,

Dog, {Dragon, RV Jackal, La 45], Dromedary (really
young Camel, se: DRoMEDARY), Elephant, Ewe,
Fallow Deer (AV ;=Roebuck, RV), Ferret (AV ;
= Gecko, RV), Fox, Gazelle, Goat, Wild Goat,
Greyhound, Hare, Hart, Hind, Horse, Hyena,
Jackal, Lamb, Leopard, Lion, Mole, Mouse, Ox,
Wild Ox (AV ;=Antelope, RV), Pygarg, Ram,
Roe, Roebuck (AV ;=Gazelle, RV), [Satyr], Sheep,
Swine, Unicorn, Weasel, Whale (AV ;--Sea Mon-
ster, RV), Wolf. Leaving out the duplications in
the two VSS, and animals mentioned under ditfer-
ent headings, there are in all 38 different ones,
among which, however, are included the dragon
and satyr, which are partially or wholly fabulous.

ii. Binrps.—The order of the creation of birds in
the Mosaic cosmogony (Gn 159 51. 55} corresponds
with the order of their geological appearance,
which is in the cretaceous period, atter the
reien of the reptiles. The aquatic species were the
first to appear.* Birds are generally more highly
organized than reptiles and fishes on the one hand,
and less so than the higher mammals on the other.
They all have feathers, and are oviparous. Hence
they are readily distinguished, and seem to have
been recognized by ‘Moses’ as a well-marked
Gass. Some have thought that bats were included
in OT among the birds, as they are mentioned at
the end of a list of birds (Lv 11°’). But it is not
clear that the writer so understood the matter, as
the bats come between the birds on the one hand,
and insects and reptiles on the other. The exclu-
sion of the unclean birds in the lists of Lv 11 and
Dt 14 implies that other birds were eaten. Of
those that were eaten, however, only one, the
quail, is mentioned by name. ‘ Fatted fowl’ (1 K
433) is doubtful. It may perhaps be inferred that
doves were kept for food in later OT times (Is 60°),
and fens in NV (Mt 287), also that sparrows were
sold for food (Mt 1059, Lk 12°). The numerous allu-
sions to fowling imply the use of birds so caught
for food. The Bible alludes to the migration
and singing of birds (Ca 911-15. Ee 124, Jer 87), also
to their nesting in the temple (7 Ps 845). Pigeons,
swallows, sparrows, and other birds find a secure
sanctuary now in churches, but esp. in mosques.
The Israelites were forbidden to take the mother
bird with the young (Dt 22"7), perhaps because
the mother at such times will not avail herself of
her power of concealment and flight. The object
of the law was to cultivate a merciful regard for
the maternal instinct, not merely to preserve game
(another possible expianation is quoted by Driver,
ad loc.). Allusion is made to the forsaking of the
nest (Pr 278), also to theht (Hos 91, Ex 194, Dt
32U-12)) More than 350 species of birds have been
collected in the Holy Land. Some of these have
brilliant plumage, as the Garrulous Roller, the
Bee Eater, the Hoopoe, several Kingfishers, the
Sun Bird, the White-throated Robin, Tristram’s
Grackle, the African Darter, ete. But the chief
ornithological characteristic of the country is the
large number of birds of prey, esp. of the larger
kinds, as vultures, eagles, falcons, buzzards, and
the fishing water fowl, as pelicans, cranes, herons,
cormorants, darters, etc. The coast species re-
semble those of the maritime regions of the Medi-
terranean basin. The mountain systems of Leba-
non and Antilebanon, with their continuations
southward, parallel to the coast, divide the mari-
time region from that of the Syrian and Arabian
deserts. The avifauna is nearly identical in both
the mountain chains. That of the deep cleft of the

* With this statement in the text the reader will do well to
compare Driver's art. ‘The Cosmogony of Genesis,’ in Hxpositor,
Jan. 1880. There on p. 28 a table exhibits the order of appear-
ance thus: according to geology, Fishes, Reptiles Gin Carbon.
period), Birds ; according to Gn, Fishes of all kinds and Birds,
Reptiles (27).

Oe eS its

492 NATURAL HISTORY

NATURAL HISTORY

Jordan and Dead Sea contains a number of Indian
and Ethiopian species. The following is a list of
Scripture birds :—Bittern (AV ;=Poreupine, RV),
Cock, Cormorant, Crane (RV ;= Swallow, AV),
Cuckoo (AV ;=Seamew, RV), Dove, Eagle, Fatted
Vow] (2), Gier Eagle (AV ;= Vulture, RV), Glede,
Hawk, Hen, Heron (AV ;=Ibis, RVm), Hoopoe,
Ibis, Kite (AV ; = Falcon, RV), Lapwing, Night
Hawk, Osprey, Ossifrage (AV ;=Gier Eagle, RV),
Ostrich, Owl, Great Owl (AV; = Arrowsnake,
RV), Screech Ow! (AV ;=Night Monster, RV;
this refers to a fabulous being, see art. LILITH),
Little Owl, Horned Owl (RV), Partridge, Peacock,
Pelican, Pigeon, Quail, Raven, Sparrow, Stork,
Swallow, Swan (AV ;=Horned Owl, RV), Turtle
Dove, Vulture,—in all 34, exclusive of duplicates.
Many of these are generic or ordinal terms, in-
cluding a large number of species.

il. LEPTILES.—These form a class in Scripture,
being mentioned in Gn 71.51.1 Καὶ 4°, Hos 28 and
elsewhere, by the side of beasts, birds, and fishes,
though naturally not a class in the scientific sense
of the term, coextensive with the class of ‘Rep-
tiles’ of modern naturalists. The four living Orders
of Reptiles, Testudinata or Chelonia, the Turtles ;
Loricata or Crocodilia, the Crocodiles ; Sauria,
the Lizards; Ophidia, the Serpents, —are all repre-
sented in the biblical Fauna. The following rep-
tiles are mentioned in Scripture :—Adder, Arrow-
snake (RV;=Great Owl, AV), Asp, Basilisk,
Chameleon, Cockatrice, [Dragon, i.e. sea monster,
or in Ps 9115 a land serpent], Gecko, Leviathan,
Lizard, Monitor (if this is the meaning of oah in
Iv 11%, see CHAMELEON), Serpent, Viper, —only
12; but several of these are generic or ordinal,
and include large numbers of species. There are
probably not fewer than 100 species of reptiles in
Pal. and Syria.

iv. AMPHIBIANS.—These include Frogs, Toads,
Newts, and Salamanders, all of which are repre-
sented in the Holy Land. The Frog, however, is the
only member of the class mentioned in Scripture.

v. FISHES.—The class of Fishes is recognized in
Scripture, but includes cetaceans and many reptiles.
They were brought in on the fifth day, with other
oviparous creatures, before the viviparous animals
οἵ the sixth day. No species of true fish is men-
tioned by name in the Bible. The only attempt at
classification is into clean and unclean, the former
having fins and scales, the latter not. The ex-
eluded families are the Silurid@, the Sheath fish ‘
ftatide, the Skates ; Petromyzide, the Lampreys ;
Squalide, the Sharks; and Muranide, the Eels.
Solomon ‘spake of fishes’ (1 K 45). Fish were
especially abundant in the Nile (Nu 11, Is 19)
and the Sea of Galilee. A number of the species
in this lake are identical with those in the Nile,
a fact noted by Josephus (BJ ur. x. 8). They
also abound in the Jordan and its affluents, and
the streams which empty into the Mediterranean,
—in all, 33 fresh-water species. The Mediter-
ranean coast species have not been fully studied.
They are, however, very numerous. The Dead
Sea has none, a fact noted by Ezekiel (4710), who
illustrates the vivifying power of the holy waters
descending from the altar by the fact that they can
enable even the Dead Sea to swarm with fish.’ The
Arabs have a prejudice against eating fish, hence
the immense shoals in the interior waters. On the
contrary, the people of the maritime regions are
exceedingly fond of them, and the fishing industry
is a large one at all the seaports. The government
gains a considerable revenue from the tax on fish.

vi. JOINTED ANIMALS.—(a) Insects.—The Holy
Land is emphatically a land of insects. They
number thousands of species, and have as yet been
very imperfectly studied. Those mentioned in
Scripture are: Ant, Bee, Beetle (AV;=Cricket, RV),

Cankerworm, Caterpillar, Crimson (=Cochineal),
Flea, Fly, Gnat, Grasshopper, Hornet, Lice, Locust,
Moth, Palmerworm, Scarlet (=Cochineal), Wasp. —
in all, excluding duplicates, 16, of which, however,
a number are generic or ordinal. (0) Scorpions.—
Of these there are several species, none of which
are distinguished by name. (0) Spiders.—Of these
also there are numerous species, and countless
individuals.

vii. MOLLUSKS.—Of these there are large num-
bers, both of land and water species. Few of them
are mentioned in Scripture. The Snail, Onycha,
[the operculum of several species of Strombus|,
Pearl [the product of diseased action in some
species of Meleagrina), and other bivalves, Purple
{an extract from a species of Murex], make up the
meagre list of this immense sub-kingdom.

vil. WorMS.—Of these only the Horseleech, an
Annelid, and the generic expression Worms, are

given. The sub-kingdom is very extensively
represented.

1x. CULENTERATA. —The Mediterranean Sea
contains an abundance of species of Sea Anemones,
Jelly Fishes, and Corals. Only the latter are men-
tioned in Scripture, with no intimation of species.

x. PORIFERA.—The Sponge is once mentioned
(Mt 274) in connexion with the crucifixion of our
Lord. The allusion is undoubtedly to the common
sponge so familiar to all.

b. VEGETABLE KINGDOM: BoTANY.—The Flora
of Pal. and Syria is exceedingly rich and varied,
owing to the same causes which have been alluded
to in connexion with the Fauna. In the region
bounded by Akher Dagh on the N., Sinai on the
S., the Mediterranean on the W., and the Syro-
Arabian desert on the E., are 124 Orders, 850
Genera, and about 3500 Species of Phianogams and
Acrogens. The experience of the writer leads him
to believe that there are still many new species co
be discovered in the mountains of N. Syria, and in
the districts E. of the great north and south cleft
of the Orontes, Coele-Syria, the Jordan Valley, and
the ‘Arabah.

Syria and Pal. may be divided into six botanical
regions. (1) The Maritime Plain. Its Flora re-
sembles that of the other coasts of the Levant, but
with a few species not elsewhere found. (2) The
parallel mountain chains Εν and W. of the great
clett, from the level of the Maritime Plain to an
altitude of 4000 ft. These chains begin with
Amanus, the northernmost peaks of which are
divided from Akher Dagh by the valley of the
Ak-Su, and the southernmost from Mt. Cassius by
the valley of the Orontes. Mt. Cassius is the
outlier of the Nusaireh chain, which extends from
the valley of the Orontes to that of the Nahr el-
Kebir (the ancient Eleutherus), which separates it
from Lebanon. Lebanon extends from the Eleu-
therus to the Leontes. S$. of the Leontes the hill-
country of Galilee, Samaria, Judiea, and et-Tih
constitutes a more or less continuous chain, separ-
ated from Sinai by the sandy plain of Debbet er-
Ramleh. A parallel chain, E. of the great cleft,
begins with Kurd Dagh, and extends southwards
under the names of Jebel Bilas, Antilebanon,
Hermon, Gilead, Moab, and Edom, to the Red Sea
at ‘Akabah. A break occurs in Jaulin, where a
tableland, dotted with extinct volcanoes of no
great elevation, divides Antilebanon from Gilead.
This plain is terminated on the E. by the range of
Jebel ed-Druz (Hill of Bashan). These mountain
ranges have a characteristic flora, and each section
of them has its peculiar species. It would carry us
far beyond the limits of this arti:le to enumerate
them. (3) The alpine summits of ὕ 1656 ranges, prin-
cipally those of Akher Dagh, Amanus, Cassius,
Lebanon, and Antilebanon, have a flora remarkable
for its specialization, and having little of the palie-

as follows:

NATURE

NATURE 493

arctic character. (4) The tablelands of Aleppo,
Coele-Syria, Damascus, Hauran, Gilead, and Moab.
These have also many distinctly characteristic
plants. (5) The deserts bordering these, and ex-
tending southward into et-Tih and Sinai. These
have already furnished a notable addition to the
Flora, and doubtless contain many undiscovered
species. (6) The chasm of the Jordan and Dead Sea,
in which a tropical climate prevails, and where a
number of Indian and Ethiopian types are found.

The most numerous Orders are Ranwuneulacee,
12 wenera, 75 species; Crucifere, 72 gen. 240 sp. ;
Sileneew, 10 gen. 129 sp.; Lequminose, ὅθ gen.
423 sp. ; Umbcllifera, 73 gen. 190 sp. ; Composite,
115 ven. 457 sp.; DBorraginee, 26 gen. 110 sp. ;
Scrophulariacea, 17 gen. 131 sp.; Labiate, 31
gen. 207 sp.; Chenopodiacew, 24 gen. 64 sp.;
Liliacee, 22 gen. 124 sp. ; and Graminee, 92 gen.
238 species. Ranunculus has 383 sp., Silene 61,
Trigonella 37, Medicago 26, Trifolium 56, Astra-
galus 124, Vicia 31, Galium 39, Anthemis 28,
Verbascun 40, Linaria 24, Scrophularia 19, Veronica
24, Salvia 39, Stachys 25, Euphorbia 41, Allium
42, Cyperus 15, Carex 18. As might have been
expected from the dryness of the climate, Ferns
are few, being represented by only 15 gen. and 25
species. The Orchids are of the smaller kinds,
numbering 11 gen. and 37 species.

The following Scripture plants cannot be de-
termined with certainty, viz. : Aleum (almug), bay-
tree (not a tree at all), box, cockle, cypress, gall,
fir, gopher wood, hemlock, oil-tree, pannag, poplar,
sweet cane, and vine of Sodom.

The following are generic or ordinal, viz. :
Bramble, brier, bitter herbs, bulrush, bush, flag,
grass, hay, herb, lily, melon, nettle, oak, oil-tree,
pulse, reed, rush, thistle, thorn, vetches (RVm
tor nettles), willow.

The plants which may be known with a fair
measure of certainty are distributed in 35 Orders,
Ranunculacee, titches; Cruciferae,
mustard ; Capparidee, caper ; Cistinee, ladanum ;
Malvaceae, cotton ; Linacew, flax ; Vitacew, vine ;
Rutacee, rue; Anacardiacee, balm, balsam, bdel-
lium (7), frankincense, myrrh, nuts (pistachio, Gn
43"), teil-tree, terebinth ; Leguminose, beans,
juniper (retem), husks (carob), lentils, shittim
wood (acacia), rve (Airsenneh) ; Rosacea, almond,
apple, hazel (almond); MWyrtaceew, myrtle; Lyth-
rariea, camphire (henna); Granatee, pomegranate ;
Cucurbitacee, cucumbers, gourd; Umbelliferw,
anise (dill), coriander, cummin, galbanum ; Valeri-
anace, spikenard; Composita, wormwood; Styra-
cacew, styrax; Oleacew, olive; Aquilariacea,
lign-aloes; Hbenacee, ebony ; Solanacee, mandrake;
Laliatew, lyssop, mint ; Chenopodiacee, mallows
(saltwort, RV) (malluah); Laurinew, cassia, cinna-
mon; Urticacee, lig, sycamine, sycomore ; Plata-
nacee, chestnut (plane-tree); Juglandacee, nut
(walnut); Coniferm, ash (oren), cedar, thyine wood ;
Palinee, palm ; Lridacew, sattron ; Amaryllidacer,
rose of Sharon (narcissus) ; Liliacew, garlic, leeks,
onion; Graminew, barley, millet, spelt, tare,
wheat.

Of the above 65 species, 35 are cultivated plants.
The foregoing attests makes it clear that the
Hebrews did not study plants as closely as animals,
a fact illustrated among the Arabsof the present day.

G. E. Post.

NATURE.—lew words have been the source of
so much confusion in theology as the word nature,
for few words have been employed, as this has
been, for a long period in two or three distinct,
though related, senses. It will be best to begin
our discussion by distinguishing between these
different meanings.

1. The word ‘nature’ is commonly used in
scientific investigation to describe the sum-total

of physical forces—the whole range of the co-
existences and sequences of phenomena. In this
view it includes the entire domain of the inorganic
and organic, the mineral, vegetable, and animal
kingdoms. Thus we speak of ‘students of nature,’
of ‘natural science,’ or natural philosophy, mean-
ing thereby to describe those departments of human
knowledge which are concerned with the material
universe. Nature, in this sense, includes man in
respect of that side of his life which he shares
with the lower animals. The science which has
to do with the diseases of his body is, par eaxcel-
lence, ‘Physic.’ And the progress of physiology
suggests that not only the disorders of his body,
but some at least of the maladies of his mind, are
subject to physical law, and may be made the
subject of scientific investigation like any other
physical process.

2. Man, however, is possessed of a unique faculty
which he does not share with the other inhabit-
ants of this earth—the faculty of self-determining
reason and of conscious will. To be able to make
a moral choice is his supreme prerogative. He is
not altogether the victim of breeding and of cir-
cumstance ; he is a free agent. And this freedom
of his enables him, within certain limits, to initiate
movements in the visible order, and to control and
guide the material forces of the universe. If we
are to regard man in this point of view as a part
of nature, we must widen our conception of nature,
which will now include not only the kingdom of
law, but the kingdom of freedom. Nature, in this
second and enlarged sense, doesnot exclude the possi-
bility of free will; it takes in the moral world; it
recognizes moral no Jess than ‘ physical’ law.

3. The word is often used in yet a larger sense.
Nature is regarded as the sum-total of all that is,
or was, or shall be. It is the AdZ, the Universe.
And, so defined, it is not exclusive of God, for (to
the believer in Him) He is the ens realissimaim,
the most certain and the most real existence which
we can conceive. Nature, in this view, is the
kingdom of God, in whom and from whom it
draws its life. All its operations are the mani-
festations of His ceaseless and omnipresent activity.
If we use the word consistently in this its largest
sense, it is plain that we must abandon the
term supernatural, Nothing can be supernatural,
nothing can be ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ nature, if
nature is the sum of all that is. See NATURAL.

So far we have only attempted to define the
various connotations which the word ‘nature’ may
have. And it is to be observed that in whatever
sense the word is used the idea is constantly per-
sonified, and attributes and operations are ascribed
to nature which strictly are proper to persons.
When we speak of ‘bountiful’ nature, we may be
thinking of it in sense (1) or in sense (3), and we
may have no intention to include or to exclude
the idea of God as the Bountiful One. Thus Christ
said, ‘the earth beareth fruit of herself? (αὐτομάτη,
Mk 4°), not meaning thereby to suggest that the
harvest is not the gift of God. And, on the other
hand, it is not to be presumed that every form of
words which seems to recognize providence or com-
passion in nature is intended to suggest a Personal
and Benevolent Will behind it. Tor example, some
recent theological writers have argued as if they
held ‘God’ to be merely a synonym for ‘nature,’
and have identified ‘God’ not with the Personal
Author and Governor of nature, but with the order
of nature itself. This is to introduce a grave
ambiguity into our theological nomenclature ; but
it is here instanced merely to illustrate the point
that our idea of nature is necessarily affected and
coloured by our idea of God, and that a detinition
of nature is hardly complete which does not convey
to the mind some clear view concerning its relation

20

geo oe ..

494 NATURE NATURE
to God. Something, therefore, must be said on | God is the continual spring of life: ‘Thou hidest

this head.

Atheism dismisses the question by refusing to
admit thatit hasa meaning. That there is no God,
that there exists nothing but the successions and co-
existences of phenomena, is the principle of specu-
lative Atheism. Theoretically, there is no reason
why Atheism should not recognize the free agency
of man, and so admit the idea of nature in the
second sense above described ; but, as a matter of
fact, Atheism is usually based on philosophical
materialism, which can find no place for free will
within its borders. That nature is self-created
and self-acting is its fundamental thesis. Such
a conception is utterly irreconcilable with religion
in any true meaning of that ill-used word, and
must not be further dealt with here.

But, granting the existence of a Supreme Person
whose mind and purpose the operations of nature
reflect, in what relation do we conceive Him to
stand to the visible order of the world? The
answer sugeested by the first page of the Bible
and by the first article of the Christian creeds is
that He is its Creator, the ‘ Maker of heaven and
earth, and of all things visible and invisible’; ef.
Gn}, Ex 20", Is 661, Jer 32)", Ac 14, Rev 4".
The various ‘proofs’ of the existence of God, in
particular that known as the ‘cosmological’ proof,
are concerned with the justification to the intellect
of this instinctive belief of mankind, which was
present to the Hebrews, as it seems to have been
resent to every primitive race of men (see GOD).
But this conception of God as the Creator of
nature is not by itself a satisfying or complete
conception of the Supreme. God is not to be
regarded, if we are to follow Scripture, only as
an Infinite and All-holy Being on whom the world
depends for its creation. Reason certainly requires
us to believe that the Creator of nature tran-
scends nature + but the heart is not satistied until
it recognizes God not only as the Great Artificer,
but as the present source of the world’s life, as
having entered into history, as never abandoning
the universe which He has made. No one really
cares to speculate about a Being who is relegated
to an ever-receding past, an absentee Creator,
pursuing (as it has been said) ‘an eternal policy of
non-intervention.” And yet such barren Deism is
the logical outcome of exclusive attention to that
conception of the Supreme which regards Him
solely as transcending nature. This was the
especial fault of most of the English theology of
the 18th century, that it did not realize that (as
Butler put it) God is no less nature’s Governor
than its Author.

It is thus apparent wherein the imperfection
in Paley’s famous illustration of the watchmaker
and the watch consists. An artificer having once
constructed a machine and set it going, leaves it
to its own devices ; the more perfect the machine
is, the less will interference be necessary. But
that is not a complete account of the relation of
God to nature. The analogy breaks down hope-
lessly in this respect, that nature is not only the
creation of God; it is also the sphere of His con-
stant and beneficent activity. ‘Of him,’ but also
‘through him and unto him are all things’ (Ro
115, And this conception of God as a Spirit
dwelling in nature and manifesting Himself
through nature is frequently expressed in Serip-
ture. ‘Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or
whither shall I flee from thy presence?’ asks the
Psalmist. ‘If I ascend up into heaven, thou art
there ; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold theu
art there. If I take the wings of the morning,
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even
there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand |
shall hold me’ (Ps 1397"), Again, to the Psalmist |

thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away
their breath, they die’ (Ps 104%), So also Elihu
declares, ‘The Spirit of God hath made me, and
the breath of the Almighty giveth me life’ (Job
334). This conception of God, widely different
from that taught by the Deism of the last century,
is the conception which the progress of natural
science and our increased knowledge of the secrets
of nature is bringing more and more into promi-
nence. That God is iz natare as well as above
nature, that He +, at once an Indwelling Spirit
and a ‘Transcendent Personality, is the true theistic
doctrine of science. Nature does not work in-
dependently of Him; all its operations are due
to His ceaseless activity. He upholds ‘all things
by the word of his power’ (He 15). The course of
history is not a blind mechanical process of evolu-
tion; ‘the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of
men’ (Dn 41"),

This is well said in one of the authorized Ioinilies of the
Church of England: ‘It is not to be thought that God hath
created all this whole universal world as it is; and thus once
made, hath given it up to be ruled and used after our own wits
and device, and so taketh no more charge thereof; as we see
the shipwright, after he hath brought his ship to a perfect end,
then delivereth he to the mariners, and taketh no more care
thereof. Nay, God hath not so created the world, that He is
careless of it; but He still preserveth it by His goodness; He
still stayeth it in His creation. For else, without His special
goodness, it could not stand long in this condition.’ *

Now, the problem which presents itself here is so
to guard our language cunat it shall not be open to
the charge of confounding God with nature. It is
hard to steer clear of both Scylla and Charybdis,
to avoid Deism on the one side, Pantheism on the
other. Greek philosophy furnishes us with in-
structive illustrations of the difficulty of avoiding
fatal error in this matter, if we attempt to con-
struct our theology without the aid of revelation.
If the Epicureans, with their conception of gods
who lived at ease a life of undisturbed and dignified
repose, went off in the direction of Deism. the
Stoies, with their doctrine of God as the soul of
the world, were Pantheistic. And this is really
a more serious error than the other, beeause it
effectually banishes all true religion. For religion
involves belief in a Person, who not only is in
constant and intimate relation to nature, but who
also enters into communion with men. This is
impossible if God be identified with nature, for
with a mere abstraction no fellowship can be
sought, and to it no worship can be addressed.
Pantheism is as impotent as Deism to satisfy the in-
tellectual and the emotional cravings of mankind.

Pantheism is a vague word, and requires closer
examination than we have yet given it. Some-
thing has been said above of theories which resolve
God into the complex of material forces, which
identify God and nature, indeed, but by the
elimination from the idea of God of its distinetive
features, reason, intelligence, personality, good-
ness, and the like. Such theories, though from
one point of view ‘ Pantheistic,—for the only
Supreme which they recognize is the Universe of
Being,—are, from a truer point of view, ‘ Atheistic,’
for they do not admit the existence of any spiritual
being higher than ourselves. But idealist philoso-
phies, such as that which was unfolded in the sys-
tem of Spinoza, do not thus begin and end with
the material forces of the phenomenal world; they
begin and end with God, in whom as the Great
All-pervading Spirit they find the explanation of
all existence. Spinoza does not resolve God into
nature, but he exalts nature to God, he treats all
the operations of nature as the manifestations of
supreme spiritual substance. For him, nature is
the development of freedom, or, to use his own
remarkable language, the processes of the universe

* Homily for Rogation Week, pt. i.

NATURE

NATURE 495,

are the exhibition of the natura naturans (or God)
unfolding itself (or Himself) in the natura natur-
ate (or nature). It is plain that, on such a system
as this, the ‘laws of nature’ are absolutely binding
on the Divine Life; for the operations of these
laws are the manifestations (and the only possible
manifestations) of that Life. We have here, indeed,
a spiritual interpretation of nature presented to
us; every movement in the visible order is, as it
were, a sacrament of the Divine Life. But such a
doctrine is widely removed from Theism ; for while
it speaks of a Divine Life, it leaves no room for a
Divine Reason, and Will, and Personality. The
relation of the Supreme to nature is conceived in
such systems rather as the relation of the vital
principle to the living plant, than as the relation
of the directing mind to the ΠΟΙ of experience
in which it operates. Certainly, this latter analogy
is not complete or final. Our minds produce effects
in the physical order only through the medium
of our bodies, and even thus only within certain
limits and under certain conditions; the power
of supreme mind over the universe, which is the
sphere of its manifestation, cannot be conceived
as other than absolute (see Mrracir). But yet
is the analogy true so far as it goes, and it is in
harmony with the few hints which Scripture offers
on this great subject. The opening verses of St.
John’s Gospel speak of the creation of all things
as the work of the Logos, and of Him as the
Life of the world and the Light of men (Jn 1-4).
The Logos is not a mere name for the impersonal
order of nature; He is the Directing Intelli-
vence which set in array its forces, and con-
tinues to guide and control them in their energy.
And of the life of man St. Paul quotes with
approval the saying of Cleanthes, ‘We are also
his offspring,’ and declares, ‘In him we live, and
move, and have our being’ (Ac 1738), This is the
rational and Christian view of nature and of
humanity, and it is as widely divergent from
Pantheism on the one hand as it is from Deism
on the other. An important conclusion is thus
reached. Theology, no less than science, leads to
the conception of the Unity of nature. It is not
a mere aggregate of independent forces; it is a
totality, which is conceived as One because of
the Unity of the Intelligence which created and
governs it. Each part ministers to the welfare of
the whole ; in its growth only the ‘fittest’ survive,
because, were it not for the elimination of the
‘unfit,’ nature would be not Cosmos but Chaos.
It would be ‘without form and void,’ as in the
days before the Divine Spirit moved upon the face
of the waters (Gn 13. Nature is One, because of
the Unity of its Author; ‘Iam J” that maketh
all things’ (Is 4453; ef. Rev 41). But unity does
not necessarily involve uniformity. The Unity of
Nature is an axiom of science and of religion ; the
Uniformity of Nature, 1.6. the rule that ‘the same
physical causes will always produce the same
physical effects,’ far from being an axiom, is
nothing more than an empirical maxim, convenient
for scientific investigation, which has been found
to held good in an enormous number of instances,
but which has no @ priori necessity and no rational
guarantee of universality. Nature is, indeed,
governed by law and not by ecaprice: that we
know: and are assured of. But such a formula
(loes not settle the matter. A wise and prudent
man’s life is also governed by law and not by
‘aprice, and yet the intervention of his moral
reason, of his power of choice, disturbs from time
to time the semblance of uniformity in his conduct.
Yor him the same physical antecedents do not
always issue in the same physical consequences,
because moral considerations—non-physical motives
—may sway him now in this direction, and now

in that. Thus in the case of man, who is a part,
and an important part, of nature, the rule of
uniformity does not hold absolutely. And when
we remember that the Divine Will must be, at the
least, as independent of physical law as is man’s
will, we see no ground for regarding the ‘ Uni-
formity of Nature’ as a constitutive principle of
the Cosmos. It is nothing more than a convenient
way of saying that God’s laws are general laws ;
that He does not depart from the usual methods of
His rule, without the gravest reasons for inter-
vention. See MIRACLE.

Such conceptions, such problems, are too abstract
to occupy the mind of primitive piety. And, as a
matter of fact, the word ‘nature’ does not once
occur in the OT. The Hebrews saw the hand of
Jehovah everywhere; they recognized that He
had made ‘the heaven and the earth and the sea,
and all that in them is’ (Ex 20"), that the thunder
was His voice and the lightning-flashes His arrows
of destruction (Ps 18"), that fire and hail, snow
and vapour, and stormy wind fulfilled His word
(Ps 148°) ; but they had no thought of nature as a
whole, a totality, which might be conceived of as
an abstract idea, without any special reference to
the particular phenomena which represent it in
the concrete. The power of forming abstract ideas
comes late in the development of mental life, and
it was not until Hebraism came into contact with
Hellenism that the idea of φύσις was introduced
into Hebrew thought. In 4 Mae 57 we find
Antiochus recommending Eleazar to consent to eat
swine’s flesh, on the ground that it is given to us
by nature. And St. Paul argues that ‘natere
itself teaches’ us that a man’s head ought to be
uncovered, but a woman’s covered (1 Co 111. In
both of these instances nature is spoken of as a
unity, and it is personified in a fashion which would
have been unintelligible at an earlier period of
Jewish thought. Again, the word φύσις is used
occasionally in the writings of St. Paul and in
the Bk. of Wis (as it is still} to deseribe the sum
of the properties or characteristics of a species—tlie
system of its constitution (as Butler would put it).
E.g., among the subjects on which σοφία is engaged
are mentioned φύσεις ζώων, ‘the natures of living
creatures’ (Wis 7°), and St. Paul speaks of
abominable vices as being παρὰ φύσιν (Ro 1°), 2.6.
contrary to the nature of man; and in Ro 11" of a
wild olive-tree being grafted into a good olive-
tree παρὰ φύσιν, 1.6. contrary to 7fs nature. The
uncircumcised condition of the Gentiles is described
as ἡ ἐκ φύσεως axpoBvoria (Ro 957), this being, as we
would say, the natural state of man. Larger
questions are suggested by the apostle’s words, ‘we
were by nature (φύσει) children of wrath’ (Eph 2°),
which are considered elsewhere. See FALL.

It is easy to understand how such expressions
and such a usage of the word φύσις should grow
up, once the conceptions of the world as a system,
and of each animal and plant upon it as possessing
a constitution of its own, became familiar. The
word only gives rise to ambiguity when we are
using it in reference to questions which touch
theology ; it then becomes necessary to ask whether
he who employs it understands it in sense (1) as
the complex of the mechanical and chemical forces
of the Cosmos, in sense (2) which reckons man’s
will and reason as part of his φύσις, or in sense (3),
the true religious conception, which ultimately
refers every operation of phenomenal force to the
Agency of Supreme Mind, directing and ordering
it in wisdom.

LITERATURE.—Spinoza, Ethics; Butler, Analogy and Sermons;
Kant, Kritik der Urthetlskraft ; Spencer, First Principles; Duke
of Argyll, Reign of Law; Seeley, Natural Religion; Fiske, The
Idea of God; Mlingworth, Divine Immanence. See under
MIRACLE, J. H. BERNARD.

496 NAUGHT, NAUGHTINESS

NAZARETH

NAUGHT, NAUGHTY, NAUGHTINESS. — The
Eng. word ‘naught’ is formed from the Anglo-
Saxon na, not, and wiht, a whit, a thing. At an
early stage, perhaps under the influence of the
verb ‘ought,’ the spelling ‘nought’ came in.
Then the word was contracted to ‘not.’ Thus
‘naught,’ ‘nought,’ ‘not’ are all forms of the
same word, and do not differ in meaning. In AV
of 1631 the spelling is always nought, except in Lk
23"! «Herod, with his men of warre, set him at
naught,’ and Scrivener (Camb. Paragraph Bible,
p. Xlvil) says that in this passage ‘naught’ is a
mere error.

The meaning of ‘naught * was originally ‘not
anything,’ ‘ worthless.’ But it soon came to mean
‘bad,’ ‘vicious,’ and this was the usual meaning in
the 17th cent. Consequently in the 1688 ed. of
ΑΥ the word is spelt ‘naught’ in 2 Καὶ 2", Pr 294,
the Heb. being sa ra, ‘ bad’; elsewhere ‘nought,’
the Heb. being some expression of worthlessness
rather than of wickedness. This distinction was
preserved by Scrivener, and is found in most mod.
editions of AY.

Examples of ‘naught’ or ‘nought’ in the sense
of ‘bad’ are Udall’s Lrasmus’ Puraph. i. fol. 54,
‘Why therfore saye ye that that whiche is good
of it selfe cummeth from Beelzebub, who by your
owne judgement is al naught τὴ ; Barlowe, Dialoge,
p. 76, ‘Why do ye then dispise the universall
churche, because some of them be noughte?’; Mt
9016 Rhem. ‘Is thine eye naught, beeause 1 81
eood 2?

Naughty means ‘worthless’ in Pr 015, Heb. ππὶ
Sy-S3, usually ‘aman of Belial,’ here ‘a naughty
person, IV ‘a worthless person. Cf. Tind.
ρος. p. 7 ‘These and all such are naughty
areuments. Elsewhere it means ‘bad, Pr 174
‘A liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue’ (nia je,
RV ‘a mischievous tongue’); Jer 24° ‘The other
basket had very naughty figs’ (m3, RV ‘bad’) ;
Wis 12! ‘they were a naughty generation’ (πονηρὰ
ἡ γένεσις αὐτῶν. RV ‘their nature by birth was
evil’). So in Udall’s Lrasmus’ Paraph. ii. fol.
284 the devil is called a ‘naughtie lord.’ Latimer
(Sermons, p. 115) says, ‘The herte of man is
naughti, a croked, and a froward pece of worke.’
In the Preface to his Dialoge (p. 35) Barlowe says,
‘Where as is enmyte and contention, there is
inconstancy and all noughty doyng.’ Cf. also Mt
2147 Rhem. ‘The naughtie men he wil brine to
naught’; and Milton, Areopagitica, p. 16, ‘ Best
books to a naughty mind are not unappliable to
occasions of evill.’

Naughtiness occurs only in the sense of ‘ wicked-
ness’: 1S 17:5 1 know thy pride, and the nauehti-
ness of thine heart’ (7339 445); Pr 11° ‘'Trans-
gressors shall be taken in their own naughtiness’
(πα, RV ‘mischief’); Wis 413. ‘The bewitching of
naughtiness doth obscure things that are honest’
(βασκανία φαυλότητοΞ) ; Ja 151 * Lay apart all filthi-

ness and supertluity of naughtiness’ (περισσείαν
‘overflowing of wickedness,” RVim

κακίας, RV

‘matlice’). Cf. Udall, Brasmus’ Paraph. ii. fol.
284, ‘The whole world is set altogether on

naughtynes’; Mt 9918 Rhem. ‘Jesus knowing
their naughtines, said, what do you tempt me
Hypocrites”? and Ac 859. Rhem. ‘To you first God
raising up his sonne, hath sent him blessing you ;
that every one should convert him self from his
naughtines.” This word ‘naughtiness’ is effectively
made use of by Driver as the rendering of the Heb.
word ‘@ven in the Psalms and elsewhere (Parallel
Psalter, at Ps 74 10" ete., and note on p. 449 f.).
See VANITY. J. HASTINGs.

NAVE.—The centre part of a wheel through which
theaxle passes. In AV ‘nave’ is the rendering of 3},
which is also translated ‘boss’ of a shield in Job

15°, and ‘high place’ AV, ‘eminent place’ RV, in
Ezk 105, The Arabie name is /ad, not unlike 23
in sound. In RV “win is tr. ‘nave,’ the word 7W2n
meaning literally the gathering or binding together,
and when applied to a wheel refers to that part
which binds together the spokes, ¢.e. the nave.
It is found only in 1 K 7* (og vn). 33 is tr. in RV
‘fello,’ or the rim of the wheel. W. CARSLAW.

NAVE (Nav7).—The Gr. form of the Heb. name
Nun (which 566). It occurs only in Sir 46! (AV).

NAVY.—1 K 976-77 1011. 35 ter, all Ὡς, a fleet, which
elsewhere is found only in Is 381, ow-rs, EV
‘galley with oars.’ See GALLEY. Also 1 Mac 1’,
2 Mac 12° 141, all στόλος. See Sure; and for ‘navy
of Tarshish’ 1 Καὶ 102 see also TARSHUSH.

NAZARENE (Nafapnvds from Ναζαρά, like Mayéa-
Anvy from Maydadra f[ef. Dalman’s Aramdische
Grammatik, y. 141, note 7]; Ναζωραῖος used ex-
clusively in Mt, Jn, Ac, and probably so in Lk.*
The form Nagopatos occurs in some MSS).—This
term is used in the Gospels, but only by those
outside the circle of His intimate friends, to dis-
tinguish Jesus of Nazareth from others of the
same name, In Ac it is also employed by St.
Peter (253 3° 41"), by St. Paul (26°), and by the risen
Lord (228), In Mt 2% the evangelist says that
Jesus went to dwell at Nazareth, that ‘it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,
that he should be called a Nazarene’ (Ναζωραῖος).
Many interpretations of this passage have been
given, none of them entirely satisfactory. The
most lmportant are: (1) that which connects it
with the word 733 in Is 11]: (2) that which as-
sumes a play on the word ‘ Nazirite’ ; (3) Hitzie’s
view that it refers to the word ‘ms; in Is 49°;
(4) that it has reference to a lost prophecy, or
one that was only traditional and never written ;
(5) that the use of the plural προφητῶν precludes
any reference to a single word, and that the evan-
velist’ alludes to prophecies asserting that the
Messiah would be despised. Jerome, in his com-
mentary on [5.11], objected to the first interpreta-
tion on the ground that the ¢ of Ναζωραῖος does
not correspond to the s of 133. The same objec-
tion applies to Hitzig’s view. The objection to (2)
is that Jesus was not a Nazirite ; and to (4) that it
is a counsel of despair. The last explanation (5)
is already given by Jerome in his commentary to
Mt 2, and is perhaps the most probable (cf.
Weiss in Meyer's Aommentar®, in loc.). Finally,
the word Nagapaiwy is used in Ac 24° of the Chris-
tians. It is similarly employed by the Jews in the
time of Tertullian: ‘Unde et ipso nomine nos
Judwi Nazareeos appellant per eum’ (adv. Mar-
clonem, iv. 8. After this, however, it practically
disappears from literature in this sense until about
A.D. 400, when it appears as the name of a Chris-
tian sect. G. W. THATCHER.

NAZARETH (Na(apé0, Ναζαρέτ, Nagapar, Ναζαράθ,
Χαζαρά, mod. Arab. en-Nasira; on etymology and
meaning of the name see Swete on Mk 1°) was
situated in a high valley running from $.8.W. to
N.N.E. among the most southerly of the limestone
hills of the Lebanon range just before it drops down
to the Plain of Esdraelon. The base of the valley
is about 1200 feet above the level of the Mediter-
ranean, while the western hill (which is higher
than the hills on the N. and E.), on which the
town was built, rises to a height of 1600 feet. The

* In Westcott and Hort’s text Ναζαρηνός occurs in Mk 124 1047
1467 165, also in Lk 484, where it is probably copied from Mk or
a common source. Apart from these instances it occurs only
in Lk 2419, where, however, the MSS A, D, etc., read Nala 20s,
It thus seems probable that Ναζαρηνς was the only form used
in the original source of the Synoptic Gospels.

NAZARETH

NAZIRITE 497

floor of the valley is covered in the season with
wild flowers, and the olive, fig, mulberry, lemon,
pomegranate, almond, and quince flourish. Want
of soil, however, causes many bare spots in the
landscape, which is further characterized by the
long irregular rows of cactus hedges. The climate
is moderate on the whole, though it is hot in the
summer and snow is not unknown in the winter.
Like many other parts of Palestine, it is subject
to severe storms. The old town of N. has entirely
disappeared, but, judging by the rock-tombs that
remain, it probably extended higher up the western
hill than the modern village. It seems to have
been a place of no importance for the national life
(cf. Jn 1), although it was only a day’s journey
from the Mediterranean at Carmel, and about
the same distance from Capernaum and Tiberias,
while it was a three days’ journey from Jerusalem.
Roads go out from it to Sefurieh, Akka, Kefr
Kenna, Tiberias, Mt. Tabor, Jaffa, and the Plain
of Esdraelon; but no main line of traffic passes
through it. The only permanent water supply
comes from the Virgin’s Spring (‘Ain es - Sitt
Mariam), which rises near the Greek church of
Gabriel and is conducted by a canal of about
120 steps to its present outlet. Attempts have
been made to secure a supply from other sources,
but without much success. As the outflow from
the Virgin’s Spring in the summer is only about
170 gallons an hour,—an amount that scarcely
suffices for the present population of 7500 people,
even with the addition of stored rain-water,—the
opulation of Nazareth could never have been very
arge. N. is not mentioned in the OT, Josephus,
or the Talmud (but cf. Neubauer, Géog. du
Talmud, p. 190), and derives its importance
entirely from its connexion with the life of Jesus.
To ‘a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,’ Gabriel
was sent to the Virgin Mary to announce the
birth of Jesus (Lk 1°), from Nazareth Joseph went
up to be taxed in Bethlehem (Lk 2*), and to it
Mary and he returned after the birth of Jesus
(Lk 2°). Matthew represents Joseph and Mary
as going to live at Nazareth after the birth of
Jesus, that a prophecy concerning the Messiah
might be fulfilled (Mt 2°; see NAZARENE). At
the ave of twelve Jesus was still living at Nazareth
(Lk 2*'), and according to Mark He came from
Nazareth of Galilee to be baptized in the Jordan
(19). To Nazareth He returned after the Tempta-
tion, only, however, to leave it for Capernaum
(Mt 4:3. Finally, it was in the synagogue of
Nazareth that He declared Himself the fullilment
of prophecy, and so enraged the people that they
led Him out to the hill above the city and sought
to throw Him down * (Lk 416 ef. Mk 61, Mt 13%).
From His close association with Nazareth, Jesus
was often spoken of as ‘the Nazarene’ (see article
above).

The important features of Nazareth for the life
of Jesus are—

1. It was in Galilee, and hence was not so much
under the influence of the temple as of the syna-
gogue. It was also free from the extreme aversion
to everything foreign so characteristic of Jerusalem,
while at the same time the patriotism of the Gali-
lean was strong and often even turbulent.

2. It was secluded in so far as it was not on any
main road of international trade (see above).

3. Yet it was an excellent post of observation,
from which might be seen some of the most varied
forins of the active life of North Palestine. Atten-
tion has of late rightly been drawn to the magnifi-
cent view from the hills above Nazareth. Jeru-
salem pilgrims, Egyptian and Midianite caravans,

* The traditional site to the south of Nazareth has now been
entirely given up in favour of the western hill. (See commen-
taries on this passage).

VOL, III, —32

Roman legions and princes’ retinues, all passed
within sight. Many phases of Greek and Roman
life could be observed from here, both in the town
life of such places as Sefurich and on the main
roads of the plains. At the same time national
feeling was stirred to its depths by the memories
connected with the hill of Carmel, the battlefield
of Esdraelon, and the mountains of Gilead.

LITERATURE.—Tobler, ‘Nazareth,’ in Palestina, 1868 ; Guérin,
Galilée, 1880; Robinson, DAP 111. 183 ff., 1841; G. A. Smith,
HGHUL 4321f., 1894; Buhl, GAP 215f., 1896 ; Socin in Baedeker's
Palestine and Syria, where ἃ full account of the modern town

will be found. G. W. THATCHER.

NAZIRITE (713; LXX in Nu 62 εὐξάμενος ;
in vv.}8 140 niyudvos; in Jg 13° B ναζείρ, A ἡγιασ-
μένος ναζιραῖος ; in 137 1617 B ἄγιος, A ναζειραῖος ;
in Am 212 nyacuévos).—The term ndzir is derived
from ndazar,* ‘to consecrate,’ and denotes ‘the
consecrated one,’ the one separated from among
the rest of the people. It is used of two classes :
Nazirites for lite, and Nazirites for a limited
period. The Jaw in Nu 6'*!, which is of late
origin and is the only part of the law taking
notice of Nazirites, refers only to the latter class.

According to this law, the Nazirite is one who
consecrates himself (or herself, v.*) to the Lord,
and is bound by his vow of consecration (a) to
abstain all the days of his Naziriteship from the
use of wine and all other intoxicating Stile, from
vinegar formed from wine or strong drink, from
any liquor of grapes, from grapes dried or fresh,
and indeed from the use of anything produced
from the vine (v.*4); (6) not to suffer a razor to
come upon his head, but to let the locks of the
hair of his head grow long (v.°); and (ὁ) to avoid
all ceremonial defilement from contact with any
dead body, even that of his nearest relatives (v.°°,
where, however, wife and child are not mentioned).
If through the sudden death of any one beside
him he becomes defiled, he must observe the usual
rites of purification (Nu 191"); on the seventh
day he must shave his head, his hair being cut
off, because defilement was specially likely to cling
to it, and also perhaps because it was the visible
sign of his consecration, which had been rendered
invalid; on the eighth day he must offer through
the priest, at the door of the sanctuary, two turtle
doves or two young pigeons—one for a sin-offering,
and the other for a burnt-offering (Ly 57 128 14%
15f. 2) > his sin in even unwittingly violating his
vow (Lv 4°", Nu 157) being thus atoned for, he
must reconsecrate himself to the Lord, and, having
otiered a he-lamb of the first year for a guilt-
offering (Lv 14!-*!), he must hold himself conse-
crated for the whole period involved in his original
vow (v.2). On the expiry of that period, the
law regulated, with equal minuteness, the way in
which he was to return to the sphere of ordinary
life. He was brought to the door of the sanc-
tuary, where, through the priest, he offered his
oblation to the Lord (vv. !"); first (v.25), a ewe-
lamb of the first year without blemish as a sin-
offering for sins committed unwittingly during the
days of his separation ; then a lie-lamb of the first
year without blemish as a burnt-offering, along
with the customary meal- and drink-otferings (Nu
15%); and, last of all, a ram without blemish,
along with a basket of unleavened bread (Ly ΤΣ;
ef. also Ex 297%, Lv 2! 8?) in addition to the usual
meal- and drink-offerings, as a peace-oflering our
thanksgiving for having been enabled to complete
his period of consecration. He then shaved his
head at the door of the sanctuary, and put his

* Not used in Qal; in Niphal, Lv 222, Ezk 145.7, Zec 73 ‘to
separate oneself from.’ ‘to abstain from’; Hos 910 ‘to conse-
crate oneself’; in Iiphil, Lv 1531 "τὸ separate,’ Nu 62-4. 5. 6.12
‘to separate or consecrate.’

498 NAZIRITE

NAZIRITE

hair on the fire under the thank-offerings, as a
precaution against its profanation, and as a sign
that it was surrendered to the Lord (v.38). The
priest then took the sodden shoulder of the ram
along with an unleavened cake and an unleavened
wafer out of the basket, put them on the hands
of the Nazirite (cf. Lv 8537, and waved them as a
wave-offering before the Lord. These parts of the
sacrifice, in addition to the customary wave-breast
and heave-thigh (Lv 7°"), were assigned to the
priest (v.%); this increase of what was given to
the Lord (in the person of the priest) was probably
meant to represent that His participation was
greater than usual in the sacrificial meal of the
Nazirite, whom He thereby specially acknowledged
as Hisown. Having thus performed his vow, the
Nazirite was allowed to drink wine (v.”), very
likely at this sacrificial meal; and he thereby
emerged from the state of consecration into or-
dinary life. If when he took the vow of a
Nazirite he took in addition a vow special to
himself, he had also at the same time to perform
this latter vow.

The Nazirites expressly mentioned in the OT
(Samson, Samuel,* the half-Israelitish Rechabites,
and probably also those referred to in Am 91)
belong to the class of Nazirites for life. What
is said of them does not exactly correspond with
the law in Nu6. Apart from the fact that Samson
and Samuel were dedicated to the Lord by their
parents before their birth, the restrictions laid
upon them were not identical with those specified
in that law. Of Samson it is merely said that
‘no razor shall come upon his head’ (Τρ 13°); no
mention is made of abstinence from wine, though
his mother is forbidden, during her pregnancy,
to drink wine or strong drink or to eat any un-
clean thing (vv.4 and 7), or anything that cometh
of the vine (v.44). Samson came frequently into
contact with the dead (Jg 14% 15%), without his
consecration thereby ceasing; and it is assumed
by some that he woulc naturally drink wine at
the marriage feast (142°). Of Samuel also it is
merely said that ‘no razor shall come upon his
head’ (1S 1"). The Rechabites (2 Καὶ 10"™, Jer 35)
not only abstained from wine, but from everything
that was characteristic of a settled life; while
Amos (915) makes mention only of abstinence from
wine. The Nazirate was evidently of a much
more manifold character, and played a greater
part in the religions life of Israel than the law
in Nu suggests. That law is simply an attempt,
at a late stage of Israel’s history, to regulate an
institution that had grown up independently of
it. Other abstinences than those specified in it
were doubtless occasionally practised; but these
three had gradually come to be regarded as what
was essential.

Whether the lifelong or the temporary Nazirate
was the original form, it is impossible to deter-
mine. The case of Samson merely proves that
tradition was acquainted with Nazirites for life
at a comparatively early period. The law in Nu,
as already remarked, refers only to the temporary
Nazirate ; and the hair of a dead person could not
be offered to the Lord. The latter fact, however,
is not conclusive against the lifelong Nazirate ;
for the long locks of the Nazirite might, from

*That Samuel was a Nazirite is denied by many moderns
(2.g. Smend, Nowack). He is nowhere called a Nazirite in the
OT; and the special service to which he was dedicated by his
roother was that of the sanctuary at Shiloh (1S 14), It is
implied in Ezk 4429 that some Semitic priests allowed their hair
to grow long. The LXX, which adds to 1S 121 ‘and he shall
not drink wine or strong drink,’ seems to regard him as a
Nazirite. While the Rechabites are held by some to be even
the strictest of all the Nazirites, they are held by others to be
simply very closely akin to them. ‘The only certain historical
exaniple of a Nazirite, mentioned in the OT, is Samson’ (Driver,
Joel and Anvws, p. 153).

time to time, have been cut off and offered at the
sanctuary, without his thereby ceasing to be ¢
specially consecrated person. Nor can it be sajc
with certainty whether abstinence from wine, etc.,
or the hair-offering was the original content of
the vow. Abstinence from wine is alone men-
tioned by Amos (212), while, in the case of Samson,
both in the announcement of his birth and in the
narrative of his exploits, the emphasis is laid
entirely upon his unshorn locks. His mother, it
is true, is forbidden the use of wine, ete., during
her pregnancy; and from this fact, along with
others, opposite inferences have been drawn. By
most it has been assumed that the omission in
the case of Samson himself is purely accidental :
the restriction laid upon his mother already im-
plies that he is to be a specially consecrated one
from the very beginning of his existence. By
others, however, it is argued that Jg 13, which
narrates the circumstances attending Samson’s
birth, contains two traditions of these circum-
stances, and belongs to a different period from
chs. 14-16, in which everything is opposed to the
notion of his leading an ascetic life. In favour
of the view that regards the hair-offering as the
essential element, reference is also made to Jer 7”,
where unshorn hair is called nézer, and to Ly 955. 4,
where the vine that was left undressed during the
Sabbatic year and the year of Jubilee is called a
nazir; but in view of Am 2" these passages are
not decisive. Nazirites are mentioned so seldom
in the OT* that on such points we must refrain
from dogmatic statements; but on the whole it
seems probable that the temporary Nazirate was
the most common form, and that from the first
abstinence from wine was one of the restrictions
imposed on them. ‘There is no instance in the OT
of a female Nazirite.

tegarding the meaning of the restrictions to
which they were subjected there is now very
general agreement. (1) Abstinence from wine, etc.
This was the strictly ascetic element in the vow
of the Nazirite. It has often been explained as sym-
bolizing abstinence from all delicie carnis ; but, as
Dillmann remarks, if the Nazirite was forbidden
all delicie carnis, he would have had to avoid
them, not merely symbolically, but in reality. It
finds an analogy in the late law forbidding the
priests to drink wine or strong drink, while engaged
in the service of the sanctuary (Lv 108"); and
some have accordingly explained it as meant
merely to secure at all times the sobriety of mind
becoming in a man spear dedicated to God
(cf. Hos 4"). But the prohibition extended not
only to wine and strong drink, but to the whole
produce of the vine. It is now, therefore, generally
explained as ‘a reaction in favour of the primitive
simplicity of Israel in the days before it came into
contact with Canaanite civilization and Canaanite
religion,’ ‘a religious protest against Canaanite
civilization in favour of the simple life of ancient
times’ ΟΥ̓. R. Smith, Zhe Prophets of Israel,
p. 84f.). ‘All Semitic nomads view wine-growing
and wine-drinking as essentially foreign to their
traditional mode of life. Canaan, on the contrary,
is pre-eminently a land of the grape, and the
Canaanite worship was full of Dionysiac elements.
Wine was the best gift of the Baalim, and wine-
drinking was prominent in their luxurious wor-
ship’ (i.). This reaction in favour of a simple
nomadic life was carried furthest by the Recha-
bites ; but though the Nazirites generally did not
carry their protest so far, still, by their abstinence

* All the passages in which they are mentioned are cited
above. In La 47 ‘Nazirites’ should be ‘princes’ or ‘nobles,’
princes as well as priests being among the Hebrews consecrated
persons ; cf. Gn 4925, Dt 3316, where Joseph is called the Nazir
among his brethren.

a

Beets

NAZIRITE

NAZIRITE 499

from the use of wine, ete., they sought to exhibit
in their manner of living the idea of genuine
Israelites. *

(2) The long hair of the Nazirite was the visible
mark of his consecration ; like the high priest’s
‘iuitre’ with the inscription ‘Holy to the Lord’
(Ex 28%6t- 296 39%", Lv 8°, where the Heb. word for
‘crown’ or ‘diadem’ is the same as that rendered
‘eonsecration’ in Nu 6; cf. also Ly 21}4, 28 1%,
2k 11%), it was the sign, manifest to all, that he
was a God-consecrated man. The law in Nu 6
even calls it his ‘consecration’ (v.!%; see also
vv.7 9 1-18) Jer 72), and enacts that, when the
period of his vow is over, it must be offered to the
Lord along with the peace -ollerings (v.’’). In
Samson’s case it is also the seat of his personal
strength; as soon as it is cut off, his special
relation to Jehovah ceases, and he becomes weak
as other men (Jg 16!7"**), The general idea under-
lying this restriction is that whatever is to be, or
has been, consecrated to God must be kept in-
violate, in the condition in which it has come froin
its maker’s hand (cf. Ex 20%, Lv 22%, Nu _ 19?,
Dt 15! 213,18 67. But it is the Nazirite himself,
and not merely his hair, that is consecrated to
Jehovah: how, then, are we to explain the em-

hasis iaid on the latter? ‘The hair,’ says W.
ἢ Smith, ‘is regarded by primitive peoples as
a living and important part of the body... it
is often regarded as the special seat of life and
strength.’ ‘All over the world the head and hair
of persons under taboo are peculiarly sacred and
inviolable, and the primitive notions about the
hair as a special seat of life are quite sufficient to
account for this... . It is easy, for example, to
understand why, if an important part of the life
resides in the hair, a man whose whole life is con-
secrated—e.g. a Maori chief, or the Plamen Dialis,
or in the Semitic field such a person as Samuel or
Samson—should either be forbidden to cut his hair
at all, or should be compelled, when he does so, to
use special precautions against the profanation of
the holy growth’ (/2S? pp. 324, 483). The inviola-
bility of the Nazirite’s hair is thus the manifest
token of the consecration of his whole personality
to Jehovah.t

(3) The requirement to avoid all uncleanness
due to contact with the dead is simply an enhance-
ment of what is required of every Israelite, and
more especially of the priests (Lv 21’). One that
has specially devoted himself to the service of
Jehovah must naturally avoid everything cere-
monially defiling. He must come into contact
with nothing that renders him unfit for the service
of the living and holy God. In this respect, so
long as his vow lasted, the Nazirite stood on a
level with the levitically holiest person among
the people, viz. the high priest (Lv 21", where
only father and mother are mentioned). ‘Though
Samson does not seem to have been subject to
this restriction,t the importance attached to it
generally is manifest from what is said in Nu 6

* A similar hostility to the use of wine is found among many
ancient peoples. Among the Romans the priest of Jupiter was
forbidden even to touch the vine ; the Nabatwans of the Syrian
desert were forbidden to use wine ; among the Arals also, long
before the Koran, there was a strong repugnance to the vine.
‘Like all barbarians, the Arabs were fond enough of getting
drunk ; but wine was a foreign and costly luxury, and the
opposition to its use found distinguished advocates before
Mohammed’ (W. R. Smith, op. cit. p. 388).

t+ Among the ancient Arabs we find a similar connexion
between the hair and vows; the pilgrim allowed his hair to
grow until his vow was paid; he then cut it off and thereby
returned to the state of ordinary secular life. He was not even
permitted to comb and wash his locks till the pilgrimage
was accomplished. This rule was not ascetic; it was simply a
consequence of the fact that the hair of his head was inviolable.
Pilgrims to Mecca are still forbidden to cut the hair of their
head or even to pare their nails during their pilgrimage.

t Schultz remarks (p. 110) that this restriction naturally did
not prevent one from engaging in the holy wars of Jehovah.

as to the Nazirite who has been accidentally
defiled.

‘The Nazirites are mentioned so seldom in the OT
that we cannot trace the history of this peculiar
institution. It may be contidently assumed, how-
ever, that it grew up spontaneously on Israelitish
soil, and that, too, as early as the time of the Judes.
Israel had been unable to conquer the Canaanites
completely, and, through intercourse with the
latter, was gradually losing its distinctive char-
acter. If it was to maintain its existence and
fulfil its vocation as the people of Jehovah, it must
return to the customs which the fathers had
brought with them out of the desert. The Nazir-
ites were leading representatives of this reaction ;
‘they were men, who, when the sensual and self-
indulgent habits of the Canaanites threatened to
make their way into Israel, endeavoured by a vow
of abstinence to set an example of moderation and
self-denial, which might help to preserve the old
simplicity of Israelitish lite’ (Driver, Joel and
Amos, p. 152f.). They were a class of persons
‘holy to the Lord’ in a peculiar sense. That
which formed the basis of their consecration was
neither birth nor office, but a vow of a special
kind. In an ordinary vow, a man consecrated
some material thing; the Nazirites consecrated
themselves (Nu 67>). Occasionally parents dedi-
eated their unborn child to the lite of a Nazirite
(e.g. Samson and Samuel), in which case the mother
had, during her pregnancy, also to abstain from
the use of wine, ete. (Jg¢ 13+74), As a rule,
however, and probably originally, the Nazirite,
following an inner prompting, which he recognized
as coming from the Lord (Am 2"), dedicated him-
self. He thereby devoted himself wholly, for a
limited time or for life, to the positive service of
Jehovah. Though his vow committed him to
certain abstinences, it was not, at least originally,
a vow of mere abstinence ; the life that he led was
not necessarily that of a mere ascetic. As repre-
senting to his fellow-countrymen the ideal of a
genuine Israelite, he naturally abstained from
everything that was out of keeping with that
ideal; but these abstinences were simply conse-
quences of his state of positive consecration. Nor
did his vow compel him to withdraw from fellow-
ship with his fellow-men; there is nothing in the
OT to indicate that the Nazirites generally either
lived apart by themselves or in guilds like ‘the
sons of the prophets.’ The Nazirite was originally
a zealot for the national religion ; he was one that
had devoted himself to the service of Jehovah and
His people. The service to which his vow called
him might be very manifold : now it might possibly
be to spend much of lis time in prayer or in the
service of the sanctuary, or to protest against
current evils by a life of asceticism; and now it
might be to fight the nation’s foes or to rule the
nation as judge. Whatever the service might be,
he was regarded as a special instrument whereby
God worked on behalf of His people. Samson, as
being a Nazirite, is to deliver Israel out of the
hand of the Philistines (Jg 13°); he achieves his
various exploits because the Spirit of the Lord
moved him or came mightily upon him (Jg¢ 13%
14° 19.1514); and Amos (2!!) regards it as a mark of
God’s grace towards Israel that He not only raised
up prophets from among their sons, but also from
among their young men Nazirites, who by their
abstinence from wine protested against the sensu-
ality that evidently abounded so greatly in the
northern kingdom during the reign of Jeroboam IL.
“The temporary Nazirate afterwards became a
purely private asceticism, which the individual
vowed to God in order to secure the fulfilment of
this or that desire. Perhaps the early Nazirites
also hoped to obtain something for themselves in

500 NAZIRITE

NAZIRITE

return for their abstinence. But above everything
they served the whole community ; they sought to
exhibit, both for Israel and for Jehovah, the true
nature of Israel, They felt themselves impelled
to do so, after the manner of the prophets, by the
Spirit of Jehovah. ‘They did not thereby acquire
any merit for themselves ; it was a mark of the
grace of Jehovah to His people, that He raised up
Nazirites’ (Smend#, p. 95 f.).

It must not be assumed that the Nazirites were
necessarily saintly men, in the modern sense of
that expression. Their consecration to J” certainly
implied a separation in several respects from
ordinary secular life ; but they might nevertheless
be men of a very secular spirit. In speaking of
them, we must therefore guard against using
exaggerated language. It must not be forgotten,
however, that Amos, who had a very ethical
conception of J”, says that they were raised up by
the Lord (2"), and regards it as a grievous sin on
the part of the Israelites that they tempted them
to break their vow (v.!*). It may safely be in-
ferred from this that the Nazirites known to him
personally or from tradition were men of real
moral worth, good gifts of God to His sinful but
beloved people.

From the circumstance that the restrictions
imposed upon the Nazirites were similar to those
imposed upon the priests, and especially upon the
high priest, it has been often inferred that the
former represented the idea of the priestly life.
But there is no positive evidence in support of this
inference. Amos does not class them along with
the priests, but with the prophets; we do not hear
of their ever discharging priestly functions ;* and
the similarity of the restrictions in the two cases
is sufficiently explained by the fact that Nazirites
and priests were alike specially consecrated persons.
The former were men in whom (at least in early
times) ‘ the characteristic spirit of Israel expressed
itself most clearly and most uniquely’ (Schultz).

The Nazirites were doubtless more numerous
than the few notices of them in the OT might
lead us to suppose. Am 911: and the Rechabites
show that they were found both in Israel and
in Judah down to a late period in the history of
both kingdoms. After the Return from the Exile
the institution flourished again, and naturally,
considerine the strictly legal character of post-
exilic Judaism, in the form prescribed by the
law in Nu 6. They are mentioned in 1 Mae 39
and also in Josephus (BJ tm. xv. 1, Ant. XIx.
vi. 1). We also hear of 300 Nazirites being to-
gether, and finding difficulty in providing the
sacrifices required at the expiry of their period of
separation, in the time of Alexander Janneus. By
this time, however, the Nazirate had lost its old
significance, and had become a purely private
asceticisin. The vow was generally taken in times
of sickness or other trouble, or when one was
making ἃ journey; it was looked on as a means
whereby one might seeure the fulfilment of some
wish, or escape some feared danger. “1 shall
become a Nazirite, if sueh and such a thing
happen,’ became a common formula of asseveration ;
and this formula was abused so as to compel some
against their will to become Nazirites. The scribes
also exercised their ingenuity upon the law in
Nu 6, developing it more fully, rendering it more
precise, and bringing it into complete harmony
with the historical instances. They disallowed a
Nazirite vow for a shorter period than 30 days;
they distinguished between the lifelong Nazirate
in accordance with the law, and that after the
manner of Samson; the former permitted the
Nazirite to cut his hair from time to time (after

* Samuel, if we rightly regard him as a Nazirite, was also a
priest.

the example of Absalom (2S 1436), whom they
regarded as a Nazirite), while the latter permitted
him to come into contact with a dead body, with-
out having in consequence to go through the legal
process of purification. But even in these days
genuine piety was by no means extinct, and there
must have been some among the Nazirites who
were animated by a genuinely religious spirit.
John the Baptist is described as a Nazirite for life
(Lk 115), as was also, according to Eusebius (HE τι.
xxii. 3, following Hegesippus), James the brother
of our Lord. Anna (Lk 2°) also is supposed by
some to have been a Nazirite, but this is a mere
conjecture.

Ac 21" shows that the early Jewish Christians
occasionally took the temporary Nazirite vow. It
is also an illustration of the custom mentioned by
Josephus (Ant. XIX. vi. 1), that wealthy Jews
paid, in the case of poor Nazirites, the cost of the
sacrifices required on the expiry of the period
covered by the vow, and thus enabled poorer
Israelites to undertake such a vow. ‘Those who
were thus ‘at charges’ for these poorer Nazirites,
having themselves been purified for the purpose,
might appear along with them in the temple, and
had probably to regard themselves as consecrated
persons until all the prescribed rites were duly
performed. The seven days mentioned in v.27 do
not imply that in such cases they had also to take
a vow for seven days; the expression merely in-
forms us that, in this particular instance, seeing
there were four vows to be paid, it required seven
days to offer the necessary sacrifices (cf. v.*8 “until
the offering was offered for every one of them’).

In connexion with Ae 1818 the question has been
raised, whether St. Paul himself had taken a
Nazirite vow. According to the rules laid down
by the seribes, such a vow might be made outside
of Palestine; but it had to be performed, in
harmony with Nu 6, at the temple in Jerusalem.
As to this, the only point of difference between
the schools of Hillel and Shammai referred to the
length of time during which the person who had
vowed the vow in a heathen land must reside in
Palestine before he was permitted to pay it at the
temple. The school of Shammai demanded a
residence in Palestine of only thirty days, which
was the shortest and most common period of
consecration ; whereas the school of Hillel insisted
that it must be for the whole time to which the vow
originally referred. Nor can St. Paul’s shearing
of his head have been in consequence of levitical

-defilement contracted during the vow period (Nu

6°) ; for, according to the scribes, in the case of the
defiled Nazirite, the shearing of the head had to
take place in the holy land (though not necessarily
at the temple); and on the eighth day he had to
offer his sacrifice of cleansing at the temple (ef.
Nu 6”). The vow in question cannot therefore
have been a strictly Nazirite vow. In order, never-
theless, to vindicate its character as a real Nazirite
vow, some have supposed that, having been living
among Gentiles, the apostle shore his head at the
beginning of his period of consecration, after the
analogy of the Nazirite who had been in any way
defiled ; while others have supposed that it was a
vow of special consecration to God, involving a
temporary growth of the hair, and a subsequent
cutting of it off, and that such a vow, though
simply analogous to the Nazirite vow, and not in-
volving a personal appearance at the temple, or
the co-operation of the priests, was allowed to Jews
of the Dispersion as a substitute for the strictly
legal vow. It is admitted, however, that there 1s
no evidence in support of these suppositions. It
was evidently a private vow which the apostle had
taken, and which he paid by shearing his head at
Cenchree.

——— Ὺ “ρτος-..“ςω“ὝὉἩὉἭ
ere

NEAH

NEBO 501

LITERATURE.— The art. ‘ Nasiriiat,’ in Herzog, Ji, by Oehler
and v. Orelli; ‘ Nasiraer,’ in Schenkel’s Bibel- Lexikon, by Dill-
mann, and in Riehm’s HWB2 , by Riehin; Dillmann, "'N’ umeri,
Deuteronominin und Josua, 31 ff. ; Budde, Das Buch der
Richter, 90ff.; Driver, The Books of Joel and Amos, 152f.
W. R. Smith, "RS? 323 ff., 481 ff. ; Schultz, Adttest. The olugie 5,
109 ff. [Eng tre i161 16.15 Smend, Lehrbuch der attest. Reliyions-
geschichte2, 93-96; Oehler, Theologie des Alten Testaments,
δ 180 (Eng. tr. ii. 1761; Ewald, Die Alterthiimer des Volkes
Jsraecl3, 113 ff. ; Nowack, Lehrb. d. Heb. Arch. ii. 133 ff. ; Ben-
zinger, Ieb. Archuoloyie, 430 ff.; Vilmar, ‘Die syimbolische

Zedeutunyg des Naziracrgeliibdes,” in SK, 1864, p. 498 fF. 5 ; Grill,
‘Ueber Bedeutung und Ursprung des ” Nasiraergeliibdes,’ in
Jahrib, f. protest. Theologte, 1880, p. 645 δὲ, 5 G. B Gray, ‘The
Nazirite,’ in Journ. of Uheol. Studies, vol. i. p. 201 ff. (Jan. 1900).

D. EATON.
NEAH.—Named only in Jos 1918 ayin ἼΝΠΞΠ jin
‘Rimimon stretching to the Neé‘ah’? (B Ῥεμμωνὰ
Αμαθὰρ ᾿Αοζά, A ‘Penuwydu Δαθαρίμ᾽ ᾿Αννουά). The
name has not been recovered. Knobel identifies it
with Netel of v.27, comparing the relation of the
words Jabneh and Jabneel. This does not help
us much in any case, for the site of Neiel itself has
not been discovered, and it was probably con-

siderably west of Neah. C. ht. CONDER.

NEAPOLIS (Χέα Πόλις, ‘new city’) was the port
at which St. Paul landed, when,

in accordance |

with his vision at Troas (Ae 16"), he sailed thence |

for Macedonia (Ac 10}}} to begin his ministry in
Europe.
about 10 miles inland. Its position has been
generally identified, or at least closely associated,
with that of the modern town (of about 5000 in-
habitants) called Avavadla, in the vicinity of which

rurious remains have been found pointing to an |

earlier town of some importance, especially a great
aqueduct bringing water from some distance,
and stones bea wing Greek or Latin inscriptions.
Cousinery (Voyage ‘dans la Macé doine, 1. p. 119 ff.)
and Tafel (de Via Eqnatia) have areued in favour
of a site some 10 miles farther to the west, where
there is a deserted harbour called Eski or Old
Kavalla; but Hackett (see art. ‘Neapolis’ in
Sinith’s DB) appears to have finally settled the
matter in favour of the town now bearing the
name of Kavalla. The latter is situated on the
bay which takes its name from it, at a point
where, nearly opposite to the island of Thasos, a
promontory projects, having a harbour on either
side; that one which faced the west, especially,
affording so suitable an anchorage that at the
time of the battle of Philippi the triremes of
Brutus and Cassius were moored in the bay of
Neapolis (Appian, Bell. Civ. iv. 100). Its earlier
name would seem to have been Daton or Datos, for
Strabo designates Neapolis ‘a town of the Dateni,’
and describes Daton as ‘ possessing fruitful plains,
and a port (λίμνη), and streams, and shipbuilding,
and lucrative gold-mines, whence comes the pro-
verb as to the ‘good things of Daton”’ (Strabo,
vii. fr. 36). Probably the place received the newer
name on becoming the seat of some fresh colony
(from Thasos or from Athens? ),. Pliny (ALN iv. 18)
treats Neapolis as belonging to Thrace; but Strabo
(vii. 830) and Ptolemy (ii. 13) connect it with
Macedonia. WILLIAM P. Dickson,

NEARIAH (s>ys).—1. A descendant of David,
Poh ΠΡ ὁ olmeoniber |! Clad. in both these
passages B and A have Νωαδ(ε)ιά, but Luc. has
Neapio’ and Naapids. The interchange of 1 and Ἵ
accounts for the difference between MT and BA of
LXX. Which has preserved the true reading must
remain uncertain.

NEBAIOTH (r‘33 or nivv33, Sam. ΤΙΝ LXX
NaBaiwé).—FVirstborn of Ishmael, Οὐ το 5: σῦν
1Ch 1%. In Is 607 coupled with Kedar as the
name of a pastoral tribe. The same tribe is men-
tioned repeatedly in the Cylinder Rm 1 of Assur-

It was the seaport of Philippi, which lay —

banipal also in company with Kedar ; the Assyrian
form of the name is Na-ba-ai-te. In col. 8, Hl. 15 1h
of that inscription we learn that their king Natnu,
who was the first prince of the tribe that paid
homage to the Assyrians, joined the revolting
Arabs, but was defeated by Assurbanipal’s forces.
Their country is described as ‘very distant’ (ashar-
shu ruuku) inl, d8; Glaser (Shezze, ti. 267, etc.)
places them in the Arabian provinces Yemamah
and Kasim, but it may be doubted whether they
can be localized so exactly. His opinion, however,
that the name has no connexion with the Nada-
teeans, is probably to be accepted. In the despatch
ix. 562 (5. A. Smith, ii. 36) there is a reference to
the Nib@ati, who probably represent the same
tribe; and a king Naduen is mentioned in Κα, 524

(ἰδ. 54), who may or may not be the king of
Nebaioth. The king’s name seems to be the

equivalent of the Hebrew Nathan; it may have
been altered by the Assyrian transcriber. The
etymology of the name Nebaioth is probably to be
found in Arabic; according to the Lisan al- Aru,
xx. 172, nubawat would mean ‘lofty places, emi-
nences.’ ‘The name certainly seems to be a femi-
nine plural, which would exclude connexion with
the Nabat. D. 5. MARGOLIOUTH.

NEBALLAT (2523; BA om., ΝΟ. 5 δε i"f Na βαλλάτ). —
A town mentioned only after the Captivity, along
with Lod and Ono, as inhabited by Benjamites,
Neh 114. Jt is probably the modern beit Nebdla,
a village N.E. of Lydda.

NEBAT (123; Ναβάτ (Na8d0)).—Father of Jero-
boam 1. (1 i. 11°85 and onwards). The constant
designation of Jeroboam I. as ‘ben-Nebat’ 15
probably the usage of a writer later than Jero-
boam ben-Joash. It is intended, doubtless, to
distinguish the two kings. On the first occasion
of its use (1 Καὶ 11°), the formula has been added
at the expense of appropriateness, since Jeroboam
is further described as the son of a widow (B vids
γυναικὸς χήρας). ‘Son of Nebat’ may have been
absent from the earliest form of the narrative. It
is wanting in LXX of 1 Kk 12% (from B). It is less
probable that ‘ widow woman’ is secondary. Nebat
was therefore dead before his son’s advancement

under Solomon. The name perhaps signifies
‘ brightness Its equivalence to $xoa3 ‘God is

splendour ° has been sug nested. (Cheyne, JQ? xi.
509). Thatis known as a Sabiean name (Gesenius,
HIVB*), The interpretation ‘Nabatawan’ con-
flicts with 1 Καὶ 1156 (‘ Nebat, an Ephraimite’).
W. B. STEVENSON.

NEBO (123, Ναβώ, Assyr. Nabiuimn, contracted
Nabu, ‘the Prophet’).—Nebo was the interpreter
of the will of Bel-Merodach of Babylon, and con-
sequently had .a shrine in E-Sageilla, the creat
temple of Bel, at Babylon. But his own temple
was E-Zida (now Birs-t-Nimrid) in Borsippa, the
suburb of Babylon. He was the son of Merodach
and Zarpanit, and the husband of Tasmit ‘the
hearer.’ He presided over literature and science,
and the cuneiform system of writing was regarded
as his creation. Hence, in the pre-Semitic Sumer-
ian language of Chaldiea, he is termed dan-sar, ‘the
scribe.’ Ainong his titles are those of ‘the wise,’
‘the intelligent,’ ‘the creator of the oracle,’ ‘the
maker of writing,’ ‘the opener,’ and ‘enlarger of

the ear.’ Assurbanipal traces to him his zeal for
knowledge. ‘Nebo and Tasmit had given him

broad ears and seeing eyes,’ he says, so that he
had caused the older literature of the country to
be republished, as well as ‘the secrets of Nebo,
the list of all the characters that exist.’ In later
days Nebo was identified with Nusku, a solar
deity of fire, who was the messenger of Bel of
Nippur, just as Nebo was the messenger of Bel-

502 NEBO

NEBO, MOUNT

Merodach of Babylon. In the period of Bab.
influence in Western Asia (B.C. 3800-1400) the
name and worship of Nebo were carried into Syria
with those of other Babylonian deities. Hence we
{ind a Mount Nebo in Moab (Dt 32”, Is 152), and a
town of Nebo in Reuben (Nu 323); see the follow-
ing two articles. In Is 46! Bel-Merodach and
Nebo represent the city of Babylon, over which
they presided. In the days of the later Chaldiean
enipire, the kings’ names were for the most part
compounds with Nebo (e.g. Nabopolassar, Nebuch-
adrezzar, Nabonid). See, further, Schrader, AA 7?
4191. (COT il. 105 f.]; Meyer, Gesch. i. 179; Tiele,
Gesch. 207 11., 53821 The name Abed-nego (Dn 17
ete.) is for Abed-nebo, te. ‘servant of Nebo.’
A. HH SAYCR.

NEBO.—1. Town in Moab (132; Moabite Stone
max; LAX Ναβαύ, NaBo; Vule. Nabo, Nebo); men-
tioned in Nu 82° between Sebam (=Sibmah) and
Beon (= DBaal-meon), and 32% between Kiriathaim
and Baal-meon, as among the cities taken from
Sihon and given by Moses to Reuben, and in 1 Ch 58
between Aroerand Baal-meon,in connexion with the
Reubenite (clan) Bela, and in Ts 15? with Medeba,
Jer 481 with Wiriathaim, and Jer 4852 between
Dibon and Beth-diblathaim, as a Moabite city,
which either had been or was to be laid waste.
Nu 382 is from P on basis of JE; Is 15 and Jer 48
rest on an ancient oracle on Moab (ef. MOAB, p.
419), On the Moabite Stone, HW. 14-17, Mesha tells
us: ‘Chemosh said to me, ‘flake Nebo against
Israel,” and [ went by night and fought against it
from break of dawn till noon; and 1 tovk it, and
put them (the inhabitants) all to death, 7000 men
and boys (2), and women (2), and girls (7), and female
slaves, for Lhad made it taboo to Ashtar-Chemosh.
And 1 took thence the altar-hearths (7) of Jehovah
and offered (7%) them before Chemosh.’ Nebo is not
mentioned in the catalogue of Reubenite towns in
Jos 13h,

Eusebius (Onomasticon, 283, 93, 100) and Jerome
(de Situ et Nom.) distinguish the town, Nap,
Nabo, from the mountain, Nabau, Naban, and
place the town 8 miles south of Heshbon, and
identify it with Chanaath (INenath), or Nobah.
Buhl (Geogr, 266) holds that the site of Nebo is to
be looked for amongst the ruins on Mt. Nebo (Jebel
Neba). Either the mountain received the name
Nebo as containing a sanctuary of Nebo (cf. NERO
[god}), and the town was named after it; or the
sanctuary was in the town, and the mountain was
named after it; or the town and the mountain
were so named independently, because each con-
tained a sanctuary of Nebo.

Jerome, -on [5 15°, states that there was at Nebo,
‘Belphegor,’ ὅ.6. Baal-peor, the idol of Chemosh.

2. Town in Judah (323; Ναβειά, NaSid, Ναβού,
Ναβώ; Vule. Nebo); mentioned Ezr 2%, Neh το
‘the other Nebo,’ as giving name to the ‘children’
or ‘men of Nebo’ who returned with Zerubbabel.
According to Ezr 10%, in the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah, seven ‘children of Nebo’ had foreign
Wives, whom they were compelled to discard.

As Nebo, in Ezr 2, Neh 7, follows Bethel and Ai, it
should be represented in the Greek (1 Es 57!) by Νειφείς
B, Φινείς A, which follows Betolion. But Lucian
has Maxels, and the number of the ‘children of
Niphis,’ 156, is that given to Magbish in Ezr-Neh.
Hence Νειφείς, etc., is held to represent Magbish
(RVm, Meyer, Entstehung, 145). This Nebo is
often identified with Nob, cf. Is 10°, Neh 11%, and
the Nobai or Nebai of Neh 10°, which is probably
the clan of Nob, corresponding to the ‘children of
Nob.’ The site of Nebo has been fixed at Deit
Nubd, 12 miles N.W. of Jerusalem, and 8 from
Lydda, or at Nuba, 4 miles south of Adullam
(Armstrong, Names and Places, ete. ; Buhl, Geogr,
p. 198; Meyer, Lutstehung, ete. pp. 145, 149, 155 Ὁ.

Tt follows from the passages in Ezr-Neh that
families from Nebo (Nob) had remained together
in the Exile, and returned together, and thus be-
caine a post-exilic clan named after their original
home. Beit Nudd is the Nobe or Anob of Jerome’s
Onomasticon, the Betenoble or Castellum Arnaldi of
the Crusaders (Lane-Poole, Saladin, pp. 332-339).

The mention in 1 Ch 88 of Benjamite settlers in
Moab suggests the possibility of a Benjamite
colony in the Moabite Nebo, which when driven
across the Jordan founded the western Nebo.

In 1S 30% Tisch. prints B as reading ἐν Νομβέ,
Swete ἐν Nod; but the context excludes identitica-
tion with our Nebo. W.-H, BEXNET?,

NEBO, MT. (s23-77, NaSa’).—The mountain from
which Moses viewed the promised land before his
death. The word Nebo occurs in connexion with
Moses only in Dt 32” (the command to ascend)
and Dt 34 (account of the ascent) [both P]. It is
found in the itinerary, Nu 337 (P). Comparing
the command as given in Dt 377 and Nu 27}3
(closely parallel in substance but not in expres-
sion with Dt 3%) with the ascent described Dt
34'", and noting the ‘mountains of Abarim’ of
Nu 33%, it follows that (1) Mt. Nebo forms part
of the range of Abariin, and (2) the Top (head) of
Pisgah (D) and Mt. Nebo (P) are alternative
designations of the same spot (ef. Driver on Dt
34! in Internat. Crit. Comm.). Its situation may
be determined within narrow limits. <A ridge
runs out west from the plateau of Moab (see note
on Mishor in art. MEDEBA), sinking gradually ;
at first a broad brown field of arable land, then a
flat top crowned by a ruined cairn (to which the
name iVeba applies), then a narrower ridge ending
in the summit called Stdghuh, whence the slopes
fall steeply on all sides (Conder, //eth and Moab,
p. 129). Neba is 5 miles 8. W. of Heshbon and 9}
W. of the north-east end of the Dead Sea. From
it Western Palestine is in sieht; but the view to
the E. is shut out by the higher edge of the Mishor,
and to the S. by the ridge running out from el-
Maslubiyeh. Passing westward from Neba along
the ridve to its western summit Sidghah, a dis-
tance of about 14 mile, the whole of the Jordan
Valley opens out to view, and the traveller may
see Gilead, Hermon, Tabor, Ebal and Gerizim,
Neby Samwil and the Mt. of Olives, Jericho, the
Lower Jordan and the Dead Sea as far as En-gedi.
Fuller descriptions may be found in Tristram, Land
of Moab, p. 325; Bible Places, p. 360; Conder,
Heth and Moab, p. 129f.; G. A. Smith, ΠΟΤ yp.
563; and Driver on Dt 84, The view may well be
described as embracing ‘all the land.’ It has
been questioned whether all the places mentioned
in Dt 34!3 can be seen from any point of the ridge.
Those who wish to pursue this inquiry in detail
may be referred to an article in ΤΡ δέ for
April 1898, ‘The Prospect from Pisgah,’ by W. F.
Birch. The ‘hinder sea’ RV (that is, westward,
RVin), ‘utmost sea’ AV, is generally taken to
mean the Mediterranean, as in Dt 11%; and this
cannot be seen from any point of the Neba range,
though one traveller speaks of ‘a faint and dis-
tant bluish haze’ in the direction of Mt. Carmel.
Birch says, ‘From no mountain on the east side of
the Dead Sea is it possible to see the Mediter-
ranean near Judah. Higher mountains inter-
vene.’ He suggests that ‘the hinder sea’ in this
passage means the Dead Sea, as being behind
Moses when he began his survey. But the pas-
saze need not imply that the Mediterranean is
included in the view from Nebo or Pisgah. When
rightly translated it runs as follows: ‘And J”
showed him all the land—(even) Gilead as far as
Dan, and all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim
and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as

NEBUCHADNEZZAR

NEBUSHAZBAN 503

the hinder sea, and the South and the Round

[see CICCAR], (even) the plain of Jericho, the city
of palm-trees as far as Zoar.’ The writer says
that God showed Moses all the land (compare the
words of Dt 327), and what follows is Ais descrip-
tion of its extent, in which he states quite cor-
rectly that Judah extends as far as the hinder sea
or Mediterranean.

Moses parted from the people whom he had led
to their inheritance before undertaking that last
mysterious journey ; and of what he was permitted
to see, it may be said, as of his sepulchre, no man
knoweth it unto this day. The passage, trans-
lated as above, reduces the force of an objection
which has been urged. Why should the land of
Gilead be shown to Moses after he had already
traversed it in the campaigns against Sihon and
Og,* and allotted it to the 25 tribes? Josephus
(Ant. IV. vili. 48) mentions Nebo as a very high
mountain opposite Jericho ; and Eusebius in the
Onomiusticon puts it 6 Roman miles west οὗ
Heslibon. ‘The position seems to have been for-
gotten, for until recent times Jebel Attarus, a
mountain about 10 miles to the south of the Neba
ridge, has been identified with Nebo.

A. T. CHAPMAN.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR.—See NEBUCHADREZZAR.

NEBUCHADREZZAR (c-sx712:23, afterwards cor-
rupted into Nebuchadnezzar, 238332323, Ναβουχοδο-
νοσόρ, Nabuchodonosor).—The Bab. Nabu-kudurri-
uzur (‘OQ Nebo, defend the landmark’), the eldest
son of Nabopolassar, and founder of the Bab.
empire, who reigned from 1.6. 604 to 561. A
younger brother of his, Nebo-sum-lisir, is men-
tioned in a contract-tablet dated in the reign of
Nabopolassar. He seems to have been of Ialda

or Chaldzean origin, like Merodach-baladan. <Ac-
cording to Abydenus (Euseb. Chron. i. 9), he

married Amuhia the daughter of the ‘ Median’ (7.e.
Manda) king. In B.c. 605 he defeated Pharaoh-
necho in a great battle at Carchemish (now
Jerablas) on the Euphrates (Jer 46%), and drove
the Evyptians tout of W. Asia. Bab. power was
now established as far as the frontier of Egypt,
and the king of Judah became a Bab. vassal. At
this moment Nabopolassar died, and Nebuch. was
recalled to Babylon, where he was proclaimed
king, B.c. 004. Nebuch. now entered upon an era
of wars and building. Of the wars we have
hitherto learned but little from the inscriptions,
which are filled with accounts of his building
operations. ‘Tyre, which had revolted, was be-
sieged from the 7th year of his reign (Jos. c. Ap.
i. 21) for 13 years, and apparently captured (but see
Ezk 29}8; art. BABYLONIA in vol. i. p. 229", also
Expos. Tines, 1899, pp. 378, 475, 520). In the 40th
year of Nebuch.’s reign (see contract-tablet in LP,
new series, iv. 99f.), it was full of Bab. officials.
After the investment of Tyre, Nebuch. marched
against Jerus., where Jehoiakim had also rebelled
(2 Καὶ 241), Jehoiakim was put to death (according
to Jos. Ant. X. vi. 3), and his son Jehoiachin
placed on the throne. Three months later he was
deposed, and carried captive to Babylonia, his
uncle Zedekiah being appointed king in his place.
Zedekiah, however, intrigued with Apries of
Egypt, and threw off the Bab. yoke. For the
third time, accordingly, Nebuch. invaded Judah ;
the Egyp. army was forced to retreat (Jer 37°),
and Jerus. was closely besieged. At the end of two
years (B.C. 586) Jerus. was taken, the palace and
temple destroyed, and the upper classes carried
into exile (2 Καὶ 251"), Zedekiah, who had escaped
frum the city, was captured near Jericho, and

* Any one urging the above objection assumes that these

og rede are historical, For a discussion of this point see
HGHL, App. UL. p. 662.

brought to Nebuch. at Riblah, near Hamath,, where
his eyes were put out, and his sons and chief
nobles put to death. Gedaliah, a Jew, was made
governor of Judah, the Babylonian garrison there
being placed under the command of Nebuzaradan
(2k 25%), It is to this period that we should
probably assign the inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar
which have been found on the bank of the Nahr
el-Kelb, north of Beyrout, and in the Wady Brissa,
on the road to Hamath. A fragment of his annals
informs us that in his 37th year (B.C. 567) he made
a campaign against Amasis of Eeypt, overrunning
a portion of the Delta (see Jer 405-56. Ezk 29°"),
and defeating the soldiers of ‘ Phut of the lonians’
(Putu Ydvan). Hewas succeeded by his son Evil-
Merodach in B.C. 561.

Babylon, which had been destroyed by Senna-
cherib, and rebuilt by Esarhaddon, became one of
the wonders of the world under Nebuchadrezzar.
He made it practically impregnable with three lines
of wall, the two principal of which were called
the Imgur-Bel and the Nimitti-Bel. He also sur-
rounded it with a deep moat, and lined the bed οἱ
the Euphrates, which passed through the city, with
brick, building walls and quays on either side.
He lavished an enormous amount of treasure on
the temples of Babylonia and the other cities of
Chaldia; built a new palace which was completed
in ‘fifteen days’; and is said to have erected ‘a
hanging garden’ for his ‘Median’ wife. Great
canals were dug or reopened throughout Baby-
lonia; a huge reservoir was constructed near Sippar
for storing the water needed in irrigation; and a
port was founded on the shores of the Persian Gulf.
Nebuch. gives an account of his architectural
works in the India House inscription (translated
by Ball, RP, new ser. ili. pp. 102-123). We gather
from his inscriptions that he was a man of peculiarly
devout and religious character (see Sayce, Ieligzcon
of the Ancient Babylonians, p. 97). Cf., further,
Schrader, KAT? 361 ft. [COZ ii. 47ff.]; Meyer,
Gesch. i. 579, 5871f.; Tiele, Gesch. 410, 421 ff.;
Jastrow, el. of Bab. and Assyria, 241 4f.

A. H. SAYCE.

NEBUSHAZBAN (τι; LXX omits; Theo-
dotion, quoted from the Hexapla in Q™s, has
Ναβουσαζαβάν. The writing of the final 1 small,
and the substitution of 1 instead in Kennicott’s
MSS, is probably due to the desire to mutilate
names compounded with those of heathen deities,
as exemplified in the name of Abed-nego for
Abed-Nebo; compare also Nimrod and Nisroch).
—This official was 7:16-sdris (=rabi-sa-résu, “ chief
captain’ or ‘chief ot the captains’) * at the time of
Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem (Jer 397°).
To all appearance there were among the officials
of the Babylonian court many who bore the same
title, and‘there is no reason to suppose, therefore,
that Ashpenaz (Dn 1%) succeeded Nebushazban as
rab-sdris—indeed, another official of the same title
is mentioned in Jer 39%. The name Nebushazban
occurs in the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions under
the form of Nabi-suzibanni, ‘ Nebo, save me,’ the
first time in a list of names printed in JVA7 ii. 64,
col. i. 1. 32, and again in Inschriften von Nabonidus,
161, 1.6. This latter text is dated in the 4th year
of Nabonidus, that is, 34 years after the capture of
Jerusalem ; and although it is not by any means
impossible that the personage named may be
identical with that mentioned in Jer 3918, it must
be assumed, in the absence of any confirmation,
that he is a different individual. The name is
quite Babylonian in its form, the first element,
Nebu, being the Hebrew reproduction of the divine
naine Nabft (Nebo, Nebu) found in Nebuchadnezzar
and Nebuzaradan (Nabi-zér-iddina). The second

* This title, in accordance with the use of gdrtg elsewhere in
OT, is generally translated ‘ chief of the eunucas.’

iS ey

504 NEBUZARADAN

NECO

element, $ézib, is the imperative sing. of the Shaper
of ézebu, ‘to save,’ the third element being the
pronominal suffix [an]ue indicating the Ist person
(vbject). In all probability, proof could easily be
found that the Hebrew form approximates very
closely to the popular Babylonian pronunciation,
in which the ὃ of δ ὠσίν was probably suppressed (οἱ,
Kurbanni for Kurubanni). LG, POYCHES,

NEBUZARADAN (γπππρπ, NeSovfapddv, Bab.
Nabu-zira-iddina, ‘Nebo has given a seed’), a name
which is by no means uncommon in the contract-
tablets. He commanded Nebuchadnezzar’s body-
guard, and, after the fall of Jerus., was entrusted
with the work of carrying out the wishes and
policy of his master (2 KX 25*"°). He selected the
captives, and brought the leading supporters of
Zedekiah to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, Five years
later he was again sent to Palestine, and carried
away from it into exile 745 persons (Jer 52°), ‘This
was after the murder of Gedaliah.

A. H. SAYCE.

NECHO, NECHOH.—See NEco.

NECK (1833 gavvdr, sy ‘Greph ; tpdxydos).—1. The
neck under the yoke was a figure borrowed from
agriculture, and implied a state of ownership,
dependence, and toil. The broken yoke was
recovered freedom (Gn 27”, Is 10°7, Jer 278, Ac 1519).
Closely connected with this was the stiffness of the
neck that refused to recognize God’s right to
possess, command, and direct (Dt 31°, Jer 7°,
Neh 3°). 2. The foot on the neck was an emblem
of complete subjection, borrowed from military
conquest (Jos 1053, Ro 164, cf. Ps 110. It is fre-
quently seen on the Egyptian monuments. RV
correctly tr. 28 228 (=Ps 18#) ‘Thou hast made
mine enemies turn their backs to me,’ for AV
‘Thou hast given me the necks of mine enemies’
(cf. Ex 2377, 2 Ch 906, Jer 1817 ete.). 3. For the
neck adorned with a chain, the words 3. garén
and a3 gargarah [only in pl. nis73] ‘throat’ are
also used (Pr 1°, Ezk 16"). 4. 70 fall upon the neck
is a form of salutation in the East (Gn 334 462, Lk
15”), The head is laid on one shoulder and then
on the other close to the cheek. It is still part of
the usual act of salutation when a meeting takes
place between relatives or intimate friends of the
same sex. It is the brotherly kiss of the monks
and Oriental clergy. With them a custom origin-
ating in natural affection has descended to ecclesi-
astical routine and automatic formality.

lor Mt 18° (and parallels) see MILLSTONE.

G. M. MACKIE.

NECO.—The name is written in Hieroel.
Nkw;* Cuneit. Niku; Heb., always preceded by
‘Pharaoh,’ 73; (2 K 237-3) Ὁ ὍΝ 35% 364, AV
Nechoh, RV Necch) or 333 (Jer 46°, 2Ch 35:9.
AV Necho, RV Neco); Gr. Νεκῶς (Herod.), Nexaw
(Manetho, LXX). The sources for the history
of this Pharaoh, who succeeded his father
Psammetichus I. as second king of the 26th
Dynasty t+ (B.c. 610-594), are the references to
him in the OT and a short notice by Herodotus.
No native monuments of historical importance
from his reign have come to light. The 26th
Dynasty is localized by Manetho at Sais in
the Delta. It is, however, possible that, although
residing principally there, the family was of
Ethiopian descent (see Schifer in Ag. Ztschr.
Xxxili. 116). Psammetichus had initiated a policy
of larger commercial interests which, unknown
to the Egypt of preceding dynasties, had already
reached a considerable development in his son’s

* See vol. i. p. 656, note.

+ He is sometimes called Neco u., to distinguish him from
the prince whom Esarhaddon had set up in Memphis and Sais,
and who was probably the father of Psammetichus 1.

reign. The monarchy relied now, both in foreign
wars and against internal revolts, not upon native
troops, but upon Ionian and Carian mercenaries,
But Neco aimed also at a more extended in-
fluence at sea, and set about constructing a canal
which should, by joining the waters of the upper
Delta and the Bitter Lakes, make navigation be-
tween the Mediterranean and Red Sea possible
(Herod. ii. 158). But the work was not finished
by him: whether owing to discouragement from
an oracle or to the pressure of external politics,
the canal was abandoned, to be completed eventu
ally by Darius.* The fleets of triremes which he
built on both seas (7b. 159), and the Pheenician
expedition which he engaged to circumnavigate
Africa (iv. 42), were further results of the same
policy.

The information in 2 Καὶ 23% as to his Syrian
campaign (in 608) corresponds to a shorter account
by Herodotus (ii. 159). The desire to regain the
lost ascendency in Asia was always in Egypt a
sufficient motive for such an undertaking ; the
immediate inducement may have been the defence-
lessness of Assyria, but recently overthrown by
the onslaught of the new Bebylowich monarchy.
We are told that, during their northward march,
the Egyptians were encountered by the army of
Assyria’s vassal, Josiah of Judah, at Megiddo (2 IX
23°" and a mere amplification of this in 2 Ch 352°"),
or, according to Herod. (/.c.), at Magdolus (Maydw-
Nos); that Josiah was slain, and that Neco pursued
his way to the Euphrates; but, on arriving there,
returned, capturing on his southward journey the
town of Kadytis, and sending in gratitude his
armour t to the shrine of the Didymiean Apollo at

3ranchidie. Certain points in the story are,
however, obscure. The locality of the battle is
either (1) Megiddo S. of Mt. Carmel, which—
though Herodotus’ πεζῇ speaks for this—would be
outside Josiah’s frontier; t or (2) Migdol = Magdolus,
in which case there is a choice between several
places of the name, that in Egypt, 5. of Pelusium,
being the least probable.§ W. Max Miiller (in
Mitt. Vorderas. (res. 1898, 3. 54) proposes Migdal-
Gad (Jos 15°7); Wineckler (in Orient. Lit. Z. 1898,
395, and in Benzinger’s B. εἰ. Kénige, 207) recalls
another Migdol, the Turris Stratonis (Czesarea)
S. of Akko. MKadytis again has been taken for
Jerusalem, for Kadesh on the Orontes, and—the
most probable view—for Gaza (ef. Herod. iii. 5
and Jer 471).

Neco, pursuing his Asiatic poliey, refused to
countenance the popular election of Josiah’s son,
Jehoahaz, to the throne. During a second cam-
paign the newly elected king was seized at Ltiblah,
and taken to end his days in Egypt. He was re-
placed by his elder brother Eliakim, whose name
was changed, perhaps in compliment to the anti-
Babylonian party,|| to Jehoiakim. Through him
Neco was able to exact from the Jews, as earlier
Pharaohs had so often done in Syria, a consider-
able fine—100 talents of silver and a talent of gold
(9 KK 23°),

Now, however, he found himself forced to face
the advancing power that had destroyed Nineveh.
Nebuchadrezzar 11., son of Nabopolassar, led a
Babylonian army against him, and completely
routed him at Carkemish (604). All his Syrian
provinces were at the disposal of the victors (2 K

* Augustus subsequently turned his attention to this canal;
hence, suggests Lumbroso (/’Egitto det Greci, 23), the name of
the eastern province, Augustamnica.

+ Cauer in Pauly-Wissowa, RE 810, ‘statue.’

1 Maspero still (letter to present writer, 1899) holds this the
most probable.

§ Josephus (Ant. x. v. 1), it is true, has Mevd4; but presumably
he misread this from Heb. 173. (See G. A. Smith, HWist
Geogr. 405).

ΙΙ Stade, Geschichte, i. 674.

NECROMANCY NEGEB 505
247), and, for some years at any rate, the Egyptians | ener returns to the older spelling ‘neesed’). For

did not venture to interfere in Asiatic politics.
In 594 Neco died, and was buried at Sais. The
recorded burial of an Apis bull in his 16th year
confirms the duration of the reign given by
Herodotus, W. E. Crum.

NECROMANCY.

NEDABIAH (72273). —A descendant of David, 1 Ch
338 (B Aevedei, A® Napadlas, Luc. Ναδαβιά).

See SORCERY.

NEEDLE'S EYE (τρῆμα [vnr. lec. τρυπήμα] ῥαφίδος,
Mt 19%; τρυμαλιὰ padidos, Mk 10°; τρῆμα βελόνης,
Lk 18”).—The impossibility of a camel’s passing
through the eye of a needle is used by Jesus to
emphasize the ditliculty of a rich man’s entering
into the kingdom of God. An attempt is some-
times made to explain the needie’s eye as a refer-
ence to the small door, a little over 2 ft. square, in
the large heavy gate of a walled city. This mars
the figure without materially altering the meaning,
and receives no justilication from the language and
traditions of Palestine. There is no custom of
ealling this small opening ‘the eye’; it is usually
named ‘the small door,’ ‘hole,’ or ‘window.’ If
there were such a custom, it would not help the
interpretation suggested, because Orientals never
speak of the eye of a needle; it is simply the slit
or hole, hur, Arab. khurm. The literal meaning
is therefore to be preferred.* See, further, Swete
on Mk 10”, and art. CAMEL in vol. i. p. 345°.

G. M. MACKIE.

NEEDLEWORK is tr® in AV of two Heb. ex-
pressions : (a) op niyo (Ex 9650 2716 28" 36%7 3818 39°),
the exact rendering of which is ‘work of the
variegator’ (so QPB uniformly ; RV gives ‘ work
of the embroiderer’); (4) 7277 (Jg 54, Ps 454,
1 Ch 292, and 8 times in Ezk), a name which also
signifies ‘variegated work’ (Moore, Judges, ad
loc.), and is used of embroidery in which patterns
were worked with a needle in various colours (RV
in Jg ‘embroidery,’ in Ps and 7 times in Ezk
“broidered work’; once ‘divers colours,’ so also
1Ch 29°. Against this being ‘embroidery,’ sce
esp. Dillm. on Ex 26°).

Needlework is much prized and universally
practised in the East. Lace is made of great
delicacy and beauty of pattern, and designs in
different colours of silk, rendered more lustrous
by threads of silver and gold, are sewn upon
cotton, linen, silk, and woollen materials. Chil-
dren devote themselves to it at an early age;
among the poorer classes young women earn their
marriage portion by patiently and skilfully pro-
ducing work of considerable market value, and
amone the secluded women of rich Oriental
families the gradual progress of a piece of needle-
work is a subject of interest and a connecting link
in empty hours and aimless days.

G. M. MACKIE.

NEESING.—There are in Middle English two
distinct verbs fnese and neese. The former means
‘to breathe hard’ and is connected with the Gr.
mvéw; the latter, which is pure Teut., though
not found in Anglo-Sax., means ‘to sneeze.’
‘Sneeze,’ which has now replaced ‘neese,’ is in
fact simply a dialectic variety of that word (ef.
‘lightly’ and ‘slightly’). In the 1611 ed. of AV
the word ‘neese’ is accepted from Coverdale in
2K 4% ‘the child neesed seven times.’ The
meaning is evidently ‘sneezed’ (Heb. 71 Po. of
[77], prob. onomatopoetic, cf. sternuo), and mod.
editors (since 1762) have so spelt it (though Scriv-

* On the ingenious but futile proposal to substitute ‘cable’
(x0, iAos) for ‘camel’ (κάμηλος), found as early as Cyril of Alex-
a a see Hastings and Nestle in Expos. Times, ix. (1893),

, 474,

the word cf. Chapman, Odysseys, xix. 732, 736—

‘This said, about the house, in echoes round,
Her son’s strange neesings made a horrid sound ;
At which the Queen yet laugh’d, and said, ‘‘ Go call
The stranger tome. Heard’st thou not, to all
My words last utter’d, what a neesing brake
From my Telemachus?”’

But in Job 4118 we find in 1611 AV ‘By his
neesings a light doth shine,’ which again comes
down from Coverdale. Modern editors have re-
tained the spelling ‘neesings’ here, perhaps from
a feeling that the modern ‘sneeze’ did not express
the meaning, as it certainly does not. The Heb.
(τῷ Ey) is a different word from that found in
2 K 4, and clearly refers to the crocodile’s habit
of inflating itself, as it lies basking in the sun, and
then forcing the heated breath through its nostrils :
this in the sun appears like a stream of light (Day.).
Now this is the meaning not of neese, but of fnese.
Wyclif’s word in 1388 ed. is ‘fnesynge,’ and it is
probable that Coverdale, by whose time the verb
Jnese had gone out of use, adopted ‘neese’ either
as the same word or its nearest equivalent. In
any case ‘neesings’ should no longer be retained,
still less should it be replaced by ‘sneezings’ as in
Amer. RV ; the modern word is ‘snortings.’ In
Jer 816 Wyclif has (1382) ‘Fro Dan is herd the
fnesting of his hors,’ and there, though the Heb.
word (7703) is different, the meaning is the same,
and AV has ‘snorting,’ after Douay ‘snoring (sic)
noyse.’ . HASTINGS.

NEGEB (21:9, lit. ‘the dry’; LXX νάγεβ, ἡ ἔρημος)
was a name specially applied to that district south
of Judah which in comparison with the rest of Pal.
was waterless.* From the fact that this region
did lie to the south of Juda rose the later use of
tlhe word to indicate that point of the compass.t
This use became so habitual, the original sense
of Negeb as a geographical term so obscured, that
AV ignored the distinction. Wilton (The Negeb,
London, 1863) was among the first to call attention
to its exact sense, and RV has restored the more
accurate tr®. About forty passages in OT can be
understood only when this is remembered. Thus,
e.g., Abraham is represented (Gn 13!) as going up
from Egypt into the land of the Negeb, while of
course the direction of his march was not south-
wards but northwards.

The hill-country (197) of Judah near Hebron
marks the limit of the Negeb on the north. On the
E. its mountains form steep and barren precipices
above the Southern Ghor and the Arabah. W. it
descends more gradually and with wider wadis
toward the sandy tract along the Mediterranean.
On the S. the plateau of Jebel el-Magrah, ‘about
70 miles long and 40 to 50 broad,’ marks the
natural boundary, though it is probable that, when
the inhabitants were able to possess themselves of
what are now the mountains of the Azazimeh, the
name of Negeb may have extended to these also.

The entire district is mountainous, composed of
ridges, which run in general from E. to W. and
which rise from el-Magrah towards the ‘hill’ of
Judah in a succession of great terraces. These are
drained by a number of wadis, shorter and more
abrupt on the E., wider and more gradual on the
west. One result of this characteristic of the
Negeb was that no great road ever ran through it
from north to south. Trade and war flowed be-
tween Pal. and Egypt along ‘the way of the sea,’
the shore-road by Gaza and the Wady el-‘Arish.
The peoples of the N. and N.E. would seek Egypt

* Cf. the modern Daroma with the same meaning and applied
to part of the same region.

t Cf. the use of 73) (lit. ‘ seawards,’ t.e. Mediterraneanwards)
in the sense of west.

506 NEGEB

NEGO

by what is the modern Hajj road, which leaves the
Negeb precipices well to the W. of it. ‘Traders
from Gaza to Akabah and Arabia could avoid
the worst of these mountains by skirting them on
the W. and crossing into the Arabah to the south-
ward of Jebel el-Magrah. Only the men of
Hebron and 5. Judah, in order to reach these
points, would probably be forced to climb one of
the steep passes of Magrah—Yemen, Sufah, or
Vikreh.* The country was always isolated. A
further consequence of this character belonging to
the district was that the Negeb formed a natural
frontier toJudah on the south. Noarmy, especially
if it possessed cavalry or chariots, could reach
Hebron and Jerus. in this direction. Only once
do we read of an invasion entering by this route,
when Chedorlaomer (Gn 14), after rounding the S.
end of the Dead Sea, led his army across the
‘plateau of the Amalekites,’ and so fell on Hazazon-
tamar. +}

In comparison with Judah the country is barren
and waterless, though in comparison with the
desert et-Tih it is fertile. ‘Almost sudden was the
transition to the upland wilderness, the Neveb,
a series of rolling hills clad with scanty herbage
here and there, especially on their northern faces.
Nothing can be barer than the south-country of
Judah, neither grand desolation, nor wild, but
utter barrenness—not a tree nor shrub, but stunted
herbage covered with myriads of white snails which
afford food to thousands of birds.’ So writes
Tristram (Land of Isracl, p. 360 f.), and he adds
that the suddenness of the transition (he was
travelling northwards) has a geolovical cause,
because the soft limestone covers on these hills
the hard crystalline which makes the south wilder-
ness hopeless. But Palmer (Desert of Exodus, vol.
il.) states that there are abundant signs that this
region in earlier times was cultivated, and main-
tained a large population. Toward the S. there
are many rude cairns from a prehistoric period,
and hazerin or stone enclosures for folding sheep.
Toward the N., and especially the N.W., the ruins
of towns are frequent, the hillsides are covered
with flint-heaps over which to train vines, many
of the wadis show signs of cultivation in terraces
and dams which would keep and use the winter
torrents that stream through these. This latter
feature of the cultivation has largely determined
the fate of the Negeb. The artificial character
of the irrigation, without which cultivation was
impossible, depended for its continuance upon
eace and settled order among the population.

Vhenever this was granted to the Negeb, its towns
bloomed into a fitful importance ; but, whenever
this ceased, the neglected works fell into ruin,
the desert reasserted itself, the Bedawin swarmed
in from the south, or the people reverted to that
earlier condition. And what has always aided
that reversion has been that the country when in
its natural condition is stated to be the very
ground for browsing camels.

Thus the Negeb was the favourite home of the
early Israelites, while they were still nomads.
Here their forefathers are represented as wander-
ing between the more settled Egypt and Palestine
(Abraham Gn 901, Isaac 24%, Jacob 37! 465). The
original home of the traditional Avvim may be
looked for in this district (Jos 13°), and of them
the chief characteristic which is noted (Dt 2%) is
that they ‘dwelt’ in hdzérim, those stone en-
closures of a nomad-race which depends on its
licks. But, when Israel approached this border

* Those indomitable road-makers, the Romans, did not shun
even these hills, as the Peutinger tables and broken milestones
rove.

: + Contrast the conduct of Nebuchadnezzar, who on his way

to Egypt detailed a force to reduce Jerus., but led his prin-
Cipal army by a route Clear of these barren hills.

from the wilderness, the spies reported that the
Negeb was inhabited, not by Avvim, but by Amalek
(Nu 13”, cf. Gn 147); and this people associated
with the Canaanites (Nu 1455: 45) was strong enough
to repel the invaders at Zephath-hormah, the
modern Sebaita. It is possible that Amalek
held the plateau, while the Canaanites occupied
the more cultivated wadis. With Amalek as old
inhabitants of the land 1S 278 associates the
Geshurites and the Gizrites or Girzites.

The region was overrun by Simeon when that
tribe turned southward with Judah from Jericho ;
at least the cities assigned to Simeon (Jos 19-8) lie
here. Along with them went the Kenites, who,
with the natural instinct of a clan which had never
known anything except the life of nomads, settled
near Amalek ( 115 5). But the shock of conquest,
where it succeeded, shook down the artificial eulti-
vation ; Amalek till the days of Saul was ever on
one flank, the Philistines rose into strength upon
the other side; Simeon was probably from the
beginning the rudest of all the clans (Gn 34, ete.).
This tribe, never left in peace, needing peace more
than the others, and planted in a district: which
peculiarly required peace, could not maintain itself,
and merged partly into Judah, partly into the
Southern Bedawin. The cities of the Necebareenu.
merated in Jos 15?!-*, and assigned there to Judah.

On the edge of this district, at Ziklag, Achish
planted David (1 § 27°). One cannot but suspect
that by means of this outpost of men, who were
already accustomed to border war, he hoped to cover,
against the raids of the lawless border tribes, the
route down to Egypt, and possibly that to Akabah.
Incidentally it is noted (1S 304 9710) that the south
country was divided at this period into the Negeb
of the Cherethites, of Jerahmecl, of the Kenites, of
Judah and of Caleb, to which Jg 116 may add that
of Arad (for details see these names). During the
royal period the Negeb was considered a part of
Judah, and shared the fortunes of that kingdom.
Jeremiah (13!) speaks of it as belonging to Judah,
and as suffering, perhaps more than the rest of
the country, from the troubles of his time; but in
an exhaustive list of the districts which made
up the Southern realm (17° 824 33%) he promises
restoration to the Negeb as to the rest. Obadiah
(v.1%) anticipates that its cities shall possess Edom,
from which some have inferred that Edom, which
finally overran this district, was then pressing
on the borders of the weakened kingdom. See,
further, on this passage, art. OBADIAH, p. 579.

LITERATURE.—See references in the body of the article. Most
of the usual books on Pal. geography devote a section to this
subject. Of these, Robinson, BRP, is here the best. E.
Wilton, The Negeb, and Trumbull, Aadesh Barnea, are devoted
to that district, but are popular. The most thorough work
is still that of Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, vol. ii.

A. C. WELCH.

NEGINAH, NEGINOTH.—See PsALms.

NEGO (433 [once Dn 3” x'33]).—Found only in the
compound proper name Abed-nego (333 732, ‘servant
of Nego’) given by the prince of the eunuchs to
Azariah, one of Daniel’s three companions, Dn 17
24 8128. (LXX and Theod. ᾿Αβδεναγώ). It is prac-
tically certain that 11} is a corruption, which may
be set down to the mistake of a copyist or, more
probably, of the author of Dn, from 133; NEBo
(wh. see). Cf. the use of Nebuchadzezzar for the
correct form -rezzar. This is the view of Hitzig,
Gritz, Schrader (KAT? 429 [COT ii. 126]), Sayce
(HCM 532), etc., and is supported by the discovery
of the name ‘Abed-nebo’ on a bilingual Assyr.-
Aram. tablet of the 7th cent. (iii. Raw]. 46 col. i.
82) and in two Aramaic inscriptions of the 6th and
5th cents. B.c. discovered, one of them by Flinders
Petrie and the other by Sayce, on the sandstone

* Read in the last clause ‘ went and dwelt with Amalek.’

NEHELAMITE, THE

NEHEMIAH 507

rocks north of Silsilis in Upper Egypt (see CAM
177 n.). The same name was borne, long after the
Christian era, by heathen Syrians (Bevan, Daniel,
Ῥ. 61). It is possible that the author of Dn pur-
posely changed Nedo into Nego, in order to obscure
the reference to a heathen deity.
J. A. SELBIE.

NEHELAMITE, THE (‘25n:n).—An epithet ap-
plied to Shemaiah, a false prophet who opposed
Jeremiah, Jer 29° 31-32, According to analogy the
word should mean an inhabitant of Nehelam, but
there is no place of that name mentioned in the
Bible. This, however, is not a fatal objection.
The Targ. derives the word from a place Helam,
LXX Αἰλάμ, which is mentioned in 2S 1016.11 as
apparently near the Euphrates. The LXX_ in
Jer 36 [Heb. 29] has B Αἰλαμείτην, ΑΝ ᾿᾿λαμίτην.
Vulg. agrees with English Versions. ‘Nehelamite’
might also be related to the personal name fedem
(1 Ch 7%, Zee 64). The AVm ‘dreamer’ is of
course incorrect, yet there can be little doubt that
a play on the words ‘2973 and obn ‘to dream’ was in
the prophets mind, This verb and the cognate
noun (o19n) are used specifically in Jer (237% 51:58. 3,
cf. Dt 13% 3: δ) of the dreams of false prophets. The
words elsewhere are scarcely ever used of the
higher inspiration, being employed, ἐξ: of Jacob,
Gn 2813, Joseph, 375"; Pharaoh and his servants,
405. 411% (all E, not elsewhere in Hex.); of a
lower order of prophets than Moses, Nu 12° (cf.
Job 33%); of the Midianite, Jg 7%); the object
of Saul’s desire, 1S 28°; of Solomon, 1 K 34;
of old men in latter days, Jl 2533; of Nebuch-
adnezzar, Dn 218... of Daniel, Dn 117,

N. J. D. WUITE.

NEHEMIAH (x:27:).—1. One of the twelve heads
of the Jewish community, Ezr 93 (B Νεέμιος, A -as)
=Neh 77 (BA Neeuwa), 1 Es 53 Nehemias. 2. The
son of Azbuk, the ruler of half the district of Beth-
zur, who helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem,
Neh 816 (Neeuias). 3. See the following article.

instance of the right man in the right place. It
was his privilege to render great service to his
nation, for which both his character and his posi-
tiun fitted him, ILe was patriotic, courageous,
and God-fearing; he knew how to exercise the
inflexible will of an autocrat, as well as to be
persuasive when that would best accomplish the
good end he had in view. Our reliable informa-
tion concerning Nehemiah and his times is con-
tained alinost wholly in the parts of his memoirs
which have come down to us.* We may regret
that this memoir was not preserved in full, but we
cannot but rejoice in what we have ; for it affords
us a picture of this great patriot which is clear and
well-proportioned. It gives us no information,
however, about his early life or ancestry, except
in the heading that he was the son of Hacaliah
(Neh ἢ,

The first of Chislev, the ninth month (our Dec.),
of the 20th yeart of Artaxerxes I. t Longimanus,
B.C. 445, found Neh. in Susa, the chief city of
Elam, and the winter residence of the Persian court

*See Ezra-NENEMIAH, Book oF. Torrey holds that only chs.
1. 2. 383-39 (Ene, 41-6] are genuine memoirs of Nehemiah. The
rest of the book he assigns to the Chronicler ; and this, with the
whole of Ezr as a historical source, he says, ‘has no value
whatever’—Comp.and Hist. Value of Ezr.-Neh. 1896 (Beihefte
zur ΖΑ).

t If Chislev and Nisan (cf. 11 and 2!) were hoth in the 20th
year of Artaxerxes, Neh. must have reckoned the year from the
autumn. Nisan was the first month of the Jewish as well as of
the Bab. year. If Neh. reckons in the usual way, his audience
with the king (2!) must be placed in the king’s 21st year,
and so B.c. 444, On the chronology see Nowack, Heb. Arch. i.
214ff.; Berth.-Rys. Kom.2 254; Schrader, Κα 1 3, in loc.

{ Torrey says that we do not know which Artaxerxes is
referred to in Neh. He is inclined to put the composition of
Neh about the year B.c. 372 (”).

NEHEMIAH (2:273).—Nehemiah is a conspicuous

(Del. Paradies, 326). A company of men, among
whom was his brother Hanani, had just returned
from Jerusalem. Neh. eagerly questioned them
about the condition of the city and of the ΠΝ
who with Ezra had been struggling to rebuild the
State. Their report was most depressing to the
patriot: ‘The remnant which is left from the
captivity there in the province are in evil plight
and in great reproach ; the wall of Jerus. is broken
down, and its gates are burned with fire’ (1°).

Does ITanani refer to the destruction of the city by command
of Nebuch. in 586 (2 K 259f-), or to a recent catastrophe? In
favour of the former view it may be urged that we have no
record of either the rebuilding ot the walls and the setting up
of the gates, or their second destruction. Whatever may be
the date of Ezr 48-23 (see Ezk.-NEU., Book OF), it is evident that
the rebuilding described there was merely begun, not finished.
The enemies of the Jews procured an edict to stop the building,
but not to destroy the litule that was already restored. If such
a destruction had taken place, it is singular that it should be
mentioned neither by Ezra nor by the compiler. On the other
hand, if the destruction reported by Hanani had taken place
more thanacentury before, the report would not be unexpected
news, and consequently would not make so great an impression
upon Nehemiah. It might be urged that he had hoped that
measures had been taken to continue the restoration, and was
depressed to learn that nothing was being done. But Neh.’s
narrative lends no colour to such an interpretation. See, further
Stade, GVJ ii. 161; Benjamin, Persia (Story of the Nations)
127; Montefiore, Hibbert Lect. 1892, 311; Cheyne, Damp. Lect
1889, 71, 82, 231 δ JRL 37 ff. ; Gritz, List. of the Jews, Eng
tr. i. 383.

When Neh. heard the bad news he ‘sat down
and wept, and mourned for days, fasting and
praying before the God of heaven.’ His prayer,
which is full of Denteronomic expressions (O27) JC?
427), acknowledges the sins of the Jewish people,
but calls upon God to fulfil His promise in view of
the repentance of the people, and to ‘grant his
servant (Nch.) mercy before this man,’ 1.6. the king
(1+). The prayer put into Neh.’s mouth by Jose-
phus is somewhat different: ‘How long, O Lord,
wilt Thou overlook our nation, while it suffers so
ereat miseries, and while we are made the prey
and spoil of all men?’ (Ané. XI. v. 6).

Nehemiah’s position as eupbearer* to the king
ensured him an audience; and as the office was a
high one with rich emoluments, he had a point of
advantage in preferring a request, and the means
to accomplish his purpose. Yet it was four months
before his wishes were made known to the king.
He was waiting a favourable opportunity; and
this came only when he was called to serve the
wine when ‘no one else was before the king’
(210 ace. to LXX). His agitation was so great
when the decisive moment came that his face
betrayed him, and he was sore afraid as the king
reprovingly asked him the cause of his dejection.
However, he stated his troubles frankly: ‘Have I
not reason for a dejected countenance, since the
city of the graves ot my fathers lies in ruins, and
its gates are destroyed by fire?’ (2°). Encouraged
by the king, he asked permission to go to Jerus. to
rebuild the city. As Neh. mentions the fact that
the queen was sitting by her lord at the time (2°),
she may have exerted her influence in his favour.t
At all events the king granted his officer a limited
leave of absence, gave him letters to the governors
of the provinces west of the Euphrates, and to
Asaph, the keeper of the royal forest, that Neh.
might secure timber for the gates of the citadel of
the temple, for the wall of the city, and for the
temple itself.t Neh. set out with an armed escort
furnished by the king, and on the way delivered
the letters to the governors, not to apprise them of

* On the cupbearer see Rawlinson, Ezra and Neh. (Men of the
Bible), 86; Ewald, HJ v. 148; Xen. Cyrup. i. 3. 8; and art.
CUPREARER.

+ From the queen’s presence Cheyne and others suppose that
Neh. was a eunuch (/ntrod, to Is. 311). Some hold that Ps 12”
was directed against Nehemiah.

t On the motives of Artaxerxes see Stanley, Jewish Ch. iii

ie

508 NEHEMIAH

NEHEMIAH

his plans, as Gratz supposes, but to secure his
passage through the country, his letters to them
being virtually passports. At the outset he
learned of the hostility of Sanballat and 'lobiah,
who were troubled at the news that a man had
come from Persia to seek the welfare of the
Israelites (27-1),

Neh. waited for three days (911) to study the situa-
tion, then without disclosing his plans to any one
(24) he made a night inspection* of the walls
attended only by his guard, or by Hanani and a
few others who had come with him from Susa.
‘A city was in antiquity a city in the full sense of
the word only if it preserved its walls’ (Stade).
An exilic poet had cried, ‘build thon the walls of
Jerusalem’ (Ps 5145), and Neh. was determined now
to remove Jerusalem’s reproach.+ Accordingly
he assembled the leaders and said to them, ‘ You
see the evil plight we are in, in that Jerus. is in
ruins, and its gates burned with fire’ (917). at the
same time informing them of the powers which
the king had conferred upon him, and of his pur-
pose to restore the walls. The people saw the
opportunity, and responded readily to the call.
Sanballat and Tobiah, joined now by Geshem, or
Gosham as Wellhausen says it should be read
(Isr. Gesch.* 169), insinuated the charge of rebel-
lion against Neh.; but the charge neither intimi-
dated him nor checked the zeal of the people.

It is impossible to tell how extensive the damage
to the walls was. The word used by Neh. in 15 and
215 (pap) implies that there were only breaches to
repair; but these were evidently of wide extent.
Neh. was fortunate in securing the aid of the whole
population of Jerus., and of several companies
from other parts of Judah. ‘There were inen from
Jericho, Tekoa, Gibeon, Mizpah, Zanoah, and
Keilah. Men of every class laboured at the walls
with their own hands: it is said to the diseredit of
the nobles of Tekoa, as if it were an exceptional
case, that they refused to put their neck to the
work (3°); we find express mention of priests,
Levites, goldsmiths, and perfumers (or apothe-
caries) among the labourers. Neh. divided the
work among the various bodies with characteristic
insight ; we read of five cases in which men were
working at the breaches close by their own
dwellings (310 39. 28-3),

Some serious difficulties had to be met, however,
before all the breaches could be closed. Sanballat,
finding that his insinuation of rebellion had been
ineffective, and that the Jews were evidently
serious in their purpose to rebuild, tried to rouse
the army stationed in Samaria; Tobiah indulged
freely in ridicule, trying to persuade himself that
the labour of the Jews could not accomplish Neh.’s
purpose. ‘If a fox should go up on their stone
wall, he would break it down’ (3% Eng. 41),
The people did not heed the scoffing, but continued
their work with a will. When all the breaches
were closed with a wall half its proper height,
Sanballat and his allies, augmented now by euer-
illa bands of Arabians, Ammonites, and Ashdod-
ites, realized that prompt and vigorous action was
necessary if the almost incredible progress of the
wall was to he stopped. They resolved to march
secretly to Jerus. and stop the restoration by force
of arms (4°, Eng. 411), Meanwhile the working under

* On Neh.’s night ride see Stanley, op. cit. 111. 112; Wright,
JBL, 1896, 129-134, and PEFSt, April 1896. The last two
Suet give the important light from Bliss’s recent excava-
ions.

t ‘Accompany Neh. on his lonely ride around the burned walls
of Jerus., and listen to Sanballat mocking at the Jews for
attempting to revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish :
you will then recognize the occasion of this psalm [102], and
sympathize with the plaintive words—

“For thy servants take pleasure in her stones,

And it pitieth them to see her in the dust’ (10214),
=Cheyne, Bamp. Lect. 70 f.

high pressure was telling upon men unused to such
labour as laying a massive stone wall, especially
when the clearing away of the rubbish was so
difficult and laborious a part of the task. But
their burdens could not be lightened yet; in fact,
the activity of the enemy now added much to
their hardships. Reports came in of the intended
attack, and Neh. at once armed his workmen for
resistance.* He was acting according to the
authority vested in him by the king, while his
enemies were taking the law into their own hands.
The Jews exchanged the trowel for the sword, and
were stationed to defend the most unprotected
places in the wall. The enemy had counted upon
a surprise. When they saw the Jews armed and
drawn up for battle, they abandoned their pur-
pose to attack, and the builders resumed their
work. But the enemy evidently remained in the
neighbourhood waiting a chance to take the Jews
at a disadvantage, so that the labourers on the
wall kept their swords by their side, and a part of
the men were detailed to hold the larger weapons
and defensive armour in readiness. Neh. kept a
trumpeter by him to give warning of the point of
attack (4°"", Eng. 42), The people were all now
obliged to remain in the city at night, for the
enemy held possession of the outlying country,
and the city could not be left for a single hour
without vigilant defenders; so critical was the
time, that Neh. and the people alike slept in their
clothes. Yet there is no record of an actual battle,
and such silence is a pretty sure indication that
the Samaritans and their allies never ventured
on an open attack, and never found the coveted
opportunity for a surprise; but the vigilance and
precautions of Neh. show plainly that the danger
was for a jong time imminent.

Another form of trouble now required the leader’s
attention, The people who were labouring at the
walls had been obliged to abandon their usual
occupations, many of them to leave their homes
and fields. The enemy overran the country dis-
tricts at will, and very likely plundered the homes
of those who were working at the walls. Supplies
were getting scarce for such people, so that they
had to mortgage their fields and vineyards and
houses, either to get food or to pay the kiny’s
tribute. Many had pledged their children for debt,
and these were ald as slaves. The wealthier
classes had taken advantage of the necessity of
the poor. Neh. was justly angry, and promptly
summoned the offenders before a public meeting.
He reviewed his own generous course, and appealed
to them to be liberal, restoring the mortgaged
land, and remitting a part of the debt which the
people were unable to pay. It is pleasant to know
that his request was responded to cordially ; and
the people took an oath to execute their pledge
(ο}). δ).

The walls were finished amidst such trying diffi-
culties, and there only remained the doors to be set
up in the gates to make the city’s defences com-
plete. But Nehemiah’s enemies had not yet given
up. Having failed to intimidate him by threats,
or discourage him by ridicule, or take him un-
awares by force, they now tried cunning. Four
times they invited him to meet them in conference
in the valley of Ono in the land of Benjamin ; but
Neh. replied that he could not leave the great work
he was engaged in (601-33. A fifth messenger came
with an open letter t+ from Sanballat saying that it

*The Heb. text in 46 (Eng. 412) is obscure and confused.
The LXX furnishes a clear and satisfactory reading: ‘And it
was so that when the Judeans who dwelt by them came,
they said to us, They are coming up from all places against us.'
The first news of the intended assault was brought by the
workmen who lived at remote parts,

t It is said that an open letter was an insult ; see Thomson, The
Land and the Book, iii. 63 f,

NEHEMIAH

NEHEMIAH 599

was reported that Neh. aspired to the kingdom
of Judah and had appointed prophets to proclaim
him, and giving warning that word of this rumour
would surely reach the king; Sanballat asked for
a conference, as if he wished to aid Neh. in clearing
himself of the charge. Neh. knew well that auto-
cratic kings listened eagerly to such imputations,
and were not apt to investigate very clusely, pre-
ferring to err on the (for them) safe side ; neverthie-
less lhe rested secure in his integrity, and accused
Sanballat of feigning the charges out of his own
evil mind (058), Sanballat all the while had allies
and cmissaries in Jerus. (611-19), and, having failed
himself to get within reach of the leader, he set
them to work. A prophet named Shemaiah coun-
selled Neh. to shut himself in the temple at night to
avoid assassination. Other prophets * were also
hired to stir = his fears, and induce him to take a
step that would lead to his downfall (61°). But
they reckoned without their host.

By the month Elul (Aug.-Sept.), of what year we
do not know, the restoration was complete, having
been accomplished, we are told, in the remarkably
short time of fifty-two days t (6). Neh. appointed
his brother Hanani, who had evidently come with
him from Susa (cf. 1°), and Hananiah the governor
of the castle, in charyve over Jerus. ; he enjoined
them strictly to keep the gates shut until the sun
was well up in the heavens,t and to keep a guard
posted. The latter command was not easy of
execution, for the people in Jerus. were few, and
the houses for the most part still in ruins. It was
apparently dillicult to induce people to take up
residence in the city.§ Those who did so volun-
tarily were commended as patriots, and one of
every ten drawn by lot was obliged to move from
the country to the city (7: 1115). The completion
of the walls was celebrated with a creat dedication
service.|| Walls and gates and people were purified,
and two processions formed to move around the
circuit of the walls in opposite directions, Ezra] at
the head of one company, and Neh. of the other,
until they met near the temple, where the cere-
monies of thanksgiving and dedication culminated
in sacrifices and rejoicings. Appointments were
also made for the proper observance of the temple
rites (12"""-). These things being completed, Jerus.
being once more a city without reproach, social and
religious order being well established, and Neh.’s
leave of absence expiring, he returned to the court
of Persia (13°). Rawlinson holds that he was re-
called, but there is no evidence for such a theory.

How long Neh. had been in Jerus. is uncertain. The text bears
conflicting testimony not easy to reconcile. The memoirs are in
this part preserved only in somewhat mutilated fragments In
514 we appear to have a sufficiently definite statement that the
first stay at Jerus. was twelve years: ‘From the day when he
appointed me to be governor in the land of Judah, from the
twentieth year even to the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes the

king, twelve years, I and my brothers did not eat the governor's
bread.’ But in 136 Neh. says, ‘ While all this was going on I was

* ¢ The prophets of the time were opposed to Neh. and appar-
ently in league with the hostile neighbours,’ Montefiore, 312 ;
see also Wellh, Gesch.2 194. But these prophets, inferior as they
were to their predecessors of pre-exilic days, felt that Neh.,
like Ezra, was reconstituting Judaism on lines not in harmony
with prophetism ; and in a measure they were right. See, fora
fuller development of this view, Kuenen, ted. of Isr. ii. 238 ff.

t According to Jos. (Ant. x1. v. 8) the wall was two years and
four months in building ; according to Ewald, Hist. v. 157, nearly
five years. The fifty-two days is not only a very short time for
such a great work, but also for the conditions described in ch. 5
to develop. Yet there was every motive for urgent haste.
Perhaps only the main part of the work was accomplished in the
fifty-two days.

{ Sunrise being the usual time for opening the gates.

§ See Milman, J/ist. of the Jews, vol. i. p. 437.

|| According to Gritz, Hist. 394, this celebration took place two
years and four months after Neh,’s arrival in Jerus, ; according
to Rawlinson, Kzr.-Neh. 150, not till Neh,’s second visit. There
are no good grounds for the latter view.

4 On the relation of Ezra and Neh. in theiradministration, and
on the promulgation of the Law (Neh 8-10), see art. Ezra; and
Kosters, Wiederherstellung Israels, 1895.

not in Jerus. : forin the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes the
king of Babylon, I went unto the king, and asked of the king a
leave of absence. And I went to Jerusalem.’ This verse is
obscure, and its meaning uncertain. ‘I went unto the king’
may refer to Neh.’s return from Jerus., or to his entering the
royal presence to prefer his request. The other doubtful clause
is literally ‘to end of days,’ and is generally taken as a reference
to the undefined period between Neh.’s return to the king and
his second departure. The words favour this interpretation, the
context the notion of a limited leave as rendered above. See
the commentaries on the passage.

Neh. either returned to the king after twelve years’ absence,
and then, after a period of a year as Kuenen supposes, or three or
four years as Gratz holds, secured a second leave ; or else he
returned sooner, and in the thirty-second year, B.C. 433, started
again for Jerusalem. 5!4in the latter case would mean that Neh.
was the real governor of Judah even when absent on court duty,
ruling by his appointed deputies. On the whole, this view seems
more probable than the other; for it seems unlikely that the
king, who required Neh. to stipulate a limit to his leave before he
would grant it (28), would agree to so lony a period as twelve
years. Neh.’s chief purpose was to rebuild the walls: if this
took only fifty-two days, there would be noreason for a long stay.
The events narrated might all easily take place in three or four
years, and they are described as initialmovements. If Neh, had
protracted his stay, we should probably be informed of the
doings of such an active and zealous man. Then, again, the
supposed interval of a year or so does not allow time for the
development of the evils which confronted Neh. in his second
administration, especially for the appearance of a mixed speech
among the children of half-foreign parentage (1374),

During Nehemiah’s absence at the Persian court,
serious evils had made their appearance in Jeru-
salem. Sanballat and his allies had been check-
mated; Jerus. had been freed from external enemies;
but internal disorders had sprung up which affected
the life of the people harmfully. Ehashib had
housed Tobiah in one of the temple chambers (1370);
the Levites* were not supplied with their lawful
portions (see Mal 37"), so that they were com-
pelled to seek their living as laymen, or wander
about homeless (13!) as in the days of Micah (see
J¢i7f.). Onthe Sabbath day, work in the fields
went on as usual (13); produce was carried to
the market in Jerus. ; and the Tyrian merchants
sold fish and merchandise on that day (v.'°). In
spite of Ezra’s great effort, marriages with foreign
women were common, and the children of such mar-
riages spoke partly the language of their mothers
(v.2f), Even a grandson of Eliashib the high
priest had married a daughter of Neh.’s inveterate
enemy Sanballat (v.*). It is highly probable that
the report of these evils impelled Neh.’s return.
When he arrived he set about the necessary reforms
with characteristic vigour. Tobiah’s belongings
were cast out of the temple chamber, and it was
restored to its sacred uses (13°). The people were
compelled to pay the tithe + for the support of the
Levites and other temple officers (v.™). The city
gates were ordered to be closed during the whole of
the Sabbath, the vendors who then set up their
stalls outside of the gates were threatened so that
they were afraid to renew the offence (v.%"). The
men with foreign wives suffered disgrace and
punishment, and the people were put under oath
to discontinue this violation of the Law. The
arch-offender, Eliashib’s grandson, was banished
from Jerus. (v.~"). According to Jos. (Ané. XI.
vii. 2, vili. 2), Manassel, a brother of Jaddua,
married Nicaso the daughter of Sanballat, left
Jerus. and built the rival temple on Gerizim.
Josephus places these events in the time of Alex-
ander, but he was not a master of chronology, 6.0.
he places Neh. in the time of Xerxes; and many hold
that this Manasseh was the son of Joiada anc
grandson of Eliashib (see Kuenen, 1 οἰ. sr, il. 286 ;
Montefiore, Hid. Lect. 351; Ryle, Can. 92).

In spite of the effort of the author of the beautiful story of
Ruth to soften the harsh spirit of the leaders, Ezra and Neh held

the same decided view against foreign marriages, though from
different motives. The great offence in Ezra’s eyes was the

* Montefiore regards this condition partly as a result of ‘the
old quarrel between priests and Levites’ (Hib. Lect. 350).

+ This was a tithe of corn, wine, and oil, as in Dt 1472" ; see
Ryle, Canon of the OT, 86.

————

510 NEHEMIAH, BOOK OF

NEHUSHTAN

infringement of the sacred law. But Neh., while he was im-
pressed with the dangerous consequences of such alliances,
citing the sin of Solomon and the havoe it wrought (1328), held
the great evil to be the imperilling of the mother tongue by the
introduction of foreign elements. From this it would appear
that already the Old Heb. speech was in danger, and the
patriotism of the people was appealed to to preserve it from
extinction. How long it lasted as a living tongue after this
time is uncertain. But the seeds of death must have been
apparent.

Tradition was as little silent about Neh. as about
Ezra (see Ewald, χε, v. 16118). To these two
men ‘grateful posterity has attributed all the
beneficial institutions, of whose origin it was
ignorant.’ Among the wortlhies praised by Jesus
the son of Sirach is Neh., whose ‘ memorial is great,
who raised up for us the walls that were fallen, and
set up the gates and bars, and raised up our homes
again’ (Sir 4019). In 2 Mae 1'8" we read that Neh.
purified the sacrifices with the water taken from
the pit where the priests had hid the sacred fire.
His literary activity was also known: ‘The same
things were related both in the public archives and
in the records that concern Neh., and how he, found-
ing a library, gathered together the books about
the kings and prophets, and the books of David and
letters of kings about sacred gifts’ (2 Mac 2, See

tyle, Can. 102; W. R. Smith, O7'/C? 170. On
the character of the letters in which this passage
occurs see ZA W, 1890, i. 110 ff).

Neh. rendered a great service to his people, and
its effect was more enduring than that of Ezra. He
was magnanimous in his generosity towards his
subjects. He even purchased the liberty of many
Jews held as slaves in strange lands (5%); he had
refused the remuneration which belonged to his
office ; and he entertained at his own expense 150
of the chief Jews (517). But he was by no means
unconscious of his virtue, nor unhopeful of receiv-
ing a suitable reward from God; in 5! (ef. 131°)
he records a favourite prayer: ‘Remember unto
me, O my God, for good, all that I have done for
this people’ (see Monteliore, Hib. Lect. 211). He
shows as the vindictive spirit found in some of
the psalmists (3%f, Eng. 446 13%; see also Cheyne,
Bamp. Lect. 18). But a frank acknowledgment of
such weaknesses does not obscure the real greatness
of the man. It has been truly said of him that he
was ‘the only man who had at once the spirit to
awaken the old fire of national enthusiasm, and the
power both to heal dissensions within and to repel
attacks from without’ (7he Psalms Chronologically
arranged, by Four Friends, 311). On Neh.’s char-
acter and work, see further Wellh. Gesch.? 173;

Rawlinson, Ezr. and Neh. ch. xi. ; Renan, Hist. of

the People of Isr. bk. vii. 821%. Josephus says of
Neh. : ‘He wasa man of good and righteous char-
acter, and very ambitious to make his own nation
happy; and he hath left the walls of Jerus. as an
eternal monument of himself’ (Anf. XI. v. 8).

For other literature, beyond that quoted in the
above article, see EZRA-NEHEMIAH, ΒΟΟΚ OF.

L. W. BATTEN.

NEHEMIAH, BOOK OF.—See Ezra-NEIEMIAH,

Book OF.

NEHEMIAS (Neeyfas).—1. 1 Es 58, one of the
leaders of the first return from captivity under
Zerub. =Nehemiah, Ezr 2°, Neh 77. 2. (B Nawulas)
1 Es 5°, Nehemiah the contemporary of Ezra. The
insertion of his name here appears to be due to an
incorrect gloss on ‘Ardapias or ‘the Tirshatha,’ Neh.
being usually called by that title. In the canonical
parallels (Ezr 2°°, Neh 7) the name is absent, and
the Tirshatha alluded to is Zerubbabel.

H. St. J. THACKERAY.

NEHILOTH.—See PSAs.

NEHUM (on3).—One of the twelve heads of the
Jewish community, Neh 77, This form of the name

is probably due to a scribal error, the parallel
passage (Ezr 2°) having Rehum (cin7;; A Ipeovu, Luc.
‘Petovu). In Neh the LXX supports MT, reading
Ναούμ. The name appears in 1 Es 58 as Roimus (B
ἹῬόειμος, Δ" 'ἹῬΡομέλιος).

NEHUSHTA (xpy7}; Lue. Νεεσθάν, B Νεσθά,
A Naic@d).—Wife of king Jehoiakim and mother
of Jehoiachin; a native of Jerusalem (2 K 248).
She was taken a prisoner to Babylon with her son
in 597 (2 K 9412), and no doubt died there. Re-
garding her father, see ELNATHAN. The vowels of
MT and the rendering of Jerome, @s e/us, Connect
the word with ngs ‘bronze.’ Barzillai is possibly
another example of a proper name derived from the
name of a metal, But the stem consonants of the
word are those also of εἶπ; ‘serpent,’ and animal
names are characteristic of the period (Gray, Hed.
Proper Names, p. 103 f.). The Lucianic translitera-
tion identifies the name with Nehushtan (2 Kk 184),

W. B. STEVENSON.

NEHUSHTAN.—In thie received text of 2 Καὶ 184
we read that Hezekiah, in addition to remov-
ing the baméth (EV ‘high places’), with their
muzzebahs (RV ‘ pillars’), throughout the country,
carried his zeal for reform so far as to ‘cut down
the Asherah’ (so RV ; see ASHERAH)—presumably
that attached to the Temple at Jerusalem—and to
break in pieces ‘the brazen serpent that Moses
had made: for unto those days the children of
Israel did burn incense to it: and he (Hezekiah)
called it Nehushtan.’ The doubts which so many
recent critics have expressed regarding the his-
toricity of the greater part of this verse we need
not pause to examine, inasmuch as it must be, and
is, admitted that at least the statement with which
the verse closes, and which alone concerns us here,
is certainly historical. The further question as to
the relation of this incident to the Pentateuch
narrative, Nu 214": (esp. v.*), also lies without the
purview of this article (see SERPENT [BRAZEN]).
Two points, however, appear to demand cexamina-
tion, viz.: (1) the signification of the name here
applied to the object destroyed, and (2) the reason
alleged for its destruction.

(1) The name of ‘Nehushtan.’ Two significa-
tions of Néhushtan (jnzz:) are possible. (a) That
clearly intended by the Massoretic punctuators,
and since generally adopted, viz. ‘the brazen
thing’ [opus|veneum κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. According to
this view, Néhusht@m is a denominative from
nin} néhdsheth by addition of the formative suflix
-anm (so Ges.-Buhl, Stade, Konig, Ledrgeb. ii.
8 60. 9, Barth, Nominalbildg. § 207°). The
further idea of the Massoretes, reflected in our
EV, that this name was given to the venerable
object by Hezekiah at the time of its destruction,
must, however, be rejected. The context requires
rather that we should find in Néhushtdn the name
by which it was popularly known, and this may be
got by a slight change in the pointing of the verb
(cf. Lucian’s text καὶ ἐκάλεσαν αὐτὸν Νεεσθάν, and
see the Commentaries). (ὦ) The transliteration of
the word in the oldest Greek versions (A Νεσθάν,
B Νεσθαλεί, and best of all Νεεσθάν, Lucian) sug-
gests affinity with vm ndhash ‘serpent’ rather
than with néhésheth ‘brass.’ For in 2 K 248 the
name of the queen-mother, who appears in MT as
xavni Néhushtd, appears in A as Ναισθά, which is
identical with B’s Νεσθά, Luc. Νεεσθάν (see NE-
HUSHTA). But it is far more probable that the
personal name Nehushta is to be classed with the
other ‘serpent-names,’ NAHASH and NAHSHON
(which see), than with the derivatives of
néhésheth. Hence it is possible, at least, that
the name of this object of the Hebrews’ venera-
tion—pronounced with vowels other than those of
Néhush was also connected in the popula

NEIEL

NEIGHBOUR 51]

mind with ndhdsh, perhaps in the signification
‘the [sacred] serpent’ or ‘the serpent’ par ex-
cellence (ef. for form and signification 755).

(2) The reason for the destruction of the Ne-
hushtan is clearly stated. Whatever may have
been its origin—to inquire into this would be to
anticipate the article SERPENT (BRAZEN) in vol.
iv.—it had in recent times become an object of
idolatrous worship. Incense was offered to it as
to a divine being. Its continued existence, there-
fore, was incompatible with, and would have been a
constant menace to, that purer form of the religion
of J” which it was the aim of Hezekiah and his
spiritual advisers to introduce.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

NEIEL (5x33; Β Ἰναήλ, A ᾿Ανιήλ).---Α place on
the borders of Zebulun and Asher, apparently north
of Cabul, Jos 19°7; possibly the same place as Neah
of v.83. The site is uncertain.

NEIGHBOUR (jz¥ shakhén, Arab. séken, γείτων
‘inhabitant’; ap kdardbh, Arab. harih, ὁ πλησίον,
περίοικος ‘near’; yr rea, nay amith, φίλος “ friend’).
—The law of neighbourhood is of great importance
and influence in the East. It takes rank after
family life with regard to the number and authority
of the customs created and regulated by it. Neigh-
bourhood is not an occasional incident, but a con-
stant necessity of Oriental social life, and the latter
cannot be understood apart from it.

The importance of neighbourhood is due to the
fact that there are no farmhouses scattered over
the agricultural districts of Palestine. Vor pur-
poses of common safety, the population is congre-
gated in the villages, following in this respect the
custom of the pastoral tribes in their encampments.
From these villages, where the houses are generally
built quite close to each other, the peasants go out
to their daily labours in the surrounding fields.
Domestic life is thus touched at every point by the
larger circle of neighbourhood. Originating under
circumstances of common danger, this social con-
dition has now passed into a kindly preference of
use and wont. Such village life is now regarded
as a convenience. The Oriental dislikes silence
and solitude ; very rarely takes a solitary walk for

leasure ; chooses summer lodgings where neigh-

ours are numerous; and, in renting, buying, or
building a house, considers first of all the character
of the neighbours.

Among the modern inhabitants of Palestine the
Arab. karib, ‘near,’ on account of the surviving
similarity of social circumstance, means, like the
Heb. karébi, both ‘neighbour’ and ‘relative.’ The
sense of religious protection and union that en-
shrined the family life is seen in expanded form in
large towns such as Damascus and Jerusalem,
where Christians, Jews, and Moslems occupy
different parts of the town.

All the Bible references to neighbourhood indi-
cate that it was an institution of high social value,
with privileges to be enjoyed and duties to be
discharged.

1. Its helpfulness is stated in the maxim of
Pr 27!° ‘Better is a neighbour that is near than
a brother that is afar off.’ The Arabs have a
familiar proverb to the same effect, and they
further happily indicate the service that can be
rendered by a friend or neighbour by saying, ‘ You

* It seems to us safer not to hazard any further conjecture as
to the form of the word. Both Noldeke’s and Klostermann’s
attempts in this direction are open to serious objection. The
former (7 DMG xlii. p. 482, note) suggests that ΤΠ ΤΣ may be
compounded of τπ: 13 (=A, see the Lexx.), while the
latter asserts categorically that jnv’n3 is similarly a compound
of wm and Jn’ (=]n'N; see this root Γ᾽ in Oaf. Heb. Lex.), as
if denoting the ‘everlasting or the primeval serpent’ (Kurzgef.
Komm. in loc.).

cannot clap with one hand.’ There are, however,
unhelpful triends, who flatter and ruin the man
who seeks popularity by lavish entertainment,
Pr 18%. With these is contrasted the true friend
who ‘sticketh closer than a brother.’ ‘This is often
and becomingly referred to the Heavenly Friend,
but the original sense is a comparison between the
bond of family life and that of mere neighbour-
hood, and a declaration that in certain cases the
latter is superior. Similarly, an Arab proverb
says, ‘How many brothers [ have had who were
not children of my parents Τ᾿ cf. Pr 17!7 (Vm).

2. Intimacy is another of the leading features of
Oriental neighbourhood. Villave life is one of the
chief fields of Scripture parable. It is easy to
understand how in the villages people of an excit-
able sympathetic temperament, living close to each
other, and having so many interests in common,
would necessarily have a very intimate knowledge
of each other’s affairs. This communicativeness
accounted for the groups of women around the
fountain, and of the elders at the city gate. The
shepherd who brought back his sheep in safety
and the woman who recovered the lost coin must
hasten to tell their friends and neighbours, Lk 13:0,
In the declaration ‘I have called you friends’ (Jn
15) all the intimacy springing from Oriental
neighbourhood is made possible in the believer's
communion with Christ.

3. The sincerity and sanctity of this relationship
are constantly emphasized. One of the commonest
forms of neighbourly service was that of borrowing
and lending money and valuables, or the keeping
of each other’s goods in safe custody during a time
of absence, Ex 22718, Pr 61.17% Among modern
Orientals the giving of bread and flour, and the
lending of kitchen and table requisites on emer-
gencies of hospitality, are constantly practised, and
it is an everyday occurrence in the bazaars to see
an open shop left with a thin netting over the
entrance in charge of the merchant in the next shop.

In the Bible, prohibition is frequently uttered
against bearing false-witness, making unfounded
statements, or framing malicious devices of any
kind against a neighbour, Ex 20! 17, Dt 5°, Pr 3%
2458 9518 The duties of neighbourhood are not to
be evaded by polite words, Pr 3:8, nor its courtesies
turned to mercenary advantage, Dt 23%: 25, Jer 22”,
Neighbourhood is a part of sainthood, Ps 15%. The
great purpose of true religion is the perfecting
of social life, Mt 7%. The want of natural feeling
in this respect indicated the moral collapse and
pointed to the political extinction of Israel, Jer 94.

The highest expression of neighbourhood, ‘Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Lv 1918), is
repeated and expanded in Mt δ᾽ 19, Ro 13°: 29
In the case of the lawyer’s assumed bewilderment
(Lk 10%-%7) as to the limit at which the Jaw of
neighbourhood began to come into force, the ex-
planation pointed out rather the greatness of the
distance to which it might reach. Neighbourhood
was shown to be a creation of the kind heart that
would discover opportunities and feel obligations
where the nearest in place and kinship might pass
by without perceiving anything to do,

In the East, neighbourhood is an important
legal claim in the disposal of property. Next to a
co-proprietor, the neighbour has the first right of
purchase, especially if his land be irrigated from
the same source of water-supply. Such a right
Ahab would have had if Naboth had wished to
sell his vineyard.

Neighbourhood, which by intimacy, equality,
and identity of interest gave to social friendship a
basis of patience, trust, and sympathy, also fur.
nished the occasion to special temptations. Such
close intimacy gave the fullest opportunity to
envy, pride, and uncharitableness. According to

512 NEKEB

NEPHTHAR

an Arab proverb, ‘ Envy dwells among neighbours,
and hatred among relatives.’

It was because neighbourhood was almost ex-
clusively the condition of social contact that the
neighbour was specified in connexion with the
Mosaic provisions of mercy, truth, and justice.
The stranger was guarded by the law of hospitality.
For the treatment of strangers entering the circle
of neighbourhood, see FAMILY in vol. i. p. $49,
and GER. G. M. MACKIE.

NEKEB.—Only in the collocation 19:7 πὶ ‘the
pass of Adami’ (2), Jos 19%, ‘The LXX finds here
two proper names (B καὶ ᾿Αρμὲ καὶ Νάβωκ, A καὶ
Appat καὶ Naxe8). Neubauer (Géog. du Talim. p.
225) gives Ziyadathah as a later name for Nekeb,
and there is a ruin called Se‘yddeh near the village
ed-Damich on the plateau east of Tabor (see SIVP
vol. 1. sheet vi.). The ‘cutting’ or ‘pass’ is prob-
ably one leading from the eastern precipices near
Tiberias. Nekeb is mentioned in the list οἵ
Thothmes 111. as a town of Galilee. See, also,
ADAMI- NEKEB. C. R. CONDER.

NEKODA (x%p3). —1. Eponym of a family of
Nethinim, Ezr 24 (B Nexwéa, A Νεκωδάν) -- Neh 7°”
(BA Νεκωδά, καὶ Νεκωδάμ) ; called in 1 Es 5°! Noeba
(which see), 2. Name of a family which returned
from the Exile, but were unable to prove their
Israelitish descent, zr 2°" = Neh 7? (both Νεκωδά);
called in 1 Es δ Nekodan (Νεκωδάν).

NEKODAN (Χεκωδάν, AV Necodan), 1 Es 57 =
Nekoda, Ezr 2, Neh 7°. The name is Noeba in
T stb"),

NEMUEL.—See JEMUEL. Gray, Ich. Prop.
Names, 307, considers Jemuel the corruption and
Nemuel the original form. ‘Either form is ety-
mologically obscure.’ Nemuelites, the patronymic
of the family of Nemuel, occurs in Nu 26).

NEPHEG (353).—1. Son of Izhar and brother of
Korah, Ex 6% (Χάφεκ). 2. One of David’s sons,
born at Jerusalem, 2 αὶ 5% (Ndgex)=1 Ch 37 (B
Nagex, A Νάφεγ) 14° (B Νάφαθ, A Nagay).

NEPHEW.—In his Select Glossary (p. 146) Trench
points out that the Eng. word ‘nephew’ has under-
gone exactly the same change of meaning that
nepos in Latin underwent. In the Augustan age
nepos meant ‘grandson,’ in the post-Augustan age
sister’s or brother’s son. Nephew (which comes
from nepos through the Fr. neveu, the original
Anglo-Sax. nefa having dropped out) former!
signilied grandson or more generally some descend-
ant, and only within a century or more came to be
restricted to its present meaning. The meaning of
‘orandson’ is clearly seen in Holland, Plutarch’s
Morals, p. 555, ‘The warts, black moles, spots and
freckles of fathers, not appearing at all upon their
own children’s skin, begin afterwards to put forth
and show themselves in their nephews, to wit,
the children of their sons and daughters’; and in
Tymme’s Calvin’s Genesis, p. 872, ‘Jacob layeth
his handes uppon his nephewes. To what end?
Namely, to prove that he giveth them place among
his sonnes, and that so, Joseph being but one,
might inake two heads.’

In AV the word occurs four times. In Jg 12!
‘He had forty sons and thirty nephews,’ the Heb.
(833 33) is exactly expressed in AVm and RV
‘sons’ sons.’ In Job 185 and Is 14” the Heb. (123)
is more general, ‘descendant.’ So also in 1 Ti 54
(ἔκγονος), though in this place the meaning is
clearly ‘grandchild’: ‘If any widow have children
or nephews’ (RV ‘ grandchildren’).

J. HASTINGS.

NEPHILIM. — This word (0-53), translatel
‘ciants’ in the AV, is found in two passages
in the OT. The first passage is the note, syn-
tactically separate from its context, in Gn 64
‘The Néphilim were in the earth in those days,
and also afterward, forasmuch as the sons of God
used to go in to the daughters of man, and they
bare them children; they were the heroes that
were of old, the men of name.’ The connective
‘forasmuch as’ articulates the statement better
than the word ‘when,’ used in the English ver-
sions. It is not explicitly said that the Néphilim
were the heroes borne by women to the ‘sons of
God,’ and some scholars have held that they were
not; but this writer certainly meant that they
were, for otherwise it is impossible to account for
his mentioning them at all. There is much here
not easy to understand ; but in these four verses
we certainly have an allusion to that region of
mythology so copiously treated in the sacred
legends of other peoples, the region of demigods
and heroes. The Néphilim, whatever else may be
true of them, are thought of as beings analogous
to the demigods of the nations.

The other passage is most naturally thus trans-
lated: ‘And there we saw the Néphilim, sons of
Anak of the Néphilim ; and we were in our eyes
as grasshoppers, and so were we in their eyes’
(Nu 13°). Evidently, the word Néphilim here has
exactly the same meaning as in Genesis. ‘These
men are trying to find the strongest possible lan-
guage for expressing the terribleness of the
vigantie Anakim ; and this they effect by saying
that the Anakim are veritable demigods. Per-
haps they intended to be understood to imply that
the Anakim were descended from the demigods ;
or perhaps their language is metaphorical. [0
made the Anakim seem more dreadful thus to
suggest that there was something supernatural
and uncanny about them.

When we have examined these two passages we
have exhausted the direct evidence in regard to
the Néphilim. Among the derivations proposed
for the name, one makes it to be from nédéphal,
‘to fall’; either as meaning beings fallen from a
previous high estate (cf. Is 14”, Lk 1015), or as
fighters who fall upon the enemy fiercely. The
latter view has been supposed to be favoured by
the Greek versions, the LXX having γίγαντες,
Aquila ἐπιπίπτοντες, and Symimachus βιαῖοι, but see
Dillm. on Gn 6+.

In former generations the passage in Genesis
was voluminously discussed, especially the question
as to who the ‘sons of God’ there mentioned were.
Some account of these discussions, with references
to the literature, may be found in Smith’s DL
under art. ‘Giants’; see also the various com-
mentaries on this passage ; Lenormant, Beginnings
of History ; art. GIANT (in vol. ii.) with the litera-
ture theretmentioned ; Budde, Urgeschichte, 30 Εν;
Wellhausen, Comp. 308. W. J. BEECHER.

NEPHISHESIM, NEPHISIM.—See NAPHISH.

NEPHTHAI.—See NEPHTHAR.

NEPHTHAR (Νεφθάρ, AV Naphthar), Nephthai
(Νεφθαί, AV Nephi).—In 2 Mac 15:36 there is a
legendary account of the hiding of the sacred fire
of the temple at the Captivity, and of its recovery
by Nehemiah. It states that the fire was concealed
by the priests at the command of Jeremiah (see 2’)
in a dry well or pit. When Nehemiah had built
the temple and the altar (sic), and was about to
offer sacrifice, he sent the descendants of those who
had hidden the fire to bring it back. They found
in the well only a thick liquid (ὕδωρ παχύ), which
was drawn up and sprinkled upon the wood and

NEPHTHAR

NEREUS 51a

the sacrifice. On the sun shining out from behind
a cloud, a great fire was kindled on the altar.
When the sacrifice had been consumed, the re-
mainder of the liquid was poured, by Nehemiah’s
orders, upon great stones. It again ignited, but
its flare soon spent itself, while that on the altar
continned to burn. The king of Persia, having
heard of the matter, surrounded the well with a
sacred enclosure, and used to bestow )ortions of
the liquid on those to whom he wished to show
special favour (so RV). Nehemiah and his com-
panions called this substance Nephthar, but it was

generally known as Nephthai (v.*").

The second word appears in MSS as Νεφθαεῖ, Νεφθαί, Negba.
Cod. A simply repeats Νεφθάρ. Syr. has IL\QS and

ws S23, Vulg., followed by AV, reads Naphthar and Nephi.
The reading of v.3) is uncertain (κατα χεῖν, κατασχεῖν, κατέχ εἰν),
and the meaning of v.82> and of v.8 is obscure. The legend is
repeated by the dewish historian Joseph ben-Gorion, who
describes the liquid as ‘ water like thick oil and honey,’ and
among Christian writers by Macarius (Hom. 11). A different
lezend is given in the Ethiopic Book of Adam (Dillmann, 1853 ;
Malan, 1882), which states that Ezra found in the vaults of the
temple a censer filled with fire. According to the common
Rabbinical tradition, the sacred fire was one of the five things
lacking in the second temple (Buxtorf, ‘de Igne sacro,’ in
Ugolino’s Thesaurus, x. 426).

The names Nephthar, Nephthai, along with the
interpretation of the former as ‘cleansing’ or
‘purilication’ (καθαρισμός), constitute the chief
problem of this passave. They were applied to
the substance, and not, as Vule. (Aune locum)
suggests, to the place where it was found. Two
suppositions are possible—

1. That Nephthar was the original word, and
Nephthai a popular corruption. On this view
various attempts have been made, some elaborate,
and none very successful, to connect Nephthar
with the meaning καθαρισμός, or otherwise to ex-
plain its derivation. (a) According to Benfey and
Stern (Die Monatsnamen einiger alter Volker, 1836),
Νεῴθάρ corresponds to the Zend naptar. Naptar
apenm is said to denote the sacred elemental
water (Uriwasscr), otherwise known as arduisur,
to which the highest powers of purification were
attributed; (0) Lagarde (Gesammelte Abhandlun-
gen, 1771.) finds that the Syr. dassndco. OUR
sponds to the Bactrian viddc[a}tra, meaning’y puri-
fication’ ; (6) Nep@dp may originally have been 7723,
from 179 ‘to be pure’; (α) it may have been 753,
from 72 ‘to set free,’ and may mean ‘liberation,’
1.6. of the concealed fire ; (6) it may be connected
with Aram. V2 ‘unleavened ’ (Ewald).

2. That Nephthai is the original, and Nephthar
the corruption. In this case the form of the word
and the circumstances of the narrative combine
to suggest that Nep@ai is the same as naphtha
(νάφθα), the well-known combustible mineral oil.
The inflammable properties of naphtha, as well as
its medicinal virtues, were well known in ancient
tines (Strabo, Geog. XVI. i. 15; Pliny, Nat. Hist.
li. 105; Plutarch, Alexander, xxxv. ; Dioscorides,
Materia Medica, i. 85), and it was further asso-
ciated with sacred fires. Strabo (Geog. XVI. i. 4)
mentions a naphtha well in connexion with the
temple of Aniea. The natural flames in the oil
region of Baku on the Caspian Sea have lone been,
and still are, held sacred by a sect οἵ fire-wor-
shippers. The legend in 2 Mac 1 may have had
some actual spontaneous ignition of naphtha by
the sun’s rays as its basis, but it is unlikely that it
originated in Palestine. Naphtha is found in the
waters of the Dead Sea(Thomson, Land and Book,
ii. 371), but not in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem.
The well Bir Eyib, a little below the junction of
the valleys of Jehoshaphat and Hinnom, is known
also as the ‘well of Nehemiah,’ and is connected
with this legend, but the tradition does not seem

VOL. III. —33

to be older than the 16th cent. (see EN-ROGEL,
JERUSALEM, vol. ii. 285”; Robinson, BRI 1. 331-3;
Pierotti, Jerusalem Explored (Eng. tr. 1864], i. 188 ;
Thomson, Land and Book, ii. 456; Warren and
Conder in SWP, Jerus. vol. 371-2). Most. prob-
ably the story came from Persia or Babylonia, in
both of which naphtha is abundant. ‘This sup-
aa is confirmed by the part assiened to the
erstan king in vv. 34. The Jewish writer who
transferred the legend to Jerusalem may have
invented the form Nephthar and its derivation,
the latter being perhaps suggested by the idea of
‘purification’ in vv. 3, On the whole subject
see the commentaries of Grimm (1853), Keil (1875),
Bissell (Lange), Rawlinson (Speaker's Comin.),
Zockler (Λε σοῦ, Komm. 1891); Kamphausen (in
Kautzsch’s Apokr. τ. Pseudepigr. d. AT, 1898)
also Ewald, Hist. of Israel [Eng. tr.], v. 162-3.
JAMES PATRICK.
NEPHTOAH.— Only in the collocation Ὁ jy
mins; Jos 15° (B πηγὴ ὕδατος Magid, A. . . Ναφθώ)
18° (BA Ναφθώ). It was a place with water, on
the boundary of Judah and Benjamin, near the
Vale of Rephaim. Aecording to the Talmud
(Neubauer, Géog. du Talm. p. 146), Nephtoah was
the same as Etam, now ‘Ain ‘Atdn, south of Beth-
lehem at the so-called Pools of Solomon—Pilate’s
aqueduct. This position seems to agree with
Ephron (which see), being the mountain district
west of Bethlehem. Nephtoah has been placed
at Lifta (so Tobler, Robinson, Sepp, Baedeker-
Socin, ete.), about 3 miles N.W. of Jerusalem,
but this name dces not contain the necessary
guttural, and the site appears to be irreconcilable
with those of Chesalon and Kiriath-jearim, since
the border would run S.W. instead of N. from
Kiriath-jeavim to Chesalon. See KIRIATH-JEARIM.
Lifta is more probably Eleph (which see) of Ben-
jamin. It is not remarkable for its water supply
(but see Barclay, City of Great King, p. 544),
whereas ‘Ain ‘Afdnisa fine spring. For hoth sites
see SIVP vol. iii. sheet xvii.; and ef. ZDPPD iii. 79.

C: R. CONDER.
NEPHUSHESIM, NEPHUSIM.

’

See NAPHISH.

NER (33; B Νηρεί, Νήρ, A Nvp).—The son of
Abiel and father of Abner, and therefore the uncle
of Saul (1S 14°51), According to 1 Ch 8% = 99,
Ner was the father of Kish, and therefore the
grandfather of Saul: the same authority (055)
gives Jeied (ows, AV Jehiel) as the name of Ner’s
father. but probably both statements are erroneous
(ef. Bertheau on 1 Ch 8), The statement of the
Chronicler has misled some scholars into treating
the words ‘Saul’s uncle’ (18 1450) as referring to
Abner; the more natural construction is to take
them as a description of Ner. The view adopted
above as to the relationship of Ner and Saul is
confirmed by Josephus (Ant. VI. vi. 6, Nijpos δὲ καὶ
Kets ὁ Σαούλου πατὴρ ἀδελφοὶ ἦσαν, υἱοὶ δ᾽ ᾿Αβελίου)

In accordance with this testimony we must read
‘sons of’ (33) for ‘son of [Abiel]’ (13) in 1S 14%,
and render that verse, ‘And Kish the father of
Saul, and Ner the father of Abner, were sons of
Abiel’ ; so Driver, Klost., Budde.

J. F. STENNING.

NEREUS (Nypevs).—The name of a Roman Chris-
tian, greeted, along with his sister and certain
others, in Ro 16. The form of expression, ‘ salute
Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and
Olympas, and all the saints that are with them,’
suggests that these persons formed a small Christian
community by themselves. The name is found in
inscriptions of the imperial household (C7 vi.
4344), and is well known in the legends of the
Roman Chureh. The Acts of Nereus and Achilleus
which are of a late date and composite charac.
ter, call these saints the eunuch chamberlains of

pl ae

514 NERGAL

NERO

Domitilla, the virgin niece of Vespasian, and nar-
rate how they persuaded their mistress to refuse to
marry a son of the Consul, and to remain a virgin.
Later, after other legends of the early Roman
Church have been introduced, their death is de-
scribed. These names are, however, older than
the Acts. One of the well-known inscriptions of
Damasus describes them as two soldiers whose
faith compelled them to desert their unchristian
profession, and who had to pay the penalty with
their lives. There are other archawological remains,
and the Church of St. Nereus and Achilleus was
very old, dating under the name of Fscio/ae from
the 4th cent. at least. The Acts state that Nereus
and Achilleus were buried in the cemetery of St.
Domitilla in the Via Ardeatina, and probably the
origin of the legend in the Acés is that these two
names appeared somewhat conspicuously in the
catacomb near the tomb of Domitilla, and sugvested
that they might be associated with her in history.
The fact that Nereus is combined with Achilleas—
a name which does not appear in the Epistle to the
Romiuns—suggests that there was an independent
archeological source for the name, and that it
belonged to the early history of the Roman
Church.

LiTERATVRE.—Acta Sanctorum, May, vol. iii. p. 4; Texte
und Untersuchungen, xi. 23 Bull, Arch. Christ., 1874, p. 20,
1875, p. 8; Lightfoot, Clement, i. p. 51.

A. C. HEADLAM.

NERGAL (523; Β τὴν ’Epyé\, A om., Lue. τὸν
Νιριγέλ, Nergel, 2K 17; Bab. Ne-uru-gal, ‘the
lord of the great city’ of Hades) was worshipped
at Cutha (now Tell Ibrahim) along with his wife
Laz. He presided over the necropolis which lay
in the desert near Cutha. In pre-Semitic times
he was invoked as U-gur, ‘the taskmaster (%),’
and in later days was made a son of the Bel of
Nippur, and identified with Lugal-banda, the god
of the city of Marad. He was addressed as ‘the
hero of the gods,’ ‘who marches in front of them?’
to battle, and among his names (when identified
with the planet Mars) are those of Allamu and
Almu. The Assyr. kings regarded him as the
patron of hunting. See, further, Schrader, 7A 7?
Beef. (COT 4. ΘΕ Meyer,. -Gesch. 1. 17641;
Tiele, Gesch. 530. A. H. SAYCE.

NERGAL-SHAREZER (ποτοῦ; B Nayapyac-
νασέρ, Δ΄ AQ Nacép, Q™S Nnped Σαρσάρ, Theod. Νηργὲλ
Lapacap, Nergelsereser, Bab. Nergal-sar-uzur, “Ὁ
Nereal, defend the king’!).—In Jer 39° we
read that after the capture of Jerusalem the chief
Babylonians entered the city and sat in ‘the
middle gate,’ among them being Nergal-sharezer
the Rab-mag, and that, subsequently, Nebuzar-
adan the commander of the body-guard, Nebushas-
ban the Rab-saris (Bab. Iab-sa-risi, ‘chief of the
yrineces’), and Nergal-sharezer the Rab-mag, re-
leased Jeremiah from the prison into which he
had been thrown. In v.* the text has fallen into
confusion, and we ought to read ‘Samgar-nebo
the Sar-sechim, Nebushasban the Rab-saris, and
Nergal-sharezer the Rab-mag.’ Rab-mag is the
Babylonian Rab-mugi or ‘ chief of the physicians,’
and it is hardly doubtful that the Nergal-sharezer
who in Jeremiah occupies a place so near Nebu-
chadrezzar is the Nergal-sharezer who subsequently
became king of Babylonia, and 15 known to classical
writers as Neriglissar. We learn from the inscrip-
tions that he married a daughter of Nebuch., and
his name appears in several contracts drawn up
in the reien of Evil-Merodach the son and _ suc-
cessor of Nebuch., more especially in relation to
the purchase of house-property. In one of the
contracts mention is made of his son Merodach-
bal-uzur. Nergal-sharezer was the son of Bel-
sum-iskun, to whom, in one of his son’s inscrip-

tions, is erroneously given the title of ‘king.’
In B.c. 559 Evil-Merodach was murdered, and
Nergal-sharezer seized the throne, which he held
for nearly four years. He built a palace on the
right bank of the Euphrates, and was succeeded
in B.C. 556 by his son Labasi-Merodach (Laboroso-
archod), who was murdered after a reign of nine
months. ‘There are grounds for believing that
Nergal-sharezer’s reign was troubled by invasion,
Immediately after his accession he married his
daughter to Nebo-sum-yukin the priest of Nebo
at Borsippa, who may therefore have had much
to do with placing him on the throne. See,
further, Schrader, (VA 7? 416 [COT ii. 109]; Stade,
Cesch. 1. 646; Tiele, Gesch. 430. A. H. SAYCE.

NERI (Χηρεί Tisch. Treg. WH; Nap? TR).—An
ancestor of Jesus, Lk 3°7. See next article.

NERIAH (73). — The father of Baruch, Jer 32
Gr. 39] 12. 16 36 [43] + & 8 43 [50] *6 45 [51]? 51 [28]
* In Bar 1! the Greek form of the name, Neriag
(Nyp(e)ias), is retained. The same name appears
in another Greek form Neri (Nyp(e)é) in St. Luke’s
genealogy of our Lord, according to which one
Neri was the father of Shealtiel, Lk 327.

4 “ἢ

NERIAS (Nnpias).—The Greek form of the name
NERIAH (wh. see). It occurs only in Bar 11 as the
name of the father of Baruch.

NERO (Népwy).—The name of Nero does not
occur in the NI’, but he is the ‘ Cesar’ to whom
St. Paul appeals in Ac 25" ; before whose tribunal
he was twice tried (assuming an earlier acquittal
and later reimprisonment) ; and in whose imperial
establishment the apostle had fellow-believers and
probably converts (Ph 4**).

Nero’s reign covers an important period of NT
history, and his attitude towards the early Church
had a memorable influence on its fortunes. Born
in A.D. 37, of parents—Domitius and Agrippina—
who both belonged to the family of the Ciesars,*
Nero was destined from childhood for the imperial
throne by his ambitious mother, who first (A.D. 49)
secured her own marriage to the emperor Claudius,
her uncle; then the betrothal of Nero and Octavia,
the daughter of Clandius and Messalina (the
marriage being consummated four years later) ;
finally, in A.D. 50, the adoption of Nero as the
emperor’s son and designated successor, with the
supersession of Claudius’ own son, Britannicus.
When Claudius died suddenly, in A.D. 54,+ Nero,
mainly through his mother’s strategy, was peace-
fully accepted as emperor by army, senate, and
people (Tac. Ann. xii. 68, 69).

Trajan is said (Aur. Vict. pit. Nero) to have
described the first quinquennium of Nero’s reign
as far superior to any other period of imperial rule.
During those years he was under the gnidance of
Seneca, the philosopher (his tutor in boyhood), and
of Burrus, prefect of the pretorian guard, an
honest and virtuous soldier. By these counsellors
the influence of Agrippina, originally potent, was
at an early stage counteracted, and eventually sup-
planted.t The emperor’s exemplary clemency ὃ
in the beginning of his reign ; his habitual accessi-

* Acrippina was a great-granddaughter of Augustus, and
Domiiius a grandson of Octavia the sister of Augustus.

t According to Pliny (HN xxii. 22), Tac. (Ann. xii. 66), and
Suet. (Claud. 44), Claudius was poisoned by Agrippina. Suet.,
however, admits discrepancies in the reports as to occasion,
adininistration of poison, and attendant circumstances. j

Tac. Ann. xili. 2, 5, 6, 21, xiv. 5. At the outset of his
reiyn Nero gave, on one occasion, as military watchword, ‘The
best of mothers.’

§Sen. de Clem. i. 1, 11, ii. 1; Tac. Ann. xiii. 11; Suet.
Nero, 10. The assassination of Silanus, soon after Nero’s
accession, was without his knowledge, and the compulsory
suicide of Narcissus against his desire (Tac. Ann. xiii, 1)!
Agrippina being in both cases the responsible agent,

—

——. Το:

a

So i aad eo, Oe

NERO

NERO 515

bility and liberal provision of spectacles and
largesses (Suet. Nero, 10, 11); his constitutional
recognition of the authority of the senate (Tac.
Ann, xiii. 45); his landable endeavours to mitigate
taxation and suppress extortion (¢. 50, 51); and
his vigorous foreign policy against Parthian
ageression and British insurrection,* —all this
secured favour for Nero personally, as well as
respect for his government. [Ὁ caused, also, some
toleration to be extended to his excessive vanity,
adulterous cmours, and scandalous nocturnal esca-
pades, when he roamed in disenise throughout the
city, and committed outrages on peaceful citizens
Chic, Ann, ΧῊΪ. 12, 95; 40).

It is difficult to believe that, within the first
year of his reign, Nero (without his mother’s
complicity and against her desire) deliberately
poisoned Britannicus, his brother through adop-
tion, a boy of fourteen. The early incidental
reference (c. 78 A.D.) to the murder by Josephus
(BJ τι. xiii. 1), and the later detailed account of
Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 1511), followed by Suetonius
(Nero, 33) and Dio (61. 7. 4), amply prove that
the crime was attributed to Nero soon after, if not
before, his death. Motives are found in Nero’s
youthful jealousy and fear of an imperial rival
whom even Agrippina might support. But (1) the
remark of Tacitus (Ann. i. 1) must be kept in mind
that the histories of Nero and other early emperors
were ‘during their reign falsified through fear, and
after death fabricated through hatred’ ; (2) Seneca,
writing soon after Britannicus’ death (de Clem. 1.
11), declares that Nero had never shed the blood
of a Roman citizen nor of any human being in the
world; (3) the details of the alleged murder are
not inconsistent with Nero’s own allegation that
Britannicus died in a fit of epilepsy.t Sudden
death was frequently ascribed to poison; and the
later undoubted crimes of Nero might induce belief
in his earlier guilt.

Nero’s connexion (from A.D. 58) with Poppa
(the wife of Otho, afterwards emperor), and her
fatal ascendency over him, became the chief factor
in his thorough demoralization, and a direct. or
indirect occasion of many of his crimes. Poppiea
coveted the positicn of empress, and determined to
secure the divorce and removal of the neglected
Vetavia, Agrippina’s remanent influence stood in
the way, and must be destroyed. Nero had already
been partially alienated from his mother by her
interference with his private habits as well as
imperial administration ; and her vindictive dis-
position had raised up enemies against her in the
court. Popprea fostered filial estrangement and
encouraved the animosity of courtiers. The issue
was Agrippina’s tragic death, of which two con-
flicting accounts have come down, both inherently
improbable— (1) Nero’s own statement to the senate
(Tac. Ann. xiv. 11) that Agrippina, foiled in an at-
tempt to compass his death, had atoned for her crime
by suicide. An ambitious woman might have con-
spired against a court-party from which she was
excluded ; but Nero’s death would have destroyed
her one hope of regaining power. (:) The account
of Tacitus (xiv. 3-8), followed by suetonius (Nero,
34), that Nerowas cuilty of deliberate and persistent
matricide, employing his freedman Anicetus, first
to cause Agrippina to be shipwrecked, and then,
on her escape, to assassinate her. The details of

* Corbulo and Suetonius Paulinus, the two ablest generals of
their day, were sent, the former in 55 to repel the Parthians,
the latter in 58 to complete the subjugation of Britain.

t Apart from this incident, there is no actual evidence that
the ancient Romans were acquainted with any poison which,
after double dilution, could have caused instantaneous death or
sndden lividness, as related by Tacitus. Undoubtedly, however,
8 distillation from the leaves of the cherry-laurel, which might
then have been obtained from Asia Minor, would have produced
the effect desired (Burnett’s Med. Bot. ii. 137).

this record bristle with improbabilities; (7) the
secret preparation of a vessel which would suddenly
fall to pieces, without the majority of the seamen
knowing what would happen; (4) the hardened
emperor caressing the mother whose murder he
had arranged, and clinging fondly to her bosom ;
(6) the virtuous Burrus and Seneca joining in the
crime with a calculating callousness worse than
that ascribed to Nero himself. (ὦ) Suetonius adds
that Nero had thrice previously tried to poison
Agrippina, who had fortified herself beforehand
with antidotes! It is not improbable that Nero,
under Poppiea’s influence, believed in his mother’s
conspiracy against the existing adininistration ;
that in the midst of a nocturnal debauch he
ordered her violent arrest; and that in the con-
flict occasioned by her resistance she was killed.

The death of Burrus, in 62 (not without some
suspicion of poison, Tac. Ann. xiv. 5), relieved
Poppiwa of another obstacle to her ambition ; and
the appointment of Tigellinus as prefect of the
prietorians in his stead provided her with a willing
accomplice and Nero with another evil genius—a
fresh instigator to vice as well as crime. luperial
orgies became viler and more shameless. Influential
senators were removed trom Rome and assassinated
(Tac. Ann. xiv. 57, 59): Seneca, in despair, with-
drew into private life (i4. 53-56). Popprea’s time
had come. Octavia, through perjured witness
pronounced guiity of infidelity, was divorced,
banished, and finally murdered (Tac. xiv. 60-64).
Poppa was espoused, and before the close of the
year, en the birth of a daughter (who died in
infancy), received the title of Augusta. The un-
bounded extravaganee which the empress and
Yigellinus encouraged led to financial embarrass-
ments. These were relieved by charges of treason
(followed by confiscation) against wealthy citizens,
through which the upper classes were exasperated ;
and by oppressive taxation, which made Nero un-
popular even among those who would have toler-
ated his crimes ; while the emperor’s exhibition of
himself upon the stage, however acceptable to the
lowest class, and publicly applauded, excited much
private disgust (Tae. xiv. 14, 15).

Before this time Nero’s relations with the
Christians had begun. St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Romans, with its favourable reference to the
‘powers that be’ (1318), had been written during
the first quinquennium, to which also belongs the
charge of superstitio externa (supposed by some to
be Christianity) against Pomponia Griecina, wife

of Aulus Plautius (Tac. Ann. xiii. 82; de Rossi,

Roma Sotter, ui. 36006; οἵ, Liehtf. Clement, i.
9011). The apostle’s arrival in Rome took place,
probably, soon after Agrippina’s death (see art.
CHRONOLOGY OF NT in vol. i. p. 424); his mild
imprisonment, tolerated evangelization, and earlier
trial, issuing in acquittal (according to the common
theory), belong to the period of Poppiva’s ascend-
ency. That St. Paul was tried by Nero in person,
although not certain, is highly probable; for,
amid much carelessness, the emperor was par-
ticular in his attention to appeals from the pro-
vinces in criminal cases. He received from ss of
his assessors a written opinion, and pronounced
sentence personally from the tribunal on the fol-
lowing day (Suet. Nero, 15; ef. Tae. Ann. xiii. 4).
Poppwa had leanings towards Judaism, is de-
scribed by Josephus (Ant. XX. viil. 11) as θεοσεβής,
and twice interceded with Nero on behalf of Jews
(Jos. de. and Vita, 3). She may not, however,
have concerned herself with St. Paul’s case; and,
in the absence of any powerful antagonistic infla-
ence at court, the edogiwm of Festus would tell
strongly in the apostle’s favour. The intervention
of Seneca, the brother of Gallio (indicated in the
apocryphal Passio Pauli, i.), is no more than

516 NERO

NERO

possible.* Up to the time of Gallio’s proconsnl-
ship (7.6. A.D. 52-5 or 53-4), and probably for some
years afterwards, the Roman government regarded
Christians, apparently, as only a sect of Jews.
The trial at Rome of a Christian who was also
civis Romanus may have been, as Ramsay sugvests
(Expositor, July 1893), the occasion of a more
thorough investigation which enlightened the im-
perial authorities as to the true relation between
Christianity and Judaism.

In A.D. 64 the tolerant attitude of Nero’s
government towards Christianity was suddenly
transformed into cruel hostility. In July of that
year took place the great fire at Rome, which
raged for nine days, and through which, out of
fourteen civic districts, three were totally, and
seven partially, destroyed. Nero was at Antium
when the contlagration broke out. The measures
taken by the government for the suppression of
the fire (Tac. Ann. xv. 40); his own fearless super-
vision of these efforts without a guard (τ. 50); and
the occurrence of the disaster at a time when the im-
perial finances were seriously embarrassed, render
it highly improbable that Nero either instigated
or deliberately extended the contlagration. But
he probably gave occasion for the charge of com-
plicity, which was widely believed at the time,t by
previous sanitation retorms, laudable but keenly
opposed (Lancianl, dine. Rome, p. 122), unbecoming
adiniration of the magnificence of the spectacle,
ill-disenised pleasure at the opportunity of re-
building Jaree portions of the city in a more
magnificent style, and the significant annexation
of a considerable part of the desolated area for the
erection of his ‘Golden House.’t The fact, more-
over, that the flames, after temporary arrest,
broke out afresh in the gardens of Tigellinus,
gave some colour to the suspicion that if he had
nothing to do with the original fire, he might,
nevertheless, have caused the second outbreak
(Tae. Ann. xv. 40).8 The common belief in Nero’s
guilt, and the danger of revolution, owing to
bitterness engendered in many thousands οἱ
ruined and homeless sutferers, led to the em-
peror, either spontaneously, || or at the suggestion
of Popprea®) or some malignant courtier, imput-
ing the contlagration to the Christians.** Some

* Seneca, however, who had probably not yet retired, may have
been an assessor ; and, in any case, to the equitable principles of
administration established under his influence, the acquittal of
St. Paul was largely due.

+ It is accepted as a fact by Pliny (ZN xvii. 1. 1), who wrote
about a.D. 77; also by Suetonius (Vero, 38) in A.p. 120. Tacitus
writes (A.D. 115-117), ‘forte an dolo principis incertum,’ and
indicates that older authorities were divided in opinion C4nn,.
XV. 38).

t Of this Golden House, which reached from the Palatine to
the Hsquiline, and had triple colonnades a mile in length, Nero
declared that ‘now at last he was housed like a human being’
(Suet. Nero, 33; cf. Tac. Ann. xv. 42; Middlet. Anc. Rome, ii.
146).

§ The story that ‘Nero fiddled while Rome was burning’
originated, doubtless, in the report (Tac. Ann. xv. 42) that be
sang, during the fire, of the ruin of Troy—a report based prob-
ably on the fact that, a year after the fire, the emperor, with
questionable taste, read in public his ‘7Z'roica,’ a poem con-
taining frequent allusions to the recent fire (Renan, Hibb. Lect.

Hy Pode Is

: | Nero might have heard from Jews, at St. Paul’s trial,
calumnies against the Christians, which, although proved to be
haseless in the apostle’s case, would now suggest themselves to
the emperor as a convenient foundation for his charge.

{ Clement of Rome (1p. to Cor. 5, 6) writes that the Christians
suffered ‘through envy and jealousy.’ The reference is indefi-
nite, but may apply (in part) to Jews in Nero’s time who em-
ployed Poppwa as a medium for fixing the charge of arson on
the Christians (Farrar, Karly Days of Christianity, i. 64).

** There seems to be no good reason for questioning the
accuracy of Tacitus’ reference to Christians as the sole objects of
persecution in connexion with the fire. The ‘ingens multitudo’
of victims (Tac. Ann, xv. 44) referring to judicial executions,
need not imply more than several hundreds. Gibbon (Decline
and Fal, ch, xvi.) conjectures that the real victims were
Jewish Zealots who had received the name Galileans from
Yudas of Galilee (Ac 57), and thus were afterwards confounded
with Christian ‘Galileans’; but there is no evidence that the

plausibility would be given to the charge by their
horror of pagan temples, many of which perished
(Tac. Ann. xv. 41), by their supposed disloyalty
and ‘hostility to society’ (tb. 44), and by their
expectation of an impending destruction of the
world by tire (2 Th 18, 2P 37), According to
Tacitus, ‘those in the first place were brought to
trial who made open profession’ (i.e. of the Chris-
tian faith). ‘Thereafter, on information elicited
from these, a great multitude were convicted, far
less on the charge of incendiarism than of odium
humant generis.’ The injustice of conviction was
equalled by the brutality of execution. Some
were ‘covered with the hides of wild bessts and
worried to death by dogs’ ; and the culmination of
inhumanity was reached when others, robed in the
tunica molesta, covered with pitch, were ‘set on
fire at nightfall’ to illuminate the imperial
gardens on the occasion of Circensian games
(Tae. Ann. xv. 44)—a fiendish exaggeration of the
penalty of death by fire inflicted on malignant
incendiaries (Juv. vill. 935). Nero does not appear
to have organized any persecution of Christians
beyond the city of Rome;* but the notorious
treatment of them there could not fail to influence
provincial governors in dealing with other charges
made against Christians within their respective
territories. In the Neromian persecution we dis-
cern a distinct stage in the development of inperial
policy regarding Christians out of prosecution for
alleged particular crimes into prosecution on ac-
count of Christian faith and profession. Whether
this development was completed under Nero is
disputable. Ramsay, to whom, mainly, is due the
abandonment of the old theory that persecution
‘for the name’ began under Trajan, maintains
(Church in Rom. Emp. p. 24278, and Lapositor,
July 1893) that while the substitution of the
charge of ‘hostility to society’ for that of arson
was a notable development, the condemnation of
Christians even on the later charge ‘was pro-
nounced in respect not of the name, but of serious
ofiences (flagitia) connected with the name,’ and
that ‘Christianity had not yet come to be recog-
nized as in itself a crime.’ There would have
been otherwise no occasion (he argues) for any
lenethened second trial of St. Paul as diescribed
in2Ti4. Sanday (Hzpos., June 1893) and Hardy
(Christianity and the om. Gort.) hold that odium
humani generis is not a definite charge, but an
assumed characteristic of Christianity, and that
the condemnation of Christians on this account
is tantamount to a proscription of the name.
They appeal to 1 P 4; but Ramsay, while not
denying the Petrine authorship of the Epistle,
dates it c. 80 A.D. At some date soon after
the horrors of A.D. 64—perhaps in 65 (see art.
CHRONOLOGY OF NT in vol. i. p. 420)—oceurred
St. Paul’s second imprisonment and trial, issuing
in his martyrdom. By this time the ferocity
of persecution had abated; and the apostle,
while confined in the Mamertine dungeon, appears
to have been tried in an orderly manner (2 Ti 4),
and would probably be condemned under the
charge of ‘odium,’ or as a disturber of the imperial
Zealots were ever so called. Merivale (Romans under Empire,
ch. liv.) and H. Schiller (Gesch, d. rém. Kais. p. 433 ff.) suppose
that the persecution assailed both Jews and Christians, to
whom the name of ‘the Christ’ alike belonged, but that the
memory of the Christian sufferers alone was preserved, The
silence of Josephus, however, who professes (Ant. xx, viii. 3) to
record accurately all that happened to the Jews under Nero,
and especially ‘their calamities, tells heavily against both
theories ; while the limitation of the persecution to Christians
by Tacitus is confirmed, so far, by Suetonius (Nero, 16). | ν

* The earliest writer who asserts an extension of the imperial
persecution to the provinces is Orosius (Hist. vii. 7), who wrote
ἃ. 400 A.D. Regarding a mutilated inscription found at Pompeii,
of doubtful interpretation, but supposed to refer to a bloody
persecution of Christians there, prior to A.D. 79, see Aube,
Perséc, p. 415 ff., and Schaff, Apostolic Christianity, p. 384.

"ἐμ SOO ll

NERO

NERO 517

peace. Regarding St. Peter’s alleged arrival in
Rome and martyrdom about the same time, see
art. PereR.* The alleged banishinent of St. John
under Nero (contrary to Tren. adv. Her. v. 30,
and Eus. ΜῈ iii. 18. 20) rests mainly + on what is
regarded as strong internal evidence for the com-
position of Rev in 68-69 (see RtvELATION [Book
OF]}). The Neronian persecution was the first of
three outstanding events in close succession (the
destruction of Jerusalem and the settlement of St.
John in Asia being the other two) which paved
the way for the consolidation of Jewish and
Gentile Christendom. Amid common peril and
suffering, the sectional friction noted in Ph 1°"
would decline and mutual sympathy increase ;
while the tiery ordeal would rid the Roman Church
at once of Judaizing false brethren who alienated
Gentile believers from the Jewish Christian com-
munity, and also of Gentile professors whose
lax morality prejudiced Jewish believers against
Gentile Christians as a whole.

In A.D. 65 the widespread discontent aroused by
the contlagration and its supposed origin, by the
divorce and death of Octavia, and by the emperor’s
murderous rapacity and extortionate levies, issued
in a powerful conspiracy being organized, the ob-
ject of which was to depose Nero, and to enthrone
Calp. Piso, a man of noble birth, great wealth,
and general popularity. Many senators, knights,
and other influential persons were drawn into the

lot, including Fenius Rufus, one of the prefects ;

lautius, consul-elect ; Lucan the poet, Seneca’s
nephew ; and Senecio, one of Nero’s most intimate
courtiers. The conspiracy was prematurely dis-
closed by the imprudence or the treachery of some
who were implicated, and the leaders of the
movement were put to death. Among others
condemned without evidence was Seneca, whom
Nero constrained to commit suicide. A reign of
terror ensued. ‘The city was thronged with
funerals, the Capitol with victims’ (Tac. dan. xv.
71). On flimsy pretexts, almost every prominent
citizen whose virtue rebuked Nero’s vices, whose
wealth tempted his cupidity, or whose popularity
excited his jealous fear, was mercilessly executed.
The most notable victims were the senators Thrasea
and Sorranus, whose death ‘Tacitus (dan. xv. 21)
ascribes. to Nero’s passionate desire to ‘extirpate
virtue itself.’ Petronius, long a prime favourite,
killed himself to avoid execution. The cruelty of
the emperor was matched by the callousness of a
populace whose hostility he averted by largesses
and spectacles ; by the servility, also, of a debased
senate which condoned the condemnation of its
noblest members. It outdid the former dcification
of deceased emperors by decreeing the erection of
a temple to Nero, as to a god, in his lifetime ; and
it voted divine honours to Poppiea, at the instance
of the emperor, for once remorseful, when he had
killed her with a kick during pregnancy (Tac.
Ani. xv. 74, xvi.-21 £2),

Aiid his career of shameless debauchery, un-
natural self-prostitution, and murderous frenzy,
Nero remained a devotee of art. He played on
the lyre, and was vain of his voice; he posed as an
orator, and wrote tolerable poetry ; he attained

* Nero occupies a prominent place in apocryphal and legend-
ary ‘Acts of Apostles,’ particularly in the Acts of Peter and
Paul. We is there represented as deceived by Simon Magus
(through a magic trick) into the belief that Simon after being
beheaded had come to life again. Ultimately, when Simon
attempts to fly, Peter’s invocation causes him to fall into the
Via Sacra and to be killed. This, however, does not prevent
Nero from ordering Peter to be crucified and Paul to be beheaded.

t The external evidence includes (1) the title of the Syriac
Version of Rev (ascribed to 6th cent.); (2) the Syriac Apocry-
phal History of John (Wright’s Trans. ii. 56); (3) Hieron. adv.
Jov. i. 26, where (if the reading be correct) Tertullian is in-
accurately reported as ascribing to Nero St. John’s torture
prior to exile.

some proficiency in painting and sculpture; he
acted on the public stage, and was an accomplished
charioteer (Tac. Ann. xiv. 14, 21; Suet. Nero,
52, 53). A visit to Greece, long projected, and
accomplished in A.D. 66, provided him with the
opportunity not only of gratifying his artistic
tastes, but of enjoying an apparently greater
appreciation of his talents than even a servile
Roman crowd could supply. National Greek
games, which recurred in successive years, were
all crowded into the period of his visit, so that he
might be awarded every notable prize for music,
acting, and chariot-racing, and attain the coveted
distinction of ‘periodonikes,’ or universal victor.
He rewarded Greek adulation by declaring Achaia
‘free’; and endeavoured at once to benclit Greek
commerce and to glorify himself by initiating a
scheme—soon given up—for piercing the Isthmus
of Corinth (Suet. Nero, 23f.; Dio, Ixiii. 10-16).

The visit to Greece caused no interruption in
the course of imperial bloodshed. Rich victims
were to be found in Achaia, as in Italy. Ignoble
jealousy and fear prompted Nero to summon trom
the East the brilliant conqueror Corbulo, only to
condemn him to immediate suicide, the general’s
sole crime being that he had been urged, but had
refused, to proclaim himself emperor. In home
executions and confiscations continued under the
delegated authority of Helius, a freedinan (Dio,
Ixiii. 12, 17). Meanwhile, however, disaffection
among citizens and armies had developed into an
organized conspiracy to place Galba, governor of
Hither Spain, on the throne; and when Nero
returned to Rome in the spring of 68, loaded with
laurels, it was already too late to stem the tide of
insurrection. Sycophantic senators and courtiers
deserted him; the preetorian guard was seduced
by bribes from its mercenary allegiance. Eventu-
ally, Nero fled from Rome in disguise to the
suburban villa of a faithful freedman ; and, after
exclaiming Qualis artifex pereo! stabbed himself
on the approach of emissaries from the senate, to
avoid a more painful and ignominious doom (Suet.
Nero, 42-49). A touching incident lights up the
cloom of this closing ‘tragedy of the Ciesars.’
The last ministries to the dead were performed by
two nurses* of his innocent childhood, and by an
early cast-off mistress (Acte) whom he had once
sincerely loved (i. 50).

The obscurity of Nero’s death led to the wide-
spread belief that he had not really died, but was
in concealment or had escaped to Parthia, and
would reappear to re-claim the empire for the
Cwsarean dynasty, of which he was the last repre-
sentative. In spite of his crimes and misrule,
which the troubles that followed his death par-
tially overshadowed, a party in the empire re-
mained loyal to his memory, and several pretended
Neros arose to take advantage of the beliet in his
survival (Tac. Hist. i. 2, αὶ 8; Suet. Nero, 57).
The belicf extended te Jewish and Christian
circles. It is embodied in Bk. iv. ΩΝ
of the Sihylline Oracles, which is usually dated
c. 80 A.D. and is probably of purely Jewish origin
(Harnack, Chronol. p. 582); also in Bk. v, #9! 9%
by a Christian Sibylist, who hints (v.*!°) at Nero’s
revival rather than survival. Such revival is more
distinctly referred to at the close of the Carmen
Apologeticum of Commodian (6. 250 A.D.); by
(Pseudo ?) Victorinus, who writes of Nero as ‘to be
raised’ (Comm. Apoc.); and by Augustine (de Civ.
Dei, xx. 19), who mentions two current notions
of his time,—that of pagans, who supposed Nero
to be still alive, and that of Christians, who ex-
pected him to rise from the dead as Antichrist.

* The tomb of Ecloge, one of these nurses, was recently dis-

cavered in the very place where Nero perished (Lanciani,
Pag. and Chr. Rome, p. 190).

518 NERO

NETHANEL

According to some writers, the expectation of
Nero’s return finds expression even in the Book
of Revelation (13° 17!")—in the description of the
beast whose ‘deathstroke was healed,’ * which was
and is not,’ and is ‘of or from the seven kings’
and fan eighth.’* That the Apocalypse (even if
the date in the end of the reign of Domitian, as
attested by Irenieus, adv. Her. v. 30, be upheld)
should contain reminiscences of Nero and the
Neronian persecution, is only what might have
been anticipated. The reference to the beast may
have been suggested not merely by Dn 7, but by
a designation of Nero in Christian circles as ‘ mala
bestia’ (Lact. de Mor. Pers. 2, who may there
reproduce an epithet handed down from former
times), and by his vile habit of covering himself
with the skin of a wild beast, and in that disguise
assaulting men and women (Suet. Nero, 59). ‘The
war of the beast with the saints (Rev 137), the ery
of the slain martyrs, ‘How lone?’ (6%), and the
description of * Babylon’ as drunken with their
blood (17° 155, may be reminiscences of the trucn-
lent tribulation of A.p. 64. The fact of the nuinber
666 being the equivalent of Neron Kalsar written
in Hebrew characters may be more than a coin-
cidence.f But the recognition of such Neronian
colouring (more or less) appears to the present
writer quite compntible (1) with rejeetion of
dubious references to the Hteral return or revival
ot Nero (so Zockler, Comm. tn loc.), and (2) with
the view t that the beast is not Nero exceptionally
as an individual, nor even the Roman government
exclusively, but rather the entire antichristian
world-power, represented, in the time of the writer,
by the ungodly and persecuting pagan empire, and
embodied, throughout the ages, in all that is
opposed to the progress of Christ’s kingdom.

After every possible allowance is made for
exaggerations on the part of those unknown
original authorities on whom Tacitus and others
relied, Nero remains a moral monstrosity. His
fundamental vice appears to have been vanity
rather than cruelty. Originally well disposed,
even amiable and generous, he became through
inordinate vanity the moral prey of base and self-
seeking flatterers, and intolerant of all who could
not, or would not, pander to his insatiable lust for
applause. This morbid vanity made him crave
for notoriety not only in what was harmless, but
in extravagance, wantonness, reckless exercise of
despotic power, and provision of fresh stimulants
to the jaded popular appetite for exciting ‘ pleasure.’
Vanity, moreover, constrained him to regard as
enemies to be removed all whose character or popu-
larity detracted from his own reputation, and as
indispensable victims those whose wealth would be
serviceable for the gratification of his cravings.
The only possible palliation of his later enormities
is the supposition that through vicious indulgence
of his passions he had become, at intervals, in-
sane (Wiedemeister and Baring-Gould).

* Bleek, Intr. NT, 233; Reuss, Hist. Th. Chr. Bk. iv. ch. iv. ;
Renan, Antich. chs. xiii. xvi.; Farrar, Karly Days of Chris-
tianity, chs. xxvii. xxviii. ; Bousset, Ofenb. Joh. The composi-
tion of the Apoe. is referred by these writers to the time of
Galba or of Vespasian (A.D. 68-69), and the alleged reference to
Nevo Redivivus is associated with the appearance about that
time of a pseudo-Nero in the island Cythnus (Tac. /ist. ii. 8).
The most significant alleged parallel, however, between the
Beast and the returning Nero (viz. ‘one of the seven kings’
who is ‘fallen,’ yet to be ‘an eighth’) depends on a disputable
exegesis of ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστι. This rendering, ‘is one of’ (instead
of ‘proceedeth from’), although grammatically tenable (cf. Ac
218), is not in accord with the usus of Rev, which elsewhere
inserts εἷς (718 157 171 219),

t Fritzsche, Anna. iii. 1 (1821); Reuss, 1.6. ; Renan, Ὁ. 415 ff. ;
Farrar, vol. ii. 292 ff.; Zockler, Com. on Apoc. and others. Jewish
Christians were familiar with Gematria, the numerical indication
of names (Farrar in Hapos. 1879, v. 369). The non-identification,
however, of Nero with the 666 by any early writer is significant.

? Hengst., Auberlen, Lange, Alf., Mill, and others.

LittraturE.—Tacitus, Annales, esp. the edition of Furneaux,

with Introduction and Appendices ; Suetonius, Vero; DioCassius,
Hist. hom. ; Merivale, Komans under the Hinpire; H. Schiller,
Gesch, d. rom. Kaiserreichs unt. Nero; Ramsay, Church in
Lom. Emp. ; articles in /xpositor (1893) by Sanday, Mommsen,

and Ramsay; Hardy, Christianity and Rom. Government ;

Arnold, Neronische Christenverf.; Salmon’s Intr. NT’; Laring-
Gould, Tragedy of the Cwsars; Renan, Antichrist; Reuss,
Chr. Th. in Ap. Age (tr.), vol i.; Farrar, Eurly Days of Chris-
tiamity ; Aubé, Perséc. de ?Egl.; G. 11. Lewes, ‘Was Nero a
Monster?’ in Cornhill Mag., July 1863; Wiedemeister, Cdsar-
enwahnsinn ; Lipsius, Apoer, Apgesch.; Bruston in Revue de
Théol., Sept. 189s. H. Cowan,

NEST (j2 ken, νεοσσιά, voooid).—The receptacle
constructed by a bird in which to lay its eves and
rear its young (Dt 22° 3591), Swallows make their
nest in the Lord’s house (? Ps 84°); eavles, on in-
accessible pinnacles of the rocks (Job 89%). Hence
a secure fortification, esp. in the mountains, is
wuled a nest (Nu 24%, Jer 400, Οἷς Hab 2"),
Many birds return, from year to year, to the same
nest, and do not wander in search of another (Pr
27°); a tursaken nest is a special type of desolation
(Is 16°m). A quiet, assured, permanent home is
called a nest (Job 3018, The gippor makes its
nest in the cedars, and the stork her house (nest)
in the fir trees (Ps 104'"), Hence the ‘inhabitress
(Jer 22) of Lebanon’ is said to make her ‘nest in
the cedars,’ and ‘all the fowls of heaven made their
nests’ in the boughs of the emblematic Assyrian
cedar tree(Ezk31*), ὃ. 6. all nations were under Assyr,
protection. The art with which birds conceal their
nests is alluded to ([5 104). Owls choose ruins ({s
34); doves, holes of the rock (Jer 4838), The
‘rooms’ in the ark are called Auimim, ‘nests’ (Gn
64m), perhaps in allusion to the nests of gregarious
birds, as martens, rock pigeons, ete.

The nests of the NT (Mt 859, Lk 955) are not νοσσιαί
but κατασκηνώσεις --- ‘resting places,’ or ‘roosting
perches.’ This makes the Savionr’s comparison
more foreible. He has not merely no home, but
not even a care like a fox, or a lodging place
like a bird. With this corresponds the verb κατα-
oxnvow, Which is tr? (Mt 13%, Mk 4°, Lk 13!) ‘lodge,’
and (Ac 9539 quoted from Ps 16°, where the Heb.
is 37) yishkon ΠΝ ΝΟ κατασκηνώσει), ‘rest.’ The
word means camping or bivowacking, not residing.

ὦ σῦν;

NET.—See FISHING.

NETAIM.—AYV of 1 Ch 4%” reads, ‘Those that
dwelt among plants(RVim plantations) and hedges,’
but RV_ gives ‘the inhabitants of Netaim and
Gederah,’ and this is probably the correct tr" of
mia oye} cavy. The taking of cyg: as a proper
name is supported by the LXX (B ᾿Αξαεία, A
᾿Αταείμ). The site has not been identilied, but
Netaim, like GEDERAIL (wh. see), was probably in
the Shephélah of Judah.

NETHANEL (5x:0; ‘God has given’; Ναθαναήλ ;
ef. the ΝΣ name Nathanael).—1. The ὁ prince’ (s*z3)
of Τό", Νὰ 15. 29274873 LOPS 2 One ois panicle
brothers, 1 Ch 24, 3. One of the priests who blew
trumpets when the ark was brought up from the
house of Obed-edom, 1 Ch 15. 4, A Levite, father
of Shemaiah, 1 Ch 24° 5. One of Obed-edom’s sons,
1 Ch 26%. 6. A ‘prince’ (72) sent by Jehoshaphat
to teach in the cities of Judah, 2 Ch 177. 7A
chief of the Levites in the reign of Josiah, 2 Ch
35°. 8. A priest who had married a foreign wife,
Ezr 10”=Nathanael of 1 Es 9%. 9. Representa-
tive of the priestly class of Jedaiah, under the
high priest Joiakim, Neh 12%. 10. A Levite musi-
cian who took part in the ceremony of dedicating
the walls, Neh 12°, ᾿

Gray (Heb. Proper Names, p. 210 et passim}
considers that the name 5y3n3 is probably ‘of late
origin,’ and possibiy also ‘of artificial character.’

J. A. SELBIE,

PRIERR

NETHANIAH

NETHINIM 519

NETHANIAH (7303; in Jer 3015 408 419, 1 Ch 25", |
2 Ch 178 ὙΠΟ. “J” hath given’; cf. Nethanel |

Sxin:).—4. The father of Ishmael the murderer of
Gedaliah, 2 K 25%, Jer 405. 4-15 4110 6f 9 lot 166. 18
(LXX Na@avias, but in 2 K 25% A has Μιαθθανία:).
2. An Asaphite, chief of the fifth class of the
temple choir, 1 Ch 955: 15. (A in both has Nadavias,
B in first Ναθαλίας, in second Ναθάν). 3. A Levite
who was sent by Jehoshaphat to teach in the
cities of Judah, 2 Ch 178 (B Mavéavias, A Naéavias).
4. The father of Jehudi, Jer 36 (Gr. 43]. B omits
τὸν ‘lovdel, which is read by A between Νηρίου and
υἱὸν Ναθανίου.

NETHINIM (AV Nethinims). —The word is
always preceded by the article, own, ‘the
Nethinim.’ In one passage, Ezr 8°, the Iveré
has the regular participial form orn37. The un-
used sing, 773 is a noun of the same class as
vox, mee. The LXX usually has of Ναθεινείμ, but
in several passages there are obvious clerical
errors, such as τῶν ᾿Αθανείμ, ἹΚαθεινείμ ; 1 Ch 9?
has οἱ δεδομένοι. The Pesh. generally transliterates

L3A5, but in some places omits ; at 1 Ch 9? it has
Pary (sojourners), at Ezr 8° 201s? Voy
20) (of the men whom David gave), at Neh 1038
.:.-- (servants), and at Neh 113] (Cola DS (their

servants). Josephus (Ant. XI. v. 1) calls them ἱερό-
δουλοι, and this agrees well with the obvious deri-
vation of the word from jmi=‘to give’: they
were the men given to the temple as its slaves to
perform the lowest menial offices there.

Very little is said about the early history of the
Nethinim. Nu 3139. 47 (11) states that at the close
of the campaign against the Midianites ‘ Moses
took one drawn out of every fifty, both of man
and of beast, and gave them (jm) unto the Levites.’
Jos 927 (R) relates that the Gibeonites were punished
for their guile by being made ‘ hewers of wood and
drawers of water for the congregation and for the
altar of the Lord.’ In the historical books there
is no further reference to persons occupying such
a position until Ezekiel bitterly denounces the
employment of heathens in connexion with the
sanctuary : ‘Let it suffice you of all your abomi-
nations, in that ye have brought in aliens, uncir-
cuncised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be
in my sanctuary,’ 44% 7, ‘Aliens,’ though it may
be doubted whether they were allowed to remain
uncircumcised, had been unhesitatingly employed
by former generations in doing the drudgery of
the temple, and the disagreeable tasks requisite to
sacrificial worship. Many of them may have con-
tinued to be heathen at heart notwithstanding
their enforced conformity to the worship of J”,
Others certainly became devout worshippers of the
God of Israel. And this protest of Evekiel’s was
for a long time quite ineffectual : so strict a zealot
as Ezra welcomed the services of the Nethinim.

It is in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Chronicles that this class of temple servants
comes prominently into view.
family-names contained in Ἐν 2#°4, Neh
confirms the generally accepted belief that they
were in great part descendants of captives taken
in war. The names have quite a foreign air.
‘The children of Meunim,’ Ezr 2°, were in all
probability descended from the Meunim, the
people of Maon, whom Uzziah conquered (2 Ch
267; ef. 2Ch 20! LXX). ‘The children. of
Nephisim,’ Ezr 2%, are doubtless representatives
of the rave mentioned Gn 25 ‘The children of
Solomon’s servants,’ who, in both lists, immedi-
ately follow the Nethinim, are spoken of in such a
way as to show that their functions were substan-

(hig

The lst of their |

tially the same as those performed by the Nethinim,
but that they occupied a slightly lower plane.
Their ancestors may have been Canaanites given to
the temple by Solomon, or captives taken by him in
war. Ezr 8° asserts that David and his princes
gave the Nethinim ‘for the service of the Levites’ :
such a gift would be sure to consist of captives.

It is, however, in the actual accounts of the
Return from the Exile that we find ourselves on
firm ground. From the two lists already referred
to, Ezr 2° and Neh 7%, we learn that 392
Nethinim and children of Solomon’s servants
formed part of the first company, which returned
to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, B.c. 588. 9 Eighty
years later, when Ezra had started on his moment-
ous journey to the Holy City, he discovered that
amongst his companions were very few ministers
for the house of God. He therefore halted beside
‘the river that runneth to Ahava,’ and sent to
procure a supply of suitable men from a city
called Casiphia. We are hardly entitled to argue
from the corrupt text of Ezr 517 that the person
whose aid he especially invoked was himself a
Nathin, although the EV runs, ‘I told them what
they suould say unto Iddo, and his brethren the
Nethinim.’ The LXX omits the name Iddo: “1
put in their mouth words to say to their brethren.’
ΠῚ this omission does not commend itself to our
judgment, we may, with the minimum of textual
alteration, read “im vox», ‘and his brethren, and
the Nethinim,’ or may omit “37 as a gloss on
πη. The last-named expedient seems best : the
Nethinim in ν. 9 are not senders, but sent; Iddo
and his brethren, the former in particular, were
Levites who possessed authority over all who were
qualified to serve in the temple, including the
Nethinim (see vv. 181%), And it appears from
v. that 220 Nethinim were now sent to strenethen
Ezra’s hands. Thirteen years later, when Nehe-
miah had joined his dispirited fellow-countrymen
in Jerusalem, and had put new life into them by
inducing them to rebuild the city walls, ‘the
Nethinim dwelt in Ophel, unto the place over
against the water-gate toward the east, and the
tower that standeth out’ (Neh 378), V.% of the
same chapter mentions ‘the house οἵ the
Nethinim.’ Hence it would appear that such
of them as resided in Jerusalem had a quarter
of their own on the southern continuation of the
temple hill. From this post they would easily
reach the scene of their daily duties, the temple
itself. And ‘they were thus posted near to the
exit which communicated with the Virgin’s Spring ;
and if their duties at the temple at all resembled
those of the Gibeonites, we can understand why
their residence over against the water-gate is thus
carefully noted’ (Ryle, Hzra, etc. p. lvl). Some
of the Nethinim, however, lived in other: cities
which Ezr 2” designates as specially belonging to
the ministers of the temple. Wherever they
lived, they, in common with the other religious
ollicials, were freed by the decree of Artaxerxes
(Ezr 73) from ‘tribute, custom, or toll.’ Those
who dwelt in Jerusalem, possibly their brethren in
the other towns also, formed a guild under two
superintendents, ‘These two, at any rate in Nehe-
miah’s time, were chosen out of their own class,
for Ziha, one of the two (Neh 1131), is in the lists
αν 2, Nehe;*,

We hear but little concerning the Nethinim
subsequently to this period. It is easy to trace
the gradual incorporation of the singers and the
doorkeepers with the Levites. It is practically
certain that the Nethinim, who are so often men-
tioned immediately after these two classes, obtained
the same privilege. In the post-exilic legislation
the Levites alone are mentioned, and almost take
the name Nethinim. Nu 3° 18° (both P) state that

NETOPHAH

NETTLE

the Levites were onni on} to Aaron and his sons.
And 1 Ch 0533: (Heb.) 48 (Bng-) declares that the Levites
were 2303 ‘ for all the service of the tabernacle of
the house of God.’ Cf. also 1 Es 13 τοῖς Aeveirats,
ἱεροδούλοις τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. Ezekiel’s reform is thus at
last carried out in the letter, perhaps in the spirit
also. Schiirer (GJV® ii. 279 (AJP i. i. 273]) has
shown, that although the Talmudical writers fre-
quently refer to the Nethinim, they exhibit no
real sense of the existence and activity of such an
order, for they ascribe the performance of the
duties which once devolved on this order to
another set of men altogether, the oun or the
7372 "778, the young sons of the priests. The name
Nethinim supplies an object on which these writers
may pour out their bitterness against everything
that is not strictly Jewish. ‘Ezra removed them
as it is said (Neh 11"): the servants dwell in dark-
ness, and in the world to come God will put them
away from Him, according to the words Ezk 48”:
the servants of the city shall serve Him’ (Kiddush.
iv. 1); ‘a priest is before a Levite, a Levite before
an Israelite, an Israelite before a Mamzer, a
Mamzer before a Nathin, a Nathin before a
proselyte, a proselyte before a manumitted slave’
(Horaj. ili. 8). At Jebam. ii. 4, an Israelite is
forbidden to marry a descendant of those devoted
to the temple service, and this is grounded on
28 21% Such passaves as Jebam. vi. 2, vii. 5,
vill. 3, Maccoth iii. 1, Kethub. i. Sy ἨΕῚ 1. Kid:
dush, iii. 12, may also be consulted.

Similar institutions have existed in other lands,

both in ancient and in modern times. Hermann
(Lehrh, der Grievh, Antiy.? Theil 2, p. 107) points
out that it was as natural for a temple as for an
individual to possess slaves who would perform
the lower duties which were necessary daily. In
a note he refers to Pausan. x. 32. 8, 700 θεοῦ
δοῦλοι ; and v. 13. 2, ἐστὶ δὲ ὁ ξυλεὺς ἐκ τῶν οἰκετῶν
τοῦ Διός, ἔργον δὲ αὐτῷ πρόκειται τὰ ἐς τὰς θυσίας ξύλα
τεταγμένου λήμματος καὶ πόλεσι παρέχειν καὶ ἀνδρὶ
ἰδιώτῃ. In proof that these slaves were captives
taken in war, or persons bought with money, he
points to Pausan. 111. 18. 3, and to Herod. vi. 134:
in the latter place an αἰχμάλωτος γύνη is called
ὑποζάκωρος τῶν χθονίων θεῶν. Burckhardt (Travels
mm Arabia, i. 288 tt.) says that the employment of
slaves or eunuchs in the mosque at Mecca is of
very ancient date, Moawya Ibn Abi Sofyan, a short
time after Mohammed, having ordered slaves for
the Kaaba. ‘The eunuchs perform the duty of
police officers in the temple; they prevent ‘dis-
orders, and daily wash and sweep, with laree
brooms, the pavement round the Kaaba.
The number of eunuchs never exceeds forty, and
they are supplied by pashas and other grandees,
who send them, when young, as presents to the
mosque: one hundred dollars are sent with each
as an outfit. Mohammed Aly presented ten young
eunuchs to the mosque.’ See, turther, art. PRIESTS
AND LEVITES.

Literaturr.—There is an excellent brief account of the
Nethinim in Ryle’s Ezra and Neh. p. lviii, and in the Notes
to that Commentary. The art. GENEALOGY, in vol. ii. of this
Dictionary, p. 160, gives the lists of Ezr, Neh, and 1 Es; but the
spelling of the names in the leading MSS deserves careful
attention. It should also be mentioned that Torrey, who does
not stand alone, holds that all the OT passages which mention
the Nethinim are from the Chronicler, whom he considers quite
unreliable. See his Composition, ete., of Ezra-Nehem Gh, Dol.
The reader may consult also Bertholet, Die Stellung der Is. u.
der Juden zu den Fremden, pp. 52, 133, 342.

J. TAYLOR.

NETOPHAH (7253; in Ezr B Χετωφά, A Νεφωτά :
in Neh B omits, A ᾿Ανετωφά, καὶ Νετωφά ; in 1 Es B
NeréBas, A Nerwpaé; Vulg. Netupha).—A town,
the name of which first occurs in the list of the
exiles who returned under Zerubbabel (Ezr 222=
Neh 725=1 Es 538). Owing to its position in this
list between Bethlehem and Anathoth, it has been

argued that Netophah must have lain somewhere
to the south of Jerusalem, between the capital
and Bethlehem, and is to be identified with
Khurbet wnm-Toba. More probable is the view
that the name Netophah is still preserved in the
modern Beit Nettif at the entrance to the Wady
es-Sunt or Vale of Elah; the valley of Beth
Netophah, which is mentioned in the Mishna
(Shebiith ix. 5), will then correspond to that part
of the Wady ea-Najil which connects the Wady
es-Sunt and the IWady es-Surar (Guerin, Jud. ii.
3741 ; PEF Mem. iii. 24 ; Neubauer, Géogr. p. 128;
Buhl, GAP p. 194).

Netophah was the birthplace of two of David's
heroes, Maharai and Heldai (2 S 239), and also
of Seraiah, one of the captains who supported
Gedaliah (2 K 25%, Jer 408 [Ep ar)) : according to
1 Ch 915 it was a priestly city, inhabited by singers
(Neh 12°). Hence the Gentilic name the Neto-
phathite(s) (neti0; 2S B ὁ 'Evrwoareirns, A ὁ
Νεπωφαθείτης ; 21K Β ὁ Neppateirns, A ὁ Νεθωφα-
θείτης ; 1\Ch ΚΕ ὁ Χεθωφατεί. .. ὁ Νετωφατεί, A Νετω-
padi (bis), καὶ ὁ Νοτωφαθεί, . . Νετωφαθεί : in Neh 12%
B omits, A Νετωφαθὶ). J. I’. STENNING.

NETOPHAS (B Neré3as, ἃ Nerwdaé).—l Es 58=
NETOPHAL of Ezr 2353} Neh 725,

NETTLE.—Two Heb. words are tr? in AV and
RV ‘nettle.’ (1) S93 Aarti occurs twice (Job 307,
Zeph 2°), and in the plural form oon hdrulim
once (Pr 24%), (2) wisp himmédsh (Is 3418). or ciao
kimdsh (Hos9°), The pl. form oxe2p kimmeéshériw
(Pr 241) is ὑπ 1η EV ‘thorns.’ The sense and con-
text of the first two passages in which /immdsh and
kimosh occur are well met by the rendering ‘nettle,’
and this rendering is supported by many versions
and scholars. If it be adopted, then /imméshdnim
should be also rendered by ‘nettles’ instead οἱ
‘thorns.’ In that case Adridim (Pr 24°) eannot be
tr’ ‘nettles.’ This has led commentators to seek for
another plant which will fulfil all the conditions,
The hara/ must grow in the wilderness, associated
with the mallieh (mallows AV, saltwort RV),
shiv (bushes), and the retem, and must be larve
enough for the famine-stricken outcasts to gather
beneath (Job 30°7). It must be something that
would naturally be associated with se/¢ pits as an
emblem of desolation (Zeph 2%). It must be some-
thing that covers the face of a waste field (Pr 24°),
Celsius (Hierobot. ii. 165) gives a list of candidates,
which he rejects in favour of Zizyphus Spina-
Christi. Royle thinks that Adri] is the same as
the Arab. hAwrdal=mustard. This would require
the supposition that 1 had been written by mistake
for π᾿ The wild mustards would suit all the con-
ditions, being plants which grow in neglected situa-
tions (wildernesses), which cover deserted fields,
and which grow large enough to enable several
persons to gather under them. Still there is no
proof that this is the correct rendering. ‘Wild
vetches’ (RVm in all the passages ; ef. ‘chick-pea’
of Oxf. Heb. Lex.) would hardly suit the conditions.
The present writer is inclined to look upon the
word as generic, and equivalent to thorn, scrub,
or brush, either one of which would fulfil all the
conditions. Such scrubs are to be found every-
Where in the desolate places, and include a con-
siderable number of such plants as the three
indigenous species of boxthorn, Lycium Europeum,
L., L. Arabicum, Schweinf., and ZL. Barbarum, iby,
(all of which are known in Arab. as ‘ausaj), and
Nitraria tridentata, Desf., the gharkad. All of
these are thorny shrubs, growing in waste places
and in salty soil, and would furnish a sufficient
shade to be welcome to a sun-stricken wretch such
as Job describes. The thorny Zizyphus and Acacia
scrubs would also suit the generic meaning.

NEW, NEWNESS

NEW MOON 521

Admitting the soundness of the above considera-
tions, we should confine the rendering ‘nettle’ to
the second of the above Heb. terms.

Of nettles we have Urtiea urcns, L., U. dioica,
L., U. pilulifera, L., and U. membranacea, Poir,
all of which are known in Arab. as kurreis or
kureis or kurds, which mean a stinging plant.
‘These are univer = in neglected fields and gardens.
In the deserts we find } Ὀγοχαλίοαι tenacissema, L.,
the dizzdh of the Arabs, the name of which sicnifies
a plant which sticks or clings. It belongs to the
same Order as Urtica. The signitici ution of the
Arab names of all these species is similar to that
οἱ himimosh. GB. Pos

NEW, NEWNESS (e110; καινός, νέος, xavdrns).—In
the East many tendencies converge towards the
veneration of use and wont. Of these the follow-
ing are the most noteworthy :—(1) The uniformity
with which a certain kind of weather prevails
through a certain season of the year, Gn 8”,
1S 12!6-18; (2) the conservative influence of the
patriarchal form of government; (3) the trans-
mission of the same handicraft, such as masonry,
weaving, etc., from father to son; (4) the fact
that when lands are sold, the agricultural labourers
continue to occupy the small houses of the village
included in the property, and thus become practi-
cally serfs upon the estate ; (5) the religious con-
viction that whatever exists, exists by the will of
God.

By such influences Orientals come to regard
Custom as a regulative power of high authority.
One of their Arabic proverbs says, ‘ Everything
follows Custom—even religion,’ and another, ‘ The
world is composed of earth, air, fire, water—and
Custom.’ Hence anything departing from the
usual routine affects Orientals with profound
surprise, and finds them unprepared to account
for it or deal with it. The Indian Mutiny was
quelled by quick initiative. In every unexpected
situation Orientals have one exclamation, ‘ What
shall I do?’ In the presence of anything novel
they give themselves up to the simple pleasure of
surprise, without much attempt to find the ex-
planation of what is strange in the action of
familiar forces. Every phenomenon in nature is
referred at once to the First Cause with the
exclamation, ‘Praise to the Creator’; and on
seeing any ingenious mechanism or hearing of
any incident of conspicuous veracity or unseltish-
ness, it is enough to say as an expression of the
general feeling, ‘This is new, we have never
seen anything like this!’ The mental habit that
passes over secondary causes leads Orientals to
set a slight value on the patience and precision of
thought : and statement required for the discovery
and applic: ation of such causes. The moral forces
which adorn conduct and character are also re-
garded as given rather than cultivated.

The prevalence of routine, and the mystery con-
nected with anything wnusual, coupled with the
excitable nature of the people, cause everything
new to be attractive.

Throughout the Bible there are many instances
of the astonishment, attractiveness, and authority
connected with strange occurrences and new be-
ginnings. With regard to natural and religious
seasons, each day has its light and darkness, week
is separated from week. The appearance of the
new moon announcing the commencement of the

month was also a day of religious festival, 1
205-*9, The Teasts of Passover, Pentecost, and

Tabernacles were connected with the new produce
of the year. New Year’s Day was reckoned for
different purposes five times in the year. The
year of Jubilee was a time of recovery and _ re-
newal for those who had been crushed by adversity.

The Nazirite of days
head newly shaven.

In matters of personal experience and religious
symbolism, the same interest attaches to what 15
new. In the Bible Abraham and Jacob receive
new names; so with Jerusalem Is 62* 4, the dis-
ciples Jn 15", the saints Rev 217, Among modern
Orientals, the birth of a firstborn son gives a new
name to the father ; amone the Jews, new clothes
are always worn at the Feast of Passover ; the soul
is believed to ascend during sleep to the presence
of the Recording Angel and to return anew to the
body in the moment of consciousness ; so also the
seraphim before the throne are thought of as cre-
ated every day to feel and proclaim the glory of the
Divine Presence. As the new rite of Passover
announced the creation of Israel as a chosen people,
so the new testament in Clhirist’s blood (Mt 2675)
created the nationality of world-wide sainthood.

The Christian is a new creature 2 Co δ᾽", Col 810,
endued with a new spirit Ko 83, in order to be
maintained in perpetual newness of life Ro ὁ".
See, further, art. Sere

entered upon his vow with

M. MACKIE.

NEW BIRTH.—See REGENE sin

NEW COMMANDMENT.—See BroruEerity LOVE.

NEW JERUSALEM. LEVELATION (Book
OF).

NEW MAN. INERATION,

NEW MOON (eith, eth UN; veounvia, νουμηνία). ----
The celebration of the New Moon belongs to the
most ancient of Hebrew rites. It perhaps goes
back to the time when the moon was still an
object of worship (Sinith, Luternat. Crit. Comm. on
Samuel, p. 185). Lagarde held that the generic
Heb. term for ‘joyous praise’ (997) was derived
from an old name of the New Moon (see Gesenius-
Buhl, σιν. $52, 11). The New Moon was a feast of
nomads, but it was carried over to their new
agricultural conditions by the Israelite settlers
in Canaan (Cobb, Urigines Judaica, p. 188). In
the time of the earlier prophets, the New Moon
stood in the same line with another lunar observ-
ance, the Sabbath (see FEASTS). No work or
business was attended to on either day (Am 8°).
Hosea (2") speaks of the feasts, the New Moons,
the Sabbaths, and festal assemblies as passing away
with the national independence ; and a similar con-
nexion between the New Moon and the other solemn
days is found in Is 1?°,

Just as the New Moon occupies a prominent place
with the prophets, so does if with Ezekiel and in
the Levitical legislation (P). Ezekiel, who curi-
ously enough frequently dates his prophecies on
the New Moon (26! 9917] 31! 391, cf. Hag 1), describes
the gate of the inner court of the temple looking
eastwards as kept shut for the six working days,
but opened on the Sabbath and New Moon (Ezk
46'). The prince, besides making special arrange-
ments for the great New Moons of the first and
seventh months (this is the probable meaning of Ezk
458-30), was also to provide offerings for ordinary
New Moons (Ezk 46'7), The gate was open till
the evening, and while the people stood without
the prince was allowed to stand by the threshold.
According to Ezekiel (46°), the New Moon offerings
consisted of a young bullock, six lambs, and a
ram without blemish (the Sabbath burnt-offering
was less, v.4), as burnt-ollerings ; an ephah for the
bullock and for each ram, a handful of flour for
each lamb, and a hin of oil to an ephah as a meal-
offering (vv.7 8). In Nu 28" the burnt-offering con-
sisted of two young bullocks, one ram, and seven he:
lambs of the first year without blemish; fine flour,

-ο..- τ Ὁ

529

--

NEW MOON

NEW MOON

oil and wine carefully proportioned (vv.!2"4), and a
he-goat as a sin-offering (v.45). The offerings here,
as in Ezekiel, are more important than for the
Sabbath (Nu 28°), An additional detail is added
in Nu 1010, where the law ordains that ‘ in the days
of your gladness, and in your set feasts, and in
the beginnings of your months’ the two silver
trumpets were to be sounded during the sacrificial
rites as a@ ‘memorial before your God.’ Some
authorities have held that Ps 815 [Heb.*] ‘ Blow up
the trumpet in the New Moon, at the full moon, on
our solemn feast day,’ refers to the ordinary New
Moon. Thus Aquila and Symm. render ἐν πάσῃ
veounvia ; but the LXX, like the EV, omits ‘every.’
The Targum refers the passage solely to the New
Moon of the seventh month (Ly 23%); and this, the
traditional Jewish view, has been adopted by
modern commentators (see Baetheen and Duhm,
ad loc.). The subject is further treated in the
article TRUMPET.

Some difficulty has been found in explaining the
omission of the New Moon in Deuteronomy and in
the documents named JE. It has been seen that
the New Moon was very ancient, and that it was
of great importance after the Exile (see, e.g., Is
66° and other references cited above and below.
In Chronicles the New Moon is assumed as an
established institution). Dillmann suegests that
the omission in the intermediate period is due
simply to the fact that the observance was a
popular feast that needed no specific legal sane-
tion. It may, however, be (as Wellhausen, Proleqo-
mena, p. 118, holds) that there was a temporary
cessation of the observance of the New Moon, both
because heathen elements intruded into the fes-
tivities (Isaith speaks of the ‘monthly prognosti-
cators,’ 475), and also because the greater import-
ance attached to the Sabbath must have made
the observance of the New Moon (which came,
unlike the Sabbath, on irreenlar days) irksome.
After the Exile the New Moon recovered its
importance because the ereat feasts were fixed
in accordance with it. (This view is adopted by
Benzinger, Heh. Arch. p. 465, and Nowack,
Lehrbuch der Heb. Arch. ii. 140). See TIME.

As to the manner in which the New Moon was
observed, there were other features besides the
sacrifices. ‘There was no ‘solemn convocation’ on
the New Moon, but it is usually inferred from 2 K
4°° that visits were paid to the prophets on that
day. The servants and asses were available for
longer journeys than on the days of labour. Some

(e.g. Duhim) explain Is 66° as referring to general

passage of Isaiah was the text for a fine Rabbinical
homily in the Pesihta Rabbathi for the New Moon.
Ezra publicly read the law on the New Moon of
the seventh month (Neh 83). The New Moon was
apparently the time for changing David’s officials,
according to 1 Ch 271, It is not easy to gather
the full significance of the incident related in 1S
20°". David evidently refers to a family feast
on the New Moon, but it is not clear that the king
had a special feast on that day. It is very probable
that this was so, but Wellhausen’s remark as cited
by Driver (Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel,
p. 127) is evidently weighty. ‘David, as appears
trom v., was, together with Abner and Jona-
than, Saul’s daily and regular companion at table :
thus the sentence ‘n 2¥° "ΣΝ cannot be so related to
the preceding one, as though the new moon were
the occasion of his being a guest at the king’s
table; on the contrary, the new moon is rather
alleged as the excuse for his absence. Con-
sequently, the rendering, ‘*To-morrow is new
moon, and 1 must sit with the king at meat,” is
excluded ; and the only course remaining open is

to read with LXX sex xb aw “To-morrow is
new moon, and I will noé sit with the king at
meat; but thou shalt let me go,”’ ete. No time
of day is specified for the king’s meal from which
David absented himself; but, as Smith points out,
from the fact that Jonathan waited till neat
morning after the second day to carry his news to
David, the meal was probably late in the day.

fasting was avoided on the New Moon (Jth 88).
The observance of the New Moon fell into disuse
in the Christian communities (Col 2!). In the
medieval Jewish circles the New Moon, however,
retained its importance. Women did not work,
fasting was prohibited, and in the synagogue
liturgy many special features were introduced.
On the Sabbath before the New Moon the event
was publicly announced, on the day itself a read-
ing from the Jaw (Nu 28) was introduced,
special Psalms (forming part of the //adlel, Pss
113-118) were chanted, and other liturgical pas-
aves were added. These are retained in the
modern synagogue, and are fully described in the
Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, par. 4171 See
also Maimonides, Hilchoth NKiddush Ha-Chodesh
(of which there are several Latin translations).
The Blessing of the Moon is also retained. This is
a collection of passages of varying antiquity, and
is recited at might while the moon is visible, a
Saturday night in the first week of new month
being preferred for the celebration. (The best
commentary on these rites is to be found in
Landshut’s edition of the Hebrew Prayer-Book,
Hegyon Leb, p. 890 f.). Some of the ceremonies are
clearly very ancient, especially the dances, which
until quite recently were performed in Jewish
communities in the public streets. Others of the
rites are at least as old as the Talmud. The
modern Arabs of the desert still ‘greet the New
Moon with devout ejaculations, and the women
chant their perpetual refrain of a single verse, and
dance for an hour or two’ (Doughty, Travels in
Arabia Deserta, ic pp. 366, 455, cited in Smith’s
Samuel, p. 185).

We are without information as to the method
by which the New Moon was fixed and announced
in biblical times. But the Mishna (Rosh Hashana)
describes the method then prevalent. There was
no fixed calendar till the 4th cent. (see TIME),
and the New Moon was declared from actual
observation. The eye-witnesses were carefully
examined on the 30th day of each month (espe-
cially of the months Nisan, Ab, Elul, Tishri,
Chislevy, and Adar), and, if the testimony of the
Witnesses was accepted, that day was declared
‘sanctified’ by fiat of the Sanhedrin. If no
witnesses were available, then the following day
was New Moon, as the Jewish month never con-
tained more than 30 days. The New Moon was
announced in Judea till the year 225, when the
declaration was made in Tiberias. The news was
conveyed by means of signals, torches being lt on
the hills. The Samaritans rendered a change
necessary, as they ignited similar bonfires at wrong
periods. Messengers were despatched to more
distant parts, where it was not unusual for two
days to be observed as New Moon, a custom which
still prevails at certain months of the Jewish year.
After the 4th cent. the New Moon was no lonver
fixed by observation, but the Karaites restored the
older custom. Schwartz (Der gudische Nalender)
holds that the New Moons of the first and seventh
months (Nisan and Tishri) were fixed by astro-
nomical calculation and not empirically, as early
as the time of Ezra. Certainly, the Jews must
have had sufficient knowledge of astronomy te
make such a calculation possible (but see 1151).

LirERATURE.—Besides the works cited in the course of this
article, see Schiirer, H/JP 1. ii. Appendix iii.; Dillmann,

ps he

NEW TESTAMENT NEW TESTAMENT 599
Exodus and Leviticus, p. 577.4 Pineles, Darcha shel Torah, | limitations the essential principles lying at the

p. 2511. ; Epstein, adterthiemer ; Poznanski, JOR xp. leet;

(This writer holds that the New Moon was also fixed empirically

by some Rabbanites as late as the loth cent.), A popular

account of the Jewish Calendar and the details as to the New

Moons will be found in J. Jacobs’ (annual) Jewish Year Book.
I. ABRAHAMS.

NEW TESTAMENT.—The name ‘testament’ is
derived from the Latin testamentum, which was
erroneously adopted in the Old Latin Version as
the equivalent for the Gr. word διαθήκη employed
in the LXX to represent the Heb. na ‘covenant.’
It isin this sense that διαθήκη is used in the NJ
to designate the old or the new Dispensation, and
has come to be applied, in accordance with Heb.
usave (Ex 247, 2 K 237, 1 Mac 1, Sir 24”), to the
literature in which the respective history and
principles of the two Dispensations are autho-
ritatively set forth. (Cf. Mt 2678, Lk 22°, 1 Co
112, 2 Co 3&4, and Gn 174, Ex 248, Jer 31% e¢
supra). In the OT Jerome usually took care to
employ fwedus or pactum as the Latin equivalent
for mz; but in his revision of the NT tr® he
unfortunately adhered to the old expression, the
consequence being that the false meaning thus
imported into the Latin passed into the EV, whose
‘testament’ is as misleading as testamentum, and
has rightly been altered to ‘covenant’ in the RY,
except in one doubtful passage, He 9! 17 (see
Westcott, ad loc.).

i. RELATION OF THE NT TO THE OT AND TO THE
APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE OF THE JEWs.—The NT
forms the second and concluding portion of the
sacred writings which embody the Divine revela-
tion communicated in the line of Jewish history.
Before any part of the NT had been written, the
Heb. canon had been virtually closed ; and the idea
of a new collection of sacred writings which shonld
be held in no less veneration than the old was slow
to take possession of the Christian Church. Hence
the OT Scriptures, to which the apostles constantly
appealed for evidence that Jesus was the Messiah,
continued to be for many years the only authori-
tative writings in the Church. But the way had
been so far prepared for the association of Christian
Scriptures with the OT by the recent inclusion in
the ΤᾺΝ of certain apocryphal works which had
no place in the Heb. canon. The language of the
LXX was also that in which the new religion was
to express itself; and the character of the Gr.
tongue, so rich and flexible and many-sided, even
in its degenerate Hellenistic form, and so world-
wide in its use, was itself a token of the freedom
froin Judaic bonds which Christian thought was to
work out for itself, and gave promise of a literature
which should be more or less in touch with the
intellectual life of the whole civilized world. With
the exception of Luke, who seems to have been a
Greek (an inference from Col 44-4, which is borne
out by the tone and style of his Gospel and the
Bk. of Acts), the writers of the NT were of Jewish
extraction, and they were all filled with the
deepest reverence for the OT. They quote from
it nearly 300 times, their quotations being drawn
from almost all parts of it; while the instances in
which its influence can be traced without any
direct quotations from it are still more numerous.
The whole NT from first to last reflects the
characteristics of the O'T in thought as well as
in expression; and in the Epistles and Acts and
Apocalypse as well as in the Gospels we find
constant illustration of Christ’s words, ‘Think
not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets:
I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.’ The NT fulfils
the OT, not by supplementing it but by ba
izing it, transforming rules into principles, and
resolving the outward, temporary, and national
into that which is inward, permanent,and universal.
In other words, it brings to light and sets free of

root of the OT, on which the latter depends for
its spiritual life and meaning,—according to the
well-known words of Augustine, ‘Novuin Testa-
mentum in Vetere latet; Vetus Testamentum in
Novo patet.’ Even in their bodily structure a
close analogy has been traced between them, the
first portion of each being mainly characterized by
the personal manifestation of God, the next by the
Eavetntron of His will through the acts and words
of His chosen servants, the third and last by pro-
pletie visions of the future.

Yet, notwithstanding this intimate relationship
between the two, there is at the same time a
strone and essential contrast between them—a
contrast as great in their character and contents
as in the process of their growth. ‘To some extent
the difference in their character may be accounted
for by the new conditions of existence to wluch
the Jewish nation was subjected under the Roman
Empire, of which we have many tokens in our
Lord’s parables as well as in other parts of the
NT. In some degree, also, it may be traced to the
new elements of thought contaimed in the later
Jewish writings already referred to. Winle the
points of contact between the N'T and heathen
literature are extremely few,* the LXX, on the
other hand, was familiar to most of the NT writers,
their OT quotations being generally derived from it
and not from the Heb. ; and the influence of several
apocr. books contained in it, notably the Bk. of
Wisdom, can be discerned in a nuinber or the
Epistles, although there is not a single express
quotation from any of these books in the NT. In
a few instances, also, chiefly in St. Paul’s Epistles,+
a Rabbinical style of argument has been detected ;
and in the Ep. to the Heb. and the writings of St.
John expressions are to be found (such as Λόγος,
ἸΙαράκλητος, ᾿Δρχιερεύς, applied tu Christ) showing
an affinity with the views of Philo, the chief
representative of the fresh impulse which Jewish
thought received from contact with Greek philo-
sophy at Alexandria and elsewhere. But the
most striking signs of transition to a new age
are to be found, not in the OT Apoer., properly so-
called, or in Rabbinical scholasticism or Hellenistic
philosophy, but in the pseudonymous apocalyptic
literature (partly recovered within the last century),
which was framed on the model of the well-known
Book of Daniel, and prepared the way for its
Christian counterpart, the Apocalypse of John.
Whether this literature was a spirited offshoot from
the main stem of Vharisaic thought, or formed
part of the esoteric doctrine of the Essenes, whose
strange tenets and literature are described by Philo
and Josephus, although their name is never even
mentioned in the ΝΊΝ is a question which has not
yet been determined, But in Jude we find a direct
quotation from one of the most important of these
apocalyptic works (Bk. ef Enoch); and elsewhere
there are a few stray quotations and allusions to
circumstances not mentioned in the OT fer which
the writers were probably indebted to a similar
source. ἢ

More important than such Hageadic details are
certain ideas and expressions in the extant remains
of this apocalyptic literature, which appear to be
reflected in the thought and language not only
of the NT writers but also of our Lord Himselt.
There are Christian interpolations in these books,
and their date of composition is often very uncer-

* There are three quotations from Greek poets by St. Paul
(Ac 1723, 1 Co 1582, Tit 113), and a barely possible allusion to
Platonic doctrine by our Lord (Mt 1917 RY),

+ Gal 316 422-25, 1 Co 98.10 101-2,

t Lk 425, cf. Ja 517; Lk 1149; Jn 738; Ac 722, cf. Gal 319, He 22
Ac 753, 1 Co 29 104; Eph 514; 2 Ti 38; He 1157; Jude 9; 2 P20,
In the case of several of these passages the sources are mentioned
by Church Fathers,

ae nd ee BE ew ΠῚ

524 NEW TESTAMENT

NEW TESTAMENT

tain, but, even in those parts of them to whicha
pre-Christian date may be safely assigned, there
are more distinct foreshadowings than any of the
OT books contain of a number of truths relating
to the spiritual world which hold a more or less
prominent place in the N'T. Among such elements
of Christian thought are the unique personality of
the Messiah (of which we have a token in the
frequent occurrence in the Bk. of Enoch of the
expression, ‘the Son of man,’ with a Messianic
reference that goes far beyond the meaning of the
words, ‘one like unto a son of man,’ in Dn 78),
the doctrine of immortality, of the resurrection
(cf. Dn 123), of a future judgment with eternal
rewards and punishments, of a hierarchy of angels
with manifold operations, of the agency of demons,
and of predestination, together with enlarged con-
ceptions of Divine providence as embracing uni-
versal history, and of the Messianic promise as
securing the interests of the eal os well as
of the nation: all these developments being due,
partly to the foreign elements of thought which
the Jews imported from Babylonia and Persia,
and partly to the growing hopelessness of their
national position (as regarded mere mundane possi-
bilities), which naturally disposed them to the
study of eschatolovy. It was, doubtless, these an-
ticipations of Christianity that gave some of these
books so high a place in the estimation of the
Church Fathers, who sometimes treated them as
if they had been canonical; the Bk. of Enoch, for
example, being cited as γραφή in the Ep. of Bar-
nabas. In other respects, however, both ethical
and theological, this literature comes far short of
‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in
the face of Jesus Christ’; and we have still to
fall back on the mystery of the Incarnation, with
its attendant doctrines of Christ’s atoning sacrifice
(of which there is scarcely any trace in contem-
porary Jewish thought, so absorbed was the nation
in the formal keeping of the Law as the only means
of salvation), of the fatherhood of God and the
brotherhood of men revealed in Christ, of the life
and immortality secured by His resurrection from
the dead, and of the Holy Spirit imparted by Him
to His Church, in order to find an adequate ex-
planation of the majesty of Christ’s person and
the sublimity of His teaching as depicted in the
Gospels, and at the same time to account for the
sure and certain hope, the humble and. self-re-
nouneing faith, the loving and grateful devotion,
the pure, tender, and world-wide morality which
are characteristic of the whole N'T.

11. HisroRY OF THE NT, INCLUDING ITs RELA-
TION TO THE CIURCH FATHERS AND THE CIIRIS-
TIAN APOCRYPHA.—As already indicated, a New
Testament in our sense of the term was something
which the apostles never dreamt of. The charge
which they had received from their Master was to
preach the gospel, and the promise of the Spirit
was expressly connected with the bearing of oral
testimony. As they had received nothing in
writing from their Master’s hands, they were
not likely to see any necessity for a written
word, so long as they were able to fulfil their
commission to preach the gospel, especially as
they were looking for a speedy return of their
Lord, and t.ad no idea that somany centuries were
to elapse before the great event should take place.
Probably the earliest nucleus of the NT consisted
of notes of the apostles’ preaching, either drawn
up by their hearers for their own use, or intended
as an aid to catechists and teachers. Some such
notes (probably in Aramaic, of which we have
many traces in the Greek text) seem to have formed
the basis of our Synoptic Gospels. Although not
published in their present form till long after
Christ’s death, the Gospels narrate events, not in

the light shed upon them by subsequent experience,
but as they were regarded by the disciples at the
time of their occurrence. They also preserve ex pres-
sions in our Lord’s discourses which scarcely ever
appear in the phraseology of the early Church,
while they are at the same time free from forms of
speech which betray the post-apostolic date of
apocr. Gospels; and in other respects harmonize
with the state of things prior to the destrue-
tion of Jerusalem in A.b. 70. Before the Gospels
assumed their present form, many of the Epistles
were already current in the Church. These
letters were naturally prized by the Churches to
which they were addressed, as well as by other
Churches which received copies of them, and they
were readily admitted to public reading in the con-
gregution, first of all on special occasions (1 Th 5!)
and in course of time as a general practice, along
with prescribed portions of the OT, after the manner
of the Jewish synagogue. As the apostles one after
another passed away, their testimony and that of
those most closely associated with them was more
and more treasured by the Church ; and the writings
in which that testimony was embodied were felt to
be indispensable to the faith and life of the Chureh.
In the Apostolic Fathers we can discern signs of
the growing reverence for these writings, not only
in their reproduction of the thought and language
of a considerable number of the Epistles, repre-
senting the leading types of apostolic teaching
found in the NT, but also in the terms in which St.
Paul’s writings are referred to by representative
men so far distant from one another as Clement of
Rome, Tegnatius of Antioch, and Polycerp of
Smyrna; while our Gospels are also accredited
by the substantial harmony of their contents with
the facts assumed by the sub-apostolic writers as
the basis of their teaching, although the verbal
coincidences are neither numerous nor exact, un-
less we except the Didaché in its quotations trom
the First and Third Gospels.

3ut the formal recognition of a new body of Serip-
tures worthy of being associated with the OT came
much later. As the writings composing the NT came
into existence only by devrees, in the course of about
half a century, to meet the practical necds of the
Church, so the collecting of these writings and
their setting apart for public use was accomplished
only gradually, as the leading representatives of
the Church in diff rent parts of the world came to
realize the insulliciency and uncertainty of local
tradition, and the necd for securing the orthodox
faith against invasion and corruption. It is not,
indeed, till near the close of the 2nd cent. that
we find a generally accepted collection of sacred
books substantially identical with our NT and
equally sacred with the OT. From the nature
of its contents, as well as from the language
of Patristic writers on the subject, it is evident
that the general principle on which the Church
proceeded in forming the NT was to admit to it
only the writings of apostles, and of those who
had written under the influence and direction of
apostles. This naturally arose from the fact that
the new life of the Church was centred in the
person of Jesus Christ, and that the faith of its
members depended on the testimony of those who
had been brought into close personal contact with
Him, or had received a special commission to preach
the gospel. But the principle was not always easy
of application, and it sometimes led to different
conclusions in different parts of the Church, accord-
ing to the views held as to the authorship of dis-
puted books; while the association of canonical and
uncanonical books in the LXX, to which the
Fathers were accustomed, tended to make them
less rigorous in their judgments than they might
have otherwise been. Outside vf our NT there

NEW TESTAMENT

NEW TESTAMENT

525

were three books which were held in special
reverence, being sometimes read in church and
occasionally included in great Scripture MSS, viz.
the Lpistle of Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas,
and the Shepherd of Hermas; the authors of these
books being supposed by many to be identical with
the persons of the same names mentioned in the
NT in connexion with the Apostle Paal (Phi 4°,
Ac 12%, Ro 16%). On the other hand, as revards
the disputed books contained in our N'T (chiefly
minor Epistles, with the Ep. to the Heb. and the
Book of Rey), it was becanse their apostolic author-
ship was more or less distrusted in certain quarters
of the Church, owing to the obscurity of their
early history or to some dissatisfaction with their
contents, that the right of these books to a place
in the Canon was more or less called in question,
until at length the public opinion of the Church
found expression at the 3rd Council of Carthage in
A.D. 397, when the very same books as are con-
tained in our NT were acknowledged to be can-
onical, and declared to be the only books that
should be read in church,

This decree (which seems to have reflected the
general mind of the Church, and which has been prac-
tically acquiesced in ever since,* notwithstanding
occasional controversies regarding individual books,
and amid conflicting theories as to the authority of
Scripture) had the eflect of excluding from the
Canon not only the three writings already referred
to, and one or two other productions of the post-
apostolic age which were highly esteemed in the
Church although they made no claim to apostolic
authority, but also another and less wortliy class
of writings, dating from the 2nd to the end of the
4th cent., which played an important part in the
life of the Church, and throw a valuable light
on the history of the NT. These are what are
known as Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and
Apocalypses, apparently numerous, but of which
only a small part have come down to us, a few
in their entirety, some in a fragmentary form, and
others only inname. They varied greatly in their
form and contents, but, apart from the early com-
positions referred to in St. Luke’s Gospel (1-2),
which soon disappeared (unless our Second Gospel
was one of them) in the survival of the fittest, they
were either supplementary to the Canonical Serip-
tures, furnishing information or doctrine on sub-
jects but little dealt with in the NT, or, more
frequently, they were composed for the purpose of
bolstering up heretical opinions or practices which
were seen to have little or no canonical support.
Many of the ‘Gospels’ were mainly derived from
those in the NT (the recently recovered ‘Gospel of
Peter’? borrows from all the four), with more or less
modification of the original in the interest of some
Gnostic or other heresy. The modification was
liable to alteration from time to time (as may be
seen from the wide variations in the different MSS
of the same work) to meet the exigencies of suc-
cessive teachers, who issued their several recensions
under great names—generally those of apostles—
after the manner of the pseudonymous Jewish
writers already referred to. Very often the same
work was known under a variety of names. For
example, the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews,’ which may
have been a Judaic recension of the Heb. original
of our St. Matthew, has been identified with the
‘Gospel of the Nazarenes’ and the still more here-
tical ‘Gospel of the Ebionites,’ as well as with the
Gospels of Bartholomew, Cerinthus, and the Twelve
Apostles. In this ‘Gosp. of the Hebrews’ and some
other primitive documents, such as the ‘Gosp. of
Peter’ (¢. A.D. 125, or, ace. to some, 165) and the

* The Vulgate had a good deal to do with this result in the

West, just as earlier translations affected the form and extent of
the Canon in their several spheres of influence.

‘Gosp. of the Egyptians’ (also dating from the 2nd
cent.), it may well be that a certain amount of oral
tradition was incorporated, which had been pre-
served by the Jews who resided near the scene of
the evangelic history. It in no degree weakens the
authority of the NT to find a few grains of such
extra-canoiical matter appearing in the works of
an early Patristic writer, such as Justin Martyr,
or even to find an apocr. Gospel quoted by a writer
of an eclective turn, like Clement of Alexandria.
So far from impairing the credit of the NT writings,
these apocr. productions of a later ave bear witness
to the authority which the written word had
already acquired in the Church, and show the
necessity under which heretical teachers lay either
to manipulate the text of the received books or to
adduce other and equally high testimony in favour
of their peculiar views. In general, the literature
in question is manifestly counterfeit. Much of it
is of a character degrading to Christianity, the ex-
travagance and absurdity of its miracles, especially
in its pictures of the Saviour’s childhood, presenting
a sad contrast to the chaste dignity of the canonical
records ; and there is none of it which, either in re-
spect of outward attestation or intrinsic excellence,

denied admission to the NT. The writings of the
Church Fathers show how little influence it exerted
in the early Church compared with the NT writings,
which formed the general standard of faith and
practice, and sometimes even contributed the only
element that redeemed Patristic literature from
inanity and unprofitableness. The lapse of time,
while it exalted the NT Scriptures to honour,
brought the apocr. lit-rature into general disrepute. *
Within a century or two after it had reached the
height of its popularity (4th cent.), it lost its place
in public esteem and gradually passed out of the
notice of the Church, leaving its traces indeed on
the productions of Christian art, and influencing
by its legends the festivals and preaching of the
Church, but deemed of no account by thinkers and
theologians, until the rise of modern criticism in-
vested it with a new and scientific interest, when a
fresh sense of its immeasurable inferiority to the
Canonical Scriptures has impressed itself upon the
mind of the Church.

The following are notable features in the history
of the NT, from a literary point of view as well as
in the interests of criticism. (1) The age and num-
bor of its MSS. Some of these date from the 4th or
5th cent.,+ and the whole number of them exceeds
2000, forming an immense array of witnesses, com-
pared with the few MSS of classical works, which
can frequently be counted on the fingers, and in
some cases do not reach back to within a thousand
years of the age in which the work was produced.
(2) The number of its VSS. It has been trans-
lated into almost all laneuages, beginning with
the Old Lat, and Syr. VSS, which may have origin-
ated in the first half of the 2nd cent., followed a little
later by the Egyptian (in three different forms)—the
Gothic in the 4th cent., the Ethiopic in the 4th
or 5th cent., and the Armenian in the middle of
the 5th century. (3) The extent to which it has
been reproduced in subsequent writings. It is
quoted, echoed, er commented on by the great
majority of early Christian writers. The sym-
pathy of the Apostolic Fathers with its contents
has been already mentioned. The extant writings
of the next half century are mainly defences of
Christianity addressed to unbelievers, admitting of

* We have an early example of this in what Eusebius tells us
(HE vi. 12) of the obscurity into which the once popular ‘ Gospel
of Peter’ (used apparently by Justin as one of his ‘ Memoirs’)
had fallen in the time of Serapion, bishop of Antioch (6. 4.D, 200).

+The Oxyrhynchus fragment containing Mt 11-9. 12. 14-20

may date from the end of the 3rd cent. (see Grenfell an#
' Hunt).

can be held to have been unjustly dealt with in being.

526 NEW TESTAMENT

NEW TESTAMENT

fewer quotations from the Scriptures than if they
had been intended for members of the Church.
But, speaking generally. it may be said that the
language, and still more che substance, of the NT
is woven into the earliest Christian writings that
have come down to us, while the quotations by a
single writer in the end of the 2nd and in the 3rd,
4th, and 5th cent. are sometimes so extensive as to
amount to a considerable part of the whole ΝΊ--
more than half of it, for example, being imbedded
in the works of Origen.

These circumstances, while they give the NT a

unique place in literature and afford valuable
means for proving the antiquity and integrity of
its contents, are attended with the disadvantage of
causing uncertainty in innumerable passages as to
the precise terms of the original. A careful ex-
amination of the existing authorities has led to the
discovery of about 200,000 ‘Various Readings,’
which are chiefly to be accounted for by the greater
liability to error in copying with the hand than in
the use of the printine-press. The difference be-
tween the various readings, however, is seldom of
such a nature as to aflect in the slightest degree
the substance of the NI. If all the expressions
whose accuracy is in question were brought together
and printed in a consecutive form, they would not
exceed the length of St. Panl’s Epistle to the
Galatians, while the disputed verses possessed of
any doctrinal significance would not be equal col-
lectively to the shortest Epistle of St. John.

In this connexion it may be well to point out
that there is nothing to justify the assumption
that we possess all the apostolic writings that
were ever in the possession of the primitive Church.
So far from this, there are expressions in some of
St. Paul’s Epistles which sueeest that he wrote
other letters besides those which have come down
to us (1 Co δ, 2 Th 3", ef. 2Co 1133. We can
understand how an apostle’s letters might be less
prized during his lifetime than after his death,
when the loss of any of his writings would be seen
to be irreparable; and it is no more astonishing
that Providence should have suffered such writings
to perish, than that so many of our Lord’s spoken

|

words, and those of His apostles, should have been |

allowed to pass awny, or that so many of His great
deeds should have been allowed to go unrecorded
(Jn 21%),

i. CONTENTS OF TRE NT (7|5 individual
Books and their Writers).—The NT consists of 27
different books, by 9 different authors, each book
having its special characteristics corresponding to
the personality of its writer, and the circumstances
in which it was written, but all contributing their
part to one divine whole centred in the person of
the Lord Jesus Christ. As early as the 2nd cent.
there was a recognized distinction between ‘the
Gospel’ and ‘the Apostle,’ just as we find a three-
fold division of the OT in Lk 24" and elsewhere.
The former denoted the four Gospels; the latter,
the Epistles of St. Paul, to which were added by
degrees the Book of Acts, the Catholic Epistles,
and the Apocalypse, under the general name of
‘the Apostles.’ All these were seldom comprised
in one MS, and their arrangement varies in MSS
containing more than one section and in canonical
lists given by Church Vathers, as is also the case
with the arrangement of the several books in each
section, showing that the consolidation of the NT
was a process still going on.

1. The Gospels.—In all cases the Gospels come
first. This position has been fitly assigned to them,
not only because they were perhaps the first NT
Scriptures to be regularly associated with the OT in
the public reading of the Church, but also because
the history which they record forms the corner-
stone of the Cliristian religion, which bases its

doctrines not on speculation but on fact. Drawn
up without concert and without the formal sane-
tion of the Chuech, they contain, in a form suitable
for all ages and for all classes, several independent
records of Christ’s life and teaching, of which it
may be said with truth that they are better authen-
ticuted and more nearly contemporaneous with the
events narrated than any other record we possess
in connexion with any other period of ancient
history. A comparison of the four Gospels, how-
ever, reveals a marked difference between the fourth
and the first three. The latter give in one common
view the same general outline of the ministry of
Christ, but this outline is almost entirely con-
fined to His ministry in Galilee, and includes
only one visit to Jerusalem ; whereas the Fourth
Gospel gives an account of no fewer than five
Visits to Jerusalem, and lays the scene of the
ministry chiefly in Judwa. <A still more im portant
distinction between them has been briefly expresxedl
by designating the Synoptic Gospels as the bodily
Gospels, and the Fourth as the spiritual Gospel—hy
which it is meant that the former relate chiefly the
outward events connected with the Saviour’s visible
presence, reported for the most part without note
or comment, while the latter is designed to linen
sent the ideal and heavenly side of His personality
and work. Akin to this distinction is the faet
that the first three report Christ’s addresses to the
multitude, consisting largely of parables, while the
Fourth contains discourses of ἃ more sublime char-
acter, frequently expressed in the language of
allegory and addressed to the inner circle οἱ His
followers. Furthermore, when we enter into a close
examination of the Synoptic Gospels and compare
them with one another, we find an amount of simi-
larity in detail, extending even to minute expres-
sions and the connexion of individual incidents,
combined with a diversity of diction, arrangement,
and contents, which it has hitherto baflled the in-
genuity of crities fully to explain. While further
investigation may shed more light on the historical
and literary relations of the Gospels, there is a deep
underlying unity amid their diversity which may
be best discerned, not by attempting to piece them
together so as to form a complete chronological
history, but by studying each from its own point of
view, and learning from it what it has to teach con-

cerning the many-sidea character and lite of Jesus

Christ. Speaking generally, we may say that,
while the lirst Gospel sets forth Christ’s life and
teaching with reference to the past, as the fulfil-
ment of the OT, the Gospel of St. Mark exhibits
that life in the present, as a manifestation of the
activity and power so congenial to the Roman
mind; St. Luke, as a Greck, depicts it in its
catholic and comprehensive character, as destined
in the future to embrace within its saving influence
all the kindreds of the Gentiles ; while the Fourth
Gospel represents it in its absolute perfection, as it
is related to the Father in eternity.

With regard to the authorship of the Gospels, it
is a remarkable fact that two of them do not bear
the names of apostles but of companions of apostles
(Mark and Luke), and that, of the other two, only
one bears the name of an apostle of eminence
(John)—which is so far a confirmation of their
genuineness. With regard to the First Gospel, there
is no reason to doubt the tradition of the ancient
Church, beginning with Papias in the first half
of the 2nd cent., which assigns it in its original
form to St. Matthew. But whether it was origin-
ally written in Heb., as stated by Papias, and
how far it has been altered by recension, are ques-
tions which have not yet been determined. Sce
MATTHEW (GOSPEL OF). With equal unanimity
the testimony of the Fathers, beginning with
Papias, ascribe the Second Gospel to St. Mark, who

ne a a ery Mer Sener re μος

NEW TESTAMENT

NEW TESTAMENT 527

is said to have embodied in it the preaching of
St. Peter. This view is strongly confirmed by the
tone and character of the book, which is generally
regarded as containing, in a more or less modified
form. the earliest cycle of apostolic teaching. See
art. MAnk. With regard to the authorship of the
Third Gospel, there is substantial unanimity. Tra-
dition has always ascribed it to St. Luke, the friend
and companion of the Apostle Paul, at the same
time assigning to the latter a part in its production
somewhat similar to that which St. Peter is believed
to have borne in relation to the Gospel of Mark—
ἃ view supported to a certain extent by the char-
acter of the Gospel itself, which forms an excellent
historic groundwork for the doctrine of salvation
by grace that was characteristic of St. Paul’s preach-
ing. Seeart. LUKE. Until the close of the 18th
cent. the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel
was never seriously challenged. In some respects
it has stronger external testimony in its favour
than any of the others; and the whole tone of the
boek gives the impression that it was written by
one who was familiar with the inner life of Christ
and His apostles, as well as with the topography of
Jerusalem and the ideas and customs prevalent
among the Jews before the destruction of their
capital. Moreover, the spiritual elevation of the
book is vastly superior to anything we find in the
sub-apostolic age, and the Johannine authorship is
attended with fewer difficulties than any other
that has been suggested. If it was written in
Ephesus about A.D. 85 (which is in accordance
with the earliest tradition), an interval of more
than half a century had elapsed since the death of
Christ, during which Christianity had spread into
many lands and furnished subjects for reflexion to
many minds. In these circumstances it was in-
evitable that the truths of the Gospel should be
viewed in new lights and assume more speculative
forms ; and in Ephesus, as the great meeting-place
of Oriental mysticism and Greek’ philosophy, the
deeper questions and more theological aspects of
the new religion would naturally claim a large
measure of attention. See, further, art. JOIIN
(GOSPEL OF).

2. The Book of Acts.—This invaluable document,
which is our chief authority on the history of the
Church for nearly a generation after Christ’s
death, is evidently from the same pen as the
Gospel of Luke, to which it is intended to be a
sequel. The writer conceives of Christ as still
carrying on ILis work in virtue of His resurrection
and ascension, and seeks to trace the gradual ex-
pansion of the Church from its first beginning, as
a seeming phase of Judaism, to its full development
as a Catholic communion, free alike to Jew and
Gentile. Although the author does not speak in
his own name till he reaches the point in his
narrative at which he joined St. Pant’s company
at Troas, and was evidently dependent in the
earlier part of his work on a variety of sources,
oral and written, yet the book has a natural unity
of diction and style, which forbids us to assign it
to more than one author; and its several parts
are so interlaced by corresponding observations
and allusions as to lead to the same conclusion.
Recent investigations have enhanced the reputation
which the work had previously enjoyed for histori-
eal worth and accuracy ; and the belief is becoming
general that it must have been written by a
historian of the first rank. Regarding its date of
composition, no conclusion has been reached be-
yond what may be inferred from the fact that it was
written by a contemporary and companion of the
Apostle Paul, at some time subsequent to his first
imprisonment at Rome (A.D. 63). See art. ACTS.

3. The Pauline Epistles and the Ep. to the
Iebrews.—One of the characteristics of the NT,

as compared with all other sacred books, 15
the epistolary character of a large part οὗ its
contents. * Ithough most of the Epistles were
written at an earlier period than the Gospels in
their present form, they represent in general a more
advanced stage of Christian theology. They vive
us the fruits of from twenty to fifty years’ reflexion
on the cardinal facts and truths contained in the
Synoptic Gospels, and are the chief source of
Christian doctrine on such subjects as the Trinity,
the relation of Christ to the human race and to
the Church, the Atonement, Justification by faith,
and Sanctification by the Holy Spirit. They con-
tain more explicit claims, in varying modes and
forms, to divine inspiration and authority, than the
Gospels or the Bk. of Acts; but, while largely
doctrinal in character, most of them were written
for the purpose of dealing with questions of a
practical nature, and are enlivened with many
personal allusions.

What has just been said is especially true of the
Epistles of St. Paul. While bearing evidence in
many passages of being written more or less under
the conscious influence of the Holy Spirit, they had
their rise in the special needs and circumstances of
the various Churches to which they were addressed.
They are thirteen in number, and may be divided
into four groups, extending over the last fifteen
years or more of the apostle’s life, and exhibiting,
amid many similarities and correlations, a well-
marked development of thought: viz. (α) 1 and
2Th, which were written about A.D. 53 [Turner,
50-52], at least sixteen years after the apostle’s con-
version, and turn largely on questions relating to
Christ’s Second Coming. (6) land 2 Co, Gal, and Ro,
which were written during his third missionary
journey (A.D. 57-58 [Turner, 55-56 for 1 and 2 Co
and Ro, date of Gal he leaves undecided]), and were
mainly designed to vindicate his apostolic autho-
rity and preserve the gospel frem the inroads of
Judaism. (c) The Epistles of the Imprisonment,
viz., Ph, Col, Philem, and Eph (the last named
being in all probability a circular-letter, identical
with ‘the epistle from Laodicea’ referred to in
Col 428), which were written from Rome about A.D.
62-63 (Turner, 59-61), and range from the humblest
personal details to the loftiest speculations regard-
ing the being and destiny of the Church. (ὦ) The
Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and ‘Titus, which are
distinguished from all the others by their want
of historical agreement with any period in St.
Paul’s life as recorded in the Bk. of Acts, and also
by their stronvly-marked individuality alike in
style and substance. These circumstances have
civen rise to serious doubt of their genuineness,
which is largely obviated, however, by supposing
them to have been written after the imprisonment
recorded in the closing chapter of the Acts, and
in the last year of the apostle’s life—say A.D. 67-68.
It is worthy of note that the Epistles in the second
group are almost universally admitted to be
genuine, which is a most important admission
from an evidential point of view, as they contain
many allusions to detailed matters of fact men-
tioned in the Gospels, and prove that the story of
Christ’s death and resurrection as told in the tour
Gospels was the chief theme of St. Paul’s preach-
ing. The evidence is all the more valuable because
it is indirect, the letters having manifestly been
written without any such object in view, and being
addressed to several independent communities far
removed from one another. Having revard to the
tone of sincerity, tempered with sobriety of judg-

* Tt contains twenty-one letters by six differentauthors. Nine
of these are addressed to individual Churches, viz. 1 and 2 Th,
1 and 2 Co, Gal, Ro, Ph, Col, 2 Jn; five to individual persons,
viz. Philem, land 2 Ti, Tit, 3 Jn; two to Heb. Christians, viz
He and Ja; the remaining five being of a more or less general
nature, viz. Eph, 1 and2 P, 1 Jn, and Jude. καὶ

-

528 NEW TESTAMENT

NEW TESTAMENT

ment, which characterizes these Epistles, as well as
to the early association of the writer with the
Jewish authorities at Jerusalem, and the oppor-
tunities he had for ascertaining the real facts of
the evangelic history, we are led inevitably to the
conclusion that St. Paul’s Gospel had the same
historic groundwork of essentia! and well-attestcd
facts regarding Christ’s life and teaching as we
find recorded in the four Gospels. See separate
arts. on these various Epistles.

As regards the Ep. to the Hehrews, which has
always been closely associated with the Pauline
Epistles, there is evidence that from the latter half
of the 2nd cent. it was assigned by the Eastern
Church to the Apostle Paul, although some of the
most competent judges were constrained by internal
evidence to depart somewhat from the traditional
view, their idea being that St. Paul might have
written the original, and one of his disciples have
translated it into Greek, or that the apostle might
have supplied the thoughts, and one of his dis-
ciples have put them into words. In the Western
Church, on the other hand, opinion was for a long
time adverse to the Pauline authorship; and it
was not till the close of the 4th cent. that the
Ep. was acknowledged to be a writing of St. Pans.
This view has now been generally abandoned, as
the result of a closer study of the style and strue-
ture of the book ; and for the same reason, the idea
that it may be a translation of a work by the
apostle is also admitted to be untenable. At the
same time there seems no reason to doubt that it
was written by one of St. Paul’s school. Luke,
Clement, Apollos, Barnabas, have all been sug-
gested, the latter two being those in whose favour
most can be said. As to the destination of the
Ep., various allusions show that it was ποῦ in-
tended for Heb. Christians in general, but for
some definite community. Alexandria, Antioch,
Ephesus, Rome, have each had their advocates ;
but the position of Christians in Jerusalem or in
some other part of Palestine seems to answer best
to the situation which the writer has in view.
Respecting the date of composition, the mention
of ‘Timothy’s liberation (He 13%), which took
place presumably at Rome, whither he had been
summoned by St. Paul in his last imprisonment,
points to a time shortly anterior to the destruction
of Jerusalem—an inference which is eentirmed by
other expressions in the Ep., referrine to the
decadence of the Jewish Dispensation. The great
theme of the Ep. is the superiority of Christianity
to Judaism, which it attempts to prove, not so
much by minimizing the old covenant (as St. Paul
had been obliged to do in vindicating the freedom
of his Gentile converts) as by magnifying the new
as a fulfilment of the old. See, further, HEBREWS
(EPISTLE TO).

4. The Catholic Epistles.—There are 7 Epistles
which from the 4th cent. have gone under this
name, viz.Ja, I and 2, 70 3 din, and: Unde,
They were so called in contradistinetion to St.
Paul’s Epistles, which, with the exception of the
Pastoral Epp. and Philem, are addressed to indi-
vidual Churches, also 7 in number.* In most
of the Greek MSS the Cath. Epp. stand next io
Acts, although they were ‘ick later than the
Pauline Epp. in obtaining general recognition in the
Church.

(a) The General Ep. of James.—Thisis now gener-
ally admitted to be a genuine work of ‘James,
the Lord’s_ brother’ (Gal 1.3), who for many
years presided cver the Church at Jerusalem.

* The symbolism of numbers has an interesting bearing on the
proportions of the NT, not only in the use of 7 in the cases
above mentioned (cf. Rev 14) and in the case of the Pauline Epp.,
which (including He)=7x2, but also in the number of the

Gospels, to which Irenzus and others, under the influence of a
revived Neo-Pythagoreanism, ascribed a mystic virtue.

The internal evidence is strongly in its favour,
and the rarity of allusions to it in the early
Christian writers may be accounted for by its
cirenlation being contined to Jewish Christians,
as well as by the narrow sphere of Jabour in which
the writer himself moved, his whole life apparently
having been spent in Jerusalem. It is addressed
‘To the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion,’
and there is no reason to take the words in any
other than a literal sense. ‘The tone of the Ep.
is eminently practical, the object of the writer
being to inculcate Christian morality as essential
to salvation. Hence it partakes largely of the
ethical character of the Sermon on the Mount,
which it resembles not only in its general tone
and sentiment, but in many of its expressions.
The marked absence of anything like developed
Christian doctrine, as well as the expectation
which it exhibits of Christ’s speedy coming to
judge the world (5°), and the application of the
term ‘synagogue’ (2°) to an assembly of Christian
worshippers, seem to require an early date for the
Ep. ; and as there is no sign of acquaintance with
the sharp controversy regarding the obligations of
the Jewish Jaw, which came to a head in the
Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 50), there seems good
reason to regard this as the oldest book in the NT,
dating between A.D. 44 and 49. See, further,
JAMES (EPISTLE OF).

(b) The 1st Ep. of Peter.—There is no reason to
doubt that this Ep. was written by the apostle
Whose name it bears. Hardly any book of the NT
is better supported by external evidence, while
internally it bears in many of its features the
stamp of St. Peters mind and the traces of his
experience, as these are represented to us in the
(rospels and the Bk. of Acts. [Ὁ is addressed ‘ To

the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in .

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia’ ;
but there is a difference of opinion whether these
words are to be taken in a literal sense, as de-
noting Jewish Christians merely, or as embracing
‘the Israel of God’ in the widest sense. As it
appears, however, from a number of passages that
the readers of the Ep. were largely Gentiles, the
latter supposition seems to accord best with the
facts. Similarly, ‘Babylon’ (5') should probably
be understood in a figurative sense as meaning
Rome, the writer’s point of view being in full
harmony with this supposition. There is also
some controversy as to the date of the Epistle.
Some would assign it to the period of the Flavian
dynasty, but the probability seems to be that it
was written shortly after the outbreak of the
Neronian persecution, when the Christians in the
provinces were beginning to experience the effects
of the imperial example at Rome, about 64-65.
The very name of Christian was becoming a term
of reproach (4'°), and the chief object of the writer
is to inculcate patience under trial and persever-
ance in well-doing in a spirit of hope.

(Ὁ). The 2nd En. of Peter.—The genuineness of
this Ep. has been more questioned than that of
any other book in the NT. The external evidence
for it is comparatively meagre; but the chief
objection to it both in ancient and in modern
times has arisen from its differing so greatly in
tone and substance from the Ist Epistle. This
objection is so far obviated by the fact that while
the Ist was designed to encourage and support
Christians under persecution, this was evidently
intended to warn against false teachers, who were
spreading corruption in the Church. Moreover,
amid the general difference of style, a close ex-
amination of the language and thought in this
Epistle brings out many points of resemblance
between it and St. Peter’s expressions elsewhere ;
and in several respects it does not tally with the

|

CE Ree σ--

So a τῶν NT NE Aa A a a AS .022..5......ἅ... —

NEW TESTAMENT

NEW TESTAMENT CANON 529

supposition of forgery. The mention of St. Paul’s
Epp., however (31-18) as if they were already known
to the Asiatic Churehes, and in the same category
as ‘the other Scriptures’ (τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς). as well
as the marked resemblance of this Ep., in style, to
the recently discovered ¢ Apocalypse of Peter,’ seem
to imply a post-apostolic date ; and there is much
to favour the view of Prof. W. M. Ramsay, who
regards the Ep. as the work of ‘a disciple who was
full of the spirit and words of his teacher, and who
believed so thoroughly that he was giving the
words of his teacher that he attributed it to that
teacher.’ See, further, PETER (EPISTLES OF).

(2) The Ep, of Jude.—This Epistle is in the name
of ‘Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother
of James. The James whom the writer here
claims as his brother was the well-known head of
the Church at Jerusalem, one of our Lord’s brethren,
and the writer of the Ep. that bears his name ;
and therefore Jude is not to be identified with any
of the apostles of the same name mentioned in the
Gospels. There is) such a. striking resemblance
between this Ep. (consisting of a single chapter)
and the 2ud chapter of 2 P as to justify the belict
that the one was borrowed from the other. But
as this Ep. has some features of originality about
it which the other lacks, we may inter that Peter
and not Jude was the borrower—a_ supposition
confirmed by the way in which certain quota-
tions in Jude from non-canonical Jewish Scriptures
almost disappear from 2 P, along with one or two
references to Levitical uncleanness, as if the writer
desired as far as possible to adapt his writing for
general use. This Ep. is fall of sharp and stern
denunciation aimed at practical evils of a most
heinous character, founded on a gross abuse of
Christian liberty. It probably emanated from
Palestine in the period immediately preceding the
destruction of Jerusalem. See, further, art. JUDE
CEPISTLE OF);

(9) The Ist Ep. of John.—There is abundance of
evidence, both external and internal, to prove that
this Ep. was written by the author of the Fourth
Gospel, and forms a sequel to it. The readers are
not specified, but in all probability it was addressed
in the first instance to the Churches of Asia,
among whom St. John spent the latter part of
his life. The writer speaks in a quiet tone of
authority. as if he were well known to his readers
and were well acquainted with their dangers and
their needs. He insists on the translation into
the Christian life of those great truths regarding
the fellowship of God with man, which, in the
Fourth Gospel, are exhibited in the life and ministry
of Jesus Christ.

(Cf) The 2nd Ep. of John.—This Ep. has all the
appearance of being genuine. It bears a strong
resemblance to the Ist, no fewer than 7 of its
13 verses having something parallel in the other.
It is addressed ‘Unto the elect lady and her
children,’ by whom we are probably to understand
a Church and its members ; and the object of the
Ep. is to warn them against the insidious and
corrupting influence of certain heretical teachers
who were going about denying the reality of
Christ’s humanity. The title of ‘the elder, which
the writer assumes, implies that he was a well-
known personage in the Church, and is one that
could be fitly claimed by St. John as the last of
the apostles.

(7 The 8rd Ep, of Johu.—This Ep., like the 2nd,
is written in the name of ‘the elder,’ and it has
80 many expressions in common with the other
that they have been fitly termed ‘twins.’ It gives
us a momentary glimpse of Church life in Asia
towards the close of the Ist cent., and illustrates
the practical difficulties which had to be en-
countered in the government of the Church. It

VOL. H1.—34

is addressed *» Unto Gaius the beloved,’ a faithful
and liberal member of the Church, whose influence
and example the writer invokes, in opposition to
the intolerant and factious conduct of an ambitious
ecclesiastie named Diotrephes, who had gone so
far as to close his doors on ‘the brethren” who had
come in the name of * the elder, apparently bearing
a letter from him—perhaps our 2nd Epistle. See,
further, JOHN (EPISTLES OF).

5. The Revelation of St. John.—The Apocalypse
has experienced greater vicissitudes as regards its
acceptance in the Church than any other book
of the NT, owing partly to the Chiliastic views
associated with it, and partly to the marked differ-
ence in its language and style as compared with
the other works ascribed to St. John. It bears to
be written by ‘John to the seven Churches which
are in Asia’; and it is a significant fact that its
apostolic authorship was accepted by Justin Martyr
(hot to mention some earlier apparent witnesses \
in the dialogue which he held with Trypho at
Ephesus within half a century atter St. John’s
death. Its wide divergence from the Fourth Gospel,
both in ideas and in language, may be accounted for
in some measure by the difference in the nature
and contents of the two books. the one being
mainly narrative or colloquial, the other formed
on the model of Jewish apocalypse ; and there are
not wanting some important features of resemblance
between them, betokening an identity of authorship.
With regard to the date of this book, there is a
growing conviction that the theory which counects
it with the persecution in the reign of Nero, and
puts its composition before the destruction of Jeru-
salem, must be abandoned, and that the ‘tribula-
tion’ referred to (19) was that which befell Chris-
tians in the provinees, especially in Asia Minor,
at a later date, when they refused to pay divine
honour to the emperor. The main theme of the
book is the second coming of Christ, pictorially
set forth as the glorious consummation of great
struggles and marvellous events. Its unity has
recently been assailed, but the attempts to disin-
tegrate it have not met with general acceptance.
See, further, art. REVELATION (BOOK OF),

On the whole subject of this article, reference
may be made, further, to such articles as BIBLE,
CANON, CATHOLIC EPISTLES, GOSPELS, NEW 'TESTA-
MENT CANON, PAUL, etc., as well as to the separate
articles on the various books of the NT, and the
Literature appended to these.

J. A. M‘CLYMONT.

“NEW TESTAMENT CANON.—

Introduction—general character of the history of the forma-
tion of the Canon—considerations to be borne in mind in esti-
mating the fuets—the chief periods.

A, From end of apostolic age to ὁ. A.p, 220.—Circumstances
specially affecting the evidence for the Gospels.

i. The sub-apostolic age.—Its documents—Ep. of Clem, Rom.
to the Corinthians—Epp. of [Ignatius and Polycarp—evidence
as to the use of (1) the Gospels, (2) other ΝΤ writings.

ii. The second quarter of the 2nd century.

(1) The use of the Gospels—Ep, of Barnabas—the Didaehée—
Shepherd of Wermas— Fragments of Papias— the so-called
gnd Ep. of Clement —Justin Martyr —Gnostie heretics —
Montanists.

(2) Use of other writings of NT.

iii, Third quarter of 2nd century—Tatian.

iv. Last quarter of 2nd century and beginning of 3rd.——The
impugners of St. John’s writings—Theophilus—the evidence
afforded by works of Irenwus, Tertullian, Clement of Alox-
andria, Hippolytus. (1) Writings whose place in the Canon
was already, at and from this time, fully secured. (a2) Remarks
upon the area from which this evidence comes; (/) inferences
that may be drawn as to the previous history of the reception
of these writings in the Church. (2) Writings whose position
continued to be for a time doubtful,

B. From ὁ. 4.0. 220-323.—The teaching and works of Origen
and their intluence—judgment of Dionysius of Alexandria on
the Apocaly pse—evidence of Eusebius as regards the Canon,

C. Concluding period.—Intluences favourable to a final settle-

ι ment —lists of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius

-~the Cheltenham Catalogue, Third Council of Carthage —

| evidence for Rome and other neighbouring Churches—Council
**Copyright, 190, by Charies Scrioner’s Sons
Pyyeg f

530 NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

of Laodicea, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius—the Canon
of che teac hers belonging to school of Autioch—the Pe shitta—
the Quinisext. Counce ‘il—the effect of the Reformation.

INTRODUCTION,—The subject of this article is
the formation of the NT, the gathering, into one,

of the colleetion of books which we so name, to be
the sacred books of the New Dispensation. These

writings form the Canon of the NT (for the term
Canon, its idea and history, see art. CANON). It
is with the process which resulted in the recogni-
tion of a Canon that we are here concerned. The
investigation and right conception of this history
have proved, and are still, a very hard and com-
plicated task. The evidence is to be gathered from
early Christian literature ; but the age and authen-
ticity of many of its documents, especially for the
two or three generations succeeding the apostles,
which form the most important period of all, have
been hotly contested ; and, even apart from this,
the evidence supplied by them is, from special
causes (as we shall see), difficult to interpret.
Nevertheless, some real progress has been made in
the illumination of the subject. A common judg-
ment has been attained, or there is an approxima-
tion to one, in regard to some of the most important
of the documents concerned and as to the bearing
of some portions of the evidence, on the part of
many students whose doctrinal points of view are
very diverse ; and the important questions still at
issue have been narrowed and cleared. It would
hardly be possible now to maintain views of the
formation of the Canon such as those of men so
learned as Lardner (supplement to pt. ii. bk. i. of
the Credibility, ch. 111. 2nd ed. p. 49) and Mosheim
(£ecl. Hist. bk. i. pt. ii. ch. ii. § 16, i. p. 64 in Eng.
tr. of 1863) in former times. It was a more
eradual process than they imagined, and it had
more than one stage. The student of the history
of the Canon must endeayour to mark the stages
and the epochs at which they were reached, to
determine the greater or less rapidity of the
movement towards the establishment of the Canon,
to ascertain the causes which promoted or retarded
it, and the considerations which were influential
in bringing about the acceptance or rejection of
different writings.

A certain development of thought and feeling
in respect to the books of NT must be acknow-
ledged. But to say this is by no means incon-
sistent with belief in their authenticity as genuine
products of the apostolic age. It required time,
and the experience of needs which were not fully
felt at once, for the Christian Church to perceive
clearly what a treasure she possessed in these
writings. And the most important question which
has to be decided in regard to the history of
the Canon is, Whether the de velopment which can
be traced was one which involved a misrepresenta-
tion of facts, or only an awakening to the real
significance of facts which had long been known,

In judging of the evidence, it will be right to
remember the conditions implied in the very sup-
position of such a growth as has just been indi-
vated. Convictions which are more or less latent,
which have not been formulated, exercise far less
authority than those which have been definitely
put forth and for some time accepted without
question. So long as the belief of Christians in
regard to the new Scriptures was of the former
kind the signs of its existence might be somewhat
obscure, and there might be more or less serious
departures from it here and there, in spite of its
being in reality widely diffused and well founded.

The special circumstances must also be borne in
mind, which were of a nature to retard for a time
the formation of a Canon of NT, and also to make
the recognition accorded to the apostolic writings
appear to us less decided than it was in reality.

(a) The fact that Christians already had a Bible—
the OT—must first be noticed. In time, no doubt,
this may have facilitated the reception of another
body of Scriptures. For the idea of a Bible, a col-
lection of inspired, authoritative writings, had been
rendered familiar, and it was necessary only that
it should be applied to the books which enshrined
the New Revelation. But this could not be at
once accomplished. Great as the veneration for
the apostles was, there could not be the same
feeling for new writings as for those which had
long been hallowed. Moreover, in form the apos-
tolie writings were different in many respects from
those of the ΟἿ᾽, and, in particular, they did not
bear so plainly upon their very face a claim to
inspiration as its prophetic and legislative books
414. Besides all this, the OT itself largely supplied
the place of Christian Scriptures in apostolic and
sub-apostolic times. ΤῸ an extent which we find
hard to understand, it was used as a source of
Christian instruction. The divine truths newly
imparted and the actual faets of the life of Christ
and founding of His kingdom were read between
the lines of the ancient Scriptures (Lk 2427. 445,
Ac 8. 1838, 2 ΠῚ 315, and last traginent of Melito,
ap. Kus. HE iy. 26). The need was thus partially
met which the apostolic writings could alone
adequately satisfy. (4) Again, the gospel message
and the new law had first been delivered by word
of mouth, and there is good reason to believe that
even the memory of the ‘oral teaching of the
apostles was for a time, in some measure, a rival
of their own written testimony in the regard and
affections of Christians.

A just and vivid sense of these peculiar condi-
tions, and some others which will come before us
in the course of our survey, is necessary, if we are
to understand the phenomena aright, and to refrain
from giving undue weight to objections which are
founded on paucity of evidence. Proof, however,
of a positive kind that, from the confines of the
lifetime of the apostles, the writings of ΝΊ were
known among Christians, can be found only in a
full estimate ‘of the facts as a whole, supplied by
the documents not only of the one or two earliest
but of subsequent generations. When the alleged
indications of the use of NT writings at the former
time are taken by themselves, they may be far from
convincing ; they may show little more than that
it is a tenable assumption, that our Christian
Seriptures, or the chief of them, were already in
circulation. But when we advance a few years,
we find them clearly occupying a position which
they could not have attained at a bound, and
which no other writings shared with them. And
we are justified in inferring that the earlier signs
referred to are—not only possibly but—really traces
of acquaintance with them. In this way we reach
a highly probable conclusion, even when the facts
directly connected with the reception of these
writings are alone taken into account. It will be
strongly confirmed if the belief (the grounds of
which ean barely be touched upon in this article) is
well founded, that there was substantial continuity
of life and organization in the Christian Church
from the beginning till its history emerges into full
light in. the latter part of the 2nd cent., such as
would afford a guarantee for the faithful preserva-
tion of traditions on important matters.

The history of the Canon of NT’ may be divided
into the following periods :—A, the first, which is
by far the most important, extends from the end
of the apostolic age to the early years of the 3rd
cent. (for convenience we may say to A.D. 220,
which was about the time of the deaths of Clement
of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Hippolytus). At
this latter epoch we see the greater part of the
books of NT occupying the position in the Church

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NEW TESTAMENT CANON 591]

which they have ever since held. 23, the second,
extends, roughly speaking, to the pacification of
the empire under Constantine (A.D. 825). It was
a time of comparison between the lists of NT
Scriptures accepted in different Churches, and dis-
cussion of the claims of those not universally
received ; but there was much uncertainty still in
regard to certain books. C. From A.D. 325° on-
wards, the final settlement, though it was attained
at various times in different parts of the Church.

A, FROM THE END OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO
THE EARLY YEARS OF THE THIRD CENTURY.—
In reviewing this period, it will be convenient to
subdivide. Further, under each subdivision the
evidence as to the use οὐ the Gospels and as to that
of other writings of the NT should be separately
examined. There is more than one reason for
proceeding thus. It is probable that, even before
a comprehensive collection of the sacred writings
of the new dispensation was thought of, its forma-
tion was being advanced through the independent
formation of groups of writings which afterwards
became important constituent elements of the
whole body, as well as by the recognition of the
authority of individual writings which might or
might not belong to these groups. Two of these
minor collections, the making of which must
readily have suggested itself, would seem to have
been that of the Four Gospels and that of the
Epistles of St. Paul. The rolls on which the
writings of these two classes were written were
commonly kept, we may Dnagine, each in its own
roll-case.

The evidence as to the reception of the Gospels
is affected by special circumstances. Owing to
the nature of their subject-imatter—the occurrence
of the same sayings and incidents in different
Gospels, the possibility that some of these may
have been found also in other documents or orally
reported—it may not be open to us to infer with
certainty the use of any particular Gospel from
parallelisms of statement and of language between
them and early Christian writers. On the other
hand, when a striking, unusual sentence or phrase
found in one of the other writings of NT appears
in a work of post-apostolic times, even though it
may not be introduced as a quotation, there can
generally be little doubt that there is a literary
relationship between the two, and that it was not
the NT writer who was the borrower.

But this is not all. The facts of the life and
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and ΠΝ
words made up the substance of the Gospet.
Owing to the sublimity of the subject, men’s eyes
were turned at first solely to it, and away from
the witnesses and the form of the records. The
substance was felt to be everything. For some
time little sense is shown of the importance of
reproducing accurately the individual testimony of
different. writers. There was also a very natural
disposition to combine various accounts with a
view to greater fulness or succinctness. Not a few
probable illustrations of this tendency might be
given, and a very elaborate effort of the kind was
made soon after the middle of the 2nd century.

The manner in which τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is used
(sing. and with def. art.) is another illustration of
the same or similar habits of thought. It occurs
where the existence of the evangelic history in a
written form is implied ; and some have inferred
that those who so expressed themselves knew only
of one such document. But there seems to be no
ground for this. The mode of speech in question
shows only that the characteristics of the several
written embodiments of the Gospel were but
slightly regarded in comparison with its general
contents and purport. Writers who unquestion-
ably were acquainted with several works of the

nature of Gospels continued so to express them-
selves. And there is a survival of it to this day
in the titles of our Gospels—ro εὐαγγέλιον κατά,
‘the Gospel according to, this or that evangelist.

i. TUE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE, i.e. the generation
immediately following that of the apostles. As
belonging to this time, we will take only the Ep.
of Clement to the Corinthians, the Seren Epp. of
Ignatius, in the short Greek or Vossian form, and
the Hp. of Polycarp. Some critics of the highest
repute would, besides, assign to it the recently
recovered Didaché and the Ey. of Barnabas, and
a few more would also include the Shepherd of
ITermas. But in an inguiry of this kind it is
better to understate than to overstate evidence.
Moreover, the present writer is personally inelined
to place the composition of these last three writings
in the second quarter of the 2nd cent. And it will
be very generally admitted now that the case for
placing them earlier than this is far less strong
than that for the others, and that they do not, by

their authorship, create the same kind οὐ link
with the apostolic age. ‘Those writings before

mentioned may, indeed, with great confidence be
declared to be the genuine works of the nen with
whose names they are connected. Two of the
writers at least, and probably all three, had known
apostles, and held positions of eminence in the
Church at the close of the first and near the be-
ginning of the 2nd cent. There are very strong
reasons for believing that the Ep. written to the
Chureh of Corinth in the name of that of Rome,
which has from very early times been attributed
to Clement, is really his work, and for referring it

to the close of the reign of Domitian, ¢. A.D.
95 (see Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. i. p. 546 ff., and
Harnack, Chronol. i. p. 251 ff). Again, the

genuineness of the Seven Epp. of Ignatius dis-
covered by Voss in the Medicean MS has been
firmly established by the labours of Zahn and
Lightfoot. This is fully admitted by IHarnack
(Chronol. i. p. 381 ff.). Their exact date cannot
be quite so clearly determined. Lightfoot sup-
poses it to be 6. A.D. 110. Harnack was a few
years ago inclined to place them near to A.D, 140
(see Expos. for 1886, pp. 15-22 but he now
speaks in a very hesitating manner (Chronol.
i. p. 395 f.). The only reason for questioning the
genuineness of the Hp. of Polycarp falls to the
ground when that of Epp. of Ignatius is admitted,
and its date is fixed by a reference in it as only
later by a few weeks than theirs.

(1) Evidence as to the use of the Gospels.Say ines
of Christ are cited in the writings now before us,
as spoken by Him, but not as from a written
source or sources. From the first days of the
Church the Lord’s Words must have been treasured
as Divine Oracles. And as a sense of their
authority must have preceded their being com-
mitted to writing, so also after this it would
naturally be independent of that of the record,
and the habit of referring to them directly, with-
out considering the intermediary through whom or
which they were delivered, might continue. The
facts just noticed in connexion with the writings
of the Apostolic Fathers are an illustration of this.
‘Their-usace -1s -still that. of St.. Paul nv i -Co 7o,-or
in the Address to the Elders at Miletus (Ac 2085),
They may, in spite of this, have taken their quota-
tions from documents, and those, too, our Gospels.
It is a point not easy to decide. In the Ep. of
Clem. sayings are quoted as the Lord’s closely
corresponding, indeed, in substance with such as
are recorded in our Gospels, but which differ from
them to a greater or less degree in form. It is to
be observed, too, that Polyearp (ec. ii.) quotes in
part the same sayings as Clement in the former of
these passages, With the same divergences from our

532 NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

Gospels [μνημονεύοντες δὲ ὧν εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος διδάσκων"
“Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε " ἀφίετε καὶ ἀφεθήσεται duty’
ἐλεᾶτε, ἵνα ἐλεηθῆτε" ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε ἀντιμετρηθήσεται
ὑμῖν "᾿ καὶ ὅτι “ Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ καὶ οἱ διωκόμενοι
ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτων ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ];
while, to pass for a moment beyond our present
period, the whole piece of Christ's teaching which
occurs in Clem. Rom. ο. xiii. is given in the same
form by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 18).
It has been argued that these peculiarities, recur-
ring in more than one writer, point to a docu-
mentary source other than our Gospels. If, how-
ever, the passages in question are examined, it
will be seen that they appear to have the character
of summaries, and that their differences from the
Gospels may well be accounted for as the effects of
compression and of the combination of phrases
derived from the parallel passages in our Gospels,
or in doetunents which have been embodied in
our Gospels. General considerations which have
already occupied us have prepared us for this
phenomenon. For such traits as cannot be ex-

plained in this way, and which ought not to be re- |

garded as accidental variations, there would seem
to be a sufficient explanation in the influence of Oral
Tradition, which was doubtless still powerful in
the Sub-apostolic Age. Further, the persistence
of certain features, Which has been noticed, in the
quotations of sayings and collections of sayings,
may reasonably be traced to catechetical instrue-
tion and the impressions left by it. Such com-
pendia of precepts, from the Sermon on the Mount
and other parts of our Lord’s teaching, may well
have been imprinted thus upon the memory of
Christians generally, and consequently quoted by
writers who were familiar with the Gospels, as
Clem. Alex. was. In Polye. vii. we have a clause
of the Lord’s Prayer, as given both in Mt and Lk,
witi- she difference only that it is turned into the
indirect form; also words spoken by our Lord in
Gethsemane, exactly as in Mt and Mk. [δεήσεσιν
αἰτούμενοι τὸν παντεπόπτην θεὸν "μὴ εἰσενεγκεῖν ἡμᾶς
εἰς πειρασμόν." καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος " “τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα
πρόθυμον. ἣ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής (cf. Mt 6 or Lk 114;
Mt 2641 or Mk 14°5)].

For further paralleclisms with the language of
the Gospels and for allusions to incidents in the
life of Christ in the two writings so far considered,
see among other passages—Clem. Rom. xvi. end
(Mt 112-8), xxiv. (Mt 133, Mk 43, Lk 85); Polyc.
v.. (ΜῈ 985. Mt’ 2023), xii. (Mt, δέ}.

Tynatius was led by his controversy with Docet-

ism to dwell upon the facts of our Lord’s human |
life and sufferings rather than upon His teaching ; |

and the only saying of Christ which he expressly
quotes is one asserting the verity of His corporeal
nature after His resurrection [ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ
Ilérpov ἦλθεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς " " Λάβετε. ψΨηλαφήσατέ με kal
ἴδετε ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον" (Smuyrn. 111.}].
The incident referred to seems to be that recorded in
Lk 245659, where the words of our Lord are similar
in substance and partly in form. According to
Origen, however (de Princ. pref. 8), they were
contained in The Preaching of Peter in the same
form as in Ignatius. Eusebius. on the other hand
(HE iii. 86), who notes the fact that Ignatius has
the saying, declares that he does not know whence
it was taken; while Jerome (de Vir. I7lustr. 16)
says that it occurred in the Gospel ace. to the
Hebrews. Wt is possible that a writing which con-
tained the saying may have existed in the time of
Tenatius, and that he may have obtained it thence ;
but it is at least an equally probable supposition
that he derived it from oral tradition; and that
from the same source it passed into one or more
Apocryphal Gospels. We shall have occasion to
recur to the question of the use made of apocryphal
writings in the 2nd century.

There are in the Epp. of Ignatius several allu-
sions to incidents in the life of Christ whieh are
recorded in our Gospels as well as parallelisms of
expression with them, and among these, in two

places, some remarkable coincidences with the
thought and language of Jn. See Eph. xiv.
(Mt 1255. Lk 614); να; xi. (ME ΠΡ ον Bom

vil. (Jn 4%); Philad. vii. (Jn 38); Smyrn. i. (Mt
316 and other points); Smayrn. vi. (Mt 1912) ;
Polyc. ii, (Mt 1010), 568 also Magn. xi. and Trall.
ix. In Philad. v. his language suggests the idea
that he was thinking of the Gospel as embodied in
a written form; for he speaks of it as something
to which Christians could as it were turn, and
refers in the same context to the prophets. At
the same time a passage in ὁ. viii. of the same Ep.
seems to show the difference between the position
which any written Gospels had so far attained and
that of the OT (comp. Lightfoot, Hpp. of Ignat.
ad loc, and also tb, vol. i. p. 388).

(2) The evidence as to the use of other writings
of NT at this time may be treated much more
briefly.—St. Paul’s first Ep. to the Corinthians is
expressly referred to in the Ep. of Clement to the
same Church (xlvii.), and St. Paul's Ep. to the
Philippians in that of Polyearp (xi.). Thus NT
writings are actually mentioned in two of the cases
in Which it is most natural that they should be ;
these are exceptions which, if they do not explain,
are consistent with, the habit of not quoting by
name where there was not the same kind of reason
for it. Coincidences of phrase with various NT
Epp., so striking from their character or number
as to leave no doubt whence they are derived, oceur
in the three writers under consideration : in Clei.
Rom. with He (xxxvi. and xhii.) ; in Polyc. with
1 PG. i. Vv, vil, will. x.) and 1 ὅπ Cv.) in oe
with 1 Co (2phes. xvi. xviii.) and with Eph (Polye.
yv.). Indications more or less clear of a knowledge
of other NT writings might be named, e.g. of 2 Co,
Gal, and 1 and 2 Ti in Polycarp. <All these facts,
while interesting and important as regards. the
books of NT immediately concerned, also have a
bearing on the question of the use of the Gospels.
They show that absence of direct citation in this age
can have little weight for proving want of know-
ledge. Further, the sign of acquaintance with 1 Jn
in Ep. of Polye. has significance in regard to the
Gospel ace. to Jn also, On internal grounds there
is strong reason for attributing these to the same
author, and the eireulation of the one cannot have
been separated by any great interval from that
of the other.

The signs of knowledge of the apostolic writings
in Polyearp are, it may be observed in conclusion,
remarkable, and far greater than in Clement or
Ignatius, in spite of his Epistle being far shorter.
This may be reasonably accounted for by the con-
sideration that he was in all probability a much
younger man, and that he had acquired familiarity
with those writings from his youth.

τ SRE SECOND QUARTER OF THE SECOND
CENTURY.—(1) Use of the Gospels.—The so-called
Ep. of Barnahas.—Critics have referred the com-
position of this work to various dates between
A.D. 70 and 130. Though it contains references

to contemporary events, they are obscure. To
notice only some of the more recent views,

Lightfoot (Clem. Rom. ii. p. 505 ff.) has explained
the allusions in a way that would bring the time
of composition within the reign of Vespasian, 1.6.
before A.D. 79. Ramsay (Church tn the Roman
Empire, p. 307) has adopted Lightfoot’s theory
with some modification, but not so as to affect
the date. Harnack, however, in his recent work,
has made a very ingenious suggestion for over-
coming some of the chief difficulties; and his
view seems, on the whole, the most tenable.

‘Apostolic Fathers.

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NEW TESTAMENT CANON 533

According to him, the little treatise in its present | ¢. A.D. 100.

form was produced in Δ... 130 or 191 (Chronol. 1.
p. 427).

This writing affords what appears to be the
earliest instance of the citation from a book of
Nas Scripture. ‘The words πολλοὶ κλητοὶ ὀλίγοι δὲ
ἐκλεκτοί are introduced (iv. end) with the formula
ws γέγραπται. These words are not known to occur
except in Mt 2214, There are also several other
indications in the Ep. of Barn. of acquaintance
with that Gospel. ‘The parallelisms with Mt’s
account of the Trial and Crucifixion of Our Lord
are striking (vii.). Again, words found in Mt 9%
(though also in Mk 2, Lk 5) are used inv.
A saying of Christ is also quoted as such, which
bears a resemblance to that in Mt 2010, though it
is differently applied (vi. 15).

The Teaching of the Twelre Apostles. — Dates
ranging from A.D. 90-165 have been assigned tor
the composition of this work, the recovery of
which in our generation has created so much
interest. Unhappily, the indications available for
forming an opinion as to the date are almost
entirely such as are connected with the state of
Church organization and life reflected in it, and on
the history of these very diverse views prevail.
It must further be observed that it may have
emanated from some portion of the Church where
movement had been slow, or whose customs had
always been peculiar. There are expressions in it
which betoken the habits of a rural district. On
the whoie, it may be most prudent to take it as
belonging to the period which we are now con-
sidering, While at the same time we forbear to
treat it as illustrative of the mind and practice of
the Church generally within any narrow limits of
time. In respect to the use of the Gospels, it
seems to represent a slight advance upon the
There is language, more dis-
tinct than that of the passage of Ignatius above
referred to, Which suggests the idea that the Gospel
existed in a written form (Did. xv. 3, 4---ἃἰς ἔχετε
ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, and comp. Vill. 2
and xi. 3). The citations are only of words of
Christ, and introduced as what the Lord said; but
they are more abundant, and, although not given
entirely as in our Gospels, they appear on examina-
tion to be still more plainly combinations of phrases

from both Mt and Lk. Sach compilations there
are at Did. i. 2-5 [Mt 22%-39 (or Mk 12%-31, or
Lk 2027); Lk G23 (Mt 545); Mt 532 and

Lk 6%; Mt 525]; and at Did. xvi. [Mt 2518, Lk
12.49) Mt 24111 ete. ete.j. The former of these is
a collection of precepts on our duty to God and our
neighbour, the latter on the duty of watching for
the Coming of Christ. There are, besides, other
citations or parallels at Did. vii. (Mt 2819), vili. 2
(Mt 6%'8), ix. 5 (Mt 7%), xiii. (ALt 101).

The Shepherd of Hermas. —The Muratorian
fragment on the Canon (ὁ... A.D. 200, see below)
contains a statement that the Shepherd was written
during the episcopate of Pius (bishop of Rome,
A.D, 140-155), by a brother of his named Hermas.
Recent investigations have added to the import-
ance of this statement, which could not in any
case have been lightly set aside, for they have
shown that it may probably have been taken from
a list of bishops drawn up ¢. A.D. 170 in the time
of Soter (Harnack, Chronol.i. p. 192). On the other
hand, in the work itself (Vis. ii. 4. 5) there is a
reference to Clement, which, if understood literally,
must imply that he was still alive; and he died
long before the beginning of the episcopate of
Pius (A.p. 140). Zahn (Der Hirt des Hermas, p.
70 ff. )and Salmon (art.‘ Hermas’? in Dict. of Christian
Biography), on the ground of this passage as well
as of features in the work which they think point
to an early age, suppose it to have been composed

While Lightfoot and Westcott treat
the allusion to Clement as part of the fictitious
setting of the work, and rely on the testimony of
the Muratorian fragment, Harnack endeavours to
reconcile in a measure the two views. Tle sup-
poses that the work, though all by one author,
was not all composed at one time, and that it was
finally put forth A.D. 140 (Chronol. i. p. 257 21.
As the Shepherd is a collection of revelations and
instructions given by an angelic guide, it would
not have been in character that it should contain
express quotations, and there are not any in it
from OT any more than from NT. But parallels

showing acquaintance with N’P writings are not
wanting. Sim. v. 2 appears to be an adaptation

of the parable of the Vineyard (Mk 12! ). In Sim.
ix. 12 we are rather forcibly reminded of Jn 10!
and 146, in ix. 16 of Jn 35, and in ix. 24 of Jn 115,

The Fragments of Papias.—TVhere cannot be any
very serious differences of opinion as to the approxi-
mate time at which Papias put forth the work from
which some few fragments have been preserved to
us. He had conversed with men of an older gene-
ration than his own who could give first-hand
information as to what the oral teaching of several
of the apostles was (Iuseb. 11. iil. 29). Iveneeus
(adv. Her. ν. 33. 4) seems to have been mistaken
in supposing that he had himself seen and heard
John the Evangelist (Kuseb. le.) ; but he may
have been a contemporary, if not an actual hearer,
of Aristion and ‘the Elder John,’ ‘disciples of the
Lord? (ib.). He must therefore have been born
before, most likely some few years before, the end
of the Ist cent. The time when he had oppor-
tunities of collecting the information referred to
may probably have been several years betore he
wrote the work of which Eusebius has given us an
account, largely in Papias’ own words. But at
latest the publication of this work cannot have
fallen much after A.D. 150, and may more reason-
ably be supposed to have taken place somewhat
earlier. When, further, we consider the character
of his work, we can have no hesitation in saying
that his testimony (so far as its general effect is
concerned) is to be connected with the first half of
the century.

The title itself of his work, Aoylwy κυριακῶν
ἐξηγήσεις, ‘Expositions of Dominical Oracles,’ is
interesting and important. In view of those habits
of thought of the time upon which we have already
commented, we may best take * Dominical Oracles ’
to mean passages of Our Lord’s teaching. These,
as is clear from his own language in the portion of
his prologue preserved to us by Eusebius, Papias
took from some documentary source or sources; but
for the illustration of them he availed himself of all
that he had been able to glean from independent
tradition. As Harnack observes, * he distinguishes
the matter orally delivered, even so far as it con-
tained portions of evangelical history, in a marked
manner from the matter which he expounds’
(Chronol. i. 690, n. 1). This fact, then, that
written records supplied the basis for his com-
ment, or the pegs on which he hung the more or
less trustworthy additional narratives or state-
ments that he had collected, lends special interest
to the inquiry whether he knew and used our
Gospels or any of them.

We need not hesitate to claim his account, which
he gives on the authority of ‘the Elder’—appar-
ently, from the context ἴῃ Eusebius, the Elder
John—-of the composition of a Gospel by Mark, as
referring to a work at least substantially the same
as our Second Gospel. It has been urged, indeed,
that the observation contained in this fragment,
whether it is the Elder’s or Papias’? own, that Mark
did not arrange his matter ‘in order,’ is not ap-
propriate to our Mark, which is not less orderly in

534 NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

point of arrangement than the other Gospels.
But this objection seems clearly unsubstantial,

criticism implied in Papias’? words may have been
simply a fanciful and mistaken one. Or, again,
Mark’s arrangement may have been assumed to be
wrong wherever it differed from that of either our

are connected with the names of those who were
followers of the Lord during His earthly life, which
Mark was not. Some comparison of this kind
seems to be implied in the words of Papias’ frag-
ment itself. (See, further, art. MARK, p. 244).
The questions as to the right interpretation of the
fragment of Papias (¢b.) on a writing by Matthew
are more serious. Critics of more than_one school
have seen in the words, Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν τὰ λόγια
συνεγράψατο. a description of a Collection of Dis-
courses and Sayings which has (it may be) been em-
bodied in our First: Gospel, but which was in many
respects a different work. Against this view it has
been urged that λόγια does not mean ‘discourses,’ bit

the term should have been applied to a writing of
the NT as such, so early as the time of Papias,
and still less of his informant, if this, as is prob-
able, was the same ‘Elder? whom he reports in
the case of Mark’s work. Nor could τὰ λόγια in
that sense have been suitably used of a single
Writing, thouzh it would be natural as a descrip-

ever, Which we are considering consists only of
one brief sentence ; we do not know what the econ-
text may have been. And whatever inferences it
may be fair to draw from Papias’ expressions as to
the history of the composition of our First Gospel,
We may gather that, at least when he wrote, a work
existed which was generally recognized as a Greek
representative of a Hebrew writing by the Apostle
Matthew. And it is hard to imagine that this
could have been any other work than that which a
generation later, or less, was certainly kuown in
the Church, as it is still, as the Gospel ace. to Mt.
A substitution of one book for another could not

Harnack, Chronol. i. p. 603). See, further, art.
MATTHEW (GOSPEL OF),

Eusebius makes the following statement at the
end of his section on Papias: ‘The same (writer)
has made use of testimonies from the former Ep. of
Jn and from that of Peter likewise. He has,
moreover, also set forth another narrative, con-
cerning a woman charged before the Lord with
many sins, which the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews
contains.’ Use of the First Ep. of Jn indirectly
affords evidence, as we have already had occasion
to remark, of the existence and circulation of the
Gospel according to John. It must not be assumed,

attributed these works to the apostle; but we
may at least feel sure that he said nothing plainly
inconsistent with this view of their authorship: if
he had done so, Eusebius could not have failed to
mention it, more especially as he was not in
sympathy with some of this writer’s opinions.
Something more as to Papias’ use of the Johan-
nine writings may, it would seem, be learned from
Irenieus. ‘The latter, in language that recalls
Papias’ prologue preserved in Eusebius, re-
peatedly adduces the testimony of ‘the elders’
who had seen and heard John, the disciple of the
Lord, or again, in another place, * who were dis-
ciples of apostles’; and when we examine the
passages in which he refers to them and quotes
their sayings, we find that their character is just
such as we might expect it to be if they were

a

First or (see below) our Fourth Gospel, which |

indeed, on the ground of this notice, that Papias

| : ,
derived from Papias’ Hregeses, in view, on the one

and is now generally admitted to be so. The.

‘oracles,’ and that in the NT itself it is applied |
to the OT. These arguinents, however, somewhat |

|

miss their mark. For it does not seem likely that. |

tion of the Lord’s teaching. The statement, how- "

hand, of its aim as described by the author him-
self, and of his chiliastic predilections [adv. Her.
v. 5. 1; 30.1; 58.4). In one of these places (y. 33.
4) Irenwus, after alluding to the elders, proceeds to
quote from Papias’ book by name. Now, among the
passages which may with probability be regarded
as extracts, more or less exact, from Papias, there
is one in which a saying of the Lord, recorded. in
Jn 14°, and not in any other Gospel, is quoted
and commented on (ade. Har. ν. 36.1); there is
another relating to the number of the Beast in the
Apocalypse (ih. 30.1).

To conclude; the evidence as to Papias, though
it is much more scanty than we should like, and
though it is in part obscure, tends to show that he
derived the ‘Oracles of the Lord,’ which he made
his starting-point, from our Gospels and not from
any other source, and that he knew at least the
Gospels ace, to Mt, Mk, and Jn.

The so-called Second Ep. of Clement.—Vhis work
is of considerable interest in connexion with the
history of the Canon, more especially as to the use
of Apoecryphal Gospels and the position aecorded
to them in relation to our Gospels. Its date is
consequently important. Hilgenteld (Nov. Test.
ertr, Can, p. xxxvill 1.) and Harnack ( Patres
alpostolici, pp. xei, xcil) took the view that it was
the Epistle sent by Soter to Corinth, ὁ. A.D. 170
(860. ΜῈ iv. 25). But since the recovery of this
work in an unmutilated form, through Bryennios?
discovery in 1875, it has become evident that it is
not a Letter at all but a Homily, and its identifica-
tion with the communication of Soter ought no
longer to be regarded as tenable (see Lightfoot,
Clem. Rom. ii. p. 194 ff.; Harnack, however, still
adheres to the identification, Chronol. i. pp.

. 410-150). The character of the work in general,

have been effected in so short a time. (Comp. |

|

it may be added, is favourable to an earlier date.
It may most reasonably be taken as illustrating
the state of things in respect to the recognition of
the New Testament Scriptures, ¢ A.D. 140; or
perhaps somewhat before this.

We will next briefly notice the recently recovered
Apology of Aristides, an example of a class of
Christian writings which has even given a name in
Church history to an age—that oecupying the
middle portion of the 2nd cent. This one appears
to have been addressed not as Eusebius says (HE
iv. 8) to Hadrian, but to Antoninus Pius (Emp.
158-161); but it probably belongs to the earlier
rather than the latter part of his reign (comp. J. R.
Harris, Verts and Studies, i. p. 8, and Harnack,
Chronol. i. pp. 271-275). The special character of
compositions of this kind, like that of others, and
even more than that of some others, must be
remembered in order that the effect of the evidence
supplied by them in regard to the Canon may be
fairly judged of. ‘The argument and purpose of
the greater part of the Apology of Aristides did
not afford opportunities for quoting from Christian
documents. It contains, however, one passage
Which illustrates in an interesting manner a time
of transition when memories of the oral delivery of
the Gospel were linked with a growing dependence
upon a written form of it. (See tr. of Syriac in
Terts und Studies, 1. i. p. 36).

We pass to the writings of afar greater ‘ apolo-
gist,” Justin Martyr, and we may confine our
attention to the three extant works bearing his
name, Which are by common consent admitted to
be genuine—his First and Second Apologies and
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Recent investi-
gatious, beginning with those of Volkmar, Theol.
Jahrb. von Baur κι. Zeller, 1855, and of Hort, Journ.
of Philol., 1857, have served to show that the
First Apology should be placed a little later than
it commonly used to be, and that the Second

ig ΄..- -------

NEW TESTAMENT CANON NEW TESTAMENT CANON 535
Apology was written soon after the First. The the Dialogue he is rapidly reviewing the facts,
Dialogue was written after the Apologies, but how | which was all that was required, in connexion with
long after cannot be determined. We shall not | an argument from the fulfilment of prophecy.

be far wrong if we say that all three writings were
composed ὦ A.D. 150. The Apologics were written
in Rome, as was also probably the Dialogue,
though it may be inferred from the latter (ὁ. 1.)
that Justin was teaching as a Christian philosopher
in Ephesus soon after Δ.}). 135. He was the most
eminent Christian of his generation, while he
writes, ποῦ as one who is putting forward his own
views, but who is representing and defending the
faith and practice of the Church ; and he well
knew what they were in at least two of its chief
centres.

Now, Justin twice in his First Apology and many
times in the Dialogue describes the main authori-
ties for the Life anl ‘Teaching of Christ as ‘the
Memoirs of the Apostles’? or simply ‘the Memoirs.’
We have to ask whether by this name he intended
at least principally our Gospels, whether he recog-
nized all these, and whether they held a place in
his estimation which no other accounts of the
whole or a portion of the Lord’s Life and ‘Teaching
shared. His use of the term itself just referred to
affords no ground for doubting that he has the
Gospels which we acknowledge in his mind. It is
probable that the name * Gospels? was only be-
ginning in that generation to be applied to the
writings which contained the Gospel even among
Christians. and he was addressing those who were
not Christians. It would be natural for him to
employ some term which would be to them more
easy of comprehension and more expressive. ‘The
course he adopts in this case has an exact parallel
in his treatment of other Christian terms, 6.0.
Baptism and the Eucharist (First Apol. Ἰχὶ, and
Ixvi.). In First Apol. Ixvi., after using the word
‘Memoirs,’ he adds, ‘ which are called Gospels.’
And this, it may be observed in passing, is the
earliest instance of the application of the name
‘Gospels’ to the books. Justin himself commonly
writes of ‘the Gospel’? in the manner which we
have observed to be customary in the writings of
his predecessors and elder contemporaries. ‘To pro-
ceed : in one place he characterizes ‘ the Memoirs’?
with special fulness as ‘composed by the Apostles
and those who followed them. The suitability of
this twofold description to our Gospels will be
noticed, and it gains in point from the circum-
stance that in the context he preserves one trait
which is peculiar to St. Luke’s account of the
Agony in the Garden (Dial. ciii.). In another place
he refers to a fact, mentioned only by St. Mark, as
contained in Peter’s Memoirs (see, further, below).
Again, he speaks of the doctrine of the Person of
Christ. which he defines in part in terms peculiar
to Jn, as derived from ‘the Memoirs.’ Further,
in five of the eases in which Justin distinctly
quotes from evangelic writings, using the formula
“γέγραπται, he agrees almost verbally with Mt or
Lk. (For these and for a discussion of the remain-
ing two, comp. Westeott, Canon, Ὁ. 130 ff., and
Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, Ὁ. 88 tf).

For the most part, however, Justin does not
adhere closely to the words of any one evangelist
in his accounts of and references to the facts of the
Lord’s Life and His Teaching. He gives the sub-
stance of their narratives, and to a certain extent
combines what is found in different Gospels. In
doing this he acted in accordance with the very
natural tendency of which we have already seen
examples in early Christian writings. Moreover,
it is quite obviously his purpose in a considerable
portion of his First Apology to give a summary of
the evangelic history and of some chief points in
Christ’s teaching for the enlightenment of heathen
readers. And not less obviously in a large part of

| our Gospels.

|

This being so, it was to be expected that he should
avail himself now of one, now of another Gospel,
and should be satistied with giving what he con-
eeived to be their general meaning and purport.
With the object he had in view, he would often find
it sufficient to rely upon his memory of their narra-
tives. And, indeed, even his quotations from the OT
are marked to a considerable extent by the same
characteristics of combination and compression,
and want of minute accuracy. Nevertheless, the
general character of the representation which
Justin gives of the evangelic history, and which
he derives, as he repeatedly indicates, from records
which were acknowledged in the Church to have
apostolic authority—its contents, with compara-
tively slight exceptions, its main outline, the style
of the language, and many of the actual words—
are those of our Gospels. The features of the
Synoptics are, indeed, more fully and directly
reproduced than those of the Fourth Gospel,
though there are striking coincidences with special
points in it also; while it is most natural to sup-
pose that the conception of Christ as the Logos,
which holds a prominent place in Justin’s works,
was derived by him trom the same source, although
he develops it in part in his own way, in accord-
ance with philosophical ideas that were familiar
to him.

In his summaries of or allusions to the Gospel
history, Justin introduces a limited amount of
matter—a certain number of touches and incidents
— not found in our Gospels. From the presence of
this element it has been argued that he did not use
But to reason thus is to defy every
principle of sound criticism. For there is no
evidence that any other work or works existed
which could have supplied him with the bulk of
his facts about the life and teaching of Christ,
together with the language in which he relates
them, besides our Gospels. Moreover, that these
were already in existence, and that he must have
had opportunities of becoming acquainted with
them, is certain, as will more clearly appear from
facts to be considered presently. It is now. indeed.
admitted by eritics of more than one school that

the first three Gospels ranked among Justin's
principal authorities, and that the fourth was

known to him. The chief questions still sub lite
are (@) to what extent he used other records in
addition to our canonical ones, and whether he
regarded any of them as possessed of apostolic
authority ; and (Ὁ) whether there was a difference
between his attitude to the Fourth Gospel and the
Synoptics.

(a) ‘The question of the source or sources whence
Justin drew what we may for convenience briefly
call the ‘apocryphal? matter in his accounts of the
Gospel history has received new and special interest
from the recovery, since 1802, of ἃ fragment of the
so-called * Gospel of Peter’? (see The Adhinim Fraq-
ment, or the Apoeryphal Gospel of St. Peter, by
H. B. Swete). In some points in which Justin
diverges from the canonical Gospels he is found to
coincide with’ ‘Peter... The importance of the
inquiry whether Justin used ‘Peter? is ereatly
increased by the fact that, if he did, it must in all
probability have been the work which he describes
as ‘Peter's Memoirs’ (Dial. evi.j), and he must
have given it an equal, if not a pre-eminent, place
among the authorities for the Gospel history. “The
use of ‘ Peter’? by Justin is maintained by Harnack
(Bruchstiick des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse
des Petrus, 2nd ed. p. 37 ff.), and is accepted by
Sanday (aspiration, pp. 305, 510) ; bat against it,
see Swete, lc. pp. Xxxili-xxxv. Swete’s arguinent

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

536

may also be greatly strengthened by observing the
contrasts between Justin and ‘ Peter.’
that the former has been but slightly influenced
by the latter on the whole, and it is difficult. to
understand how, if he knew the book and regarded
it as the work of the chief of the apostles, which
it claims to be, his use of it should have been so
limited.

In Justin’s age information concerning the
Gospel history was gleaned not only from. tradi-
tion, but also from documents other than our
Gospels, less unsuspectingly than came to be the
case a generation or so later. We have seen an

exainple of this in the so-called Second Ep. of

Clement ; we learn also from Eusebius (HE iv. 22)
that Hevesippus, the contemporary of Justin, made
some quotations from the Gospel according to
the Hebrews. Justin’s practice illustrates the same
attitude of mind. With the matter supplied by our
Gospels, he weaves in traits which he has probably
derived from such sources, though we are unable
to say from which of them he obtained most, or
whether indeed he made special use of any one,
There is, however, no reason to think that any
work of the nature of a Gospel, other than ours,
held practically the same position as they did for
Justin, or for the Church of his time.

(4) Some critics who admit the cogency of the
evidence that Justin was acquainted with the
Fourth Gospel, yet maintain that he clearly did
not place it on the same level as the Synoptics (see
Keim, Jesus of Naz. i. p. 186 ff.; Holtzmann, Μη.
p. 479).
that he makes more sparing use of it. But there
was good reason for this difference. In view of
the persons addressed both in the Apology and in
the Dialogue, and also the tenor of the arguments
in these works, it was natural that he should have
fewer quotations from and parallels with it) than
the others.

Before leaving this quarter of the century we
must touch upon the question of the use of the
Gospels by Gnostic heretics.
shall be taken back even to the earlier part of the
time. It has, however, been reserved _ till this
point, both on account of the different relation to
the Christian faith of the persons to be considered,
and because the evidence is of a more indirect
kine.

Basileides had begun to teach at Alexandria in
the reign of Hadrian. He was the author of a
work in 24 books entitled Expositions of the Gospel,
from which we have a few extracts in extant
works of Clem. Alex. One of these seems like a
portion of a comment on a passage of Mt. There
are two others, which may be comments on sayings
of our Lord taken from Lk and Jn respectively
(Zahn, Kanon, i. pp. 766, 107}
coming to any fuller conclusion as to the use of
the Gospels by Basileides must depend on the
estimate formed of the account of Basileides
aid his school given by Hippolytus, and of the
citations which it includes. Some have supposed
Hippolytus to have been misled when he took the
work trom which he quotes as a product even of
the school of Basileides (¢.y. Zahn, tb. 765). But
the result of a comparison with the extracts in
Clem. Alex. is strongly in favour of the view that
the treatise used by Hippolytus gave a genuine
exposition of Basileidean doctrine (see Hort’s art,
‘ Basileides’ in Dict. of Christian Biog.). Whether
it was the Exegetica or some other work is more
questionable. That the quotations are from Basil-
eides himself, at least in some cases, and those the
most important for our present purpose, is the
Most natural view of Hippolytus’ language (cf.
Westcott, Canon, Ὁ. 297 ὦ. and Hort, ¢.). The
theories expounded bear the marks of

The only ground for supposing this is |

In discussing it we

It is certain |

| Basileides, need not now detain

The possibility of |

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

physical power ; and if the writer from whom they
are taken, partly in his own words, was not Basil-
eides himself, he may probably have been Isidore,
Basileides’ eminent son and disciple, whom Hip-
polytus names along with his father. Even in this
case we should have to do here with a writing com-
posed not much later than, if so late as, the middle
of the 2nd cent. It undoubtedly appeals to the
Fourth Gospel as to an authority (Hippol. Her.
vil, 22),

Valentinus, who was a younger contemporary of
us. We know
nothing of the employment he made of books of
the NT, except as it may be inferred from the
practice of his school in the next generation,

On the other hand, of the treatment of the NT
Scriptures by Marcion, who flourished δ. A.D. 140,
we know much from Tertullian’s Contra Marcionem.
Beyond all reasonable doubt, the Gospel which he
made for himself and his sect was a mutilated form
of Lk. And it may be observed that. in select-
ing it, even though he found it necessary thus to
adapt it to his own purpose, he did homage to the
authority which it had acquired. An examina-
tion of the peculiarities of the tert used by Marcion
seems also to show that the text of the Gospel had
already in his generation a history (see Sanday,
Gospels in Second Cent. p. 231 1).

From aman and his Writings we turn to a move-
ment. Montanism arose in Phrygia not long after
the middle, and it spread remarkably during the
remainder, of the 2nd cent. ; it found tendencies
and needs favourable to it in various parts of the
Chureh. In the present connexion it is important
only from the fact that its insistence on the promise
of the coming of the Spirit, designated as the
Paraclete, is a sign of the influence of the Gospel
according to John,

(2) Other writings of NT.—A few points only
need be noticed. We learn from Tertullian’s
treatise against Marcion that this heretic acknow-
ledged 10 Epp. of St. Paul. It was natural, and
yet important as a step in the formation οἵ the
Canon, that the Epp. of this great apostle should
be regarded collcetively, and we have in Marcion’s
case the first clear sign of such a view of them.
There is, it may be added, no reason to think that
Marcion in rejecting, as he did, the 3 Pastoral
Epp. was actuated by any other motive than a
dogmatic one.

In a passage of Justin we have a noteworthy
instance of another kind —the earliest reference by
name toa NT writing. The work so cited is the
Apocalypse, its authorship by John the Apostle
being mentioned (Dial. lxxxi.).

For the rest, it will suftice under this head to
notice parallelisms which are striking, and which
preve the use of writings not otherwise abundantly
attested. Those in Hermas with Ep. of James are
specially remarkable (Hermas, Vis. Uf. 1]. 7, 1V. ii.
6; M, i. 3..4,.¥i, 7, vith. 10,4m, 4. ear, eS
vi. 3; Sim. Vi. 1, VIIL vi. 4). Again, those with
Acts in Justin seem clear (Apol. i. 40; Dial. xvi. and
lii.). The statement, which we have already had
occasion to refer to, may also here be recalled, that
Papias ‘made use of testimonies from the former
Ep. of Jn, and likewise from that of Peter’ (Eus.
HB iii. 39).

ii, THIRD QUARTER OF SECOND CENTCRY.—
(1) Gospels. — Tatian. —Through a succession of
remarkable literary discoveries in recent years con-
troversy has practically been closed in respect to the
general character of Tatian’s Diatessaron. We may
not fully have recovered its original form, but it can
no longer be seriously doubted that substantially
it was a harmony of our Four Gospels (see Zahn,
Horsch. Pied, Ades. a. pp. 387-422. i: 530-556 ;

great meta- | Lightft., Essays on Sup. Rel., 1889, pp. 272-288 ;

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NEW TESTAMENT CANON Dot

S. Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian; and Hill,
The Earliest Gospel Harmony).

In more than one respect Tatian is a valuable |

link between the middle and the last quarter of
the century, supplying evidence in regard to the
history of the Canon for a period, the remains of
which are specially seanty. His Diatessaron, while
it is an example of the working of that tendency
to dwell on the common result of the testimony of
different witnesses, which we have seen to be
characteristic of the first two or three generations,
is also the first distinet indication of the fact, which
isso emphatically asserted a little later, that there
were four records whose authority was unique.

(2) His Apology shows traces of acquaintance
with various writings of the NT, but tor the most
part there is in it the absence of express citation
which is commonly to be observed in works of the
same class. In one place, however, some words
from the prologue to Jn are introduced as ‘ that
which has been said * (xiii. ).

ἵν: ΜΝ LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND
CENTURY AND BEGINNING OF THE THIRD.—
The point of transition to the last quarter of the
2nd cent. will be the most convenient opportunity
for considering the impugners of St. John’s writ-
ings, commonly called the Alogi. The evidence
which has so far come before us, if it is in any
respects unfavourable to the authenticity of any
NT writings, is so by way of defect. Even such a
writer as Marcion appears mainly as a witness for
the Canon, We have now, however. to notice a
body of persons who are specially characterized by
their refusal to acknowledge one group of writings
—those attributed to St. John.

Much attention has of late been directed to this
phenomenon. It has been discussed in particular
from. opposite points of view by Zahn (Man. i.
pp. 220-262) and Harnack (NT um d. J. 200, pp.
58-70, and Chronol. i. pp. 670, 671) ; see also Light-
foot (Clem. Rom. ii. p. 394) and Sanday (/nspiration,
δι 14 f.). The chief documents are Iren. IIT, xi. 12
(which refers only to the rejection of the Gospel) ;
Epiph. Heer. li. ; and Philaster, lx. The value of
the last two is that in all probability they derive
their information from a lost work of Hippolytus.
It is not, however, altogether easy to distinguish
the conjectures of Epiphanius, and his disquisitions
on points that interested him, from the matter
which he took from his authority, while Philaster’s
notice is very brief.

The motive for these opinions was primarily
dogmatic, not critical, though those who held them
sought to strengthen their case by pointing out
differences between the Fourth Gospel and the
Synoptics, and by strictures upon the imagery of
the Apocalypse (see Epiph. U.c.). It was >in order
to frustrate the gifts of the Spirit,’ Irenaeus tells us,
that ‘some do not admit that form of the Gospel
which is according to John, in which the Lord
promised that He would send the Paraclete.?. One
kind of extravagance begets another. Because the
Montanists appealed to Jn 14-16 in urging their
wild views and preposterous claims, these others
were for denying the authority of that Gospel itself.
Again, the Montanists and many other Christians
in the 2nd cent. were millenarians, and supported
their materialistic notions by a literal interpreta-
tion of the Apocalypse. Consequently. those who
were repelled by millenarianisin were tempted to
call the authenticity of that work in question.
The theory of the Alogi, that Cerinthus was the
author of the Johannine writings, must have been
suggested first in the case of the Apocalypse, and
extended to the Gospel; for while. according to
the best information which we possess, Cerinthus
was a millenarian, his Christology had nothing
in common with that of the Fourth Gospel. Thus

the rejection of the one work was, in part at least,
associated with that of the other ; in part, however,
the attack on the Apocalypse was more widely
spread, and had more lasting effects (cf. Hus. Hk
ili. 28. and ‘vii. 25).

The name Alogi seems to have been Epiph-
anius’? invention. He gave it both as a jest and
to betoken their refusal to accept the Gospel which
contained the doctrine of the Logos. Whether
they in reality objected to this doctrine, or this
was simply Epiphanius’ inference, is not clear.
But if they did, they might here again find a
common ground of opposition both to the Fourth
Gospel and the Apocalypse.

It should be observed that the Alogi, by their
association of the Gospel according to John and the
Apocalypse in a common condemnation, and the
attribution of them both to Cerinthus, are witnesses
to the tradition, that both were by the same
author, and that, in assigning them to a heretic
who was contemporary with St. John, they are
also witnesses to their antiquity.

Harnack lays special stress on the fact that the
Alogi were not visibly separated from the Church,
and apparently did not intend to depart from the
Christian faith. Δοκοῦσι καὶ αὐτοί. says Epiphanius,
τὰ ἴσα ἡμῖν πιστεύειν (1c. 4). Yet the agreement
of which he speaks seems to be only relative. He
is comparing their position with that of more pro-
nounced heretics, such as the Gnostics. Further,
it is to be remembered that the machinery did
not exist in the 2nd cent., which there came to
be in the Church of after-times, for passing judg-
ment on erroneous opinions. And, moreover, there
is no reason to suppose that the number of those
who rejected the most important work at least,
the Gospel, was considerable, and it is certain that
they produced no lasting impression.

At the same time, the instance of the Alogi illus-
trates a stage in the reception of the NT Scriptures.
It shows that beliefs which this party opposed
had not yet obtained that firm hold upon the
minds of all which only clear definition and a
prescription of many generations can give. But
that these beliefs were neither of recent growth
nor limited to a narrow area, we plainly see from
the works of the age we have now reached which
have come down to us.

Among the earliest is the treatise of Theophilus,
bishop of Antioch, which is in the form of a
vindication of the Christian faith, addressed to a
philosophic heathen friend. He dwells upon the
inspiration of the apostles. With the Holy Serip-
tures, ie. the OT, still best known by this title,
he couples ‘all the inspired men? {(πνευματοφόροι),
expressly mentioning John. He quotes Jn 1)
as from ‘the apostle’ (ad Autol. ii, 22, and
οἷ" ὃ. ix 10). Im: liek? he-:enenks: cof othe
Gospels’ in the plural, and asserts that the con-
tents of the Prophets and the Gospels are in
harmony with the law, ‘because all the inspired
men spoke by one Spirit of God.’ Again (ἰδ. 15),
after citing a passage of OT he refers to + the still
more urgent injunction of the Evangelic Voice.’
and quotes Mt 528-2; and he compares the Gospel
with Isaiah, quoting Mt 54 οὐδὲ 14).

We may here suitably refer to the Ep. ad
Dioynetum, a work of similar aim, the birthplace
and date of which cannot be fixed with certainty,
but which may with most probability be assigned
το πόσις: the sane tine. Tur ce xa. “the =water
enumerates ‘ the fear of the Jaw,’ + the grace of the
prophets,” ‘the faith of the Gospels,’ ‘the tradition
of the Apostles.’

It is, however, when we pass to writings of a
different class, designed for the refutation of heresy
or the instruction of the faithful in the Christian
life and creed, to Irenwus (adv. Hwr., composed

D388 NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

before A.D. 190), and the works of Tertullian and
Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus, composed
near the end of the 2nd and beginning of the
3rd cent., that for the first time, in place of the
partial gleams afforded by the remains of former
generations, we have a flood of light upon the

thought and practice of the Church. We must
review the evidence as to the position of the

writings of the NT in the generation we have now
reached, and consider what inferences may be
drawn therefrom as to their reception.

(1) Writings ahose place in the Canon was al-
ready at and from this time fully secured.—The
express statements of the eminent writers just
named, and their ordinary assumptions, leave no
doubt as to the inspired authority attributed to
by far the larger part of our NT in the important
Churches of which they were members, or with
which they were well acquainted and maintained
active relations. In common they recognize (a) our
four Gospels, and none besides; (8) 18 Epp. of
Paul, ie. all which bear his name in our NT,
except. ,that-to- Heb. -(y) the! Acts, 1 2) 1 Jn,
These form also the class called afterwards by
Eusebius * acknowledged writings.’

(a) Remarks as to the area from which this
evidence comes.—It may have been observed that
hitherto we have been almost exclusively con-
cerned with the faith and usage of Greek-speaking
Christians, and that we are so mainly still. By the
mention of Tertullian the fact is for the first time
brought before us of the hold that Christianity
had obtained, comparatively recently, at the epoch
of which we are speaking, among a Latin-speak-
ing people. In Rome itself, alike in the Ist cent.
and throughout the 2nd, the Church was mainly
Greek. It may be well here to point out the
special advantages belonging to the Greek-speaking
Christians of the first few generations, as witnesses
in regard to the NT writings. Not only are we
best acquainted with the expansion of the Church
to the west, north, and north-west of Jerusalem,
through Greck-speaking cities, but to all appear-
ance that was by far the greatest expansion in
apostolic times. Here lay the scenes of St. Paul’s
labours, with which his Epistles and the Acts have
rendered us familiar, More dimly we = see_ the
figures of several of the Twelve, including St. Peter
and St. John, moving and working in these same
regions, When they voluntarily left or were driven
from their home. It was in consequence of the
spread of the gospel among populations whose
ordinary language was Greek, to meet the needs
of converts made from them, that all the writings
of the NT came-into existence. This is true even of
the First Gospel in the form in which we have it.

Here and there some other Christian writing
may in early days have won a position similar to
that of the books received as canonical. We
may have an example of this in the Gospel accord-
ing to the Egyptians. But special circumstances
of language and locality so well account for this
in an outlying district, that such an instance does
not detract from the force of the testimony of
other parts of the Church.

It seems strange, however, at first sight that the
Christians of Palestine and of the Aramaic-speak-
ing East should have received the NT writings
from the West, with one probable exception—the
Ep, of Jamés. Yet such was the fact. The
Hebrew Christian community at Jerusalem was
virtually broken up by the siege and capture of the
city, A.D. 69-70. After the suppression of Bar-
cochba’s revolt (A.D. 185) a Greek Church arose
there. In other sparts of
Christian Church had to contend, during the latter
part of the Ist and earlier part of the 2nd cent.,
with a strong Jewish reaction. What progress

Palestine the Hebrew.

the gospel made beyond Jordan to the east and
north-east, through the labours of any of the
Twelve, or the preaching and example of more
ordinary Christians who fled from Palestine when
Jerusalem fell, and to what extent the Christians
of those districts in the 2nd cent. may thus have
traced their lineage to the Church οὐ apostolic
days, and have cherished its traditions, it may be
impossible to discover. But “his at least may be
said: we hear of no work written in Hebrew or
Aramaic by an apostle, or immediate companion
and follower of the apostles, except the one
attributed to St. Matthew. The Gospel according
to the Hebrews may have embodied this work,
and doubtless contained traditions that had been
current among Hebrew Christians; but it would
seem not to have been preserved long in an un-
corrupted form, and it is noteworthy that it
obtained no enduring authority even in the East.

As regards the history of the Canon of the
Syrian Church, it may suffice here to allude to the
strange hold which Tatian’s Diatessaron obtained
there. It was popularly used as a substitute for
the Gospels, to the neglect of the reading of them
in public worship—an abuse which had to be
dealt with by authority as late as the Sth cent.
But such a fact is of importance as throwing light
upon the history of that Church generally, not as
bearing on the authenticity of the Gospels. [The
subject of the history of the Canon in the Syrian
Church is a very obscure one: for discussions of it
see especially Zahn, Avan. i. ec. 8, and Harnack’s
criticism thereupon in Δ΄ 7᾽ wm 200, ὃ 10.)

Primarily, then, in dealing with the history of
the Canon of NT, we have to fix our thoughts upon
Greek-speaking Christendom, though we may now
join thereto the Christians of the Roman province
of N. Africa, who were far more closely bound up
with it than the Christians of the East were.
Tertullian is fully aware that he and the other
Christians of his portion of the Church, who were
but ‘of yesterday,’ had simply received the faith
and its documents from more ancient Churches.
It was probably here that a translation of the NT
into Latin was first made, and expressions used
by ‘Tertullian have been commonly thought to
show that one already existed in his time. But if,
as Zahn has argued (Avan. i. 48-60), the task was
not accomplished till later, though before the
middle of the 8rd cent., it was not for want of
recognizing the value and authority of the writings
held to be apostolic. Tertullian’s works certainly
prove this. It is not material, therefore, for our
present purpose to decide exactly when a Latin
version was first made.

Now, although there are some Churches of note
as to which we have no direct information for the
period in question, even within that portion of
Christendom the bounds of which we have indi-
cated, we are justified in assuming that throughout
the whole of it there was substantial agreemcnt
as to the sacred writings of the New Dispensation,
to the extent to which it is found in the writers
whose works have come down to us from that
time. In view both of the eminence of those men
and their wide knowledge of the Church, and the
intercourse which existed between different parts
of it within the area described, there could hardly
have been any considerable divergences on serious
points which have remained concealed. — It is to be
added that, even for those regions within the limits
defined—in particular the Greek Churches of Syria
and of the central and eastern parts of Asia
Minor—as to which evidence is lacking at this
epoch, it is forthcoming shortly afterwards, and
there is not a trace of any doubts in regard to the
books above enumerated.

To the close of the 2nd cent. or first years of the

a ae

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NEW TESTAMENT CANON 539

8rd belongs most likely the earliest actual list of
the writings of NT which we possess. It is called
after Murator?, its discoverer. It has now been
rendered highly probable that it was the work of
Hippolytus. [On the Muratorian fragment see
esp. Zahn, Wan. ii. 1-143, and Lightfoot, Clem.
Rom. ii. 405-413.] Though the earliest list of the
kind that has come down to us, it may not have
been the earliest made. Melito, bishop of Sardis
(ὁ. A.D. 170), in a fragment which Eusebius has
preserved (//F iv. 26), gives a list of ‘the books of
the Old Covenant,’ and the phrase seems naturally
to suggest. by contrast the existence of a list of the
books of the New. Further, at the time we have
reached, the name of ‘Scriptures’ is given to the
new sacred books equally with the old (see Tren.
adv. Her. ii. 58. 3). And a conception has been
formed of a NT, as a collection of books which
made a companion to the OT, and the name even
of ‘Testament’ is so applied in Clem. Alex. and
Tertullian [Clem. Strom. v.85; Tertull. de Pudic.
1}. ‘Tertullian also employs the word
mentum,’ or in the pl. ‘instrumenta’ (1.6. + the
document’? or ‘the doctunents’), considering it
more expressive. It should be observed that such
a conception was found possible, although the
contents of the collection of writings had not been
in all respects certainly determined.

The usage of heretics confirms what is known as
to that of the Church. The Valentinians were but

| the evangelic testimony.
‘instru- |

the most numerous and widely spread Gnostic |

sect. Valentinus, according to Tertullian, used
‘a complete Instrument,’ which must be taken
to mean all the books of Seripture which Tertul-
lian himself acknowledged (Preser. Hur. ὁ. 38).
Whether the remark was true or not of the founder
of the school himself, it was so undoubtedly of the
Valentinians in the last quarter of the 2nd cent.,

‘has taken place may easily be exaggerated,

as may be gathered from Irenzeus’ treatise, as well —

as from Tertullian. It answered their purpose best

to aecept the NT Scriptures acknowledged in the —

Church, and to make them the vehicle of their
own tenets by means of allegorical interpretation.
(b) The inferences that may be drawn as to the
previous history of the reception of these writings
in the Church—In estimating the force οὐ the

evidence in this respect, it will be desirable to |

distinguish between the value of the personal

reminiscences of individual writers in regard to |

traditions about the books of the NT, and
significance of the general belief of the Church.
The testimony of individuals, founded on what
they themselves remembered, might be of great
weight. That of Ireneus is so in particular. ‘Too
much stress may sometimes have been laid upon it.
Possibly his opportunities for knowing the mind
and teaching of Polyearp may have been rather
more restricted than they have been assumed to
be by some ; and he may have known no other man,
besides, belonging to the generation which actually
overlapped that of the apostles. But he certainly
knew other Asiatic Christians older than himself,

the |
of eminent Churches.

| would be silently followed.

who must have been acquainted as he was, or |
better than he was, with the testimony both of |

Polycarp and of contemporaries of Polycarp, who
had passed away before him. With such oppor-
tunities for correcting his own impressions, it is
hardly possible that he should haVe been at fault
as to simple facts which he believed that he re-
membered. It is therefore altogether unreason-
able to suppose, as Harnack does, that, in spite
of his very distinct statement as to Polycarp’s
reminiscences of John the Apostle, he is in his
own memory making a confusion with another
John. [Comp. Harn. Chronol. i, p. 385 4f, with
Gwatkin’s answer in Contemp. Review, Feb. 1897,
and Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. el. pp. 96 f., 265. |

But the position which the greater part of the

| The

writings of the NT held in the last two or three
decades of the 2nd cent. in the common view of
the chief Churches of Christendom, and approxi-
mately, at least, of the Church throughout the
Roman Empire, @.e. of by far the larger part of
the Church, is a more remarkable fact than any
recollections, however clear, of particular men
could be. In certain respects there has come a
change in the manner of regarding these writings
since the middle, not to say the beginning, of the
eentury. The line of distinction is more sharply
drawn than before it was, between the writings
which could be rightly reckoned apostolic and all

others. Controversy with Gnosticism had had its
effect. Writings of more or less decidedly heretical

tendencies had been put forth under the names
of apostles. The Church was compelled to be
watchful. A certain vividness and emphasis may
also be noticed in the manner in which Treneus,
for instance, asserts the fourfold completeness of
The perception of the
unigueness of the four records has been rendered
more precise, and with this there has also come a
fuller sense of the distinct value of the contri-
buticn made by each, and of the richness of their
harmony when combined. And as the notion of a
Canon of NT Seriptures is becoming more definite
(the name is not used), the authority of those
books, which were beyond question and on all
hands allowed to have a right to a place in it, is
enhanced. But the amount of the change that
The
appearance of abrupthess which it has, when we
compare earlier documents with the works of this
time, is certainly due to our want of information.
voice of the Church at the end of the 2nd
cent. in respect to the writings of the NT is simply
the full utterance of a conviction which has long
been virtually held. Irenveus so evidently believes
himself to be defending the immemorial faith and
tradition of the Church, that he could not have
been conscious of any alteration, within his own
experience, in such an important matter as the
apostolic authority attributed to the chief NT
writings. Moreover, such a hold as they had
manifestly obtained could not, in the nature of
things, have been acquired recently and at a bound
in that generation,

We have seen how large a measure of agreement
there was upon the subject on the part of a number
Putting aside that of N,
Africa, which was of later origin than the rest,
these were all founded in the Apostolic Age itseif,
with the possible exception of Alexandria, which
must have arisen at least in the generation im-
mediately following. And though these Churches
are all situated within the Greco-Roman world,
they exhibit widely different characteristics and
thorough independence. No one of them could
dictate to the rest; no one of them exercised over
the rest an influence so dominant that its example
Rome would not have
readily yielded to Asia Minor, nor Asia Minor to
Rome, on such a matter as the Seriptures which
they had been accustomed to acknowledge ; nor
would either of these have yielded to Antioch or

Alexandria. Nor was unanimity brought about
through discussions and conferences. Differences

on other subjects appear and are debated, but not
on this. It should) be observed, also, that the
authority which the writings of the NT possessed
Was not based, as we in our day might be inclined
to imagine, on a judgement of the Church, either
formal or implied, as to their surpassing moral
and spiritual power, their inspiration, It rested
on the belief that the writines in question were
authentic embodiments of the witness and teaching
of the apostles. ‘This was the point testified to by

540 NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

a number of independent and mutually confirma-
tory lines of tradition, maintained in communities
which were bound by strong sanctions to be faithful
to that which they had received from the past.
These communities, too, had a continuous cor-
porate life that reached back to the first age of the
Church, or its confines; and at the time we are
considering they were still separated from it only
by two or three generations. It is dificult to
imagine that a belief thus guaranteed could have
been substantially erroneous. even though it does
not become apparent to us in its full strength for
a century atter the death of most of the apostles.
And the more indirect indications from the inter-
vening generations, though they are, owing to
various causes, less distinet than we could wish,
make for the same conclusion.

(2) Writings whose position continued to be for a
time doubtful.—Betore this epoch is left, a few
words must be said on the amount of recognition
then in divers quarters accorded to other writings,

besides those above mentioned, which (@) were |

eventually included in the NT, as well as to some
which (4) did not obtain a place there,

(@) And first as to the Apocalypse. So far as
the sources of evidence which come before us up
to the beginning of the 3rd cent. are concerned,
there would be no sufficient ground for placing it
in a different category from those whose position
was already fully assured. Ireneeus, Tertullian,
Clement, Hippolytus, all regarded it as a genuine
work of the Apostle John, and Can. Mur, includes
it as such. It continued, moreover, always to be
recognized as Scripture in the Western Church,
and on the whole this seems to have been the view
throughout of the Church of Alexandria.
know, however, that at a later time it was not
received as canonical in Syria and Asia Minor,
and this so generally as to point to a long-stand-
ing difference of usage in those regions, though
from what cause the difference arose we do not
know. In this respect chiefly the testimony to it
differs from that to the writings ealled *acknow-
ledged.’

Of two other of the writings which for a time

were not reckoned in this class, it may likewise |

be said that they deserve to be so on the evidence
afforded at the period now under review. considered
by itself—2z2 Jn and Ep. of Jude.

Ireneus twice cites words from the former as
John’s (adv. Hier. i. 9.55 iti, 17. 8), though in one
case he seems to confuse the 2nd with the Ist Ep.
The Mur. Can. recognizes 2 Epps. of John, and
Clem. Al. (Strom. ii. 66) speaks of John’s + greater
Kp.,’ plainly implying that he knows of at least one
other. It may seem strange to us that if the 2nd

Ip. was acknowledged, the 3rd, which bears marks |

of the same authorship, should not have been so
with equal distinetness. But the address of the
former to ‘the Elect Lady.’ which may have been
understood as a symbolical name for the Chureh,
may account for this. We may gather from the
language of Mur. Can. respecting the number of
the Churches to which St. Paul’s Epp. are written,
ete., that ‘catholicity ’
tion in determining the authority to be attributed
to writings by the Church, as well as apostolicity
of origin.

The Ep. of Jude is not quoted by Ireneus, but
this may be accidental. It is included in Can,
Mur., and Clement commented on it. Tertullian
also quotes it as apostolie.

We turn now to the interesting subject of the
light in which the Ep. to the Hebrevws was regarded.
The signs of its use in Clem. Rom. have been
referred to ; but its position remained ambiguous
owing to uncertainty as to its authorship. This is
strikingly illustrated by Tertullian’s language (de

Pudicitia, 20). We attributes it to Barnabas, a
companion of apostles, and one who had even
borne in a certain sense the title of an apostle.
Yet, evidently, even while Tertullian sets a high
value upon the Epistle, he does not esteem it in
the way that he would have done if he had believed
it to be by St. Paul himself. Similar considera-
tions, no doubt, influenced others. They read,
and were willing to profit by, the Epistle, but
shrank from claiming for it full apostolic authority.
Treneus nowhere appeals to it as Scripture in any
writing of his which we possess, and it is not
included in the Muratorian list. On the other
hand, it would seem to have been very highly
appreciated at Alexandria, and Clement of Alex-
andria asserted its Pauline authorship, while he
explained the differences between its style and
that of his other Epp., and its similarity to that of
the Acts, by conjecturing that Luke translated it
(ap. Euseb. ITF vi. 14).

Of use of the Ep. of James—it we are to put
aside, as it appears we should (see Westeott, Canon,
pp. 362, 563), a statement of Cassiodorus in regard
to Clem, Alex.’s lost J/ypotyposes—there is no sign
till the next period, beyond those parallelisms in
Hermas which have been noticed. There are also
no clear traces of 2 Peter or 3 John.

(Δ) We pass to writings which were for a time
candidates, so to speak, for admission, but which
were ultimately rejected. With the Apocalpyse of
John the Mur. Can. couples that of Peter, though

| it adds in respect to the latter that some Christians

/ were against having it «read in church.’

In other

| quarters it would seem the Lp. of Clem. Rom., the

We |

Ϊ

of address was ἃ considera- |

Pastor of Hermas, and the Hp. of Barnabas were
read as works of special authority, on the ground,
which was true in the case of the first-named only,
that they were by companions or personal disciples
of the apostles. At some time, also, the 2nd Ep.
of Clem. (so called) was joined with the Ist in the
same honour.

But it is difficult to determine exactly the
relation of these writings to the Canon, from our
want of knowledge as to the principles on which
the practice of public readirg in the assemblies
was regulated. Undoubtedly, the selection of the
books which might be read publicly played a part
in the formation of the Canon, and in impressing
the idea of the sacredness and authority of the
books so used upon the minds of Christians. But
it is not to be supposed that the significance of the
public reading was the same, or that the rules for
it were conceived in the same spirit, everywhere
and always (see art. CANON in vol. i. Ὁ. 349»),
From the mere fact, therefore, that a particular
work appears to have been read in certain Churches,
it is not safe to infer that even in these Churches
it was regarded as possessing the fullest inspired
authority.

B. SEGOND: PERIOD, Ὁ. A, Di 220-323)——Theanost
important fact of this period is the work and the
influence of Origen. Their results cannot be
measured with precision; but the effeet of his
labours—alike as a thinker bent on the compre-
hensive ascertainment of Christian truth and as a
textual critic of, and commentator and homilist
upon, Holy Scripture, coupled as they were with a
wide knowledge of the practice of different parts
of the Church—must necessarily have been great
in promoting the settlement of the Canon of NT.
And his teaching was perpetuated and spread by
many scholars, e.g. by his successors in the school
of Alexandria, by Pamphilus, who preserved it at
Cesarea, and Gregory Thaumaturgus, who carried
it into the heart of Asia Minor.

The testimony of Origen confirms the evidence
of the preceding period—within which, indeed, half
his lite fell (A.D. 186-255) —as to the writings about

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NEW TESTAMENT CANON D4]

which there was practically universal agreement
in the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking Church.
He accepts all that have been enumerated under
this head, on the authority of the Church’s tradi-
tion, and also the Apocalypse (5. 11 vi. 25).

Passing to the remaining writings of NT, we
may first note as of special significance his position,
which resembles that of Clement, in regard to the
Kip. to the Hebrews. He points out the difference
of style between it and the unquestioned writ-
ings of St. Paul, but adds that ‘the thoughts
are wonderful and not second to the acknowledged
apostolic writings’; and he gives it as his own
opinion that ‘the thoughts are the apostle’s,
but the diction and composition that of some one
who recorded from memory the apostle’s teaching,
and as it were illustrated with a brief commentary
the sayings of his master’ (ap. Eus. ib.). The
history of the reception of this great Epistle shows
strikingly what were the conditions which—it was
held—miust be satisfied in the case of a book in-
eluded among the ΝΊ Seriptures. There must
be apostolic authorship, or dependence upon apos-
tolic teaching; and this was a point to be deter-
mined by tradition, which did not necessarily
involve the employment of tests difficult to apply,
such as that of inspiration. Nevertheless a test
of authenticity was also found, consciously or
unconsciously, in the harmony between the spirit
of the books received as apostolic and that of the
apostolic doctrine preserved in the Church. Doubts
as to the authorship of 10. to Heb. stood in the
way for some time of the recognition of its inspira-
tion. And it may be that if it had not come to be
more closely associated with the name of St. Paul
than facts warranted, it would never have fully
ranked as Scripture. But, on the other hand, those
who seem to have done most to secure this result,
notably Clement and Origen, were profoundly
impressed with its spiritual power and general
agreement with St. Paul’s teaching.

In Origen’s writings we have the earliest refer-
ences by name to Lp. of James (Comm. in Joan.
t. xix. 6, ete.) ; he also quotes from yp. of Jude
(Comm. in Matt. x. 17, ete.) as if he himself
received it, but alludes to the doubts existing in
regard to both of them. It seems reasonable to sup-
pose that the former of these Epp. was brought to
the notice of Origen more particularly through his
residence in Palestine, The conjecture that it had
for long been treasured in Syria is confirmed by
the fact that it was recognized as authentic and
canonical at Antioch and in the Syriac-speaking
Church, where 2 and 3 Jn and Jude, as well as the
Apoc., were refused acknowledgment at the end
of the 4th cent. Origen appears to have known
the 2nd Ep. of Peter, but not to have regarded it
or the two lesser Epp. of John as genuine.

The position of the Apocalypse in the 5rd cent.
is illustrated by the attitude of one who belonged
to the same school as Origen, and outlived him
only by a few years, Dionysius, the eminent bishop
of Alexandria (dl. 265), He discussed the question
of its authenticity, and declared himself unable to
believe that it was by the Apostle John, the author
of the Gospel, on account of its style; yet the
cautiousness and reverence of his tone in speaking
of the work is an indication of the high regard in
which it was commonly held (ap. Eus. EF vii. 25).

Lastly, Fusebius in his Ecclesiastical History,
when he has arrived nearly at the end of the
Apostolic Age, makes important statements as to
his own views and the views and practice of his
contemporaries in respect to the apostolic writings
CHEAT 25 ieee 2 E1825), hese bring
us to the close of our second period in the history
of the Canon. For this work of Eusebius—which
contains, indeed, most of the information that he

supplies on this subject, though he lived to A.D
340—terminates with, and seems to have been com-
posed shortly after, the pacification of the empire
under Constantine. In spite of some want of elear-
ness in his language, he helps us greatly to realize
the state of things prevailing. ‘The uncertainty
and disagreement which still continued concerning
certain books perhaps impress us most. It is from
Jusebius that we derive the familiar classification
into ‘acknowledged ? (duodoyotmeva) and * disputed?
(ἀντιλεγόμενα) and ‘spurious’ (νόθα) books. Never-
theless it was a step towards the final decision
of the questions at issue, that they should be thus
definitely posed. And the notices bearing on the
Canon of NT, gleaned from writers of generations
varlier than his own, which according to promise
he gives in the course of his history, are intended
to contribute to the attainment of this object.

Eusebius nowhere includes works which have
ultimately been accounted apocryphal or unin-
spired in his elass of ‘disputed’? writings. These

consist, according to his fullest passage on the
subject (iil, 25), of the Epp. of James and Jude,
2 and 3 Jn, and 2 P, which, as we gather from ii,
25. 25, were already regarded in many Churches as
forming together with 1 P and 1 Jn a colleetion of 7
Catholic Epistles. With the Apocalypse he deals
somewhat curiously. He first enumerates it among
the ‘acknowledged’? books, adding, ‘if that should
appear to be the right view’ (εἰ paveiy—ambiguous
like the Eng. trans. given), and then again refers
to it among the ‘spurious’ with a similar saving
clause. The mode of treatment adopted by him
in this case is to be accounted for by the fact that
those who did not admit the Johannine authorship
for the most part desired its definite rejection on
doctrinal grounds ; whereas the claims of the Epp.
above named to be regarded as apostolic were for
the most part questioned simply on the ground of
defect of evidence for their early and widespread
use. On the other hand, Eusebius cannot bring
himself to name the Ep. to Lieb. anywhere except
among the ‘acknowledged’? books, and as one of 14
Epp. of Paul. In so doing, he reflects, no doubt, the
belief of the greater part of the Greek-speaking
Church, in which he was most at home. At the
same time, he allows that ‘it is not fair to ignore
the fact that some have rejected the Ep. to Heb.,
asserting that it is disputed by the Chureh of
Rome as not being Paul's’ (iil. 5).

With the exception of this statement, we know
nothing of the Canon of the Church of Rome and
the Churches dependent upon her, or of the Church
of N. Africa, during the period under considera-
tion,

C. CONCLUDING PERTOD,—In the age ushered in
by the victory of Constantine, many causes were
at work tending to fix the Canon. The Scriptures
were endeared, and the difference between them
and all other books was emphasized, by the recol-
jection of the last persecution, in which their
destruction had been made a principal aim; and
zeal for them found exercise in the multiplication
of fresh copies. Now, also, large volumes, com-
prising the entire Greck Bible, began probably to
be made, such as those fifty magnificent ones which
Constantine ordered Eusebius to have prepared at
the expense of the royal treasury (Ens. Vit, Conse.
iv. 36). The Seriptures were thus vividly pre-
sented as a distinet whole, and the question of their
limits was raised in a very practical manner.
Further, the definition of the Chureh’s creed led
naturally to a fuller settlement of her Canon of
Seripture. And thus, when the ties between the
Latin-speaking Church and Athanasius had first
been drawn closer through the conflict with Arian-
ism, and when afterwards the conservatives of the
East had embraced the Nicene faith, and East and

---.-- τ. 0}

542 NEW TESTAMENT CANON

NIBHAZ

West were united in common sympathies, the
same Canon came in course of time to be received.

Lists of the NT Scriptures have come down to us
from various parts of the 4th cent. ; but, in spite of
the many Councils that were held during this

| they

period, most of these lists rest on the authority of |

individual Fathers, though representing, no doubt,
the faith and practice of the portions of the Church
to which they belonged. The earliest Synodical
decree on the subject which is of certain date and
authenticity belongs to the close, almost, of the
century. The Acts of the Synod of Laodicea,

their theories.

according to some MSS, contain a catalogue of |

the books of Scripture, but it is probably a later
addition. The date of this Synod has also been
matter of dispute, though it most likely took place
A.D. 863 (see Westcott, Canon, p. 439 f.).

The Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem in his Cate-
chetical lectures (ον A.D. 340) corresponds with our
own, With the single exception that he omits the
Apocalypse (Catech, iv. 33). In the Canon given
by Athanasius (Fest. Ep. 39, A.b. 367), we meet for
the first time with one the same in every respect
as our own. So, too, is that of Epiphanius (//er.
τὸ). Turning to the West, the list known as the
Cheltenham Catalogue, which appears evidently
to be of the 4th cent. and to belong to N. Africa,
differs from Athanasius’? in omitting the Ep. to
Heb., but in that point only. In Ap. 397, how-
ever, the 8rd Council of Carthage, in its Canon on
the subject of the Scriptures, includes this Ep.,
and thus gives the contents of NT as at present
received ; while Ambrose a little earlier is a
witness for the Church of Milan, and Rutinus for
that of Aquileia, to the same effect.

In Asia Minor, near the close of the 4th
cent., the Apocalypse was not received. So we

. 5 5 . . . ]
gather from the lists of the Council of Laodicea

(Gregory Naz. Cari. i. § 1. 12, and Amphilochius,
ad Seleucnin Lap. Greg, Naz. ii, $2.8) ). The latter
appears, also, to allow the legitimacy of opposite
views on the subject of 2 and 3 Jn, 2 Τὰ and Jude.

The great Greek teachers of Antioch—Chrysos-
tom, Theodore, and Theodoret—seem to have been
of the number who did not reeeive, or who had
doubts respecting, these Epp. as well as_ the
Apocalypse, while they accepted Ep. to Heb. and
Kp. of James. Their Canon would thus be the
same as that of the Peshitta. In process of time,
in spite of the influence which this version exer-
cised, the Canon in use even in the more distant
parts of the East appears to have become assimi-
lated to a considerable degree to that of the rest of
the Church (see, eg., statements of Junilius in
Westcott, p. $51).

The Canon was synodically determined for the
Catholic Church of East and West by the Quini-
sext. Council, A.D. 691, which confirmed the decrees
of 5rd Council of Carthage.

The Reformation of the 16th cent. made no
change as to the books of NT received as Seripture,
opinions of individuals, such as that of Luther in
regard to Ep. of James, having met with no general
assent. But it tended to throw more stress on the
recognition of the inspiration of the sacred books,
by comparison with the tradition of apostolic
authority, which counted for most in their actual
collection by the early Chureh.

Lirerature,—J, 8. Semler may be said to have given the first
impulse to the free critical inquiries of modern times into the
history of the Canon of NT, both by his writings in general and
in particular by his Abhandlung von freier Cutersuchung des
Aanons, 1ττ|. Among writers who in the early part of the
present century sought to investigate the subject systemati-
eally in this spirit, C. A. Credner holds the foremost place ; see
his Hinleitung in das Nene Testament, 1836, Beitndge zur
Geschichte d, Kanon 184i, and his Geschichte des NT Kanons.
which was edited with notes by G. Volkmar, and published
(1860) after Credner’s death. Of the Tiitbingen school, the rise
of which was contemporary with Credner’s later life, it would

--

not be too much to say that all their speculations and labours
had a bearing on the subject of the Canon of NT. Aiming as
did at a complete reconstruction of Christian history,
they subjected the books of NT and the remains generally of
carly Christian literature to a criticism which was com pre-
hensive and penetrating, though seriously biassed. At the same
time, their attack upon opinions commonly received stimulated
fresh research on the part of those who were unable to accept
It would be unsuitable to attempt here to
entunerate even the principal writings in which during these
controversies particular documents, portions of the evidence
relating to the books of the NT, or the true conception of the
early history of the Chureh, were discussed. As an important
work, however, specifically on the Canon, we must not omit to
mention Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Neuen Testa-
ments, by KE. Reuss, a writer holding a middle position (Ist ed.
M2, Eng. tr. trom 5th revised and enlarged German edition,
Isv4, by KE. L. Houghton), The most eminent of the later mem-
bers of the Tiibingen school, A. Hilgenfeld, modified in some
important respects the yiews before put forward: see esp. his
Historisch-kritische Binleitung in das Neue Testament, Wid,
The views of this school have been represented in England ina
comparatively moderate form by 8. Davidson in his Introd uc-
tion to the Study of we New Testament of 16S (21882, 31894),
and in their most extreme form in the work entitled Super-
natural Religion (Ast ed. Ist4, complete ed, 151.). J Ds
Lightfoot examined the latter work in a series of Essays (col-
lected and repub. 1889),

The chief recent advances in the subject have been due to
the colossal labours of J. B. Lightfoot in his works on Ignatius
of Antioch (1losd) and Clement of Rome (2nd ed., pub. 1S%0,
shortly after his death), and of Th. Zahn in his Geschichte des
NVeutest. Kanons (1sss), preceded by his Forschungen zur
Geschichte des Neutest. Kanons, and the brilliant review of the
actual state of knowledge in regard to carly Christian doeu-
ments by A, Harnack in his Chronologie der Altchristlichen
Litteratur (vol. i. 1807), with which his brochure Das .V Twi das
Jahr 200 (Ass), a Οὐ πὸ of the first part of Zaln’s History of
the Canon, may be compared. The last-named writer has made
some important concessions to those who, like the two befere
mentioned, have defended the orthodox position, though he
has approached the subject with different prepossessions from
theirs. This approximation to a common judgment, at least
on certain points, is a sign of solid progress. The weighing
of the differences which still remain, with a view to taking
account of whatever trich there is in the arguments urged on
each side, may be suggested to the student as a path which
promises further adyance,

To turn to less voluminous works: Westeott’sGeneral Survey
of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (st ed, Indo,
Tth ed. 1596) continues to be the most complete work on. the
subject, which is at the same time compendious. With it may
be read Sanday on Jiuspiration (1893). The various Introduc-
tions to the N'T deal with the subject: the treatment of it in
B. Weiss? Manual of Introduction (Ass6, Eng. tr. 1s87) may be
specially recommended, V. H. STANTON,

NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE. — See LAn-
GUAGE OF NEW TESTAMENT.

NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. — See TEXT OF NEW
TESTAMENT.

NEW TESTAMENT TIMES. —Sce TIMEs 0”
NEW TESTAMENT.

NEW YEAR. —See TIME.

NEZIAH (7°32). — The name of a family of Ne-
thinim, Ezr2°+(B Νασούς, A Νεθίε) = Neh 7°5( B’Acecd,
A Newed); called in 1 Es 5% Nasi (B Naoeé) or
Nasith (so AV and RVm, following A Nagi).

NEZIB (7°32; Νασείβ, A Νεσίβ, Luc. Neoei8).— A
town in the Shephélah of Judah, noticed next to
Keilah, Jos 15. It is the present Beit Nusth,
mentioned in the Onomasticon (Lagarde, 283. 142)
as 7 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis on the
road to Hebron. It lies to the south of Keilah.

LITERATURE.—SW?P vol. iii. sheet xxi.; Robinson, BRP? ii.
17; 54620213 Buhl. G44 193. Guerin, Judee, iti. 343 fh All
these accept of the above identification, against which, however,
Dillm,. (Jos. ad loc.) argues. R. -CONDER:

NIBHAZ (3), also in some MSS 153) and 153), B
᾿Εβλαζέρ, A ᾿Αβααζὲρ καὶ Ναιβάς [a doublet], Lue.
*EBXacégep). — An idol of the Avvites, which they wor-
shipped with Tartak, and introduced into Samaria,
whither they had been transported by the Assyrian
king Sargon (2 K 1751), To all appearance, the

NIBSHAN

NICODEMUS 543

Hebrew text is corrupt, Nibhaz being for some such
form as Abahas or Abchazer, as the Greek variants
᾿Αβααζέρ. Nagas, and EBXagép show (compare Nimrod
for Anmeruduk and Nisroch for Asi or Asmrakiy),
and any identification of this deity under the cir-
cumstances is at present hopeless.
E.G. PINCHES.
NIBSHAN (j¥2:0; B Ναφλαζών, A Ne3oav).— A
city in the desert (1792) of Judah, noticed next to
the City of Salt, Jos 15°. The name has not been
recovered. Wellhausen (Proleg., 344) proposes to
emend to Avbshan (22a ‘the kiln’; ef. Gn 195).
C. RK. CONDER.
NICANOR (Nixavwp), the son of Patroclus (2 Mae
89), a general of Antiochus Epiphanes, and one
GO ineskines wtriends Cl Mac 3%). In’ B.0. 168
Nicanor, together with Gorgias and Ptolemy the
son of Dorymenes, was sent by the chancellor
Lysias at the head of a large army to crush the
rebellion in Palestine. Nicanor, who occupies the
chief place in the narrative of 2 Mac, was probably
the commander-in-chief of the expedition, while
Gorgias, Who appears more prominently in 1 Mae,
led the army in the field. The invading forces
took up their position at Emmaus, where they
were defeated by Judas Maccabeus in a night
attack, during the absence of Gorgias, and the
Syrian commanders fled into the Philistine terri-
tory (Mae oe 4, 2 Mae's)... The statement
that Nicanor escaped to Antioch in diseuise is
doubtless a rhetorical exageeration (2 Mac 8°),
After the death of Antiochus v. and Lysias,
Nicanor, who stood in high favour with Deme-
trius, and whose hatred for the Jews was well
known (1 Mac 7%), was appointed governor of
Judiea (2 Mae 1415), and sent there with a large
army. At first he atte:npted to parley with Judas,
hoping to get possession of his person, but his
treacherous design was discovered, and a battle
took place at Capharsalama (site uncertain), in
which Nicanor Jost 500 men (1 Mae 7815), The
result of the engagement was probably indecisive ;
Josephus, who usually follows 1 Mac, asserts that
Judas was defeated (dif. Xin x. 4). A less prob-
able account of these events is given in 2 Mace
142°) There we are told that Simon, the brother
of Judas, received a check at the hands of the
invaders, but that afterwards Nicanor made friends
with Judas; Alcimus complained to the kine, who
sent peremptory orders to his general to seize the
Jewish leader ; but Judas, perceiving the alteration
in Nicanor’s attitude towards him, withdrew to a
ate of safety. After the battle at Capharsalaina,
Nicanor fell rack on Jerusalem, and greeted the
Jewish priests (who came to meet him peaceably)
with threats of vengeance unless they delivered
Judas and his army into his hand (1 Mac 7°88, 2
Mae 1-8), He then returned to Beth-horon, where
he met with reinforcements, while Judas encamped
opposite to him at Adasa. The battle took place
on the 13th of Adar, ΒΟ. 161, and ended in the
complete rout of the Syrians. Nicanor himself
was amone the first to fall. His body was found
on the battlefield, and his head and right arm were
cut off and exposed on the citadel of Jerusalem,
while the day of the victory was commemorated
annually as av festival under the name of ὁ Nicanor’s
day’ (1 Mac 7*"-5", 2 Mac 15, ef. Weg. aan. xii. 30).
H, A. WHITE,
NICANOR (Nixavwp).—One of the ‘seven’ chosen
to relieve the apostles of their more secular duties
(Ac 65). The name is Greek, and not uncommon.
For later legends, which are valueless, see Baronius,
Annales, 1. 34. cecxix. AL Ge PacnD Ὁ

NICODEMUS (Χικόδημος). — The ‘ruler of the>

The name |

Jews’? who came to Jesus by night.

as that of an ambassador from Aristobulus te
Pompey, and is plainly a Greek name which was
borrowed by the Jews. We have it in the form
poop; in the Talmud (Taanith 20. 1), where the
name is derived from an incident in the life of one
Bunai, commonly called Nicodemus ben Gorion
(see Lightfoot, for. Heb. in Jn 8). ‘Phis person
has been identified with the Nicodemus of Jn 3.
But Bunai lived until the destruction of Jerusalem,
and it would seem from Jn 34 that the inquirer who
came to Jesus was then an old man (γέρων), so that
for this reason, as well as for others, it would be
precarious to identify the two.

Nicodemus is not mentioned by any evangelist
save St. John; and attempts have been made (9
represent him as a typical character invented to
serve a literary purpose by the author of the Fourth
Gospel. Again, it has been sueeested (sce Schen-
kel’s Dib.-Leax. 5.0. “ Nikodemus’) that he is to be
identified with Joseph of Arimathiea, and that John
has drawn on Synoptic material for his description
of Nicodemus; cf. Mt 2757, Mik 15%, Lk 23° with
the notices of Nicodemus in Jn 3'#! 7°) 19% (see
JOSEPH OF ARIMATHAA), It is not necessary to
suppose any such literary artifices; there are, as
might be expected, many points of likeness be-
tween Nicodemus and Joseph, as men occupying
a somewhat similar position in society ; but there
is no good reason for refusing to take the episodes
about Nicodemus recorded in Jn as historical.

Nicodemus is represented as a Pharisee (Jn 3?)
and member of the Sanhedrin (76. 7°"), probably a
rich man (19°), who came to Jesus at Jerusalem
secretly and by night. The various notices of him
suggest that although he became a faithful disciple
he was a timid man, who dreaded hostile criticism.
When the Pharisees would have arrested Jesus,
Nicodemus puts in the cautious plea, ‘Doth our
law judge a man except it first hear from himself
what he doeth?’ (Jn 7?!). He shelters his defence
behind a recognized principle of law, and, like most
half-hearted advocates, he is treated with scant
respect. So again at Jn 19° it is Joseph of Arima-
thea who ventures to ask Pilate for the body of
Jesus, Nicodemus being ready to aid him in the
work of entombment, although he does not take
the initiative.

This timidity was characteristic, and seems to
have been intellectual no less than physical. All
through the conversation in Jn 3!*! (which we take
to be historical, although probably rehandled and
condensed by the evangelist) his questionines are
cautious, and he does not commit himself far. Ile
begins by a half- patronizing recognition of the
claims of Jesus to a divine mission, as attested by
the siens of which he had heard. This is cut short
at once by the startling words, ‘Except a man be
born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God’
(cf. Mk 10" for the question which was in the mind
of the inquirer). Nicodemus answers that such
new birth is inconceivable, and is bidden to re-
member that although ‘that which is born of the
flesh is flesh,’ yet also that ‘that which is born of
the Spirit is spirit.’ A man is not the mere victim
of his pedigree and circumstances; the erace of
the Spirit is not distributed by the law of heredity ;
it is like the wind, though not in its caprice yet in
its irreducibility to rules which can be foreseen (Jn
a). Nicodemus is dismayed by so bold a figure, and
asks ‘How can these thines be?’ And then the
tone of the Christ seems to change to stern rebuke :
‘Art thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest
not these things?’ He who believes not the things
of earth, the everyday facts which are patent to
observation if he but chooses to open his eyes to
them, is not likely to believe ‘heavenly things.’
The last words of Jesus to Nicodemus may possibly

Nicodemus is found in Josephus (Ant. XIV. iii. 2) have a side reference to the secrecy of his visit:

oe

544 NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF

NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF

“He that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that
his works may be made manifest that they have
been wrought in God? (Jn 35. Nicodemus dis-
appears fromthe NT at Jn 19; but in an apocry-
phal narrative of the Passion and Resurrection of
Christ, which has come down to us from very early
times in different forms (Greek, Latin, Coptic, not
to speak of Trish and other secondary versions), and
variously entitled the Gospel of Nivodemus or the
Acts of Pilate, his history is carried further, See
next article.

Other legends represent Nicodemus as having
being baptized by Peter and John, and as being
deprived of his oflice and banished from Jerusalem
through the hostility of the Jews. Gamaliel is
described as burying him near St. Stephen, and a
later story tells of the finding of the bodies of
Stephen, Gamalicl, and Nicodemus in a common
tomb (8rd Aueust 415, according to the Western
Martyrologies). Further Christian legends re-
garding Nicodemus, particularly his alleged acti-
vity as a sculptor, are discussed by von Dobschiitz
in his Christushilder («Texte u. Untersuch.’ 1899,
pp. 280**-292**). J. H. BERNARD.

NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF.—i. NAME.—LFven-
gelium Nicodemi is a title which meets us for the
first time in the 18th cent. (Vineentius Bellova-
censis, Spee. hist. viii. 40th [¢. 1264], Jacobus de
Voragine, Legenda aured, 54, ed. Graesse, po. 241
fe. 1275]), and is in general use in manuscripts of
the 15th cent. It is there employed to designate
an apocryphal writing which in the older manu-
seripts is entitled ὑπομνήματα τοῦ Kupiou ἡμῶν ᾿[ησοῦ
Νριστοῦ (πραχθέντα ἐπὶ ἸΤοντίου Πιλάτου, or the like),
(rest. Salvatoris (que inventt Theodosius Magnus
imperatorin Jerusalem in pretorio Ponti Pilate in
codicibus publicis). From Epiphanius (/fer. 1. 1)
we obtain, as an older abbreviation of this title,
the name "Acta IlAdrov, and from Gree. 'Puron.
(Mist. France. i. 2), 24) the name Gesta Pilati, which,
however, in the light of the texts that have come
down to us, cannot be intended in the sense that
Pilate was the author. All that is attributed to
Pilate is the preservation of the work in the
archives of the pretorium. On the contrary, the
author of the alleged Hebrew original is nimed
from the first as Nicodemus, the translator as
Ananias (Aeneas) Protektor.

Besides the above, we find in the manuscripts numerous other
titles, such as orouyux τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἴησοῦ Ἀριστοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν
ἀσποκ θέλωσιν αὐτοῦ συγγραφέσα παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ
βεολόγου > Passio (et resurrectio) Jesu Christi; Acta passionis ;
Historia (relatio) de passione ; as well as Evangelium Nazare-
ort.

ii. CONTENTS.—The writing gives a detailed
account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate (chs.
1-11, called below 1%, and of the action of the
Sanhedrin subsequent to His death, which leads to
the certain proof of His Resurrection and Ascension
(chs. 12-16, called below 1°). To this is added by
way of appendix an account by two men who had
been raised from the dead, Charinus and Leucius,
of the descensus ad inferos of Jesus (chs. 17-27,
called below 2).

Ja. After an indication of the date, in the form of an expan-
sion of Lk 81, the narrative opens with Christ being brought
before Pilate on the charges of claiming the title of king,
breaking the Sabbath, and abrogating the ancestral law of
Israel. The reverence shown to the Lord by Pilate’s footman,
to which the Jews take exception, is supported by the miracle
of the standard lowering itself before Jesus (ch. 1). The pro-
ceedings turn, in the first instance, upon the reproach of
illegitimacy, which is refuted by twelve witnesses of the
marriage of Mary with Joseph (ch. 2). After a paraphrase of
Jn 183038 (chs. 8. 4), Nicodemus (ch. 53 ef Jn 75°) and various
persons healed by Jesus (ch. 6), among them Veronica, the
woman with the issue of blood (ch. 7), come forward on behalf
of Jesus. After all Pilate’s endeavours to deliver Jesus and to
change the sentiments of the Jews, including a fierce invective
against their ingratitude, have proved in vain (chs. 8. 9), Pilate

washes his hands in innocence and passes sentence of crucifixion
between the two maletactors, Dysmas and Gestas (ch. 10). Jp
the account of the crucifixion, Which in the main follows Lk 23,
the only noteworthy points are Pilate’s contrition, when the
centurion makes his report, and the incorrigibility of the Jews,
who pronounce the darkening of the sun a natural phenomenon
Cob, ἅν

1». Joseph of Arimathwa’s care for the burial of Jesus consti-
tutes the transition to the second division : the Jews persecute
him and Nicodemus and the others who had given evidence in
favour of Jesus. Joseph is put in close custody, but after the
Sabbath he is not to be found, in spite of the sealed door (ch. 12).
At the same time Pilate’s soldiers bring news of the empty
tomb, without, indeed, finding their story credited by the
Sanhedrin (ch. 18). Scarcely is this testimony silenced by
bribery, when three men of Galilee appear, the priest Phinehas,
the rabbi Addas, and the Levite Aggai, who had been witnesses
of the ascension of Jesus on Mt, Martech (Wamulch). With
injunctions of silence they are sent back with all speed to
Galilee (ch. 14). But upon the proposal of Nicodemus, and
after the example of Elisha, who allowed Elijah to be sought for
(2 Καὶ 215-18), a general search is instituted, which lasted for three
days, and, although abortive as far as Jesus was concerned, led
to the discovery of Joseph of Arimathwa, who, being then
brought in state to Jerusalem, relates in what wondrous wise
Jesus in person had freed him from prison (ch. 15). Rabbi
Levi recalls the words of the aged Symeon about the child
Jesus (Lk 234); the three men of Galilee, who are once more
introduced, confirm on oath their former statements ; Annas
and Caiaphas seek in vain to set up a distinction between the
translation of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, and the disappearance
of Jesus.

2. On Joseph’s proposal there are now brought forward two
men, Charinus and Leucius, sons of that aged Symeon, who
had died but had been raised again, and have their dwelling-
place at Arimathwa. Being adjured by the Sanhedrin to tell
their story, they describe, each for himself, the occurrences in
the underworld at the death of Jesus (ch. 17): how ἃ light
suddenly illuminating the darkness filled all the fathers with
exultation, Isaiah repeated Is 91, Symeon Lk 299, John the
Baptist Mt 2!, Jn 129 (ch. 18); Adam’s son Seth told of the
promise made to him at the gate of paradise (ch. 19); then
appeared Satan to announce to Hades (personified) the arrival
of a new august captive; but Hades grew pale at the thought
that this is the same Jesus who had just wrested Lazarus from
her grasp (ch, 20); she sought to bar her doors while the fathers
recited Messianic passages (Ps 10616, Is 2619, Hos 1515) then
resounded twice over Ps 239, and, without Hades being able to
prevent it, the Lord appeared in glory (ch. 21), and at her woeful
cries Jaid hold upon Satan and gave him over to Hades, who then
vented her fury upon this deviser of mischief (ch. 25); mean-
while the Lord, who had been joyfully greeted by the fathers,
set up the cross as the symbol of triumph, and amid the songs
of the redeemed ascended with them from the underworld
(ch. 24); the archangel Michael then conducted them to
paradise, where they met first Enoch and Elijah (ch. 25), and
then the penitent robber (ch. 26). Thus far the narrative of the
two risen ones, who make their deposition—one of them to
Annas, Caiaphas, and Gamaliel, the other to Nicodemus and
Joseph—and then suddenly vanish. The two statements as
written down agree word for word, the Jews are shaken in their
convictions, Joseph and Nicodemus report everything to Pilate,
who causes the narrative to be incorporated in the Acts of his
preetorium (ch. 27).

ili. VERSIONS AND MANuscriptTs.—The writing
is extant (@) in a Greek text (only chs. 1-16), repre-
sented by some 12 MSS of 12th-15th cent., of
which Par. gr. 770 (C) may be counted the best ;
some, like Par. gr. 929 (E) and still more Par. gr.
1021 (D), contain complete transformations and ex-
pansions, partly upon the lines of the canonical
Gospels, and partly upon those of other apocrypha.
Mon. gr. 192 (A), very much overrated by Tischen-
dorf, is re-touched as to style. The so-called Ana-

shora (et Paradosis) Pilati as well as the so-called
ts ἱ
Narratio Joscphi are frequently found appenled to
the Huang. Nicodemt.

(Ὁ) Nearest to the above text stands a Voptic
version, edited by Fr. Rossi after a Turin papyrus
manuscript, and made known by Tischendorf in a
Latin translation by Peyron. ‘This version is sup-
posed to belong to the Sth cent.

(c, d@) Then come two Armenian versions pi:b-
lished by Conybeare after 3 MSS, in a Greek
(Latin) rendering ; ὦ being a revision of ὁ with the
aid of Greek texts.

(e) Of far more importance is a Latin version
diffused in numerous MSS (in Bernard’s Bibl.
Anglie et Hibornie alone more than 50 may be
counted), and belonging perhaps to the 5th or 6th
cent. The oldest MS is a palimpsest, Vind. pal.
lat. 565, from the 7th cent., completely deciphered

NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF

NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF

δ48

and soon to be edited by Dr. Géldlin οἵ Tiefenau ;
then come Mus. Brit. Royal 5 E xiii, belonging to
the 8th cent., and a large number of MSS from the
9th, 10th, and llth cents. Of those hitherto used,
the purest text is exhibited by Einsied1. 169 (called
D» by Tischendorf), of the 9th or 10th cent. Here,
too, we find many different recensions, the most
characteristic instance of which, extending back to
the llth cent. and represented, inter al., by the ed.
Lips. of 1516, has, in addition, a chronology from
Adam to Christ, based upon secret Jewish tradi-
tion (ch. 28). A very frequent appendage is the
letter of Pilate to the emperor Claudius (ch. 29).
In one class of MSS the work is continued by the
so-called Cura sanitatis Tiberi, the oldest text
of the Veronica legend (von Dobschiitz, Christus-
bilder, 157**-203**), in another by the so-called
Vindicta Salvatoris, a narrative of the destruction
of Jerusalem (Tischendorf, Lvang. apocr.* 471-486).
This Latin text in course of time gained in the
West almost canonical authority, was co-ordinated
with the other Gospels as an equally valuable
source for the history of the Passion, and was thus
taken up, ¢.g., by Vineentius Bellovacensis almost
entire into his Speculum historiale. On it are
dependent all the numerous translations and_re-
censions in prose and in verse which are met with
in Western languages (cf. R. Wiilcker, Das Lvangel,
Nicodemi in der abendlaind. Litteratur, 1872). This
is true also, as it appears, of the Slavonic texts
(cf. M. Ssperanskij, ‘The Slav. apocr. Gospels’ in
Proc. of the viii archeol. Congress at Moscow,
1890, ii, Moscow, 1895 [Russ.]). Nay, even a late
Byzantine recension (cf. g) is probably influenced
by the above-named Latin text.

(f) Beside this Latin ‘ Vulgate,’ which, by the
way, does not show in its Bible text any influence
from the side of Jerome, stands a second Latin
version, represented by Tischendorf’s manuscripts
ABC and some others, which Tischendorf in utterly
uncritical fashion has mixed up with the former
in chs. 1-16. It is distinguished from the first-
named Latin version both by the style of its
translation and by the underlying Greek text, to
which it adheres closely (most nearly allied are
codd, CGI). It sometimes utilizes the text of
Jerome. The form of the Descensus (see 2, above)
is here manifestly more recent than in ¢ (above).

(g) The latest text, very improperly placed
alongside of ὦ (above), is a Byzantine recension,
which, extant in numerous MSS of 15th-17th cent.,
still constitutes part of the religious literature of
the Gr. Church, and as such has sometimes been
printed, ¢.g., under the title : ἱστορία ἀκριβὴς περὶ τῶν
κατὰ THY σταύρωσιν Kal ἀνάστασιν τοῦ Kupiov καὶ Σωτῆρος
ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τελεσθέντων (μετὰ εἰκόνων) συγγρα-
φεῖσα τὸ πρῶτον ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίου τινὸς Αἰνέα, συγχρύνου
τοῦ Κυρίου, μεταφρασθεῖσα μὲν εἰς τὴν Λλατινίδα γλῶσσαν
ὑπὸ Νικοδήμου Ἰοπάρχου τοῦ ἐκ 'Ρώμης, μετενεχθεῖσα
δ᾽ εἰς τὴν ᾿Ελληνικὴν ὑπὸ ᾿Αβερκίου ἱερομονάχου ᾿Αγιο-
ρείτου, Athens, 1889. The earlier editors, Thilo
and Tischendorf, were led to their overestimate
of this text by the circumstance that it is the only
one that contains the Descensus (chs. 17-27) in
Greek ; but the latter is in a form decidedly later
than either of the two Latin versions. ‘The original
Greek text, answering to the Latin ὁ. (above),
emerges still from the Homilies of Eusebius of
Alexandria (6th cent.). Cf. Augusti, Muschi
Emeseni que supersunt opuse. Graca, 1829 ; Thilo,
Ueber die Schriften des Eusebius von Alexandricn,
1832; Migne, Patrol. Gr. 1xxxvi. 1.

The Latin text was the first to be printed, and
that during the 15th and 16th cents. at various
presses, which only to a partial extent stood in
relation to one another (see Hain, Repert. bibl,
Nos. 11749, 11750, 11751, Leipzig 1516, Venice
1522, Antwerp 1538; Herold’s and Grynieus’ Ortho-

VOR S38

doxegrapha, Basel 1555, 1569; J. A. Fabricius,
Cod. apocr. NT, 1719, 1. 238-300 and oft.). Fre-
quently printed also is a German translation,
agreeing with the Leipzig edition of 1516 (Hain,
No. 11751 and oft., Marburg 1555, 1561, 1568), and
another German translation of the 17th cent., ¢.g.
Hamburg [c. 1720]. An Anglo-Saxon text was
issued by Ed. Thwaites, Oxford, 1698.

The Greek text was first published by A. Birch,
Auctarium codicis apocr. i., Havnie 1804 ; better,
J. C. Thilo, Codex apocr. NT, 1., 1832 (Gr.-Lat.,
with an extremely valuable and learned com-
mentary ; reproduced, without the latter, by
Giles, Codex apocr. NT, London 1852, 1. 150-
219). Fuller materials have been drawn from the
MSS by Tischendorf (2uangelia apocr., 1 1858,
* 1876), but are so uncritically used: that one does
better to adhere to Thilo’s text. A new critical
edition is in course of preparation by the present
writer.

iv. DATE.—elation to the ancient ‘ Acta Pilate.
—All known texts of Evangel. Nicod., if one may
trust the note as to its discovery, which is given in
the form of a prologue, go back to a work dating
from the time of Theodosius 11. (425).

Where the prologue is wanting, this is due to subsequent
rejection of it. as, for instance, in the majority of Latin MSS,
which have still preserved in the title the reminiscence of Theo-
dosius.

This work must, however, have been only a
revision, for as early as 376 Epiphanius (Her. 1.
1, ef. Pseudo-Chrysos. in Pascha hom. vii. 2, ed.
Montfaucon, viii. Spuria 277 4) presupposes the
existence of a text similar to what we possess.

According to Lipsius, the older recension differed from the
later in wanting not only the prologue but also chs. 17-27
(2 above), and perhaps also chs. 12-16 (1) above), but this
cannot be proved ; the omission of 2 in ὦ ὁ ¢ d indicates merely
that their common archetype was shortened as compared with
the text of 425. That some MSS of g mark a section at ch. 12,
that from this point e and f more clearly part company, that 14
attaches itself more closely to the canonical tradition, whereas
1» like 2 gives a freer rein to fancy,—all this finds its explana
tion in the nature of the subject.

Jusebius, when in the year 325 he wrote his
Hist. Ecclesie, was not yet acquainted with our
writing. He mentions a report of Pilate to the
emperor Tiberius (//F ii. 2, according to Tertull.
Apol. 21), heathen Acts ef Pilate, which, in de-
rision of the Christians, were introduced by the
emperor Maximin into the schools (ih. I. 1x. 3,
IX. v. 1, vil. 1: Πιλάτου καὶ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
ὑπομνήματα ; the so-called Leo source [Leo
Gramm., ed. Bonn. 88; Theod. Melit., ed. Tafel,
60; Ekloge Hist., ed. Cramer, Anecdot. Par. 1].
293; Georg. Mon., ed. Muralt 378] names as the
forger a goéta, Theoteknos, in the time of Maxi-
minian ; οἷ. also Acta Probi, Tarachi et Andronict,
37, ‘ Acta Sanctorum’ 11th Oct. v. 579). Eusebius
knows nothing, however, of a Christian writing.
In face of this, stringent proof is demanded for
the existence of our writing prior to the time of
Eusebius, more especially as much of it cannot
have been composed in its present form before the
4th or 5th century.

This proof has been supposed to be found on one
side in the mention of ἼἌκτα Πιλάτου in Justin,
Apol. i. 35, 48 (cf. 38). and of Acta Pilati in Tertull.
Apol. 21. Upon this evidence, Tischendorf does
not hesitate to attribute our texts to the first half
of the 2nd cent., and thinks that valuable supple-
ments to the canonical account of the trial of
Jesus may be derived from them. In opposition
to him, Scholten, Lipsius, Lightfoot (Apostolic
Fathers, i. 55), and Harnack have argued that the
existence attributed by Justin to such Acts of
Pilate is only a hypothetical one. — Tertullian
either had before him a report of Pilate to the
emperor similar to the letter preserved in the Acta

3546 NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF

NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF

Petri et Pauli, ed. Lipsius, i. 135 ff., 196 ff., and in
Evang. Nicod. ch. 29 (so Lipsius), or, if one prefers
to see in this letter an excerpt from Tertullian (so

Harnack), Tertullian derived the notion of Acts of

Pilate from the Apology of Justin, with which he
was acquainted. As yet it has not been possible
to prove the existence of any literary connexion
whatever between what Justin and Tertullian,
appealing to such Acts of Pilate, relate, and what
is contained in the Gospel of Nicodemus.

The requisite proof appeared, on another side, to
be supplied by the discovery of the Hvangel. Petri,
whose contents, in so far as they go beyond the
canonical tradition, some, notably H. v. Schubert,
would trace back to the ancient Acta Pilati, a
merely hypothetical Grundschrift of our Evangel.
Nicod.; whereas, on the other hand, Th. Zahn (Das
Evangelium des Petrus, 1893) holds the later Pilate
literature to be influenced by the Hvangelinm
Petri. As a matter of fact, the parallels cited
trom the ‘ Pilate literature’ by no means suffice to
prove that the Hvangel. Petri utilizes traditions
that had been committed to writing, and that these
coincided with the Grundschrift of our Evangel.
Nicodemt. The points of contact find their com-
plete explanation on the assumption that the
fashion of embellishing and interpreting the his-
tory of the Passion, as this comes out clearly in
Justin, was known both to the author of the
Krangel. Petri in the 2nd, and of the Evangel.
Nicod. in the 4th (Sth) cent.

Finally, J. Rendel Harris has started the hypo-
thesis that the Gospel of Nicodemus, as we possess
it, is only the reproduction in prose of a version of
the Gospel in Homeric centones, and that it was
this last-named work, dating as early as the 2nd
cent., that Justin and Tertullian had in view—an
ingenious suggestion, which, however, is exposed
to the serious objection that the existence of
such Christian Homeric centones cannot be proved
sarlier than the 4th (5th) century.

v. SourRCcCES.—The author uses, first of all, our
four canonical Gospels, for the history of whose
text certain passages of the vangel. Nicod. are
not without importance. The question as to the
source of the other matter has not yet been sufli-
ciently investigated. In details concerning the
trial of Jesus, such as the form of summons and
that used in pronouncing sentence behind the
velum, the usage of the 4th (5th) cent. is retlected ;
the scattered Hebrew words with their Greek
rendering appended we should be disposed to trace
back to Origen’s Hexapla. In the miracle of the
standard lowering itself before Jesus, Miinter has
seen a parallel to the mark of honour paid by
Pompey to the philosopher Posidonius. The de-
tails invented in chs. 12-17 (4 above) find their
explanation for the most part in the motives of the
Gospel narrative and the evidence of prophecy.
Only for 2 does the external garb, to speak of
nothing else, make it probable that we should
have recourse to a written source, current pre-
sumably under the name of Leucius Charinus, the
alleged author of various apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles. The Gnostic character which has been
claimed for the latter by Miinter, Lipsius, v.
Schubert, and others, is denied by Harnack. The
point requires fresh examination in connexion with
the whole history of the Descensus conceptions.

vi. PuRPOSE.—The Gospel of Nicodemus in its
present form is plainly meant only for religious
edification. In this way wide currency was given
to two apologetic ideas, which already in the
canonical Gospels show themselves with increasing
clearness : (1) that the heathen judge, being per-
fectly convinced, after examination, of the inno-
cence of Jesus, was compelled only by the obstinate
wickedness of the Jews to pass sentence of death ;

and (2) that the resurrection of Jesus was proved
on undeniable evidence even to His enemies. If we
may assume, with Lipsius, a polemical backward
allusion to the heathen Acts of Pilate spoken of
above, much is explained in the narrative of the
trial, which otherwise appears unintelligible: e.g.
how Pilate examines in full detail the reproach of
illegitimacy brought against Jesus (in answer te
which, not the miraculous birth but only the mar-
riage of Mary with Joseph is established !), as well
as the charge of Sabbath desecration, whereas the
accusation of inciting to rebellion hardly obtains a
hearing at all. Of Tendenz in the sense of any
special ecclesiastical or theological shade of opinion
one cannot speak ; traces of Judaistic Christianity
(Brunn, Minter, Hofmann) are wanting equally
with echoes of Gnosticism. The writing is rather
an interesting document of a general-Christian
character, from which definite and sharply formu-
lated theological notions are absent. Irom the
point of view of the history of dogma it is an
anomaly, whether one assigns it to the 2nd, the
4th, or the 5th cent. As an offset to this, however,
it could be brought under the head of that species
of narrative literature, composed for purposes of
religious edification, which especially from the 4th
cent. onwards obtained favour in Christian circles.
The nearest parallel is supplied by the Acta
Martyrum. As in these, so also in the Evangel.
Nicod., a description of the judicial process occu-
pies the foreground (13) ; the usual account of the
tortures inflicted upon the martyrs is ἴῃ. this
instance, owing to the peculiarity of the subject,
replaced by the proofs of our Lord’s resurrection
(1”); and, finally, the Descensus (2) corresponds to
the miracles wrought by the martyrs after their
death. An evangelical character in the sense of
an equal authority with the canonical Gospels is
certainly not claimed by the work itself; such
a character was first Imposed upon it by the un-
critical search for legends in the 13th century.

vil. COMPOSITION AND INFLUENCE,—The com-
position of the first part (4° and 1”) is not par-
ticularly happy: the continual leading in and out
of the accused, the accumulated testimonies by
persons who had been healed, the twice-repeated
entrance of the three men from Galilee, all go to
show that the author lacked the art of moulding his
material aright. On the other hand, the second
part (2) is not only in itself well constructed, but
it contains here and there—for instance, in the de-
scription of the contlict between Satan and Hades—
passages of poetic value which have found their
parallels in Milton and Klopstock. Here, too, the
diction attains a higher level, whereas elsewhere
the style is that of dry, at times almost weari-
some, narrative, and the language, in imitation of
the canonical Gospels, flows on in a series of short
sentences without any attempt at ἃ periodic
structure. Yet, in spite of —or perhaps just
because of—this readily intelligible kind of nar-
ration, our Gospel exercised from an early period
onwards enormous influence. We have already
spoken of its wide diffusion in manuscripts and
the frequent use made of it in literature, especially
subsequent to the 13th cent. The Passion plays
of the 15th cent. show that the contents of the
Gospel of Nicodemus had passed into the popular
consciousness as an integral element of the Life of
Jesus. Plastie art also has found its motives here :
not only are we acquainted with two miniature
series illustrating the Evangel. Nicod. in a Toledo
and a Milan MS of the 13th cent., but already upon
the sculptures (probably of the 6th cent.) of the
Ciborium of St. Mark’s at Venice, the so-called
columne cochleate (Garrucci, Storia dell’ arte
crist. vi. tav. 4972), there is found a scene which
formerly was wrongly taken to represent the

3.

NICOLAITANS

NICOLAITANS 547

scourging of Jesus, but is really nothing else than
His being led before Pilate, as described in Leangel.
Nicod., with the obeisance of the footman and the
miracle of the standard. ‘The intluence which
Ussoff alleges to have been exercised by our
Gospel upon the miniatures of the Codex Ros-
sannensis is certainly rightly questioned by Hase-
loff.
See, further, art. PILATE (ad fin.).

Liverature.—G. L. Brunn, Disquisitio hist.-crit. de indole,
etate, et usu librt apocr. vulgo inscripti Evangel. Nicod.,
3erlin, 1794; Mtinter, Wahrscheinliche Zusatze zu Christi
Leidensgeschichte nach Nicod. Evangel., 1816; Thilo, Codex
apocr. NT’, i., 1832, cxviii-clx, 487-800; A. Maury, Nouvelles
recherches sur δόμοιο a@ laquelle a été composé Vouvrage
connu sous le titre Wévangile Nicodeme, 1850; R. Hofmann,
Das Leben Jesu rach den Apocryphen, Leipzig, 1851, pp. 334-
471 (an abstract in German, with commentary after Thilo), cf.
the same writer’s art. in Hauck’s PRH3 i, (1896) 658 ff. ; CO.
Tischendorf, Pilati circa Christum judicio quid lucis afferatur
ex Actts Pilati, Lips. 1855 ; Scholten, De oudste getuigenissen
angaande de Schriften des Niewwen Testuments, 1866; R. A.
Lipsius, Die Pilatus - Akten kritisch untersucht, Kiel, 1871
[21886]; Fr. Huidekoper, Indirect testimony of history to the
genuineness gf the Gospels (Works, 1887, ii. 105 ff.), Acts of
Pilate from ἃ transcript of the Codex designated by Thilo as
Paris D (the g of above article], 1887 (ib.) ; H. v. Schubert, Die
Compos. des pscudopetrin. Evangelien - Fragments, 1893 [has
also appeared in English], p. 175 ff; Ad. Harnack, Gesch. d.
altchrist. Litt. 1, 21-24, 865, 907, 922, 11. 1. 603-612 ; G. Kriiger,
Gesch. αἰ. altchrist. Litt. 36; Ad. Graf zu Erbach-Fiirstenau, ‘1’
Evangelo di Nicodemo’ in Archivio storico dell arte, ii. 3 (1898),
225-237 ; Haseloff, Codex Rossanensis, 1898, p. 9 ff. ; J. Rendel
Harris, The Homeric Centones and the Acts of Pilate, London,
1899 (reviewed by the present writer in Theol. Literaturzeitung,
1899, p. 333 ff.). VON DobscHUtTz.

NICOLAITANS (Nexodairai).—Twice mentioned in
the NT (Rev 2° 15) as a sect whose works were hated
by the ascended Lord and by the Ephesian Church,
but whose teaching was upheld by some professed
Christians of Pergamum, and apparently tolerated
by the Church there. Nicolaitan doctrine is asso-
ciated with ‘the teaching of Balaam, who taught
Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children
of Israel, (inducing them) to eat things sacriliced
to idols, and to commit fornication’ (Rev 91. As
Nicolaitan teaching is said to be held ‘similarly’
(ὁμοίως), we may conclude that the Nicolaitans
were a kindred antinomian sect, who abused the
doctrine, emphasized by St. Paul, of Gentile liberty
from the Mosaic Law. In defiance of that apostle’s
warnings (1 Co 61%? §% 1 10-8) * as well as of the
decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Ac 1559), they
permitted participation in heathen feasts con-
nected with idolatry and in the fornication which
frequently accompanied such feasts. The Nicolai-
tans represent a more advanced and aggressive
stage of antinomianism than that which was found
in the Corinthian Church. They are organized
into a sect, with a ‘doctrine,’ and stand in a nearer
relationship to the ‘false teachers’ referred to in
Jude #1.) 2 P Ql? 14.15, who ‘turned the grace of
God into lasciviousness,’ ‘denied even the Master’
(probably through countenancing idolatry), and
‘followed the way of Balaam,’ ‘running riotously
in his error.’

It has been doubted by some writers whether
any sect actually called Nicolaitans existed. The
Bk. of Rev, it is argued, is allegorical, and Νικό-
Aaos, ‘conqueror of the people,’ may be regarded
as a symbolical name, the Greek equivalent of
Balaam (oy53), which is held to signify either
‘destroyer of the people’ (from cy and ya) or

* The supposition that the reference in Rev to the Nicolaitans
embraces acovert attack on St. Paul or Paulinism (Baur, Renan,
Volkmar, and others) is foreclosed by the apostle’s own testi-
mony, although it is possible that certain Nicolaitans professed
to be his followers. St. Paul, while not condemning those who
bought in the market, or partook of, at an ordinary friendly
meal, food which might have been previously sacrificed to idols,
is careful to disallow any such participation as would either
involve the countenance of idolatry, or ‘cast a stumbling-block ’

before any Christian brother (see Farrar, Karly Days of
Christianity, ii, 243 ff.).

‘lord of the people’ (ay and $2, contr. from Ὁ).
But, apart from the fact that the two names are
not quite equivalent, and that the Balaamites and
Nicolaitans, although associated, are not identi-
fied, the numerous early references to the sect and
to its claim to have a real Nicolas as its founder
(see next article), indicate that the writer of Rey
describes heretics really so called. According to
Irenveus, they lived ‘lives of unrestrained indul-
gence,’ teaching that ‘adultery and eating things
sacrificed to idols’ are a matter of ‘indifference?
(adv. Her, i. 26). Clement of Alex. spealds of
their souls as ‘ buried in the mire of vice’ (Strom.
1. 20). Tertullian stigmatizes them as destroying
the happiness of sanctity in their maintenance of
lust and luxury (adv. Mare. i. 29, ef. de Puilic. 19).
In the Apost. Const. vi. 8, ‘those falsely-called
Nicolaitans’ are characterized as ‘impudent in
uncleanness.’ ‘Ignatius’ (longer recension) brands
them as ‘impure lovers of pleasure,’ and as
‘addicted to calumnious+ speeches’ (7radl. 11,
Phil. 6). So far, we have merely an echo of
what we read in Rev; but other early references
indicate that, in addition to immorality, the
Nicolaitans were tainted with incipient Gnosticism.
Trenzeus states (adv. Her. iii, 11) that the Cerin-
thian doctrines of a Demiurge distinct from the
Supreme God, and of a Doketic Incarnation, had
already, before Cerinthus, been disseminated by
the Nicolaitans, whom accordingly he describes as
a ‘fragment (ἀπόσπασμα) of the Gnosis falsely so-
valled.” Tertullian (de Pres. πων. 33) writes of
the Cainite Gnosties of his time as modern Nicolai-
tans. Hippolytus also (17. Her. vii. 24) and
Philastrius (de Har. 88) include the Nicolaitans
among Gnostics.

For the relation between the Nicolaitans and
Nicolas of Antioch, see art. NicoLAs. There
appears to be no sufficient reason for rejecting the
traditionary explanation of the connexion as sup-
plied by Clem. of Alex. (without accepting ail
details). We know, from other instances, the
anxiety of early heretics (e.g. the Basilidians and
the Valentinians) to father their views upon some
apostle or associate of the apostles. At the same
time it is possible that a different Nicolas was the
real founder of the sect, and was confused after-
wards with the better-known ‘deacon.’ Cassian
states (Collaé. xvili. 16) that some in his time (A.D.
420) held that the founder was some other Nicolas ;
and in the Lives of the Prophets, Apostles, ete.,
ascribed (erroneously) to Dorotheus, bishop of
Tyre, in the end of the 3rd cent., Nicolas of Antioch
is identified with a bishop Nicolas of Samaria who
is said to have become a heretic in company with

* This view, originally hinted at by Cocceius (Cogit. in Ap.),
was first enunciated by Heumann (Acta Δ γαμεῖ. for 1712, p. 179),
who adopts the interpretation ‘destroyer,’ and then by Vitringa
(Anakr, Apoc.), who interprets Balaam as ‘lord of the people.’
So also Michaelis, Eichhorn, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Stier. Trench
(Seven Churches, p. 78 f.), accepting the theory that the name
Nicolaitans in Rev is symbolical, supposes that ‘one of the
innumerable branches of the Gnostic heresy, springing up at a
later day, assumed this name which they found ready-made for
them in the Apocalypse.’ The Gnosticism of the Nicolaitans has
been recently used by Voelter, who associates them: with the
Carpocratians, as an argument in favour of assigning the seven
epistles in the Bk. of Rev to about a.p. 140 (Kntst. d. Apok.
pp. 44f. 191); but the germs of Gnosticism existed admittedly
in the Apostolic Age; and it is quite natural for writers of
the 2nd and 3rd cents. to apply the name to heretics, who
flourished before its adoption as a formal designation. The
incipient Gnosticism of the Nicolaitans can be denied (as by
MeGiffert, Chr. in Ap. Age, p. 625) only on the assumption that
Iren. Tert. and Hipp. simply inferred its existence from the
inimoral outcome of Nicolaitan doctrine. ;

t The Chronicon Paschale (Ol. 221) speaks of Simon, bishop
of Jerus., as διαβληθείς by Nicolaitans, in A.p. 107.

t ‘Sunt et nunc alii Nicolaitw : Caiana heresis dicitur.’ This
suggests that by a.p. 200 the N. had ceased to exist as a separate
sect, and had been absorbed by cther sects of Gnostics. The
name was applied by the Synod of Piacenza (1095) to ‘inconti
nent’ (including married) priests and deacons (Hefele, Con
ciliengesch. v. 194).

548 NICOLAS

NICOPOLIS

Simon Magus. Ps.-Doroth. (ς. 6th cent.) is not a
trustworthy authority; but the connexion with
the ‘ father of Gnosticism’ is suggestive ; and since
Nicolas of Antioch is nowhere else referred to as
a bishop, or as associated with Samaria, the tradi-
tion 277 indicate the existence of another Nicolas,
with whom the pseude-Dorotheus confounded
Nicolas of Antioch.*

LIreraTure.—Janus, Dissert. de Nicolait.; Ittig, Dissert. ;
Mosheim, Déssert.; Vitringa, Anakrisis Apocal.; Burton,
Heresies of the Apostolic Age; Trench, Epistles to the Seven
Churches; Holtzmann, Neutest. Theol.; Voelter, Entstehung
der Apoc.; Weizsiicker, Apost. Zeitalter ; McGiffert, Christi-
anity in Ap. Age; Farrar, Karly Days of Christianity; the
Commentaries of Alford, Lange, Volkmar, Kliefoth. Stern,
Wordsworth, Bousset, Zockler, etc. ; Wohlenberg in Newe kirch.
Zeitschrift for 1895. H. CowAN.

NICOLAS (Χικόλαος, ‘conqueror of the people ’).—
A proselyte + (to Judaism) of Antioch ; one of the
seven men selected by the Christians of Jerusalem
and appointed by the apostles to look after the
‘daily ministration’ to the poor (Ac 6°).¢ He is
nowhere mentioned afterwards in the NT, and is
first referred to elsewhere by Irenieus (adv. Har. i.
26), who states that the Nicolaitans of Rev 2 were
his followers. Hippolytus (Ref. Her. vii. 24)
declares more distinctly that Nicolas was a heretic,
who ‘departed from correct doctrine’ and inculcated
‘indifference of life.’ Pseudo-Tertullian (adv. oman.
Her, 3, probably of 8rd cent.) charges him still
more strongly with immoral teaching. On the
other hand, in the longer Greek recension of the
Ignatian Epistles, mention is twice made of those
who are ‘talsely called Nicolaitans’ (7'ral/. 11,
Phil. 6; cf. Ap. Const. vi. 8); suggesting that the
Nicolaitans improperly claimed Nicolas as their
founder. Eusebius (/// iii. 29) refers to this pre-
tension in a connexion which implies that he re-
garded it as unfounded. Clement of Alexandria
(Strom, ii. 4, quoted by Eus. Zc.) relates what
would readily explain at once the claim of the
Nicolaitans, the testimony of ‘Ignatius’ and
Eusebius, and a probable misconception by Iren-
wus, Hippolytus, and other subsequent writers.
Clement states that Nicolas had a beautiful wife,
and that, on ‘ being reproached by the apostles for
his Jealousy, he conducted her into the midst of
them, and gave her over (érérpevev)’—t.e. pre-
sumably, offered to do so—to any one who might
wish to marry her.s To this anecdote is appended
a saying of Nicolas that ‘one ought to abuse’
or Suse hardly (παραχρᾶσθαι) the flesh.’ Clement
is careful, however, to state his own interpretation
of that phrase as signifying not indulgence in
but abstinence from fleshly lusts ; and he adds that
Nicolas himself lived a virtuous married life, and
that his family also were chaste. The over-com-
placency of Nicolas regarding his wife is scarcely
credible, and is perhaps a misrepresentation of
some protest of N. against an imputation of self-

*In the Acta Apost. Apoc. of pseudo-Abdias (embodied in
Fabric. Cod. Apoe. vol. i. p. 498 ff.), usually ascribed to the 6th
cent., there is an account of another Nicolas, who after a life
of profligacy is said to have been converted in old age by the
Apostle Andrew; but, as he does not appear to have been a
teacher, he could hardly have founded a sect.

+ It does not follow (though it may be the case) that Nicolas
was the only one of the seven who was not a Jew by birth.
The designation, ‘ proselyte of Antioch,’ may have been inserted
owing to St. Luke’s personal acquaintance with Nicolas, both
being natives (if Eus., //# iii. 4, can be trusted) of that city.

{ Epiph. (Zeer. i. 20) and Ps.-Doroth. include N. among the
‘Seventy’ (Lk 101); the latter adding that he became bishop of
Samaria (see preceding article).

ἃ Epiph. (adv. Her. i. 25), under the influence of monasticism,
transfers to the Apostolic Age the later unscriptural disparage-
ment of married life, and twists the record of Clement into a
story of how Nicolas, ‘following the counsels of perfection,’
separated from his wife, but, ‘being unable to persevere in his
resolution, returned to her again, as a dog to his vomit,
and then justified his conduct by licentious principles, which
occasioned the foundation of the sect of the Nicolaitans.’

indulgence; but the term παραχρᾶσθαι may well
have been employed by him (although not very
happily, owing to the ambiguity) in the sense of
mortifying the flesh through rigid abstinence, and
yet have been taken up by others (inclined towards
Antinomianism) in the Gnostic sense of mortifica-
tion through inordinate gratification. If, however,
Nicolas became eventually a teacher of immoral
heresy, the apostasy of the last-named among the
Seven constitutes a striking parallel to that of the
last-named among the Twelve. For the Literature
see previous article. H. Cowan.

NICOPOLIS (Νικόπολις) is mentioned by St.
Paul in writing to Titus as a place at which he
intended to spend the winter, Tit 3. Of the
various cities named Nicopolis, it is nearly certain
that Nicopolis in Epirus is meant. ‘That was a
city on the promontory which shuts in the gulf of
Ambracia (now called Arta) on the north-west ;
facing the Nicopolitan promontory was tnat of
Actium, shutting in the gulf on the south-west ;
about half a mile of sea separates the two. In
September B.c. 81 Augustus lay encamped on the
northern promontory, and Antony on the southern,
and the decisive battle was fought in the adjacent
waters. Augustus founded in honour of the
victory a city on the spot where his land army had
encamped on the night before the battle, and
‘alled his new foundation ‘the city of victory.’
The site is now deserted ; and the medieval city
Prevesa has taken its place, about 5 miles south on
the extreme southern point of the promontory,
looking across to Actium. There was a temple
of Apollo at Actium, overlooking the scene of
the battle; and the sudden storm, which struck
the faces of Antony’s sailors and contributed not
a little to his defeat, was attributed to the direct
intervention of the god on the side of his favoured
Augustus. Actium had been previously the more
important site; but the victor now resolved to
make a great city at Nicopolis. He concentrated
there the population of many decaying Greek
cities of Acarnamia and .Etolia, gave the new city
the rights and honours of a Roman colony, made it
a leading member of the Amphictyonic Council,
and instituted a quinquennial festival sacred to
Apollo, with musical and athletic sports, and com-
petition of ships and of chariots. This festival was
placed on the same rank as the four great Greek
games —the Olympian, Pythian, Isthmian, and
Nemean; and must have attracted crowds to the
city every fourth year. The circumstances con-
nected with the foundation and peopling of Nico-
polis are very fully discussed by Kuhn, Lntstehung
der Stadte der Alten.

Nicopolis was thus the great centre for the west
coast of Acarnania and Epirus, and was on that
account selected by St. Paul for a residence of
some duration, in the course of which he hoped to
evangelize the entire province of Epirus and Acar-
nania: it is indeed not quite certain that that
province, which existed in Trajan’s reign, had
been constituted in St. Paul’s time ; but the proba-
bility is that it had. The selection of Nicopolis
as a mission centre proves that the epee had
arranged a methodical scheme of work in order
to fill up the gap in his evangelization of the
empire: he had founded churches on the eastern
or -Egean side of the Epirote-Macedonian penin-
sula, but the western side was still a blank, and
in this he now proposed to commence work.

The circumstances in which St. Paul formed that
resolution and communicated it to Titus can only
be guessed at. It is even uncertain whether he
actually visited Nicopolis. According to the sub-
scription added to the letter, he wrote from Nico-
polis to Titus; but that is alate and untrustworthy

NIGER

NIGHT 549

addition. The most natural (in fact, almost neces-
sary) interpretation is that he wrote from some
other place; he mentions his resolve to spend the
winter ‘there,’ not ‘here,’ and the perfect tense
κέκρικα Shows that he is writing, not from the point
of view of the recipient of the letter, but simply as
he thinks and feels. A journey, therefore, lay
before him to Nicopolis. Taking this in conjunc-
tion with the fact that some time later he, from
Rome, wrote to Timothy and indicated that he
had at no distant time passed through Miletus and
Corinth (2 Ti 450), the conjecture is at least a
tempting one that he had had in mind to go by
Corinth to Nicopolis. Moreover, as the words of
2'Ti 4° would hardly suggest that he had been
arrested in Corinth, the probability is that he
reached Nicopolis, and that he was arrested there
while prosecuting his work, and sent to Rome to
be tried there as a Roman citizen.

The reference to Nicopolis and to the supposed
journey are necessarily connected with the disputed
question of the authenticity and trustworthiness of
the Pastoral Epistles. Those who deny that those
Epistles can be accepted as a rational foundation
on which to construct the history of St. Paul’s life,
will of course take no account of Nicopolis. But
those who accept them as recording trustwortliy
historical statements must date them some years
after the first Roman captivity, and conclude that
St. Paul was acquitted on his first trial. Some of
those even who deny the authenticity of the
Pastoral Epistles, admit, like Harnack, that they
contain historical information. Then the earliest
possible time when St. Paul could have been ar-
rested for preaching Christianity would be after the
outbreak of the Neronian persecution. The winter
that he proposed to spend at Nicopolis, therefore,
must be that of 64-65, or 65-66, or 66-67.

The later history of Nicopolis is short. After
falling into decay, it was restored by Julian about
362; and afterwards it was captured by the Goths
and destroyed, but again was restored by Justinian,
as Procopius, de Aedif. iv. 2, describes. It is men-
tioned as the metropolis of Old Epirus by Hierocles
about A.D. 530, and retained that position in the
ecclesiastical organization; but a late medieval
list of cities that changed their names mentions
Νικόπολις ἡ νῦν 1Πρέβεζα, implying that Prevesa had
taken its place and dignity. There are many
remains of the ancient city, on which the guide-
books of Murray, Baedeker, ete., may be con-
sulted. W. M. RAMSAY.

NIGER (Niyep). — Among the prophets and
teachers that were at Antioch when Barnabas and
Paul were sent out on their first missionary journey,
was ‘Symeon, which is called Niger’ (Ac 13}).
Niger was probably the Gentile name which he
had assumed. The name is found as a Roman
cognomen, and a certain Niger of Perwa is men-
tioned in Jos. BJ τι. xix. 2. Nothing further is
known about the Niger of Ac 13!, and there do not
appear to be even any legends.

; A. Ο. HEADLAM.

NIGHT (5:5, abd [the ending 7. being prob.
radical and not ἢ loc.—Oxf. Heb. Lex.j, Aram.
xD, νύξ). -- Besides representing these properly
equivalent Heb. and Gr. words, ‘night’ stands
in AV once for qwn (‘darkness’), Job 26 (RV
‘darkness’); thrice for 723 (‘twilight’), Is 5!
(RV ‘night’), 21¢ 59 (RV ‘twilight’); and four
times for 2 (‘evening’), Gn 49° (RV ‘even’),
Ly 69 (RV ‘evening’), Job 74 (RV ‘night’), Ps 305
(RV ‘night,’ RVm ‘even’). 77x? is tr? ‘night
season,’ Job 30!7, and mod ‘night seasons,’ Ps 167.
The Aram. ma (‘to pass the night’) occurs Dn 6,
and in NT we have μεσονύκτιον (‘midnight’), Mk
138, Lk 115, Ac 16” 207; διανυκτερεύειν (‘to con-

tinue all night’), Lk 615; νυχθήμερον (6a night and
a day’), 2 Co 11%. RV omits ‘night’ on textual
grounds from four passages where the word appears
τ αν νὴ ΡΝ

The simple conception of night as the period of
darkness alternating with daylight is embodied in
the first creation narrative (Gn 1" ὅ), which de-
scribes how the darkness (12 Π} was divided by God
from the light, and was called Night (99:9). Dark-
ness and night are similarly identitied in Ps 104°,
and night is a synonym for darkness in Aim 59,
Mic 3°, Wis 177: 44-41) The regular succession of
days and nights represents the permanent order of
the universe (Gn 8”, Jer 33°°-*). As the daytime
was assigned to the sun, so the night was assigned
to the moon and the stars (Gn 141618) Ps 1369,
Jer 31°). Night as a part of the creation is
God’s (Ps 7416), and bears witness to His glory
(Ps 192).

The following usages of ‘night’ in connexion
with ‘day’ are noteworthy. (a) Time is measured
in terms of both. Thus we find ‘three days and
three nights,’ 1S 30!*, Jon 17, Mt 12; ‘seven
days and seven nights,’ Job 2"; ‘forty days and
forty nights,’ Gn 7+)" (the flood), Ex 24} ete.
(Moses on Mt. Sinai), 1 K 108 (Elijah at Horeb),
Mt 4° (Christ’s temptation). (ὦ) ‘Day and night’
or ‘night and day’ expresses the continuousness of
an action or condition either during a definite
time (Lv 8%, Est 41°, Ac 20") or indefinitely, as of
work (1 Th 2°, 2 Th 35); of grief and trouble (Ps
32? 423, Jer 9! 141’, La 2!*); of prayer (Ps 88},
2 Nac seal ike Oe Penh oe For BAP) οΣ
meditation in the law (Jos 15, Ps 1°); of God’s
service (Jth 1127, Ace 267). In Rev 20! ‘day and
night’ is follewed by ‘for ever and ever.’ In Mk
4” ‘night and day’ has the special sense of ‘day
after day,’ ‘as time goes on.’ (¢) ‘All day and all
night’ is used of circumstances that are exception-
ally prolonged, as in Ex 10% (an east wind), Nu
1153 (the gathering of quails), 1S 1953 (Saul’s
ecstasy), 28° (Saul’s fast), 1 Mac 5°° (the assault
on Ephron).

Night is the natural time for daily work to
cease (Jn 99), and for rest and sleep (Sir 40°, 1 Th
δὴ. Wakefulness at night is abnormal (Est 61),
and is usually due to sickness or to painful excite-
ment (Job 7% 4 30!7, Ec 25 8!) It is at night that
excessive erief finds vent (Ps 6° 30°, La 1°, To 107).
On the other hand, not only do wild beasts roam
at night (Ps 104°"), but some men are called to
night duties, as the priests in the temple (Ps 1341),
the city watchmen (Is 215), shepherds (Lk 28),
fishermen (Lk 5°, Jn 919). The diligence of the
virtuous woman is shown by her working at night
(Pr 3115. 1p).

Night is also the season of dreams and divine
communications. Dreams are called ‘visions of
the night,’ and appear in Scripture not only as
significant of the future (Gn 405 etec.), but also as
direct means of divine revelation. God speaks in
a dream by night to Abimelech (Gn 20°), to Laban
(Gn 31), to Solomon (1 K 3°, 2:@h 1); and in
visions of the night to Jacob (Gn 467), and to Paul
(Ac 18%). Zechariah ‘saw by night’ the visions
deseribed in his prophecies (Zee 18), and ‘night
visions’ are re; eatedly mentioned as the means of
divine revelation to Danicl (Dn 2! 73.1.18. Apart
from any special mention of dreams, God speaks
at night to Abraha.n (Gn 26"), to Balaam (Nu
22°), to Gideon (Jg 6%), to Samuel (1S 3% 15!8),
to Solomon (2 Ch 713), to Paul (directly Ace 23",
and by an angel Ac 278). The ‘word of the Lord’
came by night to Nathan (28 74, 1 Ch 17°).

The darkness of night is a hindrance to active
movement, causing men to stumble (fs 5010. Jn
11?°) and grope (Job 54). On the other hand, it is
favourable to secrecy. Hence night was chose

550 NIGHT HAWK

NILE

for secret visits (1 S 28%, Jn 32 1939) and treacheries
(Jn 13%). Daring exploits were carried out by
night, such as Gideon's destruction of the altar of
Baal (Jg 6”), and his visit to the camp of Midian
(Jg 7°); David's visit to the camp of Saul (1S 267) ;
the rescue of Saul’s remains (1S 312); Nehemiah’s
survey of Jerusalem (Neh 2”); the murder of
Holoternes (Jth 13'4). For the same reason in war
night was a favourite time for ambushes (Jos 8,
Je 0% 16%, Ὁ K°64)> and surprises (Gn 14%, Jos
109, Jeg 7, 1S 14, 2S 2% 171, 2 K 82,2 Ch 219
Jer 6°, 1 Mac 44% 55:9. 1056. 27 13",.2 Maes? 12%). It
was in the night that Sennacherib’s army was
destroyed (2 KK 19°), and that panic fell on the
Syrians (2 kh 715). Night was consequently a time
when danger was to be apprehended (Ps 91°, Ca 35),
and when death and sudden destruction might
come (Ex 12'*, Job 3455 36%, Hos 45, Lk 1228 1754),
Night was the safest time for flight and es ape,
as in the cases of Zedekiah at the Captivity (2 K
254, Jer 394527) ; Joseph and Mary (Mt 2"); Paul at
Damascus (Ac 955), at Thessalonica (Ae 17"), and at
Jerusalem (Ac 23”), The great es ‘ape of Israel
from Egypt was remembered as having taken place
by night (Ex 12°: 42, Dt 162), and it was at night
that the apostles were repeatedly delivered from
prison (Ac 5! 12°). Night was the opportunity of
the thief (Gn 31°, Job 244, Jer 49°, Ob ὅ, 1 Th 52.
See also Mt 28%). The quietness of night made
it a fitting time for prayer and communion with
God (1S 15", Ps 167 178 22? 1195) Jth 62 i RA
Lk 6”),

Night was the season of festive pleasure (Is 214),
which might be innocent and holy (Job 35", Ps 428
77°, Is 30’), or might degenerate into drunkenness
and sensuality (Gn 19", Jo 19%, Pr79,Is54, 1 ΤῈ δὴ.

Besides darkness, the physical features of night
include dew (Ca 5%) and frost (Gn 31”, Jer 36%),
It was at night that the manna fell in the wilder-
ness (Nu 11").

The night was divided into watches (Ps 909.
Under the Jewish system followed in OT these
were three in number. We have ‘the beginning
of the watches’ (La2"), ‘the middle wateh’ (J@ 7}%),
and ‘the morning wateh’ (Ex 144). In NT four
stages of the night are distinguished, viz. evening,
midnight, cock-crowing, and morning (Mk 13°).
These may be taken as corresponding to the four
watches into which the night was divided by the
Romans. Mention is made of the second and third
watches (Lk 128), and of the fourth watch (Mt 1455).

Midnight is specified as the hour when certain
impressive incidents, historical or parabolic, took
place, such as the death of the firstborn in Egypt
(Ex 114 12”); the earthquake at Philippi (Ac 16°) ;
the summons to meet the bridegroom (Mt 25°, ef.
Mk 13°),

Night is used as a figure for death, which ends
life’s work (Jn 94). The present age, to be closed
by the coming of Christ, is described as the night
which precedes the day (Ro 13"). sy another
metaphor night represents the sin and ignorance
from which Christians have alr sady escaped (1 Th
δ). One of the glories of the new Jerusalem will
be the absence of night (Rev 212 295),

JAMES PATRICK.

NIGHT HAWK (0207 tahmds, γλαύξ, noctua).—
Tahmds oceurs twice (Lv 1116, Dt 1415) in the list of
unclean birds. . Our view of its meaning will
be influenced by that which we take of the
signification of the preceding word a32:rn2 bath-
hayyddnch. AV translates this in all the eight
passages where it occurs ‘owl,’ but in four (Job
30", Ts 13°! 34% 4350) the margin has ‘ostrich.’

In all of them RV gives ‘ostrich.’ The LXX
generally renders it στρουθός, but sometimes
σειρήνος. As the latter is a fabulous bird, the

weight of the LXX is with Ἐν. Many have

thought that tahmds refers to the ostrich, the root
himas signifying ‘to be violent or unjust,’ and
that it corresponds to the Arab galim, which also
signifies ‘the wnjust bird’=the ostrich. But if
‘ostrich’ is the proper rendering for buth-hayya -
anah, it is not likely that another word would be
used for the bird in the same context, especially
if the expression ‘after his kind,’ at the end of the
passage, refers to all the four birds mentioned.
But even admitting, as is most probable, that this
expression is limited to the genus immediately
after which it occurs, still, if we agree with RV in
the rendering ‘ostrich’ for bath-hiyyddndh, we
must seek for another bird to correspond with
tuhmas. Unfortunately, this is diflicult to find.
DAavé, for which we have the authority of the LXX,
and noctue that of the Vulg., signify some sort of
owl. But two other words in this context are tr!
respectively ‘little owl’ and ‘great owl’ ‘Night
hawk’? would seem to be a mere guess. Perhaps
it would be better with RVm_ to transliterate
talmas. G, "Ee Post:

NIGHT MONSTER (a lilith, ὀνοκένταυρος,
lamia, Is 344 AVm and RV ‘night monster,’
AV ‘screech owl,’ RVm ‘Lilith’ [wh. see]).—The
reference is to a nocturnal spectre, similar to the
ghit of the Arabs. All nations have, in their
legends, similar apparitions (ef. Wellh. Teste,
148 ἢ; W. R. Smith, RS 113f.). The Heb. has
two other words οὗ similar import, apy (see
HORSE-LEECH) and ΟΡ (see AZAZEL, SATYR).
The mention of such fabulous monsters does not
commit Scripture to an endorsement of the fact
of their existence. See OWL, 5.

α. Ἢ Pos,

NILE.—The word Νεῖλος is of unknown origin.
It was the name by which the river was known to
the Greeks, Hesiod being the earliest writer to use
it; Homer has but one name, Αἴγυπτος, for river
and land. It does not ‘occur in MT or LXX.
Besides the possible connexion with 773, it has
been proposed to refer it to a Demotic form, ne-u-u,
meaning ‘the rivers.’* The so-called canal, Shatt
en-Nil, in Babylonia, is thought by some to have
an etymological connexion with the Egyptian
river.t Of the many native names, one of the
commonest and most ancient t was Δ΄}, a word in
some way implying the idea of covering or hiding.
This name, however, is always employed in a
sense more or less mythological : that so frequent
later on, ¢#rw,—the origin of the above Demotie
form,—which became the everyday designation of
the river, did not grow into popularity until the
Middle Kingdom. §

The Semitic languages record no name for the
Nile till a comparatively late date ; none, at any
rate, appears to be met with before the 7th cent.
(Assurbanipal), when the Assyrians were aking
use of the native itrw in the modilied pronuncia-
tion already current in Egypt, iarw a, the last
letter here representing the Egyptian ‘o, ‘great,’
as it appears eventually in the Coptic cero, iaro.|)
This same word was as Ν᾽, ἜΝ most usually
employed also by the Hebrews (e.g. Gn 411, Ex 1%),
who for other large rivers used 773 (6.0. Gn 1618, 2K
5”, Jer 25), The plur. of 1%) generally indicates
the canals or subsidiary branches of the Nile.

Another name used by Hebrew writers is nv,
Ary, Σιώρ, Ἵ Shihor (only Jos 13%, 1 Ch 13°, Is 23°,
Jer 918), of which the etymology is obscure ; the word

* Groff in Bull. Inst. égupt. 1892, 165.

t Delitzsch, Paradies, 71. Yakdt (iv. 861) attributes this
name merely to a supposed physical resemblance.

t In the Pyramid texts, e.g. Wnis 431, 545.

§Inscr. of Chnemothes at Beni-Hasan, Kahun Pap., ed
Griffith, ii. 61. ;

|| Steindorff in Beitr. z. Assyr. i. 612; Erman in ZDMG xlvi
108. Cf. Ptolemy’s ὁ μέγας ποταμός (Geogr. iv. 5).

“1 Gloss in Cod. March. (Holmes, xii..; Swete, 9), Jer 218,

NILE

NIMRIM, THE WATERS OF © 551

is said to refer to the dark hue of the water; but,
in fact, the Nile is anything but dark in colour.
No Egyptian derivation for the name has been
recognized. Though it may sometimes refer to the
Nile (Is 23%, Jer 218). tnv elsewhere seems more
appropriate to the Wady el-Arish, ‘the Brook of
Egypt’ (Jos 13%, 1 Ch 13°). See EGypr (RIVER OF).

Whether the Nile is to be recognized, as it was
by Josephus,* in one of the four rivers of Paradise
(Gn 910) is still debated. Of the two not yet
identified, Pishon and Gihon, the latter has, owing
to its connexion with the land of Cush, been often
held to represent the river which flows through
Ethiopia as well as Egypt. The LXX in Jer 2"
seem, at any rate, to understand it so (cf. Streane,
Double leat of Jer. 38 .). This Cush is, however,
now less generally held to be Ethiopia than formerly.
Delitzscht regards it as a Babylonian province ;
Hommel t takes it for a district of central Arabia.

The Egyptians fully realized the debt they owed
to the river by whose agency their country had
been created and was maintained. The Nile was
a deity honoured, from the earliest to the latest
times, throughout the land,§ irrespective of local,
often antagonistic cults; yet he appears to have
had few temples of his own, and his priests are
seldom mentioned.|| Several deities besides Hpi,
the personification of its name, were regarded as
connected with the river in one or other of its
aspects. For instance, Hnm-Chnubis, Inkt-Anukis,
Stt-Satis were thought to rule the Cataracts, the
point at which the Nile came within the knowledge
of the Egyptians; Sbk-Souchos, again, was the
tutelary god of the Fayyfm lake. It is possible
that Osiris himself was originally a Nile deity.‘
The Nile god is represented as a man with
woman’s breasts, water-plants on his head, and, for
dress, the girdle of a sailor or fisherman. Some-
times he carries an offering of fish and water-fowl.
This representation appears to date from the 12th
Dynasty. Long hymns are extant in his praise,
enumerating his benetits to mankind ;** he is
honoured, too, in many shorter inscriptions. The
festivals held in medieval and modern times to
celebrate the Inundation are doubtless survivals
of ancient heathen ceremonies, one of which classical
authors call the Νειλῶα. 1 The Copts have always
used special prayers for the river’s rise ; so, too, have
the Ethiopian Christians.t{ A curious liturgy is
extant, containing a sort of harvest service in
connexion with the Inundation, which was in use
among the medieval Syriac-speaking community
in Keypt.§s

The Inundation (which is perhaps referred to in
Am 88 95) was never understood by the Egyptians
themselves, who attributed it to some mystic,
divine agency, the tears of Isis’ yearly sorrow for
Osiris being in one view its origin. ||| Herodotus
(ii. 22) reiects the one explanation, among those
he had heard, —and that from a Greek source, —
which approximated to the truth. Subsequently
Ptolemy gave this same explanation—that the
river rose owing to melted snow. The Christian
Fathers 4 had learned the true one, viz. the
annual rains in Ethiopia.

+ Ant, 1. 1.3. + Paradies, 71.

fA HOT 4 fi § Cf. Lucian, Jup. Trag. 42.

|| He was, however, specially honoured under the New King-
dom at Silsilis. Cf. Lepsius, Venki. in. 175a, 200¢, ὦ, 218d,

CLC

“ Cf. Maspero, Hist. anc. i. 98.

** The best known in Pap. Sallier, ii. ; see Guiesse in Rec. de
Trav. xiii.

tt Heliodorus, ix. 9. For later times see Lumbroso, L’Egitto2,
1ff., and Lane, Mod. Eg. ii. ch. xiii.

tt Tuki, Missale (S. Basil.), 71; Leyden, Catal. 129; Brightman,
Liturgies, 208. The river’s rise is thought to be due to the in-
tercession of St. Michael; see Amélineau, Contes, i. 17.

§§ G. Margoliouth in JRAS, 1896.

Hil Pausanias, x. 32; cf. Brugsch, Thes. 293.

“41 eg. Athanasius, Vita Ant. (Pat. Gr. 26, 891).

The source of the river was equally mysterious,
One theory, with which the Odyssey seems
acquainted (iv. 477), regarded it as a branch of a
heavenly Nile, from which it separated to form
the earthly stream somewhere in the Cataract
district. ‘Iwo deep springs (krti) in that region,
or two rocks (cf. Herod. ii. 28), were spoken of as
the point whence the waters flowed. ἢ

The height of the river’s annual rise—a matter
of vital importance to all dwellers on its banks—
was officially registered from an early period (at
Semneh, 12th Dyn.),t and recently similar jn-
scriptions of a later age (22nd-26th Dyn.) have
been found at Thebes.t The regulation of supplies
of water for irrigation was one of the functions
of the crown itself. Among the newly discovered
remains of the earliest monarchy (Ist-2nd Dyn.)
at Hieraconpolis is a relief showing the king
opening (%) an artificial canal.s Of the numer-
ous Nilometers of more recent times, the oldest
extant—probably of Ptolemaic origin, and in its
modernized form still in use—is at Elephantine,
though tradition assigned to that which existed at
Memphis a much higher antiquity.|| Abu Salih
(quoting Ibn ‘Abd el-Hakam) attributes it to
Joseph. {i

The story of the seven years’ famine in Gn 41, due
to an insufficient inundation, finds a parallel ina
text discovered in 1891, which, though written at
earliest under the Ptolemies, purports to give an
account of a drought of like duration under the
3rd Dynasty. **

A curious legend in the Targum describes the
burial of Joseph’s coffin in the Nile, and its re-
discovery by Moses.tt+ The Egyptians, of course,
never used the river in this way.

See, further, art. EGYPT, in vol. i. p. 653.

W. E. CRUM.
NIMRAH.

See BETH-NIMRAH and NIMRIM.
NIMRIM, THE WATERS OF (Οὐ; τὸ ὕδωρ
τῆς Νεμ(η)ρείμ (Is 15%), B Νεβρείν, A ᾿Εβρίμ (Jer 48
[Gr. 31]*); Aque Nemrim).—Mentioned only in
Isaiah (15°) and Jeremiah (4892).

Gesenius (Lex.)
gives the meaning (the same as of Nimrah or
Beth-nimrah) ‘limpid or wholesome water,’ but
the word is more probably held to indicate the
place of the ximr or leopard (Bochart, Hieroz.
il. 107, ed. Rosenmiill.).

Nimrim need not, however, be confounded with
Nimrah or Beth-nimrah (Nu 32°: *8, Jos 13°"), which
seem to have been located on the northern shore
of the Dead Sea. It is mentioned in connexion
with Zoar, Luhith, and Horonaim in such a
manner as to indicate its location south of the
river Arnon at the south-eastern end of the Dead
Sea. The Zoar denounced here by the prophets
may be quite distinct from the refuge of Lot,
which is by many located on the northern shore
of the Dead Sea. Josephus, however, states that
Zoar (to which Lot fled) existed in his day, and
places it together with Sodom and Gomorrah south
of the Dead Sea (Ant. I. xi. 4, XIV. 1. 4; BJ Iv.
viii. 4). Eusebius also places Zoar at the southern
end of the Dead Sea, and Jerome appears to en-
dorse this. In the Middle Ages Zoar was identi-
fied under the name of Segor in the same locality,
and it is now accepted by many as represented
by Dra’a at the mouth of the Wady AKerak on
the south-east shore of the Dead Sea. The posi-

* The most ignorant notions on this question may be still found
among the natives ; see Luttke, degyptens neue Zeit. ii. 356.

+ Lepsius, Denkm. ii. 139, ete.

t Legrain in .hy. Z. xxxiv.

§ Egyp. Expl. Fund’s Report for 1897-98, p. 7.

|| Diodorus, i. 36. q Ed. Evetts, f. 18a.

** Brugsch, Die bisl. 7 Jahre, Cf. above, vol. ii. p. 774%
note t.

tt Bondi, Lehnwérter, 129.

552 NIMROD NIMROD
tion of Luhith can only be surmised. It appears | same as the hero Gilgames therefore fell to the

to have been in the neighbourhood of one of the
few passes leading down to the Dead Sea. In the
days of Eusebius it was known as Luith, and lay
between Areopolis (Rabbath Moab) and Zoar. Tt
may therefore have been the name of the pass
leading down the Wady Beni Hamid from Areo-
polis to Zoar; while Horonaim, ‘the two caverns,’
may have been the name of the fort or forts com-
manding the pass leading down from Kir of Moab
to Zoar (see Kir OF MOAB).

A name resembling Nimrim has been found by
de Sauley, Seetzen, and Tristram in Bory Nemveirah
and Wady N’meirah about eight miles south of
Dra’a (Zoar), in one of the richest and most
luxuriant spots in the country. The ‘Waters of
Nimrim’ were found by Klein at a spot higher
up, where were the ruins of an old town and itri-
gated garden bearing the name ‘the Sprines of
N’meirah’ ; in close proximity was also found the
‘brook of the willows,’ spoken of in connexion
with Nimrim (Is 157).

These passages call attention to the abundance
begotten by those waters, the grass and herbage
and hay ; and Tristram relates that the greenness,
exuberant fertility, and plenteous fountains are
still as marked as ever (Bible Places, p. 353).

LITERATURE.—Dillmann, Jesaja, ad loc. : Cheyne, Proph. of
Tsaiah3, ad loc. (accepts, while Dillm. rejects, identity wich
Beth-nimrah of Nu); Buhl, GAP 124, 272; de Saulcy, i. 283 ff.,
ii. 52; Seetzen, ii. 354, iii. 18; Palmer, Desert of the Exodus,
465. C. WARREN.

NIMROD (7523, Νεβρώδ, Nemrod).—A son of
Cush, who ‘began to be a mighty one in the
earth,’ and a great hunter, and who is described as
having had, as the beginning of his kingdom, the
cities Babel, Erech, Acead, and Calneh, in the
land of Shinar or Babylonia (Gn 10%), There
have been many speculations as to the identity of
this ancient hero and the meaning of his name.
To all appearance, his greatness rested as much upon
his prowess as a hunter as upon his success as a
ruler of men; but it is to be noted that the ex-
pression ‘a mighty hunter before the Lord’ is, to
all appearance, merely another way of saying ‘a
yery great hunter indeed,’ and may perhaps be
ironically intended. That violence and insolence
are associated with the character of the hero (see
Josephus, Ant. 1. iv. 2) on account of the expres-
sion 733 gibbdér, in no way affects the question of
his career and identity. ~ With regard to this, it
may be noted that the derivation of Nimrod from
the root 172 mdarad, ‘to rebel,’ rests on a false
etymology ; and there is also no real ground to
connect him with the building of the tower of
Babel, to which his name is attached by tradition
(see Mirkhond*), though we shall see further on
what connexion, if any, he may have had with
that erection.

Among the later attempts at identification, the
most important is that which made him to be one
with Izdubar or Gistubar, as the name was then
read, and it was confidently expected that the true
reading of this name when found would turn
out to be very similar to the Hebrew form Nimrod
—an expectation which seemed to be confirmed
by the reading of Namrasit as the Semitie form
ot Gisdubarra, pointed out by Hommel. There
is hardly any Assyriologist who would not have
liked to welcome this explanation, for it had in it
much inherent probability. When, however, the
Babylonian pronunciation of the name read as
Izdubar or Gistubar appeared, it turned out to be
Gilgames, the Gilgamos of Aelian, as pointed out
by Oppert. The supposition that Nimrod was the

~ Rauzat-us-Safa, translated by E. Rehatsek (Oriental Trans-
lation Fund, vol. i. pt. i. p. 140).

ground,

There was then no alternative but to fall back
upon the suggestion, made by Josef Grivel (TSBA
iil. 136 1f.) in 1874, that Nimrod is none other than
the god Merodach. Little need exists to go
through all Grivel’s reasons for supposing that the
two were identical, many of these being untenable ;
but it may be noted that his view was based prima-
rily upon the likeness he had noticed between the
shorter form of the name of Merodach in Accadian
and the biblical Nimrod. Notwithstanding the
difference that appears to exist between these two
names, it is certain that they are very closely
related. The name Merodach is, as is well known,
of Accadian origin, the full form being Amar-
utuk or Amar-uduk, and the meaning apparently
‘the brightness of day.’ From this it. will be
seen that he was a solar hero, and that his name
is compounded with that of the Sungod, one of
whose names, in Accadian, was Utulki—the same
word as the final element, «tuk or uduk. As the
syllable -wk was, to all intents and purposes, a
termination or lengthening, we have in Amaruduk
a word containing all the consonants of Nimrod
except the initial πη. The addition of this con-
sonant is apparently due to the same cause as the
initial » in Nisroch and Nibhaz (see these articles),
namely, the desire to disfigure the name of a
heathen deity. The vowels of this newly formed
word have also been brought more or Jess into
conformity with that of Nisroch and of Nibhaz
(cf. JRAS, 1899, p. 459).

In Gn 10° the expression ‘Cush begat Nimrod’
apparently means only that he was of Cushite
nationality (he is not mentioned among the sons of
Cush in ν.7), and not a Semite. This would agree
with the evidence furnished by the name, for
Amaruduk is not Semitic, but Accadian, which is
regarded by many as a Cushite language. Amar-
uduk or Merodach was son of Ea or Aa, whose
name is also Accadian.

The question whether Merodach ever was really
king of Babylon need not detain us here, as it is
of no importance. Suttice it to say that ‘the king’
(Accad. lugala, Bab. Sarru) par excellence was
one of his titles. This he apparently bore as ‘king
of the gods’; but there is no reason to suppose, on
that account, that he was not king of men during
his life on earth. The second point in this parallel
refers to the cities over which he had dominion,
and in this connexion it is to be noted that,
whilst Gilgames (Gistubar) seems to have been
king of Erech only, Merodach was, first of all;
king of Babylon, and remained patron god of the
city practically to the last. Besides this, he seems
to be mentioned, in the bilingual story of the
Creation, as the builder of Niffer (identified by the
Rabbins with Calneh), together with its temple
E-kura, and of Erech, with its temple E-ana (cf.
11. 39 and 40 with 6 and 7, JRAS, 1891, pp. 394,
395). The building of Babylon is referred to in
1. 14 (Z.c.), and it may be supposed that he was also
regarded by the writer as its constructor. If the
statement of the Rabbins be correct, which makes
Niffer to be the same as Calneh, then we have
here Merodach mentioned in close connexion with
three of the four cities referred to in Gn 10” as the
beginning of the kingdom of Nimrod, and it is not
by any means improbable that future discoveries
may reveal to us in the same connexion Accad,
which would make the fourth.

In addition to this, however, Merodach was
regarded by the Babylonians (though they did not
look, to all appearance, upon that side of his char-
acter as the most important) as a mighty hunter,
for it was he who, when all the other gods held
back, attacked, and caught with his net, the great

NIMSHI

NINEVEH 553

dragon of Chaos, as detailed in the Babylonian
story of the Creation :—

‘The lord * spread wide his net to enclose her,

The evil wind following behind, he sent on before.

Tiamtu opened her mouth as wide as she could—

116 caused the evil wind to enter before she closed her lips.

The evil winds filled out her body,

Her consciousness was taken away, wide opened she her
mouth.

He seized the weapon, cut open her body,

Sundered her inner part, tore out her heart.

He enclose her, put an end to her life,

Threw her body prone and stood thereon.’t

Merodach was indeed ‘a hero in hunting’ (gibbér
zayid), which, as we know from the Assyrian
sculptures, was often accomplished with a net,t as
in the legend here quoted ; and this circumstance
seems to complete the list of parallels needed. A
large portion of the Semitic- Babylonian legend
of the Creation is devoted to this exploit of the
head of the Babylonian pantheon, testifying to
the importance with which the early Babylonians
regarded it, and it is mentioned in the eulogies
pronounced upon him by his father Ea or Aa at
the end of the story.

The legends that have been preserved concerning
Nimrod would seem to show that his fame in the
country of his exploits rests more upon what was
known of him there than upon the somewhat
meagre account in Genesis, and it is probably for
the same reason that so many places there are
named after him.§ Thus we have the Birs Nimroud,
the ancient Borsippa; near the ruins of Babylon,
Tel Nimroud, near Baghdad, the dam Suhr el-
Nimroud, across the Tigris near Mosul, and the
mound of Nimroud, the ancient Calah. To all
appearance, he was regarded in later times in his
native country as a great builder also. As has
been pointed out above, he seems to have been
looked upon by the Babylonians as the builder of
Babylon, and the bilingual Creation story appar-
ently attributes to him the completion of K-savila,
the great temple-tower in that city, which was
certainly of the type of the Tower of Babel, even
if it were not that erection itself. This may
account for the connexion of Nimrod with the
catastrophe of the confusion of tongues, ascribed
to him in the East both in comparatively ancient
and in more recent times. T. G. PINCHES.

NIMSHI (‘v'>3).—The grandfather of king Jehu,
who is generally designated ‘ ben-Nimshi,’ 1 Καὶ 1916
(B Ναμεσθεί, A om.), 2 Καὶ 9? (B Ναμεσσεί, A ᾿Αμεσεί)
4 (B Ναμεσσεί. A* Ναμεσσά) 3 (B Ναμεσσείας, A
-las), 2 Ch 227 (B Ναμεσσεί, A -ἢ.

NINEVEH (733; LXX Νινευή, NT [Text. Rec. ]
Nwevi, Gr. and Rom. writers Nivos, Ninuws).—In Gn
10" it is stated (according to the better transla-
tion) that Nimrod (wh. see) or some other Baby-
lonian ‘went forth’ out of Chaldzea and founded
Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir (2ébit-urt in Assyrian,
‘the streets or public places of the city’). A
similar tradition is indicated in Mic ὅδ. The
native monuments show that the tradition is
correct, and that Nineveh was once included
within the boundaries of the Babylonian empire
(cf. art. ASSYRIA in vol. i. p. 1805, and Driver in
Hogarth’s Authority and Archeology, p. 99 1.).
In fact it seems to have taken its name from the
Babylonian city of Nina on the Euphrates, which

* t.e. Merodach.

t Fried. Delitzsch, Weltschipfungsepos, pp. 106, 107, lines
95-104, revised by comparison with the original text.

{ One of the meanings of the Heb. 733, the root of zayid, is
‘to lay snares’ or ‘nets.’ Cf. also the name of Zidon.

§ It is noteworthy that Babylonia is called ‘the land of Nim-
rod’ in Mic 56,—whether because he was an early king of the
country, or because, as Merodach, he was the chief divinity, is
uncertain. If the latter, it would be a parallel to the expression
‘people of Chemosh’ in Nu 2129 and Jer 4846,

is mentioned by Diodorus (ii. 3. 7), quoting prob-
ably from Ctesias.

The name of Nineveh is written Ninud and
Nind in the cuneiform inscriptions. A popular
etymology connected it with the Assyrian ain,
‘fish,’ at a very early date, since the name is ideo-
graphically represented by the picture of a fish
inside the enclosure of a city. But it seems really
to have been derived from the title of the Baby-
lonian goddess Nina, the daughter of Ea, who was
identified with the Semitie Istar. Nina is the
original of the Greek form Ninos.

The city lay on the eastern side of the Tigris,
northward of the Greater Zab, and opposite the
modern town of Mosul. As late as the 12th cent.
3enjamin of Tudela still knew its ruins under the
name of Niniveh, although its site had been so
completely deserted before the 4th cent. B.c. that
when Xenophon passed the spot all recollection
of the place had disappeared. The ruins consist
chiefly of two great mounds, Kouyunjik and Nebi
Yunus, and the remains of the ancient city walls.
The latter are of a rectangular shape, running
parallel to the river on the western side, and pro-
tected on the eastern side by a double earthwork,
between which and the walls was a deep ditch.
The walls themselves were protected by towers and
pierced by gates, and rose to a vast height, and
consisted of a basement of stone with a super-
structure of crude bricks. They enclosed about
1800 acres, or about half the space enclosed within
the Aurelian walls of Rome, and had a cireumfer-
ence of 74 miles. The moat between them and the
eastern outwerks was 145 feet wide. It was filled
with water from the river Khusur, now called
Khoser, which flows in a southward direction from
Khorsabad, and, after passing through the centre
of the ancient Nineveh, falls into the Tigris on the
south side of the mound of Kouyunjik. The Tigris
must originally have washed the foot of the western
city wall, though at present a bank of silt has been
formed between it and the river.

The mound of Kouyunjik lies on the north side
of the Khoser, and covers the site of two palaces,
—that of Sennacherib to the south and of Assur-
bani-pal to the north. Sennacherib levelled the
remains of an older palace which stood on the bank
of a stream called the Tebilti, and had been so
injured by the floods that the sarcophagi of his
royal predecessors who had been buried there were
exposed to view. In its place he erected a splendid
building, partly in the native Assyrian, partly in
the Syrian, style of architecture, with a park and
garden, stables and storehouses, and special forti-
fications of its own. Assur-bani-pal’s palace was
chiefly distinguished by the extent of the harim
buildings and the establishment of a library.

The southern mound, which lies, like Kouyunjik,
against the inner side of the western city wall,
rises midway hetween the Khoser and the southern
portion of the city rampart. It is now known as
Nebi Yunus, from a supposed tomb of the prophet
Jonah, and also represents the site of two palaces,
one constructed by Sennacherib and the other by
Esarhaddon. Compared, however, with the palaces
at Kouyunjik, they were of inferior size and
splendour.

Southward of Nineveh, at the corner of land
formed by the junction of the Tigris and Greater
Zab, was Kalkhu or Calah, whose site is now
marked by the mound of Nimrfiid. Between it
and Nineveh stood the Resen of Gn 1013, the Res-
ent or ‘ Fountain-head’ of the Bavian inscription
of Sennacherib. It is doubtless the Larissa (A/-
Fesen or ‘City οἵ Resen’) of Xenophon’s A nabasis
(iii. 4. 7), 6 parasangs from Mespila, the Assyrian
Muspalu or ‘low ground’ near the mound of Nebi
Yunus. To the north of Nineveh, close to the

554 NINEVEH

NISROCH

sources of the Khoser and on the hill-slopes of
Magganubba, is Khorsabad, still called Sarghin
by the Mohammedan writer Yakut in the 14th
cent. Khorsabad is the site of the palace and
city founded by Sargon in B.C. 707, the remains of
which were excavated by Botta.

The name of Nineveh is perhaps first met with
in the inscriptions of Gudea, the high priest of
Lagas or Tello in Babylonia (B.c. 2700), who tells
us that he had built a temple of Istar at Nin&,
though it is possible that the Nina referred to may
be the Νιηᾷ οἵ Babylonia. The Assyrian Nineveh,
however, which seems to have been a colony from
the Babylonian city of the same name, was specially
dedicated to Istar, and up to the last ‘Istar of
Nineveh’ continued to be invoked by the side of
‘Istar of Arbela.? Gudea, it should be added,
calls himself ‘the powerful minister of the goddess
Nina.’ An inscription of Dungi of Ur, a contem-
porary of Gudea, which is now in the Louvre, is
said to have been discovered on the site of
Nineveh. If this were really the case, we should
have direct monumental evidence of Babylonian
work in the future Assyrian capital. <A letter of
the Babylonian king Khammurabi (B.C. 2300) speaks
of Assyrian soldiers in the Babylonian army ; and
as late as B.C. 1400 Burna-buryas still regards the
Assyrians as his vassals. Before this latter date,
however, the high priests of Assur (the modern
Nal'ahk Sherghat) had become kings, and claimed
to be independent of Babylonia. Dusratta of
Mitanni, the contemporary of Burna-buryas, sent
a golden image of ‘Istar of Nineveh’ to Egypt,
and mentions another that had been already
sent there in the reign of his father. Winckler
infers from this that Nineveh was subject at
the time to Mitanni; but the conclusion does not
_ necessarily follow. At all events, the Assyrian
king, Assur-yuballidh writes to the Egyptian
Pharaoh as an independent sovereign; and an
inscription tells us that he restored E-Masmas, the
temple of Istar at Nineveh, which had been built
by Samas-Hadad, the high priest of Assur, in B.C.
1820. Shalmaneser 1. (B.C. 1300) agnin repaired
the temple, by the side of which his father Hadad-
nirari I. had erected a chapel to the Babylonian
deities Merodach and Nebo. Shalmaneser IL,
however, was the builder of Calah, and does not
seem to have lived in Nineveh itself. Indeed the
first king whom we know to have made it his
place of residence was Assur-bil-kala, the son of
Tiglath-pileser 1. (B.c. 1100). From this time
onward Nineveh was probably a royal residence
until the reign of Assur-nazir-pal (B.C. 880), when
Calah was rebuilt and its palace restered. For
nearly two centuries Calah now remained the
capital, and it was only under Sennacherib that
Nineveh resumed its place as the chief city of the
empire. All the spoils of Asia were lavished on
its adornment and fortilication; pure drinking-
water was introduced into it in place of the rain-
water on which the inhabitants had hitherto de-
pe ; and stately palaces rose in the neighbour-
100d of the Tigris. It was to Nineveh that captive
princes were brought and exposed in iron cages to
the gaze of the multitude; here the head of ‘Teum-
man, the conquered king of Elam, was hung up in
the garden of Assur-bani-pal’s palace ; and out of
its gates marched the armies that conquered the
Oriental world. Its markets were thronged with
merchants and traders, and its library was stored
with thousands of clay books.

Nineveh fell in 8.6. 607-6, and with it fell also
the Assyrian kingdom and empire. According to
an inscription of Nabonidos, it was destroyed by
the king of the Manda or Seythians, who had
settled in Ecbatana and gone to the assistance of
Nabopolassar, the Babylonian king. War had

broken out between the latter and his suzerain,
the king of Assyria, who was supported by several
of the Babylonian cities where the Assyrian rule
was still obeyed. According to Abydenos, the
last king of Assyria was Sarakos, who appears to
be the Sin-sar-iskun of the monuments. <A tablet
dated in the seventh year of the latter king has
been found at Erech. But there was another
Assyrian king, Sin-sum-lisir, whose name is found
on a tablet dated at Nippur in the year of his
accession, and it is therefore possible that with
him rather than with Sin-sar-iskun Nineveh and
Assyria came to an end,

The fall of Nineveh is prophesied by Nahum and
Zephaniah (2!!), and in Nahum more especially
there are references to the topography of the
Assyrian capital (see Billerbeck and Jeremias, ‘ Der
Untergang Nineveh’s und die Weissagungsehrift
des Nahum,’ in the Beitrage zur Assyrivlogie, ii. 1).
In 2 Καὶ 19°§=Ts 37°7, it is described as the residence
of Sennacherib, and the temple of ‘ Nisroch his
god’ is referred to. The name of Nisroch, how-
ever, is corrupt, and it is lnpossible to say what
was the original reading.

For the story of Jonah’s preaching at Nineveh,
and our Lord’s application of this, see art. JONAH
in vol. ii., especially pp. 746-751.

In Jon 4!! it is stated that Nineveh contained
‘more than sixscore thousand’ infants, which
would give a population of about 600,000, Cap-
tain Jones, who made a trigonoimetrical survey of
the site in 1853, estimates that, allowing 50 square
yards to each inhabitant, the population may have
amounted to about 174,000 souls. The statement,
however, in the Bk. of Jonah, that Nineveh was a
city of ‘ three days’ journey,’ can Le explained only
on the supposition that both Calah and Khorsabad
(Dur-Sargon) were included in its precincts ; and even
then Konig (see art. JONAH, vol. il. p. 748") thinks the
dimensions impossible. Nineveh is again brought
before us in the books of Tobit (1!%!7 ete.) and
Judith (1. Tobit is said to have lived there like
certain Israelites mentioned in the cuneiform con-
tract tablets, some of whom even held oflice under
the government.

LITERATURE.—Rich, Narrative of a Residence in Kourdistan
and on the Site of Ancient Nineveh (1836); A. H. Layard,
Nineveh and its Remains (1848), and Discoveries in the Ruins of
Nineveh and Babylon 1853); F. Jones, ‘ Topography of Nineveh,’
with maps, in JAS (1855); J. Fergusson, l’alaces of Nineveh
and Persepolis (1851); Botta and Flandin, Monwment de Ninive
(1846-50); V. Place, Ninive et ?-Assyrie (1866-69); cf. also the
Literature cited at the end of art. Assyria.

A. EL, SAY OR:

NINEVITES (Nivev(e)crac).—The inhabitants of
Nineveh (which see), Lk 1199 (only). In the paral-
lel passage, Mt 12#, both AV and RV have ‘men
of Nineveh’ (ἄνδρες Nuvev(e)trac) as well as in Lk
1153 (TR ἄνδρες Νινευΐ, Lachm. Treg. WH ἄνδρες

Nuvev(e)irac).

NIPHIS (Β Necdeis, A Φινείς, AV Nephis), 1 Es 5”.
—‘ The sons of N., 156, correspond to ‘ the children
of Magbish, 156, in Ezr 95, The corruption may
be due to reading 90.225 as 5: (from Niphis).

NISAN (1»2 Neh 9), Est 37, 1 Es 5°, Ad. Est 117).
—The first month in the later Jewish calendar.
See TIME.

NISROCH (7573; in 2 K 19°” B has ᾿Εσδράχ, A
Ἐσθράχ, in Is 37° B Nacapax, A ᾿Ασαράχ, Vulg.
Nesroch).—The Hebrew form of the name of a
deity of the Assyrians, in whose temple Sen-
nacherib was worshipping when slain by his sons
(see the passages quoted). There has been much
speculation as to the identity of this deity, and
many wild theories have been put forward con-
cerning him. Jarchi, for instance, explains the

|
|

NITRE

NOATL 06.

word as ‘a beam, or plank, of Noah’s ark,’ from an
analysis of the word given by Rabbinical exposi-
tors, by which 85. would be =xm3 703. A far
more reasonable suggestion was that of Gesenius,
who considered that Visroch was a lengthened form
of πὸ, the Arab aisr, ‘an eagle,’ and this etymolog

was supported by the fact that eagle-headed divine
figures actually occur in the Assyrian bas-reliefs.
A comparison of the Greek forms, however, shows
that the Hebrew writing of the name is corrupt, a
shaving been added [as in the case of Nibhaz and
Nimrod] and vocalic changes made so as to bring
the word practically into the same form as the two
words here cited. There is therefore no doubt
that, as sugeested by Schrader (COTY il. 181.)
Nisroch is a corruption of Asur, or of a possible
by-form Asuraku, to which the Greek variant

« os rape i
’Koopdy is the nearest approach.* This identitica-
pax

tion, it is to be noted, is not only the most
probable, but also the most satisfactory, for it is
in the temple of the national god of his country
that we should expect to find the king of Assyria
worshipping, especially if by any means he had
received information of his sons’ intention ; for to
his mind the national god of the land, who had, as
he believed, so often helped him to victory, would
naturally be the one most likely to save him from
his rebellious offspring. With regard to the form,
there are two possible explanations. — Nisroch
(=Lsorach) may be for Asuraku, a lengthened
form of Asur by the addition of aku [the same
termination as appears in Amaruduk(u)], the
Marduku (a personal name) of the later contract-
tablets, in which case the presence of the ending
would seem to imply Accadian influence. On the
other hand, the name may be really a compound
one, i.e. the well-known appellation of the god
Asur with the Accadian name of the moon-yod
Aku (compare Eri-Aku, ‘ servant of the moon-god’
= Arioch) attached to it. In support of this second
etymology may be cited the fact that Sennacherib’s
name contains the element Sin, the common name
of the moon-god in Babylonia and Assyria, and
the expression ‘Ais god’ may refer to some such
compound deity as Asur-Aku, whom Sennacherib
specially worshipped. T. G. PINCHES.

NITRE (773, νίτρον) in its modern usage denotes
saltpetre, nitrate of potash, but the νίτρον or nitrum
of the ancients was a different substance, natron,
carbonate of soda. It occurs as an incrustation
on the ground in Egypt, Persia, and elsewhere, and
is also a constituent in the water of certain saline
lakes. The most famous of the latter are the
‘natron lakes’ in Egypt. They lie in the ‘natron
valley’ about 60 miles W.N.W. of Cairo. The
deposit of these lakes includes an upper layer of
common salt and a lower one of natron (Wilkinson,
Modern Eqypt, i. 382 11). Strabo mentions these
Egyptian lakes (Geog. XVII. 1. 23), and also a similar
lake in Armenia (i. XI. xiv. 8). See also Pliny,
Nat. Hist. xxxi. 10.

‘Nitre’ oceurs twice in AV. In Pr 25° + the
effect of songs on a heavy heart is compared to the
action of vinegar upon ‘nitre’ (RV “εἴτε, RVm
‘soda’). Vinegar has no effect upon saltpetre, but
with carbonate of soda it p oduces effervescence,
In Jer 2” ‘nitre’ (RV ‘lye’) is referred to as a
cleansing agent. Here, again, natron rather than
modern nitre suits the connexion. | Natron has
detergent properties, and is in fact the same sub-
stance as ‘ washing-soda,’ while saltpetre is useless
for cleansing purposes. JAMES PATRICK.

NO (xi Jer 46%, Ezk 8014. 15.16Ὁ NO-AMON (x3
* Cf. JRAS, 1899, p. 459.

+ The LXX appears here to have followed a different reading
from the MT.

‘ox Nah 38).—These two names, the former asso-
ciated with Amon also in Jer (RV), represent
Egyptian Thebes. This city was the centre of
Amon-worship, and the capital of Egypt, not only
throughout the New Kingdom (17th-20th Dynasty),
but also again under the Ethiopian rulers of Eeypt
in the 25th Dynasty, against whom Esarhaddon and
Assurbanipal brought their forces. Nahum refers
to the capture and sack of Thebes, probably in
Assurbanipal’s last invasion, B.C. 663, which seems
to have been the most destructive to the metropolis.
The instances in Jer and Ezk show that to the
outside world Thebes remained the great city of
Egypt for many years after it had fallen to the
second or third place in the country.

In the New Kingdom Thebes was commonly
called V.¢ rs.¢ ‘southern city,’ V.t Yinn ‘city of
Amon,’ or simply N.¢ ‘city.’ In the 21st Dynasty
a single individuai is named alternatively, N.¢-
nekht and N.t-Amon-nekht, each meaning ‘ Thebes
is victorious’ (Spiegelberg, tec. de trav. xxi. 53).
In Demotic Ne regularly stands for Thebes, and
after the destruction of the city itself by Ptolemy x.
the word still appears in the Egypt. name of the
Thebaid. The fem. ending ¢ was early lost, and
the royal name Ψουσέννης gives approximately νὴ
as the pronunciation of 2.¢. The Assyrian annals
name the city Nv’. The punctuation No’ of the
Hebrew is evidently wrong, but the Septuagint
(Ezk 304-36 Διὸς πόλις, ν.}5 Μέμφις [implying a
reading 93], Jer 46 [Gr. 90] 5 τὸν ᾿Αμμὼν τὸν υἱὸν
αὐτῆς, Nah 3° μερίδα [implying a reading x39 con-
fused with n39 ‘pertion’] ᾿Αμμών) gives no help in
correcting it. F. Lu. GRirriru.

=

NOADIAH (a:y'3 ‘ meeting with J”’; Noade).—1.
The son of Binnui, a Levite, one of the four persons
to whom were committed the silver and gold and
sacred vessels brought by Ezra from Babylonia (Ezr
895, In 1 Es 8® he is called ‘ Moeth the son of
Sabannus’ (Mwé@ Σαβάννου, cf. N. ἀπὸ EBavvad, Ezr
163).
2. A prophetess, who assisted Tobiah and San-
ballat at the time of the rebuilding of the walls
of Jerusalem. Nehemiah denounces her for at-
tempting to intimidate him, but no particulars
regarding her are given in the narrative (Neh 64).

H. A. WHITE.

_ NOAH (53 ‘rest,’ from πὸ; LAX and NT Νῶε,
whence AV Noe; Jos. Νῶχος [var. lec. Νώεος]. In
Gn 5”, probably a fragment of J, the name is de-
rived from the root 073 ‘comfort,’ and is given to
Noah by Lamech in the belief that he would com-
fort * men for the toil of their hands ‘from the
eround which J” hath cursed’).—Gn 5%: *? 6-9.
Up to 917 Noah appears as the hero of the Flood,
in 99:9 as the first discoverer of the art of making
wine. That these two stories come from different
sources is probable, because in the earlier Accadian
history ef the Flood that event is immediately
followed by the translation of Sitnapisti (Noah),
yerhaps reterred to in 6%, cf. δ᾽, which appears to
᾿ς a fragment of J misunderstood by P in 5**,

Amonest the Talmudists (e.g. dboda Zara 644,
Sanhedrin 56b) it was customary to speak of ‘ the
seven precepts of the sons of Noah,’ by which they
meant those precepts that were supposed to be
already binding upon mankind at large before
Abraham and outside of his family. Other enumer-
ations besides seven are aiso found. For details
see Schirer, GJV* iim 128 [AJP a1. ai. 218), or
Weber, Judische Theologic (Index, s. ‘Gebote’).

See art. FLOOD, vol. i. 16.

F, H. Woops.

*In Haupt’s OT the MT 33263: (‘he will comfort us’) is
changed to 3272} (‘he will give us vest’), in harmony with LXX
See Ball’s note, ad /oc., and Nestle in Expos

διαναπαύσεω ἡμᾶς.
Times, viii. 239.

556 ΝΟΛΗ

NOAH, BOOK OF

NOAH (7y3, Novd).—One of the daughters of
Zelophehad the Manassite, about whose rights of
inheritance a knotty point of law came up for
settlement, Nu 26% 27! 3611, Jos 17°.

G. HARFORD-BATTERSBY.

NOAH, BOOK OF.—In the use which was made
of this book in the final redaction of the Ethiopic
Book of Enoch we have an admirable example of
the methods pursued by Jewish editors. Though
the Book of Noah has not come down to us inde-
pendently, it has in large measure been incorpor-
ated in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, and can in
part be reconstructed from that book. The Book
of Noah is mentioned in Jubilees 1019 and 21?°,
That 60. 65-69” 106-107 belonged originally to it,
is obvious even on ἃ cursory exmination. Thus
in 60', which runs, ‘In the year five hundred, in
the seventh month, on the fourteenth day of the
month in the life of Enoch,’ it is clear that the
final editor simply changed the name ‘Noah’ in
the context before him into ‘Enoch,’ but very
ignorantly ; for Enoch lived only 3865 years, and
the statement in the context is based on Gn δ",
Furthermore, the writer speaks of himself as the
grandson of Enoch in 65°. Again, 65-69 is allowed
to stand by the editor as a confessed constituent
of the Book of Noah; for it contains Noah’s
interview with his erandfather Enoch, and Noah's
version of the Deluge and of Judgement. Finally,
in 106-107 there is an account of the marvellous
birth of Noah, in regard to whom Methuselah goes
to the ends of the earth to consult Enoch. But
besides these indisputable fragments of the book, it
is most probable that 547-55" is borrowed from the
same source, and likewise Jubilees 778% 10h), In
the earlier passage in Jubilees it is not cnly the
subject-matter, but also the carelessness of the
editor or author of Jubilees, which leads to this
identification ; for, after an account of the wicked-
ness preceding the Flood given by the angel of
God (77°), we come suddenly on a passage (775)
in which Noah is represented as speaking in the first
person, although throughout Jubilees it is the angel
that speaks. Finally, it isnot improbable that 41%
43-44, 59 belonved originally to the Book of Noah.

We shall now attempt a short sketch of this
book. According to 106-107, a son was born to
Lamech. ‘And his body was white as snow and
red as a blooming rose, and the hair of his head
and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes
beautiful’? (106%). And his eyes lighted up the
house like a sun, and he opened his mouth and
blessed the Lord of righteousness. And Lamech
in his fear consulted Methuselah, and Methuselah
went off to the ends of the earth to consult Enoch
(1064!*), Thereupon Enoch foretells the coming
of the Flood in consequence of the wickedness
wrought by the angels with the daughters of men,
and the saving of this child Noah and his three
sons, the fresh growth of sin after the Deluge, and
the advent of the Messianic kingdom (106!%-107).

And later, when Noah became a man, he had a
vision, and he saw the earth sinking down, and its
destruction drawing nigh (051). And, as formerly
his grandfather Methuselah, so he too went to
consult Enoch at the ends of the earth, 65? °,
And Enoch tells him that all the dwellers on the
earth are doomed because they had learnt the
secrets and sorceries of the angels, and the violence
and hidden power οἱ the Satans, and the mysterious
arts of manufacturing metals, 657. Here and
elsewhere, in the Ethiopic Enoch as in Gn 2-4, the
knowledge of such arts is held to transcend the
limits of human nature. Civilization in its various
aspects is traced to the fallen angels. As man
goes forward in knowledge and culture he goes
backward in the fear of God, and becomes ever
more and more alienated from the highest good.

Thus it was one Satan that taught men to make
the weapons of war, and another that instructed
them to write with ink and paper (69%°), and a
fallen angel that made known the arts of painting
the face and beautifying the eyebrows, and working
in metals and precious stones, 8!. But to proceed :
Enoch declares Noah to be guiltless of reproach
concerning these secrets, and foretells his deliver-
ance from the Flood, and the descent of a righteous
race of men from him (65), After hearing some
further disclosures, Noah leaves the presence of
Enoch (66). ‘And in those days the word of God
came unto me, and He said anto me: ‘* Noah, thy
lot has come up before me, a lot without blame, a
lot of love and uprightness.”’ Thereupon God in-
forms Noah that the ark was being prepared by
angels, that he and his seed might be saved and
be established in the earth (67!*). But as for the
fallen angels, they should be imprisoned in the
burning valley amongst the metal mountains in
the West. From this place where the angels were
punished came the hot springs to which the kings
and the mighty resorted for the healing of the
body. But later these waters will become the
means of their punishment, even as they now are
used to torment the angels (67+). The severity
of this torment is set forth in a dialogue between
Michael and Raphael (68). Next, the names of the
twenty-one chiefs of the fallen angels are enumer-
ated, followed by those of five Satans (ἢ. The
various evils wrought by the latter are then re-
counted. ‘To Gadreél, the third, is attributed the
fall of Eve, and to the fourth, Pénémtie, the
instruction of mankind in the art of writing (098: 9),
Knowledge is the source of perdition (09). After
the mention of certain other Satans or angels, it
is told how Michael is the guardian of the mys-
terious oath or formula whereby heaven and earth
were founded and all creation upheld (091-35).

At a still later date apparently (60) Noah had a
Vision in the 500th year of his life, on the 14th
day of the seventh month, and he beheld the
heaven of heavens quake with a mighty quaking,
and all the heavenly hosts greatly disquieted. And
the Head of Days sat on His throne, and all the
angels and the righteous stood round Him (60! 3).
And Noah was filled with fear. Then Michael
sent an angel to raise him up, and told him of the
judgment to come, and of the monsters Leviathan
and Behemoth, which were placed respectively in
the sea and in the wilderness of Déndain, on the
east of Eden; but refused to answer Noah’s further
questions regarding them (005-10), Then the angel
accompanying Noah informs him about the angels
or spirits which control the thunder and lightning,
and the sea, the hoar frost, hail, snow, mist, dew,
and rain (60!2-*), We shall probably be right if
we assign to the same source 41°8, which treats
of the secrets of the lightning and thunder, of
the winds, the clouds, and dew, likewise of the
chambers of the winds and hail and mist. This
passage further mentions the chambers of the
sun and moon, and recounts with what regularity
they traverse their orbits, and give thanks to God,
and rest not by day or night; ‘for unto them
thankseviving is rest.” Of a kindred nature un-
doubtedly are 43-44, which have for their subject
the lightning and the stars of heaven, and the
mysterious relation of the latter to the righteous,
and 59, which treats of the judgments executed by
the lightnings, and the luminaries, and the secrets
of the thunder.

Heretofore frequent references have been made
to the Flood ; but in 547-55” there is a more exact
account of this judgment. Thus we are told that
the Flood came about through the joining of the
waters above the heavens—the male element—
with the waters which are below the heavens-—

NO-AMON

NOBAH 557

the female element. Thereby all who dwelt on the
earth were destroyed. Then after the Flood God
promised not to destroy the earth again, and as a
pledge thereof set a sign in the heavens.

For Noah’s address to his sons after the Flood
we must turn to Jubilees 7°°%". This passage is
either wholly or in part an excerpt from our book.
Noah warns his sons against the seductions of the
demons, against the shedding or eating of blood.
In Jubilees 10° the sons of Noah come to him
complaining that the demons are leading their
sons astray. Thereupon Noah prays to God for
them, and God commands all the demons to be
bound and imprisoned, but at the request of Mas-
téma, their chief, God permits one-tenth of the
demons to remain at liberty for the trial and
temptation of man (101:}1),

The Book of Noah was, according to Jubilees
104, committed to the care of Shem. This book is
described in Syneellus’ Chron. p. 83 (ed. Bonn) as
the ‘Testament of Noah,

There is also a late Hebrew Book of Noah. This
is given in Jellinek’s Det ha-Midrasch, iii. 155, 156.
It is based in part on the Book of Noah discussed
above. The portion of this Hebrew work which is
derived from the older work is reprinted on p. 179
of Charles Lthiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of
Jubilces, where attention is drawn to the parallels
and verbal coincidences. A German translation of
the entire book will be found in Rénsch, Das Buch
der Jubilucn, pp. 385-387.

It is impossible to assign any definite date to
the various fragments of the older book. We can
safely place them within the years B.c. 50 and
A.D. 80. ht. H. CHARLES.

NO-AMON.—See No.

NOB (13; LXX B NouBa, 18 22" Nouwua. The
etym. of 13 is not clear; the idea that it signifies a
‘high place’ has no philological foundation).—
1. A locality a little N. of Jerusalem, and appar-
ently within sight of the Temple-hill, mentioned
in Is 10° as the spot from which the Assyr. king
(Sennacherib), in his (ideal) march against the holy
city, should audaciously ‘swing his hand against
the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of
Jerusalem.’ Nob, it is here implied, was nearer to
Jerusalem than‘ Anathoth, v.*°, now ‘A nate, 25 miles
N.E. of Jerusalem. The precise site has not been
determined with certainty; but a spot on (or a
little S. of) the Ras el-Mesharif, about 14 mile
S.W. of ‘Anata, the ridge from the brow of which
the pilgrim along the N. road still catches his first
view of the holy city (PHF Mem., Jerus., p. 411),
would suit the conditions admirably. ‘The road
from the Ν passes over this ridge: immediately
on the E. of the road, just S. of the ridge, there is
a plateau, some 800 yds. from N. to 8., and 800 yds.
from E. to W.; at the 5. edge of this plateau there
is a lower ridge, after which the ground descends
rapidly into the Wady el-J6z, some 300 ft. below.
This plateau is identified plausibly by Conder
(PEFSt, 1874, p. 111 ff. ; ef. Robinson, BL i. 276)
with the place called Scopus by Josephus (ἐπὶ τὸν
Σκοπὸν καλούμενον), upon which Titus encamped,
when approaching Jerusalem from the N.; Jos.
adds that it was 7 stadia from Jerusalem, and that
the city was visible from it (ἔνθεν # τε πόλις ἤδη
κατεφαίνετο καὶ τὸ τοῦ ναοῦ μέγεθος ἔκλαμπρον, BS V.
ii. 3, cf. I. xix. 4, and Ant. X¥. viii. 5, where a
place aga [ef. περ to look out], explained as mean-
ing σκοπή, 15 evidently the same). The ancient
Nob was in all probability on, or very near, the
same plateau (cf. Thomson, Land and Book, 8. Pal.
434 f.; Del. or Dillm. on Is 1032, Buhl, Geogr. 96).
According to the ZDMG xii. (1858) p. 169f., on
one of the ridges just mentioned, at a part now

called el-sadr, the breast, there are remains of
ancient cisterns and rock-tombs.

El Isawiye, a village 1 mile S.W. of ‘Anata, which has been
proposed as the site of Nob, seems to be excluded by the fact
that it lies in a valley, and that Jerusalem is not visible from it.
Shaphat, 2 miles due N. of Jerusalem, which has also been
suggested, is not probable, as it is in just the same latitude as
‘Anata, and does not lie between ‘Anata and Jerusalem, as re-
quired by Is 1080.82, Nebi Shamil ‘and Bir Nebala’ (Conder),
4} miles N.W. of Jerusalem, lie in a wrong direction altogether.

The same place is also pretty clearly meant in
Neh 11°; it is mentioned there, together with
other towns in the same neighbourhood, in close
proximity to ‘Anathoth and Ramah (2) miles N.E.
and 5 eles N. of Jerus. respectively) Just as in Is
(see vv." %), 2. An ancient ‘city of the priests’
(LS 221), where David, fleecing from Saul, found
refuge with Ahimelech (1S 21'): Doeg, the Edomite,
was present at the time; and afterwards, when
Saul’s other servants dreaded to fall upon the
priests of J”, at the king’s instigation attacked
the city, and massacred the entire population (in-
cluding 85 priests), Abiathar alone escaping, 1S
229-11. 18:9. Unless a settlement of priests in im-
mediate proximity to the Jebusite stronghold of
Jerusalem should be deemed improbable, there is
no valid reason why this Nob should not be
identical with 1: the situation is suitable; to
judge from the narrative of 1S 21, Nob was not
far from Gibeah (of Saul), v.4, which was only a
little N. of the Nob of Is 10% (see v.2%) ; and (as
H. P. Smith, on 18 213, points out) David, making
his way from Gibeah (the probable scene of 1S 20!)
to Bethlehem (1 8 20°), would pass Nob, and might
naturally stop there, if he knew he had friends in
it. Jerome, however (Hp. ad Lustochium, No. 86
ed. Bened., No. 108 ed. Migne, καὶ 8 [p. 696]), speaks
of ‘Nobe, urbem quondam sacerdotum,’ as in the
neighbourhood of Lydda (Diospolis): this is no
doubt the modern Let Ν᾽ απ, about 10 m. S.E.
of Lydda, and 13 m. W.N.W. from Jerusalem,
very near to Aijalon (cf. Robinson, BR 111. 145,
and 11. 254; Buhl, p. 198); but there does not seem
to be any suflicient ground for going so far to the
W. to find the Nob of 18 21. 22.

S. R. Driver.

NOBAH (n23, Νάβαυ, Nae), as a personal name,
oceurs only once (Nu 82%), in the older version
which relates the settlement of the country on
the E. of Jordan by the tribes of Reuben, Gad,
and half Manasseh. According to this, the clan
of that name belonged to the last-mentioned tribe,
and formed a settlement in IKenath (wh. see), on
which they succeeded in impressing for a time
their own clan name (1 Ch 9529, See next article.

A. C.. WELCH,
m2i) is mentioned along with Jogbehah
(wh. see) as lying on the route which Gideon
followed (Jeg 8") in his pursuit of the routed
Midianites. This would place the site about mid-
way between Amman and es-Salt. It is again
mentioned (Nu 32") as the name which a clan of
Machir gave to Kenath after they had con-
quered it.

The connexion between these two passages de-
pends entirely upon the place where we agree to
look for Kenath (wh. see). If Kenath be identified
(Merrill, ΕΣ of Jordan, p. 361f ; Euseb. OS 269. 15)
with Ikkanawat on the W. edge of the Hauran range,
then we shall consider (Dillm, Nw-D¢t-Jos, p. 201 £.)
that the Nobah of Judges was the original settle-
ment of the clan, which, when it took possession
of the new abode, for a time at least (1 Ch 2%)
succeeded in stamping itsown name upon it. If, on
the other hand (Bertheau and Moore on Judges),
this identification be given up, we shall hold that
Nu 32” vives the account of how this clan came
into possession of its first and only settlement, the
town which lies near Jogbehah,

NOBAH (

558 NOBAL

NOISE

It is possible that the name can be found also in
Nu 21° “Nobah, which lies on the desert,’ accord-
ing to the Peshitta; but the text is too corrupt to
ofler any sure help. A. C. WELCH.

NOBAI (353 Acthibh, 53} Keré, and so AV and
RVm Nehbai, B Bwvai, A Nw3ai).—One of those who
sealed the covenant, Neh iv [Heb.“°]. See, further,
art. NEBO (Town).

NOBLEMAN.—This title (βασιλικός, ‘royal’ or
‘ pertaining toa king’; so Ac 12%: 31. Ja 28) is given
(Jn 4%: 4°) AVin “ courtier’ or ‘ruler’; RVm ‘ king’s
otlicer,’ cf. Vulg. requ/us) to the man who besought
Jesus in Cana to heal his son who was sick at Caper-
naum, Opinions have always differed as to the
meaning ot the title (see Chryst. Hom. 35 on Joh.).
It has been taken to mean that he was of the royal
(Herodian) family (L. Bos, Exercit. Philolog. p. 41,
and others) ; or that he was of the Herodian party
(Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., Exercit. on St. J.) or that
he was attached to the service of Antipas, who
was popularly called king, either in a military or
civil capacity (Meyer, Weiss, Godet, and most).
The term was used both of royal persons themselves
and of those attached to them as officers, courtiers,
or soldiers (see exx. in Wetstein); but the usage
of Josephus (see Krebs, Observat. in NT ὁ Flav.
Jos. p. 144) supports strongly the latter application
of it here. Tatian also (Diatessaron) translates
‘officer of the king.’ This man therefore was
probably an officer of rank and wealth connected
with the court or service of Antipas. He has been
identified with Chuza, Herod’s steward (Lk 8°), and
with Manaen, Herod’s foster- brother (Ae 131).
These, of course, are mere conjectures. He was
presumably a Jew, and is certainly not to be identi-
tied, as he has sometimes been, with the centurion
whose servant Jesus healed (Mt 8°, Lk 71).

Gr. T. PURVEs.

NOD (73; Samar. 13; LXX, Philo, Jos. Ναΐδ).---
The land to which the fratricide Cain emigrated
after the Divine verdict was pronounced on him,
Gn 4:6 (J). It is a play on 73 ‘wanderer’ of v.?.
The subst. 13 ‘wandering’ occurs Ps 568 (regardless
of Duhm’s unnecessary emendation). But it is a
mistake to understand the word merely as an
allusion to Cain’s punishment. The writer seems
to have had a real land of that name in view. Its
situation, ‘eastward of Eden,’ is given, and there
are not sufficient reasons to take this as a gloss of
the author or redactor (Dillmann and Stade), since
particular definitions of places are not unusual
with Hebrew writers (Gn 1010 126 2518 Dt 1139), It
is called a ‘land’; and the passage is plain prose.
To dwell and build a city in ‘wanderland’ is a
contradiction in terms. Cain’s settlement in Nod
was not part of his punishment, but a voluntary
emigration, as already Philo (de Poster. Cain. 3) re-
marks, ἐθελοντὴς ἐξέρχεται.

The ‘orientation’ of the land of Nod has been
matter of conjecture. Many (see Dillm. ad Joc.)
suggest China, from the similarity of sound be-
tween Cain and Chin, Zin, Sin, Tien. Von Bohlen
identifies it with India. Sayee sces in it the
Manda of the ceneiform inscriptions (ΠΟ 146).
To the Rabbis it was sufficient that it lay some-
where in the east, and away from Eden, whither
Adam had been banished. ‘In all parts’ (sc. of Serip-
ture), says Rashi, ‘the eastern quarter received the
murderer, as it is said (Dt 441), Then Moses severed
three cities, etc., toward the rising of the sun’ (see
also Midrash Agada, p. 13, ed. Buber, 1894). It
must, however, be remembered that the same author
(J) knew of a universal cataclysm which obliterated
every geographical boundary. The topography of
Cain’s history was to hia as antediluvian as the
history was prehistoric. A. E. SUFFRIN.

NODAB (333; LXX ναδαβαῖοι ; Vulg. Nodab).—
Mentioned only 1 Ch δ᾽9 in connexion with a war
of the trans-Jordanic tribes against the Hagrites.
Because it is grouped with Jetur and Naphish, it
was supposed by C. J. Ball to be a corruption of
Kedemah (Gn 25"), the last of the twelve tribes of
Ishmael. But Kedemah is rightly given in 1 Ch 151,
and it is hardly conceivable that the author, or
even a copyist, should so shortly after misread it
for a name which occurs nowhere else. Delitzsch
(New Com. on Gn 9515) connects it with Nudébe in
the Wady el-butin of the Hauran. But it is
more likely that we have here a transcription of
Nabatean. It would be strange that a powerful
kingdom like Nabatea should not have proved a
formidable neighbour to the trans-Jordanic Israel-
ites. And since Nebaioth, which has been by Jos.
(dnt. I. xii. 4), Jerome, and others identified with
Nabatea, has not played any important role in
the pre-exilic history of the Jews, we are left to
conjecture that 273 should be read 112. The
Nabateans called themselves 23. In the Talmud
and Midrash we have respectively 5532, *»y2, "Π0)),
ΠΝ ΤῊΣ, ‘ND, 9), NNS3, and avnsi for a Nabatean.

The Nabateans were the Nabatu of the Assyrian
inscriptions, and Aramean in language, and distinet
from the Nabadti (‘Nebaioth’ of the Bible) of
Central Arabia. Originally settled east of Assyria,
they migrated westward, and founded a kingdom
in Arabia Petriea, with Petra for their capital
(Glaser, Shizze, ii. 418). For the history of the
Nabateans see Schiirer, H/P, Ap. ii., and Euting,
Nab. Inschriften, Berl. 1885, with historical notes
on p. 81 by Gutschmid. A. E. SUFFRIN.

NOE.—See NOAH.

NOEBA (Νοεβα),
Nekodan 1 Es 5°”,

1Es 5° = Nekoda Ezr 2%,

NOGAH (735 ‘splendour ’).—One of David’s sons,
born at Jerusalem, 1 Ch 37 (B Ndya, A Νάγε) 148
(BA Νάγεθ, καὶ Ndyer). The name is wanting in
the parallel list in 285, and is viewed with sus-
picion by Wellhausen (Bicher Sam. p. 165) and
Kittel (on 1 Ch 37in SBO7). The preceding name,
tliphelet, is certainly due to a scribal error, and
Nogah may be a corruption from the following
Nepheg. It is apparently the same name, although
with a different application, that appears in the
genealogy of Lk 3” as Naggai (Nayyai).

NOHAH (πε; B Ἰωά, A Νωά, Lue. Novad; Vule.
Nohaa).—F¥ourth ‘son’ or clan of Benjamin (1 Ch
8°). If we read ‘from Nohah’ in Jg 20", Nohah
was also a town, the seat of the clan. Cf.
MENUHAH.

NOISE.—This subst. is no longer used of music
in a good or neutral sense, as we find it in Ps 333
‘Play skilfully with a loud noise.’ Cf. Bunyan,
PP, 206: ‘Mercy. Hark, don’t you hear a Noise ?
Curis. Yes, ‘tis as I believe, a Noise of Musick,
for joy that we are here’; Ps 47°, Pr. Bk. ‘God is
gone up with a merry noise’; and Milton, Aé a
Solemn Music, line 18—

‘That we on earth with undiscording voice
May rightly answer that melodious noise.’

The verb ‘to noise’ is no longer in use. It
occurs five times in AV: Jos 67 ‘His fame was
noised throughout all the country’ (RV ‘his fame
was in all the land’); Jth 1018 *‘ Her coming was
noised among the tents’; Mk 91 ‘It was noised
that he was in the house’; Lk 1% ‘All these say-
ings were noised abroad’; Ac 26 ‘When this wag
noised abroad’ (RV ‘when this sound was heard’).
Cf. Mt 955 Tind. ‘ And this was noysed through out

NOISOME

NOSE, NOSTRILS

δος

all that lande’; 9815 ΤΊ πα, ‘And this sayinge is
noysed amonge the Jewes unto this daye’; and
Hacket in Life of Abp. Williams (referring to Dr.
Collins), ‘His works in print against Kudaemon
and Fitzherbert, sons of Anak among the Jesuits,
do noise him far and wide.’ J. HASTINGS.

NOISOME is a shortened form of ‘annoy-some.’
And ‘annoy’ is regarded by Skeat and Murray
(after Diez) as formed (through the Fr.) from the
Lat. in odio. ‘The phrase est mihi in odio, ‘it is
hateful to me,’ became contracted to inodio, which
was regarded as a subst., ‘hate,’ ‘annoyance.’ In
AV the word is used of weeds (Job 314°), pestilence
(Ps 91°), beasts (Ezk 14): 1), a smell (2 Mae 9°), and
a sore (Rev 16"), and the meaning is always trouble-
some, not as now loathsome.* Trench (On AV of
NT, p. 47) says that in the beginning of the l7th
cent. the word was acquiring its mod. meaning,
and on that account Tindale’s rendering of 1 Ti 6°
‘They that wilbe ryche, faule into temptacion and
snares, and into many folysshe and noysome
lustes,’ which all the versions till 1611 (except the
Rhemish) accepted, was changed in AV into ‘ hurt-
ful lusts.” In the Act of Henry vil. prohibiting
the use of Tindale’s version (1543) it is stated to be
requisite that the land be purged ‘of all such
bookes, writinges, sermones, disputacions, argu-
mentes, balades, plaies, rimes, songs, teachinges
and instructions, as be pestiferous and noysome.’
Tindale speaks of the tlies in the Egyptian plague
as ‘noysom’ (Ex 85). Cranmer’s meaning is the
same when he writes to Henry vu. (Works, i.
160), “1 was purposed this week according to my
duties to have waited upon your Grace, but [
am so vexed with a catarrh and a rheum in
my head, that not only it should be dangerous
unto me, but also noisome unto your Grace, by
reason of extreme coughing and excreations which
I cannot eschew.’ But Fuller (//oly State, 305)
is more modern: ‘When the soul (the best perfume
of the body) is departed from it, it beeomes so
noysomne a carcasse, that should L make a descrip-
tion of the lothsomnesse thereof, some dainty
dames would hold their noses in reading it.’

J. HASTINGS.

NON.—1 Ch 7” AV and RVm. See Nun.

NOOMA (A Nooud, B’Ooud, AV Ethma, probably
due to confusion of OO and ΕθΘ, 1 Es 935). —The
name is a corruption of Nebo (2°, Ναβού) ἴῃ the
parallet list of Ezr 109,

NOPH (53, Μέμφις, Memphis) is named in Ts 19%
with Zoan, in Jer 2! with Tahpanhes, 44! with
Miedol and ‘Tahpanhes, οἵ, 46419, and in Ezk
30% 16 with other cities as representative of Egypt.
Hos 9° gives Moph (45, Méuqus, Memphis). It is
clear that as early as the LXX it was regarded as
the Hebrew name for Memphis. The early Egyptian
name for this city was J/n-nfr, Stele of Pnhy, 87.
This would be heard as Mén-nifér, and later as
Meén-nife, thence Ménfé. The Assyrians in the
time of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal already give
Mimpi, the Babylonian chronicle Membi (time of
Darius). The Coptic forms Wemfi, Menfi, and the
Arabic Menf show this pronunciation to have. been
native. The Hebrew transformation may have
arisen from dropping the men, the nwfé is well
preserved in Noph [for another explanation see
art. MEMPHIS], and Joph only shows the same
change as in Memfi. That Memphis took such a
Δ λον ath position in Egypt is confirmed by Esar-
iaddon, who calls it the capital of Tirhakah, and

* Trench (On AV of NT, p. 47) distinguishes the earlier and
later meanings of the word by saying that a tiger would have
been noisome in Old English, a skunk or a polecat would be
noisome in modern.

later speaks of it as the residence of Necho along
with Sais.

Plutarch’s derivation of the name (de 791. 20)
seems to rest on a confusion of the Egyptian mn
and mnt. On the other hand, an attempt to
identify Noph with Napata, Tirhakah’s Ethiopian
capital, is hopeless. For the history of Noph see
MEMPHIS.

LiTERATURE.—Meyer, Gesch. Aigyp. p. 336 ; Steindorff, Beitr.

Assyr. i. p. 594. C. H. W. JOHNS.

NOPHAH (n2i; Vulg. Nophe), mentioned only in
Nu 21%, by some identified with Nobah of Jg 8!
[see NOBAH]. If this be allowed, the remainder of
the verse must be translated as Syr. ‘which is
upon the desert’ (midhbar), and the Medeba of
the MT, AV, RV disappears. Another suggested
translation is ‘we have laid waste so that tire was
kindled unto Medeba.’ The LXX [καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες
ἔτι προσεξέκαυσαν πῦρ ἐπὶ Μωάβ] translates neither
Nophah nor Medeba. But the text of the verse
is uncertain. See Dillmann on the passage, and
G. A. Smith, HGHL p. 560 note. Cf. art.
MEDEBA. A. T. CHAPMAN.

NORTH COUNTRY, THE (‘53 77x).—An expres-
sion, occurring nine times in AV, and used vacuely
to denote the distant regions N. and N.E. of
Palestine, including at Jeast the N. parts. of
Babylonia, and sometimes almost idealized as the
home of Israel’s foes. In Jer 6 it is the quarter
from which Jer. expects the foe—whether Scythians
or Babylonians (see LOT 237 f.)—to advance against
Judah; 107°, as also Zee 6°88, the reference is
most probably to Babylonia; 23° 315 it is the
quarter whence the exiled Israelites will be
restored ; 4010 Carchemish (v.?), on the upper course
of the Euphrates, nearly N.N.E. of Palestine, is
alluded to as ‘in the north country’; and 50° the foes
of Babylon are to assemble from the ‘north country.’
In Jer 3'8 16", Zee 2° the Heb. is also the same (AV,
RV ‘land of the north’). Naturally, the expression
cannot be dissociated from ‘the north’ alone, which,
esp. in Jeremiah, is constantly spoken of as the
quarter whence evil or Invasion arises (Jer 11" }
46 61 138° 15 [prob.], 25° 4679-4 472; and against
Babylon, δ09 5l*: comp. Is 147, of the invading
Assyrians ; and Ezk 26%, where Neb. is brought
‘from. the north’); Jer 3'° (cf, 3'2), 16! 238 318;
Zee 2°, just quoted, show also that it was regarded
as the region in which Israel was exiled, and from
which it was to be restored. In Zeph 2" the
‘north’ includes Assyria and Nineveh (actually
N.E. of Judah). In point of fact, Babylon is almost
in the same latitude as Samaria; but Assyr. and
Bab. invaders usually entered Palestine from the
north ; and hence even the latter were pictured as
having their home in that direction. That the foes
of Babylon should themselves also come from the
N. (Jer 50* 9. 415148) was naturally no difficulty ; the
expression was a wide and vague one. In Ezk 38": 1
39? the hosts of ‘Gog’ (whom the prophet imagines
as invading in vast numbers the restored Israel)
are brought up from ‘the recesses of the north’
jD¥ ‘n=r; the same expression in Is 1418, Ps 48°);
the thought may have been suggested to Ezekiel
by the irruptions of Scythian hordes into Asia,
which had recently taken place (Herod. 1. 103 ff).

In Is 4158 (spoken in Babylonia), Cyrus is spoken
of as ‘stirred up from the north’; in Dn 1167-8.
13.15.40. 4 the “king of the north’ denotes the king
for the time being of Antioch (opp. to the ‘ king of
the South,’ 1.6. of Egypt). S. It. DRIVER.

NOSE, NOSTRILS (58 ’aph, Arab. anf; ovr:
Job 4139 [Heb.!] only ; "πὸ, tr’ in AV of Job 39%
‘nostrils,’ is given correctly in RV ‘snorting ’).—
The expansion of the nostrils and the forcible

560 NOSE-JEWEL

NUMBER

ejection of the breath expressed energy and) RV ‘in no wise’); Jn 12! ‘Perceive ye how ye

indignation, Job 8029, Ps 18%. On the other hand,
the residence of the breath in so small a space
taught the insignificance of human life, Is 2”.

In Ezk 8" allusion is made to the custom in
sacrificial Baal-worship of putting the branch to
the nose. A somewhat similar practice prevails
at Jewish ceremonies of circuincision, where per-
haps, on account of the natural repuenance to
pain and the sight of blood, those present are
supplied with small slips of aromatic myrtle.
See, further, art. BRANCH.

In Ly 218 one of the deformities from which the
priest must be free was the blemish translated
‘flat-nosed’ (079). So EVV following LXX (κολο-
βόρ(ρε)ιν). Pesh., Vulg., and Jewish commentators.
Driver-White (‘ Leviticus’ in PB) tr. ‘mutilated
in the face,’ and remark ‘the word is more prob-
ably a general term, the cognate verb in Arabic
meaning to pierce or perforate, especially to
mutilate (by slitting) the nose, ear, or lip.

G. M. MACKIE.

NOSE-JEWEL.—See AMULET, JEWEL.

NOTABLE. — This word occurs with various
meanings in AV, some of which are out of use.
1. Conspicuous, prominent, Dn 8° ‘the goat had a
notable horn between his eyes’ (nig 77, Jit., as
AVm, ‘a horn of sight’ or ‘of conspicuousness.’
So 88, where, as well as in v.*!, it is called ‘the
great horn.’

2. Clearly seen, illustrious (ἐπιφανής), used of a
temple in 2 Mac 14, and of the Day of the Lord
in Ac 2” (following the reading of the Sept. ).

3. Hacelling (εὐπρεπής), 2 Mac 3°8 ‘young men

notable in strength.’

4. Notorious (ἐπίσημος), Mt 9716 «And they had
then a notable prisoner, called Rarabbas.’ ΟἿ.
Shaks. Ad?’s Well, ur. vi. 10, ‘A most notable
coward, an infinite and endless liar’; and South,

to wit, the rebel.’ In Ro 167 the Gr. word is used
in the sense of important, of mark, but is trans-
lated ‘of note’ in EV. The adj. ‘notable’? might
have been used, as in Lom. of Partenay, line
2741—

‘Unto this feste cam barons full many,

Which notable were and ryght ful honeste.’

5. Unmistakable, well-known (yvwords), Ac 4%

‘a notable miracle.’ Cf. Chaucer, Prioresses Tale,

233—
“Ὁ yonge Hugh of Lincoln, slayn also
With cursed Jewes, as it is notable,
For it nis but a litel whyle ago.’
6. Noble, highminded (γενναῖος), 2 Mac 6% ‘a

notable example to such as be young to die
willingly.’

In its only occurrence notably has the same
meaning as that last given for ‘notable,’ viz. nobly,
2 Mac 14°" ‘he was notably prevented by Judas’
policy’ (γενναίως, RV ‘bravely,’ RVm ‘nobly’).
Cf. Berners, Frotssart, ch. 6111. ‘Wherefore they
sayd, they wold send and defye the Frenche kyng
notably : and so they did.’ The meaning is nearly
the same in Shaks. Mids. Nights Dream, V. i. 368
(his only example of the word)—‘a fine tragedy

and very notably discharged.’
J. HASTINGS.
NOTHING is sometimes used adverbially in AV,
like ‘no-way,’ ‘naught,’ and ‘not’ (=‘no whit’).
We should now say ‘as nothing’ or ‘in no respect,’
for ‘nothing’ has completely lost its adverbial
force. Thus 1K 10?! ‘it [silver] was nothing
accounted of in the days of Solomon’ (ayq3 5);
Job 34° ‘16 profiteth a man nothing that. he should
delight himself with God? (saxjzo° 85); 2 Mac 7:3
‘he nothing regarded the pains’ (ἐν οὐδενί) ; 97 ‘he
nothing at all ceased from his braggine (οὐδαμῶς,

prevail nothing 2 (οὐκ ὠφελεῖτε οὐδέν) ; 1 Ti 44 “ Kor
every creature of God is good and nothing to be
refused’ (οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον, RV ‘nothing is to be
rejected’). Cf. Lk 4° Rhem. ‘And when the
Devil had throwen him into the middes, he went
out of him, and hurted him nothing’; also the
Annotation to Luke 19% in Rhem. NT, ‘The poore
widowes brasse peny was very grateful, because it
was al or much of that she had: but the riche
man’s pound of his superfluitie, though it be good,
yet is nothing so grateful. In Crusoe, p. 60,
Defoe uses the word almost as if it were ‘not’: “1
was nothing near so anxious about my own safety.’
Abbott (Shuks. Gram. p. 46) quotes Henry VILL.
v. i. 126, ‘I fear nothing, what can be said against
me,’ and points out that ‘what’ is not put for
‘which’; ‘nothing’ is equivalent to ‘not at all.’
In the phrase ‘nothing worth’ it is probable
that ‘nothing’ is again adverbial, though we have
but to transpose the words to find it a substantive.
Tt oceurs in Job 24% ‘who will make me a liar,
and make my speech nothing worth?’ (5x5);
Wis 2" «That which is feeble is found to be
nothing worth’ (ἄχρηστον, RV ‘of no service’);
Bar 61%, Cf. Jn 85) Tind.. ‘Jesus answered, Yt
I honoure my selfe, myne honoure is nothinge
worth’ (οὐδέν ἐστιν, Wye. ‘is nought,’ other VSS
‘is nothing’). J. HASTINGS.

NOUGHT.—See NAUGHT.

NOYICE.—The word used in 1 Ti 3° to translate
the Greek vedguros (neophyte). A bishop is to be
‘not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he
fall into the condemnation of the devil.’ The
literal meaning of the word is ‘newly planted.’
The word neophyte became later a technical term,
used to describe those who had been recently bap-

tized, when they wore during the Liturgy their
Sermons, uu. Ser. 1, ‘A notable leading sinner indeed, |

white baptismal robes, were placed near the altar,
and received each day. Tor other details see Dict.
Chr. Ant. ii. 1385. A. C. HEADLAM.

NUMBER.

1. Numbers and Textual Criticism (figw7es).

2. Numbers and Rhetoric (rownd numbers).

3. Numbers and Theology (holy numbers, symbolie
numbers, Gematria).

The interpreter of Scripture has to look at the
numbers which occur in the sacred texts from
other points of view besides those that are usually
taken account of in grammar (cf. Konig, Syntax,
pp. 810-388). He has to ask whether such num-
bers do not fall within the sphere of Textual
Criticism, of Rhetoric, or even of Philosophy and
Theology.

1. NUMBERS AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM.—(a@) In
the only inscription which has been preserved to
us from the earlier times of the Hebrews, the
Siloam Inscription, which, notwithstanding the
objections of Pilcher, is to be dated in all proba-
bility from the days of Hezekiah (cf. Hapos. Limes,
1898, p. 2399 1.), the numbers are written in full in
words - voy and 25s) man (lines 2, 5). One sees that
we have only a very slender basis for conclusions
as to the way in which the ancient Hebrews indi-
cated numbers in their writing. Certainly, the dog-
matic judgment must not be passed that the above
was the only mode. On the one hand, no doubt,
this view is supported by the circumstance that
upon the Moabite Stone also (cf. Socin, ‘zur Mesa-
Inschrift’ in Verhandlungen der sdchs. Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften, 1897, ii.) the numbers are
written in words : σον, ete. (lines 2, 8, 16, 20, 28 f.).
But, on the other hand, it is to be noted that else-
where, even at periods when figures were employed,
numbers are notwithstanding indicated frequently

(ΩΣ

NUMBER

NUMBER 561

by words. For instance, in the old Aramaic in-
scriptions of Zinjirli, we read the numbers ‘yay
(Panammu, line 3) and νὸν (WZAM, 1893, να.
It may be noted that the inscription of Bar-Rekub,
published by Sachau in Sitzwngsb. εἰ. Berl. Akad.
1896, p. 1051 f., contains no numbers). But in the
same Inscriptions we find also figures, and the same
combination of both methods of indicating numbers
recurs also fon the Assyro-Aramaic lion-weights,
where the numbers are expressed first in words
and then in symbols’ (W. R. Smith, Academy,
1893, No. 1124, p. 444°). Again, in the S. Arabian
inscriptions the numbers are partly written in full
and partly indicated by figures, e.g. cnyaqs yay,
etc., in Halévy, No. 199 (Pritorius, ZDMG xxvi.
748). Yhe Phoenicians also employed both words
fully written and figures, e.g. ΠῚ -* pans) ry in
the Eshmunazar inscription (C7S i, 14); 1] δυῶν,
in an inscription of Citium (i. 36), and the same
dittography is found in an inscription of Idalium
(i. 102, cf. 151), Il ov (p. 183), TE TE TM sew, ete.
(pp. 109 f., 225). Nay, there are Phoenician inscrip-
tions in which the numbers are written only in
words : we (ρ. 203), ens won, ete. (in a Spanish
inscription, No. 166, p. 245), nyo (twice in one in-
scription, p. 904). Zhe Siloam Inscription may be
an instance of an inscription of this kind. This
possibility must be conceded all the more that S.
Reinach also remarks, in his J'raité dépiqraphie
grecque (1885, p. 219), ‘at all periods the inserip-
tions furnish also instances, rather rare no doubt,
of figures [read ‘numbers’] expressed at length in
words ; @.g. Taulars ἔσοδος μία ἐνενήκοντα λίτραι, κ.τ.λ.
(CIG, No. 5640).’

(ὁ) If, then, it is possible that the pre -exilic
Hebrews also employed signs for numbers, what
kind of figures had they? Of such signs four lead-
ing species are known to the present writer :—

(a) In Assyrian ‘one’ is represented by a vertical
wedge (Y), and the other units by combinations of
such wedges, but ‘ten’ by a sign which is quite
similar to the sign for τὶ (<C, ef. in Delitzsch’s
Assyr. Gramm. p. 18 with p. 40). The other
numbers are indicated by combinations of this sign
for ‘ten’ with the vertical and the horizontal
wedge. These Assyrian figures might be called
purely linear, were it not that the number ‘sixty’
is expressed by ‘I Susu, or soss’; ef. further, Ο.
Bezold, Oriental Diplomacy (London, 1893), p-
120f., and, above all, Th. Dangin, Recherches sur
POrigine de Vécriture cunéiforme (Paris, 1898), pp.
52 ff., where the figures employed in the oldest
cuneiform inscriptions are collected with great
completeness.

(8) In the hieroglyphic texts of the Egyptians
‘one’ is indicated by a vertical line, and the num-
bers from ‘two’ to ‘nine’ by vertical strokes placed
side by side (e.g. II1 II). ‘In dates the units are
indicated also by horizontal strokes (—, =, ete.).’
But the sign for ‘ten’ is ἢ, ‘hundred’ is repre-
sented by C, ete. (ef. Erman, Aegypt. Gramm.
1894, § 140). Essentially identical is the Phanician
system of figures: | to III HE II; ‘ten? is indicated
by - or by a similar obliquely drawn and curved
line which evidently arose from O, the earlier
form of ν, with which the word roy ‘ten’ begins.
Then follows a special sign for ‘twenty’ and for
‘hundred’ (ef. Schréder, Die Phin. Sprache, yp.
186 ff., and CUS i. 30, 40, 43, 50, 94, ete.). Only
the sign © for ‘ten’ has been found up till now in
the Zinjirli inscriptions, namely ‘o, = 30,’ and
fo poo = 70’ (Sachan, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli,
1893, p. 71). Upon the same principle the signs
for numbers are chosen in MJinwo-Sabewmn, where
**fone” is expressed by a vertical stroke’ (Pritorius,
ZDMG xxvi. p. 750), but ‘five’ by tt, the initial
letter of Py (i) 9p, if the Minwo-Sabiean letters

VOL. IH.—36

are transcribed in Ethiopic. The number ‘ten’
is indicated by the sign Q, an older form of τ (x),
with which the word for ‘ten? begins which
answers to the Etbiopic DUJCK. (lor the other
figures see Priitorius, é.¢., and Hommel, Siadarab.
Chrestomathie, 1893, p. 8.). Only slightly modified
is the system of figures which one tinds employed
in the Palmyrene inscriptions, namely | to {ΠΠ;
‘five’ = a sign which appears to the present writer
to be a simplification of the above 8. Arabian καὶ ;
‘ten’=a sign which may have arisen from O (y),
etc. (cf. Merx, Gramm. Syr. p. 17). This second
principle upon which numbers are indicated may
be called the lineo-acrostic.

(y) In India an older system of figures was dis-
placed by that which is adopted in the Sanskrit
texts: A,3, 3. ete. (cf. e.g. Stenzler, Llementar-
buch der Sanskrit-Sprache, §7). This way of in-
dicating numbers is the pure acrostic. For the
sign 8. represents the vowel 9, with which the
word @ay (eka, ‘one’) begins, ete. ‘These figures
are employed also by the Arabs (ef. |, Γ΄, ΓΙ, ete.),
who themselves call this method of indicating
numbers ar-raknu-lhindijju (Caspari-Miiller, Arab.
Gramm. § 33), while Europeans are accustomed
to call it the Arabic method.

(6) The fourth leading method of shortening the
expression of numbers is the alphabetic. The
following traces of it have been noted by the
present writer: the Greek inscriptions of older
date show the following figures, |, 11, Hl, HM, T
(5. Reinach, é.c. Ὁ. 217, recalls the Π of IMENTE),
I'l, ete., A (cf. AEKA), ete. Similar signs are
found in inscriptions from Epidauros belonging to
the 4th cent. B.c. According to B. Keil (in Hermes,
xxv. p. 319), as the present writer’s colleague, G.
Korte, has pointed out to him, the Zatest specimens
of this system are found in CT Attic. ii. 2, No
985 (written c. 90 B.c.). But somewhat earlier
than B.c. 50 the alphabetic system of figures
appears to have been introduced, according to B.
Keil (in above-cited art. p. 320), and it is found,
e.g., in CI Attic. ii. 644 (the time of Augustus
or Claudius), etc. ‘In the oldest system of this
class, the letters possess the following values :
A=l, B=2, '=3, A=4, E=5, I=6, H=7, O=8,
I=9, K=10, etc.’ (Reinach, 2,6. p. 220). It is clear
from all this that Gow (‘The Greek Numeral
Alphabet,’ in Journal of Philology, 1884, p. 278)
has rightly rejected the hypothesis of a Phcenician
origin for this Greek method of indicating numbers.
The alphabetic method adopted for Greek figures
was copied in Coptic-Arabic and in Ethiopic writ-
ings (Pritorius, Aeth. Gramm. ὃ 14). Further, in
many Syriac manuscripts (ef. the Codices Musei
Britannici enumerated by Land in his Anecdote
Syriaca, p. 94) one finds signs for numbers which
have a genetic connexion with the above-mentioned
figures of the Palmyrene inscriptions (ef. further,
on the notation of the Syrians, Gottheil, ZDMG,
1889, p. 121 ff.). 3ut these figures, which occur
pretty frequently in the Codices of 5th—7th cent.,
afterwards fell into disuse (Merx, Gramm. Syr.
p- 16), and the a/phabetic method of indicating
numbers was adopted (e.g. «ὦ Jéid=10; ὦ Kaph
=20, ete.) ; οἵ. further, Noldeke, Syr. Gramm. p.
279. This alphabetic method was, and is still,
largely employed by the Arabs (Caspari-Miiller®,
§ 33). It was also partially adopted by the
Nabateans, in whose inscriptions one finds ‘a
mixed system’ of figures (Sachau, ZDMG, 1884,
p. 541: ‘ten=Jod, and hundred=Koph’), and
the same method is not unexampled even in
New Persian (cf. Salemann-Shukowski, Neupers.
Gramm. p. 4f.).

The alphabetic method of abbreviating the ex-
pression of numbers is what is employed in the

562 NUMBER

a

NUMBER

later Hebrew inscriptions and books. On those
coins which are with the greatest probability
dated from the Maccabzean period we find fully
written numbers (¢.2. ΚΞΝ or nnx) and also figures
(x, ete.) In the Mishna it is stated that three
chests, used in connexion with the cultus of the
second temple, were inscribed with 45x, ma, $a:
(Shekalim, iii. 2). This usage grew as time went
on, and instead of π΄. or πὶ one wrote 1p, to avoid
suggesting the name m7. ‘Traces of this practice
are found in Origen (ef. Strack, ZATW, 1884, p.
249; ‘Nestle, ZDMG, 1886, p. 429f.), in the Cam-
bridge MS of the Mishna (ed. Lowe), and in the
Jerus. Talmud (Dalman, Jiud-Pal. Aram. 1894, p.
99). Other instances are read in inscriptions from
Aden, which are now in the British Museum (cf.
Chwolson, CI Heb. col. 126: »3 mw; col. 129:
naanx, 1.6, 1628). But this alphabetic method of
indicating numbers need not have been the only one
employed by the Hebrews in the course of centuries.
They may have in earlier days employed one of the
lineo-acrostic systems which were in use among
their eastern or western neighbours, and may have
passed from this to the alphabetic method, just as
the Greeks and the Syrians did. It is, indeed,
almost more probable that the Hebrews copied than
that they avoided the practice of their neighbours.

(c) From all this it results that the relation of
numbers to Textual Criticism is as follows: the
possibility is not excluded that the integrity of
the numbers of the Old Testament has suffered,
seeing that during an earlier or a later period a
species of figures was used in the MSS of the
biblical text. When, for instance, we read in2S
2415 ‘seven years,’ but in the parallel passage, 1 Ch
2112 ‘three years,’ it is natural to suppose that a
confusion has taken place between 1 and 3. Again,
when ‘15,000 men’ is the reading of MT in Jg 8”,
but £18,000’ in Jos. Ant. V. vi. 5, there may be a
confusion between 7 and m. ΟἿ, aS()y, Gn 4910»
(Samar. abv), with the Vulg. rendering ‘qui mit-
tendus est,’ as if Jerome had found in his exemplar
a form of ποῦ.

2. NUMBERS AND RHETORIC.—In the exegesis
of the Bible, nnmbers come, further, under various
view-points, which can be ranged under the wide
category of the stylistic or rhetorical.

(a) A species of synecdoche consists in individu-
alizing, putting forward an example in place of the
whole class, e.g. pe’? ‘the tongue,’ Ps 12?» [Eng. °°],
or prs || ayy Pr 12'>, A cognate phenomenon is
specializing, t.e. the use of a definite number for a
total which, in the mind of the writer, approxi-
mates to that number. It is not enough to say
with Hirzel (/.c. p. 5) that ‘the concrete expression
is readily preferred to the abstract.’

(a) It may be said that this employment of a
definite number is already present in the use of Ἴπν
or nnx ‘one’ for ‘a’ or ‘some one’; e.g. in Gn 9913
ΠΝ is read by some Heb. MSS, and is supported

by Sam., LXX, Pesh. (,a#); see other examples

from OT and NT, and from Arabie, ete., in Kénig’s
Syntax, § 73, 29lde. The same tendency to
spécialize a total of objects led to the use of two
definite numbers instead of one indefinite expres-
sion. Thus we find ‘ong (and, or) two’ in Dt
32, Jer 34, Ps 624, Job 33% 40°; cf. the coupling
of sing. with dual (Εἰ 9151, Jg 5 1516). or of sing.
with plural (Ee 283); ‘two (and, or) three’ in 2 K
9%, Is 178 (‘two or three berries’), Am 48 (ef. Hos
67), Job 33%, Sir 2316 26 50%, Mt 182"; Arab. 7émén
teldte, ‘two, three days’ (Spitta, Gramm. des Arab.
Vulgardialects in Atgypten, § 132%); Syr. ‘two,
three believers’ (Nodldeke, Syr. Gramm. ὃ 240 B) ;
‘bis terque’ in Cicero, e¢ al.; οἵ, oiw>y Sion, ἐχθὲς
καὶ: τρί τὴν ἡμέραν, Goa.’ αν δε ἐγ θῖν ie 4":
19tS, σὸν 9: 4[ιγΡ ἠδ Ὑ Τρ, Rugs 0}:

‘three (and, or) four’ (οἴ, Ex 20° || Dt 59), Jer 3633,
Am 19-28, Pr 805. 18. 21. 29, Sir 265; Arab. telat arba'e
hawdgat, ‘three, four merchants’ (Spitta, § 132d) ;
τρισμάκαρες Δαναοὶ καὶ τετράκις (Odyss. v. 306) ; ‘ ter et
quater’ (Hor. Carm., I. xxxi. 13); Ὁ terque qua-
terque beati’ (Verg. Aen. i. 94); ‘fowr—five’ Is 17%,
Arab. telat arba’ hamas takat, ‘three, four, tive
pieces’ (Spitta, 1.ς.}; ‘five-six’ 2 K 13”, ef. ‘he sent
five and six times’ in the Tel el-Amarna letters
(Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, Ba. v.), 3117. [ef.
874]; ‘six-seven’ Pr 66, Job 5%; ‘seven-cight’
Mie 5°, Ee 11°. In all these instances the addi-
tion of a second number calls attention to the fact
that the first number is not meant to be an exact
sum, but one that in the opinion of the writer is
approximately correct. Note especially the re-
placement of δύο in Mt 18! by δύο ἢ τρεῖς in v.™.
Hence such an arrangement of numbers was em-
ployed in the so-called middah, a kind of riddle :
Pr 61619 30H. Sir 2316 (vo eidn . . . Kal 7d Tpiror,
Ki TiN): 26. (Of, VA) 4 (erpea-*. acs καὶ ore Odkaron:
K.T.A. ) 2658. 19 50 25f-

This employment of a definite number as the
approximate equivalent of an indefinite sum is
found also in the following instances :—

(8) ‘Two’ replaces the indefinite expression ‘a
few’ (Germ. ‘ ein paar’=‘einige’), Nu 922, Hos 035,
Dt 32%, 1 S 11" (ef. the Arab. ‘not two were of a
different opinion’), 1 Καὶ 1713, Mt 1417 18”; cf. the
principle ‘the smallest number that can indicate
plurality is two’ (A. Berliner, Beitrage zur Heb.
Gramm. aus Talmud wu. Midrasch, p. 42: 0°23 my
oi); and it is not altogether without ground that
Dathe says in Glassit Philologia Sacra, i. p. 1257,
‘duplum stat (Is 40° 617, Jer 1618, Zec 915, Rev 18°)
pro multo, vel eo quod plus satis est.’

(y) ‘Three’ is a still more frequent expression
for a small total, cf. Gn 3035 401% 12 4917, Hix 22 318
5* 851. 10 15 (of. ‘the third,’ 194); Ly 19% Jos 12
gi6. 2-9 § O43 1 K 1232 Καὶ 115f 1318 (209), Ts 1614
903, Jon 117, Est 416. Dn 15, 1 Ch 212, Sir 25’. The
origin of this use of ‘three’ is not far to seek.
Observation of nature and history supplied nota
few examples of objects and events made up of
three main parts : 6.5. root, trunk, and corona of a
tree; head, trunk, and legs of a body ; source,
stream, and embouchure of a river; the right, the
left, and the middle portion of an article; heaven,
earth, and She’él’ (Ex 201 || Dt.5°5 Ps 139° ete.);
morning, noon, and evening ; the beginning, the
middle, and the end of a process.

(δ) The number ‘seven’ is not infrequently
employed in an exact sense, as in the case of the
seven days of the week (Gn 2?, Ex 2095), or of a
wedding-feast (Jg 14°17; To 119 6 ydwos. .
ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας), for such a feast is called ‘the week
(Gn 297 2%) or ‘the king’s week’ (Wetzstein,
ZLeitschr. f. Ethnologie, v. 287 tf.), and a γάμος ἡμερῶν
δέκα τεσσάρων (To 8!) is an exception. It is not to
be doubted that the exact number ‘ seven’ is meant
also in the following passages : ‘seven priests’ Jos
δ᾽; “seyen-locks* Jo-168:2?s. Ios 1051 1 138
1 KAS?) Bale 8:8. 766 3», Pr oct ΟἿ 9875 emtine
‘seven princes of Persia and Media’ Est 114 (con-
firmed by Justi, Gesch. des alten Persiens, p. 61).
But elsewhere ‘seven’ is merely a round expression
for a moderately large number: Gn 4% 74 31” 33°
(or are we to suppose that Jacob counted exactly
the number of times he bowed ὃ, cf. ‘seven and
seven times fell I at the feet of my lord the king’
[Tel el-Amarna letters in K/B ν. 384 39% 408
42° ete. 179°]), Ex 72, Lv 2618 (so taken also by
Dillmann-Ryssel, Ex-Lv, 1897, ad loc.) 4%, Dt
287-25, Je 167, 1S 2°, 28 24% 2K 4% (‘the child
sneezed until seven times’) 8), Is 4! (‘seven women
shall take hold of one man’) 112° 3076, Jer 15°,
21: 0 Ὁ: sl or os lt OluseePrOe® (Che verte g bx
2136 991-8) 2416 9G16- 23 Job 213 5% Ru 45 Dn 8185,

°
?

NUMBER

NUMBER 563

2Ch 9113, Sir 7% 20" [Eng. 2] 324 (-- 3513). 37}
(=v.38) 408, ΤῸ 3° 6 71 125, 9 Mae Τὶ, 4 Mac 18,
Mit Oey eee Vile CLG luke ep ΤΟΥΣ ΑΕ ΠῸ
seventh heaven’ in Ascension of Isaiah ix. 1;
“seven visions’ 4 Ezr 3-14; ‘seven days God spoke
with Moses in the thorn-bush ’ (Seder ‘olam vabba,
ch. 5). This characteristic of the number ‘seven’
is shared: by itechalé (Dn ὉΠ 12%) Lk 4; Ja-5',
Rev 11? ete.) and its double (Gn 46% [7], Lv 12°,
Neg? la 80. Τὸ 8. Μῆν 1"); for δὲ least in
this last passage, δεκατέσσαρες is not used in its
exact sense. This employment of ‘seven’ is pretty
accurately interpreted in the words of Adrianos
(Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς Tas θείας γραφάς (ef. KOnig’s Kinleitung,
1. 520], ὃ 85): “τὸν ἑπτὰ ἀριθμὸν ἐπὶ mreovacuod λέγει
(ἡ γραφή) εἴτ᾽ οὖν ἐπὶ τελείου ἀριθμοῦ. Moreover, the
origin of this usage is not difficult to discover.
The regular recurrence of the seven days of the
week, which again was a reflexion of the phases
of the moon (ct. Philo, Leg. Adlegor. i. 4: τροπαὶ
σελήνης ἑβδομάσι γίνονται), impressed ‘seven’ so
deeply on the human mind that one fixed upon
this number almost involuntarily when one desired
to indicate a sum of moderate size. The use of
‘seven’ lay all the readier to hand the more clearly
this number shone forth from the ‘seven’ stars of
Arcturus (Job 9° 38°? ‘with his sons’), which
frequently supplied the place of the compass to
the shepherd and the traveller. Further, an
acquaintance with the Pleiades (πὸ Am 58, Job 9°
38°!) and the planets (cf. Schrader, KAT? 18 ff.)
may have favoured the use of the number ‘seven.’
But there is no ground for the words of Augustine
(de Civitate Det, xi. 31), ‘totus impar_ primus
numerus ternarius est, totus par quaternarius ; ex
quibus duobus septenarius constat. Ideo pro
universo stepe ponitur.’

(e) The number ‘seventy’ also bears not in-
frequently an approximate sense. The following
series of passes appear to the present writer to
exhibit this characteristic of ‘seventy’ upon an
ascending scale: Gn 4657, Ex 15, Dt 109; Ex 241-9,
ee leet Be ees ρον Ex. ὙΠ NU Bo,
Jer 17 890 93. sf. 18. 24. 56 1914 Ὁ § 949 29K 101; Ps 9010
(Solon, ap. Herod. i. 32, says: ἐς ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτεα
οὖρον τῆς ζόης ἀνθρώπῳ προτίθημι), Is 23)5, Jer 25!
299, Zec 1 75, Dn 9? 48 5 ἑβδομήκοντα, (Jth 1“), and
in the same way we must explain the reading ‘170
thousand’ (7°) in opposition to ‘120 thousand’ (2°) ;
‘and he slew seventy relations’ (Zinjirli, Pan. 1. 3) ;
ef. the seventy days of the Egyptian mourning
(Gn 50°") or their embalming (Herod. ii. 86, 88).
The same round character belongs to the ex-
pressions ‘seventy and sevenfold’ (Gn 4%), and
‘seventy times seven’ (Mt 1829); cf. ‘seven thou-
sand’ (1 K 1938, Ro 114, Rev 118, Mésha’ inser. 1. 16).

(¢) ‘Twelve’ is used in an approximate sense,
when exactly ‘twelve wells of water’ are men-
tioned along with ‘seventy palm trees’ (Ex 15:7).
This employment of ‘twelve’ might be readily
enough sugeested by the number of the months
(1 Καὶ 47, 1 Ch 971) and the twelve stations (mazzaléth
or mazzaroth) of the zodiac, 2 Καὶ 23°, Job 3853 (Arab.
al-mandzilu, ‘stationes lune’). Philo remarks on
the ‘twelve wells of Elim’ (Ex 1577): τέλειος δ᾽
ἀριθμὸς ὁ δώδεκα, μάρτυς δὲ ὁ ζωδιακὸς ἐν οὐρανῷ κύκλος,
τοσούτοις κατηστερισμένος φωσφόροις ἄστροις. Maprus
καὶ ἡ ἡλίου περίοδος" μησὶ γὰρ δώδεκα τὸν ἑαυτοῦ περα-
τοῖ κύκλον, ἰσαρίθμους τε τοῖς ἐνιαυτοῦ μησὶ τὰς ἡμέρας
καὶ τὰς νυκτὸς ὥρας ἄγουσιν ἄνθρωποι (de Profugis, § 33).
Compare the twelve discharges of water (Apoc.
Bar chs. 58-68: ‘aquee duodecime lucidie quas
vidisti,’ etc.); the twelve socles on the tombstone
of Cyrus at Persepolis (Justi, Altpers. Gesch. p. 46) ;
the ‘duodecim tabula legum’; ‘twelve men’ (Tel
el-Amarna letters, 2.c. 818) ; and the modern ‘dozen.’

(n) That ‘forty’ serves as a round number may
be gathered from such facts as the following:

a,

Tsaac and Esau marry at the age of forty (Gn 25%
264); according to Ex 2" ‘Moses went out unto
his brethren when he was grown,’ but according to
Ac 7% ‘when he was full forty years old’; Caleb
says (Jos 14%), ‘forty years old was IL when Moses
sent me,’ etc., and Ish-bosheth was forty years old
when he began to reign (28 910), Again, we meet
with 3 times forty years in Gn 6%, and in the life
of Moses, Ex 77, Ac 7**+*, Dt 3475 cf. ἔτεα és ἐείκοσι
καὶ ἑκατὸν τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν ᾿Ιχθυοφάγων ἀπικνέεσθαι
(Herod. ili. 23). Further, reigns and other periods
of forty years present themsclves in Je 3! 58 3! 808
13}, ἘΠ 44°95 ΘΕ 1 καὶ (jh Ch'ege") ἢ θέ
and a reign of forty years is attributed also to Saul
in Ac 137! and Jos. Ané. VI. xiv. 9. Then we have
the ‘forty’ years of the wilderness wanderings,
Ex 16%, Nu 14% 3915. Dt 27 55 204, Jos 58, Am 210 52,
Ps 95°, Neh 953. But in other instances than these
the number ‘foréy’ is used with not less surprising
frequency, see Ex 2418 2619 3438 (cf. Lv 12-5), Nu
hab LOE ah sh ee Sor, Oe tes E ky ite ΤῸΝ
157 ‘forty’ as a familiar number has certainly been

written in place of ‘four’; οἷ. the 29] of the

Pesh. and the τέσσαρες of Jos. Ant. vit. ix. 1), 1 Καὶ
δὴ 738 198, 2K 8% Ezk 46 291-13 412 462, Jon 34,
Neh 5%, 1 Ch 1296. τεσσεράκοντα Mt 43, Ac 1° 2333: 21,
Jth 14, Bel (LXX)?, Apoc. Bar 764, 2 Es 1473; syaix
‘forty years,’ Mésha inscrip. 1. 8; cf. the ‘forty’
days of the Egyptian embalming (Gn 50**; Diod. Sie.
fed. Bekker], 1. 91: πλείους τῶν τριάκοντα) ; Herod.
1. 202 (ὁ ᾿Αράξης στόμασι ἐξερεύγεται τεσσεράκομτα), li.
29 (ὁδοιπορίην ποιήσεται ἡμερῶν τεσσεράκοντα), iv. 73
(among the Scythians ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα οἱ ἰδιῶται
περιάγονται, ἔπειτα θάπτονται). Many other in-
stances from Greek and Roman writers have been
collected by Hirzel (d.c. pp. 6 ff, 57f.). Further,
Brugsch (Steininschrift?, ete. p. 313) remarks that
‘forty years’ ineans in the Persian language even
at the present day nothing more than ‘many years.’
‘The well-known animal which we call centipede
[Ger. Tausendfuss] bears amongst the Persians the
name T'schihil-pdai, t.e. ‘forty foot,” and the Turks
call the same creature Ayrk ajakly, i.e. ‘‘forty-
footed ”’ (Hirzel, ἐ.6. p. 41). Note, also, the ‘ forty
thousand’ in Jos 4, Jg 58, 28 10", 1 K 4%, 1 Ch
105. 1 Mac-l4); 2 Mac-5\4 dos. ἀπε VIE xii. I.
The way to understand this use of the number
‘forty’ is indicated in the OT itself. A whole
generation, with few exceptions, was doomed to
die in the wilderness (Νὰ 147*& 26%), and this
sojourn in the wilderness of the Sinaitic Peninsula
lasted for (about) ‘forty’ years (Nu 14% 207" 32/3
33°56, Dt 27 ete.). Consequently forty years is the
approximate expression for the duration of a
generation (called in Heb. ἦτ; Arab. ddrun, lit.
περίοδος). Besides, from the frequent notices that
such and such a one married at the age of forty or
entered upon an office at that age (Gan 25” etc.) and
that a somewhat prolonged life consisted of three
times forty years, we gather that the notion pre-
vailed that the full development of human life
was reached about the forticth year, the so-called
ἀκμή. In any ease, this thought is expressed in the
words ‘ till he reached his full strength Casuddahu)
and attained the age of forty years’ (Koran,
xlvi. 14)—words which explain the tradition that
Mohammed received his call to be a prophet at the
age of forty, as well as account for the very fre-
quent employment of ‘forty’ by the Arabs as a
round number (Hirzel, J.c. p. 39). The idea of the
ἀκμή of human life is the source from which Hirzel
(1.6. p. 62) derives the explanation of the remark-
able prevalence of ‘forty.’ Perhaps, however, it
ought to be added that Lepsius (Chronol. der
Aigypter, 15) assumes that the Heb. ’arba‘im
may have found favour on account of its assonance
with rabbim, ‘many.’ But the view of Pott

564 NUMBER

NUMBER

(Zahlmethode, p. 99), that ‘forty’ as the product of
202 obtained preference because of the earlier
predominance of ‘twenty,’ cannot be established
at least for Semitic peoples. ‘Too slender a basis
belongs also to the theory of J. Grimm (Rechts-
alterthimer, p. 219), that .‘forty’ arose from

*3x 1341 (see, more fully, Hirzel, 1.6. p. 61), and as

little are there clear grounds for the supposition
that ‘four, as the number of the square, of the
quarters of the globe, and of the four parts of the
day (ἢ), is the number of completeness’ (Bihr,
Synebolil: des mos. Cultus, i. 155 f.).

The approximate sense we have claimed for
‘forty’ has recently been denied by J. C. A.
Kessler (Chronol, indicum et primorum requm, 1882,
p- 12) in the words, ‘fides historica mumeri 40
annorum non dubia est; nam svepius huius spatii
partes commemorantur (Dt 9.4. Ὁ 5. 55,1 K 24,1 Ch
29-7) οὐ in eo sineuli anni vel menses numerantur
(Ex 19!, Nu 101} 90}, Dt 1%)’ But these data would
invalidate the approximate value of the number
‘forty’ only if the portions of time enumerated
made up exactly a duration of forty years; ef. the
τεσσεράκοντα ἔτεα of the reign of Battos of Cyrene,
which, according to Herod. iv. 157-159, were made
up of 2+6+32 years, and which are wrongly
regarded by Hirzel (/.c. p. 50) as 8 fietitious
number. Would the Hebrews and other peoples
have used the number ‘forty’ so frequently if it
had not been a round sum? Julius Oppert, again
(Salomon et ses successeurs, 1877, p. 11), has adduced
many historical parallels in defence of the exact-
ness of the ‘480 years’ of 1 Καὶ 6!. He considers
that the Roman Republic lasted from 510-30 B.c.,
and the Parthian Empire from 256 B.c.-225 A.D.
Now, let us grant that both these calculations are
absolutely certain, although one may east doubt
both on the year 8.6. 30 the last year of the
Republic of Rome and on the date assigned for the
beginning of the Parthian Empire ; nevertheless,
doubts are awakened when the statement is read
in the Hebrew Scriptures that two events were
separated by an exact space of 480 years, for, in
view of the series of passages we have cited, it
must be evident that ‘forty’ in Hebrew usage
bore an approximate sense, and, besides, twelve
generations are counted in 1 Ch 5°84 [Eng. 65:8]
from Moses to Solomon.

(9) The number ‘five’ also has at times the
character of a familiar (Gn 43*4, Je 182, 1S 179 218)
and approximate number: Ly 224 268) 18 175,
2K 7, Is 19!8 (against Hitzig, ad loc.) 30°,
Mt 14°. 2" (Mic 684 ke OF, in 69), Ce ae
2 Ks 14%. Could the number of the fingers fail to
give rise to such a usage? (So, too, Hirzel, 1.6.
p- 2, derives this employment of ‘five’ from ‘the
constant beholding of the fingers’). Cf. ‘five’ in
the Tel el-Amarna letters (d.c.), 918 10! 16% 269 8517,
It may be noted that analogies to the ‘six’ fingers
of 28 2139 ([1 Ch 20%) and the ‘sedigiti’ of Pliny
(Nat. Hist. xi. 43) have ‘been collected, especially
by Zéckler in Lange’s Bibelwerk (on 1 Ch 20°).

(Ὁ) To the same source must be traced the
frequent use and the round sense of ‘ten,’ which
one may note in Gn 31’, Ly 26°65, Nu 147? (Ὁ Jg@ 67),
1S1°(17", 2 SIR K ee Ko), Ie 6, Am oe
Zec 8*, Job 198, Ec 719 (Neh 538), Mt 251, Lk 158,
Rev 2", To 4°, Enoch 93; and the ‘ten tempta-
tions of Abraham?’ (Book of Jubilees, ch. xix.) set
in their proper light the ‘ten’ temptations of Nu
145 (J. H. Kurtz, Geseh. d. Alten Bundes, ii. 398,
has rightly said, ‘the attempts to reckon exact]
ten historical temptations cannot be carried ἐν ΣΝ
without violence’). Cf. the ‘ten persecutions’ in
Augustine, de Civitate Dei, xviii. 52. It is interest-
ing to note that even in the book Jesirah the ‘ten’
spheres are deduced from the number of the fingers
(ch. i. ὃ 3, ed. Rittangel, p. 195: wy seo ΠΥ ΕΒ wy

“

«ὦ

nyasx); ef. for ‘ten times’ the Tel el-Amarna letters,
1159. 6 20"? 21 (obverse) !+(reverse) #4 22% 46. 569312. 18 ete,

(κ) It was no less natural to employ ‘fifty’
(6x10) as a round number. Examples of its use
in this way are found in Gn 6" 74 88 18%4, Ex 18?!
ete. 26" οὐδ Lv 23-250 iete.27% Nu op ee,
J08 775 “ES Gros Or AOS οἴ le oe oto
Ezr 85 ete.; πεντήκοντα in Jth 1"; swon in Mésha'
inscrip. 1. 28.

(A) Such approximate quantities were naturally
also the numbers ‘hundred’ (¢.g. in Ly 265, 1 S 945,
ΕΥ 7?) ie ΟΣ CR vs Lee
Lk 88; ἑκατόν To 141! (cf. v.2), Jth 10!7; nso Mésha’
inser, 1. 29) and ‘thousand’ (Ex 906 347, Dt 12! 79
328 1S 187 212997, 28 1812. Is 3017 GU, Jer 3918.
Am 6%, Mic 6’, Ps 50! 84! 904 917 1058 11972, Job 9°
33, Ec 6° 77, 1Ch 12 16), <and nox, has also;
according to its etymology, the general sense of
‘union, association.” The remark of Hirzel (é.c.
p. 2) may, further, be noted: ‘the numbers ‘ ten,”
“hundred,” ‘ thousand,” each commence a series
which in a certain sense is dominated by them.’

(6) At least the number ‘thousand’ has a
rhetorical use of a second kind. Numbers of this
kind are not infrequently due to the tendency to
hyperbole, traces of which may be observed in the
comparison of Abraham’s seed to ‘the dust of the
earth,’ etc. (Gn 1815 etc.), as is admitted even by
Flacius (Clavis script. sacra, ii. 152, 883 tt.). To
the same department of rhetoric belong many
larger numbers, e.g. ‘seven thousand’ (11 1918 ete. ),
‘ten thousand’ (Lv 268, Dt 32”, 1S 187 214 999,
ἘΜ 167° Hos’ 84. Mic: 67, Reo) 68'?<914,, Ca ai.
μυριότης Wis 1233), ‘seventy thousand’ (28 24:5),
*thousand: thousand’ (Dn 7,9, 1 ΟἹχ 915 22!4 ὁ. Gh
14°), ‘thousand myriads’ (Gn 24°"), ‘myriads of
thousands’ (Nu 10%), ‘a myriad of myriads’ (Dn
719), and ‘myriads of myriads’ (Enoch xxxix.). Cf.
πῶς ov δεκάκις, μᾶλλον δὲ μυριάκις δίκαιός ἐστ᾽ ἀπο-
λωλέναι (quoted from Demosthenes by R. Volk-
mann, Lthetorik der Griechen wu. Ltomer, 1874,
p. 374). Other analogies are presented by the
Latin phrases ‘sexcenti, sexcenties,’ etc., collected
especially by Hunziker, Die Figur der Hyperbel in
den Gedichten Vergus (1896), p. 371% A measure
of truth lies also in the remark of Hirzel (/.c. p. 3),
that the general numbers give requisite scope to
the human imagination.

3. NUMBERS AND THEOLOGY. — A special rela-
tion of biblical numbers to theology has yet to be
considered, in connexion with the question whether
many numbers do not possess either a certain
sacredness or a symbolical meaning.

(a) The reverence for, or sacredness attached to,
certain numbers. — The latter quality has its
natural sources and degrees. Tor instance, the
connexion of a number with an important element
either in the national fortunes or in the religious
conceptions, might procure for that number a lower
or a higher respect. Traces of this so-called
sacredness of numbers are not wholly wanting in
the Bible. Let us follow these traces, in order
that we may use the possible sources and degrees
of this phenomenon as normative.

(a2) An extremely important feature in the
national recollections of Israel was the number of
the tribes, which may have originated substantially
as is indicated in the Book of Genesis, in spite of
the opinion to the contrary held by many recent
commentators (ef. art. by the present writer on
‘Israel’s Historical Recollections’ in Lapos. Times,
1898, p. 349). Hence we might explain a certain
loftiness of character attaching to ‘twelve’ as well
as the frequent use of this number. The instances
we have in view are not those where ‘twelve’
manifestly stands in direct or indirect relation to
the tribes of Israel, as in Ex 24428"! (‘twelve stones
in the breastplate of the high priest’), Lv 24°,

NUMBER

NUMBER 565

Nu 7", Jos 42%, 1 K 180: Ezk 4851 Ezr 617° 8%, Mt
19:5, ef. the 24 classes of the priests (1 Ch 24*) and
Levites (25°!) and the 24 elders (Rev 4%); the 48
Levitical cities (Nu 357); the 72 men (Nu 115. "ἢ;
the 144,000 sealed ones (Rev 74); the twelve baskets
(Mt 1439); the twelve legions of angels (26%) ; the
twelve gates of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev

212") “Rather have we in view especially the
twelve generations that are enumerated from

Aaron to Ahimaaz in 1 Ch Ὁ and 68 (Eng.
65 and 5-3], Another important element in the
national consciousness of the Israelites was the
recollection of the [about] forty years of the
wilderness wanderings, as is proved by the frequent
allusions to these (see the passages cited above in
2, a, ); and this recollection was of a very serious
and mournful character. Hence it is intelligible
that the round number 40 should be chosen just in
those passages where the duration of a serious
situation was to be indicated, as, for example, in
the 40 days of punishment, of fasting, and of
repentance, Gn 7* 1217 85, Ex 2418 348, Dt 9143
10, 5. 175, 1 Καὶ 198, Jon 34, Mt 4.
(3) A fundamental element in the
perience of Israel was the receiving

religious eX-
r of the ‘ten’

commandments (Ex 20277 || Dt 5°?), which three
times are expressly called ‘ the éen words’? (Ex 34°,
Dt 4% 104); ef. also the ten candlesticks in the
sanctuary (1 Καὶ 7). Τὸ would be no wonder, then,
if the sanctity of those fundamental command-
ments passed over to their number, a process which
may have been favoured by the circumstance of
the ten times repeated ‘and God said,’ by which
the world was made (Gn 15:39), unless, indeed, the
ten repetitions of this formula were themselves
due to the significance of the number ‘ten.’ The
present writer feels disposed to adopt this last
sugeestion, because the combination of those ten
ax) with the seven ‘and God saw that (it was)
good’ (Gn 1+ 10-12-18. 21.25.31), and with the three
‘and God blessed’ (12% °5 2%), appears too striking
to allow the concurrence of those three numbers,
‘ten,’ ‘seven,’ and ‘three,’ to be set down as for-
tuitous. Thesame conelusion is specially favoured
by the fact that the formula of approval, καὶ ἰδὲν ὁ
θεὸς ὅτι καλόν, is repeated in the LXX ezght times,
the additional instance being 1°”. It is more
likely that the number was reduced to seven from
an original eight than, conversely, that seven
occurrences of the formula were expanded to eight.
(y) If we are right in the above supposition, the
position is all the more established that ‘seven’
had, in the estimation of the Hebrews, a certain
measure of sanctity attached to it. This position is,
however, very probable upon other grounds as well.
For instance, next to the ark with the ten com-
mandments, which of the fittings of the sanctuary
was counted more sacred than the seven-branched
vandlestick (Ex 25%, Καὶ 19, Zee 41} Was it not
this which symbolized the illumination bestowed
by the Spirit of God (cf. Is 11} And how the
reverence for the number ‘seven’ must have been
augmented by the circumstance that this number,
derived from the revolution of the moon, ete. (see
above, 2, a, δ), was connected with the Sabbath
and many of the festal seasons! Finally, what a
powerful contribution to the sacredness of ‘seven ;
was supplied by the act of swearing, which,
through the ceremonies practised (Gn 915) and
the name (nishba') applied to it, connected itself
with the number ‘seven’ (sheba'), a number which
could be read off from the stars! Even if this con-
nexion of ‘seven’ with holy utensils, seasons, and
transactions was itself a secondary one, yet, once
it was established, it must have tended greatly to
promote the frequent use of the number ‘seven,’
and it is perhaps to the sacredness of ‘seven’ that
we must attribute its selection in the following

instances: the fitting up of the place of worshij
(1 K 7%, Ezk 4076 413; cf. Pr 9'); the detailing of
acts of ritual (‘the priest shall sprinkle of the
blood seven times,’ etc., Lv 4-17 84 147 164, Nu
194, 21x 5!°), or the specification of the objects
required in the cultus (‘seven’ lambs, ete. Nu
Ogu. Ezk 45%, 2 Ch 2971); cf. the seven sons of
Saul who were ‘hanged before the Lonp’ (28 21°);
and the seven locks of the Nazirite Samson (Je
16-19) appear to the present writer to have a
necessary connexion with the act of swearing.

Besides, this connexion of ‘seven’ with re-
ligious conceptions was common to the Israelites
and those peoples in whose neighbourhood they
lived at different times. Note, in the Pabh.-
Assyrian poem ‘ Die Hollenfahrt der [κατ᾿ (ed. A.
Jeremias, 1887), the seven gates through which
Ishtar descended to the ‘land without return’ (Ob-
verse 1. 63, Reverse Il. 14, 45). Further, note the
seven altars which Balaam, who was sent for from
Mesopotamia (Pitru on the Euphrates), caused to
be erected in Moab (Nu 23!-+' 3); the seven
sacrificial victims directed to be offered by the
three friends of Job ‘in the land of Uz’ (Job 42°) ;
and the circumstance that ‘with the /gyptians
also “seven” was ἃ holy number’ (bers, <egypten
und die Bicher Mose’s, p. 339). Vhe combination
of this number with the cultus was, therefore,
probably an inheritance which the Hebrews brought
with them when they migrated from their home
in the East. Now, we observe that this combining
of ‘seven’ with religious conceptions shows itself
in an augmented measure in the post-exilic period.
For instance, ‘ox and fatling’ of 25 61" is replaced
in the parallel passage, 1 Ch 15°%, by ‘seven bullocks
and seven rams,’ and ‘the seven holy angels’ are
mentioned in To 12%. ‘This may, of course, be the
product of a process of development within Judaism
itself. It is the Esoteric-Priestly source (P) of
the Pentateuch that has first to tell us that 70
descendants of Jacob went down to Egypt (Gn
40:7: cf. on the 70 or 72 names in Gn 10 kKénig’s
Kinleitung, p. 231), and the Chronicler means to
enumerate 7U descendants of Noah (1 Ch 15:39) and
of Abraham (νν. 9.3); ef. the 70 disciples (Lk 1018),
the seven spirits of God (Rev 1: ete.), the ‘seven
prophetesses’ (Seder ‘olan rabba, ch. 21). But if
a foreign source is to be sought for the growing
disposition to connect ‘seven’ with religious
notions, the influence of Babylonia suggests itself
most readily, for we read ‘the names of the angels
came in their hand from Babylon’ (Jerus. Josh
hashshanah, i.4: 233 Υ3 Voy δ ΝΠ mow). Hence,
if the notion of ‘seven’ angels is to be attributed
to foreign influence at all, the present writer
prefers to trace this influence to Babylonia rather
than to Persia, whose claims Riehm (//]V 2B!
p. 17794) sought to establish. iehmys view is all
the less certain because elsewhere only ‘four’
supreme angels are mentioned (Enoch ix. 39, Apoe.
Bar 6*), and in considering the Persian origin of
the ‘seven eyes’ of Zee 3° 410 one must not leave
out of account the language of Is 457 (* I form the
light and create darkness,’ etc.) and of Zee 85,

(δ) Finally, the ¢Arice repeated ‘and God blessed’
(Gn 15" "8. 2°) raises the question how far the num-
ber ‘three’ comes into connexion with the religious
contents of the Bible. The answer can only be
that there are very few traces of ‘three’ in the
cultus and the religious conceptions of the Israelites.
All that the OT offers on this point is the following ;
The sanctuary of Jahweh is composed of three main
divisions, the Court, the Holy Place, and the Holy
Of Holies( Ex 262 Qi) Keo etcne Inthe bless:
ing formula of Nu 67*4 the name Jahweh is thrice
repeated, and three pairs of actions are predicated
of Him. The threefoid mention of the Divine name
occurs also in Jos 22”, Jer 7+, and Nah 1°.) Further,

ΕΠ

566 NUMBER

NUMBER

Jahweh Zebaoth is thrice called holy in Is 6°. This
threefold use of a word is a species of Epizeuxis
which is found in other instances as well (Gn
θήν, 6b. Aid, Jer 22% zk 21*),-and.is a circumlocu-
tion for the superlative. (So also in Egyptian,
according to Brugsch, Steininschrift, ete. p. 310,
the use of ‘good, good, good’ serves as a substitute
for the superlative, ‘the best’). This relative
rarity of a connexion between ‘ three’ and religious
notions, which prevails in the OT, should not be
made good from other sources. The thunder eall,
‘Hear, O Israel, Jahweh is our God, Jahweh (the Ὁ)
one’ (Dt 64, cf. Is 414 44° 4815), drowns the voice of
those who refer us to the triads of gods that were
adored by the Babylonians, Assyrians (Anu, Bel,
and Ea, ete. [Tiele, Bab.-Assyr. Gesch. pp. 517,
523]), and other nations of antiquity. It was only
in the course of the later development of Israel’s
religion that the Old Test. ‘I am that I am’
(Ex 31) was parted into ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἣν Kal ὁ ἐρχόμενος
(Rev 14 45); cf. the evolution of the vp wp wip
of Is 6° which meets us in the mysterious sentence
™D'D) 75D) ἼΞΌΞ aD προ 3 ww ep (Jesirah, ch. 1.
§ 1). But the original meaning of the OT text
must not be modified to suit either heathen parallels
or later stages in its own development.

The question has still to be put why in one
series of passages it is ‘three’ and in another
‘seven’ or some other of the round (holy) numbers
that is chosen. ‘The proper answer appears to be
that seven was preferred to three (e.g. 2 Καὶ 13},
Sir 25, Rev 9! the ‘three woes’) when it was
desired to indicate a larger quantity. This seems
to be the principle at work, e.g., in the first seven
of the seventy ‘weeks’ (Dn 95}, or the ‘seven
churches of Asia Minor’ (Rey 14), or the ‘ seven
golden vials, full of the wrath of God’ (15%).

(ὁ) The question of the symbolical character of
many numbers.—-The biblical numbers would be
of immense importance for the material side of
exegesis if it could be established that many of
those numbers are used to indicate certain ideas.

Now, to cast a glance first of all over the history
of this question, the Old Testament itself has no
positive note as to a secret meaning of the
numbers it employs. Such an indication cannot
be discovered in the statement that the Tabernacle
was constructed after a heavenly pattern (Ex 25%).
Nothing more than an ingaziry into the meaning
of numbers is ascribed to Daniel (92; cf. ‘the
prophets have inquired,’ ete., 1 P Lf). Josephus,
too, was content to write in the IIpooiuoy to his
᾿Αρχαιολογία (§ 4) that Moses says some things in
an enigmatic way (αἰνίττεσθαι). Yet he did not
interpret the numbers of Gn 1 in Ané. 1. 1. The
same is the case in Midrash Bereshith rabba, and
a simple counting of the number of occurrences of
ἜΝ in Gn 159 without an explanation of the
significance of the number is all that we find in
Mishna Adoth v. 1. But, among the Hellenistic
Jews, Aristobulus had already, according to
Eusebius (Prap. Evang. xiii. 12, 13 ff.), imter-
preted the number ‘seven,’ and Philo followed
zealously in his footprints in his work Περὶ τῆς
Διωυσέως κοσμοποιίας. Further, the interpretation
of numbers was cultivated in the Haggadic portions
of the Talmud and other Jewish writings (cf. e.g.
Schege, Bibl. Archdol. 1888, p. 419), and in Jesirah
and Zohar. Such a reference of biblical numbers
to the sphere of ideas might have its basis in
the primary or in the secondary origin of many
numbers. But—

(a) The view that certain numbers, on account
of their factors or coetticients, came to be used to
express ideas, is not a plausible one. Yet Philo
(de Plantatione, § 29) says, ἑβδομὰς ἐκ τριῶν καὶ
τεττάρων, While he derived ἐννέα from ‘eight’ and
‘one,’ finding the ‘eight’ ἐν οὐρανῷ and the ‘one’

ἐν ὕδατι καὶ ἀέρι, τούτων yap μία συγγένεια, τροπὰς καὶ
μεταβολὰς παντοίας δεχομένων (de Congress, καὶ 19) ; ef.
ἕν καὶ δύο καὶ τρία καὶ τέτταρα δέκα γεννᾷ (de Plant. §
29). Let the reader recall the sentences from Augus-
tine and Bahr quoted above (2, a, δ, 7). But Philo
(dz Profugis, § 33) did not attempt to derive
a symbolical sense of ‘twelve’ from the possible
components of this number, and it is incompre-
hensible how a reference to the factors of twelve
could be found in the distribution of the precious
stones on the breastplate of the high priest (Ex
28711 391%) or in the arrangement of the twelve
tribes of Israel, etc. (Nu 2%, 1 K 7%, Ezk 4831-34,
Rev 2118). In any case, an analysis of numbers
has nothing to do with their original sense, and
such analyses reveal nothing regarding their con-
nexion with the ideas entertained by God and
embodied in the universe. Hence it is not clear
that certain numbers owe their connexion with the
sphere of ideas to the factors of which they are
composed. But it may be said more readily that
the number 80 which occurs in Je 3°" and in Jos.
Ant. VILL vil. 8 (Sodomy . ο΄. βασιλεύσας ὀγδοήκοντα
ἔτη) Was chosen on aceount of its coeflicient ‘40.’
In the same way we may explain the number ‘35’
(5 x 7) which in the traditions about the life of
Pythagoras alternates with ‘40’ (Hirzel, ¢.c. p. 47).

(3) Still less is it to be supposed that such a

simple number as ‘three’? was constructed upon
the basis of an idea, for ‘three’ and ‘seven’ are
both members of the continuous series of numbers
which arose by the constant addition of ‘one.’
Sut Philo (de Mundi Opificio, § 3, 171., 31, Leg.
Allegor. 1. 4, 11. 1: τέτακται ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὸ ὃν Kal τὴν
μονάδα) describes the numbers 1-7 in such ἃ way as
to give rise to the thought that the relevant ideas
were disclosed to man through the numbers, and
that the numbers are the archetypes, the first and
purest representations of the Divine ideas, nay,
the moving principles of the universe, as Aristo-
bulus said, δι ἑβδομάδων πᾶς ὁ κόσμος KuKNetrac(Kuseb.
Prop, Hvang. XU xu. 16). On this path the
friends of Haggada and Kabbala advanced further.
‘The Kabbala attaches itself to the symbolical
seven years of Gn 4143, Many WKabbalists found
a connexion between the Heb. word saphar ‘count’
(Gn 41%) and the term sephira. ‘Seven’ of the
Sephiroth were, in their view, analogous to the
seven years of plenty, so that LMnsuph (AD PN),
‘the unending,’ ceased to produce more Sephiroth.
jut there were also ten mv5d, corresponding to the
ten words by which God created the world (Gn
1°), and ‘these ten words are ten principles or
attributes of God’ (Kolb, Die Offenbarung, ete.,
13, 161f.). The right conclusion to draw appears
to be, that while it cannot be said with certainty
that the number ‘ten’ in Gn 15:59 is accidental, it
may be denied with certainty that this number is
meant to express ideas.

(c) There is yet another trace from which one
can clearly see the value attached to numbers
during the later stages of Biblical Theology. We
refer to the so-called Gematria (x92°3, a Hebraized
form of γεωμετρία used in the sense of ἀριθμητική),
ze. the art of indicating, by means of numbers,
words whose letters by their numerical value (see
above, 1, ὦ, ὃ ex.) give the sum named in any
passage.

(a) This can be best explained by examples ; and
we may begin with an instance which in all proba-
bility occurs in the OT itself, namely Gn 14%,
where the number 318 is the equivalent of ἜΡΟΝ,
if the numerical values of the different letters of
this name are added together: 1+ 30 + 10 +70 +7
+200=318. It would be a strange coincidence if
the number of Abraham’s ‘trained servants’ stood
in such a relation to ‘ Eliezer,’ the only name known
to us of a trained servant of Abraham. Hence

NUMBER

NUMBERS 567

Rashi (ad loe.) said long ago, 1125 yrds ex M39
row by xe 7: ame, te. ‘Our fathers said,
Eliezer it was, alone, and this (318) 15. the
Gematrical number of his name.’ Again, the
author of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (ix. 8)
saw in the 318 of Gn 14" an allusion to 7+ 9, 1.6.
the crucified Jesus ; ¢f. Ciem. Alex., Strom. vi. 11,
§ 84: φασὶν τοῦτον τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἶναι τοῦ μὲν κυριακοῦ
σημείου τύπον. This way of explaining a word
was already recognized in the 29th of the 32 her-
meneutical rules of R. Eliezer ben Jose (see Konig,
Einleitung, p. 516). Further, on ’Athbash, ete., cf.
especially A. Berliner, Beitraége zur Heb. Gram.
aus Talmud und Midrasch, pp. 12-14.

(8) A slight variation from this method consists
in the employment, not of a number but of a word
in order to indicate another word whose letters
have the same numerical value. This method is
several times attributed to the OT writers by later
exegetes. For instance, the numerical value of
the letters of abv xa (Gn 49) is 358, and the
same numerical value belongs to the letters of men
‘Messiah’ (Buxtorf, Lex. Heb. s.v. ποῦ). What
follows from this? That the whole passage was
devised in order to furnish a test of Gematrical
skill? No; but it is possible that the above-
named equivalence was the source of the usual
spelling of the word‘ Shiloh’ in the OT (contrast
abv of the Samaritan Pentateuch). Further, the
surprising circumstance that Moses married an
Ethiopian woman (Nu 12!) engaged the ingenuity
of exegetes till they discovered that the numerical
value of ‘mena (‘ Ethiopian’ f.) is the same as that
of aNd np “ἃ fair woman to look upon’ (Gn 1211
ete.), namely 736, and hence men2 (‘ Ethiopian’)
was replaced by Onkelos by πα ξῦ (‘the beautiful’).
Then, again, n>s (Zec 38), in respect of the numerical
value of its letters, is = 0739 ‘comforter’ (La 116,
Sanhedrin 98b). Other examples will be found in
Weber, System der altsynagog. Theol. p. 18 [Jud.
Theol. auf. Grund des Talmud, ete. p. 121 1.1, and
Dopke, Hermeneutik der neutest. Schriftsteller, pp.
135, 179 f.

(y) But the NT also shows a clear trace of this
use of the numerical value of letters. We refer to

he number of the Beast in Rey 131%, where we
read τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου
ἐστίν - καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ χξἕε΄. 1.6. θ00. Long
avo Irenieus (adv. Her. v. 30) mentions the expla-
nation of this number as=AATEINO®, a word the
numerical value of whose letters is 380 + 1 + 800 +5
+ 10 ~ 50 + 70 + 200 = 666. But the view is to be
preferred that the latter number is a veiled designa-
tion of NERQN KAIZAR, the numerical value of the
letters of top 7.) being = 50 + 200 + 6 + 50 + 100 +
60 + 200 = 666. For fuller details regarding this
and other interpretations see art. REVELATION.

(6) Itis only an indirect analogy to this mysterious
use of numbers that is presented to us in Egyptian
texts. According to Brugsch (Steininschrit, ete.
p. 314f.), upon the wall of a temple at Edfu, a
notification that the length of the holy place (the
middle space in the temple) is 113 yards, is given
in the words, ‘Why? Because a child has gone
through the midst of the sanctuary.’ That is to
say, the three words we have italicized contain the
same letters as are required for writing the number
113. Again, a length of 90 yards in this temple of
the sun-god is indicated by the words, ‘ because he,
like a sun, beaming shises.’

LITERATURE.—The art. ‘Zahlen’ itt Riehm’s JJWB and in
Herzog’s PRE2; Bredow, Untersuchungen zur alten Gesch. 3.
108 ff. ; Lepsius, Chronol. der Asgypter, p. 15; Hirzel, *‘ Ueber
Rundzahlen’ in Bericht. d. stichs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss, 1885 (treats,
pp. 6-62 the number ‘forty’; p. 63f. ‘four’; p. 64 Ἐπ thirty
thousand’; but gives as biblical illustrations only ‘forty’ and
‘a hundred and twenty’); Brugsch, Steininschrift und Bibel-
wort2 (1891), p. 805 ff. ; Franz Kolb, Die Offenbarung betrachtet
voin Standpunkt der Weltanschawung und des Gottesbegrifies der

Kabbala (Leipzig, 1889), p. 12ff.; S. Rubin, Hetdenthuin und
Kabbala (Wien, 1893), p. 62 f.

On ‘the number of the Beast’ see Bousset (Die Ofenbarung
Johannis, 1896) on Rev 1318, and the Literature cited ad loc.
and in the Finleitung to his Commentary. Kp, KONIG.

NUMBERING.—See DAVID, in vol. 1. p. 568".

NUMBERS (so called from the title in the LXX,
᾿Αριθμοί, ef. Vulg. Numert, given to the book be-
cause of the repeated numberings in chapters 1. 3 f.
26; Heb. 12992 ‘in the wilderness,’ from the fifth
word of 11)" is the ‘fourth Book of Moses,’ and
forms one division of the composite work now
known as the Hexateuch (which see for justifica-
tion of this statement and for general description
of the constituent elements J, E, and P). It falls
readily into three main sections: § 4. The Camp
at Sinai, 1-10; § 2. The Wanderings, 107-19;
§ 3. The Plains of Moab, 20-36. But the material
included in these sections is often very loosely
strung on the main thread of narrative, and several
chapters are a mosaic made up out of fragments
from different sources. The analytical problems
are closely analogous to those encountered in
Exodus and Leviticus, and will be treated here on
the same lines as in those articles. Some remarks
will be added on the authorship and date (ἢ 4), the
historical significance (§ 5), and the religious value
(ξ 6) of the book. (The abbreviations and signs
employed are mostly familiar. They will be found
explained under Exopus and LEVITICUS).

§ 4. The Camp at Sinai: 1-10”.
A. Summary.

Ppt Ps Pp

31-16 Command to number the adult males—
19b. 54 Execution of the command (fragments only).
117-53 Expanded account of the census—
21-34 Order of tribes in camp and on the
march,
44.6.8.9a 11.13.15, 16a 19. 21.23.24a 26.28.30.31a, census
notes on the four camps respectively.
31-4 Aaron’s sons and what befell them—
35-10 The Levites to be set apart as assistants to
| Aaron,
311-13 The Levites to be substitutes for the firstborn.
14-22. 27f. 33. 39 Census of male Levites of all ages.
23-26. 29-32.35-33 Duties and positions of the 3
Levitical clans,
40-43 Census of firstborn males ordered and
carried out.
44f. The Levites and their cattle to be for the firstborn and
their cattle.
46-51 Redemption of the surplus of firstborn
males.
41-3. 21-23. 29. Census of adult Levites by clans
ordered.

tail.

416 Particulars as to general duties of
Eleazar.

+17-20 Caution as to distinction of priests and |

Levites.
3449 Census of adult Levites effected—
5l4r Lepers to be excluded (from the camp).
5-8 Special case of a guilt-offering.
9. Right of the priests to heave-offerings, etc.
11-31 Composite ordinance as to marital jealousy.
61-21 The law of the Nazirite and of his offerings.
32227 The formula of priestly benediction.
| 71-88 The dedication of the altar, and the gifts.
The Divine Voice from above the mercy-seat.
81-4 The candlestick and its seven lamps.
5-10. 12-15a Moses to consecrate the Levites.
411. 15b-22 Aaron to consecrate the Levites.
+ 23-26 Alteration of period of Levitical service.
The Passover celebration in the 2nd year.
96-14 Supplementary Passover for special cases.
15-23 The cloud and its relations with the
camp.
101-8 The use of trumpets on the march.
109f. (Ph) Use of trumpets in war, and for festivals.

739

1-5

* The book is also named by the Jews, from its opening word,
"E71. We find in the Talmud the name ὉΠ ΡΞ vln= ‘book

568 NUMBERS NUMBERS
B. Analysis. p. Nu 120-43 ps F. Nu 261-51 ps

Reuben 46,500 Reuben ᾿ς 43,730 — 2,770
Γ᾿ 11-13 Simeon. 59,300 Simeon . 22,200 —37,100
Se Ju ioe Ἢ Ω 9 cig aa ee τ 45,650 Gad... 40,500 — 5,150
Ps 17-194 20-47 48-53" 1-34 ~ 1-4 Judah —. 74,600 Judah . 76,600 + 1,900
pt 44f Issachar . 54,400 Issachar . 64,300 + 9,900
Pps 54 ong 335 39 : 4 Zebulun 57,400 Zebulun 60,500 + 3,100
Be Be ee ee Be. SOAS AGA 2-110 37-8 Ephraim . 40,500 Manassch . 52,700 +20,500
pt 1-31 1-21 Manasseh . 32,200 Ephraim 32,500 + 8,000
Se 4 ἢ 6 99.947 7 89 S Benjamin. 85,400 Benjamin . 45,500 +10,200
ps '*97-49° * 1-88 1-10 11 12-15a na » ΠΣ ᾿

Dan . « 62,700 Dan . . 64,400 + 1,700
pt _ Ph of. Asher 41,500 Asher. . 53,400 +11,900
ἼΗΙ ©, os & Naphtali 53,400 Naphtali 45,400 — 8,000
Ps Pe) 1-5 1-8 1
Ps 15b-26' 6-23 po

603,550 601,730 — 1,820

C. Critical Notes.

1-4: The tribes and their encampment.—These
opening chapters relate the numbering of the
secular tribes (ch. 1), with their relative positions
in the camp (ch. 2), and the numbering of the
Levitical clans with their respective duties (ch.

3f.). All comes from P, but not all from the same
stratum. If the account of the ordering of the

census in 1116 be assigned to the great Law and
History Book Ps, then the rest of the chapter re-
lating the execution of the order is most naturally
attributed to a later stage of the compilation, to
which ch. 2 may also belong. Probably Ps had
briefer accounts of the census and the camp, which
have been independently expanded in 117τὸ} and 2,
just as similar expanded accounts are found in
Ex 35-40 and Ly 8 P* of the fulfilment of commands
given in Ex 25-28 and 29 Ps. The remains of Ps’s
narrative may perhaps be found in 19>. 96. {15}
The main grounds for this analysis are as follow :
(1) The extreme elaboration of style, the same
formula being 12 times repeated, with slight varia-
tions only in * and 55, contrasted with the account
of the Levitical census in ch. 3, which may be
taken as a type of Ps. (2) In 117: 9. Aaron is associ-
ated with Moses, οἵ. 41, But in 1% (ef, 3 4:88)
it is Moses who conducts the census. In 3° Aaron
is a gloss, for numbered is sing.; and 1°» is probably
the same. (3) The order of tribes is varied, as one
writer would hardly have varied it. Six different
arrangements are given below for comparison.
A adopts the strict genealogical order. 3B takes
Rachel’s son after Leah’s children and puts Zilpah’s
last. © omits Levi, gives Joseph’s sons in the order
Ephraim, Manasseh, to make up 12, and places B's
last three in reverse order, Asher, Gad, Naphtali.
D puts Gad into Levi’s place after Simeon, Ε moves
the group Judah, Issachar, Zebulun to the head of
the list, while F sets Manasseh above Ephraim in
correspondence with their altered proportion of
numbers,

A. Gn 468 Ps B. Ex 124 Pg c. Nu 15-15 pg E.Nu2&7&
1138-23 Ps
Reuben Reuben Reuben Judah
Simeon Simeon Simeon Issachar
Levi Levi Zebulun
L -~L Judah —
Judah Judah | Issachar Reuben
Issachar Issachar Zebulun Simeon
Zebulun Zebulun —- Gad
— == Ephraim ) 5
Gad } Ζ t } Β Manassehj Ephraim
Asher Benjamin Benjamin Manasseh
- — — Benjamin
Joseph * d Dan Dan —
; } B τος-- Dan
Benjamin) Naphtali Asher
— ---- Gad Asher
Dan NF B Gad } Ζ —
Naphtali § Asher Naphtali Naphtali

L=Leah’s sons, R=Rachel’s, Z= Zilpah’s, B=Bilhah’s, J=
Joseph's. * Manasseh, Ephraim. t+ Joseph’s place vacant, since
the list is of those who came down to join him in Egypt.

(lit. fifth’) of the numberings’ (Sota 860, Joma vii. 1; cf.
᾿Ακεσφεκωδείμ of Origen ap. Euseb. HE vi, 25).

148 looks like a late insertion. The phrase
‘Dwelling of the testimony’ ° > is first found
in Ex 38"! Ps, seems to presuppose the descrip-
tion of the encampment in ch. ὃ. The prohibition
(39) to number Levi should precede and not follow
the general account of the numbering. Perhaps
this verse has been misplaced.

In ch. 2 we have a further variation of order in
the names of the tribes, and the amount of un-
necessary repetition is enormous. All the new
information, 1.6. about the position of the tribes
in the camp and on the march, could have been
put in a single sentence. One or two points of
language confirm the assignment to Ps, But the
curious series of parenthetical notes of the census
results (see conspectus above) may well have been
added later still.

Chapter 3 is made up of differing elements. 1-4
can only be Ps, because it follows the late repre-
sentation of the anointing of other priests than the
high priest. Observe also the order Aaron and
Moses, and the use of the formula These are the
generations, though the sons of Moses are not
named, and the particulars have all appeared
before (cf. Ex 6°, Ly 10'). 5:10 on the choice of
the Levites for ministry, and the parts of 11:39 on
the Levitical census, contain nothing unsuitable to
Ps; and the three inserted paragraphs on the
position and duties of the Levites (cf. 118. and 99)
might be also Ps, but that the reference to ‘altars’
in *!, whereas PS knows only one altar, and the
mention of ‘cords’ ὅθ. 7, alluded to elsewhere only
in Ps Ex 8518 39%, indicate a later origin. 11-3 and
Sf recall ΡῈ in their use of ‘I am J’,’ and may rest
on an older basis, but do not fit on to PS here. 4-38
(observe that the introductory formula is not P*’s,
ef. °° 4) and 4°! (containing several rare phrases)
rest on the idea of the Levites as substitutes for
the firstborn, and develop it in the style of P».

Chapter 4 combines an account of a fresh census
of adult Levites, with a statement as to their
duties. By its elaboration, its phraseology, and
its reference to the golden altar " (cf. Ex 30 Ps),
this chapter is marked as secondary.

5-6: Various ceremonial laws.—The first para-
graph (+4) on the exclusion of the leper and the
unclean person seems to presuppose Lv 13-15, un-
less indeed it refers to yet earlier codifications.
The phrase in the midst of which I dwell recalls
Ly 15% 26", and suggests that, if this be not a
passage from an earlier source, at least the editor
caught the spirit of his older models when he added
this supplement to relate their provisions to the
camp of Nu 1-3.—*$ supplements Lv 5'4—67 on the
guilt-offering by arranging that, where the injured
person is absent or dead and has no kinsman, the
compensation shall go to the priest.—** mentions
other items of priestly revenue.

51-31, on marital jealousy, is marked as Pt because
of its archaic flavour and certain reminiscences of
P» (as in }* 31), with the absence of P8’s terms (ex-
cept tabernacle “). But after the criticism of
Stade (ZATI, 18951) it is difficult to accept it as

NUMBERS

ΕῪ

NUMBERS 56

e

aunity. The view here adopted is that two laws,
A providing for a solemn curse on a defiled wife,
and B furnishing τῶ test for a wife suspected of
defilement, have been woven together. In 7! a
real alternative of guilt or innocence is contem-
plated. With this “©, now a colophon, but, by
analogy with other cases, probably originally a
title, agrees, and the discriminating use of the
water in 196 33. corresponds. On the other hand,
in the introduction (*f), to which answers ἃ con-
clusion in *! (observe absence of connexion with
30), the guilt is assumed, and the water is only
the means of inflicting the curse. Similarly, A’s
jealousy-offering is Bs memorial-offering. The
analysis which follows rests on the above main
grounds, and is effected by aid of the parallels and
contrasts tabulated below.

A ll-l8a 180 ἃ lr 1850. 21,7 23 Mr 510 2δ0.20α altar 31
B 29 180 30a 140 30b 10. 198, 25a to J” Wh WZar 95
Ἄν, Parallels and Contrasts. L.

1 any man’s wife 12
yo aside 12

lie with her carnally 13

it be hid... no witness 18ac

the man shall bring his wife
unto the priest 15

meal-offering of memorial 15.
18. 26; of. bringing iniquity
to remembrance lo

the priest shall set the woman
before J” 18

the offering put on the woman’s
palms (Heb.) 18

the water of bitterness 18. 258.

19r taken 18 ceremonially

used and administered 2+4-

priest shall say unto the

woman, J” make thee

a curse 210 ; cf.27b, no alter-

native being given (cf, 12.

31 where her guilt is

assumed).

and he shall make the woman
drink the water of bitter-
ness 24

thigh falling away and belly
swelling 31

the offering brought to the
altar 2» and the memorial

the

when a wife 29

being under her husband, qoeth
aside 29. 19f.

lien with thee 19f. (18. 19. 20 diff.
in Heb.)

it be kept close (diff. gender) 190

he shall set the woman before
J”, and the priest . . . 30

meal-offering of jealousy 35.
lor. sr; cf. daw of jealousy
29, spirit of jealousy 3). La’

the priest shall bring her near,
and set her before J” 16

the offering is taken from the
woman's hand 2

the water that causeth the curse
19. 22, 189r, 24} prepared 17
and administered 27

the priest shall cause her to
swear, and say unto the
woman 19; οἵ, 2lr, an alter-
native being proposed, cf.
27t and 2vt.,

and afterward shall make the
woman drink the water
25 5 ef, 27a (om. LXX).

belly to swell and thigh to fall
away 22-27

the offering waved beyore J”

Ya,

burnt 26a,

6171: The Law of the Nazirite.—As a whole this |

ordinance conforms to the type of Ly 1-7, such
allusions as to the door of the tent of mecting readily
dropping out here as there. 2.8 may be even earlier
than Pt, as separation unto his God? and other
phrases recall P», ef. especially Lv 21%: * 1 95:57 The
tormula of benediction is no doubt much older than
the setting in which Ps presents it.

7188: The dedication of the altar.—It is agreed
that this is a late section. The date given by
comparing } with Ex 405 11 makes the transaction
prior to Nu 1, yet the order and position of tribes
in 1-4 is presupposed, and the language is more
overladen with repetitions than anywhere else,
the same formula being 12 times repeated, with
only the necessary change of 6 out of 118 English
words in the translation. —* Apparently an isolated
fragment of Pé.—8!4, like Lv 24'¢and Ex 277%,

relates to the candlestick, and seems to regulate —

the position and lighting of the lamps. [Ὁ is
probably the latest of the three passages.-—°“", pro- |

viding tor a consecration rite in the case of the
Levites, can hardly be other than secondary, as this
service if original would surely have been ordered
in ch. 3, when the selection of the tribe was com-
manded, just as the consecration in Ly 8 was com-
manded in Ex 29. Much of the earlier matter is
repeated here, and traces may be discerned of a
double representation, according as Moses or Aaron

* 14 includes only and she be not defiled.
who has inserted many harmonizing touches elsewhere.

l4a is given to ἢ,
Obs.

its cumbrous Heb., and that spirit is masc. here, but fem. in 4, |

| Ps 1b

|

is the chief actor, the former being the earlier view.
6 Alters 4° by making the Levites begin work
at the age of 25 instead of 30.—9!°, on the pass-
over of the second year, is followed by an ordin-
ance in %!4 introduced by a narrative of an
illustrative case ὅδ, a type elsewhere found in P*,
to which 1513 may perhaps all belong.—!* is identi-
fied as P* by its relation to Ex 40.--10'8 may well
be Ps, and this ascription suits the view that Ps
had a briefer account of the camp, now replaced
by 2.—*, with its scene in your land (ten parallels
in P') instead of on the march, is held to be an
inserted fragment of P, cf. Lv 17° 23% ete.

§ 2. The Wanderings: 10''-19.

A. Summary.

101-8 PsThe march from Sinai begun, Pin due
order of camps, ἡ Jwith Hobab as guide and the
ark in front; Jformula used at start and halt.
111-39 EMurmurers burnt up at Taberah ; +° Jmanna
and quails followed by a plague at Kibroth-
Hattaavah; Fseventy elders endowed with spirit of
prophecy in aid of Moses; jealousy of Joshua over
Eldad and Medad. 12 EMoses’ Cushite wife ;
jealousy of Aaron and Miriam, and leprosy of
Miriam. 13 JEPThe mission of the spies; 14 JEP
the people turned back from Canaan in punish-
ment for murmuring and unbelief; ‘defeated by
Amalekites and Canaanites at Hormah. — 15'*
PtOrdinances as to drink-, dough-, and sin-offerings ;
22-36 Psa Sabbath-breaker stoned ; 87-41 Pha blue cord
to be worn as a memorial on the hem of the gar-
ments. 16 JERebellion Jof On, Fof Dathan and
Abiram, who are swallowed up; ?Korah and his

company burnt up for sacrilege; Pstheir censers

made into a memorial ; '%a plague sent in punish-
ment of murmuring stopped by the atonement of
Aaron. 17 ?Aaron’s rod that budded. 18 ?sDuties
and revenue of priests and Levites. 10 POrdin-
ances affecting those unclean by the dead.

B. Analysis.

18-24a
24b-80°

Ps 13-28 34
J 31-35

J 19 27a to honey 8 30uf.
26b7 ~~ .27b 29

25-26a Paran

3 8

16 9b
E 3) 997 1b 4
rel Ox 14 00

5-7 9a against J” 10

J
E

39b-40 E Ξ
Be ΠΤ πὸ ὦ ἜΣ Σ᾿
15 32-36

8-11
26b Depart 27c-31

E τ᾽ 140 ὑπ τὴν Ὁ __ 27b to tents
rs 1 τα ᾿ 18-24 τοθὰ BF γος τ᾿

3
Ps 32b 9530 36-4

NUMBERS

NUMBERS

C. Critical Notes.

1011: contains the first stage of P#’s itinerary after
leaving Sinai. Jt is followed by an account of the
mode of marching, which can only be Ps from its
relation to 2, * being probably its close. With
“the JE thread is resumed from Ex with a
fragment of J, whose opening may partly survive
in Ex 18 7, its close being omitted in favour of the
view of guidance given in 9" Both this para-
graph and "9: © are linguistically connected with J.
The poetical refrains in * may well have come
from the Look of the Wars of J’. Contrast the
advance of the ark in J with its central place in P.
11'* is hard to place, and is given to E, because
it does not fit the J context, and follows E in
speaking of Moses praying. Dillmann regards the
incident as part of E’s manna story, now displaced
by J and P; Bacon views it as a sequel to the
perilous contest with Amalek Ex 17%!8, which
really comes in after the departure from Horeb.
In+* is found a story of the people’s discontent
with the manna, their demand for flesh, the sending
of the quails, and the resulting plague. The
language (see below) connects this with J, and the
description of the manna as a natural thing, though
divinely provided, is agreeable to his general treat-
ment of such incidents. But the story is dislocated
by a double set of insertions. (1) There is a series
which tells of Moses’ burden of responsibility being
relieved by the inspiration of seventy prophet-
elders. (2) In 7-1-5 we find the language of J,
but matter incongruous with this context, fitting
in well, however, as Bacon suggests, between Ex 33°
and 1’, a point in JE which must have been quite
close to this before P was inserted. Accordingly
(1) is aseribed to KE, as the emphasis on prophecy
and the phraseological features require, but not to
its earliest stage. Rather it is a secondary (E°)
parallel to the Jethro incident of Ex 18. (9) is
regarded as ἃ misplaced portion of J. See Exopus,
ad loc, (1) and (2) were probably already united
in JE, and transferred hither together. Ch. 12 is
given as a whole to E*. Bacon suggests that the
Cushite woman is Jethro’s daughter, who is name-
less in Ex 18®,

Minor clues.—J—mixed multitude 4 cf. Ex 1238; Jthy servant
Sfound favour 11.15; Jeonceived 12; sanctify yourselves 18 Ex
1922 ; against to-morrow 18 Ex 810.23; Jamong you 20 (Heb.);
Jjlocks and herds 22; went forth a wind from J” 31 cf, Ex 1013b
14510 Jyet, ere 38 (Heb.); the people journeyed . . . 351216; for
say unto me 12 see Ex 331-8,

E—Eprayed 2; bear . .. alone 14.17; Eelders 16. 24f.30; the
tent of meeting 16 124 Ex 337, which was outside the camp 26 124f.
Ex 337-11 ct. its central position in P; the cloud in connexion
with the tent 2 125 Ex 339 ct. Ex 1321 1419; Eprophet, prophesy
25-29 ]26f.; Joshua as the minister of Moses 23 Ex 2413 3317;
Miriam 121 Ex 1520; the man Moses 123 Ex 11°; meek 123 cf.
1129; speak against 121.8 215.7*; vision 126 Gn 151 462, Edream
126 ; heal 1218 Gn 2017 Ex 1526,

13-14: The sending of the spies.—The numerous
duplicates and divergences in this section re-
quire explanation, and find it adequately in the
hypothesis that J E and P are all represented in
combination, while the very phenomena which dis-
prove unity furnish clues to the tracing of the
separate threads. The analysis given above is for
the most part covered by the evidence collected
below.

Paraliels and Contrasts.—J—(a) Caleb 1424 and others sent
by Moses 1327 into the South 170. 22 (ct. land of the South 29) to
see the land 18; (Ὁ) they come unto Hebron 22 cf. Gn 1318; (0)
they report to Moses 7 ; (d) that the people are strong 28-31 cf.
18, children of Anak *2. 23 cf. Jos 1514 Jg 110, ct. sons of A. 38r ;
(e) and that the land Jfloweth with milk and honey 27 148;
(Ὁ the people wept 1410 cf. 1110.18; (g) in fear of falling by the
sword 145 cf. 43*, their Jwives and little ones becoming a prey 148
cf. 91 Dt 139; (h) Caleb stills the people 30f. 148f.—despise (J”)
1411.23 1630; signs 1411 cf. Ex 430; Jthe Lord 1417; 1418 Js
cf. Ex 346-9,

K—{a) [In Dt 122", perh. founded on E, 12 unnamed men
are sent at the request of the people] into the mountains 116
cf. 29 1440.44; (Ὁ) they come unto the valley of Eshcol 23 and
return to Kadesh %b; (0) they bring back word to them (the

people) 26>; (d) that 5 peoples occupy all the land 29 (ct
geography of 1443) cf. few or many 18c, including the (gigantic:
Nephilim 83; (8) and showed them the fruit of the land 2b. 210
οἵ. 20.23; (Ὁ) the people cry out 141b; (g) plotting return tc
Egypt 144—Ebecause of (Heb.) 24; Eone to another 144;
mourned 1439 Gn 3734 Ex 334,

P—(a) Moses, by J’’s command, sends Hoshea (Joshua) and
Caleb with ten others to spy out the land of Canaan 1-16 (P spy
out 1.16- 17a, 21. 25. Bab 146. 7. 34. 36. 38) 5 (b) they spy out the land
Jrom Zin unto Rehob, i.e. from end to end 21, and return...
at the end of 40 days (cf. 1434)... unto the wilderness of
Paran 6a; (0) they report (an evil report 32 1437) to Moses and
to Aaron, and to all the Peongregation 26a cf, 145. 26f. 3 (d) that
all the people they saw in it are men of great stature 82b;
(e) and that the land . . . eateth up the inhabitants thereaf 32 ;
(f) the Peongregation . . . Pmurmur (1427-2) against Moses and
against Aaron 1414.2.5; (g) Joshua (not named in JE) and
Caleb expostulate 146f 9. 10,—_ Would God (oh that) 142 208 Gn
1718; Pstone with stones (Heb.) and Pthe glory of J” 1410 Eber
iniquities 1434; PI the Lord 145; Pplague 1437,

15: Sundry laws.—6 has received the customary
setting from Rp, but, at least so far as 4, seems to
rest on a basis older than Ps. With Ὁ ef. P® in
Ly 19° 23 25°, and observe a burnt-offering or a
sacrifice *, ef. Lv 178 P, Το 2 regulates the in-
dependent meal-offering; this prescribes it as
an adjunct to animal offerings.—*-!2, in which
the person changes from 8rd to 2nd, supplements
the preceding by prescribing and regulating the
drink-offering ; it may be Ps, as may 15:16 which
provides for the case of strangers, as in Lv 17, where
also this element may not be primary.—!72!, whose
opening words in Heb. differ from *, may also rest
on an early basis. For the usage cf. Ezk 443...
“sl in its present form must rank as Pt, and its
place in the chronological series would seem to be
between Ly 5! and Lv 4; but in places it recalls
P4, ¢.g. in 1, ef. Ly 20 (the penalties) and 2422, —
#85 is like the secondary element in Ly 24, which
see. The closing formula, as J” commanded Moses,
is common only in Ps,

16: Norah, Dathan, and Abiram.—Here we find
not only a double JE thread, whose strands are
separable on grounds mainly phraseological, but a
twofold priestly representation. In JE we have
to do with a civil disturbance, JOn and perhaps
Korah, or Dathan and Abiram, being the ring-
leaders, but in P with an assertion of ecclesiastical
rights. By giving in the same order the connected
points in the four variations of the narrative as
much will be done as space allows to justify the
analysis, and at the same time the characteristics
of each will emerge.

Parallels and Contrasts.—J—(a) The leaders, Bacon suggests,
were Korah the son of Kenaz, a kinsman of Caleb, cf. 1 Ch 9939,
and On the son of Peleth 14; (b) they charge Moses with
tyranny and failure as leader 13f. ; (0) Moses protests indignantly
15; (d) isolates the offenders 6b; (6) and prophesies an earth-
quake τοῦθ which forthwith takes place 31, and the GRoUND
cleaves asunder, and they and all that appertain to them go
down alive into Sheol 80f. 33a,—JIpowing . . . honey 181. . to kill
us 13 cf. Ex 1411 173; Jtents 26>; consumed 300 Gn 1823f. 1915. 17;
Ilittle ones 27¢ ; vindication of Moses’ commission 28 cf, Ex 310 413.
18 522—despised 30 1120 1411. 23,

h—(a) The leaders are Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, sons
of Reuben i6lece ; (Ὁ) they rise up before Moses 2a, refuse to come
when summoned 12.14, complaining of harshness and failure
to enrich them 110; (0) Moses and the Eelders of Israel (his
judicial colleagues Ex 18) visit the offenders ; (d) who stand at
the door of their tents 27, all Israel being round about them 34;
(e) the EARTH opens her mouth and swallows up them and their
HOUSEHOLDS (ct. 27¢ 33a) and closes upon them 52. 33v; (f) all
Israel jlee at the cry of them 34—fields and vineyards 140 2017
2122 Ex 225,

Ps—(a) The leader is Korah 18, perhaps borrowed from J, and
his associates, who are not Levites, are the 250 princes of the
Peongregation (cf. 273, where it is implied that a Manassite
might have been among them 2b. 66. 18.35) ; (8) they complain of
the sacerdotal pretensions of Moses and Aaron, as against the
whole congregation 8, ye take too much upon you, ve sons
of Levi 70 (transposed now from end of 3); (0) Afoses P falls on
his face, and then announces an ordeal for the morrow by
offering incense 47; (d) all the congregation are assembled by
Korah at the door of the tent of meeting, Moses and Aaron are
bidden to escape the coming general ruin, their intercession
procures permission to the congregation to depart from the
tabernacle, 7.e. of J”, the words ‘of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram’
being a gloss, ᾿Ξ Ὁ not being used of a human dwelling 18. 234.
6a. 27; (6) fire then comes forth from J” (i.e. presuma’)ly from

Pn SP tes

NUMBERS

NUMBERS 571

the tabernacle) and consumes the 25035; (f) on the outbreak
of murmuring at this a plague immediately visits the congre-
gation, until Aaron by atonement averts its spread 41-50,—The
language of the priestly writer is unmistakable.

Ps—(a) The leader is Korah, the son... of Levi 14, who is
supported by his company (Heb. congregation, used by Ps only
of the entire assembly, the true reading in 5f probably being
the congregation for his company) 11. 16. “40, i.e. all his Urethren
the sons of Levi with him 19; (b) they are gathered together
against J”, and murmur against Aaron 11, for they seek the
priesthood 10; (6) the test is to be the burning of incense 17;
(d) all that appertained unto Korah 82> perished from among
the assembly 82> (observe that Ps’s jive has still to come %, so
that this is distinct); (6) the censers of these sinners are beaten
out for a covering of the altar, and as a memorial of the rights
of the priesthood 36-49,

17-18: These chapters are by general agreement
assigned to ΡῈ. But Carpenter (Oxf. Hex. ad loc.)
cives reasons for considering this one of the earliest
portions of that work, w ith which it is not quite
uniform either in form (e.g. the address to Aaron
instead of Moses 18! 8 2°) or in substance (e.g. the
ignorance of 3510 in 18*7).—18*-*? on the tithe of
the tithe (observe the address to Moses 5) appears
to include fresh material.

19, on uncleanness by the dead, fills a serious gap
noticeable in Ly 11-15. 1:18 prob. rests on old usage,
but bears marks of late codification (¢.g. Hleazar
the Ἀγ st®, statute of the law? 815). The opening
of 42 This is the law of at once suggests Pt (cf. on
Leviticus 1-7), and nothing seems to be incon-
sistent with this. Can this section have belonged
once to Lv 11-15 and been transferred here where
the water of separation™, whose preparation and
use are described in, is more elaborately regu-

lated ?
§ 3. The Plains of Moab: 20-36.

A. Analysis.

J 3a to Moses 5 8> to water
E ¢ SS Oe, a, ee ee, IONE rte
la to month 2 3b-4 6-Sa to brother 8c-13

J 19-20 21b λ
Ε c 21a to border 22a to Kades 4b-9
() pac iy ope hg hy Ad el portage ΟἹ τἀ ie

16-20 24b-25 26’ 32
py... 10.150 91-θώα Jabbok 51: ὃ ὃ
PEA hs lia Lje-abarim

ps

22-36a Ammon
386b-37a

27’ 28 29 30° 1-19 20-24’ 25

1-7 8-11’ 12-57 £8" 59-65

ae sua 32

‘ ~
ps 16-18

Bon ae e392

ao 7.14
J 39 40’ 411.

B. Summary.

901-18 EDeath of Miriam. 4%?Water from the rock.
14-29 JEVajlure of the route through Edom; Pdeath
of Aaron. 21 JFighting with the ( ‘Canaanites ; Ethe
brazen serpent ; JEeonquest of the Amorites and
vecupation οὐ their country. 22-24 JEStory of
Balaam, 25 Sin and punishment of Israel Yin the
matter of Baal-Peor, Jin going after the women Jof
Moab, Pof Midian. 26-36 all P (except 32°? JMan-

assite conquests beyond Jordan): for contents see

below.
C. Critical Notes.

20-21: 10 on Miriam’s death is given to E, ef. 191
Ex 15° and Gn 35°. In ** (the people strove—ct. the
congregation, the assembly, the children of Israel--
with Moses—ct. with J”, Moses and Aaron *: δ: 1°)
5 (ef. 1644 Ex 171°3) ® (speak unto the rock, ct. take
the rod, presumably to smite the rock 88, unless
Cornill’s reconstruction be adopted, by which ” is
transposed to form the first command in P, dis-
obedience to which constitutes the offence) there
are separated elements assigned to J’s Meribah
story, E’s having come in Ex 17. The rest of 1.15
(with its sequel in *>*%) is left for P%, though it
looks as if the editor had out of tenderness obscured
the account of the sin of Moses and Aaron (cf. the
stronger expression in *4 redbelled),—}8- δὰ and
21°-*4 are obviously from one hand, while 1% 310
show marks of difference pointing to J, as the
other passages are reminiscent of E, Thus with
highway ct. king’s way 1 2133, and note that in J a
formidable military advance 7° causes a retreat 2)»,
whereas E relates a mere refusal *!*, which leaves
the people still at Kadesh to move at leisure ?.

(Marks of J are :—Jeattle, Jmuch people, strong hand Ex 319
139 3211. turned away, ct. turned aside 17 2122; and of E:—
messengers 142121, Kadesh 1. 14.16.22 1326, travail that hath
befallen us 14 Ex 188, went down inte Eq. 15 Jos 245, a long
time (Heb. many days) 15 Gn 21384 Jos 247, evil entreated 15
Jos 2420, an angel 16 Ex 1419, border 16f. 21 9113, 22 , field .
vineyard 17 2122 1614, by the way to 214b 1429, spake against
215-7 121, sinned 217 1410, take away 217 Ex 2325, Eprayed,
standard (or banner) 218 Ex 1715mg.).

211% The fighting between the Canaanite (the
king of Arad being prob. a gloss) and Israel is
generally supposed to be told by J, but the
phenomena are conflicting, and the ascription te
J must be left as doubtful.

21 follows on 20%, the death of Aaron, but 4°?
continzes 20%", the march from Kaderh, and the
story of the serpents is also given to E on the
ground of verbal parallels, see above,—10-Ma 110-16
and !®*9 consist of extracts from itineraries assigned
to P, E, and J. Each opens with a different for-
mula, ἘΠῸ 14 921, 33, E20 Q11b- 12.13. ef, Dt 10°, a
fragment prob. from E, 710. Ἰδυτῶθ πὸ gorees with
Jeg 1118 (prob. based on E) but not with Nu 33.
Observe that in 39 the people are not so far on as
in 15, and that in *> another J fragment begins
which has its sequel in * (Ammon 15 left out in
Jeg 11%" and * ||*!). J tells of conquest and occu-
pation of cities and towns 35: 83. E of the land 3" 51,

Some J phrases may be added :—whereof J” said 16 1029,
gather... together ct. P207 £1116 Heb. form, cf. Ex 316 42%,
sang Isr. this song Ex 151, field of Moab 29 Gn 8095 cf. Gn 328,
looketh down upon 29 23°83, 33-35 from its similarity of matter to
Dt 31. is regarded asa gloss, no mention of Og being now found
in JE,

22-94: In the art BALAAM will be found a com-
parison of the accounts in P and JE, and also of
the main reasons for the analysis οἱ JE. It will
be enough here to subjoin some of the more striking
details on which the partition rests.

J—(a) Moab is distressed 30 Ex 112, (b) the elders of Moab7
(and of Midian 47) are sent as messengers ὅν 2412 (servants of
Balak 18) unto Balaam, (c)to the land of the children of his
people Camino, perh, read with good auth, ef Ammon) ὃς, (ἃ)
with rewards 7 cf, 13 2418 and promise of promotion to honour
17. 37b 2411 5 (€) Balaam sets out innocently 34 accompanied only
by his 2 servants 2 and is stopped and warned through the ass
22-35a (35br), (f) the Jangel of J” appearing 31 by day 22.35 5 ; (g) in
spite of his fame for magic 7 241 Balaam responds ‘solely’ to the
Spirit of God 242, having promised not to go beyond the word of
J” 18 2413 Jhless .. . Jewr'se 6249, silver and gold 18 2418 Gn 132
2435.53; wide 22.30 Gn 2461, sword drawn in ως 23.31 Jos 613,
turn aside 23.26 2021, these three times -8.32 2410r cf, 1422, all
thy life long 50 Gn 4glot. ; : oth y (his) place 2411. 29,

peasy ) Moab is sore afraid 8; (b) the princes of Moab are sent
for B, 8-16. 19-21. 40 236.17 ; (0) to Pethor, which is by the River (i.e.
Euphrates, in the far Fast, cf. Aram 237) 5b cf. Gn 3121 Ex 2351
Jos 242f. 14f.; (d) urgency being shown by a second more dis-
tinguished embassy 15 while B, is welcomed with a feast 40 ; (8)

572 NUMBERS

NUMBERS

Balaam is first forbidden to go 12, then let go with a caution 20,
(Ὁ) God speaking to him at night 8:12. 19f. 5 (g) Balaam twice with
lavish sacrifices tries to win an acceptable message 231f. 14, yet
will only speak what God speaks to him 20 or puts in his mouth
38 239. 12. 16_bring ©. . word 81326, God came unto B. 9. 20 Gn 208
31%4, saddled his ass 21 Gn 228, utmost part 3b 2016, send 37
cf. Jos 249, offered 234 Gn 2213,

25'° is almost the last piece of JE in Nu, and
contains both elements. J—(a) the people !, (b)

began to commit whoredom with the daughters of

Moab*, (e) who seduced them to worship their
gods * Ex 3446 5 (d) J” isanery, and bids Moses take
all the chiefs and hang them up before the sun 4.

E—(a) 1.57. 15. (5) abode in Shittim' Jos 2}, (ce)
and Isr. joined himself to the Baal of Peor®; (a)
Moses bids the judges (cf. Ex 18) slay every one his
men Who had sinned ὅ,

25°) has lost its beginning, but it is clearly Ps,
and may have ascribed the temptation by Midian-
itish women to Balaam (cf. 3110 Ps). R® seems to
have preferred 1° as a commencement, but the
plague raging in ὅν does not answer either to # or ὅ.
18 interrupts the connexion with 26! and 15
assigned to Ps’, preparing the way for 31.

26 relates the second census of the people after
the forty years. It is encumbered with interpola-
tions. in. 9's 2-68. S8b-61. 64s and can hardly be: Ps.
The order of tribes follows 1*° Ps (except Man-
asseh before Ephraim, see table above), and the
clans are dependent on Gu 46°". Ps. Moreover, the
order for the division of the land is given to Moses,
who was not to enter it, 277, Dt 32, and with-
out even naming the land or announcing its con-
quest (contrast 33°!" 345), The phrase as J” com-
manded Moses is also late. Thus 26 may be based
on PS but belongs now to Ps.

27111, on the case of Zelophehad’s daughters,
follows on 26°°°°, and the phraseology is of like
character with 26.—! 4 and Dt 32"? can hardly
both be original. The suggestion of Dillmann is a
happy one, that the insertion of Dt in P required
the announcement of the death of Moses to be
placed later, and that this passage, which does not
open like Ps, has been inserted by an editor to fill
the gap.—* is then supposed to have been orig.
preceded by Dt 32°; probably an account of
Moses’ death followed (ef. Nu 2u*5-*9),

28f., a detailed list of the offerings prescribed
for the full round of sacred seasons, is given to ἘΝ
Its position among other supplements and away
from the calendar in Ly 23 dated forty years back,
its uniform inclusion of the later elements of Ly 23
and addition of the New Moon festival, the elabora-
tion of 291-5 on the Feast of Booths or Ingathering
(observe that both names’ are dropped), and the
phraseological indications, all converge towards the
same conclusion.

30, on Vows, may rest on an older, simpler basis,
but it is shown by its style to be itself late. It
does not attach itself to Ly 27 or Nu 6.

31, on the war with Midian, comes awkwardly
after the message about Moses’ death. Some
phrases (yo to meet 13, thy servants) suggest a
dependence on J, or a borrowing of his language
which is foreign to ΤΕ. The ignoring of Joshua
in favour of Phinehas ®, and Eleazar’s unique
exercise of authority 7", point to Ps, and the
peculiar phraseology confirms this.

3215, on the settlement of the 24 tribes, has still
stronger indications of an underlying J element ;
but here, too, the whole must be given to Ps. For
the complication of evidence see Oxf. Hex.—*-*?,
in which the conquest of Gilead, assumed in 14,
is assigned to a Manassite clan, from its resem-
blance to Jg 1, is given to J, cf. 21%: *, but # is
a harmonizing interruption. Cf. also Je 109,

33! gives an itinerary, largely based on JE
(esp. J), with 40 stations in 40 years. Its position
in the book and its mixed contents lead to its

being ascribed like 31 f. to Ps,—*-56 seems derived
by P* from 2 sources, (1) a command, belonging to
the school of P® (cf. Ly 9261: 0 204), to drive out the
Canaanites, destroy images, and possess the land
51b-53. 55f. 5 (2) an order to divide the land lylots
based (in part verbally) on 26°2-5°,—341-4 describes
minutely the future boundaries of the land W. of
Jordan which Moses had never seen, but only
alludes vaguely to the eastern regions he had
seen.—!°9 names the tribal agents for the de-
limitation, Comparison with analogous passages
in ΤῈ and with the account in Jos of the actual
division, make it most unlikely that this can be Ps,
though it may be an expansion of a briefer section,
cf. Jos 142.

35 combines two orders, about 48 Levitical cities
1- (contrast 1850. "4, where priests and Levites have
no property, only income), and about blood - re-
venge "ἢ The latter has terms foreign to Pé (e.g
high priest, holy oil *-*8), and, after a full close 33,
resumes the subject and closes with a verse 4
borrowed from an earlier source like P®, ci. 19%,
Ly 15" 184". 6 refers to the cities of refuge, and
both sections are best understood as not having
formed part of P8.—36 supplements 27!" on the
rights of heiresses.

$4 AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.—Only in a broad
sense do these questions arise. We can speak
of schools of writing and periods of composition,
but we cannot name an individual or dogmatize
about a year. In the wider sense the results of
criticism as sketched above lead to some definite
conclusions. All the strata of literary deposit in
the Hex. seem to be laid bare in a section taken
through the Book of Numbers. (1) If the earliest
and latest elements in J were put in writing be-
tween B.C. 850 and 650, as the indications suggest,
then the bits of folk-song and the traditions of
national life and movement which are associated
with them in 20-21 must be dated aiucngst ths?
oldest. The stories of Hobab (ch. 10), of the manna
and quails (ch. 11), of Caleb and the spies (ch, 1372-4),
of the revolt of (Korah and) On (ch. 16), and the
episode of Balaam, take a middle place, while the
advanced conceptions and lofty tone of parts of
chs. 11 and 14 represent the last contributions of
this school. (2) Similarly, E has its archaic frag-
ments of verse, from the Bock of the Wars of J” or
elsewhere, with lrief notes of international rela-
tions in chs, 20-21, its middle period producing
the narratives of Caleb and the spies (ch. 13), of
Dathan and Abiram (ch. 16) and of Balaam
(ch, 29 1.), and its latest stage illustrated by the
account of the seventy elders (ch. 11), and the
complaint of Aaron and Miriam (ch. 12). (3) Even
D has its echo in one paragraph, 21°, (4) The
four stages of priestly legislation and historio-
graphy are met in turn. The peculiar notes of the
Law of Holiness ΡΒ are detected twice, namely, in
10% and 15°41, and suspected elsewhere. ‘The
careful codifying of priestly teaching (P*) 15. pre-
served in δ΄. 15.19. The priestly groundwork of
law and history (P£), though probably at many
points displaced in favour of an expanded version,
is kept in parts of 1. 3. 9. 10, which are occupied
with the census of laity and clergy in the holy
congregation, the second Passover, and the first
moving of the Camp from Sinai; it recounts the
story of the spies (ch. 13), the sacrilege of Korah
and the congregation (ch. 16), and the budding of
Aaron’s rod (ch. 17), provides for priests and
Levites (ch. 18), and tells of the death of Aaron
(ch. 20), the heroism of his grandson Phinehas (ch.
25), and the choice of Joshua (ch. 27).

The remainder, occupying more than half of the
whole book, though as far as possible from being
homogeneous, must come under the one heading of
priestly supplements Ps, some of them little later

NUMBERS

NURSE 573

in time than ΤῈ, others among the latest additions
to the Hex. Enough has been said above to enable
the student to form his own conclusions about these.

ἃ 8. HIsrorICAL SIGNIFICANCE.—Again, the dis-
tinction must be drawn between the direct witness
to the past and the indirect evidence as to the
times ot the writers. ‘The whole book is abund-
antly significant in the latter sense, JE illustrating
for us how antiquity looked in the palmy days of
Israel's national greatness, and P revealing the
effect. of circumstances in changing the point of
view, and so transforming almost beyond recogni-
tion the picture of the past. But, except in places
where there is independent reason to ®uppose that
P rests on some part of JE which it has displaced,
it is impossible here, any more than elsewhere, to
accept its testimony as in the modern sense his-
torical. Even the earlier sources can be used only
with discrimination as supplying data for histori-
eal conclusions. But the general facts of the
delay in entering Canaan, the roundabout route,
and the conquest of the Amorites, being witnessed
by both lines of tradition, and agreeable to the
rest of our knowledge, emerge as well established.
See, further, separate arts. on MOSEs, ete.

$6. RELIGIOUS VALUE. — What has been said
under this head in the arts. on Exopus and
LEVITICUS is largely applicable to the continuation
of those books in Numbers. But a word may be
added on that which is distinctive. (1) The fact
is well brought out that a nation as well as an
individual may have a moral and religious char-
acter, and be bound by its acts. Proved to be
unprepared for conquest and colonization, Israel
is subjected to the discipline of delay. (2) The
need of divine guidance is symbolized by the ad-
vance of the ark (JE) or the cloud (P). (9) Types
of character are presented whose lessons teach us
still : Moses with the meekness of astrong nature
under restraint, Miriam with the petty jealousy
which often disfigures even good women, Caleb
honest and whole-hearted, Balaam weak buat not
worthless; popular movements are described
which have their modern parallels—the fickleness
of the mob,—‘ little Israelites’ to-day, Chauvinists
to-morrow,—their disposition to blame anybody but
themselves, the readiness of the laity to assert
their rights rather than fulfil their duties,—all
these are before us especially in JE. (4) Taking
the description of the camp and congregation
given in ΡΒ and Ps as an ideal picture of the past
whose value is in its symbolism, even as the
picture of the future in the Apocalypse is in the
same way precious, there is much to be gleaned:
—the order and particularity, the distribution of
duties, the equalization of burdens, the provisions
for unity by co-operation, the elaboration of a
stately ceremonial, nothing being left to the spur
of the moment, but confusion avoided by fulness
of rubrical direction,—in all this there is latent a
wealth of suggestion as to the nature, the worship,
and the organization, not to say the financial
management, of the Church of to-day. (5) Perhaps
the highest point is reached in the lofty and yet
broad view of prophetic inspiration found in E11 f. :
Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets !
Accordingly, it only needs that the Lord should
put His Spirit upon the modern readers of Num-
bers, and they will not fail to find fresh truth
breaking forth out of this pertion of His word.

LITERATURE.—Apart from the works cited under HEXATEUCH
and the general commentaries, there is little to refer to. B.W.
Bacon, Exodus, 1894, is valuable for JE; the Oaf. Hea. 1900
(ed. by J. E. Carpenter and the present writer) has been used
largely, and may be consulted for fuller information ; the vol.in
the Expos. Bible is by R. A. Watson; preachers may also refer
to Bp. Hall’s Contemplations ; the forthcoming vol. by G.
Gray in the Jntern. Crit. Com. has a large gap to fill.

G. HARFORD-BATTERSBY.

NUMENIUS (Χουμήνιος), the son of Antiochus
was one of the ambassadors sent by Jonathan,
about B.C. 144, to renew the treaty between the Jews
and Romans. He was also charged with Ietters
from the high priest and the Jewish people to the
Spartans and others, in order to establish friendly
relations with them (1 Mae 125, The am-
bassadors were well received at Sparta (7b. 14°°%)
and at Rome (i. 12%), and sent back to Judea
with a safe-conduct. Subsequently, about the
time of the popular decree in favour of Simon (B.C
141), Numenius was sent with another embassy tu
Rome, taking as a present a golden shield weigh-
ing a thousand minas. ‘The Senate passed a decree
in favour of the Jews, guaranteeing them the un-
disturbed possession of their country, and gave to
the ambassadors letters to the neighbouring kings
and independent States, informing them of the
terms of this decree. The embassy returned to
Jerusalem in B.C. 139 (1 Mac 15%*4). See art.
Lucius, and cf. Schiirer, HJP 1. i. 266-268.

H. A. WHITE.

NUN (3).—The fourteenth letter of the Hebrew
alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm
to designate the 14th part, each verse of which
begins with this letter. It is transliterated in this
Dictionary by #.

NUN (7:3 ‘fish,’ in 1 Ch 72 ἡ) Non, LAX Navy
[possibly a primitive error in transcription, NATH
for ΝΑΥ͂Ν], hence Nave of Sir 46! AV).—The father
of Joshua, the successor of Moses, Ex 324, Nu 11°,
Jos 11} οὔθ On the probability that Nw is ἃ clan
rather than a personal name, and on its bearing on
totemism, see Gray, Ποὺ. Prop. Names, pp. 96, 102 ;
cf. also W. R. Smith, Ainship, p. 221 f.

NURSE (nprp inéneleth, nse ’Omeneth, τροφός).
—1. The term méneheth (root [p3:] ‘suck’) desig-
nated a foster-mother. Deborah had been such
to Rebekah, and the maternal devotion was
maintained throughout hey life, Gn 24°" 35%. By
Miriain’s readiness of resource the mother of
Moses became his appointed nurse, Ex 2’. The
same meaning of ‘nurse’ occurs in 2 Καὶ 11", Ts 49%;
cf. the use of τροφός in 1 Th 27, and τροφοφορεῖν in
Dt 151, In the East a child is usually nursed till
over two years of age. 2. Umeneth (root [72x] ‘ con-
firm,’ ‘support’) is a more general term applying
to any female attendant in charge of children,
Thus Naomi became nurse to Obed (Ru 416), and
Mephibosheth was five years old when he fell from
the arms of his nurse (omeneth) 28 44.

3. The ‘nursing-father’ (j28 Nu 11, Is 49°8)
would be found only in families of rank and
wealth. Among the Emirs or leading families of
the Lebanon, one of the dependants, usually a
poor relative, is appointed to this office. He
becomes the constant companion, playmate, and
guardian of the heir, carrying him when tired,
and giving him later his first lessons in horse-
manship and manly sports. In old age his re-
lationship to the family is not forgotten, and care
is taken that he shall not suffer want. In Pref.
to AV the translators (apparently regardless of
the difference between the nursing-father and the
nursine-mother) say: ‘And lastly, that the Church
be sufficiently provided for, is so agreeable to vood
reason and conscience, that those mothers are holder
to be lesse cruell, that kill their children as soon
as they are borne, then those noursing fathers ann
mothers (wheresoever they be) that withdraw trom
them who hang upon their breasts (and upon whose
breasts againe themselves doe hange to receive the
spirituall and sincere milke of the word) livelyhood
and support fit for their estates.’ And Thomas
Fuller is yet bolder when he says: ‘He set before
the King the hainousnesse of sacriledge ; how great

574 NURTURE

NYMPHA OR NYMPHAS

a sinne it was when Princes, who should be nurs-
ing-fathers and suckle the Church, shall suck from
it’ (Holy Warre, ii. 5, p. 49).

For the ’omenim who acted as tutors (2 K 101" 5,
cf. Est 27), see EDUCATION, 1. G. M. MACKIE.

NURTURE.—The verb to nurture occurs occa-
sionally in Sirach as the translation of παιδεύω
(Sir 18'3 2173 923 3119 40%). It is also found in
2Es 8? ‘Thou nurturedst it in thy law’
(erudisti eum in lege tua). The subst. is found
in Wis 3! and Eph 64 as the tr. of παιδεία, as
well as in Sir 29:0. ‘want of nurture,’ Gr. ἀπαι-
devola. Now both in LXX and NT παιδεία and
παιδεύω describe, not ‘nurture’ in the modern
use of that word, but training, especially such
training or discipline as involves restraint and
even chastisement. Chastise and chastening or
chastisement are often the best translation, as in
He 12°72 In Lk 23" * the verb is used of the
scourging of a malefactor : it is rendered ‘chastise’
in EV. Inthe 16th cent. ‘nurture’ was an excellent
equivalent for παιδεύω and παιδεία, as it contained
the idea of training by means of chastisement or
tribulation. Thus Dt 8° Tind. ‘As a man nurtereth
his sonne, even so the Lorde thy God nurtereth
the’ (AV and RV ‘chasteneth’) ; Dt 9118 Tind. ‘ Yf
any man have a sonne that is stuburne and dis-
obedient that he will not herken unto the voyce of
his father and voyce of his mother, and they have
taught him nurture’; He 12” Tind. ‘And they
verely for a feane dayes nurtred us after their
awne pleasure’; 1 Καὶ 12" Coy. ‘My father correcte
you with scourges, but I wyl nourtoure you with
scorpions’; Ps 942° Cov. ‘He that nurtureth the
Heithen, and teacheth a man knowledge, shal not
he punysh ?’ (see Driver’s note on this passage in
Paral. Psalter, p. 477). Rutherford is fond of the
word and illustrates its meaning in his day admir-
ably: thus, Leffers, No. xeviii. ‘I get my meat
from Christ with nurture, for seven times a-day I
am lifted up and casten down’; No. Ixx. ‘ You
have had your own large share of troubles, and a
double portion ; but it saith your Father counteth
you not a bastard ; full-begotten bairns are nur-
tured.’

Shaks. uses the word twice, and in both places
in the sense of the result of training: Tempest,
Iv. 1. 189—

‘A born devil, on whose nature
Nurture can never stick’ ;
As You Like It, 11. vii. 97—

‘Yet am I inland bred
And know some nurture.’

This is the meaning in Sir 3119 and 40%, where
AV has ‘ well-nurtured,’ RV ‘ well-mannered’ and
‘well-instructed’: the Gr. is πεπαιδευμένος.
J. HASTINGS.

NUTS.—The equivalent of two Heb. words—
1. 593 botnim, τερέβινθοι, terebinthi. The (unused)
sing., 22 boten, of this is perhaps the cognate of
the Arab. butm, the nm being substituted for the m.
This word in Arab. is generic for terebinth. Its
generic character seems to have been lost in Heb.,
in which are several words the signification of
which is uncertain as between the terebinth and
the oak. (See OAK). Doubtless the form botnim,
the plural of the assumed 183, refers, in the only
passage in which it occurs (Gn 43"), to pistachio
nuts. They are the fruit of Pistacia vera, L., a
tree of the Order Anacardiacee, 10-20 ft. high,
with 1-2 pair of odd pinnate leaflets 3-5 in. long,
or simple ovate leaves. The nut is oblong, apicu-
late, in. long, 4 in. broad, with green oily
cotyledons. It is doubtfully indigenous, but every-
where cultivated in the orchards near cities. The
tree and its fruit are known as fistwk. The nuts

are a favourite luxury of the Orientals. While
the Heb. on the one hand thus appropriated the
term 83 to one species of the modern genus
Pistacia, the Arabs, on the other, have appre
priated it to three other species of the same genus,
allied to each other, but differing from the pis-
tachio. They are P. Terebinthus, L., P. Pales.
tina, Ehr. (which should be regarded simply as
a variety of the foregoing), and P. mutica, F,
and M. These are the true terebinths, and prob-
ably the trees intended by 75x, and perhaps
other Heb. words. (See OAK). They attain a
height of 20-25 ft. and a diameter of 30-40. They
have pinnate leaves, and small lenticular inedible
fruits, from which an oil, used in tanning and
other arts, is expressed. Probably both the
Hebrews and the Arabs originally recognized the
generic connexion between the pistachio and the

terebinth. It is clear, from the LXX and Vulg.,
that those VSS recognized the analogy. RVm
gives the gloss, ‘that is, pistachio nuts.’ It is

interesting to note that in Mardin a terebinth is
cultivated, under the name of fistzk, which bears
fruit of the lenticular shape of the terebinth
nutlets, but as large as a cherry stone, and with
an edible kernel, resembling in taste pistachio
nuts. Some such terebinthine tree must have
been the wild stock of the pistachio. The city
Betonim in Gad, east of the Jordan (Jos 136), was
doubtless named from trees, either of pistachio or
terebinth. It is now called Botneh, a survival of
its Heb. form, but carrying to Arab minds the
meaning of the Arab. botn=‘ belly.’

2. nix égéz. This word also occurs but once
(Ca 6"). The exact similarity to the Arab. jauz=
‘walnut,’ and the universal cultivation of this
tree in the East, make it practically certain that.
the walnut is intended. The LXX κάρυον and the
Vulg. nux are generic, but also are often used
specifically for the walnut. They are the seeds
of the fruit of Juglans regia, L., a noble tree,
growing in moist situations. It attains a height
of 20-30 ft. and a diameter of 50-60. It is par-
ticularly common around the village fountains,
and along the mountain torrents. Its foliage is
fragrant. The nuts are of excellent quality, and
very cheap. One variety measures 2 inches in its
long diameter. G.- E. Post

NYMPHA or NYMPHAS.—A prominent member
of the Church at Laodicea, at whose house a con-
gregation was accustomed to meet, Col 45 The
question of reading is a difficult one, chietly because
of the ambiguity of the evidence from the Latin
and Syriac versions. But the reading ‘her house’
in B 67** seems best to explain the origin of the
others. Lightfoot’s objection, that ‘a Dorie form
of the Greek name here seems in the highest degree
improbable,’ though endorsed by T. Κα. Abbott (Zn¢.
Crit. Com. in loc.), can hardly stand in face of the
evidence for similar forms in Jn 115, Ac 9538 (see
Hort, App. p. 1638a; Jannaris, Historical Greek
Grammar, § 270). If this reading be adopted, her
name must have been Nympha, and she must have
oceupied in the Church a position similar to that
of Prisca at Rome (Ro 16°), and perhaps of Phoebe
αὖ Cenchrew (Ro 161), and Lydia at Philippi (Ac
1015). If the reading ‘his house’ be adopted from
DFGKL, etc., the name must be read Nymphas,
and is probably to be regarded as a contraction
for Nymphodorus. The reading ‘their house’
(NACP, ete.) would leave the form of the name
uncertain. Nymphas and Eubulus are commemo-
rated together as ‘Holy Apostles’ on Feb. 28, in
the Greek Calendar. There is nothing in NT to
account either for the combination of the names ΟἹ
for the title. See Acta Sanct. Bolland. Feb. 28,
p. 719. J. QO. F. Murray.

OABDIUS

OATH 575

0

OABDIUS ('2a85(e)tos).—One of the sons of Ela
who had married a foreign wife, 1 Es 9°7= ABDI of
Ezr 10”.

OAK.—Three of the words tr? ‘oak’ in EV
are perhaps derived from the root Sx or Sx ‘to be
prominent.’ They are (1) ‘x, pl. ops “élim; (2)
πον ’elah ; (3) pox ’elén. The following analysis
will show the renderings of LXX, Vulg., EV.

1. Sx only in const. 9x ’éd. ΤῸΝ transliterate
(Gn 14°) as part of the proper name El-paran,
LXX_ τερέβινθος, Vule. Campestria. ἘΝ render
(Is 1°) ‘oaks,’ RVm ‘terebinths,’ LXX εἴδωλα,
Vulg. idoli. AV tr. (Is 57°) ‘idols,’ AVm ‘ oaks,’
RV ‘oaks,’ RVm ‘idols,’ LXX edwdra, Vulg. dei.
EV tr. (Is ΘΕ ‘trees,’ LXX yeveai, Vulg. fortes.
EV tr. (Ezk 314) ‘height, AVm ‘upon them-
selves,’ LXX ὕψος, Vulg. sublimitas.

2. τὴν ’elah, EV tr. (Gn 354 LXX τγερέβινθος,
Vulg. terebinthus ; Jg 611-19 LXX τερέμινθος, Vulg.
quercus; 2 5 18114 LXX δρῦς, Vulg. quercus ;
1 K 134 LXX δρῦς, Vulg. terebinthus; Is 15 LXX
τερέβινθος, Vulg. quercus; Ezk 615 LXX omitted,
Vulg. quercus) ‘oak,’.RVm ‘terebinth. EV
transliterate (1S 172 LXX om.; ν.}9 δρῦς, Vule. tere-
binthus ; 219 LXX ‘HAG, Vulg. terebinthus) ‘ Elah,’
RVm in both ‘the terebinth.’ AV tr. (Is 61%)
‘teil tree, RV ‘terebinth,’ LXX τερέβινθος, Vulg.
terchinthus. AV tr. (Hos 4:5) ‘elms’ (see ELM),
RV ‘terebinths,’ LXX δένδρον συσκιάζον, Vulg. tere-
binthus.

3. pox ’élén, AV tr. (Gn 12° LXX δρῦς, Vulg. con-
wallis; 133 LXX δρῦς, Vulg. vallis; Dt 11% LXX
δρῦς, Vulg. vallis; Jg 42 LXX δρῦς, Vulg. vallis ;
9° LXX βάλανος, Vulg. quercus ; 1S 105 LXX δρῦς,
Vulg. quercus) ‘plain’ or ‘plains,’ RV ‘oak’ or
‘oaks,’ m. ‘terebinth’ or ‘terebinths.’ AV (Jos
1933) transliterates Allon (many edd. read j\>x), RV
‘oak,’ πὶ. ‘terebinth,’ B Madd, A Μηλών, Vulg. lon.

Thus it will be seen that the weight of the two
Eng. versions for the first two words is ‘oak,’ and
AV for the last ‘plain,’ RV (certainly correctly)
‘oak,’ m. ‘terebinth.’ The great diversity in the
LXX and Vulg. in 1is partly due to the resemblance
between the word for ‘oak’ and that for ‘ god.’

The other two words tr? ‘oak’ are in appearance
derived from an unknown root $bx, though they
differ from 2 and 3 only in punctuation. They are
4 a>x allah (Jos 945), EV ‘oak,’ LXX τερέμινθος,
Vulg. quercus. 5. jis ’al/én. ‘This is always tr@
‘oak’ in both Eng. versions. LAX give βάλανος,
δρῦς, Vulg. quercus. The Arab. affords no clue to
the meaning of any of the above terms, as there is
no derivative from the cognate roots which refers
toa tree. Itis thought by many (e.g. Dillm., Del.,
ef. RVm) that 4, 2, and 3 denote the terebinth and
4and 5 the oak (Hos 4", Is 6" show that πρὸ and p)>x
are distinct). See, further, articles TEREBINTH,
TURPENTINE, and Dillmann’s note on Gn 12°,

There are nine species of oak in Pal. and Syria.
(1) Q. Sessiliflora, Sm., a tall tree of subalpine
Lebanon, with deciduous, sinuate-pinnate-lobed
leaves. (2) Q. Lusitanica, Lam. (Arab. mel/il and
ballit), a large tree, with deciduous, elliptical to
oblong and sublanceolate, dentate or crenate leaves.
It grows abundantly from the coast to the middle
mountain regions. It bears numerous sorts of
galls. (3) Q. Ilex, L., alow tree of the Syrian coast.
(4) Q. Coccifera, L., the holm oak, Arab. sinditn,
the largest: of the oaks of Palestine. It has a
flattened ¢l»bular, very dense comus, often 40-50

ft. in diameter, and 25-35 ft. high. It has ever
green, ovate to oLlong, spiny toothed or entire
glossy leaves, usually not over 1-2 in. long. It is
generally planted near Moslem, Druze, and Muta-
wily welys. A specimen of this tree, with very
straggling branches, is the famous Abraham’s Oak,
a tree, however, which is not more than 900-400
years old. (See HOLM TREE). (5) Q. Cerris, L.
(Arab. ballat or likk). This has an oblong comus,
often 50-60 ft. high, with deciduous, oblong, more
or Jess pinnate-lobed leaves. It grows very luxuri-
antly in the mountainous to subalpine regions, esp.
in Cassius and Amanus. (6) Q. Ehrenbergii, Ky.,
is a medium-sized tree, with deciduous, ovate,
pinnatisect or parted leaves. It is found only in
the middle zone of Lebanon and Antilebanon.
(7) Q. Agilops, L., the Valonia oak (Arab. mellul),
has a rounded comus, and deciduous, ovate to
oblong, unequally coarse serrate leaves, often 2-3 in.
long. The acorn is the largest belonging to any
Syrian species, being often 1-2in. indiameter. The
cupule contains much tannin, hence it is ex-
tensively used in tanning, and is a standard article
of commerce. This tree flourishes in the lower
and middle mountain zones. (8) Q. Look, Ky.
(Arab. likk), is a medium-sized tree or shrub,
with deciduous, oblong, wavy, crenate-dentate
leaves. It grows in forests in Lebanon and Anti-
lebanon and Haurdn. (9) Q. Libani, Oliv., is a
low tree or shrub, with lanceolate, glossy, coarsely
dentate leaves. It grows in the middle zones of
Lebanon, Cassius, Amanus, and northward.

It will thus be seen that the several species of
oak are among the most widely disseminated trees
of Syria and Palestine. The mountains of Haurdn
(Bashan, Is 2", Ezk 276, Zee 11%) have many oak
trees still, mostly Q. Coccifera, Q. ASgilops, and
Q. Lusitanica. Oak trees were planted by tombs
(Gn 355). Few objects in Pal. or Syria are more
striking than the immense oak trees, solitary or
grouped near the welys. Oak trees were places of
sacrifice (Hos 41}. From oak timber idols were
made (Is 444). The wood of the oak has always
been used for fuel, for roofing of houses, and for
shipbuilding (Ezk 27°). G. E. Post.

OAR.—See Suirs AND BOATS.

OATH.—The leading terms for ‘ oath,’ ‘swear,’
etc., are 14.778 noun and verb; Kal=‘swear,’
Hiphil ‘put under oath.’ This word has more
especially the sense of ‘curse, LXX apa, Vulg.
maledictio; ef. the phrase 7x5 a ‘become an
execration,’ Nu 527 (P), Jer 2918 4918 4412 (see below).
Cf. Ac 23! 14-21) where ἀναθεματίζειν is used of the
Jews who bound themselves under an oath (curse)
to kill St. Paul. 2. may ‘oath,’ ya¥3 (Niph.)
‘swear,’ yaya (Hiph.) ‘cause to swear,’ ‘take an
oath of one,’ ‘adjure,’ answering respectively to
the LXX ὅρκος, ὄμνυμι or ὀμνύω, opxifw or ἐξορκίζω,
and the Vulg. juramentum or jusjurandum, jurare,
adjurare. The verb yz is derived from νὰν ‘ seven.’
Seven was regarded as a sacred number by the Sem-
ites, and so the verb would mean literally ‘ to come
under the influence of seven things’ (W. R. Smith,
RS, p. 166; ef. above, p. 565). For example, seven
animals would be killed or seven witnesses called.

That we may understand the purpose and im-
portance of oaths among the Hebrews in primitive
times, the historical situation requires to be borne
in mind. Before there was a collective national

576 OATH

OATH

life, with an accepted code of laws and a strong
executive, any convention formed cunong men had
to be of the nature of a mutual understanding ; and
when the agreement was one of much moment, it
was made as binding as the circumstances of the
time allowed, by the parties to it subjecting them-
selves with all due solemnity to an oath. Ex-
amples of oaths between men we have in Gn 2675"
50”, Jos 2% 91-18. In conformity with the entire
usage, and with the externalism which was its
principal feature, strict attention was given to the
forms and technicalities employed; a kind of
ritual was established in oath-taking. In_ par-
ticular, the custom prevailed of killing an animal
in the ceremonial, the symbolism in this case
having been both elaborate and impressive. The
practice is described in Gn 15 and Jer 346. The
victim was divided into two pieces, and the per-
sons concerned walked between the pieces, in testi-
mony of their invocation ef the like doom of
destruction upon themselves if they proved un-
faithful to their oath. he form of walking
between the pieces after eating of the sacrifice
is held by Robertson Smith to have been further
indicative of the belief that the parties were taken
within the mystical life of the victim. Among the
simpler forms used there is the act of ‘putting the
hand under the thigh’? (Gn 24° 472°) 5 the under-
lying idea is discussed by Dillmann, in loc. (See
also art. THIGH). Or the land is stretched out to
heaven (Gn 145" ; cf. Dn 12°, Rev 105), this gesture
by its naturalness explaining itself,

The language of adjurztion varies greatly.
Among the commonest expressions are the phrases,
‘The Lorp do so to me, and more also,’ and ‘As
the Lorp liveth, or there is the extended form,
‘As the Lorp liveth, and as thy soul liveth.’
Jacob swears by the fear (108, i.e. ‘the object of
his fear’=God; ef. v.%) of his father Isaac (Gn
31°’), and Joseph swears by the life of Pharaoh
(Gn 42"). In early times the tribal god and an
earthly ruler had got been sharply distinguished
from each other in men’s thoughts: thus the
practice of swearing by the prince or by the life
of the prince would be accounted for. On the
other hand, even when better things were to be
expected after the establishment of ethical mono-
theism, abuses were common among the scribes ;
there was a declension by easy transitions from
the invocation of the Deity to forms of adjuration
by some of the familiar objects of earth. Thus
one would swear by Heaven, by Jerusalem as the
Holy City, by the earth, by his own head (Mt
54"), or again by the temple as the House of God,
by the gold of the temple, by the altar, or by the
gift on the altar (Mt 2316"),

As the Author of the world was invoked in
adjuration, the idea prevailed that the oath, once
uttered, had objective significance in the sense
that it affected the course of nature; a conviction
that may be taken to indicate in one aspect of it
how even primeval man was feeling after the truth
which was afterwards to be revealed, that ‘out of
the heart are the issues of life.’ To take an oath
was to come under a specified penalty in case of
violation of the oath, to expose one’s self to a
curse. Accordingly 7>x=‘oath or curse. Thus
the princes of the congregation of Israel, having
sworn to the Gibeonites to be at peace with them
and to let them live, find that they must carry out
their undertaking, at least in form, even when it
was discovered that the Gibeonites had been de-
ceivers, ‘lest,’ they said, ‘wrath be upon us be-
cause of the oath which we sware unto them’
(Jos 9). And Saul resolved, in fulfilment of an
oath he had uttered, to kill his son Jonathan, who
Was innocent (1S 144% ; ef. Mt 14°). In Nu 5
the oath of cursing, administered with the ritual

of the water of bitterness, entails the most terrible
consequences on the guilty; and in Zec 5! the
flying roll of the prophetic vision represents a curse
‘like a bird of prey’ pursuing the wicked person
over the face of the whole earth. In view of the
far-reaching consequences invotved in oath-taking,
the law placed careful restrictions on the practice
in the case of members of a family other than the
head (Nu 30).

Perjury on the part of a witness was punished
with the same penalty which his testimony, it
true, would have involved for the accused persot
(Dt 19198.}.

Oaths as between God and men. At a perioa
when every important compact among men was
confirmed by an oath, and when there was no
other guarantee for the discharge of their lia-
bilities by each of the parties concerned, the con-
ception formed of God’s relation to His people was,
and could only be, the conception of His making a
promise to them under the sanction of an oath.
When God is represented as taking an oath to the
fathers, it is meant that those with whom He
entered into relation gained the assurance that His
fidelity to them and to His promise was unalter-
able (cf. He 615). His nature was partly understood
through the thoughts and practices of the best
men of the time; whereas a presentation of. His
ways and character by means of ideas which were
entirely unconnected with the current life of the
age would have been meaningless and void of
effect. The oath which God took to Abraham, and
which is so often referred to, is given in Gn 22)" -
‘By myself have I sworn, saith the Lorp . . . that
in blessing [I will bless thee, and in multiplying 1
will multiply thy seed as the stars,’ ete.

When God is regarded as binding Himself by an
oath, a period has been reached in the history of
tevelation which is comparatively well define.
both in respect to the initial and the closing stage
of it. There has been an advance when the truth
is communicated to man, in such a way as to be
believed, that God makes and will without. fail
keep a promise, that He is spiritual and moral, and
has an interest in man. On the other hand, the
peculiar externalism of such religious faith is
obvious ; and it is apparent that only a very
limited knowledge of the divine nature is attain-
able, in the absence of practical proof of God's
intervention for good in the exigencies of earthly
life. The experience and thought of the period in
question are accordingly transcended ; trust in
God comes to be based on other ground. When
the chosen people were formed into a nation, the
warrant and motive for obedience, enforced again
and again to the better mind of the Israelites, was
the deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and the
known goodness of Jehovah. Not merely becaus2a
promise had once been made and confirmed by an
oath, but because God had saved the people, loved
them, and brought His goodness in the law near to
their heart, were they under obligation to serve
Him. The old oath is frequently adduced indeed,
but the spiritual and moral facts of the nation’s
history are mainly rehearsed in attestation of the
truth that God was faithful to His oath. In the
New Covenant (Jer 31°), and above all in ite
completion in Christ, men’s knowledge of the Lord,
their trust in Him, rests on His forgiveness of
their sin, and on His creation of a new and better
righteousness. ᾿

On the human side in OT religion man took
oath to God. An oath was ‘a pecuhariy solemn
confession of faith’ (Driver, Deut. p.95). Far from
being reprehensible from the religious or moral
point of view, the practice was incumbent on the
pious, and had the promise of blessing. (‘Every
one that swearetb by him shal] glory,’ Ps 63"),

OBADIAH

OBADIAH, BOOK OF 577

But it is requisite that one shall swear by Jehovah
the true God, shall do so in truth and righteous-
ness of spirit, and shall faithfully perform the
oath (Jer 4° 1216, It is sinful to swear by them
that are no gods, as Baal, and so to acknowledge
them, or by images or forms usurping the place of
God, as the ‘sin of Samaria’ or the ‘ way’ (under-
stood to be the ‘manner’ or ‘ritual’)* of Beer-
sheba (Jer 1210. Am 84). Also the double-dealing
of those who swear fo the Lord and swear by
Malcam is severely condemned (Zeph 15).

In the time of Christ, minute arbitrary dis-
tinctions had been set up by the scribes and
Pharisees in adjuration, such as were plainly
destructive of the moral sense and amounted to
a profanation of the name of God; and the abuse
‘alled forth from Christ the severest denunciation
(Mt 231"), An oath which was to all appearmunce
most solemn and binding was evaded after all by
the methods of casuistry, by the tacit reservation
that it had no force, that ‘it was nothing.’ ‘The
name of God was invoked to cover deliberate
deceit. But our Lord goes further when He lays
down the principle in the Sermon on the Mount,
‘Swear not at all’ (Mt 5°27; so Ja 5). Men’s
speech is to be ‘Yea, yea; nay, nay.’ All com-
munication between them is to be taken up to the
sphere of perfect truthfulness. The introduction
of oaths in particular cases implies a claim to
some licence in departing from the truth in other
cases. The practice which ostensibly promotes
morality is thus, in fact, injurious to it.

As the prohibition in Mt 5* seems absolute, the
question arises whether Christ would have sane-
tioned the judicial use of oaths. In this connexion
His own example may be pointed to when Caiaphas
the high priest adjured Him by the living God
that He should tell whether He was the Christ
(Mt 26°"). Jesus answered aflirmatively without
taking exception to the condition imposed. And
St. Paul sometimes calls God to witness for the
truth of his assertions (2 Co 1°°, Gal 13, The will
of Christ is the supreme and absolute standard of
conduct, but the will can be ascertained only
when regard is had to the conditions of time,
place, and circumstance. The new law in Mt 5%
1s understood in its context. As compared with
the old Jaw which is mentioned in the previous
verse, it is a concise, pointed expression of a neces-
sary and enduring principle. But error is readily
incurred by generalizing or by exalting the letter
above the spirit, as in the case of the other injune-
tion, ‘give to him that asketh thee, and from him
that would borrow of thee turn not thou away’
(Mt 65). In determining whether and in what
cases the use of oaths is in accordance with the
mind of Christ, people have to ask what conduces
to the advancement of Christian righteousness in
the particular situations that are contemplated.

LITERATURE.—W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, on oath-
taking and kindred practices in primitive Semitic times, esp.
pp. 164 ff., 461 f.; art. Covenant in vol. 1. of the present work ;
the OT Theologies on the subject of Covenant ; Wendt, Teach-
tng of Jesus (Eng. tr.), i. p. 2691F.; Smend, Alttest. Religionsge-
schichte2 (see Index, s. ‘Bund’ and ‘Schwur’) ; Benzinger or
Nowack, Heb. Archioloyie, s. ‘Eid’; Gore, Serm. on Mount.

Gy. FERRIES.

OBADIAH (1π|1Ὁ» and 7:723).—4. The ‘steward’
or major-domo (mzno-5y 7x, οἰκονόμος) of Ahab, 1 Καὶ
185 (᾿Αβδειού). From his youth he had feared the
Lorp, v.!, and, during a persecution of Jahweh’s
prophets by Jezebel, Obadiah is recorded to have
concealed 100 of them in caves and fed them with
bread and water, v.4. While obeying the com-
mission of Ahab to search for pasture for the
perishing horses and mules, he was met by Elijah,
and after some hesitation agreed to bear the pro-

shet’s message to the king, v.7. 2, A Levite,

* See, further, art. MANNER, p. 2374, note.
WOL. II. —37

descended from Jeduthun, 1 Ch 916 (ΒΒ ᾽᾿Αβδειά, A
*CBd.ad)=Abda of Neh 117. 3. A Judahite, 1 Ch
37) (βδειά). 4 A chief of the tribe of Issachar,
1Ch 7 (B MeSéed [prob. a scribal error], A
Ὀβδιά). 5 A descendant of Saul, 1 Ch 8%= 944
(Αβδ(ε)ιά). 6. A Gadite chief who joined David
at Ziklag, 1 Ch 12° (Apé(ejec). 7. Father of the
Zebulunite chief Ishmaiah, 1 Ch 27" (ΙΑ βδ(ε)ιού).
8. One of the princes who were sent by Jehosha-
phat to teach in the cities of Judah, 2 Ch 177 (Β ᾿Αβιά,
Α ᾿Αβδιά). 9. A Merarite Levite who was one οἱ
the overseers of the workmen employed by Josiah
to repair the temple, 2 Ch 3415 1 ᾽᾿Αβδειά, A’ ASéias).
10. The head of a family that returned with Ezra,
Ezr 8° (Β ᾿Αδειά, A ᾿Αβαδιά), called in 1 Es 815. Aba-
dias. 11. One of those who sealed the covenant,
Neh 10° (Αβδ(ε)ιά). 12. The eponym of a family of

_doorkeepers, Neh 12% {κότα “Osdias, BAS* om.).

13. The prophet.
OBADIAH, BOOK OF.

1. Name, and Place in the Canon.
ii. Contents.
iii. Unity and Date.
iv. Condition of Text, Literary Characteristics, ete.
Literature.

See next article.

This, the shortest of all the prophetical writings,
consisting of only twenty-one verses, has an im-
portance out of all proportion to its leneth, be-
eause of the literary and exegetical questions it
saises, and the diversity of opinion which still
prevails as to the wnity and the date of the book,
and the historical allusions it contains.

1. NAME, AND PLACE IN THE CANON.—The name
Obadiah is not uncommon in the OT (see pre-
ceding article), and has been read on an ancient
seal, inscribed ‘Obadyahu ‘ebhed hammelekh (see
ficure in Benzinger, Heb. Arch, p. 358). It occurs,
like similar names, in the two forms ὑπ» and
m23, of which the latter is used in the case of
the prophetical book which forms our subject.
The Massoretic pointing 7722, which is supported
by LXAX B Ὁβδειού, implies, as is pointed out by
G. A. Smith (Zwelve Prophets, ii. 164 n.), the

| meaning ‘worshipper of J”’ (7¢f. Obed-edom: see

the cautious note of Driver, eat of Sam. p. 206),
but the word might be vocalized a:3y τε ΠΡ ἼΞΝ ‘ ser-
vant of J”’ (ef. AN’ AB6(e)coU; Nt2y Of Neh 11271 Ch
9016. and the name Adbdiel in 1 Ch 5”). Of the
particular Obadiah whose name the prophecy bears

we know nothing, although Delitzsch conjectures

that he may have been the prince of that name
who, according to 2 Ch 17’, was sent by Jehosha-
phat to teach in the cities of Judah. It must,
indeed, remain uncertain whether the name is that
of the author of the early prophecy contained in
vv.t-l0 (see below), or of the writer who supple-
mented this and gave the book its present form,
or whether (which Konig suggests as a possibility )
both these authors bore the name Obadiah. *

In the Hebrew Bible the Bk. of Ob stands
fourth amongst the Twelve Minor Prophets, be-
tween Amos and Jonah. It has been sugeested
by Konig (ἐμ οἰ. 302) that this position may
have been given to it by the collectors of the
Canon in view of Am 91" (‘that they may possess
the remnant of Edom’), which finds its echo and
its supplement in Ob ! (‘they . shall possess
the mount of Esau’), and of Ob? (‘a messenger
is sent among the nations’), which might be siep-
posed to find an illustration in the story of Jonah
(cf. art.. JONAH, in Vol. ii. p. 748>). Inthe LAN
Obadiah alone comes between JI and Jon, the
order being Hos, Am, Mic, JI, Ob, Jon, instead of
the MT order Hos, J1, Am, Ob, Jon, Mice.

* We assume that ΠΣ is a proper name and not merely an
appellative, as is probably the case with ΣΝ ΣΤῸΝ messenger,
which usage has converted into the familiar name Malachi.

578 OBADIAH, BOOK OF

OBADIAH, BOOK OF

Obadiah is one of the OT books that are not
quoted in the New Testament.

li, CONTENTS.—The prophecy is announced
‘eoncerning Edom.’ Jahwel has sent a messenger
(v¥) among the nations to stir up a general rising
against her (va).

The words ox π M7 S18 TWN 7D must have been penned
by the later writer (see below under ὁ Ὁ nity’) to introduce the
quotation of the earlier oracle, beginning ‘We have heard,’
ete. ; for it is plain that the latter is a form of expression which
could hardly be put directly into the mouth of Jahweh,

Edom is to be brought low in spite of her trust
in hersrocky fastnesses (vv.24). The ruin is to
be complete, the spoiling beyond that of ordinary
thieves (vv.°°). This destruction of Edom is to
be wrought by the treachery of her former friends
and allies (v.7). The wonted wisdom of Edom
shall fail her in this extremity (vv.**). 1116
reason for this chastisement is the unbrotherly
conduct of which Edom was guilty towards Judah
in the day of its calamity when Jerusalem was
sacked by foreigners, and lots cast over it (vy.!! 14).

idom is emphatically charged to desist from such
conduct (νυν ΣῊ

The imperatives in vv.1214 appear to be due to the vivid
picture which the writer calls up to himself of the conduct of
Kdom. He is really describing the past, but he speaks of what
the Edomites had actually done as of what they ought not to do.

The day of the Lord (on this conception see
Driver, Joel and Amos [Index]; A. B. Davidson
on Zoph 117 and in art. ESCHATOLOGY OF OT in
vol. i. of this Dictionary, p. 735 ff) is near upon
all the nations, in whose destruction Edom shall

share, being exterminated by the united ‘ house
of Jacob’ (including both Judah and Ephraim
(vv. 25-18)),

The idea of a reunion of Judah and Ephraim in the last days
appears elsewhere, e.g. in Jer 31.27, Zec 106,—The ‘ ve’ of v.16
cannot be the Edomites, who are addressed throughout in the
genuine passages by, ‘thou.’ Moreove sr, Edom must be included
in ‘all the nations.’ The ‘ye’ can only be the Jerusalemites.
As Judah had once drunk the cup of Jahweh’s fury (for the
expression cf. Ezk 2332, La 420, ‘Jer’ 5117, Hab 216, Ps 759
[Eng. 8]; cf. also Jer 1315... {? Jehoiachin’s time] for a closely
allied conception), so must the heathen now drink it.

The house of Jacob shall reinherit their ancient
possessions, Judah and Benjamin overflowing into
Ephraim and Gilead, which are compensated by
receiving the borderland of Phomnicia as far as
Zarephath, while the Negeb dispossesses Esau οἱ
Mt. Seir, and the captives from Sepharad occupy
the cities of the Negeb. ‘Saviours’ (cf. Je 9}
3°15) shall defend Zion and Ὁ judge’? the mount of
Esau, and the rule of Jahwelh shall be established
( y κἂν at).

The summary given of this last section is what upon the
whole appears to us to be the most probable meaning, but
much uncertainty attaches to it. Wellhausen, followed by
Nowack, understands vy.!9. 29 quite differently.. He pronounces
them to be an expansion of v.?7, and declares that 23:7 and
mex wt cannot possibly be subjects of 33 (as AV and RV take
them). They must be in apposition with Wy WTNN and “ns
ongise respectively (both of which Wellh. pronounces inter-
polated, because they have Ax prefixed, while 23:7 and abewa
want it). He remarks, further, that ‘Benjamin,’ if genuine,
would reflect the late cone eption that Jerus. was situated in
this tribe. But possibly it is a textual error, we expect rather
a verb. δ, too, he suspects, for the ‘fields of Samaria’
would surely be included in the ‘fields of Ephraim.’ See,
further, below under ‘ Date.’

. Uniry AND DATE.—Three leading forms of
ones have prevailed. regarding these : (1) that
the Bk. of Ob is a unity ‘and pre-exilie; (2) that
it consists of two portions both post- exilic ; (3)
that it is made up of an early pre-exilic and a
late post-exilic passage. We shall presently ex-
amine each of these positions, but in the first
place it will be well to consider a question whose
answer will affect our final conclusion, namely —

What is the relation between Ob 9 and Jer 497-22 2
The resemblance between these two passages is
so close as to bea explanation. The facts are
as tollows

Ob1=Jer 4914, except that in Jer the sing. γον is read

instead of the plur. yy, the pass. ptep. Qal i maby + replaces

the perf. Pu‘al nbdzi Y for ‘is sent,’ and the expressions used
in summoning the nations have been modified and slightly
expanded (Ob having 720, Ney my i 3p) wp, Jer i277

seabed YD) my 3829).

Ob 2=Jer 4915, exe ept that in Jer an introductory °D is pre-.
fixed, that ΠΝ after “2 is wanting, and that for 189
‘oreatly’ of Ob we have in Jer DINS ‘among men’ paral.
lel to D432 of the preceding clause.

Ob *=Jer 4916a, except that Ob wants the aasben ‘thy
terribleness’ of Jer, that for ANE of Ob we have in Jer
ΙΝ xvas, that yp is anarthrous in Ob, but has the
article in Jer, that Jer inserts ‘fA (‘holding’) before 279
(‘height’), and replaces aay (‘his dwelling’) by mya
‘hill’ Ob ὃν ‘that saith in his heart’ is wanting in Jer.

Ob 4=Jer 4916), except that Jer substitutes 3 for Ox, and
omits ‘and though thou set [thy nest] among the stars.’

Ob 9. closely resembles Jer 499, but the order is reversed, Jer
commencing with ‘if grape-gatherers came,’ etc., and the
interrogative 7 is omitted before 89, making of the words
an assertion instead of a question. The words ‘if spoilers’
and the exclamation * How art thou destroyed !’ are want-
ing in Jer, and for 1233) ‘steal’ we have τ ΠΦ ΠῚ ‘destroy.’

Ob & resembles in thought, but only slightly in expression,
Jer 4910, Note how tpn ‘search out’ of Ob is replaced
by 427 in Jer.

Ob 8 slightly resembles Jer 497.

Ob % resembles Jer 4922b,

It isevident that either Jeremiah borrowed from
Obadiah or Obadiah from Jeremiah, or that both
borrowed from a common source. The first and
the third of these have been the favourite positions
maintained, although Hitzig and Vatke have main-
tained that Jeremiah formed the model for Obadiah.
But an examination of the differences between
the texts of Obadiah and Jeremiah in the passages
common to both has satisfied the great majority of
scholars that the more original form of the pro-
phecy is in Obadiah, [Only in vy.* 18, the omis-
sion of caw ox, the reading o7N2 for aN, and the
retaining of yasoen, can the ‘Superiority be awarded
to Jeremiah]. The logical connexion, too, is better
in Obadiah. On the other hand, if Jeremiah is held
to have borrowed from Obadiah, the following diffi-
culties have to be faced. Not only has Jeremiah
occasionally the better text, but Jer 497%, if it be
from the pen of Jeremiah, dates from the fourth
year (B.C. 604) of Jehoiakim’s reign, whereas
Ob "τᾶ as we shall presently find reason to con-
clude, presupposes the capture of Jerusalem by
the Chaldieans and the destruction of the Jewish
State. Hence the Bk. of Obadiah could not have
lain before Jeremiah in its present form—a con-
clusion which is strengthened when we note that
it is only from the first nine verses of Obadiah
that Jeremiah would thus have borrowed, although
much of what follows these would have suited his
purpose admirably. Wellh. and Nowack make
Obadiah the direct model for Jer 497°, but do not
admit the genuineness of this passage, the former
holding (with Stade, Smend, Schwally) that the
whole of Jer 46-51 is non-genuine and late, the
latter (with Giesebrecht, etc.) that many passages
in these chapters, including 497", must be denied
to Jeremiah. Nowack w ‘ould account for the
superiority of Jer 49"! to Ob ** by supposing
that in Ob? we have probably a textual corrup-
tion and in ν. an interpolation both introduced
subsequent to the use of Obadiah by ‘Jeremiah.’

The safest conclusion appears to be that Jeremiah
and Obadiah borrowed from a common source, and
that Obadiah incorporated this with less alteration
than Jeremiah.

OBADIAH, BOOK OF

OBADIAH, BOOK OF BID

To return now to the three views noted above as
to the date of the book in its present form. What
we have said in comparing Jeremiah and Obadiah
would suffice to show the improbability, not to say
the impossibility, of (1) the view that the whole
of Obadiah is pre-exilie and that the book is a
unity (Caspari, v. Hofmann, Delitzsch, Niigvelsbach,
Keil, v. Orelli, Kirkpatrick, Peters). The objec-
tions to the unity and an early date for the whole
hook are mainly three: (@) the nations are in vv.!-7
God's instruments of vengeance against Edom,
whereas in v.& they are all alike (Edom included)

the object of Divine chastisement ; (4) vv." cannot |

have a satisfactory sense assigned to them except
on the view that they refer to the capture of Jerus.
and the deportation of the Jews by Nebuchadrezzar
(cf. v.°° “the captivity of Jerusalem’); (6) there isa
difference in style between the two halves of the
book, the first being terse, animated, and full of
striking figures, while the second is diffuse and
marked by poverty of ideas and trite figures. The
occasion to which those who make the book a unity
generally ascribe it is the capture of Jerusalem by
the Philistines and Arabians in the time of Jehoram
(ὁ. 850 B.C.). But while this occurrence, regarding
which, unfortunately, we have πὸ information
apart from 2 Ch 211%, might account for vv.l-, it
is quite inadequate to explain vv.!!-4,

(2) Wellhausen holds that vv.!-!4 allude to the
attitude displayed by Edom at the taking of
Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, but he sees no reason
for making vv." {he considers vy.* 9 interpolations]
earlier. The attack upon Edom by treacherous
friends and allies he cannot refer to any action on
the part of Assyria, Babylon, or Persia, or of Moab
or Ammon, not to speak of Judah or Israel, but
must have in view, he thinks, the small nomadic
neigh! ouring peoples.* The Edomites were, as a
matter of fact, expelled from their original settle-
ments by Arab tribes. This took place subsequent
to the capture of Jerusalem, so that the main
ground for separating vv.!’4 from yv.!-7 seems to
Wellh. to fall away. The Arabs had begun to
press northwards in the beeinnine of the 6th
cent. (perh. Zeph 2", ef. v.27; Ezk 2545-1) and at
leneth we find them in B.c. 312 settled in Petra
(Diodor. xix. 94); ef. the Arabic name Gebal for
Sei in Ps 885, dating perhaps from about the same
time. During the intermediate period we hear of
Geshem or Gashmu the Arabian in Neh 2! 6) 2 6,
and Wellh. thinks that Mal 1? (first half of 5th
cent.) may refer to the same phase of the expulsion
of the Edomites by the Arabians as is represented
in Ob! Of course he docs not contend that all
the Edomites were driven into the Negeb (which,
he thinks, Ob!’ designates as the then dwelling-
place of Esau). Many may have remained in their
original homes, where under Arab rule they would
be the special representatives of Nabatiean culture,
and this would account for the numerous Hebrew
wroper names that occur amone the Nabatieans.
Vellh. does not attempt to fix the date of νν 1553},
but simply remarks that v.“! might refer to the
conquest of Idumea by John Hyreanus,

Wellh. is closely followed in the above conclusions
by Nowack, who fixes as the terminus a quo for
vv.. 4the date of the capture of Jerusalem (B.C. 586),
bat thinks it should probably be brought down to
a date shortly after that of Malachi. Vv.12! are

much later, belonging to a time when eschatological

hopes filled men’s minds, but we are not in a

* It may perhaps be not without interest, in view of the use
of the term ‘thieves’ in v.®, to compare the application to the
same (%) tribes of the word daikanmw (in the Tel el-Amarna
tablets) which Winckler interprets ‘robbers’ or ‘murderers.’

+ G. A. Smith agrees with Wellh. that v.7 (which is not found

in the parallel passage in Jer) probably refers to the expulsion |

ly Edomites by the Arabs, but assigns vv.1-6 to an earlier
ate.

position to fix the date more precisely. Both
Wellh. and Nowack insist stronely that vv.t4
describe what has actually happened, not what is
going to happen, to Edom. It is different with
νν. 155: where, however, the punishment of Edom
is to be simply an episode in the larger scheme of
Judgment wpon all nations.*

Hitzig, who makes the whole book post-exilie,
secks to fix the date of Obadiah from the words in
v.“" na Soa.nda, which he renders ‘the captivity of
this fortress,’ alluding to the fortress of Egypt to
which many Jews were carried captive by Ptolemy
Lagi (cf. Jos. Ant. XIL. i. 1, οὐ Ap. ii. 4). In
3.C. 312 Antigonus ordered an expedition against
Petra, to which Hitzig would reter the words of
Ob! «We have heard a report,’ ete. The chief
objection to this is that before 312 (see above)
Petra had ceased to belong to Edom and had
passed under the rule of the Arabians.

(3) As we have seen above, the view strongly
commends itself that νν. 19 (ον 10) are pre-exilic and
borrowed pretty faithfully from an older source,
Whereas vvy.-4! presuppose the capture of Jeru-
salem and the Exile.

This was the view of Ewald, and is adopted substantially by
Kuenen, Cornill, Wildeboer, Driver, ete. According to Ewald
(so also G. A. Smith), the later prophet lived in the Captivity
(v.29, which Ewald renders ‘of this coast’). The occasion of the
earlier prophecy Ewald (improbably) supposed to have been
When Elath was restored by Rezin to the Edomites (2 K 166
Keré and RVm), and its author to have been a contemporary of
Isaiah. Konig, who accepts the view that Obadiah consists
of a pre-exilic and an exilic or post-exilic portion, analyzes
thus: (4) vv.110 [but v.7, whose concluding words are pleo-
nastic alongside of y.8, is probably an expansion ; perhaps
also vy.9 on account of the late Sp] 16a. 18, 19a 20b 5 (0) yy, 11-16.
100. 17. 190. 29a. 21,

Tt appears, upon the whole, most probable that
not only the Exile but the Return belone to the
past. Note that there is no prediction of the re-
building and re-populating of the capital, Jeru-
salem. The expressions in the closine verses are
best satistied by a date such as Nowack postulates
for vv. (¢, 432 B.C.), or, perhaps preferably, later
still. It is unfortunate that the text and the
meaning of these verses are so doubtful.

A good deal has been built on the mention in v.2! 2%)
of Sepharad or (see Driver, LOT® p. 320) Sépharcd,
for which the ΤᾺ ΝΟ has, AB ᾿Εφραθά, Q* Σαφαράδ,
()* Σῴραθά. Targ. Onk. gives ΚΞΝ, i.e. Hispania,
Spain; hence the origin of the name Sephardin
for Spanish as distinguished from German (Ash-
kenazim) Jews. Uf the MT is correct, the reference
will be either to Cparda of the Persian inscriptions,
which lay in Bithynia or Galatia—a district con-
quered by Cyrus and organized into a satrapy by
Darius Hystaspis—or Shaparda in S.W. Media,
mentioned in inscriptions of Sargon (B.C. 721-705).
The latter reference is adopted by Schrader (Kei//n-
schrift τι. Geschichtsforschung, 116 4¥., WAT <, 4401.
[COT ii. 145 f.]), and is pronounced ‘exceedingly
probable’? by Frd. Delitzsch (Paradies, 249). Sayce
(HCM 482 ff.) and Cheyne (Founders of OT
Criticism, 311.) contend for Cparda (G. A. Smith,
who believes the later part of Obadiah to have been
written during the Exile, would hold, if Gparda is
meant, that the reference to it is a late insertion}.
While Sayce is content to postulate a ‘compara-
tively late date’ for the prophecy, Cheyne would
definitely assign it to the period (ὁ. 350 B.¢.) when
Artaxerxes Ochus deported many Jews who had
taken part in the great revolt against the Persian
supremacy. J13°(‘the children also of Judah and
the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the
Grecians [.Jérdnim], that ye might remove them
far from their border’) may refer to this. It is

noteworthy that in the inscriptions Cparda is always
-mentioned in immediate connexion with Jawnd,

| *For this conception, cf. Zeph 12% 38, Jer 25826, Ezk 36-38
| Is 4520 636 6010. 18... Ts’ 341-3, Zec 128. 4 142. 3. 12-15,

580 OBADIAH, BOOK OF OBED-EDOM
i.e. ‘Tonians’ or ‘Greeks.’ See, further, art. | but we should probably emend (with Wellh. and Nowack) to 393

SEPHARAD.

Cornill considers that the late prophecies ‘Is’
34. 35, in which, as in Obadiah, eschatological hopes
are conneeted with the downfall of Edom, were
certainly known to the author of Obadiah.

The following parallels between Obadiah and Joel
may be noted: Ob?! and JI 4 (Eng. 3] 1. have o=ns
in common; Ob!" and Jl 4 [Eng. 3]* both contain
the expression 533 1 ‘they cast lots,’ which is
found elsewhere only in Nah 3"; Ob” and Jl 4
[Eng. 3]* 4; Ob! and J1 3° (Eng. 2°] 4 [Eng. 3] 7".
In all these instances the probability appears to be
that it is Joel who quotes from Obadiah and not
vice versa (seo G. Buchanan Gray in Huapositor,
Sept. 1893, p. 208 1h, and οἵ. Cheyne, Founders of
OT Criticism, 312, and Driver, Jocl and Amos,
19 ff.).

iv. CONDITION OF TEXT, LITERARY CHARACTER-
istics, Erc.—The text of Obadiah is in several in-
stances corrupt, and in not a few cases suspected of
being so. It may, indeed, be suggested that Well-
hausen and Nowack are unduly suspicious of the
MI, and that the former is rather fond of dropping
sarcastic remarks such as that on v.7: ‘von ap2A PN
42 selber eilt—es ist kein Sinn darin.’ Still the
number of blanks which both these scholars leave
in their translation of Ghadiah and the frequent
emendations they propose give a fairly correct
in pression of the condition of the text. The
following may be noted as points connected with
the vocabulary and the text that merit attention—

v.2. DING, the original reading, was probably corrupted into
ΝΣ first by the loss of its final D and then by the change of the
initial 2 into .

v.3, YER must bre supplied from Jer 4916 before Dit.

v.4. DY must be changed into Dvn (LXX 675).

νν δῖ, The exclamation 70°D73 ΤΝ and the whole of y.6 (in
which Edom is spoken of in the 3rd person instead of being di-
rectly addressed, as formerly, by ‘ thou’) are regarded by Wellh.
and Nowack as interpolated. There can be little doubt that
Ὑππὶο ON should be deleted.—Note in v.6 the ez. rey. NIESD
hiz treasures.’—v.7» is hopelessly corrupt. 12, which in Hos
513, Ts 16 means ‘running sore,’ cannot have the sense of ‘snare’
established for it. The LXX é3p~ may rest upon a reading s2

or 7782; Chald. has xOpn, Syr. 1. a“ Aquila’s rendering

ἐπίδεσις (cf. his tr™ of WD in Hos 513 by συνδεσιωές) implies same
text as MT. yond, which is wanting in LXX, and to which it
is very hard in the context to give a tolerable sense, has
probably arisen by dittography from the preceding ΜΕΥ
Hitzig and Graetz propose to supply ‘238 before it (‘the men
who ate thy bread’). It may be noted that v.74 is in the kindh
measure (see LAMENTATIONS [Book OF], p. 20%); cf. Jer 3s22b,
whose relation to Obadiah is doubtful, but it is clear that one
of the two passages must have served as the model for the other
(Driver, LOT ὁ 320).

v.10, ΟΡ, if genuine, should be attached to the beginning
of v.10 (so LXX, Syr. Vulg.), but it may have been originally
a marginal gioss to 020%. Ewald, who gives it the same posi-
tion as MT, takes it as=‘ without battle.’

vv.1214, [423] 923 in ν.13 is a aa. Aey.; cf. 123 (also ὅσ.
2ey.)in Job 313. All these three verses are in the kindh measure.
It is possible that v.1%, if it is genuine, should follow instead of
preceding v.13 (30 Wellh., Nowack). For the thrice repeated ΠΝ
ΟΝ) in v.18 the LXX has πόνων αὐτῶν, ὀλέθρου αὐτῶν, ἀπωλίας
αὐτῶν (this last also in v.12 for ΘΝ), which makes the correct-
ness of the monotonous MT all the more suspected. For 737 )2n
in v.13 we ought vertainly to read 7} πῃ (so Ewald, followed
by Nowack, Konig and others).—p73 in y.}4 is very doubtful
(LXX διεκβολαΐ, Symm. φυγαδείας). The only other occurrence
of the word isin Nah 81, where if means ‘ violence’ (LXX ἀδικία ;
cf. the use of the verb p15 in Ps 73 [Eng.2] as applied toa lion
tearing his prey in pieces). Graetz conjectures for Ob 11 poED
‘the breach,’ but, as Nowack points out, the fugitives are
thought of as already beyond the breach.

y.15>, Wellh. and Nowack transpose the order of the clauses
of v.15 and make 15> the appropriate conclusion of v.14 and of
the original prophecy, while « introduces the later supplement
to this.

v.16, ayd, if genuine, would describe the incoherent or mean-
ingless utterances (cf. Job 63, Pr 2025) of an intoxicated man,

‘reel or stagger.’

v.20f, have suffered a good deal of corruption. A verb to nbg
may have dropped out, and aia is doubtful. LXX ἡ ἀρχή must
have connected the word in some way with 2707 ‘begin.’
Neither ‘ host’ nor ‘ fortress’ seems to give an appropriate sense,
and Ewald’s ‘coast’ is purely conjectural. Possibly for WR
O°373D we should read 3 PI ‘land of the Canaanites,’ ve,
Phoenicia. In v.21 Oy ‘saviours’ is suspected by Wellhausen
and Nowack. Graetz(with LXX, Syr., Aq., Theod.) reads ΟΡ ΨῚΣ
“those who have been saved by Jahweh.’ Perhaps he is right in
reading ἽΠΙ for ἼΠΞ (LAX ἐξ ὀρους).

Like Joel, which is probably later still, Obadiah
is written in good Hebrew, and it cannot be said
that the diction of the post-exilic portion shows
any marked signs of lateness as compared with
νν Ὁ. The only Aramaism in the book is ?»p of
v.25, and, as we have seen above, this may have
been originally a marginal gloss.

The closest parallels to the spirit of Obadiah,
with its fierce hatred of Edom and its threatenings
against the goyim, are to be found in Ezk 251"
35, Ps 137, La 46, Is 34 f. (cf. especially Ob 15
and Is 34°) 631°.

LITERATURE.—(A) Commentaries : Caspari, Der Prophet Ob.
ausgelegt, 1842; Ewald, Propiets of OF (ng. tr.], il. 277 ff. 5
Seydel, Der Proph. Ob. 1869; Mitzig-Steiner (in Κα. πέος.
Hdbch.), 1881 ; Keil2, 1888; Meyrick (in Speaker's Comin.) ; T.
T. Perowne (in Cambridye Bible), 1889; von Orelli (in Strack
and Zoéckler’s Καὶ. Kommentar), 1888; Pusey, The Minor
Prophets ; Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, 1893 5 Nowack,
do. 1897; Peters (Rom. Cath.), Die Prophetie Obadjas, 1892 ;
Bachmann, Der Proph. Ob. 1892. Reference may be made also
to Reuss, «4 1" 11. 560 ff. ; Farrar, The Minor Prophets (in * Men
of the Bible’ series), 175 ff.; G. A. Smith, Whe Book of the
Twelve Prophets (in ‘ Expositor’s Bible’), ii. 163 ff.; Kirkpatrick,
Doctrine of the Prophets, 33 ff.

(B) Works of Introduction: Driver, LOT'S xviii, 320. Add.
and Corr. xxii; Wildeboer, Lit. ἃ: A’, 216, 303 ff.; the
Einleitungen of Konig (p. 360 ff.), Strack (p. 102 ff.), Cornill 2
(p. 178 ff.), Kuenen (§ 72, 3-4).

(C) Miscellaneous: Delitzsch in Zeitschr. f. luth. Theologie
1851, p. 91 ff.; Boehme in ZATW, vii. (1882), p.. 224 18. 5
Vaihinger in Merx’ Archiv, i. 488 ff. ; Budde in ZATW xi
(1887) p. 40 ff. ; Graf on Jer 49; Briggs, Messianic Prophecy,
315 f.; Cheyne, Mounders of OT Criticism, 311 f.5 Sayce,
HCM 482 f.; Schrader, Neilinschrift u. Geschichtsforsohung,
116 ff., ΚΑΊ 5 4461. (COT ii. 145 1.1; Frd. Delitzsch, Paradies,
249, J. A. SELBIE,

OBAL.—Gn 10. See EBAL, No. 1.

OBDIA (A ‘O8édia, B Ὁββειά), 1 Es 5°8, the same
as Habaiah (Ὁβαιά), Ezr 2°, or Hobaiah, Neh 7%.
—The Vat. MS here preserves the more correct
form of the name.

OBDURACY.—See HARDENING.

OBED (72'y).—1. The son of Boaz and Ruth
(Ru 417 Ωβηδ) of whom the women said to Naomi
at his birth: ‘He shall be unto thee a restorer
of life and a nourisher of thine old age’ (Ru 4:5).
He was nursed in his infancy by Naomi, and grew
up to become the father of Jesse the father of
David, and an ancestor of our Lord (cf. Mt 15, Lk
3%). There seems no reason to doubt that David
was really the grandson of Obed. 2. A descendant
of a daughter of Sheshan who was married to an
Egyptian servant (1 Ch 2°, B ᾿Ωβήδ, A Ἰωβήδ).
Obed’s father’s name was Ephlal. His son’s name
was Jehu. 8. One of ‘the mighty men of the
armies’ of David (1 Ch 1147, B & Ἰωβήθ, A Ἰωβήδ).
4 A son of Shemaiah and grandson of Obed-
edom, who belonged apparently to ‘the courses
of the doorkeepers’ (1 Ch 2017, B ‘0876, A
᾿Ιωβήδ). 5. The father of Azariah, who was one
of ‘the captains of hundreds’ who combined with
Jehoiada for the deposition of Athaliah and the
setting up of Joash as king (9 Ch 231, Β Ὠβήδ,
A ᾿Ιωβήδ). ἘΠ, A. REDPATH.

OBED-EDOM (o7% 72.

The second part of the

SSS

OBEDIENCE, OBEY

OBEDIENCE, OBEY 581

-_—-

Cf. the similar names ‘Abd-Ashtart, “Abd-Mcl-
kart, ete., and see Driver, Heb. Text of Sai. p.
206 f.; LXX B ᾿Αβεδδαρά, ᾿Αβεδδαράμ, ᾿Αβαεδύμ,
᾿Αβδεδόμ,᾿ ABdoddu, ΤἸαβδεδόμ ; A shows the additional
forms ᾿Αβεδδαδόμ, ᾿Αβεδδαράν, “TaPdoddu).—1. A
Philistine, a retive of Gath, who lived in or near
Jerusalem. It was in his house that David de-
posited the ark after the death of Uzzah, and here
it remained three months, bringing a blessing by
its presence (28 6). In the parallel narrative,
1 Ch 134, the Chronicler characteristically writes,
‘the ark of God remained with the family of Obed-
edom in his house’ The last three words here
refer not to O. but to the ark. This would have
been rendered evident if RV had changed ‘his’
into ‘its.’ The Chronicler was unable to conceive
of the ark remaining in the house of an uncircum-
cised Philistine, so he constructs a house for it
within the house, or on the property, of Obed-
edom. (See Kittel’s note, ad doc., in Haupt’s ΟἽ),
and Bertholet, Séellung d. Isr. 2. d. Fremden,
p. 182f.). It is in all probability the same O. that
appears as 2, The eponym of a family of door-
keepers in the temple, 1 Ch 15! 4 16% 26% ® },
2 Ch 25%. It is easy to understand how the story
of O.’s connexion with the ark might transform a
Gittite into a Levite (cf. the analogous cases of
Samuel, who in 1 5 11 isan Ephraimite, but in 1 Ch
i a Levite; and the temple-guard, which in 2 k 11
consists of the king’s foreign mercenaries, but is
converted in 2 Ch 23 into Levitical watchmen). 3.
The eponym of a post-exilic family of singers, 1 Ch
to?” LO". J. A. SELBIE,

OBEDIENCE, OBEY.—These terms are, with
two exceptions (RV Gn 49", Pr 8017, where they
render the rare word 79p:), the translation in
OT of the Hebrew word yre shad’, to ‘hear’
(so RV Jer 11°, where AV has ‘obey’), to
‘hearken,’ by which term it is rendered AV Gn
37, Ly 264) Dt 18” ete., and often in RV,
where AV translates ‘obey’ (e.g. Ex δ", Dt 4%,
Jos 58 ete.). In NT it has several Greek equiva-

pees

lents. The most frequent is ὑπακούω, lit. to
‘hearken,’ the LXX tr. of the Heb. yoy. Other
NT words for ‘obey’ are πείθομαι, lit. to ‘be
persnaded’ (so Ac 5% 87, Ro 28, Gal δῖ ete.

The use of the negative forms ἀπειθέω, ἀπειθής,
ἀπείθεια is frequent, to denote disobedience), and
πειθαρχέω, ἃ word expressing obedience to rulers

(so Ac δ: ‘We ought to obey God rather than

men,’ Tit 31), ὑποτάσσομαι, Which AV twice renders |

‘obey,’ means properly to ‘be subject,’ a tr® which
RV rightly substitutes in 1 Co 14%, Tit 2% °.
While occasionally used to express a relation
between man and man (e.g. the relation between
parents and children, Dt 21%; the case of the
children of Jonathan the son of Rechab, Jer
354-18, ef. Pr 307), or between subjects and
tulers (2S 22%, 1 Ch 29%, Is 11", cf. Gn 49"),

the characteristic use of obedience in the Bible |

is to denote the right relation between man
and God, It may be called the fundamental OT
virtue. As such it is distinctly contrasted by

Samuel with sacrifice in the classical passage, LS
15%, ‘Hath J” as great delight in burnt-ofterings
and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of J”?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams.’ It is the one
thine which God requires (Jer 11%), and which
from the first determines His attitude to His
creatures. It was the canse of the blessing of
Abraham (Gn 9918 265). It is the condition of
Israel’s receiving the covenant blessing (Ex 19°

‘Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed,

and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar
treasure unto me among all peoples.’ Cf. Ex 947,

|
|

name is probably but not certainly that of a god. | Dt 127% 38 30, Jer 1118. As such it is made

prominent in all later renewals of the covenant
(Jos 24%, PS 1o™19; ef. Neh 961% 2), and is in-
sisted upon by the prophets as the condition of
those future blessings to which they look forward
(Is 1°, Zee 015), Disobedience, on the other hand,
is threatened with the severest penalties (Dt 1158
99%. Ὧν 264%. Jer 9 18); 0513), even to
utter destruction (Dt 8° * As the nations which
J” maketh to perish before you, so shall ye perish ;
because ye would not obey the voice of J” your
God’; ef. Jer 12!7). It is the explanation of all
Israel’s misfortunes, whether in the past er the
present (Jos 5°, the wanderings in the wilderness ;

Is

5%,
Je 23, the failure to conquer the inhabitants of
Canaan; 9 Καὶ 1813, the Captivity ; cf. Neh 917, Zeph
32, Is 424, Dn 910. ἢ, and esp. Jer, who continually
emphasizes the disobedience of Isracl, 7°" 115
17:5 2271 3223 408 443), No matter how plausible
the prophet, if he urge to disobedience, his message
is to be disregarded (Dt 13°). No matter how
earnest the prayer, if contradicted by a disobedient
life, it can hope for no acceptance (Dt 26% 15. Jer
3-14) Yet, on the other hand, no sin is so great
but it shall receive forgiveness, if penitence mani-
fest itself in the fruit of obedience (Dt 459 80* 5,
Jer. 26"),

While the duty of obedience is specially associ-
ated in OT with the precepts of the Law (so
Dt 30”, Ex 247, Jer 44%), it is not restricted
thereto. No commandment of J’, however de-
livered, can safely be disregarded (cf. Ex δ᾽, the
ease of Pharaoh ; 1S 15: 39 2818, Saul, in the case
of Amalek; 1 K 20%, the prophet who disobeyed
J”; Jer 38% 4218. 21 444-7, the matter of the Egyp-
tian alliance). Hence it is required, not merely in
the case of J” Himself (Job 364): *, cf. Ex 23°”,
the Maluk J”; Pr 57 8, the divine Wisdom), but
of His human representatives (Joshua, Nu 27:0,
Jos 1'7; the judges, Jg 2!7; Samuel, 15 819; the
future prophet, Dt 18! ; the servant of J”, Is 50").

In many points the NT usage follows the OT
(cf. the references to Israel in Ro 101%, Ac 7, He
22 115). Ina few cases obedience is predicated of
inanimate objects (the wind and the sea, Mt 8°,
Mk 44, Lk 8”; the mountains, Lk 17°), or of the
evil spirits in the presence of Christ (Mk 1:7).
With these exceptions, it is used of men, either in
their human relations (children to parents, Eph 6',
Col 3%; wives to husbands, 1 P 3°; servants to
masters, Eph 6°, Col 3%), or more frequently in
their relations to God (Ac 5**), to Christ (2 Co 10°),
or to their human representatives, as the apostles
(Paul, 2 Th 34, Ph 2™, 2 Co 2°, Philem?!; Titus,
2 Co 7). Characteristic of the Greek usage is
the impersonal use of the object. Men are said co
be servants of sin (Ro 6), unrighteousness (Ro 2°),
obedience (Ro 616), the truth (Ro 2%, Gal 57), the
teaching (Ro 0117), the word (1 P 31), the gospel
(9 ΤᾺ 1, 1 P 4), the heavenly vision (Ac 26").

The importance of obedicnce is no less empha-
sized in ΝΤ than in OT. It is at once the cause
and the condition of salvation. Through one act
of obedience (Ro 5!) Christ became to all His
followers the author of an eternal salvation (He 5").
But this salvation is only to be obtained on con-
dition that they also obey (He 5°). In His fare-
well address to His disciples Christ makes obedi-
ence the supreme test of love (Jn 14! *, cf. Dt
5”). Paul declares that the obedience of the
Christian should extend even to the very thoughts
(2 Co 10°). On the other hand, disobedience is the
supreme evil. By Adam's act of disobedience sin
entered the world (Ito δ᾽"). Israel’s troubles in the
days of the old covenant were due to the same
cause. Still worse is the case of those who
disobey ander the new covenant (He 35). Such
shall receive dreadful punishment, even eternal

582

OBEISANCE

OBSERVE, OBSERVATION

destruction at the Parousia of Christ
1°: 9),

Since the great duty which God requires under
the new covenant is faith in Christ, obedience for
the Christian takes the form of faith, as Ro 1
16°, where the two words are combined in the
expression ‘the obedience of faith’ (cf. Ac 67, He
11°, the case of Abraham). Hence obedience re-
ceives in the Epistles the technical meaning of
acceptance of the Christian religion. So without
qualifying words Ro 15 16%, 1 P 1? (ef. Ro 67
‘Ye became obedient from the heart to that form
of teaching whereunto ye were delivered’); Gal
5’, Ro 2°, obedient to the truth; 1 P 31. the word ;
2Th 1, 1 P 4%, the gospel. The phrase ‘chil-
dren of obedience’ is used in 1 P14 as equivalent to
Christians. On the other hand, the expression
‘sons of disobedience’
denote those who beiong to this world (Eph 22
5°: “Col 3%);

The great example of obedience is Christ, who
‘humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death,
even the death of the (Ph 23); who,
‘though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by
the things which he suffered; and having been
made perfect, he became unto all them that obey
him the author of eternal salvation’ (He 5%, ef.
Ro 5). Hence it should be the effort of every
Christian to bring every thought into captivity
to the obedience of Christ (2 Co 10°).

LirERATURE.—Cremer, Bib.-Theol. Lex. sith ὑπακούω, πείθομαι,
and cognates; Harless, Christian Ethies (Ene. tr.), 115-125;
Weiss, Bibl. Theol. of NT, Index ; Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter,
363-380. The subject is treated homiletically by H. P. Liddon,
Some Words of Christ, 63; P. Brooks, Light of the World, 840 ;

(20h

CYOSS ”

F. W. Robertson, Sermons, ii, 96: He Εν Manning, Sernons,
i. 117, 129, 242, 287. W. AbAMS Brown.

OBEISANCE.—‘ Obeisant’ and ‘obeisance,’ com-
ing through the French, have been superseded by
‘obedient? and ‘obedience’ which came directly
from the Lat. obediens. Maundeville, rarels, 155,

says, ‘In that Lond thei have a Queen, that
governethe alle that Lond; and alle thei ben

obeyssant to hire.’ And Berners, #roissart, p. 85
Globe ed.), has, “And when the month was ex-
5 3 ? ν᾿ . .
pired that they of Segur should give up their

is used by St. Paul to |

town, the earl sent thither, and they of the town |

gave up and became under the obeisance of the
King of England.’ The form is already rare in
the sixteenth century. When found it is almost
always in the phrase ‘make obeisance’ or ‘do
obeisance.’ Shakespeare has the subst. once (the
adj. not at all) in the phrase ‘Call him ‘* madam,”
do him obeisance’—Tam. Shrew, Ind. i. 108. But
AV has retained from Tindale, as the tr. of aay
shahah (in its Hithpael conj.), ‘make obeisance’? in
Gn 3779 43°, 2 Ch 9417 and ‘do obeisance’ in Ex
18... oO: TR Ae 155. ΥὙ We. le the examples of
‘do obeisance’ RV makes some additions, viz., for
AV ‘do reverence’ in 28 98, 1 Καὶ 1: for AV ‘bow
oneself’ in 18 948 28,28 98 1435. K 1; and for
AV ‘humbly beseech’ in 2S 164 The Heb. verb
in the form so {πὲ means to prostrate oneself in
reverence or worship, and is variously rendered
both in AV and RV, though its usual tr. is
‘worship.’ See WorsHIP. J. HASTINGS.

OBELISK.—Hos 3! RVm. See PILLAR.
OBETH (B Οὐβήν, A Ὠβήθ), 1 Es 8*=Ebed,
Ezr 8°,

OBIL (S28; Β ᾿Αβίας, A OvBias; Lue. ’Q8id).—
The overseer of David’s camels, 1 Ch 27. The

name is probably Arabie (οἵ. we ‘able to manage

΄
camels’; see Oxy. Heb. Lex. s.v.).

OBLATION.—See OFFERING and SACRIFICE.

OBJECT.—This verb occurs twice in AV: Wis
215. He upbraideth us with our offending the law,
and objecteth to our infamy the transgressines of
our education’ (ἐπιφημίζει ἡμῖν ἁμαρτήματα παιδείας
ἡμῶν, Vulg. ‘diffamat in nos peccata discipline
nostre,’ Gen. ‘blameth us as transgressors of dis-
cipline’; RV ayeth to our charge sins against our
discipline’) ; and Ac 9419 «Who ought to have been
here before thee, and object, if they had ought
against me, where the verb so translated is κατη-
yopew (κατά and ἀγορεύω, to speak against one in
open court), Which is rendered ‘accuse’ in Ac 242,
The verb was also used transitively in the same
sense of public accusation, as Mk 14% Rhem.,
‘Answerest thou nothing to these things that are
objected to thee of these?’ and Adams on 2 P 13,
‘The masters of the pythoness objected this against
Paul and Silas.’ J. HASTINGS.

ΟΒΟΤῊ (n28 ; (03.0, B has Σωβώθ in Nu 33% <i
ποσῷ station in the journeyines of the children of
Isracl, mentioned both in the itinerary of Nu 33
and in Nu 21!!! as preceding Tye-abarim, and
therefore in the neighbourhood of Moab. Nothing
definite is known as to its position.

A. 'T. CHAPMAN,

OBSCURITY.— After the Lat. ohscuritas and the
Br. obseurité, ‘obscurity’ is used literally in AV
for darkness, gloom. There is no difference recoy-

nized between the two words ‘darkness’ and
‘obscurity.’ Obscurity is the tr. of Sex ‘ophel,
in Is 20,8. and of gen hoéshek, in Is 58” 59"

When both words occur, RV translates “pied
by ‘obscurity’ and hoshek by ‘darkness.’ The
use of ‘eioom? (instead of AV ‘dimness’) for
mucdph or τ᾿ ἦν (ls 8 9!) probably prevented
the employment of that word. Obscurity also
occurs in Ad, Est 115 (Gr. γνύφος, RV ‘eloominess’).
This literal use of the word is rare in English. The
adj. occurs only in Ρὶ 90:9 ‘his lamp shall be put
out in obscure darkness,’ Heb. yen peixa (Aér6 for
persz, which means ‘in the pupil [of the eye] of
darkness’: ef. 7° ‘in the black and dark nicht,’
lit. ‘in the pupil of the night and of darkness,’
the pupil being the darkest part of the eye), RV
‘in the blackest darkness.’ See APPLE OF THE
EYE. J. HASTINGS.

OBSERVE, OBSERVATION. — The verb to
observe is used throughout the AV in the sense
of ‘give heed to.” Thus Pr 23°8 * My son, give me
thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways’
(RV ‘deheht in,’ the translation of the Aethith) ;
(in 37!) ‘his father observed the saying’ (RV ‘kept
the saying in mind’); Hos 148 “1 have heard him,
and observed him? (avs omg ww; RV 1 have
answered and will regard him’; cf. Shaks. Hauler,
ἯΙ. 1. 162, ‘the observed of all observers’); Jon 28
‘They that observe lying vanities forsake their
own mercy’ (RV ‘regard,’ as in Ps 31° AV and
RV); Sir 4° ‘Observe the opportunity and beware
of evil’ (συντήρησον καιρόν); Mk 6 ‘For Herod
feared John, knowing that he was a just man and
an holy, and observed him’ (συνετήρει, AVm ‘kept
him,’ or ‘saved him’; RV ‘kept him safe’) In
the last passage ‘observed him’ means ‘gay him
reverence,’ Which is the tr. of Tind. followed by
Cran., Gen., and the Bishops; ef. Shaks. 17
Henry IV. Iv. iv. 30, ‘He is gracious, if he be
observed.’ But the Greek verb means either to
keep (laws, ete.) or else to preserve, and the latter
is plainly the meaning here. See Swete i loc.
Wyclif and the Rhem. Version have ‘kept him?’
after Vulg. cust odiebat ewm.

‘Observation’ in Lk 17”, ‘the kingdom of God
cometh not with observation,’ means αἴ 61 tiv

OBSTINACY

ODED 585

watching (Gr. παρατήρησις), as in Walton, Compleat
Angler, 99, “1 told you Angling is an art, either
by practice or a long observation or both.’ The
word also oceurs in Neh 1313. AVm (text ‘office,’
RV. ‘observance’), where it means ‘ceremony,’
‘rite’ or to use the modern word in RY ‘ observ-
ance. In this sense ‘observation’ was once com-
mon. Thus, Rhem. NI on Ac 17, ‘Paul calleth
not them superstitious for adoring the true and
only God with much devotion . or any other
Christian observation.’

Observer of Times—See DIVINATION, SOOTH-
SAYING. J. HASTINGS.

OBSTINACY.—-See HARDENING.

OCCUPY. The verb to occupy has become much
restricted in meaning since 1011. Following the
Lat. oceupare (ob-eapere?) it expresses in AV
usually the idea of hese ‘taken up with? any-
thing. (1) A good example, and not far removed
from mod. use, is He 13% ‘ineats which have not
profited them that have been occupied therein’
(TR οἱ περιπατήσαντες, edd. οἱ περιπατοῦντες, RV
‘they that occupied themselves,’ RVin ‘ walked’).
Cf. Erasmus, Conimune Crede, fol, 14, ‘The science
of physike treateth and is occupied about
thynges which do helpe or hurte the helthe of the
body’; Rhem. NT on Mk 3, ‘ He so occupieth him
selfe for soules, that his kinne thinke him madde.’
(2) Still nearer the mod. use is 1 Co 14} ‘how

shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned |

say Amen at thy giving of thanks?’ (ὁ ἀναπληρῶν
τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου, RV ‘tilleth the place’). Cf.
avain Erasmus, Com. Crede, tol. 17, ‘The mystyeall
body therefore of Christe, eccupieth the i. parte
of the symbole or crede.’ (3) But the word some-
times means ‘use’ or ‘employ,’ as Ex 38% ‘All
the gold that was occupied for the work in all the
work of the holy place, even the gold of the offer-
ine, was twenty and nine talents’ (sey ὩΠΊΠΤΣ,
RV ‘that was used’); Je 16! ‘If they bind me
fast with new ropes that never were occupied’
(n2xdo og ayyred ox, lit. as AVm and RV ‘ where-
with no work hath been done’). Cf. Gosson, Schoole
of Abuse, p. 72, ‘Tron with muche oecupiying is
worne too naught, with little handeling gathereth
rust’: Hamilton, Catechism, fol. xvi. ‘Thai lufe
nocht God with al thair strenth, quhasevir
eccupyis yair strenth in doing evil deids’; Ly
3: Tind. ‘Neverthelater the fatt of the beest
that dyeth alone and the fatt of that which is
torne with wilde beestes, maye be occupide in all
maner uses’; and Skelton in Skeat’s Specimens, p.
146—

“And of this poore vassall

He made a kynge royall,

And gave him a realine to rule,

That oecupyed a showell,

A mattoke and a spade.’

(4) And, lastly, trade with, as Ezk 27° ‘all the
ships of the sea with their mariners were in thee
to occupy thy merchandise’; so 2757, where the
Heb. verb is the same (239); RV retains ‘occupy,’
but with ‘exchange’ in margin. Τπ 2718 3
another verb (1.3) is translated ‘occupy’ (‘they
occupied in thy fairs’); RV has ‘traded.’ In 277
‘they occupied with thee in lambs,’ the Heb.
expression (332 42 727) is lit. as AVim and RV
‘they were the merchants of thy hand.” Another
example of the same meaning is Lk 19! § And he
called his ten servants, and delivered them ten
pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come?’
(πραγματεύσασθε;: RV ‘Trade ye herewith’). The
tr. ‘occupy’ here is from Cranmer, the Bishops, and
the Rheims; Wye. has 1382 ‘marchaundise ye,’
1388 ‘chaffare ve’; Tind. ‘by and sell,’ followed
by Geneva. This meaning of ‘occupy’ may be

illustrated from Coverdale, as Is 2317-38 ‘The
Lorde shall viset the citie of Tirus, and it shal
come agayne to hyr nap sang Aa and shal
occupie with al the Kingdomes that be in the
worlde. But all his occupienge and wynnynge
shalbe halowed unto the Lorde’; or from the
Rhemish Version, as Mt 9516 ‘And he that had
received the five talents, went his way, and
occupied with the same, and gained other five.’
J. HASTINGS.

OCCURRENT.—In 1 K δ feb. 18) the Heb. word
yas pega’ (which is elsewhere found only in Ee 9"
and is rendered in EV ‘chance’) is translated in
AV ‘occurrent’; ‘there is neither adversary nor
evil occurrent’ (v2 siz). RV retains ‘occurrent,’
but Amer. RV_ prefers ‘occurrence, which 18
the modern form. The LXX tr. 15 ἁμάρτημα
πονηρόν, the Vulg. (supposed to have suceested
the Eng.) occursus malus ; Wyclif (1882) has
‘yvel agencomynge,’ 1888 ‘yvel asailyng’; Cov.
‘evell hynderaunce’; Gen. ‘evil to resiste,’
followed by the Bishops; Dou. ‘il rencounter,
The form ‘occurrent’? was used both as an adj
and as a subst. As an adj. we find it in Hooker,

Keel. Pol. v. 78, ‘After gifts of education there

follow general abilities to work things above
nature, grace to cure men of bodily diseases,
supplies against occurrent defects and impedi-
ments.’ Asa sebst. it is found in Shaks. (/Ziudet,
v. ii. 341), who also twice uses ‘occurrence’? (7.
Night, v. i. 264, Henry V. Vv. Prol. 40). Cf. also
Chapman, Widow's Tears, ili. 1, ‘These are strange
occurrents, brother, but pretty and pathetical? ;
Bacon, Henry VII. (Pitt Press ed. p. 68), ‘He
paid the king large tribute of his gratitude in
diligent advertisement of the occurrents of Taly.’
Beaumont and Fletcher, Beggar's Bush, 1. 1—

‘My five years’ absence hath kept me stranger

So much to all the occurrents of country.’

uv. HASTINGS.
OCHIELUS (B ᾿Οχίηλος, A Ὀξίηλος, AV Ochiel),

1 Es 1°=Jeiel, 2 Ch 35”.

OCHRAN (j22y, “Expdv).—Father of Pagiel, an
Asherite prince, Nu 1! 2° 777 10",

OCIDELUS (A. Ὠκείδηλος, 1) Ὡκαίληδος), 1 Es 9°, a
corruption of Jozabad in Ezr lu*.

OCINA (Oxevd) oceurs only in Jth 2°, where it
is grouped with Sidon, Tyre, etc., as terror-stiicken
at the approach of Holofernes. The names of the
cities are given in order, proceeding southward
along the sea-coast. First come Sidon and Tyre,
then follow Sur,* Ocina, and Jemnaan. Sur has
been taken for Tyre (Smith’s DS, art. ‘ Ocina’),
and this (Sw) is the modern name of that town.
But the name of ‘Tyre is already given in its usual
form, and it is more natural to suppose that Sur
refers to another place. Tremelius and Junius
speak of it as locus maritinns inter Tyrum et
Ptolemaida, avd identify it with Sandalium (Scan-
dalium), the modern /skmderdna. A short distance
south of Iskanderine lie the very ancient ruins of
Umm οἰ“ Amid, the older name of which seems to
have been Yurda (Baedeker, Pal.? 272). This is
a more probable identification, and, if accepted,
we pass naturally to Acre as the next important
city to the south. The mediwval name Acon (sce
art. ACCO) may very well represent the older Ocina,
which Ptolemais had failed altogether to supplant.
Tf Jemnaan is found at Jabneel (which sec) the
distance from Acco is very great; this, however,
does not tell against the identification suggested.

W. EWING.
4. (ay) The father of the prophet Azariah

ODED.

* B’Accotp, Bab Na? a.b, c.a, A Σούρ, δὲ Τούρ,

eo a 9 ΞΨΙΘΡΙΣ

584 ODOLLAM

OF

who lived in the reign of Asa, 2 Ch 151 (Β Ὠδήδ, A |
"Adad). in v.38 ‘Oded’ of MT and B (Αδάδ) is ¢
mistake (through wrong marginal gloss or other-
Wise) for ‘Azariah’ (so A and Pesh.). See AZARIAH,
No. 8... 2. (773, Ὠδήδ) A prophet who protested
against the proposal to enslave the Judahites who
were taken prisoners upon the occasion of Pekah's
invasion of the Southern kingdom. Being supported
by certain of the heads of Ephraim, Oded succeeded
in obtaining for the captives kindly treatment and
release, 2 Ch 28!" J. A. SELBIE.

2 Mac 1959 AV and RVm. See

ODOLLAM.
ADULLAM,

ODOMERA (‘Odounpd NA, ᾿Οδοαρρής B, Odares),
—A nomad chief, or possibly a Syrian officer, slain |
by Jonathan during the war with Bacchides, about
B.C, 158 (1 Mac 9%). The form of the name in the |
AV, Odonarkes, seems to have no authority to
support it.

|

OF.—This is the most frequent preposition in the |
Eng. language. Probably (says Earle) it occurs as |
often as all the other prepositions put together. |
But frequent as it is, its occurrence now is moder-
ate when compared with the usage of the lth and
6th centuries. By the beginning of the 17th cent.
it was getting displaced by other prepositions in
some of its most common meanings, as by * by’
when expressing the agent. But the language
of AV, being so much older than the current
speech of 1611, is full of the word in meanines
which were archaic even then, and are now quite
obsolete.

The reason of its frequent use is that ‘of’ repre-
sented not only the original Anglo-Saxon of ut
also the French de. The Anglo-Sax. of had the |
meaning of ‘from’ or ‘away from’ (Goth. af, Lat.
α΄. Gr. ἀπό, Sansk. apa), as *Alys us of ytle’=
‘Deliver us from evil.’ And this must be regarded
as the starting-point in any history of the word.
But it is impossible to work out’ the meanings
derivatively trom this primitive idea, because
of the entrance of the French de and the demand
for ‘of’ to render its various uses. his first eot
mixed up with and then drove out the earlier word,
so that as now used ‘of’ is the translation of a
French word ; its form alone is English.

The following are its chief archaic or obsolete
meanings in AV :—

1. From or ary from, especially in the phrase |
‘forth of,’ as Jth 2°! * They went forth of Nineve’ |
(ἀπῆλθον ex, RV ‘departed out of’); 2 Mac 44 ‘yet |
persuaded he him to come forth of the sanctuary’ (ἐκ
τοῦ ἀσύλου προελθεῖν) : Mk 118 ‘Others cut down |
branches of the trees’ (so 1611, mod. eda. ‘off’ ; |

|

Gr. ἐκ, RV ‘from’). Cf. Dt 481 Tind. “And because |
he loved thy fathers, therfore he chose their seed |
atter them and broughte the out with his presence |
and with his mightye power of Egipte’; Ae 21”
Rhem. ‘And apprehending Paul, they drewe him
forth of the temple.’ See Forru. This and
similar meanings are now generally expressed by
‘otf’ which is merely another (perhaps a stronger)
spelling of ‘of "(as ‘after’ isits comparative). ‘Of? |
now represents the original Anglo-Sax. ‘of’ better
than ‘of’ itself does. Coverdale scarcely distin- |
guishes ‘of’ and ‘off’ as Job 411% 5 Out of his
tnouth go torches and fyre brandes, out of his—
nostrels there goeth a smoke, like as out off ἀπὸ
hote seetinge pott’; Zee 13? ‘In that tyme shall |
the house off David, and the citesyns off Jerusalem
have an open well, to wash of synne and unclen-
nesse, And then (sayeth the Lorde of hoostes) I
will destroye the names of Idols out off the londe.’

2. The same meaning is found imetephorically
after verbs of delivering. Thus Jer 307 01 will,

heal thee of thy wounds.’ So Shaks. K. John
Ul. iv. 56, ‘I may be delivered of these woes.’

3. Then ‘of’ expresses generally the source or
origin, as Gn 27 ‘God formed man of the dust of
the ground’ (7277-72 Ἴδη, lit. ‘formed man dust
from the ground’); Ex 36° ‘They received of
Moses all the offering’ (sg'2 ‘ae$2, lit. “from before
Moses’); La 3** ‘(1t is of) the Lord’s mercies
that we are not consumed’ (m7 πτπ). So in NT
often, as Mk 1 ‘sick of a fever’ (πυρέσσουσα) ; Jn
6" ‘save he which is of God’ (παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, RV
‘from God’); Jn 1515 ‘all thines that Τ have heard
of my Father’ (mapa Tod πατρὸς ρου, RV ‘from my
Father’); 17° “All things, whatsoever thou hast
given me, are of thee’ (παρὰ σοῦ, RV ‘from thee’);
Ac 179 When they had taken security of Jason’
(rapa τοῦ ‘Iécovos, RV ‘trom Jason’); Ph 1:8
‘Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and
strife; and some also of good-will’ (διὰ ᾿φθύνον
καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν); 1P 5? ‘of a ready
mind’ (éxougiws) ; especially as tr. of ἀπό, as Mt 738
‘Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?’
167 ‘suffer many things of the elders’; 17225 «Of
whom do the kings of the earth take custom or
tribute’ Of their own children or of strangers?
Peter saith unto him, Of strangers’ (RV always

_‘ from’); 16! * He shall not speak of himself’ (ἀφ᾽

ἑαυτοῦ. RV ‘from himself’); or as tr. of ἐκ or ἐξ, ἃ5 Mt
21° *'The baptism of John whence was it, from
heaven or of nen?’ (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, RV
‘froin heaven or from men’); 1Co 1” * But of him
are ye in Christ Jesus’; 9 Co 5! * We have a build-
ing of God’; Ja 4! ‘come they not hence, even of
your lusts?’ There are many clear examples in
the older versions and early writers, as Jn 15%
Wye. ‘A spirit of truthe, whiche cometh of the
fadir’; 1 Ρ 419 Wye. ‘the feithful maker of nought’ ;
Gn 2% Tind. ‘This shall be called woman, because

~she was take of the man’; Gn 445 Tind. “15 that
ποῦ the cuppe of which my lorde drynketh’’; He

16° Rhem. ‘my just liveth of faith’ (ἐκ πίστεως) ;
Erasmus, Crede, tol. 59, «All thynges are, ex ipso
et per ipsum (id est) of hym, and by hym’; More,
Utopia, i. 40 (Lumby’s ed.), ‘But if the thing be
loste or made away, then the value of it is paide of
the gooddes of such offenders.’

4. From the last would easily arise the sense of
portion, something taken from among the whole,
as Ly 410 * And the priest that is anointed shall
bring of the bullock’s blood’ ; Dn 2” *[ have found
a man of the captives of Judah’; 2% * There shall
be in iz of the streneth of the iron’; Mt 955 «Give
us of your oil’; 90 ‘Drink ye all of it’; To 118
‘He strake of the gall on his father’s eyes.’ Cf.
Mt 23% Tind. ‘I sende unto you prophetes, wyse
men, and scribes; and of them ye shall kyll and
crucifie; and of them ye shall scourge in youre
synagoges,’

5. From a point of time, as Mk 92 ‘Of a child’
(παιδιόθεν). Then throughout a certain time, as Lk
23° ‘He was desirous to see him of a long season’ (ἐξ
ἱκανοῦ ; edd. ἐξ ἱκανῶν χρόνων, RV ‘of a long time’) ;

Ἂς 8" ‘of long time he had bewitched them? (ἱκανῷ

χρόνῳ). Cf. Berners, Froissart, i. 10, ‘a tempest
took them in the sea, that put them so far out of
their course that they wist not of two days where
they were’; Knox, Works, iii. 241, ‘They are not
permitted of any continuance to blaspheme.’

6. As the link between an act or state and its
origin, ‘of’ was used with great freedom. Thus it
is equivalent to: (1) dé in 2S 19:2 ‘ Have we eaten
at all of the king’s cost?’ (a¢207y>, lit. ‘from the
king’; LXX ἐκ τοῦ βασιλέως, Vulg. a rege). (2)
Concerning, Dn 7/8 «Then 1 would know the truth
of the feurth beast’ (RV ‘concerning’); 1 Es 39%
‘Of whose side the king . shall judge that his
sentence is the wisest, to him shall the victory be
given’ (ὃν ἂν κρίνῃ); Jn 1210 ‘Then remembered

OF

OF 585

they that these things were written of him?’ (ἐπ᾽
αὐτῷ); Ac 49 ‘If we this day be examined of the
good deed’ (ἐπὶ εὐεργεσίᾳ, RV ‘concerning’); 5-4
‘they doubted of them, whereunto this would
grow’ (διηπόρουν περὶ αὐτῶν, RV ‘were much per-
plexed concerning them’); 15° ‘came together for
to consider of this matter’ (περὶ τοῦ λόγου τούτου) ;
1Co 1}} “It hath been declared unto me of you? (περὶ
vuav, RV ‘concerning you’). Cf. Gn 42° Tind.
‘Joseph remembered his dreams which he dreamed
of them’; ΔΙῸ 95 Rhem. ‘Goe, and inquire diligently
of the childe’; 117 Rhem. ‘Jesus began to say to
the multitudes of John’; Knox, Works, ii. 301,
‘That God was eyther impotente, ... or else, that
he was mutable and unjust of his promyses. (3)
for, or on account of, as Job 13>dins * Job re-
proveth his friends of partiality’; Sir 4% ‘Be
abashed of the error of thine ignorance’ (περὶ τῆς
ἀπαιδευσίας σου, RV ‘for thine ignorance’); 4377 ‘A
present remedy of all is a mist coming speedily’
(ἴασις πάντων, RV ‘A mist coming speedily is the
healing of all things’); Mt 1815 ‘he rejoiceth more
of that sheep than of the ninety and nine’ (ἐπί,
RV ‘over’); Jn2" * The zeal of thine house’ (ὁ ζῆλος
τού οἴκου cov); 16° ‘He will reprove the world of sin,
and of righteousness, and of judgment’ (epi); Ac
2130 They are all zealous of the law’ (ζηλωταὶ τοῦ
vouov, RV ‘for’); Ro 107‘ They have a zeal of God?’
(ὥῶλον θεοῦ, RV ‘ for’); 2 Co 74 ‘Great is my glory-
ing of you’ (πρὸς ὑμᾶς, RV ‘on your behalt’). Cf.
Ex 37 Tind. “1 have surely sene the trouble of my
people which are in Evipte, and have herde their
crye which they have οἱ their taskmasters’; Jn 959
Tind. ‘But the frende of the brydegrome which
stondeth by and heareth him, rejoyseth greately of
the brydgrome’s voyce.’? So Berners, Frotssart, γ).
8, ‘Then the queen of England took leave of the
earl of Hainault and of the countess, and thanked
them greatly of their honour, feast, and good cheer,
that they had made her’; and Milton, Aveopag.
(Hales’ ed. p. 46), ‘What some lament of, we
rather should rejoice at.’ (4) On or upon, as Ps
995 «Thou tookest vengeance of their inventions’ ;
Lk 18° ‘Avenge me of mine adversary’ (ἀπό) ; Wis
17'% “which could of no side be avoided’ (μηδαμόθεν,
RV ‘on no side’); He 10% ‘ye had compassion of
me in iny bonds’ (rots δεσμοῖς edd. δεσμίοις] wou συνε-
παθήσατε, RV ‘ye had compassion on them that
were in bonds’). Cf. Is 14! Geneva, ‘ For the Lord
wil have compassion of Iaakob.’ In the Pr. Bk. of
1559 occurs the phrase ‘if ye stand by as gazers
and lookers of them that do communicate’; in
1552 it was ‘lookers on,’ to which the ed. of 1604
returned. Hall has the same use of the word in
Works, 111. 440, ‘The wise and Almighty maker of
these earthen mines, esteems the best metals but
as thick clay; and why should we set any other
price of them than their Creator?’ (5) Over, 1 Co
πὶ <The wife hath not power of her own body’ (τοῦ
ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει, RV ‘hath not power
over’). Cf. Job 42? Cov. “1 knowe that thou hast
power of all thines.’ (6) ith, as 2S 19°? ‘We had
provided the king of sustenance’ (VV ‘ with’); Ca
2 and 5° *I am sick of love.2* Weryclif (Select
Works, iii. 84) says, ‘Thou schuldist love thi God
of al thin herte, of al thi soule, and of al thi
nivnier Cf, Tindale, Hapos, p. 109, “Though
they persecute thee from house to house a thou-
sand times, yet shall God provide thee of another’ ;
Rutherford, Letters, No. xlv. ‘I can be content of
shame in that work, if my Lord and Master be
honoured’; and Shaks. Macbeth, τ. 11. 13—
‘The merciless Macdonwald
3 ϊ 3 from the western isles
Of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied.’

* Moon (Eccles, English, p. 212) urges with some reason that the
Revisers should have adopted the modern idiom in Ca 2° and 5%,
tince to be sick 97 ἃ thing means now to be heartily tired of it.

7. But the most important of all the @bsolete
uses of Sof’? is its employment to introduce the
agent, especially after a passive verb. ‘This fune-
tion was performed both by the Anglo-Sax. ‘of’
and by the Ir. de ; it is therefore very common in
the English of the 14th to 16th cent. By the
beginning of the 17th cent. it was dying out, ‘of’
being replaced by ‘by,’ so that (as has been
pointed out under By) we have to do, not only
with an idiom that is archaic to us, but also with
one that is inconsistently applied. It further
increases the difficulty that ‘by’? was used for the
instrument or intermediate agency. ‘Thus Lever,
Sermons (Arber’s ed. p. 77), says, ‘We had never
feast gyven of hym by his apostles’; and in AV
we find, Mt 1°? ‘which was spoken of the Lord by
the prophet’ (τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου),
LV ‘by the Lord through the prophet’).

The agent is usually expressed in Greek by ὑσό with the gen.,
and so ὑπο with the gen. is in AV usually translated by ‘of.’ In
the following places, however, we find ‘by’: Mt 2281, Mk 54,
Lk 238.26 319 1317 1622 2116 238, Ac 1022 134.45 153.49 2514 971].
Ro 321 1524, 1 Co 111, 2 Co 89 819.20, Eph 211 518, Ph 128, Col 218,
2 Ti 226, He 23 34, 2 P 121 32. Of these the foll. are due to
Tindale : Lk 1317 1622 238, Ac 1022 15%, Ro 1524, 1 Co 11), 2 Co 33
819.20) Eph 20, 2P 1213; in the other cases AV has changed
Tindale’s ‘of’ into ‘by.’ RV has always retained ὁ by’ where it
is found in AV, and has changed AY ‘of’ into ‘by’ in Mt 122 215
148 1912 2712, Mk 831, Lk 221 97.8 1720, Ac 16/4 2212 9310. 27 962.7,
1 Co 212 109. 10. 29 1424 bis, 2 Co 26 8519, Gal 111 817 Eph 515, Ph 312,
He 1123, Ja 114 29 34.6, Jude 12.17,

The following passages deserve attention: 2 Es
16% «Like as an arrow which is shot of a mighty
archer’ (a sagittario valido); 16° ‘There are lett
some clusters of them that diligently seek through
the vineyard’ (αὖ his, RV ‘by them’); Wis 18?
‘So of thy people was accepted both the salvation
of the righteous and destruction of the enemies ’
(ὑπὸ λαοῦ cov, RV ‘by thy people’); 1 Mac 5'%
‘their brethren that were in trouble, and assaulted
of them?’ (ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν) ; Mt 916 * He was mocked of
the wise men’ (ὑπὸ τῶν μάγων); 11:7 “ΑἹ! thines
are delivered unto me of my Father’ (ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρύς
μου); Lk 97 ‘Now Herod the tetrarch heard of ail
that was done by him (ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, edd. and RY om.):
and he was perplexed, because that it was said
of some (ὑπό τινων, RV ‘by some’) that John was
risen from the dead’; Ac 15* ‘they were received
of the church and of the apostles and elders’ (ὑπὸ
τῆς ἐκκλησίας) ; 1 Co 1453 ‘he is convinced of all, he
is judged of all’ (ὑπὸ πάντων, RV ‘by all’); 2 Co
819 * who was also chosen of the churches’ (χειροτονη-
θεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, RV ‘appointed by the
churches’); Ph 813. *f am apprehended of Christ
Jesus’ (ὑπὸ [τοῦ] Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, RV ‘by Christ
Jesus’). Examples in early writers are easily
found: take Ex 22°! Tind. ‘therfore shall ye
eate no flesh that is torne of beestes in the feld’ ;
and Booke of Precedence (E.E.T.S.) i. 76, ‘Stody
alwaies to be loved of good men, and seeke nat to
be hated of the Evell.’? The process of change may
be illustrated from the history of the Pr. Bk.
Thus in 1552 and 1559 we read (§ Communion,’
Keeling, p. 191), ‘being so lovingly called and
bidden of God himself’; but in 1604 and 1662 this
is changed into ‘by God himself.’ Cf. Lever,
Sermons, p. 26, For as there is no power of
authorithy but of God, so is there none put in
subjeccion under theyim but by God. Those
powers whiche be are ordeyned of God.’

8. Occasionally ‘of? is redundant, as Dn 2%
‘Then Daniel requested of the king’; Sir 3174
‘The testimonies of his niggardness shall not be
doubted of ?; Ac 15°‘ The apostles and elders came
together for to consider of this matter’ (ἰδεῖν περί).
Especially after gerunds, as 2.8 27) «Asahel would
not turn aside from following of him’; 8 ‘He
returned from smiting of the Syrians’; Sir 2072
ΠΥΡΊ ΤΟΥ ΟΞ ΘΙ τ = by accepting of persons over-
throweth himself’; Jn 11% * They thought that he

586 OFFENCE

OFFENCE

had spoken of taking of rest in sleep’; Ac 21°
‘They left beating of Paul.’ It is also sometimes
omitted where we should use it, as Rev 18 ‘all
manner vessels of ivory.’

9. Notice finally the phrases: Of certainty, Dn
28 (RV ‘of a certainty’); of force, He 9% ἀβέβαιον}
of purpose, Ru τς οἵ, Bacon, Essays, Ὡς 33, * Wise
men will rather doe sacrifice to Envy ; in suffering
themselves sometimes of purpose to be crost?; (7
comparison of, ὅσ 83, Hag 2’; and ofa truth, Dn 2",
Lk AP ον Ac 4st 10%, J. HASTINGS.

OFFENCE.—The verb to ‘ offend’ (Lat. offendere,
‘to strike against’) means in AV either imtransi-
tively ‘to go astray,’ or transitively ‘to lead one
astray.’ So ‘offence’ is either a ‘trespass,’ or the
cause of trespass, a ‘ stumbling-block.’

Offend. The Heb. words are: (1) ’asham or ’ashém, to
‘trespass’ or ‘be guilty,’ Jer 28 507, Ezk 2512, Hos 419 131, Hab
V1, Thus Hos 13! ‘When he offended in Baal, he died’ (RVin
“When he became guilty tn Baal’; Cheyne ‘ But he became
guilty through the Baal’). In ὃ Ch 9518. the Heb. subst.
‘ashamah, which is twice tr. ‘trespass’ in the same verse, is
once rendered ‘offeid’ : ‘we have offended against the Lord,’
RV ‘that which will bring upon us a trespass (RVin ὁ guilt’)
against the Lord.’ RV changes Jer 2° into ‘be held guilty,’
and Hab 11! into ‘be guilty,’ leaving the rest unchanged. (2)
hata ‘to miss’ (the way), ‘err,’ ‘sin.’ Gn 209 (‘What have I
offended thee?’ ; RV ‘sinned against thee’), 401, 2 K 1814, Jer
37'8 (“What have I offended against thee?’?; RV ‘sinned
against thee’). (3) bavad to ‘act treacherously,’ only Ps 731
“T should offend agai
“T had dealt treacherously with’). (4) habhal to ‘act foolishly,’
“become vain,’ only Job 3481 *T will not offend any more.’ (5)
pasha’ to ‘rebel,’ ‘ take offence,’ Pr 1s!9 “A brother offended is
harder to be won than a strong city,’ RVm ‘injured.’ In NT
the two intrans. verbs are (1) ἁμαρτάνω, Ac 255 ‘Neither
against the temple, nor yet against Cysar, have 1 offended
anything at all’ {τὸ ἥμαρτον, RV Shave I sinned at all’); and
(2) πτχίω to stumble, Ja 210 32 (RV both ‘stumble’). The
transit. verb is σκανδαλίζω, occurring chiefly in Mt (529.80 110
1321.57 1512 1727 186. 8.9 2410 2651.83) and Mix (417 63 912. 48. 45-47
1427.29); also in Lk 728 172 and Jn 661 161; and elsewhere only
Ro 142!, 1 Co 8l3 bis, 2 Co 1139. AV always translates ‘ offend’;
RV always ‘cause to stumble,’ except Mk 1429 where ‘ All ve
shall be offended because of me’ is retained in text, with
“eaused to stumble’ in margin. RV omits the word in Ro 1421
with edd.

Offence rarely occurs in OT. The only Heb. words are: (1)
mikhshél, 1S 2581 *That this shall be no grief unto thee, nor
offence of heart unto my lord’ (AVm ‘stumbling’), and Is 811
‘a rock of offence’; also in Ps 119169 the same subst. is trad
‘offend,’ ‘ nothing shall offend them,’ AVm ‘they shall have no
stumbling-block,’ RV ‘they have none occasion of stumbling.’
(2) hei’ ‘error, ‘sin,’ so tr. only Ke 104.) The NT words are:
(1) euaprin ‘error,’ ‘sin,’ only 2Co 117(RV ‘sin’). (2) σαρά-
true ἃ ‘transeression,’ Ro 429 δ15 b/s. 16.17. 18.29 (RV always
‘trespass,’ the usual tr. of the word elsewhere in AV). (3)
προσκοπή, lit. ‘a striking-avainst’ (cpes-zs77H), in its only
occurrence, 2 Co 6%, RV ‘occasion of stumbling.’ Notice also
the adj. ἀπρέσκοπος in Ac 2415 Sto have always a conscience

void of offence’ (ἀπρέσκοπον συνείδγσιν); 1 Co 1082 Saive none |

offence’ (ἀπσρόσκοποι γίνεσίε, RV ‘vive no occasion of stum-
bling’); and Ph 110 *That ve may be sincere and without
offence’ (ἀπρόσκοποι, RV ‘ void of offence’). (4) rperxouun, lit.
‘a thing to strike against’ (σροσπόέπτω), is tra ‘offence’ only in
Ro 1429 10 is evil for that man who eateth with offence’ (sé
προσκόμματος). (Ὁ) σκάνδαλον, the biblical form of the late word
σκανδάληθρον Which signifies ‘the bait-stick in a trap.’ In
LAX σκάνδαλον occurs as the tr. of ddphi in Ps 5020; of kesel
in Ps 49183 of mékésh in Jos 2313, Jg 28 827, 1S 1820, Ps 6922
10626 1409 1419; and of mizhshél in Ly 1914, 1S 2581, Ps 119165,
In NT it is found in Mt 134! (τέντα τὸ cxcvdurr, AV ‘all things
that offend, RV ‘all things that cause stumbling’), 1628 187 fer
(AV always ‘offence, RV ‘stumbling-block’ in 1628, ‘ oecasion
of stumbling’ in 187), Lk 171 (AV ‘offences,’ RV ‘ occasions
of stumbling’), Ro 983 (both * offence’), 119 (both ‘stumbling-
block’), 1448 (AV ‘occasion to fall,’ RV ‘oece. of falling’),
1617 (AV ‘offences,’ RV ‘oceasions of stumbling’), 1 Co 1°83
(both ‘stumbling-block ’), Gal 511 (AV ‘offence,’ RV ‘stum-
bling-block’), 1 P 28 (both ‘ offence’), 1Jn 910 (both ‘occasion
of stumbling’), Rev 214 (both ‘ stumbling-block’),

It is unfortunate that ‘offend’ and ‘ offence’
have lost their early meanings. As the note
above shows, we have no good word to take their
place. ἢ

* Tf we could have used ‘scandal’ and ‘scandalize’ as the
Vulg. and the Rhem. Version do, much of the force which we
lose would have been retained. Thus in Rhem. NT, Mt 116
‘Blessed is he that shall ποῦ be scandalized in me’; 1341 ‘The
Sonne of man shal send his Angels, and they shal gather out
of his kingdom al scandals’; 187-8 ‘Wo be to the world for
scandals. For it is necessary that scandals do come: but

inst the generation of thy children’ (RV |

The following quotations from early writers
illustrate the use of both words in AV. Barrow,
Sermons, vol. i. Serm. 1, ‘To offend originally
signifies to infringe, that is, to stumble or lit
dangerously upon somewhat lying across our way’ ;
tutherford, Letters, No. ix. ‘He presumed that
much on your love that ye would not offend’
(=‘stumble’); Shaks. Meas. for Meas. U1. ii. 16,
‘He hath offended the law’; Milton, PL iii.
410—

© Regardless of the bliss wherein he sat

Second to thee, offered himself to die

For nuan’s offence.’
And in Areopag. (Hales’ ed. p. 15) the meaning is
to lay a stumbling-block in the way, ‘ A certain
Presbyter laid it scrupulously to his conscience,
how he durst venture himselfe among those de-
filing volumes. The worthy man loath to give
offence fell into a new debate with himselfe what
was to be thought.’

For the theology see next article.

J. HASTINGS.

OFFENCE.—This term is the translation in AV
of several Heb. and Gr. words. These may be
classified in two categories: 1. Sim (soa Ee 104;
ἁμαρτία, 2Co 117, RV ‘sin’); also the kindred idea
of a moral fall (παράπτωμα, e.g. Ro 4” 51, RV
‘trespass’). 2. Stumbling (rw29 1S 25°71, Is 84),
considered as an act, the word being used in a
metaphorical sense. Also ὦ stumbling-block. In
this last sense the term is used as tr® of Gr. words
with two different primary meanings: (1) πρύσ-
κομμα (Ro 145), and προσκοπή (2 Co 6°, RV “ occa-
sion of stumbling’), literally ‘a stumbling-block,’
ie, some impediment lying on the path, over
which one stumbles, and so morally anything
that hinders and tends to trip one up in the path
of life, or with regard to some particular course
of action. (2) σκάνδαλον, a purely biblical word,
with its corresponding causative verb σκανδαλίξω,
of frequent occurrence both in LXX and in NTP.
The classic form is σκανδάληθρον. In LX Nit stands
chietly for Heb. epi ‘bait’ (fig. snare’) and 272
‘stumbling-block.’ The Gr. word means primarily
the trigver of a trap; then the trap itself. In
a secondary sense it stands for anything that
ensnares or hinders morally. The idea of stum-
bling appears in the phrase ‘rock of offence’ (πέτραν
σκανδάλου, Ro 9, a free quotation from Is 8%,
where LXX has πέτρας πτώματι), ie. a rock over
which people stumble. The word is used of
persons ; as in our Lord’s rebuke of St. Peter,
“Thou art an offence (σκάνδαλον) unto me’ (Mt
162 AV). RV has ‘stumbling-block ᾿ here, a need-
ful correction, the idea being, not that St. Peter
was ‘offensive’ to Jesus, nor that Jesus was
‘offended’ with him, but that the disciple was a
snare to his Master, an adversary (Σατανᾶς), one who
provoked to stumbling. The word is also used of
things, as when we read of casting a stumbling-
block before anybody (e.g. Ro 14:5. Again, in
the expression ‘Whoso shall offend one of these
little ones,’ ete. (Mt 18° AV), the reference is not
to insulting and hurting the feelings, but to
tempting and hindering in the way οἵ. Christ.
Similarly, the directions about an offending mem-
ber of the body—the eye to be plucked out or the
hand to be cut off—reter to causes of s:umbling,
of moral hindrance. Accordingly, RV substitutes
‘cause to stumble’ for the misleading word
‘offend’ in AV. The sin of leading one of
Christ’s little ones to stumble is set forth as

neverthelesse wo to that man by whom the scandall cometh.
And if thy hand or thy foote scandalize thee, cut it off, and
cast it from thee.’ We find also the adj. ‘scandalous’ in the
heading to Lk 9 ‘He forewarneth againe of his scandalous
Passion.’ In the notes to Mk 61 ‘offence’ is gy ven as an
alternative to ‘scandu,’—‘ His countrie-folkes .. did take
offence or scandal of him.’

OFFER, OFFERING, OBLATION

OFFER, OFFERING, OBLATION 587

peculiarly heinous. St. Paul’s argunent on the
question of casuistry concerning eating food that
has been offered to idols turns on this idea.
apostle’s contention is not that the strong are to
surrender their liberty in deference to the super-
stitions of the weak, for fear of offending the latter
in the sense of giving them offence, ὁ. 6. angering
and alienating them. The duty we owe to Chris-
tian liberty may sometimes involve this paintul
consequence. St. Paul's position is that liberty
must not be so used as to hinder the spiritual life
of others, by confounding their consciences and
tempting them to imitate conduct the innocence
of which they are not sufliciently enlightened to
perceive, and which must therefore appear wrong
to them. Where the Jews are said to be * offended
at’ Jesus (Mt 13%), and where ‘the offence of the
cross’ is referred to (Gal 5"), the stumbling and
hindrance are in the way of accepting the claims
of Christ. Thus the prophetic description of the
stuinbling-block is ascribed to Him because His
obscure origin and humble appearance, and the
method of His ministry, were regarded as reasons
for not accepting Him. When He spoke in the
synagogue at Nazareth, His trade as a carpenter
and His family relations were the stumbling-block
(Mk 6°). Here, however, the idea seems to be
passing over to that of displeasure—we are in-
stinctively angry at whatever causes us to stable,
This thought appears to be present in Mt 151
where the disciples say to Jesus, ‘ Knowest the t
that the Pharisees were offended when they
heard?’ ete. The more serious idea of being
hindered morally—as in the case of ‘ offending’
one of Christ’s little ones—is evidently out of
place here, All that is meant is that the Phari-
sees were turned against Jesus and His claims,
with the implied notion that this was coupled with
some irritation.
reference to ‘the offence of the cross’ (Gal 51).
The fact that Jesus had suffered the indignity of
crucifixion hindered the Jews, with their secular
ideas of the Messiahship, from accepting Chris-
tianity, and at the same time roused their indigna-
tion against the preachers of the gospel.
W. F. ADENEY.

OFFER, OFFERING, OBLATION.— These words
are used in the English Versigns for very different
terms in the Hebrew and Greek ; and it will be the
aim of the present article to distinguish them, and
enable the student to understand the meaning and
application of the terms used in the original. Vor
the sake of clearness and simplicity, the usage of
RV only (which is at least in some respects more con-
sistent than that of AV) will be taken as the basis
of the article.

Offering and oblation, it need hardly be remarked,
are words substantially identical in origin, the only
difference between them being that one is formed
(through ‘offer’) from the present tense of the
Latin ofero, and the other trom the supine oé/a-
twin.

1. Τὰ burnt-offering (πον), peaee-offering (Bo,
maby), thank-offering (ata), freewill-offering (3273 ἢ),
meal-offering (7032), sin-offering (πα 8 Ὁ), gilt-offertng
(o¥N), + drink-offering (433), ‘otlering ” corresponds
to no distinctive clement of the Hebrew expres-
sion ; and the explanation of these terms will there-
fore be reserved more properly for the art, SACRIFICE.

2. ‘Offering (here and there in AV ‘sacrifice ’)
made by fire’ represents a single word in the Heb.,
nx (firing, or ‘fire-offering’). It occurs very
frequently in P (as Lv 1® 817 22.3.9 10.26; elsewhere

*In AV occasionally, ‘willing, free, or voluntary offering’ (as
Ex 3529 363, Lv 716, Ezk 4612); in RV ‘freewill offering,’ uni-
formly.

+ In Is 5310 rendered, unhappily, ‘offering for sin,’ suggesting
Coes with the very different ‘sin-offering’ ; see, however,

m.

It is the same with St. Paul’s |

The |

only Dt 18!, Jos 134, 1S 2°8); and is a term used
generally of any sacrifice, or other offering (Ly 247%),
consumed upon the altar.

8. jaan horbdi (AV usually ‘offering,’ sometimes
(cf. oblatio, often in the Vulg. for 7299) ‘oblation,’
once ‘sacrifice’; RV uniformly ‘oblation,’ except
Ezk 9038 ‘ offering’). This (from 2ῚΡ ‘to come near ’)
means properly something brought near (viz. to the
altar, or to God); it is the most general term for
offering or oblation, being used mostly, it is true,
of sacrifices of different kinds, but also sometimes
of other sacred gifts (Ly 915. Nu 7 passin, 31°). It
is found exclusively in P, and Ezk 9058 40%. The
oecunrences: Th P ares: Liye ate τοῖν ἐάν θεοῖς
13. 13 31. 2.6.7.8. 1}. ἢ 4:5. 28. 32 δ ρ: (19) Tis. 14, 15. 16. 29. 38
Gee: Le Qos ae Qo νον ὄνοι ayo > ΡΥ.
97 13-154 36 189 28° 81°. Ina slightly ditferent form
(urban) it occurs in Neh 10%) 1351, of the wood-
offering (not mentioned elsewhere). It is, of course,
the familiar ‘corban’ of Mk 73},

(a) The cognate verb Aikrib, ‘to bring near’ (of
a secular gilt Je 3!7 8, Ps 72), Mal 18 [‘ present’),
is used in a corresponding sense (RV ‘present,’
‘offer,’ ‘bring near,’ ‘ bring’); whether of the wor-
shipper bringing up the sacrifice, or of the priest
presenting it on the a‘tar. ‘The occurrences are
too numerous to quote in exrtenso; for examples,
see: (L)--oF the. worshipper Ἐν 1% 2s tebe hem 2
(‘presen ted?) 11: 12.18. 1.0 11. 31.1. ὃν 6.7.7.9. 12.14 48... 77}.
12, 12. 13. 74. 16. 18, 24. 29. 38 ; (2) of the priest ΤΙΝ 15: 10. 1ὅ
{᾿ bring vay, 58 614 (7). 20 (18). 21 (4) 73. 8, δ. 8. ness and outsiae
P tell} chek oe ad 9-0 ae Ot ar Bett
2788 1 Ch 164,2Ch 35". Like horbdn, hikrib, it
will ke noticed, is essentially a priestly word ; it de-
notes a formal ceremonial act, and is almost entirely
confined to P and Ezk. 9x7, another verb also
commonly rendered ‘to offer’ (see below), is a word
much more in o:dinary use ; it is as exceptional in
P and Ezk as Aikrib is constant.

(4) The synon. e327 also occurs in the same two
applications, but it is less technical, and also much
less frequent (RV ‘bring,’ ‘ bring hither,’ ‘present,’
‘bring, near’): Ex 32°, Je 6 ‘presented? (if Vin
of v.8 is right :+ see 4), 1S 13914 44, Am 5%, Lv 28
(‘bring’), 813, Mal 17: 8:8. (‘offer’), v.12 2? 3°, 2 Ch
203 > Cf. of secular eifts, 1 Καὶ 451 (5!), also Jg 61 (if
RV text of v.)§ is ight).

In LXX 3°9)7 is generally represented by.recogiow, and 72}
(not by προσφορά, but) by dvgov (ch. Mk Til, Mt 155); Mt 523,
therefore, if translated consistently with RY of the OT, would
read, ‘If thou art offering thine ob/ation at the altar’ (in
Delitzsch’s Heb. NT, 4379) 27PA ON); cf. Ly 21.4 174 2918
RV and LXX; and observe the same combination of προσφέρω
and δῶρον in Mt 524 84, He δὲ,

4, προ minhah. This does not express. the
neutral idea of ‘gift’ (jp2), but denotes a compli-
mentary present, oy & present made to secure or
retain good-will, as Gn 32) 15:21 (to Esau), 43!)
15. 2. 26 (to Joseph), Jg 3% 17-18 (to Eelon), 2K 8* 9,
Ps 4513, offered, as something expected, by a political
subject, 28 8%, 1K 4", 2 Ke -aés then “ora
tribute offered to God, both evenerally (inchading
animals) Gn 4% 45, 1S 26!, and specitically (as
always in P) of the meal- (or cereal) offering (Lv
2: sce SACRIFICE). Where minhdh appears to be
used in the more general sense of a tribute offered
to God, it is represented in RV by ‘offering’ or
‘oblation.? The passages are Gn 4%45, Nu 16",
Jeo Onarg.), 1: 2 SCO, Φ τ 185. ον ος
32°) Ezr 945, Ps Qu? 0)" 408 1)" G68 1412 (mare.), Is 14
10:1 43." 57 66°". 39. Ἢ Jer 143} 17-6" ἘΣΤΟΝ ἢ οὶ Dn
246 (to Daniel), 02! 2", Am 5%", Zeph 3”, Mal 128 2). 2
giz. 13 33-4 (* with marg. ‘Or, meal-offering’). How-
ever, in several of these passages, esp. in 1 K 18-9,
2 Kk 3%, Ps 141°, Ezr 94-5, Dn 9*! [in all, ‘the evening

* But ‘bring’ elsewhere in these chapters represents 8°27,

+ For wean is used also of ‘bringing near’ or ‘presenting
ordinary food, Gn 2725, 1S 25%, 28 131,

588 OFFER, OFFERING, OBLATION

OFFER, OFFERING, OBLATION

minhah’; see 2 K 16%), perhaps also in many of
those with the alternative marginal rendering, and
in Is 181971, it is not improbable that ‘meal-ofter-
ing’ would be the better rendering.

5. ann térumah (AV and RV ‘heave-offering,’
‘ offering,’ and ‘oblation’). This word (from o--
‘to lift or take off’) denotes properly what is lifted
off a larger mass, or separated from it for sacred
purposes (LXX in Pent. uses ἀφαίρεμα, in Ezk mostly
ἀπαρχή; ‘Targ. in both xmerex ‘something separ-
ated’); and is used in particular (cf. Driver on Dt
12°): (1) of gifts taken trom the produce of the soil
(as tithe, firstfruits, and firstlines) ; (2) of contri-
butions of money, spoil, etc., offered for sacred
purposes, and in Ezk of land reserved for the
priests and Levites; (3) in connexion with = sacri-
tices, only of portions ‘taken off? the rest, and
forming the priest’s due, esp. of the ‘heave-thigh,’
which, with the ‘wave-breast,’ is (in P) the priest's
share of the peace-offering, but also (as Nu 5° 185)
of other priestly dues. The rendering ‘heave-
offering’ implies a rite of ‘elevation,’ which, how-
ever, is very doubtful, and is rejected by modern
scholars (e.g. Ges., IXKeil on Ly 2%, Dillm. on Ly Τὸ
ete.). Omitting the passages (as Ex 292728) Ly
74) where ἐσ) δηλ, is used of the ‘heave-thigh,’
it occurs, in the other applications just noted, Ex
O52 3. 8. BOIS. 14.15 B55. 5. τιν τὰν 54 36°: 6, Ly 7H ool Ny 5°
1519. 20. 21 183: 11, 19. 24. 26, 27. 28. 28. 29 3159. 41. 52 Dt ]26-1'.17,
Ezk 20° (‘ offerings’ *) 4459-8 451. 6.7. 7. 13. 16 488. 9. 10.
12. 12. 18. 18. 20. 20. 21. 21. 21 Mal ὃν; 2 Ch 4] 10. 12. 14, Ezr s>.
Neh ΤΌΤ 8)- 99 (49) 124 135; also2' 1°! (if the reading
he correct), Is 40°", and (in a secular sense) Pr 204
(see ἄν). (RV in Pent. 28, Ezr, Neh, Ezk 202°,
Mal, ‘heave-offerine’ or ‘offering,’ in 2. Ch, Is, and
other passages in Ezk, ‘oblation’). ‘Contribution’
is perhaps the English word which, though not
entirely satisfactory, nevertheless best suggests
the ideas expressed by the Heb. ¢ermindh.

(4) The use of the corresponding verb orn ‘to lift or
take off? (often by the side of the subst. ¢éra@iudh)
should be noted (LXNX usually in Pent. ἀφαιρέω, in
Ezk dpopifw, in 2Ch ἀπάρχομαι ; Tare. tere ‘to
separate’: RV ‘heave up,’ ‘offer,’ ‘take up,’ ‘take
off, ‘offer up,’ ‘heave, ‘levy’ Nu 81°, ‘give .
for offerings’ 2 Ch 3074, ‘eive’). This occurs, not
only of the ‘heave-thigh’ Ex 29°7, but also in con-
nexion with various other sacred gifts or sacrifices :
Ex 35", Ly 2° (of the ‘memorial’ ¢/en off the meal-
offering in order to be burnt on the altar), 48:10. 19
(of the fat δ γέρε or taken off a sacrifice for con-
sumption on the altar), 6!9'8) (as 2%), 2215) Nu 1019:
20, 50. 119. 24. 26. 28. 29. OU. BZ 2138. oe. Ezk 45). 19 488. 9. ou
2 Ch 30%: 24 35% 9, Ezr 8%. The remarkable incon-
sistency in the rendering of this word, even in RV,
and the confusion with other words occasioned
thereby, are much to be regretted ; if the instances
are examined in detail, the idea in each will be
seen to be, as explained above, that of lifting or
taking off froma larger inass for sacred purposes
(note esp. the use of both the verb and the subst.
in Ezk in connexion with Zand).

6. περ téniphah, a ‘wave-offering’ (implying a
rite of ‘waving’; see SACRIFICE), and usually so
rendered in AV, RV ; but represented by ‘offering’
alone in Ex 35% 387+ *8 (where the term is used
peculiarly of materials offered for the construction
of the sanctuary), and in Nu 8-15-12" (changed
here in RV to ‘ wave-offering’), where it is used of
the Levites.

(a) The cognate verb 937 ‘to wave,’ and usually so
rendered, issimilarly represented by’ offer’ in Ex 3522,
Nu 811- 18. 16. 51 (in Nu with the mare. ‘Heb. wave ΕἾ

7. ‘Whole burnt-offering’ (really a double, and
tantologous, rendering of the Heb., adopted from
AV of Ps 511") stands for the Heb. S52 (lit. some-
thing whole) in RV Dt 13°07 mare., 33", 18 79

* For ‘oblations’ in this verse see below, No. 9.

(Heb. 553 πον), Ps 51°C, The Heb. word is a
rare syn. of apy (see SACRIFICE, under * burnt-
offering’); it occurs besides, in a sacrif. sense, of
the priest’s minhah, which was te be ‘wholly burnt
(lit. ‘burnt (as) something whole’), Lv 62 τ 05 1),

8. © Passover offerings’ stands for o798, only
2 Ch 35% 3-9; see PASSOVER.

9. ‘Oblation’ for axy> (not a technical word:
lit. something borne along or brought ; ef. the verb
in v.*1, and No. (11), below) in Ezk 2u#".

10. ‘ Offerings’ for the obscure and uncertain
c2720 Hos 8, generally taken to mean properly
‘gifts’ (from 2m).

“Offering (up)? stands also, in RV of NT, for—

11. προσφορά (LXX for agio Ps 40%; otherwise
very rare, except In Sir, viz. 141 31 (34)! 32
(35)! 38" 4016 504). Ae 2125 247, Ro 15", Eph
O°, He 10": δ᾽ (from Ps 40°: Heb. ainhah) 38 (in
all, except He 10°, in the sense of the Heb. 73).

12. ἀνάθημα (a votive offering set wp in a temple,
Herod. ii. 182, ete.): Lk 21°; so Jth 16” (‘gift’),
2 Mac 916 (RV).

‘Oblation’ does not occur in NT (either AV or RV). In Pr.
Bk. version of the Psalms it occurs in 277 for ΘῊΞ), and in 5119
for 92. In the Apocr. it represents προσφορά, 1 Ks 592 (51), Sir
SUIS (AV), Thr 1, δῶρον Sir 79 (AV), δόμα 1 Mac 155 (in a secular
sense), wavy (le. 73D) Bar 110 RY,

The verb ‘ to offer,’ besides the four usages noted
under 3 «4, 5 a, 6 a, stands also in RV for :

(5) 21 ‘to slaughter’ (in sacrifice): Gn 315 46),
Ex 2318, Ly 195-5, Dt 18? 33” (elsewhere in the
Pent. 42} 1s rendered by ‘to sacrifice’ *), 1S 12! 28
etc., Ps 45 27° 504 (Heb. ‘slaughter thanksgiving’ ;
so v.*), 116'7 (Heb. ‘slaughter the slaughtering
(sacrifice) of thankseiving’; so 107%, Ly 222"); and
elsewhere, esp. when the obj. is the cognate subst.
sacrifice.’

(6) πρῶτ ‘to cause to go up’ (viz. on the altar),—
very often, esp. with ‘ burnt-offering’ (the Heb.
word for which, 353, is cognate with this verb, and
means properly that which σοὺς up, viz. on the
altar): in P and Ezk, only Ex 309 4039, Lv 142° 178,
Ezk 431 "4; elsewhere, Gn 8° 2215 (here, and
sometimes besides, ‘to offer wp’), Ex 24° 32%, Nu
BSA 438-90: Dt 19 13..}6 O75 Jos ve (hres tine). ee
3+) (first time), Am δ΄", Is 57° 66°, Ps 5129) 66158,
and often besides, both in S, Kk, ete., and also
in Ch, Ezr (in the Pent. all the occurrences are
cited). So ‘the offering of’? in 1 1ζ 18285 and
‘ollering’ in 2 K 8539 are both lit. ‘the going up of.’

(7) ayy Sto do or make’ (an idiom. use—ef. ῥέξειν
and facere—prob., allied to, or developed from, that
of the same word in the sense of fo make ready,
prepare, or dress as food, Gn 1878, Ly 67104) 73, Je
6! 18 25, 2S 1264 13%7, 1K 172 (of meal)
ὅ, 36)... in RV usually ‘ offer,’ sometimes ‘ sacri-
fice,’ and (esp. in Nu 15 and Ezk) ‘prepare’: Ex
10:9 G86. 33. θυ. 39. a Ὧν δ10 422 (15) Qi. 42 16. 22 145. 30
1015. ou 16°: 24 179 998. 24 (Vm) 2915. ae. Nu Gil 10. 17. 17
giz 15°: 3 (prob. : RV ‘ make ἊΝ vv. 6. 8.. 15. 24, 24984. 4.8.8.
15, 20, 21. 23. 24. 31 20. ων ὯΣ eee Jos 2228 (second time),
Je 13” (2; notice 7355), v.1° (“make ready,’ not
‘offer’ (aSpa}), 1 K 3% (second time), 8% (2 Ch 77),
i DS δ Oe 148 Nien Soe ΠΟΥ ΤῈ
43-5. 26. 27 Gi make ay 40)11. 55. 28. 24 4002. 7 12. 12. 18, 13. 14. 1.
Ps 66%. The word is meant as a summary
description of the process of sacrifice : it is never
used where there is a detailed description of the
ritual, with reference to a particular act.

(8) ony ‘to slay,’ Ex 34°,

(9) ep ‘to make into sweet smoke,’ Am 4°, and
~opa (id.) 1 Ch 6% 4). See INCENSE, SACRIFICE.

(10) ven ‘to pour (out),’ and usually so rendered
(as Hos 9% ἢ κ᾽ Ἰρῖγν Psa162) Dn 226A rams):

(11) x¥3 ‘to bear along,’ ‘bring’ (not a special
sacrif. term): Ezk 207! (cf. 2°S 8?-°, Ps 968, Heb.].

* Or, naturally, in Dt 1215. 21 (cf, 1 S 2824) by ‘to kill.’

es
Vig
)

OFFICER

OFFICER 589

(iz) jus “to-give’: Bzk 6% (exceptional ; ef. 20°° |

Heb. [AV and RV ‘presented ]).

‘To offer for sin’ stands for one word in the Heb., &&n,
910,

‘To offer willingly’ stands for 27:n7, prop. to show oneself
literal or forward : Jg 52-9 (in battle), elsewhere only in Ch,
Ezr, Neh, in’ giving gifts, ete., to the sanctuary, 1 Ch
995. 0.9. 9.14. 17.17. 5 Ch 1716, zr 16 268 35 714. 15.16.16, Neh 115,
(in P’s 1108 RV the Heb. is ‘are willingnesses ’).

‘To offer incense’ stands for ἼΔΩ Jer 1117 3279,

In the RV of NT ‘to offer (up)? stands for—

(13) προσφέρω (in LXX usu. for 2777): Mt pe
523.24 84 (= Mk 14, Lk 54), Jn 9? (Aarpeiay), AG. 777
(from Am 5°, LXX [vha7]), 2175, He 517 8% 54
91. 9. 14. 25.28 101. 28. WIZ 114. 17. 17

Ly 626

In Mt 21) προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δῶρα would be in Heb. 19 12°7—"
ΠΤ (so Delitzsch): see Jg 317-18 Heb. and LXX. On Mt δ
84 see above, under 3 ὦ.

(14) ἀναφέρω (XX mostly for a)¥7, also for Tsp7,
once or twice for my); He 757: 27 (cf. Westcott), 13”,
AF Tas, Oo ἢ ΠῚ γον υσλα

(15) σπένδω (‘to pour out’; in LXX for 727):
Ph 2!7, 2 ΠῚ 48 (σπένδομαι, fig. of St. Paul himself).

(16) δίδωμι : Lk 27.

‘Things offered to idols’ (εἰδωλόθυταν has been in RV_ changed
uniformly to ‘things sacrificed (un)to idols’ (as in AV of Rev
214.29), Ac 1529 2125, 1 Co 81: 4.7.10 1019 ; * offered in sacrifice’ in
1 Co 1023 represents ἱερέθυτον.

From the preceding synopsis of passages, it will
be apparent what extremely different terms in the
original, esp. in OT, are represeated by each of
the three English words, ‘offer,’ ‘offering,’ and
‘oblation’; and that though the Heb. (and Greek)
terms might, in particular cases, be interchange-
able, in others they are not. In Ly 2!, for example,
‘offer’ could not be πξὶ or a7, nor ‘ oblation’
or azna: ‘offer’ in Dt 12%, though it is Avy, might
atso be πῦνπ, but hardly (the writer not being
p.iestly) 3. ρπ, and ‘oblation’ in Is 19°! could not
(for the same reason) be jap. Conversely, ‘ offer
an oblation’ in Ezk 45! represents two Heb. words
entirely different from those which it represents in
Lv 1°; and ‘ offer’ in Ly 7 is always 2777, in Nu 18
it isalwayst on, while in Nu 28 it is 429 and ap2.
The words in the original are in most cases techni-
cal ; and the distinctions between them are of im-
portance for those who would properly understand
the sacrificial system of the Hebrews. The reader
who desires to obtain a practical view of Hebrew
or Greek usage is recommended to mark on the
margin of his RV the Hebrew or Greek word
corresponding in each case to the English. Unless
any passages have been accidentally overlooked,
the preceding article should enable him to do this for
the words here concerned in all their occurrences,
except those of a9p7 in the Pent., and of m3; and
m>yn out of it. 5. R. Driver.

misyd

OFFICER.—A word used both in AV and in
RV to translate some eight Heb. words in OT
and two Gr. words in NT. The Heb. words,
according to their derivation, represent five famu-
lies —(1) nizzah, nézib, Sone set up’; the former in
1 K 47 of Solomon’s commissariat officers, the
latter in the same sense in 4!” (as to its meaning in
1S 10° see Driver, ad loc.). (9) paked, péhuddah,
pakid, ‘inspector. (8) rab, Sereat one.” (4)
shoter =(a) ‘arranger,’ (0) ‘scribe’ (see Dillmann
on Ex 58). (5) saris, ‘eunuch.’ (The ‘dsé hamimeé-
ἐπα» of Est 9%, AV, ‘officers, is in RV now
rendered ‘they that did the business’). ‘ Officer’
most frequently stands for shoter and saris (LXNX
εὐνοῦχος, EV in Est always ‘chamberlain,’ but only

*In He 928, 1 P 224 rendered ‘bear’; see in LXX Is 5311 (for
wals)) v.12 (for Nv’3).

+ Except v.15 (apa; cf. Lv 279): ὉΠ would not here be
suitable.

does not show itself in the Heb. originals.

once besides, 2 Καὶ 23"), and it seems very doubtful
whether the meaning of the latter was ever widened
into officer generally, Potiphar’s case being by most
critics regarded as no exact exception.

It is noticeable that the idea of subordination
which Hes in the NT ὑπηρέτης (the original for
‘officer’ in all NT passages except Lk 1955 πράκτωρ)
It is
noticeable also that ὑπηρέτης, the almost sole N'T
original, is never in the LAX employed to render
any of the Heb. words given above, and, though
occurring twenty times in NT, occurs but twice in
the Gr. canonical O'T (Pr 14°, Is 32°), and but twice
in the uncanonical (Wis 64, Three“). It would seem
that, apart from sd@ris and perhaps occasionally
shoter (comp. Dt 1018 with Mt 5” ‘judge

- officer’), the Heb. words rendered ‘ officer’ suggest

no distinctive function, whereas the NT ὑπηρέτης
(which has lost all reminiscence of its original
meaning of ‘under-oarsman ’—perhaps one of the
lower two out of the three assigned to an oar) in
some dozen passages out of the twenty means dis-
tinetly bailiffs or police officers of the Sanhedrin or
other court of justice, in accordance with one use
of the same word at Athens, where ὑπηρέται were
the subordinates of those important police magis-
trates called the Eleven (Plato, Phado, 116 B), and

one use by Josephus (A vf. IV. vill. 14), when, in his

account of Moses’ judicial arrangements, he gives
the same title to the two Levites who were at-
tached as clerks to each Jewish court constituted
out of the seven chief men of each city. An
apparently synonymous term for these clerks,
contined, as a translation of shotér, to Dt, is the
curious and uncertain γραμματοεισαγωγεύς, perhaps
(as Driver suggests) the title of some law officer at
Alexandria.

The duties of ‘officers’ (shotérim) as described
in OT were various: they made proclamations
(Dt 905: * 9), they conveyed orders (Jos 1° 32) to the
people in time of war; in 1 and 2 Ch we find them
as subordinate officials, sometimes in a military
(1 Ch 971), sometimes in a judicial capacity
(1 Ch 234), and on one occasion superintending the
repairs of the temple (2 Ch 34"), much as shotérim
were also Pharaohs ‘taskmasters,’ superintending
the labour of the Israelites (Ex δὴ ete.). See
Driver on Dt. 1.

In NY, ὑπηρέτης, where it does not mean a servant
generally (‘of Christ,’ 1 Co 41, Ae 2016; ‘of the
word,’ Lk 1), or an assistant for a special purpose
(Ac 13°, John Mark, possibly in the main for bap-
tizing), or an attendant (Lk 4°, the attendant at
the synagogue service; see MINISTER),* is most
naturally explained in a sense similar to that of
shoter in Dt 1018 (cf. Mt 5%), though perhaps in a
sense somewhat more confined, as a subordinate
ofticial in connexion with a court of justice, whose
duty it was, as warder or sergeant, to carry into
effect the decisions or maintain the dignity and
authority of the judges. Thus the ὑπηρέται of the
Sanhedrin were sent to arrest Jesus (Jn 7%), did
finally seize Him in Gethsemane (Jn 185), ‘received
him with blows of their hands’ (Mk 14%), one
ὑπηρέτης striking Him for His answer to the high
priest (Jn 18%); and similar ὑπηρέται under com-
mand of a captain of the temple police (στρατηγός,
cf Jos, Ant. XxX. vi. 2: Schtirer, HIP I % 258)
were commissioned to arrest Peter and John (Ac 4!
52-25), Probably, when Jesus said, ‘If my kine-
dom were of this world, my ὑπηρέται would now he
striving’ (Jn 1895), He drew His analogy from this
temple usage. Luke's πράκτωρ (1258), the avenger
of the Tragedians (Atsch. Hum. 319), the tax.
gatherer of Demosthenes (778. 18), the exactor ot

* Cf. art. Mark (JOHN), p. 245>, where it is suggested that
even the ὑπηρέτης of Ac 13° is used in this sense—that is to say,
John Mark may have beena hazzan, vr ‘synagogue minister.’

590 OG

OIL

Isaiah (8% LXX), the public accountant of the
papyri (8 cent. B.c., see Deissmann, οί ἐγ σε, Ὁ.
1522), has now become with him a synonym for the
ὑπηρέτης Of a court of justice. (See MINISTER, ad
fin.). J. MAssin.

OG (33, “Oy).—The king of Bashan at the time of
the end of the wanderings of the Israelites in the
wilderness. He and his people were conquered at
Edrei. That city and Ashtaroth were his capitals
{Jos 131). He was ‘of the remnant of the Rephaim’
(/oc, cit.) or giants, and had in all ‘threescore cities,
all the region of Argob’* (Dt 3). These were
‘cities fenced with high walls, gates, and bars’
(Dt 8°), so that his kingdom wasapowerfulone. His
territory became the possession of the half-tribe
of Manasseh (under Jair the son (7.e. descendant)
of Manasseh), which remained in the trans-Jordanie
territory. The bedstead (Ὁ sarcophagus) of the
king was a famous one; it seems to have been
made of black basalt ; and it had found its way,
when the Book of Deuteronomy was written, to
Rabbah of the children of Ammon (Dt 3").+ Many
ancient sarcophagi of black basalt have been found
in the districts east of the Jordan. The conquest
of Og by Moses was looked upon as one of the
great events of Jewish history; we find it referred
to by the Gibeonite ambassadors to Joshua (Jos 910),
as also in the making of the covenant in Neh 9%
and in Ps 135" 13628. Many leeends have gathered
about his name. Pope Gelasius, in the 5th cent.,
issued a decree condemning a book which at that
time was current under the name of Og.

Liver ATURE. — The latest authority on Og is Driver's Deutero-
nomy, see esp. pp. 7f., 53f.3 ef. also Porter, Giant Cities of
Bashan, 12 ἔν, 94; Conder, Heth and Moab, 160 f.; G. A. Smith,
Hist. Geog. 575f.; Wright, Palmyra and Zenobia, 284 ff.

H. A. REDPATH.

OHAD (778).—A son of Simeon, Gn 46% (Αωδ),
Ex 6% (8 ‘Iwad, A ‘Tawadi, ἘΠ Αωδ): The name is
wanting in the parallel passage 1 Ch 424, as well as
in Nu 2644,

OHEL (57% ‘tent’; B’Ocd, A ’Ood: Luc. ᾽Αθά).---
One of Zerubbabel’s sons, 1 Ch 32°.) The correctness
of the MT is open to suspicion.

OHOLAH (75nx, B "Oo(\)\a, A “OXa) and
OHOLIBAH (73:57x, B'Oddu3a, A and once [ Ezk 2335}
B"ONB8a) are symbolical names given in Ezk 234:
e234 to Samaria and Jerusalem respectively.
In this passage the latter are represented as two
sisters, both wives of Jahhweh (ef. the marriage of
Jacob to the sisters Leah and Rachel, a practice
afterwards forbidden, Ly 1818 [H]), and as having
been guilty of adultery, Samaria with Eeypt and
Assyria, Jerusalem with Egypt, Assyria, and
Babylonia (cf. ch. 16). The reference is to those
intrigues and alliances with foreien peoples (Hos
71, 2 Καὶ 167, Is 77%), which had the natural etfect
of introducing foreign manners and worship (ef.
2K 230%, Am 5%, Is 24, Jer 1913), and which,
since the days of Hosea, had been represented
and censured by the prophets as infidelity to
Jahweh.+

The name xdnx may be=abay ‘she who has a
tent,’ ‘tent-woman,’ and ΠΡῚΝ τε ADA (cf. AQ-¥eN,
2K 211, Is 62+) ‘tent in her’ (so Smend [whose words
‘soll heissen’ show, however, that the sense put
upon A?qy is unusual, not to say forced], followed

* This district was afterwards known as Trachonitis (Lk 31),
and is now called el-Leja (but see art. -ARGOB); though this
would not include all that is meant by Argob. There isa curious
notice of this district in 1K 418. 19,

t It is quite possible, however, that Dt 3 is a later insertion.

{ Similarly, the alliances of the Hasmonwan princes with
Rome were condemned from the Pharisaic standpoint as ‘a
going a whoring after strange gods’ (Assump. Mos. v. 3, ed.
Fritzsche, otherwise Charles, ad loc.).

by Oxf. Heb. Lex., Bertholet, etc.), th: referenec
being to the tent-shrines which were found at the
banoth (Ezk 16, Hos 96, 2 Καὶ 237 (2) sats the Mame
Vholibamah ‘tent [Ὁ οὗ the] high place,’ Gn 363),
just as the ark of Jahweh had from the first its
tent (287°), and as David pitched for it a tent
(28 6") at Jerusalem (ef. Smend, Altfesé. Religions-
qesch.*, 187). The two names have sometimes been
taken as=‘her tent,’ and ‘My (sc. Jahweh’s) tent
in her,’ and it has been supposed that in the first
name there is a covert reproach of Samaria’s illicit
worship at shrines of her own selection, and in the
other an implication that Jerusalem is Jahweh’s
own sanctuary. But, apart from the improbability
of Ezekiel’s paying what might be taken as a
compliment to Jerusalem, the probability is that
the "πο in 9259x is simply a ‘binding vowel? with-
out either suftixal or construct force (ef, Gray’s
contention to the same effect in a numerous class
of compound personal names—Heb, Proper Names,
pp. 75h). In this way the first part of the name
ineans simply ‘tent,’ not ‘my tent, and Oholah
and Oholibah are practically identical in’ sense.
The most suitable explanation of this similarity of
name and meaning appears to be that it was in-
tended to imply that Samaria and Jerusalem had
sinned in the same way and ineurred the same
condemnation. The prophet’s purpose was facili-
tated by the circumstance that it was common in
the East to give almost identical names to brothers
or sisters (Ewald compares Hasan and Husein, the
names of the two sons of Ali the son-in-law of
Mohammed). There may be something, too, in
the fact noted by Skinner (Hzekiel, p. 191n.) that
708 contains the same number of consonants as
pee (which, however, as Bertholet points out, is
always written in OT je), and nzday the same
number as aby, Thoueh the names in Ezk are
purely figurative, they have a resemblance to a
formation found in) Phoonician (Sy25ax, ποϑῦπν),
Himyaritie (annydax, SxSax), the above Edomite (2)
mame T2295N, and the Hebrew (7) name 2x"5ax (cf,
Gray, op. cit., p. 246n.). J. A. SELBIE.
OHOLIAB (yon ‘father’s tent’; Eds; AV
Aholiab).—The chief assistant of Bezalel in the
construction of the tabernacle, Ex 310 3534 3612
88 (all Ῥ) It is possible (οἷς, for the name,
Pheen, yaoax, abe$ax, Himyaritie sanySns, :,
Edomite (2) s925ax Gn 36241) that he was of non.
Israelitish origin (see Gray, //PN 246 n.).

J. A. SELBIRE.
OHOLIBAH.—See OnOLAn.
OHOLIBAMAH (22 "5nx ‘tent of the hich place’),

—1. One of Esau’s wives, Gn 36% 418: (ON Beud,
᾿ΒΕλιβέμα, ᾿Ολιβέμα). All the passages where she
bears this name belong to R or toa late stratum
of P. Elsewhere (Gn 26% P) Esau’s wives have
quite different names, and the whole subject. of
his marriages is wrapped in obscurity (see the
Comm. of Dillm. and Holzinger, di.cité.). 2. An
Edomite ‘ duke,’ Gn 36# (EX 3euds).
J. A. SELBIE.

OIL (usually pow shemen ; 23 t., when coupled with
other products of the field in their unmanufaetured
state [see Driver on Dt 713], x73:; in the Aramaic
part of Ezr πῦρ; LXX and NT é\acov).—One of the
most important products of Palestine, mentioned
more than 200 times in the Bible. Sometimes it
is specifically called ‘olive oil,’ lit. ‘oil of olive,’
shemen zayith, to indicate its source, as Ex 272°
30"), Ly 24%, or ‘oil olive,’ lit. ‘olive of oil,’ Dt 88
(zéth shemen), 2K 18" (2¢th yizhar); Wut, even
when not so expressed, the material referred to
is the product of the olive in all cases but one,
viz. Est 2", where oil of myrrh is specially men-
tioned. he olive tree and its fruit are elsewhere

Sybay

I Ὡς -

OIL

JIL 591

described (see art. OLIVE, and ef. ii. p.
the methods employed in extracting the oil from
its fleshy drupes are there given.

31), and |

the gingili oil of commerce, extracted from Sesa
man orientale, ἃ Bignoniaceous plant. [πὸ flour,

oil, and honey were the gifts wherewith God fed

Several kinds of olives were cultivated in Pales- |

tine. According to Menahcth, viii. 8, those of
Tekoa were the best, those of Ragab the second
best. Three other varieties—that of Netophath,
that called Sapheoni, and that named Bisani— are
mentioned in Pech, vit. 1. The last is said to be so
‘alled because it is so prolific that it makes all others
to be ashamed. Columella, who calls the olive the
first of all trees, mentions 10 varieties whose culture
he describes at length (de Re Rustica, v. 8, xi.
49-54, and de Arboribus, xvii.) ; and Pliny names
15 kinds, of which the Licinian was the best (xv. 4).
Cato (de Re Rustica, 64-69) gives the modes in use
for purifying the oil, and Palladius (de Re Rustica,
i. 20: Mar. viii, Oct. viii, Nov. v) describes the
oil cellars and many particulars in olive culture.
For descriptions of the olive varieties now in culti-
ration see Barbe, Etudes sur les oliviers; and
details of ancient methods of expressing the oil are
given in Blumner’s Vechnologiec, i, 318. St. Paul
uses the figure of olive-grafting in Ro 11" in the
opposite sense to that referred to by Palladius (de
Insitione, xiv., ‘fecundat sterilis pingues, oleaster
Olivas’). In Geopounica, ix., there is also an account
of the culture of the olive, and of the experiments
made of grafting olives on vines ; this ἐλαιοστάφυλος
and the effect produced on the fruit of the graft is
mentioned in an epigram (Brunck, ili, 231).

Different kinds of oil were known in Palestine.
Pure (RV) or beaten (AV) oil is specified in Ex
2729 29% Ly 24°, Nu 985 (LXX ἔλαιον ἐξ ἐλαίων
ἄτρυγον καθαρόν ; Vulg. oleum purissimum piloque
contusum). This is the oil now known in com-
merece as virgin oil, extracted by simple pressure
without heat. In Zee 4 it is called z@hab or
golden. The inferior kinds are extracted by more
powerful pressure, and the coarse or gorgon oils by
the aid of boiling water. These contain fermentible
materials, the lees or Amurca, a watery bitter
liquid, whose use, when separated from the oil, as
a sheep-dip is mentioned by Virgil (Georg. 111. 448) ;
said by Varro to be valuable for killing weeds, and
by Cato to be destructive to ants. The coarsest
oil is known now in the market as Aiwile Menfer ;
it is bitter, and soon becomes rancid. In the
present day the cheaper oils are largely adulterated
with or replaced by cotton-seed oil, which is, for
most purposes, illuminant or dietetic, inferior to
pure olive oil ; for the latter surpasses all others in
consisting, toa much larger extent, of the glycerides
of unsaturated acids, and it can be recognized and
distinguished from its adulterations by the rapidity
with which it consolidates in the presence of
nitrous acid (Brannt, On O7/s, i. 318). For the
different kinds of oils in Talmudic times 568
Menahéth, viii. 4, 5.

Oil is coupled with corn and must as an element
of national wealth in Dt. 7% 1134 12% 147% 184 28°,
2 Ch 32%. Neh 5", Hos. 2”, 1 2 With corn,
must, and honey in 2 Ch 815 it formed part of the
tribute brought to Hezekiah on the restoration of
the priesthood. Raisins, figs, wine, and oil were
brought by the northern tribes for the feast of
rejoicing when David was made king (1 Ch 12%).
Must and oil as the typical produce of the land
are mentioned in Neh 10% 13°, Jer 31°, J] 27;
must and oil in Neh 1099. Hag 1"; wine, summer
fruits, and oil were gathered by the remnant
left in the land after the Captivity (Jer 401).
Sennacherib promised Israel that, if they would
submit, he would bring them to a land of oil-olive
and honey (2 Καὶ 18), meaning probably some
region about Gordyiea or S. Kurdistan ; it can-
not have been Babylonia, as the oil used there, ac-
cording to Strabo (xvi. 1. 14), is that of sesamum,

His unfaithful people (Ezk 16!) ; and wine, oil, and
fine flour were the types of the luxuries imported
by the mystic Babylon (Rey 1815). The priestly

| stores of these commodities are mentioned in 1 Ch

9") and Ezr 6°; and a similar phrase, victuals, oil,
and wine, is used in 2 Ch 11!! for the stores accumu.
lated by Rehoboam in his fortified cities. Prob-
ably the great system of underground storehouses,
such as those found at Tell Zakariyeh and else-
where (PE δὲ, 1899), were for this purpose. The
royal cellars of oil in David’s day were in charge
of Joash (1 Ch 9738), There is a reference to these
secret stores of agricultural produce in the petition
of the suppliants to Ishmael (Jer 41°).

_ Oil, wine, and barley were supplied as food by
Solomon to Hiram’s workpeople (2 Ch 915. The
quantity allowed is given in y.!? as 20,000 baths =
about 165,000 gallons (see also Jos. Ant. VUE. il. 9) ;
but accordine to 1 Κα 5" the annual gift was 20
cors =about 1640 gallons.

Oil was an important Palestinian export. It
was sent to Tyre, as stated not only in the passages
cited above, but in Ezk 27! In Ezr 37, meat,
drink, and oil are said to have been given to the
Tyrian workers eccupied in building the second
temple. There are allusions to this commerce in
Shebiith, vi. 5. The trickery of John of Gischala
in manipulating this trade 1s recited by Josephus
(BJ IL xxi. 2). Much of this oil sent to Tyre was
for the Egyptian market, but Israel sometimes
sent the oil directly to Egypt (Hos 13. Though
oil was much used in Egypt, very little was pro-
duced there. In Strabo’s time the olive tree was
grown only in the Heracleote nome, but even there
the oil produced had a disagreeable smell. Else-
where in Egypt, he says, there are no olive trees
except near Alexandria, but these furnished no oil
(Xv. i. 35). In the Anastasi Papyrus (4. xv. 4)
‘oil from the harbour’ is mentioned. The Egyp-
tians called the olive trees σαν (Copt. BOENT )
and olive oil b/ or def, different varieties of which,
called pure oil, white, dry, and red, are mentioned
in Papyrus Ebers and the Medical Papyrus of
Berlin. In the earlier days of Ramses II. there
Was a vigorous attempt to introduce olive culture
into Egypt. In the great Harris Papyrus (pl.
xxvii.) he says, “1 made to thee (Tmu) fields of
olives in thy town An; 1 provided many culti-
vators to make pure, excellent oil of Egypt to
illuminate thy great house’; and in his inventory
(pl. xvii.) there are enumerated 2743 jars of Egyp-
tian oil and 1810 of Syrian oil.

The wses of oil were nwnerous. The most ancient
and widespread was that of external application
(see ANOINTING, in vol. i. p. 101). All the Homeric
references to oil are of this nature, and there are
none to the use of oil as food. The same is notice-
able in the earlier Egyptian literature, from which
we learn that the ‘oiling of the limbs and hair was
as important to them as their clothes’ (Erman,
Life in Ane. Eqypt, 229). Most of the references
to the secular use of oil in the Bible are also in the
same sense of anexternal application. Such appli-
cations were of two kinds: (@) as a cosmetic or
part of the toilet, it imparts warmth to the body
and protects it against the action of cold (Pliny,
xv. 4). And, as the inferior oils used for this
purpose are apt to become rancid, there was a
special advantage in fresh oil (Ps 92"). (ὁ) As a
medicinal agent. Oil is an ingredient in a very
large number of the remedies prescribed in the
Papyrus Ehers for the most diverse diseases,
Pliny also speaks of its medicinal use (xv. 4. 7,
xxiil. 8. 4. Dion Cassius relates that oil and wine
were employed both externally and internally

592 OIL

OIL TREE

for the unknown disease which attacked the army
ot Aclius Gallus in Arabia (lili. 29), as we read
of their being used in the parable of the Good
Samaritan (Lk 1084) ; see also Vevetius, Ars Veter-
mari, Vv. 14, 23, and Columella, de Re Rustica,
vi. 30, 4. Herod the Great was bathed in oil when
suffering from the violent abdominal dropsical
disease in which he was eaten of worms (Jos. Ant.
XVIL vi. 5, and BJ 1. xxxilii. 9). Cf. Ja 54, and
art. ANOINTING, 4.

2. As part of a ceremony of consecration of
kings, high priests (Ex 2971, Ly 21’) Nu 355), or
sacred things (see vol. i. p. 101). The effect of this
anointing was the complete setting apart for the
Divine service Ly 107, called in Ly 212 the ‘crown
of the anointing oil. Talmudic writers say that
Saul, Jehu, and Joash were anointed with common
oil; but for this there is no authority. For the
sacred oil see OINTMENT,

3. As part of the ritual of the burial of the dead
vil was used. This is referred to by our Lord (Mt
26, Mk 1458, Lk 23, Jn 19). “In the Rhind
Papyrus the use of 205 An of oil is prescribed for
this purpose, and in the funeral Papyrus of H'tr
the anointing is said to renew the members and to
enlarge the heart. The olive tree is described as
springing from the eye of Horus, and the oil is said
to be ‘holy and separated for divine things.’

4. Oil was also used as an illuminating agent in
lamps. Pure olive oil burns without soot, but has
the disadvantage ofbeing rapidly consumed. In
the usual Jewish lamps half a Toe=a little less
than half a pint, was used ina night (Menahoth,
ix. 8). For tabernacle and temple lamps pure oil
was used (Ex 27°", Ly 24°), and the charge of the oil
in the tabernacle was given to Eleazar (Nu 410,
This lamp oil is also mentioned in Ex 956 35% 14-28
3977, ‘The wicks were of flax, as alluded to in
Is 42°. Flaxen wicks were also used in Keypt, but
in recent times cotton twisted round straws is
often employed (Lane, Mod. χη. i. 201). Kor
the use of oil in N'T for this purpose see Mt 25% 45,
For the Sabbath lamps, R. Zarphon says that none
but olive oil should be used: but others allow oil
of sesame, of “nuzim (muts), of radishes, fish oil,
ete. (Sabbath, ii. 2).

5. As food, the use of oil is common in the East,
and is referred to by almost all travellers from [bn
Batuta to Robinson and Burckhardt ; but references
to its dietetic employment are not numerous in the
Bible, Cakes made with oil supported the widow
of Zarephath’s household during the famine (1 K
1115). Oil formed part of the food of the unfaith-
ful wife typical of Israel (Ezk 1015), The tithe
of oil was to be eaten before the Lord (Dt 12"),
The taste of manna is compared to that of oil
(Nu 113),

6. The employment of oil in the meal-offerine
was a derivative of its use as food. It formed part
of the offering—(1) in the daily sacrifice, Ex 29;
(2) the meal-offering, Lv 7!’ ; (3) the consecration-
offering for the priests, Ex 297-23, Ly 61.21 ; (4) the
consecration-oflering of the Levites, Nu 88; (5) the
offering at the expiry of the vow of the Nazirite,
Nu 6”; (6) the offering for the purification of the
leper, Lv 14; and (7) the special offering at the
erection of the tabernacle, Nu 7. No oil was to
be used in the sin-offering (Ly 5¥), or the jealousy-
offering (Nu 5%),

For these ceremonial purposes large quantities
of oil were required. The allowance given to Ezra
was 100 baths of oil (about 820 eallons), Ezr ios
the best of the oil was to be given to the priests,
Nu 1813, The amount thus offered is called [282 pa,
the ordinance (AV) or set portion (RV) of oil,
Ezk 45",

The vessels used for oil in Bible times were
various, Samuel and Zadok used ἃ horn (7?

|The widow’s oil was in a cruse

keren), 18 161-10. 1 K 1°; Samuel also used a vial
(15. pak) of oil for anointing Saul, 1S 10], as did
the prophet who anointed Jehu, Ὁ Καὶ 9! (AV box).
(nnes zappahath),
IW 17%. The widow of the prophet, whose. oil
Elisha multiplied, held it in a pot (FOX Vasvh),
2K 4. The virgins in the parable carrisd their
oil in ἃ ἀγγεῖον or vessel.

The word “ oil’ is used metaphorically in many
passages. The pouring of oil out of the rock of
flint in Dt 32" and Job 29% is a figure of abund-
ance, the rock being either the stone press by
which the olives are squeezed, or more probably
the rocky slopes upon which the olives were culti-
vated. Part of the blessing of Asher (Dt 334) was
that he should dip his foot in oil—a sien of favour
and prosperity, a token that oil should be abundant
in his territory. Josephus says of Galilee, in which
was the lot of Asher, οὔσης ἐλαιοφύρου μάλιστα (2S
II. xxi. 2). The foolish use of oil is a token of
extravagance and cause of poverty (Pr 217), while
the husbanding of it is a proof of Wisdom (Pr 212°),
In Job 24", where the distresstul case of the slaves
of the oppressor is depicted, one of the labours
to which they are condemned is the making of oil
within the walls of the enclosed garden of their
masters. The word used here (773°, Hiph. of a
denominative verb from 7737 ‘ oil’) does not occur
elsewhere, and was understood by LXX in a
different sense, ἐν στενοῖς ἀδίκως ἐνήδρευσαν ὁδὸν δὲ
δικαίων οὐκ ἤδεισαν. and the Vule. renders it 170»
“eorvos corum meridiati sunt que caleatis torculari-
bus sitiunt,

The ‘oil of gladness’ of Ps 457 = He 19, and
the oil of joy of Is 61", are marks of joy and
festivity. The reproof of the righteous is com-
pared to oil on the head (Ps 141°). AV ealls it
‘an excellent oil which shall not break my head,’
but it is better given in RV, ‘oil upon the head,
let not my head refuse it.? Words of deceit are
said to be softer than oil (Ps ὅσ᾽, Pr δ). Cursing
permeates the life of the wicked even as oil soaks
into bone (Ps 109'%), The destruction of the olive-
yards in drought is called a laneuishing of the oil
(11:0), A. MACALISTER.

OIL TREE (je py ‘Fz-shemen, κυπάρισσος, lignan
olive or olirariin, lignum pulcherrimum), —This
Heb, expression is {0 (Is 4119) AV, RV text ‘oil tree,’
RVin ‘oleaster’ ; (1 Κα 62-31-) AV ‘olive trees,’ im.
‘trees of oil” or ‘oily trees” RV ‘olive wood’; (Neh
8) AV ‘pine branches,’ RV ‘branches of wild olive.’
It is clear from Neh that the plant in question is
not the olive, as that is mentioned in the same
sentence by its own name. The difference between
the latter and the wild olive is so small that it is
quite unlikely that it would have been mentioned
by a separate name in so brief a list of trees
used for the same purpose. A candidate for ‘¢z-
shemen must tullil the following conditions, sue-
gested by the passages cited above. (1) It must
be an oily or fat tree (shemen signifies ‘fat’ as
well as ‘oil’; its Arab. ecuivalent semen is the
word for ‘clarified butter’). This would apply to
a tree producing a terebinthine oil or resin, such
as constitutes what is known in Eng. as fat aoord,
found in pitch pine and other similar trees. The
Arab. has the expression diksh for such fat wood.
Fageots of it are sold in the market for torches,
and much used at weddings and other festivities,
(2) It must be an emblem of fertility and pro.
sperity, fitted to be associated with the myrtle,
the acacia, the fir (e432, see Fir), the pine (3777,
see PINE', and the box (xa, see Box). (3) It
must be a tree capable of furnishing a block of
wood of the size, beauty, and hardness required
for carving an image 10 eubits high, to be placed
in the Holy of Holies, and for making doors and

OINTMENT

OINTMENT 593

doorposts. (4) Its foliage must be suffciently
dense to be suitable for booths. (5) Τῦ must grow
in the mountains, and be easily accessible from
Jerusalem and the other cities of Palestine. The
wild olive has already been excluded. ‘The oleaster,
Eleagnus hortensis, M.B., never grows large
enough to furnish such a block of wood as was
required for the image. It is also never used for
house carpentry. Its foliage is not dense, and its
branches are usually thorny, and would be unlikely
to be selected for a covering for booths. The
cakhkim, Balanites Alegyptiaca, Del., grows only in
the torrid valley of the Lower Jordan, has a small
trunk, and very thorny branches, and a sparse
foliage. Its fruit yields a sort of balsam, which is
its only claim to be called a tree of oil or fatness.
The only trees which fulfil all these conditions are
the fatwood trees. The genus Pinus furnishes
three species, P. Pinea, L., the stone or maritine
vine, P. Halepensis, Mill., the Aleppo pine, and
3 Bruttia, Ten., which is perhaps only a variety
of the last. Any of these would furnish foliage
suitable for booths, and all are constantly used for
this purpose in the East. Their massive trunks

could easily furnish the log required for the
varved image, and the doors and doorposts. They
are constantly used in house carpentry. Their

heartwood is fat enough to entitle them to be
called ‘trees of fatness.’ They are spontaneous,
growing in the wilderness (ὅν ον uncultivated places,
and so fit to be associated with the other trees
mentioned with them, Is Z.c.). We are inclined
with Celsius (/fierob. 1. 309) to tr. ‘ez-shemen, ‘tat-
wood trees,’ and to suppose that the reference is to
the pines.

In the article ASH we have argued that “ore” prob-
ably stands for Pinus Pinea, L. This in no way
invalidates the inclusion of the same tree under
the veneral head of fatwood or resinous trees.

In one of the passages ([s 411%) AV and RV tr.
saca tidhar, ‘pine,’ RVm ‘plane.’ ‘The same word
(Is 60!) is tr? AV and RV ‘pine,’ RVim referring to
former passage. Itis very doubtful whether tidhar
refers to the pine (see PINE). G. E. Post.

OINTMENT (nam mirhahath, 1 Ch 9" ; in general
Pe shenen, sometimes coupled With παρα mishhah,
as in Ex 302; LXX μὐθον Ως 30-8 185. Carl” 5 ῬῪ
Se ti ὍΣ elsew here €\acov ; V ule, unguentum).—
Qily, fragrant materials smeared on the surface of
the body to allay the irritation caused by the heat
in Eastern lands, and to conceal the odour of per-
spiration. The use of materials of this kind is
common in almost every country, and is of ancient
date. In Egypt unguents are mentioned even in
texts of the Ancient Empire, and in those of the
Middle and New Empire they are frequently re-
ferred to. There were nine sacred Οὐαὶ used for
the purposes of ceremonial anointing : até (prob-
ably cedar oil), Att or Ati (a Libyan produe t), Ahn
(an oil containing ‘many spices from Arabia’),
nesnem, sfti, sgun (rose oil), mrh (oil of myrrh),
s-ti hb, and τς. Besides these there were other
sweet-scented salves and ointments in’ ordinary
use. aber, tyt, th-henniu, ete,

The holy anointing oil made by Bezalel for
Moses (Ex 30°") consisted of 1 hin of olive oil
(about 10 Th.), 500 shekels of flowing myrrh (about
15 Ib.), 250 shekels of sweet cinnamon (about 74
Ib.), 250 shekels of sweet calamus, and 500 shekels
of cassia (or costus). The Jewish authors who re-
gard the ‘shekel of the sanctuary’ as twice the
ordinary shekel, double these weights. This was
to be compounded after the art of the perfumer
(see art. CONFECTION). Probably these scented
substances, or some of them, were brought into the
market in powder, as in Ca 3° these spices are
called ‘the powders of the merchant.’ ‘There are

VOL. 111.—38

different descriptions given by Rabbinical writers
of the process whereby the anointing oil was com-
pounded, but most probably it was simple pulveriza-
tion of the ingredients, and boiling them in the oil ;
for, as Pliny has remarked, the streneth of the oint-
ment is greater when the ingredients are boiled
together (xill. 2); but see Otho’s Lewicon, s.v.
‘Qleum.’ The making of ointment in this wav
was recognized by Hebrew writers (see Job 4151),

As the passage in Ex 30 is assigned to P, the
date of the prescription cannot be determined, but
it may be late. Pliny says that unguents were
not known among the Greeks at the time of the
Trojan war; but he has overlooked the ῥοδόεντι
δὲ χρῖεν ἐλαίῳ ἀμβροσίῳ of Ll. xxili. 186 and the
Aurapol κεφαλὰς καὶ καλὰ πρόσωπα of Od. xv. 382,
and the several references to λίπ᾽ ἔλαιον, 71. x. 577,
xiv. 171; Od. iti. 966, vi. 96, ete. He assigns the
invention to the Persians, because a chest of per-
fumes was among the spoils taken by Alexander ;
but the Eey ptians had unguents much earlier, and
probably also the Indians ‘preceded the Persians in
this respect. There are references to anointings in
the ancient Indian poetry (see, for example, Hito-
padesa, 1. 986. For Egyp. origin see P. Aegineta,
vii. 18).

Pliny gives a large number of formule for sweet-
smelling unguents, including one which resembles
the holy anointing oil, containing myrrh, cinnamon,
‘assin, nard, costus, laurel, lily, and fenugreek.
The myrrh, he says, gives consistency and sweet-

ness, the cinnamon strenethens the odour, and
the costs (or cassia) makes it more pungent. See
CASSIA, CINNAMON, Myrru. RVm substitutes

‘costus’ for ‘ cassia’ in Ex 304, and it is probable
that this is the material indicated by the word
hiddah, Costus is the dried root of a composite
plant Aplotaxis auriculata, imported like frank-
incense through Arabia from India, and is a much
esteemed ingredient in hair-unguents. It was
formerly supposed to be the root of Costus Arab-
icus, but this is erroneous.

For the uses of these ointments see ANOINTING
in vol. i. p. 100, and OIL, above, p. 591 f. For
further references to the classical use of toilet oils,
see Atheneus, xi. 78. Unguents are said by Pliny
to keep best in boxes of alabaster (xiii. 3), and to
improve with age, becoming very precious when
old; hence Patroclus’s body was anointed with
ointment nine years old (/Z. xvill. 350). The very
precious alabaster box of ointment mentioned in
Mt 267, Mk 14°, Lk 7°’ was thus the best of its kind;
and the odorous ingredient in this unguent, spike-
nard, the root of Nardostachys Jatamansi, imported
from India, was one of the costliest of perfumes.
This perfume is called in Mk 14° and Jn 12° νάρδος
πιστική, the latter word meaning either ‘genuine ’
or ‘ liquid,’ or else it may be from an Indian name
of the plant pisifa (Houghton in PSBA x. 144).

The making of the holy oil by unauthorized
persons was forbidden, and it has been supposed
that it was compounded once for all, on account
of the large quantity of ingredients specified, whose
weight amounted to about half ἃ hundredweight
(see More Nebhochim, i. 45). It was used to anoint
the tabernacle, the table, the vessels, the candle-
stick, the altars, the laver and its base, and Aaron
and his sons (but the anointing of the priests was
not observed in the second temple; Saubert, de
Sacerd. Ebr. v.), also David and Solomon, possibly
Joash; but the Talmudists say that he, Saul, and
Jehu were anointed with common oil.

The consistence of the oil may be inferred from
Ps 183°, which says that it trickled down = on
Aaron’s beard, where it lay on the collar (not
skirt) of his outer garment. It was therefore of
a very thick treacly consistence, becoming prob-
ably more fluid when warmed. The act of anointing

{a ee ar

594 OLAMUS

OLD PROPHET, THE

is figured in Lepsius, Denkmaler, iii. 766, 230, and
is described in Wilkinson, i. 426. In the Gizeh
Museum is the stele of a ‘ keeper of the ointments
of the king,’ cf. the royal store of Hezekiah, Is 39°.

The passage in Pr 9710 where of the person who
tries to hide the contentious woman it is. said,
‘Whoso hideth her hideth the wind, and the ointment
of his right hand, which bewrayeth itself,’ is very
obscure. LXX, regarding it as connected rather
with the succeeding than with the preceding verse,
renders it, ‘The north wind is a harsh wind, but in
name it is called “auspicious.” ’ In the RV it is
translated, ‘his right hand encountereth oil,’ which
seems to be the literal rendering ; but it is not much
more intelligible. The Vulgate gives olewim dexter
sue vocabit. It seems to refer to the difficulty of
retaining a slippery, oily material in one’s hand.
For more fancitul interpretations see Rosenmiiller’s
Scholia, ix.653; Maurer’s Comment. 111. 505, and esp.
Toy, Proverbs, p. 488 f.

Vor older literature see, on the whole subject,
Scheidius and Weymar in vol. xii. of Ugolini.

A. MACALISTER.

OLAMUS (Ὡλαμος), 1 Es 9°°=Meshultam of the
sons Οἱ Bani, Ezr 10*.—The name appears else-
where as Mosollamus (1 Es 8# 94),

OLD GATE.—Sce JERUSALEM in vol. i. p. 593".

OLD LATIN YVERSIONS.—See LATIN VeERSIONS
(THE QLD),

OLD MAN.—See REGENERATION.
OLD PROPHET, THE (j?: 358 ΝΞ; B πρεσβύτης

εἷς προφήτης, A προφ. eis πρεσβ., Luc. mpod. ἄλλος
mpeo3.). —This prophet lived in Bethel at the com-
mencement of the reign of Jeroboam 1. A single
incident in his life is narrated (1 Ια 13"; ef. 13h)
and 2 Καὶ 23!-!8)) Ηδ desired to entertain as his
enuest a certain *man of God’ from Judah, who had
appeared in Bethel to denounce the royal sanctuary
(fon the day of its inauguration). The stranger was
already departing when the prophet overtook him
and offered his hospitality. [Ὁ was refused on the
vround that J’ had forbidden him to take food in
the city. The prophet then falsely declared that he
gave his invitation in accordance with a message
from J”, and the stranger returned and partook of
aaeal. He never reached his home again. News
came to Bethel that a lion had slain him a short
distance from the city. The old prophet recog-
nized this as J’’s punishment, saddled his ass,
brought in the body, held lamentation over it, and
Iuried it in his own grave. By this he showed his
sympathy and respect.

The old prophet is really a secondary figure in
this narrative, a factor in the fate of the man of
God. His character and motives are not the centre
of interest and lack clearness. They appear more
vividly after the death of the man of God. What
is then prominent is the prophet’s sympathy for
the stranger, not a sense of guilt or of responsi-
bility for his death (wv.7%**; the LXX addition to
yas taken from 2 Καὶ 9318), This is consistent with
what seems to be the writer’s view, that the man
of God was himself to blame for his death (see
below). It might be accounted for by a lack of
interest in the situation of the prophet as compared
with the sad end of the stranger.

The old prophet of Bethel in this narrative is no
doubt represented as one of the true prophets of
J’. Without taking account of vv.?**, we may
infer this from the use of the name ‘prophet,’
which is applied to him without qualification.
What then does the narrative contribute to a

conception of the prophetical character’ We may
infer from v.45 that it was not felt to be impossible |

that one who had received the Divine call to be a
prophet should utter a pretended revelation. It is
not supposed that a man once a prophet is al ways
a prophet. Vv.*? go further. The prophet’s mis-
use of his position does not prevent his receivir g an
actual revelation immediately after. Disobedience
is to be rebuked. The prophet had shared in it.
He had even prostituted his oflice to bring it
about. He had uttered a lie in the name of J”,*
and now without rebuke for himself he is divinely
commissioned to rebuke the man he deceived.
The absence of rebuke for himself does not indeed
imply that he is considered blameless. It may be
accounted for by the lack of interest in the prophet
displayed by the narrator. It is only what con-
cerns the man of God that is related. Still the
prophet is not for a moment disqualified for his
oftice by his pretended revelation. Or, more accur-
ately, J” uses him again as the medium for con-
veying His message. The inference from νν. "9.3
seems then to be that prophets, truly inspired, may
sometimes be guilty of fabricating Divine messages.
δῦ the verses contain elements of suspicion. Why
should J” not have spoken to the heart of the
stranger himself? An utterance in the mouth of
the old prophet loses strength, for his own previous
statement contradicts it. The last words of v.°5
almost imply a direct utterance to the stranger.
This may, originally, have been the purport of
vv.) Phe pronoun of the 8rd person inv.”
certainly refers to the man of God (sce below),
whereas in the present text of the preceding verses
it does not. The verses as they stand are very
abrupt. Some further explanation from the prophet
to the man of God is required. It may be noted,
also, that the words ‘who came from Judah’ (v.“4)
are superfluous, and that after the first clause ef
v.? MP has an unusual blank.

The conception of Divine retribution in the
narrative offers nothing that is really peculiar to
it. The man of God is punished because of his
failure to pay strict obedience to J’s command.
It was the same with Lot's wife. The actual
significance of the command has no importance
attached to it. We are not justified in sup-
posing that he was unavoidably deceived, and
sinned in ignorance. The false statement of
the old prophet is probably regarded as a temp-
tation which he ought to have cast aside (comp.
above). He had been a direct recipient of revela-
tion, and the assertions of another were not on
the same plane of certainty. Presumably, also,
he is regarded as one who might, if he pleased,
have ascertained for himself the Divine will, and
so was responsible for his ignorance. Jerenuah in
similar circumstances (Jer 28) recognized, indeed,
the possibility that another prophet had receis ed a
message reversing his own (v.°), but reserved lis
judgement (y.*) until the word of J” came to him
(ν.19. Retribution, therefore, in his case is not in-
operative (against Benzinger on 1 Καὶ 13); there was
no disobedience, and consequently no ground for
retribution. The treatment of the false prophet in
Jer 28 is more properly a contrast to the treatment
of the prophet of Bethel in 1 Κα. Hananiah dies
within a year because of his false prophecy in the
name of J”; the prophet of Bethe) continues to he
a medium of Divine revelation (1 Καὶ 18:93). But
γν. "0:53 may not be in their original form, and it is
not certain that the narrative in Kings really con-
dones the offence of the prophet of Bethel (see
above). Besides, there is this difference between
the cases: the prophet of Bethel is not regarded as
a false prophet, Hananiah is represented as a

* The last words of v.18 are so abrupt as to suggest interpola-
tion. But there is nothing to support a conjecture that the
prophet was simply mistaken, and the tenor of the narrative is
ps ne the view that he was inspired by J” to tempt the mar
of God.

OLD PROPHET, THI

OLD TESTAMENT 595

simple impostor. Tf the difference be not pressed,
it remains true that the immunity of a false pro-
yhet is not something peculiar to this narrative.
The fate of Haaaniah was an exceptional one.

In estimating the historical value of this narra-
tive
The real theme of the chapter is the message and
the death of the man of God from Judah. The
message announced the future desecration of the
royal altar by a ruler of the house of David,
Josiah. It was proclaimed in the kine’s presence,
and only a miracle saved the man of God from the
consequences of lis act. J” had commanded him
not to linger in the city, and he refused to be the
king’s guest. It was because he yielded to the
invitation of the old prophet that a lion met and
killed him on the way home.

The whole fabric of this narrative has been
challenged on the ground that it implies such
hostility to the worship at Bethel as is incon-
ceivable in the age of Jeroboam. It is supposed
to besa product of Deuteronomic opposition to

the local worship of J” (Stade, Benzinger). Such
criticism overlooks two further influences cap-

able of explaining contemporary hostility to the
sanctuary at Bethel. (1) The worship at this
sanctuary was image worship. Whatever the
attitude of the majority to such worship, there
was doubtless a party of purity strennously op-
ae to it (article BerneL; Kittel, fist. Hed. 1.

253f.). (2) The sanctuary at Bethel was being
made a royal sanctuary. It was the emblem of
anew nation, and as such calculated to stir feeling
in Judah. It is by no means improbable, in such
circumstances, that a prophet, particularly one
from Judah, should denounce Jeroboam’s double
schism on the day he inaugurated his royal sanc-
tuary. The crave of one who did so was shown, it
s2oms, in Bethel (2 Καὶ 23%). The cause of his burial
there and the manner of his death cannot seriously
be pronounced unlikely. The report of his words
(1 WW 13) contains no description of Jeroboam’s sin,
Deuteronomic or otherwise. ‘The purport of his
message simply is that a king of the house of
David will undo Jerobosim’s work of that day. It
admirably fits the situation. The sugeestion that

the story is pervaded by a confused meimory of {πὸ

appearance of Amos in Bethel ignores too much
the fertility of history, and is a treatment of
scanty records as if they were complete. The
anonymity of the prophet and of the man of God
is not evidence of their unhistorical origin. [Ὁ

the whole chapter must be taken into account. |

points rather to a channel of oral transmission, in|

which the names were lost. Josephus calls the
Judiean man of God ᾿Ιάδων (dint. VIL. vill. ὅ). The
name may come from 2 Ch 95. Phe writer in the
Bk. of Kings avoids confusion by the use of the
titles ‘ prophet’ and ‘man of God.’ * There is no
distinction of office in these titles (v.38).

The miraculous features

| prophecy

“1. 755 aande-cels

23' are not independ-
ent of each other.

Reearding the date of the narrative in its
present form, see article on KiINGs. Ewald con-

siders it to have been written down for the first
time after the desecration of the altar by Josiah.
If it were clear that 13° 34 is the original con-
τ ον. Ὁ 1254) τὸ melt be concluded that
ch. 13 was not part of the original Bk. of Kings
compiled by RP, but an addition by R»2, There
seems to be no other argument acainst its in-
clusion by RPL The possible difference of date
scarcely affects the question of the general histor-
icity of the narrative.

LITERATURE.— Ewald, IZistory, iv. 30 ff.; Wellhausen, Com-
position, 277 f.= Bleek+, 244; Stade, Ges hichte, i. 349f.; Ben-
zinger. ad loc. (‘ Konige’ in Marti’s Kurzer Hdcom. ). The possible
motives of the old prophet receive special consideration in The
Speaker's Commentary, and the nature of the guilt of the man
of God in The Napositor’s Bible (Farrar). See also Biihr in
Lange's Commentary. Josephus (Aut. viii. and ix.) expands
and adds extensively to the history of the prophet. He represents
him as ‘a certain wicked old faise prophet,” who sought to undo
the effect of the miracles and message of the man of God, and
pretended fmendship and Divine Ppt in order to ruin
and discredit him, Vhe revelation of vv.2!+ 2% is addressed to the
man of God in this account (ὁ θεὸς peelaenek τῷ ᾿Ιάδωνι). But
Josephus may be judged capable of ignoring the pres sent text
because of prejudice against the * wicked old prophet.’

W. B. STEVENSON.

OLD TESTAMENT.—
Introduction.
i. Origin and growth of O') —
1. The Law or Torah.
2. The Prophets.
3. The Writings or Hagiographa.

ii. The OF in the Jewish Churehn—

1. Preservation and ‘Transmission : (a) pre-Massoretic

period ; (0) Massoretic period, a.b. 000-00.

2. Use or regard and interpretation: (4) early Rabbinic
and Talmudic period, B.c. 400-a.p. 700 ; (ὦ) later
Rabbinic period.

iii. The OT in the Christian Church—

1. Textual criticism.

2. Use and interpretation: (a) in the NT; (ὁ) in the
early Church,—a.p. 600; (6) in the Middle Ages,
600-1500; (1) period of the Reformation, 1500-
1600 ; (6) post-Reformation period, 1600-1750 ; (7)
period of modern Criticism, 1750-1900.

iv. Permanent religious value of OT.

Literature.

The OT is that portion of the Canon of the Re-
formed Church which was received as sacred litera-
ture from the Jews. (On the name see art. BIBLE
in vol. i. p. 286"). While the Gr. Version of these
Scriptures included additional writings, now known
as the Apocrypha, and reckoned a part of the OT

by the ae Cath. Church (sce art. APOCRYPHA
in vol. i. p. 121”), the only beoks recognized by
the Ὁ Pal. “Jews as holy, and adinitted into their

Canon, were those of our present O'T. They were
arranged as in the present Hebrew Bibles in three

eroups: the Law (ata Torah), Gn, Ly, Nu,
Dt; the Prophets (832 Nbc), Jos, Je, 1 and
|28, 1 and 2K, Is, Jer, Ezk, and the 12 minor

of the story will be |

estiinated, of course, according as we judge all
miracle in these histories. The withering of |

Jeroboam’s hand and its restoration (vv.*°), and
the lion’s quietly remaining beside the ass and the
dead body (vv.74 78), are “not essentials in the
narrative. A prophet did not require miraculous
protection (comp. Am 7?°%), The sign of the altar
(vv.*°) gives the impression of being a later addi-
tion. It is not capable of historical proof that the
Judiean king Josiah was named in the original

* In v.28, AV and RV, the word ‘ prophet’ denotes the man of
God. But this is due to mistranslation. ‘He saddled for him-
self the ass [which belonged] to the prophet who brought him
back’ is the correct rendering. 3esides, the text is faulty.
Read as LXX B: ‘he saddled for himself his ass and departed
bazk again.’ The words omitt2d, [12 Ὁ)

ZN Ν 232, are a gloss |

by a reader who observed that the ass of the man of God is |

mentioned novw for the first time, and from this concluded that
it had been lent or given him by the prophet of Bethel.

prophets; and the ey eg Sia ν (a°EIND
Kéthibim), Ps, Pr, Job, Ga; Rua, Eo, Est, Dn,
Ezr, Neh, 1 and 2 Ch.*

The purpose of this article is to describe the
origin and growth of these groups as sacred
literature, and to give am account of their use
and method of interpretation when united into
the OT in the Jewish and Christian Churches.

i, ORIGIN AND GROWTH.—1. Vhe Law or Torah.

A térdh in ancient Isracl was any decision or
instruction on matters of law or conduct given by
a sacred authority (O7/C?, p. 299 ; ef. art. LAW IN
O'T, p. 64°). A body of such instruction went by
the same name, which was re adily transferred to

* The order of the books in the first group was always the
same, and also of the Former Prophets, Jos, Jg, 1 and 28,
land 2 K, but for the Latter Prophets the Babylonian Talmud
(Baba Bathra 140) and some ancient MSS give Jer, Ezk, Is,
and minor prophets, and in the Writings place Ru betore the
Ps (Ginsburg, /itrod. to the Bible, pp. 1-8).

596 OLD TESTAMENT

OLD TESTAMENT

the Scriptures containing this material as its lead-
ine element.* Thus arose the name of the first
five books of the ΟἿ᾽.

The work of providing regulations for worship
naturally belonged to the priests, but in addition
in early Israel the administration of justice fell
partially, at least, likewise to them. They com-
municated the Divine will by means of the lot,
the ephod, and the Urim and Thummim (1S 1438
[LX X] 23%, Dt 338).

People repaired to the sanctuaries to have
judements rendered (Ex 216 227% (86) 15. 2%). Such
action was called ‘inquiring of God,’ and the
decisions were, ‘the statutes and laws of God?’
(Ex 18! 19.329. οὐ Driver on Dt..16%).. “[hus*the
priests became the natural guardians and teachers
of Divine instruction or law (Dt 33!°, Jer 18:8 Hos
45.) They were members of the supreme tribunal
of the land (mentioned in 2 Ch 19°" as established
by Jehoshaphat), Dt 1788. 19", Tracing evi-
dently their instruction or law to Moses, to pre-
serve its continuity they issued legislation in lis
name, acting upon the principle that all law
emanated from Jehovah, and that Moses was the
medium of its communication. At first. their
work as lawgivers was probably simply carried
on by oral decision and transmission. As Israel
advanced in culture, however, laws were naturally
reduced to writing. When this began, we have
no clear means of determining. Some meagre
written legislation may have existed as early as
the time of Moses. (See the small type on p.
597”). No great stress was laid upon the
original legal form or words. They were modified
through change in time and circumstance. +
Codes remained open. The earliest: written laws
which have been preserved are those in Ex 20-23
(the Bk. of the Covenant) 344°. They probably
owe their preservation to their incorporation into
historical writines (E or J) of the Sth cent , but
the laws themselves may be much earlier. (The
lex talionis reveals ἃ primitive state of society, yet
an agricultural people is presupposed, and lence a
later date than the settlement of Canaan). Other
codes more ancient may have existed in [srael in
a written form, The earliest written law or book
of Divine instruction ef whose introduction or
enactment an authentic account is) given, was
Deuteronomy or its main portion, represented as

found in the temple in the 180} year of king |

Josiah (B.C. 621), and proclaimed by the king as
the law of the land (2 Ια 23) (see article DEUTERO-
NoMY in vol. i. p. G02f.). From that time forward
Israel had a written law which the pious believer
was commanded to ponder day and night (Jos 1S
Ps 1°); and thus the Torah, as sacred literature,
formally commenced in Israel. This law aimed at
aright application of original Mosaic principles.
The Mosaic period represented that of Israel’s faithful rela-
tionship to Jehovah (Hos 216 111, Jer 33). As the ery at present
is ‘Back to Christ,’ so the ery then was ‘Back to Moses.’ At
present in going back to Christ to apply His teaching to immedi-

ate needs, we re-formulate them ¢ndirectly, giving thus laws of |

Christian conduct. But indirect re-fornmulation of ancient prin-
ciples is contrary to the genius of the Hebrew mind and
language. Intensity is characteristic of Hebrew utterance, as
is well illustrated in Christ's use of the words ‘hate’ (Lk 1475)
and ‘thank’ and ‘hide’ (Mt 1125). The Hebrew language

* Torah (ΤΠ) is used in the OT to denote—1. Instruction :
(a) human: Pr 18 620. 28 et al. 3 (6) Divine, Job 2222, Is 309 et al. ;
(ὦ) a body of prophetic teaching, Is 4241-24, Jer 918 et al.; (d)
instruction in Messianic age, Is 25 424 et αἰ; (6) a body of priestly
direction or instruction, Hos 46, Jer 28 et al. 2. law (prop.
direction): (a) of special laws, Ex 139 164 et al. ; (Ὁ) of codes of
law—(1) as written in the code of the covenant, Ex 2412, Jos
2426 et al.; (2) the law of the Deuteronomic code, Dt 15 48.44
et al.; (3) the law of the Priests’ Code, 2 Ch 2318 3016 et al.
(Oxf. Heb. Lex. p. 435f.).

t Cf. the two records of the ten commandments (Ex 203-17,
Dt 5721) and the laws in the different OT codes (see art.
HEXATEUCH in vol. ii. 8655).

refuses also to lend itself readily to indirect speech. It shows
reluctance to give an address in substance, except in an
apparent reproduction of the ipsissima verba. Thus in the
OY historical books, whenever a writer wishes to report that
one person made a verbal communication to another, he almost
invariably says: ‘So and so spoke to so and so, saying.’ The
direct form is used. Hence if in the reign of Josiah the Mosaic
law and teaching were to be re-formulated to meet the ex-
ivencies of the time, they were naturally placed directly in the
mouth of Moses. Indeed, practically no other method was
possible to produce the required effect.

Dt is also far more than a code of laws. It is a hortatory
exposition of law, appealing on the ground of Divine love and
revelation for obedience in Israel. A religious experience formed
its real basis, and gave it a position of Divine authority.

The reformation under Josiah was ἃ failure.

The good king fell at the battle of Megiddo. The
people lapsed into idolatry, and Judah soon

went into exile. Something more than Dt seemed
necessary for a religious constitution for Israel.
With this thought another re-formulation of the
laws began. The Bk. of Ezekiel exhibits this
movement. Under the form of a vision he drew
up ἃ programme for the future (see art. EZEKIEL).
He heightened the sanctity of the central sanctuary
by placing it within the domain of priests, that it
might not, like the old temple, be lable to de-
filement through proximity to royal residences
(431:.), He heightened the sanctity of the priest-
hood by restricting it to the sons of Zadok, the
Levites being degraded from office on account of
their ministration at the high places (44). He
gave also an elaborate ritual for worship, and
described, with the measurements and detail of
an architect’s plan, a new temple, and apportioned
the land among the tribes of Israel with the
reeularity of a military camp. In accordance
with this spirit, which saw no hope for Israel
without transforming the State into a chureh and
reenlating the whole life of the people through
elaborate law and ordinance, supposed Mosaic
principles were again restated, and an ideal con-

/stitution of Israel in the wilderness was given as

|

ἃ new law for the Jewish people.

This was issued
in the Priests’ Code (see art. HEXATEUCH), and
solemnly presented by Ezra to the people, who

received it as the law of God (Neh 8-10, B.C. 444

-after, probably within priestly circles.

or 443). The reception of the Priests’ Code under
Ezra marks practically the appearance of the Law,
since shortly afterwards Dt, which had previously
been united with the historical work JE (see art.
Hexareucn), and had never been abrogated as a
law of Divine authority, was joined with the
Priests’ Code.

In all this legal literature the historical narrative occupied a
prominent place. Laws were thought of not only as expressing
abstract principles of justice and worship, but also as having
originated in connexion with Divine manifestations. Hence
narratives of a progressive revelation of God in the early ages
of mankind and Israel formed an integral part of the Priests’
Code. An example had already been set in Dt 1-4 and later
by combining Dt with the historical work JE.

The enlargement and combination of sacred
writings was performed by the séphérin or scribes.
This class of scholars, of whom Ezra ‘the ready
scribe in the Law of Moses’ (Ezr 7°) was the
prototype, grew up during the Exile, or shortly
The mem-
bership was not contined, however, to priests.
They became the guardians and students of the
Law, which they felt free to annotate and enlarge
with some additions. They separated from the
Hexateuch the Bk. of Joshua (see below). Thus
the Law did not reach its final form until the 3rd
cent. B.C. (For revision and gradual compilation
of P, see art. HEXATEUCH in vol. ii. p. 374* f.).

2. The Prophets.—This division of OT falling
into two parts, the Former Prophets Jos, Jg,
1 and 28, and 1 and 2K, and the Latter Pro-
phets Is, Jer, Ezk, and the Twelve, receives its
name from the prophetic authorship of these
books. The prophets represent the mystical

OLD TESTAMENT

59

ooh!

OLD TESTAMENT

teachers of religion who gain truth through the
emotions or intuitions (sce art. PROPHET).
Equally with the priests, the prophets unfolded
the ancient instruction or law, not, however, in
the form of statutes or codes, but as direct
revelations of Jehovah expressed in warnings and
exhortations. The prophets became thus the con-
science of the State and interpreters of history.
Handing down their instruction as a living word,
they seem not to have taken pains at first to pre-
serve it in writing. Not until the 8th cent. have
we indications of a systematic effort in that direc-
tion, illustrated in the discourses given in Amos,
Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah. How far these came
directly from the prophets themselves, or repre-
sent abstracts or reports furnished by scholars or
hearers, we have no means of determining. Isaiah
twice commanded that some of his instruction
should be preserved as a future testimony to the
truth of his doctrine (816 808). A century later
Jeremiah took pains, according to a command
from Jehovah, to have his discourses, covering a
period of some twenty-two years, carefully written
out (Jer 364% 5). At the time of the Exile, when
Ezekiel flourished, a written roll had become the
symbol of the prophetic word (Ezk 2°-3°). He
probably himself carefully wrote and arranged his
prophecies, and from thence onward prophecy often
assumed doubtless in the first instance a written
as well as a spoken form. The anonymity of the
author (or authors) of Is 40-66 suggests that those
prophecies may have been circulated in MS without
having been first orally delivered. The last of the
prophets, whose writings have been preserved,
according to Jewish tradition was Malachi (about
B.c. 450), and this tradition is probably true as
conceraing the writings of those who delivered in
the first instances oral messages.* Ob, Jl, Jon,
Zee 9-14 and Is 24-27 are assigned by many
scholars (see separate articles and Driver's LOT)
to the Greek period, representing an imitation of
the earlier prophetic word, and if we accept this
assignment they probably represent a literary
rather than an oratorical activity.

No record has been left of the manner or special
cause of the collection of the ‘Latter Prophets.’
The sacred authority of most of them clearly
dated from the day of their utterance or com-
position, and they gained nothing in this respect
by collection and union with other writings, and
yet their value naturally became greater when
living prophets no longer appeared, and then an
impulse must have arisen for their union and pre-
servation in ἃ sacred canon. This work was prob-
ably formally accomplished by the scribes already
mentioned in connexion with the Law ; and here,
again, as in the case of the Law, liberty was
doubtless taken in editing old material to introduce
new reflections. (We may account in this way
partially for the imitations of ancient prophecy
already mentioned).

The historical books Jos, Jg,1 and 28, and
land 2K may have been originally classified as
‘ Prophets’ because they contained narratives con-
cerning inspired-or prophetic men, or because they
were assigned for authorship to such men as Joshua,
Samuel, and Jeremiah, a view of Talmudic Judaism;

et the result was in a degree correct, since these
»ooks in the main came from authors imbued with
the prophetic spirit. They reveal the will and
character of Jehovah by relating His dealings with
ancient Israel. Narratives of this sort began to

* No accredited prophets of Israel are mentioned in OT or
elsewhere later than the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and
Josephus held that their line of succession had then ceased
(c. Apion. i. 8). In Zec 1355 the prophet is mentioncd as
though the office had fallen into disrepute (this passage is, how-
ever, obscure), and in Ps 749 and 1 Mac 448 927 1441 prophets are
mentioned as having ceascd.

be composed quite early. The lost Book of the
Wars ot Jehovah (Nu 21") was prohably one, and
the documents J and Καὶ of the Hexateuch and the
similar sources (perhaps a continuation of J and
E) appearing in Jg, Land 258, 1 καὶ 13, and the
prophetic stories of 1 and 2 Καὶ were others (see
articles JUDGES in vol. il. p. SU7 fh, SAMUEL
(Books OF), and KINGS (BOOKS OF)). Next to lyric
songs, these narratives containing ancient myths
and legends illustrate the earliest literature of
Israel. They began, as we have them, to be
written not far from the reign of Solomon, and
passed probably through many hands, or were pre-
served in circles of scholars, who copied, edited, and
made such combinations of them as are seen in JE.

The subject of the development of literature in Israel is very

obscure. It is uncertain whether the art of reading and writing
was in vogue among the people before they entered the land of
Canaan. After they came in contact with Canaanitish civiliza-
tion it was clearly known among them. In Jg s!4 writing by
a boy is mentioned. This, it is true, might be an anachronism
only revealing a widespread use of the art in the days of the
author of Jg. At the court of David a scribe is mentioned
(2 817), and the knowledge of reading and writing from that
time onward is assumed (28 11)4, 1 Καὶ 215, 2 K 5° 10l, Jer 291).
Hence schools for the cultivation of this art necessarily then
existed, and a literature of some sort must then have been
current. This in its earliest form probably consisted of songs
and stories, and possibly some laws. The Song of Deborah is
usually regarded as the earliest piece of literature préserved
in the Bible. (For a chronological list of the writings of the
OT, see article BisLE in vol. i. p. 290; compare the dates there
given with those adopted in the articles on each OT book).

From these prophetic sources and from ancient
annals, such as were naturally kept in connexion
with the court and the temple (er from works
based upon these annals), were contposed or com-
piled in the spirit of Dt, and hence ‘ater than B.c.
621, the Deuteronoraic parts of Joshua, the middle
sections of Jg, land 28, and Land2 K. Later,
these books suffered revision from priests and
scribes, who gave them their present form (separ-
ating Jos from the Hexateuch). The time of the
union of the Former Prophets with the Latter, or
whether the books in either division were separately
collected before their final union together, cannot
be determined. The historical books from the first
clearly held a high and revered place in Israel, as
distinctly appears from the union of JE with D.
They were regarded as records of Divine revelations
given to the patriarchs and prophets and _ illus-
trating the principles of Jehovah’s rule in the world
and care for His people. The earliest testimony to
their existence is their use in 1 and 2 Ch, written
about B.C. 800. In 2 Mae 2! is preserved a tradi-
tion that Nehemiah, founding a library, gathered
together the things concerning the kings and pro-
phets, and the writings of David, and the letters
of the kings about sacred gifts. Although the list
of writings enumerated goes beyond the ‘ Pro-
phets,’ yet a true reminiscence of their collection
may be here given. The prophets formed a distinct
division of Sacred Scriptures at B.C. 190, when the
prologue to Sirach was written, and if the mention
of twelve prophets in Sir 49! is genuine, then as
early as B.C. 180 (see art. OT CANON).

3. The Writings or Hagiographa. —This third
division of the OT is composed of literature gener-
ally later than the Law and the Prophets, and this
fact alone is sufficient to account for its separate
existence. Dn in character belongs to the Latter
Prophets, but was not written until the Maccabiean
period (see art. DANIEL). Through the inspiring
character of its teachings and revelation it was
clearly received on its first appearance as of Divine
authority. 1 and2Ch, Ezr, Neh, and Est resemble
the Former Prophets, and appeared too late to be
joined with them. Ezr and Neh bring the history
of Israel from a point near that at which the narra-
| tive ceases in 1 and 2 Καὶ down to the canonization of
| the Law or the founding of Judaism, and probably

|

Fito

598 OLD TESTAMENT

OLD TESTAMENT

thus gained a recognition as Holy Seripture.
same probably i is true of Ruth. It was felt to be
an integral part of OT history, and through this in-
fluence it was sometimes reckoned as a part of Je
(see below). Land 2 Ch were originally joined with
12 and Neh, the four books being the work of one
author (see articles): but since 1 and 2 Ch were
principally αὐ δ on Land 2S and land 2 k,
they were separated from Ezr and Neh, and not so

arly recognized as sacred. ‘This supposition seems
necessary to explain their position a@ffer Ezr and
Neh, and last in the OT Canon, Esther was written
to explain the feast of Purim, and received at once,
doubtless, a sacred character from this fact and
from its inspiring patriotisin, Wherever the feast
was regarded as a sacred festival, the story of its
origin acquired a similar character, and since it
commanded the feast, spoke with Divine πὰ mag
From this point of view Esther resembles the
narratives ot the Torah, which explain the origins
of religious Jaws and customs.

Ps, Job, Pr, Ee, Ca, and La represent a different
class of literature from the Law and the Prophets,
since their contents appear almost entirely as the
result of human observation, thought, and aspira-
tion rather than as the product or record of Divine
revelation. Hence, although partially of as early
a date as some of the prophets, they did not com-
mand such immediate attention or torce so readily
the thought of Divine origin. The main cause
leading to their acceptance, clearly seen in Ps, La,
Pro and Job, was their inspiring religions contents.
These books are directly akin in their teachings
to the Law and the Prophets. ‘To the conscience
they spoke with similar authority ; they breathed
likewise the very spirit. of faith and) penitence
which the Law and the Prophets commanded, and
thus they obtained recognition as a Divine word.
With Canticles and Ecclesiastes such inspiration is
less apparent. ‘The former was probably originally

|
The |

a collection of songs sung at wedding festivities |

isee, however, article SONG OF SONGS). Highly
valued, nevertheless, as a beautiful specimen of
Hebrew poetry, and regarded also as a continuous
composition, this cotlection was interpreted as set-
tine forth the love of Jehovah for His people, and
thus eained a sacred character, and then probably
was assigned to Solomon as its author. Ee was
deni received principally on the ground of its
supposed Solomonic authorship. As in the case of
the prophets, no record has been left of the collec-
tion and formal canonization of the Hagiographa.
The earliest mention of them is in the Prologue to
Sirach (written B.C. 132), where reference is made
to ‘the law, the prophets, and the other books.’
Owing to the indeliniteness of the expression ἡ the
other books,’ it is uncertain whether this division
was then complete, or whether some books or por-
tions of books were added later. A decision in this

regard must be istonanee by the date of the
separate writings.* In 1 Mae Τοῦ (written about
B.C. 100) Ps 795 is formally ialed as Scripture.

In the NT ‘be three divisions of the OT are recog-
nized, closing with Land 2 Ch (Mt 28%) Lk 2444).
The second (fourth) Bk. of Esdras as well as
Josephus, probably near the close of the Ist cent.
A.D., recognize our present ΟἿ᾽ Canon.

In 2 Es ninety-four divinely-revealed books are mentioned
(1444), of which seventy are esoteric (144), This leaves twenty-
four representing the present OT according toa usual Jewish
method of reckoning: the law, five; the prophets, eight; the
Hagiographa, eleven, All double books, Ezr and Neh, and the
minor prophets, are reckoned as one each. This standard way
of reckoning the OT books gave rise to the name The Twenty-
four nite article Bist). Josephus (ὁ. Apion, i. 8) mentions

*Dn is probably the latest of the Hagiographa. Some, how-
ever, place Est and Ec later (see artic les), and also certain
psalins (see art. Psauus, and cf. Duhm, ‘Die Psalmen,’ in
Aurzer Udcomm. 2. AT, p. xxiff. ,and Cheyne, OF, 40s, 00, δ...

twenty-two: five belonging to Moses, thirteen coveriig the
interval from Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, and four con-
taining hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human
lite. This number is obtained by uniting Ru with Jg, and La

with Jer, a method of reckoning also adopted by the Jews.
Jerome mentions it (Prologus Galeatus, bees quoted in
Wildeboer’s Origin of the Canon of the OT, S0f:). “it dias
been questioned whether πὸ πο μὲ did not Obie from his Canon
the Bks. of Ca and Ee (Briges’ Jitrod. to the Study of Holy
Neripture, vic 4, 1899, p. 127 f.). The eanonicity of these two books
was under discussion at the Assemblies of Jamnia (OT JABNEH, ἃ
Jewish seat of learning after the fall of Jerusalem) about A.p. 90
and a.p, 118, and a decision was rendered in their favour, and
this period i is frequently given as marking the final close of the
OT Canon, This discussion cone erning C a and Ee was probably
in regard to their having been rightly received into the Canon,

ea not their first reception (Buhl, Canon and Text of the OT,

> Ryle, Canon of the OT, p. 187). It is a noteworthy fact,

i er, that these two books are nowhere quoted or directly
referred to in the NT. :

The impulse which led to the special setting
apart of the writings as Scripture was probably the
enhancing of sacred writings through the com-
mand of Antiochus Epiphanes for their destruction
(1 Mae 155). and the revival of Jewish patriotism
in the Maccabwan period. ἢ

i. ‘The OT IN THE JEWISH CHURCH.—l. Pre-
servation and Transmission.—(a) Pre-Massoretic
period, The OT Seriptures were originally written
upon rolls (ef. Ps 40°, Jer 364% Ἔχις 2", Zee 51) of
skin, or possibly in some instances of papyrus paper,
and were thus handed down with probably much the
same general care or lack of care with which they
were preserved before canonization ; for the varia-
tions of the Sam. and Greek Pentateuchs from the
later uniform Heb, consonantal text show that the
words and letters of the Scriptures were not at first
regarded as especially sacred. Later, however,
this idea was developed, and by the Ist cent. A.b.
had so far progressed that Philo said that the Jews
had never altered a word of what Moses wrote
(quoted in Eusebius, Prop. ad le, viii. 6 fin.), and
Josephus, tuat no one had been so bold as to add
anything to them {the Seriptures], to take any-
thing from them, or to make any change in them
(ὦ. lpion. i. 8); and in the Talmud, inthe words οἱ
a Rabbi held to have lived in the Ist cent., the
work of a copyist is called Divine, and a warning
is given against dropping or adding ἃ. letter

(Erubin We, Sota fet. Jewish Quarterly Reric,
γ 0}. 195}. Synchronous with this growth of

letter was necessarily an en-

uniform text for use in the
synagogues and schools. Efforts in this direction
culminated not long after the fall of Jerusalem
(A.D. 70), when in the refounding of Judaism a
single consonantal text of the OT under the intha-
ence of Rabbi Akiba and his associates at Jammnia
was adopted as authoritative, and all others dis-
appeared. The principle of its adoption is un-
known. A tradition relates that the text of the Law
witnessed by the largest number of MSS was chosen
(Jerus. Toanith, iv. 2). Probably the choice was de-
termincd by the traditional age or genealogy of a
certain MS or school of MSS believed to represent
best the original archetype. This finally adopted
text cannot be regarded as entirely free from cor-
ruptions (slight in the Law but conspicuous, for
example, in Land 2S and Ezk). These corruptions
arose from the inevitable mistakes of copyists,
especially before the words and letters were severely
reverenced ; from the gradual change of the old
Hebrew alphabet to the present square character

—a change brought about between the period of
Ezra and the Ist cent. B.C ., and also from emenda-
tions made on dogmatic grounds.

reverence for the
deavour to have a

* Budde holds that into the third Canon, that of the Hagio-
grapha, were received all books of a religious character, of which
the date was believed to go back as far as the prophetic period,
that is, to the time of Ezra (art, “OT Canon? που» Bebe)
Josephus and Talmudic Judaism did believe that all the ote
received were of such an early date, but possibly the canonicity
gave the date.

“OLD TESTAMENT

OLD ΝΟΥΣ 599

The substitution of bosheth (nv2) for baal (932) in proper
names (see article ISHBOSHETII), and of bless (415) for curse
Gore): tele 9119.13, illustrate these dogmatic changes (few in
number) introduced to express an abhorrence of idolatry, or to
avoid impious expressions toward God. (Cf. Geiger’s Urschritt
der Bibel, p. 257 th. Ginsburg, 9}. cit, p. 363 tf.; Siectried COBOL);
Budde (/fdkoinin.), Dubin (A erzer Hdeomim.), contra, on Job 15).
In line with these changes introduced into the text are probably
the aekudim (O° 723) or fifteen extraordinary points indicating
that some change should be made in the text (Ginsburg, up. cet.
Pe SISA):

Within this period the Scriptures were divided
into sections for synagogue usage (the Law and
the Prophets, see, further, below), into paragraphs
(mens) and verses (7). "

(Ὁ) Massoretic period, A.D. 090-800.
canonization of the official consonantal text the
greatest care was taken that it should be trans-
mitted with complete accuracy ; hence it was
studied in respect to all its peculiarities, and these
were noted down in a series of marginal notes
called Massorah (set). These notes embraced
such particulars as calling attention to peculiar
letters, giving the number of words os letters in
each book, and the middle word or setter,
especially in noting
the latter being based upon the
or required for religious reasons, oF demanded by
the connexion of the passage. AIL these features
were a continuation and preservation of the work
οἵ the scribes. In addition to these notes, with
the same end in view, and expecially to render the
OT readable to the people, vowel points fixing the
traditional pronunciation were added to the con-
sonantal text, and asystem of punctuation (accents)
extending to each word, marking off the verses.
Thus tinally appeared the present Massoretic¢ text,
of which the oldest MSS are of the 9th and 10th
cents.+ (Foradescription of the most ancient MSS,
ef. Ginsburg, op. cit. pp. 469-778).
represent essentially this Massoretic text, which
was first printed, the Psalms 1477,
1482. both at Bologna, and the entire Heb. Bible
at Soncino 1488. The most important subsequent
printed Hebrew Bible is the edition of Jacob ben
Chayim, with the Massorah, at the Bomberg Press,
Venice, 1524-25. All subsequent editions, so far
ax they are Massoretic, follow this standard edition
(Ginsburg, op. cit. p. 976) until we come to two
recent attempts to furnish an exact Massoretic

After the

variant readings (the vere),

and —
- cognized, called pest 222),
testimony of MSS, ἃ

All Hebrew MSS

the Pentateuch,

text. that of Baer and Delitzsch, Leipzig (not yet |

complete), and that of Christian 1). Ginsburg,
London, 1594. (For ancient versions of the OT see
articles SEPTUAGINT, SYRIAC VERSIONS, TARGUM,
and VULGATE; for modern textual criticism see
below). [On printed editions of Hebrew text, ἀξ
Buhl, Canon and Text of the ΟἹ, ὃ 36; Ginsburg,
op. cit, pp. 119-76. ; Weir, Short Hist. of the Heb.
Text, p. 129 {1}.

2 Use or Regard and Interpretation.—(a) Early
Rabhinie and Talmudic period, B.C. 4U0-A.D. 100.
~The Law was always regarded in the Jewish
Church as of a higher inspiration than the rest of
the OT.
revelation of the Divine will, while the Prophets
and the Writings only contained the same will

Prophets at the time of Christ, and probably from
near the time οἱ their Canonization, were reas
each Sabbath day in the synagogue ; the formeray
lessons arranged to complete the Law once in three
years.* The lesson from the Prophets was not
prescribed. “The Haviographa were not read regu.
larly, except the five Megilluth+ on the appropriate
feast days. Schools were established (as early
as the century before Christ) for the instrne-
tion of children jn the Scriptures, especially the
Law; and such study was finally held τὸ precede
every other duty (Weber, Di: Judische Th: glo,
p. 30). The punctilions observance of the Law
became the evidence both of patriotism and piety,
and the constant endeavour was to apply the Law
to every exigency of lite, wud to justify every
cherished institution or notion by sume word of
the OT.

Such applications or interpretations or inquiries
into the meaning of the Seriptures were called
midrashin (sing. midrdsh, e772 trom 27 ‘to seek").
In them was sought not what a passage might
declare according to the natural tenor of its words
(although this method of interpretation was re-
but the inferences
that might be drawn by combination with other
passages, by suggestion, or by allewory. Thus arose
ἃ ereat body of we/rashim of two sorts, legal and
homiletical; the former called Halakhéth (sing.
halakha, 7277 from 77 ‘to vo’), the latter Hagqgq-
doth (sing. hagqgada, 7737 oy 7728 trom ΠΣ Hiph. “τὸ
tell’), These midra-him were ianded down orally
and not compiled in writing until the 2nd cent.
A.D., when they appeared, especially the Hala-
khoth, in the Mishna (Talmud). Ὁ This oral tracdt-
tion or interpretation was held to be necessary ior
an understanding and keepiny of the Law, and
Was assumed to have been given in great part by
Moses, and thus gradually, begiuning ats early as
the time of Christ, if not a ceutury or two betore,
it usurped the place of the Scriptures, becoming of
equal, and, according to some, of superior authority
(Weber, op. cit. 8 22, p. ΝΠ. It is frequently
referred to in the NT (Mt 15. Ὁ i fe
Cy. Mt 23%), and its character 1s well illustrated
in the prohibited labours on the Sabbath. These,
which are particularized only in a few instances
in the OT, are amplified in the Mishna into
thirty-nine prohibited labours, each of which is
still further analyzed and discussed.

The prohibited labours were: (1) sowing, (2) ploughing, (3)
reaping, (4) binding into sheaves, (5) threshing, (6) Winnowing,
(7) fruit cleaning, (s) erinding, (9) sitting, (10) kneading, (11) bak-
ing, (12) wool shearing, (15) bleaching, (14) combing, (15) ἀν εἰπε,
(16) spinning, (17) warping, (18) making two spindle-trees, (11)

| weaving two threads, (20) separating two threads (in the warp),
| (21) tying a knot, (22) untying a knot, (23) sewing on with two

| stitche

It was believed to contain the original |

further delivered; yet these latter were equally —

Holy Scriptures with the former, and were cited
with the same formula (in the NT they are quoted
as the Law, Ro 3”, 1Co 14%, Jn 10% 12°+15%). The
early reverence for the Law is illustrated in Ps 1.
19-14 119 (Ps 1 may have been written in reference
to the Deuteronomic law). Both the Law and the

authorities differ. They are men-
tioned in the Talmud, but may be those of oral tradition (cf.
JOR, Vol. 1. πες Briggs, op. cit. p. 174; W. H. Green,
Gen. Introd. to the OT Text, N.¥., 1899, p. 148 f.).

6 When a MS became old it was religiously destroyed, lest
through its mutilation the sacred word might be violated.
Tuis explains the lack of earlier Mss.

*On the point of verses

ὐξε τε

|

5. (24) teari to sew together with two stitches. (25)
hunting a deer, (26) killing, (27) skinning, (38) and salting it,
(29) preparing its skin, G0) scraping off the hair, (31) cutting up
the tlesh, (32) writing two letters (characters), (33) erasing to
write two letters, (34) building, (35) demolishing, (36) extinguish-
ing (fire), (37) kindling (tire), (35) hammering, (99) carrying trom
one place to another (Tract Shabbuth vii. 2). Each of these
prohibitions was still further explained. On (21), (22), knots of
camel-drivers and sailors are forbidden both to be tied and
untied; but knots which may be untied with one hand were
lawiul. A woman might tie up ἃ slit in her chemise, the bands
of her hood, her girdle, her shoes and sandals ; also the bands
of leather bottles of wine or oil, or of a pot with meat. A rope
misht be tied in front of cattle that they might not escape:
a bucket over a well with a girdle but not a rope. Rabbi Indah
permits ἃ rope also (Tract Shubbath xv. 2; cf. Schurer, H/P
τ ii. p. 96ff.). In the Gemara or Rabbinical comments on the
Mishna these refinements are still further refined.

Js

*The Babylonian arrangement was for completion im

one
year, and this, later, came into general use.

+ Ca, Ru, La, Ec, Est read respectively at the seasons of the
Passover, Pentecost, Destruction οὗ Jerusalem, Tabernacles, and

Purim.

t Another view is that the Talmud, though compiled in the
end cent., continued to be orally transmitted until the 6th cent.
(see art. TALMUD).

$ Its development and place is well compared with that οἱ
tradition in the Roman Catholic Church.

600

OLD TESTAMENT

OLD TESTAMENT

In the derivation of the Halakhoth were em-
ployed seven rules of interpretation laid down by
Rabbi Hillel (contemporary of Herod the Great),
and afterwards increased to thirteen by Rabbi
Ishmael (2nd cent. A.D.).

These rules are: (1) That which is true of the easier or less
is true of the greater or more difficult. An example, Nu 1214.
If from the sign of a human father’s displeasure Miriam should
be ashamed (shut up) seven days, then from leprosy, the sign
of the Lord’s displeasure, she should be shut out of the
camp seven days. (2) A parallel passage or word supplements
another: Ly 1629 enjoins on the Day of Atonement affliction
of souls (3 ΠΩ͂) 3A ‘ye shall afflict your souls’). In Dt
83 ΤῺ (‘afflict’) is used in reference to suffering from hunger,
hence the affliction of the Day of Atonement. is fasting. (3)
A special provision of Scripture is to be generalized or applied
in other analogous passages or cases. Dt 246 forbids the
mill or upper millstone to be taken as a pledge. This law is
generalized by the Rabbis so that everything which is used for
preparing food is forbidden to be taken as a pledge. (4-11)
‘Eight rules with reference to the relation of genus to species
by inclusion, exclusion, contrast, and their relation to a third
term in the forms of Rabbinical logic.’ (12) A word or passage
is to be explained by the context. (13) Conflicting passages are
to be reconciled by a third. Gn 11 ‘In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth,’ and 24 ‘In the day that the
Lorp made the earth and the heavens.’ The question now
arises, Which did He make first? The answer, ‘Both at once,’
is found in Is 4813 “Mine hand hath laid the foundations of the
earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens.’ For a
full discussion and illustrations of these rules, see Mielziner’s
Introd. to the Talmud (1897), pp. 117-187. They are also given
in Barclay’s Talinud, 1878, pp. 40-44; Weber, Jaidische Theo-
logie, 1897, pp. 108-118 ; cf. also Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture,
1899, p. 430,

The fault of Rabbinical exegesis arose not so much
from these rules, many of which represent valid
forms of reasoning, as from their application, and,
indeed, they were not always supposed to be
applied: the mere mention or suggestion of any-
thing under discussion was sufficient to constitute
a proof text.

Sabbath day, was inferred from Is 30! «So that
there shall not be found among the pieces thereof
a sherd to take fire from the hearth.’ And that to
anoint oneself on the Day of Atonement was equal
to drinking, was inferred from Ps 109!8 ‘And it
cometh like water on his body and oil into his
bones’ (Tract Shabbath ec. viii. and ον ix., Bab.
Talmud, Rodkinson, vol. i. pp. 157, 163).

The very language of Scripture was held to be
different from ordinary human language, and hence
particles of speech, such as adverbs and conjune-
tions, special constructions of syntax, the position
of words, syllables, letters, and even forms of
letters, were regarded as capable of a hidden mean-
ing and of giving proof in support of tradition.
This method was advocated by the celebrated
Rabbi Akiba of the 2nd cent., and, althouch
opposed by some of his contemporaries, yet won a
place for itself in the Talmud.

Under this method such particles as ἮΝ, ΠΝ, ἘΣ were held to
extend a law, and πὸ and 13, P7 to restrict it. MN before m7
in Dt 1020 extended the command to fear God, so that it
included also wise men (Pesachim 22”). πὰ in Ex 3113 showed
that the rigorous precepts of the Sabbath did not apply to cases
where life was in danger (Yoma 85>— Mielziner, op. cit. p. 124f.).
Words were even interpreted according to the numerical value of
the letters (@ematrida). The ways of dying are inferred to be 903
from ‘ issues of death ’ (MNsin) mentioned in Ps 6821 (Berachoth
88). Letters might also stand for words (Notarikon). From
‘father of a multitude’ (727 28 Gn 175) was drawn: ‘Father,
chosen, lovely, king, distinguished, faithful (2°2n 7)n2 oN
ΠΝ pn3 759). The words with which Shimei cursed David are
drawn from ‘grievous’ (ΠΕΣ 1K 28), ‘adulterer, Moabite,
murderer, oppressor, abomination’ (ΠΕΡῚ WS M817 72ND 7N)2)
(Shabbath xii. 5). Another device was change in the order of
letters (Temoorah). Thus in Ps 212 ‘The king shall rejoice,’
refers to the Messiah, by transposing nv” (‘he shall rejoice Ἂ
into ΠῚ ( Messiah ’—Farrar, History of Interpretation, p. 102).
A species of Temoorah called Athash, the substitution of the
last letter of the alphabet for the first, and so on, appears in
Jer 2526 5141, where ‘Sheshach’ (7ev'z’) is written for ‘Babel’
($33); ef. Jer 511. These and other similar methods of inter-

That a piece of earthenware large |
enough to stir a fire might be carried on the |

pretation were carried to a great excess during the Middle Ages
in the Kabbala, a Jewish system of Theosophy or sacred
mysteries.

The homiletieal midrashim or haggadéth differed
from the Halakhéth in not being so much inferences
from the text of Scripture as additions to the text.
Many of the additions in 1 and 2Ch, compared
with the parallel narratives in 1 and2S8 and 1 and
2 K, illustrate their character, which is still further
seen in the Targums (see art. TARGUM), and abund-
antly exemplified in the Jewish legends concerning
the patriarchs and other OT worthies in the Talmud
and also in later Jewish treatises.* Examples of
Haggadcth appear in the NT in the names JANNES
and JAMBRES (2 Ti 35), in the rock that followed
them (1 Co 104), in the law given through angels
(Ae 7°, Gal 3”, He 2°), in the three and a half years
of famine in the days of Elijah (Lk 4%, Jai).
These are all additions to the OT narratives. The
apocryphal books of Enoch, Judith, and Tobit are
all examples of Haggadcth. For Hagegadic inter-
pretation were given 32 rules, and it shared in all
the fancifulness of Halakhic interpretation.

A species of Hageadie interpretation is the alle-
gorical, freqiently called the Hellenistic from
its use among Greek-speaking Jews. Philo, the
Alexandrian philosopher, an early contemporary of
Christ, used this method. The OT Scriptures were
to him as a believing Jew not simply an authorita-
tive revelation of religious truth, but of all truth,
and hence by means of allegory he deduced from
them the doctrines of Greek philosophy, which he
also ardently held. He excluded the literal sense,
and developed his allegorical interpretation on
detinite principles, regarding the former as the
hody and the latter as the soul of Seripture.t (For
his principles, cf. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria,
1875, pp. 160-197; Briges, op. cit. pp. 434-436),
Allegory appears essentially in many Rabbinical
interpretations. A New Test. example is Gal 422%,

Jewish interpretation during the early Rabbinic
and Talmudic period, while not devoid of a certain
ethical and spiritual value, is thus seen to have

contributed really nothing to an understanding of

the historical meaning of the OT. That idea
appears almost, if not exclusively, foreign to its
purpose. Talmudic tradition claimed the interest
of scholars, and had taken in popular estimate the
place of the Scriptures.

(2) Later Rabbinical period.—In the 8th cent.
arose a sect of Jews who rejected Talmudic tradi-
tion as a sacred authority, and held to the letter of
the OT. Hence their views were called Aaraism,
or religion of the text. This movement, however,
did not supplant orthodox or Talmudie Judaism,
and yet it gave a great impulse to the study of the
OT, which resulted eventually in real grammatical
and exegetical works, and the period from 900-1500
has been called the golden age of Jewish inter-
pretation. Commentaries were written upon the
books of the OT. The pioneer in this movement
was Saadia (+ 942), the Gaon or head of the Jewish
school in Babylonia, who, to render the Scriptures

* For a list of Haggadic literature, see art. ‘Midrash’ by 5. M.
Schiller-Szinnessy in Hneyel. Brit.9.

+ Philo comments thus on Gn 28: ‘Virtue is called a Paradise
metaphorically, and the appropriate place for Paradise is Eden ;
and this means luxury: and the most appropriate field for virtue
is peace, and ease, and joy, in which real luxury especially con-
sists. Moreover, the plantation of this Paradise is represented
as in the east; for right reason never sets, and is never extin-
guished, but it is its nature to be always rising. And as I
imagine the rising sun fills the darkness of the air with light, so
also does virtue when it has arisen in the soul irradiate its mist
and dissipate its dense darkness. ‘ And there,” says Mosvs,
“he placed the man whom He had formed” ; for God being good,
and having formed our race for virtue, as His work which w aa
most akin to Himself, places the mind in virtue evidently in
order, that it, like a good husband, may cultivate and attend to
nothing else except virtue’ (Adlegories of the Sacred Laws, i. 4,
C. Ὁ. Yonge’s transl.).

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

-

OLD TESTAMENT

OLD TESTAMENT 601

accessible to the people, translated them with notes
into Arabic, then widely spoken. He aimed to
interpret the OT agreeably both to reason and
Talmudic tradition, which latter he held to be
equally of Divine origin with the Scriptures. In
carrying out this aim his interpretations became
arbitrary and forced. Followers of Saadia in the
Babylonian schools pursued his idea of applying
reason to OT interpretation, and one Samuel ben
Chofni (+ 1034) went so far as to endeavour to
explain miraculous events of OT as if they were
natural (Giiitz, Hist. Jews, ili, p. 359). Jewish
learning, however, fell into decay in the East and
became centred in Western Europe, especially in
Spain. Here the Hebrew language was cultivated,
and OT exegesis along with that of the Talnud.
Ibn Janach (1 1060) has been called the first
rational Biblical critic. Although convinced of the
divinity of Holy Writ, he held that it must be
interpreted according to the rules of human usage
(Griitz, 111. p. 269). Rashi (+1105), whose commen-
taries, held to be almost as sacred as the text,
are printed in Rabbinical Bibles, explained the
Scriptures according to the natural meaning of
the words, but combined therewith Halakhic and
Hageadic fancies. Ibn Ezra (+ 1167), while paying
attention to tradition for the exposition of OT
laws, cut loose both from Kabbalistic and Hag-
eadie interpretations and followed the natural
sense, and thereby.raised OT exegesis to the dignity
of a science. (Maimonides (+ 1204), the Jewish
Aristotle and codifier of Biblical and Talmudic
law, shows also the activity of the Jewish mind of
this period). David Kimehi (ft 1255) and others
followed in the same directions, and Jewish inter-
pretation (save in representing the bias of a Jew
compared with a Christian) merges into that of the
common stream of Biblical scholarship, represented
now in the modern critical movement. ἢ

iii. THE OT IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.—
Textual Criticism.—Corresponding to the trans-
mission and preservation of the OT in the Jewish
Church, is textual criticism in the Christian
Church. For early efforts in this direction, see
articles SEPTUAGINT and VULGATE. Beyond the
interest taken in such criticism by Origen and
Jerome and by the Antiochene school, in their
indirect manner, none appears until after the
teformation. The Reformers accepted the Mas-
soretic Text of the Jews as infallibly inspired, and
the Jewish tradition of its having been kept
singularly pure since its origin. This notion in
the post-Reformation period was intensified by
some on dogmatic grounds into the theory of the
Mosaic or Ezraic inspired origin of even the
Hebrew vowel points (a view maintained by the
elder Buxtorf (+1629) and the younger (+ 1669),
and appearing in the Helvetic Confession (1675).
This view was refuted by Cappellus (1 1658),
who, with Morinus (first a Protestant and then a
Roman Catholic, + 1659), showed not only that
the Hebrew vowel points were of a relatively late
origin, but also that the present Massoretic text
is open to emendation by the use of the ancient
versions. This laid the foundation of modern
textual criticism. lielpfr! apparatus for such
work also then appeared in the polyglott Bibles
of the 17th cent., especially Walton's London
Polyglott. In the next century Hebrew Mss
were collated by Kennicott (+1783), and de Rossi
(+ 1831), whose labours showed that all Heb. MSS
represent essentially the same text. Textual eriti-
cism is now carried forward by a comparison of the
Heb. text with the ancient Versions, principally
the LXX, and by subjective emendation. In the
latter the paraliclism of Heb. poetry discovered and

* The Kabbalistic interpretation of OT (see above) was wide-
spread during the Middle Ages.

thus applied by Lowth (+1787) and the rhythm
or tones are of the greatest service. Along these
lines scholars have worked siowly and cautiously,
assisted by discoveries of the recensions Of the
LXX text and the work in its revision by Lagarde
(+ 1891) and others (see art. SEPTUAGINT), and in
some degree by further collation of Hebrew MSS
by Strack (see art. TEXT OF Opp

Among the important contributions to OT textual criticism
may be mentioned Olshausen’s Emendationen τ. AT, 1326, Bet-
tragezur Kritik Gn, 18705 Wellhausen, V'eat der Biicher Samael,
1871; Cornill, Das Buch. zk. 1886 (almost an epoch-making
work); Driver, Notes on Heb. Text of Samuel, Cf. also writings
of Baethgen (on Ps), Bickell (on Job, Pr), Beer (on Job), Kloster-
mann (on 1 and 28, 1 and 2 K), Wellh. (AZ. Proph.), Cheyne
(Psalms, crit. notes), Ryssel (on Mic), and especially the SBOT,
Heb. Text, the most elaborate and far-reaching attempt hitherto
made in OT textual criticism. Cf. also recent OT commentaries
of the International Series, by Driver on Dt, Moore on Jg, Smith
on 1 and 2S, Toy on Pr, and those of Nowack’s Hdkonun, and
Marti’s Kurzer Hdcomin.,

2 Usk AND INTERPRETATION. —(@) In the NT.—
Both Christ and the apostles or writers of the NT
held the current Jewish notions respecting the
Divine authority and revelation of the OT. They
refer to it in the words used by the Jews, ‘the
Scriptures’ (Mt 22°, Jn 5°), “the Holy Scriptures’
(Ro 12), and speak of its authors being moved by
the Holy Ghost (2 P 15, and appeal constantly
to its statements as unquestioned authoritative
truth. But at the same time they regarded the
OT revelation as partial and incomplete. Christ
not only placed His own authority above that of
2abbinic tradition (Mt 551: 4), but likewise
speaks of the teaching of the Mosaic law as per-
mitted cwing to the hardness of men’s hearts (Mt

198); and St. Paul regards the dispensation of the
Law as decidedly inferior to that of the gospel :

the Law was ‘rudiments’ (Gal 4°), serving to
establish a knowledge of sin. The writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews found the OT dispensation
faulty and defective. But in all these views the
disparagement of the OT is only relative. Christ
never repudiates its revelation and authority. He
puts His emphatic seal upon the OT, saying
(according to Jn 10, unless our Lord is here
arening ad hominem) that its word cannot he
broken, and that not one jot or tittle of the law
shall pass away until all shall be fulfilled (Mt 5'*).
St. Paul held likewise most strongly to its Divine
origin and its nature, holy, just, and good (Ro
74), worthy of all honour, serving to usher in
the gospel, a tutor to bring men_ to Christ (Gal
324). Likewise also the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews recognized the full validity of the
OT covenant, but in Christ and in His gospel the
OT had a full and perfect realization. Thus the
OT had its chief value, since the Ceremonial Law
ceased to be binding, in foreshadowing Christ and
the gospel. This led to the conception of the OT
as a book of prophecy throughout. Wherever
words and incidents suggested events in the life of
Christ, or of the early Church, or where they
seemed to confirm Christian doctrine, they were
so applied. This application of the OT in the INST
although it is in the line of Jewish methods ot
interpretation, finds its justification in the pro-
phetic elements of the OT. These look forward
to a special manifestation of Jehovah, to a new
relationship established between Jehovah and
Israel and mankind, to a series of blessings—all
of which may be summed up in the word redemp-
tion, and which likewise were coupled with the
appearance of a royal person, an offspring of
David. These OT outlooks, according to apos-
tolic experience and observation, were realized
in and through Christ ; henee the NT view of
the OT is fully justified ; in details (according to
historic exegesis) the applications of the OT in the
NT may sometimes be unsound, but taken asa whole

602 OLD TESTAMENT

OLD TESTAMENT

the NT method is right. The redemption ex-
perience:l in Christ is a fulfilment of OT promises.

(4) In the Barly Church, to Ad. 600.—The OT of
the early Church was the LXX, used also, though
not exclusively, by the NT writers. Hence some
of the Church Fathers refer to the apocryphal books
as though forming a part of the OT Scriptures, and
certain of them came to be canonized by the Council
of Trent (see art. APOCRYPILA in vol. i. D. ΠΥ srt.
The NT view and treatment of the OT (see above)
passed into the Christian Church.

An excess of disparagement of the OT appears in the Epistle
of Barnabas (who regarded certain Jewish institutions as of evil
origin) and in Gnostic heretical sects and that of Marcion (who
entirely rejected the OT): a failure to recognize sutticiently
the transient elements of the OT appeared in the views of the
Ebionite and other Judaizing Christians.

The restraint exhibited in the NT interpretation
of the OT was no longer continued. Jewish
methods, especially the allegorical, prevailed to
extravagance (although a literal interpretation
along with an emphasis upen the authority of
tradition, according to the Jewish notion, was
advocated by Treneus [+202] and Tertullian
[he. 220] against allegorizing Gnostics). The OT
was regarded not only as a book of prophecy
foreshadowing Christ and. the gospel, but even
as a compendium of Christian doctrine, to be
perceived through its spiritual or allegorical
meaning, This view and method of interpreta-
tion, appearing in the earliest Christian writers
(Justin Mart., + 148-165, and the Apost. Fathers
generally), prevailed especially through the influ-
ence of Origen (+ ἐς 254), who disparaged the literal
sense and held to a threefold meaning of Scripture,
corresponding to the body, soul, and spirit (de
Prim. iW. i. 11): the literal or erammatieal mean-
ing, the practical meaning or application, the mys-
tical or spiritual, (ec. allegorical (ef. S. Davidson’s
Hermeneutics, p. 981i). By the last he resolved
all OT difliculties. Any statements, whether of
history or law, appearing absurd, were rejected in
their liter U meaning, and received only in their
spiritual or allegorical interpretation (de Prin.
IV. 1. 15, 10). Even so gifted a scholar as Jerome
(+420), while he said in one instance that the alle-
gorical interpreter is insane (Com. Jer. 27, from
Davidson), yet used this method, although not to
the extent of rejecting the OT history as literally
true, Augustine (+430), in spite of the sound rules
of exegesis which he laid down in de Doc. Christ.,
expounded the OT allegorically, although not with-
out reference to the historical meaning, which he
cefended, and whose difliculties he sought to re-
iove (as, for example, the six days of Creation,
waich he resolved into wons, de Civ. Dei. xi. 6 f.).
He also, however, divided interpretation into four
kinds, historical, wtiological, analogical, and alle-
gorical. Scriptural interpretation became after
him entirely dominated (as it had been in a large
degree before) by ecclesiastical tradition or doc-
trine. An exception to this allegorical treatment
of the OT appeared in the school of Antioch, where,
especially by Theodore of Mopsuestia (+429), the
allegorizing of the OT was rejected, a difference
in degree of revelation between the OT and the
NT was recognized, and historical interpretations
were given. (He exhibited the tendencies of
modern Biblical criticism. ΑἸ] the Messianic
psalms except three he interpreted as referring to
Hezekiah and Zerubbabel. Canticles he rejected
from the Canon. He found no Trinity in the OT),
Owing to the Nestorian heresy this school of inter-
preters died out (Basil, +379, also rejected the
allegorical method).

(¢) Middle Ages, 690-1500.—In this dark period
the allegorical interpretation continued, assuming
a mystical exposition for inner spiritual growth

rather than instruction (ef. Bernhard of Clair-
vaux’s [+1153] sermons on Canticles). Eeclesias-
tical usages were found typitied in the OT. But
little original work on the OT appeared, Scholars
contented themselves with copying the opinions of
Church Fathers (‘Catenz’). Yet the true char.
acter of the OT began to be appreciated. Nico-
Janus de Lyra (+1340) in his Commentaries, from
his regard to the literal meaning, although he
insisted upon the fourfold meaning, made the
beginning in the Christian Church of a new epoch
in Bible study and of a school of natural exevesis,
He was intluenced by the Jewish interpreters of
this period, especially Rashi.

(d) Period of the Reformation, 1500-1600,—The
Reformers made an advance (1) in recognizing the
Heb. OT as furnishing alone the authoritative in-
spired text, (2) in insisting upon the natural mean-
ing and discarding the allegorical method of inter-
pretation, and (3) in interpreting Seripture hy
Scripture instead of by tradition er ecclesiastical
authority. They followed the NT writers in
recognizing the unity of the OT and the NT, and
also the ditference between them, Here, however,
they failed (Calvin, + 1564, less than ot ers) to do
justice to the OT stages of Divine revelation, and
the stage separating the OT from the NT. NT
beliefs were ascribed to OT persons. Calvin held
that the Israelites ‘in the land of Canaan beheld
as in & mirror the future inheritance reserved for
them in heaven’ (/nst. 1. ii. 1). The notion was
common (expressed by Melanchthon, +1560) that
the doctrines of the Church began in Paradise,
and continued through all time.

(6) Post-Reformation Period, 1600-1750. —This
was the age of scholastic theology and of the
rigid doctrine of verbal inspiration, making the
OT infallible, not onl, in religious truth but in all
allusions to other matters, such as those of natural
science and history. In the Lutheran and Re-
formed Churches, also, the failare of the previous
period to grasp fully the progress of Divine revela-
tion was generally heightened. Proof texts of
Christian doctrine were drawn almost as readily
from the OT as the NT. The federal theology
of Cocceius (+ 1669), in which were distinguished
two covenants, one before the Fall and one after,
and three dispensations, one before the Law, one
under the Law, and one under the Gospel, marks
an advance, furnishing the germ of a Biblical
theology ; yet the apprehension of the historic
process of Divine revelation was so slight that
Witsius (+1677), a follower of Cocceius, held in
effect that the traditional exposition of the OT was
revealed to our first parents and transmitted by
them to their posterity ((conomia Faderum, iv.
1. 20). Such views extensively prevailed, and led
to typical interpretations, differing little from the
allegorical. An exception to this tendency, how-
ever, appeared in a tew Arminian scholars, espe-
cially Grotius (+1645), who laid stress upon |is-
torical exegesis. English Puritan divines excelled
also in the practical exposition of the OT during
this period, and gave principles leading to a historic
understanding of the OT, which unhappily were
repressed (see Briges, op. cit. pp. 459-469).

(f) Period of Modern Criticism, 1750-1900.—The
Retormers receiving the Hebrew Scriptures from the
Jews, accepted also their tradition concerning their
character and authorship. The Pentateuch was
written by Moses, the other books by the persons
whose names they bear, or when this was excluded
by their contents, as in 1 and 9 5, or the terminus
ad quem, then by other OT persons contemporary
with the events described (Jeremiah, for example,
was regarded as the author of 1 and 2K, and Ezra
of land 2Ch). OT narratives were also regarded
as entirely historical and without error. Only a

—

OLD TESTAMENT

OLD TESTAMENT

603

slight questioning was heard at this time. Carl-
stadt (+ 1541) held that Moses did not write the
Pentateuch ; and Luther, perhaps in reference to
the opinion of Carlstadt, said, ‘What difference did
it make if Moses had not written the Pentateuch τ΄.
Calvin in his refusal to accept Joshua as the author
of the Bk. of Joshua, and in his assignment of Ps
44 and 74 to the Maccabean period, and the Bk.
of Malachi to Ezra, showed the same spirit. But
the interest of the Reformers was in other direc-
tions, in defending the authority of the Bible
against that of ecclesiastical tradition, in framing
Christian doctrine, and in developing Christian life.
The post-Reformation period, with its high doctrine
of inspiration, repressed critical study and freedom
of thoneht within the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches. The critical movement commenced
among non-Protestant and unbelieving scholars.
Peyrere (+ 1676) a French Catholic, Spinoza (+ 1677)
the Jewish philosopher, and Hobbes (+1679) the
English deist, all denied the Mosaic authorship οἱ
the Pentateuch on the ground of passages showing
a later date (see art. HEXATEUCH). Masius (+ 1573),
a Roman Catholic, had also recognized these pas-
sages as non-Mosaic. Simon (+1712), a Roman
Catholic, sometimes called the father of OT In-
troduction, held τὸ ἃ diversity of authorship within
the Pentateuch. The influence of English deists,
who rejected the received Christian views respect-
ine the inspiration of the ΟἿ᾽ and its history,
morality, and prophecy, was also felt in Germany.
But modera ΟἿ᾽ study or criticism is really a phase

of the irfellectual movement of the 18th cent.,
which kes created modern science in all depart-
inenty οὗ learning. Under this movement the OT
begar (o be studied as literature. Herder (1 1803)
was a pioneer in this direction, to which also the
discoveries of Bishop Lowth in regard to the struc-
ture of Hebrew poetry contributed (see above).
Semler (¢ 1791) introduced historical interpretation,
and Astrue (+ 1766) in distinguishing the documents
in Genesis by their use of the Divine names made
a beginning of the scientific investigation of the
Pentateuch. But more than all others, Eichhorn
(+ 1827), who, independently of Astrue, discovered |
the documents in Gn, exerted a wide influence in
favour of the literary study of the OT. His results
in analysis are remarkably near those received at
the present time. He introduced the term ‘Higher |
Criticism,’ saying—

‘L am obliged to give the most pains to a hitherto entirely
unworked field, the investigation of the internal condition of
the particular writings of the OT by the help οἵ the Higher
Criticism (a new name to no humanist).’—/inl.?, 1757, Preface.

Geddes (+ 1802), a Scotchman and Rom. Catholic,
held that the Pentateuch was a compilation of
documents, pre-Mosaic, Mosaic, and post-Mosaic—
the fragmentary hypothesis, yet a real advance ;
so also Vater (+1826) and Hartmann (+1838). The
3k. of Joshua was recognized as a part of the
Pentateuch, hence the notien of the Hexateuch,
The fragmentary hypothesis contradicting the evi-
dent unity of the Hexateuch was shown by Ewald
({ 1875) to be untenable, and the supplementary
took its place, presented in various forms by de
Wette (+1849), Bleek (+1859), Stihelin (+ 1875),
Knobel (+ 1863), and others. The general agree-
ment was that the Hexatench was composed of the
Elohistic, the oldest document, written by a priest
of the llth or 10th cent. B.C., containing also
genuine Mosaic legislation, supplemented by the
Jehovistie writer and then again by the author of
Dt (of the 7th cent. B.C.), Who possibly was the
compiler of the Hexateuch. Hupfeld (+ 1866) |
showed that the Elohistic source was not a unity,
but made up of a priestly legal part P and a
narrative prophetic part KE (Hgen, + 1884, had |
pointed this out, but his discovery had been dis- |

regarded). Noldeke then showed that J and E
had existed independently, and had been united
later into JE, before their union with P and D.
Graf (+1869), Kuenen (+ 1591), and Wellhausen
have especially contributed to the final solution of
this problem, showing that the earliest documents
of the Hexateuch are the prophetic ones J and KE,
resembling in certain features the early prophets
Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, and that D comes
next, belonging to the reign of Josiah, and P, the
vreat priestly document containing most of the
Mosaic legislation (Ly and related parts of Ex and
Nu), comes last in the exilie or post-exilic period
(for details see above, and art. HEXATEUCH). Thus
the conception of the order of the development οἱ
Israel’s religion has been revolutionized : the com-
pleted Levitical code coming at the end instead of
the beginning of the period extending from Moses
to Ezra.

Conclusions, departing almost as widely from
previous Jewish and Christian views, have been
reached within this same period concerning other
books of the ΟἹ. The Bk. of Isaiah has been
resolved into an anthology of prophecies of various
dates (for history of this criticism see article
ISAIAH, LV.), that of Daniel placed in the Mac-
cabean period, Jg and 1 and 2.8 shown to be
compilations of narratives not always harmonious
with each other (see articles on all these books).
The conception of the Canon also has very much
changed. ‘The post-Reformation view was essenti-
ally that of Josephus: each book written by a
recognized inspired man, and all collected by Ezra
or at his time (¢. Apion. i. 8). For modern view
see above, and article O'T CANON.

‘The conception of the OT history has also been
revolutionized. Until the period of modern criti-
cism, the narratives of the OT had generally been
received as records of real history. But according
to the new view they contain myths and legends,
and give a partially erroneous conception of the
erowth of Israel’s religion, whose beginnings are
not found in direct Divine communications to
primitive mankind and the patriarchs, but in
the common primitive religion of the Semitic
peoples, whence by revelation through Moses
and the prophets, the legal or ecclesiastical stage,
represented in the middle books of the Penta-
teuch, was reached about the time of Ezra. The
OT thus can no longer be regarded as an infal-
lible or, indeed, entirely trustworthy guide in
science and history. In these particulars it re-
flects the limitations of its times. — (Historical
criticism showing the errors of the OT narratives
has kept pace with the higher criticism and formed
a part of it. Among noteworthy contributors to
this were de Wette and Colenso (+ 1883), and in
constructive work Kittel, Stade, and Wellhausen).

A similar limitation appears also in the moral
and religious teachings of the OT. (A certain limi-
tation is recognized in the NT, and has always
been more or less clearly discerned in the Christian
Church. Criticism emphasizes a Pauline conception
also in making prophetic religion antecedent to
the Law). ‘The new science of OT theology, giving
a historical exhibition of the development of the
religion contained in the OT, has also arisen, being
first clearly presented in 1789 by Gabler (1 1826),
and carried forward by G. L. Bauer (+ 1806); de
Wette (+ 1849) ; von Colln (+1833); Vatke (+ 1882),
who in a neglected work (18385) put the Prophets
and the Law in their true relation, thus anticipat-
ing more recent results; Ewald (+ 1875), Schultz,
Smend, and others.

These tritical conclusicns were controverted from
the first by Carpzov (+ 1767), Michaelis (Ὁ 1791),
Hiivernick (+ 1845), Henestenbere (ΓΤ 1869), eal
(+ 1888), and others in Germany, and they received

604 OLD TESTAMENT CANON

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

little favour in Great Britain and America until
within recent years (especially through the inth-
ence of A. B. Davidson, W. R. Smith (+ 1894), 5. R.
Driver, and C. A. Briggs).

iv. ‘THE PERMANENT RELIGIOUS VALUE OF THE
OT resides in the simplicity of its revelation and
the freshness of its expression of primary and
universal religious truths and experiences. (1) God
is revealed not as a philosophical abstraction but
as a concrete Personality, transcendent and yet
thoroughly approachable and ready to enter into
the closest fellowship and communion with men,
and in loving care, compassion, and forgiveness
meeting their deepest religious wants and needs.
The OT introduces God ‘the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,’ directly into human
life. (2) Man in his true experiential relation to
(rod is likewise described in the careers of the
patriarchs and other heroes and worthies of Israel,
and in the history of Israel itself. Sin is portrayed,
and also return and obedience. Moral precepts
and laws of conduct are abundantly given, especially
in reference to national and social life. (a) ΤΉ ΟΥ
is also ἃ book of hope, containing the triumphant
note of redemption which is truly fulfilled in and
through Christ, and the NT believer always finds
Christ and His gospel organically and potentially
enshrined in the OT. Modern criticism has not im-
paired these permanent elements. Their aut hority,
which is that of truth, still remains, and the OT
has been transmuted from a mechanical record of
doctrines and of forced Divine manifestations into
a book of genuine historic life, an epic of salva-
tion, showing the living process of God’s revelation
through Israel.

LITERATURE.—Introductions to the OT by Bleek 6 (revised by
Wellhausen, 1893, and tr. by Venables, 1869), Cornill 4 (1896), Ss.
Davidson (1862), de Wette δ (revised by Schrader) (1869) (special),
Driver ® (1897) (special), Eichhorn + (1823-24), Holzinger (1893)
(Hexateuch), Keil3 (1869), Konig (1893), _Kuenen2 (1885-89)
(special), Kautzsch (tr. 1899) (History of Growth), Reuss 2(1890),
Richm? (Brandt) (1890), Strack 5 (189s), Wildeboer (Germ. tr.)
(1894) (special), Wright (1890). For works on the Canon and
Text see literature under OT Canon, and on OT History see
literature under ΞΕ ΛΈΕΙ.

For OT Theology see Dillmann (Kittel) 1895, Marti? 1899,
Schultz® 1896 [Eng. tr. 18951, Smend 3 1899,

History of Interpretation and Criticism. Briggs, General
Introduction to a Study of the Holy Scripture, ΝΟΥ. 1899:
Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der Christlichen
Kirche, Jena, 1869; Farrar, History of Interpretation (Bampton
Lecture), 1885; Samuel Davidson, Suered Hermeneuties, Edin.
18435 Terry, Biblical Hermeneruties (pt. ili.), N.Y. 1885; Ladd,
Doctrine of the Sacred Seripture, 2 vols. N.Y. 1883; W. R.
Smith, O7./JC%, 1892; Cheyne, Founders of OT Criticism,
London, 189

With reference to the OT (Inspiration, etc.), in the light of
Modern Criticism, cf. Bruce, Apologetics (1892), Bk. ii. pp. 164-
336; Horton, Revelation and the Bible, 1892 ; Kirkpatrick, 7'he
Divine Library of the OT, 1891; Ottley, Aspects of the OT
(Bampton Lecture), 1897; Sanday, Oracles of God, 1891, and
Inspiration (Bampton Lecture), 1893; Simon, The Bible an
Outgrowth of Theoeratic Life, 1896; A. B. Davidson, ‘ The Uses
of the OT for Edification,’ in Expositor, Jan. 1900.

E. L. Curtis.
OLD TESTAMENT CANON.—

i. Definition of the term ‘Canon.’
ii. Scope of the subject.
iii. Canon of the Reformed Churches and the Roman Catholic

Church compared.

iv. Jewish origin of OT Canon.
v. Divisions of Hebrew Bible—their significance,
vi. Evidence for the Jewish Canon—

(a) Baba Bathra.

(ὁ) Talmudic extracts concerning disputed books.

(ὦ) Council of Jamnia.

(4) The Second Book of Esdras.

(6) Josephus.

(f) The New Testament: (1) the way in which the OT
was regarded by our Lord and His disciples ; ἜΑ;
books of Scripture quoted or referred to in Na:
(38) NT evidence to extra-canonieal books ge (Δ)
general estimate of NT evidence.

(7) Philo.

(Δ) Prologue to Sirach,

(ὃ Sirach.

(j) Ezra and Nehemiah: («) promulgation of the
Hexateuch ; (8) influence of the Hexateuch on
the formation cf the Canon.

vii. Canonicity of the different divisions of the OT—

(a) Preparatory stage, culminating in the canonization
of the Hexateuch by Ezra-Nehemiah.

(Ὁ) The prophetico-historical Canon.

(6) The canonicity of the Hagiographa.

vill. Summary of results obtained.

ix. Claims of the Apocrypha to canonicity.

x. Some peculiarities in the evidence of the NT and Fathers,

xi. The influence of our present knowledge of the OT Canon

upon religion.
Literature.

i. DEFINITION OF THE TERM ‘CANON.’—The
word ‘Canon’ may be roughly defined as the list
of books authoritatively declared to Ve Holy
Scripture. Speaking @ priori, the authority by
which they are so declared may differ in déeree
and even in kind. It may be, for example, that of
a Chureh Council having power to lay down the
law for the whole Church, or it may be the
expression of an enlightened public opinion, or,
again, the opinion of a few leading scholars, whose
views have gradually found general acceptance.
Por authoritatively declared it might therefore
be deemed suflicient to substitute aniversally
received ; but it is preferable to start with a wider
definition, leaving the nature of the authority to
be decided in each case by the evidence. “he
term Holy Scripture sugeests—(1) in some peculiar
sense ὦ Divine origin, (2) in connexion with this
ἃ special sanctity distinguishing Scripture from all
other books, (8) reading for devotion or edification
in public worship, (4) quotations for the purpose
of establishing doctrine or argument. But only
the first, or perhaps we should say the first two,
and even these with some necessary modification,
can be considered as belonging to the necessary con-
notation of the idea; the second, third, and fourth
are obviously the result of the first, and all are to
some extent questions of degree. In the Jewish
Chureh several of the books which are unquestion-
ably canonical are not read even now, and have
never been read, in public worship, namely Chron.
icles, Job, Proverbs, Daniel. Ezra, and Nehemiah,
On the other hand, in the English Church, not to
mention the Protestant communities, parts of
several books are read in public worship, such as
Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, which are not
received as canonical ; whereas the canonical Song
of Songs is altogether omitted. Again, a difference
of degree, and even to some extent of kind, in the
inspiration of the various books has been generally
admitted ; while, on the other hand, many writers
have recognized that we have no right to deny
inspiration altogether to books outside the Canon.
This was admitted even by Jewish writers, as we
may see from the following quotation from the
Talmud: ‘According to R. Judah, Samuel said,
‘Esther does not defile the hands” [i.e. is not
canonical ; see below]. Could Samuel have meant
by this that the Bk. of Esther was not the work
ot the Holy Spirit? No, he meant that it was pro-
duced by the Holy Spirit, but only for reading, not
as Holy Scripture’ (Bab. Meg. 7a, quoted by Buhl,
Ene. tr. p. 31). Here we see that it might be sup-
posed that a Jewish Rabbi regarded a book as
inspired in the highest sense, and yet as not a
part of Holy Scripture. The subject of Inspira-
tion goes far beyond our present inquiry ; it will
be enough here to state that from the earliest
times, among both Jews and Christians, it entered
quite as largely as it does now into the idea of
Holy Scripture ; whereas the holiness of Scripture
was felt even more keenly by the Jews of the
early Christian era than among the Christians of
the present day.

With the Jews, as we might have expected, the
thought of the holiness of Scripture took a very
material form. We see this in the jealousy with
which they regarded the slightest alteration in
the text, and in the highly fanciful symbolical

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

OLD TESTAMENT CANON — 605

meanings that came to be attached to what were
originally (many of them) the purely accidental
idiosynerasies of a single Hebrew MS. The
formal establishment of this as the authorized
text is probably the work of the school of Jamnia
in the early part of the 2nd cent. A.D. But the
spirit which gave rise to ib was certainly much
older, and is probably referred to by our Lord in
Mt δ18, The words ‘one jot or one tittle’ have
much more point if they express the spiritual
counterpart to the exact literalism of the Rabbis
of His day, which made the alteration of the
smallest letter or particle of a letter asin. This
materialistic view of the sanctity of Scripture
appears even more curiously in the definition of
what we should call canonical books as those
which ‘defile the hands,’ the idea being that the
desecration of a holy thing, as by touch, required
expiation much in the same manner as material
defilement. To avoid this ‘defilement’ the books
which were read in the synagogue were covered,
Thus we hear that at a certain period, before the
canonicity of Esther was fairly established, wrap-
pings of the rolls of that book were declared by
certain teachers to be unnecessary (Bab. Sanh.
100a, referred to by Buhl, p. 31).

ii. SCOPE OF THE SUBJECT.—We have, then, to
consider what books belong or should belong to
the Canon of the OT in the sense already explained,
and if possible when and how they received ecclesi-
astieal sanction. The plan proposed is first to
trace the evidence backwards, and afterwards to
reconstruct, as far as the evidence allows, a con-
nected history of the Canon.

iii. CANON OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES AND
THE RoMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH COMPARED, —
There is at the outset this difficulty, that Chris-
tians are not at the present day agreed, at least
technically, as to the extent of the Canon. In
the Western Church we meet with this broad dis-
tinction, that, while all Reformed Churches accept
as strictly canonical only the books found in our
ordinary English Bibles, the Roman Catholic
Chureh’ includes in its Canon those also which are
commonly known as the Apocryphal Books. Not
only so, but at the Council of Trent she laid special
stress on the fact that all the canonical books, as
she considered them, were equally inspired: ‘Sac-
rosancta Oecumenica et Generalis Tridentina
Synodus . . . orthodoxorwn Patrum exempla
secuta, omnes libros tam veteris quam novi ‘Tes-
tamenti, cum utrinsque unus Deus sit auctor .
pari pietatis affectu ac reverentid suscipit ac
veneratur” Then follows a list of books, includ-
ing the Apocrypha of O'T, and, finally, an anathema
levelled against those who refuse to accept all
those books in their integrity as they were con-
tained in the Vulgate (Coned. Trident. Sess. iv.
Decr. 8). The Roman Catholic writers of the day
did, however, recognize some sort of difference in
fact between Apocryphal and other books, and
sometimes called the former deutero-canonical.
But this term has been understood as intended to
express the fact that the canonicity of these books
was fully accepted at a later time than the proto-
canonical in spite of some doubt and hesitation
about them, not to imply a smaller degree of
authority or inspiration (see authorities quoted
in Sanday, Jaspiration, v. note B). The English
Church, in common with other of the Reformed
Churches, gives a sort of formal but limited
sanction to the Apocrypha, ‘and the other bookes
(as Hierome sayth) the Churche doth read for
example of life and instruction of manners; but
νοῦ doth it not apply them to establish any doc-
trine (AT, “vi.): The Belgic Confession makes
somewhat similar statement: ‘ Differentiam
porro constituimus inter libros istos sacros et eos

quos Apocryphos vocant: utpote quod Apocryphi
levi quidem in Ecclesia possint, et fas sit ex illis
eatenus etiam sumere documenta, quatenus cum
libris canonicis Consonant; at nequaquam ea est
ipsorum auctoritas et firmitas ut ex illorum testi-
monio aliquod dogma de fide et religione Christiana
certo constitui possit’ [Art. vi., quoted in Harold
Browne, Expos. Artt., Art. vi. sec. 11. 5 see also,
on the relation of the Reformed Churches to the
Apocrypha, Buhl, pp. 69, 70]. On the other hand,
the Westminster Confession, (i. 3) would have
none of the Apocrypha, but declared emphatically
that they were ‘of no authority to the Church of
God, nor to be otherwise proved or made use of than
any other human writings.’

The grounds upon which the Reformed Churches
differed from the Roman Catholic Church in the
value attached to the Apocrypha, were partly
historieal and literary and partly doctrinal. — It
seemed right to limit the books of the OT to those
which had been accepted by the Jews and formed
part of the Hebrew Bible, and had also been
accepted by some of the greatest of the Fathers,
notably Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome; whereas
the Apocrypha had been clearly distinguished by
them from the Canon, and placed upon a lower
level. The Reformers were also influenced un-
doubtedly by the fact that quotations from the
Apocrypha were frequently used = by Roman
Catholic writers in support of the peculiar doc-
trines of their Church, such as Purgatory (Wis
3° 5) and the meritorious value of good works (‘To
410 2p: Sir 3°" 2601}. 1.)

We have, then, to take account of what may be
called a larger and a smaller Canon. The larger
included most of those books which were comprised
in the Greek LXX and afterwards the Latin Vul-
wate, and became the Bible of the Medieval Chureh ;
the latter was confined to the Books of the Hebrew
Bible, and was equivalent to our Old Testament.
It is with the latter that we have directly most to do.

iv. JEWISH OrtIGIN OF OT CANON.—The early
Christians derived their OT from the Jewish
Church. By this is not meant that when the
first Christians broke off from Judaism they took
with them a well-defined Bible, but that questions
of canonicity were referred, as a matter of course,
to Jewish opinion. So little idea had the early
Christian Church of deciding for itself what books
were or were not canonical, that we actually find
a bishop (Melito of Sardis, c. 170 A.D.) unable to
specify the contents of the OT until he had
travelled to the country where the sacred books
had originated, and there made special inquiries
(see Euseb. HF iv. 26). Even so his list is not
absolutely complete, as it omits Esther. Whether
this is merely a slip on his own or his informer’s
part, or is intentional, it is difficult to say. It is
not, of course, to be supposed that Melito was un-
acquainted with the OT books which he enumerates.
They were all to be found in the LXNX, and Melito
gives them their familiar Greek names as found in
that version. The important fact is, that among
the Bible books, in this wider sense of the Bible, he
considered those to be of special value, or as we
should say canonical, which he ascertained to be
received among the Jews. That the early Chris-
tian Church fully recoznized that their OT Canon
was thus derived, is shown even more explicitly
by the language of Origen nearly a century later,
εἰ 250, in which he speaks of ‘the Books of the
Covenant, as the Hebrews have handed them
down’ (ras ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους ὡς ᾿Εβραῖοι παραδιδό-
aow); andafter giving the Canon, only accidentally
incomplete,* speaks of ‘the Maccabees’ as outside

* The omission of the Minor Prophets is inconceivable on any
other hypothesis, and is, in fact, required to make up the given
number of 22.

τ acaeeemaamme renee

606 OLD TESTAMENT CANON

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

of thein (ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ MaxxaBaixa ἅπερ émvyé- |

γραπται Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ, Euseb. (vi. 95). That

“.2)

‘the Maccabees’ are, like the other books, given |

their Hebrew title, meaning probably ‘ Prince of
the House of the Sons of Goa,’ ἢ

is Important as —

showing that the first book at least was. still |

extant in Hebrew, and that Origen did not accept
as canonical all sacred books in that language.
The word ἐνδιαθήκους suggests that διαθήκη, ‘ cove-
nant’ (our ‘Testament ’), was already beginning
to be applied technically to the ΟἽ collection.
This testimony is all the more remarkable be-
cause Origen not only made use of the ‘external
books’ himself, but defended the Greek additions
to Daniel against Julius Africanus, Similarly

Jerome speaks of the books recognized among the |

Hebrews (apud Hebrwos) and of those outside as
having their proper place among the Apocrypha :
‘Ut scire valeamus quicquid extra hos est, inter
ἀπόκρυφα esse ponendum’ (Pratt. in libre. Sam. et
Mat., quoted by Ryle, Canon, Exe. Ὁ). xiii. ete.).

vy. DIVISIONS OF HeBREW BIBLE—THEIR SIGNI-
FICANCE.—The inquiry therefore resolves itself
into that concerning the reception of the sacred
books by the Jewish Church. When and how
were certain of the sacred books of the Jews
received as canonical and the rest excluded? One
fact is of great importance if we would understand
aright the history of the Canon, that we have to
deal not with one, but with three groups of books.
These are not the result of a later subdivision of
the larger ‘Divine Library’ for convenience’ sake
into three smaller parts, but, with the probable
exception of one book (Joshua), they were with
the Jews always distinet, and were regarded with
some difference of feeling. In Talmudic Literature
they are compared respectively, in point of sanctity,

with the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, and the |

Temple Court.
Law (an Torah), comprising the Pentateuch or
so called ‘Five Books of Moses.’ (2) The Pro-
phets (223), comprising both the historical hooks,
Joshua, Judges, Land 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings
—called ‘the Former Prophets’; and the pro.
phetical books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
the book of the twelve Minor Prophets—called
‘the Latter Prophets. + (3) The Writings ({a°21n2
Avthubhim = Gr. ἁγιύγραφα, Hagiographa = Holy
Writings). by which is probably meant the rest. of
the Scriptures, those which do not come under
either of the other heads. The Historical books
were included under the Prophets, probably not

The three divisions are—(1) The.

Ἐξ

(7) The Baba Bathra.—The difficulty in answer.
ing this question is in part the difficulty of assien.
ing an exact date to a literary document, and in
part that of determining what degree of objection
or hesitation about a book should prevent our
considering it as at the time part of the Canon.
The facts are these: In the Talmudic treatise
ralled Baba Bathra there is an extract (bar-
aitha) trom the Mishna which gives a virtually
complete list of the books of the OT as we
now know it.* The Mishna was committed to
writing, so it is believed, not long before A.D. 200,

On the other hand, Buhl (p. 25) refers to a Tal-

mudic passage to prove that even after this a
scholar was found to deny the ecanonicity of the
Bk. of Esther. Whether the omission’ of this
hook, or doubts expressed about it by certain
Fathers, Melito, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen,
Cyril of Jerusalem, and Aimphilochius, were derived
from Jewish objectors, or were the result of an
independent judgment, cannot be positively deter-
mined. The omission by Melito may well be a
ship (see Bull, p. 58).

(2) Talmudic extracts concerning disputed books,
mainly 2nd cent. The evidence so far shows that
by the end of the 2nd cent. at latest the Canon
was virtually settled, but that it was even then
no unheard of thing to doubt the canonicity of
a canonical book. As we go back through the
2nd cent., we find such doubts becoming more
frequent. There are several references in the
Talmud to rabbinical teachers who rejected or.
disputed certain books. With the exception of
Ezekiel, and perhaps Jonah also (see Ryle, pp.
193, 194), what Ryle has happily called the ἀντιλε-
youeva Of ΟἿ᾽ seem to have been contined to the
Hagiographa, and included Proverks, Ruth, Esther,
Ecclesiastes, and Song of Sones, but especially
the last two. The position taken up by these

-early Biblical critics is in] many respects very

influenced the formation of the Canon.

under the belief that they were necessarily all |

written by well-known prophets, Samuel, Nathan,
Isaiah, ete., but as written under prophetic in-
spiration. In this article the groups will be
called the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagio-
grapha, It will be obvious at once that they are
not the result of a division according to subject-
matter. The Prophetico-historical books do not
include Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The
prophet Daniel (so expressly called in NT, Mt
245) is placed not in the second, but in the third
group. ‘This last contains, in fact, books of the
most heterogeneous sorts, poetry, ethics, philo-

sophy, prophecy, ete., and its name is of the most.

general character. It would, strictly speaking,
apply to all the groups, and its application to this
exclusively can be explained only by the history
of its inclusion in the Canon.

vi. EVIDENCE FOR THE JEWISH CANON. — At
what period was the Canon of OT completed ? or
can we indeed settle upon any exact date by
which we can say that it was absolutely fixed ἢ

* Seven other interpretations are given by Ryle, Canon of
ΟἽ, +, 185.

1 These phrases probably refer to their pes’tion in the Hebrew
Bible, not to a supposed priority or posteriority of date.

interesting. They never appeal to an ancient
tradition either for or against a book; nor do
they, with probably a few exceptions, discuss the
question of authorship. And yet it is almost
certain that both these considerations must have
The ob-
jections raised suggest rather that the canonicity
of the hooks was generally admitted—but that in
the opinion of the Rabbis quoted it was liable te
objection. These objections were usually based on
the ground of some supposed defects in the books
themselves. They depended, in short, on internal,
never on external, evidence. Thus Ee 515 seemed

| to contradict 2°, and 45 seemed to contradict 94.

Proverbs was by some withdrawn, in common with
the Song of Songs, because they spoke in parables,
τὰ interesting proof of the interpretation put
upon the latter, and, in point of fact, probably the
cause of its recognition as canonical. The far
more serious Objection was raised to Ecclesiastes,
that it betrayed an Epicurean tinge, and tended
to favour the Sadducean scepticism. Thus 18
seemed to sugeest a denial of the future state;
117 encouraged worldly pleasure, and, moreover, it
contradicted the stern precepts of Nu 15. On
this book we learn that there was, or had been,
a difference of opinion between the rival schools
of Hillel and Shammai, the former accepting, the
latter rejecting, the book. Even Ezekiel was at
one time objected to on the ground that some of
the provisions of the concluding chapters were
contrary to those of the Levitical law. Some of
these objections and discussions, interesting as
showing the extreme views of inspiration then

* Baba Bathra, fol. 14b-15a, quoted in Ryle, Exc. B. The
separate books of the Pentateuch are not mentioned, nor more
than four of the Minor Prophets ; but the former are, of course,
implied by the ‘ Torah’ and the latter by ‘the Twelve.’

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

OLD TESTAMENT CANON _ 60?

current, belong probably to an earlier date than
the 2nd cent. A.D., but we must discount to some
extent the common tendency of tradition to ascribe
stories and sayings to well-known men, especially
those of an earlier period. ‘There is’ sufficient
evidence to show that such discussions were by
πὸ means uncommon after the Council of Jamnia,
to which we must next refer. They show that
during the 2nd cent. A.D. several books, of the
Hagiographa especially, were still the subject
of free and frequent discussion, This was not
inconsistent with their being in a general way
recognized as canonical, But such a qualitied
canonicity, if we may call it so, is hardly the
same conception as we find at a later date. It
was at this time neither irreverent nor disloyal
to dispute a canonical book (see Ryle, ch. x.).

(6) Council of Jamnia.—It may be asked, When
was this qualified canonicity conferred? Both the
Midrash and the Talmud point very definitely to
the close of the Ist cent. A.D. In the former a
saying of R. Simeon ben-Azai is quoted : “1 have
heard from the 72 elders, on the day when they
eave R. Eleazar the presidency of the school (of
Jamnia), that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes
detile the hands. R. Akiba [Griitz, R. Jacob] said,
‘God forbid that any one in Israel should doubt
that the Song of Songs detiles the hands ; the
whole world does not outweigh the day in which
Israel received the Sone of Sones. All the Kethu-
bhim are holy, but the Song of Songs is the
holiest. If they have contested, it was with
reference to Ecclesiastes.” But R. Johanan ben-
Jeshua, R. Akiba’s brother-in-law, said, “As R.
Simeon ben-Azai has laid it down, so they dis-
puted, and so they decided”? (Jeg. Jadaim iil. 5,
quoted in Buhl, p. 29). The same tradition with
some variety of detail is given also in Bab. Jeg.
Tu. These extracts refer to a council, or perhaps
we should call it a debate, at Jamnia, held, it is
said, about A.b. 90. As the discussion from which
the above quotation is taken is prefaced by the
statement, ‘All holy scriptures defile the hands,
even Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes detile them,’
we may naturally infer that all the disputed
hooks, either tacitly or expressly, received the
imprimatur of the council. After the fall of
Jerusalem, Jamnia became the centre of Pales-
tinian Judaism. The zeal and enthusiasm which
had been shown by the Jews in their sacrificial
system now seems to have found a new focus in
sacred literature (see Gritz, Mist. Jews, τι. ch.
xiii.). The decisions of this school, if net con-
sidered absolutely binding, must at least have had
a very strong and far-reaching influence on Jewish
opinion, If it is an exaggeration to say that the
Canon of the OT was finally settled at the Council
of Jamnia, it certainly goes a long way towards
the truth.

id) The Second Book of Esdras, ὁ. 90 A.D.—-This
tradition, in itself so probable, is confirmed, as far
as it goes, by a passage in the Apocalyptic Fourth
Book of Esdras (2 Es 14448), in which, according
to the text of the Oriental versions, * of the 94 sacred
books miraculously written out at Ezra’s quota-
tion, 70 were to be kept secret, the remaining 24
divulged. The number 24 corresponds to that of
the canonical books as ordinarily reckoned by the
Jews. The writer of this apocryphal work must
be understood, therefore, as claiming that all the
24 canonical books were written out at Ezra’s
dictation. This book is, on internal evidence,
ascribed to the age of Domitian, and would there-
fore be about contemporary with the Council of

*The Latin MSS have 204, 84, 974. 904 being, according to
Ryle, the best attested reading, but the Oriental VSS agree in
94 (see Ryle, p. 285). This latter reading has also intrinsic
probability in its favour, yet not so obviously as to have been
a cause of corruption,

Jamnia. The writer’s object in setting down what
is probably a pure fiction of his own, is to give
credit to his work, as one of the 70 secret books ;
as far as the canonical books are concerned, it
may be regarded as merely the echo of received
opinion.

(6) Josephus, c. 90 A.D.—Of still ereater import-
ance is the practically contemporary evidence of
Josephus: ‘For there are not with us myriads of
books discordant and discrepant, but only two
and twenty, comprising the history of all time,
which are justly accredited (om. θεῖα, Heinichen in
Euseb. 1. x.). And of these, tive are the books of
Moses, which comprise the laws and the tradition
of man’s origin up to the time of Moses’ death.
This period is little less than 300 years. From
the death of Moses until that of Artaxerxes, who
was king of the Persians after Xerxes, thy prophets
who succeeded Moses wrote the events of their
times in 13 books. The remaining 4 books contain
hymns to God and counsels of life for men. From
the time of Artaxerxes up to our own everything
has been recorded, but the records have not been
accounted equally worthy of credit with those
written before them, because the exact succession
of prophets ceased’ (ὁ. Ap. 1. 8, quoted in Euseb.
Hi wt. x.). Here we tind not only a description
of books, but a theory of canon city. ‘Phose books
could alone be accounted Scripture which preceded
the death of Artaxerxes (1.6. Xerxes, see Lyle,
pp. 161, 162 n.), at which time the prophetic gift
ceased. Later books were, therefore, of less
esteem, though they might, as, e.g., 1 Mac, have
a historical value. The very existence of such a
theory seems to imply that the fact of canonbicity
itself was regarded by Josephus as indisputable,
and this is confirmed by his further statement :
‘And we give plain proof of our attitude towards
our own Scriptures: for though so long a time
has passed, no one has dared either to add or change
anything, but all Jews are naturally disposed from
their very birth to consider them the decrees of
God, to abide by them, and gladly to die, if need
be, on their behalf? (74.). This cannot, of course,
in the face of the literary criticism of the Bible,
be accepted as a historical statement of fact ; but
did it express the current opinion among the Jews
of the time of Josephus, and, if so, how is it to
be reconciled with the traditions of the Council of
Jamnia, and still more with the disputations of
certain Rabbis mentioned above ?

But there are two other questions which it may
be well to answer first. How comes Josephus to
speak of 22 books instead of 24? and what are the
books which he means? Three explanations of
the number 22 have been given. (1) That of Gritz,
that Josephus did not include Ecclesiastes and the
Song of Songs, the two books which, according to
the account preserved in Jadaim, were the chiet
subject of dispute at the Council of Jamnia, Gratz
maintains that both these books were accepted
by the school of Hillel, and rejected by that οἱ
Shammai, and that the main object of the council
was to reconcile the two schools, so that the ques.
tion of the Canon was really a secondary con-
sideration. But, had this been the case, Josephus
asa Pharisee would almost certainly have followed
the school of Hillel and accepted these books. In
any case it is not easy to understand why he
should so unhesitatingly have rejected books which
were soon afterwards, if indeed it was afterwards,
accepted by the majority. (2) A more common
hypothesis is that Josephus included Ruth in the
Bk. of Judges, and Lamentations in that of Jere-
miah, with the express intention of making the
number of the hooks agree for symbolical reasons
with that of the Hebrew alphabet. The sym-
bolical treatment of the number is in fact common

60@ OLD TESTAMENT CANON

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

enough, but Josephus himself makes no such use
of it, and it seems, as far as we know, to be con-
fined to Christian writers. Conspicuous instances
are found in Origen (in Euseb. ΜᾺ vi. 25) and
Jerome (Pref. Sam. et Mal.). The latter, curi-
ously enough, finds alternative symbolisms for the
more ordinary number 24, and even for 27, the
latter number being got by dividing the 5 double
books —Samnuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehe-
miah, Jeremiah-Lamentations—and comparing the
whole with the numbers of the alphabet plus the
5 final consonants. In this arrangement it is to
be noticed, as Ryle very justly points out (Canon,
p. 220), that Jerome conveniently ignores the fact
that Judges-Ruth was also a double book, and
follows the Greek arrangement in dividing the first
three books. Their division in the Hebrew Bible
is of much later date. It is clear, therefore, that
this, at any rate, was no traditional Jewish ex-
planation, but merely the play of Jerome’s own
fancy. (3) A third explanation is that Josephus
in inclading Ruth in Judges and Lamentations in
Jeremiah was so far following the arrangement
of the books in the LXNX, as we know it. In
any case his arrangement of books appears to be
peculiar, and is based entirely upon the subject-
matter. Apart from any question arising from
the inclusion or exclusion of Ecclesiastes and Song
of Songs, it is evident that Daniel must be in-
cluded among the prophetico-historical books, an
arrangement quite at variance with Hebrew cus-
tom. The descriptions, too, are somewhat vague.
Even if Song of Songs is not to be included among
‘hymns to God and counsels of life for men,’ it is
clear that the Bk. of Isaiah must be intended as
among the prophets who wrote the history of their
own times, What makes it impossible to decide
this question absolutely is that we really do not

know with any certainty what was the arrange- |

ment of the LXNX at this date, nor do we even
know whether the books were united as yet in
one complete collection. It is at least as probable
that it existed in the form of separate collections.
Again there is some reason to suppose that the
LXX did not stand alone in the combination of
Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jere-
nuah. In this connexion hardly suflicient weight
seems to have been generally given to the express
statements of Origen. In his enumeration of
Scripture, he describes Judges as κριταί, Ρούθ, παρ᾽
αὐτοῖς ἐν ἑνί, Σαφατείμ, and Jeremiah as ‘Tepeuias
σὺν Θρήνοις Kai TH ἐπιστολῇ ἐν ἑνί, Tepeuia (in Euseb,
vi, 25). This may possibly mean that in his Hebrew
copy of the Bible the name ‘Judges’ ineluded Ruth,
and the name ‘Jeremiah’ both Lamentations and
the Epistle (Bar 6).* Such a rearrangement of the
Hebrew books is of importance as showing that in
the view of Josephus, and those who followed the
same arrangement, the Hagiographa were quite as
definitely Scripture as the rest.

When we compare the strong statements made by
Josephus as to ἃ Canon long and unalterably fixed

with the doubts concerning certain books prevalent |

during the Ist and 2nd cents. A.D., it seems that we
have before us utterly irreconcilable evidence, and
that we have no choice but to accept one alternative
and reject the other. And this is what writers upon
the Canon seem very frequently to have done.
But studying the question quite impartially, it is
difficult to see what ground there should be for
absolute falsification on either side. In fact the
evidence of the Council of Jamnia, as far as it

* The inclusion of this Epistle is certainly a difficulty; but in
the face of the definite reference throughout to the Hebrew
titles of the several books, it seems hardly satisfactory to say,
with Ryle (p. 107), that Origen is merely following the LXX
version. It appears more probable that at this date some
Hebrew MSS did actually contain this Epistle, which was re-
garded by some as a genuine part of Jeremiah.

goes, is too circumstantial to admit of such a
supposition. On the other hand, when we examine
the language of Josephus critically, there are two
facts that we feel compelled to bear in mind: (1)
That he was fond of rhetorical statements, which
have an evident flavour of Oriental hyperbole. He
could not resist the temptation to make the most
of what he thought would interest his readers.
We should hardly think, for instance, of treating
his account of the events connected with the last
siege of Jerusalem as the language of a scientific
historian. (2) His object in speaking of the Canon
afforded in this particular instance a special temp-
tation to make the most of it, his intention being
to show the incomparable superiority of the select
Jewish writings to the ‘myriads’ (the word is
itself a gross exaggeration) of Greek books whose
accounts of their mythology differed so widely
from each other. In fact such an argument helps
us to understand why it was that the Jewish
doctors of that day were so sensitive about seem-
ing discrepancies in Bible books. A clever heathen
disputant might have turned the tables and said,
‘Why, your own sacred books often contain like
contradictions.’ Atter all, the temptation to in-
accuracy and exageeration is one which some of
our greatest historians, even in this scientitic ace,
—Macaulay, for example,—have not been wholly
free from. We may, however, reasonably enough
accept the statement of Josephus as evidence of the
books commonly accepted by the most orthodox of
the Jews of his day, without binding ourselves to
believe that he was unacquainted with the ob-
jections raised in certain quarters. But. that
statement can hardly be accepted as a positive
proof that the Canon had been fixed lone before
his time. It has its value as making it probable
that at that period the objections to certain books
were confined to a few persons, whose opinions
Josephus felt justified in ignoring.

(f) The New Testament. —So considered, the
evidence of Josephus carries us a step further,
showing us that the decision of the Council of
Jamnia practically endorsed what may be regarded
as the public opinion of the time on the subject of
the Canon. Going farther back, we come to the
evidence of the NT. From ἃ Christian potnt of
view this is of very special importance. There is
a natural desire to prove that the OT Canon his
the duprimatur of our Lord. For this very reason
it is important to be on our guard against even the
suspicion of prejudice.

(1) The way in which the OT was regarded by our
Lord and His disciples.—This is perhaps the most
important feature of NT evidence for the OT
Canon. It shows unmistakably that the Chris-
tians inherited from the Jews the unquestioned
belief in a body of literature of a specially sacred
and Divine character. The expressions, ‘the Serip-
ture,’ ‘the Scriptures,’ ἢ γραφή, ai γραφαί, are used,
much as we use them now, as well-known terms
which required no further explanation, as, for
example, in Mt 21%, Mk 14%, Jn 7* 20° The
phrase ‘it has been written,’ γέγραπται Mt 4% 7°,
| Ro 17, Gal 3" ete., is equivalent to saying ‘it is
found in Seripture.’ It is true that words signify-
ing ‘holy’ are only twice applied to Seripture
(γραφαῖς ἁγίαις Ro 1*, ἱερὰ γράμματα 2 Ti 3”), but
Divine influence is asserted even more emphatic-
ally in such phrases as πᾶσα γραφὴ θεύπνευστος (2 Ti
816), Δαυεὶδ ἐν πνεύματι κύριον αὐτὸν καλεῖ (Mt 22%;
cf. Ac 438. Moreover, the authority of Scripture
is appealed to very frequently as suflicient evi-
dence of truth, as in Mt 2172, Lk 247, Ito 11° ete.
ete., and esp. Jn 10° (οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή,
unless our Lord is here arguing ad hominem). That
authority is equally implied in such expressions as
| λέγει, εἴρηκε, etc., used in introducing Scripture

OLD TESTAMENT CANON OLD TESTAMENT CANON 609
quotations. Sometimes, no doubt, the.true subject | called to the use made of 1 Mac in He 11%-°8,) The

is God, not so much as speaking through the writer,
but as the actual speaker in the passage quoted,
e.g. in Ac 134, He 13°. It is alxo possible to ex-
plain the verb as strictly impersonal, and as prac-
tically equivalent to a passive. This view 15
supported by such a phrase as διεμαρτύρατο δέ πού τις
λέγων (He 2"); but the very indefiniteness is signifi-
cant. It is as though the writer were so impressed
with the Divine sanctity of the words that it was of
little moment to him through whom or how they
were first used. In fact, he conceived of them in
certain cases as being continued to be spoken, as
in He 378. This use, though specially frequent in
Hebrews, is by no means contined to that book.
We have a remarkable example of it in Ac 2! τοῦτό
ἐστι τὸ εἰρημένον διὰ τ. προφήτου ᾿Ιωήλ, where Joel is
merely the channel of Divine communication. So,
too, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει (Ro 955), Indeed, phrases
of this kind occur so frequently, and with so much
variety, that it seems most probable that the
writers really thought of God or the Holy Spirit
as the true subject, even though grammatically,
perhaps, τὰς should be supplied. [ἢ He 37 1015: 1 the
subject τὸ Πνεῦμα is actually given. See, further,
Epos. Times, Sept. 1899, p. 533 f.

(2) Books of Scripture quoted or referred toin NT.
—When we come to inquire what books were com-
prised in the connotation of ‘Scripture? as used in
NT, we may feel sure from Mt 57, Lk 24°? #4,
Jn 1®, Ae 135 244 οϑ Ro 851, that it included, at
least, the Pentateuch and the Prophetico- Historical
Beoks, as well as the Psalms.* From Ac 13” we
learn that the first two groups were regularly read
in the synagogue. ‘This is confirmed by quotations
in the NT from practically all these books. +

The evidence of Lk 24" cannot be urged against
the books of the Hagiographa other than the
Psalms. Our Lord is referring to Scripture with
special reference to the prophecies of the Messiah.
A mention of books which contained no Messianic
prophecies could not have been expected. In point
of tact, some of the Hagiographa are introduced
with what are most naturally understood as for-
mule of Scripture quotation, e.g. Pr 3 with διὸ
λέγει In Ja 48; cf. also Ro 12": *°, where a quotation
from Pr 25722 is connected with another from
Dt 32%, which is introduced with the words γέγραπ-
ται γάρ. The same formula is used in 1 Co 3! to
introduce a quotation from Job 5%. More remark-
able is the mixture of Ἐς 750 with Ps 14) in Ro 3!
prefaced by καθὼς γέγραπται (see QUOTATIONS, 1).
The reference in Mt 23" to 2 Ch 24° 7) at least
proves that that book was a recognized source of
Jewish history. It can hardly prove its canonicity,
unless He 119-38 proves the canonicity of 1 Mac.+

But the absence of quotations in NT is not
enough to prove that the rest of the Hagiographa
were not at this time regarded as Scripture, when
we take into account that of the first two groups
there are no quotations from Judges, Obadiah,
Nahum, and Zephaniah, and very few from some
others (1 from Nu, 1 from Jos, 2 from land 25,
2 from 1 and 2 K, 1 from Job), and, above all, that
the contents of some of the books would not readily
lend themselves to quotation.

(3) NV evidence to extra-canonical books.—On
the other hand, it may be questioned whether the
argument from the quotations in NT does not
prove too much. Attention has already been

* Curiously enough, the Psalms are quoted in St. John as the
Law in 10/4 and as the Prophets in 64°.

+ Judges, though not actually quoted, is referred to in He 1192,
As the 12 Minor Prophets had long before formed one book
(Sir 4919), it is sufficient to find quotations as we do from several
of them.

+ The same objection might be urged against the reference to
Judges in He 1182, were it not practically certain that it was
included in ‘ the Prophets,’ so often referred to in NT.

* VOL. III. —39

quotation from the Book of Enoch in Jude" is
still more remarkable, showing that the writer
of the Epistle accepted as a genuine prophecy of
the patriarch an extract from a late book which
never had a claim to be considered part of the
Jewish Canon. To this we should add τοῦ evi-
dently taken also from some such extra-canonical
source, [0 is almost certain that the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews adapted the phrase ἀπαύ-
γασμα τ. δύξης . . . αὐτοῦ ἴῃ 15 from Wis 7"; but such
an adaptation, in view of the sacredness and 1π|-
portance of the subject—the Divine nature of the
Son of God—would seem to imply a recognition of
the authority of this book. ‘laken in connexion
with the reference to 1 Mae in ch. 11, it suggests
that this Alexandrian writer accepted the whole
collection of the Alexandrian LXX as Seripture.
To these should perhaps be added the quotations
in Jn 73 #, Eph 54, which, though not found am
their present form in any canonical books, are
definitely quoted as Scripture (see QUOTATIONS, G).

(4) General estimate of NT evidence. —Speaking
generally, it may be said that while there was in
the early Church a very strong feeling of both the
sanctity and authority of Holy Scripture, and Holy
Scripture connoted at least the majority of the
books of OT, there was, on the other hand, by no
means a very definite wniversally accepted idea of
the exact contents or limits of Holy Seripture, at
any rate among the Christians of the Ist century.
With the learned Jews of Palestine it may have
been, and probably was, different. This attitude
on the part of Christian writers towards so im-
portant a question may seem improbable and
illogical. It would be so in modern times. But
it is necessary to-bear in mind the paucity of MSS
in that age, the ‘illiterateness’ of ‘the masses,’ and,
to some extent, of the writers themselves, and the
difference of literary methods and standards then
prevalent. Even the learned St. Paul himself
hardly ever quotes accurately except from the
Law and the Psalms, and mixes up quotations
from different books to a most extraordinary
extent (see QUOTATIONS, F). It has already been
noticed how ata later time a distinguished bishop
of the Church actually found it necessary to go and
inquire among the Jews what the books of the OT
really were. Taking all this into account, it is
satistactory to know that the early Church from
the very first accepted very nearly, 1f not quite, all
of the OT books as Scripture. Moreover, there is
no indication that the Hagiographa were looked
upon as inferior to the rest of Scripture.

(g) Philo, c. 40 A.D.—Going back to the earlier
part of the Ist cent. we find the evidence of Philo
somewhat confusing. He appears to have been
influenced by four more or less conflicting prin-
ciples. (1) He recognized, above all, the supreme
inspiration of Moses, beside which all other inspira-
tion was comparatively insignificant. (2) He was
influenced in his allegorical treatment of Scripture
by the methods of the Palestinian Halakha, and
quoted the canonical books * as it of vreater autho-
rity than the rest. (3) He acknowledged the in-
spiration of the LXX translators, and says tha‘
the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures should be rever-
enced and admired ‘ as sisters, or rather as one and
the same both in the facts and in the words’ (Vita
Mos. ii. 5-7). (4) He advanced the theory that
inspiration had a still wider sphere, and embraced
the great Greek philosophers, and it would seem
even himself (see Drummond, Philo, vol. i. 15, 16;
Buhl, § 6. 12). We might perhaps best represent
and reconcile his different theories by supposing
concentric circles corresponding to different degrees

* Excepting Ezekiel, Daniel, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes,
Lamentations, and Esther.

610

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

of inspiration, the innermost containing the Law
of Moses, the next the whole Palestinian Canon,
the third the LXX books, the fourth including all
inspired books in the very widest sense. But it
seeins hardly probable that Philo himself ever con-
ceived so definite a system. All that his evidence
really seems to prove is that on the whole he was
inclined to regard the Palestinian Canon with
ereater favour than the wider collection of the
LXX. Inageneral way it confirms what we know
from other sources, but hardly adds anything
definite.

(h) Prologue to Sirach, c. 130 B.c.—I¢ is different
when we vet back to the evidence provided by
the Prologue tothe Bk. of Sirach: ‘Whereas many
and great things have been delivered unto us
by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that
have followed in their steps, for the which things
Israel ought to be commended for learning and
wisdom; . . my grandfather, Jesus, when
he had much given himself to the reading of the
Law and the Prophets and other books of our
Fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment,
was drawn on also himself to write something per-
taining to learning and wisdom.’ Further on the
translator takes occasion once more to speak of
‘the Law itself and the Prophets, and the rest of
the books,’ as being superior in’ their original
Hebrew to the translation of them (LXX). We
eather from these statements that at this time the
first two groups, the Law and the Prophets, were
at least well-known collections of books of recog-
nized authority ; that there were, besides these,
other books which were highly esteemed for their
wisdom and moral worth. But no very definite
distinction is drawn between the spirit of this third
eroup and the work of his grandfather, except that
one is the imitation of the other. Both were actu-
ated by παιδεία and σοφία. Such language is clearly
inconsistent with the notion of a closed Canon, as
we find it in Josephus. The translator lived, it
appears, in an age of transition, when the canon-
icity of the first two groups was practically estab-
lished (whether a theory or a term expressive of
canonicity had yet been formulated matters little),
and that of the third was still in the making. It
was natural to mention the third also in speaking
of the sacred literature of the Jews, but not quite in
the same spirit. Such language of commendation
would have been quite out of place, almost im-
pertinent, inspeaking of the Law and the Prophets.
A writer of his own day, Thomas Ellwood, could
speak of Milton as ‘a gentleman of great note
for learning throughout the learned world for the
accurate pieces he had written on various subjects
and occasions.’ Such language would be absurd
now.

We may be practically certain from other con-
siderations that this third group of books included
Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 and 2
Chronicles, and others, but we cannot use the
passage quoted as an independent argument for
the canonicity of any single disputed book, such as
the Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes.

(i) Sirach, ο. 180 B.C.; especially chs, 44-
50) (Praise of Famous Men).—Of even greater
importance is the praise of famous men in chs.
44-50) of the Bk. of Sirach itself. From these
chapters we get a very fair idea of the view of
sacred literature taken by a learned Jew of that
time. His descriptions are evidently taken from
the Law, the Prophets, and the historical books
of the Hagiographa (Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehe-
miah). There are specific references to every one
of them. His conception of David is largely derived
from the Chronicler, the appointment of singers,
the use of psalms in the temple worship, and prob-
ably the Psalter itself being ascribed to him, * In

all his works he praised the Holy One most high
with words of glory ; with his whole heart he sang
songs, and loved Him that made him. He set
singers also before the altar, that by their voices
they might make sweet melody, and daily sing
praises in their songs’ (47% %, οἵ. 1 Ch 25 and Ps
1492), Α similar acquaintance with Ezra and
Nehemiah seems implied by what is said of Zerub-
babel, Joshua, and Nebemiah (49%). What. is
said of the first of these might possibly, however,
have been taken from Hag 115-15 2%5, and certainly
bears reference to the latter; and the absence of
all mention of Ezra is singular. This shows that
the author had no knowledge of those legends
which connected the Canon so closely with the
ereat founder of later Judaism (2 Es 14 ; see also
Ryle, Exe. D), and probably is to be explained on
the supposition that in his eyes Ezra was over-
shadowed by Nehemiah. Τὺ is not improbable that
at this time the Bks. of Ezra and Nehemiah were
still parts of Chronicles. The separation of these
books would have helped to bring out the per-
sonality of Ezra. Some of the other books of
the Hagiographa seem also recognized, Sir 47°,
already quoted, implies the existence of a psalm-
book ascribed to David ; not necessarily the whole
Psalter, but including apparently Ps 149 (sce v.*),
or at least Ps 100 (see y.*), and therefore probably
the whole.* A similar passage, 47", speaks of the
admiration which Solomon elicited by his ‘songs,
and proverbs, and parables, and interpretations
[obviously a mistranslation of ms>> ‘figures’; cf.
Pr 1°, where περ has the sense of ‘figure’}. This
passage might be merely an adaptation of 1K
4°23 pnt it would receive a special point if Pro
verbs, Song of Songs, and perhaps even Ecclesiastes,
formed part of the writer's religious library. That
Proverbs was well known to him is obvious from
many passages in the book, which were evidently
written in imitation of it; ef. Sir 24° with Pr 8”,
Sir 14 with Pr 17 910 ete. ete. In 485: 55. he makes
reference to Is 40-66. ‘He saw by an excellent
spirit what should come to pass at the last, and
he comforted them that mourned in Zion’ (ef.
esp. Is 4042 61°), This shows that in his tine
these last chapters had long formed part of Isaiah,
and implies that a thorough revision of the sacred
books had taken place. He would seem to have
lived at the end of a literary age, such as was
hardly possible in the troublous times of the
Maccnbees. The absence of any reference in Sir
44-50 to the Bk. of Job is best explained on the
supposition either that the latter was regarded
as anallegory, or that Job did not belong to the
type of those commemorated by Ben Sira, perhaps
as not being of the Jewish community. Neither
of these suppositions accounts for Daniel being
ignored. Had the writer known the book, he
could hardly have failed to include among his
famous men one who combined the wisdom of
Solomon with the courage of David.

Thus the evidence of the Bk. of Sirach points to
the general conclusion that at the beginning of
the 2nd cent. B.C. the whole of the Law and the
Prophets, and a considerable number of the Hagio-
erapha, were among the accepted components of
sacred literature. But how far the idea of a
definite list of sacred books, such as we find in
later times, had been formulated, or whether the
sacred character of such books was officially sanc-
tioned by any public authority, are questions
which the evidence at present available seems
insutlicient to determine; and it appears some-
what rash to gssume, as many writers on the
Canon have done, the existence of such an

* The fact that these psalms are not separately ascribed to

David, and do not belong to smailer Davidic groups, makes
this all the more likely.

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

OLD TESTAMENT CANON 611

authority without more definite proof. Tt seems
mnost likely that official sanction, when eiven, con-
firmed rather than created public opinion,

Between the date of Sirach and the promulga-
tion of the Hexateuch in 444 there is a complete
dearth of evidence, and yet there is reason to
believe that this period was the most fruitful in
the literary activity to which the Canon of Colas
due.

(7) Ezra and Nehemiah.—(a) Promulgation of
the Hexateuch, B.C. 444.—When we go back to
the times of Ezra and Nehemiah we are upon
firmer ground, ‘That the later or Priestly Code
was oflicially sanctioned is made evident by Neh
8. 9, where there are several references to what
criticism has proved to be exilic or post-exilie laws
(HEXATEUCH] as distinct from the ancient code
of Ex 20-23 and that of Deuteronomy. These
chapters of Nehemiah are also important as show-
ine the origin of the conception of a Canon. A
Divine law binding the people, and publicly read
before them that they might understand its pro-
visions, is ἃ very intelligible idea, Had we only
the account of Nehemiah to go by, we should have
imagined that it was the Law proper that was so
sanctioned and publicly enforced. But the con-
struction of the Hexatench, 1.6. the Pentateuch
and Joshua, points indisputably to the conclusion
that the narratives are an integral part of the
book. Even supposing that at this time the
Priestly Code had net been actually joined to
the earlier strata of the Hexateuch (in itself an
improbable assumption), yet in all these strata we
find law and history intimately associated. The
people had Jong been familiarized with the thought
of a Divine purpose in the lives of their ancient
fathers. Thus the authority of Ezra and Nehe-
minh would have sanctioned the conception of a
gacred hook, giving the early history of man and
especially the Jews, associated especially with the
ereat names of Abraham and Moses, and contain-
ine in many different forms the rules of a religious
lite. It would be hardly too much to say that the
Hexateach was the Bible of the Jews of Ezra’s
time.

(3) Influence of the IHeaxateuch on the formation
of the Canon.—That the same reverence should
have come to be felt for the books of the later
history and the works of the great teachers, as
they were collected and compiled, is only the
natural process of evolution, That in process of
time a harvest of more miscellaneous, but all more
or less religious, literature of different ages should
have been gathered in and prized in its turn with
at least something like the same degree of rever-
ence, is equally natural. But, it may be asked,
Why did this Canon-making process stop The
true answer seems to be that the literary ten-
dencies of the period following the fall of Jeru-
salem, though vigerous after their kind, were
intensely conservative. The learned of that day
aimed at reproducing and fixing what they already
had, whether written or oral, rather than at pro-
ducing. The same influences which caused the
publication, to use a modern phrase, of the Mishna,
closed the OT Canon. The reverence which the
Jews had felt for the sanctuary was now mono-
polized by the sacred writings. Tt was, even more
than the preceding ages, an age of scribes, not
of authors. Ifa few did write such original works
as 4 Ezra (the 2 Es of the Eng. Apocrypha), no Jew,
in spite of the writers own transparent artifice,
dreamed of placing such a work with hooks long
sanctified by age. It is almost inconceivable that
Feclesiastes would have been so soon after accepted
as canonical had it, as Gritz would have us be-
lieve, been written about this time.

For the part attributed by Elias Levita (d. 1549)

>

to ‘the Great Synagogue’ in the process of Canom
forming, see art. SYNAGOGUE (THE GREAT).

vii. CANONICITY OF THE DIFFERENT DIVISIONS
OF THE OT.—From what has already been said,
it will be seen that it is very nearly correct to say
that the O'T was the result of a gradual process
which began with the sanction of the Hexateuch
by Ezra and Nehemiah, and practically closed
with the decisions of the Council of Jammnia. [ is
now proposed to trace out as far as possible, for
the separate parts of the Bible, the history of this
process, partly by the help of the evidence already
οἴνου, and partly by the light of biblical criticism.
It may be premised that without a full apprecia-
tion of the latter a clear view of the history of the
Canon is unattainable. Though, properly speak-
ing, the writing of a book or any part of a book is
a distinet thing from its authoritative reception,
it will be seen that there is often, in fact, a close
connexion between the two.

And it should also be remarked that the scat-
tered pieces of evidence, though serving as con-
venient Jandmarks, must not be regarded as
necessarily marking distinct epochs in the history
of the Canon.

(ὦ) Preparatory Stages culminating im the
Canonization of the Hexateuch by Ezra and
Nehemiah.—Even before the authorization of the
Hexateuch, the idea of a Canon was not entirely
new. In the first place, the earlier strata of the
Hexateuch, JE and D, were probably well known,
and received with various degrees of reverence.
This was true also of some other parts of the
Bible, several of the psalms, most of the historical
books and of the prophets. But more important
than this, the various codes of the Law had been
from time to time formally enferced. The Deca-
logne had, according to E, been sanctioned directly
by God Himself (Ex 20!), At any rate, nothing
could exceed the awful reverence with which the
Ark and its contents were regarded. ‘The ancient
codes preserved by JE, Ex 20-23 and 34!°°°, had
certainly been sanctioned at a very early date.
The former had, according to FE, been inaugurated
by a solemn act of sacrifice, Ex 24°*,—a passage
of great importance as showing how what was
originally, as clearly seen from its contents, a
sort of Common law, caine to be sanctioned and
enforced by religious authority.* It is well known
how, at obviously a much later date, the provisions
of D were enforced by the authority of Josiah
(2 Καὶ 93). What was really new in the promulga-
tion of the Hexateuch in the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah was that now we find, as it would ap-
pear, not merely a law, but a sacred book
authoritatively put forward for the acceptance ot
the people.

(b) The Prophetico-Historical Canon.—It is obvi-
ous that the canonization of Scripture is not likely
to have stopped with the Hexateuch. The in-
creased or fresh awakened interest in their ancient
history must have supplied the Jews with a fresh
impulse to historical study. The feelings with
which the earlier history was regarded would
have insensibly extended to the later history,
written in the same spirit and already bearing
the impress of a bygone age. In these writings,
as well as in those containing the teachings of the
Prophets, men realized that they heard the in-
spired voice of the true successors of Moses, the
first of prophets (Dt 18%). It is easy to see that
it would not have been long before the second
group of writings came to be regarded with much

*It is quite impossible to fix with certainty the date of the
ceremonies described in this passage, but the laws themselves
reflect the state of society as we find it in 1 Samuel, which
probably continued long after in the north. The code itself is,
however, very complex.

612 OLD TESTAMENT CANON

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

the same reverence as the first. This feeling was
certainly heightened by the cessation of the power
of prophecy. Ever since the Captivity the pro-
phetical office had been becoming “more and
more priestly in its character, as we see from
the Bks. of Hageai, Zechariah, and especially
Malachi, and was finally absorbed in the priest-
hood. It is to be noticed that the writer of Sirach
speaks of Aaron as vested with authority to teach
(Sir 4517), and that according to the Chronicler it
was the Levites especially who taneht the people
in the time of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 178: 9), . Butewe
have to mark not only the growth of a certain
feeling towards Holy Scripture, but also a literary
process, which is likely to have taken some time.
This consisted of the collection of scattered books
and leaflets, and the revision of books, and cer-
tainly began long before the time of Ezra. The
editorial frame-work of the Bk. of Kings is the
work of the Deuteronomice school, and probably
belongs to the time of the Exile. But, on the
other hand, there are marks of a later revision,
and in certain passages, such as 1 Καὶ 84, we are re-
minded of P, it not of the Chronicler. The last five
chapters of Judges in their present form have close
allinities with P. The collections of prophecies
of different prophets and ditlerent dates under
the names of [salah and Zechariah, whatever their
original cause, would not have found acceptance
while the memories of Deutero-Isaiahand Zechariah
were still fresh. We may say then that the literary
process was probably completed not many years
atter the time of Ezra, say about 8.6. 400, and
that this second group had canonical acceptance, at
detest, before the time when Sirach was written,
and certainly dong before that work was translated.
It we put the cmonicity about B.e. 300-250, we
shall probably be not far wrong, provided that we
remember that there is 70 proof of official recogni-
tion by authority at such an early date. Τῇ should
be borne in mind that the Chronicler (ὁ. 800) treated
the history in a way diflicnlt to explain, had he
been possessed with our ideas of canonicity. On
the other hand, the separation of Joshua from the
Law, and its combination with the other historical
books of the second group, suggests that at the
time when made—lone before B.c. 130 (Prologue
to Sirach)—there was no very marked difference of
estimation between the first and second groups.
But we must not, again, make the assumption
that all books of this second group were necessarily
regarded with the same degree of reverence and
authority. ᾿

(6) The canonicity of the Hagiographa.—This is
more difficult to trace, and mere complicated. The
very name reminds us that we are dealing with
a heterogeneous collection, which could not, like
the two other groups, be classed under a really
descriptive name. It would be a ereat mistake to
take it for granted that their canonicity began to
be deliberately considered after the canonicity of
these other groups had been completely recognized.
In the case of Psalms and Proverbs this was almost
certainly not the case.

Psalms.—The composition of the Psalter shows
it to be evidently a compilation from several earlier
collections differing very much in character and
age. The order suggests that the Psalms were
generally placed in the same relative position in
the complete Psalter which they had already
occupied in these earlier collections. Thus we
find together the Psalms of ‘the sons of Korah? 42
(+43)-49. 84. 85. 87. 88, the Psalms of Asaph 73-
88, ‘songs of degrees (7 steps)’ 120-134, and other
cases where similarity of titles or refrains connects
consecutive Psalins, showing that such groups of
Psalms were taken en b/oc from collections entitled
*The Psalm-book of Korah,’ ‘The psalins, maschils,

and songs of Asaph,’ ‘The songs of degrees,’ ete.
So far from critical were the compilers of the
Psalter that they did not venture in certain cases
to decide whether a poem was more correctly
described as a psalm or a song (see titles of 75. 76,
etc.). Still more curious is the leaving of the
note, ‘The prayers of David the son of Jesse are
ended,’ after the Doxology which closes Ps 125
although, as the Psalter now stands, the preceding
Psalin is as a fact ascribed to Solomon, and several
later Psalms are ascribed to David. The arrange-
ment of Psalms ‘to David’ makes it likely that
at least two independent earlier collections were
originally so entitled. All this tends to show that
there was a wide interval of time between the
composition of the majority of the Psalms and
their final compilation in one complete Psalter.

The character of the Psalms themselves is very
various. Some are comparatively crude, both in
conception and language, and with sometimes a
corrupt text, and appear as though a wide interval
lay between their composition and the literary
tendencies of later Judaism, as, 6.0.5 0's Θ᾽ Ὁ 16. τοῖς
53) 16, ete. There is a very fair probability that
these at least are pre-exilic. Some bear a striking
resemblance to Jeremiah, and have been frequently
regarded as having been written either by him or
writers of his school (esp. 31. 35. 09. 79). Many
are of a personal character, as 4. 12. 13. 139, etc.;
others were obviously composed for public worship,
to which they have a distinct reference, as 95. 96.
98. 99. 100, ete. ete. Others, again, suggest that,
originally personal, they have afterwards been
adapted for liturgical use, as 69. 77. 102. This
leads many to suspect that in some cases a national
interpretation has been placed on Psalms origin-
ally designed to express the writer's own feelings
and experience. In some Psalms, as in Ps 118,
the national interpretation of the Ist person is
obvious, and, of course, original.

Unfortunately it is impossible to fix a dare for
the use of Psalms in religious worship with absolute
certainty. ΤῸ appears almost certain that psalmody
did not form a regular part of the temple worship
before the Exile. The Bk. of Kings, at any rate,
says nothing of it. In the face of this, the constant
mention of psalm-singing by the Chronicler, as at
the Dedication of the temple, 2 Ch 5! 8, is of no
historical value for the time of which it treats. It
is of a piece with the ascription to David of the
founding of the singing guilds, 1 Ch 95. The value
of the statements in Ezra and Nehemiah are more
difficult to estimate. We certainly find singers
mentioned, not only in the editorial introduction
to the account of Ezra’s work (Ezr 77), but, what
is far more important, in the letter of Artaxerxes
himself (74). They are spoken of ina way which
implies that they are part of a definitely organized
system. But the question arises whether that
system was actually at work in Jerusalem, or had
been organized by Ezra and his school in Babylon.
What is known of the Priestly Code in relation to
the Hexatench makes it extremely probable that
a new and highly developed ritual had been so
formulated. [Ὁ is also of some significance that
in P only we find the ritual use of trumpets (Lv
234, Nu 1010), On the other hand we do find, in
the list preserved of those who came up trom
Babylon, the mention of 148 (128, 1027) singers,
“sons of Asaph (Neh 7 bze 2): hivisenep easy
to reconcile this statement with Neh 7°, Ezr 2®,
where singing men and singing women are men-
tioned apparently as among the slaves of the exiles,
Is it that these were menials who had no connexion
with the sacred guild, or that the guild itself was
a creation out of what had been a menial office ?
Singers are also mentioned by Nehemiah as having
been appointed by himself, Neh 7}. In his account

___

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

OLD TESTAMENT CANON 613

of the dedication of the wall, 127, the singers
and players of instruments take a very prominent
part. It is said that they had established them-
selves in villages, ete., round Jerusalem, whence
they were gathered by Nehemiah, 13258:9. The
statement in v.® that the singers had performed
their oflice ‘in the days of David and Asaph,’ is
made, not by Nehemiah, but by the editor, ‘The
account of the music and psalmody in the service
connected with the foundation of the temple in
Ezr 810. is also editorial, and is too much like
the accounts of similar services given by the
πο ον ὑπ Woe 2 ὌΠ δὲ τ συ 10. he
free from suspicion. It is sufliciently evident
that on all such occasions he read into the narra-
tive the religious customs of his own day, which
were then believed to have originated with David.
But, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind
that in this case he was describing events much
nearer to his own day, and some time must be
allowed for such traditions to have grown up.

Putting all the facts together, it would probably
be near the trutir to say that music was first in-
troduced into religious worship to some small
extent with the second temple, but was_ first
thoroughly organized and greatly developed under
the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. ‘This use of
Psalms, under the control of the Priestly guilds,
would have given authority not only to those
specially composed for the purpose, but to those
adapted to liturgical use, and they would have
required no further sanction. See, further, artt.
PRAISE IN OT, and PSALMS.

Proverbs. — It was diflerent with the Bk. of
Proverbs. It belongs to a class of literature the
sanction of which is by no means so obvious. If
required to place in order of time the Prophetic,
the Priestly, and the Ethical spirit among the
Jews, we should certainly give them in this order.
The last of the three is most closely connected
with modern Judaism. The destruction of Jeru-
salem and the abolition of its sacrificial system
must have gone far to give it strength and per-
manence, but in its inception the ethical spirit is
of much earlier date, as we see from Sirach. But,
as we see from the Prologue, Sirach itself was an
imitation of earlier books, among which we must
obviously reckon Proverbs; and these earlier books
are spoken of as already ancient, ‘the other books
of our fathers,’ and yet are not so ancient as the
prophets, unless indeed the phrase ‘others that
have followed in their steps’ points especially to
Chronicles, which was in a sense an imitation of
the prophetic Bk. of Kings. The fact, too, that
Solomon came to be looked upon as the fountain
of proverbial philosophy, is at once a proot of the
relative antiquity of the germ and the sanction of
what came to be ascribed to him. When once
Solomon had gained this reputation, it became
customary to ascribe proverbs to him. That many
of these were originally popular sayings, handed
down as ancient saws, hardly needs saying. That
they were gathered together into small collections
first, and that such collections were afterwards put
together so as to form our present Bk. of Proverbs,
is evident to any one who carefully studies the
book. See PROVERBS.

With regard to the canonicity of this book, all
that we can positively say is, that it is extremely
unlikely that a specially sacred character should
have begun to be attached to such proverbs only
when the whole collection had been finally com-
pleted. The words at the beginning of Pr 251
“These also are Proverbs of Solomon, which the
men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out,’ make
it probable that, when what is believed to be the
earliest collection was made, the proverbs which
composed it were already believed to be Solomon’s.

It proves at the least that, when the final compila-
tion was complete, this earlier collection was
headed by a title which the compilers did not
venture to disturb. The case is parallel to that
of Ps 722. We may, then, safely say that the
canonicity of the whole Bk. of Proverbs was firmly
established long before B.C. 180, and that of parts
of it, certainly chs. 25-29 were recognized long
before, possibly as early as the reign of Hezekiah.

Ecclesiastes.—In point of canonicity Ecclesiastes
stands on quite a ditlerent footing from Proverbs,
It was neither a collection of sayings tradition-
ally ascribed to Solomon, nor was it a collection of
booklets which bore his name. Ecclesiastes was
apparently ascribed to Solomon neither by ancient
tradition nor by literary criticisin; but the person
of Solomon is assumed by the writer. As the
authorship of Solomon is precluded on literary
grounds, there are no alternatives except either a
deliberate fraud or a mere literary device designed
to give force to his subject. The latter alterna-
tive seems by far the most probable. It was
written in a literary ave (see 1215), when a modern
book would not easily be mistaken for one of
ancient date, by a writer, probably an old sage,
who had observed much and studied much, and
felt that he had a right to speak (12° !*), and was
giving such advice as Solomon himself might have
given had he lived in his day. That in a_less
critical age this literary device should have been
misunderstood, and that, if so, it should have done
much for the reception of this book, is not surpris-
ing. How soon this was so, or the exact date of
its composition, must be largely matter of con-
jecture. We cannot be certain that it was known
to the writer of Sirach. On the other hand, it
is said to have been quoted by one Simon, son of
Shetach, in the first half of the century before
Christ (see Buhl, pp. 15, 17). It probably belongs
to the literary age which terminated in the dis-
turbed period of the Maccabees, and was cer-
tainly authoritatively recognized by the Council
of Jamnia at the end of the Ist cent. A.D. See,
further, art. ECCLESIASTES.

Song of Songs.—The Song of Songs is so far
like Ecclesiastes that the subject of the poem is
connected with the person of Solomon, not obviously
as the assumed writer, but as one of the principal
characters. ‘The poem, or group of poems, is, how-
ever, probably ancient, and originally, there can
be no serious doubt, quite secular in character.
According to 1 Καὶ 4% Solomon was traditionally
known as a writer of poetry, and it is quite
possible that this work was ascribed to him at a
comparatively early date, before the Exile. The
allegorical interpretation of the book would have
naturally followed. He who was believed to have
drawn lessons of morality from plants and animals
(cf. 1 K 4% with Pr 6°° 26*-* ete.), might easily
be supposed to have intended some deep mystic
meaning in this simple story of pure and natural
love. In this case the reception of the book was
probably slow and gradual, and naturally enough
met with considerable opposition. Had it not been
for its allegorical interpretation, it is unlikely that
it would have gained a place in the Canon. The
Christians accepted the book, but gave it a new
allegorical interpretation of their own.

Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.—The Bks. of
land 2 Chronicles, with Ezra and Nehemiah, the
four originally one book, were probably received
as a trustworthy record before the beginning of
the 2nd cent. B.c. As already shown, at least
Chronicles and Nehemiah are referred to in the
praise of famous men in Sir 44-50. Probably they
were not written much more than acentury earlier,
about B.C. 330 (see Kent, Hist. Heb. People, ii. 8),
and their character suggests that they were com-

614 OLD TESTAMENT CANON

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

piled by authority. Tf so, the dates of authorship
and canonicity are the same. In any case their
composition and reception belong to a time not
long after the final revision of the Bk. of Kings,
though possibly a much longer time after the
general recognition of an earlier edition, so to
speak, of that book. The two books present an
instructive contrast. The Chronicles are, unlike
Kings, not so much a compilation as a composition,
It is only exceptionally that fragments of ancient
documents appear in their original shape. For the
most part the whole has been recast in its relatively
modern form, with its characteristically modern
spirit. It shows the marks of a detinitely literary
effort in a literary age. Its treatment of ancient
history may be compared in some respects with
that of the later Targumsand Midrashim, In fact,
the word iidrash already occurs in 2 Ch 13% 2427
(AV ‘story’), though hardly in its later technical
sense. The book was probably intended to pre-
serve in a permanent form the methods of teaching
common in the Jewish schools. That such a
literary school should spring into existence after
the period of Ezra and Nehemiah is highly prob-
able. Tt would have been the natural result of the
impulse given by them to the study of Scripture.
Job.—Of Job it is diflieult to speak very posi-
tively, The allusion in Ezk 140% 2 may prove
nothing more than that the story of Job, or some-
thing like it, was current in’ the prophet’s day.

᾿ ᾿ Ἂ . ᾿ “ Se
The mention after Daniel (in this case certainly it

Is the person, not the book, we have to think of)
Invy suggest that the story had only recently
become known. In any case the point of the
allusion does not make it necessary to suppose that
Bzckiel necessarily regarded Job as ahistorical
person. The book bears traces of the kind of
religious feelings which were quickened by Deutero-
nomy, and betrays a still closer relationship to
Deutero-Isainh. “Indeed the sufierine Servant of
J’ forms a striking parallel to the leading thought
of the book. Yet the relation between. the two
appears to be collateral rather than οὗ direct
ancestry. This resemblance, taken with the allu-
sions to astronomy in Job 99 26%) suceest that Job
Was written in Babylon about the same period,
This would be all but a certainty if we could be
sure that Job’s suficrines are meant to be an allegory
of those of the exiled Israel.

Ruth and Lamentations.—The Bks. of Ruth and
Lamentations, especially if the latter was believed
to be the work of Jeremiah, could hardly have
received general recognition when the historico-
prophetic group was completed, as they would
certainly have found a place in it, the forfner as a
historical, the latter as a prophetic work, Apart
from a very possible reference in Sir 49° to La 11-3
etc., we have no evidence to show whether they
were known or not to the writer of Sirach, and the
internal evidence is too uncertain in this case to
give us any real help. All that we ean positively
say is that both were thoroughly recoenized by the
end of the Ist cent. A.D., as seen by the testimony
of Josephus and the Council of
doubt is expressed of their genuineness.
must have been received long before ; but how long
we can only guess. This is, however, just one of
those cases in which the evidence of silence is of
very little value against a book. The Bk. of
Ruth would hardly have suited the purpose of the
writer of Sirach, who includes no women among
his worthies.

Daniel and Esther.—The Bks. of Daniel and
Esther stand on a very different footing. Had they
been known, Daniel and Mordecai would certainly
have found a place in Sir 44-50 amone the ‘famous
men. It is true that Ezekiel (1414: 7°) knows of
Daniel as one whose purity of life might be supposed

They

ἀξ

Jammnia, and no |

to have secured the land from Divine wrath, but
not necessarily as the great hero of the Babylonian
and Persian courts. How could Sirach have
failed to commemorate him who combined all the
courage of a David with the wisdom of a Solomon?
The book bears obvious internal evidence in chs.
7-9 of a date subsequent to the Maccabiean era,
From the similarity of subject it seems not unlikely
that both Daniel and Esther were derived from the
same Eastern source. But it could hardly have
been earlier than the beginning of the Ist cent. B.C.
The history of the reception of the books forms
a rather marked contrast. The Bk. of Daniel,
as might have been expected from its contents,
appears to have gained tavour without opposition,
and Daniel is spoken of in the NT as a prophet
(Mt 2415), Esther, on the other land, was received
with considerable hesitation, and whether on this
ground or otherwise there is less evidence in its
favour. It is not quoted in the NT, which may be
only accidental ; and it is at least possible that the
feast of Jn 5! is that of Purim, which would prove
the recognition of the book. Several Rabbis ob-
jected to the book about the Ist and 2nd cents, ADs y
and one at least in the 3rd (see Buhl, p. 25); several
Fathers, Melito (perhaps by error), Athanasius,
Gregory Nazianzen, omit it from their lists; and
it Was not regarded as canonical by Theodore of
Mopsuestia. Some objections or SUSPICIONS arose,
among the Jews at any rate, from its seeular
character ; others, in the opinion of some writers,
merely from the fact that the fast of 13th Adar,
in connexion with Haman’s plot (ch. 94), conflicted
with the feast of the same day commemorating
the victory of Judas Maccabieus over Nicanor
(1 Mac 7*; see Ryle, p. 139).

Vill, SUMMARY OF RESULTS OBTAINED.—In the
foregoing inquiry the following facts seem clearly
established ;—

(1) Canonicity was, like the composition of the
books itself, a eradual process. ‘The Council of
Jamnia, for example, gave a formal sanction to
what had already become, more or less definitely,
the public opinion of Jewish writers,

(2) Such sanction appears to have been, in fact,
accidental, that is to say, not by any means
essential to the idea of canonicity. All the OT
books, with a few possible exceptions, would have
won their way into the Canon had no such eouncil
decided the matter, just as the NT became
canonical without the sanction of a general council.

(3) The history of canonicity cannot be com-
pletely separated from the history of the books
themselves. The separate parts of a book my
have been, and in some cases certainly were,
accepted authoritatively before the whole was
written. This was especially the case with the
Pentateuch, Psalms, and Proverbs.

(4) This consideration, among others, points to
the conclusion that canonicity was, in its earliest
stages, ἃ question of degree, and even, to some
extent, of kind. One book, the Pentateuch, for
example, was accepted hecause formally sanctioned
by authority ; another acquired its authority trom
its long acceptance by students and writers; a
third, from its liturgical use. Again, various factors
contributed to the idea of canonicity ; among them,
certainly, real or supposed antiquity, and also, to
some extent, authorship by some famous person,
such as David or Solomon.

(5) Lastly, while the beginnings of canonicity
lie in the misty period of ancient Jewish history,
it may be said to have reached its final stage at
the Council of Jamnia, where all our OT books
were sanctioned ; though, on the one hand, the
great bulk, at any rate, were practically recognized
as canonical long before; and, on the other, xome
hesitation in isolated cases was not uncommon

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

YON

OLD TESTAMENT CA 615

even after the council. Since then, time, habit,
and experience have continued to give strength to
its decisions.

ix. CLAIMS OF THE APOCRYPHA TO CANONICITY.
—So far, the investigation has concerned itself
almost exclusively with the Canon accepted by the
Jews and by the Reformed Churches of modern
times. A few words are necessary concerning the
claims of the Apocrypha to canonicity. In the
Roman Catholic Church it depends upon the sup-
posed inspiration of the Vulgate. There is, however,
some truth in the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
The LXX contained these books very nearly as we
have them now in our English Apocrypha. The
earliest extant LXX texts are certainly Christian,
but the references in Hebrews to Wisdom and
Mlaccabees, to which attention has been already
ἈΠῸ, suggest the probability that the Greek
sible of N'T times was the LXX as we know it.
It would thus appear that the Alexandrian Jews
were accustomed to group together in their sacred
literature a larger collection of books than those
contained in the Palestinian Canon and sanctioned
at Jamnia. It is, then, a common practice to
speak of the Alexandrian Canon as distinct from
the Palestinian, and it is at least a significant fact
that the only book of the NT (if we make the
possible exception of the Fourth Gospel) which has
distinet affimities with Alexandrian thought, con-
tains the two striking references just mentioned to
the Apoeryphal books. The term is convenient,
no doubt, but it is misleading if it is intended to
imply that the Alexandrians placed all their sacred
books, whether belonging to the Palestinian Canon
or not, on the same footing. It is satisfactory
enouch if merely intended to mean that they made
no definite distinction between the Canon and the
Apocrypha. The statement (sce above) that Philo,
e.g. never quotes the Apocryphal books as canonical,
isto some extent outweighed, as already suggested,
by his peculiar views of inspiration. His theory
of an extended, if graduated, inspiration tended to
weaken the conce; tion of a special Canon.
fact that rather a large number of ΟἿ᾽ books ἢ are
not quoted by Philo at all, perhaps points in the
sane direction. Dr. Sanday sees in the distinction
between the so-called Palestinian and Alexandrian
Canons the difference between the more strictly
religious school and those who welcomed a wider,
if more secular, culture (aspiration, p. 93). With
reference to the quotation of the Apocrypha by
Christian Fathers, it may be enough to observe
that even the ultra- Alexandrian Origen very
definitely recognized that the books of the Pales-
tinian Canon were in a special sense those of the
Covenant (testament).

The sporadic inclusion, so to speak, of altogether
uncanonical hooks as Scripture in the NT or else-
where, such as the quotation from the Bk. of
Enoch in Jude,t shows that. while a small body of
learned Jewish experts in Palestine had formulated
a fixed Canon, there were others whose critical
knowledge was Jess exact, and who therefore in-
cluded within their conception of Scripture a far
wider circle of books.

x. SOME PECULIARITIES IN THE EVIDENCE OF
THE NT AND Fariens.—It is hardly necessary to
do more than mention the curious omission by
some Eastern Christian writers of well-established
OT books, such as the omission of Chronicles (with
Ezra and Nehemiah) and Job by Theodore of
Mopsuestia and the Nestorian Canon (see Buhl,
p. 53). Such cmissions must be regarded as eccen-
tricities outside the general current of canonical

* Ezekiel, Daniel, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations,
Esther (Buhl, tr. p. 15; cf. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture).

+ For quotations from or reterences to extra-canonical books in
NT, see Buhl, p. 14.

The |

history. Theomission of Esther stands on a differ:
footing, and is, moreover, mnore Common.

xi. ‘THE INFLUENCE OF OUR PRESENT KNOW-
LEDGE OF OT CANON UPON RELIGION, —Hitherto
the subject has been investigated on its purely
historical side. The question has been——What
books were in point of fact received as Scripture at
different. times? not—What is the intrinsic value
of the books of Scripture, or of particular hooks ot
Scripture, as sanctions for religious belief and
religious conduct? The latter question belongs
rather to the subject of inspiration than to that of
the Canon. But it comes within the limit of the
present inquiry in so far as the spiritual authority
and value of Bible books depend upon canonicity.
Except for this, the history of the Canon has
nothing more than a purely literary and arch:vo-
logical value. The question may be put thus— Does
the scientifie method as applied to the history οἱ
the Canon—and no other method is really per-
missible—increase or diminish the practical value
of the Bible as a whole or in part? Theoretically,
it would appear that it diminishes it. It is one
thine to say that the OT was authoritatively fixed
by Ezra or a religious school founded by him;
another, that it was, as far as the evidence really
proves, first officially sanctioned in its completeness
by the Council of Jamnia. Christians would far
rather believe that the Bks. of Esther and Canticles
formed part of the Bible of Christ and His apostles,
than that they were sanctioned by a Jewish council
held some 70 years after Christ’s ascension. A
devout Protestant inay be somewhat shocked to
find that many of the earlier Christians practically
included several Apocryphal books in their Bible.
The modern study of the subject does certainly

tend in some measure to obscure the lines drawn
between canonical and Apoeryphal books, and to
depreciate relatively some ot the former and
|

appreciate some of the latter. It affects, in some
Loth the conditions of canonicity and the
books within or
without the recognized Canon fulfil those condi-
tions. But what practical bearing has all this as
concerns the influence of the Bible upon faith and
life? We feel that the books of whose claim to
_canonicity there is some degree of doubt are just
/ those which, from a purely religious point of view,
are the least important. There are those who feel
that if Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Canticles had
never been included in the Canon, and Sirach and
Wisdom had been included, it would have made
little real difference. We might still in Ecclesiastes
have reverenced the outspoken honesty of a pious
Israelite struggling according to his limited heht
with perhaps the greatest problems of life. We
should have been thankful that in Esther we had
illustrated for us a phase of character belonging to
the most interesting, and once the most religious,
nation of the world. We should have found in
Canticles at least a pretty love-lyric, and possibly a
good deal more. The old questionings and doubts
about these books make it easier for us to have
some such ideas about them now without shocking
our religious sense. We feel that the standard by
which all Bible or quasi-Bible books must eventu-
ally be appraised is not merely the ipse divit of
an infallible Church, Jewish or Christian, which
rules all on one side of a line holy and all on the
other secular, but an enlightened intelligence which
sees in the sacred books, including even some not
eenerally accounted canonical, various degrees οἱ
inspiration and spiritual power. By enlightened
intelligence is here meant, not the mere private
opinion of the individual, but the erowing consent
ot spiritually-minded, right-thinking, honest, and
' devout Christians. In a word, the study of the
| formation of the Canon makes it possible to think

degree,
question to what extent certalm

616 OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE

OLIVES, MOUNT OF

that the same influences which resulted in the
fixed Canon of OT in ancient times, may at a
future time lead to some more detined modification
in our conception of a sacred Canon.

LITERATURE.—H. E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament,
London, Macmillan, 1892, also Philo and Holy Scripture, 1895 ;
Fr. Buhl, Kanon u. Text des AT’, Leipzig, 1890 [Eng. tr.,
Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1892]; Julius Furst, Der Kanon des
AT’, Leipzig, 1868; J. S. Bloch, Studien zur Gesch. der Samm-
lung der altheb. Literati, Breslau, 1876; Ed. Reuss, Gesch. der
heil. Schriften AT?, 1890, Hist. du canon des saintes écritures
dans Véglise chrétienne?, Strassburg, 1864 [Eng. tr., Edinburgh,
1884]; (ἃ. Wildeboer, Het ontstaan van den Kanon des Ouden
Verbonds, Groningen, 1889 [Germ. tr., Gotha, 1891; Eng. tr.
(by_B. W. Bacon) 1895]; Schtirer, G/JV3, 1899, ii. 805-312
(HJ P, τ΄] i. 306-312]; Driver, LOT'S, pp. i-xi; B. F. Westcott,
The Bible in the Church, London, 1865-66; W. Sanday, In-
spiration, London, 1893. Cf. also the articles ‘Canon of OT’
(by Budde) in the Hneye. Biblica, ‘Kanon des AT’s’ (by
Strack) in PRE2, and ‘Kanon’ (by Schmiedel) in Ersch and
Gruber’s Allgem. Encyk.; and see the authorities cited under
the articles on the several books of the OT in the present work.

F. H. Woops.
OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE. See LAN-
GUAGE OF OLD TESTAM&NT.

OLD TESTAMENT TEXT.—See TEx? ΟΕ OLD
TESTAMENT.

OLD TESTAMENT TIMES.—See ISRAEL.

OLIVE (nu zayith, ἐλαία, oliva, Arab. zeitin).—A
well-known tree, one of the most characteristic of
Syria and Palestine. It belongs to the order
Oleacee, which also ineludes the ash. It is a tree
with gnarled and, when large, usually hollow
trunk, and strageline branches. It loves rich soil,
but flourishes without irrigation. The small white
Howers form axillary clusters. When their function
is over, they fall 1n showers to the ground (Job
15"), and their place is taken by small oblong
fruits, at first green, but becoming almost black
when ripe. From these comes the fatness of the
olive, its rich nutritious oil. The leaves are
oblong to lanceolate, of the characteristic dull
olive-green at their upper surface, and a frosted
silver colour below. ‘This arrangement of colours
makes an olive tree at a little distance appear as if
covered by a filmy veil of silver gauze, which
gives a soft dreamy sheen to the landscape.
There are groves of olives near all the cities and
Villages of Pal. and Syria, and several of them are
very extensive. That near Beirfit is nearly 5 miles
square. That near Tripoli is about as large.
There are fine groves near Nablfis, and on the
western slopes of Lebanon. The eround in which
olive trees grow is ploughed twice or more a
year, and enriched with inorganic and organic
fertilizers. A favourite dressing is a marl, known
as hracwarah, which is found everywhere in pockets
of the cretaceous rocks of Syria. The first olives
begin to fall in September. These are usually left
until the time when the owner or his agent, and
the lessee, can together pick them up and measure
them. In November comes the harvest. The
trees are beaten with a long pole (Dt 943, The
‘shakings’® (Is 24) of the olive tree refer to the
few olives left after the first beating. These were
to be left for the poor; see art. GLEANING. The
olive harvest is usually carried home in baskets,
on the backs of men or donkeys. ‘Olive berries’
(Ja 315), in reality a kind of drupe, are used for
food in two stages. (1) When green they are
pickled in brine, until the bitter taste is somewhat

_ overcome, a result which is hastened by slightly

bruising the drupe, so that the brine may more
readily penetrate its pulp. They are eaten with
bread, and, especially during the fasts, constitute a
notable portion of the diet of the people. (2) When
quite ripe they are sometimes packed down in

᾿ Mount of Olives.

served in their own oil. The yield varies much
in different years. If it is large one year it is
usually small the next. The drupes are often
beaten in a mortar, as in Bible times (Ex 27”
etc.). In this case the mare is placed in a vessel
filled with hot water. The oil floats to the surface,
and is skimmed off. The more usual way of
obtaining the oil, however, is to bruise the ripe
berries in a shallow circular basin, excavated in a
stone shaped like the nether millstone, or in the
solid rock. The bruising is sometimes done with
the foot (Dt 334, Mic 6"), but more commonly by
an upright millstone, with a long pole passed
through its centre. The short end of this pole is
fastened to an upright fixed in the centre of the
basin, and the other pushed or pulled round bya man
or animal, so that the stone revolves just within the
outer edge of the basin. This reduces the berries
to a pulp. Part of the oil flows out throuch a
spout in the rim of the basin into a vat (01. 24 3),
Hag 2"), After the oil which flows of itself has
been drawn away, the mare is packed in soft reed
baskets. These are subjected to pressure by
piling them one over the other between two stone
pillars, with an upright groove at the inner face
of each. In these grooves slides a horizontal bar,
which is heavily weighted with stones or iron.
Under this primitive but powerful press the oil
flows down in streams, and is collected in a vat at
the toot of the pile. At first it has much ex-
traneous matter and water mixed with it. These
eradually separate, leaving the pure sweet oil.
This is kept in jars, or in large reservoirs hewn
out of the rock or built with great exactness, and
well pointed at the joints, or plastered within.
The oil is used extensively as food, and large
quantities of soap of most excellent quality are
made by boiling it with crude soda.

The Scripture allusions to the olive are very
numerous. It is the first tree, of those now
known, mentioned in the Bible (Gn 8!). [15
wealth of nourishment made it a natural candidate
for the position of king of trees (Jg 955). [10 is an

| emblem of peace and prosperity (Ps 52° 1985) and

heauty (Jer 1116 Hos 14°). The two olive trees
in Zee 4° 2-4 were emblems of fruitfulness. RY

well translates (v.44) ‘two sons of oil,’ instead of
AV ‘two anointed ones.’ Standing by ‘the Lord
of the whole earth,’ they denote His abundant,
overflowing provision for the spiritual wants of
mankind. ΟἹ] is frequently alluded to as food
(2 Ch 2"), medicine (Lk 1053, Ja 54), uneuent (Ps
23°, Mt 6"), illuminator (Mt 25° ete.). The temple
oil was beaten (Ex 973), The name ‘ Mount of
Olives’ indicates the importance attached to this
tree, and associates it with many of the most
interesting incidents in the life of our Lord.
(x; Ἐξ POST:

OLIVES, MOUNT OF (om 17; LXX τὸ ἔρος
τῶν ἐλαιῶν ; γ΄ ΠΟ. Mons Olivarum).—In the OT the
term ‘ Mount of Olives’ occurs only in Zee 144. Tt
is described as the ‘ascent of the Olives’ (79 7902)
in 28 15% (AV ‘ascent of Mount Olivet,’ RV
‘ascent of the Mount of Olives’), as ‘the mount’
(Neh 8), ‘the mount that is before Jerusalem’
(1 Kk 117), ‘the mountain which is on the east side
of the city’ (Ezk 11°’), and as ‘the mount of
corruption (or destruction)’ (2 Καὶ 2313). In the NT
it is usually called ‘the mount of Olives’ (τὸ ὄρος τῶν
ἐλαιῶν), Mt 21) 243 26%, Mk 13° 1428, Lk 228 1987,
Jn 81, but St. Luke twice uses the term ‘the
mount that is called [the mount] of Olives’ (τὸ ἔρος
τὸ καλούμενον ἐλαιῶν), Lk 19” 2157; and once the
term ‘the mount called Olivet’ (τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ Kad.
᾿Ελαιῶνος), Ac 1”, ef. τὸ ὄρος τὸ ᾿Ελαιών Mk 111} (B).

There is no doubt as to the identity of the
The name is applied to the

salt, or immersed in brine, and at other times pre- | range cf hills facing Jerusalem on the east and

OLIVES, MOUNT OF

OLIVES, MOUNT OF 617

lying round about from north-east to south-east,
and separated from the Holy City by the Valley

of Jehoshaphat or Kidron. The only eon
that may arise in this respeet is as to the precise
extent of the range which may be included under
the expression “Mount of Olives.’

The range detaches itself from the backbone of
the country about two miles north of Jerusalem,
south of the village of Sha‘fdé (2824 ft.), and,
trending in a south-easterly direction, extends as
faras the ‘ prospect’ (Scopus), where it runs nearly
due south till opposite (or east of) the temple site ;
it then runs in a south-westerly direction until it
is over against the Pool of Siloam. The ridge of

the range is generally at a level of about 2600 ft.
above the Mediterranean, but it culminates in

four, or rather three (see below) somewhat pro-
nounced summits, to which modern tradition has
given the names of (1) Galilee, (2) the Ascension,
(3) the Prophets, (4) the Mount of Offence.

(1) ‘Galilee’ (Scopus) is due north-east of the
temple site, and about a mile distant.

(2) ‘The Ascension’ is the summit due east of
the temple site, and distant about ~ mile; on it
stand the church of the Ascension and the village
and mosque of Jebel et-Yur (the modern Arabic
name for the Mount of Olives).

(3) ‘The Prophets’ is south of and, properly
speaking, only a spur of No. 2, and derives its
name from some catacombs ascribed to the pro-
phets. It is not really a distinct summit.

(4) ‘The Mount of Offence’ is about ὁ mile south-
east of Ophel, and is the terminating outher of
the range to the south.

To the east this range falls rapidly towards the
Jordan Valley ; to the west and south it is bounded
by the valley οἱ alled Kidron or Jehoshaphat, which,
commencing north of Jerusalem on a level w ith
the high ground of the Holy City, falls rapidly
until it becomes a deep ravine dividing the temple
site from Olivet, and near the Pool of Siloam is
490 ft. below the summit of Olivet. It is called
Ly the Arabs the Wddy en-Ndr (valley of fire).

The sumuit of the Mount of Offence is on the
same level as the temple site (2440 ft.), but from
the church of the Ascension northward the range
is in few places Jess than 2600 ft. in height, and
thus commanded a view down upon the temple
courts, and stood round about the city to the east-
ward.

The ancient road leading up from
Wady Kelt bifureates at about six miles from
Jerusalem (at level 654 ft.) ; the northern branch
running up Wddy Reawdabeh and over Scopus into
the city, the southern branch passing through
Bethany and crossing the Olivet range between
the church of the Ascension and the Mount of
Offence ; the southern branch appears to have been
the main road to Jericho since the Roman occu-
pation.

There are three roads or paths leading to the
summit of Olivet, where the church of the Ascen-
sion stands; the central path leading straight up
the ascent, those to the north and south making
a detour to lessen the steepness. These roads all
join together near the bridge over the Kkidron
close to the Garden of Gethsemane, and go to St.
Stephen’s gate, immediately north of the temple
site. It is probable that over this bridge was the
road into Jerusalem from the east from the earliest
times, as the rocky sides of Oliv et lower down the

valley are too steep and precipitous to admit of
sag clihig more than a rugged footpath.

When Absalom’s rebellion broke out, David fled
from Jerusalem over the brook Kidron by way of
the Mount of Olives to the wilderness (2 $ 1519} ὅν),
Probably he crossed the Kidron by the road where
the bridge now spans the ravine, and went up the

Jericho by

| near

ascent by the north-easterly road already men-
tioned. There is no reason for supposing that he
went up to the summit where now stands the
church of the Ascension—this would not lie in his
route. He probably went up nearly due nerth-
ast from the Kidron ravine, and ascended to the
top of the mountain, and thence he went down the
eastern slope till he arrived at the Wady Δα ἢ
Bahurim. If a line be drawn from the
Kidron bridge north-east it will be found to go
over Mount Scopus into Wady Rawdabenh.,

Bahurim is rendered in the Targum of Jonathan
(on 2.8 16°) as Alimoth or Almon, a city of Benja-
min given to the priests, and is identified by
Schwarz, Furrer, and Robinson (PRP iii. 287) as
‘A/mit, north of ‘Andta (Anathoth), about three
miles N.N.E. of Jerusalem. Barclay (p. 533) also
conjectures that Bahurim lay on the north side of
Wady Rawdbeh, not tar from’ Andte, but south of
it, probably near ed-Jscaviyeh. Lightfoot considers
Bahurim as close to Nob (Prospect, i. 42), and
Josephus (Ant. VIL ix. 7) mentions that it was off
the main read from Jericho to Jerusalem. — It
would appear, then, that king David took the
northern of the two roads to Jericho, went over
Scopus and down the JWddy Lawabeh, south of

Bahurim, from whence Shimei issued, keeping
along the hiilside above the road, and casting

down stones and dust at the king.

Modern tradition has fixed on the southern
summit or Mount of Offence as the locality of the
high places which Solomon dedicated to Chemosh
and Molech, in the hill that is before (or east of)
Jerusalem (1 K 11%). There is no indication where
these high places are to be found except in the
account of their destruction by Joash (2 Καὶ 29:5),
where they are described as before (or east of)
Jerusalem, on the right hand of the mpgsa 9
‘mount ef corruption (or destruction)’; and if the
latter may be accepted as the name of the summit
due east of the temple site, then the high places
on the right or south of the Mount of Corruption
would be on the Mount of Offence where modern
tradition locates them. The Arabic name οἵ this
mountain is Baten el-Howa, ‘the bag of wind.’

There seems to have been considerable variety
of opinion as to the position of these high places in
early Christian times, but the majority of authori-
ties, including the Jewish writers, do not mention
the subject. Burckhardt places them over Siloam
on the Mount of Offence, while Brocardus places
the altar of Chemosh on the northern sumuinit.

On the southern slope of the Mount of Offence
is the village of Siloam (Si/wan) clingine to the
steep hillside, and down below are the tertile fields
which are supposed to have formed the king's
earden between the Pool of Siloam and the well
of Joab (SILOAM). Somewhere here it was that,
in the days of Uzziah, about the time that the
leprosy fell upon him, an earthquake is said to have
rent a part of the mountain on the west at a place
‘alled Eroge (En-rovel 7), and rolled it four furlones
till it stood still at the east mountain (Olivet),
blocking up the roads and the kine’s garden (Ane.
INox, 4%: Of Air 1+. “Zeer. 2 Ch. p16).

Josephus does not add materially to our know-
ledge of the Mount of Olives. He relates that in
the time of the procurator Felix, in the reign of
Nero, the country was full of robbers and impostors
who deluded the people, and that among them was
one from Egypt who came to Jerusalem and called
himself a prophet, and advised the multitude of
the common people to go along with him to the
Mount of Olives, which lay over against the city,
and at the distance of 5 furlongs. He got tovether
3U, DUD men and Jed them round avout by the
ss to the Mount of Olives, and was ready
to real into Jerusalem by force from that place

618 OLIVES, MOUNT OF

OLIVES, MOUNT OF

(Ant. XX. vili.6; BJ 1, xiii.5; Ac21*). Josephus | while He may be found ; call upon Him while He

also states that at the investment of Jerusalem by |

Titus two legions had orders to encamp at the |
distance of six furlongs from Jerusalem at the |

Mount of Olives, which les over against the city

on the east side, and is parted from it by a deep |

valley interposed between them, which is called
Cedron. He further mentions that during the
sieve of Jerusalem the Jews made an attack on the
Roman guard on the Mount of Olives, and that the
wall of circumvallation, built round the city to keep

the Jews in, began from the camp of the Assyrians, |

where Titus’ camp was pitched, extended to the
lower part of Cenopolis, thence along the valley of
Cedron to the Mount of Olives, and then bent to-
wards the south and encompassed the mountain as

far as the rock called Peristerion (dovecote) and |
that other hill which Hes next to it, and is over |

the valley which reaches to Siloam (L/ Vv. 1]. 8,
ili. 5, xii. 2; VI. ii. 8). [twas at this period that
the Mount of Olives became denuded ot the olives,
pines, myrtles, and palms which formerly covered
its sides, as mentioned in Neh 8S! *Go forth unto
the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine
branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches,
and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it
is Written.’

The Mount of Olives was particularly connected
in the minds of the worshippers at the temple of
Jerusalem with many of the most imiportant cere-
monies, such

as the proclamation of the new |

moons, the waters of purification and burning of |

the red heifer, and the scapegoat.
writines are full of references to the Mount of
Olives in connexion with these matters.

The Mount of Olives was called the mountain of
Three Lights, on account of—(1) the fire from the
altar lighting it up at might; (2) from the first
beams of the sun lighting up the sumimnit ; (3) from
the olive oil which it produced tor lighting the
Jamps of the temple.

The Mount of Olives was the starting-point for
the signals by means of fire beacons sent through-
out the Jand when the appearance of the new
moon was considered satisfactorily proved,
the 80th day of certain months watchmen were
stationed on the commanding heights around
Jerusalem, and as as any one of them
detected the new moon he hastened before the
president of the Sanhedrin to apprise him of it.
When its appearance was finally approved, a
heacon fire was lighted on the Mount of Olives,
and torches were moved to and tro in the night
until answered from Awan Surtabeh, a conical
mountain projecting into the Jordan Valley ; from
here the signal was carried to Gryphena, thence to
the Hlauran, Beth Balten (Biram), and thence to the
far east, until the whole land of the Captivity was
waving in flames. It is related (losh-hashshanah,
ii. 2) that the Cuthieans of Samaria spoiled this
system of signalling by putting up false lights,
and that it was found necessary to send mes-
senvers instead. See, further, art. NEw Moon.

The Mount of Olives has also a role to play in
the future (Targum upon Ca 81), When the dead
shall Hve again, Mount Olivet is to be rent in
twain (Zee 144), and all the dead of Israel shall
come out thence; and those righteous persons
who died in captivity shall be rolled under ground
and shall come forth under the Mount of Olives.
The Jews also believe (Midrash, Vehi//im) that the
Messiah will converse much on this mountain.

In connexion with the statement (Ἐκ 1153) that
the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of
the city, and stood upon the mountain, which is
on the east side of the city, Rabbi Janna says
the Divine majesty (shchinah) stood 35 years on
Olivet and preached, saying, ‘Seek ye the Lord

SOOTL

The Palmudical |

affection.

On |

is near’? (Midrash, VeAd//im), and then, when all
Was in vain, returned to its own place. Whether
or not this story has a direct allusion to the
nunistrations of Christ, it 1s a true expression of
His relation respectively to Jerusalem and to
Olivet. It is useless to seek for traces of His
presence in the streets of the ten times since cap-
tured city. It is impossible not to find them im
the free space of the Mount of Olives (Stanley,
SP 189).

Stanley (op. citat. p. 189) truly points out with
regard to the Mount of Olives ‘that its lasting
glory belongs not to the Old Dispensation, but
to the New. Its very barrenness of interest in
earlier times sets forth the abundance of those
associations which it derives from the closing
scenes of the Sacred History. Nothing, perhaps,
brines before us more strikingly the contrast of
Jewish and Christian feeling, the abrupt and in-
harmonious termination of the Jewish dispensa-
tion,-—-if we exclude the culminating point of the
Gospel History,—than to contrast the blank which
Olivet presents to the Jewish pilgrims of the
Middle Ages, only dignified by the sacrifice of
“the red heifer”; and the vision, too great for
words, which it offers to the Christian traveller of
all times, as the most detailed and the most
authentic abiding-place of Jesus Christ.’

‘No name in Scripture calls up associations at
once so sacred and so pleasing as that of Olivet.
The ‘mount ἢ is so intimately connected with the
private life of our Lerd, that we read of it and
look at it with feelings of deepest interest and
Here He sat with His disciples, telling
them of the wondrous events yet to come ; of the
destruction of the Holy City, of the sufferings,
the persecutions, and the final triumph ot His
followers’ (Porters Handbock to Pal.). Uere Ile
was wont to retire for meditation and praver.
Here He was met by a concourse of people irom
Jerusalem when He made His triumphal entry
into the Holy City. Here He came on the night of
His betrayal, and past this mount He led His dis-
ciples on the day He ascended to heaven,

There are many traditional sé/es on the Mount
of Olives, but there are some that more particu-
larly claim our attention.

The Garden of Gethsemane is to be looked for

beyond the Kidron and at the foot of Olivet (Jn

181, Lk 22%), and the modern traditional site

-seems to be a likely locality, though both Robin-

son (1. B47) and Thomson (Land and Book, γ». O34)
sugeest it was higher up the hill. This site is
probably the same as that alluded to by Eusebius,
Jerome, and the Bordeaux Pilgrim, but there is no
earlier tradition. The balance of opaion appears
to be in favour of its being near the true site. [Ὁ
is situated on the Olivet bank of the WKidron, not
far from the bridge, and immediately south of the
road leading from the bridge to the stummit of
Olivet. On the other side of the road are the
‘Grotto of the Agony’ and the ‘Tomb of the
Virgin’ (el-Jesmamyeh of the Arabs, fe. Geth-
semane). There are continuous links of tradition
uniting these chapels with the traditional spot
early in the 4th cent., where the site may possibly
have been fixed by the empress Helena, A.D. 326.
See, further, art. GETHSEMANE.

Theodorus (A.D. 530) states, ‘and there is the
Basilica of St. Mary the Lord’s Mother and her
sepulchre’; and St. John of Damascus writing in
the Sth cent. states that it existed then. A church
was erected over it in the time of the empress Pul-
cheria (A.D. 390-450); since the 8th cent. there
has been an unbroken chain of tradition concern:
ing the tomb. Bernard (A.b. 867) found te ἢ
ruins; it had been a round church. It was rebuilt

——

OLIVES, MOUNT OF

OLIVES, MOUNT OF 619

by Godfrey, and is described by Seewnlf and
William ot Tyre as it now exists. ‘The Moslems
handed it over to the Christians, A.D. 1363, but
they still visit it on a certain day in the year.
Eusebius (A.D. 833) states that Gethsemane was at
the Mount of Olives, and was then a place of
prayer for the faithful, and that the rock where
Judas betrayed Christ was in the valley of
Jehoshaphat (Τῶι. Hieros). The Bordeaux Pil-
grim also places the same rock in the valley of
Jehosha yhat. St. Silvia (A.D. 379-3888) describes
the service at Gethsemane. Jerome (A.D. 393)
says that Gethsemane was at the foot of the
mountain, and that a church had been built over
it. Encherius (A.D. 427-448) alludes to the two
famous churches where our Lord is said to have
had discourse with His disciples, and that of the
Ascension. ‘Theodorus (A.D. 530) speaks of a
Basilica on the spot where Christ taught His dis-
ciples. The presumption is, then, that the Grotto
of the Agony was the original site of Gethsemane.
The olive trees of Gethsemane are not mentioned
by any of the earlier pilgrims, and there is no
tradition connecting the very old trees now in the
earden with the p: ast.

Modern tradition makes the triumphal entry of
our Lord into Jerusalem over the summit of the
Mount of Olives, and the scene of the lamentation
over Jerusalem about half-way down the hill; but
Stanley has shown conclusively that His journey
lay by the southern road through Bethany—that
by which mounted travellers at the present day
approach Jerusalem, over the southern shoulder
of Olivet, between the summit which contains
the tombs of the Prophets and the Mount of
Offence. ‘There can be no doubt that this is the
route of the triumphal entry, not only because, as
just stated, it is and must always have been the
usual approach for horsemen and for large cara-
vans, such as then were concerned, but also
because this is the only one of the three ap-
proaches which meets the requirements of the

narrative’ (Stanley, SP 191). The road on
leaving Bethany passes over a spur of Olivet

which runs out to the south-east; from here a
view is obtained of the southern part of the Holy
City, then the road descends into a hollow, and
mounting again by a rugged ascent it reaches ἃ
ledge of “smooth rock from which the whole city
bursts into view. This point is opposite to the

south-east angle of the temple enclosure and con-
siderably above it. ‘Nowhere else on the Mount
of Olives is there a view like this. By the two
other approaches, one being over the summit and
one over the northern shoulder of the hill, the
city reveals itself gradually; there is no partial
elinpse, like that which has just been described
as avreeing so well with the first outbreak of
popular acclamation, still less is there any point
where, as here, the city and temple would sud-
denly burst into view, producing the sudden and
affecting impression described in the Gospel narra-
tive’ (SP 193).

The last interview of our Lord with His dis-
ciples before He ascended into heaven is stated to
have taken place on the eastern slopes of Olivet,
for ‘He led them out as far as to Bethany’ (Lk
24); and it isfurther stated that ‘they returned to
Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is
from Jerusalem a Sabbath day’s journey.’ The
traditional site, however, from very early times,
has been the middle summit of Olivet, at the
echureh of the Ascension ; and there are those who
consider that this is quite in keeping with the
account in St. Luke’s Gospel (see report of Schick,
PEFSt, p. 317, 1896). The church of the Ascen-
sion is a small octagonal structure within an
enclosure of irreguiar polygonal torm, measuring

about 40 ft. north and south, by 30 ft. east and
west. It is in possession of the Moslems, and a
minaret is close beside the west entrance, and is
avery conspicuous feature in the landscape. Chiris-
tian sects are permitted on certain days to perform
mass in the chapel. The chapel was built in 1834
on the plan of one built by the Moslems in 1617
on the ruins of the Crusading Chureh built 1130
and destroyed 1187. The latter was built on the
ruins of the Basilica of Constantine. Dr. Schick
(PEFS¢ p. 319, 1896) has carefully traced the
indications of the original building from the ex-
isting remains, and has proposed a restoration of
the place, showing a round church open at the
centre to the sky, with the entrance to west and
altar to east. This church was built in the 4th
cent., and a plan is given by Arculf, A.D. 680, of
its restoration in the 7th cent. by the Patriarch
Modestus.

The footprints of Christ have experienced various
and strange vicissitudes, One is impressed on
the pavement of the courtyard; the other has
been transferred to the chapel at the south end
of the main aisle of the Aksa Mosque in the
temple enclosure (see Tobler, Sdoahquelle wu. Ocl-
berg), Willibald (A.D. 922) and other writers speak
of two columns within the church in memory
of the two men who said, ‘Men of Galilee, why
stand ye gazing up into heaven?’ ‘This site has
now been transferred to the northern hill of
Olivet, near Scopus, and is called ὁ Galilee.’

The Pater Noster Chapel, south of the church of
the Ascension, was erected in 1865 by the Princess
de la Tour @ Auvergne, and is supposed to stand
on an old traditional site of the Middle Ages. The
intention of the Princess was to have within 24
small chambers, in which the ‘ Lord’s Prayer’
should be written up in 24 different lanenaves,
so that pilgrims οἵ all nationalities and all creeds
might unite there in repeating the Lord’s Prayer.

Within recent years the Russians have erected
a high tower and church on the commanding spur
north-east of the church of the Ascension, over-
looking the eastern slopes of Olivet.

‘From the Temple Mount to the western base
of Olivet it was not more than 100 or 200 yards
straight across, though ef course the distance to
the summit was much greater, say about half a
mile. By the nearest pathway it was only 918
yards froin the city gate to the principal summit.
Olivet was always fresh and green, even in earliest
spring or during pt e coolest, the
pleasantest, the most sheltered walk about Jeru-
salem. Far across this road the temple and its
mountain flung their broad shadows and Iuxu-
riant foliage, spreading a leafy canopy overhead.
They were not gardens in the ordinary Western
sense, through which one passed, far less orchards ;
but something peculiar to tia climes, where
Nature everywhere strews with lavish hand her
flowers, and makes her gardens—where the garden
bursts into orchard, and the orchard stretches into
field, till, high up, olive and fig mingle with the
darker cypress and pine. ‘The stony road up
Olivet wound alone terraces covered with olives,
whose silver and dark-ereen leaves rustled in the
breeze. Here gigantic gnarled fig trees twisted
themselves out of rocky soil; there clusters of
palms raised their knotty stems high up into
waving plumed tufts, or spread, bush like, from the
eround, the rich coloured fruit bursting in clusters
from the pod. Then there were groves Sof myrtles,

ines, tall stately cypresses, and on the summit

itself the gigantic cedars. ‘To these shady retreats
the inhabitants would often come from Jerusalem

to take pleasure or to meditate, and there one of
their most celebrated Rabbis (Τὸ. Jochanan ben
Saccai) was at one time wont im preference tc

620 OLIVET

OMRI

teach. Thither, also, Jesus with His disciples
often resorted’ (Edersheim, 7he Temple, p. 8).
LiteraturE.—J. Tobler, Silochquelle und Oelberg, 1882;
Stanley, SP 185ff., 452 ff. ; Robinson, BRP i, 274 ff. : SHEP’,
‘ Jerusalem’ vol. ; PHI'St, 1889, p. 174 ff. ; jarclay, City of the
Great King, Index ; Porter, Handivok to Syria, 8.v.; Thomson,
Land and Book, i, 415 ff. 3; and for the traditions, Quaresmius,
Hlucidatio Terre Sancti, ii, 277 ff. (with Robinson’s note,
BRP ii. 604 f.), together with the vols. of the Pal. Pilgrim Text
Society. See also under JERUSALEM. C. WARREN.

OLIVET (from Lat. olivetum, an oliveyard).—
This form has been given to the name of. the
Mount of Olives in AV at 2S 15 and Ae 113
It was taken from the Vulg. at the latter passage
(‘a Monte qui vocatur oliueti’) by Wyclif, who
has been followed by all the Eng. versions (in-
cluding RV) except the Geneva (‘the mount that
is called the Olive hil’). In 28 15 the Vule.
has ‘David ascendebat Clinum oliuarum’; it is
Coy. who introduces ‘ Olivet’ here, and it is also
the form in the Douay version. RV changes into
Olives. Amer. RV prefers Olivet to AV and RV
‘the Mount of Olives’ in Lk 19:9 2187, See OLIVES,
MOUNT OF.

OLYMPAS (‘Od\vurdas).—The name of a member of
the Roman Church greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16”,
It is an abbreviated form, like several others in the
chapter, being apparently shortened for Olympio-
dorus. He was commemorated Noy, 10.

OLYMPIUS (Ὀλύμπιος).---Απ epithet of Zeus, de-
rived from Mt. Olympus in Thessaly, the abode of
the gods. Antiochus Epiphanes, who was occu-
pied in building the magnificent temple of Zeus
Olympius (whom he specially honoured, see art.
JUPITER) at Athens (Polyb. xxvi. 10, 12), caused
the temple at Jerusalem to be dedicated to the
same divinity in December, B.c. 168 (2 Mac 6°, cf.
1 Mac 15+),

OMAR (72x, perhaps=‘ eloquent ’).—A erandson
of Esau, Gn 36" (μάν) ; one of the ‘dukes’ of
Edom, v.” (Qudp). Cf. the parallel passage 1 Ch
18° (Qudp). The clan of which he is the eponym
has not been identified.

OMEGA.—See ALPHA AND OMEGA.
OMER.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

OMRI (>y).—1. A king of Israel. See following
article. 2, A descendant of Benjamin, 1 Ch 73 (B
"Aueperd, A ᾿Αμαριά). 3. One of the ancestors of a
Judahite family living at Jerusalem, 1 Ch 94 (B
᾿Αμρεί, A’Aupi). ἃ. A prince of Issachar in the time
of David, 1 Ch 2738 (Β ᾿Αμβρεί, A "Auapi).

OMRI (7>y, LXX ᾿Αμβρί(ενί, Assyr. Himri or
Humria*) was the first king of a dynasty which
reigned nearly sixty years, and consisted of four
successive rulers (B.C, 900-842). Omri first appears
in biblical history as the general of Elah’s army,
at that time engaged in conducting siege opera-
tions against the Philistine town Gibbethon (1 K
161"), On the other hand, at this very moment
another military commander, Zimri, was arrying
on a plot against the besotted and helpless Israelite
king, Elah, who suffered assassination in his royal
residence in Tirzah. This conspiracy, however,
was only partially successful, as it never sueceeded
in gathering Israel under its standard. The nation
preferred to rally round the more powerful as well

* The equivalence of Hebrew-Canaanite y with Agsyr..h is
illustrated in Schrader, COT? i. p. 110: Thus ΠῚ is in Assyr.
Haziti, Vy¥ sahru, 23 is Kinahhi (Tel el-Amarna Inser.),
“T3¥ probably = Habiri, Ammi-rabi (Amraphel)= Hammu-rabi.

as more loyal military rival, Omri, at Gibbethon,
and made him king. Under that capable leader
Tirzah was besieged and captured, Zimri was com-
pelled to seek retuge in the fortress-citadel of the
royal palace, and perished amid the flames kindled
either by his own hands or by those of bis foes.
Omri, however, was not even now left without a
competitor for the vacant throne. Yet the Opposi-
tion of Tibni was probably soon crushed, and Omri
commenced a reign not only longer but certainly
of far greater importance than the brief narrative
1K 16%" would lead us to suppose. Even in
that short section the military character of the
monarch is clearly revealed to us by the reference
to his erection of the fortress -city Samaria as
a royal residence and eapital of ‘the Northern
kingdom, to take the place of the less defensible
town of Tirzah. The superior strategic position
of Samaria, a conical hill standing 400 ft. above
the base of the broad valley, is evidenced by the
long siege which it endured and the stout resist-
ance which it offered to the armies of Sargon
(B.C. 722), as well as to the Syrian hosts in the
preceding century (1 K 20, 2 K 68"), Its pictur-
esque appearance is described by Isaiah (28!) as
‘Ephraim’s proud crown on the summit of a fertile
valley.’ ‘This place is said to have been purchased
by Omri from Shemer (so also LX.X) for two silver
talents (or about £800).

Respecting the wars waged by Omri scarcely
anything is stated in the biblical narrative. From
1 k 905} we derive a valuable hint. Syria, the
formidable foe of David, had remained quiescent
since that monarch had inflicted upon it a series
of overwhelming defeats. But in the days of the
divided kingdom Syria became ageressive, and
averandized itself at the expense of its weakened
Southern neighbour. From 1 Kk 20%4 we learn that
Omri must have sustained some reverses in his war
with Syria, and was compelled to cede some streets
or quarters in Samaria to the Aramzean residents.
But these reverses may have been—probably were
--only temporary. In any case, they are wholly
insufficient to warrant us in following Wellhausen
in supposing that Israel became thereby reduced
to vassalage by Aram * (see art. AHAB). Kittel is
probably right in considering it fairly certain that
Omri made heroic efforts to rid himself of the
pressure of his Northern foe which he had inherited
from his predecessors, but without complete sue-
cess.t It is quite evident, however, that the
struggle did not leave him in the least degree
crippled. Otherwise he would not have been in
ἅν position to conduct a war of conquest against his
South-eastern neighbour Chemosh-Melech, king of
Moab (see below).

Moab, which had been subjugated by David,
began to throw off its allegiance to Israel in the
troubled years which followed the disruption. But
the energetic military rule of Omri put an end to
this independence. These facts we learn from the
Stone of Diban, erected by Mesha’, son of Chemosh-
Melech. We quote (on next page) from the original,
which may be found in Smend and Socin’s copy,
with notes (Jnschrift des Kénigs Mesa), in Driver's
Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel,
Appendix to Introduction, p. Ixxxviff., and in the
art. MOAB, above, p. 404.

From this passage we can infer the importance
of Omri’s military operations in Moab. He
acquired the district around Mehedeba; and so
thoroughly was Moab subdued that it was com-
pelled to pay an enormous tribute of wool (2 K 3+.
See Driver, /.c. p. 1xxxix).

* Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. xx. p. 27, Skizzen u. Vorard, i.
p. 31. The view adopted above and also in the art. AHAB is aise
sustained by McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments,

Ὁ

- p. 2rd.
t Gesch. der Hebrier, ii. p. 223 [Eng. tr. ii. 261].

ON ON 621
4 ἽΝ ᾿
δ μα. WD RINT ἸΔῪ par an mas See qo
δ Scan AND ON DUR ΜΙΤ’ ὯΔ. ὙΒῊ ΓΞ - ΠΡΟΤῚ [πε ὁ
7 fay] ΜΝ. γῶν wan oby ἸῸΝ tan Sse onan tae sas 7
8 8

ΓΦ - VIN | ID WOT ET OTA BW | ΣΤ ΥΥ̓

‘Omri was king of Israel and oppressed Moab a long time [lit. many days], for

Chemosh was wroth with his land.

And his son succeeded him [.6. Omri], and

he too said [= thought 2253 ἼΩΝ] “I will oppress Moab.” In my time [v.e. of

Mesha] he said thu[s}. But I saw [my
perished with an everlasting destruction.*

desire] on him and his house, and Israel
So Omri obtained possession of the land

of Mehcdeba, and (one) dwelt therein during his days and half the days of his

son, forty years’...

The inscription also sheds a valuable light on
the chronology of Omri’s reign, since it shows that
the period of his occupation of Moabite territory
and of the occupation by his son Ahab covered
the remainder ot his own reign and half of his
son Ahab’s reign, making 40 years in all. It 15
of course not necessary to take Ἐπ in ἃ strict
mathematical sense. On the other hand it is quite
clear that the biblical chronology is at fault, since
it ascribes to Omri a reign of only 12 years, and
to Ahab’s entire reign 22 years, making the total
length of both reigns only 34 years. From these
data of the Moabite Stone it is evident that we
must extend considerably the reign of Omri. In
the scheme set forth in Schrader’s COZ? 11. p.
322 ff, Omri’s reign is reckoned to be 25 years
(B.c. 900-875), ten years being deducted from the
reien of Baasha. These dates harmonize better
with (@) the results of Assyriology, (4) with the deep
impression which Omri had produced in Western
Asia by his military prowess. This impression
was no fleeting one, but extended over a very long
period. We have clear indication of this in the
fact that Palestine was called (mat) Bit Humri,
or ‘land of the house of Omri,’ from the time of
Shalmaneser 11. (860) to that of Sargon (722-705).
The usurper Jehu is called on Shalmaneser’s black
obelisk Jvuaabal Humri, ‘Jehuson of Omri.’ And
no less deep was the impression produced in Israel
and Judah. The reference to the ‘statutes of
Omri’ in Mic 6" is an indication of this, his name
being coupled with that of his son Ahab. What is
meant by this expression, and what forms of practice
it is intended to cover, we do not know. Combining
it with the phrase that ‘he did evil more than all
that were before him’ (1 Καὶ 16°), we are led to infer
not only that he is judged in an unfavourable light,
like Jeroboam and his successors, in accordance with
later and stricter canons of Deuteronomic legalism,
but also that in all probability the beginnings of
Phonician influence in religion, for which Ahab’s
reign became notorious, were already infecting the
cultus of Israel in Samaria. To this the passage in
Micah seams to point.

OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE.

ON (js; B Atv, A Αὐνάν; Lue. ᾿Αμνάν).---α
Reubenite associated with Dathan and Abiram in
a rebellion against Moses, Nu 16! (JE). There is
_* This implies that Ahab, son of Omri, was compelled to re-
linquish his hold of Moab.
wars with Syria. Nevertheless he did not lose all.
the ‘son’ (lines 6and 8) with Jehoram, thus ignoring the two

intervening reigns of Ahab and Ahaziah (cf. CuRONOLOGY, vol. |

i, p. 402), is highly improbable. The campaign of 2 K 3 against
Moab was an attempt to retain the slight remnant of power
which Mesha now threw off. Comp. McCurdy, vel. i. p. 282.

+ B. W. Bacon, who seeks here, as in many other instances, to
break up JE into its constituents, suggests that, according to

This probably took place during his |
To identify |

reason to believe that the mention of On is due to
textual corruption, for no such personage appears
in the subsequent narrative, and the name is found
nowhere else in the Old Testament. For the prob-
able restoration of the text see KORAH, p. 12.

ON (ὑπ, Jk, "Qv).—A city in Lower Egypt, Gn
41:5. © 462° (Potiphera, priest of On). In Ezk 8017
it occurs again, but punctuated py AVEN (which

see). On is the hieroglyphic Anw, the name of
Heliopolis. In Jer 43! the city is called Beth-

shemesh, ‘ House of the Sun,’ the hieroglyphic Per
Ra, its sacred name. The name On seems gradually
to have fallen into disuse; the Greeks called the
place Ἡλιούπολις, from which the Coptic name is
also derived. In the Bible, however, both Gr.
and Copt. VSS retained the name On. LXX
gives in Jer 43 [Gr. 50]! τοὺς στύλους ᾿Ηλίου πόλεως
τοὺς ἐν "Ὧν, and in Ex 1 curiously adds to Pithom
and Raamses Ἂν ἣ ἐστιν Ἡλίου πόλις as another city
built by the children of Israel. ©The ruins of
Heliopolis lie on the E. edge of the Delta, but out-
side the Delta proper, touching the edge of the
desert, not far below the forking of the Nile. The
city was built partly on the desert, partly on
alluvium. Its site is now marked by a considerable
mound surrounded by a massive crude brick wall.
In the area occupied anciently by the temple there
still stands an obelisk, erected by Usertesen 1.
of the 12th Dynasty, the base hardly above the
level of the water that percolates from the canals ;
and though blocks from the ancient temple are still
lying in numbers under the soil, the rise of the
water-level makes it extremely difficult to recover
them. On the fall of paganism the site was
plundered of its building materials for the adorn-
ment of Alexandria, Cairo, and other towns in
Lower Egypt. Entire obelisks had previously been
removed to Alexandria (by Augustus), to Rome, and
to Constantinople, and, with the exception of some
monuments in museums and of the obelisk men-
tioned above as being still iz situ, the chief monu-
ments of Heliopolis now existing are the obelisks of
Rome, Constantinople, London, and New York.

Anu was the capital of the 18th nome of Lower
Egypt (which nome was probably bounded by the
desert on the E., the Pelusiae branch of the Nile
on the N., the Memphitic nome on the $., and the
nome of Phacusa [2Uth] on the N.E.), but its great
importance was sacerdotal, and due to its chiet
temple of Ra, the centre of Sun worship in Egypt,
and the most important seat of learning in the
J, On the son of Peleth (v.14) and Korah (not a descendant of
Levi, as P makes him in y.!8, but) a kinsman of Caleb (cf. 1 Ch
243), were the leaders of the day revolt against Moses, while
the leaders in E are Dathan and Abiram (vy.l¢e), See, further

, NuMBERS, p. 570),

622 ONAM

ONESIPHORUS

country. Like other sacred centres, this city is
found mentioned in some of the earliest inscrip-
tions, dating from the 4th Dynasty. It is recorded
of Usertesen 1. (about B.c, 2500) that he built, 1.6.
rebuilt, the temple. Perhaps the greatest event in
its early history was the temporary suppression of
Ra worship and the substitution forit of Set worship
by the Hyksos, as recorded in a papyrus of the
Kamesside period, now in the British Museum. A
contemporary papyrus (also in the British Museum),
known in science as the Mathematical papyrus,
and written in the reign of Apepa 1., indicates that
the Hyksos court sojourned sometimes at Helio-
polis, sometimes at Zaru (Avaris?). These two
documents show the great importance of Heliopolis
at the time of the Hyksos, when Lower Egypt was
ὅν separate kingdom. | Memphis apparently was
less favoured by the Hyksos, though probably it
was completely in their power, while Upper Egypt
seems Ouly to have acknowledved their suzerainty.
On the expulsion of the Hyksos by the first king
of the 18th Dynasty, Ra worship was restored, and
the temple of Ra at Heliopolis was rebuilt or re-
adorned long before any other temple in or near
the Delta. Monuments of Tahutmes tf. have been
found here, while elsewhere in Lower Egypt outside
Memphis nothing is found of the New Kingdom
earher than Amenhotep TI., whose cartouche occurs
at Bubastis and Athribis. Like many of his prede-
cessors, Ramses ΤΠ. made great gifts to this temple,
and the pious Ethiopian invader, Piankhi, in his
great inscription from Gebel Barkal, dwells on the
ceremonies that he performed here. In Roman
times it fell rapidly from its high estate; even
Strabo notes its partial desertion. It lay on the
road from Syria to Memphis, and thus was peculi-
arly exposed to attack from the most formidable
quarter: important battles have been fought on this
site again and again, and even in modern times.

It is difficult to say to what period the priest
Potiphera, the father-in-law of Joseph, belonged.
His name being compounded with that of Ra, shows
that it does not date from Hyksos times, 15-16th
Dynasties, when Set overshadowed everything,
But the form of the name was very common from
the 23rd Dynasty onward (ὁ.
hardly known as early even as the 20th. Zaphe-
nath-paneah (Gn 4145) is also a form of name. be-
longing almost solely to the same late
PHARAOH).

The Sun-god was worshipped at Heliopolis first
in the form of Ra;
sun; thirdly, as Harakhti, the hawk of the horizon,
“alled by the Greeks Harmakhis ; fourthly, as
Khepera, figured by a scarabeus, and symbolizing
the vivifying and reproductive force of the sun.
Of sacred animals here the bull Mnevis was the
most important; and the heron, called dni, was
the original of the famous phenix. From the
earliest times obelisks were connected with the

Sun worship (ef. Jer 43% [Beth-shemesh]). There
was also a sacred pool or spring, mentioned

especially by Piankhi, ‘in which Ra was wont
to wash his face’; hence the Arab. name for
this locality is ‘Ain esh-shems, ‘spring of the
sun.” In Christian story this isthe spring in
which the Virgin washed her son while resting in
the shade of an acacia tree on her journey into
Egypt. The latest successor to the tree is still
shown in an enclosure at Matariych. See AVEN,
BETH-SHEMESH, I. Lu. GRirFITH.

ONAM (o3\x).—1. The eponym of a Horite clan,
Gn 36° (‘Qudy)=1 Ch 1” (Β Ὦνάν, A Ὠνάμ). 2 A
son of Jerahmeel, 1 Ch 9:0. 25. (B 'Qgdu, A Οὐνομα).
See ONAN, footnote.

ONAN (j3s, Atvdv).—A son of Judah, Gn 38: 4613,

B.C. 800), though |

period (see

secondly, as Tum, the setting |

Nu 26", 1 Ch 23. After the decease of his elder
brother, Er, he was instructed by his father te
contract a levirate marriage with Tamar. The
device by which he evaded the object of this
marriage ‘was evil in the sight of the Lorp, and
He slew him,’ Gn 38%!" (J). It is impossible to
disentangle from this narrative what was the
action of certain individuals and what is tribal
history. Probably Er and Onan both stand for
Judahite clans which at an early period, from
what cause we know not, became extinct.* The
present form of the narrative discloses a desire to
impress the duty of marriage with a deceased
brother’s wife (see Dillm. and Holzinger, ad loc.).
J. A. SELBIE,

ONESIMUS (Ονήσιμος) of Colossie (Col a). ἃ
slave of Philemon (Philein 16), probably a Phrygian
by race, but bearing a Greek name which from its
signification ‘helpful’? was often bestowed upon
slaves (ef. Zahn, Hin/. i. p. 324; Lightfoot, Phile-
mon, Ὁ». 876 note). *Helptul’ had, however, proved
unprofitable (ἄχρηστος, Philem?!); he wronged his
master, perhaps misusing money intrusted to him
(cf. Lk 16), perhaps stealing from him, and ran
away from Colossie either to Ciesarea or, more
probably, to Rome. There he gained access to
St. Paul in his imprisonment; who ‘begat’ him
in Christ’ and made him profitable (εὔχρηστος,
Philem!) once more. With such goodwill, indeed,
did he do service that St. Paul would fain have
kept him to minister to himself; but, feeling it a
duty to return him to his master, he wrote the
Epistle to Philemon, appealing to him to receive
his slave, now become a brother worthy of love
and trust, and himself undertaking to refund any
money which Philemon had lost through the action
of Onesimus (Philem ὅτ), This letter was prob-
ably intrusted to Tychicus, who was bearing the
Colossian letter, and a special word of commenda-
tion of Onesimus was sent to the whole Church
(Col 4%),

The result of St. Paul’s appeal is unknown, but
subsequent tradition treated Onesimus as a pro-
minent and active member of the Church. ‘These
traditions are very various: he was identified with
a bishop of Bera@a (Apost. Constit. vii. 46), with
the bishop of Ephesus in the time of Tgnatius
(Lph.i.); he was said to have preached in Spain,
and the apoeryphal Acts of the Spanish sisters
Xanthippe and Polyxena are written ἴῃ his
name (¢. 383 LTerts and Studies, ii. 3, ‘Apocrypha
Anecdota’): he was said to have been martyred
either at Puteoli (Euthalius) or at} Rome (« Mart.
Ten.’ Roman Acts, ο. 10). But the name was so
common, not only in classical times for slaves, but
also in later Christian use (Smith, Dictionary of
Christian Biography, s.v.), that various Onesimi
have probably been confused, and it is impossible
to extricate any certain fact. His memory was
observed by the Latin Church on Feb. 16, by the
Greek Church on Feb, 15, and also in conjunction
with Philemon, Appia, and Archippus, on Noy. 22:
the various traditions will be found in the Acts
Sanctorum (i. 855-859) and the Greek Jena (pp.
89-92) for those days. A most interesting modern
romance of his life will be found in Onesimus, by
the author of Philochristus (London, 1882).

W. Lock.

ONESIPHORUS (Ὀνησίφορος, ‘ profit-bringer’).—
A friend of St. Paul at Rome, mentioned twice
only in the NT, 2 Ti 1618 41. From the former of
these passages it appears that Onesiphorus when
he arrived in Rome and learnt that St. Panl was
in captivity, sought him out diligently, and ‘re-
freshed’ him, not with bodily nourishment only,

* Or at least seriously weakened. Er appears in 1 ¢‘h 421 as a
sub-clan of Shelah, and Onan is perhaps=Onam of 1 Ch 22, a
sub-clan of Jerahmeel.

“

ONIARES

ONIAS

but with every token of friendship. Of this
friendship St. Paul retained a very lively recol-
lection,
Phyeelus and Hermogenes, had deserted him
(Ο ΤΊ 15); and in writing to ‘Timothy recalled

further the many good oftices which Onesiphorus |

had performed at Ephesus, of which Timothy from
his residence there would know * better’ (βέλτιον)
than St. Paul or any one else could tell him. It
should be noted that these offices are not repre-
sented as extended specially to St. Paul himselt, as
the AV, by the insertion of ‘unto me,’ implies ; nor
is the use of the verb διακονέω sufficient warrant for

the belief that Onesiphorus occupied the office of ὦ

deacon at Ephesus (see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 493).
It is not perfectly clear whether, at the time
when St. Paul wrote, Onesiphorus was alive or

dead; but the references to his ‘house’ rather

than to himself in 2 Ti 116 419. and still mor, the
words of the prayer in 2 Ti 118. +The Lord grant
unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day,’
make it most probable that he was now dead (so
de Wette, Huther, Alford, Ellicott,
ν. Soden),

in connexion with the argument for prayers for
the dead. Thus it is appealed to in support. of
such a practice by Bishop Archibald Campbell in
his anonymously published book on The Inter-
mediate or Middle State of Departed Souls, 1718,
. 72; and amonest more recent writers by
Plumptre (The Spirits in Prison, pp. 128, 266) and
Luckock (After Death, p. 77, The Intermediate
State, p. 211). Others, as Barrett (The Inter-
mediate State, p. 113), tind in the words no more
than ‘a pious wish.’ On the whole question it
may be sufiicient to quote the carefully weighed
words of Hammond (Paraphrase ond Annot. on the
NT, in loco): ‘How far it may be tit to pray for
them that are departed this life, needs not to be
disputed here. “Tis certain that some measure of
bliss, which shall at the day of judgment be vouch-
safed the Saints, when their bodies and souls shall
be reunited, is not till then enjoyed by them, and
therefore may sately
(in the same manner as Christ prays to his Father,
to glorifie him with that glory which he had before
the world was). And this is a very distant thing
from that prayer which is now used in the Romish
Church for deliverance from temporal pains, founded
in their doctrine of Purgatory, which would no
way be conclusible from hence, though Onesiphorus,
for whom Saint Paw here prays for mercy, had
been now dead.’

Winer (RIVB ii. 175) quotes a tradition from
Fabricius (Lua. Evang. p. 117) that Onesiphorus
became bishop of Corone in Messenia.

α. MILLIGAN,

ONIARES.—1 Mac 12%(AV). See ARIUS.

ONIAS (Ὀνίας, of which Jastrow snegests a
correspondence with sux ‘a man of Oni’? [δ τ
ὧν Neh 7°7], though he appears to prefer the
better derivation from sina or rsa, Wenach, xiii. 20,
an abbrev. of sism3). 1. ONIAS I. was the son of
Jaddua (Jos. Ant. Xf. viii. 7), and father of Simon
the Just (i. xu. ii. 4; Sir 501; see, however, Herz-
feld. Gesch. ii. 1891f.; Zanz, Vortrage*, 38). In
1 Mac 127 he is said to have received a friendly
letter from the Spartan king Arius (“Apevos, more
correctly ᾿Αρεύς ; see Corp. Inseript. Attic. αἰ. 352).
He must therefore have been a contemporary of
Areus I.,who reigned from ὅν. Ὁ, 309 to 365 (Diod.
xx. 29). Areus If died at the age of eight in
B.C. 255 (Pausanias, iii. 6. 6), and, as no other
Areus is known, the evidence is strongly against
Josephus, who represents the communication as
having been made to Onias HW. The alleged letter

the more so that others, the Asiatics |

fairbairn, |
If so, the passage gains an additional |
interest from the use that has been made of it |

and fitly be prayed for them |

ix given in two forms in Jos. Avf. ΧΙ. iv. 10 and
προς

2. ONIAS If. was the son of Simon the
Ant. XI. iv. 1). On the death of his father he
was disqualified by youth for immediate succession
to the high priesthood, which, however, he after-
—wards held during the greater part of the reign of
| Ptolemy Euergetes. He is not mentioned in the
| Apocr., but Josephus (And. XI. iv. 1-5) describes
|
|

Just (Jos.

how advantage was taken of his imprudence by

his nephew to found ἃ family whose civil influence

exceeded for a time that of the titular high priest.
| 8. ONIAS UL. was the son of Simon τὶ. τυ: XH.
iv. 10), whom he sueceeded in B.C. 198 or 105. His
loyalty to the Syrian over-rule was such that
~Seleucus Philopator bore the cost of ‘the services
of the sacrifices’ (2 Mac 95. But he was soon
involved in a quarrel with Simon the Benjamite,
who held in the temple a high office, similar in
part to that of the edileship. Simon became im-
patient of the priest's control, and in despite
| informed the Syrian military governor that the
temple was full of treasures, which lay at the
mercy of any despoiler. Seleucus quickly de-
spatched Heliodorus to seize this money, but the
latter is said (2 Mac 8%) to have been deterred by
an apparition, and to have returned to Antioch in
dismay. Simon ascribed the failure to the high
priest’s trickery (2 Mac 4!), and the quarrel became
so bitter that the latter decided at length to pro-
ceed in person to the king. Scarcely had he
reached Antioch when Seleucus was assassinated ;
and, in the confusion that followed, the high priest-
hood was secured by purchase by Jason, the brother
of Onias, and QOnias himself was detained at
Antioch. Jason proceeded at once to redeem his
promise to thoroughly Hellenize Judea (2 Mae
4°); but in B.c. 171 he was deposed by Antiochus,
whose favour had been won by the larger gifts of
| Menelaus (2 Mae 4%), the brother of Jason (Jos.
| Ant. XU. v. 1), or more probably of Simon (2 Mae
4%). Menelaus was rebuked by Onias for sacrilege
_ in stealing some of the vessels of the temple (2 Mac
| 48t-), and in revenge had him decoyed from his
| refuge in the sanctuary at Daphne and put to death
(2 Mac 44). The account of Onias’ murder is regarded
by some as apocryphal ; see Willrich, Juden 41. Grie-
chen vor d. makhub Mrhebung, 295. p ΤΊ ff. Wellh.
GGA, 1895. p. 950f., L7G*, 1897, p. 244 1f., cf.
Baethgen, ZA VW, 1880. p. 278 ff.; but see. on the
other side, Biichler, Die Tobiaden wu. Oniaden, 1899,
pp. 106 ff., 240 f., 275 f., 853 Ε΄. Josephus simply
states (Ant xr. v. 1) that Jason sueceeded to the
high priesthood on the death of Onias.

4, ONTAS, generally reckoned as Iv. though it is
not likely that he ever acted as high priest in
‘Jerusalem. On the death of his father Onias U1,
che was too young for the succession ; and, after-
owards finding a0 means of securing the rights of
vhis birth, he took refuge with Ptolemy Philometor
‘in Eeypt (Jos. δὲς Xin ix. 7). About B.c. 154

Griitz, iii, 34) he obtained from the king, who
wished to conciliate the Jews and use them in his
wars with Syria, the gift of a disused temple of
‘Bubastis Agria (the cat-headed goddess Bast or
Bastet ; see Herod. 11. 137, and Egypt. Εαρ. Fund,
Eighth Memoir, 3f.) in Leontopolis, and recon-
structed it after the model of the temple in Jerus.
‘Jos, Ant: Xi. ii. 1-3). The foundation. was
defended as a fulfilment of the prophecy of Is 19!5t;
and a complete temple service was instituted,
which was continued until A.b. 73, when the
‘temple was closed by the Romans (Jos. Wars, ὙΠ.
|x: 2-4). From Menachoth xiii. 10 it appears that
only partial sanction was given to the services of
this temple by the Jewish authorities at home,
whilst in the opinion even of the Egyp. Jews it
never entirely superseded the temple at Jerusalem

624 ONIAS, REGION OF

ONYX

(Jos. c. Ap. i. 7; Phil. Opp. ed. Mang. ii. 646).
Onias was afterwards appointed civil governor of
the district in which his temple was situated, and
two of his sons received high commands in the
Egyp. army (Jos, Ant, XII. x. 4).
Ἧι WoeNToss:

ONIAS, REGION OF (Jos. Ant. XIv. viii. 1;
BJ 1. ix. 4, Vil. x. 2), used loosely of the part
of Lower Egypt that contained Jewish settlements,
but strictly of the district in which was the temple
built by Onias Iv. Its position is variously
described by Josephus, as in the nome or province
of Heliopolis (dnt. xu. ix. 7; Ptol. Iv. 5. 3); as
at Leontopolis in the said nome (Jos. Ant. XII.
111. 2); and as 180 stadia from Memphis (2/J vit.
x. 3), The reference consequently cannot be to the
nome of Leontopolis, but to a district of the same
name within that of Heliopolis, The name itself
Was not uncommon, though there is no evidence of
its application to any site within the nome in
question, From Memphis to the city of Heliopolis
the distance approximates closely to that given by
Josephus ; but his language is vague, and allows
the assumption that he was not caleulating the
distance to the temple of Onias, but to the chief
town of the province within which the latter was
situated. North-east of Heliopolis, at a distance
of 24 miles, is the town of Belbeis, which has been
suggested as the site of the temple, because it was
a place of the worship of the goddess Sekhet, who
has been identified with Bubastis Aeria (Jos. Ant.
XU. ii. 23 Kyypt. Rep. Fund, Seventh Memoir, p.
20); but Belbeis is both in another nome, and at
too great a distance from Memphis. Less than 10
miles north of Heliopolis, and within that province,
is a mound, Tell el-Yahudiyeh, in the neighbour-
hood of which the remains of a great Jewish
cemetery have been found (/gypt. Bap. Fund,
Seventh Memoir, 51-53, where, however, F. Ul.
Griffith pronounces against the identification with
the site of the city of Onias on the ground of the
general character of the antiquities met with,
though on p. 19 Naville strongly supports it). The
district is full of traditions of a powerful Jewish
settlement ; and within its limits, if not on this
particular mound, it is almost certain that Onias
built his temple. Rt. W. Moss.

ONIONS (cya Bézdlim, κρόμμυον, cape, Arab.
basal).—Vhis word occurs only once in the Bible
(Nu 11°) in connexion with fish, eacumbers, melons,
leeks, and garlic. The latter two are species of
the same genus, Allium. The onion is A. Cepa, L.
Tt is universally cultivated in the East, and enters
into many cooked dishes and salads. The onions
of Syria and Palestine have a very sweet taste,
and, when cooked, do not impart to the breath
the strong odour which so often forbids the use
of the onion as an article of diet elsewhere.
Working men often make their midday meal
from a loaf or two of bread and a couple of raw
onions. It is customary to skewer bits of meat
alternating with segments of onion and tomato,
and broil them over glowing coals. With fresh
native bread they make a most savoury and
appetizing meal to persons accustomed to them.

Gb Post.

ONO (ἦν, once Neh 757 §38).—This city is said in
1 Ch 813 (B’Qvav, A’Qve) to have been built by the
sons of Benjamin at an early period, and the
Talmud (Mishna, EHrakhin, ix. 6) states that it
was fortified by Joshua. There is no mention of
it, however, in the OT except in books written
after the Captivity, when it was inhabited by
Benjamites, Ezr 2° (B’Qvdv, A Ὠνώ), Neh 6? (‘the
plain of Ono’ ‘x nyp3, B πεδίον ᾿Ενώ, A π. Ὧνά), 751
(B’Qva, A Ὥνών), 11° (Ko *’7Qvd, BAS * om.). It is
noticed with Lod (which see), and in the Talmud

the two towns with their adjoining territory are
included in the designation Dv.n7 x3‘ valley of the
craftsmen’ (Jerus. MWegillah, i. 1; cf. 1 Ch 434, Neh
1155). Ono is the modern Kefr' And, north of Ludd
(the ancient Lod or Lydda). [5 antiquity is shown
by its being noticed, alone with the last-named
place, in the lists of Tahutmes 11. ¢. B.C. 1600.

LITERATURE.—SWP. vol. ii. sheet xiii. ; van de Velde, Mem.
337; Neubauer, Géog. du Talin. 86; Guerin, Judée, i. 319 ff. ;
W. Max Muller, Asien u. Europa, $38; Buhl, GAP 196f. ; G. A.
Smith, HGHL 160f. CG, ReConpEeR.

ONUS (Ὠνούς), the form in which the name Ono

(wh. see), a town of Benjamin, appears in 1 Es 5%.

ONYCHA (none shéheleth, ὄνυξ, onyx). — The
operculum of a shell-fish, called by the Gr. and
Lat. writers ὄνυξ, onyx, from its resemblance to a
nail. When burned it emits a pungent, aromatic
odour, from the combustion of the animal matter
which it contains. The name, doubtless, applied to
the opercula of many species of the shells of the
Strombus tribe in the Mediterranean and Red
Seas. Onycha* is mentioned as one of the com-
ponents of the sacred perfume (Ex 30*4),

G. Th. Post.

ONYX.—This is the rendering of the Heb. env
shoham, in AV and RV text (see below), but it is
impossible to be certain of its correctness. There
are no cognate words in Heb. literature to throw
light on the inquiry. The attempts to find an
etymology in other languages of the same family
fail absolutely or fall short at the critical point.
The Arab. ae is, indeed, used in the sense ‘to be

τον ᾿ *
pale” which would suit the onyx fairly well; but
that meaning is only the secondary, not the radical

one. The district micas Socheim, in Yemen, pro-
duced a specially ‘fine onyx; but there are two
weighty objections against the derivation thus
suggested, namely, the almost invariable use of
the article with the Heb. word (om), and the

impossibility of > representing .. Schrader’s con-

jecture, so far as it goes, is decidedly the most
helpful. He proposes (COT? i. p. 30) to identify
the shoham with the Assyro-Babylonian sdimtu,
which means ‘dark,’ and 1s used as the name of a
valuable stone from Melukhkha in Upper Baby-
lonia. Sayce (Napos. Times, vii. [1896] p. 306)
accepts the connexion of the two words, and boldly
adds, ‘a blue-green stone, probably the turquoise.’
In this last particular he is too hasty. Fried.
Delitzsch (Assyr. Handwb. p. 4882) holds that the
adj. sémtu means ‘dark coloured’: it is used of
clouds, and of a fruit which is neither white nor
black. If this is so,—and Pinches agrees with
Schrader and Delitzsch,—sdmtu would not be the
right word for the turquoise.

The Versions are distinctly unhelpful. The
Pesh. and Targ. have ‘beryl.’ The LXX is alto-
gether inconsistent with itself: Gn 2! πράσινος ;
Ex 287 ϑηρύλλεον ; Ex 257 35° odpédios ; 289 3577 3918
σμάραγδος ; Ezk 281} σάπφειρος ; Job 281 ὄνυξ ; 1 Ch
29" coou. Aq. uses σαρδόνυξ at Gn 2” and ὄνυξ in
Ex ; Josephus (Ant. 1. vil. 5, and BJ v. v. 7) has
σαρδόνυξ and ὄνυξ. Vulg. usually employs ony-
chinus, but at Ezk 28% beryl, and at Job 28!
sardonyx. Our AV adheres to onyx ; but, curiously
enough, the RV, whilst retaining this in the text,
has placed ‘or beryl’ in the marg. of some of the
passages: cf. Ex 35° 39°, Ezk 28% with Gn 2”,
Ex 28% 70 3513: 27, Job 2816, 1 Ch 297. The uncertainty
of the Versions reappears in the writings of the

* The form ‘onycha’ is the accus. of Gr. ὄνυξ, Lat. onya, taken
by Wyclif and Tindale apparently as a nom., and adopted by
all the Eng. versions (except the Geneva, which has ‘cleare
gumme’). Cf. Sir 2415,

ONYX

OPEN PLACE 625

expositors. ‘ Beryl,’ ‘ earbuncle,’ ‘ chalcedony,’
‘onyx,’ and ‘turquoise’ have all had their adher-
ents. So far as the Bible is concerned, two points
are clear. (1) The shoham stone was esteemed of
considerable value. Job 2815 calls it ‘the precious
shohum. Ἐκ 28 names it amongst the valuable
stones which bedecked the king of Tyre. _ It is the
one gem which finds mention when the offerings of
the Israelites are enumerated (Ex 35° 7), and when
the Chronicler recounts the treasures prepared by
David for the temple (1 Ch 295. (2) It was well
adapted for engraving. ‘Two shoham stones were
to be engraven with the names of the twelve tribes,
six names on each, and were to be set on the
shoulder-pieces of the high priest’s ephod, Ex 28* ig
(see art. Epnop). Again, the middle stone in the
fourth row of jewels on the high priest's breast-
plate, bearing the name of one of the tribes,
possibly Asher or Manasseh, was a shoham (see
art. BREASTPLATE OF THE HiGt PRIEST).

Streeter appears to think (Prec. Stoves, Ὁ). 214)
that the claims of the onyx are negatived by the
fact that the shoham ‘is classed with the ruby,
topaz, diamond, chrysolite, jasper, sapphire, and
chrysoprase.’ But the argument. is inconclusive.
And, seeing that the onya satisfies the two con-
ditions named above,* we must be content in this
art. to describe it. Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 24)
explains the name ὀνύχιον, from ὄνυξ, ‘the finger-
nail,’ by quoting Sudines, ‘in gemma esse can-
dorem, unguis humani similitudinem,’ and Theoph.
(de Lap. lvii.) describes its appearance accurately :
τὸ δ᾽ ὀνύχιον, μικτὴ λευκῷ καὶ Paw wap ἄλληλα. [Ὁ
belongs to the stratified class of silicon stones.
It lends itself with great readiness to the gem-
cutters and engraver’s art, not only by reason of
its toughness, moderate hardness, and absence of
grain, but also because the design, cut in one
stratum, is thrown into relief by the background
of another colour. ‘The best stones [for engraving]
are those with a white layer on a dark ground.
They are still better when there is a third layer
above, as white with a reddish or brownish tinge.’
In the Oriental onyx there are three layers: that
at the top, red, blue, or brown ; that in the middle,
white; then a jet black or a deep brown. This
stone was much used for signets during the Roman
empire. But it must be admitted that an un-
stratified gem is really more suited for intaglio
work. No precious stone varies more in value.
King (Antique Gems, p. 11) speaks of one the size
of a crown piece selling for £30. Every one is
familiar with the specimens that are worth only a
few pence.

Occult qualities were formerly ascribed to this,
as to other gems. Marbodus, master of the Cathe-
dral school of Anjou (1067-1081), and afterwards
bishop of Rennes, writes of the onyx as follows :—

»Caiied by the onyx round the sleeper stand
Black dreams, and phantoms rise, a grisly band:
Whoso on neck or hand this stone displays
Is plagued with lawsuits and with civil frays ;
Round infants’ necks if tied, so nurses shew,
Their tender mouths with slaver overflow.’
And the same good bishop’s Cives Calestis Patrice
sets forth the symbolism of the sardonyx, which
may properly be considered a mere variety of the
onyx—
“SaRvonyx, with its threefold hue,
Sets forth the inner man to view 5
Where dark humility is seen,
And chastity, with snow-white sheen,
And scarlet marks his joy to bleed
In Martyrdom, if faith shall need.’

LITRRATURE.—The books most worth consulting are King’s
Antique Gems ; Middleton’s Engraved Gems ; Streeter's Precious
Stones. Clapton’s Precious Stones of the Bible is not of much
use. J. TAYLOR.

* Winders Petrie thinks shoham is the green felspar ; see art.
Stones (PRECIOUS).
VOL, 111.--40

OPEN.—This verb (like aperio and ἀνοίγνυμι) is
occasionally used in AV (though the use was then
archaic) in the sense of ‘make known,’ ‘disclose.’
Thus Jer 9012 ‘Unto thee have 1 opened my
cause’ (nos, LXX ἀπεκάλυψα, Vulg. revelave,
Wye. ‘shewide,’ Cov. [wrongly] “committe, Gen,
‘opened,’ Douay and RV ‘revealed’ *); 2 Es 10”
‘Of these things which have chanced, these are
to be opened unto thee’ (hae erant tibi aperienda);
132! <The interpretation of the vision shall I shew
thee, and I will open unto thee the thing that thou
hast required’ (adaperiam tibi); 2 Mac 12 “who
had opened the things that were hid’ (φανερὰ
ποιῶν; RV ‘who maketh manifest’); Lk 245
‘while he opened to us the Scriptures’? (dejvovyev) ;
Ac 173 Paul... reasoned with them out of the
scriptures, opening and alleging that Christ must
needs have suffered’ (διανοίγων) ; He 4% © All things
are naked and opened unto the eyes of him
with whom we have to do’ (τετραχηλισμένα,1ἡ RV
‘laid open before’). Examples in contemporary
and earlier writers are frequent: Dt 2059 Tind.
‘the secrettes perteyne unto the Lorde oure God
and the thinges that are opened perteyne unto us’;
Is 2! Cov. ‘Morover this is the worde that was
opened unto Esaye the sonne of Amos, upon Tuda
and Terusalem’; Mt 1026 Tind. ‘There is no thinge
so close that shall pot be openned’ (Wye. ‘schewid,’
Gen. ‘disclosed,’ Rhem. ‘revealed’); 1617 Tind.
‘fleshe and bloud hath not opened unto the that’
(Rhem. ‘revealed it to thee’); so Lk 935 1071, Jn
1288 («To whom ys the arme of the Lorde opened 7’),
1 P 5! [all ‘open’ in Tind., ‘reveal’ in Rhem. and
AV]; Jn 15" ‘all things that I have heard of my
father I have opened to you’ (Rhem, ‘notified,’
Wye. and AV ‘made knowen’). Cf. Lk 19etns
in Rhem. NT, ‘In Iericho he lodgeth in the house
of Zachweus the Publicane, and against the mur-
muring Tewes opencth the reasons of his so do-
ing’; Gosson, Schoole of Abuse (Arber’s ed. p.
27), ‘Chiron was . a Reader of Phisicke, by
opening the natures of many simples’; Lever,
Sermons (Arber, p. 140), ‘By God’s ordinaunce the
scriptures and the preachers of God do open and
declare that ye be all synners.’

We have the same use of the adj. in 1 Ti 5%
‘Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before
to judgment’ (πρύδηλοί εἰσι, Vulg. manifesta sunt).
The AV is from Tindale, the RV gives ‘are evident.’
Cf. Ac2” Wye. ‘ Befor that the greet and the opun
day of the lord come’ (ἐπιφανῆ, Rhem. ‘ manifest,’
AV and RV ‘notable’); He 71} Wye. ‘It is opene
that oure lord is borun of inda’ (πρόδηλον ; Vind.
and others, including AV and RV, ‘ evident,’ Rhem,
‘manifest’). J. HASTINGS.

OPEN PLACE.—1. In AV of Gn 381: Tamar is
said to have taken her seat ‘in an epen place, but
undoubtedly the correct rendering of Dy nne2
(LXX πρὸς ταῖς πύλαις Αἰνάν) is that of RV, ‘in the
gate of Enaim’; so also read in v.*! with RV ‘ai

* In Job 3817 the same Heb. verb is translated ‘opened,’ and
RV wives ‘revealed’ as here ; but it is probable, as the reference
is to gates (‘Have the gates of death been opened unto thee?’),
that it is rather a mistrans. than an archaism, The LXX has
ἀνοίγονται; Vulg. aperte sunt, both Wye. and Cov. have
‘opened.’

+ The meaning of this word is known, but it is not easy to
see the exact metaphorical use here made of it. The verb
τραχυλίζω comes from spa χήλος, the ‘neck,’ round which a mill-
stone might be hung (Mt 188, Mk 942, Luke 172), or a yoke placed
(Ac 1510), or on which one may affectionately fall (Lk 1520, Ac
2037), or which may be exposed to the executioner (Ro 164).
The verb (which is not found in LXX, and here only in NT)
follows the last-named use of τράχηλος (possibly through
τρανγηλισμός, ἃ technical term for the erip of a wrestler on his
adversary’s neck). It is used by Philo freely in the sense of
“bringing to one’s feet,’ ‘having at one’s mercy’; and so in this
passage it is probably more than laid bare (as if the neck
were twisted back and exposed to view), rather as Rendall
(whose tr. is ‘downcast’) ‘bowed down with remorse and
shaine.’

§26 OPHAI

OPHIR

‘naim’ for ‘openly’ of AV. See art. ENAIM.
2. In 1 K 22=2 Ch 189 Ahab and Jehoshaphat
have their thrones set up ‘in an open (AV ‘a
void’) place’ (AVm ‘a floor,’ RVm ‘a threshing-
floor’) at the entrance of the gate of Samaria.
The Heb. 713. is certainly peculiar, and attempts
have been made to emend the text. Klostermann,
tollowed by Kittel (in SLOU7), instead of MT wad
7733 0°932 would read 0725 "123 ‘229 (‘ clothed in their
robes of state’); Wellhausen (in Bleek+, 249 Anm.
2) thinks 7213 is a dittography of o732, and would
simply omit it. This is perhaps favoured by the
LXX of 1 Καὶ 22), which reads merely ἔνοπλοι ἐν ταῖς
πύλαις (A πύλεσιν) Σαμαρείας, although in 2 Ch 189
it has ἐνδεδυμένοι στολάς, καθήμενοι ἐν τῷ εὐρυχώρῳ
θύρας πύλης Σαμαρείας, Which is a verbatine rendering
of the present MT in the latter passage. The Syr.
VS seems to point to 72 0722 (‘ variegated robes’),
and this is adopted by Bertheau, but the word
o772 is used elsewhere (Gn 31'° ”, Zee 6* °) only of
animals. Other conjectural emendations are °732
jos ‘purple robes’ (KKamphausen), pz3 22 ‘mili-
tary equipment’ (Benzinger, founding upon LXNX
ἔνοπλοι). With or without 713, the scene of
Micaiah’s interview with Ahab and Jehoshaphat
is Clearly marked as the open space that would be
found before the gate of Samaria (cf. Benzinger,
Heb. Arch, p. 132). J. A. SELBIE.

OPHAI.—See Epil.

OPHEL (S2$7, always, except in Is 32 and Mic
4°, with def. art.; LAX ὯὮφαλ, Ὄφαλ, "Oder, ᾿Οφλά,
‘Orda, Jos. ‘OpdAds).—The name means ‘ swelling’
or ‘bulge.’ It is used in Dt 285 and 18 5° for
‘emerods,’ and in 2 Kk 5*4 of a hill probably in the
neighbourhood of Samaria. In the other places
where the article is used, it refers to a site south
of the temple of Jerusalem ; 2 Ch 27% ‘On the
wall of Ophel he (Jotham) built much’; 2 Ch 33"
Manasseh ‘compassed about Ophel and raised it up
avery great height’; in Neh 3°77 11"! it appears
as the dwelling-place of the Nethinim.

Josephus in the parallel passages does not men-
tion Ophel by name. He states that Jotham built
very great towers, such as were almost impregnable
(Anf. IX. xi. 2), and that Manasseh built very
lofty towers and strengthened the outlying forts.

One may search in vain for any pronounced
natural swelling of ground south of the temple
area at the present day to account for the term
Ophel; Wut if this word may be applied to an
artificial mound, the spot where it should be found
can be at once indicated by pointing to the source
of the water supply at the Virgin’s Fountain and
the secret passage in the bowels of Ophel, through
which it was obtainable within the city.

The site of Ophel south of the temple enclosure
is indicated exactly by the accounts given in the
Book of Nehemiah. The Nethinim who dwelt in
Ophel repaired the city wall over against the
water-gate towards the east and the tower that
lieth out. ‘After them the Tekoites repaired an-
other piece over against the great tower that lieth
out, even unto the wall of Ophel’ (Neh 3°6 5. At
the dedication of the walls the company that came
along the southern walls to the temple, when at
the fountain gate, ‘went up by the stairs of the city
of David, at the going up of the wall above the
house of David, even unto the water-gate eastward’
(Neh 12°”), This places the water-gate close to the
southern end of the temple, and Ophel was close
to the water-gate.

Josephus in speaking of the southern wall of
Jerusalem, and moving from west to east, describes
its bending above the fountain of Siloam, where it
also bends again fronting the east at Solomon's
pool, and reaches as far as a certain place called

the Ophlas, where it was’ joined to the eastern
cloister of the temple (BJ v. iv. 2). John held
the temple and the parts thereto adjoining for a
great way, as also the Ophlas (Vv. vi. 1). The next
day they set fire to the repository of the archives,
to Acra, to the council house, and to the place
called the Ophlas (VI. vi. 3).

It can thus be ascertained for certain that Ophel
was situated on the eastern hill on which Jerusalem
is built, somewhere between the southern end of
the temple and Siloam. This is a spur which
becomes narrow to the south until above Siloam it
ends abruptly and precipitously. On this spur
also, according to the account in the Book of
Nehemiah, are the sepulchres of David, the house
of the mighty, the city of David, and the house of
David, so that this must be identical with Zion ;
but there are other indications elsewhere in the
OT and in Josephus that the ancient Jerusalem
was identical with the Acra which is north-west of
the temple on the same hill as the traditional Holy
Sepulchre, ‘The only solution appears to be in the
dual notion of the ancient Jerusalem, one portion
in Judah over the fountain of the Virgin, called
Zion, and one portion near the Hammam esh-Shefa
(a fountain) on the Acra, called Millo. Thus the
ancient strongholds of Jerusalem were both swell-
ing mounds, probably of stone and earth—Ophel
and Millo.

Stanley in his note on Ophel (Sin. and Pal. 498)
points out that the word in later times appears to
have acquired the meaning of ‘fort,’ as in ᾿Ὡβλιάμ,
‘bulwark of the people, the name applied to St.
James the Just by Hegesippus (Eus. 11} ii, 28).

According to the narrative of Hegesippus, James
She Just was cast down from the south-east angle
of the temple enclosure and was killed below by
the club of a fuller. He was thus killed close
to Ophel, and nigh to the spot where a fuller’s shop
cut in the rock was found during the P/F’ excava-
tions, 1867-9 (sce Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 299).

See, further, under art. ZION.

C. WARREN.

OPHIR (vx, 15:8 only in Gn 1059, ve’ only in
1 kK 10"),—A proper name that occurs twelve times
in OT. 1, Gn 10%=1 Ch 1° (LXX Odgeip) repre-
sents Ophir as the eleventh of the thirteen sons of
Joktan, and locates him in the list between Sheba
and Havilah. Gn 1080. 81 testifies that the name
designates a people (or Jand) ‘from Mesha as thou
goest towards Sephar, the mountain (m. ‘ hill*
country ’) of the east.’

2.1K 928 (B Σωφηρά, A Σωφαρά), 10% and
2 Ch 9} (LXX Σουφείρ), 1 K 22% (A ’Qdelp, B om.),
and 2 Ch 818 (B Σωφειρά, A Σωφῆρα), with 1 Ix 10°,
designate a place to which the Tarshish ships of
Hiram and Solomon sailed from Ezion-geber, at
the head of the Gulf of Akabah, and after three
years returned with gold, silver, precious stones,
costly woods, ivory, apes, and peacocks. It is not
specitied that Ophir was the source of all these
products, but simply that such articles were
brought back by the merchantmen at the end of a
three years’ cruise. It is quite possible that some
of these wares were purchased at regular ports to
which they had been brought by other traders.
So that Ophir needs not to be sought for at some
point where all these products were native (ef.
Cheyne in Lapos. Times, July 1898, p. 472). Sub-
sequent references in the OT, however, Is 13”,
1 Ch 294 (LXX Σουφείρ), Job 22%4 (LXX Σωφείρ), 287°
(B Σωφείρ, A ᾽Ὠφείρ), confirm the idea that Ophir
was at least a gold-producing region. Its product
in these references is synonymous with the finest
of that metal.

The definite location of Ophir is still in dispute.
Search for it has been made from ancient times.
Even the translations of the LXX and the remarks

OPHIR

OPHIR 097

ΟἹ Josephus (Ant. VII. vi. 4) point to an opinion as
to its location. Ancient and current opinions may
be classified under three heads. Limits of space
will allow the merest outline of the arguments
urged for the acceptance of each place.

(1) On the East Coast of Africa.—For several
centuries travellers, writers, and scholars of several
nationalities have found the Solomonic Ophir at
some point along the eastern coast of Atrica,
Most notable among these were Th. Lopez, J.
Bruce, Robertson, Montesquieu, d’Anville, Schul-
tess, and Quatremere. The location of Ophir in
East Africa, in Mashonaland, opposite the island
of Madagascar, has won new friends since the
German Mauch (/éeisende in Ost. Afrikas) made
his now famous investigations of 1871. He found,
about 200 miles inland from Sofdla, at Zimbabye,
some remarkable ruins, already described in the
works of de Barros, a Portuguese traveller of the
16th cent. The majestic remains of once stately
buildings now cover one granite mound 400 ft.,
and another 300 ft. in height. The natives have
preserved among themselves a tradition that white
men once lived there and carried on extensive
manufactures. Traces of Phoenician pottery, and
eyen of mining operations, add to the evidence of
its former importance. Merensky, a superin-
tendent of the Berlin’ Mission (Beitrage zur
Kenntniss Siid-Afrikas, 1875), reported that
Arabian travellers regarded these ruins as the
Ophir of Solomon, and that as far back as A.D.
1500 the Arabs took gold from those districts.
Portuguese sailors found near Sofi@/a in 1506 two
Arabian ships laden with gold. The Portuguese
colonists in this country found many ore mines,
and even down to the Transvaal may be found
remains of old ore-smelting ovens. <A corollary of
this view is found in the position of those who find
Ophir farther north on the coast of Africa—even
as far as the Red Sea. The latest and most ardent
advocate of this newer view is Carl Peters (Das
goldene Ophir Salomos, 1895). Among his array
of arguments is found this one on the linguistic
evidence. ‘Chinese astronomy designates the east
by blue, the south by red, the north by black, and
the west by yellow.’ ‘The Black Sea is in the
north, the Red Sea in the south, the Turks call
the Mediterranean Sea the white, probably a
change from yellow.’ ‘In Arabic red is ahr, and
Africa is A fir, or the land of the south.’ ‘In Latin
Afer is used to designate an African, accordingly
the terms Ophir and Africa are identical.’ Peters
agrees substantially with those Egyptologists who
would practically identify Ophir with Punt, the
great foreign mart of Egypt, especially during the
reign of queen Hatshepsu of the 18th dynasty (see
art. Pur). W. Max Miller (Asien wu. Luropa nach
altagyptischen Denkmdlern, 1898, p. 111 and n. 1)
locates Punt on the Ethiopian coast of the Red
Sea, possibly including both sides. The location
of Ophir in the land of Punt, which is not as yet
a fixed quantity, introduces many of the same
questions as the location farther south on the east
coast. Miiller says that the products of Ophir are
all African, and only at a later date were the
Indian articles inserted in the list. In the chief
passage (1 Καὶ 103) the LXX (B) does not mention

‘peacocks’ at all, and it ‘must be held to be an

interpolation.’ But while it is not at all improb-
able that the ubiquitous Phoenician sailors may
have touched ports on the east coast of Africa
in Solomon’s day, arguments based on the ethno-
graphical representation of Gn 10 positively make
against this view.

(2) In the far East.—Among the most notable
advocates of Ophir’s location at some point in
the far East we may name the LXX, Josephus,
Reland, Lassen, Ritter, Thenius, Murchison.

There are three general locations which deserve
mention: (@) Ophir is identified with AbAdra, a
nomadic people settled on the east side of the delta
of the Indus. While gold is not found on the
coast-line, it could have come from ΝΟΥ. India
near Kashmir. Precious stones are found in great
abundance in India. ‘Sandal-wood’ (Heb. ave by,
var, O38) corresponds to the Sanserit calyu or
valgum ; ‘peacocks’ (Heb. 8,38) is the equivalent
of the Sanscrit ¢ikhi; ‘apes’ (Heb. cep) is the
Indian “api. Largely, then, on the basis of philo-
logy and that of the products brought to Solomon,
Ophir was located near the mouth of the Indus.
(6) On the basis of the LXX (Swe@ypd) of 1 Κα 9°88,
which indicates India on Coptic authority, Ophir
has been located (Karl E. v. Baer) on the coasts of
Malabar, oy at Ceylon, whence nearly all of the
products brought by Solomon's seamen could be
found. An old city, Supara or Uppara, in the
region of Goa, has been identified with Ophir.
(c) The Malay Peninsula has also had its advocates.
While von Baer admits that this peninsula yields
all the products required by the records, he sees an
insuperable objection in the great distance from
Ezion-geber. ‘The U.S. Consul, General Wildman
of Hong Kong (Zales of the Malayan Coast, 1899,
p. 178f.), spent about eight years in this region,
and examined with great care the evidence at
hand. There is a gold-producing Mt. Ophir near
Johore, and good evidence of other kinds. After
careful study of the subject, Wildman concludes
that Ophir is a comprehensive term, embracing the
entire East, the Malay Peninsula, Ceylon, India,
and even China—the name Ophir being taken
from this mountain because it marks a central
point of the region to which Solomon’s ships sailed.
‘or all ages the gold of the Malay Peninsula has
been known; from the earliest times there has
been intercourse between the Arabians and the
Malays, while the Malayan was the very first of
the far eastern countries to adopt the Moham-
medan religion and customs. All the articles
mentioned in the biblical account of Ophir are
found in and about Malacca in abundance. ;
Peacocks are found [native] only in India and
Malaya.’

(3) In Arabia, Southern or South-Eastern.—Gn
1059.30 appears to imply that Ophir was either
between Sheba and Havilah cr in proximity to
them. The fact that the Joktanites settled in
Arabia would seem to require that search be made
for Ophir within that territory. It is of course
assumed, because it cannot be absolutely proved,
that this Ophir is identical with the place from
which the Phoenician sailors brought their remark-
able wares to enrich the coffers of Solomon. This
territory has been the favourite location for Ophir
from a very ancient day. Among some of its chief
advocates we may mention Michaelis, Bochart,
Niebuhr, Gesenius, Vincent, Seetzen, and Rosen-
miiller. One of the most enthusiastic and experi-
enced advocates of our day is Ed. Glaser (Shizze
der Geschichte u. Geographic Arabicns, ii. 1890,
pp. 353-387). He arrays evidence at great length,
and with commendable skill, to show that all good
evidence from ancient times points to south-
eastern Arabia, in the region of the Persian Gulf,
as the proper location for the Ophir of Solomon’s
day. Southern and south-eastern Arabia were
famed in ancient times for their gold-producing
qualities, according to the testimony of Diodorus
Siculus, Strabo, and Pliny. The gold of this
region was called apyron (a&rupov)-gold, because its

urity was so marked that it needed no smelting.

tis not improbable that the Greek name for the

gold of that region (apyron) was applied to the
product, since that name for the land had passed
out of use.

628 OPHNI

OPHRAH

The chief gold-produeing lands of the OT were
found in Arabia, and, for the most part, apparently,
in the region of the Persian Gulf. We find be-
sides Ophir: (a) Havilah, Gn 2U' (and 10”); Ὁ)
Sheba; Ps*72" (ef, 1 K-10"), Ezk 27 sc(ey Parveaim
(see art. PARVAIM), 2 Ch 3°; and also (d) Uphaz,
Jer 10°, Dn 105, Of these, Sheba and Havilah at
least (and possibly Parvaim) appear to be located,
according to Gn 10%, in proximity to Ophir. And
again we should note that Ophir was not simply
a gold-producing Jand, but it was so located that
ships called at its port or ports (1 Καὶ 957. 38), Glaser
(p. 368) maintains that the biblical Ophir in the
narrow sense is the Arabian coast of the Persian
Gulf, extending from the north to Ras Musandum,
and that in a wider sense it extends to both sides
of the Gulf.

In the cuneiform records of Elam, dating from
prior to B.c. 1000, we find that the territory be-
tween Susa and the Persian Gulf was called Apirra
(Apir), and as late as the 8th cent. B.C. the Elamites
make mention of it as Apir (cf. Hommel, Gesch. Bab.-
Assyr. p. 720; also Del., Paradies, pp. 131, 231).

These regions of the Persian Gulf did not pro-
duce the full list of articles brought back by the
Pheenician and Jewish sailors, but the importance
of this location both for land and sea trade would
account for the presence in the emporia of trade of
articles brought from and native in many and far-
distant lands.

The trip, too, from Ezion-geber to this region,
either in the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman,
and return, in view of the periodical monsoons
which prevail on the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden,
and the Indian Ocean, would occupy just about the
required three years.

Taking into account, then, (1) the location. of
Ophir as related to the other names mentioned in
Gn 10; (2) the gold-producing properties attributed
to it in the OT; (3) the testimony of ancient
authorities to its richness in the precious metal ;
(4) the time required to make the trip in view of
the annual monsoons; (5) the testimony of the
euneciform inscriptions as to the name; (6) the
emnulative strength of these points, —it seems most
probable that Ophir was a territory situated in
south-eastern Arabia, in the region of the Gulfs
of Oman and Persia.

LITERATURE.—In addition to the many works mentioned in
the article, see Ritter, krdkunde, xiv. 348-431; Commentaries
of Delitzsch and Dillmann on Gn 1029.81, and of Benzinger (in,
Kurzer Hdeom.) and Kittel (in Nowack's Πα κολη.) on 1 Καὶ 925;
Zockler, Eden, Ophir, Ephraim, 1893; Sprenger, Die alte
Geographie Arabiens, 1874, p. 49ff.; Goergens, SK, 1873,
pp. 458-475; Soetbeer, Das Goldland Ophir, 1880; Keil, Ποῦ.
Archidologie, pp 617-620; Nowack, Lehrb. d. Heb. Arch. i.
p. 248; Benzinger, Heb. Arch. p. 219; E, Meyer, Ges. d.
Alterthumys, i. §§ 185, 187, 304, 307; Herzfeld, Handelgeschichte
d. Juden d. Alterthuims, 1879; Lieblein, Handel τι. Schijtfahrt
auf dem rothen Meer in alten Zeiten, 1886, p. 142 ff.

Ira M. PRICE.

OPHNI (3537, lit. ‘the Ophnite’; BA om., Lue.
᾿Αφνή).---Α town of Benjamin, Jos 185, The site is
unknown. It may be (but see Dillm. ad loc., and
Buhl, Gul P 173) the Jater Gophnah of Josephus (BJ
1. iii. 5), now Juf/nah, 25 miles N.W. of Bethel.
See SIVP vol. ii. sheet xiv.

OPHRAH (77£y possibly ‘fawn,’ feminine of 75.
—There are both place and personal names in the

OT which are derived from names of animals
[ Journ. Philol, ix. 92f.]. nay ‘dust,’ ‘soil,’

snegests a derivation that agrees better with the
transliterations of LXX).

4. One of the Benjamite towns enumerated in
Jos 18 (A ᾿Ιεφραθά, 1} ᾿Αφρά, Luc. ᾿Αφαρά). It is
included (1839) in what seems to be a north-eastern
group. This agrees with Jerome’s statement that
it was vicus Ephrem (Ephraim) ὃ Roman miles
from Bethel, eastward (Lag. Onom.? p. 129;

Eusebius’ text is imperfect; in it the name is κώμη
"AgpndA—Lag. p. 241). The locality so determined
is a few miles north of Michmash, and consequently
suits also the Ophrah of 18 137 (LXX Dodepa,
Euseb., Jer. ‘Odpa). The Philistines are said to
have sent troops from their camp at Michmash in
the direction of Ophrah. There is even an indica-
tion that this direction was northward. Two other
bands went east and west respectively, it seems,
and Saul’s troops were on the south. The modern
et-Taiytbe, about 5 miles north-east of Bethel, has
been suggested as the site of the ancient Ophrah
(Robinson!, 11. 121 ff, more at length in Biblioth.
Sac. 1845, 11. 398). The place is described as
strikingly situated on a conical hill, and part of
the argument is that such a site must certainly
have been occupied in ancient times. The distance
from Bethel corresponds with that given by Jerome.
But nothing more decisive can be urged. The
sugeested correspondence of the modern name
with the ancient is too hazardous to be assigned
any weight (Winer® sub voce). The assumption
that the prey of Jos 15° is identical with Ophrah is
not well founded, for Ephron is plainly on the
north-western frontier of Judah. Eusebius’ state-
ment, therefore, that Ephron was 20 miles north of
Jerusalem (Lag.? p. 260), does not help to determine
the site of Ophrah. Negatively it may be argued
that et-Taiyibe lies too far north to have been in-
cluded in Benjamite territory (Dillm. on Jos 1859).

Six place names, in addition to Ephron, have been
identified with Ophrah, They are :—(1) jy 2 Ch
13° (Wethibh pray); (2) ᾿Εφράιμ In 1153; (3) Ἔφράιμ
Jos. BJ IV. ix. 9; (4) ΡΝ 258 13 (luc. Τ᾽ ͵οφράιμ-ε
Yorey); (5) ᾿Αφαίρεμα 1 Mac 114; (6) mays mz Mie
10. Regarding all of them it should be observed
that the mere fact of their being situated on the
borders of Judah and Ephraim (or Judea and
Samaria) leaves it open to identify them with
Ephron, The names also are as much equivalent
to psy as to may, and the testimony of Eusebius is
that, later, Ephron actually became ᾿φράιμ (Lag.?
p. 260; Jerome calls it #fraea). A brief statement
may be made regarding each. (1) Presumably on
the borders of Judah and Israel, and possibly not
distant from Bethel, in which case it may be
Ophrah. (2) See Epurarm. — Eusebius identifies
it with the Ephron of Jos 15° (Lag.? p. 262), and
so is against an identification with Ophrah. (9)
Occupied by Vespasian on his march from Cresarea
to Jerusalem, and named along with Bethel. But
there is nothing to show that it was near Bethel.
If it can be assumed that Bethel was in the
toparchy of Gophna, which is mentioned on the
suine oecasion, it might be argued that Ephraim
was in the toparchy of Akrabatta, too far from
Bethel to be Ophrah. (4) From Jerusalem this
town lay in the direction of ᾽Ὥρωνήν (B, 28 13%,
Luc. Σωράιμ). If that name represents Hebrew 055
and stands for Beth-horon (Driver, Sai. ad loc.),
this Ephraim Jay north-west of Jerusalem and
may be identical with Ephron. The direction is
the same, and Ephron was known to Eusebius
as ᾿Εφράιμ. All that supports identification with
Ophrah is an uncertain resemblance of name
which might equally be claimed for Ephron. (5)
On the borders of Judiea and Samaria (Αφερειμά In
Jos. Ant. Xm. iv. 9). But there is nothing to
show at what point, whether to the east or west.
(6) See BETH-LE-APHRAH. The direction of Ephron
is more suitable than that of Ophrah.—For further
references to literature see EPHRAIM.

2. A town in Manasseh (Jg 61: 85:18. 9%) dis-
tinguished from the preceding as Ophrah (LAX
Ἐφραθά ; in 6" 8*7 Luc. Ἔφρά, in 877 9° A ᾽᾿Εφράιμ), of
the Abiezrites (see ABIEZER). It was the home of
Gideon, and is mentioned only in his history and
in that of his son Abimelech. It was situated

OR

ORCHARD 629

evidently on the western side of Jordan and within
easy reach of the plain of Jezreel (4g 6°," cf. also
818). It is natural to suppose that the Abiezrites
were apprehensive of Midianite attack when they
took the offensive. Jg 9 does not imply the close
proximity of Shechem, Abimelech’s relations with
that town are expressly accounted for by his kin-
ship. The area within which the site may be
looked for is accordingly sutliciently wide. No
modern name closely resembling the ancient has
been pointed out. (Suggestions in Schwarz, (ecg.
1850, p. 158; van de Velde, Memoir, p. 337;
PEFSt 1876, p. 197, by Conder, who quotes an
Arabic translation of Samar. Chron. which gives
Ferata, 6 miles west of Shechem, for Ophrah).
Some of the places already named because of their
identification with Ophrah of Benjamin have also
been identified with this Ophrah. The third of
them may have been as far north as to come
within the boundaries of Manasseh.

3. A family or clan (B Todepd, A Vodopd, Luc.
Ἔφράθ) in the tribe of Judah, according to the list
of the Chronicler (1 Ch 44). There are certainly
names of towns in this list, and this may be one,
the Judiean Ephron or even the Benjamite Ophrah.
Border towns may be counted at one time to
Benjamin, at another to Judah.

W. B. STEVENSON.

OR.—There are obsolete uses of this word in
AV. 1. For before, Ps 90? ‘ Before the mountains
were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the
earth’; Pr 8% ‘or ever the earth was’; so Ee 12°,
Ca 6%, Dn 64, Sir 18! All the examples are of
‘or ever,’ and all are retained in RV. The RV has
even introduced the phrase into Ee 12)*. The
Amer. RV allows it in Ps 90? but substitutes ‘while’
in Ee 12! 2:8 In other writers we find ‘or’ alone, as
Dn 8530 Coy. ‘It wylbe longe or it come to passe’;
Hos 8° Cov. ‘ How longe wil it be, or they can be
clensed δ᾽; Ex 10° Tind. ‘How longe shall it be, or
thou wilt submyt thy selfe to me?’ As an ex-
ample of ‘or ever’ take Shaks. Hamlet, 1. 11. 188—

‘Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven,
Or ever I had seen that day, Horatio.’
The word in this sense is probably a corruption of
Anglo-Saxon aer, which is properly represented in
modern English by ‘ere,’ but is found in early
English under various forms, as e7, ear, yer.t We
tind also ‘or ere,’ as Milton, Nativity, 85—
‘The shepherds on the lawn,
Or ere the point of dawn,
Sate simply chatting in a rustick row.’
And ‘ere ever’ is found in Sir 23° ‘He knew all
things ere ever they were created,’ RV ‘or ever.’

2. For either.—1 8S 26 ‘Or his day shall come
to die; or he shall descend into battle, and perish.’
Cf. Shaks. Henry V. 1. 11. 12—

‘We pray you to proceed,
And justly and religiously unfold
Why the law Salique, that they have in France,
Or should, or should not, bar us in our claim.’
J. HASTINGS.

ORACLE.—A Divine utterance given for man’s
guidance (2S 16" 433), or the place in which such
utterances were usually given. In OT the word
in EV is intended to have the latter meaning in
1k 6", where Solomon, in building his temple,
makes a Most Holy Place for an oracle, and in 7%
86. 8. 2 Ch 316 4% 59 88; also Ps 282, where, however,
the correct meaning of the Heb. is given in RVm

* It may be argued that it is not the writer that mentions
Ophrah (Moore’s J) who localizes the battle in the plain of
Jezreel. That does not seem to matter, unless it be suggested
that Ophrah was not Gideon’s home in this other source.

Besides, the grounds for refusing 683 to J may be challenged, if
they are only that 8421 is his and that 8° is inconsistent with
683,

t This form is found in the 1611 ed. of AV, Nu 1183 ‘While the
flesh was yet betweene their teeth, yer it was chewed’; 1411
‘How long will it be yer they beleeve me?’

‘the innermost place of thy sanctuary.’* In the
Apoer. (Sir 33°) it is used in a wider sense of
any supernatural utterance, and (Sir 36") of the
manifestation of the Divine Will in Sion. The
Israelites used to ask for Divine guidance in any
enterprise (LS 28°) by means of Urim and Thum-
mim (which see). In NT ‘oracle? (λόγιον) stands
for a Divine utterance, and generally refers to OT
Scriptures, 6.0. Ac 7 Moses is said to have re-
ceived living oracles in the wilderness, ¢.e. com-
mands from the living God. In Ro 3? the Jews
are the favoured nation, because to them were
entrusted the oracles of God. In He δ!" the first
principles of the oracles of God are mentioned as
needing to be taught afresh to the Hebrews. St.
Peter says (1 P 4"), “If any man speak, let him
speak as the oracles of God.’

Among the Greeks till the time of the Persian
war, oracles were in high repute, that of Delphi
enjoying the pre-eminence. Answers were given
either orally, in which case they were usually in
hexameter verse and of ambiguous interpretation,
or by signs or dreams. They lad ἃ most important
influence on Gr. colonization, since questions were
generally addressed to them about the place to be
colonized (Herod. ν. 49). The Romans as a nation
did not consult oracles for divine guidance.
Prophesying by means of lots (sortes) was prac-
tised at Praeneste and other places. In imperial
times, however, the custom became prevalent, and
foreign as well as native deities were consulted.
Lucan (Phars. ix. 577) has expressed in noble
words the contempt felt by the Romans for
divination: ‘Non vocibus ullis numen eget,’ ete.
The emperor Theodosius at the end of the 4th cent.
forbade the publication of oracles. — Sortes Ver-
giliane had a wide influence in the Middle Ages,
and recourse to them was forbidden by the Church.

C. H. PRICHARD.

ORATOR.— For AV Is 3° (RV ‘enchanter’) see
DIVINATION. In Ac 24! we are told that ‘the high
priest Ananias came down with certain elders, and
with an orator, one Tertullus’; and a short speech
delivered by Tertullus is given. The orator (ῥήτωρ),
who differed from the professional lawyer (duris-
consultus or νομικός), was the skilled speaker who
was hired to present the case in court. His train-
ing was rhetorical not legal, so that he does not
quite correspond to our barrister. The need of his
employment arose partly, as was natural, from the
necessity of having the case well stated, partly
from the fact that the language of the courts was
Latin. So Valerius Maximus (11. 2. 2) quotes it as
an instance of the manner in which the magistrates
guarded the majesty of the Roman people, that
even in Greece and Asia they refused to give
responsa except in Latin. Many young Romans
started their oratorical career by practising in the
provinces. A good illustration of the duties of the
ῥήτωρ will be found in the lengthy Petition of
Dionysia to the Prefect (Grentell and Hunt,
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, pt. ii. pp. 160, 162).

A. C. HEADLAM.

ORCHARD (0775 pardés, mapddeoos).—Purdeés, a
loan-word from the Zend, is used in three places :
Ee 25 where it is tr? AV ‘orchards,’ RV ‘ parks,’
Vule. pomaria ; Ca 413 AV and RV text ‘orchard,’
RVm ‘paradise,’ Vulg. paradisus; Neh 28 AV and
RV text ‘forest,’ RVin ‘park, Vule. sa/tus. Doubt-
less the term pardeés (probably ‘enclosure’) had the
same generic meaning as gannah, including gardens,

* The EV tr ‘oracle’ follows Aq. and Symm. χρηματιστήριον
(Vulg. oraculum) on the incorrect theory that the Heb. term
7°37 (which really means ‘the part behind’) was derived from
133 ‘speak ’ (see Oxf. Heb. Lex. 8.v.). ‘Oracle’ is also uniform
tr.in RVm of δ 32 (AV Burney), e.g. 2 K 92, Is 131 1428 151 ete.,
and in text of Pr 30! 31! (AV ‘ prophecy’), where the same Heb
term occurs.

- -- - -

690 ORDER

ORDER

orchards, and parks. Hence it is legitimate to tr.
it by ditterent words according to the context. It
is applied by Diodorus Siculus (ii. 10) to the hane-
ing gardens of Babylon. Xenophon (dna. 1. 287)
describes a park, belonging to Cyrus, like the game
preserves of Europe, under this name.
G. E. Post.

ORDER (like ‘ordain’ from Lat. ordo, ordinis,
and through the French ordre, a form which arose
from the old Fr. ordene, ordine by changing 7 to

r, as in diacre from diaconus, and Londres from |

Londinum—see Brachet, Fr. Ltymol. Dict. § 163 ;
cf. also ‘coffer’ and ‘coffin, the same in origin
and formerly also in meaning).—The subst. ‘ order’
has the following meanings in AV—

1. Position or proper place, Ezk 416 ‘One over
another, and thirty in order’ (0 }2}5); 1 Co 15*3 ‘Every
man in his own order’ (ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι) ; Lk 18
‘He executed the priests’ office before God in the
order of his course’ (ἐν τῇ τάξει) ; 1 Co 142 ‘Let all
things be done decently and in order’ (κατὰ τάξιν).
The phrase ‘in order’ has this meaning. [Ὁ
occurs frequently with the verbs ‘lay,’ place,’
‘set,’ always as the tr. of a simple verb, as 1 Co
1153 «The rest will 1 set in order when 1 come’
(διατάξομαι). Once (Ps 40°) the Heb. verb jy to
arrange, is tr. ‘reckon up in order.’

In Lk 13, Ac 114 18°53 * χαθεξῆς is translated ‘in order.’ The
meaning is tn proper sequence; but Blass, writing on Lk 1°,
disputes that meaning, and holds that the reference is not to
arrangement, but to completeness.

St. Luke promises not a |

|

‘was in due order’). The Eng. phrase means te
make proper arrangements to secure a particular
end. We find it in Rhem. NT, note to Jn 1976
‘The marvelous respect that Christ had to his
mother, vouchsaving to speak to her, and to take
order for her even from the crosse in the middes of
his infinite anguishes and mysteries aworking for
mankind,’ as well as in the note to Ac 19% Cf.
also Knox, Hist. 366, ‘He had there also taken
order for the home coming of the Earle of Lennox’ ;
and Rutherford, Letters, No. xviii. ‘I hope our
Lord, who sent His angel with a measuring line in
his hand to measure the length and breadth of
Jerusalem, in token he would not want a foot
leneth or inch of his own free’ heritage, shall take
order with those who have taken away many acres
of His own land from him.’ A simular phrase is
found in 1 Mac 164 ‘Simon was visiting the cities
that were in the country, and taking care for the
good ordering of them’ (φροντίζων τῆς ἐπιμελείας
αὐτῶν). For the general use of the word in this
sense of orderly arrangement, cf. Forty-Two Articles
of 1553 (Gibson, i. 71), ‘profitable for an ordre and
comelinesse’ (Lat. ad ordinem et decorum); Spenser,
FQ τι. ix. 15—

‘But soone the knights with their bright-burning blades,
Broke their rude troupes, and orders did confound.’

4 Prescribed custom, 1 Ch 6° 15 ‘we sought

him not after the due order,’ 23°!, 2 Ch 84 ‘He

chronological arrangement of events, but a complete record so |

far as he could gather it; St. Peter, in his narrative of the
reception of the Gentiles, did not omit any important fact. See
Philology of Gospels, p. 18 ἢ,

2. Position in office, rank.—This is the meaning
of Ps 1104 ‘Thou art a priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek’ (Heb. [2923] dibhrah, found
also in Ee 318 714. 853 in the phrase ΠῚ ΓΝ ‘because
of’) which is so often quoted in the Ep. to
the Hebrews (5° 1° 67° 7112s. 17-21), according to the
LXX rendering κατὰ τὴν τάξιν. The Eng. phrase
comes from the Vulg. secundum ordinem. The

reference is to the position of Melchizedek as both —

priest and king. Cf. Wryelif, Select Eng. Works,
111. 121, ‘Luciter wiste that God moste be above
hym, bot he coveyted an ordir in servise of God
whiche that God wolde not.’

3. Arrangement or orderly array, Job 10? .Α
land of darkness... without any order’ (277785);
Col 2° ‘joying and beholding your order’ (ὑμῶν τὴν
τάξιν, Lightfoot, ‘your orderly array’: Ltft. thinks
it is a military metaphor, suggested by St. Paul’s
enforced companionship with the soldiers of the
Preetorian guard ; but Abbott holds that the idea
of a well-ordered State lies much nearer than that
of an army—see Abbott in Intern. Crit. Com.) ;
1 Es 110 «The priests and Levites . .. stood in
very comely order’ (evrper&s) ; Wis 7° ‘She [wis-
dom] is more beautiful than the sun, and above all
the order of the stars’ (ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἄστρων θέσιν ;
Vulg. super omnem dispositionem stellarum, RV
‘above all the constellations of the stars,’ RVm
‘above every arrangement of stars’); 1 Mac 6”
‘They marched on safely and in order’ (reray-
pévws). In Je 17! for ‘a suit of apparel’ (Heb.
O22 7733) the margin has ‘an order of garments,’
which is an attempt to translate the Heb. literally.
Here may be noticed the obsolete phrase ‘take
order for,’ which occurs in 2 Mac 457 ‘As for the
money that he had promised unto the king, he
took no good order for it’ (οὐδὲν εὐτάκτει ; Vulg.
nihil agebat ; Wye. 1388 ‘he dide no thing’; Cov.
‘he dyd nothinge therin’; Gen. ‘he toke none
order for it’; RV ‘nothing was duly paid,’ RVm

* The only remaining occurrences of καθεξῆς are Lk 81 ἐν τῷ
καθεξῆς, AV ‘afterward,’ RV ‘soon afterwards’; and Ac 324 ἀπὸ
.... tay χαθεξῆς, AV ‘from... those that follow after,’ RV
‘from . . - them that followed after.’

appointed, according to the orderof David his father,
the courses of the priests to their service’ (Heb.
always mishpat); 1 Es 16 ‘Offer the passover in
order’ (ἐν τάξει). Cf. Rogers’ note on Lv 7° ‘ Tres-
pace after the order of the scrypture signifyeth
somtyme all the lytfe past which we have lyved in
intidelyte.”. The modern meaning of ‘command’
easily arose out of this. It is not found in AV, but
the following passages approach it, 1 Es 810 ‘T have
given order, that such of the nation of the Jews
... as are willing and desirous, should go with
thee’ (προσέταξα); 1 Mac 9° ‘He could no more
speak anything nor give order concerning his
house’ (ἐντείλασθαι); 1 Co 16! ‘As I have given
order to the churches of Galatia’ (ὥσπερ διέταξα, RV
‘as I gave order’).

The verb ‘to order’ is always used in the obso-
lete sense of place properly, arrange, or direct.
Thus Ly 244 ‘He shall order the lamps upon the
pure candlestick’; Jer 46° ‘Order ye the buckler
and shield, and draw near to battle’; Job 2911
would order my cause before him’; Ps 119! ‘Order
my steps in thy word’; Jg 6° ‘Build an altar. . .
in the ordered place’; 13!2 ‘How shall we order
the child?’ ; Ith 216 «He ranged them, as a great
army is ordered for the war’; Wis 81 ‘Sweetly
doth she [wisdom] order all things’ (διοικεῖ, Vulg.
disponit) ; 9° «That he should. . . order the world
according to equity’ (διέπῃ, Vulg. disponat) ; 12%
15', Sir 26 ‘Order thy way aright.’ Cf. Ps 40° Pr.
Bk., and other passages (given in Driver’s Par.
Psalter, p. 478); also Fuller, Holy Warre, 185,
‘The Christians were ordering themselves in aray’;
More, Utopia, ii. 7 (Robinson’s tr.), ‘They define
virtue to be life ordered according to nature’; and
Shaks. Rich. 11. τι. 11. 109—

‘ If I know how or which way to order these affairs,
Thus thrust disorderly into my hands,
Never believe me.’

Orderly, which is properly an adj., is used as
an adv. in Ac 21% ‘thou thyself also walkest
orderly.’ Cf. Jer 32! Cov. ‘it was orderly sealed’ ;
Golding, Calvin’s Job, 571, ‘We know that in God’s
Church all things ought to be handled orderly and
comely, as Saint Paule sayth’; and Pr. Bk. ‘The
New Testament... shall be read over orderly
every year thrice.’ RV introduces the word as an
adj. into Jg 6°, 1 Ti 3”. J. HASTINGS.

ORDAIN, ORDINANCE

ORDINATION 634

ORDAIN, ORDINANCE.— There are eleven Heb.
or Aram. words translated ‘ordain’ in the OT of AV,
and in the Apocr. and NT no fewer than twenty-
one Greek words* are so translated. When we add
three Lat. words found in 2 Es we see that the

Eng. verb had a wide range of meaning. 108
meanings may, notwithstanding, be gathered

under four heads. 1. 70 put in its proper place
(the deriv. of the word is ordo, ordinis =‘ order’),
make ready for any purpose. Thus Lk 1416 Tind.
“A certayne man ordened a greate supper, and
bade many’; Ac 6% Wyc. ‘Thei ordeyneden false
witnessis’; He 105 Vind. ‘A bodie hast thou
ordeyned me’; Berners, /roissart, 18, ‘There was
ordained three great battles (=divisions) afoot’ ;
and Shaks. Rom. and Jul. IV. v. 84—
“All things that we ordained festival,
Turn from their office to black funeral.’
In AV this meaning is found in Ps 7 ‘He or-
daineth his arrows against the persecutors,’ 132",
1Ch 17%, Is 30%, Hab 12, He 96 ἃ, To bring
into existence, establish, as Dt 32° 'Tind. ‘Is not he
thy father and thyne owner? hath he not made
the and ordeyned the?’?; Mk 7! Tind. ‘Making
the worde of God of none eflecte, through youre
awne tradicions which ye have ordeyned’; 12!
Tind. ‘A certayne man planted a vineyarde . .
and ordeyned a wyne presse’; He 3! Tind. ‘He
that ordeyned all thinges is god’; Shaks, J Henry
VIL Iv. i. 33—
‘When first this order was ordained, my lords,
Knights of the garter were of noble birth.’
So in AV, Nu 288 ‘It is a continual burnt offering,
which was ordained in Mount Sinai for a sweet
savour,’ 1 K 128? 8, Pg 8% 8, Is 2013, 2 Es 6%, Sir 7.
3. To decree or enact: thus Irish Articles of
Reliyion (1615), art. 11, ‘God from all eternity did
by his unchangeable counsel ordain whatever in
time should come to pass’; Milton, PL vii. 187—
‘To Him
Glory and praise whose wisdom had ordained
Good out of evil to create.’
In AV this meaning occurs in Est 957 ‘The Jews
ordained ... that they would keep these two
days,’ 1 Es 6*4 8%, 2 Es 7'7 84, To 1° 87, Ad, Est: ΤΑΣ,
1 Mac 4° 7, 1 Co 27, Eph 2% ἃ, To destine, set
apart, appoint. This is the most frequent use of
the word in AV, but it must not be confounded
with the modern eccles. use, which does not occur.
It is found in 2 Καὶ 235, 2 Ch 1115 ‘He ordained him
priests for the high places,’ Jer 1°, Dn 2*, 1 Es 8,
Ad. Est 13%, Wis 9%, Sir 48", 1 Mac 3° 10”, Mk 3",
Jn 1515, Ac 12 1043 13% 14% 16! 1731, Ro 7° 13!, 1 Ti
27, Tit 15, He δὲ 83, Jude‘. Cf. Gn 24" Tind.
‘The same is she that thou hast ordened for thy
servaunte Isaac’; Shaks. J Henry VI. τ. 1. 171—
‘To Eltham will I, where the young king is,
Being ordained his special governor,
And for his safety there I'll best devise.’
Ordinance. — The translators of the Rhemish
version complain of the ‘corrupt translation of
Heretikes’ in rendering δικαιώματα in Lk 1° by
‘ordinances.’ Their own word is ‘justifications,’
and they say, ‘This word is so usual in the Scrip-
tures (namely [=especially] in the Psal. 118) to
signifie the commaundements of God, because the

*The Heb. words are: ΠΡ Nu 296, 1 Καὶ 1232-33; 45° 1 Ch 922,
Ps 82; oy or Dw 1 Ch 179, Ps 815, Hab 112; jn3 2 K 235, Jer 15;
soya 2 Ch 1115; pan Ps 83; ΤῊ Ps 13217, Is 3033; byp Ps 713;
ΤΕ Is 2612; ὉΠ Est 927 ; x30 or 739 Dn 224, And the Greek
words: avadeizvvus 1 Es 8233 γίνομαι, Ac 122; γράφω To 18;
διατάσσω 1 Co 717 914, Gal 319; δίδωμι 1 Es 849; δογωκτίζω 1 Es
694. ἐκτίνω Sir 715; ἐπιτάσσω To 87; ἵστημιι 1 Mac 499 7495 καθίσ-
ays 1 Mac 355 1020, Tit 15, He 51 83; καταγράφω Sir 4810; χχτα-
σκευάζω Wis 92, He 96; κρίνω Ac 164; ὁρίζω Ad. Est 149, Ac 1042
1731; rato Mk 814; προγράφω Jude 4. προετοιμάζω Eph 210;
πρεορίζω 1 ὁ 27; τάσσω Ad. Est 136, Ac 1348, Ro 181; τίθηω, Jn
1516, 1 Ti 27; χειροτονέω Ac 143, The words in 2 Es are conservo
649, dispono 717, ordino 814,

keeping of them is justification, and the Greeke is
alwaies so fully correspondent to the same, that
the Heretikes in this place (otherwise pretending
to esteeme much of the Greeke) blush not to say,
that they avoid this word of purpose, against the
justification of the Papists. And therefore one
(Beza] useth Tullies word forsooth, in Latin con-
stituta, and his scholars in their English Bibles say
Ordinances.’ The word is, however, used by the
‘Heretikes’ for δικαίωμα only thrice, Lk 1°, He
g!-10 For other Heb. and Greek words it is fre-
quently employed, but the meaning is always
‘that which has been ordained or appointed.’
‘Ordnance (the appointed size or bore of acannon,
thence transferred to the cannon itself) is the same
word, and was not distinguished in spelling in Old
Inelish. Thus Erasmus, Commune Crede, fol. 31,
‘This fayth doth arme us, and make us bolde
without ony feare, and invincible agaynst all the
engynes and all the ordinaunce of the world and ot
the deville.’ J. HASTINGS.

ORDINATION.—It is not easy to trace in NT
any precise form of ordination or consecration to
ecclesiastical office. When our Lord sent forth
the Ten (Jn 9023.) He breathed on them, and
said, ‘Receive (a gift of the) Holy Spirit,’ ete.
But this is a consecration rather of the whole
body than of the individuals present; and at all
events we do not find the symbolism repeated.
The Seven (Ac 09:6) were chosen by the people and
set before the apostles, who prayed and laid their
hands on them. The consecration of Barnabas
and Saul (Ac 13%%) for their work was by direct
command of the Holy Spirit—there is no election
this time, but the prophets and teachers fast and
pray, and a their hands on them, and so dismiss
them. In the course of their journey (Ac 14*)
they appoint (χειροτονήσαντες as 2 Co 8'*—mere
appointment, not laying on of hands) elders in
every church, and after prayer with fastings
commend them to the Lord. This is all that
we hear of the consecration of elders. Timothy
held a higher position. He is told (1 Ti 3) what
sort of men bishops ought to be, and (5) how to
deal with them. But 5” (Jay hands hastily on
no man) cannot refer to ordination, for the whole
current of thought °° runs on offenders, not on
officials (Ellicott, Hort, ete.). But what of
Timothy’s own consecration? In 1 Ti 118 the
apostle commits this deposit to him ‘according
to the prophecies which led the way to thee’ (κατὰ
τὰς mpoayovoas ἐπὶ σὲ προφητείας). He is also told
(4/4) not to neglect ‘the gift that is in thee, which
was given to thee through prophecy with the laying
on of the hands of the body of elders’ (διὰ προφητείας
μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου). And
he is further reminded (2 Ti 1°) to stir into flame
‘the gift of God which is in thee through the
laying on of my hands’ (διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν
μου).

These passages fall into two sharply contrasted
groups. (a) The Seven are chosen by the people,
the elders in Ac 1453 seem nominated by_ the
apostles. After that, they are commended to
God with prayer, joined in one case to its cus-
tomary accessory of fasting, in the other to its
natural symbolism of the Jaying on of hands.
(6) Saul and Barnabas are nominated by the
Holy Spirit through prophecy, and also Timothy :
for ‘the prophecies which led the way to thee’
must have been commands to separate Timothy
as Saul and Barnabas were separated before.
After that, hands are laid,—in the earlier case
by the prophets and teachers with prayer and
fasting ; in the later by St. Paul and the body of
elders, pretty certainly at Lystra. This close
parallel seems to establish Hort’s contention, that

632 OREB AND ZEEB

ORNAMENT

Timothy’s consecration was not to a definite church
office, but to the work of an evangelist (2 Ti 4°), as
St. Paul’s companion in the place of Barnabas.
See, further, Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, 1897,
and cf, art. LAYING ON OF HANDs.
H. M. GWATKIN.

OREB and ZEEB (τὴν, 37 ‘raven,’ ‘ wolf,’ Qp78,
773).—Two Midianite princes captured and slain
by the Ephraimites after Gideon’s victory, Jg 7”
8", Ps 834, Is 1036, ef. 91. The places where they
fell were remembered by the Rock of Oreb and the
Wine-press of Zeeb, perhaps near the point where
the Wady Farah in Ephraim falls into the Jordan
(Moore); Osh el-Ghurab in Judah (Conder) seems
too far south. It is noticeable that Oreb and Zeeb
are animal names, such as occur in the totem stage
of society. In times when totemism prevailed,
clans were often named after animals; so it has
been suggested that Orel and Zeeb were names of
Midianite clans (Stade, GVJi. 189): if they were
individuals, the names would belong to the stage
when the totem tribe was passing into a national
organization of society (Gray, Heb. Prop. Names,
114). According to [5 1050 the slaughter of Midian,
not of the chiets alone, took place at the rock of
Oreb; but this divergence from the narrative in
Jeg is merely an inaccuracy of tradition, and need
not imply a different account. The narrative, Jg
74-8*, is assigned to E; parallel to this is another
account, Jg 55:51 J, in which the Midianite chiefs
are kings, and their names Zebah and Zalmunna
(wh. see), See art. GIDEON and note +f.

G. A. COOKE.

OREN (77k ‘fir-tree’; B ᾿Αραιὰ καὶ ᾿Αμβράν, A
"Apav).—A son of Jerahmeel, 1 Ch 2”. The correct-
ness of the MT vocalization is doubtful ; perhaps it
should be w=‘ wild goat’ (ef. Gn 36°%=1 Ch 1%,
and Stade, GVJ i. 409).

ORGAN.—See Music.

ORION.— The common noun fésil is of frequent
occurrence in OT, especially in the Wisdom litera-
ture, and is eaters tr’ ‘fool’ or ‘foolish. At
Am 5%, Job 9° 38%! our Versions have correctly
treated it as a proper noun, and rendered it by
‘Orion. At Is 13! the true tr® of the same word
is ‘and the Orions thereof,’ ὁ... the great constella-
tions such as Orion. It has also been suggested
that at Job 15°? ὅς (Orion) should be substituted
for kesel (flanks); but this is very doubtful. Sa‘adya,
Abulwalid, and others have thought that δῶρ is
Canopus in Argo, the second brightest star in our
heavens [cf. Am 58). The evidence of the ancient
VSS is strongly in favour of the identification
with Orion. The LXX has ὁ Ὠρίων at Is 13%,
Job 38°!; Jerome, ‘Orion’ at Am 5%, Job 9°; the
Targ. x53 (giant) at Is 13, Job 9° 38°! the Pesh.
gabara (giant) at Am 5°, Job 99 3891, The devia-
tions, such as Ἕσπερος (LXX, Job 9°) and ‘ Arc-
turus’ (Jerome, Job 38*!), do but illustrate the
admitted fact that absolute certainty on these
oints is unattainable. The literal meaning of the
Heb. word falls in with the evidence just adduced,
if késil=‘fleshy,’ ‘fat,’ and, as overloaded with
fat, ‘foolish and arrogant.’ It would therefore
easily become the name of a giant who was sup-
posed to have rebelled against God, and after his
death was punished by being chained in the
heavens. Job 3851 seems to sanction this; the
word moédshékoth having, indeed, been rendered
‘virdle’ by Hitzig, but more probably meaning,
like the cognate Arabic word, ‘ bands’ or ‘ fetters.’
On this interpretation the stars which we 6811 the
Belt are looked on as a chain which none but the
Almighty can unloose, and the poet’s thought was
that God alone can ‘release the earth from
Winter's sterile bands.’ It must, however, be

admitted that there is no other proof of the
Hebrews having conceived of this constellation as
a chained figure. The attempt to show that Orion
and Nimrod are identical must be pronounced a
failure. The Chron. Pasch. says that in Orion
the Persians saw Nimrod. Josephus (Ané. 1. v. 2)
makes the latter a rebel against God [ef. Dante,
inferno, Xxxi.. 41-81, Purg. xi. 33-3513 πὲ later
Arabic writers speak of him as chained in heaven
for haughtiness. But these witnesses are too late
to be of much value. The Bab. Talmud (Bera-
choth 58b) refers to the visibility of Orion during
the hot season, —our dog-days,—saying that but for
the heat of Orion the world could not stand the
cold of the Scorpion, and but for the cold of the
Scorpion could not stand the heat of Orion. In
this connexion it should be remembered that in
Syria this constellation is visible during a greater
part of the year than with us, and rises 17° higher
above the horizon.

The mythological faney of many nations has
played around these brilliant stars. New Zea-
landers called the Belt the Elbow of Maui or the
Stern of Tamererete’s canoe. Norsemen saw in it
Frigea’s Spindle. To the Esquimaux these stars
were seal-hunters who lost their way home. Jn
classic legend Orion is a handsome Bootian giant
and hunter. The Odyssey, xi. 309, 310, says of
Otus and Ephialtes—

ous δὴ μυκίστους θρέψε ζείδωρος ἄρουρα
καὶ πολὺ καλλίστους μετώ γε κλυτὸν "Op ava.

᾽
S

Again, xi. 572-575—
Tov δὲ μετ᾽ ᾿Ωρίωνα πελώριον εἰσενόησα

θῆρας ὁμοῦ εἰλεῦντα κατ᾽ ἀσφοδελὸν λειμῶνα,

TOUS αὐτὸς κατ:πεῷνεν ἐν οἰοτόλοισιν ὄρεσσιν

χερσὶν ἔχων ῥόπαλον παγχάλκεον, αἰὲν ἀαγές.
In the Iliad, xviii. 486, the σθένος ᾿Ωρίωνος forms
part of an enumeration of important star groups.
The Egyptians recognized in Orion (whom they
called Sahu) the soul of Horus. The constellation
is represented in the round zodiac which was dis-
covered at Denderah and in the astronomical
drawings in the Ramesseum at Thebes. The
most interesting mythology, so far as Orion is
concerned, is that of the Euphrates valley. In
the ancient star-maps of that land Orion is known
as Duwuzi (= Tammuz, Ezk 814), and appears as a
hunter accompanied by his dogs. In the earliest
ages the sun was the great heavenly hunter ;
afterwards Orion took his place. Hence the dogs
of the latter hunt the hare (the moon). Aratus,
in the Phenomena, writes—

‘And ceaselessly beneath Orion's feet
The hare 15 ever chased.’

With respect to the name, Brown remarks : ‘ His
name Urion- Aorién - Oarién - Oridn would = an
original Akkadian Uru-anna (‘ Light of Heaven,”
i.e. the sun), as the moon is Uru-ki(‘* Light of the
earth”).’ Hommel says that the Sumerian name
was shu-gi.

LITERATURE.—See Brown, ‘Celestial Equator of Aratus,’ p. 457
of Trans. of Ninth Cong. of Orientalists, and literature referred
to in notes there; also, in same Z'rans., Hommel, ‘Bab. und
Egyp. Gottergeneal.,’ p. 234. J. PAYLOR.

ORNAMENT is in RV the tr™ of πὰ in every
instance except Pr 25”, where the Heb. 15. ὅπ. In
other instances RV gives a more specialized render-
ing for ‘ornament’ of AV: as ‘chaplet’ (divyah,
Pr 19 4°); ‘garland’ (péér, Is 61); ‘crescents’
(sahdronim, Je 87-75); ‘anklets’ (akhasim, Is
318) ; ‘ankle-chains’ (zé‘adéth, Is 3°); ‘plating’
(adphuddah, Is 30"). ‘This last probably refers to
the richly embroidered cloth with which the image
was partly covered. At the present day, in a
shrine-chamber there is such a cloth spread over
the ridge of the stone-tomb on which the devotee,
usually a woman interceding with regard to child-

ORNAMENT

ORPATL 633

lessness, sits while making the petition and vow
to the saint. The same belief in the immanence of
ower and personality in the clothing is seen in
‘lisha’s taking of Elijah’s mantle (2 Καὶ 2"), the
obtaining of St. Paul's handkerchiefs (Ac 19!),
and in the superstitious use of holy relies generally.
RV has ‘apparel? instead of ‘ornament? in 1 P 3%

The Bible abounds in references to the apprecia-
tion of ornament, and at the present day in the
East the love of decoration is deep-seated and
universal. The laying aside of ornaments appears
in Ex 33 as a token of mourning. One of the
eminent services rendered by Assyrian and Eeyp-
tian archeology has been the revelation of the
wonderful proticiency to which these nations had
attained in the cutting and setting of gems, and
in the designing of gold and silver ornaments.

The investigation of the place and value of orna-
ment in the Bille does not necessarily imply that
the Oriental estimate is faultless because it 1s
interwrought with Scripture metaphor and teach-
ing. The Bible does not differ from other litera-
ture when referring to the customs and preferences
of those addressed, the one requirement being that
the statements should correspond with fact. The
same simple recognition of things as they are that
characterizes its references to natural and_in-
dustrial surroundings and family relationships
also marks its allusions to the Oriental love of
ornament, and its illustrative use of articles of
beauty and decoration.

Oriental life is pervaded by the charm of the
picturesque and the attractiveness of whatever is
unique or magnificent. The reality of the gratifi-
cation afforded by it is evidenced by the presence
of ornament in little things, and its preservation
even when in conflict with comfort and activity.
Male costume has many embellishments that we
are accustomed to regard as feminine, and the last

stage is often reached in which the man proclaims
the apparel. The day-labourer feels himself to be
on a higher level if he can wear a shirt with loose
pendant sleeves and a skirt long enough to reach
the ground. Until quite recent times the wearing
of soft woollen cloth was jealously restricted to
the patriarchal emirs and ruling families (ef. Lk
725). An Oriental cabman in arranging his coloured
head-napkin for protection from the sun crosses it
under the chin and throws the loose ends over his
shoulders to hang down the back and wave in the
wind. In the course of an hour he may have to re-
arrange it several times, but he never ties a knot
or fastens it with a pin, as that would destroy the
picturesqueness of the flowing form. A_ photo-
eraph always shows the cheek that has a mole or
‘beauty spot.’ The common water-jar, in addition
to itsown beauty of form, has usually a waved line of
etching or colour-stain around the neck. Camels
and donkeys have the hair cropped so as to show
ornamental patterns on the legs. The stonework
of the village fountain generally has some orna-
mental treatment. Doors of peasants’ houses have
intricate geometrical patterns. Houses are built
in alternate layers of dark and light coloured

stone. The arch abounds in the humblest archi-
tecture. The lattice-screen covering the lower

half of the window is ornamentally developed in
lemon and walnut wood into the beautiful and
intricate meshrabiyeh work. Infants in swaddling-
clothes have the edges of the eyelids blackened
with antimony from the paint-horn (cf. the name
Keren-happuch, Job 42%), the finger-nails stained
with the raw-sienna brown of henna-dye (Ca 1
413) and the little wrist is adorned with a few
bangles of coloured glass. The appearance of |
unusual beauty in a child, as in the case of Moses, |
is such a source of gratification to the parents that |
the fact must not be referred to without reverent |

|2Ch 3! of the name

allusion to the Giver of all good. Such particulars
from the common life of the people indicate the
general attachment to ornament, and suggest that
any symbolical use of things outwardly ornamental
would receive easy and syimpathetic recognition,

The chief materials of ornament are those which
Achan coveted (Jos 7), namely, gold and richly-
woven cloth. Ornaments of gold, silver, and
copper are still worn by women in the nose and
ears, on the neck, arms, and ankles, as alluded to
in the bible.

>

i
4

ΐ
{
3
Η
$
i

pone. ne Foe

ae

FEMALE ORNAMENTS : HORN, BELT-BUCKLES, BRACELETS, AMULETS.

The attachment to jewellery ( was
recently illustrated in the Lebanon in the case
of a young wife who, in a time of dangerous sick-
ness, had the picture of the Virgin brought from
the church, and tied to the frame her best pair of
ear-rings as ὦ votive-prayer for recovery. Shortly
afterwards, her husband found her weeping, and,
guessing the cause of her distress, assured her that
he meant to buy back the ear-rings from the priest !

In the Arabian Nights there is constant allusion
to the beautiful clothes worn by the heroes and
heroines whose exploits are recorded. Lucian, in
his Dialogues of the Dead (‘The Pagan Olympus’),
contrasts the gorgeous appearance of the Oriental
divinities with the simple elegance of the Greek
images. The tendency to excess in ornament led
Milton to describe the East as the home of ‘ bar-
baric pearl and gold? (Par. Lost, ii. 4).

It, is this devotion to outward ornament that the
Bible transfers to the inner graces of character
and the beauty of sainthood when it speaks of
‘the garmenis of salvation,’ ‘the robe of right-
eousness’ (Is 6110), ‘the apparel of a meek and
quiet spirit’ (1 P 34), and the obligation to ‘ put on
Christ’ (Ro 134, Gal 37). The moral pronounce-
ment on ornament, as in the case of wine, is one of
use and abuse. Thus the eloquent description in
Ezk 27 of ancient Tyre as Empress of the Seas,
and adorned with the riches of many lands, may
be compared with the indignant scorn expressed in
Is 3 with regard to the excesses in dress then pre-
vailing in Jerusalem.

See also ANKLET, CRESCENT, DRESS, EAR-RING,
EMBROIDERY, ENGRAVING, HOUSE, JEWEL.

G. M. MACKIE.

ORNAN (j:0x, ’Opva).—The form τὰ Ch#2i
ARAUNAH (wh. see). The
original form of the word cannot be recovered ;
see Driver, Notes on Heb. Text of Sam. p. 288 f..
and H. P. Smith on 258 247%.

fet ce)

ORPAH (πριν ; ᾿οΟρφά), a Moabitess, sister of Ruth

634 ORPHAN

OSSIFRAGE

and daughter-in-law of Naomi. When the latter
was returning to her own country, Orpah, follow-
ing Naomi’s advice, elected to go back to her own
people and to her god (or gods), while her sister
went with her mother-in-law (Ru 14714),

H. A. REDPATH.

ORPHAN.—The Heb. subst. om yathoém, which
occurs frequently throughout OT, is always ren-
dered in LXX by ὀρφανός, which is properly an
adj., ‘fatherless,’ ‘orphaned.’ The meaning is not
bereft of both parents (of that there is not a single
unmistakable example), but of the father only.
The Heb. word is accordingly rendered ‘ fatherless’
in the Eng. versions, as in Ex 224 ‘Your wives
shall be widows, and your children fatherless.’
This was not, however, because the English word
‘orphan’ (formed from ὀρφανός through Old Fr.
orphane) denoted, as it now does, one bereft of both
parents. In the only case in OT in which yathém
is translated ‘orphan’ (La 5°) the meaning is evi-
dently fatherless, ‘We are orphans and fatherless,
our mothers are as widows’ (LXX ὀρφανοὶ ἐγενήθη-
μεν. οὐχ ὑπάρχει πατήρ, μητέρες ἡμῶν ὡς αἱ χῆραι).

The adj. ὀρφανός occurs occasionally in Apoer.,
and is rendered ‘orphan’ in To 18, 2 Mac 838 (also
2 Es 2°) from Lat. orphanus). In NT there are
only two occurrences (though Codex D adds another
in Mk 12”), viz. Jn 14%, Ja 17. In both places
the meaning is ‘fatherless,’ and that is the tr. of
most of the Ene. versions in Ja 1°7(Tind., however,
‘frendlesse,’ Rhem. ‘pupilles’). But in Jn 148 only
Wye. has ‘fatherless.’ ‘Tind. introduced ‘ comfort-
less,’ an unfortunate rendering, as it gave support
to the widespread mistake that the Paraclete was
to be sent chiefly to comfort the disciples (see
PARACLETE). Tind. was followed by Cranmer, the
Geneva, the Bishops, AV, and even RV (though
AV and RV give ‘orphans’ in the marg., which is
the text of the Rhemish version).

J. HASTINGS.

ORTHOSIA (Ορθωσίας), 1 Mac 15°7.— Ace. to
Pliny this city was N. of Tripoli and 8. of the
Eleutherus (//N v. 17). The Peutinger Tables
place it 12 Roman miles N. of Tripoli, and 30 8. of
Antaradus. Coins of the city exist of the time of
Antoninus Pius. The name has not been dis-
covered,

OSAIAS (A ’Qcaias, B om.), 1 Es 8% (LXX 47) =
Jeshaiah (PF Qoaias, A ᾿Ισαιά), Ezr 89,

OSEA.—The form in which in2 Es 13? (both AV
and RV) the name of Hoshea the last king of the
Northern Kingdom occurs,

OSEAS.—The form in which the name of the
prophet Hosea is given in 2 Es 199 (both AV and
rt

V).

OSNAPPAR (Aram. 72378 ; B’Acevvaddp, A Naddp ;
Lugarde, Ladwavacodpns).—Only in Ezr 410, The
word occurs in a letter written in Aramaic, and
sent by the chancellor and the scribe of the
Samaritans to Artaxerxes, king of Persia (B.C.
464-424), to urge him to stop the building of
the walls of Jerusalem by the Jews. Among the
Samaritans who inspired this letter were ‘the
Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the
Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the
great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set in
the city of Samaria, and in the rest (of the country)
beyond the river.’ This name does not appear in
the inscriptions as the name either of any Assyrian
king or of any high ofticial of any people. The
connexion seeins to require that Osnappar was
invested with authority to transport peoples from
their homes to Samaria. Among these peoples we
see ‘Shushanchites,’ and we are well aware that

the only Assyrian king of the last period of
Assyrian history who conquered Susa was Assur-
banipal (cf. WAZ vy. (Rassam Cyl.) col. ν, 128-
vi. 70). This last great king (B.C. 668-626) wrought
frightful destruction upon this strong and rich
capital city, and carried large numbers of its popu
lation captives to Assyria. Following in the wake
of the policy already established by his predeces-
sors, Tiglath-pileser, Sargon (2 Καὶ 17*4, and Sargon’s
Annals, 95-97) and Esarhaddon (Ezr 4°), Assur-
banipal doubtless distributed many of his captives
in the provinces of the empire which were sparsely
populated.

Lhe unlikeness of ‘ Osnappar’ to ‘ Assurbanipal’
has left room for doubt as to their identification.
Now, we must note that the letter in which this
name occurs originated about 200 years after the
occurrence mentioned; and also that the name
now appears in a different language from that
in which it was native. Gelzer (‘Die Colonie
Osnappars,’ in Zeits. 7. d. Atgypt. Sprache, 1875,
78-82) supposed that 122:0x is a degeneration from
Sp3[aijox. To represent this by a different division
we have 5" ΟΝ. By a change of the 7 of 75x
into 3 (ef. the scribal error Nebuchadnezzar for
Nebuchadvezzar), an ellipsis of the middle element
of the name, and the change of the final $1’ to “τ᾿
(cf. ‘Porus’ in the canon of Ptolemy, Smith,
Eponym Canon, p. 102f., where the Bab. Chron.
reads ‘ Pulu’), we arrive at the name rs:ox. The
identification of Osnappar with Assurbanipal is
now conceded by most authorities (Schrader, COT
11. 65; Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 329; Hommel, Ges.
Bab.-Assyr. p. 740; E. Mever, Ges. d. Alterthums,
p. 477, and Entst. εἰ. Judenth. p. 294.). Halévy
(REJ ix. 12), however, does not agree with the
above authorities. ‘Taking into account (1) the
period in which Osnappar is said to have lived, (2)
the particular peoples he transported, (3) the prob-
able identification of the name with that of the last
great king of Assyria, we can scarcely escape the
conclusion that Osnappar was the Assurbanipal
of the last period οἱ Assyrian history (so also
Driver in Hogarth’s Authority and Archeology,
p. 112). IrA M. PRICE.

OSPRAY (-31y ‘ozniyydh, ἁλιαίετος, haliactus).—
The name of an unclean bird (Lv 1115, Dt 14:2). It
is pretty certainly Pandion haliwetus, L. It is
somewhat rare, and found along the coast and in
the Haleh marshes. Its food is fish, which it
catches by poising above the water until it fixes
an exact perpendicular over its victim, and then
dropping suddenly into the water, from which it
generally rises with the fish in its claws. Like
other fish-eating birds it is seldom used as food
for man, and would naturally be counted unclean.

G. Ἐπ Post.

OSSIFRAGE (075 peres, yiv, gyps), RV ‘vier
eagle.’—The etymology ‘ breaker’ (073), correspond-
ing to ossifrage (‘bone-breaker,’ from the Lat.),
strengthens the claim of the tr®> of AV. As the
bird is mentioned only twice (Ly 1119, Dt 1413), we
have no side-light from Scripture to help us. The
ossifrage is the Lammergeier, Gypetus barbatus, L.
It is one of the largest of the vultures, being 4 ft.
6 in. long. It is known in Arab. as bid/ or nisr. It
is not numerous in Pal., but generally diffused.
Tristram says that there is a pair in nearly every
wady. Its name is derived from its habit of
carrying tortoises and bones in its claws to a
height, and dropping them on to a rock to break
them, in order to get at their contents. It also
preys on Jambs, kids, hares, and serpents. It
often catches its prey by pushing it off from a
clit, It has been known to attack men in this
situation. The male has a black beard, pencilled
upper and tawny lower plumage, and blood-red

|
|
|
|
|
|

ΘΟ ΘΗ

OTITNIEL 635

eyes. It is diffused throughout the mountains of
northern Europe, Asia, and northern Attic. wht
breeds on inaccessible cliffs. The female lays one
ege, which is hatched in February.
Gab σις

OSTRICH.—1. jus ya'en, πῆρ πη bath-hayyo'anah.
The root px y@an signifies in Syr. ‘to be greedy
or voracious.’ From this is derived yd'cn = ‘ the
voracious one’=‘ostrich.’ This word occurs in
the mase. pl. o3yr yé'enim (La 45), tr? AV and RV
‘ostriches.’ It occurs in the sing. in construction
with nz and πὴ in eight passages. In all of these
2V correctly gives ‘ ostrich.” In Ly 117%, Dt 14’°
AV tr. it ‘owl,’ Jer 50" ‘owls,’ Mie 18 ‘owls,’ m.
‘daughters of the owl,’ Is 34% 4370 ‘owls,’ m.
‘daughters of the owl’ or ‘ostriches,’ Job 30”
‘owls,’ m. ‘ostriches.’ Bochart, arguing from the
prefix bath =‘ daughter,’ thought that the expres-
sion bath-hayya'andh refers to the female ostrich,
while tahméds (Lv 112%, Dt 14!) refers to the male.
But bath, with the name of an animal in the
construct state, does not necessarily refer to the
female. In the Semitic languages the feminine
termination to the specific name often refers to an
individual, male or female. Bendt-dwa in Arabic
is literally ‘the daughters of the jackal,’ but means

jackals. Numerous similar instances could be
adduced. (For the discussion of tahnds see NIGHT
Hawk). The derivation of this name of the

ostrich from the idea of greed corresponds with its
traditional voracity, which leads it to swallow
pebbles, bits of glass, metal, bone, ete. This, how-
ever, is the same instinct as that which leads
fowls to swallow small angular pebbles, to assist
in the trituration of their food. The large size of
the substances swallowed by the ostrich has given
him his special reputation. Some have attributed
to the root the meaning ‘to ery out,’ and fortify
their etymology by referring to the voice of the
ostrich, which they say resembles that of the lion
(cf. Mic 1°).

2. oun réndnim. AV (Job 39%) tr. this word

peacocks,’ RV ‘ostrich.’ It is derived from a
root signifying ‘ to give forth a sound,’ esp. a twang-
ing οὐ resonant sound (cf. Arab. ranna). While
this derivation would suit the peacock, there is a
special name for that bird, onan tukhiyyim (1 K
10%), or δῦ (9 Ch 953). It eminently suits the
ery of the female ostrich. The description (eves t es)
can apply to no other bird than the ostrich. AV
recognizes this by wrongly translating nozah =
‘feathers’ at the end of v.!° by ‘ostrich.’

The ostrich, Struthio camelus, L., is a bird of
Arabia and Africa. It has been found on the 5.10,
confines of the Syrian desert. It is the largest of
existing birds. The Bible alludes to a number of
its characteristics. It is a desert bird. It is
several times (Is 34° 43°) mentioned in connexion
with tannim, which we believe to be the wolf (see
DRAGON, 1). It is the swiftest of runners, sur-
passing in this respect even the warhorse when he
is urged on by his gallant rider. It 15 said (Job
3917) that ‘God hath deprived her of wisdom,
neither hath he imparted to her understanding.’
This is said to explain her leaving her eggs in the
dust. The facts are that the ostrich lays her eggs
in a shallow excavation in the sand and then covers
them to the depth of a foot. They are left by day,
in tropical climates, to the heat of the sun, and
incubated at night. A few eggs, supposed to be
reserved for the nourishment of the chicks, are laid
near the nest, and left exposed on the sand. This
mode of nesting and incubation is probably the
basis of the allusion in the above passage. In any
case it must be regarded as the reflexion of a
popular opinion, founded on the external aspects
of the case. It is intended to heighten the contrast
of the opening verse of the passage, which describes

her beautiful plumage, and the closing which
praises her speed. It is true, however, that when
the ostrich is surprised with her brood she runs
away from her chicks (v.18), She is unable to defend
them, and cannot conceal them in the open desert.
The charge of stupidity is, however, borne out in
some other ways. For instance, the ostrich runs
usually toward the wind, contrary to the practice
of most wild animals. In this way it can some-
times be approached to within shooting distance.
Again, it runs in large circles, and does not swerve
from its course, which can thus be calculated, and
the bird awaited where it is pretty sure to pass.
The old allegation that it hides its head in the sand
to escape danger is not true. Although forbidden
in the law as food (Lv 1118, Dt 14"), its flesh and
eges are inuch prized by the Arabs.

The feathers of the ostrich, so well known for
their beauty, quite justify the eulogy of Job (39:5)
RV ‘The wing of the ostrich rejoiceth ; (but) are
her pinions and feathers kindly?’ The feathers
of the male are white and black; of the female
and young dusky grey. G. E. Post.

OTHER.—1. Moon (Revisers’ English, p. 1920 11.)
contends that (following the AV) the RV_ has
omitted ‘other’ where it should be, and inserte |
it where it should not be. Asan example of the
former he quotes Mk 4%, where the mustard
seed is said to be ‘less than all the seeds that are
upon the earth,’ a sentence which strictly means
that it is less than itself. For the latter he quotes
Mk 1993 «There is none other but he.”

2. In Old English the plural of ‘other’ was othre.
When this inflexion was dropped there was for a
time no distinction between the sing. and the plu.
of the word. After a time, however, a new plural
was formed by adding s. There are a few examples
in AV of the old plu. ‘other,’ viz. Jos 8” ‘The
other issued out of the city against them’; 2 Ch
3222 «Fron the hand of all other’; Job 24%, 1 Mac
98, 2 Mac 74, Lk 23%, Jn 19!8, 1 Co 14°, Ph OF AS:
In OT the RV retains ‘other’; in NT itis changed
into ‘others’ except Ph 99 which is retained, and
43 which is changed into ‘the rest.’ In 1 Mae 9}
RV gives ‘they,’ and omits the word in 2 Mac Ὧν
Examples are in Tindale, Mt 218 ‘ Other cut downe
braunches from the trees’; 27% ‘He saved other,
him sylfe he can not save’; and from the Rhem.
version He 7% ‘And the other in deede were made
priestes, being many, because that by death they
were prohibited to continue’ ; οἵ. Ps ΤῊ a/.[Pr. Bk. }.

3. The phrase ‘other some,’ formerly very com-
mon when ‘some’ preceded, is twice retained in AV,
2 Es 13 «Some were elad, some were sorry, some of
them were bound, and other some (so RV) brought
of them that were offered’? (quidam ... quidam...
aliqui. . . aliqui); Ac 17'S (καὶ rwes ἔλεγον . . « οἱ
δέ, so RV). The archaism is not in ‘other’ but in
‘some,’ which in the sing. was equivalent to ‘one,’
‘a certain,’ and so in the plu. meant ‘persons’ or
‘things’; hence ‘ other some’ is ‘other persons’ or
‘things.’ Cf. Mt 13° Rhem. ‘ Othersome also fell
upon rockie places, where they had not much earth’ ;
and Eph 4?! Rhem. ‘And he gave, some Apostles,
and some Prophets, and othersome Evangelists, and
othersome pastors and doctors.’ Alsoin Judgment
of Dort, p. 35, ‘The cause of which his divers dis-
pensation is not to be imputed to the worthinesse
of one nation above another, or to the better using
of the light of nature by some then by other some.’

J. HASTINGS.

OTHNI (inv; B Voovei, A Yofvi)—A son of

Shemaiah, 1 Ch 267.

OTHNIEL (Sysny, Γοθονιήλ), described in Jg 18
3° as ybED abo ‘ms 13p]2.—It is not impossible from
the point of view of strict grammar to construe

Jilius Cenez, frater Caleh).

636 OTHONIAS

OUTLANDISH

this Heb. phrase so as to make Kenaz the brother
and Othniel the nephew of Caleb (so B of LXX,
vids Kevey ἀδελφοῦ Χάλεβ; cf. art. JUDGES, 4 (ὁ),
vol. ii. p. 811*). It is more probable, however,
that Caleb, who is elsewhere called the Kenizzite
(Nu 32"), was viewed as a son of Kkenaz, and thus
a brother of Otlniel (so A... ἀδελφός, and Vulg,
This conclusion is
strengthened by the expression ‘younger brother,’
which would have no relevancy as applied to Kenaz,
but is quite appropriate in reference to Othniel ‘as
indicating that the disparity in age between uncle
aud niece (ΤῸ 1%) was not so great as might be
thought, or (in 3°) as explaining how Othniel so
lone outlived Caleb? (Moore, Judges, 27). In
pre-critical times there can be little doubt that
apologetic reasons weighed heavily with many in-
terpreters. The uncle, it was imagined, must be
saved from the scandal of marrying his niece,
although marriages within closer degrees than
this were sanctioned by usage (e.g. Abraham and
Sarah, Gn 20"; ef. 28 13 Amnon and Tamar),

In one of the narratives (Jos 1517, Je 118) of the
conquest of Canaan it is related that Othniel smote
Kiriath-sepher and obtained as a reward the hand
of his niece Achsah the daughter of Caleb (see
ACHSAH). The story of the springs which the
bride obtained from her father (Jos 1518, Je 114) is
introduced in all probability in order to account for
the possession by Achsah, a branch of Othniel, of
waters which would more naturally have belonged
to the Kalibbites, an older constituent of the
Kenizzite clan. In Je 37! Othniel is introduced by
D?* as the first of the ‘Judges’ and the deliverer
of Israel from CUSHAN- RISHATHAIM (wh. see).
His victory is said to have secured rest to the
land for forty years. Very serious difficulties lie
in the way of our accepting the historicity of this
Jatter narrative. These difficulties are not in the
least evaded by the purely hypothetical combina-
tions of Sayce in HUM 297 1h and EHH 286.
See Moore, Judges, p. 85.

Ethnologically and as an eponym Othniel has
much the same significance as CALEB (wh. see),
being a younger branch of the important clan
of the Kenizzites.

LITERATURE.—See under Caer, and cf. Dillmann, Vu-Dt-Jos,
523; Kittel, Mist. of Ποῦ. i. 267 f., ii. 77. ; Moore, Judges, 29,
84 f.; Wellhausen, Comp. 219; Budde, Iicht. w. Sam. 4 Εν, 94 ff.

J. A. SELBIE.

OTHONIAS (‘Odovias), 1 Es 958, a corruption of the |

name Mattaniah, in Ezr 10°’,

OUCHES.—Owche, like adder, apron, ete., be-
longs to a group of words that in modern English
have lost an initial » through a mistaken division
—‘a nouche’ (cf. Chaucer, Hoase of Fame, 1350,
‘They were set as thick as nouchis I'yne, of the
fynest stones faire’) having become “an ouche.’
The term was applied to gold ornaments, particu-
larly those of the nature of a clasp or brooch,
set with jewels.

1. The two large jewels of shéham-stone (EV
‘onyx,’ RVm ‘beryl’) en the shoulders of the
high priest’s ephod (see vol. i. p. 725”) were ‘set
in ouches of gold’ (271 πῖνε ἐξ Ex Qgut. 39°")... The
word mishbézoth seems to denote a setting of open
work in contradistinction to the method of setting
jewels in a solid capsule of gold, and since it
is derived from a root signifying ‘to weave or
wreathe’ (see Dillm. on Ex 9811), it may safely be
taken as the technical term for filigree work,
which was known to the Egyptian goldsmiths
from very early times. The gold, as we are
expressly informed in Ex 39%, was beaten out into
thin sheets, which were cut up into narrow strips.
These strips or wires, as we may call them, were
formed into elaborate gold filigree by means of a

most delicate process of soldering (see Bliimner,
Lechnologie, etc., der Gewerbe und Kiinste ber
Griechern u. Rémern, iv. 250 f., 316f.), and used
as a setting to the jewels, the open nature of the
work facilitating the attachment of the whole,
presumably by the use of gold thread, to the fabrie
of the ephod. The same method of attachment Ὁ

means of a setting of gold filigree (Ex 308, IV
‘enclosed in ouches of gold in their settings’) was
adopted for the twelve jewels of the breastplate. ἢ

The statement of Josephus that the jewels on
the shoulder-straps of the ephod (termed by him
‘sardonyx stones’) served as agraffes or clasps to
fasten the two ends of the straps (πορποῦσι δὲ τὴν
ἐπωμίδα σαρδόνυχες δύο... πρὸς τὸ ταῖς περονίσιν
ἐπιτήδειον, K.7.N., Ant, IL. vii. 5 [Niese, 8 165]), like
several other statements of his in this paragraph,
conflicts with P’s description of the ephod, and
of the purpose of these jewels ‘as a memorial
before J”.’

2. In the description of the high priest’s BREAST-
PLATE (vol. i. p. 319”) it was pointed out that the
gold chains, by which the breastplate was held in
position, ‘were passed over, or through, or other-
wise attached to a couple of goid ornaments (AV
‘ouches,’ Ex 28! 14. 2 3010. 18) which had previously
been fixed to the shoulder-pieces of the ephod in
front.’ These ‘ouches’ (Heb. as before, mish-
bézoth) were also of open filigree work, and, if we
can trust the Greek translators, had the shape
of rosettes (ἀσπίδισκαι), one of the commonest
‘motives’ in ancient. art, including architecture
and embroidery. For these rosettes or ‘daisy +
pattern’ see Perrot and Chipiez, Hist. of Art in
Chaldea and Assyria, vol. i. 260 ff. [note jewelled
bracelet, fig. 133, p. 805], and vol. ii, 332 ff, noting
figs. 244, 250. It is not improbable that the same
pattern was followed in the setting of the jewels
above described (under 4).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

OUGHT.—1. ‘Aught’ and ‘ought’ are different
forms of the same word. Aught is from ὦ (= ever)
and wiht (=thing, whit) as ought is from ὁ (=ever)
and wiht. So the meaning is ‘any thing whatever,’
The early forms were numerous. AV has only the
form ‘ought,’ which RV everywhere changes into
‘aught,’ the modern form. See NAuGuHT.

2. In AV 1611 ‘ought’ is found as the past tense
of ‘owe’ in Mt 18°83, Lk 74, This was originally

‘its use, but in time it was regarded as distinct from

oD
‘owe, from which another past tense, ‘owed,’ was
formed, and looked upon as a present with another
meaning. Cf. Spenser, /Q ui. i. 44—
“Now were they liegmen to this Ladie free,
And her knight’s service ought, to hold of her in fee.’

J. HASTINGS.
OUTLANDISH.— Neh 13% ‘Even him did out-

landish women cause to sin’ {πὴ ow, LXX ai
γυναῖκες ai ἀλλότριαι). The Heb. word is usually tr.
‘stranger’ (1.6. ‘foreigner’) in AV, and RV gives
‘strange women’ here. ‘ Outlandish’ (from Anglo-
Sax. utlendise, an adj. fr. utland, foreign countries)
is Coverdale’s word. Cf. Milton, Hist. Eng. v. ‘He
had taken with him Alfrid his youngest son to be
there inaugurated King, and brought home with him
an out Jandish Wife; for which they endeavoured
to deprive him of his Kingdom’; and Bunyan, PP
p. 84 (Clar. Press ed.), ‘The Pilgrims were cloathed
with such kind of raiment as was diverse from the
raiment of any that traded in that fair. The

* Acc. to a very plausible, textual emendation, Ps 4513b
(Heb. 140) should read: Ayia" Ms27 OF39 (so Krochmal,
Graetz, Cheyne, Wellh.) ‘of pearls (set) in gold filigree (Cheyne.
‘in ouches of gold’) is her raiment.’

t ‘A silver shield with boss of gold’ (Wordsworth).

} The ἀσπίδισκαι of 1 Mac 457 are best taken in the same
technical sense, as ornamental ‘rosettes’ or ‘bosses,’ rather
than literally as ‘ small shields.’

a νΡο͵ΡὝὭὟΠἌ“ὍἍ6ΜΗΘΠπΟΘΝΝΝ

OUTRAGE

OWL 637

people therefore of the fair made a great gazing
upon them. Some said they were Fools, some they
were Bedlams, and some they are Outlandish-men.’
J. HASTINGS.
OUTRAGE. An outrage is that which goes be-
yond bounds (being formed by adding the common
sullix age to outre, Old Fr. oltre, from Lat. ati,
beyond). It occurs in the heading to Ps 10, ‘ David
complaineth to God of the outrage of the wicked.’
The adj. outrageous is found in Pr 274 ‘anger is
outrageous’ (lit. as RVm ‘anger is a flood’; Amer.
RV ‘overwhelming’). For the prim. sense of the
adj. ef. Guylforde, Pylgrymage, p. 36, ‘There be
1111. rowes or range of pylers thrughout ye church,
of ye fynest marble yt may be, not onely mervay-
lous for ye nombre, bat for ye outragyous gretnes,
leneth, and fayrenes tielact: J. HASTINGs.

OUTROAD is now lost to the Ene. linguage,
though ‘inroad’ remains. Tt was never common,
and occurs in AV only at 1 Mae 15" * He set horse-
men there, and an host of footimen, to the end that
issuing out they might make outroads upon the
ways of Judah’ (ἐξοδεύωσι). RV retains the word
here, and even introduces 1t into 1 Ks 47° *A man
taketh his sword and goeth forth to make out-
roads’ (ἐξοδεύειν; AV omits to translate). The
same Gr. verb oceurs in 2 Mac 12!, but AV gives
‘went forth,’ RV ‘sallied forth. J. HASTINGS.

OVEN (7:9 ¢fanniir, xdiBavos).—The Arab. name
is the same as the Heb., and the use of the ἐμὴ ἦν
to-day indicates, no doubt, the kind of oven in use
formerly. It is commonly made by sinking a hole
in the ground, 8 or δὲ ft. deep, and 25 to ὃ ft. in
diameter, somewhat in the formof a large jar; the
walls are plastered with cement that will resist the
action of fire, which is kindled in the oven when it
is tobe heated for use. The fuel is grass, thorns, or
dry twigs (Mt 6"), which heat the oven rapidly, and
of course blacken it with smoke and soot. This
axplains the allusi in La 5! Thal ‘r surface
explains the allusion in La 5!°. 16 inner surface
is wiped when it becomes sufliciently heated, and
the dough is moulded into broad thin loaves, hardly
thicker than parchment, and placed, one at a time,
on the wall of the oven by means of a large
cushion, with a convex surface to fit the concave
inner surface of the oven. The baking process is
over in a few seconds. See BREAD, FURNACE.
This form of oven is sometimes built above ground,
and in Arabia sometimes on a movable base
(Niebuhr, Deser, de Αγ. pp. 45, 460). These ovens
are usually outside the house, as the smoke would
fill the dwelling if within. Often the same oven
serves for several families (Ly 909. This kind of
oven is doubtless referred to in Ex 8, though the
Egyptians had various kinds.

Large ovens, 6 to 8 ft. square, are used in bakeries at the
present day, of brick or stone, raised 2 or 3 ft. from the ground,
with an arched roof and chimney, to allow the escape of the
smoke. The bottom is paved, and the fire burns at one side while
the bread is being baked on the other. The loaves are introduced
on anarrow wooden shovel, which will take several at a time,
and by which they are turned and removed when baked. A
kind of portable oven, called in Arabic sj, is much used by the
nomads of Syria. It Consists merely of a circular piece of sheet-
iron, heraispherical in form, and is used by raising it or stones,
concave side down, the fire being kindled under it, and the
thin lovt placed on the convex surface.

The oven is figuratively employed in Scripture
to indicate fierce heat and quick destruction, the
materiais used in heating it being soon consumed
(Gteskes 21> Hos 77; Mal 4+), Η. PORPER:

OVERSEER.—See MELZAR, STEWARD. — Once
in AV (Ac 9058) ἐπίσκοποι is translated ‘overseers.’
It is the tr. of Tindale, who was followed by
Cranmer (Great Bible), Geneva, and even the
Bishops. RV has returned to Wyclif's and the
Rhemish ‘bishops.’ See Bisuop.

OWL.— Five Heb. words are translated ‘owl? in
AV. 1. agen na bath-hayywdnah, RV ‘ostrich’
(see Nigut HAwk, OstRrIcH).

2. nes yanshiph (Lv 117, Dt 14"), ‘great ov ?;
Avs yanshdph (Is 34"), fowl? Vm “bittern” In
all the LX.X gives εἶβις and Vuly. is. The passage
in Isaiah gives a considerable list’ of creatures,
some fabulous, others uncertain, but all supposed
to suggest desolation and ruin. Yanshdph is one of
these. It is a strong objection to the cis that it
isa swamp bird, hardly to be thought of in con-
nexion with an accursed and forsaken ruin. Yet
the same is true of the biffern, the cormorant, and
the pelicun (RV text and AV margin) in the same
passage. We may therefore accept Hes, in spite of
this difficulty, or tr. the word ‘twilight bird,’ in
allusion to its etymology,” leaving the question of
species unsettled. This tr® would emphasize the
desolation and evil omen, which it is the object of
the writer to portray.

3. ota kds. Here again we have a word occurring
only in the lists of unclean birds (Ly LE, Dt 14'°,
AV and RV ‘little owl’), and in one other reference
(Ps 1095 AV and RV ‘owl’), where the psalmist
compares himself to San owl of the desert’ (ItV
‘waste places’). The owl is called by the Arabs
amm al-khardb, i.e. ‘mother of ruins,’ from the fact
that it frequents such places. The LX X νυκτικόραξ
(Lv 117, Ps 102%) confirms the tr® ‘owl,’ which is
to be taken generically. Among the owls of
4]. and Syria are Asio Ofus, L., the long-eared
owl; A. brachyotus, J. RK. Forster, the short-eared
owl; and Bubho ascalaphus, Sav., the Eeyptian
eagle owl. LXX tr. Ads in Dt 14!" by ἐρωδιόν, Vule.
herodium.

& Hap kippdz. This word occurs but once (15
345). The LXX ἐχῖνος implies the reading ΒΩ
kippodh, which AV tr. ‘bittern, RV * poreupine’
(see BrrreRN). As the bittern or porcupine has
already been mentioned in the list of creatures in
the ruins of Edom (v.!") we must reject this. Nor can
we accept the RV rendering arrowsnake (adopted
by Ges., Dillm., Siegfried -Stade, Cheyne, ete.,
following Bochart, //ieroz. ili. 199), a kind of snake
that leaps from trees on passers-by (Ga. ἀκοντία 5),
from Arab. kafazd, ‘to leap. Phe description is
clearly that of a bird. No snake lays, incubates,
‘hatches, and gathers its young under its shadow.’
The fact that some owls specially frequent ruins
makes it probable that, though there is no positive
authority in its favour, some species of Owl is in-
tended. Scops gin, Scop., and Athene χήνα, Sav.,
are dwellers in caves, ruins, and desolate places, and
would suit the context.

5. πο Lilith, is also found in but one passage
(Is 344), AV tr. it ‘screech owl,’ m. ‘night

monster’; RV ‘night monster, m. ‘Lilith. ‘Phe
etymology points to a nocturnal creature. Tt is
probably fabulous. The unearthly hootings and
boomings of the nocturnal birds about ruins and
in lonely wastes would easily suggest to the
imaginative Oriental mind such spectres. The

LXX ὀνοκένταυρος refers to some unknown ape, or
an apparition. The damia of the Vulg. is a hag or
witch who does harm to children. See, further,
art. Linivi. The gi of the Arabs is a fabulous
spectre, which haunts graveyards, and lives on
human flesh (see NIGH? MONSTER).

It will be seen from the above analysis that
three out of the five words tr? ‘owl? in AV prob-
ably do not refer to owls. The other two are
veneric. The Arab. bin expresses, as a tone word,
the ery of some of the owls. The Arabs are super-
stitious in regard to all the species, and look upon
them as emblems of evil. Tobe POST

* From ws ‘twilight’ (so Bochart, Hveroz. ii. 281 ff.) Others

derive from Fy} ‘ wheeze.’

a eet

Sy?

038 OX

PADDAN

OX (“E).—An ancestor of Judith, Jth 81.

OX (ne shér).—The unit of the bovine species
(apa bahar, as horse, ass, sheep) without reference
to age or sex. It includes ball, bullock, cow, heifer,
and calf. Nevertheless, each of these has a special
name, as seen below. S/or is sometimes tr® ‘ox,’
and sometimes ‘lull’ or ‘bullock.’ The Aramaic
form nr ¢ér corresponds exactly with the Arab.
thaur, Gr. ratvpos, and Lat. taurus. In those
languages, however, it refers esp. to the badd.
Sometimes, for emphasis, s/é7 is coupled with 75%
*ehad, meaning then a single ox (Nu 15", Neh 5!),
Rarely it is used collectively (Gn 82°, 1S 2919 ‘oxen,’
Dt 15 ‘bullock,’ Jg 6" vee par-hash-shor, lit.
‘bull of theox,’ AV ‘young bullock,’ RV ‘ bullock’).
Shor is also used metaphorically m2 22 ‘the first-
ling of his bullock’ (Dt 33'%), to indieate the
favoured position of Joseph. 8 sippy AV ‘digeed
down a wall’ (Gn 49°), is more correctly {τὰ RV
‘houghed an ox.’ Another Heb. term for ‘oxen’
is ὌΡΟΣ [only in plur.j]. Its only occurrences are
Pr 14), Is 80% (where oxen are spoken of as used in
tillage), Ps 87 (oxen subject to man), Dt 718 28% 18. δὶ
(their increase [732] a blessing).

Bull, bullock, cow, kine.—1. 75 par (fem. ΠῚ

parah, the female of the bovine species). When
intended to refer to a young bull there is often
added apz72 (Ex 29! ete.) ; once in construct state
with shor, e072 = “bullock of the ox’ (Je 6’); once
in apposition, 72 %e' =‘ ox-bullock,’ de. * bullock of
the oxen’ (Ps 69°). Par and pardadh are usually
employed to designate bulls or heifers for sacrifice.
They are, however, occasionally used otherwise
(Ps 22" ete.).

2. vax ᾿σἠφῖγ, A metaphorical term, derived
from the idea of his streneth and valour (Ps 22
5038, Is 347). In the same metaphorical sense it is
used to designate the horse (Jer 515 47°, AV ‘strong
horses, RV ‘strone ones’ 50%, AV ‘bulls,’ m.
‘steeds,’ RV ‘strong horses’).

3. xn ted (Dt 14°), AV ‘wild ox,’ RV ‘antelope’;
xin ἐό (Is 51°), AV ‘wild bull,’ RV ‘antelope.’ In
the absence of any certainty as to the species it is
better to adopt orya, after the LXX (Dt 14° dpvé.
In Is 512° LXX has ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον. ‘like a half-
cooked beetroot’) and Vulg., and to suppose that the
wild animal here intended is Orya beatric, formerly
confounded with Antilope leucorya, Pall. Ttis found
on the borders of the Syrian desert. The horns are
soldin Damascus and Jerusalem ; they are over 3 ft.
long. Thecreature is between 3) and 4 ft. high. Its
lower parts and a portion of the face are sandy white,
and the rest of the face, back, and flanks tawny.

Calf, heifer.—3y ‘ége/, is the young of the

bovine species, irrespective of sex. With the
feminine suflix, πον ‘eq/@h, either ‘a single calf,’
irrespective of sex (Dt 21°), or ‘a young cow’ |

(Is 771). Heifer is the tr™ once of m5 pdrah (Nu
19°), usually of ‘eglah (Dt 21°, Jg 14 ete.). See
HEIFER.

There is no evidence that the buffalo, Bos
bubalus, L., was known in Bible times. It is now
common in the marshy districts, where it can
wallow in the mud, but always as a domestic, not
a wild animal. It is common in the laleh region,
in the plain of Esdraelon, the Jordan Valley, and
about Hems and Hama.

The Scripture allusions to oxen and their con-
geners are too numerous to be cited. They were
used for ploughing (1 Κα 1915), for draught, yoked in
one or more pairs (Nu 7°), as beasts of burden (1 Ch
12” οὐδ.) for treading out the corn (Dt 25? ete.),
for food (Dt 144), sacrifices (Gn 15° ete.), dairy
purposes (Dt 324, Is 777, 28 177). Herds were
investments of wealth (Job 15 421, The pasture
erounds of Palestine and Syria were extensive.
Oxen were also kept and fattened in stalls (1 Ix 4°,
Pr 15", Lk 1818, In the winter they were fed on
stubble and straw, ¢é/n (Is 11%) and ‘clean (AVm
‘leavened,’ RV ‘ savoury’) provender’ (30+). The
Mosaic law provided for their protection (Ex 22),
Dt 254). The ox is found only where water is
abundant and there is green pasture in spring-
time. Most of the cattle of the Holy Land at
present are of inferior breeds. Probably this is
but a part of the degeneracy of the country. The
best races of animals would thrive there, and even
now one sometimes sees fine specimens of horned
cattle. See CATTLE. σι E;-Post,

OX-GOAD.—See GoAb, and AGRICULTURE in
vol. i. p. 49” where an ox-goad is figured.

OZEM (oss).—1. An elder brother of David, 1 Ch
215 (Ασομ). The vocalization of MT is of doubtful
correctness. [Κατ] thinks osx (cf. LXX) more
probable than oss. Cf. the parallel case of Oren
(wh. see) and Aran. 2 A-son of Jerahmeel, 1 Ch
2% (Β ᾿Ασάν, Α ᾽᾿Ασύμ).

OZIAS (’O¢eias).—1. 1 Es 83 (Β Ὀξείας, A ’Efias),
2 Es 1? (Ozias), one of the ancestors of Ezra (ef.
Ezr 74). 2. 1 Es 5, head of a family of temple
servants which returned with Zerubbabel, called
Uzza, Ezr 2”, Neh 7°; .3. The son of Micah, of
the tribe of Simeon, one of the rulers of Bothulia
in the history of Judith (Jth 6% 7% 81253 108),

OZIEL (Ὁ ζειήλ).---Απ ancestor of Judith, Jth 81,
The name occurs frequently in OT under the form
Uzziel (2732).

OZNI (31x).—A son of Gad, Nu 2618, called in Gn
46 Ezbon (j2s8). In the passage in Nu the same
word ΝΠ is used also as a patronymic =the Oznites.

P

PAARAI.—In MT of 28 23% ssoxa yp ‘ Paarai
the Arbite’ appears as one of David’s thirty heroes.
The parallel passage, 1 Ch 11°, has ‘3972 ὝΝ
‘Naarai the son of Ezbai’ (B Naapai vids ᾿Αζωβαί,
A. Noopa vids ᾿Αζβίέ ; cf. the reading of some twenty
MSS of LXX in 28, τοῦ Οὐραὶ (Οὐρὲ) vids τοῦ
᾿Ασβί). It is impossible to decide with any con-
tidence between the names Navrai and Paarat, or
the readings ‘son of Ezbai’ and ‘the Arbite’ (cf.
the name Arad in Jos 15**) or ‘the Archite’ (cf.
Jos 167, 1S 16" a@/.). This last reading is favoured

by Klostermann, and seems to be pointed to by
the corrupt reading of B, Οὐραιοερχεί, in 25
235 (οἵ, Driver, ad loc.), as well as by that of
A, Φαραεὶ ὁ ‘Apaxeeis. See, further, ARBITE,
Ezpal, NAARAI, and ef. Kittel’s note on 1 Ch 11”
in SBOT. J. A. SELBIE.

PADDAN, i.c. Paddan-aram, is found in Gn 487
only. Perhaps ow has fallen out of the Heb. text;
it is present in the Sam., as well asin the LXX
(ΔΙεσοποταμία τῆς Συρίας͵).

PADDAN-ARAM

PAINE 639

PADDAN-ARAM (079x722, Μεσοποταμία Συρίας). ---
See ARAM, in vol. i. p. 1385, Padanw is used in
Bab. contracts of the age of Abraham as a measure
of land. It is the modern Arabic fedddn, ‘acre.’

AS Te SAG.

PADDLE (17; πάσσαλος ; paxillus) oceurs only in
Dt 238 AV and RV, but RVm ‘shovel’ (which is
Coverdale’s word). The Heb. word is elsewhere
used of a tent-pin (Ex 27", Jg 47! et al.), and of a
peg for hanging on (Ezr 98, Is 22% 4, Ezk 15°),
always of wood, so that the translation ‘nail’
should be avoided. Once also it signifies the
batten or pin with which the woof is beaten up
into the web (Jg¢ 164; see WEAVING). In Dt 23%
it is used of a wooden tool for digging, a spade.
In earlier English a small spade used for cleaning
the plough-share was called a ‘paddle,’ which
explains the choice of this word in the Geneva
Bible, whence it reached AV and RV.

J. HASTINGS.

PADON (ji15, Padwy).—The name of a family of
Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr 24 =
Neh 747; called in 1 Es 5° Phaleas (PaXaias).

PAGIEL (oxy32).—Son of Ochran, mentioned by
P as chief of the tribe of Asher at the time of the
Exodus, Nu 1 951 (Φαγαιήλ), 7? (B Φαγεήλ, A
Φαγαιήλ), (Bbayend, A Payai), 10° (φΦαγαιήλ). The
Heb. name is probably of late origin and of artifi-
cial character (see Gray, HPN 200 f., 210).

PAHATH-MOAB (ax'>n75 ‘governor of Moab’ ;
A Φααθμωάβ, B Φααθμ., Φααβμ., Paadu., Φαλαβμ.,
φθαλειμ., Μααθμ. ; Phahath-moab, and in 1 Es 8981
ductoris Moab(ilionis) [the -alionis represents the
Greek word after J/oab}).—In the list of those who
returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel there are
included ‘ Béné Pahath-moab of the Béné Jeshua
(and) Joab 2812,’ Ezr 2°, 1 Es 5", ‘2818’ Neh 7!!;
in the list of those who returned with Ezra, ‘ Of
the Béné Pahath-moab, Eliehoenai ben Zerahiah
and 200 males,’ Ezr 84, 1 Es 8%; in the list of the
husbands of foreign wives are named eight of the
Béné Pahath-moab, Ezr 10°°; in the list of the
repairers of the wall of Jerusalem is named Has-
shub ben-Pahath-moab (Neh 3"); and amongst
those who signed the covenant, ‘the chiefs of
the people ... Pahath-moab,’ Neh 104%. Here
we inust understand the chief of the clan Pahath-
moab, this being a Jewish clan, part of which
remained in Babylon, while part returned with
Zerubbabel and part with Ezra. The language
of Ezr 2° ete. shows that at the Return this clan
consisted of two branches, Jeshua and Joab. In
Ezr 89 the Béné Joab are enumerated as a
separate clan, which furnished Ezra with Obadiah
and 218 males.

Pahath-moab, as the name of a Jewish clan, is an
enigma of which we have no satisfactory solution.
It is commonly explained as ‘governor of Moab.’
The first part of the compound name would thus be
connected with the Assyrian pehah, which occurs so
frequently in the Inscriptions. Pahath-moab may
be a reminiscence of the Israelite dominion in
Moab, and may have some connexion with ‘the
dominion in Moab’ of the Judahite Béné Shelah
mentioned in 1 Ch 433, Or ‘Pahath’ may have
replaced syllables of similar sound but different
meaning, a familiar phenomenon in the history
of proper names, e.g. ‘Cat and Wheel’ for ‘ Cathe-
rine Wheel.’ In this case the clan Pahath-moab
may have been connected with some Israelite
settlement in Moab, or even with a settlement of
Moabite refugees in Judah. Or, again, ‘ pahath’
may be the word for ‘pit’; or the whole word
Pahath-moab may be a corruption of some name
which had no connexion in meaning with either
pehah or ‘oab. A process of corruption antecedent

to MT would be paralleled by Vulg. Phemo in
1 Es 5", which no doubt goes back to the Pahath-
moab of MT. Cf. Meyer, Lntstehung des Juden-
thums, pp. 146, 157. W. H. BENNETT.

PAI (‘5).—The capital city of Hadad (1 Ch) or
Hadar (Gn), a king of Edom, 1Ch 1. In the
parallel passage, Gn 36%, the name occurs in the
form Pau (ys). The LXX has in both passages
Poywp (= Wp; cf. Paywp in Jos 15°), and Ball
thinks myp ‘is probably right,’ while Kittel pro-
nounces it ‘perhaps the more original.’ The site
of the place referred to has not been identified,
although there is some plausibility in the com-
parison Seetzen (/teisen, 111, 18) suggests with the
ruins of Phawara in Edom (cf. Ritter, Lrdkunde,
xiv. 995; but see, against this identification,
Buhl, £Ldoniter, p. 38 Anm. 3). Hommel (AHT
264) suggests reading Paish. J. A. SELBIE.

PAINFUL, PAINFULNESS.—‘ Painful’ was for-
merly used as we now use ‘ painstaking,’ 1.6. care-
ful, industrious, laborious. We find three examples
in AV, Ps 7515 ‘When I thought to know this, it
was too painful for me’ (3y2 [Weré sin] sen Soy, 1.6.
as AVmand RVm ‘it was labour in mine eyes’),
2 Es 7, 2 Mac 2, So Elyot, The Governour, ii. 275,
‘Suppose ye that the same Anniball. . . coulde haue
wonne from the Romaenes all Spayne ... if he
had not ben a man paynefull and of labour incom-
parable ?’; Livingstone in Select Biog. i. 316, ‘Mr.
David Dickson—a man singularly gifted with an
edifying way of preaching, and whose painfull
labours were eminently blessed with suecesse.’

‘ Painfulness’ also was used in the sense of care-
fulness, industry, but in its only occurrence in AV
the meaning is ‘ toilsomeness,’ 2 Co 1157, Gr. μόχθος,
which is elsewhere (1 Th 29, 2 Th 3%) rendered
‘travail,’ and that is accordingly the rendering of
RV hére also. -Ct, Hooker, .fcéls Pol. I. vii. “7,
‘The search of knowledge is a thing painful, and
the painfulness of knowledge is that which maketh
the will so hardly inclinable thereto.’

J. HASTINGS.

PAINT.— Mention is made Jer 22" of the paint-
ing (nv mashah) of interiors with vermilion, prob-
ably after the manner of lacquer-work, which in
a somewhat debased form is still practised in
Damascus. The shields of the warriors of Nineveh
were painted red, Nah 2“. The variegation by
colour was, however, chiefly by dyes in cloth, and
by inlaying in wood, stone, and metal.

The application of paint was especially an art

‘practised by the ancient Egyptians, some of whose

pigments were exceedingly beautiful, and have
retained their freshness through the centuries,

The other biblical references are to the painting
of the eyes, 2 Καὶ 9°, Jer 4°, Ezk 23%. The sub-
stance used for this purpose is antimony (72 puch,
Arab. kul), and the act of applying it is 259
(kahal). It is pounded to a powder of extreme
fineness, so that ‘as soft as kuAl’ has passed into
a proverbial expression. ‘The eyelids are held
between two fingers and drawn forward a little,
and then a fine rod covered with the black paste
is drawn along between the edges of the eyelids.
The powder does not irritate the delicate coating
of the eye with which it comes in contact, but
there is a collection of the powder under the eye-
lid so as to produce actual distension. The efiect
is one of apparent enlargement of the eyes, and this
is further enhanced by a line of stain prolonging
the eyelashes. While the result is universally
acknowledged in the East to be ornamental, the
motive is too obviously ostentatious to meet with
approval among the more cultivated classes.
Among the Bedawin of the desert men as well
as women apply ἀπ μι to the eyes. According to

640 PALACE

PALESTINE

popular belief, it strengthens the eyes and protects
against ophthalmia. See EYE-PAINT.
G. M. MACKIE.

PALACE is used to tr. the following words :—
1. pow ‘armén, Am 4° porn [very dub.]; βάρις, Bact-
λειον, θεμέλιον, etc.; palatium, doimus, etc.; properly
‘citadel,’ probably connected with the root on ‘to
be high? ; chiefly used in Pss and Prophets, especi-
ally Amos. 2. Soa hékhal, βασίλειον, οἶκος, ete.,
pulatium, ete., supposed to be derived, through the
Assyr. ekallu, from the Akkadian e-gal, ‘ great
house.’ The same word is used more frequently in
the sense of ‘temple’ as the house of J”. 3. ΠῪΞ
birdh, πόλις, Bapis, otkos, etc., civitas, castrum,
etc., properly ‘castle’; only in late post-exilic
literature, Ch, Ezr, Neh, Est, Dn; in 1 Ch 291-19
of the temple at Jerusalem. 4 γπεν “appedhen, not
tr. in LXX and Vulg.; only in Dn 11%=Old Pers.
apaddna, ‘treasury,’ * ‘armoury.’ 5. m2 Gayith,
ja bithan, ‘house.’ 6. aye tirdh, only in Ezk
254, σκήνωμα, tentorium, RV ‘encampment,’ and
Ca 8° ἔπαλξις, propugnaculin, RV ‘turret,” RVm
‘battlements.’ 17. αὐλή, atriem, ‘court.’ 8. πραι-
τώριον, preetorium, the ‘prietor’s court.’ Of these,
3 and 6 are incorrectly translated ‘palace.’ The
other words used remind us that a ‘palace’ differs
from other buildings only by the size and complexity
necessitated by the private life and public functions
of aruler. Primarily, it is simply a large house
(2, 5); so the Egyptian royal title Pharaoh or
Palace (cf. Sublime Porte) means ‘great house’ ;
and the ordinary OT term for ‘palace,’ in its strict
sense of ‘royal residence,’ is ‘the king’s house,’ or
‘his house,’ 1 Καὶ 7! 9! “Armén indicates that in
troubled times a palace was a fortress ; (appedhen
and) pretorium that, in early times, a palace in-
cluded government offices, law courts, and prisons,
Jer 323, See, further, PRA: TORIUM.

The only royal residence of which we have any
details in the Bible is Solomon’s palace, 1 Ια 111},
which took thirteen years to build. This included
the ‘ House of the Forest of Lebanon,’ a great hall,
100 cubits long, 50 broad, 30 high, with four rows
of pillars; a ‘porch of pillars,’ 50 cubits by 30;
the ‘porch of the throne’ for a court of justice ;
a dwelling-house for himself, and another for
Pharaoh’s daughter. Round about the whole was
a great court of hewn stones and cedar beams.
The description was probably written while the
buildings were still standing; but it is very ob-
secure, and the text has sulfered in transmission.
Moreover, the account is obviously incomplete; the
writer does not profess to mention all the apart-
ments in the palace, and only gives the dimensions
of the ‘House of the Forest of Lebanon’ and the
‘Porch of Pillars.” With these meagre data, the
various reproductions of the ground-plan are little
more than guesses which help us to imagine the
possible arrangement of the rooms and courts of an
Israelite palace. Cf. HOUSE; see for Solomon’s
Palace, the Commentaries on 1 K, the Histories of
Isr. on Solomon, and the Archzeologies on ‘ Palace,’
especially Benzinger, Arch. 233-248.

In Egypt the palace was not only the royal
residence, but also the seat of government. The
royal apartments were in an inner, the halls of
audience in an outer court. If we include all
the buildings required for courtiers and officials,
the ‘palace’ becomes not a house, but a royal city.
A characteristic feature was a balcony on which
the king would show himself to his people. See
Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 69f., 182f. ; Mas-
pero, Dawn, ete. 275 f.

The Assyrian and Babylonian palaces were large

*So Schultze (explaining it as || Gr. ἀπο-θή-χκη), but Dar-
mesteter (Kt. Iran. ii. 33) as ‘batiment élevé sur une
hauteur.’ In Syr. it certainly=‘ palace,’ cf. Sir 507 (Syr.),
where it is used of the Temple.

i}
and magnificent.

In Babylonia the palaces, like
the temples, were built on the top of artificial
mounds of crude bricks ; and were groups of build-
ings forming a great fortress. For account, plans,
etc., of Gudea’s palace at Lagash, see Maspero,
Dawn, etc. 709 f.; Hommel, Gesch. Bab. wu. Assyr.
201. In Assyria a typical palace is that of Sargon
1. at Dursarrakin, a huge walled square, with
numerous buildings and inner courts, including a
ziggurat and other temples. Special features of
the Assyr. palaces were the sculptures on the walls,
and the winged human-headed bulls (specimens in
Brit. Mus.). See Maspero, Hist. Anc. Lgyp.-Assyr.
ch. x1. ; Hommel, op. cit. 682 ff. (both illustrated),
W. H. BENNETT.
PALAL (Sbp ‘judge’), the son of Uzai, took part
in the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem in the
time of Nehemiah (Neh 3%; B Φαλάλ, A Padaé).

PALANQUIN.—Ca 3° RV ‘King Solomon made
himself a palanquin of the wood of Lebanon’ (RVm
‘ear of state,’ AV ‘chariot,’ AVm ‘bed’). The
Heb. word, j75x, occurs only in this place, and is
of unknown origin ; for possible affinity cf. Sanscrit
paryanka and Gr. φορεῖον (the LXX rendering) : if
it is a form of either of those words it becomes an
element in determining the date of Canticles, for
which see Driver, LOT® 449, 450.

PALE.— Besides Is 9055, where the verb 7175 in its
single occurrence is translated ‘wax pale’ * (ef, το
‘white stuff’ ie. cotton or linen, in Est 8%; 5
with the same meaning, Is 19°; and “4 ‘white
bread,’ Gn 40"), the adj. ‘ pale’ is used in AV only
in Rev 6° to describe the horse whose rider was
Death (see REVELATION [Book]). The Gy. is
χλωρύς, Which elsewhere in NT only describes grass,
and is translated ‘ green’ (Mk 6%, Rey 87 9%), but
is common in classical writers for the paleness or
lividness of the countenance. In this sense the
Eng. subst. ‘paleness’ occurs in Jer 30° ‘all faces
are turned into paleness,’ Heb. ppv, which else-
where (Dt 28%, 1 K 851 2 Ch 6%, Am 4°, Hag 2") is
used of ‘mildew,’ and which means, says Driver
(Am 4°), ‘pale and unhealthy greenness.’

The ‘pales’ of Sir 9918 * Pales set on an high
place will never stand against the wind,’ are
stakes, palings, used tor ornament or enclosure, as
in Shaks. Com. of Err. τι. 1. 100---

‘Too unruly deer, he breaks the pale,
And feeds from home.’
The Gr. is χάρακες after B (confirmed, acc. to Eders-
heim, by Syr.), but AC give χάλικες, ‘ pebbles.’
J. HASTINGS.

PALESTINA, PALESTINE.—AV in Ex 15%,
15 142 81 1] 44 (34), where RV has ‘ Philistia.’ See
PHILISTINES, and next article.

1. Geology.

ii. Natural Features.

iii. Climate and Natural Products.
iv. Races.

vy. Geography.

vi. Antiquities.

The word as used in the OT is more correctly
rendered Philistia (so AV of Ps 60° 874 108°, and
RV uniformly), which is mentioned (see COT 1.
86) with Canaan, Edom, and Moab, and as a coast
region attacked by the Assyrians in the 8th cent.
B.C. From an early Christian period it has, how-
ever, been used to mean the Holy Land, from Dan
to Beersheba and beyond Jordan. West of the
river it extends 143 miles north and south, with
an average breadth of 40, and an area of 6000

*RV has ‘wax pale’ also in Jl 26 Nah 210 for AV ‘gather
blackness.’

PALESTINE

PALESTINE 641

square miles. Eastern Palestine runs to the
Syrian desert, and includes 4000. square miles.
Western Palestine is thus about the size of Wales,
and the central mountains are about the same
height above the sea as in Wales. The country
thus possesses a less trying climate than that of
the regions to the south and east (Egypt and Meso-
potamia), and in character and products resembles
the hilly parts of Southern Italy.

i. GEOLOGY.—The underlying formation is the
Nubian sandstone (of the Greensand period), but
this never appears west of Jordan. In the north
it is found on the west slopes of Hermon and
Lebanon, and east of Jordan it appears at a con-
siderable elevation on the slopes of Moab and
Gilead. Above the sandstone are limestones
belonging to the Chalk period, and conformable

with the lower strata. There are two main
formations, the lower being a hard dolomitic

limestone, often metamorphic, the upper a soft
chalky stone with bands of chert, and containing
ammonites, belemnites, and many genera of shells
of the Cretaceous period. Where the hard lime-
stone occurs the country is very rugged, with
precipices, and with springs and streams on the
surface ; but in districts where the softer formation
prevails, the features (like those of the upper
chalk in England) are more rounded, and the
water sinks in, being only attainable in deep wells,
or in places where the lower strata are laid bare.
Highest of all, on the summits of Gerizim and
Carmel, a nummulitic limestone is occasionally
found.

The present formation of the country is due to
convulsions, which took place in the early Tertiary
eriod. An immense fault was formed from

ermon southwards, rending the strata and form-
ing the depression of the Jordan Valley and Dead
Sea. The western strata fall with a steep dip to
the valley, while the eastern are less contorted,
the sandstone cliffs having been sheared in two,
north and south. There are subsidiary parallel
faults west of the valley, where the upper strata
have fallen over into the great chasm. The fault
continues south of the Dead Sea, but is less con-
siderable, and a watershed 600 ft. above the
Mediterranean here dammed up the waters of the
Jordan Valley, forming a lake 1300 ft. deep, the
surface of which is now 1292 ft. below the Medi-
terranean. This convulsion was accompanied by
volcanic outbreaks in the north, covering the
plains of Bashan and of Lower Galilee with
floods of basaltic lava. Minor outbreaks of the
same are traceable also on the west slopes of
Carmel,

West of the main ridge of Western Palestine,
cretaccous sandstones were deposited, forming
foot hills, which, though dipping westwards, are
unconformable with the older strata of the central
ridge. Beyond these an alluvial plain was formed,
and is now banked in by sandy rocks and sand
dunes. In the Jordan Valley a great salt lake at
first occupied the whole leneth of the chasm.
Ancient sea-beaches are visible, especially at the
Meidan el- Abd, north of Jericho. The shells gener-
ally are lacustrine and not marine. The drying
up of these waters has now left only the smaller
sheets of the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea; but.
south of the former the bed of the valley is still
strongly impregnated with salt, and salt springs
occur on the slopes to the west in Samaria. The
volcanic activity of this region is still not quite
exhausted. Earthquakes such as are mentioned
in earlier times (1 Καὶ 1911, Am 11, Mt 27°) still
occur, like that which destroyed the towns of the
north in the twelfth century A.p., and ruined
Safed in Galilee in 1846. Hot springs occur on
hoth sides of the valley, and the temperature of

VOL. III.—41

those at Tiberias rose considerably at the time of
the last-mentioned earthquake. This sketch of
geological structure enables us to understand the
physical features of Palestine ; and it is important
as showing that the destruction of the Cities of the
Plain cannot be explained as by Josephus (MWars,
Iv. vill. 4), who believed them to be buried under
the Dead Sea (see Gn 14°), which was certainly in
existence before the appearance of man.

1. NATURAL FEATURES.—The hills of Western
Palestine are the continuation of the higher
Lebanon ridge to the north, of which Mount Her-
mon (9200 ft.) is an outlier on the east at the
springs of Jordan. In Upper Galilee, where the
hard limestone prevails, the highest elevation is
4000 tt. above the Mediterranean near Meirdn,
and the eastern slopes are very steep. On the
west the foot hills and long spurs from the water-
shed exhibit the softer chalk in parts. Lower
Galilee includes the plateau of Tabor, 600 ft.
above the Mediterranean, and the western plain
of Asochis (Buttauf), separated from the shore of
the large shallow Bay of Acre by the low chalky
hills, which also rise on the south round Nazareth.
Mount Tabor (1800 ft.) is an outlier of these hills
on the south-east, with a rounded summit like an
immense molehill, and south of this again the
volcanic peak of Nebi Dhahy (called Little Hermon
in the twelfth century) rises from the plateau,
divided by the valley of Jezreel from Gilboa farther
south. At this point the Palestine watershed is
only about 200 tt. above the Mediterranean, at
the north-east corner of the large triangular plain
‘alled Esdraelon. This plain has the range of
Gilboa (1600 ft.) on its east, and is bounded on
the west by the long spur which divides it from
the shore plain of Sharon, and which rises into the
ridge of Carmel, which, projecting north - west,
attains 1700 ft. above the sea, and, continuing 15
miles, falls to 500 ft. at the promontory which forms
the natural harbour of Haifa on the south side of
the Bay of Acre. A smaller plain lies west of
the main shed, and south of Esdraelon near Dothan,
separated by lower hills from Sharon. Entering
the Samaritan region the watershed gradually
rises. Gilboa, which is capped with chalk, spreads
north, from the rounded watershed hills to the
south near Jenin; but round Shechem, and as
far south as Bethel, the dolomitic limestone
mountains form one of the highest and most
rugged districts in Palestine. The principal
features on this watershed are the summits of
Ebal (3077 ft.) and of Gerizim (2850 ft.) divided
by the deep pass of Shechem ; and, south of Shiloh,
Baal-hazor (3300 ft.). Long ridges run out west-
wards from this chain, sinking to the chalky foot
hills east of Sharon, and on the opposite side of
the watershed are rugged slopes and small plateaus
bounding the Jordan Valley. Approaching Jeru-
salem the watershed sinks to about 2500 ft., and
the chalk appears. to the east on Olivet (2600 ft.) ;
but after passing Bethlehem the flatter plateau
rises again to the Hebron hills, which are in parts
as rugged as those of Samaria, risine to 3000 ft.
at Rameh, north of Hebron. On the west the
spurs are here longer than in Samaria, with deep
ravines; and the chalky foot hills form a yet
more distinct district, called Shephélah in the
Bible (‘lowlands’), while the Plain of Sharon
widens into that of Philistia. On the east a
desert plateau extends below the Hebron moun-
tains, about 1000 ft. above the Mediterranean,
and is terminated in magnificent precipices of hard
limestone above the Dead Sea. The surface of
this plateau is cut up with ravines and sharp
chalky ridges, and this ‘desert of Judah’ is the
wildest and most desolate region in Western
Palestine. South of Hebron the mountains are

642 PALESTINE

PALESTINE

divided by a long open valley, which runs south to
Beersheba. The plateaus gradually sink towards
the southern plain, 800 ft. above the Mediter-
ranean, which reaches round the hills towards
that of Philistia, and sinks in steps and rounded
ridges towards the Sinaitic desert, and on the
east to the Arabah or broad valley south of the
Dead Sea.

The extremes of elevation between the summit
of Hermon (9200 ft.) and the bottom of the
Dead Sea (2600 ft. below the Mediterranean) mark
the depth of the great fault of the Jordan Valley,
which is at first wide and marshy, at about sea-
level near the Waters of Merom, flanked by the
Galilean mountains to the west, and by the
voleanic ridges and craters of the Jaulfin to the
east. A steep spur from the SAfed mountains
forms a narrower gorge north of the Sea of
Galilee, which is a natural basin, deepest on the
south and east, pear-shaped, and 12 miles north
and south by 8 at the widest, with precipices
2000 ft. high on the east, and others of less ele-
vation on the south-west. On the west and north
steep slopes strewn with basalt sink into the
lake. The surface is 680 ft. below the Mediter-
ranean, and the Jordan falls thence to the Dead
Sea, 1292 ft. below the same level. The Jordan
plain is about 10 miles wide, with high mountains
on either side. The Dead Sea is flanked by
mighty precipices on either side throughout its
stretch of 40 miles, and is 10 miles broad ; but
immediately to its north the foot hills recede,
forming the wider plains of Jericho and Shittim,
west and east of the river, about 1000 ft. below
the Mediterranean. Eastern Palestine includes
the plateau of Bashan, the hills of Gilead, and the
barren plains of Moab. ‘The first of these regions
is a broad plain about 2000 ft. above the Mediter-
ranean, broken by the ridge otf the Jaulfn craters
east of the Upper Jordan, and seamed by precipi-
tous ravines with dolomitic clitls, east of the Sea
of Galilee. The plateau is divided from the
Syrian desert by the isolated ridge of the Hill of
Bashan (Ps 68 only), rising to 5700 ft. The
Gilead hills rise to about 3000 ft., and are only
some 500 above the eastern desert. Their western
slopes, of hard limestone and sandstone, are very
steep, and the plateau is from 3000 to 4000 ft.
above the Jordan Valley. Rugged ravines score
these slopes, and the region is divided by the
valley of the Jabbok into two districts, now
called ‘Ajlum and belka—north and south re-
spectively of the stream. The mountains sink
on the south to the general level of the plateau
east of the Dead Sea, and alower terrace of barren
desert here answers to the desert of Judah west
of the sea. Amone the ridges which run out west
from the plateau, Mount Nebo is one of the most
conspicuous (2643 ft.), but it is not as high as
Jebel Osh'a in Gilead (3597 ft.), and does not
command as extensive a view. It is, however, the
nearest high point to tne plains of Shittim, and
projects farther west than the others. The tre-
mendous gorges which divide the precipices west
of the Moab hee present some of the grandest
scenery in Palestine ; and among these the torrent
of Arnon is the most famous. The’ black basalt,
white chalk, pink and yellow sandstones of the
Zerka Ma‘in rise sheer above a narrow brook ;
and into this flow the sulphur streams, bordered
with orange deposits, from the hot springs of
Callirrhée, passing by a palm grove, and flowing in
a cataract to the Dead Sea. This wild gorge
may be the Nahaliel or ‘ravine of God’ (Nu
2149) mentioned in the Pentateuch. The Moab
plateau continues in the ridge of Edom, east of
the Arabah, rising to 4580 ft. at Mount Hor.
Its western ridges are called the ‘Abarim, or

mountains ‘beyond’ the Dead Sea, in the Bible
ΟΝ Dt32" B42),

These various natural features are distinguished
in the OT by special terms: Har, ‘mountain
country’; Sddeh, ‘plain’ (in Philistia); and
Sharon, ‘plain’ farther north, and, according to
Jerome, near Tabor; Shephéelah, ‘lowland,’ for
the foot hills on the south-west ; Mishdér for the
plateaus of Bashan and Moab; Midbar for the
desert of Judea ; and Neged, or ‘dry land,’ for the
plains of Beersheba and the lower plateau south
of Hebron, where no surface water is found as a
rule. The various kinds of valleys include: Nahal
for a torrent-valley (the modern wady),‘Emek for a
broad flat valley flanked by mountains ; ‘Arabah
for ‘desert’ valleys like that of Jordan and south
of the Dead Sea; Shaveh for a smaller vale ; and
Gat for a waterless ravine. ‘The term Bik'ah
appears to signify a plain between mountains, and
is still so applied (Arab. Bus‘ah and diminutive
Bukevah) in many places, both to the plain of the
Orontes in Syria, and to the remarkable cup-
shaped depression on the Gilead plateau, south of
the Jabbok, which seems to be the ‘circle of
Mahanaim’ (Ca 6). The terms Bithron (28 2”)
and Migron (18 145) apply to rugged gorges ; and
Debir, or ‘the back’ (Jos 157-4, cf. 13°), in three
cases to ridges. None of these terms are now in
use except the one mentioned ; and the old names
of natural features in Palestine have, as a rule,
been lost.

The water supply of Palestine is fairly abund-
ant, except in the deserts and in the Negeb, and it
includes lakes, rivers, brooks, and springs. The
waters of the Dead Sea are intensely bitter, con-
taining 25 per cent. of chlorides washed down
from the valley ; but those of the Sea of Galilee
and of Merom are sweet. The most important
river is the Jordan, the geographical source of
which is on the west side of Hermon near Hasbeya,
1700 ft. above sea-level; but its most important
supply issues as a foaming stream, 1000 ft. above
sea-level, from under the cave of Banidis at the
foot of Hermon, by the snows of which it is fed.
Rushing down through a thick copse, by rows
of poplars, it joins several other streams, which
flow over the basalt slopes into the plain of Tell
el-Kadi (the site of Dan) from the north-west ;
and the river is then lost in the papyrus marshes
of Merom, but gathers as the valley narrows, and
descends rapidly to the Sea of Galilee, where a
delta about a mile long has been formed, during
the last nineteen centuries, at its junction with
the lake. On issuing into the southern valley
the course becomes narrow and tortuous, a deep
channel about half a mile to a mile wide having
been worn in the valley bed. The stream is here
shallow, and crossed by about twenty fords, of
which the most important on the main road is
called ‘Abarah, and may be the Bethabara (?)
of the NT (Jn 1%): there is a cataract in the
stream farther south, but the slope of the river-
bed gradually becomes flatter after passing the
Damieh ferry (Adam, Jos 316), the river having,
however, acquired a rapid flow, which continues to
its mouth. Opposite Jericho it is fordable for
horses in the dry season, and is here about thirty
yards wide. In early spring, however (see Jos
3b), when the Hermon snows begin to melt, and
after the winter rains, the Jordan will sometimes
overflow its banks, and fill the whole channel,
nearly a mile wide. The banks are formed by
hillocks of white soft marl, which are at times
undermined, and fall into the river. An Arab
writer asserts that the river was known to have
been thus blocked for a time (cf. Jos 31°) in A.D.
1267. Sultan Beybars was then building a bridge
at the Damieh ford, and the western bank of the

aes

PALESTINE

PALESTINE 643

river fell inon 8th December, damming the stream
for four hours (Nowairi, see Pal. Eupl. Fund
Quarterly Statement, July 1895, p. 257). The
river is often quite hidden by groves of tamarisk
and cane brakes. The plains on either side are
much cut up by tributary channels, but are covered
in spring with rich grass ; towards the south, how-
ever, the bushes and acacia trees (shitfim) cease,
and a muddy saline flat grows only the alkali
plant. The shores of the Dead Sea are strewn
with gravel and salt-covered tree trunks brought
down by the river in flood, and a swampy delta is
also formed where the Jordan enters this lake.
The name of the river Jordan (‘the descender ’) is
thought to be due to its rapid fall of 2000 ft. in
a course of 100 miles. ‘There are several important
perennial affluents on both sides of the river. On
the west the streams of Wddy el-Hamiam flow by
the small plain of Gennesaret into the Sea of
Galilee. Farther south the perennial stream from
Jezreel, and the waters of many springs under the
Tabor plateau and Mount Gilboa, join the river.
In Samaria the brook of Wddy Farah (probably
the waters of Anon, Jn 3”) is an important
aftluent north-east of Shechem, and near Jericho
the ravine of the Ac/é is a winter torrent of great
velocity, identified without reason with the Brook
Cherith (1 K 17 * 5), which was ‘east’ of Jordan,
probably in Gilead. East of the river several
perennial brooks flow in, and the most important
of these are the Yarmisk, south of the Sea of
Galilee, and the Jablok, which is fed by springs
at and north-east of Rabbath-ammon. It flows
north at first, and south of Gerasa turns to the west.
Its bed is fringed with canes in the lower part of its
course, and it is easily passable in summer. The
springs of Nimrah (Nu 929) also flow with other
perennial brooks through the Shittim plains, and
others which rise high up on the Moab plateau
flow direct into the Dead Sea,

In Western Palestine there are other perennial
streams flowing into the Mediterranean. The
Leontes (or Kasimiyeh), which rises in the southern
Lebanon, reaches the sea north of Tyre. The
Belus, whieh gathers the waters of the low hills to
the east, is a swampy stream south of Acre, and
seems to be the Shihor-libnath, Jos 1956 (but see
Dillm. ad loc.). It is fordable at its mouth. The
KNishon, which debouches on the south side of the
Bay of Acre, is more important, and is perennial,
though in a very dry summer its bed shows only a
chain of pools, and its mouth is choked by sand
dunes. It flows north-west under Carmel from a
narrow pass leading out of the Esdraelon plain,
where it is formed by two branches, of which the
eastern is the true Kishon of the OT (see Jg
4°-7), springing from swampy pools west of Tabor.
The western stream is formed by springs from
the downs south of Carmel, and its chief source
is at Lejjfin (the Legio of Roman times) near
Taanach, west of the plain of Esdraelon. The
waters of the south slopes of Carmel drain into
the marshy Zerka or Crocodile River, remarkable
from the 2nd cent. downwards as the only place
where crocodiles were found in Palestine. They
still inhabit its swamps. Sharon, farther south,
is drained by several streams, unnoticed except
in the 12th century; and north of Jaffa is one
more important (the ‘Aujeh), which carries a
turbid sandy flood from the springs of Rds el“ Ain
(Antipatris) to the sea. It appears to be the
Me-jarkon, or ‘yellow water,’ of Jos 19% (but see
Dilim. ad loc.). The only perennial stream in
Philistia is the Nahr Rubin, or ‘river of Reuben,’
named from a Moslem shrine, and flowing under
the cliff of e/-Mughdr (probably Makkedah) to
the shore near Jamnia, A great valley, south of
Gaza, collects the waters of the Negeb hills, and

supplies the deep wells of Beersheba and the
shallow pits at Gerar (Gn 26%); but the water
is only inte by digging in its pebbly bed. Its
modern name is the Wddy Ghiizzh.

Many of the other great ravines, such as the
Brook Kanah (Jos 16°) in Samaria, flow with
water in winter; and the most remarkable of these
is the stream which bursts out of the Dir γα at
Jerusalem in winter, flowing down the Jidron
gorge towards the Dead Sea.

Palestine is also well supplied with springs in
all parts where the hard limestone is near the sur-
face. The hills of Gilead run with small brooks.
There are minor streams in Galilee, and good
springs in the central region and on the western
slopes of the Hebron mountains. Near Jerusalem
there is less water, and the dry regions of the
Negeb and the deserts have been already noticed.
The springs mentioned in the Bible include the
fountain of Jezreel (1S 9901), one of several near
the city, two of which (Ain Jalid and ‘Ain
Tubiain) form large pools; the pool of Samaria
(1 Kk 2285), which has a fine natural spring; the
pool of Gibeon (2 8 2"), which rises in a cavern
under the ancient site of the town; the fountain
of Gihon (1 K BS, 2 Ch 32%) east of Jeru-
salem, also now rising in a cavern—the probable
site of Bethesda (Jn 5%); and the well of Sirah
(2.8 3°), a spring well near Hebron, which retains
its ancient name. To these we must add the well
of Jacob at Shechem, and the Beersheba wells,
which still contain natural waters. The towns
called ‘En (with an attixed name) in the Bible still
present springs, as a rule, when the site is known.
The hot springs most famous in Palestine are those
near Tiberias, near Hammath (east of Jordan), and
at Callirrhée (Ant. XVI. vi. 5) as already men-
tioned ; others occur at Gadara and in the valley
south-west of Beisan.

The Palestine coast is very deficient in harbours.
The ports of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Jamnia,
Joppa, Caesarea, Accho, Tyre, and Sidon, are all
formed only by reefs. The Haifa oper roadstead
is protected by the bluff of Carmel, and 15 the only
one now visited in winter storms. Fleets, however,
found refuge at Tyre and Joppa as early as B.C.
1500, and the latter port was used by Solomon
(2.Ch-2"°).

The natural highways of the country are equally
indicated by its formation and by history. The
great shore road has always been the main route
of armies, and an important cross road led from
Sharon across the downs south of Carmel, and
from the Bay of Acre, to the Valley of Jezreel,
crossing the Jordan at Bethabara (5), and gaining
the Bashan plateau on the way to Damascus. The
mountain roads are difficult paths; and until the
2omans in the 2nd cent. laid ont roads, marked
with milestones, all over both Eastern and Western
Palestine, commerce appears to have been main]
confined to the natural routes above i enild
The pilgrim road from Damascus to ‘Akabah on
the Red Sea leads over the eastern plateau, and
formed the route by which Israel appears to have
entered Moab and marched to Bashan.

iii. CLIMATE AND NATURAL Propucts.—In the
short distance of a hundred miles the traveller
passes from an Alpine region on Hermon to the
tropical plains of the Dead Sea, and finds in Pales-
tine a fauna and flora ranging from that of
Northern Europe to that of Africa. In the Bible
we read of snow, hail, and ice, as well as of the
desert whirlwinds and the sunstroke. There is no
reason to suppose that the climate and productions
of the country now differ much from those of the
earliest times. Forests have, no doubt, been de-
stroyed in Sharon and in the Hebron mountains ;
but, on the other hand, copses now cover the sites of

644 PALESTINE

PALESTINE

former vineyards, marked by towers, terraces, and
rock-eut winepresses, on Carmel and elsewhere.
With decrease of population the great tanks and
cisterns have fallen into ruins, with the aqueducts
and rock-cut canals of Roman times. But in the
Gospels we read of the fevers of Gennesaret ; and
the swampy plains must always have been malari-
ous. The regions now desert or waterless are the
same so described in the OT. The palm culture
of the Jordan Valley has ceased, but it was mainly
an artificial product of Herodian times. The
plains are still as thickly covered with grass and
tlowers in spring as they ever were, and woods and
pastures by the waters still exist.

The climate of Palestine resembles that of Sicily,
and the seasons are the same as in other Mediter-
ranean lands. The average temperature in summer
rises to nearly 90° I. by day, the nights being
cool, with heavy dews. When the east wind blows
from the desert, and ozone is absent from the air,
the heat increases sometimes to 105° F., and the
nights are also very hot; but this usually only
lasts for three or four days at a time. In the
Jordan Valley in summer 118° F. in the shade may
be experienced. The extremes from 90° I. by day
to 40° F. by night in the bare deserts of Moab are
severely felt in autumn, but the prevalence of a
fresh breeze from the sea makes the summer heat
in the hills very moderate. In winter the hills of
Judea, Samaria, and Galilee are often white with
snow for several days, and the Edomite chain may
be seen snow-covered from Jerusalem. The palm
will consequently not grow in the hills, and there
are but few groves even in the plains, where frost
is rarely felt. Lebanon and Hermon retain snow
patches till autumn every year. The winter begins
usually in December or earlier, and in January
there are heavy gales and much rain. The ‘former
rains’ (Dt 11) fall at the time of the autumn
equinoctial gales, and the ‘latter rains’ about the
spring equinox ; but in March the spring begins,
and April is the month of grass and flowers. In
May the east wind prevails, and dries up the herb-
age, but in June and July the west wind rises
about 10 a.m. daily. The heat increases in August
and September, and the country is entirely dried

. - Σ:

up in October. The most unhealthy time is when
the autumn ploughing begins, after the first
thundershowers in November. Thunderstorms in
June during the harvest (18 1217) occasionally occur
suddenly. The dust whirlwinds (Job 37°), which
switl along the plains in later summer—esp. in
Bashan—are a peculiar feature of the hot season.
The rainfall averages 25 to 30 in. in ordinary
years, and is quite suflicient ; but the storage of
water in dry districts 1s very imperfect. Years of
drought occur from time to time, as do earthquakes
and visitations of locusts ; and these are noticed in
every age from the earliest times. But in spite of
the deserts, and of the barrenness of the mountains,
Palestine has a good soil, esp. in Bashan and
Sharon, and is a land of ‘corn, must, and oil,’
answering to the descriptions of Deuteronomy
(81:9 11°!) and capable of supporting a large
population if fully cultivated.

The natural growth is dependent on the moisture
brought by the sea-breeze, and thus in Lebanon and
in Palestine alike the slopes west of the watershed
are covered with copse, while those to the east—shut
out from the moisture—are bare. In Eastern Pales-
tine the woods of oak and pine covering Gilead are
more extensive than in any otherdistrict. Theslopes
here face the west, and springs issue from the
surface of the dolomitic rocks, the water having
sunk through the chalky surface of the desert
plateaus farther east. The oak woods west of
Nazareth, and in Sharon, have been sadly thinned,
and a pine wood south of Bethlehem—noticed by

Areulphus about A.D. 670—is now represented
only by a few stunted trees. The words used for
forest in the OT (yaar and horesh) refer, how.
ever, to copse rather than to woous; and the
occurrence of single trees (oak and terebinth),
often noticed in the OT, is still a feature of
the scenery. The Aleppo pine (6. Haleppensis),
which appears on Lebanon and Carmel, is probably
not native. It bears a name (sinobar) which ap-
pears to be Greek, and under this term is noticed
in the Mishna in the 2nd century A.p. The
native pine (2. Carica) found in Gilead is more
probably, the ‘fix,’ (1 K 6: *, Ezk 27°) of the
OT. The copse, consisting of dwarf oak, mastic,
styrax (stacte, Ex 30% nataph), hawthorn, and
other shrubs, is found chiefly on the harder lime-
stone, especially in Upper Galilee, on Carmel, in
Samaria, and on the Hebron mountains and the
spurs west of Jerusalem. Near the watershed the
hills are mostly bare, but covered with thyme,
mint, and the bellan (or Poteriwm Spinoswm), a
brown prickly rosaceous plant. The hyssop, and
other kinds of marjoram, are commonly found
growing on ruins. The carob occurs as a single
tree, like the sycomore fig, and the d/b or plane
(Gn 305). The poplar is found in various localities
in Palestine (see Tristram, Nat. /ist. of Bible,
290, and cf. Hos 4°, where, however, the rendering
should perhaps be ‘styrax,’ see art. POPLAR); but
the beech does not occur south of the Northern
Lebanon, though growing on chalky soils in Asia
Minor. The acacia and the tamarisk (Gn 21°,
1S 22° 3133) are mainly found in the Jordan
Valley, and the white broom (1 Καὶ 19, Ps 120%,
Job 30+) is common in the deserts of Moab and
Judah and in the Negeb. Among smaller plants
the ecistus (Zot, AV and RV ‘myrrh’ [whch 566],
RVm ‘ladanum,’ Gn 37:5 43") is very common on
the chalk; and the plains of Sharon and Jordan
are covered with many wild flowers, esp. the pink
phlox, the pheasant’s eye, and the narcissus (prob-
ably the Rose of Sharon); while the common lily
of the country, planted by Moslems in graveyards,
is the purple iris. A complete account of the fauna
and flora of Palestine occupies two volumes of the
Memoirs of the Survey, and only the more conspicu-
ous features noticed in the Bible are here mentioned,
Cultivated plants in Palestine, as corn (wheat and
barley), balm, and fruits, together with wine, oil, and
honey, are noticed in Egyptian records (/eecords of
Pust, ist series, ii. 17f.) as early as B.c. 1600. The
almond (uz, Gn 4311) grows wild in Lebanon and
Moab, and the oil tree (1 Καὶ 05) or oleaster is also
not uncommon on the hills. The apple (tappuch)
is not common, but the Heb. word survives in the
Arabic tiffah; the ash (Is 444) is the Fraxinus
Ornus, the common ash being unknown. The box
(Is 41! 60") grows in Lebanon; the Syrian papyrus
differs from that of Egypt, and is found in Merom,
in the Sharon rivers, and at Gebal, as well as the
Egyp. species. The chief fruit trees are the olive,
fig, pomegranate, and apricot, which last, however,
with the citron, prickly pear, walnut, and other
fruits, seems to have been introduced at a late
eriod. The vegetable products noticed in the
-entateuch appear to be all of great antiquity. The
citron (introduced from Media by the Persians)
and the walnut (’égoz, Arab 702), said to bear a Per-
sian name, are unmentioned, as are cotton and silk,
though both are now known in the country. Flax
(Hos 2°, see Jos 26), which was grown at Nazareth
in the 12th cent. A.D., and which is noticed in the
Mishna, is one of the oldest materials used by
man. It may be here noted that the only foreign
plants in the Pentateuch are calamus and cassia
from Tonia (Ezk 27! [?; text dub.]), or from Uzal
in Arabia according to the LXX, with myrrh from
Arabia, and probably frankincense and cinnamon.

Se

PALESTINE

PALESTINE 645

The sea trade with Asia Minor is, however, men- |

tioned on monuments of the 15th cent. B.c.,
and that with Arabia goes back ten centuries
earlier. Gum tragacanth and balm (Gn 3755),
pistachio nuts (Gn 43!!), honey, and almonds, were
natural products of Palestine, as were stacte
(or styrax) and Jadanum (Gn 37” 434) or cistus.
Palestine has also always been very productive
of gourds, cucumbers, vetches, melons, pulse, and
other vegetables. The henna used as a dye (Ca
415) is native, as is saffron or crocus (Ca 41). The
kirsenneh, which is a common crop, probably re-
presents the Heb. Aussemeth (Ezk 45). The alkali
plant (Jer 2%, Mal 3*) grows esp. near the Dead
Sea. Millet (Ezk 4%) is also known by its Heb.
name ; anil the coriander (Ex 1051, Nu 117) is eulti-
vated, with cummin (Is 9857) and anise (Mt 23°) ;
the mustard (Mt 13%!) grows to a tree in the
Jordan Valley, where the ‘Vine of Sodom’ (Dt
32°") is found in the ‘oshir tree (Calotropis Procera);
the mulberry, now grown extensively for silk-
worms, is noticed in the NT (Lk 178) but not
in the OT ; willows (Ezk 17°) occur along the
Jordan; and the ‘heath’ of the OT (Jer 17° 48°)
is the ‘arar or stunted juniper of the Judean
desert, from which more than one desert town
was named.

Palestine has never been remarkable for its
mineral products. Mines of copper and lead (Dt
89) occurred only in Lebanon. Flint (of which
knives were made, according to Jos 5? and the
LXX of 24") is abundant, and is not only
noticed in the 16th cent. B.c. on
but is found worked into weapons in the city
mounds at a great depth (as, for instance, at
Lachish). The pitch of the Dead Sea is noticed
(Gn 1410, and perhaps Is 34%), and was collected in
the time of Josephus. Precious metals were in
use, however, in the country long before the
Exodus.

The fauna of the country is almost unchanged
from the earliest historic times. The lion and the
wild ox have become extinct ; the former is noticed
by an Egyptian traveller in Lebanon in the 14th
cent. B.C., and is even said to have survived to
the 12th cent. A.D. ; its bones are found in caves
and in the Jordan gravels. The wild ox (ré’ém or
Los Primigenius, the ‘unicorn’ [μονόκερως] of the
LXX) was hunted in Lebanon by Tiglath-pileser
in B.C. 1120, and its bones have also been found.
Both these animals were still hunted in Assyria
in the 7th cent. B.c. On the other hand, ‘the
buffalo, now found in the marshes, is said to have
been introduced by Mohammedan rulers in the
post-biblical times. With these exceptions, the
Palestinian animals are those of the OT. The
bear, which according to the OT (1S 17%, 2k
24) was found on the Palestine mountains, is now
known only on Hermon and Lebanon. ‘The leopard
(in the Jordan Valley), the wolf, the hyena, the
jackal, and the fox are all found in the wilder
districts ; the boar is common in the mountains as
well as in swamps. The wild ass is still to be
found in the Eastern desert. The cat and domestic
fowls, which were brought from Persia before the
Christian era, are not noticed in the OT ; nor are
mules (1 K 18°) noticed in the Pentateuch, though
known by the Assyrians in the 8th cent. B.c. in
Palestine, and now common. The fishes of the
Jordan and Sea of Galilee are numerous, but as a
rule coarse. The wild bee, Apis fusciata, the
cochineal insect (Is 715), which feeds on the Syrian
oak, and various species of locust (Ly 112) and
of ant, are native. Scorpions are common in the
plains and deserts, where swarms of flies are also
very troublesome in summer. Snakes are less
numerous than in Africa, but many species are
found. The camel is monumentally noticed in

monuments, |

|

Palestine in the 4th century B.c.; the coney
(Hyrax) is common near Sinat; the hare is also
found in the desert as well as in Palestine ; the
fallow deer (AV hart) and roebuck (yeh) are
found in the woods of Tabor and Gilead respec-
tively, and the latter also in Lebanon and on
Carmel ; the gazelle (AV roe) and the wild goat
(éex) belong to the plains and southern desert ;
the wild ox (Buhwlz) is known only in the
desert ; the wild sheep (AV chamois) is found in
the Sinaitic desert—it is the koi of the Mishna
(Turk. δοὶ, ‘sheep’).*—Amone birds the ostrich(AV
owl) is distinctive of the desert, and the ‘cuckoo ’
is believed to be a gull; the pelican is found in the
Mediterranean and in the Waters of Merom, and
the cormorant (shdlak or ‘diver’) is a sea bird; the
stork is found in the Jordan Valley in spring, and
both it and the heron (Assyr. ampofi) are Common
in other parts of Palestine. ‘The hoopoe (AV lap-
wing) also occurs in the Gilead woods, as well as in
Western Palestine. Among other animals noticed .n
the Bible the mole rat (Spalax Typhlus) is commen
(Is 2:9); the weasel is also found (Ly 1139). All kiras
of birds of prey, vultures, eagles, falcons, kives,
hawks, and ravens, are common, with small and
great owls, partridges and pintails, quails, pigeons,
doves, sparrows, swallows, and cranes, even in the
Beersheba desert. With regard to two animals
described by Job (40. 41), deviuthan is usually
supposed to be the erocodile, which, as above
noticed, is found in Palestine; behemoth answers
best to the elephant [although taken by most
modern commentators to be the hippopotamus],
and the Asiatic elephant seems to have been known
as late as B.c. 1600 on the Euphrates near Nii
(LP, 1st series, iv. 6). Ivory was commonly used
in Palestine in the 15th and 14th cent. B.C., and
even apes were then sent from Syria to Egypt,
according to the records of Thothmes 1r., in which
also we find notice of asses, flocks and herds, goats
and horses, taken from the Canaanites (ib. 17 f.).
The Hebrews did not use horses to any large extent
till Solomon’s time, but the Canaanites (ef. Jos 115)
had horses and chariots long before the Exodus,
and in the 15th cent. B.c. they held the dog in as
little estimation as did the Hebrews. It is remark-
able that seals have been captured off the Palestine
coast, though rare in the Mediterranean. Some
writers think that the ‘badger’ (tahash, Ex 26%)
should be rendered ‘seal’; but others prefer ‘ por-
poise,’ which is found all round the coast, and
was hunted by Tiglath-pileser I. in the Mediter-
ranean. The natural history of the Song of
Songs embraces that of all Palestine ; that of the
Book of Job is confined to the deserts round
Petra; that of the Pentateuch may be said to
belong to the desert, the hills of Gilead, and the
Jordan Valley.

iv. THE ΛΟῈΒ OF PALESTINE.—Among the
earliest inhabitants are noticed the Zuzim or Zam-
zummim, the Emim, andthe Anakim. ‘These words
seem to be non-Semitic, and the latter may mean
‘tall,’ as a Mongol word. The Canaanites are re-
garded by the author of Gn 106} as not Semitie,
and there is monumental evidence (Tel el-Amarna
Letters, No. 10 Berlin Collection) that the Syrian
Hittites spoke a non-Semitic language (perhaps
Mongolic) in the 15th cent. B.c. Τὰ this enumera-
tion, however, the Amorites (? ‘highlanders’) are
included; and from the same monumental source
it seems clear that they spoke an East Aramaic
language like Assyrian. They had driven out the
Moabites at the time of the Exodus, and covered
Eastern Palestine, as well as the Western moun-

* The fallow deer, roebuek, gazelle, wild goat, wild ox, wild
sheep are mentioned only in Dt 145 (see Driver's note), and not
in the parallel passage, Lv 11.

+ Gn 10 is treated in this art. as an ‘ethnological table’ (but
see Dillin. ad loc., and Sayce, HCM 119 ff.).

646 PALESTINE

=

PALESTINE

tains and the Lebanon.* The Hittites, according
to Gn 23, extended to Hebron in an early age, but
they were driven out of Central Palestine before the
Exodus by Thothmes Π|. (Brugseh, Hist. Hyyp. i.
325). The Philistines, said to appear on monuments
B.C. 1200, and whose god Dagon was worshipped
at Ashkelon in the 15th cent. B.c., are thought to
have been of Cretan origin (Gn 104+), but the
remaining tribes bear Semitic names, such as
Canaanites (7 lowlanders’ of Sharon and the Jordan
Valley), Perizzites or ‘villagers’ (ἢ), Kenites or ‘spear-
men’ (%), KKenizzites or ‘hunters’ (ἢ), Kadmonites or
“easterns.’ The same cannot be said, however, of
the Amalekites, who seem to have lived even in
Central Palestine (Jg 12”, though they are usually
spoken of as a tribe in the desert S. of Pales-
tine), or of the Girgashites—perhaps near Gergesa.
The Hivites in Shechem and near Hermon (but see
art. HIVITES) may be ‘villagers,’ and the Rephaim
‘giants’ little distinguished from the Anakin,
whose last survivors were found near Gath (25
9135) in Philistia, whence the original Avvim, living
in enclosures, were expelled by the Philistines
(Dt 2"). The population thus seems originally
to have included three distinct stocks, though
many of the above names may be descriptive. The
Hittites and Amorites alone are monumentally
known—the first a hairless race with slanting eyes
and pigtails, apparently Mongols ;} and the latter
a darker people, bearded and black-haired, with
aquiline Sem. features. The Heb. groups, including
Ammonites, Moabites, and the half-breed Ishmael-
ites and Edomites, were distinguished by language
from the aborigines. Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician,
and the Aram. of Syria (as known from B.C, 900 to
200) are kindred dialects, widely differing from the
Eastern Aram. of Assyria and the Babylonian of the
Telel-Amarna letters. The Can. glosses in the latter
show, however, that the then (c. 1450 B.¢. )inhabitants
of Pal. spoke a language akin to Hebrew. See also
the many Sem. names quoted below (p. 0475). In the
3rd cent. B.C. the Phoenician power and language ex-
tended over Sharon as far as Joppa, and about the
same time the Greeks began to form anew element of
population. The Romans were never numerous in
Palestine, but during their rule a new Arab element
from Yemen entered Bashan, and after Omar’s con-
quest the old Aram. tribes (including Nabatwans
and Palmyrenes) became mingled with Arab tribes
from the Hejaz, whose names still denote districts
in the mountains of Western Palestine, while the
Bedawin nomads trace their descent also to Arabia
in the present day. European elements were
added before the crusades, and in the 12th cent.
colonists from all parts of Europe were numerous,
especially Italians and Franks.

eu European and Jewish colonies are now still
arising ; and further elements of population have
been due to the transplanting of Aramzean tribes
into Palestine by the Assyrians ; to the inroads of
the Turks, Monvols, and Turcomans, who have left
small tribes behind them in Sharon and Esdraelon ;
and to the recent importation of Circassians into

3ashan, and Bosnians into Sharon. The evidence
of language shows that the present peasantry are

* On the ‘Amorites’ see also Driver in Hogarth’s Authority
and Archeology (Index s. ‘Amorites’), and in Comm. on Deut.
é f The order of words in this verse is thought to have suffered
dislocation (see Dillm. ad loc., or Sayce, HCM 136; and cf. for the
sapposed Cretan origin of the Philistines, Am 97 and Dt 28).

t Jensen supposes that the Hittites were the ancestors of
the modern (Aryan) Armenians [ef. his Hittiter u. Armenier,
and a series of papers on ‘The Hittite Inscriptions’ by him and
Hommel (who opposes Jensen) in the Expos. Times, 1898-99].
The recently discovered texts found by Chantre in Cappa-
docia (see translations in The Times of 10th and 24th October
1899) appear to the present writer to show that the Hittite
language was Mongolian. The whole subject is considered

in detail in Conder’s The Hittites and their Language,
1898.

mainly of Aramaic extraction; they have bees
hardly touched by the European element except
at Nazareth and Bethlehem: there has, however,
been some Greek influence from an early period ;
and they use a few Persian and Turkish words ;
but their language is an Arabic dialect, though
differing considerably from that of the pure Arabs
or Bedawin nomads, found in the Jordan Valley,
the southern deserts, and the eastern plateau, and
preserving, in vocabulary, in pronunciation, and
mm grammar, many archaic features of the older
Syriac and Aramaic. In the Philistine plain the
peasants approach the Egyptians in dress and in
appearance, but the general type is very different
from that of the Arabs, and is similar to that of
the Assyrians on the monuments. <A very ancient
Can. element may be suspected to have survived,
modified by a strong infusion of true Arab blood,
in the 7th and even as early as the 2nd cent.
A.D. The modern Jewish element, which is con-
stantly increasing, is entirely foreign, recruited
earliest from Spain and Africa, and recently from
Russia, Poland, and other European countries.
The Turks and Kurds are present only as a ruling
class, but Greek blood is no doubt found among the
native Christians of the Greek sects, and Italian
among Latin Christians. The tall, handsome
Druzes of Hermon and Bashan seem, by language,
to be partly of Persian origin ; and the Metawileh
of Upper Galilee (among whom blue eyes are not
uncommon) are also Persian immigrants of the
Shiah or Persian Moslem creed. Some of the oldest
Jerusalem families, however, trace their descent to
the pure Arabs who came with Omar. There is
no known evidence of the survival of Norman blood
derived from crusaders ; and the language which
they used has not affected the speech of Syrians.
In the OT we have early reference to Aram.
speech (Gn 31, Is 36") as distinct from Heb.,
and to the later mixed language of the Jews in
Ashdod (Neh 13:ὴ. The evidence of inscriptions
seems to show that, about the Christian era, a very
strong Greek element existed in Bashan, where in
one case we have an Aram.-Gr. bilingual of the time
of Herod the Great. The dialects spoken between
B.C. 900 and 200 are moreover attested, by texts
and coins, to have been cognate to ancient Heb. ;
and the Greek boundary-stone of Herod’s temple
attests the presence of Greeks, even in Jerusalem,
about the time of Christ.

As regards population, the evidence of ruins
shows that it was much larger in Roman and
Byzantine times—and probably in the 12th cent.
—than it is now. The numbers stated on Assyr.
texts would indicate a population exceeding 200,000
souls in the southern mountains in B.c. 701;
and the Syrian forces opposing the Assyrians in
B.C. 850 are said to have numbered 80,000, repre-
senting a population of at least 400,000. souls.
It cannot be said (but see Buhl, Die Soe. Verhaltn.
εἶ. Isr. p. 52) that Palestine was incapable of
holding a population of 6,500,0GO souls (ef. 28
24"), though the question of numbers is rendered
difficult by textual alterations.* At the present
time the population of Western Palestine is esti-
mated to be not more than about 600,000 ; but the
country fully cultivated would support ten times

* Instances of these variations in numbers are not confined to
the chronology of Gn 1110-26, which differs so greatly in the
Heb. Sam. and LXX VSS, or 1 Καὶ 61, where the LXX differs by
forty years. In 18 135 the Peshitta reads 3000 for 30,000. In
28 81 the LXX has 7000 for 700, and in 1 Καὶ 511 20,000 for 20.
In 1Ch 1120.21 the Peshitta has 80 for 3; in 2Ch 34 the
LXX A (agreeing more nearly with 1 K 62) reads 20 for 120; and
in Ezk 45! BA have 20,000 for 10,000 (Q): to say nothing of minor
differences as to the regnal years. The numbers in some parts
of the OT have evidently been miscopied or altered, and some-
times largely increased. The difficulties as to numbers may
thus in some cases be due to the state of the text. See, further,
NUMBER, p. 562, :

PALESTINE

PALESTINE 647

that number. According to Ex 12° 38°56, Nu 1%, the
Hebrews at the Exodus were about three millions.

ν. BIBLE Geocraruy. —The geography of Pales-
tine forms an important element in the OT, and
no book therein can be noticed on which this study
does not throw some light. The Bible geography
is to some extent illustrated by monumental in-
formation. ‘The lists of ‘Thothmes IIL, about B.C.
1600, include 119 towns in Palestine ; others of
great importance are noticed in the Tel el-Amarna
letters, about 5.6. 1450; others in the time of
Ramses IL, about B.C. 1330. Shishak gives a list of
133 towns in all parts of Palestine about B.C. 9895
and Sennacherib mentions others in B.C. 70].
About 90 cities noticed in the Bible are thus
monumentally known, between B.C. 1600 and 700.
Those earliest noticed have Aram. rather than Heb.
names, and were named by the Canaanites before
the Exodus. The Hebrews seem very rarely to
have altered the name of any city, though alter-
native names sometimes occur. We may consider
generally the outline of the topography during the
various ages—the Patriarchal, that of the Con-
quest, that of the Kingdom, that following the
Captivity, and that of the Greek and Roman age
down to the Ist cent. A.D.—with a briefer refer-
ence to later topographical records.

Study of the topography is not seriously affected
by textual discrepancies between the Hebrew and
the Versions. The most important addition is in
Jos (15°), where 11 cities are noticed by the ΤᾺΝ
and not in the Heb., viz. Tekoa, Ephratah,
Peor (Faghir), Etam (‘Ain ‘Atén), Kulon (/volo-
nia), Tatam, Sores (Saris), Karem (Ain Karim),
Galem (Beit Jala), Bether (Bitter), and Manocho
(Malhah), said to belong to Judah. The mention
of Kolonia seems to show that this is a very late
addition, and the cities lie, not in Judah but in
Benjamin, except Tekoa, Ephratah, and Etam.
There are other textual differences where the Heb.
text seems to be the less probable. Zoan (Pesh.
Gn 13") is better than Zoar, and the addition of
Seir (Pesh. Gn 36°) supplies a gap: ‘at Jazer’
(LXX Nu 21") is better than ‘was strong.’ In
Sam. Beth-jashan for Shen (Pesh. 1S 7") points
to Jeshanah (Ain Sinia) for this site, and Gibeah
(indicated by LXX) is apparently the meaning of
‘the high place’ (1S 10"). Gath (LXX Bin 1S
1753) is also preferable to ‘the valley.’ Ezel (1 5
9019. cf. νι in Pesh. and LXX) disappears as a
proper name, and Hareth (now Khards) becomes a
city instead of a ‘ wood’ (LXX of 18 995. Maon
is also more probable than Paran (LXX of 18 254),
and Bethzur than Bethel (LXX B of 15 30%), as 1s
Carmel for Racal (LXX B in v.”). Geshur_ for
Ashurites (Pesh. and Vulg. 28 2%) is probable ;
and Tibhath for Betah (Luc. Ματεβάκ, 28 858)
is certainly correct ; while Edom for Aram (after
same VSS ‘in vv.!38) agrees with the notice of the
Valley of Salt and with the succeeding verses.
Gath’ (Pesh. and LXX in 25 21") is better than
the unknown Gob, and ‘the Hittites to Καθ
(Lucianic text) is an important improvement on
Tahtim-hodshi (2S 24), as is Ai for Gaza (MSS
of 1 Ch 738). Geshur for Asshur (Ps §38) is a prob-
able emendation (so Lagarde, but see Duhm ad
loc.), and Baal-hermon (Ca 8}}) for Baal-hamon (so
Griitz, but see Budde, ad /oc.). Gibeah (Pesh. Jer
31) is better than the unknown Goath, and Accho
(indicated by LXX) takes the place (so Reland e¢
al., but see Nowack, ad loc.) of Sat all’ (Mie 1”).
In the few remaining cases of textual differences
affecting topography, the Heb. text seems to be pre-
ferable.

The town names of Palestine are so ancient that
their occurrence does not, as a rule, affect critical
questions ; yet the absence of the names of Jeru-
salem, Samaria, Tirzah, and Zereda in the Pent. is

notable. The permanence of the population has
preserved some three-fourths of the OT nomen-
clature to the present day, and these names are
equally traceable in the 4th and 12th centuries
A.D. in a large number of instances. The survey
of the country has brought to light some 150
biblical sites which were unknown, because, as
a rule, they do not appear on earlier maps. In
Genesis the Heb. ancestors are represented as
migrating from Ur on the Lower Euphrates to
Harran in the north, thus entering Canaan through
Syria; and Phoenician tradition points to the same
line of immigration, The Amraphel and Arioch,
with whom in Gn 14 Abraham is said to have
been contemporary, have been supposed (theugh
Jensen, Ball, and King [Letters and Inscriptions of
Khammurabi, 1899] dispute this) to be the Bab.
Khammurabi and Eriaku, whose date is fixed by
many at about B.C. 2376-2333 (see Sayce, EHH
281). The Hebrews naturally reached Bethel before
Hebron and Beersheba. Of the cities noticed in Gn,
those of Syria (Gn 10%18) are known in B. 6. L720,
1600, and 1500 on monuments in the cases of
Sidon, Arka, Arvad, Zemar, and Hamath. Gerar
and Gaza in Palestine (ν.19) are noticed in B.C. 1600
and 1500 respectively ; but Dan (if really a town
name in Gn 14%) does not seem to have been
so named till the time of the judges (Jg 18”).
Dothan (Gn 3717) is noticed by ‘Thothmes II.
about B.C. 1600, and its site is equally certain
with those of the preceding cities. Damascus (Gn
15°) is noticed by Thothmes ΠΙ. in B.C. 1600, and
on the Tel el-Amarna tablets a century later.”
These tablets also refer to the land of Hobah (Gn
1415) north of Damascus, and to the land of Ham
(Gn 14°) in Bashan, The topography of Exodus is
mainly confined to the desert, and unfortunately
contains many names of unknown lo valities.
That of Numbers refers largely to a region never
reached by the Egyptians, and only conquered
by the Assyrians in the Sth cent. B.C, The chief
sites in Moab and Gilead retain their ancient
names, and some are noticed on the Moabite
Stone about B.c. 850. The conquest of Eastern
Palestine in five months by the Israelites was less
arduous than many of the yearly campaigns of the
Egyptians and Assyrians, which extended over
much greater distances through hostile parts of
Palestine. The view of Palestine from Nebo (Dt
341-3) accords with the actual view, excepting that
Dan and the ‘ Western Sea’ are hidden by nearer
mountains.

The great geographical book οἵ the OT an,
however, that of Joshua. The description of the
boundaries of the land applies, in the judgment of
the writer of the present article, to a time previous
to that of the captivity of Gad in B.c. 734 (1 Ch
526), and to that of the Moabite conquest in B.C, 890.
It also refers to a period not later than that of
David, according to the note (1 Ch 4°) concern-
ing the dispersion of Simeon. Ai (Jos 88) was

apparently no longer in ruins in B.C, 701 (Is 10°),

and was repeopled after the Captivity (Neh Lahn
The curse of Joshua on Jericho (Jos 6°’) was ful-
filled (1 K 16%) in Ahab’s time, about B.C. 850 ;
and the regions unconquered by Joshua (lec)
were part of David’s kingdom. — Jebus (Jos 15™)
was also taken by David; and Nob, which is un-
noticed in Jos (21) as a priestly city, had its popu-
lation massacred by Saul (LS 2219), but apparently
was reoceupied by B.C. 701 (15.105). On the other
hand, the distinction of Israel and Judah seems to
be indicated geographically (Jos 11% *!), and it is
very remarkable that there is no account of the
conquest of Central Palestine, and that the deserip-
tion of the Samaritan region is much less com-

* On the names in these tablets see esp. Petrie’s Syria and
Egypt from the Tell el-Amarna Letters, pp. 144-187.

643 PALESTINE

PALESTINE

plete than that of Galilee and Judea. There is an
important difference in the order of the passage
referring to the fulfilment of the law at Shechem
(Jos 8%) in the LXX, and it has been suspected
thet the original book has lost portions referring
to Samaria. The geography, however, does not
represent that of the later period (Neh i Rea
when Judah colonized the earlier possessions of
Simeon, and Benjamin settled in towns that had
belonged to Dan. The forty-eight Levitical cities
were assigned in obedience to the law (Nu-35°),
but the arrangement laid down in Ezk (45**) is
yuite different, and these cities are not so assigned
in Neh (11), The majority of the Levitical cities
are well-known sites, and the variations in the
imperfect parallel list (1 Ch 6) are few. Beth-
shemesh, Gezer, Beth - horon, Eltekeh, Aijalon,
(rath-rimmon, Taanach, Ashtaroth, Daberath, and
Kn-gannim are among: the Levitical cities which
are noticed on Egyp. monuments, and in the Tel
el-Amarna letters, in the 16th and 15th cents.
B.C., excepting Beth-horon and Eltekeh—noticed
by Shishak (B.C. 935) and by Sennacherib (B.C. 701)
respectively.

When we compare the final arrangements of the
conquest -— for at first Judah, Benjamin, and
Joseph occupied country (Jos 16.17) out of which
portions were taken for Issachar, Dan, and Simeon
~-with the twelve provinces which existed in the
time of Solomon, the two aecounts are found to
coincide very closely, but in subsequent ages the
houndaries mentioned differ considerably from
those of the Bk. of Joshua. Ephraim, Naphtali,
wnd Asher are noticed as provinces with Issachar
and Benjamin (1 K 4838) ; the second province in-
cluded towns of Dan; the third appears to have
been in Judah ; and the fourth perhaps in Zebulun.
Kast of Jordan the northern province had its eapital
at Ramoth-gilead (Reimén) and the southern at
Mahanaim (probably Makhneh), while the twelfth
province coincided with the lot of Reuben.
Simeon had already ceased to hold the Beersheba
plains.

The most completely deseribed region in the
Bk. of Joshua is that south of Jerusalem. * The
north boundary of Judah ran south of Jericho by
Gilgal and Adummiin (Zala¢ ed-Diumm) to Enrogel
in the Kidron Valley ; and, leaving the capital in
Benjamin, it ran southward by Rachel's Tomb
(LS 105, Jer 3115) to Nephtoah (Jos 15°), which was
at Etam according to the Talmud of Jerusalem
(Ain ‘Atdn, south of Bethlehem), whence it ran
west to Chesalon (Aes/a) and to Kiriath-jearim
(Hrma), and south of the valley of Sorek, and to
Ekron and Jamnia and the sea.” The cities within
this border are enumerated (Jos 15) in groups ac-
cording as they were in the Negeb or ‘dry land,’
the Shephélah or western foot ‘hills, the “Har or
“mountain region,’ and the Midbar or desert. Of
those in the Beersheba desert little is known, and
the total is given as twenty-nine, while the details
amount to thirty-four. Amam, Shema, Hazar-
gaddah, Heshmon, and Bethpelet are, however,
omitted in the parallel passage (Jos 19°). Of tlie
rest, only Adadah (‘Ad'adah), Kedesh (Ain Wades),

and Kerioth-hezron (at Jebel Hadhireh) are
known, with Beersheba (Bir es-Seb'a), Riminon

(Umm er-Rumdmin), and perhaps Ziklag (‘Aslu/).
In the second list (Jos 19%) Sharuhen stands for
Shilhim, and appears to be the present Zell esh-
Shervah in the Philistine plains, which is noticed
as early as B.C. 1700, when the Egyptians were ad-
vancing on Canaan. The second group in the ‘low-

* Throughout this article the identifications of towns, etc.,
are those which were first proposed by or which commend
themselves to the present writer. Space forbids the reasons
for his conclusions being stated. The reader may refer to the
Separate articles, in some of which a different identification is
adopted, and where the authorities are cited.

lands’ (Jos 15°84) is nuwch more perfectly known,
as lying south-west of the Jerusalem mountains,
Of these, Zorah is noticed monumentally in the
fifteenth century B.c., and is now the village
Surah. Eshtaol (Eshua), Zanoah (Zanth), En-
gannim (Umm Jina), Enam (Ain ‘Ainah), Jar-
muth (Yurmek), Adullam (‘Aid el-Mia), Socoh
(Shuweikeh), and Gederoth (Jedireh) retain their
old names little changed. The third group is less
known, but seems to have included cities on the
edge of the plain of Philistia, among which Migedal-
gad (Mejdeleh), Lachish (Tell el-Hesy), Kglon
(Ajldn), Beth-dagon (Beit Dejan), Naamah (Na-
‘aneh), and Makkedah (probably e/-Mughdr) are
fixed. Eglon is monumentally noticed in B.c,
1600, Lachish and Makkedah about B.c. 1480-1440,
and Beth-dagon in B.c. 701. The fourth group
included towns nearer to the Hebron mountains,
of which Nezeb (Beit Nusib), Keilah (Nilah),
Achzib (‘Ain Kezbeh), and Mareshah (Mer'ash) are
all apparently noticed in the Tel el-Amarna
letters of the 15th cent. B.C., and the two latter
by Micah (1) in the 8th cent. B.c. The three
Philistine cities which follow do not appear to
have been conquered till the time of Solomon.
Ekron (‘Axir), Ashdod (Esdiid), and Gaza (Ghuz-

zeh) were, no doubt, ancient sites, but only the
latter — an important city long held by Egypt

—is noticed in the 15th’cent. B.c. The sixth
group in the mountains begins in the south,
including the Negeb hills. Among these cities
(νν. 5:8) Jattir (“A¢fir), Socoh (Shuweitkech), Dannah
(ldhnah), Debir (Dhaheriych), Anal (Anab close
to the preceding), Eshtemoa (es-Semita), Anim
(Ghuwein), and perhaps Holon (Beit Aula) and
Giloh (Jdé/v), are fixed; while in the seventh
group nearer Hebron occur Arab (er-Rabiyeh),
Dumah (Démeh), Beth-tappuah (Tugiih), Hebron
itseif (el-Ahalil), and Zior (Stair). The eighth
group includes towns farther east in the Hebron
hills, such as Maon (Main), Carmel (Kurmal),
Ziph (Z?f), Juttah (Yuttth), Zanoah (Zanwa), Ha-
Kain (¥Yukin); while Gibeah and Timnah (Jeba
and Zibneh) may be ruined sites north-west of
Hebron, though this is uncertain. The ninth group
is in the mountains north of Hebron, including
Halhul (Halhil), Bethzur (Beit Str), Maarath
(Beit Ummiir), Beth-anoth (Beit ‘Ainiin), and
Eltekon — perhaps Tekoa (Zeku‘a). Two towns
forming a separate group (v.") are Kiriath-jearim
(Erm), and Rabbah (Rubba) south-west of the
preceding. The six cities of the desert are less
known, but the ‘City of Salt’ (y.®) may be 7'ell e/-
Milh east of Beersheba, and the last’ is En-gedi
(Ain Jidy) on the cliff above the Dead Sea.
Several of the towns in the southern mountains are
noticed in the lists of Thothmes IT. about B.C. 1600,
such, for instance, as Carmel; but the Egyptians
did not penetrate far into the mountains, though
they held Jerusalem before the Hebrew conquest,
and knew it by that name (Urusalim), which
occurs in the Bk. of Joshua (15%, ef. 101: 328),

The north boundary of Benjamin ran from
Jordan north of Jericho (Jos 18"-*°) to Bethel
(Beitin) and to Ataroth-addar (ed-Ddrich) on the
hill south of lower Beth-horon (Beit ‘Ur et-Tahta,
7.e. ‘the lower’). The west border ran due south
to Kiriath-jearim (‘Erma), joining the border of
Judah. The cities included in this mountain
region (νν.31-38) are not all known, but among them
were Bethel and Parah (Fdrah), Ophrah ( probably
Taiyibeh), Chephar-ha-Ammoni ΠΕ ΣΙΩΝ
Ophni (thought to be Jufna), and Geba (Jeb'a).
with Gibeon (e/-/Jib), Ramah (er-Itdém), Beeroth
(Bireh), Mizpeh (perhaps 7'ed/ en-Nasbeh), Chephirah
(Kefireh), Irpeel (Rafat), Eleph (Lifta), Jerusalem
itself, and Kiriath (e/-Aurich, called also Kurict
el- Anab) : all these are within the border.

|

PALESTINE

PALESTINE 649

The lot of Dan (Jos 19°) was in the low hills
and plain west of Benjamin. Its boundaries are
not stated, but on the south coincided with Judah,
from which tribe Zoreh and Eshtaol on the border
were taken. Near these was Ir-shemesh (Ain
Shems), and farther north Shaalabbin (Se/624) and
Ajjalon (Va/o). Timnah and Ekron (Zibneh and
‘“Ahkir) were also on the Judah border. Eltekeh
(perhaps Beit Likes) and Gibbethon (Aibbich) were
on the north-east, and Jehud (ed-Yehudiyeh) with
Bene-berak (hin Jérak) in the plain north of
Joppa. Me-jarkon (‘ycllow water’) may have
been the boundary stream already noticed, and
Rakkon (‘shore’) may be the present 707} er-Rakkeit
on the shore north of Joppa(Yafa). The territory
was insufficient (v.*), and the plain was held by
the Canaanites (Je 13%), so that the Danites
were forced to migrate from their plain or * camp’
(Mahaneh-dan, Je 18*)*) west of Wiriath-jearim
(in the valley of Sorek, south of Zorah) to the
extreme north under Hermon.

Of the cities of Dan, Joppa is noticed in the
Tel el-Amarna tablets (15th cent. B.C.) as well
as by Sennacherib in B.c. 70], and the latter also
notices Beth-dagon (on the border of Judah), Bene-
berak, Eltekeh, and Timnah.

The children of Joseph appear at first to have
spread over all Samaria and Lower Galilee, as well
as over Bashan and half Gilead. Their original
boundary (Jos 101-95) coincided with that of Benja-
min, and approached Judah at Gezer (Tell Sezer),
which was, however, not taken (v.""), though they
claimed the plains subsequently given to Dan.
Out of their territory also Issachar received a
portion in the final division by lot. Ephraim had
a small and rugged portion ; but Manasseh was a
‘great people’ (Jos 1775), yet unable to drive the
Canaanites out of the chariot cities in the plains.
Manasseh held some of the best lands in Central
Pule.tine, and a wooded mountain, perhaps Car-
mel (see Mic 74). The north border of Ephraim
is briefly described (Jos 16°), running on the
west from the north-west angle of Benjamin to
Michmethah east of Shechem (177), apparently the
Mulhnah plain, and thence east to Taanath-shiloh
(Tana) and Janoah (Yann), and thus to the
Jordan Valley near Jericho. The river Kanah
(Waddy Kanah) formed the border on the north-
west, running to the sea; but the plains north of
Dan were not occupied. The list of ‘separate
cities’ (16%) seems to have been lost. The bound-
aries of Manasseh are not stated, and only two
towns within the portion of this tribe west of
Jordan are noticed, namely, Shechem and Tappuah.
The site of the latter is unknown, but it is perhaps
the same as Yushubi ‘En Tappuch, which would
find a fitting site at Ydésif close to the Mukhnah
plain, the border of Ephraim (see Heb. Jos 177).
Manasseh had originally ‘touched upon’ Asher
and Issachar, and claimed cities in these tribes, of
which in Jssachar Bethshean (Detsén), Ibleam
(Yebla), Endor (Andi), Taanach (T°dnuk), and
Megiddo (probably MWujedd'a) are well known. It
is remarkable that very few Samaritan towns
are noticed, but in the Bk. of Joshua generally we
find Shiloh, Tirzah, and Shechem mentioned.
Monumental records are equally silent as to this
very rugged mountain region, On the other hand,
Megiddo and Taanach are noticed by Thothmes
Ill. (in B.C. 1600) and in the Tel el-Amarna texts
{a century later); and again, in the reign of
Ramses If. (about B.C. 1330), Megiddo is noticed
as if near the Jordan.

The boundaries of Issachar are also unnoticed
(Jos 19!7-), but coincided with those of Manasseh,
Naphtali, and Zebulun, including the plain of
Dothan and that of Esdraelon. The known cities
include Jezreel (Zerin), Chesulloth (/hsd/), Shu-

nem (Stem), Hapharaim (el-Ferriyeh), Anaharath
(in Natrah), Rabbith (Rab1), Remeth (Rdmeh),
fn-gannim (Jenin), and En-haddah (perhaps Ave/fr
Adan). Of these, Anaharath, and perhaps others,
are noticed by Thothmes If. in his lists.

The borders of “ebulun are more particularly
described. The lot included the Nazareth hills
and the plain of Asochis with hills to its north.
The north and south limits seem to be fixed by
Dabbesheth (Vabsheh) and Jokneam (1.7, Keimin)
respectively (Jos 1919). The south border was at
Sarid (or perh. Sadid, cf. LAX Bin ν. 13), which may
be Tell Shadid at the foot of the Nazareth hills.
It ran east to Chesulloth and Daberath (Lcbiarieh),
where, at the western foot of Tabor, the three tribes,
Zebulun, Naphtali, and Issachar met (see 1922).
The south border of Zebulun also touched Japhia
(Ydfu, west of Nazareth), and reached the Kishon at
Jokneam. The east border skirted the Tabor plateau
on the west, running north on the hills to Gath-
hepher (now e/-Jesh-hed) and to Rimmon (Remméd-
neh) east of the Asochis plain. The north border
started on the east at Hannathon (Ave/r “Andn) and
passed along a deep valley to Dabbesheth. The
remainder of the line coincided with the south
border of Asher (Jos 19:7), running north of Cabul
(Kadbil) to Beth-dagon (probably Zell Dawk south
of Acre) and to Shihor-libnath —apparently the
river Belus. The shores of the bay of Acre seem
to have belonged to Asher, perhaps as far as the
Kishon (19°), but Zebulun would seem to have
had a ‘haven’ for ‘ships’ (Gn 4915), probably at
Haifa under Carmel, in which name the Heb.
word for ‘haven’ er ‘shore’ survives. Of the
other cities of Zebulun, only Bethlehem (Beit
Lahm) is certainly known.

It appears to be quite clear that the Tabor
plateau, as well as the hills of Upper Galilee, be-
longed to Naphtali. The towns included (1939)
those in the piain, Bezaanannim (Bessiim) as well
as Heleph (perhaps Beit Lif) in the north. Among

| those in the plein were Adami (ed-Damieh), Ham-

math (south of Tiberias), Rakkath (believed by
the Rabbis to be the old name of Tiberias, meaning
‘shore’), and Adamah (Adimvh north of Beisan) ;
Hukkok (Yahkuk) formed with Tabor the border
on the south-west. In the upper mountains were
Hazor (near Jebel Hadhireh), Wedesh( Wedes), Horem
(Hirah), Beth-anath (‘Ainatha), and others which
are doubtful.

The tribe of Asher claimed the lower hills be-
tween Accho and Tyre (197*°!), but failed to drive
the Canaanites from many of the cities (J@ 1},
Many of the towns of Asher are doubtful, though
all appear to have been north of Acre. Dor (Joe
17!', cf. 12% and 1 Ch 7”) is quite unknown,
though fixed by Eusebius at ZVantirah south οἱ
Carmel. This, like many other assertions of his
Onomasticon, is unauthorized and confusing, espe-
cially as Dor seems to have been on the ‘uplands.’
Achshaph is probably ed-Yasif near Acre. Ham.
mon seems to have been an important site near
the shore farther north, where Renan discovered
inscriptions to Baal Hammon. Kanah isin the hills
east of Tyre, and Achzib (ez-Zib) is north of Acre
in the plain. Among these cities Tyre and Accho
are noticed in the 15th cent. B.C. in the Tel el-
Amarna tablets and Achzib by Sennacherib in
B.C. 701.

tast of Jordan, Renben held the plateau round
Heshbon, and the lot seems to have been bounded
by the hills north of that city (Jos 13%), ex
tending to Jordan in the valley of Shittim ; but
in Ahab’s time several of the cities of Reuben are
noticed on the Moabite Stone as having been held
by ‘men of Gad.’ The south border was Arnon
(now Wady Mojib) and Aroer (‘Ar‘air) on the N.
brink of its valley. The sites of Medeba (J/ddebch),

a τ ----

650 PALESTINE

PALESTINE

Heghbon (/leshdn), Dibon (Dhibdn), and Beth-baal-
mmeon (7712) are those of considerable towns.
Kiriathaim (ον) and Beth-jeshimoth (Sveetneh
on the north-east shore of the Dead Sea) are
known, with probably Sibmah (Stémizeh) near
Heshbon.

The boundary of Reuben and Gad was at Jazer
(probably Beit Zara north of Heshbon), and the
latter tribe held the Jordan Vailey east of the
river, and the western slopes of Gilead, bounded
on the east by Aroer near Rabbath-ammon
(Amman). On the north-east they held Ramath-
mizpeh (probably ΔῊ, the Mizpeh of Jephthah,
Je 11) and Betonim, perhaps the district in
north Gilead now ealled e/-Butein. Mahanaim
was on the border between Gad and Manasseh, the
latter tribe holding ‘half Gilead’ (13%), which
appears to mean the eastern half, Gad extending
to the ‘border of the ridge’ (Debir), and holding
in the Jordan Valley Beth-aram (dameh), Beth-
nimrah (Nimrin), Succoth (Tell Der'ala), Zaphon
(supposed by the Rabbis to be “Amatah), and the
lowlands to the Sea of Galilee. This agrees with
the notice of Mahanaim in Solomon’s south Gilead
province (1 kK 41ὴ. The rest of the large portion
given to Manasseh east of Jordan included all
Bashan (v.*!), with the towns of Ashtaroth (7'e//
“Ashterah) and Edrei (edh-Dhraa), which are
noticed on monuments in B.C. 1600-1500.

This tribal distribution of Palestine was broken
up by the Assyrians. ‘Tiglath-pileser If. (B.C. 745—
727) conquered Galilee (2 Καὶ 15"), and took captive
the tribes east of Jordan (1 Ch 5*%) shortly before
Sargon took Samaria (B.c. 722). In 711 Ashdod
was besieged by Sargon, and when Hezekiah was
attacked by Sennacherib in B.c. 701, Beth-dagon,
Joppa, Bene-berak and Hazor (Yazdr in the plain)
are said to have belonged to Ashkelon. Ammon,
Moab, Edom, Ekron, and Gaza were then all inde-
pendent, and Moab indeed had rebelled nearly two
centuries earlier. Thus the geography of the Book
of Joshua represents a condition which did not long
exist after the death of Solomon. ‘The narrative
chapters show that the conquest resembled those
a ες by the Egyptians or Assyrians in their annual
campaigns: ‘the cities that stood still on their
mounds’ (Jos 1119} were not destroyed, unless taken
by stratagem. The invading army attacked usually
the smaller places, but the fortresses with garrisons
of chariots remained in the hands of the Canaan-
ites, and subsequent attacks had to be made on
places burned by Joshua and re-fortified by their
inhabitants (¢.g. Je 14, Jos 16°). The first cam-
paign from Gilgal by Ai and Gibeon to Aijalon,
and thence to Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon,
Hebron, and Debir, followed apparently the line of
the conquests of the Z/vbiri noticed in the Tel el-
Amarna texts (B.C. 1480-1440) : for they also came
from Seir, and fought at Aijalon and Lachish, and
penetrated by Keilah up the valley towards
Hebron. The site of Debir was in the Negeb
(Jeg 1%) and near Anab (Jos 1549: 5), so that there
is reason to place it at the important ancient site
Dhaheriych (‘the place en the back or ridge’) near
Anab, at a village where rock-eut tombs and
other marks of antiquity are found. This was

the southernmost extent of Joshua’s original
conquest. The conquest of Shechem (only about

20 miles from ΑἹ) is not deseribed, but the law
was here fulfilled (Dt 274, Jos 8°); the next great
contest was in Upper Galilee, where Hazor looked
down on the Waters of Merom (Jos 1115), and
where all the northern Canaanites gathered. Hazor
is also a place whence letters were sent asking
aid from Egypt in the 15th cent. B.c. The Book
of Joshua ends with his burial at Timnath-heres
(Je 2%) in Mount Ephraim (now Kefr Haris),
and that of Eleazar in Gibeah of Phinehas, prob-

ably at the site now shown at ‘Awertah east
of Gerizim. The bones of Joseph were buried at
Shechem, where his tomb is shown near Jacob's
Well; and the altar on Ebal (Jos 8°°) and stone
monument in the plain of Shechem (Jos 24)
seemed to make this central city the capital of
Israel. There were, however, several successive
sanctuaries which were recognized before the
building of the temple, namely at Gilgal, Shiloh,
Nob, and Gibeon. The ark rested in Kiriath-
jearim, and an altar of Jehovah was built on
Carmel before Elijah’s famous visit (1 K 18%).
We have no notice, however, of contemporary local
sanctuaries till after the division of the kingdom.
The six cities of refuge were placed equidistant,
three on eitherside of the river, at Hebron, Shechem,
and Kedesh-naphtali, at Bezer (Buscirah in Moah),
Ramoth-gilead (Reimiin), and Golan (Sahem el-
Jauldn), in the south, the centre, and the north of
the country (Jos 2078),

A careful consideration of the geography of the
Pent. and Bk. of Joshua, by the aid of modern ex-
ploration, shows that the whole is easily under-
stood, and that in no case does there appear to be
any element suggesting that the descriptions were
penned after the Captivity. ‘Towns appear in the
later books, such as Samaria, Zereda (Surdah),
Lod (Lydda), Ananiah (Beit Hanina), ete. (Neh
1122-3)” not noticed in Joshua, just as the later
Heb. differs in the use of Persian and Gr. words, and
insyntax and vocabulary, from the older Heb. of the
Pentateuch. The geography of the Bk. of Joshua
is, however, so exhaustive, that little is added to it
in the OT books that follow. In Judges, Bezek
(14) may be the southern Bezkah rather than the
Bezek of Saul (1 Καὶ 118), now /bz’k north-east of
Shechem. Conquests were pushed farther south
than Debir to Zephath (es-Swfa) in the Beersheba
plateau ; but Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron were not
taken (LXX Jeg 118), or any chariot city in the
plains. Bethel fell, and its inhabitants migrated
to Luz (Luweizeh) under Hermon (v.*) ; but inter-
marriage with Canaanites (3°) destroyed the power
of the conquering race, and the king of Mesopotamia
is said (3!°) to have overrun Palestine (ef. the words of

3urnaburias to Amenophis Iv. in the Tel el-Amarna
Collection). The episode of Sisera (Jg 45) is elu-
cidated by its geography. His chariot city was
Harosheth (‘the woods’), now e/-Harathiyeh ly
the oak wood near the Kishon. The Kishon under
Mount Tabor (v.’) is treacherous and swampy, and
after the battle near Endor (Ps 83!°) the chariots
were engulfed in the stream (Jg 5°), while
Sisera fled east to Bezaanannim (Besstim), near the
Kedesh (Aadish) of the Sea of Galilee. The episode
of Gideon’s victory is equally clear topographically.
He lived at Ophrah (probably /ey‘ata) in Samaria
(Je 64), but encountered his eastern foes near the
spring of Harod (Je 7'), and pursued them down the
valley of Jezreel to Beth-shittah (Shutta), and to
Abel-meholah (‘Ain Heliveh) in the Jordan Valley,
and by Suecoth (Zell Der'ala) to Jogbehah (8"),
now Jubecihah on the hills north of Rabbath-
ammon. The story of Jephthah belongs to Mount
Gilead, Tob (Jg 11°) being the present Ziaiyibeh
south-east of the Sea of Galilee, and Mizpeh,
probably Sif, farther south on the Gilead upland.
The pursuit of the Ammonites extended to Aroer
on Arnon. The exploits of Samson were confined
to Philistia and the Shephélah near Zorah—the
valley of Sorek (Jg 16+) retaining its name at
Surik close to his home, while the ‘cleft’ of the
rock Etam (15%) may be the curious cavern in
the cliff at Beit ‘Atdb rather farther east. The
rock Rimmon (Jg 2118) was not far south of
Shiloh at Rummén, and vine cultivation (v.*!) still
continues south of Shiloh (Sein), the position of
which is specially described as east of the road to

PALESTINE

—_—_—

PALESTINE 651

Shechem, and south of Lebonah (Lubben) on that
road (v.}*).

The first capital of the Heb. kingdom was at
Gibeah (76 ἃ) in Benjamin (1S 13%), near Mich-
mash (Muk/inds), where the two great precipices
divide these villages (14°) in the valley of Suaveinit
—‘the little thorn trees’ —which perhaps pre-
serves the name of Seneh, ‘the thorn. The valley
of Elah (Wady es-Sunt) is still remarkable for the
large terebinths whence its Heb. name was de-
rived, and its site is fixed by the notice of Socoh
(LS 173), now Shaaceikeh, and of Gath (v.®*) and
Ekron. Gath (ἰδὲ Itimuna) is pretty clearly
fixed by a notice in the Tel el-Amarna ieee at
the site usually accepted—the cliff of Zell es-Safi
—-at the mouth of the valley of Elah. David's
wanderings from this Philistine fortress extended
up the valley of Elah to Adullam (4 id el-Mia) on
its western side; to Hareth (Ahards), in the hills
above it on the east; and to Keilah (A i/ah) farther
up its course towards Hebron (1S 211. 5 981); and
thence to Ziph (Tedd ΖΓ} south-east of Hebron, and
Maon (Vel/ Main) farther south, He was finally

driven to the deserts of En-gedi (‘Ain Jidy), but |

returned to Maon(LXX 18 25!) immediately south
of Carmel (Avirm)—a region still rich in sheep
(1 S 2314-2 941 957). Ziklag (27) was south of
Beersheba not far from Arad (Tell ‘Ardd), where
the Kenites lived (cf. Je 1195. and 18S 2719), but
not more than three days’ journey from Jezreel
Χ301) for men mounted on riding camels. The
Philistines, driven from the mountains, encamped
by a ‘stream’ (ApAch) in Shunem (29', cf. 28%),
which still runs from the spring at Siem. Saul’s
army being to the south, on the rugged and barren
slopes of Gilboa near Jezreel, his night journey to
¢ndor, north of the Philistine camp, was especi-
ally dangerous.

The second Heb. capital was
adherents havine their centre at Mahanaim in
Gilead. The well of Sirah (2 8 3°) retains its
name (‘Ain Sdrah) north of Hebron. The con-
quests of David extended north of Hermon to
Tibhath (perhaps Avefr Dubbeh) in the Baalbek
plains, but not to Kadesh farther north (2 5 88
24°), now Kades, on the Orontes. Damascus and
Edom were subdued, with Moab and Ammon. ‘The
border towards Phoenicia extended to Dan-jaan
(Danian) near Achzib south of Tyre (24°), but the
region from near Accho to Cabul (Ahi) was ceded
later to Tyre by Solomon (1 Καὶ 915), whose king-
dom extended, however, north of Damascus to
Tadmor (1 Καὶ 915). Tadmor retained its native name
at Palmyra to the Ist cent. A.D., as attested by
a Palmyro-Gr. bilingual on the site. Tiphsah
(Thapsacus on the Euphrates south of Carchemish)
is stated (1 K 43) to have been the limit of his
power, including the country of the Hittite princes
(v.21, ef. 92° 1059); and Gezer, recently wasted hy
the Egyptians, was ceded to Israel (1 Κα 91. We
thus reach the period of greatest prosperity, when
Joppa (2 Ch 916) was a Heb. port as well as Elath
(1 K 9%) on the Gulf of ‘Akabah. The Pha-
nicians and the Hittites (1 Kk 10”) in Syria
remained, however, as dependent allies. The
Cherethites and Pelethites (2S 20%) may have
been guards from Philistia like the Gittites (1518),
for a town called Neratiya exists south-west of
Gath (but see art. CHERETHITES). Mahanaim is
described (2S 1839) as situated in a ‘round,’ not
far from a forest (v.°), and the remarkable basin
on the Gilead plateau in which the ruins of
Makhneh stand is not far from the southern oak
and fir woods, whence es-Sadé (the Saltus of later
times) was named.

The third Heb. capital at Jerusalem had existed
from the 15th cent. B.C. as a city. It requires to
be separately treated (see JERUSALEM), but was

at Hebron, Saul’s

chosen, probably in preference to the older centre
at Shechem, from military and political considera-
tions. The southern mountains have always been
the last refuge from foreign invaders from the
plains. The gradual decay of the kingdom began,
even in Solomon’s age, with the loss of Damascus
(Καὶ 11%); and Zereda (Saadeh) in Ephraim be-
came a centre of revolt (ν."Ὁ, cf. LXX additions,
Lik 122), Shishak’s conquests (14”), according
to his own record, extended over all Palestine
except Upper Galilee, which was conquered by the
Syrians (163), The earlier boundary of οὐ ὅκως
Judah seems to have been near the Michmash
Valley {v.4, of 2Ch 19” 16", Zee 14”, 2 te 23");
and Tirzah, the northern capital (1 K 1555), was
probably at Teiasir, an ancient site north-east
of Shechem. The site of Elijah’s sacrifice (1 Καὶ 18)
is supposed to have been at the southern peak of
Carmel, now called ed-Mahrakah— the place of
burning.” The Aphek of the Syrian wars (1 Καὶ
20") is probably Fi’, on the precipices east of the
Sea of Galilee. The vine cultivation of Jezreel
(1 K 21’) is attested by the remains of rock-cut
winepresses est of the town, though no vines are
now grown.

A new capital at Samaria now appears in history
(1 Ik 16%) in a well-watered mountain region, at
Sebastich west of Shechem, but much exposed to
invasion both from the western and the northern
plains. Tiphsah (2 Καὶ 15"), smitten by Menahem,
was probably not the distant Thapsacus on the
Euphrates, but the modern 7a/sah (spelt with the
final guttural) south of Shechem ; for the Hittites
were still an independent people, unconquered by
Assyria till the time of Sargon (ef. 2 Καὶ 7°), and
the conquests of Jeroboam 11. in Syria (2 Καὶ 1455)
extended only to Hamath, half-way to the Hittite
‘apital at Carchemish (2 Ch 35”), now Jerdbis on
the Euphrates.

After the Captivity geographical indications are
Jess numerous, but many new towns are noticed
(Ezr 2), such as Netophah (Beit Netif in the
Shephelah), Azmaveth (//izm2h), Neballat (Bir
Nibdla), and Ono (Kefr “Ane) in Benjamin, Elam
(perhaps Beit “Alam west of Hebron) and others
already noticed: ‘the other Nebo’ (Neh 7%) may
be Nuba in the same district ; the villages in the
Shephélah were colonized by men of Judah and
Jenjamin, who spread as far as Ziklag, Lachish,
and Lod (Neh 11*’**). The topographical notices
of the poetical and prophetic books do not require
special consideration, but that of the Song οἱ
Songs is remarkable as covering the whole of
Palestine east and west of Jordan, and as indicat-
ing the various natural features of the different
regions—the flowers of Sharon (2'), the mountains
of Bether (probably Pitta near Jerusalem, 2"),
the pastures of Gilead (4'), the wild summits of
Lebanon and Hermon (4°), the fertile plain round
Tirzah (64), the hills above Damascus (7), the
pools still found beneath Heshbon (74), and perhaps
the copses of Carmel, and the ‘ circle’ of Mahanaim
(68 7),

The geography of the Hasmonan period, in
the First Book of Maccabees, is evidence of the
genuine character of that work. The revolt began
at Modin (JVedich) on the hills east of Lydda; and
the three great passes at Bethhoron, Bethzur, and
Berzetho (Bir ez-Zeit), on the west, south, and north
of Jerusalem, were defended by Judas. Adasa, the
site of his last victory, was at uldasah near Gibeon.
Bethzacharias (Beit Skaria), where Eleazar was
killed under the elephant (1 Mac 6%), was within
sight of Jerusalem on the south. The raids of
Judas were carried over the whole of Eastern
Palestine and into Philistia and Edom, but the
only parts securely held were in the mountains
round Jerusalem. After his death the surviving

Sonera a - σα Cae

652 PALESTINE

τ

PALESTINE

brothers found refuge in the desert. of Judah and
in the Jordan junele before establishing theim-
selves at Michmash. Under Jonathan the Jewish
boundaries extended over all Western Palestine
and Syria, even to the river Eleutherns north of
Tripoli (Nvhr el-Web.r), the port of Joppa and the
cities of Philistia having been also won. Gerasa
(Jerash) in Gilead is first noticed in the time of
Alexander Jannieus.

The N'T topography is mainly confined to Lower |

Galilee, but the works of Josephus, the Mishna, and
other early Talmudic tracts enable us to trace the
boundaries of Samaria, while the Village names of
Lower Galilee are noticed in great numbers in the
Life of Josephus, including many places not other-

wise mentioned, but which retain their ancient |

names. ‘The most important topographical ques-
tions in the Gospels, froma critical point of view, are
those concerning the sites of Bethabara, Emmaus,
and Sychar.

(Lk 24° reading 160 for 60 furlongs), clearly in-
tended to point to Emmaus Nicopolis (‘Amords),

alone in Palestine the two names occur near each
The site of Chorazin (Mt 11°!) is fixed at
Kerdzeh, north of the Sea of Galilee, but that of
Capernaum (Capharnaum in the earlier MSS)
is disputed. Christian tradition from. the 4th
cent. has placed it at 7071] Mim. but the fountain
of Capernaum watered the plain of Gennesaret
(Jos BF αἴτιον χα 81]. and Isade Chelo (14th
cent. A.D.) identifies the town with a city of the
Minim, who, according to the Rabbis, were hereties
of Capernaum; Jewish tradition seems thus to
point to the ruin of Minick in the small plain of
Gennesaret. Bethsaida Julias (Jos, Δ] ΠΣ τ:
7) was at the month of the Jordan, eest of the
river, where it entered the Sea of Galilee. It is
usually placed at e¢-Zell, a rnin new a mile from
the mouth. The swampy delta between this site
and the lake has probably been formed during the
last nineteen centuries. This city appears te be
the Bethsaida of the Gospels (Mk S*) on the way
to Cesarea Philippi under Hermon (v.*7), and
apparently east of Jordan (ef. Mt 1440. 95. ὯΝ
9°), although two of the oldest MSS omit the
name in the last cited passage. This view is not
contradicted by the other passages in) which
Bethsaida is noticed (Jn 1#, Mt 1124), Magdala
(Mt 15°), called Magadan in some early MSS, and
possibly identical with Dalmanutha (Mk 8"), is the
little hamlet I/e/del north of Tiberias. Gerasa (Mk
δὺς Lk 8°°=Gadara of Mt 8°8) or Gergesa is usually
placed at the ruin Ahersa, under the cliffs east of
the Sea of Galilee, a site which answers to the notice
of a ‘steep place’ (Mt 833, See, further, under the
articles GADARA, GADARENES, and GERASENES.
The site of Bethphage (Mk 11’) is unknown, but it

Ι
was near Bethany (cl- Azeriych) on Olivet. Geth-
semane is only traditionally indicated, but it was

clearly at the foot of Olivet, east of the Kidron

Valley. Ephraim (Jn 114) is t raditionally the

village Zaiyibeh near Baal-hazor (cf. 2 Ch 13”

/and 2 § 13%), Antipatris (Ac 23%), at Ras εἰ-

‘Ain, on the old read from Jerusalem to Cwsarea,

was a city built by Herod the Great.

The boundaries of Samaria coincided roughly
with those of the old territory of Manasseh west
of Jordan, and extended to the Jordan Valley (cf.
Mk 10!) as well as to the sea—Ciesarea Palestina
and Capharsaba (Aefr Sib) being Sam. towns
according to the Rabbis. Samaritans also lived
in Bethshean and on Carmel, where Kefr es-Samir
represents the older Castrum Samaritorum. The
south boundary followed a great ravine eastwards
from Antipatris, having Beth Rima (Beit Rima)
ind Beth Laban (Lubben) on the sonth, and pass-
ne by Anuath and Boreeos (Berkut). Aecrabbi
(Atrabeh) and Sartaba (Kurn Sartabah) were in
Judea; and the boundary, leaving Shechem on
its west, thus seems to have followed the valley
[οὗ -Enon. En-gannim (Jenin) was the border
| ; ἈΠΕ , ἜΝ ἧς ἯΙ τ᾿

town of Galilee in the plain of Esdraelon; but
| Carmel, Gilboa, and all Sharon north of Antipatris
appear to have been in Samaria. Galilee was
bounded on the north (see Tosephta, Siphri, and

Talm. Jerus. ) by Achzib north of Accho (ez-Zib),

Gatin (J¢thim), Beth Zanita (Zuucinita), Melloth

(Malia), Gelil (ἃ), and Kanah (Nanah), and

thence on the north the line ran along the Leontes,

and to Cwesarea Philippi (Benids) under Hermon,

The ‘coasts of Tyre and Sidon’ (Mt 1531) were

thus beyond the Holy Land. On the east, Bashan

was divided into the districts of Gaulanitis

(Jaulan), Trachonitis (the Leja or “basalt” region),

Tturiea,—usually supposed to be the Jedir region

under Hermon,-—Batanwa and Auranitis (Hawrdn).

See BASHAN. Decapolis (Mt 4, Mk δῷ, Pliny,

HN v. 18) was a confederation of ten cities im
Jashan, including Gadara (Umm Kreis), Gerasa

(Jerdsh), Canatha (Nanawit), Abila (.1 1), Susitha

(Svsieh), Dion (Adin), Capitolias (probably Bett er-

Ras), Pella (Fahil), and Raphana, with Bethshean

(Peisan) west of the Jordan.

Palestine was enriched by Herod the Great with
new cities, such as Cyesarea, and by great buildings
at Jericho, Phasaelis (Δ με in the Jordan Valley),
Samaria, Antipatris, Ashkelon, ete. He built the
desert fortress of Masada (Sebbch) on the south-west
shores of the Dead Sea; and his tomb was in the
circular fortress of Herodium, which still stands on
its conical hill south of Bethlehem (Jebel Furcidis),
His successors added Tiberias, Ceesarea Philippi,
Bethsaida, Archelais (probably Aerdwa in the
Jordan Valley), and other towns ; but his dominions
were divided (Jos. Ant. xv. xi. 4), Archelaus
ruling Edom, Judea, and Samaria; Philip ruling
Bashan and Abilene (north of Hermon); and
Antipas ruling Galilee, with Gilead and Moab
(Perma); until under the Roman procurators
Palestine became a province subject to the legate
of Syria. During this period Damascus and the
regions far east of the Jordan were subject to the
Nabataan princes of Petra from B.C. 95 to A.D. 106.
Bashan was incorporated in the province of Syria
in A.D. 34 after the death of Philip.

Later Geography.— Knowledge of the later topo-
graphy of Palestine is important for a right under-
standing of many questions, but the subject can-
not here be fully treated. The scattered notices
in Pliny, Strabo, and other Roman writers do
not add materially to our information, nor are
many places noticed in the Mishna; but in the
4th cent. the Jerusalem Talmud contains many
references. The conquests of Cornelius Palma
under Trajan in A.D. 105 gave to the Romans the

‘
«
1

PALESTINE

PALESTINE 653

whole of Gilead and Moab from Bostra (Dusrah)
to Petra and ‘Akabah on the Red Sea. Bostra was
the capital of this new province of Arabia, and the
quarters of the Third Legion (Cyrenaica). In
A.D. 295 Auranitis, Batanwa, and Trachonitis were
added to this province (which was ruled by a pro-
preetor and a procurator), these districts having
previously belonged to Syria. The Syrian province
continued to use the Seleucid era for dating texts,
but the Arabian cities dated from A.D. 106, the era
of Bostra. Hence (see Mr. A. G. Wright’s paper
in Pal. Kepl. Fund Quarterly Statement, 1890,
». 67) it becomes possible to draw the north
haduiary of Arabia in A.D. 106 on the south side
of Bashan passing just north of Adraa, while
after A.D. 295 the border between Arabia and
Syria ran farther north by Neve (Naw) and Aere
fes-Sunamein) in the north part of Bashan. ‘The
most important places historically in the 2nd
cent. A.D. were Bether (Bittir near Jerusalem),
where the great revolt of the Jews from Hadrian
was suppressed, and Jamnia (Yebnah), the seat of
the Sanhedrin after A.D. 70; while after A.D. 135
it sat at Shafram (Shefa “Amr), Oshah (Hisheh),
Shaaraim (λα rah), and Tiberias in Lower Galilee.
The great Onomasticon of Eusebius, translated
from Gr. into Latin by Jerome, is very important
for a knowledge of the 4th cent. topography,
but the identification of Bible sites by these
writers, who were intimately acquainted with the
whole country, is as often wrong as right (as may
be shown in cases such as Aijalon, ete.), and it
has no authority, although upon it was founded
the Greek tradition which all pilgrim diaries
repeat down to the 12th cent., and which still
survives. The crusaders further confused the
topography by new and ignorant identifications,
often rejecting sites fixed by the consensus of
Jewish, Sam., and Gr.-Christian tradition. Before
the first crusade (A.D. 1099) the Greek Church
divided the country into three provinces, Palestina
Prima, Palestina Secunda (Galilee and East of
Jordan), and Palestina Tertia in the south, in-
cluding S.E. Palestine and the southern desert—
all under the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem. The
crusaders had four metropolitans (at Jerusalem,
Cesarea, Tyre, and Nazareth) under the Latin
Patriarch of Jerusalem until A.p. 1187. | Under
the Romans and Byzantines the boundaries of
the country were guarded by Legions and native
auxiliaries, established at centres like Bostra
(Busrah) on the edge of the Syrian desert, and at
Sinai, with posts along the plains of Moab and
Damascus. The tombstones of Roman officers are
commonly found in these regions with Gree}, (and
sometimes Latin) inscriptions. The crusaders
divided all Palestine (except Bashan, which was
never conquered) into fifteen baronies and fiefs
under the king of Jerusalem in the 12th cent.
The treaty of Richard 1, and Saladin (A.p. 1192)
left to the Christians all the plains of Philistia and
Sharon, with Galilee and Tyre, and many new
fortresses were built in these regions early in the
13th century. The last region left to the Chris-
tians, after the conquest of Bibars, consisted,
about A.D. 1282, of Carmel, the plains of Acre, and
the hills east of Tyre, all finally lost in 1291 on the
fall of Acre. Moslem accounts of Palestine are
slizht and, as a rule, late, excepting the geography
of El Mukaddasi, which throws light on the con-
dition of the country before the first crusade. A
considerable Christian population continued to
exist under the Moslems during the centuries
following Omar’s conquest, and was found in the
country by the crusaders. Soldiers from the west
of Europe had already been planted in Palestine
by the Romans in the 2nd cent., and a large
vopulation of European settlers occupied the land

in the 12th; but after the 18th this element was
represented till recently only by Italian traders
on the coast, and by monks at Nazareth, Carmel,
Jerusalem, and Bethlehem. During the — lest
twenty years the immigration of Circassians (in
Bashan), of Bosnians (at Cuwsarea on the coast),
and of Jews at Jerusalem, with colonies near
Jatfa, on Carmel, in Galilee, and in Bashan, are
the most remarkable changes in the population
of the country. Our knowledge of Palestine
under the Franks, in the 12th and 13th cents.,
is singularly minute, and the remains of their
churches and castles are among the most con-
spicuous ruins in the country ; but their influence
on the native race and language seems to have
been very small. Modern Palestine under the
Turks is divided into four provinces,—that of
Jerusalem, that of Nablus (Shechem), to which
the Belka or ‘empty land? (in Moab and Gilead)
is attached, and that of Acre. Bashan is directly
under the ruler of the capital at Damascus. The
country still possesses fine cornlands, especially in
Sharon, Lower Galilee, and Bashan; its hills are
covered with vines, especially on Hermon and
round Hebron; and large eroves of olives cover
the lower foot hills. Most of its ancient towns
are now either villages of huts built of mud in
the plains and of stone in the hills, or they are
ruins. The only city is Damascus (250,000 in-
habitants), and the chief towns are Jerusalem (per-
haps 60;000), Hebron (10,000), Gaza (18,000), Jaffa
(7000), Bethlehem (5000), Nablus (15,000), Jenin
(3000), Nazareth (6000), Tiberias (2000), Accho
(Acre, 8000), and Tyre (3000); but these are only
estimates based on local information, and the
numbers constantly vary, the Moslem population
and the Samaritans at Nablus (140 souls) tending
to decrease, while the Jewish, Greek, German, and
Maronite-Christian elements tend to increase, in
numbers and in prosperity.

vi. ANTIQUITIES. — At a time approximately
dated B.c. 2800, the Akkadians from the lower
Tigris were sending ships to Sinai for granite (Tel-
loh inscriptions of Gudea), and cutting cedars in
Amanus (Amalum), and it is not improbable that
they entered Palestine as did Amraphel (/vham-
murabi) and Arioch (Hriaku), who raided (Gn
14°-7) through Bashan, Moab, and Edom to IXadesh-
barnea, returning by En-gedi up the Jordan Valley
to Dan, and to the land of Hobah north of Dam-
ascus. The date of the participators in this alleged
early Chaldean raid may possibly be fixed by the
cuneiform tablets ¢. B.C. 2300 (see above, p. 647").
During the saiie period the J/en or Minyans (Jer 51,
but see KAT? ad loc.) were ruling in Lower Evypt,
and are said in Eeyp. records (see Brugsch, i. 234)
to have come from Assyria and from east of Syria,
robably from near Lake Van. Their language,
Hike the Akkadian, appears (Tel el-Amarna tablets,
No. 24, Berlin) to have been Mongolic, and they
adored Set, a deity worshipped by the Hittites,
to whom they were probably akin. It is not im-
possible, therefore (but see above, p. 646*), that at
this early period a Hittite tribe may have been
established amone the Amorites in the south at
Hebron (Gn 23), though in the later times of the
Heb. conquest and in Solomon’s age (Jos 1, 1K
4”) the Hittites are contined to North Syria. In
the lowest strata of the mound at Lachish pottery
as well as flint instruments occur, which may
belong to this period, and with these a signet
which appears to have on it both Egyptian and
Hittite Ieroglyphics. ‘To this early period may
also be attributed the rude stone monuments,
which are numerous in Moab, and which also
occur near the Jabbok, at Rabbath-ammon, and
near Sif in Northern Gilead, as well as in the
Jaulin. There are three or four examples in

etre ee τὺ

654 PALESTIN&

PALESTINE

Upper Galilee, and a group west of Tell el-Kadi
(Dan), but none are known in Western Palestine
south of the Sea of Galilee. These monuments
resemble those of our own islands, including
monumental pillars (magzebdth of the Hebrew),
circles of village enclosure stones (Adzcrim, Arab.
hadhr), and tables supported on upright or flat
stories, such as are called cromlechs or dolmens in
Britain. The Moabite examples of the latter class
of monuments cannot have been sepulchral, and
were never covered over with mounds like the
tomb-chambers of Europe. They can only (in
many instances) have served as tables, probably as
altars, and they have often ‘cup hollows’ in the
top stone, fitted for libations, such as are still
poured into similar cup hollows in the north of
Europe. The distribution of these monuments is
remarkable, since they have disappeared from the
regions in which Hezekiah and Josiah (2 K 18*
234) destroyed the Canaanite altars and pillars,
surviving only in regions beyond the influence of
the kings of Judah. They occur on Nebo (cf.
Nu 234), and at Dan, both of which were centres
of idolatrous worship.

The monumental history of Palestine from Egyp.
sources begins about B.C. 1700 (Brugsch’s date),
before which time the foreign kings of the Delta
(Minyans or Hyksos) were in communication with
‘the north.’ Ahmes, first of the new native
dynasty from Thebes (the 18th), drove the Asiatics
from the Delta, and pursued them to Sharuhen
(Tell esh2Sheri'ah).on the borders of Palestine.
Thothmes I. marched into Palestine and Syria,
and beyond the Euphrates, about B.C. 1633; and
a generation later Thothmes IIf won a great
victory at Megiddo in Central Palestine, defeating
a league of Canaanites and Hittites, and pursuing
his conquests through Phoenicia by Aradus and
Tunep, and beyond the Euphrates. The list of cities
conquered in Palestine, about B.C. 1600, includes
those of Philistia, Lower Galilee, and Bashan,
as far as Ashtaroth and Damascus; but none
appear to be mentioned in Samaria or Upper
Judea, or in Gilead or Moab. The Egyp. chariots
could not enter these rugged mountains. Among
the 119 towns in Palestine mentioned on this valu-
able list at Karnak (first published by Marictte) the
following cities noticed in the Bible are found in
the order here given :—Megiddo, Gaza, Dothan,
Rabbith, Kartan, Damascus, Edrei, Abila (of
Bashan), Hammath, Madon, Lasharon, Ashtaroth,
Maachah, Laish, Hazor, Adami, Kishion, Shuneim,
Misheal, Achshaph, Taanach, Ibleam, Anem,
Kadesh (of Issachar), Anaharath, Nekeb, Joppa,
Lod, Ono, Shochoh (near Adullam), Naamah,
Saphir, Rakkon, Gerar, Aroer (of Simeon), Lebaoth,
Rehoboth, Adoraim, Anim, Gezer, Rabbath, Zorah,
Anem, En-gannim (of Judah), Gibeah (of Judah),
and Zephathah. These cities therefore all bore their
biblical names in 4&.C. 1600, before the Exodus,
and the list has the highest value for critical
purposes. The civilization of the Canaanites at
this period as described in tlie spoil lists of
Thothmes HI. is most remarkable. Al] the precious
metals were in use; art objects from Plwnicia and
Assyria were imported ; ivory was uscd for inlay-
ing; chariots were plated with gold and silver, or
painted ; armour of bronze, and iron weapons are
noticed with flint axes. Thrones, footstools, and
sceptres, of precious wood, were adorned with gold
and ivory; tables were set with gems ; and tents
had pillars of iron and of gold. The cities had
walls, and fine harvests of wheat and barley were
reaped, while horses and flocks were captured by
the Egyptians. Statues with heads of gold are
also mentioned. Wine, oil, honey, balm, and
fruits were presented. Even the ploughs seem to
have been adorned with gold ; and cedar wood was

commonly used. Ships laden with timber and
corn were sailing on the Mediterranean (cf. Gn
49", Nu 24%), and often carried slaves from the
north. In the time of Thothmes Iv. further ex-
peditions were made against the Hittites, now
driven from Palestine to Kadesh on the Orontes.
These conquests were maintained during the
greater part of the long and prosperous reign of
Amenophis HI. (about B.C. 1500 to 1464).

The Egyptian monuments do not mention any
Exodus, though Thothmes Iv. is said to have driven
out the Asiatics. The notices of the place Rameses
(Gn 4711, Ex 1115) do not serve to fix any date for
such an event, and our only sources of informa-
tion (see Jg 1156, 1 Καὶ 6') point to the 15th cent.
B.C. as that during which the conquest of Palestine
by the Hebrews was effected. In the ruins of
Lachish the seal of Teie, the Armenian queen of
Amenophis IIL, is found, showing intercourse with
Egypt about B.c. 1500; and the Egyptians were
in constant intercourse with Babylon, Assyria, and
Armenia at this time, the royal houses being allied

by marriages from the time of Thothmes Iv. A
curious cuneiform tablet, sealed with a Bab.

cylinder signet (Tel el-Amarna), is addressed to
‘all the kings of Canaan, servants of my brother,
the king of Egypt,’ and served as a passport for
an envoy. The great collections of 300 cuneiform
tablets, found in 1887 at Tel el-Amarna (between
Memphis and Thebes), contain letters to Amenophis
1m. and Amenophis Iv. from the kings of Babylon,
Assyria, and Armenia, from princes in Asia Minor,
and (in about 900 instances) from chiefs of the
Hittites, Amorites, Phoenicians, and Philistines,
who ruled as subjects of the Pharaoh, assisted by
Eeyp. residents in the chief towns of the Syrian
and Palestine plains, and guarded by forces of
chariots. But towards the end of the reign of
Amenophis Im. revolutions occurred, which de-
stroyed the Egyp. domination, The Canaanites
sought alliance with Babylon, but this was refused.
The Hittites and Cassites attacked Damascus, and
overran Bashan. The Amorites made war on the
Phoenicians, and besieged Tyre. The Egyp. forces
were defeated and withdrawn from the north and
from Jerusalem, and the king of that city wrote
to Egypt to complain of the entire destruction of
‘all the rulers,’ which followed, and which was
due to the conquests of a people called the Habit
or ‘Abiri. They are said to have come from Seir
to Jerusalem, and to have fought at Aijalon, and
subdued Gezer, Ashkelon, Zorah, Lachish, Keilah,
and other cities. The date coincides with that of
the Heb. conquest according to the OT notices,
and it appears probable that (as Zimmern has
proposed) the Habiri are to be identified with the
Hebrews.

In the reign of Amenophis IV. communication
with the north was (according to these tablets)
much interrupted, and about B.c. 1400 the 18th
dynasty was overthrown. Seti 1., a generation
later, began to attempt the reconquest of the lost
empire when the 19th dynasty had arisen. He

enetrated to Kanana (Kana‘an) near Hebron, and
into the land of Zahi, famous for its wine and corn

and thought to have lain in the south of Pal.,-

near which apparently lived the Anaugas (perhaps
Anakim). Seti also fought a battle at Inuamu,
perhaps Jamnia, and his famous successor, Ramses
l., besieged and took Ashkelon, and the towns
of Shalama, Maroma (JMeirén), Ain Anamim
(‘Ainatha), Dapur (Debirich), and Kalopu (perhaps
Shalabin), in Upper and Lower Galilee. He pur-
sued his conquests into Pheenicia, and, after taking
Kadesh, entered into treaty with the Hittites,
who had become independent, and marched to the

* These two statements were clearly ‘vritten not earlier than
the time of the 19th dynasty.

PALESTINE

PALESTINE 655

Euphrates and to Ephesus. This period of conquest
in Galilee seems to have coincided chronologically
with the oppression of Israel under Jabin 11., king
of Hazor, whose ‘captain’ (sar), with a force of
iron chariots (J@ 4°), bears a name not apparently
Semitic, but easily explained as Egyp., viz. Sisera,
i.e. Ses-Ra, ‘the servant of Ra.’ ‘The conquests of
Ramses 11. were lost about B.c. 1300 by Merenptah,
who was attacked in Egypt by tribes from the
north, and after his time Arisu- (Hareth), a
Phoenician, ruled in the Delta. The power of
Egypt steadily declined, and about B.C. 1200
Ramses Ul. was attacked by northern tribes,
coming both by sea and by land to Egypt. Among
those enumerated are the Danau or Greeks, and
the Pulesta, thought to be the Philistines.

Early Assyr. invasions occurred (see ARAM) about
this period; and in B.C. 1150 Assur-risisi set up ἃ
monument at Beirut, and about 1120 Tiglath-
pileser I. entered the Lebanon. | An Assyr. king was
also buried at Abydos in the time of Ramses XIV.,
and may have passed through Palestine. But,
after the death of Solomon, Shishak (B.C. 966-933)
invaded Palestine, and took 133 cities, among

which Jerusalem is perhaps mentioned last
(Maspero). The only monument of this later age

is the famous Moabite Stone, found at Dhibdn,
which records the revolt of Moab in the 9th cent.
B.C., during the reign of Ahab (cf. 2 Καὶ 3*”).
But the power of the Assyrians in Palestine
was not severely felt until the time of Tiglath-
pileser 11., who conquered Damascus in B.C. 732.
Prior to this event Menahem of Israel and Ahaz of
Judah brought tribute, as Jehu had done in the
9th cent. The fall of the Syrian power beyond
Jordan was followed by the capture of Samaria
in B.C. 722 by Sargon. The advance to Ashdod
followed eleven years later, and the attack on
Jerusalem by Sennacherib, in B.C. 701, failed in
consequence of the success of Tirhakah, the Ethi-
opian king of Egypt, after his defeat near Joppa.
Sennacherib ‘dwelt at Nineveh’ (2 K 1956) till his
death twenty years later, and Judah was saved
foracentury. ‘The great inscription of Sennacherib
attests the wealth of Hezekiah, and mentions his
ivery throne. The Siloam inscription, belonging
to this age, not only gives us the characters then
in use,—closely like the Pheenician,—but also
shows us that the language of Judah was the
pure Heb. in which the earlier books of the
OT are written. Sennacherib speaks of 30
talents of gold and 800 talents of silver given as
tribute by Hezekiah, with precious woods, gems,
eunuchs of the palace, horses, mules, asses, camels,
oxen, and sheep. Forty-six fortresses were be-
sieged with battering-rais in Judea. Manasseh
is again noticed as tributary to Esarhaddon, who
rebuilt Babylon (cf. 2 Ch 33") and conquered
Egypt. Very few Palestine antiquities are as yet
recovered previous to the time of Nebuchadnezzar
(B.c. 600), excepting those noticed above. At
Samaria a Heb. quarter-shekel weight * has been
found (about 40 grains), and in the ruins of Lachish
clay images, with pottery and seals. Certain in-
scribed seals from Jerusalem and Northern Pales-
tine bear Hebrew personal names compounded with
the sacred name Jah, which occurs on the Moabite
Stone, and also early in Assyria and Syria. The
* The old Jerusalem shekel, according to Maimonides, weighed
about 320 grains, but the Galilwan shekel was half the weight of
the Jerusalem shekel. The weight has on it the words reba’
nezep, ‘quarter of half’ (Clermont-Ganneau), and reba she-l
for ‘quarter shekel’ (Robertson Smith). See the discussion by
the latter in the Academy, 18th Nov. 1893, p. 443 ff., or PE δ᾽ δὲ,
July 1894, p. 225 ff. The weight agrees with that of the quarter
of a Galilean shekel. After the Captivity the shekel weighed
only 220 grains (see also PEFSt, July and Oct. 1899 and Jan.
1900, for further papers on the metrology). A specimen, appar-
ently of the full nezep, weighing 156 grs., has recently been
found by Bliss at Tell Zakariya (PEF St, July 1899, p. 207 1.).

Siloam aqueduct, and probably many rock - cut
tombs of the old Phcenician character, date frou
this period.

After the Captivity we possess silver sheke
coins (worth about 2s. 8d.), adorned with the pome-
eranate, which appear to be earlier than the 2nd
or 3rd cent. B.C.; aid the great inscription
of Eshmunazar (probably of the 3rd cent. B.C.)
shows that Sharon was ruled by the Sidonian
kings under the Ptolemies, while dated texts of
the same period attest the worship of Baal near
Tyre. The Greek intluence which began to affect
Palestine after the conquest by Alexander the
Great is witnessed by the ruins of Tyrus in Gilead,
where the palace of the priest Hyrcanus (built in
B.C. 176) is adorned with gigantic figures of lions,
and with semi-Gr. semi-Eeyp. pillars and cornices,
To the 2nd cent. B.c. belong the coins of the
Hasmonwan kings, inscribed in the later Heb.
character, and also (from the time of Alexander
Janneus) in Greek. The Gr. masonry (like that of
the Acropolis), with drafted margins to the stones,
is found at Tyrus and in Phoenicia, and continued
in use in the time of Herod the Great. About the
Christian era the Gr. tomb also began to supersede
the earlier Heb. tomb with kokim or tunnel
eraves, and the adornment of the facades was
executed in a peculiar native style, much influenced
by Greek ideas, the best examples of which occur
near Jerusalem.

The second century of the Christian era was a
great building period in Palestine. oman cities
like Gadara and Gerasa sprang up, and the temple
of Baalbek was built. Numerous family mausolea
—towers containing sarcophagi-—were erected, esp.
in Bashan and Gilead, and Gr. inscriptions prove
that they were built in the lifetime of the owner.
Bashan presents us with hundreds of Gr. texts of
this age, dating from the time of Herod onwards,
and witnessing to the existence of a mingled Arab-
Gr. population, adoring Arab and Gr. gods. The
synagogues of Upper Galilee (to which probably
others on Carmel and at Shiloh may be added) are
equally influenced by Gr. art, though in some cases
giving square Heb. inscriptions. The most notable
examples occur at Chorazin, Tell Ham, Irbid, and
in the mountains of Naphtali. Roman roads, with
milestones inscribed in Gr. and in Latin, belong
to the same period (esp. under the Antonines,
A.D. 140 to 180); and at Gerasa we find a very
perfect example of a Roman city, with its streets
of columns, forum, theatres, naumachia basin,
triumphal arch, baths, judgment basilica, and
temples. To the 2nd and 3rd cents. A.D. beiong
also the Jewish and Christian osteophagi (or
bone boxes) found on Olivet with Gr. and Heb.
texts, and the tombstones of the old Jewish
cemetery at Jaffa. The tomb of Eleazar_ bar
Zachariah (A.D. 135) bearing his name has perhaps
been found on Carmel, and that of a descendant
of Rabbi Tarphon at Jaffa.

The Palestine ruins of the Byzantine period
(4th to 7th cent.) are extremely numerous, includ-
ing fortifications, churches, chspels, and monas-
teries in all parts of the country. Gr.-Christian
texts are commonly found. The Gr. tomb con-
tinued in general use, and copper coins of the
later emperors are found in great numbers. The
remains of the Arab period before the crusades
(especially the mosques at Jerusalem, Damascus,
and ‘Ammén) are toe numerous. <A text from
Harrfin (south-east of Damascus) proves the use
of the Kufic character in Palestine before the
time of Omar. The Norman buildings of the
12th and 13th cents. represent a new and foreign
element in architecture, and to this age belong
many coins, seals, inscribed tombstones, ¢"ss
mosaics, and frescoes, with other art objects. The

< ΟΕ ΜΜΗΜΡΝ

656 PALLU

PALM TREE

latest important architectural remains are found
in the inasques built by the great Egyp. rulers of
the 13th and 14th cents. Modern additions to
the architecture include the Latin monasteries
at Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Carinel, ete.,
with smaller Greek monasteries, and Protestant
churches and orphanages at Jerusalem, Nazareth,
ete. The real antiquities of Palestine are, however,
for the most part hidden in the great mounds which
mark the sites of ancient cities such as Ashkelon,
Megiddo, Lachish, Caesarea, ete., which require
further excavation.

LireraTure.—The Bibliography of Palestine occupies a stout
volume recently published by Herr Rohricht, but the number
of standard works necessary for the student is not. large.
Reland’s Palestina Illustrate is still valuable, and Robinson’s
Biblical Researches form an invaluable storehouse of literary
notices. The results of exploration are found in the publications
of the Palestirs Beploration Fund (1865-1900), and esp. in the
Memoirs of the Survey, including seven quarto volumes illus-
trated, Three of these treat of Western Palestine, one of Moab,
one of Jerusalem, one contains Special Papers, and the last
gives the Arab nomenclature. Three volumes are added on
the Natural History, Botany, and Geology, and two more are
to follow on the Archwological discoveries of M. Clermont-
Ganneau. To these must be added the maps (1 inch to the mile),
with those on a smaller scale which give the results as bearing
on ancient geography. The Egyp. records relating to Pales-
tine will be found in Brugsch’s History of Eqypt, and in Chabas’
Voyage @un Lyyptien, see also W. M. Muller, As’en u. Kuropa ;
Maspero, Dawn of Civilization, Struggle of the Nations,
and parts of Hogarth'’s Authority and Archeology; the
spelling of the names is given in hieroglyphic types in Pierret’s
Dictionary. The Tel el-Amarna tablets are published in fac-
simile (Thontafelfund ron οἱ Aimarna) by Winckler and {τὰ by
him in vol. ν. of AJB (see also Petrie’s Syria and Kaypt from
the Tell el Amarna Letters, and Conder’s Tell Amarna Lablets,
2nd_ed.). The Assyr. records are tr. in RP, and (better) in
KIB i.-iii., and in Schrader’s valuable work on the Cunei?.
Inseript. and OT, The early Christian and Moslem accounts
are treated in the publications of the Palestine Pilyrim. Texts
Society.
and de Vogué (luscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie),
and to the latter we owe valuable works on Jerusalem and on
the churches of the crusaders. The history of the various
scripts is given by Isaac Taylor (The Alphabet), and the
coinage is treated by Madden (Coins of the Jews). The Talmudic
geography is detailed by Neubauer (Géoaraphie du Talinud),
and the Arab geographies by Guy le Strange (Pal. wader
the Moslems); while the most important works treating of the
crusaders include Bongars’ Gesta Dei, the History by William
of Tyre, the valuable Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani by Herr
Rohricht, and Rey's Colonies Frangues de la Syrie.” Many
other publications might be added to this list of leading works,
such as the publications of the German Palestine Society, the
works of de Sauley, Guérin, and others, and scattered papers,
gixen by the Biblical Archwological Society and other anti-
quarian societies. — Popular works on the country are not
included in this list. The features of the country may be best
understood from the large model by Mr. G. Armstrong pub-
lished by the Palestine Exploration Fund. The topographical
questions and antiquities are treated in G. A. Smith’s UGHL;
Baedeker, Pal. (last ed.); Nowack, Heb. Arch. ; senzinger,
do. ; see also Conder’s Mandhook to the Bible. Important
details may also be studied in the British Museum catalogues ;
and M. Maspero’s studies of the geographical lists of Thothmes
ut, and Shishak have been published in the Transactions of the
Victoria Institute (for Thothmes, 1886, p. 277 ff., 1888, p. 03 ff.
for Shishak, 1894, p. 68 ff.), which, together with those of the
Royal Asiatic Society, contain other papers bearing on Palestine 4
cf. also parts of Sayce’s Patriarchal Palestine. The Medieval
Samaritan Topography is to be found in Juynboll’s Samaritan
Book of Joshua,and in Neubauer’s Samaritan Chronicle, to which
Nutt’s Samaritans may be added as of value. Recent researches
have so entirely changed the basis on which Palestine antiquities
are now studied, that the traditional Christian topography has
ceased to be regarded as of primary importance, and many
works founded on this information have become obsolete. Out-
side the Bible the most important ancient work bearing on the
condition of the country, about the Christian era, continues to
be that of Josephus; but his text is so corrupt, and his state-
ments of distance and area are so discordant, that it is impossible
to rely on his accuracy in these details.

C. R. Conver.
PALLU (x55; Φαλλούς, Padrdovd). —One of the
sons of Reuben, Gn 46°, Ex 64, Nu 268, 1 Ch 53,
The patronymic Palluites (*N5BD, Φαλλουεί) occurs
in Nu 26°, We should probably read Pallu for
PELETH (wh. see) in Nu 161.

PALM (or THE HAND).—The Heb. word 43 Laph
(from D> to be bent, bowed), signifies the hand as
bent or hollow, the palm in readiness for holding

|
|
|

|

| another (Hos 114, 1 Es 4°),
/on Jn 18*) quotes. further, a clear example from

or grasping, and it is used with great freedom in
OT. Vharaoh’s cup is set upon the palm of Fit
hand (Gn 40" 21); the widow of Zarephath haa
‘but a palmful of meal’ (1 K 17!); the palms are

clapped in applause (2 K 1113) or in derision (Nu

24"): men seize with the palm (Ezk 297), and
smite their palms together in hand-grasp (Pr 01);
the palins are spread out in prayer (Ex 92% 3%) 5 it
is by the toil of the palms that men earn their
bread (Gn 314%); and to bein one’s palm is the Heb,
expression for to be in one’s power. The Eng. idiom
uses ‘hand’ in almost all these places. Indeed
‘palin’ never occurs in AV except when followed by
‘of the hand * (Ly 14%, 1854, Ὁ καὶ 9, Is 4016. Dn 1010}
In Dn 5° 9: * part? (AV and RV) should be ‘palm.’

In Sir 185 God is said to govern the world with
the palin of His hand (ἐν σπιθαμῇ χειρὸς αὐτοῦ, lit.
‘with the span of his hand,’ cf. [π 4012. The Geneva
and Bishops’ Bibles have ‘with the power of his
hand ᾿ς: other VSS, including RV, omit, following a
better text,

The palm of the hand is thrice mentioned in NT.
In Mt 26° it is said that ‘others smote him with
the palms of their hands’; the Gr. is simply οἱ δὲ
ἐρράπισαν (edd. ἐράπισαν). The only other occurrence
of ῥαπίζειν in NT is Mt 5 ὅστις σε paige: εἰς τὴν
δεξιὰν σιαγόνα [σου], ‘whosoever shall smite thee
(RV ‘smiteth thee’) on thy right cheek,’ where
the smiting is clearly with the palm of the hand.
And, as-Swete (on Mk 14) points out, in two at
least of the three LXX instances of ῥαπίζειν, the
reference is to a blow on the face by the hand of
Field (Otium Norv.*

Josephus (dat. VIL xv. 4), who represents Zede-

The Greek inscriptions were collected by Waddington |

kiah as saying, before he struck Micaiah on the
cheek, ‘If he be a true prophet, as soon as he is
struck by me, let him disable iny hand’ (εὐθὺς
ῥαπισθεὶς ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ B\ap~arw μου τὴν χεῖρα); and he
decides, after examining the use of the word in
Classical writers, that pamigew (though from pdms,
arod) is not used as equivalent to ῥαβδίζειν, ‘to
strike with a rod,’ later than Herodotus. RV
therefore need scarcely have repeated the AV
margin ‘or with rods.” In Mk 14% (ῥαπίσμασιν
αὐτὸν ἔβαλλον [but edd. after best MSS ἔλαβον, on
which see Swete, iz doc.j) and in Jn 18% (ἔδωκε
ῥάπισμα τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ) we have the subst. ῥάπισμα, of
Which the meaning is determined by the meaning
of ῥαπίζω : it means a stroke with the palm of the
hand. RV has in Mk ‘received him with blows of
their hands,’ with marg. ‘or strokes of rods’ ; and
in Jn ‘struck Jesus with his hand,’ with marge. ‘or
with «vod! The margins are to be rejected on the
ground of congruity as well as the use of the word,
J. HASTINGS.

PALM TREE (775 ¢a@mar, in Jg 4° and Jer 10° πῃ;
pois, palne).—The palm is indigenous in tropical
and subtropical climates. It is the tree par
eecellence of Egypt and Nubia. It flourishes,
however, in the maritime plain of Pal. and Syria,
as far north as Beirfit and Tripoli. Beyond this it
eXists, even as far as Smyrna. It grew formerly
in abundance in the Jordan Valley, and would do
so now if planted. Although a few trees erow in
sunny places on the lower mountains, they do not
usually bear fruit at an altitude above 1000 ft.
The paln of Scripture is Phanix dactylifera, 1,.,
of the Order Palmer. It is an endogenous tree ;
the trunk, composed of interlacing fibres, is very
light, but exceedingly flexible and strong. A
palm tree sways to and fro in the wind with
inexpressible gracefulness, but seldom breaks,
even in the fiercest gales. Its trunk grows by
additions from above, not increasing in thickness
after it has once become fairly established.
Indeed, by the wearing off of the stumps of the
leaves, it becomes more slender a3 it increases in

”

PALM TREE

PALSY 657

height. This tall, slender, flexible trunk springs
from an immense tuber, a little below the surface
of the ground. From the lower surface of this
tuber descend cord-like white roots, which spread
laterally about as much as the diameter of the
head of leaves, and downward for 6-8 ft. or more.
These give off coarse fibres, which absorb the
moisture from the soil. From the upper aspect of
the tuber, and the lower part of the trunk, spring
true branches. If not cut off, they will grow and
produce the effect of a clump of several trees.
Such clumps are the usual form of growth in the
desert, or in neglected places. But branches very
seldom grow at any considerable height above the
ground. The palm ‘ branches’ (called technically
neo in Lv 23" (see Driver's note in 2/3], ‘palms’
fof the hand], from their shape [οἷ. 722 15 94 19%,
Job 15°°}) do not refer to these, but to the fronds,
which form a hemispherical or nearly spherical
dome, which waves and tosses often at a height cf
50-100 ft. The fronds themselves are 6-12 ft. or
more in leneth, with a stiff midrib, and pinne half
folded lengthwise, ending in a prickly tip. The
lowermost of these fronds are deflexed® the middle
horizontal, and the uppermost erect. From the
terminal bud arise the spathes, which enclose the
flowers. The staminate flowers are on one tree
and the pistillate on another. As soon as they
have shed their pollen, the staminate flowers
wither and drop off. But the clusters of dates on
the fertile tree grow more beautiful as they curve
more and more outward and downward on their
Jong yellow or red stalks, and the ripening dates
tum from green to yellow or red, and sometimes
to a rich maroon colour or almost black. The
fruit is gathered by a man who climbs the tall
slender trunk, cuts the great clusters, places them
in a basket, and lowers them to the ground.

The Scripture allusions to the palm tree are
numerous. Its evergreen foliage and wealth of
delicious fruit are compared with the righteous
(Ps 9915). its tall, graceful stature and mien with
the loveliest of women (Ca 77). Immediately atter
the latter allusion there is another to the mode of
gathering the fruit: ‘I will go up to the palm
tree, Τ will take hold of the boughs thereof’ (v.*).
The boughs here are the graceful stalks of the date
clusters, often 4-6 ft. long, loaded with their

tempting fruit, under the dome of leaves. The
upright port of the palm is noticed (Jer 10°). The

withering of this tree is mentioned with that of
the vine, fig, pomegranate, apple, and other trees,
as a sign of the desolation of the land (δἹ 1”).
Sculptured and carved palm trees were used for
architectural decoration (1 Καὶ 09, Ezk 41! ete.).
Fronds were used for booths (Lv 23%). They were
also used in token of triumph (Jn 1.25. Rev 7°).
The palm gave its name to Phoenicia and to
Phanix in Crete. Jericho was the ‘city of palm
trees’ (Dt 343, Jg 11° 3%, 2 Ch 28%). They existed
in great numbers there in tne time of Christ.
A few wild ones exist now in the Jordan Valley.
Perhaps the fronds used in Christ's triumphal
entry into Jerusalem came from that region,
Yazazon-tamar (Gn 147, 2 Ch 207) possibly means
‘the felling of the palm tree.’ Palms must lave
been abundant in En-eedi (Sir 244), a fact con-
firmed by Josephus and Pliny. Baal-tamar (Je
2059) and Deborah’s palm tree (Jg 4°), in the hill-
country of Benjamin, were probably isolated trees
—perhaps, according to Stanley, the same tree. As
above said, palms were never common in the upper
hills. This would make a single tree in such a
situation a landmark. There are still a few in the
hills of Pal. and Lebanon. ‘Tamar in the south of
Judea (Ezk 47!" 4835) must have been within the
wilderness of the wanderings. Robinson (BRP *
ii. 198, 202) places it at ed-J/ilh. Tadmor (2 Ch 8?)
VOL. I11.—42

is a corruption of (or a mistake for) Tamar. [Ὁ
was noted for its palm trees. None now remain.
Bethany is derived by some from 3) ΠΠΠ3 τ house of
dates, while others derive it from ΠΡ) Π}Ξ τὸ house of
sorrow. The improbability of dates being produced
in quantities suflicient to give their name to a
place, inclines us to think that the latter is the
more correct etymology. ‘Three women are named
Tamar (Gn 38", 28 13! 14%). See TAMAR.

Dates are a staple article of food among the
Bedawin of Sinai and elsewhere. A seedless palin
tree flourishes in the Convent of Mar Saba. Vine
eroves of palm trees are found in all the vases.
The dates are dried separately, not compressed
into cakes. For their weight, they contain a very
large proportion of nutritious matter. A handful
of them lasts an Arab a day or two. Date brandy
is made in the Convent of St. Catherine in Sinai,
and elsewhere. Date honey, called dibs, is also
made. Though there is no unmistakable allusion
to the use of dates as food in the Bible, there can
be no doubt that they were so employed, No
mention is made of the use of palm wood in
building. In modern times it is used only for gate-
posts and rafters. The midribs of the fronds are
used in making crates for fruit and coops for fowls.

Ὁ. ἘΠ Post:

PALMER-WORM (τ: gazam, κάμπη, eruca).—In
the article on Locust, 6, we have pointed out the
uncertainty as to the identification of the creatures
referred to in Jl 14 2%, Am 45... Bochart and his
followers suppose them to be stages in the growth
of the locust. The Oxf. Heb. Lex. agrees with him.
The root o1—=Arab. gazam, signilies ‘to ent off?
This would apply to any destroying larva. We

apply any destroying larva. 2
have further pointed out (Locust, 9) that the Aa@si
(AV and RV ‘caterpillar’) is probably, as in RVm,
a stage of the locust. ‘There are numerous larvie of
moths and butterflies which infest plants in Pal.
and Syria, but none which amount to a pest, or do
any damage comparable to that inflicted by the
successive stages of the locust. The Eng. padmer-
worm is an oid name for the caterpillar, which is
so called either from its wandering about like a
pilgrim, or (more probably) frcm its resemblance
to the palm, provincial Eng. for the catkin of a
willow. G. Ἐπ Posr.

PALSY.—From Gr. παράλυσις (παρά and λύω ‘to
loosen’) came Lat. paralysis, whence Vr. paralysie.
In Old Fr. there were several forms, of which
paralasic and palasie are typical. In Middie Eng.
also the longer and shorter forms were in use with
a great variety of spelling, paralisie, parlesi,
palasie,* palasye,} palesie.* palsey, palsye, ete.
Thus * paralys and ‘palsy’ are doublets. The
former gradually dropped out of common use, and
does not occur in AV ; but now it is supplanting
the latter, except in echoes of biblical language.

The subst. παράλυσις is used only once (Ezk 211°)
inLXX. It isnot used in NT; ‘ palsy’ is the tr. of
either the adj. παραλυτικός or the verb παραλύομαι,
generally in the form ‘sick of the palsy.” When
the Greek is the verb (Lx 5'*74, Ac 87 9%) RV
translates by the Old Eng. verb ‘to palsy,’ which
is not used in AV, but occurs twice in Shaks.
Coriol. V. ii. 46, and Meas. for Meas. U1. i. 36—

ΑἸ] thy blessed youth
Becomes as aged, and doth beg the alms
Of palsied eld’ ;
and is still in poetic use.
see under MEDICINE, p. 326.

“

For palsy or paralysis
J. HASTINGS.

* These two forms are found in Wvyclif’s version.
¢t Asin Chaucer, Rom. of tose, A 1098—
‘The mordaunt, wought in noble wyse,
Was of a stoon ful precious,
That was so fyn and vertuous,
That hool a man it Goude make
Of palasye, and of tooth-ake.’

6538 PALTI

PAMPHYLIA

PALTI (+255, badr(e)i).—4. One of the twelve men
sent by Moses to spy out the Jand, Nu 13°. He
was the representative of the tribe of Benjamin.
2. The man to whom Michal, David’s wife, was
given hy Sanl, 1S 254. See MICHAL, MARRIAGE,

p. 514". In 28 815 he is called Paltiel. See follow-
ing article under No. 2. J. A. SELBIE.

PALTIEL (5x25 2 Φαλτί(ε)ιήλ).---, The prince of
Issachar, one of those appointed to divide the land,
Nu 345, 2, 2S 3, the same as Palti of 1S 254,
Tt is uncertain which is the original form. Pa/tie/
is quite in place in P’s list of names in Nu 34, but
is Jess so in 28 3, where moreover Pa/fi has the
support of the Syr. and Arab. versions (see Gray,
Heb. Proper Names, 204, 310). Lohr, on the
other hand, takes Δ 7) } to be a shortened form of
Pultiel ‘ny retuge is El.’ J. A. SELBIE,

PALTITE, THE (sb27; Bb Κελωθεί, Α ὁ Φελλωνεί;

Vule. de Phalti).—A native of Beth-pelet in the |

Negveb of Judah (Jos 1577, Neh 1135). To this
town belonged Helez, one of David’s thirty heroes
(28 23°). In the parallel lists (1 Ch 117? 971)
Helez is described as ‘the Pelonite’ (x27), a
variation which is supported by the reading of
the LXX (A) in 55. Probably, however, ‘the
Pelonite’ of the Chronicler is due to a seribal
error, and ‘the Paltite’ of the MT (cf. Pesh. 0?

0
«ΔΝ Ὁ) is to be retained, See PELONITE.
J.P. STENNING.

PAMPHYLIA (ἸΤαμφυλία) was a country on the
south coast of Asia, having Lycia to the west and
Cilicia Tracheia (called in later times [sauria) on
the east. In the earlier and classical usage, Pam-
phylia included only the narrow strip οἱ flat,
low-lying ground between the sea and the lofty
front ridge of the broad belt of mountains called
Taurus, which stretches from east to west along
the southern edge of the great central plateau of
Asin Minor. The Pamphylian coast-lands were
entirely dominated by Mount Taurus, which forms
τ singularly erand and impressive feature as one
sails along the coast or approaches it from the sea.
On the west frontier and on the east, in the border-
lands of Lycia and Tracheiotic Cilicia, Taurus
approaches very close to the sea, and in’ some
places actually rises straight out of the water with
hardly room tor a road to pass between the moun-
tain wall and the sea. But the Pamphylian strip
of land is in some places as much as 15 to 20 miles
broad, and its leneth from east to west was esti-
mated by Strabo at 640 stadia or SO miles.

The Taurus ridge alone almost its whole front
presents an exceedingly steep and lofty face
towards the south; and hence the ascent from the
level plain of Pamphylia up the ridge of Taurns is
very steep. In one place the road that ascends
the precipitous face ot Taurus was called Klimax,
the Ladder; and it is still correctly described by
that name, for the road ascends literally by a series
of broad steps for more than 2000 ft. On reaching
the summit there is no corresponding descent on
the northern side; but the traveller finds himself
on a high-lying ground, containing many large
open valleys as well as narrower glens, and many
mountains and hills. This high ground is distin-
guished in the most marked way from the low plain
hy the sea ; and the classical nomenclature observed
the distinction, Pamphylia being the name of the
sea plain and Pisidia being the high country. In
later time the name Pamphylia was extended over
a considerable part of Pisidia owing to new political
conditions, for in A.D. 74 the Romans made an
enlarged province of Pamphylia, whose bounds
reached north to the frontier of Asia and the lake

Askania (see PIStpIA). But in the NT times Pam-
phyla had the old and narrower limits.

Though many paths across Taurus connect the
Pamphylian cities with the country on the north
side of the mountains, they are all so lone and
dificult that none of them has ever been an im-
portant route for trade. It was more convenient
to send the produce of the southern plateau lands
either westwards to the Aigean harbours (especially
Ephesus) or by the Cilician Gates to Tarsus. ‘Thus
the Pamphyhan harbours served as export and
import stations only for the Pamphylian strip of
coast-land and for the nearer Pisidian glens and
valleys ; and the Pamphylian cities never became
especially important or wealthy, as they had a
comparatively small country behind them. Still
the land was rich enough to attract Greek colonies
at an early period; the coinage of Side and
Aspendos shows that they were half-Greek cities
as early as the Sth cent. B.C. ; and Sillyon appears
as a partially Grecized city about 300 B.C. But
the Greek language spoken in these Pamphylian
cities was much corrupted, and in Side is said toe
have passed wholly out of use before the time of
Alexander the Great. The coin-legends and in-
scriptions in dialects of Greek are sometimes hardly
intelligible, owing to the peculiar character of the
alphabet and of the words.

These facts prove that the Greek colonizing
element in Pamphylia was not strong enough to
maintain itself and to dominate the native clement.
It died out or melted into the native population.
Even after the victories of Alexander the Great
strenethened the Greek influence in Asia, Perga
in Pamphylia, a purely native priestly centre, rese
to importance, and struck a variety of coins. In
opposition to it arose the Greek city Attalia, a
Pergamenian foundation of the 2nd cent. Perhaps
Ptolemais during the 8rd cent. marks a similar
attempt to establish Greek inthience under the
protection of the Ptolemies ; but the attribution
of the coins ITOAEMAIEQN to Pamphylia is far
from certain, though it is quite natural that in the
acme of Ptolemaic power the name may have been
temporarily applied to some Pamphylian city,
Which was used as a centre of the authority of the
Grieco-EKeyptian kings. But in the 2nd and Ist
cents. B.C. the greatest and wealthiest cty of
Pamphylia was Side, whose rich coinage at this
period is attributed by numismatists to its serving
asthe market where the pirates of Cilicia Tracheia
disposed of their booty.

In these circumstances it was inevitable that
the Greek, or rather Grieco-Roman, element should
be weak in Pamphylia in the period when Chiristi-
anity first entered the country. It was not one
of the more highly civilized regions, but rather
one where the native Anatolian and Oriental char-
acter had proved stronger than the Western influ-
ence. ‘This fact determined its history in the
Christian period. In Pamphylia Christianity
played a very small part during the early cen-
turies. The new religion spread most in the more
civilized and educated regions, and not in lands
like Pamphyla.

Another feature of the country must have
exercised a strone determining influence on its
history. A flat plain little raised above sea-level,
sheltered by the lofty wall of Taurus from the
cooling and invigorating northern breezes which
make the climate of the central Anatolian plateau
for the most part invigorating and temperate—
with a soil always saturated with the waters that
flow down from Taurus or rise in great springs at
its feet, and therefore at once fertile and fever-
laden—with an atmosphere also heavy and satu-
rated with the moisture from the soil and from the
sea, moved only by fitful breezes setting from and

PAN

PAPHOS 659

to the sea, —Pamphylia was not a country likely to
keep alive the vigour and energy of European
colonists. Though the soil, being more thoroughly
cultivated in ancient than in modern time, would
not give forth the same malaria that gives the
coast so infamous a reputation, yet the natural
circumstances make it necessarily and always an
enervating climate.

Christianity was brought to Pamphylia by Paul
and Barnabas on their first missionary journey.
This was the country which naturally came next
within their sphere of work after Cyprus. Cilicia
had already heard the word ; and in their progress
from Cyprus they must next proceed to Pamphylha.
There seems no doubt that the plan of work for
the missionaries, probably sketched out even before
they started from Syrian Antioch (Ac 13°), must
have contemplated the evangelization of Pamphylia
next after Cyprus. Thither, then, the missionaries
proceeded ; but after they had reached the country
there arose a difference of opinion, and John Mark
left his companions and returned to Jerusalem,
while the two apostles crossed Mount Taurus and
reached Pisidian Antioch. It appears that they
did not preach in Pamphylia at this time. The
only reasonable interpretation of these circum-
stances is that the first intention had been to
preach in Pamphylia (which, as we have seen, was
the natural order of evangelization) ; and that all
three concurred in that purpose: but, when the
sphere of action was removed from Pamphylia to
Pisidian Antioch, John Mark refused to acquiesce
in the change of plan. Some time later, on their
return, the apostles preached in Perea (though
apparently with small success); and their action
on that occasion proves that Pamphylia was in-
cluded in their intended sphere of work. It seems
rational to suppose either that the plan of pro-
ceeding to Antioch was formed at Paphos, or that
John acquiesced in that plan until he reached
Pampliyha, and then abandoned the work (Ac 138).

As to the reason why the sphere of work had
been changed from Pamphylian to Antioch, no
information is given in Acts; but a plausible
conjecture has been advanced that residence in
the moist and enervating atmosphere of Pam-
phyla, coming after the fatigue of missionary
travel and the intense effort of the scene in
Paphos, brought out a certain weakness in St.
Paul's constitution, causing the illness alluded to
in Gal 4},

Christianity seems to have been slow and late in
acquiring a strong footing in Pamphylia. When
St. Peter wrote to the Churches in the provinces
of Asia Minor, he sent no message to Pamphylia
or to Lycia, which may fairly be taken as a proof
that there was no body of Christians in those
districts (his omission of Cilicia, where there was
a body of Christians, arose from that district
beine classed along with Syria, and therefore being
outside the range of the Epistle). On the extinc-
tion of C hristianity in Pamphyla see PERGA.

A long succession of travellers have visited and
described the Pamphylian country: by far the
most elaborate study of some Pamplylian cities is
contained in the splendid folios of Lanckoronski's
Stadt: Pamphylicns. F. M. RAMSAY.

PAN.—See Foon in vol. ii. p. 40, 5. ‘Vessels.’

PANNAG (2:5 pannag, xacia, balsamum).— One
of the articles of commerce of Judah and Israel
(Ezk 2737), The LXX xacia is defined as ‘a shrub
similar to the laurel,’ but there is no hint as to its
identity. Balsamum is alike indefinite. Ace. to
the book Zohar (13th cent.) 22 055 lehem-pannag
means ‘pastry work.’ Dr. Van Dyck in his Arab.
VS ot the Bible gives haldwa. This is a well-known

confection, made of syrup, carob honey, dibs (grape
honey), or date honey, boiled with “decoction of
soapwort roots and sesame oil. ‘This sweet is very
extensively made and eaten by Orientals, and is a
considerable article of commerce. [Ὁ is known in
Turkish as pék-més. We have not seen any de-
seription of it in ancient authors, and its etymology

bears no resemblance to that of pannag. In the
absence of decisive evidence, the Ene. versions

wisely transliterate the original, RVm_ ¢loss
‘perhaps a kind of confection.’ Cornill (ad doc.)
and Hotfinann (Phon. Lnschkr. 15) emend to 2.1
‘wax.’ iG, Ἐπ ΠΟΙ,

See

PAPER, PAPER REEDS, PAPYRUS.
LEED, WRITING.

PAPHOS (Πάφος) is mentioned in Ae 13) as
the residence of the proconsul of Cyprus, SERGIUS
PAULUS, who was visited and converted by St.
Paul on his first missionary journey.

The city here meant is New Paphos, the ad-
ministrative capital of the Roman province of
Cyprus, the ruins of which are to be seen at Baffo,
about a mile south of the modern town of Ktima,
on the west coast of the island. These remains,
which are all of Roman date, include a small
theatre and amphitheatre, traces of a temple,
numerous house foundations, parts of the city
wall, and the moles of the ancient harbour. Out-
side the wall are traces of another columnar edifice,
and on and near the site are the ruins of a Greek
cathedral and other mediwval buildings. Several
groups of rock-tombs in the neighbourhood seem
to be of earlier than Roman date, but nothing is
known of the settlement to which they may have
belonged.

Old Paphos, which was deserted in favour of the
site already described, les at Aouh/ia, on the left
bank of the Didrizo river (anc. Bocarus), about 10
miles W.S.W. of Batio, and a little inland. Paphos
was one of the most notable cities of ancient Cyprus,
and owed its celebrity to the temple and cult of
the § Paphian goddess,’ whom the Greeks identitied
with Aphrodite. Paphos is said to have been
founded by the legendary Ixinyras, whose clan
retained royal privileges down to the Ptolemaic
conquest (B.C. 295), and the priesthood of the god-
dess until the annexation of the island to Rome
(B.c. 58). The goddess was worshipped under the
form of a conical stone, in an open-air sanctuary,
the general appearance of which is known from
mumerous representations on Roman imperial
coins, and the ground plan from excavations
made in 1888 on behalf of the Cyprus Exploration
Fund. The temple is known to have suffered
severely from earthquakes, and to have been
rebuilt more than once. It consisted in Roman
times of an open court surrounded on three sides
by chambers and porticos, and was entered through
them from the east by a gateway. The position
of the sacred stone, and the interpretation of many
details shown on the coins, remain uncertain. ΤῸ
the south of the main court He the remains of
what may be an earlier temple, or the traditional
tomb of Kinyras, almost wholly destroyed except
the western wall of gigantic stone slabs.

After the extinction of the native and Ptolemaic
dynasties, and the foundation of New Paphos, the
importance of the old town rapidly declined : the
place was ruined by earthquakes, and desolate
already in Jerome’s time ( Vitu Hilar tonis) ; though
the Acts of Barnabas mention «a Christian resident,
formerly a ἱερόδουλος.

LITERATURE.—Meursius, Cyprus, 8.v.; Journal of Hellenic
Studies, ix. 158-271 (esp. literary sources for history of Old
Paphos, 175-192 : excavations in the temple, 193-215).

L. MYREs.

660 PARABLE (IN OT)

PARABLE (IN OT)

PARABLE (IN OT).—
1. The psychological origin of the use of Parables.
2. Relation of Parables to other devices of style.
3. The Parables of the OT and their closest analogues.

1. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIGIN OF THE USE OF
PARABLES.—It is a necessity imposed by its very
nature upon the human spirit to illustrate with
the greatest possible clearness the objects and pro-
cesses belonging to the sphere of ideas.
two leading paths which literary style pursves in
order to satisfy this psychological want. The
first cf these is chosen when one expressly points
to a parallel which the phenomenon in question
has in another sphere.
when two spheres of phenomena are as it were

There are |

The second method is |

looked at as the two sides of a unity, and the ex-
pressions which properly belong to the description
of the concrete sphere are applied to the ideal
sphere, we have the J/etaphor. One sees it in such
instances as the following: ‘the light of thy
countenance’ (Ps 47 [Ene.®]); ‘they that be wise
shall shine,’ ete., ae. be held in honour (Dn 12°),
cf. ἀναλάμψουσιν (Wis 91), ‘super stellas fuleebunt
facies eorum qui abstinentiam habuerunt’ (4 Ezr
7°), ‘ye shall shine’ (Enoch 1042), οἱ δίκαιοι ἐκλάμ-
Youow (Mt 13%). When the metaphorical expres-

sions extend through a number of sentences, the

i

looked at fogether, and when in the description of |
of allegorical language are found in (ἀπ 49°, Nu

the one sphere those expressions are directly em-
ployed which properly designate the notions and
the phenomena of the other sphere.

2. RELATION OF PARABLES TO OTHER DEVICES
OF STYLE.—(@) When the first of the above-named
ways of illustrating spiritual phenomena is adopted,
this gives rise to the following stylistic devices :—
(a) ‘The Simi/e, as in the expressions, ‘he shall be
like a tree planted by the rivers of water’ (Ps 1°),
or ‘thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's
vessel’ (2"), or in the Arabic ‘arrows blue like the

teeth of the Ghils’ (hee, lit. ‘the surprising one,’

a species of demon), cf. A. F. Mehren, Die Rhetorik
der Araber, p. 21. (3) The Simile, however, not
infrequently expands into an independent descrip-
tion. Hence arise the following five devices of
style: (.) The /v4/e is a narrative in which sub-
jects from the mineral, vegetable, or animal king-
doms are introduced as if they were capable of
thought and speech. ‘The only instances of the
Fable in the OT are the story told by Jotham (J¢
9&5; Kimehi, ad doc. o2y seis on osyn Sep) and that
spoken by Jehoash to Amaziah (2 Καὶ 145). Ezk
17>) is not a Fable (see below, 2 ὁ). (ii.) The
Parable, again, is a narrative whose subject is
personal, and which is constructed in order to
depict something vividly. Along with its closest
analogues it will be dealt with more fully below
(see 3), and the question will be answered whether

the O'T contains something similar, such as (ili)
the Paramyth. Vhese three kinds of fictitious

illustrative narrative have their opposite in (iv.)
the παράδειγμα (eremplum) or Example, for the
latter is a narrative of a real occurrence, which
serves to illustrate the situation in view. Instances
of the παράδειγμα are found in Ps 906. (Moses),
106°" (Phinehas), Neh 13°85 (Solomon), 1 Mae 252-8
(Abraham and others), 2 Mac 6-5! (Rleazar), Jth
8 (Abraham and others), 4 Mac 3° (David), ete.
To the same category belong the stories of Tobit
and Susanna in so far as these have a real his-
torical kernel. It is a narrative of the same kind
which has for its subjeet that emperors daughter
(79p7 1073) who at the sight of Rabbi Joshua ex-
claimed, ‘ What a pity that such renowned wisdom
should be stored in so ugly a casket’; to which the
Rabbi replied, ‘In what does the emperor, your
father, store his wine?’ ‘In earthen vessels,’ said
she : whereupon the Rabbi retorted that an emperor
should use more costly vessels. When this counsel
was followed, the wine deteriorated (Bab. Talm.
Tdanith 7*; see, further, Fiirstenthal, p. 150). So,
too, the narrative of Ishtar’s descent to Hades (Die
Hollenfahrt der Istar, ed. Alfred Jeremias, 1887)
is related as an ‘Example’ (d.c. p. 7). Finally, (v.)
the Parallel consists in placing side by side the
particular points which two sets of phenomena
have incommon. It is altogether a rare product
of the rhetorical art, and as yet the present writer
has failed to discover it in the OT.

(ὁ) When the material and the ideal spheres are

description is called Adleqorical ; ef. Cicero, de
Oratore, 27: eum contluxerunt plures continue
translationes, @/ia@ plane fit oratio: itaque genus
hoe Grveci appellant ἀλληγορίαν.᾽ Certain instances

248). 9’ ate,, Is 1” ete. ~ Further, zk ΠΕ nota
‘Fable’? [against Bertholet, Avazer Handcomin.,
1897, ad loc.}, for the very expression ‘the great
eagle,’ with which the passage commences, is to be
understood vot as if the author had in view a veal
eagle, but as referring to the subject Nebuchad-
nezzar which was well known to his contem-
poraries (cf. Komie, Syntax, ὃ 297a-c, 298, ὃ).
Consequently the phrase ‘the great eagle’ is a
mark of the Allegory, which could not be better

characterized than in the following terms: ‘When

an author does not describe that phenomenon of
which he really means to speak, but another which
has more or fewer points of resemblance to it, and
yet carries out the description in such a way that
one easily perceives that it is not the latter but
the former phenomenon that he has in view, this
constitutes an Allegory? (Heinrich Kurz, Handbuch
der poctischen Nationalliteratur der Deutschen,
184). Good instances of Allegories are Hans
Sachs’ Die Wittenbergisch Nachtiqall, or Schiller’s
‘Das Miidchen aus der Fremde,’ not to speak of
Bunyan’s Pilgriie’s Progress.

ὃ. Tite PARABLES OF THE OT AND THEIR
CLOSEST ANALOGUES. —(@) Parables in the ordi-
nary sense of this term (see above, 2 @) are found
in 2S 124 148) 1 Καὶ 208%, Ts 516 oss) An
interesting essay by P. Cersoy (of Lyons) on
15 δι “ὁ appeared in the Revue Biblique (Jan. 1899 ;
summary in Δ΄ μος. Times, April 1899, p. 325) under
the title ‘PApologue de la Vigne.’ He proposes
to render y.!** | will sing to my beloved my love-
song touching his vineyard’ (je vais chanter ὦ mon
anu mon chant amnical ἃ propos de sa vigne). But
if the prophet had intended himself as the primary
author of this poem, it would have been unnatural
to introduce God as the speaker in vv." On the
other hand, the circumstance that at the beginning
of the parable (vv.!:*) the owner of the vineyard
is treated as a third person, is quite explicable.
By the selection of this third person a twotold
object is gained. In the first place the commence-
ment of the parable connects itself directly with
the exordimn, and in the second place the appear-
ance is avoided of Isaiah himself being the owner
of the vineyard. Cersoy sugeests, further, that in
νον Isaiah * probably utilized a short popular song.’
But this view finds no support either in the differ-
ence of structure between the clauses of vv.!?:? and
vv.*-5, or in the transition to the first person (νν.5 Ὁ
‘T pray you,’ ete.), for it is perfectly natural that
the outburst of the Divine anger should find its
expression in a direct address by God Hunself.

Althongh none of the above-cited five passages
of the OT is actually called a 5¥2 (mdshal), it is
not therefore to be inferred that this term could
not be appropriately applied to them. Its absence
may be sutticiently explained as simply due to the
fact that the particular writers did not take occa-
sion to add the terminus technicus. Jerome was
quite right in his remark on Is 57 ‘Que prius

.

PARABLE (IN OT)

PARABLE (IN OT) 661

per metaphoram dicta sunt vel per parabeliam
pastes exponuntur manifestius.’ So Iximehi began
1

is exposition of 28 12'4 with m7 9v2a, introduced |

Sean

the passage 14° with the words 3x27 apn xm,
began his exposition of Is 5! with πρὶν xai7 929
Sep, and finally explained ‘x asian of 28° by
ben Τοῦ ond πον * He spoke to them in the way of
ἃ mashal.’ The correctness of this last interpreta-
tion results from two considerations, namely the
original sense of mdshal, and the later usage of
this word and its linguistic congeners.

This leads to the remark that the original sense
of mashdl is very open to dispute. The now pre-
railing theory was argued for by Vleischer in
an Excursus to Delitzsch’s Commentar uber die
Proverbien, p. 13f., and it is maintained also
in Gesenius- Buhl, ΤΠ} 809 {8 eigentlich woll :
als etwas stehen, depriisentiren etwas,’ ¢.c. ‘lit.
perhaps: stand for something, represent some-
thing’). Essentially the same view is shared by
E. Meier, Wurzelworterbuch, p. 503 f. It may be
stated thus: In Arabie matala =‘ stetit erectus,’
ete. Hence metalun (=mashal) was originally
a ‘positio’ Kar’ ἐξοχήν.
from the point of view of security and then became
—‘aflirmatio’ (cf. 2 σ᾽ ‘impose on one,’ ὅκα. rule
over one), or from the point of view of the formu-
lating of a thought, and then the ‘ positio” became
the investiture or representation ot an idea. But
this derivation of mashal requires some very bold
leaps in order to reach its goal, and hence we
venture to suggest another derivation. Our start-
ing-point shall be the fact that the sense of ‘re-
semble,’ ‘be like,’ is the predominating one with
the verb δ and its Semitic cognates. This is the
only sense of the Assyr. masdlu, the Eth. masdla
(Dillmann: ‘similis, consentaneus fuit’), the Aram.
metal, and it is the prevailing one also of the Arab.
matala. On this we would rest the thesis that
mashal originally had the sense of ‘likeness’ or
‘complex, ἃ view which is supported by the cir-
cumstance that the Assyr. mas/u means ὁ totality.’
Now, what is the commonest form of an identifica-
tion orcombination? It is the judgment, and the
embodiment of this is the simple sentence. Accord-
ingly méshal might be the designation of a sentence,
but also of other kinds of combination of individual
conceptions and of whole sets of conceptions. From
mashal (‘judgment’) may come a denominative
verb το (frule’) which meets us in Phoenician (cf.
Bloch, Phan. Glossar, p. 43) and in Hebrew. _ For
the activity of a ruler exhibited itself originally in
the pronouncing of judgments (cf. Solomon’s words,
‘to judge thy people,’ 1 K 3"). From the stability
which is a natural quality of such judgments may
be derived, further, the Arab. mate(ujla, ‘stand
fast. * With this agrees the circumstance that

* Fuerst (Heb.-Chald. Worterb.5 1876, 8.0.) co-ordinates byt

¢

we

*rule’ with the Arab. bau! (basula), ‘strenuus fuit.’ This is
not absolutely impossible. For the Aram. Sno is not found
with the sense of ‘rule,’ and therefore there need not be found

an Arab, we answering to the Heb. zip ‘rule.’ Further, a

correspondence between m and ὁ is not altogether rare in
Semitic (ef. J. Barth, Etymolog. Studien, p. 32). But it is not
necessary to appeal to this basula. By the way, the connexion
between the two leading senses of 9WD is not explained by Abu
‘l-walid in his Kitdbu‘l-usili (ed. Ad. Neubauer), p. 395. He
contents himself with simply linking together the different

groups of words by the formula P| ἐς ‘and another

sense’ [appears, etc.]. David Kimchi, in his Book of Roots, says
323 ON 137 MDI NIT ΟΣ jy, te. ‘the sense conveyed by
the term mdshdl is the likeness of one thing to another.’ Like-
wise the two latest commentators on the Book of Proverbs
(Wildeboer in the Kurzer Hdcomm. and Frankenberg in
Nowack’s Hdkomm., published in 1897f.) have made no
attempt to solve the linguistic difficulty presented by the
word Syn,

This might be looked at |

the Arab. matalun is used both for ‘sententia’
and ‘parabola.’ In like manner the Heb, washal
has the sense of ‘general proposition’ (γνώμη»
sententia, ‘maxim’), as in ‘the proverb of the
ancients, Out of the wicked cometh forth wicked-
ness’ (1 5. 9413). In the sense of ‘proverb? >y'2 18
found also in Sir 4717, See, further, art. PROVERB.

But none the less has masha@d the sense of * par-
able. * This is clear from the later identification
of it and its cognates with ‘similitude’ (Germ,
Gleichniss). ‘Three mésd/e? are announced in
Eth. Enoch 375, namely those contained in chs.
38-44, 45-57. and 58-71. In these mésddydt or
mésdléyat phenomena and processes of the supra-
mundane sphere are employed to illustrate the
earthly fortunes of the kingdom of God. These
three sections, then, contain essentially what we
call parables. The same purpose is the starting-
point of visions. This comes ont clearly in the
words, ‘demonstra mihi et hoc, 51. plus quam
prieteritum sit habet venire’ (4 Ezr 459), for this
request is satisfied by a vision which is described
thus, ‘ecce fornax ardens transiit coram me,’ ete.
(v.°8), and this vision is expressly called in v.47 a
‘similitudo.? We read of another ‘similitudo’” in
8+ and again a vision is expressly called a ‘ simili-
tudo’ in the words ‘vidisti similitudinem eius,
quomodo filiuin lugeret’ (10%). Likewise the
‘amsal, which make up the third part of the Shep-
herd of Hermas, are visions in which the vine,
ete., is shown (see the Ethiopie version published
by Antoine d’Abbadie in Abhandlungen fur die
Kunde des Morgenlandes, ii. 1, p. 4718). In any

case the Syr. Ls, which exactly corresponds to
the Heb. Sen, is used to render παραβολή in Mt
1318. 31. 8 ete, 2153, Mk 43 ete., Lk 5° 6 147 ete.
The post-biblical literature of the Jews exhibits
the same use of the word md@shal. For instance,
the Talmud (Shabb. 1526) records how a certain
king distributed royal garments among his ser-
rants. The wise amongst these placed the
garments in a chest, but the foolish wore them
in going about their ordinary work. One day the
king asked for his garments. The wise gave them
back to him just as they had been when they
received them, but the garments returned by the
foolish were soiled. Then the king commended
the wise, but ordered the foolish to be cast into
prison, and their garments were handed over to
the fuller (om25). This story is expressly called a
sso Sep ‘a parable of a king,’ and is introduced
to illustrate the saying, ‘ Give it (the soul) back to
Him (God) as He gave it to thee’ (πῆρ 7x2 49 Fin
ὃ). The very same expression, 7525 Svi2, is met
with in Shab. 1538a; and in ‘Aboda Zara 546 one
finds “ἢ Sep 75 Sviox, namely the parable of the
king who presented his son with a dog, ete. In
like manner the celebrated stories of ‘ the seven
sages’ were called Mishlé Sindbad (ed. P. Cassel,
3 Anflage, 1884), and in point of fact they are only
partially ὁ Examples’ (see above 2 @ 8 (iv. )), namely
in so far as they are intended to describe real
oceurrences. ‘Che most of them are parables, and
they contain such expressions as ‘the second par-
able of the empress,’ ete. It may be added that
we hear of a Buddhist parable (cf. e.g. Edmund
Hardy, Der Buddhismus, 1890, p. 124 f.), and that
Herodotus (i. 141) records the parable of the tlute-

_ player and the fishes which would not dance to his

playing. Volkimann (p. 879), too, speaks of the
παραβολή Which is clothed in the form of a narrative.

(ὁ) How closely connected the expression mashal
was with the notion of a parable is evident from

* A combination of ‘sententia’ and ‘similitudo’ may be ob-
served in IBN Ὁ} of Job 131", ‘sentences which are strewn ag
lightly as ashes.’

662 PARABLE (IN OT)

PARABLE (IN NT)

the cireumstance that vin is the title of the pas-
sage Hzk 24°°. V. reads moni 299 ‘n ia ‘ Utter
a parable unto the rebellious house, and say’
(=saying); and in vy.'> we read, ‘Set on a pot,
set it on, and also pour water into it: gather its
pieces (i.e. those which belong to the pot), ete.
Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the
bones under it, and make it boil well, and let
them seethe the bones of it therein.’ This last
passage furnishes a double proof of our position.
On the one hand, it contains a narrative which
corresponds with the above-cited stories in 28 12h4
ete. Consequently these five passages also might
have been equally designated by the title applied

-Φ« ae

to Ezk 24°°, namely mdshal (Arab. VS ches,

On ¥

Pesh. ἢ Διο, LXX παραβολήν ; while the Targum
alone, from a supposed necessity to heighten the
dignity of the passage, rendered by ΠΝ) ‘a pro-
phecy >). On the other hand, there is a formal
acreement between Ezk 24> and 324h-26 41:15. 51-4
ete. In all these passages, that is to say, there
is mention of a Divine command to perform some
action, and then it is added that this action illus-
trates some idea. Thus the five passages, 2 αὶ 124
οὐ, and’ Hzk .3749-% 41%..etc.. 24° acree in ‘their
didactic aim; and both sets of passages are para-
bolical, Vhis conclusion is strenethened further
by the consideration that the passages in Ezk just
cited cannot be separated from Is 2074, Jer 251%,
According to the last passage, the prophet received
the commission, ‘Take the wine-cup of this fury
at my hand, and cause all the nations to whom
I send thee, to drink it’; and the prophet adds,
‘Then took L the cup at the Lord’s hand, and made
all the nations to drink.’ This action cannot
really have been performed. Henee the view is
recommended that also in Ezk 374-76 41-12 51-4 ete,
we have poraholical narratives. The same cate-
gory includes the Bk. of Jonah, as has been shown
in vol. it. p. T4610, and we must add the story of
Judith, for the very name nant means ‘a Jewess,’
and stamps the heroine of this book as a personi-
fication of the Jewish nation. The Bk. of Jth
is, as Luther said, Sein eeistlich schon Gedicht’
(ΟΕ further, Komie, Minlertiang, p. 479 f.).

(ὦ) The Parcanyths, which, according to J. (Ὁ.
Herder, are to be distinguished from the parables,
have also their analogues in the Hebrew literature
(cf. παραμύθιον, Which in Wis 3% is used for *con-
solation’® [-- παραμυθία of 1 Co 14°), and in Ph 2!
for ‘comfort [ot love|’). Herder understood by
Paramyths such narratives fas serve for the cheer-
ing of the soul, and are based upon the ancient
Greek myths. They are stories in which per-
sonifications of ideas or of natural processes are
introduced as living beings. πὸ of Herder’s
paramythical narratives commences with ‘Aurora
complained to the gods,’ and another with ‘ Night
and Day contended with each other for the pre-
eminence,’ and a third with ‘Once beside a mur-
muring stream Care sat down and mused.’ Now
we find instances of personification in the OT as
well. For instanee, we read ‘the light of the
righteous rejoiceth’? (Pr 135). and ‘foolishness (142)
plucketh that down which wisdom of women has
built’ (vl). The same foolishness is further de-
scribed in a whole narrative as a seductive woman
(WS) sand the same wisdom, with whose help
Jahweh Himself founded the earth (3!, ef. 15:0),
comes forward as the subject of a dramatically
worked action in ‘Doth not Wisdom cry,’ ete. ?
(8:8). A story of the same kind meets us in
Sir 24°") for there, likewise, ‘wisdom?’ is an attri-
bute of God which was displayed in the creation
of the world and the guiding of Israel. This
appears with the greatest clearness from the words,

καὶ €ppifwoa ἐν Kaw δεδοξασμένῳ, ‘and J took 1 οοὗ in
a people that was glorified’ (v.17). It is only a
personification of wisdom that is found in Wis
Get The words iva pabynte codiay (v.!) show
this in the most decisive fashion. Likewise in
7 wisdom stands simply for the attribute of God
(cf. “Phy wisdom? in 9°) which controls the world
and the course of history... For Solomon could
imbibe and reproduce this wisdom, cf. ἔμαθον (75),
εἰς ψυχὰς ὁσίας μεταβαίνουσα (ν. 5), εἰσῆλθεν els ψυχὴν
θεράποντος Kupiov (10!%); and by wisdom nothing
else is meant than by ἀφροσύνη of 105",

The post-biblical literature of the Jews also
contains narratives, in which personifications ap-
pear as subjects. One of these commences, ‘ While
Noah lived in the ark, one day the Lie appeared
and begged to be admitted. Noah, who did not
know the Lie, was prepared to grant her request,
but he declared that he could not do this until
she should have procured a companion, because
only pairs could be admitted into the ark. The
Lie had thus to retire after a bootless errand.
But searcely Lad she gone a few paces when she
met Jijustice, Alone with her the Lie was now
admitted into the ark, but the two over-reached
one another’ (Midrash, χη, Gn 56; Fiirsten-
thal, op. cit., No. 497). See, further, the following
article.

LirerarureE.—A. F. Mehren, Die Rhetorik der Araber, 1853;
R. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Roiner, 2 Autlage,
Isv42 RK. J. Furstenthal, Aabbdnische Blumentese, 1835, Other
works are named in the body of the article.

Ep. KONIG,

PARABLE (ΙΝ NT).—The subject will be treated
under five heads: Terminology, Christ’s Use of
Parables, their Distribution in the Gospels, their
Classification, and their Interpretation.

1. The Term παραϑολή (παραβάλλω) means 6a plas-
ing of one thine beside another’? with a view to
comparison. ‘Trench contends that ‘this notion of
comparison is not necessarily included in the word.’
But it appears as early as the word itself, and ia
very frequent (Plato, Pid. 88. B; Arist. Top. 1. 10.
5; Polyb. i. 2. 2). From the original idea of
‘throwing beside’ come the derived meanings of
‘exposing,’ represented by παράβολος, and of ‘com-
paring,’ represented by παραϑολή. Latin writers
use collatio (freq. in Cic.), cargo (Cie. Sen. Hor.),
and stiilitaddo (Cie. Quint.). The Lat. VSS com-
monly have parabola (Mt 13% 1°18 ete.), which
survives in the Fr. parole and through porabolare
in parler; It simititudo is fairly common, esp. 1}
Lk (4% -5% 6% 94 1276 13820-2914). ‘But-in moss
of these cases some representatives of the Old
Lat., esp. @ and d, have parabola. Conversely,
many Old Lat. texts sometimes have stmilitudo
where the Vule. has parabola (Lk 124 15° 18? 1911).

In ΤᾺΝ παραβολή very commonly represents
the Heb. mashal, which also implies comparison
(Nu 237 18 24% 15. 20.21.23 ete.) But madshal is also
rendered παροιμία (Pr 11, Sir 6% 8° etc.), and θρῆνος
(Is 144), and προοίμιον (Job 27! 20, Like Ber-
spiel in German, it sometimes indicates an ex-
ample set up for edification or warning (Jer 24°,
Mic 24, Wis δ). When it means an utterance of
deeper meaning than appears on the surface, it is
sometimes joined with πρόβλημα (Ps 48* 77=, Hab
25), or αἴνιγμα (Dt 9851, Sir 39° 4718), or διήγημα
(2 Ch 739, Ezk 172), or σκοτεινὸς Ndyos (Pr 1), The
meaning of such dark utterances becomes clear
through the application or comparison which is
indicated ; and those who miss the application lose
the true meaning of the parable, which is often a
short saying, such as we should rather call a
proverb (1S 10¥ 24, Ezk 12”: *3 18? °, Lk 452),

In NT παραβολή is freq. in the Synoptic Gospels ;
and, excepting He 9° 11°, is found nowhere else.
It is generally used of a longer utterance or narra:

Saas

eT ay τα

PARABLE (IN NT)

PARABLE (IN NT) 663

tive intended to set forth a spirilual lesson (Mt
132 18. 4. 31-36 ete.) ; but sometimes of a short say-
ing or proverb (Mt 15%, Mk 33°77, Lk 4% 6), Of
the other renderings of mashd/, neither θρῆνος nor
προοίμιον is found in NT, while παροιμία (παρά,
oiwos) occurs only Jn 108 16%, 2 P 955 Originally
παροιμία meant an out-of-the-way saying, or possibly
a wayside saying, and hence was used of any
didactic, symbolic, or figurative utterance.
παραβολή, it is used both of longer utterances or
allegories (Jn 10°) and shorter ones or proverbs
(2 P 2"); comp, κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν, Kowa Ta τῶν φίλων

(Philo, de Vita Mos. i, 28; de A br. 40). Most Lat.

VSS distinguish παροιμία by rendering it pro-
verbium, Which is never used for παραβολή. Eng.

VSS render both words sometimes by ‘parable’
(Mt 21, Jn 10°), sometimes by ‘proverb’? (Lk 4%,
Jn 16”). Tindale and the Genevan use ὁ simuli-
tude’ for both (Mt 13%, Jn 10°), and are capricious
in using both ‘ parable ® and ‘similitude’ for mapa-
Bory; so also is Coverdale. As δέ. John never
uses παραβολή, and as there are no parables in the
strict sense in his Gospel, it is unfortunate that
RV retains ‘parable’ in Jn 10°.

Attempts at definitions of ‘ parable,’ taken from
Greek Fathers and others, are given in Suicer,
s.7. παραβολή. Trench quotes several Lat. defini-
tions trom Jerome and later writers. However it
may be expressed, the main elements in a parable
are two: (1) a saying, commonly in the form of
a narrative, respecting earthly things, with (2)
a spiritual or heavenly meaning. A fable differs
from a parable in both these elements. It often
listorts the earthly things in using them as a
vehicle of instruction, making brutes and_ trees
talk, and the like. This a parable never does ; for
nature, as God’s wisdom made it, is far better
adapted for teaching Divine truths than nature as
man’s fancy can imagine it. And a fable never
aims higher than human morality. At best it
teaches prudence, industry, caution ; and it often
inculeates mere shrewdness, selfishness, and cun-
ning. Hence the only fables found in Scripture
are used by men for their own ends; by Jotham
(Je 95) and by Jehoash (2 K 149. They are never
employed by God’s prophets in conveying His mes-
save, nor by Christ in explaining His kingdom.
In the direct teaching of Scripture, nothing is
attributed to animals or plants which is ποῦ
found in nature. Moreover, it is their relation to
man that is made instructive (the sheep to the
shepherd or the owner, the fig-tree to the vine-
dresser or the owner), not that of sheep or trees to
one another. The mutual relations of brute to
brute or of tree to tree are less fitted to illustrate
the kingdom of God. Much the same holds good
of a myth, when it is the natural product of primi-
tive imagination, and not the artificial invention
of an ingenious teacher. The latter are parables
or fables rather than myths; e.g. the myths of
Plato. But the myth, while resembling the fable
in not being bound by the facts of nature and in
not teaching spiritual lessons, differs from both
fable and parable in that the myth mingles truth
and fiction, whereas the parable and the fable
keep them apart. These who frame or hear
parables and fables know that the narrative is
nothing, and is not set forth as being historical,
althouch accidentally it may be 50. Itis the lesson
indicated by the narrative which is of value. But
the uncritical age which spontancously generates
and accepts myths makes no distinction between
fable and figure. The figurative narrative is re-
carded as actually true. In an allegory figure and
fact, or rather figure and interpretation, are not
mixed, but are parallel, and move simultaneously,
as in the allegory of the True Vine or of the Good
Shepherd.

Ἐ

Like |

As already indicated, the distinetion which we
draw between a parable and a proverb is not found
in the Gospels. ‘The evangelists call the short figura-
tive sayings of Christ, no less than the longer
narratives, parables (Mt 15%, Mk 3° 717, Lk 6%),
as also does Christ Himself (Lk 44, Mt 24°) ;
partly because mdshal is used for both, but mainly
because both in parables and in proverbs there is
comparison, and the hearer has to catch the analogy
in order to be instructed. We may, if we like,
ceive the name of a parable to Christ’s sayings
about the salt of the earth, the lilies of the field,
building on the sand, whited sepulchres (Mt δ
626 726 9327), fishers of men, light under the bushel
(Mk 17 42), a reed shaken with the wind, the
ereen and the dry tree (Lk 15: 2331), living water,
fields white unto harvest, a woman in travail
(dn. 42: 16%); -euc, -6uc. Not a few of these
might be expanded into a narrative without difh-
culty.

2. The Use of Parables was familiar to the Jews,*
and ancient Rabbinie writings are full of them ;
but as illustrations of truths already set forth,
rather than as a means of conveying truths. In
the hands of Christ the use of parables as vehicles
of truth reached perfection. Just as His miracles
are parables,—factum Verbi rerbuim nobis est, as
Augustine says,—so His parables are miracles, both
of literary beauty and of instructive power, As
elements of His teaching they had several pur-
poses, some of which are obvious, while others He
explained to His disciples (Mt 1310-15) Mk 41-12,
Lk 8"). They served both to reveal and to veil
the truth; and the truths with which they are
specially concerned are the mysteries of ἡ the king-
dom of God.” They revealed these mysteries to
those who deserved to know them and were capable
of receiving them; and they concealed them from
those who lacked these qualifications. And this
penalis cecitas (Aug.) with regard to Divine truth
when it is clothed in parables is not merely a fact
(ὅτι, Mt) in the impenitent ; it is designed (iva, Mk,
Lk) by God, in order to withhold the mysteries of
the kingdom from the unworthy. ‘This withhold-
ing is therefore a judgment; but a judgment
which is merciful in its operation. It saves un-
worthy hearers from the responsibility of knowing
the truth and rejecting it, for they are not allowed
to recognize it. It saves them also from the guilt
of profaning it, for herein Christ observes His own
maxim (Mt 7°). Nor does the merey end here.
The parable puts the truth in a form which arrests
the attention at the time, and which is easily re-
membered afterwards. Longune est iter per pra-
cepta, breve ct efficax per exempla (Sen. Ep. 6).
Those who are already receptive are caught at
once; they get their lesson and do not forget it.
Those who are not, although they get no lesson,
yet hear something which they remember, and
Which will convey the lesson to them, if ever they
become capable of receiving it. Moreover, the
vehicle of the lesson being taken from very familar
objects, he who has once heard a parable of Christ
is likely to be often reminded of it. Christ knew the
erander scenery of Palestine ; yet His parables are
taken, not from mountains and forests, cedars and
palm-trees, but from things which are common, not
only in Palestine, but almost throughout the world
(Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 482). Thus teaching
by parables is both educational and disciplinary.
It isa marked illustration of the law, that to him
who hath shall more be given, while from him who
hath not even that which he seems to have shall
be taken away. ‘The unreceptive hearer seems to
have the opportunity of being instructed ; but
this is really withheld, because instruction is given
in a form which, through his own fault, he cannot

* Comp. 2S 121, Is 511, and see preceding article.

664 PARABLE (IN NT)

PARABLE (IN NT)

----Ἤὦ

understand : ἀείσω συνετοῖς, θύρας δ᾽ ἐπίθεσθε βέβηλοι. ἢ
It is quite in harmony with this principle that, at
the beginning of Christ’s ministry, His parables
were occasional and brief; but, as opposition to
Him increased, they became His usual mode of
public instruction and were more elaborate.

The chief purpose of parables is to instruct by
means of the exquisite analogies which exist
between things natural and things spiritual, and
which are the outcome of the Divine Wisdom that
fashioned both. In them Christ ‘utters things
which have been hidden from the foundation of
the world’ (Mt 13°), for the whole universe is a
parable, which hides God from the unworthy,
while it reveals Him more and more to the devout.
Schelling says that nature and history are to one
another as parable and interpretation (PA//os.
Schriften, ed. 1809, p. 457). Christ makes both
nature and history a parable, of which the kingdom
of God is the interpretation ; and thus the whole
world becomes a ‘ picture-gospel’ to those who can
understand it. In His synagogue-teaching Christ
expounded the book of the OT. In His parables
He expounded the book of nature and of human
life. In the one case the written letter, in the
other the experience of facts, was used to reveal
the spirit which inspires both. By the facts of

everyday life the parable shows how the principles |

of the higher life may be known ; for the universe
is the outward expression of the laws of the king-
dom of God.

It is remarkable that the Epistles, although
they contain allegories and frequent similes, never
exhibit anything which corresponds to the parables
of our Lord. The attitude of the writers to this
element in His teaching is analogous to that of the
evangelists to the title ‘the Son of Man,’ which
they record as often used by Jesus of Himself,

but which they never apply to Him themselves |

(Nosgen, Gesch. Jesu, Ὁ. 346).
kind, whether conscious or not, renders the hypo-
thesis that some of Christ's parables have been
altered by those who recorded them all the less
probable. It is more reasonable to believe that
the differences between parables which have
marked resemblances are the result of variations
made by Jesus Himself. He certainly sometimes
employed pairs of parables, in order the better to
impress the required lesson upon His hearers ; e.g.
the Treasure in the Field and the Pearl of great
Price (Mt 134-46), the Ten Virgins and the Talents
(251-99). the Garment and the Wine-skins (Lk 5°°”),
the Mustard-seed and the Leaven (13'8*1), the Rash
Builder and the Rash King (145°), the Lost Sheep
and the Lost Coin (15), And it should be noted
how often the effect of Christ’s parables is in-
tensified by a contrast; e.g. obedient and dis-
obedient sons (Mt 9158), wise and foolish virgins
(251), profitable and unprofitable servants (2514),
heartless clergy and charitable Samaritan (Lk 1099),
Dives and Lazarus (16), Pharisee and Publican
(189), ete.

3. The Distribution of the Parables in the
Gospels is very unequal. In the narrower sense of
the term there are no parables in Jn. It is in
harmony with the respective characteristics of the
other three Gospels that Lk, who aims at com-
pleteness, gives us most, and that Mk, who
records events rather than discourses, gives us
fewest parables. Only one parable is peculiar to
Mk,—the Seed growing secretly (4) ; and he gives
three others, which are also in Mt and Lk,—the
Sower, Mustard-seed, and Wicked Husbandmen.
Two are common to Mt and Lk,—the Leaven
(Mt 13%, Lk 1330) and the Lost Sheep (Mt 18,

*See the anticipation of this principle in the symbolical
teaching of the Pythagoreans as given by Stobzeus, Serm. vy. 72,
ed. Gaisford, i. p. 164.

Reverence of this |

Lk 151). Of the remainder, eighteen are peculiar
to Lk and ten to Mt. Lk’s eighteen include some
of the most beautiful. They are the Two Debtors,
Good Samaritan, Friend at Midnight, Rich Foot,
Watchful Servants, Barren Fig-tree, Chief Seats,
Great Supper, Rash Builder, Rash King, Lost
Coin, Lost Son, Unrighteous Steward, Dives
and Lazarus, Unprofitable Servants, Unrighteous
Judge, Pharisee and Publican, and the Pounds.
The ten peculiar to Mt are the Tares, Hid Trea-
sure, Pearl of great Price, Draw-net, Unmerciful
Servant, Labourers in the Vineyard, Two Sons,
Marriage of the King’s Son, Ten Virgins, and the
Talents.* Reasons have been given above why
the Marriage of the King’s Son in Mt should not
be identitied with the Great Supper in Lk, nor the
Talents in Mt with the Pounds.

The number of Christ’s parables cannot be satis-
factorily determined, because of the difficulty of
deciding what is to be regarded as a parable.
Some, as Trench, omit one or two of those given
above, as the Watchful Servants (Lk 12°°) and the
Chief Seats (Lk 147), But many would have to be
added, if all the short parabolic sayings of Christ
were included. The usual estimate is from thirty
to thirty-five, of which about two-thirds are pre-
served by Lk, the majority of them being peculiar
to his Gospel.

It is one of the many signs of inferiority in the
apocryphal Gospels that they contain no parables.
While they degrade miracles into mere arbitrary
and unspiritual acts of power, they omit all that
teaches of the deep relations between the seen and
the unseen.

4. The Classification of the Parables is a problem
which perhaps does not admit of a satisfactory
solution. One of the simplest is that of Goebel iy
Die Parabeln Jesu, Gotha, 1880, which is followed
by Edersheim in The Life and Teaching of Jesus the
Messiah, i. p. 579. He makes three groups, distin-
guished by the time and place of delivery: (i.) those
belonging to Christ’s ministry in and near Caper-
naum, collected in Mt 13; (ii.) those belonging to
the journeyings from Galilee to Jerusalem, re-
corded in Lk 10-18; and (iii.) those belonging to
the last days in Jerusalem. The first group
mainly has reference to the kingdom of God as a
whole, the second to the individual members of it,
and the third to the judgment of the members of
it. Godet, in Schatls Herzog, suggests another
arrangement into three groups, which is more
elaborate. Out of thirty parables he regards six
as showing the preparatory existence of the King-
dom under the Jewish dispensation; viz. the
Wicked Husbandmen, Marriage of the King’s Son,
Great Supper, Strait Gate, Barren Fig-tree, and
Two Sons. Six others show the realization of the
Kingdom in the form of a Church ; viz. the Sower,
Tares, Mustard-seed, Leaven, Draw-net, and Un-
righteous Judge. The remaining eighteen refer to
the realization of the Kingdom in the life of indi-
vidual members. This group is subdivided ; nine
being referred to those who are entering the King-
dom (Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, Lost Son, Pharisee
and Publican, Friend at Midnight, Hid Treasure,
Pearl of great Price, Rash Builder, and Rash
King), and nine to those who have already become
members (Chief Seats, Labourers in the Vineyard,
Unmerciful Servant, Good Samaritan, Unrighteous
Steward, Dives and Lazarus, Rich Fool, Talents,
and Ten Virgins). But to put the Unrighteous
Judge and the Friend at Midnight, which teach
much the same lesson, into different classes, does
not seem to be right. Nor does one see how the
sheep, coin, and son could be lost, unless they

* “St. Matthew’s are more theocratic, St. Luke’s more ethieal ;
St. Matthew’s are more parables of judgment, St. Luke’s of
mercy’ (Trench).

PARABLE (IN NT)

PARACLETE 665

were already members of the community. Lange,
in his Life of Christ, i. p. 484, and in Herzog’, art.
‘Gleichnis,’ makes another threefold classification.
The first cycle treats of the Kingdom in its develop-
ment; the second of its completion by acts of
merey; the third of its completion by acts of gudgq-
ment. Somewhat similar is the division made by
Steinmeyer in Diz Par. des Herrn, Berlin, 1884,
into kerygmatic, pastoral, and judicial. A very
elaborate classification is drawn out by Westcott
in his Llements of the Gospel Harmony, App. D;
and Int. to the Study of the Gospels, App. ¥. He
makes two main classes, of which the second has
three divisions; and each of these divisions has
three subdivisions, some of which are bisected or
trisected. The chief features are these. I. Parables
drawn from the material world; viz. the Sower,
Tares, Seed growing secretly, Mustard-seed, and
Leaven. II. Parables drawn from the relations of

and Rich Fool. Thus the parables drawn from
the relations of man to his fellows (which is not
one of the main classes) are the largest group,
being about two-thirds of the whole. Secondly,
those under the head of man’s relations to Provid-
ence might be assigned to man’s relations to the
lower world; for to the lower world treasure,
pearls, and crops belong. Thirdly, the Tares and
the Draw-net seem clearly to belong to the same
group; and, if this is admitted, then the two
groups to which they are respectively assigned
may be merged in one. These changes would give
us two main divisions: (1.) Parables drawn from
man’s relations to the lower world ; and (ii.) parables
drawn from man’s relations to his fellows. Nosgen
also, in his Gesch. Jesu, Miinchen, 1891, p. 342,
makes two main classes, partly on the same lines
as Goebel and Godet: (i.) those which treat of the
development of the Kingdom as a whole ; and (11.)
those which treat of the lives of individual mem-
bers of it. And he regards this classification as
indicated by Christ Himself, according as He uses
or omits the formula ‘The kingdom of heaven is
likened’ (Mt 133: 1839 22? 951), or ‘the kingdom of
heaven is like’ (Mt 1891. 58. 44. 45. 47 901), or ‘so is the
kingdom of God’ (Mk 458. Comp. Mt 111%, Lk 7",
be 2?) Joke-1 318-70;

It is probable that the three parables which are
in all three Gospels are in some way typical : they
are taken from seed-time, growth, and harvest.
The Sower tells of the preparation for the kingdom
in the hearts of the recipients; the Mustard-seed
of its powers of development; and the Wicked
Husbandmen of God’s long-suffering mercy and
stern judgment upon those who persist in opposing
it. But it does not follow from this that a basis
for classification is thus indicated.

5. In the Interpretation of Parables we have to
be on our guard against the opposite dangers of
ignoring important features, and attempting to
make all the details mean something. No general
rules can be given, for the amount of symbolical
detail differs greatly in different parables. This is
clear from those cases in which we have Christ’s
own interpretations. In the Sower nearly all the
features have meaning; not only the seed and the
various soils, but the birds, the heat, and the
thorns. In the Tares several features are ex-
plained: the sower, the good seed, the enemy, the
tares, the field, the harvest, and the reapers.
And several are left unexplained : the people sleep-
ing, the enemy’s going away, the blade springing
up, the servants ot the householder, and the bind-
ing of the bundles (Mt 1374-8 37) In the Un-

righteous Steward the meaning of the parable as a
whole is indicated, viz. the wisdom of using present
opportunities as ἃ provision for eternity (uk 16%) ;
but none of the details are interpreted ; and it is
probable that they have no meaning. Most of the
difficulties respecting this parable have been pro-
duced by making the separate features of the
story mean something, especially the reduction
in the bills. Nevertheless, the interpretations of
the Sower and of the Tares forbid us to assert
that each parable has one main lesson, and that
when this is ascertained all the details may be
ignored as meaningless. Chrysostom seems to go
too far when he declares οὐδὲ χρὴ πάντα τὰ ἐν ταῖς
παραβολαῖς κατὰ λέξιν περιεργάζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τὸν σκοπὸν
μαθύντας, δι᾿ ὃν συνετέθη, τοῦτον ὕρέπεσθαι, καὶ μηδὲν
πολυπραγμονεῖν περαιτέρω (tn Mt. Hom. xiv. 3). But
the extravagant lengths to which some patristic
commentators go in the interpretation of minute
details, especially of numbers (e.g. on Mt 13° 25),
Lk 7# 11° 18), provoked strone protests, as from
Tertullian (de Pud. 9) and others, who sometimes
erred in this way themselves. The question is
well handled by Trench, whose third chapter is
one of the best in his admirable work, Notes on the
Parables, which for English readers is likely to
remain the chief guide on the whole subject.

LITERATURE.—In addition to works mentioned in the above
article, the following may be consulted: Lisco, Die Parabeln
Jesu, 1832-40, Eng. tr. by Fairbairn, 1840; Buisson, Paraboles
del Evangile, 1849; Guthrie, The Parables, 1866; Stier, Reden
d. Herrn, 1865-74, Eng. tr. by Pope, 1869; Arnot, The Parables
of our Lord, 1870; Beyschlag, Die Gleichnissreden d. Herrn,
1875 ; Thiersch, Die Gleichnisse Christi nach ihrer moral. und
prophet. Bedeut. betrachtet, 1875; Bruce, The Parabolic Teach-
ing of Christ, 1882; Tamim, Der Realismus Jesu in seiner Glerch-
nissen, 1886; Jiilicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 1888, 1899 [see
Sanday in Journ. Theol. Stud. Jan. 1900]; Freystedt, Die
Gleichnisse d. Herrn, Predigten, 1896 ; Heinrici, art. ‘ Gleich-
nisse Jesu’ in PRE3, Most Lives of Christ contain a discussion
of the subject. See also Danz, Universalwérterbuch, p. 727.

A. PLUMMER.

PARACLETE.—This is the English form of the
Gr. παράκλητος, parakletos, which oceurs only in
the writings of St. John. In Jn 141% 95 15° 167 it
is used by Jesus to describe the Holy Spirit, pro-
mised to the disciples after His own departure ;
and in 1 Jn 2! it is applied by St. John to the
ascended Lord Himself. In AV the werd is trans-
lated ‘Comforter’ in the Gospel and ‘ Advocate’
in the Epistle, without any marginal alternative.
In RV these translations are retained, but at each
occurrence in the Gospel there is found the marg.
note ‘Or Advocate, or Helper, Gr. Puraclete’ ; and
at 1 Jn 2! the note ‘Or Comforter, or Helper, Gr.
Paraclete. These translations reflect the history
of the interpretation of the word in NT. In its
reference to Christ the meaning of ‘ Advocate’ has
been generally acquiesced in ; but, in its references
to the Holy Spirit, it has all along been disputed
whether the meaning is Advocate (taken by most
in the largest sense, not only Pleader or Detender,
but Helper) or Comforter (in the sense of Con-
soler).

i. THE EryMoLoGy AND USE oF THE Worp.
—The verb παρακαλεῖν is frequently used both
in LXX and in NT (though net oun in St.
John’s writings) with the meaning to comfort or
console, a meaning which is rare in classical Greek.
Thus Gn 3795 ¢ And all his sons and all his daughters
rose up to comfort him ; but he refused to be com-
forted’ (ἦλθον παρακαλέσαι αὐτόν" καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν παρα-
καλεῖσθαι); Mt δ᾽ “ Blessed are they that mourn:
for they shall be comforted’ (μακάριοι οἱ πενθοῦντες"
ὅτι αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται)ῦ.. Moreover, the abstract
subst. παράκλησις, formed from παρακαλεῖν, often
means comfort or consolation, as 2Co 1*: + * Blessed
be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort ;
who comforteth us in all our affliction, that we

666 PARACLETE

PARACLETE a

may be able to comfort them that are in any
affliction, through the comfort wherewith we
ourselves are comforted of God’ (θεὸς πάσης mapa-
κλήσεως, ὁ παρακαλῶν ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ πασῇ τῇ θλίψει ἡμῶν,
εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι ἡμᾶς παρακαλεῖν τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ θλίψει, διὰ
τῆς παρακλήσεως ἧς παρακαλούμεθα αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ
θεοῦ). But the oldest meaning of παρακαλεῖν is
not to ‘comfort,’ but to ‘send for, ‘summon to
one’s aid? (=Lat. advocare). Thus in Xenoph.
Anab, i. 6. 5, παρακαλεῖν τινα σύμβουλον, ‘to call
one in as adviser’; * and this meaning is found in
NT, Ac 9839 διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν παρεκάλεσα
ὑμᾶς ἰδεῖν καὶ προσλαλῆσαι, “ For this purpose, then,
have 1 called for you, to see and to speak with
you. The question, then, is whether παράκλητος,
which is undoubtedly passive in form, signifies

‘one called in’ (for aid of some kind), or has.

assumed an active meaning (after παρακαλεῖν, to
console), ‘one who comforts or consoles.’ The
question must |e determined by an examination
of the use of the word elsewhere and of its con-
text in NT.

1. The Classival Use.—In classical Greek παρά-
κλητος IS a Judicial word. It is the equivalent
in use as well as etymology of the Lat. adrocatus.
3oth are wider in meaning than our ‘advocate,’
and approach nearer our ‘counsel.’ Asconius (ad
Cie. in ᾧ. Crecil.) says, Qui defendit alterum = in
judicio, aut portronus dicitur, si orator est; aut
advocatus, si aut jus sugverit, aut presentiam
suam commodat amico. Our ‘advocate’ is the
tom. potronies (qui orator est), the Gr. παράκλητος
is the Rom. adrocatus. Thus Demosth. de Lalsa
Leg. p. 341, 10, αἱ τῶν παρακλήτων δεήσεις καὶ
σπουδαί, ‘the petitions and pains of the partisans,’
The occurrence of the word is rare, but, where it
occurs, this, or something very near this, is its
meaning. +

2. The Evidence of the LX X.—The word παρά-
κλητος is not found in the LXNX. The adj. παρα-
κλητικός occurs In Zee 115. ¢ And the LORD answered
the angel that talked with me with good words,
even comfortable words’ (λόγους παρακλητικούς).
Once also there occurs the subst. παρακλήτωρ,
Job 16% ‘Miserable comforters are ye all’ (παρα-
κλήτορες κακῶν πάντες). The use of this word,
which has a proper active form and meaning, is
on the whole to be regarded as evidence against
the sense of ‘comforter’ for παράκλητος. The one
being already in existence, taken directly from
παρακαλεῖν in the sense of ‘console,’ it is improb-
able that tne other would have come (against its
passive form) to be used for the same meaning.
It is true that Aq. and Theod. use παράκλητος in
this passage ; but they may have felt the influence
of the word as used in St. John’s Gospel, which at
the time they wrote (ὦ. 120-150 A.D.) was prob-
ably interpreted ‘Comforter.’ Symi. uses mapyyo-
POUVTES.

3. The Use of the Word by Philo. — Philo
employs παράκλητος several times in the sense of
‘intercessor’ or ‘advocate’ (in its classical mean-
ing). In de Joseph. ¢. 40, Joseph, after discovering
himself to his brethren, is made to say, ἀμνηστίαν
ἁπάντων παρέχω τῶν εἰς ἐμὲ πεπραγμένων" μηδενὸς
ἑτέρου δεῖσθε παρακλήτου, “1 grant forgiveness for
all that you have done against me; you need
no one else as intercessor.? And in Vit. 1705.
ill. 14, the reason why the high priest on entering
the Holy of Holes should wear the symbol
of the Logos, is given in the words, ἀναγκαῖον
γὰρ ἣν τὸν ἱερωμένον τῷ τοῦ κόσμου πατρὶ παρακλήτῳ
χρῆσθαι τελειοτάτῳ τὴν ἀρετὴν υἱῷ πρὸς τε ἀμνηστείαν
ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ χορηγίαν ἀφθονωτάτων ἀγαθῶν, ‘It

*Cf sch. ¢. Ctesiph. ὃ 200, τί δεῖ σὲ Δημοσθένην παραπαλεῖν:

ἡ Cf. Diog. Laert. Vita Bionis, iv. 50, co ἱκανέν σοι παριύσω, ἐὰν
παρα πλύπους (‘a deputatior’ is Field’s trans.] πέωιψυς, xal μὴ
αὐτο; ἔλθης.

was indispensable that he who was consecrated
to the Father of the world should employ as his
Advocate the Son, most perfect in virtue, for
both the forgiveness of sins and the supply of
unlimited blessings.’ It has been claimed ‘that
Philo uses παράκλητος once in the direct active
sense of παρακαλεῖν, to comfort, viz. in de Opif.
Mund. ¢. 6; but there also the meaning is passive
and general, ‘one called to help’—ovdevt δὲ παρα-
κλήτῳ. Tis γὰρ hy ἕτερος, μόνῳ δὲ ἑαυτῷ χρησάμενος
ὁ θεὸς ἔγνω δεῖν εὐεργετεῖν, τὴν... φύσιν,
‘employing no helper (for who else was there 7)
but only Himself, did God think good to bless
the world.’

4. In the Tarquins and Talmud.—The Gr. word
appears in the Targ. and Taim. in the form etpts
or 827P18, and always in the sense of helper, inter-
cessor, or advocate, 1.6. always as a passive. Thus
the Targ. at Job 16 * My péraklits are ny friends’
(AV and RV ‘ My friends scorn me’); and at 3323
the péraklit is placed in antithesis to zrzp, Gr.
κατήγορος (in Rev 12” κατήγωρ), ‘accuser At
Job 16°, however, where the LXX has παρακλήτωρ
and the meaning is ‘comforter,’ the Targ. does
not use péraklit. The passages from the Talm.
have been collected by Buxterf, s.v. Perhaps the
inost_ pertinent example is found in Pirke A both,
iv. 15 (see Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers ®,
p. 69): Rabbi Livezer ben Jacob said, He who
performs one precept has gotten to himself one
advocate (8505) ; and he who commits one trans-
gression has gotten to himself one wecuser (ΠΣ 0}.᾽

5. The Earliest Christian Writers.—We tind the
same passive sense—calied to one’s side, as advo-
cate or intercessor—-even in the early Christian
writers, when they are using the word independ-
ently and not interpreting the NT use. Take
ΠῚ Ep. of Clement, vi. (Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers,
p. 46)—* Who shall be our advocate, unless we be
found having holy and righteous works Ὁ (τίς ἡμῶν
παράκλητος ἔσται, ἐὰν μὴ εὑρεθῶμεν ἔργα ἔχοντες ὅσια
καὶ δίκαια); and Ep. of Barnabas, xx. (Apost.
Fathers, ~. 274)—‘ advocates of the wealthy, un-
just judges of the poor, sinful in all things’
(πλουσίων παράκλητοι, πενήτων ἄνομοι κριταί, πενθαμ-
ἀρτητοι).

il. THE INTERPRETATION OF TIE NT Worp.—
It seems, then, that παράκλητος, wherever it is
used outside and independently of the NT, agrees
with its etymology. A passive participle in fom,
it follows the passive voice of the verb παρακαλεῖν
in the meaning of ‘called to one’s side’ for help,
and especially against an accuser or judge. But
the interpretation of the word as found in St.
John’s Gospel has not followed its etymology and
usage. It has there been often understood to
mean ‘comforter’ or ‘consoler’ (=6 παρακαλῶν).
This is the prevailing interpretation in the Fathers
and in the Versions, and it is still upheld by some
modern expositors.

1. Lhe Greek and Latin Fathers.—ORIGEN (as
quoted in Latin by Ruflinus, de Prine. τι. vii. 4)
says, ‘The Holy Spirit is called Paracletus from
consolation. For in Latin παράκλησις is called con-
solatio. .. . But in 1 Jn paracletus is used of the
Saviour in the sense of intercessor. For in Greek
παράκλητος signifies both imtercessor and consoler
(deprecatorem et consolatorem).’? Thus Origen
gives to παράκλητος a double meaning, ‘consoler’
in the Gospel, ‘intercessor’ in the Epistle. But
even ‘intercessor’ he takes from the active voice of
παρακαλεῖν in the sense of ‘request,’ ‘plead’ (as in
Mt 8° προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἑκατόνταρχος παρακαλῶν αὐτόν,
‘There came to him a centurion beseeching him’),
for in his Com. on St. John, 1. 33 [88] (Brooke’s ed.
1896, vol. 1. p. 45), he says, ‘But none of the names
mentioned above expresses His representation of
us with the Father, as He intercedes for the nature

PARACLETE

PARACLETE 667

of men and atones for it, as the intercessor and
propitiation and the atonement’ (παρακαλοῦντος
ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀνθρώπων φύσεως Kal ἱλασκομένου, ὡς ὁ παρά-
κλητος καὶ ἱλασμὸς καὶ τὸ ἱλαστήριον»). CHURYSOSTOM
in his Com. on Jn 1416 says, * He calls the Spirit
ie because of the alilictions that then beset
them’; but in his /fom. in Joh. Ixxv., * Concern-
ing the Spirit He said... παράκλητος in order that
they might not be dishear tened in thinking there
would be none to be their patron and helper.’
CyRIL gives the meaning ‘consoler’-—Cudech. xvi.
Ue The Holy Spirit is called παράκλητος because
He comforts and consoles and helps our infirmities’
(διὰ τὸ παρακαλεῖν καὶ παραμυθεῖσθαι καὶ συναντιλαμ-
βάνεσθαι τῆς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν). With this the most of
the Gr. Fathers agree. On the other hand, ΒΘ
Lat. Fathers (influenced probably by the early
versions) generally use aAdeocaéus (esp. ἴῃ 1 zi
very often Paracietus in the Gospel) as the trans.,
and seem to interpret as Advocate or Helper. But,
as Pearson (On the Creed, p. 600, Bolin ed.) has
pointed out, it is probable that the Lat. writers
when using adrocatis mean consolutor, ‘for in the
ancient Curistian Latin, «deocare sienilieth © to
comfort,” and adrocatio “consolation,” as being
the bare interpretations of παρακαλεῖν and παρά-
κλησις. Cf. Ronsch, /¢ Vulq. 348. Thus Tert.
transiates παρακαλέσαι πενθοῦντας (Is 61°) adrocare
languentes (ade. Mare, iv. 14). And both Hilary
(Sumus nune quidem consolati, quia Dominus ait,
‘Mittet nobis Pater et alium Consolatorem ΡΝ
in Ps. 125) and Aug. (Consolabuntur Spiritu Sancto,
quimaxime propterea Paracletus nominatur, id est,
Consolator—de Serm. Dom. in Monte, 1. 2) as well as
others, use consolitor as the tr. of se pong
Ancient and Modern Versions.—(1) The Old
Latin has Advocatus in the Ep. in all copies ; in
the Gospel there is variation between Advrocatus
(Pal. ati 15? 16";- Pal.. Vere. Colb.at 1416); ‘and
Paracletus or Paraclitus* (Pal. Vere. Ver. Colb.
Corb, in the other passages). (2) The Syriac ver-
sions seem to have retained the original word
*Paraclete’ everywhere. So at least in all extant
passages (Curetonian inJn 141°; Pesh. in all places ;
Sin. in the Gospel). (3) The Arabic, Ethiopic,
and Memphitic versions also retain *Paraclete.’
The Thebaic has ‘ Paraclete’ in the Gosp., but in
the Ep. ‘One that prayeth for us (Lichtfoot,
Fresh Rev." 61). (4) Vhe Vadg. has Paracletus (or
Paraclitus) in the Gosp. and Advocatus in the Ep.
(5) Wyclif and Purvey translated the Vule. Para-
clitus into ‘Comforter’ in the Gosp., and retained
‘Advocate’ from advocatus in the Ep. (13882 ‘we
han avoket anentis the fadir’; 1388 io ey]
‘we han an advocat anentis the "fadir? ). Luther
likewise has ‘‘Tréster’ in Jn and ‘ Fiirsprecher’ in
1Jn. Then Tindale also adopted ‘Comforter’ in
the Gosp. and ‘Advocate’ in the Ep., and these
translations have come down through all the Eng.
versions, except the Rhemish, which in the Gosp.
has taken ‘ Paraclete’ + direc tly from the Vulgate.
It must be remembered that in the language of the English
versions ‘to comfort’ is not always to console as it is in the
English of the present day, and * comfort’ is not always consola-
tion. Its first meaning, like the Latin con-fortare (from con
intensive prefix, and fortis ‘strong’), is to strengthen. Thus
Wyclif’s translation (1382) of Is 417 is ‘he coumfortide hym with
nailes, that it shulde not be moued?’ (1: ‘he fastenede hym
with nailis’). Coverdale translates 2S 27‘ Let youre hande now
therefore be comforted, and be ve stronge’ (AV ‘let your hands
be strengthened, and be ve valiant’; RV ‘let your hands be
strong’). And AV gives in Job 1030. 31 ‘Let me alone, that I
may take comfort a little, before I go whence I shall not haba siides

* On the ἐπ σης paraclitus see Hare’s note in Mission of
the Comforter, ii. 522, note Ja (in later ed. note K).

+ The Rhem. ΕΓ Ὲ itt has the foll. marg. note to Jn 1416,
* Paraciete by interpretation is either a comforter or an adyo-
cate; and therefore to translate it by any one of them only is
perhaps to abridge the sense of this place.’ There is no note
on the tr. at 1 Jn 91, where the Vulg. ‘advocatus’ is given as
‘advocate,’ with the Gr. παράκλητον in the margin,

a translation which RV retains, though the same Hebrew word
is translated ‘recover strength’ in Ps 3918 by both versions.
We next find the meaning exhort or exhortation, as Wyclif’s
translation of Me 12° ‘And ye han forgete the comforte that
spekith to vou as to sones.? And then encouragement (not
necessarily to goodness), as in Wyelit’s Select Works, ili. 328,
‘Not to coumforte hem in here synne’ ; and in Cranmer’s Works,
i. 209, ‘By your comfort the vulgar people conceiveth hatred
towards such things as by the prince’s commandment are set
forth.’

But when Wyclif chose the word ‘Comforter’ to express the
Latin Paracletus (he may have coined the word, since the
earliest examples of ‘comforter’ yet discovered are in his
writings), it is probable that the sense he desired to convey
was ‘one who consoles.’ His translation (1382) of Job 162 is
‘Alle yee ben hevye coumfortoures’; and this was the meaning
which was attached to the Greek word recezayr05 and the Latin
paracletus in the Church in his day. Any other sense, indeed,
is somewhat rare. Lord Berners’ /’voissart (ch. coci. Globe ed,
p. 229) may be quoted for the meaning ‘aider’ or ‘abettor’:
‘Who durst begin such a riot as to enterprise to slay the earl’s
baily holding the earl’s banner in his hands, doing his office,
without some bolsterer or comforter in their deed?’

How has it come to pass that παράκλητος,
which nowhere else has the meaning of ‘ consoler,’
has been so generally taken in that sense in St.
John’s Gospel? The explanation must be found

in tke context. Our Lord, in promising the
Paraclete, spoke of His own impending depar-
ture. The disciples’ hearts were filled with sorrow.
It is natural to understand that the Paraclete
the Holy Ghost was promised to the disciples to
console ‘them for the loss of their Lord. And

when that meaning was found in the context, it
was easy to give it to the word itself. The same
thing happened to adrocatus in Latin; the sense
ot ‘consoler’ is equally unknown to that word
outside ecclesiastical usage ; ‘Tertullian must have
given it that meaning because he found it in his
version as the designation of Him who was sent
to console the disciples.

But the Paraclete was not sent to console the
disciples. They did not really need consolation.
If they had understood, no ‘sorrow at Chirist’s
departure would ever have filled their lLearts.
As soon as they did understand, the sorrow left
them. Before the Paraclete came they ‘returned
to Jerusalem with great joy’ (Lk 24°). As soon,
indeed, as they ree ized thé fact of Christ’s resur-
rection their sorrow was turned into joy. Even
the women ‘departed quickly from the tomb with
fear and great joy’ (Mt 288. But it was then
that the battle with unbelief had to beein—the
unbelief of their own hearts in part, but chiefly
the unbelief of the world. And the Paraclete was
sent to aid them in that strife.

In Jn 141: :6 1556 the reference seems to be to the
unbelief or half-belief of the disciples’ own hearts.
The Paraclete as the Spirit of truth guides them into
all the truth. He brings to their remembrance the
things the Master had said to them ; in the light of
events He interprets these things ; they understand
that ‘all is of God that is and is to be, and all is
good.’ He witnesses for Christ in their hearts ;
and then when they know that He is the Messiah,
the Son of God and Saviour of the world, they are
ready to be witnesses themselves (Jn 152 ma

In Jn 167 the Holy Spirit is the Paraclete of the
disciples in their witness before the world. Just
like the παράκλητος and advocatus of the ancients
(but not quite as the advocate of our day), He
comes to the disciples. “1 will send him wzfo
you (Jn 16). He is their personal unofficial
Friend; His services are at their disposal. In
their debate with the world He is at their right
hand that they may not be moved. Throueh
them He conv ἂν the world concerning sin, con
cerning righteousness, and concerning judement -
a conviction which means their acquittal and the
world’s condemnation,

In 1 Jn 2! it is Jesus Himself that is the Para-
clete: ‘If any man (1.0. here ‘any believer’) sin,
we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ

688 PARACLETE

PARADISE

the righteous,’
heaven as well as on the earth.
the ea th is with the sin of the world ; the conflict
in heaven is with his own sin. Through faith he

wins the battle upon the earth, for ‘this is the |

victory that hath overcome the world, even our
faith (1 Jn 54). Through repentance he wins the
victory in heaven.
his Paraclete that wins. Both victories are of
evrace. lest any man should boast. But why two
Paracletes” Because the Holy Spirit has to do,
not with the sin of man, but with his holiness. In
so far as the believer does not sin, the Holy Spirit
is his Paraclete. When he sins it is Jesus Christ
that becomes his Paraclete. For Jesus has always
to do with his sin, and Jesus only.

iv. The question remains, Which is the best
translation 7

1. Comrorrer is false to the etymology of the
Greek word and to its usage, and it misses the
meaning. The arguments used in its favour are
these: (1) That it agrees with the Hellenistic
usage οἵ παρακαλεῖν ‘to comfort’? and παράκλησις
‘comfort.’ To which M‘Clellan replies that this
usage justifies the sense of ‘comforter’ for mapa-
κλήτωρ but not for παράκλητος, Which would rather
he one comforted. ‘It would be just as reasonable
to contend that in harmony with the use of καλεῖν
to “eall,” the word κλητός “ealled” (Ro 1% * ete.)
signifies aca//er; or that in harmony with the use of
perere to “bring forth,” parens signifies “a ΟΠ}.
(2) That the Eng. word ‘comforter’ really means
‘strengthener’ (so esp. Hare and Trench). It does
not mean so now, however; and it has been shown
that in the Ene. versionz it probably never meant
so. (3) That it is better to retain ‘Comforter’ ‘on
the ground of prescription and long familiarity.’
So Field, who recalls Schatf’s remark (Companion
to Gr. Test. and Eng. Versions, p. 446) that ‘after
long deliberation the Revisers retained the dear
old word.’ Field does not blame the Revisers ;
but if it is to be retained he would derive it,
not from παρακαλεῖν ‘to console,’ but from παρα-
καλεῖν ‘to send for.’ ‘We send for a contidential
friend on various oceasions ; and according to the
particular service which we require from him he
is our Counsellor in difficulties, or Advocate in
danger, or our Comforter in distress.’ But he
warns against the apparent countenance given to
the old favourite by the mistranslation of ὀρφανούς in
Jn 143, AV ‘comfortless’; RVm rightly ‘ orphans.’

Ὁ, ADVOCATE. This is the word approved of by
most modern commentators. It has also no little
‘prescription’ in its favour. It is etymologically
identical with παράκλητος. And it accounts for the
passive form. The objection to ‘ Advocate’ is that
it does not in modern use correspond closely enough
with either the Lat. a7vocatus or the Gr. παρά-
k\nros. It answers fairly well to the Paraclete of
1 Jn, but in the Gosp. the Holy Spirit does not
plead for but in or through the disciples.

3. INTERCESSOR. Pearson (On the Creed, pp.
499, 501) urges the adoption of ‘ Intercessor,’ and
others agree. Its fitness to express the Paraclete
of 1 Jn is evident. And it is clear from certain
passages (cf. the words already quoted from
Demosth., τῶν παρακλήτων τούτων δεήσεις) that en-
treaty or intercession was at least part of the work
of the Paraclete in the ancient law courts. But
the word is somewhat restricted in meaning to cover
all that is said of the Holy Spirit as Paraclete.

4. PARACLETE. It is perliaps best to transcribe
the word, as has been done in so many versions,
including the very oldest, and as the Eng. versions
have unanimously done with ‘ Christ,’ ‘apostle,’
‘deacon,’ and other words. The objection to this
is, not that it empties the word of all meaning
(M‘Clellan), for that is better than putting a

In both cases it is not he but |

So the believer has a conflict in | wrong meaning into it, and it would gather its
The contlict upon |

:

meaning for itself ;* but that it might come to be
applied as almost a proper name to the Holy
Spirit, who is after all only ‘another Paraclete’
(Jn 1415). If this danger were avoided, it is the
best word, for there is no English word in existence
that covers the original both in the Gosp. and the
Ep. and covers it exactly; and Paraclete, says
Westcott (Lessons of RV, p. 94), “15. now almost
naturalized among us.’

LirEraturEe.—Besides the Comm. (esp. Meyer on Jn 1416 and
Diisterdieck on 1 Jn 21), Buxtorf, Lex. Talim. Ὁ. 1843 (ed.
Fischer, p. 916); Grimm-Thayer, 7’ Lex., and Cremer,
Bibl.-Theol. Lex. s.v. Also Knapp, Seripta Var, Argwim. Ὁ.
124 ff.; Pearson, On the Creed, p. 499ff.; Hare, Mission of
the Comforter, ii. 521 ff., note Ja (in later ed. note Kk); Trench,
On the AV of NT, p. 23f.; Lightfoot, On a Fresh lievision?,
p. 55 ff. ; M‘Clellan, Vhe Four Gospels, p. 337 (on Jn 1416), and
p. 733 ff; Westcott, Speaker's Com, (Add, Note on Jn 1416)
Ρ. 211ff.; Watkins, Com. for Eng. Readers (Add. Note on Jn
1416), p. 561ff.; Hatch, Essays in Bibl. Greek, p. 82; Field,
Notes on Trans. of NT (Otium Norv. 11.2), on Jn 1416, p, 102 f.;
Robson in Hapos. Times, v. (1894) 320 ὅν, and The Holy Spirit
the Paraclete, p. 1 ff. J. FLASTINGS:

PARADISE (272, παράδεισος, Puradisus, Fr
Paradis, ital. Paradiso, Sp. Parayso).—A word
used in different applications in Scripture, and
having an interesting history both before and
after its appearance in the Bible. In all proba-
bility it is of Median or Persian origin.

Other explanations indeed have been given of it. Some
fanciful etymologies have been proposed for it; e.g. from ΠῚ
and xe, as if the root idea was ‘bringing forth herbs’; from
παρά and dew, as if ‘well watered’; from παρά and a supposi-
titious δεέσα with the sense of ‘plant’ or ‘plants,’ etc. (cf.
Suidas and Suicer, s.v.). It has been taken by some from an
Armenian source, pardez being Armenian for ‘garden.’ It has
been held to have Sanskrit connexions. But the term para-
deca, With which it is thought to be in affinity, or from which
it is supposed to come, means a ‘ foreign country’ (from para
=distant, and deca=country), and the likeness is only acci-
dental (cf. Benfey, s.v.). A Semitic origin has been claimed for
it by some scholars of repute. Fried. Lelitzsch, e.g., suggests a
Babylono- Assyrian source (cf. Wo lag das Paradies 2 pp. 95-97).
Put there is no evidence that the Assyrian people had the
thing which was called by this name among the Persians ;
while, on the other hand, they expressed the idea of * garden ΟΥ̓
‘wood’ by other words (cf. Schrader, COT ii. ΤΥ tie
attempt to find for the term a Semito-Assyrian or an Akkado-
Sumerian etymology, therefore, is now generally given up, and
most scholars are of opinion that the word comes from the Zend
pairidaéza (cf. modern Persian and Arabic jirdaus =‘ garden,’
‘paraclise,’ pl. faradis), meaning a wall enclosing something, and
then the space enclosed, a park, ἃ pleasnre-ground, or hunting-
ground (Ges. Thes. ii. 1124; Max Miller, Chips, iv. 22;
Renan, Langues Sémitiques, τι. i. 153; Justi, Zendsprache, 180 5
Lagarde, Ges. Abh. p. 753; Haug in Ewald’s Jahrb. ¥. ΔΟΘΕ
Spiegel in Delitzsch’s Hoheslied under ch. 413; Noldeke, ZDMG
XXXVi. 182; Skeat, Etymol. Dict. of Eng. Lang. s.v.). The old
Greek etymologists also explained the word as of Persian
origin. So Pollux (Qnom, ix. ch. 3) expresses himself thus: οἱ
δὲ παράδεισοι, βαρβαρικὸν εἶναι τοὔνομα, ὕει καὶ μετὰ συνήθειαν εἰς
χρῆσιν ἐλλυνικήν, ὡς καὶ ἄλλα πόλλὰ τῶν περσικών.

The word came very early into use in English, e.g. in Laya-
mon, 1. 24,122. It was adopted by Wvclif in his rendering of
Rev 27: ‘To hym that overcometh Y Schal gyve to ete of the
tre of lijf that is in the paradis of my God.’ The different
forms in which it has appeared, and the different things for
which it has served as a name, make a curious story. It has
been used to designate the magnificent parks of Persian
monarchs, the original abode of man in_ his integrity and
happiness, the residence of righteous souls in the intermediate
state, and the heaven of the future. It has been employed as a
ficure of the Word of God by some of the Fathers (e.g. Chrys.
Hom. I. ad pop. Antioch, ὃ. vi. p. 448; Hon., Quod Seriptu-
rarum lectio utilis sit, t. viii. p. 111); and from these higher
uses it has descended to be the name of humbler things—
courts, porches, altars, berths, etc. The word parvis, de-
noting the outer court of a great house or palace, and more
particularly the porch of a church, is supposed to be paradise
in the Low Latin form paravisus, a Neapolitan parariso being
quoted as a variety of the Italian paradiso (Skeat, Etwin, Dict. of
Eng. Lang. s.v.). The church-porch is said to have been taken
to represent paradise when the old mystery-plays were enacted
in the vard. (Cf. Littré, s.v., and Tyrwhitt’s ed. Cant. Tales,
y. 183). The word (paruis, parvis, parvys) occurs in Chi.ucer—

‘ There was no wight in all Parys
Before our ladie at parvys
That he ne mighte bye the book
To copy, if him talent took.’

—(Rom. of Rose, 7108).
* Cf, ‘demon’ of RV for AV ‘devil’ (δαιμόνιον).

ed

PARADISE

PARADISE 669

Among the Persians the term meant a royal
park, the enclosed pleasure-ground of king or of
noble, richly wooded, well watered, and amply
stocked with game, comprehending at once the
vivarium and the viridarium of the Romans.
Classical Latin did not possess the word, and
foman writers of the classical period had to ex-
press the thing in a roundabout way (cf. Cicero,
de Senect. 17). From Persia it passed over into
later Hebrew and into Greek. It,appears to have
been introduced into the latter by Nenophon, and
it oceurs frequently in Greek writers from his
period onwards. In these it is applied mostly to
the vreat parks of the Persian kings. Numerous
references are made to these, and large descrip-
tions are given of them (cf. Xen. Andb. i. 2. 7,
iii. 4. 14, Cyr. i. 3. 14, viii. 1. 38, Ge. iv. 13, 14,
Hell. iv. 1. 15; Diodor. Sic. xvi. 41; Plut.. Artaz. 25;
Theophr. Hist. Plant. v. 8.13 Lucian, Ver. fest.
hn. 23+ πὴ, Var, Hisé. i. 33,-ete).. The -word
seems to have been used sometimes also of smaller
gardens or enclosures (Inscript. Car. in CLG 26944).
In the sense of ‘park’ it occurs also in Josephus
and some of the Apocryphal books (Jos. Ant. VIL.
Sw: 4 VII. vil. oO, ER. Σά XS ti. ὦ, οὐδ, bell,
Jud. VI. i. 1; Sus v.? ete. ; Sir 24°). It is ex-
plained to the same eflect by Hesychius, Olympio-
dorus (Heeles. ch. ii. p. 611), Greg. Nyss. ΟΠ ΟΝ.
EX. im. Cantee..t.1.p. 611), ete.

It was taken over into the OT in the Hebrew
form ome (LXX παράδεισος), and with the literal
sense. It occurs thus in Ca 415 (RV ‘orchard,’
with marginal note, ‘or, @ paradise’); Ee 2°
(AV ‘gardens and orchards, RV ‘gardens and
parks’); Neh 2° (‘keeper of the king’s forest,’
where the reference is explicitly to the royal
Persian park, in the primary sense. But the
OT occurrences (in the Greek form) are not con-
fined to these three cases. ‘The word is exalted
to a higher use, the Seventy having adopted it as
their translation of the jay 13 in which man was
laced at first by his Creator. The ΚΣ is sometimes
left as ἃ proper name "Edeu ; sometimes it is repro-
duced in its etyinolozical sense as τῆς τρυφῆς. So
in the LXX (and a similar form is used in the
Peshitta) παράδεισος, παράδεισος τῆς τρυφῆς. is the
Garden of Eden (Gn 95.10.15. 32-38-2324), Ontside
the record of man’s creation and fall it was also
used by the LXX where the Heb. has ‘ garden,’
especially in figurative passages, or when the
idea of the glory of man’s first abode was in any
way in view. In Gn 1919, ¢.g., the plain of Jordan
is said to be ‘as the paradise of God? (ὡς ὁ παρά-
δεισος τοῦ θεοῦ); Nu 24° Balaam describes the tents
of Jacob and the tabernacles of Israel (ws νάπαι
σκιάζουσαι καὶ Coct παράδεισος ἐπὶ ποταμῶν). See also
Is 1%, J] 2, Jer 295, and especially Ezk 31* 9,
where it is said of the Assyrian under the figure of
a ereat cedar tree in Lebanon that ‘the cedars in
the garden of God could not hide him’... ‘nor
any tree in the garden of God (ἐν τῴ παραδείσῳ τοῦ
θεοῦ) was like unto him in his beauty, and that he
was made so fair that ‘all the trees of Eden that
were in the garden of God (τὰ ξύλα τοῦ παραδείσου
τῆς τρυφῆς τοῦ θεοῦ) envied him.’

In the NT it is raised to still higher uses. The
primeval Eden gives place to a ‘varden of God’
that is not of earth, the thoneht of the Paradise of
the past is lost in the hope of a Paradise of the
future, and the word becomes a name for the scene
of rest and recompense for the righteous after
death, Only the most sparing use, however, is
made of it in the NT. While the idea which it
expresses appears more frequently, the word itself

occurs only in three passages—once in the Gospels |

(Lk 23), once in the Epp. (2 Co 124), and once in
the Apoe. (217). The history of the term suggests
reasons for this remarkabie abstention in the case

|

of the NT writings. To understand the place
which it has in these writings, and to define ite
precise meaning in these few passages, it is meces-
sary to look into the course which Hebrew thought
took on the subject of Sheol and a future existence
after the close of OT prophecy, and into the con-
dition of popular Jewish belief in the times of
Christ and the Apostles. It is of the greatest
importance to know the ideas which had become
connected with the term ‘ Paradise’ and its co
nates in the various sections of Judaism.

In some cases ‘ Paradise,’ the ‘earden of Eden,’
and such terms, lost their objective meaning, and
were made symbols of spiritual things. The tend-
ency to idealize is seen, e.g., in Sirach, where the
rivers of Eden become symbols of the streams ΟἹ
true wisdom (Sir 24°), It appears, too, in the
Psalins of Solomon, where we have the ‘varden οἱ
the Lord’ and the ‘trees of life’ introduced as
figures of the saints in their blessedness— ὁ παρά-
δεισος κυρίου, τὰ ξύλα τῆς ζωῆς dove αὐτοῦ (145). [015
seen in its absoluteness ἴθ the plilosophizing
Judaism of Alexandria. To Philo himself ‘ Para-
dise’ was a symbol of ἀρετή, or spiritual excellence.
The spiritualizing method of interpretation, how-
ever, was limited for the most part to that school,
and was not of a kind to affect popular Jewish
thought to any great extent. The prevailing
tendency was in the opposite direction. To what
extremes of literalism and curious circumstan-
tial definition it ran, and in what extravagant
and incongruous speculation it indulged, can be
gathered from the Rabbinical literature and from
the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical writings.

‘ancy ran riot in the Rabbinical schools on the
subject of Paradise, its location, its extent, its
glories, ete. The Rabbinical theology as it has
come down to us exhibits an extraordinary medley
of ideas on these questions, and in the case of
many of them it is ditlicult to determine the dates
to which they should be assigned. In some Rab-
binical books oms is used for Paradise ; which has,
however, the sense of ‘park’ in the Mishna and
Targums. But the more frequent term is the OT
The primeval garden of Eden was held by
some to exist still, and to lie in the distant east.
Paradise was regarded as created before the world.
In later Jewish theology it had seven names, and
copious rhetorical descriptions of its blessedness

ue
o

ΙΝ 13.

abounded. Two gates of rubies were said to lead
into it. Beside them stand sixty myriads of holy

angels, with countenances shining like the light of
heaven. When a righteous man enters, the ves-
tures of death are taken off him; he is clad in
eight robes of the clouds of glory ; two crowns are
placed upon his head —one of pearls and precious
stones, another of gold of Parvaim ; eight myrtles
are put into his hand; he is lauded and hailed
with words of welcome, ete. (Jalhut Schim., Beresch.
90). It was believed also that in Paradise there
are degrees of blessedness (Baba bathra 7a).
Seven ranks or orders of the righteous were said to
exist within it, and definitions were given both of
those to whom these different positions belonged
and of the glories belonging to each. Taking
the literature as it is, if might appear that
Paradise was regarded by some as on earth itself,
by others as forming part of Sheol, by others still
as neither on earth nor under earth, but in heaven ;
while some also held that there were two Paradises
—one in heaven, for those who are perfect in holi-
ness, and one on earth, for those who come short
of that. But there is some doubt as respects,
at least, part of this. These various conceptions
are found indeed in later Judaism. They appear
most precisely and most in detail in the medieval
Cabbalistie Judaism ; in which also extravagant
descriptions are given of the relations of the earthly

670 PARADISE

PARADISE

Paradise and the heavenly, the latter being de- “of the earth, It is visited by Enoch in his journey (93). Enock
clared to be sixty times as large as the lower earth

(Kisenmenger, Hntd. Jud. ii. 297). But it is uncer-

tain how far back these things can be carried. |

The older Jewish theology at least, as it is repre-
sented in the Rabbinical literature, seems to give
little or no place to the idea of an intermediate
Paradise. It speaksof a Gehinnom tor the wicked,
and a Gan Eden, or garden of Eden, for the just.

conceptions and affirms a Paradise in’ Sheol (ef.
Weber, Ji. Theol. 244, ete.).

Of more importance, however, is the witness of
the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical writings.
These books reflect a remarkable variety οἵ
opinions, which it is impossible to harmonize, and
many of which were extremely fantastic. In the
later Jewish belief Sheol appears to be regarded as
a place of moral issues, with preliminary rewards
and punishments, and with different divisions in it
for different classes of the departed. The more
prevalent view seems to have been that the world
of the dead had two sections separated by a wall or
a chasm—one for the righteous, and one for the
unrighteous. But the opinion also was held that
Sheol had four divisions—one for the righteous
who on earth suffered death for their righteousness’
sake; one for sinners who on earth suffered
penalty for their sins ; one for others of the just ;
and one for sinners who were not punished on
earth (Lnoch 20, 102"). But in addition to these,
which were no doubt the prevalent beliefs and
were held especially by the Pharisees, there was
also the opinion, favoured especially by Jews
influenced by Alexandrian thoueht, that the
separation of the righteous from the unrighteous
took place immediately after death, and that the
souls of the just were received by God into heaven
(Wisdom 3" 4! 55.117. ef. Jos. Ant. XVII. i. 3,
Bell, Jud. i. viii. 14). The Essenes, again, are
reported to have held the abode of the departed
just to be neither in the under-world nor in
heaven, but in a Paradise belonging to earth
itself; and this idea also appears elsewhere (e.g.
Enoch 3%" ete.). There is reason to say that
by our Lord’s time various ideas of Paradise had
become current among the Jewish people. — So
that sometimes it was thought of as an earthly
place or scene, sometimes as a heavenly, sometimes
as a thing of the distant future. Sometimes it was
supposed to be hid in heaven and to be destined to
reveal itself on earth, and sometimes it was sup-
posed to be destined to realize itself in the perfected
theocracy, and to be transported to Sion.

This idea of a Paradise somewhere on earth
appears frequently in the Book of Enoch, in the
Book of Jubilees (ch. 4), and elsewhere. It per-
sisted into Christian times, and on even to the
Middle Ages (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apoc. ete.). In
4 Ezr we find also the idea that the Paradise which
formed the dwelling-place of man in his integ-
rity was made before the earth (17). It is im-
plied in this that the original Paradise was not of
the earth, and so the book speaks elsewhere of a
heavenly Paradise (6°), And this upper Para-
dise is practically a Paradise of the future. Select
souls, such as Enoch, Elijah, Moses, are indeed
received into it immediately, and Ezra himself was
to be so received. But it is not exhibited as the
present dwelling-piace of the righteous generally,
These pass into preliminary abodes in the under-
world.

A special interest belongs here to the Book of Enoch, although
the composite nature of its contents and the different ideas
which are expressed in its different sections make it difficult to
detine the precise force of its testimony as a whole. In its more
recent parts and in the Noahic fragments the primeval Paradise
is in view, and it is described repeatedly as on earth itself (207),
among the more mysterious parts of earth (652 1068), in the east

and Elijah are taken up into it (608 878.4 S932), and other
righteous souls are understood to be included (608. 29). The

_ general idea of the under-world as the gathering place of all the

dead, with different sections in it for the evil and the good, seems
at the same time to subsist (32. 10211 1037). In the older parts
of the book, again, the Messianic kingdom is represented as one
hid in heaven at present, and to be revealed on earth hereafter
and in these parts the dwellings of the righteous appear to be

| heavenly abodes (394 411 2481 704 711417), The passages bearing
a } Ξ

more directly on Paradise itself are these :—323-6, which speaks

4 υ ν | of the ‘garden of justice,’ with its varieties of trees, and refers
It is questionable whether it goes beyond these — a " ( Ἰ

to the earthly Paradise ; 005. 23, which also speaks of the ‘ garden
where the chosen and holy ones shall dwell’—‘ the garden of the
just’; 6113, which refers to the ‘ chosen who dwell in the garden
of life’ ; 708.4, in which the seer is said to have seen the * place
for the chosen and the just,’ and in it ‘ the first fathers and the
just, who dwell in the place from the beginning’; and ττὸ,
where the ‘ fourth quarter called the north’ is said to be divided
into three parts—one for the dwelling of men, one for the seas,
the valleys, the winds, and the streams, and the third for ‘the
garden of justice.” The ideas which are expressed in these
passages, therefore, are far from consistent, and the same js stil’
more obviously the case with the book as a whole. In 37-7
and in the Noahic fragments the garden is the abode of th
departed just ; but in 1-37 the righteous dead dwell in a special
division of Sheol. The garden in view in 323 ete. is the earthly
Paradise; but in 37-70 it is the heavenly. The locality of
Paradise varies in different sections. In 322-3 the garden lies in
the east ; in 702-4 between north and west ; in 773 in the north.
The accounts of those who people it also differ, In 323 it appears
to be empty ; in 60%. 23 6113. it is the abode of the righteous and
elect in Enoch and Noah’s time ; in 7024 the fathers are found in
it; in $92 it is described as receiving Enoch and Elijah. (See
the editions of the Book of Enoch by Dillmann, Schodde, and
Charles).

Among other writings of this class a special value belongs
also to the Apocalypse of Baruch. The idea that the earthly
tabernacle and its contents were copies of antitypes or originals
in heaven (Ex 359. 40, He 8°) is applied in this book to the holy
city. In Bl (ch. 69) Jerusalem, the centre of the new theocracy, is
described as destined to be restored and established forever < ey
which case it is the Jerusalem of earth thatis inview. But else-
where (4% 3024) it is the heavenly Jerusalem that appears—the
city that is preserved in heaven and is to come from heaven. In
this connexion the book speaks also of Paradise, of the counsel
which the Lord took to make it, and of its preservation with the
Lord in heaven. In ch. 45: (in a passage, however, which is
suspected of being an interpolation) God is represented ag
speaking of the city as that which ‘will be revealed’ with Him ;
which was ‘ prepared beforehand’ from the time when He ‘ took
counsel to make Paradise, and showed it to Adam hefore he
sinned’; which was removed from Adam, ‘as also Paradise,’
when he transgressed ; which was shown afterwards to ‘ Abra-
ham by night among the portions of the victims,’ and again to
Moses on Mount Sinai; of which also the Lord says, ‘And now,
behold, itis preserved with me, as also Paradise.’ In ch. 598, too,
we are told how the Lord showed to Moses ‘the height of the
air and the greatness of Paradise, and the consummation of the
ages, and the beginning of the day of judgment’; as in the
Book of Enoch (611-4 708-4) the angels are said to take the
measures Of Paradise for Enoch.

The ideas, therefore, which had become con-
nected with the terms jw 18}, παράδεισος, and the
like, were of a very mixed kind—crude, fantastic,
and inconsistent. They impressed themselves in
their sensuousness, extravagance, and confusion
on the popular Jewish sentiment and belief. There
was much in the history and associations of the
word παράδεισος that made it a doubtful vehicle
for the communication of spiritual truths, but a
very ready instrument of fanciful and overdriven
speculation. Much is made of it in the Apocry-
phal Gospels and Apocalypses. In the Gospel of
Nicodemus, in particular, a considerable place is
given it. In the section on the ‘ Descent of Christ
into Hell’ the story is told in large and swelling
terms of the Saviour’s victory over Satan—how
He sprang out of Hades and set out to Paradise,
taking Adam and all the just and delivering them
to the archangel Michael; how, as they were
entering the door of Paradise, they were met by
Enoch and Elijah ; how there came to them also a
lowly man carrying a cross upon his shoulders,
who declared himself to be the thief who was
crucified with Christ and received the promise of
Paradise; how the robber described himself te
have come to Paradise bearing his cross, and te
have been received by Michael ; how the flaming
sword, seeing the sign of the cross, opened to him,
so that he went in, and so forth (ch. ii. 25, 26,

— 6

PARADISE

PARADISE 671

Greek form). In sharpest contrast with all this is
the NT way of dealing with the subject and with
the term. The general reticence of the NT writings
on the question of Paradise, and their extreme
sparingness in the use of the word, are remark-
able. Neither in Gospel nor in Epistle is the word
selected for the purposes of direct instruction.
In speaking of the blessedness of the future, our
Lord makes use of figures of speech taken from
marriage feasts, the drinking of wine, and the
like. But He never employs the term ‘ Paradise,’
so far as the Gospels show, either in His public
discourses or in words addressed more privately
to His disciples. Nor does St. Paul use it any-
where in the argument of his Epp. The one
oceasion on which it occurs in his writings is in
his account of a singular experience of his own
belonging to the region of rapture or ecstasy, and
expressed in apocalyptic terms.

It has been asked what view of ‘Paradise’ is
expressed by our Lord Himself in His words from
the cross (Lk 23"). Some have argued strongly
that His promise to the robher was a promise of
entrance with Himself into the happy side of
Sheol; others that it meant that the penitent
thief would be taken with Himself, as it was
believed had been the case with Enoch, Elijah,
and Moses, immediately into heaven. It is certain
that the belief in a /vwer Paradise prevailed
amone the Jews, as well as the belief in an wpper
or heavenly Paradise. But it is not clear that the
lower Paradise was ever conceived to be in the
under-world, or that the happy side of Hades was
called by that name. The probability, looking at
the witness of the Jewish literature, is on the side
of the second interpretation, that Christ referred
to the Paradise of heaven. But it is difficult to
say what sense the robber would attach to the
vord. It would give him the solace which he
needed—the hope of rest and happiness associated
with the idea of Eden. It is questionable whether
it van be pressed beyond that large and general
idea. To bring it into the service of the dogma of
the Deseensus ad inferos, in the Lutheran sense or
any other, seems to the present writer to be beyond
the mark. Some have even identified it with the
φυλακή of 1 P 3! (e.g. Horsley), and have drawn
remarkable inferences from it with regard to Christ's
preaching to the spirits in prison, But this is surely
in defiance of the Greek usage.

It has been held, too, that the ‘ Paradise’ of
Lk 23 is identical with the ‘Abrahaim’s bosom ’
of Lk 1055 7, both being designations of a par-
ticular division of the under-world. But in the
Parable it is only the rich man that is described

as in Hades, while of Lazarus it is said simply,

that dying he was carried into ‘ Abraham’s bosom.’
Even vranting that the Parable is meant to repre-
sent the rich man and the beggar as both in
Hades, the one in the division of retribution and
the other in that of reward, it would not follow
that ‘ Paradise’ and ‘ Abraham’s bosom’ are
synonymous. The point would be, that being in
Paradise the hegear is received into the fellowship
of Abraham (see Meyer on Lk 16%; also art.
ABRAITAM’S Bosom).

In 2 Co 12% it is the heavenly Paradise, not the
lower or earthly, obviously, that is in view. τὺ
is impossible to understand it, in this case of
rapture, of the intermediate state or any place
in Hades. Neither does it satisfy the terms to
say that παράδεισος here is nothing more than an
abstraction or a figure of speech for ‘the present
communion of the blessed dead with God as it is
on this side of the end of things’ (Ποῖα. Schrift-
beweis, 11. 1. p. 489). It denotes the heaven that
is the dwelling- place of God. The question of
the relation in which the ‘ Paradise’ ot ν." stands

to the ‘third heaven’ of v.?, however, is much
debated. It has been supposed that St. Paul hag
the doctrine of a threefold heaven in view here,
and identifies Paradise with the third or highest
heaven. There is abundant evidence indeed that
the belief in a plurality of heavens prevailed
among the Jews. But it is doubtful whether it
was a belief in a threefold heaven. ‘The doctrine
of a threefold division of heaven, it is true, ob-
tained at one time a considerable place in the
Christian Church (Suicer, Zhes. li. p. 520, ete.),
and it has been asserted by some even to be the
doctrine of the Bible (Estius, le Clere, ete.). But
the evidence is rather to the effect that the pre-
vailing, if not the only, conception among the
Jews of our Lord’s time was that of a sevenfold
heaven. (See article on HEAVEN). It is improb-
able, therefore, that St. Paul speaks with reference
to a triple order of heavens. ‘The main reason for
questioning whether in this passage he identities
©Paradise’ with the ‘third heaven’ is that he
seems rather to be indicating distinct stages in his
rapture—up to the third heaven, and even to Para-
dise. The chief argument in favour of the identi-
fication is the faet that in the Pseudepigraphical
literature Paradise is sometimes placed in the
third heaven. In the Slavonic Enoch, 6.0., it is
said that in the third heaven the seer beheld, in
the midst thereof, ‘the tree of life, in that place
on which God rests, when He comes into Paradise’
(ch. 8)—a passage in which an attempt seems to
be made to reduce to one the older idea of an
earthly Paradise and the later idea of a heavenly
(ef. Morfill and Charles, Book of the Secrets of
Enoch, p. xxxvii and pp. 7, 8). The words of St.
Paul do not themselves define how the ‘third
heaven’ and ‘ Paradise’ are related.

In Rev 27, where the reading ‘in the Paradise
of God’ is to be preferred, it is the heavenly
Paradise that is in view. ‘The imagery is taken
again from the picture of Eden in Genesis. The
terms recall Ezk 2815. In briefer form they ex-
press what is given with greater fulness of descrip-
tion in 22! The promise being to him that
overcometh, is a promise of the final recompense
and blessedness under the figure of a restored
Eden. Some, however (6... Bleek), have taken it
to be founded on the idea that the primeval Para-
dise of Adam still exists somewhere.

The idea expressed by the word Paradise has
prevailed widely. Many different peoples have
had the conception of a Paradise in the sense of
a home of innocence and peace and blessedness on
earth or its confines. The Hindus have had their
visions of Meru, the mountain of the gods, whence
flow the great streams into all the world. The
Arabs have dreamt of the garden of Lliss on the
summit of the hill of jacinth, in the East.
Iranian thought has dwelt upon the stream
Arvanda, that went out of the throne of Ahura-
mazda to water the earth, and on Airyanavaejo,
the land in the extreme East, among the sources
of the Oxus and Jaxartes—in later Persian ideas a
fabulous land. The term Pardes is reported to
have been found on some Babylonian cuneiform
tablets, coupled with the land of Bit-Napsanu as
the name of a country, apparently mythological ;
and the resemblanee to the word Paradise o7B is
noticed. (Sceart. EDEN, vol.i. p. 644). The Chinese
and many ruder races have also had the same idea,
and have clothed it in many strange forms.

Theologians have alxo given the rein to faney
and speculation om the subject. They have often
overlooked the restraint ot Seripture, and have
gone in the way of Rabbinical definition and refine-
ments. The Patristic writines ¢ive much attention
to Paradise. Some of the Fathers spoke of it asa
resting-place or refrigeriwm, in which the righteoug

672 PARADISE

PARAN

dead have visions of Christ and His saints and
angels (Just. Martyr, esp. ad Orthod. 75, 86).
Some distinguished between Paradise and heaven.
Irenenus refers to what the presbyters said of a
distinction between awards,—how some shall go to
heaven, some to Paradise, and some to the splen-
dour of the city; those who produce an hundred-
fold being taken up into the heavens, those who
produce sixtyfold being destined to dwell in Para-
dise, and those who produce thirtyfold being to
inhabit the city (adv. Her. v. 1, 2). Some,
descending to more detail, taught that no one
enters at once into the presence of the Lord in
Paradise except by the prerogative of martyrdom,
but that all pass into Hades. Tertullian dwells at
leneth upon the Christian idea of Hades and the
blessedness of Paradise immediately after death.
He explains the Christian belief to be that Hades
is ‘a very deep space in the interior of the earth’ ;
that the souls of the faithful pass into it; and
that heaven shall be opened only after earth has
passed away. ‘Shall we then have to sleep,’ he
asks, ‘high up in ether, with the boy - loving
worthies of Plato; or in the air with Arius;
or around the moon with the Endymions of
the Stoies? No, but in Paradise, you tell me,
whither already the patriarchs and prophets
have removed from Hades in the retinue οἱ
the Lord’s resurrection. How is it, then, that
the region of Paradise, which, as revealed to
John in the Spirit, lay under the altar, dis-
plays no other souls as in it besides the souls of
the martyred τ᾽ (de Anima, ch. xliii., and espee.
ch. lv.; Clark’s ‘ Ante-Nicene Lib.’). Origen held
it to be somewhere on earth, and to be a kind of
schoolroom for souls. ‘I think, therefore,’ he
says, ‘that all the saints who depart from this life
will remain in some place situated on the earth,
which holy Seripture calls Paradise, as in some
place of instruction, and, so to speak, classroom
or school of souls, in which they are to be in-
structed regarding all the things which they had
seen on earth, and are to receive also some infor-
mation respecting things that are te follow in the
future.’ And he adds that ‘if any one indeed be
pure in heart, and holy in mind, and more practised
in perception, he will, by making more rapid pro-
eress, quickly ascend to a place in the air, and
reach the kingdom of heaven through these
mansions, so to speak, to the various places
Which the Greeks have termed spheres, t.e. globes,
but which holy Scripture has called heavens’ (de
Prine. bk. ii. ch. ix. 6; Clark’s ‘Ante - Nicene
Lib.’). Augustine, too, in his great treatise on the
City of God, discoursed of the primeval Paradise
as both physical and spiritual, and went into
curious discussions on the conditions of life in it.
The leading theologian of the Greek Church gave
a chapter to it in his great dogmatic work, de-
seribing the ‘divine Paradise’ as planted in Eden
by the hands of God, on a site ‘higher in the East
than all the earth,’ flooded with light and tran-
scending imagination ‘in sensuous freshness and
beauty’ (John of Damase. de Fide Orth. el. x1.).
Medieval Latin Theology and Roman Catholic
Dogmaties have dealt largely with it in connexion
with the doctrine of the Intermediate State. In
these systems Paradise has been identified with the
Limbus Patrum, and some notable divines of the
Roman Catholic Church have taught further that
Christ, in His Descent to Hell, preached to those in
Paradise on the fringe of Hades, as well as to the
souls in Purgatory (so Estius). And in some
modern theologies, Lutheran and Anglican no
less than Tridentine, much has been made of it in
connexion with the Doctrines of a Middle State,
the position of the righteous dead before Christ’s
Advent, and the like. But all this is in the most

singular contrast with the silence and reserve of
Scripture, and is of little profit.

LITERATURE. —The articles in the great Dictionaries, especially
those in Hamburger, Real-Eneyel. fiir Bibel und Talmud ,
Herzog, Real-Encyel. ; Riehm, Handwérterbuch des biblischen
Alterthums (those on ‘Eden’ and ‘ Holle’); Schenkel, Bibel-
lexicon (Dillmann on ‘ Paradies’); Cremer, Biblisch - theolo-
gisches Warterbuch ; Weber, Jtidische Theologie; Alger,
Critical History of a Future Life; A. Kliefoth, Eschatologie ;
Atzberger, Eschat.; Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. ; Villmann, Buch
Henoch; Charles, Book of Enoch; Schodde, Book of Enoch ;
Morfill and Charles, Book of the Secrets of Enoch; Wetstein,
Nov. Test. 818-820; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Lk 2348 ; Schottgen
on Lk 234; Schulthess, Paradies das trdische und unterir-
dische, historische, mythische, und mystische ; Beyschlag, New
Test. Theology; Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Limior-
tality, 346 ff. S. Ὁ F. SALMOND.

PARAH (7727; B bapa, Α ᾿Αφάρ).---Α city in Ben-
jamin, near Ophrah, Jos 18%. Now_ the ruin
Farah, near the head of the Valley of Michmash.
See SIVP vol. iii. sheet xvii.; Guerin, Judée, 111.
T1£;- ZDPY in. ΤΊ,

PARALYSIS, PARALYTIC.—See MEDICINE, p.
326.

PARAN (y73x5, Φαράν) occurs in Gn 146 2121, Nu
1015 1216 13% 26 Dt 1) 33%, 1S 25', 1 K 118, Hab ae
Note the insertion in Nu 33°° by LXX after the
word ‘Zin,’ ‘and they removed from the wilder-
ness of Zin and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.’
Paran is here introduced into the itinerary of Nu
33 and identified with Kadesh as in Nu 13% (‘and
they went and came to Moses and to Aaron. . .
unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh’). κατα-
σκίου δασέος in LXX of Hab 89 should not be passed
by unnoticed.

Of these passages two are poetical, and contain
the expression ‘Mount Paran’ or the mountains
of Paran (Dt 33°, Hab 39). With these should be
compared the opening verses of the Song of De-
borah (Je 5) and of Ps 68. The similarity of
thought in these passages is evident. Although
there is some variation in the use of proper names
(e.g. Paran occurs only in the first two, and Sinai
is not found in Hab), yet one idea is prominent in
all, that God comes forth from His holy habitation
as a deliverer of His people when in distress,
Around Him rages the thunderstorm, and at His
presence the hills melt. Sinai, Seir, the Field of
Edom, Teman are mentioned as the region whence
Ile “came? or ‘shined forth,’ and the mountains of
Paran form part of that region. If the emendation
of Dt 332 noticed in art. MERIBAIL be accepted,
Mt. Paran stands in parallelism with Kadesh, as
well as in close connexion with Sinai and Seir.

El-paran (ἢ the terebinth of Paran) occurs in
the description of Chedorlaomer’s campaign in
Gn 145, It appears to have been the southern
limit of the expedition which ‘smote the Hivites
in their mount Seir’ and returned to ‘ En-mishpat,
which is Kadesh.’ Here the indications of position
are similar to those in the poetical passages ; El-
paran is in the neighbourhood of Seir and Ixadesh.
It is ‘by the wilderness,’ with which may be com-
pared the expression ‘ wilderness of Paran’ occur-
ring elsewhere. El-paran is by many identified
with Elath at the head of the Gulf of Akabah.
In Dt 11 the connexion between the names men-
tioned and the context is so uncertain that no
inference can be drawn. The LXX of 18 25' has
Madv in B, Φαράν in A. The MT may be ques-
tioned here; but if it be accepted, the wilderness
of Paran extended into the southern part of
Judah.

According to 1 K 1118 Hadad, with a company of
his father’s servants, fled from Edom to Midian,
and then passed through Paran on their way to
Egypt. The remaining passages all contain the
expression ‘the wilderness of Paran.’ In Gn 21"

= ἔα ΡΣ ΚΑΊΝΝΣ.

7%)

PARBAR

PARCHMENT

it is Ishmael’s place of abode when he and _ his
mother Hagar are driven away at Sarah’s instiga-
tion. From the context it seems to be on the way
from Beersheba to Egypt. In the narrative of
Hagar’s flight, contained in Gn 16 (which is con-
sidered by many as another version of the same
tradition), the well where the angel of the Lord
appeared to her was between Kadesh and Bered.
The connexion between Kadesh and Paran is most
marked in the passages which have yet to be con-
sidered. They are all in Nu, and given above.
According to 10}, when the children of Israel
moved out of the wilderness of Sinai the cloud
rested in the wilderness of Paran, so that the
wuderness of Paran is regarded as adjoining that
of Sinai. According to 1216 the people pitched in
the wilderness of Paran after the encampments at
Taberah, Kibroth-hattaavah, and Hazeroth. Ac-
cording to 13% °6 the spies were sent from the
wilderness of Paran to search the land, and re-
turned to the same place after completing their
search. The account in Dt 1 gives Kadesh as the
place whence the spies were sent (cf. Nu 136).
From these notices αὖ appears that the wilderness
of Paran stretched from the wilderness of Sinai to
the border of the Promised Land, and the inference
from Nu 1050 as well as from comparison of the
accounts in Nu and Dt is that Kadesh was within
its border. ‘The position is thus indicated as south
of Palestine and west of Edom, a position which
accords generally with the other passages in which
Paran is mentioned. The positions of Sinai,
Kadesh, and Hormah must be determined before
anything more definite can be stated as to the
boundaries of the wilderness of Paran, and the
articles on these names may be consulted. Some
remarks will be found in § iv. of art. Exonus
(vol. i. p. 804) on the connexion between Paran
and Zin, and it is there stated that Paran does not
occur in the itinerary of Nu 33. The attempt of
the LXX to supply this deficiency (referred to
above) adds to the difficulty by making Paran
follow Zin. See ZIN. A. T. CHAPMAN.

PARBAR (7275,—as pointed, with the art.).—A
colonnade (it is supposed) on the W. side of the
outer temple-court, mentioned in 1 Ch 26 as a
place at which six of the gatekeepers were
stationed, four apparently outside, at the ‘cause-
way’ (v.'6), and two in.the ‘Parbar’ itself. The
account purports'to be a description of the arrange-
ments made by David, but in reality it refers to
those of the Chronicler’s own time, as the word
Parbar alone is suflicient to show; for this is
certainly not a native Hebrew word, and to all
appearance it is Persian. As Ges. (7'/es.) observed,
‘parbar’ agrees closely with the Pers. pariwar
(ace. to Ges. from par ‘light,’ and -bar a termi-
nation meaning ‘ possessing’), a swummer-house or
open kiosk ; and so it is supposed to have found its
way into late Hebrew—like apaddna, for instance,
in Dn 11%—with the sense of a sun-lighted portico
or colonnade. What is generally explained as the
same word, in a form exactly corresponding to the
Persian, occurs in the plur. (2173; LXX φαρουρειμὴ
in 2 K 23", where the horses given by the kings of
Judah to the sun are said to have stood ‘by the
chamber (729) of Nethan-melech the eunuch,
which was in the colonnades.’* In the Targums
(occasionally) and in the Mishna, ete., parwar
occurs in the sense of the suburbs of a city (e.g. of
Jerusalem), probably (as Ges. observed) because in
Oriental cities, as with us, such suburbs would
consist largely of the open summer-houses of the
wealthy. This usage is the source of AV ‘suburbs’
(cf. Targ. xm) in 2 K 23", and of RV ‘precincts’

* For a conjectural site, cf. Schick’s art. on ancient Jerus.,
ZDPYV, 1894, p. 18, with the accompanying Plan.

VOL. 111.-- 43

(2 le 23ueand mare of 1 Cly26")-; but- the sense
thus obtained is not suitable in either passage.
3y what means, however, ἃ Persian word can
have reached Judah before the Exile (2 Καὶ 23), is
difficult to understand : if this explanation of the
word in 2 K 23" is correct, the text would seem to
have been adjusted to post-exilic usage.
S. R. DRIVER.

PARCEL.—Derived from Lat. particula (dim.
of pars a ‘part’) through Fr. parcelle, a parcel
is ‘a small part’ of anything; and that is the
primitive sense in which it is used in AV. The
words so tr. are (1) apn helkah (Gn 83:9, Jos 24°",
Ru 4°, 1 Ch 11 ¥), and ywpiov (Jn 4°); and as both
words mean specifically a portion (or ‘plot,’ as
1 Ch 11-4 RV) of land, it is always to land (and
not, as now, to something that can be carried)
that the word is applied. It was, however, used
of ‘a part’ or ‘a small part’ of almost anything,
as Erasmus, Commune Crede, fol. 18, ‘Sanctorum
communionem. ‘The communion of saynctes.
This parcel certayne men do so understonde, that
it do by apposytion expounde the nexte parcel
goyng before, whiche is sanctam ecclesiam catho-
licaim, The holy catholike churche.’ So 'T. Adams,
Works, i. p. xix—‘ These Meditations, which before
were scattered abroad in parcels, are now presented
to thee in one entire volume.’ = Shaks. has it
exactly as we now use ‘particle,’ J Henry IV. ul.
11. 159—

‘TI will die a hundred thousand deaths
Ere break the smallest parcel of this vow.’
J. HASTINGS.

PARCHED CORN.—To parch is to scorch, as in
Mt 136 Rhem., ‘ After the sun was up, they
parched,’ where it is used intransitively. The
trans. use is more common, as Sir 43° ‘At noon it
{the sun] parcheth the country’ (ἀναξηραίνει, RV
‘drieth’); but it is rarely used except in the ptep.
‘parched.’ Parched is used of the ground (Is 357,”
Jer 178, Sir 43%) as we still use it. But it is also
used of corn (Lv 23!4, Jos δ, Ru 24, 18 17%
2518, 2S 1738) in the obsolete sense of ‘roasted.’
Cf. Haliburton, Sam Slick, Clockmaker, xxv—
‘Marm Porter moved about as brisk as a parched
pea.’ The process of parching cora is described by
Thomson, Land and Book, ii. 40f., ‘A quantity
of the best ears, not too ripe, are plucked with the
stalks attached. These are tied in smal! parcels,
a blazing fire is kindled with dry grass and thorn
bushes, and the corn-heads are held in it until the
chatf is mostly burned off. When the grain is
sufficiently roasted, it is rubbed cut in the hand
and eaten as there is occasion.’ See also Robinson,
BRP ii. 50f., ‘In the season of harvest, the grains
of wheat, not yet fully dry and hard, are roasted
in a pan or on an iron plate, and constitute a very
palatable article of food. Indeed, the use of it is
so common at this season among the labouring
classes, that this parched wheat is sold in the

markets.’ J. HASTINGS.
PARCHMENT.— Parchment is a writing material

prepared from the skin of the sheep or goat. ‘The
skins are first soaked in lime to remove the hair,

* Is 857 ‘The parched ground shall become a pool.’ The word
rendered ‘parched ground’ here is Σ᾽ sharabh, which occurs
also in Is 4919 and nowhere else. As the Arab. word for the
mirage is serab, and as the idea of the mirage suits the sense
here, it has generally been understood that the prophet’s mean-
ing is that where there is only the mocking semblance of water
there will be found real pools. Cf. Koran (Sura xxiv 39—
quoted in Ges. and Skinner)—

‘The works of the unbelievers are like the mirage in the

desert
The thirsty takes it for water, till he comes up to it and
finds that it is nothing.’
But this sense is less suitable to the other passage ; so RV has
here ‘ glowing sand’ and at 4910 ‘heat,’ with ‘mirage’ in the
marg. at both places (see, further, Cheyne, Jntr. to Is. 26

PARDON

PAROUSIA

and are then shaved, washed, dried, stretched,
and ground or smoothed with fine chalk or lime and
pumice-stone.’ The finest kind is made from the
skins of calves or kids, and called vellum. The
Eng. word ‘ parchment’ is a form of pergamina or
pergamena (Gr. περγαμηνή), an adj. signifying ‘ of
Perga:num,’ the city of Pergamum (now Bergamo)
in Asia Minor being the place where parchment
was invented, or at least brought into use. The
f is no proper part of the Eng. word which was
adopted from the Fr. parchemin. Chaucer says
(Buthius, Vv. iv. 14, Skeat’s ed. p. 200), ‘Thilke
Stoiciens wenden that the sowle hadde ben naked
of it-self, as a mirour or a clene parchemin, so that
alle figures mosten first comen fro thinges fro
withoute-forth in-to sowles, and ben empreinted
in-to sowles.”. The word occurs only in 2 Ti 41,
where St. Paul asks Timothy to bring to him the
cloke which he left at Troas, ‘and the books,
especially the parchments’ (kal τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα
τὰς weuBpavas). The Greek word is simply the Lat.
membrana (properly an adj. membrana cutis, from
membrum, a limb, member of the body), the skin,
parchment. This is its only occurrence in bibl.
Greek. It is impossible to say what the parch-
ments were, or why they chiefly were wanted.
Perhaps they were more precious than the books be-
cause parchment and not paper (papyrus) ; they may
even have been vellum.* Perhaps their value was
in their contents—the Old Test. in Greek (Kenyon),
his diploma of Roman citizenship (Farrar), his
‘commonplace books’ (Bull), or even a copy of the
Grundschrift of the Gospels (Latham).
J. HASTINGS.
PARDON.—See FORGIVENESS in vol. ii. p. 56.

PARENT.—See FAMILY in vol. i. p. $48.

PARLOUR occurs in AV as translation of three
ditferent Heb. words. 1. 7:52, used of the room in
which Eelon, king of Moab, was interviewed and
assassinated by Ehud, Je 3.50. 25-24% (LXX ὑπερῴον,
ef. Ac 18 987-9 205). This was an upper storey
‘raised above the flat roof of the house at one
corner, or upon a tower-like annex to the building,’
containing generally only a single apartment,
thoroughly ventilated by lattice windows on all
sides, and constituting the most comfortable part
of the house (see Moore, Judges, pp. 96, 98, and ef.
also such passages as 1 Καὶ 17! 2%, 2 Καὶ 12 410.11 Jer
2218-14) Neh 3°!°), Moore's rendering ‘roof-chamber’
is much more suitable than ‘parlour,’ which is most
unfortunately retained by RV, although American
RV has ‘upper room.’ 2. 3229 (RV ‘ guest-cham-
ber,’ LXX κατάλυμα), 1 5. 93, This was a room in
which the sacrificial meals at the bamdah were held
(cf. the mention in 18 118 [in the LXX, according
to which the MT ought to be restored—Wellh.,
Driver, ete.] of a lishkah also at Shiloh, near the
ma Son). A suitable rendering would be ‘sacri-
ficial dining-room.’ In later times the Heb. word
was used for a chamber in a palace, Jer 3013, or for
the chambers in the Temple court in which the
priests lived, Jer 355: 4, Ezk 4017, or for store-rooms
in the second Temple, Ezr 8%, Neh 10°: %, 3, 30,
1 Ch 28", where AV tr. ΘΒ on ‘inner par-
lours,’ but RV has ‘inner chambers.’ The most
suitable rendering for 775 is ‘chamber.’ The Heb.
word generally connotes the idea of privacy. The
LXX tr. in 1 Ch 28" by ἀποθῆκαι.

In no case is the Eng. word ‘parlour’ a very
suitable tr. of the Heb., and it was formerly less
suitable than now. Coming from parler, to speak
(Low Lat. parabolare, to talk; Gr. παραβολή, a
parable), it signified in early Eng. the public
reception -room, the drawing- (= with - drawing)

“On the early use of vellum see Kenyon, Paleog. of Gr. Papyr.
p. 112 ff., and Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. 234 ff.

room being then what is now the parlour, the
private apartment of the family.
J. A. SELBIEF.

PARMASHTA (xnvonp; B Mapuaomd, A Mappa-
σιμυά, Phermesta).—The seventh of the ten sons of
Haman, put to death by the Jews (Est 99). The
name is perhaps the Sansk. purmashta=chief (so
Benfey).

PARMENAS (lIlapyevas).— One of the ‘Seven’
appointed, Ac 6°. The name is Greek, a short-
ened form of Parmenides. Nothing further is
known of him. He is said by later tradition to
have been martyred at Philippi, and is commemor-
ated by the Latins on Jan. 23, by the Greeks on
July 28. A. C. HEADLAM.

PARNACH (372, apvay).—The father of Eliza-
phan, who as prince of Zebulun took part in the
dividing of the land, Nu 845.

PAROSH (vs75 ‘flea’; Φορός, bapés).—The name
of a post-exilic family, of which 2172 returned with
Zerubbabel, Ezr 2° (=Neh 78), and 150 with Ezra,
Εν 85. Seven of the Béné-Parosh had married
foreign wives, Ezr 10%. The name appears also in
connexion with the repairing of the walls, Neh 3°,
and the sealing of the covenant, 10% The Gr.
form Phoros is adopted in 1 Es (5% 8” 925),

PAROUSIA [παρουσία, lit. ‘presence,’ as opposed
to absence (2 Co 1019, Ph 125 915). hence the arrival
which introduces that presence (cf. Col 16 τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμᾶς, ‘the gospel which is
come unto you’; 1 Ὁ 16% the coming οὗ Ste-
phanas ; 2 Co 77; ὃ Th 2°; 2 P 3! the coming of
the Day of God)].—A technical term used in NT
to denote the coming of Christ in glory at the end
of the age. In this sense it is used Mt 24% 37. 37. 99)
I Co 15%, 1 Th 919 38 415 53, 9 Th 91. ὃ (cf. v.2 where
it is used of Antichrist), Ja 57 8, 2 P 116 34; ef.
v.",1Jn 2°. Both AV and RV translate ‘coming,’
although RV adds in the margin the alternative
rendering ‘presence.’ The expression Second
Coming, while it occurs in later ecclesiastical
Greek (Hv. Nicod. ὁ, 22 end; Just. Apol. i. 52,
Trypho, ee. 40, 110, 121) in contrast to the first
coming (7rypho, ec. 40, 110, 121), is not found in
Scripture. Synonymous expressions are the Apo-
calypse (ἀποκάλυψις ; so 2 Th 17 the revelation of
the Lord Jesus from heaven ; 1 Co 17, 1 P 17: 8 48,
the revelation of His glory, οἵ. Lk 17°) and the
Day (ἡμέρα) of Christ (1 Co 18,2 Co 14, Ph 16
28" ἢ} ὙΠ. δὲ, Ὁ Ps, 8 Thy ον.
the days of the Son οἵ Man). The term Parousia
differs from these latter in that it emphasizes the
element of permanent presence which the coming
of Christ is to introduce. But it is incorrect, with
some modern interpreters (so Warren, Paroasia,
p- 21), so to magnify this element as to reject
altogether the meaning ‘coming.’ Both elements,
the coming and the presence, are united in the
word as in the doctrine.

Interpreters find reference to several distinct
comings of Christ in the NT. There is (1) a
physical Advent at His resurrection (so Jn 14%
16°; cf. Holtzmann, Hdcomm. iv. 163); (2) a
spiritual Advent by the Paraclete, which is to
take place during the lifetime of the disciples,
and to result in a perpetual dwelling of Christ
and the Father in their hearts (Jn 14%; οἵ, 167) ;
(3) an Advent to the disciples at death, when
Christ will come to receive them into the man-
sions which He has prepared for them above (Jn
14°, and comments of.Holtzmann, J.c. iv. p. 160;
cf. also 2 Co 58) ; (4) a historical Advent for judg-

ment, taking place at different times in the his- |

tory of the Church, but distinguished from the

PAROUSIA

PAROUSIA 675

final Advent at the end of the age (Rev 2% 16 3311 ;
cf. also Mt 26% ‘ Henceforth [ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι] ye shall see
the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power,
and coming on the clouds of heaven,’ which Meyer
interprets in the sense of a continual historical
revelation of Christ’s power and triumph); and,
finally, (5) an Advent at the end of the age (Mt 24’)
to judge the world, to destroy evil, to reward the
saints, and to establish the Kingdom of Glory.
While it is with the last of these that we are
primarily concerned in the doctrine of the Parousia,
it is impossible wholly to ignore the others. ‘The
sharp line of distinction which later theology has
drawn between the final Advent and these pre-
liminary advents is not always observed in the
NT. There are passages, like Mt 26°, where the
coming of Christ in glory is represented as ἃ con-
tinuous process. There are others, like those in
the Fourth Gospel (¢.g. Jn 14% 16"), in which the
spiritual advent by the Paraclete takes the place
hare filled by the final Advent. It is im-
portant, therefore, while clearly recognizing the
technical meaning of the phrase, not to interpret
our theme too narrowly.

The doctrine of the Parousia is a New Testa-
ment doctrine. It had its origin in Jesus’ prophecy
of His own return, and depends for its existence
upon the unique position which He holds in Chris-
tian faith. Nevertheless, it is not without pre-
paration in the past. It has its parallel within
the OT in the prophetic anticipation of the Day of
the Lord:(¢.9. Any δ᾽", Ts: 2" 13%): {1} 12524, Zeph- 3°),
—that great crisis of human history when J” shall
be manifested as the Judge and Saviour of Israel,
and His Kingdom shall be set up among men (see
ESCHATOLOGY in vol. i. p. 735f.). Many features
in the NT doctrine are anticipated in OT. Thus
the warlike imagery of Rev 19!!™ finds parallels in
Is 134 34°, Jer 46! etc. The connexion of the
resurrection of the dead with the deliverance and
judgment of the living is made in Dn 12'*, The
great convulsions of 2 P 3! have their anticipation
in Is 344, The signs in the heaven predicted in Mt
2459 and parallels are foretold in Is 131, J] 8:5. 16
ete. The renewal of nature prophesied in Is 65!
reappears in Rev 21! (cf. Ro 874, 1 Co 7%). Most
striking is the parallel in Dn 7%, where the seer
has a vision of one like unto a Son of Man coming
with the clouds of heaven to receive ‘dominion
and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples,
nations, and languages should serve him.’

A further preparation for the doctrine of the
Parousia is to be found in the revived Messianic
expectation which characterized the period im-
mediately before Christ, and which has left its
traces in the contemporary Apocalyptic literature.
This literature prepared the way for our doctrine,
partly by intensifying the sense of an impending
crisis, partly by identifying that crisis, as was not
always the case in the OT, with the coming and
activity of the Messiah. It 1s true that in some of
the Apocalyptic books there is no mention of a per-
sonal Messiali. But in others, and these among the
most important (e.g. Ps.-Sol, Eth. Enoch, Baruch,
4 Ezra), the Messiah holds a prominent place.
The material is so fully presented by Charles in
the article on the ESCHATOLOGY OF THE APOC-
RYPHA AND APOCALYPTICAL LITERATURE in vol.
i. p. 741 ff., that it is unnecessary to enter into
it here. Suflice it to say that the climax is
reached in the great passage in the Eth. Enoch
(c. 48 ff.), in which the Son of Man is revealed
upon the throne of His glory as the righteous
judge both of the living and of the dead. This
passage, which in many ways reminds us of Dn
715, is the closest parallel, outside the NT, to the
great judgment scene in Mt 24°!-%,

The points of contact thus briefly indicated

suggest an interesting question. Are we to con-
ceive the doctrine of the Parousia as simply the
continuation on Christian soil of the contemporary
Jewish expectation? Or does it stand for some-
thing new and distinct? Did Jesus and the
apostles understand the OT prophecies in’ sub-
stantially the same sense in which they were
understood by the Jews of their day, with this
difference only, that the Messiah of whose identity
the latter were ignorant was known by them to be
Jesus? Or did they give to these prophecies, as
we know that our Lord gave to the law (Mt 5-7), a
deeper and more spiritual interpretation’? And if
the latter, was this equally true of them all, or
must we distinguish within the NT between the
teaching of the Master and the more or less im-
perfect apprehension of the disciples? These are
questions of the highest importance, not merely for
the understanding of the teaching of Jesus, but of
Christianity itself.

The answer to these questions is by no means
easy. No part of the biblical material’ is more
ditheult to interpret than the eschatological pas-
sages. This is true not merely of the Bk. of
Revelation, —admittedly the most obscure portion
of the NT,—but of the Apocalyptic portions of the
Synoptic Gospels as well. Scholars are not agreed
how far the language of these passages is to be
taken Jerally, how far symbolically. Moreover,
there are critical questions of great intricacy con-
nected with the present condition of the text.
There are some (like Haupt) who, while admitting
that all the eschatological discourses in the Synoptics
are composed of genuine sayings of Jesus, maintain
that these sayings are not always given by the
evangelists in their original connexion. There
are others (Wendt, Weiffenbach, ete.) who hold
that in their present form these discourses include
foreign elements, the teaching of Jesus having
been combined by the evangelists with materials
drawn either from Jewish or Jewish - Christian
sources. Under the circumstances, a thorough dis-
cussion of the critical question would seem to be a
necessary prerequisite to an adequate treatment
of the doctrine.

Such a discussion it is manifestly impossible to
give within the limits of the present article. Nor
is 1ὖ necessary to our immediate purpose. Without
settling all the critical questions involved, it may
be possible to give a bird’s-eye view of the material
as it lies in our sources, to discover how far it
lends itself to a single consistent interpretation,
and to indicate what are the chief problems which
it presents, and what are the most important
methods proposed for their solution. We shall
begin our survey with the Synoptics, partly be-
cause in them the eschatological teaching of Jesus
is most fully set forth, partly because they present
the difficulties connected with our doctrine in their
most acute form. We shall then offer a brief sur-
vey of the dectrine of the Parousia as it is found
in the other NT books, giving special attention to
the teaching of St. Paul. The Fourth Gospel, for
reasons presently to be explained, will be reserved
for separate treatment. In conclusion, we shall
briefly indicate the course of the later develop-
ment, and point out the chief lines which the
interpretation of the doctrine has followed. Thus
our discussion will cover the following four points ;
—(i.) The Parousia in the Synopties ; (ii.) the Par-
ousia in Acts, Epistles, and Revelation ; (iii.) the
Parousia in the Gospel of John ; (iv.) the Parousia
in the later Church.

i. THE PAROUSIA IN THE SYNOPTICS. — The
doctrine of the Parousia is set forth in the Synoptics
most fully in the so-called Apocalypse of Jesus
(Mk 13, and parallels Mt 24, Lk 21). A prophecy
of Jesus as to the destruction of the temple leads

ὉΔῸΝ

ἘΠῚ

676 PAROUSIA

PAROUSIA

to a question by the disciples (so Mt; Mk specifies
Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Lk leaves the
questioner indefinite), ‘when these things shall be,
and what shall be the sign when these things are
all about to be accomplished’ (Mk, Lk). In the
discourse which follows, Jesus not merely answers
this question, but passes on to give the signs of
His own Advent in glory, which He represents as
tollowing immediately after that tribulation (Mt
249; cf. Mk 13%, otherwise Lk)—a connexion
for which Mt has already prepared the way in the
introductory question, ‘When shall these things
be, and what shall be the sign of thy Parousia,
and of the end of the age?’ After the prediction
of certain preliminary woes (the coming of false
Messiahs, wars and rumours of wars, the rising up
of nation against nation, famines, and earth-
quakes; Lk adds signs from heaven) and a warn-
ing to the disciples to be firm under the perseeutions
which are to come, not merely at the hands of the
civil and religious authorities (the synagogue, Mk,
Lk; the Gentiles, Mt), but of their relatives and
friends,— persecutions incidental to that world-wide
preaching of the gospel (Mt 244, Mk 13!; other-
wise Lk, who omits all reference to the preaching
of the gospel to the world) which must precede
the end (Mt 24°), but in which they will be sup-
ported by the Holy Ghost (Mk) and preserved from
all harm (Lk),— He goes on to predict the destrue-
tion of Jerusalem, and the miseries connected
therewith. The AROMINATION O¥ DESOLATION
(wh. see) of Mt and Mk is replaced in Lk by the
Roman armies, but the general situation is the
same in all three Gospels. Then follows in Mt and
Mk a renewed warning against the false Messiahs
who will arise at that time, working signs and
wonders, and seeking to -deceive the very elect.
Many shall say ‘Lo here, or Jo there,’ but they
are not to be deceived. When the Christ comes
there will be no possibility of mistaking Him, for
His Parousia will be like the lightning which
‘cometh forth from the east and is seen even unto
the west’ (Mt 945. This last saying, which Mk
omits, is given by Lk in another connexion (17%).
It is therefore probable that Mt 247 formed no
part of the original text, a suggestion which Weiss
(Marcusev. p. 424; οἵ. Briggs, Mess. Gosp. p. 151)
extends to the previous context omitted by Lk (Mt
24°26) Mk 13°"), After the destruction of Jeru-
salem follows the Parousia. Mt and Mk make
the connexion immediate. ‘But in those days,
after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened,’
ete. (Mk 13%; Mt is even stronger, introducing
the word εὐθέως ; ‘immediately after those days’).
Lk, on the other hand, introduces between the
destruction and the Parousia certain ‘times of the
Gentiles’ (21%), which seem to take the place of
the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles in Mt
and Mk. ΑἹ] the evangelists represent the Par-
ousia as preceded by certain theophanic signsin the
heaven (cf. J] 3%- 16 2). 10 Ts 131), Lk adds, ‘upon
the earth distress of nations in perplexity for the
roaring of the sea and the billows; men faint-
ing for fear and for expectation of the things
which are coming on the world’ (21 °6). Peeuliar
to Mt is a reference to ‘the sien of the Son of
Man in heaven’ and the mourning of the tribes of
the earth (24°; cf. Zec 12-4), The Parousia
itself is described in language suggestive of Dn
714 «And then shall they see the Son of Man
coming in clouds with great power and glory’ (so
all three evangelists). ‘And he shall send forth
his angels (Mt adds ‘with a great sound of a
trumpet’), and they shall gather together his elect
from the four winds, from one end of heaven to
the other’ (Mt, Mk). As to what takes place after
this, we are not told in this place. The “ Apoca-
lypse’ concludes with certain firther indications

of time. By the parable of the fig-tree, Jesus
indicates the close connexion between the signs
and the Parousia, and ends with the explicit state-
ment given by all three evangelists, ‘ Verily, I sa
unto you, this generation shall not pass away till
all these things be accomplished. Heaven’ and
earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away, to which Mt and Mk add the qualifying
clause, ‘But of that day or that hour knoweth no
one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father (only)’ (cf. Ac 17 ‘It is not
for you to know times or seasons which the Father
hath set within his own authority’).

The exegetical difficulties of this passage are
such as to render a consistent interpretation of
the present text difficult. On the one hand, the
account in Mt and Mk associates the Parousia
with the destruction of Jerusalem, and puts both
within the lifetime of the generation then living
(cf. Gould, Mark, 240 ff.). In Lk the connexion
between the destruction and the Parousia is not so
close, but the closing verses (Lk 21) agree with
the other evangelists in placing all the events
described within a single generation. On the
other hand, we have in Mt (244) and Mk (13?)
references to a world-wide preaching of the gospel
preceding, and in Lk (21) a prophecy of certain
times of the Gentiles following the destruction of
Jerusalem. If it were not for Mt 244, Mk 13”, it
would be easy exegetically to bring the entire
prophecy of Mt and Mk within the limits of a
single generation. On the other hand, were it not
for Lk 21%, it would be natural to regard the
account in Lk as postponing the Parousia to a
distant future—a postponement natural in view of
the later date of the Gospel. Various attempts
are made to meet the difliculty. It is claimed
that γενεά may mean an indefinite period of time
(Dorner). But, apart from the lineuistic objections
to this translation, it does not overcome the close
connexion between the destruction and the Par-
ousia. One of the most elaborate attempts to
solve the difficulty without recourse to interpola-
tion has been made by Briggs (Jess. Gosp. p. 156 1,
who distinguishes between the time and the signs.
To the first he finds reference in Mt 244, Mk 13",
Lk 21°, where the text points to an extended
period. On the other hand, only the signs are re-
ferred to in the ‘all these things’ which are to be
accomplished within the generation then living
(cf. Mt 244, Mk 13°, Lk 2133, According to this
view, Jesus predicted His Parousia after an un-
known period (ev@éws=the prophetic 277), but the
signs within a single generation, a position which
is certainly difficult to reconcile with the close
connexion between the signs and the Advent in
the parable of the fig-tree. Under the cireum-
stances, many scholars believe that the difficulty
can be most easily solved by the hypothesis of
composite origin. E. Haupt (Die eschatologischen
Aussagen Jesu) argues that the evangelist has
brought together in this passage a number of
sayings originally spoken by Jesus on different
occasions. Others hold to the interpolation either
of a Jewish (so Weizsiicker, J. Weiss) or of a
Jewish-Christian Apocalypse (Colani, Pfleiderer,
Keim, e¢ a/.). As constructed by the most recent
and careful scholars (Weiffenbach, Der Wieder-
kunftsgedanke Jesu, p. 170f.; Wendt, Die Lehre
Jesu, i. 1017}, this consists of three sections: Mk
137° and parallels giving the beginning of tribula-
tion ; νν. 11:29 giving its height (the destruction of
Jerusalem) ; and vv.*4?7 giving the Advent at the
conclusion of the tribulation. Vv.*:®!, which con-
clude the ‘ Apocalypse,’ put the entire content of
the prophecy within the generation then living.
After these excisions, there remain in the original
text only the prophecy of the destruction of Jeru-

ee ee ek

PAROUSIa

PAROUSIA 677

salem, and the prediction by the Saviour of His
own return at an hour of which He knows not
(cf. the reconstruction in Weiffenbach, p. 182 tes
Wendt, i. pp. 10, 11).

Apart from this ‘Apocalypse,’ the Parousia of
Jesus is predicted in the Synoptics in man
passages. Thus in Mt 1648 (cf. Mk 89::-9;, Lk
9-7) Jesus predicts His Advent in glory with His
angels to reward every man according to his
works, adding, ‘ Verily I say unto you, There be
some of them that stand here, who shall in no
wise taste of death till they see the Son of Man
coming in: his kingdom’ (so Mt; Mk ‘the king-
dom of God come with power,’ Lk ‘the kingdom
of God’). At His farewell over Jerusalem, He
declares that they shall not see Him again until
they shall say, ‘Blessed is he that cometh in the
name of the Lord’ (Mt 23°7, Lk 13%). When
declaring His Messiahship before the high priest,
He predicts that His judges shall ‘see the Son of
Man sitting at the right hand of power, and
coming on the clouds of heaven’ (Mt 26", Mk 14°).
So in interpreting the parable of the tares (Mt 13°°)
He declares that at the end of the age ‘the Son of
Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
gather out of his kingdom all things that cause
stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall
cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be
weeping and gnashing of teeth,’ adding, ‘Then
shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the
kingdom of their Father.’ Especially important is
the great judgment-scene, Mt 25° * When the Son
of Man shall come in his glory, and all the angels
with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory :
and before him shall be gathered all the nations ;
and he shall separate therm one from another, as
the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats.’

As to the time of the Advent we have contlict-
ing evidence. Mk 9! and parallels represent it
as within the lifetime of the disciples. There is
nothing in the context leading us to discriminate
two Advents, as has sometimes been done. The
same is true of Mt 10%. In referring to the terrible
persecutions which are to come upon the disciples
(ef. Lk 1722), He declares that they shall not make
the circuit of the cities of Israel in their flight
before the Son of Man come. On the other hand,
Ae 17, which seems to take the place in Lk of
Mt 9435. Mk 13%, makes the time of the Advent
unknown. Lk represents the parable of the

ounds as spoken to those who supposed that the
ΚΑ ΜΩ͂Ν would immediately appear (19}}; ef. 12%
‘my Lord delayeth,’ etc.). In Mt 26" the coming,
which in Mk (14%) seems to be a single event, is
transformed after the analogy of the Fourth
Gospel into a continuous process, beginning im-
mediately after Christ’s death. The two points
continually emphasized are (1) the necessity of
watchfulness, since the hour of the Parousia 15
uncertain (so the parables of the servants, Mk
133-37, Mt 24”, Lk 127-3; ef. Lk 215% the day
coming ‘suddenly as a snare’; of the goodman
taken unaware by the thief, Mt 947. cg ed Biel υτ
of the virgins, Mt 25!-'8, cf. Lk 12° ; the reference
to the days of Lot and of oad Like oe a(S)
The necessity for faithfulness, since, though the
Lord seem to delay, He wil! surely come and reward
His servants according to their works (Mt 2445-51
Lk 124-46 and the parable of the talents Mt 254,
and the pounds Lk 1911-7; cf. Lk 188‘ When the Son
of Man cometh, shall he tind faith on the earth ?’).

It thus appears that the Synoptics represent
Jesus as predicting His own return, now within
{lis own generation, now after an indefinite future.
his return is to be preceded by great trials, which
none but tne faithful shall be able to endure. The
return itself is pictured as a glorious coming on
the clouds to punish evil-doers, to reward the

saints, and to establish that kingdom predicted

from the foundation of the world. This coming is
by Christ Himself associated with the end of the
ave and the day of final judgment, which is repre-
sented, now, after the fashion of OT, as a destruc-
tion of all the enemies of the Messiah before His
face ; now, as in the great judgment-scene in Mt,
as a formal process in a law court in which all the
nations are assembled to receive the sentence of
the judge. For the disciples it introduces the time
of their redemption (Lk 21°), a period of joy and
glad communion with Christ, set forth now by the
figure of the marriage feast, in which the Master
Himself ministers to His faithful servants, now by
that of the kingdom in which the disciples enjoy
special honours, sitting upon thrones and judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.

Those interpreters like Wendt, Weiffenbach,
ete., who regard the Apocalypse of Jesus as of
Jewish-Christian origin, explain the other Apoca-
lyptic features in the Synoptic doctrine as due to a
similar source. Those who refuse to take this
view are obliged either (1) to explain away those
passages which predict an Advent within the
veneration then fivine or (2) preserving the con-
nexion to regard Jesus as actually predicting
during the lives of men then living a visible
advent in the clouds—a prediction which was not
fulfilled; or (3) to understand the language of
Jesus symbolically as the prediction, in language
taken partly from OT, partly from the Apocalypses
of the time, of an advent which, while seemingly
external and catastrophic, is really to be under-
stood after the analogy of Mt 2654, Rev 2% 16 3%)
and Jn 14 as spiritual and continuous.

ii. THE PAROUSIA IN ACTS, THE EPISTLES, AND
REVELATION. —The expectation of a speedy Advent
of Christ to establish the Messianie kingdom is
one of the most prominent features of the apostolic
hope. It is a part of the gospel of St. Paul no
less truly than of that of the Jewish Christians.
As in the Synoptics, it is ordinarily associated
with the judgment at the end of the age, the only
certain exception being Revelation, which distin-
gnishes a preliminary from the final judgment,
associating the former, which, after OT analogy,
it conceives as a battle-scene, with the Advent
of Christ, and inserting between this and the final
judgment a millennial kingdom of 1000 years.
Cf. MILLENNIUM. Thus the first chapter of Acts
begins with the prediction of the angels to the
weeping disciples that ‘this Jesus . . . shall so
come in like manner as ye beheld him* going into
heaven’ (14). Accordingly we find St. Peter re-
garding the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost as a
sign of that impending Day of J” to which OT
prophecy looks forward (259), and urging the Jews
to pray that God may send the Christ whom He
hath appointed, even Jesus, whom the heavens
inust receive until the time of the restoration of
all things (3 !), To Cornelius he preaches
Christ as the judge of quick and dead (10*); while
St. Paul warns the Athenians to repent, inasmuch

as God ‘hath appointed .a day in the which he

will judge the world in righteousness by the man
whom he hath ordained’ (1731; cf. 24%, the resur-
rection of just and unjust). Equally explicit is
the testimony of the Epistles. St. James urges
patience until the coming of the Lord, and warns
Christians not to judge one another, since ‘the
judge standeth before the doors’ (5% *). St. Peter
regards the present tribulations of Christians as
the beginning of that judgment which is presently
to overtake ‘the ungodly and the sinner’ (1 P
417-18) and the preceding context (v.!*) shows that
reference is had to the Parousia. St. Paul, while
in certain passages associating the final judgment
directly with God (so Ro 115 25.5.7 and especially

678 PAROUSIA

PAROUSIA

vv.56 ‘the day of wrath and of the revelation of
the righteous judgment of God, who will render to
every man according to his works’; cf. He 10° 128,
Rev 20"), elsewhere explicitly connects the judg-
ment with Christ (so Ro 216 ‘the day when God
shall judge the secrets of men according to my
gospel, by Jesus Christ’; 2 Co 5! ‘the judgment-
seat of Christ’; 2 Th 15-8, 2 Ti 4! ‘Christ Jesus,
who shall judge the quick and the dead’). At this
judgment not only must Christians themselves be
tested to see whether their work shall abide (1 Co
3), but they themselves shall take part as judges
in the great world assize, which includes even the
angels (1 Co 6°).

But although the Parousia is thus associated
with the judgment, it is not upon this aspect of
Christ’s return that the Epistles lay the most
stress. The Advent is to introduce that salvation
which is the end of their faith (1 P 17°; ef. Ro
13", He 95); that redemption for which they were
sealed (Eph 4°; cf. 14, Ro 8%). Then shall be
established ‘the eternal kingdom of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ’ (2 Ῥ 1"; οἵ, 2 Th 15, 2 Ti 41:8,
Ja 25). Then shall appear that heavenly Jerusalem
in which there shall be no more sin and sorrow
(Rev 21". Itis true that Revelation postpones the
appearance of the aeavenly Jerusalem till after
the Millennium, but the conception itself is found
in other books which show no trace of millen-
arianism, ¢.g. Gal 4°, He 1933. Then shall be re-
vealed the glory of Christ (1 P 4; cf. Tit 2!) ; and
His followers, renewed in body (1 Th δ59, Ph 32: *!,
Ro 8*), soul (1 Th 5”), and spirit (1 Th 5", 1 Co
5°), shall be manifested with Him in glory (Col 34,
2 Th 1’), and rejoice in the vision and Lancs of
Christ (Ph 3°!, 1 Jn 33). Then shall they receive
that inheritance incorruptible and undetiled and
that fadeth not away, which, during this present
period of tribulation, is reserved for them = in
heaven (1 P 14; ef. Eph 11); that rest for which
now they vainly long (2 Th 1’); that crown of life
which the Lord has promised to all who love His
appearing (2 Ti 48, cf. 1 Co 9, 58.113). This is the
Day of Visitation (1 P 915), that consummation for
which the whole creation, now groaning in pain,
longs and cries, the revelation of the children of
God in the liberty of that glory when all sin shall
have ceased, and the bondage of corruption have
been done away (Ro 8?! 23),

To the emphasis which St. Paul lays upon the
Parousia as introducing the kingdom of glory is
doubtless to be attributed the fact that he speaks
only of a resurrection of believers (1 Th 416. Ph 34,
1 Co 15%). From this fact many have concluded
that St. Paul was a chiliast, distinguishing, like
Revelation, between the first resurrection intro-
ducing the millennial kingdom and the final re-
surrection of all men before the last judgment.
In favour of this view is quoted 1 Co 15: "4, where
St. Paul distinguishes between the resurrection
of believers and the end when Christ shall deliver
up the kingdom to the Father. Cf. MILLENNIUM.
But, apart from possible exegetical objections
(Salmond, pp. 52011, 56111), this view not only
ignores those passages in which St. Paul seems
to associate the final judgment with the Parousia
(e.g. Ro 216; cf. Pileiderer, Paulinismus*, p. 280 f.),
but also fails to account for the admitted fact
that St. Paul nowhere speaks of a higher glory
to follew that of the Messianic kingdom.

As to the manner of the Advent, with the ex-
ception of the Apocalyptic passages, 2 Th 28, Rev 19,
which follow the warlike imagery of the OT, it is
represented, as in the Synoptic Gospels, as a coming
on the clouds of heaven (Rev 17, Ac 1", 1 Th 416 27),
accompanied by hosts of angels, to gather His
saints living and dead into His heavenly kingdom.
The fullest account is 1 Th 4:68. ‘For the Lord

himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise
first. Then we that are alive, that are left, shall
together with them be caught up in the clouds,
to meet the Lord in the air. And so shall we be
ever with the Lord’; cf. 1 Co 15°. This coming
is further associated with a renewal of nature
(Ro 871, 1 Co 71; cf. Ac 32, Kev 211), after the
fashion of Is 65!7, a transformation which 2 P
represents as a great world conflagration in which
all the present elements shall be dissolved and
melt away in fervent heat (319, cf. He 1256).

As to the time of the Advent, it is near (Ja 58,
1 P 4’, He 10*, Rev 22’, Ro 134, 1 Co 7”), *The
Lord is at hand’ (Ph 4°), ‘Yet a little while, and
he that cometh will come, and will not tarry’ (He
105, St. Paul expects His arrival within his own
lifetime (1 Th 47°, 1 Co 15*!- 5"). Yet the exact time
is unknown (1 Th 5%, 1 Ti 618, There are certain
preliminary signs which must be accomplished (the
destruction of Antichrist, 2 Th 23; the conversion
of Israel, Ro 11: *6; cf. Eph 1!° ‘a dispensation of
the fulness of the times’), It is with these pre-
liminary signs (the things shortly to come to pass,
1') that Revelation chiefly deals. The coming to
which the seer looks forward most vividly is not
the Advent of the Last Day, but the impending
judgment which awaits unfaithful Christians (Rev
2°. Jo 38-1), When the day comes it will be as a
thief in the night (1 Th 57, 2 P 3!"), Hence there
is need of patience (Ja 57), and of watchfulness
(1 Th δὴ. Even in St. Paul's day there were those
who doubted the resurrection (1 Co 15"; cf. 2 Ti
2718) In the later books such doubt has become
common, 2 Peter speaks of mockers who ask
‘Where is the promise of his coming? For frop
the day the fathers fell asleep, all things ceatinue a-
they were from the beginning of the creation,’ and
answers their objection by reminding them that
one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and
a thousand years as one day. ‘The Lord is not
slack concerning his promise, as some count slack-
ness, but is long-suffering to you-ward, not wishing
that any should perish’ (35:5).

From this brief survey the importance of the
Parousia in the apostolic thought has been made
manifest. Especially significant in this connexion
is the teaching of St. Paul. The Christian to St.
Paul is indeed already a spiritual man (Ro 89" 1),
and as such a new creature (2 Co δ᾽. Even in
this life he rejoices in the peace of Christ (Ro 151),
and sits with Him in heavenly places (Eph 2°, cf.
He 6°). But his full salvation hes in the future,
in that completed kingdom to which his thought
continually turns (see SALVATION). Entrance to
this kingdom is the goal of all his endeavour (Ph
31-44), By the hope of it he is sustained when all
seems darkest. Without it he would be of all men
the most pitiable (1 Co 15”). Thus the entire
thought of St. Paul is dominated by the expec-
tation of the speedy coming of Christ. This
expectation he finds expressed in the frequent cele-
bration of the Eucharist, which shows forth the
death of Christ ‘ until he come’ (1 Co 11). It gives
character to his ethics, leading him to desire for
himself and for his disciples freedom from those
family cares which may render their service legs
efficient during that short time which remains
before the coming of the Lord (1 Co 7). It is ever
present in his prayers, whether, in his fear lest he
himself fail to reach the goal, he commit himself
to Him who is able to keep that which he has
entrusted to Him against that day (2 Ti 113), or, in
his fatherly anxiety for those converts who are to
be his glory and crown at the Parousia (2 Co 1"),
he prays that the good work begun in them may
be perfected unto the day of Jesus Christ (Ph 1).

PAROUSIA

PAROUSIA 67%

This sense of the nearness of the time leads to
a passing over in St. Paul’s thought of the period
between death and the Advent. ‘The middle state,
when referred to, is described as a sleep (1 Th 4%,
1 Co 152°), from which the disciples of Christ
shall awake to share the gladness and triumph of
the Parousia. This is not, indeed, always the case.
In certain important passages (2 Co δ᾽ ἢ, Ph lence)
we find St. Paul’s thought passing over into that
mysterious region, and expressing the hope of a
communion with Christ which nothing can disturb,
not even death before the Parousia, — Especially
significant in this connexion is 2 Co δ᾽ ὅν, where St.
Paul associates this hope with the possession of a
new body to be put on at death. In this much-
discussed passage some interpreters find evidence
of a departure from St. Paul’s earlier views of the
future—a departure to be accounted for only on the
ground of experiences which have led him to revise
his former expectation of himself living to witness
the Parousia, and hence have brought into the
foreground of his thinking the life immediately
after death. Hence they attribute to it great
historic significance, as marking the transition
between St. Paul’s own earlier thinking and that
type of doctrine represented in the Fourth Gospel.
See especially Schmiedel, Hdcomm. ii. pt. 1. pp.
200-202. Cf. also art. RESURRECTION.

iii. THE PAROUSIA IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.—
With the Fourth Gospel, we find ourselves trans-
ported into a different atmesphere. The Coming at
the Last Day is not, indeed, denied (οἵ. 5° 6% 21s,
1 Jn 2%, possibly also 14%; cf. Stevens, Joh. Theol.
p. 383), but it is no longer the centre of interest.
The coming on which Jesus lays most stress in
His farewell words to His disciples is not His
judicial coming at the end of the age, but His
personal Advent to His disciples, whether physical
at His resurrection or spiritual in the gift of the
Paraclete (Jn 1418 %), This fact is the more
significant, because these discourses take the
place in the Fourth Gospel of the ‘ Apocalypse’
of the Synoptics with its prediction of the Parousia
and the destruction of Jerusalem. The Day to
which reference is repeatedly made in these dis-
courses (14% 1676) is not the ‘Last Day’ of the
judgment, but the gospel dispensation. So of the
allied conceptions, the resurrection and the judg-
ment. The resurrection at the Last Day is not
denied, but it is not upon this that Jesus lays the
most stress, but rather upon that present resur-
rection which introduces a man here and now into
the life which shall never end. ‘I know,’ says
Martha, ‘that [my brother] shall rise again in the
resurrection at the last day.’ Jesus answers, ‘I
am the resurrection and the life. He that be-
lieveth on me, though he die, yet shall he live : and
whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never
die’? (11226; ef. the passages which speak of
eternal life as a present possession, 6.6. 6°4 17°).
So of the judgment of which Christ is the agent.
While its decisions are not finally disclosed till
the last day, they are being passed upon men here
and now. “He that believeth not hath been judged
already’ (38). This emphasis on present spiritual
life is not, indeed, peculiar to St. John. We have
found it already in St. Paul, who no less than St.
John has the doctrine of a spiritual resurrection.
But with St. Paul the chief stress falls on the
future, with St. John on the present. This change
of emphasis, while no doubt chiefly due to the
mystic tone which pervades the entire Gospel,
may be partly explained by the changed con-
ditions under which it was composed. St. Paul
and his generation have passed away. The period
between death and the last day looms ever larger,
as an increasing company of believers pass over
into the unseen world. The Church is firmly estab-

'drawn from Jesus’ teaching as a whole.

lished as an institution in the world, and looks
forward to a period of continucd existence. The
Antichrist to be feared is no longer external but
internal ; not a hostile power to appear at the end
of the ages, but those false teachers who are
already working in the Church (1 Jn 215). Tt is
natural, then, that chief stress should be laid on
present communion with Christ —a communion
not only real and precious here, but continuing
unbroken in the life immediately after death. In
such a theology the Parousia is no longer, as with
the Synoptics, the centre of interest. Instead of a
sudden catastrophe, introducing the disciples inte
a new order of existence, we have a gradual pro-
cess, of which the ‘Last Day’ is only the final
copsummation. Cf. Holtzmann, Hdcomm. iv. 177.

We have thus completed our survey of the NT
material, and we find that it presents us with two
distinct types of thought. ‘To the one, represented
most fully in the ‘Apocalypse’ of the Synoptics
and the earlier Epistles of St. Paul, but present
also in most of the other books, the Parousia is
conceived after the analegy of the contemporary
Jewish Apocalypses as a great catastrophe, bring-
ing to a conclusion the present order of the
universe, and introducing the new age in which
alone the Kingdom of God can be realized. To the
other, represented most fully in the Fourth Gospel,
but having points of contact in Revelation, in
such Synoptic passages as Mt 26% 18”, and in the
Pauline doctrine of the present union of the be-
liever with Christ, the Parousia is rather the com-
pletion of an order of things which 15 already
existing, than the beginning of one which is new.
The question naturally presents itself as to which
of these two types most fairly represents the teach-
ing of our Lord? Are we to think of Him (with
Holtzmann and others) as sharing the common
expectation of the early disciples of a visible
Advent in glory within the first generation? And
does the Fourth Gospel represent the fading out
of this early expectation, in view of later experi-
ences? Or is the very opposite the truth? And

is it the fact (as E. Haupt contends) that the

Fourth Gospel presents us with the true eschato-
logy of Jesus —a teaching which, because of its
depth and originality, the disciples were able only
eradually to apprehend? It is perhaps not pos-
sible to answer this question from a study of the
eschatological passages alone. The view taken
must be determined in part by considerations
Here,

| as elsewhere, our Lord’s doctrine of the Kingdom

‘is fundamental.

Those who give the phrase a
purely eschatological meaning, and minimize
Jesus’ teaching concerning the present Kingdom
(c.g. J. Weiss), will naturally interpret the passages
concerning the Parousia after the analogy of their
Jewish parallels. Those, on the other hand, who
see in Jesus’ doctrine of the Kingdom something
radically new, and who find this newness in His
assurance that the Messianic Kingdom is already
present in the little company of believers who

accept His gospel, will favour a spiritual inter-
pretation. Faced with a difficulty on either side,

it will seem to them easier to account for those
passages which are inconsistent with such an
interpretation as due to an imperfect apprehen-
sion by the disciples of the Master's meaning,
than to believe that He, who in all other respects
possessed an insight so much clearer than His con-
temporaries, should, in the matter of eschatology
alone, have had nothing new to contribute.

iv. THE PAROUSIA IN THE LATER CHURCH.—
No doctrine was more prominent in the early
Church than that of the Parousia. It was the
creat’ hope by which the Christians were sup-
ported under the persecution and contempt which

680 PAROUSIA

PARTHIANS

were so frequently their lot. It meets us not only
among the Jewish Christians, with whose expecta-
tion of a conquering Messiah it was naturally in
accord, but among the Gentile Christians as well.
In many cases, as in the Canonical Apocalypse, it
is associated with the hope of a Millennial King-
dom, preceding the final judgment—-a Kingdom
conceived now carnally (Papias), now spiritually
(Barnabas). See MILLENNIUM. In others, as in
most’ of the ΝΣ books, it is associated with
the final judgment, and regarded as introducing
the world to come. By Marcion and the Gnostics
it was rejected as part of the Jewish corrup-
tion of the gospel. The Montanists, preached a
speedy Advent, and looked for the setting up of
a Millennial Kingdom at Pepuza. The extrava-
gances of their doctrine, together with the grow-
ing strength and self-consciousness of the Church,
led to a gradual shifting of emphasis to other
doctrines. ‘Tertullian, Irenzus, and Hippolytus
still look for a speedy Advent; but with the
Alexandrine Fathers we enter a new circle of
thought. As in the Fourth Gospel, the Parousia
is not denied, but another set of conceptions is
placed in the foreground. With Augustine’s
identification of the Millennium with the period
of the Church militant, the Second Advent is post-
poned to a distant future, and the way prepared
for that view of eschatology which has been on
the whole controlling ever since.

Into the history of modern interpretation we
cannot enter. We may distinguish four diflerent
positions, each of which has its advocates—(1) It
1s possible with Marcion and the Gnosties to re-
gard the hope of the Parousia as a remnant of
Judaism, useful indeed in supporting the faith
of the disciples in the trying days of the begin-
nings, but without foundation in fact, and so
destined to give place in time to a higher and
purer set of conceptions. But this involves the
assumption of a mistake not only on the part of
the apostles, but on that of Jesus Himself, since it
seems impossible to deny not only that Jesus pre-
dicted His own return, but that this expectation
was an important element in His Messianic con-
sciousness. (2) It is possible, with Augustine and
the majority of theologians since his day, to regard
the Parousia as a literal coming on the clouds to
judgment, but to postpone this coming to an in-
detinite future, concentrating attention in the
meantime upon the life immediately after death,
But this does violence to those passages, both in
the apostolic teaching and in that of Jesus, which
abe the Parousia within the generation then
iving. (3) It is possible, with Russell, to identify
the Parousia with the destruction of Jerusalem,
and so to regard it as past. But this is open to the
objection that the present condition of the Church
does not correspond to that glorious state to which
the NT writers look forward. (4) It is possible,
finally, following the suggestion of the Fourth
Gospel, to regard the Parousia rather as a dispen-
sation than as a single event, beginning with the
spiritual Advent by the risen Jesus, and con-
tinuing on through all the intermediate experi-
ences of the Church until that ‘Last Day’ when
the work of salvation shall be fully accomplished,
and the kingdoms of the world shall have become
the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ. See
also MAN OF SIN, MILLENNIUM, and PAUL, p. 729 f.

LITERATURF.—The art. ‘Second Advent’ in Kitto’s Bibl. Cycl.
i. p. 75, which gives references to the older Eng. literature ;
Warren, The Parousia ; Russell, The Parousia ; Salmond, The
Christian Doctrine of Immortality; Beet, The Last Things ;
Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics ; Dieckmann, Die Parousie Christi
(1895); Schmoller, Die Lehre voi Reiche Gottes in ἃ. Schr.
des NT (1891); and the appropriate sections in the Biblical
Theologies of Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, and Stevens.—For

the doctrine of Jesus, consult Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkun,ts-
yedanke Jesu, where the older critical literature is fully given ;

Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, Ὁ. 193 ff. ; Wendt,
Die Lehre Jesu, ii. p. 543 ff. [Eng. tr. ii. pp. 265-307]; Bruce,
The Kingdom of God, p. 273 ff.; Briggs, The Messiah of the
Gospels, esp. pp. 132-165 ; Schwarzkopff, Weissagungen Jesu ;
E. Haupt, Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu (1895) ; Punjer,
‘Die Wiederkunftsreden Jesu’ (Zw7'h, 1878); J. Weiss, Dia
Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, also SK, 1892, p. 246 ff. ;
Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu; Gould, Comin. on Mark,
p. 240 ff.—For the teaching of St. Paul, cf. Pfleiderer, Pauwl-
inismus2, p. 274 ff.; Kabisch, Die Eschatologie des Paulus,
. 228 ff.; Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles; Stevens, The
Pauline Theology, p. 339 ff.—For the teaching of St. John,
cf. Stevens, The Johannine Theology, p. 3291f.; Holtzmann,
Neutestamentliche Theologie, ii. p. 511 ff. Much information
may be obtained also from the special notes on eschatology in
Holtzmann, Hdcomm. (e.g. ii. p. 200 ff., iv. p. 177). See also tha
literature given under MILLENNIUM.

W. ADAMS Brown.
PARSHANDATHA (xn7;¢78 ; Φαρσάν, Papoaveordy)
—The eldest of the sons of Haman, put to death
by the Jews in Shushan (Est 97. For the ety.
mology Benfey suggests Pers. fracna-data =‘ given
by prayer.’

PARTHIANS (Πάρθοι; Vulg. Parthi). — This
nationality is mentioned only in Ac 2°, in which
passage the descendants of Jews that had settled
in Parthia and afterwards returned to Jerusalem
are clearly intended (see ν.ὅ). The Parthians in-
habited a mountainous district, situated south of
the Caspian Sea, having on its north Hyrecania,
on its south Carmania, on its west Media, and
on its east Ariana. Justin (bk. xli.) describes
them as Scythian exiles, the word Parthian
meaning ‘refugee’ in their language. The tract
where they located themselves is a very fertile
one, and is watered by a number of small streams
that flow down from the mountains, liable to
sudden and violent floods on the melting of the
snow thereon, but of exceedingly small volume
in summer-time. The principal mountains were
the Labus or Labutas (identified with the Sobod
Koh), the Parachoathras (Elburz), and the Masdor-
anus. It was divided into several districts, of
which Camisene on the north, Parthyene on the
south-west of Camisene, Choarene on the west,
Apavarticene on the south, and Tabiene along the
borders of Carmania Deserta, were the principal.
From the second of these divisions, Parthyene, the
country is regarded as having received its name.
In ancient times it was, to all appearance, much
more densely populated than now, as, according
to Fraser (Khorassan, p. 245), the tract contains
the ruins of many large and apparently handsome
cities; and Ptolemy relates that it had 25 large
towns. The capital of the district was Heca-
tompylos, and Darius Hystaspis (Behistun In-
scription) refers to two other cities—Vispauzatis,
where a battle took place, and Patigrabana.

It is doubtful whether any credence can be
given to the various stories of the origin of the
Parthians. Moses of Chorene calls them descend-
ants of Abraham by Keturah, and John of Malala
agrees with Strabo (xi. 9, sec. 2), Arrian (Ir. 1),
and Justin (xli. 1-4), in regarding them as Seythians
brought by Sesostris from Scythia when he re-
turned from that country and settled in a district
of Persia. The first authentic information about
them, however, is given by Darius Hystaspis, who
speaks of them as inhabiting the tract with which
they are generally associated. However faithful
they may have been to their suzerain in the cen-
turies preceding the rule of the great Persian, on
the accession of Darius they evidently joined
with the Hyrcanians in support of the pretender
Fravartis. Darius’ father, Hystaspes, went against
them with those who were faithful to his son’s
cause, and defeated the allied army of the rebels
at Vispauzatis, on the 22nd of the month Viyakhna.
To all appearance, however, the Parthians and
Hyrcanians were far from being beaten, and
Hystaspes was in want of reinforcements. Darius

PARTHIANS

PARTICULAR, PARTICULARLY 681

therefore at once sent to him an army of Persians
from Raga. With these Hystaspes once more
took the field against the allies, and a second battle
was fought at Patigrabana, on the Ist of Garma-
pada, the result being a second victory for the
Percale, ‘Thereafter,’ says Darius, ‘was the land
mine. This did I in Parthia.’

According to Herodotus (iii. 93), the Parthians
were in the 16th satrapy of the Persian empire as
divided by Darius, and they had along with them
the Chorasmians, the Sogdians, and the Areians.
This united province had to pay to the royal trea-
sury a sum of 300 talents of silver. In the war of
Xerxes against the Greeks, according to Herodotus
(vil. 66), the Parthians were in the same division
as the Bactrians, and had the same commander as
the Chorasmians. ΤῸ all appearance they remained
faithful to the Persians to the end, serving with
them at Arbela against Alexander, to whom, how-
ever, they made but a feeble resistance when he
passed through their country on his way to Bactria
(Arr. Hap. Alex. iii. 8).

After the death of Alexander they formed part
of the domain of the Seleucide, but revolted
about B.C. 256, under Arsaces, who founded the
native dynasty known as the Arsacidee. This
dynasty contained no fewer than thirty-one kings,
and lasted from about bB.c. 248 until about A.D. 226,
when Sassan founded upon its ruins the dynasty of
the Sassanidie. The family of the Arsacide,
however, continued to exist in-Armenia as an inde-
pendent dynasty.

Having founded the empire of the Parthians,
which was to overshadow that of the Romans,
Arsaces devoted himself to the development of his
kingdom, and founded, in the mountain Zapaor-
tenon, the city of Dara. His son Tiridates is
supposed to have defeated Seleucus. Arsaces III.
(Artabanus I.) came into conflict with Antiochus IIT.
Arsaces V. (Phraates I.) subdued the Mardi, and,
notwithstanding that he had many sons, following
an old Persian custom, he left his throne to his
brother Arsaces VI. (Mithridates I., B.c. 164-189).
This king is renowned as having greatly extended
the limits of his kingdom. Having subdued the
Medes, the Elymeans, the Persians, and the
Bactrians, he enlarged his dominions into India,
beyond the conquests of Alexander. He also over-
came the king of Syria, and added Babylonia and
Mesopotamia to his empire, which now had the
Ganges as its eastern and the Euphrates as its
western boundary. Other great rulers down to
the Christian era are the 7th, 9th, 12th, 13th, 14th,
and 15th of the name (Phraates 11., Mithridates IL.,
Phrautes ur, Mithridates Π1., Orodes IL, and
Phraates Iv.). Additional accounts of the earlier
rulers will probably be obtained from the astro-
nomical tablets of Babylonia, which often give
details of historical events, the material for dates,
and the names of distinguished personages with
their doings.

In the end the Parthians possessed the rule of
the greater part of Western Asia, from India to
the Tigris, and from Chorasmia to the shores of the
Indian Ocean. Their long wars with the Romans
are well known, and their peculiar method of
fighting enabled them to make a more successful
resistance to the advance of the Roman armies
than any other Eastern race. The greater and
more organized power at last gained the upper
hand, however, and Arsaces XV. (Phraates Iv.),
who reigned from B.C. 37 to A.D. 13, delivered to
Augustus his five sons, with their wives and chil-
dren, who were all sent to Rome. Arsaces XIX.
(Artabanus Ul.), who began to reign in A.D. 16,
was the ruler of the country at the period referred
to in Ac 2%. He had a chequered career, and came
ixto conflict with the Romans, who set up other

members of his family in opposition to him.
Though twice obliged to quit his kingdom, he was
twice recalled, and was succeeded, in A.D, 43, by
his son Gotarzes. The subjection of the country
was continued by Trajan, Antoninus, and Cara-
calla; and the new Sassanian native dynasty of
Persia, under the command of Artaxerxes J., son of
its founder, put an end to Parthian rule A.D. 226.
Like the Boers in 8. Africa, the Parthians early
learned the importance of accurate shvoting, and
they became celebrated in the use of the bow,
which was apparently their chief weapon. [Ὁ is
also noteworthy that they were good horsemen ;
and these two facts enabled them, like their more
modern imitators, to harass their opponents and
cause them loss. It was apparently on account of
this that they were enabled to retrieve, in the reign
of Hadrian, losses that they had suffered under
Trajan. The fact that they were all mounted
gave them an enormous advantage in the matter
of mobility, which is now recognized as an all-
important feature in operations in the field of
battle. Indeed, the Roman writers of the period of
the defeat and destruction of Crassus near Carrhie
(Haran), attribute to them great military prowess,
for which they became renowned. Even whilst
their horses were going at full speed, they shot
their arrows with wonderful precision, thus prevent-
ing an enemy from following them in their flight.
In art and civilization they were inferior to the
Persians and the Greeks, whose heirs, in a sense,
they were. Notwithstanding this, however, their
decorative designs sometimes possess a simple
excellence of their own that reminds one of similar
designs of the Greeks, by whom, indeed, they
must have been greatly influenced, as is indicated
by the figures on the arch at Takht-i-Bostan, by
the designs on the reverses of their coins, and by
the fact that the inscriptions on the last are in the
Greek language. They would thus seem to have
adopted a gloss from that nation whom they con-
quered. ‘That they were not a literary people
may be gathered from the circumstance that their
language is still practically unknown to us, the
Parthians having produced no literature that could
preserve it. Nevertheless, it is at least probable
that they were not so regardless of literature as
they have been thought, for Justin states that
Mithridates I., having conquered several nations,
gathered from every one of them whatsoever he
found best in its constitution, and framed from
the whole a body of most excellent laws for the
government of his empire. If this be true, he must
have been one of the wisest rulers of his time.
Among the cities founded by the Parthian dynasty,
Dara has already been mentioned, and the tounda-
tion of Ctesiphon is also attributed to them
(Ammianus, xxiii. 6). This city is described by
Strabo as the winter residence of the Parthian
kings (Zpit. xi. 32). Its ruins are even now the
wonder of the beholder. τ G. PINCHEs.

PARTICULAR, PARTICULARLY.—1Co 12?
‘Ye are the body of Christ, and members in
particular’ (μέλη ἐκ μέρους, RV ‘severally members
thereof,’ RVm ‘members each in his part’); Ep.
5°3 «Let every one of you in particular so love his
wife even as himself’ (καὶ ὑμεῖς of καθ᾽ ἕνα, ἕκαστος
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ws ἑαυτόν ; RV
‘Do ye also severally love each one his own wife
even as himself’). RV has given the mod. equiva-
lent of the phrase ‘in particular’ which is found
in those places only. So Melvill, Diary, p. 308,
‘The Kine... calling the Magistrats and certean
of the ring-laders, ordeanit them to be tryed, in
particular, be the Barones, and gentilmen of the
countrey about St. Androis.’ The subst. is used
in 2 Mac in the sense of detail, 2% ‘To be cirious

652

PARTRIDGE

PASHHUR

in particulars belongeth to the first author of the
story’ (ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μέροΞ) 5 119 “Οἱ the particulars
νον . [ὁ commune with you’ (ὑπὲρ τούτων κατὰ μέρος,
RV ‘in detail’), Cf. Shaks. J Henry IV. I. iv.
414—‘ Examine me upon the particulars of my
life’; and JJ Henry LV. Iv. il. 36—

‘I sent your grace

The parcels and particulars of our grief.’

‘Particularly’ has the same meaning as ‘in par-
ticular.’ It occurs in Ac 218 ‘He declared par-
ticularly what things God had wrought’ (ἐξηγεῖτο
καθ᾽ ὃν ἕκαστον ὧν ἐποίησεν ὁ 065s; RV ‘He rehearsed
one by one the things’); and He 9° ‘Of which we
‘annot now speak particularly’ (κατὰ μέρος, RV
‘severally ἢ. So Knox, Hist. 115—‘ This present
Writ is to make answer particularlie to everie
Article.’

The adj. is used in the first Prol. to Sirach, “Τὸ
[Sirach] containeth . . . certain particular ancient
godly stories of men that pleased God’ (μερικάς
τινας παλαιὰς θεοφιλεῖς ἱστορίας), Where the meaning
is evidently ‘special’ (Vulg. peculiares), as in

sunyan, Holy War, p. 142, ‘Then did Emmanuel
address himself in a particular Speech to the Towns-
men themselves.’ J. HASTINGS.

PARTRIDGE (x7), /:6ré@’).—This word occurs but
twice in OT, 1S 26” (where the LXX tr. it vuxre.
κόραξ) and Jer 17! (πέρδιξ). In both the Vulg.
gives perdiz. That kore is not an owl (νυκτικόραξ)
is evident from the context of the passages in
which this Gr. word is tr’ ‘owl.’ On the other
hand, Caccabis chukar, C. R. Gray, the red-legged
partridge, or Ammoperdix Hey, Temm., the sand
partridge, would suit exactly the comparison
which David makes between himself and the Lore’.
As regards the passage in Jeremiah, the best ex-
planation is to view the act of the partridge there
alluded to as founded upon a popular belief as to its
habits rather than upon strict fact. Bochart quotes
such a belief (ii. 85) from Damir, who says that ‘it
is of the nature of the partridge to come to the
nests of its congeners, and take their eggs and
incubate them; but when the chicks come to fly
they return to the mothers which laid their eggs.’
There are numerous instances in the Bible of the
adoption of popular beliefs and their use to point
amoral. Such have been adduced in articles on
the ostrich, goat, owl, night-monster, leviathan,
satyr, horseleech, etc. The proper name ‘£2-
hakkore’ (Jeg 15") means ‘spring of the partridge.’

Caccabis chukar is ἃ gallinaceous bird, the male
with a drab coat, beautifully mottled with cres-
centic markings of white and black beneath, red
legs, and a white throat. Ammoperdix Heyi is a
little smaller. The plumage of the male is sandy
buff, washed with dark grey on the crown and
cheeks, pencilled and barred beneath with brown,
with a strip of white behind the eyes, an orange
beak, and olive-yellow legs. Both species inhabit
the most retired situations they can find, prefer-
ring rocky hillsides clothed with shrubs and tufted
grass. C. λείαν ismuch more widely disseminated
than its relative. It is found most abundantly in
the middle and upper regions of Lebanon and
Antilebanon. It is also very abundant in the
mountains of the Syrian desert, often many miles
away from water. The Arabs of that region say
that it doesnot drink. The sand partridge is found
only in the Dead Sea and Jordan Valleys. Both
species, but especially the latter, will run a con-
siderable distance rather than take to wing. A
hen with chicks will almost allow herself to be
‘aught in her anxiety to lead them ont of danger.
The present writer once dismounted and caught
two chicks out of a brood which the hen was
luring away. She waited near by until he had
satistied his curiosity by examining the fluffy

creatures, and, when he released them, ran to meet
them, and evinced the greatest satisfaction as she
led them to the rest of her brood, and got them |
all out of sight as soon as possible. Red-legged |
partridges are hunted by means of tame decoys |
(Sir 11°), which call the wild birds. The |
sportsman shoots them from an ambush. Some- |

times wheat is scattered near the decoy, and
large numbers of wild birds settle down to eet it, |
and numbers are killed by a single shot. This, |
however, is considered ‘quite unsportsmanlike |
by the better class of natives. The partridge is |

also hunted by faleonry. ‘The red-legeed species

is easily tamed, and becomes very affectionate and
confiding towards his owner. G. -E.\POst. |
PARUAH (0725; B Φουασούδ, A Pappod, Lue.
Bapsaov>x).—Father or clan of Jehoshaphat, Solo- |
|

mon’s prefect in Issachar. Issachar stands tenth

(in the LXX twelfth) among the prefectures. [ἢ
Galilee these coincide with tribal districts. Out-

side Galilee only Benjamin is a prefecture in
itself.

PARVAIM (ΟΞ, LXX @apovdiu).—Only in 2 Ch
3°, where Solomon, in the ornamentation of his
temple, is said to have used ‘gold of Parvaim.’
Gesenius (Thesaurus, p. 1125) suggests after Wil-
ford its derivation from Sanscrit purva, ‘ eastern,’
i.e. eastern regions. Sprenger (Alte Geog. Arabiens,
p. 54f.) found a Farwa in Yemen. Glaser (Shizze
d. Ges. u. Geog. Arabiens, ii. p. 347) identifies
Parvaim with Sdék el-Farwaim, which lies about
one day from Dharijja, and not far west of the two
Abdns, between which flows the Wady er-Rumma.

Ira M. PRICE.

PASACH (362; B Baronxi, A beonxé).—An Asher-

ite, 1 Ch 7*.

PAS-DAMMIM (or 02; B Φασοδομή, A Pacodoui,
Lue. [ἐν] τοῖς Σεῤῥάν).--- Τὸ name of a place in the
west of Judah, between Socoh and Azekah, as
given in 1 Ch 11%. It is simply a variant of
Epurs-DAMMIM (wh. see), the place where David
slew Goliath (18 17?).

PASEAH (ncz). —1. A descendant of Judah,
1Ch 42 (B Βεσσῆε, A Φεσσή). 2 The father of
Joiada, who repaired the old gate, Neh 3° (Φασέκ). It
is possible, however, that ‘Paseah’ here has not an
individual but a family sense, as in—3. The eponym
of a family of Nethinim who returned with Zerub-
babel, Ezr 2% (B Φισύν, A bao4)=Neh 751 (B Φεσή,
A Φεσσή, κα Φαισή). The name appears in 1 Es 5%
as Phinoe.

PASHHUR (-1nz'3; Πασχώρ, Φασχώρ, Φα(σ)σούρ(α),
Φάσσορος, Φαισούρ, Φασε(δ)ὴούρ; Fosere [i Es. Ὁ.
Pha(s)sur, Pheshur. Etymology unknown ; Ges.
Thes. suggests ‘safety on every side’ [Arab. Ssh
and “n7] in contrast to Magor-missabv) ; others
‘splitter,’ from nvs).—41. The son of Malchiah, one
of the princes sent by Zedekiah to inquire of
Jeremiah concerning Nebuchadrezzar’s invasion,
Jer2l'. He is named also among the princes who
heard that Jeremiah was urging the people to
desert to the Chaldeans. He joined in urging the
king to put Jeremiah to death, and in imprisoning
him in a muddy oubliette, from which he was
rescued by Ebed-melech, Jer 38!%. This Pashhur
was perhaps the father of the Gedaliah ben Pashhur
also mentioned in 38! (but ef. 2); and probably the
Pashhur ben Malchiah mentioned in 1 Ch 9% Neh
1113 as the ancestor of a certain Adaiah is the same
person.

2. The son of Immer, governor of the temple, and
priest. When Jeremiah announced the ruin of

Judah, Pashhiir had hinr beaten and placed in the |

PASS, PASSAGE, PASSENGER

PASSION 683

stocks, but released him the next day. Thereupon
Jeremiah repeated his threats, declaring that J”
had called Pashhur’s name not Pashhur but
MAGOR-MISSABIB (wh. see), ‘terror on every side,’
and added that Pashhur should die in exile at
Babylon, Jer 201-6, Ὑ, implies that) Pashhur had
prophesied the deliverance of Judah from the
Chaldeans. Pashhur ben Immer was perhaps the
father of Gedaliah ben Pashhur mentioned in Jer
38}, but cf. 41.

3. Pashhur, the father of Gedaliah, Jer 38', may
be identical with either 4 or 2; or may be a third
Pashhur.

ἃ, Béené Pashhur, a priestly clan, mentioned in
Ezr 23 Neh 7# as contributing 1247 (1 Es δ55 1047)
to those who returned with Ezra; and six, men-
tioned by name (Ezr 10°, 1 Es 9°), to those who
divorced foreign wives. According to Neh 10",
Pashhur, either the clan or its chief, sealed the
covenant referred to in that chapter. It is possible,
but very improbable, that the name of the clan
was derived trom one of the above Pashhurs. Cf.
Meyer, Entstehung εἰ. Judenthums, p. 169.

W. τι BENNETT.

PASS, PASSAGE, PASSENGER.—The verb to
pass is both trans. and intransitive. Of its trans.
use in AV the only meaning demanding attention
is to exceed, surpass: 28 1 ‘Thy love to me was
wonderful, passing the love of women’; 2 Ch 9:
‘King Solomon passed all the kings of the earth
in riches and wisdom’ (RV ‘ exceeded’); Ezk 3919
“Whom dost thou pass in beauty ??; 1 Es 1 ‘The
governors ... passed all the pollutions of all
nations’; Sir 25" ‘The love of the Lord passeth
all things for illumination’; Eph 915 ‘The love of
Christ, which passeth knowledge’; Ph 47 ‘The
peace of God, which passeth all understanding.’
Cf. Gn 26! Tind. ‘There fell a derth in the lande,
passinge the first derth that fell in the dayes of
Abraham’; Dt 25° Tind. ‘xl. stripes he shall geve
him and not passe.’ So the participle as adj. in
Rhem. NT, Eph 1 ‘That ye may know . what
is the passing greatness of his power.’ A slight
difference=qgo beyond, is Pr 8° © When he gave to
the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass
his commandment’ (rea 89, RV ‘should not
transeress his commandment’).

Intransitively ‘pass’ is used in AV as we now
use ‘pass away’: Job 1450 * Thou prevailest for
ever against him and he passeth’; Ps 148° ‘He
hath made a decree which shall not pass’; Mt 5'®
‘Till heaven and earth pass’; Mt 24%, Mk 13%,
Lk 167 (RV always except Job 14” ‘pass away,’
which is the usual AV tr. for the verb used). So
Hamilton, Catechism, fol. xiv, ‘Hevin and erd
sall pas, bot my word sall nocht pas’; Ja 1!
Rhem. ‘As the floure of grasse shal he passe.’ Cf.
also Chaucer, Squteres Tale, 494—

‘Why!] that I have ἃ leyser and a space,
Myn harm 1 woi confessen, ere I pace’;

and Shaks. K. Lear, Vv. 111. 314—

‘Vex not his ghost : Ο let him pass! he hates him much
That would upon the rack of this tough world
Stretch him out longer.’

A passage is in AV either a ford across a river
or a mountain pass, except that once the word is
used for ‘leave to pass,’ Nu 2053: ‘Edom refused to
give Israel passage through his border.’* The
Heb. is always some form from 132 abhar, ‘ to cross.’
The meaning is ford in Jos 22" ‘at the passage of
the children of Israel’ (ΟΝ ΡΣ ‘32 723>5x, RV ‘on the
side that pertaineth to the children of Israel’), +

* Cf. Bacon, Advancement of Learning, i. (Selby’s ed. p. 36),
‘As if the multitude, or the wisest for the multitude’s sake,
were not ready to give passage rather to that which is popular
and superficial, than to that which is substantial and profound.’

+ The AV tr., which is from the Geneva Bible, refers to the
place where the Israelites crossed the Jordan. But the word

Jg 126 (RV ‘ford’), Jer 51° (Vm ‘ ford’); and
mountain poss in LS 13% 144, Ts 1039 (all ‘pass’ in
RV), Jer 22 (RV ‘Abarim,” which see). Cf.
Coryat, Crudities, i, 210, ‘There are in Venice
thirteen ferrics or passages.’ Passage occurs alse
in Jth 67 77 of the approach to a city (ἀνάβασις, RV
“ascent’), and in Wis 1917 of the way to the door
of a house (δίοδος). Cf. Milton, ?L x. 304—
‘From hence a passage broad,
Smooth, easy, inoffensive down to Hell.’

Passenger in AV means ‘passer-by,’ not, as
now, one ‘booked for a journey’: Pr 9% ‘She
sitteth at the door of his house... to call pes
sengers who go right on their ways’? (37777237 ΝΠ,
RV ‘to call to them that pass by’) ; and Ezk 391! 0%
1.15 (gaya, RV ‘they that pass through’).* Cf.
Hall, Works, ii. 104, ‘ Not as a passenger did Christ
walke this way, but as a visitor, not to punish,
but to heale’; Adams on 2 P 1° ‘The passengers
in mockery bad Christ come down from the cross.’

J. HASTINGS.

PASSION in AV has two meanings. 1. Suffer-
ing (the lit. sense of Lat. passto; ef. ‘compassion’, +
applied to the suffering of our Lord in Ac 15 “ΤῸ
whom also he showed himself alive after his
passion’ (wera τὸ παθεῖν αὐτόν). The word is a good
one (being etymol. connected with παθεῖν), it was
taken by Wyclif from Vulg. post passionem suam,
goes right through the Eng. versions, and is re-
tained in RV. Crt. ‘Passion-week.’ But it is the
only case in which ‘passion’ was accepted by AV
from the earlier VSS: see He 2° Wye. ‘Ihesus for
the passioun of deeth, crowned with glorie and
honour’ (so Rhem., the rest ‘suffering’); 1 P 1?
Wye. ‘the passiouns that ben in Crist’ (so Tind.,
Cran., Rhem., but Gen., AV ‘sutferings’); 418
Wye. ‘Comyne ye with the passiouns of Crist,’
Tind. ‘partetakers of Christes passions,’ so all
until AV ‘ partakers of Christ’s sufferings.’ Also
in ref. to the believer’s sufferings (in the plu.) Ro
818 Wye. ‘I deme that the passiouns of this tyme
ben not worthi to the glori to comynge,’ so Rhem.,
but Tind. and the rest ‘afHictions,?’ AV ‘suffer-
ings’; He 10°? Wye. ‘Ye suttriden greet striif of
passiouns,’ Tind. ‘a greate fyght in adversities,’
Rhem. ‘a great fight of passions,’ AV ‘a great
fight of afflictions.’ It is evident that ‘ passion’ in
the sense of suffering was passing away when AV
was translated (the Rhem. version tollows the
Vulg. too slavishly). Craik says that Shaks.
retains the word in this sense only in two or three
antique expressions. Indeed, except Hamlet, IL. i.
105, ‘Any passion under heaven that does afflict
our natures,’ the only use in this sense is in strong
scurrilous exclamations in reference to Christ’s
last sufferings. But it is of course found in writers
of the time and later; ef. Hall, Works, it. 150—
‘Jewes and Samaritanes could not abide one
another, yet here in leprosie they accord, ... com-
imunity of passion hath made them friends, whom
even religion disjoyned.’

2. Feeling, emction, only twice in AV, and both
plural, Ac 14 ‘We also are men of like passions
with you’ (ὁμοιοπαθεῖς ἐσμεν ὑμῖν, RVm ‘of like
nature’); Ja 57. Cf, Article 1. (in Thirty-nine
Articles), ‘There is but one living and true God,
everlasting, without body, parts, or passions.’
This is nearly the sense of ‘ passions of sins’ in Ro
75, AVm and RV for AV ‘motions,’ where it is a
literal tr. of the Gr. (τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν),
so tr. means usually ‘the other side,’ as in 1S 2618, whence
LXX ἐν τῷ πέραν υἱῦν ᾿Ἰσρωαΐλ, Vulg. contra filios Israel.

* The Hebrew is ditticult, probably corrupt. See Davidson,
in loc. Some (by changing 0°92} into on72)) translate ‘a valley
of Abarim.’ This, however, is to enlarge the extent of that
geographical name on the basis of an emendation.

+ Andrewes, Works, ii. 123, ‘Compassion is but passion at
i ΟΣ Cf. also ‘ passionless renown’ in the well-known
nymn.

684 PASSOVER

PASSOVER

though the approach is nearer to our modern use
of ‘passions.’ In the mod. sense RV_ has intro-
duced the word also into Ro 1%, Gal 5%, Col 3°,
1 Th 4°. J. HASTINGS.

PASSOVER.—Our knowledge of the origin and
early history of the Passover is derived from the
accounts of the OT, supplemented by the relevant
material thus far gained trom the study of the early
customs of other Semitic and primitive peoples.
The most important passages are, of course, found
in the laws of the Pent., and for our present pur-
pose we shall accept the generally received con-
clusions as to the age and authorship of the various
strata of legislation (see HEXATEUCH). But even
so, our attempt to trace the history and develop-
ment of this feast will necessitate considerable
critical discussion.

i. Old Testament References.
A, In aca and Ezekiel.
1, JE.
2. Deuteronomy.
3. Ezekiel.
A,
B. In the Historical and Prophetical Writings.

1. Prophets yee
2. 2 Kings Pre-exilic.

3. The Cnronicler.
Ὁ, Résume.

ii. Origin and Primitive Significance.
1. Name.
2. Older Views.
3. The Offering of the Firstborn.
4. A Feast of Atonement.
5. A Blood Covenant.
6. Conclusion.

iii, The Post-exilic Passover.
1. Manner of Observance.
2. Number of Participants.
3. Time.

Literature.

i. OT REFERENCES.—The passages to be con-
sidered are—Ex 9218 342 1221-27, Dt 16'8, Ezk 4571",
Ex 191-13. 4-49) Ly 235, Nu 9 9816. Jos 51°, Hos
211 95.199 (0), Am 52. 8, Is 30°, 2 K 23%, 2 Ch 8"
30, 450, Ber. 6'"*,

A. Inthe Lawand Ezk.—\. JE.—In the so-called
‘Second Decalogue’ (Ex 34!°*6) we have the com-
mand (2°) ‘Thou shalt not offer the blood of my
sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the
sacrifice of the feast of the Passover (nD=7 37 431) be
left until the morning.’ The same prohibition
appears Ex 23 in the ‘Book of the Covenant’
(Ex 20-23%), but instead of the phrase ‘ the sacri-
fice of the feast of the Passover’ we there have
‘neither shall the fat of my feast (30 25m) remain
all night until the morning.’ Many have held
that this latter expression has precisely the same
content as the former, and have thus established
the entire agreement of the two verses. We should
then find our feast mentioned in the very oldest

vortions οἵ the Law. That this is really the case,
polaaas becomes somewhat doubtful upon closer
examination. In both sections we have mention
of the three great feasts of later legislation, which
are to be kept unto J’—the feast of Unleavened
Bread, of Weeks, and of Ingathering. And accord-
ing to subsequent usage it is in connexion with the
first, the feast of Unleavened Bread, held in the
month of Abib, the month in which Israel came
out of Egypt (Ex 23" 3418), that we should expect
to find mention of the Passover. It might, indeed,
seem that this was intended in Ex 34, where,
breaking the parallelism to the account of Ex 23,
there is a command regarding the offering of the
firstborn males of all the herds. One might
naturally conclude that this sacrifice came at the
time of the preceding feast. However this may
be, the ‘ Book of the Covenant’ in its present form
knows nothing of such a connexion, for there the
firstborn is to be offered on the eighth day, after
being seven days with its dam (Ex 22%; cf. Lv

2277, Nowack et al. make this a later insertion;
see Arch. ii. 147, n. 3). Furthermore, there is in
the ‘ Book of the Covenant’ nothing that can be
legitimately interpreted as a reference to the Pass-
over. This is certainly true of the expression in
23!8, which one would naturally limit neither to
the Passover nor to the sacritice of the firstborn,
but rather would understand as referring to
all bloody offerings and as including all feasts.
Possibly we should so vocalize as to read thé
plural ‘my sacrifices’ and ‘my feasts’ (731, Ἐπ; ef.
Dill.-Rys. Com. in loco. In Ex 34° LXX reads
θυμιαμάτων μου). As to Ex 3455, where the explicit
mention of the Passover is met with at present,
we need to note, first, that the term agg (m=57 2Π)
is nowhere else in the Pent. applied to the Pass-
over, but confined mainly, if not exclusively, to
the three great feasts mentioned above (cf. Driver,
Deut. p. 188; and on hagg, Wellh. Leeste Arab.
Heidentums, 1897, pp. 681 and 7911). Such a
usage (ef. Ezk 45%) as we have here indicates the
blending of Passover and mazzuth (feast of Un-
leavened Bread); but in Dt, where this actually
oceurs, we find no such designation for the Easter
festival as a whole. It may well be, as some
maintain (Wellh. Proleg.4 p. 54; Benzinger, Arch.
470 n.; W. R. Smith, Lneye. Brit.’ xvii. 343 as
against RS 221 n.), that the expression is a later
insertion which makes specific application of the
more general principle stated in 23'%, If, however,
we think the passage should be retained and
assigned to J, as many do (Nowack, /.c. ii, 147,
n. 3; Bertholet, Deut. p. 50, e¢ al.), then we may
claim the early occurrence of the name Passover,
but can not aflirm any connexion between it and
mazzoth. The point of the verse would be, that in
the case of the Passover, as in that of other animal
sacrifices, everything in the nature of putrefaction
must be avoided. lt would thus stand as a pre-
cursor of the kindred Levitical ordinances of later
times. We find among other primitive peoples
injunctions of like nature in relation to sacrifice
(οἷ. RS p. 221; Smend, AL’ Relig.-Gesch. p. 140).

Ex 12/7 may be next considered. It states
how Moses summons the elders, and bids them go
and kill the Passover, as though such a command
needed no further explanation. With a bunch of

‘hyssop (cf. Ly 14) they are to stain the lintel

and the doorposts, and no one is to leave his home
until the morning. All this is to be done because
J’ is to pass through and smite the Egyptians ; but
where He sees the blood on the doorway He will
not allow the destroyer to enter. ‘This same cere-
mony is to be observed hereafter as a lasting
memorial. In the Promised Land they are to
keep it, and explain its significance to their children.
They are to tell them it is the sacrifice of the Pass-
over to J”, who passed over the houses (na Ὁ» np2)
of Israel, and delivered them, when He smote the
Egyptians. On hearing this the people bow in
worship and proceed to do as commanded.

It is generally recognized that we have in this
section an account not originally belonging to the
present context, although it seems at first sight to
tit in admirably with the preceding narrative, and
to tell how Moses imparted the command to the
people which he had received from J”. It is, how-
ever, a very different command in content and in
language. The essential details previously given
(v.*#) are not included, and, what is even more
important, new ones are introduced and emphasized.
There is no hint that it is the firstborn who are
slain, no allusion to the paschal meal, but the
blood ceremonial * is the all-important feature.
The conception is, that the blood stained on the
doorway works exemption from destruction for all

* On the translation threshold in v.22 for basin (0), cf. below
i. 5,

are a L.-

PASSOVER

PASSOVER 685

within; but there is no explanation as to how this
comes about. The resemblance to v.7 may ex-
plain why the section was inserted here. Whatever
the source from which it came, the simplicity of
detail as ever against the former account (vv.!}%)
supports the view of its priority and independence.
In its essence it may go back to JE, even though,
as most agree, its present form is later than Dt
(cf. Wellh. Comp. d. Hex. p. 75; Dill.-Rys. Com.
pp. 111, 126; Nowack, Arch, ii. 148 πὸ 1).

These are the only passages where we can look
for explicit references in JE. But there are, besides,
the notices of Israel's oft-repeated request for per-
mission to go forth and celebrate a feast in the
wilderness of Sinai (Ex 8:8 716 8% 109 e¢ passim).
These indicate the existence at this period of a
festival that may in some way be related to the
Passover. Wereturn to this question later on (ii. 6).

2. Deuteronomy.—Here in 168 we have the
earliest undisputed explicit reference to our feast
and use of the word Passover (cf. above, and Wellh.
Proleg.4 84n.). Its observance, we are told, falls
in the month of Abib, the month of ears (ef. Ex
18: 23% 84:8), which is the older name for Nisan
(Mar.-Apr.), because in this month J” brought
them out of Eeypt at night. At this season they
are to sacrifice to J’ the Passover, consisting of
sheep and cattle, at the place which He may choose
for His worship. With the sacrificial meal and
during seven days they are to eat only unleavened
bread. This is the bread of aflliction, because of
the trepidation with which they came forth from
Egypt. So are they to be ever reminded of that
anxious day. During the seven days no leaven is
to be allowed to remain within Israel's borders, and
of the offerings of the first day none of the flesh is
to be permitted to remain until the morning (cf.
Ex 23'8 3455, The Passover may not be sacrificed
at one’s dwelling-place, but only at that place
which J” shall choose for His worship. There at
the setting of the sun, at the time when they came
forth from Egypt, it shall be sacrificed. Sia days
shall unleavened bread be eaten, and on the seventh
there shall be a festal gathering to J”, and no work
shall be done.

As compared with other legislation, four points
are especially noteworthy. (a) Instead of merely
introducing mazzcth (P), the Passover here becomes
an integral part of it, 7.c. the Passover day becomes
the first day of that feast. It is striking that so
much attention should be paid in these eight verses
to this one ordinance, and so little to the further
regulations. The explanation may be that the
centralization of all worship in one sanctuary,
which is the novel and most important feature of
Deuteronomic legislation, especially affected the
Passover, and so required more explicit formulation
(ef. Nowack, Arch. ii. p. 153). But even then
other difficulties still remain, and it may be reason-
ably doubted whether the section stands at present
in its original form. Vy.°?4> seem an interpolation
into the connected account contained in vv." ? and
-7 (ANID OFa in v.4 would then, of course, be a later
addition). V.8, which makes further mention of
mazzéth, seems incongruous in suddenly speaking
of six days when seven were named before (v.*).
The stated assembly (artsy) recalls the priestly
legislation, and contradicts the preceding command
to return home on the following morning. So it
seems prohable that this apparent blending of the
two feasts comes from reconstruction by a writer
of later date than the Deuteronomist.* (0) It is

* Cf. Steuernagel, ‘Deut.’ in Handkom. He assigns the
Passover to J and mazéth to E, and considers all references to
mazzoth here as later additions after the union of J and E, te.

makes RJF later than D; cf. Bertholet in AKurzer Handcom. ;
Cornill, Hinteit. p. 25, regards vv.3-4asan interpolation correct-

δ

ing v.8; Stade, Gesch. i. 658, thinks vv.l-4 and 5-8 are irrecon-
cilable doublets. In support of this, cf. Holzinger, Hex. p. 399.

expressly stated and strongly emphasized that the
Passover is not to be observed as a domestic rite
in the individual homes, but at the temple in Jeru-
salem (vv.2%7), But this does not mean, as we
see, that it is to take the form of a general offering
for all (so Ezk), but that it is rather made up of
the private individual sacrifices (cf. Wellh. Proleg.4
p. 89). (ὦ) The offering is not limited to a lamb
(ix 12), but may be taken from the flock or the
herd (v.?). To explain this statement in the light
of later usage, 7.e. as referring to the private sacri-
fices alluded to in 2 Ch (30°24 357%), the later
hagigah (a13n), or peace-otierings, does violence to
the text. This would mean the mention of a detail,
and silence regarding the all-important feature.
Furthermore, the use of the sing. in vv.&7 shows
that the writer has in his mind the sacrifice on the
Passover evening.* (d) Another point to be noted
is the manner of preparing the Passover sacrifice.
It is to be boiled (v.“).+ The OT allusions seem to
point to this as an early method of preparing sacri-
fice (J¢ 6%, 1 § 213-15; and ef, Ex 23! 3476, Dt 1424),
and some think that this was gradually replaced by
the more refined mode of roasting (cf. Benzinger,
Arch, 435, 451; Wellh. Proleg.* p. 68). The pro-
hibition of the use of leavened bread is found in the
three great codes of the Pent., but nowhere else is
it called the bread of affliction (xy ond). We can
compare this with the account in Ex 12°49 (JE),
which is suggested by the expression ‘in trepida-
tion’ (jwena Ex 12),

3. Ezk 45°*-*4.—Turning next to Ezk, we find the
Passover mentioned in a section discussing the
part of the prince in the feasts and_ sacrifices
(451:-4015). It is assigned to the 14th day of the
first month, and spoken of as a feast of seven days,
during which unleavened bread is to be eaten. On
the first day the prince is to prepare a bullock as a
sin-offering for himself and the people of the land,
and otherwise daily a he-goat for this same pur-
pose. There shall be, besides, a daily burnt-offering
of seven bullocks and seven rams, with an accom-
panying daily offering of fourteen ephahs of meal
(509°6 lit.), and fourteen hins of oil (84°98 lit.).
This is such a large quantity that Cornill would
so correct as to make it indicate the amount for
the entire seven days; but it is probably better
explained by Ezk’s conception of the fruitfulness
of the land in the new age. The sacred year is
here clearly divided into halves, and so the sug-
gestion (Smend, Bertholet) that v.2! has been
corrected according to Ex 12!8 (Lv 235, Nu 28!%),
seems in place, especially as the text has been dis-
turbed (myaw for nyav). The parallelism of the
feasts makes probable an original reading, ‘In
the first month, on the fifteenth day of the month,
ye shall have the Passover’ (cf. Bertholet, Com. in
loco). ‘The Passover appears with the atoning
significance which Ezk puts into all the cultus.
This is manifested especially in the sin-oflering,
which is not elsewhere so connected with it. The
festival is to be celebrated throughout at the central
sanctuary, whereas Dt seems to demand this ex-
pressly for only the first part. The daily sacrifice
is accurately defined, and the record is otherwise
more explicit than Dt in naming not only the
month, but in giving further the exact day. As
in Dt, it is a seven-day festival, and m7zzéth is so
blended with the Passover as almost to lose its

* Cf. Driver, Com. p. 191; Bertholet, Com. p. 50; Wellh.
Proleg.4 p. 99; Nowack, Arch. ii. p. 153, n. 1. J. Miiller
(Kritischer Versuch aber αἰ. Ursprung u. d. gesch, Entwicklung
d. Pesach- wu. Mazzothfestes, Bonn, 1884) makes this a later
custom than P. Against this see Dill.-Rys. Com.

t Sea, primarily ‘to become ripe,’ but is the usual word (in
Piel) for boiling, so used in related dialects. The later (har-
monizing?) expression UXP 293 (2 Ch 3518) cannot count
against this usage. The usual verb for roasting is abs; (6
Driver, in loco; and Nowack, Arch. ii. 153, n. 3.

686 PASSOVER

PASSOVER

identity. There is no mention of a Passover lamb
or of any private celebration whatever. [Ὁ is
rather the sacrifice of the community offered by
the prince for himself and the people.

4. Ly 235, Ex 191-18. 8-51) Ny 9-Ἡ 9816. Jog 510,
As we pass to the body of law assigned to the
priestly stratum, we can begin with the ‘Law of
Holiness’ (Ly 17-26), which is supposed to embody
in a later modified form an earlier independent
body of law. A very close relationship clearly exists
between this section and Ezk, but as a whole it
is probably later (but see the discussion of this
point in Driver, 7015 1471f., and the literature
there cited). All that bears on our subject. is
confined to the simple statement that the Pass-
over, as the opening festival of the year, is to be
held on the evening of the 14th of the first month
(23°). Apparently it is mentioned only for the
sake of completeness in the enumeration of the
feasts, and presupposes the fuller legislation of
Ex 12,

Ex 121 explains the origin of the Passover,
and gives details not elsewhere mentioned. While
they are yet in Egypt, the Lorb speaks to Moses
and Aaron, and directs that they reckon the current
month as the first month of the year. In antici-
pation of what is to come, they are to command
all the congregation to take, on the tenth day of
the month, lambs according to their families.
Where the family is too small to dispose of a lamb,
the head of the household is to unite with his
neighbour, and they together are to take one, the
number thus included and the capacity for con-
sumption of each member being taken into account.
A lamb or a kid may be taken, but it shall be a
perfect animal (so usually for sacrifices, ef. Ly 221°):
a male (ef. Lv 13:10). and one year old (ef. Ly 2277;
for all these points ef. Benzinger, Arch. 451 ct
passim). It shall be kept until the 14th of
the month, and then all the congregation shall
slay it (/.e. each his lamb) at the evening hour.
With the blood they are to stain the lintel and
doorposts of the house in which the feast is held.
The flesh shall be eaten that night with unleavened
cakes and bitter herbs. It may not be eaten raw
or boiled, but roasted, the victim being kept intact
with head, legs, and inwards. All remnants shall
be burned that night, and no part left till morning,
The participants are to eat in haste, prepared for
a journey, with their flowing garments girt about
them, their sandals bound on, their staves in their
hands. For this is the feast of the Lorn’s Pass-
over, who saith, ‘I will pass through the land of
Egypt this night, and smite all the firstborn of man
and beast. And against all the gods of Egypt will
I execute Judgment. Iam the Lorp.’ The blood
shall be a sign to mark the houses where Israel
dwells, and into these the destroying plague shall
not enter when the Lorp smites Egypt. In
vv.#! comes an added ordinance as to those who
may observe the Passover. The context implies that
this was given in Succoth, apparently because of
the presence of the mixed multitude (v.°8) ; but all
the allusions show that the observance in the
Holy Land is especially intended. No foreigner,
sojourner, or hired servant may eat the Passover.
Only the circumcised are to be admitted under any
circumstances. If a stranger be circumcised with
all the males of his household, and thus becomes
identified with the Jewish nation, he may observe
it. So also circumcised servants are to be included,
for all Israel must observe it. In vy. we have
repeated, from the previous section, the particulars
which serve to lay emphasis on the idea of unity
which is here throughout made so prominent.
Vv. would seem to mean that ever after they
observed the Passover as here directed. V.*! repeats
1, and is not in place at present.

In Nu 9'*4 another law is added. The date of
this ix given as the first month of the second yeat
after the Exodus. In obedience to the command
of J” siven through Moses, they observe the Pass-
over. But some who were ceremonially unclean
by reason of contact with a dead body are excluded,
and they come to ask why they must. be deprived
of their share in the sacrifice. Moses seeks in-
structions from J”, and receives command that any
Who are unclean at the Passover season, or who
are absent on a journey, shall observe it on the
I4th day of the second month in the same manner
as the regular Passover is observed. Several
details are repeated (vv.- 12); unleavened bread
and bitter herbs are to be eaten with it ; nothing
shall remain until the morning, and no bone is to
be broken. — If a man who is not hindered in either
of the above ways fails to keep the Passover, he
is to be cut off from the nation. Strangers must
observe the same regulations that are binding for
the Jews.

Once more—and again apparently for the sake
of completeness—we find an allusion to the Pass-
over in Nu 28. The section deals with regular
and special sacrifices ; but since there are no temple
sacrifices in the case of the Passover, only the
mention of its occurrence on the 14th of the first
month was needed.

The same writer records in Jos 5" the first Pass-
over in Canaan. At the close of the wandering
in the wilderness, after the renewal of circum.
cision, it is celebrated on the 14th of the month
while they are encamped at Gilgal.

These accounts of P, which we have thus
brought into review, show certain divergences
from the ordinances of the previous writers, and
reveal a wealth of detail not elsewhere found. As
over against Dt (as it now stands) and Ezk, the
Passover is always carefully distinguished from
mzzoth, which begins on the following day. The
celebration is domestic, and not apparently at all
connected with the central sanctuary. In’ Dt we
found the time given simply as the month of Abib.
P does not use this name, but calls it the first
month, and gives the exact day; in both these
particulars agreeing with the present form of Ezk.
Why the lamb was chosen on the tenth day, so long
in advance, we are not told. Possibly it is because
of the significance attached to the decad among
ancient peoples (ef. Nowack, Arch. ii. 5 172, χὰ
Ideler, Chronol. i. p. 279, on Attic month), or it
may be to fit into some scheme giving this day a
special significance like that of the corresponding
day of the seventh month celebrated as New Year’s
Day (Lv 25°, Ezk 40'), and then as the Day of
Atonement (Lv 16%). The killing of the lamb and
the staining of the doorway was probably done
by the father of the house. This feature is made
of less importance than in 12°, and there is no
mention of the hyssop. The significance of the
command to roast the Jamb whole with all its
members, and to consume it before the morning,
may be made to consist either in the desire to keep
its parts from profanation, or to emphasize the idea
of its unity, ὁ.6. as a single sacrifice valid for all
in the common group which partake of it (ef. Bihr,
Symbolik, p. 635). The command to roast might
be explained along these same lines, as also the
prohibition of the earlier mode of boiling. Eating
the flesh raw would mean the eating of the blood,
which was always forbidden (e.g. Lv 725. With
this and the other details noted above we can
compare the accounts of certain Arab sacrifices,
where a camel was killed and devoured—skin,
bones, entrails, and all—in wild haste, between
the appearance of the day-star and sunrise (cf. RS
p. 338 10; Well. Reste d. Arab. Heid.? 119 ff.). In our
account, of course, all are dressed and eat in haste,

4

PASSOVER

PASSOVER 687

that they may avail themselves of the opportunity
for flight which will follow the impending plague.
The bitter herbs (Ex 128, Nu 9") are not explained.
They may have at first been used as relishes, apart
from any atoning significance or reference to the
suffering in Egypt which later rabbinical writers
gave them.* In P the covenant idea is made
especially prominent. So at the first Passover,
and so also at each recurrence of the festival, when
this covenant is renewed. This explains why only
those who have entered into the unity of the nation
by circumcision can participate ; and, on the other
hand, why any one who does not so participate 1s to
be cut off from the nation. ‘To meet emergencies
which might work injustice,—such as necessary
absence on a journey, ceremonial impurity arising
from contact with the dead,—a second opportunity
is given on the Ith of the succeeding month.

B. In the Historical and Prophetical Books.—1.
The Prophetical Writings. —Outside the Hexateuch
there is no explicit mention of the observance of
a Passover until after the discovery of Dt({B.c. 621).
Yor the time of the earlier kings, indeed, none of
the feasts are explicitly mentioned except ‘Taber-
nacles ; but others together with the Passover may
be included in such general statements regarding
feasts as we find, e.g. Hos 2" 9°, Am 57! 8°, and
Is 29' (‘add year to year: let the feasts come
round’). Some (Nowack, Arch. ii. p. 149) find an
almost certain reference in Hos 12° (° ‘I will yet
again make thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of
the solemn (i.e. fixed) feast.? And this is more
probable than that the reference is to Tabernacles
(Wellh. Die kl. Propheten, p. 126 f., excludes this
passage from Hosea. He does not think it suits the
threat there expressed ; cf. Nowack, Arch. ii. 155,
Hy 9).

In Is 30° the allusion to the Passover was
formerly considered (Dill. Del. e¢ a/.) to be beyond
question, but at present it is thought by many
others to refer to the night preceding the New
Year’s feast (see art. TIME; cf. Duhm, Com. p.
203; Budde, 7.4 IV, 1891, p. 200).

2. The Historical Writings (pre-exilic). — Here
we find our first reference in 2 Καὶ 29:1:-9 «And the
king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the
Passover unto J” your God, as it is written in this
book of the covenant. Surely there was not kept
such a Passover from the days of the judges that
judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of
Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; but in the
eighteenth (cf. 22°) year of king Josiah was this
Passover kept to J” in Jerusalem.’ There seems
little doubt that this celebration under Josiah was
novel, above all else, in following the law in Dt 16,
and thus being celebrated at the central sanctu-
ary. Such a fact would give ample reason for
the extraordinary character assigned to it. The
extreme brevity of the notice may be due to later
curtailment (cf. Benzinger, ‘ Konige,’ in Awrzer
Handcom. 194ff.). This is the only explicit
reference to a Passover before the Exile. There
are, to be sure, notices in 2 Ch (8? (?) 30. 35) of
Passovers during this time, but these very probably
reflect the usages of the writer’s own age, and
cannot be classed along with the passage in 2 k.
The most that can be deduced from them is that
the Chronicler may have found in his sources
mention of Passovers on the occasions where he
gives his fuller descriptions.

3. The Historical Writings (post-exilic).—In Ezr
619-20 (in Heb.) we have an account of how the
returned exiles celebrated the feast. The Levites
killed the lambs at this time, not only for them-

* On meaning, herbs used, etc., cf. Dill.-Rys. Com. Ex, p. 117f.;
Nowack, A7ch. ii. p. 173, n. 4; and Tract Pesachim. Dr. W. M.
Patton, in conversation, expressed it as his opinion that the
herbs represented an original vegetable offering from the
pastures of the herds.

selves, but for the priests and the rest of the com.
munity as well. This is also made to beSthe case,
in part at least, in2Ch. There in ch. 30° is a de-
scription of a Passover in Hezekial’s reign. Vor
this the king sends out an especial summons (v.!) ;
and since they could not arrange for it in the first
month it is held in the second (Nu 9!), as is also
the feast of mazzéth (ν..3). It is explained that it
is because some were not purified according to the
law, that the Levites kill the lambs for them (v.27,
but cf. v.!8). The priests receive the blood from
the Levites and sprinkle it on the altar. An
exception is made to the usual requirements, and
all present are allowed to eat the Passover,
although not purified according to the law. The
following feast of seven days is extended yet
another seven; and we are told that since Solo-
mon’s time such a festival had not been held in
Jerusalem (v.*®), 2Ch 35! vives an extended
description of the same Passover under Josiah,
mentioned in 2 Καὶ 23. In this instance the imph-
cation seems to be that the Levites kill the lambs
for all (v.%). The priests receive the blood and
sprinkle it on the altar (v.41) as before, and as was
usual in the case of other sacrifices. The Levites
skinned the lambs, and apparently the other saeri-
ficial animals as well (νν.}}. 12, Here the writer
tells us that since the days of Samuel the prophet
no Passover like to this one had been kept. ‘This
same account with modifications is reproduced in
the opening chapter of 1 Es. (For a comparison of
the text of 2 Ch with the Greek of 1 Es see ZA W,
1899, p. 234 ff.).

C. Résumé.—We have thus in our OT Canon
notices that take us down to the Greek era, and
range back over documents falling within a period
of some six centuries. Tor the earlier ones there
are only the briefest notices, which do not justify
many deductions, even if accepted in their present
form. But it is extremely probable that our feast
continued to be observed during all this time in the
Southern, even if not so generally in the Northern
kingdom. Many of the rites mentioned by the
later writers were certainly of very ancient origin.
In Dt, in the last quarter of the 7th cent., we
get on undisputed ground. In this first extended
account, the strong emphasis on the historical
significance of the Passover is especially marked.
It commemorates the emancipation from Egypt,
the day of the nation’s birth. The domestic
character, which it probably possessed originally,
disappears, but not the imdividual idea, which is
so far retained that we still have separate sacri-
fices. There continues to be room for much of the
spontaneity and joyousness that belong to a volun-
tary celebration. At this time it would seem it
either stood by itself or introduced the mazzéth
feast as later.—We find our next notices after a
half century in the ideal portrayal of Ezekiel.
Here the memorial significance gives way to the
piacular conception which grows out of Ezekiel’s
exalted view of J”s holiness. The individual
element disappears in the collective idea of the
nation. Thus it comes that the Passover loses
its distinctive character, and is taken up and em-
bodied in the general class of sacrifices. It is
accurately dated so as to fit into his scheme of the
sacred year. All this falls within Ezekiel’s vision
of Israel’s future restoration, and so his notice
serves to emphasize the importance of the Passover
in the religious life of the people. From a_his-
torical point of view, the account is not so much
valuable in itself as it is in marking the transition
from Dt to the priestly document.

During the Exile the Passover was probably
one of the few observances still possible to the
Jews, and must have greatly aided in keeping
alive religious faith and hope. The memory of

688 PASSOVER

PASSOVER

the deeds once done for the fathers would become
the ground of assurance of that inevitable future
when «77 5. promise to His chosen people would be
realized. ‘The commemorative side would be thus
developed, the more so as any connexion with the
sacrificial cultus was, of course, impossible. Just as
in later days, after the destruction of the temple, so
now they would love to linger long, on this night,
recalling the past and thinking of the future. The
fact that in P the Passover is seen to be in its
essential nature a sacrifice, and yet is so unlike all
other sacrifices, may be due in large measure to
the development and strengthening of the domestic
and historical features during this period. We
might then understand in part the departure from
the view of the Deuteronomist. Undoubtedly, the
Passover assumes a new prominence in P. In
many points there isa close connexion with Ezekiel,
but there is greater amplification and much that
differs. Not only is the day definitely fixed, but
all the minute details of observance are added.
With this writer, further, it is not merely a
memorial, but it was instituted beforehand as a
means of accomplishing deliverance, and thus
gains a deeper historical meaning. It is in the
first instance the saving deed itself (ef. Wellh.
Proleg.4 p. 100).—The Chronicler gives us our last
notices in the Canon. By him the priestly legis-
lation is usually followed, as it is throughout the
norm of post-exilic worship; but in the case of
the Passover a striking preference is given to the
ordinances of Dt. The sacrificial character again
comes into prominence, possibly under the growing
influence of worship in one sanctuary.

ii, ORIGIN AND PRIMITIVE SIGNIFICANCE.—
Whatever differences there may be in our OT
records as to the manner of observing the Pass-
over, we have seen that it is uniformly associated
with and commemorative of the deliverance from
Egypt. Of its meaning to the Israel of historic
time there can be no question. But do we thus
arrive at the real explanation of its origin and primi-
tive significance? Our accounts in their present
form are, of course, an inadequate explanation for
the institution of an entirely new feast. So much
is mentioned as well understood that we see it
must have been firmly rooted in the national life
when the writers lived. In view of this faet; in
view of the many features which seem to point to
something behind the interpretation given to
them; in view of what we find in the observances
of related peoples, so far as these are known to us ;
and in view οἱ the development in the case of all
the other great feasts, and the historical interpre-
tation which came to be given them,—it is probable
that we have here another instance in which Israel’s
religion takes up, transforms, and appropriates an
existing institution. We might expect to find some
starting-point for conjecture in the name Passover,
but it proves of little aid. ρ

1. Name.—noz, J.-Aram. xqpe, Syr. buy, and

ww

hence πάσχα (2 Ch, Jer 38 (31)§ φασέκ ; Jos. several
times φάσκα. Later derivatives πασχάζω, πασχάλιος,
πασχαλικοί). The root no>* appears in what are
usually regarded as two distinct verbs: (1) ‘to
pass over’ in sense of sparing. with the prepos. >y
Ex 12-23-27, and without Is 315, ef. πρεῷ 1K δ’;
(2) «to be lame,’ ‘to limp’ (cf. mit =), ἰδ. ἢ
1831, Pi. 1836 (‘ dance’ ἢ, Niph. 28 44. For the first,
from which the noun Passover is derived, there is
no means of gaining a primitive meaning (so
Wellh., Benzinger, et al.). It is undoubtedly an
¥
old word. In Syriac wD means to be joyous,

* Ewald would trace to root 59 Salvere, and from this
derive mther neanings

which might give the idea of festal rejoicing, and
this would be the most we could inter as to a
primal conception. The name Passover is used in
a twofold way, (a) of the feast, (Ὁ) of the sacrifice
at that time (in 2 Ch we meet the plural ono). It
is made the object of various verbs. So ot avy
‘to keep the feast of the Passover’ (e.g. Ex 12%) ;
pny ‘to kill the Passover’ (e.g. Ex 12”); nat “to
sacrifice the Passover’ (6.0. Dt 162); wxa Syga ‘to
roast the Passover’ (2 Ch 35"); bax ‘to eat thr
pea (e.g. Ex 12%). (On nossa an ef. above, i

1),

2. Older Views.—From the many conjectures
regarding the pre- Mosaic Passover there are
several which do not commend themselves at
present sufficiently to warrant more than a brief
mention. George (Die Jud. Feste, p. 239) starts
from the root nod and makes it a commemorative
feast of the passage of the Red Sea. Redslob
(Hamburger Gyumnasial Programm, 1856) regarded
it as a shepherd’s festival celebrated in the pas-
tures on the night before the Exodus (‘ Ein in der
Nacht vor dem Auszug der Hirten auf die Triften
cefeiertes Hutfest’). Von Bohlen (Gen. p. 140 ff.)
and Vatke (Bibl. Theol. i. p. 4921f) make it the
celebration of the entrance of the sun into the zodi-
acal sien Aries, and so many others have connected
it with the spring. (See Kalisch, Hz, p. 1841f;
Dill.-Rys. Ez, p. 1901, There have been from
time to time views connecting the early rite with
human sacrifice (ef. Kalisch, d.¢. 186 1f.).

3. Offering of the Firstborn.—This is the view at
present most widely accepted, and perhaps best
set forth by Wellhausen in the chapter of his Pro-
leqgomena dealing with the whole question of the
feasts (4th ed. pp. 82-117; cf. also p. 358 f.).*
This holds that, in the main, the Passover was the
sacrifice of the firstborn. The simple and natural
meaning and occasion of the feasts is to be found
in the statement of Gn 4° *And Abel was a
keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the
ground. And in the process of time it came to
pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground
an offering unto the Lorp. And Abel, he also
brought of the firstlings of his flock.” The Pass-
over is the shepherd’s offering, given in thankful
recognition that the fruitfulness of the herd is
from J”. That the firstborn belong to J” is a
primitive ordinance, and it is pointed out that in
our present accounts such an offering is closely
connected with the Passover (Ex 13%" ‘Thou
shalt set apart unto the Lorp all that openeth the
womb... the males shall be the Lorp’s,’ Dt 151°"
16'"), This custom, it is said, can alone explain
the remarkable choice made by the plague in
smiting the firstborn. Because Pharaoh prevents
the bringing of this offering which is due, J” takes
the firstborn of the Egyptians. ‘The oft-repeated
demand is to let the people go to keep a feast
in the wilderness with cattle and sheep (Ex 318
75 827 et passim). For this purpose they borrow
the ornaments from the Egyptians. Thus in
reality the feast was the occasion of the Exodus,
if only the ostensible one, and not the Exodus of
the feast, as would appear from the accounts
in Dt and Ex 13. (For Ex 13'!6 is held by Well-
hausen to belong in its present form to a Deutero-
nomic editing). And he concludes that, while a
slight inclination to assign a historical motive to
the Passover may possibly be traced earlier, this
first actually occurs in Dt. This is apparently
due to the fact that in the older tradition the
feast explains the occasion and time of the Exodus.
Then comes the change that the slaying of the
Egyptians is the reason for offering the firstborn ;

*Cf. also in this connexion J. Miiller, Kritischer Versuch
jiber den Ursprung und die geschichtliche Entwicklung des
Pesach- und Mazzothfestes, Bonn, 1884.

PASSOVER

PASSOVER 689

and the time is in the spring, because the Exodus
took place then. Then in P comes the further
change that the connexion of the Passover with the
sacrifice of the firstborn is lost to view. It is no
longer based on the fact that J” slew the firstborn
of the Egyptians, but it was instituted before the
Exodus, that He might spare the firstborn of Israel.

4. A Feast of Atunement,—Another line of con-
jecture starts from the piacular ritual appearing
in both the accounts of Ex 12. We have seen
that the second section there (vv.2!*7) deals almost
exclusively with the blood ceremonial. 1 C,
Baur (Tibinger Ztschr. f. Theol. 1832, Ὁ. 401)
connects the feast with that celebrated in India,
Persia, Asia Minor, and Egypt at the time of the
vernal equinox. The Passover sacrifice is offered
in place of the firstborn of men, and is thus essen-
tially a sacrifice of atonement. Cf. vaya in Ex 13!
(JE) with the use of the same word in connexion
with the rite of Molech in such passages as Ly 1871,
2K 23”, Jer 32%, Dillmann in his Com. on Ex
and Ly (p. 636 and cf. 121, ed. by Ryssel, Leipzig,
1897) regards the Passover as an offering of recon-
ciliation and purification, introducing the equi-
noctial festival. The connexion with the Exodus
came from the fact that Israel left Egypt at this
season. Contiguity in time also explains the later
association with mazgzth.

In the same way Ewald (Antiquities of Israel,
p. 302 11} aflirms—‘from the earliest times an
atonement offering was an indispensable con-
stituent of every Spring festival.’ It comes at a
time when there is serious reflexion and anxious
sare for the unknown future, and so man felt
himself impelled to offer ‘sacrifices of purification
and reconciliation, not alone on account of par-
ticular transgressions of which he knew himself
to be guilty, but also to secure the Divine ex-
emption and grace generally on the occasion of
this uncertain transition, so that, as it were, if,
during the new year, his god were to visit him
and call him to account, he might not slay him,
as he perhaps deserved, but might graciously pass
him over.” The lamb was accordingly ‘unmis-
takably an expiatory offering,’ and the streaking
of the doorway with blood was ‘to make atone-
ment for the whole house and all who were con-
tained therein celebrating the festival.’

Schultz in his OY Theol. (Eng. tr. i. p. 364)
presents much the same view, although he admits
the possibility that it ‘may originally have been
the feast of the firstlings of the cattle.’

5. A Blood Covenant. —In the OL Theol. of
Kayser-Marti we find a somewhat different pre-
sentation. Here (2nd ed., Stressburg, 1894, p.
37f.) it is maintained that originally the Passover
was unconnected with the Spring or the First-
born, but was rather a celebration by means of
which one secured his house from all harm in
times of pestilence. This was effected by the
blood ceremonial which brought one into the
closest relations with his divinity, and so, as he
believed, secured him from all danger. The
application of blood to the doorway suggests that
the house divinities (J/ausgotter) who dwelt there
are possibly the ones whose protection was sought. *
H.C. Trumbull (Zhe Threshold Covenant, p. 20318.)
holds that the Passover goes back to a rite, which
he seeks to trace among many peoples, of a cove-
nant welcome given to a guest, or to a bride or
bridegroom in marriage, ‘by the outpouring of
blood on the threshold of the door, and by staining
the doorway itself with the blood of the covenant.’
The Passover sacrifice was, then, the threshold

* One is reminded in this connexion of the presentation in the
Bk. of Jubilees (4915)—‘ And no plague shall come upon them
in this year (7.6. any year) to kill and destroy them, if they
observe the Passover at its season according to its ordinance’
(cf. further, Ex 590),

VOL. 111.--44

cross-over sacrifice which marked the welcome of
J” to the household. The idea was familiar, and
so needed no explanation when commanded for
the night of the deliverance (Ex 12). He would
translate ‘threshold’ (95) rather than ‘basin’ in
Ex 12”, as is done in the LXX and Vulg. (cf.
op. citat. p. 9001). The sacrifice killed is one
of welcome,* and J” honours this by covenanting
with those who proffer it; where He is not so
welcomed, His executioner enters. The firstborn
of the Egyptians are taken, since it was ἃ common
thought of primitive peoples ‘that the first-fruits
of life in any sphere belonged of right to God or
the gods,’ and so His taking them is evidence that
the gods of Egypt could not protect them. ‘The
Egyptian Passover was in the eyes of the people the
rite of marriage between J” and Israel. The ‘stamp
of the red hand of the bridegrvom is the certifica-
tion of the covenant union, at the doorway of the
family.” But since here Israel is the virgin, the
hyssop (Ex 12), ὁ. 6. the tree or bush as a feminine
symbol, is used for this purpose. In his earlier
work, The Blood Covenant, Trumbull suggests that
in the rite of circumcision it was Abraham and
his descendants who supplied the blood of the
covenant, while in the Passover sacrifice it was
the Lord who commanded the substitute blood in
token of His blood-covenanting (p. 351, ef. 230 ff).
6. Conclusion. —In the Passover we probably
have one of Israel’s oldest feasts. It is the only
one represented in the OT as established before
the Exodus. The only other occasion that could
at all be compared to it in the matter of age
would be the teast at sheep-shearing (1S 257,28
13%; cf. H. P. Smith’s Com. in loco). Both point
to the nomad stage of development, and may
well date from those early days. All expositors,
whatever their lines of conjecture, agree in recog-
nizing this. Many of the writers cited above do
not advance their views to the exclusion of all
others, although that is true of some, but rather
as setting forth that which they think was of
central significance in the primitive Passover. In
valuing any of these theories we must always dis-
tinguish between the facts at the foundation and
the brilliant reconstruction that imagination has
built upon them, and by so doing we shall prob-
ably conclude that it is extremely hazardous to

attempt anything like a complete picture of the

primitive Passover. For the Passover of historic
times this result will doubtless be ultimately so
far attained that there will be general agreement ;
but for the earlier age we must be content to note
the separate features which the existing material
preserves to us, and to recognize them as such.
We shall probably in this way approximate more
nearly to the truth. For it would not be strange
if the Passover which we know, combined in itself
features belonging to an original feast of much
larger proportions, or rather if it had taken up
into itself in the course of time various features
from what were in reality different festivals. As
within the period covered by our records we find
modifications coming in from time to time, so it
undoubtedly was earlier, although not with the
same rapidity or to the same extent. In this
way it is quite possible that certain particulars,
which now receive little notice more than the
mere mention, at one time had a much greater
importance. ecalling what seem to be the
most important features of this primitive festival,
we may note—(a) the time of its celebration,
namely, the vernal equinox. This is not unim-
portant or accidental. It suggests a connexion
with the changing seasons, and affords a legitimate

* He cites the custom of modern Jews of opening the outer
door at a certain stage of the feast, and placing an extra cup
and chair.

690 PASSOVER

PASSOVER

basis for those hypotheses cited above, which give
especial recognition to this feature. The fact that
so many other peoples celebrate this occasion lends
credibility to such a view. Of course, however,
we cannot be certain that we do not have here a
feature of lesser antiquity than some one of the
others. The further observance at the middle of
the month and at night, indicates an almost
certain connexion with the full moon. Later on,
in Israel and outside, the new moon was apparently
much more regarded, but not to the entire exclusion
of the full moon (Dill.-Ryssel on Ly, p. 632 ff.).

(4) In the older days a feast seems always to
have meant a sacrifice. And we have found both
these conceptions embodied in the Passover,
the festal side being very evident, and the sacri-
ficial hardly less so. The fact that it does not
conform in its details to any one of the later
classes of Levitical sacrifices, cannot be made an
objection to such a view. For here we go back to
a time when all such requirements were as yet
undeveloped. All the later treatment of the
Passover, as well as most of the terms applied to
it (cf. above), indicate throughout such a concep-
tion of its significance.

(6) As a sacrifice, the piacular side stands out
in the present accounts with especial prominence.
For the blood ceremonial (cf. Ex 12) can hardly
have any other meaning. In it a practice from
the early tribal life seems to be preserved to us.
We see that blood had much the same significance
in worship in the case of Israel as was given to
it by other peoples. Developments of this same
conception could then be found in the many later
rites of blood: the pouring, the sprinkling, and
the staining. Trumbull’s books greatly help one
to see how this could come about. At the same
time, as a sacrifice the Passover has another side,
no less important and no less primitive (ef. 22S
p. 239 οὐ passim). It ranks with the shtlamim
or peace - offerings, where the common meal is
central, as the means of establishing or renewing
the covenant with God and with one another.

We have seen how P gave marked emphasis to
this sacramental side. And this cannot be made
to conflict with the previous aspect or to exclude
it. The fact that the sin-oflering of later times
could not be used for such a meal, cannot be made
a norm for practice at this early stage. Rather
one could urge, as some do, the probability that
in the case of all sacrifices the blood then found
some such application. And in saying this we must
remember that it by no means implies that the
words atonement and reconciliation need to have
the same serious content that a later age gave to
them. Originally offered as all other sacrifices,
we should expect no other priest than the head of
the family.

(α) If we keep within the bounds of our records,
it can hardly be denied that the sacrifices at this
feast were for tne most part, if not entirely, the
Jirstborn. Such an offering is mentioned in the
oldest portions of the law, and is closely associated
with those passages dealing with the Passover.
In‘view of the previous discussion, we need at
present merely mention this aspect (ef. ii. 3).

(6) It seems, furthermore, to be an undoubted
part of the old tradition, that the Exodus was
closely connected with the observance of this
ancient feast. In the case of P there is, to be
sure, a demand for complete release, but otherwise
there is no indication that the Israelites gave any
hint of their intention not to return. The demand
which Moses and Aaron repeatedly urge upon
Pharaoh is—‘ Thus saith J” the God of Israel, Let
my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me
in the wilderness . . . let us go, we pray thee,
three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacri-

fice unto J” our God, lest he fall upon us with
pestilence or with sword’ (Ex 5). With young
and old, with its sons and its daughters, with its
flocks and its herds, Israel seeks to go forth into the
Sinaitic peninsula to hold a feast unto the Lord
(Ex 109). That they should ask to do so, does not
apparently seem a strange or unintelligible demand
to the king. Possibly because such religious pil-
grimages, which were a frequent occurrence with
later Semitic peoples, were not unusual in those
earlier times (cf. Dillmann, Ha. p. 46f.).

Such a feast as this need not, of course, be the
Passover; much less the prototype of the later
mazzoth (so Dill. im loc. p. 686). But that it stood
in close relation to the Passover and the sacrifice
of the firstborn, seems an almost necessary con-
clusion from the OT accounts.

Such are the features which the Passover seems
to include within itself. But to give the name
Passover especial application to any particular one
of them in this early time does not seem warranted,
for we have no means of judging of its age or mean-
ing. It may have belonged originally to some
particular part, or may have been the designation
of the entire feast or series of feasts. In any case
it has come to stand for a most important reeur-
ring occasion in the early nomad life of Israel, one
that was possibly then what the feast of Taber-
nacles was for the early agricultural life—the Feast.
The very fact that it survived the many changes
attending the passing from this nomad to the
agricultural stage, as well as later changes hardly
less revolutionary, points to something deeply
rooted in the popular life.and tradition. Irom
first to last it keeps this character of @ people’s
Jeast, and reforms which failed to recognize this
feature could not be ultimately successtul. Such
a celebration could well be the occasion of the
Exodus, and this supposition affords adequate
explanation for the subsequent traditions. ‘That
the old character should become merged in the
memorial significance, was to be expected in the
face of the new life and institutions. Contiguity
in time seems the best explanation for its associa-
tion with mazzoth, which always remains really
distinct.

il. THE Post-ExILic PASSOVER.—1. Manner of
Observance.—The practice subsequent to the return
from captivity, as we have seen in 2Ch and Ezra,
conformed more closely to Dt than to P. This is
borne out by the extra-canonical sources (esp.
Tract Pesachim, Josephus, Bk. of Jubilees). Many
details in Ex 12 were interpreted as intended only
for the Lyyptian Passover (a7s0 mop) as over
against the permanent Passover, which future
generations were to observe (m9 mod or ΠΣ ΠΌΘ
as distinguished from the second or little Passover
viv mop). Such features were (a) the selection of
the lamb on the 10th day ; (4) the slaughter at the
home ; (6) the sprinkling of blood on the doorposts;
(a) the admission of those who might be Levitically
impure ; (6) the haste indicated in dress and manner
of eating (1.6. standing); (77) lodging where the
feast was held. ‘These were assigned to the feast
of preparation, but not intended to be perpetuated
in the feast of commemoration. It is to be noted
that the priestly writer does not expressly enjoin
these features save for the first Passover, but the
whole tenor of his narrative indicates that they
were undoubtedly given for all time. The Samari-
tans so continue to understand them. It is only
among them that there is still an attempt to ob-
serve the Passover with actual sacrifice as in earlier
days (cf. the account in Baedeker’s Palestine and
Syria; Trumbull’s Studies in Oriental Social Life,
p. 371 tf.; Thomson in Expos. Times, xi. (1900) 377).

Preparation for the Passover really began at the
middle of the preceding month (Adar). Roads and

al

PASSOVER

PASSOVER 691

bridges were repaired, sepulchres were whitened
anew, that they might be readily seen and avoided.
It was the season of ceremonial and all other kinds
vf purifications. In the last days the household
utensils were all carefully cleaned. The Sabbath
preceding the 14th of Nisan came to be known in
the modern synagogue as the Great Sabbath (nav
Svan), because it was held that the 10th, when the
lamb was selected in the first instance, fell on a
Sabbath. There seems to be no evidence, however,
that this view was in existence at the beginning of
the Christian era.

On the evening of the 13th the head of the family
searched the house with a lighted candle, that he
might seek out all the leaven. The hour on the
14th at which one must refrain from eating leavened
cakes was variously fixed. It was always before
noon, however, the precise time being indicated by
the disappearance of two cakes which were ex-
posed before the temple. When the signal was
thus given, all leaven must be burned or scattered
tothe winds. Under the head of leaven the Mishna
(Pesach. 2-5) includes cakes made from wheat,
barley, spelt, oats, and rye. If bread be made
from any of these grains, it must be before the
dough ferments at all. Work ceased on the
morning, or at noon, of the 14th, save in a few
occupations (tailors, barbers, laundresses). ΑἹ]
able-bodied males, not ceremonially impure, within
a radius of 15 miles were required to appear this
day before the Lorp at His sanctuary with an
offering. Women were not required to attend, but
apparently did so* (Jos. BJ VI. ix. 3; Pesach.
1x. 4).

The regular evening sacrifice was killed and
offered an hour earlier than usual (1.6. at 1.30 and
2.30 respectively) in order to give opportunity for
sacrificing the Passover. When the l4th fell ona
Sunday the evening sacrifice came two hours earlier
(12.30 and 1.30). The time of the Passover sacri-
fice is defined in the Law as ‘between the two
evenings’ (c:zqy7 72 Ex 12%, Lv 23°, Nu 9% > 13).
This was interpreted by the Pharisees and
Talmudists to mean from the hour of the sun’s
decline until its setting; and this was the later
temple practice (ef. Pesach. v. 1; Jubilees, 49; Jos.
BJ νι. ix. 3). The Samaritans, Karaites, and Sad-
ducees, on the other hand, held that the period
between sunset and dark was intended.

Companies, which could consist of from 10 to 20
persons, were organized indiscriminately, and not of
a man and his neighbour (Ex 124); the number in
each instance to be definitely fixed in advance. At
the appointed hour the representatives of these
various groups, each provided with a lamb not
less than eight days old nor more than a year,
were divided into three divisions. These were
admitted successively to the temple court. The
priests blew a threefold) blast trom the silver
trumpets, and thereupon each Israelite in the divi-
sion just admitted killed his lamb. The blood
was caught by the priests, who stood in two rows,
one row having gold and the other silver bowls.
These bowls were then passed along from hand to
hand, and the priest nearest the altar dashed the
contents on its base. The lambs were hung on
nails, or from staves resting upon the shoulders of
two men (not allowed when the day was a Sabbath),
and dressed. The fat was removed, and offered by
the priests on the altar. While all this was taking
place, the Levites sang the Hallel (Ps 113-118) ;
and this they repeated, or sang even a third time,
if the division had not meantime finished its sacri-
fice. This same order was followed in the case of
each division.

The Jambs were then taken to the homes outside
and roasted whole on a wooden spit, pomegranate

* The Karaites do not admit them,

wood being used, that no sap exude. No bone was
allowed to be broken under penalty of scourging,
and the flesh must not come in contact with any
foreign substance: should this happen, the portion
must be cut away. Nothing was eaten after the
evening sacrifice until the Passover meal. This
must close at midnight. The participants were
clad in their best garments. Though not enjoined
in the Law, wine came to be regarded as an indis-
pensable part of the feast. Each one must be pro-
vided with at least four cups of red wine, even if
the money had to come from the fund for public
charity, or was raised by the pledging of one’s gar-
ments, or by his labour. Another dish, which later
seems to have been usual but which was not obliga-
tory, was the haréseth (non). It consisted of bruised
fruits, such as dates and raisins, mingled with
vinegar (a symbol, it was said, of the clay from
which the bricks were made in Egypt). The real
meal, however, had for its elements (@) the bitter
herbs, of which the Mishna specifies five varieties ;
(6) the unleavened cakes ; (c) the Aagiqah (Π22Π) or
free-will festal offering; (d) the Passover lamb.
The supper was opened with the blessing, pro-
nounced by the head of the company over the tirst
cup of wine, which was then drunk. Then came
a hand-washing and an accompanying prayer.
Then the bitter herbs, dipped in the hardéseth,
were handed round. After the pouring of the
second cup of wine came the question of the son,
or of one speaking for him, as to the significance
of the feast (Ex 1258), Following the father’s ex-
planation came the first part of the Hallel (Ps
113 and 114). After the third cup grace after
meals was said, and after the fourth followed the
completion of the Hallel (Ps 115-118). In earlier
times nothing was eaten after the paschal lamb,
but a later custom permitted a piece of unleavened
cake as dessert (apikémen). There were slight modi-
fications for the observance of the second Passover
on the 14th of the following month.

With the destruction of the temple and the
cessation of the sacrificial cultus there naturally
‘ame a considerable change in the mode of cele-
bration. This was partly in the direction of
amplification. The historical significance was em-
phasized, and an elaborate ritual took shape, οἵ.
the paschal Hageada, portions of which are as late
as the 15th cent. A.D. (Hamburger, Supplement to
Real-Encyc. p. 113). Much the same general order
was Speer and much the same articles of food
were used, except that for the temple sacrifices the
roasted shankbone of a lamb and a roasted egg
were employed.

2. Number of participants. —The number of
those who attended the feast at Jerusalem was
undoubtedly great, even if Josephus’ use of figures
makes us somewhat sceptical of his estimates. At
one time, under Nero, he makes the probable num-
ber over two anda half millions, and on another
occasion (A.D. 65) three millions (BJ vi. ix. 3, I.
xiv. 3). It was at such times that Rome took
especial measures to guard against insurrections
(Ant. XVII. ix. 3, XX. v.3; cf. Mt 26°). It may be
that there were both executions and pardons on
these occasions; both aimed at the restraint of the
multitude (cf. Mt 27%). The city could not accom-
modate all the visitors, and so they camped outside
in tents or lodged in neighbouring villages. Guests
were freely entertained, but left the skins of the
lambs and the utensils used at the feast with their
respective hosts (Mishna, το λα, xii. 1).

3. The Date.—The day of the celebration was
determined by the condition of the harvest. If
this did not promise in the 12th month to be ready
to be gathered in four weeks, and the animals were
not yet grown sutticiently for sacrifice, then the
month was declared intercalary, and a thirteenth

692 PASTOR PATE
was added. This question was settled by the | thousand years before Christ, and which steadily

Sanhedrin, and there were certain regulations laid
down to guide their decision. The opening of the
month of Nisan was also proclaimed by them. This
took mlace when messengers came who had actually
seen the new moon (see art. NEW Moon). It was
not till about the time of Christ that there came
to be a fixed calendar. Fires on the hill-tops sent
the signal through the land that the Passover
month had begun. After the Samaritans made
use of such fires to mislead the Jews, it was
ordered that messengers should carry the news
throughout the country. The difficulty of fixing
this date, and of informing those who were remote
when it had been done, led to the doubling of
important festal days for those in the Diaspora.
(On question of date cf. Mishna, Rosh hashshana
ii. Lit.; Ideler, Chronol. pp. 491 ff and 508 ff. ;
Schiirer, GJV i. 625 (HJ P I. ii. 370 f.]).

The question of the number of passovers trace-
able during our Lord’s ministry, as well as that of
the relation of the Last Supper to the Passover,
are discussed in art. CHRONOLOGY OF NT, vol. 1.
p. 406 ff. ; cf. JESUS Crist, vol. ii. p. 633 f.

LITERATURE.—1. Commentaries on Pent., ete., esp. Dillmann on
Ex and Ly (ed. by Ryssel, Leipzig, 1897); Driver on Dt (/nternat.
Crit. Com.); Bertholet on Dt (Kurzer Hdcom. 1899), and on
Ezk (ib. 1897); Steuernagel on Dt (Nowack’s Hdkom. 189s).

2. Archwologies, esp. Nowack (Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894) ;
3enzinger (ib. 1894); Ewald, Antiquities of Israel (tr. by H.
S. Solly, London and Boston, 1876).

3. Histories of Religion.—J. Miller, Kritischer Versuch diber
den Ursprung und die geschichtliche Entwicklung des Pesach-
und Mazzothfestes (Inaugural dissertation, Bonn, 1884); Well-
hausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels4 (Berlin, 1898) ;
Green, The Hebrew Feasts (New York, 1886); J. Robertson,
The Early Religion of Israel (London, Edinburgh, and New
York, 1892) ; Schultz, O7' Theol. (Eng. tr., Edin., Τὶ ἃ T. Clark,
1892) ; Kayser, ΟἽ" Theol. (ed. by Karl Marti, Strassburg, 18!)4).

4. General.—H. C. Trumbull, The Threshold Covenant (N.Y.
1896), and The Blood Cov, (Phil. 1893); W. R. Smith, AS;
Wellhausen, Reste Arab. Heidentwms? (Berlin, 1897). For
older literature see citations in Winer’s Realworterbuch under
‘ Passah,’ and works given by Dill.-Rys. Com. on Ex, p. 112 ff. ;
and at close of Orelli’s article ‘ Passah,’ in Herzog’s RE 2.

5. Literature for post-exilic period. —Various tracts of the
Mishna, esp. Pesachim ; the Paschal Haggada (regarding this
ef. Hamburger, Supplement to RE); Book of Jubilees, ch. 49;
Josephus (see Index); Philo, Vite Mos. ; Edersheim, The
Temple, its Ministry and Services as they were at the Time
of Jesus Christ (London, 1874).

See also artt. on the Passover by W. R. Smith in Ene. Brit.9;
Ginsburg in Kitto’s Cyclop. ; Delitzsch in Riehm’s Handworter-
buch ; Hamburger in RE (Jewish). W. J. MOULTON.

PASTOR.—This word was at first used literally
(like its Lat. equivalent) of a keeper of sheep.
Soin. the:OT: δον 95 315 10%, 12° 17% 22" νον
But already in AV it has assumed a metaph.
meaning. In Eph 4" (the only NT occurrence)
RV retains ‘pastor’; but elsewhere (except Jer 2°,
RV ‘ruler’) changes ‘pastor’ into ‘shepherd,’
probably on account of the special modern use of
the word to designate the minister of a Christian
congregation. For the lit. use see Mt 25% Rhem.
‘As the pastor separateth the sheep from the
goates’; and for the transition Mt 26°! Rhem.
“1 wil strike the Pastor, and the sheepe of the
flocke shal be dispersed.’ Cf. also Knox, Hist. 266,
‘Our Brother, our Pastour, and great Bishop of our
soules’; and for the mod. sense see the quotation
from Calderwood’s Hist., under MINISTER.

PASTORAL EPISTLES.—See NEw TESTAMENT,
p. 527, and arts. TIMOTHY, TITUS.

PATARA (τὰ Ildrapa) was a city on the Lycian
coast, about 60 stadia south-east from the mouth
of the river Xanthos, at the modern village
Gelemish. It served as the principal harbour for
the inland cities in the valley of that river, in-
cluding Xanthus the city, Tlos, Araxa, ete. It
was also a link in the chain of coasting trade,
which had been maintained for more than a

grew and in the centuries immediately before and
after Christ attained vast proportions. Ships sail-
ing between the A¢gean or Italian harbours and
the Levant (Cyprus, Pamphylia, Cilicia, Syria,
Egypt) touched at Rhodes and then at Patara,
making a straight run across the intervening sea.
That is well exemplified in the account of St.
Paul’s voyage (Ac 21’) from Miletus and Cos by
Rhodes and Patara to Syria. In Patara he
found a ship bound for Phoenicia by the direct sea
voyage ; and he transhipped into it with his com-
pany. The ship in which he had come to Patara
was not so suitable for his purposes, whether
because it was bound for the continuous coasting
voyage, hugging close the shore of Asia Minor, or
possibly because it was not going farther than the
Lycian harbours. Many ships engaged in the
Syrian or the Egyptian trade, especially those
which were larger and stronger, stood direct across
the Levant from the Lycian coast to their destina-
tion, keeping west and south of the istand of
Cyprus. They could do this easily with the pre-
vailing westerly breezes of the Levant; but the
return voyage outside (é.e. south and west) of
Cyprus was not easy; it could be tried from
Egypt, but from Syria was hardly possible for the
ancient ships. Hence, when St. Panl was coming
back from Ciesarea to Rome, he had to keep inside,
i.e. east and north, of Cyprus, on account ofthe
prevailing westerly breezes, Ac 27°. See also MYRA,
which was the next important link in the chain of
trade eastward.

This situation assured to Patara considerable
importance and wealth. Its coinage begins about
1.6. 440, sometimes as autonomous with Lycian
legends (name Pttara) or under dynasts about 430-
410. In the 4th and 3rd cents. B.C. it seems to
have struck no coins, being under foreign rule ;
but when the Lycian League was established (see
Lycra), Patarean coinage began again, B.C. 168-
81, and it continued in bronze under the Roman
empire until about A.D. 230-240. Alliance coins
with Myra, under Gordian 111, attest the close
relations of the two cities, as above mentioned.

The intportance of Patara as a link in the con-
nexion between Egypt and the A2gean harbours is
shown by the fact that, when the Ptolemaic power
attained its acme in the 38rd cent., Ptolemy Phila-
delphus enlarged the city and re-named it Arsinoe
after his queen; but the new name disappeared
with the Egyptian power.

The name of Patara in ancient times was closely
connected with the cultus and the oracle of Apollo;
and its later coins show Apolline types, though on
its earlier coinage Athena and Hermes (Greek
ideals of art and trade) are the prominent figures.
The Roman poets, and the later Greeks like
Lykophron, associate the epithet Patarean with
Apollo, just as they call the god Delphian. The
oracle spoke only during part of the year, viz. the
six winter months.

In the history of Christianity Patara was of
small consequence. Lycia, like Pamphylia, seems
to have been slow in adopting the new religion.
Patara was a bishopric, and is mentioned as such
in all the Notitiw. There are still considerable
ruins of the city, on which see Beaufort, Texier,
Fellows, Spratt, and Forbes, and, above all, the
splendid work of Benndorf-Niemann on Lyhia.

W. M. RAMSAY.

PATE (formed by loss of ὦ from ‘plate,’ which
came to be applied to the crown of the head, esp.
the bald crown, from its appearance: cf. Germ.
Platte, ‘a plate,’ ‘bald head,’ and vulgarly ‘ the
head’) occurs once in AV (Ps 716 ‘His mischiet
shall return upon his own head, and his violent
dealing shall come down upon his own pate’) and

ae

eo te oO}

ae

PATHEUS

PATMOS 693

is retained in RV, because of the distinction thus
brought out petween wx 7d’sh, the usual word for
‘head,’ and τρὴρ kodhkodh, the ‘crown of the head’
(which elsewhere, however, is rendered ‘crown of
eiershiead,:; Gnet9-" 1G Goel 1492, 9 [9 5}
ier 2.4525 ontop or the head + Dus? 33! ὅτ
‘scalp,’ Ps 687!). The AV tr. in Ps 7 comes from
Coverdale (Wye. has ‘nol’ in 1382, ‘necke’ in
1388); it is used by Knox in a tr. of the passage
(Works, iit. 90), ‘The dolour whilk he intendit for
me sall fall upon his own pate; and the violence
whairwith he wold haif oppressit me sall cast doun
his awn heid.’ Shaks. uses the word freely, and
always in contempt or ridicule, which seems to
accompany its use everywhere, but this is not
pronounced in, e.g., Tymme, Calvin's Genesis on
Gn 31” (Ὁ. 650), ‘It was a heavie and miserable
sight, that Jacob... should flee away as one
that had done amisse; but this was more sharpe
and fearefull, that the destruction which Laban
intended against him, was readie to Hight on his
pate.’ J. HASTINGS.

PATHEUS (lIla@aios), 1 Es 9%, the
PETHAHIAH the Levite, Ezr 10°,

same as

PATHROS (o'nne, LXX γῆ ΙΤαθουρῆς, Balso Φαθωρῆς,
Ezk 294% 304, Vule. Phatures, also Phethros)
appears in the following passages :—Jer 441, the
Jews fleeing before the Babylonians settled ‘in the
land of Egypt, and at Migdol, and at Tahpanhes,
and at Noph (i.e. Memphis, so far three cities of
Lower Egypt), and in the country of Pathros,’
evidently a part of the land south of Meimphis.
V.¥, all people that dwelt in the land of Egypt
fand] in ‘ Pathros’ answer Jeremiah’s accusation.
The ‘and’ is wanting in the Heb. and already in
the text of the LXX, but it has evidently been
omitted by mistake, and must be inserted after the
analogy of the first verse. Pathros denotes, not a
part of (Lower) Egypt or Mizraim, but a region
τὐμῶ ἴο 10. [511}} ‘the remainder of Israel will

e brought home from Assyria, and from Egypt,
and from Pathros (LXX strangely ‘ Babylonia’),
and Ethiopia (Cush), and Elam,’ ete. Ezk 304, we
find again, in the prophecy against Egypt, this
country parallel to Pathros (the following cities
are not arranged in any geographic order).

We see, consequently, that the prophets did not
use Mizraim in the old sense ‘Keypt,’ but in a
limited sense, distinguishing between Mizraim,
Egypt proper, 1.6. Lower Egypt or the Delta of the
Nile, and Pathros or Upper Egypt (this definition
was correctly perceived already by 8. Bochart in
his book Phaleg). Pathros denotes, therefore, the
same thing as the Thebais of the Greeks, the
country beginning a few miles S. of Memphis, at
a place called Acanthus by the Greeks and extend-
ing to Syene on the first cataract. The name is of
good Egyp. formation: P-to-rés, ‘the southern (7s)
country,’ an etymology given correctly already by
Quatremére. Other etymologies have not main-
tained themselves ; 6.9. the comparison with the
Pathyrite (νόμος Tabupirys) of the Greeks, a small
county or nomos of Upper Egypt, which was oe
tempting for former scholars (G. Ebers in 1867), 1
inadmissible. (It would be in Heb. letters reincene
Pe-hathor-(res) or something similar). The Assyr.
king Esarhaddon calls himself in a cuneiform
inscription ‘king of the kings of Egypt (Muzur), of
Paturisi and Ethiopia’ (usi, 1.e. Cush of the Heb-
rews). Possibly the Heb. word should be read

ond Pathoris, in accordance with this testimony,
the versions, and the Egyp. etymology.

The reason why the prophets drew this line
of distinction between Egypt proper and the
‘Southern country’ was their old political division,
renewed about 800 B.c. At that time the Eth.

king of Napata extended his power beyond the
first cataract and seized Thebes. About 770 B.C.
the Ethiopian P(i)ankhi (Piankli) possessed Upper
Eeypt down to Hermopolis. The rest of Evypt
was split up into ten small kingdoms perfectly
independent of the legal Pharaoh, Shoshenk Ly,
Of these petty kings ‘residing in Sais, Bubastis,
Hermopolis, ete., Teftnakht of Sais finally gained
the supremacy. He failed to subject Middle
Jeypt owing to the interference of the Ethiopians,
Tetnakht’s defeat and nominal subjection under
P(i)‘ankhi’s sovereignty did not prevent him and
his successor Bocchoris (Egyptian Bol-on-rencf, the
famous founder of the Egyptian code of laws) from
gaining finally all Lower and Middle Ee; ite In

28 the Eth. Shabako, interfering again, defeated
Bosulinris, burned him alive, and united Reypt
under his rule. But the political division of

Pathros under administration of the Eth. kings
and of Mizraim under native rulers, which had

lasted for some 70 years, was kept in memory by
the Hebrews during the 7th cent. and even by
Ezekiel (572 B.C.)

Ezk 29% (after Egypt has been desolate for 40
years and its inhabitants exiled), ‘L will bring
back the captivity of EKeypt, and will cause them
to return into (LX.X, ‘will cause them to dwell in,’
perhaps better) the land of Pathros, into the land

of their birth, and they shall be there a base king-
dom.’ It is very remarkable to find in izekiel a

knowledge of the correct Egyp. tradition concern-
ing the priority of the Southern country over the
North. The earliest known dynasties of kings
resided in Memphis on the border of Upper and
Lower Egypt, but the first historical king, Menes,
vame from This (Thinis) near Abydos in Upper
Eeypt. Therefore the inscriptions always place the
South as the aboriginal country before the North.
The issue of that prophecy is not quiteclear. ‘The
downfall of Egypt's power and the loss of her in-
dependence for ever in 525 B.C. , brought about by
Cambyses, are a clear fulfilment. But we do not
know of an independent Egyp. kingdom limited to
Upper Egypt, except about 200 B.C ‘when the Eeyp-
tians, rebelling against the Greek kings (Ptolemy
Iv. and y.), held their own in the Thebaid for about
20 years. Ezekiel’s words apparently require some
less literal interpretation, which we cannot well
give in our present state of knowledge. From
-athros the branch of the Egyptians came, called
Pathrusim (Gn 10", LXX οἱ Πατροσωνιείμ..
W. Max MULLER.

PATMOS (JIIdruos). — This island is once men-
tioned in the Bible, Rev 1° ‘I John... was in
the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God
and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.? Patmos
lies off the coast of Asia Minor, in 387° 20’ N. Lat.
and 26° 35’ E. Long., and on the map has roughly
the shape of a horse’s head and neck, the nose
pointing eastwards. It is about 10 miles long by
N. and 8., and 6 broad along its northern end.
Its much indented coastline is 37 miles round ;
according to Pliny, 30 Roman miles. It consists of
three main masses of volcanic hills which, at their
highest point, Hagios Elias, rise toover 800 ft. In
the Middle Ages its palms won it the name of
Palmosa, but under Turkish rule its vegetation,
trade, and inhabitants have nearly disappeared.
The ancient capital occupied an isthmus connect-
ing what are now called the inlets of La Scala and
Merika. Its ruins are still visible, and the Cyclo-
pean work of the citadel denotes great antiquity.
The chief feature of the modern island is the
monastery of St. John, dominating with its battle-
ments the modern town, which lies a mile and
half south of La Scala, the landing-place. This
monastery was founded in 1088 under Alexius
Comnenus by St. Christodulos. Whether the

pet

694 PATRIARCHS

PATRIARCHS

‘cave of the apocalypse’ halfway up the hillside,
now shown as the spot at which St. John received
his revelation, was already famous before that
date, is not known. The monastery contains a
poor remnant of the valuable library which was
once there. Mai, in his Nova Bibliotheca, Vi. ii.
p. 5387, has published from a Vatican MS a list of
the books preserved there in the 13th cent. It was
here that the English traveller E. 1). Clark pur-
chased of the monks, in Oct. 1814, the great 9th
cent. codex of Plato now in the Bodleian. It remains
to add that, according to an uncertain tradition
preserved in Irenveus, v. 30; Eusebius, /// iii. 18;
Hieronymus, de Scr. 111... 9, and others, St. John
was exiled to Patmos in the 14th year of the
emperor Domitian, and returned thence to Ephesus
A.D. 96 under Nerva. A modern traveller, Mr.
Theodore Bent, has suggested that the natural
scenery of the island determined some features of
the imagery of the Apocalypse: a suggestion
which Dean Stanley in his Sermons in the East
had already made.

LITERATURE.—H., F. Tozer, The Islands of the Agean, 1890,
pp. 178-195 ; Tournefort, Iteclation @un Voyage, Lyon, 1717;
Walpole, Zurkey, London, 1820, vol. ii. 43; E. Ὁ. Clark,
Travels, London, 1818, vol. vi. ch. 2; Ross, Reisen, Stuttgart,
1840, vol. ii.; Guérin, Description de UVIle de Patios, Paris,
1856. Among ancient authorities Patmos is mentioned by
Thucyd. 111. 33; Pliny, Nat. List. iv. 23; Strabo, bk. x. ch. 5.

Ἐς Ὁ. CONYBEARE.

PATRIARCHS.—-The discussion of this subject
falls naturally into two parts, viz., a few general
remarks, and a more detailed examination of the
immense age ascribed to the individual members
of this class.

i. General Remarks.—When the title ‘ patriarch’
is applied to a biblical character, it is usually
understood to mean one of the earliest fathers of
the human race, or one of the three great progeni-
tors of Israel, namely, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.
In the NT it is extended so as to embrace the sons
of Jacob (Ac 7**) and David (Ac 2”). The LXX,
from which the title comes, favours the less
yestricted use. At 1 Ch 24°! πατριάρχαι (Heb. "εἶν
ΠΣ ΝΠ) are heads of the Levites; at 1 Ch 27% π᾿ τῶν
φυλῶν ‘Io. (Ὁ ἘΞ: Ὁ) are the chief officials of the
kingdom ; at 2 Ch 198 τῶν π. "Io. (929 miayt wet) are
leading men, fit to serve as judges ; at 9 Ch 23” τοὺς
π. (MNDO 7) are the captains of hundreds; at 2 Ch
2013 a. τῶν δυνατῶν (910 1325 niaxa yx) are officers
in Uzziah’s army; 4 Mae 7.9. speaks of of π. ἡμῶν
"AB. “Io. Ιακώβ, and 4 Mac 16” of ’AB. καὶ Io. καὶ
Ἴακ., καὶ πάντες οἱ w. In this article we shall not
need to say anything about the later patriarchs :
for them the articles ABRAHAM, ete., should be
consulted. We have to deal only with two classes
—the antediluvian patriarchs, and those who are
placed between the Flood and the birth of Abra-
ham.

Of the former we possess two lists: a Cainite, in
Gn 417: 18. ascribed to J; and a Sethite, Gn 5%*1, the
work of P. They cover the same ground, Lamech
being the terminus ad quem in both cases ; but the
former begins with Cain, the latter with Seth.
They run as follows :—

Gn 417.18 Gn 53-31
Cain Seth
Enoch Enosh
Trad Kenan
Mehujael Mahalalel
Methushael Jared
Lamech Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech

The editors to whom we owe the Book of Genesis
in its present form evidently understood the
Lamech of ch. 4 to be the same person as the
Lamech of ch. 5. Yet one and the same man
eannot have been the descendant in the direct line
of two individuals so sharply distinguished from

Σ

each other as Cain and Seth. And there is a
striking similarity between some of the names on
the one side and on the other, compelling us to
conclude that P altered Irad into Jared, Mehujael
into Mahalalel, Methushael into Methuselah. See,
further, the separate articles on these names.

The 11th chapter of Genesis carries us from the
Flood to the birth of Abraham. MT and Sam. have
here a list of nine names: LXX (followed by Lk 3°),
obviously for the sake of reaching the number ten,
as in Gn 5, inserts Cainan between Arpachshad
and Shelah, and attributes to him precisely the
sume age at the birth of his firstborn and at death
as to Shelah. Many of the names in this genealogy
have been identified (but see Dillm. ad loc.) as those
οἱ localities in Mesopotamia.

There is much to be said for Ryle’s conclusioy
respecting the patriarchs as a whole: ‘Perhaps we
should not be far wrong in regarding them as con-
stituting a group of demigods or heroes, whose
names, in the earliest days of Hebrew tradition,
filled up the blank between the creation of man
and the age of the Israelite patriarchs. Such a
group would be in accordance with the analogy of
the primitive legends of other races. The removal
ot every taint of polytheistic superstition, the
presentation of these names as the names of
ordinary human beings, would be the work of the
Israelite narrator’ (Karly Narratives of Gen.
p. 81). In such purification of derived material
we see Inspiration at work.

For more particulars see articles ARPACHSILAD,
ete.

il. Longevity of the Patriarchs.— A notable differ-
ence between J and P is, that the former (Gin 417: 18).
if he furnishes anything beyond a name, connects
with it an interesting statement ; whilst the latter
(Gn 5. 11) gives the age at which each patriarch
begat his firstborn son, and that at which he died.
The figures mentioned for the second of these
events are so high that, if they had been found
anywhere but in the Bible, we should have dis-
missed them as inventions. We do not trouble to
inquire whether the first seven Egyptian kings
reigned in all 12,300 years, or whether any eredence
is due to Ephorus and Nicolaus, who, as Josephus
(nt. I. ill. 9) says, ‘relate that the ancients lived
a thousand years.’ And the attempts hitherto
made to vindicate P’s numbers are powerless to
carry conviction.

There is no sufficient historical evidence to show
that in earlier ages or under more favourable con-
ditions human life has been prolonged to anything
like 900 years. Delitzsch would have liked to
make a point of this, but it is nothing to the
purpose when he quotes (New Comm. on Gen.
p. 212) Becker’s statement that ‘a lifetime of 150
is not uncommon in the snow mountains of South
Dagestan.’ Prichard (Nat. Hist. of Man, p. 653)
is inclined to accept Easton’s tables, according to
which three Europeans have attained the age of
between 170 and 180, two between 160 and 170, and
so on. Yet, even if this were so, it falls far short
of the mark. The human frame, as men have
known it in historical times, is not caleulated to
last 200 years, to say nothing of 900. And there
is no more reason tor believing that its vigour
gradually declined during and after the days of
the grey forefathers of the race, than there 1s for
accepting the Talmudic absurdity that the first
man reached from earth to heaven, but after his
sin the Holy One laid His hands upon him and
made him little (Chag. 12a). Gn 6%» has been
adduced as marking a turning-point at which the
deterioration began. But this clause is either a
gloss, explanatory of the preceding words (Wellh.),
or, more probably, it has been transposed from its
original position in the story of the Fall (Budde).

νἀ dnl

PATRIARCHS

PATRIARCHS 69E

In any case it will not serve the purpose for which
it is brought forward. It precedes the account of
the Flood. But Gn 11 does not limit the patri-
archs after the Flood to 120 years: Shem lives
600 years ; Arpachshad, 438, ete.

When it is said that ‘the numbers 930, 912, 905,
ete., designate epochs of antediluvian history,
which are named after their chief representatives’
(Del. New Comm. on Gen. p. 213), it must be re-
membered, on the other hand, that this was not Ps
meaning. ΤῸ him Methuselah and the rest were
individual men who actually attained the age with
which he credits them. And under the same head-

ing of arbitrary attempts to vindicate the trust-
worthiness of the figures must be classed the sug-
gestion that the year was not one of 12 months’
duration, but of 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or6. 939 ‘year,’ in the
Bible, has only one signification, the ordinary one.
Are these desperate attempts necessary’ Our
answer might conceivably have been in the affirma-
tive if there had been no uncertainty about the
numbers themselves. But the three authorities,
the MT, the Sam., and the LXX, are hopelessly
disagreed. To see this, it needs but a glance at
the two following tables, which are reproduced
mainly from Holzinger’s Gen. pp. 61, 116 :—

TABEERL
From GN 5.
: YEAR A.M. IN WHICH HE
MT. SAMARITAN, LXX. Hunt.
. | . . τὰ
Birth Re- | Birth Re- Birth Re-
of mainder ul of mainder of mainder hes
‘Piped: of | Total. First- of Total. et: πὲ Total. MT. Sam. LX,
born Life born Life. born Life.
TOA 130 800 930 130 800 930 230 700 930 930 930 930
2. Seth 105 807 912 105 807 912 205 707 912 1042 1042 1142
3. Enosh . 90 815 905 90 815 905 190 715 905 1140 1140 1340
4. Kenan. 70 840 910 70 840 910 170 740 910 1235 1235 1535
5. Mahalalel 65 830 895 65 830 895 165 730 895 1290 1290 1690
6. Jared 162 800 962 62 785 S47 162 800 962 1422 1307 1999
7. Enoch . ᾿ 65 300 365 65 300 365 165 200 365 987 887 1487
8. Methuselah . 187 782 969 7 653 720 187 782 969 1656 1307 2256
(Luc. 167 809]
9. Lamech ᾿ 182 595 ΨΥ 53 600 653 188 565 753 1651 1307 2227
[Luc. 2207]
10. Noah . .| 500 is (950) δ00 i (950) 500 (950) : al
To the Flood 100 es ἐξ 100 ue, ni 100 it ὌΝ
Year of the Flood | 1656 1307 ° 2262 [Luc. 2242]
TABLE II.
From GN 1].
| MT. | SAMARITAN, ΓΘ εἰ
| Birth | Re- | Birth | Re- Birth Re-
On mainder of -mainder of mainder
First- of Total. | First- | _ of Total. First- of Total.
| born. Life. | born | Life born Life
|
are rae ba (0 500 600 | 100 | 500 600 100 500 600
2. Arpachshad ‘ ; ΜΗ «1 35 403 438 | 135 303 438 135 430 565
[Καινάν. δ z ᾿ 0] τὴ τ ΜᾺ | ed = ia 130 3830 460]
3. Shelah ° ‘ . e a 30 403 433 | 130 303 433 130 330 460)
4. Eber ὰ Ἢ é a4 34 430, 464 134 270 404 134 370 504
| [Ball 370 4041 |
5. Peleg Ν . ie “ἢ 80 209 239 | 130 109 239 150 209 339
] | (Lue. 134] (Luc. 348]
6. Reu . . ° . . «| 89 207 239 | 132 107 239 132 207 339
7. Serug ᾿ a ῷ Ἢ 30 200 230 | 130 100 230 130 200 330
8. Nahor " Μ f ° ay 29 119 148 | 79 69 148 79 129 208
(Luc. 125 204)
9. Terah ᾿ A Ἢ Ρ ‘i 70 135 206°" 4 70 75 145 70 135 205
πο re hie! Segre ge wise ys 1 een) | 1040 1170 (Lue. 1174]
From Flood to Birth of Abraham 290 Wz | 940 | | 1070 years

The slightest inspection of Table I. shows that
the discrepancies are not due to accident. The
regularity with which the LXX advances the age
of the father at the birth of his first son by 100
years betrays purpose. The manipulation of MT
and Sam., so that, although they do not agree as
to the year after the Creation in which Methuselah
died, they yet, both of them, date his death in the
year of the Flood, is equally significant. The date
of the Flood in MT, 1656, is obtained by adding
the remaining 349 years of Noah’s life to the 1307

of the Samaritan. Our documentary authorities,
therefore, did not pay blind respect to the numbers
which they found before them.

Budde (Urgeschichte, ch. iv.), followed by more
recent writers, has endeavoured to show that the
Sam., by dating the death of Jared, Methuselah,
and Lamech in the same year as the Flood, meant
to imply that they perished in that catastrophe.
He also sees in the names of these patriarchs. indi-
cations of sinfulness and degeneracy. But the
etymology is too uncertain to justify the latter

manera SECRET cao. |)

696 PATROBAS

PAUL THE APOSTLE

inference (see the new Oxford Heb. Lexicon, and
also the name list in Ball’s Light from the East).

The list in ch. 11 is still more evidently artificial.
In all three authorities the purpose is to indicate a
vradual diminution of longevity from 600 to 200
years, thus preparing the way for the still shorter
lifetime of Abraham and his successors. The LXX,
by adding 100 to each of the earlier lives, after the
tirst, makes the slope more gradual. The Sam., by
adding 100 to the age at the birth of the firstborn,
avoids the startling transition from 100 in Shem’s
vase to 35, 30, ete., in the sueceeding ones. This
version also, to escape the apparent inconsistency
between the supposition that Abraham’s begetting
a son when 100 years old is a miracle, and the
statement that 130 was the ordinary age for this
in the preceding cases, has the 79 and 7U of the
LXX for Nahor and Terah. As an example of
the freedom with which the MT treated this
matter, the instance of Terah may be cited. The
Sam. gives him 145 years: this would make Abra-
ham leave Haran immediately on his father’s
death. But Gn 12! relates that Abraham was
called to leave his father’s house. Hence the 205
years ascribed to Terah in the MT: according to
it, Terah survived his son’s departure 60 years.
Finally, we must note the startling discrepancy
between the 240 years of MT, the 940 of Sam., and
the 1070 of LXX, as the length of the period from
the Flood to the Birth of Abraham.

In endeavouring to account for these extra-
ordinary figures we must never forget that we
owe them to P. The earlier documents, J and
EK, show no trace of anything similar. Tt is P,
too, Who attributes to Abraham 175 years, to Isaac
180, to Jacob 147; and, when compelled to limit
Moses to 120, seems to think his comparatively
early decease requires comment: ‘his eye was not
dim, nor his natural force abated.’ The periods
determined by such landmarks as Creation, Flood,
Birth of Abraham, needed to be filled up. P was
especially attracted by names and numbers. The
names were supplied by tradition. We have no
evidence to prove that a definite number was
attached to each of these names. But we do know
that in ancient times the belief prevailed that
human life had formerly been prolonged far beyond
the limits which have since been familiar. Hesiod

asserts that in the Silver Age childhood lasted 130.

years. A Hebrew prophet (Is 65°), picturing the
Messianic future in colours drawn trom popular
ideas respecting the far-distant past, predicts that
‘the child shall die an hundred years old? (on this
passage see Haxpos. Times, Nov. 1899, p. 61).
LirERATURE. — Besides the best Commentaries on Genesis,
Budde’s Urgeschichte is helpful. See also Ryle’s Barly Narra-
tives of Genesis, and the art. CuronoLoGy or THE OT in the
tirst vol. of this Dictionary. J. TAYLOR.

PATROBAS (Ilarpi3as).—The name of a member
of the Roman Church greeted by St. Paul in Ro
164, It is a shortened form of Patrobius. The
name was borne by a well-known freedman_ of
Nero, who was put to death by Galba (Tac. Hist.
i. 49, ii. 95), and oceurs in inscriptions (Lightfoot,
Philippians, p. 175). Patrobas is commemor-
ated on Nov. 4, and all later legends about him
will be found in Acta Sanctorum, Nov., vol. ii. 1,
p. 222. A. C. HEADLAM.

PATROCLUS (IIdrpoxdos).—The father of the
Syrian general Nicanor (2 Mac 85).

PATTERN.— Various words are so rendered. 14.
miin tabhnith [from banah, to build], the shape of
« thing, elsewhere tr. ‘example’ or ‘ensample,’
‘tioure, ‘form,’ etc., isitr: “pattern vinx, ον ee
Jos 22%, 2 K 16, 1 Ch 281 #2. 18-19, in reference to

the model or idea (lit. ‘construction ’) of the taber-
nacle, ete. 2. min tokhnith [fr. takhan, to regulate,
adjust, used in Job 28%, Is 40'% 18 of God’s work ‘in
ordering creation by weight or measure’] occurs
only in Ezk 28! (of the symmetry or perfection of
the prince of Tyre [see Davidson, in loc.], AV and
RV ‘sum,’ RVin ‘Or measure, or pattern’), and
4810 (of the idea of the temple before building, AV
and RV ‘pattern,’ AVim ‘ Or sum or number,’ RVm
‘Or sun’). 3. ὅθ᾽ mar’eh [fr. r@ah, to see], a
sight, the appearance of something, is tr. ‘pattern’
in Nu $+ ‘According unto the pattern which the
Lord had showed Moses.’ 4, ὁμοίωμα [tr. ὅμοιος,
ὁμύς, similis, same], something made like some
other thing, a copy, is in Sir 38% tr. ‘pattern,’
‘His eyes look still upon the pattern of the thing
that he maketh,’ Gr. κατέναντι ὁμοιώματος σκεύους.
5. τύπος, which is both the model and ‘copy’ (see
FIGURE, § 3), is tr. ‘pattern’ in Tit 27 (RV *‘ en-
sample’), He 85 (quot. from Ex 955). The meaning
is clearly image, an idea before one in the forma-
tion of character (Tit 27) or of the tabernacle
(He 85), not copy. Cf. Hall, Works, i. 148, ‘There
must be much caution used in our imitation ef the
best patternes, (whether in respect of the persons
or things ;) else we shall make our selves apes, and
our acts sinful absurdities.’ 6. ὑποτύπωσις in 1 Ti
16, AV ‘pattern, RV ‘ensample,’ but in 2 ΤΊ 18
(its only other occurrence) AV ‘ form,’ RV ‘ pattern.’
It is an outline or sketch under one’s eye. 7. ὑπό-
devyua, like τύπος, is used for both the model and
the copy, and in the only place where it is ren-
dered ‘pattern,’ He 9% (as well as in 8°, where it is
tr. ‘example,’ RV ‘copy ’), the meaning is clearly
copy or representation: He 9% ‘It was therefore
necessary that the patterns (RV ‘copies ’) of thing 4
in the heavens should be purified with these
but the heavenly things themselves with bettet
sacrifices than these. But in 1611 this tr. was
quite legitimate, as ‘pattern’ then was used for
both the exemplar and its copy. Trench (On AV
of NT, p. 1181.) denies this; but there are unmis-
takable examples in Shaks. as well as elsewhere,
Thus J Henry VI. Vv. v. 65—

‘For what is wedlock forced but a hell,

An age of discord and continual strife?

Whereas the contrary bringeth bliss,

And is a pattern ot celestial peace.’

So Othello, Vv. it. 11--
‘Thou cunning’st pattern of excelling nature.’

See also Henry V. πι. iv. 61, Luerece 13850, Lover's
Complaint, 170; and οἵ. Book of Homilies (1573),
‘where most rebellions and rebels be, there is the
express similitude of hell; and the rebels themselves
are the very figures of fiends and devils, and their
captain the ungracious pattern of Lucifer and
Satan, the prince of darkness.’ J. HASTINGS.

PAU.— See PAT.

PAUL THE APOSTLE.—

i. THE LIFE.
1. BirtH AND TRAINING : ;
Autobiographical Notes; Personal Names ; Jewish
nature, Greek environment, Roman citizenship—
influence of Tarsus, of Jerusalem and Gamaliel.
2. IDIOSYNCRASY : ‘ ᾿
Mental gifts, Physical constitution, Emotional tem-
perament ; the χαρίσματα ; the σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί.
8. CONVERSION : ᾿
The Root οἵ Paul’s Doctrine ; Narratives of the Acts;
Allusions of the Epp. ; Internal antecedents ; Ac-
tual Appearance of Jesus ; Sequel of the Conversion.
4. Missionary CAREER,—dating from Conversion ; the
Vision in Jerusalem : ᾿
(a) First Period, of Apprenticeship: Tarsus and
Cilicia.
(b) Second Period, of Co-operation with Barnavas
and First Missionary Tour: Syrian Antioch,
Relief of Famine in Judea; Cyprus (Sergius
Paulus, Elymas), Behaviour of John Mark;

Moun,
20802

a

5 weitlt
Mg Many ——

ς ne

NV:

ἘΠ
‘ Mears.
“J POTN vo ac

|
osmowadg § SN A
ἢ nna ἢ,

-- ve 8 nbd iat ὃ ᾿ ee my i oh ΐ ἮΝ “=

πὰρ
Pipoour

Pi

δυο
Ko" > ὰ is

PH 78.
) ie
st .

ἰός al f

ΠΣ

νυν Se τς με ἢ ΕΣ wat]

φε ert ὁ

or ὦ

SLAM ὦν

a

STAVE ἐδ

oe

9ς re ge

-------- -.

PAW ΠΗ AVOSEEE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 697

S. Galatian cities (Speeches at Pisidian Antioch
and Lystra); ‘Door of Faith opened to the
Gentiles,’ Growing Ascendency of Paul; Coun-
cil at Jerusalem.

(Ὁ Third Period, of Established Leadership ; Second
Missionary Tour: Silas and Timothy; ‘The
Phrygian and Galatian Country’; Meeting with
Luke and crossing to Macedonia-—- Work at
Philippi, Thessalonica, Berwa; Preaching at
Athens; Founding of Corinthian Church ;
Thessalonian Epistles.

(d) Fourth Period, of Judaistic Controversy ; Third
Missionary Tour: Collision with Peter at An-
tioch ; Anti-Pauline campaign of the Legalists ;
Journey to and Mission in Ephesus ; Communi-
cations with Corinth—the two Epp. ; the Col-
lection for Jerusalem ; Severe Illness ; Journey
in Macedonia; Epp. to Galatians and Romans ;
Sojourn at Corinth ; Reception at Jerusalem.

(6) Fifth Period, of Imprisonment in Cosarea and
Rome: Assault of the Jews in the Temple ;
Apprehension and Trials of Paul; Appeal to
Cwsar; Voyage to Rome; Probable Acquittal
and Release; Epistles of the First Captivity ;
Paul at Rome.

(f) Sixth Period, ef Last Journeyings, Renewed
Imprisonment, and Martyrdom : Data tor this
Period ; Revisitation of old Churches ; Voyage
to Spain; Movements indicated in 1 and 2 Ti
and Titus; Character of Pastoral Epistles ; Tra-
dition of Paul’s Death.

5. CHroNnoLoey :

Fixed Datum of Ac 12; Gal 21, and Ac 11. 12 or 15;
Year of Paul’s Conversion; Year of Voyage to
Jerusalem (Ac 20); Space for the Last Period ;
Harnack’s Chronological Scheme.

ii. THE DOCTRINE.
INTRODUCTION :

Nature of Paul’s Writings ; Modern Analyses—Baur,
Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, The Dutch School, Reuss
and A, Sabatier, Beyschlag, A. B. Bruce, Somer-
ville, G. B. Stevens; OT Antecedents and Starting-
point.

1. Doctrine oF Gop:

(a) The Fatherhood of God: Basis of Paulinismi in
the Teaching of Jesus ; Supremacy of Grace.

(ὁ) The Righteousness of God : its relations to Father-
hood and Grace.

(ὦ The Anger of God.

(4) The Law of God: Double sense of the term in
Paul.

%. DocrRingE OF MAN:

(a) The Constitution of Mankind: The Image of
God; Solidarity of the Race; Man and Woman.

(Ὁ) Spirit and Flesh: General and Specific Sense ;
Flesh and Sin; Heredity of Sin; the First and
Second Man.

(c) Sin and Death.

(d) Listory of the Race: the Two Ages; the Heathen
World ; the Discipline of Israel ; the Fulness of
the Times.

8. DocrrIne OF CHRIST AND OF SALVATION ?

(a) The Person of Christ: Recognized in Paul’s Con-
version; God’s ‘Own Son’; ‘the Lord’; Pre-
existence of Christ; Christ and the Human
Race ; Christ and the Curse of Sin.

(0) The Death of the Cross: central to Paul's teaching ;
representative, justifying, propitiatory, recon-
ciling, sanctifying ; Juristic and Ethical The-
ories.

(c) The New Life of Faith: Nature and Implications
of Faith; the Resurrection of Christ and the
Unio Mystica ; Filial Adoption.

4. Docrrinr oF THE Hoy Spirir:

(a) God Immanent: the Teaching of Jesus and of
Paul; the Spirit in the Heart.

(b) The Spiritual Man: Progressive Sanctification ;
Holiness and the Ethical Life.

(c) The Communion of the Spirit.

(d) The Earnest of the Inheritance,

δ. DocrrinE oF THE Cuurcil:

(a) The Body oy Christ: Expansion of Paul’s Idea of
the Ecclesia ; the Church no temporal Institute.

(b) The Brotherhood : Love, and the Works of Faith.

(c) The Charismata: Edification, Church-meetings,
and Administration.

(d) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: relative to
Christ, and to the Church; Picture-signs, and
Covenant-signs.

(e) Church Organization: Development within the
Epistles ; Charismatic and Clerical, Missionary
and Local Ministries; the Apostolate; no
‘Model’ of Church-government.

€. DoctRINE OF THE KinGDOM OF GoD:
Based on the Jewish conception, as spiritualized
by Jesus ; Eschatological in outlook.

(a) The Divine Sovereignty: Election and Fore-
knowledge ; the Call of Believers.

(b) The Enemies of God: Satan, Evil Spirits; the
Kingdom of Darkness ; the Final Strugele.

(c) The Consummation : (2) The Moral Perfection of
Christians ; (6) The Resurrection of the Body ;
(y) The Intermediate State; (Ὁ) The Second
Coming of the Lord Jesus—the Dénouvment of
Human History.

i. THE LIFE oF Sv. PAUL.—1. Birth and Train-
ing. ‘Lam a Jewish man, ἃ Tarsian of Cilicia, a
citizen of no mean city (Ac 21") . brought up
at the feet of Gamaliel in this city [Jerusalem |,
trained in the strict way of the law of our fathers,
full from the first (ὑπάρχων) of zeal for God? (229);
‘Whom [serve from my forefathers in a@ pure con-
science’ (2 Ti 15); ‘Ciremmeised on the eighth day,
of the stock of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, a
Hebrew sprung from Hebrews, in respect of the law
a Pharisee, in respect of zeal a persecutor of the
Church, in respect of legal righteousness showing
myself blameless’ (Ph 3°", 2 Co 11%, Ro 41 9511},
Ac 23%); ‘I made proliciency in Judaism beyond
many of my contemporaries, being more extreme
than they in zeal for my ancestral traditions’
(Gal 14, Ac 965) ; at the same time, a ‘Roman’
and so ‘born’ (Ac 22°6-°8, 1057, Thus much we learn
from St. Paul about himself. [On the genuine-
ness of the speeches see art. ACTS OF APOSTLES].
Jerome (de Vir. IMustr. 5; ad Philem. 23), who
knew Palestine, has a tradition that St. Paul was
born at Géschala in Galilee, ‘quo a Romanis capto
cum parentibus suis ‘Tarsum Ciliciee commigravit’ ;
Krenkel (Beitrage 2. Aufhellung d. Geschichte τι.
αἰ. Briefe d. Ap. P. § 1) prefers this story to the
statement of Paul’s Tarsian origin in the Acts,
insisting that a ‘ Hebrew sprung from Hebrews’
signifies one born in Palestine. The above con-
dition was fulfilled, however, if St. Paul's family
retained the native traditions ; and Jerome’s tale,
besides its gross anachronism, is too late and iso-
lated to weigh against that of St. Luke. A modi-
cum of truth there may be in it: Gischala may
have been the old domicile of the family (tradi-
tion is tenacious on this point), which in any case
had emigrated not many generations before Paul's
birth, for it was still ‘Hebrew’ in home - speech
and spirit. Hence Saul is sent in his boyhood
for education to Jerusalem; in later years he
had a ‘sister’s son’ residing there (Ac 23'**). The
Cilician Jews kept up a close connexion with the
mother city, where they appear to have had a
synagogue of their own (Ac 6"); they distinguished
themselves by patriotic bravery in the siege of
Jerusalem. The wealth of Paul’s father we may
fairly infer from the education given him (see
Ramsay, Sf. Paul the Traveller, ete., pp. 31, 310,
312); his occupation as a tent-maker 1s no dis-
proof of this, for well-to-do Jews wisely taught
their sons some handicraft. His mother’s piety
is implied in Gal 14; comp. the sympathetic
allusions of 2 Ti 1° 38".

He was named Saul (Σαῦλος in Acts where spoken
of, Σαούλ where spoken to), presumably after the
hero-king of his tribe (Ac 9! ete., 13! ete.; ef. 13%).
But his Hebrew name (Σαῦλος has, moreover, in
Greek, the ridiculous sense of ‘waddling’) is dis-
placed in Acts by the Roman cognomen Pad
(Παῦλος, Paulus, ‘ little’) from the time the apostle
enters on his wider career and meets Roman
society. With the Heb.-Rom. Sa/-Paul compare
John-Mark (Ac 15°"), Jesus-Justus (Col 4"), also
Flavius-Josephus. The change of name occurs in
Luke’s narrative on the occasion of the conversion
of Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus—a coinci-
dence suggesting to many, after Origen (Comment.

αὐ Rom., prafat.), Jerome (ad Philem. 1: ‘a

primo ecclesize spolio, proconsule Sergio Paulo,
victoria sux trophiea retulit erexitque vexillum’),
Augustine (Confess. vili. 4), that St. Paul took his
apostolic name from this conquest—a proceeding
in bad taste, and on other accounts improbable.
If Paulus was a personal name, it might have been

ae en eee

698 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

due to the bearer’s littleness; Saulos perhaps
suggested it by resemblance of sound (Renan): so
Jesus-Jason, Joseph-Heqesippus, etc. (but these
combinations are Heb.-Greek, not Latin). Others
explain it as an epithet, self-assumed in humil-
ity (ef. 1 Co 15%), or conferred by way of con-
trast with Elymas (Ac 13°°) overcome by the
apostle as Goliath by little David (Lange); or as
derived from a Hebrew root—se. Syp=‘ wrought
(by God),’ or the like. But these conjectures are
needless. With his Roman citizenship Paul in-
herited a Latin name ; and Paulus was a cognomen
not uncommon in Roman families, borne, e.g., by
the great A‘milian gens. What his Roman gentile
name (or nomen proper) and preenomen were, never
appears. ‘The low stature which, according to good
tradition (Acta Pauli et Thecla, 3; see Ramsay’s
Ch. in the Rom. Emp.® p. 32; ef. 2 Co 10! 1),
distinguished Paul, may have been a family trait
suggesting the sobriquet, as in other instances.
The apostle was ‘Paulus’ to Romans, Παῦλος
amongst Greeks, while he was ‘Saul’ to his fellow
Jews and at Jerusalem. As ‘Saul, Saul,’ in his
mother-speech, the voice of Jesus addressed him
(Ac 264), See, further, Ramsay, St. Paul, ete.
p. 811f; and Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 184 ff.

In this apostle, Jew, Greek, and Roman met.
The Jew in him was the foundation of everything
that Paul became. He was ‘Jew’ (Judean in
nationality and education), ‘Israelite’ (in descent
and creed), ‘ Hebrew’ (in language and tradition).
The current Hebrew (1.6. Aramaic) of Palestine
was spoken in his father’s house; and his student
days gave him the mastery of it which enabled
him to address the multitude of Jerusalem in their
vernacular (Ac 22") and to make himself every where
‘to the Jewsasa Jew’ (1Co 959). His OT quotations,
though based on the LXX, oceasionally indicate
the knowledge of the ancient Hebrew which the
pupil of Gamaliel must have possessed. No man
more highly prized the privileges of Israel, or more
fervently believed in its Divine election (Ro 31:3
97-5 11. 153, Ph 37); no man more passionately
loved his Jewish kin (Ro 91 1174) ; none had drunk
more deeply at the springs of OT revelation. As
a Christian and a Gentile apostle Paul claimed to
be the truer Israelite, for he was carrying out ‘the
promise of God to the fathers’ (Ae 13%: 8. 2414, Gal
3714 616 2Co 11, Ro 416-17 94-6 104 158-12); im-
prisoned in pursuance of his calling, he was ‘ wear-
ing this chain for the hope of Israel’ (Ac 26% 7 28”).

Bearing in his Pharisaic youth all the weight of
its yoke, Saul had proved the impotence of the law
as a means of justification before God, and the

hopelessness of Israel’s attempts to win through |

its observance the Messianic salvation (Ac 13%: οὶ
Ro 418-15 75-25 Se οἷ 10: Gal 215. 16 310-25 5 8 1] Ca 1550
ete.). This was the chief gain of Paul’s apprentice-
ship to Mosaism: ‘through law I died to law’;
the law acted as a relentless spur on Saul’s sensi-
tive conscience ; it was his παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστύν,
driving him from itself to the gospel of Jesus even
while, in its fancied interests, he was His perse-
cutor (Ac 901). Thus Paul’s legalistic rearing was
an essential negative preparation for his conversion
and apostleship. But it contributed thereto in a
positive sense. At Rabban Gamaliel’s feet (see
art. GAMALIEL) he learnt much that never left
him. Paul’s theological method and style, and
use of Scripture, are Rabbinical of the purest age.
The most fruitful recent expositions of his teach-
ing (such as Sanday-Headlam’s Romans, Ptleiderer’s
Paulinismus,? and Kabisch’s Eschatologic) draw
their best illustrations from Jewish theology. In
several of his doctrines, notably that of original
sin and of the resurrection (Ac 23-9 9.414. 15 96%), Paul
continued a Pharisee. As against the sceptical,
minimizing Sadducees, his sympathies were always

with his early comrades (Ro 102). He had an
intimate knowledge, both practical and theoretical,
of the ground of the legalistie controversy, on
which he was to play a decisive part. He brought
with him to the Christian camp the resources of a
trained Jewish jurist, a skilled Rabbinical scholar
and disputant. He was the one man qualitied to
effect the transition in doctrine and institutions
from the old faith to the new, to transplant
Christianity, without destroying any of its roots,
from the ancient soil of Judaism into the wide and
rich field ready for it in the Gentile world. This
transition had been virtually effected in his own
conversion to Christ. Hausrath questions the
account in Acts of his studentship under Gamaliel
at Jerusalem (Der Ap. Paulus, i. 3), on the ground
of Gamaliel’s mildness and Paul’s_ severity of
temper ; but Paul was a zealot, Gamaliel a moder-
ate, by temperament.

St. Paul’s education and native bent were strongly
Palestinian and Pharisaic. But he could not help
acquiring knowledge of the broader Hellenizing
theology that had spread from Alexandria amongst
the Greek Diaspora, with which Apollos (Ac 183)
and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews were
imbued. He used freely the Book of Wisdom,
which emanated from this school. In Col 113-29
(written, however, after Paul had met with Apollos)
he shows his mastery of the theosophic specula-
tions of the Alexandrian (and Essenic) Jewish
teachers; and his language appears to indicate
some literary contact with his elder contemporary
Philo (see Lightfoot and Klépper on Col. ad loc:
and Jowett’s Essay on ‘St.” Paul and Philo’ in
his Lpp. of St. Paul). Paul’s use of types and
allegory may have been learnt from his masters
at Jerusalem.

St. Paul's Tarsian birth and Roman citizenship
secured to him an outfit for the Gentile apostleship
such as no mere Palestinian Jew could possess.
When Krenkel (as referred to above) contests the
former point, and Hausrath (op. cit. p. 19), with
Renan and others, the latter, they show undeserved
distrust of the Acts; and they deny to Paul the
status and equipment indispensable for his mission
to the Graeco-Roman world (see Lightf. Bibl. Essays,
iv.). Of his Gentile connexions, along with his
Jewish antecedents, the apostle was thinking when
he spoke of God as ‘having marked me out [for
my life-mission] from my mother’s womb’ (Gal 115).
The Rabbinical student of Jerusalem was first a
Jewish boy in the streets of a heathen city, and
liis home continued to be there (he was certainly

/ absent from Jerusalem during the visits of Jesus).

St. Paul’s insight into the moral working of idol-
atry, and his ready appreciation of Gentile senti-
ment, speak for this. He is everywhere at home
in the synagogues of the Dispersion. In the Greeco-
Asiatic Tarsus (see art. TARSUS) the products of
Zast and West met, ships of all countries lay at
its wharves—a place to stir in an impressionable
child thoughts and dreams of the wide world, and
to impart an instinctive aptitude for mixing with
allsortsof men. In Saul’s nature Greek versatility
was blended with Jewish tenacity.

Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, then incor-
porated in the province of Syria. This city issued
fortunately from the troubles of the Roman civil
wars, receiving the title of metropolis and the
immunities of an urbs Libera (Dio Chrys., Orat. 2;
Pliny, HN v. 27; ef. Ac 21°); it had therefore its
ecclesia, its elective magistrates and local jurisdic-
tion; and Paul's father doubtless held the municipal
along with the imperial franchise. This environ-
ment made Saul a citizen of the world, while he was
a Jewish scholar and devotee. His mental imagery
is not gathered, like that of Jesus, from the fields
and the face of nature; where not borrowed from

᾿

’
,

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 699

the OT, we trace it to the Jewish household and
synagogue within doors, and out of doors to the
streets, the agora, the stadium, the temples, the
tratlie of a Greek seaport town, Such cities Paul
sought by predilection; their society was his
native element. The contact of Jew and Gentile
gave the apostle his point of vantage; and he
found his main constituency in the large circle
of piously disposed men and women of Greek
culture attracted to the Hellenistic synagogues,
Tarsus was at this period a university town of the
highest repute (Strabo, xiv. 10. 13-15; Philos-
tratus, Apollonius, i. 7); it sent out distinguished
professors of the Stoic philosophy, and afterwards
of Roman law. Strict Jewish families held aloof
from the Greek schools, and Paul’s style bears
scarcely any trace of classical discipline; his Greek
is the κοινὴ of the Levantine shores, enriched with
Hebraisms of the LXX and the Synagogue and
adapted to the new Christian ideas with creative
originality. The citations he makes from Greek
authors are of a popular, proverbial stamp (Ac
1723, 1 Co 15*2, ἘΠ"; Passages like 1 Co 1°° and
Col 2° indicate St. Paul’s contempt for the empty
sophistic and meretricious show into which phuilo-
sophy had degenerated. Tarsus was a conspicu-
ous arena for such display, and must often have
witnessed scenes resembling that in which Paul
himself took so ready a part in Athens (Ac i177"),
At the same time St. Paul could not but receive
intellectual stimulus, if only by way of aversion,
from such a theatre of mental activity. His master
Gamaliel is said to have encouraged Greek studies.
Especially when Saul returned home after his con-
version (Ac 9 11%, Gal 151), with his mission to
the heathen definitely in view, we cannot suppose
that he failed to use the facilities afforded by his
native city for studying the Gentile thought of the
day (see Ramsay, δέ. Paul the Traveller, p. 354).
Hisaddress to the Areopagus shows that the apostle,
when he chose, could become a philosopher to the
philosophers. The parallels in thought between
St. Paul’s ethics and those of Seneca and the
Stoies (see the Essay ad rem in Lightfoot’s Philip-
pians) are, however, scarcely closer than may be
accounted for by the Stoical ideas in the air and
by the unconscious sympathy with the nascent
Christian faith existing in high-minded Gentile
thinkers of the age.

In regard to form and expression, it is likely that
Paul learnt something from the schools of liis
native town. ‘In general, the Epp. of St. Paul
stand much nearer to the forms ot the Cynic and
Stoic dictribé, as regards their methods and the
complexion of their speech, than to the involved
Rabbinical dialectic. Recent investigations on the
subject (Wendland u. Kern, Beitrage 2. Geschichte
d. gricch. Philos. u. Relig. pp. 3-75, Philo wu. d.
kynisch-stoische Diatribe) bring this relationship
increasingly into light’: so Heinrici, Vorrede to
1Co in Krit.-cxeg. Kommentar® (Meyer); also
Canon Hicks’ Paper on ‘St. Paul and Hellenism’
in Stud. Bibl. iv.

From Tarsus Paul carried off, if not a scholarly
Greek training, at least his trade of tent-making
(Ac 185. Tarsus was a centre for the manu-
facture of cilicinwm, the coarse goats’ hair fabric
of the district, famed for its durability, of which
shoes, mats, and coverings of all kinds were made ;
and the boy Saul was taught this local handi-
craft. An industry everywhere in demand, this
craft supplied him in his wandering apostleship
with a means of livelihood, laborious and irksome
enough, but adequate for his scanty needs (1 Th
oO) 2'Th 38-20, 1-Co 96:18. ete.).. § These hands,’ as
Paul held them up, rough and black with stitching
at tne hard canvas, told their tale of stern in-
deyendence and self-denial (Ac 20),

Of Roman law Paul had the knowledge qualify-
ing him to exercise his valued rights as a citizen of
the Empire. ‘This discipline contributed to his large
Christian apprehension of ‘Jaw’ as a universal
Divine institute, which has its nearest analogue in
the Roman jus gentium. His prominent doctrine
of Adoption (viobecia) is based upon Graeco-Roman,
not Jewish practice. His conception of the Church
borrowed something from the Roman State as
well as from the Israelite Theocracy (see Eph 21",
Col ΟἿ; Ph 177 3%). Not merely for his own
protection (Ac 16%7 9550) and as a passport to his
message did the apostle pronounce the words
‘Civis Romanus sum’ and ‘Cvresarem appello,’
but with genuine loyalty and with a true sense
for the grandeur and enduring power of the rule
of Rome. ‘We cannot fail to be struck with the
hold which Roman ideas had on the mind of St.
Paul. . . . He had conceived the great idea of
Christianity as the religion of the Roman world ;
and he thought of the various districts and
countries in which he preached as parts of the
grand unity’ (Ramsay, Ch. in the Rom. Emp.*
pp. 147, 148, St. Paul the Trav. pp. 125-127, 135 ;
also Sanday-Headlam, Romans, p. xiv). He had
the Roman genius of the statesman and organizer.
He planted his churches, by preference, in Roman
colonies (Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, Corinth, ete.).
To Rome St. Paul addressed his most studied
and complete Epistle; toward this metropolis of
the world the advance of his mission from Jeru-
salem westwards, for many years previously, had
been directed (Ro 18% 15%”, Ac 1971 23"), Only
when at last he had made his defence and
delivered his message before the Imperial Court,
could the ‘teacher of the Gentiles in faith and
truth’ consider that his ‘ preaching was fulfilled’
and his course finished (1 Ti 2’, 2 Ti 4717). To
the Jewish student and the Greek cosmopolitan in
Paul there was added the Roman gentleman. His
courteous dignity of bearing enabled him worthily
to stand before magistrates and kings (Ac 9! 26,
etc.). He commanded the respect of governors
like Sergius Paulus and Porcius Festus, and the
deference and goodwill of Julius the centurion
in whose charge he voyaged to Rome. There,
too, an ‘ambassador in chains,’ he gained a wide
influence, and his presence greatly stimulated the
Christian cause (Eph 6”, Ph 1% 4", Ac 28%: 91),
Though his prison, Rome was his best vantage-
ground and his adoptive home. It was here that
the apostle arrived, as appears from the Epistles
of the First Captivity, at his loftiest conceptions
of the nature and destiny of the Universal Church.

2. St. Paul's [diosyncrasy.—The ‘striking origin-
ality’ of Paul’s character is ‘due to the fruitful
combination in it of two spiritual forces, which
are seldom found united in this degree in one
personality — dialectical power and religious in-
spiration, or (to borrow Paul’s own language) the
activity of the νοῦς and that of the mvedua’ (A.
Sabatier). Add to these attributes the apostle’s
heart of fire, the glow of passion and imagination
which fused his mystical intuitions and logical
apprehensions into one, his fine sensibility, his
resolute will, his manly sincerity and courage and
woman-like tenderness, his vivacity, subtlety, and
humour, his rich humanity and keen faculty of
moral observation, his adroitness and ready tact, his
genius for organization and inborn power of com-
mand, and the vigorous and creative, though not
facile, gift of expression that supplied the fitting
dress, as original as the thought behind it, with
which his doctrine clothed itself,—all these quali-
ties and powers went to the making of Jesus
Christ’s apostle to the nations, the master-builder
of the universal Church and of Christian theology.

St. Paul’s physical frame appears by no means to

EE a ΒΕ ΒΝ

700 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

have matched the greatness of his soul. Witha
frankness that charms while it pains the reader, he
quotes the taunt of his Corinthian opponents, ‘His
bodily presence is weak, and_ his speech of no
account’; he reproaches those who ‘counted of’
him ‘as though walking according to flesh,’ and
‘had an eye for matters of (bodily) presence,’
judging the lowly apostle by his unimposing
exterior (2 Co 101-10, ‘The barbarians of Lystra
took Barnabas for Zeus, but Paul for Hermes,
comparing the dignified port of the one with the
lively speech of the other traveller. The disad-
vantages of his bodily presence were ageravated
by the effect of his occupation as a journeyman
tentmaker, and of the severe mishandling he had
suffered from time to time on the part of his
persecutors (Gal 617, 2 Co 11%-*6), ~ Yet these
physical disabilities and humiliations became,
through ‘the power of Christ overshadowing’ him,
ἅν new source of spiritual strength (2 Co 118 12% 19),
It was a constant feeling of Paul’s, only heightened
by recent illness, to which he gave expression
in 2Co 475°: ‘We have this treasure in frail
earthen vessels. . . . In this tabernacle we groan,
being burdened ’ (ef. Gal 4!2°46!7). The Acta Pauli
et Thecla, as Ramsay has shown (Ch. in Rom.
Eimp.? xvi.), ‘goes back ultimately to a document
of the Ist cent.’ ; and it thus describes (§$ 3) Paul’s
appearance as he first approaches Iconium : ‘ bald-
headed, bowlegved, strongly built, a man small in
size, With meeting eyebrows, with a rather large
nose, full of grace, for at times he looked like a
man and at times he had the face of an angel,’
‘This plain and unflattering account seems to
embody a very early tradition’ (vp. cit. pp. 31,
32). ‘Lhe lifelike and unconventional figure of
the Roman ivory diptyeh, ‘supposed to date not
later than the 4th cent.’ (Lewin’s Life and Epp.
of St. Paul, Frontispiece, and vol. ii. p. 911)
partly confirms the above description.

St. Paul’s constitution, if somewhat stunted and
sickly, must have been nevertheless of a tough
and stout fibre. His arduous travels, attended for
many years with the double strain of manual
and intellectual labour, above all the catalocue of
his hardships in 2 Co 11, bespeak in him aman of
exceptional vitality and nervous energy. And, in
spite of his uncomeliness, he exerted a rare personal
fascination. ‘Rude in speech’ as he was to a
fastidious Greek ear, his charm of manner and the
incisive force and sympathetic aptness of his
address commanded a hearing from all kinds of

3

assemblies. He could never be listened to with
indifference. His preaching excited warm assent

or contradiction. He set all minds astir and in
debate around him; his presence and discourse
acted like an electric current that drives to Opposite
poles the mingled elements through which it passes
(Ac 13° 144 ete., 2 Co 914-16),

The emotional nature of the apostle counted
for as much in the effects of his eloquence as did
his intellectual powers. His temperament was
choleric and impetuous, his nervous organism
finely strung and quivering with sensibility. There
was nothing in him of the impassive Stoic. His
affections towards his converts were those of a
mother or a lover, rather than of a pastor. He
‘travailed a second time in birth over’ the un-
toward Galatians, ‘till Christ should be formed
in’ them (419; ef. 2 Co 11°, 1 Th 21:8), ‘Now we
live,’ he writes to the Thess., ‘if you stand fast
in the Lord’ (1 Th 3%!°), The attacks of sickness
and the anxieties and disappointments of his
calling threw him at times into paroxysms of
anguish. But his mental buoyancy and elasticity
were equally marked ; his ‘consolation through
Christ’ brought him an exultaney proportioned to
the depth of grief in which he shared ‘the sutfer-

ines of Christ’ (1 Co 23 1531-32, 9 Go ]331 417-11 daa
Col 1°4, Eph 3%, Ph 2!7-18), His letters—esp. 2 Co,
Gal, Ph, 2 Ti—retlect the ardour and quick re-
sponsiveness of the apostle’s feelings, his sudden
alternations of mood, the conflicts of fear and
hope, of affection and indignation, by which his
soul could be torn and tossed. This lively play
of emotion, expressed by look and gesture (e.g.
Ac 13° 14%-4 9034 231-6 961, Gal 31, Ph 3/8) ete.) but
held under the tirm control of judgment, gave a
peculiar animation to Paul’s discourse, which, how-
ever abrupt and unpolished in phrase, was arrest-
ing and affecting in the highest degree. He spoke
from the heart and to the heart. The effectiveness
of his utterance he ascribed to the enerey of the
Spirit of Christ possessing his mind; he was con-
scious of ‘Christ speaking’ in him; a Divine force
‘energized mightily’ through his ‘wrestling’ of
spirit and of speech (2 Co 13°, Col 12°, 1 Th 1°, ete.).
Here was the true secret of St. Paul’s transcendent
power. Before everything else he was a mvevua-
Tikds—a man of the largest spiritual capacity,
filled with the living Spirit of Jesus Christ. If we
must admit a fault, his vehemence was apt to
break out into a heat and haste of temper, mani-
fested occasionally in expressions which he was
disposed afterwards to regret (see Ac 15% 2345;
and perhaps 2 Co 7®%, Gal δ13).

St. Paul shared eminently in the supernatural
experiences and χαρίσματα special to the apostolic
age, as well as in the permanent and normal en-
dowments of the Church. He exercised miraculous
powers of healing and of discipline (Ac 13% 14% 10
1 Co 411 545, 2 Co 13!) though he did not
regard these as the chief ‘signs of the apostle’
(2 Co 1154. 1915:-ὲ 313) He ‘spoke with tongues
more than all, but thought this an interior gift
(1 Co 14°), In ‘visions and revelations of the
Lord’ no one could rival him (2 Co 12'4); he had
been once ‘caught up into paradise, and heard
unspeakable words.’ To Paul the living God, the
Lord Christ, the indwelling Spirit, the unseen
world, were immediate and overwhelming realities.

His thorn in the flesh (or rather, thorn for the

Jlesh, σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί) is connected by himself with

his unique experiences of trance and vision (2 Co
12°), The former served as a kind of counter-
poise to the latter: ‘Because of the excess of the
revelations, that I might not be excessively lifted
up, there was given to me a thorn for my flesh, an
angel of Satan sent to buffet me,—that I might
not be excessively lifted up.’ We gather that this
infliction was bodily in nature, acutely painful
and humiliating, prostrating in eflect, and repeated
in occurrence (ὑπεραίρωμαι and κολαφίξζῃ are both
Greek presents of recurrent action); that it was
also mnysterious in origin, and such as to be fitly
associated with the working of a malignant unseen
power. From the connexion of ν. with the fore-
going context, it appears probable that the out-
break of this malady attended Paul's supreme
vision, ‘fourteen years’ previously to 2 Co (i.e.
about A.D. 43), when in a state of trance (vv.?3)
he was ‘seized and caught up into paradise and
heard unspeakable words.’ The ‘thorn’ attached
itself to this “ὑπερβολή of the revelations’ (cf. Gn
32°31), in which the apostle ‘exults’ as he writes,
and which, he feels, might otherwise have excited
him to an unholy pride; this cruel affliction was
therefore used by God for a merciful end. Hence
the Lord, though thrice besought, did not remove
the evil; He allowed ‘Satan’s angel’ ‘to buttet’
His servant; but He promised grace sufficient for
endurance, and assured the sufferer that ‘power is
perfected in weakness.’ Thus Paul learnt to glory
in this as in other weaknesses and injuries, and
had indeed found himself strongest when nature
was most beaten down (vv.% 19),

PSS =< Σ..:

= oe ἘΣ Φ

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 701

Further light is thrown on St. Paul’s malady by
Gal 4°, for it is probably the same affliction that
we meet with here: ‘In nought did you (Galatians)
wrong me. But you know it was due to an in-
firmity of the flesh that 1 preached to you at that
former time. And your temptation in my flesh
(my physical condition) you did not treat with
contempt nor loathing [lit. did not spit out), but
as an angel of God you received me,—as Christ
Jesus! Where, then, is your self-gratulation ?
For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would
have dug out your eyes and given them me !’
The ‘thorn,’ then, was disabling; it compelled
Paul unexpectedly to halt on his way, and so to
preach to these ‘Galatians’ (but see Ramsay's view
of the circumstances, stated below). Its effects

were such as to excite the scorn and aversion of |

beholders, so that it supplied a severe test of the
candour and generosity of the Galatians who had
witnessed Paul’s abject condition under its inflic-
tion. It may also be inferred, though less certainly
(see Lightfoot, ad loc.), that the complaint, at
least temporarily, affected the patient's eyesight.
The diagnosis excludes—(1) the hypothesis of
spiritual temptations (to pride, blasphemy, ete.,
injectiones Satanw) made current by Luther; and
(2) equally that of carnal incitements, favoured by
medieval and Roman Catholic interpreters in
accordance with the erroneous Latin rendering,
stimulus carnis. (3) Nor could the ‘thorn’ have
signified human opposers, such as the ‘ ministers
of Satan’ ef 2Co 11%; nor the hindrances and
afflictions related in 2 Co 11°) (Chrysostom,
Erasmus, and others). (4) The evidence points to
physical disease of some distressing and distiguring
kind, recurrent at intervals, having its seat in St.
Paul’s nervous constitution and supervening upon
the ecstasy of his ‘visions and revelations’ (so
Ewald, Holsten, v. Hofmann, Klopper, Lightfoot,
Schmiedel, Krenkel). Of known diseases, epilepsy,
or some obscure form of Aysteria, best answers to
these conditions. Krenkel has elaborately dis-
cussed the question in his Beitrage (pp. 47-125),
showing that epilepsy was regarded by the ancients
with peculiar horror as a supernatural visitation,
and often associated with lunacy (Mt 4% 17%),
with which also Paul was taxed (2 Co 5 121'), He
observes, further, that spectators witnessing epi-
leptic attacks used to spit out in superstitious
dread and by way of averting the evil (the morbus
qui sputatur of Plautus’ Captivi, IL iv. 18, and
the despui suctus of Pliny’s HN x. 23 [83])—a
circumstance explaining the οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε of Gal
41, Epileptic seizures taking place in mature life
and at distant intervals are not necessarily fatal
to activity and mental vigour: witness the cases
of Julius Cwsar, Peter the Great, Napoleon L;
the instance of king Alfred (Lightfoot, Galatians,
pp. 183-188) is strikingly parallel in some par-
ticulars to that of Paul. The hypothesis of oph-
thalmia (advanced in Farrar’s St. Paul, vol. 1.
Excursus x.) has its starting-point in Gal 4% ;
it meets some but not all the conditions of the
case. This disease, in the severe form supposed,
damages the eyes to a degree inconsistent with
Paul’s quick observation and powerful gaze. W.
M. Ramsay has recently suggested malarial fever

(comp. Conyb. and Hows. Life and Epp. of St. |

Paul, ch. viii.), which (Ramsay conjectures) at-
tacked Paul in Pamphylia (Ac 134), compelling
Barnabas and himself to seek relief in the bracing
air of the uplands of Asia Minor. ‘To this necessity

Ramsay supposes Paul to refer in Gal 415, on the -

theory that the ‘Galatians’ of the Ep. are the
South Galatians of Antioch, Iconium, ete. (Ch. in
Rom. Emp. iii., St. Paul the Trav. v. 2, and more

all the symptoms of the malady. A Jone and
perilous journey, like that from Perga to Pisidian
Antioch, would scarcely be undertaken in such
‘weakness of the flesh. | Nor is malarial fever
likely to have excited the aversion indicated in
Gal 41, And Mark’s desertion, under these c¢ir-
cumstances, becomes almost incredibly base. The
references of Tertullian, and other early inter.
preters, to violent headache and similar complaints

are in the right direction, but inadequate. They
may be an echo of the earliest tradition. If the

apostle’s liability to nervous disorders supplies
unfriendly critics with a ground on which to dis-
credit his visions and his Divine inspiration, these
disparagements are but a repetition of those made
in his lifetime. The fact that his malady exposed
St. Paul’s apostleship to this reproach, gave a
cruel and piercing sharpness to the ‘thorn.’ So
much the more perfect was the triumph of Christ’s
grace in this deeply wounded man.

3. St. Paul's Conversion.—The interest of St.
Paul’s life centres in his conversion to the faith of
Jesus Christ. The root of his doctrine is also
here. This was the most pregnant event οἵ
apostolic history ; it is more fully related in the
NT than any other outside of the Gospels. It was
one of those lightnine strokes occurring at de-
cisive moments in the advance of revelation, which
precipitate the issue of a long course of previous
spiritual development, and liberate new forces for
operation in some new era of the kingdom of God.
The call of Saul of Tarsus to His service by the
risen Jesus, while it put a last seal, from the hand
of one hitherto His bitter enemy, to the testimony
concerning His resurrection and exaltation (1 Co
15°"), supplied the starting-point for a fresh de-
parture in the dispensation of the gospel (Eph 27,
17Ti 1%). In the soul of the converted Saul a
world-wide revolution lay germinally hidden. In
his mind the Christian principle, the λόγος τοῦ
σταυροῦ, first displayed its full significance ; in him
Christ appropriated that ‘chosen vessel’ through
which His gospel was to work out its largest intel-
lectual and social results, the instrument whereby
the society of Jesus was to be expanded from a
Jewish Messianic sect into the Church of the
nations, coextensive with the Roman Empire and
set on its way to re-create the civilized world.

Saul’s conversion took place in a fashion be-
fitting its historical importance. The passionate
young Pharisee had witnessed with approval the
stoning of Stephen, whose radical and incisive
preaching recalled the tones of Jesus and re-
awakened the deadly fear and hatred of the
Pharisees toward His doctrine. The struggle be-
tween the followers of Jesus and the existing
Judaism, as Saul truly saw, was one of life
and death. The mild policy of his master
Gamaliel had allowed this monstrous imposture,
this proclamation of a crucified Messiah and
pretended Son of God, to make dangerous head-

way. The heresy must be trampled out at any
cost. In this conviction Saul was ‘ breathing

threatening and slaughter against the disciples of
the Lord. He acted ‘ignorantly, in unbelief,’
out of a sincere and uncompromising zeal for God,
and doing violence therein to his kindlier feelings.
The Jewish ecclesiastical leaders found in Saul,
thus disposed, their fit agent in the attempt they
made after the murder of Stephen, and at a
moment when political circumstances gave them a
free hand, to suppress the sect of the Nazarenes.
Saul was travelling to Damascus, commissioned
by the high priest, to bring as prisoners to Jerus.

Vany that he should there find ‘of that way’; he

was nearing the city about noonday, bent on

recently in Hist. Com. on Gal., 1899, p. 422 ff.). | harryine its defenceless Christian flock, when he
This hypothesis, again, agrees with some but not) was arrested by a burst of light ‘surpassing the

702 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

brightness of the sun,’ that encireled his troop.
Out of the blaze there appeared a glorious human
Form, who at his challenge declared Himself to be
‘Jesus, whom thou persecutest!’ The sequel of
the story we need not repeat. It is told three
times in the Acts: once by the historian on his
own account (91:16), and twice as reported from
Paul’s speeches—to the people at Jerus. (228),
and before king Herod Agrippa 11. and Festus at
Cwsarea (26°!) The variation of the three nar-
ratives is interesting as showing how much dif-
ference in descriptive detail was deemed consistent
with identity of fact by a careful writer like St.
Luke. The only real discrepancy lies in St. Paul’s
omission in Ac 26 of the part of Ananias, on which
he naturally dwelt in addressing the Jews (22).
In the later address, speaking more summarily,
he ascribes to Jesus directly, and as though com-
municated at the outset, the revelations consequent
upon ‘the heavenly vision.’ Vvy.!*! of ch. 9 ap-
pear to embody Ananias’ account, which Luke
would be sure to obtain (comp. Lk 1%) if within
his reach. The train of events is most vividly
reproduced in Paul's unfinished speech at Jerus.
(ch. 22), the objectivity of the appearance of Jesus
and the overpowering compulsion that it exercised
upon Saul’s mind being asserted with strong
emphasis (esp. νν.1" 1, Here alone the two
questions addressed by Saul to Jesus are re-
ported. In his speech at Cvesarea the apostle
brings out the startling and complete reversal
etlected in his conduct; to this account we owe
also the statement that Jesus spoke in ‘the
Hebrew language,’ and the significant sentence,
‘It is hard for thee to kick against the goad(s)’
(words which do not belong to the true text of
Ac 9°),

The Epp. furnish many instructive references to
Paul’s conversion. In 1 Co 9! his apostolic office
(resembling that of the Twelve, v.°) is grounded
on the fact that he ‘has seen Jesus our Lord.’
Indeed, Paul claims to be a witness of Christ’s
resurrection in the same sense as were those who
saw Him during the forty days, and the last of such
witnesses, lis birth into faith and apostleship,
notwithstanding its abnormality and his unworthi-
ness, being therefore as valid in itself as it was
justified by its results (1559), In the latter pas-
sage we see the humiliating aspect of St. Paul’s
conversion; in 2 Co 41: and 5!°%, its splendour.
God’s creative fiat bade ‘the illumination of the
knowledge of His glory’ shine through Saul’s
blinded eyes into his dark and bitter heart, ‘in
the face of Christ’ disclosed amid ‘ the glory of that
light’ (Ac 22"). There arose ‘a new creation’
resembling that which attended the word, ‘ Let
there be light.2 Paul was at the same instant
‘reconciled to God’ and received a ‘ministry of
reconciliation’ for the world (2 Co 5! }9), Gal
1/7 shows him intent on proving his independent
apostleship: his knowledge of Jesus Christ and
his commission to preach Him to the Gentiles
were derived, he asserts, at first hand from the
Lord Himself, and at a time when his relations
with the Church at Jerusalem had been only those
of the persecutor. To no human mediation or
indoctrination did he owe his ‘ gospel’ (comp. 1?) ;
‘Jesus Christ’ personally ‘revealed’ it to him
(v.12). The sight of the risen Jesus, allowed to
Saul by the mercy of God, ‘revealed in’ him ‘ the
Son of God,’ his own and the world’s Lord and
Redeemer (vv.}:16). This vision gave Saul the
purport of his message to the Gentiles, impressing
upon this message a special Divine stamp and
authority that raised him above the need and the
wish to ‘confer’ in respect to it ‘with flesh and
blood.’ Hence upon his conversion he did not
follow the natural course of repairing to Jerusalem

in order to seek the recognition and instruction of
the heads of the Church there, but ‘went off inte
Arabia,’ where he remained for some time in com-
parative solitude (vv.!7 38), In this connexion Paul
speaks of the Twelve as ‘the apostles before me,’
since the manner of his call put him on an equality
with them as one commissioned by Jesus Christ
in person ; for he had ‘seen Jesus our Lord’ in
His visible human form, and had ‘ heard’—no mere
spiritual call such as every servant of Christ hears
—pbut ‘a word from His mouth’ (Ac 224). In this
sense he introduces himself to the Romans (11-ὅ) as
‘a bondman of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, one
separated [marked off from others by his call] to
proclaim God’s good news about His Son.’ It is
noticeable that in the Address both of Romans
and Galatians, where Paul reminds himself of the
unique character of his apostleship, he speaks
with emphasis of the resurrection of Christ, for it
was the risen Saviour the sight of whom had
changed everything for him. ‘The glory of that
light’ reflects itself in many passages of St. Paul’s
letters, —2 Th 1°! 25,1 Co 15#-* (‘ the image of the
Heavenly One’), Ro 8'%, 1 Ti 616 9 Tj 110,
and especially Ph 80. 31 (‘the body of His glory’).
Often, and more feelinely as time goes on, he
dilates on the astonishing grace of God that called
him, a violent enemy of the gospel, to be its bearer
to all nations,—Gal 1:5. 4-44 1] Co 15% 19, Eph
oer, dol le etn,

While miraculous in the means that effected it,
Paul’s conversion was no act of violence. There
was an inward preparation for the revelation of
Jesus, which brought to its issue a long struggle
in the nature of Saul, and opened the door of
escape from a moral situation that had become
miserable beyond endurance to the proud and
strict young Pharisee. The words of Jesus, ‘ Hard
is it for thee to kick against the goad(s),’ touched
the secret of the hearer’s heart. The ‘goad’ of
Ac 264 is the paedagogus and prison-keeper of
Gal 3, ‘the law’ of Ro 3. 4. 7 that ‘works out
wrath,’ ‘the power of sin’ of 1 Co 15°°,—that,
good in itself, supplied to sin the instrument by
which it ‘wrought out death’ to Saul, setting his
reason and flesh at internecine war. Fiercely as
Saul attacked the name of the Nazarene, he carried
a more devouring strife within his breast. That
Judaic law which he strove to honour by extir-
pating its contemners, through its impracticable
vet most just demands was meanwhile driving
him, though he knew it not, into their ranks. ἢ
Such was the irony of the situation revealed by this
illuminating word of Jesus. St. Paul’s subsequent
doctrine of the impotence of the moral Jaw as a
means of salvation is the transcript of this experi-
ence. As he rode to Damascus, Saul was labouring
under the painfully suppressed conviction of his
powerlessness, and the powerlessness of his people,
to fulfil the legal righteousness and therefore to
attain the Messianic salvation which depended,
he believed, upon this one condition. This inward
rage made him a more furious persecutor. He
was ‘kicking against’ a ‘ goad’ which wounded his
soul; he was fighting down his secret misgivings
respecting Judaism. Until this moment, however,
Saul had no suspicion that the Nazarenes were
in the right. The crucifixion had falsified the

*The interpretation here given to the words πρὸς κέντρω
λακτίζειν, reads more into the figure than is usual; but this
fuller meaning appears to be forced upon us by -the data of
the Epp., the main doctrines of which are a product and reflex
of the writer's vital experience. Paul's teaching on the Law and
Faith rehearses the process that turned him from a Pharisee
into a Christian. His soul had been pierced and lacerated by
his sense of moral impotence in face of the Law. Like a stupid
beast, Saul knew not whither this incessant goad was driving
him, nor whose was the hand that plied it ; he had struggled in
wild and vain resistance, till the appearance and words of
Jesus explained everything.

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 703

Messianic claims of Jesus; it proved Him a blas-
phemer in calling Himself ‘the Son of God.’ To the
testimony for His resurrection Saul’s mind was as
completely closed, on @ priort grounds, as that of
many able and sincere men to-day. He had never
met Jesus during His earthly life, or he would
have thought of Him differently. (The words of
2 Co 516 signify,’ We have known a carnal Messiah’).
Had Saul so heard or seen Him, this fact would
have aggravated the guilt of his persecution ; and
he would surely have alluded to it in his later
wignant confessions. In the words of 1 Ti 1, ‘not
Rawls (Him),’ he ‘acted in unbelief.’ <A ‘blas-
phemer, persecutor, injurer’ of his Lord, Saul was
an object of pity for this reason; pity, not anger,
spoke in the voice of Jesus. He had not sinned
against the licht. He testifies before Agrippa, ‘I
verily thought with myself that it was my duty
to do many things against the name of Jesus of
Nazareth’ (Ac 909). The speech of Stephen and
the confessions and bearing of the persecuted
Christians, though raising many questions in
Saul’s mind, had not seriously shaken his conviction
of the falsity and banefulness of their doctrine.
Had Saul before his vision of Jesus, as Holsten
and others suppose, been so wrought upon by
contact with his Christian prisoners that he was
half persuaded to join them ; had the predisposition
to faith in the Nazarene grown up within him be-
forehand and seized his heart so strongly, at the
time of his journey to Damascus, that it was ready
upon a nervous shock to project itself in the form
of an apparition,—had such an incipient reverence
for Jesus and a secret attraction to the persecuted
cause arisen in him, the persecutor would have
been disarmed. On the contrary, ‘Saul was
breathing threatening and slaughter against the
disciples of the Lord’ up to the moment of his
arrest ; he acted throughout with a single mind.
Woe mental elements out of which a self-generated
vision of the glorified Jesus might conceivably have
been formed, the material for such a hallucination,
were wanting in him at that period. Instead of
being preoccupied by the reproachful image of
Jesus, Saul was confounded at His appearance, and
the current of his opinions and feelings toward Him
was reversed. He knew himself to be a sinful man ;
but that the crucified Nazarene would be his Saviour
was an idea altogether alien and repugnant to his
thoughts. The knowledge Saul had gained of
Christianity and Christians in the office of a per-
secutor explains the enthusiasm of his revulsion
and the readiness with which he fell into rank when
once he had changed sides, but it does not account
for the interior change itself, which was unique in
its conditions and antecedents, differing from all
transformations of character brought about by
human influences and subjective reflexion. The
latter explanation the apostle formally repudiates
(Gal 111-13). See MeGitiert’s Hist. of Christianity
in the Apost. Age, p. 121 ff.

The conversion of Saul is a psychological and
ethical problem, the solution of which is to be
found only in the actual appearance of Jesus
Christ to his senses on the way to Damascus, as he
believed this to have taken place. Nothing but his
certainty of that appearance could have convinced
lim that Jesus was raised from the dead, and was
therefore the Messiah and the Son of God. Nothing
but the fact itself can, under the circumstances,
fairly account for his certainty. This first vision
is put, by himself and by St. Luke, upon a footing

quite distinct from the other ‘visions and revela- |

tions of the Lord’ about which he glories in 2 Co
12. There was no question in this case as to
whether he was ‘in the body or out of the body.’
The revelation took place in broad daylight, on the
highway, as Saul was journeying with limbs and

senses in full exercise, and his mind intent on a pur-
pose diametrically opposed to the obedience of faith
in Jesus; and some of the phenomena attending it
were sensible to others besides himself. The ablest
attempt to explain the vision of Saul on naturalistic
erounds still remains that made by Holsten in his
Essay entitled ‘Die Christusvision des Paulus’
(Zum Evangelium d. Paulus u. Petrus, 1868); see
also his Das Evang. εἰ. Paulus dargestellt (1880).

For three days Saul remained at Damascus as
aman stunned by a sudden, heavy blow. His
world of thought was turned upside down by the
discovery that ‘this Jesus’ was, after all, ‘the Son
of God.’ A silent and profound revolution was
going on in the persecutor’s breast; God was
‘revealing His Son within’ him. At the end of
this time the penitent was prepared to welcome
Ananias, who gave him the assurance of forgive-
ness and the right hand of Christian fellowship.
By the seal of baptism and the bestowinent of the
Holy Spirit he became a member of the Church ;
and Ananias’ prophecy opened to him the prospect
of his missionary calling. For ‘some days’ he
stayed ‘with the disciples in Damascus,’ and made
public his conversion by ‘immediately proclaiming
in the synagogues that this Jesus is the Son of
God? (Ac 98). Saul felt the need, however, of
retirement to collect his mind after so bewildering
a shock, to think out his new position and the
import of his strange experiences. [Ὁ is thus we un-
derstand the retreat to Arabia, to which the apostle
refers in Gal 188, St. Luke may have omitted
this episode, because it belonged to St. Paul’s
private life; it falls between vv.4-*? of Ac 9. ΜΝ."
relates the simple declaration of faith in Jesus that
followed ‘immediately’ on Paul’s conversion, while
v.42 shows us the apostle in possession of a de-
veloped faith and working out, in the manner to
which we become afterwards accustomed, a sus-
tained and effective proof of the Messiahship of
Jesus: ‘Saul grew the more strong, and con-
founded the Jews that dwelt in Damascus, proving
that this is the Christ.’ From his Arabian medi-
tations he had gathered this new force ; and the
powerful arguments he now brings to bear upon
his old position were the fruit of a prolonged
reflexion.

4. St. Paul’s Missionary Career.—Ac 915. 16 and
2616-18 distinctly state that Saul’s vocation as
Gentile apostle was revealed at the epoch of his
conversion. Gal 1% 16 imphes as much. Saul
went into Arabia with the knowledge that his
ultimate destination was to ‘preach the Son of
God amongst the Gentiles.’ Failure amongst his
fellow-countrymen quickened this conviction. His
Gentile ministry had its root in his first experience
of the grace of Christ. Yet he thought it his duty
to ‘begin from Jerusalem’ ; his witness, he ima-
gined, would be especially convincing amongst his
old comrades ; so that on his escape from the plots
of the Jews against his life in Damascus (2 Co
1155. 3) Saul returned to the Holy City, where ‘he
preached boldly in the name of the Lord ; and he
spake and disputed against the Hellenist Jews ; but
they went about to kill him’ (Ac 9%). It was
then, rather than at any later time, that the
trance befell him in the temple, when the Lord
bade him ‘ Make haste, and get quickly out of
Jerusalem,’ since his testimony was rejected there
and his mission was to lie ‘far hence among the
Gentiles’ (Ac 22'7-1), This vision confirmed Saul's
primary call, and overcame his reluctance to accept
defeat at Jerusalem. He stayed in the city, on
this first visit after his conversion, only ‘fifteen
uays’; and now ‘made the acquaintance of Cephas’
—of him only amongst the apostles—and of ‘James
the Lord’s brother’ (Gal 119). Ac 926% relates
further that ‘Barnabas introduced him to tbe

704 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

apostles’ (the plural is inexact ; Peter and James
represented the Twelve), standing sponsor for him.
‘The disciples” were shy of their old tormentor ;
his disappearance from Damascus and the delay
of his return had probably ageravated their sus-
picions. It did not take long tor Saul’s preaching
to rouse the hatred of the murderers of Stephen,
who looked on him as a traitor. The urgency of
‘the brethren’ seconded the command of the Lord
in the temple vision, and Saul was ‘brought down
to Cwsarea, and sent forth (by ship) to Tarsus.’
Saul had little opportunity during the fortnight to
make acquaintance amongst the Christian com-
munity in and around Jerus.; Sand,’ he says, “1 re-
mained unknown by face to the Churches of Judiea
that are in Christ. Only they heard from time to
time that our former persecutor is now preaching
the faith of which he once made havoc’ (Gal 122-*4),

(v7) With his arrival at Tarsus, in the second or
third year after his conversion (‘after three years,’
Gal 1%, reckoning by years current), St. Paul’s
missionary activity properly begins,—when he
‘came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia’? (v.2)
Cilicia was a dependency of Syria; and Paul here
includes his whole ministry up to the time of the
Jerusalem Council, 2!). This first period, of more
retired and preparatory labour, extended from the
year 37 A.D., or thereabouts, to 44,* when Barnabas
summoned Saul to assist him at Antioch (Ae
11*-**), It was a seven years’ apprenticeship for
the Gentile apostle. The language of Gal 1, and
the reference of Ac 15% to ‘the brethren from
among the Gentiles throughout Cilicia,’ as well as
‘Antioch and Syria,’ imply that numerous Churches
were formed during this period in Saul’s native
province. St. Paul’s work in his homeland, how-
ever, lay outside that main course of the Church’s
development which Luke made it his business to
sketch ; and we have no letters from him to Cilicia.
But these apprentice years served important ends,
in ripening St. Paul’s convictions, maturing his
plans, and giving him mastery of the weapons of
spiritual warfare that he was to ply upon a larger
field. Independently, under no human master, he
learnt his business as a missionary to the heathen,
Over his relations to his family at Tarsus a veil is
drawn ; but it seems unlikely that Paul would have
stayed in this district so long had those relations
been altogether hostile (cf. Ac 231°),

(4) The second stage of St. Paul's ministry begins
with his removal to Antioch under the auspices of
Barnabas, who had been now for some years
superintending the Church of the Syrian capital,
to which he was despatched from Jerusalem under
the circumstances related in Ac 1115. Shortly
before the summons to Antioch, Paul experienced
the extraordinary vision referred to in 2 Co 122-4,
By the side of Barnabas, Saul took a commanding
position in this metropolitan Church, next in im-
portance to that of Jerusalem, planted in the third
city of the Empire, the place where ‘the disciples
were first called Christians.’ Along with Barnabas
he was sent, a year after his arrival, to convey
the alms of the Antiochene Christians to their
needy brethren in Juda, who were threatened by
famine (Ac 1158 When this ‘ministry was
fulfilled, which strengthened the ties binding the
Gentile to their Jewish brethren, the Holy Spirit
singled out ‘Barnabas and Saul’ from amongst
the ‘prophets and teachers’ of Antioch to an
adventurous ‘ work,’ which was, in fact, the setting
on foot of organized Gentile evangelism. With
this step the Church commences the second stage
of her history, that of her expansion through the
Roman Empire; and at ch. 13'3 begins the

* With these and other dates given in this article the reader

may compare art. CHRONOLOGY oF NT, in which in some in-
stances the figures adopted are slightly different.

second half of the Acts of the Apostles, with St.
Paul for its hero, as St. Peter was the hero of
chs. 1-12. The pointed repetition of the definite
expression ‘the work’ at the beginning and at the
end (1450) of the story of this mission, and again in
15° relating to its middle and turning point,—
when one considers St. Luke’s careful choice of lan-
guage, and the absence in 13%: 4 of any explanation
such as he is accustomed to give of eritical changes
in St. Paul’s line of movement (see 955: 90 165-10 | 7H. 15
20°), —leads one to think that the plan of campaign,
at least in its general outline (through Cyprus,
across to Pamphylia, and round by South Galatia
home again), was settled under the direction of the
Spirit before leaving Antioch. Mark deserted,
while his two leaders ‘ fulfilled, the work’ to which
they were ‘delivered by the grace of God.’

On the First Misstonaxy JOURNEY Barnabas
and Saul, with John Mark, Barnabas’ cousin
(Col 410), for their assistant, set sail from Selencia,
landed at Salamis, and traversed the island of
Cyprus from east to west, preaching wherever
Jewish synagogues gave opportunity. At Paphos
the missionaries were invited to speak before
Sergius Paulus the proconsul, a Roman governor
of unusual intelligence and interest in religious
matters. The conversion of this Roman nobleman
was a triumph for the new faith, and a happy
augury for the enterprise of the missionaries, But
it has importance in two further respects: as the
first collision of Christianity upon such an arena
(comp., however, the case of SIMON MaaGus [wh.
see] at Samaria, Ac 8) with the great religious
force of Magianism and Oriental theosophy repre-
sented by Elymas (or Etoimas),—the type of
many such encounters; and secondly, as the
occasion when, before all eyes and in the field of
the Gentile mission, St. Paul’s ascendeney of char-
acter and inspiration asserted itself and a signal
crisis called into exercise his hidden powers. The
judgment upon Bar-Jesus was one of those em-
phatie ‘signs of the apostle’ by which God desig-
nated His chosen instrument. It is at this point,
‘when Saul stands forth by himself and becomes
the principal actor’ (Lewin), that Luke makes the
change in his name (v.°); when the missionary
band set sail from Paphos to Perga of Pamphylia,
the voyagers are described as ‘those about Paul’
(‘ Paul and his company,’ v.1%)—a phrase suggesting
that Paul took the initiative in the measures for
departure from Cyprus. ‘This fact, together with
the hazard and uncertain duration of the tour now
extended to the mainland, may explain the with-
drawal of Barnabas’ kinsman and his return to
Jerusalem. When the matter was discussed at
Perga, it appeared that in South Galatia lay ‘ the
work’ on which the apostles had been ‘sent out
by the Holy Spirit.’ It was not Paul's ‘infirmity
ot the flesh’ (Gal 4!) that forced him and Barnabas
out of their way to visit South Galatia; they
were prosecuting the main object of their journey ;
and Mark was deserting not a sick companion, but
‘the work’ he was pledged to pursue. See, fur-
ther, for the reasons that may have prompted this
desertion, the art. MARK (JOHN).

Hence the travellers made no stay at Perga, but
pushed on rapidly to Pisidian Antioch—‘ the centre
of military and civil administration in the southern
parts of the vast provinee called by the Romans
Galatia’ (Ramsay). If it was St. Barnabas’ predi-
lection that drew the missionaries first to Cyprus
(450. 97 15%), in the occupation of Antioch we may
trace St. Paul’s strategie skill; it was his habit to
strike at the centres of provincial life, wherever in
such cities a Jewish synagogue offered a feothold.
This city commanded the great highroad from
Syria to Ephesus and the west, and was central
for southern Asia Minor. On the journey of a

|

PAUL THE APOSTLE 705

PAUL THE APOSTLE

hundred miles from Perga to Antioch, through
the wild ranges of the Taurus, Paul may well have
met Some of those ‘perils of rivers’ and ‘of robbers’
which he associates in 2 Co 1158, For the route
see Ramsay, Church in Rom. Emp. ii. 2 and map.
At Antioch, and onwards, Paul takes the lead in
speech and action (149: 11). ‘Barnabas and Saul’
set out on the expedition ; ‘Paul and Barnabas’
will return (Ac 13! 152).

St. Paul’s address in the Antioch synagogue
(Ac 131641) holds a place in Ac 13-28 corresponding
to that of St. Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Ac 1-12;
it is a typical specimen of his preaching to Jews of
the Dispersion. As on subsequent occasions, he is
listened to at first with attention, and ‘many of
the Jews and devout proselytes’ are favourably
affected, until ‘on the next Sabbath’ the syna-
gogue is crowded with Gentile hearers, whose
presence excites Jewish rancour. The courage of
the apostles rises with the storm; denied a
further hearing, they solemnly exclaim, ‘ Lo, we
turn to the Gentiles!’ So the inevitable rupture
takes place. The Jewish leaders are enraged to
hear their Messianic hopes and the privileges of
the chosen race extended to heathen ‘dogs,’ and
to see the Gentile frequenters of the synagogue
flocking to the preachers of this scandalous
‘gospel’? and admitted by baptism into their
schismatic ‘congregation.’ They cast about for
means, usually not far to seek, of exciting the city
magistrates, or the mob, against the missionaries,
who appear in the light of disturbers of the public
peace (Ac 17°) and are, in one way or other, be-
tore long expelled, to pass on to the next city,
repeating this experience and finding themselves
not infrequently pursued thither by their previous
assailants. ‘ Perils from’ their ‘countrymen, perils
from the heathen,’ followed immediately on those
‘perils of rivers’ and ‘perils of robbers’ through
which the missionaries had arrived at S. Galatia.
They were hunted in turn from Antioch to Teconium,
and from Iconium to Lystra and Derbe ; and this
was a foretaste of what became with St. Paul the
familiar order of things. Still he persisted in
appealing to ‘the Jew first,’ and made the syna-
eogue in each new city his starting-point. Though
he might win only a handful of his compatriots,
he always found prepared hearers in the proselytes
and Gentile synagogue worshippers, amongst whom
were many pious Greek women of the educated
classes (Ac 174).

Driven from Antioch, the missionaries travelled
(some 80 miles E. by 5.) to Iconium (mod. Aonich),
a flourishing commercial city, with a synagogue,
where, despite persecution, they preached for ‘a
considerable time’ (‘the whole winter,’ thinks Ram-
say) and with much success, till Jewish intrigues
compelled their flight ‘to the cities of Lycaonia,
Lystra and Derbe’ (14:7. The four towns
enumerated lay within the province of Galatia,
and were all places of importance in the Roman
administration,—Antioch and Teconium within
Phrygian, and Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonian
Galatia. Lystra (20 miles S. of Iconium) was,
like Antioch, a colonia, a link in the chain of
fortresses planted by Augustus to secure the
Pisidian and Isaurian frontier. Derbe (50 miles
S.E. of Iconium) was the border town of Galatia
in this direction. Here the Jewish persecution,
organized from Antioch, appears to have ceased.
At Lystra ‘the multitudes,’ who deified Barnabas
and Paul on the healing of the lame man, shouted
‘in the Lycaonian tongue’; but they gave the
visitors the names of Greek gods, and understood
Paul’s Greek speech (142"!), in which we have an
example of his preaching to the simpler sort of
heathen audiences. Throughout the missionaries
kept to the track of Graeco-Roman civilization and

VOL. 111.---45

rule, and Jewish settlement. [t was the local magis-
trates, not the Roman officials, with whom they
‘ame into conflict ; hence it was possible to escape
by moving on,—possible also after a lapse of time,
probably in the new year under new magistrates
(see Ramsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp.’ pp. 70-72), to
return to the cities previously visited. The two
travellers retraced their steps from Derbe to

Antioch, ‘confirming the souls of the disciples’
and ‘appointing elders in every Church ἡ (vyv.**: ~).

At Lystra Paul underwent the single stoning of his
experience (2 Co 11°’), which left on him probably
some of the ‘stigmata of Jesus’ referred to in
Gal 6017, Although no synagogue is mentioned in
Lystra or Derbe, Jews certainly resided in the
former place, or the ‘Jews from Antioch and
Iconium’ could not have stirred up the murder-
ous assault they did. The half-Jewish Timothy
sprang from Lystra (Ac 16! ἢ. Returning home-
wards, Paul and Barnabas ‘spake the word in
Perga,’ and then sailed from the neighbouring
port of Attalia (145::9 to Syrian Antioch. They
had been absent, as Ramsay calculates, above two
years, leaving Antioch in spring and returning in
the third summer or autumn following. Naviga-
tion, and travelling in the interior of Asia Minor,
were possible only from March to October. On
the topography, and the political and social con-
ditions of the regions traversed, Ramsay has
superseded all other authorities (Ch. in Rom.
Emp. ch. ii., and St. Puul the Trav. chs. iv. v.).

Two things were made clear by this experi-
mental mission from Antioch. First, that the
heathen in the Greco-Roman cities were prepared
in large numbers to receive the gospel—‘ God had
opened to the Gentiles a door of faith’ (v.*4.
Secondly (and though Luke does not say this, he
indicates it strongly), Paul was marked out as
chiet of the Gentile mission. With the hour had
arrived the man. At Paphos, Antioch, Lystra—
in speech, action, suftering—Paul had come to the
front by the force of events. God has now put a
broad public seal, known and read of all men,
upon the vocation of which His servant had
been conscious long before. ‘The signs of the
apostle’ subsequently wrought among the Corin-
thians (2 Co 12"- 1%), were plainly visible in St.
Paul through this journey. As they returned to
Antioch, Barnabas surely thought concerning his
companion, ‘ He must increase: I must decrease.’
Accordingly, when after the lapse of ‘no small
time’ (a year or so) the Antiochene Church was
disturbed) by circumeisionists from Jerus., if is
*Paul and Barnabas’ (not ‘ Barnabas and Paul’)
who debate with them ; and ‘ Paul and Barnabas’
are sent to lay the matter before the mother
Church at Jerusalem (151-32. This latter Church,
however, gives Barnabas courteous precedence
(Ac 15); he was the senior man, and its own
delegate.

The most striking evidence of St. Paul’s ascend-
ency is afforded by his own account of the Con-
ference at Jerus. in Gal 91:0 (We assume, with
most scholars, that Gal 91:10 corresponds to Ac
15!" see art. ACTS OF APOSTLES ; also Lightfoot,
Galatians, pp. 122-127; Lipsius in ‘ Handcomm.
z NTY Galat., ad loc.; Harnack, Die Chronol, d.
altchristl. Litteratur, Bd. i. p. 237).* Τὸ Paul
comes the ‘revelation’ directing the deputation
from Antioch. He adopts the bold step of taking
with the party Titus, representing the Gentile
Christians whose status was disputed. He ‘com-
municated to those of repute the gospel’ that, he
says, ‘I preach amongst the Gentiles,’ putting it
to them as the substantial question for decision,
whether he had ‘run in vain.’ If the Gentiles

*Add to these authorities McGiffert’s Christianity tn the
Apostolic Age, p. 208 ff. ; and art. CuroNnoLogy or NT.

706 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

must be circumcised in order to be Christians, St.
Paul's mission is stultified. The ‘Pillars’ now
‘see’ that to Paul is ‘entrusted the gospel of the
uncircumeision, as that of the circumcision to
Peter’; they approve his work as being of God.
Barnabas is duly honoured, and was heartily with
Paul in his contention; but Paul unmistakably
plays the leading part in the negotiations, and the
controversy gathers round his person. He acted
throughout as the responsible head of the Gentile
mission, and was so acknowledged by the elder
chiefs of the Chureh, ΑἸ] this we can understand,
as taking place after the first missionary tour and
the events of Ac 13. 14, which brought Paul to the
forefront and displayed in him powers fully com-
parable to those manifested in Peter’s ministry.
In A.b. 44-46, when Antioch sent relief to the
famine of Jerus., there was no such evidence of
Paul’s supereminent gifts before the Church; nor is
it likely that either Barnabas, or Peter and James,
then regarded him in the light in which he appears
in Gal 2") The historical situation, the occasion
of dispute (viz. the attempt to impose circumcision
on Gentile Christians), and the chief persons con-
cerned in the discussions of Ac 15! and Gal 2!-!9,
are the same. The contrast between the narra-
tives is fairly explained by the fact that St. Luke
gives the public and exterior view of the proceed-
ings as they concerned the Church at large ; St.
Paul, their personal aspect and bearing.

The Council of Ac 15 naturally had its inner
history ; private conferences paved the way for
the public settlement. In complicated and deli-
cate affairs of this sort very different representa-
tions may be equally true. ‘The two accounts ad-
mirably complete each other. . . . The discrep-
ancies can, for the most part, be explained simply
from the difference of the standpoint of the
relaters’ (Pileiderer, /1/46. Lect. 1885, on ‘The In-
fluence of the Apostle Paul,’ p. 193): see, however,
chs. 111. and vil. of Ramsay's St. Paul the Trav.,
where the coincidence of the second visit of Paul in
Gal with the second in Ac (11. 12) is vigorously
but not convincingly maintained. Luke gives no
hint at the earher juncture of the momentous con-
troversy of Gal 2, for which, indeed, the occasion
arose only after the joint mission of Barnabas and
Paul to S. Galatia, when mere Gentiles were
received in large bodies into the Church (see
Hort’s Jud. Christianity, pp. 64-67) : the Jerus.
Church was occupied in Δ... 44-46 with the
famine and the Herodian persecution ; for Paul to
have raised the question of his apostolic status
then would have been premature and. ofticious.
Paul ignores in Galatians the second visit to Jerus.,
because it was devoted to the specific business
stated by Luke, and nothing arose out of it
affecting his relations with the first apostles or his
own apostleship (see Lightf. Ga/., note appended
to ch. ii.) Returning trom Jerus. at that time,
Saul resumed his place among the ‘ prophets and
teachers’ of the Church of Antioch (Ae 13!).

The second stage of Paul’s ministry culminates
with the Council at Jerus., which gave validity
to Gentile Christianity and St. Paul’s plenary
apostleship, now attested by God in the sue-
cesses of the first missionary journey.

(ὦ) The third period of Paul's ministry is signal-
ized by the extension of his mission to Europe,
and by the writing of his earliest apostolic letters
(1 and 2 Th). The history of the Seconpd Mris-
SIONARY JOURNEY is contained in Ac 15°18”.
It begins with the rupture between Paul and
Barnabas, occasioned by Paul's refusal of the com-
panionship of Mark (to whom in the end he was
reconciled : Philem™, Col 4, 2 Ti 44), but of
which a deeper cause lay in the changed relations
of the twoleaders. Paul must now go his own way.

He proceeds to the mission field in Asia Minor,
taking for his associate Silas (or Si/vanus), one of
the two delegates sent from Jerus. to accompan
Barnabas and Paul on their return to Antioch
(AG 15222). osulas,. dike: Pauls. wasecas eh ebrew.
of Latin name and Roman citizenship (16°7),—a
‘prophet,’ moreover, and a ‘leading man’ in
the Jerus. Church, He accompanied Paul only for
this journey. Much later, we find him acting as
St. Peter’s secretary (1 P 5). Silas and Mark
were important links between the Apostles Paul
and Peter, and between the Judeean Church and
the Gentile mission. Paul and Silas journeyed by
road, through the Cilician Gates, to S. Galatia,
wriving first at Derbe, then at Lystra. At Lystra
Paul enlisted young Timotheus, possibly to fill
the place of Mark as assistant to himself and Silas.
He tirst, however, ‘circumcised him,’ since he was
the son of a Jewess, to avoid scandalizine the
Jews (Ac 1614), At each place Paul and Silas de-
livered the resolutions of the Council of Jerus,
(i159), which were received everywhere (15%
16**°) with lively satisfaction. They effected their
immediate purpose of composing the Judieo-Gentile
Churches and putting a stop to the legalistic
agitation. The circumcision of Timothy was
another conciliatory step on St. Paul's part (see
Hort’s Jud. Christianity, pp. 84-87). The line of
Churches between the two Antiochs were now
becoming ‘solidly established in the faith, and
they were increasing in number daily.’

Ac 16° brings us to the turning point of the
second missionary Journey, and to a critical moment
in Paul’s career. St. Luke is pressing forward to
the Macedonian mission, and sketches intervening
movements less distinctly than his wont, in the
long and somewhat awkward sentence of νν. 8,
We gather that St. Paul's plan had been, after the
visitation of the S. Galatian Churches now com-
pleted, to push on westwards along the great
highway to Ephesus, the chief city of Asia Minor
and the stepping-stone to Greece and Rome. But
the travellers were ‘ forbidden by the Holy Spirit
to speak the word in Asia’ (the Roman province of
that name, with Ephesus for its capital). When
afterwards, ‘having come over against Mysia,’
much farther north, ‘they were trying to enter
Bithynia,’ ‘the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.’
They were thus compelled finally to make for
Troas, where the vision appeared which sum-
moned Paul to the help of the Macedonians. This
was a great and pregnant movement in apostolie
history—the step which carried Paul and Silas
across the A¢gean ; other events of the time were
of importance, in Luke’s view, only as leading up
to this. Three distinct Divine interpositions
occurred, forcing Paul and his companions upon a
venture quite unanticipated by themselves.

But how are we to construe the first clause of
v."—aecording to the critical text its principal
and governing sentence, ‘ But they passed through
the Phrygian and Galatian country, having been
(1.6. since they were) forbidden® by the Holy Spirit
to speak the word in Asia’? (διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν
καὶ Ταλατικὴν χώραν, κωλυθέντες x.7.d.). Ramsay
(who has reinforced with powerful arguments the
theory held by Mynster, Perrot, Renan, Hausrath,
Weizsiicker, that Paul never entered N. Galatia,
and that the Galatians of his Ep. are the people of
the Phrygian and Lycaonian Churches founded on

* Ramsay prefers the reading of the TR, διελθόντες z.7.A., Which
he interprets as resumptive of vv.45, thus detaching zwAv-
θέντες from the foregoing clause. Even with the reading διῆλθον
δέ, it is maintained that zwrviivres . . . ᾿Ασίᾳ conveys a distinct
predication, not explaining the διελήεῖν, but supplementing it
and stating the next occurrence (see, besides Ramsay as below,
Askwith’s Destination and Date of the Ep. to the Gal., ch. iu.).
With the given arrangement of words, this construction at the
best is artificial.

4 = ba cal re

alt ah

=

x

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 704

the first tour) argues that ‘the Phrygian and | Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples,’

Galatian region’ of this passage is simply the
Phrygo- Galatian district extending from: Teonium
to Antioch traversed before, and “that Paul and
Silas journeyed in a direct line, and with no con-
siderable delay, from this region to Troas. — It
seems to be clear, on the other hand, that v.®
concludes the account of St. Paul’s visitation of
S. Galatia, and that v.° relates lis setting out ona
new campaign. Forbidden to preach in Asia, the
missionaries moved in another direction ; and ‘the
Phrygian and Galatian region? is Luke's definition
of the fresh field upon which they now enter.
Here St. Luke first employs the word Galation,

although the travellers have been within the
Roman province of that mame since arriving at
Derbe, for the cities of Asia Minor evaneelized

on the first tour all lay (as Ramsay has decisively
proved) within its bounds. We naturally look for

this new ‘Galatian region’ in Galatia proper or
N. Galatia, the western part of which, with

Pessinus for its centre, marched with Phrygia
not far to the east of the direct way from Antioch
to Troas. The presumption from Greek usage is
that τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Ἰϊαλατικὴν χώραν signilies two
adjoining districts coupled together, rather than
one district known by two different names (comp.
Ae 27°, Lk 3!, 1 Th 18), and that the co-ordinate
‘Phrygian’ and ‘Galatian’ are used in the same
sense (the former efhnic, and so therefore the
latter). Emerging from N.W. Galatia, the travel-
lers would find themselves (v.") close to Bithynia
on the north, and with Mysia presenting itself on
the west. V.° thus fills in the geographical space
between νυν. and 7, and defines the’ tract, first
Phrygian in population then Galatian, which
separated Bithynia from St. Paul's old mission
field.* (On the question of N. τὶ S. Galatia see,
in addition to writers mentioned before, Lightf.
ἐρ αένανις, Introd.; Ramsay's Ch. in Lom. oT.
chs. ili.—vi., St. Paud the Trav. chs. v., vi., vili., ix.,
Studia Biblica, iV. ii., and art. Ὁ ALATIA in eee
Dictionary ; Chase in the Hapositor, Iv. viii. 401,
ix. 314, 331, with Ramsay’s replies; Gifford, ἐδ.
Iv. x. 1; Zockler, SA, 1894, pp. 51-102 ; Schiirer,
Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1892, p. 471; Crit. Revicw,
ΠΙ. [1893] 356: Lipsius, ‘ Handcom.,’ Galat., Kin-
leitune). The verb διῆλθον (16°) connotes ἃ ‘ mis-
slonary progress’ (S¢. Paul the Trav. p. 384); and
when Paul revisits this district on his third journey
(1839), he ‘travels through the Galatian region and

* The writer is now (1900) inclined to Ramsay’s construction
οὗ τὴν Φρυγ. z. Γαλατ. χώραν as denoting the Phrygo-Galatian
{he would prefer to say, Galatic-Phrygian] region ; but unless
this phrase had an accepted political limitation, of which there
is no evidence, it covered presumably the west of the province of
Galatia generally, the whole of which was (in the substratum
of its population) Phrygian ethnically and Galatian politically.
Even in the N.W., as Ramsay intimates, the Galate were never
more thana ruling clan. On this modified view, it would appear
that Paul and Silas, when forbidden to preach ‘in Asia,’ moved
northwards from the field of the earlier mission, confining them-
selves still to Phrygia Galatica where they were allowed to ‘speak
the word,’ and avoiding Phrygia Asiana which they had been
previously on the point of entering (τῇ ᾿Α σίᾳ is thus seen to be
antithetical to τὴν... Γαλατικὴν χώραν). Taking this course
and marching within the eastern side of the border-line separ-
ating the two provinces, which parted Phrygia between them,
the apostles arrived at the N.W. corner of Galatia, with
Bithynia fronting them, and Mysia flanking them at some
distance to the west. Here, once more, their course was
supernaturally diverted—from north to west, as previously from
west to north—and ‘passing over Mysia’ (a part of Asta, where
they had been ‘forbidden to speak the word’) they reached the
sea at Troas. Paul and Silas thus traversed, in west central
Galatia, a wild and desolate country ; but this route was forced
upon them, and Paul ‘would not be "deterred by rough or un-
frequented paths’ (Ltft.). There must have been at this time
regular communication between the S.W. and N. of the great
Galatian province. The view followed in this note gives a good
sense to Ac 1823, dispycusvos . . . τ. Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ bpuyiny,
which means, in this light, ‘traversing the (above-mentioned)
Galatian region and Ph ygta? at large—not the Galatian part of
it alone, to which Paul’s travels had been specifically limited on
the Second Journey.

the last clause implying that on the ground sa
lightly passed over in 16° considerable time had
been spent and many souls won for Christ. ΤῸ
this second journey the origin of the Galatian
Churches, addressed in Paul's great Kp. of that
name, has been generally referred, its interpreters
sceing in the recipients Galatians by race,* in-
habitants of the north (preferably the ΝΟΥ) of
the great Roman province of Cailatia. Paul made
acquaintance with his ‘Galatians’? unexpectedly,
when compelled by illness to seek their hospitality
and so to give them the gospel (Gal 4!""), Twice
during this Journey he was turned aside from his
purpose by the voice of the Holy Spirit; it ap-
pears that the hand of God was further laid on
him, in the shape of disabling sickness, obliging
him to halt in this out-of-the-way district, which

he had meant to traverse without lingering. God
was giving to His strong-willed servant a hard
schooling in submission. [Ὁ may have been

Bithynia that Paul and Silas were makine for
when thus checked; or it may have been (accord-
ing to Paul’s wont) Ancyra, the capital of the Gal-
atian province, already evangelized in its southern
part. In any case, the Galatians, with whom he
now tarried, received the infirm apostle with
enthusinsm, and he made numerous and attached
converts amongst them, the objects of his warm
affection but anxious solicitude.

If other reasons besides the writer’s eagerness to
bring us to Macedonia are required to account for
the silence of Acts about the Galatians of the Ep.,
the fact that the N. Galatian mission was a paren-
thesis in Paul’s work and lay off the main line of
missionary progress may ac count for the slightness
of St. Luke's references thereto; and the defection
feared may have made the apostle’ s work there, to
a large extent, a labour lost.

It was at Troas that St. Luke met St. Paul and
joined his company (Ramsay conjectures Luke him-
self to have been the ‘ Macedonian man’ of Ac 16":
St. Paul the Trav. ix. 3); and at Philippi Luke
stayed, being found there when Paul revisited that
town. (The ‘we’ of the Acts continues from 16!” to
16!7, to be resumed at 20% ἡ. The ‘vision’ may have
prepared St. Paul for St. Luke’s invitation to Mace-
donia (Ramsay, as above), as St. Peter was prepared
at Joppa for the summons of Cornelius. Philippi
was an important Romancolony, withasmallJewish
settlement worshipping at an open-air proseuché by
the river-side. Amone ‘the women who assembled’
there Paul and Silas found their first hearers, and in
the proselyte Lydia their first European convert
and their hostess (νν. 19:15. Women played a lead-
ing part in this Church from the outset (Ph 4!*).
The missionaries had preached at the proseuché for
some time, when their work was stopped by the
accusation brought against them by the masters of
a fortune-telling, ventriloquist slave-¢irl from
whom ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ they had
exorcized the evil spirit (vv.035). This attack
was one of Paul’s many ‘perils from the heathen.’
The gospel damaged the vested interests of
idolatry ; ; and those who saw ‘the hope of their
gain’ end: meered attacked its preachers through
the passions of the populace—at Ephesus subse-
quently as despisers of ‘the great goddess,” at
Philippi as ‘Jews’? who brought in’ ‘ custcms
illegal for Romans’ and aflronting their pride
(vv.2% 1). In this colonia Paul suffered one of the
three beatings with (Roman) rods that he recounts
in 2Co 11%. The scenes attending his impriscn-

* This assumption as to the race of Paul's ὁ Galatians’ is modi-
fied by the later note above. It is still maintained that in
locality and origin the Churches in question are distinct trom
those of δ. Galatia, which were founded upon the First Journey

and owed allegiance not to Paul alone, but to Paul and Barnabas
jointly.

708 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

ment here along with Silas, form one of the
most stirring and most graphic episodes in the
Acts.

St. Panl’s campaign in Macedonia was one of
a‘vere conflict, but signal suecess. The mission-
ailes entered Thessalonica (now Saloniki), the
capital of Macedonia, full of vigour and hope (1 Th
15. 2! *). Next to Syrian Antioch, this city was
the most important which Paul had so far reached,
being the chief emporium of the Thracian peninsula
and the seat of Roman administration, containing
also a large and influential synagogue. Once
planted at Thessalonica, ‘the word of the Lord
sounded out’ far and wide; the gospel was adver-
tised through the whole of Macedonia and Achaia
(1 Th 1%). St. Paul’s experience here resembled
that at Pisidian Antioch (Ac 17.190), At this loyal
imperial capital, however, the attack on Chris-
tianity takes a new form, reminding us of the
charge against Jesus before Pilate. The preachers
are accused of sedition, of ‘setting up another
king, Jesus.” The emphasis which Paul laid at
this time upon the doctrines of ‘the kingdom
of God? and the parousia Jent colour to. this
dangerous impeachment. Paul left Thessalonica
for Bercea with his work unfinished, and firmly
resolved to return soon (1 Th 2! 18 31°); he had
a peculiar aflection for his converts here (as at
Philippi), and a strong sense of the importance of
the position won in this city. But he had to be
content with sending Timothy from Athens in his
place; and it was only on Timothy’s return (who
found the apostle removed to Corinth, Ac 18°)
that his anxiety was relieved. St. Luke’s account
throws at this point a further light on St. Paul's
method of argument with Jews: ‘He discoursed
to them from the Seriptures, expounding and
explaining [1] that the Christ should suffer, and
[2] should rise from the dead, and [3] that ¢his
ts the Christ, this Jesus whom I proclaim to
you. Up to the last point (reached on the third
Sabbath?) the Jews listened with tolerance—to the
general doctrine of a suffering and rising Messiah;
the critical moment came when this Christ was
identified with the crucified Nazarene.

The synagogue of Berca received the gospel
with rare candour; a Chureh was quickly formed,
including ‘many’ Jews; everything went well,
until Jews from Thessalonica arrived to stir up
the heathen multitude against the apostles. The
danger to St. Paul's life must have been great,
for he was sent by sea right out of the country
and escorted all the way to Athens (17!°9), This
deadly persecution by the Thessalonian Jews justi-
fies the anger he expresses in 1 Th 2'4-16,

At Athens, the city of philosophers but ‘full of
idols,’ things take a different course. Paul is hailed
as a wandering lecturer upon some curious form of
religious speculation, and is brought by ‘certain of
the Stoics and Epicureans’ before the court (not
up on the Az//) of the Areopagus, which was charged
with the oversight of public teaching in the city.
The profound and earnest discourse reported in
Ac 17***!_which leads up from the general truth,
then widely accepted, of God’s spiritual nature
and fatherly relation to men, to the proclamation
of Christ’s coming in judgment and the resur-
rection of the dead—made no decided impression
on this audience. A single Areopagite accepted
the faith, with a few other persons (17%), but no
considerable Church could be gathered ; and Paul
went on to Corinth (on ‘Paul at Athens,’ see
especially Ramsay’s St. Paul the Trav. xi. 1-3).
Silas’ movements at this time cannot be traced
with certainty: probably he followed Paul to
Athens, alone with Timothy (Ac 17%), and was
separately, and a little later (1 Th 312, ‘we sent
Timothy’), despatched from that place—se. to

ey
Philippi or Berca, journeying with Timothy back
from Macedonia to rejoin the apostle (Ac 18°).

Paul reached Corinth alone, ‘in weakness, and in
fear, and in much trembling’ (1 Co 2?)—-a condition
due partly to sickness, but partly, one thinks, te
his small success at Athens and his distress about
the Thessalonians. The elation of his Macedonian
mission was followed by a period of dejection.
He gained, however, at the outset a couple of fast
friends in Aquila and Priscilla, recently driven
from Rome through the emperor Claudius’ decree
of expulsion against the Jews. Their acquaintance
turned his thoughts more definitely to that city,
which at Corinth came into Paul's nearer view.
St. Paul’s opening addresses in this synagogue were
received with favour both by ‘Jews and Greeks’
(Ac 181-4), until after some weeks, on the arrival of
Silas and Timothy with cheering news from Mace-
donia, he proclaimed in its full scope, and with
renewed energy, the Messiahship of Jesus and ‘the
word of the cross’ (Ac 18°°8, 1 Co 13-52%), At this
the Jews were scandalized, and an angry separation
ensued, Paul occupied the house of a converted
proselyte, Titius Justus—judging from his name,
a Roman citizen of the colonia—close to the syna-
goeue ; the ruler of the synagogue followed him.
When he tells the Corinthian brethren that there
were ‘not many Wise, mighty, highborn’ amongst
them, it is evident that some persons of distinetion
and eulture attached themselves to this Church
(cf. Ro 165}.

The Corinthian Church shone by its intellectual
gifts and variety of talent. Its constituency was
drawn from the lowest as well as the higher walks
of life. On this rank soil, in the metropolis of
Greek vice, a Christianity sprang up of abounding
vitality, but rite with seeds of strife and corruption
(1.Go 1° Ὁ 2.Co 107". -ete.), In Corinth ae
Jews had no popular influence, and Paul was able
to stay for eighteen months. He was encouraged
by a vision assuring him of personal safety and
of a rich harvest of souls (Ac 18%). Paul ex.
perienced at Corinth the full benefit of the pro-
tection of Roman law. The proconsul Gallio,
known through his brother Seneca as an amiable
and Jarge-minded man, dismissed contemptuously
the charge of illegal action brought by the Jews
against Paul, and winked at the beating there-
upon given to the accuser by the Greek bystanders
(νν.15: 1. In no other great city, with the excep-
tion of Syrian Antioch, did the apostolic Church
experience so little persecution.

The date of the FIRST HPISTLE TO THE THESS.
is determined by comparison of 1 Th 3° and Ac 18
as falling within the first period of St. Paul’s so-
journ at Corinth, within six months probably of
his leaving Thessalonica. The SECOND EPISTLE
followed speedily after the First ; for it deals with
the same situation, aggravated in some particulars,
and corrects a misapprehension due in part to mis-
understanding or perversion of the First (2 Th 2").
These two Epp., with the Address at Athens and
the allusions of 1 Co, show the prominence of the
doctrine of the Last Things in St. Paul’s teaching
at this epoch. Though his specific doctrine of the
Cross is only once alluded to in the Thess. letters
(1 Th δ9: 10), the Epp. to Corinth and Galatia prove,
by their references to his preaching on the second
journey (1 Co 2! 3, Gal 3}, ete.), that this was his
central theme throughout.

The course of the Second Journey, possibly,
throws some light upon the obscure figure of ‘the
man of lawlessness’ in 2'Th 2. Many indications
point to the apostle’s interested study of the Roman
Empire and its relations to the kingdom of Christ.
The majesty and equity of Roman law, the ability
of Roman administration, the unity and peace
which Roman rule gave to the civilized world,

--- τ

....ὄ. - τατος

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 709

Paul appreciated ; they had created the field for
his great work. He saw in the Roman magistrate
‘the restrainer’ of evil forces that might have
erushed the Church in its infancy. But there was
one feature in the Roman system that must have
stirred his extreme abhorrence—the Casar-worship
then rapidly spreading in the provinces, which
was becoming, in fact, the religion of the Empire.
This development of imperial autocracy was, in
principle, quite distinct trom the authority of the
State, and could be regarded by Paul only as the
climax of lawlessness. The attempt of Caligula,
in the year 39, to place his statue in the temple at
Jerusalem had horrified the Jewish world; the
blasphemous freaks of this Cresar were probably in
the apostle’s mind when he wrote 2 Th 24 In
their progress through Asia Minor the missionaries
were confronted with multiplied signs of the
imperial religion; not improbably they passed, 6.6.»
through Pergamum (marked out in Rev 915 as the
place ‘where Satan dwelleth’), where stood the
Augusteium, in which the godhead of the Divus
Augustus was honoured by a splendid cultus re-
nowned through the peninsula. Such observations
gave a sharper edge to St. Paul’s conception of ‘the
kingdom’; and his reflexions upon this antithesis
may well have affected his language in such a way
as to lend colour to the charge made against him
at Thessalonica (Ac 1778). On this subject he had
spoken more freely than he ventures to write (2 Th
2°), The OT forecasts of Antichrist, combined
with the contemporary deification of the Caesars,
supply the material for the image of the ἀντικείμενος
of 2 Th. This same Ciesar-worship inspired the
hatred of Rome which burns through the Apoca-
lypse. St. Paul and St. John, with profound
insight, discerned in this cult the true rival of
Christianity among the forces of the time; the
numen of Cresar, as the great martyrdoms proved,
was the crucial alternative to that of Jesus. Anti-
christ was latent in the world-god of the Palatine.

In his progress westwards Paul was increasingly
attracted, yet repelled, at each step by the gran-
deur of Rome. ‘The second missionary tour was
the time of the apostle’s boldest enterprises, his
largest conquests. In a single march the gospel
was carried over more than half the breadth of the
astern Roman Empire, and Corinth was brought
into fellowship with Jerusalem. But these rapid
successes In Galatia and Corinth prepared for the
apostle his greatest sorrows.

The second tour, occupying scarcely less than
three years, closed with Paul’s voyage to Cisarea
for Jerusalem. On the way he called at Ephesus,
where he left Priscilla and Aquila, promising to
return. This fourth visit to Jerusalem was of the
briefest. At Antioch he spent ‘some time’—an
expression probably covering the ensuing winter.

(αὶ Tue THrrp MISSIONARY JOURNEY com-
menced with the spring, when St. Paul set out for
‘the Galatian region and Phrygia,’ accompanied
by Timothy (Ac δ, During the interval
between the second and third journeys we place

(with Neander, Wieseler, A. Sabatier) St. Peter’s |

visit to Antioch and collision with St. Paul, re-
lated in Gal 24-1, The defeat of Ac 15 must have
arrested the Judaistic movement for the time ; nor
is St. Peter, to say nothing of St. Barnabas, likely
at once to have stultified his action at the Council.
The Epp. to the Thess, give no indication that St.
Paul’s mind was disturbed during his first mission
in Europe by controversy with the legalists, as it
could hardly fail to have been if the settlement
made at Jerus. had been already jJeoparded by
‘the dissimulation’ of Peter and Barnabas and
the renewed activity of the ψευδάδελῴφοι παρείσακτοι.
The proceedings of the ‘certain from James’ at the
time of St. Peter’s visit to Antioch amounted to

‘a regular declaration of war,’ a renewal of the
strugele between the principle of Jewish privilege
and Christian universalism. ‘This conflict, break-
ing out in Antioch, spread rapidly over the field
of St. Paul’s mission and raged bitterly in the
Galatian and Corinthian Churches, where emis-
saries from Jerus. appeared on the same errand as
those who had ‘carried away’ the Jewish Christians
of Antioch. ‘Evidently, the apostle had quitted
Jerus. (after the Council of Ac 15 and the under-
standing with the ‘ Pillars”) and proceeded to his
second Missionary Journey full of satisfaction at
the victory he had gained and free from anxiety
for the future. The decisive moment of the crisis
necessarily falls between the Thess. and Gal. Epp.
What had happened meanwhile? The violent dis-
cussion with St. Peter at Antioch, and all that the
recital of this incident reveals to us,—the arrival
of the emissaries from St. James in the Gentile
Christian circle, and the countermission organized
to rectify the work of St. Paul. A new situation
suddenly presents itself to the apostle on his return
from the second Missionary Journey’ (Sabatier,
The Apostle Paul, pp. 10, 11, also 124-136). The
Judaizers had recovered from the shock of their
former overthrow; and the enormous accessions
to the Church from heathenism were threatening
to overwhelm them. They determined on a new
and more artful attempt to capture the Gentile
Churches. They did not now, as before, bluntly
insist that circumcision was necessary to salvation
(Ac 15'). But they maintained that the law of
God created an indelible distinction between the
circumcised Israelite and all others, and that this
separation was guarded by the Levitical ordinances
respecting meats. While the Messiah was the
Saviour of all men, there belonged to His own
people, with the apostles whom He chose from
amongst them, an inalienable primacy. Only
through circumcision and conformity to the sacred
ordinances could Gentile believers become the legiti-
mate heirs of faithful Abraham, and enter into all
the blessedness of the kingdom of God. Such was
the theory of the new Judaizers, as we gather it
from St. Paul’s polemic against them. They no
longer denied the Christian status of uncircumcised
believers in Christ, bat they vindicated a higher
status for the circumcised. Thus Peter and Bar-
nabas, in withdrawing from the common Church
table at Antioch under the pressure of these men,
virtually ‘compelled the Gentiles to Judaize® ; for
only, it seemed, on this condition would the latter
be in communion with Jewish believers and be re-
cognized as Christians in the fullest sense. ‘The
decrees’ of the Jerus. Council, though certainly
not designed for this purpose, and not correspond-
ing (as it has often been alleged) to the ‘Seven Com-
mandments of the Sons of Noah’ imposed on the
ger toshabh or sebomenos (Hort, Jud. Christianity,
pp. 68-76), might with a little ingenuity be con-
strued in favour of the distinction now alleged,
as though they placed Gentile Christians on a
footing resembling that of prosclytes to Judaism. ἢ
The law was brought in again to complete the
work of the gospel ; and those who had ‘ begun in
the spirit’ were to be ‘perfected by the flesh’
(Gal 3°).

While the legalists sought in this way to foist
Judaism upon the Pauline Churches, they equally
strove to destroy the influence of the Apostle Paul.
They came forward as the authorized representa-
tives of the chiefs at Jerus., and showed ‘ letters of
commendation’ to this effeet (Gal 915, 2 Co 81) ; in
their nanie they assumed to correct the imperfect
doctrine of aul, and to claim the allegiance of

* Such abuse of the δόγματα by the Judaizers best explains

St. Paul's silence respecting them, and their disappearance after
Ac 164 (see, however, 2150).

ree!

710 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

all believers for the mother Church. Paul, they
asserted, had no knowledge of Jesus Christ and
no authority to preach Him, beyond what he had
received from Peter and the Twelve. Amonest
other proofs of this, they even argued at Corinth
that his declining to receive a stipend betrayed
the consciousness of inferior right. With these un-
scrupulous opponents Paul was in conflict through-
out the third tour. At the outset he had warned
his Galatian converts against the seducers who
were following on his track (Gal 1" 5°; ef. Ae 18%),
His opponents anticipated his arrival at Corinth ;
from Corinth he writes to Rome, expecting that
they will carry the agitation there and may pre-
possess the Roman Church against him. If these
men were really supported, as they alleged, by the
responsible heads of the Jewish Church, St. Paul’s
position was almost untenable; but the studious
respect shown in the Epp. of this period for the
‘Pillars’ indicates his contidence in their loyalty
to the fellowship established between himself and
them (Gal 29: 10). The failure of the attack on St.
Pants apostleship goes far to prove that there was
no schism between him and the Twelve.

This fourth period, therefore, of St. Paul's
ministry is distinguished as the period of his
strugele with the Judaistic reaction in the Church,
and of the four ereat evangelical Epistles which
were its outcome. The evaneelist becomes the
controversialist ; the church-founder must defend
the churches of his foundation. The apologetic
and doctrinal interests now predominate in St.
Paul's work; he is employed in consolidating the
ecnquests already won.

Even his missionary activity bears at this time
somewhat of a supplementary character, After
‘confirming’ on his way ‘all the disciples’ cained
on his last tour (Ac 18", cf. 16%: for the expression
τ. Ἰαλατικὴν χώραν κ. Φρυγίαν see note * on Ὁ, 107»);
‘when he had made ἃ Inissionary progress through
the higher-lying quarters” (this implies a fairly
complete evaneeclizing of central Asia Minor), Paul
‘came to Ephesus’ (19!). Ephesus, with its rich
and populous province of Asia, lay in the centre
of the fields already occupied. It was the ob-
jective point of St. Pants second journey ; God's
hand had then diverted his course (16°), but only
for a while. Here, as at Corinth, Pauls work
was under the shield of the Roman administration
(19°58) > and he won the friendship even of ‘some
of the Asiarchs’ (v.81), who were the ‘high priests
of Asia, the heads of the imperial politico-religious
organization of the province’ (St. Paul the Trac.
p. 251). ‘Many,’ therefore, as his ‘adversaries’
were, and though he had to ‘fight with wild beasts
in Ephesus’ (1 Co 15%? 16"), Paul held his ground
in this city for three years, until ‘all those that
dwelt in Asia had heard the word of the Lord,
both Jews and Greeks’ (Ac 1910. 17-20. 26 0038) 'This
success led to a great destruction of the Ephesian
books of magic; it so much diminished the sale of
the images of Artemis that the craftsmen took
alarm and stirred up a riot of the city multitude,
who were enraged at the disparagement of their
world-famed goddess. The tumult hastened Paul's
departure ; but he had done an immense work at
Ephesus. This city, afterwards the home of the
Apostle John, was the most powerful centre of
Christianity in the later apostolic age. The Ep.
to Philemon and that to the Colossians, written to
an outlying town of the province which Paul had
not himself visited, and the general (provincial)
destination of the so-called Ep. to the EPHESIANS
(see art.), indicate how widely Paul’s mission per-
meated the province of Asia. With the establish-
ment of the gospel at Troas, evangelized by Paul on
leaving Ephesus (2 Co 915. 3 cf. Ac 20612) and the
excursion into Illyria (Ro 119-31) made apparently

----

during his sojourn in Macedonia in the fcllowing
summer, two more links were added to the chain
of Churches, which by the end of the third tour
stretched ‘from Jerusalem round about unto Illy-
ricum.’ ‘The apostle felt that things were ripening
for his advance to Rome (Ac 1971),

Besides the daily pressure of his mission, never
perhaps so great as at Ephesus, there lay on St.
Paul heavily at this time ‘the care of all the
Churches’ (2 Co 118), Of this care the Corinthian
and Galatian Epistles are evidence. GALATIANS is
commonly referred to the Ephesian sojourn ; ‘Light-
foot has given good reasons, though not all equally
good? (Hort’s Jud. Chr. p. 99), for placing it later,
between 2 Co and Ro, as written from Macedonia
or Corinth (Comm. on Gal., Introd. iii.). Ramsay,
in accordance with his S. Galatian theory, carries
the Epistle back to St. Paul’sstay at Antioch before
the third journey ; while Clemen (Chronologie εἴ.
Paulin. Briefe, ii. A. 1) makes it follow Romans
because of its extreme controversial position.

In / AND 2 CORINTHIANS we see Paul closely
watching affairs at Corinth, during his residence
in Ephesus. But the exact course of his proceed-
ings is diflicnlt to determine. Krenkel (in his
Beitrage) and Sclimiedel (in the ‘ Handecommentar
Zz NT KBinleit. un Hor.) have lately examined
the data minutely, arriving at involved and con-
tradictory theories as to Paul’s communications
with Corinth during this period. From 2 Co 13% 2
it is almost certain that Paul had been at Corinth
a@ second time, ‘in sorrow? (2!) and humiliation
(12°!) He found a number of his converts re-
lapsing into heathen vice; and he rebuked and
warned, but forbore to strike. This forbearance
had compromised his authority and given an im-
pression of weakness on his part, of which iis
opponents subsequently took an injurious advan-
tage, contrasting his imperious letters with his
feeble presence and challenging a ‘proof’ of his
apostolic powers (2.Co Loh! 13!) This inter-
vening Visit (an excursion by sea from Ephesus,
unnoticed by Luke) was made not long before 1 Co
(so Schmiuiedel),—and, since this letter was written
inthe spring (1 Co 5° 16%), probably in the pre-
vious autumn. In 1 Co 48:31 Paul meets the in-
sinuation, based on the result of this encounter,
that he is afraid to come to Corinth ; his seeming
vacillation between the Ist and 2nd Ep. gave addi-
tional colour to the imputation, afterwards repeated
(2Co 1°). This episode, not directly mentioned in
1 Co and which both parties might wish to forget,
Paulis compelled to recall in 2 Co by the taunts of
his opponents. On his return to Ephesus under
the painful impression of what he had just wit-
nessed at Corinth, the apostle wrote a sharp dis-
ciplinary Epistle, to which 1 Co 5% refers in
explanation and reinforcement. [ἢ spite of this
appeal, the Church of Corinth had permitted ‘the
old leaven’ to remain, until the monstrous case of
incest compelled the apostle to give the solemn
and peremptory directions of 1 Co δὅ1-8,

Concurrently with the news of this outrage, Paul
hears of the factions dividing the Church, in which
the names of Cephas and of Apollos (much against
his will) figure in rivalry with his own, —even
the name of Christ being dragged into the com-
petition. The Apollos party, atfecters of philo-
sophical breadth and culture, were conspicuous at
the moment ; and Paul deals with them in chs. 1 —£
of 1 Co, referring to Apollos with brotherly frank-
ness (3* 72 46), The Chureh had also addressed_ to
the apostle at Ephesus a public letter, avoiding
the grave matters taken up in St. Paul’s first. six
chapters, and writing with a self - complacency
sadly unbefitting (4° 5* 6 11°), but asking his guid-
ance on ἃ number of important practical questions,
with which he deals in chs. 7-14: see the headings

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE rao

71.325. δ᾽ 12! 164 Three leading Corinthian Chris-
tians brought this letter to Ephesus (16) ; and
Paul, in sending them back with his reply, warmly
commends them. In this Epistle we first hear of
‘the collection for the saints’ at Jerusalem,
gathercd by Paul on his third missionary tour, to
which he attached great importance (164, 2 Co
8.9, Gal 2"). He had already given instructions
to the Churches of Galatia on the business, prob-
ably on his way through Asia Minor (Ac 18) ; and
Gal 6°", as well as 919, tacitly refers to it: = Fhe
phrase introducing the topic in 1 Co 16 (eh. (FP
ete.) suggests that the Corinthians were already
interested in this charity (see also 2 Co 8) 95).
This ministration to the poverty of the persecuted
Church in Jerus. (1 Th 24), in which Paul had
been engaged from an early time (Ac 11°"), helped
to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians; it was a
counteraction to the Judaistic propaganda, since it
exhibited to the mother Church the true grace of
God in the daughter Churches among the heathen.

When Paul despatched our Ist Ep. to Corinth,
he was expecting to travel thither soon, but not
immediately, and to make a considerable stay ;
meanwhile he has sent Timothy, now in Macedonia
upon his way, who ‘ will remind? the Corinthians
οἱ Paul’s ‘ways in Christ,’ which they were in
danger of forgetting. He had some apprehension
that Timothy might not be well received (1 Co
£18 1610. Gf Ae 1G"). Although Timothy
shares in the ereeting of 2 Co, and 2 Co 1-7 (quite
otherwise than 1 Co) is written mainly in the first
person plural, not a word is said about Timothy's
visit to Corinth. This silence is significant, as
was St. Paul’s silence in 1 Co respecting his own,
then recent, visit. Had Timothy never arrived at
Corinth, some explanation would surely have been
given; clearly, he is not forgotten (1... Now, in

the same letter there is notable reference to some |

one, unnamed, who had been erievously ‘ wronged,’
and wronged in such a way that Paul felt the in-
jury as his own. About this wrong he has written
shortly before, ‘out of much affliction and anguish
of heart, with many tears’ (29: 3. 78:12), In this pain-
ful letter, which had made the Corinthians ‘sorry
after a godly sort’ and ‘to repentance,’ Paul must

have demanded the exemplary punishment of ‘him |

that did the wrong’; and a ‘censure’ had been
accordingly inflicted upon him ‘by the majority’
of the Chureh, under which the offender was so
humbled that Paul forgives him and desires his
restoration (2 Co 25:1).

Chs. 1-7 of the 2nd Ep. turn upon this incident.
Who were the sufferer and intlicter of wrong ἢ
The father and son of 1 Co δ’; so iv is often replied
(see e.g. Edwards and Beet on 1 Co, and Klopper
on 2 Co, ad loce.). But the language and feeling of
2 Co 2-4 7616 are as unsuitaise as those of 1 Cod
are suitable to this infamous offence, and one hardly
thinks that even the Church of Corinth could
hesitate or be divided about so flagrant a crime
when solemnly brought up for judgment ; nor does
1 Co correspond to the description of 2 Co 2%. (2)
St. Paul himself and some insolent Corinthian
Christian, who had defied the apostle either when
present on the second visit (thus interjected be-
tween 1 and 2 Co), or in his absence ; so Sabatier
‘The Ap. Paul, pp. 171-175), Scluniedel, and others.
This explanation sets us at the right point of view
for understanding 2 Co 2 and 7; but St. Paul's
second visit to Corinth probably came about earlier
(see p. 710%); and St. Paul is not the man to have
retreated before a personal attack, shooting Par-
thian arrows by letters from a distance; such a
defeat, would have been irreparable. (3) Beyschlag
and Pfleiderer, with greater probability, suggest
Timothy as the ἀδικηθείς. Appearing at Corinth
on Paul’s behalf about the time of the arrival of

(1)

the Ist Ep. (47-22 16%), and perhaps taking the
initiative in the trial of the incestuous man,
Timothy received a gross insult from * some one’
of note in the Church, the injury thus inthicted
striking the apostle through his representative,
and, not improbably, involving an angry reflexion
upon him for sending a stripling in his place. This
attack on Timothy accounts for the emphatic and
continuous identification by the apostle in 2 Co
1-7 of his young helper with himself, and for the
subtle interchanges between the first person plural
and singular in the passages relative to the ἀδικήσας
and ἀδικηθείς.

On Timothy’s return, soon after 1 Co, with this
grievous news, Paul wrote ‘out of anguish of
heart’ the lost epistle between 1 and 2 Co (not to
be identified with 2 Co 10-13”, as by Hausrath and
Ptleiderer ; these chapters have nothing todo with
the atlair of the ἀδικηθείς), conveyed by Titus
(before this time employed at Corinth on the
business of the collection, 2 Co 8® 95 1216-18), in
which Paul called on the Church to condemn the
ἀδικήσας and thus ‘ show itself clear in the matter.’
This the Corinthians did—at least ‘the majority’
of them (2°)—with earnest apologies to Paul and
Timothy (7-2). Paul had sent Titus in confidence
that such satisfaction would be given; but ‘Titus’
delay in returning awakened the most distressing
apprehensions (212: 15. 7°). He was compelled to
leave Ephesus, and, after awaiting his messenger
for some time at ‘Troas, passed on to Macedonia
still in painful suspense. At the moment when
he sent Titus from Ephesus, Paul was disposed to
come round by way of Corinth to Macedonia,—
supposing, of course, that the Corinthians sub-
mitted (ef. 115 and 7),—and ‘Titus had intimated
that the apostle, contrary to the intention of 1 Co
16°7, might thus give them ‘a second joy. But
this was now impossible (Paul would not come
without better news from Corinth, 2’ 5), and the
apostle reverted to the earlier plan of travel. He
must have apprised Titus of this Wiange, with
directions to meet him in Troas or Macedonia ;
and in this way the news of St. Paul's illness
reached Corinth before Titus left (1! 7%). The
Corinthians were full of sympathy; at the same
time, reflexions were made on the apostle’s seem-
ing jickleness, which touched him keenly {115 Ὡς

The illness from which Paul suffered between
1 and 2 Co was severe and all but fatal (2 Co 1" 6°).
This affliction left a deep mark in his experience ; it
overshadows 2 Co. Chs. 41-5!" record his thoughts
as he then lay confronting the last enemy. For
the first time he realizes the likelihood that he
will die before the Lord’s return; we do not find
him subsequently speaking of the παρουσία in the
first. person plural of 1 Th and 1 Co. The terrible
closing scenes at Ephesus, the revolt of Galatia and
Corinth, and this prostrating attack of sickness,
by their concurrent effect brought him into the
lowest depths of affliction (IS 47" 7°); and God
is now to him, above all, ‘the Father of compus-
sions.’ It was the darkest hour that the apostle
had known. His life and his mission seemed both
to be ending in defeat.

The acute personal question raised by the ἀδικήσας
at Corinth is terminated; but the larger contro-
versy remains, and has been exasperated through
the arrival of Judiean emissaries (2! 11:5. 12").
Of these men and their proceedings ‘Titus, on his
return from Corinth, gave a full report. ‘The
Church, while sincerely loyal to Paul, had received
the ‘false apostles’ and ‘deceitful workers’ ; it
was being imposed on and was too likely to be
seduced by them (LL Ὁ ἀντ ον. Their self-commen-
dations and disparagements of Paul, at whose ex-
pense they exalted the Twelve, were listened to
with unworthy tolerance. He is compelled in

712 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

2 Co 3-6, aid more polemically in the concluding
chapters, to vindicate at length both his character
and apostleship. The contrast, in temper and
purport, between 2 Co 1-7 and 10-13, which leads
some able scholars (e.g. Hausrath, Schmiedel) to
regard these sections as distinct epistles, is due
to the peculiar situation at Corinth, to the fact
that, while the majority of the Church had rallied
to Paul (2°), there remained a minority all the
more embittered, in which the newly - arrived
agitators found the means for operating upon the
entire community. The four parties of 1 Co have
resolved themselves in a few months into two;
and 2 Co is at once a message of peace to the
well-disposed, and a thunderbolt launched by the
apostle against the Judaizing promoters of ‘another
gospel’ and his own malignant detractors.

This powerful Epistle appears to have subdued
the mutiny at Corinth, for Paul carried out. his
purpose of spending the winter there before his
Journey to Jerusalem (Ae 2023; ef, 2 Co 2), and
there he wrote the calm and deliberate Ep. to the
Romans, the tone of which reflects his softened
mood, ‘This conciliatory temper betitted th » apostle
addressing a strange Church, where Jewish be-
lievers are numerous but, as he supposes, not un-
friendly to his gospel. Meanwhile Titus, attended
for this purpose by two companions (2 Co aaa

1s Commissioned in conveying 2 Co to conclude the
business of ‘the collection,’ which had doubtless
been hindered by strife; chs. 8 and 9 of 2Co
are devoted to this matter. In 1 Co 10" Paul had
suggested the election of deputies to convey the
charity to Jerus. ; such election the Macedonians
had now made (2 Co 8): Ac 204 furnishes a list
of these deputies, as they gathered to accompany
St. Paul to Palestine. Prevented by a plot of the
Jews against his life from taking ship at Corinth
for Syria, Paul went round by way of Philippi
(where he spent Passover) and Troas (Ac 20°),
His voyage thence and arrival at Jerusalem are
fully described by St. Luke (Ac 20. 21), now St.
Paul's companion once more. (On this journey
see Ramsay’s St. Paul the Trav. ΧΙ), St. Paul’s
reception by St. James and the Chureh of Jeru-
salem signalizes his victory over the legalists.
THE EP. 10 THE ROMANS sums up the develop-
ment of St. Paul’s work and thought at this
central epoch. The strugele with the Judaistic
reaction which he has just passed through, was
in effect a rehearsal of the internal conflict that
issued in the conversion of Saul the Pharisee and
his call to the apostleship of the Gentiles. He
saw his converts in Galatia and Corinth, and those
who ‘had been delivered’ to the same ‘form of
teaching’ in Rome (017 1617: 18), in danger of being
reduced to the very bondage from which he had
himself been rescued by the signal intervention of
Jesus Christ (Ro 72-84, Gal 245 4*!51), The Ep.
to the Galatians is a vehement apologetic reasser-
tion, and the Ep. to the Romans a Iuminous and
methodical exposition, of ‘the truth of the gospel’
in which Paul’s experience of twenty years, as a
converted Christian man and an evangelist to Jews
and Gentiles, was comprised. It is here unfolded
in its mature expression, the form into which it
was wrought by dint of use and conflict and
through profound and intense reflexion, embrac-
ing in its compass the whole course of sin and
redemption, and the relations of Israel and of man-
kind to God viewed in their largest aspects. Such
a treatise and manifesto it was fitting for the
apostle to send to ftome—addressing himself ‘urbi
et orbi,’ and with an eye probably to other readers
besides those of the lowly Christian Church he
expected to visit there. Fronting the imperial
city, Paul rises to a higher stature and assumes a

loftior accent. The added stateliness of diction |

and amplitude of treatment betray an imagina.
tion, and a statesmanlike sense, touched by the
majesty of Rome. Standing at Corinth, with the
east behind him and a line of churches, now
securely established, studding the road to Jeru.
salem, and with new fields betore his sight stretch-
ing westwards to Spain (Ro 1517), the apostle
pauses to review his progress and to give account
of his mission and his doctrine that have been
subject to so fierce a challenge. At the same
time there is present to his mind the contingency
that his voyage to Jerus. may have a fatal end,
and that the Ep. he is now writing may prove
to be his legacy rather than his introduction to
the Roman Chureh (15°°-83 > see Hort, Prolegomena
to Romans and Ephesians, pp. 42-50). The situa-
tion, while it explains the eritical importance
and representative character of the Kp. to the
Romans, accounts also for its limitations. This
writing is retrospective; it is the consummation
of the legalistic controversy, and of Paul's mission-
ary course ‘from Jerusalem round about unto
Hlyricum’: it isno more than this. The apostle’s
life was to open into a new period fraught with
other contlicts ; changed surroundings and demands
will turn his thoughts in directions as yet unfore-
seen ; and the later groups of Epp. eontain develop-
ments and applications of doctrine that are implicit,
rather than realized, in the series of writings which
concludes with the grand Ep. to the Romans.

The apostle to the Gentiles now stands at the
summit of his career. During the third missionary
tour he has founded the prosperous Asian Churches ;
he has written his four ereat Epp. and repelled
the Judaistic invasion of Gentile Christianity,
while he has preserved peace with the mother
Church in Judea. But these hardly-won successes
engendered for the soldier of Christ new pers and
conflicts,

(e) kifth Period.—Under many omens and fore-
bodings of danger St. Paul travelled to Jerusalem,
Though he was ‘ gladly received ’ by ‘the brethren’
there, the language of Ac 21°" "shows that the
mass of Jewish believers were alienated from him.
At St. James’ suggestion he took the occasion of
publicly conforming to Mosaic practice, becoming
‘to the Jews as a Jew’ in the same conciliatory
spirit in which he wrote the Ep. to the Romans.
But this did not propitiate Jewish hostility. The
Asian Jews at the feast, who would have murdered
Paul in the temple but for the Roman guard, de-
nounced him as the universal enemy of Judaism
(Ac 21°). ‘Through all the regions where he had
laboured he was now a marked man in the eyes of
his compatriots, the apostate, the waster of Israel,
the protaner of its holy things.

To this furious hatred Paul owed his four years’
imprisonment and the long suspension of his
missionary work. His addresses of defence—(1)
before the people from the temple steps,. Ace22:
(2) before the Sanhedrin, 23 ; (3) before the pro-
curator Felix, 24; (4) his appeal to Caesar before
the procurator Festus, 25; (5) his apology before
Herod Agrippa 11. at the court of Festus, 26—
enable us to follow the course of the proceedings
against him. The Roman judges saw that Paul
was innocent οἵ civil crime, but that the Jews,
whose fanatical violence they feared to provoke,
were bent on his destruction.” Asa Roman citizen,
he must not be sacrificed to the Jews; his detention
seemed the safest course; and Felix in the first
instance had hoped that a bribe would be offered
for his release (2436), A vision, on the first night
of his imprisonment (23"), encouraged Paul's long-
cherished hope of ‘seeing Rome’ (1931). and when
the change of governors at Cesarea led to a re-
newal of the abortive local trials, Pau! determined
to accomplish that purpose by the words Appella

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 713

Cesarem. This course involved the appellant in
heavy expense ; it is unlikely that Paul taxed the
Churches for personal ends; and Ramsay finds
here, and in other ciremmstances of his imprison-
ment, reason to think that the apostle at this time
was in command of cousiderable private means,
and had entered into his patrimony δέ, Paul the
Lyte ΧΕ. 8).

The voyage to Rome, with its shipwreck and
winter detention in Melita (Malta), related in
Ac 27 and 28 with vividness and accuracy, ex-
hibits Paul’s practical and manly qualities to great
advantage, his singular personal ascendency and
strong good sense. He was received cordially by
the Church at Rome. The Jewish leaders profess
to know nothing of his case: his appeal must
have taken the rulers at Jerus. by surprise, and
they had failed during the winter to advertise their
brethren at Rome of the matter. Paul preaches to
them with the same result as at Pisidian Antioch,
Thessalonica, and Corinth (28'-*8), The narra-
tive of Acts leaves him at Rome, ‘remaining in
his own hired lodving,’ in dibera custodit, allowed
to ‘receive all that came to visit him, preaching
the kingdom of God and teaching the things con-
cerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all freedom,
unhindered.’ The government at Rome took the
same view of Paul as Gallio and Festus: he was a
man politically harmless, but the cause of trouble-
some ferments amonyst the Jews, and therefore
well out of the way. His trial was allowed to
linger. King Agrippa may have joined with
Festus in making favourable representations of
the prisoner’s character; and the report of the
centurion Julius probably helped him with the
military officer (the Princeps Peregrinorum, δέ,
Paul the Trav. p. 348) in whose charge he was
placed,

The faet that the account of St. Luke, written a
considerable time after the events, concludes with
the words above quoted, raises a decided presump-
tion against this trial having issued in the apostle’s
condemnation and death. The indications of Ac
21-28 (going to show that no capital charge was
forthcoming against Paul), and the expectations of
the Epp. of the captivity (Philem **, Ph 174-°6 2%4),
point the other way. If Paul had remained in
Rome till the summer of 64, he would doubtless
have fallen a victim to the Neronian persecution ;
and this many critics have supposed. Chrono-
logical inquiry, however, makes it more and more
certain that the ‘two years’ of Ac 2859 terminated
before this epoch—in 68 A.D. at the latest.

The two years (Ac 9459: of Paul’s residence in
Cwsarea, but for the speeches of defence, are
almost a blank for us. He was granted such
alleviations as a strict confinement allowed, and
private friends had access to him; but public
work was impossible. The apostle, doubtless,
communicated by messenger and letter with his
Churches; and the extant Epp. to Philemon, the
Colossians, and Ephesians are dated by some lead-
ing critics—even Philippians (very improbably), by
one or two—from the Cesarean captivity. The
weight of opinion inclines to the Βοος origin
of all four (see artt. on these Epp.). At Rome
Paul enjoyed greater freedom, and exercised a not-
able public influence. His misfortunes ‘have re-
sulted in the progress rather [than hindrance] of
the gospel’ (Ph 1"). His trial has given him the
opportunity of representing Christ before ‘the
prietorium’ (the emperor’s court of justice, ν.}ὅ:
ch 2: 4 τὰ and-see Si, Paul the Lrav. p. dol),
and Christianity has peneturted the palace (45).
St. Paul’s courage under his trials has stimulated
the Roman Church generally to greater boldness ;
even the ill-disposed (legalist) minority, which
existed at Rome (cf. 35:5), has been provoked by

jealousy to exertions which, since they served te
spread the name of Chlirist, caused to Paul added joy
(15-18), From Col 4 4 it appears that Paul could
name only three Jewish Christians at Rome whe
were heartily on his side; and two of these were
helpers from a distance (cf. Ph 2°71), Notwith-
standing certain notes of depression and the sense
of weariness and age (Ph 1”, Philem %—but see
Lighttoot, αὐ doc.), these Epp. breathe a tranqui
and elevated joy. Compared with the letters ΟἹ
the third journey, those of the Roman captivity
are more inward and chastened in spirit. Soli-
tude, restraint, and advancing years have told
on the heroic missionary. ‘There is less passion,
less vivacity, less exuberant strength of thought ;
but more uniform tenderness, a richer fragrance
of devotion, and a quiet insight that reaches to
the depths of the things of life and of God. The
letter to Philemon, moreover, shows a genial and
playful humour refreshing in a man of St. Paul's
stern intensity. These are well styled the after
noon Epp., as the writings of the Judaic contro.
versy are the noonday Epistles of Paul.

COLOSSIANS signalizes the rise of a new antago-
nism in the Church, of which Paul was to see but
the beginnings. His address to the Ephesian elders
at Miletus (Ac 20'7-%) reveals lis presentiment of
the rise of heresy in the province of Asia, and
strikes the keynote of his later ministry. The
missionary and the controversialist now becomes
above all the pastor, devoting himself to ‘feed the
Church of God, which he purchased through the
blood fof] his own [Son]? (Ac 20%; see critical note
of WH). The greatness of the Church and the
Divine glory of Christ fill Paul’s prison meditations.
Epaphras reports to him the attempt of some
speculative teacher visiting Colossee to amalyea-
mate the gospel with Alexandrian theosophy, by
ranging Christ amongst angelic mediators, and by
prescribing Jewish ritual and ascetic regimen as
means of salvation. This report elicits the great
Christological deliverance of Col 113-39. The larger
representation of the sovereignty of Christ here
made gives completeness to St. Paul’s system of
thought, bringing the entire sui of things within
its compass. The Lordship of the crucified and
risen Saviour is based upon the universal Lord-
ship of the Son of God; our redemption springs
out of the ground of creation itself, and the
new creation is evolved from the hidden root and
rationale of the old. The Head of the Church is
the centre of the universe, the depositary of ‘all
the fulness of the Godhead,’ who ‘fills all things,’
above and beneath, with His plenitude and ‘cathers
all things into--one * (Eph. iis ΗΝ Col OF 10);
In Galatians and Romans the thought of salvation
by Christ broke through Jewish limits and covered
the field of humanity ; in Colossians and Ephesians
the idea of life in Christ overleaps time and human
existence, and subjects the entire cosmos to its
sway. Ph 2°" puts the top-stone on the apostle’s
doctrine of the person of Christ, and therefore upon
all his doctrine.

The movement of thought which completed
Paul’s Christologices! teaching gave a parallel ex-
pansion to his idea of the Church, which attains
at this epoch its full dimensions. The philosophical
Judaism of Colossi, like the legal Judaism of
Galatia, bred caste-fecling and schism,—evils to be
corrected only by a right sense of the greatness of
the Christian society and the sacredness of its
fellowship, such as the apostle conveys in the
Epistles of this period.

Rome was the very spot to stimulate thoughts
of this natere, and to bring to its final shape St.
Paul’s conception of Christ’s imperial dominion.
The ampler prospect, both τ time and space, which
now opens out for the Church under his eyes,

714 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

accounts also for the attention given in the prison
Epistles to family and social relations, and for
their fuller and more balanced ethical teaching.

These years of martyrdom drew to the apostle
the reverence of the whole Church. He no longer
spends ἃ word on his own defence. We mark in the
prison Epistles a cali sense of authority, a strong
assurance, blended with the deepest humility, of
the perpetuity of lis work and its universal import,
such as are but partially to be observed in the Ep.
to the Romans. As Nero’s prisoner at Rome and
Christ's bondman for the Gentiles, St. Paul rose
to the full unassailable height of his doctrine and
his vocation.

(7) From the conclusion of the Acts we infer
that Paul was released, and his ministry extended
toa sieth period. The Pastoral Epp. require this
by their altered style and the changed doctrinal
and ecclesiastical situation they present, by their
references to person and place, and by the im-
possilility of imserting them within the scheme
furnished by the Acts. If genuine (see the Articles
on 1 and 2 TimMority and Trrus), they are later
than Ac 2851, and even if not from Paul’s hand,
they indicate the existence of a strong and detailed
post-apostolic tradition relating to a missionary
activity of Paul outside the scope of the Acts, and
recording an imprisonment in Rome quite distinet

from that disclosed in the third group of the
Epistles. Most scholars who reject the Pastorals

admit a Pauline nucleus in them, including the
personal and local references of 2 Ti and Tit ;
and these cnable us to trace, though imperfectly,
Pauls movements in the last years of his ministry.
To these slight but valuable data we may add what
may be conjectured from the apostle’s intentions
signified in earlier letters.

Approaching the end of the first Roman imprison-
ment, Paul expected speedily to see his friends in
Colossie and Philippi (Philem 535. and Ph 1:9. 2%),
Mis first business would be, especially after so
long separation, to revisit his Churches extending
from Greece to Syria--a duty demanding con-
siderable time, Paul had set his heart years ago
on evangelizing Spain (Ro 15°); in the words of
Clement, written a generation later, we have
vood evidence that this wish was realized: ‘Paul
having been a herald both in the east and in the
west, received the high glory of his faith. When
he had taught righteousness to the whole world,
and had come to the limit of the west, and borne
witness before the rulers, he so departed from the
worl: and went to the holy place’ (1 Ep. 5). ‘The
limit of the west,’ in a Roman writer, can hardly
mean Lone. The Muratorian Fragment, repre-
senting the oldest Roman traditions, is explicit to
the same efiect, and is supported by the oldest
Acta Apocrypha; and the Ὑπόμνημα of Symeon
Metaphrastes, traced by Lipsius and others to a
2nd cent. souree, gives details of the Spanish
mission, [On the whole subject see the discussion
of Spitta, Urchristenthum, Bd. i., Die zweimal.
rom. Gefangenschajt εἰ. Paulus]. The judgment
of Credner is borne out by subsequent inquiry,
that ‘there cannot be found during the first four
centuries a trace of the assumption that Paul did
not travel westwards beyond Rome, or that his life
ended at the point where the Acts of the Apostles
concludes.’ But this controversy is not likely to
be closed, unless further and decisive evidence
should present itself.

The references of the PASTORAL EPISTLES be-
long to Paul’s last journeyings in the East, ante-
cedent to his renewed imprisonment and subse-
quent to the (assumed) Spanish voyage. The three
letters touch at various points and are closely con-
secutive. He writes his last Ep. (2 Ti) from prison
with winter in prospect, when the first stage of his

trial is past and he has already pleaded once at
the bar of the emperor. It will be some time
before the trial ends, and he needs the cloak left
at Troas when he last passed through that port,
along with some valued books; but he craves
above all the company of ‘Timothy. His helpers
have been sent off, probably at the time of his
arrest, On various missions; Luke is his sinele
companion ; at his public trial he was absolutely
alone (459. Quite otherwise than on his former
trial, he counts upon his condemnation and death
(vv.o8- 15), He had been, as it seems, at Troas
earlier in the year, and probably at Miletus and
Corinth (4°) upon the same round of visitation

(following upon his return from Spain’). Now
1 Ti dates, apparently, from Macedonia (1°),

whither Paul has journeyed after meeting with
Timothy, to whom in this Ep. he gives further
instructions for his charge at Ephesus. Miletus
and ‘Troas lie along the line of travel terminating
at Corinth. Ac 20” records a prediction of Paul
that he would not see the Ephesian Church again ;
and the language of 1 Ti 15 (see von Hofmann ad
loc.), in view, moreover, of the detailed directions
of this Ep. respecting Church affairs, indicates
that Paul had not himself been present in Ephesus,
but had held an interview with Timothy (say at
Miletus ; cf. Ac 2017) in passing on his way north
(see Appendix to Eng. ed. of Sabatier’s Ap. Pau/,
pp. 366-368). Paul appears to have travelled on
trom Macedonia to Corinth, and to have written to
Titus (in Crete) about the time of his arrival there,
when he was expecting to spend the next winter
in the port of Nicopolis opposite to Italy (‘Tit 3%) ;
shortly after this he was arrested and carried as
a prisoner to Rome. On this construction, the
details of time and place given in the Pastorals
fit together and belong to a consistent whole
Previously to the journey from Miletus to Corinth
just traced, Paul and ‘Titus had made a tour ir
Crete, the latter remaining behind to organize the
Cretan Churches (‘Tit 15. Paul had wished Titus
to join him at Nicopolis, purposine to send a sub-
stitute (315). Possibly Paul had landed at Crete
in returning from Spain; certainly the voyage of
Ac 27 gave no opportunity for evangelizing the
island.

The letters to Timothy and Titus are writings
of Pauls oldage. They bear a conservative stamp.
‘Guard the deposit ; hold fast the form of sound
words’: this is their predominant note. Sound
doctrine and practical piety are the interests in
which they centre. St. Paul's great creative days
are over. His battles are fought, his course is run.
The completing touches remain to be added, and
his final seal set to the work and teaching of his
life: such is the purpose these letters serve. The
instructions respecting church order given in 1 Ti
are much fuller than anything of the kind in
previous letters; but this was a time of rapid
development, and the Ephesian Church was now of
twelve years’ standing. His directions to Titus
at Crete are notably simpler. These are the only
pieces of this nature that we have from Paul—letters
of instruction to his assistants on church manage-
ment; they show the administrative wisdom, the
love of order, and the eye for practical detail, of
the great church-founder and pastor. Colossians
and Ephesians have prepared us for the emphasis
which Paul now throws on all that belongs to the
life of the Christian community. We pass from
the thought of the ‘great house’ to that of its
‘vessels’ of service, their qualities and uses (2 Ti
2°), The Pastorals carry on the combat com-
menced in those earlier Epp. against incipient
Gnosticism, with its false intellectualism and
uncertain morality, its jumble of philosophy and
Jewish fables, its destructive influence upon church

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE ΠΩΣ

life. St. Paul’s last cares are directed to guard
the gospel he had so amply set forth, and to fence

the fold into which he had led such a multitude |

of souls. If these documents do not come, in their
integrity, from Paul's own hand, they are written
by a disciple who has interpreted his mind and
‘vaught lis spirit and manner and applied his
ideas to a new situation (see v. Soden’s Linlecting
cu Pastt. vii., in ‘Handcommentar z. NT,’ U1),
with astonishing verisimilitude ; and the nearer to
Paul it is found necessary to place the Past. Epp.
in personal connexion and derivation of thought,
the more improbable—and the more supertluous—
doves the theory of personation become.

The words of 9 4° are exquisitely fitting as
St. Paul's dying testimony. They are the tinal
pronouncement of Christ’s faithful servant on his
own career, crowned already in the witness of his
conscience with the earnest of the crown awaiting
him from the hand of his Lord. Paul died by be-
heading —so the credible Roman tradition relates
—at a spot 3 miles from Rome along the Ostian
Way, anciently called Aquie Salvie and now Tre
Fontane. Near to the place of execution stands
the splendid Basilica Pauli, first founded by the
emperor Constantine in his honour. But the uni-
versal Church is his monument.

5. Chronology of St. Pauls Life.—-Luke sup-
plies no such point Cappui tor the chronology of lis
Second Book as that furnished in ch. 3! 5 of his
Gospel. Only one of the many points ef contact
with secular history in the Acts gives an indisput-
able datum, viz. the death of Herod Agrippa 1.
at Cwesarea (see Ac 12!4 12. and Jos, Ant. XIX.
vili.), which happened not long after Easter 44 A.D.,
and followed upon his persecution of the Church
at Jerusalem. ‘The famine that occasioned the
visit of relief made by Barnabas and Paul from
Antioch, synchronized with Herod’s death (Ac
11°12! 20. 56). but it appears to have lasted several
years. If (with Ramsay) we could identify with
this mission of charity the visit of Paul to Jerus.
related in Gal 2! (see on this point p. 705, above),
we should then easily fix the chronology of his
earlier Christian course. Taking 45 or 40 (so
Ramsay, δέ. Paul the Trev. ch. iii.) for the date of
the Judiwan famine, the ‘14 years’ of Gal 2', upon
this calculation, bring us back to 33 (or 32) A.D.
as the year of Pauls conversion, 33-35 being
the “9. years’ subsequent (included in the above-
mentioned 14) alluded to in Gal 118, 44 (or 45) the
year of his summons to help Barnabas at Antioch,
10 years being thus assigned to Paul’s unrecorded
labours in Cilicia.

The above scheme is open to the following
amonest other objections :—(1) Τὺ throws back the
stoning of Stephen and the judicial proceedings of
the high priest against the Christians (Ac 8'4 91. 3
119)—events antecedent to St. Panl’s conversion—
to the year 33 at the latest, when Pilate was still
in the vigour of his rule. We may infer from St.
Luke's silence, since he carefully informs us on
such points in other places, that the Judean perse-
cution was unhindered by the Roman Government :
this we can understand as happening in the interval
after Pilate’s deposition, which took place in the
autumn of A.D. 36 (when he was suspended by L.
Vitellius the prefect of Syria and sent for trial to
Rome), or in the period immediately preceding,
when, under fear of accusation, Pilate’s control
of the Jewish authorities was probably relaxed.
(2) If St. Paul’s conversion an place in 32 or
33, then Aretas must have been in peaceful
possession of Damascus so early as the year 35
(2 Co 1133, Gal 18, Ae 973-4), This is unlikely.
Are‘as was at war with Herod Antipas (who had
divorced his daughter in favour of Haron for
some years before the deposition of the latter

in A.D. 37, and inflicted on him a severe defeat
(Jos. Ané. XVIIE v. 1, 2); but this success could
ποῦ give him possession of Damascus, in Roman
Syria. The emperor ‘Tiberius took the side of
Antipas in the quarrel, and under his command
Vitellius was at Jerus. at the Pentecost of A.D. 37
on his way to attack Aretas in Petra, when the
campaign was arrested by tidings of Tiberius’
death. ‘The new emperor Caius reversed much of
the policy of Tiberius in the East. Antipas fell
into disgrace and was deposed, his rival Aerippa
being released from prison and made king ; and
Aretas is found in possession of the coveted city
of Damascus after this time. In all probability, it
was ceded by Caius Caligula (see Lewin in Life
and Epp. of St. Paul’, 1. 67, 68; also Schiirer,
ILS PX, ii, 354, 357). ‘The years 36-38 supply the
political situation at Jerus. and Damascus, under
which this train of events—including the execution
of Stephen, the overt and systematic attempt of
the Jewish rulers to crush the sect of the Nazar-
enes, and the circumstances attending the theht of
Saul from Damascus—is historically intelligible.
For the later period of St. Paul’s life Ramsay
finds a datum in the marks of time given in Ac
20° 7: from these it is clear that Paul left Troas
on his last voyage to Jerus. on a Monday morning,
while he had left Philippi for Troas immediately
the Passover feast was ended; and the number of
intervening days is continuously stated. Given these
conditions, the problem is to find ¢he year in which
the Jewish Passover so fell as to make them
possible. Lewin (Δ αν Saeri, Nos. 1856, 1857) and
Ramsay (St. Paw the Trav. xiil. ὃ, Ecpositor, Vv.
iil. 336, v. 201) have separately worked out this
problem, Lewin giving 58 and Ramsay 57 A.D. as
the solution. Ramsay’s calculation appears to be
sound, granting that St. Luke’s data are precise.
Assuming 57 to be the year of St. Paul's last
voyage to Jerus, and his consequent arrest and
imprisonment in Cresarea, we get the date 59 for
Felix’ removal and the succession of Festus to
the procuratorship, for Panl’s appeal to Cesar and
his autumn voyage to Melita, with 60-62 for the
term of his first imprisonment in Rome. — five
years then remain-—a period none too long—for
the last stage of his life, including the revisitation
of his eastern Churches, the long-deferred mission
to Spain, the mission in Crete, and the subsequent
extended tour in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and
Achaia witnessed to by the Pastoral Epp., and for
the months of his second imprisonment and trial.
67 A.D., falling just within the reign of Nero, is the
date for St. Pauls martyrdom which best accords
with Roman tradition and the Chronikon of Euse-
bius: here tradition should be at its strongest.
Counting backwards from A.D. 57, we get 53 as
the date of St. Paul’s arrival at Ephesus in the
early part of the third missionary tour, and 49-52
as the probable term of the tour of Paul and
Silas; the first journey (se. of Barnabas and
Paul) lay between 46 and 49 A.D. The Council at
Jerus. (Ac 15 and Gal 2) then falls in the year 49,
i.e. 13 years—in Luke’s inclusive reckoning (by
years current), 14 years—atter Panl’s conversion
(Cal 2!), assuming, as we have done provisionally,
80 as the date of his conversion. If the three years
of Gal 118 be not included in the 14 of 2!, we must
earry back Paul's conversion to 33 or 34 A.D. ; but
the difliculties previously noted seem to forbid this
supposition, Supposing him to have been 30 at the
time of Stephen’s stoning,—‘a young man,’ but
competent, according to Jewish practice, for public
oflice,—then he was born ec. 6 A.D., and was not
much beyond 60 at the time of his death. He
may have been older, but scarcely younger than
this. He calls himself ‘such an one as Paul the
aged,’ when writing to Philemon (v.%: according

716 PAUL THE APOSTLE

as

PAUL THE APOSTLE

to the more probable interpretation of πρεσβύτης)
about the year 61.

A. Harnack in his great work, Chronoloqie εἰ. alt-
christl. Litteratur bis Eusebius (Band 1, * Chrono-
logie d. Paulus,’ pp. 234-239), disposes Paul's Chris-
tian career between 30 and 64 Δ. He thus finds
all the Epp. written (except the rejected Pastorals)
by the year 59, when Paul was acquitted at Rome.
In this way Harnack makes room for St. Paul’s
release from the first Roman captivity, and for the
mission to Spain, before the Neronian persecution.
He refers the Council of Ac 15 and Gal 2 (in his
view identical) to the year 47, so reckoned as 14+3
years (Gal 2! and 118) after the conversion. The ‘few
months?’ which Harnack allows at the beginning
for the progress of events sketched in Ac 1-9
will not easily be accepted as sutlicient; at the
other end, Harnack rejects the authority of Euse-
bius’ Chronikon for the date of St. Paul's death,
though he builds upon it confidently for the time
of Festus’ accession to the procuratorship (55-56),
which supplies the pivot of his scheme. Schiirer,
however, tollowing Anger, Wieseler, and Wurm
amongst earlier investigators, shows strong reasons
(not shaken by Harnack) for abiding by the con-
clusion generally accepted hitherto, that Eusebius
was mistaken in this particular, and that Felix re-
mained governor for some years after the disgrace
of his brother Pallas at Rome in ὅδ. Schiirer
prefers 60 A.D. for the date of Felix’ recall, but
admits (after Wurm) that the conditions of the
case allow of any year from 58 to Ὁ] (see his
HJP τ. ii. 174-157; also Ramsay +. Harnack in
Hxpositor, V. ν᾿ 901). On the caleulation here
adopted, Festus succeeded Felix in the year 59, and
St. Paul appeared before the latter in A.D. 57. This
allows 7 years for Felix’ procuratorship, and 3 for
Vestus’—periods adequate to the events assigned
to each by Josephus. The ‘many years’ of rule
credited to Felix in Ac 24! must. surely have
meant more than the two (before Paul’s. trial)
allowed in Harnack’s chronology. Felix became
procurator in A.D. 52 (Schiirer, as above, p. 174).

On the whole subject see art. CHRONOLOGY OF
NT, with which the conclusions here reached
largely agree.

i. Tue Docrrine.—The Apostle Paul’s writings
(the Ep. to the Romans like the rest) are occasional
letters, pieces de circonstance. He was a mission-
ary preacher, who brought everything to bear on
his work in the salvation of souls and the edification
of the Church. But from the make of his mind
St. Paul’s thinkings and teachings took a logical
mould; they grew spontaneously into a great
fabric of spiritual truth. There is unity, method,
rational coherence in the theology of the apostle,
notwithstanding its incidental and homiletic form,
the unity that belongs, not toa compendium drawn
up for abstract study, but to the conceptions of an
orderly mind possessed by a single master-principle
of truth and striving incessantly to apprehend and
realize in life and action ‘that for which’ it ‘was
apprehended by Christ Jesus.’ We must ascertain
the point of departure of Paul’s Christian logic,
and take account of the growth and advancement
evident in his system of thought as in every living
structure. We must allow for his rare versatility
and lively susceptibility of temperament, for the
love of paradox natural to his bold intellect, as
well as for the variety of topics in his letters, for
the discordant and variously blended elements with
which they deal and which coloured their composi-
tion. Recognizing the ‘changes of voice’ thus
occasioned, we discover harmony and correlation
throughout the 13 writings that Lear Paul’s name.
The same accent is heard ; the stamp of the same
powerful idiosynerasy is set on them all, though
not with equal emphasis of distinction. Em-

bedded in these discursive missionary letters, with
their abrupt transitions, their glancing allusions,
their shifting play of emotion and argument, there
is a body ot solid principle, a theological system,
as large and original in conception as it has proved
enduring and fruitful in application.

The fertility of the apostle’s genius, and the
numerous and tempting points of view which the
documents afford, render the analysis of his teach-
ing difficult. Theologians differ widely, even
within the same school, as to the order and inter-
dependence of the Pauline ideas. The old mode
of analysis, which applied the ready-made cate-
gories of scholastic theology to the various books
of Scripture and catalogued their texts under these
headings, is discredited. The dogmatic point of
view is exchanged for the historical and psycho-
logical. We have been tanght to interpret St.
Paul's teaching in the light of his times and under
the conditions of his lite. The various types of
NT doctrine are distinguished, and the lines of
connexion, sympathetic or antipathetic, are traced
out by which Pauline theology is related to earlier
or contemporary thought. But here a new danger
arises. 116. prepossessions of historical theory
may be equally warping with those of dogmatic
system ; the focus of the picture may be displaced
and its colours falsified by philosophical no less
than by ecclesiastical spectacles.

Modern Analyses. —With F. C. Baur of Tiitbingen,

‘Paul’ stood for the antithesis to the Judaic legal-
ism in which it was supposed that the first. dis-

ciples of Jesus were held fast. The Paulinism so
conceived Baur found in the four major Epp.,
rejecting, as the work of imitators touched by
other influences, everything that was not covered
by this formula. Baur set out from the true
Lutheran standpoint. St. Paul's doctrine he con-
ceived as asystem of experimental religion, deducing
it trom the apostle’s conversion, of which, however,
he took too narrow and cold a view. Saul of
Tarsus underwent a complete reaction from the
Pharisaism of his youth, and his subsequent career
Baur explained by that revulsion. Developing this
antithesis with subtlety and clearness, and with
unrivalled historical learning, Baur gave a power-
ful restatement in modern terms of the Pauline
principle of justification by faith and drew out its
doctrinal consequences. This master of historical
criticism has left us in his great book on Pawl, his
Life and Work, an invaluable testimony to the
historical truth and cardinal significance of St.
Paul’s ‘ gospel of the grace of God.’

Later writers of Baur’s school, such as H. J.
Holtzmann and Ὁ. Pfleiderer, acknowledge the
genuineness of other Epp. besides the major four—
of 1 Thess., Phil., and Philemon at least. They feel
the inadequacy of Baur’s negative explanation of
St. Paul’s line of thought. The Gentile mission
and its astonishing success involve other factors
than those of which their master took account.
Paul was something more than an inverted Jewish
Rabbi ; the uncontested Epp. contain ideas looking
beyond the anti-Judzean polemic. ‘To the Greeks’
he became ‘as a Greek.’ /Tellenism had its part in
moulding Saul of Tarsus along with Hebraism (see
Hicks, ‘St. Paul and Hellenism,’ Stud. Bibl. 1v.
i.); and certain prevalent Greek ideas, it is sug-
gested, had entered his mind and set up a hidden
ferment, so that the Jewish zealot carried under
his Rabbinical cloak and orthodox straitness the
germs of the revolution he was destined to accom-
plish. Pfleiderer writes accordingly of ‘a double
root’ of Paulinism in ‘ Pharisaic theology and
Hellenistic theosophy,’ of two sides presented by
the apostle’s teaching—‘a Christianized Pharisaism’
embodied in the doctrine of justification by faith,
and ‘a Christianized Hellenism’ in the doctrine vi

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 717

salvation by the risen, celestial Christ and the
operation of the Holy Spirit (Urchristenthum,
Vorwort, and pp. 174-178: in this work, and in
his Paulinismus”, 1890, Pileiderer has recast the
exposition presented in the original Paadinisin,
Eng. tr. 1878, and the δ. Lect. of 1885). The
theories ascribing to Greek thought ἃ radical
influence on Pauline theology do not, however,
commend themselves. ‘Notwithstanding Paul's
Greek culture, his conception of Christianity is, in
its deepest ground, independent of Hellenism ?—
as Harnack rightly says, and again: ‘The Pauline
theology, this theology of a converted Pharisee,
is the strongest proof of the self-complete and uni-
versal power of the influence of the person of Jesus.’

The inconsistency disclosing itself in Baur’s posi-
tion has led to the division of his following into
two wines—rieht and left. The former, of which
Holtzmann (in the successive editions of his Hin-
leitung), Harnack, Lipsius, von Soden (in the
‘Handcommentar Ζ. NT’), and Jiilicher (/inlect.
in εἰ. NT), are representatives, have approximated
towards the conservative position in regard to the
Pauline documents. The ultra-Baurians,—consist-
ine of the Dutch school of radical critics, headed
by Loman, Pierson, Naber, and van Manen, with
the Germans Steck and Volter,--applying Baur’s
method with uncompromising rigour, find that
large parts of the ‘undisputed’ Epp. are post-
Pauline, and that mere morsels survive of the
genuine apostle. See a series of articles entitled
‘A Wave of Hyper-criticism,’ in which van Manen
states and defends his position, in the apos,
Times, 1898, pp. 205 1%, 257 ἢ“, 314 ff

The French theologians E. Reuss and A. Saba-
tier have better apprehended the personal stamp
of St. Paul’s theology, its vital relations to experi-
ence and society. ‘The doctrine of Paul, says
Reuss, ‘is the natural corollary of his history.
The life of Paul is the key to his theology ; the life
of the Christian will be its demonstration’ (/Zist.
dela Theol. au Siecle Apostol.® tome ii. p. 15, Eng.
tr. 1873: a work far from superseded). Paul's
Christianity was no combination of Jewish and
Greek elements imposed from without ; it was born
out of the inward travail by which Christ was
formed in him. Not that the Pauline gospel leaped
full-grown and armed from the author's mind
at Christ’s lightning stroke. But it was born
at his conversion, in its essential elements and
features and with all its latent potencies. St.
Paul’s OT knowledge and training, his striving
after legal righteousness and his poignant convic-
tions of sin, his Rabbinical culture, his large
acquaintence with the Gentile world, constituted
the material to which the revelation of the living
Jesus supplied the magnetic centre around which
that troubled world of thought and feeling crystal-
lized as in a mement. ‘From the moment that
Paul was arrested by the risen Lord on the way to
Damascus and surrendered himself to Him, his
whole soul was thrown wide open to His influence,
to receive impressions that resulted in the com-
munication to him of what was most distinctive in
the personal life of his Master, and in the forming
within him of an experience with features of its
own, that in its turn shed lght on the nature of
the Heavenly Being with whom he had been
brought into so intimate a fellowship’ (Somerville,
St. Paul's Conception of Christ, Ὁ. 33).

The revelation that generated the Pauline gospel
may be conceived, objectively, as a manifesting
of Christ to the soul of Paul; or, subjectively, as
the imparting of salvation through Christ. Reuss
adopts the latter point of view, and finds the focus
of St. ΤΡ doctrine, therefore, in Ro στὸ and
the principle of righteousness through faith. The
topics of his digest of Paulinism run thus: /ight-

cousness, Sin, the Law, the Gospel, God the Author of
Salvation, Christ—His Person and His Work, and so
forth. Sabatier puts himself at the former stand-
point: ‘The Person of Christ is the principle of
the Christian consciousness’ (7116 Ap. Paul, pp.
280-285); and in the text, ‘It pleased God to
reveal his Son in me’ (Gal 1151 he sees ‘the
germ of Paulinism’ (p. 71). Baur practically took
the former position, making the fundamental
question to be, not what Jesus Christ is, but what
He does for men. Sabatier’s analysis, however, is
scarcely true to its ‘generating principle,’ since
it relegates the Person of Christ to its third, meta-
physical, division. His synopsis does not observe
the original lines of cleavage and connexion as
marked in his historical analysis, nor lay bare the
real articulation of the system, but is rather a
modern philosophical digest of Paulinism. He
traces the unfolding of ‘the Principle of the
Christian Consciousness’ (1) in the sphere οἵ
Psychology —the doctrine of Man, embracing Sin,
the Flesh, the Law, Death on the one hand, and
tighteousness, the Word of the Cross, Faith, Life
on the other; (2) the Christian Principle in the
sphere of Society and History—the doctrine of the
Church, with the Two Covenants, the First and
Second Adam, the End of all Things, Faith,
Hope, and Love; (3) the Christian Principle in
the sphere of Metaphysics, or Theology proper—the
doctrine of Grace, the Divine Purpose, the Nature
of Christ, the Trinity,-the Conception ef God (pp.
280), 281).

W. Beyschlag (NT Theology, Bk. iv.) pursues more
consistently the path adopted by Sabatier. The
chapters of his analysis of ‘The Pauline System’
are thus headed: ‘lesh and Spirit; Adam and
Christ ; God and the World ; the Establishment of
Salvation ; Lifeinthe Spirit ; the Church ; the Con-
summation of the Kingdom. Paulinism thus be-
comes a psychological evolution, with its generat-
ing point in the antithesis of Flesh and Spirit, and
with Adam and Christ for its representative ex-
ponents. In such texts as Ro 8+ and 5+! Bey-
schlag finds the essence of Paulinism; he brings
into prominence factors of importance too much
neglected by other interpreters. With his anthropo-
logical starting-point, Beyschlag arrives in the end,
however, at ‘an anthropocentric Christology’ (vol.
ii. p. 76, Eng. tr.). He sees in St. Paul's Christ
the archetypal man, the representative of the
spiritual, as Adam of the natural, in humanity.
Pileiderer’s analysis proceeds in a similar order :
he holds a somewhat higher Christology than
Beyschlag, regarding Paul’s pre-incarnate Christ
as a real heavenly man with ἃ σῶμα πνευματικύν,
existing in a Dei-form mode of being (ἐν poppy
θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, Ph 2°), and the administrative Lord
of creation (Paulinisimus*, pp. 115-145) ; similarly
Weizsiicker (A post. Zeitalter*, pp. 117-122).

A. B. Bruce in his masterly work, δέ. Paul's
Conception of Christionity, gathers the apostle’s
‘entire conception of Christianity’ from ‘the four
great Epistles of the Judaic controversy,’ and
contests any further advancement in his doctrinal
views. (B. Weiss, on the other hand, Bib. Theol.
of NT, Part iu. $3, finds in the Epp. of the im-
prisonment Pauls ‘more developed doctrines’ ;
similarly Hort in Proleg. to Rom. and Ephes. p.
123th, and The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 138-152).
The Ep. to the Romans supplies Bruce with the
scheme of Paulinism: ‘in Gal 2'-*! we have the
Pauline gospel in nuce’ (p. 12). Hence his analysis
begins with Sin, the Righteousness of God, the
Death of Christ, and ends with chapters upon the
Person of Christ, the Christian Life, the Church,

the Last Things. He regards the apostle through-,
out as a practical, in distinction from a meta-
_physial, theologian: ‘Jesus was for Paul the

718 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

Lord, because He was the Saviour’ (p. 328) —a
statement to be reversed with equal or greater
truth. Vital as the doctrines of salvation are to
St. Paul, his belief in the Lordship of Jesus was
anterior to them. What Christ did for men is
accounted for by what He is to God. The Ep. to
the Romans, the grand exposition of Paul’s Soteri-
ology, is the writing of one who was ‘separated
unto the gospel of God concerning his Son’ 10.
Somerville (Νὴ. Paul's Conception of Christ, or the
Doctrine of the Second Adam) pursues, on the
other hand, with much skill and persuasiveness,
the line of Sabatier and Beyschlag, finding St.
Paul’s fundamental idea in Christ considered as
‘the Archetype of Humanity,’ but conserving His
Divine pre-existence and ‘Eternal Nature’ as
necessary deductions from, because presuppositions
of, His sovereign and creative relations to mankind.
With him, too, the Panline system is anthropo-
centric; and the fact that it was the product of
personal (human) experience, appears to him to
make this inevitable. In Paul's ‘Son of God’ he
sees a title that slopes upward from the human to
the Divine.

OT Antecedents and Starting - Point. — The
apostle’s doctrine is theocentric, not in reality
anthropocentric, = What is styled his ‘meta-
physics’ holds for Paul the immediate and sover-
eign fact of the universe; God, as he conceives
Him, is all and in all to his reason and heart
alike. So far the dogmatie analysis was right,
in starting with the doctrine of God, and dis-
posing under that the notions of law, righteous-
ness, sin, which form the basis of St. Paul’s
Soteriology. This path of exposition is resumed
in the very competent and judicious work of
G. B. Stevens of Yale, The Paling Theology. The
vision of the glorified Jesus revealed to Saul the
Son of God as his Saviour; but the God whose
Son the crucified Jesus is seen to be, was now to
be known in a far nearer and happier relation than
hefore. No passage strikes more deeply into St.
Panl’s experience than 2 Co 4*6; ‘There beamed
forth the illumination of the glory of Christ, who is
the image of God... itis God who said, Out of dark-
ness Hight shall shine, that shined in our hearts to
give the light of the knowledge of his glory in the
face of Christ.? It was the God of Israel whose

moral splendour dawned upon Saul’s mind through —

the dazzling form of the Lord Jesus; ‘God’ was
there ‘in Christ, reconciling’ Saul ‘unto himself,’
and the old things became new to him from that
hour—‘ all things are of God’ (2 Co ὅθ,
conception of God was imparted to Saul, a new re-
lationship to God established for him.

ology and Christology are rooted in his Theology.
A profound unity underlies the Judaic’ ‘and
Christian stages of St. Paul’s life. The convert
carried with him the Seriptures of his youth,
which he read now with the veil lifted from his
heart (2 Co 3), finding in them everywhere
testimonies, preparations, adumbrations οἵ the
things of the new covenant, the σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων,
the παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν (Ro 37! 154, Gal 333, Col
21-17, ete.). The Christian apostle blossomed out
of the Israelitish believer and scholar. At times
he speaks as though there had been no break in
his career (2 Ti 1°). Instead of ceasing to be a Jew
by becoming a Christian, Paul regarded himself
as now properly belonging to the Israel of God
(Ph 3%). Instead of severing himself from the
stock of Abraham, he would graft the Gentiles into
that ‘good olive tree,’ in whose ‘root and fatness’
is nourishment for all races ; by their admission to
the covenant, Abraham becomes, according to the
promise, ‘father of many nations’ (Ro 416: 11 11),
Tt was tor this reason that Paul laid stress on the

A new |

Davidie birth of Jesus (Ro 19 95, 2 Ti 25),—not asa
mere title to the Messianic throne, but as a link
between the past and present of revelation and a
symbol of the right of those who are ‘in Christ’
to serve themselves heirs of the spiritual wealth of
Israel.

1. St. Paul's Doctrine of God.—In_ systemat-
izing the Pauline teaching, we therefore ask first,
What was St. Paul’s earlier belief in God? and
how was that belief enlarged and recast by his
conversion? When he speaks of ‘ the righteousness
οἱ God,’ of ‘holiness’ and ‘sin,’ when he repeats the
watchword ‘God is one,’ when he exclaims ‘O the
depth of the riches and the wisdom and knowledge
ot God!’ we are sensible how large and powerfully
developed a doctrine of the Godhead the apostle
brought with him from the Synagogue. Such
terms as ‘the grace of God, ‘the love of God
which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,’ as ‘the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ indicate the immense
change that supervened.

(a) The Fatherhood of God.—St. Paul’s theology,
like that of Jesus, is a doctrine of the Fatherhood
οἱ God ; this principle is its tacit presupposition and
basis throughout. A true disciple, Paul has assimi-
lated in this fundamental article the essential teach-
ing of our Lord. ᾿Αββὰ ὁ ἸΤατήρ is the distinctive cry
of the new life, taken from the lips of Jesus (Ro
8h, Gal 40:1. Mk 14°), which marks the transition
from Judaism to Christianity. St. Paul’s careful
discrimination between ‘the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ’ and ‘God our Father, with the ex-
pression ‘firstborn amongst many brethren’ (Ro
89) that links the two, reflects the personal atti-
tude of Jesus towards God and men respectively.
To the character of Father belong the attributes of
love, mercy, compassion, grace, the gifts of peace,
consolation, hope, and joy, of which Saul the Judaist
had known so little. The forensic term adoption
must not be so understood as though Paul by its
use implicitly denied man’s original sonship to-
wards God: see to the contrary Ac 172”; also
iva τὴν υἱοϑεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν, Gal 45 (Liehtf. ad loc. ;
‘nec dixit decipiamus sed recipinmus, Aug.), and
the ἀπὸ of ἀποκαταλλάσσω (Col 151" %, Eph-2)*), “SP le
love of God, which precedes and determines our
redemption (Ro 58, Eph 28"), is love toward
those kindred to Himself and destined from their
creation to be His sons (Eph 15: ὅ).

Grace is the regnant word of Paul’s theology.
In this aspect he habituaily sees God’s face. The

_ entire contents of the new revelation are included

1 Henceforth |
his life is ‘hid with Christin God.’ St. Paul’s Soteri- |

in the phrase τὰ ὑπὸ τ. θεοῦ χαρισθέντα ἡμῖν (1 Co 913).
‘Grace’ signifies God’s favour to undeserving men
shown in Christ, His love at work for their salva-
tion. ‘The grace of God’ had made His Son’s
perseentor His apostle (Ro 15, 1 Co 159-10). its
light illuminated his whole course of action and of
thought ; his life and his theology were devoted to
‘the praise of the glory of God's grace.’ The all-
controlling Divine power and providence, exercised
over men and nations, the apostle saw to be
directed to ends determined hy God's fatherly love,
even in dispensations the most severe (Ac 172/33,
Ro 4:6 115-82, Gal 32-47, Eph 11:11 94-7. 1-18 37-12) 1ῃ
a word, ‘to the end that grace may reign through
righteousness unto life eternal’ (Ro 5%). See,
further, under art. GRACE.

(Ὁ) The Righteousness of God is the special theme
of*the Ep. to the Romans. St. Paul’s doctrine of
God's righteousness shows the new faith rooting
itself in and transforming the old. The δικαιοσύνη
θεοῦ of Ro V8 should not be resolved into a
‘righteousness from God’ (Paul can write ἡ ἐκ θεου
δικαιοσύνη When he chooses, Ph 3°). Righteousness
is God’s property (see art. GOD, vol. ii. pp. 209-212),
the principle of His moral sovereignty, the ethical
ground and norm of His dealings with men, and

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 716

therefore of the gospel in which those dealings
culminate. The Divine righteousness is now ‘ re-
vealed’ on a side hitherto veiled, as redeeming,
communicative (2 Co 5*!),—-a righteousness that
elicits and appeals to human trust instead of fear ;
in this disclosure there resides ‘(@od’s power (an
instrument of sovereign moral efficacy) unto salva-
tion for every believer.” The gospel righteousness
is that of ‘God our Futher, * the ‘one God of Jews
and Gentiles’ (Ro 147 721-20 455 and Θὲ 5% Ὁ ead Ore)
51861, etc.); not the imines impersonal iat of a
Supreme Ruler, but that of the essential Father,
into whose relations with men there enter funda-
mentally the considerations attaching to father-
hood,—who is accordingly ‘just himself’ (ef. 1 Jn
1°) when He ‘justifies him that is of faith in Jesus’
—a ‘just God and a saviour’ (Is 4574), just because
He is a saviour and a saviour because He is just.
The gospel is equally ‘the overflow of grace, and of
righteousness’ (Τὸ δ᾽; omit ‘the gift’). Love and
law, however distinct, are not contradictory in God,
any more than in man (Ro 13% ?°). Righteousness
takes grace into alliance ; it wins from the heart
‘the obedience of faith,’ where before it wrought
by mere command and in the ways of constraint.
It is seen at leneth in its fulness and majesty, a
‘stern lawgiver,’ yet wearing ‘the Godhead’s most

benignant grace. ‘The law’ that breeds trans-
eression and ‘worketh wrath,’ made righteousness

the accuser of a world of hapless criminals ; under
the gospel righteousness becomes the arbiter and
reconciler of the moral universe, giving its due to
the sin of men but also to the love of God.

The Second Isaiah and the later Psalmists had
arrived at the thought that the rectitude of God’s
character guarantees Israel’s salvation, and must,
in some way, impress and bestow itself upon

Israel: thus ‘righteousness’ and ‘salvation’ be-
come synonymous terms (Is 46115 514*5 56! 5916?!

61-4, Ps 228! 8916 98? 143"). Paul seizes and builds
upon this identification, which was amply verified
by the revelation of God made in Christ and the
cross. This eternal righteousness—God Himself in
moral action—swift to condemn its opposite, eager
to impart itself to those capable of it but without
it, ‘made him who knew no sin to be sin for us,
that we might become a righteousness of God in
him’ (2Co 5*!); in this righteousness the Father
‘spared not his own Son, but for us all gave him
up,’—-purposing ‘that we should be conformed to
the image of his Son’—His own image humanly
expressed—‘to the end that he should be first-
horn among many brethren.’ Manifestly, any
righteousness gained by this means is ὁ God’s’ and
not ‘one’s own’ (Ro 10°, Ph 3°); it comes only and
wholly through ‘believing on him that justifies
the ungodly’ “(R to 45). οὗ Sanday and Headlam
on ‘The Righteousness of God,’ in Jntern. Comi.,
Ro V1") See, further, the two articles on RIGHT.
ELOUSNESS.

(c) The anger of God is called forth wherever
righteousness comes into contact with sin, blazing
out against those who ‘hold down the truth in un-
righteousness’ (Ro 18, 2 Th 2!*1), Its effects are
seen in widespread moral degradation (Ro 1!8-*),
and in the ruin of particular men and nations
(Ro 9'7-22, 1 Th 916), Its final issue is ‘destruction’
for those who will not ‘know God,’ who persist in
that ‘carnal mind’ which is ‘enmity’ to Him (R
138 93-9 86.7, 1 Th 5°-9, 2Th 15-29), God loves the un-
godly as men (Ro 58, Eph 24°); as sinners they are
His ‘enemies,’ and lie helplessly under ‘the law’
that ‘works out wrath’ (Ro 1358) The know-
ere of God’s grace in Christ Akepened the apostle’s
sense of the imminence and terribleness of His
ἡ 1015. σον ΟΠ 1 ον O Rare Cee Wig perme Ὁ
24216), ‘See, further, art. ANGER.

(d) The Law of God.—Along with his conception

of righteousness, St. Paul’s conception of the law
of God was greatly widened, and altered in several
respects, by his knowledge of Christ. Here the
Jewish and Christian stages of thought are dis-
tinctly marked ; but the larger, evangelical view of
Law is indicated rather than developed. Familiar
usage, emphasized by the legalistic controversy,
dictates the frequent and characteristic expressions
in which law and faith, law and erace, law and

promise, ‘righteousness that is of law? and ‘ right-
eousness that is of God through faith,’ stand

opposed ; and we actually have the paradox that
‘apart from law a vightcousness ΟἹ God is mani-
fested !’? (Ro 37!%).) This last sentence, with its
context, gives clear evidence that Paul looked
beyond the polemical antithesis ; a righteousness
‘distinct from law? must be a righteousness positing
some higher, larger law than legalism had con-
ceived of.

The range of Divine law is extended, as in Ro
Qu. 16. 26.275 the moral code is found written on the
conscience of mankind. When Paul writes, in
Ro 5® © Sin is not imputed where there is no law,’
he asserts law to be universal as sin and des uth,
whose very connexion is a first article thereof (8° ).
At the bottom, ‘there is no distinction—all the
world has become guilty (ὑπόδικος) in relation to
God’ (Ro 38); the Jew, if first in privilege, is
first in condemnation (Io 2'-3"). Jew and Gentile
are equally lost if God’s law knows nothing more
than ‘the command’ of Mosaisin, if His normal
relation to men is that expressed in the covenant
of Sinai with its maxim, ‘He that doeth these
things shall live in them.’ In itself ‘holy and
righteous and good,’ the law in effect ‘ was found to
issue in death for me,’ by its very prohibitions
awakening and sharpening ‘Jawless desire (hei ας
thus it proved to be ‘the power of sin’ (1 Co 15%),
whereas ‘the gospel’ is the ‘power of God unto
salvation.’ Every man that is ‘under the Jaw’
is ‘under a curse’—the curse that was consum-
mated on Calvary and is terminated for those
who are in Christ (Gal 3174),

St. Paul’s experience and logic combined to work
out to this deadly and comprehensive issue the
juridical conception of law—true, of course, but
tatally incomplete and bearing fruit in moral im-
potence and death ; to it he had died in Christ (Ro
104, Galo), Paul had done with ‘law’ in the
old sense, but in a new sense he is more true to
law than ever: ‘The law of the Spirit of life has
in Christ Jesus freed’ him ‘from the law of sin
and death’; he is neither ὑπὸ νόμον nor ἄνομος, but
ἔννομος Χριστοῦ (Ro 64 82,1 Co 97). Formerly the
expression of the nor mal relation of Israel τὸ God
detined by the Mosaic covenant, law is now to be
conceived as the normal rel: ition of man to God
determined by the new covenant in Christ, whose
basis lay deeper than the old, for it was contained
in the Abrahamic promise (Gal 342). «The law
of Christ,’ embracing all the essentials of ethies,
operates from the heart, as an inward principle
not an external and alien * command’; love is its
fulfilment (Gal 5" 03. It embraces faith and the
action of the Holy Spirit as legitimate and decisive
factors in God’s dealings with His children ; and
the apostle speaks consistently of a ‘law of faith’
and ‘the law of the Spirit of life.’ These are no
strained or casual expressions ; the identilication
is profoundly characteristic. Nothing was more
foreign to St. Paul’s nature than Antinomianism
A love at variance with righteousness, a faith
resting upon no settled principle of the Divine
eovernment, neither his reason nor reverence
could have tolerated. ‘Do we make void Jaw
through our faith (in Christ)? Anything but that ;
nay, we establish law ἢ (Ro 38 90} Paul combats
Jewish legalisin in the interests of a larger legali y,

720 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

a juster righteousness, which lies deep in the heart
of Scripture and in the nature of God. The same
in its contents, the law takes quite another hold
upon the conscience now that the Lawgiver is
beheld as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. ‘Love’ becomes its ‘fulfilling ’—* faith
operative through love’ (Ro 13, Gal 58): thus
‘the righteous demand of the daw is fulfilled in

those that walk according to the Spirit,’ —those |
‘in’ whose ‘hearts’ ‘God’s love has been poured

out through the Holy Spirit’ (Ro 5° 8. See,
further, art. LAW (IN NT).
The manifestation of God in Christ makes

repentance imperative, and determines its nature
and direction. Of repentance (μετάνοια) Paul had
much to say in his missionary preaching (Ac 13%
17 207! 26°; comp. Ro 24); in the Epp. it is
implied in sueh terms as ‘turning to God from
idols,’ ‘coming to know God’; on the other hand, in

‘dying to sin,’ ‘erucifying the flesh,’ ‘putting off

the old man’ (1 Th 1", Gal-4® 5%, Ro 62-19-21, Eph 45
5°34, ete.) It is tacitly assumed as a condition
precedent to justification and sanctification, which
are inconceivable without the confession and
renunciation of sin; it is indeed a constituent of
saving faith.

Christian prayer correspends to the character of
the Christian’ God (Eph 384-43), in its confidence
(παρρησία), intellivence, constancy, universal range,
its accompaniment of thanksgiving (Eph 3%, 1Co
1415. Col 42,1 Th 5! 18, ete.), in its dependence on
the mediation of Christ and on the sympathetie aid
of the Holy Spirit (Eph 3”, Ro 8-27); it is the
prayer of sons to a Father.

2. Doctrine of Mim.—Over against the apostle’s
conception of God lies his conception of Man—the
individual and the race.

(4) The Constitution of Mankind.—The OT belief
is Paul's, that man—the ἀνήρ more immediately —
is the ‘image and glory of God? (i Co 117). The
Gentile consciousness is witness to the fact that
‘we are his offspring’ (Ac 1728+ *%). “The Son of
his love’ is God’s perfect image (Col 1); Chris-
tian men are such in so far as they are renewed
‘after the Creator’s image’ and become His chil-
dren (Col 8:0, Eph 43: δὴ. In all men the reason
(νοῦς), unless ‘reprobate,’ discerns God in creation
and is ‘bondman to God’s law’ (Ro 119. 30. 28 Kea) Woes 50
that they are ‘without exeuse’ for sin. With the
OT, Paul aflirms the race-unity and moral solid-
arity of mankind—in Adam on the one hand, in
Christ on the other (Ro 5!**!); as against Judaism,
he repudiates any real difference between Jew and
Gentile, either in sin or saivability (Ro 3).

‘The woman is the glory of the man,’ who is her
‘head.’+ She is relatively subordinate, and Panl
does not ‘allow’ her ‘to teach nor to have dominion ’
in church or house,—though intrinsically the man’s
equal, since ‘in Christ Jesus there can be no male
and female’? any more than ‘Jew and Greek’
(1 Co 11°, 1 Ti 2415, Gal 38). The prohibition
of 1Co 14% to exercise any spiritual gift in
public appears to have been due to circumstances ;
otherwise it would be in conflict with 115, The
two sexes are necessary to each other ‘in the Lord?
(1 Coll!) ; both shared in the euilt of the Fall—
the woman, as Paul seems to put it, ‘being de-
ceived’ (2 Co 11°, 1'Ti 2'4) and sinning through
weakness, whereas Adam’s sin was a deliberate
and responsible ‘ transeression’ and ‘disobedience’
(Ro 5), culpable and decisive in the highest degree.

(6) Spirit and Flesh.—Paul’s doctrine of human
nature is that of the OT. Man is constituted
of flesh and spirit—allied by the former to the
perishable material creation, by the latter to God
and the world unseen. ‘The body’ is flesh in the
concrete, the man’s individual form ; ‘the soul’ with
Paul, as chroughout Scripture, is not a tertium quid

| between spirit and flesh, but rather their unity, the
living 5611 behind the bodily form of each man.
(See, however, in favour of Trichotomy, Ellicott,
Destiny of the Creature, and on 1'Th 5%; Heard,
| Lrinartite Nature of Man: Delitzsch, Bibl. Psu-
chology). ‘Soul’ is a word relatively infrequent
in Paul ; the ‘heart’ takes its place as the seat of
the manifold thoughts and feelings,—which ψυχὴ
concentrates into the self, the conscious Ego.
“Πνεῦμα is the principle, Ψυχὴ the subject, and
Καρδία the organ of life’ (Cremer). The νοῦς of Ro
129 7°75, ete., is the mvedua operative as a faculty of
knowledge directed toward Divine things, while
the συνείδησις of Ro 2”, ete., is the same power
introverted, the ethical self-consciousness.

‘Flesh’ and ‘spirit’ hold in Paulinism a more
specific religious sense based upon, but distinguish-
able from, their psychological meaning : the former
term regularly denotes the sinful nature of man,
the latter its opponent in the influence of God
operating in and through His Spirit (see é.g. Ro
87, Gal 51%), This raises the question whether
Paul referred sin to man’s constitution, grounding
it in his physical system and in the (supposed) evil
intrinsic to matter, as Baur, Holsten, and others
_ argue, who make sin to be, in its essence, senswous-
ness or sensuality, Pileiderer sees in Paul's
doctrine of σὰρξ proof of his Hellenism ; Sabatier
finds two discrepant Pauline theories of Sin—the
Rabbinical view of Ro 5, deriving it from the fall
of Adam; and the psychological view of Ro 7,
where it arises from the inevitable collision be-
tween physical desire and ethical law (‘ L’origine
du Péché’ in Append. to L’ Apétre Paul). But the
αὐτὸς ἐγώ of Ro7 is a child of his race, one ‘sold
under sin’ and compromised beforehand, in whom
sin ‘revives’ at the impact of the law, having been
therefore already latent. On the other hand, Paul’s
prominent doctrines of the sinlessness of Christ,
of the resurrection of the body and its sanctity as
the temple of the Holy Spirit, forbid the notion,
which in fact he combats in Col and the Past. Epp.,
of an inherent sinfulness attaching to physical
nature. In 2 Co 7! he speaks of ‘detilement of
flesh and of spirit’ (anda possible cleansing of both);
Gal 5°"! enumerates non-physical sins among
‘works of the flesh.’ The ne plus ultra of human
sin, described in 2 Th 24, is a self-deifying pride—
atheism, or anti-theism, full-blown. The use of
‘flesh’? for ‘sin’ and ‘carnal’ for ‘sinful’ is a
synecdoché ; the more conspicuous and prevalent
kind of sin stands for the whole.

But more than this:—(1) sin has occupied the
body and become a sort of ‘law in the members’ (Ro
7'**), so that human flesh is ordinarily, though not
essentially, ‘flesh of sin’ (Ro 88, ef. 713 ἐγὼ σάρκινος).
The same disparagement is extended to the body :
qua ‘body of sin’ it must be ‘nullified,’ that we
may no longer be ‘bondmen to sin,’—a deliverance
effected by the crucifixion of ‘the old man’ with
Christ (Ro 6% 7-4 85. Col 3°). In man’s proper
Christian state his spirit, aided by the Spirit οἱ
God, rules his body and makes its ‘members
instruments of righteousness unto God’ (Ro 6!2-¥,
1 Co 9-7); in his natural wmrenewed state the
flesh preponderates. (2) The heredity of sin is in-
volved in Ro 5” (comp. Jn 3°); its taint is asxo-
ciated with fleshly descent, while the children of
God are ‘begotten κατὰ πνεῦμα᾽ (Gal 4°), As the
term ‘spirit’ rese in the NT vocabulary and came
to be appropriated for the Holy Spirit of God, so
‘flesh’ sank to its lowest significance as denoting
the antagonistic evil nature in man (Gal 5! 17, ταῦτα
ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται). When Paul describes ‘ the first
man, Adam’ as ‘ earthy ’ (χοϊκός), as a ‘living soul’
Wearing a ‘natural body’ (sua ψυχικόν), in contrast
with ‘the second man,’ the risen Christ who is
the ‘life-giving Spirit’ already clothed with the

PAUL THE APOSTLE

ΤῈ

PAUL THE APOSTLE

‘spiritual body’? (σῶμα πνευματικόν), these former
terms do not signify a fallen condition but a gross
and undeveloped condition—the * natural’ (sensu-
ous) as it precedes the ‘spiritual,’ not the ‘carnal’
as the negation of 10.

(c) Sin and Death dominate man’s existence
(Ro 5!**1), They set at war his flesh and spirit,
and destroy both in turn. ‘Sin reigned in death,’
is St. Paul's epitome of human history ; ‘Sin came
to life, and I died. . . . Wretched man that 1 am,
who will rescue me out of this body of death %’--
his summary of personal experience out of Christ.
Sin (ἡ ἁμαρτία) is thus personiied, in contrast with
God's grace or righteousness, as the master prin-
ciple of unredeemed humanity. Its seat is the
flesh. ‘ Ungodliness’ (ἀσέβεια) and ‘ unrighteous-
ness’ (ἀδικία, Ro 118) are its chief forms, as it is
related to God Himself or to His law for men: sin
8 irreligion, or immorality, or both at once,——
‘enmity against God’ and insubordination to His
law (Ro 87). Moral corruptions have, in the
apostle’s view, a religions root; heathen vice is
the product of idolatry ; ἀδικία is the nemesis of
ἀσέβεια (Ro 18:83. Eph 4119}. and wilful ignorance
of God the prime cause of moral disorder. Sin is
at the bottom a ‘ disobedience,’ to be rectified only
in the way of ‘reconciliation,’ of ‘ justification’
through an adequate ‘obedience’ (Ro 5! 1). ‘The
act of sin is transgression or trespass (παράβασις,
παράπτωμα, ὁ... Ro 2, Gal 01), when it is a conscious
breach of law or lapse from rectitude. ‘Apapria
includes whatever is ethically amiss in nature or
conduct, tendeney or action. Sin is not defect or
weakness ; it isa positive and culpable depravation.
It has ‘passed along’ from the progenitor of the
race ‘unto all men.’ Negatively, it has robbed
‘all men’ of ‘the glory of God, —that splendid
image in which man was formed; positively, it
makes ‘all the world guilty before God,’—a conse-
quence dreadfully realized in the universality of
eave, oe Oey Τρ 1p"). In * the: ful
ness of time’ sin has reached its climax. ‘The
wisdom of the world’ that ‘knew not God’ is thus
proved by its fruits to be utter foily (1 Co 1;
comp. Ro 1). And ‘the [Mosaic] law’ prohibiting
sin, has ageravated it to the utmost. This was, in
truth, its hidden purpose: it ‘came in by the way,
in order that the trespass might multiply, that
‘sin might become exceeding sinful’ (Ro 52 2! 733,
Gal 3!-~),—that, in short, sin ‘ might be shown to
be sin,’ the ineffeetual restraint stimulating sin’s
violence while it deepened the consciousness of
guilt, thus ripening the disease for the application
of the remedy.

Sin and death go hand in hand. ‘ Death entered ἢ
at the door of Adam's transgression : ‘Sin came to
reign in death. Bodily death is the fruit and
penalty of sin in man, and evidences its universal
sway. Not that Paul supposes the termination of
our present bodily existence to be due to sin: ‘flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kinedom of God’;
the ‘earthy man’ must in any case have been
changed to ‘the image of the heavenly. and ‘the
natural? was bound to give place to the ‘spiritual
body’ (1 Co 154). But death, as known in this
‘body of humiliation’ and ‘of death, gets its
‘sting’ from sin. Under this doom *the body
is” virtually ‘dead because of sin,’ even when ‘the
spirit is life because of righteousness’ (Ro 510). Sin
brings death upon the entire man: when ‘sin
came to life, J died’ (Ro 7%); till the life of the
risen Christ was theirs, Gentiles and Jews alike
were ‘dead by reason of their trespasses and sins,’
since they lay under God's ‘anger’ and were
‘alienated from his life’ (Eph 2!? 48). This is no
figurative death, —a state of apathy and impotence,
—but a real death of the spirit, attended by moral
dissolution, since ‘Jife indeed’ is found only in

VOL, 111, —a4

.»-ἰΞ

fellowship with God (Ro 619. 8% 2°, Col 3!, 1 Ti 6"),
As it is through and with the dying Christ that
we enter into this ‘newness of life, the change
itself is called, relatively, a death; ‘our old man
was crucified with Christ’ (Ro 6%, Gal 2”),

(¢) The history of the race is but the story of the
‘wretched man’ of Ro 7 writ large; it is a history
of sin and redemption. ‘There are with Paul, as ig
Jewish theology, two ages—6 αἰὼν ὁ ἐνεστὼς and ὁ αἰὼν
6 péAAwWY (1 Co 2% 731, 2 Co 44, Ro 122, Gal 14), two
worlds corresponding to the ‘new? and ‘old man’
—one corrupt and perishing, the other newborn in
Jesus Christ. His cross marks the boundary
between them (Gal 64). From the ascension of
Jesus dates the Messianic age, the reign of grace,
the dispensation of the Spirit, the new humanity,
the establishment of ‘the kingdom of the Son of
God's love’ on the territory of ‘the dominion of
darkness.’

jut the earlier times were never God-forsaken.
A fatherly and forbearing Providence directed the
nations ; In the bounties of nature God ‘left him-
self without witness’ to none; through His works
ot creation His ‘eternal power and divinity’
appealed to man’s intelligence (Ac 14-17 17281, Ro
is"), The lives of the heathen, with no express
‘law,’ disclose not infrequently the marks ot His
working in the human conscience (Ro 2419-2) 27),
The Gentile world, as a whole, had notwithstanding
sunk into desperate guilt. The more wanton or
monstrous a cult might be, so much the more it was
pursued ; and the popular idolatry might be roughly
described as half les, half devilry-—‘the Gentiles
sacrifice to demons and not te God’ (Ro 12, 1 Co
8. 10"! 12°, Gal 45). Under the sway of such re-
ligions, moral debasement went on apace ; the most
horrible vices throve rankly in the great cities where
the apostle taught. Satan was de facto ‘the god of
this world ‘The law of sin and death,’ operating
incessantly from Adam downwards, was working
out for society its last results. Here was at least a
negative preparation for Chirist. The world was lost,
and Paul proclaims to Rome a gospel that is the
‘power of God unto salvation’; to its ‘obedience
of faith’ he proposes to reduce ‘all the nations.’

In Israel a ditferent, but concurrent, preparation
had taken place. The Mosaic law, fastening its
yoke on the Jewish conscience, compelled it to the
hopeless path of salvation by works. The Jew was
God's ‘ bondinan” (Ro 8, Gal 41:7. 531. 51), striving to
Win ‘a righteousness of his own’ and to secure by
merit the Messiah's coming. The attempt was an
acknowledged failure. The law was not kept ; it
provoked rather than repressed transeression, and
produced more hypocrites than saints (Ro 2). The
Jew was no better than the Gentile whom he con-
denmmed,—nay, worse because of his boasted know-
ledge. The Divine anger burnt hotly against his
nation; their spiritual privileges had bred in them
a stubborn and inhuman pride (Ro 29, 1 Th 916. 16,
Ac Τοῦ; The Messianic salvation, as they con-
ceived it, was farther off than ever. Gentile and
Jew alike—‘all the world ’—were ‘guilty before
God, with no defence and no resource * shut up
unto the faith that was to be revealed’ (Ro 39:9.
Gal 3°"). The former age extending, with the
Mosaic interlude, from Adam to Christ, had cul-
minated in a general moral hankruptey.

At the same time, the apostle viewed the expiring
age in another and more favourable light. Both in
heathenism and Judaism an education of intellect
and conscience had all the while been going on; the
elementary truths of religion (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου,
tc. not ‘the’ physical *elements,’—starry powers
or the like, identified with angels, as many inter-
preters suppose,—but ‘the rudiments’ belonging
to a childish, pupillary state: see Letft. on Gat. 4
and Col 2°; also Weiss, NZ’ Theol. $70) had been

Pree)
ἘΠΕ

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

ineicated and widely understood, however ill
practised, and had disciplined the κληρονόμος νήπιος
for his emancipation in Christ. In and around the
Synagovue there was a people prepared for the Lord
στ᾿ remnant according to the election of grace’ ;
and ‘the salvation of Ged,’ sent from unbelieving
Judaism to che Gentiles, found these in multitudes
ready to hear; so that the present ‘ casting away’
of Ixzael is proving a ‘reconciliation of the world,’
which in turn was destined to end in Israel’s full
‘reception’ (Ro 11, Ae 2838), On all accounts it
was clear that ‘the fulness of the times,’ the
turning-point of human destiny, had come,—at
once the consummation of the shameful past and
the foundation of a glorious future. At the erisis
where the apostle stands, ‘God has shut up all
together unto disobedience, that he might have
mercy upon all’ (Ro 119’, Gal 333).

3. Doctrine of Christ and of Salvation.—On
tie basis of St. Paul’s doctrines of God and of
righteousness, of man and of sin, stands his
doctrine respecting Christ and salvation, — the
birth of ‘the fulness of time’ (Gal 44).

(4) The Person of Christ.—Vhe Pharisee Saul
persecuted Jesus of Nazareth after His death for
the reason for which He had been put to death, —
His claim to be the Son of God. In a moment he
discovered his utter mistake, and reversed jis
judgement of the Nazarene. Jesus was, after all,
the Messiah ;—and not a mere human ‘Son of
David,’ a Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα, but as He was under-
stood to assert before the Sanhedrin and as His
apostles continually preached, the Lord of glory, the
Son of the Highest. These convictions entered, with
vlightning flash, the mind of the stricken persecutor.
‘Who art thou, Lord?’ was his question to the
Celestial One who appeared to him in the way.
The terms of Saul’s faith in the Person of Christ
were already present to his thought ; he needed
but to substitute ‘Jesus Lord’ for ‘Jesus anathema’
(1 Co 12°), and to adore whom he had Dblasphemed.
‘Tmmediately in the synagoeues fof Damascus] he
preached that this Jesus is the Son of God’ (Ae
o') > what ‘the Son of God? meant to Jewish ears,
the trial before the Sanhedrin and the record of
St. Joan’s Gospel show. The relationship of Christ
to God gave supreme worth in St. Paul's eyes to
His sacrifice, and turned the shameful cross into
the glorious revelation of God’s love to mankind :
‘God sent forth Ais own Son (ἑαυτοῦ) to redeem
those under the law, that we might receive the
adoption of sons’—‘He spared not his own Son
(σοῦ ἰδίου ; comp. Jn 5'5), but delivered him up for
us all’; 10 is thus that God is known to be ‘for
us, thus He ‘commends his own (ἑαυτοῦ) love
toward us’ (Gal 45: ὅ, Ro 55-10 g31- 82),

Son of God is a name shared by the ‘firstborn’
with ‘many brethren.’ Yet however much they
partake with Him, God’s ‘own Son’ stands im-
measurably above both men and angels (Eph 122-5,
ete.). We receive the same impression from the
apostle’s phrases that the Jews received from what
Jesus said of Himself (Jn 52°); not least from the
solemn distinction and frequency with which God
is named ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’
Paul styles Him habitually ‘the Lord,’ ‘the Lord
Jesus,’ ‘the Lord Christ,’ ‘the Lord Jesus Christ.’
To minds familiar with the Greek OT, these
names, in the formal manner in which they are
employed, carried irresistibly the connotation of
Godhead. Words of Scripture relating to ‘the
Lonp’ (Jehovah, but read as Adonai) are freely, as
ἃ matter of course, appropriated for Christ. The
title * Lord’ denotes Christ's sovereignty in the
Church (eg. 2 Co 45), and through the universe
(Ph 2°"); He is designated ‘Head’ in Col and
Eph in the same twofold way. This Lordship is
so lofty and wide as to be inconceivable in one

less than God (see esp. Col 2%, in connexion with
114-0), «The kinedom of the Son of Goed’s love’
embraces ‘all creation,’ of which He is the ground,
means, and relative end (Col 1% 27), while ‘God tha
Father’ is the fountain and absolute end of ‘all
things’ (1 Co 85). *' They derived their being from
His agency, the Divine power that called them into
existence travelling to its goal through Him.

To believe in Him, to accept Him as our ideal
and find our life’s end in doing His will, is to be
true to a relation that lies in creation itself,
and that expresses the eternal law of our being’
(Somerville, Sf. Paul's Conception of Christ, pp.
192, 193). Though Lord in this unlimited sense,
Christ is always obedient as a Son, and ‘delivers
up the kingdom to the Father’? who sent Him,
when His task of redemption is complete (1 Co
15°, ef. Ph 2"). Such free subordination of love
implies no inequality of nature (cf. 1 Co 11); it is
essential to the Divine unity. Despite his horror
of creature-worship, St. Paul addresses prayers to
the Lord Jesus side by side with the Father, and
this frequently in the two earliest letters ; he de-
fines Christians as those ‘who call on the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Co 1°, Ro 101», 2 Ty 22),
To St. Paul's imagination as to that of St. John,
the heavenly throne is that ‘of God and of the
Lamb.’ ‘There is nothing really surprising if, as
seems most probable in both instances, Paul has
actually in Ro 9° and Tit 2! given to Christ the
predicate ‘God’ (cf. Jn 18, μονογενὴς θεύς).

Christ's Headship over the redeemed Chureh
rests upon His premundane Lordship (Col 1!8),
If His present rule is Divine, His prior state must
have been Divine; He was not constituted Son of
God by His resurrection, but so ‘marked out’ (or
‘instated,’ ὁρισθείς, Ro 1). He who at the end of the
aves will be confessed as ‘ Lord’? by every tongue,
subsisted originally ‘in the form of God’—ev μορφῇ
θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (the μορφὴ signifies that which con-
stitutes Godhead, Ph 241). Not of this * form’ did
Christ ‘empty himself’? in His humiliation, but
of the external conditions described by the words
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ ; the Divine state was surrendered,
the Divine essence could not be (Ph 2°: see Gitiord,
Incarnation; also Bruce, Humiliation of Christ,
and Lightfoot, PAi/inpians, ad loc.). Since He was
originally God, Christ’s renunciation of the Divine
condition in His incarnation and crucifixion showed
an intinite regard for ‘others,’ that must win un-
bounded adoration. The height of His previous
‘riches’ measures the depth of the ‘poverty’ to
which He descended (2 Co 8°).

‘The apostle nowhere establishes or teaches the
pre-existence of Christ, but presupposes it as
familiar to his readers and disputed by no one’
(Beyschlag, NT Theology, ii. 18). Baur, Ptleiderey,
Beyschlag, Schmiedel, with other able scholars, see
in Paul’s pre-incarnate Christ the ideal, celestial
man, the archetype and divinely constituted Head
of humanity, who in this capacity was primevally
(whether in esse or in posse) Lord of the human
creation. This explanation starts from 1 Co 154%,
interpreted according to the Philonian and later
Rabbinical distinction between the two Adams of
Gn 15 and 27—the first, the ideal man after God’s
image, remaining with God as a heavenly pattern
(sometimes identified with the Messiah); the
second, the earthy, phenomenal man. But St. Paul
reverses this order, and writes in v.4° as though
he would contradict Philo (see Edwards, ad loc.) ;
the δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος of 1 Co 15 is ὁ μέλλων Of Ro ou.
When he distinguishes the two as ‘from earth,
‘from heaven,’ he points to their respective source
of being, implying nothing as to previous state
of being. ‘The second man’ is, in this context,
the risen (not the pre-incarnate) Christ, clothed
already, to our knowledge, with His ‘spiritual

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 728

body,’ the Ἐ ΉΣΑΝ, from take en. vOr 2Go- Ὁ ἀπ
Ph 351: (see Meyer and Heinrici on 1 Co 15%).

The coexistence of the Divine and human in the
Lord Jesus is St. Paul’s constant wonder. He puts
the two natures in signal contrast (Ro 1? 4 9%, Gal
44), but nowhere attempts to define their relations
in the one person. ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ in His
redeemed kingdom not as mere Son of God, but
under the name of Jesus, who was ‘found in fashion
aman’? and held concealed beneath the μορφὴ
δούλου His original μορφὴ θεοῦ (Ph 95:1. Now the
enthroned ‘mediator of God and men,’ He remains
evermore ‘man?’ (1 ἢ 9. His connexion with the
race is pre-incarnate; Christ was the source of
spiritual blessing to the Jewish fathers (1 Co 104).
He is, in truth, the fountain of life to mankind in
the spiritual, as Adam in the natural order,—a fact
implied in the untinished parallel OL hog se Ene
head of every man is Christ,’ as ‘the man is head of
woman’ (1 Co 11°); thus family life and social order
rest on His prior authority. Marital love has its
model in that of Christ tothe Church (Mph 5%, ἀντὶ
τούτου). [1 God has ‘sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into our hearts’ and we are to be ‘essentially
conformed (cugusppous) +0 the image of his Son’
(Gal 44, Ito 859), this implies an aboriginal kinship.
The Son of God is the mould in which our nature
was cast, the representative and root of our race in
the Godhead: so much truth there isin the Baurian
doctrine of the Urinensch (see Edwards’ The God-
mon). Θ᾽ especially are ‘through him’ and

‘unto him’—‘through whom are all thines? and
‘in whom all thines consist’ (1 Co 85, (Ὁ ‘ol. [16 δὴν
St. Paul looks into the ground-jlan of creation
when he says that God ‘chose us in him before
the foundation of the world,’ and that we ‘were
created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which
God prepared beforehand’? (Ei ph 11.919), The Incar-
nation and Atonement spring, therefore, out of the
fundamental relations of God and man in Christ.

In virtue of the primitive relationship of man-
hind to Him, the Son of God is concerned in the
curse that came upon us through transeression,
and becomes answerable on this account (see Dale,
Atonement, Lect. x.). God ‘made him sin on our
behalf.” Yet His freedom was never compromised,
His purity remained unspotted ; ‘in the (ii ness of
51} {} flesh’ He was ‘sent forth,’ not in its actual
carnality ; in fact, He ‘knew no sin’ (Ro 85, 2 Co
571: contrast Ro 71:8. This statement inplies a
large acquaintance on St. Paul’s part with the per-
sonal life of Jesus, to whie h his references are few
but si¢nificant.(Ro 15°, 2 Co 101, Eph 4°°>4, 1 Ti 64
Weir, Co 11 Lhe miraculous conception,
which in a manner explains the unique character
of Jesus, the apostle never alludes to. His power-
ful manifestation as ‘Son of God,’ from the time
of the resurrection, was ‘in accordance with the
spirit of holiness’ that marked His earthly course
Cho 1*).

The Messiahship of Jesus, expressed in His name
Chr'st—the main topic of missionary preaching
to Jews (Ac 9%? 1328 ete.)—is taken for granted
in the Epp., like the Fatherhood of God, as
accepted to begin with by all Christians. Two
points Paul had to make out in proving Jesus to
be ‘Christ’: (1) to show from Scripture that the
Christ’ was παθητύός, was destined to suffer in
order to reign —this general doctrine of a suffering
Messiah being an open question in the Jewish
schools ; (2) to identify Jesus with the Christ so
defined (Ac 172-3 1845). On the abstract point of
doctrine he might carry his Jewish hearers with
him, but fail when he applied it to the crucified
Nazarene. That Christ was ‘of David’s seed
according to flesh,’ that His Jewish birth was the
crown of Israelite privilege and glory, that ‘Christ
had become minister of the circumcision,’ and that

as

‘thus fulfilled the promise made to the
these were essential conditions of the
case, and sacred matters to the Gentile apostle
Cro: LO 1532. Ac 3-3), But the Messianic
kingship of the O'T has expanded into the larger
royalty of ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’; and he who
had fervently expected a Χοιστον κατὰ σάρκα, ‘now
no longer knows him’ (2 Co 5:6). See, further,
wrt. MESSIAH.

(b) The Death of the Cross.—The Christ so con-
stituted, David’s seed and God’s own Son, sin-curst
yet sinless, died the death of the cross—a victim
for human transgression. THE Cross is the main
shaft of the superstructure resting on the basis
already described ; it is the trunk into which run
up all the roots of Pauls Christian thought, and
that supports its branches and fruitage. ‘Far be
it from me to glory,’ he exclaims, ‘save in the cross
of our Lord Jesus Christ !?) Everything that Paul
knows, exults in, builds upon, is poised there.

The apostle uses many terms to express the
meaning of the death of Christ, for it is a fact
of boundless significance. [Ὁ is a vicarious, repre-
sentative death, as He who thus sulfered is the
Leader of the race, the ‘One’ who ‘died for all,’
who alone had the right and power to do so
(2Co 54), Tt is a legal expiation in the very
largest sense, coming under that awful law which
links de: ath to mE as its universal human penalty
(or 54:82, JeCo lor} Gal 44°); the pardon based
upon it is accordingly a “justific ation, an acquittal
and release in the court of the Divine Justic e, since
‘he that died hath been justified from sin,’ and
fall died in him’ (Lio A G6 δ δ GOL mee s)

Christ’s death was an intrinsically ‘justifying act’
(δικαίωμα), right in itself and rectifying in its scope,
that turned to ‘justification of life’ the ‘condem-
nation’ lying on ‘all men’ in consequence of Adaim’s
trespass ; it is ‘the obedience of the One,’ through
which ‘the disobedience ef the one man’ is counter-
vailed (Ro δ δ. 1»), [It was a ‘propitiation,’ since
He who thus shed ‘his blood’? in doing so realized
with sympathy and entire submission the holy
resentment that burns against sin through all the
miseries which it ent: uils, and the endurance of this
undeserving voluntary Sulferer for His guilty
brethren was ‘an odour of sweet smell’ (Ro ens

God had
fathers’ :

Eph 5°). In every fitting sense the death of Jesus
was a ‘sacrifice,’ offered upon man’s part, which

God in His righteousness accepts. In His grace
(τοῦ first provided it ; for ‘Christ is God's’ rather
than ours. The Father of Christ and of men ‘ sent
his own Son, in likeness of sinful flesh and for sin’;
He ‘delivered him up for us all’; He ‘set him
forth a propitiation,’ and so ‘commends his own
love. toward Ws: . , « siinéts’ (Ro ΡΝ
the sacrifice effects a ‘reconciliation’ (xkavadX\ay7),
proposed by God who through Christ admits into
tavour those who could otherwise be treated only
as enemies, and accepted by men who endorse the
satisfaction which Christ renders on their behalf
ΓΕ, ον πῆς. On this: ground: Godsane-an
meet in friendship. The Divine tamily is gathered
again round the Elder Brother, who restores to each
other those whom He reconciles to God, slaying
all enmity by the blood of His cross (Eph 2! 15),
On the basis of this atonement the entire sum of
blessings making yp our salvation is bestowed—
blessings collectively named ‘redemption’ (ἀπολύ-
Tpwows), as they are won for us at the cost of the
blood of Christ (1 Co 1° 6-%, ply 14, Ac 208).

But there is another side to the Panline doe ‘trine
of the cross. When it is said in Ro 8! that * God
by sending his own Son in likeness of sinful flesh,
and (as a sacrifice) for sin, condemned sin in the
flesh, that the righteousness of the law mieht be
fulfilled in us,’ the subjective moral effect of
Christ’s death comes into view. The mission of

724 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

Carist has so brought home the guilt of human
sin as to bring about a full reaction. While en-
during the penalty, Christ has broken the power
of sin, and dethroned it (ef. 54), even in’ that
‘flesh? which was its seat ; so sanctifiertion (Ro 6),
equally with justification (Ro 3-5), springs from the
death of the cross, the saving power of which is
certified and made efficacious by the resurrection
of the Sinbearer (Ro 45" 35. 8 Jos) Ph 31), As
‘condemnation’ ceases for ‘those who are in Christ
Jesus,’ there begins to operate upon them that
‘law of the Spirit of life in him’ which ‘frees
from the law of sin and death?’ substituting ‘the
mind of the Spirit’ for ‘the mind of the flesh’
and giving them victory over bodily death, whose
‘sting’ is gone for those who in Christ have ‘died
to sin’ (Ro Ὁ 8!) 1 Co 15°). The change of
status and the change of character effected in
believers are, to Paul's mind, inseparable; he blends
them in Ro 6, where those who ‘died to sin’ are
such as have in Christ at once expiated its curse
and renounced its dominion, to ‘walk’? with their
risen Lord ‘in newness of life’—living in Him,
and as He does, ‘to God. In the pregnant words
of νοῦς they are ‘justified (so as to be free) from sin.’
The so-called ‘juristic? and ‘ethical’ theories of
the Atonement are complementary to each other ;
Paul passes from one to the other with no sense of
discrepancy (see Stevens’ Pauline Theol., on ‘Justi-
fication’; Pileiderer’s Panlinismus?, *Der Tod
Christi’; Sabatiers Apost/, Paul, p. 297 .). See,
further, arts. ATONEMENT, PROPITIATION,

(ὦ The new Life of Faith. —Vrom the moment
that he dies with Christ, there begins for the be-
liever the new life of faith (Gal 2": :ὺ The word
Faith on the human side is as characteristic of
Paulinism as Grace on the Divine. Faith is the
hand reached out to receive the gifts of grace;
it is the reot by which the soul is planted into
Christ and draws its life from Him. It is ‘ prora
et puppis’ to Christian experience (Ro 127), and
conditions all security and proeress (Eph 6! 14").

Faith is the characteristic function of the
‘heart? (Ro Lol’, Eph 3!%)—-of the entire inward
man there centred. It includes the response of
the affections to the love of God and of Christ
(Ro ὅς, Gal 2°°), self-surrendering submission to
the will and call of God (the ‘obedience of faith,’
to PG 10% 26 1 Th 2!) and the grasp of the
understanding which apprehends ‘the truth of the
gospel” (2 Th ὁπ), Especially in the later
Epistles, addressed to instructed Churches now
endangered by intellectual forms of error, stress
is laid on the mental element in faith; and ‘know-
ledge (of God, of truth,’ ete. ; ἐπίγνωσις, advanced,
exact knowledge) is represented as the means. of
growth and the condition of safety (Col 11! 22 310
a, Eph Pt? ert Phe TT τ ee,
Paul's ἐπίγνωσις is simply an educated faith. This
is one of the aspects of Christian perfection. The
revelation of the gospel assumes faith and depends
at every point on this condition (Ro 82% 424 5! 2,
τοῦ ΟΡ ph irks Th ole te
35, etc.), just as the legal covenant assumed for
its eflicacy the performance of ‘works.’ Christian
men are briefly described as ‘believers’ (of πιστεύ-
ouTES, οἱ πιστεύσαντες, οἱ Ex πίστεως). Taith is the one
subjective condition of justification,—that Divine
acquittal with which our salvation begins and in
which its whole process is virtually contained.
The ‘righteousness of faith,’ the ‘ gift of righteous-
ness,’ supersedes that ‘righteousness of one’s own’
which the legalist vainly sought by self-directed
ellorts; failing to be ‘justified of works,’ men are
freely ‘justified of faith’? (Ro 322-2 515-17 930_1 (3),
The power of faith lies in the fact that it is man’s
reliance on God’s power and grace ; it recognizes
and ‘submits to God’s righteousness’; faith ac-

cepts His promise-—in a word, it ‘gives glory
to God’ without any thought of merit or claim
upon man’s part (Ro 41:5: 8-4 108), On this aecount
Abrahain’s faith,—the instantia probans for Israel-
ites, —notwithstanding the difference of its content,
is a pattern to Christians (Ro 4, Gal 3). Such
‘faith is reckoned for (to amount to) righteousness’ ;
this is, in fact, the normal attitude of the soul
toward God, the disposition which alone makes
a right understanding and right relations possible
between man and God. While faith appears to
supersede law, it is a principle profoundly just,
and supplies the true guarantee for the establish-
ment of Divine law in human life (Ro 3°31; ef,
il. 1 (α), above). Christian faith has for its specific
object the revelation of God's erace and righteous-
ness in Christ, and for its primary result the re-
mission of sins grounded on His expiatory death,
While such faith sets the believer right with
God, it unites him personally to the risen Christ.
‘Faith in Christ’ (sometimes ‘in Jesus,’ ‘in
Jesus Christ’) attaches itself to the resurrec-
tion along with the death of the Redeemer (Ro
4°* $24) _to His resurrection, in the first place,
as making valid the justification wrought in His
death, but further as the ground of an abiding
spiritual union (mio mystica) with the living Lord.
Christ’s ascension completes His resurrection (Eph
1%); Shaving died in regard to sin once for all,’
He ‘lives to God,’—and we in Him (Ro 6:!!);
God ‘raised us up and seated us in the heavenly
places in Christ Jesus’ (Ro 61, Eph 2*%), “By
virtue of this union one comes to be in Christ—St.
Paul's normal designation for the Christian state.
Under the ‘law of taith,’ we thus appropriate and

assimilate Christ’s redemption ; what He has done

for us is reproduced in us. We ‘coalesce with him
(σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν) by the likeness of his death’
and rising, which are rehearsed symbolically in
baptism, actually in the process of a sympathetic,
self-committing faith (Ro 05: Ὁ. “Thus the idea of
substitution receives its complement in the mys-
ticism of faith and the idea of ‘‘one for all”

receives the stricter meaning of ‘all in and with

one” (Ptleiderer). St. Paul’s doctrine of life to
(rod in the celestial Christ is the correlative to
that of death to sin through the crucified Christ.
‘The change from death to resurrection brought
to Him an accession of personal endowment that
qualified Him to exert His influence as a principle
of new life in man, and it meant also His investi-
ture with supreme power as the Lord of human
lite and destiny’ (Somerville),—mpwriroxos ἐκ τῶν
νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων (Col 15).
While through faith in Christ’s death the working
of sin is at each point undone, in the place of what
is thus destroyed there is built up, through fellow-
ship with His life, the new man and the new world
(Royo 689, 1 Co:Poea: . ΡΟΣ ἐσ ΙΕ ἀντ
Paul attributed all that he did and experienced as
a Christian man. It was as if the very person-
ality of Christ had entered into the apostle, and used
him as the organ of its expression’ (Somerville) ;
such is the δύναμις τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ, making Him
ἃ πνεῦμα ζωοποίουν to His race. St. Paul’s theory of
morals comes under this head ; it is the ethics of the
‘life hid with Christ in God’ (Col 3). If the cross
is the main pillar of Paul's theology, the objective
fact on and around which its fabric is built, the
consciousness of union with the living Christ is its
subjective centre and the heart from which its
movements proceed. See, further, art. FAITH.

St. Paul's doctrine of adoption (vio#ecia) supplies
the meeting-point of two cardinal principles—the
Fatherhood of God, and spiritual union with Christ.
The sonship of believers is matter of God’s eternal
counsel, and was provided for ‘in Christ before
the world’s foundation’ (Eph 18: ἡ. It is a status

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 725

derived w pany: chegogh Christ, in eee we par-
take with the Son of God, and are conformed ‘in
the spirit of our mind | to Him ae is God's
complete image (Ro 87%, Eph 4-74 ΕΟ
τ iy Ocal tet τοῦ ἢ This pi at lab of the
many brethren to the Firstborn
spiritual, and therefore ‘hidden’; but we await,
alone with ‘the creation’ which has shared our
‘bondage of corruption, ‘the unveiling of the sons
of God,’
be recovered from the grave and in its turn
παν hae to his body of glory’ (Ro 8, 1 Co
pet, Phi ott iphd'* Col 3%*). Endowed with
this hope, whisk is vital to “hehe salvation (Ro 833,
] Go ΤῸ ἢ
and Christ’s fellow-heirs —if children, also heirs
(Ro 8!6 17, Gal 4% 7), See, further, art. ADOPTION.
4, Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.—In the develop-
ment of St. Paul's Christology, or Christianity
proper, a further movement of thought is involved,
—that embracing the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

is at present |

‘the redemption of our body,’ which will |
| Amongst the oflices.of the Spirit, the following are

Christians are consciously ‘heirs of God |

| sanctification,

(α) God Immenent.—Vhe thought of the Holy |

Spirit
inwoven into the whole tissue of Paulinism.
While the Son of God is the root and ground of
human relations te God, the Spirit is the living
energy forming and sustaining those relations, the
moral dynamic (ἐξ ὕψους δύναμις, Lk 24%; cf. 1 Th
1°, 1Co 24, Eph 816. Christ is God manifest to

us; the Holy Spirit is God working in us (6.0.
Ro 158-16) 1 "Co 124, Gal 5%). He is the “σι

imparted in God's grace to each believer by way
of witness to his adoption (Ro 818-16. Gal 4°), and
supplying the inward substantial counterpart of
this endowment—a new power corresponding to
the new status (Ro δ᾽ 85, Gal 3?:%, Tit 3%”, ete.).
‘The positive gift of the Spirit, equally with the
negative vift of remission of sins, is procured
through the death of Christ.

Paul's conception of ‘the Spirit,’ like that of
‘the Father’ and ‘the Son,’ was drawn from the
teaching of Jesus. The OT ‘Spirit (breath) of

God? is the Divine influence touching man’s in- |

visible spirit, which is kindred to and was created
by it. In the doctrine of Jesus the Holy Spirit
assumes the distinctness of a personal being, and
the permanence of a fixed indwelling in man.
The Spirit is associated with the person of Christ
in such a way that He ‘rests upon’ Him, is
concentrated in Him, given forth by Him, and
becomes the element of Hfe-communion with Him.
These ideas supply the staple of St. Paul’s doctrine
upon this subject. They are found mainly in the
Fourth Gospel, whose tradition St. John did not
confine within his breast until that work was
published (see Knowling’s IWitness of the Epp.,
pp. 329-347, which summarizes the full examina-
tion of this question made by P. Ewald in his
Hauptproblem der Evangelion ; also Matheson’s
‘Historical Christ of St. Paul,’ in Hwpositor, τι. i.
193-199, 11. 137-1438).

On the one side, the Spirit is the organ of com-
munication from God through the exalted Christ,
whether in the way of knowledge or power (Ro
Ἶ “ie 5, 1Co 21-16, Gal 4%, Ph 1, 1 Th 15. 1 Ti

2 Ti 1’) ; on the other side, He prompts the
seine movements towards God and its activities
LOT GrOC τ τον Sera OTE eC Oca hp lige,
1 Th 5”, Tit 35). Above all, He gives the witness
of sonship, with its pr ivilege ‘of access to the Father
(πο 84-6, Eph 2'8) ;- and He is the element which
identifies us with δ hrist and constitutes us ‘mem-
hers of his body’ (Ro 8°", Gal 4® 7, 1 Co 6°, Eph
316-19), He is thus the " Spirit of Christ,’ as ‘of
God.’ The body and spirit of man are His conte
—the spirit already redeemed from death by His
power, the body ultimately to be so (Ro 8), All
the experiences and virtues of the new life are

as the organ of the Divine in man 15
in practice it admits of degrees, and is advancing

| (Ro δε Gal

accordingly His ‘ fruit’ « tal ee ies ΕΌΥΟΝ
Christ acts on men so entirely through the Spirit,
and the Holy Spirit so perfectly imparts Chir.st’s
influence and makes Him present, that the two
are practically identified : ‘The Lord is the Spirit’
(2 Co 37-18); Christ is, at the same time, ‘ Lord of
the Spirit’ (this seems the fitter rendering of κυρίου
πνεύματος), since He rules in that realm which the
Spirit fills. (See Somerville, as above, pp. 110-118,
who, however, presses the identification too far).

conspicuous in Pauline teaching :

(ὁ) Lhe Spiriteal Man.—The Holy Spirit is the
sanctifier—being holy, He makes holy. Sanctitica-
tion accompanies justification (1 Co 6" 74: cf.
i. ὃ (δ), last par.). St. Paul counts all his readers
‘saints,’ however faulty saints (c.g. 1 Co 15. ‘The
children of God, those who possess Christ’s Spirit,
are pro tanto holy persons, being claimed by God
(κλητοὶ ἅγιοι) and personally devoted to God. But
unlike justilication, is provressive
and variable. Wile complete in principle and
tendency (and possible realization) from the first,

in the most obedient (εἰς ἁγιασμόν, Ro 6!%). For
saints the apostle prays, ‘Sanctify them unto full
perfection’ (L Th 5). Growth in holiness is the
truit of the Spirit’s inner working; to live a holy
life is to be κατὰ πνεῦμα and to ‘walk πνεύματι"
516-29), The residence of the Holy
Spirit in man is ἃ powerful motive to holiness,
while it is the means to its attainment (1 Th 49:8,
1 Co 6"), Sanctification is not ethical purity,
but connotes and requires this ; and the Spirit of
God is the purifier of heart and conduct (1 Co 6",
Ro 8, Gal 5°, ete.). This office of the Spirit comes
under St. Paul’s favourite antithesis of ‘flesh and
spirit.” The Christian ethical life is at once the
ascendency of spirit over flesh in the man, and
the possession and assimilation of the man by the
Spirit. In many Pauline expressions the individual
and universal spirit are blended; ‘the spiritual
man’ (ὁ πνευματικός, ὁ κατὰ mvetua) is he in whom,
through the operation of the Spirit of God upon
his nature, spirit (not flesh, nor even mere ‘soul’
—the individual selfhood) holds sway and deter-
mines character and bent (Ro 8%, 1 Co 2! ),
While the Holy Spirit brings the soul into har-
mony with God, He establishes order and he: ulth,
true life, in the constitution of the man (Ro 8°).

(ὁ) The Communion of the Spirit.—Peace is the
Spirit’s fruit ; the life of love in the Church is His
creation. The Holy Spirit is the προ». As the
element which binds believers to Christ, He binds
them to each other in Christ. ‘There is one
body’ because, and so far as, ‘there is one Spirit’ ;
all ‘were baptized in one Spirit into one body, all
were made to drink of one Spirit’ (1 Co 12118) Eph
4. ‘Communion’ is His note in the ‘Trinitarian
benediction of 2 Co 13"; the grace of Christ, and
the love of the Father, are e translated into fellow-
ship when subjectively realized by the indwelling
of the Spirit,—who is God immanent in the in-
dividual man, and in the community.

(7) The Karnest of the Inheritance.—The in-

dwelling Holy Spirit is the guarantor of apr
salvation. ‘God gave the oe, ε(ἀρραβών)

the Spirit in our hearts’ (2 Co 1? 5°, Eph ‘tome

‘the firstfruit’ (dmrapy7, Ro 8), since the life
eternal will be of the same nature as the hidden
life of the Spirit already experienced by the child
of God. His presence is the pledge of God's pur-
pose wholly to sanctify the abode where He thus
dwells, and of His ulterior purpose to recreate our
physical and mortal frame as ‘a spiritual bedy’
conformed to that of Christ, and so to perfect
the redeemed in the integrity of their nature as
the image and habitation of God (Ro 8”, Epk

726 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

113. 28). Till then salvation is incomplete: our
redemption ix exposed to hazard ; our sonship re-
mains half realized (Ro 8*). The Holy Spirit is
the ‘seal’ of the future, as He is the witness of
the past and the energy of our present life in
God—a seal broken by relapse into sin (Eph 4°,
2Co 1"). See, further, art. HoLy Sprrrr.

5. Doctrine of the Church.—The Church is the
Witness and counterpart of the Spirit of God on
earth (1 Co 3117 124, Eph 2); it is the specitie
organ for the continued manifestation of God
through Christ to the world (1 Th 1s, 1 Co 123+ 29,
2 €y 3%, Eph 374, Ph 2!*-38, 1 ‘Ti 3%).

(1) The Body of Christ.—As the Holy Spirit is
the Spirit of Christ amongst men, the Chureh is,
correspondinely, Jdis body. Tt is constituted by
the common presence of the Spirit in many souls,
and is animated by His power (Eph 2!8 4472, 1 Co
12"), Tt is ‘the church’? (OT ‘congregation ’?)—or
‘churehes’ in 1 'Th 24 and 2 Th 14—‘of God,’ and,
as consisting of His children, the ‘house,’ also the
‘habitation, of God,’ tenanted by His Spirit,—‘a
holy temple in the Lord? (Ac 20, Eph 2!) 1 Ti
3°) 1 Co 317) Paul's idea of the ecclesia erew
with the growth of his work (see Hort, Heed. 107 tt).
In l and 2 Th the word denotes the local ‘assem-
bly,’ or ‘assemblies,’ of believers—‘the Church of
Thessalonians in God,’ ete. ; the readers ef 1 and
2 Co are ‘the Church of God that is in Corinth ’—
the one Christian society existing in many places,
In the letters of the third group the conception
of the Church Universal, as the spiritual union
of all who ‘hold the Head,’ is completely formed.
In Col and Eph the faller doctrine of the Church
and of the Person of Christ are unfolded pari
pass. "The Church is the body of which He is
Head (Eph 1 5%, Col 118 919}. new significance
thus accruing to the figure previously employed in
1Co 132. The body is the organie complement. of
the Head, supplying Him with limbs and instru-
ments, while the Head gives to it unity, impulse,
and direction, The reciprocal duties of the two,
and the fundamental nature of their union, are
shown in the analogy of Eph 52. The Church
is the bride of Christ, who ‘loved her and gave
himself up for her,’ who labours to ‘present. her
to himself’ at last in perfect spiritual beauty.
The Church is not a temporal institution sub-
serving mere present necessities. The collective
fellowship of believers with their Head will subsist
eternally ; and in Eph 37! ‘the Church and Christ
Jesus’—Bride and Bridegroom —are seen together
rendering praise to God, ‘unto all generations of
the age of the ages’ (ef. Mt 1018, Rey 21, 22),

(6) The Brotherhood.—Vhe first note of the Church
is brother-love (φιλαδελφία, 1 Th 4°, Ro 12? τὺ
ete.). Brethren isthe name by which Paul oftenest
speaks to and of his fellow-believers,—or b2/oved.
The compellation ‘ brothers,’ of Jewish kinship, is
appropriated by the larger household of faith. In
the family of God, Love is to have its home and
hearth, from which its influence radiates to those
without (1 Th 5°, Gal 54 6%, Ro 12!-21), Since it
is God’s love and grace in Christ that eall forth
our faith, faith in turn ‘works through love’ ; all
its activities pass along this channel and take this
colour (Gal δ). The Chureh ‘builds up itself in
love’ (Eph 41, No faith, no eift or power or
qualification of any kind, avails without love,—
which finds in the brethren its chief object, in
Christ its pattern, and in the Holy Spirit its sus-
taining power. Loyeis greater than faith or hope,
as the Divine surpasses the human and auxilary,
as the fruit the seed (1 Co 13). In all this Paul
shows himself the pupil of Jesus.

The ‘good works’ of the Pastoral Epp. are
definite forms of ‘the work of faith and toil of
love’ commended in 1 Th,—c.g. the care of the

widows and the poor, and hospitality to strangers ;
the Church charities regulated in the latest Epp:
flow from the brotherly love conspicuous in the
earliest.

(¢) The Charismata.—The Pauline Churches—
eminently that of Corinth—-were endowed by the
Spirit with a rich variety of gifts for edification
(χαρίσματα). All social talents, natural or super-
natural, from apostleship down to the washing of
feet, the apostle regards from this practical stand-
point. Everything must subserve the building up
of the Church after the measure of Christ (Eph
1 Co 1271 14, Ὁ Ὅν 137), Hence ‘prophecy’? is
rated amongst ‘the greater charisms,’ while the
gift of ‘tongues,’ though more admired, is really
inferior, ‘The word of wisdom’ and of ‘know-
ledge’ mark the ordinary ‘teachers’ (in Eph 4!
associated with the ‘ pastors’), in distinction from
the prophets and speakers with tongues, whose
utterances come by an incalculable inspiration, and
may need restraint where such gifts are widely dis-
tributed (1 Co 1477-8), The earliest Church meet-
ings, as described in 1 Co, were little bound by any
stated order, those present praying, prophesying,
singing, teaching in turn as the Spirit prompted
utterance. But this unchartered freedom bred
disorder ; it was only possible in the first sim-
plicity of Christian fervour; Paul writes expressly
to chasten it, intending to take measures to this
effect (11); he declares that, along with the
other charisms, ‘God appointed in the Church
governments? (1358). In the interests of edification
Church proceedings were gradually reduced to rule
and precedent ; by the time of the Pastoral Epp.
signs appear of a fixed gradation of office and an
established usage in Divine service. It is assumed,
by way of fundamental principle, in Ro 12° and
Eph 4!) that the Church is, under Christ, self-
governing and self-edifying, that the manifold
functions of administration and instruction exer-
cised in it belong to and exist for the body as a
whole, however lodged in this member or that ;
the body, as such, must press the powers of every
limb into its service.

(ἢ Baptismand the Lord's Supper.—The apostle
refers to the two sacraments incidentally, and
Without bringing them into connexion with each
other. unless it be by allusion in 1 Co 104. Their
established observance is assumed, in accordance
with the story of their institution, — expressly
related for the Lord’s Supper in 1 Co 112, where
there is no need to suppose that ‘received from
(ἀπό) the Lord’ signifies more than tradition from
the fountain-head. These rites mark respectively
the believer's entrance upon, and continuance in,
the Christian life. They signalize, each of them,
his relation to the Church as well as to Christ
Himsclf, to the bedy with the Head (1 Co 128
1017. The ‘one baptism’ is a visible token of the
‘one Lord’ and the ‘one faith’ (Eph 4°); the
‘one loaf? of which ‘we all partake,’ pictures the
‘one body’ to which ‘the many’ belong. The
‘blessing’ and ‘thanksgiving’ pronounced over
the elements at the Lord’s Table (1 Co 1016 1153)
impress their character on the whole rite, which
is analogous to the post-sacrificial feasts of ancient
religion (10'), being a symbolic act of grateful
and joyful communion with men in the supreme
gifts ot God.

These ordinances are no arbitrary signs of Chris-
tian faith and fellowship, having a value conferred
by the bare fact of their appointment; they are
parables of the spiritual acts which they accom-
pany. Baptism, in its most complete and Pe
turesque form of immersion, is strikingly applied
in Ro 6'4 to set forth a Christian conversion : as
the baptized sinks into the water, remains there
for a moment, and emerges a new man, he re-

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 727

hearses the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus
—he dies to sin, is severed from the past, and
rises to live with Christ unto God. St. Paul’s
argument presumes that baptism is the expression
on the candidate’s part, and the recognition on the
Chureh’s part, of the faith that alone joins the
soul to Christ; its eflicacy lies in the uttered
‘word? of faith attending the ceremonial act (Eph
5°, ἐν ῥήματι ; εἴ. Ro 1051»). A like interpretation
of the Lord’s Supper is indicated in 1 Co 10 and
11. The bread and the cup represent ‘the body
and the blood ef the Lord’ (115, so that he who
desecrates the former outrages the latter; while the
sharing of each in the same cup and loaf exhibits
the ‘fellowship’ of Christians tn the incarnate and
crucified Redeemer (10! 17), whose ‘death’ is thus
evermore ‘ proclaimed’ and kept in remembrance
(1124*6). Such public representations are, in the
nature of the case, binding professions of faith,
covenant transactions (see 1 Co 10%, and the
parallels there adduced). The expression ‘seal of
faith, which Paul applies to Abraham’s sacra-
ment in Ro 4, is equally appropriate to the new
ordinances. The person by whom the rite is
administered (1 Co 11"), matters but little ; every-
thing depends upon (@) the institution of Christ,
and (4) the intention and spirit of those engaged,
the faith and fellowship by which they are actu-
ated. Notas matters of official prerogative, but
of stated communion between Christ and His
people, did Paul exalt the sacraments. See, fur-
ther, arts. BAPTISM, LORD'S SUPPER, SACRAMENT.

(e) Church Organization.—In respect to Church
order and organization there is a contrast between
the first and last Epp., so extreme that it raises
erave difficulties in regard to the authenticity of
the latter. 1 Ti and Tit are devoted to matters
which occupy only a line in 1 Th. In the fifteen
years’ interval a great development had taken
place. On the first missionary tour in 8. Galatia,
Paul and Barnabas ‘appointed elders in every
chure’? (Ac 14%), resembling in their functions,
mutatis mutandis, the elders of Jewish communi-
ties. A like office probably belonged to ‘those
who preside’ in the Thessalonian Church (1 Th
δ: cf. 1 Ti 5%). In the letters to Corinth we
have no traces of local Church office; from the
silence of 1 Co 5 on this point, and from the scenes
indicated in ch. 14, we may infer that official elders
did not as yet preside here : ‘helps, governments’
—corresponding to deacons and bishops—are re-
ferred to in the abstract (12%; otherwise in Ro
127-5); ch 114 intimates better regulation to come.
In the salutation of Philippians, four years later,
the ‘bishops and deacons’ are distinctly addressed,
and these two orders figure conspicuously in the
Pastorals—the former as directing, the latter as
assistant officers. The apostle is anxious about
the character and true piety of these ministers,
wishing to fence out from office unworthy candi-
dates. ‘The term ‘bishop’ in Tit 1 is synonymous
with ‘elder’ (Letft. Christian Ministry ; but ef.
Hort, Heel. 212), and is now preferred by Paul as it
denotes the work of the office (1 Ti 81), while ‘elder’
suggests status and dignity. ‘Bishop’ (ἐπίσκοπος,
overscer, superintendent) appears first in Ac 20° τὸ,
where Paul tells the Ephesian ‘elders’ that ‘the
Holy Spirit made’ them ‘ bishops, to shepherd the
Church’ (cf. Eph 4:1, ‘shepherds and teachers’ ;
also 1 P 2 5' 5). It is not unlikely that Paul then
introduced the term and gave it vogue. Hatch
(Organization of the Early Christian Churches)
traced the episcopate to a Greek, as the presby-
terate to a Jewish origin ; he supposed that these
were distinct institutions amaigamated in post-
apostolic times—a theory, in its extreme form,
contrary to Ac and 1 P as well as to the Pastoral
Epistles. The charities of the Church and the main-

tenance of its ministry (1 Co 974, Gal 6°) required
business management (bishops and deacons are
alike to be μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, 1 Ti 3° δ); Hatch de-
rived the title ἐπίσκοπος from this financial charge
(but see Cremer’s Bib.-Lheol. Lexicon, 8.¥., and
Kihl’s Gemeindzordnung, p. 87 11.), whereas Ac 20
and 1 P make the bishop emphatically a pastor.
The elders are encouraged to take a leading part
‘in word and teaching’ (1 ΤΊ δ11) ; some of them,
it appears, did not teach, and any competent
member of the Church might speak his word of
exhortation. By the date of 1 ΤῚ 5°, the older
‘widows’ were ‘enrolled’ for Church maintenance
and service, being included probably amongst the
deaconesses, of Whose existence at this early time
20 1642 affords the only, but sufficient, evidence.
See, further, artt. on Bishop, ELDER, and DEACON ;
also, generally, on CHURCH and CHURCH GOVERN-
MENT. ‘The data furnished by the Ac and Epp.
for the reconstruction of the forms of apostolic
Charch life and worship are comparatively slight,
and open to conflicting interpretations. — It is
possible that the organization of the first. Chiris-
tian communities was more definite, and borrowed
more freely from contemporary social institutions
and usages than is shown by the incidental reter-
ences of our documents.

Two important distinctions in Church, service
are to be observed: (1) between the clerical aud
the charismatic ministry—the ministry of office
status and of personal gift, the former in some
degree presuming the latter, but the latter not ot
necessity carrying with it the former ; (2) between
the local, congregational ministry and the itinerant,
missionary ministry —the bishops and deacons,
elected in the single community for its service,
belonging to the former τ to the latter, the apostles
and evangelists (Eph 411, 2 ΤΊ 4%, Ac 9158). Pro-
phets and teachers. such as Agabus and Apollos,
might labour in a single community or travel from
Chureh to Church, their gift not of itself carrying
with it local rule. Timothy is ‘an evangelist’:
to this work he was ordained by the hands of Paul
and the local eidership at his setting out (1 Ti 4},
2Ti 1%). St. Paul's other companions, presumally,
held the like travelling commission ; other powers
were conferred on them ad hoc, as in the case of
Titus when Paul's delegate in Corinth or Cret-.

As ‘a called apostle of Christ Jesus,’ an equal of
the original Twelve, Paul claims the highest pre-
rogatives under the Lord Himself: he is ‘ father’
of his Churches, ‘master-builder’ in the fabrie of
Divine revelation, ‘teacher of nations in faith and
truth’ (1 Co 3” 44-4, 1 Ti 27, No 1 ® phe Eph
371) The gospel of God he may therefore call
‘my gospel,’ since its dispensation was committed
to him directly from the Lord. He does not
expect this claim to be admitted without proof,
but points to ‘the signs of the apostle® visille in
him, to the multitude of believers who were his
living ‘letters of commendation,’ to the command-
ing inspiration of his word, to ‘the grace given’
to him and acknowledged by the Church leaders
at Jernsalem (2 Co 12! 188 8.6.1 Co 1457, Eph 3},
Gal 27). Yet he writes in the pliawd of the
‘ministers of Christ and stewards of God’s mys-
teries,’ including his fellow evangelists (1 Co 4,
2 Co D8 1%) with himself. And ‘the fair deposit’
of his inspired word he commits, through those
who received it at his mouth, to the ‘faithful men’
whom they should choose, to the Church which is
the ‘pillar and stay of the truth,’ above all to the
Lord who first gave the trust (1 Ti 18 3! 6°, 2 Ti
p24 95). In questions of doctrine, Paul claims
complete and incontestable authority ; in matters
of discipline, even the gravest, he requires the
free concurrence of the Church concerned (1 Co 5,
σι: Ooo),

τῇ

28 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

Cf. further, for all the subjects discussed in this
(5) section, the art. ΟΠ ΕΘΗ,

6. Doctrine of the Kingdom of God.—The Jewish
idea of the kingdom of God (the perfect Divine
rule on earth to be established by the Messiah),
which was adopted and spiritualized by Jesus,
lies at the baris of the Pauline system. St. Paul’s
‘kingdom of God and of Christ’ (known as Christ’s
from His exaltation onwards : Eph 1°-*, Ph 2?)
transcends all national, and even earthly bounds ;
its glory fills the horizon of faith, which stretches
indefinitely beyond death and the limits of sense.

The apostle’s doctrine of the Last Things comes
under this conception, which is both his alpha and
omega, As missionary of Christ, Paul ‘went along
heralding the kingdom’ (Ac 2025 198 2871); his
hope in dying is that ‘the Lord will bring me safe
into his heavenly kingdom? (2 ΤΊ 418), When a
Pharisee, he had sought legal righteousness not
to ensure his personal salvation so much as to
bring about for Israel's sake, and for God’s glory,
the Messiah’s promised kingdom (Ae 267 CLC.)
This goal the Christian apostle still pursues, see-
ing it in larger proportions and with a brighter
certainty. ‘The Church never displaced the King-
dom in Paulinism (see e.g. 1'Th2!*). These are cor-
related, and not equivalent or rival terms. One
with its Head, the Church is the centre and nustress
of the Kingdom; she furnishes it with citizens and
dignitaries (1 Co 62). But the Kingdom embraces
all orders of being (angels e.g., the mightiest of
them, no less than men, Col 21°) —the entire
system of things as subject to our Redeemer’s
sway (yh 1°, Col 115-30 1 Co ΟΞ Ph oy.

As to the seat of its power, the kingdom of the
Lord Christ is inward and spiritual. It is eon-
cerned essentially with ‘righteousness and peace
and joy in the Holy Spirit’ (Ro 147-18, Co] 216.20
3%) Ph 47). Its ways of rule are wholly opposite
to those associated with the Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα of
Judaism, to the external methods and perishing
glory of the Mosaic covenant. From this interior
world of the spirit, through the sanctified body, all
outward activity is to be dominated, and thus con-
formed to ‘the good and well-pleasing and perfect
will of God’ (Ro 12). See art. on KINGDOM OF
GOD.

(4) The Divine Sovereignty.—The doctrine of the
Kingdom rests on the presupposition of the absolute
sovereignty of God (see ii. 1, above)—‘ the Creator,’
‘the blessed and only Potentate, King of those that
reign and Lord of those that have lordship,’ ‘the
only God’ (1 Ti l!7 65-16, Ro 125), There isno appeal
against His judgments (e.g. in the reprobation of
Israel), no arresting of His decrees: ‘whom he
will he compassionates, whom he will he hardens’
(Ro 91:2, Faith adores this Potentate as ‘God
our Father’; despite appearances, ‘there is no
unrighteousness with God.’ St. Paul chiefly con-
templates the Divine sovereignty in the aspect of
wisdom (Ro 113% 1627), God’s foreknowledge,
joined with His love, laid down the πρόθεσις τῶν
αἰώνων, the plan unfolded in the successive periods
of human history (Eph 3", Ro 5.5. Ὁ Tp 2)? we hig
purpose of the ages, centring in the mission of
Christ, is exeeuted by Him ‘who worketh all
things after the counsel of his will’ (Eph 12, 1 Co
12°). Asa counsel of grace, the purpose is called
‘the good pleasure (εὐδοκία) of his will’; hidden
until Christ’s coming, it was ‘the mystery of his
will’ (Eph 15% 35% Ro 16-27), As an orderly
disposing of men and things directed towards an
all-wise end, the counsel of grace becomes the
‘ dispensation (οἰκονομία) of God? (Eph 1°39, 1 Ti 14)
in pursuance of this counsel, a special ‘ dispen-
sation (or stewardship) of the grace of God’ is
committed to each of His ministers (1 Co ele
Eph 3, Col I*)—notably to St. Paul himself—

its conditions, with those of every bestowment of
grace, being determined by God’s sovereign good
pleasure in the interests of His kingdom (Ro 1°, Eph
247 3°11), Creation and redemption are parts of
one scheme, whose aim grows clearer as the ages
pass ; Christ is the point of unity to the mighty
movement (Col 13, Eph 1°31) «In the Christ
all things’ must be ‘ summed up.’

The ‘call’ of God, both gracious and authorita-
tive—conveyed generally in the message of the
gospel, or particularly in some specific appoint-
ment—summons men to His service: the “ called
saint’ or ‘called apostle’ (Ro 1 5, 1 Co 1) is alike
the subject of a Divine vocation. Such calling
springs from an antecedent ‘choice’ (election or
selection, ἐκλογή), in which God’s wise foreknow-
ledge and gracious sovereignty are manifest (Ro
ge 8. 8 ἘΜ 11ST Th i438 Th ee: 4). The election
of believers Paul refers (Ro 82**9, Eph 14) to God’s
eternal counsel in Christ, since the future is known
to Him as the present, and His will attends His
knowledge: ‘whom he foreknew, he did also
foreordain.’? ‘Called’ and ‘elect’? are synonymous
expressions (1 Co 1°: *7)_not distinguished as in
Mt 20", St. Paul’s doctrine of election is not so
conceived as to negative freedom and the pre-
rogative of faith. By these God has sovereienly,
and eternally, conditioned His dealings with men.
See arts. on ELECTION and PREDESTINATION.

(ὁ) The Enemies of God.—In St. Paul’s view of
the kingdom of God its enemies are conspicuous,
Chief amongst them is Satan (the Adversary),
named in Eph and the Pastoral Epp. ‘the devil’
(calumniator); in 2 Co 61416 « Beliar,’ as the
patron of heathen impurity and the antagonist
of Christ; also ‘the god of this age’ (2 Co 44),
‘the ruler of the dominion of the air’ (Eph 22),
‘the tempter’ (1 Th 3°), ‘the evil one’ (2° Tho!
Eph 616). Satanie powers, the Christian’s most
formidable enemies, are described in the plural
in Eph 6” as ‘the principalities, the dominions,
the world-rulers of this darkness, the spiritual
(forces) of wickedness.’ In heathenism these
malignant forces have full sway; ‘demons’ are
practically worshipped under the forms of the
idols (1 Co 10!*!). The lawlessness, uncleanness,
and moral darkness there prevailing constitute
Satan’s empire, which assumes the character of an
organized dominion — a ‘kingdom of darkness’
opposed to ‘the kingdom of the Son of God’s
love’ (Col 18; comp. Jn 14°" ete.)—with a hierarchy
of powers under the direction of its chief, bearing
titles parallel to those assigned to the ranks of
God’s angels (Eph 1*!, Col 1°). (It seems likely that
Paul borrowed these distinctions in angelic rank
from popular speech, and employed them by way
of argunentum ad hominem). Paul's conviction of
the existence of evil spirits is unmistakable, as was
that of Jesus. Satan first beguiled our race (2 Co
115... -Sthe serpent’ ; 1 Ti 2-4), and is habitually
‘the tempter’ (1 Th 3°, 2 Ti 938), Panl’s ‘thorn in
the flesh’ was ‘a messenger of Satan,’ since it
hindered his work and provoked him to discontent
(2 Co 127, Gal 4'4, 1 Th 9.8). Physical maladies and
death are, in some sense, under Satan’s jurisdiction ;
he is used as executor in Divine judgments of
this nature, which may turn notwithstanding to
the salvation of the sufferer (1 Co 5, 1 Ti 1°: comp.
He 24,1 P 41). The reign of death (Ro δι᾽: 2!) is
coextensive with the rule of ‘the god of this
world’; only when ‘death, the last enemy, is
abolished,’ shall God’s kingdom be consummated
(1 Co578-S2)> οὐ Paul anticipates a last deadly
struggle in human history between these opposing
realms. ‘The mystery of lawlessness,’ working
previously under restraint, will be allowed one day
a full manifestation (cf. Ro 7!) ; and ‘the lawlese
one, Satan’s perfect embodiment (appirently, a

PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE 729

| : : ae ᾿
self-deifying autocrat of universal power), ‘shall | depart and be with Christ, which is very far better,’

be revealed. whom the Lord shall destroy’ by His
coming (2Th2* 4). Nowhere more decidedly than
in this field of thought does Paul show himself
the child of Judaism. See, further, art. MAN
OF SIN.

(Ὁ) Lhe Consummation. —The Divine kingdom
embraces in its scope present mundane affairs ; the
‘powers that be are ordained of God,’ e.g. those otf
Rome though heathen and corrupt ; the magistrats
is ‘God’s servant to thee for good,’ enforcing His
laws in the civil state (Ro 13'). Throughout the
perishing ‘fashion of this world’ Paul recognizes
the will of Him ‘of whom and for whom are all
thines,’—the demands of duty, the exercise of
conscience ; a realm where, despite ‘the god of
this world,’ the true God leaves Himself at no
point without witness or without authority.

But the Kingdom belongs in its proper manifes-
tation and glory to the future. In ‘this present
evil world’ it is hidden and thwarted, realized at
best only ‘in part’ and with ‘groanings’; its
bestowments are no more than an earnest and
firstfruit, the experience of a babe, in comparison
of ‘the glory that shall be revealed to us-ward’
(Ro'8'8-, 1 Co 13}, ὁ Co 416-55), -It is ‘through
much tribulation’ that we shall reach the goal and
‘enter into the kingdom of God.’ Hope, there-
fore, plays a leading part in St. Paul's teaching,
by the side of faith and love. The certainty of the
consunmnition of the kingdom of God crowns his
theology, and determines it throughout as the end
determines the way. The aims of Paul’s life, as
of the whole NT teaching, converge upon ‘the
kingdom and glory’ yet to come. The following
chief points may be noted in the apostle’s doctrine
of the Last Things :—

(a) The moral perfection of each believer, and
the collective perfection of the Church, are the
ends of the apostle’s ministry as of Christ’s own
οὐ ῆ δ (Gol lee. oh bee, itt. deh. 1.1.
2.00 Bie 1s 54 Ph 218), “This inner-glory and true
wealth of God’s kingdom, now being acquired
(2 Co 318, Ro 8, 939), shall shine forth at ‘the un-
veiling of the sons of God,’ when state shall corre-
spond to character and the ‘spiritual body’ to the
worth and needs of the informing spirit. On the
other hand, it is well known that ‘the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Co 6? ete.).
Their ‘end shall be according to their works’ (Ro
res 2 ΟΡ Dr 475).

(3) The resurrection of the body is necessary to
the realization of the life of the spirit. St. Paul
knows nothing of Hellenic or Oriental dualism.
The body is not the detachable envelope, but the
proper organ of the spirit. Its existing form of
flesh and blood perishes, but only to be reconstituted
in fitter fashion. It is true that in 1 Co 15” ete.
Paul thinks only of οἱ rod Χριστοῦ; but if the
wicked exist in the world to come, they too must
have an appropriate bodily form ; there is nothing
in the Epp. inconsistent with the statement of Ac
24%, “that there shall be a resurrection both of just
and unjust’ (ef. Jn 5%). In the risen Christ Paul
sees ‘ the firstfruit of them that have fallen asleep’ ;
the certainty and the kind of the harvest are evi-
denced by this first ripened sheaf (1 Co 15°). The
fact that ‘Jesus died and rose again’ assures our
faith that the Christian dead shall return, with
Him (1 Th 4-4), The saints found alive at the
mapovoia shall be transformed, the natural body
giving place to the spiritual, and ‘the mortal? in
them being ‘swallowed up of life’ (1 Co 15%5,
ΟΣ

(y) On the intermediate state Paul has no reve-
lation. ‘Sleep,’ Jesus’ name for death, implies
comparative quiescence (cf. Rev 14"), yet without
unconsciousness or torpor. The apostle expects ‘ to

in some communion nearer than the earthly ;
héneé {to-diess. cain (Ph 22 Coos cf. De 2s");
In his earliest Epp., up to 1 Co, the interval before
the Parousia appears inconsiderable (‘the time is
short,’ 1 Co 733); Paul includes himself with those
alive at the Lord’s return (1 Th4*). Afterwards the
Advent receded in his view; when writine 2 Co,
he anticipated a martyr’s death and was * bearing
about the dying of the Lord Jesus’ (4745). This ex-
perience effected ‘a marked change in the Pauline
oschatology’ (Sabatier, Ap. Paul, on 2 Co 4. 5);
St. Paul's earlier, half-Judaistic idea of a visible
advent, a universal resurrection of the sleeping
dead and a great judyment-scene, gave place, it
is said, to the more spiritual theory of the soul's
entrance through death into its perfected heavenly
state and full communion with Christ. Similarly,
Beyschlag (N7' Theology, ii. pp. 268-272); and, with
limitations, Kabisch (schatologic εἰ. Paulus, 296-
305); Pileiderer thinks that the apostle held in
his mind the two conceptions, Judaic and Hellen-
istic, unassimilated (Paudinismus*, pp. 274-289).
This interpretation is incorrectly deduced from
2 Co δ1-9 (see Meyer and Klépper, ad loc. ; Weiss,
NT Theol. § 96d). The apostle says (5!) that ‘if
the earthly tabernacle should be dissolved, we
have an eternal house in the heavens,’—not that we
enter it at once, but it belongs to us (as συνκλη-
ρονόμοι Χριστοῦ) and awaits us. He sighs for this
heavenly house; without stripping off the present
body, he longs to ‘put on over it’ (ἐπενδύσασθαι)
the other,—were it only possible for him to be
found ‘not naked’ (bodiless), but still in the flesh
at the Lord’s coming (vv.74). Though weary of
the earthly tabernacle, Paul’s Jewish imagination
shuddered at the naked, houseless state of the
dead. But he has gathered a great comfort which
dispels the dread of dissolution ; he is now ‘ well-
pleased to leave home in departing from the body,’
tor he will be ‘at home with the Lord’ (vv.*).
‘The dead in Christ’ are His guests in Paradise
{1 ἘΠ 4139 δ: 6h Τῆς 9599 19) ὙΠ phe sence
of indissoluble union with Christ delivered the
apostle from the pangs of Sheol, which came upon
him in the interval between 1 and 2 Co (2 Co 19 58,
1 Th 5!, Col 1 5 3!4; see p. 711°). The Advent and
Judgement were as necessary to the consummation
of the kingdom of God, in St. Paul’s belief, after
he wrote 2 Co as before (see 5! 1. also Col 34).

The chiliastic doctrine of a twofold resurrection
has no support from Paul; when he writes (1 Th 4")
‘the dead in Christ shall rise first,’ that means not,
before the other dead rise, but before ‘the living’
are ‘caught up’ to join them. In 2 Co 5! bad and
good appear side by side at Christ’s tribunal, as in
Ac 17*:*! and in the scene of Mt δ There is
no reason to think that the apostle departed from
the doctrine of his Master concerning the general
resurrection and universal judgment.

(δ) The second coming of the Lord Jesus closes
the horizon of St. Paul’s Christian thoueht, and
ushers in the end of all things. The Advent shines
vividly inthe first three and last three of his Hpistles.
The παρουσία of 1 and 2 'Th and 1 Co becomes the
ἐπιφάνεια of the Pastorals (also 2 Th 2°)—a elorious
Divine manifestation, such as, indeed, the first
coming was “in-its. kind τ σὰ 1"). «Eins
expectation rested on the explicit promise of Jesus,
and on the prophecies of the Messianic salvation
and ‘the day of the Lord’ as yet unfulfilled (Ae
bet no oo LARS ois hee?) νον σὴν but
especially upon the sense of the glory due to Christ
Himself (Ph 2°11). The Parousia is ‘the mani-
festation of the glory of the great God and our
Saviour Christ Jesus’; therefore it is ‘the blessed
hope’ (Tit, 2?) 2Tlr 2"). “The ereat day«of the
Lord, the goal of prophecy, becomes ‘the day of

730 PAUL THE APOSTLE

PAUL THE APOSTLE

Christ.’ His resurrection began, the triumphal
advent of the Lord Jesus shall complete, His vin-
dication. He will descend from heaven in a visible
‘body of glory’ (1'Th 1”, Ph 32. 5), surrounded
by angels, and ‘in fire of flame’ terrible and fatal
to His enemies (2'Th 17-9 25, 1 Th 416 1 Co 15%),
At His word, uttered by the archangel’s trumpet,
the dead rise, the living saints are transtormed
and lifted from the earth ; all assemble before Him
for judgment, and with body and spirit: reunited
‘each shall receive the thines done in the body,
whether good or bad,’ ‘reaping corruption’ or ‘life
eternal’ according as he sowed to flesh or spirit
(2. Co 5", Gal 6), So ‘we shall all be -niani-
fested ’—‘the day shall disclose each man’s work,
the fire shall test? its worth (1 Co 3), Ro Bi)

It might seem——indeed it has been asserted—
that Paul thus reverts at the end to the principle
of salvation by works which ke overthrew at the
beginning. But, as we have seen (i. 3 (¢)), the
faith that justifies, operating through love, is the
spring of all worthy living, while ‘works of law,’
Wrought under constraint and fear, are no ‘good
works.’ — Faith justifies the believer now; the
‘work of faith’ shall commend him then. God,
who sees the fruit in the eerm and ‘calls the
things that are not as thines that are’ (Ro 4:1)
judges according to truth both first and last.

The judgment-seat of Christ is the proximate
goal of revelation. There the final settlement of
human affairs takes place, the dénomment of the
drama of history,—of the successive dispensations
of God’s righteousness and erace to mankind.
When death has been abolished and all Christ's
enemies, human or superhuman, have received
sentence from His mouth, ‘then cometh the end ᾿
He ‘yields up the kingdom to (το, even to the
Father’; and ‘the Soa himself shall be subjected
to him that put all thines under him, that God
may be all in all’? (1 Co 152*). For the mission
on which the Father sent forth His Son is then
fulfilled: the Lordship of Jesus is acknowledged
throughont creation (Ph 910. "); Christ lays at the
Father's feet the homage of a reconciled universe
rendered to Himself, the love of a multitude
of obedient sons made perfect in Himself, the
praise and service of the Church of the redeemed
united with Himself for ever. His own subjection
asa Son to the Father displays the absolute one-
ness of the Godhead, whose glory streams through
all realms of being in unchecked and unbounded
plenitude. Thus God the Father is eternally
supreme, and ‘grece reigns through righteous-
ness unto eternal life.” See, further, under
ESCHATOLOGY OF NT.

2

LITERATURE.—A, THE Times, ete.—C. Schéttgen, [Tore ITeb-
raice et Talinudicw in NT (1733): E. schurer, Gesch, d. γα.
Volkes im Zeitalier Jesu Christi (tr. from 2nd ed.: Jewish
People in Time of Jesus Christ, 5 vols.), the most complete
introd. to the Times; A. Hausrath, V7’ Zeitgeschichte 2 (Time
of the Apostles, tr. from 2nd ed. of the above), brilliantly
written; W. M. Ramsay, The Ch. in the Rom. Empire, indis-
pensable for local and social conditions of Paul’s work: K. J.
Neumann, Der rd. Staat τι. d. allgem. Kirche, Band 1. ; Th.
Momimsen, The Procinces of the Roin. Einp. (tr.); H. Ewald,
Ilist. of the People of Israel (tr.), vol. vi. : ἘΝ Weber, Jiidische
Lheologie auf Grund a. Talmud, ete. + L. Friedlinder, Dursted-
lung aus d. Sittengesch. Rois + G. Anrich, Das Mysterienwesen
εἰ. antiken Welt; G. W. Lechler, Das apost. αἰ. nachapost. Zeit-
alter3 (tr); Neander, Planting and Training of the Chr.
Church (tr.); J. J. 1. von Déllinger, Heidenthum τι. Juden.
thum (tr., Gentile and Jew, etc.), Christenthum αι. Kirche in
d. Zeiten εἰ. Grundlegung (tr., First Age of Christianity and
the Church); W.L. Steinmeyer, Der Ap. Paulus wu. d. Juden-
thum; A. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte: Prolegomena und Vor-
aussetzungen (tr.), in Band i.

B. INrropucrion.—Of eeneral NT Introductions, G. Salmon’s 7
(conservative), S. Davidson’s3 (largely negative, and in some
points superseded, but full of matter ably handled), and B.
Weiss’ Manual of Intr. to NT (tr.), are most serviceable for
Paul. H. J. Holtzmann’s3, Th. Zahn’s (rich in learning, power-
fully defensive), and A. Jiilicher’s Einicitungen (the last brief
and readable) present the latest findings of German criticism.
Ε΄ Bleek’s Einleitung is re-edited by W. Mangold 4 (1886: the

| de Ap. van Jezus Christus; W. ©. van

Eng. tr. from the orig. work). E. Reuss’ ist. of the Sacred
Ser. of the ΝΊ δ (tr. 1884) is valuable in the relevant sections ;
also C. A. Briggs’ Study of Holy Scr.2, Add to these the artt.
on ‘Paul?’ in Aneyel. Brit. (E. Hatch), Herzog’s Real-Eneykl. (Me
Schmidt), Hneyel. d. Sciences htelig. (A. Sabatier), Riehm’s WB
(W. Beyschlag). F. Godet gives an Introd. particulizre (Les
Epp. de St. P.), tome i. of his Introd. au NT (tr.)3 also P. J.
Gloag, Introd. to the Paul. Epp. ; G. G. Findlay, Epp. of the
Ap. Paul: a Sketch of their Origin and Contents,

C. Curono.ogy.—Eusebius’ Chronicle; Bengel, Ordo tein-
portun ; Ἐς Burton, Chronology of St. Paul’s App. ; Anger, de
temporum in Actibus ratione; Wurm, in Tiib. Zeitschr,, 1833,
i.; C. Wieseler, Chronol. d. ap. Zeitalters (tr.); T. Lewin, Masti
Sacri; Laurent, Ν Δ Studien ; W. M. Ramsay in St. Paul the
Traveller, ete. ; Ὁ. Clemen, Die Chrono!. ἃ. paul. Briefe; A.
Harnack, Chronol. d. altchr. Litteratur, ler Band, p. 233 ff.
(Chronol. ἃ. Paulus),

D. Tun Texr.—Besides the crit. edd. of the Gr. Test.—by
Tischendorf, Trevelles, Baljon, Nestle, and esp. Westcott and
Hort (ed. major)—B. Weiss’ Vextkriti« d. paul. Briefe (1890) is
noteworthy.

!. TRANSLATIONS of special value.—Besides the standard
versions, the /nterpretatio of Th. Beza, and (recently) B. Weiss’
Die paul. Briefe im berichtiggon Vert, and the Epp..in C.
Weizsiicker’s Das neue Test. wuersetzt ; also those of C. J.
Ellicott, J. A. Beet, and H. C. G. Moule, in their Commentaries,
and of the Handcommentar z. NT.

J’, PauL HiMsELe.— Works of genral scepe.—John Chrysostom,
Homitie in laudem S, Pauli, Opera, vol. ii. ed. Montfaucon ;
Hieronymus, de Viris illustribus, v. Οὐ modern times,
K. Schrader, Der Ap. Paulus; F.C. Baur, Paulus der Ap. J.C.
(ed.1 1845; ed.2 1866, tr. Paul, his Life and Works); Δ.
Tholuck, Life and Writings of St. Paul (tr.); A. Hausrath, Der
Ap, Paulus; Ἐς Renan, Saint Paul and Les Apotres (tr.); M.
Krenkel, Paulus d. Ap. d. Heiden: C. E. Luthardt, Der Ap.
Paulus, ein Lebensbild ; W. J. Conybeare and J.S8. Howson, Live
and Epp. of St. Paul (nany edd.)—the foundation of historical
and psychological study of Paul’s work in England ; T. Lewin,
Lijeand Epp. of St. Paul 5—unique in wealth of archwolovical
material; κ᾿ W. Farrar, Life and Work of St. Paul—priliiant
and impressive, finely blends the life and teaching ; J. Stalker,
Life of St. Paul—bvrief and pypular, but with a powerful grasp ;
J. Iverach, St. Paul, his Life and Times ; Straatmann, Paulirs
Manen, Paulus ; ΝΜ.
Baring-Gould, A Study of St. Paul, his Character and Opinions;
O. Cone, Paul: the Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher: ἃς
IL. Gilbert, Student’s Lite of Paul; see also A. CG. McGiffert’s
Hist. of Christianity in the Apost. Age.

G, Special Tovics CONNECTED WITH THE LIFE OR CHARACTER, —
Paley, Hore Pauline ; Lyttelton, Conversion and A postleship
of St. Paul; (ἃ. Menken, Blicke in da. Leben d. Ap. P.3 J. Smith,
The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul+; Howson, Character of
St. P., Companions of St. P., Metaphors of St. P.; J. Weiss,
Beitrage Ζ. paul. Rhetorik; C. Holsten, ‘Die Christusvision ἡ,
Paulus u. d. Genesis d. paul. Evang.’ (in Zum Ev. d. Paulus u.
d. Petrus); J. B. Lighttoot, St. Pand and Seneca (Philippians),
and other essays in Conunentaries and Biblical Essays 3 Gi.
Volkmar, Paulus von Damascus bis z. Galaterbr. 3 J. RB. Oertel,
Paulus in d. Apostelyesch. ; M. Krenkel, Beitrage z. Authelluny
ἃ. Gesch. u. ἃ. Briefe ἃ. Ap. Paulus? ; G. Matheson, Spiritual
Development of St. Paul; W. M. Ramsay, Ch. in the Row.

Vimp. and St. Paul the Traveller; Ki. Curtius, Paulus in Athen ;
F. Spitta, ‘Die zweimal. rom. Gefangensch. d. P.,’ in Urehristen-
thiun. Bd. i. ; R. Steinmetz, Die te rm. Gefangensch, des Ap.
P.; C. Fouard, St. Paul and his Mission (tr.), S. Paul, .. . ses
dern. Années; P. Seebock, S. Paulus d. Heideninissiondr ;
W. Lock, Paul, the Master-builder ; H. St. J. Thackeray, Rela-
tion of St. Paul to Jewish contemporary thought.

H. Tue Docrrixe (considered in general). —To the chief
works enumerated under (/’) add the following: L. Usteri,
Entwickelung d. paulin. Lehrbegrijis6; A. ¥. Diihne, under
same title; A. Ritschl, Entstehung ἃ. altkath. Kirche2; E.
Reuss, Hist. d. la Théol. Chrét. au siecle apost., tome ii. (tr.);
W. J. Irons, Christianity as taught by St. Paul; A. Sabatier,
Lapotre Paul, une esquisse de Uhist. de sa Penséed (tr. from
2nd ed.); O. Pfleiderer, Paulinismus2 (tr. from Ist ed., which
has independent value: the work is rewritten, not always for
the better), Hibbert Lect. (1885), T'he Injl. of the Ap. Parl on
the develop. of Christianity ; H. Opitz, Das System d. Paulus 4
M. Arnold, St. Paul and Protestantism: J. F. Clarke, The
Ideas of the Ap. Paul translated into modern equivalents; C.
Holsten, Das Evangelium d. Paulus (Theil ii. posthumously
added); A. B. Bruce, St. Pardl’s Conception op Christianity : G.
B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology ; C. Everett, The Gospel of
Paul; 1). Somerville, St. Piul’s Conception ΡΟ ᾿ς
Muller, Das persdnl. Christenthum d. paul. Gemeinden. Also
the standard works of NT Biblical Theology : by C. Ἐς Schmid
(tr.), J. J. van Oosterzee (tr.: slight), B. Weiss (tr.), W. Beyschlag
(tr.), ἃ. B. Stevens, and the account in C. Weizsiicker’s Apost.
Zecitalter 2 (tr.); T. D. Bernard’s Progress of Doctr.in NT3 gives
an excellent sketch ; A. Immer, Theol. des NUT: J. Bovon, Thec-
logie du NT (‘L’Enseignement ἃ. Apotres’); H. J. Holtzmann,
Lehrbuch d. NT Theologie; W. ¥. Adeney, Theol. of the NT—
a good outline; A. S. Peake in Guide to Biblical Study.

k. J. Knowling, in his Witness of the Epp., examines their
relation to the teaching of Jesus Christ (defending incidentally
the authenticity of the Hauptbricfe). This subject has been
investigated earlier by O. Thenius, Das Evangelium ohis
Evangelien; H. Paret, Paulus u. Jesus: J. H. Huraut, Paid,
a-t-il connu le Christ historique? F. Roos, Die Briefe d. A p

PAULUS, SERGIUS

PAVEMENT 731

Paulus αι. d. Reden ἃ. Herrn Jesw; it is touched on by P.
Ewald in his Hauptproblem αἰ. Evangelien,
1. Specian Docrrinan Tovics.—C. Holsten, ‘ Die Bedeutung ἡ.
Wortes σάρξ bei BP.’ (in Zin Heang. ἃ. Paul. ud. Petr.) ; He Η.
Wendt, Die Begrise Fleisch τι. Geist; W. VP. Dickson, δέ.
| Paul’s use of the terms Flesh and Spirit ; H. Liidemann, Die

Anthropologie d. Ap. Paulus; 'Th. Simon, Die Psychologie εἰ.
| Ap, Paulus; H. F. T. 1. Ernesti, Vom Ursprunge d. Stinde
| nach Ρ., and Ethik d. Ap. Paulus; Ἐς Ménégoz, Le Péché et la
Redemption @apres St. Paul; A. Sabatier, L’Origine du
| Péché (Appendice to L’apotre 2.8); P. Wernle, Der Christ “ἂν

ἃ. Stinde bei Paulus; A. Zahn, Das Gesetz Gottes nach d.
| Lehre wu. d. Erfahrung d. Ap. P.2; BR. A. Lipsius, Die paul.
Rechtfertigungsiehre ; Th. Waring, δικαιοσύνη, Θεοῦ bet Paulus ;
W. Karl, Beitrige z. Verstandniss d. soteriol. Erfahrungen τι.
Spekulationen ἃ. Ap. P.; C. Schiider, Die Bedeutung εἰ. leben-
diygen Christus f. die Rechfertig. nach P.; J. F. Rabiger, de
Christologia Paulina; R. Schmidt, Die paul. Christologie ; J.
| Gloél, Der heil. Geist in d. Heilsverkundigung d. Paulus ; UH,
i Gunkel, Die Wirkungen d. heil. Geistes; W. Beyschlag, Die
paul. Theodicée ; BW. Wahl, Zur paul. Theodicée ; K. Muller, Die
gottl. Zuvorerschung αι. Erwihlung nach ἃ. Be. Paulus; 1.
Dalmer, Die Erwdilung Israels nach Paulus ; RK. Kabisch, Die
Eschatologie d. Paulus; KE. Teichmann, Die paul. Vorstel-
lungen von Aufersichung τι. Gericht ; Ὁ. Everling, Die paul.
Angelologie αι. Damonologie; 11. Vollmer, Die adttest. Citate
bei Paulus; F. Zimmer, Das Gebet nach d. paul. Schriften.

K. ComMENTARIES.—For works of exegesis on particular Epp.
see special articles. For the Epp. as a whole, or in considerable
sections: of Gr. Fathers, Origen (Δ γασα. i Epp. 1..), Chrysostom
(followed by the rest), Theod. Mops., Theodoret, John of Damas-
cus, Theophylact, G2cumenius ; of the Latins, Ambrosiaster,
Pelagius. In the Middle Ages, Thom. Aquinas, Eapositio in
omnes epp. S. Pauli. At the Revival of Learning, Laurentius
Valla, Collatio (bearing on text); Nicholas ἃ Lyra. J. Colet,
with his Lectures on St. Pawl’s Epp., and Erasmus (in NT
Annotationes) led the way in the Retormation period ; J. Calvin
towers above all others (ln NZ’ Commentarii), followed by
Th. Beza (/nterpretatio and Annotationes in NT), with the
Rom. Cath. G. Estius (Counentt. ὧν Epp.) for a worthy rival ;
Cornelius ἃ Lapide and Bernardinus a Piconio (pp. P. tri-
partite eapositio: richly spiritual) are R.C. interpreters of the
17th cent., Hugo Grotius (Anvott. tie N7T—humanistic and
Arminian) the chief Prot. exegete ; John Locke wrote ἃ char-
acteristic Paraphrase and Notes onGal., Land 2 Cor, Ro., Eph.;
J. Pierce, ‘after the manner of Mr. Locke,’ on Col., Phil., Heb.
(of distinct value); J. J. Wetstein, V7 Grew, rich in classical
and Jewish illustration. J. A. Bengel opens the modern period,
with his inimitable Gnomon NT’; J. F. Flatt, early in’ this
cent., Commentar diber Rémer .. . Titus,in 5 vols.; then fol-
lowed the standard critical works of W. M. L. de Wette, H. A.
W. Meyer (tr.; re-edited since his death in Germany by various
ealing scholars). J. C. K. von Hofmann’s exposition, Die
Al. Schrift NU untersucht, and 11. Ewald’s Die Sendschreiben
d. Ap. Paulus, are of special value for Paul. The recent Kurzqe-
fassinr Kommentar (ed. Zockler) and Jlandcommentar z. NT
(Schmisiel, Lipsius, v. Soden) continue the task of scientific
exegesis 12 Germany—the former in a conservative, the latter
in ἃ critical sense. In England, St. Paul has attracted our best
exevetical scholarship: H. Alford and C. Wordsworth have
interpreted the whole Gv. Vest.; J. B. Lightfoot, Gal., Phil.,
Col. and Philem., with posthumous Notes on Epp. of Paul,
covering 1 and 2 Th, 1 Co 1-7, Ro 1-7, Eph 1-14; Ὁ, J.
Ellicott, all the Epp. except Ro and 2 Co (in ὁ vols.); B. Jowett,
land 2 Thess., Ro., Gal. (a continuous work); J. Eadie, Gal.-
2 Thess. (5 vols.); J. A. Boet, Ro.-Col. (4 vols.); Δ. F. Sadler, αὐ
the Epp.; J. R. Boise, Notes, Critical and Explan., on the Gr.
Text of Paul's Epp. (New York); various writers, in’ the
Internat. Crit. Comm., Speaker's Comim., Popular Comm., NT
Comin. for Eng. Readers, Pulpit Comm., Rxpositor’s Bible and
Gr. Test., Camb. Gr. Test. and Bible for Schools, etc. KR.
Whately’s Essays on some Dijiculties in the Writings of St.
Paul is worth consulting. In French, H. Oltramare has written
very ably on Ro., Mph. and Col, with Piilem.( vols.); F. Godet,
on Ro. and 1 Co. (tr. ; 4 vols.); L. Bonnet, Fypitres de Pauls.

C. Clemen, Hinhettit:hkeit ἃ. paulin. Briefe (1894), digests
recent hypotheses of interpolation and compilation in the Epp.,
attempting ἃ reconstruction on his own part.

G. FINDLAY.

PAULUS, SERGIUS (Σέργιος Ilatdos, Sergius
Paulus). — During what is generally called St.
Pauls First Missionary Journey he — visited
Paphos in the island of Cyprus. There he and

Jarnabas were suinmoned to appear before Sergius
Paulus, the proconsul (AV deputy), a man of
understanding (συνετός), In Whose train was one
Elymas or Bar-jesus, a Magus. ‘The proconsul,
who ‘sought to hear the word of God? appenrs
to have been at least impressed; and Elymas
is said to have attempted to turn him aside
from the faith. At St. Paul’s rebuke, Elymas
beconfes blind for a season; and the proconsul,
we are told, ‘when he saw what was done, be-
lieved, being astonished at the teaching of the
Lord’ (Ac 13%!4), It may be added that for

the first time we are told (v.*) that the second
name of Saul was Paul. That name is used
henceforth in the narrative, and from this time
aul and not Barnabas seems to take the leading
place.

The Sergit were a Roman patrician gens (ef,
Vere. Aen. v. 121: SSergestusyu: domus tenct ὦ que
Sergia nomen’); and Paulus was a cognomen in use
in this and other gerées. Taere was a L. Sergius
Paulus consul in A.v. 168, and another consul
suffectus at some date unknown. In the Index of
Authors to Pliny’s Natural History (bik. i.), a
Servius Paulus is twice mentioned as an authority
for Books ii. and xviii.; and in both, as Lightfoot
shows, Pliny seems to give special information
about Cyprus. The suggestion of identity is in-
teresting, but of course very uncertain ; it accords
with the fact that the proconsul has a magus, a
man of science, in his train. That Sergius Paulus
is rightly described as proconsul is undoubted. At
the original distribution of the provinces Cyprus was
under the emperor (B.C. 27), but in B.C. 22 it was
transferred with Gallia Narbonensis to the senate,
the emperor receiving Dalmatia in exchange (Dio
Cassius, lili. 12, liv. 4). At a later date under
Hadrian it was again governed by a propreetor and
was imperial, probably owing to the Jewish insur-
rection. Inscriptions, two dating from the years
51, 52 (CIS 2631, 2632), and coins of the Ist cent.,
clearly mention the island as governed by pro-
consuls. Of these the most interesting is one dis-
covered by Cesnola (Cyprus, p. 425), and accurately
published by Hogarth (Decia Cypria, pp. 113, 115).
It runs as follows: ‘Apollonius to his father .
son of... and his mother Artemidora, daughter
OF. consecrated the enclosure and this monu-
ment according to your own (his parents) command,
... having filled the offices of clerk of the markets,
prefect, town clerk, high priest, and having been
in charge of the record office. Erected on the
25th of the month Demarchexusius in the year 13.
He also revised the senate by means of assessors
in the time of the proconsul Paulus.’ The date of
the inscription is probably A.D. ὅσ, and the re-
vision of the senate presumably took place nine
years previously. As Hogarth says (op. ett. p. 115),
‘there can be no good reason for doubting our
identification, which would unquestionably have
been proposed and hardly disputed had Sergius

-aulus been known from any other source than
the New Testament.’

The question has been raised: Is there any con-
nexion between the Gentile name of the apostle,
Paulus, and the name of the proconsul? The
answer must bein the negetive. Paul, as a Roman
citizen by birth, would have his Roman nomen,
prenomen, and cognomen, and the resemblance otf
names, therefore, is only a coincidence. The
Gentile name is here used in the Acts for the first
time, because for the first time the apostle is in
contact with Gentiles. See, further, art. PAUL,
p. 697 f.

Lireratere.—Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion,
pp. 292-297 ; Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 73-88.

A. C. HEADLAM.

PAVEMENT (πεν, πεν; βάσις, λιθόστρωτον,
περίστυλον).---ἴπὶ early days the floors οἵ houses no
doubt were simply of beaten earth, but gradually
people learned to make some kind of cement,
with which to harden the floor, from the admix-
ture of lime, bitumen, or oil. At the present day
a hard cement is used in cisterns and floors in
Palestine, made by mixing red earth with olive
oil; and during the PF excavations (1867-71)
ancient tanks were discovered in which this cement
had been used, which was of a very tenacious
description, breaking with a conchoidal fracture.

|The floors of houses of the wealthy were seldom

732 PAVEMENT

PEACE

boarded, but were paved with cement, stone; marble
and mosaics, bricks, tiles, ete.
of the palaces in Chaldiea and Assyria were merely
beaten earth. In the recent PEF excavations
(Quarterly Statement, July 1899, 181) at Tell Zak-
ariya the floors of the houses are found to he of
mud and ashes, grouted with small pebbles, about
3 inches thick, with an uneven surface. During
the PEF excavations at Jerusalem (1867-71) a large
number of floors of houses of the poorer (7) classes
| Were examined, and found to consist of rouch
| cubes of marble laid in some kind of white cement.
_ In better houses those cubes were set in patterns,
_ In some of the houses large flags or paying
| stones were used, and these were sometimes of
_ polished marble. The great street. outside the
| temple enclosure was found during the excavation
|

|

|

|

|

|

|

to be paved with white marble, as described by
Josephus (Ant. Xx. ix. 7): “Herod Agrippa did
not obstruct the people when they desired that
Jerusalem might be paved with’ white stone.’
‘Solomon laid a causeway of black stones
the roads that led to Jerusalem,
them easy for travellers and to manifest his riches
and grandeur’ (7. VIEL. vii. 4). This no doubt was
basalt. In the ruins of Babylon the pavements
of roofs, courts, and chambers are composed. of
| two layers of burnt brick with a thick layer of

Many of the floors |

covered more than a third of an acre. The blocks
of basalt are all sawn and fitted together! Round
the pyramid itself, and extending some distance,
about 500 feet on each side, was a limestone pave-

θη about 21 inches thick.’

Wilkinson (Ane. Egypt. ii. 115) says that the
floors of houses in Egypt were sometimes made of

stone, or a composition of lime aud other materials,

_ temple.

The references to pavements and floors in the
Bible are not numerous, and refer generally to the
The floor of the temple of Solomon was

made of ‘boards of fir’ or cy presses Ε1 Ke Giada any

overlaid with gold.
sea from off the brazen oxen, and put it on

King Ahaz took down the
a pave-

ment (n2s7>) of stone, 2 K 16'7. At the dedication

_of the temple at Jerusalem by king Solomon, ‘ they

bowed themselves with their faces to the ground

upon the pavement (πεν), and worshipped,’ 2 Ch 73,
The pavement (7287) in the bedroom of the palace

of the king of Persia was of red, white, yellow, and

alone |
both to render |

The very beautiful
tine in recent years are nearly
tively late period, ice

| asphalt underneath (Perrot and Chipiez, i. 156).
Rassam tells us that he found at Abou Abba |
(Sippara) in Chaldwea a chamber paved with

|
|

!

|

| asphalt, much in the same fashion as a read or
| street in London or Paris (12. ii. 401).

|

There were three kinds of pavements or flooring |

| GABBATHA.

_ in the Assyrian palaces—beaten earth, brick pave. |

ments, and limestone slabs (Place, Ninire, i, 295).
/ In the palace of Sargon nearly every chamber
except those of the harem hada floor of beaten
earth, like those in a modern fellah’s house. Even
in the most sumptuous hall there was no exception
to this rule. These floors were probably covered
with mats or cloth carpets. In the harem cham-
bers at Khorsabad, as well as in the Open courts
and terraces, a very carefully laid pavement is
found, composed of two layers of large bricks with
a thick bed of sand between them, the lower course
of bricks being set in a bed of bitumen which
separates it from the earth and prevents any
dampness passing either up or down. In some of

gates of the city, and in paths across wide open
spaces, a limestone pavement has been found.
Thus stones are often seen there 3 feet square
and 2 feet 6 inches thick; but they are not cubi al,
but rather of the shape of a reversed pyramid,
roughly hewn on all sides except the base, which
is uppermost. They are laid without mortar or
cement, and are singularly durable (Perrot and
Chipiez, i. 239).

As bitumen was obtainable at Jerusalem, it is
| possible that it may have been used in the con-
struction of fioors of palaces and large houses.
Josephus (BJ Iv. viii. 4) tells us that the Dead Sea
casts up black clods of bitumen which float on the
water and are drawn into the ships, and then used
for caulking ships and for medicine. At the present.
day bitumen is now and then cast up and brought
| to Jerusalem.

In Egypt, where stone was plentiful, the temple
courts were usually paved with flagging. Strabo,
in describing the plans of temples of Eeypt gener-
ally (XVII. i. 25), says that at the entrance into the
temenos is a paved floor, in breadth about a
plethrum or even less, its length three or four
times as great. In front of the Great Pyramid
of Gizeh is still a great pavement, which is thus
described by Petrie (Great Pyramid, 14): ‘This
basalt pavement is a magnificent work, which

the harem rooms, courts, and vestibules, before the |

black marble, Est 1% There was a pavement (7237)
in the temple of Ezekiel (Ezk 4011. 15 42", and see
Davidson on 418).

The dust of the floor of the tabernacle is spoken
of as though the floor was of beaten earth (Nu 517),
pavements found all over Pales-
all of a compara-
since the Roman occupation.
See also GATE, Housrk, Roor, WALLS. :

For the ‘pavement’ (λιθύστρωτον) of Jn 1918 see
C. WARREN,

PAVILION is formed (threugh Fr. pavilion) from
ait. papiio, which meant a‘ butterfly,’ and also
(from the resemblance to a buttertly’s outspread
Wings) atent. ‘Tindale, in his ‘ Prologe to Exodus,’
explains TABERNACLE as ‘an house made tentwise,
or as ἃ pavelion.’ Pavilion is the tr. in AV of τὸ
sok in Ps 27°, and of azp sukkah in 28 ΤΕ ῖς
9015 18) Ps 181} 31° (to which RV adds Job 36 and
Is 4° for AV ‘tabernacle’). Elsewhere sok oceurs
in Ps 10° (7303, AV and RV ‘in his den’), 762 (AV
and RV ‘tabernacle,’ RVm ‘covert’), and Jer 25
(AV and RV ‘covert’). Sukkah is of frequent oc-
currence, and ix rendered ‘booth’ or ‘tabernacle,’
once ‘tent ‘(25 11"). Besides these, rex shaphriir
(IXeré πε Ὁ) in its sinele occurrence, Jer 4910, is tr.
‘royal pavilion’ (RVin ‘glittering pavilion’). RY
has also given ‘pavilion’ in Nu 25°, within. ‘aleove?
for AV ‘tent’ (Heb. 3p). See Booru, TABER-
NACLE, TENT. J. HASTINGS.

PE (5).—The seventeenth letter of the Hebrew
alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm
to designate the 17th part, each verse of which
begins with this letter. It is transliterated in this
Dictionary by p or ph.

PEACE, the tr® in OT of the Heb. οὐδ shalom
(from the root no) ‘to be whole’) =‘ wholeness,’
‘soundness,’ hence health, wellbeing, prosperity ;
more particularly, peace as opposed to war, con-
cord as opposed to strife; in NT it is {τὰ of the Gr.
εἰρήνη (Which in LXX ordinarily translates Dv>u),
‘peace,’ ‘quiet,’ as opposed to war or strife, hence
security, safety, prosperity.

The fundamental meaning of oiSy is prosperity,
wellbeing, good of any kind (Ges.), a meaning
which reappears in the Gr. εἰρήνη. (So Ps ΡΩΝ
peace and prosperity; Is 52’, Jer 297 peace as
opposed to evil; 1 Th 5* peace and safety; Ac
24°). In this sense it is used in the formule of
greeting (15 it well—Heb. peace—with thee ? 2K doo.
Gn 298, cf. Gn 3714: Peace be unto you, Lk, 2435,
Jn 2019. 21. 26) or of dismissal (Go in peace, 1 ὃ 117
20”, 2S 159, Mk δ5:, Lk 8.8, Ac 15%; ef. the bless:
ing, Nu 6), In a secondary sense it is used ot
peace as opposed to war (Ee 3° ‘a time for war and

cama

PEACE

PEARL 109

a time for peace,’ Jeg 417, 1S 74, Lk 14%, Ac 12”,
Rev 64), of concord as opposed to strife (Ob*%,
Pe OSee er Os ef, NMG: dU. ΚΟ jee, Bile ez):
Hence the expression ‘man of one’s peace” tor an
intimate friend {Ὁ 5.419 ‘mine own familiar friend? ;
Jer 9010. 3533). In this sense God Himself is said to
be a God, not of confusion but of peace (1 Co 14°),
Henee He requires peace of men (Zee 819. Ps 344
op hola, 1 Co 7", Bph.4*, He 12!) - Those wo
practise it He rewards (Ja 380, cf. Mt 5®), but those
who disregard it are punished (Is 59° 9, Ro 9:7),

In the primary sense of prosperity, peace is a
blessing of which God alone is the author (15 457
‘T, J’, make peace and create evil’; ef. Job 25?,
Ps 1471), and which He bestows upon the right-
eous (Gn 154% Abraham; 2 K 22” Josiah ; Ps 37%
the perfect man; Ps 119! those who love God's
law; Pr 3° those who follow the divine Wisdom ;

ct. Ps 45, Job 5%, Is 82 ‘And the work of righteous- |

ness shall be peace; and the effect of righteous-
ness, quietness, and contideice for ever.’ Cf. also
Ja 3). Τὸ is a gift which Grod desires to impart
to all His people (Jer 29"), but which He is often
unable to grant because of their sins (15. 48}, Jer
4°; ef, v.14), For there can be no peace to the
wicked (Is 48% 513, Those who hope for it, while
continuing in their iniquity, are self-deceived
(JeriG@es ἘΠ 138),

Amone the blessings to which Israel looks
forward in the Messianic time none is more
emphasized than peace. The covenant which
(τοῦ made with the fathers at the first (Nu 9515,
Ly 268, Mal 95. 6). and for the fulfilment of which
the prophets confidently look, is a covenant of
peace (Is 541°, Ezk 34° 37°°). The messenger who
brings tidines of the coming salvation is one who
publishes peace (Is 527, Nah 115. The Messiah
Himself is the Prince of Peace (Is 9°; ef. Mic 5°,
Zee 63). Of the inerease of His government and
peace there shall be no end (Is 97). In His days
the righteous shall flourish, and abundance of
peace till the moon be no more (Ps 72* 7). Psalmist
and prophet alike are full of pictures of the time
when J” shall bless His people with peace (Ps 2917) ;
when the meek shall inherit the land and delight
themselves in the abundance of peace (Ps 87!!);

when peace shall be within the walls of Jerusalem |

(Ps 1227); in the temple (Hag 2°); when men shall
vo in with joy and be led forth with peace (Is ὅδ᾽";
ef. 54!) ; when the very officers shall be peace and
the exactors righteousness (Is 60!7); when peace
shall extend to Jerusalem like a river and the
glory of the nations like an overflowing stream
(Is 66") ; nay, when God shall speak peace to the
very Gentiles (Zee 9"), Even Jeremiah, bitter in his
denunciations of those who ery peace when there
is no peace, and prophesy betore the time (4!° 64
Si 141) 2317 98"), is firm in his belief that a time is
coming when God will reveal to His people abund-
ance of peace and truth (33°).

|

you, and peace from God our Father and from the
Lord Jesus Christ,’ Ro 17 and often). Thus in His

| farewell words to His disciples Jesus represents

peace as a gift to them from Himself (Jn 1457 16% :
*My peace 1 give unto you. These things have 1
spoken to you, that in me ye may have peace’).
Characteristic of ΝΤ is the view of peace as the
present possession of the Christian. In a single

case it is used by St. Paul of that future blessed -

|

The NT shares with OT the view of peace as |

a characteristic of the Messianic time (Lk 179 24
Meat Aces PO),
understood the greeting of the disciples on their
missionary journey (Mt 10! Lk Τόσο). The
gospel of the Messiah is expressly called a gospel
of peace (Eph 6, Ac 10%), As such it is opposed
to all strife and confusion. Jesus Himself is the
great peace-maker, who, by preaching peace to
those who are near and to those who are afar off,
and reconciling hoth to God, has Himself become
our peace (Eph 2) ; ef. Mice 5°, He 7? Melchize-
dek, King of Peace, as a type of Christ). Hence,

a cognate of tukhayyin.
In this sense is probably to be |

ness which is to be expected by the righteous at
the Parousia (Ro 919), but in eeneral it denotes a
state of the Christian in this present life. [Ὁ is so
used by Jesus in His farewell promise (Jn 145

gs ‘My peace I give unto you.’ It is regularly
so represented by St. Paul. Cf. Ro 8° ‘The mind
of the Spirit is life and peace’; Ro 1513. ‘Now the
God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in
believing’; 2 Th 815 ‘The Lord of peace give you
peace at all times in all ways’; Col 3'5 + Let the
peace of Christ rule in your hearts’; Ro 5! ‘We
have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ’ (so Lipsius, Adcom. ii. pt. 2, 108; Cremer,
Lex, 364 et al., who read ἔχομεν in place of the better
attested ἔχωμεν). [πὶ this connexion peace acquires
the technical meaning of ‘the tranquil state of a
soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so
fearing nothing from God, and content with its
earthly lot, of whatever sort it be’ (Thayer, Lez.
189). Assuch it is the direct result of the redemp-
tion of Christ (Eph 2! 1"), and consists primarily ΠῚ
a state of conscious reconciliation with God (Ro δ᾽),
though often used in a broader sense to denote all
the blessings which accompany and flow from that

reconciliation (so 2 Th 910, and in the apostolic

greetings, Ro 1’, 1 Co 1°, and often).

LITERATURE. — Cremer, Bib. Theol. Lex. sub εἰρήνη; Weiss,
Bib. Theol. of NT, Index; Wordsworth, The One Religion
(BL, 1881), 217-336. See also H. Allon, Jidwelling Christ, 105 ;
R. W. Church, Cathedral and University Serinons, 144; J. 3B.
Lightfoot, Sermons in St. Pauls, 136; F. W. Robertson,
Sermons, iii. 130, Human Race, 305; T. Binney, Sermons in
King’s Weigh-house Chapel, ii. 79, 94, 106, 121.

W. ADAMS Brown.
PEACE-OFFERING.

See SACRIFICE.

PEACOCKS (ΟΞ and ovantukhiyyim).—Theword
‘peacocks’ occurs in two passages, 1 Καὶ 1055 (where
LXX seems to have translated it by πελεκητοί
=‘thines [se. λίθοι, stones] carved by an axe’)
and 2 Ch 92! (where LXX omits the word). The
Vule. in both has part. A third place in which
AV gives ‘peacock’ (Job 3015) has another Heb.
original (23.7 rennin), which doubtless refers to
the ostrich, as in RV. As we have no reason to
doubt the correctness of the rendering ‘ peacocks”
for tukkiyyim, this stately bird, Pavo cristatus, L.,
was doubtless imported by Solomon either direct
from India (? Ophir=Abhira) or from some port
to which Hiram/’s sailors had broueht it from India
(see Cheyne in Lapos, Times, July 1898, p. 472).
Sir ἘΣ Tennant (Ceylon, ii. 102) has shown that
the ‘Tamil name of ‘ peacocks’ is tokes, apparently
It is very abundant in
the forests of India, and in some of the native
states it is illegal to shoot it. We have no mention
of its introduction into Mediterranean regions
earlier than the time of Solomon. [{ is, however,

-very frequently alluded to in the Gr. and Lat.

while God is frequently called in NT the God of | ᾿
Although this is not, and never has heen, regarded

peace (Ro 15* 16%, 2 Co 134, Ph 4°, 1 Th 5%, 2 Th
3) He 13°), we have reference not merely to the

peace of God (Ph 47), but to the peace of Christ —

(Col 3; cf. the apostolic salutations. ‘Grace to

classics. ey Ἐπ “Post:
PEARL.— There is no evidence in favour of the
AV ‘pearl’ for gabhish (Job 288). The LXX
merely transliterates γαβείς, It means far more
probably Serystal? (so RV, Oxf. Heb. Lex, Sieg-
fried-Stade, Dillmann, A. B. Davidson, οὐ ἀξ),

ss
we ned
at

as a precious stone, yet fine pieces of rock crystal,
especially if large enough to be made into vases,
have always been highly valued. The word oy33,

734 PECULIAR

ae

PECULIAR

which occurs in the same passage, and in Pr 3%
(Ixeré) 81 20% 31! La 47, should perhaps be tr@
‘pearls’ (see Dillm. on Job 2818), Both AV and
KV text have ‘rubies,’ RVm ‘or red coral or
pearls’ (in La 47 ‘or corals’). Pearls (uapyaptrac)
are mentioned in the N'T in several places. They
were and are much prized gems (1 Ti 2°, Rev 174).
They were chosen by Christ as a type of that
which was most precious, to be compared with the
kingdom of heaven (Mt 135). The verb 2azam in
Arab., coupled with /u/w= ‘pearl,’ signifies ‘to
string pearls.’ Coupled with shi'r=‘ poetry,’ it
means ‘to arrange verses.’ Thus poetry is com-
pared with pearls. The Arab poets and authors
ring innumerable changes on the names for pearls
in characterizing their literary productions. Thus
a poem is called ‘the Lone Pearl,’ or ‘The Precious
Pearl,’ or ‘The String of Pearls,’ ete. Our Saviour
warns us against giving that which is holy unto
dogs, and casting our pearls before swine (Mt 7°),
The instinct of Christian consciousness has usually
interpreted pearls here as referring to the precious
words of Divine revelation. This would be in
strict accord with the Oriental usage above illus-
trated. The gates of pearl (Rev 21°!) are probably
to be understood as mother of pearl. Separate
pearls are the same in composition and origin as
the shell, being formed by the gradual deposition
of layers of the secretion of the-vyster, Avicula
margaritifera, 1... ‘They are usually deposited in
the most fleshy parts, particularly within and
around the adductor muscle. When the secretion
of the oyster is morbidly increased, not only are
separate pearls formed, but nodules and excres-
cences of the same sort are produced on the inner
surface of the shell. These are cften detached and
sold as pearls, but at a lower price.
G. E. Post,

PECULIAR.—The Heb. word sfqullah (75:5) is
used in Ex 19 of the people of Israel as God's
special possession and care, and it is translated in
AV and RV ‘a peculiar treasure.’ It is applied to
Israel in the same sense, but with ‘an (5), * people,’
prefixed in Dt τὸ 14726". Ex 195 is echoed in Ps
1354 “For the Lord hath chosen Jaeob unto himself,
and Israel for his peculiar treasure’; and in Mal 3",
where the reference is transferred to the Israel of
the future.* The origin of the word is unknown,
and no form of its root is elsewhere found in the
Bible, but its meaning is made clear by 1 Ch 293
and Ee 28, In the former passage David says that
in addition to the public money to he used in the
Imilding of the temple, he has a private store which
he is ready to hand over for the same purpose.
‘We might say that it was the fiscus as distin-
euished from the @rariun, the privy purse as
opposed to the public treasury’ (Lightfoot, Fresh
fev” p. 264). In Ee 2° the reference is also to
the ‘peculiar treasure of kines.’ The sequllah is
therefore that which is one’s own, that to which
no one else has a claim.

The LXX translators seem to have caught the
meaning, but found it dificult to express in Greek.
In 1 Ch 29° they use the verb περιποιεῖσθαι (ὃ περι-
πεποίημαι, “Which T have saved up’): Lut that verb
is unsuitable in the other places, and they appear
to have coined an adj. περιούσιος. which (along
with λαός, ‘ people’) they use in Ex 19° 93} (not in
the Heb. or Ene.), Dt 16 142 26, and a subst.
περιουσιασμός, Which they use in Ps 1354, Ee 28, In
Mal 3! they use the subst. περιποίητις. The adj.
περιούσιος occurs twice in NT, (1) Tit 24 λαὸς περι-
ούσιος, & verbal quotation from Dt 142; (2) 1 P eae

* See Neubauer on ‘ Expressions employed concerning Israel
as a Chosen Nation,’ in ρον. Times, vol. iii. (1891-92), p. 10.

t So also it is probable that ἐπιοίσιος, which is not found earlier
than in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6, Lk 11%), was coined by the
Evangelists, as similar Compounds (ἐ-ερούσιος, ἐμούσιος, ὀςμοιουσιυξ,
συνούσιος) Were formed by eccles. Gr. writers.

in which, though a quotation from Ex 19° (where
the LXX is also λαὸς περιούσιος), the expression is
λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν (the same as in LXX of Mal BUGS

Jerome (Op. vi. 725f.) was puzzled with the περι-
οὔσιος Which he found in the ΠΧ Χ,, and, discovering it
nowhere else, he concluded, from an examination
of the biblical passages and from the verb περιεῖναι,
to excel, that it expressed separation in the sense
of superiority. But finding that Synnunachus, who
usually gives ἐξαίρετος for περιούσιος, once used the
Latin adj. peculiaris, he perceived that the true
force of the Heb. and Gr. words is ‘separation to
one’s self,” and chose the words peculinm and
peculiaris as the usual translation, thus replacing
the inadequate abundans of the Old Lat. by a
singularly felicitous word. For peendinm* (whence
adj. peculiaris) is a word of special significance in
Roman society, being a person's priate purse, and
especially the private property possessed by ἃ son
or daughter independently of their father, or by a
slave independently of his master.

Jerome did not always use this word. In Ex 195 he has in
peculinm, in Dt τὸ 142 2018. populus peemliaris, in 1 Ch 298
peculiwin mewn, and in Mal 317 in peculium., But in Ps 1354 he
uses the more general in possessionem, and in Ee 98 simply
substantias. In Tit 24he has populus acceptabilis, and in 1 P 29
poprlus acquisitionis, These unsatisfactory renderings in the
Vulg. NT are due, Lightfoot thinks, to the fact that the NT was
translated first, and that only after its translation had Jerome
recognized the value of the rendering suggested by Symmachus,

We have no subst. in Ene. to correspond with
the Lat. peculivm, and eventhe adj. ‘peculiar’ seems
not to have been available for Wyclit’s purpose,
for he never uses it, though translating directly
from the Vulgate. In Ex 195 he has “iy propre
tresour’ (but in 1388 ‘a specialte’), while in Dt 75
14° 2618 he has (and so Purvey, 1388) ‘a special
people.’ + It was Tindale, in his NT of 1526, who
introduced fa peculiar people.’ He was followed,
in Tit 24, by all the Ene. versions except the Rhem,
(‘a people acceptable’), and in 1 P 2" by all except
Cran. (‘a people whych are wonne’) ‘and Rhem.
(‘a people of purchase’). It is greatly to be
regretted that the adj. ‘peculiar’ has ‘lost. its
honourable meaning. Its earlier use may be illus-
trated from Udall’s Erasmus’ Paraphrase, i. fol.
32, * Every tree hath his peculyer and proper fruyte,
which by the taste doeth declare the stocke’;
Synode at Dort, p. 6, ‘Vue true cause of the free
Election is the good pleasure of God . . . consist-
ing herein, that out of the common multitude of
sinners he culled out to himselfe, for his owne
peculiar, some certaine persons, or men’; and
Knox, IWorks, iii. 18, ‘Secke God, who isa peculiar
Father to the faithfull, delivering them from all
tribulations, not for their worthynesse, but for his
own mercie.’

The Revisers have been divided on the propriety
of retaining the word. In Tit 24, 1 P 2° ‘a peeuliar
people’ is changed into ‘a people fer his (God's)
own possession.” But in Dt Τό ‘a special people’ is
turned into a peculiar people,’ and that phrase
or “ἃ peculiar treasure’ is retained in the OT
wherever it occurs in AV. In 1 Ch 29% ‘mine own
proper good? becomes ‘a treasure of mine own’:
and in Mal 3" the familiar ‘in that day when I
make up my jewels’ of AV is changed into ‘in
the day that Tdo make, even a peculiar treasure’
(see JEWEL, vol. ii. p. 655%, § 5).

The adj. ‘ peculiar’ occurs also in Wis 19° ‘Serv-

* Peculium is from pecus, cattle, that being the chief part of
property in early Roman days.

t Wyelif’s and Purvey’s renderings in the other places are:
1 Ch 298 ‘Myne owne tresor’ (1388 ‘my proper catel’—which,
when we think of the origin of prewlium, and compare Eng.
‘chattel,’ the same word, brings us very near the true meaning);
Ps 1354 ‘into possessicun’; Ec 23 ‘substaunces’ (Purvey, ‘the
castels’—a various spelling of ‘catels’ or a slip. Purvey uses
‘castels’ for ‘tents’ in Ex 1420, but it seems to be found nowhere
else in the sense of property); Mal 3!7 ‘into a special tresoure’;
Tit 214 ‘a peple acceptable’; 1 P 29 * puple of purchasinge.’

a

PEDAHEL

PEEP 735

ing [=observing]} the peculiar commandments that
were given unto them? (ὑπηρετοῦσα ταῖς ἰδίαις ἐπι-
rayais, RV ‘ministering to thy several command-
ments’); and RV introduces it into Wis 34 ‘There
shall be given him for his faithfuln ssa peculiar
favour’ (τῆς πίστεως χάρις ἐκλεκτή, AV ‘the special
eift of faith’). This is the sense in which the
word is used by Udall (quoted above) ; by Adams
on 2 P 15 ‘Woe to them that eneross faith, that
enclose God's commons, that make that several
and peculiar, which the Lord hath laid open and
made common’; and by Herbert in the familiar
lines from The Temple (§ 158, ‘ Judgement ᾽)---

‘Almightie Judge, how shall poor wretches brook

Thy dreadful look,
Able a heart of iron to appall,
When Thou shalt call
For evry man’s peculiar book ?’
J. HASTINGS.
PEDAHEL (5x75, Padayd).—The prince of Naph-

tali, one of those who took part in dividing the
land, Nu 34° P. The name belongs to the late
and artificial class which has so mamy representa-
tives in P (cf. Gray, Heb. Proper Names, 198, 200,
210, 310, and in Lpus. Sept. 1897, Ὁ. 179 ΤΌΝ

PEDAHZUR (73772, Padac(c)ov’p).—The father of
Gamaliel, the prince of the tribe of Manasseh, at
the time of the Exodus, Nw 1? 2% 75+ δυο “Fhe
question of the early or late character of such
compound names, and of the early use by the
Hebrews of Zur (=*rock’) absolutely as a divine
name will be found fully discussed by Hommel
(AML 300, 319f.), who affirms such use, and G.
Buchanan Gray (//eb. Proper Names, 196, and
especially in his criticism of Hommel in Erpos.
Sept. 1897, pp. 179 ti), who denies it. See also art.
Rock. J. A. SELBIE.

PEDAIAH (7:73 ‘J” has redeemed,’ 3375 in 1 Ch
27-°; the Sept. MSS have a great variety of forms ;
Ψαλαιά, Φαλαδαιά, ete., are probably corruptions of
Φφαδαιά in which A has been mistaken for A).—1.
Father of Joel, who was ruler under David over
western Manasseh (1 Ch 27"", B Φαλαδαιά, A Φαλδιί,
Ine. Padalias). So early an occurrence of a com-
pound name in which one of the elements is 772
can be paralleled from P only (Gray, “Ποῦ. Proper
Names, 198f.). 2 Father of Zebidah, one of
the savives..of kine Josiah (2°: 23", B (Héei;
A Εἰξδδιλά). Through his dauehter he became
ereat-erandfather of king Jehoiachin, one of whose
sons has the same name (No. 3), accidentally it
may be supposed (cf. Gray, eb. Proper Names,
». 6). Tt is stated that he was an inhabitant of
ἐξ μον 8. Third son of Jchoiachin (Jeconiah),
the captive (1 Ch 3!5 B Φαλδαίας, A Φαδαίας, Lue.
φαδαιά). Jehoiachin was probably still without
children when he was taken to Babylon (2 Kk
248; cf. his age given in v.). Pedaiah’s birth
may therefore be dated after his father’s release
from prison in 561 (2 Wo 257%), His name (see
meaning above) is appropriate to such cireun-
stances. In 1 Ch 3! he is named Zerubbabel’s
father. Elsewhere Zerubbabel is his nephew, son
ot his brother Shealtiel (Hag, Ezr, Neh, Mt, Lk;
also A and Bin 1 Ch). [t is more probable that
there is an error in the text of 1 Ch than that
Yerubbabel was merely Shealtiel’s legal son (Dt
25"), being actually Pedaial’s son by his brother's
widow. [0 is questionable if the child of a levirate
marriage could be called son of the levir. If he
were entered as such in family registers, the whole
purpose of the custom would be nullified. 4 One
of those who repaired the wall of Jerusalem at the
instigation of Nehemiah (Neh 8% BA dada, Lue.
Padat). He belonged to the clan Parosh, which
Was an important part of the post-exilic community
(Neh 78, Ezr 89). He is contemporary with two

| others of the same name (5 and 6), and all, pre-
sumably, were resident in Jerusalem. Perhaps he
is identical with the next following. 5. One of
those who ‘stood beside’? Ezra when he read the
Law to the people (Neh 83 @adaias, in 1 Es 05
B Φαλαδαῖος, A Φαλδαῖος, Phaldeus). His position
seems rather one of prominence in the community
than of association with Ezra. 6 One of ἃ com-
ittee of four appointed by Nehemiah, on the
occasion of his second visit, to receive and distri-
bute the tithes and offerings of the people (Neh
13” B Φαλαϊά, ANS Luc. Φαδαιά). He was a Levite,
and evidently chosen to represent the interests of
his class. ‘There is no proot that he is identical
with 5. Neit&er the priest nor the scribe who
were his colleagues appear elsewhere. 7 An
ancestor of Sallu, who was one of the Benjamite
inhabitants of Jerusalem after the Exile (Neh 1V,
B Φαλαια, A Luc. Φαδαια). He is put in the third
generation before Sallu. In the version of the
list contained in 1 Ch 9 Salluw’s ancestry is given
differently, and Pedaiah’s name does not occur (ν. 7),
W. B. STEVENSON.

PEDIAS (1B Iledias, A Παιδείας, AV Pelias), 1 Es

9, a corruption of BEDELAH, Ezr 10”.

PEEL, PILL.—The origin of these verbs is
severally pedis, skin, and pilus, hair; but they
‘annot be traced direetly back to these separate
sources, because the Old) Fr. words με» and
piller, trom which they come, were confused in
spelling before the Eng. words were formed. The
confusion was made greater when the (probably)
separate Lat. pilare, to plunder, was adopted into
French and English, and spelt indifferently ‘ pill”
or ‘peel. Brachet says that piller, in the sense
of ‘rob, ‘plunder,’ was introduced into the Fr.
laneuace in the 16th cent. along with many other
military words. We find its derivative ‘pillage,’
however, in Fabyan, Chron. 1. 114.

Peel is the AV spelling in Is 18%7 ‘a nation
seattered and peeled, ‘a people scattered and
peeled? (sta ποτ, AV Soutspread and polished,’
RV ‘tall and smooth, RVim ‘dragged away and
peeled’). Here ‘peel? is probably taken in the
sense proper to ‘pill,’ 1.6. pull off the hair, -for
that is the primary meaning of the Heb. word.
But the reference is to the Ethiopians, and as the
Heb. verb comes usually to mean to polish (by
stripping off supertluous hair), RV and most modern
exegetes take the expression in the sense οἱ
‘polished,’ ‘bronzed,’ referring to the Ethiopians’
tawny skin. In Ezk 2018 ‘Every head was made
bald, and every shoulder was peeled? (Ap ΠΞ:: 5),
the meaning is more primary, ‘laid bare’ by the
chafing of a burden (Amer. RV ‘ worn’).

Pill is the spelling in Gn 36°" % (of the rods in
which Jacob ‘pilled white strakes’), where the
meaning is clearly to pull off the skin. RV spells
‘peeled.’ Pill occurs also in To 11'° When his
eyes began to smart, he rubbed them; and the
whiteness pilled away from the corners of his eyes’
(eXerioOy, RV ‘scaled’), and 1 Mac 1**m. for AV
text ‘pulled off? (€Xémice, RV “πόα δ}.

Shaks. uses ‘peel’ in the sense of stripping off
the bark (‘ pill’ of Gn 30°" #5), as Jer. of Ven. I. iil.
85, ‘The skilful shepherd peel’d ime certain wands’;
and in the sense of plucking off the hair, 1 //enry VI.
I. iil. 30, ‘ Peel’d priest.’ He uses ‘ pill’ only in the
sense of rob: Zimon, 1V. 1. 12—

‘Large-handed robbers your grave masters are,
And pill by law.’

J. HASTINGS.
PEEP.—To peep in Is 8 10" (5 ¢s, Pilp. ptep.
of res; LXNX κενολογεῖν, ἀντειπεῖν) is not to chirp
(as RV), but to cheep, ae. it expresses not the
cheerful contented note of little birds, but the
feeble cry of nestlings. It is an imitative word,

nan

736 PEKAH

PEKAH

—

and is used also of a mouse’s cry, as Purehas,
Pilgrimage, 357, ‘Hee procuring such peace in the
East (saith Vopiscus) that a rebellious Mouse was
not heard to peepe.’ In Sir 919 * peep’ is used in |
its mod. sense, ‘A fool will peep in at the door into |
the house’ (παρακύπτει : ef. Jn 20°, 1 P 113). So Jer |
01 Cov. “A plage and a greate misery pepeth out
from the North.’ J. HASTINGS.

PEKAH (792, LXX Φάκεε, Assyr. Pakahu) was
the son of Remaliah. The name in full form was
probably sazqps, the same as that of his predecessor.
Following the current OT significations of the
verb πρϑ, the name would signify either (κα)
‘Jehovah hath beheld [//¢. opened his eyes upon]
(me)’; see 2 Kk 435 1916. Jer 3219, Zec 124, Job 148, and |
cf. ayy ma and Assyr. proper name Bilimurani,
‘Bel hath beheld me’; or (4) far more probably
‘Jehovah hath opened (my eyes)’; ef. Gn AR ae
2K 0119. The omission of the Divine name as |
subject is illustrated in the case of Ahaz
(=Ahaziah), Nathan (=Nethaniah, El-Nathan), |
which stands for j2 17° 723 ; ef. Marduk-apla-iddin(a)
and other Assyrian parallels which further ex-
emplify the omission of the object in the ab- |
breviated form of the proper name. See the illus-
trations which have been collected in Schrader,
COT ii. p. 326, by the present writer.

Pekah, son of Remaliah, was of obscure parent-
age, to which Isaiah refers with a touch of satire.
(77). The story of his brief but important reign |
is told in the short extract 2 Κα 15%), Twenty
years are ascribed to him, but chronological con-
siderations based on the data of the Assyrian
annatistic inscriptions, and the Canon of Rulers,
can assign him a reign of only about three years
(736-733). Comp. Schrader, COT ii. p. 321 1h, and
art. CHRONOLOGY OF THE OT in vol. 1. p. 401 f.

Pekah was captain of Pekahiah’s Gileadite body-
guard, and held the important confidential post of
Shalish* near the king’s person. This gave him
unusual opportunities, when with fifty chosen men
he compassed the destruction of king Pekahiah.
We are left in entire ignorance as to the cireum-.
stances which led to this violent act (2 K 15%), and
the text is, moreover, far from certain.+ All that
we delinitely know is that it took place at Samaria,
probably in the stronghold of the royal palace.

It is possible, however, in the light of subsequent
as well as preceding events, to frame an adequate
theory for the motives of state policy which under-
lay Pekah’s conspiracy. |

The history ot Israel and Judah from the days :
of the disruption downwards was largely deter-—
mined by the lines of foreign policy. While Syria
was the most formidable foe, and Egypt remained
quiescent, the problems of this policy were not |
complex, Resistance or unwilling submission to
Syria was the keynote of Israel's foreign policy
in the reigns of Baasha, Omri, and Ahab. But
in the reign of the Jast-mentioned monarch the
formidable power of Aram (Syria) was dwarfed
by the rising might of Assyria awakening from its |
slumber of centuries (see art. AHAB). In the reign |
of the Assyrian king Ramman-nirari 111. the power
of Syria was broken, never more to recover its.
former vitality. From this time forth the chief
menace to the security of all the Palestinian states
was the advancing (though occasionally quiescent) |
power of Assyria. Now, Just as Napoleon 1. :

* See art. ‘Chariot’ in this Dict. and in Encyel. Bibl., and
also ‘ Army.’

t Cf. Stade, Gesch. i. p. 588, n. 1.

t We have no alternative but to follow the MT at this point ;
LXX ἐναντίον gizou*is an obvious corruption of the text εἰς ἄντρον
οἰκου. Ct. the closely parallel 1 K 1618, Klostermann in place of
V2) 2398 AX would read 132i MND Y2IN AN, evidently based
on the LXX ἀπὸ τῶν τετρακοσίων and DO’ ?i %3pD of the Heb. |
text in the latter part of the verse. |

his career of conquest (like the kings of France
who preceded him) profited by a disunited Germany
and ἃ disunited Italy, so the successive monarchs
who reigned in Nineveh reaped an abundant
harvest from the divided and too often mutually
hostile policies of the Palestinian states. Only
for a brief period near the close of his career did

Ahab pursue the only intelligent. principle of self-

preservation against the peril (which was then some-
what distant from Israel), viz. alliance with Syria
against the Assyrian foe. This sound course of
action was abandoned at the close of Ahab’s life,
as the result of a humiliating defeat at the hands
of Assyria ; and the fatal and short-sighted policy
of selfish isolation, and even of compliance by
means of tribute to the Assyrian power, was pur-

~sued in succession by Jehu, in all probability by

Jeroboam I1., and also, as we know definitely from
both Assyrian and Hebrew records, by Menahem.

Pekah and his contemporary Rezin,* king of
Syria, had the intelligence to perceive that it was
only through a common policy pursued by the
allied Palestinian states that the formidable power
of Tiglath-pileser 11. could be checked. Accord-
ingly we may regard it as probable that the
insurrection against the son of Menahem was sus-
tained by the deep discontent aroused by his con-
tinuance of his father’s policy of subservience and
tributary vassalage to Assyria. Whether this
insurrection was fomented by an Egyptian party,
as Kittel + supposes, we consider very doubtful.
Por Egypt at that time (viz. the close of the 23rd
and the brief 24th dynasty) was hardly in a position
to give any practical support to the patriotic op-
ponents of Assyria.t Six years later, during the
strong rule of the Ethiopian Sabaco (Shabaka),
Egypt rose into a position of much greater strenet!,
and endeavoured to control the course of Western
Asian politics. Two parties then arose in Ephraim
as well as in Judah which favoured the claims re-
spectively of Assyria and of Egypt. See HosHE..

Jotham was the monarch who reigned in Judah
at the time when the alliance was concluded
between Pekah king of Ephraim and Rezin of
Damascus against Assyria. We read nothing of
overtures made to Jotham to join this confederacy.
It is not improbable, however, that they were
made. Jotham, as we may certainly suppos.,
declined to join the alliance, deeming the policy
of neutrality to be safest. Accordingly the armies
of Damascus and Samaria were united against
Judah in order to coerce the latter into compli-
ance, In the midst of the campaign Jotham died,
and was succeeded by the youthful Ahaz. By this
time, if not before, Philistia had joined the coali-
tion. Pekah, during the reign of Ahaz, assumed
the offensive, and moved with his army against the
capital of Judah itself. Meanwhile his ally, Rezin,
was carrying on operations in the east and south-
east of Judah, in the trans-Jordanic country.
Elath, the port in the Red Sea, a valuable outlet
for the commerce which passed into and from the
Red Sea, was wrested from Ahaz by the successful
arms of Rezin (2 K 16°). See art. ELATH.

Jerusalem was now closely invested by the
beleaguering force of the Ephraimites. 2 Ch 28%
containing a beautiful episode in which the prophet
Oded plays a conspicuous part, but containing also
characteristic exaggerations of numerical detail,
must be placed in a secondary rank of historic
record. The graphic scene described in Is 7 need
not detain us, as it properly belongs to the reign of
Ahaz (see AHAZ). It was proposed by the hostile

*LXX 'Ραασσών and Assyr. Rasunnu clearly indicate that
j}s7 is the true and original form of the name (signify ing ‘ good
pleasure,’ ‘ grace,’ or ‘ favour’).

t Gesch. der Hebrier, ii. 286 [Eng. tr. ii. 338].

+ Comp. Meyer, Gesch. alten digyptens, p. 343; McCurdy,
HPM i. 881:

PEKAH

PEKOD 737

coalition to place a son of Tab-él on the throne of
Judah. The parallelism with ben Remaliah would
lead us to suppose (1) that Rezin (or perhaps his
brother) is meant, and (2) that Tab-cl was an
obscure personage. Winckler (Alttest. Unters.
pp. 73-76) considers that Tab-él (=TAb-Rammian)
reigned in Damascus ¢. 773-740. The Judiean king
in his extremity paid no heed to Isaiah’s inspirit-
ing counsels ‘not to fear nor let his heart be soft
because of the two stumps of smoking firebrands,
Rezin and the son of Remaliah,’ but despatched
envoys to Tiglath-pileser tendering abject sub-
mission, and conveying a rich tribute in money.
The Assyrian monarch soon turned his conquering
legions towards the Palestinian states (B.C. 734).
His heavy hand was first felt by Damascus. Rezin
was overpowered, and lost ]is life. For Israel the
results were overwhelming and disastrous. The
kingdom was shorn of its northern and trans-
Jordanic(%) provinces. Isaiah, with that marvellous
literary power of description,
‘ With hue like that when some great painter dips
His pencil in the gloom of earthquake and eclipse,’

portrays for us in graphic and lurid touches the
onward march of those marshalled hosts οἵ
Tiglath-pileser’s army of invasion. ‘Behold, hastily,
swiftly he cometh. ‘There is none that is weary
or stumbleth. He stumbleth not nor sleepeth. The
girdle of his loins is never loosed, nor the thong of
his sandals rent —whose arrows are sharp, and all
his bows bent ; whose horses’ hoofs are accounted
as flint, and his wheels like the whirlwind. His roar
is like that of the lioness; he roareth like the young
lions, moaning and catching the prey and carrying
it off safe, and there is none to rescue. And at that
time there is moaning over it like the moaning of
the sea; and if one looketh to the earth, behold,
oppressive darkness 1᾿ (Is 5°6*°).*

In the annals of Tiglath-pileser we read the fol-
lowing brief details from a seriously mutilated in-
scription:+—‘ The town Gilfead] . . . Abel [Maacha]
which are above the land Beth Omri (Samaria)
. .. the broad, I smote in its entire extent into
the territory of Assyria, and placed my officers as
viceroys over them.t Hanno of Gaza, who had
taken to flight in fear of my weapons, fled into the
land of Egypt. Gaza I captured ; its possessions,
its gods I carried away captive... The land
Beth Omri (Samaria), the whole of its inhabitants,
together with their booty, I carried off to Assyria.
Pekah their king, I slew. Hoshea (Ausi) 1 ap-
pointed as ruler over them.’

So perished ‘like a chip on the water’s surface’
(Hos 107) another ill-fated king of Ephraim. The
Deuteronomic redactor paints him in the dark and
monotonous hues of the long line of Jeroboam ben
Nebat’s successors. This may be interpreted to
mean that he was tolerant of the religious condi-
tions which prevailed during the middle of the
Sth cent. The numerous high places or baméth,
where Jehovah was worshipped, fostered modes of
cultus which closely approximated to those of the
Canaanite baalim. The oracles: of the prophet
Hosea, which clearly belong to the Ephraimite
kingdom, vividly depict the disorders that pre-

* This was probably written by the prophet as a reminiscence
of what he had actually experienced by personal observation or
learned from eye-witnesses of the events of B.c. 734. The date
of the oracle is probably B.c. 726. See article Hosux, and foot-
note t, p. 426 in vol. ii.

+ Schrader, AJB ii. p. 30.

t The towns Iyyon, Abel-beth-Maacah, Kadesh, and Janoah
(2 Καὶ 1529, ef. 1 Καὶ 1520 911) appear to have all belonged to Galilee
and Naphtali. Janoah is evidently a different place from that
of the same name in Jos 166, Kittel identifies it with Jenoam
(Jenwanuw of the Egyptian records; see Muller, Asien αι.
Europa, p. 394), an Israelite frontier town towards Tyre.
Benzinger would delete Gilead from the text (perhaps ditto-
graphy). ΠῚ Rawl. 10. 2, lines 17 foll. . . . ti (mahazu) Ga-al
. « ~ [A]-bi-il is all we have to guide us.

VOL. III.—47

vailed during the reign of Pekah. Chapters 4 and
also 6 and 7 present a lurid picture of the social
evils of the time. Gilead, we are told, ‘is a city
of them that work iniquity, it is tracked with
blood-stains. As robber bands lie in wait for a
man, so the company of priests murder on the way
to Shechem’ (09: 190). In ch. 4 the prophet rebukes
the lying and stealing, the murder and bloodshed :
while among all classes of society the grossest
forms of sensuality and superstition prevailed
(vv.22. 8) ; see article HOSEA.

Winckler (Gesch. Isr. pp. 92-95) would place the
latter part of the prophetic activity of Amos as
late as the reign of Pekah on account of the re-
ferences to the dismemberment of Israel in 9}.
Moreover, LXX read vx in place of ex in v*.
Perhaps, however, it is not necessary to bring his
oracles down to a later date than B.C. 738.

OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE,

PEKAHIAH (2775 ‘ J” has opened’ ; Β Φακεσίας, A
Φακείας, Luc. baxecd).—King of Israel for two years,
son and successor of Menahem (2 Καὶ 1555, Two
dates fixed by Assyrian records determine with
unusual closeness the years of his reign. The
inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser ΠΙ. show that Mena-
hem was alive in 738, and that Pekahiah’s sue-
cessor, Pekah, was dethroned in 734-733. 10 follows
in all probability that the years 737 and 736 include
the whole or the greater part of Pekahiah’s reign.
The synchronism of 2K 15% is improbable. It is
unlikely that Azariah of Judah was living in 737,
since Ahaz was king in 734 and the reign of
Jotham comes between.—The internal condition
of Israel in this reign has all its features in common
with Hosea’s general picture of the period (see
IlosEA). Nor can there be any doubt what the
critical question of foreign policy was,—whether
the attitude to Assyria should be one of sub-
mission, or one of resistance in co-operation with
other Syrian states. The absence of Tiglath-
pileser in the north allowed time for negotiation
and debate. Pekahiah’s assassination by his mili-
tary adjutant or attendant may have been planned
in consequence of his opposition to war with Assyria.
Possibly Rezin of Damascus was cognizant of the
plan, and sanctioned it as a means of bringing Israel
and Damascus into line. The text relating the event
is now corrupt (2 K 15“). The usurper seems to have
employed a force of Gileadites, which was probably
sutlicient to secure Samaria and so accomplish the
revolution. It is not clear whether ‘Argob’ and
‘ Arieh’ were defenders or assailants of the king.
The name Argob suggests that the words were
originally some statement about the Gileadites (cf.
Stade, Geschichte, 1. 588).

The Lucianic recension of the LXX assigns 10 years to Pekah-
iah’s reign. It has been observed that 2 K 171 implies the
same duration. From the 2nd year of Azariah to the 12th
of Ahaz is 30 years according to the Hebrew chronology, and
this demands 10 years of Pekahiah’s to be added to the 20 of
Pekah. Klostermann (Biicher Sam. τι. Kin.) accepts 10 years
as the proper figure. But this cannot be harmonized with the
data of the Assyrian inscriptions. It originated in a system
which endeavoured to equalize the sum of the reigns of the
Israelite kings with the sum of the reigns of the Judwan
kings (Benzinger, Kénige, p. xxf.). _ See preceding article.

y. B. STEVENSON.

PEKOD (p53; Ezk 2333 B Φακοόκ, A καὶ Φούδ ;
Jer 50 [Gr. 2713: B ἐκδίκησον, connecting with
verb 775).—The name of an important tribe and of
the place it occupied in Lower Babylonia. The
passage in Jer 50%! is called by Orelli (Com. on Jer.
ad loc.) ἃ. symbolical name (cf. RVin ‘ visitation ἢ)
of Chaldsean-Babylonia. But we find in the Assyr.
inscriptions, notably those of Sargon, a thrifty
people dwelling near the mouth of the Uknu river,
called Pukddu (cf. Sargon’s Annals, lines 233, 265,
269, ete.). Tiele (Bab.-Assyr. Gesch. 222, 236)
regards them as an Aram. people. They were at
times allies of the Elamites, and gave the Assyrian

ee es δι. τυ.

τι 5372 =‘ uninhabited place’).

738 PELAITAH

PENCIL

kings great trouble in ruling Lower Babylonia
(cf. Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 240; Schrader, COT ii.
pp. 117, 120; Winckler, Gesch. Bab. 2. Assyr, 223,
283; Maspero, Passing of Empires, 119, 191, 230,
256, 306, 416; and art. Koa). IkA M. PRICE.

PELAIAH.—1. (42; B Φαρά, A Parad) a son_of
Elioenai, a descendant of David, 1 Ch 3%. 2. (N55)
a Levite who helped Ezra to expound the law ‘to
the people, Neh 8* (LXX om.). His name or that
of his family occurs also in the list of those who
sealed the covenant, Neh 10!" (Bom., A Φελειά).

PELALIAH (753; ΑΝ * Φαλαλιά, Tue. Φαλλα-
A‘as).—A priest in the time of Nehemiah, Neh 112,

The Syr. has ΝΟ δ.6. Pelaiah; the other ver-
sions support the MT.

PELATIAH (ποῦ and *7:253).—1. (Φαλτίας) one of
the princes of the people, mentioned by Ezekiel as
seen by him in vision standing at the east gate of
the Lorp’s house, Ezk 11}, He died, as the pro-
phet delivered his message, v.% It is difficult to
decide whether Pelatiah’s death is to be understood
as actual or merely symbolical, and what relation,
if actual, it bears to the form in which Ezekiel’s
vision is narrated (see Davidson or Bertholet, ad
loe.). 2. (B Φαλεττί, A Φαλλετιά) a grandson. of
Zerubbabel, 1 Ch 3531, 3. (B Φαλαεττιά, A Φαλεττιά)
one of the 500 Simeonites who smote the Amalekites
of Mt. Seir, 1 Ch 413. ἃ, (Φαλτιά) one of those who
sealed the covenant, Neh 10%,

PELEG (abs). —One of the two sons of Eber, the
other being JOKTAN (wh. see), Gn 10% 1116 (φάλεκ)
=1Ch °(Bom., A φάλεκ) Ὁ. (B Parex, A Φάλεκ),
cf. Lk 3" (φάλεκ, whence AV Phalec). In Gn 102
« characteristic etymology is given for the name by
J, ‘Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided
Qviphleqah). ‘The earth’ here should probably be
taken to mean ‘the population of the earth, as in
11' (so Dillmann), and the * dividing’ to refer to the
narrative in 111“ of the confusion of tongues and
the dispersion of men ‘over the face of all the
earth.’ In all probability the remark is due, not
to the original J, but to a redactor of the same
school (Ry, so Budde and Kuenen). The name
Peleg has been sought by some (e.g. Knobel) in
Phalga, a place at the junction of the Chaboras
with the Euphrates, by Lagarde (Orientalia, ii. 50)
in @/-Falj on the road between Basra and Yemama,
and by Sprenger (Geog. Arab. 233, 294) in el-Falay
in Yemima. The common noun peleg in Heb.
means ‘a watercourse,’ and Peleg might appropri-
ately enough be the designation of a people dwell-
ing in a land furrowed by watercourses, whether in
Babylonia or N. Arabia. J. A. SELBIE,

PELET (»)s).—1. A son of Jahdai, 1 Ch 247 (B
Φάλεκ, 1.6. Peleg, A Φάλετ). 2. A Benjamite chief
who joined David at Ziklag, 1 Ch 12° (B ᾿Ιωφάλητ,
A Φάλλητ).

PELETH (nde). —4. A Reubenite, the father of
On, Nu 161, JE (Φαλέθ). The MT is certainly
corrupt ; we should probably read Pallu instead
of Peleth. See art. KoRAn, M12. Ὅν ἊΣ Jerahe
meelite, 1 Ch 2 (B Θάλεθ, A bare).

PELETHITES.—See CHERETHITES.

PELICAN. —The word πὰρ haath is usually
derived from the root sp k6’=‘to vomit,’ corre-
sponding with the Arab. ζῶα. The k@ath is ‘the
vomiter.’ It was interdicted as food (Lv 1118,
Dt 14”). It inhabited the wilderness (Ps 1026
It is one of the

creatures that were to be found in the ruins of
idom (15 34!) and Nineveh (Zeph 24). Unfortu-
nately the LXX gives us no help, but on the contrary
confuses us by translating it at Ly 1118 weekday,
Dt 147 καταράκτης (AV and RV in both < pelican’),
Is 341! ὄρνεα, Zeph 24 χαμαιλέων (AV both ‘cormor-
ant,’ AVm and RV ‘ pelican’), Ps 102° πελεκάν (AV
and RV ‘pelican’). The weight of scholarship is
in favour of ‘pelican,’ which suits the idea of an
unclean bird, and is a bird of uninhabited places
(wilderness). As to its being in ruins, it could
well inhabit the marshes near the site of Nineveh.
As regards Edom, where there is little water, this
bird typities desolation, and the absence of man
(see BITTERN).

The pelican belongs to the order Steqanopodes,
family Pelicanide, to which the cormorant alse
belongs. Two species are found in Palestine and
Syria — Pelecanus onicrotalus, L., the roseate or
white pelican; and P. crispus, Brush, the Dal-
matian pelican. Both have white plumage, the
former with a roseate tinge. The lees of the
former are greenish-black, the pouch yellow, and
irides crimson; of the latter the legs’ and pouch
are flesh colour, and irides greyish-white. They
are 5-6 feet long from the tip of the bill to the
end of the tail. The bill is from 16-18 inches long.
Under the lower mandible is a pouch which will
hold several gallons. In this pouch it stores food
for itself and its young. Pelicans are abundant in
the swamps of the Jordan Valley and the Orontes,
and seen frequently in other regions of Palestine
and Syria. Their breeding-places are in the
remotest parts of the swamps. The attitude of
the pelican when at rest is singularly listless and
melancholy. It leans its head against its breast
and stands motionless until hunger compels it to
activity. It then flies 30-40 feet above the sur-
face of the water, turns its head with one eye
downwards, and, when it sees a fish sufliciently
near the surface, swoops down upon it, and rarely
fails to seize it. It immediately stores it away
in its pouch, and proceeds to fish for more until
its receptacle is full. It often fishes as far as twenty
miles out at sea. It then not infrequently retires
inland to a lonely spot, and sits in the melancholy
attitude above described until it has digested its
enormous meal, This is the Psalmist’s sad ‘ pelican
of the wilderness.’ The pelican is called by the
Arabs “abu jeréb=‘the father of a pouch,’ and
hausal=*a pouch,’ and in Eeypt bega’.

G. E, Post.

PELISHTIM.—RVm of Gn 104—PHILISTINES

(which see),

PELONITE, THE (5257; in] Ch 1127 Β ὁ Φελωνεί,
A ὁ Φαλλωνί; in ν."9 Bob Φεδωνεί, A ὁ Φελλωνί ; in
1 Ch 9710 BA ὁ ἐκ Paddov’s).—T wo of David's heroes
are thus described (1 Ch 1157: 55), viz. Helez and
Ahijah. In 28 2356 the former is called ‘the Paltite,’
and, though the LXX A in that passage agrees
with the reading of the Chronicler, it is probable
that the MT has preserved the better text. This
view is confirmed by the fact that, in the case of
the second hero, the reading of 1 Ch 11° (a:nx
3527) is clearly a mutilation of the fuller text
preserved in 2 Κὶ 23% (xban Senne ya ode ‘ Eliam
the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite’). We must
therefore read ‘ Helez the Paltite’ in 1 Ch 11° 27:0:
the addition ‘ of the children of Ephraim’ (o7=x 259
271°) not improbably conceals the gentilic name.

J. Ε΄ STENNING.

PEN.—See WRITING.

PENCIL occurs only once in the Bible, Is 44%
(RV). The first four clauses of this verse, which
describes the making of an idol, read in MT υὴππ
WINN THD Myspgg wey! ys zw 1; ΠΣ ONY; the

er aes

PENDANT

PENTECOST

LXX has ἐκλεξάμενος τέκτων ξύλον ἔστησεν αὐτὸ ἐν
μέτρῳ, καὶ ἐν κόλλῃ ἐρύθμισεν αὐτό, Which, as Cheyne
points out, implies a reading mya wien ΚΡ wan nay
ΠΝ ΠῚ aAyspoa; NV +The carpenter stretcheth out a
line (AV ‘his rule’), he marketh it out with a
pencil (AV ‘line’), he shapeth (AV ‘fitteth’) it
with planes, and he marketh it out with the com-
passes’ (AV ‘compass’). In the first clause RV
‘line,’ te. measuring line, is decidedly to be pre-
ferred to AV ‘rule’ as the tr. of Ὁ (ef. 2 K 21°, Is
287 344, Jer 31°, Zec 1'°, and see art. LINE). The
meaning of the word ὙΠ in the second clause is
quite uncertain. It is ἃ ἄπ. \ey., and quite possibly
a corrupt reading. Cheyne (SBOT, ‘Isaiah,’ p.
137) thinks the final 3 is doubtful, and he suggests
(comparing the Aram. root pio =lineavit) that we
should read oy (with the meaning ‘ stylus’),
although he notes that this word in Ly 1958 means
a cutting in the flesh. Griitz boldly reads ot.
P. Haupt, in an editorial note in SBOT, ad loc.,
thinks that snm22 ‘with the compass’ (he prefers
the sing.) should be read after Ww, and taken as
an explanatory gloss of the latter. If sered=
‘compass,’ he suggests aconnexion with the Assyr.
sirdu, ‘yoke.’ The Babylonian use of compasses
is described liy him in a note in ‘ Ezekiel’ (SBO7),
p. LOOf. Other explanations come nearer the RV
‘pencil,’ e.g. ‘red chalk? (Kimehi, Vitr. ; ef. RVin
‘red ochre’), Letssstifé (Sieefried-Stade, Dillmann-
Kittel, and V. Ryssel [in Kantzsch’s 47]), Rothel
(Mowack, Lehrb. der Heb. Arch, i. 246).
J. A. SELBIE.

PENDANT occurs twice in the Bible, but both
times RV only. The first instance is Jg 855,
where the word (Heb. mpv:, LXX B στραγγαλίδες,
AV ‘collars’) is used of one of the ornaments worn
by the Midianites who were conquered and spoiled
by Gideon; the other is Is 3! (Heb. mises, LXX
κάθεμα, AV ‘chains’) in a list of articles of female
attire. In both passages the reference appears to
be to ear-drops (so Cheyne, ‘Tsaiah,’ in 2), the
Heb. nétiphcth being, perhaps, equivalent to Arab.
notafat, a small clear pearl resembling a drop of
water, or a bead of gold or silver of a spherical or
elongated form, fastened to the lobe of the ear.
See Moore, Judges, ad loc. J. A. SELBIE.

PENIEL (5x35 only in Gn 32%, LXX Eidos θεοῦ),
elsewhere PENUEL (5y35). — This name appears
on three occasions only, in connexion respectively
with Jacob, Gideon, and Jeroboam. The word
means ‘face of God,’ and is traced in Gn 32% to
the fact that Jacob had there seen God ‘face to
face” Perhaps a different derivation is alluded to
in 3319 (Wellh. JD7A, xxi. 435). It has been sug-
gested (see Merrill, Hast of the Jordan, p. 392) that
the name may have been originally given to some

rojecting rock in whose contour a face was seen.

Ve may compareStrabo’s (xvi. 2. 15 f.) Θεοῦ πρύσωπον.
The place was east of the Jordan, and somewhere on
the line of the Jabbok. It was a city whose chief
feature was a strong tower or castle (Je 88:11),
which at a much later period was rebuilt by Jero-
boam (1 K 12”). These facts show that Penuel
had considerable strategic importance. It was a
great tribe from the eastern desert that invaded
Palestine and were driven back to their homes by
Gideon (Je 6ff.). These invaders always entered the
lowlands, that is, the plain of Esdraelon, and there
was ἃ main road from the Jordan Valley eastward
by which they came and returned. On this road the
‘castle of Penuel was designed to be a protection.
Succoth, now Tell Deir ‘Alla, was on this road, and
Penuel was in the hills not far beyond it. Such
desert people never go over mountains when there
is a good valley route open to them.

In the valley of the Jabbok, 4 miles from Sue-
coth, two sharp hills, called Tulul edh-Dhahab,

739

and covered with ancient ruins, rise to a height of
250 ft. ‘Whether approached from the west or
the east, or looked down upon from the mountains
above them, they form very striking objects... .
On one side of the eastern hill a strong wall of
massive stones runs from the summit to the foot.
. The platform of the “tower” or castle was
supported by a wall, the remains of which are 15
or 20 ft. high, which extends to a distance of over
100 ft. These substantial structures, considering
the size of the stones employed, must have been
built at great expense. The stones are unhewn
blocks, and appear to date from a remote period’
(Merrill, Last of the Jordan, pp. 890-392). That
these desert invaders did not climb over mountains,
that they foliowed a valley route, that the easy
and main route to the East was through the
valley of the Jabbok, and that at a certain point
on this road these ruin-crowned hills exist at no
great distance from Succoth,—all this seems to indi-
cate them as the most probable site for Penuel.
S. MERRILL.
PENINNAH (7335 ‘ pearl’ or ‘red coral’; Φεννάνα ;
Phenenna).—The second wife of Elkanah, the
father of Samuel. Despite the fact that Peninnah
had borne him children, while Hannah, her rival
or fellow-wife, was childless, the latter was the
more favoured by Elkanah ; and this was doubtless
the cause of the ill-will displayed by Peninnah
towards her (18 135. J. Τὸ. STENNING.

PENKNIFE (7285 11 ‘the knife of the scribe’;
LXX τὸ ξυρὸν τοῦ γραμματέως [Symm. substitutes
σμίλη for Evpsv}).—Mentioned only in Jer 362%, where
king Jehoiakim cut up Baruch’s roll of Jeremiah’s
prophecies. Orientals use a reed pen in writing
(calamus, Arab. Laldm), and always carry a knife
for the purpose of mending it. Penknives are
made in Damascus and in many of the villages of
Lebanon ; they are without spring backs, and are
like miniature razors, W. CARSLAW.

PENNY.—See MONEY, p. 4985,

PENSION.—Only 1 Es 4°° “6. commanded to
give all that kept the city pensions and wages’
(κλήρους, AVim ‘portions of land,’ RV ‘lands’).
This is one of the ‘archaisms’ which Scrivener
(Par. Bible, p. Ixv) blames the AV translators of
the Apocr. for retaining. It is first found in the
Geneva version, and is used in the orig. sense of
‘payment’ (Lat. pensio). This wider sense of the
word is seen in Robinson’s translation of Jore’s
Utopia (Iaunby’s ed. 1. p. 50, Lupton’s ed. p. 83),
‘An other cunmmeth in wyth lis v. egees, and
advyseth . to bringe to theyr parte certeyne
peers of hys courte for greate pensions’ (Lat. certa
pensione). J. HASTINGS,

PENTATEUCH.—See HEXATEUCH.

PENTECOST. — This term, adopted from the
Gr., means ‘ fiftieth’? (ἡ πεντηκοστή, scil. ἡμέρα), and
was applied by Greek-speaking Jews, as Deon in
cy was by the Rabbins, to the second of the three
chief Heb. festivals, because it fell (Lv 9359-: on
the fiftieth day after the offering of the barley-sheaf
during the feast of unleavened bread (To 21, 2 Mae
12" 5 Jos: Ant. AEX, ὃν SL. Vili Bry, cen:
XVIL. X. 2, BUI. ii. 1, VI. v..33 Philo, de Septen.
§ 21, see also de Decal. §30; in NT Ac 2! 2016,
1 Co 1038). In OT it is called ‘the feast of harvest,
the first-fruits of thy labours’ (Ex 2316 +yza an
meyyoosa, LAX ἑορτὴν θερισμοῦ πρωτογενημάτων τῶν
ἔργων σου); ‘the feast of weeks, of the first-fruits of
wheat harvest’ (Ex 34% men vy) 23 πρτῷ an, LXKX
ἑορτὴν ἑβδομάδων ; so also Dt 16'',2 Ch 88), and ‘the
day of the first-fruits’ (Nu 286 ovn2za of, LXX τῇ

740 PENTECOST

| sage

PENTECOST

ἡμέρᾳ τῶν véwy); while the later Jews also denom-
inated if mys, Aram. xmisy (Jos. Ant. Ul. x. 6
(Gr. ἀσαρθά) ; Mishna, Arach. il. 8, Chaq. ii. 4, Rosh

hash.i. 2; Tare. on Nu 28”), a term meaning |

‘solemn assembly’ (2 Καὶ 10°, Is 10%, Jer 9? ete.),
but applied in OT to the closing day of the feasts
of unleavened bread and tabernacles (Ly 23°5, Nu
29%, Dt 16%, 2 Ch 79, Neh 8%; RVm ‘closing

festival,’ not as AVm ‘restraint’), and hence |

applied also to Penteeost as the closing festival of
the harvest season. Jos, inaccurately says (Ant.
If. x. 6) that m32 signifies (σημαίνει) Pentecost.

In the Heb. levislation, the titles ‘feast of har-
vest’ and ‘day of first-fruits’ indicate that this
festival was fundamentally an agricultural one,
expressing gratitude to God for the returns from
the Jabours of the field. It celebrated specifically
the wheat harvest (Ex 342%), the last of the cereals
to ripen in Palestine. It marked, therefore,
the closing of the grain harvest, as the feast of
tabernacles (or ingathering) celebrated especially
the return from oliveyards and vineyards as well as
the close of the husbandman’s labours as a whole
(Dt 16'*). This of itself implies that the feast fell
in the late spring or early summer; and, since the
Israelites became agricultural only after entering
Canaan, it could not have been pre-Mosaic, but was
established with a view to the settlement in the
promised land (Ex 34!" [JE], Τῶν 23 [ΠΗ] ete.). On
the other hand, the title ‘feast of weeks’ already
given it in Ex 34° [JE], as well as the general
deseription of the time of its observance in Dt 109
(‘Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee: from
the time thou beginnest to put the sickle to the
standing corn shalt thou begin to number seven
weeks,’ RV), find their definite explanation in Ly
255, From the latter we learn (1) that the
beginning of the harvest season was celebrated
during the feast of unleavened bread by the cere-
mony of waving before the Lord ‘a sheaf (ay) of
the first-fruits (m¢'xq) of harvest,’ * together with
the waving of a he-lamb and the rendering of
appointed meal- and drink-oflerings ; and that none
of the new crop could be eaten until this had been
done. Since the barley ripened first, the sheaf
was understood to be of that grain (Philo, de
Septen. 890 ; Jos. Ant. U1. x. 5), though it is not
specified in OT. The ‘feast of weeks’ came on
the fiftieth day after the barley-sheaf was waved
(vv. 16 7.e, the day after the completion of seven
weeks). Hence we read (Jer 5%) of ‘the appointed
weeks of harvest’ ; and Philo (de Szpten. $21) says
that the sheaf-waving προέορτός ἐστιν ἑτέρας ἑορτῆς
μείζονος.

(2) We learn also from Ly 23 that the barley-sheaf
was waved on ‘the morrow after the Sabbath?’
(vv. non nooe). The meaning of this phrase,
on which the computation of Pentecost depends,
has been much disputed. The Jews of Christ's time
understood it {0 designate Nisan 16th, without. re-
gard to the day of the week ; ‘the Sabbath’ being
interpreted as the first day of the feast of unleavened
bread (Nisan 15th) on the basis of v.7 [see Jos.
Ant, 1. x. 5; LXX at Lv 23" (τῇ ἐπαύριον τῆς
πρώτης) ; ‘Targums (x39 xv 3929); Mishna, Chag.
il. 4, Menach, x. 1-3]. There was dissent, however,
from this interpretation even at that time. The
‘ Baithusians’ (Sadducees) are said to have held
that ‘the morrow after the Sabbath’ meant the
day following the weekly Sabbath which occurred
during the feast of unleavened bread (see Lightfoot,
Hor. Heb. on Lk 61; Adler, ‘Phar. u. Sad. u. ihre

* In the second temple, barley was cut the previous evening
to the amount of an ephah (10 omers), brought to the temple,
thrashed, parched, and ground. Then one omer, mixed with
oil and frankincense, was ‘ waved’ and a handful burned on the
altar (Jos. Ant. 1. x. 5; Mishna, Menach. x. 4; Edersheim,
The Temple, ete. p. 224). Kurtz (Saer. Worship of ΟἽ", p. 374)
thinks {he sheaf itself should have been waved according to Ly.

differirende Ausleg. d. navn ninco,’ in Monatschr. f
Gesch, u. Wissensch. τὰ; Judenth. 1878, p. 522 ff.,
568 ff, 1879, p. 291f ; Montet, Essai sur les orig.
des partis Sad. et Phar. 1883), and the Karaites
of the 8th cent. A.D. followed the same view (see
Trigland, Diatribe de secta Kar. 1708, ch. 4). There
are also traces in antiquity of the view that the
phrase in question designated the last, not the
first, day of the paschal festival (see Dillmann
in Schenkel’s Bib.-Lex. under ‘ Pfinesten’). Some
modern scholars likewise contend that the tradi-
tional interpretation was wrong, chietly because nzv
elsewhere means the weekly Sabbath, and because,
it is said, mnsy yay (Lv 23!) can only mean weeks
which ended with Sabbaths. Henee George (Die
alter. Jiid. Feste, 1835) understood the ‘Sabbath’
in question to be the weekly Sabbath which fell
immediately before harvest, holding the harvest
festivals to have had originaliy no connexion with
the Passover. Hitzig (Ustern wu. Pfingsten, 1837,
Ost. αἰ. Pf. im zweit. Dekalog, 1838) went so far as
to maintain that inthe Heb. Calendar Nisan 14 and
21 were always Sabbaths, so that the year must
always have begun (Nisan 1) with a Sunday ; and
that ‘the morrow after the Sabbath’ was the day
following the weekly Sabbath of the feast of un-
leavened bread, and therefore always fell on Sun-
day, Nisan 22. With him agreed Knobel (Com. on
Lev.) and Kurtz (Sacer. Worship of OL, Eng. tr.
p. 356), except that they identified the ‘Sabbath’
in question with Nisan 14, and the day of the
sheaf-waving with Nisan 15. Against this unsup-
ported conception of the calendar, however, is the
well-known custom of beginning each month by
the new moon, as well as the fact that in such a
calendar there would be an incomplete week at the
end of the year, which would conflict with the
sanctity of the seventh day. Hitzig’s theory, more-
over, would place the sheaf-waving after the feast
of unleavened bread had ended. | Hence more
writers have followed the Sadducean interpretation,
although this also might, when Nis. 15 fell on Sun-
day, throw the ceremony of sheaf-waving outside
the feast of unleavened bread (Saalschiitz, Das Mos.
Recht’, 1858, p. 418; First, Heb. uw. Chald. Worterb.
1863, under nav; Wellhausen, Jahrb. f. deutsch.
Theol. xxii. ; Proleg. p. 86; von Orelli in Herzog’s
RE, art. ‘Pfingstfest’). The traditional inter-
pretation, however, may be successfully defended.
There is no suflicient proof that the connexion of the
sheaf-waving with the feast of unleavened bread
was not original, nor can Ly 23°" be separated
from the surrounding legislation, since otherwise
no directions concerning the feast of weeks would
be given init at all. If, however, the two were thus
connected, the sheaf-waving may most naturally
be supposed to have occurred during, not after, the
feast. This is also made probable by Jos 5! 4,
where it is stated that, after having kept the Pass-
over on the 14th day of the month in Gilgal, ‘they
did eat of the produce (RVm, not ‘old corn’ as AV
and RV; "ay means simply produce) of the Jand
on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes
and parched corn in the self-same day.’ The latter
clause shows that the feast of unleavened bread was
notover, and ‘the morrow after the passover,’ while
it may mean (as in Nu 33%) Nis. 15, may also mean
Nis. 16, since the paschal meal was celebrated on Nis
15, in the evening following the 14th when the lamb
was slain; but at any rate the phraseology shows
that the sheaf-waving, without which the new corn
could not be eaten, was regulated by the date of
the Passover itself, not by any weekly Sabbath.
Vinally, the application of nz to the first day of
unleavened bread may be justified by the language
used (v.*2) of the day of atonement (‘In the ninth
day of themonth. . . shall ye keep your sabbath’),
and by the app'ication of the term to the sabbatical

PENTECOST

PENTECOST 741

year (Ly 257 4 © 265+ 4) ; while the use of ninzy' in
the general sense of weeks may be justified by the
analogy of the Aramaic and Syriac, the interpreta-
tion of the LXX (τῶν ἑβδομάδων), and the use of
σάββατον and σάββατα in NT, e.g. Mt 28', Lk 1815
[see Bahr, Sym. ii. 619; Dillm. in Schenkel’s Bid. -
Lex. (in his Com. also Dillm. regards this view
as exegetically defensible); Schiirer, HJP τι. 11.
37; W. H. Green, Heb. Feasts, ch. vii.]. It is at
any rate certain that the Jews celebrated the sheaf-
waving on Nis. 16, and Pentecost on the fiftieth
day after (usually Sivan 6), without regard in
either case to the day of the week. Reland
(Antig. Sacr. Vet. Heb. part iv. ch. iv.) states,
indeed, that they took care that Pentecost should
not fall on the third, fifth, or seventh day of the
week; but this was probably only a later Rabbinical
rule (see Ideler, Handb. @. Chronol. i. p. 537 tf).

The feast of weeks or Pentecost, therefore, as it
appears in the Pent., was a joyful acknowledgment
ot the completion of the harvest in the land which
God had given Israel. The whole harvest season was
in a sense sacred time. Hence Pentecost lasted but
oneday. By its prelude, the sheaf-waving, it was
dependent on Passover, commemorative of Israel’s
redemption ; and by the interval of seven weeks
between it and Nis. 16, it was brought into the
sabbatical system in accordance with which the
Heb. feasts were arranged.

Those modern writers who maintain the post-
exilic origin of the Levitical code, consider Pente-
cost, like the other agricultural feasts, to have
been originally a nature-festival, which in the
development of the Heb. cultus was taken up into
an artificial ecclesiastical system. Wellhausen
(Proleg. Eng. tr. ch. iii.) points out that in the
early prophetical narrative of JE (Ex 231° 34”) the
dates of the harvest festivals are vaguely de-
scribed ; that first in Dt (e.g. 12% 14%-26 126 16)
is Pentecost, as well as the other feasts, connected
with a central sanctuary, and the freewill offer-
ings tend to appear as liturgical obligations,
though there is still no mention of a single com-
munal offering ; but that in the Levitical code (Ly
23, Nu 28, the former including, however, elements
from older sources ; see also Driver, LOT’® p. 56;
Dillmann, Comment.) the offerings have become
mere dues, the communal oflering through the
priests outranks the freewill. offerings of the
people, and the festival has been brought into an
arbitrary system of dates and relations quite
different from its primitive freedom.

The ceremonies for the celebration of Pentecost
are described in Lv 2351, On it no servile work
could be done. Two loaves of bread, made from
two-tenths of an ephah (RV) of fine flour from the
new wheat (Ex 34%) harvest, were to be baked with
‘eaven and presented by the priest before the
Lorp as a wave-otlering. ‘Ye shall bring (the
loaves) out of your habitations’ (a2n27199, LXX ἀπὸ
τῆς κατοικίας ὑμῶν) does not mean that each house-
hold was to present two loaves (as Vulg. and
Luther read, ‘out of ald your dwellings’; so
Calvin, Osiander, George, e¢ a/.), but that the
loaves were to be taken from the ordinary bread
made from wheat of the land for household pur-
poses. Hence also they were to be leavened,* and
therefore could not come upon the altar (Ex 295,
Ly 2"), but were merely waved before the Lorp
and consumed by the priests. With them two

olambs were to be also waved as peace-offerings,

significant of the fellowship between J” and his
people ; while at the same time a burnt-oflering
was to be made, consisting of seven yearling

* Edersheim (The Temple, etc. p. 230) thinks the leaven repre-
sented the sense of sin which mingled with the thanksgiving.
The common explanation is that the loaves were intended to
represent the ordinary food of the people, and this explanation

appears suflicient.

lambs without blemish, one young bullock, and
two rams, with the appropriate meal- and drink-
offerings, and also a he-goat as a sin-oflering—these
latter expressing the need of redemption, which
properly mingled with the people’s thanksgiving.

In Nu 28°"! a slightly different set of offerings
is directed for ‘the day of first-fruits,’ as Pentecost
is there called, to be made in addition to the daily
sacrifices. Many consider this list also to refer to
the offering accompanying the loaves, and either
pass over the differences as unimportant or explain
them as due to corruption of the text or to diverse
and unharmonized sources. The later Jews, how-
ever, regarded the two lists as supplementary,—
that in Nu referring to the sacrifices for Pentecost
considered as a special feast-day ; that in Ly to the
sacrifices directly connected with the loaves; so
that on Pentecost three series of sacrifices were
made: (1) the daily burnt- offerings; (2) the
special offerings for a feast-day ; (3) the waving of
the loaves and lambs, and the sacrifices connected
therewith. This usage appears from Jos, Ant.
ur. x. 6, where the offerings of both lists are
added together (except that he specifies two rams,
which is probably an error for three); also from
the Mishna (see Menach. iv. 2, 5). Neither is
there any reasonable objection to thus combining
the lists, since Nu 28. 29 contain directions for
sacrifices on special days without describing other
ceremonies which fell on those days. Finally,
besides these communal offerings, Pentecost was
celebrated by the freewill offerings of individuals
both to the sanctuary and to the poor (Dt 16%”,
Lv 237),

These ceremonies emphasized the relation of
Pentecost, as the close of harvest, to the sheaf-
waving at its beginning. There a single sheaf of
barley, here two prepared loaves of wheat-bread ;
there one lamb, here two, together with accom-
panying burnt- and sin-offerings. That, there-
fore, was the prelude of this. ‘The two included
the harvest period of seven weeks,* and expressed
in climacteric form the increased gratitude of the
people. No voluntary offerings of first-fruits could
be made before Pentecost (see Ex 23"), Of course
the harvest was not always finished in all the land
by Pentecost; but the seven weeks covered the
normal period, and brought the festival into the
sabbatical system.

In the second temple these ceremonies were
fully observed. Multitudes attended the feast
(Jos. Ant. Xv. x. 2, BJ IL. il. 1; Ae. 2). in
anticipation of it, a portion of the best wheat,
previously selected, was cut, thrashed, brought to
the temple, ground, and passed through twelve
sieves to ensure its fineness. On the day before
Pentecost [unless it were a Sabbath, in which case
on the second day before] two omers of the flour
were baked into loaves. The size of the latter is
described in the Mishna as 4 handbreadths wide,
7 long, and 4 fingers high. Soon after midnight
the temple gates were opened that offerings for
the day might be examined by the priests. At
sunrise occurred the regular daily sacrifice, and
soon afterwards the festal offerings directed in
Nu-28261, Amid the singing of the ‘ Hallel,’ the
peculiar ceremonies of Pentecost began. ‘The
two lambs were first waved alive ; then, after their
sacrifice, the breast and shoulder were laid beside

* The phrase, ‘iv σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ; found in TR of Lk 61
(supported by many MSS), has been explained as meaning the
first Sab. after the second day of the feast of unleavened bread,
7.e. the first Sab. of the harvest period. (So, first, Scaliger, de
Emend. Temp. vi. 577, followed by many. See Lightfoot, Hor.
Heb. on the passage). The word must have originated in
some known custom; and this explanation is not improbable,
since the Sabbaths between Nis. 16 and Pentecost were care-
fully noted. The adj., however, is probably a Western and
Syrian gloss intruded into Lk’s text, and is rejected by WH
after NBL and other weighty authorities.

eer se ee oe

742 PENTECOST

PEOPLE

the loaves and “waved” (generally toward the
East) forwards and backward, and up and down’
(Edersheim, The Temple, p. 230). Then followed
the other appointed sacrifices, and the freewill
gifts; and the rest of the day was spent in festive
gatherings, to which the poor and the stranger and
the Levite were invited.
are said to have often continued several days.

The Jews of the post-biblical period held Pente-
cost to celebrate the giving of the law at Sinai,
which was ealeulated ‘to have taken place on the
50th day after the Exodus (Ex 19!). No such view
of the day, however, is found in OT, Josephus, or
Philo. Philo, in fact, seems to regard the feast of
trumpets as commemorative of Sinai (de Septen.
δ 22). It was probably after the fall of Jerus. that
this view originated.*” Thereafter it was generally
adopted by the Rabbins, and the day is described
in the later liturgy as ‘the day of the giving of
the law’ (Saalschiitz, Das Mos. Recht, p. 420).
The same view appears among the Christian
Fathers (see Jerome, Ep. ad Fabiolam ; Augustine,
contra Faustum, Xxxii. 12). Maimonides (Jore
πούς iii. 41) expressly says, ‘ festum septimanarum
est dies ille, quo lex data fuit’?; but Abarbanel,
while admitting the fact, denies that Pentecost
was a celebration of it (Biihr, Symb. αἰ. 645).
Modern Jews accept the tradition, and spend the
previous night in reading the law and other ap-
ropriate Scripture. The later Jews also observed
Paging for two days; but this custom arose in
the Dispersion from the difficulty of determining
| exactly the Palestinian month, which was fixed by
observation of the moon. See New Moon,

In the Christian Church the importance of
Pentecost was continued, ἀπ its significance
emphasized, by the outpouring of the Spirit on
that day (Ac 2).+ The day of the week on that
occasion is traditionally represented as Sunday.
Its determination, however, depends on the date
assigned to Christ’s death. It is to be assumed
that He died on a Friday (see e.g. Mk ἢ hi
then, as many suppose the Fourth Gospel to
teach, He died on Nis. 14, Nis. 16 and Pentecost
fell on a Sunday ; but if, as the Synoptists seem
to state, He ate the passover with His disciples
at the regular time, He was crucified on Nis. 15,
and Nis. 16 and Pentecost fell on Saturday [see
CHRONOLOGY OF NT]. Wieseler (Chron. d. A post.
Zeitalter, p. 20) plausibly sugvests that the fes-
tival was fixed on Sunday by the later Western
Church to correspond with Easter.

But, whatever the day of the week may have
been, the events of that Pentecost were of funda-
mental importance to the Church, and as appropri-
ate to th: festival as Christ’s death had been to
the Passover season. They indicated the Divine
origin of Christianity on its subjective side, and
the Church was then endowed for its future work.
The suddenness of the manifestation indicated the
supernaturalness of the endowment; the ‘sound
as of the rushing of a mighty wind’ was the
natural emblem of the almighty Spirit; the
tongues ‘parting asunder’ or ‘distributing them-
selves’ on the disciples [not ‘cloven’ as AV]
symbolized the universal gift of power to proclaim
the gospel; the semblance of tire indicated the
purified zeal, born of faith and love, which was

* Dt 1622 gives a reason for observing the feast as directed,
not a statement of what the feast celebrated. See 515, 1515,
Vaihinger in Herzog’s REI, art. *Pfingstfest,’ appeals for this
View also to 2.Ch 1510, and even to Jn 539; but his arguments
are not convincing.

t The language of Ac 2] ἐν τῷ συνπληροῦσθα, ἡμίραν τῆς
πεντηκοστῆς has been understood by some (as Olshausen and
Baumgarten, so also Blass) to mean that the Spirit came before
the day of Pentecost ; while Lightfoot in Hor. Heb. (Exercit.
on Ac 2) interprets it of the day after Pentecost. The vast
majority of critics interpret it of Pentecost itself. See Meyer’s
Com.

The attendant festivities |

a
to characterize the proclamation ; while the poly:
glot (ἢ) utterances of the believers were a sign of

_ the world-wide destination of the truth which filled
their lips with praise [see TONGUES, GIFT OF].
The occurrence of these events on Pentecost was

also significant. The gift of the Spirit was the

first-fruit of the spiritual harvest (cf... Ro. 8 [124

Ja 118) procured through the work of Christ ; and
the dependence of Pentecost on Passover harmonized

with the dependence of the Spirit’s work on the

objective sacrifice of the Redeemer. The euchar-
istic character of Pentecost harmonized also with
the joy of the disciples over their spiritual blessings ;
while, providentially, the presence of multitudes
at the feast made it a fit opportunity for the first
public proclamation of the now completed gospel.

Among the early Jewish Christians observance
of the Heb. feasts continued, doubtless with fresh
significance derived from the new revelation. So
it is noteworthy that St. Paul earnestly desired
to present the gifts of the Gentile Churches to the
saints in Judwa at Pentecost (Ac 2U%), There is
no evidence, however, that the Gentile Churches
of the apostolic age observed this feast ; but at
the close of the 2nd cent. it appears as one of
the established festal periods of the Church. The
name Pentecost was at first applied to the whole
time between Easter and the festival of the Holy

Ghost (Greg. Naz. Orat. 44 de Pent.). This larger

meaning of the word is abundantly shown by

Tert. de Idololatria, 14, de Baptismo, 19; Orie.

c. Cels. viii. 22; Apost. Const. v. 20, ete. The
period was one of joyfulness. As on the Lord’s
day, no fasting or kneeling in prayer were

allowed (Tert. de. Cor. 3). Afterwards the term
was limited to the 50th day after Easter (A post.
Const. lib. viii. eap. 33; Coune. Eliberis, Canon 43) ;
and, at a still later period, the following days, or
in some places the week, were included in the
festival. The Pentecost season was especially
used for baptisms. From the white robes worn
by the candidates, the English term ‘ Whitsunday’
is supposed to have arisen (see Riddle, Manual
of Chr. Ant. p. 681, and esp. Skeat, Ltym. Dict.”,
for various explanations of the origin of the
word).

duobus panibus Pent. ; Spencer, de leg. Heb. 1. ix. 2, WI. Vili.
2; Meyer, de temp. et fest. Heb. : Michaclis, Com. on Laws
of Moses (Eng. tr.), article 197 ; Bahr, Symbolik d. Mos. Cultus,
iil. O13 ff., G45 ff; Otho, Lex. Rab. under ‘ Festa’; Ideler,
Handb. der Chronol. i. 519 ff. ; George, Die dilter. Jiid. este,
p. 258 ff. ; Hitzig, Ostern u. Pringsten (1837), Ost. u. Pf. im
Zweiten Dekal. (1838); Hupfeld, de Fest. Heb, ii.; Keil, Bib.
Arch, (Eng. tr.) ὃ 83; Wieseler, Chron. Synops. d. vier Hovv. p.
347 ff, and Chron. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. iff. ; Wellhausen,
Proleg. (Eng. tr.) ch. iii. ; Edersheim, The Temple, ch. xiii. ;
Green, The Heb. Feasts, Lect. vii. ; articles in Herzog’s RE and
Winer’s Bib. Realwérterb. under ‘ Pfingstfest’ and ‘ Pfingsten,’
For the early Christian observance of Pentecost see Bingham,
Christ. Antiqg. Xxx. vi. § vi. ; Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten aus
ἃ. Christ. Archdcl. ii. 343 ff., and Handb. ἃ. Christ. Archiol. 1.
p. 504 ff. ; Guericke, Lehrb. ἃ. Christ.-Kirch. Arch. P= 190 Ties
Riddle, Manual of Christ. Antigg. p. 679 ff.; Cave, Prim:
Christianity, ch. vii. G. T. Purves.

PENUEL.—See PENIEL.

PEOPLE is the AV rendering of a great variety
of Heb. and Gr. terms, the most important of
which are ‘3, pind or pvpyd, OY, δῆμος, ἔθνος, λαός, ὄχλος.
The distinctive meanings of these are discussed
under GENTILES. While in many instances no doubt
can exist as to the reference of the word. people,
there are cases where the Eng. reader cannot but
feel uncertain whether he is to understand by it
the people of Israel or people in the sense of Gen-
tile nations. This ambiguity is avoided by RV,
which, for the latter sense, freely employs the

Te te

PEOR

PER/ZA 743

plur. peoples, which in AV occurs only in Rev
lo! 1718; The effect of this change in clearing
up the meaning is very evident in such passages
as Ps 67+, Is 554 60° etc. See Preface to RV of
OT,

Special notice is required of the phrase ‘ people
of the land’ (ΝΠ 65), whieh occurs frequently in
the OT, especially in Jeremiah (118 34!" 37% 44:1
Heer geek ΤῊ Το 20°9-332 39)". 46% 9). and
9 Kings [ψῸ 18. 19. 20 15° 16 oy 24 9330. 35 9411 953+ any
with the parallel passages in 2 Chronicles (231% 50. 2]
267! 33% 301). In most of these instances it means
the general body of the people, as distinguished
from the king and the aristocracy. The fuller
phrase [ΝΣ nba is used in 2 Καὶ 2413 for ‘the
poorest sort of the people of the land’ (cf. 2 Καὶ 25%,
Jer 407 528) Tn Gn 23728 (Pp), Nu 14° (JE),
‘am-h@darez is employed with reference ta non-
Israelites. The title ‘ammé h@drez (or ‘ammé
Ad@drdazcth) has a technical sense in the book of
Ezra-Nehemiah, being used of that half-heathen
hali-Jewish population of Palestine with whom
less scrupulous Jews intermarried and maintained
friendly relations, but with whom the party repre-
sented by Ezra and Nehemiah refused all but the
most unavoidable intercourse (Ezr 9!-? 10? 1, Neh
1039). The phrase ‘aim-h@drez was used by the
Rabbins not only collectively but in an individual
sense (they spoke of an ‘am-A@arez) for the class
distinct from the strict observers of the law (cf.
Jn 7* ‘this multitude [ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος] which knoweth
not the law are accursed’). See, further, art.
PHARISEES, p. 804; Schiirer, αὐ ΚΡ it. 400 (HJ P
Il. ii. 22 f.] ; Smend, Alttest. Religionsgesch * (Index,
s. ‘Am hadrez’). J. A. SELBIE.

PEOR (350; Φογώρ ; Phogor, and [Jos 9911 Beel-
hegor, ete.). —1. Nu 2528. only, a mountain in
foab, the last point to which Balak took Balaam,

after lie had sacrificed at Bamoth-baal and in the
field of Zophim, at the top of Pisgah. Peor is
described as looking down upon Jeshimon (RVm;
RV text ‘the desert’). The Onomasticon describes
the mountain as opposite Jericho, and as having
upon it a town, Danaba (DINHABAH, wh. see), 7
miles from Heshbon. Peor is not certainly identi-
fied. PEF St (1882, p. 87) suggests the peak above
‘Ain Minyeh overlooking the Dead Sea. Buhl (G4 P
116) places Beth-peor at the mouth of the Wady
Hesbdn, and is inclined to identify Peor with e/-
Musakkar, between Wady"Ajyin Misa and Wady
Heshdn. Yor further details see BETH-PEOR.

2. A town in Judah, added by the LXX, Φαγώρ,

after Jos 15°"; for site see BETH-PEOR.

3. A divine name, Nu 23! 3116, Jos 22"; see

BAAL-PEOR.
4 The LXX reading, Φόγωρ, for Pan, Gn 36", or
Pai, Ch 1; see Pat. W. H. BENNETT.

PEREA (ἡ Περαία, IHepatos, Περαΐτης) is the name
given by Josephus to t!e district which is spoken
of in Rabbinical literature as ‘the land beyond
Jordan.’ (In like manner the NT, which never
mentions Perwa by name, uses the phrase πέραν
rod ‘lopddvov, Mt 4% 191, Mk 38%, Jn 1°8 3°6 6!-17 10%
18!). He says (BJ τὴ]. iii. 3) that it stretches from
Macheerus in the south to Pella in the north, while
its breadth is from Philadelphia (“Ammdan) to the
Jordan. In another place (BJ Iv. vii. 3, 6) he
makes Gadara the capital of Persea; and Schiirer
(HJP wu. i. 113, note) infers that in the former case
the name is used in a political sense, t.e. with ex-
clusion of the towns ἡ the Decapolis. In ἃ geo-
graphical sense it must have reached farther north,
at any rate to the bank of the Yarmuk, while its
southern boundary was probably the Arnon. It
thus covered the districts of Jebel “Ajlun and
el-Belka. It may be roughly described as a high

ableland, torn in many parts by deep water
courses, mighty and picturesque ravines, breaking
down towards the ‘Arabah, or, as it is now called,
el-Ghor. Along the western edge the heights sink
abruptly into the Jordan Valley ; eastward they
fall away more gently into the desert. The great
gorge of the Yarmuk in the north and that of the
Arnon in the south form natural boundaries.

Josephus observes that, while larger in extent
than Galilee, it is inferior in fertility, and less
adapted for the growth of the finer fruits. The
Perwan soil, however, is rich, and has always
yielded good returns to the husbandman. Much
land now used for pasture is well capable of culti-
vation ; and an excellent supply of water is pro-
vided by its streams and perennial springs. Great
reaches of these healthy uplands are covered with
a forest of oak. The olive flourishes in many of
the valleys, while the vine trails over the fruitful
slopes. ‘Towards the eastern border the country
is treeless, and parts are barren and stony (Guy le
Strange in Schumacher’s Across the Jordan, 292 ff. ),
but the fellahin of the Arabs find space to grow
tolerable crops. Yakut (A.D. 1225) observes that
the region is noted for its wheat crops (Guy le
Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, 35). The raisins
most highly prized in the country come from the
district capital es-Sa/t. Mukaddasi (A.D. 985) says
that next to Ba‘albek it is the coldest place in Syria
(op. cit. 15). See arts. GAD, GILEAD, REUBEN.

In the earlier days of the Maccabees, Perwa
was inhabited chiefly by Gentiles, among whom
was a ‘dispersion’ of Jews. Accordingly Judas,
after he had discomfited the heathen, conveyed all
the Israelites for safety into Judiea (1 Mae δ).
The policy of Judaizing the province was not
introduced before the time of Hyrcanus ; probably
by one of his successors (Schiirer, HJP 1. i. 192).
It shared in the reduction of taxes ordered by
Jonathan (Anf. Xul. ii. 3). Alexander Jannius
waged war with varying fortune throughout his
reign, and before his death had the whole country,
from Merom to the Dead Sea, under his sway
(Schiirer, d.c. pp. 297, 306).

who in the end fled hither, to die, it was thought,
by poison (Ant. Xv. x. 3, BJ I. xxiv. 5, xxx. 3, 4).
It was the scene of some of Herod’s building
enterprise (4πέ. XV. vill. 5). On Herod’s death,
Antipas was appointed tetrarch of Galilee and
Perwa (Ant. XVIL villi. 1). When Augustus con-
firmed Herod Antipas in the tetrarchy, Gadara
was cut off and added to Syria (BJ IL vi. 3). On
the site of the ancient Beth-haram (Jos 13*7) the
tetrarch built a city and called it Julias in honour
of the emperor’s wife (Ané. ΧΥΙΠ. 11. 1, BJ τι.
ix. 1), which Nero afterwards gave to Agrippa,
with 14 villages about it (Amf. XxX. vill. 4). It is
now represented by Tell er-Rameh (HGHL* 488,
note). Perswa was the scene of Simon’s rising,
so swiftly suppressed by Gratus (Ant. XVII. x. 6,
BJ τι. iv. 2). Felix was appointed by Claudius
procurator of Galilee, Samaria, and Perwa (BJ I.
xii. 8). After the defeat of Cestius, Manasseh
was set over Perwa (BJ 1, xx. 4). The whole
region was finally subdued to the Romans by
Placidus, acting under Vespasian (BJ Iv. vil.
3-6). When the Moslems conquered the country,
the district, with its capital Amméan, was attached
to the province of Damascus (Yaktbi, A.D, 874-
890).
Kerak [Dimashki (A.D. 1800); Guy le Strange,
Pal. under the Moslems, 34, 41).

In the beginning of our era the population was
prevailingly Jewish. Perea sent a multitude of
Jews to Jerusalem in the rising against Sabinus
(BJ i. ili. 1). When Gadara fell they were mostly
Jews who perished (LJ Iv. vil. 3, 6). They were

At Herod’s request it ,
was given as a tetrarclry to his brother Pheroras, :

Later it was included in the kingdom of.

744 PERAZIM

PEREZ

strong enough to venture on armed strife with the
inhabitants of Philadelphia (‘Ammdn) over the
boundaries of a certain village (Ant. Xx. i. 1), and
were reduced to order only by the iron hand of
Fadus. The Mishna constantly refers to Persea—
‘the land beyond Jordan ’—as a province of the
land of Israel, along with Judwa and Galilee.
Treating of the disposal of the seventh year’s
fruits it is said, ‘The land of Israel is divided into
three parts: Judea, the land beyond Jordan, and
Galilee’ (Shebiith ix. 9). With regard to the
marriage law, it is in the same case with the
other two (Kethubim xiii. 10) ; so also with regard
to possessions (Baba bathra iii. 2). Pera lay
between two Gentile provinces on the east, as did
Samaria between the two Jewish provinces on the
west of the Jordan. The fords below Beisdn and
opposite Jericho afforded communication with
Galilee and Judea respectively. Perwa thus
formed a link connecting the Jewish provinces,
so that the pilgrim from any part might go to
Jerusalem and return without setting foot on
Gentile soil; and, what was at least of equal im-
portance, he could avoid peril of hurt and indignity,
which the Samaritans loved to inflict on those
passing through Samaria (Lk 9%; Jos. Ant. xx.
vi. 1, Vita 52).

Jesus seems to have been baptized on the Pereean
side of Jordan (Jn 10”). Farrar thinks He passed
that way after the Samaritans refused to receive
Him (Lk 9), From the Feast of the Dedication
He escaped to Perea (Jn 102), whence He was
summoned by the sisters at Bethany (Jn 11°),
The visit, with incidents and teaching, described
in Mt 19, Mk 101-31, Lk 18°, is commonly re-
ferred to the period succeeding His retirement to
Ephraim (Jn 11%) ; and from Perea He made His
last journey to Jerusalem.

Niger, ‘a man of great valour in the war with
the Romans,’ who belonged to this district, is
called ‘the Persean’ (Περαΐτης, BJ I. xx. 4, Iv.
vi. 1). One of the most awful incidents in the
siege of Jerusalem perpetuates the name of Mary,
a woman of Persea, from the village of Bethezob
(BJ VI. iii. 4). In the nation’s crowning calamity,
when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, and the
temple sank in flaming "ruins, Josephus names
Perwa for the last time, as if in sympathy ‘ echo-
ing back’ from afar the dolorous tumult and
uproar (BJ vi. ν. 1).

LITERATURE.—Besides the authorities cited above, see Merrill,
Hast of the Jordan: Oliphant, Vhe Land of Gilead ; Baedeker,
Pal. and Syria, 176-193; Thomson, Land and Book, iii. 547-
677 ; Buhl, GAP 120; Pliny, Nat. Hist. ν. 18.

W. Ewina.

PERAZIM (ΟὙἼ9- Ἴπ, ὄρος doe8av).—Mt. Perazim of
Is 28"! (‘the LorD shall rise up as in mount Pera-
zim’) is probably to be identified with BAAL-
PERAZIM, the scene of one of David’s victories over
the Philistines, 2S 52=1Ch 14", Tt lay apparently
N.E. of Adullam, on the ridge above ‘din Faris
(see PE F'St, Oct. 1899, p. 347). C. R. CONDER.

PERDITION.—One of the renderings of ἀπώλεια
in NT (AV and RV),-but not found at all in OT, in
either version. It occurs eight times both in AV
and in RV, but the latter has substituted ‘perdition’
for ‘destruction’ at Ph 319 (‘whose end is perdition’),
and ‘destruction’ for ‘perdition’ at 2 P 37 (‘destruc-
tion of ungodly men’), apparently because in the
former passage the ‘final perdition ’ (cf. τέλος) of
the soul is the prominent sense, and in the latter
the OT Messianic destruction of the present bodily
mode of existence. It would seem as if the Re-
visers took this view of the eschatology of 2 P
generally, for they have translated ἀπώλεια by
‘destruction’ in all the five passages containing
it, even in 21-3 and 316. It is difficult, however,

to see why, if this distinction between destruction
and perdition is to hold (ef. Gwynn’s note in
Speaker's Commentary on Ph 3”), the Revisers did
not carry it out more consistently. At Ro 92
(κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν) ‘destruction’ has no
doubt been allowed to remain as more suitable to
the figure of the potter and the clay ; but why is
it left at Mt 715 ‘broad is the way that leadeth εἰς
τὴν ἀπώλειαν" The more technical and complete
sense of ἀπώλεια as perdition (Ph 39, Mt 10%) in
comparison with the more general sense of ὄλεθρος
as destruction (cf. 1 Co δ5), comes out at 1 Ti 62;
where ἀπώλεια serves as a definitive climax—‘ hurt.
ful lusts, such as drown men in destruction and
perdition.’

The question whether the word ἀπώλεια, with its
correlates, (7) involves annihilation, (6) admits οἱ
unending existence and punishment, or (0) gives
room for restoration, has already been dealt with
in the article on ESCHATOLOGY (see vol. i. esp. pp.
738-740, 752f., and 756). It is a question which
(as it seems to us) can never be absolutely decided
by the phraseology. An objection to the uncon-
ditional acceptance of (a) lies in the Jewish views
of Sheol and Gehenna, and in such a moral use of
ἀπόλλυμι and its correlates as in the phrase (Lk 1910),
‘The Son of Man came to seek and to save that
which was lost (τὸ ἀπολωλό:),᾽.---8, moral use which
can be illustrated from the Greek prose of Poly bius
and Plutarch, and from the exegesis of Philo.* (2)
is rendered uncertain, ποῦ onl by @ priori considera-
tions as to the character of God, but by the proved
relativity in the sense of αἰών and αἰώνιος. It is
impossible to dogmatize-in-the direction of (6) in
face of the manifest efforts of our Lord and the
writers of the NT to depict a finality of destiny
for those who reject the truth. But when these
can be said finally to reject it we are not distinctly
informed. Without doubt, it is to men in the
present state of existence that the gospel makes
its urgent appeal. But nowhere in the NT are
unbelievers warned that after the cessation of the
present mode of existence all chance is gone. Of
two things only can we speak with any confidence :
freewill will never be forced; repentance will never
be spurned. J. MASSIE.

PERESH (πη, Β om., A Pdpes).—A ‘son’ of
Machir, 1 Ch 7. See MANASSEH, p. 9395,

PEREZ (775 ‘rupture,’ or ‘breach’; ef. Perez-
uzzah, Baal-perazim, ete.).—In AV of OT this
name is, except in 1 Ch 979, Neh 11+ 6, spelt. Pharez,
a modification of the LXX Φάρες and Vulg. Phares.
This last form is found in AV of Mt 1? ak Se.
and is retained by RV in 1 Es 5°.

Perez was one of the twin sons of Judah by
Tamar his daughter-in-law, and received his name
from the manner of his birth, Gn 38”. Nothing
else is known of his personal history. In the
genealogies he takes precedence of his twin brother
Zerah, and to him the leading families of the tribe
of Judah traced their descent. According to Gn
46", Nu 26-21, there were four Judahite clans,
two of which, Hezron and Hamul, represented
Perez; the others were descended from Shelah
and Zerah respectively.

Ewald (HT 1. 365) has an ingenious theory, that
as in Levi, so in Judah there were twelve families,
and that the clan of Perez preponderated in the
latter tribe, as that of Kohath did in the former,
the Kohathite families being equal to the Ger-
shonite and Merarite combined. In support
of this he appeals to 1 Ch 2 and 41-23, which
he thinks represent two different genealogies of

*See an article by the present writer in the Expositor

2nd series, vol. ii. p. 64, ‘A Contribution to the History of
ἀπόλλυμιι.᾽

|

PEREZITES

PERFECTION 745

Judah. In 1 Ch 9 six sons are assigned to Hezron,
equalling in number Shelah and the five sons of
Zerah. “Ewald here, however, ignores Hamul, the
addition of whom increases the preponderance of
the Perez families. Indeed 1 Ch 2 deals almost
exclusively with them. But the account in 1 Ch
4'- is quite different. Here there is explicit men-
tion of six ‘sons’ of Judah: (1) Perez (=Hamul
ace. to Ew.), (2) Hezron (elsewhere son of Perez),
(3) Carmi (grandson of Zerah, Jos 7!, and his repre-
sentative here, acc. to Ew.), (4) Hur, (5) Shobal
(=Shobab, ch. 918), (6) Shelah. Hur and Shobal
are inch. 2 sons of Chelubai or Caleb, son of Hezron.
In order to make up the required number of 12
families, Ewald finds in this chapter six other
‘sons’ of Judah. His selection, however, seems
quite arbitrary ; ch. 4 is merely a disjointed list of
names of persons and places, the mutual relation-
ships of which are scarcely defined. Ewald is on
surer ground when he says that in both ‘ gene-
alogies’ ‘the proper family history of the tribe was
combined with the history of the country as a whole,
as well as of the possessions and residences of the
more powerful families.’ The blessing pronounced
on Boaz by the elders of Bethlehem, Ru 415 ‘Let
thy house be like the house of Perez,’ indicates,
indeed, that the descendants of Perez were numer-
ous, but is a natural expression in the mouths of
members of that family. In later times, the fact
that David and the royal line of Judah were de-
scended from Perez through Ram, son of Hezron,
naturally accounts for the prominence assigned to
the family; the precedence of Jashobeam among
the captains, 1 Ch 27°, was, however, due rather
to his personal prowess than to his descent ; and
it is to be noted that on comparing the mutually
complementary lists, 1 Ch 94, Neh 11°, we find
that in the time of Nehemiah the descendants of
Perez were not so numerous as those of Zerah.
Perez occurs, of course, in the genealogy of Christ,
EGS Τὴν a N. J. D. WHITE.

PEREZITES (‘y727, ὁ Dapes).—The patronymic of
the name PEREZ, Nu 26. See preceding article.

PEREZ-UZZAH.—See NACON and Uzzau.

PERFECTION.—We exclude from present con-
sideration the absolute perfection peculiar to God.
Wherever the term is applied in Scripture to the
Divine Being (Dt 32+, 28 22°!, Ps 18 197, Mt 5*),
no limitation of its meaning is possible. It is
certainly significant that the Divine holiness itself
is proposed as a motive and pattern to man, Ly
114, 1 P 1151. 1 Jn 38. Hence there is a close con-
nexion between man’s conception of the Divine
holiness and his conception of the holiness possible
to and obligatory on himself. The latter, however,
is our immediate subject.

The terms used in Scripture (obvi, ovr, τέλειος),
being general and abstract, tell us little until
defined by the context; and the context is the
Divine law as understood in a particular age. Their
connotation varies with man’s knowledge of moral
and religious truth. The same terms are used
throughout the OT, and indeed throughout Serip-
ture ; but their meaning grows with the growth of
revelation. Even within the limits of the OT the
development is great. How much more does ‘ per-
fect’ mean to the later prophets than to the
patriarchs! On NT ground the development is, of
course, greater still. The perfect man in a par-
ticular age is the man who realizes in himself the
Divine law, or the ideal (τέλος) of man as known in
that age. Thus, in order to give a complete view
of the growth of the terin in meaning, it would be
necessary to trace step by step the growth of moral
and religious ideas in Scripture. It will be enough

here to indicate the chief stages in the develop-
ment.

Speaking broadly, we may say that the OT idea
of moral perfection is distinguished trom the NT
one in three respects. It is negative rather than
positive, refers to outward act rather than to
inner disposition and spirit, and may be summed
up in righteousness rather than in love. It will be
obvious at once that such a statement is to be
taken with qualifications, There are beyond
question positive elements in O'T ethics, rightness
of disposition as well as of act is required, love has
a place beside righteousness. Still, we think,
careful examination will show that the negative,
the outward act, righteousness, are the prominent,
emphatic elements in OT, as the other elements
arein NT. The higher, spiritual aspects are just
mentioned in OT, and then reserved for fuller
exposition till the fulness of time.

At the earliest stave the ‘ perfect’ man is simply
the ‘upright’ man in contrast to the ‘wicked’ (Job
1}. 8 93 g20 922) Ps 3737, Pr 271); in Ps 37% and else-
where on and 1% are used convertibly. The term
is probably applied to Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and
Job in the same sense Gn 6° 17! 257, Job 1,
although in Gn 17! ‘Walk Aefore me’ suggests
higher thoughts, as also in Dt 1813 “ Perfect with
the LORD thy God’ does the same. In Gn 17! LXX
has ἄμεμπτος. In Dt 6° and Lv 1918 the two great
commandments are definitely formulated, but they
are nowhere expounded and worked out in detailed
application (see Lk 10%). [πὶ a similar way the
forbidding of sins of desire Ex 9017, the requirement
of inner truthfulness Ps 15? 51°, ‘circumcision of
the heart’ Dt 30° (cf. with Re 2”), preference of
moral to ceremonial purity Is 116, Mic 6%, Jl 2%,
Jer 31, Ps 17, are germs of great developments ;
but they remain germs in OT days.

The growth in the meaning of perfection in the
NT isimmense. The goal of the old economy is
the starting-point of the new. The positive side of
the law is everywhere foremost, Mt 71’. 51. Ὁ. 25%*,
Jn 1311 14:5. 28 154) Ja 1325: 5. and often. Insistence
on inward righteousness is just as marked a feature
of NT teaching. This isin great part the burden
of the Sermon on the Mount, Mt δ᾽" 38, the
beatitudes are blessings on gracious disposition.
Outward obedience is too little, nothing but an
inner transformation is sufficient, the roots and
springs of man’s life must be made new, Mt 77
1518. Jn 38. ὃ, Ro 86 12%, 9 (Ὁ 5", Gal 5%, He 9" ete.
Above all, love, which is righteousness raised to
the highest power, appears everywhere as_ the
central law of life, Mt 5", Lk 1077497, Jn 13%, Ro
γὴν. 7 C6. 135.0. 98. bo dno) Al ee ehts) Cons
substitution of love of God and man for righteous-
ness involves a complete transformation of the
Divine law. The two great commandments of the
law are applied in detail to the different relations
and duties of human life, Mt 5“, Ro 12, He 13},
2P 17. Such summaries of duty as are found in

Ro 12 and 13 are simply different applications of
the two chief commandments. The distance we
have travelled is seen in comparing the ‘ perfect’
of the Lord’s words in Mt 5 with the ‘perfect’
of the OT. The qualifying clause ‘ As your Father,’
the context with its command ‘Love not merely
your neighbour but your enemies,’ and the entire
strain of precept in the discourse, forbid the fixing
of narrow limits. St. Paul’s teaching in Ro 123-31
is in the same spirit.

The proposal of Christ Himself as the example of
Christian life is very significant. Not merely His
teaching, He Himself is the law, the ideal of re-
newed man, Jn 13, Ph 25, Eph 4% 516 (‘Be ye
imitators of God’). This suggests the further
fact that the new, the Christian type of character
is the one in which the mild virtues and graces

746 PERFECTION

PERFUME

prevail, Mt 5°° 11%, Jn 134, Gal 522 62, Ph 23 4°,
Col 3”.

The apostolic prayers and wishes for Christian
Churches are full of instruction on this subject.
Passages like Eph 19 314-19) Col 1°11, 1 Th 5%,
2 Co 13°, are the tinal expositions of the law of love,
and show to what a height the idea of moral per-
fection has risen. Nothing has been or can be
added to the type of spiritual excellence there de-
seribed. The two remarkable words used in 1 Π 5°
may be taken as an inspired interpretation of τέλειος,
namely ὁλύκληρος and ὁλοτελής ; the former occurs
again in Ja 14, the latter is a ἄπ. λεγόμενον. The
former, Ellicott says, ‘serves to mark that which
is entire in all its parts,’ the latter indicates the
‘thoroughness and pervasive nature of holiness’
(see also Trench, Δ᾽ 7᾽ Synonyms, p. 71, and Light-
foot, ad loe.). These passages explain very fully
the meaning or contents of the moral perfection,
which is to be the aspiration of every Christian
for himself, as it was the aspiration of the apostles
for the Christians of their day. The natural doubt
respecting the possibility of attainment is antici-
pated by St. Paul’s doxology, ‘Unto him that is
able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we
ask or think,’ Eph 3*°, a passage which reminds
us that the believer is kept absolutely dependent
on the grave and Spirit of God for the beginning
and perfecting of all that is good in him, Eph 2",
Ph 15 28, Col 23, 1 Ρ 10,

Another line of phraseology, taken from human
growth, sheds much light on our subject. The
perfect (τέλειοι) are the mature, full-grown in con-
trast to babes and children (νήπιοι, παιδία). “ Every
one that partaketh of milk isa babe. Solid food
is for perfect’ (men), He 5" ‘Wherefore let us
go on to perfection’ (τελειότης), 61. ‘Be not children
in mind: in malice be babes, in mind be perfect’
(τέλειοι), 1 Co 14”, also 2° 31. All this explains
‘unto a perfect (full-grown) man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ, that we may be
no longer children,’ Eph 4", St. John has ‘little
children, fathers, young men,’ 1 Jn 24, «The
τέλειος Is ONe Who has attained his moral end, that
for which he was intended, namely to be a man in
Christ’ (Trench, NZ Syn. p. 74). ‘In this sense
St. Paul claimed to be τέλειος, even while almost in
the same breath he disclaimed the being reredew-
Lévos, Ph 3-15? (7h.). The apostle’s disclaimer
intimates that there is no state of perfectness
which excludes the pessibility of advance; the
full-grown man is still in process of growth. St.
James also has the idea of perfection, 1: 32.

It is encouraging to remember that this high
teaching of Scripture has always been kept before
the mind of the Church. Here again St. Paul is
our leader, ‘Forgetting the things which are be-
hind, I press on toward the goal,’ Ph 3®t, The
question of the possibility of Christian perfection
in the present life was raised by Augustine and
answered in the affirmative. To doubt it, he said,
would be to limit the power of Divine grace. But
he doubts, or rather denies, that there have been
perfect Christians, assigning as reasons the weak-
ness of human nature, the danger of pride, the need
of discipline (see quotations in Pope, Compend. of
Theol. iii. p. 70). The medieval and Roman Catholic
Church holds not only the possibility but the fact
in the case of ‘saints,’ canonization being the
Church’s seal on the perfect life. The use of the
term ‘saints’ to denote a special class of Christians
is extra-scriptural, as in Scripture the term is
applied to all Christians, Ro 17 and elsewhere.
The motive of the monastic system in its lone
history and multitudinous forms has been to secure
favourable conditions for living a perfect Christian
life, supposed to be impossible in ordinary circum-
stances. ‘If thou wilt be perfect, sell’ all that

a
thou hast’ (Mt 1951), has been he.1 to dictate the
condition of such a life, as it was the voice ever
sounding in the ears of Francis of Assisi. What-
ever our judgment on the monastic system, the
nobility ot its original aims must be acknowledged.
The great succession of mystics of the ἃ Kempis
type in every Chureh and age has done much to
preserve the tradition of a deep spiritual life. The
passages of Scripture which are their watchwords
(Jn 154, Gal 2**, Col 3'4) have been shown to
describe true experiences. John Wesley’s doctrine
on the subject merely follows in the wake of many
teachers and communities whose aim has been the
promotion of the highest Christian life. It is a
doctrine of relative perfection in a very strict
sense. His own favourite definition of its nature
is expressed in the terms of the two chief com-
mandments, which he insists are an ideal intended
to be realized in actual life. His doctrine differs
only in name from the teaching of all who desire
and seek the highest life of holiness. In any case
the perfect conformity to the image of the Son,
which is God’s eternal purpose (Ro 8”), must ever
remain the cherished hope of every believer in
Christ. J.S. BANKS.

PERFORM, PERFORMANCE. — These words
have lost the idea of finishing, completing, which
once belonged to them. Tindale translates Lk
145 5:9 “Which of you disposed to build a toure
sytteth not doune before and counteth the cost,
whether he have suflicient to performe it? lest
after he hath layde the foundacion, and is not
able to performe it, all that beholde it beginne to
mocke him.’ And Robinson in More's Utopia, ii.
(Lupton’s ed. p. 170), says, ‘The lacke of the one
is performed and fylled up with the aboundaunce
of the other.” This is often the meaning of ‘ per-
form’ in AV. Thus Is 1012 ‘When the Lord
hath performed his whole work upon Mount
Zion’ (νυ δῦ, lit. ‘when he hath cut off,’ the figure
being taken from the cutting off of the finished
web from the loom ; LXX ὅταν συντελέσῃ ; Vule.
cum inpleverit ; Wye. ‘shall fulfelle,” Purvey
‘hath fillid’; Cov. ‘As soone as I have per-
furmed’). Lk 2° * When they had performed all
things according to the law of the Lord’ is not
merely ‘when they had done all things,’ but ‘when
they had completed’ or (RV) ‘accomplished’ (ὡς
ἐτέλεσαν). ‘To ‘perform the doing’ of a thing (as in
2 Co 8"') is now tautology, whence RV ‘complete
the doing’ (τὸ ποιῆσαι ἐπιτελέσατε). The change in
the meaning of ‘ perform’ is due to the supposition
that it is made up of per and form, and to form
is to do, to make, It has no connexion with form,
being derived from Fr. parfournir, to furnish com-
pletely, accomplish. [05 original and proper mean-
ing is well expressed by Maundeville (Z'ravels, p.
265), ‘But whan he saughe thet he myghte not dou
it, ne bringe it to an ende, he preyed to God of
Nature that he wolde parforme that that he had
begonne.’ Cf. Ps 20° 21"! 57? (Pr. Bk.).

Performance is used in AV only in the sense of
bringing to an end, completing, viz. Lk 1% (τελεί-
wots, RV ‘ fulfilment’), 2 Co 8! (τὸ ἐπιτελέσαι, RV
‘the completion ’). J. HASTINGS.

PERFUME, in the sense of a fragrant material,
is tr” of map Létoreth, in Ex 30, and of [ΠΡῚ, only
in plur.] rikkihim, in 15 57%. In the verbal form to
sprinkle scents, in Pr 717, it is 43 néiph. Frag-
rance, a word which does not occur in AV, has been
introduced by RV in Ca 15:15 7 in place of ‘savour’
or ‘smell,’ and is the rendering of m7. The same
word occurs in Gn 2777, Hos 14°, Ca 4! 78,

The use of odorous or strongly-smelling materials
has been alluded to under OINTMENT and IN-
CENSE, as well as under the speciiic names of the

Ea

PERFUME

PERGA 747

various scents. Most of these Scripture perfumes
are pungent rather than sweetly-smelling, and
would not please the present taste; but, as Pliny
has said, there have been fashions in odours as
in clothes. The raw materials are gums, resins,
roots, barks, or leaves, and these were variously
combined, according to the skill and faney of the
perfumer. These o7)5 are called ‘apothecaries’ in
Heal oi, 2st LGM. Neh-3(aiap), dae 10: sir
38°49! (LXX in both μυρεψύς), and ‘ confectionaries ’
in 1S 81" (ninja). RV substitutes ‘perfumers’ ex-
cept in 2Ch, Neh, and Sir; but these texts also
refer to perfumers, not apothecaries in the modern
sense of the word. ‘Phese perfumers constituted a
guild among the Jews; see APOTHECARY, i. 126 ;
CONFECTION, i. 464; MEDICINE, above, p. 332.

These odorous compounds were either for per-
sonal or for ritual use. ‘Those used for the former
usually took the form of ointments (which see),
and were (1) for the purpose of masking the odour
of the body, which is apt to be strong and disagree-
able in a hot country. This is especially the case
with the feet, hence the Greeks and Romans re-
garded it as a great luxury to have their feet
anointed with sweet-smelling ointment. Athenieus
quotes a number of authorities in reference to this
practice (xii. 78). It was in accordance with this
mode of showing honour to guests that the woman
anointed the feet of our Lord (Lk 7°8, cf. Jn 12%).
For other cases of the cosmetic use of ointments
or perfumes see ANOINTING. The use of these was
looked upon as an effeminate luxury by Pliny, who
deprecates the lavish use of them in Rome (xiii. 1).

(2) Perfumes, such as frankincense, were some-
times chewed to give to the breath a sweet scent
(Ca 75). For modern instances see Lane, Mod.
Egyp. i. 238.

(3) Ladies among the Jews sometimes carried per-
fume boxes at their girdles (Is 3*°); these were
called vz: ‘nz, and this is translated ‘tablets’ (ce.
lockets) in AV. They were most probably metallic
boxes containing ointment or frankincense. Such
boxes have been found in Egypt.

(4) Perfumes were sprinkled on garments or
placed in boxes with clothing to give them a
pleasant odour (Ps 45°, Ca 4"). This is still done
in the East as in the West (see Lane, 7b. i. 256).

(5) Perfume was sprinkled on couches or beds as
mee i

(6) In the Persian harem, perfumes were the chief
means of purification in use: six months unction
with oil of myrrh, and six months with spices and
the ‘ointment of the women, LXX σμήγμασι τῶν
γυναικῶν (Est 2), At the present day rosewater is
used for such purificatory washing (Burckhardt,
Arabia, i. 68).

(7) Odours and spices were used at funerals,
applied as antiseptics to the body, Asa was laid
in a bed filled with sweet odours and divers kinds
of spices prepared by the perfumers (2 Ch 16"); and
Nicodemus provided about 100. Ibs. of myrrh and
aloes for the burial of our Lord. They were also
burned at funerals; probably the burnings of
2 Ch 164 9119 were made of them. At Poppiea’s
funeral Nero burned more perfumes than Arabia
could produce within a year (Pliny, xil. 18).

Of the ritual or ceremonial uses of perfumes,
usually in the form of incense, mention is made in
many places in the OT. Sometimes it was burned
before a king when making a state procession. ΤῸ
this there is an allusion in the pillar of smoke which
preceded the king in Ca 3° Quintus Curtius speaks
of a similar ceremonial in the case of Indian princes
(viii. 38). See INCENSE in vol. il. p. 408);

The period at which incense was introduced into
the Jewish worship is unknown, but it was per-
haps used in very early times (see, however, LN-
CENSE, ib. p. 407). The Egyptians used it as far

back as the 4th dynasty, and on almost every stele
of the period which covers the whole of the [sraelite
sojourn in Eeypt there is specific mention of η 2)
sntr or incense. Odorous fumigations are used in
all ceremonial religions, and the sweet smell is
supposed to propitiate the god. Oedipus says that
Thebes ‘reeks with incense and rings with prayers’
(Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 4), and Herodotus
records that Datis, the Median, burnt 30 talents of
frankincense on the altar at Rheniwa (vi. 97). Stmi-
lar references might be multiplied for other places,
and for cults the most dissimilar. ‘To this idea
Amos alludes, when speaking for the offended Deity
he says that ‘ He will not smell’? in their solemn
assemblies (52!). RV renders it ‘ will take no de-
light,’ which is a paraphrase, the AV being the
literal rendering. In the N'T there is no account of
the use of perfumes in Christian worship, but the
idea is spiritualized like the other typical observ-
ances of the old worship: thus St. Paul calls the self-
sacrifice of Christ ‘a sacrifice to God for a sweet-
smelling savour’ (Eph 5°); and he also calls the
gifts which the Philippians had sent to him = by
{paphroditus ‘an odour of a sweet smell’ (Ph 4}5).
In the apocalyptic vision the four living creatures
and the 24 elders before the throne of God are said
to offer incense, which is the type of the prayers of
saints, Rev 5°.

The perfumes mentioned in the Bible will be
found under their specific names. They are Aloes,
Apples (said to yield a fragrance, but scarcely a
perfume in the strict sense), Balm, Bdellium
(probably derived from a species of Amyris and
allied to myrrh, see Jos. Ant. I. i. 6), Calamus
(probably one of the lemon-grasses, such as A ndro-
pogon pachnodes, or schenanthus. The former
yields the sweet-scented Turkish grass-oil of com-
merce. I[t might, however, be the Acorus calamus
or sweet-cane, but this is unlikely), Camphire
(henna), Cassia, Cinnamon, Costus (see OINT-
MENT), Frankincense, Galbanum, Ladanum (tlie
αὐ of Gn 31:9 43! translated ‘myrrh,’ but much more
probably the odorous gum exuded by a Cistus, either
C. Ledon or CU. laurifolius, perhaps Creticus), Man-
drakes (mentioned as fragrant, but not a perfumer’s
material, Ca 7.3), Mastic (cxtvos, the Pistacia
lentiscus, mentioned only in the Apoer. Sus ὅἢ),
Myrrh (yielded by Balsamodendron myrrha),
Onycha (the ποπῷ of Ex 30%, either ladanum, as
in the Arabic Version, or the sweet-smelling oper-
culum of a Strombus. Its smell is alluded to in
Sir 24), Saffron, Spikenard, Stacte (probably
storax, the resin of Styrax officinale), Tragacanth
(n¥23 of Gu 37” 43", the gum exuded by Astragalus
tragacantha).

The proper names Keturah, Basemath, and
Euodia seem to be derived from the words for
‘incense’ or ‘ fragrance.’ A. MACALISTER.

PERGA (Πέργη ; the form Hépya, which might
have been expected, seems not to occur: * in Latin
commonly Perge, but Pliny has Perge) was one of
the two greatest cities of Pamphylia in ancient
times (Side being the other). Strabo describes it
as being on the Cestrus, 6) stadia, 7 to 8 miles,
from its mouth; and he speaks of the river
as navigable. There is some inaccuracy in this
statement, as Perga is fully 5 miles west from the
Cestrus; but it is true that the nearest point on
the river is about 60 stadia above the mouth.
Mela more correctly says that Perga was situated
between the rivers Cestrus and Cataractes, but
nearer the former (which he too describes as navi-
gable). The earliest known memorials of Perga

* A coin in the British Museum Catalogue, No. 27, reads
TrEPrA; but this may be an abbreviation of the adjective.
On No. 48 the city name is indubitably TrepLr JH.

748 PERGA

PERGA

are its coins, which begin early in the 2nd cent.
B.C. But its walls are of Seleucid, not Pergamenian
style, and, therefore, probably were built in the
3rd cent. ; and Perga began to strike coins when
set free from the rule of the Seleucid kings of
Syria in B.c. 189, Its coins last in a fairly rich
series till about A.D. 276; and it was the only

Greek city’ except Alexandria that struck coins of
the emperor Tacitus. Side and Perga both ranked
as metropolitan cities of Pamphylia: on coins
Perga is styled metropolis under the emperor
Tacitus, but certainly had that rank earlier (as
Side also must have ranked as metropolis, though
its coins do not mention the title).

Perga was evidently the stronghold of native
Pamphylian feeling in opposition to the Greek
colony ATTALIA, which was founded during the
2nd cent. B.C. Its coinage is invariably associated
with the native goddess, who was identified with
the Greek Artemis, but evidently was more like
the Ephesian than the true Hellenic deity. Some-
times she is called on coins the Queen of Perga
(Fdvacoa written in Pamphylian alphabet), but
commonly Artemis of Perga. She is represented
either as the Greek short-clad huntress Artemis,
sometimes with a sphinx beside her, sometimes
with a stag, or as the Greek goddess, wearing a
long tunic, but still carrying the bow; but far
more characteristic is the type common in imperial
times, in which she is symbolized by a quaint
simulacrum, probably representing a arge stone
with a rounded top: the top is ‘sometimes modified
to resemble a female head with long veil and
kalathos, while the stone in its lower part then
seems like a rude and massive human body. On
the stone sometimes there appear to be zones of
dancing figures. The sphinx or the eagle are fre-
quent accompaniments of the simulacrum. This
goddess may safely be described as similar to the
Ephesian (see DIANA). The name Leto seems
probably to belong to her, whether it be a modifi-
cation of the Lycian word Jada (the lady), or of the
old Semitic Al-lat or Alilat.*

The site of Perga is now called Murtana, and is
about 12 miles north-east of Attalia. The temple
is described by Strabo as standing on a higher
ground beside the city. This higher ground was
the site of the older city, and constituted the acro-
polis. It is not an isolated hill, but part of that
steep-edged plateau which occupies much of the
country between Cestrus and Cataractes. In the
time of Strabo the city seems to have been on
the low ground south of the acropolis. All the
ruins—walls, gates, theatre, stadium, churches,
etc.—are in that part, while few remains are now
visible on the acropolis ; but the platform with the
lower part of six granite columns near the south-.
east of the acropolis (which G. Hirschfeld and
other travellers took for the temple of Artemis) is
considered by Petersen too rude for that doubtless
splendid building.t The greatness of the city was
bound up with that of the goddess: compare the
speech of Demetrius about the Ephesian Artemis
in Ac 19. The right of asylum, doubtless, be-
longed to her temple and precinct (see Arch. Epi-
graph. Mittheil. aus Oesterreich, 1897, p. 65).

Paul and Barnabas, with John Mark, on their
first missionary journey, sailed from Paphos and
came to Perga in Pamphylia (Ac 9); and the
expression reminds us of Strabo’s opinion that
Perga was on the navigable river. It would
appear from all the passages taken together that
there was a port-town on the river, ranking not as
a separate city, but as part of Perga. The apostles
seem not to have stayed long in Perga, and they
are not said to have preached there. The failure

* See Citics and Bishoprics of Phrygia (Ramsay), pt. i. p. 90f.
t In Lan:koronski, Stadte Pamphyliens, i. p. 36.

of any allusion to preaching may safely be taken
as a proof that they did not preach, but for some
reason changed their plan, and thus lost the com-
pany of John (see PAMPHYLIA). The form of
expression, ‘ Perga of Pamphylia,’ Ac 13%, does not
imply distinction from any other Perga (for there
was no other city of that name): it means only
‘to the province Pamphylia, and specially the
capital Perga.’ But on their return, perhaps
two years later, Paul and Barnabas preached in
Perga, though apparently with no marked success,
Thereafter they went to Attalia, on the coast,
to get a ship for the Syrian coast: many ships

would pass to and fro between Syria and the.

west, touching at Attalia, but not going up to
Perga.

The early history of Christianity in Perga is
very obscure, and probably its progress was slow
(see PAMPHYLIA). Some martyrs — Theodorus,
Philippa, Socrates, and Dionysius—at Perga
(Acta Sanct., 20 Sept., p. 137) are mentioned
under one of the many emperors called Antoninus,
perhaps Elagabalus. But Perga is never mentioned
in the oldest Martyrologies, the Syriac and the
Hieronymian ; nor is Side.

Under the Christian empire, Perga and Side,
as being metropolitan bishoprics, each exercised
authority over a part of the whole province ; Perga
being head of Secunda Pamphylia, the western
division. It is by no means certain that this
division affected the civil administration ; it may
have been only ecclesiastical ; but the point is not
determined as yet. Hierocles, about A.D. 530,
gives only one province Pamphylia, yet he gives
first all the Pergaian cities, and thereafter all the
Sidetan, apparently implying both a knowledge of
the distinction and a refusal to recognize it as ἃ
real fact of government.

Perga fell into decay in later Byzantine time.
It had not sutticient military strength for that
disturbed period. Between A.p. 787 and 812 it
was amalgamated in the ecclesiastical system with
the neighbouring city of Sillyon as a joint metro-
politan bishopric ; Sillyon had been an independent
autokephalos bishopric for about a century pre-
viously. Evidently, these two inland cities were
both decaying in the 8th century. The ruin of
Perga proceeded steadily. In A.D. 1084 Attaleia *
was made a metropolis. The official lists, Notitie
Episcopatuum, represent this as if Attaleia were
made then an independent archbishopric, and
Perga remained metropolis of Pamphylia Secunda.
But in reality Perga was now a mere ecclesiastical
title, and Attaleia was the residence of the real
head of all the Pamphylian Church that remained :
in truth, most of Pamphylia provincia was now in
partibus infidelium, having been conceded to the
Turks by the feeble competitors who were struggling
with one another for the throne of the Byzantine
empire after the ruin of the imperial power at the
battle of Manzikert in 1071.

The true state of matters is quite frankly recog-
nized in the (late) Fourth Notitia, where the entry
reads : 6 Συλαίου ds καὶ Ilépyns λέγεται, ἀνθ᾽ of ἔνι νῦν
ὁ Ατταλίας. So, too, a MS (Tischendorf, Nov. Test.
111. Proleg. p. 629, No. 99), dated A.D. 1345 or 1445,
was written by the hand of Theognostus, μητροπολί-
του Ilépyns καὶ Arradeias, ἐξάρχου τῆς κενῆς (t.€. καινῆς)
δευτέρας ἸΙαμφυλίας. To complete this account of
the decay of Christian organization in Pamphylia,
it may be added that Side was degraded (1283-
1321) from tenth to thirteenth in the order of
rank of the metropoleis (its place being given to
Philadelphia, which was then so important a city
to the narrowed Christian empire); and in 1328-
1341 Side disappeared entirely from the list of
metropoleis, Monemvasia as head of the whole

* Note on Tenth Notitia (Parthey, p. 214, No. 522).

aT

PERGAMUS OR PERGAMUM

PERGAMUS OR PERGAMUM 745

Peloponnesus taking its place.* Thus we reach
the modern state of things, in which there is
in Pamphylia only the single Christian dignitary
at Attalia. It would appear perhaps, that, when
Perga was at last definitely recognized as being in
partibus infidelium, the new bishopric of Pyrgion,
in the Cayster valley, was identified with it, so
that the titular bishop of Perga officiated at
Pyrgion with his old order of precedence according
to the official lists (which never formally accepted
the real historical facts): this seems implied in
the entry in a late document printed in Parthey’s
Notitie Episcop. p. 314, No. 60, Πέργη τὸ νῦν Mupyiv
(1.6. Uupyiov). The elevation of Pyrgion took place
between 1193 and 1190. Similarly, Proconnesos
was put in the place of Mokisos-Justinianopolis +
(head of Cappadocia Tertia), and Monemvasia in
that of Side. But in almost all such cases the
official lists continued to preserve the old sitw.tion,
and rarely recognized the facts of the time when
they were written.

TLireraTure.—Lanckoronski, Stddte Pamphyliens ; Hill, Cat.
of Coins, Brit. Mus., Pamphylia, etc. On tte ecclesiastical facts
several articles by Gelzer in Jahrbiich. fiir protestant. Theolozie,
xii.; and Ramsay, /Jist. Geogr. of Asia Minor (see Index, s.vv.).

W. M. Ramsay.

PERGAMUS or PERGAMUM (ἡ Ilépyauos or τὸ
Ilépyapoy ; the word occurs in N'T only in dat. and
accus., leaving the nom. uncertain; in other
authorities both forms occur; Ptolemy, Dion
Cassius (lix. 28. 1), and Stephanus Byz. have Ilép-
yauos,} while almost all other writers and inscrip-
tions have Πέργαμον) was a great and famous city
of Mysia, adjoining the district called Teuthrania,
about 15 miles up the Caicus valley from the sea,
and about 3 miles north of the river, which was
navigable for the small ancient ships. Two small
streams joined the Caicus near Pergamum, the
Selinus actually flowing through the city and the
Keteios washing its walls on the east. Between
these two streams was a well-marked hill, which
was the site of the earliest city and of the Acro-
polis of the later city (with many of its most
magnificent buildings, agora, gymnasium, Greek
theatre, temples of Dionysos, Athena, Faustina,
Trajan, etc., and the great altar of Zeus). The
enlarged later city extended across the Selinus to
the south-west ; and here were amphitheatre, circus,
Roman theatre, probably the temple of Augustus,
and farther west the sacred precinct and temple of
Asklepios.

Pergamum was an ancient city, which struck
coins as early as 420-400. But its greatness began
early in the 3rd cent., when Philetwrus managed
to appropriate a great treasure deposited there
under his charge by king Lysimachus ; and by the
support of Seleucus, the Syrian king, he gradually
made himself independent and powerful (B.C. 284—
263). He was succeeded by his nephew, Eumenes
(263-241); thereafter succeeded Attialus L., who took
the title of king (241-197) ; Eumenes 11. (197-159) ;
Attalus Uf. (159-138); and Attalus II. (138-133),
who bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans.

The military glory of the Attalid kings and of
Pervamum Jay in the wars with the Gauls or
Galatians (which see), who invaded Asia Minor in
B.C. 278. Eumenes 1. paid tribute to the Gauls ;
but Attalus 1. refused to continue this humiliating

“Notitia, iv. -60, xiti<14,-35 (Parthey, pp. 150, 237, 238); the
stubborn unwillingness of the official Notitiw to recognize the
real facts appears in the Fourth Notitia, which still continues
to mention Side (iv. 11) in its old place as head of Pamphylia,
besides recording its new situation. But xii. mentions the
new situation twice, under each name.

t+ Known only from Georgius Pachymeres, i. p. 286 (Hist.
Geogr. As. Min, p. 300).

t Steph. Thes., quotes Xen. Heil. iii. 1.6, Paus. vii. 16. 1, x. 25.
10, etc. (where the fem. gender proves the nom., unless σόλις is to
be understood), but does not mention the above instances. The
true text in Polyb., Strab., Appian, Philostr. etc., is τὸ Πέργαμον.

custom ; and when war followed he won a great
victory at the sources of the Caicus, about B.c. 241-
240. It was in the flush of this victory that Attalus
assumed the title of king. The success was cele-
brated in art and literature as a triumph of Hellenic
civilization over barbarism. This and other vic-
tories gave Attalus supremacy over great part of
western Asia Minor (Asia cis Taurum); but about
222 the Seleucid dominion over this country was re-
stored, and Pergamenian power shrank once more
to its previous narrow bounds, what was called the
πατρώα ἀρχή immediately round Pergamum. Attalus
slowly reconquered his lost empire, and, taking ad-
vantage of the Roman enmity against the Seleucid
kings, he threw all his strength on the side of the
great republic. About 205 he actively aided the
Romans to get from Pessinus the sacred image of
the Phrygian mother of the gods, which the Sibyl-
line books directed them to bring to Rome as a
condition of success in the war against Hannibal.
Eumenes 11. continued the policy of alliance with
Rome. He actively co-operated in the war of 190,
and at the peace of 189 the whole Seleucid do-
minions on this side of ‘Taurus were given to him.
Thus once more Pergamum became the capital of
western Asia Minor, and in the following 18 years
Eumenes carried on vigorous operations in central
Asia Minor, and won several successes over the
Gauls (who had been settled in the part of ancient
Phrygia and Cappadocia which was henceforth
rpalled GALATIA). But the Romans were not in-
clined to allow Eumenes to become too strong,
and their steady though carefully veiled support
maintained the Galatians in independence, when
they seemed on the point of falling into subjection
to Pergamumn.

In the spring of the year 133 Attalus mr. dicd,
leaving a will in which, while he ordered that
Pergamum and the other towns should be admini-
stered as constitutional, self-governing cities, he
bequeathed his entire kingdom to the Romans.*
At this point the coinage of Pergamum again begins
to illuminate the city, whereas from 284 to 133 the
coins were exclusively royal. The most famous
class of Pergamene coins, the cistophori, struck
first by the kings, were continued after the royal
rule ended. Cistophori were struck, not only at
Pergamum but also at many other of the great
cities of Asia (including Mysia, Lydia, Phrygia,
and Caria), and they were the commonest current
silver coin in the -Egean lands. The type was
composite, uniting the cista mystica and other
accompaniments of Dionysiac worship. The coin-
age of Pergamum continues in an unbroken and
very rich series down to the reign of Gallienus, in
the latter part of the 3rd cent. after Christ.

In 133 the Pergamenian realm, bequeathed to
the Romans, was formed into a Roman province ;
but the province was much smaller than the king-
dom, for Phrygia Magna was given away to
Mithridates, king of Pontus. Phrygia was _ re-
claimed by the Senate after B.C. 120, when Mith-
ridates died; but, though loosely attached to the
province, it was not properly organized and detinitely
incorporated in Asia (as the new province was called)
until the year B.C. 85-84 under the government of
Sulla. From that time onwards the province had
much the same extent as the old Pergamenian
realm. The name Asia as applied to the province
was apparently a Roman invention, but it was
taken up by the Greek population, and is used
freely in the inscriptions of the great cities to
indicate the Roman provincial unity with all the
countries embraced in it (see LyDIA, ASIA).

*See Frankel, Inschriften von Pergamon, i. No. 249, an
inscription which confirms the real existence of this will
against the scepticism of several modern historians. See
also Mommsen in Athen, Mittheil. des Inst. 1899, p. 193.

750 PERGAMUS OR PERGAMUM

PERGAMUS OR PERGAMUM

The four chief gods of Pergamum are mentioned
in an oracle of about A.D. 167, which ordered the
Pergamenians to seek relief from the great pesti-
lence by appealing to Zeus, Dionysos, Athena, and
Asklepios.* All appear frequently as types on the
coins of the city. Zeus Soter and Athena Nike-
phoros were especially honoured as having given
victory over the Gauls in the olden time. The
whole strength and skill of Pergamenian art was
directed to glorify them as the patrons of Greek
genius triumphing over barbarism. Asklepios was
introduced from Epidauros, probably in a compara-
tively recent historical period (perhaps in the 5th
cent. Β.6.). Dionysos was apparently a native
Anatolian deity, worshipped with mysteries and
rites of a peculiar society called Boukoloi or
Ox-herds, who were the attendants of the ἄξιος
ταῦρος, ἃ mystic name of Dionysos. All these
gods had splendid places of worship. Zeus and
Athena were more of Hellenic and artistie con-
ceptions, Dionysos Kathegemon more purely re-
ligious. Under the Roman empire, Asklepios the
Saviour (Soter) became the most fashionable deity
of Pergamum ; but he appears on coins as early as
159-1388 and often in the Ist cent. B.c. As the
god of the healing art, he had a temple and a
sacred precinct to which flocked many invalids for
medical treatment, which they received partly
directly from the god (who revealed the method
of cure in dreams when the sufferers slept in his
sacred place), partly from the priests and physicians
in attendance on the temple. As this worship
and medical treatment brought many wealthy
visitors to Pergamum, the god was naturally
highly popular in the city. Hence, in the 2nd and
3rd cents. after Christ, Asklepios was the repre-
sentative deity of Pergamum, standing for it as
type on most of the symbolical alliance coins,

The view has been often maintained that the
richness of the accessories with which the worship
of these and other deities was conducted in Per-
gamum suggested the words in Rey 2%, describing
the city as the place ‘where the throne of Satan
is,’ and as the place ‘where Satan dwelleth.’ Ac-
cording to that view, Pergamum is pictured as a
religious centre, and contrasted with purely com-
mercial cities like Smyrna and Ephesus and
Corinth. But this picture is hardly true to the
facts as they existed when the Apocalypse was
written. It was not the case that commercial
cities were less given to religion in ancient times
than those which, like Pergamum, lay apart from
the great lines of commerce and intercourse.
Writers who take that view are misled by modern
ideas, natural in modern time when religion has
become a moral force, resisting and seeking to
withdraw men from many of the practices con-
ducive to commercial success. But in ancient
times religion was rather the glorification of suc-
cess, commercial and otherwise : the gods were the
patrons of every side of common life; and the
great commercial city was most likely to be the
great religious city. If the greatest centre of
pagan ritual in the province Asia is the place
where the throne of Satan is, then Ephesus is the
city that beyond all others merits that description.

The words of Rey 2 must refer to some other
attribute which can be truly attached to Per-
gamum. Pliny sets us in the right path by his
remark, Nat. Hist. v. 30, that Pergamum was far
the most distinguished city of Asia (Longe claris-
simum Asia, i.e. provincie). These words show
clearly that Pliny regarded Pergamum as the
capital of the province. The province Asia had
come into existence as an enfranchised + kingdom,

* Frankel, l.c. ii. p. 239.
+ When kings ceased to govern it the change was a declara-
tion of freedom.

— =
with a universally recognized capital : Pergamum
was the germ out of which the kingdom had
slowly grown to maturity and strength. Occupy-
ing this historical pre-eminence, Pergamum was
naturally recognized as the capital of the new
province Asia; and it retained this position for
over two centuries. By the middle of the second
century after Christ, on the contrary, there can
be no doubt that Ephesus was recognized generally
as the capital of the province. It is uncertain at
what time the change was made. It is even un-
certain whether the change was formally made at
some definite time by imperial order, or gradually
came about in practice without any authoritative
imperial recognition. It is, however, certain that,
under Augustus, Pergamum was still the capital,
for the provincial council (called the Κοινὸν *Agias) *
built there the temple dedicated to Rome and
Augustus to serve as_ its meecting-place, while
Ephesus then was not officially regarded as lead-
ing city. The provincial council built a temple at
Smyrna to Tiberius, and it was perhaps not until
A.D, 41-54 that it built at Ephesus a temple and
dedicated it to Clandius.+ Down to this time it
seems reasonably certain that Ephesus had not
been recognized, either by general consent. or by
imperial act, as capital of the province. The pro-
vincial council necessarily made its temple and
meeting-place first in the provincial capital ; and
by degrees the modification was introduced that
temples and meetings were arranged also in other
great cities of the province. Asia was peculiar in
having so many meeting-places of the provincial
council; in many provinces there was one single
unvarying place of meeting for the council.
Ephesus bal built a temple of Augustus before
B.C. 5; but this seems to have been only a
dedication by the city, and not arranged and
sanctioned by the provincial council ;§ and it stood
in the sacred precinct of Artemis, not in a separate
precinct of its own.

Even in the beginning of the 2nd cent. Per-
gamum probably still ranked officially as the
capital, tor it had got a second temple of the
Emperors, and the title ‘twice Neokoros,’ before
A.D. 123 (and probably already in the time of
Trajan), whereas Ephesus acquired these honours
only late in the reign of Hadrian, between the
proconsulate of Peducieus Priscinus, A.D. 127, and
that of Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus about A.D.
130 or 135.||

Should we not, then, explain by this primacy in
the worship of the Emperors the statement in Rev
“Ὁ, that ‘the throne of Satan’ is at Pergamum ?
The city was still officially the capital of the
province, and, especially, it was recognized as the
chief centre of the imperial worship, in which the
unity and loyalty of the province was expressed.
In this latter point lay the peculiar aggravation
and abomination. It was the worship of the
Emperors that was recognized, when the Apoc. was
written, as the special foe of Christianity, as
Antichrist, as Satan. It was the refusal of the
Christians to pay the proper respect to the em-
peror by performing the prescribed acts of ritual
and worship in the imperial religion that formed
the test by which they could be detected, and the
reason why they were outlawed: their refusal

* See ASIARCH,

t This, though regarded as practically certain by Buchner, de
Neocoria, p. 38, is far from being so well established as he repre-
sents. It is not at all certain that there was a temple of
Claudius at Ephesus. The temple built by the council at
Ephesus is called ‘temple of the Emperors’ in Inscr. Brit. Mus.
No. 481, and Smyrn. Mous. iii. p. 180.

t See Hicks, Inserip. of Brit. Mus. No. 522 (where date B.c. 6
should be corrected to 5). ᾿

§ Buchner (/oc. cit.) seems to have failed to observe the exist
ence of this temple at Ephesus : he never refers to it.

|| Buchner, de Neocoria, p. 59; CIG 2965, 2966, 29870.

Ss

PERGAMUS OR PERGAMUM

PERGAMUS OR PERGAMUM 751

was interpreted as ἃ proof of disloyalty and
treason, for it was a refusal to acquiesce in, and to
be members of, the imperial unity.* Pergamum,
as the chief centre of that imperial worship for the
province, was the seat and ‘the throne of Satan.’

We are too ignorant of the details regarding the
imperial worship in Asia to be able to say exactly
what was implied in that primacy. The Council
of Asia met also at other places, as Ephesus (hence
the presence of the Asiarchs there, Ac 19), Smyrna,
Sardis ; but some sort of pre-eminence belonged to
Pergamumn at least as late as A.D. 127 (as has been
stated above). Now Hadrian visited Pergamum
probably in A.D. 123.4 He was again in Asia in
129, when he visited Laodicea in the Lycus valley,
and presumably Ephesus and Tralleis. His in-
terest in and knowledge of the province, the free-
dom with which he changed old institutions to
suit the circumstances of the day, and the fact
that he not merely permitted Ephesus to attain a
second Neokorate (like Pergamum), but also struck
imperial silver coins bearing the type and name
of DIANA EPHESIA (thereby recognizing her as a
Roman deity),t all combine to prove that it was
he who recognized the overwhelming practical im-
portance of Ephesus, and transferred the primacy
of the province from Pergamum to Ephesus about
A.D. 129. If this be so (and it seems practically
certain), then we have an important piece of evi-
dence about Rev 23; that passage was written
before A.D, 129.

But the order of enumeration of the Seven
Churches of Asia, beginning with Ephesus, seems
to start from the capital, and then to go round the
important cities in geographical order—Smyrna,
Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Lao-
dicea. The explanation probably is that a con-
flict existed between the official view and the
popular view: the former still regarded Per-
gamum as the capital, while the latter had reeard
to the practical fact that Ephesus was the greatest
and most important city of Asia, on the main
route of communication, whereas Perzgamum lay
on a bypath, and had only a historical title to the
primacy in Asia. In this case the ecclesiastical
organization accepted the facts of the situation
from the time of Paul onwards; so also did the
emperor Caligula in a decree quoted by Dion
Cassius, lix. 28. 1 (unless he was following chrono-
logical order).

Even after it lost the pre-eminence in the pro-
vince, Pergamum continued to be a great and
specially honourable city. It was granted a third
Neokorate by Caracalla; and no Asian city ever
attained more. This title has often been mis-
apprehended by the older writers: when a city
styles itself Neokoros on coins and in inscriptions,
this always implies ‘warden of a temple dedicated
to the imperial worship.” When a city has the
title ‘thrice Neokoros,’ this implies three separate
temples of Emperors, each with its separate priest-
hood and services and staff of attendant ministers.
Ephesus, by a solitary exception to the rule,
sometimes boasts itself ‘four times Neokoros,’
where the fourth Neokorate refers to the worship
of Diana the Ephesian, recognized as a Roman
deity by Hadrian (see above). Pergamum on its
coins boasts itself as the first city honoured with
triple Neokorate ; but no stress can be laid on this
boast, for the three cities, Pergamum, Ephesus,
Smyrna, vied with one another in titles, inventing
or appropriating them, and all three claimed the
primacy of Asia on different grounds.§

* See The Church in the Rom. Emp. before 170, p. 275.

1 Frankel, Inschriften Pergaim. ii. p. 258; Durr, Reisen des
Kaisers Hadrian, p. 49f.

t See vol. i. p. 724.

§ Ephesus acquired triple Neokorate in the latter part of
Severus’ reign, as Head says in Catalogue Brit. Mus. Ionia,

The allusion to the martyr Antipas at Perga-
mum (Rev 913) is remarkable. No martyr from
any other of the Seven Churches is alluded to.
Yet it is not to be doubted, in view of the rest ot
the book, that there had been martyrs in them all,
and that their sufferings, which are mentioned,
imply fully developed persecution by the Roman
state. The prominent mention of Antipas is
probably to be explained by his being the earliest
martyr put to death by the Roman state policy ;
and, according to a common principle, the name of
the first is given as in a sense representative of the
whole list. While Pergamum was the capital of
the province, the governor, before whom the trials
would be held, was there more frequently than in
any other city (though of course he made occa-
sional progresses through his province) ; and many
Christians from other cities would be condemned
and would suffer there, so that Pergamum would
be peculiarly associated with the death of the
martyrs from Antipas onwards. There is there-
fore no proof that Antipas belonged to Pergamum,
though he is mentioned as havine suffered there. *

This position of Pergamum as the place οἵ
martyrs did not continue after it ceased to be ‘the
place where the throne of Satan is.’ After the
time of Hadrian, doubtless, the proconsul of Asia
spent much more of his time at Ephesus than at
Pergamum ; and we observe in the earliest Mar-
tyrologies, the old Syrian and the Hieronymian,
that more martyrs are associated with Ephesus,
Smyrna, Laodicea, and Synnada than with Perga-
mum ; for very few names of the Ist cent. martyrs
at Pergamum were preserved.+ The allusion to the
new name given to each Christian, secret, written
on a white stone (Rev 217), is perhaps an allusion to
the custom of taking secret and new baptismal
names: this custom perhaps arose in the stress
of persecution, and was intended to ensure greater
secrecy during the ages when it was dangerous to
be known as a Christian. The secret name is
mentioned only in the letter to Pergamum, the
place of martyrs, and does not occur in the letters
to the other churches. The question also occurs
whether the allusion to writing on a white stone is
made with reference to the writing material manu-
factured at Pergamum and deriving its name from
the city, charta Pergamena or parchment. In the
letter to Philadelphia occurs an allusion to writing :
‘IT will write upon him the name of my God, and
the name of the city of my God’: the difference
between this expression and the secret name
written on-the white stone at Pergamum suggests
that the language is chosen with reference to the
special circumstance of the city: ‘the name is
written, not on your lasting white parchment, but
on an imperishable white tessera’; cf. LAODICEA.
The ‘white stone’ is not an allusion to the white
stone (λευκὸς λίθος), 1.6. marble, so abundant in the
buildings of Pergamum and other great cities : it is
called a ‘ white ψῆφος," a sort of fessera, a small cube
or tablet, on which brief titles or watechwords or
signs were engraved, and which was often employed
for similar purposes to a ticket in modern times.

That there were Jews in Pergamum may be
regarded as certain. In B.c. 139 the Romans
wrote to Attalus 11. in favour of the Jews, which
proves that there were Jews in his dominions (as
1s of course well known from other sources),* and
there is a reasonable certainty that some would

Ῥ. 76; see the inscription in Le Bas-Waddington, No. 1476;
Buchner, de Neocoria, p. 107 f.

* No independent tradition about Antipas has come down to
us : the references to him seem all to depend on Rev 218, The
details of almost all events in the earliest persecutions perished
from the memory of history.

1 See the preceding note.

t Cf. Στράτων Τυράννου "lovdcses at Magnesia Sip., Ath. Mitth
Inst. 1899, p. 239.

PERIDA

PERIZZITE

settle in the capital of the kingdom as the centre
for financial operations. About B.c. 130. the
Pergamenians, now an autonomous state (as we
have seen above), passed a decree (in accordance
with the resolution of the Roman Senate) in favour
of the Jews and the high priest Hyreanus.*
While this decree does not actually” mention
Jewish residents in the city, there would be little
reason for it unless Pergamum were in close re-
lations with the Jews. Under the Romans, Per-
gamum was no longer the commercial centre of the
province, for it lay far from any of the great trade
routes between the East and Rome; and it may
be regarded as probable that the Jewish settlers in
Pergamum would not increase but rather diminish
in numbers. Hence in B.c. 62, when Flaccus,
governor of Asia, confiscated the money which the
Jews of the provinces were on the point of sending
to Jerusalem as their annual contribution, he
seized at Apameia of Phrygia nearly 100 Ibs.
weight of gold,} at Laodicea of Phrygia over 20
Ibs. weight, at Adramyttium an amount which
has been obliterated in the manuscripts, and at
Pergamum a small amount. Adramyttium, as a
seaport, was apparently at that time a more im-
portant Jewish centre than Pergamum. The
inscriptions hitherto discovered in the city never
allude to Jews; but, inasmuch as the Jews used
pure Greek names (even the envoys mentioned
in the Pergamenian decree about 130 have Greek
names, and would be unrecognizable as Jews),
some of the persons alluded to in the inscriptions
may possibly be Jews. On the whole, the failure
of the term ‘Jew’ in the numerous inscriptions
points to the very thorough assimilation of Greek
manners by the Pergamenian Jews, who had thus
become almost undistinguishable from the general
population of the city. It is probable that this
adoption of Greek manners by the Jews in Perga-
mum is the cause of the allusion to Balaam and
the Nicolaitans in Rev 24, Some of them had
become Christians ; and their freedom in following
Greek ways of life, and in complying with idola-
trous usages in society, had begun to have some
effect on the Christian community in the city.

Little is known as to the later history of Chris-
tianity in Pergamum, or as to the fortunes of the
city. It was a bishopric throughout the Byzantine
period, being part of the later and smaller Byzan-
tine Asia, under Ephesus; and it has continued
to be a place of some consequence, preserving the
ancient name Bergama, down to the present day.
Much more light will be thrown on the city when
the splendid and costly excavations conducted for
years at Pergamum by the German Government
are completed and their results fully published.
Up to the present time the volumes (i.) on the
inscriptions (with supplement in Athen. Mittheil.
Inst. 1899), (ii.) on the sanctuary of Athena Polias
Nikephoros, (iv.) on the theatre-terrace, and (v.) on
the temple of Trajan, are the only ones published.

W. M. Ramsay.

PERIDA (x7175, Padovpa). — The eponym of a
family of ‘Solomon’s servants,’ Neh 757. In the
parallel passage, Ezr 2°, the name appears in the
form Peruda (x775; B Φερειδά, A Φαρειδά), and in
1 Es 5° as Pharida (B dapedd, A Φαριδά, Luc.
Padoupd).

PERIZZITE (3757).—The name of one of the
‘peoples’ which were settled in Palestine before and
at the period of the Isr. immigration. When the
writers of the OT would characterize the country
as it was at that period in respect to population,

* Josephus, Ant. xiv. x. 22.

t Reckoned by Th. Reinach, Textes Relatifs au Judaisme,
p. 240, vs 75,000 drachme (equivalent in weight to £3000
sterling) each individual paid two drachme per annum.

they frequently enumerate a list of six ‘peoples, —
the Amorite, the Hittite, the Canaanite, the
Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite (Ex 38 * 17 *
23° * 33?* 341 *, Dt 207*, Jos 9!* 113 128, Je 35),
to which is sometimes added the Girgashite [Dt 7},
Jos 310 244, Neh 98 (where the Hivite is omitted)].
At a later date it is stated that Solomon reduced
to slavery all the people in his kingdom who re-
mained of the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite,
the Hivite, and the Jebusite (1 Καὶ 930 --ὦ Ch 87. A
yet longer list is given (Gn 1520) in which, while
the Hivite is omitted, the Kenite, the Kenizzite,
the Kadmonite, and the Rephaim are added. A
very late tradition, on the other hand, speaks of
the land as originally inhabited only by the
Canaanite, the Perizzite, and the Philistines (2 Es
1"). The Book of Ezra (9!) represents the Perizzite
as still remaining in the country, a snare and
danger to the returned exiles. With all these
writers, however, the Perizzite is nothing but a
shadowy name, accepted by tradition as one of the
tribes in pre-Israelite Palestine.

In contrast with this, three passages (Gn 137 34%,
Jg 1%), all of which come from the South King-
dom historian (J), connect the Perizzites closely
with the Canaanites, and represent them as settled
more particularly in the district about Bethel and
Shechem, When Abraham is parting from Lot at

Jethel, it is added that the Canaanite and the
Perizzite were then in the land; after the scandal
at Shechem, Jacob complains that his sons have
made bin obnoxious to the same two tribes; and,
when Judah marches with Simeon to enter upon
its conquest, those clans have to do battle in the
neighbourhood of Jerus. with these tribes.+

Some have argued from this collocation that
the tribe was one of the aboriginal tribes of
Central and South Palestine, which had been dis-
possessed of its strongholds by the invading Canaan-
ites before Israel appeared upon the scene, and had
been reduced to a peasant condition resembling
that of the Εν. fellahin, dependent on the domi-
nant warlike people (cf. Dillmann on Gn 10";
Riehm, HIV! p. 1193). The fact that the name
does not occur in Gn 10, where the list of the
descendants of Canaan is given, is taken to support
the suggestion ; while the other fact, that in Gn 15”
and Jos 1715 the clan is coupled with the prehistoric
Rephaim, may show what, at the period when
those passages were written, was the opinion
among the Jews. On the other hand, Moore (Comm.
on Judges, at 1°) questions whether they were a
distinct people at all, and were not rather, as the
derivation of the word suggests, a class among the
Canaanites, 7.¢. the inhabitants of unwalled villages,
devoted to agriculture. It is noteworthy that
172 =peérazi is used in Dt 3° 18 618 for such dwellers
in open villages, while nip occurs Ezk 38! Zee 23
for an undefended place. And it is further note-
worthy that in the two former quotations the
LXX translates ‘2 by Φερεζαῖοι (which is its custom-
ary translation of Perizzite), while the later Gr.
translators render it ἀτείχιστοι--- fact which makes
it possible that, at the time when the early tr. was
made, no diflerence of pronunciation yet existed
between the two Hebrew words. It isan old sugges-
tion of Redslob (Alttest. Namen des Isr. Staats, p.
103), that havvdth (whence Hivites) designated the
villages of those who kept cattle, while pérazdth
was employed for villages inhabited by an agri-
cultural class. The question cannot at present be
regarded as settled. A.C. WELCH.

* In the quotations which are marked with an * the LXX (at
Dt 2017 only some MSS) adds the Girgashite to the list of six in
the Heb. text. :

t It is true that the Perizzite is coupled (Jos 1715) with the
Rephaim, and placed somewhere in the district of Mt. Ephraim,
but this clause (which the LXX omits) must be regarded as
either a gloss or a late interpolation.

|

PERJURY

PERSEUS 753

PERJURY.—See OAru.
PERSECUTE, PERSECUTOR.—Persecute (from

Low Lat. persecutare, Lat. persequi) and pursue
(fr. Lat. prosequi, through Old Fr. porseir =pour-
suivre) are now kept distinct, but were formerly
used almost interchangeably. Thus ‘pursue’ has
the mod. meaning of ‘persecute’ in the Homilies,
‘to pray for them that pursue him’; and in AV
‘persecute’ is often equivalent to mod. ‘ pursue,’
as Jer 2018 ©And 1 will persecute them with the
sword? (ca oN cnet, RV ‘And I will pursue after
them’); Wis 11% ‘ Being persecuted of vengeance’
(ὑπὸ τῆς δίκης διωχθέντες, RV ‘Being pursued by
Justice’). Cf. Jos 8! Cov. ‘There remayned not
one man in Hai and Bethel, which wente not out
to folowe upon Israel, and they lefte the cite
stondinge open, that they mighte persecute Israel.’
So Persecutor means pursuer in Neh 9" «And
thon didst divide the sea before them... and
their persecuters thou threwest into the deeps’
(RV ‘their pursuers’); La 419 ‘Our persecutors
are swifter than the eagles of the heaven; they
pursued us upon the mountains’ (RV ‘Our pur-
suers .. . they chased us’). As with the verbs,
so with ‘persecutor’ and ‘ pursuer,’ they are used
in AV with none of the present sharp distinction
between them. J. HASTINGS.

PERSECUTION (verbs διώκω, ἐκδιώκω, subst.
διωγμός, OMYrs),—Our Lord spoke of persecutions
(e.g. Mt5!-!* 10%) to come from both Jews (Mt 234,
Mk 13°, Lk 5155. Jn 15”) and Gentiles (Mt 108, Mk
13°, Lk 21! [ἐπὶ βασιλεῖς καὶ qyeudvas]). The first
attacks came from the Sadducees (Ac 4}: ὁ 517),
while the people were favoural le (Ac 2% 5"), and
the Pharisees moderate (Gamaliel) and sometimes
willing (Ac 23°") to defend Christians on the
doctrine of a resurrection.

Serious persecution began when St. Stephen
alienated the Pharisees and the people by preach-
ing (Ac 018) the transitoriness of the law. His
lawless execution was followed (Ac 8!) by a great
persecution in Jerusalem (Saul strove to extend it
to Damascus), which involved bonds and probably
further executions (Ac 224 264). At all events in
A.D. 44 we find James the brother of John slain
with the sword by Herod Agrippa, and Peter
delivered only by an angel. Henceforth the Jews
were St. Paul’s most active enemies, as at Antioch
in Pisidia (Ac 13*- *°), Tconium and Lystra (143: 19),
Thessalonica (178: 19), Corinth (1813). The growth of
national antagonism is marked by the change in the
description of our Lord’s enemies from the ‘ scribes,’
‘Pharisees,’ and ‘lawyers’ of the Synoptists to the
‘Jews’ of St. John’s Gospel (not Apoc.) and Mt 28”.

The Church was not much troubled by purely
Gentile persecution within the period of the Acts.
The only cases not stirred up by the Jews were
due to trade jealousy at Philippi and Ephesus
(Ac 16. 19). The Roman government protected
Christianity as a Jewish sect, though Hebrew
Christians may have had much violence to suffer
(He 10% 124), The Jews might punish offenders
according to their own law, though not with death
(Jn 181, 2 Co 11™; so in Jos. Ant. Xx. ix. 1 the
younger Ananus is removed from the priesthood
for the murder of James the Lord’s brother in A.D.
02). Pilate (supra) and Gallio (Ac 184) refuse to
hear charges of heterodoxy. The only effectual
plan was to lay a charge of treason or unlawful
worship, and back it up with mob violence. Thus
Pilate crucified our Lord for treason in spite of his
own decision (Ac 3'4), and the pretors at Philippi
scourged Paul and Silas unheard for unlawful
worship (Ac 1675 87) ; but the politarchs of ‘Thessa-
lonica were content to take security from Jason
and others (Ac 17") on a charge of treason, and the

VOL. 111.—48

Ἐπ

recorder at Ephesus warns the crowd (Ac 1955-40)
that a riot against Christians may be punished.
The charge against St. Paul as shaped by Tertullus
(Ac 24°: 6) was a mixed one: ‘ We found him a man
of Belial—this is only preface—(@) a mover of
insurrections among all the Jews throughout the
world, (ὁ) a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,
(6) who also essayed to profane the temple.’ Festus
was puzzled (Ac 25% **); but Agrippa’s decisian
(Ac 26%") must imply that (@) and (6), which were
punishable, were not proved, while (4), which was
avowed, was not punishable. And this would
seem to have been the final sentence at Rome. In
any case, the Pastoral Epp. (except 2 Ti) seem to
imply (1 Ti 61, Tit 2°) that Christians were in no
danger yet of anything worse than slander. Indeed
they were unpopular enough, and needed to walk
warily. Ac 2822 may be diplomatic; but the ex-
pression of Tac. Ann. xv. 44. per flagitia invisos
(before the fire) is confirmed, e.g., by 1P 2” ὡς
κακοποιῶν, and 4417, which seem clearly aimed
at the scandalous charges against them; and
apparently by 2 Ti 2° ὡς κακοῦργος, and repeated
exhortations not to be ashamed.

Roman toleration was thrown away by the
decision of the apostolic conference ; for if Chris-
tians needed not to become Jews by circumcision,
they were not a Jewish sect. Persecution was
certain, as soon as the authorities found this out.
Mob hatred (Tac. supra) and perhaps false brethren
(ζῆλος five times in Clem. v. 6) made the Christians
the scapegoats Nero needed after the fire at Rome
in July 64. Three books of NT bear the marks of
the Neronian persecution. In 2 Ti 4° St. Paul is
already being offered, and in 3'? he expects per-
secution for all that will live a godly Christian
life; the terror of the persecution pervades his
letter as in 4156, 1 P—may be some years later—
comforts the Christians from Asia to Pontus in
their fiery trial (4°, and constant exhortations
to patience). In the Apocalypse St. John is in
Patmos (relegated) and persecution is ramy.ant in
Asia, with (25) patience at Ephesus (910), tribula-
tion at Smyrna (2), and Antipas a martyr at
Pergamum. The saints are slain (6°), and that
with the axe (204), and Rome is drunk with their
blood (16° 176 18*4 19°) ; and the abiding impression
of the scene is shown by St. John’s detiance of the
world in his First Epistle, as 2! 5% St. Paul’s
martyrdom is implied in 2 Ti throughout, St.
Peter’s by Jn 2119 and by 2 P 1'4 (good evidence,
whether genuine or not), but the only other
martyr named is Antipas (supra).

See, further, art. NERO; and, for the persecn-
tion of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes, art.
MACCABEES. H. M. GwaArkIN.

PERSEPOLIS (IHepoéro\s).— The capital of Persia
proper, the temples of which Antiochus Epiphanes
attempted to destroy (2 Mac 95. The city itself
and the royal palace had already been burned to
the ground by Alexander the Great. The ruins
of its two palaces, the one built by Darius Hystas-
vis, the other by Xerxes, still exist at Chehl
Minar, ‘the Forty Columns,’ near Istakhr. The
city seems to have lain at the foot of the rock
on which they stand. [Ker Porter, Travels. i.
p. 576; Curzon, Persia and the Persian Questioii,
1892. ] A. H. SAYCE,

PERSEUS (lIlepoevs).—Among the achievements
of the Romans narrated to Judas Maccabeus was
the conquest of Perseus, king of Chittim (1 Mac 8°).
Chittim, properly denoting Cyprus, was applied
more widely to the islands and coasts of Greece,
and here (as in 1 Mace 1!) is used of Macedonia.
The person here referred to is the son of Philip v.,
and the last king of Macedonia. Perseus came to

754 PERSEVERANCE

PERSIANS

the throne in B.C. 179. The Romans declared war
upon him in 171, and three years later he was com-
pletely defeated by Q. Aemilius Paullus at Pydna
(B.C. 108). Shortly afterwards he surrendered to
his conquerors, and was taken as a captive to
tome, but through the influence of Paullus he
was permitted to live in retirement at Alba.
H. A. WHITE.

PERSEVERANCE.— This subject resolves itself
into two branches, viz. (a) the doctrine that God’s
power intervenes to preserve believers in a state
of grace to the end, and (4) the virdue of persever-
ance, Which is exhibited on the human side in
fighting the fight of faith, and running the Chris-
tian race for righteousness till death.

(a) As in general, so in regard to this matter, |

Scripture is practical and hortatory, uttering the

language of faith in reference to particular indi-—

viduals or groups, and looking to their concrete |

situations. It refrains from putting the general
questions which wereafterwards suggested to specn-
lative theology, and from drawing the universal

theoretical conclusions which theology formulated. |

Or the doctrine given forth by the Scripture

writers extends no further than the immediate |
the first.

practical needs of faith require. In respect to
perseverance, believers, according to the NT, are
not alone and unaided in their faith and religious
life, but obtain God’s effectual support. They are
not merely assisted by the works and order of
nature and the laws of morality, which God has
appointed once for all for their edification and
guidance. There is, besides, the present spiritual
power of God acting in and upon them (Mt 102°,
Jn 14:68. 1 Co 3 ete.). And as often as faith
realizes vividly that this power is almighty as
well as wise and good, that God and not man rules
upon the earth, it gains the firm conviction that
(rod will succeed in His designs in spite of every
adverse agency, and that He will not allow His
purposes of grace to be frustrated even by the
conceivable wilfulness of believers themselves
(Jn. 108, Ro 831-8, Ph 16, 2Ti 122). Thatthelatter
remain free is always understood ; God deals with
men as with sons—-they are treated as moral and
responsible (Ph 5156). But the abstract question
of the relation of human freedom to unfailing
perseverance is neither solved nor proposed.
Further, believers even continue to sin, and in

them especially all sin is dangerous—in one |
view increasingly so, as more is ever required of

them (Lk 12%).
attainment, above which there is safety, is hidden
in all particular cases, just as one on the edve of a
precipice knows the exact line between the posi-
tions of safety and ruin only when he begins to
fall, or by paying for the knowledge with his life.
In either kind of situation, ignorance, not know-
ledge,—here too nearly related to hurtful curiosity
and leading to overweening confidence, —is the
stimulus to men to turn their faces in the right
way and persevere in it (1 Co 957, Ph 3136), This
divinely appointed arrangement, together with the
faith that God will at all hazards bring His pur-
poses to pass, and that His absolute power is put
torth for the believer's support, most effectually
guarantees perseverance in the latter. Along
with Divine, ¢7.¢. the greatest, comfort (see the
foregoing references) God administers the helps
of warning and wholesome fear (He 64% 1026,
Q P Q1.),

(4) The virtue of perseverance is rendered in-
eumbent by the fact that God works together with
men for the restoration of the latter to the ful-
ness Of Christ’s holiness. They have therefore a
lifelong work and duty, and scope for the most
strenuous endeavour, in putting on Christ. The
Spirit is the Teacher of the whole truth of Christ,

For their good the precise level of |

and is a Divine Comforter (Jn 1430 16-). Because
the source of help and the object aimed at are
alike divinely pertect, man is called to an endless
advance in respect to his spiritual life and moral
character (2 Co 33). The consideration of the
great cloud of witnesses who, amid sorest hard-
ships, persevered in faith and integrity, should

_constrain us also to pursue the Christian course

without intermission. Especially should the recol-
lection of Christ’s endurance banish the sense of
weariness and faintness (He 12!). The inspiring
motives of love and hope come to the support of
the sense of duty as bearing on perseverance. We
are now the sons of God, greatly beloved by Him,
and are designed for the highest things, even
complete likeness to Christ. Both because of our
present standing and the hope of what we shall be,
we should strive to be pure as Christ was pure (He
12°75) 1 Jn 3'3), Again, what alternative is there
to Christian perseverance which would be prefer-
able? At best, there is only a return to the
position of those who are under the law, i.e. who
are in bondage and under a curse (Gal 8. δ). Or
if one throws off all restraint and goes headlong
into sin, the last state of the man is worse than
He has sinned against light, and is
without excuse (He 64" ete.).

The line to be followed with perseverance leads,
therefore, from the law to Christ, and from obedi-
ence to love. There is ἃ common goal for all
Christians, but the means to be used for the
attainment of it are peculiar to the several
individuals. All have to win Christ, and to
grow into His perfect image (Ro 8”, 2 Co 318);
all have to seek that love which is the fulfilling of
the law (Ro 138: 10 ete.), and which is the greatest
of the graces, without which, indeed, all other
attainments are as nothing (1 Co 13). But for this
end each has to run the race specially prescribed
for him (He 191), to fight his personal battle
against the temptations which are felt to be
such (Mk 9"); to be transformed by the re-
newing of his mind, so as to prove what is tne
good and acceptable and perfect will of God (Ro
12°); to attend to his distinctive calling in the
world, applying the particular gifts and grace
bestowed upon him while acting with others as
those who, being many, are one body in Christ,
and every one members one of another (Ro 12#-),
In such lines of activity the Christian perseveres
to the end. He will not be weary in well-doing
(Gal 6°), having comfort from fighting a good
fight, and exulting with hope as he anticipates
a complete victory, having the earnest of the
Spirit now (2 Co 5°), and the promise of eternal
salvation and a crown of life (Rev 219),

G. FERRIES.

PERSIA (078, Hepois, Persis).—Persia proper, the
modern Fars, lay on the E. side of the Persian
Gulf, and was bounded on the N. by Media, on
the S. by the Persian Gulf, on the W. by Elam,
and on the E. by Karmania (now Kerman). Its
earlier capital Pasargada was afterwards super-
seded by Persepolis. After the conquests of Cyrus

and the establishment of the rule of Darius

Hystaspis, Persia came to be synonymous with
the Persian empire, which extended from the
Mediterranean to India. It is in this sense that
the name Ilépoa is used in such passages as Est 1°,
In Ezk 38° the reading seems to be corrupt, since
Persia, in the time of Ezekiel, had nothing to do
with the northern nations on the one hand, or
with Ethiopia on the other. See, further, art.
PERSIANS. A. H. SAYCE.

PERSIAN RELIGION.—See ZOROASTRIANISM.
PERSIANS (Ὁ, Πέρσαι, Perse ; in old Persian

4

PERSIC VERSIONS

PESTILENCE 755

Parsa).—The Persians were Aryans, speaking a
language closely allied to Sanskrit, and were thus
kinsmen of the Medes. They boasted of their
admiration of the truth, but the ‘lie,’ which is
repré bated by Darius Hystaspis in his inscriptions,
seems chiefly to mean revolt against himself.
They wore a tunic and trousers, cap, shoes, and
upper robe, practised polygamy, and were ex-
ceedingly intemperate in drinking. They were
followers of Zoroaster (see ZOROASTRIANISM), and
believed in a supreme god of good called Ahura-
mazda (Ormazd), against whom there was ranged
a spirit or principle of evil. By the side of Ahura-
mazda were a number of inferior deities, chief
among whom was the sun-god Mithra. According
to Herodotus (i. 125) they were divided into 10
tribes, of which 3 were noble, 3 agricultural, and
4 nomadic. One of the nomadic was the tribe of
the Dahi, supposed to be the Dehavites of Ezr 4°.
The royal clan of the Achzmenides belonged to
the noble tribe of Pasargada.

In the time of Sennacherib the Persians were
already settled in Parsuas or Persia, and sent help

to the king of Elan against the Assyrians. This
Parsuas must be distinguished from another

northern Parsuas or Barsuas, on the shores of
Lake Uruniyeh, with which the Parthians have
been connected by some scholars. The first
Persian leader known to us was Hakhamanish or
Achemenes. His son Chaishpish or Teispes
(Teuspa in Assyrian) conquered Anzan in Elam in
the closing days of the Assyr.empire. His daughter
Atossa is said to have married Pharnakes, king of
Cappadocia (Diod. ap. Phot. Bibliot. yp. 1158).
After the death of Teispes his kingdom seems
to have been divided—Ariaramna (Ariaramnes),
Arshama (Arsammes), and Vishtaspa (Hystaspes)
ruling in Persia, while Cyrus τ, (Kuras), Cambyses I.
(Kambuziya), and Cyrus 11. ruled in Anzan. Cyrus
Ir. conquered Astyages of Ecbatana, his suzerain,
in B.C. 549 and the Bab. empire in 538. The rest
of W. Asia fell before his arms, and when he died
his empire extended from Lydia in the west to the
borders of India in the east. His son Cambyses ΤΙ.
(B.C. 529-521) added Egypt to his dominions.
Then came the usurpation of the pseudo-Smerdis,
CGaumata (Gomates), for 7 months, followed by
his murder and the accession of Darius, the son of
Hystaspes, who slowly won back the provinces of
the empire which had revolted under various pre-
tenders, and who may be regarded as the real
founder of the Persian empire. In B.C. 486 Darius
was succeeded by his son Xerxes, the Ahasuerus
of the OT, who vainly tried to conquer Greece ;
then came Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 466-425),
Xerxes Π. for 2 months, Sogdianos his half-
brother for 7 months, and Darius Π. Nothos (B.C.
424-405). The last four kings were Artaxerxes
Mnemon, who sueceeded his father Darius IL,
B.C. 405, and against whom his brother Cyrus the
younger revolted in B.c. 401; Artaxerxes Ochus,
called Uvasu in the cuneiform texts, B.C. 362; his
son Arses, B.C. 339; and Darius 11. Codomannus,
B.C. 336 (see Neh 12%), who was conquered by
Alexander the Great, B.C. 333. A. H. SAYCE.

PERSIC YERSIONS.

PERSIS (Ilepcis). — The name of a Christian
saluted by St. Paul in Ro 16", and described as
‘the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the
Lord.’ The name appears as that of a freedwoman
(CIL vi. 23,959), but does not occur eared
among the inscriptions of the imperial house-
hold. A. C. HEADLAM.

PERSON OF CHRIST.— See CurisroLocy, IN-
CARNATION, and JESUS CHRIST.

See VERSIONS.

PERSUADE.—To persuade in AV is not always
to ‘convince,’ sometimes only to ‘argue with,’ ‘try
to persuade,’ as may be seen from 1 K 22% ‘Thou
shalt persuade him, and prevail also’ (RV ‘Thou
shalt entice him’), and Gal 1!° * Do 1 now persuade
men, or God?’ See also Ae 198 ‘Disputing and
persuading the things concerning the kingdom of
God,’ and 28” ‘persuading them concerning Jesus.’
Neither the Heb. nor the Gr. words so tr. have
the full foree of ‘persuade’ in) mod. English.
That foree is, however, contained in the verb
πληροφορεῖν, Which is twice (Ro 44! 14°) rendered
‘fully persuade.’ For the Eng. word cf. Knox,
Hist. 149, ‘The Earle of Argyle and Lord James
did earnestly perswade the agreement, to the
which all men were willing: but some did smell
the craft of the adversary’; and Fuller, Pisgah
Sight, v. iv. 2, ‘Should these quotations be
severally examined, many would be found rather
to perswade than prove, rather to intimate than
perswade the matter in hand.’

The old adj. persuasible is found in 1 Co 2*™
for text ‘enticing,’ Gr. πειθός (WH πιθός), RV ‘ per-
suasive.’ The term. -74e is properly passive, but was
often treated as active: so -awe, which is properly
active, is often passive, as Shaks. As You Like It,
rt. ii. 10, ‘The fair, the chaste and unexpressive
she.’ ‘ Persuasible’ here is the Rhemish word.

Persuasions, meaning ‘efforts to persuade,’
occurs in 1 Es 5% (συστάσεις). Cf. Tindale, Laxposi-
tions, p. 73, ‘When they could not drive the
people from him with these persuasions, they
accused him to Pilate.’ In Gal 5° (rewworyj) ‘ per-
suasion’ is usually taken to be passive, that which
the false teachers have persuaded.

J. HASTINGS.

PERUDA.—See PERIDA.
PESHITTA.
PESTILENCE (122 deber).—A general term used

for fatal sickness sent as a Divine judgment, but
apparently not employed as the name of ἃ spe-
cific disease. It occurs 28 times in Jeremiah and
Ezekiel; in all but one instance (Jer 21") coupled
with other calamities, usually famine and sword,
or evil beasts. It is employed in Ex 5° 9%, Ly 26%,
Nu 14, Dt 287! in the same sense, as also in
Solomon’s dedication prayer (1 Κα 8%, 2 Ch 6%), in
response to which God promised to hear and answer
prayers for the removal of His judgments if offered
with repentance in the place in which His name
was worshipped (see 2 Ch 7! 905). 10 is used for
the epidemic which followed David’s numbering
the people, 28 2415 (| 1 Ch 214), here being a
synonym of ‘plague.’ Habakkuk speaks of pesti-
lence as preceding the march of God when He visits
the earth in judgment (3°), and in Am 4!" it is used for
the plagues, or diseases, of Egypt. The pestilences
from which God’s people are protected are called
‘noisome’ and ‘walking in darkness’ (Ps 91°),

Deber is the word which is translated ‘murrain
in the Egyptian plague (Ex 9°) ; and probably itis
in this sense that the word is used in Ps 78, where
the context favours the marginal reading * gave
their beasts to the murrain,’ rather than that of
the text ‘gave their life to the pestilence.’

In NT ‘ pestilences’ occurs twice in AV as the
tr. of λοιμοί in the parallel passaves Mt 247, Lk 214,
in both of which it is coupled with ‘famine.’ This
paromoiosis of λιμοὶ καὶ λοιμοί is used by classical
authors as in Hesiod, Op. ef Di. 1. 241 (a line which
may be an ancient interpolation, as Aischines
omits it in Ctes/ph. 137); also in Herodotus, vii.
17], vill. 115; Plutarch, Coriol. xiii. ; Clement of
Alexandria quotes this phrase as it occurs in the
Sibylline verses, See Wakefield, Silva Critica, v.
39; Field, ad loc. The fulfilment of the prophecy

See SYRIAC VERSIONS.

756 PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

is recorded in Jos. BJ vi. ix. 8. RV (following
Lach., Treg., WH) omits ‘ pestilence’ in Mt. See,
further, MEDICINE, p. 324. A, MACALISTER.

PETER (SIMON).—

I. History oF St. PETER TILL THE ASCENSION.

1. Names of St. Peter.

2. Family, home, education.

3. The call of Christ to (i.) friendship; (ii.) disciple-
ship; (ili.) apostleship.

4. St. Peter as the Lord’s companion (the Confession
and the Promise).

5. The week before the Passion.

6. The Resurrection,

11. History or Sr. PETER AFTER THE ASCENSION, IN THE NT.

1. The Church at Jerusalem (Ac 11-8!),

2. The Church of Palestine (Ae 8l-

3. The Church of the world (Ac 982 and onwards, with
other notices in NT),

ἃ, Theology of St. Peter’s speeches in the Acts.

11. St. Perer iN CuristiAN TRADITION.
1. St. Peter's early life.

2. St. Peter in connexion with the Syrian Antioch.

3. St. Peter in connexion with Asia Minor (Pontus,
etc.).

4. St. Peter in connexion with Babylon.

8. St. Peter in connexion with Rome.

6. Chronological notices in (i.) the Chronicon of Euse-
bius ; Gi.) the Liber Pontificalis.

7. The burial-places of St. Peter, and memorial days.

8. The ‘Acts of Peter’ (Gnostic, Catholic). The Quo
vadis legend.

9. The Clementine literature.

10. Non-canonical writings bearing St. Peter’s name:
(i.) the Gospel; (ii.) the Preaching; (iii.) the
Apocalypse ; (iv.) the Judgment; (v.) the Letter
to James.

IV. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LATER History or St. PETER.
4. St. Peter's visit to Rome, and martyrdom there.

2. The Simonian legend.

3. The period between the ‘Council’ at Jerusalem and
St. Peter’s arrival at Rome.

I. Hisrory ΟΕ ST. PETER TILL THE ASCEN-
SION.—1. Names.—The apostle bears the names
Συμεών or Σίμων, Ἰζηφᾶς or Ilérpos; sometimes the
names are combined—Ziuev Ilérpos. (a) Συμεών,
Σίμων. When the Jews were brought into con-
nexion with Greek life, for the eld Hebrew name
of the patriarch (Gn 29%") — py, Συμεών (LXX)—
the true Greek name Σίμων was frequently sub-
stituted (Sir 50'), In 1 Mae the ancestor of the
Maccabees is Συμεών (2), of. Jos. Ant. XII. vi. 1);
Simon Macc. himself is once called Συμεών (2%),
Συμεών is found in Jos. BJ τν. ili. 9, and in the NT
(of persons other than the apostle) Lk 2", Ae
181, Σίμων is often transliterated into Aramaic
as ᾿2 (see Dalman, Die Worte Jesu p. 41, Gram.
Aram. p. 143; ef. Deissmann, Bibelstudien p. 184;
it should, however, be noticed, that in the Syriac

versions of the NT the old form ἧσο» alone is

used), The apostle then bore the Hebrew naine
Symeon, but was much more often (see below)
called by the Greek name Simon, which had be-
come its common equivalent. (4) Kydas, Πέτρος.
The plural of the Hebrew substantive (o22=
‘rocks’) is found in Job 308, Jer 42° (LXX πέτραι
in both passages). ‘In the Targums (Buxtorf,
Lexicon Chaldaivum 1082) [the word] occurs as
AB, x23, for a rock or a stone (e.g. gems, hail-
stones, thunderbolts), or a shore. The same senses
recur in the Talmud and Midrashim (Levy-
Fleischer, Neuheh. uw. Chald. Worterb. ii. 916.
where the word has also the meaning “ring”;
apparently the sense ‘“reck” is rare’ (Hort, First
Lip. of St. Peter p. 159), There seems to be no
evidence that the word was in any other case used
as a name; it has no connexion with the name
Caiaphas (Nestle in Kapos. Times x. Pusu 85).
Similarly, with regard to the Greek equivalent
llérpos, there is little or no evidence of its oceurrence
as a proper name. Keim (History of Jesus of
Nazara iv. p. 265, Eng. tr.) refers to Jos. Ant.
XVII. vi. 3, where a freedman of Berenice, mother
of Agrippa 1., is in some texts named Πέτρος ; but

-

according to ἃ better supported reading the name
is I[p@ros (see Niese). From Rabbinic literature a
very few instances of the occurrence of the name
Peter are adduced (see Edersheim, Life and Times
of Jesus the Messiuh i. p. 475n.; Dalman, Gram.
«lvam. p. 147).

The usage of NT.—(a) Συμεών. In 2 Ρ 11 the reading Συμεὼν
Πέτρος (RAKLP and the mass of MSS) is perhaps better sup-
ported than its rival Σιὼν 11. (B curs. cir. 20, verss, pler.), and
certainly, as a combination which occurs nowhere else in the
NT, it is not likely to be due to copyists. In one passage
ot the NT the name stands above suspicion. St. James begins
his speech in Ac 1514 with the words "Aster ἀδελφοί, ἀκούσατέ
μου. Συμεὼν ἐξηγήσατο x.7.A. Here the Hebrew name Συμεών
completely harmonizes with the intentional antiqueness of the
opening appeal (cf. e.g. 2Ch 2020281), (ὦ) The Greek Σίμων
(apart from the combination Σ. 11: προς) is not found in the
narrative of the Gospels after the apostle’s call except in
connexion with the lists of the apostles (Mt 418102, Mk 116. 290. 36
316, Lk 433 53 10 614, Jn 141), On the other hand, Simon is the
name by which our Lord addresses him (Mt 1729, Mk 1487, Lk 2251,
and, with his father’s name added, Mt 16!7, Jn 142 211518), the
exceptions (see below) being Mt 16!8, Lk 2284; and by which
the apostles are introduced as speaking of him (Lk 2494; but
see Mk 101), Thus it would scem that during the months of
discipleship the apostle was still commonly known by_ his
name Simon; and this was the case even in much later days
among those who, being outside the Church, could not under-
stand the strange ΠΕτρος as in itself a sutticient designation
(Ac 105-18. 32 1113), (ὦ After St. Peter had taken his place
as leader in the earliest stages of the Church's history, that
name—K~r¢aes, Uitges—which his Master had given him as pro-
phetic of his special functions, superseded, at least in Chris-
tian circles, his original name Simon. So late as the time when
St. Paul wrote to the Galatians and to the Corinthians, the
great Apostle of the Circumcision was recognized among distant
Gentile Churches under his Aramaic name Cephas (Gal 118 29. 11.
14,* 1 Co 112 822 99 155)—a fact which sugeests that at Jeru-
salem, where St. Paul first knew him, and whence emissaries
came to Corinth and to the Churches of Galatia, the name

Jephas at least most frequently was used. At the same time,

at any rate in Galatia, the Greek equivalent ΤΠ πρὸς was not
unknown (Gal 271), Αὐ all events, before the time when 1 Peter,
the Synoptic Gospels, and the Acts were written, the Greek
name ΠΠέτρος was that one by which the apostle was known
throughout the Christian Church. As to details, the name
Il:z0s predominates in the Synoptic Gospels (narrativey—Mt
19 times, Mk 18 times, Lk 16 times; it is common in Jn (15
times); it is exclusively used in the narrative of the Acts,
51 times. As to the use of Πέτρος in speeches in place of the
usual Σίμων (see above)—in Mk 167 the evangelist extends his own
usage into his report of the angel’s message ; in Lk 2234 Tlispe
seems designedly used to bring out the tragic contrast
between the typical position of the apostle and his destined
failure ; in Ac 1018 117 (the voice from heaven), though it my
at first sight seem simplest to suppose that the name was used by
which he was then commonly known, yet it must be remembered
that this first opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles was
one of the occasions in view of which our Lord gave him the
name Peter. (ὦ) The combination Σέμων [Π’τρος never occurs in
Mk. It is found once in Mt (1010), once in Lk (58)—both passages
recording a turning-point of the apostle’s life; in St. John it is
used no fewer than 17 times; it is at least a well-supported
variant in 2P 11, The combination then appears to be one
which naturally suggested itself to two evangelists in con-
nexion with two events closely bearing on St. Peter's life-work,
and which, partly perhaps as uniting current Christian usage
with a distant past, was a favourite with St. John. In one part
of the Church, as might have been expected, the name Cephas
survived. In the Syriac versions of the Gospels and of the
Acts the common name for the apostle is Simon Cephas.

2. Family, home, education.—(a) The name of
the apostle’s father appears as Ιωνᾶς in Mt 107, as
᾿Τωάνης in Jn 1421-217, Tt is generally supposed
that ᾿Ιωνᾶς is a contraction of ᾿Ιωάνης. It is, how-
ever, possible that we have here an instance of a
double name, Jona-Jochanan or Jonas- Johannes,
see art. JOHN (FATHER OF SIMON PETER). (6) The
brother of Simon Peter, like his fellow-townsman
Philip, bears a true Greek name—Avdpéas. It is,
perhaps, to be noticed that Andrew, with Philip,
appears In connexion with certain “E\Anves (the
word may mean Gentiles, or, in the stricter sense,
Greeks) in Jn 12%, Jt is certainly significant
that both brothers were known by Greek names.
(5) That the apostle was married in the earliest
days of the gospel history appears from Mt 8",
Mk 1%, Lk 4°, His wife in later years was the
companion of his missionary journeys (1 Co 9°).

*In each of the four passages in Gal the name Peter is
substituted by some inferior authorities.

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 757

(4) The Syroptists clearly place ‘the house of
Simon’ (in which it appears that his wife, his
brother, and his mother-in-law lived) at Capernaum
(Mt 8514, Mk 121-4, Lk 431-38), With this state-
ment that of St John (1 ἣν δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος ἀπὸ
Βηθσαιδά, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως Avdpéou καὶ Πέτρου) is often
thought to be at variance. We may, however,
suppose that the brothers originally came from
Bethsaida, but were now living at Capernaum (so
Swete on Mk 1!®),

It may be questioned, however, whether St. John does not
intend to distinguish Bethsaida from ‘the city of Andrew and
Peter,’ the former being the present home (ἀπό; so 1221), the
latter the birthplace (2), of Philip. A similar question arises as
to Jn 11] Λαζαρος ἀπὸ Βυθανίας ἐκ τῆς κώμης Μαρίας κ. Μαρίας.
Here it is to be noticed that (1) if the κώμη was Bethany, there
seems to be little reason why it should be mentioned at all;
(2) Lk 10°38 savs that the κώμη Where Mary and Martha lived w as
visited by our Lord ‘as they were journeying’ (ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθοιι
αὐτού:), a notice which appears to distinguish it from Bethany.
According to this view Lazarus lived at Bethany (cf. Jn 1: vl),
but was a native of the village where his sisters lived, at some
distance from Jerusalem, St. John, it may be added, is fond
of using ἐκ and ἀπό side by side; but a study of the passages
where they so stand shows that each preposition retains its
proper meaning —see Jn 11:06. 683.38. 41 717. 416. 1625.30 (cf,
Rev 212).

(6) St. Peter is described as ‘a fisherman’ in Mt
a5 |) Mik 116 (cf. Lk δ5), and the same thing is im-
‘ah in Jn 21°, He owned ‘a boat’ (Lk 5°), which
16 worked with his brother. The sons of Zebedee
were his partners (Lk 5); and thus the four
apostles were friends before—probably long before
—they followed Jesus. It is not necessary to draw
out at leneth the traits—vigour, courage, resource-
fulness—which the life of a fisherman on the lake
would necessarily develop in a naturally healthy
character. It is more important to ask what was
the apostle’s relation to the culture of his time
ana country. Probably the traditional view of
him as a rough, uneducated peasant is a consider-
able exaggeration of one side of the truth. Hewas,
of course, without such a formal training as fell to
the lot of St. Paul. But, on the other hand, the
influence of a religious home and of the synagogue
must have had a foremost place in forming ‘the
apostle. A significant phrase of St. Andrew's (Jn
1?') suggests that both brothers had felt the spell
of the Messianic hope. In these early days St.
Peter must have gained his close knowledge of the
OT, and it is very far from improbable that he was
acquainted with the LXX (see art. on 1 PETER). It
has béen already pointed out as a significant fact
that the apostle, like his brother, was commonly
known by a Greek name. His home was on the
thickly populated shore of the lake, where trade
brought together representatives of many nation-
alities, and where (to say the least) Greek must
have been to some extent a medium of communi-
cation (see e.g. T. K. Abbott, Hssays p. 1291f. ;
Zahn, Hind. i. p. 28f.). But whatever Greek St.
Peter learned in Galilee must have been rather of
a conversational than of a literary kind; it was
nevertheless an important foundation. Two, and
(as it would seem) only two, notices are preserved
in the Gospels and Acts bearing on this subject :
(1) St. Peter was recognized in Jerusalem as a
Galilean by the accent and perhaps the idiom of
his Aramaic (see Swete’s note on Mk 14” with
references). (2) The members of the Sanhedrin
regarded St. Peter and his companion St. John as,
from their point of view, illiterate men (Ac 45).

The words are καταλαβόμενοι ὅτι ἄνθρωτοι ἀγρά μματοί εἰσιν καὶ
ἰδιῶτο. The term ἀγράμματος looks back to the facts of ἃ man’s
past early life. Toa Greek it meant one who was an ἄμουσος (0.6.
Plato, Zim. 23 R), one who has had no part in either side of Greek
education : to « Jew it meant one who had had no training in
the Rabbinic study of Scripture (cf. Jn 115). The term ἰδιώτης
rather regarded a man’s present position. With a Greek it was
the antithesis to πολιτικός; in the mouth of a Jew (who trans-
literated it p17) it expressed the contrast between the man who
could understand and take part in religion as conceived of by

|

the scribes and one of the ὄχλος (Jn 749), an ‘am had-'arez (see
especially Weber, Die Lehrendes Talmud, § 11, ‘ Der esoterische
Character der jud. Neligiositat’). Compare the saying of the
Fathers : ‘ No boor is a sin-fearer, nor is the vulgar (ain hd-'arez)
pious’ (Pirge Aboth, ed. Taylor, p. 30). Thus the words are
strictly relative to the point of view of the high priests. They
were probably (see below) specially called forth by the apostle’s
boldness in expounding a passage of Scripture in the presence of,
and in application to, the rulers.

3. The calls of St. Peter.—(i.) The apostle’s first
meeting with the Lord, and the call to friendship.—
The history is recorded only in St. John (1%),
Andrew and John (for he fe arly is the unnamed
actor in the scene)—one of each of the two pairs of
brothers who together were in partnership—are
expressly spoken of as belonging to the number
(ἐκ) of the Baptist’s disciples (vv. %). Since St.
Peter and, as the language (πρῶτον, τὸν ἴδιον, v.*)
seems to imply, St. James were close at hand, it is
a natural inference that St. Peter had become a
disciple of the Baptist, and through the gate of
this discipleship passed into friendship with Jesus
of Nazareth. [Ὁ is more than probable, then, that
St. Peter had been a witness ΟἹ the Lord's baptism
(Ac 1” 105, On this day — which Edersheim
(i. p. 3441.) gives some reason for supposing to
have been a Sabbath—after Andrew had heard the
Baptist’s witness (v.°°") and had followed Jesus, he
went in quest of Simon, and, telling him that he
had found the Messiah, brought him to Jesus.
Jesus fixes upon him that piercing, scrutinizing
gaze (ἐμβλέψας) which was to rest upon him at a
later crisis of his life (Lk 22"'), and greets him—it
does not appear from the narrative whether Jesus
had known Simon before or not (cf. ν. 8). Σὺ εἶ
Σίμων ὁ vids ᾿Ιωάνου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Kypas (for the use of
the patronymic on solemn occasions cf. Mt 16%,
Jn 218), Thus the Lord receives him as being
just what he was in himself, as the product and
heir of a past over which he had had no control, as
destined to a peculiar oflice. In the last clause the
Lord does not bestow a new name (see Mt 1638) ;
He rather reveals a character which lie already
claims for future service. As yet no permanent
bond united Jesus and the men whom He had
gathered round Him. For, after being His com-
panions in His journey to Galilee and again in
His visit to Jerusalem at the Passover, St. Peter
and the rest resumed, as they did on a much
later occasion (Jn 21), their work as fishermen.

(ii.) Zhe call to discipleship.—This call must be
placed some time after, as the earlier call some
time before, the first Passover of the ministry. [Ὁ
is not possible to decide what is the precise relation
of the history of the call as related in Mt 418-22
Mk 178° (clearly based on a common source) to
that given in Lk ὅς The essential points com-
mon to the two accounts are that Jesus calls St.
Peter while he is at work (see Plummer on Lk 51:1),
that he makes the apostle’s present work a parable
of his future work, and that the apostle’s obedience
is immediate. As to points of difference, Mt and
Mk record the Lord’s summons δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου; Lk
puts the call in another setting —a miracle of
blessing leads up to the act of A ANE

It is possible that Mt and Mk on the one hand, and en the
other Lk, give the history of ‘two occasions—one when the
apostle followed the Lord ‘then and there, but did not finally
leave his occupation; the other when the decisive step of
renunciation was taken. In support of this view it may be
urged (1) that the two narratives seriously differ ; (2) that the
Lord certainly did repeat on a later occasion the call ἀκολούθει
ot, When added experiences would interpret its deeper mean-
ing (Jn 2119.22), But it is much more probable that Mt and Mk
follow a document or a tradition which brought together in a
summarized narrative the calling of the four chief apostles, and
that thus the story of St. Peter's call is the same as that which
Lk, on the strength of fuller information (cf. 416), narrates in
detail. Jn either case, it is important to notice the vividness of
Lk’s narrative as itself a witness to its truthfulness—especially
the two sayings of St. Peter: (a) v.® (cf. Jn 25); (ὁ) v.8 ἔξελθε
z.7.2. (an undesigned contrast to Jn 68, and an impulsive cry
which has parallels in St. Peter’s later history).

758

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

In close connexion with this call (assuming that
there was but one) to discipleship, on a Sabbath
either just before it (Lk 4595) or just after it (Mk
151.39) Ὁ we must place the miracle which the Lord
wrought in His disciple’s home—the healing of
Peter's mother-in-law. From the phrase διηκόνει
αὐτῷ (αὐτοῖς) in each of the three accounts we may
infer that our Lord ate there that day; and it is
likely enough that the disciple’s home was ‘the
house? where He regularly stayed when at Caper-
naum (Mt 1774f, Mk 9),

(111.) The eall to apostleship. —Tf the eall to
discipleship must have been somewhat later than
the first Passover of the ministry (Jn 2%), the call
to apostleship must be placed somewhat earlier
than the (presumably) second Passover (see Mk
Gm In ὁπ). The interval therefore separating
the twe calls cannot have been much more than six

months. The history is given in Mt 10", Mk 3'#.,
Lk οὐαὶ The details must be passed over here.

It must suflice to note that the Twelve were chosen
from the whole body, and that the Lord’s choice
constituted them (1) in an especial sense His com-
panions—iva ὦσιν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Mk 3'4; cf. Lk 22-5, Jn
15%) ; (2) His envoys, when the occasion came, to
{srael, with authority to preach and heal. The
primary place in our Lord’s purpose was their
education for future work. The lists of the Twelve
given by the Synoptists vary in many ways, but
In_each of them St. Peter holds the first place
(Mt πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος 11. ; cf. Jn 915. Ἀ 4.115];
Some time after this selection had been made, the
Lord sent out the Twelve to execute their double
office as heralds of the kingdom and healers of the
sick, two by two, marking as the scope of their
mission ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mt
108) Mk 67", Lk 9°68; it is clear that Matthew
places the mission immediately after the appoint-
ment of the Twelve from a characteristic desire to
bring together the notices of the selection, the
Instruction, and the dismissal of the Twelve). As
to the use of the name ἀπόστολος in reference to
the Twelve in the Gospels (except Lk 175 224 941)
only in connexion with this mission, see Hort,
Lecelesia, Ῥ. 29 Ἢ;

We cannot but ask, Who was St. Peter’s companion? The
answer is almost certainly St. John. For (1) the Lord sent
them together on a peculiarly solemn commission at a later
time, Lk 225; (2) they appear as companions in the gospel
history, Jn 1515. 203i, and in the apostolic history, Ac 31-419
314 (mission to Samaria), Gal 29; (3) they were closely associated
in the upper room (Jn 1:26). and on the oceasion of the Lord’s
appearance by the Lake (Jn 2120), and together formed part of
an inner circle of the apostles in Jairus’ house (Mk 527), on the
Mt. of Transfiguration (Mk 92), on the Mt. of Olives (Mk 13°), in
Gethsemane (Mk 143); and in this connexion the order in Lk
851 928 ΑΠἸΠΕτρὸν καὶ ᾿Ιωάνην xed Ἰάκωβον) and Ac 113 is to be
specially noticed.

It is impossible at this point to refrain from re-
marking that a mere notice of the occasions when
St. Peter's name is mentioned in the Gospels is apt
to make us forget the all-important fact that it
was in daily fellowship with the Lord, in the daily
contemplation of His acts and words, publie and
private, that the real significance and power of
this period lay. Without some intimation of this
obvious truth, a brief review of the specific evidence
of the Gospels as to St. Peter’s life during this time
may become positively misleading.

Tt has been convenient to consider the mission
of the Twelve in close connexion with their selec-
tion. But between the two occasions we must, as it
appears, place a miracle with which St. Peter was
brought into close relation—the raising of Jairus’
daughter (Mt 918-36. Mk 52-3, Lk 841-56), It is the
first of three occasions when ‘Peter and James

* Mt 814 introduces the account without any indication of
time. It would appear that at this point he is’ bringing
together typical works of healing (81-17), just as he has brought
into a single discourse (5-7; ef. 13) typical utterances of the
Lord.

and John? were chosen from among the Twelve
as witnesses of a uurjpiov—here of a revelation
of Christ the Life. It may have beer designed
as a special preparation for some crisis in their
mission soon to follow (Mt 10° νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε).
It is difficult not to trace the vividness of the
narrative in Mk to the influence of St. Peter.

4. St. Peter as the Lord’s companion during
the (apparently) last year of the ministry.—The
Twelve returned to Christ about the time when
He received news of the Baptist’s murder. The re-
tirement across the Lake and the Feeding of the
Vive Thousand immediately followed. This whole
series of events prepared the way for a period the
general character of which is expressed by the
words ‘the proving of faith’ (1 P 1’),

(1.) The storm on the Lake (Mt 142°, Mk 6156,

Jn 6166.) ΤῸ is remarkable that Matthew alone
preserves the record of St. Peter’s boastful chal-
lenge (behind which there lay a deep love for His
Master, and impatience of separation from Him),
his sudden fear and piteous appeal for help. Christ
Himself sums up the meaning of the apostle’s
failure in the word ὀλιγόπιστε. [Ὁ would be quite
in accordance with the character of St. Peter if,
when the boat came to land, he was the spokesman
of ‘those who were in the ship’ in their confession,
ἀληθῶς θεοῦ vids εἶ (Mt).
(110) The Lords hard sayings at Capernaum.—
St. John records (6) that the sequel of the
Lord’s teaching at Capernaum about the bread of
lite was that many of His disciples left Him.
Jesus turns to the Twelve and asks them if they
too are intending to go away. Simon Peter at
once answers for the rest. His reply brings out
tiie apostle’s belief in the Lord (1) as superior to
all other teachers (πρὸς τίνα ἀπελ.; cf. Jn brs ese 629)
as the source of a life-giving revelation (cf. v."*) ;
(3) as the embodiment of Divine holiness.

This, the last element in the confession, is introduced with
the emphatic ἡμεῖς πεσιστεύκαιμεν καὶ -γνώκαμεν. The apostles
(4usi:) With their sure conviction are placed in contrast to the
faithless seceders, Their present assured belief is the out-
come of past experience deliberately interpreted. What is the
meaning of the title ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ Ὁ In a wholly independent
context it is put into the mouth of the demoniac (Mk 134). It
would therefore appear to be a recognized title, probably a
title of the Messiah. This is confirmed when we turn to Ac
ΘΙ (cov ἅγιον x. δικκίον ἠρνήσασθε), Where it is placed beside τὸν
. . . δίκαιον (Which is certainly used of Messiah ; see below, on
Theology of St. Peter’s Speeches). In this (apparently) Mes-
sianic title two lines of thought, as it would seem, converge.
(a) Jehovah is ‘the Holy One of Israel’ (e.g. Is 14). (6) The
messengers of Jehovah, the typical priest {τὸν “Azpav τὸν ἅγιον
κυρίου, Ps 105 (196) 11) and the prophet (2 K 49) are holy ; the
whole theocratic nation is holy (e.g. Ex 196, Νὰ 105 ; note in this
connexion the mysterious phrase ‘the Saints’ apparently of the
members of the nation, Zec 145, Dn 718. 22. 25..2,}. This holiness
is conceived of by current Jewish expectation as actually
realized in the Messianic people, Ps-Sol 1786 (τ, σάντες ἅγιοι, 2
βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν χριστὸς ztpsos). The Messiah Himself, then, who
was regarded at once as the special messenger of Jehovah, and
also as the flower and crown of the Messianic nation, was
naturally described as ‘the Holy One,’ ‘the Holy One of God.’
But just as the Messianic title ὁ δίκαιος was raised to a higher
and more absolute meaning by later NT writers (e.g. 1 Jn 21),
so it was in the case of ὁ ἅγιος (Rev 87, 1 Jn 229), To return to
St. Peter's use of the phrase at Capernaum, though the words
are an official title, yet their ethical and spiritual meaning is
not lost here or in Mk 124. Messiah’s sinlessness and purity
were a magnet to faithful disciples (cf. 1 P 222), And the
avowed realization of this, as contrasted with Lk 58, marks
a stage in the apostle’s spiritual education.

(iil.) The questions at Caesarea Philippi.—There
are three stages in the history—(A) Zhe Confes-
ston (Mt 161-8, Mk 827-8, Lk 918-27), _The account in
Mt is the fullest ; on the omission of the promise
to St. Peter in Mk see Swete on 83, The Gali-
lean ministry was drawing to a close (see Swete,
p- 100). Our Lord was farther from Jerusalem
than at any other time of His ministry, and on
the borders of the purely Gentile world. The
time and place, then, of themselves suggest the
question whether Israel, generally and as repre-
sented by His immediate disciples, accepted Him ;

il

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 759

whether the foundation for the great work of the | that almost certainly the latter is the true inter-

future was being solidly laid.
felt by the Lord to be a great crisis, and He
prepared for it as such by prayer Uk: Oy, Eiie
confession of St. Peter at Capernaum was the
impulsive response of the disciple to the Master's
anxious, foreboding question. But now the stage
in the education ot the Twelve had been reached
when it was well that they should deliberately
and definitely face the question of the Lord's
Person. In the outskirts (Mk 8), therefore, of
Crsarea the Lord put two questions to the Twelve
—(a) What were men generally saying of Him?
Here they all contributed something — to the
answer. ‘They had seen different sides of Jewish
opinion, (ὦ) What was the thought of the Twelve
themselves about Him? Here tie answer of one
is the answer of all, and St. Peter is their natural
spokesman. ‘The Twelve regarded Him as the
Divine Messiah.

The Gospels vary as to the words—2» εἶ ὁ χριστός (Mk), τὸν
χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (Luk), Σὺ εἶ ὁ vo. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος (Μ0). The
important question arises, Was St. Peter commended for con-
fessing the Divinity of Jesus or His Messiahship? It is probably
true that ‘the Son of God’ was not a common designation of
the Messiah, but (1) the language of 2 Es 72%. 29 (* My Son
Messiah’) 1322. 37.52 149 ; comp. Enoch 1052; (2) the language
which the evangelists put into the mouths of persons who can
yardly be conceived of as one and all rising to the absolute
meaning of the title ‘Son of God,’ but who would naturally
use Messianic language (Mt 829 || Mk Lk, Mt 149° see above, Mt
2740. 43 [2754 || Mk}, Mk 34, Lk 2270, Jn 134 49 1127 197); (3) the
language of Lk 441 (σὺ εἶ ὁ νἱὸς τοῦ Wood . .. ἔδεισαν τὸν χριστὸν
αὐτὸν εἶναι) τ: (4) the language of St. Matthew in the immediate
context, v.20 ive μηδενὶ εἴτωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός, Seem to
make it clear that the title ‘Son of God’ was used as bearing a
Messianic meaning in our Lord’s day. Hence it matters little
whether we consider δ᾽ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος as part of the
original confession, or as an addition of St. Matthew. In either
case it is as Messiah that St. Peter confesses Jesus. See especi-
ally Dalman, Die Worte Jesu pp. 219-226. Thus the revelation
of suffering which follows in each Gospel is the earliest insistence
on that side of the true Messiah’s work which became the
greatest stumbling-block to the Jew.

(B) Our Lord’s welcome of the Confession (Mt
167-9 only).—It is clear that our Lord regarded
the deliberate confession of His Messiahship as
marking a crisis in His relations with the Twelve,
and as a pledge of the growth of the kingdom.
He answers it with a solemn beatitude addressed
to St. Peter (μακάριος εἴ. {πὸ only occasion when
the Lord pronounces a beatitude on an individual),
and by a declaration that his confession had no
lower source than a revelation from the Father
Himself (cf. Gal 115). And then speaking, as it
would appear, as King Messiah (κἀγὼ δέ--' The
Father has revealed Me as Messiah to the dis-
ciple ; I in turn reveal My disciples’ place in the
kingdom’), He opens out the future under four
metaphors—

(a) St. Peter as the foundation of the new
Tsrael.—Yaking the Syriac versions as our enide,
we may conclude that our Lord’s words, spoken in
Aramaic, run thus: ‘Thou art Cepha, and upon
this Cepha 1 will build my congregation.’ Here
there are three points to be briefly considered—(a)
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μου. The word is used in its ancient
theocratic sense, and the meaning is best repre-
sented by the paraphrase, ‘T will build my Lsrael.’
It must be suflicient to refer to Hort’s The Chris-
tian Ecclesia pp. 3-18, esp. p. 10 f. (8) οἰκοδομήσω.
The metaphor of building, to express the idea of
creating and giving unity and permanence to a
society of men, is not uncommon I the OT (e.g.
Ps 28°, Jer 183). It is important to notice that
the Lord reserves to Himself the prerogative
of activity. He alone is the builder. Compare
the Messianic parable in Sibyll. Orac. v. 420 ff.
(γ) In what sense 15 Cepha the foundation ? Does
the word point to the first stone of the building,
the foundation-stone, or to the soil, the rock on
which the first stones are laid? We may say, In
view of our Lord’s earlier saying (Mt 74%, Lk G25)

The occasion was |

pretation.* Thus the Rock is, so far as the scope
of the parable is concerned, separated from the
stones reared thereon. This last point helps us to
answer the question as to the interpretation of the
Rock. It is the apostle who has just made the
confession that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.
The parable itself limits its application. When
the foundation has been laid, the apostle’s function

as described by the metaphor will have ceased.

He will support the first stones of the ecclesia.
The true comment on the Lord’s promise is Ac
1-10.

Other interpretations of these famous words can be only
brietly noted. (1) The Rock is Christ. This interpretation is
excluded by the fact that in the Aramaic there is no variation
(Cepha ... Cepha) as in the Greek (vir 0... . σέτρα), and
that Christ Himself speaks of Himself as the builder. (2) The
Rock is St. Peter's confession. This interpretation is excluded
by the fact that the confession considered in itself was wholly
inadequate. It does not include either the Resurrection or the
Divinity of the Lord. Its value was strictly relative to the
time when it was made. The same consideration excludes the
modification of the above view which explains the Rock of St.
Peter's faith. That faith was a quality which varied trom time
to time. (3) St. Peter as the tupe of, or in combination with,
the other apostles, is the Rock. So Hort (Heelesia p. 16f.,
e.g. ‘In virtue of this personal faith vivifying their disciple-
ship, the Apostles became themselves the first little Ecclesia,
constituting a living rock upon which,’ etc.). But our Lord's
words, as reported by St. Matthew, could not be more per-
sonal. To suppose that the Lord addresses St. Peter here as ἃ
type of his fellow-apostles, is in effect to imply that no words
could be personal unless a typical reference were explicitly
excluded. See also ‘ Additional Note’ on p. 795%.

_Aclear statement as to the exposition of the words and the
lines of patristic interpretation is to be found in Lightfoot,
Clement ii. pp. 481-490.

(ὁ) The new Israel as the conqueror. —The ἐκκλησία
is an aggressive power. Death —the adversary
of Christ—is in possession of his stronghold. But
‘his gates’ (ef. Ps 9" 107", Job 3817, Is 38!) cannot
withstand the attack. ‘The new Israel is victorious
against ‘walled cities’ like the first Israel (cf. 6.0.
Dt 3%). Such appears to be the meaning. The
clause, however, has no special bearing on St.
Peter’s functions.

(c) St. Peter as the steward of the kingdom.+—
δώσω σοι Tas κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν. The
words seem to be an intentional reminiscence οἱ
the message of Jehovah as to Eliakim (Is 22°):
‘The key of the house of David will I lay upon his
shoulder.’ The words are paraphrased in the LXX
text represented by B (καὶ δώσω τὴν δύξαν Δαυεὶδ
αὐτῷ), but δε Πὰ5 καὶ δώσω καὶ αὐτῷ τὴν κλῖδαν οἴκου A.,
and A has a conflate reading.

(ὦ St. Peter as the scribe who ‘ binds’? and
‘looses. —xat 6 δ Shoys x.7.A. In this use of

Bat Peed!

‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ there cannot be but a close
reference to the current technical use of these
words to express the authoritative decision of a
scribe on ἃ matter of obligation (ef. Mt 5%; cf.
Edersheim, Life and Times ii. p. 84f.). Such de-
cisions on St. Peter's part in the new kingdom
shall be the echoes of decisions already promul-
eated in heaven. On these twe verses see especially
Dalman, Die Worte Jes pp. 174-178,

In regard to the essential meaning af this series
of metaphors as applied to St. Peter, the following
points should be noted : (1) They seem to be all
conditioned by the scope of the first of them, the

*It is true that the word cepha is not used by the Syriac
versions in these two passages. But that the word cepha does
mean ‘a rock’ as well as ‘a stone’ is clear from the fact that it
is used to render πέτρα in Mt 2760 (Pesh.) 2751 (Syrsin Pesh.); It
may therefore have been used by our Lord in the saying in
question. See additional note on the Rabbinical use of Rock in
reference to Abraham at end of art. 1 PETER.

+ Compare the remarkable legend preserved in Apoc. Baruch
1018 and (in a somewhat different form) in the Rest of the
Words of Baruch 4, ‘Jeremiah took the keys of the sanctuary
of God and went out of the city and cast them away before the
sun, saying, “ΤῸ thee I say, Osun, take the keys of the sanctuary
of Cod... forasmuch as we were not found worthy to kecp
them, because we were false stewards.”’

760 PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

rock-foundation, i.e. our Lord is dealing with the
first stage of the history of the new ecclesia.
The relation of St. Peter to the new Israel is in
some sense to correspond to the relation of Moses
and Joshua to the ancient Israel. (2) The promise
as to ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ given here to St.
Peter is in Mt 1818 given to the disciples. It would
seem, therefore, if the words in the two places are
to be understood in precisely the same sense, that
St. Peter is, on the former occasion, singled out
trom the other disciples because he would. be the
lirst to exercise, or would be the leader in the
exercise of, a power common to all. At the same
time it must be noted that (a) the context in ch. 18
(viz. νν. 15:17. 21) deals with the forgiveness of sins ;
(8) Dalman (p. 177) shows that in Jewish Aramaic
the word ‘to loose’ (#72), atany rate, 15 used meta-
phorically in various senses. It does not then seem
certain that the terms must bear the same meaning
in both passages. (3) The Bk. of the Acts records
the historical fulfilment of the promises to St.
Peter. But it must be remembered that in that
Book we have not a complete history of the earliest
days of the Chureh, and that the writer is himself
familiar rather with somewhat later developments.
There may well have been occasions, unnoticed by
the author of the Acts, which contributed to the
complete fulfilment of the Lord’s promises to St.
Peter.

(C) The Lord’s rebuke of St. Peter.—The con-
fession of St. Peter and our Lord’s announcement
that He Himself would be the founder of a new
Israel form the turning-point in the education of
the Twelve. Mt marks the transition by the phrase
ἀπὸ τύτε ἤρξατο (v.*!), which in 417 stands at the
beginning of the ministry, and occurs nowhere else,
Henceforth the Lord reveals to the apostles the
mystery of the Divine purpose (δεῖ) as to the Messiah

~-His humiliation in His rejection by the repre- |

sentatives of Israel at Jerusalem (the centre of
Israel’s life) and His death, His exaltation in the
Resurrection. The idea of a suffering Messiah
was alien to eurrent Jewish expectations (cf.
Schiirer, 3.1.7} 11. ii. p. 1841). St. Peter at once
protests against his Master’s appropriation of it. to
Himself. His action (προσλαβόμενος) and his words *
alike imply a position of kindly patronage towards
the Lord. The Lord turns immediately upon him,
and the sight of the other disciples (Mk) necessi-
tates a public and severe rebuke—a reversal for the
time ot the words of commendation: just pro-
nounced ;—a sentence of rebuff, pronounced as upon
an enemy, takes the place of the beatitude ; the
rock-foundation of Messiah’s Israel has become
Messiah’s stumbling-stone; a temper of mind
capable of receiving the revelation of the Father
has been succeeded by a temper of mind wholly
earthly.

A week after these events at Civsarea (Mk 955,
At 17), Lk 9°) the three disciples, who had been
witnesses of a previous revelation of Christ as the
Life, are allowed, on the Mount of Transfiguration,
to learn the ‘mystery’ of Christ as the Glory of
(rod. The impulsive and inopportune request of
St. Peter sprang from a dread of the withdrawal of
the outward signs of revelation (ef, 2 Co 3% at hs αὖ
was the prayer of a consciously weak and earthly
faith. The revelation on the mountain confirmed
hoth elements in the disclosure of the issues of
Messiah’s life on earth which the Lord gave at
Cwsarea. The uniqueness of His Person was
brought home to the Three by (a) the glory of the
Lord Himself; (ὁ) His mysterious converse with
the Founder and the Reformer of Israel’s polity,

“Syrsin in Mk 832 reads, ‘But Simon Cepha, as if sparing
Him, said to Him, (God) spares Thee.’ The last words, a formula
ot deprecation (cf. e.g. Ac 101} 118), render the ἵλεώς σοι of
Mt 1622 in Syreur Pesh. From this formula the remarkable
paraphrase, ‘as if sparing Him,’ is derived.

|

ase
in which He is seen to be the mediator between
the living and the departed; (c) the voice from
heaven attesting His Sonship.

In the period between the Transfiguration and
the Entry into Jerusalem St. Peter is mentioned
on four occasions. At Capernaum, his home, the
collectors of the temple dues put to him the ques-
tion whether his Master did not pay the half-
shekel, and St. Peter is made by his Master the
means of its payment. The Lord uses the incident
to lead up His disciple’s mind to the conception of
His Divine Sonship (Mt 17). On the three re-
maining oceasions St. Peter is represented as ques-
tioning the Lord as to the practical and immediate
bearing of His words,—asking as to the scope of
the parables of the faithful slaves and the sudden
coming of the thief (Lk 12, ef, Mk 13°"); asking
as to the number of times a brother should be for.
given (Mt 1851); asking as to the reward in store
tor the Twelve in view of their absolute self-
renunciation, as contrasted with the refusal of the
young ruler to surrender his wealth and follow
Christ (Mt 1957, Mk 10%, Lk 1838), These questions
reveal the apostle’s impulsiveness, the practical
bent of his character, something perhaps of a lack
of reverence towards his Master; while the last
of them shows an undue sense of the deserts of
himself and his fellow-apostles.

5. Lhe week before the Passion.—Nothing is told
us of St. Peter in connexion with the Triumphal
Entry. Mk preserves two words of his addressed
to Christ on the Tuesday. To St. Peter the sight
of the withered fig-tree recalls (ἀναμνησθείς) the
incident of the previous day, and he points his
Master to the effect of His prophecy (Mk ci,
Mt 513). Again, after the Lord that same day
had left the temple and crossed the Kidron on His
way to Bethany, He sat down on the Mt. of Olives.
The main body of the apostles apparently continued
their way. Four of their number—Peter, James,
John, and Andrew—possibly deputed by the rest,
asked Him privately a question as to the time
when His prophecy just spoken should have its
fulfilment, and as to the events which should herald
it (Mk 13°; cf. Mt 24°, Lk 217). The form of the
sentence (ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν ἹΤέτρος καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβος
κιτ.Ὰ.) suggests that St. Peter was the spokesman.
Luke preserves the detail that on the Thursday it
was St. Peter and St. John whom the Lord sent to
“prepare the passover’ (228; cf. Mt 26%, Mk 14),
In the Upper Room and in the events which followed
St. Peter took a prominent part. It ate that
at the Paschal meal the Lord took the place of host,
St. Peter the second place, reclining on Christ’s
left, St. John the third, on the Lord’s right hand
(Westcott on Jn 13”), When, then, Christ washed
the disciples’ feet (Jn 134%), St. Peter must have
been either the first or the last to whom He came.
The former alternative is the more probable, Jn’s
favourite οὖν here (v.*) as elsewhere simply de-
noting immediate sequence. In the dialogue which
follows, different traits of the apostle’s character
are vividly brought out in his question express-
ing startled humility (v.6 Κύριε, σύ μου... 3), In
his emphatic refusal (οὐ uw)... εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) to
allow Christ to wash his feet, in his sudden change
of mind and the eager prayer in which, giving a
material meaning to Christ’s words, he asks for
what he considers a larger blessing. Later on in
the meal, when the Lord speaks of the presence of
the traitor (v.*4), St. Peter, assuming that He had
whispered the secret to St. John, abruptly asks the
latter to tell it openly to the rest. Later still,
when the traitor had gone out, St. Peter, taking
up Christ’s words (ν. 3) about His ‘ going,’ inquires
with his old literalness whither He is going; and
again, asserting his absolute devotion, why he
cannot at once follow his Master in His mysterious

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 761

journey (v.“"), At this point Jn inserts the pro-
phecy of the three denials. Lk (22°5"-) also puts the
warning at this time, though his version of the
Lord’s words is different from that inJn. In Lk
Christ solemnly addresses Peter and unveils the
world of spiritual conflict. Satan had demanded
the surrender to himself of all the apostles, as he
had demanded Job (Job 1! 2%), that he might
sift them all—the metaphor bringing out their
weakness and their separation (ef. e.g. Ps 14). But
Peter had been the subject of urgent supplication
on his Master's part that his faith might not wholly
and finally fail (ἐκλίπῃ). It is implied that the
apostle would not pass through the trial unscathed.
But beyond the trial a return to former spiritual
relationships is promised—a return which would
bring with it the duty of ‘stablishing his brethren.’
In answer to Peter's protestation of absolute fidelity,
Christ explicitly foretells that before the cock
crowed (twice, Mk) the next morning, Peter would
thrice deny Him.* It is remarkable that in Jn,
though three other of the Twelve (145: **) inter-
rupt the Lord’s words with questions, St. Peter
remains silent, perplexed and saddened, it would
seem, by his Master’s unexpected doubt of his
loyalty. At length Christ and the Eleven go out
into the Mount of Olives. It is at this point that,
according to Mt (26%) and Mk (14%), the Lord
warned them that they all would ‘be made to
stumble,’ and foretold in detail Peter’s faithless-
ness—a prophecy prefaced and followed by passion-
ate protestations on the apostle’s part. Thus it
appears that we have three diflerent accounts—
Mt || Mk, Lk, Jn—of Christ’s words to Peter as
to the denial. A not improbable solution of the
difficulty is that Christ warned His followers several
times that night that their loyalty towards Him-
self would be sorely tested; that He only once
explicitly foretold Peter’s fall ; but that the several
evangelists connected that prophecy with different
words of warning. When the Lord and His
apostles reached Gethsemane (Mt 26°, ΜῈ 14°),
He took Peter and James and John aside from
the rest and admitted them to a knowledge of
the μυστήριον of His human sorrow and perfected
obedience, the last of the three revelations which
were crises in their spiritual education. On His
return to them the first time, finding them sleeping,
He singles out Peter for rebuke, tacitly contrast-
ing his inability to ‘watch one hour’ with his
earlier boast.
Peter’s conduct in the garden, at the moment of
the Lord’s arrest (Mt 2671, Mk 144#-, Lk 22%f, Jn
18"). Not waiting for an answer to the question,
‘Lord, shall we smite with the sword?’ (Lk, ef.
2258), and going near to frustrate the Lord’s care
for His followers’ safety (Jn 185), he snatches his
sword out of its sheath and, striking at the head
of a slave of the high priest who had, as we may
suppose, taken hold of Christ, he wounds him.
Christ’s last miracle secures the safety of the
apostles by undoing the misdoing of His impetuous
follower. Jn, when all reasons for reticence were
over, gives us the names, ‘Simon Peter,’ ‘ Malchus’ ;
Lk alone records the healing. When Christ was
led away to the high priest’s official residence, St.
Peter, striking a balance between his fears for
himself and his love for his Master, ‘followed afar
oft? (Mt, Mk, Lk). Apparently, as he drew near
the high priest’s palace, he overtook St. John (Jn
1815), and was by him brought into the court. The
latter, it would seem, passed on into the audience-
chamber. Then follow the three denials, the whole
group of incidents taking up about an hour (Lk
99259), On the relation to each other of the narra-

* For the Fayum fragment see Harnack in Texte u. Untersuch.

τ. 4, p. 483 ff., and especially Hort’s letters to the Tumes (June
25, July 16, 1885).

One other detail is preserved as to |

tives in the four Gospels see Westcott, Additional
Notes to Jn 18. The second cock-crow (Mk) and the
sudden piercing gaze of the Lord (ἐνέβλεψεν, Lk)
recalled to Peter’s mind the prophecy of Christ,
‘and he went out and wept bitterly’ (Mt, Lk; on
Mk’s ἐπιβαλών see Field’s interesting note in Notes
on the Translation of the NT p. 41). There is no
further reference to St. Peter in the history of the
Passion.

6. Lhe period between the Resurrection and the
Ascension. —In the accounts of the day of the
Resurrection St. Peter is twice mentioned. From
these notices it appears that after his fall he did
not separate himself from the other apostles,
and that he was still regarded as their natural
leader. (1.) Early on that morning Mary Magdalene
hurried from the garden to Simon Peter and to
John, to tell them that the tomb was empty. The
two apostles went together to the tomb, as they
had gone together to the high priest’s court three
days before. They both ran, but St. Peter, the
older man, fell behind. St. John came first to the
sepulchre, but did not enter. St. Peter, practical
and impetuous, went into the sepulchre, and took
note (θεωρεῖ) of the orderly arrangement of the
cloths and the napkin. Then they returned, still
(it wouid seem*) perplexed, to their own homes
(Jn 20°), (ai.) Later in the day, some time before
the evening, the Lord appeared to St. Peter—alone
—to seal his repentance with forgiveness (Lk 24%;
οἵ. 1 Co 15°, where the appearance to Cephas has
the first place). (iii.) In the third appearance of
Christ to the apostles as a body (Jn 21; ef. 201% 26),
at the Lake of Tiberias, Peter takes a conspicuous
part. The quick intuition of faith is characteristic
of John (ν.ἴ ; οἵ. 905). But when another has dis-
cerned the Lord, the rapid act of preparation, the
leap into the sea that he may reach his Master the
quicker, then, when all have landed, the return to
the ship that he may begin the necessary work of
bringing the net to land,—all these acts belong to
a litelike portrait of St. Peter. After the meal,
provided by Christ, there follows St. Peter’s public
restoration, corresponding to the private assurance
of forgiveness given him on the day of the .Resur-
rection.| To the thrice-repeated denial there
answers the thrice-repeated question as to his love
towards Christ and the thrice-repeated charge,
covering the whole sphere of pastoral activity.
So far the official and the personal have been
blended together. Now ina fe ai ‘oracle’ (ἀμὴν,
ἀμήν) the Lord deals with the personal issue of the
apostle’s life of service—the helplessness and the
devotion of a martyr’s death. The last recorded
word of St. Peter addressed to Christ is an im-
pulsive, unselfish question (v.71), The last word of
Christ to St. Peter is an echo of the earliest call
interpreted in the light of the cross—dxododder μοι
. . . σύ μοι ἀκολούθει (vv. 33),

II. History oF St’. PETER AFTER THE ASCEN-
SION, IN THE N'T.—The three periods of the growth
of the Church, treated of in the Acts,} are clearly

* To one who hesitates to accept Hort’s theory of ‘Western
non-interpolations’ (see the writer’s Syvo-Latin Text p. 130n.)
the external evidence against the authenticity of Lk 2412 must
seem of very little weight. On the other hand, the linguistic
similarity to Jn is curious, and cannot be accidental. [Ὁ
would be rash to assert that we have not here a sign of cross-
currents of apostolic tradition, which the available evidence
will perhaps never enable us to follow out.

+ On the subtle variation of words in Jn 2115-17 see Westcott’s
mee phe theory of Blass, that the common and the ‘Western’
texts of the Lucan Books represent two editions by St. Luke,
is well known. The present writer has criticised it in The
Syro-Latin Teat of the Gospels Ὁ. 138. In that book and in
The Old Syriac Element in Cod. Beze he has given reasons
for his belief that the ‘Western’ text is largely due to (1)
assimilation to scriptural passages; (2) the influence of Old
Syriac texts. ‘Western’ readings of exceptional interest in parts
of the Acts dealing with St. Peter are to be found in 10% 112 (a
mosai’ of phrases used in Ac and Epistles about St. Paul) 121¢

762 PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

described in 18—the Church of Jerusalem, the
Church of Palestine, the Church of the World.

ι. Ἵ, Lhe Church of Jerusalem (1'-8').— During this
period St. Peter stands alone as the leader and
spokesman of the disciples.

(a) In the days which passed between the Ascen-
sion and the day of Pentecost, St. Peter in the
first apostolic speech urged the appointment of a
disciple to fill the apostolate of Judas. Into the
problems suggested by Lk’s record of the speech
(including the insertion, ν. 156) it is unnecessary to
enter. It is suflicient to notice (i.) that St. Peter
bases his argument on an appeal to the OT, i.e.
wo two passages of the Psalms (68 (69) 25 108 (109) 8
LXX), prefiguring respectively the vacancy of the
traitor’s pastoral office and the duty of appointing
a successor ; (li.) that St. Peter defines the essential
function of an apostle as being ‘a witness of the
Resurrection [of the Lord Jesus].’

(4) On the early morning of Pentecost the dis-
ciples were all gathered together in one of the
many chambers (οἶκοι) of the temple (v.*; for this
sense of οἶκος cf. 6.σ. Jer 42 (35) 4 43 (30) 10. 22; Jos,
Ant. VU. 111. 9). The chambers and courts of the
temple were crowded with worshippers from among
‘the dwellers at Jerusalem’ (v.67 πλῆθος ; ef. 21%,
Lk 1°), to whom ‘immediately after midnight the
Temple gates [had been] thrown open’ (Edersheim,
The Temple p, 228). Such in all probability was
the place* and such the audience of St. Peter’s
speech, after the Spirit had been given and His
presence attested by the gift of tongues. A
strong case can be made out for the opinion that
St. Peter spoke in Greek (Ὁ. K. Abbott, Essays
p. 1291ff ; Salmon, /ntroduction ἡ p. 172f.; on the
other side see Neubauer in Studia Biblica i.
p. 6210).+ The speech begins as an apologia
(v.); it ends with a proclamation of the crucified
Jesus of Nazareth as the Sovereign Messiah (y.**),

Ac 214-36. Jesus, the enthroned Messiah.

(1) Vv.1421, The charge of drunkenness is disproved (a) by the
circumstances, ‘the third hour of the day’; (ὦ) by the fact that
the phenomena correspond to Joel’s prophecy (J 228-32 (31-5)),

(2) Vv.22-24, Jesus of Nazareth was accredited as God’s mes-
senger to Israel by Divine miracles ; according to God’s eternal
counsel He was surrendered to the Jews, murdered by them
through the instrumentality of Gentiles, raised from death by
God Himself—the necessary issue.

The Divine purpose and action are throughout emphasized.

(3) Vv.29-32. This necessity was foreshadowed in David’s pro-
phecy (Ps 15 (16)8-11), His words could not apply to himself.
Therefore, as a prophet, in view of the promised dynasty (Ps 131
(132) H, 28 712), he foresaw and spoke of ‘the raising up of the
anointed one’—a prophecy finally fulfilled in the Resurrection.

(4) Vv.%3:35, The Resurrection involved the exaltation through
the Divine action. The exalted Messiah receives from the
Father, and gives, the promised Spirit.

It is impossible that the exaltation should be interpreted of
David ; for David spoke of ‘his lord,’ seated at God’s right hand
(Ps 109 (110) 1).

(5) V.°6. The duty, therefore, of all Israel (the ‘Dispersion ’
and the dwellers at Jerusalem alike) is to acknowledge God’s
action ini constituting the victim of their malice the Anointed

One and the Sovereign Κἰηρ-. Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Νριστός.

The result of St. Peter’s speech was the econvic-
tion of his hearers. In answer to their question,
‘What shall we do?’ (ef. Lk 3136) he urges—(1)

(the ‘seven steps’ due to assimilation to Ezk 406-22), See also
‘Western’ readings in 811. 14 414. 24 529 g24 101. 15. 19. 26. 89. 41 1117
125. 7.17 157. 12.

* The supposition that the events described in Ac 2 took place
in the temple is in itself natural ; it explains several details of
the history ; and it is in complete harmony, it is believed, with
Lk’s language.

t The internal evidence of the speeches in the Acts (see below,
p. 766) appears to the present writer a complete refutation of
the theory which regards them as the simple invention of the
author of the book, and a proof that with varying accuracy
they represent what was said on the several occasions. That
the author of the Acts, however, is responsible for their
present literary form and for much of their language is a view
quite consistent with a belief in their substantial fidelity.
It is quite possible that St. Peter and St. Luke met at Rome
ves important point for the criticism of the Gospel and the

cts.

that they should repent, i.e. of the great national
sin ef rejecting the Messiah; (2) that each should
be baptized in the name of Jesus Messiah ; (3)
such baptism having as its result forgiveness, (4)
and leading on to the bestowal of the special gift
of the Spirit.

With the day of Pentecost the life of the Church
as ἃ society, quickened and endowed with the gifts
of the Spirit, began.

(c) How long a time elapsed between the day of
Pentecost and the evening when St. Peter worked
the ‘notable sign’ on the cripple at the Beautiful
Gate there is no evidence. The miracle was
wrought ‘in the name of Jesus Messiah, the
Nazarene.’ The man healed was a well-known
object of pity, and his restoration at once drew
‘all the people’ round him and Peter and John in
the great eastern portico of the temple. To them
St. Peter proclaims Jesus as the Restorer.

Ac 31226. Jesus, the glorified Servant, the Restover.

(1) Vv.1216, The miracle was not the work of the apostles ;
it was an incident in the unbroken history of Redemption. For
the name of Jesus, the Servant of the God of the Fathers,
rejected and slain by Israel, raised and glorified by God, was
the source of restoration,

(2) Vy.1/-26, Israel's present position, duty, and hope. (a) The
“sufferings of the Messiah’ were due, on the hwman side, to the
crime of Israel’s ignorance, on the Divine side to the action ot
God in fulfilment of His utterances through the prophets.
(ὁ) Consequently (οὖν) there is a present call to national repent-
ance, such repentance issuing in (1) forgiveness ; (2) the advent
of ‘seasons of refreshing’; (3) the final mission of the Messiah
as the Restorer of all things. (ὦ Israel’s present opportunity
was foretold by Moses and all the prophets. Of this prophetic
line and of the first covenant those present are the heirs. To

| them belongs a priority in the blessings which spring from

God’s act in raising up and sending His Servant, whose work
reaches to the conversion of each Israelite.

The action and the words of St. Peter were a
double challenge. The officials in charge of the
temple resented the assumption of the position of
‘teachers’ on the part of men whom they despised
as ‘am ha-darez. The Sadducees were’ provoked
by the proclamation of the Resurrection. The
two apostles were therefore put in prison, and the
next morning brought before the Sanhedrin. In
answer to the formal question as to their authority
or commission, St. Peter answered that the cripple
was healed ‘by the name of Jesus Messiah, the
Nazarene,’ whom the rulers to whom he speaks
had crucified, whom God had raised. He then
brings together the three thoughts — Messiah’s
rejection, the apparent triumph of the rulers, the
reversal of their judgment and the exaltation of the
rejected One—in the words of Ps 117 (118), and
declares that in this Name only is there salvation.
It is to be noticed that, the first time that St.
Peter appears before the high priests, he appeals
to that verse of the Psalms by a reference to which
(after the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen) our
Lord a few weeks before had roused their vain
resentment (Mt 21" |) Mk, Lk). It was this,
doubtless, which led them to recognize the apostles
as the companions of Jesus. At length, in spite of
their refusal to be silent as to the facts of their
experience (4°; οἵ, 1 Jn 11), the apostles are set at
liberty by the chief priests.

(¢) In the next subsection (433. 516) the Acts turns
from the external dangers and triumphs to the
inner life of the Church. Two contrasted cases of
the action of the members of the brotherhood in
regard to property are narrated—the case of Bar-
nabas, and the case of Ananias and Sapphira. In
dealing with Ananias, St. Peter exercises the
χάρισμα of ‘discernment of spirits.’ When the
guilt of Ananias has been proved by his fate, and
Sapphira comes before him, St. Peter is repre-
sented as foretelling her doom. The apostle is the
Joshua of the new Israel (Jos 716" ; ef, 2 Kk Dae).
With this history the words of St. Paul (1 Co ὃ’
1 Ti 150) should be compared.

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 763

Shortly afterwards there ensued among the
apostles a fresh activity of the ‘gift of healing.’
In particular, St. Peter became an object of almost
saperstitious regard to the populace at Jerusalem.
And the fame of these miracles spread through the
neighbouring districts.

(e) This outburst of popular feeling awoke the
envy of the Sadducean faction (511-32), They now,
in order to ensure the destruction of this new
Insurrection against their materializing views,
imprison all the apostles. The latter, delivered
from prison, resume in the temple their werk of
public teaching. Brought by the chief officer of
the temple before the Sanhedrin, the apostles by
the mouth of St. Peter (1) affirm that they are
acting according to a Divine command, which they
have no choice but to obey. (2) They aftirm the
continuity of national redemption. God, who had
‘raised up’ judges (cf. e.g. Jg 910. 18. 39). had ‘raised
up Jesus.’ The action of the rulers in putting
ΗΠ to a cruel death, which seemed to mark Him
out as cursed of God (cf. Dt 9155), had been reversed
by God's action in exalting Him beth to rule and
to deliver, in order that Israel might receive the
gifts of national repentance and national forgive-
ness. (3) They affirm that their witness to this
Message was inspired by the Spirit, a Divine gift
bestowed, not on Israel's worldly rulers, but on
faithful Israelites who obeyed God’s revelation.
By these words the Sadduciean party was kindled
to a frenzy of murderous hatred. But in a private
conference the Pharisee Gamaliel persuaded them
to follow a more prudent policy. They recall the
apostles, scourge them, and dismiss them with a
command that they should no more ‘speak in the
name of Jesus.’

St. Peter's name does not occur in the history
either of the appointment of the Seven or of the
trial of Stephen. When, after the murder of the
latter, ‘a great persecution’ arose and the brethren
‘were scattered,’ St. Peter, with the other apostles,
remained in Jerusalem.

Thus, during the earliest period of the Church’s
life at Jerusalem, St. Peter vindicates the primacy
with which the Lord entrusted him. He is never,
indeed, represented as independent of the other
apostles. But he is throughout the history the
leader and spokesman of the rest—within the
society of the brethren (14" 5!) itself, before the
crowds of listening and inquiring Jews (2'4% 297
3i-f. s ef. 5!), before the Sanhedrin (48% 59),

2. The Church of Palestine (8'-9*!).—(a) After
the outbreak of the persecution, the new, like the
old, Israel became a διασπορά (διεσπάρησαν, διασπαρ-
έντες, 81.111"). The story of what seems to have
been the most important of these enforced evan-
gelistic journeys is given in detail. Philip, one of
the Seven, instructs and baptizes many converts in
‘the city of Samaria.’ The step was an important
one. It involved the admission that pure Israel-
itish blood was not a necessary qualification for
adinission to the Christian society. The apostles,
acting together (813), sent the two most prominent
members of their body, Peter and John, to review
and to confirm the work of the evangelist. An
outpouring of the Holy Spirit in this second stage
of the Church’s history answers to the day of
Pentecost in the first period. But the gift is not
spontaneous. It is the Divine response to the
prayer of the two apostles, and it is bestowed
throuch their act of ministry. In the sequel St.
Peter appears as the sole actor. Simon Magus
regards the whole transaction as an exhibition
of magical dexterity, and offers to pay liberally
for the impartment to himself of the apostles’
secret power. He stands out thus early in the
history of the Church as the type of the de-
grading inm‘uence on Christianity of paganizing

associations. Peter pronounces him to be at
present an alien from the gospel, but holds out
hope of the purifying influence of repentance and
prayer for forgiveness. The apostles, after some
further work, returned to Jerusalem, and on their
way ‘evangelized many villages of the Samaritans.’
Thus, in this first effort to extend the gospel beyond
its earliest limits, the initiation does not rest with
St. Peter. The function which belongs to him, as
one of the delegates of the apostolic college, is to
set upon the work the seal of authoritative approval,
and to deal decisively with a new danger inseparable
from the contact of the Church with outside habits
of thought and life.

In the earlier chapters of the Acts there is not one clear
indication of date. Butitis possible to ascertain approximately
the time which elapsed between the Ascension and the visit of
Peter and John to Samaria. It appears tolerably certain that
Damascus was not included in the kingdom ot Aretas before the
beginning of the reign of Gaius (Schurer, HJ P 1. ii. p. 357.5
Turner, art. CHRONOLOGY OF NT in vol. i. pp. 416, 424), and
that therefore St. Paul’s flight from Damascus (2 Co 1182)
cannot have been earlier than A.D. 37, nor his conversion earlier
than 35 (Gal 118; ef. Ac 925). Some weeks, perhaps months, must
have elapsed between the conversion of St. Paul and the martyr-
dom of St. Stephen (Ac 8? 913 225th 2610 εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, Gal
113). Hence the apostles’ visit to Samaria must have taken place
about five years atter the Ascension (A.D, 29).

3. The Church of the World (9°°-end).—After his
return from Samaria, it seems that St. Peter con-
tinued at Jerusalem during the remainder of the
persecution. But the conversion of Saul of Tarsus
and the consequent peace of the Church were the
signal for an important change in the apostolic
policy. St. Peter starts alone on a journey of
Visitation and evangelization—vaguely described in
Ac $ by the words διερχύμενον διὰ πάντων. It is
followed by a more or less protracted sojourn at
Lydda and Joppa, where Christian communities
had already been founded, and later at Cresarea.
The significance of this notice is appreciated only
when it is observed that throughout the earlier
period of the history Luke has been at pains to
emphasize the solidarity of the apostolic body
at Jerusalem (8! 4 6? 518-4). We are therefore
led to the conclusion that this is the time when
the apostolic college at Jerusalem, with St. Peter as
its natural leader and spokesman, separated, and
when James became the acknowledged head of the
Church there. Luke sketches the history only of
St. Peter at this important crisis, partly because of
his primacy among the apostles, partly because his
divinely guided action had an important bearing
on the extension of the Church to the Gentiles.

The apostle’s journey ended at Lydda, where the
miraculous restoration of the cripple Aineas had a
wide influence through Lydda and ‘the Sharon.’
¥rom Lydda St. Peter is summoned to Joppa, and
there restores Tabitha to life. Lk in his account
of the miracle seems desirous of suggesting that
with one significant exception—‘ he kneeled down
and prayed’—St. Peter in action and in words
imitated the example of the Lord in the house of
Jairus. The miracle was the means of the con-
version of many in Joppa. There Peter prolonged
his sojourn, in the house of a certain Simon,
a tanner, near the shore (10°). The place was
doubly significant. On the one hand, since the
trade of a tanner was considered among the Jews
as almost unclean (see Schoettgen and Wetstein
on Ac 9*), the choice of this house as a lodging
may indicate that the apostle’s Jewish prejudices
were becoming weaker. Oa the other hand, Joppa,
looking out over the waters of the Mediterranean,
was to a Jew ‘an entrance for the isles of the sea’
(1 Mace 14°), and by its very position suggested the
problem of those ‘afar off? Thus the apostle’s
mind was in a sense prepared for the thrice-
repeated vision, and for the divinely given inter-
pretation of it—‘ What God hath cleansed, make

764 PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

not thou common’— overruling scruples which
held him back from ‘killing and eating’ what to
him as a Jew was ‘common and unclean? ἢ ; and in
turn this ‘voice from heaven’ prepared him to
receive the monition of the Spirit that he should

go with the messengers of the Roman centurion, |

‘nothing doubting.” In regard, then, to the
evangelization of a Gentile, distinct supernatural
direction was given to the Hebrew apostle as it
had earlier been vouchsafed to the Hellenistic
evangelist (S*"), St. Peter at once with six brethren

(LL), whose devotion to Judaism was beyond sus-

picion (10*), went with Cornelius’ messengers to
Cesarea. The entrance of the leader of the
apostles into the Roman capital of Judea, the
noted seaport, predominantly Gentile in charac-
ter, was in itself a crisis in the progress of the
gospel. The sequel increased the significance of
the visit. On his first meeting with Cornelius
the apostle refuses the Roman's unexpected act of
reverence, and entering the house begins with an
emphatic statement as to the position of a religious
Jew towards Gentiles, and as to the way in which
God had Himself taught him to regard’no human
being as ‘common or unclean.’ This was the only
explanation of his ready response to Cornelius’
invitation, Then, in answer to Cornelius’ story of
the Divine direction granted to him. St. Peter
begins his solemn address to his Gentile hearers,

Itis clear that in 10543 we have a summary of a speech which
Was early interrupted (1115 ; ef, 41 754 2222),

(1) V.84f, The apostle declares that now he grasps the truth
that God is the moral ruler (not of Israel only, but) of men
belonging to every nation.

(2) Vy.88-41, There follows a historical statement as to the
Divine message through Christ, the sovereign of all men,
primarily addressed to Israel, His unction by the Holy Spirit,
His ministry of miracles attested by witnesses, His shameful
death, His Resurrection and manifestation through God's
direct action to witnesses chosen by God, who by clear proofs
were convinced that He was alive.

(3) δ ν 3. 48, He Himself commanded the apostles to proclaim
to Israel His appointment by God as Judye of living and dead,
The prophets’ universal witness to Him implies the truth that
every man (Gentile as well as Jew) may have through faith in
Him the gift of forgiveness,

Doubtless, the prophets’ witness was meant to be the preface
toa statement of our Lord’s commands as to ‘all the nations.’
Throughout the speech we notice two contrasted lines of
thought—<1) the wider scope of revelation: ἐν vase) fs v.39,
ταιταν κύριος V.85, πάντα τὸν πιστείοντα v.43: (2) the insistence on
Israel's being the primary destination of the gospel (vv. 39. 42),
It is significant that in regard to the universality of the Divine
gifts an appeal is made to the witness of the prophets (v.48),
The reference to Israel's priority in blessing and to the prophets
is very natural in the Jewish apostle, to whom the reconciliation
of the old revelation and this new manifestation of God's pur-
poses was afresh problem. It probably had also an apologetic
meaning in reference to the Jewish companions of St. Peter(v.4),

As the apostle was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell
upon his hearers, His presence being attested by
the gift of tongues. The apostle at once inter-
prets this miraculous endowment as a Divine sign
ot their admission within the Christian body, and
directs their baptism.

Thus the Spirit at Caesarea, as at Jerusalem at
the first, was bestowed apart from any act οἵ
human ministry. The oceasion is marked as the
Gentile Pentecost.t It will be noticed that the
three outpourings of the Spirit signalize the com-
mencement of the three stages of the progress of
the gospel —Jerusalem, Samaria, the Gentile
world —and that with each of them St. Peter is
intimately connected.

News of the events at Cresarea soon reached
Jerusalem, and the circumcised Christians com-

* The apostle’s remonstrance is probably a conscious remini-
scence of Ezk 414; cf. also Dn 184, 1Mac 162f, 2 Mac 6188. 71,
The description of the animals in the ‘vessel’ js taken from Gn
124.25, and carries the mind back to the Divine act of creation
(1 Ti > cf. Mk 719), The command θῦσον z gays is an echo of
Dt 1215,

+ Note the use of the Pentecostal keyword ἐχχέγνται, (v.45),
Cf. ἐκχεῶ 217, ἐξέχεεν 985 (Tit 38): and the phrase + δωρεὰ τοῦ
Trivunte τοῦ ἀγιοι, Cf. 398 (1117, He 64).

--.-

plained of St. Peter’s conduct ἴῃ eating with
uncircumcised Gentiles. Apparently a formal
assembly of those in authority was held, and
the apostle answered the charge brought against
him by a simple narrative of what had taken
place. The gainsayers were convinced. They con.
tessed that ‘God had granted to the Gentiles also
repentance unto life’ (11!*)—a confession clearly
falling very far short οἱ an acknowledgment of the
equal standing of Jew and Gentile in the Christian
| society.

These events took place in the months succeed-
ing St. Paul’s conversion. At the end of three years
(1.6. A.D. 37 or 38 probably), St. Paul went up to
Jerusalem (Gal 118, cf. Ac 92" 22:7 26"), ΤΠ
special object was ‘to visit Cephas,’ whose guest
he was for fifteen days. His rererence to this visit
seems to show that St. Peter alone of the Twelve
was at Jerusalem at this time.

Or St. Peter's life during the next six or seven
years no notice is preserved. Shortly, however,
before the death of Herod Agrippa, in the spring of
44, that king, whose y olicy it was to conciliate the
Pharisaic party (Jos. Ant. XIX. vii. 3), made an
attack on the Church. It would appear that the
growth of the Christian body had excited the envy

of the Jews (12* 4), and the enthusiasm with which
they welcomed the execution of one of the apostles
encouraged the king to throw St. Peter into prison.
On the night before the great popular spectacle of
which the apostle’s trial was to be the occasion, he
was miraculously freed from his chains and led by
anangel out of the prison. At length, roused com-
pletely from sleep and conscious of the situation,
he goes to the house of Mary, the mother of John
Mark. With difficulty gaining admission, he tells
those who had gathered there to intercede for him
of his wonderful escape, and bidding them inform

‘James and the brethren of these things’ ‘he went
to another place.’

In this narrative three points call for a brief
notice. (1) The fact that St. Peter so immedi-
ately and naturally hastens to ‘the house of
Mary,’ coupled with the fact that he was obvi-
ously well known there, and that it was the place
where many met together to pray for him, sugvests
that this house was his home when he was in
verusalem. The guest had become ina sense the
head of the household, and hence his expression
of fatherly regard towards John Mark (1 P 5%),
(2) The reference to James contirms the conjecture
(see above) that he was already in a position of
oficial leadership. (3) There is no word added to
detine the ἕτερος τόπος to which the apostle retired.
Conjecture has been busy: Antioch, Ceesarea, Rome
have all been named. With the last guess we may
connect the belief that St. Peter went to Rome in
the reign of Claudius (6.5. Eus. HE τι. xiv. 6; see
below).

About two years later St. Paul, with Barnabas,
visited Jerusalem in connexion with the famine.
His stay there was, from the nature of his mission,
a short one. The historian’s mention simply of
‘the elders’ (Ac 11*) at Jerusalem and St. Paul's

“silence as to this visit in Gal 1. 2 appear to show
that neither St. Peter nor any other of the Twelve
Was then at Jerusalem.

At the end of the decade—-probably Α.Ὁ. 49—
Paul and Barnabas, as the envoys of the Antio-
chene Church, went up to Jerusalem about the

question of the circumcision of Gentile converts

(Ac 15:8), James, the President of the Church

there, and (of the Twelve) Peter and John were at

Jerusalem. Whether the two latter had been speci-
ally summoned, or whether they were for a time

_ living in the Holy City, there is no evidence to show.

_Even in the calm narrative of the Acts, much

‘more in the broken sentences of the Epistle to the

a eee

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 765

Galatians, there are signs that the controversy
was not without its bitter and painful side. St.
Paul appears to imply, though he does not state,
that the older apostles favoured some kind of com-
promise (ct, Ac 21*8"-)—the circumcision, perhaps,
of Titus, as a qualification for his position as
teacher and as the companion of an apostle. In a
private conference between the three ‘Apostles of
the Circumcision’ and St. Paul, it was agreed that

they should all follow the general lines of their
earlier work, the Jatter aiming primarily at the ,
evangelization of the Gentiles, the three former —

continuing to work among those of the circumcision.
The subsequent history of St. Paul shows how far

he was from revarding this understanding as laying |

down rigid and cramping limits for his activity.

As he felt free to teach the Jews at Thessalonica, |

Athens, Corinth, and Ephesus, so, we may be sure,
St. Peter would not consider that he was precluded
from teaching Gentiles, whether by word or by letter.
Neither side could alter or could wish to alter the
terms in which the commission from the Lord had
severally come to them. St. Paul had been sent to
Tsrael as well as to the Gentiles (Ac 9! 9617), the
older apostles to the Gentiles as well as to Israel
(Mt 28 [Mk] 16%, Lk 2457, Ae 15),
time, St. Paul’s language in Gal 2°, drawing a com-
parison between his own activity in the Gentile
world and St. Peter’s among the Jews, implies that
the years of St. Peter's lite, of which the Acts
preserves no record, were marked by successful
work among his own people. ‘The private con-
ference prepared the way for the assembly of ‘the
apostles and the elders,’ of which the Acts gives an

At the same |

account. Atter long discussion, St. Peter addressed |
- Paul for the folly of those who assumed his name.
/Nor does the existence of a Cephas party at

those gathered together.

(1) Vv.7-9. (a) Those present remembered that, in the early
days of the gospel, Peter, a staunch Jew, was fixed upon, not
by any human arrangement, but by a Divine choice, as the
means whereby the Gentiles should hear and believe.

(ὃ) And, | ΓΊΝΗΙΣ 7 aie | a : ἘΦΑΑΒ ἢ “ὦ
further, God confirmed the step itself, taken under His guid- | a Eus. HE If, xxy. δ), that St. Peter and St.

ance, by giving His Spirit to these Gentiles as He had given it |
at Pentecost to Jews ; and, purifying (not their flesh by circum. |

cision but) their hearts by the gift of faith, He put Jew and
Gentile on a level. (2) Vv.10.11. The history of the past points
to the duty of the present (62s οὗν). Those present had no right
to tempt God by putting a yoke on the neck of Gentile dis-
ciples, the hopeless weight of which was proved by the experi-
ence of generations of Jews. On the contrary, so far from

bearing this burden, and so having any justification for im- |

posing it on others, Jewish disciples had put themselves ona
level with Gentile disciples by their belief that (not circum-
cision but) the ‘grace of the Lord Jesus’ was the means of
salvation for Jew and Gentile alike.

St. Peter's words, it appears, calmed the excite-
ment of the whole assembly (ἐσίγησεν δὲ πᾶν τὸ
πλῆθος), Which had been aroused in the ‘long dis-

cussion,’ so that they listened quietly to the state-
The reference of St.

ment of ‘ Barnabas and Paul.’
James’ speech to ‘Symeon’s’ narrative, and to the
agreement of its drift with the words of the prophets,
is the last mention of St. Peter in the Acts.

The Church at Jerusalem decided to send to
Antioch with Barnabas and Paul two delegates,
viz. Judas Barsabbas and Silas. They in due time
returned to Jerusalem, while Paul and Barnabas
remained behind.

tells us, St. Peter ate with the Gentile disciples,
treating them as on an equality with their Jewish
brethren. Afterwards certain members of the
Church at Jerusalem came from James. These
men had been for the moment silenced by the
decision of the conference, but they liad not been
satistied with its spirit. Perhaps in Jerusalem
under the strong rule of St. James they had
hidden their discontent. Perhaps also in Jeru-
salem it was not necessary for them to be often
brought into contact with Gentile Christians. At
Antioch they saw what a predominantly Gentile
Church was. How far they went in practical
disloyalty to the decision of the ‘Council’ we are
not told. But the spirit of these malcontents had
a disastrous efiect on the conduct of St. Peter.*
Under their intluence he withdrew from the society
of, perhaps even from full tellowship in worship
with, the Gentile Christians, not probably receding
from his former doctrinal position, but practically
treating these Gentiles as on a lower level than
Jewish believers. He was guilty, not of false
doctrine, but (as once betore) of moral cowardice.
But the effect of his example was disastrous. All
the Jewish Christians at Antioch acted the same
part as he did (see art. Mark). St. Paul saw
that no less an issue was at stake than the real
unity of the Church. He felt it his duty publicly
to rebuke St. Peter.

St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians (prob.
A.D. 55), mentions the existence at Corinth of a
party who called themselves by the name of
Cephas (1 Co 15 38%). There is not the least
reason, however, why St. Peter should be made
responsible for their * heresy any more than St.

Corinth imply that St. Peter ever visited Corinth.
The statement of Dionysius of Corinth (6. A.D. 170,

Paul together planted the Church at Corinth and
taught there, seems to be simply a mistaken infer-
ence from St. Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians.
There does not appear to be any other trace of a
tradition that St. Peter worked in Greece.

The evidence supplie.. by 1 Peter as to the history
of the apostle will be examined in the art. on that
Epistle.

The invitation in Rev 18*° to ‘the saints and the

apostles and the prophets’ to rejoice over the judg-
~ment of Babylon, i.e. Rome, ὅτι ἔκρινεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ κρίμα

It was natural that the official |

messengers of the mother Church should in time be ,

followed by the chief of the apostles. St. Paul,
under the stress of a later controversy, raises for a
moment the veil which hid the history of St.
Peter’s sojourn at Antioch (Gal 211). ἢ

* On St. Paul's journeys to Jerusalem as givenin the Acts and
in Galatians see art. on CuroxotoGy or NT in vol. i. Ρ. 438 1.
The present writer, however, is quite unable to accept the inter-
pretation of Gal 211 suggested on p. 424, viz. that that passage
precedes in time Gal 51:10. In plain narrative the simple ozs δέ
(with aor.) must surely express sequence ; cf. Gal 110 312 44, The

At first, he |

paraphrase given to justity the interpretation alters the setting |

of 21. and supplies just the word which must have been ex-
pressed in Greek had the passage borne the suggested meaning
—‘So far from simply submitting to them, I once [sic] publicly
rebuked their chief.’

ὑμῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς (cf. 193), may not unreasonably be
considered as an allusion to the martyrdom of
St. Peter and St. Paul under Nero. If it is urged
that the juxtaposition of ‘the apostles’ and ‘the
prophets’ points to a wider use of the former term,
such as we tind in the Diduché, it may be answered
that the word ‘apostle’ is used in its strictest sense
in Rev 214,

* Hort, Judaistic Christianity p. 80 f., supposes that ‘ James
may have thought it most prudent to send cautions to Peter’
(i.e. as to the offending of Jewish susceptibilities), and that the
persons mentioned in Gal 215 were the bearers of this message.

The present writer would hazard the conjecture that these
messengers of James were the bearers of his Epistle. We have
in this supposition an adequate explanation of their mission.
The date of St. James’ Epistle is commonly placed about this
time (Mayor, p. cxxiv, gives 4.0. 40-50; Zahn, Einl. i. p. 92,
givesc. A.D. 50). It would be very natural that, after the Council
at Jerusalem, the President of the Church there should ad.
dress a letter to the Jewish converts in the Dispersion, to whom
recent events must have been a trial of faith; not less natural
that he should not directly allude to those events. But at least
in two points the Epistle may be thought to have an indirect
bearing on the temptations and anxieties of the time, (1) It
deals especially with sins of temper and of speech—sins which
would inevitably characterize a crisis of keen controversy.
(2) It condemns a perversion of St. Paul’s doctrine of faith.
It might be well for St. James (without touching on personal
matters) to reassure Jewish converts by showing them that the
acceptance of St. Paul’s position in regard to the Gentiles did
not involve the acceptance of doctrines which they, however
mistakenly, were accustomed to associate with St. Paul's name.

ee eee . 2)

766 PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

4. The doctrinal position of the Petrine speeches
in the Acts.—(i.) The historical witness.—(a) The
Lord’s ministry fills only a little space in St.
Peter's speeches at Jerusalem (2%). It was well
Known to his hearers, and it was overshadowed by
more recent events. Its significance, however, is
briefly indicated. The Lord’s miracles were works
of God wrought through Him (e.g. Jn 14”), They
tl erefore not only answered to the general Messi-
anic expectation (cf. Jn 791), but were proofs of His
mission as God’s messenger to Israel (ἀποδεδειγμένον
ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς). At Jerusalem, St. Peter
appeals to the knowledge of his hearers; at
Ciesarea, speaking before Gentiles, to the witness
of himself-and his Jewish companions (1059), (ὁ)
The crucifixion had its assured place in the Divine
counsels (259 318; ef, 438). and was not therefore the
chance triumph of the Lord’s foes. But on the
human side it was the act of Israel (223-36 317 411
5°), though done in ignorance (3'7). It involved
absolute humiliation (e.g. 2° ἔκδοτον. . . προσπή-
ξαντες), scornful rejection by Israel (δ... 3444);
and to Jewish eyes the curse of God (5° κρεμάσαντες
ἐπὶ ξύλου ; cf. Dt21*). The last point is important.
It suggests that in the earliest as in later times
the Jews urged the words of Dt as a final proof of
the Divine rejection of Jesus the Nazarene (hence
probably the blasphemous creed ἀνάθεμα ᾿Ιησοῦς,
1Co 12%), and that St. Peter directly met the
Jewish position. (6) The Resurrection was the
immediate act of God the Father (224 82 315 410 531
10”). It was the Divine refutation of Israel’s
blasphemy, because it was the Divine reversal of
Israel’s act of rejection. But a revelation of the
risen Messiah had not been given to all (10%). It
was therefore the primary duty of the apostles to
bear witness to the thines which ‘they saw and
heard? (4°° 104; cf. 1.Jn 11} as proof of the fact of
the Resurrection (935 3! 430 582 7101) Further, the
Resurrection involved the Exaltation—the session
of ‘Jesus Messiah’ at God’s right hand as κύριος
(285 86 315-21 531) Thus the confession Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς
Χριστός (2°; ef. 1 Co 123, Ro 10%, Ph 2") is the
direct antithesis of the Jewish blasphemy ἀνάθεμα
‘Inoods, and an appeal to Israel to make it their
own is the solemn conclusion of St. Peter’s first
address to the Jews. The activity of the ex-
alted Jesus is manifested in the gift of the Holy
Spirit (2%) and in miracles of healing (816. 41°;
cf. 4%"),

(ii.) The continuity of revelation and redemp-
tion.—The doctrine of a Messiah who had suffered,
and who by definite acts of God had been raised
from the dead and exalted to supreme sovereignty,
was new. But in various ways St. Peter insists
that these facts of redemption were the develop-
ment of the whole history of the people. He who
thus worked out His purpose is ‘the God of our
fathers’ (315 5%; ef. Shemoneh Esreh 1,* « Blessed art
Thou, Jehovah, our God and the God of our fathers

our shield and the shield of our fathers’).
This consummation of the Divine action was the
burden of all prophecy (3'% 34 108 ; ef. 4 Es 94, and
see Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud p. 355). Those
to whom St. Peter spoke were ‘the sons of the
prophets and of the covenant’ (3°; ef. viol τῆς
διαθήκης, Ps-Sol 17” ; ‘a son of the law,’ Apoc. Bar
46+; and see Wetstein in Joc.). It should be
noticed that Lk, who records St. Peter’s applica-
tions of prophecy, tells us the source whence he
learned them (Lk 24; οἵ, v.27),

(ili.) The doctrine of the Messiah.—‘ Jesus the
Nazarene’ was declared by God to be Messiah
(2%). The person of the Lord is here presented

* The Benedictions (in the original) are given in the Palestinian
and Babylonian recensions in Dalman, Die Worte Jesu p. 299 ff.
An English rendering will be found in Schirer, HJP κι. ii.
p. 83 ff. ; see also Westcott, Hebrews p. 206 ff.

from the point of view of His Messiahship.
(a) Messianic titles.—(a) The Messiah (ὁ χριστός,
Χριστός). ‘The anointing is specially referred to in
4*7 108; cf. Is 611 (Lk 48), Ps 44 (45)% With 10%
(ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς mv. ἁγίῳ καὶ δυνάμει) cf. Ps-Sol
17* (ὁ θεὸς κατηργάσατο αὐτὸν δυνατὸν ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ).
(8) The Servant (παῖς), 315: 26, comp. (the prayer of
the apostles) 4°. The phrase is derived from a
series of passages in Deutero-Isaiah. Its current
Messianic application is certified by Apoc. Bur 709
‘My servant Messiah.’ On the Rabbinic interpre-
tation of the passages in Isaiah see Edersheim,
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah ii. p. 726,
When, through the influence of the controversy
with the Ebionites, the meaning of Christological
phrases was more keenly analyzed by the Church,
it became customary, when the ancient phrase
was used of our Lord, to indicate, e.g., by the
addition of ἠγαπημένος, that παῖς was to be taken as
an equivalent of vids (e.g. Clem. *59 (thrice), Ep.
ad Iiog. 8, Mart. Polyc. *14, Acta Vhecla *24;
cf. Wis 2-15). The phrase, however, is used in its
original meaning in Did. *ix. 2 (εὐχαριστοῦμεν. . .
ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Δαυεὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου, ἧς
ἐγνωρίσας ἡμῖν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου), *ix. 3,
*x. 2. The simple use, therefore, of this pre-
Christian Messianic title, which in sub-apostolic
times was avoided or guarded, is very primitive.t
It should further be noticed that most of the earliest
Christian passages where the phrase occurs (marked
above with *) are liturgical, and that it twice occurs
in the apostles’ prayer (Ac 4). Hence it seems
probable that it was characteristic of Jewish
prayers, that thence it passed into the primitive
vocabulary of the Church, and that, having litur-
gical associations, it long maintained its place in
Christian prayers, though now it received a higher
doctrinal connotation. Comp. Lock in Expositor,
series iv. vol. iv. p. 178ff.; Dalman, Die Worte
Jesu p. 226ff. (x) ὁ ἅγιος καὶ δίκαιος, B43 οἵ, 427-30
7°? 22/48) Righteousness and holiness are the char-
acteristics of Messiah’s time; see e.g. Ps-Sol 17°,
Enoch 38° ‘when the righteous One shall appear
before the eyes of the elect righteous,’ where, as in
53° (cf. 46°), ‘the righteous One’ is a designation
of the Messiah (cf. Weber, Die Lehren εἰ. 7. p. 344).
For the holiness of Messiah cf. e.g. Ps-Sol 1725,
(δ) There is a group of expressions which may be
called archaic, being derived from the record of the
earliest period of Israel’s history. Such expres-
sions are ἀναστήσας (3°°; cf. v.%*) and ἤγειρεν (59) in
the sense of ‘God raised up, brought upon the
scene,’ ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σωτῆρα ὕψωσεν (5%; cf. 137%),
comp. 6.5. Jg 35.185. But phraseology of this kind
was not simply archaic. It had been adopted into
the devotional and liturgical language of the
Messianic hope; cf. e.g. Ps-Sol 17%: 47, Apoc. Bar
397 40°, Shemoneh Esreh 11.

(6) The issues of Messiah’s advent.—The horizon
is bounded by the limits of the national hope.
‘The promise’ (2°, cf. Ps-Sol 12%) is primarily
for Israel. There are in the speeches at Jeru-
salem but three hints of a wider blessing — ἐπὶ
πᾶσαν σάρκα (211, from J] 358), καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς εἰς μακρὰν
ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται Κύριος 6 θεὸς ἡμῶν (239, from
Is 57}, J] 2%), ἡμῖν πρῶτον» (375, cf. Mk 727). But how
through the agency of a restored Israel this ex-
tension of Messianic redemption is to be brought
about is in no way defined. Thus the forecast,
while it insists upon, does not go beyond, the more
generous Jewish expectation as to the nations, such
as finds expression in, ¢.g., Ps-Sol 17°8 (ἐλεήσει
πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν φόβῳ). It will be

{ It should be remembered that the LXX often represents q3y
in Isaiah and elsewhere by δοῦλος (e.g. Is 4219 4820 493.5), It is
therefore not improbable that St. Paul’s words μορφὴν δούλου
λαβών in Ph 27 allude to the prophecies in Deutero-Isaiah.
But in Ph 2 the preceding and the succeeding context alike
guard against any misconception :

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 767

noted that in these speeches the phrase τὰ ἔθνη 15
conspicuously absent.

To Israel three blessings are offered through the
work of Jesus Messiah: (1) national repentance and
forgiveness (2° 3! 5*! ; cf. 376 13%, Lk 1”), chiefly in
reference to the great national sin of rejecting
‘the Lord’s Anointed’; ef. e.g. Ps-Sol 1855, Shemoneh
Esrch 5, 6 (especially in the Babylonian recension,
which must be of Palestinian origin, Dalman, Die
Worte p. 301 n.); (2) national rest and peace (xacpol
ἀναψύξεως, 3); cf. e.g. Enoch 50!, Ps-Sol 10% ἐν
εὐφροσύνῃ ᾿Ισραήλ, 14° 17°" 187; (3) the mission of
Messiah from heaven, and the coming of ‘ times
of the restoration of all things (ἀποκαταστάσεως
πάντων, 3?')’; ef. the Rabbinic passages quoted in
Weber (p. 333 f.) as to the necessity of repentance
for tie coming of Messiah and its attendant bless-
ings; for ‘the restoration’ see, e.g., Enoch ABs
Apoe. Bar 73 f.*

It must be observed that in 4? the Sadducees are
represented as ‘sore troubled’ because the apostles
‘proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from among
the dead’ (τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν), i.e. a resurrection of the
righteous. The reference may be to some words of
the apostles unrecorded in Lk’s brief summary, or
to an interpretation which the Sadducees put on
their teaching about the Resurrection of Jesus.
On the Jewish doctrine of the Resurrection see
e.g. Ps-Sol 8:16, Shemoneh Esreh 2; see also
Charles, Eschatology p. 302.

In reviewing the doctrine of St. Peter's early
speeches we note that the new facts of the
ministry of Jesus, His death, His Resurrection
and Exaltation, are stated with absolute precision
and emphasis. But the theological interpretation
of these facts is inchoate. The predestination of
the Messiah is spoken of (2 31, cf. 458), but His
pre-existence is not aflirmed, nor is anything said
of His unique relation to the Father. The death
of Christ is not contemplated in a sacrificial
aspect, nor is it brought into connexion with the
problem of justification. There is no allusion to
the moral and spiritual power of the Resurrection
through the union of the believer with the Risen
Lord, nor to the sanctifying influence of the Holy
Spirit. The convictions and hopes created or
quickened in the apostle’s mind are expressed in
terms of the religion of a devout Israelite. If we
compare St. Peter’s speeches with any one of the
apostolic Epistles (except that of St. James, which
deals almost wholly with questions of conduct), we
see the difference between an immediate interpre-
tation of the Christian facts in their bearing on
Israel, and a matured apprehension and exposition
of these facts in their universal and absolute signi-
ficance.

If. St. Perer IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION.—4.
St. Peter’s early life.—Epiphanius, amonk of Jeru-
salem of the 9th cent., in his ‘Acts and end of
... Andrew,’ relates (ed. Dresse] p. 45 f.) that ‘in
the days of Hyreanus, the priest and king of the
Hebrews, there was a certain Jonas of the tribe of
Symeon. He was a poor man, and at his death
left his two sons, Simon and Andrew, in great
poverty. They hired themselves ont. Andrew
devoted himself to a life of absolute continence.
Simon married the daughter of Aristobalus, brother
of the Apostle Barnabas, and, as it is said, had a
son and a daughter. .. . After the death of his

*Dalman (Die Worte Jesu p. 145f.), with whom Charles
(Eschatology p. 374n.) agrees, maintains that the words avoz«-
πάστασις πάντων have nothing to do with the ‘renewal of the
world, but refer to the fulfilment of the predictions of the
Prophets. He bases his opinion upon the Peshitta—‘ until
the completion of the times of those things which God spoke by
the mouth of His holy prophets.’ But this is merely a para-
phrastic abbreviation characteristic of the Peshitta. The word
ἀποκατάστασις cannot refer to the fulfilment of prophecy (cf.
e.g. Mt 12131711, Ac 16), and when taken in its natural sense is
in harmony with Jewish ideas.

mother-in-law he committed his wife to the
Theotokos’ (cf. for other authorities Lipsius * p. 7).
In the Book of the Bee of Solomon, a writer of
the first half of the 13th cent., who, according to
Lipsius (Die Apokr. Ap., Ergdnzungsheft p. 19),
constantly depends on older sources, the apostle
belonged to the tribe of Naphtali (Oxford Semitic
Series, I. pt. ii. p. 104). Clement (Strom. 111. 6, p.
535 ed. Potter, quoted in Eus. ΠΣ 11. xxx.) says
that the apostles Peter and Philip had children ;+
and Jerome (adv. Jovinian. i. 26) states that the
περίοδοι mentions a son and a daughter of St. Peter ;
while he himself, arguing apparently from the
silence of Scripture (Mk 1°"), supposes that his
wife had died before his call to tollow Christ.
Clement in the passage just quoted asserts that
the apostles travelled with their wives οὐχ ὡς γαμ-
eras ἀλλ᾽ ws ἀδελφάς, and employed them in mini-
strations to women (cf. Clem. Recog. ii. 1, vii. 25,
36; Hom. xiii. 1, 11). Clement further preserves
a tradition (Strom. vii. 11, p. 868 ed. Potter,
quoted in Eus. ΜΙ 1. xxx.), to which, it seems,
no independent writer alludes, that St. Peter’s
wife suffered a martyr’s death, and that the apostle,
when he saw her led away, encouraged her with
the words μέμνησο, ὦ αὕτη, τοῦ κυρίου (as Eus. gives
the phrase),—words which may imply that she too
had known the Lord. ‘There is nothing improbable
in the supposition that she was one of the women
who suffered in the Neronian persecution (Clem.
Rom. vi.).

The story of Petronilla, the supposed daughter
of St. Peter, is given in Acta Nere: et Achiller 15
(ed. Achelis p. 14 f.), and in Acta Philippi, in
Tischendorf, A pocal. Apocr. pp. 149,155. Augustine
(contr. Adimant. 17; Migne, Pat. Lat. 42, 161) also
mentions the fact that the story had a place in the
apocryphal books in use among the Manichwans.
The beauty of the daughter, so the story runs, was
a trouble to the apostle, who therefore prayed that
she might be paralyzed. He afterwards, in answer
to the challenge of Titus, bade her rise and minister
to them. After her restoration she was sought in
marriage by ‘ Flaccus the Count.’ She puts him
off for three days, and on the third day dies after
receiving the Eucharist. The Encratite element
in the story connects it with the Gnostic Ipageus
Ilérpov (see below), from which it was doubtless
originally derived (see Lipsius pp. 81, 203 ff). The
saint’s memorial day is May 31. Over her tomb in
the Ardeatine Way pope Siricius, about 390, erected
a basilica. The inscription on the tomb was AVR "
PETRONILLE - FILLA - DVLCISSIMAS. The
name Petronilla is to be connected, not with Peter
but with Petronius. The founder of the Flavian
house bore the name of Petro. The catacomb in
which Petronilla was buried was closely connected
with the Flavian gens, being the ‘Cemetery of
Domitilla,’ the wife of Flavius Clemens. Doubt-
less the story arose from a mistaken etymology.
Petronilla, an early convert to Christianity and a
member of the Flavian family, was in later days
assumed to be a daughter of the Apostle Peter (see
Lightfoot, Clement i. p. 37 1h, who gives references
to de Rossi’s articles; Lanciani, Pagan and
Christian Rome p. 340 ff.).

As to (late) traditions respecting the personal
appearance of the apostle, it must sufhice to refer
to Lipsius p. 213. As the tonsure was supposed
to be due to St. Peter’s example, it is of interest to
notice that Jerome (Comm. in Gal. 1. 18) refers to
a statement of the Period: that he was bald.

For information in regard to early pictures and
representations of the apostle, see art. in Dict. Chr.

* References to Lipsius (unless it is otherwise stated) are to
Die Apokryphen A postelgeschichten und A postellegenden, τι. i.

+ Cf. Origen in Evang. Matth. xvi. 21 (Lomm. iii. p. 371);
Epiph. Her. xxx. 22 (ed. Petav. p. 147).

768 PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

Ant. ii. p. 1621; Lanciani, Pagan and Christian
Rome p. 210 ff.

Among the sayings of our Lord preserved in
extra-canonical authorities a few are addressed
to St. Peter. (1) Tenatius, Smyr. 3, ‘When
[after the Resurrection] He came to Peter and
his company, He said to them, Lay hold and handle
Me, and see that I am not a demon without
body.’ Cf. Lk 24°, On the question whether this
saying had a place in ‘the Gospel according to the
Hebrews,’ see Lightfoot in loco. (2) ‘2 Clem.’ 5,
‘The Lord saith, Ye shall be as lambs in the midst
of wolves. But Peter answered and said unto
Him, What then if the wolves should tear the
lambs? Jesus said unto Peter, Let not the lambs
fear the wolves after they are dead,’ etc. Cf.
Mt 10°, Lk 124, See Lightfoot’s note. (3) ‘The
Gospel according to the Hebrews’ (ap. Jerome,
adv. Pelag. iii. 2), “81 peccauerit, inquit, fra-
ter tuus in uerbo et satis tibi fecerit, septies in die
suscipe eum, Dixit illi Simon discipulus eius,
Septies in die? Respondit Dominus et dixit él,
Etiam ego dico tibi, Usque septuagies septies.’
Cf. Mt 18”, Lk 174. See Westcott, Introduction
p. 456; Hilgenfeld, NT extra Canon. iv. pp. 16,
23. (4) ‘The Gospel according to the Hebrews’
(ap. Origen in Matth. tom. xv. 14), ‘Conuersus
dixit Simoni discipulo suo sedenti apud se, Simon
fili Johanne, facilius est camelum intrare per fora-
men acus, quam diuitem in reenum celorum.’ Cf.
Mt 195. See Westcott p. 463; Hilgenfeld p. 16.
(5) “The Gospel of the Ebionites’ (7p. Epiph. Har.
xxx. 13), * And when He came to Capernaum, He
entered into the house of Simon, surnamed Peter ;
and He opened His mouth and said, As I passed
along the Lake of Tiberias I chose John and James,
sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew .. . you
then I wish to be twelve apostles for a testimony
to Israel.’ See Westcott p. 466; Hilgenfeld pp-
33, 36. On the Gospel axd the Apocalypse of
Peter see below, p. 776f.

2. St. Peter in connexion with the Syrian
Antioch.— According to a very widespread tradi-
tion, St. Peter was the founder and organizer of
the Church in Antioch. The Clementine Romance,
which must date back at least to the beginning of
the 8rd cent., makes the apostle’s entry into An-
tioch and his suecess there the happy conclusion of
the story (/lom. xx. 23; Recog. x. 68 ff.). Baseless
as most of its details are, in such a matter as this
it would be likely to reflect current. tradition,
especially as it probably originated in Syria (see
below). Origen (Hom. vi. in Lue., ed. Lomm. v.
p. 104) calls Ignatius ‘the second Bishop of Antioch
after the blessed Peter.’ This statement was not
improbably derived from an earlier list of Antio-
chene bishops. Such a list Lipsius (p. 25, ef.
Lightfoot, Clement i. p. 333 f.) thinks can be assigned
to the time of Victor of Rome. Other important
notices of St. Peter’s connexion with the Church of
Antioch preserved in Christian literature are: (1)
Grech: (a) Apost. Const. vii. 46; (6) Euseb. HE 112.
xxxvi. 2, Chron. (see below); (6) Chrys. Hom. in
Iqn. Mart. (Migne, Pat. Gr. 1.591); (d) Theodoret,

Dial. Immut. (Migne, Pat. Gr. Ixxxiii. 81); (6)
Chron. Paschale (Migne, Pat. Gr. xcii. 557). In the

last document we are told that in the fourth year
after the Ascension Peter went to Antioch, that at
the request of the Jewish Christians he enthroned
himself as bishop, that he did not receive or regard
any Gentile Christians, and that so leaving them
to themselves he departed thence—a story which
must he derived from some early Ebionite romance
cognate to the Letter of Peter to James prefixed to
the Clem. Homilies. (2) Latin: (a) Jerome, de
Vire. [llustr. 1; (δ) Leo, Epp. 106, 119 (Miene, Pat.
Lat. liv. 1007, 1042); (ὦ) Liber Pontificalis (in all
the several forms, ed. Duchesne pp. 50 f., 118), see

below ; (d) Gregory the Great, Ep. vii. 40 (Migne,
Pat. Lat. \xxvii. 899), ‘ipse firmauit sedem [in Antio-
chia] in qua septem annis, quamuis discessurus,
sedit.” The festival of ‘Cathedra Petriin Antiochia?
was on Feb, 22 (see below, p. 773). (3) Syriac:
Doctr. Apost. (Cureton, Anc. Syr. Documents, p. 38). |

To pass to the date and length of Peter’s sojourn
at Antioch. The Lid. Pontificalis, both in the
original form as restored by Duchesne (p. 51), and
in the later recension (p. 118), gives seven years (so
Greg.) as the length of Peter’s Antiochene episco-
pate, This evidence probably represents the Roman
tradition of the earlier years of the 6th century.
The Felician abridgment (ὁ. A.D. 530), however,
has ‘annos x.’ (p. 50). It would not be ditheult ina
reconstruction of St. Peter’s life to find a place for an
Antiochene ministry of seven or ten years’ duration.
Dut the evidence is too late to claim serious atten-
tion. The dates given in the two chief versions of
Eusebius’ Chronicon are conflicting (ed. Schoene,
p. 150 ff). The Armenian version places. the
apostle’s departure for Rome, ‘when he had first
founded the Church of Antioch,’ in the third year
of Gaius (39-40), and the appointment of Euodius
in the second year of Claudius (42-43). Jerome (so |
also Syriac epitome, ed. Schoene p. 211) gives the |
departure for Rome in the second year of Claudius,
and the appointment of Euodius two years later.
The arrangement in Jerome seems artilicial, for he
places in three consecutive years three important
events connected with the three great Churches—
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. Moreover, the Petrine
dates in the Chronicon are connected with what
appears to be the impossible assumption of a 25
years’ episcopate at Rome. The simple tradition,
however, which associates St. Peter with the early
period of the Church at Antioch, seems to go back
to the 2nd cent., and is intrinsically probable.

3. St. Peter in connexion with Pontus and the
provinces of Asia Minor.—Origen (ap. Eus. HE
IIL. 1) is the earliest authority—Leérpos δὲ ἐν ΠΠύντῳ
καὶ Ἰαλατίᾳ καὶ Βιθυνίᾳ Καππαδοκίᾳ τε καὶ ᾿Ασίᾳ
κεκηρυχέναι τοῖς ἐκ διασπορᾶς ᾿Ιουδαίοις ἔοικεν. The
last word shows that the statement is an inference :
the enumeration of provinces and the reference to
the διασπορά make it plain that the source of the
inference is the salutation of 1 P. Epiphanius
(Her, XXVU. vi. p. 107 ed. Petav.) goes a step
further, and states that the apostle often visited
Pontus and Bithynia. Jerome (de Virr. [lustr. 1)
places this missionary journey between the apostle’s
episcopate at Antioch and his journey to Rome in
the second year of Claudius. The Syriac Doctrine
of the Apostles (Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents
p. 33) informs us that ‘Antioch and Syria and
Cilicia and Galatia, even to Pontus, received the
apostles’ hand of priesthood from Simon Cephas,
who himself laid the foundation of the Chureh
there, and was priest and ministered there up te
the time when he went from thence to Rome.’
In this missionary journey Andrew was tradition-
ally associated with Peter. Thus, in the catholic
Acts of Andrew as given by Epiphanius (ed.
Dressel pp. 45-82), a monk of Jerusalem of the
9th cent., the story is told how the two brothers
journey from the Syrian Antioch to Tyana in
Cappadocia, and from thence to Sinope in Pontus.
Epiphanius himself visited Sinope, and found there
traditions of the apostles’ visit. The inhabitants
pointed out a spot on a desert island some six miles
from the city where the apostles dwelt, and the
chairs on which they sat to teach (pp. 47, 50).
There are, however, indications that in this tradi-
tion there has been a confusion between the obscure
Simon Zelotes and his well-known brother-apostle
Simon Peter (Lipsius, Apokr. Apustelg. I. p. 612,
Il. 1. p. 6). Photius (Cod. exiv. ; Migne, Pat. Gr.
οἷ]. 389) among the Leucian Acts mentions ae,

a

|
|
|
|
|
)
j

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 769

of Andrew. We may infer, therefore, that the
kernel of the later Acts of Andrew was supplied
by this 2nd cent. romance. On the Acts of Andrew
in their different forms see Lipsius, A pokr. A pos-
telg. I. 543-622; James, Apocr. Anccdota ii. p.
xxix ff; Bonnet, Passio Andree (Acta Ap. Apoe.
11.). On the tradition as to St. Peter’s work in
Pontus, ete., see Lipsius, A polkr. A postelq. τι. i. p. 4 Ε΄
There is no reason to regard it as anything but an
inference from the salutation of the Epistle.

4 St. Peter in connexion with Babylon.—Lipsius
adduces two pieces of evidence to show that St.
Peter visited Babylon. (1) He refers to two Nes-
torian writers (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. iii. 2, p. vi)
who make this assertion. But, apart from the
lateness of their date, their statement is avowedly
based on a literal interpretation of 1 P 5! And,
again, the earlier Syriac tradition as given in the
Doctrine of Addai (p. 44 ed. Phillips) and in the
Doctrine of Simon Cephas (Cureton, Ancient Syriac
Documents Ὁ. 35) knows nothing of Babylon, and
makes the apostle visit Rome. (2) Lipsius argues
that, wlien the Acts of Simon and Jude (Vabricius,
Cod. Apocr. NT ii. p. 608 ff.) make Simon the
Cananiean go to Babylon, the obscure Simon has
taken the place of his famous namesake, and that
therefore these Acts supply an argument for Simon
Peter's visit to Babylon. It can only be said that
such a conclusion rests on an inversion of proba-
bility. In short, there is no evidence for the
theory that St. Peter worked at Babylon (see
Lipsius, Die Apoar. Apostelg. 11. 11. pp. 1451., 175,
Kirganzungsheft p. 32; and, on the other side,
Zahn, Hin/. ii. p. 21).

5. St. Peter in connexion with Rome. — The
chief points at issue are, whether St. Peter
visited Rome; if he did, how long he worked
there ; whether he suffered martyrdom there ;
and if so, at what date. It will be most con-
venient to arrange the evidence under the several
Churches.

(1) Lome.—(a) Clement (6. A.D. 96) v. vi. In the
previous chapters Clement has spoken of the evils
which have sprung from ‘jealousy and envy.’ He
has taken examples from Scripture in chronological
order, ending with David. ‘ Let us,’ he continues,
‘come to the athletes who lived but lately (τοὺς
ἔγγιστα “γενομένους, 1.6. as compared with the OT
heroes), the noble examples of our own generation.
Because of envy the great and righteous pillars (of
the Church) were persecuted and contended unto
death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles
—Peter, who endured many labours and, having
borne his witness (μαρτυρήσας), went to the appointed
place of glory ; Paul (who suffered much and jour-
neyed far and), having borne his witness before
the rulers, departed thus from the world and went
to the holy place... .'To these men... there was
gathered a great company of the elect, who, being
the victims of jealousy, by reason of many outrages
and tortures became a noble example among us.’
The main points are these : (i.) The most reasonable
explanation of the fact that the examples of the
other apostles are passed over and Peter and Paul
alone mentioned, is that Clement points to those
two apostles whose examples of heroism were best
known to the Church in whose name he writes (cf.
Tenatius, below). (11.) That St. Paul suffered at
Rome is universally allowed. The language 15
carefully chosen to emphasize the likeness between
the experiences of the two apostles. (111.) If the
passage, when naturally interpreted, discloses the
ace of St. Peter’s martyrdom, what of the time?

Ve have seen that in the preceding context

Clement followed the order of time. It is unlikely

that he would desert that order in regard to

events within his own knowledge and that of his

readers. Since, then, ‘the great company of the
VOL. 111.--τ 49

elect’ who suffered were plainly Nero’s victims, it
seems to follow that the two apostles perished
either before or during the Neronian persecu-
tion. The former alternative may be put aside as
unsupported by any evidence. Further, a close
association of the apostles and ‘the great com-
pany’ seems implied in the phrase τούτοις... συνη-
θροίσθη. Indeed, a strict interpretation of these
words appears to Justify us in going astep further.
They mean ‘to these’ rather than ‘iith these’
‘there was gathered,’* and thus seem to imply
that the apostles were among those ‘who were
seized first’ (Tac. Ann. xv. 44), the first-fruits of a
too abundant harvest. Thus the obvious interpre-
tation of Clement’s words is that St. Peter and St.
Paul were martyred in the Neronian persecution ;
while the language is not explicit enough to have
created the tradition. (4) Caius, a Roman pres-
byter, a contemporary of Zephyrinus and Hippoly-
tus. Eus. ΜΗ τι. xxv. quotes the following words
from the treatise of Caius against Proclus the
Montanist: ἐγὼ δὲ τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω
δεῖξαι ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσῃς ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βατικανὸν
ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ᾿Ὠστίαν, εὑρήσεις τὰ τρόπαια τῶν
ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. The words of
Caius are an explicit statement (1) that both the
apostles worked for some time at Rome; (2) that
they died a martyr’s death at Rome. But the
question remains—Did τὰ τρόπαια mark the place
of execution (so Lipsius) or of burial (so Zahn) ?
There are strong reasons for choosing the latter
alternative. The ἐγὼ δέ of Caius suggests that he
at Rome claims to eclipse what Proclus appealed
to in Asia Minor, ὁ.6. the tombs of Philip and his
daughters at Hierapolis (Eus. HE m1. xxxi. 4).
This clearly was the meaning which Eusebius
himself put upon the words (cf. 1. xxxi. 1). Thus
we can draw another inference from Caius’ words,
viz. that at the beginning of the 3rd cent. the
toman Church thought that it possessed the bodies
of the two apostles. No certain answer can be
given to the further question—Of what did these
τρύπαια consist? The word may imply the erection
on the spot of a building of some kind, a memoria
such as the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne
pp. 55, 125) says that Anencletus built. Or it
may point to some natural or other object which
identified the spot, such as the catholic Acts +
speak of (see below, p. 772). (¢) Hippolytus. In
the Lefutatio (vi. 20) this writer speaks of the
conflict between Simon Magus and ‘the apostles’
at Rome, and in particular of Peter’s opposition to
him. It appears, however, that Hippolytus used
the apocryphal Acts (Bonwetsch, Studien zu den
Komm. Hippolyts p. 27), and we cannot be sure,
therefore, that his statement is independent. evi-
dence. Yet the end of Simon as described by him
differs from his end according to the extant Acts.
(ὦ) The Muratorian Canon. The fragment speaks
of the ‘passion of Peter’ in close connexion with
St. Paul’s journey to Spain. As these two events
are mentioned together in the Acts of Peter, it is
probable that the writer (very probably Hippolytus)
has these Acts in his mind (James, A pocr. Anecde2.
ii. p. x f.), and we are not entitled to infer more
than that he does not question the truthfulness of
the Acts in these matters. (6) The notice in the
Depositio Martyraum (see below, p. 772) as to the
translation of the apostles’ bodies in 258 confirms
the evidence of Caius.

(2) Syria.—(a) Tenatius of Antioch (ς. 115). He
writes to the Romans (ec. iv.) thus: οὐχ ws Hérpos
καὶ Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν. Contrast the similar
but studiously general language addressed to the

*Compare Eur. Rhesus 618, 08° ἐγγὺς ἧσται καὶ συνήθροισται
στρατῶ, and (with Zann, deed. i. p. 447) 1 Καὶ 112: (Cod. A) εἰς αὐτόν,
1 Mac 152 spo: αὐτούς.

t Ed. Lipsius pp. 172, 216: e9yz0ev [τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ] ire τὴν
τερέξινθον πλησίον τοῦ ναυ μα Kio” εἰς τότον χχλούμενον Βχτικανόν.

“1

τὸ PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

Trailians (c. 111.) : ἵνα ὧν κατάκριτος ὡς ἀπόστολος
ὑμῖν διατάσσωμαι. Inthe letter to the Romans St.
Peter and St. Paul are mentioned—such is the
natural explanation—because they had actually
given commandments to the Roman Church (see
Lightfoet im /oc.). (Ὁ) Clementine literature (Recog.,
Hom.). The Grundschrift had its origin prob-
ably in Syria before the close of the 2nd cent.
In the documents now extant there are a few
allusions to Peter’s visit to Rome. But it is not
certain that they are not due to later editing (see
below, p. 775). (ὦ) Documents of the Syriae-
speaking Chureh : The Doctrine of Addai, “in its
present shape a work of the latter half of the 4th
cent.” (Wright, Short Hist. of Syriae Literature
p. 9), speaks of ‘the Epistles of Paul, which Simon
Peter sent us from the city of Rome’ (ed. Phillips
p. 44); so Doctr. of the Apostles (Cureton, Ancient
Syrie Documents p. 33).

(3) Corinth. — Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (ὁ.
170), addressed a letter to Soter, bishop of Rome,
a fragment of which is preserved in Eus. ΜΠ τι.
xxv. 8. After speaking of the common work of St.
Peter and St. Paul at Corinth, he continues : ὁμοίως
δὲ καὶ eis τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ὁμύσε διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ
τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν. ‘The reference to the common work
of the two apostles in Corinth is probably a mere
inference from 1 Co. But there is nothing in the
NT which can account for the assertion of their
common activity in Italy. Dionysius must there-
fore here refer to a tradition, which may have
come to him through the medium of the Petrine
Acts, but which, however it reached him, he
accepted. It matters little whether ὁμόσε is taken
loosely to mean ‘ together,’ or more strictly ‘(going
to) the same place,’ 7.e. in Italy. Dionysius can
have only Rome in his mind. The last words of
the extract imply that the apostles suffered, not
necessarily on the same day, but during the same
persecution.

(4) Asia Minor.—(a) Papias (6. 139). It is a
reasonable inference from the language of Eusebius
(HE WW. xv. 2, UL. xxxix. 15, 16) that Papias inter-
preted Buhylon in 1 P 5 of Rome, and is therefore
a witness for the Roman visit. (4) The Gnostic
Acts of Peter were probably the work of Leucius
Charinus in the second half of the 2nd cent. As
Leucius lived in Asia Minor, it is clear that he did
not place the scene of Peter’s conflict with Simon
Magus at Rome from motives of ecclesiastical
patriotism. It is natural to suppose that he built
up the romance on a current tradition of Peter's
visit to Rome (see below, p. 774).

(5) South Gaul. —Ireneus (6. 190) gained his
knowledge of earlier times from many sources.
As the pupil of Polycarp in Asia, he was acquainted
with the traditions of * the school of St. John.’ He
himself visited Rome, probably on more than one
occasion, and, it would appear, he resided there
for some time (Lightfoot, Essays on ‘Supernatural
Religion’ p. 267). His list of Roman bishops makes
it probable that he had had access to the records
preserved in the Roman Church. He writes thus
(ir. 1. 1): ‘Matthew . .. published his Gospel
while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and
founding the Church there. And after their
departure (ἔξοδον) Mark, the disciple and inter-
preter of Peter, he too handed on to us in writ-
ing what Peter preached.’ Trenceus, it will be
noticed, speaks of the joint work of the apostles
at Rome as belonging to a period so well icin
that it supplies a means of dating another event.
Further, it is natural to take the word ἔξοδος
as referring to the apostles’ death; for (inde-
pendently of other notices) this interpretation is
favoured by (1) the use of the word, ef. Wis 32 75,

Lk 97,2 P 1%; Clem. Alex. pp. 570, 882, ed. Potter,
and the frequent use of exitus in Tertullian (Oehler |

on Scorp. 9); (2) the context—to say that Mark
recorded the substance of Peter’s preaching after
his death defines not only the date but the reason
of the composition of the Gospel.

(6) Alerundria.—(a) Clement (ec. 200), in a frag-
ment of the Hypotyposeis, preserved by Eusebius
(GE vi. xiv.), and in the commentary on | Peter
contained in the same treatise and now extant
in a Latin translation (ed. Potter p. 81} an
connexion with the composition of St. Mark’s
Gospel speaks of St. Peter’s preaching at Rome.
(6) Origen ((. 250). In the passage quoted above
(p. 768), Origen, after speaking of St. Peter’s
journeys in Asia Minor, adds that ‘at last, having
arrived in Rome, he was crucified head downwarus,
having himself requested that he might so suffer,’
(c) Peter of Alexandria. The date of the Eyristola
Canonica is apparently A.D. 306 (Dict. Chr. Biog.
iv. p. 331). In it (Can. 9, Routh, Rel. Sacr. iv.
p. 34) mention is made of St. Peter’s crucifixion at
Rome.

(7) North Africa.—(a) Tertullian (6. 200). The
passages in Tertullian’s writings are—Scorp. 15:
‘Orientem fidem Romie primus Nero cruentauit.
Tune Petrus ab altero cingitur, eum cruci adstrin-
gitur’; de Bapt. 4: ‘quos P. in Tiberi tinxit’; de
Proser, Heret. 32: ‘Romanorum [ecclesia refert]
Clementem a Petro ordinatum’; 76. 36: ‘Ista
quam felix ecclesia [se. Rome] . ubi Petrus
passion? dominice adiequatur,’ Thus Tertullian is
the earliest writer who (1) speaks of the manner of
St. Peter's death—by crucifixion ; (2) and explicitly
states that it took place in Nero’s reign. (0)
Commodian. This earliest Christian poet, prob-
ably of African extraction, writing about A.D. 250
(see Dict. Chr. Biog. i. p. 610), speaks in the Car-
men Apologeticum 8320 1. of Peter and Paul suffer-
ing in Rome under Nero.

(8) This Catena will best be ended with a
reference to the two historians of the first part
of the 4th cent., Lactantius and Eusebius. Lae-
tantius in Jnstit. Div. iv. 21 speaks of Peter and
Paul preaching in Rome, adding, ‘ea preedicatio in
memoriam scripta permansit’—which Zahn (Ges.
Kan. ii. p. 884) considers to be a reference to the
Pauli pradicatio (ct. pseudo-Cyprian, de Rebapt.
17); and in de Mort. Persec, 2 he says of Nero:
‘Petrum cruci aflixit et Paulum interfecit.’ The
following passages from Eusebius are to the point:
—HE τι. xiv. (Peter’s contlict at Rome with Simon
Macus in Claudius’ reign), xv. (Peter and the com-
position of Mark’s Gospel at Rome), xvii. (in the
reign of Claudius, Philo became acquainted with
Peter at Rome; ef. Jerome, de Virr. Illustr. xi;
Photius, Cod. 105), xxv. (Paul beheaded, Peter cruci-
fied at Rome), 11. xxi. (Clement third in succession
‘after Peter and Paul’), xxxi. 1; Demons. Evang.
ui. 5. 65 (St. Peter crucified at Rome head down-
wards); Zheophania iv. 7 (ed. Lee p. 221;
Peter's ‘honourable sepulchre in the very front
of their city,’ ae. Rome), v. 31 (ed. Lee p. 315;
Peter crucified at Rome). See just below on the
Chronicon.
lected by Lipsius p. 236 ff For a summing up of
this evidence see below, p. 777. ;

6. Chronological notices in the Chronicon of
Eusebius and in the Liber Pontificalis.—(i.) The
Chronicon.—(a) St. Peter’s arrival in Rome. The
Armenian version assigns St. Peter’s arrival at
Rome, after founding the Church at Antioch, to the
3rd year of Caius, 1.6. 39-40, adding, ‘ commoratur
illic antistes ecclesiv annis viginti.’ The appoint-
ment of Euodius as bishop of Antioch is placed
in the 2nd year of Claudius, 1.6. 42-43. Jerome
puts the appointment of Euodius in the 4th year
of Claudius, 1.6. 44-45, and the arrival of St. Peter
at Rome, after founding the Antiochene Church, in
the 2nd year of Claudius, 1.6. 42-43. He adds:

Passages from later writers are col-—

ea ow si

iret 9, --

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 771

‘xxv annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseuerat.’*
(6) St. Peter's death. The Armenian version puts
the Neronian persecution, ‘when the apostles
Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at Rome,’ in
the 13th year of Nero, ¢.¢. 67-68, and perhaps by
a pure mistake the beginning of Linus’ episcopate
‘post Petrum’ is assigned to the previous year.t
Jerome places the persecution, the martyrdom of
the two apostles, and the accession of Linus to the
episcopate in the last—the 14th—year of Nero.
It may be noticed that the date in the Armenian
version for Peter's arrival at Rome seems to be
arevision of the Eusebian date, and was perhaps
attained thus. It is said in this version that
Peter continued at Rome 20 years: this brings
us to 59-60—an absurd date for the apostle’s
death. But if we suppose that in the processes
of translation and revision ‘twenty’ was substi-
tuted for ‘twenty-five, then we get a date
assigned to Peter's death very shortly after the
fire in July 64. It seems likely, then, that the
Armenian version, assuming 25 years’ episcopate,
worked back from the summer or autumn of 64,
and so gave the carly date for Peter’s arrival in
Rome. If this be so, we have here indirect evi-
dence of the survival of the tradition that Peter’s
martyrdom took place in 64. The date, however,
of the apostle’s death is unrevised, and retains
its Eusebian position at the end of Nero. reign.
Two other passages dealing with the date of St.
Peter’s arrival at Rome must be quoted: (1) Eus.
HE it. xiv., where, after an account of Simon’s
mischievous doings at Rome, Eusebius adds that
Providence brought Peter also thither ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς
Κλαυδίου βασιλείας. (2) Jerome (de Virr. Illustr. 1}:
“Romam pergit ibique viginti quingue annis
cathedram sacerdotalem tenuit usque ad wétimum
annum Neronis, id est, quartum decimum’ (ef.
ν.). Harnack (Dic Chronol. p. 124 n.) points out
that Eusebius in the History does not refer to a
25 years’ episcopate, and puts Peter’s arrival at
Rome simply in the reign of Claudius, and that it
is therefore possible that the reference to the 25
years and the location of the commencement of
that period in the 2nd year of Claudius may be
due to Jerome. This may be so; but the fact that
both the versions of the Chronicon, the Armenian
and Jerome, mention the length of Peter’s stay at
Rome (the original number of years in the Arm.
asin Jerome having probably been 25), and that
they both place his martyrdom there near the end
of Nero’s reign, points to the dates and the 25
years’ episcopate having been derived from the
original statement of the Eusebian Chronicon. It
is probable (Lightfoot, Clement i. p. 389; Harnack,
Chronol. p. 123) that Eusebius derived his early
papal chronology from Julius Africanus ; and the
latter may in his turn have used earlier documents,
e.g. the lists of Hegesippus. But (assuming that
it had a place in the Chronicon of Eusebius) there
is no evidence to show whether the 25 years’
episcopate was the invention of Eusebius or whether
he inherited it from one of his predecessors. [Ὁ
will appear in a moment that it is probably the
result of an artificial arrangement of dates. We
turn to the date of the martyrdom, which is put in
the last year of Nero’s reign. It is to be noticed
that the catholic Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius p. 172 f.)
connect with the apostle’s death a prophecy that
‘Nero should be destroyed not many days hence’

* The Syriac Epitome (Schoene p. 211) puts the foundation of
the Church at Antioch and St. Peter’s arrival at Rome (‘et
prefuit ecclesiv illi annos xxv’)in Anno Abr. 2058 (=a.p. 42-
43), the appointment of Euodius two years later; but under
An. Abr, 2064 (= ον. 46-49) it has the entry, ‘ Petrus apostolus
moderator eccl. Romani factus est.’

t+ It is, however, possible that we should connect this appoint-
ment of Linus with what there are some reasons for thinking
to be the fact that Peter left Rome for a time about a year
before his martyrdom there (see below, p. 778).

and relate its speedy fulfilment. Eusebius’ words,
preserved by Syncellus, are: ἐπὶ πᾶσι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῖς
ἀδικήμασι [ατυχήμασι Codd.) καὶ τὸν πρῶτον κατὰ
Χριστιανῶν ἐνεδείξατο διωγμόν, ἡνίκα Ἰ]έτρος καὶ Παῦλος
κιτιλ. It does not appear that Eusebius was
acquainted with Tacitus, and, if he did not con-
nect the persecution with the great fire, it was
very natural that, whether he followed the catho-
lie Acts or no, he should regard the attack on the
Church as the filling up of Nero’s iniquities (cf.
Ae 12'*5), On the other hand, the evidence of
Tacitus is decisive that the persecution followed
immediately upon the fire ; and the Chronicon re-
cords under the year 63-64 ‘many conflagrations
at Rome.’ We have still to account for the legend
of the 25 years’ episcopate at Rome. If the
terminus ad quem of Peter’s sojourn at Rome
was determined as suggested above, we may con-
jecture that (the ministry at Antioch being re-
garded as a mere offshoot of the ministry at Jeru-
salem) Peter’s departure for Rome was placed at the
expiration of the 12 years, after which, according
to the tradition which hada place in the Κήρυγμα
Πέτρου (ap. Clement, Sfrom. vi. 5) and the Gnostie
Acts of Peter (ed, Lipsius p. 49; for other refer-
ences see Harnack, Die Chronol. p. 248), the Lord
commanded the apostles to go forth into the world
(cf. Ας 1317), If the Passion was placed in the year
30, then the sojourn of Peter at Rome would be
considered to commence about the year 42, and
just about a quarter of a century would elapse
between that date and the martyrdom at the end
of Nero’s reign.*

(11.) The Liber Pontificalis.—We turn now to
the later catalogues of Roman bishops. (1) The
Liberian catalogue (Duchesne p. 2) has the notice,
‘Petrus ann. xxv mens. uno εἰ. viili.t Fuit tem-
poribus Tiberii Cresaris et Gai et Tiberi Claudi et
Neronis, a cons. Minuei [/ege Vinici] et Long ni
usque Nerine et Vero [dege Vetere]. Passus autem
cum Paulo die 11 kl. inlias, cons. $8, imperante
Nerone.’ The date of this catalogue is 954, [Ὁ
gives the date of Peter's 25 years’ Roman episco-
pate as A.D. 30-55. ‘The notice immediately pre-
ceding puts the date of the crucifixion as A.D. 29
(‘duobus Geminis cons.’), and then adds: ‘et post
ascensum elus beatissimus Petrus episcopatum
suscepit.’ The singular date of Peter’s episcopate,
therefore, seems based on the assumption that Christ
made the apostle a bishop, and that his see must
have been Rome. (2) The Liber Pontificalis in
the earlier form (as restored from the lelician and
Cononian abridgments) puts side by side the follow-
ing statements :—(@) ‘ Primum sedit cathedra epis-
copatus in Antiochia ann. vii.” (4) ‘Ingressus in
urbe Roma Nerone Cesare ibique sedit cathedra
episcopatus ann. XXv mens. il dies 11. (¢) ¢ Fuit
temporibus Tiberii Cesaris et Gaii et Tiberii
Claudi et Neronis.’ To these statements (Duchesne
p. 50f.) the later recension (Duchesne p. 118) adds
another, ‘martyrio cum Paulo coronatur, post pas-
sionem Domini anno xxxviil.” According to this
statement the date of the martyrdom is 67 (cf. Jer.
de Virr. Ilustr.). Tt is unnecessary to examine
the different parts of the above mosaic. But how-
ever the chronological context varies, the xxv
years’ episcopate is preserved,

1. The burial-pluces of St. Peter. —The Am-
brosian hymn connects the festival of St. Peter
and St. Paul with three spots in Rome ——‘'Trinis
celebratur 18 Festum = sacrorum = imartyrum?’
(Daniel, Lhes. Hymn. τ. xe.). These vie are the

*In the Eastern and Oriental lists given in Duchesne, Lib
Pontif. p. 34 ff., there are variations from 25 vears—(i.) The
Short Chronography of 853 gives 22 years; (ii.) Nicephorus
2 years; (iii.) Syncellus leaves a blank; (iv.) Eutychius 22
years ; (v.) Elias of Nisibis 28 years.

+ For a possible explanation of the variations of the number
of months and days see Duchesne, Lib. Pontif. p. xx ἢ.

772

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

Ostian, the place of St. Paul’s death and burial ;
the Aurelian, the resting-place of St. Peter; and
the Appian, where the bodies of both apostles were
laid fer a time. The facts are briefly these :

(1) Lhe Vatican.—Vhe belief that the apostle
was buried on the Vatican goes back to the time of
Caius (see above); so Jerome, de Virr. Illu:tr. 1:
‘Sepultus Rome in Vaticano iuxta uiam trium-
phalem’ (this via runs N.E. of the Vatican); Acta
Petriet Pauli, 84 (ed. Lipsius p. 216, cf. p. 172), ἔθηκαν
αὐτὸ ὑπὸ τὴν τερέβινθον [cf. Pliny, Hist. Nat. xvi.
44] πλησίον τοῦ vauwaxiouv[ef. Martyr. a Lino conser.
x., ed. Lipsius p. 11; see above] εἰς τόπον καλούμενον
Βατικανόν ; Lib. Pontif. (ed. Duchesne pp. 52 f.,
118 ff.): ‘Sepultus est uia Aurelia, in templum
Apollonis, iuxta locum ubi erucifixus est, iuxta
palatium Neronianum in Vaticanum, in territurium
Triumphale, uia Aurelia, iii K. inl.’ In the last
notice the temple of Apollo probably refers to a
temple of Cybele (Duchesne p. 120; Lipsius p.
401) on this site; by the palatinm Neronianum is
meant either Nero’s gardens or the Circus (prob-
ably to be identified with the Nawmachia). It was
apparently on this spot that Anencletus, accord-
ing to the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne pp. 55,
125), built a memoria beati Petri, where tradi-
tion said that all the Roman bishops till the time
of Zephyrinus (except Clement and Alexander)
were buried. The Church of San Pietro in Mon-
torvo is the outcome of another and later tradition
that the apostle sutfered on the Janiculum—a tradi-
tion which possibly arose from a confusion between
the via Aurelia on the Vatican and the older via
Aurelia with the porta Aurelia on the Janiculum.*

(2) The Ad Catacumbas.—In the Depositio Mar-
tyrum, one of the tracts which form the collection
called by the general name of the Liberian Cata-
logue, and which were possibly edited in 354 by
Furius Filocalus, who certainly illuminated them
and who executed the inscriptions of Damasus in
the catacombs (Lightfoot, Clement i. p. 249), we
find the notice: ‘iii Kal. inl. Petri in Catacumbas
et Pauli Ostense Tusco et Basso cons.’ There can
be no doubt that this is a blundering revision of an
original notice running thus: ‘iii Kal. iul. Petri
et Pauii in Catacumbas Tusco et Basso cons.,’ the
reviser, Whoever he may have been, interpreting
the statement as referring to the martyrdom of the
apostles. This misinterpretation of the original
notice is still more flagrant in the Martyr. Hierony-
mianiun: ‘iii KI. iul. Rome natale apostolorum
Petri et Pauli: Petri in Vaticano uia Aurelia:
Pauli uero in uia Ostensi: utrumque in Catacumbas;
passi sub Nerone, Basso et Tusco consulibus.’ In
reality the year indicated is A.D. 258, and the re-
ference is to the transference of the apostles’
remains from their respective resting-places on the
Ostian and Aurelian roads to the Catacumbas on
the Appian road, ¢.e. the Church of St. Sebastian,
during the Valerian persecution, a few weeks before
the martyrdom of pope Xystus in Aueust. Da-
masus, as we learn from the Lib. Pontif. (ed. Duch-
esne pp. 84 f., 212: ef. p. civ), decorated the chamber,
and placed over the /ocus bisomus the inscription—

‘ Hic habitasse prius sanctos cognoscere debes,

Nomina quisque Petri pariter Paulique requiris.

Discipulos oriens misit, quod sponte fatemur. . . .

Roma suos potius meruit defendere ciues.’
A misunderstanding of the common memorial day
of the two apostles, which finds definite expression
in the blundering notice of the Depositio, gave rise,
it appears, to the legend that the two apostles
suffered on the same day—a statement which first
oceurs in Jerome, de Virr, Idlustr. 5: [Paulus]

*Lanciani (Pagan and Christian Rome Ὁ. 127 f.) supposes
chat the erection of this church on the Janiculum to com-
memorate the martyrdom is due to a misinterpretation of the
tradition that St. Peter suffered inter duas metas.

‘quarto decimo Neronis anno codem die quo Petrus
Romie pro Christo capite truncatur, sepultusque
est in uia Ostiensi.? The historical fact that the
apostles’ remains were supposed to have lain at one
time near the place of their death and again in the
Catacumbas, and then (see below) to have been re-
stored to their original resting-places, gave rise to
two stories. (a) The reference to the East in the
verses of Damasus suggested the legend found in the
Acta Petri ct Pauli (ed. Lipsius p. 220) of Eastern
Christians attempting to steal the bodies. These
Acts assert that the bodies rested in the Catacum-
bas a year and seven months; a later tradition,
found in the Salzburg Itinerary, makes the period
40 years (Duchesne p. ev; Benson, Cyprian p.
482 f.). (6) According to the Liber Pontificalis (ed.
Duchesne pp. 65 ff, 150 ff), Cornelius, bishop of
Rome 251-253, at the request of a certain matron
named Lucina, removed the bodies of the apostles
by night from the Catacumbas. The body of Paul
Lucina buried in her own grounds. on the Ostian
road. ‘ Beati Petri accepit corpus beatus Cornelius
episcopus et posuit iuxta locum ubi crucifixus est,
inter corpora sanctorum episcoporum, in templum
Apollonis, in monte Aureo, in Vaticanum palatii
Neroniani, 111 Kal. inl.’ The epithet aureus has
probably arisen from the word Aurelius.

(3) The Vatican.—VThe Liber Pontificalis (ed.
Duchesne pp. 78 f., 176; ef. the addition in one MS
of the Passio Sanctorum App., ed. Lipsius p. 176)
gives the legend, derived originally from the .4cta
Silvestri, extant only in later recensions, that Con-
stantine was baptized by Silvester, and thereby
cured of leprosy; that at the request of the
bishop he built a Jasi/ica in honour of St. Peter
on the site of a temple of Apollo; that he placed
the apostle’s body there in a tomb of bronze sur-
mounted by a golden cross. It is likely enough
that the dasilica was begun at the end ot Con-
stantine’s reign. But the body of the apostle
cannot have been removed there before 354, since
that is the date of the Liberian Depositio, where
it is implied that the body still rested ad Cata-
cumbas, Vhe translation therefore must have
taken place between 354 and the time when Da-
masus (366-384) placed in the Catacumbas the
inscription quoted above. On the whole subject
see Duchesne, Lib. Pontificalis pp. civ th, 119 f.,
125, 152, 193 ff., 214; Lipsius, Die Apokr. Apostelq.
I. 1. p. 391 ff (with reff. to his earlier works) ;
Lightfoot, Clement ii. p. 499f.; Benson, Cyprian
p. 481 ff. ; Erbes, ‘Das Alter der Griiber τι. Kirchen
des Paulus u. Petrus in Rom,’.in Brieger’s Zeitschr.
J. Birchengesch, vii. p. Uff. (1885); Lanciani, Pagan
and Christian Rome pp. 122 ff., 345 ff (1892) ; de
Waal, Die Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas (1894) ;
irbes, ‘Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus ἃ,
Petrus,’ 1899 (Texte uw. Untersuch. NF iv. 1).

There are five memorial days which claim notice.
(i.) June 99, The origin of the observance of this
day as a festival of St. Peter and St. Paul has been
pointed out above, and it has been shown that
probably as early as Jerome, certainly before the
Mart. Hieronymianum, compiled early in the 7th
cent., the day was regarded as the anniversary of
the death of the apostles. In the Gelasian Sacra-
mentary there are three sets of ‘Orationes et
Preces’ for the festival: ‘In natali 8S. Petri pro-
prie,’ ‘In natali apostolorum Petri et Pauli,’ ‘In
natali S. Pauli proprie.’ When in the Gregorian
Sacramentary a further step was taken, and the
‘natalis 5. Pauli’ was transferred to the next day,
June 29 became the memorial day of St. Peter
alone. This common festival of the two apostles
passed into the Greek Church, though it is un-
certain at what date, and has a place also in the
Coptic, Ethiopic, Syrian, and Armenian calendars.
A Syriac Martyrology of the year 412, published

Sees >
ΟΞ ἘΔ

Ξ

aa

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 773

by Wright in the Journal of Sacred Literature
for Oct. 1865, Jan. 1866, places this festival on
Dec. 28, (ii.) Feb. 22. In the Liberian Depositio
Martyrum there is the entry: ‘viii Kal. Mart.
natale Petri de catedra.’ In the Martyr. Hierony-
nudum the corresponding notice is ‘viii ΚΙ]. Mart.
cathedra Petri in Antiochia. (iii.) Jan. 18. In
the same Martyrologium we have ‘xv Kal. Feb.
dedicatio cathedrie S. Petri apostoli qui [qua]
primo Romi sedit.’ (iv.) Aug. 1. The Roman
Martyrologium has ‘Kal. Aug. Roma ad uincula
vatenas S. Petri osculandas,’ or, according to some
MSS, ‘Kal. Aug. Rome dedicatio primi ecclesice
ab. Petro constructie [et consecratie].’ Since the
church S. Petri ad uincula was probably built
under Sixtus In. (432-440), the origin of the festi-
val may be as early as the time of this pope. The
original reference of the festival was to the miracle
recorded in Ac 127, The corresponding festival in
the Greek Church was on Jan. 16, in the Armenian
Church on Jan, 22. For further information see
Sinker’s article in Dict. Chr. Anti. ii. p. 1623 18. ;
Lipsins, Dic. Apokr. Apostelg. τι. i. p. 404 ff.

8. The Acts of Peter.—Vhese Acts are collected
and edited by Lipsius (1891) in the first vol. ef the
Acta Apost. Apocrypha, edited by himself and
Bonnet.

(1) The Gnostie Acts. —(i.) The documents.
These are: («) Martyrium ἢ. Petri Ap. a Lino
ep. conscriptum. This martyrinn is contained in
several MSS. The name of Linus is found only
in the title. (6) Actus Petri cum Simone. The
sole authority for this text is the Codex Vercel-
lensis, a 7th cent. MS. (ὦ) μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποσ-
τύλου Ilérpov. ‘This document corresponds with the
closing portion of the Actus (xxx-end). The
authorities for this text are a 9th cent. MS at
Patmos, and a MS of later date at Mt. Athos.
There exist also a Slavonic and an Ethiopie ver-
sion (the latter is translated in Malan’s Conflicts
of the Holy Apostles), and some fragments of a
Sahidic version. It appears certain that the two
first-named Latin texts are independent, and rest
ultimately on a common Greek text. The compli-
rated problem of the relation of these texts is dis-
cussed by Lipsius, Apolr. Apostelg. τι. i. p. 109 ΠΣ ;
Zahn, Ges. Kan. ii. Ὁ. 834-41.

(ii.) Substance. ‘The following is a brief sum-
mary of the story. (7) Paul in obedience to a
vision departs from Rome on bis journey to
Spain. (ὦ) Simon Magus arrives in Rome and
gains adherents. The brethren are distressed that
Paul has left them, and that they have no leader
to help them against Simon. Just at this time,
however, the twelve years after the Ascension
being past, Christ appears to Peter in ἃ vision
and bids him go to Rome. (¢) Peter arrives
in Rome. After preaching to the brethren, at
their request he gocs from the synagogue to the
house of Marcellus (formerly a disciple of St. Paul),
where Simon is. At this point there ensues the
episode of the speaking dog which takes Peter's
message to Simon. Marcellas, who had been so
much under Simon’s influence that he had erected
in his honour a statue with the inscription Simoni
tuuent deo, repents. In course of time it is arranged
that there should be a public encounter between
Peter and Simon in the Forum. Peter’s power of
truly raising the dead proves him to be superior
to Simon. [At this stave in the story the Athos
MS begins]. Simon undertakes to fly to heaven.
This he attempts to do before a great crowd in
the Via Sacra.* Under the influence, however, of
Peter’s prayers he falls and breaks his thigh. He
is stoned by the crowd, leaves Rome, and shortly
afterwards dies at Terracina. (d) [At this point

* The orijsin of this tradition is probably to be found in the
story told by Suetonius (Vero 12).

the Linus-Martyrium and the Patmos MS begin].
The prefect Agrippa [note that the minister of
Augustus is transferred to Nero’s reign} has four
concubines, who are persuaded by Peter to refuse
Agrippa any further intercourse. ~ Xanthippe simi-
larly withdraws from her husband Albinus, a friend
of the emperor's [in the Acta Vanthippe (James,
ροῦν. Anerdota p. 58 1} the husband’s name is
Probus]. Albinus, therefere, and Agrippa make
common cause against Veter. (0) At the request
of Nanthippe and the brethren, Peter consents to
leave Rome. As he is passing through the vate of
the city he sees Christ entering. ‘The well-known
conversation between the Lord and the apostle
takes place (see below), and he returns to the
city knowing that the Lord would sutfer in him.
St. Peter is brought before Agrippa, who con-
demns him to be crucified. When he is brought
near the cross he addresses it in mystic language
—@ ὄνομα σταυροῦ, μυστήριον ἀπύκρυφον x.t.d. He
asks that he may be fixed to it head down-
wards, and in mystical language he explains
the significance of that position.* At the burial,
Marcellus acts the part of Joseph of Arimathiea.
Peter, however, appears to him in a vision and
reminds him of the Lord’s saying, ‘Let the dead
be buried by their own dead.’ ‘So Marcellus awaits
Paul’s return to Rome. The romance ends with
a notice of Nero first determining to persecute the
converts of Peter and afterwards being restrained
by a vision (one text says ‘of Peter,’ another ‘of
an angel,’ another of ‘a certain one’) of one who
chastised him, and warned him te ‘refrain his hands
from the servants of Christ.’

(111.) History and date. At the end of the 4th cent.
and onwards apocryphal Acts of Peter are spoken
of as being in authoritative use among heretics,
especially the Manichwans; ef. Augustine, c.
Faust. xxx. 4, adv. Adimant. Manich. 17; and
(somewhat earlier) Philaster, Har. 88. At the same
time these Acts were not infrequently alluded to
without note of suspicion, and occasionally even
definitely cited, by catholic writers. Thus Isidore
of Pelusium (Hp. ii. 99; Miene, Pat. Gr. Ixxviii.
544) adduces a saying taken from the discourse of
Peter in the house of Marcellus (Actus Petri cui
Simone xx., ed. Lipsius p, 07)---καθὼς Πέτρος ὁ
κορυφαῖος τοῦ χόρου ἐν ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ πράξεσι σαφῶς ἀπε-
φήνατο ἽΛ ἐχωρήσαμεν ἐγράψαμεν. The earliest writer
who refers to these Acts by name is Eusebius, HE
IW. ili, 2. Classing them with the Gospel, the
Preaching, and the Apocalypse of Peter, he says ‘we
do not own these writings as handed down among
the catholic (books), because no Chureh writer,
either among the ancients or among our own con-
temporaries, has ever used the testimonies to he
derived from them’ (cf. Jerome, de Virr. Ilustr.
i). ‘The earliest writer who certainly refers to
these Acts—he does not quote them by name—is
the African poet Commodian, about A.D. 250, who,
in Carmen Apologeticum 615 tt., writes: “Et canem
[fecit] ut Simoni diceret: clamaris a Petro .
Infantem fecit quinto mense proloqui_ uolgo.’
Commodian, then, supplies a terminus ad quem for
the composition of these Petrine Acts. Harnack, in-
deed (Chronologie p. 552 1f.), argues that they were
actually written about the middle of the 3rd
century. He lays special stress on the fact that
Hippolytus (Refut. Hear. vi. 20) gives an account
of Peter's triumph over Simon, and of the latter's
death, quite different from that contained in the
Acts, and he concludes that Hippolytus did not know
our Acts, and that therefore they could not have
been then written. To this line of argument it

ioe ἢ f ͵ 5

ἢ σερὶ ὧν ὁ κύριος ἐν μυστηρίῳ λέγει Edy μὴ ποιήσητε τὰ δεξιὰ ὡς
τὰ ἀριστερὰ καὶ τὰ ἀριστερὰ ὡς τὰ δεξιὰ χαὶ τὰ ὥνω ὡς τὰ
κάτω καὶ τὰ ὀπίσω ὡς τὰ ἔωπροσθεν, οὐ μοὶ ἐπιγνῶτε τὴν βασιλείαν
(C412).

774 PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

may be replied: (7) that Hippolytus’ ignorance of
them would not prove their non-existence ; (0) that
ignorance of them on his part cannot be deduced
from the fact that he follows quite another story ;
for Hippolytus, a malleus hereticorum, would
naturally avoid a story which he found in a
heretical book. Harnack further insists that
allusions in these Acts to, e.g., the emperor and
to details of Caure’ life point to the 3rd cent.,
while, in opposition to Lipsius and Zahn, he alto-
gether denies that the {c¢s bear a Gnostie char-
acter. [tis quite possible that some of the allusions
to which Harnack appeals as proving the later
date of the Acts as a whole point to interpolations
on the part of an editor or a translator. But
there are strong reasons for assigning the Grund-
schrift to the 2nd cent. Lipsius (p. 266) and Zahn
(Ges. Kan. ii. p. 801) have both noted the re-
semblance in ideas and modes of expression be-
tween the Acts of Pefer and the Leucian Acts of
John. The fragment of the last-named Acts
printed for the first time in James’ Apocr. Ance-
dota ii. brings to light still further points of like-
ness. James (p. xxiv ff) has collected a number
of parallels between the fragment of the Johannine
Acts and the Actus Petri eum Simone, and is
justified in concluding ‘that they show as clearly
as any evidence of this kind could, that whoever
wrote the Acts of John wrote the Acts of Peter’
(p. xxiv). £ Acts of Peter’ were among ‘the Acts’
which, according to Photius (Biblioth. Cod. exiv.),
were contained in αἱ λεγύμεναι τῶν ἀποστόλων περίοδοι
—the work οἱ Leucius Charinus. This Leucius
(see Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelg. i. p. 83 tf), a some-
what shadowy personage, seems to have belonged
to Asia Minor, and to have written during the
2nd cent., about 160 as Zahn thinks (ἐδ. p. 864).
Thus the original Gnostic Το were a 2nd cent.
romance, and had their origin in Asia Minor.

(2) From the Gnostic we turn to the catholic
Acts. These are often distinguished by the name
Marcellus, who in some Latin MSS appears (in
a superscription) as the author. (1.) Documents.
These Acts are found in two chief forms, which
Tischendorf (Acta Apost. Apocr. pp. 1-39) has

somewhat disastrously endeavoured to weave into |

a single whole. The one, which may be designated
as A, is found in Latin MSS, and in one Venice
Greek MS (which Lipsius represents by the symbol
E); the other, which may be designated as B, is
found in the majority of Greek MSS. The most
important difference between the two forms is that
B begins with a long account ($$ 1-21) of the fear
caused by Panl’s appeal to Cesar amone the Jews
at Rome (who had already had trouble enough
through Peter's presence there), and of the closing
stages of Paul's journey to the city. This section
seems to be quite late, and is attributed by
Lipsius (Proleqom. yp. 1xi) ‘insipido euidam seeculi
ix monacho qui Sicilie uel Magnze Graecice nescio
quod monasterium incolebat.’ Of the common
Greek text there exists a Slavonic version.

(ii.) Substance. The outline of the story is as
follows : (7) Paul arrives in Rome (Cod. Τὸ alone adds
ἀπὸ τῶν Σπανιῶν). The two apostles meet with great
joy. Panl stills a dispute between Gentile and
Jewish Christians. The preaching of the apostles
converts multitudes, and in particular ‘ Livia the
wife of Nero and Agrippina the wife of Agrippa’
[note the confusion] leave their husbands, while
not a few soldiers withdraw from military service.
(ὁ) Simon Magus now begins to traduce Peter, and
Sean magical tricks. He is summoned before
‘Nero, and claims to be the Son of God. The two
great apostles and Simon hold a disputation and a
trial of streneth in miracles before Nero. At
length Simon requests that a wooden tower may
be erected, from which he undertakes to throw him-

self, that his angels may bear him to heaves.
When the day arrives, Simon begins to fly, to tae
great distress of Paul. Peter, however, adjures
the angels of Satan to help him no longer. Simon
falls in the Via Sacra and dies. (ὁ) Nero there-
upon commands that the apostles should be thrown
into prison. At Agrippa’s suggestion Paul is be-
headed in the Via Ostiensis. Peter, when he is
brought to the cross, asks that, being unworthy to
hang as his Lord hung, he may be crucitied head
downwards. He then relates to the people the
Quo vadis story, and, after having prayed to the
Good Shepherd, he gives up the spirit. (ὦ) Three
legends follow: (a) The legend of Perpetua, the
three executioners, and Potentiana—in part closely
akin to the Veronica legend—is rather Pauline
than Petrine (comp. the Plautilla story in the
Passio 5. Pauli, ed. Lipsius p. 38th). (3) Certain
holy men appear, saying that they have come
from Jerusalem; they, with Marcellus, bury the
apostle’s body ‘under the terebinth near the
Naumachia, at the place called the Vatican.’
(y) Certain men from the East carried off the
bodies of the two apostles. They were overtaken
at a place called Cutucumbas at the third mile-
stone along the Appian Way. There the saints’
bodies were kept for a year anda half. Then the
body of Peter was transferred to a tomb on the
Vatican near the Naumachia, that of Paul to the
Ostian Way. At their tombs great benefits were
granted to the faithful through their prayers.
The day of their martyrdom was June 29.

(iii.) History and date. The story of the men
from the East who endeavoured to carry off the
apostles’ bodies arose, as is now generally agreed
(see, e.g. Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelg. p. 312; Light-
foot, Clement ii. p. 500), from a misunderstanding
of the inscription of pope Damasus (366-35 4) ; see
above, p. 772. ‘Thus we must allow time for the
circumstances which Damasus commemorates to
have been forgotten, and for the meaning of his
lines to have become obseure. The cts, there-
fore, in their present form can hardly be much
earlier than the middle of the 5th cent. On the
other hand, many indications (v.g. the relies of
early confessions of faith embedded in the Acts,
chs. 58. 69) point to the conclusion that the
Grundschrift, on which interpolations from other
sources have been engrafted, was a document
similar to the Predicatio Petri, and, with it, is to
be assigned to the middle of the 2nd cent. (Lipsins
p. 3395). The further problem as to the relation
of the Graundschrift of the catholic Acts to the
Grundschrift of the Gnostic Acts appears to elude
criticism.

A Latin Passio Apostolorum Petri et Parti
(Lipsius, Acta pp. 223-234) need not be discussed at
any length. It gives an account of the conflict
between the apostles and Simon Magus, dealing
rather with miracles than with theology. Clement
(not Agrippa) appears as the prafectus urbis. The
date, according to Lipsius, is the end of the 6th
or the beginning of the 7th century.

The Quo vadis legend. The story is found in the Gnostic
Acts—in the Linus-text (vi) and in the μεαρτύριον (vi); there is a
lacuna here in the Cod. Vercellensis. It runs thus in the
Linus-text, the important words in the Greek text being added -
“Ut autem portam ciuitatis uoluit egredi, vidit 5101 Christum
occurrere. Et adorans eum ait: Domine quo uadis? (Κύριε, ποῦ
ὧδε:). Respondit ei Christus: Romam uenio iterum crucifigi
(εἰσέρχομαι εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην σταυρωθήναι). Et ait ad eum Petrus:
Domine, iterum crucifigeris? (Κύριε, πάλιν σταυρόῦσαι). Εὖ
dixit ad eum dominus: Etiam iterum crucifigar. Petrus autem
dixit: Domine, reuertar et sequar te. Et his dictis dominus
ascendit in celum.’ In the catholic Acts Peter relates the
story after he has been nailed to the cross. The Latin (61) is:
‘Dixi: Domine, quo uadis? Et dixit mihi: Sequere me, quia
uado Romam iterum crucifigi. Et dum sequerer eum, redii
Romam. Et dixit mihi: Noli timere, quia ego tecum sum,
quousque introducam te in domum patris mei.’ In pseudo-
Ambrose (Serm. contr. Aua. ii, 867, ed. Bened.) the words
are : ‘Domine, quo uadis?’ ‘ Venio iterum crucifigi.’ It seems

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 77

-- --

probable that the story had its origin in a reminiscence of the
conversation recorded in Jn 138653 (Κύριε, ποῦ trayes; Latt.
Domine, quo ui ae and an ayraphon preserved by Origen (in
Joan xx. 12, ed. Brooke ii. p. 51)—‘If any one will accept the
saying recorded in the Aets of Paulas spoken by the Saviour,
dreabey. μέλλω oravpovclas.’ The Acts of Paul is apparently an
early 2nd cent. document of orthodox origin, and belongs
toa different group of writings from the Gnostic Acts of Peter
(Zahn, Ges, Kan. 11. ii. p. $65 4F.). 10 is plain from the context in
Origen that in the Acts of Paud the saying had no application
to St. Peter. Origen quctes in the Context He 6°, Gal 219,
Possibly the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul alike derived
the saying from ‘an earlier document, probably the Preaching
of Peter’ (Zahn, Hint. ii. p. 25). It seems probable, then, that
the conversation of our Lord and St. Peter in Jn 13 suggested
a scene in which this saying was dramatized. Further, Zahn
(ib.) is inclined to think “that. the ambiguous word ἀνωΐεν
(=denuo, desuper) suggested the story that Peter was crucified
head downwards. The explanation does not seem a natural
one. It is far more likely that the mode of death was one of
the ‘addita ludibria’ of which Tacitus speaks.

9. The Clementine Literature.—(i.) Documents.
These are three in number. (@) The //oimilies in
Greek. Two MSS only are known to a ἀΠ6
one at Paris, the other at the Vatican. (6) The
Recognitions. The Greek original has peeled:
The Latin rendering by tufinus, preserved in a
large number of MSS, a Syriac translation of part
of the work, and an Arabic abridgment printed in
Studia Sinaitica v.,form the extant authorities for
the text. NRufinus, in the preface to his transla-
tion, notes incidentally that the Greek original
was extant in two forms. He further tells us
that, while he had deliberately omitted some pas-
sages as obscure, he had aimed at a close, if bald,
rendering. It may be added that δὲ comparison
between his version and the Syriac version gener-
ally confirms his statement. (ὁ) Of far less nnport-
ance than the two documents just mentioned is
the Lpitome—a late abridgment of the Llomilics.
The three Clementine works may be conveniently
studied in Miene’s Patrologia Graca, vols. i., 1].

(ii.) Substance. The romance of Clement’s life
-his early separation from his family and his
ultimate discovery of them—need not detain us.
Peter is the great opponent of Simon Magus,
and long discourses addressed to his own disciples
or to inquirers, or directed against Simon, are put
into his mouth. The story in regard to Peter is, in
outline, as follows. In the seventh year after the
Passion, Clement finds Peter at Cie oe where the
latter, havi ing been sent thither by James, is about
to hold. a disputation with Simon Magus. After
three days’ discussion Simon is driven away by the
populace. Peter follows Simon to Tripolis, accord-
ing to the Recognitions ; according to the Llomilies,
to Tyre, and thence to Sidon, Berytus, Byblus,
and so to Tripolis. At Antioch Simon meets with
great success, but is at leneth driven thence by a
report that Cornelius the centurion had arrived
armed with an imperial commission to destroy all
sorcerers. Simon flies to the neighbouring town
of Laodicea, where in the Homilies the scene of
the great disputation between Peter and Simon is
laid. In the Homilies the story ends with Peter’s
departure for Antioch; in the Lecognitions, with
his enthusiastic reception by the people there after
the expulsion of Simon.

(iil.) Date and character. The documents which
we possess exhibit different forms of a religious
romance, .written in the interests of ἃ philo-
sophical Ebionitism. The anti-Pauline element is
strong in the Homilies. Under the character of
Simon Maeus, St. Paul is attacked (e.g. xvii. 19).
The same tone of hostility to the work and teach-
ing of St. Paul dominates the letter of Peter to

James, $2, which is prefixed to the Homilies. In
the Recognitions this controversial element 15
omitted or softened down, the invective dealing
only with St. Paul’s action before his conversion
(i. 70f.). The doctrine of the //omilies is akin to
that of the Elchasaite sect, which, according to

Hippolytus (2:7. Har. ix. 13), established itself at
Rome during the episcopate of Callistus. The
Recognitions is quoted by Origen (Comm. in
Genesim ap. Philoc. xxii. 21, and Comm. in Matth.
xxvl. 6f., ed. Lommatzsch iv. p. 401). The evi-
dence, though sheht, points to the first quarter of
the 8rd cent. as the period to which the Clemen-
tine literature as we possess it should probably
be assigned. From what place did it emanate:
The claim of Rome is negatived by the almost
entire absence ΟἹ any reference to a visit of Simon
to the city, and his conflict with the apostle there.
The allusions to Rome as the final scene of the
controversy (ἰδού, 1. 13, 74, τὰ 64; Hom. i. 16)
are so incidental in character that they may well
be the interpolation of a later editor, the writer,
for example, who composed the Lpistle of Clement
to James, praixed to the Homilies, in which an
account of Clement’s ordination at Rome as bishop
by Peter is given. The scene of the story is
confined within the boundaries of Syria, and it is
therefore antecedently probable that Syria was
the region in which the Clementine literature had
its first home. ‘This conclusion is contirmed by the
character of the NT quotations, which appear to
be derived from a Semitic document, whether an
Aramaic Gospel or a Syriac version of ‘the Gospels.

; One point, however, seems clear, viz. that the Recog-

nitions and the Homilies are independent recasting
of a common original, or of (closely related) common
original documents. The relation of this document
or these documents to the Periodi Clementis, to
which Jerome (adv. Jovin. i. 26; in Gal. i. 18)
refers for details about Peter which are not found
in our Clementines, and to the κήρυγμα Πέτρου (see
below), must remain with our present evidence an
unsolved problem. The question of primary interest
is: What did the original story or document on
which the Clementines are based include? Was
its subject the contlict between Peter and Simon
in Syria only? Or did it relate an earlier conflict
in Syria and a final conflict at Rome? In other
words, do the Clementines and the Petrine Acts
respectively depend on independent documents,
the one narrating the conflict between Peter and
Simon in the East, the other dealing with their
final meeting in the West? or do they severally
elaborate two parts of one common history? The
former is the opinion of Salmon (Dict. Chr. Biug.
iv. p. 685), the latter that to which Lipsius in-
clines (Apokr. Apostelg. 11. 1. p. 38f.). It may be
noticed that, while there are in the Clementines
(see above) a few references to the Roman episode,
on the other hand allusions are to be found in the
Petrine Acts (Actus Petr. cum Simone v., Martyr.
Petri et Pauli 17) to the Syrian conflict ; but all
these allusions are too shght to bear the w eight of
any conclusions. The Apostolic Constitutions (vi.
8, 9) contains the whole story of Peter and Simon,
—the story of a conflict in Syria with points of
contact with the Clementine history, and the story
of a conflict in Rome with points of contact with
that of the Acts. It seems less unlikely that here
we come upon a relic of a complete story than that
we have here a piecing together of two stories,
which were originally independent. Of the precise
doctrinal position of the original document it ix
vain to speculate. If the original story did follow
St. Peter to Rome, there is a ‘doctrinal reason w hy
the Ebionite Clementine writers should refuse to
acquiesce in the tradition that St. Paul and St.
Peter worked at Rome together. That the original
romance was early, there can be no doubt. Bishop
Lightfoot held (Clement 1. 361) that it ‘cannot w ell
be “plac ‘etl later than the middle of the 2nd century.’
10. Non-Canonical writings ascribed to St. Peter.
—Eusebius (H# mf. 111.}, after mentioning the two
Epistles which have a place in the Canon (see

76 PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

separate articles), proceeds to speak of other
writings connected with Peter’s name —the Acts
of Peter (see above), the Gospel aceording to
Peter, the Preaching of Peter, and the Apocalypse.
These, he adds, ‘we do not acknowledge as handed
down to us among the Catholic writings, for no
Church writer, either in ancient times or in our
own, ever made use of the testimonies they supply’
(cf. U1. xxv.). To this list Jerome (de Virr. Ilustr.
1) adds the Judicium.

(1) The Gospel of Peter.—A portion of what is
universally agreed to have been the Petrine Gospel
mentioned by Eusebius was found among the
Akhmim fragments, and published by M. Bouriant
in Noy. 1882. The fragment begins with a reference
to our Lord’s trial before Pilate and Herod, and then
gives an account of the mockery, the crucifixion,
the burial, and the resurrection. The author
writes in the first person (ce. vii. xii.), and identi-
fies himself with Peter: ‘But I Simon Peter and
Andrew my brother’ (ὁ. xiv.). The Gospel is the
subject of a letter written by Serapion, who
was bishop of Antioch during the last decade of
the 2nd cent., and preserved by Eusebius (HE
vi. 12). Serapion has found the Gospel at Rhosus
on the Bay of Issus, and had at first approved it.
Further knowledge, however, led him to condemn
it on the double ground that it owed its origin to
the Docete, and that it contained additions to ‘the
true teaching about the Saviour.’ The fact that
Serapion, a man of literary and controversial
activity, did not know of the Gospel before his
accidental discovery of it, that no other 2nd cent.
writer is proved to have used it, and that few
later writers were acquainted with it, and these
only men in some way connected with Syria, shows
that its circulation and influence were confined
within narrow limits. As to its date, Harnack
holds that in the fragment the four Gospels are
not placed on the same level, Mt probably not
being used at all, and that the Petrine Gospel
was used by Justin. These considerations seem
to him to point to the beginning of the 2nd cent.
(cf. Sanday, Jnspiration (1893) p. 310, ‘hardly
later than the end of the first quarter of the 2nd
cent.) On the other hand, it. is by no means
certain that Justin used the Gospel; their un-
doubted connexion can be explained in other ways.
And, further, the text of the Gospels had already
had a history before it was used by the author of
the Petrine Gospel ; indeed there is strong reason
to think that he used a harmony of the Gospels,
that of Tatian or some earlier harmony, at least
for the portion of the history covered by the ex-
tant fragment.* The implied text, then, of the
Gospels suggests that the date can hardly be
much before 150 (so Swete: Zahn 130), while a
limit in the other direction is supplied by the
fact that the Gospel had been in existence some
time before Serapion discovered it. See the
editions of Bouriant, Lods, Robinson (1892), Har-
nack, Zalin, Swete (1893); also von Schubert, Die
Composition des pseudopetrinischen Evangelien-
fragments, 1893; Salmon, Introduction, Appendix
(1894) p. 581 ff.

(2) The Preaching of Peter (κήρυγμα Ilérpov).—It
is probable that this document is quoted by Origen
(de Princ. Pref. 8) under the title ‘Petri doe-
trina’ +; it is possible that it is to be identified
with the ‘Priedicatio Petri οὐ Pauli,’ quoted by
Lact. Instit. Div. iv. 21, comp. pseudo-Cy prian

* The present writer has elsewhere (The Old Syviae Element
in the Text of Cod. Bezw p. 121 ff.) given reasons tor thinking
that ‘behind those parts of the fragment which are based on the
Canonical Gospels there lie the corresponding sentences of the
Syriac Diatessaron,’

t This is to be distinguished from the d:dnczedse Π΄τρου re-
ferred to by later Greek Fathers. Von Dobschiitz (p. 107) identi-
fies this Peter with Peter of Alexandria.

de Rebapt. 17. The extant fragments of the
Preaching are collected in Hilgenteld’s NT’ extra
Canonem (1884) iv. p. 51 ff., and in von Dobschiitz,
‘Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht’ (1893 ;
Texte u. Unters. xi. 1).* It is clear from what
has come down to us that the book gave—not a
single discourse, but—the substance of discourses
by one speaking in the name of the apostles (the
first person plural is always used +t). It deals with
the τρίτον yévos among Jews and Gentiles, insisting
on a pure monotheism as opposed to the errors of
Judaism and of heathenism alike, and incorporat-
ing directions of our Lord in reference to the
evangelization of the Gentiles. Clement of Alex-
andria (cf. Heracleon ap. Origen, in Εν. Joh. Tom.
ΧΙ, 17) regards the spokesman of the apostles
throughout as Peter; and further, having the
whole book before him, he implies that it claimed
to be written by Peter—6 Ἰ]έτρος γράφει (Strom.
vi. 7, p. 769 ed. Potter; comp. Origen’s question
in the passage just referred to—mJdrepdv ποτε γνήσιόν
ἐστιν ἢ νόθον ἢ μικτόν). The Preaching exercised a
wide influence. It was apparently used among
others by Apollonius of Asia Minor (ap. Eus. HB
V. xviii. 14) at the end of the 2nd cent., Heracleon,
the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin,
Aristides (Robinson in Zeats and Studies i. | Ba ἐν
80.11.). Its date must therefore be very early.
Harnack, holding that Egypt was the birthplace
of the book, gives its date as 110-130 (140); Zahn
as 90-100. Von Dobschiitz suggests that in the first
decade of the 2nd cent. a Christian at Alexandria
felt that St. Mark’s Gospel (ending at 168) needed
a supplement, and wrote the Preaching as a δεύτερος
λόγος, and further that from it the ‘shorter ending’
of Cod. 1, (Swete, δέ. Mark p. xevil ff.) is derived.
For further information see von Dobschiitz, ‘ Das
Kerygma Petri’ (Texte u. Untersuch. xi. 1, 1893) ;
Harnack, Die Chronologie, 1897, pp. 472-474; Zahn,
Geschichte des NT’ Kanons, 1892, 11. ii. pp. 820-832 ;
Salmon, art. ‘Preaching of Peter,’ in Dict. Chr.
Biog. (vol. iv. 1887); Hilgenfeld, NV extra Can.
ftec., ed. altera, 1884, iv. pp. 50-65.

(3) The Apocalypse of Peter.—A considerable
fragment of the Apocalypse of Peter was dis-
covered and published with the fragment of the
Gospel. Before 1892 only some half dozen small frag-
ments were known to exist (see, ¢.g., Zahn, Ges. Kan,
If. 11. Ὁ. 818). The Akhmim fragment begins in the
middle of a sentence containing apocalyptic words
put into our Lord’s mouth. The apostles—‘ we,
the twelve disciples’—then go into the ‘mountain’
with the Lord to pray, and ask to see one of the
righteous who had ‘departed from the world,’
‘in order that... being encouraged we may
encourage also the men who hear us.’ In answer
to Peter’s questions the Lord reveals the place of
happiness and the place of torment, in which
punishments are meted out to various classes of
sinners. It appears from the reference to the
apostles’ hearers that they had received a com-
mand to teach; but a time during the Lord’s
ministry is perhaps less in harmony with the sup-
posed situation than a time after the resurrection.
The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned in the Mura-
torian fragment (unless the passage is corrupt 5
see p. 780). Clement of Alexandria quotes it three
or four times, once as Scripture (Lel. ex Scrip.
Proph. xli.); and, according to Eusebius, he com-
mented on it. Thus there is good ground for
regarding the Apocalypsz as a 2nd cent. document,
especially if it is allowed that it was used in the

* The ‘Preaching of Peter’ in an Arabic MS, published by
Mrs. Gibson in Studia Sinaitica No. v., has no connexion with
the Preaching under discussion. . ᾿

t The first person singular is used in one fragment (Hilgen
feld p. 57, 1. 28); but this fragment is derived ἐκ τῆς διδασκαλία
ΤΠ τρου (von Dobschiitz p. 118; cf. Holl, Frugmente vornican
Kirchenviter (1899) p. 234).

PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON) 777

Acts of Thomas (ed. Bonnet, p. 39) and in the
Passion of St. Perpetua (James, p. 60f.). Zahn,
writing before the publication of the Akhmim
fragment, lays stress on the fact that Origen shows
no sign of having known the Apocalypse, that
Clement may have derived his knowledge of it
from his Hebrew teacher, that several notices of it
seem to connect it with Palestine, and he there-
fore thinks that Palestine was its birthplace. On
the other hand, the coincidences with the Pistis
Sophia, both in vocabulary and matter, seem to
make an Egyptian origin more probable. The
text has been edited by Bouriant, James, Lods
(1892), Harnack (1893); see Zalin, Ges. Aan. 11. 11.
p. δΙΟΊΕ ; Salmon, Jitroduction to NT’, Appendix
(1894) p. 589.

(4) Jerome in de Virr. Illustr. i. 5 mentions
the Judicium among the apocryphal books which
bear St. Peter’s name. Rutinus, i Symb. Apost.
38, vives the Libri Leclesiastict which belong to the
NT as ‘libellus qui dicitur Pastoris siue Hermes,
qui appellatur Due Vie uel Judicium Petriv
It seems probable that Jerome and Rutinus have
the same document in mind. Further, the whole
list of books in Rutinus appears to be based upon
the list given in the Festal Epistle of Athanasius,
who couples together ‘the so-called Teaching of
the Apostles and the Shepherd.’ It is probable
that the Judicium Petri was a Latin document,
in which Peter alone was represented as the
speaker, corresponding to the Greek document ai
διαταγαὶ ai διὰ Κλήμεντος καὶ κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ
τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων. See Hilgenfeld, NT extra
Cun. Ree. iv. Ὁ. LILA; Salmon, Introduction p.
554; Harnack, Die Lehre der zwilf Apostel p.
193 ff.

(5) An ‘Epistle of Peter to James’ is prefixed
to the Clementine //omilies, and is thoroughly
Ebionite in its teaching.

ΙΝ. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LATER HISTORY OF
Sr. PETER. —Except the testimony of 1 Peter, we
have inthe ΝΣ no clear evidence as to the apostle’s
movements after St. Paul’s notice in Gal 2. What
evidence the NT supplies as to later times is
negative. But the tradition of the Church and
the statements of early writers, together with the
evidence of 1 Peter, give a basis for conclusions
which reach a very high degree of probability.
An endeavour will now be made to interpret the
evidence as to the three following points—(1) St.
Peter's visit to Rome; (2) the Simonian legend ;
(3) the period which succeeded the ‘Council’ at
Jerusalem.

1. St. Peter's visit to Rome.—Of those who deny
that St. Peter visited Rome, Lipsius may be taken
as the type. His interpretation of the evidence
is given in his great work, Die Apokr. Apostelges-
chichten I. ii. pp. 1-69 (1887), where he embodies
the results of his previous investigations—Qwellen
der rvomischen Petrussage, arts. in Schenkel’s
Bib dexikon, arts. in Jarhrb. f. protest. Lheologie
(1876). His theory is briefly as follows. The
tradition of St. Peter's presence at Rome takes
two forms. The one brings St. Peter and St.
Paul together at Rome; together they found the
Church there, and together they suffer. The other
represents St. Peter as the opponent of the false
apostle, Simon Magus, who is St. Paul under a
thin diseuise ; as pursuing him from land to land
and finally in Rome triumphing over him, and
then dying a martyr’s death. The first form of
the legend may be called the Petro-Pauline legend,
the second the Simonian. Since the two agree in
bringing the apostle to Rome, they cannot be in-
dependent ; and the question at once arises —W hich
is the original form! The Petro-Pauline legend
corresponds to the Gentile view of the relation of
the two apostles: they are friends and fellow-

workers. The Simonian legend answers to the
Jewish conception, according to which St. Paul is
‘the enemy.’ Now the latter view is historically
prior to the former. It follows, therefore, that the
Simonian legend is the earlier, and that it is the
varent of the Petro-Pauline tradition. The one
histories basis of the whole structure of romance
is the visit of St. Paul to Rome. On this is built
up the fabric of St. Peter’s visit to Rome; and,
since the first’ builders were I:bionites, St. Paul
becomes Simon Macus. This anti-Pauline lecend
is alone responsible tor the tradition that Simon
Magus taught in Rome, and further fixed the date
of his arrival there under Claudius. For St.
Peter went there after the twelve years’ of preach-
ing at Jerusalem were over, and with his arrival
that of his opponent was made to coincide. Such
is the theory. It is open to attack from many
quarters. It is blind to the many-sidedness and
unanimity of early testimony, and in particular it
is driven to explain away the evidence of Clement,
while it rejects the authenticity of 1 Peter. On che
other hand, it accounts for this general concurrence
of witnesses by the hypothesis of a romance whose
genesis was a complex and highly artificial process.
But, in fact, Lipsius’ theory is really an offshoot of
the Tiibingen theory of the apostolic age. The
main trunk is now seen to be liteless. The branch
cannot but share its decay.

The strength of the case for St. Peter’s visit
to, and martyrdom at, Rome lies not only in the
absence of any rival tradition, but also in the fact
that many streams of evidence converge to this
result. We have the evidence of official lists and
documents of the Roman Church, which prove the
streneth of the tradition in later times, and which,
at least in some cases, must rest on earlier docu-
ments. The notice of the transference of the
apostle’s body to a new resting-place in 258, and
the words of Caius, show that the tradition was
definite and unquestioned at Rome in the first
half of the 38rd cent. The fact that Caius in the
passage referred to is arguing with an Asiatic
opponent, the evidence of the (Gnostic) Acts of
Peter, the passages quoted from Origen, Clement
of Alexandria, and Tertullian, show that at the same
period the tradition was accepted in the Churches of
Asia, of Alexandria, and of Carthage. The passage
of Irenus carries the evidence backward well
within the 2nd cent., and is of special importance
as coming from one who had visited Rome, whose
list of Roman bishops,suggests that he had had
access to official documents, and who, through
Polycarp, was in contact with the personal know-
ledge of St. John and his companions. ‘The testi-
mony of Clement of Rome scems clear when his
words are examined, while at the same time it
is not definite and circumstantial enough to have
created a legendary history. This concurrence of
apparently independent testimony becomes much
more impressive when it is remembered that the
NT supplies nothing which could give rise to a
legend that St. Peter visited Rome. On the con-
trary, the narrative of the Acts and the notices in
St. Paul’s later Epistles seem to make such a visit
improbable. Moreover, the one clear statement
as to place in 1 P literally interpreted becomes a
conclusive argument that the apostle’s work in his
later years lay in a region far from Rome. It is
only when the words of 1 P 5% receive the less
obvious, but in reality more natural, interpretation
that they are seen to be a strong comlirmation of
the evidence of early writers. Thus the main
pieces of evidence are independent and consistent.
When combined they form a solid body of proof
which is practically irresistible.

But if St. Peter was martyred at Rome (apart
from the indications of date in 1 P, on which see

aor

778 PETER (SIMON)

PETER (SIMON)

following art.), there is no reason to question the
belief that he suffered during the Neronian perse-
cution. This is distinctly asserted by Tertullian ;
it is presupposed in all forms of the Petrine cts ;
it is implied in Caius’ notice of the tomb on the
Vatican ; it is the almost necessary inference from
Clement’s words.

Again, what was the length of his sojourn at
tome’ The tradition of a 25 years’ episcopate is
unhistorical. But that legend’ crystallized, while
it exaggerated, the widespread ‘belief that the
apostle spent time enough at Rome to leave his
mark upon the Church there. Such a tradition
finds carly expression in the languave of Trenceus,
of Dionysius of Corinth, probably also in the words
of Tenatius. It is implied in the early accounts of
the composition of St. Mark’s Gospel.

To what reconstruction of the history does the
evidence point? It seems impossible to suppose
that St. Peter had already worked in Rome when
St. Paul wrote the Ep. to the Romans (1% 162),
or when at a later time he expressed his desire ‘to
see Rome’ (Ac 19). Moreover, the account of St.
Paul’s arrival in Rome (Ac 28") seems to exclude
the possibility of St. Peter’s having been in the
city at that time. Thus it seems certain St. Peter
had not visited Rome when St. Paul's captivity
there began. The evidence of the Epistles of both
the Pauline captivities is also negative. If St.
Peter had been in the city when St. Paul wrote to
the Philippians, and again to the Colossians and
Philemon, his description in the one case of the
fortunes of the gospel at Rome, and in the other
of hisown environment, could hardly have been un-
influenced by the fact. We turn to the one Epistle
of the second captivity. If we accept the constant
tradition of the Church that St. Paul suffered in the
Neronian persecution ({.6. shortly after July 64),2Ti
can hardly be placed in the year 64; for the apostle
seems to look forward to a winter not far distant
(ταχέως, πρὸ χειμῶνος, 41), It appears, therefore,
that 2'Ti was written some two or three months
before the winter of 63 closed the seas. The lan-
guage of this Epistle (44""-) shows that St. Peter was
not in Rome when it was written. The supposition
that he arrived in Rome for the first time after

2 Ti was written hardly allows the time which the
early patristic notices of his work there (see above)
postulate. We are led, therefore, to the conclu-
sion that St. Peter's arrival at Rome must in all
probability be placed after the last of the Epistles
of St. Paul's first captivity, and long enough before
2 Ti to allow St. Peter to have left the city when
that Epistle was written, after having worked
there some considerable time. Early tradition,
however, gives us one further clue to the time.
The two apostles worked together. Now it is
almost impossible to suppose that, after St. Paul

had once taken the apostolic oversight of the |

Church’s work in Rome, St. Peter could, apart from
St. Paul, have planned to visit there. But did the
suggestion that he shorld come to Rome reach St.
Peter from St. Paul himself? It is abundantly
clear (1) that St. Paul’s mind was set on avert-
ing any rupture between Jewish and Gentile
Christians, and on welding them together in the one
Church (Hort, Ecclesia p. 281 ff.) ; (2) that in his
view Rome was the key to the evangelization of
the empire; (3) that he was keenly alive in his
own case to the importance of one who was the
unique representative of one side of the Church's
work visiting now the Mother Church at Jeru-
salem, now the Church in the capital of the
empire ; (4) that the problem of reconciling the
two great elements in the Church presented itself
in a concrete form in Rome (Ph 15*-) and that in
Rome he grasped, as even he had never done
before, the greatness of the issues involved (Eph

2'-4!°), His evangelistic policy could find no
truer or more practical expression than a request
to St. Peter to visit Rome while he himself was
still there. Such an invitation would be a fitting
corollary of the Ep. to the Ephesians. If the
Churches saw the Apostle of the Gentiles and the
leader of the Apostles of the Circumcision taking
counsel together and working together at Rome,
they would learn the lesson of the unity of the
Church as they could learn it in no other way.
Moreover, St. Paul looked forward to. his cap-
tivity soon ending. Even if he were set at liberty,
he was pledged to undertake distant journeys.
Whatever, therefore, the issue might be, the
Church in Rome would be deprived of his im-
mediate guidance ; and as the far-reaching needs
and opportunities of that Church pressed on
him, he might well realize how manifold would
be the gain resulting from the presence there of
St. Peter. It is therefore a conjecture, but a con-
jecture supported by no inconsiderable amount of
indirect evidence, that St. Paul summoned St.
Peter to Rome. It is possible that St. Mark,
whom we know to have been the companion of
St. Peter, was with St. Paul when he wrote to the
Colossians as the messenger and the forerunner of
St. Peter. If this account of St. Peter’svisit to Rome
is correct, it will follow that he arrived there
towards the end of St. Paul’s first captivity, per-
haps in the spring of 61. His absence from’ Rome
when St. Paul wrote 2 Ti we may perhaps explain
on the supposition that he had been summoned to
Jerusalem in connexion with the death of St.
James and the appointment of his successor.* He
must have returned to Rome before July 64.

2. The Simonian legend. —The most probable
account of its genesis is that it erew out of a
mistaken identity (Salmon, art. ‘Simon Magus,’
in Diet. Chr. Biog. iv. p. 682 Π). With the Simon
of Ac 8 another Simon of Samaria was confused.
This latter Simon was a Gnostic teacher, who prob-
ably lived at the end of the Ist cent. The confusion
meets us as carly as Justin Martyr, who, express-
ing probably a general opinion, gave the latter
Simon a kind of primacy among heretics. He
either himself visited Rome or gained a reputation
there through his followers. ‘The strange blunder
about the statue can hardly have been a private
aberration of Justin’s, since it is found in the
Gnostic Acts of Petert—a document which seems to
be quite independent of Justin's influence. But
when once Simon Magus had been promoted to
the first place among heretics, it was natural that
the conflict between him and the chief of the
apostles, related in the Acts, should be prolonged
into a drama of controversy, the earlier scenes of
which were laid in the towns of Syria, while the
final denouement was reserved for Rome, which
both combatants were believed to have. visited.
In the development of the story considerations of
time were boldly disregarded, On the one hand,
the last scenes of the drama had to be enacted in
the reign of Nero in order to connect them with
the fact that St. Peter suffered under that emperor.
On the other hand, it was natural to bring Simon
to Rome not so very long after the events recorded
in the Acts—in the reign of Claudius (Justin,
Apol. i. 26); and it seemed fitting that St. Peter

Bus ΕΓ Tit cx
γένοικξνην ἅλωσιν τῆς ᾿Ἰερουσαλὴμ λέγος
τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν τοὺς εἰσέτι τῷ βιῳ λειπομένου; ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ
πανταχόθεν συνελθεῖν κιτιλ. Eusebius places the death of St.
James immediately before the siege of Jerusalem, according to
the statement of Hegesippus (ap. HE 1. xxiii. 18). Josephus
(Ant. xx. ix. 1), however, puts it between the death of Festus
and the arrival of Albinus. It seems that the latest date which
can be assigned to Albinus’ entrance on his office is the summer
of 62 (Schtrer, HJP 1. ii. p. 188 πὸ.

+t Actus Petri x.: [Simon] me tantum suasit ut statuarn illi
ponerem, suscribtioni tali : ‘Simoni iuueni deo.’

μετὰ τὴν Ἰακώβου μαρτυρίων καὶ τὴν αὐτίχα
κκτέχει τῶν ἀποστόλων κα.

;

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 773
should go to Rome when the expiration of the | Fleury palimpsest =h ΠΡ 47-5"); the Munich

twelve appointed years set him free to leave Jeru-

salem (lefas Petri v. ed. Lipsius p. 49). Some-

what thus dees it seem probable that the legend
grew, and, as was natural, assumed somewhat

different: forms—e.g. Simon in the Clementines 15

rather the heretic, in the Petrine Acts the magi-

cian. The final stage in the evolution of the story
was reached when Simon was utilized by the

Ebionites for a covert attack on St. Paul.

8. The period which succeeded the Council at
Jerusalem.—Setting aside, then, the Simonian
legend as historically worthless, we are brought
to the question—Whiat is the probable account of
St. Peter's life after the events at Antioch related
by St. Paul in Gal 2 (/.c. probably A.b. 50) and St.
Peter's arrival in Rome (/.e. probably A.D. 61).
The absence of any trace of personal knowledge
of the Churches in Asia Minor in the letter which
the apostle addressed to them is a strong argu-
ment that he had not visited those districts.
Though the tradition which connects St. Peter
with the Syrian Antioch, and makes him the
organizer ot the Church there, does not (apart
from the Clementine literature) meet us before
the time of Origen, yet in itself it is probable.
St. Panl’s narrative in Gal 2 is too incidental and
too little to St. Peter’s credit to have originated a
legend. On the other hand, it is natural to sup-
pose that the Clementine literature, especially if
its birthplace was Syria, located the apostle’s con-
flict with Simon in towns in which a still living
tradition preserved the memory of St. Peter's
activity. Weare most faithful to the suggestions
of the somewhat scanty evidence if we suppose
that, after he ceased to make Jerusalem his home,
St. Peter laboured in the towns of Syria, and not
improbably made the Syrian Antioch the centre of
his work.

It may be useful to state probable resuits in a
tabular form—

A.D.

29-35 Ministry at Jerusalem : towards the close of
the period a visit te Samaria (Ac 8"),

35-44 Close of the ministry at Jerusalem: a mis-
sionary journey in which periods of soime-
what protracted residence at Lydda, Joppa,
Cesarea, and probably other Syrian towns,
had a place: somewhat frequent visits to
Jerusalem (Ac 113, Gal 18, Ac 128%),

44-61 Work in Syrian towns with Antioch as its
centre; at Jeast one visit to Jerusalem in
49 (Ac 15"), but such visits few.

61-64 Work at Rome, interrupted probably by a
visit to Jerusalem (Eus. ΜΙ π|. x1):
martyrdom shortly after the fire at Rome
in July 64.

Literature.—See at the end of the article on 2 Peter.

KF. H. CHAsE.

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE OF,—

I. Transmission of the Text.
Tf. Reception in the Church.
111. Use of the LX.X, vocabulary, literary style.
1V. The readers to whom the Epistle was primarily ad-
dressed, and their circumstances.
V. Authorship and date.

VE. Occasion of Composition, the journey of Silvanus.

VIT. Summary of the Epistle.

VIL. Doctrine of the Epistle.

T. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT.—Little need be
said on this subject. For the authorities MSS
and Versions—sce art. JUDE (EPISTLE OF) in vol.
ii. p. 799. ‘Two statements, however, with special
reference to 1 Paimust be added. (1) The Epistle
is contained in the Syriac Vulgate (Peshitta) ; but
there does ποῦ seem to be evidence as to any Old
Syriac text. (2) Fragments of the Epistle are
contained in the following Old Latin MSS — the

frayments edited by Ziegler =q (15:9 250. 27 410. 514).
Cod. Bobiensis=s (13% 2419; see Old Latin Biblical
Texts, No. iv. pp. xx f., 401). As to Patrostee
evidence, citations from the Epistle are abundant,
in Greek writers from the time of Polycarp on-
wards; in Latin writers from that of Tertullian,
No serious critical problems are presented by the
text.

II. RECEPTION IN THE Cuurci.—Tt will be con-
venient to trace the stream of evidence backwards,
In all those catalogues of Canonical Books which
belong to the 4th cent. and onwards, whether put
torth by conciliar authority or found in the works
of individual theologians, 1 P has a place. The
only writer as to the favourableness of whose
verdict there is any doubt is Theodore of Mop-
suestia. In reference to him, Leontius of Byzan-
tium (Miene, Put. Gr. Ixxxvi. 1305) states—adrjy
τε τοῦ μεγάλου ᾿Ιακώβου τὴν ἐπιστολὴν καὶ τὰς ἐξῆς τῶν
ἄλλων ἀποκηρύττει καθολικάς. It seems probable (see
Kiln, Zheodor von Mopsuestia pp. 651F., 91.4.1.)
that the language of Leontius is loose, and that
nothing more is meant than that Theodore rejected
James as well as the four Catholic Epistles—2 P,
Jude, 1 and 2 Jn—which were not accepted by
the Antiochene and the Syrian Churches. Of the
erounds for this conclusion two may be mentioned.
If Theodore had really rejected 1 P and 1 Jn,
the general Council of Constantinople (559) would
not have failed to reekon this among the reasons
for their condemnation of him. On the other hand,
Junilius (dastit. regularia i. 6, 7), whose state-
mentsas to the Canon reflect the views of Theodore
(Kihn, p. 35819), reckons beati Petri ad gentes
prima among the books perfecte auctoritatis. In
the earlier half of the 4th cent. Eusebius includes
this Epistle among the books ‘generally received’
(ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις, Hl Ut. xxv. 2). In the earlier pas-
sage of the History (11. iii. 1) which deals with the
Canon he makes the important statement—‘ this
epistle the Fathers also of former ditys (οἱ πάλαι mp -o-
βύτεροι) have quoted in their writings as indisput-
ably authentic.’ The evidence of Eusebius as to
the general acceptance of the Epistle is carried
back something like a century in a passage trom
Origen’s Commentary on St. John, quoted by
Eusebius νι. xxv. 8)—Ilérpos .. . μίαν ἐπιστολὴν
ὁμολογουμένην καταλέλοιπεν. So far there has been
no sign of divergence.

We are now brought to the writers who repre-
sent the great Churches of Christendom at the
beginning of the 8rd and at the close of the 2nd cent,
(1) Alexandria, Clement again and again quotes
words from the Epistle as those of St. Peter.
Thus Strom. iii. p. 562 ed. Potter, καὶ ὁ Πέτρος ἐν
τῇ ἐπιστολῇ τὰ ὅμοια λέγει Ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ
ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεύν ; tb. iv. p. 622, ὁ IL. ἐν τῇ ἐπισα-
τολῇ φησὶν ᾿Ολίγον ἄρτι, εἰ δέον, λυπηθέντες ; SO with
other formule of citation, Ped. i. p. 124, 11. pp.
296, B03; Strom. iii. p. 544, iv. p. ὅδ 1. Moreover,
Clement’s Hypotyposeis contained * short expoxi-
tions’ of this as well as of the other Catholic Epistles
and of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse
of Peter (Eus. /// vi. xiv. 1; Photius, bib/ioth. 109) ;
and some at any rate of his comments on 1 P re-
main translated and possibly edited by Cassiodorus
(cf. Zahn, Forschungen iit. 1340). (2) Carthage.
Tertullian quotes and refers to the Epistle as the
work of St. Peter. Thus de Orat. xx., ‘De modestia
quidem cultus et ornatus aperta priescriptio est
etiam Petri, cohibentis eodem ore, quia eodem
spiritu, quo Paulus’ (LP 3%, 1 Ti 29) ; Scorpicace;
xii., ‘Petrus quidem ad Ponticos, Quanta enim,
inquit, gloria,’ ete. For other quotations and re-
ferences see Ronsch, Des NT Tertullian’s pp.
556-563. (3) South Gaal. Treniwus, a witness to
the traditions of Asia Minor, Rome, and South

780 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

Gaul, quotes the Epistle by name, iv. 9. 2 (ed.
Massuet), ‘Et Petrus ait in epistola sua Quem non
uidentes’ .. .; iv. 16. 4f., ‘Propter hoe ait Do-
minus (Mt 12° 5-2). ἘΠ propter hoc Petrus
ait Non uelamentum’. . 3 Ve gs Beer ἃ (Ὁ
13°}? has been quoted, Tren. continues}, ‘Hoc est
quod et a Petro dictum est (Quem cum non uideritis
diligitis.” For anonymous references see Zahn,
Gesch. des NT Kanons i. 1, p. 303 ἢ, (4) Rome.
When we turn to the Church of Rome we find the
evidence very slight. Hippolytus on Dan. iv. 59
(p. 336 ed. Bonwetsch) uses language derived from
1 Co 2% and 1P 1? (eis ἃ καὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν τότε ἄγγελοι
παρακύψαι). The reference is clear, and the juxta-
position with Pauline words shows that the phrase
is regarded as scriptural. But it is not a case of
definite quotation. In the Muratorian Canon there
isnomentionof LP. It secius, however, inconceiv-
able that a document in which, ¢.g., the Epistle of
Jude and a (supposed) letter of St. Paul to the
Laodiceans find a place, should know nothing of
an Epistle so widely accepted as 1 P, especially if
Zahn’s view is correct that. the African Church
received its NT from Rome (Gos. Kan. i. ps Ὁ Τὴ,
The character of the fragment makes it quite
possible that the apparent omission is due to the

carelessness of a translator or of a scribe. But two
other suggestions deserve consideration. (4) There
1s no formal mention of 1 Jn; but the opening

words of the Epistle are cited in the passage of
the fragment which deals with St. John’s Gospel.
It is probable, therefore, that the author of the
Canon considered it unnecessary separately to
mention an Epistle to which he had already in-
cidentally referred. It is likely enough that 1 P
5% was quoted in connexion with St. Mark’s Gos-
pel and its relation to St. Peter's preaching, with
which the first sentence of the extant fragment
appears to deal (see art. MARK). (4) Zahn (Ges.
Kran. ii. 1, p. 110 n.) conjectures that a word and a
line have fallen out in a later passage of the frae-
ment, which he would restore thus: ‘A pocalypsi (n)
etinm Johannis et Petri [unam] tantum recipimus
[epistulam ; fertur etiam altera,] quam quidam ex
nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt.’ In any ease, the
Muratorian fragment beine what it is, it is un-
reasonable to deduce rejection or ignorance of 1 P
from its apparent silence,

The remains of the literature of the 2nd cent.
supply abundant evidence of the influence of the
language of the Epistle on persons widely separ-
ated from each other. (i.) Martyrdoms. Tn the
Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs (Robinson, The
Passion of St. Perpetua p. 106 11.) who suffered
at Carthage in A.D. 180, we find the words, ‘ Do-
natadixit: Honorem Cresari quasi Cresari: timorem
autem Deo,’—words which are closer to 1 P 217 than
to Ro 187, Aeain, in the Letter of the Churches of
Lyons and Vienne (A.D. 177), preserved in Eus. HE
V.i.f., there isan echo of 1 Ῥ δή ἴῃ the words ἐταπείν-
ουν ἑαυτοὺς ὑπὸ Thy κραταιὰν χεῖρα, ὑφ᾽ ἧς ἱκανῶς νῦν
εἰσιν ὑψώμενοι (ii. 5); of 1 P 5° in ἤδη δοκῶν ὁ διά-
Boros καταπεπωκέναι (i. 25), and in ods πρότερον WETO
[ὁ θὴρ] καταπεπωκέναι (ii. 6). (il.) Apologists. The
language of Theophilus, ad Autolycun ii. 34, τὸν
δὲ ποιητὴν. . . τῶν ὅλων... ἀθετοῦσιν, πειθόμενοι
δύγμασιν ματαίοις διὰ πλάνης πατροπαραδύότου. . ,
οἱ [οἱ προφῆται] καὶ ἐδίδαξαν ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀθε-
μίτου εἰδωλολατρείας, recalls 1} 2! 118. 48. When
Justin Martyr, Dial. 103, dealing with Ps 201.
suggests the alternative interpretation —# λέοντα
τὸν ὠρυόμενον ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔλεγε τὸν διάβολον-- 6 prob-
ably has in mind 1 P 58. (iii.) Heretics. There
is some evidence that the Gnostie sects, who early
broke away from the Catholic Church, were
familiar with the Epistle—(a) the Marcosians (re-
presentatives of the Western school of the Valen-
tinians), whose actual words Irenzeus (ie ἜΝ. ἢ

seems to be reproducing, τὴν τῆς κιβωτοῦ δὲ οἰκο.
νομίαν. .. ἐν ἡ ὀκτὼ ἄνθρωποι διεσώθησαν, φανερώτατά
ῴασι τὴν σωτήριον ὀγδοάδα μηνύειν (1 P 353); (β) the
Eastern Valentinians, according to Clem. Alex.,
sacerpta ex Scriptis Theodoti IXXXVi., οὐ συνεισῆλθον
εἰς τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα ἀγαθὰ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι
παρακύψαι (1 Ρ 113); (y) Basilides, according to Clem.
Alex. Strom. iv. p. GIO, μηδὲ λοιδορούμενοι ws ὁ μοιχὸς
ἢ ὁ φονεὺς, ἀλλὰ ὅτι χριστιανοὶ πεφυκότες (1 Ῥ 411.
(iv.) Lp. to Diognetus ix., αὐτὸς τὰς ἡμετέρας ἁμιαρ-
τίας ἀνεδέξατο, αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο λύτρον ὑπὲρ
ἡμῶν. . . τὸν δίκαιον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδίκων ; οἵ, 1 P 954 315.
(v.) Hermas, Vis. ταν. iii. 4, ὥσπερ yap τὸ χρυσίον δοκιμά-
ἕεται διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς κ. εὔχρηστον γίνεται, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς
k.T.A. Σ ΟἿ, ΤΡῚΣ, but δ also Pr 17*, Sir 2°. Again,
Vis. I. xi. 3, IV. ii. 4, 5 (ἐπιρίψατε ras μερίμνας ὑμῶν
ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον) ; cf. 1 P57, but more probably Ps 54
(55) * is the source. Thus the references to 1 P in
Hermas are very doubtful. (vi.) Barnabas, xvi. 10,
τοῦτό ἐστιν πνευματικὸς ναὸς οἰκοδομούμενος τῷ κυρίῳ ;
cf. 1P 2°. (vii.) Didaché i. 4, ἀπέχου τῶν σαρκικῶν
καὶ σωματικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ; ef, 1} 91 (vilil.) Papias.
Eusebius, HH ut. xxxix. 16, tells us of Papias—
κέχρηται δ᾽ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας
ἐπιστολῆς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἸΙέτρου ὁμοίως:. Since Eusebius
(HE Iv. xiv. 9) uses similar language as to Polyearp
(see below), we cannot infer from this notice that
Papias did more than silently adopt Petrine ex-
pressions. It must, however, be remembered that
the character of Papias’ Expositions differed widely
from that of Polycarp’s Lpistle. he latter is
hortatory. The former dealt largely with matters
of history and tradition. ‘Thus Papias’ use of 1 P
is likely to have been of such a kind as to necessi-
tate an explicit reference to the Epistle. These a
priori considerations are confirmed by an examina-
tion of Eusebius’ words elsewhere. In HE τι. xv. 2,
Eusebius, giving an account of the composition of
St. Mark’s Gospel, mentions a story (φασί) that St.
Peter approved of the evangelist’s action, and gave
his authority to the Gospel. He then parentheti-
cally gives his authorities—‘Clement in the sixth
book of the Hypotyposeis has recorded the story ;
and, further, the bishop of Hierapolis, by name
Papias, confirms his testimony ’—and at once pro-
ceeds (in the oratio obliquiat): τοῦ δὲ Mdpxov μνημονεύειν
τὸν Πέτρον ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ ἐπιστολῇ, ἣν καὶ συντάξαι φασὶν
ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς Ρώμης, σημαίνειν τε τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸν τὴν πόλιν τρο-
πικώτερον Ἰδαβυλῶνα προσειπόντα διὰ τούτων ᾿Ασπάζεται
κιτοὰι (LP5%). From this somewhat confused pas-
sage we learn that Eusebius found three points
noted in the writings either of Clement or of
Papias or of both—(1) the reference to Mark in
1 PS (2): the composition of 1P at Rome; (3)
the allegorical use of the name Babylon in 1 Ρ.
Now, when we turn to the extant fragments of
Clement's Hypotyposcis (ed. Potter p. 1007), we
find that of these three points Clement mentions
the former two and is silent as to the last. It
appears, therefore, to be a just inference that in
regard to this last Papias was Eusebius’ authority,
Moreover, that Papias’ Expositions did contain a
passage in which 1P 5% would naturally be
appealed to, is certain from the words of Papias
himself (ap. Eus. HE ut. xxxix. 15)—otre yap
ἤκουσε τοῦ κυρίου [Μᾶρκος] οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ,
ὕστερον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, Ilérpy—a passage which makes
it clear that in the now lost portion of his work
Papias gave a detailed account of Mark’s connexion
with St. Peter. If, then, 1P 5" was referred
to in that earlier section of the Expositions in
regard to Mark’s presence with St. Peter at Rome,
it follows that Papias must have appealed to
the Epistle, and therefore have recognized it, as
the work of St. Peter. (ix.) Polycarp (e, A.D. 115).
There is a long series of coincidences between
Polycarp’s Epistle and 1 P—Ep. Polyc. i. eis ὃν οὐκ
ἰδόντες πιστεύετε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ εἰς

PELER, FERS) EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 781

»

ἣν πολλοὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν εἰσελθεῖν Π 1 P 18:15... ἢ, διὸ
ἀναζωσαμένοι τὰς ὀσφύας |! 115 : il, πιστεύσαντες εἰς τὸν
ἐγείραντα τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Νριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ
δόντα αὐτῷ δύξαν |) 15} 3 il, μὴ ἀποδιδύντες κακὸν ἀντὶ
κακοῦ ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας || 3"; ὦν. πᾶσα ἐπιθυμία
Κατὰ τὸῦ πνεύματος δτρατεύεται | 21} (cf. Creal 5!) 5 vil.
νήφοντες πρὸς Tas εὐχάς || 4°53 Vill. ὃς ἀνήνεγκεν ἡμῶν
τὰς ἁμαρτίας TW ἰδίῳ σώματι ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, ὃς ἁμαρτίαν
οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δύλος ἐν τῷ στύματι αὐτοῦ...
τοῦτον γὰρ ἡμῖν τὸν ὑπογραμμὸν [5“΄ς τῆς ὑπομονῆς] ἔθηκε
δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ || 2-4: 5.51 x. fraternitatis amatores dili-
gentes Inuicem . omnes uobis inuicem subiecti
estote, conversationem uestram ireprehensibilem
habentes in gentibus, ut ex bonis operibus uestris,
ete. | 2'7 125° Ὁ. That Polycarp was thoroughly
familiar with 1 P cannot be doubted. He does
not, however, preface any of its words and phrases
which he weaves into his letter with any formula
of citation, nor does he ever mention St. Peter's
name. Harnack (Die Chronologic, pp. 463) therefore
concludes that Polyearp did not regard the Epistle
as the work of St. Peter, alleging that this Father
deals differently with St. Paul, to whom he several
times refers by name, and more than one of whose
sayings he introduces with an εἰδύτες ὅτι, clearly
marking it thereby as a quotation. But, on the
other hand, itmay be urged — (1) that Polycarp uses,
Without any note of quotation, phrases derived

from Clement’s Epistle and from the Epistles of |

his master St. John (ch. vii., ef. 1 Jn 44%, 2Jn7), as
Harnack admits, and we must add phrases from
the OT, the Acts, and from the Gospels; (2) that
the phrase εἰδότες ὅτι in each case (chs. 1. iv. v5
ef. ch. vi. εἰδότες ὅτι πάντες ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν ἁμαρτίας)
introduces an epigrammatic, axiomatic statement
(ef: Ro 5® 6°, 1 Co 15°, 2Co 17 44 5, Gal 2, Eph
6%, Ph 116. Col 3% 4'), while the phrases quoted
from 1 P are rather of a hortatory type; (3) that
Polyearp is writing to a Church which St. Paul
founded and to which he addressed an Epistle, and
that it is in reference to these facts that he men-
tions St. Paul’s name (chs. iil. ix. xi.); that on the
one occasion when he appeals directly to the
authority of St. Paul’s writings (ch. x1., ‘sicut
Paulus docet’), it is for a statement which is of
the nature of a revelation—Sancti munduim (udi-
cabunt (1 Co 6). Further, Polycarp’s love for and
familiarity with 1 P area proot that he regarded

the Epistle as a document of supreme interest and |

authority —a document which he had by heart ;
they must be interpreted in the light of the fact
that Iren:eus, his spiritual son, habitually refers to
it as the letter of St. Peter. (x.) Clement of Rome,
Vil. ἀτενίσωμεν εἰς τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ γνῶμεν
ὡς ἔστιν τίμιον τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ || 1 P I; xxxvi.
ἀναθάλλει εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς [so Codd. A C
(om. αὐτοῦ), τὸ φῶς Syr., Clem. ΑἸοχ.]; lix. δι οὗ
ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ σκύτους εἰς φῶς, ἀπὸ ἀγνωσίας εἰς
ériyvwow x.7.d. ΠῚ P 2%, Again, Clement uses
the Petrine word ὑπογραμμός in reference to ὑπο-
μονή (v.) and, after quoting Is 53, Ps 22, to Christ's
humility (xvi.), ef. 1 P 27. Further, in 1 1 45 we
have Pr 1013 quoted in the form ἀγάπη καλύπτει
πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, a form approximating to the
Hebrew but widely different from the LXX. The
Petrine rendering is found in Clem. xlix. and in ‘the
Ancient Homily’ (2 Clem.) xvi. Again, Pr 3% (κύριος
ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται LXX, Heb. * He’) is quoted
in Ja 45, 1 P 5°, in the form ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις K.7.X.
In this latter form the words are cited in Clem, xxx.
(dess), Ton. Eph. v. (ὑπερηφ. ὁ θεὸς ἀντιτάσσεται). ;

To sum up: 1 P is, with the single exception of
1Jn, the only one among the Catholic Epistles
‘of whose authority was never any doubt in the
Church.2 No sooner did a theological literature
(properly so called) spring up in the Church than
this Epistle is quoted by name as the work of St.
Peter. In the earliest Christian literature outside

the NT (i.e. A.D. 90-190) it is second only to the

~ Gospels and the Pauline Epistles in the extent of
the influence which it exercised on the language

and thoughts of writers widely separated from each
other in place and in’ circumstances. The testi-
mony which these writers bear to the Epistle i
indirect, with one probable exception. There is
good reason for thinking that Papias referred to it
explicitly as the Epistle of St. Peter. The only
natural interpretation of the facts—the early and
wide influence of the Epistle on the one hand, on
the other the consistent and unwavering attribu-
tion of it to St. Peter on the part of all writers
from TIreneus’ time onward—is that from the first
it was regarded as the work of that apostle.

III. Usk or THE LXX, VOCABULARY, LITERARY
STYLE.—-(i.) The thought and language of 1 P are
deeply intlnenced by the OT, and the writer uses
the OT in the LXX version. It is not passible to
draw an absolute line between direct quotations
and instances of mere appropriation of LXX
language. In the former category the following
passages may be conveniently classed—1!" (Ly 114
19220; 19 (is 4088) Died le 2819: Pe PEL backs
S14), Οὐ τα Ἄθω Ἐν 656 23 or Iv eas] eeoss bese
PI (3). 23 ΓΝ or. 24f. (Is 539: le. 6), Slot. (Ps 33 [34] sais) 48
(Pr 10), 48 (Pr 11°), 5° (Pr 34). When these
quotations are examined textually, it appears that
(1) the writer quotes from memory, this conclusion
being suggested by the number of small variations
and adaptations (see especially 3!) ; (2) in one
passage (2°) his reminiscence of the LXX is influ-
enced by his remembrance of Ro 9"; (3) there is
some sheht evidence for the conclusion that the
LXX text familiar to him resembled that found in
NAQ rather than that given by B (ef. von Soden,
Hand-Comm. p. 113); see 2° (Ὁ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ : but the
addition may be due to Ro 9%), 2° (εὑρέθη dros) ;
but note, on the other hand, 3'° (+ 670); (4) that in
one passage (4°) he either himself formulates, or
(in view of Ja 5%) more probably adopts, a revised
translation of the Hebrew.

Apart from quotations, however, the writer con-
tinually weaves into his own language words and
phrases which are (possibly unconscious) remini-
scences of the LXX.

Most phrases of this kind are indicated by the use of uncial
typein WH. To these may be added—1? εἰρήνη σληθυνθειν (Dn 3°),
113 ἀναζωσάμενοι. . . τὰς ὀσφύας (Pr 29%), 119 euros eumurs (6.0.
Ex 2938), 24 προσερχόμενοι (Ps 33 [34]6, see Hort’s note), 294 σῷ
ὑτοῦ ἐ ξύλον (Dt 2123), 313 cis ὁ κακώσων (Is δ09), 58
ἣν κραταιὰν χεῖρα (Gn 169 and e.g. Job 3021),
Moreover, the following words are
ETA ONTOS,

15

σώωκτι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ
ταπτεινώθητε. .-. ὑπὸ « "
λέων ὠρυόμενος (e.g. Ezk 2325).
probably derived from the ΧΝ ἀντίδικος, γυναικειος
be peer eu Lea, καταπυριξυειν, καταπίνειν, κλῆροι, παροικία, “τοτοῖ, τυρώωσιεξς
ῥαντισμός, ῥύπος, συντρέχειν (Ps 49 [50] 18). Again, not a few
expressions suggest that the writer of the Epistle was acquainted
with some books of the Apoerypha—«deager7s (1 Mac twice,
4 Mac four times, in abstract sense), ἀθεωίτος (2 Mac thrice,
3 Mac once), ἐτίσκοτος Ψυχὴν (cf. Wis 18 31), χτίστης (Jth once,
Sir once, 2 Mac thrice, 4 Mac twice), σρέγνωσις (Jth twice),
ὑπογραμμός (2 Mac once). The three epithets ἀφθαρτος, sui
avror, ἀμάραντο: (14) occur in Wisdom ; the combination ἐπ yre»
z. ἐξεραυνᾶν (119) in 1 Mac 926,

(ii.) A rough analysis of the vocabulary of the
Epistle seems to reveal four main elements—(«)
With one of these, that derived from the LXNX, we
have already dealt. (ὦ) There 15 the obvious
Christian element, examples of which are φιλα-
δελφία (φιλάδελφος), χάρισμα. It is important to
remember that, though St. Paul’s Epistles are the
earliest evidence for the use of such words as these
in a specifically Christian sense, it does not follow
that their currency was due to him, or that a writer
who so uses them is proved thereby to be a literary
debtor to him. (ὦ) There is a considerable number
of words and expressions in the Epistle which do
not occur elsewhere in the NT, and which may be
brietly described as edassical.*

*For instances of verbal affinity with Philo see Salmon,

Introduction® p, 505¢.

——

782 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

They are—dvayzerris (Plato), ἀνά χυσις (Philo, Plut., Strabo),
ἀντιλοιδορεῖν (Leian., Plut.), ἀπίχεσθαι ἐπιθυμιῶν (Plato), &royev-
ἐσθαι (Herod.), ἀπόθεσις (Plato, Arist. =‘ laying up’), Si0%y(Hom.),
iurrozy, (Strabo), ἐπικάλυμμα (Menand.), οἰνοφλυγία (Xen., Arist. ;
verb LXX twice), ὀμέφρων (Ifom., Hes., Pind.), orafev (Herod.,
Thuc.), ὁ παρεληλυύὼς χρένος, πατροταράδοτος (Dion H., Diod.,
Inscriptians ; cf. Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien p. 94), προθύμως
(Herod., Aesch.); cf. also ἔννοια (Plato, Arist., Polyb.) also in
LXX, He 412, ἐπηρεάζειν (Xen., Dem., Arist.) found also in Lk 623,

(4) We notice in this Epistle a remarkable series
of words for which there seems to be no earlier or
contemporary authority—d\dorproerisxoros, ἀμαράν-
τινος, ἀναγεννᾶν, ἀνεκλάλητος, ἀπροσωπολήμπτως, ἀρτι-
γέννητος (found, however, in Lucian), ἀρχιποίμην
(found, however, in 4 Καὶ 34 (Symm.) Zest. aii. Patri.
Jud. 8), ἐγκομβοῦσθαι, περιέχει ἐν ypady, περίθεσις,
προμαρτύρεσθαι, σθενοῦν. συνπρεσβύτερος. ὑπολιμπάνειν
(but in Dion. H. Ξε εξ fail’).

The vocabulary, then, of the writer is a full
one, including as it does words representing the
several strata of the language. The proportion of
classical words is large ; so, too, is the list of words
of which there is little or no independent attesta-
tion. None, however, of those which come under
the last head strikes the reader as affected or odd.
Each is correctly formed. ‘The meaning of all but
a very few words (¢.g. ἐπερώτημα, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος)
is at once clear.

(111.} The general style, like the vocabulary, shows
that the writer within certain limits had a very
considerable appreciation of, and power over, the
characteristic usages of Greek.

The sentences are naturally linked to each other, and are
impeded, as a rule, by no special ditliculties of construction,
They rise at times into a simple grandeur (e.g. 13-9.17-21 921-25
5610), Passing to matters of detail, we note a keen sense of the
significance of order, rhythm, and balance in the arrangement of
words—e.q. 117-21 2116. 221 (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν) 42-12 55, Again, the
letter is marked by a fulness and deliberateness of expression
shown in (1) the writer’s love of putting a fact or a duty first
negatively and then positively, see [14.18.23 216 33.921 42 528. -
(2) the skilful use of epithets and adverbial expressions, 6.0.
13.18.22 55. (3) the expansion of a single idea by means of
svnonyms—14- 10f. 19 28. 11. 25 34. 8.15. 22 418 58.10, Passaves where
the use of allied but contrasted wor@s adds force or delicacy to
the language are 15 (τεσηργωένγν .. Gpevpouevous), 21 37 (συνοι-
κοῦντες ... συνκληρονόμοι), 48-10 (ἑαυτοὺς... ἀλλήλου:... ἑαυτούς),
51 (τὴν μέριμναν Luv... αὐτῷ μέλε). The tensesare used with
marked exactness, and their force is often brought out by
contrast, 15 {τετυρη μένχν, φρουρου μένους), 18 (ἰδέντες, Gonvres), 111}.
(ἐδήλουν, ἀτεκαλύφιθν), 119 (ἀναζωσά μενοι, νύφοντεῖ), 210 (ὐλεηίκενοι,
ἐλευγθέντες), 217 (τιμήσατε (the abstract rule), ἀγαπᾶτε, φοβεῖσθε,
στιμκάτε (the detailed fulfilment)), so also 91. (ὑποτά γητε), 218 5]
(ὑποτασσόμενοι), 410 (ἔλα Ξον, διαπκονοῦντε:), 413 (χαίρετε, χαρήτε).
Again, the use of contrasted prepositions is often full of meaning,
12 (zard, iv, εἰς), 13 (κατά, εἰς, dua), 19 (ἐν, εἰς 3 ἐν, duc ), 171 (δια, #73),
24 (ὑπό, παρά), 318 (περί, ὑπέρ). The meaning of the opening
paragraph—the fulfilment of the Divine purpose in relation to
Messiah and the Gentiles—largely depends on the pregnant use
of the preposition εἰς (‘reserved for,’ ‘destined for’) in 15.10.11,
Again, it will be felt how much is involved in the double
contrast between the plural and the singular in 42 ἀνθρώπων
ἐπιθυμίαις, θελήματι θεοῦ (cf. Heracleon ap. Origen in Joan.
tom. XX. 24, τὸν διά ξολον wy ἔχειν θέλημα ἀλλ᾽ ἐτιθε κίας ; cf. also 53
(τῶν κλήρων. .. τοῦ ποιμεινίου)).

It is interesting to contrast this Epistle with the
Pauline Epistles in rogard to the Imagery used.
The figures are drawn from the associations of
birth, childhood, and family Life (1% 14-17. 2. 92 ;
nomadic life (11.117 24), temple and worship (25 310}.
building (24), the fields and pastoral life (14 (24 5%: ay
military life (15 2) 41), nainting (22), working of
metals (17 415. The writer differs from St. Paul in
the lack of originality which his imagery shows—
it is almost entirely derived from the OT: in the
narrowness of its range: in its simplicity and
brevity ; no metaphor is expanded or permitted to
lead on to side issues.

To sum up: the writer of the Epistle must have
been a diligent student of the LXX, and was satu-
rated with its language. In particular, it may be
noted that his mind is constantly recurring to the
Bk. of Proverbs. There is also reason for think-
ing that he was acquainted with some books of the
Apocrypha. ‘he nature and range of his vocabu-
lary shows that he had considerable knowledge of,

and power over, the resources of the Greek Jan.
guage ; and this conclusion is confirmed when we
note the delicacy and accuracy of his perception in
regard to the rhythmical arrangement of words, the
use of synonyms, and the management of tenses
prepositions, etc. At the same time, there is nc
sign of any conscious eflort after effect. We do
not find here the trained rhetoric of the writer to
the Hebrews, the impetuous, unstudied, eloquence
of St. Paul, or the epigramiatic conciseness of St.
James. Viewing the Epistle from a purely literary
standpoint, we find its merit in the exact correspond-
ence between its spirit and its form. The simple
impressive language is the spontaneous expression
of the writer’s tender persuasiveness and calm logic.

IV. THe READERS TO WHOM THE EPISTLE WAS
PRIMARILY ADDRESSED, AND THEIR CIRCUM-
STANCES.—The Epistle is addressed to the Chris-
tians in the four Roman provinces which together
coincided with the region which bears the modern
name of Asia Minor. It has, indeed, been lately
urged (Deissmann, Bihelstudien p. 244) that no
letter, properly so called, could be addressed to
communities scattered over so vast a district; the
cireulation of such an Epistle, it is said, would have
taken up many years of the life of the messenger,
Such a position, however, leaves out of sight the
wonderful facilities for travel which Rome had
created throughout the empire, as well as the fact
that in St. Paul we have an instance of a Christian
missionary who did plan and execute rapid tours
of visitation over large districts (cf. ¢.g. Ae 154
16° 1855: (cf. 19!) 1031. Moreover, since’ the letter
does not deal, as many of St. Paul’s Epistles do,
with controversy or business, or with matters of
pressing local or personal importance, there would
be no need for the messenger to deliver it’ immedi-
ately to all those to whom it was addressed. It
would be suflicient if he communicated it to the
several Churches in the provinces, as in the course
of time he reached them. See also below, 8 6.

From the question of their home we turn to the
problem of their past. Is the letter addressed to
those who had been converted to Christ from
Judaism or from heathenism’? The opinion that
its readers were Jews by birth was held (as we
infer from his language about St. Peter's travels)
by Origen (quoted by Eus. 11} it. i.), by Didymus
of Alexandria, by Eusebius (Δ mt. iv. 2), and by
the Greek Fathers generally. This consensus of
ancient opinion was followed by many scholars
between the Revival of Learning and the present
century—Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, and Bengel.
Among critics of the last half century it has won
the constant and earnest support of 3. Weiss (6.0.
Der petrinische Lehrbegriff, 1855, p. 99 1¥. ; Introd.
to NT’, 1888, vol. ii. p. 137 ff., ing. tr.), and recently
of Kiihl in his commentary in the Weiss-Meyer
series. The two last mentioned scholars, it should
be added, maintain their view as to the readers of
the Epistle in close connexion with their conclusion
as to the early date of the Epistle (see below).
On the other hand, in ancient times Augustine (¢.
Faust. xxii. 89; Enarr. in Ps. 146 (147) 9) and
Jerome (adv. Jovinian. 1597 held that the Epistle
was addressed to Gentile Christians, though in de
Virr. Illust. 1 the latter follows Origen in speak-
ing of the apostle’s ‘praedicationem dispersionis
eorum qui de circumeisione crediderant in Ponto’:
and for this view recent critics of all schools have
given a practically unanimous vete.

A brief examination of Kiihl’s arguments will serve to bring
into prominence some important points. (1) The word διω-
σπορᾶς in the salutation, it is said, is decisive ; it must port to
‘Jewish settlements’ (cf. Ja 1!)—an argument which convinced
ancient opinion. As against this interpretation no stress can
be laid on the absence of the article before diaoropes ; for in
such a formula as a salutation prefixed to a letter the article is
frequently omitted. The following considerations, however,

ET

ας ταὶ οὐ πω τ: τοῦ

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 783

seem to have decisive force on the other side. (a) In the clause
itself the words raser.dyucs and διασπορά are kindred to each
other, both dealing primarily with the manner of man’s life on
earth. Since the former is here used in a metaphorical sense
(cf. 117 211), it would be harsh to take the latter literally.
(ὁ) The opening and the close of the Epistle cannot be inter-
preted independently of each other. There is an intentional
correspondence between them. The phrase ἐκλεκτοῖς παρ-
τιδήμοις δια σπορᾶς ἴτπι 11 ΔΒ ΟΥ5 [0 ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, συνεκλεκτή
in 518. The word διασπορά and the name Βαβυλών (= Rome, see
art. BABYLON IN NT and, both published since that art. was
written, Hort, 1 Peter pp. 6, 167 ff., and Zahn, H/n/. ii. p. 19 ff.) are
both expressions taken from the vocabulary created by Jewish
history and afterwards transferred to the Christian Church.
(ὦ Elsewhere in the Epistle language primarily applied to
Israel is used of the Christian Church, see especially 29. (4) The
Epistle itself supplies a comment on diecro9% used metaphori-
cally in 59 τῇ ἐν τῷ κόσμω ὑμῶν ἀδελφότητι; Compare Jn 1152,
Didaché x. ὃ. These considerations further exclude Salmon’s
suggestion (/ntrod.6 p. 442), that ‘the Epistle was written to
members of the Roman Church whom Nero’s persecution had
dispersed to seek safety in the provinces ’—a suggestion which
is also open to the objection that, while it is natural and
intelligible to use a recognized term in a metaphorical sense, it
cannot be said to Le either natural or intelligible to give it a
special application unless that application is explained or in
some way indicated by the context. (2) The use of the OT
without note of quotation in cases where the force of the words
as proof depends on their recognition as derived from the OT,
presupposes a familiarity with the OT which converts from
heathenism would not possess. To this it may be replied—
(a7) that the Epistle contains no argumentative passage, and that
a writer might well enforce an exhortation by an appeal to OT
language which his readers would not fully appreciate ; more-
over, it is not denied that in the Churches of Asia Minor there
was an element of Jewish converts ; (Ὁ) that the force of Kuhl’s
argument depends almost entirely on his further supposition
that the Epistle is addressed to recent converts (see below).
(3) Kuhl adduces certain passages as proving the Jewish descent
of those addressed. The words of Hosea quoted in 219 were
originally spoken to Jews; it is natural, therefore, it is said,
that St. Peter should re-apply them to the Jews. In 229 Kuhl
pleads that the correlative terms ἦτε σλανώμενοι and ἐπεστράφητε
imply that those addressed had dapsed—an assertion not true
of Gentiles. But Kuhl’s interpretation of both these passages
assumes a general apostasy on the part of the Jews of the
Dispersion, for which, in fact, we have not the slightest evi-
dence. In regard to 225, even if the idea of a return is pressed
(but see Ac 1410 158. 19, 1 Th 19), the original relation of man to
God may well have been in the apostle’s mind here as in 419
(πιστῷ κτίστη; οἷ, e.g. Ac 1726f., Col 120 &roxarcrArAczoas). Again,
in reference to 36, Kthl argues that Gentile women would
become Sarah’s children by conversion to Christ, and that there-
fore of none but Jewish women could it be said that they
became so ‘by well-doing.’ But, even if the common punctua-
tion of the passage is adopted, the words may very well mean,
‘whose children you (Gentile) women proved yourselves by well-
doing’ (see Hort on 1), p. 71). There is, however, much to be
said for making the clause ὡς Σάρρα... τέκνα a parenthesis,
and taking ἀγαθοποιοῦσοαι x 7.A. as co-ordinate with ὑποτασσό-
μενα:.

On the other hand, there are passages of two kinds which
only by repeated acts of exegetical violence can be construed
as applicable to Jews. (1) Passages scattered throughout the
Epistle dealing with the past moral condition of those addressed,
114 (cf. Ac 1789, Gal 48, Eph 418), 118 (cf. Ro 121, Eph 417; on
πατροπαραδέτου see Hort’s note), 424 (for τὰ ἔθνη in an ethical
sense see 1Th 45, Eph 211 417; note also Zviovres—heathen
neighbours would not wonder if Jews did not join in their
idolatrous immoralities) (2) The opening paragraph (13-12),
where the contrast between ‘us’ (writer and readers alike, 13)
and ‘ you’ (ef. Eph 1130), and still more the emphatic and remark-
able language used about ‘you’ as persons for whom the bless-
ings of the gospel were destined in God’s purpose, and whom
they had at length reached (15-10. 12, ef. 12°), seem to imply
the fundamental conception of the admission into the family of
God of the long-excluded Gentiles (see Hort’s notes on 18-12),

Further, the negative argument in this case is of considerable
weight. The writer is silent on many topics on which almost

inevitably he would have dwelt had he been speaking as a Jew |

to Jews. Then he does not, like St. James, draw out the moral
teaching of the Law ; nor, Jike the writer to the Hebrews, does
he concern himself with the spiritual interpretation of the
ancient histories, and of the ritual of the old covenant. He
never takes occasion by a reference to ‘the Fathers’ to allude to
the glories of Israelitish ancestry and its manifold significance
for a Christian Jew (see Ac 313. 25 580 72.38 1317. 32 2214, He 11,
cf. Ro 996), In short, the contrast between our Epistle (both in
matter and manner) and those apostolic speeches and Epistles
which are addressed to Jews, and, we may add, those parts of
St. Paul’s Epistles in which he turns to the Jewish element in
the Churches to which he writes, is by itself a cogent reason for
rejecting the theory that the Epistle was primarily addressed to
Jewish Christians.

To sum up: the Acts supplies evidence that in
many churches within the provinces enumerated
in 1 P 1! there was a considerable Jewish element,

churches comprehended in the salutation differed
from these in character. Such converts from
Judaism would be especially alive to the meaning
of the allusions to O'T language so frequent in the
Epistle. ΑἹ] considerations, however, point de-
cisively to the conclusion that St. Peter liad in his
mind predominantly, though probably not exclu-
sively, Gentile readers.

We pass to the evidence supplied by the Epistle
as to the more recent history and the present condi-
tion of its readers. They owed their conversion to
more than one evangelist (153. That they were
newly-made converts is certainly not implied by
the injunction ws ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον
γάλα ἐπιποθήσατε (27; cf. 1 Co 1439, Hermas, Sim.
ix. 29); the habit of responding to their true
spiritual instincts was a lifelong duty. And, on
the contrary, there are indications that they had
been Christians for some considerable time. St.
Peter assumes that there were Christian presbyters
in the communities addressed, and, moreover, that
these elders were exposed to temptations arising
from official routine, and from motives of sordid
greed and of ambition—temptations which would
hardly assail men watching over the first stages of
the growth of infant churches. Further, the apostle
implies that sufficient time has elapsed since his
readers became Christians for them to have become
a marked body among their heathen neighbours,
and to have had experience of the difficulties and
dangers inseparable from such a position.

What was the nature of these perils? On our
answer to this question depends our view as to the
date of the Epistle, and consequently, to a large
extent, as to its general character and meaning.
Does the letter presuppose that its readers were
the victims of a persecution organized or authorized
by the State? And, if so, is there evidence that
this persecution was of a kind unknown in the
year A.D. 64?

It will be convenient to consider the second of
these two questions first. The passage on which
the answer depends is 4!°!, and three points in
regard to it claim attention. (@) In view of the
evidence now available, it seems unreasonable to
question St. Luke’s statement that ‘the disciples
were first called Christians at Antioch’ shortly
before the year A.D. 44, still more unreasonable to
doubt its currency at Rome at least some little
time before the Neronian persecution* (see Light-
foot, Jgnatins i. p. 40011; Zahn, Lind. it. p. 40 tf;
also art. CHRISTIAN in vol. i. p. 384ff.). The name
Christian, then, does not in itself suggest a date
later than 64. (4) But ‘the Epistle seems to refer
directly to the edict of Trajan, which has a place
in Pliny’s correspondence, if the difficult word
ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος points to the delator’ (Jiilicher,
Kinl. p. 185; cf. Holtzmann, Lind. p. 494). But,
even if the essential idea of delator were not absent
from the word ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, the passage itself
refutes this view. For, since the first three
offences are mentioned in the inverse order of
their heinousness—inurder, theft, ill-doing (on the
last see Hort, p. 185 f.)—the fourth place in the
series could not be assigned to so vile an offence as
that of the delator. Moreover, the ἢ ὡς before
ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, contrasted with the previous
%...%, marks the transition to a different Aind of
offence. All the requirements of the passage are
satisfied if we suppose that three degad offences are

* Two possibilities must be borne in mind. (a) Luke does
not say that the name Christian was first invented at this time,
but that it was now first used of ‘the disciples.’ It may have
been applied to the Jews at Antioch earlier, and thus it may be
a part of the inheritance which passed to Christianity from
Judaism. (ὁ) It may have been used of ‘the disciples’ inde-
pendently at different places, especially if it was already applied
to Jews. There is, however, nothing strange in a speedy im-
portation of the nickname from the Syrian Antioch to Rome

and there is no reason for supposing that the other | (cf. Juv. iii. 62).

------

784 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

spoken of, then a social fault. The word itself,
when examined, confirms this view. It is best
illustrated by Epictetus, Encheir. iii, 22 (quoted
by Zahn, Fint. ii. p. 39), οὐ yap τὰ ἀλλότρια πολυ-
πραγμονεῖ [1.6. the Cynic] ὅταν τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἐπισ-
κοπῇ, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἴδια, and Hor. Sat. ii. 3. 19, ‘aliena
negotia curo Excussus propriis’—the former pas-
sage being a protest against, the latter a playful
pleading guilty to, the charge often brought
against the philosophers of busying themselves with
their neighbours’ concerns. The Christians, in their
first zeal for the Divine law of purity and love,
would be apt to be betrayed into an exasperating
officiousness, into making a vain attempt to set
the world around them to rights. Such a social
indiscretion would not bring them within the law,
but it would most surely involve them in much
suffering—hence such apostolic precepts as Col 4°,
Eph 5” (ef. 1 Th 44, 2 Th 3"). The word ἀλλοτριο-
ἐπίσκοπος, then, appears to show that the word
πασχέτω has a wider reference than to punishments
inflicted by a magistrate (cf. 2!-), (¢) A distinction
is drawn between the proceedings against Chris-
tians under Nero in A.D. 64 and those which took
place at a later time. In the earlier period, it is
said, Christians suffered not as Christians but as
those who were proved guilty of crime. In the
later period the name Christian itself ensured con-
demnation. No evidence, it is allowed, is extant
as to the time when the earlier procedure gave
place to the later. The transition had taken
lace before the correspondence of Trajan and
Pliny ; it possibly took place as early as Vespasian’s
reign. The language of 1 P 4%, it is urged, pre-
supposes the circumstances of the later period,
when a Christian suffered as a Christian. But
surely this conclusion is due to a confusion of
thought. It is obviously true that such language
could be used by a Christian teacher after, but it
by no means follows that it coula not be used
before, the alleged change in the attitude of the
State towards the Church. For even if it be
granted that in the eyes of the law each Christian
who suffered in Nero's gardens suffered as a con-
victed incendiary, yet in the eyes of his fellow-
believers he suffered for Christ ; and when once the
nickname Christian had become a current term,
the phrase ‘to suffer as a Christian’ would become
anatural synonym of the older phrases ‘ to suffer for
Christ’ or ‘for the name of Christ’ (Mt 24", Lk 21”,
Ac 541.916. 15% 9138, Ph 1),

It is, moreover, open te serious question whether
the evidence implies any essential difference be-
tween the proceedings under Nero and thosé under,
c.g., Trajan. All that we know of the Neronian
persecution is derived from the somewhat rhetorical
account in Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44), one brief sentence
of Suetonius (Nero 16), and the allusion in Clement’s
Epistle. To the present writer, the evidence seems
to point clearly to the conclusion that in A.D. 64 at
Rome the Christians sutfered legally for their re-
ligion. The reasons for this view are briefly these :
(1) It would have ill-suited Nero’s position to
throw the blame of the great fire on persons who
would have to be proved guilty of incendiarism
before they were punished. We must surely con-
clude that he adopted the simple and sensible
plan of slaking the public thirst for vengeance by
the dramatic punishment of an unpopular class of
people on whom he could shift the odium of being
the authors of the fire, but who could be legally
condemned without more ado as the votaries of a
religio ulicita. ‘The legal grounds for inter-
ference were in existence from the first, and no
special edict was needful’ (Harnack, Die Chronol.
p. 454n.; cf. Lightfoot, Zgnatins i. p. 11; West-
cott’s Essay on ‘The Church and the World’ (in
Epistles of St. John)). (2) The language of Tacitus

is quite consistent with, even if it does not require,
this interpretation of the situation. Thus, in re.
gard to the clause ‘Primum correpti qui fatebantur,’
the whole context refutes the idea that the con-
fession was of incendiarism. The meaning can
only be ‘fatebantur se esse Christianos” The
admission of Christianity was the turning-point
of their case. Again, in the following clause
(*‘Multitudo ingens haud perinde in erimine in-
cendii quam odio humani generis conuicti sunt’)
the word conuicti, which appears to imply judicial
investigation of detailed criminal charges, is a
conjecture for the MS reading coniuncti—a word
which may justly be thought to be more in
Tacitus’ manner than the prosaic conwicti. Nor
can the phrase ‘odium humani generis’ be taken
as naturally pointing to illegal actions or conduct.
It has a close parallel in the phrase which Tacitus
uses in his description of the Jews (Hist. v. 5),
aduersus omnes alios hostile odium. Jews and
Christians would alike hold aloof from the social
life of pagans ; they would alike rebuke by their
conduct, if not by their words, the idolatries and
the profligacies of their neighbours. If the Roman
Christians used such words as we find in St. Paul's
Roman Epistle (e.g. Ro 118 2%), they might easily
be represented as ‘haters of the human race.’
(3) The words of Suetonius (‘afHlicti suppliciis
Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis ποιὸ ae
malefice’) are most naturally interpreted as
asserting that Christians suffered as Christians.
Moreover, if Nero was the first to act on the
essential illegality of their position, and so stamped
Christianity as illegal, the historian had a good
reason for placing his notice of the fact among
various police regulations. If, on the other hand,
they were condemned not for their Christianity
but for their criminal actions (real or supposed),
there would be nothing new about the procedure—
nothing to differentiate their case from that of
criminals generally. (4) It is difficult to suppose
that the ingens multitudo (ef. πολὺ πλῆθος, Clem.),
including, according to Clement, matrons and girls
and slaves, were one and all convicted of criminal
actions. Their condemnation as votaries of an
illegal religion, especially in a time of excitement
and panic, would be an easy and expeditious
matter (cf. Tac. Ann. ii. 85; Suet. Claud. 25).

So far, then, it appears (α) that the somewhat
scanty evidence as to the Neronian persecution
does not support the theory, that it differed
essentially from later persecutions in regard to
the method of procedure against the Christians ;
(6) that, if such a difference were proved to exist,
the language of 1 P would be as natural from the

en of a Christian teacher in the earlier as in the
titer period.

We are thus brought to the question—What was
the nature of the sufferings to which those to
whom the Epistle was addressed, like their fellow-
Christians throughout the world (5°), were exposed ἢ
Were they the victims of a persecution directed by
the State? ‘The clearest point,’ writes Dr. Hort
(p. 1), ‘is that [the Epistle] was written during a
time of rising persecution to men suffering under
it’; and he suggests that this was either ‘the
persecution begun by Nero, or a secondary per-
secution arising from that,’ or ἃ persecution
peculiar to Asia Minor, ‘independent of any
known persecution bearing an emperor’s name,
and perhaps even a little earlier than Nero’s
persecution’ (p. 3f.), adding that the language
about the emperor and_ his officers (2!) is in
favour of the second of these two alternatives.
‘The Christian congregations,’ says Jiilicher
(Hint. p. 135; ef. Harnack, Die Chronol. p. 453),
‘and that throughout the whole world, have now
to endure bitter suffering, to bear the fiery proving

end ee ee ee ee

ee Ὁ.

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 785

of their faith (4!?)—a trial so bitter that now the

end of all things cannot be far off (4% 17) The
period of systematic persecutions has begun.’ On

the other hand, Zabu (dial. i. p. 34) finds it hard
to comprehend how a * persecution of the Christian
confession, regulated by the imperial power or by
the magistracy, can be discovered in the Epistle.’
A decision between views so diametrically opposed
can be arrived at only by an examination of the
Epistle itself. The passages bearing on the ques-

tion may be conveniently considered under the |

following heads :—

(1) 47(‘the end of all things is at hand’). This phrase is a
commonplace with those (e.g. Julicher, Harnack) who insist
that the Christians of Asia Minor were enduring the extreme
bitterness of persecution. The context, however, gives no
countenance at ail to the supposition that the expectation of
the end was connected in the writer’s mind with the cruelty of
the Church’s sufferings. He draws from the expectation the
lesson, not of patience but of devout sobriety—a duty dealt
with also in the preceding context,

(2) 16f 412! (two very kindred passages speaking of ‘the
proving of faith’). The language in the former of these passages,
an echo of Ja 12f.) is quite weneral (ἐν ποικίλοις respecuss). In
the other passage the word σύρωσις, derived from Vr 2721 (where
it is parallel to δοκίμιον), emphasizes, not the intensity of the
suffering but its testing and proving nature, and thus the
English equivalent ‘the fiery trial’ (AV, RV), as commonly
understood, suggests misleading associations.* [Ὁ should be
remembered that the locus classicus on παιδεία in the NT (le
127i") is addressed to men who had ‘not yet resisted unto
blood.’ The words which follow about participation in ‘the
sufferings of the Christ,’ while they imply the idea of trials
endured for His sake, do not go beyond such passages as 2 Co
15 410, Ph 129, Col 124 (ef. Ro 818, 2 Co 417). With these two
passages may be associated 5%f-, where the devil is regarded as
the author of suffering to the faithful, but where the point of
the reference lies, not in the greatness of those sufferings but in
the possibilities of spiritual declension which they involve.

(8) 219f. 314.17 415.19 510, In this group of passages ‘suffering’
for Christ’s sake is undoubtedly spoken of. But πάσχειν (cf.
1Th 2l4, 2 Th 15, Gal 34) is an inclusive word; in 270 it is a
synonym of κολαφίζεσθαι.

(4) 212 39.16 44.14, From these passages it appears that
slanders and insults had a prominent “place among these
‘sufferings.’

(5) 313-17, The form of these hypothetical sentences (τὸς ὁ
κακώσων. -. ; ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε [ποῦ εἰ πάσχετε), and εἰ υἱλοι
(not θέλει ; cf. εἰ Σέον 18) makes it clear that the writer regards
suffering for Christ as no more than a possibility for at least
some of. those whom he is addressing. Such language is incon-
sistent with the hypothesis that a general persecution, organized
by the government, was raging ficre ely.

(6) 315 «δῆς Both these passages are very frequently supposed
to deal with the relation of Christians and Roman mavyistrates.
But in ne'ther case can this reference be sustained. On 415} see
above. In 319 Grosuoe ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίων παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι, κ.τ.λ.)
the word σαντί as well as the expression μετὰ sap Sans ey nub
φέβου show that the injunction deals with the general inter-
course of the Christians with their pagan neighbours (cf. Col
46 sus δεῖ ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ἀποκρίνεσθ α ι).

(7) 218% The passage is an echo of St. Paul’s words in Ro
1510 But in place of the general language of Ro ( ξουσίαι
ὑπερίχουσαι. .. αἱ οὗσαι ἐξουσίαι .. . οἱ ἀρχοντεῖῦ We have in 1 P
aclear and detailed reference to the imperial government—‘ the
emperor (320026 i ‘provine ial governors sent by him (4yzwsres

i α΄ τοῦ πετόμενοι). Moreover, St. Peter's description of the
purpose of the existing central government as being (on one side)
the “comm endation’ of ‘well-doers’ goes considerably beyond
the eartier dictum of St. Paul (τὸ @yatov ποίει, καὶ
ἐξ αὐτῆς) : and this dese ripti ion he still ‘further emphasiz 5
explanation—‘ thus (7.e. in accordance with His zriei— the
Divine institution of civil government) it is the will of God,
that by well-doing men silence the ignorance of those who are
senseless.” To this passage must be added the other passages
in the Epistle where the writer speaks in a tone of unwavering
hopefulness as to the effect of ayalloraix on the heathen world
(212 31.16), St. Paul wrote Ro 13 when he still regarded the
Roman State as ‘the restraining power,’ and still looked to the
Empire as the protector of the Church, That a Christian
teacher, writing . from Rome after Nevo's attack on the Chareh
to fellow-Christians in the provinces, should adopt St. Paul’s
language, only making it more explicit and emphasizing its
hopetulness, seems inconceivable. How impossible such a
position at that time would have been, is clear when with the
paragraph in 1 P we compare the symbolism of the Apoe alypse
—the beast and the harlot seated on the seven hills, ‘drunken
with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs
of Jesus’ (Rev 176-9).

To sum up: the passage last considered affords

strong reason for thinking that the storm of the

* Cf. Didaché xvi. rere Eee κτίσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς τὴν πύρωσιν
τῆς δοκιμασία-. καὶ ee een σπολλοί κ.τ.λ. The previous
*ontext speaks of the advent of the ‘ world-deceiver.’

VOL. 111.—50

or hint of, an organized persecution,

|

Neronian persecution had not as yet swept over
the Church at Rome, and that πὸ persesuting
policy against the Church had been adopted by
the Roman mi vistrates in Asia Minor. Not a
word is found in the Epistle about men shedding

their blood or laying down their lives for the
gospel. None of the passages in any of the apove

eroups, as we have seen, contains any reference to,
λα it needs

only a little reflexion in the light of actual history

to convince us how much of the keenest suffering
the confession of Christ must have cost these
Asiatic Christians, though the State had not as
yet become their enemy. They were called upon
to face violence, slander, the severance of social
and family ties, worldly ruin. In the earliest
days of their missionary activity St. Paul and
Barnabas frankly told their converts—éca πολλῶν
θλίψεων det ἡμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν εἰς THY βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ
(Ae 1453). Such tribulations were not confined te
the Churches of Asia Minor. It was well that St.
Peter, out of his wider experience at Rome ἢ and
elsewhere, should remind them that these suffer-
ings were the lot of the Christian brotherhood
everywhere (5°).

V. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.—It will be con-
venient to preface the discussion of these questions
with a tabular statement (founded on that given
by Holtzmann, Lind. p. 318 tt.) of the different
views held by representative critics.

I. On the Assumption of the Authenticity of the Epistle: (1)
ce. 54 A.D. (before St. Paul’s sojourn at Ephesus)—B. Weiss,
Kuhl. (2) During the later period of St. Paul’s activity before his
imprisonment—B. Briickner. (3) 59 or 60—Gloag. (4) ὁ. 62
(during St. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome)—Steiger, Guericke,
Bleek, Wieseler. (5) Shortly before the Neronian persecution—
Hofmann, Renan, F.C. Cook, Zahn. (6) 6. 65 (or a little later)—
e.g. Eichhorn, de Wette, Neander, Grimm, Huther, Sieffert,
Ewald, Wiesinger, Usteri; probably the majority of English
scholars, e.g. Plumptre, Salmon, Farrar, Sanday (apparently ;
Hxpositor, Jane 1893, p. 411), Hort (not earlier than 62, prob-
ably after Neronian persecution), Lightfoot (‘ probably written
not earlier than the summer of 64,’ Clement ii. p. 490). (7)
70-80, Ramsay (who would assign 80 as the probable date,
The Ch. and the Empire p. 2791f.), Swete (preferring apparently
the first half of the decade, St. Mark p. xviif.

Il. On the Assuinption of the Spuriousness of the Epistle: (1)
Under Domitian (51. 96)—Scholten, von Soden (92-96), Harnack
(83-93, but possibly one or even two ΕΣ earlier than 88,
Die Chronol. p. 454), MeGiffert (about 90). (2) Under Trajan
(98-117)—Schwegler, Baur, Keim, Lipsius, Pfleiderer, Hausrath,
W. Briickner, Hilgenfeld, S. Davidson, Julicher (about 100).
(8) Under Hadrian (117-138)—Zeller. (4) 140-147—Volkmar.

The difficulties involved in the theory that the
Epistle is spurious may be conveniently considered
first. They are many, and of various kinds. A close
study of ‘the document itself reveals no motive,
theological, controversial, or historical, which ex-
plains “it as a forgery (ef. Harnack, Die Chronol.
p. 456f.). It denounces no her esy. It supports no
special system of doctrine. It contains no rules as
to Church life or organization. Its references to
the words and the life of Chirist are μονας ery Aig
It presents no picture of any scene in St. Peter

earlier life, and does not connect itself with any
of the stories current in the early Church about
his later years. Why, moreover, should a forger,
with all the world to choose from, select so strangely
wide a district, four provinces, as the supposed des-
tination of the letter, and why should he mention
them in an order (on this supposition) so chaotic
and so inexplicable? Why should he represent
Silvanus as the amanuensis or the bearer of
Peter's letter, though in the Acts he nowhere
appears as in any way connected with that
apostle, but both in the Acts and in three Epistles

* When St. Paul first arrived at Rome, the Jews at Rome tell
him that they know that ‘everywhere this sect is spoken
against’ (Ac 2822), The language of Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44)
clearly implies that before the Neronian persecution Christians
were regarded at Rome with feelings of hatred and horror—
‘quos per flagitia inuisos uolgus Christianos appellabat .
aduerstis sontes et nouissima ὁ xempla meritos.’

786 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

(1 and 2 Th, 2 Co) as the companion of St. Paul?
Why, above all, should a forger give to Pauline
thoughts and to Pauline language a prominent place
in an Epistle bearing the name of St. Peter?
These difficulties do not appear less formidable
when we review the theories of those erities who
have attempted to meet them. The Tiibingen
school, indeed, had a clear and concise answer to
the question why a Pauline element is found in a
Petrine Epistle. The letter, in their view, is a
Unionsschrift (see Holtzmann, Find. p. 316),
celebrating the agreement of the two parties in
the Church which bore the names of the two
great apostles. ‘But that theory,’ to quote
Harnack’s verdict (Die Chronol. p. 456, ef. p.
vii lf.), ‘is admittedly profoundly shaken in general,
and in particular it is refuted in its application to
1 Peter.” We turn at once to three recent theories,

(4) Von Soden (Hand-Commentar zum NT iii. fh
p. 117), putting the letter in the last four years of
Domitian’s reien, sugvests that Silvanus was the
author of the Epistle (5!) : that, however, instead
of speaking in his own name, he makes St. Peter,
the glorious martyr (54), utter words of encourace-
ment to Churehes among which the apostle had
himself once worked ; that, conscious what jude-
ment the apostle had fermed of him, he ventures
to add the testimony to himself merod ἀδελφοῦ
ws λογίζομαι : that he perhaps derived his right to
speak in the apostle’s name from his own position
as an ἀπύστολος (1 Th 2°) and a prophet (Ac 15%),
A theory burdened with such complicated improba-
bilities hardly merits serious discussion,

(2) Jitlicher (/in/. p. 13.411} holds that the letter
was written about the year 100. In view of δ᾽
and of the author's familiarity with St. Paul's
Epistle to the Romans, he conjectures that he
vas a Roman Christian. In spite of its obvious
‘catholic? character, the letter is addressed to the
live provinces of Asia Minor; and Jiilicher finds
an explanation of this fact in the supposition that
the writer was a native ef Asia Minor, and thus
had a natural interest in the brethren of that
region. He had, it is clear, an intimate knowledge
of St. Paul’s writings; but, when he wanted to give
an apostolic authority to his own words, he refrained
from using the name of that apostle, partly from
motives of reverence and partly that he might not
tear Open again wounds which were now. half
healed, It is clear that this special view of the
composition of the Epistle is open to all, or to
nearly all, the objections mentioned above as
generally valid against the supposition of its
spuriousness.

(¢) Harnack (Chronol. p, 457 ff.) draws a distine-
tion between the opening and closing sentences (2%
5%) and, on the other hand, the main body of the
Epistle (1°-5"). The latter —whether originally a
letter or not, there is no evidence to determine——is
the work of ‘some prominent teacher and confessor,
who, possibly writing from Rome, and, it may be,
a prisoner there, was certainly so familiar with
Pauline Christianity that he could move about
within its area with perfect freedom.’* The date of
this document, which to us is a fragment, lies be-
tween 83-93, but may conceivably be some 20 years
earlier. The opening and closing sentences, on the
other hand, Harnack, modifying a suggestion first
put forward by him in his edition of the Didaché
(p. 106 n.), considers to have been added between
A.D. 150 and 175. He further discovers resem-
blances in style between these sentences and
2 Peter, the earliest document in which our Epistle
is quoted as the work of St. Peter, and indulges
the suspicion that the clauses which now begin and

* McGiffert (History of Christianity in the Apost. Age p. 599)
conjectures that the writer of the Epistle was Barnabas. He
accepts Harnack’s theory of interpolation.

end 1 Peter are the work of the same author as
2 Peter.

Harnack (p. 458 ff.) urges that his view as to 11f. 512 15 con-
firmed by four arguments. (1) These sentences can without
loss be removed from the document. But, on this principle, all
Epistles might profitably be curtailed at both ends. (2) These
sentences are poor in style, and present various difliculties. But
it is only natural that the beginning and the close of a letter
should be simple and plain in style, and Harnick’s objection to
the phrase εἰς ὑτακοὴν καὶ ῥχντισμὸν αἵματος ᾿ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (12)
is due to a want of appreciation of the words (see below, p. 794),
Further, the existence of ambiguities in those parts of a letter
which deal with personal matters is often a strong proof ot
its authenticity. The writer of a letter assumes on the part
of his correspondents a knowledge of personal facts, obvious
enough at the time, but soon forgotten. Moreover, any gaps
in such knowledge the bearer of a letter would be trusted
to fill up. (3) The motive of such additions lay in a sense
of the instructiveness of the document, and the feeling that
words so full of edification must be apostolic. Phenomena
not wholly dissimilar are found in connexion with other docu.
ments--‘ Ephesians,’ Ep. Barnabas, the so-called Second Ep. of
Clement. But the first assertion suggests no answer to the
question why the fragment should be assigned to St. Peter and
not rather to St. Paul, with whose writings it has obvious points
of contact. In regard to the second assertion, the reply is
obvious, The documents adduced fail as parallels, both in other
respects and especially just in the crucial point, viz. the addi-
tion to a document of sentences containing details geographical
and personal, which are, as they stand, obscure, and are alto-
eether lacking in picturesque precision. (4) Tradition favours
the hypothesis. No writer before Irenzus quotes the letter as
that of St. Peter. On the reception of the Epistle in the
Church see above.

Harnack’s hypothesis is open to serious objections, based
on the internal evidence of the document itself and on exter-
nal evidence. In the first place, what was the character of
the document ({.6, 13-519)? It was not a treatise, for it is
hortatory throughout. Was it, then, like the so-called Second
Epistle of Clement, a homily? This is in the highest devzree
improbable, partly because of its close resemblances to St. Paul's
Epistles, especially of the opening paragraph— λογνυτὸς ὁ θεὸς
καὶ πατήρ κιτ.λ. (13)—to the opening par: aph of 2 Co and
‘Ephesians’; partly because of the great variety of topics dealt
with—a procedure natural in a letter, but ill-suited to a sermon ;
partly because the language is general, and there is an absolute
lack of any such reference to the immediate surroundings or the
special circumstances of his hearers as we should expect in the
words of a preacher; partly because the whole tone of the
document produces the impression that the teacher is not face
to face with those whom he is addressing—note especially the
phrase πρεσβυτέρους οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶ (δ᾽). If, then, the docu-
ment was neither a treatise nor a homily, it must have been ἃ
letter ; and, if a letter, it must originally have included, if not
some personal message, at least some form of salutation. We
must therefore suppose either that the interpolator deliberately
excised the original beginning or ending or both, or that the
document came into his hands ina mutilated form. This last
hy pothesis, so far as the initial salutation is concerned, is highly
improbable; for the first leaf of the MS must have contained
much more of the letter than the customary brief words of
salutation, and the paragraph which must have immediately
followed the salutation (18!) is extant. In the second place, the
ditticulties arising from the consideration of internal evidence
are increased when external evidence is taken into account.
The main body of the Epistle, as Harnack admits (p. 461f.), was
known to Clement (probably), Polycarp, and Papias. The Epistle
therefore must have been widely circulated before the time of
the supposed interpolator. How are we to account, then, for
these widely-circulated (uninterpolated) copies having disap-
peared, leaving no posterity ; while all known MSS and versions,
all MSS used by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenzeus, and
all other early writers who quote the Epistle as the work of St.
Peter, must have descended from a single ancestor—the copy,
that is, in which the additions at the beginning and the end
were made about the middle of the 2nd cent.?* The improba-
bilities involved in Harnack’s hypothesis are many and vreat.
It is important, because it essentially belongs to a period of
transition. It is the product, on the one hand, of the linger
ing influence of an older criticism, too thoroughly bent upon
negative results to retain much delicacy of perception ; and, on
the other hand, of a keen literary and spiritual sense of the
significance of a writer’s matter and manner. His own words
(p. 464 f.) are remarkable, and appropriately conclude this
section: ‘If the hypothesis here brought forward should prove
erroneous, I should more readily prevail upon myself to regard
the improbable as possible and to claim the Epistle for Peter
himself, than to suppose that a Pseudo-Petrus wrote our frag-
ment as it now stands, from the first verse to the last, soon
after A.D. 9, or even from ten to thirty years earlier. Such an

* Harnack supposes interpolations not only in 1 P, but also in
Jude, the Pastoral Epistles, Mt, In (Die Chronologie pp. 468,
485, 700, 679). The improbability of such a hypothesis in the
case of a single document, as pointed out above, is very great.
The improbability of the same improbable series of events having
taken place in the case of six separate documents is infinite.
The argument is well put by Dom Butler in the Dublin Revieu
for Jan. 1899, p. 13 ff.

te

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 737

assumption is, in my opinion, weighed down by insuperable
difficulties.’

We proceed, then, to examine the objections

urged against the view that the salutation is |

original and veracious, and that the Epistle was
written by St. Peter. The chief of these are five
in number—

(1) The references to persecution are of such a
kind as to imply a date which lies outside the prob-
able, if not the possible, limits of St. Peter's life.
This objection has been (p. 783 fi.) considered.

(2) St. Peter was a Jew of lowly origin, and
Papias speaks of Mark as his ἑρμηνευτής. The
Epistle, on the other hand, is written in good Greek,
and the writer was thoroughly familiar with the
LXX (so, e.g., Jiilicher, Hind. p. 132f.). The facts
alleged as to the Epistle are undisputed (see above,
Ῥ. 781f.). Are they incompatible with St. Peter’s
authorship? In Galilee, with its Greek towns such
as Gadara (Jos. Ant. XVII. xi. 4, BJ 1. vi. 3), there
was so considerable an element of Greek life that,
even when St. Peter became a follower of Christ,
it is unlikely (to say the least) that he was wholly
ignorant of colloquial Greek (Mayor, St. Jamies
pp. xh, ecix ; Abbott, Vssays on the Original Teats
of the Old and New Testaments p. 162 tf ; Zahn,
Hint. i. p. 23f.). We may reverently suppose that
our Lord, when He chose the apostle as * the rock
on which He would build His Church,’ discerned
in him intellectual as well as spiritual gifts which
fitted him for his destined work. In Jerusalem,
after the Ascension, St. Peter had much intercourse
with Hellenistic Jews. His departure from Pales-
tine can have been no sudden step; and it would
be strange if he did not prepare himself for the
work which lay before him by using opportunities,
which certainly were within his reach, of increasing
whatever knowledge he already had of the lingua
franca of the Roman world. Mark was known in
the early Church as ‘the interpreter of Peter,’
probably because he assisted the apostle in his first
attempts to address Greek-speaking people. Greek
must have been the vehicle of communication with
Cornelius, and not improbably with the Jews of
the Dispersion on the Day of Pentecost. We may
conjecture that Mark was one of ‘the brethren’
who accompanied St. Peter from Joppa (Ac 103},
and that he helped him in speaking to the Roman
centurion and his household. It may well be that
Mark ‘the interpreter’ read with the apostle some
Greek literature, and especially the LX-X, of which
it is not impossible that he had gained some know-
ledge in his home at Bethsaida. At any rate the
years which St. Peter spent in missionary work
outside the borders of the Holy Land, specially,
we may add with great probability, in the Syrian
Antioch and its neighbourhood (sce above), cannot
but have given him a familiarity with Greck
sufficient to enable him to write a letter in Greek,
even if he still had to trust Mark ‘the inter-
preter’ to prune away in it any solecism of which
he might still be guilty. The Epistle of St. Peter,
it mast be remembered, is no isolated phenomenon
in the apostolic age. One who accepts the Epistles
of St. James and St. Jude as genuine is entitled
to point to them as a proof that even Jews who, so
far as it appears, did not extend their labours be-
yond Jerusalem, could acquire a good Greek style.

(3) If the Epistle was written from Rome, its
silence about the death of St. Paul, if his martyr-
dom was recent, or, if St. Paul was then at Rome,
the absence of any message from him or news
about him, is said to be inexplicable (ef. von Soden

. 115). The subject will come before us again.
‘or the present, it is sufficient to say that the
bearer of the letter—such as Silvanus appears to
have been—might well be entrusted with personal
news (Hort p. 6).

‘can be gathered.

(4) It is alleged that we do not find in the
Epistle much which we should expect to find in a
letter of St. Peter, the chict of the Lord’s personal
followers; that it shows no sien of ἃ vivid re-
membrance either οἱ Christ's lite or of His teaching
(von Soden p. 115; Jiilicher p. 184; Harnack Ὁ,
451). We cannot, then, place the Epistle after St.
Paul's Epistles and suppose if to be the work of
St. Peter, unless we admit, according to Jitlicher’s
view, that ‘Paul had exercised on Peter a greater
influence than Jesus.?. The discussion of this ob-
jection falls under two heads. (αὐ Zhe Lord's life.
Silence as to the facts of the Lord’s life and
ministry, strange to us in the case of one who re-
membered details the knowledge of which would
have been οὗ priceless value to later generations, 18
not a phenomenon peculiar to 1 Peter. From the
Books of the N'Y other than the Gospels hardly ¢
hint as to the events of our Lord’s earthly life
In the speeches recorded in the
Acts, if we may assume that they represent with
substantial accuracy the apostle’s earlier teaching,
St. Peter refers once to the Lord’s baptism (10%,
cf. 153 457) and twice to His’miracles (255 10%), but to
nothing else betore the Passion. The facts of the
NT then point to the conclusion that in their public
teaching, whether oral or written, the apostles con-
centrated attention on the great monenta of the
Lord’s ‘manifestation ’-—His sufferings and death,
His resurrection and exaltation. While, however,
there is in the Epistle nothing biographical or
autobiographical, there are unobtrusive indications
that its author was an eye-witness of the Lord’s
life. In 18 (ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε) areturn to the

first person plural (v.°) would have been quite

natural had the writer been one who had not seen
the Lord. The words gain greatly in force and
tenderness if they are the words of a disciple who
loved One whom he had seen (Jn 9115). and who
welcomes toa fellowship in his love for Christ those
who had not seen. Aeain, when in 5! the writer
speaks of himself as 6 συνπρεσβύτερος κ. μάρτυς τῶν
τοῦ Xpeorod παθημάτων, the description is almost
pointless unless it implies that he bears witness to
what he himself had seen (contrast 4!°). The wnole
clause is clearly intended to justify the authority
with which the writer addresses ‘the elders.” He
shared their position as elders, and therefore knows
their difficulties. He is a witness to the very
events which form their Gospel, and therefore has
a unique claim to be heard. The full significance
of the clause is seen only when it is compared with
(i.) the commands addressed to the eleven, Jn 157°,
Lk 2457, Ac 18; (ii.) St. John’s words in Jn 19* (cf.
214), 1 Jn 11 414; (iii.) St. Peter’s words as re-
corded in Ac 1510. 282 815 42" 592 10; and when, on the
other hand, we mark the entire absence in St.
Paul’s Epistles of any similar expression, and that
in passages where he is insisting on his apostolic
authority (e.g. 2 Co 10-12", Gall). The nearest
parallels in St. Paul—1l Co 9! 15%, ef. Ac 221 2676
—serve to bring out into sharper relief the dis-
tinctiveness of the Petrine phrase (οἵ, Ac 13%),
An instance of this μαρτυρία is found in 2%—a
reminiscence of the arrest, and of what St. Peter
saw as he lingered in the high priest’s vestibule.
In this connexion the force of the imperfects is not
to be overlooked. They give not the summary
statement of the historian, but the vivid remem-
brance of the eye-witness. Again, in the phrase
ἀλλήλοις THY ταπεινοφροσύνην ἐγκομβώσασθε (5°), the
picturesque word ἐγκομβώσασθε gathers up the de-
tails of the scene related in Jn 13*" and its lessons.
(Ὁ) The Lord’s teaching. he following are the
chief coincidences between 1 P and sayines of our
Lord: (a) recorded in the Synoptie Gospels—1 P 14
| Mt δ᾽ 254 6; 1684 ) Mp5; 110}, Lk 10%; yu
1 Ιου Ss, ΠΣ ΔΙ Pe eS eo sols

788 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

2? || Mt 187% 194% Lk 1817; 24 (προσερχ.)}) || Mt 1138 (ef.
Jn 6 77); 25 || Mt 16!8; 27 (Ps 118) || Mt 214; 913
(cf. 316) Mt 5! ; 918. 17 1 Mt 2221, 21 (emaxon.) |! e.g.
Mt 10% *; 2° (ef. 4!) || Lk 234; 2% || e.g. Mt 998 Dk
15*; 3° || Lk 6%; 3% |) Lk 10% 2138; 344) Mt apenas ba
| Mt 10-68 5 316 | Li 68; 47 (cf. 5§) || Mt 244 2518 9641
Lk 1257 2154; 414) Mt 511. 419 (π᾿ κτίστῃ) || Mt 6% ; 51
| Lk 247 (Ac 18) Mt 19°) Lk 22° 553) Mt 20256;
5° |) Mt 23; (3) recorded in St. John—1 P 1* 23 |
Jn 3°: 18 | 209 ; ji) 9. Ι 1:9. #0 132 II 13%t- Ibs o9
Ι 815 12%; 2% (Gentiles) || 1011. 1416, 52. 4 1) 2116. 17 (note
τὰ ἀρνία μου). It has been already noticed that St.
Peter's imagery difiers from that of St. Paul (see
above, p. 752). It may further be remarked that
all his metaphors (except those of painting and
working in metals) find parallels in the Lord’s
sayings. In estimating the foree of the list. of
parallels given above, two points must be borne in
mind: (1) We are not here dealing with a question
of literary indebtedness. For us the sayings of
Christ are preserved in the literature of the Greek
Gospels. One who heard them uttered in the
original Aramaic would reproduce them, when
writing in Greek, in a form peculiar to himself.
Hence verbal similarity to the Gospels is not a
measure of real coincidence. (2) The Gospels do
not give us an exhaustive collection of our Lord’s
sayines. Hence, in the case of a document which
claims to be the work of an apostle, the Gospels
are an imperfect criterion of indebtedness to the
Lord’s teaching. Yet, judging the influence of our
Lord's sayings on the writer of 1 P by the admittedly
imperfect standard of the written Gospels, it 15
not too much to say that his mind is saturated
with the words of Christ, and that, in dealing with
questions and circumstances very different. from
those which called forth the Lord’s teaching, he in-
stinctively turns to the substance and to the words
of that teaching as bearing upon the actual needs
of the present. St. Paul was certainly acquainted
with the Lord’s teaching (see, e.g., 1 Co 719), whether
in an oral or in some written form; but the whole
literature of his Epistles supplies a list of coin-
cidences with the Gospels fewer in number and
far less close than this one Epistle. Apart from
the Johannine Epistles, the only parallel in this
respect to 1 P is the Epistle of James.

(5) The objection against the Petrine authorship
of our Epistle on which recent critics have laid
most stress is its affinity in doetrine, thought,
and language with the Pauline Epistles. Jiilicher
(p. 183) brings ont three points as to the relation
of 1 P to the Pauline literature. (i.) There is
nothing un-Pauline in it. (ii) In regard to his
conception of Christ, of the saving efficacy of His
death, of faith and regeneration, the writer of 1 P
breathes the Pauline spirit even as he uses the
Pauline formulas (¢.g. ἐν Χριστῷ 3" 5! 4) Cwororedy
“418 ἀποκάλυψις and ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι six times, his
favourite word ἀναστροφή). (iii.) There are many
similarities between 1 P and the Pauline Epistles,
especially Ro and Eph, which cannot be acei-
dental ; the ascription of Eph and 1 P to the same
author is a proposition which has been seriously
maintained.+ This whole position has the ap-
proval of Harnack (Die Chrono. p- 451i.) But
the words of the latter in maintaining it give
expression to significant admissions. ‘The author,’
he writes (p. 452), ‘is completely determined by
the spirit of Pauline Christianity. But this de-
termination is united with such independence and
freedom in regard to religious thought and teach-
ing within the limits of this Paulinism, that the
assumption is an obvious one that Paul himself is

* Outside the Gospels, Rev 144 is the only passage in NT,
except 1 P 221, where ‘to follow’ is used in this connexion.

+ This is the conclusion of Sieffert (Zeitschrift f. wissenseh.
Theol. 1881, pp. 178 ff., 332 ff.).

the author of the document.’ And again (p. 364 n.),
‘Were it not for the dependence [of 1 P] on the
Pauline Epistles, I might perhaps allow myself to
maintain its genuineness : that dependence, how-
ever, is not accidental, but is of the essence of the
Epistle.’

It will be best to clear the ground by indicating
the affinities between 1 P and the Epistles of the
NT. —(i.) Romans, (ii) Ephesians, (iii.) other
Pauline Epistles, (iv.) James. (i.) Romans, 1 P
11: | 12? yy i vo 1] ; 1:91. | 10:5... 1:2: | aes 123 | 1995...
95 | 12%. 98 || ae ιν Ι 197, ord I GBs Bt. \|
129-18 (ef, 1 Th 5); 318 | Gl; 32! | Gt (ef. Col 2);
3:2 | S34 ; 411. | 05:1} : 4° | 1:11. 1555 εν fit. Ι 1 915. 413
(cf. δ) δὲς 477 | 10:62! (Is 652); 51 |} 8%. ii.)
Ephesians, IP By 15. 11: oete 4:5. Ι8. 95] ΡΟΝ 38

!
|| 453. 39 (εὐλογία) || 18; 3% |) 37; 318 218 515... 555}
yf (ef. Ro 8%), (ili.) Other Pauline Epistles,
1P 2) 2Th 2% (ef. 1 Th 47); 15321) Tit 3°; 18
2 ΤΊ 4°; 1°" | the Pauline trilogy, e.g. 1 Co 13%;
216} Gal 5% (different sense); 4° || 2 Ti 41 (but ef,
Ac 10%); 4°) Ph24; 4% ) 2Co 1%, Ῥμ 8.10. 58 |
1 Th 5°, Note also 2” 5? || Ac 9058 (Pauline speech).
(iv.) James, 1 P 1} || 1} (διασπορά) ; 1% || 124 32 (but
see Mt but). 1:9 Ι 118 : 91 Ϊ 1:1 : vil Ι 4}, 58 Ι 41. Δὸς 59
| 47. It should further be noted that (a) a phrase
from Pr 10° is introduced in 1 P 4° and apparently
alluded to in Ja 5°, both Epistles using a render-
ing other than that of LXX; (46) Is 40° is alluded
to in Ja 1 and quoted in 1 P 1%; (ὦ Pr 3* is
quoted in Ja 4°, 1 P 5°—both having ὁ θεός, LXX
Κύριος. ἢ

To take first the case of James, the coincidences
in this Ep. with 1 Peter can hardly-be accounted for
on the ground of personal intercourse between the
two writers. They seem to imply literary in-
debtedness. The relative dates of the two docu-
ments (apart from other considerations) supply a
decisive arguinent that the borrowing is on the
side of 1 P (see, e.g., Zahn, Hind. i. p. 95). Mayor
(p. CXXiv) gives 40 as the earliest, 50 as the latest,
year in which James can have been written.
Zaln (Kinl. i. p. 92) gives 50 as its approximate
date. The Epistle would therefore be well known
among the Jewish Christians in the Syrian towns,
and certainly among those in the Syrian Antioch,

| in the sixth decade A.D. (see above, note on p. 765).

There are reasons for thinking that in this decade
St. Peter was working in this district, and that he
made Antioch his headquarters (p. 779). It is,
then, anatural conclusion that St. Peter studied the
Epistle of James soon after it was written, and that
some 12 years later many of its graphic phrases
were fresh in his memory. In any case, the fact
that 1 P is influenced in thought and language by
James is an important indication that the mind
of the writer was one which received and retained
such impressions. [

The coincidences between 1 P and the Pauline
Epp. other than Romans and Ephesians are not very
close, and are to be accounted for as the outcome
of a common evolution of Christian phrases and
conceptions rather than as instances of direct bor-
rowing. The most striking of them, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ
πνεύματος (23 Th 315,1 P 19), would, in fact, naturally
suggest itself when the practical meaning of the
term πνεῦμα ἅγιον became realized in the Church.

The case of Romans is widely different. There
is no doubt that the author of 1 P was acquainted
with this Epistle. Nor is this surprising, if the
writer is St. Peter. For as St. Paul was familiar
with James, so Romans could hardly escape the
notice of the Apostles of the Circumcision. Though

* The supposed coincidences between 1 P and (a) Hebrews
(see, e.g., von Soden, Hand-Commentar iii. 2, p. 2), (Ὁ) Apoca-
lypse (see Spitta, Apokad. p, 511 ff.) will be found in either case
to be such as would naturally appear in independent Christian
writers of the same period who were weil acquainted with
the LXX.

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 789

addressed to a particular Church, it dealt) with
fundamental questions respecting both Judaistic
Christianity and the relation of ‘ali Israel’ to the
gospel. It is not therefore an extravagant sup-
position that, giving as it did the apostle’s mature

|

views on matters about which he must on more |

than one occasion have conferred with them (cf.
Gal 2°), he himself communicated it to the leaders
of the Jewish Churches. At any rate it could
hardly fail to become known, soon after it was
written, at the Syrian Antioch, the great meeting-
point of Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the
East as Rome was in the West, and so to be
brought under St. Peter's notice.

In regard to the relation of Ephesians to 1 P the
case is less simple. Critics of different schools agree
in holding that 1 P is profoundly influenced by
Ephesians, The nature of some of the coincidences
noted above seems to put it beyond doubt that the
writer of 1 P was familiar with the language of
Ephesians. A list of coincidences, however, in-
adequately represents the indebtedness of 1 P to
that Epistle. ‘The connexion, though very close,
does not lie on the surface. It is shown more by
identities of thought and similarity in the structure
of the two Epistles as wholes than by identities
of phrase’ (Hort p. 5). Salmon (Jntrod. pp. 448,
445), noting independently the same facts, sug-
gests two interpretations of them. (α) ‘ We might
conjecturally explain this difference by supposing
the Epistle to the Romans to have been so long
known to St. Peter that he had had time to
become familiar with its language,
acquaintance with the Ephesian Epistle was more
recent.’ (0) ‘Peter may have arrived at Rome
before Paul quitted it, in which case there would
be a good deal of viva voce intercourse between
the apostles, as there had been in former times.
The doctrines taught by Paul in his Epistle to the
Ephesians would also naturally be the subject of
his discourses to the Christians at Rome; and
these discourses may have been heard by Peter.’
Looking only, however, at the broad facts of the
case, we may say that, if Ephesians was written
by St. Paul during his first captivity, and if St.
Peter visited Rome not long afterwards, the ac-
quaintance of the writer of 1 P with Ephesians
need cause no difficulty on the supposition that
that writer was St. Peter.

From the question of literary we pass to that
of doctrinal indebtedness. The writer of 1 P, it
is urged (see above), in his theology takes St.
Paul as his master. There is nothing, it 15 added,
un-Pauline in the Epistle. The inference drawn is
that St. Peter cannot be the author of the Epistle.
Two observations cover a large part of the ground
occupied by such criticisms. (1) Behind the argu-
ment there lies the tacit assumption that the two
apostles stood in regard to each other in a position
analogous to that taken by the leaders of two
factions—a progressive and a reactionary party
—leaders who alike by essential differences of
principle and by the necessities of party-strife are
prevented from learning from each other. Such a
view of the mutual relation of the apostles is, it 15
believed, wholly unsupported by the evidence of
the NT and of early Christian literature. (2) The
Epistles of St. Paul form for us so large a part of
the apostolic literature of the first age, 1.6. the
period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, that
insensibly we assume that ideas and doctrines
emphasized in these Epistles must be of Pauline
origin. That St. Paul had a predominant share in
the moulding of Christian theology, there can be
no doubt. But a body of Christian doctrine was
growing up apart from the immediate sphere of
his influence. St. Paul must have been a re-
civient as well as a source of spiritual intuitions.

while his’

|
|
|
|
|

‘stimating early writings by our imperfect criteria,

we are probably in danger of exaggerating the
-auline clement. Thus, to take as an example the
crucial phrase ἐν Χριστῷ, which Jiilicher regards as
borrowed by St. Peter (810 5! 4) from the Pauline
Epistles, there is no question that St. Paul dwelt
upon the phrase and placed it in many different
lights. But did he create it? The evidence points
to a negative answer. For (@) the phrase is in
fact the echo of OT phrases—‘ in God,’ e.g., Ps 564
60!” 62%, ‘in Jehovah,’ ¢.g., Is 45!” ~, the Christian
adaptation of these OT expressions being natural
as the bearing of the Incarnation upon the doctrine
of God was fully realized ; (4) the idea is implied
in Mt 1839, and less distinctly in such references
to ‘the name’ of Christ as Mk 9°; (6) the con-
ception finds repeated and emphatic expression in
St. John’s record of our Lord’s sayings (e.g. 05 154");
and if we accept these reports, which are clearly
independent of Pauline influence, as in any degree
historical, we can hardly doubt that the use of the
phrase ἐν Χριστῷ must be traced back to Christ’s
own teaching. At any rate, an argument can
hardly be founded on the assumption that the
phrase was originated by St. Paul. On the other
hand, the ideas expressed in 1 P 2% 4!f may
reasonably be considered to bear the stamp of an
individual mind, and to have been learned from St.
Paul's writings or from his spoken words. Further,
when the doctrine of the Epistle comes to be ex-
amined, it will appear that it differs both nega-
tively and positively from that of St. Paul’s
Epistles (cf. Hort p. 4).

To sum up: all that we learn of St. Peter from
the NT gives us the picture of a man prompt and
enthusiastic in action rather than fertile in ideas.
His borrowing from St. James’ Epistle shows
that his mind was receptive and retentive of the
thoughts of others. The Epistle undoubtedly owes
much toSt. Paul. But it is onty when the Pauline
element is isolated and exaggerated that it be-
comes a serious argument against the Petrine
authorship of the Epistle.

Jiilicher (p. 132) implies that, had not the name
Peter been pretixed to the Epistle, no one would
have supposed that St. Peter was the author. This
position is so far true that, had the Epistle been
anonymous, to assign the Epistle to St. Peter would
have been an unverifiable hypothesis. We do not
possess any document sufficiently authenticated as
the work of St. Peter to be a standard by which the
Petrine claims of such an Epistle could have been
judged, The evidence of the speeches in the Acts,
though worth consideration as confirmatory, is too
indirect, and their date (assuming that they are
substantially historical) too far removed from any
date which can with any probability be given to
the Epistle, for a reliable criterion to be supplied
by them. But these considerations have a double
application. If, on the one hand, they forbid the
rash assertion that an anonymous document. is
Petrine, so, on the other hand, they are a warning
against the hasty rejection of a document which
bears St. Peter’s name on the ground of its alleged
un-Petrine character. The arguments urged to
prove that 1 P is un-Petrine have been examined,
and they have been shown to be unsubstantial,
resting largely on unsupported presumptions. On
the other hand, the serious difficulties involved
in the hypothesis that the name Peter is a later
addition have been pointed out, and it has been
shown that the aeceptance by the Church of the
Epistle as the work of St. Peter was early in date,
wide in extent, and unvarying.

But is the Petrine authorship to be aecepted
indeed, but accepted with certain qualifications ?
Zahn, following out the suggestions of earlier
writers (Ewald, Grimm, Spitta), maintains (Hind.

790 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

ii. pp. 10, 16) that, while the Epistle originally
bore the name of Peter, the apostle entrusted the
actual composition of it to Silvanus, as one
peculiarly fitted, certainly mere titted than him-
self, to put his thoughts into such a form as would
appeal to the Gentile Christians of Asia Minor,
—one, moreover, who was known to many of the
readers of the letter, and whom they would there-
fore credit with accurately reproducing for them
St. Peter's ideas. The question turns on the
interpretation of 5! διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ
ἀδελφοῦ, ὡς λογίζομαι, δι᾿ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα. The words
τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδ., Zaln argres, imply that the part
taken by Silvanus was a responsible one, and
therefore cannot have been that of a mere amanu-
ensis. He must therefore have been either a messen-
ger who conveyed the letter, or a friend who put
St. Peter's thouehts into the form of a letter. The
former alternative, it isargued, is excluded, because
in that case the commendation would have been
meaningless —paintully useless, if Silvanus proved
untrue and the Epistle never came into the hands
of its intended recipients ; superfluous, if he de-
livered the letter to them. Against this theory the
following considerations together seem decisive :—
(1) If Silvanus were the real writer of the Epistle,
especially if he is to be identified (see below) with
the Silas of the Acts and the Silvanus of St.
Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians and Corin-
thians (2 Co), we should expect some salutation
from him to his readers. In Ro 16% Tertius, who
was simply the scribe, sends a greeting in the first
person (ἀσπάζομαι ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ Téprios ὁ γράψας τὴν
ἐπιστολὴν ἐν κυρίῳ). (2) Such a divided authorship
—the main ideas being supplied by one man, their
manipulation and expression being the work of
another—could not result ina letter so natural and
so easy In 115 passage from thought to thought, the
transition to a fresh and important idea (e.g. 119)
being sometimes due to an incidental phrase.
(3) The tone of authority in 5', where the address
is strictly personal, is explicable only on a theory
either of deliberate personation or of real apos-
tolic authorship. (4) The language of 5! is abso-
lutely natural if Silvanus was, what his pesition
in the early Church (see below) fitted lim to be,
an apostolic delegate, who could, out of his own
knowledge, speak of all personal matters and of the
progress of the Church in Rome, and whose experi-
ence and special gifts (Ac 15*) qualified him to
give direction and instruction in questions of faith
and of conduct. Compare especially Ac 1527, Col
4°") Eph 6%. The language in the context con-
firms this view: (α) the order of the words διὰ S.
ὑμῖν τοῦ π. dd. is remarkable, and seems designed to

; " ᾿ς ) .᾽ . 1 "ἢ
picture St. Peter’s messenger and his friends face
to face; (b) δι ὀλίγων ἔγραψα implies that the
apostle’s written words were few, because he knew
that they would be enforced and supplemented by
the living voice of Silvanus.

For διά of the bearer of a letter compare διὰ βιβλιαφέρων, Est
518. 810; the subscriptions added in many MSS to the Pauline
Epistles, e.g. Romans—iypagy ἀπὸ Κορίνθου διὰ Φοίβης, cursvl ;
ἐπεμφίμ: δὲ διὰ Φοίβης, 133; the ‘verso’ of a letter in the Berlin
Papyr. 885—2z70805 Σωκράτη Saige ἀπὸ Σερηνίλλα θυγατρὸς διὰ
Σεραπαιμίωνος ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῆς. Further, γράφειν (γράψαι) διά τινος
is used in reference to the bearer. In Ac 1522 the deter-
mination of tke Church at Jerusalem to send delegates to
Antioch is mentiened, in v.25 the additional fact that the dele-
gates conveyed a letter. To the phrase in v.23 (γράψαντες διὰ
χειρὸς αὐτῶν) there corresponds the phrase in v.30 ἐπέδωκαν τὸν
ἐπιστολήν, So Polyc. ad Phil. xiv. ‘Hee uobis scripsi. per
Creseentem, quem in presenti commendaui uobis et nune com-
mendo.’ Three passages in the Ignatian Epistles are, at first
sight, ambiguous, and may refer either to the scribes or to the
bearers of the letters. (a) From Smyrna Ignatius wrote to
three Churches near at hand (Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles) and
to the distant Church of Rome. In ch, 10 of the Epistle to the
last named Church he says, γράφω δὲ ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἀπὸ Σωύρνης δι᾽
"Egecion τῶν ἀξιομα καρίστων.

Several reasons make it probable
that the Ephesians were the bearers and not the amanuenses of
the letter—(1) The plural; it would be natural to dictate a short
letter to one person; (2) the context: after a parenthetical

=~
sentence Ign. continues: περὶ τῶν προελθόντων et ἀπὸ Συρίας at
Ῥώμην, the probability being that the mention of those who had
gone before him from Syria to Rome is suggested by the
mention of those who are even now going betore him’ from
Smyrna to Rome; (3) the sequel: at the next stage of the
journey (Troas) only one of the Ephesians was still with
Ignatius, viz. Burrhus. (4) From Troas Ignatius writes to the
Philadelphians, the Smyrnewans, and to Polycarp. In the
closing salutations of the two former Epistles the words occur—
ἐν Towxde ὅθεν καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ Bu-poov, Here the context
gives no help towards the interpretation of 3.2. But other
considerations seem decisive. If διά points to the scribe, then
there seems to be no reason why the amanuensis should be
mentioned in three letters (Rom., Philad., Smyr.), but passed
over in silence in the remaining four letters. If, however, in
each case διό designates the bearer, then the facts admit of an
easy explanation. There would be no need to mertion the
messenger in the case of the letter to Polycarp ; for the same
person would be in charge of it who was entrusted with the
letter to the Smyrneans. Again, the distance from Smyrna to
Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles was small, and there must have
been constant means of communication, of which Ignatius
would naturally avail himself. In the case of all the letters
which had to travel far, the name of the bearer (or bearers) is
consistently given. Further, the elaborate care bestowed by
Ignatius (Smyr. xi., Polye. vii. 1.) and by Polycarp (ad Phil.
xiii.) on the appointment of delegates to the Church of Syria,
and.the conveyance of letters by their.means, is important as
confirming the interpretation of the Ignatian phrase γράφειν διά
τινὸς given above, and also as illustrating the employment in
apostolic and sub-apostolic times of men of recognized position
in communications between Churches,

VI. THE CincuMSTANCES OF COMPOSITION.—
The restoration of a history must be conjectural.
The test of probability in such a case is the extent
to which the scheme as a whole offers a natural
explanation of the details which have a claim
to be taken into account. In the preceding art.
it was pointed out that a good deal of indirect
evidence points to the supposition that St. Paul
during his imprisonment himself summoned St.
Peter to Rome, chiefly in order that the sight of
the two apostles—the one commonly regarded as
the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other as the Apostle
of the Cireumeision—planning and working to-
gether might bring home to the Roman Christians
the great lesson of unity. St. Peter, we may
suppose, arrived in Rome shortly before St. Paul's
release. St. Paul had not very lone before written
the Epistle to the Ephesians, setting forth in it his
mature views on fundamental questions, many of
which could not but engage St. Peter’s attention
in Rome. Tt would therefore be almost inevitable
that St. Peter should study, or, if he had read it
before, should study afresh, that Epistle. More-
over—what is of more importance—he would be
brought into close and unrestrained intercourse
with the mind of the writer. Such intercourse
might well recall to his memory the thoughts and
words of the Epistle to the Romans, and perhaps
sugvest its re-perusal. It makes no greatdemand
on the imagination to see how an Epistle written
by St. Peter under such cireumstances weuld be
full of Pauline thought and Pauline language, and,
in particular, would be likely not seldom-to echo
the words of the Epistles to the iiomans and to
the Ephesians. :

Is it possible to arrive at any probable conclusion
as to the point of time when the Epistle was
written? (i1.) The language of that important
section of the Epistle which deals with obedience
to the civil power (213-17), gains ereatly in point and
reality if it was used in view of St. Paul's appeal
to the emperor having recently issued in his ac-
quittal. It would be natural for one writing at
such a time to recall what St. Paul had himself
said on this subject (Ro 13!), and, while usine his
expressions, to sharpen them and give them greater
definiteness. Then it might well seem that ‘the
praise of them that do well’ was an end of the
magistrate’s functions. If the decision of the
Imperial Court had lately frustrated the endeavour
of the Jews to secure the condemnation of the
apostle of the true Messiah, the event would

; : Fae αν,
appear as a revelation of ‘the will of God’ in

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 791

ἘΠῚ οἰ

respect to His use of the power of the civil
magistrate—dyadomooivras piwoy τὴν τῶν ἀφρόνων
ἀνθρώπων ἀγνωείαν. (11.} Critics from many points
of view have laid stress on the absence in the
Epistle of any reference to St. Paul. It is one of
the problems of the Epistle. But does not the
difficulty vanish at once if we suppose that St. Pever
wrote while St. Paul was still in Rome, and that
Silvanus was undertaking as Sf. Paul's messenger
a journey to the Churches of Asia Minor ? In that
case it Would have been unnatural for the Epistle to
convey a message from St. Paul ; while news about
St. Paul would be needless, since Silvanus would
himself explain the position of affairs at Rome.

It is commonly taken for granted that the Silvanus of 1 Pis
the same person as the Silas of Acts and the Silvanus of St.
Paul’s Epistles. Thisis an assumption, though a highly probable
one. Four persons bearing the name in the shortened form
(Silas) meet us in the pages of Josephus. The name Silvanus is
found in the form Σιλβανός in C/G 1816,.7256, in the form
Σιλουανός in CIG 4039, 4071. The name, then, is not so common
as to make it very likely that more than one Silvanus was closely
connected with the apostles. And, further, what we know of
the Silvanus of the earlier apostolic history corresponds so
strikingly with the facts and probabilities involved in the
mention of Silvanus in 1 P, that the identification is advanced
many stages of probability. The points important for our
present purpose are as follows. Silvanus appears suddenly
at the time of the ‘Council’ at Jerusalem as an ἀνὴρ ἡγούμενος
ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς (Ac 1522). He is chosen by the Church at
Jerusalem to undertake a mission of extreme delicacy as
delegate to the Church of Antioch. There his prophetic gifts
made a deep impression. After a time he returned to Jeru-
salem. That he had left Antioch before the paintul controversy
alluded to in Gal 2, and that he was not therefore one of οἱ λοιποὶ
Ἰουδαῖοι Who proved faithless to St. Paul’s teaching, seems clear
from the fact that St. Paul deliberately selected him as his
companion after the rupture with Barnabas and Mark (see art.
Mark). As St. Paul’s companion, he visited Derbe, Lystra,
and Iconium. With him he traversed τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Varurizny
apav, and, having shared his journey along the borders of
Mysia, with him entered Europe. When St. Paul was con-
strained by ‘the brethren’ to hasten from Bera, he left behind
him Silas and Timothy—Silas, doubtless, as his representative,
and Timothy as Silas’ companion and assistant—to carry out
the important work of building up the recently planted Church.
When the apostle arrived at Athens, he seems to have felt
keenly the need of the support of Silas’ and Timothy’s presence
(Ae 1715), It seems probable that Timothy joined St. Paul at
Athens, and was sent back by him thence to Thessalonica (1 Th 31),
and that Silas remained in Macedonia and continued the work
in other cities besides Bercea, till he at length, with Timothy,
left, Macedonia, and met St. Paul at Corinth (Ac 185). It is
important to notice that, whatever the exact details of the
history may have been, Silas was entrusted by St. Paul with
the task of developing his own initial work in the Churches of
Macedonia, to which the apostle himself, as time event on,
became bound with unusually strong and tender ties of affec-
tion. After his arrival at Corinth, Silvanus disappears from the
narrative of the Acts (cf. 2 Co 119). Some ten years elapse, and
we find a Silvanus at Rome, probably, as we have seen, while
St. Paul was still in the city. (a) It would have been very
natural for St. Paul’s old companion to join him at Rome,
where others among the apostle’s former fellow-workers had
gathered round him (Col 47-14, Philem 296), St. Paul clearly
had special need of the sympathy and faithful co-operation of
“those who were of the circumcision’ (Col 411), (0) On the other
hand, the fact that Silvanus is not mentioned in, any of the
Epistles of the Captivity, and that he appears in the city,
apparently not long after the last of these was written, in
connexion with St. Peter, suggests the probability that he came
to Rome with St. Peter. Silvanus was in early days closely
connected with the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch (Ac
1522.32.33), and it may well be that after he ceased to travel
with St. Paul he resumed work in Syria. St. Peter, as we saw,
probably came to Rome from Syria, possibly from Antioch.
The two men may thus have been much thrown together in
later as in earlier years. If St. Peter was sunnnoned to Rome
by St. Paul himself with the express purpose of deepening the
unity of the Church, he would naturally choose as the com-
panion of his journey to the capital one of St. Paul’s old
associates. For such a mission Silvanus was peculiarly fitted.
He was a Jewish Christian who had long possessed the confi-
dence of the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem (Ac 15?2f-),
He had been closely associated with St. Paul. He was a
Roman citizen (Ac 1687), St. Paul was in the habit of sending
his most trusted friends as his delegates to distant places to
consolidate or to extend his work. It would be very natural
that he should send Silvanus on such a mission to districts in
some of which were Churches in planting which they had worked
together, while in others were Christian communities which
must have been to some extent the indirect outcome of their
common work. On the assumption, then, that we have to deal
with only one Silvanus in the apostolic history, we are able to
weave the probabilities into a natural and consistent narrative 5

3ut why does St. Peter seize the opportunity
of Silvanus’ journey to write an Epistle to the
Churches of Asia Minor? There is no indication
that he had any personal knowledge of his readers
in any of the districts to which he writes. Τὺ does
not appear that he wished to bring before them
and the Church generaily any characteristic con-
victions of his as to the interpretation of the
Christian faith, as St. Paul desired to do in the
Epistles to the Romans and to the ‘Ephesians.’
No controversy is touched upon by him, The
Epistle bears no trace of having been called forth
by the difficuliies or needs of any particular
Church. Is not the motive which led St. Peter
to write a letter to the Christians scattered over
the vast districts of Asia Minor the same which
we saw reason for thinking brought him to
Rome’? It is plain that if Silvanus, who long
before had been known to some of these Churches
as a companion of St. Paul, and who now was
travelling as St. Paul's delegate, brought with him
a letter from St. Peter, the effect on the minds of
the Asiatic Christians would be only less powerful
than that produced on the Roman Christians
by the sight of the two apostles working and

planning together in the Capital. The fact that

the letter was written and received under such
circumstances, would be the strongest enforcement
of the lesson of the Church’s unity. The Epistle
may even have been written at St. Paul's request.
But however that may be, the motive suggested
seems adequate and simple. It harmonizes with
the phenomena of the Epistle, and indeed throws
fresh light on some of them. Thus it is no longer
surprising that there is no great thought or purpose,
doctrinal or personal, which dominates the whole
Epistle. Its scope is truly summed up in the very
general words — ἔγραψα παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν
ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ (55). Again, the
Pauline tone of the Epistle is seen to correspond
with all the circumstances of its composition. — If
these were what we have found reason to think
them to have been, the letter could not but be
Pauline. Once more, have we not here a final
explanation of the fact that, though the mind of
St. Peter constantly recurs to the words of Christ,
he makes only indirect allusions to the privilege

which he once had of watching the life of the
Incarnate Lord? To have dwelt on this would

have been to appear to disparage the apostolate
of St. Paul.

To sum up: all the conditions of the problem
seem to be satisfied if we assign the Epistle to a
time shortly after St. Paul’s trial had ended in his
acquittal. The power of the Roman State seemed
to be on the side of the Church. But the hatred
of the Jews was an enemy ‘scotched, not killed,’
nay, perhaps it was intensified because deprived of
its expected prey. Nor would the social trials of
the Christians among their heathen neighbours be
lessened by the Imperial decision. The daily ex-
perience of a Christian at Rome might well suggest
serious warnings as to the proving of faith through
suffering. The situation was as follows. St. Paul
had himself summoned St. Peter to Rome, with
the supreme object of showing to the Christians at

ome and to ‘the brotherhood in the world? the
unity of the Body and of the Spirit. St. Peter had
arrived in Rome, and with him St. Paul’s old com-
panion Silvanus. After St. Paul’s release Silvanus
consents to become his delegate, as he had been
years before, and on his behalf to undertake a lone
journey in Asia Minor, Silvanus would explain
to these Churches the situation at Rome. He
would enforce the spiritnal and doctrinal lessons
which were uppermost in St. Paul’s mind. But the
work of consolidating the Chuiches, and in them

and, 50 far as is possible in such cases, the assumption is justified. | the Church, would be greatly advanced if Silvanus, |

Pie |

792

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

the messenger of St. Paul, brought with him a
letter from St. Peter. The letter itself might deal
with general topics, as indeed was inevitable when
it was addressed to readers spread over so vast an
area. But the fact that it was written by St. Peter,
now a fellow-worker with St. Paul at Rome, and
transmitted by the common friend of both apostles,
now executing St. Paul’s commission, was itself
the revelation of the mind of the apostles, and a
call to deepen the common life of ‘the brother-
hood,’ the significance of which cannot be exageer-
ated.

It is right to notice two other recent reconstructions of the
apostolic history in connexion with the composition of 1 P.
The points in which they are open to criticism have been
sufficiently indicated in the preceding sections and in art.
Prerer. (1) Zahn’s theory (Finl. ii. p. 18 f.) is as follows :-
It is almost impossible to explain the silence of the Epistle as
to St. Paul if St. Peter wrote either at a time when the two
apostles were together in Rome or after St. Paul’s death. It
is probable that Mark went from Rome to Asia Minor (Col 410)
in the autumn of 62, or early in 63, and afterwards visited
Jerusalem. From him St. Peter learned the difficulties which
the Jewish Christian teachers had created for St. Paul, and also
the intention of the latter after his expected release to under-
take a journey to the far West. St. Peter felt these tidings to
be a call to himself to visit Rome. Such a Visit was no violation
of the compact recorded in Gal 29, since the Roman Church had
not been founded by St. Paul, and was composed of Jewish
Christians, many of whom were Palestinian Jews. St. Peter
arrived in Rome in the autumn of 63 or early in 64. St. Paul
had already left the city. Since the duration of St. Paul’s
missionary journey to Spain could not be foreseen, it was
natural that St. Peter should tread in St. Paul’s footsteps in
other ways, and in particular jin caring for the Churches of
Asia. The fact that Silvanus assisted him in writing the Epistle,
enabled him to strike a note in the letter which would find an
echo in the hearts of men who directly or indirectly owed their
Christianity to St. Paul. As nothing in the Epistle implies that
he had recently arrived in Rome, and as his correspondents
appear to be already aware of the fact that he was in the city,
St. Peter probably wrote the Epistle in the course of the year
64, a few months before his martyrdom. (2) Swete (St. Mark
p. xvii f.) follows Lightfoot in dissociating the martyrdom of St.
Peter from that of St. Paul, but argues that ‘it is open to con-
sideration whether St. Paul's was not the earlier.’ He thinks
that ‘an examination of 1 Peter supplies more than one reason
for believing the Epistle to have been written subsequently to
St. Paul's death.’ Over and above the references to persecution
which, he thinks, point to 70-75 as the limit of date, he notices
that the letter is addressed to Christian communities some of
which were Pauline Churches ; that its bearer is ‘a well-known
colleague of St. Paul’; that it contains reminiscences of two of
St. Paul's writings (Eph, Ro). ‘The conclusion can scarcely be
avoided that at the time when it was written St. Paul had
finished his course. The care of the Churches had devolved on
St. Peter; the two oldest associates of St. Paul had transferred
their services to the surviving Apostle; both had originally been
members of the Church at Jerusalem, and, when the attraction
of the stronger personality had been withdrawn, both had
returned to their earlier leader. St. Peter on his part is careful
to show by the character of his letter and by his selection of
colleagues that he has no other end than to take up and carry
on the work of St. Paul.’

It remains to notice the evidence supplied by the
Epistle as to the intended journey of Silvanus. On
the questions suevested by LP 11 see especially
Hort’s dissertation, ‘The Provinces of Asia Minor
included in St. Peter's address’ (1 Peter pp. 157-
184; cf. p. 17). Hort shows that (1) the position
of Asia neither first nor last in the list, (2) the faet
‘that Pontus and Bithynia stand at opposite ends
of the list, though they together formed but a
single province, the title of which combined both
names, indicate that in that list we have presented
the projected course of the jovrney. Silvanus ‘was
to enter Asia Minor by a seaport of Pontus, and
thence to make a circuit till [he] reached the neigh-
bourhood of the Exxine once more.’ Why he
purposed to land in Pontus it is vain to conjec-
ture. The condition of the Christian communities,
or some special call to evangelistic work in that
district or in the districts to which he would thus
best gain access, may have been the determining
motive. It is probable that Silvanus was to land
at Sinope, the most important of the towns on the
seaboard of Pontus. Thence he would visit the
northern portion of the vast province of Galatia,
probably making its capital Ancyra his head-

Sruits of this σωτηρία in life.

quarters. At Ancyra he would find more than
one road by which he could reach Ciesarea, the one
town of considerable importance in Cappadocia.
Taking at this point the great road running west-
ward to Ephesus, he would be able to visit the
Churches in South Galatia, and so to enter the
province of Asia. Northwards there lay Christian
communities through which he would pass on his
way to Bithynia, where it seems to have been the
intention that he should again take ship. ‘In thus
following by natural and simple routes the order
of provinces which stands in the first sentence of
the Epistle, Silvanus would be brought into con-
tact with every considerable district north of the
Taurus in which there is reason to suppose that
Christian communities would be found? (Hort. p.
184).

VII. SUMMARY OF THE EPIsTLE.—The opening
of a new section in the Epistle is marked in 2! 42
by the appeal conveyed by the word ἀγαπητοί. Thus
the letter has three main divisions of which the
several topics may be thus approximately repre-
sented—(I.) 11-2! the privileges belonging to the
redeemed family of God ; (11.) 211. 411 the duties of
‘the brethren’; (111.) 422-5" the trials of “ὁ the
brethren.’ The different sections, however, over-
lap in regard to their subjects, and the thought
of the Epistle is too spontaneous and (in a literary
sense) too unpremeditated to admit of any formal
aualysis. The following paraphrase is an attempt:
to bring out the sequence and general treatment 0!
ideas :—

I, 11-210, The privileges belonging to the redeemed family
of God.—(Q) 11Ὁ Salutation. (2) 112. The joy of σωτηρία. (αἱ
Vv.55, Benediction of the Father for the new birth and thq
heavenly inheritance. (6) Vy.69, This joy in Christ is main-
tained by you in the midst of present sorrows, the issue οἱ
which will be seen at ‘the revelation of Jesus Christ.’ Faith in
an unseen Lord is the spring whence comes this joy of σωτηρία.
(ὦ) Vv.1012. This σωτηρία was the subject of the prophets’
search, as they foretold the facts which evangelists proclaimed
to you, and which angels desire to discern. (3) 143-210, The
; (a) Vv. 18-21, Seriousness. Such
being your position, do you, with minds alert and passions in
control, set your hope on the Divine grace ever supplied to
you, as Jesus Christ is gradually revealed to you. Not your
sintul past, but the holiness of God must be the standard of
your life. You must be solemnized by («) the remembrance
that your ‘Father in heaven’ is a strict Judge; (8) the thought
of the greatness of the price paid for your redemption from an
inheritance of vanity. (ὦ) Vv.22-25, Love towards the members
of the spiritual family. The self-purification involved in re-
demption leads on to the cultivation of love towards the members
of the spiritual family—genuine, deep, active. This is a duty
which flows from the fact of ἀναγέννησις. (ὦ 2U, Growth. If
(on the negative side) you have stripped off from yourselves
malice and such unchildlike vices, you must (on the positive
5110) surrender yourselves to your true spiritual instincts and
live by the spiritual milk, the spiritual sustenance which is the
direct gift of God. So you will grow up unto σωτηρία. (ad) 24-10,
Privilege. Christ is the living stone, rejected by the act of men
but in God's sight ἔντιμος, He is the foundation on which you
are being built up asa spiritual house for spiritual acts of wor-
ship. This view of Christ (i.e. as the foundation stone) finds
expression in the very letter of Scripture (Is 2816), ‘At has a
double aspect. On the one hand, it is for you who believe that
He is ἔντιμος, On the other hand, for those who disbelieve, the
Psalmist’s words about the stone of stumbling are true, their
very stumbling being within the limits of the Divine purpose,
But you are the true Israel, with all the privileges of the λαὸς;
θεοῦ.

II. 211-411 The brotherhood which is in the world, and its
duties.—(1) 2, General introductory counsels. Be like mere
sojourners in the world. Let the moral beauty of your con-
duct make your very detractors watch you, so that in the day
of decision they may glorify God. (2) 213-312, Duty of sub-
mission to every Divine institution among men. (a) 214-17,
Subjects and civil magistrates. For Christian freedom must
not be a cloak for (social or political) disaffection. * Honour
the king’ is one practical application of the universal rule
‘Honour all men.’ (b) 21825. Slaves and masters. Obey even
unreasonable masters. He who does right and patiently suffers
wrong, pleases God. To nothing less than this were you called.
For Christ suffered for us; and in all His sufferings left us the
pattern-sketch of a life of sinless endurance and constant trust.
(c) 31-6, Wives and husbands. To watch the wife’s serious and
pure life may win the husband who has been deaf to the spoken
message. Her adornment must be within—a spirit placid in
itself, gentle towards others. Such is the example of the wives
of ancient story. (d) 37, Husbands. Husbands have a corre-
sponding duty—to pay their wives the reverence due to theit

==

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

795

weakness. Those who share an earthly home ᾿(συνοικοῦντες)
must behave to each other as those who share (συνκληρένοικοι)
the heavenly inheritance. (6) 38-12, A swnmary of mutual
duties (cf. 5°). In a word, let kindness rule. Do not return
evil for evil, but bless your revilers; for the inheritance
of blessing is the end of the Christian calling (Vs 341219),
(f) B22, Sudering and its reward. 1 spoke of evil. Who
shall do you evil, if you be champions of good? But even
should you suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are happy. Do
not fear, but make your hearts a sanctuary for the Christ.
Towards others, be always ready to explain and defend your
faith to any questioner. In yourselves, maintain a good con-
science, that your conduct may shame your detractors. For,
should this be God’s will, it is better that you, like Christ,
should suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. For Christ once
for all, 1.6. dealing decisively with sins, died, the just on behalf
of the unjust, that He might bring you (then afar off) to
God. But these sufferings had (as yours will have) their
issue in blessing. (i.) On the one hand, His being put to
death in regard to His flesh was His quickening in regard
to His (human) spirit. Clothed in that human spirit He
extended (z/) His sphere of ministry. He journeyed and made
proclamation to the spirits in prison, spirits who slighted God’s
long-suffering in the days when the ark was being built. In the
ark only eight souls were saved, the water (which to others was
the instrument of judgment) bearing up the ark and so becom-
ing an instrument of σωτηρία. The reality, of which the water
of the Flood was a type, even baptism, saves (σώζει) you ; not the
external cleansing of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good con-
science after God,* the final source of its etticacy being the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. (ii.) The patient suffering of
Christ had a second issue—His triumph. He journeyed (as
before into Hades 319, so now) into heaven and is at God’s
right hand, the victorious sovereign over all spiritual powers.
(g) 41-6. The ideal of Christian Ute. Christ then suffered in
relation to the flesh. Hence the true conception of life. Let
it be your armour. To bave suffered in regard to the flesh
means to have ceased to exist in regard to sins. Realize your
spiritual position by living no longer by the rule of the manifold
lusts of men, but by the one will of God. It is enough to have
given the past to the heathen vices of debauchery, drunken-
ness, idolatry. The heathen wonder that you hold aloof from
their vile riot, and traduce your motives. But the injustice is
not for ever. They will have to give an account to Him with
whom the judgment of living and dead is ‘as a very little
thing’ (re/uw;). Such judgment of the dead is just. For the
proclamation of the gospel to the dead had this for its object,
that, while the dead must be judzed after the pattern of men in
reference to the flesh (the earthly life), they may nevertheless
be enabled to live after the pattern of God (cf. 115) in reference
to the spirit. (h) 47-11. Christian life in view of the approaching
end. The end of all things is near. Therefore be serious and
devout. Most of all, cultivate mutual love. Let each man
use his peculiar endowment for the good of the whole body
—his gift of utterance, relying on Divine inspiration ; his
gift of ministry, resting on Divine strength. So God will be
glorified.

III. 412-514, The trials of the brethren.—(1) 41249. Trust in
the midst of suffering. Let not God's process of testing and
refining you seem to you strange, as if some strange chance
were befalling you. Rather rejoice at your participation in
the sufferings of the Christ, that when His glory is revealed
your joy may be intensified. To bear Christ’s reproach is an
outward sign of a spiritual grace resting on you. 1 say Christ's
reproach, for 1 would not have any of you suffer for any
criminal act or for any social indiscretion. But to suffer as a
Christian is a reason not for shame but for thanksgiving. You
must expect suffering. For the set time has come for the
judgment to begin with God’s household. What, then, shall be
the end of those who wilfully reject the gospel? Hence let
those who have even to suffer in fulfilment of the Divine pur-
pose do right and commend themselves to a Creator who will
not ‘forsake the work of his own hands.’ (2) 51-5. Pastors and
people. who share their office (and so can sympathize with
them), and am a witness to the sufferings of the Christ (and so
speak with authority), charge your elders to shepherd God's
flock, not in the spirit of slaves or hirelings or tyrants. Then
when the Chief Shepherd is manifested they will have their
reward. You younger men have a corresponding duty, to be
subject to elders. ΑἹ] of you—your duty is humility and
mutual service. (3) 56-11, I’inal counsels. Humble yourselves
under God’s dealings that He may exalt you. Cast your
anxiety on Him, knowing His providential care for you.
Watch ; for the devil ravins for you asa prey. Firm through
your faith resist him, conscious that for your brethren through-
out the world the same sufferings are being fulfilled. God who
called you, He, after your brief space of suffering, will strengthen
you. (4) 51214, Commendation of the beurer of the letter,
Salutations.

VIII. DocTRINE OF THE EPIsTLE.—In this sec-
tion an attempt will be made to indicate in outline
the doctrinal teaching contained in the Epistle.
The letter is a λόγος παρακλήσεως, and contains no
systematic exposition of any part of the Christian
faith. But in the mind of the writer there is a

*The history of Cornelius (Ac 1022-21. 47) is the best com-
mentary on the phrase ic:pa7xue εἰς θεόν in this connexion.

consistent and comprehensive theology which finds
incidental and instinctive expression.

The Petrine speeches in the Acts were called forth by special
circumstances, and (except the speeches recorded in Ac 1089-44
157-11) were all addressed to non-Christian Jews at Jerusalem.
We have no right, therefore, to look to them for the full cycle of
Christian doctrine which even ‘in the beginning of the Gospel ’
St. Peter had apprehended. The following coincidences, how-
ever, between 1 P and the Petrine speeches recorded in the
Acts are noteworthy :—1 P 110 (τροῴφήται) || Ac 318. 21. 24 1043, cf.
Q16t. Zot. Brz. 925... 111. 21 |] 224. B20. Blot 410. 5908, 1040; 121 |j 316; 27
| 411 (Ps) 5 224 (ξύλον) || 530 1039 ; 45 || 1042 (see also 2 Ti 41) ; 5! ||

22 932 510 198). 41, Of these coincidences, the parallel between
LP 12) (τοὺς 30 αὐτοῦ πιστούς) and Ac 316 (ἡ πίστις ἡ δ αὐτοῦ) is
very remarkable. It is the kind of coincidence which suggests
direct connexion of some kind. Mere literary dependence on
the one side or the other is not supported by coincidences
between 1 P and portions of the Acts other than the Petrine
speeches. The suggestion made on other grounds (see above,
p. 762n.), that St. Peter and St. Luke may well have met in
Rome, should in this connexion be kept in mind,

(1) The doctrine of God.—(a) The Holy Trinity.
—As elsewhere in the NT (2 Th 2%, 1 Co Ἴδε,
2 Co 134, Eph 34 43", Jude *f, cf. Rev 14), the
Three Persons are revealed in their several rela-
tions to the complete redemption of man (12). The
fact that the Three Names are not given in the order
of historical manifestation is an indication that the
Persons are regarded as ‘coequal’ (cf. 2 Co 13%).
The mystery οἱ the essential relation of the Three
Persons is not otherwise touched upon. In regard
to their relation κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν, the Father is spoken
of as ‘the God and Father’ of the incarnate Lord
(‘Jesus Christ,’ 1°), and as the object of His un-
failing trust in the extremity of humiliation (259),
while the temporal mission of the Spirit is referred
to (1%). (6) The Father. The unique phrase πιστὸς
κτίστης (4.5) implies that the relation of God to man
as Creator is the final basis of trust (cf. Mt 6°",
He 199). The spiritual Fatherhood of God, 7.e.
the regeneration of men through the revelation in
Christ and the Divine act of the resurrection, 1s ἃ
root-thought in the Epistle (15: 5), and from it
springs the social teaching as to φιλαδελῴφία. (ε)
The Son. Is the pre-existence of Christ asserted
or postulated in the Epistle? In the phrase τὸ ἐν
αὐτοῖς [sc. τοῖς προφήταις] πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (1"), the
reference in Χριστοῦ is not primarily personal; the
word rather alludes to the conception of the
Messiah progressively revealed and apprehended
(see Hert’s note). Again, in 159 φανερωθέντος is
placed in antithesis to προεγνωσμένου, and therefore
does not necessarily imply personal pre-existence.
The words, however, in 38°& appear to be decisive.
The personality of Him whose actions are de-
scribed resided neither in the σάρξ (cf. 44) nor in
the πνεῦμα. Clothed in that human spirit (ἐν @),
when the flesh had been laid aside in death, He
carried out His ministry among the dead. Thus
the passage distinctly implies that He who worked
on earth and in Hades was a superhuman Person,
assuming all the elements of human nature, and
therefore existing before the beginning of the
human life. (α) The Spirit. The Spirit is men-
tioned in 15 "11: 414, In 4/4 the words, an echo of
Is 11’, are a Christian adaptation of the thought
and language of the OT. ‘The Spirit of God which
rested on Messiah is the portion of those also who
suffer for Messiah’s sake... The earlier passage
(111) is, as was seen above, closely connected with
the ancient Messianic hope. ‘The Spirit of Mes-
siah’ was ‘in the Prophets.’ But the mention of
the Spirit in ν.}} cannot be disconnected from the
mention of the Spirit in v.1%. The Spirit was the
power through which the witness of the ancient
prophets and the witness of Christian evangelists
were rendered. Thus the two verses tovether
emphasize the continuity of revelation (ct. the
‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed). For in ν.}" (διὰ τῶς
evayy. ὑμᾶς πνεύματι dylw ἀποσταλέντι am’ οὐρανοῦ) the
reference is detinite, not to @ but to the Moly

794 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

Spirit. The absence of the article simply brings
out the character of the power— through no less a
power than the Holy Spirit’ ; compare, e.g., Ro
8416 and the anarthrous but definite use of eds,
Χριστός, κύριος, vids (He 13. The addition of ἀποστ.
ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ can hardly be taken otherwise than as
an allusion to the historical gift of the Spirit at
Pentecost.

(2) Leedomption.—FEverythine in regard both to
the Redeemer (139, ef. Ac 225) and the redeemed
(111) is conditioned by the πρύγνωσις of the Father.
Even disobedience to the gospel does not lie out-
side the sphere of His purpose (2%). The prepara-
tion is dwelt on in 111, The prophetic witness
was twotold—(a@) to the sufferings destined for
Messiah (εἰς Xp.) and the different elements in His
subsequent glory ; (4) to the Divine erace destined
for the Gentiles (eis ὑμᾶς. ef, Ac 10+),
be noted that in this Epistle there is no allusion to
the Law either in its ceremonial er in its moral
aspect, nor again (except the passing reference to
the ‘holy women,’ 3°") to the ancient story of
Israel; contrast St. Paul's Epistles. The Divine
Person took human nature in its completeness—
σάρξ and πνεῦμα (318). in 224 the Lord’s σῶμα is
spoken of, hut St. Peter has no occasion to refer
to the Lord’s ψυχή, in St. Paul’s psychology the
σῶμα and the ψυχή tovether making up the σάρξ,
Christ was sinless (2"°", the language being derived
from Is 53"; οἵ, 119), He endured the last issue of
the life of sinful man in the separation of ‘flesh’ and
‘spirit,’ and ‘in His spirit’ passed into the unseen
world of waiting human spirits (31%, ef. Ace 227-31),
His death is presented in a twofold aspect. On
the one hand, it consummated the example of the
typical human life (2%). On the other hand, in
His death He met the needs of sinful men, He
‘died’ to help them—éixacos ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων (3118). And
His help to them consisted in this, that He finally
and effectuatly dealt with sins (ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν,
9:8). The mode in which He dealt with sins is
developed in 2%. Adopting the language of Is
53”, the apostle says that the Sinless One ‘took
our sins’ (not sin as a principle, but the concrete
sins of men) to Himself, i.e. by virtue of His
representative humanity. Hishuman ‘body’ was,
as it were, the vessel in which the sins of men
were gathered (ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ) and borne to the
last extreme of humiliation—the ξύλον involving to
the mind of Jews the Divine curse (Dt SI). By
His death (so the context implies) His relation to
the flesh and to sins finally ended (2% 4, ef. Ro
010), so that the true life of humanity is henceforth
ideally set free from the dominion’ of sin. ‘This
freedom the redeemed have to work out in their
several lives. In 1151 a different line of thought is
followed. Gentiles (for it is to Gentile Christians
that the Epistle is addressed, see above) were
ransomed (ἐλυτρώθητε- {116 word is taken from Is
52°; ef. especially Mt 20°, 1 Ti 2%) from bondage
to an inheritance of vanity, and the ransom was
no less a price than the ‘precious blood? (ef. Ps
72 Heb., 115 (116) ® 05) LXX) of Christ. Chris+
Himself is likened to a lamb free from intrinsic
blemish and from accidental stain (ἀμώμου Kal
ἀσπίλου). The whole cycle of ideas is probably
derived from the history of the first Passover and
of Israel’s redemption from Egypt. The reserve
of the passage is remarkable. Nothing is said in
regard to the question to whom the λύτρον Was
paid. The sacrificial language is metaphorical (ὡς
auvot); it is simple and is not developed. The aim
of the Lord’s sufferings is twofold. It has a
heavenly and an earthly side. On the one hand,
ἀπέθανεν. ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῴ (318).
There is a slight emphasis on tuaés—‘ you Gentiles
who were afar off’? (Eph 2%). Christ dealt with
the sins of men, and remained Himself δίκαιος. His

i
}

It should |

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

work and His abiding character fitted Him te
bring those whom He had freed from sin into the
presence of God. The ideas of mediatorship and
reconciliation lie in the background. On the other
hand, Christ bore our sins iva ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενό-
μενοι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήπωμεν (933), Here and in 41:
Christ’s death is described as involving the Chris-
tian’s death to sin (ef. St. Paul, 2.g., Ro 6),
The correlative idea of ‘the life to righteous-
ness” leads naturally to the teaching of the
Epistle in regard to the resurrection. The resur-
rection in regard to Christ Hinself is described
as the reversal (1 322; ef, 4135!) through the act of
the Father (151) of the humiliation involved in
suffering and death—a conception which is promi-
nent in the Petrine speeches in the Acts (see
above, p. 766), but which in the Epistle falls into
the background. In regard to mon, it is δὺ
ἀναστάσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (a) that the Father ‘ begat

anew? (dvayevrjcas) all Christian men (Huds, 1°, cf.
159); (6) that Baptism becomes in the gospel dis-

pensation (νῦν) the crisis of salvation to each (ὑμᾶς
».. σώζει, 3725 of. Tit 35 grower), Further, the
effect of redemption is not limited to the initiation
of the Christian life. If ‘sanctification by the
Spirit’ is represented (1%) as the influence which
surrounds (ἐν) the working out of the Divine pur-
pose in the case of the ἐκλεκτοί, that ἐκλογή has for
its immediate end (eis) the twofold issue ὑπακοὴ καὶ
ῥαντισμὸς αἵματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ- ἃ life lived in
accordance with the Divine will and pattern (115: 35.
cf. e.g. 182"), and continually cleansed from the
defilement of sin by the application of the quicken-
ing blood of Christ. The thoneht and the language
are derived from the OT. The phrase ῥαντισμὸς
αἵματος recalls at once the ὕδωρ ῥαντισμοῦ of Nu
LO? Aree (or, Fe 12°). Barn. Ὁ Ὑ cep τῷ αἵματι τοῦ
ῥαντίσματος αὐτοῦ). In ancient Israel provision was
made whereby the faithful Israelite, detiled hy
contact with the dead, should be sprinkled with
‘the water of separation.’ In the true Israel not
water poured on the ashes of the victim, but the
blood of Jesus Christ (ef. He 9"), is ever ready for
the cleansing of those who are obedivnt, but who
from time to time are defiled through contact with
evil, Thus the sequence of thought is precisely
that in 1 Jn 17 (ἐὰν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν. ... τὸ
aiua “Inoov k.7.d.).* The end of the divinely
sustained growth (2?) and of the discipline of the
Christian man (1°) is ‘salvation’ (εἰς owrT npiav)—
that ‘perfect soundness’ which answers to God’s
purpose in creation.

(3) The Church.—The two aspects in which the
Christian Church is prominently presented in this
Epistle are closely related to OT language and
Jewish thought. (7) The Church is regarded ‘as
first and foremost the true Israel of God, the one
legitimate heir of the promises made to Israel’
(Hort p. 7). Hence in 2" the remarkable trans-
ference to Christians in their corporate aspect of
the prerogatives which belonged to Israel. The
Christian Society is represented as a priestly body
(2°) chosen to do priestly service (2°), but the
spiritual character of this worship (as opposed to the
material and merely ceremonial worship of ancient
Israel) is insisted on (πνευματικὰς θυσίας, 2°; ef,
Ro 191, Jn 4533). The idea of the new Israel is not
foreign to St. Paui (e.g. Gal 616) or other writers
of the NT, but nowhere is it insisted on with such
emphasis as here. (ὦ) The Church is a universal
brotherhood (917 5%). In the OT Israelites are con-
stantly described as ‘brethren’ (e.g. Ex 418, Dt

* Hort, basing the interpretation of the phrase on Ex 243-8
concludes that the reference is to an initial pledge of obedience
and an initial ‘sprinkling with blood ’—the admission to the
Christian covenant. The preposition εἰς (emphasized by juxta-
position with ἐν), pointing toa goad, and the position of the clause
seem to the present writer strong arguments against this
interpretation.

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE

PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 795

1815, Neh 5%); for the usage of later times comp.
e.g. 2 Mac 1’, Ac 22° 28". In the true Israel the
tie is not natural, but spiritual. It grows out of
the fundamental fact of the Divine ἀναγέννησις (1*).
The duties involved in this brotherhood are dis-
tinctly described as flowing from the spiritual
relation of Christians to God as their Father—
ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε... ἀναγεγεννημένοι (135). Hence
the repeated insistence on ἀγάπη and φιλαδελφία
(1 2! 45), If the very term ἀδελφύτης (2'7 5’)
emphasizes the notion of unity, the qualifying
words ἡ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (5°; Cf. διασπορᾶς, 1}) suggest
the idea of wniversality: the ‘brotherhood’ is
vatholic. Little is said of the organization of
the Church. The spirit in which elders are to
work is enforced in δ), In 4105 there is an allu-
sion to the due exercise of χαρίσματα in the Chris-
tian Society, and particular reference is made to
those who teach and those who minister. The
term. ἐκκλησία, however, does not occur in the
Epistle. The allusions to the Church suggest
that, while the writer had a deep realization of the
broad facts, he had not been led specially to ponder
on their inner significance and promise, as the
‘Ephesians’ shows that St. Paul had done.

(4) Eschatology.—Vhe Epistle holds an import-
ant position in the ΝΊΣ in respect to eschatological

teaching. St. Peter (47) regards the ‘end of all
things,’ ae. the great consuinmation, when the

present order will pass away, as near at hand. In
this point there is an important contrast between
the teaching of this Epistle and that of the later
Epistles of St. Paul (Hort, Romans and Ephesians
p. 141 f.). The time of the end is regarded under
two chief aspects. (1) It will be a time of ἀποκά-
λυψις. Then the progressive ‘revelation of Jesus
Christ’ (113) will culminate in a final ‘revelation
of Jesus Christ’ (1754; cf. Lk 17°), a ‘revelation
of his glory’ (4%; cf. 1471), Then will be the
καιρὸς ἔσχατος When the ‘inheritance’ of Christians
will be ‘revealed,’ * their participation in the
glory ‘which shall be revealed? (51), God’s αἰώνιος
65a which was the eoal of their ‘calling’ (519).
(2) It will be atime of judgment. God, indeed, is
essentially ὁ κρίνων. ἀπροσωπολήμπτως (negatively,
without partiality; 1}7), δικαίως (positively, with
absolute justice ; 2°), ἑτοίμως (with the unerring
precision of perfect knowledge; 4°). His judg-
ment is individual, and is determined by each
man’s action (1!7). It will then comprehend ‘quick
and dead’ (4°; οἵ, Ac 10”, 2 Ti 4). It will be ob-
served that, throughout, the judgement is ascribed
to the final authority of the Father (cf. e.g. Ro
1410) and that nothing is said in the Epistle of
the mediatorship of the Son in the judgment (Ro
PN? Cocos: Ch io).

But the question inevitably arises, How will
perfect justice in judging the dead deal with
those who died before the proclamation of the
gospel? To this question St. Peter gives an
answer in 4°, in close connexion with which we
must take 3!) The difficulty of the two passages
lies not so much in any obscurity of language as
in the mysterious nature both of the subject with
which they deal and of the problems which they
sugeest. The earlier of the two passages (3!) 15
limited in scope, dealing only with the case of
those who, being disobedient, perished in’ the
great typical judgement of the ancient world.
The interpretations which explain the words as

* Hort takes the words ἑτοίμην ἀποκωαλυφθήναι (1°) to refer to
the immediately preceding εἰς σωτηρίαν, and interprets ἐν zaipa
ἐσγ τὼ as meaning ‘in a season of extremity.’ But (1) it is
Githeult to disconnect ἐσχόάτω here from és? ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων
in 120; and “τρίς is common in eschatological phrases in
Daniel and NT, ¢.q. 417, Rev 18; (2) the ‘inheritance’ is the
main subject of the passage, and for εἰς σωτυρίαν (standing
alone) comp. the same phrase in 223 (3) ἑτοίμην aroxnnudlaras
(cf. 51) is correlative to τετήρηκένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς.

ace
referring either (1) to an antediluvian mission of
Christ, or (2) to an evangelization of the angels
who fell (Jude, 2 P 24), appear (in view of the
context, the erammatical construction, and the
parallel in 4°) to be quite untenable. What
appears to be the simple and natural view of the
passages is given in the paraphrase above. — [t
may turther be obs:rved (/#) that the apostle
necessarily uses the language of lman experience
(πορευθείς ; cf. v.77). though narrating events tran-
scending human experience; (ὁ) that the phrase τοῖς
ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν in reference to Hades is quite
natural laneuage for a Jew; comp. Apoc. Bar
xxiii. 4 ‘a place was prepared where the living
might dwell and the dead might be guarded,’
2 Es 7%; (0) that it is not impossible that the
apostle’s language (ἐκήρυξε, . . @u\aky) Was sug-
gested by Is 01} 427 49°. The emphasis of the
passage rests on the Person of the κῆρυξ. The
later passage (4°) differs from the earlier in three
important respects: (a) the reference is not
limited to the dead belonging to one generation.
The anarthrous καὶ νεκροῖς is not in itself necessarily
universal in scope, but here it must be interpreted
in the light of the preceding words (τῷ... κρίνοντι
ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς) ; (8) the main point here (accord-
ing to the requirements of the context) is the
simple fact that the gospel was preached to the
dead, not (as in 3!°) the agent in its proclamation ;
hence the diflerence of wording (ἐκήρυξεν, εὐηγγε-
λίσθη) is no argument that the two passages have
not a common reference to a single occasion ; (γ)
while in 3! nothing is said as to the aim or effect
of the proclamation, here its object is distinetly
stated. It is important to notice that this sentence,
in which the purpose is described, is one in which
“μέν and δέ oppose two clauses, whereof one is
really subordinate to the other’ (Liddell and Scott
sub voce μέν ii. 5). The purpose of the preaching
was not that the dead should be judged, but that
though judged . . . they yet mightlive.... The
aorist (κριθῶσε) points to the one season of the
judement; the contrasted present (ζς.), to the
continuous life κατὰ θεόν (ct. 115. The two pas-
gages taken toevether appear unquestionably to
assert that at the supreme crisis of redemption
the Redeemer Himself proclaimed the gospel to
the dead, those who perished in the Flood being
particularly specitied, and that therefore such
blessings of the gospel as are not contined to this
sarthly order were ollered to them.

Apart from possible allusions to the subject in
three passages of St. Paul (Io 107 14°, Eph 4°), no
writer in the N'Tvrefers to the descensus ad inferos,
with the significant exception of St. Peter (cf. Ac
27-31) who may well have learned the mysterious
facts of which he speaks from the lips of the Risen
Lord Himself. The simplicity and reticence of St.
Peter's disclosure are remarkable. On references
to the descensus in carly Christian literature see
Lightfoot on Ten. Jagn. ix. (add to the passages
collected Gospel of Peter ix.). It appears certain
that these early references are not based upon the
passages in 1 P. “Νὸ direct appeal is made to St.
Peter in any of the numerous references to the
Descent; the earliest quotation of 1 P 4° we have
been able to find isin Cyprian’s Vestimonia’ (Swete,
Apostles’ Creed p. 58). Hence in these passages we
have expansions of a primitive Christian tradition,
independent of St. Peter's written words.

Additional note on the name ‘ Peter.’ — Dr.
Schechter, in the Jewish Quarterly Review tor
April 1900, p. 428f., writes thus: ‘Besides the
epithets ‘‘ the God-fearing” Abraham or Abraham
“the friend of God,” Abraham also bears in Rab-
binic literature the: title of “the Rock.” .. . Ihe
Rabbinic passage forms an illustration of Nu 23%
“Vor from the top of the rocks I see him,” and ris

es
796 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
thus: There was a king who desired to build, and | sections —(1) 15"; (2) 11°22; (3) 3-18, Each of

to lay foundations ; he dug constantly deeper, but
found only a swamp. At last he dug’ and found a
petra (this is the very word the Rabbi uses). He
said, ‘On this spot I shall build and lay the
foundations.” So the Holy One, blessed be he,

desired to create the world, but meditating upon —

the generations of Enoch and the Deluge, he said,
** How shall I create the world whilst those wicked

men will only provoke me?” But as soon as God

perceived that there would rise an Abraham, he-
said, ‘* Behold I have found the petra upon which |

to build and to lay foundations.” Therefore he
ralled Abraham Rock [vs], as it is said, ‘ Look
unto the rock whence ye are hewn. Look unto
Abraham your father” (Is 51:2). Yalkut i. 766.
See Dr. Taylor's Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,
δὰ, Ὁ. Ὁ. 160.

LITERATURE.—Sce at the end of the article on 2 Peter.

I’. H. CHASE.
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE ΟΕ.

I. The Epistle considered apart from the question of its
genuineness,
1. Transmission of the Text.
2. Summary of the Epistle.
3. Doctrine of the Epistle.
4. The writer of the Epistle, ita readers, the circum-
stances of its composition.
II. The question of the genuineness of the Epistle,
. The integrity of the Epistle.
. Reception in the Church.
. Vocabulary and style.
. Internal evidence—(q) references to the gospel histo cy ;
(6) absence of: personal messages and greetings 5
(6) alleged anachronisins ; (41) doctrine.
. Relation to 1 P.
. Literary attinities—(a) Jude ; (ὦ) Josephus ; (¢) Apoca-
Ivpse of Peter.
. Conclusion.

ew τὸ μὶ

Dn

"
é

I. THE EPIsrLeE CONSIDERED APART FROM THE
QUESTION OF ITS GENUINENESS. — 1. TRANS.
MISSION OF TEXT. For the authorities—MSS and
Versions—see art. JUDE (EPISTLE OF) in vol. ii.

». 799. Some further points must be noted. ΒΟ Δ,
| ]

1s not contained in the Peshitta. The text given
in the printed editions of that version is. it ap-
pears, part of the Philoxenian version of the N'T
made in the early years of the 6th cent. (see
helow, p. 805). (2) Portions of pre-Hieronymic
texts are found in the Fleury palimpsest =h (edited
hy Berger, 1889), in the Munich fragments edited
by Ziesler=q (only 14), and in the Speculum
commonly known by the symbol m (ed. Weihrich).
The text represented in h q, according to Berger,
is one based on a late ‘Italian’ text, kindred to
that revised by Jerome, transplanted to Africa
and there greatly altered—‘an African text of a
late period.’ Some remarkable fragments of an
old Latin text are contained in Priscillian (ed.
Schepss)—-1”° (omnis profetia uel scribtura inter-
prietationem indiget, p. 87), 221 (p. 29), 25 (p. 46).
Ambrose (de Fide iii. 12) quotes 1!" (3) Patristie
evidence for the text is found chiefly in (@) Greek
writers—Didymus, Ephraem (not Syriac works),
Cyril Alex., John of Damascus, the commentators
(Ecumenius and Theophylact, the fragments in
Cramer’s Catena (some being ascribed to Athan-
asius, Eusebius of Emesa, and Chrysostom ; on the
last see below, p. 805n.); (2) Latin writers -—Am-
brose, Priscillian, Jerome, Augustine, Fulgentius,
Vigilins, Bede. Difticulties of interpretation give
a sense of insecurity in regard to the text (€.g.
2'' 4). Hort supposes that there are primitive
errors in 3112) On 32, see below p. 811; and on
3" see Vansittart in the Journal of Philology iii.
p. 357 ἢ, where he suggests that the ‘existence’
of this Epistle, as of that to the Hebrews, ‘de-
pended for many years on a single copy.’ Ei

2. SUMMARY OF THE EPISTLE.-—The Epistle
(after the salutation) seems to fall into three

the two latter sections begins with a reference to
the writer’s personal relation to those whom he
addresses, and in both cases he goes on to speak of
the dangers which will soon overtake them from
false teachers.

(1) Gi.) Uf Salutation: (ii.) 13f Divine gifts—The Divine
power has given us all needful endowments, endowments
through which He has given us* His promises, that through
these promises you, having escaped from the world’s corrup-
tion, may become sharers in the Divine nature. (iii.) 15-7 The
duty of diligence. Such gifts imply duties. Use diligence on
your part that one excellence in you may grow out of another.
(iv.) 15:11. The hope of diligence. Such excellences, where they
exist, cause fruitfulness. For he who has them not is blind,
and forgets that he was cleansed from the sins of his old lire.
Therefore with the greater diligence see that you make God's
calling and choice of you an abiding blessing. For so acting,
you will not stumble ; and the gift of entrance into the eternal
kingdom will without stint be yours,

(2) G.) 11215 The writer's care for ἢ is friends.—Hence, though
ye know these truths, | will ever keep them fresh in your
memory, so long as 1 am in this tabernacle, for I know from
the Lord’s disclosure of the future to me that ny putting it off
will come suddenly. Further, I will take diligent care that,
as during my life so also after my departure, you shall be
reminded of these truths. (ii.) 1102] Vhe teachers’ warrant,
For we did not follow fables skilfully elaborated when we told
you of the power of the Lord and His coming (é.e. in the flesh).
Our warrant was that we had been initiated into the miystery
of His majesty. We beheld the glory which He received
from the Father, when the voice of God addressed Him as My
Son, when we were His companions in the Holy Mount. And
What is more abiding than a fleeting voice we possess in the
prophetic word. Give heed to it as a lamp shining in a foul
place till the perfect dawn comes. But remember that the
interpretation of a prophecy in Seripture does not lie within
a man’s unaided power ¢ ; for prophecy came not by the will
of man, but men spake from God as they were controlled by
the Spirit. (iii.) 21:11 Halse teachers; their sure punishment.
As there were false prophets in Israel, so there will be false
teachers among you, denying even the Master who purchased
them. Many will follow them, their life and their teaching
being marked by lasciviousness, greed, insincerity. But their
judgment has long been actively working. For God ever
punishes the evil. He punished angels when they sinned,
committing them to dens of darkness to be kept for judgment ;
the ancient world, while He delivered Noah ; the Cities of the
Plain, their overthrow being an example of What shall happen
to ungodly men, while He delivered Lot, ever wearied out by
the lascivious life of the lawless. Yes, the Lord can deliver
the godly from temptation, and keep the unrighteous in pun-
ishment for the day of judgment. And this is chiefly so with
those whose sins are uncleanness, proud insubordination, and
slandering ; whereas angels, greater in power than they, bring
no slanderous accusation against them (7.e. these sinners) before
the Lord. (iv.) 212-22 Marks of such false teachers. Such men
may be easily discerned. In their sins, and therefore in their
punishment, they are like irrational animals, They blazon
their profligacy in broad daylight. They are spots and flaws
in your company. Their glances are ceaselessly unchaste.
They entice restless souls. They sin from motives of covetous.
ness like Balaam, who was miraculously rebuked for his mad-
ness. They are as purposeless as waterless springs or tempest:
driven mists: their end will be thick darkness. With empty
vauntings they entice into lusts those who are just escaping
from evil companionship. Themselves the slaves of corruption,
they promise a spurious liberty. They are indeed slaves. For
if they were rescued from the defilements of the world and are
now again ensnared therein, their last state has become worse
than their first. For ignorance of righteousness is better than
deliberate rebellion against the holy commandment. Their
degradation is set forth in common proverbs.

(3) i.) 318 The writer's Epistles.—In this, as in my former
letter, I remind you of the words spoken long ago by the
prophets, and of the Lord’s commandment brought to you by
those of the apostles who were your teachers. (ii.) 38-7 Mockers
at the promise of the Return.” Remember before all else that
in the last days mockers will come, men of lustful life, scorn-
fully asking what has become of the promise of His return,
For the Fathers passed away, and the world’s course is un-
changed. Such mockers are self-condemned. For they wilfully
forget that by the word of God the heavens were made, and
the earth compacted of water and by means of water, waters
which became the instrument of judgment. And by the same
word the heavens and the earth are being kept for the fire
of the final judgment. (iii) 38313 The Lord's delay and His
coming. Forget not that God reckons not time as men reckon.
His seeming slowness in fulfilling His promise is in truth His
long-suffering towards you, that all may come to repentance.
Howbeit the day of the Lord will come suddenly, the day when
the vault of heaven shall pass away, and the stars shall melt

*Spitta (Der zweite Brief des Petrus p. 41ff.) would read
vey in v.4 with A 36, 88 syr-bod syr-hl-mg, and would take the
ἡμᾶς of v.3 and the 3,’ ὧν of v.4 to refer to the apostles.

t Spitta (p. 115) takes the words to mean, ‘ Keine Prophezei
ung der Schrift ist der Art dass sie vernichtet werden konnte.’

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 797

with heat, and the earth and men’s works therein shall be
discovered. The certainty of this dissolution of material things
is a call to holiness of life and to an earnest expectation of His
coming. Then—because the day of God has come—the whole
fabric of the universe shall be burned up. But we expect,
according to His yromise, new heavens and a new earth—the
home of righteoustess. (iv.) 81418 The steadfastness of believers
in the strength of this hope. Wherefore having these hopes, be
diligent that you may be found of the Lord at His coming
blameless. And regard the Lord’s long-suffering as salvation,
as Paul said to you, and as he says in all his letters, dealing in
them with these matters—letters in which are many difficult
sayings which those who lack learning and stability twist and
wrench, as they do all the other Scriptures. But do you be
on your guard against the evil influence of the lawless, and
grow in grace and knowledge.

3. DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE.—(1) The doctrine

of God. (a) The Father. The term πατήρ is used
only in relation to the Incarnate Son (11). God
by His word (command) was the Creator and is
the Sustainer of the universe (3°:7). He is above
the limitations of time (3°). He inflicts punish-
ment on angels and men (2""), and thus the ἡμέρα
κρίσεως (3°) is described as ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρα (3**).
But He is long-sutfering, and delays judgment (3°,
ef. 3°). He gave His witness to the Incarnate
Son (117). Men ean now God (1°) and can partake
of the Divine nature (14). The phrase θεία φύσις
(14) refers rather to what God essentially zs; the
phrase 7 μεγαλοπρεπὴς δύξα (117) to God as rev raling
Himself by outward signs. (ὦ) The Son. Nothing
is said of the pre-existence of the Lord. The
term θεός is, however, applied to Him in 11] τοῦ
θεοῦ ἡμῶν x. σωτῆρος “Inco? Xp.; contrast the
order in 13 τοῦ θεοῦ κ. ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, and
compare 1}} 318. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν κ. σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ. Compare the phrase 7 θεία δύναμις αὐτοῦ
(15), and note how He is closely joined with the
Father as the object of man’s knowledge (1°). In
116 it seems the preferable, if not the necessary,
interpretation to take παρουσία of the First rather
than of the Second Coming, for (a) the context
speaks of history and not prophecy ; (8) the word
itself, though as a fact elsewhere in the NT and in
this Epistle (34 1°) it is used of the Second Coming,
naturally bears this meaning * (cf. ἔλευσις, Ac 7°”).
If this interpretation of 116 be the true one, then
the message of the Incarnation is described as
dealing with τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Inoot Χριστοῦ δύναμιν
καὶ mapovciav—the Lord’s essential power and His
coming to the world. His μεγαλειότης was revealed
on the Mount of Transfiguration. He purchased
men (i.¢. by His blood, cf. Rev 5°), and so became
their absolute Master (δεσπότης, 2!; οἵ. δοῦλος.
Ἰ. Xp., 1). The term σωτήρ, as applied to Tim, is
characteristic of this Epistle (1! 1! 950. 3%78). His
kingdom is described in the words of Daniel (3!°
[43] 727, ef. 1 Mac 2°7) as an αἰώνιος βασιλεία (cf.
Lk 1, Rev 11%). He will fulfil His promise to
return (3). (¢) The Holy Spirit. The only mention
of the Holy Spirit is inreference to His controlling
inspiration of the ancient prophets (15),

(2) Redemption.—In regard to our Lord, it was
wrought out by Him in His act whereby He pur-
chased men (2!); in regard to Christians, it is
brought into contact with each one in the καθα-
ρισμός Which, parts the new from the old life (15).
The Divine ‘calling’ and ‘choice’ of men are re-

garded as closely related (τὴν κλῆσιν κ. ἐκλογήν, ἐμὰς
note the cineudian of the common article). Human

effort is needed to give them an abiding validity
(βεβαίαν). In 13 (τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς) it is uncertain
(a) whether the ἡμᾶς refers to Christians generally
or to the apostles in 1 articular; (3) whether the
ὁ καλέσας refers to the Father or to Christ. Much
stress is laid on conduct and on the cultivation of
Christian virtues (1), Knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις, 1? 3-8
220. γνῶσις, 15 318) has a pre-eminent position assigned

ἃ Compare, ¢.g., Ign. Philad. 9, τὴν παρουσίοιν τοῦ σωτῆρος...

78
wales αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἀνάστασιν; Apol. Aristidis, 15; Justin, Apol. |

i. 52; see Lightfoot on Ign. 1.6.

to it. The object of knowledge is the Father
(123) and Christ (18 2° 318) ; in 1° δες appears
without further definition. The knowledge of
God and of Christ is the means whereby men
escape the evil of the world (250) and receive grace
and peace (1%) and spiritual endowments (1°). The
cultivation of Christian excellences leads to fruit-
fulness in regard to this knowledge (1°), which is
not a final but a progressive knowledge (31%).
Since it is closely allied to χάρις (315), it is clearly
a spiritual and not an intellectual attainment.
On the other hand, the γνῶσις of 15 (without a
definition of its object) is apparently ‘knowledge’
generally ; it is described as the link between ἀρετή
and ἐγκράτεια. The end of the Divine promises is
that men should become θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως (1).
The goal of Christian diligence is the entrance
into the Lord’s ‘eternal kingdom?’ (11}).

(3) Creation.—The cause of creation was ‘the
word (command) of God’ (35. But at least in
regard to the earth further (physical) details are

given-—yjj ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι᾽ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα. Prob-
ably the interpretation given by Qscumenius

(quoted by Field, Notes on Translation of the NT
p. 242) is the true one—h γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος μέν, ws ἐξ
ὑλικοῦ αἰτίου" δι’ ὕδατος δέ, ws διὰ τελικοῦ (ste lege pro
διατελικοῦ)" ὕδωρ γὰρ τὸ συνέχον τὴν γῆν, οἷον κύλλα τις
ὑπάρχον airy. Inv.!’ the universe is described as
consisting of ‘the heavens’ (the vault of heaven),
the stars (στοιχεῖα), the earth.

(4) Angelology. —It is clearly laid down that
there once was ‘a fall’ of certain angels (ἀγγέλων
ἁμαρτησάντων, 24), and that their sin was followed
by Divine vengeance. God committed them to
‘pits of darkness,’ there to be kept for (final)
judgement. In a later passage of the Epistle (2")
there is an obscure reference to the ministry of
angels. The false teachers (it is there said) δυξας
οὐ τρέμουσιν, βλασφημοῦντες, ὅπου ἄγγελοι ἰσχύϊ κ.
δυνάμει μείζονες ὄντες οὐ φέρουσιν κατ᾽ αὐτῶν παρὰ Κυρίῳ
βλάσφημον κρίσιν. It must remain doubtful if κατ᾽
αὐτῶν refers to the false teachers or (as the parallel
in Jude suggests) to the dJéae just mentioned.
In either case, angels appear to be represented as
bringing before the Lord tidings as to the conduct
of created beings, whether angels or men,

(5) Eschatology.—Fallen angels and unrighteous
men alike undergo temporary punishment until
the time of their final doom (2+ %). The day, when
‘the promise of his coming’ is fulfilled, variously
described as ἡμέρα κρίσεως (2° 37), ἡμέρα κυρίου (3!°),
ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρα (3), has three aspects-—(a) In
regard to the sinful: To the ungodly it will be a
Ἡμέραι . . . amwreias (37, cf. 2! 3!°); and of this
‘destruction’ the overthrow of the Cities of the
Plain is the type (2°). The disclosure as to the
angels who sinned does not go beyond the simple
idea of κρίσις (24); (3) In regard to the universe :
‘Dissolution’ (tovrwr . πάντων λυομένων, 3!!) is
the destiny of all parts of the material universe.
The means of this dissolution will be fire (πυρὶ
τηρούμενοι 3”, καυσούμενα 3'°, πυρούμενοι, καυσούμενα
3). (y) In regard to the righteous: The dis-
solution of ‘the heavens and earth that now are’
will usher in the fulfilment of the Divine promise
of ‘new heavens and a new earth.’ The spiritual
character of the new universe is insisted on— ἐν
ois δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ (3.9). In an earlier passage
of the Epistle (1'"), where the meaning and the
construction are doubtful, it seems to be inplied
that that day will be the dawn of such full
daylight ‘in the hearts’ of the faithful that the
amp? of propheey will be no more needed.

ἃ THE WRITER OF THE EPISTLE, ITS READERS,
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS COMPOSITION, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE EPISTLE ITSELF.-—Q\)\ The
Writer. The writer speaks as ‘Simon (Symeon)
Peter, bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.’

γ--

798 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

ay

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

Ife refers to two, possibly to three, occasions
in his discipleship—(7~) his presence on the Mount
of Transfiguration (1!) ; (6) the Lord’s revela-
tion to him in regard to his death (14); (ὦ
the Lord’s call of himself and of other disciples
(1%). The last reference is doubtful (see above,
p. 800. The Epistle does not assert that he
had visited those to whom he writes; though
it is not unnatural to suppose that this is im-
plied in 1% 33. But he had written to them
one earlier letter (31), the object of which had
been, what the object of the present letter was,
viz. to kindle their minds to remember the teach-
ings of the ancient prophets and of the apostles
who had instructed them, He calls St. Paul ‘our
beloved brother, and he was acquainted with
several of his Epistles, and especially with one
which that apostle had written to those whom he
is now addressing. He himself now writes under
a sense that his death is imminent (14); and he
promises that, so long as he lives, he will still
remind them of his teaching, and that he will make
provision that after his decease they should always
be able to call it to mind. Nothing in the letter,
it should be added, reveals the place where he
writes, his companions, or his plans. (2) The γ0-
ciptents of the letter, Unless we assume that the
former Epistle referred to in 3! is 1 P, nothing is
said in the Epistle to show where its intended
recipients dwelt. The two phrases, τοῖς ἰσότιμον
ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν (1), ef. Jude *), and ὠποφυγύντες
τῆς ἐν τῷ κύσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς (14), make it prob-
able that they were Gentile rather than Jewish
converts. But the lanenage is too general to
warrant a certain inference. Some at least of the
apostles had been amone their teachers (32), and it
appears from 115. that they were not recent con-
verts. From their past we turn to their future.
The Epistle warns them of the advent among them
of certain false teachers. Tt is an assmmption—
though it is a probable assumption—that the three
passages of the Epistle which speak of false
teachers—2!-**, 38-7, 3'6_refer to the same persons,
Taking this identification for eranted, we note the
following points in the description of these enemies
of the truth: (1) Their life and teaching are such
that in effect they deny the rule of Christ and His
law (2!) ; (2) they are themselves immoral, and by
life and teaching they infect others (22: 10. 12H Ist),
(3) they are insubordinate to authority (910). (4)
they are influenced as teachers by greed of gain
(2812-14): (5) as teachers they are plausible and
crafty (2% 19); (6) their teaching is empty rhetoric
(218), (7) they ridicule the idea of Christ’s return
(3°); (8) they support their false teaching by an
unscrupulous appeal to Scripture (316), Sueh are
the notes of the false teaching which will arise
ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν (3°).

To this statement of the details as to the writer
and recipients of the Epistle, which seem to be
implied in the document itself, it will be well to
append the views as to the occasion of the Epistle
and the circumstances of its composition, which
have been put forward of late years by two critics
who have defended its authenticity.

(i.) The chief points which Spitta emphasizes in
his elaborate work, Der zweite Brief des Petrus und
der Brief des Judas, 1885, are as follows :—St. Peter
wrote the Epistle Jate in his life to Jewish Chris-
tians, to whom both he (38!) and St. Paul (3!) had
addressed letters which have not been preserved.
He promises to make provision that after his death
his friends shall be reminded of his teaching. The
Epistle of Jude was accordingly written at a later
time for the express purpose of carrying out St.
Peter’s intention; and in that Epistle there are
several direct references (vv.4 5. 12) to 2 P, while in
Jn 17f. we find words from 2 P 3? quoted as apos-

tolic words. The destination of the Epistle explains
its subsequent history. The ‘paulinische Ein-
seitigkeit’ of our N'T’ Canon is one of many proofs
that the early Church was not wont to welcome
documents which had Jewish associations.

(11.) Zahn, Einleitung ii. 42-110, 1899, takes the
same general line as Spitta, but is somewhat more
precise and circumstantial in his reconstruction of
the history. St. Peter addressed the Epistle to
Churches, mainly Jewish, in Palestine and in the
adjacent districts, but not N. or N.W. of the Syrian
Antioch, The apostle had long before taken a
leading part in their evangelization, and had sub-
sequently written to them a letter now lost. St.
Paul also, not improbably during his imprisonment
at Cwsarea, had sent them a letter; but this
letter, like the letter of St. Peter just mentioned,
has not been preserved. One of the chief reasons
why St. Peter wrote them this second letter was
to warn them against false teachers, whose evil
influence he had himself seen at work in Gentile
Churches. He feared lest the plague should spread
to Jewish converts. ‘The apostle then, over and
above the exhortations and warnings of the Epistle
itself, promises that he will, as long as he lives,
remind them of the truths on which he insists,
and further, that he will write for them an instrue-
tion in doctrine (LeArschrift), that after his death
they may have these things ever brought to mind.
The time of the Epistle must be placed late in St.
Peter's life ; for (a) he writes as one now growing
old ; (8) many letters of St. Paul are in existence ;
(y) there is a feeling of disappointment abroad
that the promise of the Return is unfulfilled ;
(δ) the first generation of Christians is now dying
off. As to the place where the Epistle was written,
it contains no indication that St. Peter had as yet
been in Rome. On the other hand, it is natural
to suppose that, when he wrote to them, he was
not living in the immediate neighbourhood of his
correspondents. ‘Thus it is an obvious conjecture
(7) that the place where the Epistle was written
was Antioch ; (4) that the ¢éme of its composition
was shortly before St. Peter left the East fo:
Rome, where he probably arrived in the autumy
of 63; 1.6. the date falls within the years 60-63.
About a dozen years later (etre. 75) St. Jude wrote
to the same Churches, and (vv. 11) formally quoted
2 P as an apostolic document. As to the later
history of 2 P, it is important to emphasize the
fact that 1 P and 2 P were written to wholly
different groups of Churches. Τῦ is quite natural,
therefore, that their fate should be different. For
a long time Gentile Christians would trouble
themselves but little as to an Epistle addressed
to Jewish Christians. Hence the comparative
obscurity into which 2 P fell.

There is little room for difference of opinion as
to the date of 2 P among eritics who maintain the
genuineness of the Epistle, and hold the almost
universal opinion that it was written as a sequel to
1 P, the latter Epistle being placed near the end of
St. Peter’s life. The case, however, is somewhat
altered for any who follow B. Weiss and Kiihl (see
above, p. 7821.) in their view that 1 P was written
about the year54. Yet these critics do not diverge
from the conclusion as to the date of 2 P mentioned
just above. On the one hand, Kiihl urges that the
silence of the Epistle as to the destruction of
Jerusalem is a proof that it was written before
the year 70. On the other, the fact that St.
Peter holds himself henceforth alone responsible
for the instruction of those to whom he writes,
though he is aware that St. Paul had written
to them, points to a time after the death of the
latter apostle. The most probable date, there-
fore, is (according to Kiihl) about the middle of
the 6th decade.

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 799

If. THE QUESTION OF THE GENUINENESS OF |
THE Epistie.—l. ZNTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE, |
Before discussing the problem of the genuineness
of the Epistle we must clear out of the way the |
question of its integrity. Are we bound to con- |
sider the Epistle as a whole?) May not some of
the difficulties in regard to its genuineness arise
from the fact that the Epistle as it stands has
been interpolated? In this matter ith) has in-
herited the suspicions of two earlier critics—
Bertholdt and Lanee. It will be sufficient to
examine the case as stated by Wiihl He sup-
poses (1) that the whole of ch, 2 is an inter-
polation; (2) that in 3! words have — been
inserted to facilitate the dovetailing of the inter-
polated passage into the original letter. In this
original document, according to Kiihl’s theory,
the passage about prophecy was succeeded im-
mediately by an exhortation—vyets δέ, ἀγαπητοί,
μνήσθητε τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων
προφητῶν, τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες κιτιλ. He is
thus enabled to maintain that the Epistle in its
original form is older, in its present interpolated
form more recent, than Jude. It should be added
that the reference in 3! to δὴ earlier Epistle,
addressed by the same writer to the same readers,
likewise disappears. Suspicions as to the in-
tegrity of a document, when they are in-
terested, are themselves suspicious. In this case
they claim no external support. And the internal
evidence of the Epistle is against them. ‘The
transition from 151 to 2! is natural. The thought
of ancient prophecy leads to a reference to its
parody in the false prophets of o'd days. If the
writer goes on to draw a parallel between the
dangers of the past and the dangers which he
foresees in the future, the sequence of bis thought
is quite simple. Again, there cannot be said to
be any difference in style between ch. 2 and the
rest of the Epistle. Again, if aflinities with Jude
are most conspicuous in ch. 2, they are not con-
fined to that chapter, and, when examined, they |
appear to be borrowings from Jude as clearly in ch.
las in ch. 2 (see art. on JUDE, ὃ 4). Lastly, it will
be shown later that the coincidences between 2 P
and the Apocalypse of Peter are found bothin ch. 1
and inch, 2 οὐ 2 P. Their diffusion cannot but be
a weighty argument for the integrity of the Epistle. |
The suspicions, then, of Kiithl and his predecessors
inthis view must be dismissed as arbitrary and un-
supported by external or internal evidence.

2, RECEPTION IN THE CHURCH.—The investiga-
tion falls under three heads—(1) the alleged use of
the language and characteristic thoughts of 2 P in
documents (other than Books of NT) belonging to
Ist and 2nd centuries ; (2) such alleged use of, and
references to, 2 P in documents belonging to the
period between the beginning of the 3rd century and |
the time of Eusebius; (8) the evidence of Eusebius
and of other writers of the 4th and 5th centuries ; |
the reception of 2 P in the Canon of the Eastern
(Greek) and Western Churches, and its rejection in
the Syrian Church.

(1) Some of the alleged coincidences will be
examined in detail. The rest are dealt with in
the general remarks at the end of this section.

(a) Clement of Rome.—(i.) ‘We have Noah and
Lot adduced in vii. 5 and xi. 1 similarly to what is
done in 2 Peter ii. 5-9’ (Warfield in the January
number of the Southern Presbyterian Review, 1882,

. 53). But in Clement the examples of Noah and
Lot do not stand side by side as in 2 P, but are
widely separated in a whole series of OT worthies.
(il.) Clem. vii. ταῦτα, ἀγαπητοί, οὐ μόνον ὑμᾶς voude- |
τοῦντες ἐπιστέλλομεν, ἀλλὰ K. ἑαυτοὺς ὑπομνήσκοντες ||
ΟΡ 112 81, Beyond the fact that the common
Greek word meaning ‘remind’ oceurs in both

wassages in reference to a letter, there is no re-

semblance in phraseology or idea. (ii.) Clem. vil.
Νῶε ἐκήρυξεν μετάνοιαν | 2P 5, Lightfoot, how-
ever, shows that Clement probably derived this
conception of Noah from the Sibylline Oracles.
(iv.) Clem. ix. τοὺς τελείως λειτουργήσαντας Tn μεγαλο-
πρεπεῖ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ || 2 P 1%. It must, however, be
observed that in the LXX the noun (μεγαλοπρέπεια)
is (especially in the Psalms) a very favourite
word, and that the adjective occurs in reference
to God, ¢.g. 2 Mac 8 (76 μὲ ὄνομα)... The special
phrase in question is an echo of the language of
the Psalms—20 (21)° δύξαν κ. μεγαλοπρέπειαν, 144
(145)? 15 τὴν μεγαλοπρέπειαν τῆς δύξης τῆς ἁγιωσύνης σου
.. . τὴν δόξαν τῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας τῆς βασιλείας σου.
In Clement the adj. is common, being used in
reference to the Divine will, gifts, worship,
strength, name (ix. xix. xly. Ixi. Ixiv.). The im-
pression that in Clement the phrase in question
and similar expressions have a litureical origin
(i.e. that they are derived from | Greek] synagogue
prayers) is confirmed by a reference to the Greek
Liturgies, e.g. Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, ἅγιος εἶ
καὶ πανάγιος, Kal μεγαλοπρεπὴς ἢ δύξα cov (Swainson
p. 129), Liturey of St. James (Swainson p. 268).
(v.) Clem. xxiii. A passage is quoted as Scripture
containing the words, ‘These things we did hear
in the days of our fathers also; and behold we
have grown old, and none of these thines hath
befallen us.’ The thought is not dissimilar to
2 P 34, but there is no coincidence of expression.
Clement probably took the quotation (οἵ, ‘2 Clem.’
Xi.) ‘from some spurious prophetic book’; see
Lightfoot, a doe. (vi.) Clem. xxxv. ἀκολουθήσωμεν
τῇ ὁδῷ τῆς ἀληθείας || 2 P 35, But it must be remem-
bered that the use of ἡ ὁδύς (e.g. τῆς ζωῆς, διδαχῆς,
see Harnack on Did. 1!) and the use of ἡ ἀλήθεια
(e.g. ὁ κανὼν τῆς: ἀληθείας) are very common; the
combination of the two words therefore is in no
way remarkable. (vii.) Clem. xxxiv. εἰς τὸ μετόχους
ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι τῶν μεγάλων κ. ἐνδίξων ἐπαγγελιῶν
αὐτοῦ || 2P 1". But it must be noticed that the
phrase has a parallel in an earlier chapter (xix.),
μεγάλων καὶ ἐνδύξων μετειληφύτες πράξεων. Compare
also XXV1. τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς ἐπαγγελίας αὐτοῦ.

(ὁ) The Ancient Homily (*.2 Clement’) xvi. ἔρχεται
ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως ὡς κλίβανος καιόμενος Kal TAKN-
σονταί τινες [lege αἱ δυνάμεις] τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ
γῆ ὡς μόλιβος ἐπὶ πυρὶ τηκύμενος, καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ
κρύφια καὶ φανερὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων || 2 P 81: 10 1%,
The language of the earlier part of the extract is
largely derived frora Mal 4!, Is 344 The idea of
the conflagration of the world at the judgement
was somewhat widely current in the 2nd cent.
In the last clause there is in language, idea, and
context a certain coincidence with 2 P 3! (γῇ καὶ
τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα εὑρεθήσεται), Where, however, the
reading (see above, p. 796) is very doubtful. The
notion, however, οἱ a disclosure of secret things

is inseparable from the notion of the judgment ;

and the language end thought of the Homily are
in reality nearer to Ro 2! 1 Co 3% 45 than to
2P 3". Spitta, Der Zweite Brief p. 5384n., notices
some other coincidences, of which the most striking
are Hlom. v. (ἡ δὲ ἐπαγγελία τοῦ Νριστοῦ μεγάλη Kai
θαυμαστή ἐστινὴ || 2P 1}; Hom. ix. (ἐξ εἰλικρινοῦς
kapoias) || 2 P 31 (butcf. Is 38°, He 05 ἘΣ Hom. xiv.
(ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν) | 2 P 3% (a phrase unique in
NT but not uncommon in ΠΝ ἈΝ),

(ὦ) Didaché.—* The passage 3, 6-8,’ writes Spitta
(Ρ. 584 π.), ‘shows a very remarkable kinship with
Jude and 2 Peter. We notice the rare expression
yoyvyvoos (cf. Jude 16), and especially the twice
repeated βλασφημία, αὐθάδης and τρέμων, and we
compare 2 P 910. In Did., however, -the τρέμων is
part of a phrase which clearly comes from Is 66°.
For αὐθάδης cf. Pr 21%, Tit 1% When the whole
_* Comp. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 35, ἐν ὁσιότωτι καρδίας καὶ
εἰλίξρινει YYWLL7,

see es ας

|

|
|

is as a thousand years.’

800

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

chapter of the Didaché is read, the idea that we
have here a literary link with 2 P vanishes.

(“) Lgnatius.—Spitta points out coincidences be-
tween Ignatius and 2 P—KpA xi. 1, xii. 2 || 2 P 3;
xiv. 192 P11; 7 γα, xiii. 3 (ἐν ᾧ εὑρεθείημεν ἄμωμοι)
ΓΟ Ρ 855, Phe dast-is the only one in the series
which deserves consideration, and about it Spitta
himself allows that the phrase of Ign. may very
well be ‘stereotyp gewordene Wunschformel.’

(6) Barnabas xv. συνετέλεσεν ἐν ἕξ ἡμέραις. τοῦτο
λέγει ὅτι ἐν ἑξακισχιλίοις ἔτεσιν συντελέσει Κύριος τὰ
σύνπαντα. 7 γὰρ ἡμέρα παρ᾽ αὐτῷ [σημαίνει] χίλια ἔτη.
αὐτὸς δέ μοι μαρτυρεῖ λέγων" ᾿Ιδοὺ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ἔσται ὡς
χίλια ἔτη 2} 838. In connexion with this passaze of
Barnabas it will be convenient to bring together
and to discuss the whole group of passages which
are alleged to be reminiscences of 2 P 3°,

(i.) Justin, Dial. 81, τὸ οὖν εἰρημένον ἐν τοῖς Χύγοις
τούτοις, ἔφην" κατὰ γὰρ τὰς ἡμέρας τοῦ ξύλου αἱ ἡμέραι
τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἔσονται, τὰ ἔργα τῶν πόνων αὐτῶν παλαιώ-
σουσι" (Is 0555) νενοήκαμεν ὅτι χίλια ἔτη ἐν μυστηρίῳ
μηνύει. ὡς γὰρ τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ εἴρητο, ὅτι ἡ δ᾽ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγῃ
ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, ἐν ἐκείνῃ ἀποθανεῖται, ἔγνωμεν αὐτὸν μὴ
ἀναπληρώσαντα χίλια ἔτη. συνήκαμεν καὶ τὸ εἰρημένον
ὅτι μέρα Kupiov ὡς χίλια ἔτη εἰς τοῦτο συνάγειν.
There then follows a reference to Rey 204%,

(ii.) Tren. v. 28. 2 (Tren. has given one interpreta-
tion of Gn 2" and then proceeds), ‘Quidam autem
rursus in millesimum annum reuocant mortem
Adve: quoniam enim dies Domini sicut mille anni,
non superposuit autem mille annos sed intra eos
mortuus est.’

(111.} In v. 28. 3 Trenzus is discussing Gn 2)f—‘a
narrative of the past and a prophecy of the future’
—h yap ἡμέρα Κυρίου ws χίλια ἔτη" ev ἕξ οὖν ἡμέραις
συντετέλεσται τὰ γεγονύτα.

(iv.) In Hipp. ἐγ) Dan, 23. 24 the ννογϑ-- - ἡμέρα δὲ
(yap) Kuplov (ὡς) χίλια érn—are adduced in reference
to creation. ἢ

There is no doubt that the final source of the
saying is Ps 89 (90)4 But the question remains
whether the writers just cited take the phrase
directly from 2 P or whether they borrow it from
some source independent of 2 P, to which indeed
2 P may well itself be a debtor for it. Three
points must be noticed. (1) In all the writers
cited above (except 2. P) the form of the phrase
consistently is ἡμέρα Kupiov. (2) In all of them
the saying is used in regard to the mystical in-
terpretation of a passage in Gn 2—in Barn., Tren.
(v. 28. 3), Hipp. in reference to Gn 2'* ; in Justin,
Iren. (v. 23. 2) in reference to Gn 2!7, Thus the
context in all these passages is very similar and
quite alien from the context in 2 P. (3) That
speculations similar to the idea expressed in this
saying were current in Rabbinical literature is
clear from Schéttgen and Wetstein on 2 P 38, and
from Schottgen, Hora Heb. ii. p. 497. And this
evidence as to Jewish thought on the matter is
varied back into the Ist cent. A.D. (Schiirer, H.JP
15. 111. p. 188 f.) by a passage in the Book of Jubilees
(sometimes called the ‘Little Genesis’), referred
to by Hilgenfeld on Barn. xv., which (see Jahrb.
f. bibl. Wiss, ii. p. 241) runs as follows: ‘And
[Adam] lived 70 years less than 1000 years; for
a thousand years areas one day according to the
heavenly testimony. Therefore it is written con-
cerning the tree of knowledge, ‘On the day when
yeeat thereof, ye shall die.” Wherefore he fulfilled
not the years of that day, but died therein.’ The
subject, it will be observed, is the same as that in
relation to which Justin and Tren. (v. 23. 2) adduce
the saying. The evidence, then, seems clearly to
point to the conclusion that the source of the in-

* Compare Hippolytus, ‘Heads against Caius,’ in Hermathena
Vil. p. 403 f. (cf. pp. 406, 418), ‘The number of the years is not
the number of days, but it represents the space of one day...
according to the say

terpretation of a thousand years as ‘a day of the
Lord? was Jewish, probably a Hagegada concerned
with Gn 2. The saying became something of a
commonplace in the Christian literature of the
2nd cent., and was used by the Fathers, cited above,
in & sense more cognate to its Jewish origin than
that in which it is found in 2 Peter.

(f) The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.—
The parallels in this Look ‘render it probable,’
says Wartield p. 52, ‘that the author had and
used 2 Peter.’ ‘They are such,’ he continnes,
‘as the very rare phrase μιασμοῖς [Oxford MN—
μιάσμασι]) τῆς γῆς in Benj. 8, ef. 2 P 230. ἃ, phrase
found in 2 Peter only in the NT, and in the Zest.
AXJ//J. Patt. only in its age; the rare phrase τοῦ
πλάττειν λόγους In Reuben 3, which seems to have
been suggested by 2P 2°; the use of τηρεῖν in
Reuben 5, just as it is used in 2 P 2%.’ As to the
first of these alleged coincidences it must b>
noticed (1) that the word μιασμός is found in Wis
14°°, 1 Mac 4”, and occurs elsewhere in the Vesta-
ments, Viz. in Levil7; (2) that it has been already
used in the immediately preceding context (od yap
ἔχει μ. ἐν καρδίᾳ) ; (3) that the special phrase (τῆς
yijs) is suggested by the metaphor of the sentence
(ὥσπερ yap ὁ ἥλιος οὐ μιαίνεται προσέχων ἐπὶ κύπρον

. . οὕτω καὶ ὁ καθαρὸς νοῦς ἐν τοῖς μιασμοῖς τῆς γῆς
συνεχύμενος κιτ.λ.). ‘The phrase πλάττειν λόγους is
used in Demosthenes and other classical writers.
In regard to the last of the three coincidences it
must be sufficient to refer to Jude®, Book of the
Secrets of Enoch 7} 18+; similar phrases are com-
mon in the Enochian literature (see art. on JUDE,
vol. 11. p. 801).

(9) The Shepherd of Hermas.—Zahn (der Hirt des
Hermas ~. 431) and Wartield (p. 51) have collected
a number of passages in the Shepherd which they
suppose to contain reminiscences of Ὁ P. It must be
suflicient to examine three of the passages on which
special stress is laid. (i.) Vis. 1. 3. 4, τῷ ἰσχυρῷ
ῥήματι πήξας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ θεμελιώσας τὴν γῆν ἐπὶ
ὑδάτων "2" 3°, In reality, however, the passage is
an echo of passages in the OT, Ps 28 (24) 2 103 (104) 5
135 (136) ὁ (“se 5 AT), Is 40", and has no points of
contact with the language of 2 Ῥὶ (ii.) Sim. vili.
11, ὁ Κύριος ἔπεμψέ με σπλαγχνισθεὶς πᾶσι δοῦναι τὴν
μετάνοιαν καίπερ τινῶν μὴ ὄντων ἀξίων διὰ τὰ ἔργα
αὐτῶν: ἀλλὰ μακρόθυμος ὧν ὁ Κύριος θέλει x.7.d. || 2P
3°. Zahn urges that of the many passages in
Hermas which deal with repentance, this alone
connects it with the Divine μακροθυμία and em-
phasizes the universality of the gift. But it must
be observed (a) that the πᾶσιν is taken up from the
immediately preceding context, ὕπαγε καὶ πᾶσι λέγε
ἵνα μετανοήσωσι; (β) that the passage has quite as
much affinity with Ac 17° Ro 24 as with 2 P 3%
(111.} Stim. vi. 4. 4, τῆς τρυφῆς καὶ ἀπάτης 6 χρίνος ὥρα
ἐστὶ μία. . . ἐὰν οὖν μίαν ἡμέραν τρυφήσῃ τις καὶ
ἀπατηθη x.7.r. Ὁ P 2). But it will be noticed (a)
that the μέαν ἡμέραν of Hermas points to the riot as
shortlived, the ἐν ἡμέρᾳ of 2 P points to it as shame-
less—‘in broad daylight’ ; (8) that both τρυφή and
ἀπάτη are favourite words with Hermas. ΑΒ _ to
the former, the desire ποικίλων τρυφῶν is a sign of
the presence of ‘the angel of evil’ in a man
(Mand. vi. 2. 5). Again, adrdrn in Mand. viii. 5
has a place among the ‘evil works’ from which
‘the bondservant of God must abstain.’ Having
been thus spoken of separately, they are joined
together in a long description of ‘the man who
thinks that he has the spirit’ (Zand. xi. 12), and
they reappear separately and side by side through-
out the Sixth Parable. Their occurrence, therefore,
in Hermas appears to be quite independent of 2 P.
Other coincidences are Vis. 111. 7. 1 || 2 P 2%; Vis.
Ue Gerd [22 Ped ?O Sev 102 ΒΕ ΠΌΤΕ leis 19.
9 || 2 P 1°° (but the use of ἐπίλυσις. in regard to the
parables is quite obvious); Sim. vi. 2. 22P 2"

“ee -

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 801

(but καταφθορά is common in the LXX); Sim: vi. 2.
6 || 2 P 2% (but in Hermas ἐμπλέξαι is the natural
word to use of sheep entangled in thorns, ete.) ;
Sim. ix. 17. 5, 18. 1 || 2 P 27! (but ef. Gal 4°). When,
then, the passages in Hermas are examined, the
conclusion is that they are interesting as illustra-
tions of the passages in 2 P, but give no probability
to a theory of literary dependence.

(h) Justin, Dial. 82, ‘For with us even until
now are there prophetic gifts, whereby you also
yourselves [i.e. you Jews] should know. that
the things which of old belonged to your nation
have now been transferred to us. But as there
were withal false prophets in the time of the
holy prophets who arose among you, 50 also in the
present day are there many false teachers (ψευδοδι-
δάσκαλοι) also, of whom our Lord forewarned us to
beware.’ ‘But where,’ Warfield asks (p. 51 f.), “ean
this forewarning be found? Does it exist anywhere
but in 2P 91 (οἴ, 151). . . . Itisexceedingly difficult
to see how there can be any reasonable doubt but
that these passages are drawn from 2 Peter. And
if so, it isnoticeable that Justin refers to 2 Peter with
respect, as Scripture, as, practically, the words of
our Lord—in a word, as an authoritative book
giving the Lord’s teaching.’ To Warfield’s question
as to the source of this warning Justin himself
supplies a decisive answer. After a few words on
our Lord’s foreknowledge, Justin continues, ‘ Mor
He said that we should be murdered and hated for
His name’s sake, and that many false prophets and
false Christs should come (παρελεύσονται) in His
name and lead many astray ; and this és the case.’
The reference, therefore, plainly is to Mt 245: % 1! "4.
There are apparently only two reasons which can
be pleaded as grounds for hesitation. (1) The word
ψευδοδιδάσκαλος does not occur in the report of our
Lord’s words in Mt, or indeed anywhere in the NT
except in2P. But in Christian circles, where the
words Ψευδάδελῴος, ψευδαπόστολος, ψευδολόγος, Weu-
δομάρτυς, ψευδοπροφήτης, ψευδόχριστος were all current
(all occurring in NT), and where a διδάσκαλος was
closcly allied to a προφήτης, the word ψευδοδιδάσ-
kaos Was sure to arise, and its occurrence in two
writers cannot be taken to imply literary obliga-
tion. In Lp. Polyc. 7 we find τὰς ψευδοδιδασκαλίας,
and in Didaché 13% διδάσκαλος ἀληθινός appears as
well as προφήτης ἀληθινύς- ἃ phrase which implies
ψευδοδιδάσκαλος. (2) A pa rallel is drawn in Justin,
as in 2P, between the false teachers in the Chris-
tian Church and the false prophets in Israel. But
it will be observed (a) that the comparison is very
natural in a discussion of the presence of prophetic
gifts in the Church ; (8) that Justin does not speak
of it as part of the warning for which he quotes the
Lord’s authority. There is a similarity between
the passage in 2 P and that in Justin, but it justi-
fies no other conclusion in the case of Justin than
that which we reached in the case of Hermas.

(i) Melito.—A passage is quoted from a fragment
of Melito’s Apology, which has been preserved in a
Syriac translation (Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum,
p. 5Ut.), of which the principal clauses are as
follows: “There was once a flood and wind, and
the chosen men were destroyed by a mighty north
wind... but, again, at another time there was
a flood of waters, and all men and living crea-
tures were destroyed by the multitude of waters,
and the just were preserved in an ark of wood, by
the ordinance of God. So also it will be at the
last time; there shall be a flood of fire, and the
earth shall be burnt up together with its moun-
tains, and men shall be burnt up together with the
idols which they have made... and the sea,
together with its isles, shall be burnt ; and the just
shall be delivered from the fury, like their fellows
in the ark from the waters of the Deluge.’ It
should be noticed that earlier in the fragment

ΟΣ ΣΙ ΟἹ

(p. 50) there had been an allusion to the judgment
of fire: ‘Fear Him who shaketh the earth...
and removeth the mountains from their place ;
Him who can make Himself like fire, and burn up
everything.’ Further, it will be observed (a) that
Melito refers not only to the Flood and the great
judgment by fire, but also to the destruction of
the Tower of Babel; and (8) that the destruction
of the Tower has a place in the Sibylline Oracles
iii. 97 ff., while in the immediately preceding con-
text (iil. $2 ff.) there is a prophecy of the destruc-
tion of the world by fire. In line 109 there is an
incidental allusion to the Flood, a subject which is
treated at length in bk. i., the early date, how-
ever, of this book not being so fully established as
that of bk. iii. (Schiirer, //./P IL iii. p. 9857). There
are no links of phraseology or of characteristic
ideas which connect Melito with 2 P. The verdict,
therefore, of Westcott (Canon p. 223n.) seems to be
the only reasonable one : ‘ It is impossible therefore
to affinn that the reference in Melito is to 2 Peter,
and not rather to the Sibyllines or to the wide-
spread tradition on which they rested.’

(k) Lheophilus of Antioch.—Two passages have
been pointed out in Theophilus ad A utolychum,
which, it is urged, have all the appearance of
being reminiscences of 2 P. (1.) ii. 9, οἱ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ
ἄνθρωποι, πνευματοφόροι ἢ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ προφῆται
γενόμενοι κιτιλ. Compare 2 P 11 ὑπὸ πνεύματος
ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι (οἱ ἅγιοι
θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, NA, etc.). 3ut it must be noticed
that the key-word of the passage (rvevjaropopos) is
derived from the LXX οἱ Hos 97 (ὁ προφήτης . . .
ὁ mvevparopspos), Zeph 34; that Theophilus uses the
word in the sense of ‘an inspired speaker’ in ii. 22
(ai ἅγιαι γραφαὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ πνευματοφύροι), τῆ. 12
(διὰ τὸ τοὺς πάντας πνευματοφόρους ἑνὶ πνεύματι θεοῦ
λελαληκέναι) ; that language similar to that under
discussion is habitual in Theophilus ; see ii. 89, 35,
iii. 17, ef. Justin, Apol. i. 33; and, lastly, that the
phrase ‘man of God’ is very common in the OT
(occurring some 50 times) in reference to a prophet.
Thus a reference to other passages in ‘Theophilus
shows that here he is using LXX language in
reference to the Prophets. (ii.) ii. 18. In his treat-
ment of the Divine command, ‘ Let there be light,’
Theophilus observes, ἡ διάταξις οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦτό
ἐστιν ὁ λύγος αὐτοῦ, φαίνων ὥσπερ λύχνος ἐν οἰκήματι
συνεχομένῳ, ἐφώτισεν τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν. ‘The metaphor
is thought to be derived from 2P 11, But the
word οἴκημα is suggested by the previous context—
ἄνθρωπος γὰρ κάτω ὧν ἄρχεται ἐκ τῆς γῆς οἰκοδομεῖν ---
the human building is contrasted with the Divine.
The metaphor of the λύχνος is obviously suggested
by the subject under discussion —the light kindled

by man is contrasted with the light kindled by
God. If it is thought necessary to find a ‘source’

for a metaphor so obvious in the context, 2 Es
122 («Tu enim nobis superasti ex omnibus pro-
phetis, sient Zacerna in loco obscura’) is as near to
Theoph. as is 2 P.

(1) Irenwus.—We have already dealt with two
passages in this writer (p. 800). In two other
passaves he has been supposed to be relying on
ΟἿΣ (i.) ii. 1. 1, pera δὲ rhv πού ων [se. Petri et
Pauli] ἔξοδον | 2P 1% But that ἔξοδος (exitus)
Was not an uncommon word in this sense in early
Christian literature has been pointed out on p.
770. (ii.) ‘We come in the fourth book τ νον
4), Warticld writes (p. 49), ‘to another passage
in which [[reneus] adduces Noah, then Sodom and
Gomorrah, and Lot, to show that God will punish
the wicked and save the holy. Our minds go im-
mediately to 2 Peter ii. 4-7, whence the framing

*The word is printed here as it appears in Otto’s ed. of
Theophilus and in the Cambridge LXX. But it is possible that
it should be accented as a passive, σνευματόφορος. See Light-
foot’s note on Ignatius Eph. i.

802

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

of this passage seems to have been derived.’
Here, too, it is important to look at the previous
context. The object of the chapter is to show
that Christ came from the Father, who had sent
the prophets in earlier days. Irenzeus proves,
therefore, from Christ’s sayings the unity of God’s
character in the old and in the new dispensation.
In the course of the argument he quotes Lk 9192.
12°F 175-51 (Noah, Lot, Sodom), Mt 24. He then
draws the inference, ‘Unum et eundem annun-
tians Dominum, qui in temporibus Noe propter
inobedientiam hominum superduxit diluuium, et
in temporibus Lot propter multitudinem pecea-
torum Sodomitarum pluit ignem a celo; et in
nouissimo . superducet diem iudicii.’ There
then follows the passage to which Wartield refers,
the ‘framing’ and the ideas of which are clearly
drawn from the passage just quoted from. the
Gospels.

(7) There are one or two passages from heretical
documents belonging (in their original form) prob-
ably to the 2nd cent. which must be examined.
The first of these is a phrase of Ptolemeus, a
follower of Valentinus, still living when Ireneus
wrote. Zahn (Gesch. Nan. i. p. 759) compares a
phrase of this writer’s, preserved by Epiphanius
(Mer, Xxxiii. θ)--- παρούσης δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας, with 2 P
115. But the context in Ptolemieus (i.) shows that
the word ἀλήθεια is used in different senses in the
two passages, and (11.) itself naturally accounts for
the use of the phrase. It runs thus: αἱ γὰρ eixsves
++ + Καλῶς ἐγίνοντο μέχρι μὴ παρῆν ἀλήθεια. παρούσης
δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας δεῖ ποιεῖν.

(n) The Clementine Literature.—(i.) Recog. v. 12,
‘Unusquisque illius fit seruus cui se ipse sub-
jecerit” || 2 P 2% Salmon (Jntrod. p. 488) com-
pares Origen, In Exod. Hom. 12, ‘Unusquisque
ἃ quo uincitur huie et seruus addicitur.’ Both
passages occur in a translation by Rufinus, and
may therefore be interpolations. — Salmon, how-
ever, points out that ‘the difference of the Latin
makes it likely that in both cases Rutfinus is
translating, not interpolating.’ But it is equally
possible that Rufinus, translating two different
books at two different times, interpolated different
free renderings of 2 P2'. The question whether
Rufinus did interpolate when he was translating
will come before us again in connexion with
Origen. (ii.) Hom. xvi. 20. Salmon (p. 488 n.)
“ulls attention to the words ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον μακρο-
ϑυμεῖ, εἰς μετάνοιαν καλεῖ. In these words, ‘taken in
connexion with the whole context, there is very
robably a use of 2 Pet. iii. 9.’ In the context
Peter speaks of the blasphemies of Simon Magus
and of ‘the boundless long-suffering of God.’ The
earth had not opened; fire had not come down
from heaven; rain was not poured out; beasts
were not sent forth from the thicket to avenge
this spiritual adultery. ‘ But, on the contrary, He
is long-suffering; He calls to repentance.’ “It is
dificult to see what there isin the context which
specially recalls 2 P, while the particular phrase is
nearer to Ro 24 (τῆς μακροθυμίας καταφρονεῖς. . . τὸ
χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ eis μετάνοιάν σε ἄγει) than to 2 Ῥ 39,
though, in fact, it is too natural and obvious to
require any literary source.

(0) Actus Peéri cum Simone xx. (ed. Lipsius p-
67) ‘Unusquisqgue enim nostrum sicut capiebat
uidere, prout poterat uidebat. Nune quod uobis
lectum est iam uobis exponam. Dominus noster
uolens me amaiestatem suam uidere in monte
sancto, uidens autem ‘luminis splendorem eius cum
filiis Zebedei, cxecidi tamquam mortuus et oculos
meos conclusi et wocem eius audiui talem qualem
referre non possum, qui me putaui exorbatum ab
splendore eius . . . et exurgens iterum talem eum
uidi qualem capere potui.’ A phrase in the next
chapter (ed. Lipsius pp. 68, 32) must be compared,

‘tale lumen . .. quod enarrare nemo hominum
possit.” The Gnostic Acts of Peter, of which this
document forms part, belong in all probability
to the 2nd cent. (see above, p. 774). The only
authority, however, for this particular document
is a 7th cent. MS, presenting a Latin version
of the original Greek. Can we be certain, then,
that the whole passage quoted above is not inter-
polated by some editor or translator? It was
shown above (p. 774) that the Gnostie Acts of Peter
probably formed part of the series of Leucian Acts,
to which the Acts of John also belong. Now in
the Acts of John (James, Apocr. Anecdota ii. p- 7)
there is a long account of the Transfiguration, and
this account contains a phrase (as James, p. xXXViy
notes) of the same type as phrases ΠΣ ἢ occur
several times in the Petrine Acts at this point—-
φῶς τοιοῦτον ὁποῖον οὐκ ἐστὶν δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ χρώμενον
(lege χρωμένῳ) λύγῳ φθαρτᾷ ἐκφέρειν οἷον ἣν. It
seems to be a legitimate inference that there is
every probability that the Leucian Arts of Peter,
like the Leucian Acts of John, contained (2.e. in
their original form) a reference to the 'Transligura-
tion, and that the Latin version reproduces char-
acteristic phrases of the original. Now there are
three coincidences with 2 P in the Latin passage of
the Petrine Acts quoted above—(i.) ‘maiestatem
suam uidere’ ; (ii.) ‘in monte sancto’ ; (iii.) ‘ uocem
eius talem.’ Of these the last has strong claims
to be considered a phrase of the original Leucian
Acts; it seems at first sight a complete parallel to
the φωνῆς τοιᾶσδε of 2 P 1'7; but in 2P the ‘ voice’
is the Father’s ‘voice,’ in the Acts it is the utter-
ance of the Son; and again, in 2P the τοιᾶσδε
introduces the actual words, while in the Acts the
‘talem’ is followed by a ‘qnalem.’ ‘Thus the
parallel, when examined, is less striking than on
the surface it appears. Οἱ (i.) (ii.) it can only
be said, that if we could be certain that these
phrases represented corresponding expressions in
the original Leucian Acts, the conclusion would
be irresistible that there is some direct connexion
between the Petrine Acts and2 bP. But we have
no right to assume that these phrases are not due
to an editor or translator, and consequently it
would be lost labour to speculate on the kind of
connexion between the two documents which, if
original, they would imply. Clearly this is an
important point in relation to the problem of 2 P
on which fresh light would be very welcome.

We have now reviewed the passages in the sub-
Apostolic writings and in the Christian literature
of the 2nd century, which, it is alleged, contain
reminiscences of 2 P. If we put aside the passage
from the Clementine Lecognitions and that from
the Acts of Peter as open to the suspicion of not
accurately representing the original texts, there
does not remain, it is believed, a single passage in
which,the coincidence with 2 P ean with anything
approaching confidence be said to imply literary
obligation to that Epistle. The resemblances in
thought or phrase are such as are constantly found
in quite independent specimens of literature, when
they belong to the same general period and deal
with the same general subject. Ὶ

(2) Τὸ will be convenient to range the authorities
which claim discussion in the next period under the
several Churches.

(i.) Alexandria. —(a) Clement. Did Clement
in the Hypotyposcis comment on2P? The state-
ment of Eusebius, H# vi. xiv. 1, runs thus:
‘In the Hypotyposeis, to speak briefly, he has
composed concise expositions of all Canonical
(ἐνδιαθήκου) Scripture, not omitting even the dis-
puted (Epistles), J mean that of Jude and the re-
maining Catholic Epistles, as well as (τε) Barnabas
and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter.’ This evi-
dence is confirmed by that of Photius (Bid/ioth.

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 803

109), who speaks of the Hypotyposcis as ‘ giving
interpretations of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms,
the lpistles of St. Paul, the Catholic Epistles, and
Ecclesiasticus (τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ). The last phrase
is probably a scribe’s blunder for τῶν ἐκκλησιασ-
τικῶν ; compare Rufinus, i Symb. Apost. 38, ‘alii
libri sunt, qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a
maloribus appellati sunt.’ If this be so, Photius
has in mind the non-Canonical books mentioned
by Eusebius. On the other side must be set two
pieces of evidence. (a) Cassiodorus (de Instit.
Div.) in a passage of the Preface asserts that
‘it is said (ferunt) that Clement expounded the
Divine Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testa-
ment from the beginning to the end.’ But in a
later passage (c. 8) of the same book he limits
the scope of Clement’s work, ‘In epistolis autem
canonicis Clemens Alexandrinus . . . id est in
epistolaS. Petri prima, S. Joannis prima et secunda,
et Jacobi, quedam Attico sermone declarauit.’
(8) Cassiodorus goes on to speak of a translation
which he had made of Clement’s expositions, but
in which he omitted doctrinal statements which
offended him. It is probable, on the whole, that
the Latin version of Clement’s expositions which
we now possess is that of Cassiodorus. This Latin
version includes expositions of 1 P, Jude, 1 Jn,
2Jn. It will be seen that this series of Epistles
corresponds with the list given by Cassiodorus,
if in the latter we suppose that James was sub-
stituted by a mistake for Jude. We have, then,
two conflicting views—one (based on the evidence
of Eus., Photius, and the Preface of Cassiodorus)
to the effect that Clement commented on all
the Catholic Epistles; the other (supported by
Cassiodorus’ statement in the body of his work,
and by the extant Latin version of Clement’s
commentaries) to the effect that Clement com-
mented on four of the Catholic Epistles, 2 P not
having a place among those four. The reconcilia-
tion of these two contradictory conclusions, so
far as 2P at least is concerned, may be found
in the supposition that Clement did comment on
2P, but that in his work it had a place by the
side, not of 1 P but of the Apocalypse of Peter,*
which Clement quotes as the work of Peter and
as Scripture (Keloge ex Scriptt. Proph. xii. xlviii.
xlix.). In that case Cassiodorus might well exclude
Clement’s comments on 2 P from his avowedly
eclectic version ; or they may have had no place
in his copy of Clement. It is an important fact that

‘no passage can be adduced from Clement’s works in

which 2 P is referred to, still less any in which it is
quoted by name. Thus the evidence, which cannot
be considered as altogether free from doubt, points
to the conclusion that Clement regarded 2 P as
a book hovering, like the Apocalypse of Peter, on
the borders of the number of the books definitely
recognized as Apostolic, but that he did not place
it on a level with 1P. (8) Origen. The first
absolutely incontrovertible reference in Christian
literature to 2 P is found in the words of Origen
reported by Eus. HEH vi. xxv. 8, Πέτρος δέ. ..
μίαν ἐπιστολὴν ὁμολογουμένην καταλέλοιπεν, ἔστω δὲ Kal
δευτέραν᾽ ἀμφιβάλλεται yap. No other passage is
quoted from any of Origen’s works now extant
in the original Greek in which he quotes from,
or alludes to, 2 P. There are, however, several
passages in Rufinus’ translation of certain works
of Origen, not extant in Greek, where 2 P is used.
They are as follows. In Ep. ad Rom. iv. 9 (ed.
Lomm. vi. p. 302), ‘ad participationem capiendam
diuine nature, sicut Petrus Apostolus edocuit’
(2 P 14); 7b. viii. 6 (vii. p. 234), ‘Petrus in epis-
tola sua dicit Gratia uobis et pax multiplicetur

* Zahn (Forsch. iii. p. 154) suggests that in view of its

prophetic contents Clement connected 2 P with the Petrine
Apocalypse.

in recognitione Dei; et iterum alibi Ut boni dis-
pensatores multiplicis gratice Dei’ (2 P 1°, 1 P 40);
in Exod. xii. 4 (ix. p. 149), ‘Scio enim secriptum
esse, quia unusquisque a quo uincitur huic et seruus
addicitur’? (2. P22”); im Levit. iv. ἃ ΠΧ p. 221),
‘Et iterum Petrus dicit Consortes, inquit, facti
estis divine natura’ (2 P 14); in Num. xii. 8
(x. p. 157), ‘Et ut ait quodam in loco Scriptura
Mutum animal humana voce respondens arguit
prophets dementiam’ (2 P 2"); in Lib. Jesu Naue
vii. 1 (xi. p. 63), ‘ Petrus etiam duabus epistolarum
suarum personat tubis.’ Compare the allusions
in the two following passages—in Num. xvill. 4
(x. p. 228), ‘Consuetudinem propheticam .. . de
qua dicitur Omnis prophetia non potest propria
absolutione constare’ (2 P 1°); a Hzech. v. 3
(xiv. p. 74), ‘Multo nobis utilius fuerat diuino
non credidisse sermoni, quam post credulitatem
adhue rursum ad peccata conuerti, que ante com-
misimus’ (Ὁ P 2%). The question remains — Are
these references to, and quotations from, 2 P part
of the original text of Origen, or insertions by
tufinus? (1) It is a fact worth noticing, that while
it would have been consonant with Eusebius’ plan
(HE Il. iii. τίνες τῶν κατὰ χρόνους ἐκκλησιαστικῶν
συγγραφέων ὁποίαις κέχρηνται τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων) ἴο
record the use which Origen made of the Epistle,
had he found in the Greek text of Origen the
passages given above from the Latin translation, he
does not notice their existence. (2) It would not
have been against the probabilities of the case if
no reference to 2 P had occurred in the extant
Greek works of Origen, and yet a single allusion
or so had been made to that Epistle in a work
which chanced to survive only in a Latin trans-
lation. But it is certainly strange that not one
reference is to be found in the works of Origen
extant in Greek, but that half a dozen present
themselves in those works of Origen which exist
only in Rutinus’ Latin. ‘The idea of θεοποίησις, for
example, is a characteristic thought with Origen
(as indeed it is with Clement). We are surprised
that twice in the works which are preserved to
us in Rufinus’ translation Origen illustrates the
idea from 2 P, while in his other works he never
does so. Thus the number of references to 2 P in
Rufinus’ translation creates a suspicion as to their
genuineness. (3) Each of these references to, or
quotations from, 2 P can, it is believed, be cut out
without injury to the context.* But whatever be
the truth as to the references to 2 P found in
those works of Origen which have reached us only
through the medium of Rufinus’ translation, the
deliberate statement of Origen as to 2 P remains.
The phrase ἀμφιβάλλεται yap clearly conveys, not
an opinion of Origen’s, but information as to the
division of opinion in his time; it may further be
thought to suggest that 2 P had already secured
a position, which was assailed. The words of the
previous clause—ésrw δὲ καὶ devrépay—leave us in
little doubt that Origen’s judgment was unfavour-
able to the Epistle.

(ii.) Egypt.—The two great Egyptian versions,
the Sahidic and the Bohairic, contain all the seven
Catholic Epistles. The date of these versions,
however, has not been put beyond doubt. Light-
foot placed ‘the completion or codification of the
Memphitie [¢.e. Bohairic] version’ at the middle of
the 3rd cent. (Scrivener, Plain Introduction * p. 343).
Headlam, in his completion of Lightfoot’s article

*In one passage referred to above—‘ Petrus in epistola sua
dicit Gratia uobis et pax multiplicetur in recognitione Dei:
et iterum alibi Ut boni dispensatores multiplicis gratis Dei’
(Lomm. vii. p. 234)—there seems to be some positive evidence for
the theory of interpolation. It would be most unnatural for
Origen to refer to 2 P with the words in epistola sua ; to quote
the salutation of 2 P, which only differs from that of 1 P by an
immaterial addition (in recognitione Dei); and then to add a
quotation from 1 P, introducing it with the phrase et iterum
alibi.

&04 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

(in the fourth edition of Scrivener, ii. p. 104f.),
holds that ‘it has been sufficiently proved that
translations into Coptic existed in the 8rd cent.,
very probably in the 2nd.’ FV. Robinson (art. on
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS in vol. i. p. 67011) urges
that such conclusions are in danger of outrunning
the evidence, and that ‘historical evidence, on
the whole, points to the 3rd cent. as the period
when the first Coptic translation was made.’ The
investigation desiderated by Westcott (Canon p.
370), ae. Show far an older work underlies the
printed text, and whether that can be attributed
to one author,’ has not yet been accomplished.
We must therefore acquiesce in his verdict as to
the Bohairi¢e version, a verdiet which is even more
applicable to the Sahidie—‘ till this has been deter-
mined, no stress can be laid upon the evidence which
the version affords for the disputed Cath. Epp.’

(111.} Carthage.—There is no evidence that Ter-
tullian or Cyprian was acquainted with 2 P.

(iv.) Asia Minor.—(a) In a letter to Cyprian
(Cyprian, /p. Ixxv. 6), Firmilian, bp. of Cresarea in
Cappadocia, writes: ‘Stephanus ... adhue etiam
infainans Petrum et Paulum beatos apostolos .. .
qui in epistolis suis heereticos execrati sunt et
ut eos euitemus monuerunt.’ The reference, it
would seem, must be to 2 P, since 1 P contains
no indictment of heretics. (4) Methodius, bp. of
Olympus and afterwards of Patara, who appears
to have suffered in the Diocletian persecution.
Zahn (Gesch. Kan. τ. i. p. 313) points out some
vassages in the treatise de Resurrectione, in which
he thinks that this writer alludes to 2 P 31-3,
They are as follows -- - ἐκπυρωθήσεται μὲν yap πρὸς
κάθαρσιν καὶ ἀνακαινισμὸν καταβασίῳ πᾶς κατακλυζύμενος
ὁ κύσμος πυρί, οὐ μὴν εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἐλεύσεται παντελῇ
καὶ φθοράν. . . διὸ ἀνάγκη δὴ καὶ τὴν γῆν αὖθις καὶ τὸν
οὐρανὸν μετὰ τὴν ἐκφλόγωσιν ἔσεσθαι πάντων καὶ τὸν
βρασμύν (ed. Jahn p. 78); and again, ἵνα γινώσκωμεν
εὐδηλύτερον ὅτι πάντων πυρὶ KaTaBaciw κατομβρουμένων
τὰ ἐν ἁγνείᾳ σώματα καὶ δικα'οσύνῃ διαπρέψαντα καθ-
άπερ ψυχρῷ ὕδατι τῷ πυρί, οὐδὲν ἀλγυνόμενα πρὸς αὐτοῦ,
ἐπιβήσονται(ρ. 94). But the words of Methodius do
not contain any phrases borrowed from 2 P, and may
well be speculations on the ἐκπύρωσις independent
of that Epistle. There is, however, a fragment
from the same treatise (Pitra, Anal. Sacra iii. p.
611) which explicitly quotes 2 P 3%—yitta δὲ ἔτη
τῆς βασιλείας ὠνύμασεν τὸν ἀπέραντον αἰῶνα διὰ τῆς
χιλιάδος δηλῶν" γέγραφεν γὰρ ὁ ἀπύστολος Ἰ]έτρος ὅτι
μία ἡμέρα παρὰ Κυρίῳ ὡς χίλια ἔτη καὶ χίλια ἔτη ὡς
ἡμέρα μία. In this connexion the evidence of the
Dialogue which passes under the name of Adam-
antius should be noticed. In this work, which
was probably written in the later years of Con-
stantine, large use is made of the works of
Methodius (Hort in Diet. Christ. Biog. i. p. 39 f.),
and 2 P is quoted init. In one passage (8 2, p. 58
ed. Wetstein) the orthodox interlocutor helps his
Marcionite opponent out of a difficulty as to St.
Paul's authority by adducing Ac 9% and 2 Ῥ 3%
(πῆ δὲ ὑπὸ Πέτρου τοῦ ἀποστόλου γεγραμμένον) In
another passage (δ 1, p. 41), it should be added,
words (ἕκαστος ᾧ ἥττηται τούτῳ καὶ δεδούλωται) very
near to those of 2 P 219 are appealed to as ‘the
common proverb’ (ὁ ἔξωθεν λόγος).

(v.) Rome.—(a) Murat. Canon. 2 P is not men-
tioned in the text of the fragment asit stands. Zahn
(Gesch. Kan. 11. i. p. 110n.), however, conjectures
that in one passage some words have slipped out,
and he would restore it thus: ‘ Apocalypsin
etiam Johannis et Petri [unam] tantum recipimus
[epistulam ; fertur etiam altera], quam quidam
ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt.’ For the lan-
guage cf. Eus. H# I. iil. 4. The suggestion
appears a probable one, but without further
evidence it must remain a conjecture. (ὁ) Hip-
polytus. The following passages claim attention :

—Refut. Har. ix. 7, of πρὸς μὲν ὥραν αἰδούμενοι καὶ bra
τῆς ἀληθείας συναγόμενοι ὡμολόγουν μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ δὲ ἐπὶ
τὸν αὐτὸν βόρβορον ἀνεκυλίοντο (2 P 233); in Dan. ili. 22,
ᾧ γὰρ ἄν τις ὑποταγῇ τούτῳ καὶ δεδούλωται (2 Ῥ 939):
tb. iv. 10, εἰ γὰρ καὶ νῦν βραδύνει πρὸ καιροῦ, μὴ θέλων
τὴν κρίσιν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐπενεγκεῖν (2 P 38 2°); ib. iv. 16,
μήποτε... .. ἀπονυστάξαντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐκπέσωσιν τῆς
ἐπουρανίου ζωῆς; 1b. iv. 00, ἵνα μὴ. . . ἀπονυστάξαντες
ἐκπέσωμεν τῆς αἰδίου ζωῆς (2 817, These coinci-
dences are ποῦ such as to produce conviction.* The
first two, which are not the least striking of the
series, are of the nature of proverbs, and it is rash
to infer literary indebtedness from the common
use of such expressions. The use of ἐκπεσεῖν in the
last two passages is not in itself specially remark-
able (cf. e.g. Gal 54, Hypist. ap. Eus. HE vu.
xxx.13; Can. Petr’ Alex, -8, 10, 11 (Routh, Ze:
Sacr. iv. p. 31ff.)). Taken together, however,
these passages in Hippolytus give the impression
that he was acquainted with 2 "Ὁ,

(vi.) The division of sections in Codex B.—In this
MS there are two divisions of sections, one older
than the other. This double division is carried on
through the Catholic Epistles with the exception
of one Epistle. In 2 P (standing between 1 P and
1 Jn) the older divisions are wanting (Gregory,
Proleg. i. pp. 156, 359). The conclusion is inevitable
that the ancestor of Codex B, to which these
divisions were first attached, did not contain 2 P.

(vil.) Old Latin Texts. —'That there were pre-
Hieronymian Latin translations of 2 P (see above,
Ρ. 796) is clear. But the fragments which re-
main indicate that these translations belonged to
the later ‘Italian’ type of text; nor is there any
evidence that others of earlier date ever existed.
This view, in regard to the absence of 2 P from
older Latin translations of the Catholic Epistles, is
confirmed by the fact to which Westcott (Canon
p. 26318.) calls attention, ‘It appears that the Latin
text of the Epistle [in the Vulgate] not only ex-
hibits constant and remarkable differences from
the text of other parts of the Vulgate, but also
differs from the first Epistle in the rendering of
words common to both; . it further appears
that it differs not less clearly from the Epistle of
St. Jude (which was received in the African
Church) in those parts which are almost identical
in the Greek.’ ‘The supposition,’ he adds, ‘ that
it was admitted into the Canon at the same time
with them becomes at once unnatural.’

Toswun up the evidence of the 3rd cent. : 2 P was
probably commented on by Clement, but regarded
as the companion, not of 1 P but of the Apocalypse
of Peter; it is not, however, quoted in his extant
works. Origen certainly knew of the Epistle as
accepted by some, but rejected by others; it is
probable that he himself did not use it. It was
received into the Canon by the Egyptian Churches,
but the time of its reception we do not know. [{
was accepted in Asia Minor by Firmilian and Meth-
odius, the latter of whom regards the Apocalypse
of Peter as ‘inspired’ (Conviv. Virg. ii. 6). It
is probable, but not certain, that it was known
at Rome in the time of Hippolytus. Neither
Tertullian nor Cyprian refers to it, and it dees
not appear to have been included among the
Catholic Epistles in any but the late pre-Hiere-
nymian Latin texts. There is no Western attesta-
tion of the Epistle during this period.

(3) We now pass to the 4th cent., when the
place which, as will appear, 2 P had already secured
among the Apostolic books became assured every-
where except in the Syrian Church. (a@) Husebius.
It appears trom HE 11. xxiii. 25 (τῆς λεγομένης ᾿Ιούδα,

* Zahn (Gesch. Kan. τ. i. p. 316n.) also compares with 2 P 120
Hipp. de Antichr. 2, οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἰδίας duvemews ἐφθέγγοντο. . . odev
καὶ ἡμεῖς τὰ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν προειρημένα καλῶς μαθητευθέντες λέγομεν οὐκ
ἐξ ἰδίας ἡμῶν ἐπινοίας. But there is no close resemblance in
language.

——
|
|
|

|
|
|
\
|

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 805

μιᾶς Kal αὐτῆς οὔσης τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων καθολικῶν)
that the phrase ‘Catholic Epistles’ (cf. ΝἹ. xiv. 1)
was already a recognized term, and that they
were already commonly regarded as seven in
number. We turn to the two great passages in
which Eus. deals with the books of the NT. In
HE ut. iii., after mentioning 1 P as ‘certainly
genuine,’ he continues, τὴν δὲ φερομένην δευτέραν οὐκ
ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλήφαμεν" ὅμως δὲ πολλοῖς
χρήσιμος φανεῖσα, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπουδάσθη γραφῶν.
He then refers to the Acts of Peter, the Gospel,
the Preaching, and the Apocalypse, and, after
stating the plan and purpose of his references to
the books of the NT, he gives his own judgment
in regard to 2 Ρ --- τὰ μὲν ὀνομαζύμενα ἸΠέτρου, ὧν
μόνην μίαν γνησίαν ἔγνων ἐπιστολὴν καὶ παρὰ τοῖς
πάλαι πρεσβυτέροις ὡμολογημένην, τοσαῦτα. In the
later passage (I. xxv.) Eus. divides the books
into two main classes—the accepted books (ὁμολο-
yovueva) and the disputed books (ἀντιλεγόμενα).
The latter class is again subdivided. There are
within it (a) ‘disputed books which are yet recog-
nized by most (γνώριμα τοῖς πολλοῖς), and (3) * dis-
puted books which are spurious (νόθα. To the
latter subdivision belongs (among other books) the
Apocalypse of Peter ; to the former, ‘the so-called
Epistle of James, that of Jude, the Second Epistle
of Peter, and the so-named Second and Third of
John.’ From these passages of Eus. we learn
some important points about 2 P. (i.) The Catholic
Epistles were, at the time Eus. wrote, regarded (at
least in some quarters) as seven in number ’* ;
(ii.) the judgment of the past, as Eus. had received
it, was against 2 Ρ- οὐκ ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλή-
φαμεν. (111.) The reason why 2 P had been ‘ studied
(ἐσπουδάσθη) in company with the other Scriptures’
was, according to Eus., that it was regarded very
commonly as answering the purposes of practical
edification (πολλοῖς χρήσιμος φανεῖσα). iv.) Eus. did
not himself receive 2 P as γνησία ἐπιστολή. When
he speaks of 1 P, which he accepted without a
doubt, as παρὰ τοῖς πάλαι πρεσβυτέροις ὡμολογημένη
(ef. 8. 1), he clearly implies that 2 P was deficient
in such recognition. The opinion of Eus. is sig-
nificant. His knowledge of early Christian litera-
ture was wide. He was acquainted with many
works which are lost to us. When, then, the
modern critic fails to discover in early writings
any certain trace of 2 P, his experience is only a
repetition of that of Eusebius. And further, the
evidence of Eus. indicates that the recovery of
such lost books as those of Papias and Hegesippus,
which were known to him, would in all probability
supply us with no fresh evidence as to 2 Loge

We turn now to the great Churches of the East,
and to the great writers whose intluence domi-
nated Western Christendom in the 4th century and
onwards.

(i.) The Churches of Syria.—(a) The Syriae-speak-
ing Churches. The Syriac Vulgate (Peshitta) con-
tained only three of the Catholic Epistles, Wiz.
James, 1 P, 1 Jn. There do not appear to be
any quotations from or references to ΜΕΝ a
Aphraat or in the Syriac works of Ephraem.t At
a much later time (te. the 13th cent.) Ebed Jesu,
a Nestorian bishop of Nisibis, writes, ‘Tres autem

* The fact that seven Catholic Epistles appear for the first
time, so far as the present writer knows, in Eusebius of Cesarea,
confirms the suggestion of Sanday (Studia Bibl. et Eccles. iii.
pp. 253, 259), that ‘it is possible that the collection of seven
Epistles may have originated [at Jerusalem]; or if brought in
the first instance from Egypt, it would seem to have been at
Jerusalem that it first became established.’

+ F. H. Woods in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica iii. p. 138.
In v. 342 B. Eph. has the words ‘the day of the Lord is a thief.’
The phrase has been thought to be derived from 2 P 810, for,
when it is compared with the Pesh. of 1 Th 52, it will be noticed
that (1) ‘in the night’ is omitted, (2) ‘the Lord’ takes the place
of ‘our Lord.’ But such slight differences and coincidences are
hardly worth consideration in the case of ἃ common proverbial
expression.

|

Epistoke que inscribuntur Apostolis in omni
codice et lingua, Jacobo scilicet et Petro et Joan;
et Catholice nuncupantur’ (Assemani, Bil, Or.
iii. Pars i. p. 9f.). On the other hand, the dis-
coveries and investigations of Dr. Gwynn of Dublin
(Royal Irish Acad. Transactions, XXvil. p. 209 Τ᾿,
Xxx. p. 3471) show that the Harklensian version
of 2 P, Jude, and 2, 3 Jn isa revision of the text
of these Epistles published by Pococke in 16380,
which is given in the printed editions of the
Peshitta; and further, that the Pococke text ot
these Epistles was a part of the Philoxenian
version made by Polycarp for Xenaias or Philo-
xenus, the Monophysite bishop of Mabug about
the year A.D. 500. It appears, therefore, that 2 P
was rejected by the early Syrian Church, but
that early in the 6th cent. if was accepted at
least in the Monophysite branch of that Church.
(8) The Greek School of Antioch. Among the
innumerable quotations from and allusions to
Scripture found in the writings of Chrysostom,*
Theodore, and Theodoret, there does not appear
to be one reference to 2 P. In the Synopsis com-
monly ascribed to Chrysostom (Migne, Pat. Gr. lvi.
314th.) the phrase used—rdv καθολικῶν ἐπιστολαὶ
tpeis—implies not only the acceptance of three
Epistles, but the rejection of others. The views
of Theodore are preserved (see arts. on JUDE and
1 Perer) in Junilins’ treatise, Instituta Regularia,
Of the Catholic Epistles only 1 P and 1 Jn are
accepted. ‘Adiungunt quam oun quinque alias,
que apostolorum canonice nuncupantur.’ These
tive Epistles, among which is 2 P, are described as
being media auctoritatis (Isihn, Theodore p. 478 [{.}.Ψ

Thus 2P had no place in the Syriac NT. The
creat Antiochene school of exegetes joined their

Syriac-speaking neighbours in its rejection. More-
over, since Chrysostom’s expositions at any rate
were addressed to popular audiences, the rejection
of the Epistle by the great teachers in question
must have reflected the usage of the Antiochene
Church generally in the matter. (ii.) Asia Minor.
2P has a place in the list of Gregory Nazianzen ;
yet neither he nor Gregory of Nyssa nor Basil
appears to quote or to refer to the Epistle (West-
cott, Canon p. 446). An expression of doubt is
found in the list of Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium
(c, B80 Δ.1).)---καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν | τινὲς μὲν ἑπτά
φασιν, οἱ δὲ τρεῖς μόνας | χρῆναι δέχεσθαι. (iil.) Jeru-
salem. Cyril includes 2 P in his list of books, as
does his contemporary and fellow-countryman
Epiphanius (cf. Zahn, Gesch. Kan, IL. i. p. 226 n.).
(iv.) Alewandria. The list of NT books given by
Athanasius in one of his Festal Epistles includes
ΟΡ, ‘Towards the end of the century, however,
the doubt as to 2 P finds expression in the com-
mentary on the Epistle by Didymus. His words,
as they are preserved in the Latin translation, are
as follows: ‘Non est igitur ignorandum presen-
tem epistolam esse falsatam, que licet publicetur
non tamen in canone est’ (Migne, Pat. Gr. xxxix.
1774). The Latin phrase printed above in italics
probably represents the Greck words ὡς νοθεύεται
αὕτη ἡ ἐπιστολή. If this be so, the passage conveys
not the writer’s own view, but a report of the
opinion of others. Zahn (Gesch. Kan. 1.1. p. 312)
urges that Didymus is here recording a judgment
which is a relic of the 2nd or 8rd cent., though
expressed in the language of later times. The
similarity of the terms used to those employed by
Eusebius in reference to James (Kus. 11. xxiil. 20)
suggests rather that Didymus here preserves an
opinion more or less contemporary with himself, —
the view probably of scholars who conceded a

* Some of the comments on 2 P in Cramer's Catena are there
ascribed to Chrysostom. The present writer (Chrysostom p.
79n.) has pointed out that these fragments bear some resem-
blance to Chrysostom’s work. They are, however, too brief te
warrant a positive opinion.

806 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

public use of the book—‘it seemed useful to
many’ (Eus. 1117 11. 111. 1),—but protested against
its being placed on the same level as books whose
authenticity was not questioned. (v.) Constan-
tinople. ‘The Church in New Rome was in many
respects the daughter of the Church at Antioch.
But she did not inherit any doubts as to the full
Canon of the NT. Constantinople was the centre
and the type of Imperial influence on matters
ecclesiastical and religious. The preparation,
which Constantine entrusted to Eusebius, of ‘fifty
copies of the Divine Scriptures’ for use in the
new capital, had important results. It was natural
that these copies should contain all the books of
the NT which had gained general recognition.
A quasi-oflicial standard was thus set up; and the
distinction between ‘acknowledged’ and ‘disputed’
books soon became little more than a matter of
antiquarian interest (Westcott, Canon p. 427).

We turn to the West. There appears to be no
ante-Nicene evidence for 2 P in the West. It is
quoted in the last quarter of the 4th century by
Ambrose of Milan (de Fide ii. 12, ‘ Petrus sanctus
adseruit dicens Quapropter satagite,’ ete. (1)°)), and
by Priscillian in Spain (see above, p. 796). It has a
Αι νας in the list of Philastrius of Brescia (c. 385),
and later in that of Rufinus (¢. 410). On the other
hand, in the Canon Mommsenianus, which appears
to be an African list of the middle of the 4th cent.,
it is inserted, but inserted with a protest-—

eplae Johannis II ὌΠ CCCCL

una sola

eplae Petri 11 wer CCC

una sola.
The author of the list, transcribing an older cata-
logue, added an expression of his own doubt.*
The decisive influences, however, in Western
Christendom were those of Jerome and Augustine.
The latter, though not insensible to the effect on
the authority of a book caused by its rejection in
some quarters (de Doctr. Chr. ii. 12, 13), yet in

ractice appealed without distinction to all the
ooks of our NT. Jerome was acquainted with the

widespread doubts as to the genuineness of 2 P.
In the section in the de Virr. Illustr. which deals
with St. Peter, he says, ‘Scripsit duas epistolas
que catholice nominantur; quarum secunda a
plerisque eius esse negatur propter stili cum priore
dissonantiam.’ The kind of objection which they
are alleged to have urged limits the reference of
a plerisque: Jerome has in mind the doubts of thé
learned. This dissonantia he thus accounts for
(Quast. ad Hedib., Migne, Pat. Lat. xxii. 1002),
‘Du epistolee quae feruntur Petri stilo inter se et
charactere discrepant structuraque uerborum. Ex
quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diuersis
eum usum interpretibus.’ These doubts, however,
Jerome himself puts on one side, and in his letter
to Paulinus (Migne, Pat. Lat. xxii. 548) he speaks
of the books which make up our NT without anysign
of differentiating between them —‘ Paulus Apos-
tolus ad septem ecclesias scribit . . . Iacobus Petrus
Joannes Judas A postoli septem epistolas ediderunt.’

This view, which doubtless represents that of the |

Church of Rome, found expression in the Canon of
the Vulgate. The recognition in this version of
the Seven Catholic Epistles practically closed the
question in the West. Thus during the course of
the 4th cent. the Epistle was finally received into
the NT of Greek - speaking and Latin - speaking
Christendom, though the Syriac-speaking Churches
still refused to it entrance into their Canon.

To sum up: The evidence as to the reception of
2 Pin the Church has now been given and sifted.

* Harnack (Theol. Ltzg. 1886, col. 173) suggests that in the
repeated una sola there is in one case a reference to James, in
the other a reference to Jude. The word sola, however, would
remain unexplained (see Zahn, Gesch. Kan. i. i. p. 155n.;
Sanday in Studia Bibl. et Eccles. iii. Ὁ. 243 ff.).

It becomes necessary to interpret it as a whole.
We do not find any certain trace of 2 P in the
extant literature of the 2nd cent. Coincidences,
which have been adduced to prove literary in-
debtedness, turn out on examination to be nothing
more than illustrations, literary or doctrinal.
Further, the words of Eusebius, as was pointed
out above, seem to exclude the possibility that
books now lost contained clear references to 2 P.
Spitta and Zahn (see above, p. 798) agree in find-
ing an explanation of the obscurity in which the
Epistle remained in the supposition that it was
addressed by St. Peter to Jewish Christians, and
that Gentile Christians would not be likely to take
much interest in a document written for Jewish
fellow-believers. The theory is open to criticism
in several directions. (i.) It cannot be said that
there is anything in the Epistle itself which sug-
gests that it was addressed by a Jew to Jews.
The negative argument urged against the sup-
position that 1 P was sent to Jewish Churches is
valid here; see above, p. 783. (ii.) But let it be
granted that internal evidence favours the sup-
position that it was addressed to Jewish converts.
Would such a destination be likely to be a bar to
its recognition in other Churches? The Epistle of
St. James and that to the Hebrews were both
addressed to Jewish communities; and though
they were by no means universally accepted in
ancient times, yet their history stands in marked
contrast to that of 2 P. (111.) The argument for the
authenticity of 2P, as urged by these critics,
depends largely on the witness of the Ep. of St.
Jude, which in their view was sent to the same
Church or Churches as 2 P. Why, then, was
the brief Epistle of one who was not an apostle
circulated widely, while a longer Epistle of the
chief of the Lord’s personal followers was_ per-
mitted to remain in absolute obscurity ?

The want of allusions to the Ep. and of reminis-
cences of its language is more significant when two
further considerations are taken into account. In
the first place, the style of the Epistle is so remark-
able that its phrases, if known, could hardly fail to
be remembered, and, if regarded as apostolic, to be
appealed to; and it must be added that, if appealed
to, they could not but be reproduced in a form
which would make recognition easy and obvious.
In the second place, the Epistle would have been
a controversial armoury for the assailants of the
Gnostics. Had it been known and looked on as
authoritative, it could not but have been used, as
1 John and 2 John are used by Ireneeus (i. 16. 3,
ili. 16. 5, 8. The first piece of certain evidence
is the passage from Origen quoted by Eusebius,
though it hardly admits of doubt that the Epistle
was known to Clement of Alexandria. It is certain
that during the &rd cent. the Epistle gained accept-
ance in certain Churches, though the evidence is
too scanty and (¢.g. as to the date of the Egyptian
and of the Old Latin texts) too uncertain for us to
define with any exactness what those Churches
were. It is clear also that by the time of Eusebius
the recognition of Seven Catholic Epistles had (at
least in Churches whick he knew best) become
usual. On the other hand, the evidence of Origen,
Eusebius, Didymus, and Jerome shows that those
teachers whose knowledge of Christian literature
prior to their own days was widest, were conscious
of the doubt which attached to 2 P.

How, then, was 2 P received into the Canon? The
history is very obscure, but the evidence suggests
that there were three stages. (a) The information
which we possess as to the Hypotyposeis of Clement
leads us to think (see above, p. 803) that at Alex-
andria, at the beginning of the 3rd cent., 2 P was
regarded as the companion of the Apocalypse of
Peter rather than of 1P. This is to some extent

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 807

confirmed by the position of Methodius, who used
2} (see above, p. 804), but who also counted the
Apocalypse of Peter among ‘divinely inspirel
writings’ (Conviv. Virg. ii. 6; Migne, Pat. Gr.
xvili. 57). (ὦ) If this be so, yet before the time of
Eusebius the two documents had parted company.
Eusebius, who did not himself accept 2 P, gives us
his view of the way in which before his time 2 P
had secured a place among the Catholic Epistles—
πολλοῖς χρήσιμος φανεῖσα μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπουδάσθη
γραφῶν. When once it was ‘studied with the other
Scriptures,’ it could not fail to attach itself to 1 P,
for it proclaimed itself as a ‘second Epistle’ of that
apostle (3. This juxtaposition would necessarily
confirm the respect already paid to it, and would,
for most readers, decide «t once its apostolic author-
ship. Further, we may conjecture that, when
other Epistles besides the three—l P, 1 Jn, Ja—
were reckoned as Catholic Epistles, there would be
a natural tendency to make that group seven in
number. So the collection would seem to have a
sacred completeness, and also to be brought into
relation with the Pauline collection. For St. Paul
wrote to Seven Churches (Canon Murat. ; Jerome,
ad Paul. Ep. 1111. 8, Migne, Pat. Lat. xxii. 548), and
his Epistles were regarded as fourteen in number.
Again, the Apocalypse was addressed to Seven
Churches. (c) We have already seen how, not-
withstanding the doubts of the learned, the fuller
Canon of the Catholic Epistles gained final recogni-
tion in the Greek Churches of the East and in the
Western Churches. Reviewing the whole history,
we remark that the case of 2 P is unlike that of
Jude. We find no trace of the Epistle in the period
when the tradition of apostolic days was still living.
This lack of early evidence, even when taken in
conjunction with the paucity of 3rd cent. evidence,
the doubts expressed by, ¢.g., Origen and Eusebius,
and the absence of the Epistle from the NT of the
Syriac-speaking Church, does not prove its spurious-
ness. But the absolute insufficiency of external
evidence creates a presumption against its genuine-
ness, and throws the whole burden ot proof on the
internal evidence of the Epistle itself.

3. VOCABULARY AND STYLE.—(a) Vocabulary.
A full examination of the remarkable vocabulary
of 2 P is beyond the limits of this article. The
following are the main points :—

(i.) The influence of the LXX.—The Epistle contains no
formal quotation from the OT. WH use uncial type only
in five places—22 (Is 525) 222 (Pr 2611) 38 (Ps 90 (89) 4) 312 (Is 344)
313 (Is 6517 6622), But in none of these passages is the resem-
blance of language so close as to make the reference to the LXX
certain. In 22 (00 os . . . βλασφηπηθήσεται) the writer perhaps
does but adopt a type of phrase common in early Christian
literature ; see Lightfoot on Clement, 1. The only word common
to 222 and Pr 2611 is κίων, and we may have a current proverb
based on the words of Proverbs. Much the same may be said of 38
(see above, p. 800). In 3l2f. the writer is perhaps adopting the
phraseology of Christian apocalyptic writings based on Is (cf.
Rey 211, Apoc. Petr. apud Macarius Magn. iv. 7; see Lightfoot
on “2 Clem.’ xvi.). Other LXX phrases are εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη 12
(Dn 393, but see 1 P 12, Jude 2), ἡ αἰώνιος βασιλεία, 111 (Dn 3100),
κατακλυσμὸν ἐπάγειν 2° (Gn 617), ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν 33 (6.6.
Jos 2427), For ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει (118) compare Ps 26, Is 119 2718
6318, Ezk 2814 (where, however, ‘my,’ ‘thy,’ or the like, is always
added). The phrase ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας 28 (LXX 4) is also classical
(Eur. Rhesus 445). Words used in this Epistle which are
characteristic of the LXX are ἔλεγξις (Job 2), ἐντρυφῶν (LXX 4),
xallepicvcs (common in LXX), κατακλύζειν (LXX 6, Wis 2), κατα-
πονεισία, (2 Mac!, 3 Mac2), χαταστροφή (Gn 1959), μεγαλειότης
(LXX 4), μεγαλοπρεπής (Dt 1, 2 Mac 2, 3 Mac1; see above, p. 799),
μος (common in LXX), νυστάζειν (LXX 11), σκήνωμα, (Common in
LXX), ¢70%57s0v(common in LXX=‘ass’). Some of these words,
however, such as καθανισμός, μῶμος, Were at an early period
adopted into the vocabulary of the Church, and so, without
any borrowing from the LXX, would naturally be used by a
Christian writer. That the author of 2 P derived some of his
words and phrases from the LXX is clear. But it is no less
clear that he was not steeped in its language. It was not a
book which he was wont ‘nocturna uersare manu, uersare
diurna.’

(ii.) Classical words.—A large element in the svocabulary
consists of what may be roughly described as classical words.
Care, however, must be taken not to set up a delusive standard.
In his articles on 2 P in Expos. (Ser. π. vol. iii.) E. A. Abbott

writes thus (p. 206): ‘In order to appreciate the resemblance
between this Indian-English [i.e. a passage quoted from the
Madras Mail] and the style of the Second Epistle, we must
bear in mind that some of the words employed by the author
of the latter are very rare in Greek literature; and others,
though good classical Greek in themselves, are rare or non-
existent in the New Testament.’ A modern scholar, with his
apparatus of NT lexicons and concordances, is apt unconsciously
to isolate the vocabulary of the NT writers or of a certain
section of them, and, forgetting that the limits of this voca-
bulary are accidental, to make it something of an absolute rule
by which to judge a document whose authenticity is doubtful.
With this caution the following list of words is given which do
not occur in the NT except in 2 P*—«leouos (3 Mac2, Tied,
Philo, Joseph., Plut.), ἀκατάπαυστος (v.l. in 2!4; Polyb., Dioa.,
Joseph., Plut.), ἄλωσις (LUXX1; Pind., Herod., Asch.), eucdis
(Syumm. (Ps); Herod. and onwards), éuwunros (Hom., inscr.; adv.
Herod.; v.l. in Ph2!4), a. οφεύγειν (common Herod. and onwards ;
Sir!), ἀργεῖν (Soph., Eur., and onwards; LXX6), ἀστήρικτος
(Anthol., Longin.), «:yuxpes (Eur., Plato, etc.; Apoc. Petri),
βλέωμα (Asch. and onwards; on meaning see below), ξέρβορος
(LXX1; Asch. and onwards ; comp. ἐν βορβέρω xvasectees Epict.
Diss. 4.11. 29), βραδυτίς om. and onwards), διαυγάζειν (Polyb.,
Plut., Aq. (Job)), δυσνέητος (Lucian, Diog. Laert.), éyzoraimey
(Herod., Eur., Polyb.), ἑκάστοτε (Herod. and onwards common),
txztadres (Philo, Joseph., Plut., Arrian), ἐξακολουθεῖιν (LXX6;
Polyb., Joseph., Plut., Dion. Hal., Epict.), srayyeaue (Dem.,
Isocr., Aristot.), ἐσήλυσις (Aq. (Gn), Sym. (Hos); Hermas, Iren.,
Clem., Sext. Emp., Heliod. ; verb Mk), ἐπόστης (AEsch., Dem.
‘spectator’; Plut., Inscr. in reference to mysteries), ἰσότεμος
(Philo, Joseph., Plut., Lucian, .12}.), λήθην λαβεῖν (Jos. Ant. τι.
ix. 1), μίασμα (LXX8; Trayg. and onwards common), “secues
(Wis1, 1 Mac1; Aq. (Dt), Symm. (K), Plut., Test. ati. Patr.,
Hermas), ¢a‘yws (Aq. (Is); Anthol.), ὁμίχλη (LXX10; Hom. (//.),
Esch., Ar., Xen., Aristot.), σαρανομία (LXX9; Thuc., Plato,
Polyb., Dion. Hal.), σαρεισάγειν (Isocr., Polyb., Plut., Diod.),
παρεισφέρειν (Dem. ‘to bring in a law’), raeeres (Herod., Eur.,
Xen., Lucian), στηριγμός (Aristot., Diod., Plut.), στρεβλοῦν (LXX1,
3 Mac1, 4 Mac4; Herod. and onwards common in literal sense),
ταχινός (UXX6; Theocr., Callimn., Aratus), τεφροῦν (Theophr.,
Lycophro, Philo, Dion. Cass., Antonin., Anthol.), τοιόσδε (LXX 4 ;
Hom. and onwards common), toau777%s (Thuc., Philo., Joseph.,
Plut., Lucian), ὅς (UXX7; Hom. and onwards common), φωσφόρος
(Tim. Locr., Philo).

iii.) Very rare or unique words.—They are ἀκατάπαστος (0.1.
in 214; on the possible origin and meaning of the word sce
Hort’s Introduction [Notes p. 170]), ewraryuovm (KL and other
authorities omit ἐν gur. in 3°), ἐξέραμα, κυλισιμός (SO BC* curs4;
κύλισμα NAKLP, etc.), παρα φρονίο,, ῥοιζυδόν, ταρταροῦν. Of these,
two (ἐξέρα κα and χυλισμοός) occur in the two proverbs cited in
222, and we cannot be sure therefore that they are due to the
writer himself. In the case of three of the words the matter
is one of form. The word :ure:ryucv% does not seem to occur
elsewhere ; but jurziyuos, Which does not occur in profane
writers, is found in LXX§, in Theodot.1, in an anonymous Greek
version 2, and in He 1186, Again, there does not seem to be any-
thing to choose in point of rarity between κυλισμές and κίλισιμα.
For both, a reference is given in the lexicons to a work on
farriery (Hippiatrica) of late date. The former is found in
Theod. (Pr 245), the latter in Symm. (Ezk 1015). The former cv
presses the act of rolling, the kindred Aristotelian word πύλισις
being inadmissible since it has a technical athletic sense ; the
latter properly the thing rolled, and so perhaps the place of
rolling—the word χυλίστρα, which is used in Xen. Hq. 5. 3, is
apparently a technical term in the training of horses. Again,
if παραφροσύνη is found in Plato and Hippocrates, the σταραφρον
of 2 P shares the opprobrium of being a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον with
παραφρόνησιξ, Which is used by the LXX in Zec 124. Again, for
ῥοιζηδόν (as for foSydx) Nicander, a poet who wrote about 150 B.c.,
is quoted, the verb (go%év) and the noun (fees) both being
recognized Greek words. Again, the verb ἐξεράν is used of
vomiting (metaphorically) in classical Greek (Aristoph.) and in
Aquila (Lv 1828), and ‘vomit’ is a natural meaning of ¢Z:peun.
Lastly, though ταρταροῦν is found apparently only in 2 P and in
a scholium on Homer, the compound καταταρταροῦν is used by
Apollodorus and Sextus Empiricus. The words which have
been examined are, it cannot be denied, strange and unusual
terms; but something can be said in defence of each of them.
The papyri which have been discovered of late years have
brought home to us our ignorance of colloquial Greek, and
suggest caution in peremptorily condemning a word found anly
in a particular writer as the barbarism of an individual.

(iv.) Sulecisms.—There are certain expressions in the Epistle
which, so far as our knowledge of the langwage gues, appear to
be contrary to usage. They are as follows :—

(α) βλεμωα (Ξλέμματι καὶ &x07, 25). Field (Notes on Trans. of
NT p. 241) writes thus: ‘In seeing and hearing. This seems
to be the only admissible interpretation, though quite at
variance with the use of βλέμμα in good writers. .. . St. Peter
should have written either ὁράσει καὶ ἀκοῇ OY βλέπων καὶ ἀπκοίων."

(ὦ) καυσοῦσθαι (310.12), It is pointed out that Dioscorides
(c. 100 A.D.) and Galen (c. 160 4.D.), both medical writers, use
the word in the sense of ‘to suffer from χαῦσος, i.e. aremittent
fever.’ The word does not appear to occur elsewhere. On the
other hand, it must be noticed that Athenzus (see Sophocles,
Lexicon) uses the cognate noun καῦσος of ‘ burnt soil,’ and that
Hesychius assigns to it the meaning of ‘a volcanic country.’

*In this list the LXX includes the Apocrypha. Words are
not included which are given under the next (ili.) section.

863 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

=

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

(0) μελλήύσω (112; so NABCP curs4 Egyptt (boh sah), οὐκ
ἀμελήσω KL, etc., Syr-hkl). Field (ὦ. p. 240) writes thus : ‘RV
renders [w:aayow] “1 shall be ready,” and Alford “I will be
sure”; but no example of any such use of μελλήσω is forthcom-
ing. ... 1 think it not improbable that St. Peter wrote διὸ
μμελήσω, “1 will take care,” a rare but not unexampled con-
struction for διὸ μελήσει wos.’

(d) μνήμην ποιείσθα, (115), The phrase is used from Herodotus
onwards with the sense ‘to make mention of.’ In the passage
quoted from Thucydides ii. 54 (τρὸς ἃ ἔτασχον τὴν μνήμην
ἐποιοῦντο), the expression signifies * they shaped their recollec-
tions’ (cf. i. 140, πρὸς τὰς συμφορὰ: καὶ τὰς γνώμας τρεπομένου).
In Arist. thet. iii. 12. 4, μινήμοην πεποίηχεν means ‘he has made
him famous’ (see Cope’s note). But no instance of the phrase in
the sense of ‘to remember’ is forthcoming.

(6) μυωπαάζειν (τυφλός ἐστιν μυωτάζων, 19). The passage quoted
for the verb from Arist. Probl. 31. 16. 25 (αυωπαάζειν λέγονται
οἱ ἐκ γενετῆς τὰ μὲν ἐγγὺς βλέποντε:, τὰ δὲ ἐξ ἀποστάσεως: οὐχ
ὁρῶντε:) is not found in Bekker’s text. The adjective μύωψ,
however, occurs several times in the passage, as in J/thet. iii.
11. 12, in the technical sense ‘shortsighted,’ nor is it found with
any other meaning. There seems to be no justification at all
from usage for the opinion of those who, like Spitta (p. 73 ff.),
take μευωταζων in 2 P toimply ‘ wilful blindness,’ and so explain
its position after τυφλός ἐστιν; nor is such a meaning natural.
There can be little doubt that the writer of 2 P is here guilty of
a rhetorical bathos,

(f) παρεισφέρειν (σπουδὲν πᾶσαν παρεισενέγκαντες, 15),

Wetstein
quotes Jos. and Diod. for the phrase σπουδὴν τᾶσαν εἰσφέρειν. It
must, however, be confessed that the RV ‘ adding on your part’
is rather a benevolent paraphrase than a translation (ταρα- in
παραδοῦναι and similar words having the idea of transmission),
and that it is difficult to assign any meaning which can be justi-
fied by usage to the double compound. In 21! the similarly
formed verb παρεισάγειν is correctly and pertinently used (cf.
Gal 24, Jude 4),

(9) σειρός (σειροῖς ζόφου, 24; so NABC Aug. al, σειραῖς KUL, etc.,
boh Syr-hkl). Field (ib. p. 241) writes thus: “σειρός, σιρός, OF
σιρρος, “ἃ pit,” or ‘* excavation,” properly for the storage of grain,
as Demosth. p. 100, 28... . Philo, de Tel. Constr. Hake. a5;
And J. Pollux joins κατάγειοι οἰκήσεις, καὶ σειροί, καὶ φρέατα, καὶ
λάκκοι. Alford wrongly translates ‘ dens,” and says: ‘* The word
is used for a wolj’s den by Longus i. 11 ᾿ς but he van never have
read the passage, in which the method of trapping a she-wolf is
thus described : συνελθόντες οὖν οἱ κωμήται νύκτωρ, σιρροὺς ὀξύττουσι
τὸ εὖρος ὀργυιᾶς... Here too, then, it seems probable that the
author of 2 P has in the midst of a somewhat magnificent phrase
interpolated a word with which a technical sense was commonly,
if not exclusively, associated.*

(v.) We pass on to note a remarkable characteristic of the
vocabulary of 2P, viz. its iteration. There are some words
which must be repeated, whenever it is necessary to express dis-
tinctly and briefly the idea which they connote (6... πίστις); and
to this class some of the words in the following list may justly
be thought to belong. But it is obvious that in the majority of
cases there is no such justification. And it is best to give the
list in full that this peculiarity of the Epistle may be clearly
seen. It will be remarked (1) that some of the words and
phrases repeated are in themselves unusual; (2) that they
sometimes occur more than once within a very short space.

Words (or kindred words) and phrases repeated are—cteruos
27 818, ἀποφεύγειν 14 918,20 - ἀπώλεια 21dis.3 37. 16; ἀσέλγεια 27,
ἀσέλγειαι 22.135 βέβαιος 110. 19- dshupnuivns 13, δεδώρηται 14; δελεά-
ζειν 214. 18. ἐχπάλαι 23 39s ἐξακολουθεῖν 116 22.15 ; ἐπαγγελία 34.9,
ἐταγγέλλεσθχ, 219, ἐπάγγιλγμα 14 B13 5 ἐπάγειν 21-55 ἐσιχορηγεῖν
15.11; εὐσέβεια 13.6.7 311 3 29, ἀσεβής 25 37; ζόφος BA. 47.
ἡττᾶσθαι 2159... ἴδιος 8} 10.117... χαυσοῦσθαι, 810. 12 -
λανθάνειν 35.83 λύεσθαι 310.1112; μισθὸς ἀδικίας 913. 15 : earn
220, μειασιμεός 210, πάρεστιν 119, παρούση 112; βεβαίαν. . . ποιεῖσθαι"
ταῦτα γὰρ πεοιοῦντε: 110 - προσδοκοὶν 315. 13. 11. σπουδάζειν 110. 15. 314,
σπουδή 153 στηριγμὸς 317, ἐστηριγμένους 112, ἀστήρικτος 214 316 ;
ταχινός 114 21; σηρεῖν (for future judgment) 249.17 37; χοῦτο
πρῶτον γινώσκοντες 120333 ὑπομιμνήσκειν 113, διεγείρειν ἐν ὑπομνήσει
113 81; οὐκ ἐφείσατο 944... φωνὴ ἐνεχθεισα 117. 18. ἠνέχθη προφητεία
151, φερέμενοι 131, φθείρειν 212, φθορά 14 212 (bis) ; φθέγγεσθα, 216. 18,

(vi.) There are some interesting pairs of synonyms found in the
Epistle. (a) zyarz, φιλαδελφίο (17), the thought apparently being
that ‘love of the brethren’ must lead on to ‘love’ in the widest
sense (contrast 1P 122f 48; see Westcott on 1John 210), (bh)
ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἃ κώμητοι (314), οἵ, σπίλοι καὶ ἴοι (213), In ἘΡῚ9
we have ἀωώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου. The word sues (=blame, dis-
grace, in classical Greek) is common in the LXX as repre-
senting in sound and approximately in sense the Hebr. O°)
(‘ blemish,’ in the case of sacrificial victims); hence also fre-
quently in the LNX the word ἄμωμος (of a victim ‘ without
blemish’). Thus the two words ἄμωμος and ἄσπιλος can with
propriety stand side by side. The writer of 2 P, however,
connects together ἄσπιλος and ἀμώμητος (cf. v.l. in Ph 215),
apparently transferring to the latter word the special sense
which had become attached to ἄμωμος, though it should be
noticed that μωωητός is once used in the LXX (Dt 325) in

[ * It seems, however, not improbable that we have here a

primitive’ error. The writer of 2 P almost certainly had in
mind Jude 6 (derpeois ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετίρηκεν). If he wished
instead of the common word décx015 to substitute the much rarer
word o¢:pais,—which, however, means ‘cords or ropes’ rather
than ‘heavy chains,’—it would be very likely that, with the
sound of the twice-repeated τοῖς (δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις) in his mind, he

would write cspois for σειραῖς.

translating DMD. (ὁ) κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογήν (119), see Lightfoot on
Col 31%. (d) λόγος, φωνή (118), There is ‘a recognized distinc-
tion between λόγος and φωνή, as denoting respectively ‘‘an
intelligible utterance” and an ‘irrational ery”’’ (Lightfoot on
Ignatius, Rom. 2); cf. Jn 11.14.8 Here the distinction
between the two words lies in the transitoriness of the φωνή
(cf. Lk 990) and the permanence of ‘the prophetic λόγος." But
it is remarkable that the term of inferior dignity is here
used of the direct utterance of God Himself. (0) τυφλός ἐστιν
μμυωπάζων (see above).

The vocabulary, then, of the Epistle is a singular
one. The writer affects unusual, striking, poetical
words. He is apt to amplify or decorate a current
phrase in a way which makes its appropriateness
at least questionable (e.g. σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισ-
φέρειν, ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι). Briefly, his vocabu-
lary is to a remarkable degree an ambitious one.
On the other hand, the extraordinary list of repeti-
tions stamps it as poor and inadeyuate. The reader
is constantly tempted to think that the author
intentionally dwells upon a sonorous word, which
pleases his fancy, unconscious that the unnecessary
recurrence of a word spoils the literary effect.
Further, the writer can hardly be defended against
the charge of using words and phrases incorrectly
There is little doubt that this indictment has been
exaggerated, and that our ignorance of colloquial
Greek is apt to betray us into condemning words
which with fuller knowledge we should accept
without question. But, as a matter of fact, we do
not find that good Greek writers hit upon ex-
pressions which seem to us uncouth in themselves,
and which lack authority, with anything like the
same frequency as the writer of 2 Peter.

(4) From the Vocabulary we turn to more general
characteristies of Style. The writer, fond as he is
of unusual words, has but a poor supply of con-
necting particles (e.g. μέν. δέ is not found in
the Epistle). Thus it is remarkable how sentence
after sentence is linked to the preceding words by
means of yadp—l>" (4 times), 2!8*! (4 times); and
how relatives (sometimes involving an awkward
ambiguity) are employed for the same purpose—
14 2% 3182) Closely connected with this poverty
of connecting particles is the fact: that we have in
the Epistle involved and cumbrous sentences, e.g.
1. (where, if the reading διὰ δύξης be adopted,
διά is used four times), 215τ1Ὁ The following points
claim notice under this general heading—-In 24 we
have the phrase οὐκ ἐφείσατο ἀλλά twice used, and
the repetition is made the more unpleasing by the
fact that the first ἀλλά introduces a contrast diflering
in kind from that introduced by the second (ἀλλὰ

. . παρέδωκεν, ἀλλὰ... ἐφύλαξεν). In 218 there
is an awkward involution of one participial clause
in another (rods . . . ἀποφεύγοντας τοὺς ἐν πλάνῃ
ἀναστρεφομένους), While in v.” ἀποφυγόντες is used of
a set of persons other than those referred to in the
τοὺς ἀποφεύγοντας of v.18. Again, the piled-up geni-
tives of 3° are very cumbrous, and not free from
ambiguity (but on the possibility of a ‘ primitive’
error see below, p. 811). Again, the double ἀπό
and the οὕτως of 34 (ἀφ᾽ ἧς οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν,
πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως) confuse the
meaning. Again, while in Jude 19 the φυσικῶς (ὅσα
δὲ φυσικῶς ws τὰ ἄλογα (Wa ἐπίσταντα!:) is natural and
forcible, the corresponding phrese in 2P 2” (ὡς
ἄλογα (wa γεγεννημένα φυσικὰ εἰς ἅλωσιν) Wants both
simplicity and clearness. In the sentences which
follow, the artificial elaboration of the writer’s style
is very conspicuous, —v.? yeyevvnuéva . . . εἰς φθοράν
. 2. ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται, ἀδικούμενοι
μισθὸν ἀδικίας, --- while in the next verse we have
the strained and eccentric phrase ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες
μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος. There are, indeed, passages in
the Epistle in which an earnestness of exhortation
or of hope moulds the language, and in which we
recognize a certain grandeur and power of di_ticn,
e.g. 11-19-21 311-13.17f. But this is not the impression
which we gain from the Epistle as a whole. The

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 809

student probably has to confess that not seldom in
reading the Epistle he has paused in perplexity
over some startling or strange phrase. The ex-
perience which he has gained from time spent on
the writings of St. Paul or St. John encourages
him to hope that if he patiently ponders on the
werds they will at length reveal their meaning ;
that the reason why an unusual expression was
chosen will in time become plain to him. But
his hope is disappointed. The sense of the arti-
ficiality of the expression does not wear off, and,
as he dwells on it, he cannot honestly say that its
significance grows upon him, This Epistle is the
one book of the NI which, it may be thought,
gains by translation, The reader of the dignitied
and sober English of the AV, in which the am-
biguities and eccentricities of the criginal are to a
creat extent obliterated, has probe bly a far higher
idea of the literary style of the Epistle than the
student of the Greek.

The question has still to be faced how far the
style and diction of 2 P assist us in arriving ata
verdict as to its genuineness. We have no right
to assume that an Epistle of St. Peter would be
written in good Greek, or even that it would be
free from offences against literary propriety and
eood taste. But style is an index of character.
The Epistle does produce the impression of being a
somewhat artificial piese of rhetoric. It shows
throughout signs of self-conscious effort. The
author appears to be ambitious of writing in a
style which is beyend his literary power. We
may hesitate to aflirm that the literary style
of the Epistle in itself absolutely disproves the
Petrine authership. But it must be allowed that
it is hard to reconcile the literary character of
the Epistie with the supposition that St. Peter
wrote it.

4. (INTERNAL EVIDENCE.—(a) References to the
Gospel history. (i.) Spitta (p. 37 ff.) and Zahn (p.
601.) take the words τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς (15) to refer
to the Lord’s call of the apostles (cf. ἡμῖν 1).
This interpretation of the passage would be less
improbable if the reading ὑμῖν in place of ἡμῖν aig,
had satisfactory critical support. The natural, if
not necessary, view of the whole context is to take
the whole series ἡμῶν (12), ἡμῖν, ἡμᾶς (1°), ἡμῖν (14) as
referring to the writer and the readers alike,
joined together in their common faith. In that
case 15 speaks of the fact that those addressed had
been ‘called, while 110 takes up the thought and
emphasizes the duty involved in that ‘call.’ There
is therefore in all probability no reference to the
Gospel history in 1",

(ii.) In 1168. there is the reference to the Trans-
ficuration. Spitta (pp. 1011}. 493th) and Zahn (p.
58) urge that this reference is independent of the
accounts of that event in the Synoptic Gospels.
Thus the former lays stress on the fact that in
2P it is said that the Lord ‘received honour and
glory’ from the Father, This points, he thinks,
to what the parallel in the history of Moses (Ex
3429 2 Co 37") would lead us to expect, viz. that
the glory of Jesus was the reflexion of the glory of
(iod_-a communication of glory which preceded
the attestation of the heavenly voice. This
account of the glorification of Jesus on the
Mountain is different from, and (as being more
natural) earlier in date than, that given by the
Synoptists. But, on the other hand, it must be
noted (a) that the phrase is λαβὼν τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν
(not λαβὼν. .. δύξαν), and that τιμή points rather
to an attesting voice than to a reflected elory ;
(3) the obvious and almost necessary interpreta-
tion of the two participles λαβὼν. . . ἐνεχθείσης is
that the latter detines and explains the former—
‘He received honour and glory when there came to
Him,’ etc. Omission of fevalis of the history (¢.g.

the presence of Moses and Elias) in an allusion
contained in a letter cannot reasonably be taken
to show that the writer is giving an account in-
dependent of, or more primitive than, that of the
Synoptists. ΤῸ pass to another point, the form of
the words spoken by the heavenly voice in 2 P is
nearer to that in Mt than to that in either of the
two other Synoptists. The words as read in Cod,
B (followed by WH)—6 vids μου ὁ ἀγαπητύς μου οὗτός
ἐστιν, εἰς ὃν evddknoa—diller from those in Mt in
(a) order ; (8) insertion of the second μου (cf. Mt
1918. (Is 421)); (y) substitution of εἰς ὅν (ἃ con-
struction not found elsewhere in LXX and NT ἢ)
for ἐν ᾧ ; (δ) omission of ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ. The bulk
of authorities (RACKL, etc.), however, give the
words in a form which differs from that of Mt in
two points only, (y) (4). Again, it is often sug-
gested that the words τοῦ σκηνώματός pov (v.14) and
τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον (v.'*), occurring in the immediately
preceding context, contain references to the his-
tory of the Transfiguration (Mt 174 || Lk g*1), 1
this is so, then, since the term ἔξοδος is used by
Luke, not in words which he reports, but in his
own brief summary of the conversation between
the Lord and Moses and Elias, it follows that the
writer of 2 P was acquainted with Lk. The word
ἔξοδος, however, is not uncommon in such a con-
nexion (see p. 770).

(iii.) In 2” (γέγονεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα χείρονα τῶν
πρώτων) there is a clear reminiscence ef the saying
recorded in Mt 12 || Lk 113 (γίνεται τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου χείρονα τῶν πρώτων).

(iv.) In 113 (ταχινή ἐστιν ἡ ἀπόθεσις. . . καθὼς καὶ
ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν. Χ. ἐδήλωσέν μοι) WE have a reference
to a disclosure made to St. Peter by our Lord as to
his death. Spitta (pp. 884f, 491 1.) lays it down
peremptorily that ‘there is absolutely no connexion
between 2 P 1 and Jn 21’; that the allusion is to
some other prophecy of Jesus not recorded in the
Gospels, but on which the Quo Vadis story is based.
It is true that the words used in 2 P do not
necessarily imply that the writer is indebted to the
Gospel of St. John; they are quite compatible with
the supposition that St. Peter is (independently of
any written document) recalling and reproducing in
his own words the substance of the Lord’s revelation
to him. But it is unreasonable to postulate an
occasion other than that recorded in Jn 21, when
the Lord revealed something of the circumstances
of the apostle’s death. ‘The Lord’s prophecy as
οἴνου in Jn 9118 contains all that is required in
ΟΡ, Ifthe word ταχινή be taken to mean ‘coming
soon’ (as Spitta interprets it), then the reference
is rather to the ὅταν γηράσῃς ; if it is understood to
mean ‘sudden,’ then the allusion is to the violence
plainly foreshadowed in the Lord’s words.

The alleged references to the Gospel history con-
tained in the Epistle have now Leen examined.
The first of them has been put aside. The remain-
ing three, when taken together, will probably
produce on many minds the impression that the
writer of 2 P was acquainted with Mt and Jn and
(if the allusion which some have found in ἔξοδος be
pressed) with Lk also. But such an impression,
however strong it may be, does not amount to a
well-founded conviction. The verdict on the non-
eennineness of the Epistle, as far as this piece of
evidence goes, is a non liquet.

The case, however, is different when we turn to
another aspect of the reference to the Transfigura-
tion and to the Lord’s prophecy as to St. Peter’s
death. Do these allusions reveal a too keen anxiety
on the writer’s part to identify himself with St.
Peter? Have we here some one personating the
apostle, and therefore, in order to support his
assumed character, unduly emphasizing two scenes

* This construction, however, occurs in the version of tha
heavenly words given in Clem. Hom. iii. 93.

810 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

a a ὁὁὦὁὦὁὁ ὁ ὁὅϑὃὁΓ)ὅΠὃὃ ΠΠ

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

in the Lord’s life, each of which was closely con-
nected with St. Peter ?

The answer to the question, when so put, is, it
is believed, that in themselves these allusions do
not supply any valid argument against the
genuineness of the Epistle. It cannot. be con-
sidered strange or unnatural that the writer, if he
were indeed the great apostle, should recall either
of these incidents.

But there is a characteristic of the Epistle on
the negative side which must be taken into account.
(a) We should have expected that a personal fol-
lower of the Lord, who had heard our Lord’s dis-
courses, would instinctively reproduce much of his
Master’s teaching. It is true that, as was pointed
out above (p. 788), our knowledge of our Lord’s
sayings is imperfect. The Gospels do not record
all our Lord’s words. But they certainly preserve
a wide representative cycle of His teaching. And
we should expect a letter of St. Peter to contain
some reminiscences of Clhrist’s words, which, with
the Gospels in our hands, we could identify as
such. 2 P does not fullil that expectation. There
is but one of the sayings of the Lord recorded in
the Gospels alluded to in 2 P (2% || Mt 125, Lk
11°), (8) Again, the Epistle does not refer to the
great momenta of the Lord’s life on earth—the
Passion, the Resurrection, and the Exaltation.
Here then we have, as it appears to the present
writer, two weighty arguments against the genuine-
ness of the Epistle—a negative argument and a
positive argument. On the one hand, the Epistle
does not contain what we should have confidently
expected an Epistle of St. Peter to contain —
allusions to the Lord’s sayings and allusions to the
great events of the Lord’s life. The force of this
argument is greatly increased when with 2 P we
compare 1 P. On the cther hand, the fact that the
only allusions to incidents in the Lord’s life found
in the Epistle are such as would support the char-
acter of one writing as St. Peter, does become, in
view of the silence of the Epistle as to the Passion,
the Resurrection, the Ascension, and of the absence
from it of allusions to the Lord’s teaching as
recorded in the Gospels, a serious ground for ques-
tioning the Petrine authorship of the Epistle,

(ὁ) Absence of personal messages and grectings.—
No companion of the apostle is mentioned. | ‘The
apostle himself sends no personal message or
greeting. On the former of these two points no
stress can be laid. The latter has some weight as
against the theory of Spitta and Zahn, that the
Epistle was addressed by St. Peter to a Palestinian
Chureh (or Palestinian Churches) with which the
apostle lad had personal dealings; it has none as
against the common view that St. Peter sends a
second letter to Churches throughout the provinces
of Asia Minor, which he had never visited. Apart
from these two special points there is, it must be
allowed, a certain indefiniteness in the Epistle as
to the circumstances and surroundings of those to
whom the letter was sent, and more especially of the
writer. Nothing is said, for example, of the place
whence the letter was written. But it would be
easy to draw on the imagination for reasons which
might naturally and fully explain the reticence of
the letter on personal matters. The result there-
fore is a purely negative one. The genuineness of
the Epistle does not receive the support which it
would have gained, had it contained personal mes-
sages and personal news which harmonized with
known facts. On the other hand, no substantial
argument adverse to its genuineness can fairly be
deduced from their absence.

(ὁ) Anachronisms.—(i.) 3% Does the passage
imply that in the writer’s time a collection of St.
Paul's Epistles existed, and that they were regarded
as Scripture? The first point to be considered is

the meaning of the phrase τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς. Spitta
(p. 294) holds that ‘only writings of St. Paul’s
associates can be intended, addressed to the Gentile
Christians who belonged to the sphere οὗ his
apostolic work.’ According to this view, it would
appear that the term ai γραφαί is used not in the |
sense of ‘Scriptures,’ but with a general non-
technical meaning. Zahn (Jind. pp. 98f., 108)
follows the same general line of interpretation,
but enters more into detail. In. his Opinion, the
reference is to ‘writings of a religious character—
writings which could claim respect in Christian
circles either because of the persons who composed
them, or because the Christian congregations made
use of them in public worship. ‘We do not
know,’ he adds, ‘how much Christian literature
already existed in the years 60-64.’* He urges
that, as the allusion to these writings is alto-
gether incidental, and as no distinguishing epithet,
e.g. ‘holy,’ ‘ prophetie,’ is added, the special sense
of ai γραφαί, as applied to a collection of the Holy
Scriptures, is here excluded. He further points
out that, as the technical sense of the term D203
did not prevent the Jews from using the word 420
of any book whatever, so the narrower use of ai
γραφαί and τὰ γράμματα did not as a matter of fact
debar Greek-speaking Christians from employing
the words γραφή, γραφαί, and γράμματα in a wide
and general sense; if no instance of this sense of
γραφή is found in the NT, that isa mere matter of
chance. To substantiate his position as regards
γραφή he refers to 2 Ch 2" (εἶπεν Xeipapt.. . .v
yeapn), Neh 7% (ἐξήτησαν γραφὴν αὐτῶν τῆς συνοδίας),
Dn δὅ (τὴν yp. ἐκείνην, i.e. the writing on the wall),
1 Mae 1457 15 (the writing on tables of brass), Tren.
ill. 6. 4, xvii. 4, v. Prol. (in each case hee scriptira
of Irenveus’ own work), Clem. S/rom. vi. 3 (Dp. Fao
ed. Potter; προϊούσης τῆς γραφῆς, ic. the treatise
itself), Eus. 11} τι. xi. 1 (τὴν περὶ τούτου. . . τοῦ
᾿Ιωσήπου γραφήν). Similar uses οὐ the word might
be quoted from classical Greek (where it commonly
has a formal sense [‘document’], often a legal
sense [‘indictment’]), e.g. Thue. i. 129, τοσαῦτα μὲν
ἡ Ὑραφὴ ἐδήλου, Ξέρξης δὲ ἥσθη τε τῇ ἐπιστολῇ κ.τ.λ.
In all these passages, it will be noticed, it is clear,
either from the phrase itself or from the context,
what the γραφή in question is. They present no
parallel to the absolute use of the Word in the
plural. The phrase ai γραφαί used absolutely
points to a definite and recognized collection of
‘writings,’ i.e. the Scriptures. If any further
assurance of this is needed, it is given (a) by the
context—the. word στρεβλοῦσιν shows that the writ-
ings were authoritative, and that their support had
at all costs to be secured, and (3) by the added word
λοιπάς----τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς ; compare Sir. Prol. ὁ νόμος
καὶ αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων ; Tren. ii.
28. 7, ‘Dominus manifeste dixit et redique de-
monstrant Scripture.’ From the καί and the ras
Aourds—ws καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς ypapds—we are obliged to
infer that the Epistles of St. Paul are regarded
as Scripture. Again, the fact that St. Pauls
Epistles are regarded as Scripture, together with
the phrase ἐν πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς, leads to the further
conclusion that the writer of 2 P possessed not
merely isolated letters of St. Paul, but a collection
of his Epistles, to which, as authoritative docn-
ments of the faith, appeal was made.+ It is im-
possible to suppose that a collection of St. Pa-il’s
Epistles had been made and that they were tieated
as Scripture during the lifetime of St. Peter.

* Zahn’s theory as to 2 P, it should be observed, leads him ta
assume an (earlier) Ep. of St. Peter now lost (31), an Ep. of St.
Paul now lost (315), the promise on St. Peter's part of a Lehr.
schrift otherwise unknown to us (115), ‘other writings’ now
lost (316),

pone the Acts of the Scillitan Marturs, Libri et epis
tule Pauli uiri iusti (Robinson, Te Passwn of S. Perzetua
p. 114, in ‘Texts and Studics’ 1. ii.).

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 81]
(ii.) 3? μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν | ἀρετή and ἐγκράτεια. It would seem as if the

ἁγίων προφητῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς
χοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος. It is possible that there is
a primitive error in the text, and that διά should
be inserted after 7js—‘the commandment of the
Lord and Saviour given through your apostles’ *
(cf. the title of the Didaché—é.daxh Kupiov διὰ τῶν
δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, and also 27! τῆς wapa-
δοθείσης αὐτοῖς ἁγίας ἐντολῆς). But this suggestion
does not affect the matter with which we are at
present concerned. It is true that the phrase
‘your apostles’ admits of the explanation that the
writer is referring to those apostles who had
taught the readers of the Epistle, and that, so
interpreted, the phrase cannot be said to be an
impossible one in a letter written by St. Peter.
But, on the supposition that St. Peter is writing
to Christians whom he had himself taught, it
must be admitted that it is strange that he should
use an expression so cold and so general. ‘Two
other considerations must be taken into account.
In the first place, it seems certain (see art. JUDE,
EPISTLE OF, vol. ii. p. 802 f.) that the whole phrase
is an expansion of the corresponding words in
Jude?’, where there is a simple and natural refer-
ence to the oral teaching of the apostles (ἔλεγον).
Secondly, the addition of a reference to the pro-
phets changes the kind of remembrance. The idea
of keeping in mind the teaching of Scripture is
introduced. Now in the 2nd cent. it was customary
to speak of Scripture either under the two divisions
—the Prophets and the Apostles — (e.g. Murat.
Canon, ‘neque inter prophetas completum numero
neque inter apostolos’), or under the three divisions
—the Prophets, the Lord (the Gospel), and the
Apostles — (e.g. Tren. i. 8. 1, ἣν [vmideow] οὔτε
προφῆται ἐκήρυξαν οὔτε ὁ Κύριος ἐδίδαξεν οὔτε ἀπόστολοι
παρέδωκαν) ; see Lightfoot on Ign, Philad. ν. ‘The
impression produced by 2 P 3? is that we have here
a post-apostolic writer elaborating the simple
phrase of Jude}? and instinctively reproducing
phraseology current in his own days, while the
ὑμῶν is introduced as being in character with the
style of a letter. This impression is strengthened
when the passage under discussion is taken in
connexion with 3% (see just above).

(iii). Closely connected with the points just
dealt with is the problem suggested by the con-
troversial element in the Epistle.

It has often been noticed that the writer speaks
of the rise of certain fals> teachers as future (2'*
33), and then, using the present tense (2!) 1% 17f 20
35, ef. 315), describes them as already active. It
might be argued that he projects himself into the
future, and then, from the point of view of a
spectator, regards future events as actually hap-
pening. But it must be remarked that (1) this
change from the future to the present takes place
twice (2! 35); (2) in ch. 2 perfects are used
(γέγονεν 930. συμβέβηκεν 2%). The most natural
interpretation of these phenomena is that the
writer first speaks in his assumed character of
a prophet, and that then, forgetting that assumed
character, he depicts the false teaching actually
rife around him.

Does the language used betray any sign of being
aimed against the Gnostics? It is clear that
those against whom the writer warns his readers
not only practised, but taught, immorality. Their
error was not only a matter of life (as appears
to be the case with the libertines of St. Jude’s
Epistle), but also of doctrine. They are ψευδοδι-
δάσκαλοι (21). In this connexion the language of
1 is remarkable—émriyopyyjoate . . . ἐν τῇ ἀρετῇ
τὴν γνῶσιν, ἐν δὲ τῇ γνώσει τὴν ἐγκράτειαν. Here
γνῶσις is used absolutely, and it is linked with

*So the Syriac (Harklean) version, ‘the commandment of
our Lord and Saviour which (was) by the hand of the apostles.’

writer emphasizes the bearing of a true γνῶσις on
conduct because he has in mind those whom ἃ
false γνῶσις betrayed into ἀκρασία. It will be
remembered that the name ‘Gnostic’ was, as
far as our knowledve goes, first claimed by sects
whose teaching justified profligacy of life (Iren,
i. 25. 6; Hippolytus, er. ν. 6). Again, it may
be thought that the words ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπα.
γελλόμενοι αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς [3
exactly express the theory of certain Gnostic
teachers as to the ‘spiritual’ man’s independence
of matter, and the practical results of that doctrine
(cf. e.g. Iren. i. 25. 4). Again, the writer of 2 P
charges the false teachers with perverting Scrip-
ture (310). It is clear that, when St. Paul wrote
the Epistle to the Romans, there were those who
depraved the doctrine of grace (Ro 6; cf. Jude*).
But there is no trace in apostolic times of false
teachers supporting their views by a reckless or
dishonest interpretation of the Old ‘Testament,
which alone could then be known under the name
of Scripture. Nor, indeed, is it easy to see how the
controversies of that age could give occasion to a
forced exegesis of the OT; the arguments which
the Judaistic opponents of St. Paul may well have
drawn from the OT would be of a different kind.
But such violent wresting of Scripture (te. the
OT and the NT) as is described by the word ozpe-
βλοῦσιν was the characteristic method by which
the Gnostics of the 2nd century endeavoured to
support their doctrines. Trenzeus charges them
with such a dishonest procedure again and again
(i. Praef.; 3. 6, παρατρέποντες τὰς ἑρμηνείας καὶ ῥᾳδι-
ουργοῦντες τὰς ἐξηγήσεις ; 8. 1; 9. 1, καταχρησάμενοι
τοῖς ὀνόμασιν eis τὴν ἰδίαν ὑπύθεσιν μετήνεγκαν). ‘This
indictment, then, of the false teachers does not
appear to harmonize with what we know, or with
what we can with reasonable probability conjec-
ture, of the apostolic age. It does fit in with the
characteristics of a later time.

(iv.) 355 ἐλεύσονται. . . ἐμπαῖκται... λέγοντες
Ποῦ ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ ; ἀφ᾽ ἧς γὰρ
οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς
κτίσεως. It is sometimes urged that the question
of the scoflers points to a time later than the days
of the apostles; and even more stress is laid on
the reply—not an assurance of the nearness of the
advent, but an explanation of delay (v.° μία ἡμέρα
παρὰ Κυρίῳ x.7.d.). It is, however, difficult to feel
the force of these arguments considered in them-
selves. The fact that ‘the immediate imminence
of the coming of the Lord . . . faded out of view’
in St. Paul’s mind, as the Epistle to the Ephesians
seems to indicate, ‘when year after year passed
away, and still there was no sign of the Lord’s
coming’ (Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 141f.), 1s a
sufficient proof that towards the end of St. Peter's
life men would not be unlikely to ask the question
put into the mockers’ mouths, nor a Christian
teacher unlikely to give some such answer as we
find in 2 P 38, The passage will come before us
again when we come to compare 2 P with 1 P.
But the phrase ἀφ᾽ js οἱ πατέρ:ς ἐκοιμήθησαν gives
rise to much more serious misgivings. Who are
‘the fathers’? They are, says Spitta (p. 284 1h),
the actual fathers of those who are introduced as
speaking.* This interpretation is open to several
erave objections. (a) Since to St. Peter the phrase
οἱ πατέρες Would have a quasi-technical sense (cf.
διῶ. SAGs AAC, on Os He 11), the meaning

*Spitta gets over the difficulty that ἀφ᾽ ἧς implies a con-
siderable interval by supposing that the relative ἧς refers back
to τῆς παρουσια: αὐτοῦ. He takes ἀπό in a pregnant sense with
ἐκοιμήθησαν---" Die Vater sind entschlafen von der Parusie weg,
ihr Tod hat sie der Parusie entzogen.’ For this use of ἀπό he
compares Ro 93, Col 220, 2Co 11%. It is strange that he does
not see that the γάρ (ἀφ᾽ ἧς γάρ) makes such an interpretation
absolutely impossible.

812 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

suggested would require the addition of ἡμῶν. ἢ
(3) The words ‘since our fathers died,’ put into
the mouth of a number of persons, fix no definite
limit of time. (y) The context seems to imply
that ‘the fathers’? had embraced the Christian
hope, and so early in the history of the Church
as St. Peter's lifetime it would be quite unnatural
to introduce a group of persons speaking of their
fathers as Christians (see Zahn, ind. ii. tah
Zahn (ἐδ. pp. 67, 73) urges that the term οἱ πατέρες
could be used of the first generation of Christians
—the ἀρχαῖοι μαθηταί (Ac 21)*)— before it had
died off to the last man, and that, in facet, a
whole generation separated the years 60-63; in
which he places the Epistle, from the day when the
promise to return was given. But, on the other
hand, it must be remembered that the use of the
term οἱ πατέρες in itself implies a considerable lapse
of time. The founders of a movement are not
called ‘the fathers’ till a later age looks back
upon their work. Further, the clause as a whele
implies a distant retrospect ; the words ἀφ᾽ ἧς . .
ἐκοιμήθησαν πάντα οὕτως διαμένει could not have been
used unless a considerable interval had elapsed
since the passing away of ‘the fathers. The
words might conceivably be justified on the hypo-
thesis that St. Peter is here foretelling the future,
and that he dramatically puts into the mouth of
the mockers, who should ‘come in the last days,’
words appropriate only from their supposed point
of view. But such an interpretation is toe arti-
ficial. And it must be confessed that here again
we seem to be carried far beyond the limits of
the apostolic age.

(d) Doctrine.—The doctrine of the Epistle is
chiefly remarkable, so far at least as our present
purpose is concerned, on the negative side. We
should not, indeed, have expected St. Peter to dwell
with such detail (3!) on the physical accompant-
ments of ‘the day of the Lord,’ and on its relation
to the several parts of the material universe, as
contrasted with its human and spiritual issues.
We might feel it strange that what we should
elsewhere describe as physical speculations on the
process of creation, should find a place in a letter
written by St. Peter (3°). But these are matters
of taste and feeling, or at least of opinion ; and on
such considerations no decisive judgment ean be
based. But it is otherwise with the silence of the
Epistle as to doctrines of primary importance.
St. Peter was an eye-witness of the human life of
the Incarnate Word, of His sufferings, of the
manifestations of the Risen Lord, and of His
Ascension. He heard Christ’s words about the
Paraclete, and partook of the outpouring of the
Spirit at Pentecost. But the Epistle says nothing
of the example of Christ, or of His sufferings and
death, or, except the allusion in 2! (τὸν ἀγοράσαντα
αὐτοὺς δεσπότην), of Redemption. It is silent as to
the Resurrection and the Ascension. It makes
no reference to the Holy Spirit except as the
source of inspiration to the ancient prophets (131),
It does not allude to prayer. We have no right,
it may be urged most truly, to expect an apostolic
Epistle to treat of every Christian doctrine, even
the most vital. But is it conceivable that St. Peter,
with his history and his experience, would pass
over all these matters, essential to the Christian
faith, as though they were not? The silence as
to the Resurrection is the crucial point. The
apostles were essentially witnesses to the Resur-
rection. The Resurrection was the final proof of
the Divine mission of the Lord, the foundation of
the Christian faith. As such it holds a unique
place in the writings of the apostles, and in their

* Cursives 4, Egyptt(boh sah), Syr-hkl add ἡμῶν. But,in the

case of an addition of this nature, the evidence of versions is
of little value.

— --ὄ-ἄὔὖὔἢ-ἤἅ.
teaching as reported in the Acts. But in this
Epistle, when the writer (110) has occasion to
appeal to the guarantee of the truth of his teach-
ing as to ‘the power and coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ,’ the Resurrection is ignored, and the apos-
tolic witness to Christ is made to rest on the
Transfiguration. The Transfiguration was doubt-
less an event of deep meaning; but its meaning
was relative to the time when it took place, and to
the circumstances of those who were present on
the mountain. Its glory was in the days of the
Lord’s humiliation a transitory anticipation of the
Resurrection. It belongs to an order of events

different from that to which the Resurrection be-

longs. It would be difficult to exaggerate the
significance of the fact that in the Epistle gener-
ally, and especially at this particular point in it,
the Resurrection is unnoticed. A subordinate but
not unimportant matter is the language used by
the writer of 2 P in this reference to the Trans-
figuration—émrdmrac γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου μεγαλειό-
τητος (116). The word ἐπόπτης is borrowed from the
Greek mysteries, where it denoted one who was ad-
mitted to the third and highest stage. For the word
itself οἵ. Plut. Alcih. 22, τοὺς ἄλλους ἑταίρους μύστας
προσαγορεύοντα καὶ ἐπόπτας ; ('{Ἶ 71, 2158 (in both
of which places it is closely associated with μύστης);
Clement of Alexandria is fond of using words of
this group in reference to the spiritual vision of
God (e.g. Ped. i. 6 (p. 113), 7 (p. 129); Strum. i. 28
(p. 424), 11. 2 (p. 431). The metaphor is not one
which we should have expected St. Peter to use.
It is artificial, and savours of a later time when
the Church borrowed such terms, often probably
through the medium of the Gnostics, from the
language of the Greck mysteries. ἢ

5. RELATION ΤῸ 4 PETER. — Under this head
little more has to be done than to bring together
results which have been already reached as to the
two Epistles separately.

(a) Vocabulary and literary style. — As to the
former point, Warfield (p. 67) writes thus: ‘These
resemblances are seen not only in peculiar phrases,
such as the form of salutation, ‘‘ Grace and peace
be multiplied,” found in these two Epistles and
nowhere else, but also in the recurrence in both of
rare combinations, such as ἀμώμου καὶ doridov, 1 P
119 repeated 2 P 218 and 3" and nowhere else, and
also the common possession of a very peculiar
vocabulary such as is represented by the occurrence
in both of ἐποπτεύσαντες (1 P 213, 2 P 116), ἰσότιμος
(1 P 1 2 P τ)» reinforced by the like com-
munity in such as φιλαδελφία (1 P 12, 2P 14);
χορηγεῖν» (1 P 4. 2P 11) 5 drideos (1 P 34, 2P
1™); ἀρετή (1 P 2°, 2 P 1); dvacrpogy (1 P 15,2 P
27); ἀλήθεια in a peculiar sense (1 P 12, 2 P ΤΩΣ
κομίζεσθαι (1 P 1°, 2 P 23), ete., all of which are

rare words in the New Testament.’ It seemed
best to quote this passage at leneth. A glance

reveals how this list needs careful sifting. Thus
Warfield’s mode of statement is confusing; the
word ἰσότιμος, for example, does not occur in 1 P,
but πολύτιμος (17) and τίμιος (119). Again, the plural
ai ἀρεταί in 1 P 39 (a reminiscence of Is 432!) is clearly
far from being a parallel to the singular ἀρετή,
2 P 1°, though in both passages the reference is to
God. But in fact verbal coincidences, however
abundant, between 2 P on the one hand and on
the other 1 P and the Petrine speeches in the Acts
(Speaker's Com. iv. p. 226), would be of but little
weight in support of the genuineness of 2 P ; for if
that Epistle is not genuine, but was written in the
2nd cent., it is clear that both 1 P and the Acts
must have been accessible to its author, and that
therefore he may have derived words or phrases

*The habit of using language derived from the mysteries.

in reference to communications supposed to be made by our
Lord to His disciples, runs riot in the Gnostic Pistis Sophia.

een

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 813

from them. The real question is whether a com-
parison of the two Epistles reveals that kind of
similarity which sugvests that they are the pro-
duct of the same mind. It must be said briefly
that the two documents are in complete contrast in
reference to literary style. This contrast is obvious
whether we regard smaller points of expression
(e.g. the connexion of sentences and clauses) or
the broader literary characteristics of the two
Epistles. The style of 1 P is simple and natural,
without a trace of self-conscious effort. The style
of 2 P is rhetorical and laboured, marked by a love
for striking and startling expressions.

(ὁ) Use of the O1.—The writer of i P formally
quotes the OT ; he deliberately adopts its language
(e.g. 2%); he instinctively, and apparently un-
consciously, falls into its phraseology. The writer
of 2 P, on the other hand, as we have seen, never
formally quotes the OT, and uses but few dis-
tinctively OT expressions. This is precisely the
reverse of what we should have expected to be the
vase if the theory of Spitta and Zahn were true,
namely, that St. Peter wrote the First Epistle to
Gentile, the Second Epistle to Jewish, Christians.

(6) Reminiscences of the Lord's teaching. —'The
writer of 1 P constantly shows that he has the
Lord’s sayings in his mind. Τῦ is doubtful if the
writer of 2 P refers to more than two of them.

(d) Use of St. Paul's Epistles. —The writer of 1 Pis
deeply influenced, both in thought and in language,
by two of St. Paul’s Epistles (Ro, Eph). The writer
ot 2 P, while he mentions St. Paul’s Epistles gener-
ally, owes no debt, literary or doctrinal, to them.
This argument, however, cannot be said to carry
so much weight as it appears to do at first sight.
Vor we saw cause to believe that there were special
reasons why the words and thoughts of these two
Epistles of St. Panl should be in St. Peter’s mind
when he wrote the First Epistle.

(6) Doctrine. —It has often been remarked that
while in 1 P ‘the end’ is regarded as near (47), the
wviter of 2 P seems to contemplate delay as part of
{he Divine counsel. It might be a not unfair reply
that in the one case the writer sets forth his own
personal hope, in the other case he has to meet the
jibes of enemies of the truth, and to account for the
unquestionable fact of delay which gave point to
their mocking question. But, indeed, the difference
between the two Epistles in regard to doctrine is
deeper and more far-reaching than a contrast of
view as to the hope of the Lord’s speedy return,
Any one who has endeavoured to draw out the
doctrinal teaching of the two Epistles must feel
that they are widely separated trom each other.
There is a richness of devout thought, a vital
apprehension of the great facts and truths which
are characteristic of Christianity, in 1 P, for which
we search in vainin2 P. The thought of Christ’s
sufferings, considered as the supreme example and
as redeeming acts dealing with all the needs of
men, the thought of Christ raised and exalted by
the Father, the thought of the present personal
relation of Christians to Christ’s work and to
Christ Himself, dominate the one Epistle; they are,
as we have seen (see above, p. $12), passed over in
the other.

Such are the differences between the two Episttes.
Τὸ remains to examine certain considerations which
have been suggested with a view to explain or to
mitigate the difhiculty.

(1) Difference of date. —Tf St. Peter wrote the
two Epistles, they could not be widely separated in
point of time. The examination of all the evi-
dence points to the year 61 as_the probable date of
1 P (see above, p. 791 f.). 2 P, if the work of St.
Peter, could not be placed more than a year or two
later, or, if we accept the view of Spitta and Zahn
that the former Epistle alluded to in 2 P 3! is not

1 P, a year or two earlier. Even if we put aside
ancient evidence, and, accepting the theory which
finds in 1 P indications of a later date (see above,

. 783 f.), suppose that St. Peter’s life was pro-
feuacd beyond the year 70, the interval between
the two documents cannot have been much more
than ten years. It may well be doubted whether
ten years at the end of a long life can reasonably
be supposed to have so completely changed a
man’s literary style and the tone and range of his
thoughts.

(2) Difference of subject.—The object of 1 P, it is
urged, was to comfort and encourage the suffering ;
that of 2 P to warn against a shameful perversion
of the truth. It must, however, be remembered
that ch. 1 of 2 P is not denunciatory. Such a
difference of subject might well account for a
difference of tone, and a difference in the relative
position and emphasis given to Christian doctrines.
It would modify ; it would hardly revolutionize.

(3) Difference of circumstances.—The strongest
presentation of the case in this respect is probably
the theory of Zahn (inl. ii. p. 96). ‘So long,’ he
says, ‘as men started with the assumption that 1 P
is a document actually composed by the apostle
(‘ein eigenhiindiges Schreiben des Apostels’), and
that 2 P purports to be intended for a circle of
readers similar to that addressed in 1 P, then the
ereat diversity of the two Epistles in thought and
language could not but be strong evidence against
the genuineness of 2P. But this evidence is
destroyed, since both the above-mentioned assump-
tions have been shown to be erroneous. It is obvi-
ously intelligible that Peter, in a letter addressed
to the Gentile Churches of Asia Minor, which
Silvanus wrote by his commission and in his name,
should speak in a way different from that in which
he speaks in a letter of his own composition (‘in
einem eigenhiindigen Brief’) addressed to Churches
of Jewish Christians, who owed their Christianity
to him and his associates.’

In this position three points must be noticed.
(a) It is remarkable that both Spitta (p. 530 ff.) *
and Zahn, in defending the Petrine authorship of
2 P, are obliged to give up the real Petrine author-
ship of 1 P. It has, however, been shown in the
article on 1 PETER (p. 789f.) that (a) the language
about Silvanus in 1 P 5%, though it does not
exclude, yet certainly does not support, the hypo-
thesis that the composition of the letter was left
to him; (8) the phenomena of the Epistle itself are
decisive against this theory. (ὁ) It has been
pointed out (see above, pp. 798, 806) that 2 P con-
tains no indication of being addressed to Jewish
Christians, and that the internal evidence, both
negative and positive, points decisively in the
opposite direction. (¢) But it these two points are
conceded, it is clear that everything depends on
the sense given to ‘speaking in a different way ’—
‘anders redet.’? The supposed variation of circum-
stances would account for a difference, perhaps a
ereat difference, between the two letters. But, on
the one hand, it must be observed that the charac-
teristic of tender and sympathetic affection is
conspicuous in the letter which was addressed to
those with whom St. Peter had had no personal
dealings, while it is absent from the letter which
(in Spitta’s and Zahn’s view) was sent to persons
who owed their Christianity to the apostle—a
reversal of what would have been naturally antici-
pated. And, on the other, the differences between
the two Epistles in literary style and tone and
teaching are, as it appears to the present writer,
so numerous and so fundamental that no difference

* ‘Dass die beiden kanonischen Petrus-Briefe nicht aus der-
selben Feder stammen konnen, muss ich mit manchen altkirch-
lichen und den meisten neueren Forschern unbedingt be-
haupten’ (p. 530).

814 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

of amanuenses or ‘interpreters’ can account for
them unless we are prepared to admit that, in the
case of either one or both of these letters, the sub-
stance and the language alike were left absolutely
in the hands of the apostle’s companion,

6. LITERARY AFFINITIES.*—(a) The Epistle of
Jude. That there is a close literary connexion
between Jude and 2 P is certain. Which of the
two writers is the borrower? It must be here
suticient to refer to the article on the EPISTLE OF
JUDE (vol. ii. p. 802 f.), where the question is dis-
cussed, Further study contirms the present writer
in the conclusion there reached, that the ‘various
lines of argument converge, and, as far as demon-
stration is possible in literary questions, demon-
strate the priority of Jude.’ + “What is the bearing
of this result on the question of the genuineness
of 2P? It is obvious that the fact that 2 P
borrows from Jude is no more prejudicial to the
genuineness of the former than the fact that 1 P
borrows from Ro and Eph tells against the authen-
ticity of 1 P. The difliculties in regard to date, if
we prolong the apostle’s life beyond 64, are not

insuperable, The result is therefore a negative
one. 2P is deprived of a witness on whose evi-

dence recent defenders of the apostolic authorship
of 2 P (Spitta and Zahn) have greatly relied.

(6) Josephus. —In an article in the Kapositor
(2nd series, vol. iii. p. 491.) E. A. Abbott main-
tained that there is a remarkable series of coin-
cidences in Janguage between 2 P and the An-
tiquities of Josephus (Prarf. 3, 4; IV. viii. 2 [the last
words of Moses]). ‘Taken as a whole,’ Abbott
concludes (p. 62), ‘the evidence in favour of the
theory that the author of the Second Epistle
imitated Josephus can hardly fail to appear strik-
ing, if not convincing.’ The theory was examined
by Salmon in his Introduction, p. 638 ff. (ed. 1; the
discussion is curtailed in later editions). He
points out (1) that ‘the alleged coincidences relate
entirely to words, and not at all to thoughts’;
(2) that ‘they do not occur in passages of [what he
himself would call) ‘“ brief compass”’?; (3) that
‘they are not in the same sequence and connexion’;
(4) that ‘the words common are not ‘‘ unusual or
startling,” or such as can fairly be called hapax
legomena. It will probably be now generally
admitted that the theory broached by Abbott has
broken down on examination. There is a curious
series of coincidences between the Preface of St.
Luke’s Gospel and Josephus Contra Apionem
i. 10, The same account is probably to be given
of the resemblances between Josephus and Lk
and of those between Josephus and 2P. They
are most likely due to the diffusion of ‘common-
places’ of rhetorical study, set prefatory phrases,
and the like.

(6) Lhe Apocalypse of Peter.—When the frag-
ment of this Apocalypse was published, it was at
once noticed (e.g. by James, A Lecture on the
Apocalypse of Peter p. 52) that between it and 2 P
there isa remarkable series of coincidences. The
following table includes one or two coincidences
between 2 P and fragments of the Apocalypse

* An inscription from Stratonicea in Caria, given by Deiss-
mann (Bibelstudien i. p. 277f.), contains the phrases, τῆ: τῶν
“Ῥωμαίων αἰωνίου ἀρχῆς, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ἰσφέρεσθαι is τὸν πρὸς [αὐτοὺς
εὐσεβ)ειαν, τῆς θεία: δυνάμεω: ἀρετάς ; οἵ. Ρ 111 1518. But these
coincidences do not, as Deissmann thinks, indicate any con-
nexion between the inscription and the Epistle.

+t ‘The Assumption of Moses’ was used by Jude (see art.
EPISTLE OF JUDE, Vol. ii. p. 802). But the question arises whether
2 P does not show an acquaintance with the Assumption inde-
pendent of the knowledge of it which he might have gained
from the passage of Jude. The apparent resemblance alluded to
is between 2 P 213 ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι τὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφήν, and the
Assumption vii. 4, ‘omni hora diei amantes conuiuia deuoratores
gule.’ But the resemblance is seen to be a merely superficial
one, when the force of omni hora is noticed. The Assumption
rebukes gluttons who would feast at any hour of the day; the
Epistle, shameless profligates who riot in broad daylight.

preserved by Patristic writers (the numbering of
these fragments being that given by James, p. 94f.,
who, on p. 52, pointed out most of these resem-

blances) :—

APOCALYPSE OF PETER.

1 πολλοὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔσονται
ψευδοπροφῆται, καὶ ὁδοὺς καὶ

δόγματα ποικίλα τῆς ἀπωλείας
διδάξουσιν " ἐκεῖνοι δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς
ἀπωλείας γενήσονται. καὶ τότε
ἐλεύσεται ὁ θεύς.. καὶ κρινεῖ
τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀνομίας.

τοὺς πιστούς μου τοὺς... ἐν
τούτῳ τῷ βίῳ τὰς ψυχὰς ἑαυτῶν
δοκιμάζοντας.

2 ὁ Κύριος ἔφη “Aywpev eis τὸ
ἔρος ἀπερχόμενοι δὲ μετ᾽
αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταί.

In καὶ 3 ‘two men suddenly
appear,’ as on the Mount of
Transtiguration. The descrip-
tion of their glory recalls
Mt 173.

[τῶν] δικαίων τῶν ἐξελθύντων
ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου.

ποταποί εἰσι τὴν μορφήν.

0 τόπον... αὐχμηρὸν πάνυ
. +. σκοτινὸν εἶχον αὐτῶν τὸ
ἔνδυμα κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα τοῦ τόπου.
Cf. 12 ἐν τύπῳ σκοτινῷ.

οἱ κολαζόμενοι ἐκεῖ. Cf. 7 πῦρ
. ..» κολάζον αὐτούς, 10 ἐν τῇ
κολάσει ἐκείνῃ . .. τὴν κόλασιν
ἐκείνων, 1] τῶν κολαζομένων,
13, 15 κολαζόμενοι, 17 ταύτης τῆς
κολάσεως, 19 τῆς τοιαύτης κολά-
σεως.
7 οἱ βλασφημοῦντες τὴν ὁδὸν
τῆς δικαιοσύνης. Cf. 18 οἱ
βλασφημοῦντες καὶ κακῶς εἰπόν-
τες τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης.

8 ἄνθρωποί τινες ἀποστρέ-
ῴοντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην. Cf. 90
οἱ ἀφέντες τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ.

ὃ λίμνη Tis... πεπληρωμένη
Bop3spov. Cf. 9 τὰς κεφαλὰς
εἶχον ἐν TH βορβόρῳ. 15 ἐκυ-
λίοντο. Ct. Acta Thome δ8,
εἶδον BipSopov . . . καὶ ψυχὰς
ἐκεῖ κυλιομένας.

9 οἱ συμμι[χθέντες] αὐτῶν τῷ
μιάσματι τῆς μοιχείας. Cf. 17 οἱ
μιάναντες τὰ σώματα ἑαυτῶν ὡς
γυναῖκες ἀναστρεφόμενοι.

1ὅ ἀμελήσαντες τῆς ἐντολῆς τοῦ
θεοῦ.

Fragments 1, 2 (from Mac-
arius, Apocritica, iv. 6f.).
Heaven and earth will be

2 PETER.

If ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ
ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν τῷ
Naw, ὡς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν
ἔσονται ψευδοδίδασ-
καλοι, οἵτινες παρει-
σώξουσιν αἱρέσεις ἀπ-
wrelas . . . ἐπάγον-
τες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν
ἀπώλειαν.

2" οἷς τὸ Kpiua éx-
παλαι οὐκ apyet.

31 ἡμέραν... ἀπ-
wrelas τῶν ἀσεβῶν
ἀνθρώπων.

9135. τὴν παρουσίαν
τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρας.

ον δίκαιο ΝΣ
ψυχὴν δικαίαν ἀνό-
μοις ἐργοῖς ἐβασάνι-
ἕεν.

118 ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν
.. . σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντες
ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει.

2

1% μετὰ τὴν ἐμὴν

ἔξοδον.

3!1 ποτὰἀποὺς δεῖ
ὑπάρχειν ὑμᾶς.

1! ἐν αὐχμηρῷ
τύπῳ.

9295 κολαζομένους τη-
ρεῖν.

2? δι᾽ obs ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς
ἀληθείας βλασφημη-
θήσεται.

271 τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς
δικαιοσύνης.

21 καταλείποντες
εὐθεῖα’ ὁδόν.

255 κυλισμὸν βορ-
βόρου.

21 robs ὀπίσω σαρ-
κὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασ-
μοῦ πορευομένους.
2° ἀποφυγόντες τὰ
μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου.

251 ὑποστρέψαι ἐκ
τῆς παραδοθείσης αὐ-
τοῖς ἁγίας ἐντολῆς.

37 τῆς τῶν ἀποσ-
τόλων ὑμῶν €vt nis
τοῦ κυρίου Kat σω-
τῆρος.

310. 15.

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 815

APOCALYPSE OF PETER. > RETER.

judged—f γῆ “παραστήσει πάν-
τας τῷ Oew ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως καὶ
αὐτὴ μέλλουσα κρίνεσθαι σὺν καὶ
τῷ περιέχοντι οὐρανῷ. .. τακή-
σεται πᾶσα δύναμις οὐρανοῦ, καὶ
ἑλιχθήσεται ὁ οὐρανὸς ὡς βιβλίον,
καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα πεσεῖται (Is

34").

56 (from Methodius Con- 1: θείας: κοινωνοὶ
viv. Virg. il. 6) τὸν θεσμὸν τῆς φύσεως.
μακαρίας ἐκείνης φύσεως τοῦ θεοῦ.

1b, καταφρονήσαντες τῆς σῆς Ὁ

ἐντολῆς.

James (p. 58 ff.) draws attention to several documents which
appear to borrow from the Apocalypse of Peter. It is worth
while to note coincidences between 2 P and some of these
documents.

(a) ‘The First Book of Clement, which is called the Testament
of our Lord Jesus Christ : the words which He spake to His holy
apostles after He had risen from the dead.’ The book seems to
have been originally written in Greek. Lagarde (eliquie Juris
Ecclesiastici Antiquissimi Greece p. 80ff.) has retranslated the
extant Syriac version into Greek. James (p. 54) holds that at
least the first fourteen sections of this document ‘ give us a very
fair idea of the lost first part of the Apocalypse of Peter.’

2 PETER.
Olff. 10. 14. 18. 21,

TESTAMENT.

§ 8 There shall rise up shepherds,
lawless men, unjust, despisers, covet-
ous, lovers of pleasure, lovers of gain,
lovers of money, chatterers, exalting
themselves . . . opposing the ways
of the gospel . . . dishonouring all
the way of piety. . . . They shall
lay commandments upon men not
according to the Scripture and the
commandment as the Father willed.

(The faithful] shall teach nen that,
if they prove their spirit, they are
upright and fit for the kingdom, and
they shall tell them of knowledge
and virtue and prudence [γνῶσιν καὶ
ἀρετὴν καὶ σύνεσιν, Lagarde].

(Ὁ) ‘The Apocalypse of Paul.’ ‘This book we have in ἃ rather
shortened text of the original Greek [Tischendorf, A pocalypses
Apocryphe pp. 34-69], in a fuller Syriae version, and in a Latin
version which is the fullest of all [Veats and Studies ti. 3,
pp. 11-42]’ (James p. 65). It is ‘to a large extent a compilation
from earlier works’ (see T'eats and Studies ii, 2, p. 21).

98 411.5,

APOCALYPSE OF PAUL. 2 PETER.
18. σῶς ἐξέρχονται ἐκ τοῦ κέσωου, Ls. ἐφ᾽ ὅσον shes ἐν τούτω
14 τὰς τῶν δικαίων καὶ τῶν ἃ μαρτὼλ ὧν τὰ σχηνώματι, . .. % ἀπο-

θέσις τοῦ σκηνώματος ou

ἐξόδους, srorw σχήματι ἐξ ξέρχονται ἐκ τοῦ
. μετὰ τὴν ἐωὴν ἔξοδον.

κόσμου. 15 τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς πῶς
ἐξέ ἔρχεται ἐκ τοῦ σκηνώματος αὐτῆς, 47
πρὶν ἐξελθεῖν σε iz τοῦ κόσμου.

18 παραδοθήτω ἡ Ψυχὴ αὔτη ταρταρ-
ούχω ἀγγέλῳ καὶ φυλατ τέ ἐσθω ἕω; τῆς Woes παριδωκεν MS «ρίσιν
μεγάλης ἡμέ pus τῆς “ρίσε OS. TY POUM-V6U5,

25 ὅστις ἐλύπησε τὴν ψυχὴ ty αὐτοῦ, 28,
μὴ ποιήσας 70 Ue λημα αὐτῆς διὰ τὸν θεόν.

88 ἅγιος γὰρ dy ὁ θεὸς μετανοῶν ἐπὶ
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀναμένει αὐτῶν τὴν ἐπισ-
τροφὴν καὶ μετάνοιαν.

In the earlier part of the Apoca-
lypse (4 ff.) there is a striking passage,
in which the Sun asks from God per-
mission to bure up men because of
their sins ; zal ἐγένετο φωνὴ πρὸς στον
ἫἩ μακροθυμία μου πάντων τούτων avis
χέται, OTWS μετανοήσωσιν. The same
answer is given to similar petitions
made by the Moon and Stars and by
the Sea. Compare a similar passage
in another document,which seems to
be connected with the Apocalypse of
Paul, The Testament of Abraham x.
(ed, James Beets):

Θά. σειροι: Sedov ταρταρ-

ΡΝ
39 μα κροθδίδεε εἰς" Sues,

7 5
Ay, Rovad 0s τινα ἄπο-
λίσθα, ἀλλὰ πάντα; εἰς wee

τανοίῶν ωρύσαι .

39 γυναίκας, Soe ἀπαγομεξ ἕνας ἐν τόπῳ 119. ἐν αὐχωγρω τόπῳ,
σπκοτινῷ, 42 τὸ gp: ἔαρ ἐκεῖνο σκότους καὶ 24 σειροῖς ζεφου.
ζόφους TErhnpw ce: νον. :

43 οἱ ἐν ταῖς κολάσεσιν “ρινόμενοι, 44 20 εἰς ὑἡμῖίραν κρίσεω;
πάντες οἱ ἐν ταῖς κολάσεσιν. κολαζομένου; Trp.

80 ἐγώ εἰμι Noe... καὶ οὐκ ἔταυσα- 2,
beny τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κηρύσσειν Μετανοεῖτε"
ἐδοὺ γὰρ κατακλυσμὸς: ἔρχεται.

(6) ‘The Apocalypse of Esdras’
(Tischendorf, ib. pp. 24-33).

APOCALYPSE OF EspRas. 2 PETER.
14, 5) εἰς χρίσιν παρίδωκα;. 54. ταριδωκεν εἰ; κρίσιν

τυρουυωννου;.

2 PETER.
*

APOCALYPSE OF ESDRAS.
43 θέλω, δέσποτα, ἰδεῖν καὶ τὰ κατώ-
Tipo μέ ἔρη τοῦ ταρτάρου, 53 κατήγαγόν
με κατώτερον ἐν ταρτάροις.

24 ταρταρώσας.

Τὸ what conclusion 4065 ἃ study of the coincidences
between 2 P and the Apocalypse of Peter lead us?
There are five possible views which may be taken.
(1) The coincidences may be boldly put aside as mere
chance resemblances without significance. This
view hardly needs discussion. It can scarcely be
held by a serious critic, who considers the coincei-
dences as a series, and appreciates the nature of the
most striking of them. i ‘ew will hesitate as to the
correctness of Salmon’s view, that ‘the agreements
of our fragment [7.e. the Apocalypse of Peter] with
the second Epistle of Peter... are more than
accidental’ (Appendix to Introduction p. 591). So
Sanday (Jnspiration 347), ‘The resemblances
are so marked as I think to prove that the two
writings are nearly connected.’ (2) Did the writer
of the Apocalypse borrow from 2 P? This view
seems to be impossible in view of (a) the natural-
ness of the words and phrases as they stand in
their several contexts in the Apocalypse ; (8) the
fact that some of them are repeated in the Apoc.
(sometimes with the form varied), and are found
also in kindred documents; (y) the fact that we
find in the Apocalypse none of the strange and
remarkable phrases of 2 P which would fix them-
selves in the mind of a reader who remembered
enough constantly to borrow. (3) Did the writer
of 2P borrow from the Apocalypse? This view
appears to be a quite possible one. (4) Are the
two documents the work of one writer? This is
the view to which Sanday (Inspiration p. 347)
seems to incline. ‘It is no doubt possible,’ he
writes, ‘that the writer of the Apocalypse may
have.imitated the Epistle, or that both may have
been affected by some common influence. It there
had been on the whole better reason than not for
believing the Epistle to be the genuine work of St.
Peter, it would be natural to fall back upon some
such assumption. But, as the balance of argument
is really the other way, the question is forced upon
us whether it is not on the whole more probable
that the two writings are both by the same hand.
This is at least the simplest of the different hypo-
theses which are open to us.’ The present writer
ventures to think that this explanation is excluded
by a consideration of the literary style of the two

documents. The Apocalypse is simple and natural
in style. There is nothing remarkable in its voca-

bulary. It is, in a word, wholly free from the
literary peculiarities which are so strongly marked
in 2b. (5) Are the two documents the work of
two writers who belonged to the same school,
whose thoughts moved in the same directions, and

*The word τάρταρος occurs in three passages of the LXX
(in none of which is there anything answering to it in the
Hebrew)—Job 4()15 (20) 4122 (23), Pr 9451 (3016) ; also in Enoch 20?
Οὐριὸλ. . . ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ ταρτάρου. Thus the word is
found in Jewish writings, which it is quite possible that St.
Peter may have read. On the other hand, we should not have
expected that the apostle would have applied to the judgment
of God a derivative of a word so characteristic of heathen
mythology. Further, the use of the derived verb ταρταροῦν
implies that the word τάρταρος Was & recognized term, in con-
nexion with a Christian representation of Divine punishments,
with the writer of 2 P and those for whom he wrote. We find
the ideas essentially connected with the conception of Tartarus,
emphasized in the Apocalypse of Peter; we find the word
Tartarus itself in one kindred document CA poe. of Esdras) and
the derivative ταρταροῦχος in another (Apoc. of Paul). It is
exceedingly probable that Hippolytus knew, and_ borrowed
from, the A poc. of Peter (James ps OF 1.). Now in Hippolytus’
Refutatio Cx 34) we read, δι᾽ ἧς ἐπιγνώσεως ἐκφεύξεσθε. ἘΝ ταρτάρου
ζοφερὸν 0, δ τοὶ ἀφώτιστον. .. καὶ ταρταρούχων ἀγγέλων κολαστῶν
δωμα κ.τ.λ.; and in a fragment of the same writer on the Song
of ‘the three Children,’ preserved by Theodoret (Migne, Pat. Gr.
x. 868), the words occur, Erste τὰ καταχίόνια ὠνόμασαν πνεύματα
ταρταρούχων ἀγγέλων. The use then of the word ταρταροῦν is
in itself a distinct argument for the view which regards 2 P as
a document closely connected with the Apocalypse of Peter.

816 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

to whom the same expressions and words had
grown familiar? Among these five possible ex-
planations the choice seems to lie between (3) and
(5). The fact that there is a similarity between the
two writings, not only in words or in definitely
marked ideas, but also in general conceptions—e.q.
in both there is the picture drawn of Christ on a
mountain with His apostles, the latter being ad-
mitted to a secret revelation which they should
afterwards use for the confirmation of their dis-
ciples—scems to be an argument of some strength
in favour of the view that the two documents are
the product of the same school.

7. CONCLUSION. — The task remains of inter-
preting, as a whole, the evidence bearing on the
question of the genuineness of 2 Peter. The ex-
ternal evidence is, as was pointed out, wholly
insufficient. No evidence exists at all till the time
of Clement of Alexancria, or (if we would speak
with absolute certainty) till the time of Origen.
Thus the burden of proof is thrown on the Epistle
itself. Itis conceivable that, through some accident
or series of accidents, a genuine Epistle of St. Peter
might lie hid till the end of the 2nd or the be-
ginning of the 8rd cent. and then suddenly come
to light. But an Epistle claiming to be such must
bear unmistakable testimony to its own genuine-
ness. The internal evidence of 2 P has been
examined, The literary style of the Epistle is
artificial ; it shows little command over or appre-
ciation of the language, and yet it is extra-
ordinarily ambitious. It is not easy to think that
St. Peter can have cultivated such a style, and
the Epistle itself gives no support whatever to
the idea that an amanuensis was employed in
its composition. Again, the only events in the
gospel history to which allusion is made are
incidents which had a conspicuous place in St.
Peter's life. About all other events in the Lord’s
life, even the most momentous, the Epistle is
absolutely silent. It hardly alludes to any of
the Lord’s sayings which are recorded in the Gos-
pels. ‘The suspicion, therefore, cannot fail to arise,
that the references which are made to the gospel
history are selected as being in harmony with the
supposed authorship. From history we turn to
doctrine. Nothing is said in the Epistle of the
Passion or the Resurrection or the exaltation of
Christ, or of the Holy Spirit in the Christian
Church, or of Prayer. Not only is the Resurree-
tion passed over, but the Transfivuration takes its
place as the guarantee of the truth of the gospel.
The difficulties, therefore, in the way of holding
that the Epistle is the work of a personal disciple
of Christ, called to be a witness of the Resurrection,
which a study of the Epistle itself reveals, are very
serious. ‘They become much more serious when it
is compared with what we have every reason to
believe to be the genuine words of St. Peter. The
First Epistle is wholly different from the Second in
literary style, in its use of OT language, in its
allusions to the Lord’s life and teaching. It dwells
with reiterated emphasis on those primary Chris-
tian facts and doctrines which have no place in the
Second Epistle. The internal evidence, then, re-
viewed so far, is adverse to the Petrine authorship.
3ut there is another element in the internal
evidence, of which, at this point, account must be
taken. There are in the Epistle what appear to be
clear signs of a date much later than the apostolic
age. It is only by unnatural interpretations that
31 and 3'°* can be made to harmonize with a time
within the possible limits of St. Peter’s life. The
anachronisms of the Epistle seem clearly to point to
the 2nd cent. as the time of its composition. This
conclusion, based on internal evidence, is confirmed
when external evidence is taken into account. On
the one hand, it is in accordance with the absence

of any trace of the Epistle till the beginning of the
3rd cent. On the other hand, it is at one with
What is the natural, if not necessary, inference
from the resemblances between the Epistle and
the Apocalypse of Peter, viz. that these two docu-
ments are the work of the same school and belon

΄

- fo]
(approximately) to the same date.

The evidence is obviously cumulative. Different

minds will vary in the interpretation of this or
that piece of evidence, and in the weight which
they allow to evidence the interpretation of which
is unquestioned. To the present writer it appears
that too many independent lines of evidence con-
verge towards one result to allow of hesitation.
The only conclusion, it is believed, which is in
accordance with the evidence, external and in-
ternal, is that 2 P is not the work of the apostle,
but is a document which must be assigned to the
2nd century.

Two subjects remain for censideration—

(1) Is it possible to ascertain with any degree of
probability the place where, and the ¢ime when,
the Epistle was written? It has been shown to be
probable on literary grounds that the Apocalypse
of Petcr and the Second Epistle of Peter belong
to the same school. This conclusion is confirmed
by what seems to be the natural interpretation of
the evidence as to Clement of Alexandria. [10
appears likely that he, in his /ypotyposcis, placed
the two documents side by side, and commented on
them as closely related writings. It seems prob-
able that the birthplace of the Apocalypse was
Egypt (see above, p. 777), and we theretore infer
that it is also probable that 2 P was written in
Keypt (cf. Jiilicher, Lind. p. 151; Harnack, Die
Chronologie jp. 409). This conclusion is further
supported by the fact that the Epistle has points of
contact in language and thought with two great
writers of Alexandria—Philo and Clement.

(1) Philo. Salmon (Introduction p. 502 ff.) notes that ‘ there
is a whole host of 2 Peter’s rare words in Philo.’ Thus, to take
a single example, the word ἰσότιμος (2 P 11) occurs in Philo, Ley.
Alleg. ii. ὁ (ed. Mangey i. 70, ἰσότιμον αὐτὸ ἡγησάμενος ψυχῇ);
de Sacr, Abelis et Caini 8 (i. 165, τὸν σοφὸν ἰσότιμεον xoruw*); and
ἐσοτιμία is found in de Cherub. 34 (i. 160), Vita Mosis 7 (ii. 86).
But more important than resemblance in mere vocabulary is
kinship in modes of thought. Thus, if 2 P speaks of God’s ἀρετή,
in Philo we have the phrases τὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ σοφίαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Leg.
Alleg. ii, 14, 1. 75), τὰ περὶ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀρετῶν αὐτοῦ (Quis Rerum
Div, Her, 22, 1. 488), τῆς θείας ἀρετῆς (tb. 23, 1. 489), τῆς ἀρετῆς τοῦ
πάντα μεγάλου θεοῦ (de Somniis i. 16, 1. 635). Again, Philo
supplies parallels to the phrase θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, 2 P 14—e.g,
Vita Mosis ii, 11 (ii. 143), ἦδει γὰρ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ ἵλεω; de Spec.
Leg, iv. 8 (ii. B43), τῆς μακορίας καὶ εὐδαίμονος θεοῦ φύσεω: ; de
Abram. 28 (ii. 22), οἱ μιμούμενοι τὴν θείαν φύσιν ; de Somniis i. 28
(i. G47), ὅσοι λογικῆς κεκοινωνίκοισι φύσεως. Again, with the phrase
τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον in 2P 119 and with the words of the
Epistle as to prophecy, 129 (τᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίως ἱπιλύ-
σεω: οὐ γίνεται, οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου x.7.A.), We Compare
the use of the same phrase ὁ σπροφητιχὸς λόγος in, e.g., Leg.
Alleg. iii. 14 (i. 95), de Plant. Noe 28 (i. 347); and similar
expressions, such as ὁ προφήτης λέγος (de Congr. Erud. Grat.
30, 1. 543), στόματι προφητικῷ (de Mut. Nom. 24, i. 599), ἐν προ-
φητιπαὶς ῥήσεσιν (tb. 31, i. 604), ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος (Leg. Alleg. iii. 4, i. 89;
ἐν. 56, 1. 119); and Philo’s language about prophecy in, 6.4.»
Quis Rer, Div. Heres 52 (i. 510, προφήτης γὰρ soley μὲν οὐδὲν
ἀποφθίγγεται, ἀλλότρια δὲ πάντα ὑπηχοῦντος ἑτέρου); Vita Mosis 1.
δ1 1. (il, 135 f., λέγω γὰρ οὐδὲν ἴδιον ἀλλ’ aT ἂν ὑπυηχήση τὸ θεῖον...
ἐξαίφνης θειοφορείται); de Monarch. i. 9 (ii, 229, προφήτης θεοφέρη πος
θεσπιεῖ καὶ προφητείσει, λέγων μὲν οἰκεῖον οὐδέν . . . ἐρμυνεῖς γάρ εἰσιν
οἱ προφήται θεοῦ καταχρωμεένου τοῖς ἐκείνων ὀργάνοις πρὸς δήλωσιν ὧν ἂν
ἐθελτση); de Spec. Leg. iv. 8 (ii. 845, προφήτης τε μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἴδιον
ἀποφαίνεται τὸ παράπαν ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ἐρκηνεὺς ὑποβάλλοντος ἐτέρου
πάνθ᾽ ὅσα προφέρει. . . ἐπιπεφοιτηπκότος δὲ καὶ ἐνωκνκότος τοῦ θείου
πνεύματος κ.τ.λ.).

(2) Clement. 2 P 225 (ὗς λουσαμένη εἰς κυλισμὸν βορβόρου) has a
close parallel in the proverb quoted by Clement, ὕες ὅδονται βορβόρῳ
μάλλον ἢ καθαρᾷ ὕδατι (Cohort. 10, p. 75, ed. Potter ; Stvom. i. 1, p.
317), in the earlier passage a saying of Democritus being added,
ἐπὶ φορυτῷ μαργαίΐνουσι. With the phrase τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι
αὐτοῦ ἁ μαρτιῶν (2 Ρ 19) compare Quis Dives salv. 40 (p. 957), τῶν
μὲν οὖν προγεγενημένων θεὸς δίδωσιν ἄφεσιν, τῶν δὲ ἐπιόντων αὐτὸς Siemens
ἑαυτῷ; Strom. iv. 24 (p. 633), ἀφίενται γοῦν πρὸς τοῦ Κυριου αἱ πρὸ τη»
πίστεως. Again, with 2 Ρ 219 (ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι,
αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς) Compare Strom. iv. 5 (p. 530),

* The words which follow—ra αὐτῶ λέγω καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἐργαζόμενοι
z.7.A.—illustrate 2 P 87 (τῷ αὐτῷ λέγω τεθησαυρισμένοι εἰσὶν x.T.A.)

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 817

οὐκ ἔτι ἀδιαφόρως βιωτέον οὐδὲ ἀναίδην δουλευτέον τοῖς ἀτιμοτάτοις
μέρεσιν ἡμῶν, γαστρὶ καὶ αἰδοίοις, δι᾽ ἐπιθυμίαν κολακευόντων τὸν
ἡμέτερον νεκρόν. -- The similarity of two other passages in
2 Peter to characteristic passages in Clement is much more
important. (i.) In Clement’s system faith is the foundation ;
on this is built a superstructure of good living ; ‘knowledge,’
with the higher virtues which spring from it (ἀπάθεια, taking ἃ
prominent place among them), is a later stage of growth. See,
é.g., the passage at the beginning of Strom. vi. where he refers
to the purpose of his Padagogus—o παιδαγωγὸς... τὴν ἐκ παίδων
ἀγωγήν τε καὶ τροφὴν Ζαρέστησεν, τουτέστιν, ἐκ κατηχήσεως συναΐξουσαν
τῇ πίστει πολιτείαν καὶ προπωρασκευάζουσαν τοῖς εἰς ἄνδρας ἐγγραφο-
μένοις ἐνάρετον τὴν ψυχήν, εἰς ἐπιστήμης γνωστικῆς παραδοχίν. He
bitterly complains of those who divorce faith from conduct, e.g.
Strom. i. 9 (p. 341), μόνην χαὶ Ψψιλὴν τὴν πίστιν ἀπαιτοῦσιν. The
ascending series of virtues in 2P 15f (πίστις, ἀρετή, γνῶσις,
ἐγκράτεια, ὑπομονή, εὐσίβεια, φιλαδελφία, ἀγά πη) is seen at once to
have points of contact with that type of Alexandrian thought
which finds expression in Clement’s writings. With the words
of 2 P compare especially Clement, Strom. ii. 6 (p. 444), ἡ πρώτη
πρὸς σωτηρίαν νεῦσις ἡ πίστις ἡμῖν ἀναφαίνεται, eel” ἣν φοβος τε nai
ἐλπὶς χαὶ μετάνοια, σὺν τε ἐγκρατείᾳ καὶ ὑπομονῇ προκόπτουσαι,
ἄγουσιν ἡμᾶς ἐπί τε ἀγάπην ἐπί τε γνῶσιν ; Strom, vii. 10 (p. 865),
τῷ ἔχοντι προστεθήσεται: τῇ μὲν πίστει ἡ γνῶσις τῇ TE γνώσει ἡ
ἀγάπη: τῇ ἀγάπη δὲ ἡ κληρονομία. (il.) It would be easy toadduce
a very large number of passages from Clement illustrating the
essential idea of the phrase θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως (2 P 14). In the
first place, he constantly dwells on man’s relation to God by
creation (e.g. Cohort. 10, p. 78); man cannot be awspos θείας
ἐννοίας (Strom. v. 13, p. 698). In the second place, he raises to
the highest place of Christian hope the Platonic idea that
‘the end of happiness is ὁμοίωσις θεῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν᾽ (Strom.
ii. 19, p. 4823 cf. e.g. Strom. vii. 3, p. 835). Lastly, he finds
the consummation of man’s being in θεοποίησις (e.g. Cohort. 11,
p. 89; Strom. vi. 14, p. 797, δύνα μιν λαβοῦσα κυριοκὴν ἡ ψυχὴ
μελετᾷ εἶναι θεός ; ἐν. 15, p. 803). Clement was a debtor to those
who had gone before for much of his characteristic teaching.
It is a reasonable conclusion from the parallels with Philo and
Clement that the writer of 2 P was influenced in some of his
conceptions and in his phraseology by the Christian schcol of
Alexandria as it existed before Clement’s time.

In regard to date, the superior limit is approxi-
mately fixed by the fact that the Epistle was
known to Origen, probably to Clement, and that
it was already accepted by some in the time of the
latter as the work of St. Peter. It can hardly,
therefore, have been composed quite recently in
Clement’s, certainly not quite recently in Origen’s,
time. The latest possible date, therefore, would be
about the year A.D. 175. As to the inferior limit,
the following considerations are pertinent. (1) A
literature is growing up, connecting itself with the
name of St. Peter. (2) The immoral Gnostic sects
are active. (3) St. Paul’s Epistles have been col-
lected: they are regarded as Scripture, and, with
other Scriptures, they are violently misinterpreted
by the heretics. These indications point to a date
Jater than the first quarter of the 2nd cent. We
may conclude provisionally that the Epistle was
written a few years before, or a few years after,
the middle of the 2nd cent., in Egypt, perhaps in
Alexandria.

It must be added that a first rate commen-
tary on 2P is a great want of English theo-
logical literature. Such a commentary would
have for its primary object the examination in
detail of the relation of the language and ideas of
2 P to early Christian literature, and especially to
pseudepigraphie and apocryphal documents. Till
this work has been wiper ὍΝ οὶ conclusions as
to the place of writing and as to the exact date
within the 2nd cent. to which 2 P is to be assigned,
must be regarded as tentative.

(2) In what sense is 2 P to be viewed as a forgery?
When we regard the Epistle from the point of view
of those who possess in the NT a fixed and definite
collection of apostolic writings, our natural im-
pulse, when we find ourselves unable to maintain
its genuineness, is to condemn it as a shameless
forgery, composed with the express purpose of
gaining, by means of false statements, a place by
the side of the genuine Epistle of St. Peter. But
it may well be doubted if this verdict is not wholly
vitiated by our ignorance of the circumstances
of its composition, and by our natural transference
of the ideas of a later time to an earlier and
different age. The Epistle is closely related to the

VOL SII 52

Apocalypse of Peter. It seems itself to refer (115)
to some other related document or documents. [,
then, it was part of a literature which connected
itself with the name of St. Peter, the Epistle with
similar writings may well have been put forward
without any sinister motive. The very number
of such documents may well have been at the
time a suflicient bar to misconception. | Their
real character may have been perfectly well known
to the readers for whom they were primarily in-
tended. In other words, the personation of the
apostle, which appears so wicked when 2 P is
viewed as an isolated document, may well have
been an obvious literary device rather than a
religious or controversial fraud.

The religious and theological aspect of the con-
clusion that the genuineness of the Epistle cannot
be maintained, lies outside the scope of this article.
The present writer, however, may be allowed to
say, that in his opinion the adoption of such a
critical verdict can cause perplexity only when
the Lord’s promise of guidance to His Church is
regarded as a charter of infallibility.

LireraTURE. — (1) THE LIFE OF ST. PETER: Baronius,
Annales, 1609; Xavier, Hist. S. Petri, 1639; H. A. Birks,
Studies in the Life and Character of St. t eter, 1887 ; Couard,
Simon Petrus der Apostel des Herrn. There is no standard
‘Life’ of St. Peter. Information must be sought in (i.) articles
in Dictionaries (an asterisk in the following list indicates that
the Epistles are included in the art. or are treated of by the
same writer), e.g. *Hneyc. Brit. (Harnack, 1885) ; *Herzog (J. P.
Lange, 1859) ; *Herzog-Plitt (Sieffert, 1883); Kitto (W. L. Alex-
ander, 1866) ; Schenkel (Holtzmann, 1871); *Smith (F. C. Cook,
1863); *Winer (1848): (ii.) Introductions to Commentaries on
Epistles, 6.9. Plumptre, Kuhl: (iii.) Commentaries on the
Gospels, the Acts, Galatians (especially Lightfoot), 1 Corin-
thians: (iv.) ‘Lives of Christ’ and kindred books, e.g. Bruce,
Training of the Twelve, 1871; Edersheim, Life and Times of
Jesus the Messiah, 1884, abridged ed. 1886; Ewald, Gesch-
ichte d. Volkes Israel, 1864-68, Eng. tr. History of Israel,
1883-86 ; Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 1897 ; Farrar, Life of Christ,
1876; Andrews, Life of our Lord upon the Karth, 1892 ; Haus-
rath, Neutestamentliche Zeityesch.3 1879, Eng. tr. Times of
Jesus, 1882, Times of Apostles, 1895; Keim, Gesch. Jesu von
Nazara, 1867-72, Eng. tr. Hist. of Jesus of Nazara, 1873-83 ;
Lange, Leben Jesu nach den Hvangelien, 1844-47, Eng. tr. Life
of the Lord Jesus Christ, 1864; Renan, Vie de Jésus, 1863, 17th
ed. 1882; Weiss, Leben Jesu, 1882, 3rd ed. 1888, Eng. tr. Life of
Christ, 1883-84 ; Beyschlag, Leben Jesu, 1885-86 ; Didon, Jésus
Christ, 1890, Eng. tr. 1893; cf. art. Jesus CHRIST in vol. ii.
p. 653: (iv.) Works on the Apostolic Age, e.g. V. Bartlet, 1900 ;
Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, vii.; Farrar, Early Days of
Christianity, 1882 ; Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 1894; Lechler,
Das apost. u. das nachapost. Zeitalier2, 1857, Eng. tr. The
Apost. and post-Apost. Times, 1886; Lightfoot, ‘St. Paul and
the Three,’ in comm. on Galatians, 1865, ‘St. Peter in Rome,’
in Clement, ii. p. 481 ff., 1890; McGiffert, Hist. of Christianity
in the Apostolic Age, 1897; Neander, Planting of the Christian
Church, 1832, Eng. tr. 1841; Ramsay, The Church τη, the
Roman Empire, 1893, St. Paul the Traveller, 1895 ; Rankin,
The First Saints, 1893; Renan, Les Apétres, 1866, St. Paul,
1869, L’ Antichrist, 1873, Les Evangiles, 1877, L’ Eglise Chréti-
enne, 1879; Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 1850,
2nd ed. 1857; Stanley, Sermons and Essays on the Apost. Age,
1847, 3rd ed. 1874 ; Weizsiicker, Das apost. Zeitalter, 1886, Eng.
tr. 1894; ef. art. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES in vol. i. p. 35.

The chief recent works dealing with St. Peter’s visit to Rome
and collateral matters have been referred to in the body of the
art. on PETER. Of older books Baronius, Annales, i., 1609, and
Spanheim, Dissertatio de Jicta profectione Petri Ap. in urbem
Romam, 1679, may be mentioned ; and among works of the
present century J. Delitzsch in SK, 1874 (pp. 213-260, ‘Zur
Quellenkritik der iltesten kirchlichen Berichte uber Simon
Petrus ἃ. Simon Magus’); Langen, Gesch. der rim.- Kirche,
1881 (i. pp. 40-63) ; Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of
Rome, 1893; Schmid, Petrus ta Rom, 1879; Windischmann,
Vindicie Petrine, 1836.

(2) THE THEOLOGY OF ST. PETER (SPEECHES IN THE ‘ACTS,
EPISTLES): B. Weiss, Der petrinische Lehrbegriff, 1855 ; the
relevant sections in works on the Biblical Theology of the NT,
e.g. Baur, Vorlesungen, 1864 ; Beyschlag, 1891, Eng. tr. 1895
(bk. iii. § 3); Bovon, 1893: Holtzmann, 1896; Pfleiderer, Das
Urechristenthum, 1887; Reuss, 1864, Eng. tr. 1872 : Salmond,
Christian Doctrine of Immortality, 2nd ed. 1896 (bk. iv. ch. iii.) ;
Schmid, 1853, Eng. tr. 1870; Adeney, 1894 : G. B. Stevens, 1899 ;
B. Weiss, 5th ed. 1888, Eng. tr. from 3rd ed. 1882; Dale in The
Atonement, 1878, pp. 97-148; Briggs in The Messiah of the
Apostles, 1895, pp. 21-41. ;

The following list. of books dealing with 1 P 319M 40. 18
given in Charles, Eschatology, 1899, p. 376n.; Dietelmaier,
Historia Doginatis de Descensu Christi ad Inferos litteraria,
1741 and 1762; Giider, Die Lehre von d. Erscheinung Christt
unter den Toten, 1853; Zezschwitz, De Christi ad Inferos

—

|
|

818 PETHAHTIAH

PHALIAS

Descensu, 1857; Usteri, Hinabgefahren zur Holle; Schweitzer,
Hinabgefahren zur Holle, 1886; Hofmann, Schriftheweiss, ii.
335-341 ; Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, 3rd ed.
1897, pp. 458-488; Spitta, Christi Predigt an die Geister;
Bruston, La Descente du Christ aua Enfers, 1897; Stevens,
Theology of the NT’, 1899, pp. 304-311. To these may be
added Pearson on art. v. of the Apostles’ Creed with the notes ;
Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison, 1884; Wright, Biblical Essays,
1886, p. 138; Delitzsch and Hofmann in F2aypos. 4th ser. vol. iii.
1891, pp. 241-263 ; Balfour in Hapos. Times, vii. (1896) 356-359.

3) THE RECEPTION OF THE EPISTLES (i Pi OE) Ne TOILE.
CHURCH: Charteris, Canonicity, 1880, pp. 301-318 (based on
the next named); Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung, 1844, 88. 28,
29; Westcott, History of the Canon, 5th ed. 1881; Zahn, Gesch.
des NT’ Kanons, 1888, especially 1. i. pp. 302-318. On 2P
reference may also be made to Salmon, /ntroduction, 6th ed.
1892, pp. 483-490 ; Spitta, Der zweite Brief des Petrus, p. 533f.;
Warfield, Southern Presbyterian Review, Jan. 1882.

(4) COMMENTARIES: (i.) On both Epistles: («) Ancient:
Didymus of Alexandria (Migne, Pat. Gr. xxxix, Latin version
with a few Greek fragments); Cicumenius (Migne, Pat. Gr.
cxix.); fragments and scholia in C. F. Matthei, Nov. Test. v.
1782, Scholia ad Eph. Cath. p. 196 ff. ; and in Cramer, Catena,
1840. (¢) Modern: the Reformation Period, Erasmus, 1516,
1535 ; Luther, 1523; Calvin, 1551. The 17th and 18th centuries,
Grotius, Annotationes, 1650; Wolf, Curw Philologicw, 17413
Bengel, Gnomon, 1773. The present century (in alphabetical
order)—Alford, 4th ed. 1871; J.T. Beck, 1895; B. Briickner,
3rd ed. 1865; K. Burger in Strack-Zockler’s Kurzyefasster
Kommentar ?, 1895; H. Couard, 1895; Fronmiiller in Lange,
Bibelwerk, 1862, 4th ed. 1890, Eng. tr. 1867; Goebel, 1893 ;
Hofmann, 1875; Huther in Meyer, 1852, Eng. tr. 1881; Keil,
1883; Plumptre in Camb. Bible fur Schools, 1880 ; Pott, 1810;
M. F. Sadler, 1891; 5. D. F. Salmond in Schaft’s Popular Com-
mentary, 1883 ; Schott, 1863; von Soden in Hand-Comimentar2,
1892; A. Wiesinger in Olshausen, Bibelwerk, 1 P 1854, 2 P 1862:
Wordsworth, new ed. 1872. (ii.) On 1P only: Clement of
Alexandria, Hypotyposeis (Zahn, Forschungen, iii. pp. 79-83,
pp. 93-95), stands at the head of the list. Modern commen-
taries—F. C. Cook in Speaker's Commentary, 1881; Hort (an
important fragment on 11-217; published posthumously, 189s) ;
R. Johnstone, 1888; A. J. Mason in Ellicott’s Comin. for
English Readers, 1883; Steiger, 1832, Eng. tr. 1836; Theile,
1833; Usteri, 1887. (iii.) On 2 P only: Dietlein, 1851; Harms,
1873; Lumby in Speaker's Commentary, 1881; Plummer in
Ellicott’s Comm. for English Readers, 1883 ; Steinfass, 1863.

(5) GENERAL (ON THE EPISTLES).—The relevant sections in
the Introductions to the NT, especially the following :—
Bleek, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Salmon,
B. Weiss, de Wette (ed. 1860), Zahn ; arts. in Dictionaries, etc.
marked with * in (1); also Kitto (1 and 2 Pet., W. Wright) ;
Schenkel (1 P, Holtzmann; 2 P, Schenkel); also the follow-
ing books and articles:—E, A. Abbott, articles on 2P in Ex-
positor, Jan. Feb. March 1882; Cludius, Uransichten des
Christenthuins, 1808 (pp. 296-311; said to be the first critic to
question the authenticity of 1 P); Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 1895,
p. 244f. (1 P), p. 277ff. (2 P); Ewald, Sieben Sendschreilen,
1870; Farrar, art. on 2 P in Hapositor, June 1882, The Early
Days of Christianity, 1882 (i. pp. 121-219 on both Epistles) ;
Gloag, Introduction to Cath. Epistles, 1887; Grimm in SK,
1872, pp. 657-694 (‘Das problem des ersten Petrus - briefes’);
Grosch, Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri, 1889 (dates
ΤΡ αν. 55, 2 P 66-67, and maintains genuineness of latter);
Harnack, Die Lehre der zwilf Apostel (‘Texte u. Untersuch.’
ii. 1, 2), 1884 (p. 105), Die Chronologie, 1897 (pp. 450 475, ‘Die
unter dem Namen des Petrus fiinf Schriften’); Link in Sk,
1896 (pp. 405-436, ‘Der Dolmetscher des Petrus’); Mayerhoff,
Die petrinischen Schriften, 1835 ; McGiffert, History of Chris-
tiamty in the Apostolic Age, 1897 (pp. 482 ff. 596 ff. on 1 ΡΣ
p. 600 Ε΄. on 2 Ρ); Ramsay, T’he Church in the Roman Empire,
1893 (pp. 279-295 on date of 1 P); Sanday in Expositor, series
4, vol. vii. 1893 (pp. 406-413 on date of LP), Inspiration, 1893
(especially pp. 346 ff. 382 ff. on 2 P); E. Scharfe, Die petrinische
Strémung der neutestamentlichen Literatur, 1893 (expansion of
art. in SK, 1889, pp. 633 670, ‘ Die schriftstellerische Originalitit
des ersten Petrusbriefs’); Spitta, Der zwvite Brief des Petrus
u. der Brief des Judas, 1885; Swete, in Commentary on the
Gospel according to St. Mark, 1898 (yp. xvi-xviii); Warfield,
articles on the canonicity and genuineness of 2 Peter in the
Southern Presbyterian Review, Jan. 1882, April 1883; B. Weiss,
in SK, 1866 (p. 256 ff., ‘Die petrinische Frage, Das verhiltniss
zum Judasbrief’); Schulze in Zéckler’s Handb. ἃ. theol.
Wissensch. 1883 (i. p. 529f.). J, ‘Gras

PETHAHIAH (-:nn5).—1. The head of the nine-
teenth [LXX eighteenth] priestly course, 1 Ch 9416
(B Gerad, Α ᾿Αφεσσή). 2. A Levite who had mar-
ried a foreign wife, Ezr 10% (B Φαδαιά, A Φεθειά)
introduced by a later hand in Neh 95 (LXX om.).
3. A Judahite officer, who ‘was at the kine’s hand
in all matters concerning the people,’ Neh 113
(B Παθαιά, A Φαθαιά).

.
’

PETHOR (in5; B @adovpa, A Ba@ovpa). — The
home of Balaam (Nu 225, Dt 234 ()), said (Nu) to
be ‘on the River’ (i.e. the Euphrates), and (Dt)
to belong to Aram-naharaim (ef. Nu 239), aes the

region between the Euphrates in its upper course
(by and below Carchemish) and the Khabour,
some 400 miles N.N.E. of Palestine. It is no
doubt the Pitru, mentioned by Shalmaneser 11.
(B.C. 860-825): “1 crossed the Euphrates, and took
the city Ana-ASsur-utir-asbat on the other side of
the Euphrates, on the Sagur, which the Hittites
call Pitru’ (KIB i. 133, 1. 37-40; cf. 163, 1. 36;
173, 1. 85-6); and the Pedru, named long before
among his conquests by Thothmes tr. (W. M.
Miiller, As. wv. Hur. 291; 2P, v. 38, No. 280).
The Sagur is the modern Sa@jur, which flows into
the Euphrates from the N.W. at a point about
60 miles N.E. of Aleppo: Pitru or Pethor, if
‘on’ both the Euphrates (Nu 22°) and the Sajur,
must thus have been on the W. bank of the
former river at its junction with the Sajur, and
therefore, speaking strictly, just beyond the W.
border of Aram-naharaim (Dt 234).* It was, of
course, much more nearly N. of Moab than ‘east’
(Nu 237); but it must be remembered that the
term ‘east’ is used broadly (see Gn 99], of Haran,
in the same neighbourhood). For ‘mountains’ (7d. )
between the Sajur and the Euphrates, Dillm. refers
pertinently to Sachau, Jdcise in Syr. u. Mesvop. 1883,
pp. 159 ff, 165 ff (cf. also the map). See, further,
Schrader, AAT? 155f., NKeilinschr. uw. Geschichts-
Jorsch, 220f.; Dillm. on Nu 22°; Sayce, HCH 274,
S. R. DRIVER.

PETHUEL (5s:n2; perhaps, by a copyist’s slip,
for $wina Bethuel, so LXX [Βαθουήλ] and other VSS,
but Vule. Phatuel).—The father of the prophet
Joel, J] 1.

PETITION. —1. =by¥ from δὰ to ask, is tr.
‘petition? in bs: ΕΣ KO, et Sort ee
In Jg 8* we tind the subst. and vb. together, liter-
ally ‘ask an asking,’ EV ‘desire a request.’ So
1 Καὶ 216 (EV ‘ask a petition’), 2°°(EV ‘desire a peti-
tion’). In Est 57 ‘petition’ and ‘request’ appear
as synonyms (Heb. πον and πῷρϑ). 2. adxzn from
the same vb., Ps 905, 3. The Aram. 93, from sya
‘to inquire into,’ Dn 67-8: in ν 13 the subst. is not
expressed in Heb. 4, δέησις, 1 Mac 757 ‘a house of
wrayer and petition’ (οἶκος προσευχῆς καὶ δεήσεως ;
tV ‘prayer and supplication’). 5, αἴτημα, 1 Jn 54
‘We have the petitions which we desired’ (ra
αἰτήματα ἃ ἠτήκαμεν, RV ‘which we have asked’).
6. Oratio, ὃ Es 874.

PETRA.—See SELA.

PEULLETHAI (-nbye, B ᾿ΤΙαφθοσλααθί, A. Po\daGi).
—The eighth son of Obed-edom, 1 Ch 26°.

PHAATH MOAB (Φαὰθ Μωάβ), 1 Es δ] (B
Φθαλειμωάβ), 8 (B Μααθμ., AV Pahath M.) =
Pahath-Moab.

PHACARETH (oxapé0), 1 Es 5%! -- Pochereth-
hazzebaim, Ezr 2°7.—The succeeding word be-
longs to this name as in Cod. B Φ. Σαβειή, and is
not a separate name as it is taken by Cod. A and
tV ‘the sons of Sabie.’

PHAISUR (B Φαισούρ, A Paicov), 1 Es 9? = Pashhur,
the head of a priestly house, elsewhere called
Phassurus, | Es 5”,

PHALDEUS (Β Φαλαδαῖος, A fadédaios,
Phaldaius, 1 Es 9#=Pedaiah, Neh 84.

AV

PHALEAS (#a)aias), 1 Es 5°°=Padon, Ezr 2%.
PHALIAS (B Φαλίας, A Φιάθας, AV Biatas), 1 Es
9*8— Pelaiah, Neh 87.

* See the excellent map of ‘Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia,’ in
the Encyclopedia Biblica, i. in the art. ASSYRLA.

ae

PHALTIEL

PHARAOH 819

PHALTIEL (Phalthicl, i.e. seeds, cf. 28 3%; Ὁ
Salatiel, Syr. Psaltiel). — The ‘ captain of the
people,’ who had an inverview with Esdras at the
close of his first vision, 2 Es 5!

PHANUEL (Φανουήλ, i.e. Syne Penuel). — The
mother of Anna, Lk 959,

PHARAKIM (B Φαρακέμ, A -κείμ, AV Pharacim),
1 Es 5%.—-His sons were among the temple ser-
vants who returned with Zerubbabel. ‘The name
is omitted in the parallel lists of Ezr and Neh.

PHARAOH (7375, Papas).—The term does not
occur in the Tel el-Amarna letters, nor perhaps
anywhere else in cuneiform literature. In fact,
εὖ far as we know, in ancient times it was
the Hebrews alone who adopted the term ; from
Hebrew it passed into Greek, and from Greek into
Arabic. In face of these facts it is almost super-
{luous to mention that Renouf has noted that 372
can, if nevessary, be connected with an Arabic and
even with a Hebrew root (PSBA xv. 421). The
word existed in full use in Egyptian, with a purely
Egyptian etymology, and there is no need to seek
it further. The earliest instance of the title in
Hebrew is probably in Ex 154, generally assigned
by critics to about B.C. 950.

In inscriptions of the Old Kingdom an expression
Pr-o, ‘great house,’ is found, and signifies the royal
house or estate, especially in titles such as ‘super-
intendent of the gardens of Pr-o’; but there is
nothing to show that it was then applied to the
person of Pharaoh. In the Middle Kingdom, from
dynasty 12-16 it still designated strictly the palace
and royal establishment rather than the king, yet
it is already often followed in writing by the
Vivat! ‘Life, Prosperity, Health.’ In the New
Kingdom it became at once personal, and was soon
a common term for the king: 6.4. a letter is ad-
dressed to Amenhotep IV. (18th dynasty) as
‘Pharaoh the Lord.’ In the 19th dynasty it is
the usual expression for the king in unarchaistic
narrative and in the stories, and is followed by the
royal personal determinative. Certain hieratic
documents show that in the 22nd dynasty it pre-
ceded the personal name of the king in dates,
thus: ‘the Sén (king) Pr-‘o (Pharaoh), Shashaqa.’
In formal inscriptions the older royal titles per-
sisted to the end, but in demotic the new style
alone was used (at least from the 25th dynasty,
the period of the Assyrian invasion), and docu-
ments exist naming the Pr-o Nik’w, the exact
equivalent of ‘Pharaoh-Necho.’ At the same time
the king is always referred to in narrative as Pr~o.
Probably not much later than this the “Ayin was
lost. In Old Coptic (of the 2nd cent. A.D.) the
descendant of Pr-‘o is simply trepo, ‘ the king,’ and
the m being misinterpreted as the def. article, left
only €po as the word for king in Coptic. Φερών,
given as the name of an Egyptian king in Hdt. τ.
cxi., is evidently only the royal title Pr-o.

The phrase ‘ Pharaoh king of Egypt,’ so common
in the OT, is not taken from the Egyptian. In
Assyrian, ‘ Pir’u king of Musri,’ named in an in-
scription of Sargon, seems at first the precise
equivalent to it, but Winckler (MWitth. εἰ. vordcras.
Ges. 1898, i. 3) distinguishes Musri, a north-Arabian
land, from Misri, Egypt ; so this equation is at least
very doubtful.

Shishak is the first king of Egypt whom the
Bible definitely names; and it is a guarantee of
comparatively early date and a non-Egyptian
source for the record in 1 Καὶ 14%, that his name
is not there preceded by the title ‘Pharaoh.’ The
Saite kings Pharaoh-Necho and Pharaoh-Hophra
are accurately entitled as in contemporary Egyp-
tian. The Ethiopian conqueror Tirhakah is regu-

larly called ‘ Pharaoh Tirhakah’ in Egyptian docu-
ments, but in the Hebrew (2 I< 19°) his true position
is more accurately defined as ‘ king of Cush.’

4. The first appearance of the title according to
the canonical scheme of the biblical books is in
Gn 120, As Abram is to be placed long before
the 18th dynasty, the title here seems an ana-
chronism such as is met with in the late Egyptian
stories. Another difficulty in the narrative is
the mention of Abram’s having camels in Egypt.
Herodotus refers to camels on the borders of Egypt
in the time of Cambyses, which at least testifies
to their presence in the writer’s own day (5th cent.
B.C.), and this, except for the passage in Genesis,
is the earliest mention of the animal in connexion
with Egypt; it would, however, be easy to believe
that camels were known throughout the Persian
period and as far back at least as the / ssyrian
invasions in the 7th cent. (25th dynasty). As the
narrative presents no clear feature—famines being
frequent — by which Abram’s Pharaoh may be
distinguished from others, and since Egyptian, as
well as Hebrew, chronology is at present exceed-
ingly obscure for the earlier periods, it is obviously
useless to attempt his identification.

2. The Pharaoh of Joseph. The long and elabor-
ate story of Joseph presents some very interesting
data for consideration, but they are not favourable
to the view that it is historically true. Its use
of the title ‘Pharaoh,’ and of Yé’dr, the late
Egyptian name of the Nile, which is derived from
the old form Yér, alike preclude an early date for
its redaction. Far weightier is the evidence of the
names Potiphera (P-ti-p-F’, ‘the gift of the Sun’),
Asenath ({ N Jes-Neith, ‘ belonging to Neith’), Zaphe-
nath-pa‘aneah (Zt-p-ntr-e-f-nkh, ‘Saith the god,
‘che liveth” !’), which are of forms common after
the 2ist dynasty, and not occurring at all before
it. The name Asenath strongly suggests the times
of the Saite dynasties, when the worship of Neith
was prominent and all these types of names were
in full currency. A genuine Egyptian name of
the type of Zaphenath-pa‘aneah would have in-
cluded the name of a specific deity, but at any
rate the Hebrew author was so familiar with the
formation of Egyptian names that he could intro-
duce appropriately into the formula a new element
p-ntr, ‘the god,’ instead of a god’s name, without
committing a solecism. The relations of Egypt
with Palestine from the 10th cent. B.c. onward, and
especially in and after the period of the Assyrian
invasions, may explain this.

In a priestly inscription of the latest period, at
the Cataracts, there is a record, that can scarcely
be historical, of a 7 years’ famine under one of
the earliest kings, perhaps B.C. 3000, but we have
no other record of any famine of like duration
until Arab times. Our knowledge of Egypt is still
very limited. Of the tenure of land in Egypt we
know little; of the buying up of the people and
their land, and the ultimate arrangement for pay-
ing 1th of the produce as a tax to Pharaoh, nothing
is known. ΤῸ seek the prototype of the Pharaoh
of Joseph seems a rather thankless task. The
chariot may or may not be an anachronism ; its
employment probably began under the Hyksos.
It is usually conjectured that the Pharaoh who
raised Joseph to the highest place in the realm
and treated his shepherd brethren so well was a

Hyksos, ‘Shepherd,’ king of the 15th or 16th
dynasty. But of the Hyksos kings we know

practically nothing ag that some of them ruled
the whole of Egypt, that they worshipped par-
ticularly or exclusively the god Set, and that their
principal residences were On (Heliopolis) and
Avaris (most likely Zaru) in the N.E. of Lower
Egypt. Probably other events than those re-
counted in Genesis brought about the disappear-

820 PHARAOH

PHARATHON

ance of the feudal system of the Middle Empire
before the New Kingdom. See, further, article
JOSEPH.

3. ἃ. The Pharaohs of the Oppression and the
Exodus. On the supposition that these events took
place in the 18th or 19th dynasty, ‘Pharaoh’ is a
term which might well be employed by a contem-
porary historian of them. But Yer for the Nile
seems to lower the date, and, had the great occur-
rences been still fresh in the remembrance of the
emigrants or of their immediate descendants at
the time of writing down the story, the distinctive
names of the Egyptian kings concerned, and other
definite information, would hardly have been
omitted from the narrative. If the account is
literally true, or almost so, it presents us with a
considerable historical sequence to fit into the
Egyptian history of the New Kingdom, a period
for which our information is much fuller than
usual. Ramses I. of the 19th dynasty is generally
(see Driver's discussion in Hogarth’s Authority and
Archeology, 52 11.) accounted the Pharaoh of the
Oppression, and his son and successor, Merenptah, is
considered to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus, which
some, however (¢.g. Lieblein, PS BA, 1899, 66), would
place in the reign of Amenhotep JIL. or Iv. of the
18th dynasty, supporting their argument by the
movements of the ‘ Habiri’ (Hebrews 7) in Palestine
as disclosed by the ‘Tel el-Amarna letters. The
name of Raamses given (Ex 11!) toa store city built
by the Hebrews clearly refers to some city built
for one of the kings named Ramses. Of these
Ramses IH. was the greatest ; he was also pre-
eminent as a builder. Several cities were called
after his name, and one in the Eastern Delta, in
the region of Goshen, retained it till a late date.
He was also active at Pithom, as is shown by
M. Naville’s excavation there; but it is by no
means clear that he was the founder of it: prob-
ably the site was already ancient in his day.
The Oppression evidently lasted many years.
Ramses 11. reigned 67 years, and thus the Exodus
may have taken place in the short reign of
Merenptah, the son and successor of that aged
king. The remarkable fact that the Israclites are
named on a monument of Merenptah (see Petrie,
Six Temples, pls. xiii., xiv.) as destroyed or harried
by him, apparently in Palestine, does not disprove
this theory, as detachments from the main body
might have left Egypt from time to time, and
settled and multiplied at Hebron, round the tombs
of the patriarchs. Nor is it disproved by the
recent discovery of the mummy of Merenptah in
the tomb of Amenhotep Π|., for the biblical narra-
tive does not distinctly state that Pharaoh himself
was drowned in the Red Sea. The Israelites are
said to have passed through the desert of Sinai,
and wandered 40 years in its neighbourhood ; and
it happens that there are no records extant of
Egyptian expeditions to the quarries of Sinai
during the reigns of Merenptah and his successor.
On the other hand, there is no trace in the Hebrew
records of any Eeyptian invasion of Palestine be-
fore Shishak of the 22nd dynasty ; unless indeed, as
some think, ‘the hornet’ of Jos 9413 Ex 23°7- 28,
Dt 739 refers to the inroad of Ramses ur. This king
of the 20th dynasty certainly harried the country,
and, had the Israelites previously entered it in
force, it is hardly provable that his invasion would
not be mentioned in the Book of Judges. But it
is possible to reconcile the chronology of Judges
with a theory that would make the entry of the
Israelites into Palestine subsequent to the last
campaign of Ramses I. (Petrie, PSBA, 1896,
p. 243). Also, even on the usual theory, the
passage of the Egyptian armies along the coast
roads into Syria would leave untouched the high-
lands of Palestine and the Valley of the Jordan,

LT
from which the spread of the Hebrews must, as a
matter of fact, have been only gradual. To sum
up, the monuments of Egypt give us no record
either of the Oppression or of the Exodus. As the
story stands, there are passages in it which are
difficult to credit, but some modifications would
enable us to place it in the time of Ramses 11. and
Merenptah. See, further, art. Mosrs.

5. In 1 Ch 418 there is mention of a ‘daughter of
Pharaoh’ in a genealogy; but not only is her
chronological position doubtful, it is even un-
certain whether a royal title or a personal name is
intended by the expression.

6. In David’s lifetime Hadad the Edomite fled
to Egypt and was well received by Pharaoh, who
gave him the sister of his queen Tahpenes to wife
(1 K 114). Here the queen’s name ofters a clue,
but at present no such name has been recognized
from Egypt. At the end of the 110} cent. B.C.
Egypt was ruled by two contemporaneous dynasties,
one ruling at Thebes and the other at Tanis (Zoan)
in the Eastern Delta, the latter, however, having
the suzerainty over the whole country. The power
of Egypt must have been small, and no large
monuments were raised in that period,

7. Solomon’s Egyptian father-in-law (1 Καὶ 245 $1)
should likewise be a Tanite king (2Ist dynasty);
according to 1 Καὶ 916 he took Gezer and gave it to
Solomon.

It is noticeable that Shishak king of Egypt (the
founder of the 22nd dynasty) is horse callec
Pharaoh. This is the first occasion in the Bible
on which a distinctive name is given toan Egyptian
king. It seems as if the vague traditions in the
earlier stories were now succeeded by more positive
knowledge as to later events. As noted above,
Shishak was called by the Egyptians ‘ Pharaoh
Shishak’ (Rec. de Trav. xxi. 18,1. 1), but the fashion
was ἃ new one, and would be little known to
foreigners.

8. ‘Pharaoh king of Egypt’ of the time of
Sennacherib and Hezekiah. In kLoth versions (2 Καὶ
187! and Is 36°) the Rabshakeh addrasses Hezekiah
with the words, ‘ Behold thou trustest on the staft
of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt; whereon
if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce
it: sois Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust
on him.’ Here ‘Pharaoh king of Egypt’ is a
vague way of designating the king, who appears
at that time to have been Tirhakah, in 2 kK 199
rightly called ‘king of Ethiopia.” In Eeyptian
documents this conqueror of Egypt is regularly
designated ‘Pharaoh Tahraqa.’ It may be ques-
tioned whether there is not in the biblical account
a confusion between two distinct campaigns of
Sennacherib, and whether ‘Pharaoh king of
Egypt’ does not refer to another king reigning
in B.C. 701; ef. art. HEZEKIAH in vol. ii. p. 378°.
Tirhakah probably did not begin to reign before
B.C. 685. I. Lu. GRIFFITH.

PHARAOH-HOPHRA.—See HopuRra.
PHARAOH-NEC(H)0.—See NEco.

PHARAOH’S DAUGHTER.—See PHARAOH, and
Moskgs, p. 447”.

PHARATHON (Φαραθων). ---Α place in Judea,
fortified by Bacchides against Jonathan, 1 Mac 9%.
The EV separate Pharathon from the preceding
name, reading ‘ Timnath, Pharathon,’ whereas LXX
seems to combine the two—riyv Θαμνάθα Φαραθών. (ἃ.
A. Smith agrees with the latter, holding that ‘ evi-
dently one place’ is referred to (but see Buhl, GAP
206f.). Pharathon is probably the village Fer'on
in the low hills west of Shechem, guarding the
approach to the main route on the Plain of Sharon,

PHARES

PHARISEES 821

and Timnath may be Timnath-heres. See SIVP
vol. ii. sheet χὶ. Cf. also art. PIRATHON.

ἘΣ Rs CONDER.
PHARES.— 1 Es 5°.

See PEREZ, ad init.
PHARIDA.-——1 Es 5*% = Perida of Neh 707 or
Peruda of Ezr 2”. See PERIDA.

PHARISEES.—

i. Origin and History of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
ii. Leading Characteristics of the Pharisces.
(1) Their scrupulous observance of the Law.
(2) Their belief in the immortality of the soul, the resur-
rection of the body, and future retribution.
(3) Messianic expectations.
(4) Belief in angels and spirits.
(5) Doctrine of Divine Providence and freedom of man’s
will.
(6) Their separation from the mass of the people.
(7) The Pharisees and the supremacy of the Gentiles.
iii. The Pharisees and Jesus.
(1) Their opposition to our Lord.
(2) Our Lord’s criticism of the Pharisees.
Literature.

i. ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE PHARISEES AND
THE SADDUCEKS.—Though the Pharisees and the
Sadducees make their first appearance as distinct
parties during the latter half of the 2nd cent. B.C.,
they represent tendencies which can be traced much
further back in Jewish history. When Ezra
returned from Babylon (B.c. 458), he found the
Jews living in and around Jerusalem divided into
two parties on the question of intercourse with
foreigners. ‘Those who returned first from exile
(B.C. 537) had been more scrupulous in this matter.
They seem to have held aloof at first not only from
the heathen inhabitants of the land, but also from
the descendants of those Jews that had been left
in Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar, and to have
admitted into the new community only those whose
ancestors had been in exile, or who were otherwise
able to prove that they were of pure stock (Ezr 2,
Neh 7°), Gradually, however, they fell away
from this strictness; they received into their
fellowship their Palestinian brethren and such of
the heathen as acknowledged J” and His command-
meats; and many of them even entered into
alliances of various kinds with those of their
heathen neighbours who remained heathen.

That such was the case we learn especially from
the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Immediately
upon his arrival in Jerusalem, Ezra was informed
that many of the people had intermarried with
the people of the land, the chiefs of the people
being most guilty (91). A commission appointed
to inquire into the matter took three months to
perform its task (10%). The number of those who
had contracted such marriages was very great ;
the list that was drawn up (10!) contains the
names of four members of the high priest’s family
(v.38), Ezra perceived that a grave crisis had
arisen in the history of the Jewish community in
Palestine ; the holy seed was being profaned (95);
the heathen elemeat might soon become dominant ;
the danger could be averted only by the adoption
of measures that would secure that only such
could belong to the community as were of pure
Jewish blood. He accordingly demanded that
they put away their foreign wives and children,
without giving them the opportunity of becoming
Jews (101-58. ἡ, Though they pledged themselves
to do so (101%), this measure was not, at least
permanently, carried out.t For when Nehemiah
first visited Jerusalem (B.C. 444) he found matters
exactly as Ezra had found them. The ‘nobles of
Judah’ were in close alliance with the foreign

* We learn from Mal 214f. that some of the Jews had put away
their Jewish wives in order to marry foreign women.

+ According to the LXX of 104 they put away their foreign
wives along with their children.

element (Neh 617-19 3°); the Sabbath was not
strictly kept (10%, ef. 13%"); and mixed mar-
riages were exceedingly common. After taking
the precautionary measure of building the wall of
Jerusalem, he held an assembly of the people,
at which they resolved to separate themselves
entirely from all foreigners, and to observe all the
Lorb’s commandments (93 1055). He did not,
however, compel them to put away their foreign
wives and children, but only to pledge themselves
to abstain from all mixed marriages in future

(10). But he had not yet gained a complete
victory. When he revisited Jerusalem in 432, he

found that the high priest Eliashib had renewed
his close fellowship with Tobiah (13'"), that the
Sabbath was still desecrated (v.!""), that many of
the people were still marrying foreign wives (v.*"),
and that a grandson of the high priest was son-in-
law to Sanballat (v.23), Against these abuses he
took active measures. He cast out all Tobiah’s
household stuff, and had the chambers of the temple
purified (v.8£) ; he renewed his injunctions against
Sabbath desecration and the contracting of fresh
mixed marriages, and expelled the high priest’s
grandson from the Jewish community (v.*).*
“Thus, he adds, ‘cleansed [ them from all
strangers’ (v.*). Complete separation from all
foreign elements became hencetorth the principle
of Judaism.

In connexion with these proceedings it 15 import-
ant to notice that the natural leaders of the people,
including the members of the high priest's family,
who had become a sort of temple nobility, were
among the chief offenders, and that it was from
them that Nehemiah expericnced the greatest
active opposition. Backed up by the authority of
the Persian king, he was able to crush their opposi-
tion, and to establish in Judiea the strict separa-
tion which from the first had ruled among the
pious exiles in Babylonia. ‘The aftertime shows
plainly that he accomplished the work of his life.
He impressed the stamp of his spirit upon Judaism
for all time, and forced it to follow the course he
had marked out’ (Cornill, History of the People of
Israel, p. 168; see also Wellhausen, /sr. und Jud.
Geschichte®, p. 173). We must not, however, make
Nehemiah a Pharisee and. Kliashib a Sadducee.
In them and their respective adherents we have
only, at the most, a preparation for the parties that
formed much later. The victory of Nehemiah was
the victory of Judaism generally, not of Judaism
in its specific Pharisaic form.

Regarding the latter half of the Persian period
we have hardly any authentic information. The
high priest was probably, under the Persian
governor of Syria, the civil as well as religious
head of the Jewish community ; he and his priestly
brethren of higher office along with their Fishilies
would doubtless form a kind of aristocracy, even
as compared with the rest of the priests. Judging
from the conduct of some of their successors
towards the close of the Greek period, it is very
unlikely that their influence was always of an
ideal character (cf. the story of Johanan and
Bagoses, Ant. XI. vil. 1). In spite of the triumph
of the exclusive party under Ezra and Nehemiah,
there still remained an Israel after the flesh, and a
deep gulf between it and the [Israel after the spirit. +

* According to Josephus (Ant. xr. viii. 2ff.) this expelled
priest was Manasseh, for whom Sanballat built the Samaritan
temple on Mt. Gerizim.

+ For detailed proof drawn from the Psalms see Bertholet,
Die Stelluny der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Iremden,
p. 184ff. We need not suppose that only wicked people
were opposed to the rigorism of Ezra. Cheyne (Jewish Le-
ligious Life after the Exile, p. 220) makes the Book of Ruth ‘an
idyllic story to justify admitting into the community any foreign
women who heartily adopted the nationality and religion of
their Jewish husbands. ... It shows that Ezra did not gain an
at all complete victory over the friends of mixed marriages.’

γ-

829 PHARISEES

PHARISEES

The conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great
and the setting up of the Greek kingdoms of Egypt
and Syria under his suecessors brought the Jews
into close contact with anew and highly developed
civilization. During the first half of the Greek
period Judea belonved to Egypt, and the Pales-
tinian Jews, with whom we are mainly concerned,
though surrounded by Greek cities, with which
they had constant intercourse, do not seem to have
been much harmed by such intercourse. It was
otherwise when Syria (B.C. 198) became the para-
mount power, Antiochus IL, it is true, favoured
the Jews in many ways, and allowed them the
enjoyment of unconditional religious freedom (A né.
XH. ili. 3. 4). A crisis came, however, when
Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne (B.C.
175). He resolved to suppress the Jewish religion,
and he found a party among the Jews themselves
ready to play into his hands. This party contained
Jeading members of the priesthood, several of whom
had adopted Greek names, and who, in order to
further their own ambitious designs, were prepared
to go almost any length in Hellenizing the people.
During the reign of Seleucus Iv., one Simon, who
was ‘guardian’ of the temple, and who was
evidently one of the chiefs of this Hellenizing
party, had caused serious trouble to the high
priest Onias ΠΙ. (2 Mac 3-45). On the accession
of Antiochus Epiphanes to the throne, Jason,
whose name was originally Jesus (Ané. XI. v. 1),
supplanted his brother Onias in the high priest-
hood (B.C. 175) by promising the king a large sum
of money; in return for another large sum he
also received permission to erect a gymnasium in
Jerusalem and to register its inhabitants as
citizens of Antioch (2 Mae 47%). And now the
work of Hellenization began. Jason ‘forthwith
brought over them of his own race to the Greek
fashion.... Seeking to overthrow the lawful
modes of life, he brought in new customs forbidden
by the law ; he established a Greek place of exer-
cise under the citadel itself, and caused the noblest
of the young men to wear the Greek cap. And thus
there was an extreme of Greck fashions, and an
advance of an alien religion... ; the priests had
no more any zeal for the services of the altar; but
despising the sanctuary, and neglecting the sacri-
fices, they hastened to enjoy that which was un-
lawfully provided in the’ palestra, after the
summons of the discus; making of no account the
honours of their fathers, and thinking the glories
of the Greeks best of all’ (2 Mae 410-22» cf. 1 Mac
1). He even sent money to Tyre to provide a
sucrifice for Hercules. Atter three years Jason
was supplanted in the high priesthood by Mene-
laus, brother of the above-mentioned Simon,* who
is described in 2 Mae 4% as ‘bringing nothing
worthy the high priesthood, but having the passion
of a cruel tyrant and the rage of a savage beast.’
In order to secure his position with the king by
means of bribery, Menelaus spoiled the temple of
its vessels of gold (48%); the aged high priest Onias,
who protested against this sacrilege, was treach-
erously murdered (4°), and a deputation from
Jerusalem, which appeared before Antiochus to
accuse Menclaus of these and other outrages, was
put to death (4°), On a false rumour of the
death of Antiochus, Jason endeavoured to recover
the high priesthood Thinking that Judea was in
revolt, Antiochus returned from Egypt (B.c. 170),
took Jerusalem by storm and gave it up to pillage
for three days. “He also entered ‘the most holy
temple of all the earth,’ having Menelaus for his
guide ; he took the holy vessels with his Ὁ polluted
hands’ and spoiled the temple treasury (51-21; ef.

* According to Josephus (Ant. xm. v. 1), Menelaus, whose

name was originally Onias, was the brother of Jason. Accord-
ing to Wellhausen his HeLrew name was M-nahem or Manasseh,

1 Mac 1°"), Two years afterwards an even worse
fate befell Jerusalem. Returning froma campaign
in Egypt, Antiochus sent an olticer with a large
army to Jerusalem, with orders to slay all that
were of full age, and to sell the women and the
younger men. These orders were executed most
relentlessly. The city was plundered and set on
fire ; its walls were torn down ; such of its inhabit-
ants as had not been put to the sword or made
captive fled ; only apostates and heathen strangers
remained ; and the city of David was rebuilt into
a strong citadel, the Akra, which was held by a
Syrian garrison till B.c. 142 (2 Mac 5% ; ef, 1 Mae
1"), Soon thereafter a decree was issued by
Antiochus suppressing the Jewish religion. The
sacrifices in the sanctuary at Jerusalem were for-
bidden ; the Sabbaths and feasts were to be pro-
faned and the sanctuary polluted ; their sons were
no longer to be circumcised ; the sacred books had
to be delivered up ; altars and temples and shrines
for idols were to be built in the cities of Judah,
and swine’s flesh and unclean beasts were to be
offered in sacrifice. ‘These injunctions were rigidly
carried out by overseers appointed for the purpose.
On the 15th of Chislev (i.e. December) B.C. 1(8 an
altar was erected to Zeus Olympius on the Δ] εχ of
J”, and on the 25th a sacrifice was offered on it to
the heathen deity. Whether Menelaus officiated
as high priest, we cannot tell. Such of the Jews
as remained loyal to the law were barbarously put
to death, no respect being paid to age or sex
(1 Mae 141),

Hellenism had evidently made considerable pro-
gress not only among the priestly aristocracy and
the inferior priests (2 Mac 414)" but also among
the people generally (1 Mac 1118), more especi-
ally in Jerusalem and among the young men (cf.
Ant, X11. v. 1 with 1 Mac 1°). At first there was
srobably no intention, even on the part of the
fasting Hellenizers, to apostatize from the national
religion ; what they desired was to remove from
Judaism its narrowness and exclusiveness, to give
up the intolerable and, as it seemed to them, bar-
barous customs of the fathers, so that they might
freely participate in the advantages of Greek
culture and in the joys of Greek life. But even
after Antiochus had taken his extreme measures,
many of the Hellenizing party still adhered to
him.* Many of Israel consented to his worship,
and sacrificed to the idols, and profaned the Sab-
bath’ (1 Mae 1*; ef. what is said of the ‘lawless’
and ‘ungodly’ 38 62 058 1034; also Dn 858 1130-32),
After the outbreak of the Maccabiean rising we
find them among the ‘ Macedonian’ garrison of
the citadel (Ané. ΧΙ]. ν. 4, ix. 3) and in the armies
of Seron, Ptolemzus, Nicanor, and Gorgias (XII.
vii. 1. 3). But, as the Maccabean rising proves,
these measures of Antiochus had shown the mass
of the people to what Hellenism was tending and
had awakened a powerful reaction.

Apart, however, from this national reaction, the
radical Hellenism of the priestly aristocracy had
called forth another extreme party, the Hasideans
(see art. HASIDAHANS). This party is, in principle,
as ancient as Judaism, but it was opposition to
extreme Hellenization that brought them close
together into a separate company (συναγωγή, 1 Mac
2*), shortly before the Maccabwan rising, and made
them all the more resolved tostand by the threatened
law. They were the party of those who had laid
most to heart the teaching of the scribes (ef. 1 Mac
715. 18); they were so devoted to the law (2%) as not
even to defend themselves when attacked by the
Syrians on the Sabbath (v.*); they observed
strictly the laws as to purification (I Mac 1%,

* According to Josephus (Ant. xi. ix. 7) it was Menelius

that persuaded him to compel the Jews to renounce their ce-
ligion ; cf. 2 Mac 515,

PHARISEES

PHARISEES

2 Mac 6"), and insisted upon complete separation
from the Gentiles (2 Mac 1438). Though they were
not the first to raise the standard of revolt against
the Syrians, they soon associated themselves with
Mattathias and his friends in the common cause
(1 Mac 2") ; but they withdrew from the struggle,
when religious freedom was granted and Alcinus,
a descendant of Aaron, was made high priest instead
of Menelaus (7!2%), and do not scem, at least as a
party, to have taken any further share in the
war, in spite of the perfidy of Alcimus in putting
many of them to death. ‘They were an exclusively
religious party, supremely interested, not in the
political independence of the nation, but in the
striet observance in every respect of the laws and
customs handed down from the fathers.

We have dwelt at considerable length on the
Hellenizers and the Hasideeans, because these were
the progenitors respectively of the Sadducean and
Pharisaic parties.

It is during the reign of John Hyreanus (B.C.
135-105) that we first hear of these as two opposed
partics.* According to Josephus (Ant. XUL x. 5.
6), Hyreanus on one occasion invited the Pharisees
to a feast, and having entertained them well and
put them in good humour, reminded them that
they knew he was desirous to be a righteous man
and to do all things whereby he might please God,
after their manner. If they observed him erring
in any way, he requested them to correct him.
They all expressed entire aatisfaction with him,
except one, Eleazar by name, who informed him
that, if he would be really righteous, he must lay
down the high priesthood and be content with the
civil government of the people, and stated, as the
reason for making this demand, that they had
heard from old men that his mother had been a
captive in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Not
only Hyreanus, but also all the rest of the Phari-
sees were indignant at Eleazar for repeating this
story, which of course insinuated a suspicion as to
the purity of Hyrcanus’ descent. But one, Jona-
than, a Sadducee, and a great friend of Hyrcanus,
assured the latter that Eleazar had simply expressed
the sentiments common to all the Pharisees, and
advised him to test them by putting to them the
question, what punishment Eleazar deserved. On
their answering that he deserved stripes and bonds,
Hyrcanus was very angry, and concluded that
Eleazar had reproached him with their approbation.
He accordingly left the party ot the Pharisees,
abolished the decrees they had imposed upon the
people, and punished those that observed them
with death,

Though the form of the story as told by J osephus
is certainly unhistorical,} there is every reason to
believe that in the time of Hyrcanus the Pharisees
had become a well-defined party and broke de-
cisively with the Hasmonian princes. The Mac-
cabean rising, which was originally in defence of
religion (1 Mac 2** ®), had developed in a way that
was little to the mind of ‘the pious,’ who, as we
have seen, had withdrawn from the contest, when

religious freedom was granted in the year 163, It
gradually became a war, not for the Tw, but

against the ancient aristocracy for the ethnarchy
under the Syrians, and ended in the founding of a
worldly dynasty. In the course of their struggles,
Judas and his brothers were compelled by the
necessity of their position to make use of ‘ profane’
means; they entered into alliances with Gentile
nations (1 Mac 8!7 12! 14%), and took the side,
now of one, now of another pretender to the
Syrian throne; they accepted from the kings of

* According to Ant. xu. v. 9, they existed as parties as early
as the time of Jonathan.

+ Montet, Essai sur les origines des partis saducéen et
pharisien, 205 ff. ; Wellhausen, op. cit. 290.

Syria military titles and commands and even the
oitice of high priest (1076 ° 1127. ὅτ. 1438) and acted
generally in accordance with the dictates of worldly
prudence. The result was the establishment
under Simon of a thoroughly secular State, the
civil ruler being at the same time high priest
(144-47), -Hyrcanus, whom Josephus calls a dis-
ciple of the Pharisces, walked in the footsteps of
his predecessors. He renewed the alliance with
Rome (Ant. XII. ix. 2, XIV. x. 22) and kept a
standing army of foreign troops, with which he
accompanied Antiochus Sidetes against the Par-
thians (XIII. viii. 4). It is true, he destroyed the
Samaritan sanctuary upon Mt. Gerizim,and forcibly
converted the Idumeans and razed Samaria to the
eround ; but these were purely political measures,
undertaken for the purpose of extending his do-

minion beyond the narrow limits of Judea. His
high priesthood was a secondary matter. «For

Hyrcanus the tiara had fallen to the rank of a
mere decoration ; he was a secular prince like the
neighbouring heathen kings ; his State was a purely
secular realm, which was no longer able to pursue
spiritual aims, no longer had spiritual concerns ’
(Cornill, p. 212).

The majority of the people were meanwhile
satisfied with this turn of affairs. They were
proud not only to enjoy religious freedom, but also
to be once more an independent nation,and honoured
the valiant princes who had led them to victory
(1 Mac 13°6 14+ 41-408), The ancient aristocracy also,
the extreme Hellenizers of the time of Epiphanes,
who at first had held out against Judas and his
prothers, had either been swept away or had re-
cognized the futility of carrying on the struggle,
and along with their adherents came over to the
new rulers, to whom they were able, from their
birth and attainments, to render considerable ser-
vice. Taught by experience, they had given up
all thought of overthrowing the national religion,
and accommodated themselves to the new order of
things, which imposed upon them no harsh restric-
tions, and allowed them the full enjoyment of the
cood things of this life (cf. 1 Mae 1553). Along with
the leading men of the new regime,* they became
the chief supporters of the Maccabean princes,
with whose political aims they were in full sym-
pathy. It is this party, consisting of members of
the ancient and the new aristocracy and their
adherents, that went by the name of Sadducees.
They were primarily a purely political party. They
were supremely interested in the maintenance and
prosperity of the State as a secular State ; religion
was with them an altogether secondary concern ;
and they held very lax views on the subject ot
exclusiveness.

To ‘the pious,’ on the other hand, the Hasmonean
rule must have become ever more and more obnox-
ious. Since the outbreak of the Maccabwan rising
they had doubtless grown both in numbers and
exclusiveness, and were now known by the name,
Pharisees. These were essentially a purely re-
ligious party, although we shall find them occasion -
ally using political means for the attainment of
their religious ends. Their fundamental principle
was complete separation from everything non-
Jewish. In order to secure this separation the law
must be scrupulously kept; there must be no
adoption of foreign ideas or ways of living; there

*The frequent occurrence of foreign names at this time
among the Jews shows the progress that.Hellenism had made
among them. The Hasmonwan princes themselves bore foreign,
jn addition to their Hebrew names: Hyrcanus, Antigonus,
Aristobulus, Alexander, Alexandra. For other Greek names at
this time see 1Mac 142224 3515 1011; Ant. xu. ix. 2. ‘That
which was surprising in the case of the first Hellenizing high

priests, had, it would seem, become the fashion in the national
party, at least among those of higher rank. They had learned

to do what the foreigners did, and did not scruple to bear
foreign names’ (Bertholet, op. cit. 230 f.).

824 PHARISEES

PHARISEES

must be no alliances with other nations; Israel, as
the chosen people of J”, must live an altogether
separated lite. The whole tendency of the new

dynasty was against this exclusiveness. Hence
the opposition to it of the Pharisees, Josephus

may be right in making the ostensible ground of
their quarrel with Hyrcanus the possession by him
of the high priesthood. But the real ground of
their opposition to him was much deeper. The
Hasmonieans were orthodox worshippers of J”, and
even compelled neighbouring peoples to become
Jews. But the dynasty they had founded was a
worldly dynasty; and the Pharisees felt. instinct-
ively that in a national State with national polities
their ideal was less likely to be realized than even
under the rule of the Gentiles. The success of the
Maccabwan rising had thus led to the formation of
the two parties which played so important a part
in the after history of the Jews.*

Under Alexander Jannmus (B.C. 104-78) the
Opposition between the Hasmonwans and the
Pharisees broke out into open conflict. Jannieus

was a man of such an utterly worthless character
that he very soon alienated the people from him
and made them sympathize with the Pharisces.
On one occasion, when, at a Feast of Tabernacles,
he was officiating as high priest, the people pelted
him with the lemons they were carrying for the
celebration, and reviled him as the son of a cap-
tive and as being therefore unworthy of his priestly
office. At his command his troops cut down 6000)
of the people (An¢. ΧΠΙ. xiii. δ). When he returned
to Jerusalem from his war with Obadas, defeated
and without an army, there broke ont an open
rebellion, which lasted for six years, during which
50,000 Jews perished. When, wearied of the con-
test, he asked the conditions of peace, they de-
manded his death and called in the aid of the
Syrian king, Demetrius ΠΙ. (Eucairus). Janneus
was totally defeated and fled to the mountains.
Moved by sympathy with him in his sore need,
and perhaps dreading lest their country should
once more become subject to Syria, many of the
Jews deserted to him; Demetrius was compelled
to retire, and Janneus took fearful revenge upon
his adversaries :—upon his return in triumph to
Jerusalem he caused 800 of theirchiefs to be crucified
(Ant. XII. xiii. 5, xiv. 1. 2). That the leaders in
this rebellion were Pharisees, is evident from the
fact that they afterwards avenged the execution of
the 800 (And. XIII. xvi. 2), and that Jannzeus, when
dying, counselled his wife AlexandraSalometomake
peace with them and be guided by them (XIII. xv, 5).

Alexandra Salome (B.c. 78-69), during whose
reign Hyreanus I1., her eldest son, was high priest,
followed entirely her dying husband’s advice, She
recalled the exiled Pharisees, admitted them to
a laree share in the government, and reintroduced
the Pharisaic practices which John Hyreanus is
said to have abolished (Ané. xt. xvi Lethe 5 Bo
I. v. 1ff). She also gave to the heads of the
scribes a seat in the Sanhedrin along with the
priestly aristocracy and the elders, According
to later tradition, this was the golden age of
Judaism.+ But the Pharisees, who, according to
Josephus, governed the queen, made a bad use

“See Bousset, Jesu Predigt in threm Gegensatz zum Juden-
thum, p. 29 ff. The Psalms of Solomon complain bitterly of
the Hasmonzans having assumed the office of high priest and
the title of king ; see Ryle and James, Ps. of Sol. on 812 1751. ,
Hyrcanus, however, did not call himself king, but ‘high priest
and head of the commonwealth of the Judzans.’

+ Montet, op. cit. 277 ff. ‘Under Simon ben Shatach {a leading
Pharisee and brother of the queen] and queen Salome, rain fell
on the eve of the Sabbath, so that the corns of wheat were
large as kidneys, the barley corns as large as olives, and the
lentils like golden denarii; the scribes gathered such corns and
preserved specimens of them in order to show future genera-
tions what sin entails’ (Talm. Bab. Ta‘anith 23a, in Streane,
The Age of the Maccabees, p. 72).

They took such fearful ven-

of their authority.
geance upon the Sadducees that a deputation of
the latter, led by Aristobulus, Salome’s younger
son, presented themselves before her, protesting
against the cruel treatment to which they were
subjected. They reminded her of the assistance
they had rendered her husband, hinted at the
readiness with which neighbouring monarchs would
receive them into their service, and insisted upon
being at least placed in her fortresses, They not
only succeeded in having an end put to the reign
of terror, but also obtained command of all the
fortresses, except three, where, along with Aristo-
bulus, who soon joined them, they awaited the
death of the queen to snatch the power out of
the hands of the Pharisees (Ant. XIII. xvi. 2. 3.5;
BS Το λὲς Ὁ; A),

On the death of Alexandra, Aristobulus (BC;
69-63) soon dispossessed Hyrcanus If. of both the
kingship and the high priesthood (And. XIV. 172;
XV. vi. 4, XX. x.). He befriended the Sadducees,

| who were his chief supporters. In the course of the

strugele that ensued, both the brothers appealed
to the Romans, and presented themselves before
Pompey in Damascus, in order to plead their cause.
A third party (whom most take to have been
Pharisees) also appeared before him, desiring the
abolition of the sovereignty altogether, and the
restoration of the old sacerdotal constitution (Ant.
XIV. ili, 2). When at last he was compelled to
take the temple-mount by storm (B.c. 63), Pompey
entered the Holy of Holies, but left the treasures
of the temple untouched. Many of the leaders
of the Sadducees were executed ; “Aristobulus and
his children were taken to Rome; and Hyreanus
was restored to his much-eurtailed inheritance,
not as king, but as high priest and ethnarch, with
the nominal control of the civil administration of
the country. How the Pharisees recarded this
terrible catastrophe we learn from the Psalms of
Solomon.* They looked upon it as a Diyine punish-
ment of the Sadducean aristocracy and priests,
Who had called the Romans into the land (813212),
but were at the same time bitterly enraged against
the heathen, who had so impiously defiled the
temple and the holy city (Ps-Sol 1, 2, 8, and 17,
which seem to refer to Pompey’s capture of Jeru-
salem ; cf. Ryle and James, op: cit. xliii).

After the loss of national independence, the
opposition between the Pharisees and the Sad-
ducees naturally soon lost its political character,
and became more and more distinetly religious.
The Sadducees, who still formed the majority of
the Sanhedrin, attempted, during the ethnarchy of
Hyrcanus, to call Herod to account for his law-
less proceedings in Galilee, but this attempt only
proved their powerlessness (Ant. XIV. ix. 1510}:
When Herod captured Jerusalem (B.C. 37), he put
to death 45 of these Sadducean Sanhedrists (Ant.
XV. 1, 2 calls them leaders of the party of Anti-
gonus, cf. BJ I. xviii. 4; Ant. xv. ix. 4 says ‘all
the members of the Sanhedrin’ except Sameas) ;
and he still further diminished their power by
deposing and appointing high priests according
to his own pleasure, and by introducing among
the high priestly families his own relations and
creatures. When he purged the Sanhedrin in the
manner just described, he spared the leaders of
the Pharisees, who had advised the citizens to
throw open the gates of the city to him (Ant.
ΧΙΝ 1X5 4 XV. 101) and although they refused
to take the oath of allegiance, he merely punished
them with a fine (Xv. x. 4; XVII. ii. 4). Recog-
nizing their influence with the people, he at first
would fain have gained them over to his side, and

* These are of Pharisaic origin, and date, according to Ryle

and James, from between B.c. 70 and 40, according to Cheyse
between 63 and 45.

PHARISEES

PHARISEES 825

therefore took pains in several ways to respect
their religious feelings (ef. XV. xi. 5. 6); but they
simply acquiesced in his rule, as being a Divine
judgment upon the people for their sins. Towards
the end of his reign, their attitude towards him
became one of hostility. They conspired with
members of his household to secure his overthrow
(XVI. ii. 4), and (8.6. 4) instigated their pupils to
cut down the golden eagle, which he had placed
over the chicf entrance to the temple as a sign
of Roman sovereignty. For this offence he caused
a number of them to be burned alive (XVII. vi. 2-4 ;
Use) Ti. ENING 4):

When, after the deposition of Archelaus, Judea
passed under the direct rule of the Romans, the
latter left internal matters largely in the hands
of the Sanhedrin, under the presidency of the
high priest, who belonged to the Sadducean party
(Ant. Xx. ix. 1; Ac δὴ, The Sadducean aristo-
crats, with whom the new families raised by Herod
to the high priestly dignity had soon mixed, thus
regained a considerable measure of power ; but in
order to stand well with the people, they were
compelled to act in respect of all legal questions
in accordance with the principles of the Pharisees
(Ané. XVII. 1. 4). The latter, many of whom sat
in the Sanhedrin (Ac 5* 23"), were the real leaders
of the people. Under Agrippa I. (A.D. 41-44),
who, at least within Palestine, lived the life of
a plous Jew, observing strictly the ancient laws
and offering daily sacrifices, they had matters very
much after their own mind. To please them,
Agrippa persecuted the Christians, put James, the
brother of John, to death, and cast Peter into
prison (Ac 19). When Judea passed again under
the direct rule of the Romans, the Sadducees once
more became the nominal possessors of authority.
But their doom was sealed. With the destruction
of Jerusalem, the high priesthood and the San-
hedrin vanished, and the Sadducees, as a party,
disappeared from history.

It was otherwise with the Pharisees.* They
survived the Temple and the State. They had
not, strictly speaking, been a political party within
the old commonwealth, and for that very reason,
when the latter perished, their influence was not
lessened. Their leading Rabbis formed a body,
which regarded itself as a continuation of the
ancient Sanhedrin. At first it had its seat at
Jamnia; it afterwards removed to Galilee, and
remained for a long time at Tiberias. The oilice
of president was hereditary in the family of Hillel.
The president’s authority grew rapidly. He bore
the title of the old high priests, Nast or Lthnarch,
and, later, Patriqirch; in course of time he was
recognized by the imperial government as the head
of the Palestinian Jews; from Jews in foreign

lands he received gifts of money, which were
collected annually by his representatives. These

tabbis separated themselves more and more com-
pletely from the Gentiles. The LXX, which had
become the Christian’s Bible, was supplanted by
a more literal translation, that of Aquila. They
also became more strict among themselves; the
old tendency of the scribes to regulate the whole
of life by the law was accentuated. The result
was a spiritual slavery such as had never before
existed. The communities voluntarily submitted
to the new hierarchy; they willed the end, viz.
the maintenance of Judaism, and therefore accom-
modated themselves to the means. As result we
have the preservation of Judaism as an inter-
national fellowship even after the downfall of the
theocracy.

li, LEADING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHARI-
SEES.—(1) Their scrupulous observance of the law.
According to Josephus they were noted for their

* See Wellhausen, op. cit. 371 ff.

accuracy in interpreting the laws (BJ I. v. 2,
It, Vili. 14,. Vita 38, Ant. XVII. ii. 4); and for the
scrupulousness with which they kept them (Ané,
XVII. i. 8. They held as binding not only the
written, but the oral law, the ‘traditions of the
fathers’ (XIII. x. 6, xvi. 2). Like their progeni-
tors, the Hasidseans, they were, speakiny gener-
ally, the party of the scribes, whose precepts
they carried into practice, and whose leaders,
latterly, proceeded from their ranks (XV. 1. 1,
x. 4). The account given of them in the NT is
substantially the same as that of Josephus. In
the Gospels the Pharisees and the scribes are con-
stantly mentioned in the same connexion, and in
such a way as to imply that they practically
formed the same party, 6.0. Mt 5° 12°8 15}, Mk 216
75) Lk 5% 2-30 7 730 1753 143 152 In 88.} The
great discourse in Mt 98 (cf. Lk 11°7-%") is directed
against both the Pharisees and the scribes. Gama-
liel is both a Pharisee and a doctor of the law
(Ac 5°4); the Pharisees form the straitest sect of
the Jewish religion (26°), and Saul, a Pharisee
(Ph 3°), had been brought up according to the
strict manner of the law of the fathers (Ac 22%).
Attention is called to their holding the traditions
of the elders, especially in regard to the washing
of hands and vessels (Mk 7}5=Mt 157, Mt 23”,
Lk 11°), to their tithing (Lk 18%, ete.), fasting
(Mk 2'=Mt 94, ete.), and strict observance of
the Sabbath vik 248. — Mt 1950 πὸῸ Τὴ ree 1a,
Jn 51-16 git) The traditions of the elders were
even more binding than the commandments of the
written law (Mk 78). In later Jewish writings we
find similar statements. The written law had to
be explained in accordance with tradition. ‘The
sword comes upon the world for suppression of
judgment; and for perversion of judgment; and
for explaining Torah not according to canon (tra-
dition).’+ ‘Words of Soferim are akin to words
of Torah and more beloved than words of Torah,
for (Ca 1°) Thy Love is better than Vine.’ It is
added that whereas the Torah contains both light
and weighty precepts, the words of the Soferim are
all of the latter class (Rabbi Jochanan in Taylor,
op. cit. 105). ‘It is a greater crime to teach con-
trary to the precepts of the scribes than contrary
to the Torah itself’ (Sanhedrin xi. 3 in Schiirer,
GJV? ii. 390 [HJP τί. ii. 12]). No contradiction
was allowed to anything that had once been
introduced and laid down by the fathers (Ant.
RVILL: ΜῈ

The Pharisees were thus the strictly legal party
among the Jews. Their piety was strictly legal ;
the essence of religion consisted in the accurate
knowledge and scrupulous observance of the law
and tradition, which were the norm of all life,
national, social, and individual. The Sadducees,
while they had a tradition of their own, utterly
rejected the traditions to which the Pharisees were
so much attached.

(2) Immortality of the soul, resurrection of
the body, and future retribution. According to
Josephus, the Pharisees taught that every soul
is incorruptible, but that only those of good men
pass over into another body, while those of the
wicked are punished with eternal suffering (BJ
If. viii. 14). They held that there is an immortal
vigour in souls, and that under the earth there
are rewards and punishinents for those that have
lived virtuously or viciously in this life; that for
the latter there has been appointed an everlasting
prison, but the former have the power to return
to life (Ant. Xvi. 1. 3f.). In the above passages
Josephus does not represent the Pharisees as

* Such expressions as ‘the scribes of the Pharisees’ (Mk 216),
‘the Pharisees and their scribes’ (Lk 529), ‘the scribes of the
Pharisees’ part’ (Ac 239), show that there were also non-Vhari-
saic scribes.

t Pirke Abothy.13; see Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers.

826 PHARISEES

PHARISEES

believing in the transmigration of souls, but as
holding the doctrines, common to Judaism since
Dn 12°, of a resurrection of the body and of a
future retribution. The Psalms of Solomon also
speak only of a resurrection of the righteous. The
sinner ‘falleth ; verily grievous is his fall, and he
shall not rise again; the destruction of the sinner
is for ever. But they that fear the Lorp shall
rise again unto life eternal, and their life shall
be in the light of the Lorp, and it shall fail no
more® (3426), “The life of the righteous is for
ever. But sinners shall be taken away unto
destruction’ (13%). ‘Therefore is their inherit-
ance hell and darkness and destruction. ... But
the saints of the Lorp shall inherit life in glad-
ness’ (14° ; cf, 15-4). The Sadducees denied the
immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the
body.

(3) Messianic expectations. The doctrine of the
resurrection was a cardinal doctrine with the
Pharisees, because of its close connexion with their
Messianic hopes. They looked for a literal reien
of God upon earth, when the power, of which they
were meanwhile deprived, would be in their hands;
for the Messianic kingdom was to be the kingdom
of the saints, and they were the saints. In the
Psalms of Solomon we have a good account of
these hopes as cherished by them shortly before
our Saviour’s birth. The Messiah, who is not
Divine, is the son of David, and is raised up by
God, whose vicegerent he is upon earth. He de-
livers Israel from the supremacy of the Gentiles
(ἡ. 4. the Romans), whom he destroys with the word
of his mouth, and thrusts out the sinners (t.e. the
Sadducees) from the inheritance of God. He reigns
over Israel, evidently in Jerusalem, which he purges
and makes holy as in the days of old; the Gentiles
also become subject to him. Pure from sin him-
self, there is no iniquity in his day in the people’s
midst ; they are all holy and the sons of their
God. Though his kingdom is really an earthly
kingdom, nothing is said of material blessings. *
But that their hopes were occasionally of a very
materialistic nature, is evident from the prospect
which, according to Josephus, they held out to
Bagoas, the eunuch (Ant. XVI. ii. 4). Naturally
the Sadducees were wholly indifferent to such
Messianic expectations.

(4) Angels and Spirits. The Sadducees denied
that there was either angel or spirit; the Pharisees
confessed both (Ac 235).

(5) Divine providence and freedom of man’s will.
According to Josephus, the Pharisees, while
making everything dependent on fate and God,
taught that the doing of what is right or wrong is
for the most part in man’s own power, but that
fate also co-operates in every action (BJ 11. viii. 14).
They maintained that all things are done by fate,
and yet admitted a measure of freedom to man, so
that he contributes to the divinely willed result
(Ant. SVL. ae Seon, “asi ite ἿΑ put in another
passage (XT. v. 9), they taught that some things,
but not all, are the work of fate; with regard to
some events, it is in man’s power whether they
happen or not. It is altogether improbable that
the Pharisees spoke of ‘fate’; but the Psalms of
Solomon bear witness to the substantial accuracy
of Josephus’ statements. ‘Verily as for man—
his portion is laid in the balance before Thee—
he addeth not thereto nor increaseth contrary to
Thy judgment, O God’ (ὅδ). “Ὁ God, our works
are in our choice, yea, in the power of our own
soul: to do either righteousness or iniquity in the
works of our hands. Whoso doeth righteousness
Jayeth up for himself life at the Lorp’s hand: and
whoso doeth wickedness is guilty of his own soul

* See Ryle and James, op. cit. lii. ff. ; Htthn, Die messian-
tschen Weissagungen des israclitisch-jidischen Volkes, 91 ff.

to destroy it’ (97-°).* The Pharisees believed in the
omnipotence and providence of God, and therefore
held that in human actions, good or bad, a co
operation of God must be assumed. At the same
time they insisted upon the freedom of man’s
power of choice, and upon man’s responsibility.
The Sadducees denied ‘fate’ altogether, and made
man the absolute master of his own destiny.

(0) Their separation from the mass of the people,
their distinctive ‘Pharisaism. On all the above-
mentioned points the Pharisees simply held what
was common to later orthodox Judaism. But all
our sources present them to us as a distinct party
within the people, an ecclesiola in ecelesia.t This
is implied also in the name that they bore. The
name, Φαρισαῖοι, is derived from the Aramaic pen,
stat. emphat. x73, and denotes ‘the separated
ones.” Whether this name was given them by
their adversaries (Schiirer, Montet, Edersheim) or
adopted by themselves, Ὁ it connoted something
more specific than the separation from the Gentiles,
which, since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, was
characteristic of all who would be genuine Jews.
It referred to their separation from the great mass
of even their orthodox fellow-countrymen. The
latter, however willing, were unable to observe
strictly the minute prescriptions of the law as to
foods and levitical purity; they were consequently
unclean in the eyes of the Pharisees, who, in order
to avoid all risk of being defiled, held aloof, as far
as possible, from all intercourse with them.
‘“Parush is one who separates himself from all
uncleanness and from unclean food and from the
people of the land, who are not scrupulous in the
matter of food’ (Nathan ben Jechiel). The Phari-
secs were thus the Separatists or Purists. The
name, however, that they gave themselves was
hiberim (a720 associates’), a name which also
shows that they formed among themselves a close
fellowship. A haber is one who, whether learned
or unlearned, scrupulously observes the law, written
and oral, more especially in respect of levitical
purity, tithes, and all other religious dues. Ac-
cording to the OT view each Israelite was the
haber (39) of the other; the Pharisee acknowledged
as his haber only him who scrupulously observed
the law. These scrupulous observers of the law,
and these alone, were the hdbérim, the genuine
Israelites. The rest of the people were simply
the ‘am ha-drez, the people of the land, common
persons, the vulgar herd. In the Books of Ezr
(94% 10711) and Neh (1078-81) this name was given to
the heathen and half-heathen inhabitants of Pales-
tine as distinguished from the Jews; as used by
the Pharisees, it designated the mass of the people
as distinguished from themselves, the real Israelites,
the Israel according to the spirit.§

They were naturally unable to separate them-
selves entirely from ‘the people of the land,’ and
had therefore to draw up precise rules regulating
their intercourse with them. ‘The full haber

* See Sir 1114: ‘Good things and evil, life and death, poverty
and riches are from the Lord’ (cf. 337-15); 1511ff. : ‘Say not
thou, It is through the Lord that I fell. .., it is He that
caused me toerr... (The Lord) left man in the hand of his
own counsel. If thou wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments;
and to perform faithfulness is of thine own good pleasure. He
hath set fire and water before thee; thou shalt stretch forth
thy hand unto whichsoever thou wilt. Before man is life and
death ; and whichsoever he liketh, it shall be given him.’

1 According to Josephus (Ant. xvi. ii. 4) they numbered above
6000 in the time of Herod.

t Wellhausen (op. cit. 289) says it was a title of honour and
called attention, not so much to their separation, as to their
eminent piety. a Ἂν

§ The above paragraph summarizes Schiirer, αὐ V3 ii. 396-403,
a very full and lucid account of the matter; cf. also Weber,
Jiidische Theologie, etc., 42-46; Edersheim, i. 311f. Schirer
remarks that the question, Who is my neighbour? (Lk 1029), was
a very important question to a Jew. The habér of 2 Rabbi was
a Rabbi; the haber of a priest was a priest; the haber cf an
Israelite was an Israelite.

PHARISEES

PHARISEES 827

undertook not to sell to an ‘am hd-drez any
fluid or dry substance (nutriment or fruit), not to
buy from him any such fluid, nor to entertain him
as a guest in his own clothes (on account of their
possible impurity)’ (Edersheim, i. 319), Hillel
‘used to say, No boor is a sinfearer; nor is the
vulgar [an ‘win ha-drez] pious’ (Aboth, 11. 6) ; ef. Jn
7%: ‘this multitude which knoweth not the law
are accursed’; also the fault found with our
Saviour on account of His free intercourse with
publicans and ‘sinners,’ Mt 9°!8, Mk 2417, Lk 5°7-%
7736-50,

Notwithstanding the fact that they thus separ-
ated themselves from the mass of the people, they
were not a religious ‘sect’ (Ac 155 26°) in the strict
sense of the term. Neither in worship ner doctrine
did they separate themselves from the Jewish com-
munity at large. ‘ Hillel said, Separate ποῦ thy-
self from the congregation’ (Aboth, ii. δ). They
worshipped in the temple and the synagogue along
with their fellow-countrymen, and the views they
held as to the law, the resurrection of the body,
etc., were by no means peculiar to themselves. They
were, indeed, in all respects ‘the classical repre-
sentatives of post-exilic Judaism, (Schiirer, GJ V?
ii. 403 (JP If. ii. 25)).

While their separation from the ‘am hd-arez
shows that the Pharisees were far from being
democrats, they were nevertheless, at least ulti-
mately, the popular and most influential party.
They had more influence with the multitude than
even the king and the high priest (XI. x. 5, XVII.
ii. 4); they had the multitude on their side (XIII
x. 6), so that the Sadducee officials had to act
according to their principles (XVII. 1. 4). Even in

toman times, when the high priest was still the
head of the Sanhedrin, and the Sadducees had
probably the most votes, the Pharisees were the
real rulers in respect of legal matters. They had
influence especially with women, 6.5. Alexandra
Salome and the female members of Herod’s house-
hold (xvit. ii. 4. They were also, according to
the Gospels, the real leaders of the opposition
to our Lord. Several reasons contributed to
their popularity. They had more regard to the
pudlic than the Sadducees (1.7 If vill. 14); they
were milder as judges (Ant, XII. X. 6, XX. 1x. 1);
they shared, and indeed nourished, the national
hatred against the Romans; the doctrines they
held and taught, their scrupulous observance of
the law, and their outwardly strict and severe
manner of life caused them to be revered as
pattern Israclites (XVIIL. i. 3). That they courted
this popularity, we learn, not only from_ the
Gospels, but also from such sayings in the Pirhe
Abvth as ‘Let thy house be opened wide ; and let
the needy be thy household’ (1. 5); “ Receive every
man with a pleasant expression of countenance’
(i. 16); and Hillel's saying (quoted above), ‘ Separate
not thyself from the congregation’ (ii. 5).

(7) Lhe Pharisees and the supremacy of the Gen-
tiles. Though the Pharisees were not a political
party, it is unjust to represent them as unpatriotic.
Their patriotism, however, was ‘religious patriot-
ism’ (Cheyne). Their ideai was the kingdom of
David. What they desired was not the setting up
of a merely independent secular kingdom of Israel,
but an Israel reconstituted by means of the law,
an Israel over which God reigned in the person of
His vicegerent, and from which all ‘sinners’ were
excluded. For the setting up of this Jewish nation-
ality they looked, not to the adoption of political
methods, but to a direct interposition of God ; the
great means whereby they could prepare the way
for this Divine interposition was the strict carry-
ing out of the law. So long as this was permitted,
they could tolerate even a foreign yoke, as being
a Divine punishment for the people’s sins; only

when this was not permitted, or when their prin-
ciples were flagrantly outraged, did they resist
with foree,as in the time of Alexander Janneus
and towards the close of Herod’s reign (cf. the
Hasidieans in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes).
Their use of political means to further their
religious ends during the reign of Alexandra
Salome shows that they were by no means con-
sistent in the application of their religious prin-
ciple.

A fairly correct idea of their attitude to the
foreign domination may be formed from the Psalms
of Solomon. The Lorp, who is ‘King over the
heavens and judgeth kings and rulers’ (2%), is
‘our King’ (532, He is ‘our King henceforth and
even for evermore’ (17°) ; He is the King of the
expected Messiah (ν.38), Because of the people’s
sins, He has meanwhile given them up to a foreign

oke. ° “lx. 1785 (So Του, Ο Corp, ‘didst. close
David to be king over Israel, and didst swear unto
him touching his seed for ever, t) at his kingdom
should not fail before Thee. But when we sinned,
sinners rose up against us; they fell upon us and
thrust us out: even they, to whom Thou madest
no promise, took away our place with violence’),
the allusion is probably to the usurpation of the
high priesthood and kingship by the Hasmoneans ;
but the psalmist writes in the same strain of the
overthrow of Jerusalem by the Romans. God not
only did not prevent Pompey from casting down
fenced walls with a battering-ram (21), but it was
He that brought the Gentiles upon Jerusalem (274
816), God’s righteousness was manifest in these
judgments (21:5. 8% #1); they were a judging of
Israel with chastening (853; 184 ‘Thy chastening
is upon us as upon a firstborn son only-begotten ’).
Still the psalmist does not conceive this foreign
domination as lasting. He looks forward with
contidence to a restoration of Israel under the
divinely raised up, but human, Messiah (1755),
who puts no confidence in any carnal weapon
(v.°7), suffers no wicked person or stranger to dwell
any more among the people (vv.*:*), nor any
iniquity to be in their midst (vv.* 36), and judges
the nations and the peoples with the wisdom of
his righteousness (v.*!). ‘Blessed are they that
shall be born in those days’ (1759 187); but the
present generation must wait God’s appointed
time (7°); they must pray for its speedy advent
(175-51), and be prepared for it by a Divine
cleansing (18°: ‘The LorpD cleanse Israel for the
day, when He shall have merey upon them and
shall bless them ; even for the day of His appoint-
ing, when He shall bring back His anointed ’).

This was undoubtedly the attitude of the
Pharisees generally to the Gentile rule. Such
rule was meanwhile to be tolerated, as being a
Divine chastisement (the standpoint of Pollio and
Sameas, Ant. XIV. ix.4, XV. i. 1); but it was never-
theless a violation of God’s sovereignty over the
elect people. God alone was king of Israel ; there
could be no lawful king of Israel, save God’s
viceverent, the ‘son of David.’ In accordance
with this principle they were opposed to the
Hasmonzean princes (who were neither descend-
ants of David nor of the legitimate high priestly
family) and abhorred the rule of Herod and the
Romans. To the former the majority of them
refused the oath of allegiance (Ant. XV. x. 4, XVII.
li. 4); and they questioned the lawfulness of
paying taxes to the latter (Mt 221%, Mk 1l2Ma.,
Lk 2053). They thus by their teaching and
practice fanned the flame of national hostility to
the Romans, and were indirectly responsible for
the rebellion against Rome. Josephus is anxious
to separate the Zealots entirely from the Pharisees
(in Ant. XVII. i. 1. 6 he calls them a fourth philo-
sophic sect), and draws attention to the fact that

ee

PHARISEES

PHARISEES

some leading Pharisees did not approve of their
excesses (BJ Iv. iii. 9); but he is forced to admit
that it was a Pharisee, named Zadok, who along
with Judas Galilieus formed that party, and that
the notions they held were those of the Pharisees
(Ant. xvur.i. 1. 6, ef. BJM. viii. 1). The Zealots
were the party of political action, and simply
carried out the Pharisaic principles to their logical
conclusion.

iii, THE PHARISEES AND JESUS. — (1) Their
opposition to our Lord. The Pharisees and scribes
were the first to assume an attitude of hostility
and criticism to Jesus. They maintained this
attitude all through His public ministry down to
the very close ; tor although in the last days of
His life the Sadducees were most prominent, the
Pharisaic scribes also took part in His trial and
condemnation. They had many reasons to find
fault with Him. He claimed authority to for-
give sins (Mt 98, Mk 2°) Lk 51), and associated
freely with publicans and ‘sinners’ (Mt 9", Mk
216, Lk 5° 789 1514. 197); He and His disciples were
indifferent to ascetic practices (Mt 94, Mk oie.
Lk 5*), and to levitical purity (Mt 15", Mk 71,
Lk 11°), and were not careful to observe the
Sabbath in the orthodox fashion (Mt 191-8. oe.
Mk 9:98. 8:5. Lk GU 6. 1314 1416. Jn 5)vtr 9158.)
They accused Him of being in league with Beelze-
bub (Mt 124, Mk 3°", Lk 114 ef Mt 934 11);
demanded a sign from Him (Mt 12° 161, Mk 811),
and attempted to frighten Him from Galilee into
«πιάτα, where He would be more in the power of
the Sanhedrin (Lk 13°), ef. Plummer, δέ. Luke,
348). They put testing questions to Him, 6.0. as
to the way of inheriting eternal life (Lk 10°). as
to the greatest commandment (Mt 22348. Mk 12°38),
and as to the law of divorce (Mt 19°, Mk 10}:
These were leading questions meant to test His
orthodoxy, and to discredit Him, if possible, with
the people (see Swete, The Gospel according to St.
Mark, p, 202 on Mk 10°; ‘probably their intention
was simply to place Him in apparent Opposition to
Moses, who had permitted divorce’). Their most
skilful testing question was that as to the lawful-
ness of paying tribute to Caesar (Mt 22m Milk
12138. Lk 2014-) : whatever answer He gave, He
could hardly avoid offending either the Roman
authorities or the people. For their alliance with
the Herodians in this matter (Mt 2210 ΜῈ 123s)
cf. Mk 3° From their standpoint their opposition
to Him was inevitable. They felt instinctively
that the whole spirit of His life was in flat contra-
diction with their most cherished convictions.

(2) Our Lord's criticism of the Pharisees. Jesus
recognized that the opposition between Himself
and the Pharisees was essential, and not only
defended Himself against their attacks, but also
criticised them keenly. He frequently denounced
them as hypocrites (e.g. Mt 6% 916 [57 931% 15. 23.
25. 27.29, Mk 7*), whited sepulchres (Mt 2327, ef. Lk
1122), the offspring of vipers and serpents (Mt 1234
23°5), an evil and adulterous generation (Mt 12%
16*), and blind guides (Mt 1011 2316. 19. 24. 40) Ἦδ
warned His disciples against their leaven (Mt
166 14, Mk 85, Lk 121), denied that their right-
cousness qualified for admission into the kingdom
of heaven (Mt, 39), and declared that, while the
publicans and harlots were entering the kingdom,
they were remaining outside (Mt 2 hs alone i
recognized their oficial character, and the duty of
the people towards them as authorized teachers,
but He warned against following their example
(Mt 23°), He also charged them with a great
many specific vices, most of which were inherent
in Pharisaic Judaism.

The fundamental principle of Pharisaic Judaism
was complete separation from everything non-
Jewish ; hence their separation from the mass of

their fellow-countrymen ; hence also their devotion
to the minute study and scrupulous fulfilment of
the law. The law was God’s great gift to Israel ;
their possession of the law was the most signal
proof that they were God’s chosen people; it
separated Israel as a ‘holy’ people from all other
peoples. It was also the only, and the absolutely
perfect, means of attaining tlie Messianic salvation
both for the individual and the nation. Life had
therefore no other aim and meaning than the
study and fulfilment of the law. One evil conse-
quence of this ‘idolatry of the law’ was the exter-
nalizing of religion. God was conceived of mainly
as Lawgiver and Judge. ‘The religious relation
between God and Israel was purely legal; it was
founded on a purely legal compact. Religion was
not a fellowship with God, but a strictly legal walk
before God. Their zeal for the law’ was conse-
quently a serving of God for the sake of reward;
more especially for the supreme reward of sharing
in the glory and bliss of the Messianic age. It was
possible to satisfy God’s demands pertectly in a
legal way ; and by doing so they hoped to enjoy
the commanding God, whom they obeyed, as a
a gracious God. This doctrine of merit led almost
of necessity to a great multiplication of precepts,
to a hedging or fencing of the law, so as to make
its violation almost impossible. They also sought
to acquire merit by doing more than was com-
manded. Moreover, in their keeping of the law,
they considered mainly whether a particular action
was commanded or forbidden. Their attitude to
their almost deified law was external, formal,
mechanical. They laid stress not upon the right-
ness of an action, or upon the disposition from
which it was done, but upon its being commanded
and upon its formal correctness. They applied
this principle even to such matters as fasting
and prayer. They attached excessive importance
to the precepts relating to foods and_ levitical
purity, because the strict observance of these
precepts kept them from defilement. They made
the law ‘only a manual of religious etiquette.’
Their righteousness was thus mere formalism ;
their righteous man was one who kept the law,
written and oral, in an external, but formally
correct manner.

Our Lord’s whole teaching regarding God as the
Father was a criticism of Pharisaic legalism. God
is not primarily Lawegiver and Judge, but the
heavenly Father. Religion is fellowship with God.
The religious bond uniting God and man is grace
on God’s part, trust and love and heartfelt obedi-
ence on the part of man. In the relation be-
tween God and man there is no room for the idea
of merit (Lk 177°). God cares for individual
sinners gud sinners, and throws the kingdom of
heaven wide open to all who are willing to enter
in. He sends His Son to seek and to save the lost,
and rejoices greatly when any lost one comes back,
He rewards men, not according to the quantity of
work they have done, but in accordance with His
own sovereign grace (Mt 201-16, Our Lord ex-
plicitly criticises the externalism of the Pharisees.
According to Him, the basis of the ethical life is
not an external authority, but the personal rela-
tion of an individual to God (cf. Mt 5% 4 18%,
Lk 7). What He demands is not outward correct-
ness, but inner moral life (Mt 237-23, Lk 1 te
the surrender of the whole personality (Mt 227-4),
not the mere performance of a number of exter-
nally good deeds. That which ‘defiles’ a man is
the evil condition of his own heart (Mt 15", Mk
714f.). No action is of any moral worth, unless it
is the expression of the inward disposition (cf.
what is said of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting
Mt 6? 5: 16 944). The righteousness of the king-
dom of heaven is inward and spiritual ; it is the

-

PHARPAR

PHASELIS 829

fruit of a renewed heart and of a filial relation to
God.

The purely formal ethics of the Pharisees led to
a great many other evils. They paid no attention
to the ethical content of a law. Ethically in-
different precepts were as important as those bear-
ing on really moral duties, simply because they
were contained in the law or tradition. They
accordingly busied themselves with minute trifles,
to which they even attached greater importance
than to the discharge of duties to their fellow-
men. They divorced morality and religion (Mt
a, Mile PMG oo Ek 11 18" of Mt a94
2 108.. justice and mercy, etc., are opposed by our
Lord to a false way of serving God; mercy is
better than sacrifice ; duty to parents takes pre-
cedence of so-called religious duty ; to be recon-
ciled to one’s brother is more necessary than
coming to the altar; the Sabbath is ‘sanctified’
by. doing good; ‘the programme of genuine re-
ligion’: ‘genuinely ethical deeds are more im-
portant than the observance of ceremonial pre-
scriptions’—Jiilicher). Their externalism did not
deliver them from the impulses of the natural man,
such as covetousness and rapacity (Mt 23%, Mk
12”, Lk 20%, cf. 1614) and the desire of receiving
honour from men (Mt 23%, Mk 12588. Lk 114 147#-
20%); while it led inevitably to casuistry (e.g. in
respect of the Sabbath; * oaths, Mt 23'”*; dut
to God outweighing duty to man, Mt 15°, Mk
49" > inventing statutes virtually cancelling more
irksome ones, Mt 234, Lk 114°), ostentation and
self-righteousness (Mt 6!!8 23°, Mk 12%, Lk 16%
1898. 2047), censoriousness (Lk 18%), and hypocrisy
REG aoe. Male otic, ἀπ το 1G 2040 hey
paid external homage to the great men of the past,
but were altogether void of their spirit (Mt 23°,
Lk 1155). By means of their false interpretations
of scripture and their legal conception of religion
they shut the kingdom of heaven both against
themselves and others (Mt 2915, Lk 11°") ; while by
means of their fencing of the law, they turned the
commandments of God (e.g. as to the Sabbath),
which were given to help men to live a true life
(Mk 2517), into heavy burdens, grievous to be borne
(Mt 234, Lk 11. There were doubtless in our
Lord’s time many good men among the Pharisees,
but the tendency of the whole system was to pro-
duce hypocrisy (cf. what is said of proselytes Mt
2315), or, in the case of earnest and sincere souls,
self-torture and a sense of estrangement from God
(cf. Mt 11°8*; see Weber, 320 f.).

LITERATURE. — Schirer, GJV3 ii. 880, (HJP 1. ii. 1],
also in Riehm’s // W B2 1205 ff., 1339 ff. ; Wellhausen, Die Phari-
sder und die Sadducder, also 1.1 αϑ 157-388 ; Weber, Jtidische
Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften ;
Montet, Essai sur les origines des partis saducéen et pharisien
et leur histoire jusqwa la naissance de Jésus-Christ ; Hausrath,
Neutest. Zeitgeschichte i. 129 ff., also in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon,
iv. 518 ff.; Sieffert, ‘Sadducier und Pharisiier’in Herzog, PA}?
xiii. 210 ff.; O. Holtzmann, Newtest. Zeitgeschichte, 158 ff., also
in Stade, GV ii. 394 ff.; Ewald, ΟΡ] iv. 357 ff.; Cornill, His-
tory of the People of Isracl, 145 ff.; Edersheim, The Life and
Times of Jesus the Messiah, passim ; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, i.
322; Davaine, Le Saducéisine, étude historique et dogmatique ;
Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den
Fremden, 123 ff.; H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutest. Theo-
logie, i. 28 ff., 62 ff.; Jacob, Jesu Stellung zum mosaischen Gesetz ;
Bousset, Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum ;
Ehrhardt, Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu im Verhaltniss zu
den messianischen HoTniingen seines Volkes, etc.; Julicher,
Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, ii. δὲς, 459ff. and passim ; Bruce,
The Kingdom of God4 187 ff.; Mackintosh, Christ and the Jewish
Law, 39 {f.; Fairbairn, Strdies in the Life of Christ, 165 ff.; Ryle
and James, J'he Psalins of Solomon, xlix ff.

D. EATON.

PHARPAR (7272, B’Agapdd, A Φαρφαρά) is named
by Naaman, along with the ABANAH (2 Καὶ 51), as
one of the rivers of Damascus. Much has been
written on the subject, but its identity is still in
doubt. The Arab. Version gives 7aurd for Pharpar,

* See Schiirer, ii. 470ff., 49if.; Edersheim, 11. 774 ff.

but the modern Beirfit revision simply transliter.
ates Karfar. There is a local beliet, for which
some antiquity is claimed, that Abanah and Phar-
par are represented by Nahr Banids or Abanids,
and Nahr Taurd, respectively. In favour of this,
Dr. Wm. Wright argues in Nelson’s Bible Treasury
(p. 250), quoting the late Dr. Meshaka, one of the
most learned of modern Damascenes. ‘The old
Arab geographers, however, are unaware of the
pre-eminent charms of any two rivers of Damaseus.
Dimashki (6. A.D. 1300) speaks of seven streams
into which the waters of e/-Barada are divided,
and mentions among the others, with no special
commendation, Nahr Thaurah and Nahr Balniyas
(or Bands). So also Idrisi (A.D. 1154). But even
these names are unknown to Istakhri and Ibn
Haukal (A.D. 951-978), who refer to only three
canals as branching off from the main stream. It
is hard to see why Naaman should have ignored
the river itself, flowing towards the city with full
refreshing current, to extol two of the canals sup-
plied by its waters.

The identity of Pharpar with e/-A'way is main-
tained by Thomson (Land and Book, iii. 859, 398,
429). The two main sources of this stream rise
on the eastern slopes of Hermon, just under Kasr
‘Antdr ; the 'Arny to the north, and the Jenndny
to the south. Below Sa‘sa the latter takes the
name Sabirdny, which it retains after conflu-
ence with the ‘Arny, as far as e/-Aisiveh, on the
great hajj road. Thence to the lake it is called ed-
Away (‘the crooked’). In the season of melting
snows the volume of water it carries is very great ;
lut later in the year the str am is much attenu-
ated. Escaping trom the valley, e/-A‘wajy waters
the south-eastern part of the plain of Dauaseus,
and, splitting up into several streams, falls at last
into Bahret el-Hijdneh. In the αν Barbar it
is natural to detect an echo of the ancient ‘Phar-
par’; but Thomson errs in making this Wddy
tributary to the Swhirdny. Such waters as it
supplies are carried into the plain north of Jebel
el-Aswad, while the Svbirdny flows to the south.
The proposed identification, therefore, loses what
support might be derived from similarity of name.
It is, however, adopted by G. A. Smith as probable
(HGHL 642), and by Baedeker as certain (Pal.3
268, 319). Dr. Wright quotes Dr, Meshaka to the
effect that e/-A’way ‘is not a river of Damascus at
all. It is distant a ride of 3 hours from the city
at the nearest point.’ Against this we have the
statement of Dimashki (ὦ. 1800), ‘another river
(of Damascus) is called e/a), and the distance
from Bawwabet Ullah to the nearest point is only
6 miles.

It is futile to seek for the Pharpar in the short
stream from ‘Ain Fijeh.

Beside el-Barada, with its copious and never-
failing supplies, ¢/-A‘way may seem hardly worthy
of mention. But during the greater part of the
year it carries down no mcan volume of water ;
and there is no other stream near the city at all
deserving the name of river. It should also be
remembered that whatever ministered to the fruit-
fulness and beauty of any part of the famous

lain would be an object of grateful pride to the

amascene soldier,

LITERATURE.—Thomson, Land and Book iii. 429-432 ; Baedeker,
Pal.8 268, 312; Nelson’s Bible Treasury, 250; Guy le Strange,
Pal. under the Mosleins, 235, 238, 265, 266, W. EwInc.

PHASELIS (Φάσηλις)".-- -Α city on the eastern ex-
tremity of the coast of Lycia near the Pamphylian
frontier, standing apart, not only geographically,

* Φασηλίς: wrongly in edd. of 1 Mac 1523, and in some classical
authors; but Φάσηλις is right, and is now printed in Strabo,
p. 666, Paus. iii. 3. 8 (where older edd. have oxytone), ete.
Φασηλίς Was the name of a kind of vase or utensil in Alexandria,

830 PHASELIS

PHILADELPHIA

but generally even politically, from the rest of the
country. Pliny (Nat. Hist. v. 36) and Stephanus
Byz. actually assign it to Pamphylia; but this is
erroneous. It was said to be a Dorian colony ; and
it became a city of great importance at ἃ very
early time, being one of those which shared in the
trade with Egypt under Amasis, B.€. 570-526. It
struck a series of coins in the 6th and early 5th
cent. with a variety of types, among which the
most noteworthy are the prow and the stern of a
war galley.

These coins, which were struck on the Persian
standard, cease about B.c. 466, when the Athenian
confederacy became powerful on these coasts;
but Thucydides (ii. 69) mentions that Phaselis
was a place of consequence in the Athenian trade
with Phenicia and the Levant coasts generally.
Its coinage began again about B.c. 400, and
during the 4th and 3rd cents. the same types
were characteristic. During that period it was a
more or less independent city; but while Lycia
was under the power of the Ptolemies, B.c. 276-
204, Phaselis was probably under the same. in-
fluence ; and at the end of that time a radiated
head, which is conjecturally taken as represent-
ing Ptolemy Iv., appears on the prow in the reverse
type.

When Seleucid power ended in B.c. 190, Phaselis
commenced to use the type of Pallas. About B.c.
168 it began to strike coi: with the types of the
Lycian confederacy (Κοινὸν Avxiwv), founded in that
year (see LYCrA); and in the Ist cent. it also struck
coins whigh are of a different style. There can
therefore be no doubt that at least in the period
later than B.C. 77 (when it was captured by Ser-
vilius Isauricus), it ceased to be a member of
the Lycian confederacy ; and Strabo mentions that
it was not a member in his time (B.C. 64-A.D. 19).
But Mr. G. F. Hill, in his Catalogue of Coins in the
Brit. Museum, Lycia, p. xvii, thinks there is no
reason to deny its membership during the period
before B.C. 77. But the mention of Phaselis among
the States to which the Roman consul sent letters
in B.C. 139 in favour of the Jews (1 Mac 1559), proves
that it was at that time a free city, distinet from
the Lycian confederacy (which is ‘also mentioned
as a recipient of similar letters); and Mr. Hill
admits that there is some reason to think that it
was not a member of the confederacy about B.C.
100, for it must have been one of the greatest cities
of Lycia, yet Artemidorus does not mention it

when enumerating the six members of the first.

class at that period. Now, even its coins with
confederacy types do not mention the name
ATKIQN, as is the case with those of most cities ;
there are, however, occasional examples of the
same omission on the coins of other Lycian cities,
even during the early period of the confederacy.
But, on the whole, it would appear that Phaselis
either never belonged to the confederacy (but
merely from alliance and common interest adopted
the types), or ceased before 138 to belong to it;
and the words of Cicero (Verr. ii. 4. 10, 21) suggest
that it had originally been a Lycian city, but that
it soon allied itself with the Cilician pirates (which
led to its capture by Servilius) and separated from
the Lycians.

Phaselis stood on a promontory with a very con-
spicuous mountain behind it. “Livy (xxxvii. 23)
describes this in vague and hardly accurate
terms. He is evidently alluding to the vast ridge
of Taurus, which rises from the coast all along
the eastern part of Lycia, and is seen by sailors
for a great distance out at sea; but he is hardly
correct in saying that Phaselis is the first land
descried by sailors oa the voyage from Cilicia to
Rhodes.

No coins of Phaselis are known with certainty

under the Roman empire except in the time of
Gordian UI. (others are probab forged), which
shows that it hardly easntainen its ancient im-
eaten in the post-Christian period. It was a
ishopric in the Byzantine time.
W. M. Ramsay.
PHASIRON (A Φασιρών, καὶ Φασειρών, V Φαρισών).---
Name οὗ a Nabatiean tribe (1 Mac 906), Since
most Nabatwan names find easy etymologies in
Arabic, it ought to be possible to explain this from
that language; the roots, however, which this
name recalls, seem rarely used for forming proper
names, except, indeed, fazara, which gives Fazarah,
a well-known tribal name. The form Pashiron of
the Peshitta version makes it no easier. The
name may be corrupt. D.S. MARGOLIOUTH.

PHASSURUS (B Φάσσορος, A Φάσσουρος, AV

Phassaron), 1 Es 5%=Pashhur.

PHEREZITE occurs in AV and RV of 2 Es 131
and in AV of Jth δ᾽6 for the more usual PERIZZITE,
which is the reading of RV in the latter passage.

PHICOL ( P:x6\).—The captain of the host of
Abimelech, who accompanied his master upon the
occasion of the latter’s entering into treaty with
Abraham, Gn 2155. 85. (E), or Isaac, 26% (J). See
ABIMELECH, No. 1.

38

- 5.

PHILADELPHIA (Φιλαδέλφεια, WH -ia).—A city
in the E. part of Lydia, in the valley of the Cogamis*
(an important tributary of the Hermus), on the
extreme outermost slopes of Mount Tmolus. It
is now a station on the railway, 28} miles from
Sardis, 64 from Magnesia, 105 irom Smyrna (by the
detour which the railway makes round Mount
Sipylos). It is situated only 65) feet above the
sea near the upper end of the low coast valley
which runs up trom the gulf of Smyrna; and
around it on all sides, except the road to Sardis,
rise the mountains which form the rim of the
great central plateau, or extend out from it to-
wards the sea like fingers. Thus the Cogamis
valley is a sort of funnel (like the Lyeus valley,
with its cities, see LAODICEA) in the flank of the
lofty main plateau of Asia Minor. A few miles
farther up the course of the river was the old city
of Kallatebos, mentioned by Herodotus on the
march of Xerxes, whose rank and power were -
probably transferred to Philadelphia, when it was
founded, The name Philadelphia shows that it
commemorates Attalus 11. Philadelphus (so named
from his affectionate and loyal conduct to his
elder brother and predecessor, Eumenes II.) ; and
it must have been founded between B.c. 189 (when
Jumenes came into possession of this country) and
Attalus’s death in 138.

The importance of the new city lay in its re-
lation to the cities of the upper plateau. The
direct waggon and carriage road from the cities
of northern Phrygia to the A!zean ran past Phila-
delphia to Smyrna; and a considerable part of the
fertile district called the Katakekaumene, or Burnt
Land, also sent its abundant vintages, fine wines,
and other produce by Philadelphia to the same
port (though the western Katakekaumene would
send direct by Sardis to Smyrna). Strabo seems
perhaps to describe Philadelphia as part of the
Katakekaumene, but this is hardly accurate geo-
graphically ; and his expression, on p. 579, that it
was on the side of that district, must be taken
strictly as denoting the outer side. That district
was a broken, irregular country forming part of
the great plateau, but on a lower level, like a step
leading up to it. The Katakekaumene lay north
and north-east from Philadelphia. It derived its

*So spelt onacoin. Pliny has Cogamus,

PHILADELPHIA

PHILADELPHIA 831

name from the extraordinarily fresh and impressive
traces of volcanic action which appear in it: great
streams of lava, and vast heaps of cinders, looking
as if they had just cooled yesterday, surround the
three ‘funnels’ (as Strabo calls them, Devitt, or
Ink-pots,* as the Turks now call them), which are
the craters of volcanoes that were active down to
a comparatively recent time. These blackened
and bare rocks and cinder heaps encroach in irregu-
Jar outline on the rich, green, fertile glens and
slopes of the luxuriant country, with its ten cities,
from which it derived its other name, Decapolis.
Strabo (xiii. p. 628) describes Philadelphia as being
constantly subject to earthquakes, so that the
walls and houses could hardly stand firm; but
modern experience tends to show that there is
considerable exaggeration in his picture. He also
says that few people lived in the city, but that
most lived in the open country, and were engaged
in cultivating the very fertile land. This account
would suggest a somewhat simple and rustic settle-
ment ; but that is hardly the impression that one
gets from other facts. Philadelphia was evidently
a place of importance in the imperial organization
of the province of Asia. It took the name Neo-
kaisareia for a time in the Ist cent., being so
styled on coins of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius,
and the name was evidently given to it under
Tiberius, who aided it to recover from a great
earthquake in A.D. 17. Under Vespasian it was
honoured with the title Flavia. In the reign of
Caracalla it received thehonour of the Neokorate
(see PERGAMUM).t Meetings of the Council of the
province Asia, with the games called Kowa ᾿Ασίας,
were held in it, at least in later time.

Philadelphia was the seat of one of the seven
Churches to which were sent special messages
through the mouth of John, in the opening of the
Apocalypse. In all probability each of the seven
is to be understood as the centre and head of a
district ; and it would be quite a mistake to under-
stand that there were only these seven Churches
in the province. Laodicea is certainly to be taken
as representative at least of the whole Lycus
valley (where the Churches of Colossse and Hier-
apolis had long existed), and probably also of
southern Phrygia (see LAODICEA). Similarly Phila-
delphia stands as representative of a district ;
and there can be no doubt that its district con-
sisted of the neighbouring regions of the plateau,
including parts of eastern Lydia and western
Phrygia. one of the valley west of it could be
in its district, for the Hermus cities would fall
either under Sardis or under Thyatira.

These facts, and its abundant coinage, reveal
to us rather a rich and powerful city, connected
by trade with a large district towards the east and
north, for which it formed a centre, and thus well
suited to be one of the central Churches of Chris-
tianized Asia. It is said that there has been
‘set before it a door opened’ (Rev 35), and the
‘open door’ doubtless refers to its position on the
threshold of the eastern country, and to the
rapidity with which the new religion was spreading
to the plateau through the cities connected with
Philadelphia. On this sense of the ‘open door’
zonspare 2.00 2,

But it is hardly possible, in our almost com-
plete ignorance of the inner history and circum-
stances of Philadelphia, to find an intimate con-
nexion between them and the language of the
address to the Church. It may, however, be

* Wrongly called, by almost all travellers and guide-books,
Devlit.

+See Buresch, Aus Lydien, p. 103 ff. Marquardt (Rim.
Staatsverw. i. p. 341) is mistaken in saying that it was the seat
of a conventus ; but it was one of the places in the conventus
Saraianus where the court of the conventus might be held by
the } toconsul.

noticed that in the seven letters to these Churches,
it is chiefly the faults which are associated with
the local circumstances, and which derive light
therefrom. In so far as a Church attained Chris-
tian purity, its character rises to a higher plane ;
in so far as it degenerates from that high level, it
becomes affected by its earthly surroundings.
Now the two Churches which are addressed in
terms of almost unmingled praise are Smyrna and
Philadelphia ; and in those two addresses we find
least reference to local history and situation.
Philadelphia had kept the word, and not denied
the name of God. It is described in Rev 3° as
having ‘a little power’; and this is considered by
some commentators to be explained and illustrated
by Strabo’s description of the actual city es being
small. But the allusion to its ‘little power’ seems
rather to point to the Church being a_ recent
foundation, which had not yet acquired vreat
strength in the city, though there is a brillant
opening before it. As a newly founded and small
Church it was more likely to escape notice and
persecution ; and hence it is to be ‘kept from the
hour of trial,’ 319, It is stated in 3° that there was
a synagogue in Philadelphia. The Jews of this
synagogue had degenerated greatly from the
strictness of Hebrew morality and religion, had
complied with the pagan customs and ways of
living, and had become ‘the synagogue of Satan.’
Yet this synagogue was to recognize the love
that God had bestowed on this Church, and to
bow down before it. This apparently implies
that the Jews of Philadelphia were in process of
rallying to the Christian side. The Church on the
whole is rebuked for no faults or weakness; but
is exhorted to continue strong and energetic, as it
has hitherto been; and to “hold fast what it
has.’* Great rewards are promised to those who
are steadfast and win the victory. The name of
God, and the name of His city, the new Jerusalem,
and the new name of the writer who addresses
them, are to be written on all who overcome (on
this see PERGAMUM).

Philadelphia was a bishopric under the metro-
politan see of Sardis, in the Byzantine period,
mentioned in all the lists immediately after Sardis.
It grew steadily as the A2gean coast cities tended
to dwindle, and the central regions of Asia Minor
to grow more important in the Byzantine period.
In the last centuries of the empire it rose to a
lofty pitch of heroism. It was long the bulwark
of the Christians against the encroachments of the
Turkish power, whose centre was at Konia or
Iconium. Frederick Barbarossa was permitted to
enter the city alone by its inhabitants, though
they fought for two days against his army, as he
was marching across Asia Minor on the fourth
crusade in 1190. Andronicus Paleologus (1283-
1328) recognized its importance by raising it to the
rank of a metropolitan archbishopric, and making
it tenth in ‘the order of dignity.’ + This probably
implies that it now became practically the Christian
centre of Lydia (in place of Sardis), although the
oflicial lists (Notiticee Hpiscopatuum), with their
usual conservatism (see PERGA), continue to mention
it, as before, in the list of bishoprics subject to
Sardis (sometimes with the added note, ‘which
was promoted to the rank of a metropolis,’ as in
Not. xiii.). In 1806 it stood a long siege by the
Seljuk Turks; but, after suffering terribly from
hunger, it was relieved by Roger de Flor with his
Catalan troops. Again in 1324 it suffered a
similar siege, and even greater extreme of hunger ;
but again was relieved by the Byzantine general,
Alexius Philanthropenus. As the Turkish power

* On the Jews in Phrygia and Lydia see Cities and Bishopiics
of Phrygia, ch. xv.

t See Parthey, Notitie Episcop. xi. No. 11, p. 226.

832 PHILEMON

PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO

spread westward, Philadelphia was entirel y isolated,
but still maintained its proud independence as a
free Christian city in a Turkish land, until it
was conquered by a combined army of Ottoman
Turks and Byzantine imperial troops sent by the
submissive emperor, in a year which is given
yariously between 1379 and 1390.* In 1403 it is
said to have been captured by Tamerlane, who
built a wall with corpses (the situation of which is
still pointed out).

It is remarkable that the city whose noble
Christian career is intimated in the message Rev
3° should have had the most glorious history of
all the cities of Asia Minor in the long struggle
against the Turks. Perhaps the only city that
could vie with it was Smyrna (also highly praised
in Rev); but the resistance of Smyrna was due in
part to European aid, while Philadelphia main-
tained itself with native steadfastness and vigour.
It is still to a large extent Christian. ‘He that
overcometh, T will make him a pillar in the sane-
tuary of my God, and he shall go out thenee no
more,’ Rev 313.

The modern name of Philadelphia is Ala-Sheher,
the ‘reddish city’ (or rather parti-coloured, with a
reddish-brown tinge), so called from the colour of
the hillside that slopes away backwards and up-
wards behind the city. It was by a mere error,
due toa smattering of Turkish, that older travellers
reported its name as Allah-Sheher, the City of
God, which has led to a good deal of mistaken
moralizing. W. M. Ramsay.

PHILEMON (Φιλήμων). - — The correspondent to
whom St. Paul addressed the charming letter which
bears his name (see the following article). The
name occurs with considerable frequency in in-
scriptions, and is found twice in literature in con-
nexion with Phrygia, viz. in the beautiful legend
of Philemon and Baueis (Ovid, MWetam. viii. 631),
and in Aristoph. Aves, 762. St. Paul’s corre-
spondent was most probably a native of Colosse
(cf. Philem? with Col 417). and in Theodoret’s
time his house was pointed out in that city. Tra-
dition speaks of him as bishop of Colossi (Apost.
Const. vii. 46), and the Menea of Nov. 22 record
his martyrdom there, by stoning, in company with
Apphia, Archippus, and Onesimus, in the reign of
Nero. In the case of such facts as these, local
tradi‘ion may generally be regarded as_ trust-
worthy, and here it falls in with the documentary
evidence, for the idea that Philemon was of
Laodicea is a mere guess.

Philemon was a dear and intimate friend of St.
Paul (νν.1- 33), and probably one of his converts
(ν.."). Of the circumstances of his conversion to
the Christian faith we have no record, but it may
well have taken place during St. Paul's stay at
Ephesus (Ac 19°6; but ef. also Ac 168). From the
facts that he owned slaves (see ONESIM Us), and that
he was noted for his hospitality and charity to his
fellow-Christians (vv.2: 5-7), it is plain that he was a
rich man, St. Paul speaks of ‘the church in his
house’ (v.?), and does not scruple to bid him
prepare a lodging for him against the time he
should arrive in Colossve (v.22). It only remains to
be added that Philemon was so earnest in his
work for the gospel, that St. Paul can eall him a
συνεργός (Was this at Ephesus ἢ), and that the tone
of the apostle’s appeal on behalf of Onesimus
would lead us to conclude that he was a man of
high and generous character, who might be ex-
pected to rise superior to the prejudices of heathen-
dom as to the relations between master and slave.
APPHIA may have been his wife, and ARCHIPPUS
his son. J. H. BERNARD.

* 1379 in Muralt, Chronoqraphie Byzantine, from whom we
take the preceding dates, 1306 and 1324.

PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO.—

i. External tradition.

ii. Transmission of text.
iii. Purport and analysis of the Epistle.
iv. Its internal evidence and genuineness.
ν. Its place in St. Paul's life.
vi. Its attitude to slavery.

i. The earliest certain quotations from this
Epistle are found in Origen (ef. Hom. xix. in
Jer. 2, Comm. Series in Mutt. §$ 66, 72), who
expressly ascribes it to St. Paul. That Marcion
accepted it is explained by Tertullian (adv. Mare.
vy. 21) as due to its extreme brevity. The Mura-
torian Canon names among the Paine Epp: “ad
filemonem unam.’ Eusebius counts it among the
ὁμολογούμενα (HE 111. 25). It must have been
included, if we are to judge from the extant
documentary evidence, in the earliest collection
of Pauline letters. The play upon words (εὔχρηστος
- +. &xpnoros) of Vv." is found again in Theophilus
(ad Autol. 1. 1), and Ignatius (’ph. ii., Magn. ii.)
uses ὀναίμην as it is used in Philem 99. but these
last coincidences do not necessarily betray literary
connexion, though they sugvest it.

ii. The text of the Epistle is attested by the
uncials & A C Ὁ 1, P 3 (this last unpublished)
and Καὶ G (these omit v.*-end); and by the Egyp-
tian, Syriac, and Latin VSS (of the OL we have
defgm). Of the cursives it is sufficient to
mention 17, 47, 67, 137 as specially valuable.

111. This Epistle differs from all the other Pauline
Epp. which have reached us, in that it is a strietly
private letter written to an individual friend. It
Is possible, though not certain, that the words ἐγὼ
Παῦλος ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί (v.!") apply to the whole
letter, which would thus have been an autograph,
and not written by an amanuensis, as was St.
Paul’s usual habit. The Pastoral Epp., although
addressed to individuals, are semi-otticial in char-
acter, and deal with the atfairs of the whole Chris-
tian society; the nearest parallel in the NT to
Philemon is 3 Jn, addressed to ‘Gaius the beloved.’
This characteristic of Philemon provoked prejudice
against it in early times, and Jerome, Chrysostom,
and ‘Theodore of Mopsuestia found it necessary
to defend the Epistle against the charge of secular
triviality, unworthy of St. Paul, and unbefitting,
as was argued, a work to be included in the sacred
Canon of the NT. But modern critics from Luther
to Renan have shown a keener insight, and have
found in the contents of the Epistle matter for
admiration rather than for depreciation.

The body of the letter is an appeal made by
St. Paul to PHILEMON, a citizen of Colosse, on
behalf of ONESIMUS, a runaway slave who had
come under the apostle’s influence and had em-
braced the Christian faith. Onesimus seems (ν. 18)
to have been a thief, and would in the ordinary
course of things have been subjected to very severe
punishment had he come again into the power of
his former master Philemon. The apostle, with
rare tact and delicacy, which only bring his strong
sense of justice into fuller relief, asks pardon for
the offender, not only as a personal favour to
himself (vv.%-14), but on the ground of the
brotherhood in Christ of master and slave (ν. 16).
He does not ask directly that Onesimus shall be
freed, although he indirectly suggests it ie ds
‘the word emancipation seems to be trembling on
his lips’ (Lightfoot).

An analysis of the letter may be drawn up as
follows :— Salutation (vv.!); thanksgiving for
Philemon’s love and faith (vv.*7) ; request that he
will receive Onesimus, the bearer of the letter,
with kindness (vv.®!7) ; adding the assurance that,
so doing, he will gratify the writer, who hopes
soon to visit Colosse (νν. 185-23), salutations and
final benediction (νν. 233-35.

PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO

PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO 833

The whole Epistle has frequently been compared
to a beautiful letter written by the younger Pliny
on a similar occasion (Plin. 4p. ix. 21), of which
a translation is given by Lightfoot (Col. and
Philem. p. 316).

iv. Considerable as is the external testimony
(see 1.) to the Pauline authorship of this Ep., the
strongest argument for its genuineness 15. based
on its internal evidence of truth, its witness to
itself. ‘Peu de pages,’ says Renan, ‘ont un accent
de sincérité aussi prononcée. Paul seul a pu écrire
ce petit chef dceuvre.” The vocabulary of the
Ep. has indeed been challenged in refutation of
this general impression which it leaves upon the
mind, and has been described, 6.5. by Baur, as
un-Pauline. As a matter of fact, the only words
which do not occur again in St. Paul are ἀναπέμ-
mew, ἀποτίνειν, ἄχρηστος, ἐπιτάσσειν, Levia, ὀνίνασθαι,
and προσοφείλειν ; and of these all but the last
occur elsewhere in the NT or in the LXX.* No
serious argument can be based on such a meagre
list; and, on the other hand, many phrases in
the letter are unmistakably Pauline. Not to lay
overmuch stress on the form of salutation (v.%),
and farewell (v.*°), and the opening thanksgiving
(vv.4#), which are in St. Paul’s undoubted style,
for these might be imitated by a falsarius, the
diction all through is that with which we are
familiar in the Pauline Epistles. We have the
metaphor ὃν ἐγέννησα ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς which recalls
1 (ο 4"; we have words like ἐπέγνωσις, παῤῥησία,
ἐξ υράκλησιν 3 ; we have τάχα which only occurs again
Ro 57; and we have quite a number of coin-
cidences with Eph, Col, Ph; e.g. cf. δέσμιος Χριστοῦ
*Inood (νν.1 and 5) with Eph 3}, συνεργός and συστρα-
τιώτης (VV.2+7) with Ph 2°, ἀνῆκον (v.5) with Eph 54
Col 338, συναιχμάλωτος (v.**) with Col 429, and ἀδελφὸς
ἀγαπητός (v.'°) with Eph 67! Col 47. On the whole,
not only does the artless style of the letter power-
fully support its claim to be genuine, but the
phraseology is strikingly like that of the other
Pauline Epp., and especially Eph, Col, Ph, the
HPP of the first Roman captivity.

An obvious link connecting the letter with
i satin is supplied by the proper names which
oceur in both Epistles. Both purport to come
from ‘Vaul and ‘Timothy’; while writing both
Paul is in captivity; in both Archippus is greeted
(v.!, Col 4!7); Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, Luke,
Demas join in the salutations with which the
letters conclude ; Onesimus a ‘beloved brother’ is
to be the bearer of both letters, accompanied as
it would seem by Tychicus (v.1% Col 4%). With
this agrees the fact that no ereeting to Philemon
is found in Colossians, because to him a separate
letter had been addressed. And as Ephesians and
Colossians were intrusted to the same messenger,
viz. Tychicus (Eph 64, Col 49, we are led to the con-
clusion that the three Epistles, Eph, Col, Philem,
were written at the same time and under the same
circumstances. (See EPHESIANS, EPISTLE ΤΟ].

A determination of the place of writing will
help us to determine the fie. As St. Paul was
in captivity, the letter must have been written
zither from Cresarea (Ac 24-26) or from Rome
(Ac 28"). Tradition is all in favour of Rome, and
the @ priort arguments which have been alleged
on the side of Cresarea are untrustworthy.

Thus (a) it has been urged that Cvesarea being nearer to
Colossw than Rome, it would be more natural that Onesimus
should fly there. But, on the contrary, a fugitive could more
easily hide himself in the great metropolis. (ὦ) If Eph, Col,
Philem were carried by the same messenger from Rome, he
would arrive first at Ephesus, and yet in Eph we find no
commendation of Onesimus. This is explicable only, it has
been supposed, on the hypothesis that Onesimus was no longer

with Tychicus, having arrived at his destination (Colosse) he-
fore the messengers reached Ephesus. But this would involve

* ἐλλογᾷν (WID occurs again in Ro 518 (TR in both ἐλλογεῖν).
VOL. 111.-- 53

an approach from Cesarea rather than Rome. It is a sufficient
answer to this that arguments e si/entio are very untrust-
worthy, and that no reason has been assigned why a slave
like Onesimus should be singled out for mention in a letter
to a Church where he was not known. (6) Philem 22 suggests
that St. Paul intended to go direct to Colossw, While Ph 224 speaks
of his intention of going to Macedonia, This would suggest a
starting-point south of Colosse, so that that place might be
visited en route to Macedonia.

But we do not know how far the apostle’s plans were modi-
fied in the interval between the composition of Philemon and
Philippians, nor is there any reason Why he should not have
proceeded from Rome to Colossx vid Philippi.

The positive arguments, independent of tradi-
tion, in favour of Rome are sont ii.g. from
Eph 619 it appears that St. Paul had a certain
amount of freedom while in captivity, which is
hardly consistent with what we know of his im-
prisonment at Ceesarea and of the dangers to which
he was there exposed (Ac 237}; but ef, 94: 9 ie oa eke
leaving that aside, there is at least nothing to
forbid us to acquiesce in the traditional belief that
it was in Rome that the apostle wrote the three
letters Eph, “Col, Philem, as it is evidently the
place from which he wrote the kindred Epistle to
the Philippians (Ph 1185 4%; cf. PHILIPPIANS,
EPISTLE TO).

The question as to the priority of Philippians
to the group Eph, Col, Philem, is difficult, and
there is not a great deal of evidence available.
Lightfoot, Sanday (see Smith’s DL? i. 627), and
Hort (Rom. and Eph. p. 102) support the view
that Philippians was written earher than Eph,
Col, Philem; but the opposite opinion, that it is
the latest of the E opp. of the first Roman captivity,
has also many detenders, e.g. Zahn (Hinleit. 1.
386, 392), Gwynn (Specker’s Comm.), and Ramsay
(St. Paul the Traveller, p. 358), and on the whole
it seems to the present writer the more probable.

The reasons for this opinion are the following : («) It seems
from a comparison of Eph with Ph that the conditions of the
apostle’s imprisonment are represented as more rigorous in
the latter Ep. than in the former, which contemplates a state
of things like that portrayed in Ac 28#9.31, On the other
hand, when Ph was written, he has been put on his trial, and
forced to make his ἀπολογία (cf. Ph 116f 217.28), (8) Again, a
comparison of Philem 22 (a 710 w γὰρ ὅτι διὸ σῶν ᾿προσευχ ὧν ὑμῶν
χαρισθήσοιεαι ὑμῖν) with Ph 951 (τέπτοιθα ἐ ἐν κυρίῳ ὁτι καὶ αὐτὸς:
ταχίω: taesoouos) taken in connexion with the joyful tone of
Ph, despite the trials which the writer has endured, points to
the fact that he was much more confident of his release when
Ph was written than at the period of writing Philem, and
this would naturally arise from the fact that his trial, which
had not come on before the group of letters Eph, Col, ’Philem
was despatched, was in progress and was already so far ad-
vanced that he could predict the issue with some confidence.
(vy) Too much has been made of the fact that Luke and Aris-

tarchus who join in the salutation to the Colossians and to
Philemon are not named in Ph, for they are not named in
Eph either. Yet still it falls in with the hypothesis that they
had departed before Ph was written; and indeed Ph 220 (1
have no man likeminded [se. with Timothy] who will care truly
for your state’) seems to make it certain that when Ph was
despatched the companions who are named in Col, Eph, Philem
had departed from the side of the apostle. The only positive
argument of any weight which has been urged on the other
side is that the similarities between Ro and Eh are much closer
than between Ro and Eph, Col, Philemon. |.ightfoot, in par-
ticular, urges that Philippians resembles the earlier rather
than the later group of Pauline letters, and that therefore it
must be placed before Eph, Col, Philemon. Such an argument
has little force, for on any hypothesis the interval which separ-
ates Eph, Col, Philem from Ph is too brief to account for any
marked change in style, supposing such to exist. And, on
the other side, the undoubted parallels between Ph and the
Pastoral Epp. may be brought forward ἴεν CG 123 and 217 with
2 Ti 46, 48 with 1 Ti 38, 121 with Tit 14, 112.25 with 1 Ti 415),

We thus are inclined to place Philemon before
Philippians, and therefore it will fall not quite as
late in St. Paul’s first captivity as that Epistle.
The determination of the year of writing will
depend on the system of Pauline chronology which
is adopted (see CHRONOLOGY, vol. i. p. 430). It is
perhaps most probable that it was written in the
cee A.D. 61.

The conditions of social life which form the
ἘΠῚ πλξ αν of the Ep. are deeply interesting to

834 PHILETUS

a:

PHILIP

the student of history, and the letter derives a
peculiar importance from the light which it throws
on the attitude of the early preachers of the gospel
to the institution of slavery. It is not condemned,
nor (as has been said already, § iii.) does St. Paul
even advocate directly the emancipation of Onesi-
mus. Christianity did not attempt all at once
to abolish an institution which was so deep rooted
in Roman social life, however inconsistent it was
with the religion of the Incarnation. Indeed the

revelation of the brotherhood of men in Christ’

made it especially necessary to emphasize (as the
apostles did) the fact that social ditferences were
not thereby obliterated. Even if (which is doubt-
ful) St. Paul was so much in advance of his age
as to have grasped the idea that no man has a
right to own another, to have proclaimed the
iniquity of slavery to a world which was not pre-
pared for it would have exposed society to the
frightful dangers of a bellum servile, on the one
hand, and would, on the other, have done more
to arouse the hostility of the Roman imperial
authorities than any other proclamation could have
effected. Christians had to show at the very out-
set that Christianity was not inconsistent with
good citizenship, and that the reforms which it
hoped to promote in social life would not be im-
posed violently from without, but that they would
be the outcome of the development of the national
conscience, in which the seed of the gospel was
to grow and fructify, secretly but surely, as the
leaven spreads in the meal. And the event has
justified the policy. Slowly and steadily, as Chris-
tianity spread, did the condition of the slave im-
prove in imperial Rome; until at last the time
came when it was possible for the Church, with
a fuller recognition of the implications of the
creed, and without danger to her own corporate
life, to preach emancipation. And the letter to
Philemon is the first indication in Christian litera-
ture that the problem of the relation of master to
slave must be seriously affected by the new con-
ception of the brotherhood of man, which Christ’s
apostles had set themselves to proclaim.

LITERATURE. — Lightfoot on Colossians and Philemon is the
best; von Soden (Jland-Commentar) and Vincent (Internat.
Crit. Comm.) are also valuable ; and Abp. Alexander’s comm. in
the Speaker's Comm. is picturesque and full of matter.

J. H. BERNARD.

PHILETUS (Φίλητος) is mentioned along with |

Hymenieus in 2 ΤῚ 2'7 as sharing in the same
heresy regarding the resurrection. The nature of
that heresy has been already explained in the
article on Hymenzeus (which see), and it is suflicient
to state here that it consisted in doing away with
anything in the nature of a bodily resurrection,
and resolving all Scripture references to such a
state into figure or metaphor. For full particulars
regarding the men and their heresy, reference may
be made to J. G. Walch, WViseoll. Sacra, pes is
and to F. R. Walch, Hist. der Ketzereien, i. 125 tt.
See also Ellicott on 7116 Pastoral Epp. in loc., and
Burton, Bampton Lect., Note 59, p. 428.

The names of Philetus and Hymenieus oceur
separately among those of Cuzsar’s household
whose relics have been found in the Columbaria at
Rome. G. MILLIGAN.

PHILIP (Picr7os).—1. King of Macedonia, B.c.
359-336, and father of Alexander the Great (1 Mae
11 6°). 2, A Phrygian, who was left by Antiochus
Epiphanes as governor of Jerusalem, after he had
plundered the temple in B.c. 170 (2 Mac 5%).
Philip is described as being ‘in character more
barbarous than him that set him there,’ and he
showed his cruelty by burning certain fugitive Jews,
who had taken refuge in caves, and scrupled to
jetend themselves on the Sabbath (ib. 611). He was

the first to take measures against Judas Maccubsus
(ὁ. 88), and is often identified with—3, A ‘fwisad?
and foster-brother (σύντροφος) of Antiochus Epi-
phanes (2 Mac 8%), This view is supported Υ̓
Zockler, but the grounds of the identification are
somewhat precarious (cf. Rawlinson in Speakur’s
Comm.). Epiphanes on his deathbed gave his ring
to Philip, and appointed him chancellor and
guardian of his son, Antiochus v. (1 Mae δ
Lysias, however, gained possession of the young
king, and seized the supreme power. Philip, re-
turning with the army from Persia, occupied
Antioch, whereupon Lysias, who with Antiochus
Eupator was prosecuting the war in Palestine,
hastily made terms with Judas Maccabieus and
returned to Syria (ib. 6°), Lysias took Antioch,
and according to Josephus (Ané. ΧΙΙ. ix. 7) put
Philip to death. The statement that, on the
death of Antiochus Epiphanes, Philip took refuge
in Egypt with Ptolemy Philometor (2 Mae 953),
cannot be reconciled with our other authorities;
and 2 Mae alludes elsewhere (1323) to Philip’s
attempt to establish his authority as regent. 4&
Philip v., king of Macedonia, B.C. 220-179. His
overthrow in battle is mentioned as one of the
great achievements of the Romans (1 Mae 85)." An
able and energetic monarch, he extended his power
in Greece and Epirus, and in B.c. 215 made an
alliance with Hannibal. The war with Rome,
however, was not carried on with much energy,
and after some years a hollow peace was made.
In the year 200 the Romans again declared war,
but gained little advantage till the supreme com-
mand was entrusted to δ, Quinctius Flaminius,
by whom Philip was completely defeated αὖ
Cynoscephale in Thessaly (B.C. 197), and forced to
accept humiliating terms. During the remaining
years of his life he attempted to recover something
of his former power, but his cruel and suspicious
conduct alienated his subjects, while he was con-
tinually troubled by disputes between his two sons.
He was at last induced to put his vounger son
Demetrius to death, and dying shortly afterwards
was succeeded by Perseus (which see).
H. A. WHITE.

PHILIP (Φίλιππος, Philippus).—1. THE APOSTLE.
One of the Twelve, belonging to Bethsaida of Gali-
lee (Jn 124), the fourth of those who attached
themselves to Christ as followers, and the first
whom our Lord directly called (1). He had prob-
ably been, like his fellow-townsmen Andrew and
Peter, a disciple of John the Baptist ; for his eall
took place near ‘Bethany beyond Jordan, where
John was baptizing,’ on the day after Christ’s in.
terview with Simon Peter, when Jesus purposed
(ἐθέλησεν) to leave the district for Galilee (1°: 7%),

Himself ‘masterfast,’ Philip, either at Bethany
or on his arrival, along with Jesus, at Cana, com-
municates his discovery of the Messiah foretold in
the OT to his friend Nathanael, describing Jesus
(in accordance with his defective information at
the time) as the son of Joseph (1). Unable to
meet directly Nathanael’s objection to an alleged
Messiah sprung from Nazareth (see NATHANAEL),
Philip wiscly falls back on experimental evidence,
invites Nathanael to ‘come and see,’ and is the
means of his friend’s coming, not only into the
Master’s presence, but under His saving power
(118), When the Twelve are chosen, Philip be-
comes one of the second quartette, at whose head,
in each list, his name stands (Mt 103, Mk 318, Lk
64), He appears thrice otherwise in the Gospel
history ; and all the references to him (except the
bare statement that he was one of the Twelve) are
made by his fellow-townsman John, who, writing
probably after all his fellow-apostles were dead,
appears anxious, in the case of Philip and Andrew,
to rescue from oblivion or obscurity, through a few

PHILIP

Por baee 835

significant reminiscences, some characteristics of
those two friends of his youth.

Philip’s prompt reply to our Lord’s inquiry in
Jn6* suggests that he had anticipated his Master's
compassionate desire to feed the multitude in the
wilderness, and had reckoned up (privately, but
not unobserved by Jesus) the minimum sum re-
quired for the purpose,* without any thought,
seemingly, of miraculous intervention, Philip's
Greek name, given to him, perhaps, in honour of
Philip the tetrarch (Lk 81), led probably to the
‘Greeks who came up to worship at the feast’
selecting him as a medium of introduction to
Christ ; but it was an appropriate coincidence that
those who wished to ‘see Jesus’ should have applied
to one who had said to Nathanael, ‘Come and see.’
Philip’s application to Andrew (who also bore a
Greek name, and, like Philip, had broucht another
into Christ’s presence), to take part, as principal
(Jn 125: RV), in the desired introduction, arose
probably not from any doubt as to our Lord’s
willingness (Jn 1016), but from modesty and a sense
of the importance of the occasion. The request
of Philip, on the occasion of Christ’s address on
the night before the Passion (14°), for some such
revelation, presumably, of God the Father as Moses
had enjoyed (Ex 33'™), indicates the union of
earnest religious aspiration with somewhat dull
spiritual apprehension. He was seeking after the
shadow of a theophany, when the substance of the
incarnation was already given to him; just as he
had formerly concerned himself about the need of
200 pence, when the riches of Christ's miraculous
power were available. Philip’s motto appears to
have been ‘Seeing is Believing,’ both in the signi-
fication of undue dependence upon testimony
addressed to the senses, and in the worthier
meaning of an appreciation of the value of ex-
perimental evidence. ‘The main lesson to be
learned from the incidents of Philip’s history as
related in the Gospel is this, that while a sincere
believer needs to be thoroughly ‘proved’ (Jn 6°)
and instructed before he is fit to ‘go forth’ asa
leader and pastor of the Church ; on the other hand,
if the portion of truth already apprehended be
faithfully held, he may, amid defective knowledge
(Jn 1% ‘son of Joseph’) and imperfect. spiritual
insight, possess the genuinely missionary spirit,
be instrumental in leading others to Christ, and
advance the kingdom of heaven.t

Philip’s life and work after the Ascension are
obscured by the widely prevalent confusion in
early times between this apostle and the evan-
gelist Philip, who was one of the ‘Seven.’+ The
confusion arose, doubtless, from the wider use,
after Pentecost, of the word ‘apostle,’ as inciuding
others besides the Twelve (see APOSTLE). It seems
best to accept as reliable the earhest distinct testi-
mony regarding Philip’s later career furnished by
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus in the latter part of
the 2nd cent., who was likely to have been well-
informed. Polycrates (quoted by Eusebius, iii. 31)
states that Philip, ‘one of the Twelve,’ lived as

* A denarius or ‘penny’ (about 93d.) purchased 12 wheat or
36 barley ‘loaves’ (Mishna, Peah, viii. 7 and Rev 66)—round cakes
an inch thick and a span in diameter. 200 ‘pence’ would thus
procure a scant meal (Jer 3721, Lk 116) for 5000 men and 2200
women and children.

t Clement of Alex. (Strom. iii. 4) records a tradition that
Philip was the disciple referred to in Mt 821 as asking Christ
for permission ‘first to go and bury my father.’ If so, the
incident belongs to Philip’s call, not to discipleship, but to
sola raga when permanent departure from home was in-
voived,

t Thus Tertullian (de Bapt. 18) speaks of the Apostle Philip
being ‘snatched away from the eunuch’; the Philip of Ac 6 is
referred to in the Apost. Const. vi. 7 as συναπέστολος ; and in
Calendars of the Coptic and Armenian Churches there is a
commemoration of Philip as‘ Deacon and Apostle’ (Assem. Div.
Or. iii. 645; cf. Wright, Apoc. Acts of Ap. ii. p. 69 ff., where the
history is given of Philip, ‘ Apostle and Evangelist’). Even
Eusebius shares in the confusion (1115 iii. 31).

one of the ‘creat lights of Asia,’ and is ‘buried at
Hierapolis along with his two aged virgin daugh-
ters’; and he adds that another dauehter, who
‘lived in (fellowship with) the Holy Spirit,’ was
buried at Ephesus.* The statement of Polyerates
is supported by the apocryphal Journeyings of
Philip the Apostle (3rd cent.), which represent
Hicrapolis as the chief scene of his labours, and
assochite him significantly with Bartholomew (who
is described, however, as one of the Seventy); by
Theodoret, the historian, who records in his Com-
mentary on Ps 116 [Eng. 117] that ‘the apostle
Philip controverted the error of the Phrygians’
(to whose country Hierapolis belonged); by pseudo-
Dorotheus, who states in his Synopsis that Philip
of Bethsaida preached in Phrygia, and is buried
with his daughters in Hierapolis ; and by pseudo-
Epiphanius, who makes a similar declaration (Lip-
sius, Apokr. Apost. i. pp. 211-213, iii. 25, 26).¢ In
substantial harmony, so far, with Polycrates is his
contemporary Clement of Alexandria, who states
(Strom. ili. 6) that the ‘apostles Peter and Philip
begat children,’ and that the latter apostle ‘gave
his daughters in marriage’ (which would account
for the burial of one daughter in Ephesus and not
in Hierapolis). The fact of Philip the Evangelist
having had four virgin daughters who prophesied,
does not invalidate the early testimony to Philip
the Apostle having also had notable daughters,
although it may have led to confusion on the part
of later or less well-informed writers; and the
apostle’s settlement and labours in Asia Minor
harmonize with the introduction of his name on
three occasions into the Gospel written at Ephesus
by St. John.

Regarding Phiip’s labours prior to his settle-
ment in Hierapolis, the traditions are divergent.
The Journeyings represent him as travelling
through Lydia and Asia; in the apocryphal Acts
of Philip, Upper Hellas, particularly Athens (where
he is said to have abode for two years, and to have
founded a Church, appointing presbyters and dea-
cons), and afterwards Parthia, are the scenes of his
ministry ; while later Latin documents attribute to
him the evangelization of the Gauls (Galatians 7)
and Scythians (Lipsius, 11. 26, 50, E. 19; Fabricius,
Cod, Apoc. ii. 130). Similarly conflicting are the
traditions regarding the manner of Philip’s death.
A natural decease appears to be indicated by
Clement of Alex. (Strom. iv. 9), pseudo-Doroth.,
pseudo-Epiphan., and the Latin Passio Philippi
(according to the last-mentioned, at the age of

*Eus. (TE iii. 39) refers to a still earlier testimony in the
same direction by Papias, bishop of Hicrapolis (first half of
2nd cent.), to the effect that the daughters of Philip the
apostle had told him (Papias) about a man raised from the
dead in their father’s time. As Eus., however, does not quote
the exact words of Papias, and as the historian himself con-
fused the two Philips, this reference must be regarded as
uncertain.

+ In a recently discovered ancient Christian inscription at
Hierapolis reference is made toaChurch τοῦ ἐνδόξου ἀποστόλου καὶ
θεολέγου Φιλίσπου (Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, p.
582). Although Philip the Evangelist is sometimes called ἀπεσ-
τολος in the wide sense (see above), so formal an ascription of
apostleship is not likely to have been made except to one cf
the Twelve.

{ The earliest and strongest testimony in favour of the Philip
who settled in Hierapolis being the evangelist, is the statement
in Eusebius (//F iii. 31), that inadialogue held at Rome early in
the 8rd cent. between Caius and Proclus a Montanist, the latter
is represented as referring to ‘four prophetesses, daughters of
Philip, whose tomb, as well as that of their father, was at Hier-
apolis.’ It is, of course, not absolutely impossible that both
Philips were buried with their respective daughters in the same
city ; put, assuming the improbability of such a coincidence, it
is a tenable supposition that either Eus. (through his own ideas
being confused) misunderstood, so far, Proclus, or that Proclus
himself, knowing about ‘daughters of Philip’ buried at Hier-
apolis, assumed mistakenly that these belonged to Philip the
Evangelist. The tradition, moreover, which identifies the Philip
of Hierapolis with the evangelist is neutralized by the counter-
tradition, according to which the latter became bishop of Tralles
(see next article).

------

836 PHILIP

PHILIP

87). Other ancient authorities ascribe martyrdom |

to the apostle. Pseudo-Hippol., the Journeyings,
and the Mthiopian Acts represent him as erucitied
head downwards (according to the first document,
under Domitian; according to the second, in the
reign of Trajan) ; while several Latin martyrologies
and an ancient Irish Passio relate that he was first
stoned, then crucified (Lipsius, ili. 25, 26, 48, 50, E.
73; Atkinson, Passions and Homilies from Leabhar
Breac, pp. 112, 358).

LirERATURE (in addition to works referred to).—Acta Sane-
torum, vol. xiv. p. 7 ff.5 Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 45 f.; Expositor,
Jan. 1875, Dec. 1877; A. Maclaren, A Year's Ministry, 2nd
series; A. B. Bruce, Training of the Twelve.

2. PHILIP THE EVANGELIST.—One of the Seven
chosen by the primitive Church at Jerusalem, and
vrdained by the apostles (Ac 6) to take charge of
the daily ministration of charity to the Christian
widows and other poor (see DEACON). If nob a
Hellenist Jew, he was a Hebrew with conspicuously
liberal sympathies. After the outbreak of perse-
cution, inaugurated with the martyrdom of his
colleague Stephen, Philip, hindered’ in the fulfil
ment of one oflice, straightway entered on the
work of another. He was one of those who de-
parted from Jerusalem for missionary ministry
(81 ὃ. As Stephen was the forerunner of Paul in
untolding the relation of Christianity to Judaism
and in repudiating the Jewish claim to a monopoly
of Divine favour, so Philip was the precursor of the
Apostle of the Gentiles in missionary zeal, and
particularly in opening the door of the Church’s
fellowship to non-Jewish believers. (1) He selected
as his first missionary field the (chief) city of
Samaria (Ac 8° RV), ie. either Sebaste (Samaria)
or Neapolis (Sychem). The Samaritans, notwith-
standing their partial Hebrew descent and partial
acceptance of Judaism (including circumcision), were
rigidly excluded from the Jewish Church, and were
denied even the privilege, accorded to heathens, of
becoming prosclytes. ΤῸ this people Philip, mind-
ful doubtless of our Lord’s own Samaritan minis-
try (Jn 4), proclaimed the Gospel and administered
baptism. The inhabitants of the city had long
been under the influence of Srmon MAGUS (which
see), whom his sorceries had induced them to regard
as ‘the Power of God which is called Great.’ (Ac
8"). Philip’s preaching, supported by miracles of
healing and of dispossession, was successful in
transferring Samaritan allegiance from Simon to
Christ. The population as a whole were baptized ;
and Simon himself (although with divided heart,
as the issue proved) believed and received baptism.
Philip's success in Samaria led to the despatch
thither of Peter and John, who completed the work
Which the evangelist had begun. “The first stage
was thus reached in the development of the Chris-
tian Brotherhood out of a Jewish sect into the
Catholic Church. (2) A further service in the same
direction was rendered by Philip through his bap-
tism of the Ethiopian eunuch, whom he met, by
Divine suggestion and providential arrangement,
ou the road between Jerusalem and Gaza(Ac aoa
This eunuch, who held the high office of treasurer to
CANDACE (which see), queen of the Ethiopians,
had apparently become, in his native land, a
‘proselyte of the gate’+ to Judaism, and was

* According to Jerome (Fyist. 103) and a Roman martyrology
(quoted Dy Lipsius, iii. 3), the baptism took place at Bethsoron,
near Heron.

| The word εὐνοῦχος is sometimes applied to a high court-
oficial, without implying castration (Gn 891 LXX); but this
treasurer, owing to his employment in a confidential capacity
under a queen, would most probably be a eunuch literally (see
ἸΟΡΗΙΟΡΙΑΝ EUNUCH).
becoming a ‘proselyte of righteousness,’ but was not incom-
patible with his admission to worship in the temple as a
*prosclyte of the gate’ (Is 564-5), The supposition that he was
a Jew, born in Ethiopia, is hardly consistené with the natural
interpretation of the passage. The one argument in its favour,

Such a condition would prevent him from

returning home, after worship in the temple, on
the occasion, presumably, of one of the great
annual festivals. Philip's conduct in relation to
the eunuch notably exemplifies trustful obedience
to Divine leadings (Ac 8%), alertness in availing
himself of missionary opportunity (859), and broad-
minded disregard of national and religious preju-
dice (8). The Ethiopian, as a descendant of am,
belonged to a despised race (Nu 12!, Am 9"), and,
if literally a eunuch, was inadmissible into the full
membership of the Jewish Church (Dt 231). Philip
by the reception of this man into the Christian
Church, virtually declared that disabilities of race
and outward condition have no place there, but
that all who believe in Christ are eligible for mem-
bership and baptism.* It was probably Philip’s
signal service to the cause of Church extension on
these two occasions which led, at least in part, to
the designation of him as the evangelist (Ac 218),

After the baptism of the Ethiopian, Philip
evangelized the country between Azotus (Ashdod)
and Cresarea, which, according to tradition, was
his birthplace (see documents quoted by Lipsius,
“ροῦν. Apos, iii. 2, 40), and where eventually he
took up his abode (Ac 918). There, along with four
virgin daughters who were prophetesses,+ he was
found residing, more than 20 years later, by St.
Paul and his friends, who remained for some days
as guests in his house, on their way to Jerusalem.
During the apostle’s protracted imprisonment at
(κατ δ we may assume there would be much inter-
course (Ae 24") between Philip and one with whose
missionary zeal and broad ecclesiastical views the
evangelist would be in full sympathy. Among
those who were in Cwsarea alone with St. Paul
(at least during part of the time) was St. Luke
(Ac 27*); and the details of Philip's early evangel-
istic ministry, recorded in Ac, were doubtless, at
this time, communicated to Luke by Philip himself.
The historical credibility, therefore, of the narrative
in Ac 8 can be questioned only by those who doe-
matically reject all records of what is supernatural
(Ae Ri 26. 9}

In 65 A.D. the revolt which developed into the
great Jewish war broke out at Civsarea ; and Philip,
like other Jewish Christians, would probably leave
Palestine before the fatal issue. We are prepared,
accordingly, for traditions which indicate his ulti-
mate settlement elsewhere. These traditions are
divergent. (1) The earlier connects the evangel-
ist and his daughters with Hierapolis (see note
~ oon p. &885>), but is rendered doubtful by the
manifest confusion which existed as to the two
Philips. It appears to the present writer much
Jess worthy of acceptance than (2) the tradition
which represents Philip, with his daughters, as
settling at ‘T'ralles§ in Asia Minor, as performing

viz. that no such objection scems to have been raised to Philip's
procedure as was made in the case of Peter and Cornelius
(Stokes, Acts of the Apostles, i. p. 412), is met by the fact that
the baptism of Cornelius and his household was notorious,
having been, in a manner, publicly administered (Ac 1024. 33) ;
whereas the Ethiopian was baptized without witnesses, and the
circumstances would probably, at the time, become known only
to a limited and sympathetic circle.

* According to an old Ethiopic tradition, the eunuch is repre-
sented as having evangelized the subjects of Candace or
Nendake (Ludolf, Hist. -£thiop. iii, 1, 2; Niceph. Callist. Hist.
ECC 14:6).

t ie (Fpist. 108) states that the chambers of the four
daughtcrs were still shown at Caesarea in his day. An ancient
Greek menologium (quoted by Lipsius, iii. 8) records their
names as Hermione, Charitine, Irais, and Eutychiane. Her-
mione is stated by the same authority to have practised medi-
cine, and to have been thrown, without injury, into a caldron
of boiling water in the reign of Hadrian.

+ It is open for us, however, although not necessary, to re-
gard the interventions referred to in 826.39 as made through

natural means; in the former case through a dream, in the
| latter through a divinely produced impulse of Philip’s own
| mind (Stokes and Holtzmann, in locis).

§ This city is usually understood to be the more celebrated
i Tralies in Caria; but, if we suppose it to be the “ther Tralles

PHILIP (HEROD)

PEEEIEE 837

there many miracles, and as becoming ἐπίσκοπος
or ἐπίτροπος of the Church which he was mainly
instrumental in building up in that city (pseudo-
Doroth. Synopsis; Martyr. Basilii; Joseph. Hymno-
graphus; and other authorities quoted in Acta
Sanctorum, xxi. p. 608 ff, and by Lips. itl. 2, 3).
In favour of the latter tradition is the fact of its
being associated, not like the former, with both
Philips, but with the evangelist alone. According
to most forms of the tradition, he died a natural
death at ‘Tralles; but one authority (a Greck
menologium, quoted by Lips. d.c.) represents him
as suffering martyrdom there.

LITERATURE.—Ewald, Hist. of Apostolic Age; Goulburn, Acts
of the Deacons; Lipsius, Apokr. Apostgesch. vol. iii.; Acta
Sanctorum, June 6; Stokes, Acts of Apostles, vol. i. chs. xvii.
XX, H. Cowan.

PHILIP (HEROD).—See Heron in vol. ii. pp. 358”
and 859",

PHILIPPI (@{\cr70).—Philippi, in Turkish Felib-
edjik or Little Philippi, to distinguish it from
Philippopolis in Bulgaria, was founded (or rather
re-founded, for an earlier town had existed on the
site) by Philip of Macedon in the middle of the 4th
cent. and called after his name. [Ὁ was situated
in eastern Macedonia—so near Thrace that it is
sometimes spoken of as Thracian—on a steep bill
rising at the edge of a great plain which stretches
far inland to the north and north-west. In the
opposite direction stood its port of Neapolis (the
modern Kavala), 8 or 9 miles distant, at the
nearest point of the coast: the road connecting the
two, part of the great Egnatian road which ran
across from the ‘Meean to the Adriatic, passed
through a depression ina line of hills which stretch
east aud south-east of Philippi and cut it off from
the sex. An immense marsh lay directly south of
the town, fed by the springs which eave it its older
name of Crenides. At the present time two
streams pass one on each side of Philippi, but at
some short distance from it,—the larger rising on
the east and flowing to the south of the town,—and
fall into this lake or marsh, which in turn is itself
a source, though not the main one, of the river
Dramenica, a tributary of the Strymon. Ef ancient
authorities, however, are to be trusted, this river,
known as Angitas or Gangites or Ganges, derived
its name from the Philippi branch. Where the
country is so marshy, the configuration of the
streams may have altered since St. Paul's day.

Philippi, with the rest of the dominions of Per-
seus, king of Macedonia, fell under Roman do-
mination by the victory of the consul emilius
Paullus in 168 B.C., whose reorganization of the
conquered territory, while it preserved municipal
freedom and self-government and diminished taxes,
aimed at destroying the political unity of Mace-
donia by a division into four regions ; a division so
strictly carried out that an inhabitant of one region
could neither intermarry with nor hold property i
another. Of these regions the first, which had
Amphipolis for its capital, included the whole dis-
trict east of the Strymon, and therewith Philippi.
It is, however, doubtiul to what extent this system
of tetrarchies survived the formal establishment of
Macedonia as a province (A.D. 140).

The event which differentiated the fate of
Philippi from that of Macedonia at large was of
much later date. In the autumn of B.c. 42 the
party which had brought about Ciesar’s death in
the ἄνα of restoring the republic was finally ex-
tinguished in the defeat of Brutus and Cassius by
in Lydia, which was also the seat. of a bishopric (Hierocles,
Nottie Epise. p. 168), and was distant from Hierapolis only
fifteen miles, the proximity of the two cities would account
the more easily for Philip the Evangelist, as well as Philip the
Apostle, being associated with Hierapolis.

Antony and Octavian (afterwards Augustus) out-
side the walls of Philippi. The colony of Philippi,
Colonia Augusta Julia [Victric]* Philippensium,
was founded, as the name Judie implies, in honour
of the victory of the cause of Julius Cwsar (cf.
Strabo, vii. fr. 41, κατοικία μικρά, ηὐξήθη δὲ μετὰ τὴν
περὶ Βροῦτον καὶ Κάσσιον ἧτταν): and the first citizens,
if we may judge from the phrase cohors pract. Phil.
upon the coins, were soldiers of the bodyguard of
Antony and Octavian. A second foundation by
Augustus after the battle of Actium eleven years
later, when many of the dispossessed partisans of
Antony in Italy were transplanted to Dyrrhachium
and Philippi (Dio, li. 4, $6), 15 commemorated by the
other title Augusta. The territory of the colony
included Neapolis.

Each Roman colony was a fresh representation
of the Roman people in miniature. The magistrates,
elected by the citizens, or rather by the senate of
the colony, fulfilled on a small scale the functions
of their prototypes in Rome, and like them were
attended by lictors bearing fusces or lundles of
rods: their authority, within their district. and
over its inhabitants, excluded even that of the
governor of the province. And Philippi, besides
the normal privileges of all colonies, possessed as
well the ius I¢clicum, or exemption fer its terri-
tory from the rent ordinarily reserved for the
Roman state over conquered countries.

About a hundred Latin inscriptions survive from
Philippi: the most interesting, C/L ΠΙ. 1. 683, re-
cords the names of a collegiwm or burial guild
recruited from the lower classes (including out of
a total of 69, 4 slaves of the colonia and 3 of private
persons), and entitled cultores or sodales Silvant.
The guild had its sacerdos, its Junior [svcerdes], and
its aedilis, and had erected a temple (the gifts for
which are recorded) to its tutelary deity.

Christianity first made its way to Philippi, as
far as we know, in the person of St. Paul. Some-
where about A.D. 50, perhaps most probably in the
spring of that year (see CHRONOLOGY OF NEW
TESTAMENT, vol. i. ἢ. 422), the apostle in the
course of his second iissionary journey crossed
for the first time from Asia, and having set foot
on European ground at the seaport of Neapolis,
pushed on without delay to the mother city of
Philippi, where suflicient stay was made to preach
and tound a Church. His companions were, trom
Antioch Silas (Ac 15”), from Lystra ‘Timethy (16°),
from 'Troas Luke (16!°, where the first person plural
commences in the narrative).

St. Luke describes Philippi as πρώτη τῆς μερίδος: Μακεδονίας
πόλις κολωνία, a phrase which, as it stands, must mean either
‘the first city in rank,’ or ‘the first city they came to,’ in
(that) district of Macedonia.
pretation are serious. (1) Philippi was not the. first city in

| rank, for Thessalonica was the capital of Macedonia as a whole,

while in S.E. Macedonia, Amphipolis, distant only 30 miles from
Philippi, was not only the capital of the region in the original
Roman tetrarchy (see above), but was still in St. Luke’s day
much more than its equal in importance: Amphipolis had a
separate issue of coins for the reign of each of the emperors
from Augustus to Nero, while for the same period Philippi
was apparently content with two, one under Augustus and
one under Claudius. (2) Nor is the translation ‘first city to
come to’ ary more satisfactory. As a matter of tact the apostle
first sect foot in Neapolis; and in so far as Neapolis was Thracian
(so Bp. Lightfoot, Philippians 4, p. 50, n. 1), Philippi must have
been the same, since Neapolis was in the territory of Philippi
(CID παι. i. p. 120). And if the geography of this interpretation
is doubtful, its grammar is impossible: πρώτη is never used in
this sense without qualifying words (Field, Notes on the Trans-
lation of the New Test. ad loc., quoting πρώτη μετὰ τὴν Ταάλα-
τίαν, πρώτη. .. πρὸς μεσημβρίαν. πρώτη. . . ἰόντι ἀπ’ ᾿Αχαίης).
Moreover, in either translation the τῆς before μερίδος: is intoler-
ably awkward, and so the older scribes felu: B drops the article,
and the Bezan reviser (D) substitutes for πρώτη τῆς μερίδος the
single word χεφαλή.

*Ramsay, Journal of Theological Studies, Oct. 1899, p. 116,
follows Head, Historia Numoriwn, p. 192, in adding Victria :
but Mommsen, CJL ut. i. 660, denies the title ; and it does not
seem to be sutliciently proved from the coins.

The objections to either inter- -

----

898 FHP

PHILIPPI

Hort (New Testament in Greek, Appendix, ad loc.) attempted to or simply from the general

escape these difficulties by reading ΠΠ μερίδος for μερίδος, 6a chief city
of Pierian Macedonia.’ But if we are to emend, it is better to read
πρώτης for πρώτη “ἃ city of the first region of Macedonia and
acolony.’ This simple emendation—it may have arisen either
by the accidental reduplication of the letters rz, or from a mis-
understanding of the correction if by mistake πρώτη was written
originally, and -sxs written over it to correct it—occurred first
to Joannes Clericus (according to Blass, Philology of the Gospels,
p. 68, but we have not been able to verify the statement) and to
the unnamed friend of an English divine, James Peirce (see
Peirce’s Puraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul to the
Philippiais, ed. 1, A.v. 1725; ed. 2, A.D. 1783, p. δ, and L. M.
Artemonius, 1 ἐξέ μεν, Brangelii δι Johannis, ΑΝ. 1126, pt, ἷ,
np. 211); and in our own day has occurred independently to Field,
op. cit, p. 124, Blass, loc. eft. and Acta A postoloruin, ad loc., and
to the present writer. The only possible objections appear to be
(.) that μερίς does not mean a district or region (ILort, doe. cit.);
and (ii.) that though Philippi had belonged to the ‘first region,’
the whole division into tetrarchies had fallen out of memory
long before. But as to (i.) μερίς is in fact found as aterm for
subdivisions of the Egyptian ‘nomes’ (Ramsay, Church in the
Roman Enipire, yp. Ws, note); as to (ii.) there is nothing in our
oe knowledge to justify go sweeping an assertion (Ramsay,
1b. ).

7S,

St. Panl was always accustomed to commence
his mission within the sphere of the religious or-
ganization of Judaism. But Philippi—unlike the
Cypriot towns, Pisidian Antioch, Tconium, Thessa-
lonica, Beraa, Athens,

|

1 the Philippians
Corinth, Ephesus (Ac 13°: 4 |

141 171. 10. 17 184 19%) possessed apparently no syn- |

agozue, so small was the number and Importance of
the Jews there, and on the Sabbath St. Paul found

the few Jewish worshippers at prayers beyond the |
If we ask our- |

gates of the city by the riverside.
selves why under such circumstances St. Paul
stopped at Philippi, the most probable answer is
that what attracted him was exactly the feature
which accounted for the paucity of Jews,
that it was not an ordinary Greek town but a Ro-
man colony: Rome and thines Roman were upper-
most in the mind of St. Paul.

_ The reading of the Textus Receptus is οὗ ἐνοικίζετο προσευχὴ
εἶναι, “where there was accustomed to be praver’: and Blass’s
conjecture, ad loe.. ivéuilor ἐν πρ:σε i gives a similar sense,
The Western authorities, however (ocx Tpogevy,, εἶναι, 1): oratio
esse uidebatur, latt.), as well as Westcott and Hort (sous Couey
προσευχὴν sivas, Dut no sinevle uncial vives exactly this reading),
say nothing about the habituad character of the worship there ;
and it would be possible, if St. Paul’s visit could coincide with
one of the great Jewish fasts (those of the 4th, 5th, 7th, and
10th months, Zee 819), to suppose that the riverside worship
was due only to the solemnities of the day. Compare Tertullian,
de weiunio 16, ‘Tudaicum certe ieiunium ubique celebratur, cum
omissis templis per omne littus quocum@ue in aperto aliquando
jam precem ad celum mittunt’ + by which we ought perhaps to
interpret the more general words of the Decree of the Halicar-
nassians (Josephus, A ntiquities, XIV. xX. 23 A

422i TH ἐξερῶ. σὺυντ Vie as MAl Tas πρόσευχ HS
θαλάττη κατὰ τὸ πάτριον ἔθος. Where no scashore was available,
any open place, yuawmque in aperto, appears to have answered
the purpose. It will be noted that both authorities specially
inention ‘prayer’ or ‘prayers’ as the distinguishing mark of
this open-air service, just as St. Luke does for Philippi.*
On the whole it is more probable that we are to understand
that the open space by the river was the normal scene of what

Jewish worship there was at Philippi.

τὰ σάββατα ἀγεῖιν
ποιεισίκι ποὸς τῇ

That St. Paul ‘sat’ and so spoke ‘to the women
who had gathered’ there, appears to imply both a
contrast to the more formal procedure of a syna-
gogue (St. Paul stands to preach at = Pisidian
Antioch, Ac 1315, yet see Lk 4”-2!) and also the
non-existence of many worshippers beyond the
(Gentile) women who here as elsewhere, especially
in Macedonia (Ac 13°° 17+ 15), were attracted to
Judaism. From this class, at any rate, was drawn
the first convert, Lydia the purple seller of Thya-
tira, who was followed by the whole familia of
which she was the mistress; her house became the
home of the apostle and the centre of the Philip-
pian Church (see ΠΎΘΙΑ, and ef, Ramsay, δὲ. Paul
the Roman Traveller, pe 214),

Among the women influenced by St. Paul, either
as an attendant at the preaching by the riverside,

* There appears to be little or no evidence for any technical
use of προσευχή in the sense of an informal ‘place of prayer’ as
opposed to ‘synagogue.’ See art. SYNAGOGUE,

namely, |

spread of interest in
the strangers and in the novel faith they were pro-
pagating in Philippi, was a slave girl, who per-
formed in a small way the functions of an oracle,
and gave answers like one under Inspiration to
whatever questions might be asked of her, her
owners, of course, reaping the benefit of the fees
paid for the privilege οἱ Inquiry.

As the pagan prophetess (like the prophetesses of the Mon-
tanists) was conceived of as the passive instrument of the spirit
which inspired her, she would speak with its voice, not with her
own, and so might be called (as Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 215)
ventriloqua ov ἐγγαστρίμυθος (thus the Witch of Endor in the
Fathers is called both πυθώνισσα and ἐγγαστρίμυθος). Kor several
points in the story, compare the description of a false prophet
in the Shepherd of Hermas, Mand. xi. $12, μισθοὺς λαμβάνει
τῆς προφητείας αὐτοῦ, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ λάβη οὐ προφητεύει: 3, ὡς ἐπὶ
μάντιν ἔρχονται καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν τί ἄρα ἔσται avros: ὃ 6,
ὅλω; οὐ λαλεὶ ἐὰν μὴ ἐπερωτηθῇ : § 18, κατὰ γωνίαν αὐτοῖς προφητεύω,

Daily as St. Paul passed to ‘ the (place of) prayer,’
the girl, perhaps from some fixed station at a
street corner, annoyed him by following and crying
out that he and his companions were, like herself,
‘slaves of (the) God,’ divinely inspired to preach to
a ‘way of salvation,—a form of
recommendation not at all after the mind of St.
Panl,—till at last one day he turned and made use
of those powers of exorcism which the early Chris-
tians never for a moment doubted that they could
wield, ‘in the name of Jesus Christ,’ over the
spirits that ‘ possessed’ such pagan devotees. The
girl, whose belief in him was no doubt very real,
lost from that day forward her supposed gift ; and
her owners (the injury to their gains making
them keenly susceptible to the injury to their
religion) seized Paul and his chief companion,
Silas, drageed them to the formmn,—the great open
space ina Roman city on to which the law-courts

_ would look,--and brought them before the macgis-

trates on the double charge of violating public
order (ἐκταράσσουσιν τὴν πόλιν) and of preaching
rites which for Romans at least, whatever might
be the case with others, it would be illegal to
accept or carry out (καταγγέλλουσιν ἔθη ἃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν
ἡμῖν παραδέχεσθαι οὐδὲ ποιεῖν Ρωμαίοις οὗσιν).

The magistrates are called ἄρχοντες in Ac 1619, στρατηγοί in
1050. 22. 35. 36.38; and Prof. Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 217, Journal
of Theological Studies, Oct. 1899, p-_ 115) sees in St. Luke’s
employment of the two terms in 1619.20 4 proof that the book
never received its finishing touches. ἄργοντες Was the normal
Greek word for a supreme board of magistrates. στρατηγός WAS,
in later times at least, used interchangeably with ἄρχων; but
it was also the technical rendering of the Latin preetor (so
ἀντιστράτηγος = proprietor): and in some colonies the hivhest
grade of magistrates were actually called after the Roman
model pretores, so that it has been questioned whether this
may not have been the case at Philippi. But it would seem
that this usage was confined to the period B.c. and to the oldest
group of Roman colonies outside Italy, those in Gallia Narbon-
ensis. It must be taken, then, as fairly certain that the official
title of the superior magistrates was not pretor but as in other
colonies dwumvir. [The inscription C7 τι. Suppl. No. 7339,
which speaks of one who was Questor in Bithynia-Pontus,
Cerial Edile, Pretor-designate, Decurion or Senator, at
Philippi and in Thrace, refers to the Roman Pritorship}.
Duumvir, Duoviri, can be represented literally in Greek by
dveevdpizre, δύο ἄνδρε: s Dut it is beyond question that ἃ writer
like St. Luke would avoid, if possible, such awkward literalism,
He could only fall back on the rough equivalent στρατηγές and
his use of this Greek phrase in no way proves either that the
magistrates at Philippi were preetores, or even that they were
called so by courtesy.

The trial was never carried to an end (deara-
xpirous, Ac 16"); popular feeling had been roused,
and the magistrates, in the exercise of their general
power to detain and punish suspicious characters
(Mommsen, Rdmisches Strafrecht, 1899, p. 309,
n. 1), summarily ordered their lictors to scourge
the prisoners. A Roman citizen was by law ex-
empt from a form of punishment which was looked
upon as degrading (ὑβρισθέντες ἐν Φιλίπποις. 1 Th
2°); and since on one other occasion at least St.
Paul claimed his rights (Ac 22”), it is possible that
at Philippi too he made a protest which passed un-

PHILIPPI

PHILIPPI 839

heard or unheeded ; but as he suffered scourging

altogether not Jess than three times (τρὶς ἐραβδίσθην,
2 Co 11”), it is also possible that for the moment he
was silent of set purpose about his citizenship.
[If it could be supposed, in face of 167-38, that

Silas was not a citizen, the motive of his silence |

would be obvious].
manded with special instructions as to their safe
custody ; and the gaoler, no doubt rightly inter-
preting this as a warning against too lenient a
treatment, threw them into the inner prison and
made their feet fast in the stocks.

The ἐσωτέρα φυλακή was surrounded entirely by the outer
prison, and appears to have had no light and no air except
through the door: for illustrations of the inner prison and
stocks, ef. (1) Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne
(4.D.177: Eusebius, WE ν. 1), τὰς κατὰ τὴν εἰρ hy ἐν τῷ σκότει καὶ
τῷ χαλεπτωτάτῳ χωρίῳ συγκλείσεις “πὶ τὰς ἐν τῷ ξύλω διατάσεις τῶν
σοδὴν ἐπὶ πέωπτον δια τεινοικένων τρύπημα ; (2) Acts of Perpetua (A.D.
202) § 8, post paucos dies recipimur in carcerem et expaui quia
numquam experta eram tales tenebras, 7. paucis horis emissi in
meliorem locum carceris ; ὃ 8, die quo in neruo mansimus ; (3)
Acts of Pionius (A.p. 250) § 11, οἱ derucguauzis .. . ἔβαλον αὐτοὺς
εἰς τὸ ἰσώτερον, Dut afterwards they were allowed out εἰς τὸ
ἔμπροσθεν; (4) Eus. ΜΗ vi. 39, cf. Origen (6. A.D. 250), τάς τε
ὑσὸ σιδερᾷ κλοιῷ καὶ μυχοῖς εἰρκτις τιμωρίας καὶ ὡς «.. τοὺς πέδας
ὑτὸ τίσσαροα τοῦ πκολοεστηρίου ξύλον παροταθεὶς διαστήματα κατασ-

πώμενος κτλ (5) Cyprian, Hp. xxxvil. 3, squalorem carceris ac

receptaculi poenalis horrorem ; XXxix. 2, per decem nouem
dies custodia carceris sieptus in neruo ac ferro fuit. Cf.
Mommsen, Ldmisches Strafrecht, p. 302.

At midnight Paul and Silas were singing at
their prayers (προσευχόμενοι ὕμνουν : Jewish litur-
giology is too obscure a subject for us to say
whether it formally included prayers for mid-
night, but Ps 119°?! should not be overlooked ; in
any case, the ‘hymns’ may probably have been
from the Psalter), when an earthquake shook the
prison so violently that the bars of all the doors
and the fetters of the prisoners gave way. ‘The
eaoler, supposing naturally that his prisoners had
taken the opportunity to escape, and knowing that
he weuld be held responsible tor them, would have
committed suicide if St. Paul had not been able to
reassure him, and so turn him from his purpose.
From that moment, if not before, it is clear that
he attributed the convulsion of nature to the
prayers and powers of his two prisoners ; and he at
once professed himself their convert.
inner prison he removed them to his own house,—a
violation of the spirit rather than of the letter of
the magistrates’ injunctions,—ministered to their
temporal wants, and received from them spiritual
instruction and baptism. As in Lydia’s case, the
whole household came over to Christianity with
its head.

As soon as day broke, the duoviri, doubtless
thinking to avoid all further complications by
seeing that the objects of the riot left Philippi
before the excitement should burst out afresh, sent
their lictors to the prison with an order terminating
all further proceedings, which, as Roman prisons
were used only as places of detention before or
during trial, was equivalent to a direct order of
release. St. Paul refused to leave in this undigni-
fied fashion; he advertised the fact that he and
Silas were citizens; and he demanded a personal
acknowledgment of their error by the magistrates,
This was willingly accorded as the price of the
departure of the unwelcome strangers, whose
citizenship not only rendered illegal the previous
proceedings, but would complicate any future pro-
ceedings that the owners or the populace might
choose to press against them. St. Paul, though he
would not forego a formal farewell to his hostess
and his converts, did not further contest the
demand that he should leave Philippi, where,
indeed, his presence might for the moment hinder
rather than further the work of the gospel. But
the foundations of a flourishing Church had been
laid; and Luke, the writer of the Acts, was (to

From the.

The prisoners were then re- |

judge from the dropping of the first person plural
between 16'7 and 20°) left in charge of it.

Five years later (perhaps in A.D, 55) St Paul, on
his way to Corinth in the course of the third
missionary journey, passed again through Mace-
donia and exhorted at length the Christians of
‘those parts’ (παρακαλέσας αὐτοὺς λόγῳ πολλῴ, Ac
202). We may be certain that a visit to Philippi
was included, for the time occupied in travelling
from Ephesus to Corinth was apparently as much
as six months (cf. 1 Co 168 with Ac 20" ἢ. On his
return from Corinth in the early spring he paid
another and unintended visit (Ac 20°), the last of
which we have a definite record; and though it
delayed the journey to Jerusalem, which he was
so anxious to accomplish by Pentecost (Ac 2016),
he spent with the Philippian Church the last
pascha which he was to enjoy in freedom for
many years, while his (mostly Gentile?) com-

anions went on and awaited him at Troas. At
hilippi the ‘we-passages’ commence again (20°):
St. Luke appears to have joined St. Paul again at
this point, and probably stayed by him during the
rest of the period of the Acts.

The bonds of peculiar affection which united St.
Paul to his Philippian converts are impressed on
every line of the letter (see PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE
TO THE) which he wrote to them from Rome, prob-
ably at the beginning of his first captivity there
(ὁ. A.D. 59-60).

That St. Paul again visited Philippi during the
eastern travels implied in the Pastoral Epistles, is
not recorded, but may almost be assumed. The
apostle journeyed to Macedonia from Ephesus
(1 ΠῚ 1°), and the journey would naturally be made
vid Troas and Philippi. And if the recorded visit
to Troas (2 Ti 4:9) belongs, as is probable, to a
different and later occasion, the indications of the
Pastoral Epistles suggest two visits to Philippi
rather than one.

At the beginning of the 2nd cent. the Church of
Philippi emerges once more for a moment into the
light of history, when it received a visit from one
apostolic father and a letter from another. Some
time in the reign of Trajan (i.2e. before A.D. 117),
Tenatius, bishop of Antioch, was condemned to
death as a Christian, and sent in charge of a guard
of soldiers to be thrown to the beasts at Rome.
His route, as we know from his Epistles, lay
through Philadelphia, Smyrna, and Troas, Thence,
like St. Paul, he must have crossed to Neapolis
and so reached Philippi (his guards were probably
making for one of the Adriatic ports by way of the
Eenatian road), since the Church of Philippi
‘welcomed’ and ‘escorted’ him, and on his depar-
ture wrote two letters, one to the Church at
Antioch consoling them for the loss of their
bishop, and one to Polycarp of Smyrna asking for
copies of as many as possible of the letters which
Ignatius had written in Asia Minor.” St. Poly-
carp’s answer is his /pistle to the Ph ilippians, the
sole source of our knowledge of this episode ot
Philippian history. We learn from it, further,
that scandal had been caused at Philippi by the
conduct of the presbyter Valens (the name is
singularly frequent in Philippian inscriptions), and
his wife, who had apparently, like Ananias and
Sapphira, combined to carry out some dishonest
financial transaction. Avarice would seem specially
reprehensible to a Church which had distinguished
itself for liberality as the Philippian Church had
done in St. Paul’s day (Ph 4°38 ; and of Macedonia
generally, 2 Co 11% * 8").

Of the subsequent history of the Philippian
Church nothing seems to be known till we meet

* It is not impossible that this request of the Philippians was

the origin of the collection of a corpts of the Ignatian Ictters,
and therewith of their preservation tor later ages.

ἜΣ

840 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

the names of a few of its bishops among the sub-
scriptions to 4th and 5th cent. councils ; ¢ Por-
phyrius a Macedonia de Philippis’ at Sardica in
A.D. 344 (the Church of Philippi was therefore
Athanasian, not Arian); “ Flaviano Philippensium
qui Rufi_ quoque renerendissimi Thessalonicensium
episcopi locum gerebat,’ (he signed next after the
bishops of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Ephesus)
at the weumenical Council of Ephesus in A.p. 431;
‘Sozon Philippi’ at the Latrocinium of Ephesus in
A.D. 449, and the same bishop, ‘Sozon Philippensis,’
at the Council of Chalcedon, which undid the work
of the Latrocinium, in A.D. 451.

LITERATURE. — For the topography—Leake, Travelsin Northern
Greece, iii. (1835), esp. pp. 214-225; and the Austrian and Bul-
Garian staff maps of Macedonia. For the secular history—
Livy, xlv. 29; Diodorus ; Strabo, vii. fr. 41; Dio, li. 4, § 6, and the
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, ut. i. €33-707, πὶ. Supple-
mentum, 7337-7358. For the history of the Philippian Chureh
senerally—Lichtfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians 4,
pp. 47-65, S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp1, τι. ii. Pp. 897-934 ;
Gams, Series E'piscoporum, Pp. 429; Le Quien, Oriens Chris.
tianus, ii, pp. 65-70, For further discussion and illustration
of points in St. Luke’s account (Ac 161240) see, ¢.g., the
commentaries of Wetstein (1752) and Blass (Acta apostolorium,
1895), ad loe.; Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St.
Paul, ch. ix. ; Ramsay, The Church in’ the Roman Empire
(1893), esp. pp. 156-158, and St. Paul the Traveller and the
Lioman Citizen (1895), pp. 213-226. es 5 TURNER.

PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.—

i. The Church of Philippi.
ii. Time, Place, and Circumstances of Writing.
iii. Contents of the Epistle.
iv. Characteristics of the Epistle.
Note 1. On Ph 11,
99 Se gy yy Pld,
SH Oke coy μὶ SL D-RO:
Genuineness and Integrity of the Epistle.
Literature.

νυ,

i. Tre Cruncit or ῬΠΠΙΡΡΙ.. Οἱ the town see
preceding article. The Church of Philippi was
Jounded by St. Paul durine his Second Missionary
Journey, about the year A.D. 52 [Turner, 50]; it was
the first Church which he founded on the soil of
Europe (Ac 16"). On his arrival in the city, accord-
ing to his custom, he sought out the Jews, who do
not appear to have been numerous, for they had no
synagogue within the city, only a * place of prayer’
(προσευχὴ) outside the gates, on the banks of the
river Gangites. Paul, aecompanied by Silas and
Timothy, and possibly by Luke (the use of “we? in
Ac 16%, and the graphic character of the whole
narrative, betray the hand of an eve-witness), re-
paired to this place on the Sabbath day and spoke
to some women whom they found there. A certain
God-fearing proselyte named Lydia [or this may be
simply an ethnic name-—‘the Lydian’; see above,
p- 177°], from the city of Thyatira, received the
word, and was baptized with her household. Paul
and his companions remained for some time in
Philippi, continuine to frequent the Jewish place
of prayer; there does not appear to have taken
place any breach between him and the Jews on
this occasion. The incident of the maid with the
‘spirit of divination,’ and the subsequent arrest of
Paul and Silas, led to their abrupt departure, but
not until the nucleus of a Christian Church had
been formed. The author of the Book of Acts
says (16?) that before leaving Philippi, Paul and
Silas entered the house of Lydia and comforted
‘the brethren.’

Two features in the narrative deserve special
notice, for they were not without influence on the
subsequent history of the Philippian Church. The
first is that the Jews were few in number; the
second, that the earliest converts were women. To
the first we may ascribe the failure of the Judaizers
to gain a footing within this Church ; and perhaps
the second explains the specially kindly interest
taken by the Philippian Church in the personal
comfort of the apostle. It may also account for

PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

--------
the circumstance that thy disputes in
pian Church were about personal rather than
doctrinal questions. It has been said that the
narratives in Ac 16!3 174 12 indicate—there is some
corroborative evidence in the inscriptions—that in
Macedonia women held a higher position than
elsewhere. Female influence certainly continued
strong in the Church of Philippi, for Paul regarded
a personal quarrel between two of his female con-
verts as a serious danger to the Church (Ph 423),

The Church founded by Paul and his companions
continued to prosper. [Ὁ suffered persecution
(2 Co 83), but remained conspicuously faithful to the
gospel of Paul and to Paul himself. If we are to
understand < bishops,’ ‘deacons’ (Ph 1!) as names of
ecclesiastical oflicers, it appears to have made more
rapid progress in organization than other Churches
(see on this point below, iv. n. 2). The Churches of
Macedonia, and we may be sure Philippi was not
an exception, manifested their attachment to Paul
by the alaerity with whieh they collected money
for the poor Saints of Jerusalem, although they
were themselves in deep poverty (2 Co 8°). The
Philippians also sent repeated personal eifts to
Paul when he was in Thessalonica and in Corinth
(2 Co 89, Ph 415. ail eee Nas lastly, when he was in
Rome their care for him aeain revived, and they sent
a git through Epaphroditus, who was instructed
to remain in Rome and minister to the apostle
(Ph 418),

It is probable that the friendship between Paul
and the Philippians was cemented by more fre-
quent intercourse than we know of, Polycarp
(Philip. iii. 2) speaks of the ‘letters’ written by
Paul to the Philippians ; and, although this may be
a mere inaccuracy on the part of Polycarp, or éven
if the plur. ἐπιστολαί may be used to denote a single
letter (see Lightfoot, ad loc. ), 1b is most improbable
that Paul made no written acknowledgment. of
the repeated gifts. As Philippi lay on the Via
Egnatia, he must have frequently received tidings
of its Church from friends and messengers (Ac 192),
In the year 57 [Turner, 99] Philippi had two visits
from the apostle in person ; and it was in Mace-
donia, and almost certainly in Philippi, that he
spent the anxious days of waiting for Titus (2 Co
Ze 7-6). There also he wrote, in all probability, the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 Co 218 75 81 92-4),
If that was the case, Paul passed one of the most
critical seasons in his life, when his entire life-work
seemed in danger, among the Philippians; and at
such seasons friendships are deepened. A second
Visit was paid to Philippi when Paul kept the
Paschal feast with his converts before leaving for
Jerusalem; and the language in Acts SULeCS tS
that it was with difficulty that he tore himself
away from them (Ac 20%. ὁ),

In his Epistle, Paul expresses a hope that he
would again visit the Philippians after his release
from his Roman captivity (Ph 23). Whether this
hope was fulfilled we cannot say. If he was re-
leased,—as seems more probable,—and the Pastoral
Epistles are to be accepted as a genuine record of his
subsequent labours, he certainly paid one visit te
Philippi after his release (1 Ti 1°), and probably
more than one.

i. Tue Trp, PLACE, AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
WRITING.—When St. Paul wrote the Epistle to
the Philippians, he was a prisoner (Ph 1? 13-14. 17).
and the place of his captivity was almost certainly
Rome. He sends greetings from those of C:esar’s
household (43. A large and active Christian
Church is in his neighbourhood, of whose doings
he is fully cognizant (1/417), A number of friends,
old and new, are beside him, and appear to have
free access to him (47!- 2); he sends letters and
messengers to distant Churches, and messengers
come from other lands to visit him (4'5).. All

the Philip.

εἶς

ane

PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 841

this is in harmony with his Roman life as de-
scribed in Acts (28%): it is improbable that he
enjoyed the same liberty in Ciesarea, where, more-
over, as far as we know, there was no Christian
Church. One expression only in the Epistle
suggests Ciesarea. In 1! the apostle writes that
his bonds had become manifest in Christ ἐν ὅλῳ
τῷ πραιτωρίῳ. When in Cesarea, Paul was con-
fined in the preetorium of Herod (Ac 23%). Usage
forbids us to understand preetoriim as the imperial
palace on the Palatine; nor does it seem to have
been used (as is held by Ellicott, Meyer, etc.) as
: name for the barracks of the imperial guard (see
Lightfoot, Philip. p. 99). Itis a designation, how-
ever, frequently en by Latin writers (e.g. Tac.
Hist. li. 11) and by Josephus (Anf. XIX. ΠΕ 1)
the pretorian or imperial guard; and in this
sense most modern commentators understand it
here. Momm~sen (Berlin. Akadem. Sitzungsberichte,
1895, p. 495 1F), who is followed by Ramsay (δέ.
Paul the Traveller, p. 357), maintains that it is here
a name for the supreme imperial court, before which
Paul appeared, This explanation relieves Paul’s
words of that note of exaggeration which they con-
tain according to the former interpretation ; for it is
not possible that the knowledge οἱ Paul as a bonds-
man of Christ should have pervaded the ranks of
the ummense imperial guard. See, further, art.
PRETORIUM.

If Paul wrote the Epistle in Rome, it was written
between 62 and 64 Dineen: 59 and 61); or if Har-
nack’s chronology be adopted, between 57 and 59.
The probability is that it is the last of the Epistles
of the captivity, and that it belongs to its closing
period. (Bleek, Lightfoot, Sanday, Hort,e¢ ad. would
place it fi st among the Epistles of the captivity; the
view ady -cated in this art. is that of Zahn, Gwynn,
Ramsay, et a/.). A good deal had happened in
Nome since Paul’sarrival. Lf we ac cept Mommsen’s
view (see above), he had already appeared before
his judges; and he was looking forward to a
speedy settlement of his case (24). The assump-
tion of Zahn (Hint. ind. NT), that when the apostle
wrote, the period of Uihera custodia had ended, and
that he was in strict durance, rests upon a slender
foundation, and is hardly consistent with the free
intercourse with lis friends implied in 2",

St. Panl’s Roman life, as mirrored in the Epistle
to the Philippians, presents that blending of joy
and sorrow, of unexpected triumphs and bailed
hopes so familiar to the reader of the Book of Acts
and of the Pauline Epistles. For years he had
longed to see Rome that he might preach the gospel
in that great gathering-place of the nations, and
communicate some spiritual gift to the Church of
the metropolis of the world. He entered Rome,
however, in a euise that seemed to mock all his
hopes of fruitful apostolic labour ; but he was able
to assure the Philippians that the frustration was
only in appearance ; for his bonds in Christ had
become manifest in a manner which had spread
to wide circles the knowledge of Christ (119); and
his presence as a captive for Christ’s sake had
quickened evangelistic zeal within the Roman
Church (14). But an element of personal bitter-
ness mingled with his joy at the success of the
preaching of the gospel. Some of the preachers
whom his inspiring presence had sent forth to
preach were animated by feelings of animosity
towards himself, and preached Christ ‘of faction,’
hoping, as the apostle expresses it, to add atftlic-
tion to his bonds (11. This can hardly mean
that they hoped to increase the rigour of his cap-
tivity, for if they had irritated the authorities by
their preaching, they would themselves have been
the first sufferers ; they rather wished to make
him feel more acutely the limitations of his cap-
tive condition as compared with the unfettered

freedom enjoyed by his rivals. It is the opinion
of some critics (e.g. E. Haupt) that the cause
of the hostility of those preachers was simply
jealousy of the masterful alien who had become
the leader of the Christian community in Rome.
Had they been Judaizers, it is urged, Paul could
not have rejoiced in their preaching, after his
emphatic condemnation of different gospels in the
Ep. to the Galatians (1° 5*). It is true that there
do not seem to have been in Rome, when Paul
wrote to the Romans, Judaizers of the extreme
Galatian type. The Roman Church appears to have
contained a majority of Gentile Christians, but
there must have been in it a considerable minority
of Jewish Christians, some of whom were anxious
to preserve certain Jewish rites and customs. ‘These
may have taken alarm at the immense accession
to the strength of the other party by the arrival
in their midst of the great representative of anti-
legal Christianity. It scems therefore not unprob-
able, and it is certainly more charitable to assume
it, that those who preached Christ ‘of faction’

were under the influence of a more respectable
motive than personal jealousy of the apostle. St.
Paul might rejoice in their preaching, because
through it men heard of Christ who would other-
wise not have heard the gospel at all. It was
otherwise when, as in the case of the Galatian
Judaizers, an attempt was made to substitute a
gospel trammelled by legal conditions for the free
gospel of the grace of God, which the Galatians
had already received.

During his Roman captivity St. Paul was solaced
by the society of ἃ mmmber of friends. Timothy,
Luke, Epaphroditus, Aristarchus, Epaphras, Tychi-
cus, John Mark, Demas, Jesus Justus, and Onesi-
mus [see separate articles on these names] were all
more or less frequent visitors in the hired house
(μίσθωμα, Ac 23") in Rome, and not improbably
often lodged under its roof. To aman like Paul,
who possessed a genius fer friendship, the pre-
sence of his friends must have been a source of
unfailing joy and comfort; and he owed to their
ministratious not only the personal comfort which
he enjoyed, but his opportunities of missionary
effort in Rome and elsewhere; for he frequently
sent them out on apostolic missions. But one ex-
pression in the Ep. to the Philippians shows that
the element of disappointment was not altogether
absent even when he was in the society of his
chosen friends, and that they did not always come
up to the apostle’s high standard of self-forgetful-
ness in the service of Christ. He writes (21. 20),

‘1 hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy shortly.
For 1 have no man likeminded who will care
genuinely for your state. lor they all seek their
own, not the things of Jesus Christ.’ It has been
said that if these words are to be taken seriously,
they show that Paul, like Luther in his old age,
fell into a mood of morose complaining, which
made him unjust towards his fellow-workers. But
we need not apply them to all the friends of whom
mention has been made above, only to those, and
perhaps few, who happened to be present with him
at the time he was writing ; some of these appear
to have pleaded private business, and to have ex-
cited Paul’s easily roused indignation by their
apparent indifierence to a mission which was dear
to his heart. ‘‘‘ All,”’ writes Jitlicher (Hind. in d.
NT), ‘is without doubt hyperbolical. Paul was a
man ; and he had a right to give expression in his
letters to his passing moods,’

It is generally supposed that Epaphroditus was
the bearer of the letter to Philippi, and that he
was also the amanuensis. Lightfoot’s judement
is that ‘on the whole it seems most probable’
that 4° is an appeal to Epaphroditus, who was by
Paul’s side and writing down his words, to use

842 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

his best endeavour to heal the grievous quarrel
between Euodia and Syntyche. Others consider
this unnatural, and prefer to take Σύνξυγος as a
proper name, and to explain γνήσιος as ‘truly
called? The return of Epaphroditus and the fit-
ness of sending thanks for the gifts received,
through the person who had brought them, was
probably the immediate occasion of the Epistle.

il, ‘THE CONTENTS OF THE Epistle. — The
Epistle begins in St. Pauls usual manner, with
this exception, that the bishops and deacons are
singled out for special greeting (11:3). The apostle
goes on to say that the remembrance of the Philip-
pians always awakens in his heart thankfulness to
God, and that his prayers for them are aceom-
panied with joy, because of their fellowship in the
furtherance of the gospel from the day they first
heard it (vv.*5), A prayer follows, that their love
may abound more and more, and that 10 may be
accompanied with knowledge and discernment so
that they shall be able to prove things that differ,
and be found free of offence unto the day of Christ
(vv.9n14),

The apostle then turns to his own affairs, which
are likewise those of the gospel. His captivity,
instead of proving a calamity to the cause of
Christ, as might have been feared, had contributed
to the spread of the vlad tidings, his bonds having
become manifest in Christ throuehout the whole
revetorium and to the rest. His captivity had
Hivewiaa emboldened many brethren to speak the
werd of God without fear; and although some of
the preachers had been animated by unworthy
feelings towards himself, he was able to τὸ
joice that they had proclaimed Christ. For him-
self, he cherished the contident expectation and
hope that Christ would) be magnified in him,
whether by his life or by his death. Death was
to him a more attractive prospect than life, for
after death he should be with Christ ; but his life
was more necdiul for the Philippians and his other
converts, and he felt confident that he would be
spared for their sakes. Only one thing could
damp the joyful contidence of the apostle, evil
tidings of his converts, and he therefore exhorts
them to live in a manner worthy of the gospel,
and not to be intimidated by adversaries (vv. 2"),

An appeal to the Philippians fellows, to fulfil
the apostle’s joy by living lives of brotherly love,
They are warned to shun the spirit of faction
and vainglory, and to cultivate lowliness of mind.
In their Lord Christ, who exchaneed the form of

God for the form of a servant (Bruce, Zunil. of

Christ, yp. 28; see Gillord, Incarnation, . τ;
and below, iv. n. 2), they had before them an ex-
ample of lowliness of mind, and in His subsequent:
exaltation, a proof of God’s approval of the lowly
mind (2.8,

The apostle then repeats certain warnings al-
ready given against disputings and murmurings,
and entreats the Philippians to live as children of
God. His absence ought to act as an additional
incentive to more strenuous efforts on their part
to work out their own salvation with fear and
trembling (νν.}3:15),

The apostle intimates his intention to send
Timothy to visit Philippi, that he may comfort
them, and brine tidings of them to himself.
Timothy is one who will truly care for their wel-
fare; and such men were at the time rare among
the apostle’s companions, for they all seek their
own, not the things of Jesus Christ. The apostle
explains that he has sent back Epaphroditus whom
the Phitippians had sent to minister to him, be-
cause Epaphroditus, after a dangerous illness, had
been seized with a longing for his home. He had,
however, done noble service to the apostle, and
deserved the best reception from his fellow-Chris-

tians in Philippi on his home-coming. The pas-
sage ends with the words, ‘ Finally, my brethren
rejoice in the Lord? (2!-3!),

The last words of the former paragraph seemed
to indicate that the apostle was about to close
his letter, But a new paragraph begins with 810,
in which he goes on to state that he does not
hesitate to repeat warnings formerly given, as he
knows that they are a means of safety for his con-
verts, An impassioned invective follows against
the ‘dogs’ of the concision who were always bark-
ing at him. Their worship, which they were so
eager to introduce among all Christians, was a
worship in the flesh, and not by the Spirit of God.

’aul had himself possessed, in all their fulness, the

fleshly privileges of which the Judaizers boasted,
and had renounced them that he might gain
Christ in their stead, and experience the power
of His resurrection, and that fellowship in Christ's
sufferings through which lies the path toa joyful
resurrection, ‘The apostle adds that he is aware
that his own apprehension of the blessings of the
Christian calling is as yet incomplete, but he de-
scribes himself as one who is forgetting the things
that are behind, and stretching forward to. the
things which are before. A warning reference
follows to some who are spoken of as the enemies
of the cross of Christ, not apparently because
of their opposition to the gospel, but because of
their worldly and licentious lives. These men
mind earthly things; but the citizenship of the
Christian is in heaven. The passage concludes
with a general exhortation to Christian stendfast-
ness (3!-41), An entreaty follows to two women,
Euodia and Syntyche, who had been formerly
fellow-labourers with Paul, to be of one mind in
the Lord; and an unnamed true voke-fellow (or
perhaps [see above] a friend named Synzygus) is
exnorted to labour to bring about the’ desired
reconciliation, ΑἸ] are exhorted to rejoice in the
Lord, and to show by their gentle and forbeariny
behaviour towards all men that they believed their
Lord to be at hand. Their needs should be laid
before the Lord in prayer, and the peace of God —
a better defence than all the devices of men—
would stand sentinel over their hearts and thoughts,
After another ‘finally,’ a passage follows which
seems to breathe the spirit of the philosophic
moralist rather than of the Christian apostle. Let
them open their minds and hearts to the con-
templation of all true and beautiful thoughts, of
wl fair deeds wherever they are to be seen (¢ ΠΥ

St. Paul then gives thanks for the gift the
Philippians had sent through Epaphroditus, which
he valued because of the spirit of which it was
the manifestation, rather than for itself, for he
was not in need. The Epistle closes with saluta-
tions and the Pauline benediction (vy.1-e"2),

iv. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ‘THE EpIstLE.—
In the Ep. to the Philippians and in the Second Ep.
to the Corinthians, St. Paul’s personal character
is more Clearly revealed than in any of his other
writings. But the two Epistles disclose different
sides of his character. In 2 Co he is writing to
adversaries and to lukewarm or suspicious friends,
and we mark how acutely he felt personal slights
and unworthy accusations. He pleads his own
merits and services in a manner which shows that
self-esteem was by no means dead within him, and
he verges on what appears to the modern reader
boastfulness. In writing to the Philippians, he is
addressing some of the most trusted friends he had
in the world. This trust in his readers gives a
pleasing sense of repose to the Epistle. It accounts
tor the epistolary undress of the language, for the
want of plan, for the repetitions, and for the
obvious reluctance to leave off. There were some
things amiss even in Philippi, and Paul had te

ic eer

—————

PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 843

adininister certain reproofs, but he is less fearful
than on other occasions, having a full conviction
that God would perfect His good work among them,
and reveal His will to them in those matters which
were as yet obscure to them. Chapter 3 forms an
exception to the general restfulness of tone observ-
able in the Epistle (see Note 3 below). Critics,
however, have discovered that there existed a sore-
ness in the mind of the Philippians about Paul’s
reception of their pecuniary gifts. Zahm (Lind. in
d. NT) maintains that they had written a remon-
strance to him complaining that he had not suitably
acknowledged it. Another critic (Holsten) finds in
St. Paul’s words 410-19. ‘thankless thanks.’ A third
(E. Haupt), however, regards his acknowledgment
as a veritable masterpiece of delicate and con-
siderate courtesy. The practice of lauding the
courtesy of the apostle has been somewhat over-
done. St. Paul could be very courteous, but his
courtesy was always kept in strict subordination
to his duties as a counsellor and as ἃ reprover.
To say not only that he did not desire, but that
he did not require the gift, was not precisely
the courtesy of the courtier; and was likely
enouch to bring a shade of disappointment to the
countenances of the poor people who had sent. it.
But the apostle evidently recognized that they
were in some danger of exageerating the value of
the money gift. He said, therefore, with all plain-
ness of speech, that to him its value consisted
solely in the evidence it gave of their personal
affection, aud of their willingness to make sacri-
tices for the cause of God.

Nore 1.—Ph 1) σὺν ἐπισκέποις καὶ διακόνοις. This is the first
(unless we take into account the words attributed to Paul in
Ac 9038) mention in the NT of bishops. Its presence in a
letter purporting to be written by St. Paul has excited sus-
picion of the genuineness of the letter, as the episcopal office
(at least in its monarchical form) is generally admitted to
have originated at a later period. It is very doubtful, how-
ever, if St. Paul here refers to the holders of a definite ecclesi-
astical oflice. When writing to the Thessalonians, he spoke
of their leaders as of σροιστώμενοι (1 Th 513). In the Ep. to the
Ephesians those exercising episcopal functions are named ποιμένες
καὶ διδάσκαλοι (ph 411). In the Ep. to the Iebrews they are
termed ἡγούμενοι (Ile 1317), The apostle here names those
‘bishops’ who were elsewhere called by other names, but who
exercised the same functions. Whether this was the first occa-
sion on which the word was uttered in the Christian Church, we
cannot say ; probably it had been already given by Paul or by
others to Philippian Church rulers; but it was a name, once
given, that was likely soon to supersede all others on the prin-
ciple of the survival of the fittest. It was well known and
understood by Grecks ; and not less so by the Jews, for it is
common in the Septuagint ; and it expresses by a single word at
once the dignity and the duties of the rulers of the Church,

E. Haupt suggests that the bishops and deacons are here
selected for special ereeting because they had taken a leading
part in arranging for and collecting the gitt sent by Epaphro-

ditus. With regard to the two classes of persons named, Haupt
writes: ‘It is possible that there is no reference here to the

otlices. In 1 Th 512 the same persons are certainly designated
by the expressions οἱ zevisivees ANC οἱ προιστα LEVEL | and it is at least
probable that the same is the case with regard to the ποι ένες
and διδάσκαλοι of Eph 411, Clement (1 Lp. xiii. 5) ascribes
presidency to ἐτίσκοτοι and διάκονοι alike. It is, therefore, pos-
sible that here ἐπσίσκοτοι and διάκονοι are to be understood as
applying to the same persons; and that here as in the other
Pauline Epistles, there was as yet no fixed terminology for the
ofce of president’ (Die Gefangensehafishricfe, p. 3). See,
further on the subject of this note, Hort, Heclesia, 111f.

Nore 2.—Vh 25-11, This passage has been pressed into the
service of speculative theology, and many attempts have been
made to extract from 10 an apostolic doctrine of the relations of
the Divine and human natures of our Lerd It is very doubtful,
however, if the apostle had any intention of formulating, or
even of hinting at the meaning which his words are supposed
to bear. In v.4he had uttered a warning against factiousness
and vain glory, and a counsel follows to cultivate lowliness of
mind. Of this voluntary choice of lowliness, Christ was their
great example, for He had exchanged His heavenly glory for
the life of humanity,—for a life which ended in a death of
shame.

According to some commentators the words ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
ὑπάρχων οὐχ LLTLYILOY ἡγίσοτο σὸ εἶναι ἴσα ew refer to the
lowliness of spirit exhibited by the Son during His pre-existent
life. Although in the form of God, He did not ambitiously
snatch at equality with the Father. If this be the meaning,
it is a thought straneely foreign to the ordinary thought
of St. Paul to hint even at a possible rivalry between the

Father and the Son. Nor do the words force us to adopt
this interpretation. The word μορφή as distinguished from
σχήμα denotes that which is essential to the subject, that
which properly belongs to its nature ; and the words τὸ sives
joe Yeu need not express a different, but the same idea.
Christ being in the form of God, therefore possessed equality
with God. The only word which creates difficulty is ὡρπαγμος,
which, according to its termination, signifies ‘a snatching,’ not
“the thing snatched.’ But substantives in -wos are frequently
used to describe the concrete thing (¢.g. πειρασμός, πορισικόξ,
δεσμός). “Aprayucs occurs only once in classical writers in a
passage in Plutarch (Mor, p. 12 A). So we cannot say with
certainty whether or not it was ever employed in the passive
sense. It was certainly so used by the Greek Fathers, who were
writing in their native tongue. Ina number of passages the
Fathers employ the expression &prayucy τί ποιεισθαι aS ΒΝ ΠΟΙ 1-
ous with the more ordinary expression apreyue τι ποιεισίαι. If
we may so translate éprzyucs here, the meaning is that Christ
did not regard the equality with God which He possessed, as
a prize to be eagerly grasped and retained, but of His own will
surrendered it for the condition of lowliness. The verb zevovy
(Ro 414, 1Co 117 910) refers to this surrender by Christ of
His heavenly glory and dignity, and the manner of surrender
is explained in the expression that follows—wopgry δούλου λαβών.
To answer the questions of speculative theology as to the exact
relation which continued to exist between the ‘two natures’
of Christ, was entirely foreign to the purpose of St. Paul’s
exhortation. ‘It contains,’ writes Zahn (Hind. in d. NT),
‘hardly more dogmatical teaching than the sentence in 2 Co 89.’

Nore 3.—Ph 31b-20, This passage does not harmonize either
in substance or in tone, with the rest of the Epistle. It almost
looks as if it had been torn out of its connexion in the Ep.
to the Galatians, or in the 2nd Ep. to the Corinthians. It
has certainly more kinship with those Epistles than with the
Epistle in which it stands. It consists of a passionate invective
against the Judaizers, reminding us of Galatians, followed by a
vindication of St. Paul’s own position as the possessor of all the
privileges of which the Judaizers were fond of boasting.

It is extremely difficult to discover a fitting connexion be-
tween it and the preceding paragraph, which concludes with
the words, ‘Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord.’ Some
commentators (¢.g. Bengel, B. Weiss, Klopper) have seen a link of
connexion in the circumstance that Christian joy was obscured by
the practice of Judaic rites which diverted the gaze from Christ :
‘Gaudium spirituale optimam affert certitudinem contra errores,
Judaicos prisertim’ (Bengel). But a connexion so delicately
hinted, when the Judaizers were in question, 15 unlike St. Paul.
Lightfoot gives up the attempt to establish an inner connexion of
the passage with what goes before. He conjectures that the
apostle was interrupted when writing the letter. In the inter-
val something occurred in Rome, which reminded him of the
restless propagandism of the Judaizing miwwionaries. ‘ What if
they should interfere at Philippi as they were doing at Rome,
and tamper with the faith and loyalty of his converts? With
this thought weighing upon his spirit he resumes his letter.’
But a device of this character rather suggests the interpreter in
despair. We prefer the explanation of E, Haupt, who remarks
that the fragmentary character of Paul's closing exhortations
makes it unnecessary to look for a connexion with the foregoing
passage, if a possible danger to the Philippians from the Juda-
izers was present to his mind. That he is speaking of the
Judaizers sufficiently explains the sudden change of tone to
severity and solemn warning ; for the mention of those plotters
against the peace of his Churches always excited the indigna-
tion of the apostle. It also accounts for the introduction of
the vindication of his own ancestral privileges as a Hebrew ΟἹ
the Hebrews, and as one who had always been found blameless
as touching the righteousness which is of the law; for the
apostle was aware that it was the invariable practice of the
Judaizers to indulge in detraction of himself, whom they re-
garded as the chief obstacle to their designs upon the freedom
of the Church.

v. THE GENUINENESS AND INTEGRITY OF THE
Epistie.—The genuineness of Philippians was de-
nied by Baur and his scholars Schwegler, Volkmar,
etc., and by Hitzig. The mention of bishops and
deacons in the greeting betrayed, they main-
tained, a later date than the lifetime of St. Paul.
They found in it, moreover, evident traces of the
Gnosticisin of the 2nd century. Its teaching reeard-
ing the Kenosis of Christ (2°) was a reflexion of
the Valentinian myth of the fall of Sophia froin
the Pleroma to the Kenoma. In 23 they found
the Gnostic Docetie teaching about the body of
Christ ; and in 2!” Marcion’s doctrine of a Descensits
ad Inferos. In Clement, who is mentioned in 4°,
they perceived a reference to the Clement of the
Clementine Romances. The desien of the Epistle,
according to Baur, was to repel Ebionite assaults,
and to promote unity between the two sections of
the Church. The views of Baur with regard to
this Epistle possess at present only a historical
interest. The Epistle to the Philippians is accepted,
lif not by all, at least by a great majority of NT

844 PHILISTIA

PHILISTINES

critics, Many who reject Ephesians and are
doubtful of Colossians (c.g. Jiilicher, Hilgenfeld,
Pileiderer, Lipsius), accept Philippians as the
genuime work οὗ the apostle. Holsten in his latest
work (Paulinische Theologie, 1898), although he
continued to place it among the Epistles wrongly
ascribed to Paul, admitted that its teaching is wholly
Pauline. A theory was broached recently by Voelter
(ThT, 1892) that the Epistle is in part the work of
Paul, in part by another hand. ‘The genuine parts
are, according to Voelter, [1-7 12-4. 18-26 917-29 410-21. 23.
The remaining parts are not genuine. Spitta (Zur
Geschichte u. Lit. d. Urchristenthums, 1893) also
denies the integrity of the Epistle. ΟἹ Clemen
(Die Hinhett εἰ. paulin. Briefe, i894), while rejecting
the theory of Voelter and defending the genuineness
of the whole of the Epistle, maintains that it consists
of two letters of the apostle, written at different
times, and made into one by an editor, 21-24 32-48
4°? he holds to belong to the second letter. The
expression of Polycarp, that Paul wrote ‘letters’
to the Philippians, is relied upon as giving a certain
traditional authority to this theory. Did the
portions which are considered as belonging to
different letters follow one another consecutively,
the theory might deserve some consideration + for
two letters by the same author might easily have
got fastened together, and would in time have been
regarded as one letter. But it is hard to see what
motives could have induced an editor to transform
two connected letters into a document of artificial
piecework. Chapter 3 alone gives some colour to
the idea that foreien matter may have found its
way into the Epistle, but is not Sufficient to lead
us to accept Clemen’s theory,

LITERATURE.—IVTRODUCTION.—¥. C. Baur, Paulus der A postel
Jesu Christi, 1866-67 [Eng. tr. by Menzies, 1873]; A. Hilgenfeld,
Iistor.-krit. Einle‘tung in das NT, 875; H. J. Holtzimann,
Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Linteitung in das NT, 1885 ;
Theodor Zahn, Hinleitung in das N17, 1897; F. Godet, Intro-
duction to the NT, 1894.

COMMENTARIES.—J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Philippians, a revised text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dis-
sertation, 1895; C.J. Ellicott, St. Paul's Ep'stle to the Philip-
plans, 1865; E. Haupt, ‘Die Gefangenschattsbiiefe new bear-
beitet,’in Meyer’s Kommentar, 1897+ A, Kiopper, Der Brief des
Apostels Paulus an die Philipner, 18933 R.A. Lipsius, /land-
Commentar, 1891 3 Wohlenberg in Nurzgef. Coinin, 1895; John
Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of St.
Paul to the Philippians, edited by W. Young, Gr. and Eng.
1884; C. J. Vaughan, St. Paui’s Epistle to the Philippians, Gr.
and Eng. 1885 ; H.C. G. Moule, ‘The Epistle to the Philippians,’
in Camb. Bible for Schools, also Philipplan Studios, W397 + Ἐς
H. Gifford, The Incarnation, A Study 41 Philippians ti, 5-11,
1897; J. A. Beet, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon,
1890; M. R. Vincent, ‘Philippians and Philemon’ Gin Jiternat.
Crit. Comm.), 1897. GIBB.

PHILISTIA.—See next article, and PALESTINE.

PHILISTINES (o-nzbe, in Am 97 and 1 Ch 141
[Kethibh] ovn.ba; LXX Φυλιστιείμ in the Hexa-
teuch, and ἀλλόφυλοι elsewhere ; in Josephus and
other Greek writers Φυλιστῖνοι or Παλαιστῖνοι).---
‘ Philistines’ is the eentilie plural of asses, in AV
‘Palestina,’ ‘Palestine,’ “the Philistines,’ but
in RV always * Philistia’; in Assyr. ‘ Palastu,?
*Pilistw’s in Gr. Παλαιστίνη, but in LXX always
transmuted into the word for ‘Philistines? (Ex
154, Is 14-31, Ps 608 837 874 108°, J] 34). The
Hebrew name as well as the Greek has been
explained, though with very doubtful warrant,
as by derivation denoting ‘ inimiegrants.’

1. The Name.-—It is probably Semitic. Tt has a
peculiar grammatical use. The Hebrew has two
usual ways of designating a people as such. One
way is by the use of the primitive noun without
modification, just as proper names of persons are

used. For example, ‘ Asshur,’ ‘ Assyrian,’ ‘the
Assyrian,’ ‘the Assyrians’ are in Hebrew all alike

Asshur, this noun denoting either the founder,
the country; the nation, or the people, and in

each meaning used in the masculine singular, and
without the article. But no such use is ever mide
of any primitive from which Pélishtin might be
derived. The other way is by the use of the
gentilic adjective in the masculine singular, with
the article. We have, for example, ‘the Moabite,’
‘the Jebusite,’ ‘the Ekronite,’ ‘the Gittite,’ in
the singular, alike for an individual and for the
people as a whole, though the English versions
pluralize words of this class when they denote
peoples. In contrast with this, the word Pélishté
is used in the singular only of individuals, the
instances being Goliath (1 5. 178: τὸ and otten) and
the Philistine of 2.8 2117, and is always plural
when it denotes the Philistine people. Further,
it is regularly used without the article, though
there are some exceptions, 6.9. Jos 132,18 47 78
13° 17°, 28 51% 2112 (Heth.), 1 Ch 118+, 2 Ch 2136,
These facts differentiate this name, in a very
marked way, from most other biblical names of
peoples.

This differentiation becomes the more marked
when we note that it serves to affiliate the Philis-
tine name in certain directions, as well as to sever
it in other directions. Perhaps the name Cophtorim
and the six other unusual names mentioned
with Peélishtim in Gn 10” follow completely
the same usage, though the number of instances
is too small to be decisive. The word Réphain,
when used as a gentilic name, follows the
same usage; and the other proper names of the
giant peoples follow it in that they are used in
the plural (see GIANT, ete.). The name 352,
denoting the Egyptian people, is plural except
in Ezr 9. The words wid, ‘Ethiopian,’ 235,
‘Lybian,’ 2, ‘ Chaldean,’ denoting peoples, are
always plural, and are regularly delinite without
the article. All this is certainly sicnilicant of
facts in Philistine history. Whether the facts
thus signified are recoverable is another question.

2. Characteristics of the Philistines in the times
when they are best known.—The usage attending
the name is not more remarkable than are many
of the facts concerning the Philistines themselves,
as they appear in the OT. ‘

Their territory extended ‘from the Sihor*
which is before Egypt, even unto the border of
Ekron northward’ (Jos 132%), Its eastern limit
was at Beth-shemesh (1S 615). Tt included pos-
sibly 2000 square miles of land, much of it. re-
markably fertile. Within this territory there
were, according to the biblical writers, in the
times when the Philistines were prominent, four
kinds of inhabitants. First, there were the
Philistines proper. Second, there were rouinants
of the Anakim and the Avvim in Gaza, Gath,
Ashdod, ete. (Jos 1133. 13%, Dt 2%). These were
politically Philistine, as the Anakim at Hebron
were politically Amorite. Third, the accounts
of the conquest under Joshua and of the subse-
quent events seem to imply that there were
Canaanites living among the Philistines, some of

_ whom were conquered and superseded by Israel

(see 3 below). Fourth, some of the southern
Geshurites (Jos 13%, 1S 27%), and perhaps other
like tribes, lived within the Philistine territory,
near the Egyptian border. It is noteworthy that
the Philistines seem to have confined themselves
to their own narrow region, even when for decade
after decade they held dominion over the wider
territories of Israel. It is recorded as an excep-
tional fact that, after the overthrow of Saul at
Gilboa, some of them became resident among
the Israelites in the regions beyond Jezresl and
Jordan (1 8 317, 1 Ch 10%).

The Philistines were proficient in agriculture

* That is, either an arm of the Nile (Dillm.) or the Wddy ed
‘Arish, ‘river ($03) of Egypt.’

PHILISTINES

PHILISTINES 845

(Jie 16**, 15:6, 2K Shete). “They were skilful
in architecture, in sculpture, in the working of
iron and of the precious metals, and in other
erie the de 16°, 1 Sh As 1 ete), A ἢ
relatively carly date they seem to have had
monetary usages peculiar to themselves, witness
the ‘eleven hundred of silver’ (Jg 16% "8; ef.
17°). In fine, they are presented to us as re-
latively a wealthy and highly civilized people.
So far as appears, it was only im liter times that
they engaged largely in commerce and maritime
pursuits.

Politically, they had five principal centres, the
cities of Ashdod, Gaza, Ashkeloun, Gath, and
Ekron (wh. see, severally, and see also 1 ὃ 6",
Jos 13°, Zeph 2*7 ete.). It has been inferred that
Ashdod possessed a right of hegemony over the
others; but the order of mention differs in dif-
ferent places: and, judging by the history, the
claim of Gath to the hegemony is much stronger
than that of Ashdod. Besides the five, the Plnlis-
tines had many other cities, the following (which
see) being familiar examples: Gerar, Gezer,
Timnah, Ziklag, Gob, Gibbethon, Jabneh (2 Ch
26°); and many of them dwelt in unwalled towns
(18 68, Dt 2%); but the five principal centres
representatively included them all (1 8 6").

Their political organization was unique, The
people of each centre are currently spoken of in
the ordinary way in which other nationalities are
mentioned, as ‘the Ashdodite,’ ‘ the Ashkelonite,’
ete. But the centres themselves and their political
heads are alike designated by the altogether pecu-
liar word o>, séradnim, tr. ‘lords’ in AV and RV
(Jos 13°, Je 16° ete.). This word is used only in
the plural. It is doubtless the native term, and
has no near coenates in the Hebrew, save that a
word of the same spelling is used (1 Καὶ 159) of some
accessory to the wheels of the laver- bases of
Solomon's temple. Here the RV. following Vulg.
and many lexicons, tr. by ‘axles,’ though the
word is different from the one rendered ‘axle-
trees’ in the same context. Half a dozen op-
posing derivations have been conjectured for
sérdnim, none of them more plausible than the
natural suevestion that these five cities and their
chiefs were reearded as the centres or representa-
tives of national power ; or that scren is the Greek
τύραννος.

The séranim, ‘lords,’ are distinguished trom the
sarim, ony, ‘captains’ (1 § 18” 297", where AV
and RV misleadinely translate * princes’ instead
of ‘captains’). The former are the depositaries
of national authority, and the latter the men in
actual military command. In particular cases,
both offices may or may not have been combined
in one person. The LXX prevailingly tr. seren
by σατράπης or carpamia, ‘satrap? or ‘satrapy,’
and sar by στρατηγός, ‘captain, but sometimes
interchange the two, and sometimes tr. seranim
by epxovres, ‘rulers.’

The functions of the sér@nim were both civil and
military. We have no account ot any one seren
acting by himself, but only of acts in which the
whole body of sérdnim participated. The accounts
speak sometimes of the ‘armies’ and sometimes of
the ‘army’ of the Philistines (1 5 23% 28! 29),
Apparently each of the five centres had its inde-
pendent force, but all were combined, in time of
war, under one command. In David's time Gath
was especially prominent, and perhaps held the
hegemony (1 Ch 208, RV of 25 8'; ef. 1 Ch 18?).
King Achish of Gath may have been the Philistine
commander-in-chief, though the narrative does not
explicitly say so (15 29).

We have no information as to whether the office
of seren was hereditary or elective or perpetuated
in some other way, nor as to the relation between

this oflice and that of king. None of the Philistine
kings who are mentioned reigned over all Philistia
(Gn 903 261-8, Jer 25°, Zec 9°); they were all local.
We are not told whether the séranim existed from
the earliest times, or whether they continued to
exist after the conquest by David. But in the one
instance we have of a Philistine king in relations
with the séranim, the instance of Achish (1 28. 29),
the king is compelled to submit to the sérandin.
Achish may himself have been seren of Gath, as
well as king of Gath.

The religion of the Philistines was in some
respects unique (see DAGON and BAAL-ZEBUB).
They were a very religious people. Their priests
and diviners (1S 6%) had great influence. Their
cloud-observing (7) soothsayers (15. 2°) were famous.
Their being an uncircumcised people is much
emphasized in the biblical records (Jg 14° 15%, 1S
145 172% 6 314, 28 1, Jer 9% 28),

They were distinguished especially for military
prowess. Pretty tull details of their system might
be gathered from various parts of tle Bible, in-
cluding mention of their archers, their equipment
for heavy armed infantry, their organization into
hundreds and thousands, ete. (1S 318, 1 Ch 10°,
18 29%). The accounts make the impression that
they usually fought as infantry, though chariots
and cavalry are mentioned (18 13°, 28 15, and
perhaps Jg 1%). We have descriptions of their
savage treatment of the bodies of their fallen
enemies (1 5 31, 1 Ch 10), and of the honours with
which their women welcomed their warriors. re-
turning from victory. But more significant than
all matters of detail'is the fact that this little
nation, with its few hundred square miles of terri-
tory, was able again and again to conquer Israel,
and to hold Israel in subjection for generations.

In their military operations they seem to have
pursued a very definite policy. In the earlier
staves of any movement of conquest they prac-
tised eflective and systematic pillage, as, for
instance, in the case of Keilah (18 231), or earlier,
after their first great defeat of Saul (1S 13735),
The indications are, however, that the Israelites
increased in population and wealth during the
long periods of Philistine oppression, provided they
were submissive. From this we may infer that it
was the policy of the conquerors, whenever resist -
ance ceased, to abstain from pillage, doubtiess
exacting tribute instead, and finding it for their
ον αι interest to have the tributary people as pros-
perous as possible.

To secure submission, the Philistines practised
the disarmament of the subjected people. We have
an imstante in the πιὸ οὐ saul: (1 5 15:39) ancl
what seems to be an allusion to an earlier instance
of the time of Shamear (Je 3°! 55). According to
the LXX in the first of these passages, the Philis-
tines used this as a method of exacting tribute,
suppressing the working of metals in Israel, and
then compelling the Israelites to pay an exorbitant
price for their tools.

It was the Philistine policy to prevent the exist -
ence of a united Isracl As long as David is king
of Judah, and has a rival king farther north, they
seem to be content. When Israel is divided, the
Philistine supremacy is not imperilled. But when
10 is proposed that David reign over all the twelve
tribes, the Philistine armies march at once (28 511).
A similar situation had arisen previously, when
Samuel became judee (15 7%).

Presumably, the Philistines did not achieve all
their successes sinele-handed. It is a familar fact
that in cases of Eeyptian invasion, in earlier times,
or, later, of Assyrian invasion, it was the custom
of the maultitudinous little peoples between the
Euphrates and the Mediterranean to band to-
gether against the common toe. Judging by the

PHILISTINES

PHILISTINES

Hexateuch, the invasion under Joshua was sufli-
ciently formidable to call for similar confederations
of the threatened peoples. As a matter of fact.
the Bible represents the resistance made to Joshua
and, later, to David as being of this character.
We shall presently find evidence that in some of
the wars of subjugation the Philistine success was

| due in part to the ability to array many allies

| against Israel. ;

| 3. Lhe History of the Philistines.—Beyond dis-

|

|

|

| aumbers of the Israelites, as mentioned in the
|

|

|

|

|

Ϊ

pute, they were immigrants into Palestine. The
passages presently to be cited attirm this explicitly.
It has been thought to be implied in the etymology
| of the Hebrew name Pélishtim as well as of the
| Greek ᾿Αλλόφυλοι. So far, the problem is easy.
ο But the questions whence they migrated, and
| when and how the migrating stock was modi-
| fied in its new seats, are questions not so readily
answered,

The Philistine language was probably Semitic,
| although the data whence this conclusion is drawn
| are restricted. So were certain Important elements
| intheirreligion and their civilization. This proves

either that the Philistines were originally Semitic,
| or that they changed their language, and to some
| extent their institutions, under the influence of
| the Semitic region to which they came.
We are told that they came from Caphtor, as
| Israel from Egypt, or Aram from Kir (Am 97, Dt
᾿ς 2"); that they were Caphtorim (Dt 2%). They
| are called ‘the remnant of the coast of Caphtor’
| ‘(Jer 47: ὅ).. The Caphtorim are said to be one of
| the seven nationalities begotten by Mizraim
| (Egypt), and the Philistines are said to have
/ “come out’ from the locality where one or more of
| the other six were (Gn 1018. 4). The text has the
| adverb of place ‘from where,’ not. the pronoun
_ ‘from whom,’ and the two expressions are not in
Hebrew convertible. It is not said that the
Philistines are descendants of the Casluhim and
_ the others, and there is no need to transpose the
_ clauses or otherwise chance the text (but see Dillm.
| ad loc.). The net result from this part of the
| testimony is that the nucleus of the Philistine
people consisted of Caphtorim, who migrated,
within known historic times, from regions in-
habited by Caphtorim and kindred peoples.

But where was Caphtor? The LXX uniformly
either transliterate the name or make it Cappa-
docia. Some have identified Caphtor with Cyprus.
This finds some support in the fact that the Egyp-
tian monuments associate the Philistines with the
Zakkal, a people from Cyprus, and portray the
| two as scarecly distineuishable. Ebers, Halévy,
| and others have strongly held that Caphtor was a
region in or near the Egyptian Delta. There is
| a strong recent trend toward the opinion that
| Caphtor was Crete. See CAPHTOR, CARITES,
| CHERETHITES AND PELETHITES, CRETE.
| The argument for identifying Caphtor with
| Crete connects itself closely with the phenomena
_ presented by another biblical name. In two rela-

tively late places (Zeph 2°, Ezk 9515. 1 \the-Philis=|
y ] ]

| tines are identified, wholly or in part, with the
| Chércthim, whom the LXX, in these places, make
| to be the Cretans. In both passages the word
| Chérethim is used in a punning way, effecting a
| play on words. The name does not occur else-
_ where in the plural, but, in the sineular, ‘the
Cherethite’ is once mentioned (1S 304) as living
in or near the Philistine country, and six or seven
times in connexion with ‘the Pelethite,’ as forming
a part of king David’s military force (1 Ch SHE
28 818 1518 207 and Keré of 3, 1 K 138. 4). (On'the
basis of these facts it is affirmed that Cherethite is
another and earlier name for the Philistines, that

they were Cretans, that Pelethite is merely a

variant form of Philistine, and that David’s sue-
cesses were largely due to his having Philistine
troops. ‘These conclusions are plausible, though
they lack something of being sufliciently proved.

The evidence, however, amounts to a strong
probability in favour of the more general fact that
the Philistines were originally Aryan pirates,
whether from Crete or Cyprus ‘or elsewhere, who
forced a settlement for ‘themselves among the
Semites and Rephaim of the Mediterranean low-
land, and adopted the language, and in part the
religion and civilization, of the Semites whom they
conquered, Of this we shall find many contirma-
tions as we proceed to consider the evidence as to
the date when the migration took place.

Ramses mt. of Egypt, contemporary, in part,
with Joshua, says that in his eighth year he

repulsed an invasion made by six or seven hostile
nations. Most or all of these nations have Greek
names. They are kin to other Greck peoples,
settled on the African coast west of the Delta,
who made trouble for Ramses in his fifth and
his eleventh years, and who had previously made
trouble for his predecessors. ‘The invaders who
came in his cighth year came by land and by
sea. ‘Those who came by land’ plundered the
Syrian regions, ‘beginning with the people of
Kkheta, of Kadi (Galilee), and Carchemish, Aradus,
and Alus,’ established a rendezvous ‘in the land
of the Amorites,’ and were defeated by Ramses on
the frontier between Egypt and the land of Zahi,
that is, the region that we know as the land of the
Philistines (Inse. in the Ramesseum at Luxor, as
cited by Bruesch, Lyypt under the Pharaohs,
Ρ. 329). Those who came by sea entered the
mouths of the Nile, and were there defeated, large
numbers of them being captured.

Of these six or seven peoples, two are many
times mentioned together, to the extent of being
somewhat distinguished from the others. In the
sculptures they closely resemble one another.
They are, of course, Greek in features and equip-

ment. These two are the Zakkal and the Pulu-
sata, Pulsata, Pulista, Purusata, Purosatha, as
the name is variously transliterated. Scholars

seem to agree that the Zakkal came from Cyprus.
The Pulsata have been identified with the Pelasei,
with the Prosoditwe of Cyprus, and with the
Philistines. Some of those’ who believe that they
were the Philistines hold that they came at this
time from Crete or Cyprus, and were settled by
Ramses, after their defeat, in the cities of
Zahi. But it is more in accord with the whole
of the evidence to hold that the Pulsata and the
Zakkal had then been on this coast for some
generations, keeping in communication with their
kindred in the various Greek regions, and now
making themselves leaders in the movement of the
hordes that sought the spoils of Eeypt. If the
Pulsata of Ramses had then just come from Crete,
he would surely have designated them by their
Greek name, and not by a Semitic descriptive
word. If they had just come from Crete, it is
difficult to account for the resemblance which the
Keyptians found between them and the Cypriote
Zakkal, while this is easily accounted for if the
two had long been dwelling among Semitic neigh-
bours on the coast. Other Greek invaders Ramses
describes as ‘kings,’ or as ‘peoples of the sea,’ but
he speaks of the ‘leaders of the hostile bands’ of
the Pulsata and the Zakkal, just as he does in the
case of the Edomites (‘ Effigies at Medinet-abu,’ as
cited in Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs,
Ρ. 332). Sayce (HHH p. 291) cites Hommel as
having found a mention of the Zakkal on the coast
near Dor, in a Babylonian document (WAT iv. 34,
No. 2, lines 2, 6) of the 15th cent. B.c. ‘The writers
of the history in the OT certainly thought of the

i
᾿ PHILISTINES

PHILISTINES 847

Philistines as well established in their country
before the Exodus (Ex 1317 154 2331, Jos 13?-* etec.).
Whether they believed that the Philistines were
in the land in the time of Abraham and Isaac is
not so certain. They designate as Philistine both
the land and the people of that date (Gn 3159}
ΘΟ. 8 4-15-18), put it is easy to understand this as a
mere geographical use of the term, or as proleptical.
On the other hand, however, these Philistines are
described as a military people (Gn 915’. 26°°), and
as having other resemblances to the Philistines of
later times; and the proofs that the Philistine
migration had not begun as early as the time of
Abraham are not so decisive as many imagine.
Whenever the Philistine settlements began,
they probably began on a relatively small scale.
The immigrants came in successive expeditions,
and not all at once. In certain matters they
accepted the conditions of life which they found
on the soil. They became owners of cattle if the
people whom they conquered were owners of cattle,
and raisers of crops if the conquered were agricul-
tural people. If they conquered Egyptian tribu-
taries, they accepted the suzerainty without which
Egypt would have forthwith expelled them. They
seem to have accepted the Semitic names of the
cities they conquered. At all events, Gaza, Gath,
Ashkelon, and several other cities of the region
were known by the names still familiar to us, as
early as the time of Amenhotep ΠΙ. of Egypt (Tel
el-Amarna letters). There were of them more
men than women, and the marrying of native
wives began at once. Their peculiar political
organization, that of the séranim, presumably grew
up upon the soil. From the time of Ramses III.
they were probably driven from the sea, isolated
from their Greek kindred, and compelled to become
a non-maritime people. Through these various
changes of blood, institutions, government, and

‘external relations, they became at length differ-

entiated as a people by themselves.

The accounts of the conquest Ly Joshua make
the impression that the Philistines were then in
their five central cities, but that there were also in
the region several independent petty Canaanitish
kingdoms; that Israel at that time conquered
most of the Canaanite kingdoms, although it
failed to permanently hold some of them (Jos
103% 41 112% 16 1912 153-47 163-19 etc.); but did not
conquer the Philistine cities (Jos 13°38), though
Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza are by the tenure of
promise included in the inheritance of Judah (Jos
15-7 136), It is said that Judah, after Joshua’s
death, conquered Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron
(Je V8), but that the Philistine cities were inde-
pendent when the struggle of the conquest came
to an end (Jg 33).

The biblical records signalize four periods of
oppression of Israel by the Philistines. The first
is that in which Shamgar was the deliverer (Jg 3%
101. This was in the time of the twenty years’
oppression by Jabin and Sisera (Jg 4°4 5% 7),
Presumably, a generation or two of prosperity had
raised Israel to a position where he was formidable
to his neighbours, and so a coalition was formed
against him by the Philistines and the many
peoples of the north. The Philistine pressure
was mainly felt by Judah and Simeon, and it
may account for the absence of these two from
Deborah’s roll-call of the tribes that marched
against Jabin. We have no details of the Phil-
istine operations, but there is a suggestion of a
disarmament of their enemics, like that which was
practised afterwards in the time of Saul (Jg 3°! 5°).*

The second Philistine oppression of Israel is that
mentioned in Jg 10°7 as occurring before the

* Moore (Judges, pp. 80, 105) argues that Shamgar appears too
early as a champion against the Phiistines.

\

eighteen years of oppression by the Ammonites.
Contrary to common opinion, the writer of this
article holds that this was the oppression in which
Samson distinguished himself (Jg¢ 13*-16). ΤῸ began,
apparently, before Samson’s birth (Je 13°), while
Tola was judge. In the time of Samson’s wild
youth it was so thoroughly a recognized fact (144
15") that it did not prevent relations between
Israelite and Philistine families. [It ceased when
Samson was made judge, after the battle of Lehi
(154), During the twenty years of lis public
lite, the Philistines kept on their own side of the
border (16), even when plotting against hun.

The third Philistine oppression was the one that
lasted through the forty years that Eli was judge
(1S 438, here regarded as corresponding to Jg 13?)
and the twenty years that followed (1S 75).
After the first horrors of conquest were over, the
Israelites seem to have prospered under the yoke,
if we may judge of the population by the size
of the armies (1S 47 !0 115 154). This oppression

ceased after Samuel became judge (1S 7“'4). He
defeated the Philistines in a decisive battle. He

compelled them to surrender the cities in their
country that belonged to Israel, that is, apparently,
those that had formerly been Canaanite, and had
been conquered by Israel. ‘And the Philistines
were subdued, and they came no more into the
coasts of Israel; and the hand of the Lord was
against the Philistines’ as long as Samuel remained
chief magistrate of Israel, a statement not incon-
sistent with 10° 13%",

The fourth oppression was that of the time of
Saul. It began when Saul had been long enough
on the throne for kis son Jonathan to have crown to
military age (1S 135). The account says that they
invaded Israel with an army extraordinarily large
(1S 185). Deal as we may with the numbers
given, it appears that they had at that time great
respect for the strength of Israel, and had gathered
an immense body of allies to assist them. It
turned out that their precaution was needless.
Saul quarrelled with Samuel. His army melted
away from him. With no resistance worthy of
the name, the Philistines became masters, and
plundered and disarmed Israel at will. Later,
however, Israel rallied. During the remainder of
his reign Saul waged a series of fierce battles
with the oppressors. He perished in the battle
of Gilboa, and the Philistine power over Israel
beeame supreme (15 31).

Presumably both David and his northern com-
petitor paid tribute to Philistia during the seven
and a half years that he reigned over Judah (25
5°). Naturally, they interfered to prevent his
becoming king over a united Israel. He defeated
them in two desperate defensive campaigns (25
517-25) and then, in four or more ageressive expedi-
tions (28 8! 9115:), reduced them to subjection.

In consequence of the disruption of the kingdom
after the death of Solomon, the Philistines became
independent, but they never re-established their
sarlier glory. We hear no more ot their séranim.
Later, in the Assyrian times, they have a king for
each of their cities (Zee 9°, Jer 25°, and many pas-
sages in the records of Sargon and his successors).
In the same later times they seem to be engaged
in commerce, dealing especially in [sraelitish spoils
and ‘slaves (Am 1%, J] 3*%, ci. Ob1% 4-19 depend-
ing, however, on the date one assigns to Joel and
Obadiah). Perhapsthere are signs of aGreek revival
among them (J1 3°, and the Yavan of Sargon).

However their institutions changed, we have
frequent mention of the Philistines themselves.
Among the cities fortified by Rehoboam were Gath
and Mareshah, ete. (2 Ch 118. The Philistines
warred with Israel for Gibbethon (1 K 157 16'%).
‘They were celebrated for their oracles (2 Καὶ 15) and

---

848 PHTLISTINES

PHILOSOPHY

their soothsayers (Is 2%), Some of them
tribute to Jehoshaphat (2 Ch ΤΥ τἀ δα
death they raided Judah (916. 1, Philistia was
a refuge for fugitives when the invasions of
Shalmaneser 11, warring with Benhadad and
his allies, caused famine in northern Israel
(2 Καὶ 8%), Hazael of Damascus captured Gath
(2 Καὶ 12). Ramman-nirari 1. of Assyria con-

paid

whose !

quered Damascus and took tribute from the
Philistines. At this point there is a wide gap in

the Assyrian records. When they again become
available, the Philistines, with ‘a multitude of
other nations between the Euphrates and the
Mediterranean, have become independent of the
Assyrian, and are again being reduced to subjee-
tion. Uzziah of Judah is especially prominent
among the rebel kings. Later, by intrigue and by
arms, Tiglath-pileser, to whom Ahaz of Judah was
tributary, reduced Gaza and Ashkelon to tribute
(B.C. 734). Under Sargon and Sennacherib there
were two parties in the Philistine cities, the
one favouring Assyria and the other favouring
Hezekiah of Judah, and the latter was crushed.
From Sargon to Assurbanipal the Assyrians have
much to say concerning their Philistine conquests
and subjects.
of Uzziah and Hezekiah were doubtless connected
with Assyrian politics (2 Ch 26%: 7, 2 K 1878),
mutual relations to the Assyrians account for the
fact that the Israelite historians and prophets,
from Amos to Ezekiel, speak of the Philistines
sometimes with denunciation, as enemies, but also

The Philistine military operations |

Their |

often as having a common interest (2 Ch 2818, Ta 97 |

1119. Am 188, Mie 119-15, Zeph 247, Jer 47:1, Ezk

1677-87 9515.16) Am 39 62 97, Zee 9-8, Jer 2518-20),

Gath vanishes from the biblical records (exeept
Mie 119) from the time of its capture by Uzziah
(2 Ch 26°), and is similarly absent from the
Assyrian monuments.
The Philistines suffered
between Egypt and Assyria, in the decades when
the Assyrian power went down. Herodotus says
that Psammitichus 1. of Evypt, the contemporary
of Manasseh and Josiah of Judah, took Ashdod
after a sieve of 29 years (ii. 157); that in the later
part of his reign
temple of Venus
successor Necho,

at Ashkelon (i.
returning from

105); that his
the battle

greatly in the struggle |

Seythian hordes plundered the |

of |

Megiddo (when Josiah was slain, B.C. 608), captured |

Gaza (ii. 159); that when Cambyses invaded Key pt,
about B.C. 625, Gaza and the whole coast belonged
to the king of the Arabians (iii. 5).

This is practically the close of Philistine history,
though the cities and some of the institutions long
survived, and the region has been the scene of
many interesting events. The Ashdodites eame
into collision with Nehemiah (Neh.47 13%), -Alex-
ander the Great took Gaza from the Persians.
Ptolemy Lagi did notable fighting there. In the
Greek accounts of the Maceabewan times the Al/o-
phitoti and the land of the Allophuloi figure pro-
minently, and the land thus deseribed is the
Philistine country ; but the persens called Allo-
phulot ave any heathen in arms against. Israel (e.g.
1 Mac 3-4). Sketches of the later history are
given under the names of the respective cities.

LITERATURE. — Hitzig, Urgeschichte der Philistéer ;
Knobel, Vélkertafel ; Movers, Phinizier : Pietschmann, Phéni-
zier, p. 261 ff. ; Stark, Gaza und die philistdische Kiiste, Jena,
1852. Of more real value are recent works on Palestinian
geography and explorations, works which give the text of
Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions, works on the history of the
nations mentioned in the Bible, and commentaries on the
biblical passages where the Philistines are mentioned, As
examples one may specify McCurdy, 1/ PM vol. i. sections 166,
54, 192-194; Sayce, FH p. 291, and HCM (index); G. A.
Smith, HGHL ch. ix.; Brugsch, Lgypt under the Pharaohs,
chs. ix.-xiv. etc. ; W. Max Miiller, Asien u. Europa, 387 ff. ;
Schwally, Die Rasse der Philistder, ZWTh. xxxiv. 103 ff. ;
Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, 463 f.

a
W. J. BEECHER.

PHILOLOGUS (Φιλόλογο»).--- ΤΙ name of a Chnis-
tian greeted by St. Paul in Ro 164 along with
Julia, Nereus, Olympas, and others. The name is
common among slaves and freedmen, and in inscrip-
tions of the Imperial household (C/Z vi. 4116).
Philologus was commemorated with Patrobas
(which see) on Nov. 4. Later legends about him
will be found in Acta Sanctorum, Nov., lb dsp
222. A. C. HEADLAM.

PHILOMETOR.—See Pro.temy v1,
PHILOSOPHY.—

Introduction : the place and function of philosophy ; the re-
lations between religion and philosophy ; the periods of
contact between them.

1. The Problem of Greek Philosophy.—1. First Stage:
Greek thinkers. 2. Second stage : the Sophists ; Socrates,
Plato, and Aristotle. 3. Third Stage: Stoics and Epicur-
eans ; Scepticism ; Neoplatonism.

i. The Contact of Christianity with Greek Philosophy.—1.
The Christian Unity : Christianity and Neoplatonism con-
trasted. 2. Christianity and the Greek dualism : (i.) the
speculative problem ; (ii.) the ethical problem. 3. The
relation of Christian experience to Greek forms of thought.
Reference to the conclusions of the ‘ historical’ school.

The Place and Function of Philosophy.--Man
lives, and man thinks about the life he lives. This
is the essence of his constitution as man. He is
under the constraint of his nature to re-think the
life he lives. This is his distinction from the
lower animals, who live, but do not think of their
life. Admit that man is an animal, and has been
produced by evolution. Admit even that there are
traces of several mental faculties in the lower
animals, Yet the fact remains that for man alone
does life present itself as an object of reflexion.
For man alone is experience a problem. Philo-
sophy, speaking broadly, is the activity of thought
brought to bear on experience as a whole. It is,
in Schwegler’s phrase, ‘the thinking consideration
of things.’ It is implied in the very fact of ey-
perience being a problem that, throughout its
manifold and diverse elements, there is a unity of
thought, reason, or spirit. If it were not 850, ex-
perience would not be a problem, for it would never
have arisen as a whole out of the suecession of
separate sensations. It is the task of Philosophy
to make explicit this unity which is implicit in
human experience. We can see, therefore, in
broad outline, the course which the history of
Philosophy must take. It is a progress towards
unity, towards a synthesis of elements, towards a
view of human experience, with its varied contents,
from one central standpoint.

The stages of this progress will be marked by
the unifying principles which they severally em-
ploy. Such a principle, let us suppose, is reached.
It serves to explain a number of the particular
elements of experience, and to bring them into
a harmony which shall be for the time satisfactory
to thought and stimulating to action. Soon, hovw-
ever, it 15 found that this synthetic principle is not
adequate to the complexity of life. Elements οἱ
experience come into view which refuse to be ex-

lained by the alleged universal principle. The
arc which was temporarily reached is broken.
Tragic discord appears. The quest for unity has
to be resumed with a deeper, sadder, insight, and
a larger, more patient wisdom. As we review the
history of Philosophy, accordingly, we see that no
speculative system is final. Each system, in turn,
has failed. We see, moreover, that Philosophy, if
we choose to speak paradoxically, must always end
in failure. It isthe last result of thought to raise
questions which thought alone cannot answer, to
penetrate to discords which the energy of thought
alone cannot reconcile. This very failure of Philo-
sophy, however, is, in the highest sense, its
success. Want of finality in Philosophy, inability

early

PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY 849

to comprehend the variety of experience in one
formula, isnot a mark of weakness, but of strength.
It means that thought is not content with ab-
stractions, but is resolute to face the facts of life
in their fulness and their mystery. It is essenti-
ally the quest for a synthesis of life. The success
of the quest consists in so deepening the problem
that it is seen that no merely intellectual synthesis
is possible. The problem of Philosophy merges
into the problem of Religion; and Philosophy
points beyond itself.

Religion and Philosophy thus present many
features of resemblance and contrast, and have
close and intricate mutual relations. Religion
provides the solution which Philosophy seeks. That
which is the quest of Philosophy is the realized
experience of Religion, a unity in which the pro-
foundest differences in life are actually reconciled,
which leaves nothing beyond itself to confound
the human spirit, but brings all elements of ex-
perience into a perfect spiritual harmony.

Towards religious experience, Philosophy renders
a service which is ac once apologetic and critical,
and is in beth aspects helpful and indeed indis-
pensable. Philosophy vindicates the validity and
reasonableness of religion. In the words of the
Master of Balliol, it provides ‘a vindication of the
religious consciousness—the consciousness of the
infinite—as presupposed in that very consciousness
of the finite which at present often claims to
exclude it altogether, or to reduce it to an empty
apotheosis of the unknown and unknowable’ (E.
Caird, Hssays on Literature and Philosophy, vol. i.
p- 224). Philosophy at the same time has to con-
sider the form in which this rc ligious experience at
any particular epoch clothes itso. And if it shall
appear that the form contradicts the universality
and comprehensiveness of the experience of which
it is the expression, and is, therefore, falsifying and
imperilling that experience, Philosophy must rath-
lessly assail that form, and Lreak it up, in name of
that principle of reconciliation which is the inspira-
tion and the goal both of thought and action.
Religion holds an analogous position toward Philo-
sophy, and has a work to do in its behalf, both
constructive and eritical. Religion discovers the
principle for which Philosophy bas been seek-
ing, and exhibits it, not as a theory, but as a
ΟΥ̓ ΘΙ, in the freshness and originality of actual
life, transforming character and inspiring service.
Philosophy, sinking into exhaustion through the
inadequacy of the synthesis which it las reached,
is rejuvenated at the fountain of religious experi-
ence, and is enabled to meet the deepening com-
plexity of its problem with a more comprehensive
and more detailed explanation. Religion at the
sane time has to consider the intellectual synthesis
to which its own inspiration has given birth. And
if it shall appear that this synthesis has omitted
some clement in the problem, and has obtained an
appearance of harmony by neglecting some source
οἱ discord, and is thus stopping the progress of
thought short of its goal, Reiigion must resixt the
claim of this Philosophy to be absolute, must
emphasize the nevlected elements of the problem,
and must) proclaim again the harmony which
Sriumphs over the discords of life, —a harmony
found not in intellectual formule, but in the veri-
fiable realities of spiritual experience. Lt follows
that Philosophy and Religion can never in their
inner meaning be opposed to one another. They
are both necessities of the human spirit. Both
alike presuppose the spiritual unity which pervades
experience, and makes possible both thought and
life. Each has its special function in apprehending
and realizing this unity; and in their respective
functions each is essential to the other, ‘Those
periods in which they come into close and con-

VOL. II. —54

spicuous contact are peculiarly interesting in the
history of each. The most important of these
occurred in the beginning of the Christian era.
In that period, Greek philosophy reached the
goal of its long development. In this article we
desire to show what that goal was, and how, in
reaching it, Greek philosophy asked a question
to which Christianity brought the only adequate
answer.

I. THE PROBLEM OF GREEK PHTLOSOPHY.—
The movement of Greek thought falls into three
well-marked stages. In the first of these, the
principle of explanation is sought beyond conscious-
ness. In the second, ἃ spiritual principle has been
won, and is used for the comprehension of all
existence, and the erection of a system of encyclo-
pedic knowledge. In the third, thought retreats
to the standpoint of the individual; the problem
of knowledge is raised in its acutest form; tne
exhaustion of Philosophy overtakes it, and an in-
tense demand is made for a religious solution.

1. First Stage.—The early Greek thinker looks
out upon nature with joyous curiosity, and asks,
‘What is the principle which underlies these
multitudinous phenomena?’ The earliest philo-
sophies contain brief dogmatic answers to this
question. They are not valuable in themselves ;
but they are interesting as stating the problem
of Philosophy, and indicating the goal of thought.
They are divided into four schools. The /onie
School identified the explanation of all things
with one element in nature, saying with Thales
(B.6.. 640-550),. “all 4s water’; or sith Anaxt-
mander (B.C. 611-547), ‘all is matter,’ τὸ ἄπειρον ;
or with Anaximenes (B.C; 588-524), ‘all is air.’
The Pythagorean School passed trom substance
to the proportion which all things bear to one
another, and taught that ‘all is number.’ The
Eleatic School passed still further on the path of
abstraction, from ‘substance’? and ‘number’ to
‘being, saying with Nenophanes (B.C. 576-480),
Sallis one.’ ‘The Physicists, in reaction from this
abstractness, sought to analyze existence into
its material elements. This period closes with
Anaxagoras (B.C. 500-428). His great distinction
as a thinker is that he relies on the principle
of reason, νοῦς, as the principle of explanation,
Νοῦς is a world-forming intelligence, actine on the
primitive constituents of matter. Thus the first
stage in the great movement of Greek philosophy
has brought us to a spiritual principle. This is
its great achievement, the splendid heritage it
hands on to succeeding generations of thinkers.
But along with this it also hands on another and
less satisfactory heritage, viz. dualisin, the opposi-
tion of the spiritual and the material, Thought
and Extension.

2. Second Stage.—At the period of Greek history
at which we have new arrived, about the middle
of the 5th cent. B.c., we notice that the interest
of thought is turning from the outer world of
nature to the inner world of the human spirit.
Thought, accordingly, becomes anthropological,
and secks the ultimate principles of truth, not
beyond, but within man’s consciousness of himself,

(a) Lhe Sophists.—By these men this new de-
parture in the development of Phitosophy is
inaugurated. One of the most famous of them is
Protagoras of Abdera (6. 440 B.C.), a pure subjectiv-
ist, who taueht that there is no absolute standard
either of truth or right. Nothing is good or bad
by nature (φύσει), but merely by statute (νόμῳ).
Another is Gorgias (c. 427 B.C.), who taught a
rigorous individualism, summed up in ἃ series of
paradoxes. Nothing exists; or, if something exists,
it cannot be known; or, if it can be known, it
cannot be communicated, The work of the Sophists
was destructive, and often ethically mischievous,

(a ae

850 PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY

but it was necessary, as a preparation for the great
forward movement which Greek philosophy was
now to take. Their merit is that they have claimed
on behalf of man that the principle which is to
explain experience must be in harmony with his
self-consciousness. Their defect is that they have
construed man too poorly, and have regarded self-
consciousness as little more than individual opinion
or feeling.

(4) Socrates (B.C. 469-399).—In one sense Soe-
rates is a Sophist. He occupies the position of
subjectivity, and is a keen critic of conventional
customs, Institutions, and dogmas. His aim, how-
ever, is always positive. He desires to break
through mere opinion in order that he may reach

universal principles of thought and action. His
method accordingly has a double aspect. It is

destructive, an ‘irony’ by which he destroys the
conceit of knowledge and convinces of ignorance,
which is the ‘original’ sin of the Socratic theology ;
but it is also constructive, an obstetric process,
whereby universal truth is brought to the birth,
and instinct is raised to the rank of clear self-
consciousness. In a word, his method is indue-

tion, the process whereby is discerned in a mass of |

particulars what is universal, and therefore funda-
mental and true. The last result of this method
is condensed into the famous Socratic phrase,
‘Virtue is knowledge,’ knowledge of universal
principles of thought and action. In Socrates the
problem of Greek philosophy has deepened go as to
include the element of man’s conscious life. It
has become a moral, even a religious problem, how
to live life whole, and reach a complete synthesis
of experience, Socrates finds the answer in Thought
or the Universal. His gospel is ‘Salvation by
Wisdom.’ Defective as it was, the teaching of
Socrates declared the supreme worth of man as a
spiritual being. It gave direction to the whole
subsequent course of Greek thought, till at leneth
the problem became too complex for the Socratic
solution.

(6) Plato (B.C. 427-347) and Aristotle (B.C. 385-
822).—Socrates attempted no systematization of
thought. He was content with enunciating and
illustrating a principle. It was the work of
Plato and Aristotle to take the Socratie primacy
of thought, and from this standpoint to franre
systems of knowledge. Their systems have been
called ‘splendid digressions.’ This would be in-
correct 11 it meant that they were not in the main
current of Greek thought. It is true, however,
that one element prominent in Socrates is lost in
them, to reappear with yet stronger emphasis in
the post - Aristotelian thinkers, viz. subjectivity.
They treat thought as a universal organ. Man as
an individual falls into the background. Their
problem is that of all Philosophy, to find a unity
that shall reconcile all differences; but among
these the self-assertion of the individual and the
claim of the particular have not found their place.

The Socratic universal principles are in Plato
‘ideas,’ which are reached by ‘reminiscence,’ and
form the archetypes of all things. Supreme among
the ideas is the Good, the ultimate reality, the
common ground of all thought and being. The
Good is God ; but for Plato the question of the
personality of God has not arisen. He is moving
in the pure ether of speculation, high above the
strife and tragedy which make men so eagerly
demand or so passionately deny a personal God.
Aristotle occupies the same ground as Plato in
holding that the universal is the real. But he has
a deeper interest than Plato in the phenomenal
and the particular. His aim is to bring the uni-
versal and particular together, and to exhibit them
in their true relations. The formula he uses is
that of Form and Matter, εἶδος and ὕλη. Form

acts as a plastic artist, taking up the rude amor.
phous matter, and transforming or rather forming
it into actuality. Not only so, but this relation
has stages :-that which is Form to what is beneath
it, being Matter to what is above it. Thus there
is achain of being with mere Matter at one end
and pure Form at the other. Pure Form originates
the whole movement of existence, but is itself un-
moved. It is Thought, in its pure activity, having
no object but itself, Very Thought of Very Thought,
νόησις νοήσεως. Thus the high level of Greek specu-
lation is theism, not that of the Hebrews with its
ethical content, but a theism of thought, in which
God abides by Himself in the bliss of perfect know-
ledge.

Both in Plato and in Aristotle the Unity is
magnificent, but it is incomplete. The dualism of
Anaxagoras is not yet exorcized. The phenomenal
and the individual still fall apart from this sublime
transcendental Thought. They must receive their
proper place before a true unity can be reached,
and when it is, it will not be merely intellectual.

3. Third Stage.—In this, the closing period of
Greek philosophy, a great change has come over
the ancient world. It is the age of world-wide
empire, crushing out the earlier civie life. It is
therefore also the age of individualism.

In Plato and Aristotle we are aware of an aloof-
ness from the problems that most interest us; but
in the post-Aristotelian philosophies we find an
affinity with our modes of thought and our general
attitude toward life which make them interesting
and valuable, though speculatively they are be-
neath the level of the great encyclopedic systems
which immediately preceded them. The Philosophy
of this period is intensely and increasingly occupied
with the needs of man. To begin with, it is essen-
tially Ethic, and this Ethic is meant to suftice man
for religion. As it advances, it becomes more and
more religious, till in the end, in Neoplatonisin it is
avowedly Religion. The systems of this period all
logically connect themselves with elements to be
found in Aristotle. In Aristotle we have still the
Greek dualism unreconciled. Form and Matter,
Reason and Sense, are still in opposition. Accord-
ingly we find: (#7) one system which makes Reason
its ruling principle; (4) another which chooses
Sense for its keynote; (6) a third which chooses
either element to contradict and destroy the other ;
(7) finally, a system which strives to rise above the
antagonism of elements, and makes a leap for unity.

(4) The first is Stoicism, which regards the soul
of the universe as rational, and vives to it the
significant title of the Logos. Of this rational
whole of things, man is part. He finds salvation,
accordingly, in living according to nature, taking
his place at the standpoint of all governing Reason.
Thus all things work together for his good. Stoi-
cism, to its eternal honour, lays hold of human per-
sonality, and attributes to it absolute independence
and infinite worth. In this aspect it approximates
to Christianity, and formed a mental and moral
discipline which prepared the Roman world for
the preaching of the gospel. At the same time,
Stoicism failed as a redemptive power in the fast-
growing corruption of the Roman world. It is
‘Salvation by Wisdom,’ limited, therefore, to the
few, and precarious even in them. Reason fails
as a reconciling, unifying principle. See SToICs.

(ὁ) The second is Lpicureanism, which frankly
makes matter the ground of all things, sense the
ultimate principle of knowledge and action. The
Epicurean, like the Stoic, said, ‘ Live according to
nature’; but nature, as he conceived it, was
material only, and the end of a life within its
limits is no more than pleasure. Such a principle
does not necessarily lead to vice; but it may lead
to this as well as to virtue; and in any case it fails

PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY 851

to organize life into a whole, or quicken it with
sustained energy. Epicureanisin is the intellectual
expression of the decay of moral life in the Roman
world. See EPIcUREANS.

(c) Phe third is Scepticism, which, by keeping
rigidly to the individuaism which was common
alike to Stoicism and Epicureanism, showed that
no absolute truth of knowledge, no authoritative
rule of action, is possible. Thought and life are
reduced to the mere play of opinion and impulse.
The only possible attitude toward reality is mere
suspense of Judgment. Such a position is paralysis
both mental and spiritual. Scepticism makes
articulate the despair which was brooding over the
hearts of men. It is the last utterance of Philo-
sophy, and it is the demand for Religion.

(4) The fourth is Neoplatonism. The life of man
had become hopeless. The demand of the age,
therefore, is not now Wisdom for the conduct of
life, but Salvation, cwrnpia, escape from the dis-
satisfaction of this life, emergence into a higher
sphere. ‘To this demand Neoplatonism makes
response. It is at once the climax and the destruc-
tion of Greek philosophy. In it Thought, the
mighty force which had led the human spirit in its
quest for unity, breaks down, and gives up the
reins of government. After Neoplatonism bar-
barisin followed, and would have followed more
disastrously than it did, had not Christianity sue-
ceeded to the place vacated by Greek philosophy.
The real advance of Neoplatonism on all preceding
systems Consists in its conception of the speculative
and practical problem. ‘The old Greck dualism of
Form and Matter is deepened, and is transformed
into that of God and the World, the Infinite and
the Finite, Good and Evil. It is thus specifically a
religious problem; and Neoplatonism is avowedly
a religions solution, a Philosophy which takes
up all religions into itself, and claims to be the
Atsolnte Religion. The great precursor of Neo-
platomism is Philo Judieus. Its chief exponent is
Plotinus (A.D, 204-270).

It is impossible here to give any adequate account
of the systems of these men, or of the many systems
elaborated through the opening centuries of the
Christian era. ‘They all occupy the same stand-
point, and exhibit many resemblances in’ their
treatment of the problem which they all alike are
designed to solve.

It is important, however, to note the three great
doctrines into which all Neoplatonic systems may
be condensed,

(i.) The Doctrine of God.—God is transcendent,

the Absolute, the Original (ro πρῶτον), the Un- |

limited (ἄπειρον). To Him no finite predicates are
applicable. He is beyond all determination by
human thought. If we attribute to Him power
or goodness, it must be remembered that these
designations cannot express His real nature.

(11.) The Doctrine of the World.—Between God
and the World, the Infinite and the Finite, there
is a great gulf, which Neoplatonism proceeds to
fill up with variously conceived schemes of emana-
tion. From the Infinite height there is a descent
through Jess and less perfect beings, till at length
crass matter is reached. Only by some such
machinery would Neoplatonism allow that God
could possibly be the source of material existence.

(111.) Zhe Doctrine of Man.—Man has in him a
spark of the divine. He lies, however, immersed
in the sensuous sphere. Salvation for him, there-
fore, consists in escaping from this sphere and
rising into that supersensuous sphere to which he
truly belongs. This escape is accomplished in a
process of purification (κάθαρσις) by means of ascetic
discipline.

To such a system had the long evolution of
Greek thought arrived, when Christianity went

forth on its mission. With this system Chris-
tianity was confronted as its chief antagonist.

π. THE CONTACT OF CHRISTIANITY WITH GREEK
PHILOsOPHY.—1l. THE CHRISTIAN UNITY. Into
the Hellenic world, torn as it was with divisions,
hysterically eager for intellectual and moral satis-
faction, Christianity entered with the claim to be
the unity which men of Hellenic culture, and
human hearts everywhere, required and sought
for. It differed profoundly, however, from Neo-
platonism or any such system, both in the inter-
pretation which it put on the problem and in the
nature of the solution it proposed,

(a) The Christian interpretation of the intellectual
problem and of the moral need of men. Beneath
the opposition of elements, Form and Matter,
Infinite and Finite, which was the deepest concep-
tion Greek thought had formed of the problem of
life, Christianity pierces to antagonisin of wills,
the personal will of man in revolt from, and out of
harmony with, the personal will of God. This is
the hurt of the human soul; this is the secret also
of the world’s pain and unrest. Greek thought
never did Justice to personality. Pantheisin drew
the Hellenic mind hke a magnet. Its goal was
ever absorption of personal life in the wide sea
of impersonal being. The hindrance to such a
consummation always lay outside the constitution
of man, in the material environment of his soul.
Christianity boldly grasped the fact of personality ;
had for its goal the fulness of personal life in
communion with a personal God; and saw the
hindrance to this consummation within the per-
sonal life itself. Evil, the barrier to unity of God
and man, is not outside of man, in the material
framework in which he finds himself, but within
man, in the determination of his will against the
divine will.

(4) The nature of the Christian solution. Tn one
word, it was Christ. Christianity, whose keynote,
like that of Neoplatonism, is unity, whose phrase-
ology often resembles that of Neoplatonism, differs
from it by the whole diameter of mental culture
and spiritual experience. It approaches the human
spirit, not with a theory, scheme, or process, but
with a gospel, a declaration whose sum and sub-
stance is Christ Jesus, incarnate, crucified, risen.
Holding stedfastly before the eyes of men, as the
ultimate problem of life, the reconciliation of wills,
human and divine, it proclaims the problem solved,
the reconciliation achieved through Christ. Christ
is God Incarnate, not a man who has reached the
highest point in a process of κάθαρσις, but God,
who, in order to effect the reconciliation of man,
has entered into humanity, and taken it into union
with Himself. The lone quest of man for God
had ended on the verge of an impassable cull,
-across which he vainly sought to cast a rainbow
bridge of fair images. In the Incarnation, God of
His own proper motion crosses the gulf, and by
His own act annihilates the distance. Christ has
dicd for men. ‘That which holds God and man
apart is not the frailty of man, as thoueh that
could be any real hindrance to spiritual and per-
sonal fellowship, or as though the removal of it
‘could secure that fellowship. On this rock Neo-
platonism wrecked itself as a redemptive power.
The root and secret of man’s inability to reach
God is sin. He does not need to make binscif
divine in order to hold communion with God. He
does need to be delivered from the burden of euilt.
This deliverance has come through the sacrificial
death of Christ. Guilt is not a feeling of uneasi-
ness at the division man finds in his own nature.
It is the consciousness of alienation from God. Sin
is not an element in man’s subjectivity, a moment
in the process whereby he rises out of individualism.
.10 is an objective reality of the spiritual world,

Lisi ta

852 PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY

which must be taken out of the way before the
human spirit can be at one with God. Christ has
done this in the deed of sin-bearing. Christ ix risen.
His life, while lifted above time and space, is con-
tinued in organic union with those who occupy
time and space. He raises them through personal
union with Himself into union with God. He in
them is the source of a life whose spirit is sonship,
whose privilege is communion, whose goal is like-
ness. ‘The occasional ecstasy, which was the
highest privilege possible under Neoplatonism, is
replaced by a daily fellowship, without ecstasy but
with true and abiding intimacy, open not to a few
accomplished spirits, but to all who come to God
through Christ.

With this the Christian solution is complete.
The problem, constituted by antagonism of the
human will to the divine, is solved at leneth.

2. CHRISTIANITY AND THE GREEK DUALISM,
~— Greek Philosophy, as we have seen in the foregoing
sketch, was haunted by a dualism which it sought
in vain to overcome. ‘The secret of the failure lay
in not conceiving the dualism profoundly enough.
Christianity penetrates beneath the dualism of
elements to antagonism of wills. The Greek
problem lies within the Christian problem. The
Christian solution is at the same time also the
solution of the Greek problem. This does not
mean that Christianity is a philosophy, or has its
truth bound up with any special metaphysical
system. It is a Religion. But it is a religion
which provides the unity soneht for by Philo-
sophy.* It contains, therefore, implicitly the
answer to the question raised by Philosophy.

(1.) The speculative problem. The Greek mind
presupposed the irreconcilability of form and
matter, The utmost effort in the direction of
reconciliation was that made by Neoplatonism, the
filling up of the enlf by a series of emanations.
The Christian teachers, surveying the long toil
of the Greeks after wisdom, said in effect, ‘The
ultimate dualism is not that of form and matter;
it is that of the divine and human wills. What
hinders man from reaching God is not his material
environment, but his sin.
the sin of man. The Incarnate Christ may be
reached by any human soul, immediately, at a step,
a touch, a look. And when Christ is reached, God
is reached.’ They found, however, that the Greek
mind was hag-ridden by phrases and formule,
Pleroma, Logos, and what not, all implying the
Impossibility of getting to God except by a clumsy
machinery of emanations. ‘They therefore boldly
adopted this nomenclature and baptized it into
Christ.

What was supposed to be done by emanations,
ete., and never really was done. has been done by
Chiist. He that hath seen Him hath seen the
Father. Do they speak of the Pleroma’? He is the
Pleroma (so in Colossians). Do they speak of the
Logos’ Heis the Logos(so in the Fourth Gospel).
These Greek philosophic terms do not indicate that
the Christian leaders who use them are sitting at
the feet of Greek metaphysicians. The NT con-
veys a thought which had another origin than
the speculations of a Philo; but, entering the
Greek world at the time it did, it uses the terms
which expressed the endeavour of the Greek mind,

*The reference in Col 28 is not to be regarded as a con-
demnation by the apostle of Philosophy in itself. It has in
view a definite form of teaching, easily recognizable by the
first readers of the Epistle, though affording matter of inquiry
and discussion in later times. This teaching was probably of
a theosophic Jewish Christian character, not without relation,
as Lighttoot and others have shown, to the Gnostic Judaism
of the Essenes (see art. CoLossians). Bengel’s remark is appo-
site. *Philosophia in se est medium quiddam : sed tamen facilior
abusus ad srawlem, in ea presertim philosophia Judaica,
quam tum jactabant et puritati fidei attemverare conabantur’
(Gnomon N.T. in loc.).

sufficient.

to carry the truth which the Greek mind despaired
of reaching. In other words, Christianity, not by
emanations or by hypostatized abstractions, but
by the living Christ, lifts men to a central stand.
point, and enables them to look out on experience
as a unity, and to see even in its most material
elements no remote antithesis to God, but the
manifestation of His mind, the instrument of His
purpose. God is self-revealing Spirit. The uni-
verse is spiritual to its core. Christ has abolished
dualism. Christianity, it cannot be too much
insisted on, is not a philosophy; but it is the
inspiration and the goal of all philosophy.

Qi.) Lhe practical problem. The Greek dualism
haunts Greek ethic, and sets Reason and Sense in
eternal opposition. The senses, seated in man’s
material frame, form the great hindrance to virtue.
Greek ethic, accordingly, resolves itself very much
into various plans for the disposal of the sensual ele-
ment in man’s nature. Neoplatonism preaches the
elimination of sense by an ascetic discipline, which
shall gradually set the spiritual nature of man free
from all perturbation by the senses. Stoicism
proclaims the dominion of reason over the passions.
Man is to be a despot in the domain of his nature,
crushing every uprising of sense with the proud
might of reason. Aristotelianism, breathing the
classic spirit of Hellenisin, teaches that reason is
to use sense as an artist uses the material with
which he works, and by means of which he elabor-
ates an artistic product.

Tracing evil to the senses as a given element
in man’s constitution, Greek ethic never deepens
toward conviction of sin, has no need or room for
redemption, and remains always proud and self-
Christianity by a deeper analysis traces
evil, not to sense as an element in man’s constitu-

' tion, but to will, ze. to the man himself in revolt

from God.

It therefore accumulates upon man
responsibility for moral evil, and deeply humbles
him before God. Christian morality, accordingly
has the note of humility and contrition which is
absent from Greek ethic. Τὺ also exalts man, and

holds out to him hope of an attainment far higher

Christ has taken away |

than was possible under Greek ethic. Let his will

_be yielded to God and made one with the divine

will. He is then at once placed in a position which
is central and supreme. His whole nature, includ-
ing his material frame, is now a domain wherein
the will of God is being progressively realized.
The painful and precarious treatment of sense as
an alien element is replaced by a process by which
every element in man’s complex nature is brought
into harmony. This process has its human side,
requiring strength of will and strenuousness of
purpose. It is conducted, however, in the might
of a divine enerey, and its product, the Christian
character, is not a manufactured article in which
man may pride himself, but a creation, the work
of the Divine Spirit operating immediately upon
the surrendered spirit of man.

3. ΤῊΝ RELATION OF CHRISTIAN EXPERI-
ENCE ΤῸ GREEK FORMS OF THOUGHT.—The after-
relations cf Christian faith to Greek forms of
thought have been made a subject of close and pro-
longed investigation by the modern school of
historical criticism of which Harnack is the great
representative, and of which Hatch and McGuitert
are leading English examples. The work of this
school is of priceless value in respect of its pure
historical research. But in so far as it is dom-
inated by certain presuppositions, and is deter-
mined by a certain preconceived idea, it seeins
to the present writer to be mistaken in its results.
That dogma is ‘in its conception and develop-
ment a product of the Greek spirit on the soil
of the gospel’ (Harnack) may in a sense be ad-
mitted. At the same time, care must be taken

PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY

in the application of such a_ principle to do
justice to the original content of the gospel with
which later reflections had to deal. In the hands
of certain members of the school it may be
doubted whether this is secured. In the Hibbert
Lecture of the late Dr. Hatch, the problem, as
conceived by these writers, is expressed with a
clearness which leaves nothing to be desired, viz.
‘Why an ethical sermon stood in the forefront of
the teaching of Jesus, and a metaphysical creed in
the forefront of the Christianity of the 4th cent. τ
The conclusion to which the brilliant ability and
ripe scholarship of the author are devoted is, that
this change, being ‘coincident with the trans-
ference of Christianity from a Semitic to a Greek
soil,’ is ‘the result of Greek influence.’ In plain
words, primitive Christianity was simple ethical
teaching regarding God and duty, undisturbed by
intellectual problems, and absolutely free from
speculative elements. Theology, as embodied in
the great creeds, is a superstructure of mischievous
metaphysic reared by the fruitless subtlety of the
Greek intellect, which must be swept away before
genuine Christianity can be revealed in pristine
beauty and power.

Obviously, then, the question is as to the nature
of primitive Christianity. Is it true that it was
ethical merely’ Is it true that its essence is
summed up in the Sermon on the Mount? [5 it
permissible to lay aside every element in the NT
that is not rigidly and exclusively ‘ethical’? Is
it fair to state the problem as being the transition
from the Sermon on the Mount to the Nicene
Creed? If the problem be misleading, the con-
clusions cannot fail to be erroneous. [ἢ order to
reduce the problem to the simplicity and narrow-
ness of the above statement, the following positions
must be maintained. (1) Jesus Christ cannot have
been more than a unique religious personality, with
deep and true moral instincts, and a high degree
of spiritual-mindedness. He cannot have made
Himself the centre of His message. His declara-
tions regarding His second coming must have been
an afterthought, due to the discovery on His part
that His mission was to end in His being rejected
and put to death. Here we have to ask: (7) Is
this a fair account of the Jesus of the Gospels Ὁ
Can the personality of Christ as presented in those
narratives be reduced to the outlines of such a
sketch? Take the picture of Jesus drawn by the
historical school and place it beside that given in
the Gospels, and say if they are duplicates. 1
that of the historical school be correct, then that
of the Gospels is not merely incorrect in certain
features, but is a sheer monstrosity, which invali-
dates the whole Gospel narrative, and makes it
valueless for purposes of sober history. (ὁ) Is it
fair to ignore the self-consviousness of Jesus as
eathered into His most pregnant sayings? On
what principles of historic research is it permissible
to discount the self-assertion of Jesus’ Has the
Self of Jesus not such a place even in that very
Sermon on the Mount as to give an entirely
different view of the sermon itself, and an entirely
different reading of the problem ‘from the Sermon
on the Mount to the Nieene Creed’? (2) The
religion of the primitive disciples must have been
simply Jewish Unitarianism and Jewish Legalism,
modified in some of their elements by the teach-

ing of Jesus regarding God and duty. — Here
again the question is as to matter of fact. Is this

the whole truth regarding the first generation
of Christians? Is this account a fair interpreta-
tion of the narrative in the Acts’ Can the life
and work of the early Church, its worship, its
preaching, its missionary impulse, its labours and
martyrdoms, be made intelligible on such a sup-
position? In particular, is it fair to discount the

place which the Risen Christ had in the faith of
the early Chureh? Why was He worshipped,
prayed to, trusted, served, and that long betore
Hellenic influence had touched the Church’s creed ?
Give due weight to the self-consciousness of Jesus,
estimate aright the place of the Risen Christ in
the life of the early Christians ; and the positions
of Hatch and McGiffert must be profoundly modi-
fied. (3) The conceptions of Christ to be found
in the NT writings must be due to peculiarities in
the intellectual history of their authors, and cannot
express anything in the general belief of Christians.
On the face of it, such a proposition is utterly im-
Lahr tat The NT writings are chiefly letters
etween correspondents. Whatever may have
been the intellectual idiosyncrasies of the writers,
it is inconceivable that they do not express a
consciousness common to writers and recipients.
Indeed, this is expressly claimed by the writers,
and Paul insists that his teaching is simply the
faith of Christian people as such. The existence
of a Pauline or Johannine Christianity which was
not that of the Chureh at large, and, in particular,
was not the Christianity of Christ, is an unproved
hypothesis, not warranted by the known facts of
the NT period, and not required for their inter-
pretation.

If, then, the NT as a whole is substantially
correct, both in its narratives of events and in its
interpretation of them, the problem for the his-
torian is not ‘from the Sermon on the Mount to
the Nicene Creed,’ but ‘from the N'T as a whole to
the Nicene Creed.’ The question at issue is, ‘Is
there anything in the Nicene Creed which, in
respect of the trnth sought to be expressed, is not
already in the New Testament τ

Go back now to the moral and intellectual situa-
tion of the age in which Christianity appeared.
Greek philosophy has led men to a tundamental
dualism, and has uttered the demand of the human
spirit for union with God. Neoplatonism, the last
despairing effort of Greek thought, fails to meet
the demand. Christianity enters the Hellenic
world with the proclamation of that for which
Hellenic thought had sought in vain, union with
God. This, accomplished in Christ, is its message
to the Hellenic world, and to the heart of man as
such. A mere amended Judaism would have had
no point of contact with the Greek mind, or with
the spirit of man anywhere. ‘The personal Christ,
Son of God and Son of Man, is the centre of the
primitive gospel.

Conceive now Christianity entering the Hellenic
world ; it will bear a twofold relation to Hellenic
culture and to Greek forms of thought. (κα) [Ὁ
will be influenced by them. It is implicitly the
solution of the problem of Greek philosophy. Tt
will thus naturally use the terminology ot Greek
philosophy, and fill the formule, of unsuccessful
thought with the meanings of a divine revelation.
(4) It will stiffly refuse to be coerced by them.
The Christian idea of union with God, viz. recon-
ciliation through a Person, utterly transcended
Greek thought. Again and again, in the centuries
preceding Nica, the attempt was made to reduce
Christianity to a phase of Greek Philosophy.
Sabellianism on the one hand, Arianism on the
other, were more logically consistent as specula-
tive systems than the fulness of the goxpel. Yet
Christianity declined to surrender its independ-
ence. In the end the Christian experience was
gathered into the Nicene Creed, which, in etlect, is
this: Christianity, stating, in terms borrowed
from Greek Philosophy, that which is too great
for any system of philosophy, a truth distinctive,
unique, a revelation, not a discovery.

LITERATURE.—-On the nature and function of Philosophy, E.
Caird, Essays, 2 vols. 1892. On the relation between Philo.

!
1
Ϊ

‘a

854 PHINEES

PHINEHAS

sophy and Religion, E. Caird, Evolution of Religion, 2 vols.
1893; and discussions in T. H. Green’s Collected Works (1888),
vol. iii. On the development of Greek Philosophy, the Histories
of Philosophy by Schwegler (1847, Eng. tr. 1867), Zeller (1883,
Eng. tr. 1886), Ueberweg (7th ed. 1883-86, Eng. tr. from 4th ed.
1872-74), Windelband (Gesch. der alten Philosophie, 1888, Eng.
tr. 1900; Gesch, der Phil. 1892). On Neoplatonism and its rela-
tion to Christianity, Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 1886-90 (Eng.
tr. 1804-99), On the relation of Christianity to Greek Philosophy,
Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 1888. T. B. KILPATRICK.

PHINEES (Φινεές, Finees\.—-1. Phinehas, the son
of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron. 1 Es 5° 82
(B Popis, A Φινεές), 2 Es 12, 2. The son of Heli
and tather of Achias. These three names are
mentioned among the progen’' ors of Ezra only in
2 Es 1" (cf. the lists in Ezr 7, 1 Es 8): their inser-
tion here is probably an error, since Ezra belonged
to the line of Eleazar, and Phinehas son of Eli to
the younger branch of the line of Ithamar. 3. A
priest of the time of Ezra, and father of Eleazar,
1 Es 8 (LXX 6), H. Sr. J. THACKERAY.

(Om3°8,

PHINEHAS LXX ueés).—1. Son of
Eleazar, and his successor in the high priesthood,
Ex 6”, 1 Ch 6+, Ezr 75, 1 Es 82, 2Es 12 The
circumstance by which Phinehas is chiefly re-
membered (Nu 25) bears a striking analogy to
the most decisive crisis in the life of St. Peter.
The great confession at Ciesarea- Philippi was
searcely more significant and epoch-making in the
growth of Christian discipleship than was that act
of fiery zeal at Shittim in the history of the Old
Covenant, when for the first time the Mosaic
religion came into collision with Baal worship,
its future rival. In both cases we have, ‘in the
fulness of the time,’ a great moral decision to be
made of world importance, ‘Jehovah or Baal,’
‘but whom say ye that Lamy?’ Alike at Shittim
and at Cresarea, amidst a general hesitancy and
failure to grasp the situation, there is a prompt
resporse on the part of one alone, followed by the
pronouncement on that one of a signal blessing of
far-reaching import. When ‘Israel joined himself
unto Baal-peor’ it was no erdinary revolt. or mur-
muring. Something more was needed ‘to make
atonement’ than the official execution by man of
‘all the chiefs of the people, or even than the
Visitation of a plague by God. The Divine want
was satisfied by the personal devotion of the young
priest who, while others wept helplessly, identi-
fied himself with ‘the Lord whose name is Jealous’
(* He was jealous with my jealousy among them’),
and determined for ever the rightful attitude of
a whole-hearted servant of J” towards any en-
croachments of the abominable idolatries of the
heathen. Accordingly we find that the slaying
vf Zimri and Cozbi was ever after one of the proud
and stimulating memories of Israel's past history.
In the psalmist’s retrospect (Ps 106%) Phinehas,
it is implied, was a second Abraham. His deed
of faith ‘was counted unto him for righteousness,
unto all generations for evermore.’ The son of
Sirach in his ‘praise of famous men’ stamps
Phinchas as ‘the third in glory’ after Moses and
Aaron, ‘in that he was zealous in the fear of the
Lord, and stood fast in the good forwardness of his
soul when the people turned away, and he made
reconciliation for Israel’ (Sir 45°*°), The slaughter
of the apostate Jew and of the king’s commissioner
at the hands of Mattathias, which initiated the
Maccabean revolt, recalls to the historian the
exiunple of Phinehas, and, in his dying exhortation
to hissons, Mattathias reminds them how ‘Phinehas
our father, for that he was zealous exceedingly,
obtained the covenant of an everlasting priest-
hood” (1 Mac 2*->4), With respect to this cove-
nant, reasons have been given under the article
ABIATHAR for believing that the promise to
hinehas of an everlasting priesthood was con-

ditional, as are all the promises of God, and that,
in fact, Abiathar was his last direct representative,
The other notices of Phinehas in the Bille history
are of lesser importance. Nu 316 (P) states that
he accompanied the punitive expedition against
Midian, not as commander (Jos. Ant. Iv. vii. hip
but in his priestly capacity, ‘with the vessels of
the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in
his hand,’ in accordance with the law (Nu 10®2;
ef. 2Ch 1313. He was leader and spokesman of
the deputation from the western tribes to the
eastern concerning the erection of the altar Ed
(Jos 2213-90-32) > and in Je 20% the civil war be-
tween Benjamin and the other tribes is incidentally
stated to have occurred during his high priesthood,
and that the ark was then at Bethel (so also Jos,
Ant. V. ii. 10), not at Shiloh as previously and
subsequently (Jos 181, 1S 45). Ewald {ΡΠ 9)
notes that the estate given to Eleazar (Jos 9458).
being called Gibeath-phinehas, is ‘a proof that in
popular estimation he ranked even higher than
his father.” For this piace see art. GIBEAH, 3.
According to 1Ch 9” Phinehas at one time had
been superintendent of the Korahite gate-keepers.
‘The sons of Phinehas’ (Ezr 8%, 1 Es 8°”, L Hise 55)
seems to mean the clan of priests who elsewhere
are called sons of Eleazar.

It remains that a briet mention should be made
of the legends that gather round Phinehas in
Rabbinical literature. His grandfather Putiel
(Ex 6”) was identified with Jethro by an absurd
etymology, and Phinehas, before his great exploit,
had been constantly reproached with his Midianite
origin (Sota, Gemara, viii. 6, ed. Wagenseil and
Targ. of Jonathan). In the Targ. of Jonathan on
Nu 25, twelve signs testify to a Divine interposi-
tion in the death of Zimri and Cozbi, and the
promise of God receives this remarkable addition :
ΣΤ will make him the angel of the covenant, that
he may live for ever to proclaim redemption at
the end of the days.’ A combination of this legend
with Mal 4° is the probable origin of the wide-
spread belief in the identity of Phinehas with
Elijah (Fabricius, Cod. pseudepig. Vet. Test. ch.
170; Seder Olam, ed. Meyer, pp. 261, 845). He
was also identified with the anonymous prophet
of Jg 6° (Seder Ulam, ch. xx.) and with the prophet
who denounced Eli (Jerome, Qu. Heb. on 1S τῶν
Eusebius (Chron. An. 800) blunderingly identifies
Phinehas with Eli. Phinehas was also said to
have been the author of the last verse of the Book
of Joshua, and of an explanation of sacred names
(Fabricius, @.c.).

2. Younger son of Eli, 1S 15, Jos. (Ant. v.
xi. 2) says that his father had resigned the office
of high priesthood to him on account of his old
age. Itis true that the biblical narrative implies
throughout that Hophni and Phinehas performed
the active functions of the priesthood, but there
seems no other ground for this supposed abdication
in favour of the younger son than the fact that
the succeeding high priests were descended from
him. Hophni was probably childless. Two sons
of Phinehas are mentioned, Ahitub (1S 148) and
Ichabod (1 8 451). On the other hand, it is almost
certain that in 2 Es 1? this Phinehas is reckoned
among the high priests. That list alone inserts
Heli, Phinees, and Achias (i.e. Ahijah) between
Amariah and Ahitub. This is evidently an at-
tempt to make a complete list by adding Eli and
his successors, who are ignored in Ch, Ezr, and
1 Es. This is not the place to moralize on the
excesses of Phinehas and his brother, or on their
indulgent father’s dignified but feeble remon-
strances, or on their miserable death. Their ritual
irregularity, however, demands an explanation.
They committed two distinct breaches of the law.
(a) It seems clear that ‘the memorial,’ which in

PHINOE

GO
[|
or

PHOENICIA

animal peace-offerings was the inner. fat CL oi
was always burnt on the altar first; that is, the
Lord received His portion before either priest or
offerer took theirs. (ὁ) The portion of the animal
due to the priest was strictly defined, although
neither the law of Ly 7% (‘the wave breast and
the heave thigh have [taken .. . and given unto
Aaron the priest and unto his sons as a due for
ever from the children of Israel’) nor that of Dt
18° (‘they shall give unto the priest the shoulder
and the two cheeks and the maw’) may have
been then in force. ‘The worshippers, however,
seem to have resented the impiety more than
the greed of the priests. The sin of the young
men is graphically summed up in the statement
that ‘they contemned (8x3) the offering of the
Lord’ (1 5 217, on which see Driver or H. P.
Smith).

3. Kzr 8, 1 Es 8%. Father of Eleazar, one of
the two priests who received at Jerusalem the
offerings brought by Ezra from Babylon.

Ν ιν ΓΕ,

PHINOE (ie, AV Phinees), 1 Es 5°!=Paseah

(Picov), Ezr 2%, Neh ΤΩ,

PHLEGON (déywv).—The name of a Christian
greeted with others by St. Paul in Ro 164. He is
commemorated with Herodion and Asyncritus
(which see) on April 8 (Acti Sanctorum, April, i.
p. 741). The name was borne by a Greek writer
of the 2nd cent. who is stated by Origen to have
given some information concerning Christ.

A.C. HEADLAM.

PHBE (0i37).—In Ro 101 St. Paul commends
Phebe to the Roman Christians. He describes her
as (1) ‘our sister,’ (2) ‘a servant (διάκονος) of the
Church that is at Cenchrese απὸ port of Corinth.
(3) He asks that they ‘receive her in the Lord,
worthily of the saints, and ‘assist her in whatso-
ever matter she may have need of them.’ (4) He
says that she has been ‘a succourer (προστάτις) of
many,’ and of himself in particular. Lt is generally
assuraed that Phoebe was the bearer of the Epistle,
and the words by which she is introduced (συνίστημι
ὑμῖν) imply a formal introduction to the Roman
community.

Two points demand a short discussion : (1) How
far is διάκονος technical? This is the only place
where the office is referred to by name in the
NT (for 1 Ti 3" 5%* cannot be quoted), but the
younger Pliny (Zp. X. xevi. 8) speaks of “εἰ ἰδ)
in the Christian Church, and there are constant
references to them under the names of διάκονος
(ii. 26) and διακόνισσα (viii. 19, 20, 18) in the Apos-
tolic Constitutions. Moreover, the circumstances
of Oriental life must have made it necessary that
there should be female attendants to perform for
women what the deacons did for men, in baptism,
in visiting the women’s part of the house, and in
introducing women to the bishop or deacons (A post.
Const. iii. 15, ete.). There is no occasion, there-
fore, for thinking that the word has not, at any
rate to a certain extent, a technical meaning, but
we have not sufficient grounds for assuming an
order of deaconesses in the later sense. The
translation ‘servant,’ however, is inadequate.

(2) The description of her as προστάτις sugeests
that she was a person of some wealth and position.
This word again is probably technical. It implies
the legal representative or wealthy ‘patroness.’
Her residence at Cenchree — the port towards
Ephesus—would enable her to exercise the duties
of hospitality, and to give other forms of assist-
ance to Christians on their first landing in the
country, and to help what must have been a small
and struggling Church, She is commemorated on
Sept. ὃ. See Acta Sunctorum, Sept., vol. i. p. 602.

A. Ο. HEADLAM,

| grounds is assigned to the 9th cent.

PHENICIA.

i. Sources.
ii. The Country—
(a) Its extent and natural features,
(ὦ) Its history.
(ὦ) Greater Phoenicia.
The People.
iv. The Alphabet and Language.
ν. Constitution and Govermuent.
vi. Civilization and Commerce.
vii. Religion—
(a) The deities.
(ὦ) Sacred objects and cultus.

i. SouRCES.—The sources of our knowledge of
Pheenician history and civilization are contained
in—(a) Inscriptions in the Phoenician language.

These are very numerous, amounting to some
thousands. They have been found in Phonicia

itself and in Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, the islands of
Melita, Gaulos, Sicily, Cossura, Sardinia, and
Corsica, as well as in Africa, Italy, France, and
Spain. Whilst these are invaluable for the restora-
tion of the language (especially such as have Greek
transliterations and translations appended), unfor-
tunately very few are of historical interest, few are
of any length, few have been found in Phoenicia
itself, and, with one exception, none are earlier
than the Persian period. The oldest known is
CIS No. 5. This is on the fragments of a bowl
discovered in Cyprus (‘in insula Cypro, casu [ut
putamus] reperta’) but belonging to a temple of
Ba‘al not far from Sidon, and on paleographicel
RG 1:
mentions a ‘Hiram, king of the Sidonians,’ but it
remains uncertain to which of the kings of this
name it refers. The remaining inscriptions consist
mostly of dedications and memorials on tombs,
with two or three pertaining to sacrifices. ‘Their
chief value lies in the names of kings they con-
tain, and in the proper names containing names
of vods.*

(ὁ) The Egyptian hieroglyphic and Babylono-
Assyrian cunciform inscriptions contain many
references to the land of Picenicia, and give some
idea of its relation to foreign powers from the
16th cent. Bc. to the Persian period. The Tel
el-Amarna tablets give a glimpse into contem-
porary history which is valuable and probably
characteristic. Much, however, remains to Le
done in the classification and identification of the
veoeraphical names in the cuneiform inscriptions.
For the Egyptian much has been done by W.
Max Miiller.+

(c) References to the Phenicians, and especially
to Tyre and Sidon with their dependencies, in the
Old ‘Testament.—These occur in writings extend-
ine over a period of about four centuries (9th to
Sth cent. Bc.) They consist partly of short notes
ethnographical (nore properly geographical) as in
Gn 10; archeological or geographical, as in Dt
3%, Jos 134; historical, as in 1K 5 and 16; or
relating to religion, as in} K 115, In addition to
these the longer passages in the books of Isaiah
(ch. 23), Jeremiah (chs, 25. 27. 47), and Ezekiel
(chs. 26-32) give a striking picture of the com-
merce and civilization of the chief Phoenician

*The Phoenician inscriptions are collected in the Corns
Inscriptionum Semiticariun, pt. i. vols. i. and ii., Paris, 1881-99.
Further details as to some of them, and two or three new and
recently discovered inscriptions, will be found in the Oriental
Journals of Germany, Vienna, Paris ; in the Revue @’Assyrio-
logie, vol. v. No. 1, and other journals.

+ The references to Phoenicia in the Egyptian inscriptions
will be best found in Flinders Petrie’s History of Egypt,
Brugsch’s Egypt under the Pharaohs, and W. Max Muller's
Asien und Europa. The Tel cl-Amarna tablets are edited by
Winckler, The Tell el-Amarna Letters. A very useful com-
pendium with much valuable comment is contained in Flinders
Petrie’s Syria and Egupt from the Tell el-Amarna Letters,
London, 1898. The best collection of Babylonian and Assyrian
inscriptions is in Schrader’s Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, vols.
Nea ἀν

856 PHCENICIA

PHCNICIA

cities at the time when these prophecies were
written. ἢ

(α) Greek writings.—For fragments of two of the
most important writings on Phoenician history we
are indebted to Josephus, Eusebius, and others
whose writings we have, who may have taken
them from the encyclopedie writer Alexander
Polyhistor. Menandros of Ephesus, who seems
to have flourished about the 2nd cent. B.c., wrote
a history or chronicle of some at least of the
Phoenician cities. The first fragment (in Josephus,
ὁ. Ap. i. 18 and in part also in Ané. VII. v. 3) con-
tains Tyrian annals, with a list of kings from the
early part of the 10th cent. B.C. to the founding of
Carthage at the close of the 9th century. A second
fragment (Ant, IX. xiv. 2) tells of a siege of Tyre
under Shalmaneser, and a third (ὁ. AD: Eel);
usually ascribed to Menandros, though he is not
explicitly mentioned as the author, gives further
chronology and list of kings from a siege of Tyre
under Nebuchadnezzar to the accession of Cyrus to
the throne of Persia. Three other smaller pieces
are of minor importance.

Dios, an otherwise unknown writer, is quoted in
Jos. c. Ap. i. 17 as having written an accurate
history of Phoenicia. The extract given tells of
Hiram the contemporary of Solomon. Two or
three other authors are mentioned in Greek litera-
ture as writers on Phoenician history, but their
works have perished.—Quite different in character
from the works mentioned seems to have been the
Phoenician history of Philo Byhblios, a writer of
the end of the Ist cent. A.D. His work professed
to be a translation of the writing of a Phoenician
named Sanchuniathon who lived in the period be-
fore the Trojan war. The portions of his work
pices: for us by Eusebius show him to have
een ἃ euhhemerist, who in his description of the gods
and his cosmogony has used Phoenician material,
but has so adapted it to suit his own views that
his work can be used only after most searching
criticism. — Besides the above works, there are
references in Greek writings too numerous to be
mentioned here. The J/iad mentions ‘Sidon,’
‘Sidonians,’ and ‘Phoenicians,’ and the Odyssey
the same, with the addition of ‘Phoenicia.’ Hero-
dotus tells of Phoenician legends and commerce,
and many writers after him have incidental notices
of this land and people.—Of Roman writers, one
deserves mention. In the prologue to the 18th
book of Justin’s epitome of the history of Pompeius
Trogus (about the beginning of the Christian era)
oceur the words, ‘Inde (continentur) origines
Pheenicum et Sidonis et Velie Carthaginisque
res gestie in excessu dicta.’ The only section
that remains is in Justin, xviii. 8. ΠῚ, and was prob-
ably taken from a work of Timagenes (Ist cent.
ΣΕ,

(6) Archeological remains.—Underground Phe-

“For a complete list of OT passages referring to Pheenicia,
see the Concordances 8. ‘Sidon,’ ‘ Sidonians,’ ‘Tyre,’ ‘ Arvad,’
‘Gebal,’ and consult the table in Gn 10 ; see also CANAAN in vol.
i. p. 347. Tyre and Sidon are mentioned in the NT by the
Synoptists, Mt 1121.22 1521, Mk 88 724.31, Lk 426 617 1013-14, and in
Ac 1270 918. 7 273, In Mk 726 the adjective Συροφοινίκισσα occurs,

t The fragments of Menandros are collected in Miiller’s Frag-
menta Historicorum Greecorum, vol. iv. p. 445 ff., but to Miiller’s
list must be added the paragraph contained in Jos. Ant. Ix.
xiv. 2, and it should be noticed that a part of the first piece is
repeated in Ant. vit. vy. 3. It will be observed that Josephus
says that Menandros wrote of the ‘kings of the Greeks and the
Barbarians.’ The fragment of Dios is contained in the same
volume (Frag. Hist. Gr. iv. 398), where the author is identified
with Ailios Dios; but this is very doubtful. The remains of
Philo Byblios are collected, ib. iii. 560 ff. The value of his work
has been much discussed by scholars. A good essay on the
subject is that of W. Baudissin in his Studien zur semitischen
Religionsgeschichte, vol. i. pp. 1-46. His conclusion is that
Philo has taken his material from various sources —some
Semitic—and given to it the name of a nan of antiquity.
Sanchuniathon is a genuine Phosnician name. In any case the
work as a wnole represents Phoenician religion in its decline,
‘aot in its origin.

nicia is still almost. entirely unexplored, though a
beginning has now been made at Sidon. Scattered
about, however, on the surface of the ancient
Phoenician land are remains of walls, fortifications,
temples, and tombs, which help to tell the story of
bygone days. Of the colonies, Cyprus and Car-
thage have yielded a large number of articles
(vases, statuettes, ete. ete.), which throw light on
the arts and daily life of the people. Coins also,
and seals, though not in large numbers, are now
to be found in museums (see below under ‘ Civiliza-
tion and Commerce’).

ii. THE CouNntTry.—(a) Extent and natural
features. Although the Pheenicians inhabited
cities as far north as Myriandos (in the Gulf of
Alexandretta) and as far south as Jaffa (see below)
in the Persian period, the earlier Phoenician terri-
tory may be said roughly to have been bounded on
the north by the river Orontes or Mt. Casius, and
on the south by Mt. Carmel. On the east the
limits are entirely unknown, but the Bargylos
and Lebanon ranges seem to form natural bound-
aries on that side. Colonists from Sidon, however,
appear to have pushed their way as far inland as
the neighbourhood of the sources of the Jordan
(Jg 18). The land thus consisted of two distinct
regions: (1) The hill-country, 1.6. the slopes of
Bargylos (Nusaireyah) and Lebanon. Both these
ranges extend from N. to S.: the former from
Antioch to the river Eleutheros, the latter from
this point to the mountains of N. Galilee and
Hermon, They are of limestone, with many other
formations, and in some parts reach a height of
over 10,000 ft. The scenery is magnificent, espe-
cially in the great gorges where the rivers pass
down into the plains. The vegetation is luxuriant
for a long distance up the slopes, and the many
flourishing villages on the side of the Lebanon
facing the sea to-day, tell us of one part of
Phoenician life which has vanished almost entirely
from its history. The chief rivers are the Eleu-
theros, which separates Bargylos from Lebanon ;
the Adonis, famous in history ; and the Lycos, at
the mouth of which still remain the well-known
Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions. But besides
these there are many small streams which pour
down from every mountain slope, fullin the rainy
season, empty in the dry, and for this very reason
affecting both commercial and military movements.
(2) The plains are best known as containing nearly
all the cities that have left their mark in Pheenician
history. The extreme north is a mere strip of land
between the mountains and the sea, and the first
great plain is that extending for about 60 miles
south from Gabala, with a width varying from 2
to 10 miles, and containing the cities of Arvad
and Simyra. The next piece of open country is
that from the Lycos river to a few miles below
Beyrfit, then follow the plains of Sidon, about
10 miles long and 2 broad, Tyre about 20 miles
long and from 1 mile to 5 miles broad, and Acre
about 8 miles long and 6 broad. These plains
as well as the hilly slopes were famous for
their cultivation, and there are traces to-day, in
the remains that are found, of the industries
that were carried on in them. But they owe
their fame mostly to the fact that they are the
highways along which the trade of the East
came to the West. The inscriptions at the mouth
of the Lycos, the annals of Egypt and Assyria, and
the descriptions of the OT prophets, all bear
witness to the constant traffic and frequent in-
vasions that were made possible by this low-lying
coast-land of Pheenicia.*

* A description of the old Pheenician territory at the present
time may be read in Renan, Mission de Phénicie ; Walpole, The
Ansayrti; Réclus, l Asie Antérieure ; and Baedeker’s Palestine
and Syria.

PHCENICIA

PH(CENICIA 857

(2) History of the country.—The earliest. histor-
ical mention of the Phoenician land is in the older
Egyptian inscriptions, where it appears under the
name of Duhe (or Zahi).* Between B.C. 1587 and
1562 Aahmes reached it in his northern conquests.
He also mentions a people called the Fenkhu as
workers in his quarries. Thothmes 1. (1541-16)
overran the whole length of Syria as far as the
Euphrates. Thothmes 11. (1503-1449) in his 23rd
year records a victory over the Fenkhu and other
Syrians; in his 29th year another campaign to
Retennu, Tunep, Arvad, and Zahi, with much
Pheenician spoil ; in his 80th year a campaign to
Kedesh, Simyra, and Arvad ; and in his 34th year
a campaign which brought tribute from Zahi,
Retennu, and Asi (Cyprus). In the reign of
Amenophis tt. (1414-1379) Egyptian power seems
to have been at its highest, and Phanicia, with
the rest of Syria, was entirely subject to it. The
next reien, that of Amenophis Iv. (or Akhenaten,
1379-66), is one of decay. The discovery of the
Tel el-Amarna tablets has given us a rather fuller
insight into the relation of Phcenicia to Egypt than
we have had hitherto, for some of the letters con-
tained in these tablets are from or to Egyptian
governors and others in Phoenician cities. ‘Thus
we have mention of Abimilki of Tyre, Amunira of
Του τύ, Khaib, commissioner of Simyra, Ribaddi
of Gubla, Shutatna of Akko, Zimrida of Zidon,
ete. Nearly all the letters tell the same story of
attacks from without .and rebellion within, and
prove that whether Phonicia now made a stand
tor independence or became a prey to other rising
empires, it was at this time passing from Egyptian
dominion. The Egyptians still made raids into
Pheenician territory or marched through it (οἵ, the
inscription of Ramses 1. at the mouth of the river
Lycos) to attack other enemies, and Phoenicians
probably still paid tribute from time to time to
Egypt. We have no details of the history of the
land at this time. We know, however, that it
never formed one united kingdom. Its history is
the history of its cities. Of these, Arvad seems to
have enjoyed a pre-eminence in the earliest times,
and more certainly Sidon a little later. The whole
people was sometimes known to foreigners as the
Sidonians. The era of ‘Tyre began about B.C. L197
(according to Jos. Anf. VHF. iii. 1); but Arvad and
Sidon were still independent cities in the 9th cent. :
in the 8th Tyre seems to bear rule over Sidon,
Akko, and other cities. Later, Diodorus Siculus
(xvi. 41) mentions a united council of men of
Arvad, Tyre, and Sidon at Tripolis (native name
unknown). This development of the government

*W. Max Miiller suggests that this name may be connected

with the root δὶ ‘to be beautiful,’ ON to act well’ Ole mis

‘to shine’ (4 svn und Evropa, p. 110). This name begins to go
into the background in the 12th cent., and is almost forgotten in
the Ptolemaic period. Kast or AKeft (in the inscription of
Thothmes 11. ete.) is frequently taken to indicate the Phoenician
coast (cf. Sayce in article Canavan), but Muller (p. 337 ff.) argues
strongly for its representing Cilicia. Canaan isa geographical
term denoting the low land, and seems to have been used by the
Phonicians themselves at one time to denote their land (see
Canaan). The name Φοινίκη viven by the Greeks (it occurs in
Odyss. iv. 83) has given rise to much discussion. It seems to
have been used (like ᾿λλάς) for the land where Phoonicians
dwelt, whether at home or abroad ; thus Euripides (770. 221)
uses it for Carthage. The older derivations of the name sizes
(Phoenicians) from φοῖνιξ, the bird (‘phonix’), or a ‘palin,’ are
fanciful and secondary. Some derive the word from ¢oives,
“brownish-red,’ as denoting the colour of the skin (Pietschmann,
Gesch. d. Phénizier, p. 13), a root which reappears in the Latin
Poeenus (‘ Punic’ of Carthaginians). Some (cf. CANAAN and Ed.
Meyer, (resch. ἃ. Alterthums, $$ 180, 190, etc.) refer both these
names back to the word ‘ Fenkhu,’ which appears in the inscrip-
tion of Thothmes m. at Karnak. To this Muller objects
(p. 208 ff.), that this word was originally only an Egyptian term
used ina general sense for the northern barbarians. Finally,
Ed. Glaser (Punt und die stidarabischen feiche, 1899) has
revived the view that the name is connected with the ‘ Punt’
(or Powen-at=Poen-at) of the Egyptian inscriptions, a part of
South Arabia and Kast; Africa.

of cities was not without foreign intervention.
The Egyptians had scarcely ceased troubling them
when they were brought face to face with danger
from a new quarter. It is possible that as early as
1140 Nebuchadnezzar I. of Babylonia invaded their
country (cf. Winckler, Geschichte Babylonions und
Assyriens, p. 95 and note 18). Tiglath-pileser 1.
(c. 1100) also seems to have reached the Mediter-
ranean coast near Arvad. In the 9th cent. Assur-
nazirpal raided the country, as did his successor,
Shalmaneser I., who received tribute from Tyre
and Sidon and Byblos (Gebal), as well as from
Jehu king of Israel; and Mattanbaal king of
Arvad fought with Ahab at the battle of Karkar
(854). In the 8th cent. the cuneiform inscriptions
record tribute received by Tiglath-pileser IM. from
Arvad, Tyre, and Gebal; and Menander tells of a
siege of ‘lyre by Shalmaneser Iy. which lasted for
five years. In the following century Sargon, Sen-
nacherib, and Esarhaddon all sent their armies
to Phoenicia, and the last named even to Idalion
in Cyprus; and in the 6th cent. the new Baby-
lonian empire continued the work of Assyria in the
famous siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. With
the rise of the Persian empire came a change which
greatly benelited the Phoenicians. Cyrus seems to
have left them alone, and about this time they
again supplied the Jews with materials for building
their temple (Ezr 3‘). Cambyses enrolled them in
a satrapy with Cyprus, Syria, and Palestine, and
thus received from them their share of tribute ;
but was friendly to them, and depended on them
entirely for his navy (cf. Herod. 1ii. 19); nor did
he attempt force against them even when they
refused to give him ships wherewith to attack
Carthage. ‘The Phoenician fleet continued to do
good service for the Persians, especially against the
Greeks, until 351, when Sidon, under Tabnit, re-
yolted; but Ochus soon brought Phoenicia back
to obedience, and its cities continued to flourish
under their native kings until after the battle of
Issus they fell into the hands of Alexander the
Great, Tyre only after suffering a long siege and
a cruel punishment. After Alexander's death,
Phoenicia fell with Syria to Laomedon, then in 320
to Ptolemy Lagi, and in 314 to Antigonus. In
287 it again passed to the Ptolemies, who held it
until 198, when it became part of the Seleucid
empire. During all this period Greek manners
and customs and language were largely introduced
into the country. Finally, after it had shared
with Syria in the many vicissitudes of the Seleucid
power, in 65 Rome took possession, and Phoenicia
was included in the province of Syria under a pro-
consul or pro-pretor, though Tyre, Sidon, and
Tripolis remained free cities with their own elected
magistrates and council (cf. Ac 12°"). In Mk 774°
a woman of this country is called aSyro-phaenician ;
in Mt 1551-28 the older name ‘ Canaanitish’ is used.
For this section, see, further, the Literature cited
in the notes to ‘Sources,’ above.

(ὦ) Greater Phenicia.—A sketch of the history of
Pheenicia would be incomplete without a notice of
the many ports, especially in the Mediterranean,
where its people settled, and from which came
many of those articles of commerce which made
them renowned. Some of these settlements can be
traced back to the 15th cent. B.c. There may
have been some before that time; but records fail
us. Insome of these places the Phoenicians seem
to have had real colonies, in others merely ‘ fac-
tories,’ where their traders received the wares of
the neighbouring country to export them to their
own land. Cyprus was very early settled by them,
and although the Greeks afterwards took much of
the island, the towns of Kition and Idalion tlour-
ished up to Roman times (see Cyprus). The
islands of the A°.gean Sea (including Crete, Khodos,

858 PHCENICIA

PHCENICIA

Kythora, and many others) were occupied by then
—as many scholars hold—even in pre-Homeric
times (cf. Bérard, ‘Les Phéniciens et les potmes
Homeriques,’ in Rervwe de Vhistoire des Religions,
XXXIX. 173-228 and 419-460). The advance of the
Greeks, and consequent expulsion of the Phoenicians
from these islands, seems to have led to an in-
creased interest in the settlements in the West
Mediterranean, some of which, at least, had been
founded long before. Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica,
Malta, Gaulos, Tarshish, and Gades in Spain,
various places in N. Africa, including the famous
Carthage, were settled by them, and were in con-
stant communication with the home country.
Many of these settlements have been assigned by
history and tradition to certain Phoenician cities,
e.g. Utica and Carthage to Tyre, and Carthage
itself seems to have established new trading ports
on the opposite coast of the Mediterranean. (For
settlements outside the Mediterranean, see para-
graph in small type below).

11. THe Preopie.—The origin of the Phoenician
people is wrapped in mystery. According to their
own traditions of the 5th cent. B.c., they dwelt
formerly by the Erythraan Sea (Herod. vii. 89; ef.
1.1), ae. the Indian Ocean, including the Persian
Gulf. This tradition is repeated by other classical
authors—Strabo, Justin, Pliny, οὐ αἰ. Justin en-
larges the story by a statement that an earthquake
was the cause of their movement, and that they
dwelt then near the ‘ Assyrian lake’ (XVIIE. 111. 2) ;
and Strabo (who in 1. ii. 85 regards the story of the
migration as untrustworthy) says (in XVI. ili. 4)
that in the Persian Gulf are two islands—'Turos
and Arados—whose temples resemble those of the
Phoenicians, and that the inhabitants of these
islands say that the Phoenician islands are named
after them, and their towns are settlements from
themselves. Sayce (note to Herod. i. 1) suggests
that the similarity of names gave rise to the whole
legend, and points out that the names are really
different, as according to Ptolemy and Pliny the
real name of the island in the Persian Gulf was
Tylos, while the Phenician city Tyre was 1s, and
the Phanician Arados was properly Arvad. Fail-
ing historical evidence, we are led to such testimony
as we can get from language, anthropology, and
religion. This is avowedly incomplete at the
present time; but the material available shows
the Phanicians of the Syrian coast to have been
a Semitic people, who took part in the great
migration to the West which at different times
sent also the Aramzeans to Syria and the Hebrews
and their kin to Palestine.

It has long been known that the activity of the Phenicians
was not confined to the islands and coasts of the Mediterranean,
and it has been suspected that the Phoenicians of the Syrian
coast were perhaps only one branch of a race which had settle-
ments in other parts of the Semitic world. A work entitled,
Punt und die siidarabischen MReiche, by Eduard Glaser, the
famous traveller in South Arabia, appeared in the end of 1899,
in which evidence has been gathered from the records of Egypt
and the South Arabian inscriptions to show that these conjec-
tures are supported by history. According to Glaser, the land
of Punt, so often mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions, was a
large part of the coasts of East Africa and South Arabia. Thence
the Egyptians obtained incense, gold, ete. From this land were
established several colonies, including Mashonaland and Socotra.
But the remains in the former place are evidently Phmnician,
various signs indicate the identity of the races inhabiting the
land of Punt, and the name itself is identical with ‘ Phoenician.’
Thus we must in future speak of two branches of the Phcenician
people,a Northern on the coasts of Syria, and a Southern (of
the same race, language, and origin as the Northern) which
left the Erythrean Gulf at a very early period, and ceased
from that time to influence the other members of the race.
The confirmation or otherwise of this theory must depend
on the further evidence of the Babylonian and 5. Arabian
inscriptions.

iv. ALPHABET AND LANGUAGE.-—(a) The Pha-
nician «/phabet is purely consonantal, and consists
of 22 chara ‘ters, written from right to left. Tra-

|

dition says that this was the first alphabet in.
vented—
‘Pheenices primi, fame si creditur, ausi
Mansuram rudibus vocem signare figuris.’—(Lucan).

It is, however, generally recognized that the in-
vention consists in the taking over of signs used
originally by other peoples to denote sy lables, and
the adaptation of these to denote simple sounds,
together with the simplification of what were
originally pictorial or hieroglyphic characters.
Together with this we must recognize that some
letters were not taken over directly, but were
formed by slight modifications of those thus re-
ceived (thus the sign for the rough aspirate / is
formed from that of the simple A by the addition
of a stroke to the left). Various opinions are held
as to the original source. Until lately the favourite
view has been that the Phanicians borrowed their
characters from the Egyptian. ‘This was also held
in ancient times, and is mentioned in Tacitus—
‘Primi per figuras animalium gyptii sensus
mentis effingebant . et literarum semet inyven-
tores perhibent; inde Phoenicas, quia mari prie-
pollebant, intulisse Grieciwe gloriamque adeptos,
tamquam reppererint quie acceperant’ (Ann. xi. 14).
Supporters of this opinion are divided as to whether
the Phoenician characters were derived directly
from the hieroglyphs or from the hieratic writing.
Much has been written of late to show that the
Babylono-Assyrian cuneiform is the real source
of the Phoenician alphabet. This opinion was also
held in early times. Pliny says, ‘ Litteras semper
arbitror Assyriis fuisse, sed alii apud Keyptios a
Mercurio, ut Gellius, alii apud Syros repertas
volunt’ (Nat. Hist. vii. 8 87). The widespread
use of the cuneiform characters about the time to
which is assigned the invention of the Pheenician
alphabet, is used to support this hypothesis. A
third view held by some corresponds in some degree
with the last mentioned by Pliny, and derives the
Phoenician characters from the Cypriote, which are
connected with the so-called Hittite characters.
This opinion is altogether too undeveloped at
present to be judged properly. Nor is it easy to
decide as to the Egyptian and Assyrian theories.
The selection of the characters to which the
Phanician are referred seems arbitrary, and ἃ
succession of intermediate forms is wanting. Either
view seems to be historically possible, neither
proved. The Phanician alphabet, like most others,
seems to have only incompletely represented the
sounds of the language. ‘lwo words beginning in
Pheenician with the same letter are represented in
Greek by different letters, ws=Tupos, jas=Diduv.
These characters are identical with those found on
the Siloam inscription in Judea and the Moabite
Stone, and on early Jewish coins, and may thus be
called Canaanitish (in the large sense) as well as
Phoenician. The early Greek alphabet was also
derived from the Phoenician (cf. Herod. v. 58),
though soon altered in many ways to suit the
needs of the Greek language.

(4) The language of Phoenicia is pure Semitic,
and belongs to the same branch of that family as
the Hebrew, the Moabitish, and the Semitic glosses
in the Tel el-Amarna letters, forming with these
(and probably other dialects of which we have no
remains) the so-called Canaanitish group. The
materials for an exact comparison with Hebrew
are wanting. The inscriptions (with the single
exception of CZS i. 5, see above under ‘ Sources’)
are later than the 6th cent., and mostly of the 4th
and later, when the language had probably
suffered a certain amount of decay. The Punic
passages in Plautus are of the end of the 3rd cent.,
and can be used only with care (cf. Néldeke, Die
semitischen Sprachen, p. 25f.), and the vowel
letters in the inscriptions are rare. The consonants

PHCANICTA

PHGNICIA 859

are the same as in Hebrew, but many words were
probably pronounced with different vowel sounds
from those used in the same words in Hebrew.
The wau conversive with the imperfect, so familiar
in Hebrew, is wanting in the Pheenician, which,
on the other hand, seems to have formed a kind of
pluperfect with an (CTS 93). Words, too, that
became rare or poetical in Hebrew were in common
use in Phanician. ‘Lhe later language shows the
same weakening and contusion of gutturals that
marks late Hebrew.

Lireraturk.—On the Pheenician alphabet see de Rouge,
Memoires sur Vorigine égyptienne de Valphabet phénicten, Us74 ;
Deecke, ‘ Ursprung d. altsemitischen Alphabets aus ἃ. neu-
assyrischen Keilschrift,’in ZD.Mi xxxi. 102 ff.; and cf. Zimmern,
tb. 1. 667 ff. ; Isaac Taylor’s, The Alphabet 3, where the Egyptian
origin is accepted ; Ball, ‘Origin of the Phoenician Alphabet,’ in
PSBA, 1893, 392-408; Berger, L’écriture dans Uantiquité.
Conder, in The Bible and the Lust, p. 74 ff., supports the Cypriote
origin.

The inscriptions are collected in the French Corpus ; the words
in them are collected in Bloch’s Phwnicisches Glossar (Berlin,
1891); and esp. by Lidzbarski, Mandbuch d. nordsemitischen
Epigraph (Weimar, 1808). The wordsin Plautus are discussed
by Gildemeister in Ritschl’s edition of Plautus, vol. ii. fase. 5
(Leipzig, 1884). A fuller discussion of these by Prof. 1). 5
Margoliouth will appear in a forthcoming number of the Classical
Review. The only grammar of Phwnician is Schroder’s Phani-
zische Gramimatik (Halle, 1869). Cf., further, article on
LANGUAGE oF OT.

v. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT. —The Pho-
nicians never appear in history as one united people
under one government. ‘Their political history
resolves itself into the history of their chief cities.
Naturally a quiet and unwarlike people (εἶ 18"

δ nes ?
the country folk were probably content with the
simpler forms of local or patriarchal government
usual among Eastern peoples, depending for help
in time of need upon the city that was nearest to
them or which they had originally left as settlers.
In the cities the government was more conven-
tional. Ixings of Sidon, Tyre, Gebal, Kition, and
Idalion are mentioned in the OT, in’ foreign
records, and on the Phoenician inscriptions. From
Menander’s list of the kings of Tyre we can see
that the monarchic power remained in the same

passed through the Straits of Gibraltar.

family, except when revolutions broke the order of |

succession.
circle, we can only eather from our knowledge of
Carthage, and of the Semitic states bordering on
Phoenicia, that there existed an aristocracy which
probably owed its existence in early times to pro-
minent position in the tribes. In some of the

As to the constitution of the court |

cities a body of ten chiefs (Justin, xvi. 6. 1) seems | ‘
embroidery were alike famous and sought after ;

to have been prominent in international business.

This seems to have been part of a larger council |

of a hundred men. Of the organization of the
traders, the most important part of the population,
we know nothing. A tradition in Justin (xviil. 8)
seems to indicate the presence of a large slave
population. Among the different cities it was
inevitable that one or another should cain some
pre-eminence over the others. This is historically
proved by the fact that at one time Sidon gave its
name to the Phanician people as a whole, while
in OT times Tyre evidently had some kind of supre-
macy. For the Persian period Diodorus Siculus
(xvi. 41) mentions a federal government with head-
quarters at Tripolis, where Arvad, Sidon, and ‘Tyre
held a common council. Even when under the
sway of foreign powers, the chief Phanician cities
seem to have always maintained a large amount of
self-government in internal affairs; and under the
Romans we knew that Sidon, Tyre, and Tripolis
retained the rank of ‘ free cities,’ with the right to
appoint their own councils and magistrates.

vi. CIVILIZATION AND COMMERCE.—The people
were originally, in all probability, largely agri-
cultural. The inscription of Thothmes ΠῚ. men-
tions amone the spoil of Phoenicia, * good bread and
various bread, corn in grain, flour . and all
good fruits of the land.’ But theugh the agri-

| rulers.

cultural class doubtless existed throughout its

history, it soon yielded in importance to those of

| the manufacturers, merchants, and seamen, who

received raw material from various parts of the
known world, and sent it forth again in new and
more useful or more beautiful forms, or contented
themselves with simply acting as intermediaries
with profit to themselves. Their navieation, origin-
ally taken up for business purposes, became later a
great source of influence and probably of wealth to
them, when they provided a navy for their Persian
Phoenicia was essentially mercantile, and
was warlike only when commercial life was
threatened. Situated on the only part of the
Syrian coast that had any pretence to natural
harbours, and hemmed in by lofty mountains on
the north and east, its people naturally turned to
the sea. And so the sea soon carried their ships ;
its shells gave them their valuable dyes, and its
sand the material for their glass. ‘The meeting of
the land trade-routes from Asia and Africa, and
of the sea-routes from all parts of the Medi-
terranean, made alike the history and the civiliza-
tion of Phoenicia. The land-routes existed for
natural reasons; the sea-routes were due to the
skill and enterprise of the sailors who pushed their
way from island to island, and cape to cape, until
they reached the southern capes of Spain, and
Yet the
people do not seem to have been very original or
inventive, and their chief merit seems to have
been rather the power of adapting and fitting for
commercial purposes the arts they learned from
others. They had, too, the advantage of being
able to collect in one place the products of many
lands, and thus of producing an effect on the
imagination of peoples which gave them a glory
not all their own. Glass was one of the manu-
factured articles for which they gained much
credit, and tradition came to ascribe its invention
to them (Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxvi. 65); but it had
been made ‘from time immemorial’ in Egypt, and
the art of making it was probably taken by the
Phoenicians from that country. ‘The dyed wares
of Phoenicia were renowned throughout the ancient
world, and the abundance of the awrex on their
coasts (see COLOURS in vol. i. p. 457) gave full
opportunity for the production of the most brilliant
colours then known; but the art of dyeing prob-
ably came from Babylonia. Their weaving and

but we are still ignorant as to how much progress
in these arts was due to native workers. Gold,
silver, iron, tin, and lead were imported by them
long before the days of Ezekiel, and were wrought
into forms of beauty that were known to the
Homeric poems (17. xxii. 740 1h; Odyss. iv. 618) ;
but their artistic forms show undoubted marks of
large foreign influence. Amber, it is now known,
was dug in Phoenicia itself, but was also probably
received by the ordinary trade-routes from the

Baltic, and objects made of it have been found in

the ruins of Mycenze.

The artistic side of Phoenician life (with a rather
large commercial appearance in it) is well repre-
sented in the various objects which have been dug
up or discovered in Phonicia itself, but more ex-
tensively in Cyprus and Carthage and a few more
of the old Phanician colonics. The pottery dis-
covered belongs mostly to the Greco-Roman times,
and most of its excellences seem to be due to
foreign influence. Earlier specimens, supposed to
be Phoenician, are both of the painted and incised
varieties, but are not at all) remarkable. The
metal-work is more interesting, and the statuettes
of bronze are Curious if not particularly beautiful.
The bronze bowls of Cyprus and the celebrated
cup (discovered at Praneste) of silver, overlaid

σε σι

860

PHCENICIA

PHCENICIA

with gold, with figures in low-relief, alike bear
Witness to the influence of Egyptian and Assyrian
art. The same applies to the seals and cylinders,
which do not usually show a very fine finish, and
are generally of serpentine, sometimes of glass,
ete. The chief feature of this sculpture was the
application of colour to give emphasis to certain
parts of the figure. Their architecture is only
partially known to us from very imperfect remains.
A marked feature in their building is the employ-
ment of the natural solid rock, as far as possible.
This is the case with the old walls of Sidon, much
of the funeral architecture, and the famous mono-
lith house of Aimrith. There seems to have been
no vault in Phoenician architecture, the roof being
terraced, as in Syria at the present day. The
columns, cornices, and other decorations are almost
entirely foreign, largely Egyptian. The tombs
were in caves, and sareophagi were used, and
sometimes massive monuments like the so-called
‘ Hiram’s tomb’ towered above the burying-place.
The architecture of their temples was probably
igyptian. That in all these arts the Phoenicians
were reputed to be skilful workmen we know from
the OT account of the relations between Solomon
and Hiram of Tyre. A namesake of the Phanician
king made for the temple at Jerusalem the two
great pillars of bronze, the molten sea, and other
objects of beauty and utility (1 K 71h). ΤῸ recon-
struct these from the descriptions given has been
a desire of many writers on ancient art, but there
is and must be much uncertainty as to the details
of the work. See art. PILLAR.

The only meted found in Phonicia itself was iron,
but the abundance of minerals in some of their
colonies soon made the Phanicians expert miners.
Cyprus contained large quantities of copper, and
the island gave its name to this metal. ‘The Sar-
dinian settlements were apparently due to the
search after copper and Jead. The mines of ‘Thasos
were known to Herodotus (vi. 47), and the Spanish
colonies were perfect storehouses of gold, silver,
copper, tin, iron, and lead.

rhe attention given to navigation naturally gave
rise to a large industry in the art of shipbuilding,
and it is possible to trace on the Assyrian sculptures
and Phoenician vases and coins the development
from the rude and small boats first used to the
large and well-titted vessels used in later times,
and so warmly eulogized by Xenophon in the
(Keonomica (δ 8). The art of navigation, too, as
distinct from the usual hueeing of the shore and
sailing in the daytime only, seems to have been
developed if not invented by these people, to whom
the Polar star was known. ‘The ships of the sea,
with their mariners,’ occupy the first place in
Ezekiel’s description of the pride of Tyre (ch. 27).

From this description by Ezekiel we can easily
understand that the private life of the Phoenician
traders was one of great luxury. Many of the
articles of commerce, in which they traded, found
their way into the homes of the people. Little is
known of their private life, but there are indica-
tions that behind the outward show of wealth and
civilization lay a selfish and even cruel spirit. The
traflic in slaves was no unimportant part of their
commerce, and for the sake of it they would forget
‘the covenant of brethren’ (Am 19: 1), Commerce
was the life and soul of the people, and the faults
as well as the virtues of a purely commercial
people marked the Pheenician race (cf. Is 23, ete.).

TATERATURE.—The remains of Phcenician industry and art
may best be studied in Renan, Mission de Phénicie ; Perrot et
Chipiez, Histoire de Vart dans Vantiquité, tom. iii. ‘Phénicie-
Cypre’; Τὶ P. di Cesnola, Cyprus, its Cities, Tombs, and
Teinples; A. P. di Cesnola, Salaminia; Ohnetalsch-Richter,
Kupros, die Bibel und Homer; Davis, Carthage and her Re-
mas. For fragments of the Phonician calendar, cf. Conder
in PEF'St, 1889, p. 22 f.

vii. bs, LHR a religion of the Phoenicians
was polytheistic, nor so far as we can go back. do
we find any traces of its ever having been mono-
theistic. In the Tel el-Amarna tablets the Phu-
nician names contain the names of several of the
gods; in the OT. too, the éa'alim (plur.) are men-
tioned, The origins of the gods are unknown. The
statements of Philo Byblios in this matter are
useless, for everything is made to serve his own
euhemerism. The view that Βα] was the name
of an originally one and only god—and that the
sun-god—has been shown to be more than doubtful
(see art. BAAL). Even the later identification by
the Greeks of certain Phoenician gods with theirown
tells us nothing of their origin and previous his-
tory. As Ed. Meyer says (Gesch. d. Alt. $192, note),
‘It should never be forgotten that of the Pha-
nician religion we know very little (recht weniy),
of the Pheenician mythology proper, nothing
at all.’ It is a striking fact that one goddess,
‘Tanith,’ is mentioned about 2000 times in Cartha-
ginian inscriptions, and we know nothing either as
to the meaning of the name or the nature of her
being. Without attempting to explain the nature
of each individual god, it seems clear, however,
that some at least took their origin in the worship
of the powers of nature (cf. the ‘ Ba‘al of heavens,’
the worship of Eshmun and Adonis, the feasts of
the seasons of the year, the veneration of objects
of nature, ete. [see below]). In this respect they
fall in line with other Semitic peoples. Another
determining feature in their worship seems to have
been their social organization. The existence of
yarious tribes among the Phoenicians has often
been asserted, and is in itself very probable, but
there is no evidence for it. On the other hand, the
city has played a part, larger than in the history
of any country, except perhaps the history of Italy
in the Middle Ages. That each city had a god of
its own is evident. Sometimes he was simply
valled the Ba'al of that city (see BAAL), some-
times he had a name of his own (as JJelkarth,
the Baal of Tyre). Beyond the actuating power
of these two tactors—reverence for the powers of
nature, and the bond of city life—it is dificult, if
not impossible, to go in the present state of our
knowledge of the early gods of Phcenicia. A strik-
ing feature in the names of the gods is the presence
οὗ so many appellatives in the names of the best-
known (thus Ba'al, ‘possessor’; "Adon, ‘lord’;
Milk, ‘king,’ ete.). Another characteristic is the
recognition of female as well as male deities. By
the side of Ba‘al is Ba‘alat (as early as the Tel el-
Amarna tablets ‘ Ba‘alat Sa Gubla’), with Milk is
Milkat, with Elis Elat (see CS 243, 244); but it
does not follow that because the masculine and
feminine forms of the same words are used, that
there is necessarily any special relation between
the god and goddess represented by them. A closer
relation between two gods seems to be indicated by
the compounding of two divine names, as in Milk-
‘ashtart, Ba'almelkart, Zadmelkarth, Zadtanith,
ete.; but whether this has any political or doctrinal
significance is uncertain.

In later times Pheenician cities, like other peoples
of the ancient world, introduced foreign gods into
theirtemples. Egypt especially furnished its share,
and Babylonian deities are not wanting; while in
regard to the other nations around them (other
Canaanites, Aramzeans, etc.), it is often difficult to
say whether one has borrowed from the others, or
all have received them from a common stock. In
Greek times the identification of their own gods
with Greek deities did much to change the nature
and worship of both.

The relation of the individual (we have no evi-
dence of the tribal relation prominent in Arabia,
and undoubtedly present among the carly Israelites,

ee

1)

PHOENICIA

PHENICIA 861

cf. TRIBE) to the god is expressed by the various
words expressing dependence on or relation to,
prefixed to names of gods to form names of per-
sons, 6.6. “ΩΡ ‘servant of? (which occurs with the
name ot nearly every Phoenician god known) ; ΟΝ
‘man of’; 772 ‘branch, member of’ (see Bloch,
Phen. Gloss. p. 19, note) ; 0 (for nx) ‘brother of? ;
a ‘client of?; and once or twice ~38 and ἫΝ
‘father, or my father is’. . Women’s names
are also formed by prefixing the following and
similar words to the divine names “na ‘daughter
of’; -nax and cnn ‘sister of’; “nox ‘handmaid of? ;
snes “bride of.’

(a) Thedvities.—Altogetherabout50 names οἱ gods
are known from the Phoen. inscriptions (see Lidz-
larski, 152 1h). Of many of these we know nothing
but the name. Among the most important are the
following (in the order of the Phoon. alphabet) :—

IN (Gr, “Adwus, οἵ, Heb. 35x), originally an
appellative. A god in Byblos, then in Cyprus,
where he was also joined with Eshmun. Origen
and Jerome identify him with Tammuz (Ezk 8%),
who was really a Babylonian god. In some places
he is joined with Osiris. For the probable mean-
ing of the Adonis feast, see Baudissin, Studien zur
semitischen Religionsgeschichte, i. 188, note.

bs (cf. Heb. Sx) oceurs in several proper names,
but it is still doubtful whether it stands for a par-
ticular god. Philo of Byblos says that he was the
chief god of Byblos, but had neither temple nor
cultus. The feminine form n>x occurs on two
Carthaginian inscriptions as the name of a goddess
with priests of her own.

rots (called by the Greeks ᾿Ασκλήπιος) is not
mentioned in the OT, but was worshipped in
Sidon, Berytos, Carthage, Cyprus, ete.; and his |
name ceccurs frequently in proper names, and
compounded with Melkarth (cf. Ed. Meyer in
Roscher’s Lexikon εἰ. Griechischen u. Lomischen
Mytielogie, 1. 1385 f.).

Spa (Gr. Βάαλ, Βῆλος, Βήλ, and in proper names
Ba) was worshipped also by the Israclites, Philis-
tines, and probably by Moabites. He appears in
-alinyrene inscriptions as 3 and $2. He was prob-
ably also indigenous in Arabia (Néldeke in ΖΜ
xl. 174), and is evidently connected with the Baby-
lonian Bel. See BAAL. The feminine form n>ya
(Gr. Baadris, Βῆλτις) Occurs in the ‘Tel el-Amarna
tablets as Bidalat ga Gubla. Τῦ is as goddess of the
same place that she is mentioned four times in CUZS 1,
It seems also to be present in the OT place-names
mops, npzz, and τόμ.

3) appears in Phoenician inscriptions only in
proper names, but occurs as a cod in Is 651, in the
sa Saxo of Jos 15°, and in Ezr 2", also in Aramaic
(ZDMG@ xiii. 474), in Arabia (Wellhausen, este
d. Arab, Heideréums 2, 146), and probably in Pal-
myrene, but is unknown to the Babylonians, He
was a god of Fortune (see art. GAD); but the city-
vod Τύχη of Greek inscriptions and coins from
Syria, with wom he has been generally identified,
is regarded by Bau-lissin (Herzog-Hanck, vi. 334 f.)
as referring more probably to Atergatis.

sec
ἾΝΞ

Jo, originally an appellative,—cf. Molech and
Mileom of the Ammonites (see MOLECH),—is men-
tioned in the Tel cl-Amarna tablets in the names
Abi-milki, Hi-milki, “Abd-milki, ete., and in many
names in the Phonician inscriptions. A goddess
nos» is also found in Carthage, Hadrumet, and
Sardinia.

ἘΠΊ (=mip-ibo ‘city-king’) is not mentioned in
the OT, but was the Baal of Tyre, and was iden- |
tified by the Greeks with Πρακλῆς (xo in CLS 122, |
c. 180 B.c.). His temple, according to a tradition
in Herodotus (ii. 44), was founded about B.C. 2740.
His name is also found in Cyprus, Malta, and |

Carthage, and in such proper names as Hamilkar,
and is preserved in the Greek Μελικέρτης. [ἢ com-
pound names of deities he occurs with Eshmun,
Zad, and Resheph (see Ed. Meyer in Roscher’s
Lexikon, ii. 2650 ff.).

DD occurs in the proper names j2073, 130 132}, and
320, which last is also the name Σαγχουνιάθων of
Philo’s fictitious authority.

noy (in the Greek part of C/S 95 represented by
᾿Αθηνά) is met with in the OT in the place-names
Beth-anoth (Jos 15°"), Beth-anath (Jos 1958, Jg 1°),
and Anathoth (Jer 1, ete.) As a goddess of war
she was known and honoured by the Egyptians in
the 17th and 18th dynasties, having. according to
Meyer (ZDMG xxxi. 718 f.), been taken over from
the Hittites. A connexion with the Babylonian
Anatu is not proved.

manwy (Gr. ’Acrapry), identified by the Greeka
with ᾿Αφροδιτη. See ASHTORETH.

Ἔν seems to be connected with the Heb. 1s ‘to
hunt, fish,’ but occurs only in names of men and of
compound deities.

aw occurs in bie $6 names of Cyprus, and meets
us in Egypt as Rashpu, and is ascribed by Meyer,
like ΩΣ (see above), to the Hittites. It seems,
however, more natural to connect the name with
the Hebrew word for ‘flame,’ and to look upon
the deity as a god of storms or lightning. This
seems, too, to be confirmed by the combination 427
pnin CLS 10 (ef. Driver, Deut. 68, with references).

mon was the great goddess of Carthage; but
though her name occurs some 200 times in in-
scriptions, we are ignorant of her nature and origin.
Except in two or three inscriptions she is always
entitled Sy jp ‘face of Ba‘al. A compound deity
mints occurs in some inscriptions.

As has been noticed in the case of ‘Anat and
Resheph, it is possible that some of the gods already
mentioned were taken from other peoples. In the
later period this borrowing certainly took place,
and in the inscriptions we find the Babylonian
Neregal, the Egyptian Isis, Osiris, Absit (e.g. Bastu,
cf, Bubastis, Ezk 8017), Horus, and Ptah. In some
cases a Phoenician god was joined with a foreign
one, as in Melekosir (so Jeremias), but the first
part of the name may be only appellative.

(b) Sacred objects and cultus.—As in other Sem-
itic religions of Western Asia, the most prominent
objects of nature had an idea of sanctity attached
to them. Whether themselves containing
spirits, who had power over men, or simply as the
ereatest. gifts of the gods, they were regarded
with feelings of awe. High places (m2) were
chosen for their temples and altars as being especi-
ally near the deity ; and it was on Carmel (which
was known to be sacred in the time of Tacitus, ef.
Hist. ii. 78) that the priests of Baal offered with
Elijah (1 K 18.» In Greek and Roman writers
there are many memories of the earlier sanctity of
various Pho nician mountains, from Mt. Casius te
Carmel. Waters, too, were regarded with venera-
tion, and some were particularly associated with
certain gods, and even named after them (as the
Adonis). Springs and rivers, two sources of life in
the East, were regarded with peculiar reverence.
Trees, too, we find sacred, especially to certain
goddesses. The cypress, myrtle, and palm were
closely associated with Astarte. This specializa-
tion is, however, probably only a development from
an earlier form of nature-worship.

The ordinary worship of the Pheenician might

as

| be offered in ay place in the open air, but was

most natural on high places, with trees, and often
with a sacred stream. Amony these surroundings
was built an altar with an a@s/ora beside it, and on
it the sacrifice was ofiered. But there is mention
in history of temples (e.g. the temple of Melkarth

862 PHA@INTX

PHG@NIX

at Tyre); and one would naturally expect. that
those who did so much for the temple of Jerusalem
should have had ereat sanctuaries of their own.
Yet it is very doubtful whether the temple ever
played a very important part in the worship of
Phonicia, or was ever much more than a prominent
adornment of a city. Sacrifices were usual, and
human life was offered in the fire and human blood
on the altars, but apparently only on important
ocersions. Various animals, both tame and wild,
were offered, and products of the field as well as
flesh. Sacred prostitution was also a form of
offering common to many acts of Phanician wor-
ship. Vows were made in time of difficulty or
danger, and votive offerings (statuettes, tablets,
ete.) were common. Feasts, too, were often associ-
ated with religious rites. Priests and priestesses
officiated, and the king himself was sometimes (if
not always) a priest.

LITERATURE.—The articles Tyre, Spon, Tarstusit, ete., in this
Dictionary, as well as articles on several of the gods by Ed.
Meyer in Roscher's Leatkon, by Baudissin in Herzog’s Real-
encyclopedie3, and by various writers in this Dictionary, and in
the Kneyclopedia Biblica; Baethyen, Beitrdge zur semitischen
Religionsgeschichte, especially pp. 16-65, with Noldeke’s review
in ZDMG xiii. 470ff.; Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen
Religionsgeschichte, i, and jie; Jeremias in de la Saussaye’s
Lehrbuch εἰ. Religionsyeschichte2, i. 224%. Orelli, A Mgemetne
Religionsgeschichte ; Viele, Geschisdenis ran den Godsdienst in
de Oudheid (Amsterdam, 1893), i, 245 ff... Kd. Meyer, ‘ Veber
einige semitische Gotter, in ZDMG xxvxi. T1G64%.: Hoffmann,
Veber einige phinikische Inschriften (Gottingen, I8s9): Hommel,
Die altisraclitische Ueberlieyerung, p. 219 ff. LAUT p. 219 1s
and the following :—

GENERAL LirexatuRE.—In addition to the works mentioned
and quoted in the different sections of this article, the following
are the most important general writings onthe subject : Movers,
Die Phanizier (a new edition has long been promised, and
should become the standard work); Pietschmann, Gesehichte
dey Phanizier (in Oncken’s series); Kenrick, Phanicia; Raw-
linson, History of Phanicia (and a smaller volume in the ‘Story
of the Nations’ series): the sections dealing with the Phaenicians
in the Histories of antiquity of Duncker, Ed. Meyer, and Maspero;
cf. Meltzer, Geschichte der Karthager.

G. W. THATCHER.

PHENIX (Φοίνιξ, AV Phenice) was a good. har-
bour on the south coast of Crete. When the corn-
ship from Alexandria, bound for either Puteoli or
the Portus Augustus beside Ostia at the mouth of
the Tiber,* on which St. Paul was sailing from Myra
towards Italy, had been detained so long on the
voyage that it was considered too late in the season

to risk the passage across the open sea from Crete |

to the southern coast of Italy, it was resolved to
winter in Crete. When tie resolution was come
to, the ship was lying in Fair Havens, near the
middle of the south coast. The question then arose,
where should the ship lie up? The centurion,
who evidently had the supreme authority, + called
a council to advise him on this question; and the
opinion of both captain and sailing-master was
that they should seck an opportunity and make
for the harbour of Phoenix. Paul, whose opinion
was also asked (as, though a prisoner, he was
treated with much consideration, being a Roman
whose appeal to the emperor had been allowed by
the procurator governing Palestine, and being also
an experienced and practised traveller), strongly
urged that they should stay where they were.
There must have been good reasons on both sides.
The experienced sailors had some eround for their
opinion: presumably Phomnix was a better and
safer harbour, and quite probably also it was

* At that period more probably the former.

+ That this was so, and that the centurion had authority even
over the captain, results from the character of the imperial
service (the ship belonged, of course, to one of the imperial corn
fleets), in which the military service ranked higher than the
naval, and yet was not strictly divided from it. But the cen-
turion exercised his authority with the penalty of severe
punishment before him, if he mismanaged; and he therefore
would necessarily ask advice on the point of where to winter,
and in purely nautical matters would leave the captain and the
sailing-master free in their own departments. See Ramsay, St.
Paul the Traveller, p. 3248.

recognized as being the proper place to winter in,
if one of the many ships engaged in that trade had
to spend the stormy season on that part of their
long voyage (as must have been often the case),
On the other hand, Paul dreaded the voyage to
Phenix, which therefore must have been some
distance away. Winds from the north strike with
terrific force on the sea a little south from Crete
(though the waters immediately on the coast are
protected by the lofty mountains). The danger,
then, would be greatest in crossing the great open-
ing of the gulf of Messaria, which begins a few
miles west of Fair Havens. It is obvious, there-
fore, that Phoenix is to be looked for somewhere
on the other, or western, side of that gulf,

The centurion, as was right and almost. obli-
gatory in his situation,* took the advice of the
experts; and, when the opportunity of a mild
south wind was given, they set sail; but in at-
tempting to run across the gulf of Messaria, they
were caught by a tremendous north-easterly gale,
which swooped down on them from Mount Tda,
and narrowly escaped after a terrible voyage of
many days across the open sea.

Pheonix is described by Strabo (p. 475) as being
a settlement (κατοικία, denoting a large flourishing
Village,t originally a settlement of colonists or
κάτοικοι) ON an isthmus, ‘The passage is very
obscure, owing to a lacuna; but apparently what
Strabo describes as the isthmus was a narrow part
of the island of Crete, between the northern and
the southern sea, with a small town, Amphimalla,
on the northern coast, and Phanix on the southern.
Apparently he considered Phanix as a settlement
in the territory of Lampa or Lappa, a Cretan city
of importance, striking coins (Φοίνικα τὸν Aauéwy),
Now the situation of Lappa is practically certain ;
it Was situated in the inner country, where Crete
is narrow for a space, before it broadens out again
to its western end, at a site called Polis, On the
southern coast of this narrower part of Crete,
Phenix must be sought. Nearly due south from
Lappa there is a village, Loutré, with a harbour,
described as the safest harbour on the south coast
of Crete. Captain Sprat, an experienced surveyor
and sailor, was fully convinced, after an explora-
tion of the south coast, that Loutré must be
Phanix, ‘because it is the only harbour west of
Mair Havens in which a vessel of any size t coule
find any shelter during the winter months.’ James
Smith, who defends this view by very convincing
arguments, quotes several even stronger assertions
of the superiority of Loutré to all other harbours
on the south coast. There is some evidence that
the tradition of the ancient name remains among
the Greeks of the place (Smith's Voyage and Ship-
wreck of St. Paul, ed. 3, p. 25048, App. I. and IL;
also p. 86 ff).

Ptolemy. (iii. 17. 3) describes both a harbour
Phenikous and a town near the south coast
called Phoenix. His frequent vagueness and want
of accuracy make him an unreliable authority ;
but he places the town and harbour evidently in
this part of Crete (see further, below).

Phoenice (i.e. Phoenix) is mentioned as a bishop-
ric in the earlier Notiti, viii. and ix.;§ and
Hierocles gives it in his list of Cretan cities. All
three authorities speak of it as beside a place
Aradena (or Ariadne, Not. ix.): the phrase Φοίνιξ
ἦτοι ᾿Αραδένα denotes that two distinct places were
united as a single bishopric. Now Aradena still
retains its ancient name as Aradhena, a place

* See the preceding note.

1 See Buresch, Aus Lydien, p. 2f.

{ The ship which is concerned in the question was large,
being able to accommodate 268 of a crew and passengers, and a
cargo of corn from Alexandria for Rome.

§ In Not. vii., which is the oldest known, there is a Jacuna of
about 200 names, among which were the Cretan bishoprics.

PHAEINIX

PHRYGIA 863

which is not much more than a mile from Loutro.
Again, Stephanus Byz. mentions Aradena (Δραδήν)
as a city of Crete which is also called Anopolis ;
and about two miles north of Loutré there is a
village on high ground with ruins which is called
still Anapolis. ‘This is probably to be identified
with the Phanix which Ptolemy distinguishes
from the harbour, while Aradhena and Loutré
together constitute his harbour Phoanikous, and
all three were united in a single bishopric.

Again, Hierocles (whose order in enumeration is
commonly avery good guide) mentions the island
of CAUDA or Clauda (he uses the form Κλαῦδος)
next to Phanix. Now that island is only a few
miles due south of Loutro. ;

Finally, an inscription placed here in the reign
of Trajan shows that an imperial ship was spending
so long a time at this point of its course between
Alexandria and Italy that there was time to erect
some considerable work, whose nature is not
specified. There can hardly be any doubt that
the ship was lying up for the winter, and the
imperial freedman who was in authority on the
ship employed the crew at some useful work on
shore. The sailing-master, gubernator (compare
κυβερνήτης, Ac 27!!), and the ship’s sien, ρα) θη τε)
(compare παράσημον, Ac 28"), are both mentioned.
See Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck, 201.

Thus we see that Loutro was beside a harbour
where at least occasionally the large ships of that
Eeyptian corn service wintered,.

The identification of Loutré as the harbour
‘alled Phomix in Ac 27 seems beyond dispute, if
these accounts of travellers and explorers rest on a
sufliciently minute examination of the coast. But
the identification is encumbered by one serious
difficulty. The harbour of Phenix is described in
Acts as looking towards the south-west and the
north-west, de. apparently as opening towards the
west, with a mouth just so wide that the entrance
extends up towards north-west and down towards
south-west. But the harbour of Loutré opens

towards the east, looking between north-east and |

south-east.

In this difficulty there seem to be only three
alternatives open. 1. The harbour of Loutré is
formed by a very narrow isthmus connecting a
broader peninsula with the maincand ; and there is
a harbour on each side of the isthmus, As the
isthmus runs out south from the mainiand, one οἱ
these harbours looks east, viz. Loutré, while the
other looks west. Bishop Wordsworth has sue-
vested that the western harbour may be the
ancient Phanix, and has pointed out that on the
Admiralty chart the name Phinika is given to it.
Obviously, most of the arguinents for identifying
Loutré as Phanix would apply equally well to this
western harbour, which is separated from the other
only by a narrow isthimus, and is almost equally
near Aradhena and Anapolis. The only dithculty
lies in the very positive assertions that Loutro is

the only well-sheltered harbour ; and certainly the |
more |
Still it is distinetly desirable that |
1 | (according to the view to be here explained).

chart represents the western harbour as
widely open.
the western harbour should be mere closely and
critically examined. Sprat, indeed, can hardly
lave failed to do so, and his weighty authority is
almost conclusive (though not quite); but the rest
of the evidence depends much on the statements of
residents in Loutré; and every traveller knows
how prone the Grecks are to emphasize too strongly
the arguments which support the identification of
their own town with an ancient place of fame ;
their very love and respect for antiquities lead
them to exavgerate the Claims of their home.

The conclusion must be that Wordsworth’s sug-
gestion ix not absolutely disproved, though the
evidence accessible at present is against it. Among

other things one desiderates careful examination
as to whetier the Ccoast-line has been meditied
during eighteen centuries, and whether there are
any traces of the western harbour having been
used in ancient times.

2. James Smith suggests that the words of Ac
27) βλέποντα κατὰ Λίβα καὶ κατὰ Χῶρον, do not mean,
as is commonly thought, ‘looking towards south-
west and north-west,’ but ‘looking in the direction
in which the south-west and north-west winds
blow’ (i.e. towards north-east and south-east).
His rendering is distinctly against the analogy of
Greek literary expression ; but, considering how
little is known of Greek technical sailor language,
one cannot feel quite certain that the rendering is
absolutely impossible.

3. It has been pointed out* that Luke did not
actually visit Phoenix (for ths ship never went
there), but mercly speaks on report: his authority
was the argument used by the captain and the
sailing-master of the vessel in the council which
the centurion called. Naturaily these arguments
were reported to him by Paul; and, even if Luke
were wrong, his mistake would prove, not want of
observation of a place which he had seen, but
misapprehension of the description of ἃ place
strange to him, after that description has passed
through an intermediate channel. If (as was

often the case) the expression of sailors differed |

from that of literary Greek and of the ordinary
landsman, an error might have thus been produced
without any one being conscious of it.

The case, therefore, must be pronounced unde-
cided until Sprat’s statement (weighty as it is) is
contirmed by new and careful examination ; but
the balance of evidence is strong that Loutré is
Phoenix ; and in that case the third alternative is
perhaps least hnprobable, though the second is not
proved to be impossible. W. M. Ramsay.

PHOROS (op5s)=Parosh; 1 Es 5° 8 (B Φαρές,
AV Pharez), 959,

PHRURAI.—In Ad. Est 11} the Book of Esther is
called ‘the epistle of Phrurai’? (éricto\} τῶν Φρουραέ,
A... Ppovpard); cf. Est $**, and see ESTHER, and
PuRIM (FEAST OF).

PHRYGIA.—

T. Geographical and Historical.
Il. Pauline Geography.
III. Phrygia in Acts 210,
IV. Christianity in Phrygia.
V. The Jews in Phrygia.

Phrygia (Φρυγία) was the name of a very large
country in Asia Minor. On the view which will
be here set forth, the noun Phrygia never occurs
in the Bible, but only the term ‘the Phrygian
region’ (Ac 16% 18°%); + and in 2 Mac 57 the ethnic
‘Phrygian’ is applied to Philip, who was left as
governor of Jerusalem by king Antiochus Epi-
phanes about B.c. 170. In addition to this, a
journey right across Phrygia is implied tacitly in
Ac 167%, and another is brictly described in Ac 19!
But
in spite of the very sinall appearance made by
the Phrygian name in the Bible, there are such
difficult questions connected with the passages
where it occurs that a somewhat long discussion
is. needed. Moreover, Phrygia had unusual
importance in early Christian history, and the
monuments of Christianity before the time of
Constantine that remain in the country are of
unique number, interest, and importance. It can

* Ramsay, St. Paul the Trav. p. 826.

+ Many scholars regard Φευγιαν as a noun, not an adjective, in
both these passages ; others take it as an adjective in τοῦ, and a
noun in 1823, These opinions will be very fully treated in the
sequel,

1

86-4 PHRYGIA

PHRYGIA

be truly said that the first Christian city was a
city of Phrygia.

It will be convenient to classify the following
remarks under headings.

I, GEOGRAPHICAL AND HISTORICAL.—The vast
country of Phrygia presents so great a variety in
natural character that it cannot be deseribed
except at too great length. ‘The level of the cities
varies from the frontier town Karoura in the coast-
valley of the Mieander, 500 ft. above sea-level, to
the ancient city, among the monuments of the early
kings beside the tomb of Midas, about 4000 ft.
Great mountains, plains, and lakes are found in it.
The two chief cities of Phrygia in the time of Paul
were Laodicea and Apamea (Strabo, p. 576).

Phrygia means the land of the Phryges; and
there is a general agreement that (as Herodotus,
vii. 73, says) the Phryges were a tribe, or union of
tribes, from Macedonia or Western Thrace, who
crossed the Hellespont into Asia Minor, and
gradually spread their conquests first over the
Troad, and then farther east and south over the
plateau. In the eastern direction they penetrated
at their extremest range of power through the
Sangarius valley and up to the banks of the Halys.
On the south-east they reached IcoNIUM, which
was the last Phrygian city on that side. On the
south they were stopped by the Pisidian moun-
tains, the northern ridges of the Taurus range,
into which they seem never to have penetrated.
On the west the boundaries vary most ; but on all
sides they vary to an extraordinary degree.
Hence, in trying to define what any ancient
author means by the name ‘Phrygia,’ we must
begin by inquiring what period is referred to, and
what was the usage of the name in that period.

That the country of the Phrygians at an early
period was bounded on the north-west only by the
waters of the Aegean and the Hellespont is beyond
doubt. They were the masters of the sea, according
to Diodorus (vii. 11), for 25 years about B.C. 900.
Troy is frequently called Phrygian, and there was
alarge, vaguely defined region along the Hellespont
and the Sea of Marmora, called Hellespontine
Phrygia. The country beside Mount Sipylos,
north of Smyrna, the realm of Tantalos and Pelops,
is often called Phrygia by the poets, who repro-
duce ancient semi-historical myths ; and this shows
that considerable part of western Lydia once bore
the name of Phrygia.

At an early time the irruption of Thracian
tribes, such as Thynoi, Bithynoi, Mysoi, across
the Bosporus drove a wedge through the country
of Phrygia, and separated Hellespontine Phrygia
from the inner country, which was henceforth
termed Great (Meyd\n, Magna) Phrygia. The
Phrygian clement and name died out in Lydia
also at an early period. The Troad ceased to be
called Phrygia; and though the name of Helle-
spontine Phrygia * lingered on for several centuries,
the land Jost the Phrygian character,+ and after
the time of Alexander the Great it seems to have
no longer possessed any claim to be called a dis-
tinct and separate country. Strabo still uses the
name in A.D. 19. The north-eastern regions of
Phrygia Magna were transformed into GALATIA
during the 3rd cent., first through gradual drifting
of the Gauls into that district as the one where
there was least resistance to contend with, and
finally, about B.c. 282, by general aereement of the
surrounding rulers, and especially Attalus 1., king
of Pergamum, who penned them into this place
and acknowledged their right to it, but set limits

* Also called Little Phrygia in distinction from Great Phrygia
(Strabo, p. 571).

+ The Phrygian character was probably bound up with the
use of the Phrygian language. Iconium called itself Phrygian,
because the language was used there (see Ramsay, Historical
Commentary on Galatians, p. 216).

ἐπε απο θα ποτ. |
to their wide-ranging forays. About B.c. 205
a new name, Phrygia Epictetus, 1.6. Acquired
Phrygia, came into existence. It was applied to
a region in the north which seems to have been
acquired by Attalus I. from Bithynia. According
to Strabo (p. 576) it contained six cities at least,
Azanoi, Nakolia, Kotiaion, Midaion, Dorylaion,
Kadoi. Another name for a special district was
Paroreios Phrygia,* the great valley in the east
between Sultan-Dagh and Emir-Dagh (whose
ancient names are unknown), with the cities Ipsos
or Julia, Philomelion, Thymbrion or Hadrian-
opolis, Tyriaion, and many small towns and
villages,

A third district was Pisidie Phrygia, or Phrygia
towards Pisidia, or Phrygia the Pisidian.+ “lhe
city of Antioch towards Pisidia is the only one
assigned to this district by Strabo; but Ptolemy,
and probably Polybius, extend it more widely to
include Apollonia and other cities in the valleys
underneath the northern flanks of Taurus. Strabo
clearly says that Paroreios and Pisidian Phrygia
were only parts of Great Phrygia, whereas he
distinguishes Epictetus as a separate and added
country.

Under the Romans, the whole country of Cibyra
and most of the valley of the Lysis were reckoned
to Phrygia, though previously they had been
counted either to Pisidia or to Kabalis or to
Milyas. It would also appear that the lower part
of the Lyens valley was divided at an earlier
time between Lydia (viz. Hierapolis and Hydrela)
and Caria (viz. Laodicea and ‘Trapezopolis and
Attoudda) ; but in the Roman period all these
cities came to be classed to Phrygia. On the
other hand, Iconium was then classed to Lycaonia
(except in the estimation of its inhabitants, see
IcONIUM and LYCAONIA), as were also Laodicea
Katakekaumene and even perhaps Tyriaion.

In the Roman time Phrygia was divided between
two provinces, Asia and Galatia, with thorough
Roman indiflerence to national frontiers in mapping
out their province—an indifference which resulted
in the final failure of those provincial divisions to
attain permanence. These two parts were called
Phrygia Asiana and Phrygia Galatica: for the
former name, see Galen, πὶ τροῷ: duv. iv. p. B12
(Kuhn, vi. p. 515); for the latter, see a notice in a
Byzantine Menologion (taken from a good and
ancient source) quoted in Acta Sanctorum, Sept.
28, Ὁ. O63:

That part of Phrygia was included in the province
Galatia, though often ignored, is no longer denied
by any scholar. A number of inscriptions, enum-
erating the parts of the province Galatia, mention
among them Phrygia; e.g. C/Z iil. 6818, mentions
the parts as Galatia, Pisidia, Phrygia, Lycaonia,
Isauria, Paphlagonia, Pontus Galaticus, Pontus
Polemoniacus ; compare CYL iii. 6819; Friinkel,
Inschr. Pergam. No. 451 (the lists vary at different
periods as districts were added to or taken from
the province). See also GALATIA, vol. ii. p. 90f.

Moreover, several cities which Strabo and
Ptolemy assign to Phrygia, e.g. Apollonia and

Antioch, are shown by their coins and by other
means to belong to the province Galatia, and
Ptolemy gives the region which he calls Pisidian
Phrygia as a part of the province Galatia.

Galatic Phrygia, or the Phrygian region of the
province Galatia, was not a very large country.
It was a strip of territory extending in considerable
length along the front of the Pisidian mountains ;
and it included the cities of Iconium (in the native

* It is often wrongly said that Paroreios denoted the country
west and south from Sultan-Dagh, with the city of Pisidian
Antioch. That was Pisidic Phrygia (see following note). ;

1 Pisidic Phrygia, Polybius, xxii. 6 14; Phrygi: πρὸς Πισιδίφᾳ
Strabo, pp. 557, 566, 5797; Phrygia Πισιδία, Ptolemy, V. v. 4.

1 Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, i. pp. 6, 183 ἢ,

PHRYGIA

865

PHRYGIA

usage), Antioch the Colonia, Apollonia, and, as
Ptolemy says, several others. Asian Phrygia was
immensely larger, including all Paroreios and
Epictetus and far the larger part of Great Phrygia.
In process of time the Pisidian connexion became
stronger, and the name Pisidian Phrygia was gradu-
ally disused. Antioch ceased to be considered a
city of Phrygia and was called ‘of Pisidia.” Some
of the epigraphic lists of the regiens making up the
vovince Galatia omit Phrygia and mention only
Pisidia, At last a distinct Roman province Pisidia
was constituted about A.D. 295, with the metropolis
Antioch and a secondary metropolis [conium. But
in the time of St. Paul, and long after, the view
was dominant among the people that Antioch and
Iconium were cities of the Phrygian region. *

A distinction between High Phrygia and Low
Phrygia can be traced in the Roman time from
Strabo, A.D. 20, onwards. Low Phrygia was a
name that included Hierapolis (llilostratus,
Imagines, i. 12) and Lake Anava (Strabo, i. p. 49)
and the Sangarios (Steph. Byz. s.v.), t.c. it included
those districts that were less elevated above sea-
level, while High Phrygia (ἡ ἄνω Φρυγία) was the
elevated region of central Phrygia lying between
the Sangarios on the north-east and the great
road passing close to Hierapolis in the Lycus valley
and along the edge of Lake Anava. Aristides
speaks of a certain city (probably Akimonia,
possibly Synnada) as in High Phrygia. The pair
of terms rarely occur in literature; but they
clearly were in current local use.

We have seen how Phrygia steadily diminished,
losing parts on the west, north-west, north-east,
south-east, andsouth. About A.D. 295 or soon after-
wards, when the great province Asia was broken
up, two new provinces were formed,+ Phrygia
Prima and Secunda, called also Great and Small,+
or Pacatiana and Salutaris: the last pair of names
came into use in the latter part of the 4th cent.,
and soon established themselves in almost universal
usage. ‘he name Salutaris is explained by the
Byzantine writers as caused by the fact that St.
Paul had preached the gospel of salvation there.
This is a curious statement: it implies that St.
Paul had preached much more in Phrygia Secunda
than in Phrygia Prima (which was the western
half under the primacy of Laodicea). Now that
may be cither a belief founded on old authority,
or a mere groundless fabrication of the Byzantine
time, to explain a curious name. In the former
case it would afford valuable evidence bearing on
the history of St. Paul, for there was good author-
ity underlying the really old tradition in Asia
Minor. In the latter case it would be absolutely
valueless. Unfortunately, the latter alternative is
pretty certainly true. ‘The name is Latin (Sa/u-
taris) transformed into a Greek word; but if it
had rested on a genuine popular tradition or belief,
it would have been Greek, for Creek was the
language of the country, and very few can have
known Latin in Phrygia. The name Sa/lutaris
has probably nothing to do with St. Paul or with
religion.

The name Phrygia henceforth was restricted
within the limits of those two provinces. ‘The

*In Antioch the memory of its Phrygian character remained
as late as the 3rd cent. (see evidence in Ramsay, Histor.
Comment. on Galatians, §§ 19, 20); but outsiders called it ‘of
Pisidia’ in the 2nd cent. Similarly in Iconium.

+ Malalas says that Constantine divided Phrygia into two
provinces, implying that in 295 only one province, Phrygia, was
constituted. If so, Constantine’s action is older than a.p. 325,
as is shown in Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, pt. i. p. 81;
Malalas, in fact, mentions Constantines act before the Council
of Nicwa (A.D. 325), xiii. p. 323.

+ Small Phrygia (Μικρὰ Φρυγία) occurs in a few 4th cent.
authorities; the name Great Phrygia in this new sense does
not occur (our authorities say * Phrygia’ and ‘Small Phrygia’),
but seems necessarily to follow from the other term.

VOL. III. —55

district of Cibyra, on the south-west, was given
over to Caria, Apamea and Metropolis to Pisidia,
and (between 386 and 395) Amorion, Orkistos, and
other north-eastern cities to Galatia. In the Sth
cent. part of Paroreios was transferred to Galatia,
and placed under Amorion as metropolis: it is,
however, very doubtful whether this transference
affected more than the ecclesiastical organization,
for the civil division into provinces (though always
retained in the ecclesiastical system) disappeared
politically in the 8th cent., and was replaced by
the military system of Themes. In the later
Byzantine authors much confusion and ignorance
is shown in regard to the divisions of Phrygia.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in his treatise ' de
Thematibus, defines the extent of Salutaris in a
thoroughly erroneous way. Cinnamus (p. 198)
speaks of Laodicea ad Lycum as on the border of
Little Phrygia. Ducas gives the name Great
Phrygia to part of the region of Hellespontus
(from Assos to the Hellespont), calling it also Low
Phrygia: he does not speak of Little Phrygia or
of High Phrygia, but apparently he must have
treated those names as equivalent, and including
both Pacatiana and Salutaris (as Cinnamus evi-
dently does), which he sums up as ‘all Phrygia’
(see pp. 18, 72). Cedrenus (ii. p. 69), and Nicetas
Chon. (p. 68) speak of High Phrygia as evidently
including both Pacatiana and Salutaris. In those
writers the names are prompted rather by inac-
curate antiquarian memory than by real survival
of the names in popular usage (see Ramsay, Hés-
torical Geography of Asia Minor, pp. 150-153).

11. PuryGiA IN PAULINE GEOGRAPHY. —This
long enumeration of vicissitudes and changes
shows how slow one must be in making asser-
tions as to the meaning of the name Phrygia
in any ancient writer, and how carefully the
situation and the context must be studied.
Accordingly, when in a writer of the Ist cent.
we find the statement that a traveller crossed
Phrygia, we must not assume forthwith that
a journey across Phrygia Asiana is meant. The
term Phrygia is employed freely in inscriptions
of that period, found in the country outside of it,
in the sense of Phrygia Galatica ; and a writer
who follows as a rule local expression may have
used this term Phrygia in the same way as local
inscriptions do. In such a case we must examine
the context to see which division of Phrygia is to
be understood. Now in Ac 16° Paul is stated to
have traversed the region of Phrygia.* What
part of Phrygia did he traverse? The situation
makes thisclear. Paul in his journey had reached
Lystra.| He now went on through Phrygia. [015
beyond doubt that the part of Phrygia through
which he must go immediately on leaving Lystra
was Galatie Phrygia, which began only a very
few miles north ot Lystra. Moreover, Paul had
started on this journey with the deliberate inten-
tion of visiting two cities of Galatic Phrygia,
Iconium and Antioch; and as we now see, geo-
graphy makes it clear that he could not possibly
proceed onwards from Lystra without going
through TIconium and through part of Galatic
Phrygia.t

*It is immaterial to the geogr. import whether #2vz/ey in
that passage is to be taken as a noun or (what we think right)
as an adjective connected with the following χώραν.

t Some say Iconium; but we cannot consider that Ac 162
implies that Paul has reached Iconium, for he is still in Lystra
in 168. Ac16land 166 give the successive stages of travel. This,
too, hardly touches the geogr. import. ,

1 This is even clearer on the North-Galatian than on the
South-Galatian theory. If Paul were going from Lystra to
North Galatia, he must proceed first to Iconium in Galatic
Phrygia ; and if he were in Iconium, he must go on through part
of that country. It may, on that theory, be maintained that
Paul went on through Asian Phrygia afterwards ; but it mast
be admitted that he first went through Galatic Phrygia.

866 PHRYGIA

PHRYGIA

Moreover, if a writer of that period desired to
be thoroughly clear, he ought to add some ex-
pression or epithet to show which part of Phrygia
he meant. But this is exactly what Luke does
in Ac 16°. He adds the adjective ‘Galatic’ to
show that he means ‘Galatie Phrygia.’ It is
unfortunate that both AV and RV confuse the
expression, and render the Greek adjective by the
noun * Galatia.’ Luke never speaks of ‘Galatia’ ;
because, like most Greeks, he disliked calling the
province by that name, and preferred the expression
‘Galatic province or region’ (as used in C74 3991).

If Luke had used the noun Phrygia in this place,
he would have simply appended the adjective and
called the country traversed by Paul ‘Galatic
Phrygia,’ the term quoted above. But he desireil
to be minutely and pragmatically accurate ; and
(as is sometimes the case in ancient writers *) in
his desire to exclude all possibility of mistake he
employed a more cumbrous expression, which be-
comes Obscure to us through our ignorance of the
nomenclature of that little known region. A
custom existed of designating the various districts
included in the vast province GALATIA t as χῶραι
or regions; 6.5. the Isaurican region (Strabo, γ.
568 f.), the Antiochian region (at this time a

kingdom governed by Antiochus, but afterwards
Luke follows |

incorporated, see Ptolemy, v. 6. 17).
this custom: he thinks of ‘the Phrygian region,’
and adds the adjective ‘Galatic,’ calling it ‘the
region (which is at once) Phrygian and Galatic,’ t
i.e. the country which ethnologically and accord-
ing to native Greek expression is Phrygian, while
politically and according to Roman provincial
classification 1015 Galatic (τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Vadarixhy
χώραν). Lightfoot was the first to see and to state
clearly the right and necessary construction of
this expression, and subsequent discussion has
failed to shake his decisive argument ; but, while
he correctly translated it, he failed (owing to the
obscurity in which central Asia Minor was then
enveloped) to see the right geographical applica-
tion.

The interpretation of Ac 16° affects that of 1823;
and on that account Luke expresses his meaning
more briefly in the second passage. In that pas-
sage, as Dr. Hort says (Lectures on Colossians
and Ephesians, p. 82), ‘he followed his old course
(4c. as in ch. 16) through southern Asia Minor,
and this time was allowed to follow it right on to
Ephesus,” instead of being stopped and turned
away north, as in 16°. He passed now through ‘the
region of Galatia and Phrygia,’ as it is rendered
in RV (τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν). These
words are applied to a more extended journey
than those of 16°, for in 183 the journey through
Derbe and Lystra is included, whereas 16% begins
from Lystra, and includes only the subsequent
journey. The difference of order of the words is
Important τ in 16° two epithets are attached to one
noun which follows them, whereas in 18”? an epithet
with its noun is connected by καί with a following
epithet (or noun),§ and the second epithet (with
the preceding noun repeated in thought) indicates
a second region (this order in enumerating a list is
common in Greek). || Two interpretations of the
words have been suggested —

1. Φρυγίαν is to be interpreted as a noun, and

* An instructive example is mentioned by Mommsen (Res
Geste D. Aug.. Pp. 38), ‘precipuam curam ducens sensum
anny quam apertissime exprimere nec dubitans gratic aliquid
detrahere ut vitaret obscuritatem (Sueton. Aug. 86), ut fit, ipso
nimio ambiguitatis vitandz studio incidit in ambiguitatem !’

t See above, p. 864, and vol. ii. p. 87.

t The idiomatic English is ‘the Phrygian or Galatic Region,’
see li. p. 90, and Classical Review, 1898, p. 337.

§ Epithet or noun, according as we take Φρυγίαν as adjective
oras noun; see next sentence.

! Examples are given in vol. ii. Ῥ. 90, τὸς Ναβατικῆ; χώρας καὶ
᾿Ιτουραίᾳς καὶ Μωαβίτιδος καὶ ᾿Αρηλήτιδος, etc.

indicates the country Phrygia, both Asian and
Galatic ; Luke may be supposed to use Φρυγία χώρα
in 16° to indicate Phrygia as ἃ region of the
Galatic province, and Φρυγία the noun in 182 to
indicate the country Phrygia as a single concep-
tion independent of Roman provincial divisions.
Then τὴν Vararixiy χώραν would indicate ‘the Galatic
region’ in the sense of the province like Ταλατικὴ
ἐπάρχεια in the Iconian inscription of A.D. 54-55,
C1G 3991. Luke would, on this theory, say that
Paul traversed the Galatie province and Phrygia
(the country). There is a certain simplicity in
this view which recommends it; yet tor many
reasons we are obliged to reject it. The following
arrangement seems conclusive. St. Paul, as he
traversed the region of Galatia and Phrygia in
order, stablished all the disciples: there were
disciples in both the region of Galatia and in
Phrygia, so that throughout both regions he
passed from Chureh to Church. Now we know
positively that he had as yet no Churches in any
part of Phrygia except Galatie Phrygia. More-
over, the’ remarkable reading of the Bezan text
Ac 19! shows clearly that its originator (whether
Luke himself, as Prof. Blass and his supporters
hold, or a 2nd cent. reviser, as seems more prob-
able) considered Paul to have arrived αὖ the
borders of Asia in 18”, and then, after completing
his survey of his Churches, to have begun to return
to Jerusalem, when the Spirit bade him turn back
again into Asia (i.e. the province Asia), the higher
parts of which he traversed, and so, finally, came
to Ephesus.

We must therefore adopt the following inter-
pretation :—

2. Φρυγίαν is an adjective, being the briefer de-
scription of the same region which in 16° is called
with pragmatical iminuteness τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Tada-
τικὴν χώραν. Luke would on this theory say, ‘ Paul
traversed the Galatic region and the Phrygian.’
Now, in truth, Paul did traverse two regions of
the vast Galatian province, one Lycaonia con-
taining the cities Derbe and Lystra, the other
Phrygia with the cities Iconium and Antioch.*
The one real difficulty is this: could Roman
Lycaonia be called simply ‘the Galatie region’?
The phrase can be explained and defended only
on the supposition that the speaker conceives
himself standing or travelling in Lycaonia:
Lycaonia consisted of two parts, Roman or Galatic
and non-Roman or Antiochian (under king Anti-
ochus): Ptolemy tells us that the latter was called
᾿Αντιοχιανὴ (χώρα), and the corresponding term for
the other part necessarily would be Vadarixi
χώρα : the inhabitants of Lycaonia would describe
the two divisions of his country by those terms.
This explanation may seem rather complicated,
but the complexity is due to the real complexity
of the divisions at the time. As we see, it is the
expression of one who feels himself standing in the
country, ὅ.6. it must be regarded as the expression
used by St. Paul the actual traveller, and caught
from his mouth by the listener Luke.

The system of dividing Phrygia into High and
Low is probably referred to in Ac 191, though the
name of the country is not actually mentioned.
The journey described in 18", as we have just
seen, carried St. Paul over ground which he had
previously traversed and cities where there were
already disciples ; but there still remained a long
stretch of country between him and his goal in
Ephesus, viz. the whole breadth of the large
province Asia. The journey is resumed in 19',
where St. Paul is said to have traversed the
higher parts (τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη. The term ἄνω
is often used in Greek to indicate simply the

* Compare the precise and clear definition of 1823 by Aster‘us
about A.D. 400, quoted in vol. ii. p. 91.

PHRYGIA

PHRYGIA 867

inner country as distinguished from the coast ; ἢ
but this distinction seems not in harmony with
Luke’s narrative: it is of no consequence to him
to distinguish coast and interior: moreover, most
of the previous part of the journey was over the
high ground of the interior. Here we want some
expression suitable specially to describe the part
of Asia which he traversed. The word ἀνωτερικύς
is ἃ rare one, and seems chosen in order to suggest
a contrast with certain lower parts;{ in other
words, the meaning is that St. Paul avoided the
route through Lower Phrygia, and traversed Higher
Phrygia (according to the distinction mentioned
above, § 1). This distinction was important :
Luke had a definite purpose in delining the part
of Phrygia which St. Paul traversed. He makes
it clear that the apostle did not follow the longer
and easier trade-route by Apamea, Lake Anava,
Colossie, and Laodicea (which led through Lower
Phrygia, see above, p. 864), but took the other more
direct road (less suitable for wheeled traffic, but
better fer walking travellers) across High Phrygia,
keeping very near a straight line from Metropolis
to Ephesus. ¢ That was a point of some importance,
for Paul mentions that he had never seen the
Churches of Colosse or Laodicea, which therefore
must have been founded by some of his coadjutors
(perhaps Timothy).

ἘΠ. Purycra IN Acts 2”.—Phrygia is also
mentioned in Ae 2! in the list of places whence
came the Jews and proselytes who were pre-
sent in Jerusalem at the Feast of Pentecost
shortly after the Crucifixion—‘ dwellers in Meso-
potamia, and in Judeag and Cappadocia, in
Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in
Keypt,’ ete. This remarkable list is an insoluble
puzzle. It is made on no discoverable principle,
either as regards the order of enumeration or as
revards the districts mentioned and omitted. The
only certain fact about it is that it is quite
different in style from the original work of the
author of Acts, and must have been derived by him
from the earlier authority, or authorities, to whom
he owed the narrative of the events described
inch. 2. Some districts where Jews were numer-
ous, and which are certain to have had represen-
tatives at Jerusalem, such as Cilicia, are omitted.
The names, as a rule, are those of countries, not of
Roman proyinces; yet Asia is mentioned; this
name must denote either the Roman province or
a much larger region (sce LypIA); in the former
case it would include Phrygia Asiana, in the latter
ease it would include all Phrygia, both Asiana
and Galatica, together with Pamplhylia. |

The most probable view is that Asia in this
eee means the province (a Roman province
veing named in this one case, because the name
had already established itself in popular Greek
nomenclature) ; and Phrygia is named in addition,
partly because it was inhabited by such large
numbers of Jews (see below, § V.), partly because
Phrygia Galatica, which contained very many

* ἄνω is used always in that sense, not ἀνωτερικές.

t ἀνωτερικές (except in passages dependent on Ac 191) is used
only by medical writers, Hippocrates and Galen (if we may
depend on Steph. Thesaurus on this matter). Hobart (Medical
Language of St. Luke, p. 148) does not fail to observe the con-
firmation which this word gives to his views.

{ The Church in the Loman Empire before 170, second or
later editions, p. 94, note.

ὁ The name Juda is suspected by Blass, who would sub-
stitute on Jerome’s authority Syria. It is, of course, not in
harmony with the context ; but, in a list which is as a whole
ee ule it is vain to carp at one incomprehensible

|| Pontus and Cappadocia may be regarded as the external
boundaries of ‘ Asia,’ taking that term in the sense described
in a very difficult passage, Pliny (Nat. Hist. v. 28), where it is
said that ‘ Asia,’ if its two parts are taken together, extended
from the Hgean and Egyptian and Pamphylian Seas to Paphla-
ety and Pontus: on the meaning, see Studia Biblica, iv.
ΠΣ ΠΝ

Jews, was not included in the province Asia.
Similarly, the Lugdunensian Christians wrote
to τοῖς ἐπ᾽ ᾿Ασίας καὶ Φρυγίας ἀδελφοῖς, for they
desired to include in their address the important
Churches of Iconium, Antioch, and probably
several in Galatic Phrygia of later foundation
(which were not in Asia). On this address, prob-
ably, Tertullian models his expression (adv. Praz.
1) ‘pacem ecclestis Asie et Phrygia inferentem?
There can be no doubt that the Churches of
Phrygia Galatica were as important in the 2nd
cent. Christianity, as its Jews were in the Jewish
world.

IV. CHRISTIANITY IN PHryGIA. — Christianity
was introduced into Phrygia Galatica by Paul and
Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Ac 13.
14). Paul revisited, confirmed, and strenethened
them (Ac 16° 18%). Considering how much space
the author of Acts assigns to the account of the
formation of these Churches (along with the two
Lycaonian Churches), and considering how often
Paul visited and consolidated them, we must. see
that they were regarded as being highly important
in the early Church.

Phrygia Asiana was traversed at least twice by
St. Paul. On his second journey, accompanied
by Silas and Timothy, he went from Pisidian
Antioch northwards through the country to near
the Bithynian frontier (probably to about Dory-
laion, over against Mysia), and then westwards
into Mysia and the Troad.* Paul was on that
journey forbidden to preach in [the province] Asia,
so that he cannot have founded any Churches in
Asian Phrygia (though, perhaps, we need not
interpret the prohibition so strictly as to suppose
that he was bound to keep silence absolutely about
the gospel on the journey to the Troad: probably
the command only unphed that he was not to make
Asia his sphere of work). On the third journey
St. Paul traversed Phrygia Asiana from east to
west on a line between Antioch and Ephesus (see
above). He probably preached on the journey ; but
there is no sign of any success; and he was evi-
dently eager to go to Ephesus, and make it the
centre for the whole province. Thus in all prob-
ability the earliest Churches in Phrygia Asiana
were those of the Lycus valley, Colossee, Laodicea,
Hierapolis, founded through the work of his assist-
ants and subordinates (probably ‘Timothy in par-
ticular), while he was in Ephesus.

According to tradition of somewhat uncertain
value, the Lycus valley was afterwards the scene
of missionary work by St. John the apostle and
by St. Philip (probably the apostle, though several
authorities, especially the later, say he was the
deacon). Archippus of Colossie, the ‘ fellow-soldier’
of St. Paul (Philem 3), was said to have been the
first bishop of Laodicea (probably a recollection
of his ‘ministry, διακονία, in the Lord,’ Col 417),
and to have been martyred at Chon (ἐ.6. the
later Byzantine representative of Colossa); and
Nymphas or Nympha Laodicensis is coupled as an
apostle with Eubulus of Rome in the Greek
Mena, and commemorated on 28th February :
cf. Col 415. Heros is said to have been appointed
bishop of Hierapolis by St. Philip, Epaphras of
Colossee by St. Paul. These traditions, hardly
trustworthy in themselves, are at least evidence
that the Lycus valley was the scene of steady and
progressive work in the second half of the Ist
century. That work was certainly not confined
to the valley, but spread up, doubtless, east and
north into Phrygia, and perhaps south towards
Cibyra, so that LAODICEA must be taken as the
centre and representative of a number of young

* The North-Galatian theory would lengthen the westward

journey across Phrygia Asiana, and shorten the northward
journey by diverting the route from that country into Galatia.

868 PHRYGIA

PHRYGIA

Churches (as well as those in Colosse and Hier-
apolis; see above, p. 8315). Papias and Apol-
linaris, the great bishops of Hierapolis, Sagaris
the bishop and martyr of Laodicea, are evidence
of the importance of the Lycus valley in Christian
history during the 2nd century.

If Laodicex was such a centre of Christian in-
fluence, so also we may be sure were Pisidian
Antioch and Iconinm, A trace of this work may
be observed in the tradition that Bartholomew was
the apostle of the Lycaones. It has been pointed
out* that this must mean, not the people of
Lycaonia, whose apostles were Paul and Barnabas,
but the tribe of the Lycaones in central Phrygia,
west and north-west of Synnada. But far more
important and trustworthy evidence is furnished
by the Christian inscriptions of Phrygia, which
are collected for the central and south-western
districts in Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, pt.
ii. chs. xii. xviit The earliest is the famous
epitaph of Avircius Marcellus, presbyter or bishop t
of the less famous Hieropolis or Hicrapolis in the
Glaukos valley about A.D. 192. This document
mentions St. Paul in such a way as to sugeest
that he was regarded with special respect in that
district, probably owing to its havine been first
evangelized by his immediate followers and
ministers.

The inscriptions fall into three local groups,
differing widely in character. One has its chief
centre in Eumenea and Apamea, and probably
resulted from the influence of the Lycus valley
Churches ; one is strong in the extreme south-east
of Phrygia (and in the adjoining northern part of
Lycaonia), and evidently sprang trom the influence
of Iconium and Antioch; the third is seen in the
north of Phrygia in the valley of the Tembris or
Tembrogius, and seems connected with the Chris-
tianity of the Troad (2 Co 913),8 spreading up
through Mysia and the province Bithynia. ΑἹ]
three theretore seem traceable to a Pauline source.
The inscriptions of the third group are more akin
to the Montanist type, and those of the first. to
the Orthodox type,) while those of the second are
mostly indiflerent, but contain occasional examples
like both other classes. The inscriptions of
the first two groups throw considerable light on
the Christians of the 3rd cent. Already during
the 2nd cent., in the Montanist controversy,
Phrygia stands out rather as a country where
Christians are contending with Christians, than
one where missionaries are trying to convert
pagans ; and the inscriptions of the 3rd cent. set
before us Eumenea as a city which was mainly
Christian in the period 250-300, in fact as the
first Christian city (one may say with great. con-
fidence); and, further, they show probably that
the prosperity of Eumenea died about the be-
ginning of the 4th cent. Now Eusebius and
Lactantius mentioned that a city of Phrygia,
whose population was wholly Christian, was de-
stroyed by fire in the persecution of Diocletian,
A.D. 301-312; and, though there are some slight
discrepancies in details between their statements

* Cities and Bishoprics of I hrygia, pt. ii. p. 709. See also
Poxtus, and Lipsius, A poer. A post. ii. 2, 55 ff.

t The other districts will be treated in pt. iii. See Cumont’s
very imperfect list (Mél. @ Arch. et W@ Hist. 1895).

t He is addressed by a friend as co-presbyter (cuurpecBirepos),
which may be used of a bishop.

§ Perhaps also with Ac 168, according to a tradition that
can be traced in the interior of Mysia during the 4th or 5th
cent. (see Acta δ΄. Phileteri, 19th May; and Expositor, Oct.
1888, p. 264). This tradition perhaps led to the Bezan text
in Ac 167 διελθέντε: for roeperberees ; and, if so, the tradition
must be as oid as the 2nd cent. (implying that the statement
that Mysia was ‘neglected,’ or ‘passed by,’ was regarded at
that early date as incorrect in the quarters where the Bezan
text originated).

|| But ove case at least of the most marked northern type
decurs, Cities and Bishoprics, ii. No. 393.

and probably some exaggeration in the sweeping
conclusion, yet the general truth cannot reasonably
be doubted ; and the coincidence with Eumenian
history is so striking that the statements may
with the highest probability be applied to it.
Apamea, its neighbour and fellow in Christian
history, also scems to have sunk in importance
to an extraordinary degree about the same time.
On the very remarkable type of Christianity de-
veloped in those cities, see the full discussion in
Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, eh. xii.

Christianity did ποῦ spread uniformly over
Phrygia. The three local groups ef inscriptions
are separated by a large district, where the new
religion seems not to have grown so strong until
the time of Constantine.* The Phrygian martyrs
who are known by name almost all belong to the
period before A.b. 184 (see Neumann’s list in der
vom. Staat und die allgemeine Kirche, p. 283).
When Christianity was so strong, the Roman
theoretical principle, that Christians should be
treated as outlaws, was diflicult to carry out; for
a formal accusation by an overt prosecutor was
ordinarily required, and it would be difficult. to
find private persons ready to ineur the hatred of
a united and energetic body like the Christians.
But in Diocletian’s persecution the government
hunted down the Christians, and employed soldiers
and officials for that special purpose ; ‘and in such
a time the cities where Christians were most
numerous would suffer most. Even in Diocletian’s
time individual Phrygian martyrs’ were little re-
membered, but only the general faets that whole
communities and one entire city were destroyed.

Considering at how early a date Christianity

was diffused over large parts of Phrygia, it may
seem strange that the ecclesiastical system was
so backward there during the 4th cent., except
in Galatic Phrygia, where the list of bishoprics
‘an be traced almost complete during that cen-
tury.t The reason lies in two noteworthy facts,
In the first place, Phrygia was the country where
above all others, heresy was strongest; but the
ecclesiastical lists are of the Orthodox Church.
Thus, for example, Kotiaion was a great seat of
Christianity in the 3rd cent., and so was the
country of the Praipenisseis. Yet neither can be
traced in the lists earlier than the 5th cent. The
reason is, undoubtedly, that the Orthodox Church
had little hold there. We know of either bishops
or presbyters at Otrous and Hierapolis in the 2nd
cent.; but in the. ecclesiastical lists those two
cities appear only in the 5th cent. In the second
place, Phrygia was regarded by the orthodox
writers as rude and uneducated,t because the
organization and equipment of the Orthodox
Church were in a backward state there. Chris-
tianity was so strong in certain parts of Phrygia
that the persecution of Diocletian raged there on
a vast scale, and almost annihilated people and
civilization and organization.

V. THE JEWs IN PHRYGIA.—The position and
history of the Jews in Phrygia is another large sub-
ject, which throws much light on the narrative of
Acts and on the rapid spread of Christianity in the
country. The Jews were much favoured by the
Seleucid kings, as trustworthy colonists in the many
cities which they founded to maintain their empire
in Asia Minor, especially along the routes leading
from their capital at Syrian Antioch through Cilicia
and Lycaonia into Southern Phrygia § and Lydia.

* On the evidence, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii. p. 715;
also p. 501.

+ Galatic Phrygia is part of Pisidia in the lists. Those
Pisidian bishoprics which can first be traced in the 5th cent.
or later were in the mountainous and backward districts.

1 See, for example, Acta S. Hypatii, 17 June, iv. 249.

§ Northern Phrygia and Galatia, which were little or not at
all under Seleucid power, shared very little in these settle

—a αι

PHRYGIA

PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS 869

Seleucus Nikator (B.C. 301-280) granted them the
highest class of rights, equal to those of Mace-
donian and Greek settlers, in all his colonies ; and
his suecessors maintained the privileges of the
Jews. Various privileges were conceded to their
religious scruples: the entire body of regulations
euaranteeing their rights and privileges seems to
have remained permanently in force in the cities,
and is appeaied to as ‘the law of the Jews’ in an
inscription of Apamea as late as the 3rd cent.
after Christ.* By one single act Antiochus the
Great ordered 2000 Jewish families to be brought
from Babylonia and settled in the strong places
of Lydia and Phrygia about B.c. 200. When such
a course of action lasted for fully a century, it 15
plain what large numbers of Jews must have been
settled in Phrygia, Lycaonia, ete.

These considerations explain how Flacecus, the
Roman governor of Asia in B.C. 62, could seize
100 pounds weight of gold at Apamea, and 20 at
Laodicea, being contributions from the Jews of
Phrygia on the point of being sent up to Jeru-
salem. "These large sums, of course, represented

the contributions of great districts, and not simply |

of the two cities. They are calculated by M. Th.

teinach as together equivalent to 100,000 drachme,
being the contributions of 50,000 people paying
two drachme annually.

According to Dr. Neubauer (Géographie du
Talmud, p. 315), these Jews had to a considerable
extent lost connexion with their country and for-
votten their language; the baths and wines of
Phrygia had separated the Ten Tribes from their
brethren, as the Talmud expresses it; they were
readily converted to Christianity ; and the Talmud
alludes to the numerous converts. These opinions
have been strongly confirmed by epigraphic dis-
covery. The Phrygian Jews were strongly affected
by their surroundings, and were ready to comply,
at least outwardly, with many pagan customs,
and especially with the forms of the imperial
religion, regarded as the test of loya!ty to the
Roman empire. They probably were often in-
clined to magic and forbidden arts (see THYATIRA
and Ac 19"). Their frequent tendency to amal-
vamate Jewish and pagan ideas in an eclectic

philosophical system is illustrated at Colosse (see _

the Epistle). A Jewess married to a Greek and
having an uncircumcised son is mentioned at
Lystra (Ac 16%*). At the same time there can
be no doubt that the Phrygian Jews as a body
preserved much of the old Jewish character, and
presented in society a much higher and purer
moral tone than the pagans; and it was this

‘ tianized of countries.

character that gave them great influence and |

attracted numerous proselytes. On
their existence was not hostile, but favourable,
to Christianity. Luke emphasizes every instance
of their opposition, but he shows clearly that there
was another side to the question: the Jews of
Pisidian Antioch were opposed to Paul’s placing
the Gentiles on an equality with themselves (Ac
13%), but not so much to his doctrines: a great
multitude of Jews at Lconium believed, The
Jewish and the Christian inscriptions melt into
one: another in Phrygia, so that it is often difh-
cult to draw a line of distinction. The Phrygian
Christians were strongly inclined to Judaism.
ivery heresy in Phrygia tended to become Juda-

istic. Novatianism, which seems to have been
ments. The Jews of North Galatia were probably all late

immigrants from Phrygia, etc.

* Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, pt. ii. No. 399 bis ; see
also ch. xv. on ‘The Jews in Phrygia.’

+ Textes Relatifs au Judaisme, p. 240. He thinks they must
represent several years’ contribution; but as the two cities
stand for all Asian Phrygia and great part of Lydia, it seems
not at all impossible that they are the contribution of one year.
Adramyttium and Pergamum are the only other two places
where Flaccus is said to have seized Jewish money.

the whole |

quite free from any Judaizing character in the
West, became strongly tinged with it in Phrygia.
The Phrygians regarded the I4th day of Nisan as
the great religious day, and seem to have called
the festival Azyma, the Unleavened. There is
every appearance that the reconciliation between
Christians and Jews, which was one great aim of
St. Paul’s work, was attained far more thoroughly
in Phrygia than elsewhere.

Early Phrygian Judaic Christianity thus pre-
sents a very remarkable character, which stands
in the closest relation with the Pauline Epistles.
Its development was arrested by the terrible per-
secution of Diocletian, which seems to have raged
with special fury in that most thoroughly Chris-
As Eumenea was the most
thoroughly Christian city, so Apamca was the
most strongly Jewish; and they (so far as we
can judge) were the greatest sufferers (certainly
very severe sufferers) under Diocletian.

W. ΜΝ. RAMSAY.

PHYGELUS (Φύγελλος, WH Piyedos). —Mentioned
in 2 Ti 115 along with HERMOGENES (wh. see) as
among those in Asia who turned away from St.
Paul during his last imprisonment in Rome. The
phrase ‘all they which are in Asia,’ proconsular
Asia that is, must be qualified in some way, known
doubtless to Timothy, and may perhaps be best
taken to mean, ‘All whose help 1 asked’ (cf.
2 Ti 41%). We cannot tell what Phygelus refused
to do, nor can we aflirm with certainty that
apostasy or declension from the faith is implied.
Possibly he was asked to go to Rome to use some
influence he had on the apostle’s behalf, and re-
fused to admit that St. Paul had any such claims
on him. The forcible language used makes it
probable, however, that Phygelus was guilty of
something worse than merely neglecting to vis.t
the apostle in his imprisonment. W. Muir.

PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS.— Philactery—

so first in the Genevan Bible, 1557, in earlier versions

filateris (Wyclif) and philateries (Tindale, ete.)—

comes to us through the Vulgate from the Greek
φυλακτήριον. In the Greek of the Ist cent. A.D. this
word signified an amulet or charm, which possessed
the property of protecting (φυλάσσειν) * the wearer
against aval spirits and similar malign influences.
Among favourite charms were slips of parchment,
written over with a magical spell and placed in a
case which was hung round the neck, hence also
called περίαπτον, περίαμμα, Synonyms of φυλακτήριον.

In His great anti-Pharisaic discourse (Mt 28! ),
our Lord charges the scribes and Pharisees with
ostentation in the discharge of their religious and
social duties, ‘for they make broad their phylac-
teries (πλατύνουσι yap τὰ φυλακτήρια αὐτῶν), and en-
large the borders of their garments (for which see
FRINGES in vol. ii. 68 ff), and love the chief places
at feasts,’ etc. (Mt 23°" RV). Now there has never
been any doubt that the author of the first Gospel
here uses φυλακτήρια, Which is not found elsewhere
in the NT, as the equivflent of the contemporary
Hebrew word yen, téphillin (plur. of aren “8
prayer’), the name then, and by the Jews still,
eiven to two small cases of leather, to be described
in the sequel, which were worn by the more ardent
legalists of the time, one upon the forehead and
the other upon the left arm. This practice, very
considerably curtailed, however, is still regarded
as one of the most sacred of religious duties by
orthodox Jews of the present day (cf. opening
paragraph of art. FRINGES).

In this article it is proposed to investigate the
origin, history, and significance of the phylacteries,

* The perverted derivation still met with in some quarters
from φυλάσσειν (τὸν vemov), as if φυλακτήρια =observatoria, is now
entirely abandoned by scholars.

810 PifYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS

PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS

and for this purpose, on the principle of proceed-
ing from the more familiar to the less, we shall
exalinine—

. The practice of modern orthodox Judaism :

di. The alleged Scripture warrant for this practice ;

ul. The date of the introduction of the phylacteries ;

iv. The manner and extent of the practice in NT times.

—e

i, THE PRACTICE OF MODERN ORTHODOX JUDA-
IsM.—Every male Israelite above the age ef
thirteen years is required to ‘lay (t20>, Mishna,
Shebu. iil. 8, 11, ete.) the ¢éphillin’—to use the
technical expression — at daily morning prayer.
To this extent the use of the phylacteries has
been curtailed since NT times (see ὃ iv. below).
The téphillin or phylacteries are two in number,
known since the ‘earliest. times as the head-
phylactery (v5 $y a>en) and the hand-phylactery
(7; 28m), and consist of two cubical leather boxes
or Cases, varying in size from 4 to 14 in. in thie side.
The material is the prepared skin of a clean
animal which has been thoroughly soaked in pure
water. A cube-shaped wooden block (οὴϑῷ [τύπος]
Mishna, Χο. vi. 7) is employed to give the desired
shape and size. To form’ the head-phylactery,
three deep incisions (πὴν 30) are made in the block,
and the moist parchment spread over it and in-
serted into the incisions. When the material has
dried and hardened the block is removed, and a
leather case of four compartments, technically
‘houses’ (8:55), is the result. Before this, how-
ever, two shins (9) have been impressed on the
soft leather, one with the ordinary three prongs
on the outer wall of the bayith, which, when the
phylactery is complete, will be to the right of the
wearer, and another with four prongs on the
outer wall to the left. his fourfold case is now
fitted with a leather brim, and into each ‘house’?
is inserted a slip of specially prepared parchment
(772 Shabb. viii. 3), having written on it, in a
special caligraphy, one of the Scripture passages
to be cited presently, and each bound round with
a few white hairs of a calf or cow. A firm base is
supplied by a square piece of thick leather, con-
nected by a flap with the brim, and sewed to the
latter by means of twelve stitches (representing
the twelve tribes) of clean gut. The four passages
of Scripture above mentioned are those which the
Jews have always regarded as constituting their
warrant for the use of the phylacteries (see ii.
below), viz. Ex 131-10 [ZH Dt 6ee Τὸν They
are inserted in the four compartments in the order
represented by the diagram—

ὧν
NY =

Φ

ἊΝ

τ

(right)

x
Dt 6*°9
Dt 1112-21

The hand-phylactery is shaped on a similar
block without incisions, and consists of a single
compartment (mz ddyith) with plain walls, fitted
with brim, base, and flap as before. ‘The same
four passages are written in four parallel columns
on a single piece of parchment, and inserted in the
bayith. Both phylacteries, coloured a deep black,
are kept in position by leather straps (nis3s9 Yad.
ili. 3), which are passed through the flaps. Both
straps are of considerable length, and blackened on
the upperside. The head-phylactery is fitted to the
wearer's head by having its strap tied at the back
of the head into a knot (7p), of the shape of a
daleth (4). One end of the other strap, after
being passed through the flap of its phylactery,

is formed into a noose by means of a knot of the
shape of a vod (%). The shin of the head-phylactery
together with these knots thus make up the letters
of the sacred name Shaddai (sz ‘ Almighty’), to
which a mystical significance is attached.

The phylacteries, as has been said, are now worn
daily at morning prayer, except on Sabbaths and
festival days, which, being themselves ‘signs,’
render the phylacteries unnecessary on those days.
After assuming the ¢adlith (see FRINGES), the
worshipper proceeds ‘to lay the téphillin’ The
hand-phylactery is laid first. Its position is the
inner side of the left arm, which must be bare,
just above the elbow, so that, when the arm is
bent the phylactery may rest ‘upon the heart’
(as commanded Dt 115). The Jone strap, which
passes through the noose, is drawn tight, and
wound three times round the arm above the
elbow, the worshipper pronouncing the following
benediction in Hebrew: ‘ Blessed. art Thou, Ὁ
Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast
sanctified us by Thy commandments, and hast
commanded us to lay the ¢éphillin’ The strap is
thereafter wound four times, then three times,
round the arm below the elbow, in such a manner
as to form a four-pronged and a three-pronged
shin respectively. At this point the head-phy-
lactery is placed in position, so that the case lies
in the middle of the forehead just touching the
hair, the two ends of the strap hanging down over
the shoulders in front, the following benediction
being meanwhile repeated: ‘Blessed art Thou,
O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast
sanctified us by Thy commandments, and hast
given us command concerning the precept of the
téphillin”* To this is added, when the adjust-
ment is completed ; ‘ Blessed be His name, whose
glorious kingdom is for ever and ever,’ Finally,
the remainder of the strap of the hand-phylactery
is wound three times round the middle finger, and
the following is said: ‘And I will betroth thee
unto Me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto
Me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in
loving-kindness, and in mercy: I will even betroth
thee unto Me in faithfulness ; and thou shalt
know the Lord’ (Hos 2), Prayers over, the
phylacteries are taken off in the reverse order,
the head-phylactery first, then the hand-phylac-
tery. We cannot here attempt to give even a
summary of the exceedingly numerous and minute
precepts which have been elaborated and codified
by the Jewish authorities regarding the prepara-
tion of the materials, the manner of writing, the
preservation and inspection, etc., of the téphillin
(see authorities named in the bibliography at end
of article).

li. THE ALLEGED SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY FOR
THE PHYLACTERIES.—The command to “ley the
téphillin’ is contained, the Jews maintain, in four
passages of the Pentateuch, viz. : Ex 139-16. Dt 68
115, It is of the utmost importance for our in-
vestigation to obtain an accurate and unprejudiced
exposition of these cardinal passages, which we
proceed to examine in their order. ᾿ ᾿

(a) The bulk of Ex 13 is made up of injunctions
regarding the perpetual observance of the Feast
of Unleavened Cakes or Mazzoth (vv.2-1°) and: of
the Dedication of the Firstborn (vee lie
former, we read, ‘shall be fora sign (mx ’¢th) unto
thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial (ἢ πὶ
sikkaron) between thine eyes, that the law of J’
may be in thy mouth : for with a strong hand hath
the Lord brought thee out of Egypt’ (v.%). Simi.

* On the slight variation in the form of these and similay
benedictions see Friedlinder, The Jewish Keligion, 1891, note,
p. 929 ἢ. ; to this excellent work the student is referred for an
exposition of the ‘sign’ of téphillin from the orthodox Jewish

standpoint. The renderings given above are from Singer's
edition of The Authorized Daily Prayer-Book, 1892, p. 16,

PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS

PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS 87]

larly with regard to the dedication of the first-
born, ‘it shall be for a sign (‘¢th, EV ‘token’)
upon thine hand, and for frontlets (nd3%s totaphith)
between thine eyes,’ ete. (v.18). Now these two
verses are so similar in their phraseology that no
sane expositor would hesitate to declare them to
be, in the writer's intention, completely identical.
The feast of Mazzoth and the dedication of the
firstborn shall alike serve as perpetual reminders
to the Hebrews of the Egyptian deliverance, and
of Js resulting claim upon them.

(b) In Dt 6% we read : ‘And these words, which
I command thee this day (the exact reference of
‘these words’ will be considered presently), shall
be in thine heart; and thow shalt teach (73%) *
them diligently unto thy children. . . . And thou
shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and
they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And
thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy
louse, and upon thy gates.’ In the second passage
from Dt (118°) this injunction is repeated with
only slight verbal changes (cf. 1118 ‘ye shall lay
these words upon your heart and upon your soul,’
with 6%). We have now before us the cardinal
passages on which has been based the ancient
Jewish custom of the phylacteries. Do they, we
must now ask, or do they not command and
sanction this custom? The answer is by no means
ΒΟ casy as may at first sight appear, for it is not
an affair of exegesis alone, but involves questions
of criticism and lexicology.

Thus we note that the language of the passage
Ex 13°15 presents a strong Deuteronomic colouring,
which has prevented our foremost crities t+ from
assigning it exclusively to J, with which source it
has also undoubted affinities. Only two alter-
natives are possible (cf. Wellh. Comp. ¢. Hexzat.8
74). Either we have here a section composed in
whole or in part by an editor of the Deuteronomic
school (so Kautzsch, Cornill, Bacon), or we have
one of several examples of the literary activity of
the writer (RIE) who united J and E into a single
work, and who must have belonged to ‘the circles
whenee Deuteronomy issued’ (Kkuenen, Heaat. $9
n. 4, 8 13 n. 29).t In either case the important
result follows, that we have to deal not with two
enactments, separated by a couple of centuries,
the earlier of which may possibly be understood in

‘a figurative and the later in a literal sense, but

with enactments of approximately the same age
and reflecting the same religious standpoint.

With regard, further, to the Deuteronomic pas-
sages (Dt 6%9 11.1.5. Ὁ} various critical ditticulties
sugvest themselves. Whence this unwonted and
almost verbatim repetition in the course of the
same address? Must we hold that in some of the
early copies of Dt the verses repeated stood in
ch. 6, in others with some variations in ch. 11, and
that our present text has inserted a harmonized
version of them in both places (so Steuernagel
in Nowack’s Handkommentar, 1898, p. 40)% Or
shall we, with the latest commentator (Bertholet
in Marti’s Kurzer Hand-Commentar, 1899, p. 36),
regard 118“! as an insertion which interrupts the
connexion between v.!7 and v.22? The strong adver-
sative with which v.22 opens in the original (ox "3
=‘but,’ not as EV ‘ fer’) certainly follows awk-
wardly on vwv.!*#!, which so far makes for the
latter view. The present writer, however, doubts
whether either passage is in its original place.
Dt 62, for example, which is parallel to 1171, looks
as if originally intended to form the continuation

* rw, only here in OT, appears to mean ‘to prick with a
sharp-pointed instrument,’ hence probably = tattoo (see below).

+ Except Dillmann ; but see his latest editor's view in Dill-
mann-Ryssel, Haodus, pp. 111, 141.

Ὁ For a conspectus of modern critical opinion regarding
EX 13316 gee Holzinger, Kinleit. in d. Hewat. 455f., and the
‘Tabellen’ accompanying that work.

of vv.%%; this would give the following corre-
spondences: 6% 8=1138, 67=111%, 69=11", Goa ies
Assuming that both passages are genuine, we
should thus have an impressive call to the con-
tinued observance of the provisions of the Deutero-
nomic code placed both at the beginning and the
close of the hortatory introduction in chs. 6-11.
In any case the characteristic Deuteronomic phrase,
‘these words which 1 command thee this day? /6°),
must have here, as it has everywhere else in chs.
5-11, a prospective reference to all the provisions of
the following code, and not merely to the two pre-
ceding verses, as the commentators suppose. ‘The
two pairs of passages, then, we have seen, are
alike in tone and intention, and that intention is
to impress upon those addressed the duty of per-
petual observance, in the one case (in Dt) of the
whole Torah, in the other (in Ex) of two particular
ordinances thereof. The whole and its parts should
be continually in their thoughts and on their lips,
and should form a never-failing subject for the
instruction of their youth.

When we proceed to a closer examination of the
special verses, Ex 13°18, Dt 6% 11}. it is very
evident, if our contention as to their authors’
motive is correct, that the language of these verses
is figurative throughout, as, indeed, is usually ad-
mitted for Exodus, but denied, or at least ques-
tioned, for Deuteronomy. But all figures of speech
in Hebrew, as in other tongues, are borrowed from
the common objects and processes of nature, or
from the familiar facts of human life. So it must
be in the case before us. Thus, as regards the
‘sien’ upon the hand, we have only to recall the
widespread practice, among all primitive races, of
tattooing or branding various parts of the body
with the name or symbol of the deity to whoni ene
wishes to dedicate one’s self, and whose protection
it is desired to secure (see CUTTINGSIN THE FLESIT
in vol. i. 538”). Such, doubtless, is the underlying
idea of the mark (mx) * of Cain, by which he was
placed under the special protection of J” (see esp.
Stade’s brilliant essay, ‘Das Kainzeichen,in ZA TIN,
1894, p. 9501. In this essay Stade has further
shown [p. 810 ff.] that jaz of Ex 13° is a synonym
of nix in this sense).t The forehead,—for such is
the meaning of ‘between the eyes’ in all our
passages,—even more than the hands and wrists,
was specially adapted for the reception of these
religious tokens, and is so used by the most widely
scattered savage and semi-savage races at the
present day. But even in the canonical and extra-
canonical literature of the Hebrews we find un-
doubted references to this practice. Thus we have
the young man who bore on his forehead some
mark or token that he belonged to the prophets of
J” (1 K 2041; see Stade, loc. ett. 314 f.; and kittel,
Handl:om. in loc.), Ezekiel’s cross (7 9*°) on the
foreheads of the faithful (cf. Rev 7% 141), the
‘token of destruction’ (σημεῖον τῆς ἀπωλείας) on
the forehead of the wicked (Ps-Sol 1519, οἵ. v.3),
while ‘the mark of the beast on hand or forehead ’
(Rev 13' 14% ete.) is familiar to all. These instances
more than suttice to give us a glimpse of the circle
of ideas which supplied the metaphors of the pas
sages we are considering. The ordinances of the
Torah were to serve the same purpose as these
στίγματα of the ancient cults; they were to be
outward and visible tokens of the Hebrews’ ailegi-
ance to J” their God, and of Js special propriety
in them.

In three of the cardinal passages, however (Ex
1315, Dt 68 11'8), for the zikkarén of Ex 13° there is

* These marks were called στίψαχτα by the Greeks (see Stade,
ut sup., and Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 266 ff.); cf. LXX Ly 1927f.
γράμματα στικτά.

{σῇ Nu 1638. 40 ( Heb. 17° 5), where mix and ‘031 are used
interchangeably.

872

PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS

PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS

substituted a word of uncertain signification, nbyin
totaphoth, EV ‘frontlets.’

The singular of this word appears as ΠΕΣ in post-biblical
Hebrew, and the n5nw of the MT should in all probability be
80 pointed.* In form it resembles 2313 for 2333, by reduplica-
tion from a root which must be either FDO or ἢ) (see Konig,
Lehrgeb. αι. i. ἃ 60, 6a). The latter form is generally preferred
on the strength of the Arab. γα, ‘to encircle,’ but the sense
‘fillet, head-band’ (so Ges. T'hes., Dillm., Driver, etc.) suits
neither the descriptive expression ‘ between thine eyes’ nor the
circle of ideas from which, we are convinced, the figure in the
text is borrowéd. The rendering téphillin of the Targuins is
merely a reflexion of the interpretation which had long been
current among the Jews (see below). The root ABD is therefore
to be preferred, but its significance can only be conjectured.
Several modern scholars favour a conjecture, first proposed by
Knobel, viz. ‘to strike,’ then ‘to make an incision,’ so that
totaphoth would thus also denote στίγματα (Klein, ‘ Die Tota-
photh nach Bibel und Tradition,’ in Jahrb. SJ. protest. Theologie,
Vii. (1881) p. 673; Siegtried-Stade, Lex. s.v.; Nowack, Heb.
Arch, i. 134). This conjecture, it may here be added, has the
support of the Peshitta in Dt 68 1118, where totaphoth is ren-
dered by riishmd, ‘a mark,’ +t which is also used to render
Ezekiel’s mark and the mark of the beast in Revelation.

In the absence, however, of all trace of the above signification
in the extant literature, it is more probable that we have in RED
a root akin to 03 ‘to drop,’ and actually found in this sense in
the Talmudic ἤΏΞῸ ‘to drip or drop’ (used of wine, oil, blood,
etc.) ; cf. the series ἘΜ, O17, O73, and Arab. hamhama, Ges.-
Kautzsch, Heb. Grammar, ὃ 30k.

nevis is thus akin to nay; ‘[ear-]drops’ (Je 825,
Is 3°), as is further confirmed by the rendering of
the Samaritan Targum pe», which must be ‘the
Aram. spo ‘a drop’ (of blood, ete.; see Levy, s.v.).
It prob, denoted a ‘drop,’ bead, or jewel worn as an
amulet,t i.e. as a true φυλακτήριον. In the Mishna,
Shabb. vi. 1, 5, tétépheth clearly sienifies a jewel
worn by Jewish women, attached to their head-
dress.§ The Deuteronomic authors, then, do not
shrink from the use of another bold metaphor to
express the thought that the commands of J”
shall be as constantly present to the thoughts
of His people, and as highly prized as the most
precious of jewels by their superstitious contem-
poraries.

The results of our investigations may now be
summed up. The passages in Ex and Df on which
the institution of the phylacteries is based cannot
be kept apart in such a way that the expressions
of Ex are to be taken Jiguratively but those of Dt
literally. The figurative interpretation of both
passages, further, is confirmed by such additional
considerations as the following: (a@) numerous
other expressions in the contexts are plainly
figures of speech ; such are the references to the
words of J” being in the mouth (Ex 13°, ef. Schoett-
gen’s remarks, Horw Heb. οὐ Lalmud., 194.) and in
the heart (Dt 6°), to the duty of impressing ( “τὸ
prick with a sharp instrument’) them upon the
children (67), and of laying them upon the heart and
the soul (1138, but see above, ὃ i., for an attempt to
do this literally) ; (4) similar expressions elsewhere
have never been taken otherwise than figuratively,
e.g. Dt 30%, Pr 3° (« bind them [kindness and truth]
upon thy neck, write them upon the tablet of thine
heart’), 1° 621 73, Jer 17! 3133 ete. ; (c) there is the
impossibility of carrying out the injunctions in
the literal sense when these refer to the whole
Deuteronomic code, as we saw to be the case even
in Dt 68,—a consideration, it may be added, which

*It should be noted that the Hebrew text has twice nd219
and once ΠΕ, never, as in the Samaritan Pentateuch, m5yy
with express plural termination. :

+ Which favours the singular pointing, as suggested above.

t It is well known that the practice of wearing jewellery in
the ears, nose, etc., had its origin in the desire to guard the
orifices of the body against the entrance of evil spirits (cf.
W. Rt. Smith, 2S1 433f.). As rings could not be inserted in
the eyelids as through the ear-lobes and nostrils, the same end
was secured by hanging a jewel ‘ between the eyes.’

ὁ Cf. the explanation of the Jerus. Gemara in Levy, s.v.,
ae worn in the place of the téphillin,’ i.e. on the fore-

ead.

effectually disposes of the strictly literal interpre-
tation of 61° (=11”),

ili. THE RISE OF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION
OF EX 151: ETC., AND THE DATE OF THE INTRO.
DUCTION OF THE PHYLACTERIES.—We have now
to inquire at what period of Jewish history the
literal interpretation of the four passages in ques-
tion took its rise. A strong presumption against
a date in the Exile, or even early in the post-
exilic period, is furnished by the fact that the
phylacteries are unknown to the Samaritan com-
munity (see Klein, doc. cit. 686 ἢ, ; Hamburger,
Realencycl. εἴ. Judenthums, ii. 1065). The Aramaic
form of the name tépAillin points unmistakably in
the same direction. An evident terminus a quo,
however, is supplied by the figurative passages
from Proverbs just cited. These are admittedly
echoes of the Deuteronomic teaching (see Driver,
LOT® 396), and it is incredible that a Jewish
writer would have so expressed himself, if the
literal interpretation of Dt 6° ete. already held
the field. Now the passages in questicn are all
contained in the later section of the book (Prior
which, if the earlier section (10 ff.) date from the
late Persian period, can hardly be earlier than
B.C, 300.* Even half a century later, 6. 250 B.¢.,—
the provisional date generally accepted for the
beginnings of the Alexandrian translation (LXX),
—the figurative interpretation was still accepted,
at least in Eeypt. This we see from the LXX
rendering of the erucial naz (καὶ ἀφάψεις αὐτὰ εἰς
σημεῖον ἐπὶ τῆς χειρύς σου, καὶ ἔσται ἀσάλευτον πρὸ
ὀφθαλμῶν σου, Dt 05) as something ‘immovably
fixed’ (ἀσάλευτον ; ef. Ac 2741, He 12°) before one’s
eyes, the unchanging subject of one’s thoughts.

The terminus ad quem is suggested by the
famous letter of the pseudo-Aristeas, who repre-
sents himself as having been instructed by Eleazar,
the then high priest at Jerusalem, in the institu-
tions of Moses. The latter, says Eleazar, in
addition to ‘the token of remembrance on our
garments (see FRINGES) and the texts (τὰ λόγια)
on doors and gates, commanded us expressly to
bind the sign on the hands also’ (καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χειρῶν
τὸ σημεῖον περιῆφθαι-- ον, “ Aristese Historia,’ in
De Bibliorum Textibus, p. xvii; Kautzse, Pseud-
epigraphen, ‘Der Brief ἃ. Aristeas,’ v.%*), an un-
mistakable reference to the hand-phylactery, but
to that only. Unfortunately the date of Aristeas
is still sub gudice. For various reasons we decline
to accept the early date, 6. 200 B.c., advocated by
Schiirer (H/JP τι. iii. 310), and incline to a date
early in the Ist cent. B.C. (ef. Wendland in Kautzsch,
op. cit.). We thus obtain a period of one hundred
and fifty years (B.C. 250-100), to which the intro-
duction of the plylacteries may confidently be
ascribed. Now it is more than a coincidence that
this is the period which witnessed the growth of
that more strict and literal observance of the
requirements of the Torah, which is associated
with the rise to power and influence of the sect of
the HASIDAANS (wh. see) and of their successors,
the Pharisees. The latter, we know, acquired
great influence under John Hyrcanus (B.C. 135-105),

*Toy in the International Critical Comm. says c. 250 B.c.
(‘ Proverbs,’ Introd. xxx); so, too, Wildeboer in Marti’s Παρὰ.
comm.

t For this term and the variant σάλευτον (of which Philo gives
an ingenious explanation, Opp. ii. 358), as also for the render-
ings of the later Greek versions, see Field, Origenis Hexapla, at
Ex 1316 and Dt 68.

t Have we here an indication that the head-phylactery was
of later introduction than the hand-phylactery ὃ The female
diviners of Ezekiel’s day were in the habit of binding amulets
(n'np3, EV ‘pillows,’ but understood in the former sense by
Ephraem Syrus, and the anonymous ‘ Hebrew’ who rendered the
word by φυλακτήρια, see ap. Field’s Hexapla, in loc.) on their
wrists, a practice which Hitzig regarded as the precursor of the
phylacteries (see the comm. on Ezk 1318f, and art. KERCHIEF).
The late W. R. Smith seems to have shared this view (Jour. of
Phiiology, xiii. 286).

PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS

PHYLACTERIES, FRONTLETS διὰ

imposing upon the people their views regarding
sacrifice, prayer, and worship generally (Jos. An.
Xvul. i. 3), and it may well be that among the
observances which the Pharisees then introduced
(see 7b, XIL. xvi. 2), and which were successively
abrogated by Hyreanus and reintroduced by
Alexandra (B.C. 78), the practice of ‘laying the
téphillin’? had a place. Our conclusion, then, is
that the introduction of the phylacteries may with
certainty be assigned to the period between B.C.
250 and 100, and conjecturally to the generation
embraced by the reigns of Simon the Hasmonwan
and his son John Hyreanus, viz. B.C, 140-105.

iv. THE PHYLACTERIES IN THE EARLY CEN-
TURIES A.D.—By the NT writers, as by Josephus
(Ant. IV. viii. 3) and by their contemporaries
generally, the phylacteries, like the use of the
Shéma’ (y2e') in the daily prayers (Schiirer, 1.
Il. ii. 77, S$4f.),—for both practices doubtless had
their rise in the same period and in the same
circles.—were regarded as dating from the days of
Moses. The practice was, of course, regarded as
having scriptural authority, but even the details
of the construction of the phylacteries were
ascribed to a special revelation te Moses (techini-
cally 99 azn azo7, for which see Hamburger,
Realencyel. 2nd Suppl. p. 109 11.). The following
details, gleaned from the Mishna,—which may be
taken as authoritative for the century ending A.D.
135, although in its present form of somewhat
later date,—may be given as illustrating the prac-
tice of orthodox Jewish circles in NT times, and
as showing, when compared with the details
already given in § i., how little change has been
introduced since the Ist cent. A.D. In the Mishna,
then, we find the same terms applied to the phy-
lacteries as at the present day, téphilla shel ro'sh
and ¢. shel yadh (for the latter also, more correctly,
sin by "mn ‘téphilla of the arm,’—Jikw. x. 3, 4).
The material was the same (οἴ. xxiii. 1); the
shape square, not round (Jegil. iv. 8). The head-
phylactery, sometimes spoken of as the phylactery
par excellence (Kel. xviii. 8, ete.), was already divided
into four compartments (ΛΜ οἰ. 7b.), but not more
(Sunhed. xi. 3), each with its parchment slip (λαό.
viii. 3; cf. Justin Martyr, the first Christian writer
outside the NT to refer to the phylacteries by
name, Dial. ¢..Tryphone, 40, ed. Otto*, ii. 148,
φυλακτήριον ἐν ὑμέσι λεπτοτάτοις γεγραμμένων χαρακ-
τήρων τινῶν) containing in all probability the same
passages as in modern times. Thus the third of
the passages in question (Dt 6**) is expressly
described as ‘the smallest section (7387 7978) in the
téphillin, which is, Hear, O Israel’ (Sanhed, viii. 3).*
The writing had to be in the square Hebrew char-
acter (ποῦς, lit. Assyrian, i.e. Syrian or Aramian).
Women, slaves, and minors (Qu?) were exempt
from the obligation of wearing the phylacteries
(Berakoth, iii. 3), also all males in the presence of
their dead (ἐδ. iii. 1), and on Sabbaths and. festi-
vals, the latter as greater ‘signs’ rendering super-
fluous the observance of the lesser sign of the
phylacteries. When not in use the phylacteries
were kept in a case (pn, θήκη, Shabb. vi. 9). From
various indications it may be inferred that they
were worn during the whole day, the justification
for which was found in a mistaken interpretation
of Ex 13”. There the Hebrews are enjoined to
keep the feast of Unleavened Cakes 72°: 0°90", 1.6.
not from day to day, every day, but—as the phrase
elsewhere signifies and as the context requires—
from year to year (so correctly Onkelos ; also
Aquila ἀπὸ χρόνου εἰς χρόνον). The Jews, however,
referring the command to the phylacteries (ν."),

* Jerome (Comment. in Matth. ad 235) was evidently mis-
taken in thinking that the orthodex phylacteries contained the
Decalogue. He seems to have confused them with similar
φυλαχτήρια used exclusively as amulets (see below).

interpret the words as enjoining their use ‘from
day to day.’ This interpretation is most clearly
expressed in the Targum (pseudo-)Jonathan to Ex
1B. After the direction that the hand-phylactery
shall lie on the upper part of the left arm, and
the head-phylactery in the middle of the upper
part of the forehead, we read: ‘Thou shalt ob-
serve this commandment of the phy:acteries in
the appointed time, on working days but not on
Sabbatns and feast days, and in the day time not
in the night time’ (ap. Walton’s Polyglot, vol. iv.).
The later limitation of their use to the time of the
daily prayers was no doubt due to the same causes
as brought about a similar curtailment in the
wearing of the zizith (see FRINGES in vol. ii. 69").

It is difficult to say with certainty to what
extent this habitual wearing of the phylacteries
prevailed among the Jewish people as a whole.
That it was the invariable practice of the Pharisees
and of the scribes, who belonged almost exclusively
to that sect, we may take for granted. On the
other hand, the balance of probability is against its
adoption by the Sadducees, who may possibly be
referred to in the Mishna sentence (Sanhed. xi. 3)
as saying, ‘there is no such thing as téphillin
(poen fx).” Certainly the Karaite Jews, who claim
to be the religious successors of the Sadducees,
maintain the figurative interpretation of the in-
junctions in Ex and Dt (Hamburger, op. cif. 1.
1204; Klein, doc. cit. 058). The great mass of the
people also, —6 ἔχλος ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νύμον (Jn 7**),
—engrossed in the hard routine of daily toil, paid
no heed to this enactment of the scribes (with
Jn 7 ef. Talm. Bab. Berakoth, 476: ‘Who is an
‘am-haarez? KR. Jehoshua says: Every one who
does not lay the ¢éphiliin’ [mn 32 wesw 537), Hence
we may infer that neither our Lord nor His dis-
ciples followed, in this respect, the lead of the
Pharisees (ef. Jn 115). In His denunciation of the
latter (πλατύνουσι yap Ta φυλακτήρια αὐτῶν, Mt 23°)
our Lord is generally understood to refer to the
ostentatious breadth of the straps (myis7 Yad. 11].
3, ete.) by which the phylacteries were firmly
secured on head and arm, as is expressly stated by
the earliest Syriac translators (see doc, cit. in the
codices of Lewis [Sinaiticus] and Cureton: ‘for
they make broad the straps of their ¢éphildin [Spry
prvani]).’ [Ὁ is probable, however, that this in-
crease in the width of the straps was accompanied
by a corresponding increase in the size of the phy-
lacteries proper, and that both are included in the
denunciation.

In addition to the Talmud (Mishna and Gemara),
we have in the Targums ample evidence of the
Jewish belief in the antiquity of the phylacteries,
resulting in several cases In amusing anachronisms.
Thus Saul’s bracelet or armlet (2S 110) is converted
into ‘the phylactery * (Ν τ: 8.8) which was upon his
arm.’ ‘The turbans (Np) of Ezekiel and his fellow-
exiles are changed to phylacteries (Targ. Ezk
2417-23) while Mordecai is represented as recog-
nizable as a Jew by his phylacteries (Targ. Est 8").

While we believe that the introduction of the
phylacteries was not due to a superstitious belief
in their magical virtues as ‘appurtenances to make
prayer more powertul’ (so W. Rt. Smith, Jour. of
Phil, xiii. 286, and others), but, as we have shown
above, to a mistaken obedience to the letter on the
part of over-zealous students of the Torah, it
cannot be denied that by the rank and file of the
people—from whom, no doubt, the name φυλακτήρια
proceeded—and even by some of the more educated,
the phylacteries were regarded as __ possessing
magical properties. This appears from the repeated
mention, in the Mishna, of the ¢épAidlin alongside
of the kémia’ (xp), which was an amulet alsc

* This is a preferable rendering to ‘ bracelet,’ which is based
on the precarious etymology referred to above (§ lis).

874 PHYLARCH

written on parchment by a professional exorcist
(see Shthb. vi. 2), and worn on the person, from the
rendering of Ca 85 in the Targum,” and from various
references in the Midrash and Gemara (for which
see Klein, 679f.; Hamburger, art. ‘'Tephillin’),

On the other hand, the Talmud abounds in ex-
travagant eulogy of the religious value of the
phylacteries.+ Tn the Middle Ages, from the Sth,
and especially from the 10th cent. (Hamburger),
they were less esteemed ; and, in some parts at
least, the practice almost became extinct (see
Rodkinssohn, πειὸ men, Crsprung wu. Entwickelung
εἰ. Phylacterien-Ritus, 1883 (Hebrew), to be used
with caution, ef. RES vi. 238). The fact that
several Jewish scholars of note, beginning with
Samuel ben Meir (Rashbain, 1080-e, 1150), in their
commentaries maintained the figurative interpreta-
tion of the cardinal passages, no doubt contributed
to the growing disuse of the phylacteries. A return
to the earlier practice, however, was gradually
effected, and their use is now universal among the
orthodox Jews, both of the Polish and Spanish
rites. At the age of thirteen years and a day the
Jewish boy attains his religious majority, becomes
responsible for his actions, and a ‘Bar-Mizvah’
(ΤΊΣ 72, for the history and sienificance of which
see Low, Die Lebensalter in εἰ. Jud, Literatur, 2104. i,
Ainong the duties and privileges of the Bar-
Mizvah not the least important is that of ‘laying’
the*téphillin,

LITERATURE. — The comment
Firodus, ete. ; Dillmann,
Haodus (special disse

aries, esp. Dillmann - Ryssel,
Driver on Deuteronomy ; Kalisch,
rtation, pp. 223-227). The numerous
minute Rabbinical prescriptions will be found in the authorita-
tive works of Maimonides (Yad Ma-hazaka Hilkoth Tephillin)
and Joseph Caro (Sh uhan ‘Aruk). Extensive excerpts from
Maimonides in Ugolinus, Thes. A ntiquitatum Sacrarum, Xxi.,
containing treatise ‘de Phylacteriis Hebrieorum.’ Of the older
Ι discussions the most valuable are those by Buxtorf, Synagqoyga
Judaica, pp. 170-185 ; Spencer, de Legibus Hebreeorum, ete.,
Cambridge, 1727, lib. iv. capp. 1-7 (‘de natura et origine Phy-
lacteriorum’) ; Bodenschatz, Kirchliche Veifassung der heutigen
Juden, iv. 14-19 (with illustrations), Jaightfoot, Schoettgen, and
similar works on Mt 235, M. Margoliouth, The Fundamental
Principles of Mod, Judaism, pp. 1-49. Of the articles in Bible
Dictionaries perhaps the most important are those by Delitzsch
in Riehm’s Handwirterbuch, ete. (art. ‘ Denkzettel’), by Gins-
burg in Kitto-Alexander’s Biblical Cyclopedia (art. ‘ Phylac-
tery’), both illustrated, and by Hamburger, Realencyclopwdie
αἰ. Bibel τι. Talmud, vol. ii. (art. “Tephillin’). The only critical
investigation of the subject hitherto has been by Klein, ‘Die
Totaphoth nach Bibel τὶ. Tradition,’ in the Jahrbiicher fiir pro-
test. Theologie, 1881, pp. 666-689 (useful collection of material,
but critically and exegetically weak). The varying usage of the
Middle Ages is given by Rodkinssohn, miva$ aben, Ursprung
τι. Entwickelung des Phylacterien-Ritus bei den Juder (in
Hebrew), 1883 [not seen]. A short exposition of modern Jewish
teaching in Friedlander, The Jewish fieligion, 331-838,
A. R. S. Kennepy.
PHYLARCH (τὸν φυλάρχην, 2 Mac 8°). —There
can be but little doubt that this word is not a
proper name (as in AV; cf. RVm), but a military
title. In Athens the < phylarchs’ had command of
the cavalry ; and here either a cavalry officer or a
commander of auxiliary forces seems to be intended.
Zockler still supports the proper name.

PHYSICIAN.

PI-BESETH (n Bo’Bacros).—Ezk 8017, a city
in Lower Egypt, the hieroglyphic Per-Bastet,
‘House of Bastet,’ in Copt. Pubasti, Buasti, ete.
The city was named Bast ; the goddess who dwelt
in it was hence called Bastet, ‘the Bastite,’ and
thence again was formed the sacred name of the
city, viz. Per-Bastet, lit. “the house of the Bastite.’
The sacred name was that adopted by the Greeks
and Romans; the modern name of the site, Tell

* It is maintained by some, however, that the power of pro-
tecting trom evil spirits here affirmed is confined to the meéziza.

t It is unfair, however, to use for polemical purposes such
purely academic statements as Berakoth, 6a, that the Almighty

Himself ‘lays the téphillin’! (a curious inference froin the
following passages : Is 628, Dt 332, Ps 2911),

See MEDICINE, Dao

pa 5p

Lat lat 3

| later almost iny

PICTURE
Basteh, ‘the hill of Basteh,’ may be derived from
the original form.

Bubastis was probably a wealthy
city from the earliest times.
extensive, and its temple, re
Naville for the Egyp. E
monuments of every pe

and important

Its mounds are very
cently excavated by
ΧΡ]. Fund, contained
riod trom the 4th Dynasty
down to Roman times. It is now entirely deserted,
but lies close to the large town of Zagazig, which
owes its importance to the railway. Bubastis was
capital of the 18th nome of Lower Egypt, the
boundaries of which are very uncertain, In history
it does not appear until the time of the 22nd
Dynasty, founded by Shishak about B.C. 1000, and
known as the Bubastite Dynasty, under which
Bubastis was the second city of Keypt, Thebes
still remaining the first. When that dynasty ex-
pired, and Egypt was divided, Bubastis was’ still
the capital of a royal family, which was after-
wards considered to be the legitimate 23rd Dynasty.
The city was visited by Herodotus, who greatly
admired the situation and beauty of its granite
temple, and has recorded the existence of a popular
and somewhat licentious annual festival held in
honour of the goddess Bastet (Hdt. ii. 59f.). The
goddess was figured with the head of a lioness, or
ariably of a cat. She was held to

be a mild form of Sekhemt, the goddess of destrue-
tion. Cats were sacred to her. Her son was

named Mahes, ‘ fierce-eyed lion ’
was commonly worshi
the Bubastite triad.

bronze cases, we

; but Nefer-Atum
pped as the third member of
Mummied cats, sometimes in
re very abundant, the cat cemetery
having extended over many acres; but antiquity
dealers have now plundered what the damp atmo-
sphere of the Delta had spared.
Τὸ Lu. GRiFFIv.
PICTURE is AV tr" of 1. may Nu 33°" (LXX ras

σκοπιάς), Pr 25" (ὁρμίσκος). In the former of these

JEWISH ENGRAVING OF THE TEMPLE AND MOUNT OF OLIVES,

assages RV has ‘figured stones’ (cf. Ly 267),
These may have been stones erected for worship,

PIECE

PILATE 875

or with a hand or other amulet sign marked upon
them for the preservation of fields and vineyards
from evil influences. For ‘pictures of silver? in
Pr 25" RV gives ‘baskets (im. filigree work) of
silver.” See Lagarde, Anmerk. z. Gr. Uebersetz. d.
Proverb. 80. 2. m2. For 33999 nvzyr72 9. of MT
the LXX has ἐπὶ πᾶσαν θέαν πλοίων κάλλους, AV
‘upon all pleasant pictures,’ RV ‘upon all pleasant
imagery’ (αι. ‘ watch-towers’). Sieefricd-Stade
propose to read mses (cf. Jon 1°), ‘ships,’ for nyze.

Figures were represented either by an image
completely separated from its surrounding material,
or by a surface in partial relief, or by a line of
stain or etching (7772) on the surface.

At the present day, when a pious Syrian Jew
wishes to have a picture of the temple and the
Mount of Olives in his house, he falls upon the
device of having a line engraving made up of
Scripture quotations, thus avoiding the formal
infringement of the second commandment. See
engraving on previous page. G. M. MACKIE.

PIECE.—1. A measure: 1 Es 859. ‘an hundred
pieces of wine’ (Gir. μετρητής, RV ‘firkin,’ as the
same word is translated in Jn 96 AV and RY).
See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 2. An instrument
of war; 1 Mac ΟἿ ‘pieces to cast darts and slings’
(Gr. σκορπίδιον, dim. of σκορπίος, ἕν scorpion). [ἢ
this sense the word is scarcely obsolete. Shaks.
I Henry VI. 1. iv. 15, has—

©A piece of ordnance ’gainst it I have placed.’

In Selden’s day the word was beginning to be
replaced by gun. He says (Table Talk, p. 65),
‘Sometimes we put a new signification to an old
word, as when we call a piece a Gun.’

PIETY.—In Lat. pictas signified duteous regard
(1) to the gods, (2) to one’s parents [cf. the familiar
‘pius Aeneas’ of Vergil, Aen. i. 220, ete. ] and in-
feriors, (3) to one’s country ; and the Eng. word
‘piety’ retained all these meanings. We use it
now of devotion to God only, although we can
prefix an adj. and speak of ‘filial piety. We
cannot say with Milton, Samson Agon. 993—

‘The public marks of honour and reward

Conferred upon me for the piety

Which to my country I was judged to have shown.’
In AV the only occurrence is 1 Ti 54 ‘If any widow
have children or nephews, let them learn first to
show piety at home,’ where εὐσεβεῖν is rendered
‘to show piety,’ and the tr. is retained in RV.
An example of the meaning ‘devotion to God’ is
found in the Preface to AV, ‘Piety towards God
was the weapon, and the onely weapon that both
preserved Constantines person, and avenged him of
his enemies.’ J. HASTINGS.

PIGEON.- -See DOVE.

PI-HAHIROTH (nora *5).—When the Tsraelites
turned back from ETHAM, ‘in the edge of the
wilderness,’ they encamped ‘before (32 Ex 14°)
or beside (Sy v.®) Pi-hahiroth, between MIGDOL
and the sea, before BAAL-ZEPHON.’ The name
occurs again in the itinerary of Nu 337%. Inv.°
RV has ‘from before Hahiroth,’ instead of ‘from
hefore Pi-hahiroth,’ following in this the MT 595
‘nn, which, however, may be a copyist’s error for
‘na en or ΠΠ 5. 353. All the passages in which Pi-
hahiroth is mentioned belong to P. Unfortu-
nately, the above definition of its position is
insuflicient to fix its site, for Migdol and Baal-
zephon, like most of the places named at the
initial stages of the Exodus, are themselves un-
known. Even RAAMSES has not been identified,
although we know the site of PirHom. See,
further, art. Exopus in vol. i. p. 803.

The etymology and the meaning of the name
Pi-hahiroth are likewise uncertain, although
attempts have been made to explain it from the
side both of Egyptian and of Hebrew. The LXX,
which finds a proper name in Nu 337 (B ἐπὶ στύμα
"Eripod, AF... ἱρώθ) ὃ (BA ἀπέναντι Kipad), treats
nvnn °p in Ex 14%" as an appellative, dmévayre rs
ἐπαύλεως. The ‘farmstead’ of this last rendering
reminds Sayce (///H 181) of the ahw or ‘estate’
of Pharaoh in the district of Thukut, on which,
according to a letter dating from the 8th year of
Merenptah, the Edomite herdsmen were allowed
to settle. Naville has proposed to make Pi-
hahiroth = Pi-Qerhet, ‘the house of the goddess
Qerhet,’ the name of a sanctuary in or near
Pithom, but to this there are philological ob-
jections. ‘The Pesh., Tare., and Saadya take 8
as the construct of πϑ ‘mouth,’ while nvn, accord-
ing to the first, means ‘ trenches or canals,’ accord-
ing to the other two, ‘mountains or rocks.” For
modern conjectures see Dillm.-Ryssel on Ex 14°,
which, along with Saycee (HUM 252 ff) and
Driver (in Hogarth’s Authority and Archeology,
57, 61), may be consulted on the question of the
site. J. A. SELBIE.

PILATE.—Pontius Pilatus (ΠΤ ύντιος Π ειλᾶτος) was
the tifth* Roman procurator οἵ Judwa. After
the deposition (A.D. 6) of Archelaus, his territory,
which meluded Judiea, Samaria, and Idumia,t
was erected into an imperial province in charge of
an oflicer of the equestrian order with the title of
procurator. In the Gospels, Pilate is called simply
governor (ἡγεμὼν) ; but Josephus specifically calls
the ruler procurator (ἐπίτροπος ; Ant. XX. i Ba
BJ τί. viil. 1, ix. 2, ete.),t as also does Tacitus
(Ann. xv. 44). His official residence was in the
palace of Herod in Cwsarea (cf. Ac 23°); but at
the time of the feasts he usually went up to Jerus.,
probably oceupying there also the palace of Herod.s
The military force under him consisted of about
three thousand men at Ciesarea, besides small
earrisons scattered throughout the country, and a
cohort (500 men’) stationed in Jerusalem.) His
judicial authority was supreme, except in the cases
of Roman citizens, where appeal lay to the emperor,
while his chief duty concerned the financial ad-
ministration and the collection of taxes for the
imperial treasury. The Judean procurators thus
exercised much higher authority than officers of
the same name in most Roman provinces, where
they presided merely over the finances. Similar
administrative functions, however, were entrusted
to the eparchs of Egypt and the procurators of
Noricum, Retia, and a few other exceptional
peoples. ἡ

But while Judea was thus directly governed by
Rome, a large measure of local self-government
was allowed, especially to urban communities. [ἢ
Jerus. the Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the
nation, and as many judicial functions as possible
were retained by it. Death sentences, however,
required the governor's confirmation, and were
executed by him (ef. Jos. Ant. XX. Uke Vee doe) 11s
viii. 1). The tolerant Roman rule showed much
respect for the customs and prejudices of the Jewish

* Some count him the sixth procurator, reckoning as the first
Sabinus who took charge during the absence of Archelaus (Jos.
Ant. χνπ. ix. 8, X. 1); but Sabinus, as procurator in Syria under
Varus, merely acted to secure Cresar’s interests after the death
of Herod, and while the cause of Archelaus was yet in doubt.

+ Except the towns of Gaza, Gadara, and Hippos (Schurer,
Ea oo)

t Jos. also calls the governor ἔταρχος (Ant. XIX. 1X2, 2ebCs);
προστυσόμενος (Ant. XX. vii. 1), ἐπιμελυτής (Ant. XVUI. iv. 2), as
well as ἡγεμών (Ant. ΧΧΥΤΙ. iii. 1).

ἃ See PRHTORIUM.

i See Schiirer, HJ P 1. ii. 49-57; οἵ. Ac 2131, Jn 1812,

“| Comp. authorities cited by Schurer, HJ 1. ii. 45; alsa
Mommsen, Provinces of the Rom. Bing. ii. 201,

ee)

es Tas ae = ae ee ee οι
846 PILATE PILATE
people. It aimed at as large liberty as was con- | astonishment the Jews threw themselves on the

Josephus states that he ruled ten years.

sistent with order and tribute. Most of the dith-
culties in Judea arose from the religious zeal and
intractable disposition of the Jews themselves.
On the other hand, their liberties were liable at
any moment to be overruled, if necessity seemed
to require it ; and the procurators were generally
men who grievously abused their authority. The
nation itself also was divided, and in an’ almost
constant state of tumult. The recollection of these
facts is necessary in order to appreciate the position
of Pilate when Christ was brought before his bar.

Of Pilate’s origin we know nothing,* though it
has been inferred, from his nomen Pontius, that
he belonged to an ancient Samnite family whose
name frequently appears in Roman history.+ His
cognomen has, however, been derived from pileatus,
--one who wore the pi/eus, the ‘ap of manumitted
slaves,—and the inference has been drawn that he
was a freedman, or descended from one. But his
appointment as procurator makes this improbable,
since such oflicers were uniformly of equestrian
rank.t Hence others derived Pilitus from pilum,
ajavelin. His prenomen is unknown, nor does his
name appear in history apart from his residence in
Judiea. He was preceded in oftice by Coponius
(A.D. 6-972), Marcus Ambivius (A.p. 9-127), Annius
Rufus (A.D. 12-15%), and Valerius Gratus (A.D.
15-26), and was appointed (Eus. ΜᾺ 1. 9) in the
twelfth year of Tiberius (A.p. 26), and continued
in oflice ten years (Jos. Anf. XVII. iv. 2).8 «The
unusual length of time during which he and Gratus
held office was, in accordance with the policy of
Tiberius, based on the opinion that governors who
had already enriched themselves, would be better
for the people than new ones whose avarice was yet
unsatistied (Jos. Ant. XVIIL vi. δ). Tacitus (Ann.
i. 80, iv. 6) also notices the Jong governorships under
Tiberius. Pilate came therefore to Juda con-
temporaneously with the appearance of John the
Baptist, and his rule covered the period of Jesus’
ministry and of the first establishment of Chris-
tianity in Judiea.

Pilate’s administration was marked by events
which show both the difficulties of his task and the
small effort which he made to understand the Jews
or accommodate himself to their prejudices. The
first disturbance (Jos. Ant. XVI. Wu a RS YR i
ix. 2, 3) probably occurred soon after his entrance
on office. To satisfy the Jews, the Romans had
directed their soldiers not to carry to Jerus. upon
their standards the usual image of the emperor ;
but Pilate sent the army to Jerus. to winter, and
directed that the standards, with the images upon

them, should be taken by night into the sacred
city. This seemed to the Jews a direct violation

of their religious laws. Forthwith multitudes
hastened to Cxsarea to implere the governor to
remove the images. For five days he refused to
heed them, and on the sixth he admitted them to
his presence, but suddenly ordered his soldiers to
surround them, and threatened them with instant
death if they persisted in their request. To his

* The Germanic legends mention several towns as the birth-
place of Pilate. One of the most widespread locates his birth in
Mayence, as the illegitimate child of a king (variously styled
Cyrus, Tyrus, and Atus), who sent him, because of a murder, to
Rome, whence, because of another murder, he was sent to
Pontus, from which place he derived his name. There he
served the emperor by conquering the wild tribes of that region ;
whereupon Herod made him his co-regent, and was in turn
overcome by him. See G. A. Miiller, Pont. Pil. p. 48 ff.

t See Pauly’s RE under ‘ Pontii.’

t The case of Felix, who was a freedman, is remarked upon
by Tacitus as if quite unusual.

§ He must have been removed early in A.D. 36, since Vitellius,
after sending Pilate to Rome, attended a passover in Jerus, (Jos.
Ant. xvii. iv. 8), and shortly after began the expedition against
Aretas, king of the Nabatieans, which, however, was prevented
(Ant. xvii. vi. 4) by the news of Tiberius’ death (early in A.p. 37).
Pilate’s appointment therefore is to be dated a.p. 26, since

ground, and declared that they would rather die
than endure the violation of their laws. Pilate, of
course, had not intended so great ἃ massacre, and
was forced to direct the removal of the images,
Another disturbance arose from Pilate’s use of the
money contributed to the temple treasury, to build
aqueducts toJerusalem. It has been suggested that
his real object was to provide water for an army
besieging the city (cf. Miiller, Pont, Pil. p. 16). At
any rate the project aroused violent opposition, and
when Pilate came to Jerus. the people clamoured
against his design. On this oceasion, however, he
silenced the tumult by introducing disguised
soldiers into the crowd, who, at a signal, drew
their clubs and seattered the multitude (Jos. Ant.
XVII. 111. 2). The incident, referred to in LE 18:
of the ‘ Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with
their sacrifices,’ is not mentioned by other authori-
ties. Doubtless Pilate ordered them to be slain in
the outer court of the temple, perhaps on account
of some riot, while they were celebrating one of
the feasts. This appeared to some an unusual
judgment of Providence upon these men ; and the
incident illustrates the disturbed state οὗ the
country, the frequent severity of Pilate’s measures,
and the odium in which the governor was held.
The sedition in which Barabbas took part (Mk 157,
Lk 23") is another example of the turbulent state
of the community ; while still another incident,
characteristic of Pilate’s rule, is described by Philo
(ad Gaium, 38). Philo makes Agrippa relate to
Caligula that Pilate once hung gilt shields in the
pulace of Herod in Jerus., on each of which was
inscribed the name of the donor and of him in
whose honour the shield was dedicated. But even
this aroused the fury of the Jews. Their chief
men, including four sons of Herod, besought him
to remove the objects of offence ; and, when he
refused, they wrote to Tiberius, who ordered the
procurator to take the shields to Ciesarea. Philo
makes Agrippa describe Pilate as ‘inflexible, merci-
less, and obstinate.’ He says that the Jews’ threat
tocommunicate with Tiberius ‘ exasperated Pilate
in the greatest possible degree, as he feared lest
they might go on an embassy to the emperor, and
night impeach him with respect to other particulars
of his government — his corruptions, his acts of
insolence, his rapine, and his habit of insulting
people, his cruelty, and his continual murders of
people untried and uncondemned, and his never-
ending, gratuitous, and most erievous inhumanity.’
This is doubtless a one-sided representation. In
the Gospels Pilate manifests a strong desire to do
justice, and he was not more arbitrary or cruel
than many other Roman officials. But he also
appears in the Gospels, as in Philo, passionate and
fierce, uniting obstinacy with weakness, seeking
his ends by unworthy devices, and restrained in
his desire to do justice by dread both οἵ his
turbulent subjects and of the effect of an appeal
from them to the emperor. All accounts agree
in testifying to the hearty dislike which existed
between him and the Jews.

Pilate’s share in the trial of Jesus is related briefly
in Mt and Mk, but somewhat more fully in Lk;
while Jn records further details which explain and
confirm the Synoptic accounts. The governor evi-
dently had some previous knowledge of Jesus, as
his wife also probably had (Mt 27). The Lord’s
ministry indeed had been mainly in Galilee, so
that probably He had only within a short period
hefore his arrest come under Pilate’s notice. But
it is incredible, in view of the interest latel y aroused
by Jesus in Judwa, and the necessary watchful-
ness of the government, that His presence had not
been reported to the procurator ; and at the trial it
is expressly stated that Pilate ‘knew that for envy

ee ew

PILATE

»

PILATE 877

they had delivered him unto him’ (Mt 3718). But
when, early in the morning, the representatives of
the Sanhedrin, which had already condemned
Jesus to death for blasphemy, brought Him to Pilate
for permission to have Him put to death, and re-
fused to enter the governor's residence lest they
should be detiled (Jn 1535), Pilate went out * to them
and demanded what charge they brought against
the prisoner. ‘They seem to have expected him to
confirm their sentence without inquiry, a fact
which illustrates the large authority conceded by
the Romans to the native court. But Pilate refused
to act without reasons. When they suddenly
cried, ‘If this man were not an evil-doer, we should
not have delivered him up unto thee’ (Jn 18%), he
contemptuously remarked, ‘Take him yourselves,
and judge him according to your law,’ thus forcing
them to admit that they could not secure their
purpose except through him. His position fully
warranted this haughty expression of authority ;
but he was probably actuated in this instance by
the desire to do justice, or at least to prevent the
injustice which they intended (Mt 27%). The
Jews therefore, being forced to present charges,
and knowing the usclessness of bringing the
charge of blasphemy, made three accusations, viz.
perverting the nation, forbidding to give tribute
to Cresar, and claiming to be Christ, a king
(Lk 23%). The latter two, and perhaps the first,
were matters with which the civil authority would
naturally deal. Pilate therefore asked Jesus, ‘ Art
thou the king of the Jews?’ Jesus replied in the
affirmative, but to the accusing cries of the Jews
He was silent. The governor was impressed by
His demeanour, though acknowledging so grave ἃ
charge, as that of no ordinary prisoner. So he
led Jesus within the palace, and privately ex-
amined Him (Jn 18°88), In this interview the dis-
position and character of Pilate specially appear.
Jesus freely answered his questions, and explained
the entirely unworldly nature of His kingdom.
He dealt with the Roman throughout as with one
notactuated by malice, but placed in circumstances
where he could escape guilt only by courageously
obeying the truth (cf. also Jn 19"). For this, how-
ever, Pilate was not prepared. His ejaculation,
‘What is truth?’ (Jn 1895) was the utterance of a
worldly mind, entirely sceptical of the worth of
real religious and moral principles. But he was
convinced that Jesus was politically harmless,
and ought not to be sacrificed to Jewish malice
and fanaticism. So he resolved to save Him. Yet
he was afraid peremptorily to release Him: ἃ fear
which is pertectly intelligible in view of the
evident determination of the chief priests, the
serious charges they had presented, the large
tolerance always shown to Jewish prejudices, as
well as of the suspicious character of ‘Tiberius and
the excellent grounds of complaint which the Jews
already had against the governor. ‘Therefore
Pilate began the series of feeble devices, which the
Synoptists record, to secure the release of Jesus
by a popular verdict, or at least to free himself
from participation in His death. He first brought
Him forth, and declared that he found no fault in
Him (Jn 1855). But this unexpected announcement
evoked from the priests and bystanders the cry,
‘He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout
all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto
this place’ (Lk 23°). Hearing that Jesus was from
Galilee, and impressed by the fury of their desire,
Pilate thought to rid himself of the case by trans-
ferring it to Herod Antipas, who was then in
Jerusalem. He was the more willing to do this

* Being only a procurator, Pilate had no questor, and there-
fore conducted the trial himself.

+ This narrative of John’s is absolutely necessary to explain
the Synoptic account of Pilate’s conduct.

because the relations between him and Herod had
been strained, and he desired to show his friendli-
ness. But Herod, perhaps out of compliment to
Pilate, refused to accept Jurisdiction, only indi-
‘ating by his mockery of Jesus his contempt for
the prisoner’s claims (Lk 291), Pilate thus found
himself compelled to adjudicate. He again declared
his conviction of the prisoner's innocence, and
appealed to Herod’s refusal to pass sentence in
confirmation of his own judgment. He proposed
therefore to please the Jews by chastising Jesus,
but his own conscience by releasing Him (Lk 23%").
It was a weak compromise, and certain to satisfy
noone. Meanwhile the multitude, doubtless in-
creased by new arrivals, some of whom hardly
understood the purpose of the assemblage, began
to elamour (Mk 15°) that Pilate should, according
to his custom at he feast,* set free some notable
prisoner. Inowing the popularity of Jesus, Pilate
hoped through this custom to prevent the purpose
of the chief priests, and asked if he should release
Jesus. But he was foiled by the priests per-
suading the people to demand the release of a
certain Barabbas, who was probably popular as a
leader of sedition against the government (Mt 27°).
It was apparently at this point that Pilate, having
taken his seat on the chair of judgment (see
GABBATHA),+ received the message trom his wife, ἢ
which doubtless added a superstitious feeling to
the force of his conviction that Jesus ought to be
released (Mt 2719). But he had already yielded
his true ground and could not recover it. When
again he asked whom they would choose for re-
lease, they unitedly cried ‘Barabbas.’ When he
next inquired what they wanted him to do with
Jesus, the ery arose, at the instigation of the
priests, ‘Crucify him.’ Shocked by their fierce-
ness, the governor protested against so extreme a
penalty. ‘Why? What evil hath he done? 1
have tound no cause of death in him. I will
chastise and release him’ (Lk 23%). But they
clamoured for crucifixion. Pilate appears to have
een simply overborne by their fierceness and the
threatening aspect of affairs. His fault was moral
weakness. Yet the peculiar character of his
eovernment and the known tolerance of Rome
toward Jewish prejudices make it quite intelligible
that unwillingness to anger the Sanhedrin should
outweigh with such a man the feeble sense of
duty. His handwashing (Mt 27%, ef. Dt Ζ
though the act was a natural symbol) was but the
weak device of a superticial mind, as he sought to

* The origin of this custom is unknown. Schurer (ΠΡ τ. ii.
60) states that it ‘was grounded on a special authorization of
the emperor, for the right of remitting a sentence was not
otherwise givén to the governors.’ He cites Hirschfeld,
Sitzungsb. d. Berl. Akad. 1899, Ὁ. 439 ; and Merkel, Abhandl. aus
ἃ. Gebiete des. rém. Rechts, 1 Wett, 188i. Friedlieb (Archiol.
110) thinks it was done at every feast, but St. John (1839) limits
it to the passover. Some suppose it was a Jewish custom re-
tained by the Romans, and Pilate’s language in Jn (‘ Ye have a
custom,’ etc.) seems to confirm this view. Others think it was
of Roman origin, and connect it with Livy’s statement (ν.}9)
that, at the feast of the gods called Lectisternium, prisoners were
freed.

+ The βῆμα (Mt 2719), which had been put on ‘a place called
the Pavement, but, in the Hebrew, Gabbatha’ (Jn 1919). Those
who identify Pilate’s residence with the fortress Antonia suppose
this place to have been the elevated, paved ground between the
fortress and the temple (see PRaeroriuM). Those who identify
Pilate’s residence with Herod’s palace suppose the 6zue to have
been placed on a mosaic floor (λιθέστρωτον, ‘spread with stones’),
which was called in Aram. Gabbatha (“nai ‘ elevation’) from
the elevated position which it, with perhaps the 67u« upon it,
occupied. Cwsar (Suet. Jul. 46) is said to have carried a port-
able pavement on which to place his judgment-seat ; and St.
John’s mention of the pavement with the ¢,ux seems to imply
that it had some connexion with the delivery of a judicial
sentence, and gave formality to Pilate’s final decision. Seq
GABBATHA.

t Originally magistrates were not allowed to take their wives
to the provinces, but the rule had ceased to be observed, as is
shown by the failure of an effort to enforce it mentioned by
Tacitus (Ann. iii. 33, 34).

ὟΝ

878

PILATE

PILATE

calm his conscience by throwing the guilt of the
transaction upon otters.

But, though Pilate yielded to their request, and
delivered Jesus to his soldiers to be scourged
preparatory to crucifixion, St. John’s narrative
(19!) shows that the governor’s conscience was
not yet silenced. Once again he sought to satisfy
the Jews by the spectacle of Jesus bleeding and
mocked, declaring that even yet he had discovered
in the prisoner, though under torture, no cause of
death. When they still cried " Crucify him,’ Pilate
became sullen and angry. In bitter satire, and
as though about to dismiss the whole case, he
bade them do the foul deed themselves.
first they brought forward a religious charge,
apparently feeling that now they needed only to
work on the governor's sentiments and make him
realize how serious the case appeared to them.
‘We have a law, and according to our law he
ought to die, because he made himself the Son of
God.’ But the words roused afresh Pilate’s super-
stition. Again, and now with evident anxiety and
fear (Jn 195), he privately examined Jesus, this time
concerning His origin. The silence of Jesus to
these inquiries further wrought on Pilate’s mind,
and, though he tried to induce Jesus to speak by
boasting of his own power, he again made an
effort to release Him. * But the Jews, now fully
realizing that they must conquer the impression
which Jesus had made on Pilate by bringing to hear
a stronger motive, taunted the governor with infi-

delity to the emperor in favouring a pretended king; |

and this appeal to Pilate’s political ambitions
proved decisive. He resolved to silence his con-
victions. Resuming his seat on the Bema, he
satirically and sullenly presented Jesus to them
as their king. Thereupon he had at least the
grim satisfaction of hearing his turbulent subjects
vigorously forswear their political freedom and
profess their allegiance to the emperor (Jn 19)),
Then he finally delivered Jesus to crucifixion ;
but it was quite in keeping with Pilate’s character
and with the violence which he had done to his
own convictions, that he obstinately refused to
change the title on the cross, its very offensiveness
to the Jews being a merit in his eyes (Jn 197°),
Thus Pilate appears a typical specimen of a
worldly man. The good in‘ him was unsupported
by moral principle, and overborne by personal anid
political considerations. Compelled to take the
leading part in a transaction where high moral
qualities were supremely demanded, he proved
himself to be without them, and made a great
crime possible by his feebleness of character. This
is quite consistent with his bravado and reckless-
ness on other occasions. Christ’s judgment upon
Pilate (Jn 19!) is also the verdict of history.
Pilate’s rule was brought to its close hy an ill-
judged attempt to suppress a harmless movement
in Samaria (Jos. 4πέ. ΧΥΠΙΙ. iv. 1). A certain
impostor summoned the Samaritans to Mount
Gerizim by promising to show them the sacred
vessels which Moses was alleged to have hidden
there. They came armed, and collected ina village
called Tirabatha. But Pilate fell upon them, and
caused many, both then and subsequently, to
be slain. Thereupon the Samaritans appealed for
redress to Vitellius, the legate in Syria, pleading
that no political sedition had been intended. Vit.
ellius ordered Pilate to repair to Rome to answer
the complaints against him; but before the pro-
curator reached the capital, Tiberius had died.
Thereafter Pilate disappears from authentic history.
Traditions, however, concerning him existed in
the Church, and finally took the shape of fantastic
levends. Eusebius (HE ii. 7 and Chron.) relates,
on the authority of certain unnamed earlier writers,
that Pilate fell into such misfortunes under Calig-

Then }

| wa that he committed suicide ; and later authori.
_ ties repeat the statement. The Apoer. literature
elaborated the story (see Tischendorf, Evang.

Apoc., Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol, viii.). Accord.

ing to one version (‘Iapddoacs Πιλάτου ᾽), Tiberius

summoned Pilate to Rome to answer the charge of
crucifying Christ. When, at the examination
| before the Senate, Tiberius uttered Christ’s name,
| the statues of the gods fell to the ground ; where-
| upon Tiberius ordered war to be made against the
| Jews, and Pilate to be beheaded. The latter, how-
| ever, with his wife, died a penitent, and was
| assured by a voice from heaven of his forgiveness.
According to another and probably later account
(Mors Pilati), Pilate appeared before Tiberius in
the Saviour’s tunic, which protected him from the
emperor's fury. When he was stripped of it,
Tiberius condemned him to death, but Pilate killed
himself. His body was cast into the Tiber, but
the evil spirits so disturbed the waters that the
Romans carried the body to Vienne and sank it in
the Rhone.* Thence, for the same reason, it was
removed to the territory of Losania (Lausanne),
but was finally sunk in a pit surrounded by moun-
tains. Thus the legend connected itself with the
mountain opposite Lucerne (supposed to have been
named originally Pileatus, because surmounted
often by a hat-shaped cloud, but corrupted by
connexion with the legend into Pilatus; see
Ruskin, Mod. Painters, ν. 128; Miller, Pont.
Pu. pp. 52, 53) where the body of Pilate is said
to lic in a lake on the mountain, and at times
emerge and vo throneh the motion of washing
the hands. The legend exists in various forms,
however (see Miiller, th.), and attached itself to
several localities. In one of the later accounts
Pilate is said to have been executed by Nero (see
| Schiirer, JP 1. ii. 88 n.). The ‘ tendency’ of the
earlier legends was to represent the Roman Govern.
ment in its treatment of Pilate as vindicating the
Christians and Christ; while the disposition te
represent Pilate as becoming himself a Christian +
explains, perhaps, the belicf of the Coptic Church
that he died a saint and martyr.t

Pilate’s wife is said to have’ been named Claudia
Procula or Procla. Christian tradition made her a
proselyte to Judaism (Gosp. of Nic. 2). That she
hecame a Christian is also a very old tradition
(Orig. Hom. on Mt. 35). In the Gr. Chureh she
becaine a saint, honoured on Oct. 27th. Some
have even identified her with the Claudia of 2 Ti
41, Her dream may be assumed to indicate that
she had heard of Jesus and His beneficent life and
deeds.

That Pilate made a report to Tiberius concerning
Jesus is affirmed by Justin (1 Ap. 35) and Ter-
tullian (4p. 21), as well as by later writers (e.g.
Eus. HF ii. 2), and Apocr. literature. Some re.
port from the governor to the emperor is prob-
able; but it is doubtful if the early Fathers rested
their appeal to it on any certain knowledge of its
existence, or of its preservation in the archives.
Certainly the extant Acta Pilati are spurious,
Eusebius relates (HE ix. 5) that in the great
persecution under Maximin, Acts of Pilate dero-
gatory to Christ were forged and ‘circulated uy
the pagans ; but none of these have survived.

LITERATURE.—G, A. Miiller, Pontius Pilatus der fiinfte Pro-

kurator von Judia (Stuttgart, 1888), gives a table of earlier
literature, enumerating 110 treatises and articles. The 17th

* «Piljate’s tomb,’ a curious monument, 52 ft. high, is still
shown at Vienne. ᾿

{ Tertullian (4 p. 21) says Pilate at or immediately after Christ’s
death was ‘already a Christian in his own convictions’ (jam
pro sua conscientia Christianus), and in the first Gr. form of
the Gosp. of Nicod. (Acts of Pilate) he is described as ‘uncir-
cumcised in flesh but circumcised in heart.’
|} He and his wife are honoured by the Copts on June 25th
' (Stanley, East. Ch. p. 13; Miiller, Pont. Pil. Ds:

PILATE, ACTS OF

PILLAR 875

and 18th cents. were especially rich in literature about Pilate
(see Miller). Note, besides Muller, P. J. de Mounier, De
Pont. Pil. in causa servatoris agendi ratione (1825); G.
Warneck, P. P. der Richter Jesu Christi, em Gemalde aus
der Leidensyesch. (1858); R. Rositres, Ponce Pilate (1883) ;
Arnold, Dié neron. Christenverfoly. pp. 116-120, on Tacitus’
reference to P. (1s88); Schirer, HJ P 1. ii. 39-87 ; Keim, Jesus
of Naz., Eng. tr. i: p. 220f., vi. p. 79 ff.; Leyrer in Herzoyg’s
RE, art. ‘Pilatus’; Waltjer, P. P. eene Studie (Amsterdam,
1888); Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Mess. bk. v. ch.
xiv. and App. vi.; Ollivier, ‘P. P. et les Pontii’ (tev. Bib. v.
pp. 594-600); Lange, Life or Lord Jesus Christ, Eng. tr. 1864,
vi. 414 ff.; Weiss, Life of Christ, Eng. tr. iii, 343 ff; Farrar,
Life of Christ, Pop. ed. 1894, p. 588 ff., and Life of Lives, 1900,
p. 494ff.; Stalker, Trial and Death of Jesus Christ, 1894,
p. 43ff.; Andrews, Life of Our Lord upon the Harth, new ed.
1892, p. 528 ff. ; Gilbert, Student's Life of Jesus, 1898, pp. 363 ff.,
367 ff. ; Cox, ‘A Day in Pilate’s Life,’ in Expos. ser. 11. vol. vill.
(1884) 107 ff.; Macgregor, ‘Christ’s Three Judees—Pilate,’ in
Expos. ser. Vi vol. i. (1900) p. 59ff.; Taylor Innes, Trial of
Jesus Christ, a legal Monograph, 1899; Carpenter, Son of Man
among the Sons of Men, 1593, p. 38 ff. 5 Quandt in Voice sroim
the Cross, Eng. tr. by Macintosh, 1888, p. 99 ff. ; Simecox,
Cessation of Prophecy, 1891, 287 ff. ; Maclaren, Wearied Christ,
1893, p. 222ff.; Macmillan, Mystery of Grace, 1893, p. AW did
See also R. A. Lipsius, Die Pilatus -Akten, kritisch wnter-
sucht (1871) ; Tischendorf, Pilati eireum Christum judieio qiid
lucis afferatur ex Actis Pilati (1855); Creizenach, Pilatus-
Legenden (1874); Uarnack, Die Chronol. d. altchrist. ΕΝ ΣΈ,
603 fF. G. T. PunveEs.

PILATE, ACTS OF..See last paragraph of pre-
ceding art. and NICODEMUS (GOSPEL OF).

PILDASH (e752, Paddds). — One of the sons of
Nahor, Gn 993: (J). The personal name was has
been read in the Nabatean inscriptions (7D.MG
xiv. 440). The proposal of Knobel to connect
Pildash with the Ῥιπάλθας of Procopius (de μα -
Jiciis, ii, 4) is rejected by Dillmann.

PILHA (xn52, B Φαδαείς, A badaei).—One of those
who sealed the covenant, Neh 10",

PILL.—See PEEL.

PILLAR.—1. 282, Arab. nusubh or nash, plur.
ansib, from the Semitic root 35), meaning * to set
upright.’ 2. 233, from the same root, employed in
Gn 19:6 to deseribe the pillar of salt into which
Lot’s wife was transformed. 3, 72y, rendered in
Greek by στήλη (also employed by LXX in Gn
1030), This Hebrew word occurs in Jer 27! in the
sense of ‘column,’ which is probably its only
signification, whereas 5332 means any upright
stone. More frequently “sy is rendered by the
Greek στύλος (Ex 13:1, Je 20”, Job 271), or by the
word κίων, Jg 16%", 4 poo (used in plur.), pillar
dedicated to sun-worship. Cf. the Carthaginian
ion $y2, Baethgen, Beitrage cur sem. Rel. γν. 2511. (ef.
mn ‘sunglow’=sun in Job 3058), On j-- see
Gesen.6§ 85n. ‘The plur. oecurs in Ezk 0} ὁ, Ts 17°
279, Ly 26%, 2 Ch 144%. It may have been a later
equivalent of 72> (so Ixittel). LXX did not under-
stand the term, variously rendering by ξύλινα
χειροποίητα, τεμένη, βδελύγματα, and εἴδωλα.

The term πΞῈ is nearly always used in associa-
tion with religious cultus,* and signifies the upright
stone which, in the pre-exilian and pre-Deutero-
nomic worship of Israel, was the never failing
accompaniment of the Heb. sanctuary or bam@n.
It consisted of rough unhewn stone, and was the
symbol of the Divine presence or nwmen, which
was considered in some sense to reside in or be
attached to it (see Jos 24° +7), Upon it the blood
of the sacrificed victim or the oil of the vegetable
offering was poured or smeared (οἵ. Gn 28").

There is clear evidence that in the primitive
sanctuary of the early Semites the upright stone
served as altar and Divine symbol in one; but in

* The exception Is 618 is far from certain. The last clause of
the verse is omitted in LXX BA* though supplied in Luc. text
and by a later hand in A. The preceding relative clause, with
its ἄπ. Aey. NIOW and the unique use of NSD, appears to the
present writer to have been mutilated at some early date.

v

the later and more developed form of the enltus
both among Semites and other races, the altar and
stone-symbol came to be separated the one from
the other. This probably arose from the fact that
it was found convenient to have a separate place
for the reception and slaughter of the victim, and
to this another motive came to be superadded in
connexion with the larger and more important
sanctuaries, viz. the need of having an erection
which should be conspicuous to a large concourse
of beholders who witnessed in silence the solemn
act of slaughter. The further need to provide for
the reception and disposal of the blood gave rise to
special arrangements in this particular apparatus
of worship. That the distinction between altar
and stone-symbol arose very early in the history
of primitive Israel is clearly revealed by the facts
of language, since it is quite evident that ΠΕῚΡ
‘altar’ or place of slaughter, belongs to early as
well as late Hebrew. ‘These views are established
by archeological evidence. Primitive dolmens
have been discovered provided with hollows formed
for drink-offerings, and intended to serve as altars.
Stones were also used by the ancient Palestinian
inhabitants for the worship of ancestral manes as
well as to mark the place of burial. See Nowack
in Heb. Archdol. i. p. 92, who cites from_ the
researches of Noetling and Schumacher in Z2DP?V
ix. 268, and Zeitsch. fiir Ethnol, xix. 371% ; and
Conder, Heth and Moab, pp. 238, 266 tf The Rey.
James Sibree has informed the present writer that
many similar stones have been found in Mada-
gascar.

Much obscurity hangs over the origin of the
unhewn stone representation of deity. It has
been generally held that that origin is to be found
in the primitive fetish worship of which many
illustrations have been collected by Prof. Tylor *
and other writers from Africa, India, and ancient
Hellas. Theophrastus (4th cent. B.C.) describes
the superstitious Greek as passing the anointed
stones in the street, taking out his oil-phial and
pouring its contents on them, and then, after falling
on his knees to worship, going on his way (Char.
xvi.) Survivals of stone-worship were to be found
even in quite recent times among the remote
mountain peasants of Norway (‘T'ylor, 7b. p. 167).
Accordingly the employment of the stone-symbol
among the primitive Semites may be regarded as
part of a well-nigh universal tradition of antiquity.
In ancient Arabic polytheism we find the stone
nusb or the group of ansdb. ‘The blood of the
sacrificial victim was smeared upon the stone.
The idea involved in this act was evidently, as
Robertson Smith suggests, that of bringing ‘the
offering into direct contact with the deity, and in
like manner the practice of stroking the sacred stone
(e.g. that of the Kaaba) with the hand is identical

* Primitive Culture, vol. ii. p. 161ff. It is by no means easy
to define the meaning of ‘fetish.’ Usually it is explained as
meaning the material thing, as a stone, which is made the
object. of worship. Others deny this, treating the fetish as
a magical ‘medium whereby one is placed in closer connexion
with the deity, and in which divine powers reside.” See Chan-
tepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgesch.? i, p. 14.
This writer remarks with much truth that it is not any or every
object of sense-perception to which the term can be applied,
‘put only the individual, one might say, accidental ebject
which attracts the attention of the savage.’ There is no
essential distinction between the fetish and the idol. The
distinction is merely one of external form. The former is a
rude natural object accidentally found, the latter is carved or
painted by human hands. In both cases the spirit, which is
the object of worship and whose help is sought, is supposed to
be in some way incorporate in the material. Siebeck, Lehr-
buch der Religionsphilosophie, p. 64, contrasts this view with
the more advanced conception which regards the idol as the
symbol and not the seat of deity. It may here be remarked, in
order to prevent misunderstanding, that the expression ‘stone-
symbol’ is not used in this exclusive sense in this article. The
stone among the early Semites not only represented but incor-
porated the numen of the deity. See Robertson Smith, RS4
p. 204 tf.

880 PILLAR

PILLAR

with the practice of touching or stroking the gar-
ments or beard of a man in acts of supplication
before him.’

The stone might represent a male or female deity,
but it must not be inferred that the plurality of
stones represented always a plurality of deities,
Probably it represented as a rule a single object of
worship, just as the
at Gilgal (Jos 4°), and the same number by Moses
(on the occasion of the covenant sacrifice at Sinai,
Ex 244), for the twelve tribes of Israel, represented
the one God, Jehovah. According to Welhausen
(este arab. Heid2 p. 102) it was customary in
oaths to swear ‘by the ansdb which stand around
such and such a god.’ In an interesting passage
in which Herodotus describes the mode in which
the ancient Arabs ratify ἃ solemn covenant (iii. 8),
he speaks of seven stones on which the sacrificial
blood was smeared in honour of Dionysus and the
heavenly (goddess), probably meaning the sun
and moon (so Abicht). In the interesting narra-
tive of Nilus quoted by Robertson Smith (RS 2 Ρ.
338), the camel chosen as a victim is bound upon a
rude altar of stones piled together. Probably this
may be regarded as the most primitive type of
Arabian or Semitic sacrifice,

The sacred stone (or stones)
by the nomadic clan from place to place in’ its
wanderings, like an ark or some movable simudla-
crum, but remained stationary, since the stone may
be considered to have focussed the presence and
personal power of the deity that owned and ocen-
pied the 7emenos, Kodesh (or Haram), as the hal-
lowed spot was named by Greek or Semite respec-
tively. Such a spot was frequently one of special
fertility accompanied by a sacred spring and tree.
Frequently the mazzcba consisted of a large
natural upright rock of irregular shape. The two
pillars of Heracles (the Greek equivalent of Baal)
consisted probably of enormous cliff-like rocks
situated by the Straits of Gibraltar. Numerous
examples of such natural blocks of stone in situ
are given in LS? p. 110 (see especially the foot-
note). Among these is the notable stone-symbol
of the goddess al Lat (see Kinship and Marriage,
p. 292 1.). Doughty gives a description of his visit
to et-7dif, where he saw this and two other sacred
stones (Arabia Deserta, ii. p. d15ff). The inter-
esting fact that goddesses were also worshipped
under these stone - symbols clearly proves that
Movers is wrong in ascribing to them a phallic

.“. * oT - } Ἀ
origin and character.* They can only be explained
‘is one of the many forms of fetishism out of which
polytheistie cultus crew.

Any stone of this character would mark a
Béth-el. Hence such stones came to be called
by the Greeks βαίτυλοι or βαιτύλια.Ὁ In Is 576° we
have an interesting reference to the wide pre-
valence of this worship of sacred stones, on which
drink-offerings were poured and to which meal-
offerings were offered. In the wadis, the winter-
torrents made these boulders smooth and round.
See Cheyne’s note, ad loc., in SBOT.

It was not at every spot that such sacred pillars
were erected. There must be a special manifesta-
tion of the Divine presence in order to render the
worship valid, because the place had thus become
invested with special sanctity. Not simply fertile
oases with trees and flowing spring coming from
the depths of the soil, but also special events, as
battles, signal deliverances and visions, were
tokens of God’s presence. Thus after the battle of
Michmash, Saul ordered a great stone to be rolled

was not conveyed

* Comp. RS2, p. 456 ff. (additional Note D). 1

+t On these bétyls as wonder-working stones endowed with
magic powers, see Pietschmann, Gesch. der Phinizier, p. 206,
and Frangois Lenormant, Revue de Uhistoire des religions, iii.
31-53,

twelve stones erected by Joshua _

|

:
(1 8 1433) which served as an altar (v.%) ; Bethel,
according to JE, became a consecrated spot through
the vision of Jacob, who in consequence set up the
stone pillar and poured oil upon it (Gn 9818),

These passages sufficiently illustrate the primi-
tive character of the pre-exilian Hebrew mazzcha
which formed the indispensable accompaniment of
every sanctuary (Hos 3). The early pre-exilian
code of legislation preserved in Ex 902 sought to
keep intact the stone's primitive condition. It
was to remain unhewn and no iron instrument was
to desecrate it, either because the stone itself was
sacrosanct like the sacred enclosure in which alt
stood, or perhaps, as Nowack suggests (Heb.
Archiol. ii. p. 17), because the profaning hand of
man drove the numen out of the stone. If we are
to believe the statement of the Mishna tract
Middoth (iii. 1), the altar of burnt-offering in
Herod’s temple was formed of unhewn_ stones.
Throughout the earlier portion of OT narrative
we constantly meet with allusions to the stone
pillars of the loeal sanctuaries, e.g. Shechem (Jos
24°), Ramoth-gilead (Gn 31%), Gilgal (Jos 45),
Mizpeh (18 713), Gibeon (2 δ 208), En-rogel (1 K 19),
Sometimes the stone gave the name to the spot,
as Eben-‘ezer (1S 722, et, 41). Here again, as in the
case of 1S 143: (already mentioned), the erection of
the stone at a particular spot follows the manifesta-
tion of Divine power in His people’s signal victory.
That the rough stone (mazzeba), as the symbol of
Jehovah, differed in no respect from that which
was erectel to represent Baal, is quite certain,
Baal worship and Jehovah worship at the local
bamcth were inextricably blended in the pre-
Deuteronomie period, as’ the oracles of Hosea
clearly testify (Hos 918. the genuineness of which
Wellhausen and Nowack unnecessarily surrender).
The mazzebcth of Baal were destroyed in Samaria
by the reforming zeal of Jehu (2 K 10% ai Fs

ee
παν του
CPE
τ
ΕΝ

BRAZEN PILLAR,

Whether there is any reference to the stone.
symbol in the designation of Jehovah by the name
‘rock’ in many poetical passages in the OT (Ps

PILLAR

PILLAR, PLAIN OF THE 881

Be LS Pt 32, Is 30”), 1b. is aot easy to
determine.
also enters into proper names which have their
parallels in Assyrian (Schrader, COT 11. p. 326).
The balance of evidence is on the whole against
this attractive supposition. In the first place, the
occurrence of such names in Hebrew is late (Buch-
anan Gray observes that they occur only in P and
never in JE or Judges*). In the second place, ὋΝ
is not the term associated with the sacred symbol
by the Hebrews, but j2s; but 73x is never employed
in personal proper names. Probably, therefore, we
should regard the use of Wy in the personal naines
and in the poetical passages as figurative only,
Jehovah being regarded as a safe and strong place
of refuge (Ps 27° 615), or as atlording shadow from
oppressive heat, cf. Is 32%. See, further, art.
Rock.

In Phoenician cultus we frequently notice the
presence of twin pillars. Thus we find twin
pillars erected in Solomon’s temple + by Hiram
the Tyrian artificer (1 Kk ΡΞ), Similar twin
pillars are exhibited on coins which portray the
temple at Paphos, and also they represented the

WIN PILLARS IN TEMPLE OF APHRODITE AT PAPHOS.

deity Melkarth at Tyre. The latter are specially
described by Herodotus (ii. 44), who paid a personal
visit of inspection to this famous Tyrian shrine of
Hereules (ΔΙ ΘΙ Κατ). According to Herodotus,
this temple was sumptuously wrought and fur-
nished. One of the pillars was of refined gold,
and the other of emerald (or more probably, as
Abicht suggests, of green glass), the latter emitting
a bright light at night-time, perhaps for the
mariners at sea. To the same category belong
the bronze pillars of the temple of Hercules at
Gades (773), another Phoenician settlement, de-
scribed by Strabo.

Respecting Phoenician stones, sometimes called
asi, see Pietschmann’s Gesch. der Phonizier, pp.
204-213, Among the varied forms of these Phoeni-
cian stele, some of which were worked into a square
shape tapering at the top (see illustration below),
special mention should be made of the votive stele,
erected by individuals as the result of a vow to
the deity in order to secure some desired object.
Many of them have no inscription. Others bear
a legend which would nearly always be somewhat
of the following character: ‘To the Rabbat, the
Tanit-P’né-Ba‘al and the Adon, the Baal-Hammon,
as N.N. son of N.N. has vowed, since they have
heard his voice; may they bless him.’ It is
possible that this may have been the real character
of the memorial stone erected by Absalom (2
18'8, ‘Now Absalom in his life time had reared up
for himself the mazzébeth which is in the king’s
dale; for he said, I have no son to keep my name
in remembrance ; and he called the mazzébeth after

* Hebrew Proper Names, p. 194, cf. also 195 f.

+ On the difficulties of the text of 1 K 715 2% dealing with the
two pillars in the portico of Solomon’s temple, Jachin and
Boaz, see Klostermann, Kittel (cf. Jer 5271-23), and Benzinger,
ad loc. The last is especially useful on the archxological
details and religious significance. See also the figured repre-
sentations in his Commentary, p. 44, and in his Heb. Arch«ol.
pp. 245, 249f. The Babylonian parallels to the names of the
wo pillars may be found in Schrader, COT i. p. 174.

VOL. III. —56

The name for rock here is 7s, which |

his own name, and it is called Absalom’s monu-
ment (73) unto this day’). It may have been rather

PHENICIAN MAZZEBAM.

a votive stone than merely memorial, erected in
anticipation of his attempt to seize the throne,
There is no necessity, with Lohr, to suppose that
this mazzébaé was originally the mark of an old
Canaanite sanctuary, and that its significance as
a Divine symbol has been transformed into some-
thing else by the writer; see Smend, Alttest. Le-
ligionsgesch.* p. 132 and footnote.

The erection of the mazzebd as a stone-symbol
was forbidden in the Deuteronomic code (Dt 10:3,
‘Neither shalt thou set thee up a mazzeba, which
the Lorp thy God hateth’), which belongs to
alhout the year B.C. 621 in Josiah’s reign. Here-
after it became illegitimate. The reference to
the pillar to Jehovah at the border of Egypt in
15. 19, ‘there shall be a mazgzéba at the border
fof Egypt] to the Lorpb,’ must be regarded as
pre-exilian and pre-Deuteronomic, though it is
probable that the chapter in which it occurs
has been aflected by later influences. See art.
ALTAR,

Lirerature. — Besides the literature referred to, consult
Wellhausen, Reste ar. Heid.2 pp. 101, 141; Dillmann on Gn 2813,
Dt 1621; Driver on Dt 1621; Smith on 1S 614; Conder, Syrian
Stone Lore, new ed. 1896, p. 86.

OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE.

PILLAR, PLAIN OF THE.—In Jg 9° we read
that the men of Shechem and all the house of
Millo made Abimelech king ‘by the plain (AV ;
RV ‘oak,’ RVm ‘terebinth’) of the pillar that
was in Shechem?’ (o2y'2 7x 3¥Q Poxcy ; LXX B πρὸς
τῇ βαλάνῳ τῇ εὑρετῇ τῆς στάσεως τῆς ἐν Σικίμοις [A om.
τῇ εὑρετῇ and the second τῆς] ; Aq. ἐπὶ πεδίου στηλώ-
ματος ; Vulg. 7αέα quercum que stabat in Sichem).
The correct rendering is undoubtedly ‘the tere-
binth of the pillar’ (see OAK No. 3 and PLAIN
No. 2), although it is doubtful whether this can
be obtained from the MT περ. The latter word is
held by some (e.g. Studer) to be a noun synonym-
ous with 73¥2; but even so the absence of the

882 PILLOW

article has to be accounted for. It is possible that,
inserting the article, and punctuating differently,
we should read ay2q (ef. 1S 132 1A 28 Q3hy5
but, upon the whole, the best course appears to be
to emend, with Moore (followed by Budde), to
72320 ‘the mazzzéba@ terebinth.’ Abimelech, as
Moore appositely points out, was thus acclaimed
at the sanctuary of Shechem, as Saul was at that
of Gilgal (1S 11%). The name was in all prob-
wbility purposely obscured by the Massoretic
reading and punctuation ax2. The mazzéba men-
tioned in Jg 9° is perhaps the same as is called in
Jos 9456 ‘a vreat stone’ (79973 13).
J. A. SELBIE,

PILLOW.—1. v2 1S 1918: 16 [only]. Michal, ae-
cording to AV and RV, put a pillow of goats’ hair
at the head of the teraphim which she had laid in
David’s bed. The LXX (ἧπαρ) reads 133 as 133
(constr. of 123 ‘liver’); and this is adopted by Jos.
(Ané. VI. xi. 4), who describes, somewhat fanci-
fully, how the palpitation of the goat’s liver under
the bed-clothes conveyed to Saul’s messengers the
impression that David was gasping for breath.
The root 722, from which +23 is derived, probably
means to ‘intertwine or net,’ so that Ow W323
would signify something woven or netted’ from
goats’ hair. Hence one or other of the two render-
ings proposed in RVim (‘quilt or network Ἢ should
probably be adopted in preference to the text. A
number of commentators (c.g. Sebastian Schinidt,
iwald, Keil) think the reference is to a mosquito-
net (κωνωπεῖον) spread over the face of a person
sleeping. But, as Driver points out, in Jth 102! 139,
where this Greek term is used of the CANopy (wh.
see) of Holofernes’ bed, the κωνωπεῖον is fixed upon
the στύλοι or bedposts. In favour of the render-
ing ‘quilt’ we have the employment of a cognate
Heb. term 7332 in 2 K 8" for the coverlet. which
Hazael used to smother Benhadad. But it must
be confessed that the description of Michal’s action
in 18 19" is not clear enough to determine the
sense of 132. The following term ΝΣ (AV ‘for
his bolster,’ RV ‘at the head thereof’) does not
define the position in which the 722 was placed
with reference to the head, whether over, or under,
or around it; it simply implies proximity (see,
further, Driver, Lohr, and H. P. Smith, ad loc.).
2. It is this word nivst> which is rendered by AV
‘pillow’ in Gn 281-38) put RV gives more correctly
‘under his head’ (LXX πρὸς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ). The
other occurrences of the Heb. expression in the
same sense are 1 8 267 11. 18 in all of which AV has
‘at his bolster,” RV ‘at his head’ (in +. read
vnextos for νῷ crtivtp; AV ‘from Saul’s bolster,’
tV ‘from Saul’s head’; LXX aro πρὸς κεφαλῆς
αὐτοί 2, 1K 19°, where both AV and RV render
rNID by ‘at his (Elijah’s) head’ (AVim “bolster? -
LXX πρὸς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ). 3. nindp (LXX_ προσ-
κεφάλαια) Ezk 1318 (AV, RV ‘pillows’). The mean-
ing appears to be ‘fillets’ or ‘ bands,’ used as amulets
or charms, for instance in the process of divina-
tion. See art. KERCHIEF, also PHYLACTERIES, p.
872”, and cf. the Comm. of Davidson or Bertholet,
ad loc. 4 προσκεφάλαιον. ‘Pillow’ is the correct
tr. of this word in 1 Es 38, where we are told that
the three pages of Darius each wrote his sentence,
sealed it up, and put it under the king’s pillow.
The only other Biblical occurrence οὐ this Gr.
term (in addition to the LXX of Ezk 1318. 20 above)
is Mk 4°, where we read that Jesus was in the
stern asleep ‘on a pillow’ (so AV, but RV ‘on
the cushion,’ Gr. ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον). The refer-
ence appears to be to the cushion used by rowers
(Cratin. Hor. 18, Hermipp. Strat. v.); see the
Comm. ad loc. J. A. SELBIE.

PILTAI 05 τ B om., A SeAyret).—The head of
the priestly house of Moadiah in the time of Joi-

PINNACLE

akim, Neh 127. Tt is possible that we should
emend to ‘nbs, Palti; cf. Nu 13°, 1S 2544, 2 § 9326.

PIN.—Jg 4-2 RV for AV ‘nail.’ The Heb. 13
τῶ (LXX πάσσαλος). In 52%, by an unaccountable
inconsistency, RV retains ‘nail,’ although the
Heb. is the same, and relegates ‘tent-pin’ to the
margin. On the other uses of the word ἽΠΣ see art.
PADDLE. The tent-pins, to which the ropes of the
tent were fastened (Is 3330), were not of metal but
of wood, as among the Bedawin at the present
day (see Moore, ad loc.). For the question whether
the description of Jael’s action in 42” is not due
to ἃ prosaic misunderstanding of 5° (Wellh. Comp.
μι 2283 WR Sinithe gay oe p. 1382; Stade, GV
1. p. 178 n.), see artt. JAEL and SISERA.

PINE TREE.—The tr" in AV of two Heb. ex-
pressions—4. prepy ‘éz-shemen (Neh 815), RV ‘wild
olive.” We incline to the rendering ‘ fatwood
trees’ for this expression in this and the other
passages in which it occurs. This would include
all the resinous trees of Palestine and Syria,
especially the pines. See ΟἿ, TREE.

2. 977m tidhhdr (Is 4119 608 RVm < plane’). There
is nothing in the etymology to indicate the tree
intended. Darddr in the Arab., which is used for
both the eli and the ash, is cited by the Oxf. Heb.
Lee. ; but this is from a different root, εἰαγ γ", not
dithar, and really sheds no light on the question.
Theodotion (Qmz) transliterated 757 by θαδδάρ,
while Symmachus rendered it πτελαίαν, 1.6. πτελέαν,
‘elm.’ In the LXX there are five trees named

where there are three in MT; possibly two of the

names are doublets. The reading of RVm (and
Cheyne) ‘ plane’ does not seem to have any founda-
tion. The same is true of Gesenius’ rendering
‘oak.’ This he obtains from the radical slgnifi-
‘sation of dahr (Arab.)=‘age’ or ‘duration’; but
the Heb. [377] dahar, has not, so far as we know,
any such meaning. Perhaps the best refuge for
our ignorance would be a textual or marginal
transliteration tidhhar, as suggested in the case
of te’ ashshiry in the same passage (see Box TREE),
and ’algummim (see ALGUM). GE Posm

PINNACLE (πτερύγιον, diminutive of πτέρυξ,
‘wing’; so lit. ‘little wing’; Vulg. pinnaculum
and pinna respectively in Mt 4° and Lk 4°, the
only two places where the Gr. word oceurs in N ΔῈ
—That part of the temple enclosure (τὸ ἱερόν, not
ὁ vais) to which the devil took our Lord for the
purpose of tempting Him.

πτερύγιον is used in the LXX to translate the
following Heb. words:—1. 532 kandph, wing or
border, as of a garment, Nu 15%, 1S 15:7 243,
2. 1232 sénappir, tin of a fish, Lv 11% Aristotle
in περὶ ψυχῆς, i. 5. 14, has the word in this sense.
3. 732 Lazah, Ex 28:5 (AV ‘border,’ RV ‘edge’ ot
breastplate).

In NT it stands for some part of the roof of the
sanctuary or of the εν a proper, perhaps the
S.E. corner, from which the widest and most im-
pressive view was obtained. The part meant was
well known, as the use of the article τὸ (πτερύγιον)
shows, but the word is used in this connexion only,
and we have no means of definitely fixing its
connotation. Opinions, which differ widely, may
be arranged in two main classes.

(a) Those which make the pinnacle a part of
the sanctuary or temple proper (ὁ ναός). Meyer
(on Mt 45) argues that the use of τοῦ ἱεροῦ, not
τοῦ ναοῦ, shows that the temple proper cannot be
meant; but he forgets in this eriticism that ἱερόν
is a general word which embraces the sanctuary
and also the adjoining buildings; it therefore
covers vaJs, though it includes more. It has this
more extensive meaning in Mt 12° 941, Mk 13%,

a

PINON

PISGAH 883

Lk 215 2252, though in some other passages it seems
to denote the buildings around, to the exclusion of
the temple proper, as in Mt 214 23°, Mk 14%,
Lk 1957 9187 22°) 24° ete. In Mt 4° and Lk 4? it
may be used in the broad or in the narrow
sense—the word itself proves nothing. The sense
here must accordingly be ascertained from the
context, or the probabilities of the case. Those
who seek the pinnacle somewhere in the sanctu-
ary ditler as to its exact situation. (1) Luther,
Beza, and Grotius place it on the parapet sur-
rounding the roof ; such a fence had by law (Dt 22°)
to be placed on the roof of all buildings, to pre-
vent accident by falling. (2) The ridge or the
highest point of the roof, say Fritzsche and
Winer. (3) According to Paulus, it is the gable
or pediment of the roof, and it gets its name from
its shape A. (4) Krebs, Keim, and generally the
older expositors identify the so-called pinnacle
with the roof. (5) Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. on Mt 4°)
holds that the summit of the δον (wda@m) or porch,
which extended on both sides of the sanctuary on
the east, is what we are to understand. ‘This
porch was, he says, like a wing of the temple,
and the top of it was like its wing.

(6) Others hold that a part of some out-building

is what is meant. Here again, as before, there
are differences as to the details. (1) Wetstein
and Michaelis think that Solomon’s porch on_ tle
east of the temple (see Jos. Ant. XXI. Tx as
what is meant. (2) The Στοὰ βασιλική on the south
side of the temple area (see Jos. Ant. XV. xi. 9)
is what B.-Crusius, Arnoldi, and Meyer take the
word to stand for. From this portico, according
to the account of Josephus (see above), the view
below isa deep and giddy one. This is the opinion
to which Lightfoot is most inclined next to his
own. -
When, however, we remember that the sanctu-
ary was on the highest of a series of terraces, so
that its roof would command valleys and moun-
tains around Jerus., and even beyond Jordan, it
is much more natural and impressive to make
the sanctuary roof the scene of this temptation.
Meyer objects that, on account of its being covered
with pointed spikes, put there to keep the birds
away, Christ could not have been placed there ;
but ‘the priests are known to have ascended to
this roof (Jiddoth, ch. 4; Lannith, Talm. Bab.
ΤΟ]... 29). T. W. DAVIES.

PINON (j3'2).—An Edomite ‘duke,’ Gn 901 (A
Φινές, 1) Φεινών, Ἐ Φινών)--1] Ch 15: (Β Φεινών, A
Φινών). It is the same name which appears in
Nu 332 as Punon (1.5), one of the stations of the
Israelites. See PUNON.

PIPE, in the sense of a tube, occurs in AV and
RV of Zee 42 (mips), and in AV (RV has ‘ spouts’)
of v.!2 (nivars) in connexion with the golden candle-
stick which the prophet saw in a vision, and which
had a bowl at the top filled with oil for supply-
ing its seven lamps by means of pipes leading to
them. For ‘pipe’ in the sense of a musical instru-
ment see Music. J. WORTABET.

PIRAM (exne ‘ wild ass’ ?).—The king of Jarmuth
who joined other four kings against Gibeon, but
was defeated by Joshua at Beth-horon and after-
wards put to death at Makkedah along with his
allies (Jos 10°"). According to Hommel (Ane. Heb.
Trad. 223n.), Piv’'am is identical with Pie, the
name of an Arabian king in the time of Sargon.
Sayce (HHH 225n.) compares the Egyp. Pi-Romi.

PIRATHON, PIRATHONITE (35:72, Φαραθωνείτης,
Lue. ᾿Εφρααθωνίτης), ὅν 12% !..—Abdon, a minor
judge, was a Pirathonite, .6. a native of Pirathon

‘in the land of Ephraim, in the hill-country of the
Amalekites,’ a district either anciently held by
the Amalekites, or seized by them on one of their
invasions from the south. Benaiah, one of David's
mighty men, belonged to the same town, 25 23%,
1Ch 1131: ὁ Φαραθωνεί, 274 ὁ ἐκ Φαραθών. it 15
generally identified with Fer'ata, 6 miles S.W. of
Samaria (a site also proposed for Oplral); some
prefer Fer'on, due W. of Samaria, Smith suggests
that Pirathon was a fortress at the head of the
Wady Farah, UGHL 355, cf. 350 F.; Moore is in-
clined to look for it in Benjamin, as Abdon is a
Benjamite family in 1 Ch 8% 9%. Pirathon
was one of the places fortified by Bacchides,
1 Mae 9° καὶ τὴν Θαμνάθα bapadwy. It appears that
καὶ τήν has fallen out of the text before ®. here.
The other fortresses in this verse are all ἐν τῇ
Ιουδαίᾳ, so that ® can hardly be the same as
Pirathon above ; unless the author made the mis-
take of introducing a Samaritan town into his list
of Judiean forts. See also Jos. Ant. XIIL. 1. 3.
G. A. COOKE,

PISSAH.—This word (which always has the def.
art. 73727) is not found by itself, but in the expres-
sions 73927 Bk and mazeq navy. The first of these
occurs in four passages, two of which refer to
Moses (Dt 327 341). In art. NeBo (MOUNT) it is
pointed out that ‘the top (head) of Pisgah’ and
‘Mt. Nebo’ are alternative designations (in D
and P respectively) of the same spot, and the
situation is described. The two other passages are
Nu 21% 234, In Nu 915 a station in the journey-
ings of the children of Israel is described as ‘the
top of Pisgah which looketh down upon the desert’
(AV ‘toward Jeshimon,’ cf. RVm); and according
to Nu 234 Balak brought Balaam, after sacrificing
on the high places of Baal, or at Bamoth-baat
(224) ‘into the field of Zophim, to the top of
Pisgah.’

The second expression is found Dt 317 4%, Jos 12%
132. RV renders ‘slopes of Pisgah,’ with ‘spaings’
in the margin; AV has ‘ Ashdoth-pisgah,’ except
in Dt 4°, where it has ‘the springs of Pisgah.” In
Jos 10% 128 ningsa occurs by itself, and is rendered
RV ‘slopes,’ AV ‘springs’; and Wy is the first
word of Nu 21—RV ‘slope of the valleys, AV
‘stream of the brooks.’ Irom these versions it
will be seen that the unusual word from the root
τὸν has been variously interpreted. In Aramaic
πῶν means ‘to pour’ [it is the Targ. rendering of
ποῦ in MT], and hence 7's and mex are interpreted
as places where water 1s poured down, ἡ, ὃ. the
sloping sides of hills, or as pourings forth, 1.6.
streams or springs.

The AV, in treating it as a proper name, follows
the LXX, which renders uniformly ᾿Ασηδώθ (Mndwd
is a variant in B of Jos 128 and A of 13”), The
hesitation of AV is like that of the Vulgate, which
renders radices montis Phasga in Dt, and Asedoth
in Joshua. The Onomasticon takes it as the name of
a city in the tribe of Reuben, and adds ‘adpellatur
autem addito cognomento Asedoth Fasga, quod in
lingua nostra resonat abscisum.’ (Cf. Eus. [Lag.
900]: λέγεται δὲ ᾿Ασηδὼθ Φασγὼ ὅ ἐστι λαξευτή.) 1
also asserts (5.0. ‘Abarim’) that a district was still
called Φασγώ, Fasga (Onom. Lag. ed. pp. 124, 125,
237). No trace of such a district has been found on
the eastern side of the Dead Sea, but a very similar
name is applied to a promontory on the western
shore (Ras Feshkah); and in its neighbourhood 15
the Neby Musa of Moslem tradition.

The renderings of LXX for Pisgah call for some
comment. Inthe second group (those containing
’Ashdéth-happisgah) we lind Pacya or Φασχά three
times, and τὴν λαζξευτήν in Dt 4% In the first
group (those containing ‘ top of Pisgah’) we find
Φασγά once (Dt 341), but Nu 21” τοῦ Nedagevpévor,
and Nu 234, Dt 3°7 (both B) Λελαξευμένον,

Ὁ

884 PISHON

PISIDIA

The root 305 oceurs only once in the Massoretic
text of OT (Ps 48%) in Tare. Jerus. asa verb ‘to
divide’ (MT πη πᾷ the ἄπ. Aey. 392 of Gn 15!), and
05 denotes ‘a portion.” The word λαξεύω (which
is used of hewing and dressing stone) is the LXX
rendering of the M'T $22 in the command to hew
the second tables of stone (Ex 34/4, Dt 10). In
the Onomasticon it is regarded as a translation of
Pisgah, and the ‘abscisum’ of Jerome (see the pas-
sages given above) seems to indicate a mountain
with precipitous sides. Pisgah as seen from the
heights of the Moabite plateau would not suggest
the idea of a mountain cut off from its fellows, but
as seen from the Dead Sea and Jordan Valley its
steep sides justify the epithet ‘abscisum,’ which
may be taken as an interpretation of λαξευτήν and
Pisgah. There is another alternative sugeested
by the similarity between So5 and 7305, viz. that
the LXX translation is due to a confusion of con-
sonants. It may further be noted that the different
renderings of the LXX are not found in different
books, but that in both Numbers and Deut. Pisgah
is translated in one place as a proper noun, and in
others explained by the Greek verb λαξεύω.

A. T. CHAPMAN.

PISHON (05, Φεισῶών, Phison).—See EDEN. In
Assyrian pisannu means ‘ water-channel.’

PISIDIA (Ilicidia) was a country in the southern
part of Asin Minor, bounded by Lycia on the west,
Phrygia on the north, and Pamphylia on the south,
while on the east it passed in a vague, indefinite
way into the lanl of the Isaurian or Tracheiotic
tribes. Its ereatest length, east to west, was
about 120 miles, and its greatest breadth about
50. On the north and south Pisidia was originally
well defined by its relation to the Taurus moun-
tains; in this part Taurus is a broad tract of many
lofty ridges intersected by valleys, some of large
size along the course of Considerable rivers or the
margin of lakes, others mere glens among the
hills. Where the mountains are merged definitely
in the great plateau on the north, or sink to the
level coast -land on the south, Pisidia ended.
Several of those large valleys bore special names,
such as Kabalis, Milyas the land of the Milyes or
Milyai, the country of the Etenneis (more strictly
Hetenneis, transformed in Greek into two separate
names attached to two parts of the country,
Etenneis and Katenneis), the country of the
Orondeis, the country of the Homonades: some-
times those districts were called by their special
names, but often they were suinmed up as parts of
Pisidia.

In the course of Roman history the name Pisidia
was changed from a strictly veovraphical to a
political term. Pisidia was merely a part of the
great province Galatia in the Ist cent. after Christ,
In A.D. 74 the larger half of Pisidia was taken
from the province Galatia and attached to the new
double province of Lycia-Pamphylia. It was then
reckoned part of Pamphylia; and that name now
gradually came to be used as including many cities
which previously were purely Pisidian ; while the
name Pisidia was more especially applied to the
part of that country which was’‘still in the pro-
vince Galatia, and Pisidia steadily encroached on
PHRYGIA until in practice the Whole of Galatic
Phrygia was called Pisidia. Antioch and Apollonia,
originally cities of Phrygia, then came to be called
cities of Pisidia. Still later, probably under Dio-
cletian, the whole of southern Galatia was formed
into a province Pisidia, to which were attached
western Lycaonia and another slice of Phrygia
with the cities of Apamea and Metropolis. Thus
we find Iconium called a city of Pisidia in the 4th

cent. by Ammianus Marcellinus. About 372
another new province Lycaonia was constituted

out of parts of the provinces Tsauria, Pisidia, and
Galatia (eastern Lycaonia and Isauropolis from the
first, western Lycaonia and parts of eastern Pisidia
from the second, Glavama or Eedaumana from the
third) ; and henceforth the name Pisidia was used
to denote the diminished province with Antioch as
capital.

In the time of St. Paul, Pisidia was still used in
its old and strict sense to indicate the whole great
eroup of mountain valleys in the Taurus, which
politically formed part of the province Galatia.
Paul traversed Pisidia on his way from Perga to
Antioch (Ae 134), and again on his return journey
from Antioch to Perga (Ac 14%). On the former
occasion Pisidia is not named, probably for the
reason that Paul and Barnabas were going straight
to Antioch and did not preach by the way. On
the second oceasion ‘they passed through Pisidia
and came to Pamphylia’’; the two names are here
used as political terms, one being a region of the
province Galatia (see vol. ii. pp. 87, 90f.), the other
the small procuratorial province on the coast.

In Ac 134 the true text is " Pisidian Antioch’ #
(not Antioch of Pisidia), that being a way of dis-
tinguishing it from the many other Antiochs,
abbreviated from the fuller description ‘a Phrygian
city towards Pisidia’: the region (of the province)
of which Antioch was metropolis is mentioned
Ae 13": it was (Galatie) PHRYGLA,

If Paul preached in Pisidia, the brevity of the
reference rather sugeests that the work was un-
important and unsuceessful. He found there no
‘door opened unto him?’ (2 Co 2"). A rude, little-
educated, rustic population was not favourable to
his teaching ; and there is no reason to think that
Pisidia was early Christianized. The only part
where there are any pre-Constantinian Christian
inscriptions, is that which lies closest to Apamea ; Ὁ
and the new religion is likely to have spread f here
from that great seat of early Christianity (see
PHRYGIA).

Yet a Pauline tradition seems either to have re-
mained alive from the first or to have grown up
later in Pisidia. The modern name of the impos-
ing but wholly desolate and unpopulated ruins of
Adada is Kara Bavlo. The word Kara (literally
‘black,’ metaphorically in common usage ‘terrible’
or ‘strong’) is often applied to ancient sites. The
name Bavlo is now applied to the modern town
ὅ or 6 miles south of Kara Bavlo, which his re-
placed it as the seat of government. Plainly the
name was carried with the population from the old
site to the new ; and the old city was henceforward
distinguished as Kara Bavlo. “Now it is evident
and certain that Bavlo is merely the modern pro-
nunciation of the apostle’s name ΠΠαῦλο᾽ ; and
clearly this name was the popular local designation
of Adada, derived from the patron saint. And
it is highly probable that this local identification
of Adada with the apostle’s name is to be con-
nected with the fact that Adada is the one im-
portant city in Pisidia on the direct road from
Perga to Antioch; and that the name attests a
local legend that St. Paul passed that way and
taught in the city. A remarkable and very early
ruined church stands near the road leading to the
south about a mile or two from the city.

One other trace of Pisidia has been left on the
NT. When St. Paul speaks of the ‘perils of
rivers’ and ‘perils of robbers’ which he had been
exposed to, no locality is likely to have been so
prominent in his mind as Pisidia. It was still
barely conquered when he traversed it. Augustus
had found it necessary to plant in it several colonies,
Cremna, Comama, Olbasa, Parlais, to keep down

*Avaioyeiey τὴν Πισιδίαν, NABC, Tisch., Westcott and Hort,

etc.
t Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, pt. ii. p. 498.

oe .

eR ere τς

PISPAH.

ἘΠῚ 885

its unruly tribes. Its mountain fastnesses were
the natural haunt and refuge of robbers ; and the
inscriptions bear testimony to this. Some examples
are quoted in the Church tn the Roman Empire
before 170, p. 236.3; see also Conybeare and How-
son’s scholarly work on St. Paul (though it indi-
cates a different route across Pisidia).

LirERATURE.—As to Pisidian ethnology and language hardly
anvthing is known; Ramsay, ‘Inscriptions en Langue Pisi-
dienne,’ in Revue des Universités du Midi, 1895, p. 353, has
published the only known monuments of the language; but
they contain hardly anything more than proper names, reveal-
ing a few grammatical forms. The proper names, Grecized in
form, which occur in Greek inseriptions, are of remarkable and
peculiar character: many Greek inscriptions of Pisidian cities
are given by Sterrett in his Wolfe Eapedition and his Epiyra-
phic Journey in Asia Minor; by Lanckoronski, Stadte Pam-
phyliens und Pisidiens (containing also splendid accounts and
photographs of sites and monuments).

W. M. RAMSAY.

PISPAH (7575, Φασφαί, A bacda).—An Ashe-

ree, Ch ΤΣ

PIT in OT represents twelve Heb., and in NT
two Gr. words. 4, 2. Frem the root 72, only in
Piel, ‘make distinct or plain’ :-—(@) ἽΝ (possibly
from idea of coming to light or appearing), com-
monly rendered ‘well,’ indicating a deep shaft
containing water. It corresponds with Arab. cr.
It is once used of the pits whence bitumen was
taken, 725 mox3 (Gin 1410). The dark, cold depths,
from which, if one fell in, escape would be so difh-
cult, doubtless suggested the figures ‘pit of destruc-
tion’ (Ps 55+), ‘pit’ (Ps 69"), ‘narrow pit ’(Pr 23).
(6) %2 the usual word for ‘cistern,’ which should
take the place of ‘pit’? (Vm) in Ly 1, 18 13°,
2k 10. When empty, the bor was frequently
used as a place of confinement (Gn 37", Zee 9").
It is rendered ‘dungeon’ in Gn 40", Ts 247 RVim,
La, 35; so also Jer 38° (Vim ‘ pit’), which may
explain the figure in Ps 40"; 427 m2 (Ex 12%, Jer
3719) is a prison cell. Thus it comes to be used
for the universal prison of the tomb (Pr 115, Ps 28!
30%, Is 1415. 5918. Ezk 26% ete.). The pit in which
Benaiah slew the lion (2S 93:0, 1 Ch 113) and the
pit, prepared against the necessities of a dreaded
siege, into which Ishmael cast his slaughtered
victims (Jer 41%%), were probably large empty
reservoirs. The hole out of which stones have been
quarried (Is 51?) is often used as a cistern.

3. 33 (from 332 ‘to dig’) corresponds with the
Arab. gubh, a deep well or cistern or ditch, The
word occurs in 2 K 910, where the most likely sense
is ‘trenches’ (RV), and in Jer 143, where ‘pits’
should surely be ‘cisterns’ (possibly also in same
sense [so Klost.] in Jer 391° 521% ||2 Kx 25!”).

4 x33 (from x33? ‘to gather together’) a cistern,
asin Is 304 RV; but in Ezk 47"! probably a marsh
or pool.

5, [58 (an Aram. loan-word) occurs only in Ee 108
‘He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it’; ef. the
parallel in Pr 2627, where the word used is πε;
reot [2 Syr. and Arata. =‘ to dig.’

6. nop (from an unused root nop ‘to excavate’),
probably an excavation, or deep cleft with gloomy
recesses in which one might hide (2.8 179). It is
rendered ‘hole’ in Jer 4535, and doubtless because
of its forbidding aspect it is associated with those
things which inspire terror (Is 9417, Jer 485, La
37 RV, ete.). Into some such opening the body of
Absalom was thrown (2 8 1817).

1. Ses. In each of the three cases where AV
renders ‘pit’? (Nu 16°, Job 17'8) ‘Sheol’ is pre-
ferable (see art. HADES).

8. 9. 10. From the root m2 ‘to sink or subside ’:—
(a) a, in Jer 2% of the pits which enhanced the
perils of the desert march; fig. in Pr 224 2857
(AV and RV ‘ditch’), Jer 18%. (Ὁ) nov, the pit
in which snares are set to take wild beasts, and so
metaph. the cunning designs of a man’s foes to

compass his undoing (Ps 7° (ditch) 91 357 948, Pr
26-7, Ezk 19%->). It is also used as equivalent to
the grave, which is destined to entrap all living
Wob33k™, Ps 30) 55%). ΡΤ τ should take
the place of ‘corruption’? in Job 174, Ps 1010. 49°,
and Jon 28 (RVm); of ‘destruction’ Ps 1034, and of
‘crave’ Job 33”. In Job 9"! it seems to indicate
a receptacle of filth, while in Is 51" it clearly
denotes a dungeon. (6) ame occurs thrice (Ps 578
119%, Jer 1823), fig. in each case, of the subtle and
malevolent schemes of enemies.

11. 12. From the root anv ‘to bow down’ :—(a@)
mny only once, fig. (Pr 28). (4) may (Ps 107%, La
430), In the former case, instead of * destructions,’
we may read with Delitzeeh (77 loc.) Spits,’ refer-
ring to the safferings into which they had sunk.
In the latter it again 1efers to the successful
designs of the enemy.

In the NT the terms used are—1. βόθυνος
= βόθρος, any hole or hollow in the ground, as, 6.67.»
the trench in which a tree is planted), Mt 12". In
Mt 154, Lk 6°, AV renders ‘ditch’; RV uniformly
‘pit.’

2. φρέαρ, an artificial well, cistern, reservoir, or,
generally, pit. In Lk 145 (RV), where the empty
well is doubtless intended, and Jn 4"-!2 it 1s
rendered ‘well.’ In Rey 9!" it is used figuratively
of the pit of the abyss. Empty wells are often
left uncovered and unguarded near the villages,
and especially around deserted sites in Palestine,
and form a serious danger to the traveller, par-
ticularly in the dark. See, further, the following
article. W. Ewina.

PIT (metaphorical).—As might be expected, the
metaphorical use of this word is most trequent in
the poetical and prophetical books of the Bible,
and in passages where an elevated style is natural.
It stands in the EV (see the preceding article) for
a number of Heb. words, and the utter lack of con-
sistency in the translation is well exemplified in
Pr 22, in the 14th verse of which ‘pit’ is the
rendering of ame’, whilst in 23*7 ἼΝΞ is represented
by ‘pit,’ and amy by ‘ditch.’ The shades of mean-
ine may be classified as follows :—

1. Ina solitary instance, Is 51', ‘the hole of the
pit (%2)’ refers to Sarah, the ancestress of the
nation, the quarry from which it was digged.

2. Very frequently the pif is a stratagem or
device by which an enemy is injured. Ezk 107. ὃ
justifies the conclusion that the figure was sug-
vested by the pits in which wild animals are
captured. The Heb. words used in this sense
are—-N2, ¥2, nna, am, nov, mny, anny, apy. See
Ps 918357 119%, Pr 22! 03%" 2810! ete,

3. From this sense the transition is easy to that
of the miserable condition or the ruin into which
one falls—the roaring pit (ἡ νῷ 2) of Ps 40°, the
watery pits (mdz) of Ps 140, the βόθρος of Sir
12", the βόθρος ddou of Sir 2110,

4, A wretched underground dungeon thoroughly
deserves this name. It is found at Is 9453 (12), Zee
011 (42), Wis 108 (λάκκος, here used, is the LXX
rendering of 2, Joseph’s dungeon, Gn 41"),

5. The grave is often entitled ‘the pit.’ Here,
again, a variety of Heb. words are employed—rsz,
nev ona, 2, Six, one, a mov. Such passages as
Ezk 32% call up the picture of a huge columbarivm
with graves in the sides. But here and elsewhere
it is not easy to distinguish between this significa-
tion and the one mentioned under No. 6.

6. Hades, the realm of shades, situated beneath
the earth, and tenanted by thin, unsubstantial
ghosts, bears this name. At Is 14% the pit (73) is
obviously the same as ‘hell,’ 1.6. Hades (oxy).

7. In the Apocalypse the abode of the devil and
his angels is conceived of as a vast underground
abyss, communicating with the surface of the eai th

ς------

886 PITCH

PITHOM

by a great shaft, which is opened or closed from
avove by God’s angels sent forth for the purpose.
For this pit, or bottomless pit, φρέαρ, φρέαρ τῆς
ἀβύσσου, ἡ ἄβυσσος, see Rev 91: 5: 11 1]7 178 90}1- sand:
cf. art. ABYss. J. TAYLor.

PITCH (nz, 155, πίσσα) may denote either mineral
pitch (bitumen), or the vegetable pitch obtained
from resinous trees. Pliny (Nat. Hist. xiv. 25,
Xvi. 23) reserves the word pix for the latter, while
the former is called pissasphaltus. The words
rendered ‘pitch’ in Scripture apparently refer to
mineral pitch, an inflammable, viscous substance,
composed of a mixture of hydro-carbons, and found
now in a more liquid, now in a more solid state
(see BITUMEN).

723 occurs in Gn 6!4 as the name of the substance
with which the ark was covered both within and
without. The word has a variety of meanings
elsewhere in OT, and its usage here is connected
with the simple sense of the verb 12> (‘ to cover’),
which appears in the same verse as the cognate of
the noun, and is {τ ‘to pitch.” LXX has ἀσφαλ-
τώσεις τῇ ἀσφάλτῳ, and ἄσφαλτος is elsewhere the
rendering of 725 (‘bitumen’).

ΠΕῚ in Ex 2° is one of the substances with which
the ark of bulrushes was daubed, the other being

27. It might seem from the Hebrew as if two
distinct substances were referred to, but LXX
combines both in the translation ἀσφαλτοπίσσα.
The distinction between ΠῚ and 720 is probably
that between the more liquid and the more solid
varieties of bitumen.

In Is 34° ney (LXX πίσσα) oceurs twice in the pre-
diction of the desolation of Edom. ‘The streams
thereof shall be turned into pitch, ... and the land
thereof shall become burning pitch.’ The mention
of ‘brimstone’ in the same verse, and the fact that
bitumen oceurs along with sulphur near the Dead
Sea, suggest that here also bitumen is meant.

In Apocr. πίσσα occurs thrice. Sir 131 refers to
the defilement caused by touching pitch. In Three”
itch is mentioned among the substances used in
jihaiiae Nebuchadrezzar’s fiery furnace. Bel 27
describes how Daniel slew the dragon by putting
into its mouth lumps of pitch, fat, and hair, that
had been boiled together. JAMES PATRICK,

PITCHER (12 kad, LXX ὑδρία ; in La 42 Os Lua
κεράμιον, as in NT).—A vessel for holding water
(Gin 244"), carried by girls on their shoulders ἜΡΩΣ
These vessels were made of earthenware bl eye) 3
and sufliciently wide-mouthed to admit a toreh
(Jg 7619. 2), Tt was in a kad that the widow of
Zarephath kept her meal (1 IX 17}*), although the
word is translated ‘barrel’ in AV and RV; and
the vessels of water (also called ‘barrels’) which
Elijah caused to be poured over his sacrifice at
Carmel were kaddim. In the figurative descrip-
tion of death in Ee 12% the pitcher is said to be
broken at the fountain. The nébel of Jeremiah
Was an earthen vessel in shape resembling a skin
bottle, and probably had a narrower neck than
the kad. As both vessels were made to be carried,
they had usually a pair of handles. The pitcher
borne by the man who led the apostles to the
place where the Vassover was to be prepared was
a κεράμιον (Mk 14, Lk 22, The Samaritan
woman's waterpot was a hydria of earthenware
(Jn 455), smaller than the stone hydric of Cana
(Jn 2°), which do not seem to have been equally
portable. In Is 5” κεράμιον of LXX represents
Heb. πΞ (EV ‘bath’); in Jer 35° it represents
nébel (RV ‘pots,’ AV ‘ bowls’).

The Egyptian gad or gai (Copt. KeAwA) Was an
earthenware vessel resembling the kad, with side
handles, and sufficiently wide-mouthed to serve as
ὧν receptacle for fruit or other solids (Papyrus

Anastas. iv. 14), while commonly used for water or
beer, as in the story of Anpu and Bata. Pitchers
of this kind have been figured by Bliss (4 Mound
of Many Cities, pp. 118, 120), and by Petrie in his
sketches of Palestinian pottery ; see Tell el Hésy,
p. 40, pl. vii. figs. 123, 125, ix. fig. 190. See art.
POTTERY.

The English word ‘pitcher’ is derived from the
Trench. ‘The vessel is called pichicr in the Lan-
guedoe, and this has its root in the Latin picarium
or bicarium, from which we also have got the
word ‘ beaker.’ The word does not occur in Middle
English to the writer’s knowledge, the water vessel
being an ewwere or ewer ; see Boke of Curtasye, 641.
It had, however, become common’ in Elizabethan
English, as in the familiar Shakspearean phrase
in Laming of Shrew, ΤΥ. iv. 52, and Richard TEL,
II. iv. 37. A. MACALISTER,

PITHOM (che; B Πειθώ, A Πιθώμ).---1πὰ Ex 1 it
is said that the Israelites built for the Pharaoh of
the Oppression the cities of * Pithom and IAAMSES,’
to which the LXX adds, ‘and On, which is Helio-
polis.’ They are called 73293 12, usually rendered
‘ treasure (AV) or store (RV) cities,’ but the exact
signification of the term is doubtful, and the LXX
makes it πύλεις dxupai, ‘strong or fortified cities’
(see also 1 K 019, 2 Ch 8+, where the same Heb. is
tr., in the first passage π. τῶν σκηνωμάτων, and in
the second 7. ὀχυραί). The site of Pithom has been
the subject of much controversy, which, however,
has been finally set at rest by the excavations of Dr.
Naville for the Egypt Exploration Fund in 1883.

Herodotus (ii. 158) describes the canal made by
Necho to connect the Red Sea with the Nile as
starting ‘a little above Bubastis’ (now Zagazig),
and passing ‘Patumos, a city in the Arabian
nome? (Πάτουμον τὴν ᾿Αραβίην πόλων). ‘Arabia,’ o1
the Arabian nome, was the 20th nome of Lower
Egypt, called Sopd-Qemhes in Egyptian, whose
‘apital was Qosem or Goshen, now Saft el-Henna.
Patumos is evidently the Pa-Tum or Pi-Tum, ‘the
house of Tum’—the ancient sun-cod of Heliopolis
—of the E¢yptian texts. At Dendera the city of
Pi-Tum is deseribed as in the land of Rto-Abt, ‘the
entrance to the East,’ a name which Dr. Naville
suggests may be the origin of the Greek ‘ Arabia,’
when used to denote the 20th nome (see Mariette’s
Denderah, iv. 75. 12). The name Pi-Tum is
first found in monuments of the age of the 19th
dynasty ; thus a letter dated in the 8th year of
Meneptah 11. the son and successor of Ramses τ.
and translated by Brugsch (ΜΠ ἐόντι of Egypt, Eng.
tr. 2nd ed. ii. p. 133), speaks of Edomite nomads
being allowed to pass the Khetam or ‘fortress of
Meneptah in the land of Thuket’ (Succoth),
which protected the eastern frontier of Egypt, and
to feed their flocks near ‘the lakes (birkata) of
Pi-Tum_ of Meneptah in the land of Thuket’
(Select Papyri in the Hieratic character Srom the
Collections in the British Museum, Dl exes vis):

Chabas had already, in 1864, pointed out that
the Pithom of the OT must correspond with an
Egyptian Pi-Tum, and suggested that its site
should be sought at Abu-Késhéd or Tel el-Mas-
khfita in the Wady Tumilat, 17 kilometres south-
west of Ismailiya (A/élanges, p. 162), a suggestion
which he afterwards withdrew in favour of Tmui
el-Emdid, the ancient Thmuis. So far as the form
of the name was concerned, however, the con-
clusion of Chabas was soon afterwards confirmed
by the publication of various geographical texts by
Brugsch, Diimichen, Mariette, and others, from
which it appeared that the capital of the 8th nome
of Lower Egypt, Nefer-Abt, had the civil name
Thuket and the sacred name Pi-Tum. Tum,
the setting sun, was worshipped there under the
form of a serpent, and its chiet temple was accord.

Poet

TT

PITHOM

PLAGUE 887

ingly termed Pi-Qereht, ‘the house of the snake.’
According to Brugsch (Zeitschrift fur Agypt.
Sprache, 1876, p. 127), the sacred lake or canal bore
the name of ‘Crocodile Lake’ (Aharnie), the
domain-land being Annu or On.

Bruesch first showed that Thuket is the biblical
SuccorH, the Egyptian th being, as elsewhere,
represented by the Hebrew Ὁ, and the vocalization
of the name having been assimilated to that of the
word which means ‘booths’ in Hebrew (Zeitschr.
fir Egypt. Sprache, 1875, p. 7). Suecoth was the
first stave of the Israelites in their flight from
Egypt before they encamped at Ernam, the
Egyptian Khetam or ‘fortress,’ which commanded
the approach to ‘the wilderness’ (Ex 1251 18:0),
Pithom, accordingly, must have been in or adjoin-
ing the land of Goshen.

When the Fresh-water Canal was made almost
on the lines of the old canal of Seti 1. and Necho, it
passed through the Wady Tumilat, and skirted
the ruins of Tel el-Maskhfta (‘the mound of
the Image’). Various monuments of the age of
Ramses II. were discovered in the Tel, including
the one from which it derived its name, and were
removed to Ismailiya. Lepsius had already pro-
posed to see in the Tel the site of the city of
Raamses (Chronologie, p. 348) ; and Maspero, who
published some of the inscriptions in 1877 (Revue
archéologique, nowy. sér. XxNiv. p. 320), arrived at
the same conclusion. But the study of the monu-
ments at Ismailiya, all of which were dedicated
to Tum by Ramses 1., led Dr. Naville to suspect
that the Tel really represented Pithom, and not
Raamses, and accordingly he commenced excava-
tions on the spot. The result was the discovery of
a temple, as well as of storehouses, private habita-
tions, the walls of the city, and various inscrip-
tions. The city and temple proved to have been
built by Ramses 11. of the 19th dynasty, and to
have lasted down to the Roman era. They proved
also to be the Pi-Tum or Thuket of the hiero-
glyphic texts.

The discovery was important, as it not only
settled the site of Pithom, and so threw light on
the route of the Israelites, but it also showed that
Ramses IL, the builder of Pi-Tum, must have
been the Pharaoh of the Oppression. Unless we
denv the historical character of Ex 111, the date
of the Exodus is definitely fixed.

Dr. Naville’s discoveries further showed that
Pithom changed its name in the Greek age. It
became Heroopolis, which the Romans abbreviated
into Ero, as is proved by inscriptions, which
confirm the statement of Stephanus Byzantinus
(s.v.) that the Heroonpolis of Strabo was also
known as Héré. An explanation is thus afforded
of the reading of the LXX in Gn 46° ‘he sent
Judah before him unto Joseph to meet him at
Heroonpolis in the land of Ramesses,’ where, it is
noticeable, the Coptic version substitutes ‘Pithom
the city’ for Heroonpolis. DP’ Anville (Wémotres
sur UEgypte, p. 121 tf.) long ago suggested that
Heroopolis was to be sought at Tel el-Maskhita,
and the suggestion was adopted by Quatremere,
Champollion, and others. [πὶ the inscription of
the obelisk of Hermapion, quoted by Ammianus
Marcellinus (Champollion, Grammaire égyptienne,
Ρ. 361), ‘the ‘son of Tum’ is translated ‘son of
Heron’ (or ‘Héré’). Pi-Tum or Heroopolis was
the capital of the 8th nome of Lower Egypt;
consequently Herodotus was mistaken in placing

>atumos in ‘Arabia.’ It adjoined the Arabian
nome, but was not actually init. The high priest
of its temple had the title of Herti-sontt.

The city was in the form of a square, contain-
ing about 55,000 square yards. ‘The temple of
Tum occupied a small space in the south-western
angle of the enclosure, and seems never to have

been finished. To the north was a series of brick
buildings, in which Dr. Naville sees storchouses in
which the provisions were gathered ‘necessary for
armies about to cross the desert, or even for
‘aravans and travellers which were on the road to
Syria.” The chambers composing them had thick
walls, and were without communication with one
another, the access to them being from the top.
The whole city was ruthlessly levelled when the
Romans formed a camp on the site of it, and
founded the later Heroopolis on the north-eastern
edge of the camp immediately to the south cf the
present Fresh-water Canal.

LITERATURE.—Naville, The Store-City of Pithom and the
Route of the Exodus, first. memoir of the Egypt Exploration
Fund, 1885; Jacques de Rouge, Géographie ancienrive de la
Basse - Egypte, 1891; Sayce, UCM, 1894, pp. 230 ff.,.. οι
H. Brugsch, Dictionnaire géoqraphique de Vancienne Egypte.
1879, see also Driver in Hogarth’s A uthority and Archeology,
1899, pp. 54f., 61, 68; Ball, Light from the East, p. 1091 3
Dillm.-Ryssel on Ex 111, A, H. SAXCE;

PITHON (jims).—One of the sons of Micah, the
son of Merib-baal, 1 Ch 8% (BA Φιθών) || 9%? (75,
B Φαιθών, A Φιθων).

PITIFUL.—Pity is the same word as piety, the
Eng. having followed the Old Fr. in separating the
one word pictas into piété ‘piety,’ and pitié pity.
The adj. ‘ pitiful’ was formed after the separation,
and is simply ‘full of pity. But pity may be
eiven or received, and ‘pitiful’ is used about 1611
in three ways: (1) showing pity, compassionate ;
(2) exciting or deserving * pity, miserable ; (3) con-
temptible, despicable, the modern use of the word.
Shaks. has all three—

(ly dich. ΧΕΙ i ui, 141

‘J would to God my heart were flint, like Edward’s ;
Or Edward’s soft and pitiful, like mine.’
(2) Othello, 1. ili. 161—
“Twas passing strange,
Twas pitiful, twas wondrous pitiful.’

(3) Hamlet, 11. i. 49—‘ That’s villainous; and
shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that
uses it” In AV ‘pitiful’ is used only in the first
sense, compassionate; La 410 ‘The hands of the
pitiful women have sodden their own children’
(vied Οὐ, LNXX γυναικῶν οἰκτειρμύνων) 5 No) He
‘The Lord is . very pitiful’; Ja 57 ‘The Lord
is very pitiful’ (πολύσπλαγχνος, RV * full of pity’);
1P 38 ‘Be pitiful’ (εὔσπλαγχνοι, Ἦν ‘tender-
hearted’).

The subst.
in the sense of misery.

‘pitifulness’ occurs in Job 16 tne
J. HASTINGS.

PITY.—See Compasston. In Ezk 24°! ‘that
which your soul pitiefh (marg. ‘pity of your
soul’) is equivalent to ‘ object of affection ’ (cf. γε
There is a play upon words in the Heb. (mahmad
‘énékhem umahmal naphshekhem).

PLACE OF TOLL.—See TOLL (PLACE OF).

PLAGUE (i.c. πληγή ‘blow,’ “stroke’).—A gen-
eral term for a penalty inflicted by God. It is otten
used as a synonym of * pestilence,’ but is usually
more comprehensive and used of other punishments
as well as diseases. It is employed to indicate the
last of the Egyptian plagues (Ex 113), and is here
the tr. of yx nega, literally ‘a stroke.’ In Lv 13
and t4 this word occurs 59 times as descriptive of
leprosy, as also in Dt 24°. It is used (in the verbal
form) of Divine chastisement in general in Ps 7374,
as a synonym of ‘pestilence’ in 1 K 85:95 and Ps
91, and it denotes the punishment inflicted on
Pharaoh in the matter of Sarah in Gn ΤΣ

The word 433 is six times translated ‘plague.’

~ Of, Fuller, Holy Warre, 4, ‘We leave them in a state most
pitifull, and little pitied.’

888 PLAGUES OF EGYPT

PLAGUES OF EGYPT

It is used in Jos 9217 of the plague of Baal-peor ; in
Nu 16-7 (Heb. Pe ok that following the re- |
bellion of Korah. Elsewhere its meaning is more |
general, as in Ex 128 302, Nu 8! The verb 433
(AV ‘plague ’) in Ps 8938 is tra by RV ‘smite.’

In Nu 1155 the judgment at Kibroth-hattaavah
is called πρὸ makkah, a word usually translated |
‘wound,’ ‘smiting,’ ‘chastisement,’ ete. Ta Dt
28" it is employed for any disease inflicted as a
penalty, as in Ly 2621, Dt’ 28 2:92 Tn 1 S 49 it |
refers to the plagues of Egypt, and in Jer 4917 5018
is used of the plagues to be inflicted on Babylon
and Edom, over which the enemies of these |
countries are to hiss in derision and astonishment.

In 22 other passaces ‘plague’ is the rendering
of 7232 maggéphah, used of the Egyptian plagues |
in Ex 94; of the disease that slew the spies, Nu |
147; or that which slew the rebels who followed
Korah, Nu 16348: 49-90 (Heb. 17! 4-15) 5 of Baal-peor, ©
Nu 25%: % 18 961 3]16 ps 106" ; of the infliction on
the Philistines, 1 S 64: and of that which followed
David’s census, 2S 2471-5, 1 Ch 217-2. It is also
prophetically employed of the punishment of those
that neglect the ceremonial law, Ly 1.41. 19.18.

‘Piague’ in Hos 134 is deber, usually — tr.
‘pestilence.’ In 1 Co 155 κέντρον, ‘sting,’ appears
to be the rendering of 3323; the LXX in Hosea
Uses κέντρον as the translation of 22p, and δίκη as
that of deber.

In NT the issue of blood is called a Ὁ plague’? in
Mk 5-4, where the Greek term is μάστιξ, literally
a ‘scourge.’ This word is used of other diseases
in general in Mk 3", Lk 722 In RV the word
πληγή is 12 times rendered ‘plague’ (AV wants it
in 918). See, further, MEDICINE, p-. 324.

A. MACALISTER.

PLAGUES OF EGYPT.—The judgments inflicted
upon the Egyptians by God on account οὗ their
oppression of the Israelites and refusal to release
them. They are detailed in Ex 7-12", and given
in epitome in Ps 78#-! 105-73, Ip the longer |
narrative ten successive plagues are enumerated :
(1) the turning the river into blood, (2) frogs, (3)
lice, (4) flies, (5) murrain, (6) boils, (7) hail, (8)
locusts, (9) darkness, (10) the slaying of the first-
born. In Ps 78 the list consists oS ae ας ee ee
10; that in Ps 105 includes Ὁ; sees dee ENO γῆ,
Philo gives them in the following order: 1, 2, 3, 7,
8. 9, 4, 5, 10, but that is to suit an obviously arti-
ficial classification (Vit. Mos. i. 17). The Jewish
teachers use as a mnemonic the words 2nK> way ἽΝ,
the initials of the plagues in the order given in the
text.

Ezyptian history is silent concerning these as
well as the other incidents of the Exodus; but that
is not surprising. There were, however, evidently
several ancient versions of the story, which have
been collated and combined by those to whom we
owe the text in its present form. It is probable
that the groundwork of the narrative (J) was a
document giving an account of seven plagues, viz.
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8,10. The infliction of each of these
is preceded by an interview of Moses with Pharaoh
at which its onset is threatened ; and the sign is
brought to pass by Jahweh directly (see art. MOSEs,
p. 4395). With this is combined another version
(E), whose record embraced four, possibly siz
plagues, viz. ] (Ex 7150. 110. ae vi ( pe ae 8 (Oss
9 (10-5) ; there are also traces of its influence in
the account of 10, and perhaps in that of 8. Moses
in these is the thaumaturgist, and works by stretch-
ing forth his hand or his rod (see art. Mosks,
Ρ. 4417). The third component document (P)
couples Aaron with Moses ; and, in general, attri-
butes the carrying out of the miracle to him and
his rod. The accounts of six plagues 1, 2, 3, 5, 0:
10 seem to be taken in whole or in part from this
(see art. MosEs, p. 443°). It will be seen from |

----

this analysis that 3 and 6 are peculiar to P, 4 to J,

and 9 to E. 1, and possibly 10 are found in al]
three, 2 and 5 in P and J, and 7 and 8 in J and Ε,
This list sageests the possibility that the list set
forth in the Massoretic text may contain redupli-
cated narratives.

The district atlected by the plagues is ealled in
Ps 78. 43 «the Field of Zoan’ (usa). This may
he either a limitation to the eastern part of Lower
Egypt, or, more probably, a poetical synecdoche.
J and P in several places refer the influence of
these visitations to all the land of Egypt, meaning
probably Lower Egypt. In 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 the

Immunity of the land of Goshen is specially men-

tioned. The interval between the first plague and
the Exodus is not stated. The actual duration of
the Ist and 9th plagues is given, but not of the
others. It has been supposed that the first was
connected with the early stages of the Nile over-
flow, possibly the end of June, and that the others
occurred at intervals between that time and the
following Passover, which was the definite ter-
munus in point of time. The presumption in the
narrative is that of a fairly regular and quick
succession of stroke upon stroke.

The plagues have been variously classified.
Philo divides them into four groups: Ist, those in
which God asserts His power over the grosser
elements, earth and water, intrustine the bringing
of the plagues to Aaron (=1, 2, 3); 2nd, plagues of
air and fire inflicted by Moses (=7, 8, 9); Srd,cone
plague hurtful to mankind inflicted by both
together (=5); 4th, those intlicted directly by the
hand of God (=4, 6, 10). The first three were
admonitory, characterized by uncleanness and
discomfort ; those following were more or less
destructive to property and injurious to man, lead-
ing up to the overwhelming catastrophe of 10,

The story of the plagues is preceded by the
account of a series of signs which Moses was
instructed to perform: these were twofold: (1)
two were for the purpose of attesting the reality of
his Divine mission to his own countrymen ; (2) the
other was for the purpose of influencing Pharaoh.
With the former pair, the conversion of his own
rod into ἃ serpent, and the leprous hand, we are
not at present concerned. The last, the conversion
of Aaron’s rod into a serpent, is a part of the same
sroup of signs as the plagues. ‘This sign Moses
caused to be performed in the presence of the
advisers of Pharaoh, who are called oan hdkamim
‘learned men,’ p=v¥iz> mehashshéphim ΟΥ̓ ‘sorcerers,’
and D-8077 hartummimn or ‘sacred seribes,’ While
the first two names are undoubtedly Semitic, the
last may possibly be the name of an order of
Egyptian priests, a derivative of the native name
hrdot, but this is unlikely. In the Gr. these are
called ἐπαοιδοί [in Dn 12° σοφισταί); see, further, in
vol. ii. p. 773* note **, There is a tradition that
two of these were chosen to confront the two"
wonder- working Israelites, namely, Jannes and
Jambres (see vol. ii. p. 548). These last two names
occur in very many forms both in Jewish and Gen-
tile literature. When these variants are compared,
the constant elements are Ane or Ani and Mre
or Mri, which are two of the commonest names
found on the monuments of the 19th and of the
immediately succeeding dynasties. In Lieblein’s
list, Ani or some allied form of the naine occurs 24
times, and 1/71 23 times. The Gospel of Nicodemus
calls them ἄνδρες θεράποντες. It is suggestive that
Ambres was the name of an Egyptian medical
book known to Numenius and Clement (see Hora.
pollo, i. 38).

The first sign, that of changing a rod into a
serpent, was the converse of the common magical
trick of rendering snakes rigid like rods. The
African Psylle, who had control over serpents

PLAGUES OF EGYPT

PLAGUES OF EGYPT 889

either by natural power or artificially by the use
of herbs (Ludolf, Hist. of Ethiopia, Gent's tr. 1b.
». 49), are mentioned by many classical writers :
Herodotus (iv. 173), Dio Cassius (li. 14), Lucan
(Phars. ix. 890, 928), Alian (de Nat. Anim. xvi.
27), Vergil (chm. vil. 753), Solinus Polyhistor
(Memor. x1.), Aulus Gellius (xvi. 2), Silius Ltalicus
(i. 411, ili. 302, v. 304, viii. 498), Pliny (vii. 2), and
several others. The same form of serpent-charming
is still practised in Egypt and North Africa, and
has been described by several travellers, for ex-
ample, von Schubert (ii. 116), Trotter (p. 174),
Antes (p. 15), ete. For other observations on the
snake as symbol and wand, see Bottiger’s Aleine
Schriften, 1837, p. 112. The writer has seen both
a snake and a crocodile thrown by hypnotism into
tie condition of rigidity in which they could be
held as rods by the tip of the tail.

(1) The First Plague, the defilement of the river,

was a severe blow to Egyptian prejudices. The
river was a god to whom offerings were made

(Stern, Zeitschr. Angypt. Spr. 1873, 129) and adora-
tions addressed (Maspero, Hymne au Nil, 1868).
According to the narrative in J and EK, the trans-
formation was confined to the water of the river,
killing its fish (7'*:****), but P states that it
extended to the canals, pools, ponds, and cisterns
of wood and stone (v.”). It 1s noteworthy that
vessels of earthenware are not mentioned, and
perhaps this may be connected with the statements
of Alpinus (Med. .1:0.1. 1629), Norden (i. 52), Sonnini
(i. 124), Troilo (472), and Volney (i. 20), that it is
only in earthenware vessels that the discoloured
waters of the Nile-tlood become clear and can be
kept clear, See also Galen, de Simpl. Med. Facult.
i. 3, § 2. The former narrative (JE) says that
the people dug beside the river for supplies, and
although it says nothing of the kind of water in
these wells, it does not say that it was blood; the
latter (P) declares that the water in these also
was changed into blood, and Philo paraphrases
this by comparing these wells to blood-vessels,
trom which the blood was flowing, as in a haemor-
rhage. Volney says that the water found by
digging wells is brackish and unfit for use (i. 16).
Such ἃ change was plainly miraculous, and this is
also shown by its definite duration of seven days
and its sudden disappearance.

In the normal condition of the river, as its
waters rise in the third weck of June, they become
discoloured. This has often been described by
travellers. Abd-al-latif says that the water be-
comes green from the fragments of vegetable
matter suspended in it, and remains discoloured
until August (de Sacy’s tr., p. 333), and Makrizi
refers to this alteration in colour and to the offen-
sive exhalations from the water at a later stage
(quoted by de Sacy, p. 345). Vansleb adds that in
process of time the water changes in colour from
ereen to a dull ochreous red (1677, p. 53). Many
other travellers confirm this observation. See
Maillet, p. 57; Tourtechot, 14; Hartmann, 128 ;
Pococke, i. 199; Savary, 1786, ii. 179. The last
author speaks of the unwholesomeness of the
waters in this stage, and this is confirmed by
Pruner (p. 21). These changes in colour are prob-
ably due to the wasting down of some great
accumulation of vegetable matter high up in the
river, like the Sudd or great Nile dam deseribed
by Sir 5. Baker (Lake Albert Nyanza, ii. p. 329).
Ehrenberg attributes the red coloration to ἃ
minute organism, Spheroplea annulina Agardh,
which multiplies in the water after the inundation,
and he has described a large number of cases of
red discoloration of water in Poggendorf's Annals
for 1830, p. 477. This reddening of ponds by
minute organisms is not uncommon. Swammer-
dam tells us that he saw a pool in the Bois de

Vincennes made crimson by minute crustaceans.
Schuyl describes the same at Leyden, and Hjaerne
αὖ Dalecarlia (Bybel der Nutwure, 1737, pp. 89, 90).
The present writer has seen a similar discoloration
in a pool in the Phenix Park, Dublin, on account
of enormous quantities of a species of Peri/iniun.
The example in 2 K 3% may be quoted here. It
has recently been shown that in many of these
coloured animals the pigment is contained in
parasitic bacteria.

Changes in the water of the Nile were not un-
known in the legendary history of Egypt. Manetho
states that in the days of Nephercheres (about B.C.
4000) the Nile for eleven days flowed with honey.
Eusebius mentions the same change as occurring
in the reign of a nameless king 200 years earlier.

The plague must have been a serious calamity to
the whole population, not only on account of the
lack of water, but also because of the killing of the
fish, as these formed an important element in the
diet of the Egyptian. There is a little obscurity
in the description, arising probably from the
different standpoints of the original authors of the
narratives. In v.!7 Moses was instructed to say to
Pharaoh that he would cause the plague by smiting
with his rod on the waters (E), while in v.19 (P)
Aaron is instructed to bring the plague by stretch-
ing forth his rod.

The plague lasted seven days and was appar-
ently then suddenly removed. [Ὁ was imitated by
the magicians, which seems to imply that not a |
the water of the land was transformed, As to the
time of year of its occurrence, if the phenomenon
had any relation to.the natural discoloration, it
probably took place about the height of the flood
in the month of Epiphi (beginning June 25), or if

>

Ehrenbere’s hypothesis be adopted, probably in
the month of Thoth, beginning about the 29th

August.

(2) The Second Plague, that of the frogs (x
3}, J, P), was preceded by an interview with
Pharaoh, at which Moses announced the visita-
tion. This was at once brought upon the land
by the agency of Aaron stretching forth his hand.
Kroes are in most years plentiful in the Nile,
and the ponds and canals connected with it, but
do not usually wander far from the water ; but
now they suddenly swarmed on the land, invad-
ing the houses, even the bed-chambers, ovens,
and kneading-troughs. In Ps 78” they are said
to have destroyed the Egyptians, hence some
Rabbinical authorities suppose these were other
than ordinary frogs, but the word used, zéphardet
(LXX βάτραχος), is the name of the ordinary
amphibian. It was noticed by some Hebrew
writers that while the word is used in the plural
in general, it is singular in yv.5, literally, ‘and
the frog ascended,’ hence Akiba says in Semoth
Rabbah that there was but one frog, so rapidly
prolitic that it filled the whole land. The word
is obviously used as a collective, as it occasionally
isin Arabic. The magicians imitated the miracle,
but, as more than one commentator remarks,
when the land was full of frogs, who could tell
those brought by the Israelites from those of
their Egyptian imitators? The plague must have
been one of great irritation, not only from. the
diseomfort, but from the croaking noise which at
times frogs utter continually. The Nile frogs
make a sharp sound like two pieces of wood
striking together (Hasselquist, pp. 68, 254, 304).
The frog was not reckoned unclean by the
Egyptians, nor was it specially venerated ἴῃ
Lower Egypt as far as is known. Jn the Eeyptian
language the figure of a frog was used as a
numerical symbol for 100,000 with the phonetic
value hfnu. In Upper Egypt there was an obscure
goddess represented with a frog’s head and named

890 PLAGUES OF EGYPT

PLAGUES OF EGYPT

Hkt, but we know little of her, except that in the
Middle Empire the superintendents of nomes in
Upper Egypt are called her priests, especially
about the 12th dynasty. Horapollo says that the
frog was the symbol of Ptah because it is the
representative of man in embryo (Hierogl. i. 25),
but there is no native confirmation of this. <A
frog-headed figure, called ‘Ka, the father of
waters, is figured by Wilkinson and thought by
him to be a form of Ptah (iii. 15). In Papyrus
hers 111. ἃ frog boiled in oil is reeommended as an
external application for swelling of the abdomen.

Several species of frog inhabit the Nile, the
commonest being Rana esculenta, R. Nilotica, and
Rt. Mosaica. They are called in Egyptian ‘bénh and
in Coptic 7”: ες The sagacity of the Egyp-
tian frog is said to exceed that of all others. See
Milian, Variw Historia, i. 3.

Plagues of frogs were known in ancient times.
Pliny (viii. 48), Orosius (iii. 28), Aflian (de Nat.
Anim. ii. 36), Diodorus (111. 29) give instances of
these. Athenaus quotes from Heraclides Limbus
an account of an invasion of frogs in Pieonia and
Dardania, which drove out the inhabitants ; and
Justinus, in his epitome of 'Trogus Pompeius (xv. 2),
speaks of a similar occurrence in Thracia A bderitis.
Showers of frogs are often referred to by the old
writers. ‘lian tells us that he experienced on
his way to Diceearchia a fall of rain mixed with
tadpoles and mud (//ist. Anim. 11. 56). Several
such occurrences are referred to in Beyerlinck’s
Theatrum, under the head of Τέω ertraordi-
narue. See also Valentinus Albertus, de Pluvia
Prodigiosa. Similar occurrences are reported in
recent times, one in London, in the J/irror for
4th Ang. 1838. Several others are collected in
Andrews’ Book of Oddities, 1892, and some well-
authenticated Scottish instances are given in the
Glasgow Herald ter 19th July 1894 and several
succeeding issues. A plague of toads in the upper
Nile Valley is reported by Hageard (Under Cres-
cent and Star, 1895, p. 279). For Egyptian frogs
see Seetzen (Reisen durch Syrien, ete., 1854, 11].
pp. 245, 350, 364, 490, 501); see also Cameron,
Across Africa, i. 267.

At Moses’ entreaty the frogs were removed, and
their dead bodies were gathered in heaps which
made the land to stink, and probably gave rise to
plagues. Appius tells us that when the people of
Antareia had offended Apollo, he sent, among
other plagues, an immense host of frogs, which,
when they decomposed, poisoned the waters and
‘aused a pestilence which drove them from their
homes (de rebus Illyricis, 4). See also lian, de
Nat. Anim. xvii. 41.

(8) (4) The Third and Fourth Plagues consisted
of insect pests, the former of o32 kinnim, or
nin kinndm, tr. lice AV and RV, ‘sand flies or fleas’
RVm; the latter of "ἢ ἱροῦ}, tr. flies AV and RV.
The account of the Third Plague is derived from
P (Ex 81%), that of the Fourth from J (v.21),
The kinnah was probably a stinging fly, mosquito
or gnat, such as was, and still is, common in
Egypt (Herodotus, ii. 95). A cognate word is
applied in Peah toa grain-fly. This plague was
sent without any warning to Pharaoh, and was
brought about by Aaron smiting the dust with his
rod, as God commanded him. The insects attacked
man and beast (v.!%), devouring them (Ps 785).
The interpretation in AV and RV, ‘lice,’ is an
ancient one, as it is found in Jos. Ant. IL. xiv. 3,
and in many other Jewish writings. LXX renders
the Heb. words by σκνῖφες, σκνῖπες, or xvimes, the
name given to small insects found in figs and other
fruits (Theophrastus, Hist. Plant, ii. 9, iv. 17),
and the Vulgate calls them ciniphes. Kvires and
Paves are mentioned by Aristophanes as fig-para-
sites (Aves, 590). Philo (Vita Mosis, i. 17) says

that they were small insects which not only pierced
the skin, but set up intolerable itching and pene-
trated the eyes and nose. Origen describes them
as little flying insects (Hom. in Ex. iv. 6). That
they were not lice in the ordinary sense of the
word is shown by their attacking beasts as well as
men, for none of the three species of human pedi-
culi will live and multiply freely on animals. It
has been argued in favour of the ordinary interpre-
tation that they came out of the dust, but while
lice are not generated naturally in dust, the eges
ot some species of the common small stinging
flies are found in dried pools. Most travellers in
Egypt speak of these gnats as one of the most
troublesome of pests (see Troilo, 774; Prosper
Alpinus, Hist. Nat. A:gypti, i. 4. 3; Wittman,
i. 135; Scholz, 93 ; Lepsius, 93; Russegger, iii. 13 ;
Lane, i. 4, and others). Such flies are always
worst after the recession of the inundation in Oct«

ber (Hartmann, i. 250), the larvee living in poo’

and the perfect insects emerging as these di

up.

The magicians were unable to cope with these
insects or to produce them, as they themselves
were attacked by them, so they called them the
‘finger of Ged. In Egyptian dd ntru=the phrase
in the text, is found in several papyri (see Papyrus
438 Boulag), and is used of anything sent by the
divinity. The magicians meant thereby that the
plague was sent by their own gods, not by Moses,

The account of the plague is imperfect, as there
is no mention of Pharaoh’s entreaty for its removal,
or of Moses’ intervention for this purpose ; but in
the case of the Fourth Plague, that of the ‘ardbh
or ‘swarms’ (858: P), these lacunze are supplied.
There Moses is recorded to have threatened the
infliction, and the Lorp is said to have brought up
the swarms, and at Pharaoh’s entreaty they were
afterwards removed. The nature of these pests is
not mentioned, nor is there any reference to the
magicians. ‘These insects are called by LXX and
Symimachus κυνόμυια, ‘dog-tlies,’ interpreted by
Jerome in the last paragraph of his epistle to
Sunnia and Fretela ‘ommne genus muscaruin,’ as if
it were kowduua. Aquila in Ps 78 calls them πάρμ-
μικτος, ‘a mixed multitude,’ a word used of crowds
of men by Aeschylus, Perse, 58, ‘a motley host.’
Josephus (Anf. 11. xiv. 3), Jerus. Targums, Saadya,
and other Hebrew authorities call them different
kinds of pestilent animals, but, as Knobel remarks,
some particular creature must be meant.

Flies of many kinds abound in Egypt and are
common pests, as testified by Sonnini (ii. 320),
Carne (1. 77), Riippell (73), ete. Such swarms are
often brought up by the south wind, filling the
houses and appearing in clouds. Comparison of
the descriptions of these two plagues given in the
passage renders it probable that 3 and 4 are both
accounts of the one plague given by different
writers. Ps 105 groups them together, while Ps
78 makes no mention of the Aimnim. With this
plague began the sundering of the land ef Goshen
trom the rest of Egypt.

(5) (6) In like manne* there is a probable con-
nexion between the Fifth Plague (Ex 9, J), the
murrain, and the Sixth (98, P), the boils. Neither
of these is explicitly mentioned in Ps 78 or 106,
unless they are the ‘evil angels” mentioned be-
tween the hail and the tenth plague in the
former; and, considering the connexion between
disease and demonology in the Jewish mind, this
is probable. Plague 5 was heralded by an announce-
ment to Pharaoh, while there was no such for 6.
The Fifth was sent directly from the hand of the
Lorp, while Moses and Aaron are the instruments
in the Sixth. It is also explicitly stated that 6 was
upon beast as well as man (v.!"). All these con-
siderations strengthen the probability that these

PLAGUES OF EGYPT

PLAGUES OF EGYPT 891

rre respectively the Jahwistice and Priestly records
of the one plague.

The nature of the murrain is not given; it was
Wd 732 933 ‘a very grievous pestilence’ (see
PESTILENCE and PLAGUE, pp. 755, 855), but the
word deber is too general to give a detinite idea of
its species. Leyrer has conjectured that it might be
anthrax or milzbrand (Herzog, RL, viii. p. 251).
It was a disease affecting flocks, herds, camels,
horses, and asses, evidently very fatal (though v.25
shows that ‘all? is not literally intended). Severe
cattie plagues have been recorded in Egypt by
many writers. Pruner says that splenic fever,
anthrax, and rinderpest occasionally prevail, and
speaks of an epidemic of the last in March 1842,
which lasted nine months, and was very destruc-
tive, but it did not affect camels ΟΥ horses.
Camels are not very liable to epizoctic diseases,

ut suffer sometimes from tuberculosis, and often

‘om itch (102). They were, however, at the

me of Moses not plentiful in Egypt, if they

‘ere found there at all (see Chabas, Ltudes sur
"Antiquité Historiyue, 1873, p. 398 tf; and Dillm.
on Gn 12!°), Lepsius mentions the same outbreak
of cattle-plague in 1842, which had been fatal to
40,000 oxen (p. 14); and it is also graphically
described by Mrs. Poole (Lhe Englishwoman in
Lgypt, 1. 59, 114; ii. 32).

We have no mention of the removal of this
plague, which probably worked itself out; but
immediately succeeding it, if not a part of the
same infliction, was the outbreak of the pa? shéhin
or ‘boils’ on mankind and beast. This came
without warning, Moses and Aaron being in-
structed to sprinkle handfuls of the ashes of a
furnace towards heaven. Although probably for
the most part derived from P, there are signs of
the influence of Ein v.8. This plague affected all
classes, but we do not read that it was very fatal.
Its nature has been discussed already in MEDICINE,
Ρ. 324, and references to similar diseases in Egypt
will be found in Niebuhr (Deser. αἰ Arabic, i. 133).
Little blister like swellings on the skin are de-
scribed by Doébel (Wanderungen, ii. 184): a more
severe form is recorded by Berggren (Icisen in
“ig. ii. 121). Similar diseases are described by
Vansleb (Voyage en Eqypte, 1677, p. 58), Volney
(Travels, Eng. tr. i, 248), Wittman (who notices
the pestilential effects produced by the putrid
carcases of camels, horses, etc., around the Otto-
man camp, leading to malignant fever, ete., and
whose ‘ Medical Journal’ is most valuable), 7'ravels
with the Turkish Army, 1803; Russeeeer (i. 247) ;
Seetzen (J02isen, iii. 204, 209, 377), etc. In view of
the recently discovered capacity of mosquitos and
gnats to carry contagion, it is striking to note
that disease of man and beast so quickly followed
the swarms of flies. Josephus puts the distemper
of animals as a supplement to the plagues of the
swarms.

(7) (8) Egypt was essentially an agricultural
country, as we can gather from the monuments,
especially from the tomb-pictures; therefore the
two plagues which followed affected the material
prosperity of the country in its most vital point.
The Plague of the hail was foretold to Pharaoh by
Moses at his next interview (918, J), and by the
warning he gave the Egyptians the opportunity of
saving their cattle. On the day following, Moses,
by God’s command, stretched forth his hand to
heaven (ν. "3, E), and the storm of lightning and hail
burst over the land, beating down the crops, break-
ing the trees, and killing the cattle left by the
murrain (ν."ὅ). Visitations of this kind, though not
unexampled, are exceedingly rare in Egypt (see
HAIL, vol. ii, p, 289). Pruner saw hail showers only
three times in twelve years, and these were slight,
while he knew of only one fatal case of lightning

stroke in that time (p. 30). Sonnini describes a
thunderstorm accompanied by snow (hail?) in
January (ii. 133), Niebuhr in December (i. 497), as
also ‘Thevenot (i. 844). Wittman says that on
20th November 1801 ‘we had a tremendous storm
of rain, thunder, and lightning, which began at two
o'clock and continued near two hours’ (p. 577).
Another storm occurred in March. Lepsius relates
that in December 1843 there was a sudden storm
growing into a hurricane ‘such as I had never
seen in Europe,’ and a hail which made the day
dark as night (p. 26). Moneonys also describes a
lightning storm in January (p. 180) ; Pococke notes
lightning and rain in the Fayyum in February
(p. 93). Seetzen experienced it also in March (iil.
98); Vansleb heard thunder only twice in Egypt,
in January and May 1673 (p. 39).

The destruction of the cattle was due to their
being in the field in spite of the warning. Niebuhr
says that the herds are put out in the field from
January to April (i. 142), and Hartmann that they
are generally kept in their stalls from May to the
end of November (i. 232). See also Diodorus
Siculus, i. 36). The date of this plague is fixed by
ν 51: 93. (E), which say that it happened when the
barley was in the ear and the flax in bud (‘ bolled,’
AV), but the wheat and spelt were not yet in ear,
or sufficiently forward to be destroyed. Flax is
sown usually in mid-November or December, rarely
as late as in January (Russegger, i. 231), and
flowers in February (ν. Schubert, ii. 137 ; Forskal,
Flora, p. xiii) or March (Russegger) ; it is usually
pulled in April (Seetven, iii. 241); according to
Wilkinson about 110 days after sowing. Knobel
quotes Sicard for its flowering as early as Decem-
her, but this must have been exceptional. Denon
found the barley in flower in Degember (p. 143).
Sonnini says that the barley is nearly a month
earlier than the wheat (ii. p. 20), and Brown, that
the wheat is beginning to bud at the end of
January (i. p. 133). Wheat, spelt, and barley are
generally sown in November. The barley harvest
is early in March, sometimes 90 days after sowing.
In Olivier’s journey to the Pyramids in April, he
found the barley already cut, the flax mostly
pulted, but the wheat was ripening (iii. 125). Von
Schubert (ii. 175) and Forskal contirm these ob-
servations, and state that the barley is ripe by the
end of February er beginning of March, while the
wheat is not ripe until April (#Zore, p. xliii). The
spelt (AV ‘rye’) ripens at the same time as the
wheat (Forskal, p. xxvi). The deduction from
these data is that the plague took place probably
about the middle of January. Contirmatory ob-
servations as to the ripening of crops in Egypt will
be found in Radziwill (Hierosolymita Peregrinatio,

srunsberg, 1601, 159), Nordmeyer (Comment. Calen-
dar Haypt., Gdttingen, 1792, 23-29), Shaw Εν

The Eighth Plague, that of locusts (Ex 10:0: bee
J, E) followed while yet the devastation of the last
plagues was fresh in the memories of the people,
who said to Pharaoh, ‘Knowest thou not that
Keypt is destroyed γ᾽ (v.7). Pharaoh was warned
of its imminence, but Moses and Aaron were driven
from his presence (v.!!), The plague followed the
stretching forth of Moses’ hand (ν.13) or rod (v.38)
over the land, and the locusts were brought from
the Arabian side by an east wind. The coming
of locusts from the East has been mentioned
by Shaw, as it was in olden time by Agathar-
chides (Mare Rubram, ch. v.) and Diodorus (111. 29),
Strabo likewise speaks of the locust-eaters of the
Galla country, to whom the west wind drives the
great clouds of these insects on which they live,
and the unwholesome nature of that food (xvi.
Divide).

The species of locust was the s2x ‘arbeh, or
common migratory locust (see above, p. 130),

δ αἱ

92 PLAGUES OF EGYPT

PLAGUES OF EGYPT

The peculiarity of the plague was their coming in
such immense numbers, for Egypt is by no means
so Hable co devastation by locusts as Syria; and
they swept clean all the remnants of vegetation
that the hail had left, including the wheat and the
spelt. The ground was darkened, that is, concealed
by the multitude of the locusts. Burckhardt has
described such a locust-plague in the Hauran
(Syria, p. 381). Lepsius also, in March 1848, while
engaged in opening @ sarcophagus in a mummy
pit, was suddenly overshadowed by a cloud of
locusts from the south-west, which darkened the
heavens (p. 45). Denon saw in May an immense
mass of locusts flying from east to west a little
over the ground (p. 950). Volney’s description of
the locust-plague in Syria is well known (i. 305).

At Pharaoh’s entreaty Moses prayed for their
removal, which was accomplished by ἃ strong
wind from the Mediterranean, which swept them
into the Red Sea, for, destructive as they are, they
are the sport of the winds so much that ‘tossed
like a locust’ is a proverbial expression (Ps 109**).

For other references to locusts in Egypt see
Tischendorf’s Reise im Orient, i. 252; Shaw, 165;
Hasselyuist, 254 ; Niebuhr, 168; Forskal, 81.

(9) The Plague of darkness was sent without
warning, and was brought on by Moses stretching
forth his hand (107!-*, ἘΠ, For three days the land
was covered with a palpable cloud which shut out
all light from sun, moon, and stars. This condition
is described in the words πὶ von fthat one may
feel (the) darkness’ (LXNX ψηλαφητὸν σκότος). Of
this plague there is a graphie account in Wis 17,

It has been supposed that the author of J did
not know of this plague, from the words ‘only this
once’ in v.17, but it may have been immediately
after the locusts, as if a part of the same visita-
tion. The condition of darkness referred to is
strikingly like that brought about by the severer
form of the electrical wind Aamsin. This is a 8.
or S.W. wind that is so named because it is liable
to blow during the 25 days before and the 25 days
after the vernal equinox (Aa@msin=50). Τῦ is often
not so much a storm or violent wind as an oppres-
sive hot blast charged with so much sand and fine
dust that the air is darkened. It causes a black-
ness equal to the worst of London fogs, while the
air is so hot and full of dust that respiration is
impeded. There are excellent accounts of these
storms of darkness in Prosper Alpinus, Medic.
egypt. 1. 7; Savary, i. 229; Niebuhr, i. 468 ;
Legh, 48; v. Schubert, ii. 409; Ruppell, 270;
Sonnini, ii. 166; Pruner, 35; Wittman, ii. 54;
Volney, i. 47; Pococke, i. 306. Denon says that
it sometimes travels as a narrow stream, so that
one part of the land is light while the rest is dark
(p. 286). In such a way the Land of Goshen was
left unclouded while the rest of Egypt was dark.
As the first plague showed God’s power over the
river, so did this over the light of the sun, who as
Ita was one of Egypt's chief deities. At Pharaoh’s
request this plague was also removed. Three days
is not an uncommon duration for the hamsin.

(10) The Death of the Firstborn.—In his last
interview with Pharaoh, Moses was dismissed
from his presence with the threat of death if he
again appeared on behalf of Israel, whereupon he
announced God’s last judgment (11). The plague
followed at midnight on that day. God claimed
all the firstborn of humanity as His own, and
ordained that in Israel they were to be redeemed
by sacrifice (1315). In this plague the unredeemed
firstborn of Egypt were sacrificed in one great
slaughter. It affected all classes from Pharaoh on
the throne to the maid at the mill (115, J), to the
captive in the prison (127%, J, P) as well as the
domestic cattle. By this final catastrophe the
obstinacy of Pharaol was overcome, and, as Moses

had foretold, the Egyptians not only freed Israel,
but commanded their exodus.

There are many traditional and historical records
of sudden outbreaks of plague. See Syneellus
(i. 101-103), Diodorus (40), Thueydides (ii. 48),
Procopius (11. 22), ete. Modern outbreaks in
the month of April, or a little after the vernal
equinox, are reported by Bruce (iii. 715), Sonnini
(i. 277), Tobler (Lustreise, i. 137), Legh (113). It
is worthy of note that many authorities say that
the plague often is worst at the time of the hamsin
wind (Prosper Alpin. i. 7; Thevenot, i. 375; v.
Schubert, ii. 138; Lane, i. 3; and Pruner, p. 419).
The coexistence of cattle disease with the plague
is mentioned by Débel (Wanderungen, ii, 205).

The account of this plague bears internal evi-
dence that it is compiled from materials from all
three sources.

This catastrophe has been regarded by some as
a sudden outbreak of pestis siderans, but accord-
ing to the narrative it cannot have been a natural
plague, but on account of the peculiarities in its
course and incidence it was evidently a direct
interposition, and one the memory of which was
meant to have a lasting effect on the conduct of
Israel (13!4%),

In reviewing the narratives of these Divine
judgments, we have seen not only that there are
reasons to believe that they consisted of eight
episodes, 1, 2, 3 .-(4),..5.(6), 7, 8, 9,10, but that
there is a certain thread of connexion running
through the series. If the first took place towards
the end of the period of high Nile in August, it
is probable that the second occurred in September,
which is still the month when frogs are most
abundant. The insect plagues may conjecturally
be supposed to follow in October or November,
and the disease plagues in December. The notes
of time of the hail-plague give us surer ground
to refer it to January. The Jocusts and the dark-
ness intervened between this and the 14th of Abib
(the date of the Exodus).

In some of the series, and possibly in all, it
is to be noted that the Divine power used the
ordinary seasonal phenomena in a miraculously
intensified form as the instrument of judgment.
If the narrative of J, which confines the blood-
change to the Nile, be taken as the oldest account,
it is possible that it may have been due to some
special detachment of a dam of vegetable matter
like the Sudd above referred to. This, with the
organisms which must exist in myriads in it,
might well have caused the discoloration and foctor
of the waters. Such amass of organic matter with
its concomitant animal life would be the condition
under which frogs would multiply rapidly, and
may have been the antecedent used to bring about
the condition of the Second Plague. The decom-
posing masses of frogs could not fail to have been
the best possible breeding grounds of very many
kinds of insects, a veritable ‘motley multitude’
fulfilling the name of the Fourth Plague. The
results of recent bactericlogical observations show
how great a factor in the spread of disease these
insects are, and so 5 and 6 would follow as the
sequences of 3 and 4. The Seventh inaugurates
a new series, and is followed by the two other
plagues, depending on atmospheric conditions. The
onset of the east wind brought the locusts, and the
shift to the west removed them, while the drop-
ping of the wind to the south-west brought up the
dreaded hamsin, carrying the plague in its train.

In the Apocalyptic visions of the trumpets and
vials (Rev 8 ff.) much of the imagery is taken from
the story of the Plagues in Egypt.

LireratURE.—Abd-al-latif, History of Egypt, French tr.,
Paris, 1810; Antes, Manners and Customs ef the Egyptians,
London, 1800 ; Berggren, Reisen in Εἰ ἀγορὰ τι. in Morgenlande,

τα νοὶ

PLAIN

PLAIN 893

Leipzig, 1834; Brown, Eastern Travels, Lond. 1753; Bruce,
Travels to discover the Sources of the Nile, Edinb. 1790; Carne,
Letters from the East, London; de Maillet, Description de
Egypte, Paris, 1735; Denon, Voyage dans UEyypte, Paris,
1802; Dillmann-Ryssel, Haodus wnd Leviticus, Leipzig, 1897;
Dobel, Wanderunjen durch Eur, Asien, etc., Eisenach, 1851 ;
Eichhorn, ‘de Agypti Anno Mirabili,’ in Comment. Soc. Regie
Gittingensis, 1817, iv. p. 35; Forskal, Descriptio Animalium
que itinere Orient. observavit., Havnie, 1775, also Ilora
guptiaco-Arabica, Wayniw, 1775; Hartmann, Comment. de
Geojraphia Africe, Gotting. 1191 Hasselquist, Voyages and
Travels in the Levant, Lond. 1766; Knobel, H.xodus, Leipzig,
1857; Lane, Modern Egyptians; Legh, Narrative of a Journey
in Hgypt, London, 1817 ; Lepsius, Briefe aus Kygypten, Berlin,
1852; Monconys, Jomrnal de ses Voyages, Lyon, 1665 ; Niebuhr,
Description d’Arabie, Amsterdam, 1774; Olivier, Voyage dans
VEmpire Othoman, etc., Paris, 1801 5 Pococke, Description of
the East, Lond. 1743; Pruner, Krankheiten des Orients, Erlan-
gen, 1847; Ruppell, Re/se in Nubien, ete., Frankfort-a.-M. 1829;
Russegger, Rvisen in Luropa, etc., Stuttgart, 181-48 ; Savary,
Letters on Egypt, London, 1786; Scholz, Biblisch - Kritische
Reise in Palastina, Leipzig, 1823; von Schubert, Reisen in
dem Morgenland, Erlangen, 1838 ; Seetzen, Reisen durch Syrien,
etc., Berlin, 1854-59; Shaw, 7’ravels and Obs., in Barbary,
ete., Oxford, 1738; Sonnini, Voyages dans Egypte, Paris,
1799; Thevenot, Travels in the Levant, London, 1687; Tobler,
Wanderungen nach Palistina, Gotha. 1859,; Tourtechot, Sieur
de Granger, Relation du Voyage fait en Egypte, Paris, 1745 ;
Troilo, Orientalische Reisebeschreibung, 1671 ; Trotter, Mission
to the Court of Moroceo, Edinburgh, 1881; Vansleb, Nouvelle
Relation @un Voyage fait en Byypte, Paris, 1677; Volney,
Travels through Syria and Egypt, Eng. tr. London, 1787 ;
Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of Ancient Egyptians,
London, 1876; Wittman, Travels in Kyypt with the Turkish
Army and the English Mission, London, 1893. There is very
little of value in the Talmudic or Rabbinic literature.
A. MACALISTER.

PLAIN.—This word (as a subst.) stands in AV,
in some cases inaccurately, for several very different
terms in the Heb., which it has been the aim of
RV, though with only partial success, to express
and distinguish correctly. The following are the
words which are ὑτὰ “ plain? in AV :—

4. Sax ‘meadow’ in Jg 11 (‘the plain of the
vineyards,’ RV * Abel-cheramiun “ys

2. pox ‘oak? (in accordance with an old Jewish
interpretation), in ‘plain(s) of Moreh,’ Gn 12%, Dt
11, and ‘of Mamre,’ Gn 1318 14: 18), RV in each
case ‘oak(s),’ marg. ‘terebinth(s)’; also in Jg as
937, 1 S$ 10° (RV as before). See MOREH.

3. aypa (from p22 ‘to cleave’), ὦ broad plain
between hills (‘a surrounding of hills seems
necessary to the name Bik‘ah, as if land laid open
in the midst of hills, /7/GAHL 655, where mention
is also made of a small upland plain, surrounded
by mountains, on the E. of Jordan, called the
Beka, or [dimin.] the Bukeia; see also Stanley,
SP, App. § 5). InAV bik'ah is rendered ‘plain’
in Gn 112, Neh 6? (‘the plain of Ono’), Ezk 3° 23
Ain 15 (RV ‘valley’), Dn 3! (Aram. Ν20Ξ,--- the
plain of Dura’). Elsewhere in AV and RV * valley,’
by which, however, must then be understood not
a ravine (x3). but a broad vale. The Bil’ahs
mentioned by name in the OT are those of
Jericho, Dt 348 (‘the Kikkar [see below], (even)
the plain of Jericho’); of Mizpeh, Jos 118 (prob.
the Merj ‘Ayin, N.W. of Dan, between the Litani
and the Hasbani) ; of Lebanon, Jos 11" 127 (prob-
ably the broad flat plain between Lebanun and
Hermon, even now called in Arabic by a nearly
corresponding word, ed-Beka'a) ; of Meeiddo, 2 Ch
35%, Zec 12) (the plain of Esdraelon, girt by
hills on all sides; see HGHL 385f.); of Ono,
Neh 62 (7m. S.E. of Joppa); of Aven, Am 15 (the
broad plain between Lebanon and Hermon ; 500
AVEN); and of Dura, Dn 3! (near Babylon).
Bikdhs without names are referred to in Gnu 11",

izk 322 §437!-2 (in the vision of the dry benes :
prob. the same as the bik'ah of 3% ete.) ; the word
occurs also, without reference to specific localities,
in Dt 87 117, Ps 1048, Is 404 (see RVm), 417% Gans
(all). The retention of the two renderings ‘plain’
and ‘valley’ in RV is to be regretted ; but it is
no doubt due, at least in part, to the fact that
there is no exactly corresponding English term.
Plain’ is, on the whole, preferable to ‘valley.’

4. 33 (properly ὦ round, e.g. of metal, tc. a
‘talent,’ or of bread, é.c. a loaf or round cake),
used specifically of the ‘round,’ or as we should
probably say, the ‘oval,’ of Jordan, the (approxi-
mately) oval or oblong basin into which the
depression (¢l-Ghér) through which the Jordan
flows expands, as it approaches the N. end of the
Dead Sea: it must also, if the ‘cities of the
hikkar? ave rightly placed at the S. end of the
Dead Sea, have included the Dead Sea itself.”
The expressions used are ‘the Lichar of Jordan,’
Gn 13%, 1K 7 (=2 Ch 4”), and ‘the δι ραν"
alone, Gn 13% 1917: = 28. »8, Dt 34° (cited above), 25
182. The word oceurs also, perhaps in the same
sense, in Neh 3%; but probably in a more general
sense in 1958 (see Comm. : AV ‘the plain country ’).
In RV always ‘Plain’ (usually with a capital P).
Cf. SP 284, 287, 488; HGHL 505f. No doubt
this is the region meant by ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου
in Mt 3°; for LXX renders 123 by ἢ περίχωρος in Gn
and 2 Ch (ἡ π. τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in Gn 1311), and by
τὰ περίχωρα in Dt.

5. tern a smooth and level tract of country (from
avy ‘to be level’): the general meaning of the
word appears well from Ps 26" 2711 (‘a path of
evenness’), 143 (RVm), also from 1K 20%
(where it is opposed to the ‘hills’), Is 40] RVm
(‘level’; || nyp2), Zec 47, With the art., this word
is used specifically of the elevated plateau, or
table-land, of Reuben or Moab, E. ot the Dead
Sea, Dt 3” 43, Jos 13° 1617-21 208, Jer 48% 2! (in
the prophecy on Moab), 2 Ch 26" AV and RV in
all these passages render ‘plain,’ except Dt 4%, Jer
482! ‘plain country,’ and 2 Ch 26! AV ‘plains.’
RV has sometimes the marg. ‘ Or, table fand,

6. 727) steppe (in poetry, Is 35! ὁ 40%, Jer 17° αἰ.),
with the art., asa proper name, 92777, the Arabah,
the name given to the grave ly, sandy, and gener-
ally unfertile floor of the valley through which the
Jordan runs, and which extends southwards to the
Gulf of ‘Akabah (see ARABAH ; and iGHL 483 f.),
now called el-Ghér (the Hollow, or De.ression),
in AV nearly always ‘the plain, in RV ‘the
Arabah,’ Dt 17 28 (here of the same valley, 5. of
the Dead Sea, now el-Ardbah), B+ 48-49 J)
(AV ‘the champaign’), Jos 3/6 84 (see Dillin.}
11} 16. 1001. 8.598. 1515.18. (AV “Arabah, RV ‘the
Avabal’), 159. 23%, 28 2 4 15%, 2K 1455 253
(= Jer 39*=52"), Ezk 475 (AV ‘the desert’), Am 614
(AV ‘the wilderness’), Zee 14", RV (fig. of ἃ
level; MT, however, as Baer shows, points beth
here and in Is 33° withont the art., i.e. ‘like a
steppe’); see also Ts 33" RVin.

The same word, in the plural, occurs also in the
two expressions, ‘the plains — better steppes, or
desert parts—of Moab,” Nu 22) 26% 6 311" 33%: 4 6°
35! 364, Dt 341 (see Driver), ν.8, Jos 13%, and ‘of
Jericho, Jos 4 5%, 2 K 255 (Jer 39° 52%), of the
parts of the same depression, on the opposite sides
of the Jordan, in the latitude of Jericho. In the
case of the plur., RV retains the rendering ‘ plains Ἢ
in 2S 15% 1710 (‘plains of the wilderness’), how-
ever, it follows the Kethibh (nay for may), and
renders ‘fords’ (with marg. ‘plains’). There may
not be a precise English equivalent ; but ‘plains,’
it should be remembered, does not at all express
the distinctive idea of the Hebrew word (bare,
desolate, and unfertile seil ; cf. /7G ILL 483, 485).

7. nbewa (from σεῦ to be lov), the dowland, the
technical designation of the low hills and_ flat
valley land stretching down towards the Mediter-
ranean Sea in the W. and S.W. of Judah. This
term is in AV rendered ‘plain’ enly in Jer 17”,
Ob 19, Zee 77; ‘low plains’ in 1 Ch 27°8, 2 Ch 9°7;
να in Ὁ 17. Jos 109: 1 RAG Cn Po ver

* Cf. under Lot, pp. 150, 151.

t Here, as also 44, Jos 316 1930. 2 K 1425, the ‘Sea of the
Arabah.’ 1.6. the Dead Sea; cf. Ezk 478, Am 614,

894 PLAIN

PLAY

Sons Vallevis Minas Olle: Melos Oka ieee σεν
32% “low country * in 2-Ch-26 284, τὸ hav ates
rendered uniformly ‘lowland.’ The reference in
all these passages 15 the same, except in Jos 11% 16,
where the context shows that a locality further to
the N. must be intended, probably a group of similar
low hills, between Carmel and the high central
range of Samaria (7GHL 49 and 203n.). The
LXX represents 7922'7 mostly by ἡ πεδινή (cf. 1 Mac
3”), but by 4» Lednra in Jer 32", 334%, Ob, 2 Ch
26!) which also occurs in 1 Mae 1938 (AV ‘Sephela,’
RV ‘the plain country’).

The region commonly known as ‘the Shephelah’
must have been a fairly definite one: in Jos 16%
it forms a distinct district of Judah (side by side
with the ‘ Negeb,’ v.74", the ‘hill country,’ v.%*,
and the ‘wilderness,’ v.©"), and 39 (40) Judahite
cities contained in it are enumerated, those at
present identified being (beginning at the N.)
Gimzo (a little S.E. of Lydda), Aijalon, Gederah,
Eshtaol, Zor’ah, Beth-shemesh, ‘En-gannim, Za-
noah, Jarmuth, Socoh, ‘Adullam, Mareshah, “Kelon
and Lachish (W.S.W. of Maréshah), and Beth-
tappuah (a little W. of Hebron): Adida (included
in it in 1 Mac 1238) is a little N. of Gimzo (Had-
itheh); Emmaus (7/. 34°) is very near Aijalon ; and
Timnah (2 Ch 9818) is close to ‘En-gannim. ΑἹ]
these cities are between the high central range of
Judah on the E. and the Philistine plain on the
W. The W. limit of the ‘Shepheélah’ has, however,
been disputed. ‘It has generally (¢.g. by Dillm.
on Jos 15°) been held to inelude the Philistine
plain, and the Phil. cities are certainly enumer-
ated after those of Judah in Jos 15%-47; on the
other hand, Ob ”, Zec 77, and 2 Ch 288 imply
that it was outside the Phil. territory. Hence
G. A. Smith insists stronely that though the term
may sometimes have been used more widely, it was
limited more properly to the intermediate region
indicated above, consisting of a mass of ‘low hills,’
varied often by stretches of ‘flat valley land,’
which, as viewed from the Phil. plain and the sea,
appear ‘ buttressing the central range all the way
along,’ but which are separated from it in fact by

a well-defined series of valleys, running from |

Aijalon to near Beer-sheba' (HGHL 49, 211 ff. ; ef.

3uhl’s criticism, Geogr. 104, with Smith’s reply. |

Expositor, Dec. 1896, pp. 404-406).
hills ‘curves round the Phil. plain from Jatta to
Gaza like an amphitheatre’: it is pierced by five
important valleys running up from the plain into
the heart of Judah: viz. (1) the road from Joppa
and Lydda, through the hollow Vale (pty) of
Aijalon, and then up through the hills, past the
two Beth-horons, to Gibe‘on and Michmash ; (2) the
Wady es-Surar, or valley (973) of Sorek, up past
Beth-shemesh and Kiriath-je‘arim, to Jerusalem
(the course taken by the modern railway from
Jaffa) ; (3) the Wady es-Sunt, leading up from Tell
es-Safi, through the Vale (Ρ Ὁ} of Elah, past Socoh,
and then either up the Wady el-Jindy to Beth-
lehem, or (turning 8S.) along the Wady es-Sur, past
‘Adullam, to Keilah ; (4) the Wady el-Afranj lead-
ing up from Ashdod, past Eleutheropolis, to Beth-
tappuah and Hebron; and (5) the Wady el-Hesy,
starting a little N. of Gaza, passing Lachish, and
leading up to a point 6 miles S.W. of Hebron.
The historical and strategical importance of these
valleys is well drawn out in ΠΟΙ͂, 209-236: the
first, especially, is a route along which have passed
many times the hosts of both invading and de-
feated foes.

8. τόπος πεδινός, Lk 617; RV ‘a level place.’

Of the words rendered ‘plain,’ even in RV (Nos.
3, 4, 5, 6), each, it will now be seen, has a definite
and distinctive meaning of its own: the environs
of Jericho are indeed described (from different points
of view) as a hikkdr, a bik'ah, and ‘ardaboth ; but

Β ᾿ ec |
This ‘maze’ of

(Is 118), but of men and women in worship.

the muishor, for instance, could never have been
called a bik'ah, nor could a bik'ah, speaking
generally, have been called an ‘dra@bah; and the
‘plain’? (mishor) inhabited by the Moabites (Jer
455). was geographically quite distinct from the
‘plains’ (araboth) of Moab. The only term which
really corresponds completely to our ‘plain’ is
mishor. S. R. Driver.

PLAIN.—The only unfamiliar occurrence of the
adj. is in Gn 2577 ‘Jacob was a plain man, dwelling
in tents.” As RVm (‘or quiet or harmless, Heb.
perfect’) shows, the Heb. (on) is the epithet so
frequently applied to Job and tr? ‘perfect’ (Job
}1τὸιῶ βυῦ οϑον leat Oo APs G7 Ode), aoe IOC mene
pressed by the word is completeness or flawless-
ness. ‘In the present context,’ says Dillmann, ‘it
can neither mean morally blameless nor ἄπλαστος,
ἁπλοῦς, siueplec, siuple, unsophisticated ; for Jacob,
in what follows, appears always, on the contrary,
as sly and cunning.” He compares the German

fromm (pious), and considers the meaning to be

ἥμερος, ‘quiet’ or ‘peaceful,’ in antithesis to ‘ wild.’
The tr. ‘plain’ is from the Geneva Bible, which
has the marg. alternative ‘simple and innocent.’
‘Simple? is Tindale’s word, and the marg. note in
Matthew’s Bible reads, ‘He is simple that is with-
out craft and decept and contynueth in belevyng
and executynge of godes wyll.’ J. HASTINGS.

PLANE TREE.
nut,’ Sir 244,

PLANT, PLANTS.

PLAY.— The verb to play had a wider use
formerly than now. Tindale has: Ex 1° ‘Come
on, let us playe wisely with them, lest they
multiply’; Ex 5° ‘ Beholde, there is much people
in the londe, and ye make them playe and let
their worke stonde’; Ex 10° ‘the pagiantes which
T have played in Eeipte, and the miracles which
[have done amonge them.’ And in AV to ‘play’
is used in the sense of to ‘sport,’ not only of
‘boys and girls’ (Zec 8°) or a ‘sucking child’
Thus
Ex 32° *The people sat down to eat and to drink,
and rose up to play’ (P7s?,* quoted in 1 Co 108
παίζειν); 18 187 <The women answered one another
as they played’ (mpzy2a,t RV ‘in their play’);
2S 6° ‘And David and all the house of Israel
played before the Lord on all manner of instru-
ments made of fir wood [or, better, ‘with all their
might, even with songs,’ reading, with parallel
passage in 1 Ch, ΟΞ -bs2 instead of ἐν. 2553
ovina], even on harps,’ ete. (the playing here is not

Gn 3087, Ezk 318, AV ‘chest-
See CHESTNUT.

See NATURAL HISTORY.

_playing on the instruments as AV, but sporting

and dancing to the accompaniment of the music
on the instruments, as shown in 1 Ch 138; RV
‘with all manner of instruments’). See GAMES.
The phrase ‘play the man’ occurs in 28 1012
‘Be of good courage, and let us play the men for
our people’ (pian3) pin, LAX ἀνδρίζου καὶ κραταιω-
θῶμεν), a phrase which comes from the Douay
Bible, where, however, it is the tr. of the first

* This verb PN in its Qal conjug. is the usual verb in Gn
(where alone it isfound) meaning to laugh (Gn 17!7 1812 13. 15 bis
216); in its Piel conjug. it occurs Gn 1914 219(RVm ‘ play’) 3914. 17
(followed by 2) where it is tr. ‘mock’ ; 268 ‘sport’; and Jg 1623
‘make sport.’

+ This, a later form of pny, is the verb translated ‘play’ (in
the sense of sport) throughout the rest of OT (except Is 118 ‘the
sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp,’ νὼ» Ὁ), 1 5. 187,
2 § 214 65. 21,-1 Ch 138 1529, Job 4020 415 (here and in the follow-
ing passage with }2=‘play with.’ Followed by 5, pny means
‘mock at,’ e.g. Ps 3713 598, Pr 3125, Job 522.” Margoliouth
surely forgets this when [p. 17 of The Origin of the ‘ Original
Hebrew’ of Ecclesiasticus] he renders b pny ‘played with’),
Ps 10426, Zec 8°.

Β

PLEAD

| Heb. word, ‘Play the man, and let us fight for

our people,’ after Vulg. * Esto vir fortis et pugne-

| mus.’ ‘Lhe phrase is not uncommon, especially in

echoes of this passage, as Foxe, Martyrs, vil. 500,

‘At the stake Latimer exhorted his fellow-sutferer,

Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the
man’; Herbert, ‘The Chureh Porch,’ Ixxvil. —

‘In brief, acquit thee bravely, play the man :
Look not on pleasures as they come, bat go;
Deferre not the least virtue : life’s poore span
Make not an ell by trifling in thy wo.’
J. HASTINGS.
PLEAD.— To plead in AV never means to pray
or beseech, but always to argue for or against a
cause. Thus Job 167! ‘O that one might plead
for a man with God,’ and 19° ‘If indeed ye will
magnify yourselves against me, and plead against
pte may reproach.’ The verb most frequently tr.
‘plead? is 27, which is also rendered ‘contend,’
‘strive with’ or ‘strive against,’ etc. It is the
verb used in Job 13% ‘Who is he that will plead
with me’ (RV ‘contend with me’); Is 111 ‘ Plead
for the widow’; 3% ‘The Lord standeth up to
plead’; Jer 2° ‘J will yet plead with you, saith
the Lord’; 9:9. ‘Wherefore will ye plead with
me??; Hos 2? ‘Plead with your mother, plead.’
Amer. RV usually prefers ‘ contend.’
The subst. ‘pleading’ has the same meaning in
Job 13° ‘Hearken to the pleadings of my lips’
(mia7).

Plead is to be traced back to Lat. placitwm, an opinion (fr.
piacere, to please) ; in Low Lat. a writ summoning ἃ court of
justice, in the form quia tale est nostrum placitum, ‘for such is
our pleasure.’ Then placitum came to mean the court so con-
vened, and also the pleading or business done at it. Placitwin
became plait in Fr., whence Eng. ‘plea’ and ‘plead.’ An older
spelling of plead is ‘pleate,’ found in Ps 861, Pr. Bk. (in mod.
editions printed ‘ plead’). J. HASTINGS.

PLEASURE as a verb is found in 2 Mac 2” ‘ for
the pleasuring of many’ (διὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν εὐχα-
ριστίαν, AVm ‘to deserve well of many,’ RV ‘for
the sake of the gratitude of the many’); and 191
‘ promising both to give him cattle, and to pleasure
him otherwise’ (ὠφελήσειν αὐτούς, RV ‘to help his
people’). The BRhemish translators speak (on Lk
16%) of ‘the farmers whom the il steward pleasured.’
Cf. Shaks. Zimon, U1. 11. 68---ἴ count it one of
my greatest afflictions that I cannot pleasure such
an honourable gentleman.’ J. HASTINGS.

PLEDGE.—1. 520

(once Ezk 187 7929) noun, San

verb (LXX ἐνεχύρασμα, -μός, ἐνεχυράζω). The prim-
ary meaning of this root 1s ‘to bind,’ hence ‘to

hold one by a pledge.’ The taking of a pledge for
the repayment of a loan was sanctioned by the
Law (Ex 2956 [Book of the Covenant]; cf. Dt 24°",
where, however, in ν 108. the term for ‘ pledge’ is
say, see below) ; but it was enacted that when this
pledge consisted of the large square outer garmentor
cloak called simlah or salmah, it must be returned
before nightfall, since this garment often formed
the only covering of the poor at night (cf. the
reproaches uttered in Am 28, Job 22° 249, and see
Ezk 18% 2226 3345). In Pr 201 we read, “Take his
earment that is surety for a stranger, and hold
lim in pledge (AV and RVm ‘take a pledge of
him’) that is surety for strangers’ (m. ‘a strange
woman’ (following Keré], so AV, omitting ‘that is
surety’). ‘The same saying recurs in 27, where
hoth AV and RV have ‘a strange woman.’ The
Heb. reads Ἰπῦξπ (Ὁ 132) 97733 WP WY ABW!" §133-T72( 2) ;
LXX of 273 (20!6 is wanting) ἀφελοῦ τὸ ἱμάτιον
αὐτοῦ, παρῆλθεν yap: ὑβριστὴς ὅστις τὰ ἀλλότρια λυμαίν-
erat. This appears to be a reflection on the folly
(οἵ. Pr 9957) οἵ becoming responsible for another
man’s debt (see Toy, ad loc., who would read, ‘ for
a stranger or strangers’ [masc. sing. or plur., not |
fem. sing.] in both passages). It was forbidden to

PLEIADES 895

‘take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge,’ as
this was tantamount to taking ‘a man’s life to
pledge,’ Dt 24° (see Driver's note). A similar pro-
vision is found in v.27, which forbids taking the
widow’s garment (732) in pledge ; cf. Job 243, where
the taking of the widow’s ox is condemned.

2. vay occurs four bites, “LG 240 te eo? (LXX
ἐνέχυρον). In νν.19. 11 it is prescribed that when an
Israelite lends to his neighbour on the security of
a pledge, he is not to go into the house for the
purpose of fetching his pledge, but the borrower is
to have the right of selecting the article. Vv.) ν
contain the same provision as Ex 2275! (see above).
The primary sense of the root 83; (Qal * borrow or
pledge,’ LXX δανείζομαι ; Hiph. ‘lend on pledge,’
LXX δανείξω) is doubtful.

The word ‘pledge’ is also introduced by RV in
Hab 2° as tr. of way in the phrase ΘΙΘΞΣ "72 T2223
(LXX καὶ βαρύνων τὸν κλοιὸν αὐτοῦ ori Bapas): RV
‘and that ladeth himself with pledges’ (56. which
he has taken from the nations, and whose restitu-
tion is at last compelled [cf. Job 20" 15. 20]), AV
‘thick clay’ and Vulg. dutwm denseum are due to
understanding "2237 as two words, 23 (constr. ) and
oe ‘clay,’ cf. Ex 19° yt 393 ‘ina thick cloud.’

3. 239, Qaland Hithp., ‘to be surety,’ ‘to give a
pledge,’ ‘to make a wager. Thus in 2K 18%=
Ts 368 the Rabshakeh says in his message to Heze-
kiah, ‘Now, therefore, 1 pray thee, give pledges
(AVm ‘hostages’) to my master the king of
Assyria’ (27907, uixOnre). The correct sense is
undoubtediy that given in RVim * make a wager,’
by handing over a pledge to be forfeited in case of
failure to furnish men to mount the 2000 horses
offered by the Assyrian king. The noun 727y, is
tr. ‘pledge’ in 1S 17° ‘Look how thy brethren
fare and take their pledge’ (nan onzqwrny, A ὅσα ἂν
χρήζωσιν γνώσῃ, Lue. καὶ εἰσοίσεις μοι τὴν ἀγγελίαν
αὐτῶν), 1.6. ‘bring back some token of their wel-
fare’ (Driver), which had probably been agreed
upon beforehand. This yields an excellent sense,
and there appears to be no sufficient reason (with
many scholars, including H. P. Smith) to doubt
the correctness of the MT. The cognate form p37
(LXX ἀρραβών, ef. the NT use of this word for the
‘earnest’ of the Spirit in 2 Co 1” 55, Eph 15 see
art. EARNEST) is used in Gn 3817: 18. 9 of the pledge
(consisting of his staff and signet ring) which Judah
vave to Tamar as security for the fulfilment of his
promise to send her a kid. J. A. SELBIE,

PLEIADES.—The three passages (Am 58, Job 99
38°!) which contain the proper noun 289 (ΑΚ ει,
Orion) also mention 723 (AKima), and the Eng.
Versions have in each ease taken the latter to be
the Pleiades, their rendering, ἡ the seven stars,’ in
the first of these passages, obviously pointing to
the asterism which they call Pleiades in the other
two.* The Pleiades are a group of stars, seven
larger and some smaller, in the constellation of
the. Bull, near the ecliptic, belonging to the
northern hemisphere. To the ancients the rising
and setting of this group announced respectively
the beginning and end of the season of navigation.
Hence their name is usually derived trom the
Greek πλέω, ‘to sail,’ though others would connect
it with wdéos, ‘full,’ and understand the reference to
be to their being apparently closely packed together.
Josephus, in one of his rare references to astro-
nomical phenomena, employs ‘the setting of the
Pleiades’ to mark a date (Ané. XII. γον. a MaKe
common Arabic name for these stars is el-negm,
i.e. the star group par excellence, because they serve

* Lockyer, The Dawn of Astronomy, p. 134, remarks : ‘The
seven stars are held by many to mean the Pleiades, and not the
Great Bear; but this, I think, is very improbable.’ Yet Lockyer
has admitted, p. 133, that the Pleiades are mentioned in Job
3931, and there is no good reason why the original word should
have diverse senses in the two passages.

896 PLEIADES

PLEIADES

the nomads and peasants as calendar and time-
measurer, especially by their monthly conjunctions
with the moon. It has been shown recently that
in Egypt the rising of the Pleiades was watched
for astronomical purposes ‘even in pyramid times,’
and that three Greek temples—the archaic temple
to Minerva at Athens (B.C. 1530), the Hecatompe-
don (B.C. 1150), on whose site the Parthenon was
subsequently built, and the temple of Minerva at
Sunium (B.C, 845)—were orientated, the first two
to the rising and the third to the setting of 7
Tauri in the Pleiades [see Lockyer, pp. 418, 419].
The verb Lam, from which And must be derived,
is not found in biblical Hebrew. In Syriae the
cognate verb is frequently employed in the sense
of ‘heaping up.’ In Arabic kwmat=‘a heap. In
Assyrian kimtu =‘a family.’ The name Wind
would thus seem peculiarly appropriate to the
Pleiades. The ancient VSS of the Bible, though
somewhat wavering, are on the whole in favour of
the identification. The LXX at Job 9° has ’Ape-
τοῦρον, at Job 5551 Πλειάδα, at Am 58 it follows a
corrupt text. The Pesh. and the Targ. retain the
Hebrew word. Agq., Symm., and Theod. all use
Πλειάδα at Am ὅν Jerome varies between Hyades
(Job 9°), Pleiades (Job 38"), and Arcturus (Am
δὴ). An attempt has been made by Hoffmann
(Ἢ. Versuche zu Amos,’ 7A ΤΊ, 1883) to prove that
Kim is Sirius. The chief arguments are that
Sirius, Orion, the Hyades, and the Pleiades —
the order which, on this interpretation, is followed
at Job 38°!:2 —are ranged in the sky in this order,
almost in a straight line; and, moreover, that an
accurate picture of natural phenomena is thus
obtained. ‘Dost thou keep bound the refreshing
influences of Sirius, and dost thou let loose the
outpourings of Orion?’ The reference would then
be to the rise and overflow of the Nile, which was
heralded each year by the heliacal rising of Sirius
on the day of the summer solstice. But this in-
terpretation depends partly on the conjectural
alteration of the word m3;%2 into moz2, which we

have felt constrained to reject [see art. Orton],
and partly on a mistaken derivation and explana-
tion of mit (LXX δεσμόν), which does not mean
outpourings, but ‘ bands,’ ‘links,’ ‘knots,’

As might have been expected, this conspicuous
group of stars arrested the attention and exercised
the imagination of many peoples. The Australian
saw in them a group of girls playing the corroboree,
The North American Indian thought of them as
dancers. ‘There is some reason for believing that
at one time in Egypt they were connected with
Isis. The Greeks represented them as sisters flyine
before Orion: the maidens prayed for deliverance
from the giant hunter, and were heard by the gods,
who changed them into doves, and placed them
amongst the stars. In this mythology their names
are Electra, Maia, Taygete, Alcyone, Celieno,
Sterope, and Merope. The Arabs ‘pictured them
as a group of riders mounted on camels ; and Wetz-
stein (in App. to Delitzsch’s Book: of Job) points
out that they named the star immediately in front
of the cluster hadi, i.e. the singer who rides in
front of a troop of camels and stimulates them to
swift movement by his song. The Persians com-
pare them to a cluster of jewels or a necklace.
Their mention in the Bible has no mythological
tinge. At Am 5%, Job 99, the constellations are

adduced as foyning part of that wonderful com- -

plex of creation the existence of which bears
testimony to the Maker’s almightiness. At
Job 38°! they are signs of the seasons, and the
recurrence of these seasons year by year is alto-
gether beyond the control of man. He cannot tie
the bands which hold this group together—another
proof of that impotence which should lead him
willingly to submit to God.

LITERATURE. —Hoffmann’s article quoted above ; Cheyne, Job
and Solomon, 1887, p. 290; Cox, Book of Job, 1885, p. 518,
Delitzsch, Book of Job, Eng. tr. 1866; Com. on Job by A. B.
Davidson (1884), or E. C. S. Gibson (1899). Duhm, Das Buch
Hio', 1897, follows Gustav Bickell, Das Buch Job, 1894, in
omitting the verse Job 99 from the text.

J. TAYLOR,

f

ee

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

¥ Q Add de d4
4) ΣῊΝ
᾿ ἣ ΚΝ Haiti ΤΠ teh re Hi tht ds ed
Feit rie Par as |
gens Nineties ἪΝ ἡ >
Pte ἮΝ ies ΣῊΝ nes at
ΠΝ attend hate, ἘΦ
ΝΣ ai Ἢ
᾿ ΣΝ ἀλκὶ.
Γ fi ἢ ἯΙ shaky
i 134 aes
ἧ i ὙΜῊΝ:
; i, Ti are
τ Tes .
ἢ " P τὰ ἧι iyarty ti
} ᾿ 4 i iy: dae ᾿ fire ΠΗ
4 : a
, ἣ i + γε νὴ
ἘΠ ΝΣ it ΜΉΝ
ἂν Hen F ἜΗΙ pend ἐν
: tive ἘΣ ΜΝ phedtley iy! ΤῊΝ
Ἷ eye gb vy ἢ 4 ἤν Nghe byt
) Serene fee ἷ i BUR IG ee itt " nn
ὶ 44 oer ἰὴ. eis ἣν Ἢ; aanaat ey wr ἡ
ΠΑ Τρ τι aaah a alee chapel
ἘΣ THAN HE Ap Ry SIP" Ἷ , i
Lipari pen nM 7 be γα δ {pagan te vas rep νει
sciisemaseay trie ἡ ὅν setae ΤῊΝ ΣΉ ΜΜΩΝ
ΠΣ ᾽ ΑΙ ἐξ adap Nasr ot ts We ἊΣ
hrc sta etbater
ma he δ) art phe pa pRB teeal erotica,
aoe Maat wepse ΑΕ ΗΟ ΜΑΣ ΤΗΝ ἫΝ pnt sep Was py
i ΜΛ ΩΝ
4 A Mette is it) eats bade
ἢ mete ΔΤ ets aes fateh 4 (ed yet ὯΙ vue
ar tia A τ ἣν NG ee
᾿ ἐδκην tsnedad rodtanaaieienananey cee iat
uf μῃ ΟΜΝ wy uate + Hert ane? Ay rhein priya ἣν
Ἢ f ἦι Zi
: aisle dal eee Kouba ei ΡΝ a
Latha Phiy }
δε ππρη Trshsoe rhs sai tamara Ape
¥ 349 9} ie Meta Borba tpt I pays
ey atin iy tity B sheen eaade, SUPP hp tk
: 44 rye abheantet i hehe ie ‘4 tA aia tare yw relat ἘΠ
Gs repeat ep Lansby here C8 ᾿ ΣΉ
citi ἊΝ it yh ath ῳ νῦν ΔΉ ΤΩΝ peptide cre eek hp
Stiga rah vig Mahan ΜΕΝ PORE να Ppt bene tate
‘ Leto hads Gade τὴ bad te ri sip ἡμὴ Verena phd ep eve ἜΝ ee (ἶ hia delity Awe
b ν᾽ ri ᾿ Sey ) μ phe yer sy tie aide
; uP hestihon nt ΠΡ ytestyan mst teat arity xe ΔΩ ΝΜ μὴν an
} ehh ΠΗ eat! Sik aii fr a ASI Cra eddie pr
, "4 ἐπρα γ νν μ νος a ee Cptrty PLS ey hp
ἢ ΤΥ Ψ ᾿ tin eK ear aete tds tte ae ylides
ἢ peabee eae ge ΑΚ wane
sand 4 Pegrar me αφίτό hh Hearne) “δ =
? : idasaceegraedane itr Ἡ ingens nnn Ags buns αν wpe it χορ teytee epg
Faye ah tha dete ¢ ree tetris τ Sind bey pabenduitedags ΜΆΤΗΝ Μη
¥ γύν» ἡ venta ἜΜ i pit +40 es py
if 4 15 fon : y= ie sae We Rye Nay ane tr iiteg'
PNY δ ea) ophe ΥΨΦΡΊΥ EM id ih ΠΗ͂Σ
i ΝΗ aa ee eetiee ne oo meyer tues
i ν ᾿ δε Pe RUE Phat .Ν abrwenrgened sates
δι στὰ tay pipet Hip petra ΝΣ A pea anal EO met terest mat δ ἫΝ ‘4
hs 3 iawn ago op at
atatatitl Suesesaedeh sic sph ¢ dia Cn Mae Heaat εἰ ti raniienattiatie
: 4 sda oy the λν μα reper te ey
ait iment gree RAD ite
it Hit rastenei aerate seca cnet
" ΤΠ ἃ avag eh + fed ΘΝ, Ἷ ΣΝ
ὯΝ i ‘ OF naa dated ΠΝ netraptatyl apt sry Up baht ay theres sth sah
et 4 potek ip sat terete ates ie et fete intratrattoueG Ἢ
Dy, Ἦν ἘΡΙ ροΤ τ ΠΑ ΟΜΝ ἡποὐεύαηνάψένου (τα ΤΙΝ
44 irerh ὌΝ ΡΩΝ ἐ sgt yp μα et feat ἘΠΉΝῚ ον Peerage He aRODy
i ph γε: i nas me at ᾽ ‘ ἘΝ να Ab Ἢ ἘΚ ΠΝ ἊΝ Senn eit
F%. 4 ΠῚ ν᾽ ΤΥ ἐν νον ery) ἐ ὍΝ ἡ γῆς ἀν νὴ PAs ey
4 d a eit Besta pais fete tig
ty ; ’ at W bare se hare dead aiid
at ᾿ Ν ianeeeta late ἀξ μταΣ τς ἘΡΣΗΔ eat
é Hageneria y's ΠΡΑΛΛΟΝΝ ἀγα ψἀρυγόρν
ἯΙ ἊΝ ib vos b ans f bettas pSroremdke henry Pblseeehenataher tes
᾿ ΤΗΝ ΝΗ ΨΥ ea ΙΝ,
add dat Uhualdedees ἘΔ Ην Ayan γε pepe νὴ
Ἀτοψυβιρε γοῦν yh pare τ fone sate ig Crp
5 i] psn eres? ΡΣ Sanit etrrnetahy 26 ainasiieeracde et:
ἣν i? 2 Sad Hopes γεν γὴν
rity pind iad +n ΤΩΝ Naniedeie Ἐν δ νὰ μά, pean Masel yaa
ἠἀ- 4“ 6456 rh Phage a ee hr eyes +
i ats ia ¥ ἦ att eiearrenters tent ἜΡΙΣ i rash tea 5. Νὴ
τ νὴ ὀ ήδη δὴ ἌΡΗ a + ia ΨΨΨΜΡΑΝ Kite nas ted tas γὴν He
ΠΣ ἐν ga ey rororyys ieee davhonuiceds aeuekerercengeer δα aie a4
pik pervert restated PEPE Pee ἘΣ ete tn tte Dupree ree vane
γονὴ egaandnded ite sSatitatentcecatsitit yore paatend " aed oatsey' pataie te ΩΝ ἄδην ΠΉΝΙ ‘
᾿ ϑϑ κυ puagetndades m peat Dee Phat Ae stew rk TREMP ED Ly DEPP PTD wi
" ν ΗΝ i alse ve Matha ΗΠ ΠΣ ΜΉ ΡΝ ΜΝ te dh dele Ui rek aang
Hf Sabet Mee
ἣ Shh Haun tt ΣΉΜ τι sete φημ Us ane
ἢ ἣν ‘ wet yk ΘΗΝ, ΠΡΟΜ ἦν (igennaa te i Phebe dette eye tata th eats
ἧ yr + Pop ry pp bar PNP eat hhh ANF Tales “4
‘ “ , 4 “ ᾿ PP ey ἘΜΉΝ ΠΥ ΜΤΉΤΝ ἡ ibd its Bs W434 hepa
aot oy ap nye ssid Fy PUPS AP YE Lee Haiseaatrtaa iiaitateleeetiee
Ns a ‘+4 ASP EPS caeasteeetets ioe at titeetrettestet nga ors
* yf ΜΝ i i he Πάνω ἡ ΣΝ
if Man Ἢ ᾿ ΣΝ taunted abennd SPSL CMs Be oc mitt “agate
oP co ped Nort. nest! py ad epee Py γορννὶ enh
+4 i a ‘agit
Pde de ete ke ΤΣ τμδ μον ieee hp
ng te a itulalecaachesn
4 laa
ἯΙ Νὰ nse ropbed
ei hap ΝΗ vas “ah pers Ὃν
WP vere Ww A ae yh padeaseed ΜΝ PLEO Pee By hatred ye mah erty " aha ᾿ igrited Apeyayaer
by ᾿ ἀν ΣΎ ty APR Sgt PAH, BOEP λον Η, ory sy Adina: tele Ὁ ΤῊΝ ε μή ta
δι NN eusavaed ἂν “ ἘΠ ΜΝΉΜΗΝ icine Ἐκ ee ap LDA etsy suuiee’t ra ed
: on havens flted-ded-angi Loria iro buinpstvbehrerers ur ee ΣΟ bed fal
i ἢ ΜῊΝ Huta dedeters tos) ἩΠΉΒΗΝ " lakeie ds tedseewe ae deta beer oat
#76 ΝᾺ ἐλευ ρμ μα ιν νιν ry pap bie pase bey iert oy | ΜΝ. pe agents teint
ape, ΣΝ ΤῊΝ debate dae prt= da) a dda danaae) ih pernneiiagl ΤῊΣ
ἢ Ἢ ἣν ΠΝ ment aac’ ΤΠ ΜΎΤΗ ρον ret upnte
i ἊΝ ineseaueteur Terr aru apacceane te ΝΣ
γὴν wy ἬΝ ark by toy parce ® ren) A pep tannin
μφ εν TSE μ4 νὴ ΜΝ μι ee babe tl " ἀεί ταν H
47 } ᾿ syercgane Set ehuntiSiMiAphscn hyde ΕΓ υλο Sin κα ραν λα κα AP Sr} Ως ἘΡΟΟΔΑ
sh) μὴ Hy teadt? ἜΜΗΝ obi pes ΑΔ ΤΗΝ Leiden Muedasyatcatts ier aetlnpyyerey
ty μ44 4 page aante den γεν tebe Papeatary rt
yp obey) δι δ ταν, 4244 " ΗΝ pert apg art ΠΡΟΜ 44 an [τὰς rhe hand μ ;
i tbs Nes bhricsurne aortas eating Ων paceeeedt aa tA eared eats res
mb arhei
ΜῊ» aha ea egertets ee ce His ΜΟΙ ΚΝ
μὴ L Gedegs z Apher ρὸν dou iP ΠΩ ΜΝ ΠΗ͂Σ Ἔν Μ" eh eh ἐπ δ hee Peeve
᾿ ΤῊΣ phere ep τ νης ταν ων ἀφμ δῊν ὑμαν ap nasa
ard gathe dade hana’ at ἘΡΑΡΗΝ Abe Hatatats tyne awed roach
; ἡ ney j« quded Ladeeedaeedtie ies aa ie ΗΝ ΩΣ ie
μ ΠΝ nines ᾿ jake
i i ἀμ να μα, ay hirtse Ot iret πραγ ra mir lrarehi
Peat 2}. ΜΗ τα μ᾿
} ἐᾳ seageesensead Lets tit ERD pha rb eas
ἡ oe edt tiaatin fitter bee
gp hd
Δ. hi 4 M
‘ 14 uiie ὧν γι fe ies ΤᾺΝ tibet beth ψ νὴ fe
iF ἐπ μα δ γ᾽ tated wes aA fe pant
Phebe rt Anh itis iain Wa
ἂν ἜΝ ar ΜΟΥ ay
i eabas
ae ᾿ ΕΟ ΗΜ tea
fig) ride ideaaeie ΑΝ
re 4 yee
si : pases ἀρ δον dente nensuatedy te Or Wey
alas 4) ab heures Δ ΠΟΣῚ pee
ΠΝ Hin tasaned mised He ett
᾿ phages n ye sha rhe it rtd ra puanens ὑφ ork hae fy
we ἈΝ, sb AP phere eo Pers δ
νον» adh Jee ne ΕΣ
bests hh ves rhe beh A ee ΠΣ sevip ph itp ehh eh vt τὴν beaeae darth
τὰ

hes ΩΝ ΗΝ pes
phat arene o

>.

iediet
ΔΗ δύ)» yi Ae insta Very

; sea ἀρ Ἰψε ον, ΓΝ Πάν
prayed! Sat the Ὁ ΑΘ Ομ ΠΡΟ aa

ide Powvnse lay Ἷ Ser ὙΠ 4 γι ἢν

δε τοννλα

μι ὁ νου εννόν Ἢ ν
ἐφ to Δ δἰ
be γε γεν δ ἘΜΆ Ἐν ἫΝ τὴ ἡρημφερλβν τάλας
PVP peach serait: prvi inhale i ΣΙ σε τό;
nip waned: 44 wes δίων ἐν
hadache te retohengy hay a are
edad Stata abdekede Se dal
aya Maret Metre Saitiatatisouen hy
Bee poh po whe va Pid RD eAeA rt gh y Wels, Ἶ τ,
pyar gs ΟΝ eh doe et ΟΣ
᾿ αἰ

» dah ete ply nee
hy ae

yh ἘΝ ΠΕ ΤΉΝ heirs ἢ
hei Paere sts ty isfett4< Hie tris eter peg ee qneate
ects acne ae dae sree? site arabe ἐλλχενφμν
ον a's tbe chakbyonr db
Dee bint bapa reste ἀρήλ᾽ν ιν ΝΣ
if ΜΉ

if
My beh
ΜΉΝ; itary i
al ΜΗ is ἈΤΟΡΡΜΊΝῈ
iuaaas +h aie Wish. sania pa NR ea De sk
ἐἀ ΡΜ νυ νὰ Wtaraiats ponent ἢν ἯΙ
at ?
dette ΠΥΡΉΝΗΣ anit a :
᾿ ¥ rye i" shading
ἘΠῚ απ μας πον as eet

Lith

vt 4
pert
ΝΗ puss
" ᾿ Aba irre OH ER
4

mi het eee vise
br es tet itt ἫΝ
i

tt pit ἘΠῊΝ 459}

ΣΝ ΔΗ
\ iAynedibrg
ws

ΠΣ
it she ὑπ ἐπ:
᾿ aN

ἽΝ

᾿

ἮΝ ieee i: ἜΗΝ
port Aidt

τς
ἢ πο Ή1) ΠΝ Ray dt ieehe
a ΜΉΝ i he bpkane

syne
ἀφ Ht itt “ae rhs
Hii adie ied

ΜΚ eineny |
By ἸΑμϑὲ
OS A
items hie
panini na ae
rab tet ters

i ai
iinet

ibe fet pines ‘i

past

fom,

a

bes
‘

ee
4
* a. te
of é
hemes »

=e

‘i’